Hebrew in its West Semitic setting, Vol 2 and 3: Phonology and Morphosyntax 9789004072459, 9004072454, 9789004080645, 9004080643, 9789004088993, 9004088997, 9789004093096, 9004093095

Citation preview

HEBREW IN ITS WEST SEMITIC SETTING

STUDIES IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS EDITED BY

J.H. HOSPERS Professor of Semitic Languages and Literature and Archeology of the Near East in the University of Groningen

XVI A. MURTONEN

HEBREW IN ITS WEST SEMITIC SETTING PARTS TWO AND THREE

HEBREW IN ITS WEST SEMITIC SETTING A COMPARATIVE SURVEY OF NON-MASORETIC HEBREW DIALECTS AND TRADITIONS

BY

A. MURTONEN PART TWO

PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY PART THREE

MORPHOSYNT ACTICS

E.l. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • K0BENHA VN • KOLN 1990

The publication of this volume has been supported by a grant from the Finnish Oriental Society.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data (Revised for vol. Pt. 2-3) Murtonen, A. Hebrew in its West Semitic setting. (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics, ISSN 0081-8461 ; 13, 16) Includes bibliographical references. Contents: pt. 1. A comparative lexicon. Section A. Proper names. Section 3a. Root system (2v.) - pt. 2. Phonetics and phonology, pt. 3. Morphosyntactics (1 v.). 2. Hebrew languageI. Hebrew language-Dialects. Roots-Dictionaries. 3. Semitic languages, Northwest. 4. Comparative linguistics. 5. Names in the BibleDictionaries. 6. Names in rabbinical IiteratureDictionaries. 7. Hebrew language-Phonology. 8. Hebrew language-Morphology. I. Title. II. Series. 1986 492.4'7 P J4855.M87 87-32287 ISBN 9004072454 (pt. IA) ISBN 9004080643 (pt. I B) ISBN 90-04-09309-5 (cloth: pts. 2-3)

ISSN 0081·8461 ISBN 9004 09309 5

© Copyright 1990 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

PAUL KAHLE in memoriam

CONTENTS FOREWORD

xii

INTRODUCTION § 1.

General phonetics and phonology.

1

Scope, 1. Phoneme, 1. Problem of basic unit, 3. Utterance and accentuation, 5. Linguistic meaning vs. semantics, 5. Modifications of utterance, 8. Syllable and sonority, 9. Varieties of accentuation, 10. Syllable boundaries, 10. Syllable unit of speech only, 11. Phone, 11. Distinctive features, 11. Phonemes as classes of allophones, 11. Pattern of accentuation vs. syllabic structure, 12. Phoneme as a term for "families of phones" only, 12. § 2.

System of phonemes.

12

Primary and secondary vowels, 12. Classification of consonants, 13. §3. Prosodic features. Phonological length of sounds, 14. Expiratory stress, 14.

14

CHAPTER ONE: SYSTEM OF PHONEMES § 4.

General remarks.

17

§5. The alphabet.

18

§6. Glottals. 1'1, 18. Interchange with Iyl, 19, With 1&1, 20. With Ixl and lxi, 20. With Irl, Ill, Iql, 21. Ihl, 21. "Voiceless vowel" misnomer, 21. Early loss of consonantal status, 21. Infrequent in Rbr roots, 22. Interchange with other consonants sporadic, 23. Relationship to /'1, 23.

18

§ 7.

24

lxi,

Pharyngals.

24. Confusion with the other pharyngal, glottals and zero indicative of decay, 26. Relationship to Ixl (and Eg Ih/), 27. Significance of statistical frequency of occurrence, 35. Interchange with 1&1, 36. With other consonants, 36. 1&1, 36. Decay more rapid than of lxi, 37. Relationship to /11, 38. Interchange with other phonemes, 40.

viii

CONTENTS

§8. Uvular.

41

Traces of aspiration sporadic, 41. Interchange with other phonemes, 41. With Ik/, 42. With Igl, 42. Otherwise scanty, 43. §9. Velars.

43

Ik/, Igl, 43. Origins of aspiration problematic, 43. Spirantization, 43. Interchange with other phonemes, 45. Ikl vs. Igl, 46. Otherwise sporadic, 46. § 10.

Denti-alveolars.

a. Stops, 47. Spirantization, 47. Interchange of It I with other phonemes, 47. Of Idl, 50. Pronunciation of 17/, 51. Interchange with other phonemes, 52. b. Stop with nasal approximation, 53. Interchange with other nasals and vowels, 53. With other phonemes, 53. c. Sibilants, 54. lsi, 55. Interchange with Icl, 56. With If I, 56. With 1$1, 59. Relationship of If I to 1$1 (and lsi), 59. Interchange of lsi with other phonemes, 62. Interchange of If I with 161, 62. With 1$1, 63. With other phonemes, 64. Mutual relationships of lsi, 1$1, If I and 161, 65. Origins of Hbr lsi, 67. Arab and Aram developments, 68. Ug, 68. ESA, 69. Modern SAr, 69. Eth, 69. Akk, 70. Summary, 70. Icl, 70. Originally glottalized, 70. Interchange with IAI, 71. With Iftl, 72. With other phonemes, 72. Izl, 74. Interchange with lsi, 74. With If I, 75. With 16/, 75. With lei, 75. With other phonemes, 76. d. Approximants, 76. Phonetic identity of Irl, 77. Of Ill, 77. Mutual relationship, 77. Interchange of Irl with 16/, 78. Geminability, 78. Interchange of 11/ with Irl, 79. With Iyl, 80. With other phonemes, 80. Interchange of Irl with other phonemes, 80. §11. Labials.

a. Stops, 81. IpI, 81. Aspiration and spirantization, 81. Relationship to IfI, 83. Interchange with Ibl, 84. With Iml, 84. With other phonemes, 85. Ibl, 85. Spirantization,85. Interchange with other phonemes, 85. b. Stop with nasal approximation, 86. Phonetic identity, 87. Confusion with Inl, 87. Interchange with other phonemes, 87.

47

80

CONTENTS

§12. Semivowels.

ix 87

Phonetic identity and mutual relationships, 88. Little interchange with other consonants, 89. Frequently lacking in cognates, 89. Created through secondary consonantalization of stem vowel in III V and I or III pharyngal roots, 89. § 13.

Vowels.

90

Origins of vowel indication, 90. Matres lectionis roughly in agreement with the pattern of three vowel phonemes, 91. Three vowel phonemes in Pal, 93. Incipient differentiation of 101 from lui in Bab too, 94. Three vowel phonemes in Sam, 95. In G likewise, 95. CHAPTER TWO: OTHER PHONOLOGICALLY RELEVANT FACfORS § 14.

General remarks.

§15. Qualitative and/or quantitative differences in single phonemes.

97 97

Diacritical marks in Pal, 97. In Bab, 98. Syr. Marhtana, 99. Bab "Shwa", 99. Fluctuation of vocalism contiguous with glottals or pharyngals, 100. In Sam, 102. Phonological length, 103. In Pal, 103. In Bab, 105. In Sam, 106. In G (and Lat), 107. §16. Accentuation and related phenomena.

108

Accent signs, 108. In Pal, 108. In Bab, 109. Indirect indications, 110. In Sam, 111. Matres lectionis in Q verbal forms, 111. Syllable, 112. CHAPTER THREE: INCOMPATIBILITY § 17.

Sequence of phonemes.

114

Relevance to the problem of incompatibility, 114. Vowels noncontiguous and not post-junctural, 114. Formation of clusters, 115. §18. Incompatibility.

Problem of phonetic contiguity, 115. Less regular between nonNon-contiguous assimilation and contiguous radicals, 115. dissimilation in the light of overlapping phonemes, 116. Subject to linguistic change, 116. List of non-attested clusters, 117. Possible role of assimilation (and dissimilation?), 118. Relevant distinctive features, 119. Conclusions, 120.

115

CONTENTS

x

CHAPTER FOUR: HISTORICAL SURVEY §19. Methodological observations. Delimitation of the relevant period, 122. Order of arrangement, 122. Phonological status of reconstructed sounds, 123. Test of minimal pairs, 123. Criteria for the reconstruction of vocabulary items, 124. Wandering words, 124. Onomatopoeic words, 124. Retention rate, 125. Conclusions, 126.

122

§20. Pre-Semitic system.

126

Reconstructed phonemes, 127. No demonstrable phonological length, 129. Cultural background, 129. Origin of glottalized consonants, 130. Clicks ruled out, 132. Problem of origin of language, 132. Vocal communication of non-human primates, 133. Stability of articulators relevant, 134. Structural growth in phonology, 135. Excursus: Phono-statistical survey of 42 languages, 135. Conclusions, 139. § 21.

Origins and development of the proto-Semitic system.

140

Reconstructed phonemes, 140. Distinctive voice and length, 142. §22. Common West Semitic developments.

142

Development of biblical Hbr phonological inventory, 142. Generally, fricative allophones acquire phonological status, 143. §23. Common North- West Semitic and old Canaanite developments.

Rearrangement of sibilants, particularly / phonological changes, 143.

J/,

143

143. No evidence of

§24. Phonological comparison of non-Masoretic Hebrew dialects and traditions.

a. Consonantism. i) aPal, 144. ii) Q, 145. iii) G, 145. iv) Pal, 145. v) Bab, 145. vi) Sam, 146. Summation,146. Comparisons, 147. b. Vocalism. iii) G, 150. iv) Pal, 150. v) Bab, 150. vi) Sam, 150. Summation, 150. Comparisons, 151.

144

CONTENTS

xi

c. General phonological development. The problem of phonological status of long lei and 10/, 152. aPal inconclusive, 152. Similarities between Q and Sam, 153. Vowel qualities in Sam, 154. Development of bisyllabic formations in overlong syllables, 157. Non-assimilation of Inl to gutturals and secondary vowels before gutturals, 157. Spirantization of Ibdft/ and threefold articulation of Iwl, 158. G, 159. Decay of gutturals, 160. Spirantization of stops, 160. Lat, 161. Pal, 161. Degree of decay of gutturals and spirantization of stops uncertain, 162. Bab, 162. Unstressed close vowels before geminates, 163. Bab consonantism close to Tib, 163. Comprehensive discussion, 164. Assimilation, 164. Spirantization hardly assimilatory in character, 165. Influence of gutturals on neighbouring vowels, 166. Influence of front oral consonants, 167. Assimilation of non-contiguous vowels, 167. Dissimilation, 167. Frontation of back vowels, 167. So-called law of polarity, 168. Double peak accent, 169. Shift of accent, 169. Dissimilatory elision of Iy I, 171. Assimilation of gutturals problematic, 171. § 25.

Summary and the emerging phonetic rules. Old Can heavy stress period and its effects, 173. Lighter accentuation in biblical times, 174. Stress growing heavier in Maccabaean to Bar Cochba times, 175. The emerging phonetic rules, 176.

173

APPENDIX: SPECTROGRAMS TO ILLUSTRATE SAMARITAN HEBREW SOUNDS. 179

FOREWORD As mentioned in the foreword to Part One Section Ba already, the original plan for the work was modified partly to curtail cost of publication, partly also because unexpected deterioration in the state of my health made it seem doubtful whether I would be able to complete the work according to the original plan. Accordingly, it was decided to include diachronical discussion in Parts Two and Three rather than publish it separately in an additional part, particularly as in consequence of the modification, the intended size of the work also was considerably cut down, and so the present Part Two includes also the historical treatment of phonology. For the same reasons, the discussion concentrates on the materials made available in Part One, as these have received relatively little attention in the past, the prevalent Tiberian tradition being taken into account only implicitly, as a rule, except where insufficient evidence from our materials requires supplementation by it.

This part is reproduced from a camera-ready copy prepared by Lorna Gelbert, B.A., with technical assistance by her husband, Mr. W.R. Gelbert; I am greatly indebted to both of them for their very conscientious and painstaking work; for the alphabet on p. 18 I thank my young friend and colleague, Dr. Geoffrey Jenkins; for the preparation of the voice-prints of the Samaritan Hebrew sounds given in the appendix, Mr. Bourke of the phonetics laboratory of Monash University as well as Professor Goran Hammarstrom for authorizing their preparation. The voice-prints from VlSible speech given for comparison have been copied on my own responsibility, as the publisher of that work appears to have gone out of business and my efforts to find the present copyright holder have proved fruitless. The detailed table of contents and cross reference in the text were deemed to make an index unnecessary. Bibliography to Parts Two and Three as well as final list of abbreviations are given in Part Three now also ready for publication. Melbourne, 10 November 1989

A. Murtonen

PART TWO

PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

INTRODUCTION § 1.

General phonetics and phonology.

As the present work is limited in scope, only those aspects of general phonetics and phonology relevant to it will be discussed here. Particularly with regard to phonetics, the relevance is further restricted by the fact that the study is concerned with forms of language spoken exclusively in more of less remote past and thus not amenable to direct observation; even the rather scanty information on contemporaneous observation preserved to us is often ambiguous in meaning. Further limitations are caused by the fact that in the earliest materials, vowels are indicated only very broadly and in certain few positions or not at all, and that during the period from which they are indicated fairly regularly the language - at least in the form so recorded - was no longer used in ordinary speech, but in certain forms of recitation only. Nevertheless, as some oral traditions of pronunciation preserved until our days appear to have developed without interruption from forms used during that period, and as graphic notation also presupposes a form of spoken language - even if only recitational- as its basis, and some inferences may be drawn from cognate languages too, discussion of some aspects of general phonetics and phonology is not only relevant, but indispensable. The fundamental question of delimitation of phonetics vs. phonology, as far as I can see, still not having been definitively settled, it is best discussed first. Most of the discussion has centred around the concept of phoneme which Daniel Jones1 defines as a family of sounds in a given language which are related in character and are used in such a way that no one member ever occurs in a word in the same phonetic context as any other member. Implicit in this definition is the most important semantic characteristic that replacement of a phoneme by another one changes the meaning of the utterance. 2 In his preface to the second edition, Jones3 finds it necessary to emphasize that the theory presented in the book is in all essentials the original one of Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, except that it is expounded mainly on "physical" lines. Baudouin de Courtenay himself' took a "psychological" view of the phoneme, defining them as "mental images" and making distinction between "physiophonetics" and "psychophonetics". This is mentioned by Jones as an example of a mentalistic view of the phoneme which he does not consider

1 The phoneme: its nature and 2 Assuming that at least one

use (1962) p.10. of the utterances does have a meaning; replacement of a phoneme in a nonsense utterance by another resulting in another nonsense utterance may be con~idered an exception. Op. cit. p. v. 4 According to Jones, op. cit. p. 213.

2

INTRODUCTION

himself competent to expound,s besides Sapir'i who used the term, "ideal sounds", apparently in the same meaning. Of the scholars who hold a "functional" or "structural" view, Jones7 mentions first of all Trubetzkoy who defined phoneme as "the sum of the phonologically relevant features of a 'Lautgebilde"'; although the meaning of'Lautgebilde' is not clear, it evidently did not mean "sound image" in the mentalistic sense, as he also stated that "the phoneme is a linguistic and not a psychological idea". Bloomfield8 does not regard phonemes as sounds, "but merely features of sound which the speakers have been trained to produce and recognize in the current of actual speech-sound", but nevertheless as "the smallest units which make a difference in meaning"; while for Twaddell, phonemes are "abstractional fictitious units", as also for Hjelmslev.9 R. Jakobson and M. Halle10 accept Bloomfield's definition as an "'inner', immanent approach, which ... is the most appropriate premise for phonemic operations, although it has been repeatedly contested by 'outer' approaches which in different ways divorce phonemes from concrete sounds". As such "outer" approaches Jakobson and Halle ll mention the "mentalist", "coderestricting", "generic", "fictionalist", and "algebraic" views. The "mentalist" view is rejected as based on two fallacies about the nature of phoneme of over-simplifying nature; the objection to "code-restricting" view is similar; the "generic" view is considered "vulnerable" in several respects; the "fictionalist" view is too philosophical for phonemic analysis which can now be based on the "sameness of a distinctive feature throughout all its variable implementations (which) is now objectively discriminable", although the authors admit that there are three reservations; and the "algebraic" view is condemned as unrealistic. Herbert Pilch12 appears to share basically the view of Daniel Jones and others (termed "generic" by Jakobson and Halle), but he introduces 13 additionally the concept of metaphoneme of evidently mentalistic nature. 14 Such a metaphoneme is clearly based on a mental acoustico-motory image formed by the speaker on the basis of perceptions of the corresponding phoneme in actual speech. It is therefore not essentially different from the concept of phoneme, cf. Pilch's definition of the allophones of a phoneme15 Sib. p. 212. 6 ib. p. 214f. 7 ib. p. 215. 8 ib. p. 216. 9 So according to Jones, ib. 10 B. Malmberg (ed.), Manual of phonetics (1968) p. 415. 11 ib. p. 416ff. 12 Phonemtheorie (2. Aufl. 1968) p. 92. 13 ib. p. 116. 14·Wenn uns jemand bittet, das deutsehe Phonem Iii oder It I vorzuspreehen, so konnen wir im allgemeinen dieser Aufforderung ... naehkommen und sprechen einen Laut, den wir als 'i an sieh' oder 't an sieh' ausgeben:

INTRODUCTION

3

vs. those of his metaphoneme. The difference lies thus in the point of view, not in a different level of abstraction, and Jones is right in stating that his theory of phoneme is essentially the same as Baudouin de Courtenay's, only expounded from a different point of view. This disposes also of Jakobson and Halle's16 objection that ''we have no right to presume that the sound correlate in our internal speech or in our speech intention is confined to the distinctive features"; on the contrary, it does not even extend to the "distinctive features", if by these such oppositions as grave vs. acute, tense vs. lax, or compact vs. diffuse are meant. While learning a language, I have never been aware of trying-whether consciously or unconsciously-to create such oppositions, only to produce such sounds as have been perceived by my ear; and even when the ear had (initially) misperceived certain sounds, no attention was paid to compactness vs. diffuseness etc. in learning to rectify the mistakes - only to some articulatory positions in addition to the auditory perception. Likewise, the "extraction of the invariable phoneme" from among the multiplicity of contextual and optional variants presupposes the existence of such an invariable phoneme in advance, otherwise it could not be recognized in the flow of speech; and such a recognition is certainly a mental function, if ever there was one. Accordingly-without claiming that it were the only possible alternative -we accept an essentially mentalist definition of the phoneme as the minimum phonological acoustico-motory unit the replacement of which by another one changes the meaning of an intelligible utterance. For us, phonology is thus the study of such acoustico-motory units, while phonetics studies their realizations in actual speech, the speech sounds. Substitution of utterance for ''word'' (in Jones's definition) is significantP In the concept of language of the present writer, utterance is the basic unit of both language and speech. The problem of the identity of the basic unit has been subject to much discussion. In connection with it, speech and language are often treated as fundamentally different entities, e.g., by A. Gardiner18 who posits sentence as the (basic) unit of speech, and word as that of language. In our concept of language as a mental entity and speech as its principal primary expression, such a distinction is inappropriate. More often those scholars who deal expressly with this problem do not make such a dis-

15 ib. p. 92: "Horbar verschiedene Laute, die zum g1eichen Phonem gehoren, heissen Varianten dieses Phonems" vs. p. 116: "Horbar verschiedene Bezeichnungen Varianten des g1eichen Phonems nennen wir dementsprechend Metavarianten". In both cases, the distinctive crityron lies in the actual speech. Malmberg, op. cit. p. 417. 17 What follows is mainly taken from my mimeographed publication, Outline of a general theory of linguistics (Melbourne 1969); but as the treatISe has had little circulation and is in need of revision, the relevant sections (from chapters 1 and 2) are reproduced here in full, with apPffpriate modifications. The theory of speech and language (1951) p. 66.

4

INTRODUCTION

tinction either. In the past half a century or so, after the importance of phoneme has been generally recognized, it has often been regarded as the basic unit, see, e.g., Jones;19 Bloornfield20 does not discuss the problem expressly, but appears to take the position of the phoneme as the basic unit for granted which agrees well with his mechanistic view of the structure of language.21 Seeing, however, that there are languages with many only semiphonemic sounds, such as Hottentot and Bushman languages, and that in other languages too there are sounds which cannot be unequivocally affiliated to anyone phoneme (cf. below), it appears that language cannot be analyzed consistently with phoneme as the basic unit. Positing morph or morpheme22 as the basic unit suffers from the fact that it cannot be analysed into phonemes nor into syllables (cf. below). Positing word as the basic unit seems to be justified by the fact that it is the smallest meaningful unit capable of being used by itself, and that any language appears to be analyzable into words without a residue. However, there are quite a number of very commonly used words which in an ordinary discourse never or hardly ever stand by themselves, e.g., articles, prepositions and conjunctions. As a matter of fact, it is almost only verbs that are used by themselves to any considerable extent, and even they not in all the languages; e.g., in English, apart from the imperative, they usually require a noun or a pronoun to supplement the expression. Moreover, the exact definition of the concept has proved very difficult; even today, most authorities do not agree on it, and inconsistent usage in many languages points to a similar difficulty. E.g., the principle of graphemic indivisibility is abandoned in expressions like German Ich gebe es auf, Ich bedarf es nicht aufzugeben, cf. on the other hand, Ich muss es aufgeben, Ich habe es aUfgegeben: the prepositional element aUf may appear attached or detached, and additional elements may be inserted between it and the verbal stern proper. It may be best, at least in literary languages in which division into words is traditional and partly probably accidental, to regard word as a unit of speech only, although it is sometimes identical with what we have above called utterance, sometimes also with our morpho In the analyses of non-literary languages, again, what is called division into words is often actually division into accentual units (= our utterances), more rarely into morphs. The selection of sentence as a basic unit would be more feasible, but even it suffers from an analogous uncertainty, as certain elements of speech in many languages seem to belong to more than one sentence due to syntactical haplological ellipses in the interests of linguistic economy; and boundaries of sentences are also often ignored in actual flow of speech, and therefore sentences cannot be divided consistently into units of speech (cf. ~ op.cit. ch. 1:2-3. Language (1935). 21 Cf. also A. Martinet, Elements of general linguistics (1964) p. l06ff. 22 Cf. E. Sapir, Language (1921) ch. II.

INTRODUcnON

5

below). An utterance as defined below seems to be the only unit which satisfies the condition of divisibility into all the units of language as well as of speech without a residue.23 Utterance in the technical sense meant above is defined as a unit of speech which expresses a meaning complete in itself and is governed by one principal accent (whether stress, pitch or tone) or other contour of intonation.24 There are gradations of accentuation. A word which by itself carries an accent, has it subordinated to a more comprehensive pattern when construed with another word or several words, and sometimes loses it altogether. Let us take the utterance, the king of England. Standing by itself, like here, it is governed by one principal accent which could be situated on the vowel of the word, king, or on the initial vowel of the word England, depending on the contextual reference which is lacking here. Both of these vowels, when the words are used independently or in other contexts, may carry the principal accent, while the words the and of in ordinary discourse rarely do. In usual conversation, a particular word may be emphasized more than the rest of the sentence, and experimental measurements indicate that this is indeed the usual case; sometimes this is true even of a string of sentences or period; in recitational languages lengthier units still, such as (Tib) biblical Hebrew verses or the qeccem of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Shorter parts of it may still constitute accentual units complete in themselves, but subordinated to the larger unit; we may regard these as subordinate (or secondo, third- etc. -level) units, while the whole sentence (or period) is a main one.25 As a meaningful unit, an utterance is also a unit of language. True, there have been attempts to bar meaning from linguistic analysis,26 but they are due to the failure to distinguish between linguistic meaning and the extra-linguistic one which may be termed semantics proper. E.g., Chomsky's contention that a question like "How can you construct a grammar with no appeal to meaning?" has no more justification than "How can you construct a 23 Cf. also Pike, Phonetics (1943) p. 89f, although his concept seems to be somewhat narrowN; and Martinet, op. cit. p. 106ff. In the Outline, I coined the term, pheme, for the utterance thus dermed, and phant for the governing contour of intonation; but following the principle of introducing as little new terminology as possible I do not use these terms in the present work, as there would be little nee~/or it outside this introduction. For this realization I am indebted in the first place to Chomsky, Halle and Lukoff (in For Roman Jakobson, 1956, p. 65ff), although their normalization of data (taken over from their sources?) is somewhat too schematic, c[ G. Fant, Modern instruments (1958) p. 66ff; cf. also D.L. Bolinger in JL 14 (1961) ch. 3f. Every utterance has a certain pattern of intonation some varieties of which affect its meaning, cf. the French it pleut vs. it pleut? where the difference is indicated by a question mark in writing, or (to) come vs. come! where the exclamation mark serves that purpose. Features like this indicate that there is no clear-cut difference between "tone languages" and "non-tone" ones. Terms like "superimposition of suprasegmental phonemes", as if this took place apart from the speech act proper are therefore too mechanistic, giving the impression that producing a sentence is like building a brick wall, with "su%asegmental phonemes" serving as mortar. E.g., Chomsky, Syntactic structures (1957) ch. 9.

6

INTRODUCfION

grammar with no knowledge of the hair colour of the speakers?" overlooks this difference. Meaning in the linguistic sense is the relationship between a physical speech utterance or other expression of language, and the corresponding concept, or acoustico-motory image, in the mind of the speaker and of the hearer which thus forms the basis from which any rules of grammar ultimately derive; whereas the hair colour of the speaker is a fact of extra-linguistic reality without any connection to language or speech. In other words, linguistic meaning refers to the impression which the mention of the relevant utterance calls to consciousness, while semantic meaning refers to the corresponding entity in the extra-linguistic reality (as far as such an entity exists; otherwise the utterance is empirically meaningless); e.g., the linguistic meaning of the word moon for me is the concept which the mention of that word calls to my mind; for you it may be somewhat, but not radically different; the standard linguistic meaning is a perhaps somewhat weighted average of such idiolectal meanings; and the Latin luna, German Mond, Arabic qamar, Finnish kuu, etc., have roughly equivalent linguistic meanings, although their acoustico-motory images differ (as do the respective grammars!); some of them, however, may also denote what the English call month which also illustrates the difference between linguistic and semantic meanings. The latter can, in this case, be adequately described by an astronomer only27 and shows no variation between different languages, as it stands wholly outside them. This also solves the problem raised by Bertrand Russell in his preface to Wittgenstein's Tractatus (1922), viz., what is the difference between the two types of sentence, I think (believe, see, etc.) that the sky is blue; and The sky is blue. It is true, of course, that even the latter statement is based on a personal observation, only stated as if it were an objective fact; but the fact that other observations of an analogous nature support it gives it sufficient inter-subjective validity to be regarded as a factor in extra-linguistic reality, when observed from a certain point of view under certain conditions, viz., by normal human beings from the surface of the earth on a cloudless day. The former, on the other hand, does not make any claim to inter-subjective validity, and is therefore comparable to a statement like I think that the moon is made of green cheese - there is no means to disprove either by means of extra-linguistic facts. Even if it could be proved that the subject has made a contrary or contradictory statement on another occasion, it could mean just that he has changed his mind. The dilemma thus only illustrates the inadequacy of the philosophy which tries to disprove the reality of human mind. To return to Chomsky. His contention (ib.) that the supposition that it is possible to construct a grammar with reference to meaning "is totally unsupported" is simply not true. The construction of a grammar on the basis of

27 Cf. Olga Akhmanova, Exact methods (1963) p. 11; and more generally L.S. Vygotsky, Thought and language p. 120ff.

INTRODUCI10N

7

meaning only, if it is question of extra-linguistic meaning, is obviously impossible; and even if linguistic meaning were meant, would probably yield inadequate result for most languages anyway; but as far as 1 understand the Concise Oxford dictionary, ''with reference to" is far fron synonymous with "on the basis of ... only". Every grammar known to me, whatever language it may describe, uses meaningful extracts from the language described, and even the so-called "grammatical morphemes" often betray their original meaningful function or even preserve it intact in the secondarily acquired formal function, e.g., the 1st and 2nd pers. verbal pre- and afformatives in practically all Semito-Hamitic languages. Let us see, then, how far the "more common assertions"28 against his theory are relevant to the dependence of grammar upon meaning. 1) "two utterances are phonemically distinct if and only if they differ in meaning". If this is really an exact quotation (I have not seen such a wording elsewhere), it can only be ascribed to a (passive) ignorance or (active) ignoring of such basic categories as syn- and homonymy and can hardly be very common. Perhaps the statement was meant to refer to lengthier utterances in ordinary discourse in which chances for syn- and homonymity are indeed very small or non-existent; cf. also Harris's29 denial of the existence of a "meaning structure" parallel to "distributional structure" having, however, to admit that "accidents of sound change, homonymity, borrowing, forgotten metaphors, and the like can give diverse meanings to a number of phonemic occurrences which we have to consider as occurrences of the same morpheme" - and even that fails to account for the "meaning structure" parallel to the "distributional structure" arising from the original meanings of the functional elements of the latter (cf. above). Nor can 1 see why the test of minimal pairs could not be used with reference to meaning without an "exhaustive analysis of an immense corpus" (though, incidentally, even that statement admits implicitly that it is not impossible, although allegedly laborious), as the meaning of an ambiguous word is normally determined by a few additional words in the immediate context; on the contrary, the determination of the phonemic status of, say, the middle consonant in the word, vision without recourse to meaning could remain unattained even after such an analysis. The second quotation, "morphemes are the smallest elements that have meaning" is (if "morpheme" = our morph) correct and valid against Chomsky's objections. A morph need not have an independent meaning, but it may just modify the meaning of another morph with which it is connected; otherwise only verbs and substantive nouns would be morphs, as even adjectives only modify the meanings of the latter; similarly, e.g., to after a non-auxiliary verb nominalizes an immediately following verb; sentence initial did makes it

28 Chomsky ib. 29 Word 10 (1954) p. 151£; more generally, e.g., RA. Hall Jr., Linguistics ... (1987) p. 64f.

INTRODucnON

8

a question referring to the past; etc. To consider elements causing such modifications (or even reversals) of meaning "meaningless" is quite perverted. On the other hand, if some linguists indeed assign the cluster gl- in gleam, glimmer, glow "meaning of some sort", then in their language that element is what may be called a root morph, while for ordinary speakers it is a nonmorph, because it does not have any meaning for them. As to the third quotation, "grammatical sentences are those that have semantic significance", assuming "semantic" to refer to linguistic meaning it is true and valid enough, as even sentences like "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" are meaningful in their larger context, occurring as they do only as examples of allegedly meaningless sentences; cf. also the statement of Cu~that absurdity is an aletheutical rather than grammatical concept.31 And in declaring sentences like "read you a book on modern music?" and "the child seems sleeping" ungrammatical Chomsky has fallen into "normative linguistics"; the sentences certainly do not follow the rules of the normal English grammar, but they do follow the "rules" of the idiolectal grammar of the speaker(s). The fourth and fifth sentences, again, on the grammatical relations subject-"verb"( =predicate) and ''verb''-object, and their correspondence to agentaction and action-object were, in traditional grammar, never meant to refer to anything but average cases, or to be taken in a wide grammatical sense; so taken, Chomsky's objections are not relevant. The sixth sentence, "an active sentence and the corresponding passive are synonymous" remains valid in the relative sense in which Chomsky takes it, as "two languages" may mean different ones in the case of different persons in the second sentence too, just as it could mean identical pairs in the first one. The definitive interpretation depends on larger context, and in its absence it is safer to stick to the wider interpretation in both cases, as the narrower one is only a special case of it. It is also possible to say that the passive sentence is not really corresponding, as "everyone" in it obtains a collective sense; it should be replaced by "each one" to preserve the individual character of the active sentence.32 Accordingly, it seems that Chomsky is hardly able to drive a single one of his points home on our premisses which admit the existence of the "mental bracket" as the seat of language. Utterance being thus the basic unit of language, every branch of linguistic analysis should use it as a starting point. In phonological analysis, this means the study of modifications of utterances; one of the few to have realized this is Bolinger33 who concludes accordingly that word is the source, not the result

30

Quoted by Reichling and Uhlenbeck in JL Series Maior 12 p. 170; cf. also Hall, op. cit. p.

3lff

Jl Cf. also Meyerstein ib. p. 562 with n. 2; and Hall, op. cit. p. 4f etc. 32 33

Cf. also Hall, op. cit. p. 65. Lingua 12 (1963) p. 113ff.

INTRODUCrION

9

of phonemic contrasts. What this means in practice is, e.g., that the English cluster sp- is not a case of neutralization of opposition between /p/ and /b/ after the sibilant, but an instance where the labial stop has not been differentiated into a breathed and a voiced one. The same is the case with all the archiphonemes: they should not be regarded as amalgamations of two - or more - different phonemes, but rather as the primary entities out of which the more specialized phonemes (i.e., those with fewer distinctive features to differentiate between them) are differentiated, where the structure of the language demands and/or permits it. Were the single phonemes the primary data, we should - on the law of large numbers - expect to encounter about the same frequency of occurrence for each one of them; but on the modificational theory, the actual wide diversification is what was to be expected, because it is not accidental combinations of phonemes, but modifications and re-modifications of earlier words, phrases and other morphs that we encounter in present-day languages-also, for that matter, even in the most ancient written documents. It is these entities-our utterances in the technical sense-that are "given" (=data) in the first place; systems of phonemes etc. are results of modifications according to more or less "local" or contextual needs and possibilities, and archiphonemes a stage where some modifications have not yet been, or are no longer made, due to the lack of need for it. In the analysis of utterances into smaller units, our primary concern is phonological; however, to determine the limits of the phonological analysis, some phonetic analysis is unavoidable. As the basic unit of speech, the utterance is governed by its contour of intonation which thus determines its division into smaller units called syllables. In this process, the accentuation affects primarily those parts of syllables which have most sonority.34 The sonority scale may be sketched roughly as follows, in the order of decreasing sonority: a) open or low vowels (a, a, open 0); b) medium (high) vowels (e, 0, 6, 8); c) close or high vowels (i, ii, u); d) semi-vowels and (other) approximants (y, w, 1, r, m, n); e) fricatives (including sibilants); f) affricates and stops. However, it must be observed that the differences in sonority decrease remarkably after the transition from vowels to consonants. Therefore the function of a sound may considerably affect its sonority; e.g., the approximants as or close to syllabic peaks may equal close vowels in sonority,

34 The term is here used in the more extended sense, as defined by Marouzeau, Lexique (1951) s.v. Sonorite; cf. also Potter, Kopp & Green, Visible speech (1947) p. 51. On the following sonority scale cf. the spectrograms of the different sounds, ib. p. 54ff; also Brown, Words and things (1958) p. 113 (NB. "decreasing frequencies of vocal resonance" correspond to increasing degrees of sonority); Fant in the Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Acoustics p. 188ff, and in the Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences p. 130ff; Green in StL 12 (1958) p. 59ff; Meier in ZPhSwKf 17 (1964) p. 372; Zabrocki ib. 16 (1%3) p. 261.

10

INTRODUCI'ION

whereby the semivowels may be realized as vocalic allophones.3S The vibration of vocal folds adds to the sonority of voiced stops and fricatives, but not sufficiently to justify placing them into separate sonority classes. The sound of Ihl, whether voiced or voiceless, consists of an aspiration connected with the adjoining vowel(s) and varies therefore too much for it to be placed in anyone class; however, it always causes some decrease in the sonority of the relevant vowel. In an utterance, there is usually one syllable more prominent than the others, carrying its principal accent; other syllables may have secondary accents according to different patterns in different languages and also within the same language and idiolect. The accentuation pattern of the utterance as a whole may be influenced by these secondary accents and particularly by the principal one which, if it is a heavy expiratory stress, tends to reduce the sonority of the neighbouring syllables and may deprive them of their syllabic status altogether. There is no more than one accent on anyone syllable. Under certain circumstances, however, a long (particularly overlong) syllable may develop a double peak accent which may ultimately lead to its split into two syllables separated by a glide which develops into a consonant.36 Syllable thus consists of a sonant centre or peak and two less sonant slopes on each side of the peak. A syllable begins at any point of speech where sonority begins to increase and ends where it, having passed its peak, again reaches the minimum. In other words, the syllabic boundary usually (though not necessarily always) lies within a phone.37 Against this, it may be objected that, e.g., the syllabic division of a name can easily be heard as distinct from that in an aim. In such cases, however, three other alternatives seem equally plausible: 1) that the speaker tries consciously or semi-consciously to create a difference between the two utterances; 2) that in the idiolect of the speaker, juncture influences pronunciation; 3) that the listener hears a difference where there is really none, because he is aware of the meaning of the words. Cf. also cases like an apron deriving from an earlier a napron; a nickname for earlier an eke-name etc. Between two vowels, syllable boundary may consist of a brief hiatus; between utterances, it is situated in the juncture; in consonantal clusters involving two stops, it may also lie between them. Mostly,

3S Cf. also, e.g., the spectrograms of the syllabic

III with those of a non-syllabic one and of

Iii .J.ul in Joos, Acoustic phonetics (1948) plates 1 to 6.

The nature of the consonant is determined by the original vowel; usually a semivowel for close vowels, glottal stop or fricative for more open ones; but Irl and pharyngals are also atte#ed. For this realization I am indebted to C.H. Armbruster, Dongolese Nubian (1960) §418ff. However, the resulting theory of syllable is essentially the same as that of Jakobson and Halle in JL 1 (1956) 3.1, except that they fail to draw the ultimate conclusion presumably because of the idea that syllables ought to be analysable into phones and phonemes. On the other hand, it is interesting to see that Martinet, Elements (1964) p. 51f, leaves the question of the syllable boundaries open.

INTRODUcnON

11

however, syllable boundaries do not coincide with transitions between phones; syllables are thus not further divisible. The analysis of utterances into syllables does not affect the meaning of the utterance; e.g., Finnish dialectal (trisyllabic) jalaka = literary (bisyllabic) jalka = "foot, leg"; in diachronical studies, such phenomena are very common. They corroborate our conclusion that syllable is a unit of speech only: linguistic meaning being a matter of language only, it is not affected by the analysis of speech only. Utterances are also analysable into smaller units according to distinctive features in pronunciation caused by shifts in the relative positions and/or functions of different parts of the vocal tract; these units are called phones. The analysis of utterances into phones is essentially a concern of phonetics;38 although every now and then attempts have been made to give phones a status in linguistics proper,39 sometimes even more fundamental than phonemes. For the present writer, the fundamental assumption of a contrastive nature of such distinctive features and the consequent coupling of them into contrastive pairs appears a mistake. In the light of diachronics, e.g., voicelessness and occlusion appear as more fundamental than other features of consonants, and they contrast fully only with the characteristically vocalic features of voice and aperture. Friction, a distinctive characteristic of fricatives, has no real opposite pole at the maximum end of the sonority scale; and sounds with a double articulation, such as Semitic dorsalized or glottalized stops and fricatives, Bushman-Hottentot clicks, various labio-velars etc. are still more difficult to describe on an acoustic basis along such lines. Moreover, in the overwhelmingly most common forms of speech, everyday conversation, business talk, and the like, even a trained linguist hardly analyses it into distinctive features beyond what is needed to understand and respond, i.e., beyond the phonemic level. As recognized by phoneticians long ago,40 phones vary enormously according to their phonetic environments. In normal everyday speech, however, such differences in the quality of individual phones are ignored, and classes of phones within which native speakers do not ordinarily perceive differences and the interchange of which does not affect the meaning of the utterance are treated as one sound each; these sounds, or classes of phones, are called phonemes. The stipulation that native speakers should not normally perceive differences between such phones or allophones of one and the same phoneme

38 cf., e.g., Joos, op. cit. 5.00-02.

39 So, e.g., Jespersen, The philosophy of grammar (1924) p. 36; son~d Halle in various works (with somewhat different analysis).

and more recently Jakob-

Cf. e.g., Jones, The phoneme (1962) 1:2-3 (with n.) etc.; for illustration see e.g., the various spectrograms in Potter, Kopp and Green, Visible speech (1947) p. 85f, 99ff and elsewhere.

12

INTRODUCfION

replaces Jones's stipulation of "phonetic similarity" which is good enough to distinguish between English /h/ and /T//, but less so between Finnish short and long /T// (the former of which is an allophone of /n/).41 The classification of phones into phonemes is different in different languages. Often sounds belonging to different sonority classes, particularly stops and fricatives, appear as allophones in complementary distribution, e.g., in various traditions of the pronunciation of biblical Hebrew. The normalization of phones into phonemes which cannot be replaced by other phonemes without affecting the meaning of the utterance makes these units of language. In some positions, we find allophones which have about equally close affinities with more than one separate phoneme; e.g., p in the initial cluster /sp-/ in English. It differs from the main allophone of the phoneme /p/ by its lack of aspiration, from that of /b/ again by its lack of voice; both deviations appear to be caused by the preceding /s/; neither of the main allophones occurs in this position. Assignation of such an unanalysable sound to either of the two phonemes most closely resembling it would be arbitrary; such an unanalysable residue may be called archiphoneme. The analysis of speech into syllables may also have its counterpart in language, as in many languages, the pattern of accentuation has occasionally or even regularly distinctive value. Of the latter, the so-called "tone languages" are examples; occasionally, distinctive value is found in English too, e.g., a black bird / a blackbird; a black board / a blackboard.

Accordingly, both the phonemic structure of an utterance and its pattern of accentuation serve to determine its meaning. Because of this, the latter is often called a "suprasegmental phoneme". As this, however, tends to minimize or even ignore the role played by accentuation in other respects, the concept of phoneme is restricted here to mean "families of phones" as in the classical theory of the phoneme.42 §2. System ofphonemes.

The International Phonetic Association43 recognizes eight primary Cardinal Vowels (besides as many secondary ones and a number of others); these are usually divided into front and back ones according to the position of the part of the tongue raised from the rest position in their articulation; and into close (also high), half-close, half-open and open (also low) according to the degree of elevation of the highest point of the tongue towards the roof of the mouth. This system, however, is not particularly suitable for the description of the ancient Semitic vowel system which is generally recognized to have

41 Cf.

also Brown, op. cit. p. 56; and Zipf, The psycho-biology of language (1935) p. 52ff,

59f~

2 E.g., Jones, op. cit. 43 See, e.g., The principles

of the International Phonetic Association (1949) p. 5f, 10.

INTRODUCTION

13

been basically trivocalic,44 the three best identified as front close (or high) /if, back close (or high) /u/, and central open (or low) /a/. The back vowel is presupposed to have been articulated with lip-rounding, as the primary back vowels in the I.P.A. system apart from the most open one which may indeed have been one of the (allophonic) realizations of our /a/. For consonants, the I.P.A. alphabet does not make distinction between cardinal and other ones, and although its basic chart45 distinguishes between 65 different consonants (or variant articulations), it still does not provide symbols for all the consonant phonemes attested in Semito-Hamitic languages. Classification of consonants, particularly with regard to the degree of aperture at the point of (primary) articulation is also somewhat inconsistent, being partly replaced by the manner of articulation and not providing for secondary articulation; classification according to the point of articulation also partly suffers from the last mentioned defect, besides providing some brackets unnecessary for our purposes. In the classification of consonants, we therefore mainly follow Catford,46 except that his trill/flap and resonant categories are included in approximants, while semivowels are separated from the latter into their own category. Inclusion of trill/flap in the approximants is considered justified on the relatively low fundamental tongue position in the articulation of most forms of Semitic /r/, even the momentary contact between the apex and alveolus rarely resulting in complete closure, and that between the dorsum and uvula, never. Separation of semivowels into their own class, again, is considered justified because of their frequent interchange with vowels, partly in having vocalic allophones when syllabic, a property not shared by any other consonant47 in ancient Semitic, and partly having been created as a glide by the homorganic vowel in an overlong syllable or replacing a quiescent glottal or pharyngal. Vowels proper, again, are treated apart from consonants partly for practical reasons, because they were not originally indicated in the West Semitic alphabet at all which fact implies also fundamental phonetic justification for such a separation; for although the immediate reason appears to have been the acrophonic principle in the construction of the alphabet, the fact that vowels were incapable of occurring after juncture implies fundamental phonetic difference; cf. also the fact that, in normal circumstances, vowels are more sonorous than any consonants (above, p. 9).

44 even that probably partly allophonic at the pre-Semitic stage, cf. the introduction to Part

On~!;Section Bb 46 ib. p.1O.

and p. 128fbelow.

The articulatory possibilities of man, in B. Malmberg (ed.), Manual of phonetics (1968) p. ~f; Fundamental problems in phonetics (1977). Apart from the occasional idiolectal variant (cf. my Materials III p. 36) and possibly as a transitory stage leading to the creation of prothetic vowels.

14

INTRODucnON

§3. Prosodic features.

Of prosodic phenomena, types of intonation or accentuation as well as length of sounds are relevant to our study. Relatively little attention has been paid to the length of sounds, mainly probably because in most modern European languages it is rarely considered to have phonological significance. Even where there is a series of long vowels closely matching a series of short ones, they are usually qualitatively sufficiently different to justify positing them as qualitatively different phonemes,48 apart from the fact that the length of each single phoneme varies according to its phonetic environment, accentuation, emotional emphasis etc. Nevertheless, there are languages with phonologically significant differences of length, e.g., my native Finnish in which the opposition, short vs. long, is attested for practically all vowels and consonants; cf., e.g., tulee-tuulee-tulla-tuulla "(it) comes-it is windy-(to) come-(to) be windy, (wind) blow". Normally at least, phonological contrasts are confined to two degrees of length; where three phonologically different degrees have been posited by some scholars, this has often been disputed by others,49 and even where it seems to exist without doubt, it is confined to certain few morphological categories50 or found in some exceptional cases, such as in an odd loan word. Significant for the present study may be also that - to the best of my knowledge -, where a third phonologically significant length is indeed attested in an actually spoken language, it is always ultra-long, never ultra-short. With regard to accentuation, the tendency of heavy expiratory stress to reduce the sonority of neighbouring syllables, to the extent of sometimes depriving them of their syllabic status altogether may be significant for the present study.51.52 48 Cf. e.g., Catford, Fundamental problems p. 197f. 49 Estonian, where lIse Lehiste is its main advocate; Catford, op. cit. p. 198f, accepts

Lehiste's conclusion and quotes also her claim that there may be even more than three degrees of length in Lappish; if this be meant in the phonologically significant sense, I do not know of any£arallels; cf. V. Tauli in Acta Ling. Hafn. IX p. 145ff. E.g., Tuareg; cf. Prasse, Manuel de grammaire touaregue I-III p. n; the same may be the case in Estonian, if Lehiste is right; but even in Tu, the phonemic status of the third length is q~estionable, cf. Applegate in Sebeok, Current trends vol. 6 p. 592. 1 These phenomena, and also more radical forms of syn- and apocope, are also common in dialectal Finnish as well as other Finno-Ugrian languages (according to E. Itkonen, Kieli ja sen tutkimus, 1966, p. 173£); also frequently reflected, e.g., in the English and French orthogragfY vs. pronunciation. It may be said that my concept of phoneme is not really the classical one either, and in a sense this is true. It is a consequence of the fact that the phoneme was defined within synchronic framework, whereas my concept of it serves mainly diachronic purposes due to the fundamental purpose of my study, to provide a linguistic tool for a realistic interpretation of the Bible. The creation of the tool has taken much longer than originally expected, but I still hope to begin the envisaged study eventually, having made other preparatory studies also for it. In a synchronic study, definition of phoneme is largely a matter of convenience apart from the requirement of phonetic similarity or change in the meaning of utterance; e.g., the extent of the utterance for the latter purpose may be chosen rather freely, as it is now often done so that replacement of a sound not only within a word but even a shorter morpheme is consi-

INTRODUcnON

15

dered to constitute a minimal pair. Even in diachrony, the principle of convenience for classificatory t>urposes may be defensible where there are gaps in the available evidence (d., e.g., Moscati et aI., Introduction 73); but in practice this often means that although lip service may be paid to the phonemic principle (ib. 7.1), no attempt is made to find out whether certain phonological differences in and/or between historical languages may have been derived from allophonic differences of reconstructed stages (e.g., ib. 8.11-14.21 etc.). For my purpose, it is necessary to find out, as far as possible-what really happened in the language development, and therefore all possible influencing factors are to be accounted for. In the case of phoneme, this means primarily realistic definition of the length of utterance affected, and as the existence of numerous homonyms in all languages indicates that a word -let alone a shorter morph - by itself is not sufficient to constitute significant minimal pairs, an elementary sentence or phrase is required for the purpose; and as our examination of the roots indicates that probably a clear majority of pre- and proto-Sem roots have been preserved in Hbr, a realistic attempt at establishing phonemic vs. allophonic oppositions at the reconstructed stages is feasible, although - if I am pardoned the trite expression - I myself was greatly surprised when the result began to dawn on me.

CHAPTER ONE SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

§4. General remarks. The form of Hebrew constituting the object of the present study is no longer spoken anywhere and is therefore known to us primarily from written documents; even where an oral tradition is continued till today, it is essentially based on such documents. Phonetic and phonological description must therefore also be based on them; this means that it must begin with the description of the written symbols, nowadays commonly called graphemes, and will consist of the establishment of their phonological identity and phonetic properties to the extent possible. Working out the phonetic properties, again, is intimately connected with the establishment of the phonological identity; therefore it is not purposeful to separate the phonetic treatment of the material from the phonological one. As the writing system originally consisted of the consonant signs only, commonly called the (Phoenician or Hebrew) alphabet, this is first given in the traditional order together with the conventional phonological identities in oblique brackets; the subsequent discussion, however, follows the more natural order of articulation bases along the vocal tract, starting from the glottis and grouping phonemes of essentially the same articulation basis and/or similar phonetic properties together. Discussion of punctuation marks, starting with vowel signs, follows thereafter. 1

1 Consideration of the origin of the alphabet is outside the scope of this study; but it is quite anomalous to call the Canaanite alphabet a 'syllabary' (as e.g., in Raimo Anttila, Introduction to historical and comparative linguistics p. 45), as none of the signs actually represents a true syllable of whichever defInition, but a single consonant with or without a following vowel of unspecified quality. In a syllable, it is the vowel (or in its absence, a syllabic consonant) which constitutes the peak and hence, the most important part-what kind of symbol would have the main constituent unspecified or totally absent?! The Canaanite alphabet is simply a somewhat defective representation of a phonological system, the deficiency being due to the acrophonic principle applied in the choice of the symbols, the initial sound of the name of the symbol representing the sound symbolized; as no vowel could occur in word - or any syllable-initial, vowels could not be represented. Moreover, this absence is partIy motivated by the same reason: the vowels do not have equal phonological status with the consonants, as they occur in post-consonantal positions only, and their occurrence is also otherwise largely predictable from the consonantal skeleton. The Greek alphabet is not fully regular either: two of the letters express clusters rather than single consonants, /ks/ and /ps/; in the early forms, /h/ and /k/ had two symbols each, and later on, /h/ none at all until the 'breathings' were introduced; and as the Greeks did not introduce any new principle either, but followed the acrophonic one which led to the inclusion of vowel signs, as some Canaanite consonants were not present in Greek (or the borrowing dialect anyway) so that the letter came to represent the following vowel thus more or less accidentally-it is hard to justify the claim (Anttila ib.) that the Greeks 'invented' the alphabet.

18

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

§5. The alphabet. The basic Hebrew alphabet consists of the following 22 consonant signs, with the conventional phonological values given alongside: R

:l

,

1

il f

n 0

1,:J

1'1

Ibl Igl Idl Ihl Iwl Izl Ixl

171

Iyl Ikl

7 tJ,7J

7,l 0 'iJ ~,~

l',l

,V

III

n

III Iml Inl lsi

1&1

Ipi lei Iql Irl lSI It I

The differentiation of the five duplicate forms used at the end of words is result of a secondary development still largely discernible in the earlier Qumran documents;2 they are thus graphic variants only, not separate signs. Consideration of minor variations is still less relevant to the present study. § 6.

Glottals.

The first letter of the alphabet, 1'1, is generally agreed to be the sign for the glottal stop familiar from Arabic and some other cognate languages still spoken as well as from pronunciation traditions of Hbr itself. Accordingly, it is produced by means of the closure of the glottis, or complete occlusion of the space between vocal folds, and its subsequent release. As the closure cuts off any air stream from the lungs, the articulation of 1'1 may be said to consist of initiation only which, in distinction to all other phonemes of Hbr, is thus glottalic rather than pulmonic. In much of our materials, however, the sign appears to be largely graphical only, without consonantal value; not only at the end of words or (originally) immediately preceding another consonant, but also in other positions, and occasionally omitted in consonant text too. 3 The following roots of Section Ba have variant forms or root variants lacking /,1: I'gp/, I'wz/, /,7m/, /'nJ I, Igy'/, Idk'l, Ixb(,/V)/, Iqr'/V I, Irc'l, 2 E.g., in 1Qlsa, although the final forms are generally somewhat longer than the average, the downward stroke of fmal Ik/, Ip/, and Icl is regularly curved sharply to the left as in the normal form, more roundly in the fmal Inl also; and the upper half of fmal Iml is also rather like that of the normal one. In general, cf. e.g. M. Martin, Scribal character p. 91ff and the tabf of scribal alphabets. Cf., e.g., Kutscher, Language p. 42 etc. for QH, and my Materials, vol. I p. 25 for Pal, vol. III p. 29f for Sam.

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

19

possibly also /'mr/, /'pn/Ill. Some of these may be LWW or late formations, but most appear to be old root varr., and they are supported by the following roots in which one or more cognate languages show forms without /' / in which this does not seem to be due to secondary loss: /,bV/ Caf Hsa?; /,bn7/ Eg; /,gz/ Syr Arab Eth; /,gn/ Sus? Hsa; /'gp/ Aram var. Syr Akk var. Arab; /'wV/ Mhr var. Soq? Gur; /'wz/ Aram var. Syr Arab var. Bed Eg?; /'zb/ Syr Akk Arab; /,zlj Arab var.; /,zn/ SamT?; /'x/ Mhr Soq Te Gur Iraqw?; /'xV/ Syr var.? Te; /,xz/ Gur? Ebl; /,xr/ Soq Te Gur? Bed var.? Tu Eg; /7m/: Aram var. Syr var. Akk Arab Eg?; /'y/ Eg var.?; /,y/II Phoen var. Eg?; /,yl/ Ass? Chad?; /'Ix/ Arab var.; /'m/ Tu Hsa var.? Gis Eg; /,ml/ Arab; /,mn/ Eg; /,mr/ Berb var. E~? /'nV/11 G&z Te; /'nx/ Arab; /'ns/ Arab; /'np/ Or Eg; /,nJ/ Chad; /'nJ /11 Ug var. Aram var. Syr var. Amor? Akk Arab var. Bil? Ebl var.; /,pd/ Syr var.; /,pn/II Aram var.; /'rV /11 Eg (Mycenaean Gr); /,rx/ Arab var. Soq var.?; /,rk/ Har Gur; /'rc/ Chad; /'tV/ Cush (var.?); /b'r/II G&z Gur Cush Chad; /b'J/ Sdd var. Cush Chad; /bw' / Om Chad; /gy'/ Arab Eth; /dJ'/ Arab var.? Mhr? Soq?; /y'r/ Eg var. Cpt var.; /yc'/ Chad?; /kl'/ Te var.; /kl'/II Akk Arab Gur (var.?); /Ib'/ Som var.? (Mycenaean Gr); /17'/ Aram; /mc'/ Cush Berb Chad; /p'/ G&z? Gur; /cb'/ Akk var.? Ch?; /qp'/ Arab (var.?); /qr'/ Berb Chad (var.); /qr('/V)/ Phoen Ug var.?; /r'/ Ug Akk Berb; /r'V/ Bed Iraqw; /rp'/ NPu? Har? Gur (var.?) Cush?; /J'l/ Tu Chad?; /Jw'/ Eg?; /J/sm'l/ Syr Akk (var.?)? Arab var.? ESA var. Mhr? Soq var.; /1'/ Aram? Again, several of these are LWW and, as indicated by question mark, not all considered certain, but the vast majority including those confidently attributable to the pre-Sem period appears to confirm that /' / as a phoneme is of relatively late origin. The conclusion is further supported by the interchange of /' / with other phonemes. With /y/ as the 1st rad. it interchanges in Hbr in the roots /,xd/ vs. /yxd/; /'rx/ vs. /yrx/; /'In/ vs. /yJn/; probably also /'mn/ vs. /ymn/; a corresponding interchange between a root final /' / and vowel is found in /br' / (Tib varr. from /brVI); /xb(, /V)/; /xI' / vs. /xIV/; /71' /V/; /nb' / (Tib also /nbV/); /nk'/ vs. /nkV/; /nJ'/V/; /pl'/ (Tib also /pIV/); /qr(,/V)/; / J /sgV/' /; in few of these can it be of late origin. /y/ for Hbr root initial /' / is also common in Eg, cf. /'b V/, /'bn/, /,dm/, /,zn/, /,ylj, /,yp/, /,mn/?, /,nV/II?, /'JI/; the converse phenomenon, /' / for Hbr /y/ is found frequently in Soq, cf. /yd/ (also Ug var. ESA var. Eth), /yd&/, /ymn/, /yc' /, /yqb/?, /yq&/, /yrd/ (also Aram), /yrx/? (also Arab var. Cpt), /yrJ/ (also Arab var.); cf. also /yJ/ (Phoen? Ug Aram Syr). However, the phonetic properties of /y/ are so different from those of /' / that it cannot be a question of originally allophonic variation within the limits of an archiphoneme; accordingly, in root initial they may represent different ways of augmentation of an originally biradical root or alternatively consonantalization of the onset of an original root initial vowel; in root final, /' / may have been created as a

20

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

glide between open vowels. NB. there is no interchange between /,1 and IyI inside roots except in Iz'bl Eg which is an old wandering word, and perhaps in Ipysl Soq, if this Gr loan can be assumed to have drifted that far afield. On the other hand, the interchange of 1&1 with 1'1 may have phonetic origins, whether as a pharyngalization of a more original glottal, or as a glottalization of a more original pharyngal. For Hbr, the former is not clearly attested, as the relationship of Ipt&1 to Ipt'ml is obscure; in any case, lacking equivalents in cognate languages, the expressions cannot be of early origin, and so the latter is not well documented either, as Ig'lj for Ig&lj occurs, with one possible exception (Zph 3:1) in post-exilic texts only, and It'bl for It&bl is a hapax legomenon (dialectal? Arn 6:8); I'prl may be a loan from Akk, and l'r&1 as well as l&r&1 are certainly loans from Aram. With cognate languages, there is more variation, but again, the attestations are usually sporadic; the attestations are: 4 1&1 for Hbr 1'/: /,b(b)1 Te; I'gz/: Ug? /,d(d)1 Aram var. Syr; /,wdl Arab; l'x/II Eg; /'yl Te Cush var.; I'mrl Mhr Soq; I'prl Aram (Akk); /,r&1 Aram; l'rIlsl Arab (var.?) Soq; Igm'l WSem (except Hbr); Igm'/II G&z; Ixb(,/V)1 Te; Ix7'1 Te; Iy'rl Eg (Dem.) var.; lyr'l Arab Te?; with intensified meaning also Hbr var. Aram Arab ESA; Ik'rl Aram var. Arab?; 111'1 Te?; Ink'/II Arab; Icm'l Mhr var.; Iqy'l Te var. Eg; /,1 for Hbr 1&/: Igb&1 Arab; Ig&VI Soq; Ig&rl Arab (var.); Izr&1 Arab var. ESA G&z (var.) Te; 17&VI Te; l&b(b)1 Soq?; I&brl Soq var. G&z var.; I&glj Soq? G&z Te var.; I&gml Te; I&zl Soq; 1&7rl Arab; I&nbl Arnor var.; I&nql Te; I&prl G&z; l&pr/II Aram Syr Arab; I&cl Aram var.; I&rbl Eg (Dem.)?; I&rsl Syr (var.?); I&rpl Om?; l&rII G&z var.; Ipg&1 Arab var.; Ip&ml Ug var.; Ipq&1 Arab var. G&z var.; Ic&nl Bil var.; Irg&1 Te; Ir&V I Chad var.? Most of these, including all non-Sem varr., are locally limited and several also uncertain; l&pr/II is a Kulturwort and Izr&1 also affiliated to that category, while Ipq&1 is also related to Ipqxl and thus more extensively irregular. Interchange between /,1 and 1&1 thus appears to be sporadic and mostly of relatively late origin. Interchange with Ixl and Ixl is limited to a few instances, mostly loan words or otherwise due to foreign influence; Te Inxql for In'ql is a rare var. and onomatopoeic; Arab var. Ir'ml for Irxml may be a genuine differentiation. Aram-Syr /,1 for Hbr Icl is due to dissimilation; if Ixm'l is originally offshoot from Ixmc/, some Kulturwort influence may be involved; It I for /,1 may be structural innovation in l'Ikl Chad, Iml likewise in SEth Som? and in /,rxl G&z Te; while It I in Iy'rl Eg var. Ip'rl Eg var. is due to internal development in Eg. Akk Inl for Hbr 1'1 in I'yl/, if relevant, may be structural, Soq 1'1 for Hbr Inl in Ingd/, IngJ I, Incl/, Inqrl likewise.

4 not counting Mhr /' / for /&/, as this is a manifestly recent development, /&/ still existing in some roots alongside /' /, or its relatively recent existence to be concluded from its still persisting influence on the context; d. Johnstone, The MSA languages p. 4ff.

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

21

It is hardly possible to speak about interchange of 1'1 with Irl and 11/, as it is regularly Eg 1'1 replacing a Hbr Irl or 11/, except for the root Irg1/ in which the same replacement occurs in Arab var. Eth Cush var. Tu and may be due to dissimilation. Similarly, it is always /,1 replacing Iql and never contrariwise, in a number of Gur-particularly Wol-varr.5 Other consonants replacing Hbr /,1 in some roots or vice versa occur quite sporadically, as it seems, for incidental reasons hardly relevant here; except for the interchange with the other glottal now to be discussed. The fifth letter of the Hbr alphabet, Ih/, may be defined as a glottal fricative on the strength of evidence similar to that mentioned above in connection with I' f. Accordingly, it is produced by an open glottis letting the air stream from the lungs pass through creating some friction, vocal folds presumably - as a rule - not vibrating. To call the resulting sound a "voiceless vowel" (or "... vocoid") is rather contradictio in adiecto, as the salient characteristic of any vowel is that it is voiced in normal speech; also the fact that in whispered speech in which all sounds are voiceless it is still possible to distinguish between Ihl and vowels speaks against such an interpretation. As for Hbr and other Sem languages, the fact that Ihl is capable of beginning a word and therefore also represented by a special sign in the alphabet further corroborates its status as a consonant. It never functions as a syllabic peak either, as far as our information goes. Again, however, like 1'1 it appears to have often lost its consonantal value in our materials. In fact, for Ihl the process seems to have started earlier than for 1'1, as even the consonant text presupposes its elision in certain contexts in the very earliest textual witnesses we have. True, it is possible that it was never present in the preformative conjugation of the verbal t-stems, as this may have been formed before the prothetic vowel was applied to the stem preformative in the ancestral dialect of Hbr (cf. Arab Eth); but for the

stem preformative of the causative stem in an analogous position this can hardly be assumed, as its Ihl appears to be primary, connected with the 3rd pers. of the personal pronoun, not a secondary devoicing of the onset of a prothetic vowel as in the case of t-stems; and so in the case of the 3rd pers.sf. in which forms with and without Ihl are attested side by side since earliest times; the elision of the Ihl of the PTdt after prefixable prepositions; and other more occasional phenomena. Otherwise than in the case of /'1, however, the elision of Ihl appears to have begun first in the intervocalic position rather than in word and syllable final. In much of our materials, as in the case of /'1, Ihl has lost its consonantal value to a larger extent than in Tib, although it is often difficult to determine

5 Reported also frequently from post-Classical Arab dialects; cf., e.g., Gairdner, Phonetics p. 26f; the same phenomenon in Sam may be due to the influence of the colloquial Sam Arab dialect.

22

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

how far. 6 This is largely due to the conservative character of scribal custom to preserve the written text unchanged as far as possible, although its actual pronunciation may have changed quite considerably; in the case of Ih/, this is best illustrated by the Samaritan Pentateuch continuing to write the sign for Ih/, apart from some minor scribal inadvertencies, as more than two millennia ago, although the phoneme Ihl has long since ceased to exist in that dialect (where such a sound can be heard in the present-day recitation, usually at the end of vowel-final words, it is devoid of any phonological significance) and where Ihl continues to be written, usually a glide of secondary origin, such as IY/, Iwl or 1'1, depending on the neighbouring vowels is heard; or where these have coalesced into one, the written sign indicates the resulting vowel. Whether a comparable development had taken place in QH or Pal we do not know, but indications are that it had not reached as advanced a stage as in the present-day Samaritan pronunciation; the phonemic status of Ih/, however, must be deemed uncertain in these traditions. Final discussion of the problem will only be possible in the comprehensive summary at the end of this chapter. Ihl is present in a relatively small number of Hbr roots, and therefore contrastive evidence both within Hbr and in comparison with cognate languages is smaller than for /' j. There is only one case of absence vs. presence of Ihl in Hbr root variants/ Ilhbl having a var. Ilb(b)1 in Tib. In comparison with cognate languages, we have the following cases: I'hlj Akk Arab var. Ebl; IbhVI Bil?; Ibhql Akk G&z var.; IhyVlEg?; Ihkll Akk (Sum); Ihl(l)1 NPu Akk? Tu; Ihlkl Akk? Mhr var.? Soq var.? Bil Chad var.; Izhbl Chad; /lhb/ Te var. SEth Bed?; /snhdr/ Syr (Gr); /chb/ Soq var.?; /chr/ Ug Mhr var. Chad; Irh71 Aram var. Akk? Arab (Iraq); IJhdl Soq var/; IJhml Akk? Eth. Even of these, most are either wandering or other loan words (jsnhdrl purely scribal) or uncertain; the only genuine cases seem to be I'hl/, Ihlk/, Ilhbl and Ichrl of which the first may be attributed to the dissimilatory influence of 1'1;8 in Ilhb/, the alternation may be confined to Sem, as the relevance and also primary form of the Bed entry are uncertain; Ihlkl and Ichr/, however, seem to be genuine early examples, Ihl of the former having been created perhaps as consonantalization of the onset of an original

6 For examples see again, e.g., Abr-Nahrain IV (for 1963/4) p. 71£ (for QH); my Materials, vol.} p. 26 (for Pal) and vol. III p. 28ff (for Sam). or perhaps two; the Sam form of • /bu(h)q/ recorded by me agrees better with a prototype without /h/; however, B-CH has a long vowel in it, and most mss. of SP spell the word /bx~/. as another glottal, even if my conclusion in the introduction to Section Bb that the two sounds were allophones of one and the same phoneme in pre-Sem times not be accepted; Professor Muraoka queries this conclusion, "On the strength of a few alterations?" The implication that the evidence adduced there consists (entirely) of secondary alterations rather than original variation, while plausible for some (such as the causative stem preformative) remains unproven and unprovable for most of it; for additional evidence and further discussion see below.

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

23

root initial vowel, cf. the varying treatment of the root initial in Hbr H-stem and the absence of Ihl in the secondary root IIlkl (ll'kl with metathesis could also be related); while in Ichr/, it could have originated as a glide in an overlong syllable, its vowel developing into a bisyllabic formation after a stage with a double peak accent, cf. the alternative Iw I in other varr. Interchange with most other consonants is either sporadic and consists largely of varr. within single languages; or if attested more frequently, usually locally limited, thus Ihl for Hbr Ixl confined, with few (sporadic) exceptions, to SEth Cush Cpt where decay of pharyngals is generally far advanced; Ihl for Hbr Ikl to Gur9 apart from Bed (var.) in Ikwn/, Ikym/, and Chad var. in Ikl(I)/II; and Ihl for Hbr II I entirely to Mhr Soq (=modern SAr) apart from two questionable instances (lgJm/, II Isbk/) in Tu. All of them are thus evidently secondary and rather late, the more original sound (=Hbr) often still attested alongside the secondary one even within the same root. The relationship of the two glottals thus remains to be discussed. Within Hbr, the following cases of interchange appear: I'dnl vs. Ihdm/; Ihlkl vs. Il'k/?; In'ml vs. Inhm/?; In'ql and /,nql vs. (Tib) Inhq/. With cognate languages, the following roots show such interchange: /,blj Te var.?; /,brl Arab var.; l'rV I Bed; /,rI lsi Mhr var.; Ib'r/II NPu var. Soq; ly'V I G&z; In'pi Eg? Cpt?; In'ql Ug Aram var. Syr Arab Mhr Soq G&z var. Te var.; Inw'l Soq; Ir'V I Syr Bed; II'gl Soq; II'vI Aram var. Syr (var.); II'pl Arab; II'r/II Soq?; II Ism'll Soq?; Ihynl Syr; Ihpkl Arab; IhrVI Cush Om var. Chad?; Ihrzb I Aram. Most of these are again either wandering or other loan words, onomatopoeic or otherwise of more or less questionable value; only l'rV I, ly'VI, Ir'V I, II'vI, II'p/, Ihpkl and IhrV I can be regarded as fully evidential. In all of these apart from I I'vI, however, the interchange appears to derive from proto-WSem stage at least and largely from pre-Sem times. Outside the root system, in the personal pronoun (see Part I Section D) modem SArlO has initial Ihl in the 1st and 2nd pers.sg. which could be a case of lateral preservation of an ancient var.; while in G&z, initial 1'1 appears in the separate pI. forms of apparently earlier origin, and transposed after the semivowel in sg. (and the pI. forms based on it); Ih/, however, reappears in sf. forms. Among the particles (Section E), PTij I'wyl alternates with Ihwy/; I'y I has Ihy I as a var. in the compound PTa /,ykl in Q Pal Bab Aram; PTa /,knl is spelt Ihknl in lQlsa 40:7, ?cf. Aram; PTcj I'ml has Ihml as an equivalent in Ug (var.) ESA (var.); Iha:ml in Mhr; and Ih(y)nl in Aram (var.) ESA var.; PTpr I'cll has Ihcll as a var. in Wadi Murabbaat; PTpr I't/II has, according to Aistleitner, Ihtl as an equivalent in Ug; PTir Ih-I has 1'-1 as an equivalent in Ug? Arab; PTd/cj Ihnhl has equivalents with initial

90In our materials; found also in Amh and elsewhere in SEth. 1 originally apparently in Soq too; in ESA not attested.

24

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

/,1 in Aram (var.) Syr Arab Soq? Again, the interjections cannot be considered fully evidential, sporadic spelling varr. in late Hbr (Aram) still less; but I'm/, Ih-I and Ihnhl are sufficiently well attested for us to conclude that the interchange of the two glottals in them derives from the proto-WSem stage at the latest. It appears, then, that at that stage the two were not yet consistently separated; in Hbr, however, they contrast frequently enough to make a formal test of minimal pairs unnecessary to establish that they are distinct phonemes. § Z Pharyngais.

l1The eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet,

lxi,

and the sixteenth,

1&1,

11 Only after completing the work in typescript did I become aware of an article in the Proceedings of the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, vol. VI 2, 1982, relevant to this paragraph, having apparently overlooked it in a bibliographic work received in the meantime; to wit, On polyphony in Biblical Hebrew by Joshua Blau. As Blau, in his review of Part One Section A of the present work in Abr Nahrain vol. XXII, 1988, p. 122ff, dismisses my preliminary investigation of the issues involved in that volume simply referring to his above mentioned article and also demands that I should have included texts with Tiberian punctuation in my materials, one would have expected him to have used all the available material and treated at least all the main aspects of the problem of polyphony. This, however, is not the case; in a note after the table of contents, he says, "As a rule, I have contented myself with Rahlfs (sic!) edition of the Septuagint (= G)."-in other words, even for the main body of the relevant material he has used a pocket edition meant for the use of students which rarely quotes material from mss. other than the three main uncials; and when even this material now and then contains forms contradictory to his thesis, he usually dismisses them as "late" or "secondary", when occurring in mss. other than B and thus manages to reduce their number to what he believes need not be given much weight. As LXX research after Rahlfs and Qumran finds have shown, Lucianic readings cannot be simply dismissed as "late" any more, and Origen too apparently used older mss. in compiling the LXX column of the Hexapla; other coherent groups of cursives, such as the "Catena" one evidently also derive from early uncials now lost. Materials from NT and Josephus are not used by Blau either. Understandably, there is then no discussion as to how the materials from different branches of the transcription tradition are to be evaluated; characteristically, Blau uses the alternative term, transliteration, interchangeably with "transcription" apparently regarding them as synonyms. The fundamental question, whether differences in transcription reflect phonological or only phonetic (allophonic) differences in underlying Hebrew is not even mentioned either, nor how far the reconstructed "proto-Semitic" sounds involved such differences. Blau begins with the assertion that a borrowed alphabet in which phonemes of the borrowing language are lacking tends to become polyphonic. Assuming that he means that one letter stands for more than one phoneme rather than just for several allophones, the reference to Old Aramaic is unproven and unprovable, as there is no positive evidence that the language of the earliest Aramaic documents had more phonologically distinct sounds than the later dialects, although phonetic developments within several phonemes seem to have taken place. Moreover, even if such polyphony did exist in the early stages, it was at best a transitional phenomenon of limited localization and duration, practicable as long as literacy among the speakers of the language was confmed to few people besides the scribes themselves; as soon as written documents began to be used as means of communication to larger segments of the language community, phonological distinctions came to be indicated one way or other; e.g., by means of diacritical points, as in Arabic and Persian, or more often by means of additional letters, as in Ugaritic, South Arabic, Greek etc., or by combinations of two or three letters, as in more modern European languages. The Ugaritic alphabet indicates that in the Canaanite realm there was an alphabet of 27 letters including five not present in the Hebrew one but which could well have agreed phonetically to express an additional voiceless sibilant and a voiceless and a voiced pharyngal. That Hebrew, itself then a Canaanite dialect, would have instead adopted an alphabet of 22 letters from "an unknown Canaanite dialect" to express 25

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

25

are classified as pharyngals, as it is now generally agreed that at least the main allophone of each phoneme represented by these letters was produced phonologically distinct sounds three of which would then obligingly have amalgamated roughly one millennium later with other phonemes so as to accidentally establish one-to-one correspondence at that late stage of the history of Hebrew as a spoken language, in a community in which literacy was for centuries widespread enough to create a sizable literature - such an assumption contains so many unparallelled features that I am simply amazed that it is still entertained seriously. Another fundamental problem unrecognized by Blau is, if the four pharyngals represented by the two letters /x/ and /&/ preserved their separate phonological identities for about a millennium, what precipitated their amalgamation into two so rapidly that it was completed within a couple of centuries, starting after the beginning of the LXX translation and ending before it was completed? Blau appears to take for granted that translators (and copyists?) of the LXX preserved their Hebrew phonetically intact despite the fact that not only had the meaning of Hebrew texts fallen into oblivion so as to make the translation necessary, but that even for the purpose of reading the text in Hebrew, transcriptions in Greek letters had to be prepared. Although occasionally, where sacred or other ancient texts in a language no longer spoken colloquially preserve some original phonological traits against the influence of the vernacular, this happens only when the readers still understand the texts, and even then, the phonetic influence of the vernacular is overwhelming. It is therefore natural to assume that the Greek transcriptions of Hebrew names, embedded in a Greek text, were pronounced according to the Greek phonetic values of the letters, and certainly so complete transcription texts. As the Greek sound system did not contain any pharyngals - and by the time of the LXX translation they started to decay even in Hebrew, witness the Qumran scrolls -, sounds closest to them were substituted for them at first in more familiar names at least, but increasingly in the course of time, no written symbols at all, whether this meant phonetically the glottal stop or fricative or no sound at all. In the name list of the first volume of the present work, although even it is by no means complete, variation between zero and X (and occasionally 7, Ie) as the rendering of /x/ occurs within one and the same name in the following nos.: 11, 86?, 88, 89, 91, 95, 96?, 97, 100, 101, 103,107,183,191, 215?,238,274, 291, 306?,413,527, 555, 556,564,568,58O?,584, 585, 585B, 588,592, 593,594, 595,598,6OO,601,602,604,605,610,612,634?,645,652,667, 704, 705, 712, 742?, 745, 767, 809, 813?, 910, 952, 989, 990, 1066, 1070, 1071, 1075, 1103?, 1121, 1126, 1363, 1406, 1533?, 1646, 1648, 1649, 1650, 1667, 1673; and between zero and 7 (occasionally Ie, x) as the rendering of /&/ in nos. 130, 136, 314, 363, 367, 546, 770, 773?, 776, 785, 855, 1003, 1026, 1158, 1168?, 1176, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1182, 1186, 1193, 1205, 1206, 1210, 1224, 1225, 1237, 1238, 1239,1241, 1265?, 1274, 1275,1277, 1309,1310?, 1351, 1352, 1371,1389, 1401, 1456,1474, 1498, 1499,1500, 1603,1606, 1634?, 1639, 1674. x (7, Ie) alone for /x/ occurs in nos. 82, 84,85, 86?, 90, 92, 93, 94, 98, 99, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 557, 558, 559, 582, 597, 601, 603, 606, 646, 647,648,663,664,810,864,1069, 1139, 1484, practically all in elements in which variation with zero occurs in other names; apart from some names of foreign origin, such as nos. 648, 663f which of course don't say anything about proto-Semitic sounds even if we knew the phonetic values of Ugaritic sounds accurately. 7 (Ie, x) alone occurs as the rendering of /&/ in nos. 299, 328, 931?, 1185, 1207, 1209, 1240, 1258, 1352, 1376, all either old, well-known names or so scantily attested that lack of variation may well be accidental, particularly as some of the elements involved occur again in other names with zero transcription, including no. 1185 which has a plausible etymology from the root /&z(z)/ (='stronghold', 'fortress'). Accordingly, it appears that even the incomplete regularity observed by Blau is between (groups of) manuscripts rather than roots, hence a historical rather than etymological phenomenon. Things being so, there is not much point in trying to derive certain name elements from proto-Semitic "phonemes" /xl and hi; as seen in the main text of this paragraph, there is little doubt that their relationship to /x/ and /&/, respectively, was at best allophonic. In the comparative materials in Part One Section Bb, there are some three hundred roots with /xl or /71 in those languages in which they are attested, but the majority of these show also /x/ or /&/, respectively, in some of these languages, not infrequently as root variants in one and the same language (particularly in Arabic). Specifically in Blau's lists, such double equivalents occur in 8:1 to the names based on the roots /&dn/, /&wV/ (as recognized by Blau too), /c&r/ (d. Blau); in 8:1:1, to those based on /rb&/ (d. Blau), /&IV/ (ditto), /&rb/ (d. Blau

26

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

essentially as their counterparts in Arabic12 during most of the biblical period. The comprehensive spectrum of their phonetic realizations, however, has been subject of quite a controversy. As the two phonemes are not completely parallel, they are dealt with separately here too. Ixl is commonly described as a voiceless pharyngal fricative, although according to Catford, approximant is the more appropriate term. In most of our materials in Hebrew script, the letter appears regularly where expected on the basis of etymology, giving the appearance of stability of the sound. As in the case of the glottals, however, SP shows again, in the light of the present-day Sam pronunciation, that the appearance is misleading, in this case indeed completely false, as a voiceless pharyngal does not occur in present-day Sam at all. Where the letter occurs in script, it is usually pronounced as 1'1 intervocalically, otherwise not at all, serving thus as a vowel indicator or mater lectionis only; only in certain roots word initially it is realized as a voiced pharyngal, usually before an open vowel, and is then indicated by a special sign in vocalized mss.; it will be discussed in connection n. 60); in 8:2:1, to those based on I&zr/, In&m/, I&br/, IJw&l; IJb&l? (if related to IJb&/III, as plausible in fertility cults), 1&IVI, I&mr/? (/&amram/), l&mqJ (cf. Blau; what "late" means, I do not know), l&nVI, Iw&d/?, I&rb/, Imn&I?; in 8:2:2, to those based on I&yr/?, 1&IVI, l&nVI, l&dV I, I&pl/, I&rp/, Icb&l; in 8:2:3, to those based on I&wr/?, l&wVI?, l&yJI?, Ip&r/; in 8:2:4, to those based on Ic&r/, Icb&l, l&wV I? (as an alternative), IJ&r/; I&a:zzal too is plausibly derivable from l&z(z)/, cf. above; in 8:2:5, to those based on I&'({V I, Ip&r/, l&yp/; in addition, LXX f).pa7a is phonetically well derivable from MT /'iildA&A I; l&eYball semantically from I&blj (without any var.) and Ir&uw'elj from Ir&V I (ditto; Blau's alternative, a SAr proper name of uncertrun interpretation, is terribly weak); whether the LXX ~7WP for MT Ip&w/, I-YI really reflects a Hebrew text variant is likewise uncertain; influence by the famous name of the idol supported by an Eg phonetic development explains it adequately, cf. Part I Section A p. 4; in 8:2:6, lza&awanl is derivable from Iz& V I (with hI); MT I&yrdl dissimilatory from I&yddl presupposed by LXX, semantically excellent {rom I&ydl (/&1 only!); Itid&all no doubt reflects the Hittite royal name ItudxaliaJI. In the lists of equivalents of Hbr lxi, duplicate ones containing Ixl and /xl in languages in which the latter is attested are likewise frequent. In 13:1, they occur in names based on /,xr/, Ixp(p)/, Iyxd/; in 13:1:1, those based on Ixp(p)1 (cf. Blau), IlxV I (ditto), Inxm/, ~xnVI, Imlx/; in 13:2:1, those based on Ilxm/, Ixcr/, Ixb(b)/?, Ixrm/, Inpxl (although Itappu (a)xl may be a Kulturwort), Ixkrn/, IxJbl (Kulturwort influence?), IxzV I, IxcV I, Irxm/, IxnV I, Inxm/, Iplx/, Ipsx/; in 13:2:2, those based on Igyxl (cf. Blau), Ixrm/, Izxl/?, /hrx/?; in 13:2:3, IxwJ(y)ml appears based on IXJml (with Ix/), Ixp(y)ml on Ixpnl (with Ix/), Iyxl'lj on IxlV I (ditto), Imaxalat/, I-xla/, I-xlii on Imxll (ditto), Inbxl on Inbxl (with Ixl and lxi, Inxly'lj no doubt on Inxl/II (with Ixl), Iclpxdl on Ipxdl (with Ix/): /,lyxrpi on Ixrpi (with 14), Ixlpi on Ixlpi (ditto), Ixsrhl (folketyrnolo~cally) on Ixsrl (ditto), Imnwxl on Inwxl (dittO), Irnxsyhl on IxsVI (with both Ixl and Ix!), Inbxl on Inbxl (ditto), Inxryl on Inxrl (ditto), Itpsxl on Ipsxl (ditto); as Akkadians lost their Ixl in Old Akkadian period, it seems to me rather problematic how that sound could have been preserved in the name of a foreign deity till the Neo-Assyrian period; in 13:2:4, both Ixl and Ixl are represented in the underlying roots 17bx/, Irxl/, Ixyl/, Ixlw/, /,rx/, Ixlc/, Ixrm/, Imxr/?; in 13:2:5, in Ixbr/, Ixrb/?,

h/-

Inxr I, ItxJ I, Ixyl/, Ixrd/, Ix7J f.

Of course, not all the material in Part I Section Bb can be regarded as related to the respective Hbr roots with certainty; those adduced with question mark were deemed by me to be borderline cases, with about 50% probability, but many others are not fully assured either. Nevertheless, their number is so large that on the law of large numbers, vast majority of them ma~ be relevant. 2 cf., e.g., Gairdner, Phonetics p. 27ff.

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

27

with these Signs.13 Some confusion with the glottal fricative occurs in individual mss. here and there, as also with the other pharyngal, glottal stop and zero, implying parallel phonetic realizations for all of them;14 occasionally even more systematically, e.g., Tib root jnhlj being completely replaced by jnxlj. As comparable confusion occurs in the Qumran msS.,15 it may be interpreted again as an indication of the original pharyngals and glottals having been subjected to a roughly similar decay in the Hbr dialect underlying them. In Pal and Bab, however, such phenomena occur far less frequently, although the position of certain vowel signs suggests strongly that the adjoining consonant sign was quiescent;16 where two vowel signs adjoin one such consonant sign, it is then not necessarily an indication of preservation of the original sound, as this could have been replaced by a glide as regularly in Sam; in my Pal ms. a, one of such a pair of vowel signs is also often recognizable as having been added by the second hand 17 to the more original single one by the first hand which then implies quiescization of the consonant in the pronunciation of the first hand. However, the fact that many Pal mss. do not show such phenomena and that the major ms. a also has been partially emended by a (still genuinely Pal) second hand would seem to indicate that the decay of pharyngals was sporadic and generally not approved in Pal; and in Bab confined (perhaps in a more restricted sense; cf. below) to j&j. The case for transcription texts is more complicated. As is well known, jxj is transcribed in some names with Greek letter X, but in most cases left without any transcription. IS What is not so well known is that the frequency of occurrence of the consonantal transcriptions varies significantly between different parts of the LXX and other transcription sources, to some extent also between manuscripts representing different recensions of the LXX text. It appears that consonantal transcriptions occur most frequently in the part translated first and in the manuscripts reflecting the earliest recensions. 19

I! See below, p. 100. See, e.g., v. Gall's apparatus at Dt 28:5.7.13.20.22.25.27.28.30.35.37.39.40.48.52. 56.63.

1 15 See,

e.g., Abr-Nahram vol. IV (for 1963-4) p. 7lf.

16 Cf. e.g., my Materials vol. I p. 25ff (nos. 1, 5, 8,16) for Pal; in Bab, usually in connection

with /'/ and /&/ only, cf. Kahle, MTB p. 3Of; Kahle's term "durchgeschwitzt" (vowel in connection with /&/) reminds me ofthe fact that in Sam, /&/ in the middle of a word was sometimes audible as a semivocalic sound merged with the vowel; however, cf. below in the discussiol}ff the vowels. E.g., the horizontal line (/~/) added to the vertical one (fa/) of the first hand in fol. xiiR 16 /ya-,&ar/, 17 Ifa-,xaqiYmf, two horizontal lines on each side of an original one ib. 25 /lazh~&a-,1iYm/, one tolhe right of an original one ib. 26 /ya-,'a-,xeYruWj; a vertical one to the riglit ofan original one ib. 2 jbazfaxaq/, 6 jba'arec/; and prObaoly others still (in the plate fro'l\Ms a in my Materials vol. I between the English and Hebrew sections). In a small number of cases, a different Greek consonant appears instead; most of these are evidently scribal errors, but') may sometimes be a genuine phonetic (voiced) var. or due to the influence of a more common name (e.g., a{JL,)aLA for /'abixayl/). As these appear to be inn1~ Greek developments, they are not considered here. Cf. Part I Section A p. 11 n.22; in addition, the frequency is greatest within the Pentateuch, e.g., in Ms.B 25 times out of a total of 86 or 29.1 per cent. or twice the rate of the Luc recension in 1Ch; and as is known, in the translation of the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah, made in

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

28

The emerging picture is that of an advancing decay, at first rather slow, with the more frequently used names retaining the consonantal sound longer, although its phonetic realization may have changed. The users of the LXX having generally Greek as their first language, their phonology would tend to become assimilated to the Greek one, the consonantal transcription of /x/ thus coming to be pronounced as the Greek X, i.e., originally as an aspirated dorso-velar plosive and spirantized with it whenever this developmejnt took place.20 By the late first century, only some most used names seem to have preserved the consonantal sound in part of the tradition at least, as all the NT examples21 belong to this category; the more copious use of consonantal transcription (or rather transliteration in such a case) by los would then reflect the Hbr script rather than actual pronunciation; this would agree with the fact that particularly Galilaeans are associated with the confusion of glottals and pharyngals in the Talmudic tradition;22 in the second century, people with knowledge of Hbr sufficient to undertake the translation of the canonical Ezr-Neh and to transcribe Hbr with Gr letters did not know what would have been considered a consonantal pronunciation of these letters at aU.23

the second century AD., there are no consonantal transcriptions at all (apart from stray instances in single mss. due to the influence of earlier translated books). Outside the LXX, the picture is similar: in the NT the bulk of which was written during the second half of the fIrst century AD., 26 names presuppose lx/-containing Hebrew prototypes 5 of which show consonantal transcription, or 19.2 per cent.; although due to the smallness of the sample, the percentage need not reflect the stage of development very accurately. The sample fron los, roughly contemporaneous, includes 80 lx/-containing names of which 19 or 23.8 per cent. show consonantal transcriptions; taking the frequency of occurrence into account, their proportion is larger still, to wit, 152 out of a total of 428 or 35.5 per cent. It appears, however, that los has used consonantal transcription to some extent even where no consonant was pronounced, apparently influenced by the Hbr spelling, as evidenced by his express statement concerning IJWXOCl vs. IJWE, Ant. I 6 1 (end). Finally, in the fragments preserved of the second column of Origen's Hexapla, apparently deriving from the late second or early third century ADtJ no consonantal transcriptions (apart from one evidently corrupt form) appear again. 2 The date for this is hard to establish, particularly for x; cf. Allen, Vox graeca p. 2Off: the spirantization of the aspirated plosives generally seems to have taken place at widely different times in different dialects and perhaps for different consonants, being attested for 6 in Laconian by the 4th century B.C. and perhaps (along with ~) in the 6th already; while otherwise, unequivocal evidence is found since the 1st century AD. only, and for x only from the Byzantine period. Scholarly tradition maintaining the classical pronunciation seems to have survived for fenturies in many places and confuses the picture. 1axa,. xappalJ. LEPLXW, lJaxwp, paXT/).., see Part I Section A p. 23ff (nos. 86, 652, 810, 1069, 1484~.

Cf., e.g., Kahle, Cairo geniza p. 169; Dalman, Aram. Grammatik p. 57f for references. This view has been challenged sometimes, e.g., by James Barr in his article on St. Jerome and the sounds of Hebrew (JSS 12/1967 p. Hf; see p. 16ff) on the grounds of some statements of Jerome which he understands to mean that in Jerome's time, consonantal pronunciation of /x/ (and /&/) was still preserved. Jerome describes /x/ by the term, duplex adspiratio, cf. the Latin grammarians' term, adspiratio, for the letter h. Jerome's term for /x/ means then a sound effect similar to it, but stronger, which is not a bad description of a voiceless pharyngal by an amateur phonetician. However, as Barr fInally-as it seems, rather reluctantly-admits (ib. p. 23), Jerome also calls /x/ not a consonant. Barr comes to within hair's breadth of the correct solution of this apparent contradition in asking (ib. p. 17 n. 4; cf. Br~'lnno, Aussprache p. 21), "May this doctrine, attributed by Jerome to the grammatici, itself be partly a reflection of the "breathings" in Greek?" There is hardly any doubt that the Latin 2

23

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

29

As mentioned in Part I Section A (p. 5 n. 6 a.e.), the varying transcription of Ixl in the LXX was recently used to revive the hypothesis that in biblical times, the letter represented two distinct sounds in Hbr, corresponding to the two phonemes Ixl and Ixl in Arab and some other Sem languages;24 in Eg, an additional third one, conventionally transcribed as 1b./, occurs beside these. Wevers' thesis was examined in the comments on single entries in Section A for the proper names containing Ixl and found in many cases contrary to our results on the basis of the material then available, including many generally accepted etymologies; in addition, he had omitted many relevant entries and variant transcriptions in other LXX mss. As established above, the variation in transcriptions is explicable consistently without recourse to such a hypothesis; however, as in the majority of names consonantal transcriptions do not occur at all, an acceptable alternative explanation should be found for this. We begin with summarizing the results of the examination begun in Part I Section A, taking into account what additional material was adduced in Section Bb. There are 266 lxi-containing names in the list of Section A of which Greek transcriptions are attested. Of these, the following25 show consonantal

grammarians, owing as they did fundamentals of their art to their Greek predecessors, in calling h an adspiratio rather than littera were simply translating the Greek term, 1rIlEU/Ul for the corresponding sound in that language. Ancient grammarians did not make distinction between letters and sounds; and as in classical (i.e., Ionian and post-403 B.C. Attic) Greek the /h/sound was not marked by a letter of the alphabet, but by a special sign on top of the letter which it preceded in pronunciation, if at all, it was not regarded as a letter and thus not a sound in the proper sense either, but was classified as a 1rpoowli ta along with accent signs placed in similar positions (cf. Allen, op. cit. p. 50ft); although its origin was in a letter of the earlier varieties of the Greek and ultimately Semitic alphabet, although not in the letter for /h/, but in the very same now under discussion which Jerome calls duplex adspiratio (Allen, ib. p. 51)! In Latin, of course, h was a letter of the alphabet, so the grammarians' classification of it as an aspiration rather than a letter is only understandable as an imitation of the Greek terminology; adoption of this was facilitated by the fact that in Latin, there were no accent signs whose existence might have confused the issue. Jerome's statement that glottals and pharyngals adspirationes suas uocesque commutant (cf. Barr ib. p. 13) is understandable in the same sense and in the light of the evidence above that such confusion had started centuries before Jerome's time indeed the most natural interpretation, as Barr himself admits (ib. p. 15); also in insisting that Jerome's words in the passage about the sibilants (ib.), Quod in principio

dixeramus in uocalibus litteris obseruandum eo, quod apud nos una sit interdum littera et apud Hebraeos uariis uocibus proferatur, hoc nunc quoque in s littera sciendum est ... implies that like

sibilants, so also glottals and pharyngals had different sounds, he is paying the words more than a sixpence to mean what he wants; no doubt Jerome is referring to the fact that the latter too were written with different characters, as he did not make distinction between them and the sounds they represented. This, of course, does not preclude the possibility that the tradition of the original distinct pronunciation of these characters was still preserved in some learned circles, possibly including Jerome's teacher of Hebrew from whom he could have obtained these snippets of information he shares with us; incidentally, the term, duplex adspiratio, need not hav~a meaning far different from 1rIlEU/Ul oaou. Cf. n. 69 below (p. 61). J.W. Wevers in his contribution to Essays on the ancient Semitic world, p. 101ff; cf. also the 1r.ge footnote to p. 24 above. Quoted by numbers assigned in Section A (the list of names, p. 205ft); where no qualification follows the number, all the sources used show consonantal transcription; non-LXX sources are enclosed in round brackets. Initial minus sign means non-attestation in the source(s) given.

30

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

transcription in one source or more: 11) Nm; 1Ch B+ Orig; 82); 84) B+ e; 85) B+ e; 86) -Luc; 87); 88) 1Ch -BANe; 2K -A; 89) -Luc; 90); 91) (-los); 92) 1Ch 2:25 Luc (only); 8:4 B+ Cat; 93); 94); 95) -Luc; 96) (varr.); 97) -lCh; 98); 99); 100) (-los); 101) Nm; Jos -B+ a2; (varr.); 102); 103) (varr.); 104) Flb2 ; 105) -Flb2; 106); 107) -Luc; 108); 109); 183) -Orig+; 191) b (los); 215); 238) 1Ch 2 B; 4 Anaein; 274) -A; 291) (los var.); 306) -Orig+; 413) b; 449) 2K -Luc; 527) -B+ Luc; 555) -Luc; 556) Gn Nm 1Ch 7; 557); 558); 559); 564) Gn; 1Ch -Luc; 568) (-los); 580) B?; 582); 584) -Luc; 585) 0; 585B) Bbt; 588)Luc; 592) B+? Cat; 593) -MNbx; 594) -Luc; 595) 1Ch 10 -Luc; 20 B+; 597); 598) Jos 15 -Gac; 600) 2S; 1Ch -Luc; 601) Nm; Jos -Hex; 602) B+ dgnpt ejsuvz; 603); 604) 1Ch 5; 9 -Luc; (-los); 605) Jos 19 -B+ efjsvz bex; 21 -A?x; 606); 610) 1Ch -Cat; 612) -B+ Hex; 621) 1Ch 4 B+?; 634) Jos 12 a; 645) Jos 15 B+ Hex; 646); 647); 648); 652) Gn (NT los); 663); 664); 667) (-los); 705) (-los); 712) 1Ch 3:15 Cat Luc+?; 8:16 B+ Orig; 745) Gn fir; 767) B+ Hex; 809) Gn -c+?; 810); 813) -Cat Luc; 864); 910) B+ ejsz dgnpt; 952) -Luc; 989) Gn; 1Ch -Luc; 990) 1Ch 8 -Luc; 1066) (los var.); 1070) bgtw+; 1071) -Luc (NT); 1075) -lCh 6: 1103) Gn? 1121) B+; 1126) (los); 1139); 1303) (-Luc); 1378) 1Ch 7:35 B+?; 1406); 1484); 1533) Gn m; 1641) IS -be2; 1646) Nm; 1648); 1649) 1K; 1650) -qx (los); 1673) Orig Cat. Total 107 of which, however, 4 are uncertain and 3 attested in los only; of the remaining 100, only 29 show consonantal transcription in all the sources, although further 5 lack it in los only. Assuming that the los only varr. are graphical, these 34 would then qualify as the most conservative phonetically; as any phonetic influence is strongest when exerted by a neighbouring sound, it is to the immediate phonetic environment that must be looked for a possible phonetic solution. Now, in most of these 34, there is an /'1, Irl or 11/ next to the pharyngal; of these, 1'1 is always glottal, while Ir I and 11/ may have dorso-velar allophones which, while not demonstrable, are best conceivable in the neighbourhood of sounds with identical or close articulation bases, Ixl evidently qualifying for the latter. In these cases, then, Ixl may have retained the consonantal pronunciation longest assisted by a neighbouring consonant with a nearby articulation basis. In two more cases, nos. 568 and 582, a long lui or 101 vowel separates the pharyngal from the next consonant; as these vowels also involve a dorso-velar approximation, analogous influence exerted by them is conceivable. The remaining exceptions are nos. 557, 558, 559, 606, 663, 664, 667, 1406, and 1648; of these, 557, 558, 559 also contain Irl, albeit separated from the pharyngal by another consonant; but as phonetic influence is known to extend not infrequently beyond the neighbouring radical,26 the distance need not be an insurmountable obstable; nos. 667 and 1406 also contain 171 (which likewise involves a dorso-velar approximation) and 1&1, respectively, in analogous positions. Besides, no. 1406 is of foreign origin and the tran26 cf. the discussion of incompatibility, below p. 114.

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

31

scription of the pharyngal varies, being in a number of mss. -" (Lat -c); and in one Gr ms. (x) its total lack in transcription could indeed be original (cf. Lat varr.) in which case the name, strictly taken, would not belong to this category at all. Again, nos. 557 and 606 are (also) well known names which is likewise known to assist in preserving an old form, as such names exhibit far fewer variants than less known ones, or none at all; no. 663 is also of foreign origin and rather well known too, and no. 664 is its gentilic adjective, as no. 558 is of no. 557. Finally, nos. 559 and 1648 are gentilics of nos. 556 and 1646, respectively, and both of the latter are also attested without consonantal transcription in passages in which the gentilics do not occur; these have then qualified because of their restricted occurrence only. It would seem, then, that the main factor contributing to the preservation of the consonantal pronunciation of /x/ was a phonetic one, viz. the nearby presence of another consonant or a long vowel with a closely similar articulation basis; however, the exceptions above and also the fact that there are other names also containing /r/, /1/, or even /'/ which have not preserved the consonantal transcription to the same degree or do not show it at all indicate that there must have been other contributing factors, such as frequent occurrence or being otherwise well known, including perhaps usage outside the Bible and its sphere of influence in the case of some names of foreign origin. This conclusion, however, is fully valid for the transcription tradition only; although in Sam too /x/ has lost the pharyngal pronunciation completely, it is difficult to determine at what time this has happened; and although in Q, scribal variation presupposes some degree of analogous development, it is not clear whether it led to a complete quiescization. In Pal and Bab anyway the indications are that it never was complete. However, as some cognate languages show two or even three distinct phonemes as equivalents to Hbr lxi, the possibility of some kind of regularities corresponding to such distinctions must still be examined. In the light of the materials collected in Part I Section Bb, the relevant roots fall into three categories: 1) those showing /x/ throughout the evidence, 2) those showing /x/ only in those languages in which this phoneme is attested (hereafter termed X-lgg), and 3) those in which /x/ appears in some of the evidence from X-lgg beside /X/ (and /h/); in our materials, no roots are found with an exclusive /x/ vs. /h/ correspondence. NB. as the evidence available cannot be trusted to be complete, it is quite possible that some of the roots here included in the first two categories in fact belong to the third one. On the evidence available, the following roots belong to the first category:/,xd/, /bxn/, /bxr/, /gxn/, /glx/, /dxV/, /dxp/, /dxq/, /znx/, /xbq/, /xbr/, /xg(g)/, /xgV/, /xd(d)/, /xdq/, /xdf /, /xwg/, /xwV/, /xwV /111, /xwl/, /xws/, /xwr/, /xz(z)/, /xzV/11, /xzq/, /xzr/, /x7b/, /xyq/, /xk(k)/, /xkr/, /xI'/, /xIz/, /xI7/, /xlk/?, /xIm/, /xm/, /xmd/, /xmV/, /xmq/, /xmr/,

32

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

/xmr/III, /xn(n)/, /xnV/11, /xnk/, /xsd/?, /xsd/II, /xsl/, /xsps/, /xpz/, /xpn/, /xpc/, /xq(q)/, /xr/, /xr(r)/, /xrgl/, /xrV/, /xrV/11, /xr7m/, /xrp/II, /xrcb/, /xrcn/, /xJd/, /xJk/?, /xJ/sk/, /xJlj, /xJmI/, /xJ/sp/, /xtk/, /xtl/, /xtr/, /7xb/, /7xl/, /7xn/, /7xr/, /7px/, /7rx/, /yxi/, /yxm/, /yxJ/s/, /ykx/, /kx/, /kxd/, /ksx/, /lwx/, /lxk/, /lqx/, /mnx/, /mJxl, /ngx/, /nxJ/, /nxt/, /nkx/?, /sxb/, /sxV/, /spx/?, /srx/II?, /pxm/, /pcx/, /pqx/, /cx(x)/, /cxq/, /clx/, /qdx/, /qlx/?, /qcx/, /qrx/, /qfx/, /rx/, /rxb/, /rxq/, /rmx/, /rqx/, /rtx/, /Jbx/, /Jgx/, /Jxq/, /Jxq/II, /Jxt/, /J7x/, /Jyx/, /J/syx/?, /Jkx/?, IJlx/, /Jpx/, /J/spx/II, /txt/. Roots attested only in languages which, like Hbr, show /x/ -phoneme only (hereafter x-lgg) are omitted as irrelevant to the present issue; those whose attestation outside x-lgg is considered uncertain are included in the list above with a question mark, if the entire attestation is questionable; if the uncertainty concerns a specific language only, the root is placed in the third category and the relevant language specified there. The first category comprises thus 128 roots of which, however, 10 are of uncertain relevance. The second category comprises the following roots: /'x/, /,x/II, /,xV /, /'xV/11, /'xz/, /,xr/, /,lx/, /bdlx/, /bxn/II, /b7x/, /gbx/, /xb7/ /xbt/?, /xdlj, /xwx/, Ixw7/, Ix7' I /x7m/, xylj, xyp/, /xl(1)/III, Ixlb/ll, /xld/, Ixlm/ll, /xlp/, /xm'/, /xmJ/, /xnq/, /xsm/, /xpV/, Ixpr/II, /xqr/?, /xr/II, /xrb/, /xrg/, /xr7/, /xrk/, /xrlj, /xJr/, /xtV/, /7wx/, /ltx/?, /mlx/II, /mrxJwn/, /nwx/, /nxl/II, /nxtm/, /ntx/, /slx/, /px/, /px/II, /psd/, /pxz/, /pxt/?, /cwx/, /cxn/, /cmx/?, /cnx/?, /qpx/, /rxm/II, /rxp/, /rxJ/, / JxV/, / Jxn/. Total 64 roots of which 6 of uncertain relevance. In the third category, besides the relevant roots, the X-lgg or (where applicable) sub-branches of Sem in which each root is attested are specified; the designations of the sub-branches refer here only to the X-lgg contained in them. In each case, attestations with /xl are mentioned first, then after "vs." those with X (and /h/); where an attestation is deemed less than probable, this is expressed by question mark. The list is thus: /'nx/ Arab vs. Akk; /'rx/ Arab var. G&z vs. Akk Arab var. ESA; /brx/ Ug Arab ESA vs. Akk?; /gyx/ Arnor G&z (var.) vs. Arab; Idlxl Arab (var.) Eg? vs. Akk Arab var.; Izbxl Sem Som Eg vs. Ug var.? Ebl?; 1zx1/ Ug Arab (var.?) vs. Arab var.?; /xb(,/V)/ Mhr? vs. Arnor? Akk SSem; /xb(b)/ Arnor Arab SAr vs. Akk?; Ixbll Akk (var.) WSem vs. Akk var.; Ixbljll Arab var. vs. Akk Arab (var.) ESA G&z; Ixbr/ll Ug (var.?) Akk Arab var. ESA? vs. Ug var.? Arab (var.) Mhr G&z Eg; IxbJ I Sem Eg vs. ESA var.?; /xdV I Arab (var.?) vs. Ug Akk Arab var.?; /xdr/ Ug Arnor vs. SSem; /xwbl Arab (var.) ESA (var.) vs. Arab var. ESA var. Mhr Eg?; /xwV/II Arab Eg vs. Ug?; /xwJI Ug (var.?) Arab Mhr G&z vs. Ug var.? Akk; IxzV / Arab ESA vs. Ebl?; /xzr/II G&z vs. Ug Arnor Akk Arab; Ixy(V)1 WSem (-Ug var.?) vs. Ug var.? (Tu); Ixyljll Ug? Arab (var.) vs. Akk Arab var. ESA G&z; IxkV / Arab? vs. Akk (Mari);

SYSTEM OF PHONEMES

33

/xkm/ WSem vs. Akk; /xl(l)/ Arab vs. ESA; /xl(l)/II Ug vs. SSem; /xlb/ WSem vs. Akk; /xlV/ Arnor? Arab ESA G&z var.? vs. G&z var.?; /xlmf/ Akk Arab var.? vs. Arab (var.?); /xlp/II Akk Arab Mhr vs. Ug; /xlc/ Akk var. ESA? G&z? vs. Akk (var.) Arab; /xlq/ Ug? vs. Arab Mhr? G&z; /xlq/II Ug? Arab (var.) Mhr (var.) vs. Arab var. Mhr var.; /xlf / ESA vs. Akk Arab; /xm(m)/ Sem (-Arnor?) vs. Arnor? Eg; /xm7/ Arab vs. Arnor? Akk; /xml/ Arab Mhr vs. Akk? (Tu); /xms/ Arab Mhr vs. Akk; /xmc/ Sem (var.) Eg vs. Ch; /xmr/II ESA vs. Arnor? Arab Mhr; /xmt/ Ug Arab vs. Akk; /xnV/ Arab vs. Arnor? Akk Eg var.; /xn7/ Ug Akk var. Arab G&z vs. Akk var. Eg?; /xnp/ Arab var. G&z var. vs. Ug Arab var. G&z var.; /xsV/ Arab var. vs. Arab (var.); /xsn/ Arab? vs. Ug?; /xsr/ Arab var. vs. Ug Akk SSem (var.); /xp(p)/ Arab ESA? Eg vs. Ug Mhr; /xpr/ SSem (var.) vs. Akk; /xpf / Sem vs. Eg (var.); /xpf/II Arab? vs. Ug Arnor Akk; /xc(c)/ Sem vs. Akk (late Bab) var.; /xcb/ Arab Mhr vs. Ug Akk; /xcd/ Akk Arab vs. ESA; /xcV/ Akk ESA vs. Ug G&z?; /xcr/ WSem vs. Arab var.; /xcr/II Arab var. vs. Arab (var.) Eg; /xrb/II Ug Arnor? Arab (var.?) SAr vs. Akk Arab var.? (Tu?); /xrd/ Arab (var.) vs. Ug Arab var.; /xrz/ Arab var. Mhr vs. Arab (var.); /xrm/ WSem vs. Akk Eg; /xrm/II Eg vs. Arab; /xrc/ Ug Arab G&z var. vs. ESA G&z var.; /xrc/II Arab (var.) vs. Ug Akk Arab var.; /xrq/ Arab (var.?) vs. Arab var.? Mhr Eg; /xrf / Sem vs. Eg (Dem.)?; /xrf /11 Arab (syr.)? vs. Akk Arab (var.?) Eg?; /xrf /s/ Arab var. vs. Arab var. ESA; /xf arently tries to modify the description of the sound in this direction by adding, jwnw7h Imrkz/; spectrograms, however, confITm it as a variety of /ij~ej, the harmonics pattern for /a/ being quite different (see the Appendix). 1 ib. p. 34. 52 ib. p. 33; I, however, have jye:duj for both numbers; as for jba:nuj vs. jba:noj, minimal con!Jxt suffices to distinguish between them. ib. p. 30 n. 42; that Ritter and Schaade would have committed such a mistake while 49 50

HISTORICAL SURVEY

157

Against the assumption of an overlong phonologically distinctive variety of vowel speaks also the fact that in overlong syllables, even "ordinary" long vowels have developed into bisyllabic formations, e.g., the above (p. 152) mentioned /ku:wwas/ (root /kws/) and / Ji:yyad/ (root / J /syd/); other instances are /re:'oJ/ (root /r'JI), PTa /me:'od/, PNd f. /ze:'ot/ etc. in which the first vowel appears to have dissimilated after the creation of the glide; in verbal forms, the likewise mentioned /'uwwa:Jab/ (root /Jwb/), /(w)yuwwa:Jami (root / J /sym/) and others like them, as well as /(w)ya:'o:mer/ (root /,mr/; later /-'u:-/), /(w)ya:'o:kelj etc.; in these cases, the long vowel probably originally in the stressed syllable developed first into a falling diphthong, whereupon the cluster formed by the off-glide with the following consonant was broken by a secondary vowel of the same quality as the original one; the latter was then usually dissimilated where the secondary glide was /' / and the vowel thus more open, whereas with close vowels and /w/ or /y/ as the glide, the newly created vowel became /a/; however, where the syllable was word final and ended in /-y/, this was simply transformed into /-i/, e.g., /gu:wwi/, /na:7u:wwi/; occasionally, apparently under lighter accent, the development did not take place, e.g., /ga:lo/ (before /'i:nem/) for expected */ga:lu:wwi/. These developments too seem to have taken place towards the end of the biblical period or soon afterwards, as they too have parallels in Q, cf. forms like /,whwlj, /gw'ym/, /z'wt/ vs. /zw't/, /y'wmr/ vs. /yw'mr/, /yw'klj, /yw'kwlm/, /m'wd(h)/ vs. /mw'd(h)/, /Jwxd/ vs. /Jwxwd/ vs. / J xwd/ etc.54 Consequently, no more than three consistently distinctive vowel qualities and two quantities have phonological status in Sam. As to the phonetic quality of certain Sam consonants, the assimilation of /n/ as a rule to an immediately following consonant is shared by all the other Hebrew traditions and so inherited from an earlier stage of the language, possibly from pre-Sem times; its reappearance as the 3rd rad. even before consonantal afformatives may be due to Systemzwang, the analogy of the most frequently used 3rd pers. where no consonant follows. 55 On the other hand, its lack to assimilate to an immediately following glottal or pharyngal in most verbal forms and nominal derivatives must have phonetic reasons, particularly as the preformative of the N-stem is nevertheless assimilated in apparently the same conditions; attribution of the latter to the analogy of the roots with non-gutturals as the 1st rad. suffers from the fact that the same analogy ought to have allowed the assimilation in pref of the primary stem working independently of each other is fairly unthinkable, particularly as Schaade was an excellent phonetician whose notes differ from those of Ritter in many important details; e.g., he ~tinguishes between three varieties of lei besides Iii and Iii/. See Kutcher, Language (index p. 5031) for attestations. 55 The assimilation in the root Intnl is apparently due to its overall frequency making 1st and 2nd pers. able to resist the influence of the 3rd pers.; and that of 11/ in Ilqxl to the influence of Intnl as its antonym - as generally accepted.

158

HISTORICAL SURVEY

too, cf. the frequent absence of /n/ as the 1st rad. in the imp and nact of the primary stem also. The only consistent explanation seems to be that in roots II gutt. the 1st and 2nd rad. were not in fact fully contiguous-that the nonassimilation of /n/ in such roots was then not due to a property of /n/, but of the guttural. The tendency of guttural to obtain a prothetic vowel before its quiescization (cf. above, n. 43) had thus apparently this kind of precedent in this class of roots at least, though maybe originally without phonological status, although in Sam it developed into a regular vowel after the quiescization of the guttural. Traces of it are found in Pal too, e.g., /yina&am/ (root /n&m/), but there it has spread sporadically to other kinds of roots too, e.g., /tiqacor/ (=Tib /tiqcar/!), /tira7em/ (sf.; root /r7V/); and in Gr transcriptions of Hbr proper names, e.g., nos. 689, 791-3, 813 in Part I Section A; again spread to other consonants too, cf. nos. 690, 751, 761, 764 etc. In Nstem, then, the nasal would have been fully contiguous to the 1st rad. in pref which agrees with the fact that its imp and a form of nact in fact presuppose */hin-/ as the stem preformative, and so pref goes along with them just as in the primary stem. There are also indications of spirantization of certain stops-not, however, the dorso-velar ones. Accordingly to the Samaritan mediaeval grammatical tradition,56 there were four consonants with twofold pronunciation, to wit, fbi, /d/, /p/, /t/; and one with threefold articulation, viz. /w/. In the present-day recitation, however, even /d/ and /t/ show no trace of it, both being always pronounced as stops; while on the other hand, /p/ is nowadays normally Iff. All this may be due to the influence of Samaritan Arabic in which the fricative allophones of /d/ and It/ were lacking, as also explosive /pl generally in Arab. In some cases, however, a long /bb/ corresponds in Sam to the long /p/ of other traditions, and usually it is a case of an ancient geminate, apparently established before the spirantization of stops; nowadays, it is often pronounced unvoiced (but not aspirated). In the case of fbi, again, the former spirant which now occurs mostly in PTpr /b-/ when provided with a prothetic vowel, has usually become Iff, although a voiced allophone can be heard before some voiced consonants. As for /w/, it has threefold articulation even today, viz., /w/, fbi, and lui; the latter occurs mostly in more or less free variation with /w/ in the pronunciation of the PTcj /w-/; /w/ is the main pronunciation elsewhere too, and /b/ (at times long /bb/) occurs mainly where other traditions have an old geminate /ww/, but occasionally also for a simple /w/, presumably secondarily. According to the mediaeval Samaritan grammarian Abu Sa&id,57 however, the third articulation was "the inside jbj of Hebrew" the

56 Cf. Ben-Hayyim, Tradition vol. V p. 2lf; however, I am not sure that even for the four, the !f!es of spirantization were identical with the Tib ones. See Ben-Hayyim, Tradition I p. 153.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

159

meaning of which is not clear to me; Ben-HayyimS8 takes it to mean the spirantized Ibl = Ivl which may be possible, although his argumentation is somewhat far-fetched; in any case, it cannot refer to the vocalic pronunciation. The idea itself, however, could be erroneous, as according to the same passage all three articulations should occur in the word Iwwwyhm/;s9 the first letter would presumably be the PTcj Iw-I, hence representing the normal articulation; while the next two are both pronounced Ibl in our days which articulation is also indicated in the early 14th century punctuated ms. C;«J IvI is otherwise known to me only as an infrequent var. of IfI representing an original Ib/, never as an allophone of Iw/. Whatever the third consonantal pronunciation of Iw I was, in the present-day pronunciation it is IOSt. 61 In G-which evidently represents Hbr tradition as preserved by Jews who spoke Greek as their everyday language - comparable developments are reflected from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D., occasionally-notably in Ms. x (Brit.Mus. Add. 39585)-even later. As the material is limited and details were discussed in the respective paragraphs of Chapter One, a recapitulation will suffice here. The central characteristic of the tradition is the repeated adaptation of contemporaneous Hbr phonological inventory to Greek phonologyrepeated, because new material is introduced intermittently from outside the G tradition. In the LXX transcriptions,62 two principal strains were found, one represented mainly by Ms. B and its satellites as well as in the Lucianic recension in a somewhat modified verson; the other mainly by the cursive with which Eus usually agrees, and in the Catena tradition again in a somewhat modi fed form; while Ms. A and other more or less Origenian material

op.cit. p. 152 (cf. n. 2). So in 1 ms. only; others Iwwyhm/, as in the Bible. «J = Codex R 16.41 of Trinity College, Cambridge. 61 Ben-Hayyim, Tradition V p. 37ff, finds also traces of a former existence of a "hurried" vowel in Sam, later to develop into virtually any vowel. I have no quarrel with this in principle, as long as such a vowel is not accorded independent phonological status, as secondary vowels have no doubt been created in Sam, and at first they have presumably, in most cases anyway, been shorter than normal vowels; but why such transitory phenomena should have a common designation and a separate section in phonology, I do not understand; and if a common designation is insisted upon, Chatef would be happier than Shwa, as the latter properly means sign for the lack of any vowel. With regard to the examples given, I do not agree with quite a number of them, mostly because he usually, at least tacitly, takes the Sam form as having been derived from the Tib one; but as the issue properly belongs to word formation and will- at least implicitly- be dealt with in Part Three, we do not go into details here. With regard to glottals and pharyngals, it was already indicated above (p. 153, 158) that the development leading to their quiescization must have begun at an early period, when a secondary vowel was created before them; the quiescization itself must also have been a protracted process and never fully completed, as 1&1 largely remained in word initial before open vowels and was also secondarily created under the same conditions in many instances (cf. §7 above); and 1'1 too was frequently created secondarily as a glide between relatively open S8 59

vow~}s.

Cf. Part One, Section A p. 64f (also on NT los).

160

HISTORICAL SURVEY

represent a mixture of the two principal strands both of which are more conservative in character than los, while original (=non-LXX) NT material comes close to the B-strand which is the earliest of all; the latest strand is represented in this study by the 2nd column of the Hexapla which agrees essentially with the translation of the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah, dated in the 2nd century AD. The most conspicuous feature is of course the gradual disappearance of the gutturals. In the case of glottals, this is hard to follow, as in the contemporaneous Greek alphabet there is no sign for either one, and the glottal stop apparently did not exist in Greek at all. 63 Thus, not marking Ihl in writing even when pronounced was normal Greek practice, and so we do not know whether and how far the sound was pronounced during the relevant period, as the spiritu:s on the Npr in LXX are very unequally and often contradictorily set, in the 2nd col. of Hexapla hardly at all. As to /'1, the fact that Greek did not have it and that in the beginning of words it does not have any distinctive value may justify our assumption that it was lost word initially in the earliest strain already, as there are no indications of it in that position, unless xwpa (1WV xa).oa~wv) Gn 11:28 etc. as a rendering of I'uwr (ka$diYm)1 be semi-onomatopoeic in nature, X thus rendering /,1 as a rough approximation. In other positions, we would expect to find indications of the preservation of 1'1, and the same character is indeed found word finally in the name of the author of the non-canonical wisdom book, ~ 11U01JU UH pax = lyeJuw& (ban-) siYra'l as well as in the name of a field in Aram, aK.O.oaJl.QX (varr. -a, -aK.)Ix(a)qel dma'i in the NT, Act 1:19. Such instances are far too infrequent to base anything chronological on them, as single names could have been preserved well beyond average periods of usage unchanged. The reason why X was not more frequently used for 1'1 may have been its rather different phonetic value; as a matter of fact, it sounded more like lxi, and apparently for that reason it was used more often as a sign for that sound in words in which it was still preserved, and similarly "( for 1&1. The occurrence of these decreases as time passes, is in los apparently optional and totally absent in the 2nd col. of Hexapla and the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah. The use of 1'6 (and 11), 1f~, K.X as equivalents of long /tl, /p/, /k/ similarly decreases as time passes, being replaced by H, 1(Xp, XX and indeed more often by single '6, !p, X (as the occurrence of geminates decreases otherwise too) which practically alone64 are again encountered in the 2nd col. of Hexapla and the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah. The conclusion is then plausible that parallel to the decay of gutturals, the spirantization of stops advanced including geminates, reaching its completion in the 2nd century AD.

63 Allen, Vox graeca (1981) p. 53.

64 The only exceptions are p.a'T-ra19Lao (var. p.a'T~-) famous from the Maccabean history, and the otherwise well-known short forms ~rucJ(OVP, ~rucJ(aL (varr. ~rucJ(ov, ~a~ov, ~aJ(ovp).

161

HISTORICAL SURVEY

For the mediae, Ibl, fd/, Igl, an analogous process may be assumed; it is neither provable nor disprovable. No more than three qualitatively distinct vowel phonemes are provable. Distinctive length is generally provable or (e.g., for cr, assumable, but its occurrence appears to decrease in the passage of time, and so does the overall occurrence of vowels, although there is some fluctuation. All the voiceless sibilants have amalgamated to lsi, except for an early = Ic/. In all these respects, the 2nd col. of the Hexapla agrees essentially with the results drawn from the LXX, NT and los traditions65 on the assumption that it is later than any of these and roughly contemporaneous with the transcriptions in the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah. In most Lat transcriptions, based on the Gr ones, no essentially new features were discovered on cursory examination, and systematic attempt at an analysis therefore not undertaken, as lack of indication of most Gr sources would also have made any possibly significant results unreliable. An exception was Jerome's original Lat transcriptions, at times accompanied by short descriptive notes; these were evidently based on a different tradition in which the pharyngals and Ihl were still at least phonetically and apparently phonologically distinct, and so the three voiceless sibilants. Explosive pronunciation of stops had also been preserved at least in some cases when geminated, although some other transcriptions of geminates indicated their spirantization and some others had lost their length altogether. The transcriptions of short stops are equivocal, but as even some geminates were apparently spirantized, the same may be concluded a fortiori with regard to ordinary stops. In Pal, the punctuation is mostly more or less defective, and the fact that the system is often somewhat different in different mss. and in some cases apparently reflects somewhat different underlying pronunciation too makes the interpretation difficult. Nevertheless, it is apparent that some mss. at least, including the second hand in my ms. a (= Bodleian Ms. Heb.d.55 fols. 1-14) use vowels more frequently than other branches of our materials, with the possible exception of early Q texts; while others seem roughtly comparable with Bab (Tib). The allophonic differentiation of vowels also differs in different mss., particularly with regard to different shades of lei (including the uncertain la/), although in some cases, the differences in the form of signs may be purely graphical, without phonetic -less still phonological- significance, as they interchange in analogous positions even in identical words. The same is true of the two signs for lal, although the vertical line stands much more frequently for an evidently or probably long lal, the horizontal one likewise for a short one, and occasionally interchanges with a variety of lei (and the uncertain la/). The back vowel is undifferentiated in some mss.,

n

e

65 Part I Section A p. 64ff.

162

HISTORICAL SURVEY

marked with the sign used for 101 in other mss.; the shape of the sign for lui is different also in a few of the mss. in which it is used. Short lui occurs generally only before geminates and in the neighbourhood of labials. All in all, only three qualitatively clearly distinct vowel phonemes are found in Pal too. From the position of vowel signs in many mss. it is apparent that the glottals and pharyngals were not pronounced at all in some positions at least; however, in some mss., including the first hand in my ms. a in Materials vol. I, more regularly than in the others. On the other hand, vowel signs on both sides of a guttural letter - as, e.g., frequently by the second hand in the same ms.-do not say anything about the phonetic quality or phonological identity of it - it could be, e.g., a secondary 1'1 or semivowel created as a glide in place of a quiescent guttural, as regularly in Sam, or even no sound or hiatus at all, as it is quite possible to pronounce two vowels contiguously, e.g., at a stage in the course of development of a double peak accent. In the statistical treatment of data, however, it was thought safer to lean on the conservative side, although this probably gives a more conservative picture of the consonantism in Pal than the actually underlying pronunciation. As to the spirantization of stops, the infrequent use of signs referring to it again prevents the discovery of exact rules; but generally, it appears that they were not always spirantized, at least when geminated; and on the other hand that, at least in the tradition underlying my ms. b, the spirantization may have extended to I ql and 17j. The original IfI in some roots had also come to be pronounced as lsi. Whether special signs on top of semivowels refer to anything else than their consonantal pronunciation is not clear. The place of word accent is not clear either; using the clue that the vertical line mostly refers to long vowels and that the accentuated ones are usually long in the socalled open syllables, it appears that some passive verbal forms at least, and in some mss. fern. nouns and adjectives too had penultima accentuation. In Bab likewise, only three distinct well established vowel phonemes were found (above, § 13), although some rudimentary beginnings towards distinction between 101 and lui appear, on the other hand, lei appears also as a locally limited allophone of 10/; but also contrariwise, unstressed word final 101 (length uncertain) occurs also as an allophone of stressed long lu:1 in that position. Otherwise, the unstressed vowels seem to preserve the quality of their stressed counterparts, except perhaps for lal for the unstressed variant of which a special sign is used; but this too could have historical origins without phonetic implications; for lal, no unstressed variety occurs in genuine Bab mss. The stressed form of all the vowel signs is used also before geminates.66 66 These details are based on the more detailed or 'complicated" system(s) of punctuation; in the simple system of earlier origin, no differences of accentuation are indicated, and the special sign for unstressed liil is found in a few mss. as a var. for liil generally. The pronunciation may, nevertheless, have been essentially the same.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

163

The differential treatment of the unstressed close vowels before geminates in the different traditions requires special attention. As stated, in Bab they appear to be identical with their stressed counterparts, but the unstressed ones elsewhere too are generally marked with the same sign, the unstressed varr. of 101 and lei occurring in special circumstances only. In Pal, short Ii! occurs generally in unstressed syllables before clusters as well as before geminates, while lui occurs before the latter only apart from some instances in the neighbourhood of labials, thus of assimilatory nature. In Sam, Ii! and lei occur in pre-tone syllables before geminates as well as in the stressed one and also before clusters; while lui, rarely preserved, is found before dorsovelar or -uvular geminates only. In the Gr (and Lat) transcriptions, Iii is found rarely before geminates, lei much more frequently; and similarly in the back vowel, 101 is the regular one in that position; but then, short Ii! and lui are generally rare in the transcriptions. In Tib, the situation is essentially the same as in Pal. It is then in Bab only that both short unstressed Iii and lui before geminates are equated with their stressed equivalents; while in Pal Sam (Tib), short lui only before geminates is in its own category; elsewhere, treatment is not differential. The geminate occurs as a rule in the 2nd rad. of a triradical root; in the final rad. only if another syllable follows, and in the 1st rad. of a biradical root after a preformative. In other words, it has been conceivably created everywhere in the penultimate syllable, and as we saw above (p. 112), the word stress may have lain on the penultima since very early times-what might have preceded it and when cannot be worked out. The geminate may thus have been created in consequence of the stress on the preceding vowel which is plausible, if the stress was rather heavy; the gemination would thus compensate for the decreased sonority of the close vowel. The word stress in Bab may thus have been heavier than in other traditions, in Pal Sam (Tib) also somewhat on the heavier side, but allowing the least sonorous vowel Iii occur before simple clusters too; that this did not occur with lui except in assimilatory circumstances may be due to its more stable articulation basis and thus more conservative nature. The Bab consonantism is comparable to the Tib one. The gutturals show weakness in special circumstances only, although these are partly different from those in Tib, notably in the case of Tib Chatefs, where Bab uses simple unstressed vowels or, in the case ofroot initial 1&1, alternates the position of the vowel, letting the vowel follow where the guttural is word initial, usually also after a verbal or nominal preformative; but normally precede the guttural after a prefIXed particle; largely so with 1'1 too. 1&1 also shows additional vowel following it occasionally inside a word where Tib has none67 and more often at the end of words where it has been mistakenly equated with

67 See,

e.g., Kahle, MO p. 166.

164

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Tib Patax furtivum. 68 The parallel with the same phenomenon inside the word where the vowel clearly follows the guttural, and the fact that it often follows another lal or lal and that its occurrence is confined to 1&1 in word final should be sufficient to indicate that it is connected with a peculiarity of 1&1 only, presumably rather far advanced decay, although not complete quiescization; the E vowel in Gr transcriptions corresponding to a guttural in Hbr text69 may be comparable. The spirantization of stops, not always indicated in the simple variety of punctuation, but regularly in the complicated one, is confined to the dorsovelar, apico-alveolar (or -dental) and bilabial breathed and voiced stops as in Tib, i.e., apparently after a vowel at the time the "law" of spirantization was functioning. The original IfI is also replaced by lsi in pronunciation and occasionally in writing in the same roots as in Tib. The discussion above may have made it clear that much, particularly minor details, of B-L's Lautlehre is untenable; moreover, we have come across several phonetic or phonological features to which no attention is paid by B-L or in other, traditional grammars generally. It may be therefore appropriate to discuss the relevant aspects comprehensively in this connection. The individual phonemes and other phonologically relevant factors having been discussed already, what remains is their influence on each other, manifested mainly in the phenomena usually called assimilation and dissimilation. Assimilation is usually divided into total and partial ones and also into purely consonantal or vocalic ones; partial assimilation may also take place between consonants and vowels; and positionally, progressive assimilation is distinguished from regressive and also the common variety in contiguous positions from the less frequent non-contiguous one. Assimilation of consonants appears to take place in Hbr in contiguous positions only. The best known is the total assimilation of Inl to an immediately following consonant. From this rule, an immediately following glottal or pharyngal is usually considered exempt; but as we have seen that in Sam, a secondary vowel preceding such a consonant before its quiescization is regularly presupposed, and non-formative vowels are found before some of these consonants in Pal Bab too, it might be possible that similar vowels existed before them during the period of the assimilability of Inl already, so that the preceding consonant was not fully contiguous phonetically, thus preventing assimilation, as this is primarily a purely phonetic phenomenon. The lack of Inl is N-stem pref etc. is generally recognized as due to the analogy of the regular verb; Inxml N-stem may have been originally passive voice to what

Cf. ib. Cf. Sperber, HUCA XII (1937) p. 130f; but his idea that 1&1 itself is of course mistaken. 68 69

E

is "transliteration" of Ixl or

165

HISTORICAL SURVEY

now appears as D-stem; in Inxtl, Qal pref could derive from the original biradical Ixtl, as commonly in other I Inl roots. The other cases of nonassimilation of Inl as a 1st rad. to the 2nd in Qal pref have also a cons. with dorsal co articulation at least as the 2nd rad. which also otherwise exert influence similar to that of the pharyngals; the only exception is Indpl which shows still another anomaly in the same passage (Ps 68:3) and must be considered morphologically suspect. Of the other cases of consonantal assimilation, the ability of the dorsoalveolar stop and sibilant to extend their dorso-velar coarticulation to the preceding or following denti-alveolar stop is well known; the usual reference is to the tD-stem of roots 17m'l and Icdqj. That the voiced denti-alveolar stop and sibilant may also extend the voice to the similarly contiguous homorgan cons. and even totally assimilate this is likewise known (cf., e.g., roots Idbr/, IzkV I); in Sam, this extends to a following velar too, cf. Izkrl H-stem, and may be in fact the reason why Qal pref in this root has a vowel between the 1st and 2nd rad. in Sam; 70 cf. a similar secondary vowel between the last rad. and the afformative cons. in the root I Isydj. On the other hand, the assumed assimilation of the preformative It I of t-stems to other consonants as 1st rad.71 can be understood as an In/-formation to L-stem, cf. the prevalent Sam type of N-stem lniqqataIj; and generally, such "morphophonemic" developments owe their existence to the analogy of existing morphological patterns rather than purely phonetic processes such as assimilation. The spirantization of stops is also sometimes regarded as a form of partial assimilation,72 as the process is traditionally attributed to the agency of vowels. In Bab (and Tib), it is certainly closely connected with vowels, as it mostly occurs after vowels, and where this is not the case, a vowel appears to have existed at an earlier stage, presumably capable of causing the spirantization. 73 Physiologically, spirantization of a stop does make it more vowel-like, as it opens the vocal tract to some extent. However, the opening remains very narrow, and the process does not affect all the stops even in Bab (Tib), as those with dorso-velar coarticulation and dorso-uvular articulation bases are not affected; and in Pal, the circumstances are largely unclear, but positive evidence for their spirantization is equivocal at best. As these consonants are produced with nil phonation, as against breath or voice phonation of those affected, the quality of phonation would seem to be relevant; and the importance of vowel immediately preceding would seem to be reduced by the fact

J

70

The Phoen root var. /sh/ may have been created by an opposite process in contiguous

pos~ion.

1 E.g.,

to /k/ in the tL-stem of /kwn/.

72 Cf. B-L § 19.

73 Its origins are not clear, cf. the fact that in Akk, signs of such phenomena are found since OBab period, occasionally even after consonants and in word initial (v. Soden in JNES 27 p.

214ft).

166

HISTORICAL SURVEY

that in G, at least the stops with breath phonation came ultimately to be spirantized in all positions, including geminates. That this is no doubt connected with a similar process in Greek does not affect the argument, as this only shows that the phenomenon is not limited to NSem. The extent of the phenomenon in Sam, however, complicates the issue, as there it is regular in the original Ipi phoneme except for some cases of ancient gemination, but otherwise occurs nowadays only residually in Ibl and is never reported to have occurred in Ikl Igl in earlier times either. It is true that our information does not go back beyond the 12th century at the earliest, but as there is no obvious reason why the spirantization of Ikl Ig/, if it did ever exist, would have been totally lost while that of It I Idl and even Ibl -although the spirant allophone had no equivalent in Arab - still persisted, it appears more plausible to assume that Ikl Ig/ were never spirantized in Sam. Common to these and the stops with nil phonation is that in their production, the dorsum is involved, in coarticulation at least. It would seem, then, that raising of the dorsum towards the soft palate together with closure of the air passage, whether at that point or at alveolus, was able to forestall spirantization, although there were differences of detail between different dialects. As the dorsum is raised in the production of back vowels too, and there are consonants with wider opening of the air passage than in spirants, similarity between these and vowels is rather minimal and the description of spirantization as assimilation of stops to vowels not particularly appropriate. The opposite phenomenon, the influence of consonants upon neighbouring vowels, is more easily recognizable as responsible for some phenomena recorded by the early mediaeval punctuators. The influence of glottals and pharyngals as favouring more open and/or central to back vowels is well known from the Tib tradition, and also largely in evidence in Pal Bab, although less clear, as in Pal, no consistent distinction is made between the fully open and medium varieties of the front vowel, and in Bab, the short central and open front vowel have fallen together. In Sam, there is less evidence of it, as glottals and pharyngals have mostly become quiescent; but where I&1 occurs, it is normally followed by the open central to front vowel, and also /'1, whether original or secondary glide, occurs intervocalically after open to mid-high vowels only. The nearly universal frontation of the short back vowel also parallels the loss of the glottals and pharyngals and may have been connected with their quiescization, cf. a similar phenomenon in Akk. 74 The uvular stop Iql also tends to favour open vowels7S which may likewise be connected with its articulation basis adjoining the pharynx; the fact that

74 Cr., e.g., v. Soden, GAG §9; there is nothing strange about the phenomenon, as the quiescization of the pharyngal involves a shift forward of the articulation basis of the nei~bouring vowel(s) too; cf. Blake in JAOS 65 p.151ff. Cf., e.g., the regular /a/ or /ii/ as the PTdt vowel in Sam before /q/ (roots /qhl/, /ql(l)/, /qsm/ etc.) as against /e/ common elsewhere; also B-L § 18r.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

167

Irl more regularly still is associated with them suggests that it too may have been uvular. However, there is little positive evidence for uvular Irl from the period of punctuated texts,76 so we would have to assume that the traits suggestive of it were preserved for centuries despite the shift of the main point of articulation to the front of the mouth. This is of course not unthinkable, but in a language no longer in everyday use at best hypothetical, and a flapor tap-/rl is at least equally compatible with the most salient characteristic of Irl outside Sam, the lack of geminability, and this is known from other languages, e.g., English, to be associated with relatively low and retracted tongue position and thus favour relatively open vowels. The influence of front oral consonants on neighbouring vowels generally is hardly ever discussed. As most of them are produced with the tip or blade of the tongue at or close to the hard palate or the alveolar region, they would most naturally be associated with the unrounded frontal vowels and thus favour them. This is in fact often discernible, e.g., in the development of the nominal preformative Ima-I to lmi-I, in so far as the change may take place against the law of polarity,77 if the 1st rad. is a sibilant,78 and also other front oral consonants show development of an original lal to frontal quality often at an earlier stage than when preceding other consonants.79 The semi-vowel Iy I often shows a preceding Iii vowel corresponding to a Tib Shwa and may be transformed into it in syllable final after another vowel.80 Assimilation of non-contiguous vowels appears to have taken place in certain circumstances before and during the historical period of Hbr while still an everyday spoken language.81 More often, however, the opposite process of dissimilation is involved in the changes of vocalism. The overall tendency during the period from which first hand information is available seems to be a mixture of frontation and polarization,82 with partly conflicting effects, but overall leading to a reduction in the use of vowels and hence, in the sonority of the text. The frontation of the (originally) short back vowel in Sam, resulting as a rule in lal when unstressed or lengthened, in lei when stressed and remaining short, seems to have the opposite effect, as even lei is more open than the postulated and occasionally preserved lui, while lal is the most open and 76 Cf. p. 76f above.

~ Cf. below, in connection with the dissimilation. E.g., roots jzbxj, jspdj, jftVf. 79 Cf., e.g., roots jdbrj, jmnxj, jnpfj (Sam G), j&zrj etc.; as against formations with preformatives from roots jglxj, jgrf j, jk'bj, jkwV j, jkl(l)jII, jknsj, jmlkj etc.; however,

these too often show developing front vowels influenced by the rule of polarity or similar diss~ilatory factors, cf. '?elow. . Cf., e.g., my MaterIals vol. I p. 27 (no. 10),32 (no. 7); vol. III p. 155; m Bab, partly under diff~fent conditions, cf. Kahle, MO p. 165. Cr., e.g., B-L § 16; also the development of original jqati:1f to jqti:lj and of jqatu:lj to jqtu:1f (ib. §61sa,c.B) may have involved assimilation of the short vowel to the long one as an inte~ediary stage. Cf. Part I Section A p. 64f.

168

HISTORICAL SURVEY

hence, most sonorous of all the vowels. However, in the very earliest of our sources, the LXX transcriptions, the original short /u/ usually appears already modified to /0/83 the degree of opening of which is comparable to lei; hence, the frontation to /e/ does not involve increase in sonority; and as for the shift to /a/, this takes place mostly in Qal pref where it is usually counterbalanced by the opposite shift of the original preformative vowel /a/ to Iii; also in the nominal type /qutl/, the final cluster is usually broken by a less sonorous vowel, unless the final cons. favour a more open one. Overall, there may be slight increase in sonority resulting from these developments in Sam; but this is more than compensated for by other developments, and in the other traditions, the development of an original /u/ to /a/ remains rather modest (Pal, Tib) or hardly detectable. The development of the original /yaqtul/ pattern into /yiqtal/ in Sam brings it under the umbrella of the so-called law or rule of polarity whose function appears to be to reduce the sonority of an utterance, usually single word, to more easily manageable level by not having more than one open vowel in it. This is most easily noticeable in Tib in cases like nouns formed by /ma-/-preformative from roots with a pharyngal as the 3rd rad. with /i! as the stem vowel, e.g., /mapte:(a)x/, cs. /miptax/ in which the front vowel is preserved in st.abs. on the strength of its length, and therefore /a/ in the preformative as the only open vowel in the word;84 but in st.cstr., the stem vowel retains its shortness and is transformed into /a/ under the influence of the pharyngal; subsequently, obeying the "law of polarity", the preformative vowel is transformed into /i/. Parallel to the last stage, the entire /maqtal/ type is transformed into /miqtal/, unless the 1st rad. favour an open vowel or be assimilated to the 2nd, the resulting geminate also protecting the original vowel.85 In our materials, this process is in various stages of development, in the transcriptions barely started,86 in Sam mostly advanced to the level of lei, in Pal Bab vacillating between /ma-/ and /mi-/ even in one and the same word,87 but with /ma-/ (Bab /ma-f) in clear majority, although in Pal, /mi-/ is more advanced than in Bab. Similar development is found in the type /maqtul/,ss although here, there is no question of polarity in the ordinary sense; accordingly, it appears that the /0/ level is sufficient to trigger off the opposite development of /a/ towards Iii. Parallel to it is of course the much more common Qal pref vowel /i/ of the regular verb in Pal Bab (Tib) 83 Cf. ib. p. 13. 84 The "furtive Patax", being a late creation and optional at that, is not relevant. 85

/miqqax/ is a later formation, presumably influenced by /yiqqax/.

86 cf. Br0nno, Studien p. 172ff; NB /mi-/ before sibilants only; Sperber, HUCA XII p. 191~

Cf., e.g., roots /dbr/, /wx/, /Jp7/.

SS Cf. roots /zmr/, /kJl/; with passive connotations ("what is sung / stumbled on"), this

type is certainly more plausible than /maqta:l/ which involves secondary lengthening without obvious cause; also /gdl/ which has preserved the original vocalism only in the place name (Part I Section A no. 928).

HISTORICAL SURVEY

169

in which the 101 vowel is still preserved in the majority stem form; in G, mostly f appears in analogous positions,89 thus representing an intermediary stage of the development. Dissimilatory phenomena occur also in the final stages of the development of long vowels under a double peak accent, as discernible in Q and Sam. In most cases, it is a question of the development of nouns of the Iqutlj type with a glottal or pharyngal as the 2nd rad., or of other words of a similar structure. In Q, the development appears to be in its initial stages, Iw I as a mater lectionis indicating the stem vowel now after the 1st cons., now after the 2nd, occasionally in both positions.90 The forms with a vowel indicated in both positions are most naturally interpreted as actually having a vowel in each of them, of identical quality; whether they were fully separated by a glide-like cons. or under a double peak accent is naturally not demonstrable, but in the light of the evidence of the decay of gutturals (p. 24f above), the original middle cons. was hardly preserved.91 With only one vowel indicator, the plausible assumption is that the accentuated vowel was indicated, and thus the variation in position would reflect the shift of the accent from the penultima to the ultima; the fact that similar variation is found in roots with three sound radicals 92 would seem to support this interpretation rather than the alternative one that they reflect forms in which dissimilation of one of the vowels has taken place. This latter is regularly the case in Sam, where comparable bisyllabic forms have been preserved, largely developed apparently in overlong syllables; they may be divided in two types according to which vowel is dissimilated, the original or secondary one. In nouns and nounlike formations, the original vowel is usually dissimilated, resulting in open central to mid-high frontal vowel; cf., e.g., roots I'hlj, Ir'J I, PNd Iz'tl, PTa Im'd/. Similar phenomena, however, occur in other types of noun as well as in verbal forms, and in them, usually the secondary vowel is dissimilated, and then regularly into la/, if it indeed ever had a different quality; so in roots Ikws/,93 I Isyd/, and in certain verbal forms of some irregular roots, while another class has yet another type of formation. In the nouns, the stress remains on the original vowel, whether dissimilated or not; but in the verbal forms, it moves on to the secondary one or further, depending on the length of the form; it would seem, therefore, that the word accent does not play crucial role in them. The major class comprises forms from the roots (original) I Iw I as well as hollow roots, any forms of H ps as well as Q ps pref, of the I Iwl roots N-stem forms also. It appears that

J

89 Cf. Br~nno, Studien p. 24ff; the type with the stem vowel /0/, however, is rarely attested;

HUCA XII p. 158ff. Cf. roots /'hl/, /p&l/, /fxd/; more generally /r'fI, PNd /z't/, PTa /m'd/ etc. ~ Even /' / may have been recreated as a glide, cf. below. Cf., e.g., roots /gdl/, /qcrf. 93 The var. /ke:was/ is perhaps secondarily differentiated to conform with the semantic difference.

Spe~r,

170

HISTORICAL SURVEY

the I Iw I class is at the root of the formation, presupposing the existence of the bisyllabic base throughout, as secondary stems generally; but otherwise than in the active stems, the first stem vowel is not lost upon preflxation of the stem preformative,94 and so a trisyllabic base is created: j*hu+wa&idl > * Ihuwa&idl > I'u:wwa:'ed/; *Ina+wa&id+tij > *Inawa&idtil > (with assimilation of the preform. vowel to the semivowel) Inu:wwa:'fdti/; etc. Loss of the first stem vowel could also be conceivable, leading to an overlong first syll. with a falling diphthong, j*hu +wa&idl > *Ihu:w&id/, with subsequent breakup of the medial cluster by means of a svarabhakti, again resulting in the attested forms. On formation of pref, the Ihl of the stem preformative was elided in H ps and Inl of N-stem losing its vowel assimilated to the semivowel, while in Q ps, the preformative was applied directly to the semivowel, with comparable results. Similar formations from hollow roots may be analogical applications of the complete pattern so created. The other group consists of some I/'I roots, primarily /,kl/, I'mr I; whether I'wtl really belongs to the same class is not certain. The Q pref only is affected, as in Pal Bab (Tib) in some other I/'I roots besides. In l'kI/, the primary form could have been &/ya'kil/95 or *Iya'kul/; in the latter case, dissimilation of the stem vowel after the development of 101 in the preformative must be postulated; in the former, centralization of an original close front vowel in some (Bab) Tib forms. The development may have been parallel to Ir'S I (if its prototype was indeed *Ira'SI) up to the point where this developed a double peak accent leading to the bisyllabic form attested in Q (as it seems) and Sam; however, the overlong syllable which appears to have been the reason for this development in Ir'S I does not seem to have been present in the verbal form, and the result of the dissimilation is also phonetically different, in the noun lei, albeit usually rather open, but hardly ever la/; in the verb, regularly la/. 96 Two alternative explanations seem possible: either a vocalic element was preserved in the Q Sam traditions after 1'1, or created secondarily in connection with the ultimate decay of gutturals. 97

94 Or if it is lost, it is recreated at a later stage in the process leading to the formation of actually attested forms; the fact that contracted forms occur alongside the bisyllabic formations might seem to support this; but contraction could take place secondarily as well. In either case, there is no necessity to assume analogical influence of to- or to-stem, let alone assimilation of the It/-preformative of such a stem to the semivowel-needless to say, there are no parallels to such an assimilation; elsewhere, in such an encounter it is the semivowel that is lost, cf., e.g., Ho~er,A1tsiidar. Gr. §77. a. B-CH, Tradition V p. 101. 96 Which may be responsible for the preservation of the more open 101 quality in the subsequent vowel despite its length in Ritter's, Shaade's and sometimes my own recordings; but.jlf an allophonic var. only it has not been recorded in the present work. That /,1 in these verbal forms was not altogether quiescent until that period is strongly suggested by its regular preservation in the biblical consonant text as against considerable fluctuation in the subsequent period; cf. also similar treatment of syllable final 1'1 inside the word in III /,1 roots, whereas word final/'I interchanges with Ihl more often in the Bible

HISTORICAL SURVEY

171

In the case of I'wt/, the gemination of the semivowel98 created an overlong syllable which was broken up as in the nominal types discussed above, recreating the /,1 as a glide; the overlong syllable still alternates in the pronunciation of some informants99 with the bisyllabic formation. It is not clear whether the semivowel was consonantal in the Sam prototype (as against Bab = Tib), cf. formations like Ixwrl in MT; in any case, the stem vowel was likely to be more or less diphthongal, more open on the side of the glottal,1°O so as to provide starting point for the consonantalization of the semivowel. Comparable bisyllabic formations are found in the H-stem of ly7b1 as well as in some nouns, e.g., of the roots I'yb/, I'yl/ (/'ayyal/, incl. Tib), I&wrI (also vb.); in Iyn VIII, the gemination of the semivowel in the Sam prototype must be ancient, as it appears as Ibl in the present-day pronunciation. Another case of dissimilation found in Sam only is the elision of an original word initiallyI, if another one secondarily develops after the subsequent vowel; the usual example is N-stem pref 3.m. of roots with a glottal or pharyngal as the 1st rad. which after quiescization develops IyyI as a glide; e.g., I'iyya:kel/ for *lyiyyakell from *Iya + hin + 'akiljIOI through *Iyin'akill > *lyi"akil/, cf. Tib Iye'fl.kel/. In pl., with the word accent receding further away, the whole initial syllable may be lost, cf. Iyya:ke:lul Lv 22:8, I(w)ya:me:nul Gn 42:20. 102 What is called the assimilation of glottals and pharyngals is problematic. In most traditions, it is restricted to the progressive assimilation of the initial Ihl of the PNp 3.sg.sf. to a preceding Inl or It I at the end of certain verbal

already, d. roots /b7' I, /br'l = /brVI, Idk' I = IdkVI, Iqr' IV I etc. It seems that pronunciation of syllable final /,1 inside the word persisted generally to the end of the biblical period, whereas word fmal ones were lost at an earlier stage. In the case of /,kll and /,mr/, however, early weakening in the pronunciation of 1'1 so as to allow for the lengthening of the prewrmative vowel would have to be assumed. 99 Not recorded by Pet, but this may be due to his inaccurate method of recording. 1~ a var. in my recordings, in B-CH's as the only one. cr. also roots /,wn/, Igw&l, l&wl/Il, I&wrl etc., pharyngals having similar effects as glotl91s. Or • Iya+na+-I; but cf. nact. 102 Other cases of reputed loss of a syllable, as in B-L §2lqr, are due to erroneous fundamental postulate, d. Part Three in the appropriate categories. Similarly, e.g., the assumption of the Bab lwi-I being more original than (Sam Pal Tib) Iw-I has insufficient evidence for it; in Sam, the conjunction is practically always prefIXed to the initial consonant of the subsequent word (where extant in pronunciation), often so as to be hardly discernible by ear, and also-depending partly on the quality of the following cons., but also variously by different informants-realized as the vocalic allophone lu/. Situation in Pal Tib seems much the same, although Pal indicates vowel lal or leI, occasionally also IiI or luI, intermittently without discernible rules; IiI may thus be an analogous Bab only phenomenon, even if more regular. Interchange between the consonantal and vocalic allophones of the semivowels occurs also in the to-stem of I IY/, d., e.g., roots Iygr/, lyd&l, Iyld/, lyr'l; Iwl appears capable of being transformed into a stop also without preceding gemination, if word initial or preceded by a cons. (d. the Tib Dagesh lene), d. roots Igw&l, lydV I, Iwwl etc.; in the latter, the second IwI may be secondarily assimilated to the initial one.

172

HISTORICAL SURVEY

forms. 103 Such a morphosyntactically restricted phenomenon agrees badly with the character of assimilation in general as a purely phonetic phenomenon; moreover, in other connections these pronominal elements as well as their pI. counterparts often simply lose the glottal fricative without any compensation for it, whether it be called elision of psilosis accompanied by consonantalization of the vowel; the sound is also known or assumed to have been elided in other contexts, such as in the PTdt after a prefixed preposition, or in the stem preformatives of H- and t-stems after prefixed conjugational preformatives, always apparently without any compensation; there are also exceptions from these rules with preserved Ihl, including the so-called assimilation cases. Furthermore, the character of Ihl as a simple breathing imposed on air stream is not likely to make much impact on the consonant with which it is amalgamated; in the case of Itl, if it was still non-phonated, Ihl may have provided it with breath phonation; if already breathed, no impact at all. The gemination of It I in connection with the attachment of the suffIx appears thus to have been a secondary one, perhaps indirectly caused by it, but hardly so as to justify the term, assimilation. As for Inl, the element in verb final which usually assimilates Ihl is generally agreed to be etymologically related to the Arab energic Inl which itself is regularly geminated when its final vowel is preserved. The gemination of this element in Hbr may thus also be inherent in the nasal itself, not created by any assimilation; in the prep. lminl, it may be due to the analogy of other persons having geminates in the final element due to the assimilation of Inl to the suffix consonant104 when followed by a vowel. The disappearance of Ihl after the nasal may have been due to the strong resonance effect of the geminated nasal voicing the fricative too and thus rendering it hardly perceivable by ear, voiced Ihl being rare in any language and hardly found in Hbr in other positions, whereas forms of these suffixes without Ihl are found elsewhere. As for the glottal stop and the pharyngals, their gradual and ultimately total loss in G has never been described in terms of assimilation, reasonably enough because of lack of indications suggesting it. In Sam too, the loss of word initial or final, postconsonantal or intervocalic glottal or pharyngal, whether replaced by a secondary glide or vowel contraction, has not been attributed to assimilatory processes, but that of one immediately preceding another cons. has been so described. lOS The reason for this, at least for myself, has been the fact that in most such cases the subsequent consonant is geminated; however, there are exceptions, and although gemination can have

103 Cf.

B-L § 15 I; also PTpr /min/. The lack of gemination in the context form with 2.sg.m.sf. indicates that the final vowel is secondary, cf. the lack of indication for it in the consonant text with few exceptions; the genfiWe form would have been /-ak/, cf. G Pal. Cf., e.g., B-CH, Tradition V p. 26.; also by myself in some connections, but cf. Materials III §29. 104

HISTORICAL SURVEY

173

been given up secondarily, the fact that the same sounds have been lost in other positions without residue and that secondary gemination is otherwise frequent phenomenon in Sam suggests that in this case too it is secondary, only indirectly connected with the loss of the guttural, to maintain the duration of the former cluster, cf. the fact that occasionally it is found in III V verbs too;l06 this phenomenon need not necessarily be attributed to the analogy of III 1'1 class only, but to the general pattern of corresponding other verbal forms. It is then better not to speak about assimilation of glottals and pharyngals at all. 107 §25. Summary and the emerging phonetic rules. 108 The prehistoric development of the parental of Hbr was already described down to the old Canaanite period as far as deducible from our materials. No additional features, including original allophonic relationship of Ixl with Ikl or Ikl with It I once considered possible are sustainable on the evidence. The final stage of this development appears to have been dominated by a relatively heavy accentuation; how long it lasted is hard to know, but if the lol-quality of the long open vowel is indeed secondary and not created with the phonological length of it, then it is best attributed to it, as Aram does not presuppose it and it agrees with characteristic effects of heavy stress, this tending to reduce the sonority of utterances which takes place mainly through overall reduction in the quantity and sonority of the more open vowels, although closer vowels and other sonants too suffer comparable reductions. If so, the period of heavy stress may have lasted several centuries, as the earliest example of the la:1 to 10:1 development is now dated to ca. 1700 B.c.,109 and it does not seem to have ended yet during the Amarna period. There are indeed indications that this change was of common WSem origin,l1O but the evidence is rather sporadic and so the SSem parallels could have originated separately in analogous conditions; otherwise we would have

106 Cf. Materials III §30; also, e.g., in the root ImfV I.

107 Sporadic examples of still other phenomena connected with contiguity of sounds are mentioned by B-CH, Tradition V p. 62ff; e.~., loss of IyI preceding another one inside words too; but there is no positive evidence for Iy/ ever having replaced original/'I in constructions like Imi:'iyya:bi:kfmmii/, and in cases like la:'itil the replacement of the original Iyl by /,1 is due to the influence of the preceding lal vowel, hence assimilatory, as also Iwwl in I-uwwil from more original I-u:y/. In Ima:demmem/, the geminate maybe due to the influence of the Na I'adum/, but in most cases, Sam secondary geminates are hard to trace to their sources; in Igml/II, however, Bab Tib have the secondary geminate, cf. the cognate languages. Still other cases are morphological rather than phonetic in nature, B-CH postulating the development of the Sam form from the Tib form; e.g., Ime:fiilliil comes evidently from *Ima +fallax/, the 2nd rad. this root being geminate in all the Sam attestations. 1 Familiarity with the preceding paragraphs is presupposed here, and so no cross refel(l§nces are given. also my Materials III § 109. 1 Viz.,lxa-zu-ur I = biblical /xaco:r/, see Gelb in JCfS 15 p. 43f; and cf. Dahood, UH p.81 10 Cf. also Rabin in H&SS Driver p. 109.

fJf

fl

174

HISTORICAL SURVEY

to assume Aram to have lost it secondarily. This is supported by the fact that in Eg too a similar development took place, as it seems independently and certainly later than in Can, as the Amarna letters still quote the relevant Eg names and words with la/; the earliest example of lui (= 10:/) is from Tell Ta&annek, but the process was not yet completed in Herodotus' time. 1l1 Short vowels would have been more easily affected; when unaccented, they would tend to be reduced to the point of losing their phonological status, re-emerging after the period assimilated to the preserved long vowel in the next syllable, if this was close in quality; sequences laCi:1 and laCu:1 would thus become liCi:1 and luCu:/; whereas laCa:/, where preserved, would be dissimilated to liCa:/. In some cases, the initial rad. would be provided with a prothetic vowel, leading to the restructuring of the type of formation,112 after the heavy stress period. At the end of words, short vowels and some consonants too would tend to be lost, temporarily also elsewhere in the word, partly leading to transpositions, particularly where secondary vowels had been created before the period;113 some sonants, mostly In/, would be assimilated on contact to the following consonant. 114 In certain words, with habitual, professional or otherwise intensive or emphatic meaning, a vowel or consonant may have been long since their creation, and with the development of secondary verbal stems and a system of nominal types, those features came to serve as patterns for the derivation of semantically comparable expressions from primary stems with short sounds only, apparently favoured by the heavy stress. This would then have lain on the long syllable, and the vowels of other syllables would have been reduced and to some extent elided, possibly creating syllabic consonants too. The heavy stress period appears to have ended rapidly, as the secondary vowels created to break up clusters generally have or presuppose the open lal quality, calculated to maximize the increase in sonority in agreement with the lighter accentuation. ll5 The close vowels Ii! and lui were also often modified to the more open lei and 10/, particularly in word final closed syllables. This trend seems to have persisted until shortly before the Maccabean period, as the earliest Q texts and LXX transcriptions still show signs of it. 116 111 Sethe, ZDMG 77 p. 167ff. 112 This does not necessarily presuppose complete loss of vowel Spei~~r, AJSL 42 p. 149; and Part I Section A nos. 1469ff, 1473, 1488ff.

after the 1st rad.; d.

4 Such as the nominal type • /qutul/, largely var. of • /qutl/, particularly in Arab.

The beginnings of this seem positively datable to the Amarna period, as forms with preserved /n/ alternate with assimilated ones; d. Leander, ZDMG 74 p. 64, 67. On the effects of heavy stress in Eg d. Sethe, ZDMG 77 p. 193ff, 201ff; and Vycichl, WZKM 54 p. 220f; genmilly Garbell, Word 14 p. 320ff. Cf. the development of the secondary vowel in the OAss to MAss st.cstr.: in OAss, its quality is usually determined by the stem vowe~ later it becomes universally /a/; see MatousPetracek, AOr 24 p. 1ff (the existence of an /a/ vowel is hardly provable, and even if it were, it would have been rather open to be marked with an /a/-sign); more generally, d. Garbell, Wor~ 14 p. 332ff; Speiser, AJSL 42 p. 145ff; Vycichl, WZKM 54 p. 219f. 6 Friedrich, ZA 1 p. 3ff dates the loss of short final vowels in NWSem not until between 11

HISTORICAL SURVEY

175

Vowels in overlong syllables were often diphthongized and broken up into two syllables. Fricativization of stops after vowels began. In the 2nd century B.c., the accentuation began to grow heavier again and reached its peak some time in the 2nd century AD., as evidenced by the steady decrease of vowel indication in the Q (and Masada, Mur) documents culminating in those of the Bar-Cochba period, parallelled also in the transcriptions; characteristic developments in Sam are also datable to this period, including rapid acceleration in the decay of gutturals. The effects of the heavy stress were similar to those during the earlier heavy stress period, but on some points went farther still, including the loss of final anceps and occasionally even long vowels which assisted in a large-scale shift of word stress to the ultima in some branches of tradition (Pal, Bab, late Q), albeit to a somewhat varying extent, and no doubt influenced by Aram too. The influence of Aram also caused the development of If I to lsi in a number of roots, although Gr may have assisted in some well-known names, such as Israel, cf. also MH Isymwnl for Ifm&wn/. Consequences of the heavy stress were also more remarkable at times, including contraction of short phrases into single words and, apparently after the stress began to grow lighter again, creation of prothetic vowels, particularly in Sam, to a much larger extent that after the earlier period. The quality of the secondary vowel created to break up clusters and the like also seems to have been usually closer than after that period, in some early instances ll7 apparently determined by the preceding vowel, later more commonly lei (Pal) or lal (Bab, Tib). The spirantization of stops, on the other hand, seems to be rather neutral vis-a-vis the vagaries of the accentuation, and it went on through the heavy stress period leading to a complete spirantization of Ibl, Igl, Idl, Ikl, IpI, It I -as far as discernible-in G and nearly so in Lat, while it may have been confined to the position after vowel in Pal Bab (Tib), although in Pal, 171 and Iql may occasionally have been affected too; in Q and Sam, the situation is not clear, although in Sam, only Ibdptl were affected, but developed later one-sidedly, Idl and It I entirely and Ibl mostly regaining their original sound; but spirantized Ibl in certain positions amalgamating with the original Ipi into IfI, while anciently geminated Ippi acquired voice to become Ibb/; these later developments in Sam were doubtless influenced by Arab. The 101 vowel in Sam and sometimes in Pal, occasionally elsewhere too developed into lal, the close lui in Sam closed syllables and sometimes elsewhere into lei; sporadic la:1 > le:1 in Sam is due to the Arab imala. Overlong syllables the Klmw-inscription and ca. 400 B.C.; but in the 1970 ed. of Friedrich-Rollig's Grammatik (§ 92) it is admitted that even for the old Byblian inscriptions they can only be surmised, not proven; and in Mesha- and Siloam-inscriptions they seem to be absent anyway. The end of the heavy stress period appears thus datable to the time before the earliest Hbr and generally southern NWSem and maybe Phoen written documents, and the trend towards lighter accy¥fuation persisted close to a millennium. See, e.g., Part I Section A nos. 1474ff, 1481£f.

176

HISTORICAL SURVEY

again show tendency to break in two, and long consonants and vowels are used more frequently, sometimes both in one and the same word, to express varying kinds of emphasis or intensification. Towards the end of the period in the scope of our study, signs of the reversal of the development begin to appear in Pal Bab (Tib), including occasional regaining of the explosive pronunciation for a meantime spirant, but these remain minor. The emerging phonetic rules are: a) Consonants. i) Glottals: Increasing quiescence, first word and syllable finally, in Q and Pal to some extent, in Bab (Tib) occasionally also word initially; in G (Lat) Sam totally, but in Sam (0 Bab) 1'1 often recreated as a glide between open and half-open vowel varieties. ii) Pharyngals: Largely like glottals, but survive longer in G and remain residually as an 1&1-like allophone of 1'1 in Sam word initially as a rule before open vowels only in place of a written Ixl as well as 1&1 and occasionally also a glottal followed by another glottal, pharyngal or Ir/; in Bab, Ixl seemingly hardly affected at all. iii) Dorso-uvular stop: In Sam, often pronounced like an unusually energetically articulated /'1, particularly between open and half-open vowels; in a weakly attested Pal branch, appears to have been fricativized post-vocalically. iv) Dorso-velar stops: Ikl initially aspirated, date uncertain; then also Igl fricativized before the end of the biblical period, as a rule post-vocalically, in G (Lat almost) totally, including when geminated; in Sam, not fricativized. v) Denti-alveolar region: Simple stops like the dorso-velar ones; also in Sam at first, but later rendered explosive again; I I originally lamino-dental (1) stop or affricate, then fricativized and shifted to lamino-alveolar (or prepalatal) position; replaced by /sl in a number of roots at the end of the biblical period under Aram influence in Pal Bab (Tib); in G Lat totally, as also Ic/; 171 appears fricativized post-vocalically in the same Pal branch as Iq/; Inl assimilated on contact to the following consonant since the Arnarna period apart from occasional exceptions due to the Systemzwang and later to Aram influence; often transformed into nasal vowel word finally in G; Irl loses geminability towards the end or after the biblical period except in Sam. vi) Labial stops: Simple ones like those of the denti-alveolar region, except that in Sam, Ipi permanently fricativized except when early geminate which becomes Ibb/, both under Arab influence; Iml occasionally partly denasalized on contact with a following sibilant or Irl in G (Lat); its labial closure perhaps less firm around the end of the biblical period, when also often transformed into nasal vowel word finally in G. vii) Semivowels: Have vocalic allophones between two consonants; rarely in Pal (but regularly in Tib) Iw I word initially before another labial or consonant cluster, irregularly in Sam before any consonant in more or less free variation; Iwl in Sam transformed into Ibl when early geminate or also

J

HISTORICAL SURVEY

177

word initially or post-consonantally before an la/-vowel or also after /a/ before another vowel; both /w(w)/ and /y(y)/ often secondarily created as a glide after the homorgan close vowel in Sam (0 Bab Pal? less often). b) Vowels. (i) Open variety: Basically /a/ everywhere; when short, shifted to /a/ in Bab (partly Tib), to /e/ partly in Pal; when lengthened, partly to /a:/ and sometimes /e:/ in Sam118 (and to /A/ in Tib); the early long /a:/ was transformed into /0:/ in old Can and later occasionally in overlong syllables into diphthong probably in aPal 0 and evidently in early G, later still into bisyllabic formations in (O?) Sam Pal Bab (Tib); but not in all such syllables, nor always the same words in all traditions; at least mostly under the principal word accent; in other instances, the vowel remained /0:/ in G Pal Bab (Tib) and became /u:/ or, when unstressed, /0/ in Sam. The old long /e:/ is perhaps understandable as originally a frontal allophone of such an /0:/; it was treated analogously, with /y/ replacing /w/ as a glide and in Sam, /i:/ and unstressed /e/ standing for /u:/ and /0/, respectively. Short /0/ dissimilated to /e/ (and further to Iii) before another /0/ incipiently in G Sam, further in Bab, more often in Pal (and regularly in Tib); largely also before /0/. ii) Close varieties: /i/ when short has commonly lei, including an open variety in G (Lat?), and even /a/ in Bab (Tib when devoid of accent) for allophones; /u/ similarly varieties of /0/ (Tib /A/ when devoid of accent) which may turn /a/ commonly in Sam and sometimes in Pal (Tib?), or /e/ in Sam in closed stressed syllables; when lengthened commonly /e:/, /0:/ (Sam /u:/, /a:/!) respectively; an old /i:/ and so /u:/ is usually retained unchanged, except in Sam, where the latter may develop into a bisyllabic formation otherwise like an old /0:/, but even in open syllables in some forms of passive verbs; and /i:/ like an old /e:/, but in closed overlong syllables onlyY9 118 I cannot perceive any rounding in Sam la:1 when listening to my tape recording, nor any i~dication of it in my spectrographic specimina (cf. the Appendix). 11 Philippi's "Law" is understandable as standardization of vocalization according to inflectional categories of more original variation between roots, cf. largely different standardization in Akk Arab etc. Going further into details is hazardous, but in response to a challenge in OrSu XXXIII-XXXV p. 167ff I must provide some items there with marginal notes: P. 168: there are few items in Hbr whose etymology is more reliable than that of the nominal Im-I-preformative, to wit, from the PNir Imal in its relative function "that which .. ." (cf. also B-L p. 488f); on the other hand, whatever the reduced vowel of Tib /'armnoWtl (Jr 17:27) was originally, the sg. form and I'rmwnwtyhl 1QIsa 34:13 make Jerome's lal highly exceptional. P. 169: not only sibilants, but also other front oral consonants favour front oral vowels, being homorgan; as to the pronunciation of glottals and pharyngals in Jerome's time, cf. § 7 above; thus Jerome's bula is contracted, and lolam, sirim likewise; and Lat Ii! can stand for lyil as well, both Iyl and Idl also favouring front oral vowels; but semivowels also form clusters more easily than any other consonants and are easily liquefied into a vowel which accounts for the vowelless Iw-I too, with parallels additionally in G Sam and, with Shwa standing for no vowel, mostly Bab Tib as well; and the sequence, muta cum Iiquida, is also more common than most other clusters; lei is a common allophone of Iii, and lui is almost regularly fronted to lei in Sam and often otherwise in Hbr, cf., e.g., Npr nos. 59, 61, 64, 192, 205, 218 (Tib also!) etc. in Part I Section A. Apart from that, there was no "blending of vowel

178

HISTORICAL SURVEY

c) Accentuation. The word accent appears to have been on the penultima since the earliest times to which Hbr as an independent language (as distinct from Can) is traceable; how far it may have been different in earlier times is not clear; but since the early times of our era a gradual, in different traditions more or less rapid shift of the main accent to the ultima has been taking place in late Q as well as Pal Bab (Tib). The accent was inherited from a heavy stress period, but grew rapidly lighter at first and continued to be lightened until close to the end of the biblical period, when there was another heavy stress period of between three and four centuries leading to a somewhat lightened accent persisting, with only occasional indications towards renewed strengthening, until the end of the period relevant to our study.

qualities" in Southern Palestine or anywhere else; the main transcription tradition (= G) was not connected with Pal and neither of them with Bab until the rise of the Tib school which seems to have taken ingredients from both of the earlier punctuation systems. NB. the authors quoted (p. 174 n. 19) speak about "reduction" and "Ausfall" of unstressed short vowels rather than "blending".

APPENDIX

Spectrograms to illustrate Samaritan Hebrew sounds. As there is dispute concerning the phonetic identity of certain vowel sounds of Samaritan Hebrew, some specimina from spectrograms prepared for me kindly by Mr. Bourke of the phonetics laboratory of Monash University, Melbourne are given on the attached chart to illustrate the issue. They are based on excerpts from the recitation of the Book of Deuteronomy chapter 11:10-15 according to the Samaritan Pentateuch at Nablus in April, 1958 by Priest Atef Nadji who had been recommended to me as one of the equal best readers in that city, the place of residence of most surviving Samaritans. As the recording was not made for the purpose of spectrographic analysis, the quality of the specimina is rather defective, but they should be sufficiently clear to satisfy the present need. 1 To facilitate the examination of the prints, twofold reading of the text on which they are based is given underneath; the upper one is mine, as I hear the text recited from the magnetic tape, the lower one is that of Professor Z. Ben-Hayyim, as printed in his Tradition vol. V p. 531f. The standard patterns for the different vowels for comparison have been taken from Potter, Kopp and Green, Vzsible speech (1947) p. 66, 69, 72. Although they are schematic, made from vowels by themselves, whereas in the continuous speech the sounds overlap and therefore influence the patterns of the neighbouring sounds, it should be clear than what Ben-Hayyim transcribes 181 has nothing like a mid-vowel pattern, the bar corresponding to the second formant being far higher up, usually partly broken off, thus characteristic of a rather high front vowel, i.e., lej. Similarly, the lower bar (for the first formant) is evidently higher up than for any back vowel and interval regularly present between it and the second one in what Ben-Hayyim transcribes lal, while his lal is mostly like standard lal and sometimes lei! As to the vowels he terms overlong, there is indeed an lal in v. 10 which is longer than any other in my prints; but the "overlong" one in the beginning of v. 11 is no longer than the "long" one later in the same verse in a similar context; and his "overlong" Iii in v. 15 is actually shorter than the following merely "long" lal or lei earlier in the verse, and hardly half as long as the "long" lal in its beginning; and the "long" Ii! towards the end ofv. 10 is likewise much longer.

1 I wish to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Bourke once more for his trouble in producing the prints which are indeed the best possible under the circumstances (the specimina are also selected partly with an eye on their quality); as well as Professor Goran Hammarstrom for authorizing the preparation of the prints.

"

--

.,. .,.

. ... ....

""

.. '" "

.

~'" '"

.. '" ." ...

"".l>

...

;ora.;

."

, ..,

... ~

ii ii

.. . ••

" ...

..

to ..

...... "" ..

;; ii

.. .. ... ....

u OJ

. ..

••

.

t'

U

• (up)

a (about)

~

(churcla!

(Gene"" A."...rican)

S

(c.hur'cla) (&a.r, tern)

(boot)

PART THREE MORPHOSYNTACfICS

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

CONTENTS PART TIIREE: MORPHO SYNTACTICS FOREWORD

xv

UST OF ABBREVIATIONS

xvii

BIBUOGRAPHY to Parts Two and Three

xxxi

INTRODUCTION §1. Preliminary remarks.

1

§2. Basic principles. Morphology and syntax, 1. Case and mood, 2. Semantic basis, 4. Morphemes, 4. Proper names, 5. Roots, 5. Stems, 6. Gender, 6. Number, 7. Pronouns, 7. Particles, 7. Verb, 8. Phrases, 8. Sentence, 9. Subdivision of some morphemes, 9.

1

§3. Some consequences in practice. Statistical analysis, 10. Quantifiability, 10. Semantic regrouping of morphemes, 10. Hbr as the central language, 11. Chi-square test, 11. Waring distribution, 11. Applicability, 11.

10

CHAPTER ONE: SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES § 4.

General remarks.

13

§5. Proper names. Basic works, 13. Main categories, 13. Word names, 13. Sentence names, 14. Abbreviated and/or contracted names, 15. Occasional inflection, 15. Determination, 15. Syntactical functions, 15.

13

§6. Nominal and verbal roots. Number and quality of radicals, 16. Root augments, 16. Nasal, 17. Semivowel, 17. Glottal, 18. Origins, 18. Sibilant, 19. /t/, 20. Other augments not demonstrable, 20. III V roots, 21. Hollow and continuable roots, 21. Phonetic parallels between hollow roots and semivowel augment, 21.

16

§ 7.

22

Cardinal numerals under 100. Nominal derivation, 22. Roots, 22. Formation, 22. Inflection, 22.

viii

CONTENTS

Congruence, 23. Anomalies of vocalism and syntactical construction, 24. Collective nature, 25. §8. Personal pronoun.

25

Relevant forms, 25. Inflection, 25. Syntactical functions, 26. § 9.

Demonstrative pronoun.

26

Inflection, 26. Syntactical functions, 26. § 1O.

Relative pronouns.

§ll. Indefinite and inte"ogative pronoun.

27 27

CHAPTER TWO: MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES a. Separate morphs: particles. §12. Introductory remarks.

28

§13. Adverbs.

28

Formation, 28. Syntactical functions and special subcategories, 29. § 14.

Prepositions and conjunctions.

29

Prefixable prepositions, 29. Other simple and composite ones, 29. Syntactical functions, 30. Conjunction: co- and subordinative, 30. Origins of subordinative function, 30. §15. Relative and determinative particles.

31

Relative function, 31. Overlaps with determinative, 31. Vocalism of PTdt, 32. Indefinite particles, 32. §16. Interjections.

32

Deictic particles, 32. Pure interjections, 32. Syntactical positions, 32. Secondary developments, 32. b. Formation of stems.

§lZ Nominal types. Formation, 33. Main groups, 33. i) /qV/, 33. ii) /qal/, 33. iii) /qil/, 35. iv) /qulj, 35. v) /qa:lj, 35. vi) /qe:lj, 36. vii) /qi:lj, 36. viii) /qo:lj, 36. ix) /qu:l/ 37. x) /qall/, 37. xi) /qill/, 37. xii) /qull/, 38. xiii) /qatl/, 38. xiv) /qitl/, 39. xv) /qutl/, 39. xvi) /qatal, 40. xvii) /qatil/, 40. /xviii) /qatulj, 41. xix) /qital/, 41. xx) /qitil/, 42. xxi) /qutalj, 42. xxii) /qutil/, 43. xxiii) /qutulj, 43. xxiv) /qo:tal/, 43. xxv) /qo:til/, 44. xxvi) /qata:l/, 44. xxvii) /qati:lj, 44. xxviii) /qato:lj, 45. xxix) /qatu:lj, 45. xxx) /qita:l/, 46. xxxi) /qiti:lj, 46. xxxii) /qito:lj,

33

CONTENTS

ix

46. xxxiii) /qutayl/, 46. xxxiv) /quti:I/, 46. xxxv) /quto:lj, 46. xxxvi) /qutu:I/, 46. Lengthening of 2nd rad., 47. xxxvii) /qattal/, 47. xxxviii) /qattil/, 48. xxix) /qattul/, 49. xl) /qittalj, 49. xli) /qittil/, 49. xlii) /qittulj, 49. xliii) /quttal/, 49. xliv) /quttil/, 49. xlv) /quttulj, 49. xlvi) /qatti:lj, 50. xlvii) /qatto:lj, 50. xlviii) /qattu:lj, 50. xlix) /quttu:I/, 50. I) multiconsonantal, 50. Repetition of radicals, 51. li) /qalqal/, 51. Iii) /qalqil/, 52. liii) /qilqil/, 52. liv) /qulqul/, 52. Iv) /qalqi:I/, 52. lvi) /qalqu:lj, 52. lvii) /qulqu:I/, 52. lviii) /qataltal/, 52. lix) /qatultulj, 53. Ix) /qutultul/, 53. lxi) /qataltu:I/, 53. lxii) /qatlal/, 53. lxiii) qatlul/, 53. lxiv) /qut(u)lalj, 53. lxv) /qatli:lj, 53. lxvi) / qatlu:I/, 53. Types formed by means of preformatives, 53. lxvii) Preformative /'-/, 53. lxviii) Preformative /b-/, 54. Ixix) Preformative /h-/, 54. lxx) Preformative /hin-/, 54. lxxi) Preformative /hift-/, 54. lxxii) Preformative /hit-/, 54. lxxiii) Preformative /y-/, 55. lxxiv) Preformative /m-/, 55. lxxv) Preformative In-I, 57. lxxvi) Preformative Is-I, 57. lxxvii) Preformative / f-/, 57. lxxviii) Preformative It-I, 57. Types formed by means of afformatives, 59.lxxix) Afformative /e/, 59.lxxx) Afformatives /-i:/, /-Vy/, 59.lxxxi) Afformative /-1/, 60. lxxxii) Afformatives ending in /-m/, 60. lxxxiii) Afformatives ending in /-n/, 61. lxxxiv) Afformatives ending in /-t/, 62. lxxxv) Other afformatives based on /t/, 62. § 18.

Verbal stems and voice.

63

Primary and secondary stems, 63. Primary stem with two bases, 64. Afformative conjugation based on noun of agent, 65. Imperative and preformative conjugation based on noun of action, 66. Noun of agent, 67. Noun of patient/potent, 70. Noun of verb, 70. Agential and actional groups of conjugation, 71. Moods, 71. Irregular roots, 72. Secondary stems, 73. With internal modifications, 74. Passive voice, 75. With external stem preformatives, 76. Intransitive vs. transitive insufficient, 78. Reflexive, 79. Rarely attested categories, 79. c. Inflectional formatives.

§19. Nominal afformatives and declension. Vocalic modifications secondary, 80. Ns inflected in number and state, Na in number and gender, 80. Traces of Ns inflection in gender, 80. Forms and application of afformatives, 81. Incidental afformatives, 82.

80

§20. Verbal pre- and afformatives and conjugation.

83

Conjugational vs. stem preformatives, 83. 1st and 2nd pers., 83. 3rd pers., 83. Vocalism, 83. Afformatives for number, gender and mood,

CONTENTS

x

84. Afformative conjugation, 85. Verbal nouns, 87. §21. Functional division of conjugation.

87

Division into moods, tenses and/or aspects etc., 87. Influenced by accentuation, 89. CHAPTER THREE: COMPLEX MORPHEMES §22. Introductory remarks.

90

a. Non-predicative units. §23. Nominal phrases.

91

Consisting of noun regent and attributes, 91. §24. Verbal phrases.

91

With a verbal noun as verb regent, 91. §25. Adverbial phrases.

92

§ 26.

92

Prepositional phrases.

b. Sentence. §27. General observations. Various modes of classification, 92. Derived from the text to be analysed,93.

92

i. Predicational classification.

§28. Nominal sentences.

94

Elementary nominal sentence, 94. Word order, 94. Adverbials, 94. Copula, 95. § 29.

Verbal sentences. Elementary verbal sentence, 95. Subject may be unexpressed, 95. Word order, 95. Predicative supplements and adverbials, 96.

95

ii. Gradation of sentences.

§30. Preliminary remarks. Successive levels of analysis, 96.

96

§31. Main sentences.

97

Pattern analysis of Dt chs. 1 to 10,97. Introduced asyndetically or by coordinative conjunctions, 98.

CONTENTS

§32. Subordinate sentences.

xi 98

Classification, 98. Asyndeta, 98. Relative clauses, 99. PTrel may function as any nominal part in them, 99. Always initial, 99. Introduced by subjunction, 100. Two major subgroups, 100. CHAPTER FOUR: HISTORICAL SURVEY §33. Preliminary observations.

102

§34. Proper names. Tendency to abbreviation, 102.

102

§35. Roots. Problem of bi- vs. triradicality, 103. Of pre-Sem origin, 103. Root augments, 103. Vocalic expansion, 105. Repetition of 2nd rad., 108. Triradicals in minority in pre-Sem, 110. Transformation of semantic structure, 110. Sem subdivisions, 111. Common Sem inventory, 111. Triradicals in majority, 112. Later roots, 112. Augmentation on the decrease, 113. Statistical evaluation of cognates, 114. Om, 114. Chad, 115. Berb, 115. Cush, 116. Eg, 116. Subdivisions of Sem, 117. Conclusions, 117.

103

§36. Numerals. Confined to Sem, 118. Anomalous congruence and inflection indicate early origins, 119. Late Hbr development influenced by Aram,119.

118

§37. Pronouns. Classification on phonetic basis, 120. i) vocalic, 120. ii) /n/- element, 120. iii) /k/-element, 121. iv) /x/-element, 122. v) /t/-element, 122. vi) /m/-element, 123. vii) /h/-element, 124. viii) /z/-element, 125. ix) /I/-element, 125.

119

§38. Particles. Two major classes, 125. i) deictic-interjectional, 126. ii) morphosyntactical, 126. Compound PTa/pr increase in late Hbr, 127.

125

§39. Formation and declension of nouns. Few pre-Sem nominal types, 127. Common Sem origin of the system, 128. Connected with pI. formation and phonological length of sounds, 128. Transition from collective to pluralistic concepts, 128. Number and gender distinctions intertwined, 128. Fluctuation still in historical times, 129. Origins of pI. afformatives, 130. Nominal stem

127

xii

CONTENTS

preformatives rare and partly differently patterned outside Sem, 132. No positive evidence for types with phonological length of sounds in pre-Sem material, 133. Originated in accentual variation, 134. Developments caused by root irregularities, 135. §40. Verbal stems and conjugation.

137

Proto-Semi to-Hamitic origins?, 137. Parallels to R- and F-stems in Chad, 137. /-s/-causative in Hsa?, 137. /-t/- and /-s/-stem formatives and reduplication as well as / -t/ and / -n/ conjugational afformatives in Om, 137. In Cush, nasal stem formatives too, 138. In Berb, formatives usually identifiable with Sem ones, but often developed differently, 139. In Eg, /s/-causative; oR-stem in limited use; /k/, /t/, /n/ in afformatives, 141. Sem, 141. Summary, 142. Internal passive, 143. §41. Syntactical morphemes.

144

Word order, 145. Classification of sentences, 145. Phrases, 146. Length, 146. Frequency of occurrence, 146. Hsa, 146. Som, 147. Fass, 147. Tu, 147. Cpt, 148. Har, 148. Te, 149. Hrs, 150. Akk, 150. Arab, 151. Syr, 151. Hbr: Sam, 152. Q, 152. Pal, 153. Bab, 153. §42. Morphosyntactical summary.

154

Recombination of proper names and numerals with roots, 154. Separation of nominal and verbal sentences, 154. Fourteen units for statistical comparions, 155. Hbr: Sam, Q, Pal, Bab, 155. Syr, 159. Akk, 160. Arab, 161. Hrs, 162. Te, 163. Har, 164. Som, 165. Hsa, 166. Fass, 167. Tu, 168. Cpt, 169. Summary, 169. COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS a. Introductory observations.

1

b. Comparisons.

2

Standard Hbr sample, 3. Cognate languages, 5. Aram, 6. Arab, 7. SAr, 8. Akk, 9. NEth, 10. SEth, 11. Eg, 12. Cush, 13. Berb, 14. Chad, 16. Om, 17. c. Discussion and conclusions.

17

APPENDICES APPENDIX I: NOMINAL PARADIGMS. i) /qV/, 1*. ii) /qal/, 2*. iii) /qil/, 4*. iv) /qulj, 5*. v) /qa:lj, 5*. vi) /qe:lj, 6*. vii) /qi:lj, 7*. viii) /qo:l/, 7*. ix) /qu:lj, 8*. x) /qall/, 9*.

1*

CONTENTS

xiii

xi) /qill/, 9*. xii) /qull/, 10*. xiii) /qatlj, 11*. xiv) /qitl/, 12*. xv) /qutl/, 13*. xvi) /qatal/, 14*. xvii) /qatil/, 15*. xviii) /qatulj, 15*. xix) /qitalj, 16*. xx) /qitil/, 16*. xxi) /qutalj, 17*. xxii) /qutil/, 17*. xxiii) /qutul/, 18*. xxiv) /qo:talj, 19*. xxv) /qo:til/, 20*. xxvi) /qata:l/, 20*. xxvii) /qati:l/, 20*. xxviii) /qato:l/, 21 *. xxix) /qatu:l/, 22*. xxx) /qita:lj, 22*. xxxi) /qiti:I/, 22*. xxxii) /qito:lj, 23*. xxxiii) /qutaylj, 23*. xxxiv) quti:l/, 23*. xxxv) /quto:I/, 24*. xxxvi) /qutu:I/, 24*. xxxvii) /qattalj, 25*. xxxviii) /qattil/, 25*. xxxix) /qattul/, 25*. xl) /qittalj, 25*. xli) /qittil/, 26*. xlii) /qittulj, 26*. xliii) /quttalj, 26*. xliv) /quttil/, 26*. xlv) /quttulj, 26*. xlvi) /qatti:lj, 26*. xlvii) /qatto:lj, 27*. xlviii) /qattu:lj, 27*b. xlix) /quttu:lj, 27*.1) multiconsonantal, 28*. Ii) /qalqal/, 29*. Iii) /qalqil/, 29*. liii) /qilqil/, 29*. liv) /qulqulj, 30*. Iv) /qalqi:l/, 30*. lvi) /qalqu:lj, 30*. lvii) /qulqu:lj, 30*. lviii) /qataltal/, 30*. lix) /qatultul/, 31*. Ix) /qutultulj, 31 *. 00) /qataltu:lj, 31 *. OOi) /qatlal/, 31 *. OOii) /qatlul/, 31*. Ixiv) /qut(u)lal/, 31*. lxv) /qatli:l/, 31*. lxvi) /qatlu:lj, 32*. lxvii) Preformative /'-/, 32*.lxviii) Preformative /b-/. 33*. Ixix) Preformative /h-/, 33* .lxx) Preformative /hin-/, 33* .lxxi) Preformative /hift-/, 33*. lxxii) Preformative /hit-/, 33*. lxxiii) Preformative /y-/, 33*. lxxiv) Preformative /m-/, 34*. lxxv) Preformative In-I, 39*. lxxvi) Preformative Is-I, 40*. lxxvii) Preformative /f-/, 40*. lxxviii) Preformative It-I, 40*. lxxix) Afformative /-e/, 44*. lxxx) Afformatives /-i:/, /-Vy/, 44*. lxxxi) Afformative /-1/, 46*. lxxxii) Afformatives ending in /-m/, 46*. lxxxiii) Afformatives ending in /-n/, 47*. lxxxiv) Afformatives ending in /-t!, 49*. lxxxv) Other /t/-afformatives, 50*. APPENDIX II: VERBAL PARADIGMS. A. The regular verb. Oal, 52 *. Oal II, 53 *. Oal III, 53 *. 0 ps, 53 *. to-

stern, 54*. D-stem, 54*. D ps, 55*. tD-stem, 55*. N-stem, 55*. H-stem, 56*. H ps, 57*. T-stem, 57*. A-stern, 57*. B. The irregular verbs. i) I guttural. Oal, 57*. 0 ps, 58*. to-stern, 58*. ?D/tD-stems, 58*. N-stem, 58*. H-stem, 59*. H ps, 59*. ft-stem, 59*. ii) II guttural. Oal, 59*. D-stem, 59*. D ps, 60*. tD-stem, 61 *. H-stem, 61 *. iii) III guttural. Oal, 61 *. 0 ps, 64 *. D-stem, 64 *. D ps, 647*. tD-stem, 65*. N-stem, 65*. H-stem, 65*. ?H ps, 65*. iv) Exceptional 1/,/, 65 *. v) I /n/. Oact, 66*. 0 ps, 67*. N-stern, 67*. H-stem, 68*. H ps, 69*. vi) I /y / (original). Oact, 69*. H-stem, 69*, H ps, 70*.

51 *

xiv

CONTENTS

vii) I /y/ (original I /wI). Oact, 70*. N-stem, 71 *. H-stem, 71 *. H ps, 72*. viii) III V. Oal, 72*. D-stem, 73*. 0 ps, 74*. to-stem, 74*. N-stem, 74*. H-stem, 75*. H ps, 75*. ix) Hollow roots. Oal, 75*. 0 ps, 78*. D-stem, 78*. D ps, 78*. to-stem, 78*. L-stem, 78*. L ps, 79*. tL-stem, 79*. N-stem, 79*. H-stem, 79*. x) Geminable roots. Oal, 80*. 0 ps, 81*. L-stem, 82*. L ps, 82*. tL-stem, 82*. R-stem, 82*. R ps, 82*. tR-stem, 82*. N-stem, 82*. H-stem, 82*. H ps, 83*. f-stem, 83*. xi) Multiradical roots. Oal, 83*. 0 ps, 83*. to-stem, 83*. H-stem, 83*. APPENDIX III: SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF CHAPTERS 1 TO 10 OF THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY WITH REGARD TO THE FUNCTIONS OF THE AFFORMATIVE CONJUGATION. Oal: Referring to the present, 84 *. Referring to the future, 84 *. Referring to the past, 85 *. Perfective usage, 85 *. Pluperfective usage, 85*. Future perfect, 85*. D-stem: Referring to the present, 85*. Referring to the future, 85*. Referring to the past, 86*. Perfective usage, 86*. Pluperfective usage, 86*. tD-stem: Referring to the past, 86*.

84*

N-stem: Referring to the future, 86*. Perfective usage, 86*.

Pluperfective usage, 86*. H-stem: Referring to the present, 86*. Referring to the future, 86*. Referring to the past, 86*. Referring to past future, 87*. Perfective usage, 87*. Pluperfective usage, 87*. H ps: Perfective usage, 87*. Jt-stem: Referring to the future, 87*. APPENDIX IV: SYNTACTICAL ANALYSES OF SAMPLES OF NON-MASORETIC HEBREW DIALECTS AND TRADITIONS. i) Sam, 88*. ii) 0, 91 *. iii) Pal, 93*. iv) Bab, 93*.

88*

APPENDIX V: TIGRE TEXT SAMPLE IN TRANSLITERATION.

96*

APPENDIX VI: HARSUSI TEXT SAMPLES. Text I, 100*. Text II, 103*. Photocopy facsimile.

100*

FOREWORD Most of what was stated in the foreword to Part Two concerns this part also. As the comprehensive synopsis of the entire scope of the study exceeds the limits of morphosyntactics, it is separated into its own compartment, with page numbers restarting from 1; and as the appendices could only be placed at the end of the volume, although they are primarily related to the main part, they too must be numbered separately, but with a following asterisk to indicate their subsidiary character. Contents of appendices I to III also contribute to making an index unnecessary in this part too. Again, my thanks are due to Mrs. and Mr. Gelbert for the exemplary preparation of the camera-ready copy; to Mrs. Johnstone for authorizing me to edit the Harsusi text samples; to Professor Herrmann Jungraithmayr for allowing me to use the Marburg Chadic Word Catalogue; to Dr. F.Th. Dijkema and others at E.J. Brill for patiently carrying the work to successful conclusion; and most of all to my family for tolerating long years and years of what has amounted to almost total failure of attention and fatherly duties; hopefully it is not yet altogether too late to try and make amends, Deo volente. Melbourne, 10 November 1989

A Murtonen

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A A, A-stem

= adverbial. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative

A' AASFB abs. abstr. ac(c.) A.D. Ad

= Greek version of OT called Aquila's.

/' lor la/.

= Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae ser. B. = absolute (state etc.).

= abstract. = accusative (case).

= anno Domini. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative

/' I from a base with a long second radical.

Adir a(dj.) a(dv.) af

= adjective, -ivaI. = adverb(ial).

MO

= Archiv flir Orientforschung.

a.fr. agst. AHwb AJSL AK Akk AI Am A.M. Ambr. Amh AmhS Amm Amor An -AN

= directional adverbial.

= afformal, conjugation formed by means of afformatives only

("perfect", "Nominal", "stative", "qtl").

= and frequently.

= against.

= Soden, W. von, Akkadisches Handworterbuch. = American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.

= Abd-al-Kuri. = Akkadian.

= local adverbial.

= modal adverbial; el-Amarna.

= (text edited by) the author. = Bibliotheca Ambrosiana. = Amharic. = the Shoan dialect of Amharic. = Ammonite. = Amorite, -itie. = negative adverbial, negation. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative

I-ani·

Anm. anon Ant

= Anmerkung, note.

Ant. Ao AOr AP aPal

= Josephus' Antiquitates Iudaicae.

= anonymous.

= the Antonin collection (Evr. lITh) in the Leningrad Public Library.

= objectival adverbial.

= Archiv Orientalni. = adverbial phrase.

= ancient Palestinian (inscription etc.).

xviii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Aps Ar,AR

= passive voice of A-stem.

-AR

= secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative

Arab Aram arch. Ard

= Arabic.

art.

aSm Ass At AT ATa ATap AtF ATs Aufl. aux B+ Bab BASOR

B.c.

B-CH Bd. Bed Berb BH BHS bibl.

Bil

BK

B-L

Boh. BV bybl. BZ c

c.

CAD Caf Can

= secondary verbal stems formed by means of a preformative

1'1 from reduplicated bases.

I-ar/·

= Aramaic.

= archa(ist)ic. = Arad (ostracon etc.). = article. = ancient Samaritan (ostracon etc.).

Assyrian. temporal adverbial. attribute. adjectival attribute. = apposition( al attribute). = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative I't/ from a base with repeated second radical. = subordinate (substantival) attribute. = Auflage, edition. = auxiliary. = group of LXX mss. with Vat.gr. 1209 as the main one. = Babylonian (punctuation, dialect etc.). = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. = before (the birth of) Christ. = Z. Ben-Hayyim. = Band, volume. =: Bedauye, Bedja. =: Berber. =: Biblical Hebrew; Biblia Hebraica (ed. R. Kittel). = = = =

= Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

biblical. Bilin. =: Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. = Bauer, H. & P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebr~iischen Sprache. =: the Bohairic dialect of Coptic. =: Yeivin, I., The Hebrew language tradition as reflected in the Babylonian vocalization. =: of Byblos (Gebal). = Biblische Zeitschrift. = causative (verb). = cum, with. =: Chicago Assyrian dictionary. =: Cafa(itic language). = Canaanite. =: =:

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Cat

= the so-called Catena group of LXX msS. (mostly efjsvz in

cf.

= confer, compare. = Chaha. = chapter(s). = Chadic.

Ch ch(s). Chad Chadr. Chr

crn

CIS cj, Cj, conj. ClAr

cnf

cn(t.) coh col. Colb. colI. condo cons. cont(emp). cop COIT.

Cpt crfl crrp Csi cs(tr.) ct Cush d

D,D-stem dat. d(em.) Oem. den. det. Diff. dir. dL

Dpref Dps Dq

Dqpref

xix

Jos, dfjpqtz in lCh).

= the Chadramaut dialect (of Arab, ESA).

= Chrysostomus.

= CIS pars quarta. = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.

= conjunction.

= Classical Arabic. = cuneiform.

= continuative (verb).

= cohortative (mood).

= column. = the Colbertinian onomasticon (as edited by dL). = collective. = conditional.

= consecutive; consonant. = contemporaneous.

= copula(tive). = corrected. = Coptic; Vycichl, W., Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue

copte.

= causative-reflexive (verb).

= corrupt.

= the Coislianian onomasticon (as edited by dL).

= construct (state etc.).

= context (form). = Cushitic.

= determined (c. PTdt). = verbal stem (mostly secondary) with long second radical.

= dative (case).

= demonstrative (pronoun); diminutive (form).

= the Demotic (dialect(s), script) ofEg. = denominative. = determinative.

= difference (in the chi-square test).

= directional; noun with directional afformative ("He locale"). Onomastica sacra etc.). = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative from a base with long second radical. = passive voice of D-stem. = secondary verbal stem with long first radical. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative from a base with long first radical.

= Paul de Lagarde (as editor of

xx

Dtr

duo

E'

-E

Ea Eb Ebl Ec Ed ed. Eg E-G e.g. emph. en ENA Epiph ESA etc. Euagr euph. Eus ex Exp.

F

Fass Fekh f(em.) f(f) FOr fro f(ut.) FW G GAG Ges-B Ges-K Gis gn gnt(1c). Gr

GS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

= Dietrich, M., Neue paliistinisch punktierte Bibelfragrnente. = dual. = Greek translation of OT called quinta. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative j-ej (with falling tone). = pentateuchal ms. with simple Bab punctuation. = ms. of prophets with simple Bab punctuation. = Eblaite. = hagiographa IDS. with simple Bab punctuation. = Edelmann, R., Zur Friihgeschichte des Machzor. = edited, -tion. = Egyptian. = Erman, A. & H. Grapow, Worterbuch der agyptischen Sprache. = for example. = emphatic. = energic (mood). = the E.N. Adler collection. = Epiphanius. = Epigraphic South Arabic. = and so forth. = Euagrios (on the divine names, as edited by dL). = euphemism, -stic; euphonic. = the Eusebian onomasticon. = existential (particle, verb). = expectation (in the chi-square test). = secondary verbal stem with repeated second radical. = Berber spoken at Fassato. = Tell Fekherye (inscription). = feminine (gender). = and the following one(s). = Folia Orientalia. = frequently. = future (tense etc.). = foreign word (not adapted to the phonology of the borrowing language; cf. L W). = Hebrew utterance in Greek transcription. = Soden, W. von, Grundriss der akkadischen Gramrnatik. = Gesenius-Buhl hebraisches und aramaisches Handworterbuch tiber das Alte Testament. = Gesenius-Kautzsch hebraische Gramrnatik. = Gisiga. = genitive (case). = gentilic (noun, adjective). = Greek. = Davidson, I. (ed.), Genizah studies in memory of Dr S. Schechter vol. III.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Gur

= Gurage; Leslau, W., Etymological dictionary of Gurage

gutt. Gzr G&z H H, H-stem

= guttural (glottal or pharyngal). = Gezer (inscription, "calendar").

hab Ham.-Sem. Har Hbr Hex Hi. Hitt Hps H-R Hrs Hsa HUCA Hunt. hypocor. H&SS

-I

ib. i.e. IEJ imp imp. impers. -IN incl. ind indecl. indef. infl. los lOS

I.P.A

IR JAL JANES JAOS JAram

(Ethiopic).

= Ge&ez (Old Ethiopic).

= (after lQ) the scroll of thanksgiving hymns from Qumran.

= secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative Ihl.

= habitual (mood etc.). = Hamito-Semitica, ed. Bynon. = Harari. = Hebrew. = Origen's Hexapla; Hexaplaric (group of LXX mss. etc.). = Hieronymus (St. Jerome). = Hittite. = passive voice of the H-stem. = Hatch & Redpath concordance of LXX. = Harsusi. = Hausa. = Hebrew Union College Annual. = the Huntington collection of mss. = hypocoristic. = Hebrew and Semitic studies presented to G.R. Driver. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative I-il (with falling tone). = ibidem. = that is. = Israel Exploration Journal. = imperative (mood). = imperial (Aramaic). = impersonal. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative

I-in/·

= including.

= indicative (mood). = indeclinable.

= indefinite.

= influence( d).

Flavius Josephus. Israel Oriental Studies. International Phonetic Association. Inscriptions reveal. Journal of African Languages. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University. = Journal of the American Oriental Society. = Jewish Aramaic. = = = = = =

xxi

xxii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

JCfS

= Journal of Cuneiform Studies.

JL JNES JQR js JSS ITS Ka Kab KAI Kap. Kb K-B Kbr Kc KhLS Kl kt L, L-stem 1. Lat Lch LgEbl 199 Lib Lih Lis

= J anua Linguarum.

J-H

= Jean-Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de l'ouest.

Lps Luc LW(W) LXX M

M-

Macc maj MANE m(asc).

MAss

MBab Md

= Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

= Jewish Quarterly Review.

= jussive (mood). = Journal of Semitic Studies.

= Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

= pentateuchal ffiS. with complicated Bab punctuation.

= Kabyle. = Donner-R611ig, Kanaanaische und aramaische Inschriften. = Kapitel, chapter. = ffiS. of prophets with complicated Bab punctuation.

Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon. Kober, M., Zum Machsor Jannai. hagiographa ms. with complicated Bab punctuation. Khoisan Linguistic Studies. Klostermann's edition of the Eusebian onomasticon. = Iktib I, the consonant text. = secondarily lengthened verbal stem. = line. = Latin; Hebrew utterance in Latin transcription. = Lachish (ostraca). = Cagni, L. (ed.), La lingua di Ebla. = languages. = Libyan. = Lihyanite. = Lisowsky, G., Die Transskription der hebraischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch in der Septuaginta. = passive voice of L-stem. = so-called Lucianic group of LXX mss. (usually = bye2 in lCh). = loan word(s) (adapted to the phonology ofthe borrowing language, as against FW). = Greek translation of OT called the Septuagint. = (after 1Q) the war scroll from Qumran. = (tractate of) the Mishna. = Book of the Maccabees. = majority of NT mss. (or of a major group of them). = monographs on the ancient near east. = masculine (gender). = Middle Assyrian. = Middle Babylonian. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative Iml from a base with long second radical.

= = = = =

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Mdq mg MH Mhr MI Min. Mnd Mo

MO

ms(s). MSA

MT MTB

Mur MW N N, N-stem

n. Na Nad N-A Nab nact nag Nagcs/d NAss NB. NBab Ndiv n(eg.) NEth n.l. Nn Nncs nom(m). no(s). NP Npr npt

NPu Nr Ns

NS cs / d

xxiii

= secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative /m/ from a base with long first radical. = margin(al). = Mishnaic Hebrew. = Mehri. = the Mesha inscription. = the Minaean dialect (of ESA). = Mandaic. = Moabite. = Kahle, Masoreten des Ostens. = manuscript(s). = modern South Arabic (languages). = the Masoretic text (of the Hebrew Bible). = Kahle, Der masoretische Text des Alten Testaments nach der Ueberlieferung der babylonischen Juden. = (text from) Wadi Murabbaat. = Kahle, Masoreten des Westens (2 vols.). = noun. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

/n/.

nominative (case); noun; note. (noun) adjective. Na with PTdt. Nestle-Aland ed. of Novum Testamentum Graece. Nabataean. noun of action ("infinitive construct"). noun of agent ("active participle"). nag in cstr. / with PTdt. Neo-Assyrian. observe! Neo-Babylonian. divine name. negative, -tion. North Ethiopic. place name. numeral noun (under 100). Nn in cstr. nominative (case); noun(s), name(s). number(s). nominal phrase. proper name. noun of patient/potent (=passive or potentially active "participle"). N eo-Punic. noun regent. (noun) substantive. Ns in cstr. / with PTdt.

xxiv

N.S. NSem NSyr NT Ntn nvb NWSem

o

-0

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

= nova/new series. = North Semitic.

= Neo-Syriac.

= New Testament.

= secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative /n/ and inserted /t-n/.

= noun of verb ("infinitive absolute"). = North-West Semitic. = object.

= secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative /-0/.

Oa OAkk OAmh OAss OBab o(bj.) obI. Occ. Oe OLZ Om om. -ON

= affected object.

op.cit. opt Or Orig orig.

= the work quoted (previously). = optative (mood).

Or(m)

or.r. OrSu o.s. OT P

p.

Pal pal. Palm pc Pent perf., pf. Pers pers. Pet

= Old Akkadian.

= Old Amharic. = Old Assyrian.

= Old Babylonian.

= object, -tive, -tival. = oblique (case). = occurrence (in chi-square test).

= effected object.

= Orientalistische Literaturzeitung.

= Omotic.

= omitted.

= secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative /-on/.

= Orientalia; Oromo.

= group(s) of LXX mss. influenced by Origen's Hexapla.

original(ly). Ormann, G., Das Siindenbekenntnis des Versohnungstages. direct speech. Orientalia Suecana. oneself. Old Testament. predicate. page. = Palestinian (punctuation etc.). = (Arabic) spoken in Palestine. = Palmyraean (Aramaic). = few (mss.). = Pentateuch(al). = perfective (verb). = Persian. = person(al). = Petermann, Versuch ... = = = = = = = =

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

pHab

= (after 1Q) commentary on the book of Habakkuk from

Phoen pI. pluperf. pm PN PNcn PNcop PNcr PNd PNdd PNdt PNft PNid PNir PNo PNp PNpe PNpf PNpfsj PNpr PNps PNrel PNrfl PNsj po. PoP

= Phoenician.

Por

prec pref preform. pr(ep.), Pr pres. PrIASH PrNB prob. proh pron. PrP ps Ps PT PTa PTcj

Qumran.

plural. pluperfective (verb). (by the) first hand; numerous (ross.). pronoun. continuative PN. copulative PN. correlative PN. demonstrative PN. PNd with PTdt. determinative PN. futuristic PN. indefinite PN. interrogative PN. = object PN. = personal PN. = enclitic PNp. = preformative PN. = subjunctive PNpf. = relative PNp. = possessive PN. ::: relative PN. = reflexive PN. ::: subjunctive PN. = postposition. = postpositional phrase. = Porath, E., Mishnaic Hebrew. = precative (mood). = preformal, conjugation with preformatives for subject elements ("imperfect", "aorist", "yqtl"). = preformative. = preposition. = present (tense). = Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. = Preisigke, Namenbuch. = probably. = prohibitive (mood). ::: pronoun. = prepositional phrase. = passive; pausal (vocalization etc.). ::: predicative supplement. ::: particle. = adverb. = conjunction. = = = = = = = = = = = = =

xxv

xxvi

PTcs PTd PTdt PTemph PTex PTexn PTij PTir PTn PTo PTopt PTpo PTpr PTprev PTrel PTs PTvb PTvoc Pu pV Q

Q,Qal Qact Qag Qat. Qd QH Qpref Qps qre QS Qt(n) qtr q.v. Q4r (ps) R R, R-stem RA rad. Rahlfs RB ref. reI. rell rep. RES Rev

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

= cstr. particle. = deictic PT. = determinative PT ("definite article"). = emphasizing PT.

= existential PT. = negative PTex.

= interjection.

= interrogative adverb. = negation.

= object PT. = optative PT. = postposition. = preposition. =

preverb.

= relative PT.

= subordinative preverb.

= verbal PT. = vocative PT. = Punic.

= preverb. = Qumran (documents etc.). = the primary verbal stem.

= the actional group of conjugations of Qal. = the agential group of conjugations of Qal.

= the Qatabanian dialect (of ESA).

= secondary verbal stem with long third radical. = Qumran Hebrew.

= secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative. = passive voice of Qal.

= /qre/, the text to be read.

= Kiryath Sepher. =

secondary verbal stem formed by means of inserted /t( -n)j.

=

which see.

= 4x.

= (passive voice of) 4-radical verb.

verso, reverse. reduplicated verbal stem. Revue d' Assyriologie. radical, root consonant or (rarely) vowel. Rahlfs' edition of LXX. = Revue Biblique. = reference. = relative. = the rest of the mss. = reported. = Revue des etudes semitiques. = Revell, E., Hebrew texts with Palestinian vocalization.

= = = = =

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

RO Rps RQ RSO S Sab. SAE Saf

SAL

Sam SamAram SamH SamM SamT SAr sbj. Schl. Sdd sec. Sem sep. SEth sf. Sfr sg. Sgf

SoH Sid Sil -S(IN) Sir sj, Sj Sjrel sm Som Soq Sp SP SSem St St

st.

xxvii

Rocznik Orientalistyczny. passive voice of R-stem. =: Revue de Qumran. =: Rivista degli Studi Orientali. =: subject; (after 1Q) the Manual of Discipline from Qumran. =: Greek translation of OT attributed to Symmachus. =: the Sabaean dialect (of ESA). =: Siidarabische Expedition (Wiener Akademie). =: Safaitic. =: Studies in African Languages. =: Samaritan. =: Samaritan Aramaic. =: Samaritan Hebrew. =: commentary on SP attributed to Marqa. =: Samaritan Targum. =: South Arabic. =: subject; subjunctive (mood). =: Schlatter, A, Die hebraischen Namen bei Josephus. =: Soddo. =: section. =: Semitic. =: separate. =: South Ethiopic. =: suffix( ed pronoun). =: Sifra (cf. Por p. 7ff, 186ff). =: singular. =: Siegfried, C., Die Aussprache des Hebraischen bei Hieronymus. =: Semito-Hamitic (phylum). =: Sidamo. =: the Siloan tunnel inscription. =: secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative /-s(in)/. =: the Ben Sira scroll from Masada. =: subjunctive (mood, conjunction), subjunction. =: relative (particle functioning as a) subjunction. =: (by the) second hand. =: Somali. =: Soqotri; Leslau, W., Lexique soqotri. =: Sperber, A., Hebrew based upon Greek and Latin transliterations. =: the Samaritan Pentateuch. = South Semitic. = sentence. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative /st/. = stative. =:

=:

xxviii

Ste s.th. StL Stn StOr Strel

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

=

elliptical sentence.

= something. = Studia Linguistica.

= nominal sentence.

~r·

Studia Orientalia. relative sentence. verbal sentence. Sumerian. Berber spoken at Sus (Morocco). entry word. the Syrohexaplar. syllable. = Syriac. = (Arabic) spoken in Syria. = secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative

It(n)

= secondary verbal stem formed from I-stem by means of an

T, T-Stem

= secondary verbal stem formed by means of a preformative

Sty

Sum Sus s.v. Syh syll. Syr

t(A/At/D/

= = = = = = = =

/I/·

inserted /t( on);'

/t/.

F/L/Q/R)

= secondary verbal stems formed by means of a /t/-

Te Tg Tham Thdt Tib TibH -T(IS)

= Tigre. = Targum.

TK T.M. tpref trsp. TS T-S tt(D etc.)

= =

Tu e'

=

-u

U-F Ug UH UT

preformative (from A/ At/D/F /L/Q/R-stems).

=

Thamudic.

= Theodoretus.

= Tiberian (punctuation etc.).

= =

= =

= = =

=

=

Tiberian Hebrew. secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative /-t(is);' Sifra or Tarat Kohanim ed. L. Finkelstein. Professor T. Muraoka (privately). preformative conjugation with inserted /t/. transposed. the Temple Scroll (according to Yadin's Hebrew edition). the Taylor-Schechter collection (of Geniza fragments). secondary verbal stems formed by means of a long /t/preformative (from D-stem etc.). Tuareg. Greek translation of OT attributed to Theodotion. secondary verbal stem formed by means of an afformative

/-u;'

= Ugarit-Forschungen. = Ugaritic.

= Dahood, M., Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology.

= Gordon, C.H., Ugaritic Textbook.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

v

v.

Val var(r). Vat vb. Vc Vcrfl Vg Vi viz. VN,vn Vnar vnt voc vol. VP Vps Vq Vr Vrfl vS vs. Vt V.T. vulg. Wb Wol wpref WSem WZKM Ya yemen. Yv y-y Z (alb) ZA

zAs

ZAW ZDMG ZtES ZPhASw ZPhSwKf

ZS

= verb; vowel. = verse.

xxix

I-all.

= verbal particle = variant(s). = Vatican; the Vatican onomasticon (as edited by dL).

= verb.

= causative verb. = causative-reflexive verb. = Vulgate.

= intransitive verb. = namely. = verbal noun.

verbal particle Inar/. ventive. vocative. volitive; volume. = verbal phrase. = passive verb. = qualificative (stative) verbal stem form. = verb regent. = reflexive verb. = Soden, W. von, Aramaische Warter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spatbabylonischen Texten. = versus, against. = transitive verb. = (the periodical) Vetus Testamentum. = vulgar. = Warterbuch. = Wolane. = preformative conjugation with proclitic Iw-I (consecutive). = West Semitic. = Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes. = Ya'udi. = (Arabic) spoken in Yemen. = Yeivin, I. (ed.), A collection of Mishnaic geniza fragments with Babylonian vocalization. = Yavne-Yam (inscriptions). = the Zadokite fragments (alb, respectively). = Zeitschrift flir Assyriologie. = Zeitschrift flir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. = Zeitschrift flir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. = Zeitschrift fur Eingeborenen-Sprachen. = Zeitschrift flir Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. = Zeitschrift flir Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationforschung. = Zeitschrift fur Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete.

= = = =

xxx

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

*** The abbreviations for biblical books are: Gn Ex Lv Nm Dt Jos Jd 12S 12K Is Jr Ez Has Joel Am Ob Jon Mic Nah Hab Zph Hg Zch Mal Ps lob Pry Rt Cnt Ecd Lam Est Dn Ezr Neh 12Ch; Mt Mc Lc Jh Act Rm 12Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 12Th 12Tm Tt Phlm Heb Jm 12Pt 123Jh Iud Rev The abbreviations for the Mishna tractates are: Ber Pea Dem Kil Sheb Trm Maas MaasSh Chall Orl Bikk Sabb Erub Pes Sheq Yoma Sukk Bec RhSh Taan Meg MoQ Chag Yeb Ket Ndr Nzr Sot Gitt Qidd BQ BM BB Sanh Makk Shab Eduy AbZ Ab Hor Zeb Men Chull Bek Arak Trnr Krt Meil Tmd Midd Qinn Kel Ohl Neg Par Thr Miqw Nidd Maksh Zab TbIY Yad Uqc

BIBUOGRAPHY to Parts Two and Three ArrcuISON, Jean, Language change: progress or decay? 1981. AKHMANOVA, O.S., LA Mel'chuk, E.V. Paducheva, et al., Exact methods in linguistic research. 1963. ALBRIGHT, W.F., The proto-Sinaitic inscriptions and their decipherment. 1969. --, The vocalization of the Egyptian syllabic orthography. (JSS 2 p. 113ff). 1957. -- & T.O. Lambdin, New material for the Egyptian syllabic orthography. (JSS 2 p. 113ft). 1957. ALLEN, W.S., Vox graeca. (2nd ed.) 1974. ALOJALY, G., Histoire des Kel-Denneg avant l'arrivee des fran~ais. (Publie par K.-G. Prasse). 1975. --, Lexique touareg-fran~ais. (Edition et revision... K.-G. Prasse). 1980. APPLEGATE, J.R, The Berber languages. (In: Sebeok, Current trends vol. 6 p. 586ff). Archives royales de Mari II: Lettres diverses (prepare) par Ch.-F. Jean. 1950. ARMBRUSTER, C.H., Dongolese Nubian: a grammar. 1960. ARo, J., Die Vokalisierung des Grundstammes im semitischen Verbum. (Studia Orientalia 31). 1965. BARR, J., St. Jerome and the sounds of Hebrew. (JSS 12 p. 1ft). 1967. BAR1H, J., Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. 1891. BASSET, A, La langue berbere. 1952. BAUER, H., Noch einmal die semitischen Zahlworter. (ZDMG 66 p. 267ft). 1912. -- & P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebraischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes.1922. BEACH, D.M., The phonetics of the Hottentot language. 1938. BEESI'oN, AF.L., Arabian sibilants. (JSS 7 p. 222ft). 1962. --, On the correspondence of Hebrew /s/ to ESA /s2 f. (JSS 22 p. 5Off). 1977. --, (Review of) RC. Steiner, The case for fricative-laterals in Proto-Semitic. (JSS 24 p. 265ft). 1979. --, M.A Ghul, W.W. Muller, J. Ryckmans, Sabaic dictionary - Dictionnaire sabeen.1982. BEGUINOT, F., II Berbero Nerusi di Fass~to. (2a ed.). 1942. BELOT, J.B., Vocabulaire arabe-fran~ais. (Sme ed.). 1898. BEN-l:IAYYIM, Z., Some problems of a grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. (Biblica 52 p. 229ff). 1971. --, Studies in the traditions of the Hebrew language. 1954. --, The literary and oral tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans I-V. 1957-77. BERGSTRAssER, G., Einfuhrung in die semitischen Sprachen. 1928. --, Neuaramaische Marchen und andere Texte aus Ma&lu:la. 1922. BLAKE, F.R, A resurvey of Hebrew tenses. 1951.

xxxii

BIBLIOGRAPHY

--, Studies in Semitic grammar. (JAOS 62 p. 109ff; 65 p. 111ff; 66 p. 212ff; 73 p. 7ff). 1942-53. --, The apparent interchange between lal and Iii in Hebrew. (JNES 9 p. 76 ff).1950. BLAu, J., On polyphony in biblical Hebrew. (PrIASH VI2). 1982. --, Some problems of the formation of the old Semitic languages in the light of Arabic dialects. (Proceedings of the international conference on Semitic studies ... 1965 p. 38ff). 1969. BLOOMFIELD, L., Language. 1935. BOHL, F.M.Th., Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Kanaanismen. 1909. BOLINGER, D.L., Generality, gradience, and the all-or-none. (JL 14). 1961. --, The uniqueness of the word. (Lingua 12 p. 113ff). 1963. BORBE, W., Die alten Ortsnamen PaHistinas. (2. Aufl.). 1968. BRIGHT, W., The Karok language. 1957. BROCKELMANN, C, Die "Temp ora" des Semitischen. (ZPhASw 5 p. 133ff). 1951. --, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen I-II. 1908-13. --, Syrische Grammatik. (6. Aufl.). 1951. BR4>NNo, E., Die Aussprache der hebriiischen Laryngale nach Zeugnissen des Hieronymus. 1970. --, Studien tiber hebriiische Morphologie und Vokalismus auf Grundlage der Mercatischen Fragmente der zweiten Kolumne der Hexapla des Origenes. 1943. --, The Isaiah scroll DSIa and the Greek transliterations of Hebrew. (ZDMG 106 p. 252ff). 1956. BROWN, R., Words and things, 1958. BURROWS, M. (ed.) et al., The Dead Sea scrolls of St. Mark's monastery vol. II:2: Plates and transcription of the Manual of Discipline. 1951. BUSH, F.W., Evidence from Milhamah and the Masoretic text for a penultimate accent in Hebrew verbal forms. (RQ 2 p. 50Iff). 1960. BYNON, J. & Th. (ed.), Hamito-Semitica. 1975. CANTINEAU, J., Cours de phonetique arabe. 1960. CASPARI, W., Elohim als Elativ? (ZDMG 69 p. 393ff). 1915. CATFORD, J.C., Fundamental problems in phonetics. 1977. CERNY, J. & S.I. Groll, A late Egyptian grammar. (2nd ed.). 1978. CERULLI, E., Somalia. 1957-64. --, Studi Etiopici I-IV. 1936-51. CHERRY, E.C., M. Halle & R. Jakobson, Toward the logical description of languages in their phonemic aspect. (Language 29 p. 34ff). 1953. CHOMSKY, N., Syntactic structures. (JL 4). 1957. CHOMSKY, W., The pronunciation of the shewa. (JQR 62 p. 88ff). 1972. CHRETIEN, CD., The mathematical models of glottochronology. (Language 38 p. 1Iff). 1962. COHEN, M., Etudes d'ethiopien meridional. 1931.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxxiii

--, Essai comparatif sur Ie vocabulaire et la phonetique du chamitosemitique. 1969. COHEN, M.N., The food crisis in prehistory. 1977. CORRIENTE, F.e., A survey of spirantization in Semitic and Arabic phonetics. (JOR 60 p. 147ff). 1969. CROSS, F.M. Jr. & D.M. Freedman, Early Hebrew orthography. 1952. DAHOOD, M., Ugaritic-Hebrew philology. 1965. DALMAN, G., Aramaische Grammatik. (2. Aufl.). 1905. --, Aramaisch-neuhebraisches Handworterbuch zu Targurn, Talmud und Midrasch. (3. Aufl.). 1938. DENES, P.B., On the statistics of spoken English. (ZPhSwKf 17 p. 51ff). 1964. DESTAlNG, E., Textes berMres en parler des Chleuhs du Sous (Maroc). 1940. DIAKONOFF, I.M., On root structure in proto-Semitic. (Ham.-Sem. p. 133ff). 1975. --, Semito-Hamitic languages - an essay in classification. 1965. DIEM, W., Das Problem von /$/ im althebraischen und die kanaanaische Lautverschiebung. (ZDMG 124 p. 221ff). 1974. --, Die Entwicklung des Derivationsmorphems der t-Stamme im Semitischen. (ZDMG 132 p. 29ff). 1982. --, Die Verba und Nomina tertiae infirmae im Semitischen. (ZDMG 127 p. 15ff). 1977. DILLMANN, A., Lexicon linguae Aethiopicae. 1865. -- & e. Bezold, Ethiopic grammar. (2nd ed., translated by J.A. Crichton). 1907. DIOSCORIDES Facsimile ed. (Codex Vindobonensis Med. Gr. 1). 1965-70. Discoveries in the Judaean desert I-VII. 1955-82. DOBRUSIN, D.L., The third masculine plural of the prefixed form of the verb in Ugaritic. (JANES 13 p. 5ff). 1981. DOLGOPOLSKY, A.B., Sravnitelno-istoriceskaya fonetika Kusitskih yazykov. 1973. DOTAN, A. (ed.), The Diqduqe hatte&amim of Aharon ben Mose ben ASer. 1967. DRIVER, G.R., Problems of the Hebrew verbal system. 1936. --, Semitic writing from pictograph to alphabet. (Revised ed.). 1954. EDZARD, D.O., "Ursemitisch" */hu:'a/, */ Ji:'a/? (StOr. 55 p. 247ff). 1984. ERMAN, A. & H. Grapow, Worterbuch der agyptischen Sprache. 1926-71. ERWIN, W.M., A short reference grammar of Iraqi Arabic. 1963. FANT, G., Formants and cavities. (Proceedings ofthe fifth international congress of phonetic sciences p. 120ff). 1964. --, Modern instruments and methods for acoustic studies of speech. (Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica - Physics including nucleonics ser. no. 1). 1958. --, Speech sounds and features. 1973. --, The acoustics of speech. (Proceedings of the third international congress on acoustics p. 188ff). 1959. FAULKNER, R.O., The plural and dual in old Egyptian. 1929. FLEISCH, H., Etudes de phonetique arabe. 1949-50.

xxxiv

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FLEMING, H., Chadic external relations. (Studies in Chadic and Afroasiatic linguistics p. 17ff). 1983. --, Omotic as an Afroasiatic family. (Studies in African linguistics, Supplement 5 p. 8Hf). 1974. FOUCAULD, Ch. de, Dictionnaire touareg-francrais - dialecte de l'Ahaggar. 1951-52. FOWLER, H.W. & F.G. (ed.), The concise Oxford dictionary of current English. (4th ed. revised by E. McIntosh). 1959. FRAJZVNGIER, Q., Notes on the Rl R2R2 stems in Semitic. (JSS 24 p. Hf). 1979. FRIEDRICH, J., Der Schwund kurzer Endvokale im Nordwestsemitischen. (ZS 1 p.3ff). 1922. -- & W. Rollig, Phonizisch-punische Grammatik. (2. Aufl.). 1970. FRONZAROLI, P. La fonetica ugaritica. 1955. GAIRDNER, W.H.T., The phonetics of Arabic. 1925. GALL, A v. (ed.), Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. 1918. GARBELL, I., Remarks on the historical phonology of an East Mediterranean Arabic dialect. (Word 14 p. 303ff). 1958. --, The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Persian Azerbaijan. 1965. GARDINER, A, Egyptian grammar. (3rd ed.). 1957. --, The theory of speech and language. (2nd ed.). 1951. GARR, W.R., Dialect geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. 1985. GELB, I.J., The early history of the West Semitic peoples (JCfS 15 p. 27ff). 1961. --, Old Akkadian writing and grammar. (2nd ed.). 1961. --, Sequential reconstruction of Proto-Akkadian. 1967. -- et al., Computer-aided analysis of Amorite. 1980. GESENIUS, W. & F. Buhl et al., Hebrrusches und aramaisches Handworterbuch iiber das AIte Testament. -(17. Aufl.). 1949. GESENIUS, W. & E. Kautzsch, Hebraische Grammatik. (27. Aufl.). 1902. GINSBURG, C.D. (ed.) The pentateuch - The earlier prophets - The later prophets - The writings. 1926. GINZBERG, L., The legends of the Jews. 1946. GOLDENBERG, G., Tautological infinitive. (lOS 1 p. 36ff). 1971. GORDON, C.H., Ugaritic textbook. 1965. GREEN, P.S., Consonant-vowel transitions. (StL 12 p. 57ff). 1958. GREENBERG, J.H., The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. (Word 6 p. 162ff). 1950. GUDSCHINSKY, S.c., The ABC's of lexicostatistics (glottochronology). (Word 12 p. 175ff). 1956. HALLE, M. (ed.), For Roman Jakobson. 1956. HARRELL, R.S., A short reference grammar of Moroccan Arabic. 1962. HARRIS, Z.S., A grammar of the Phoenician language. 1936. --, Development of the Canaanite dialects. 1967. --, Distributional structure. (Word 10 p. 146ff). 1954. HARVIAINEN, T., On the vocalism of the closed unstressed syllables in Hebrew. (StOr 48:1). 1977.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxxv

--, On vowel reduction in Hebrew. (OrSu 33-35 p. 167f£). 1986. J.G., Arabic-English dictionary. 1951. HERDAN, G., Quantitative linguistics. 1964. HETZRoN, R, The Gunnan-Gurage languages. 1977. --, The verbal system of southern Agaw. 1969. --, Two principles of genetic reconstruction. (Lingua 38 p. 89f£). 1976. HOEl., P.G., Elementary statistics. (2nd ed.). 1967. HOFNER, M., Altsiidarabische Grammatik. 1943. HUDSON, RA, A structural sketch of Beja. (ALS 15 p. ll1f£). 1974. HUEHNERGARD, J., Asseverative */la/ and hypothetical */lu/law/ in Semitic. (JAOS 103 p. 569f£). 1983. INNES, G., An outline grammar of Loko with texts. (ALS 5 p. 115f£). 1964. ITKONEN, E., Kieli ja sen tutkimus. 1966. JAHN, A, Somalitexte. 1906. JAKOBSON, R & M. Halle, Fundamentals of language. (JL 1). 1956. JAMME, A, Sabaean inscriptions from MaJ:tram Bilqis (M~rib). 1962. JASTROW, M., A dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic literature. 1903. JEAN, Ch.-F. & J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de rouest. 1965. JESPERSEN, 0., The philosophy of grammar. 1924. JOHNsrONE, T.M., I:Iarsu:si lexicon and English-I:Iarsu:si word-list. 1977. --, Jibba:li lexicon. 1981. --, Mehri lexicon. (Used in typescript.) --, The modern South Arabian languages. (Afroasiatic Linguistics 1:5). 1975. JoNES, D., The phoneme: its nature and use. (2nd ed.). 1962. Joos, M., Acoustic phonetics. 1948. JUNGRAITHMAYR, H., Die Ron-Sprachen. 1970. -- & K. Shimizu, Chadic lexical roots II. 1981. KAHLE, P., Der masoretische Text des Alten Testaments nach der Ueberlieferung der babylonischen Juden. 1902. --, Masoreten des Ostens. 1913. --, Masoreten des Westens. 1927; II, 1930. --, The Cairo Geniza. (2nd ed.). 1959. KAINZ, F., Die "Sprache" der Tiere. 1961. KELSO, J.A, Is the Divine Name in Hebrew ever equivalent to the superlative? (AJSL 19 p. 152f£). 1903. KLlNGENHEBEN, A, Die Tempora Westafrikas und die semitischen Tempora. (ZfES 19 p. 241f£). 1928/9. KRAFr, c.H. & AH.M. Kirk-Greene, Hausa. 1973. KUIPERS, AH., Phoneme and morpheme in Kabardian (eastern Adyghe). (JL 8).1960. KusrAR, P., Aspekt im Hebraischen. 1972. KUTSCHER, E.Y., The language and linguistic background of the Isaiah scroll. 1959. l..AoEFOGED, P., Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. 1973. I...ANE, E.W., Arabic-English lexicon. 1955. HAVA,

xxxvi

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LAsrRA, Y., Cochabamba Ouechua syntax. 1968. LFANDER, P., Einige hebraische Lautgesetze chronologisch geordnet. (ZDMG 74 p. 6lff). 1920. LEFEBVRE, G., Grammaire de l'egyptien classique. (2e ed.). 1955. LEFORT, L. Th. (ed.), Scriptores Coptici 23. LEslAu, W., Documents tigrigna. 1941. --, Ethiopians speak - studies in cultural background. I. Harari II. Chaha. 1965-66. --, Etymological dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic). 1979. --, Etymological dictionary of Harari. 1965. --, Gafat documents. 1945. --, Is there a Proto-Gurage? (Proceedings of the international conference on Semitic studies ... 1965 p. 152ff). 1969. --, Lexique soqotri (sudarabique moderne). 1938. --, Short grammar of Tigre. 1945. --, Sidamo features in the South Ethiopic phonology (JAOS 79 p. lff). 1959. --, The imperfect in South-East Semitic. (JAOS 73 p. 164ff). 1953. LIDDELL, H.G., R. Scott & H.S. Jones (et al.), A Greek-English lexicon. 1977. LIEBERMAN, S.J., Word order in the Afro-Asiatic languages. (Proceedings of the ninth world congress of Jewish studies ... 1985 - Division D vol. 1 p. lff).1986. LISOWSKY, G., Die Transskription der hebraischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch in der Septuaginta. 1940. LITTMANN, E., Bibliotheca Abessinica I: The legend of the queen of Sheba in the tradition of Axum. 1904. --, Chrestomathia Aethiopica. (2nd ed.). 1940.. LoPRIENO, A., Das Verbal system im Agyptischen und im Semitischen. 1986. MCCARTIN, R.J. & F. Raffouli, Spoken Arabic of Baghdad II(A). 1965. McDONALD, M.V., The order and phonetic value of Arabic sibilants in "abjad". (JSS 19 p. 36ff). 1974. McFALL, L., The enigma of the Hebrew verbal system. 1982. MALMBERG, B., (ed.), Manual of phonetics. 1968. MANoELKERN, S., Veteris Testamenti concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae. 1896. MARCAIS, P., Textes arabes de Djidjelli. 1954. MAROUZEAU, J., Lexique de la terminologie linguistique. 1951. MARTIN, M., The scribal character of the Dead Sea scrolls. 1958. MARTINET, A., Elements of general linguistics. 1964. MEIER, G.F. Silbenkern und Sonoritat. (ZPhSwKf 17 p. 369ff). 1964. MEYERSfEIN, R.S., Informant morphemes versus analyst morphemes. (JL Ser. Maior 12 p. 562ff). 1964. MORAG, S., On the historical validity of the vocalization of the Hebrew Bible. (JAOS 94 p. 307ff). 1974. --, (Review of) Schramm, G.M., The graphemes of Tiberian Hebrew. (OS 42 p. 78ff). 1966. --, The Hebrew language tradition of the Yemenite Jews. 1963. --, The vocalization systems of Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic. 1962.

BffiLIOGRAPHY

xxxvii

MOSCATI, S., On Semitic case-endings. (JNES 17 p. 142ft). 1958. -- (ed.; et al.), An introduction to the comparative grammar ofthe Semitic languages - phonology and morphology. 1964. MOLLER, D.H., Die Mehri- und Soqotri-Sprache. (SAE Bd. IV, VI, VII). 190207. MOLLER, H.-P., Das eblaitische Verbalsystem nach den bisher veroffentlichten Personennamen. (LgEbl p. 211ft). 1981. --, Ebla und das althebraische Verbalsystem. (Biblica 65 p. 145ft). 1984. --, Ergativelemente im akkadischen und althebraischen Verbalsystem. (Biblica 66 p. 385ft). 1985. --, Zur Geschichte des hebraischen Verbs - Diachronie der Konjugationsthemen. (BZ 1983: 1 p. 34ft). MURAOKA, T., Emphatic words and structures in biblical Hebrew. 1985. MURTONEN, A., A historico-philological survey of the main Dead Sea scrolls and related documents. (Abr Nahrain 4 p. 56ft). 1964. --, A philological and literary treatise on the Old Testament divine names /'1/, /'lwh/, /,lhym/, and /yhwh/. 1952. --, Broken plurals. 1964. --, Early Semitic. 1967; II, 1969. --, Hebrew in its West Semitic setting. 1986-. --, Materials for a non-Masoretic Hebrew grammar I-III. 1958-64. --, Methodological preliminaries to a study of Greek (and Latin) transcriptions of Hebrew. (Abr Nahrain 20 p. 60ft). 1982. --, Mishna fragments with Babylonian punctuation. (Lesonenu 21 p. 1ft). 1956. --, On structural growth in languages. (Abr Nahrain 24 p. 139ft). 1986. --, On the interpretation of the matres lectionis in biblical Hebrew. (Abr Nahrain 14 p. 66ft). 1974. --, Outline of a general theory of linguistics. 1969. --, Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics. 1978. --, The Semitic sibilants. (JSS 11 p. 135ft). 1966. --, Von einigen weniger bekannten hebraischen Punktationssystemen. (Das Altertum 8 p. 114ft). 1962. NOTH, M., Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. 1928. Novum Testamentum Graece cum apparatu critico curavit Eb. Nestle novis curis elaboravit Erwin Nestle. (18. ed.). 1948. -- post Eb. Nestle et Erwin Nestle communiter ediderunt K. Aland et al. (26. Aufl.). 1979. OOEBERG, H., The Aramaic portions of Bereshit Rabba with grammar of Galilaean Aramaic. II. Short grammar of Galilaean Aramaic. 1939. PALMER, F.R., The noun in Bilin. (BSOAS 21 p. 376ft). 1958. --, The verb in Bilin. (BSOAS 19 p. 131ft). 1957. PEfRICEI{, K., Der doppelte phonologische Charakter des Ghain im klassischen Arabisch. (AOr 21 p. 240ft). 1953. --, Die Inkompatibilitat in der semitischen Wurzel in Sicht der Informationstheorie. (RO 27:2 p. 133ft).

xxxviii

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PIICE, K.L., Phonetics. 1943. PILCH, H., Phonemtheorie. (2. Aufl.). 1968. PORAm, E., Die Passivbildung des Grundstammes im Semitischen. (Monatsschrift fUr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 70 p. 18Off, 250ff). 1926. --, Mishnaic Hebrew as vocalized in the early manuscripts of the Babylonian Jews. 1938. POTIER, R.K., G.A Kopp & H.C. Green, Visible speech. 1947. POWELL, M.A, Notes on Akkadian numbers and number syntax. (JSS 24 p. 13ff). 1979. PRASSE, K.-G., Manuel de grammaire touaregue. 1972-73. Qur'a:n, The holy, Arabic text, English translation and commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali. (6th ed.). 1973. RABIN, c., Ancient West Arabian. 1951. --, The origin of the subdivisions of Semitic. (H&SS p. 104ff). 1963. REICHLING, A, & E.M. Uhlenbeck, Fundamentals of syntax. (JL Ser. Maior 12 p. 166ff). 1964. REINISCH, L., Die Somali-Sprache. (SAE Bd. I, II, V:1). 1900-03. --, Worterbuch der Bilin-Sprache. 1887. REVELL, E.J., Biblical texts with Palestinian pointing and their accents. 1977. --, Studies in the Palestinian vocalization of Hebrew. (Essays on the ancient Semitic world ed. J.W. Wevers & D.B. Redford p. 5lff). 1970. ROBINSON, C.H., Hausa grammar. 1959. ROSSLER, 0., Verbalbau und Verbalflexion in den Semitiohamitischen Sprachen. (ZDMG 100 p. 46lff). 1950-51. RUNDGREN, F., Erneuerung des Verbalaspekts im Semitischen. 1963. --, Uber Bildungen mit s- und n-t-Demonstrativen im Semitischen. 1955. SAEED, J.I., Central Somali - a grammatical outline. (Afro asiatic Linguistics 8:2). 1982. SANDER-HANSEN, C.E., .Agyptische Grammatik. 1963. SAPIR, E., Language. 1921. SCHRAMM, G.M. The graphemes of Tiberian Hebrew. 1964. SEBEOK, T.A (ed.), Current trends in linguistics vol. 6.1970. SEMAAN, K.I., Linguistics in the Middle Ages. 1968. SErnE, K., Die Vokalisation des .Agyptischen. (ZDMG 77 p. 145ff). 1923. SIEDL, S.H., Gedanken zum Tempussystem im Hebdiischen und Akkadischen. 1971. SMITH, J.M.P., The use of divine names as superlatives. (AJSL 45 p. 212f). 1929. SODEN, W.v., Akkadisches Handworterbuch. 1965-81. --, Aramaische Worter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spatbabylonischen Texten. (Or 35 p. lff; 37 p. 261ff; 46 p. 183ff). 1966-77. --, Die Spirantisierung von Verschlusslauten im Akkadischen: ein Vorbericht. (JNES 27 p. 214ff). 1968. --, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 1952. SOLLBERGER, E., The business and administrative correspondence under the kings of Ur. 1966.

BIBliOGRAPHY

xxxix

SPEISER, E.A, Secondary developments in Semitic phonology - an application of the principle of sonority. (AJSL 42 p. 145ft). 1926. SPERBER, A, Hebrew based upon Greek and Latin transliterations. (HUCA 12-13 p. 103ff). 1937-38. STEINDORFF, G., Lehrbuch der koptischen Grammatik. 1951. STOPA, R., Bushman as a language of primitive type. (FOr 4 p. 187ft). 1962. SUKENIK, E.L., 'Ocar hammgillot haggnuzot. 1954. Targum Onkelos to the Pentateuch. (In: Miqra'ot gdolot). 1955-56. TAUU, V., On quantity and stress in Estonian. (Acta Unguistica Hafniensia 9 p. 145ff). 1965-66. The principles of the International Phonetic Association. 1949. THOMAS, B., Four strange tongues from South Arabia - the Hadara group. 1938. TRAILL, A, The phonological status of !xoo clicks. (KhLS 3 p. 107ff). 1977. TRIMlNGHAM, J.S., Sudan colloquial Arabic. (2nd ed.). 1959. VERGOTE, J., Grammaire copte. 1973. VOLTEN, A, Kopenhagener Texte zum demotischen Weisheitsbuch. 1940. VYQCHL, W., Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue copte. 1983. --, Die Selbstlaute. Zur Lautlehre der agyptischen Sprache. (WZKM 54 p. 214ff). 1957. --, Eine altagyptische Bezeichnung fUr "Milch". (Discussions in Egyptology 1 p. 67ff). 1985. --, Ein nomen actoris im Agyptischen. Der Ursprung der sogennannten emphatischen Konjugation. (Le Museon 65 p. 1ft). 1952. --, Neues Material zur Form des agyptischen Nomen Agentis qatta:l. (OLZ 48 col. 293f). 1953. VYGOTSKY, L.S., Thought and language. 1962. WALTARI, M., Feliks onnellinen. 1958. WEYERS, J.W. & D.B. Redford (ed.), Essays on the ancient Semitic world. 1970. WHmNG. R.M. The R stem(s) in Akkadian. (Or 50 p. lff). 1981. YEMN, I., The Hebrew language tradition as reflected in the Babylonian vocalization. 1985. YERKES, R.M. & B.W. Learned, Chimpanzee intelligence and its vocal expressions. 1925. UBORSKI, A, Prefixes, root-determinatives and the problem of biconsonantal roots in Semitic. (FOr 11 p. 307ff). 1969. UBROCKI, L., Die Stimmhaftigkeit der Laute. (ZPhSwKf 16 p. 261ft). 1963. ZEVIT, Z., Matres lectionis in ancient Hebrew epigraphs. 1980. ZIPF, G.K, The psycho-biology of language. 1935. ZYLHARZ, E., Altere und jiingere Pluralbildung im Berberischen. (ZfES 22 p. lff).1931/32.

INTRODUCTION §l. Preliminary remarks. As explained in the Foreword to Part Two, it was decided, mainly in the interests of more concise exposition, to incorporate the historical discussion, originally meant to form Part Four, in Parts Two and Three, and so the present volume will be the last one. The discussion is based, apart from the material presented in Part One, mainly on my Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics (Melbourne 1978). As that work, produced with a small offset printer by myself, has had little circulation and is preliminary in character, the results reached in it are recapitulated in appropriate connections and, for Hebrew, provided with more detailed discussion mainly on the basis of the material in Part One; in addition, for statistical comparison of different Hebrew dialects and traditions, samples were analysed from those in which sufficient continuous material was available, to wit, Q, Pal and Bab; the Biblical Hebrew sample analysed in vol. I of the Statistical analyses was also adjusted to conform with the Sam text form to represent that dialect, although - as was to be expected - this did not result in any significant alteration of the results. In addition, on the advice of Karl-G. Prasse and with his help, a sample of Tuareg as the best representative of Berber was analysed and will be summarized in the appropriate connection, as its internal structure proved indeed to be significantly different from that of Nefusi of Fassato, although the relationship to Hebrew of both is as equally close as can be calculated statistically. The comprehensive statistical evaluation, including the lexical and phonological aspects, will be given separately, as it exceeds the limits of mor-

phosyntactics. § 2.

Basic principles.

Discussion of morphology and syntax together is based on the realization, in itself nothing new, that morphology and syntax are aspects of one and the same structure, here called morphosyntactics. Where it is necessary to distinguish between the two, the guiding principle is that forms and constructions in which the constituent meaningful units are formally affected or modified are morphological, others purely functional or syntactical. In the light of this, the

basic unity or morpho syntactics becomes easily evident, as in many languages, whether or not related, the same relationships are expressed purely syntactically which in others involve morphological modifications; and diachronic developments lead to similar variation between different stages of one and the same language. This appears to have been the case in Hbr too;

2

INTRODUcnON

as is well known, in BH there are no cases of noun in the above, strictly formalistic sense, and of the moods of the verb, only some secondary formal distinctions remain mainly in some classes of irregular verbs apart from imperative (and cohortative); whereas in its old Canaanite parental, the relevant formal characteristics appear to have been still present. 1 However, as the relevant material in old Can is scanty and the Ug parallels also appear explicitly only occasionally, it is comparison with Classical Arabic which is the most instructive and indeed in practice led me to the relevant realization. Analysis of ClAr showed that prepositions and subordinative conjunctions (or subjunctions) too are morphological factors, governing as they do certain cases and/or moods, and the so-called definite article or determinative particle also affects the form of the word to which it is prefixed and, where applicable, that of its attribute(s); all this made it possible to interpret not only all the phrases,2 but also subordinate sentences as morphological units (or morphs3 ).

This makes it possible to dispense with special syntactical units almost entirely. Not only words and their meaningful parts, but also phrases and subordinate sentences conceivable as morphs, it is possible to describe all the sentences in morphological terms with one residual syntactical distinction remaining, that of the subject (or in a phrase, the regent) from the other parts of the sentence which can be indicated without any special analytical operation.4 Interpretation of phrases and subordinate sentences as morphological units agrees with the ancient notion, recently revived by the lamented U. Gelbs (and others), of the basic identity of case and mood: the mood is the case of the entire subordinate sentence, not just of its verb. In ClAr, the case vowel of the triptote accusative and diptote oblique case is identical with the final inflectional vowel not only in the subjunctive mood, but also in the afformative conjugation ("perfect"); this suggests analogous interpretation of all three. An objectival interpretation, suggested by the accusative case, appears too narrow; but as the diptote declension now appears to be of ancient origin,6 it may be assumed to be more original than the triptote one, its general oblique case having been differentiated into the accusative and genitive ones in the latter. The diptote oblique case is indeed fully parallel to the subjunctive mood of the verb: just as the oblique case, it is used of notions subordinated to the main sentence. The afformative conjugation can

1 Cf.

Bohl, Sprache der Amarnabriefe p.8lff; also the Ug parallels.

2 In the technical sense, as defined below (p.9).

3 The term, morpheme, is restricted to refer to classes of morphs in a collective sense (N, PN, V, PT and their sub-categories). 1I In the analysis of sentences (and phrases) in morphological terms, this is indicated by enc!osing the subject (or regent) in oblique brackets / /. See, e.g., his Sequential reconstruction of Proto-Akkadian p.l08f. 6 Cf. Gelb, op.cit. p.72ff.

INTRODUCfION

3

be interpreted analogously; the only essential difference is that it is more closely related to the subject, like an attribute to the noun regent; it is thus a kind of verbal attribute. An adjective can be used as an attribute only if the regent is known to have the relevant quality, or can be expected to have it, so that its attribution to him is acceptable in the context; in such circumstances, it is clear that the quality expressed by the attribute must also be familiar, and as "familiarity breeds contempt", on the average less emphasized than the adjective used predicatively. All this is applicable to the afformative conjugation; e.g., in Gn 1:5.10, the afformative conjugation of Iqr'l occurs in circumstances completely complementary to those in which the preformative conjugation of the same root is used earlier in the verse, hence fully predictable. Similarly, in v. 1, the afformative conjugation of Ibr'l is expectable in the context and evidently less emphasized than the time of the action expressed by the preceding adverbial; and in v. 2, Ihythl is a mere copula in a nominal sentence; etc. The same lal vowel appears to have been characteristic of the subjunctive mood originally in Akk too, 7 but mostly already in OAkk and thereafter completely this is supplanted by lui which process Gelb calls nominativization, as the same vowel is characteristic of the nominative case; in addition, he reconstructs the same vowel for the indicative mood of the Akk verb, as actually attested in ClAr. For the interpretation to be valid, the nominative case of the noun and indicative mood of (the preformative conjugation of) the verb should then be functionally comparable originally, the Akk subjunctive also secondarily. While not immediately evident, such an interpretation is nevertheless indeed plausible for the nominative case and indicative mood anyway. In the nominal declension, the lui vowel is characteristic of the case of the subject, hence of the active entity in contrast to the fundamentally passive object. In the verbal system likewise, the indicative mood is used as the principal predicative form, mostly referring to positive action. Moreover, the same is true of most of those Akk subordinate sentences in which subjunctive is used; NB. it is not used in conditional sentences. Secondary nominativization occurs also in nominal declension, e.g, replacing genitive in composite expressions.8 In Hbr, however, the preformative conjugation may also be used where the action is predictable or expected; e.g., in Gn 1:3 Iwyhyl -that light came into being upon God's command can hardly have been unexpected; and similarly other consecutive preformals subsequently in the chapter, vv. 7ter.9(2°) etc. This is in fact not surprising, as a familiar notion is often also expressed predicatively; the restriction thus applies in one direction only: previously unknown or unexpected action or notion cannot be expressed attribu-

7 Cf. Gelb, op.cit. p.l02ff. 8 Cf., e.g., Gelb, op.cit. p.l08.

4

INTRODUcnON

tively, although familiar things may be stated predicatively.

The fact that restriction of usage applies to the afformative conjugation only, however, is against the rules of any formal grammar system and understandable on a semantic basis only. Now, incipiently in some of the latest books of the Bible, such as Eccl, and subsequently in Q and MH as well as later post-biblical Hbr, the afformative conjugation has become the regular expression for the past tense, and the preformative one for the future. This development too has a semantic basis: in the vast majority of cases, known actions have already taken place; therefore, once development towards a regular tense system set in, it was natural for the form used to express familiar things to become the expression for the past tense. This led also to the ousting of the preformative conjugation from narratives referring to the past (so in Eccl already), and as the form was otherwise used frequently with a volitive or purposive connotation, both of which refer to the future, the development of the preformative conjugation into a future tense was just as natural. The present was finally taken over by the verbal noun of agent which in BH has a connotation of continuity, often permanence, which is also characteristic of the present, as things present presuppose continuity of existence. We may thus conclude that in BH, verbal conjugation takes place on a semantic basis.

Furthermore, this is not true of verbal conjugation nor of BH only. In fact, as we go on examining other grammatical categories in this light, we see that fundamentally, every grammatical category is based on semantic factors; in other words, the entire morphosyntactic system of a language is an extension of its vocabulary or, from the opposite point of view, replacement for an endless expansion of it. In Sem, this can be seen on the fundamental root level already. Although many of these carriers of the basic-nominal or verbal-meaning are basically biconsonantal, a clear tendency towards a system of three root consonants or triradicality is widely observable. The additional consonant is then often recognizable as a root determinant with a more or less clear semantic connotation, mostly recurring elsewhere in the form system, though not necessarily in the same historical language; e.g., Inl and less often It I as the 1st (or 2nd) rad. with a reflexive-reciprocal connotation; I I (or lsi, Ih/) with a causative or factitive one; a (semi-)vocalic element in any position with an intransitive or reflexive connotation; but this, as well as Ihl or 1'1 may at other times be of purely phonetic (prothetic or euphonic) origin. Due to secondary semantic and occasionally phonetic developments, however, such root determinants are far from regularly recognizable and therefore cannot be subjected to statistical analysis. Against other morphemes, the root is defined as the primary morpheme

J

from which the nominal and verbal stems are derived by means of the respective

INTRODUCI'ION

5

stem formatives. In other words, only nouns and verbs are considered to have

roots. This is because for a root to be recognizable, the forms derived from it must have fairly regular patterns of formation and inflection; in Sem, this is true of substantive and adjective nouns as well as of verbs only. Even of the nouns, the cardinal numerals for numbers smaller than 100 must be omitted, as their inflection is largely defective and syntactically and semantically irregular. Similarly, proper names are separated into their own category, as they are normally not inflected, and so the particles. This does not, however, preclude the possibility of recognizing many items in these other morphemes as having common origins with some nouns or verbs and hence, being derived from the same roots; but the pattern of formation being irregular and inflection often non-existent, they cannot be included in the root system. This should also make it clear that the root is an abstract entity, existing only in its derivatives, and therefore cannot have any specific root meaning either apart from those of its derivatives which, due to secondary shifts of meaning, may even conflict with each other. Contrary or contradictory meanings thus do not necessarily preclude derivation from the same root. Comprehensively, then, the morphosyntactical inventory is divided into the following main categories or morphemes: A Proper names (Npr); B. Nominal and verbal roots; C. Cardinal numerals (under 100) (Nn); D. Pronouns (PN); E. Particles (PT); F. Nominal and verbal stems; G. Inflectional formatives; H. Phrases and sentences. All of these have distinctive semantic functions which mostly find formal expressions and may lead to a further division into less comprehensive sub-morphemes. The proper names are placed first because of their nature as the (semantically and syntactically) most primitive vocabulary items, as in principle anyway, their reference is unique: each proper name refers to one particular entity, whether individual or collective, and apart from the factual occurrence of homonymity, is not applicable to any other entity, however similar or analogous. It is easy to see how enormous and unwieldy the vocabulary of a language would be, if it consisted of this kind of items only; at such a level, the whole language would consist of an amorphous vocabulary only, without even rudimentary form system or other feature of linguistic economy. Needless to say, no such language is known to exist or ever have existed; rather the contrary, even in animal communication or infants' speech the same expression may refer to only faintly analogous entities. The roots are comparable to proper names as morphs with unique semantic reference; again, there are homonymous roots, but these are comparable to the same proper name being, more or less accidentally, applied to different entities; while synonymous roots are comparable to the same entity being called by a different name under different circumstances. Homonymous roots are distinguishable in the light of their contexts; and when speaking about

6

INTRODUCfION

synonymous roots we use the term in a rough, summary sense only - going far enough into detail will establish differences. There is, however, a profound difference between proper names and roots. The former designate identifiable entities with real existence - in the speaker's mind at least -, whereas a root is pure abstraction. This has an analogy on the formal level: a proper name rarely occurs as part of a secondary morph below phrase level, whereas a root occurs in such secondary morphs only; in the end, a root is the common element shared by its derivatives. Nominal stems are derived from roots by the imposition of certain patterns on them; in Semitic grammar, these patterns are usually called types. These types are commonly characterized by vocalic variation, sometimes with repetition of root consonants (or radicals) or with additional elements attached before (secondarily sometimes within) or after the root as stem preor afformatives. With the exception of a few (albeit most common) types, each type has a more or less easily recognizable semantic connotation, an Ii! vowel giving preponderantly active, lui passive impression, lengthening of vowels and consonants denoting different kinds of intensification, Ima-I-preformative relativity, I-a:n/-afformative basically collectivity; and so on. In this way, the types serve the interests of linguistic economy by associating similar meanings with similar formal characteristics, and so the formal systematization of the language begins on this level. Another economic feature is the fact that these morphs no longer have unique reference: one and the same noun may be applied to different entities, as long as these have the characteristic(s) expressed by the noun. The economy achieved by the systematization even on this elementary level may be vast - e.g., we can apply

the term man to each one of the five thousand million inhabitants of this globe without having to enumerate their proper names when referring to them simply as human beings; the related purely collective term, mankind is also based on it and thus presupposes the same advance in systematization. Further economies are achieved by a related feature which has affinities with word formation and inflection alike, the grammatical gender. In Hbr, it is not used much in word formation, masculine and feminine nouns (substantive) being rarely derived from the same root by means of the same type; therefore, we do not make distinction between nominal types on the basis of gender formatives only. However, it serves to distinguish adjective noun formally from the substantive one, as the latter usually occurs in one gender only, whereas the adjective may assume either gender in congruence with the word governing it. While gender in itself would not be indispensable for the achievement of such economies, in languages with relatively free word order it may also serve to indicate the syntactical affiliation of the adjective. The economy achieved by the use of adjectives in nominal phrases is also very considerable: assuming that a language has, say fifty common

INTRODUCfION

7

adjectives used with one hundred substantives on the average - certainly not too high an estimate for an average spoken language -five thousand concepts can be expressed by one hundred and fifty morphs, an economy of 4,850: 150 or 3233 per cent. The grammatical number also saves us from a duplication of vocabulary at least; in Sem, probably more, as there we have, besides the common singular and regular plural, often also dual referring to a pair of entities, sometimes also separate forms for different kinds of plurals, such as plurals of small amounts and of large amounts, and also plurals of plurals (of plurals ... ) etc.; and conversely, from an original sg. form with collective meaning, a noun of unit may be derived. The use of different forms of plural for different sizes of plurality illustrates the connection between this grammatical category and the numeral noun morpheme. In a language whose speakers do not have far advanced material culture and therefore not many things to count, both appear infrequently, if at all;9 but where quantities are important, economies achieved by the use of numerals soon become enormous, the more so, the greater the accuracy required. In the case of pronouns, economies are greater still. A pronoun may replace any simple morph of other than purely modificational meaning and also any complex morph, i.e., any phrase, sentence or even discourse, however extensive, as long as it has a pronominally expressible common characteristic. In the personal pronoun, the grammatical person is introduced in addition to the gender and number, although the fact that the inflection takes place largely by replacement morphs is an indication of its collective and deictic origins. Pronouns are primarily deictic in character. Particularly the so-called demonstrative pronouns out of which the personal ones are diachronically a secondary offshoot, would be more aptly termed deictic in English (but because there are other deictic elements, the traditional term is retained); and interrogative pronouns are deictic in reverse. This property links pronouns up rather closely with particles which general term is used of all those morphs of modificational meaning which do not show any inflection at all. The deictic particles in the more narrow sense form a sub-category between pure interjections on the one hand and adverbs, prepositions on the other; but also most adverbs ("here", "there", "where?", "when" etc.) are still easily recognizable as fundamentally deictic; prepositions point like fingers to the words and phrases, and subordinative conjunctions to the sentences they introduce. Even coordinative conjunctions are mostly recognizable as basi9 E.g., the central Australian language Pintup~ studied by me in the mid-sixties, has numerals proper for 1 and 2 only; that for 3 may also be used for "a few", and larger amounts are subsumed under "many/all"; plural is rarely expressed by the morph for "some"; personal pronouns for two or more are collective rather than plural in nature.

8

INTRODUCfION

cally deictic which is what they usually are diachronically; e.g. /w-/ "and", originally "then", "thereupon"; /,0/ "or", originally imperative, "choose!"; /ki/ "for", also subordinative "because", "that" etc., and originally synonymous with /hinne/ ''behold!''. Even the so-called pure interjections are in fact deictic, only that they point to the speaker himself, to something that is happening to him. Thus, particles as a category are closely related to pronouns; but their degree of expressivity is not as extensive, as they cannot replace all those morphs which the pronouns can, and as they occur only in connection with other morphs whose meanings they modify. In fact, as most of them refer only to things here and now, they are rather close to the animal communication level. The verb is on the borderline between simple and complex morphs. Fundamentally, it is based on a noun referring to an action or to an agent, actual or potential; or also patient which is agent "in reverse". These verbal nouns themselves are also often used verbally, as is recognizable by the fact that they then take objects and/or other verbal adjuncts to form verbal phrases, often in a volitive or final sense; the basic form of imperative is also originally noun of action used in a volitive sense, in Hbr still mostly identical in form, cf. also the analogous use of the noun of verb ("inf.abs.") where this is distinct from the noun of action ("inf.cstr."). Such a verb, although often constituting a sentence, is still a simple morpho But very often, in Sem in a large majority of cases, additional formatives are attached to the beginning (secondarily within) and/or end of the stem noun in a systematic fashion, to form what is usually called verbal conjugation. This, like the nominal inflection (or declension), includes elements to distinguish between grammatical numbers and genders, but additionally, in the most frequently used forms of conjugation, for three different grammatical persons, cf. the personal pronoun. These elements, like pronouns and particles, are basically of deictic nature, and indeed identifiable with rudimentary forms of pronouns and particles. Similar pronominal or deictic elements, besides modifications of the stem noun, are used to derive secondary verbal stems from the primary one(s). Most verbal forms are thus definable as composite; and out of the composite morphs, they are among the most highly systematized ones. All of them contain only one independent simple morph each, the others being modificational. Moreover, even of the modificational morphs only a select few can be used for verbal conjugation. Its degree of expressivity, and hence, of linguistic economy, is therefore very high. Another, and indeed the most highly systematized composite morph is the prepositional phrase which, as defined here, consists of modificational morphs only, a preposition coupled with a suffixed pronoun; rarely, a preceding conjunction must be considered to form part of it. Its value in terms of linguistic

INTRODUCfION

9

economy is therefore also very high, although difficult to calculate. An adverbial phrase too consists of modificational morphs only, mostly of a preposition and an adverb, although even the latter may occur elsewhere mainly or occasionally as a preposition, and the whole phrase as a (part of a) composite preposition; cf., e.g., /mittaxat (1-)/. Because of its infrequent occurrence, however, its value for linguistic economy is problematic. The nominal and verbal phrases, on the other hand, contain at least two principal simple morphs each; the former are the more systematized ones, due to strict adherence to rules of congruence and usually of word order, the noun regent normally standing in the beginning, followed by an attribute, less often more than one; and also to the frequent use of the determinative particle ("definite article"), a unique element in its own category whose economic value, however, appears problematic, as the rules of its use appear to be changing toward the end of the biblical period and in Sam, it seems to have become optional. The verbal phrase too, as a rule, begins with the verb regent, a verbal noun to which a suffixed pronoun representing an agent may be appended; otherwise it is structurally comparable to a sentence which, in Sem, usually has a relatively free word order and practically no limit in size -witness the longest sentence in the Book of Deuteronomy, comprising some three fifths of the entire book (5:1 to 26:19), as continuous oratio recta is classified as one single part of a sentence (or also of a verbal phrase). Because of the free word order, a typical BH sentence is little else than a string of simple and/or lower order composite morphs, analysable into others of still lower order; the word order is largely determined by psychological factors, the more important and/or interesting thing having preference, and also because of its very variable extent its value for linguistic economy is rather minimal-in morphemic terms, lower than even the proper name's. This is basically true of all the three different kinds of sentences we can distinguish by formal criteria, viz., the verbal one in which the predicate is a conjugated form of verb; the nominal one, in which the predicate is a noun or a composite morph representing a nominal expression; and the relative one which is indeed either verbal or nominal, but introduced usually by the relative particle, another unique element which in itself is highly economic, but within the framework of the relative sentence less so, as it may function as any part of it. A relative sentence may also be introduced by a preposition which is rarely the case with other sentences except in poetry; in this respect, as well as by the fact that the particle regularly stands in the beginning of the sentence, it resembles the verbal phrase and is indeed closer to this in economic value than other sentences are. If a sentence - apart from vocative sentences - does not have explicit predicate, it is called elliptical; usually, the subject is then also unexpressed. Some of the main morphemes (cf. above, p.5f) are divided into sub-mor-

10

INTRODUCfION

phemes mainly according to their different syntactical functions: A-D. No subdivision. E. a) adverbs and interjections (incl. deictic particles); b) prepositions and conjunctions; c) determinative and relative particles. F. a) nominal types; b) verbal stems and voice. G. a) preformatives; b) afformatives. H. a) nominal phrases; b) verbal phrases; c) adverbial phrases; d) prepositional phrases; e) sentences. Phrases and sentences are classified together, as they are syntactically largely on the same level: either may occur as parts of others, although phrases cannot occur independently like main sentences, and sentences may occur as parts of nominal and verbal phrases only. Occasionally, units larger than main sentences (which might be called discourses) are recognizable, but in most cases, their limits are equivocal, and as they are thus still less systematized than sentences are, units larger than sentences are not included in the systematic analysis. §3. Some consequences in practice.

The importance of statistical analysis of languages is still largely not or only patchily understood; e.g., it may be asserted that not all morphs are quantifiable. 10 The question of quantifiability depends on the method used for the analysis. If - as in the present study - the analysis is based on a limited text sample, and the identity of the relevant units can be established unequivocally, it is sufficient to count the frequency of occurrence of each unit in the sample to quantify each one of them. Whether the sample is representative of the entire language can be established by taking additional random samples, if sufficient material is available, and comparing them with the first sample and with each other, until the representativeness of the sample(s) used is sufficiently established. For a sample to be adequate for a statistical study, it should contain several occurrences of each significant unit, normally in excess of twenty as more than one deviation from the regular pattern out of every twenty occurrences is usually considered significant, i.e., not attributable to pure chance. For a morphosyntactical analysis, therefore, the sample must be fairly large, as some of the morphemes involved occur rather infrequently. Where - as in the present study - there is a central language to which the others are compared, the validity of the sample for that language must be established independently of the other languages, i.e., by internal comparison. The fact that some of the non-Masoretic traditions and dialects can

10 E.g., R. Hetzron, Lingua vol. 38 (1976) p. 89f, claims that inflectional elements cannot be quantified.

INTRODUCI10N

11

furnish us with alternative samples does not solve the issue fundamentally, as they can be expected to diverge from each other to some extent, being based on different forms of Hbr both diachronically and with regard to linguistic background; the validity of one of the samples involved must thus still be established independently. This sample must, therefore, be at least twice as large as otherwise required. As the Q, Bab and Pal samples are all from texts written during periods when Hbr was subject to strong influence of other languages or no longer spoken as everyday language, and as their style is also peculiar to a greater or lesser extent in different ways, the Sam sample was deemed best to serve as the fundamental one, based as it is on a form of Hbr spoken during the 7th to 6th centuries B.c., partly apparently of Northern Israelite origin. It consists of the first ten chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and agrees essentially with the corresponding section of the standard Masoretic Bible with regard to morphosyntactics. For internal comparison, it was divided, as it appeared, into two almost exact halves, chs. 1-4 vs. 5-10. As neither half could be regarded as the primary one, the values for each unit in the two halves were added together and divided by two; the average is the expected value with which actual occurrences were compared using the Chi-square (X 2 ) testY Another possible method for checking on the internal consistency of a sample, without need to duplicate it, is to apply to it a simple probability formula, called Waring distribution. This is the representation of the unit value in the form of an unending series of fractions which approaches the unit with every additional term, but never quite reaches it. Its general form is 1 = ~ l/n (n+ 1); identifying n with the ordinal number of each term, we get 1 = 1/2 + 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/20... This can be applied to the distribution of morphs in each sample under certain conditions, starting with hapax legomena; in other words, the expectation is that, on the assumption of distribution by chance only, one half of the morphs occurring in the sample occur once only each; one sixth of them, twice each; one twelfth, three times each; and so forth. The formula is usually not applicable to single morphemes-if it does fit, it is probably coincidental, as the average frequency of occurrence per morph varies greatly between different morphemes, being usualy much higher for those consisting of a smallish number of morphs of high linguistic economy value. Its main value is therefore in the application to entire morphosyntactical structures in comparisons between different languages; and also in a single language, as a measure of the relative complexity of the structure. For it so happens that the more complex a morphosyntactical structure is, the more it generally deviates from the regular pattern of Waring distribution. This is due to the fact that increasing complexity creates more and more

11 For details of this test see Part One, Section A p. 54f; or any handbook on statistics, e.g., Hoel, Elementary statistics p. 235ff.

12

INTRODUcnON

frequently occurring morphs, particularly prepositions and conjunctions, larger variety of pronouns and semipronominal elements, such as determinative particles and inflectional formatives etc. Their proportion of the stock of morphs thus grows larger than expected on Waring distribution; and as a result, the number of rarely attested morphs, -such as phrases and sentences, grows too, and so the distribution becomes both top and bottom heavy which increases the corresponding Chi-square values. There is, however, one factor with a significant effect in the opposite direction, to wit, the fact that at a relatively undeveloped stage the word order in sentences tends to be free, and the number of sentence patterns rather large at that stage too, and so the initial systematization is apt to reduce their number at first; and the same may be the case after a major development, such as the loss of inflectional vowels. In attempts to determine the relative developmental stages of different (forms of) languages, special attention should be paid to the proportional role of sentence patterns. As a consequence of the unity of the morphosyntactical structure, the syntactical functions of each morpheme are discussed in connection with their morphological characteristics; these again include their patterns of formation which necessitates occasional intrusions into diachronics; a coherent account of diachronic development is connected to the comparison of the different non-Masoretic dialects and traditions. As the discussion of simple morphemes is mainly based on the materials presented in Part One which have widely different backgrounds in comparison with the samples on which the discussion of the bound modificational and composite morphemes is based, partly also between each other, no statistics are given for them in that connection, as any comparisons based on such statistics would lead to erroneous conclusions. Statistical calculations are therefore based on the samples for these morphemes also.

CHAPTER ONE SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES §4. General remarks.

The simple principal morphemes include proper names (Npr), nominal and verbal roots, cardinal numerals under 100 (Nn), and pronouns (PN). They are called simple in contrast to composite ones, as they consist of one single element each in terms of morphosyntactic usage, although etymologically, they are often analysable into more primitive components, as discussed below; and principal, as they are either capable of occurring by themselves, or carry the principal meaning in the compounds into which they enter with modificational morphemes.

§5. Proper names. The Hebrew proper names were thoroughly discussed by Martin Noth half a century ago in a work still valid in most respects;1 cases where an etymology proposed by him seemed doubtful or erroneous were mentioned in Part One Section A in the comments to the respective single entries; for geographical names, Wilhelm Boree's work2 was the most important treatment. In the present context, the section of Noth's work dealing with what he calls the grammatical structure of Semitic personal names3 provides basis for a discussion of the formation of the proper names in general, as geographical names are structurally comparable to some of the categories of personal names, and elements characteristic of gentilics etc. are found in some personal names too. Noth divides the names into three main categories: 1) word names; 2) sentence names; and 3) short (= contracted or abbreviated) names. Each category is further divided into sub-categories. 1) Word names. These include a number of personal names and the bulk of geographical ones. Noth distinguishes two main sub-categories, those consisting of a single noun and genitival constructions. It is not always possible to distinguish them from the other main categories, as those consisting of single nouns can sometimes be understood as abbreviations, while some genitival constructions could also be sentences. In the name list of Part One Section A, the following numbers are

Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung 1928 / Hildesheim 1966). Die alten Ortsnamen Palastinas (2. Aufl. Leipzig 1930 / Hildesheim 1968). 3 op.cit. p. 11ff: Kap. 2. Die grammatische Struktur der semitischen Personennamen.

1 Die (St\~ttgart

14

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

evidently or probably word names consisting of a single noun (substantive or adjective, including gentilics): 30,33, (36?,) 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 54,55,56,62,64,65,68,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 79, 81, 84, 91 (caritative?), 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126(?), 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 155, 163, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 185, 190, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216,217, 218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225, 227,228,229(?), 230(?),231, 232(?), 234, 236, 237, 239(?abbreviated?), 240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261 and so forth; subsequently, their proportion increases still, so that nearly one half of all the entries may belong to this sub-group, although some of them are also conceivable as abbreviations of lengthier names. Examples of genitival constructions: 24,25,26,27,28,29,31, 67, 78, (80,) 116, 119, 120, 154(?), 195,216,233,267,268,278 and so forth; most of these are place names, but personal names occur also, such as theophorous ones with j'i:f-/, /ma&fe-/, /&abd-/ etc. referring to the bearer of the name. 2) Sentence names. These are again divided fundamentally into nominal and verbal sentence names. Those based on nominal sentences occur relatively more frequently than nominal sentences on the average in the Bible, above all theophorous ones, including those with j'ab/, j'ax/, /milk/ etc. apparently referring to a deity; examples: 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20?, 21, 32, 35?, 38, 49, 50, 51, 53, 59, 76, 77, 82, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 101, 104, 106, 107, 109?, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143(?vb.?), 144, 147, 249, 256(?) and so forth, even if somewhat less frequently. As the vocalization of the names often tends to be curtailed, it is not always clear whether the non-

theophorous element is based on a noun or a verb. Those based on verbal sentences are further subdivided according to the conjugation ("tense", mood etc.) used. Examples of those based on the afformative conjugation ("perfect"): 3, 7?, 16, 17, 20?, 23, 88(ps)?, 100, 103(?), 129(?), 130, 136, 140, 142(?), 145, 150, 151, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 166(var.), 176, 179, 191, 238?(/'wf/ give + Horus?) etc. Those based on preformative conjugation ("imperfect"), whether in an indicative of volitive sense, are less frequent, e.g., 146, 149, 674, 676, 714, 715, 728, 738, 739, 741, 742, 743, 745, 748, 756, 782, 783, 799, 805, 812, 818, 819, 828(?), 834, 840(?). Because of vocalic contractions, names formed with nouns of agent or patient ("participles") can be discerned apart from those based on the afformative conjugation only where preformatives are evident, cf. 942, 943, 951, 1035 (with abbreviated 1034).4 In sentence names, the predicate is mostly placed after the subject, but-as shown in many examples above - the reverse order is also attested not infrequently. The general assumption that the predicate is then more emphasized

4

cr. Noth, op.cit. p. 31.

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

15

than the subject is plausible, although not strictly provable. 3) Abbreviated and/or contracted names. The tendency to pronounce names, particularly common ones, more briefly led not only to vocalic contractions, but also to apocopation of consonants and omission of whole components of composite names, sometimes replaced by stereotypic (hypocoristic or caritative etc.) formations, particularly at the end of names, but certain types of vocalization inside the word may be connected with it.s Examples: 5, 11, 13, 37, 58, 62?, 75, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91?, 97, 108, 110?, 111?, 175, 186, 206, 227?, 239?, 244, 255var. etc. On the other hand, most foreign names, although involving some contractions, such as nos. 188, 191, 309, 310, do not belong to this category, as they also otherwise show irregular phonetic developments, apparently connected with the conditions of borrowing. As stated before, proper names are normally not inflected. The category of nomina gentilica, however, being of adjectival nature, may be inflected in number and gender, and some of them are actually attested in plural only. Most of them too, however, are usually or always used in sg. in a collective sense. Examples: 47, 102, 107, 118, 178,200,207,213,219,221,230,237,246, 250,251,253 etc. As seen, they are formed from their base name by means of the afformative /_i:/6; another afformative occurring in several Npr is the basically collective /-o:n/; e.g., 114, 202(?), 223, 245, 254 etc., mostly but not exclusively geographical names. Likewise, being determined to the highest possible degree by itself, a Npr usually does not take the determinative particle, but the gentilics are again an exception because of their adjectival nature and use as attributes; cf. the examples above. Some other names, based on common or verbal nouns, also contain the particle as a formative element; e.g., nos. 283, 284, 285(var.), 286, 287, 288(?), 509, 510, 511, 512(?), 514. Syntactically, Npr occur as most parts of sentences, including functions as subject, nominal predicate, object or other predicative supplement or as an adverbial, in these and objectival functions often introduced by a preposition; and likewise in verbal phrases, naturally apart from the regent position. In nominal phrases, they may function as regent, except with a subordinate attribute, as this too would entail twofold determination; as an attribute, it is usually subordinate, thus providing determination to the regent; gentilics and the like may also occur as adjectival attributes; but in appositional phrases, the Npr are always regarded as the regent regardless of the word order. 7

S Cf. Noth, op.cit. p. 38ff for details, although not all patterns mentioned by him are equally convincing; e.g. /qiitiil/ is understandable as the common nominal type, /qAto:1/ as the Aram nouf of agent. To be discussed in Chapter Two below (p.59ff.). 7 For examples see Appendix IV; in adverbial and prepositional phrases, Npr cannot occur, as these consist entirely of modificational morphs.

16

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

§6. Nominal and verbal roots. It is generally accepted that most roots in Hbr, as also other Sem languages, consist of three different consonants which are therefore called radicals. 8 However, in a considerable number of roots, one or occasionally even two of the consonants shows irregularities in usage, being absent in some stem forms or replaced by a vocalic element; and in some others, only two or rarely even one root consonant only occurs in all the attested forms and derivatives, even if repeated or lengthened in some forms. It has been recognized long ago that some of the radicals showing such irregularities are secondary additions to originally shorter roots, and by now, it is generally accepted that root initial semivowels and at least some cases of /n/ in that position are such root augments or determinatives, occasionally also others,9 such as / f / with a causative connotation. In my studylo I have come across still other consonants of apparently secondary origin in some roots, notably /t/ with a reflexive connotation, but also /' / and maybe /h/ without definite semantic correlation, and also cases of purely vocalic augmentation, although in some of these, the alternative of an original root vowel having been apocopated cannot be ruled out. In most cases, the secondary origin of the augments is demonstrated by the fact that they interchange with each other between different languages and occasionally within Hbr in the augmentation of an originally shorter root, and also with the still basically biradical hollow roots in which the tendency towards expansion is mainly manifested in the prolongation of the stem vowel in part of the forms and derivatives, as well as those in which one (usually second) radical is lengthened or repeated in most forms and which we therefore call continuable roots. The contrary assumption, that the differentiating radical in the original triradical roots with closely similar or identical meanings would have been lost secondarily to yield a formally identical biradical root is manifestly perverted. On the other hand, as the augments occur in most forms of the augmented roots through Sem and widely also in the other branches of the phylum, it is reasonable to consider them in Sem and certainly in Hbr as principally triradical; and as the monoradical roots are very few and purely nominal, and the purely biradical ones-without any augmentation or prolongation of either radical or the stem vowel-likewise, the Hbr stock of roots can still be described as principally triradical in synchronous terms. Therefore also, as the discussion of the mono- and purely biradical roots can conveniently be done in connection with the respective nominal types, the consideration of root formation in this paragraph is concentrated upon the process and vari-

8 From Lat radix "root". 9 Cf. Loprieno p. 131. 10 Cf. also Zaborski in FOr XI p. 307ff; Loprieno p. 129 n. 47.

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

17

eties of augmentation. The commonest methods of augmentation are evidently the prefixation of an oral nasal or of a semivowel (originally mostly labial) to a more original biradical root. In both cases, the augment is absent in the primary verbal stem in the forms of conjugation based on the verbal noun of action11 in most roots and forms, and there are indications that where it is present, this is due to the influence of the regular verb. We may thus assume that the augmentation took place after the formation of this actional group of conjugations, but before the rest of the verbal stem formation, as all these presuppose the presence of the augment. With regard to nominal derivatives, however, the two principal methods go apart. There are a number of nouns formed from the roots with the semivowel as the 1st rad. without it, cf. the roots lyd&l,

lyz&l, Iyld/, Iy&d/, Iy&l/, Iy&c/, lyc'l, lyc&/(?), lyr'/(var.)./yrJI, lyJb/, lyJn/; whereas for those with Inl it is hard to find any authentic ones; Igadu:dl message is due to Sam dogmatic reinterpretation; 17app(at)1 and 17ap7ap(t)1 could also be based on the biradical 17p(p )/; and IJa/i'tl seems

to have been differentiated secondarily from the verbal noun of action; what remains is some Sam varr. in nouns formed from the roots In7V I, InJ'I, and InJ'/II by means of the Ima-I-preformative, and so they too could be due to a secondary development, albeit a phonetic one. The fact that I/nl roots are more numerous than I Iw I and Iy I ones together makes the difference still more significant; and as the nasal is present in several roots in non-Sem attestations, it does not seem possible to attribute the formation of all the nouns from these roots to a period later than those from the I Iw I roots; it would seem then that the nasal augment began to be used for the expansion of originally biradical roots earlier than the semivowel. The nasal augment may in fact be connectable with the N-stem preformative and hence with the deictic element present in the 1st pers. pronoun too, as roots I Inl often express self-centred or otherwise reflexive action, cf. also the fact that in Hbr, several of them are not attested in the primary stem at all, but usually only or mainly in N- and H-stems; the primary stem, where attested, could thus be transformation of a more original N-stem to a biradical rootP Both classes of augmented roots interchange with each other and also with some other types of irregular classes in some roots. Examples: ly'V I cf. In'VI, InwVI, l'wV I; Iy'll root var. of I'wl/; ly'I/II root var. of I'wl/II, cf. I'wlm/; ly'J I cf. Arab varr. ESA G&z I'(y)s/; Iybl/ cf. Akk var. Soq Itbll (Akk var. Ibbll probably originated as a phonetic var.); lyg&1 cf. Igw&l; Iygrl root var. of Igwr/III; Iydl Ug var. (Akk) SAr var. Eth Eg /C)d/;

11 Cf. p. 72, 78 below for details. 12 It may be unnecessary to list examples,

as these can be easily found in the lexicon under initial /n/; and so for the semivowel under initial /y/.

18

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

/yd(d)/ cf. /dwd/; /yd&/ ESA var. /d&/ Soq /'dx/ Cush /d&/, /A&/, /dg/, /Aag/; /yhb/ Te /h(y)b/ Cush /hb/, /h(w)/, /(')(w)/ ?Eg /h'b/; /yz&/ ?cf. /zw&/ (sweat is often related to fright); Ug /d&/; /yxd/ cf. /'xd/; /yxm/ cf. /xm(m)/, Eg /xmt/; /y7b/ root var. of /7wb/; /ykl/ = /khl/ elsewhere; /ym/ cf. /m/; /ymn/ cf. /'mn/, Te /mn/; /ynq/ root var. /nwq/, cf. Arab ESA (Cush Eg); /ysd/II root var. of /swd/; /ysk/ cf. /nsk/, /swk/; /ysp/ Soq /sf/; ?cf. /,sp/; /y&l/II root var. of /&IV /; /y&P/ root var. of /&yp/; /Y&P/II root var. of /yp&/? cf. Arab /n&f/?; /y&c/ root var. /&wc/; /ypV/ Syr var. /p'V/; /yc'/ Soq /'AV/ ?Chad /sV/; /ycb/ root var. of /ncb/; /ycq/ root var. /cwq/II; /ycr/ cf. /cwr/, /cwr/II1 and /cr(r)/; /yct/ MT root var. /cwt/; /yqb/ cf. /nqb/, ?/qb(b)/; ?Soq /,kb/; /yqd/ Akk /qyd/ Berb /qd/; /yq&/ Arab var. /q&/ R; Soq /'qx/; /yqf / Chad /ks/; /yrd/ Soq /(,)rd/; /yrV / ?Chad var. /nyrV /; /yrx/ cf. /'rx/; /yrq/ root var. of /rq(q)/; /yrf / Akk /rfV/ Arab var. /'rfJ/ Soq /,rt/; /yf/ Ug /'fJ/ Aram /,yt/; /yfn/ Chad varr. /sn/, /sm/; /yf&/ cf. /fw&/. In the above examples-comprehensive for the I /w-y/ class in our materials - no uniform semantic correlation appears to be present; the few entirely or primarily nominal roots are basically neutral, but mostly understandable also as action-oriented; some verbal roots are also intransitive, but most refer to self-centred or otherwise self-interested action, and some are purely transitive; the latter, however, are relatively few, and so we may say that the semivowel augment is mainly connected with neutral-intransitive or reflexive connotation. This, however, seems to have been the case with the basic biradical (rarely monoradical) roots already, and so the augment itself does not seem to have any semantic connotation. It may, then, have purely phonetic origins, maybe as a consonantal allophone of the /U / phoneme reconstructed for the pre-Sem period, cf. the initial /u-/ still prevalent in Ass for the OAkk-Bab /(w)a-/; at the stage when word initial vowels were not tolerated, the consonantal allophone became mandatory in that position and created a secondary vowel after the pattern of the regular triradical roots. The prevalence of /w/ is well accounted for on the same assumption, as the front oral allophones of the /U / phoneme seem to have been scarce in early times,13 becoming prevalent in NWSem only at a relatively late period. Interchange of the semivowel with /' / also supports the assumption of a phonetic origin, as /' / is demonstrably a secondary consonantalization of a word initial vowel in many cases, cf. the roots /zrx/, /zr&/II, the Nn for 4, PTa /'tmwl/ besides /tmwl/, etc. Further examples of the /' / augment: ?/,bV/ cf. Caf /by/ ?Hsa /bV/; /'gz/ cf. Syr SSem /gwz/; /'gp/ cf. /gp(p)/; /'dm/ cf. /dm/; /'dn/ cf. /hdm/; /,wz/, var. /wz/; /,wr/ cf. /nwr/; /,zl/ cf. Arab /zwl/; /'xr/ cf. Tu /xr/ Eg /x'/; /,7m/ cf. Aram var. Akk Arab /7m(m)/ Eg /tmm/; /,yb/ cf. Arab /w'b/; /,ml/ cf. Arab /ml/; /'mr/ cf. 13

Cf. Part Two p. 133 for details.

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

19

Iml(l)/II?; I'nxl cf. Arab Inwx/; I'nsl cf. Arab Ins/; /,npi ? cf. Or lfuna:nl Eg Ifng;; I'nql cf. In'q/; /,rxl cf. also Arab Irwxl Eth Irnrx/; I'rkl cf. SEth Som Irg/; ? I'rcl cf. Chad 1r'fJ., 14 /; /'Ikl root var. IIkVI; ?/'tVI cf. Cush Itw/. In some cases, the glottal may be original and its lack secondary, but hardly in most of them, and so the existence of an 1'1 augment in root initial may be considered assured. On the other hand, the evidence for Ihl in that position is much weaker; apart from those above, only the following deserve mention: Ihkl/, cf. Akk (Sum) I(')kl/; Ihlkl cf. IIlk/, Akk IVlkl Bil Ilkl Tu Iwlg/kl Chad IVlkn/, I(,)rkn/; Ihlq7I based on Ilq7I H-stem; Ihpkl cf. Arab /,fkj. Usually, then, it is a var. of 1'1 and like this of phonetic origin, except where based on the causative stem of a more primitive root. On the other hand, Inl augment is much more numerous and is practically always still recognizable as of reflexive origin, although sometimes, a semantic shift has made the connection less evident. Examples: In'V I = InwV I cf. l'wVI basically to be desirable; In'm/, cf. Inhm/, originally of spontaneous, half-consciously emitted noises; In'p/, of satisfying certain vital needs, cf. Arab In'f/; In'cl self-assertive response to what may be the primary meaning of l'c(V)/; In'ql onomatopoeic, semantically comparable to In'ml above; In'rl likewise self-centred reaction, perhaps related to /,r(r)/; Inb(b)1 probably onomatopoeic, Inl original; Inb'l probably reflexive of Ibw'l; Inbxl again of spontaneous noises, cf. also Arab IbXI; Inb71 basically to be (come) visible, conceivably reflexive of a root like Arab Ib71 to cut open; Inbl/ reflexive of IblVI; Inb&1 originally probably refl. of Ib&l, cf. Arab; Ingbl originally probably dry landscape with scanty vegetation, cf. Arab Igaba:bl dearth, Igubbl (syr.) bush, shrub; and so forth. These may suffice for illustration; as seen above, not all the I Inl roots appear to have been augmented secondarily, but even where this may be the case, reflexive connotation is usually still perceivable as a witness to the continuity of the semantic tradition. As for I I I, this is usually assumed to have been used as an augment with a causative connotation, in conformity with the secondary stem in those languages in which this consonant is attested in the 3rd pers. PNp also. In modern SAr, however, this sound occurs as the preformative of the causative-reflexive stem, and as the proposed derivation from the ESA 1st-I appears to be unparallelled and phonetically hard to understand, while the derivation of the causative-reflexive connotation from roots with reflexive original meaning is plausible, it seems to me that the possibility of this meaning besides the purely causative one should be taken into account in the search for secondary III-augments. Examples: II/sbkl conceivable as crfl of Ibwk/, with secondary differentiation of the sibilant; IIgrl cf. Igwr/IV?; IIhrl conceivably related to Inhr/, whether in causative or crfl sense (cf. the 14

Itl'l, ttll in the catalogue notation, apparently meaning a g10ttalized lateral.

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

20

cognates), hence also to /nwr/ and ultimately /,wr/; / fxv / evidently parallel to the ft-stem of /xwV/; / f7p/ causative to /7p(p )/, cf. /n7p/; / fkb/ perhaps originally crfl to /kb/ (cf. /kbVI), if this originally referred to the setting of the stars; /fkn/ c(rfl) of /kwo/; ? /fkr/ cf. /nkr/ (in crfl sense)?; / flhb/ c(rfl?) of /lhb/; / flk/ c of /hlk/; / fsp/ crfl of /syp/; / f &n/ crfl of /&nV/II; /f&r/IV crfl of /&rV/; /f&r(r)/ c of a root /&r(r)/, cf. Arab /&r/?; /fplj originally crfl of /pl(l)/, cf. /nplj; /fqlj c of /ql(l); /fq&/ c of /q&/, cf. /yq&/, (Tib) /nq&/; /fqc/ crfl of /qwcj. A It/-augment with reflexive connotation is discernible in some roots; after sibilants as 1st rad. it occurs in the second place. In some recent secondary roots, the reflexive connotation is lacking. Examples: ? /str / rfl of /swr/?; / ft&/ rfl of a root / f&/? (cf. ESA); /tbljII cf. /yblj and /,bl/ in Npr (Part I Section A nos. 24-28); /txl/ denominative, cf. /yxl/; /txl/II ditto, cf. /xl(1)/; /txn/ ditto, cf. /xn(n)/; /txt/ rfl, cf. /oxt/; ? /tkn/ cf. /kwo/?; /tmd/ cf. /md(d)/?; /t&lj presumably denominative, cf. /&IV/ (or /y&lj?); ?/tq&/ cf. /yq&/; /trm/ denominative, cf. /rwm/; /tf&/ cf. /yf&j. Other augments do not seem to occur in our materials. /&-/ is found as a formative element in /&aqrab/ at least, but is better interpreted as a nominal preformative, originated as a pharyngalized var. of /'-/; /&kbr/ and / &kb show such irregular variation between cognate languages that they are probably of non-Sem origin; / &rm/ might, at the first glance, be conceivable as based on /rwm/ or /rm(m)/, but on closer consideration, the concept of heaping up is not really related to that of being high, as the resulting heap is not normally very high, and some Syr Arab Soq cognates suggest gathering as the primary meaning. The only somewhat plausible case is /&gl/, d. /gl(1)/, but if really based on it, the Eth cognates indicate that there too, 1&1 probably resulted from a pharyngalization of 1'1. Again, the infixed I-r-I and 1-1-1 recognizable as secondary additions in a number of words or roots are not augments in the same sense as those above, as they do not follow regular formal nor semantic patterns, and in many-probably most-cases are recognizable as means to avoid, or to release gemination. Roots containing them are better included in the four-radical category of which they are indeed the most important group apart from a number of words of foreign origin; words formed by means of the repetition of a part or all of a basic tri- or biradical root are better regarded as reduplicated stems of such basic roots rather than separate ones even if such a reduplicated form happen to be the only one attested. They are therefore further considered in connection with the nominal and verbal stem formation 15 like the mono- and purely biradical roots. As for the other irregular roots, some of those with vocalic 3rd rad. (= III V) were mentioned above as alternating with others based on the same two consonantal ones and therefore probably secondary too, unless a loss of an

f/

15 See

below, p. 5Hf, 74f.

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

21

original root vowel be plausible. In some other cases, a III V root is attested as a var. of a continuable root, e.g., /qc(V)/, / I n(n/V)/, cf. also /ql(l)/ vs. /qlV/11 etc. In such cases, the final root vowel is probably a secondary augment, as a rule coinciding with an intransitive or reflexive connotation, but in most cases, the final root vowel may be original. The basically biradical hollow and continuable roots also intechange with each other and with other irregular ones; e.g., /bwz/ cf. /bzV/; /byt/ sg. vs. pI.; /gwp/ cf. /gp(p)/; /gyl/ cf. /gl(l)/; /dwk/ cf. /dk(k)/, /dk'/, /dkV/; /zwb/ ESA var. /zhb/; /xwg/ cf. /xg(g)/; /xwm/ cf. /xm(m)/, /yxm/, /nxm/; /xwr/ Soq /xhr/; kwl/ Akk /kll/; /kwn/ cf. /khn/, ?/kn/II; /mwk/ cf. /mk(k)/; /mwl/ cf. /mhl/; /mwn/ cf. /rnnVI?; /mwJ/ cf. /mJ(J)/; /nwb/ NEth /nhb/; /nwl/ Soq /n&hl/; /nwp/ cf. /npV/?; /&yr/ sg. vs. pI.; /chr/ SAr var. Eth /-w-/; /cwl/ root var. of /cl(l)/II; /cwr/ cf. /cr(r)/; /cwr/ II cf. /cr(r)/II; /cwr/IV cf. /cr(r)/III; /qwl/ cf. /qhl/; /qwc/ cf. Arab /qz/; /qwc/II1 cf. Arab /quccat/; /qwr/ cf. /qr(r)/; /rwV/ Soq var. /rhV/; /rwrn/ var. /rm(m)/; /rwc/ cf. (Aram) /rh7/; /Jwb/ ESA var. /-h-/; /twr/ cf. /t'r/; /tyJ/ Akk /dafJ/, It-I; some others are included in the preceding lists. An additional feature is the appearance of /h/ (rarely /' /) as a 2nd rad. in hollow root varr., apparently in consequence of devoicing the middle of the stem vowel, presumably created by a double peak accent. Other irregularities, such as root final /' /, may be incidental phonetic creations. The relationship of /u/ to /i/ in the actional primary stem form of the hollow roots is largely analogous to that of /w / to /y/ as the root initial augment; in both cases, the latter is in a small minority in the roots with early attestations; most of those traceable to the pre-Sem period show varr. with /u/ in the hollow roots and with /w/ or no augment at all in the augment class. The only exceptions in the hollow roots are /myn/ and /&yn/; but even /myn/ depends on the Cpt /mine/ only for positive evidence for the front vowel outside Sem; moreover, Te /mnV/ shows variant root structure within Sem; and / &yn/ has a short vowel in many Eth and almost all nonSem attestations. In the augment class, /y-/ occurs outside NWSem only in the roots /ybJ /, /yd/ (besides /' / and zero), /yd& / (besides /w/ and zero), /yhb/ (ditto), /yhr/, ?/yld/ (usually /w/), ?/ym/, /ymn/ (besides /w/ and zero), ? /ynq/ (usually zero), /ysr/ (mostly zero), /ty&/ (besides /w I), /yqc/ (besides /w /, /t/), /yrx/ (besides mostly /w/, ? /' I), /yr&/ (Arab var. only), /yJ r / (besides /wI), /ytm/,? /ytr /. Of all of these, /y-/ occurs in non-Sem entries only in /ybI/ (probably loan from Sem), ? /yd/ (/-d/ lacking!), /yhb / (probably secondary glide), /yld/ (ditto; ?Eg), /ym/ (LWW; Hsa?), /ymn/ (Eg besides /w/; Hsa?), /yrx/ (Berb secondary varr.; ?Hsa; Eg), ?/ytr/ (Eg only, if relevant). All the cases of an original non-Sem fyi, apart from the two doubtful Hsa instances, are in Eg in which language, moreover, root initial /y-/ usually corresponds to Sem /,-/. All this agrees with our former

22

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

conclusion16 that the front oral allophones of the pre-Sem /U/ phoneme did not occur frequently. As the root occurs in its nominal and verbal derivatives only, it does not have any morphological inflection or syntactical use of its own. § 7.

Cardinal numerals under 100.

These, like other numerals, are basically nominal derivatives from roots included in the system discussed in the preceding paragraph. Their types of formation also recur elsewhere in the system of nominal types, their inflectional afformatives likewise among nominal afformatives. What remains to be done here is the identification of the respective roots and types and discussion of the somewhat defective inflection and its unusual semantic application as well as partly likewise unusual syntactical usage. The roots are: for 1: /'xd/ for the normal form; as it seems, not otherwise attested /&ftv/ for the alternative expression of the unit in the compound for 11; for 2: / f n(n/V)/; for 3: / flf /; for 4: /rb&/II; for 5: /xmf /; for 6: Iff/II; for 7: /fb&/II; for 8: /fmn/II; for 9: /tf&/; for 10: /&f/sr/; forms for tens are based on these, that for 20 on 10, the others on the respective basic units.17 Types of formation: 1A: as it seems, /qattal/ (clearly recognizable in Bab only); IB: probably /qatli/ (cf. Akk f.; /-e:-/ in masc. contracted from /-ia:-/); 2: /qil/; 3: probably two alternatives, more original /qato:l/ and later /qata:l/ (Sam, with dissimilation of the 1st vowel; the nearly universal defective spelling in the Bible may here be conventional because of the familiarity of the word); 4: /'aqtal/; 5: /qatil/; 6: /qill/ (for more original */qitl/); 7: /qatl/; 8: /qato:le/, (Sam) /qata:la/ (cf. the note on 3; the final /-e/ may be originally collective afformative); 9: /qitl/; 10: /qatl/, (in compounds; except Sam) /qatal/, /qatle/, (pI.) /qitl-/. The pI. is formed uniformly by the afformative /-i:m/, semantically basically comparable to the collective pI. formed from some nouns besides an individualistic one with /_0:t/;18 but due to the demand for exactitude in numerals the meaning of pI. is fixed at ten times the basic unit except for 10 the pI. of which is only twice that; this also indicates that the exact values are secondary, derived from a more flexible primary use. The pI. with /-o:tl from the base for 10 may be regarded as Ns; the pI. of 1 is not used in a numerical sense. The word for 2 is formally pI. itself, with the afformative 1-ayml (probably in Sam too, although fallen together with that from 1-i:m/). There is a distinction between genders in the basic units up to 10, and hence in the compounds involving them, made mostly by means of afforma-

16 Cf. Part II p. 128f. 17 or the largely tentative etymologies see Part I Section C. 18 E.g., roots /'Im/II, /bkr/, /gdp/.

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

23

tives like those of Ns sg.f.; but their syntactical application differs in most cases. For numbers 1 and 2, however, the congruence is normal: the numeral follows the gender of the thing counted, whether as an attribute or as the noun regent, and in the latter role has a special cstr. form, if the attribute is subordinate.19 This, however, is apparently not the case in the compound for 12, as the final I-ml is preserved in it, although the preceding diphthong is contracted into I-e:-I. In the units 3 to 10 (inclusive), however, the roles are reversed: the longer form ( = formally fern.) is used when the thing counted is masc. and vice versa. The same rule is valid even for the compounds with 10, the word for 10 following the pattern of the thing counted, although this is semantically not justifiable. Similar anomaly appears in the fact that with the basic units 2 to 10, the thing counted is in pl., and mostly so with the compounds for 11 to 19; but some commonly used words, conceivable as measuring units, stand in sg. with the latter, and so all the words with numbers from 20 upwards. The forms for tens are indeclinable, and so the alternative form for 1 in the compound for 11; Pal Bab agree with Tib in having the special form with final le
in the fern. form for 10 in compounds, whereas Sam has the basic fem.abs. in them too. In the complicated Bab punctuation and secondarily "corrected" readings of the Berlin Hagiographa Ms. Or.qu. 680 (=Ec 1) there are also readings of the numerals for 7 and 9 without vowel after the 1st rad. before another numeral besides some with an unaccented vowel; the usual lal or lei is found in the mss. with the simple punctuation (unless secondarily "corrected").2O The reversal of normal congruence between the regent and the attribute has been much discussed; the fact that it is shared by all the (ancient) Sem languages indicates early origin. Connected with the notion of plurality, the basic unit system was probably created before the gender system was fully established. As the expressions were at first also still used as common nouns, a marker was attached to the word used as a numeral to avoid confusion, with It I as its characteristic consonant.21 In most languages, nominal phrases are treated normally as single syntactical units, and determinatives (if used at all) applied to them once only; where (as in Hbr) this is otherwise, the multiple use of the marker is redundant and therefore not always regular. When the fern. gender was systematically differentiated, the numeral marker was soon identified with its afformative;22 as a nominal phrase was not in need of the sf. form I fteYhiiml it is the sf. that is formally incongruous. In Tib, the form without vowel after the 1st rad. occurs regularly before another n~fral. The Arab Itawl single (thing) may be related to that marker, and the afform. I-t! used to form nouns of unit from collectives another application of it; H. Bauer in ZDMG 66 (19R) p. 267ff. Unless they were in fact originally identical; the numeral marker has an objectivaI connotation too; in the case of nouns of unit, secondary amalgamation has taken place anyway. 19 In

20

cr.

24

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

two determinatives, it came to be omitted from the numeral where the expression for the thing counted was fem. 23 This created the opposition between genders in nominal phrases involving numerals, characteristic enough to be maintained even when the adjectival attribute was subjected to pleonastic determination. As to the varying vocalization of the word for 10 in the compounds for 11 to 19 in Pal Bab (=Tib), the consonant text remaining the same, the variation could be secondary. Suspicion that this is in fact so grows upon examination of the structure of the nominal constructions of which these numerals morphologically consist. Apart from Ez in which the normal cs. forms / f neY/, f. f f teYf for 2 seem to be original in the compounds for 12 also, we have the unique ffneYmf, f. ffteYmf in these compounds, understandable only as a combination of st.abs. consonantism with the st.cstr. vocalization. Phrasestructurally, this means that the consonant text is to be interpreted as a construction with a noun in apposition, the vocalization as a subordinative ("genitival") construction. This conclusion is corroborated by a study of the other numerals of this group; out of the hundred-odd compounds with the short form U&frf) in the Bible,24 in which distinction can be made on the basis of the consonant text, only 3 (Jd 8:10 20:25 2S 19:18) have the subordinative construction. By contrast, in the compounds with f&frhf in which the consonantism always remains the same, the present vocalization indicates subordinative construction everywhere the vocalization of the single unit enables us to make a distinction. Moreover, the special cstr. forms for 7 and 9 may give the impression that the abs. state only is used with common nouns; but this is disproved by the longer forms as well as by the analogy of similar constructions involving other numerals and by the simple Bab punctuation. Accordingly, it is plausible to conclude that originally, the single unit and the word for 10 were simply juxtaposed to each other; but about the time of the exile, sporadic change into a regens-rectum construction began to occur; and after the fixation of the consonant text, this construction replaced the original one wherever possible without alteration of consonantism; the scantier vocalization is no doubt due to the influence of Aram, with the development of the special cstr. forms for 7 and 9 when preceding other numerals as the last phase, still visible in the complicated Bab punctuation, the stage with the unstressed vowel after the 1st rad. evidently preceding its total disappearance which alone is found in Tib. The indeclinable forms for tens agree best with simple juxtaposition too. However, the subordinative construction is found in earlier texts in certain constructions, such as those involving higher numer-

23 After the generalization of the numerals, the nouns involved were no doubt soon replaced by others in their original substantive meaning, and so the specific numeral marker was2io longer understood as such. Based on the Tib text; the Bab texts extant have far too few attestations to yield comprehensive and unequivocal results.

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

25

als,25 the plural for "days", and some others with determined rectum. The numeral stands mostly before the thing counted and is therefore best regarded as the regent even when simply juxtaposed; only in late texts, the reverse order begins to appear and never becomes common. The rule of the thing counted being in sg. with numerals from 20 upwards may imply recognition of its adjectival nature besides the lack of necessity to indicate plurality when the exact amount is stated; the fact that with the smaller units, pI. is nevertheless the norm, may derive from that earliest period when their common nominal sense was still in memory, and therefore the abstract idea of plurality not yet clear. The basically collective nature of the numerals appears also in the fact that a suffixed pronoun as a subordinate attribute always refers to the entire groups, e.g., / f neYham/ both of them (never: two of a larger number). Outside nominal phrases, numerals may occur in the same functions as common nouns.

§8. Personal pronoun. In the lexical part, the verbal pre- and afformatives of the 1st and 2nd pers. were included in this category, as they are evidently of pronominal origin. Morphosyntactically, however, they are modificational, being integral formatives of the respective verbal forms; in this part, they are therefore discussed together with other pre- and afformatives, and so only the separate and suffixed forms remain to be treated here. On the other hand, as the 3rd pers. is formally identical with the demonstrative pronoun for the farther object, they could be discussed together under the latter entry; but because of the considerable functional and partly also formal differences separate discussion is preferred, independently used separate forms as well as suffixed ones being included here. The formation having been discussed together with the etymology in the lexical part, inflection and functions only remain to be considered. However, even the inflection does not call for much comment, as the means by which it is performed do not recur elsewhere in the form system and being largely different in different persons may be termed replacement morplzs. The inflection is thus basically deducible from the formation. In principle, it takes place in person, number and gender. There are three persons and two numbers and also two genders, except in the 1st pers. in which the gender is not differentiated. The traditional terminology being found satisfactory, it is retained throughout, although what is called pI. is in fact collective in the 1st and sometimes also in the 2nd pers., as "we" does not mean "more than one I", but "I and those with me"; and "ye" also may mean "thou and those with 25 Demonstrable for those involving thousands only, as the words for 100 and 10,000 are

fern.

26

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES

thee" - moreover, even where several listeners are directly addressed simultaneously, that too takes place collectively. However, as 3.pers.pI. is a true plural, and the term does not cause confusion in the other persons either, it is retained. As no clear distinction between the functions of the lengthier and the shorter forms in the different persons can be discovered26 and the differences are largely due to phonetic change and other diachronic factors, they are not considered here. Syntactical functions are distributed distinctively between the separate27 and suffixed forms. In the 1st and 2nd pers., the separate form is used rather rarely, either as the sbj. of a nominal sentence or in apposition to the sbj. of a verbal sentence represented by a verbal pre- or afformative; the 3rd pers. occurs more often, and also in the verbal sentence as a sbj., as the verbal preand afformatives of the 3rd pers. are not pronominal, where existing at all. The suffixed forms are attached to nouns in the function of subordinate attribute to noun regent, except that in verbal nouns, they may also occur in the objectival function, as when attached to conjugated verbal forms. In addition, they often occur attached to prepositions to form prepositional phrases, and occasionally to other particles to form adverbial phrases. 28 § 9.

Demonstrative pronoun.

The formation and etymology having again been discussed in the lexical part, it remains to be stated that the inflection takes place by replacement morphs and is also somewhat defective, all as in the personal pronoun. The sg.f. of the PNd for the nearer object does have the fern. afform. /-t/ as some nominal types, but the vocalization is unlike masc. Basically, two series are distinguished, that for the nearer and that for the farther object; in the former, the two common numbers, sg. and pI. are distinguished, but gender distinction is found in sg. only. In the series for the farther object, the basic forms are identical with 3rd pers. PNp. Of the mixed form for objects at intermediary distances, only sg.m. forms are attested in our materials. Syntactically, all may in principle stand for any noun or proper name in any function; in practice, substantial use is relatively infrequent, that as adjectival attribute in nominal phrases most common. In the series for the nearer object as well as those at intermediary distances, there is no formal variation corresponding to function except for the prefIxation of /ha-/ in the A Ta function; in that for the farther object, there is additionally the division into independent and suffixed forms like that in the personal pronoun.

26 Except for occasional emphasis on the longer form of 1st pers.sg. and perhaps 3rd pers.pl.m.; but that too is difficult to discern in many cases and certainly far from universal; and ~e short from can be emphasized too. 2 For details cf. also Muraoka, Emphatic words chs. II-IV. 28 For the functions of these see below, p. 101.

SIMPLE PRINCIPAL MORPHEMES § 1O.

27

Relative pronouns.

Both relative pronouns found in our materials show some vocalic variation, but it appears to be incidental, although in the /z-/-based one, this could be of dialectal origin. It occurs as an independent word and besides the common function of introducing relative sentences is also used in nominal phrase as noun regent with a proper name as subordinate attribute. Both are rather rare in biblical texts, but the / I-/-based one becomes common in postbiblical texts; it is always prefIXed to the following word, whether directly or with an intervening preposition; with the prep. /1-/ it then forms a compound with genitival connotation, but this too is always prefixed to the following word in our texts. 29 §11. Indefinite and interrogative pronoun.

This pronoun is used both independently and as a formative element in nominal types and probably in the noun and personal pronoun for plural formation. In the independent usage which is mostly interrogative, a special form, usually vocalized as /mi:/, is differentiated to refer to entities conceived as personal; the basic form, apparently /ma/, refers to other things and is apparently also presupposed by the bound form in the nominal formation and inflection apart from some secondary late creations. 30 Apart from the interrogative function, the independent forms are also used occasionally in indefinite and rarely in relative functions; but in the bound forms, these alone are presupposed, and as the relative sense is easily derivable from the indefinite one as a specified case, the indefinite connotation may be regarded as the basic one, also readily convertible into interrogative in questions. Besides the common indefinite sense of the basic form, a reduplicated */ma-w(a)-ma/ anything also occurs, but rarely in our materials.31

29 The normal biblical relative marker being of nominal origin and occasionally stilI preserving nominal connotation is better defmed as a particle and will be discussed below, p.33. Cf. ~e next paragraph also. For details on the formative usage see below, p. 6Off. 31 Other kinds of pronouns do not occur in our materials; nominal expressions occur in some indefmite and related functions.

CHAPTER TWO MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

a. Separate morphs: particles. §12. Introductory remarks.

In the lexical part (Section E), certain particles were further specified in addition to the fundamental division into a) adverbs, b) prepositions and conjunctions, c) relative, and d) interjections; such as indefinite and existential (positive and negative) particles. In this part, such further specified particles are discussed in connection with adverbs some of which they resemble functionally, except for the so-called definite article or determinative particle which is occasionally used in the relative function and is therefore connected with the relative particle, as also the indefinite particle as having a function complementary to it. For statistical purposes, the rarely occurring category of interjections is combined with the adverbs as being similar in character, albeit more vaguely. § 13.

Adverbs.

Formation of adverbs shows little regularity. Primitive ones are generally of deictic origin, analogous connotation still discernible in many contexts. Examples: /,azl then; Ize hI here; now; Ikoh I thus; /'eYI, /'ayye h I, compounds I(me )'ayin/, l'eYpoli I where?, l'iYI, I'ayinl (rhetorically =) (there is) not, l'eYk(ah)1 how?; Ipohl here; IIam/, (dir.) IIammahl there. Most are petrified forms of (often obsolete) nouns, phrases or sentences, e.g., IsabiYbl "surrounding(s)" = all around; Imu'dl "abundance" = very (much); Iyax(a)dl "union, community" = together; I'axatl "one (time)" = once; I&odl "continuity" (nvb) = still; Irabl "big" = enough; compounds: Imaxarl «/ma+'-axar/) "what is after" = tomorrow; IhayyoWml "the(=this) day" = today; Ihappa&(a~ml "this time" = this once; Ilbadl "for separation" = apart, alone; lmibbayta I "from having entered the house" = inside, within; the somewhat more frequent afformative I-ami (var. I-om/; I-awl?) could be petrified remnant of a prehistoric ac (with mimation), although semantic relevance is often difficult to discern; e.g., IreYqaml empty-handed; lyoWmaml by day; Ixinnaml free; in vain; Ipit'oml suddenly; IIilIoml before yesterday; long since/ago; ? IyaxdawI together- how IIilIoml could have been borrowed from Akk lina I alJi u:mel I cannot see. Some adverbs may take suffIxes as subordinate attributes, e.g., l'ayyoW I where is he?; l&oWdoWI

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

29

while he still (was). As implied by the term, adverbs usually function as adverbials, mostly specifying the meaning of the verb more precisely. In some cases, the modification is more radical; such adverbs may then be classified as special subcategories, such as the simple PTn 110'1, the prohibitive /,al/, the existential l'eYnl (and its positive counterpart Iyef I); also the purely interrogative Iha-I and its compound with the negation Ih(a)lo'l, mostly used rhetori-

cally-surely, certainly, you know. 1 § 14.

Prepositions and conjunctions.

Prepositions and conjunctions are discussed together, as their formation and functions often overlap. Formally, both may be divided into simple and composite ones, and off the simple category, those prefixable to the following word may still be distinguished as a sub-category, not many in the number of morphs, but largely far ahead of the others in the frequency of usage. The simple prefixable prepositions are: Ib-I, Ik-/2, II-I, and lmi(n)-I; the first three consist of a single consonant each, while fourth when prefixed assimilates its 2nd cons. to the initial one of the following word, although secondarily, the resulting gemination may be given up. All but 11-1 may also occur separately, although Ib-I very rarely and like Ik-I as a rule in poetry only; both are then augmented with the element I-mo:-I which accompanies Ik-I also before the suffixed pronouns of sg. and l.pers. pI. (rarely others); while lminl is usually reduplicated in such cases. Some other simple prepositions also show additional-as a rule vocalic-elements after the final consonant when a suffix follows; so regularly /,axarl (which has also independent var. with final l-e:/), /,il/, I&ad/, I&al/, often also Itax(a)t/. The prep. I'etl, usually employed to introduce the determined object, is often separated into its own category called "nota accusativi" or sign of object; but as it is construed like other prepositions, it is nevertheless better included in this main category. Composite prepositions usually consist of one, sometimes two simple prepositions plus an element of more directly nominal origin or an adverb. E.g., with st.cstr. of Ns IpaniYml face: llipneYI, IbipneYI, ImippneYI, lmillipneYI; with Iqirbl middle, midst, inside: Ibq-I, Imiqq-I, /,il q-I; with ItoWkl =: Ibt-I, lmitt-I, I'il t-I; with Itax(a)tl beneath: Ibtax(a)t/, Imittaxat (1-)/; etc. Sometimes, however, compounds of two simple prepositions are found, e.g., Ime'itl "from with" = from; IbeYnl is regularly re-

1 The asseverative PTa II-I (cf. J. Huehnergard in JAOS 103 p. 569ft) does not seem to occur in our materials; cf. also Muraoka, Emphatic words ch. VIII:i; on lyeSI and l'eYnl ib. ch. !V (Excursus 1) and (syntactically) ch. VI (Excursus 2). B-L's classification of Ik-I as a conjunction is probably due to the influence of its common German counterpart wie; it also illustrates the close connection between the two categories.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

30

peated. The nominal element included in most composite prepositions, however, must have a figurative meaning, otherwise the compound cannot be interpreted as a composite prep., but rather as a noun introduced by a prep.; thus, e.g., I dirkl or I&eYneY I do not occur as parts of them, as their concrete nominal meaning is still discernible in them. Prepositions occur as a rule introducing adverbials, whether single nouns or phrases, in prepositional phrases then acting as regents; and also relative sentences in which function it is often alternatively described as composite conjunction, with PTrel included as part of it. In many cases, however, the particle is evidently integral part of the sentence rather than a mere introductory element;3 therefore it is better to regard the preposition alone as the introductory element. Moreover, in poetry the PTrel is omitted now and then, and such an asyndetic relative clause may also be introduced by a preposition, cf., e.g., Is 65:1. The object, particularly if determined, may also be introduced by the prep. called sign of object, and particularly in later language, but occasionally earlier too, the effected variety of object (=result of the action) by the prep. II-/. Conjunctions can be divided functionally too, into coordinative and subordinative ones; the latter may be called sUbjunctions for short. The distinction, however, is not always clear. Of the former, the commonest one, Iw-I, is always prefixed to the following word. Its vocalization varies, although in most cases, it does not have any vowel, practically always so in Sam where the sound itself is frequently represented by a vocalic allophone; and so always in Lat and mostly in Gr transcriptions, although in a few instances, a vowel-usually lal, twice (?) lei intervenes, and once after /a/, the following cons. is geminated. In Pal, the situation is similar, although /el is more frequent, and /wi-/ also occurs before /yl or /'i/; in Bab, likewise, except that Iwi-I replaces lu-/. A consistent equivalent to Tib Iwl consecutive is thus found in Bab only, although in Pal, this could largely be due to defective and ambiguous punctuation. It combines single words and sentences, as most other coordinative conjunctions, such as l'ow/, /,ap/, I(w)gam/; lki:/, however, is a special case, being sometimes coordinative, sometimes subordinative, and occasionally functioning in a deictic sense, e.g., Gn 18:20. This last may indeed be its original function, as the others are best derived from it; as a subjunction, it is interchangeable with the relative particle,4 although naturally not substitutable for the latter in its other functions. The subjunctions proper are also intimately connected with the sentences they introduce, although always in the introductory function only; the intimate connection and sometimes etymology suggest, however, that the introductory role has been derived from a more substantial one, in fact one domi-

3 For details see the 4 Cf. Ges-K, loe.cit.

next paragraph; also with /kiY/, cf. Ges-K § 104.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

31

nating the whole clause like noun regent dominates the nominal phrase. E.g., Ipan/, an apocopated imp of IpnV I, has the rest of the clause evidently in an objectival relationship; Ilu:/, (more originally) *IluwVI, probably connected with IlwVIII would that (J had) ... ! likewise objectifies the rest of the clause; in Hbr, the standard conditional j'iml must also be included, although in Akk, the e~ivalent has the indicative mood;s it appears to be related to the PTd Ihinne I, Ihenl which likewise objectifies the following statement. All subordinate sentences thus may functionally be compared to the subordinate attributes in nominal and verbal phrases. §15. Relative and determinative particles.

In BH, the relative sentence is in most cases introduced by an element of nominal rather than deictic origins and therefore better called particle than pronoun. Its nominal origins, apart from cognates in other languages, are shown by the fact that it may occur in any syntactical function in the relative sentence it introduces in which common nouns occur in nominal and verbal sentences. In some cases, the relationship of the particle to the rest of the sentence, however, is so equivocal that it seems to be used purely in an introductory function, i.e., as a subjunction. 6 In some passages in the Bible, 7 and somewhat more often in the early mediaeval liturgical poetry, the so-called definite article or determinative particleS is used in the relative function for which reason it is discussed in the same paragraph and also combined with it for statistical purposes, as this overlap, although not extensive, is nevertheless indicative of close relationship between the two. Normally, the determinative particle is prefixed to a substantive noun which has been mentioned earlier in the relevant text or is otherwise regarded as familiar; or to an adjective used as an attribute in a nominal phrase whose noun regent too is determined, whether by the same or other means, the other means being: being proper name or provided with a subordinate attribute, whether another noun or nominal phrase or suffixed pronoun. If the regent of such a phrase is a frequently used word or otherwise predictable, it may be omitted and so the determined adjective appears substantivized; a parallel phenomenon is a number of proper names based on common nouns determined similarly and then used as proper names. 9

5 Cf. the Arab jussive. 6 E.g., Dt 6:3 (1° 2° ); however, even there, asyndetic instrumental function (by

whi~h ... )

means of

is a plausible alternative interpretation. See Ges-K § 138iJk) to which the lamented G.R. Driver 34 years ago drew my attention; con~tructions like Iyo m haSfbiY&iYI may also be related: (the) day which (is) seventh. I prefer this term to the traditional one, as the term, "article" is otherwise used in quite different kinds of meanings, and the attribute, "defInite" does not properly express its determinat're function either. See above, p. 15.

32

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

The vocalization varies somewhat in Sam Pal Bab, but the material is not sufficient for the determination of exact rules; presence of gemination or otherwise is not regularly indicated either, but in Bab, no deviation from Tib rules is indicated. The indefinite particle IplowniYI, sometimes augmented with l'almowniYI may also be mentioned in this connection, as the underlying idea is related to that of determination. The afformative l-owniYI is familiar from nominal formation, but the identity of the bases is not clear. In principle, the particle appears usable in any nominal function, but is not much used. §16. Interjections.

These are divided into two sub-categories: deictic particles in the more narrow, technical meaning, and pure interjections. The affiliation of some single items is not quite clear; e.g., Ina'i and its more emphatic var. I'anna'i could be placed in either category, as they, particularly the simple form, are usually directed towards a specific person; but on the other hand, in the more emphatic form at least, emotional emphasis preponderates. In Iha'i the emotional content is rather light, and so it is better classified as PTd; the determinative particle may etymologically derive from it, but is functionally more specifically oriented and therefore discussed in the preceding paragraph together with the relative. The most common PTd is Ihinnehl (with a shorter var. *Ihinl > Ihen/), normally used to refer to some one or something entering the field of vision or expected to do so at any moment; also figuratively; in the post-biblical language it is largely supplanted by Ih(a)reYI, originally imp of Ir'VI with a prothetic vowel devoiced in the onset.10 The original deictic character of IkiYI was mentioned above (§ 14). Pure interjections are emotional expressions of pain, e.g., l'oWy/, l'iYI, (with threatening connotation) IhoWy/; of malicious delight: Iha"ax/; of alarm: I'ahah/; of some special occasion: IheYdad/; etc. Ihal'alil is semidirectional, used also as an adverb, as the stronger IxaliYlahI too. The PTd Ihinnehl and Ih(a)reh/, when referring to a personal entity, particularly in answers to vocative expressions, may objectify this in the form of a sf.; a pure interjection like IhoWy I may also refer to the relevant entity occasioning it either objectivally or prepositionally; but mostly they are detached from the context and must syntactically be defined as independent, interjectional sentences. On the other hand, some verbal forms are also well on the way to becoming interjectional; Ir'ehl was already mentioned above, and the imp of the otherwise unattested (in Hbr) Iyhbl is comparable; those of Iqwml and Ihlkl too in many contexts; the contrary case, an original interjection Ihasl 10 Cf. some biblical instances of jr'eh j (e.g., Dt. 1:8); on phonetics, Part Two p.78.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

33

pst! (accidentally not attested in our materials) having given rise to a verbal root11 may also be mentioned in this connection. b. Formation of stems. §17. Nominal types.

Nominal stems are formed from the roots by the imposition of certain patterns of vocalization or other modification, in some cases including additional formatives, upon them. In Sem grammar, these are commonly called nominal types. Apart from some of the most common and structurally simplest types, each type shows a more or less restricted semantic pattern characteristic of that type only. The types may be divided into three main groups: 1) those formed by means of variation of the vocalic pattern and/or of lengthening or repetition of one or more radicals only; 2) those formed by means of nominal preformatives (sometimes infixed); and 3) those formed by means of nominal afformatives. Those formed by means of both pre- and afformatives are so few that it is not purposeful to set them apart as a fourth group; they will be mentioned in both connections. The feminine afformative is not considered to form separate types, as it recurs in nominal and also verbal inflection and is therefore discussed in connection with inflectional formatives and counted as one of them for the purposes of statistical comparison. As the first group is the largest one both with regard to the number of types and still more so in statistical frequency of occurrence, and also structurally simplest, it is discussed first, beginning with the simplest types. The vocalization is given according to the earliest traceable Hebrew pattern, as in Part I Section Ba, thus including the long /0/ usually derived from a protoSem /a:/, particularly as its phonetic quality is not clear in prehistoric times. As the types are reflected in the reconstructed prototypes in Part I Section Ba, it is not necessary to enumerate all the examples, particularly in the frequently used types; therefore, only a selection will be given, in the first place such as require comment. 12 i) / q Vf. This comprises all mono radicals; the length of the vowel may have varied, as also its quality; in the case of /m/, even its position in some cognate languages. The SSem */ma:y / is thus evidently secondary, maybe a collective formation, comparable to the Hbr pI. Other examples: roots /,y/, /'y/II,13 /p(V)/, /cy/, /cy(V)/. ii) /qal/. Purely biradical with a short vowel in between, as in the two following ones. Numerous examples, e.g., roots /'b/, /,x/, /xm/, all with a

11 See Part I Section Ba s.v. 12 For a different systematization

of the Bab material d. Yeivin, BV cbs. 35-43.

13 See Addenda to Part I Section Ba (omitted in the text through computer fault).

34

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

lengthy final inflectional vowel, presumably of vocative origin (cf. B-L); /bn/, attested in pI. only, but possibly original in sg. too, as the sg. vocalism varies greatly in consequence of syntactical constructions; /br(r)/?, /gd(d)/? 2nd rad. possibly geminable, but not necessarily so, cf. /gn(n)/, /gp(p)/ (fern. entries);14 /zwr/ geminable /r/ in Sam disproves the derivation of /zar/ from a contracted */zawir/ -it is far simpler to accept /a/ (=Tib. Qamac alternating with Patax) in hollow roots as originally short, and bisyllabic nag as due to the influence of the regular verb where it occurs; /zk(k)/, /zm(m)/, /xm(m)1 the Sam forms presup~ose short 2nd rad. and lal vowel throughout; as for (Pal Bab Tib) Ixema I, it is not semantically close to the rather specialized /yxml which, moreover, itself is an offshoot of /xm(m)/; Iywm/ pI. presupposed short /al throughout, and although the phrase, /ymeY neY (xayyay etc.)1 does support the assumption that it may have been transformed after the pI. of II anah I, why should the poetical lymoWt/ likewise follow the pattern, while sg. and duo do not?; moreover, in Phoen (including Punic and Neo-Punic), Iym/ is spelt without any vowel indication throughout, and in Latin transcription, the pI. is ymmoth (var. imm-)! It seems, accordingly, that the short vowel in pI. is deeply rooted in NWSem. On Ikan/ from Ikwn/, cf. the comment on Izwrl above; the Bab (=Tib) Iken/ seems to be secondary, cf. the Sam var. and Inl favouring frontal vowels. In Im'l, Sam again presupposes la/ vowel throughout, cf. Lat; the /e/ elsewhere could have arisen through dissimilation in sg., but as the word may be a wandering one, that could account for the variation. The Ir/ of Imarl (root Irnr/) could also be geminable, cf. the cognates; Idl of Inadl (root /nd/) likewise, apart from that the Bab (=Tib) Inedl could also be original (but the Arab Inaddl is semantically closer); on In'l cf. Izwrl above and also /nax(a)t/ (root /nwx/); in /I't/ (=nact /nI'/) Sam has /al again agst. the front vowel elsewhere; /sasl may be a wandering word, but at least adapted to Sem phonetics; /&antl (/&n(n)/?) was posited on the strength of the first Bab entry and the PTa I&attah I plus the fact that Inl and It I favour front vowels; but positive evidence for the front vowel is strong; Ip'l cf. the note on /m' / above; /px/II my Sam recordings have contraction of vowels, cf. BCH and (more original) Ms.D cstr. forms; Iqr' /V/ biradical base in Iqartl-Phoen influence?; Ir'/II phonetic var. of Id'V/; Irarl (/ryr/) perhaps onomatopoeic, the Rafe signs meant to indicate uvular Ir/?; IryI I cf. Izwrl above; II dl the Sam form may be secondary, both consonants favouring front vowels and close vowels often creating secondary gemina-

I

14 The Am Irj.nti/, If}.ttil probably dialectal varr. rather than direct ancestor of the Hbr forms; a following denti-alveolar favours Iii rather than la/, and a monosyllable is not likely to have been heavily accented either; d. the other examples in B-L sub Iqil/. Assumption of an otherwise unattested root *Iygnl is not necessary either, as the geminable roots often have hollow varr., thus both apparently deriving from purely biradical ones, d. § 6 above.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

35

tion;15 on Ifax(a)tl (/fwx/) cf. Inax(a)tl (/nwx/). iii) Iqil/. Less frequent than Iqal/; examples: roots /,d/, I'll, Ih'/, lyz&/, Iyld/, Iy&d/, Iy&c/, lyc'/, Iyfnl etc.; including roots Inwrl although in Sam there is a var. with lui (infl. by Aram Inuwrl fire?); ?/cwdl but the Sam form could be secondary, cf. the note of Ifdl (no. ii above); I fV I - there is no positive evidence for a long stem vowel in Hbr, and its reducibility favours the originality of the closer vowel; I I L W from Eg, on balance also favours the originality of the closer vowel despite the phonetic environment, as the Bab var. is in a ms. exhibiting other phonetic irregularities too. As varr. to Iqall (cf. no. ii above) in the roots Ibn/, Ixm(m)/, Im'/, Inf'/, l&n(n)/,

If

Ip'/·

iv) Iqul/. Roots l'x/IlI (?onomatopoeic); 1'7/! cf. Q; regular sound shift in Sam;16 Tib perhaps due to the glottal and dorsalized neighbouring consonants; ? Ibwf I cf. the Pal sf. form; but maybe secondary; Ibcl vocalized after Tib, cf. Aram (Soq); originally short 2nd rad. suggested by the Akk variation; Igdl original back vowel suggested by Pu; Sam compatible, see above (on /,71); Igwr/lV original short vowel suggested by Sam var.; Ixwxl back vowel suggested by the main entry; no evidence for a long vowel, cf. Akk Ixaxxl LW from WSem; lal may be due to the cons.; lyc'l Sam compatible with originally short lui only, and the Pal var. also presupposes a short stem vowel; Ikxl short vowel suggested by the regular defective writing in the Bible, lengthening conceivable as a consequence of the guttural decay; Ilgl varr. compatible with an original short vowel only; Kulturwort, as 1171 also; Imx(x)1 cf. /..kxl above; Aram Syr suggest original short Ix/; Imc(c)1 root varr. (cf. K-B3) suggest originally short 2nd rad.; as to semantics, use of straw for sucking is not a modem invention; Inwbl the short vowel may be secondary, but the word for honey is Kulturwort in Hbr; ? IncV I the Sam form is compatible with a short stem vowel only; Is' III Kulturwort; cf. Akk; Iswp/II Sam compatible with a short stem vowel only; Is&V I apocopated nact; I&gl Sam vs. Pal Bab (Tib) reconcilable on this prototype only; Icr(r)/III Sam again presupposes a short vowel, cf. the defective spelling and Icwr IIV; Ifml the lui vowel could be secondary, due to the influence of Im/; but lei could also have been dissimilated from it; If q V I the Sam form hardly compatible with an original long vowel; and in Arab, Isiqa:yatl = Isuq-I is semantically closer than Isa:qiyat/; Kulturwort?; Itpi evidently Kulturwort, and so gemination of Ipl probably secondary, albeit old; Itrl onomatopoeic; Sam gemination of Irl apparently secondary, cf. Bab pI. var. v) Iqa:l/. Wandering words and late formations (with secondarily lengthened lal presumably under Aram influence); attested in the roots Idg/,

Ikwr/. Inwp/. Iswr/. I&wb/. Icwp/. Iqwm/. Irwm/. Irz/· 15 Cf. Part II p. 105. 16 See Part II p. 177.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

36

vi) Iqe:l/. With originally long stem vowel which may be diphthongized and developed into bisyllabic formations under principal accent; in Sam, also shortened when devoid of accent; there are exceptions from both rules, presumably due to the influence of the cs. form in the first case and the generally unaccented one in the other, and perhaps to a somewhat variable degree of accentuation in general, suggested by the fact that all the exceptions follow the pattern of lighter accentuation, but somewhat differently in different traditions. Attestations in the roots /,yd/, Ibyn/, Ibyc/, Ibyt/, Igy'l, Idwc/, Idwfl, Izyd/, Izyn/, Izyt/, Ixwc/, Ixyl/II, Ixyp/, Ixyq/, Iyyn/, Isyp/,

I&wd/, l&wp/II, l&y71, lewd/, Icwr/III, Iqyc/, Irwx/, Iryfl, Ifw71, Ifyb/, Ifyn/, Ifyr/II, I fyf I, Ifyt/II, Ifr/? (LW), Ityf I. As seen, nearly 30 per cent. of these are roots with original lui stem vowel thus showing trend towards

increasing use of the front oral vowels. vii) Iqi:l/. Here, the tendency towards frontation is still more evident, 29 or 30 out of the 67 attestations in our materials coming from the roots with an original lui, to wit: Ibw'l, Idwc/, Idwr/, Idwf I, Izwz/, Izwl/, Izw&l, 17wb/, 17wx/, 17ws/, 17wr/, Ikwr/(2), Imwl/, Imwt/, Inwb/, Iswg/, Iswk/, Isws/II, l&wV I!, Ipwx/, Ipwq/, lewq/, Icwr/II, Icwr/III, Iqwm/, Irwc/, I fWb/, I fwx/, If Isw71, I fw&/. Most of these are active or actional in character, but several are essentially stationary, such as in Idwr/, 17wb/, 7wx/, 17wr/, Iswg/, I&wVI, Ipwx/, Ifwx/; of those derived from the roots with original Iii, the following belong to this category: Ibyr/, Igyd/, Ihyn/, 17y71,

Ikys/, Imyn/, Inyn/, Isyr/, I&yr/, Ipyl/, Icyb/, Iqyr/, Iryq/, Ifyd/, Ifyx/, Ity'l, as also the obscure lxiYn/, if correctly interpreted and deriving from Ixn(n)j. Some of these are LWW or perhaps secondary formations, but most

are genuine original Hbr, and so in probably more than a quarter of the cases, Iii is here used as a formative element without active or related connotation. Development into bisyllabic formation takes place only exceptionally, in Ity'l Bab apparently influenced by the following 1'1; what the reason is in I fydl Sam is not clear. viii) Iqo:l/. Usually identified with proto-Sem *Iqa:l/, although some seem to derive from a diphthongal *Iqawlj. Assuming that in proto-Sem times, as demonstrably more recently, the phonetic quality of the open central vowel may have been variable, partly influenced by accentuation, partly by neighbouring consonants and including dialectal variation, it is possible to posit a single prototype, conventionally identifiable as */qa:l/, but allowing vocalic allophones up to the /0/ level. Diphthongal formations would have taken place mainly under heavier accentuation,17 but differential quality of the two consonants would have had some effect too; e.g., Hbr / qo:lj vs. Aram Iqa:lj vs. Arab /qawlj are well derivable from a relatively high allophone which may have been more open in the beginning due to the influence 17 cr. no. vi above.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

37

of /q/, although this is maintained in the Arab form only; with a guttural as the 1st rad., the effect was stronger and hence, more widespread, cf. Hbr /,own/ var. /,awan/; Hbr /&awaI/ vs. Aram (Arab) /&awl/. Other examples in roots /'wb/, /'wg/, /,wr/, /'wt/, /bw' /, /bwJ/, /bm(t)/(?), /dwd/ (cf. Npr no. 462), /dwr/, /hwd/, /hwn/, /xwb/, /xwx/, /xwl/, /7wb/, /ywd/, /ywm/ (sg.; cf. no. ii above for pl.), /kwS/,18 /lh/w7/, /mw7/, /mwt/, ?/nwd/, /nwk/, /nwp/, /swd/, /swp/, /&WP/, /&wr/II, /&n(n)/(?), /pwl/, /ewd/, /cwm/, /ewq/, /qwm/, /qwp/II, /qwc/II, /Jw7/, /Jw&/II, /Jwq/, /Jwr/III, /JyJ/II, /twk/. ix) /qu:l/. Largely related to the dominant type of the verbal hollow roots the nact of which too follows this type; hence, most attestations have actional character or analogous to it, such as abstracta from basically adjectival roots, although some may have been artificially or anyway secondarily differentiated from the preceding type, e.g., /7uwb/ from /70wb/;19 there are, however, also many primitive and other nouns not fitting into the actional category by any stretch of definition, and although a number of these are LWW and again secondary differentiations from /qo:l/, some are certainly not, and so this type too, like /qi:l/ (no. vii above) is of a mixed character, showing prevalent semantic affiliation, but not fully consistently. Examples of the deviating ones: roots /'wd/ (Aram LW?), /'wr/ (differentiated from /'owr/), /bwl/ (?perhaps from /ybl/), /bwc/ (Kulturwort), /bwr/, /gwp/, /gwr/IV (wandering word), /gwJ/ (secondarily lengthened, cf. the cognates), /dwd/II (Kulturwort), /dwr/(?), /zwz/II (Kulturwort), /xd(d)/ (secondary concretization?), /xw7/, /xwc/ (secondary concretization?), /7wr/ (partly LW), /kwr/ (Kulturwort), /lwz/ (ditto), /lwx/ (ditto), /mwm/, /nwn/, (fnwr/ rare var., secondarily concretized), /swV /, /sws/ (wandering word), /sws/II (ditto; var.!), /swp/II (var.), (fswr / secondarily concretized), ?/sxV/ (ditto?), (f&wl/ ditto!), JpwkJ (ditto?), (fpwrJ ditto, cf. the cognates), /pwrJII (LW), /ewI/, /cwp/, /ewr/IV (differentiated from /cor!), /qwr/II, /rwx/ (secondarily concretized?), / Jwx/ (ditto?), / Jwm/ (Kulturwort), / Jwq/ (secondarily concretized?), / J wr /11 (ditto?), /twt/ (wandering word). However, most of those deemed secondarily concretized are also conceivable as products of action, and thus affiliated to the actional category, albeit in an alternative way, /u/ in them having a passive connotation, as largely in verbal inflection. x) /qallf. This type, like the two following ones,is based on biradical roots with geminable 2nd rad.;20 like its parallel /qatl/ in triradical roots (no. xiii

18 The Arab var.(!) /ka's/ could be a case of secondary consonantal glide; anyway, the

a Kulturwort. ~ Cf. the distinction between verbal nact and nvb, below p. 70. nouns from the roots with an assimilant as the 2nd rad. are included in the triradical types (nos. xiii ff below), as the assimilation does not take place in many cognate languages and occasionally fails to occur in Hbr too.

wor~ is

38

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

below), it does not show any comprehensive semantic pattern. Many single items are primary nouns, without affiliated verb or only a denominative one, although some of these are Kulturworter or other LWW; some adjectives may also be primary ones, although most with affiliated verbs; others have been derived from basically verbal roots after their pattern.21 Examples of the primary ones: /'y/, I'm/II, /bd(d)/, /bc/, /gd/, /gg/, /gs(s)/, /gp(p)/ (cf. /gwp/ too), /dd/, ?/dy/,22 /dp/ (LW), /hr(r)/, /xy(V)/ etc.; secondary formations: /bz(z)/, /gz(z)/, /gl(l)/, /gn(n)/, /db(b)/, /dk(k)/, /dl(l)/, /dq(q)/, /xg(g)/, /xk(k)/, /xl(l)/II, /xm(m)/ (?or primary?) etc.; /paz/ being apparently a wandering word, the gemination of /z/ in Aram may be secondary. xi) /qillf. Structurally comparable to the preceding entry, but far less frequently attested; the /i/ vowel does not seem to lend it active connotation to any notable extent. Examples: roots /'b(b)/, /'I/, /g7/ (!despite Bab /ga7/, /ga7/, probably infl. by the dorsal consonants, cf. Akk; LW), /gc/, /gr(r)/, /zq(q)/, ?/zr/, /xk(k)/, /xn(n)/, /xc(c)/, /7p(p)/II, /kn/, ?/kp(p)/,23 /lb(b)/, /ml(l)/II, /ns(s)/, /nc(c)/, /sp(p)/ (!despite Pal Tib /a/, cf. Akk; Akk /sapp/ rather related to /sp/; Kulturwort), j&d(d)/, /cl(1)j, jcn(n)j, jcn(n)jII (?Lat!), /qd/, jqn(n)j, /qc(V)j, /Id(d)j, /I7j, jIn(n)j, /tl(1)/. xii) jqullj. Again, semantically somewhat more systematized, like jqu:lj (no. ix above) showing nouns of action and abstracta of adjectival origins besides primitive nouns. Examples: roots /'m/, /gl(1)/, /db(b)/, /dk(k)j, jdq(q)j, jzg(g)/ (vowel partly centralized, cf. Part II p. 177), /xg(g)/, /xl(l)/, jxm(m)j, jxp(p)j,24 jxq(q)j, jkl(l)jII, jkr(r)jIl, jmk(k)j, jmr(r)j, jos(s)j (Q Sam var.), jsb(b)/, /sk(k)/, /&b(b)/, /&z(z)j, /&l(l)j, jcb/ (!cf. Q & Akk; Kulturwort), jqb(b)j, /ql(1)/, jqp(p)j, jqr(r)/, jrb(b)j, jrk(k)j, jrn(n)j, jr&(&)j, jrq(q)j, j I d(d)j, j I m(m)j (!Q var.), / Ir(r)j, /tk(k)j, jtm(m)/, jt&(&)/, jtp(p)/, ? jtr/ (!var.). xiii) jqatlj. The simplest25 triradical nominal type with the highest frequency of occurrence by far of all the nominal types in Hbr. There is no uniform semantic connotation, but a large proportion are primitive nouns,

21 Why /gan(n)/ garden should be contraction from • /ganin/ hedged in escapes me; rather, such bisyllabic patterns are likely to be late imitations of corresponding triradica1 patterns, cf. formations like /renen/ in Pal in obvious imitation of /melek/ from • /malk/ etc. (cf. no. xiii bel~r)' The gemination of /y/ could be secondary; Sam forms do not seem to presuppose it. 23 /i/ perhaps secondary, at least in the sense of palm branch, as this greatly resembles the pal~ of hand (cf. English) = /kap/. /pinnat/ comes from /pnV /. In the active sense, the sea-shore was conceived as protecting the dry land against the ass~lts of the sea. The articulation basis of the open central vowel being closest to the rest position of the tongue, we may be entitled to regard it as the simplest; at the same time, the frequency of usage of the type bears witness to the importance of the principle of least effort (cf. B-L p. 455 n.l).

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

39

while nouns of action as well as abstracta are also well represented; some nouns of agent are also found. Due to secondary phonetic developments, the type cannot always be distinguished from the next one, and occasional variation with bisyllabic types also occurs, particularly in comparison with some cognate languages; in such cases, it is often hard to tell which type is the primary one, as both elisions of earlier vowels and creations of new anaptyctic ones often occur; systematization, however, is mostly a secondary feature, and so semantically less regular types may better be assumed to be original in nouns of early origin. On the other hand, in post-biblical texts there are obviously secondary creations presupposing the existence of the anaptyctic vowel between the 2nd and 3rd rad. already, such as Pal Irenenl from the basically biradical root Irn(n)j. Selected examples: roots I'bnl (primitive), /,dnl (Kulturwort, vocalism and probably consonantism largely secondary), I'elrl (actional, late), I'hbl (ditto), l'xV III (wandering word), I'yll (ditto; consonantal Iy I may be due to the influence of /'/), I'lp I (primitive, coll.), /,np I (agential?), I'fdl (agential, coll.), Ibgdl (?abstract, late), Ibxn/ll (LW, vocalism varying), IblV I (actional; fern.), Ibrkl (primitive? agential?), Igml/ll? (wandering word), Iz&ml (abstract), Iz&pl (ditto), Ixb(,/V)1 (ditto, concretized; fern.), Ixsdl (abstract), Ixsd/ll (actional), Ixrb/ll (agential), Ikl'l (actional, concretized), Iklbl (primitive), Ikslj (ditto), Ilhbl (agential), Ilh71 (ditto), Ilmdl (abstract, late), Imlxl (Kulturwort), Imlkl (agential), Imnxl (primitive, fern.; secondary root? cf. Inwx/), ImnV I (concrete actional; fern.), IptV I (agential & abstract; the Q var. may be secondary after the pattern of verbal nag), Iqbll (?agential), Iqbrl (concrete actional), Ir'f I (primitive), Irgll (ditto? agential?), Irwxl (actional, abstract), Irkbl (agential; coll.), Irmf/sl (ditto), Ifb71 (instrumental), ? I fbcl (actional, concretized), IfmfI (primitive? apocopated reduplication?), If pql (abstract, occasionally concretized; Bab var., if correct, may be infl. by Ip/). xiv) Iqitl/. Cf. the notes on Iqatll (no. xiii above). Semantic correlations similar; the abstracta often beside Na of type Iqatill (no. xvii below); occurrence much less frequent than that of Iqatlj. Examples: roots /,blj (abstract), I'brl (primitive). /,gdl (coIl.; late), /,wV I (abstract), Ib'r/ll (primitive), Ibgdl (ditto), Ibhml (ditto; fern.), Ib7xl (abstract; + fern.), Ibkrl (agential), IbrVI (abstract?; fern.); etc., including Itf&1 (Nn, orig. coll.); but lyf&1 may rather belong to Iqatll above, as both adjoining consonants favour a front vowel, and so Iii is more likely to result from partial assimilation; and /,imr(at)1 is likely to be a late accentual var.; but IZkr/, Ix7' I, Ixlql (minus Sam) may show original actional formations of this type. xv) Iqutl/. Again a number of primitive nouns and other concrete ones, but relatively more often actional and abstract ones, the common verbal nact

40

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

also originating from this type;26 cf. /qu:l/ and /qull/ (nos. ix and xii above). Examples: roots /,bd/ (?abstract), /,bn/ (concrete), /' dm/ (ditto; orig. adjectival), /'hl/ (primitive), /,zn/ (ditto), /'kI/ (actional), /'mn/ (abstract; late), /'mc/ (ditto), /,mr/ (actional), /,sp/ (ditto); etc.; but Bab (Tib) /&urlat/ is likely to be secondary, cf. Sam Pal. xvi) /qatal/. Most frequently attested of the bisyllabic types; forms primitive nouns, adjective as well as substantive, but also verbally based ones, actional as well as agential. The feminine ones are difficult to distinguish from those of monosyllabic base, as the /a/ vowel of the 2nd rad. may often have been secondarily created, cf. the pI. forms of the segolate types (nos. xiii to xv above );27 assumption of elision of an original vowel after the 2nd rad. in the absence of more reliable evidence must therefore be deemed hazardous. Examples: /,bq/II (primitive), /'gm/ (ditto), /,gn/ (Kulturwort), /,gs/ (ditto), /'gp/ (secondary root; /p/ geminable), /'dm/ (primitive?),28 /'dr/ (adjectival), /'dr/II (LW), ? /'7d/ (wandering word), /'IV/I11 (LW; agential), /,nk/ (Kulturwort), /'np/ (adjectival; fern.), /'nq/ (actional), /,nq/II (agential?), /'Im/ (actional & Sam Bab agential), /'Ir/II (Sam; agential), /bcl/ (Kulturwort), /bqr/ (primitive? or agential/adjectival: with cloven hooves; coIL), /brd/ (primitive! cf. cognates), /brq/ (agential! though old, the verbal stem is still more widespread, cf. the cognates), /bIr/ (primitive), /gbx/ (adjectival), /gbn/ (ditto; Sam); etc., including further agential items: /gl(1)/ ("roller"), /hdr/ (fern.), /xbq/, /xtn/ (?primitive?), /7bx/ (Sam), /ygb/(?), /yrx/ (Sam), /m7r/ (cf. the Arab vb.), /nbl/ (!"losing one's sense"), /nhr/ ("flowing, streaming"), /n7p/ ("hanging down, 'dripping'''), ? /sgn/ (var.; LW!), /sgr/ (cf. Tib; "closing, interlocking"), /&glJ (fern.; "rolling (on)"), /&7r/ ("encircling (the head), crowning"), /&In/ ("smoking, emitting smoke"), /p7m/ (?cf. Tib), /qdx/ ("inflaming"), /qhl/ ("~athering together"), /qn'/ (Sam), /rn(n)/ (pI. tantum; "screaming"), /rJ&/ ("wrong-doer"), / I /s7n/ ("opponent"), ?/ Ilk/ (in refl. sense?), / I/srp/ ("burning" = venomous). Not all of these interpretations are equally plausible, but most are valid beyond reasonable doubt, and their number is sufficient to have provided starting point for the agential stem of the normal type of Qal.29 xvii) /qatil/. Forms mostly adjectives, sometimes with agential but often also with passive connotation; some of the primitive substantives attested would also be conceivable as of adjectival or agential origin, if a primary ver26 See below, p. 66.

.~ cf. Wrighr I §301 Rem. b. Arab is thus no reliable guarantee of the originality of the vowel of the 2nd rad., particularly as Ii! and lui too may similarly be repeated after the 2nd rad. where they are original after the 1st; but lal may occur after any 1st syllable vowel; and bisyllabic types interchange with monosyllabic ones in sg. ~, cf. Barth, Nominalbildung § 19 etc. Perhaps adjectival (secondary root); the Arab fem. hardly connected with the Hbr word for wltivable ground. ef. B-L §6lq"; they had indeed smaller material, only BH with Tib punctuation most examples of which can also be interpreted as common (substantive or adjective) nouns. 27 Not only in Hbr, but in Arab too,

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

41

bal stem existed of the relevant root, e.g., roots /gdr/ ("protecting"), /xcr/ (ditto; or ultimately "green, verdant"?), /yrk/ ("posterior"); most of them have also varr. following types /qatl/, /qiti/, /qati:l/ and occasionally others. Examples: /'blj, /'br/ (?Sam), /,dr/ (?ditto), /'xr/, /'sp/ (0, cf. Tib; fern.), /'Jm/ (cf. /qatal/ above), /'Jr/II (ditto), /b&r/ (fern.), /bcq/ (var.!), /gzl/ (ditto; + fern.), /grJ /s/ (var.); etc.3O Fern. forms cannot be strictly distinguished from /qitil/ and /qutil/, but as these are not often found in masc. forms, probability for them among the fern. is not high either, particularly for /qitil/ which does not show clearly distinctive semantic correlation, while / qutil/ may be presumed with some probability in passive forms (cf. below, no. xxii). For examples see above and roots /dlq/, /hpk/, /hrg/ etc.; but /bhm/ and /brk/ seem to have more support for /i/ and /'pl/, /nqb/ for /u/ in the 1st syll. xviii) /qatul/. Forms mainly adjectives and related abstracta, largely with the connotation of permanent quality. Examples: roots /'gr/II (Kulturwort?), /'dm/, /'xr/, /'ym/, /,lm/ ("bound"), /'ml/, /'mn/ ("skilful"?), /'mc/II (?cf. Tib), ?/,sp/ (pl. tantum?; coll.), /,rk/, /gbh/, /gbx/ (?Sam), /gbljll (Sam), /gdlj, /dr(r)/ (Sam), ?/hdm/ (Kulturwort); etc., including /7xl/ (?vocalism could be secondary, cf. the cognates), /nkx/ (!the 0 var. misplaced correction), /&qb/ (!Pal var. G also concrete), /&rd/ (cf. Aram var.; wandering word!), /prk/ ("divide, -ding"), /q7n/ (could be more original than the var. with /a/, as secondary gemination normally does not occur after open vowels), /qrb/ (Sam seems to have the /qatu:lj type, but the final labial may be responsible for the preservation of the back vowel; the Bab varr. occur in a IDS. showing numerous phonetic varr. of the same kind), /rxq/ (here, /q/ may be responsible for the preservation of the /u/ in Sam, cf. a similar case in /lqx/), /Jxr/ (here, Sam presupposes /Jaxr/ or /Jaxar/; more probably the former, but identical vowels could have contracted permanently), ? / f qp/ (or /qatu:lj; the vocalism of the sf. form is anomalous anyway). xix) /qitalj. Almost exclusively substantive nouns, some apparently primi-

30 On the other hand, the monosyllabics interpreted by B-L §6lb"'-e'" as contractions from original ·1qawill are better considered original (in a relative sense, of course; at earlier stages, diphthongal formations are quite possible, though hardly bisyllabic ones), the actually attested bisyllabics (mainly Akk, rarely Hbr) as analogical formations after regular roots, as such formations are demonstrably secondary in other connections, cf., e.g., Tib (= Bab var.; 10 var., but this could be diphthongal or simple long vowel) I-ayiml qre against a simple (long or short) vowel in all the earlier vocalized sources presupposed by Tib ktib too in the name of Jerusalem (cf. Part I Section A name no. 808). /ay/ does interchange with /a:/ in some Npr, e.g., ib. nos. 950, 1218, but this variation appears to be confined to few localities being thus probably interdialectal, and no positive evidence is found in Hbr for the contractions postulated by B-L. / fe:r / is a wandering word with numerous variant forms in Akk Aram Arab, and there is no evidence of it having been borrowed directly from Akk (in which it is not original either). Evidently secondary consonantal semivowels are found in Tib too, e.g., in the pI. of /duwd/, /fowr/, and much more often in Sam, see, e.g., Part I Section Ba roots I'wt/, /'yb/ (fern.), Igr(r)/, Ikws/, Iflsydl etc., in lynV/II condensed to /hI; and mostly in the pref of passive voices of hollow roots, cf. below, p. 144.

42

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

tive ones, but most abstracta usually with some property which attracts attention, or LWW. Relatively few items, but some occur not infrequently; some have varr. following other types. Examples: /,yr/ (LW), /,1(1)/ (late), /dhV/ (?Na; late), /zmn/ (LW), /yqr/ (abstract), /ktb/ (Kulturwort), /lb/ (primitive; var.), /nyr/ (LW), /nkr/II (abstract, often concretized), /nsn/ (LW), /snr/ (LW), /spr/II (abstract), /stw/ (primitive; LW?), /&nb/ (primitive; Kulturwort?), /pl(l)/ (?abstract), /qsm/ (LW?), / f'r/ (abstract, often concretized; var.!), / fkr/ (primitive?; varr.!), / f /s&r/ (ditto). In /cl&/, however, the 2nd vowel may be secondary, cf. Aram Arab (not presupposed by Sam either); and /m&/ appears to be originally biradical; in /xmr/II, Sam (cf. Tib) could represent this type, but could equally well derive from • /ximr/ or· /xumrj. xx) /qitil/. Occurs rarely, most examples uncertain, originated perhaps as a var. of /qatil/ (no. xvii above, q.v.); therefore semantic correlation also uncertain, although original abstracta (some concretized) seem to predominate. Examples: roots /'wl/ (fern., abstract), /,zn/? (imitative, secondarily differentiated?), /brk/ (fern., concretized), /ghr/II? (adj., substantivized), /x17/ (abstract), /klm/ (ditto), /lbn/ (adj., substantivized).31 The Akk LW /7ebet/ may also be included here. xxi) /qutalj. Mostly with passive connotation (conceivably at least), hence probably connected with the passive voice of the primary verbal stem (cf. the next type); others may be wandering words. Examples: /,wz/ (?var.! wandering word), /'sr/ (abstract, prohibitive), /'pn/ (Kulturwort), /gbV/ ("collected, -tion" = swarm), /gbljll ("kneaded (mass)"), /gmr/ (?abstract, conceivably from the resultative = passive point of view), /gnV / (abstract, objectival = passive), /dng/ (Kulturwort), /yblj (?var. Tib; conceivably neutral "vehicle" of conveyance), /yrV / (?; Sam!), /kb&/ (Kulturwort), /krnz/ ("rounded"?), /kns/ (?"gathered in"), /kp(p)/ (?late), /17' / (!varr.! "flattened"?), /m&7/ ("reduced"), /nqb/ (?Sam; "perforated"), /sk(k)/ (?"hung (up)"?), /srq/ ("picked clean"), /stm/ ("neutralized"), /&br/ ("impregnated (with)"), /&gb/ ("charmed"?), /&nq/ ("(long-)necked"), /&pr/II (?Kulturwort), /&cb/ ("fashioned (image)"), /&tr/II ("filled up"), /pr7/ ("singled out"), /prk/ (?"(easily) crushed"?), /qlb/ ("(to be) turned round (in opposite directions)"?), / qrx/ ("shaven"), / f m&/ (imp, substantivized), /f&lj (wandering word), /ftp/ (LW), /t1&/ (var.!; wandering word?). On the other hand, in /ksm/ the Bab (Tib) pI. form is hardly reconcilable with an original /a/ in the 2nd syll. The variation in the treatment of the original /u/ may be defined so that reduction is the normal result, but a subsequent labial is mostly able to preserve the rounded back vowel,32 some31 In /Jm7/, the Sam form favours /qatil/ (others being equivocal). 32 The exceptions may be partly dialectal (cf. Sam; /ybl/ Tib; presumably the main factor

in wandering words too), partly chronological (late creations following the rule more strictly, perhaps influenced by Aram).

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

43

times a wandering word also without phonetic factors. xxii) /qutil/. Cf. the preceding type. Examples: roots /'bd/ ("lost"), /,mr/ ("said"), /,plj (?"darkened"?), /'pqf (?"furrowed"? "channelled"?), /gbn/ ("hunch-backed"?), /gbr/ (?"(battle) won", "prevailed (upon)"), /gdlj (?"swollen", "aggrandized"), /gzr/ (?"decreed"), /gnb/ (!var.; "put aside", "stolen"), /dblj ("compressed"), /hrg/II (LW, phonetically modified), /7m'/ (Sam, var.!; "defiled, tainted"), /7px/ (?"flattened"), /7rp/ ("tom up"), /kpr/ (?"covered (with mane)"), /npk/ (LW), /nqb/ ("perforated"; var.!), /&mq/ (Sam; "deepened"), /&rb/III (?wandering word, onomatopoeic, phonetic varr.), /p7d/ (?wandering word), /qr7/ ("(piece) cut (off)"), /f/skr/ ("hired (worker)"), / f mr/ (pI. "guard duty"), / frq/II (!fem.; "reddened"), /tl&/ (cf. no. xxi above). xxiii) /qutul/. Originally probably a dialectal and/or accentual var. of /qutl/ (no. xv above), hence forming mostly actional and abstract nouns, often concretized, also some wandering words. Often difficult to recognize, partly because of differential treatment of vocalism; in most cases, the first vowel is reduced, but in some early instances dissimilated, and occasionally, the second vowel may be affected instead; the middle radical may also be geminated. In addition, the fern. forms cannot always be distinguished from those of / qatulj (no. xviii above) in the cases where the first vowel is reduced and word accent lies on the ultima. Examples: roots /'gd/ (concretized), /'dm/ (ditto), /,zb/ (Kulturwort), /'xz/ (concretized), /'xr/ (occasionally concretized), /'kp/ (Kulturwort), /,pd/ (ditto), /'pn/III (?ditto), /'rb/I1 (ditto), /'fn/, /brk/ (concretized), /bfl/ (ditto), /g'lj, /glml (?concretized), /dbr/, /dbr/II (onomatopoeic, wandering word), /dkpl (?wandering word?), /dl&/ (Kulturwort), /dr(r)/ (occasionally concretized), IdJ nl (wandering word?; concretized), /zmr/ (concretized), /zqn/ (fern.? pl.), Ixlm/, Ixmd/ (concretized), /xm71 (ditto), IxmJ/, /xn7/, /xnk/; etc., including perhaps /yxr/ (unless related to /xr/), /ksm/, /17/ (a Kulturwort with final /-m/-augment, perhaps more original), /mr(r)/ (concretized; Sam Dt 32:24.32 only!), /nwx/,33 ?/&rb/,34 ?/rt(t)/,35 ?/fpk/,36 Itkn/ (Sam Ex 30:32).37 /yo'or/ (Eg LW) may also be placed here. xxiv) /qo:talj. This and the next type are the only ones with a long 1st syll. vowel apart from the Sum LW /he:kal/ and the peculiar /ga:lu:t/; 33 In Sam, B-CH's usual ultima accent must be secondary, presumably created in the frequent formula, /ri:-niyya:-'iilfema/ where the shift produces an even distribution of accents; NB. in Gn 8:21 /ri: iinniyya/ where the PTdt intervenes he too has the accent on the penult" 1Jll~ In Sam, the 2nd syll. /e/ is anomalous (/o/ is expected); confused with /&urib/ (root /&~/III)?

Pal Bab (Tib) rather suggest" /ritit/, but this is incompatible with Lat; different proto-

~?Vocalism rather varied, perhaps partly for euphemistic reasons; but assuming /u/ as the syll. vowel (cf. Tib), all the attested forms are compatible with this type. Cf. the preceding item (with note).

o~al1st

44

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

/ f o:fan(nat)/, a wandering word, is better conceived as formed with an afformative; /suWgar/, another wandering word, is not found in our materials and could have been included under /qutalj (no. xxi above, q.v.). This and the next type both contain mostly nouns of agential or adjectival connotation, being related to common types of the nag of the primary verbal stem (cf. below, p. 66ff); but there are some wandering words and perhaps primitive nouns too. Examples: roots /'cr/ (primitive? or basically agential?), ?/gzlj (agential?), /grl/ (primitive?), /xtm/ (Kulturwort), /ytr/ (adjectival), /kwn/ (agential; cf. L-stem), /kfr/ (basically adjectival),38 /ktr/ (ditto), /mrg/ (Kulturwort), /&lm/ (primitive?), /c&r/ (?agential), /qhlj (ditto), /f7r/ (Sam; ditto), /fpr/ (adjectival). xxv) /qo:tilj. Cf. the comments on the preceding type from which this one could have partly arisen through dissimilation of the short vowel where and when the long one was more open (cf. no. viii above). Examples: roots /'rx/ (agential), /bqr/ (ditto), /gl(1)/ (ditto), /hl(1)/II (abstract), /yblj (originally agential?), /yfb/ (ditto!), /khn/ (agential), /krm/ (ditto), /rnxl/II (adjectival?), /nqd/ (agential), /sb(b)/ (ditto), /sl(1)/ (ditto), /spr/II (ditto), /&1(1)/ (actional! cf. the verbal L-stem), /rzn/ (agential), /rkl/ (ditto), /fwb/ (ditto; based on L-stem), / fxl/II (wandering word), / f7r/ (var.! agential), /fmr/ (basically agential), /f&r/ (agential), /t&b/ (ditto). Fern. forms like those of /xmV /, /&IV/ could belong to either this or the preceding type; in /qhlj, the vocalism agrees better with the latter. Again, in /&rb/III, Sam agrees best with /qutil/ with which the others too are reconcilable, the word being a wandering one; cf. also the fact that in MT, its /0/ is regularly not indicated in kt apart from one exception in a late passage (ent 5:11). xxvi) /qata:lj. Rarely attested; of secondary origin. Examples: roots /kwn/II (Kulturwort; the /0/ of the 2nd syll. in G (mostly) and Lat apparently due to the influence of /w/, cf. Akk Tib), /mq(q)/ (actional; late), /qrb/ (ditto; LW?), /fb7/ (LW). xxvii) /qati:lj. Forms mostly adjectives and related abstracta mostly with active, but often also reflexive or passive connotation; appears related to /qatil/ (no. xvii above), often with an implication of greater intensity or emphasis discernible, but particularly in late formations less so or not at all. Also nouns of action and perhaps some primitive ones (with secondary lengthening of the 2nd vowel?). Examples: roots j'b(b)/ (adjectival, substantivized with emphasis on ripening), /'br / (likewise, but emphasis inherent in meaning), j'dr/ (ditto), /'xz/ (actional, late), j'kl/ (ditto), /'1(1)/ (pejorative?), /'mc/ (adjectival, with inherent emphasis; Tib geminate may be secondary), j'mr/ (adjectival, implying conspicuity), j'n(n)/ (actional, emotional emphasis in basic meaning), j'sp/ (actional, of vital importance), 38Reinterpreted by the Pal paytan, see Kahle's comment on translation (MW (1st vol.) p. 29* n. 8).

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

45

/,sr/ (passive, deprivation of liberty), /,pq/ (like /'mc/ above), /'cl/ (ditto), /,r(r)/ (actional; late, but with inherent emphasis), /'rg/ (passive, late), /'J(JIV) / (adjectival, with inherent emphais), /bdl/ (passive, late), /bdl/II (Kulturwort), /bxr/ (passive, but with action potential of high degree), /b7x/ (Sam; emphasis on size and/or shape?), /bkr/ (adjectival, with inherent emphasis), /bl(1)/ (passive/actional; late), /bl&/ (ditto), /b&l/ (actional, late), /b&r/ (Kulturwort; +actional? late), /bcr/ (actional, of vital importance), /bqV / (adjectival, with inherent emphasis; late), /bq&/ (passive); etc. In post-biblical Hbr, the type has proliferated so that it outbids all the other bisyllabic types and even monosyllabic ones apart from / qatl/ in the frequency of occurrence, forming mostly nouns of action or analogous adjectival abstracta, but also purely passive ones, apparently influenced by Aram. xxviii) /qato:l/. Some primary and other old nouns, including wandering words and also more recent LWW; on the long vowel cf. no. viii above. Examples: roots /'rn/ (Kulturwort),39 /,tn/ (?primitive), /gxn/ (agential), /kbd/ (abstract),40 /krz/ (LW), /rnxq/ (agential; LW?), /nxt/ (?instrumental), InkY /t/ (LW).41 xxix) /qatu:lj. Related to /qatul/ like /qati:l/ to /qatil/ (cf. no. xxvii above), hence also to the verbal npt, and forms mostly nouns with a connotation of continuity or permanency and also of passivity or potential for action, occasionally even actual activity. Examples: roots /'lp/ (potential, permanent; secondarily geminated except in Sam), /'rk/ (adjective, permanent; var.), /'Jr/ (passive), /bxr/ (potential & permanent; secondary gemination except in Sam, later lost again), /bkr/ (passive & adjectival, permanent), /gld/ (potential, permanent), /giV / (passive, substantivized), /grJ/ (actualized, permanent), /xbr/ (Bab! passive), /xl(1)/II (?var.! passive), /xlJ/ (passive, abstracted), /xmr/ (potential, conceivably permanent), /xrm/II (quasi-passive, permanent), /xrc/ (passive & potential, occasionally abstracted), /xrc/II (potential, concretized), /xJ q/ (ditto), /yc&/ (passive), /yqd/ (potential, permanent), /kbd/ (potential, often concretized; var.!), /mr(r)/ (potential/actual, often concretized; var.!), /nb' / (potential, usually actualized), /ngd/ (potential, concretized), /nxJ /11 (ditto), /nsk/II (passive),

39 Derivation from /'rV / (B-L) has not gained much acceptance and has no direct support anYl\)ay, as the word is never-to my knowledge-used in a fruit picking context. All Hbr traditions presuppose a long vowel in the 2nd syll., at least compatible with orilfinal /0:/; and so for /gxn/. 1 On the other hand, in /&rd/, the somewhat varying cognates agree better with an orig. /u/ in the 2nd syll.; in / Jlm/, the Sam sf. form presupposed a monosyllabic prototype, cf. Akk; the /0/ of the 2nd syll. of st.abs. is thus secondary, but has caused the dissimilation of the original vowel resulting in a form which resembles this type and with which the other traditions agree. The roots of the words for "tongue" and "throat" are biradical, as established by B-L themselves (p. 469 Anm. 2), and as /-o:n/ is a common nominal afformative, there is no reason to treat them here otherwise, particularly as cognates based on the biradical roots are found in Sem too (see Part I Section Bb s.vv.). /,ado:n/ appears to derive from /dn(n)/; on the Nn for 3 see above, p. 22.

46

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

/npl/ (potential?; concretized), /&lm/II (potential, continuous), /&lq/ (primitive; secondarily lengthened), /&qm/ (potential, permanent), /&rm/II (ditto), / &fq/II (Sam; passive(?), concrete), / &td/ (potential, mostly concretized; varr.!), /&tq/ (G; potential/passive), /pdV/ (?potential), /pnV/ (potential), /pr7/ (passive), /prs/ (ditto), /pf7/ (ditto), /ptk/ (ditto; semipermanent), /cd(d)/ (ditto), /qcm/ (potential?), /rfm/ (ditto?), /fx7/ (passive, abstracted?), /fxq/ (ditto), /fm&/ (ditto), /fqp/ (?var.! passive, concrete), / f /srg/ (potential, concrete), / f /srp/ (ditto!). xxx) /qita:l/. Secondary, of late origin; in our materials only in the root /rq(q)/II (LW from Aram). Cf. /qital/ (no. xix above) and /qito:l/ (no. xxxii below). xxxi) / qiti:l/. Rather infrequent, mostly adjectival (but largely concretized) formations; apparently related to / qitil/ like / qati:l/ to / qatil/ (cf. no. xxvii above). Examples: roots /'wl/, /brx/ (concretized), /gbn/ (imitative), /zmr/III (actional, intensified), /ycr/ (passive), /ksl/ (intensified?), /lb(b)/ (imitative), /m&l/ (concretized), /mr' / (passive), /cdV / (actional, with inherent emphasis), / fxn/ (reflexive), ? / flm/ (actional), / f prj (LW). xxxii) /qito:l/. On the long vowel cf. no. viii above. Few attestations, in some, intensive connotation possible; examples: roots /'gz/ (?Kulturwort), /,zr/ (secondary root? with some inherent intensity), /,lh/ (ditto!), /dyV/11 (Kulturwort), /xmr/ (agential, some intensification?). Sometimes difficult to distinguish from /qatul/ and /qutul/ (nos. xvii & xxiii above, q.v.). xxxiii) /qutayl/. Apparently diminutive or caritative formations, if genuine; but all three attestations are uncertain, as the pattern is nowhere preserved intact. Examples: roots /xnk/ (Sam), /xtm/ (ditto), /&lm/II (Sam G var.). xxxiv) /quti:l/. Only one certain attestation: root /xzr/II (Kulturwort); most attested forms of the preceding type are also phonetically compatible with this one. xxxv) /quto:l/. Again, three not fully certain attestations, in the roots /'nf /11, /brf/ and /zr&/II. The short /u/ is posited in the first instance on the strength of Arab pI., originally apparently collective and hence comparable with the Hbr sg.; in the second, on Akk; in the third, on the fact that Pal Bab (Tib) are incompatible with /a/, and Sam with Iii; the possibility of ~if­ ferent prototypes in different traditions remains, but uniform explanation is generally preferable. xxxvi) /qutu:l/. May derive largely from /qatu:l/ (no. xxix above) through secondary assimilation of the short vowel to the long one; */ qitu:ll is hardly conceivable as an original pattern, thus representing temporary development, where attested; also some wandering words. Examples: roots I'bsl (Kulturwort), 1'1(1)/11 (LW), l'lml (Kulturwort?), I'mnl (adjectival, implying permanency), I'mrl (passive), I'mrlll (wandering word), I'srl (passive,

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

47

abstracted), /btl/ (passive), /gbl/ (denominative?), /gbr/ (potential), /gd(d)/ (ditto, partly actualized), /gml/ (actualized), /zb(b)/ (onomatopoeic, wandering word), /zbl/ (potential, concretized), /zkr/ (ditto), /zqn/ (continuity, abstracted), /xd(d)/ (potential/passive); etc. Particularly fern. not always distinguishable from /qatu:l/. There do not seem to be any types with original long vowel in both syllables.42 There are a number of types with the common characteristic of gemination or-by the more accurate term-lengthening of the 2nd rad. of a triradical root with the corresponding semantic characteristic of various kinds of intensification43 of the meaning of the root as represented by derivatives of the same root without this characteristic, although lengthening of a vowel was often found to have a more or less similar effect in the types discussed above (nos. xxiv ff). In some types, both characteristics occur together, but the expected still higher degree of intensification is rarely discernible, in words of evidently or conceivably early origin; in later formations, the duplication of the characteristic may in fact compensate for gradual loss of its semantic significance, particularly in the case of vowels, but ultimately also of the consonants, so that occasionally forms with such double characteristics of intensification may alternate interdialectally with more original ones without any such characteristic;44 sometimes original length of a vowel has also been assumed without sufficient evidence45 by modern scholars. xxxvii) /qattal/. This is the simplest type of the class and can therefore be expected to be the most common one, in parallel with /qatl/ in the group of monosyllabics and / qatal/ in bisyllabics with short sounds throughout (cf. nos. xiii & xvi above); it is therefore rather suprising that B-L (p. 476) find only one masc. noun of this type (which, incidentally, is a wandering word and shows a short 2nd rad. in some cognate languages) besides a large number of fern. ones which apparently therefore are separated to their own type and declared to be a special Canaanite formation of abstracta to /qattil/, although spread further analogically. The real reason for the lack of masc. nouns is the assumption of original length of their 2nd syll. vowel and consequent assignation to the type /qatta:l/ as a special "young layer" with the preservation of the /a:/ vowel beside the "old Canaanite" one in which it has shifted to /0:/ (p. 478f.). Why an original long /a/ would have been pre-

42 Of those listed by B-L under Iqi:to:1/ (p. 475t), ltiYrowf/ is formed with the preformative It-I, lkiYdownl conceivably with the afformative I-o:n/, unless as a Kulturwol1 it follow the sattem of the rest, created through dissimilation from Iqutul/, q.v. (no. xxiii above). I.e., being increased to a higher degree than normal; cf. the Concise Oxford Dictionary s.v. tense. Cf., e.g., Sam G (var.) lcadiql vs. (Pal?) Bab (G var. Tib) lcaddi:q/; similar phenomen,\,l'artIy within Tib itself, in the roots /,br I, I'dr I etc. In fact, sometimes against concrete evidence, cf. B-L p. 479 (17 end); cf. no. xxxviii below.

if

48

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

served in this one type, whereas everywhere else46 it is assumed to have shifted to /0:/ without distinction between "old Canaanite" and ''younger'' layers is not explained. Moreover, seemingly positive evidence for an original long /a/ in the nouns listed in B-L p. 4791",( is found for only two of them, */xa77a' / and /xaraf/; in the case of the former, it may be due to phonetic reasons connected with the decay of gutturals, cf. the preservation of a commonly agreed secondary /a/ in analogous inflectional forms of /xi7' / of the same root;47 while /xaraf/ (= /xarraf/) belongs to the category of Kulturworter which are often borrowed in unusual ways from dialect to dialect and therefore often show irregular phonetic features. There is thus no firm evidence for a long /a/ in the whole class; whereas short /a/ is often found in st. cstr.48 as expected in the case of an originally short vowel. It is then most plausible in all respects to assume that in Hbr, these nouns originally had a short /a/ in both syllables and accordingly discuss them under this type. This forms then mostly agential and adjectivally based, but often concretized nouns and also some actional ones, all generally with somewhat intensified connotation compared with /qatal/ (no. xvi above) to which it is often related, including interdialectal variation. Examples: roots /'yl/ (wandering word; interlingual var.), /b'r /11 (professional; late), /bhl/ (actional, with inherent emotional intensity), /bhr/ (adjectival, pathological), /blh/ (= /bhl/ with transposition), /bqr/ (actional, implying special care), /bqf/ (actional, special interest), /gxl/ (adjectival, concretized, with inherent intensity), /gnb/ (habitual), /dwV / (adjective, pathological; var.), /dyn/ (professional; LW?), /dk' / (actional, partly concretized; inherent intensity), /wdV/ (adjective, assertive), /zkV/ (ditto), /xwb/ (adjectival, late), /xw7/ (professional), /x7' / (habitual), /xlf / (adjectival, with implied continuity), /xrf / (professional; Kulturwort), j7bx/ (professional; var.!), /7b&/ (adjectival, with special interest and habitual connotation), /ybf/ (adjectival, concretized); etc.; in /qn' /, the threefold variation (Sam */qana' I!) may be dialectal, as in Tib too, the form with /fJ./ occurs in the Pentateuch only (Aram influence?), the one with the /0:/ exclusively outside it. xxxviii) /qattil/. Derivation of /qittil/ (no. xli below) from this type exclusively appears too hazardous, although it is largely a secondary formation, as evidenced by varying interdialectal varr. few of which, however, agree with this type. Only those nouns preserving the pattern essentially are listed here; most of them are actional, based on the verbal D-stem. The examples are: roots /hl(l)/ (abstracted), /ybl/II (denominative? with a pathological connotation), /krt/ (partly abstracted), / fkI/, / f mn/ (adjective, secondary?),

46 Apart from the occasional Aram LWW or analogy; see B·L types /qa:lj (p. 451), /qata:lj (p. 469t), /qita:l/ (p. 473t), /quta:lj (p. 474), /qa:tal/ (p. 475), /qa:til/ (ib.), /qutta:lj (p'1¥1) and minor types on subsequent pages. Explained by B-L (p. 58Ot') as an Aramaism; why not so in /xa77a' / too is not explained. 48 Explained by B-L (p. 47917 end) as analogical-to or with what is not stated.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

49

/Jrt/. xxxix) /qattul/. One attestation only: root /kpr/ where the Sam form presupposes a short vowel; as the word appears to be LW in Sam, the originality of the short vowel is not certain either, but as all the other forms are compatible with it and long vowels generally of later origin, it is preferred.49 xl) /qittalj. One masc. attestation: root /&qr/; three fern.: IndY/, /pnV/ and /qc(V)/ (Sam sg. only). Some intensity conceivable in IndY/ only; /qicca:/ may be Aramaism. xli) /qittil/. Used mostly to designate physical defects, but also conspicuous positive characteristics and occasionally in neutral senses; however, the affiliation may often be secondary, as there is considerable interdialectal variation. Examples: roots /gbx/ (Sam var.), /gbn/ (ditto), /dbr/ (positive, intensified), /xgr/, /xrJ/ (Sam; actional), /xrJ/11 (Sam var.), /k/qpx/ (wandering word?), /ml(1)/1I (actional, late), ?/&wr/ (Pal Bab; Tib; but Sam presupposes /&awir/ and preservation of /w/ hardly compatible with early /i/ before it), ?/&lg/ (=Tib), /&IV/ (positive), /&qf/ (Sam var.), /psx/ (?; Sam var.!), /ptx/ (positive, late), /rb&/II (neutral, in a Steigerungsfonnel; Sam var.), / Jlm/ (Sam; actional), / JIJ/ (as /rb&/II above). On /'Im/ cf. /quttal/ (no. xliii below); in /qrx/, Bab shows inside variation too besides Sam where the prototype is also uncertain, but incompatible with either Bab form; in /g'V/ and /khV/, it suffices to posit /qitl/ with the 3rd rad. represented by a vowel. xlii) /qittul/. Represented by two Kulturworter only, under the roots /kwr/ and /kyr/. xliii) /quttal/. Four attestations: roots j'lm/II (?actually attested Sam j'illam/, but hardly conceivable as original, and as the word is conceivable as an intensified npt in the sense, "bound" and original /u/ as a rule yields /il before geminates, this type is most plausible), /'mn/ (Kulturwort), /k/qpx/ (ditto? but also conceivable as intensified npt); / Jtp/ (LW).50 xliv) /quttil/. One example: root / J rd/ (Sam; conceivable as an intensified npt, cf. the preceding type). xlv) /quttul/. Few attestations again: roots /bqr/ (?no geminate in Sam; actional, based on D-stem!), /pr(r)/II (Kulturwort?), /cpr/ (?wandering word, and SSem cognates suggest secondary gemination, but it is old anyway, cf. Sam); for /qpd/, the situation is largely similar, but no Sam support, and there is also an Aram var. without gemination, hence its early origin is unlikely; while for / Jblj, there is scanty support for gemination even in Aram; nasalization may be purely secondary just as well as resulting from a geminate dissimilation.

/barxorat/ (Tib) is not found in our materials. is based on the root /sl(I)/; on /ksm/ see /qutul/ (no. xxiii above), /qubba&at/ is not found in our materials. 49

50 /sullam/

50

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

xlvi) /qatti:l/. Mainly more or less intensified variant of /qati:l/, often interchanging interdialectally and/or as a result of late duplication of the characteristics; and ultimately of /qatil/ and even of /qatalj (cf. nos. xxvii, xvii and xvi above, respectively). Examples: roots /yqr/ (cf. /qatal/; greater intensity hardly provable), /kIb/ (inherent emphasis), /lpd/ (Kulturwort), /spr/ (ditto; no geminate in Sam, cf. SSem), /&lz/ (some intensity conceivable), /&rc/ (inherent emphasis), /&tq/ (?var.!; geminate not proven outside Tib), /p7I/ (inherent emphasis), /prc/ (ditto), /cdq/ (varr.! some emphasis conceivable), /qdm/ (Sam; ditto), /qdI/ (Sam pI; ditto; /qatulj also), /qpc/ (actional, based on D-stem; late), /qrb/ (Sam; for /qatul/ elsewhere; some emphasis conceivable), / Il7/ (inherent emphasis), / I/srg/ (?varr.! intensity hardly provable), /tn(n)/ (Sam ?Q ?Pal var.! some emphasis conceivable). xlvii) / qatto:l/. An ancient type, with remarkable emphasis; on the long vowel cf. /qo:l/ (no. viii above). In our materials, preserved in this vocalism in the root / Ikr / only; with the dissimilation of the short vowel to /il (cf. Tib) in /gbr/ and possibly /knr/; but the latter is a Kulturwort and the gemination possibly secondary, cf. Phoen. xlviii) /qattu:l/. Appears to be secondary reinforcement of /qatu:l/ (n. xxix above) where attested, mostly in fact as a var. to the latter (whether as a verbal npt or substantivized), usually with a potentially active connotation. Example: roots /'lp/, /bxr/, /xbr/ (passive), /xn(n)/, /kdr/ (substantive; no /qatu:l/), /mlx/ (substantivized; lack of npt may be accidental), /&md/ (ditto), /&td/; in /rxm/, no evidence for gemination in our materials. xlix) /quttu:l/. The prototype, nowhere actually attested, is posited on the strength of the Akk vocalism of D-stem which appears to be the most conservative,51 the type being evidently connected with that verbal stem, mostly with actional, sometimes reflexive or passive connotation. Actual attestations usually have /i/ (var. lei) in the first syllable, conceivably as dissimilated from the original lui; in most cases, however, /i/ may be historically original, as the type has greatly proliferated in the post-biblical period; but as the type is semantically coherent and historically evidently continuous, setting up a separate type for the late attestations would be purposeless, if not misleading. Examples: roots /,kl/ (!based on Qal), /' r /II, /b'r/, /bzV/, /b7' /, /bkI/ (concretized), /bqr/, /br(r)/, /brk/ (concrete), /bIlj, /gbljII (passive? concrete), /gdlj (basically reflexive), /gdp/, /gl(l)/ (reflexive/passive; concretized), /giV/ (reflexive), /gl&/, /grm/ (passive, concrete), /grI/, /dbr/ (occasionally passive); etc. Other bisyllabic types of this class are not attested in our materials. 1) There is a number of nouns from quadriradical roots, largely wandering words or more recent LWW, and a few still longer multiconsonantal ones; as

I

51 Cf. below, p. 75.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

51

their structure is often difficult to ascertain and largely different from word to word, we do not attempt to posit separate individual types for them, but discuss them collectively under this heading. The most common vocalization is lal in both syllables of the equally commonest bisyllabic pattern; it appears to underlie forms from the roots j'brkl (LW), ? j'ImI (if dissimilated from original compound 1'1 +mIl), j'rnbI (wandering word), IgzbrI (LW), IxfmIl (wandering word), Imrd&1 (ditto), Isr&pI (secondary root), I&kbrl (wandering word), Iprwrl (LW), Itrwdl (ditto); in Iptgm/, the second la:1 is originally long, and in Iptfgn/, it is followed by a cluster of two consonants; both are late LWW. A pattern with Iii in the 2nd syll. appears to underlie attestations from the roots (brzll (Kulturwort), Igrznl (ditto), Ixlmfl (wandering word in a broader meaning), Ixrcnl (ditto), Ikslwl (LW), Iprdsl (?ditto); a short lui in Izgdsl (LW), Izl&pl (secondary root), Ixr7ml (LW), Ixrcbl (wandering word), Ikptrl (LW), Imrkll (ditto), Inxtml (ditto), Isrpdl (secondary root?), I&kbrl (wandering word; var.); a long one in Iglmdl (secondary root), Itrgml (LW). Ii! in both syllables is found in Ixrmf I (Kulturwort; secondary root?); with lal followed by a biconsonantal cluster in Iplgf I. lui in both syllables appears to underlie Ixrglj (wandering word) and Ifm'll (?secondary root); and with the cluster in word final, Ibdlxl (ditto); with lal in the 2nd syll., 17psrl (LW), Iksbrl (Kulturwort) and Itrmll (ditto). A trisyllabic pattern is found, with lal in the 1st and 2nd and Ii! (short or long) in the last syl!. in Isnprl (?no plausible etymology), 1&71pl (secondary root), I&kbf I (wandering word); with Ii! in the first and lal in the other syllables, in Ismdrl (Kulturwort) and with Iii in all syllables in Iptgll (?unless I-i:lj be nominal afformative; but I-lj is usually preceded by a short vowel as an afform.); and with lui in the 1st and 2nd syllables and lal (?) in the 3rd, the quinqueradical Icprd&l. Forms with inserted Irl may also be best included here, with lal in the 1st and lui in the 2nd syll., see roots Ix7ml and qrdml (for *1 qdm/, cf. the cognates; a Kulturwort); and with inserted Ilj, see Ip7f I (as a substitute for gemination); and so the compounds no longer recognizable as such, to wit, Imrxfwnl (from Akk Iwarxu samnu/, ? Irb(b)1 ("multitude, 10,000", if from *Irabb-a-hu' I) and Itrnglj (from Sum Itar-Iugal/). The class of nouns formed by repetition of the entire root or a part of it still belongs to the category without external augmentation. Its patterns are generally regular, and therefore we divide it into individual types, although most of them are rarely attested and the underlying semantic characteristic, repetitive or frequentative connotation, as far as discernible, is common to the whole class. We begin with the types formed by the repetition of the whole root; these are formed of the (basically) biradical roots only. li) Iqilqal/. Roots Igr(r)1 (multiple; f. onomatopoeic?), Idr(r)1 (proliferating), IzI(l)/II (ditto), Ixyll (repetitive), 17' I (ditto), Iyhbl

52

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

(urgency), /yc' / (multiplying), /kb/ (multiple), /kwl/ (repetitive), /kr(r)/II (enclosing), /lb(V)/ (proliferating; repetitive pattern), /lV/11 (repetitive), /mb(h)/ (hesitating), /n7p/ (repetitive), /sn(n)/ (repetitive pattern), /pr(r)/ (multiple), /cx(x)/ (repetitive pattern?), /cl(l)/III (ditto; onomatopoeic?), /cn(n)/ (ditto?), /ql(l)/ (pejorative), /qn/ (cf. /cn(n)/), /q&/ (frequentative pattern), /qr(r)/II (bottommost level, in a comparative sense?), /qf/ (repetitive pattern), / fr(r)/ (ditto). Hi) /qalqilj. Two examples, roots /7wl/ (based on R-stem, basically frequentative meaning) and /plj (Kultwwort). Hii) /qilqil/. Two examples again: roots /lV/11, result of reinterpretation of a Sum LW, and /&wV/ where the vocalism is likely to be recent, witness the preservation of /w / in the 1st syll. liv) /qulqulj. Roots /bq(q)/ (onomatopoeic? cf. Pal-Arab; Bab (=Tib) 1st vowel dissimilated, the 2nd secondarily lengthened, cf. the regular defective spelling besides Lat), /gl(1)/ (on masc. cf. the varying vocalism in fern. Sam; and Npr no. 417 G Lat in Part I Section A), /gr(r)/ (apparently diminutive of /gargar/, cf. Nm 21:5 MT vs. Sam; the vocalism largely conjectural, but the middle vowel likely to be secondary as unparallelled in a sg. form otherwise, in quality probably following the new reduced 1st syll. vowel which, on the prevalent pattern, was probably repeated in the original 2nd half, now dissimilated), /dwr/ (?cf. /kd(d)/ below), /7m(m)/ (dissimilation forestalled by the following /m/), /kb/ (? fbi> /r/ irregular; original vocalism in 0, variously dissimilated elsewhere), /kd(d)/ (G Lat; dissimilated in O? Tib), /lV/ (2nd vowel dissimilated, the 1st in Sam later centralized), /&1(1)/ (1st vowel dissimilated), /qd(d)/ (ditto in Pal, cf. Tib; in 01 Sam the 2nd also centralized, cf. Akk), /qr(r)/II (2nd vowel reduced). Iv) /qalqi:lj. One example, root /zr/ (?; wandering word? onomatopoeic?). lvi) /qalqu:lj. Roots /dl(1)/ (swinging movement), /xr/II (cutting edge), /xr(r)/ (intermittent fever?), / flv / (?; meandering movement), / f &(&)/ (diversions). Possibly all dissimilated from the next type. Ivii) /qulqu:lj. Roots /b&/ (actional, onomatopoeic), /dq(q)/ (actional, repetitive), /hr(r)/II (diversionary), /kwlj (frequentative pattern), /sl(l)/ (exaltation; repetitive?), /p7/ (LW?), /t&(&)/ (actional, pejorative). The first vowel regularly dissimilated, cf. nos. xlv, xlix, liv above. lviii) /qataltalj. Mainly adjectives; also substantives with frequentative or variegated connotation; NB. adjectives also presuppose comparable background connotation, as a quality must be abstracted from different backgrounds to have universal validity. Examples: roots /'dm/, /'sp/ (Sam; "motley crowd"), /hpk/, /xwr/ (variegated colour pattern), /xlq/II ("slippery", also figuratively), /xpr/ ("dig-dig", mixed pattern of holes), /yrq/, /&qlj, /pqlj (ramification), /ptlj (Sam).

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

53

lix) Iqatultul/. One example: root Ixcrl (in Sam, 2nd vowel dissimilated, the 3rd centralized; in Q?Ios (Tib), 3rd vowel reduced). Ix) Iqutultulj. Roots Ibcll (diminutive), Inqlj (?based on a Npr), Ipqxl (actional, from a passive point of view, therefore lui-vocalism more likely), Icrnrl (ditto); generally, it is plausible to assume that where an entire syllable is repeated, the vowel too originally remained unchanged, and so the actually attested differences in vocalism are due to secondary phonetic developments (mostly dissimilation). 00) Iqataltu:l/. One example: root I'spl (var.!; the last vowel probably secondary, cf. the Sam var. and the note on the preceding type; partial assimilation to Ipi and secondary prolongation, cf. the highly unusual defective spelling in the biblical passage, in all the mss. of Ginsburg's edition too; assumption of derivation from Iqatu:ll is without parallels; the hapax Ix(a)barburot-I (Jr 13:23, not attested in our materials) is likewise regularly spelt defectively). OOi) Iqatlal/. Here and in the four following types the last radical only is repeated. Examples: roots I&rkl (technical term), Iprxl (colI.), Ir&nl (Na, frequentative), I I'nl (Na). OOii) Iqatlulj. Roots Inhlj (diminutive?), I&wlj (?ditto; original vocalism in Q, elsewhere contracted & dissimilated or reduced). OOv) Iqut(u)lal/. Root I'mlj (the secondary vowel present, but dissimilated in Pal Bab; cf. Tib). lxv) I qatli:l/. Root II prI (with superlative connotation); ? ItrI I (probably based on Npr no. 1676, Part I Section A). lxvi) Iqatlu:lj. Root In&cl (thorny plant). For types with repetition of part or whole of the root and also external formatives see the classes with the relevant formatives below. The second largest major category consists of the nouns formed by means of external preformatives (occasionally internalized). Most of these are contractions of elementary sentences, but some are based on secondary verbal stems without an element to represent the subject, and some others have a purely phonetic origin. The vocalism of these types is again largely variable, differing both interdialectally and even within the same dialect or tradition, apparently for accentual and other phonetic reasons, and as in each sub-category there is usually one major pattern only, the bisyllabic one with original lal in the stem syllable, while most others are represented by one or two attestations only, individual types are not distinguished here according to patterns of vocalism and/or other internal characteristics, but on the basis of the external (or internalized) formative elements only. These are arranged in the order of the Hebrew alphabet. lxvii) Preformative 1'-1. This appears to be everywhere of phonetic origin, created as consonantalization of the onset of a prothetic vowel which in its

54

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

turn usually appears to have been created as a support for the 1st rad. when this, presumably for accentual reasons, has lost its original vowel. Understandably therefore, there is no coherent semantic correlation to it, although in a few instances, some special emphasis is conceivable which may have contributed to the loss of the original vowel by placing heavier accent on the next one, cf. Arab elative and imperative forms. Occasionally, the prothetic vowel may have been euphonic. Examples: roots /'bn7/ (LW, therefore /'-/ included in the root in Hbr), /b&/ (also reduplicated; /'u-/ apparently euphonic); /grp/ (emphasized?), /prx/; /dn(n)/ (old title); /zhr/ (Aram infl., verbal), /zkr/ (ditto), /zrx/, /ytn/, /kzr/ (also afform.; emphasized?), /mtx/, /prx/ (Sam), /c&d/, /rgz/; /xlm/II (LW), /rkb/, /fmr/, /fpt/; /mc&/ (also afform.), /cb&/, /tn/ (also partial reduplication; origin in an emphasized verbal form conceivable, cf. Gn 38:18, but use as Npr, Part I Section A no. 260, hardly conceivable except as "gift (of a deity)" in a positive sense, hence 1st pers. anomalous); /nb(b)/ (LW?); /p&V/ (emphasized?), /rbV / (ditto?); /rwm/ (?also afform., if correctly interpreted; Kulturwort? but Akk /ramu:/ does not have this kind of derivative and the Hbr verb lacks suitable nuance of meaning); /qdx/ (wandering word? perhaps emphasized); /rgm/II (Kulturwort; also afform.); / fklj (Kulturwort); / fkr&/ (wandering word); / f m(m)/ (Sam; for H ps nact MT); /trg/ (Kulturwort); in / &aqrab/ (root /qrb/), the glottal stop has been pharyngalized, probably due to the influence of /q/; some emphasis may also have been involved. Cf. also Nn /'rb&/ and PTa /(,)tmwl/. lxviii) Preformative /b-/. One example, in the root /r'f /, originally = PTpr /b-/, taken together with the base word as a compound with an abstract meaning. lxix) Preformative /h-j. Based on a verbal H-stem, thus forming mainly nouns with causative or factitive connotation. The masc. formations have usually /e/ (rare var. Iii) in the 2nd syll., the more numerous fern. ones regularly /a/. Nearly all are late formations, in fact post-biblical with few exceptions. Masc. formations are found in the roots /xl7/, /kfr/, /nqz/, /ntr/, /sgr/, /psq/, /pqr/, /prf/, /pf7/, /cn&/, /qdf/, /q7r/, /qrb/, /fq7/; /nwp/, / f /sw7/; examples of the fern. ones in the roots /bdl/, /b7x/, /b7l/, /bl&/, /b&r/, /zhr/, /zmn/, /ydV/ etc.; /bw'/, /dwx/, /yct/ (!without 1st rad.), /lyn/, /nwp/, /qy'/, /rwm/; a passive formation with lui-vocalism is found in the root /pwg/; an abstract one in /nkr/ has an afformative also. lxx) Preformative /hin-j. One example only, substantivized nact of N-stem of the root / &lm/. lxxi) Preformative /hift-j. Again, one example, based on the unique causative-reflexive ft-stem of the root /xwV/. lxxii) Preformative /hit-j. Again, one example, an abstract formation containing an afformative also, based on the to-stem of the root /xbr /11.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

55

lxxiii) Preformative IY-I. This may be cognate with the verbal preformative of the 3rd pers.masc., cf. the Arab vocative particle lya:/, accordingly of deictic origin and primarily used to call attention, hence also to form designations of entities with characteristics attracting attention. Vocalization varies without discernible semantic correlation, partly perhaps because of the relatively infrequent occurrence. Masc. formations only. Examples: roots IbhJ I (noxious insect), Ixmr/III (conspicuous colour), InJpI (onomatopoeic?), IntJ I (?root var. of MH ItJ(J)?); Ixlm/II (Sam, for Ihlml MT; wandering word); lynV/II (wandering word?); Ichrl (shiny surface); Iqwml (coIl.); Irybl (agent). In lyub(a)lj, Iyl is more naturally interpreted as radical, cf. Tib pI. cs. lyibleYI (for which it is unnecessary to postulate a sg. *Iyabalj, Ii! substituting for any reduced vowel in analogous positions). lxxiv) Preformative 1m-I. As generally recognized, this pre formative has originated from the indefinite PN Imal used in relative functions, mostly as a subject or as an object, amalgamated with the following predicate which thus underlies the stem of the resulting noun. Some of the formations are permanently attached to the verbal inflection, in Hbr mainly the nag of the secondary verbal stems (except for N-stem) and npt of the corresponding passive voices in all of which the underlying function of the preform. is that of a subject. The original vowel appears to be lal everywere, the Iii vowel common in Tib still scantily attested in Pal, less in Bab, and in Sam hardly at all. Thus it cannot be "very 0Id",52 and its relative frequency in Arab likewise secondary and rather recent, cf. the much less frequent Akk Ime-I; Imu-I is found in Hbr only in a few manifestly recent passive formations53 as against much larger proliferation in both Arab and Akk; Hbr is thus very conservative with regard to the form of this preform. apart from the very latest stages of the development. Its use is most frequent of all the nominal preformatives, in fact more frequent than that of all the others together in our materials. The most frequent type is bisyllabic, with lal in the 2nd syll. too; other types occur much less frequently, although the other bisyllabic types, with Iii and lui, are also well represented. Examples of lal in the stem syllable: roots j'kll (objectival), I'mcl (ditto), I'mrl (ditto), /'pV I (ditto), j'rbl (subjectival, also local & instrumental), Ibxrl (objectival), Ib7' I (ditto), Ib7xl (ditto, also instrumental), Ibcrl (subjectival), Ibq&1 (ditto, also local), IgbljII (objectival); etc.; with Iii: roots /'kll (subjectival, instrumental), /'sr/ (ditto), /drg/ (objectival, local), /hpkl (objectival), /zbx/ (ditto, local), /zlgl (subjectival, instrumental), /zmrl (ditto), /zrq/ (ditto, also local); etc.; with lui: roots /gdlj (subjectival), /hlm/ (objectival, actional), /zmr/III (ditto), /xgr/ (objectival, instrumental), /xlq/ (objectival), /xmd/ (ditto), /xsrI (subjectival); etc.; with 52 cr. B-L p. 488ue (end). 53 In the npt of H ps it comes from */ma-hu-/.

56

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

long stem vowels: 10:1 in Ik'bl (subjectival, intensive), Ilqfl (ditto), Inf/srl (subjectival, instrumental); li:1 in Iyldl (ditto; intensive?), Ingnl (objectival, instrumental), I&mdl (subjectival, instrumental), Ifxtl (ditto), If/skIl (ditto); lu:1 in Iybll (or Inblj?; subjectival, potential), Ilbfl (objectival), Inb&1 (subjectival, potential), In&ll (ditto), Inf' IVI (objectival, passive), Isl(1)1 (ditto). From III V roots: IbnVI (objectival), IhmV I (?or Ihm(m)/; Sam; objectival?), IzrV I (subjectival, instrumental), Ixb(,/V)1 (ditto, also local), IxzV III (objectival); etc. From (basically) biradical roots: with la/: 11&(&)1 (subjectival), Imd(d)1 (objectival), Imsfl (var.; objectival), Isk(k)1 (var.; subjectival), l&r(r)/1I (subjectival), Icx(x)1 (ditto), Icl(1)/III (ditto), Irk(k)1 (ditto), Ifm(m)1 (ditto, reflexive); with la:/: Igwzl (objectival, local & instrumental; late), Icwdl (subjectival, local & instrumental), If/syml (objectival); with 10:1 (var. lu:/): I'wr I (subjectival), Ibw'l (objectival, local & instrumental), Igwr/IIl (objectival), Idwrl (subjectival), Idynl (objectival, reciprocal), Izwnl (objectival), Ixwlj (subjectival), Ikwnl (ditto); etc.; with Iii: l'r(r)1 (objectival, instrumental), IgI(I)1 (objectival), Ign(n)1 (subjectival, instrumental), Izm(m)1 (objectival, instrumental), Ixl(1)/1I (subjectival, local), Ixc(c)1 (ditto, also instrumental); etc.; with li:/: Idynl (objectival), Ilynl (ditto, local), Ilycl (subjectival), ? I&1(1)/11 (objectival, "local"), ?/r'fl (subjectival), Irybl (objectival, reciprocal); with lui: Igb(b)1 (subjectival, instrumental), Isk(k)1 (ditto), I&gl (objectival), Ifg(g)1 (dittp), If Isk(k)1 (ditto, instrumental), Itm(m)1 (subjectival); with lu:/: Ibwkl (subjectival, passive), Ibwsl (subjectival, active), Igwpl (subjectival, instrumental), Igwrl (subjectival; also local), Igwr/ll (subjectival, local & instrumental); etc. Evidently, variation in the stem vowel does not affect the semantic pattern. More irregular formations, with the quality, number and position of the vowel(s) varying, are found in roots I'xrl (subjectival, temporal), If'v I (subjectival, passive); (with lui in the preform.) Ibw'l (actional, objectival, passive), Icwql (ditto); Ib7' I (objectival), IxcV I (Sam; subjectivaI); Ibcrl (ditto); Igbljll (Sam; subjectival, passive); Igb&1 (ditto), Isl(1)1 (objectival, passive), Ifbcl (ditto), Iflsr(r)1 (O! subjectival); (based on Dstem) Igrf I (Sam; objectival, local), IksV I (Sam; subjectival), InqV III (ditto, instrumental), IcwVI (Sam; objectival), ? Iqr' IV I (0; objectival), I fIxI (Sam; objectival), If Ispxl (ditto; or subjectival?); Ixw71 (subjectival, instrumental); (with lui in the preform.) ? Ixltl (objectival, instrumental), Ifxtl (objectival, passive), If ptl (objectival, instrumental); (based on Rstem) 17'1 (subjectival, instrumental); ? Iskn/IIl (LW, if correctly interpreted). A few items contain an afformative too; so in the roots ? Ibkr I (subjectival), Iblgl (ditto, actional); Izrxl (gentilic), I&rbl (ditto), ?Ifxtl (0; objectival); Il'kl (objectival, abstract), Irnzrl (subjectival, abstract), ?/rgll (or pI.; subjectival, concrete); Ir'fl (subjectival, concrete); If&(&)1

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

57

(subjectival, abstract). In /tl/, if the root is correctly identified, the preformative is extended by the stem preformative yielding /maha-/ as the result. lxxv) Preformative In-I. Based on the stem preformative of the verbal Nstem. Not much used; in our materials it occurs in the roots /zyd/ (reflexive sense), /xJI/ (ditto?), /yJb/ (ditto), /&r(r)/ (passive?) and /ptIj (reciprocal). lxxvi) Preformative Is-/. One example only, in the root /nwr/ (causative used in a euphemistic sense). Probably dialectal var. of the next one. lxxvii) Pre formative / J-/. Based on the sibilant used in several Sem languages and occasionally in post-biblical Hbr as a stem preformative to form secondary stems with causative or reflexive connotation. Few examples in our materials; in /(J)lhb/, it is not clear whether the element should be regard as a nominal stem preformative or as a root augment (cf. p. 19 above); its meaning seems to be reflexive rather than causative in that word anyway; in /q&r/, interpretation as a preformative may be preferable, as there is no support for a secondary root apart from this word; its interpretation as causative or reflexive depends on whether the depression was conceived as caused by an internal or external agency. Whether the initial consonant of / J &7nz/ could be this preformative is again not clear; on the etymology in K-B it is not, but I do not find that etymology fully convincing. lxxviii) Pre formative /t-/ (occasionally internalised). This is the second most frequent nominal stem preformative. As the overwhelming majority of the nouns formed by it are fern., it is plausibly assumed to be cognate with the same consonant used also verbally as fern. pre- and also afformative, in the latter function in the nominal declension too. 54 The original vowel, apparently /a/ again, agrees with this. On the other hand, /a/ is not the commonest vowel in the stem syllable,55 because the preformative is mostly used with irregular roots, particularly the hollow ones in which the prevalent /u:/ is generalized even to those which in the actional group of the primary verbal stem show /i:/ or /0:/; and the masc. forms have usually /i:/ even triradical roots. Examples: with /a/ in the stem syllable: roots /gIj (objectival, actional), /dhr/ (wandering?), /yxl/ (objectional & reflexive, abstract), /ykx/ (ditto), /yld/ (ditto; occasionally concretized), /ymn/ (objectival, concretized), /ysp/ (ditto), /y&p/ (agential, instrumental), /yc'/ (objectival), /yfb/ (reflexive),56 /ytb/ (adjectival), /mkr/ (wandering word), /nfm/ (reflexive), /p'r/ (ditto); /xy(V)/ (ditto), /xn(n)/ (ditto), /&IV/ (ditto?), /qIV/ (ditto); with Iii: roots

54

For details see below, p. 81.

55 NB. in III V roots the stem vowel is not in evidence.

56 The term, reflexive, is used as in verbal system (see p. 78f below) to refer to actions concentrating in the agent, as distinct from objectival concentrating in a different entity; and so of qualities inherent in the underlying entity; although reflexive action may also have external reference (cf. ib.).

58

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

/b&r/ (ditto), /yld/ (ditto & objectival; var.), /rdm/ (reflexive), /r&lj (ditto); /hl(1)/ (objectival & reflexive, abstract), /xn(n)/ (reflexive, abstract), /xl(1)/ (ditto), /pl(l)/ (ditto); with /i:/: roots /bflj (objectival, concrete), /krk/ (instrumental), /lmd/ (objectival), ? /lp' /V / (reflexive?), /pqd/ (objectival), ?/rJ(J)/ (no plausible etymology), /JmJ/I1 (LW); /md(d)/ (objectival, abstract concretized); with /0:/: root /hwm/ (reflexive); with lui: roots /xl'/ (reflexive), /xms/ (?wandering word?), /lbJ/ (objectival/ reflexive), /&rb/ (reflexive), /Jbx/ (objectival); /ynq/ (reflexive), /yrf/ (ditto); /f'v/ (ditto); with /u:/: /bw'/ (objectival), /byn/ (reflexive), /lwn/ (ditto), /mwr/ (reciprocal), /myn/ (reflexive), /nw' /11 (ditto), /nwb/ (ditto), ?/nwk/ (no plausible etymology), /nwp/ (objectival), /&wd/ (ditto), /rwm/ (ditto), /rw&/ (primarily reflexive, also objectival), /rwp/ (objectival), /Jwb/ (reflexive), /Jwq/II (ditto); /dwr/ (ditto), /yf&/ (?or /Jw&/; ditto), /kwn/ (objectival), /nwr/ (ditto?;57 Kulturwort), /qwm/ (reflexive), /qwp/ (ditto), /Jwr/II (objectival), /J/sym/ (reflexive); /xbl/ (ditto), /xn(n)/ (ditto), /lmd/ (ditto; also objectival), /mr(r)/ (ditto), /nxm/ (ditto), /npx/ (reflexive), /&1(1)/ (ditto), /&lm/ (ditto), /&ng/ (ditto), /&cm/ (ditto), / Jlm/ (objectival, also reciprocal). Stem vowel not in evidence (III V roots): roots /,wV / (reflexive), /'nV / (ditto, also objectival), /bnV / (objectival), /grV / (reciprocal), /znV/ (ditto; basically objectival), /xrV/ (reflexive & reciprocal), /ydV / (objectival), /yrV / (ditto), /klV/ (reflexive), /rnxV/ (objectival), /&rV/ (instrumental), /qwV/ (reflexive), /qr'/V/ (ditto), /rbV/ (basically reflexive), /rmV / (ditto). There are some rarely attested more irregular formations; so in the root /'pV/ (if correctly interpreted; also afform. /-n/); /'Ir/ (if relevant; a wandering word?; trisyllabic, with lengthening of the 2nd rad. and the subsequent vowel); /bl(l)/ and /xy(V)/ (without stem vowel; in the former, also a trisyllabic formation, with varying vocalism in Sam vs. Bab Tib); /hl(1)/ (Sam only; again trisyllabic, original vocalism uncertain); /xylj (trisyllabic, based on verbal L-stem); /ygV/ and /yJ / (as it seems, with /u/ in the preform., the latter also with /-y(-)/-afformative); /y&lj (without 1st rad.); ?/r'V/ (with transposition, if indeed from this root); / Jbc/ (Sam only, vs. Tib, with geminated 2nd rad., original vocalism uncertain); /fwb/ (Sam only, based on a misinterpretation). Semantic interpretation is also sometimes uncertain, but mostly the reference appears to be objectival or reflexive in the above sense; this agrees also with the identification of the preformative with the inflectional element of the same form (p. 143 below). In the roots /&Jr/ and /cnr/, the formative is internalized, appearing behind the 2nd rad. There is no parallel to such a position in the verbal formation, but as the meaning in both cases is typically reflexive in the above

57 The oven is kindled by an external agent and is not itself the subject of burning; but in language usage it is often so described.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

59

sense, the identification appears to be beyond doubt. The class of nouns formed by means of afformatives is the least frequent of occurrence; in post-biblical Hbr, it becomes slightly more frequent than in the Bible, but it is only in the last century or so in modem Hbr that it begins to proliferate. Most of the afformatives, and certainly the most used ones, appear to be of inflectional origin or at least cognate with inflectional afformatives; the most frequent one(s), with I-nl as the final consonant, can hardly be separated from the pluralistic I-nl found in many Sem languages, as its basic meaning appears to have been collective, as adjectives and abstract substantives too presuppose a class of individual entities from which they can be abstracted; those ending in I-tl again have their origin in the fern. afformative attached to the end of III V roots, and therefore we do not include such cases in this category, but only those in which the afformative, having been amalgamated with the root final vowel, has been attached in this secondary form to roots ending in a consonant (or rarely, to a final vocalic element by means of a secondary glide); the l-i:/-afformative too is semantically so similar to the genitival idea that it must be somehow connected with the pre-Hbr genitive case vowel I-ii, if not directly derived from it. Therefore, and as the vocalism of the I-n/-afformative has also suffered secondary alterations, and the I-u:tl- and I-o:t/-afformatives have largely fallen together in our materials, we again distinguish these two major groupings by their consonantal elements only in the primary classification. The primary classes are again arranged in the order of the Hbr alphabet. lxxix) Afformative I-ej. This is probably cognate with the inflectional pI. afformative used in Hbr in st.cstr. corresponding to I-i:ml and I-ayiml in st.abs., originally collective, then also adjectival and abstract. Examples: roots l'rV/II (colI.), lyJpl (ditto), ?In'VI (adj.), ?IJlwl (var.; abstract). lxxx) Afformatives l-i:/, I-Vy/. On the derivation cf. the introductory remarks above; the primary form appears to have been purely vocalic, the consonantal element being created as a glide before an inflectional afformative, or due to Aram influence. Examples: roots j'dm/, I'yl/, Ikp(p)/, Icp&l, Iqdml (all adjectival; the afform. attached to I-n/-afform.); j'r(r)1 (genitival, "of accursed origin"); I'J I (?Sam!; "belonging to"), I'Jml (adjectival, Aram infl.); Ibynl (ditto; cum I-n/-afform.); Ibr(r)1 (adjectival, substantivized), ?/gpr/II (Kulturwort), ?/xpJ/II (adjectival), Ikprl (ditto), Inkrl (ditto), I&znl (?no plausible etymology), I&mql (adjectival), Iqrm/II (ditto?), Iqml (ditto?), Ir'JI (ditto? or I-tl-afform.); ?/ggl (adjectival), Ixt(t)1 (ditto, substantivized), Iprzl (genitival, cf. gentilics), ?IJ'rl (adjectival, substantivized), Iffl (numeral adjective); Ign(n)1 (adjectival, with genitival connotation?), l&n(n)1 (ditto); Idwdl (adjectival; ?Aram infl.); Idwrl (genitival, "originating from"; cum I-m/-afform.); Izhrl (adjectival? identity of root doubtful), IZk(k)1 (adjectival); Izwrl (Sam; geni-

60

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

tival, "offoreign origin"?), /pl' / (adjectival), /pq&/ (ditto), /rgl/ (ditto, colI.; Aram infl.), / Ilw/11 (wandering word; coIl.), / Il7/ (?adjectival), / (genitival), /txt/ (adjectival); /xwr/ (?or /xr(r)/; adjectival), /yc' / (adjectival), /ql(l)/II (ditto, diminutive?); /xz(z)/ (ditto?), /ymn/ (genitival), /&n(n)/ (genitival, "consisting of'), /rb&/II (adjectival); /xlk/ (agential?), /rgl/ (adjectival, Aram infl.); /xnV / and /psg/ (ditto; cum /-n/-afform.); /kwlj (?affiliation unclear); /lblj ("gentilic", based on n.1.); /mc&/ (adjectival; also /,-/-preform.; late); /n&m/ (?cum /-n/-afform.; based on a divine epithet?); /stw/ (adjectival, cum /-n/-afform.); /&lm/ (adjectival), /&qr/ (ditto), /&rb/ (ditto, gentilic); /pnV/ (adjectival, based on PTa); ?/cyc/ (adjectival, diminutive?); ?/clx/II (ditto? Kulturwort), /cpn/ (adjectival), /I&(&)/III (wandering word?); /qw7/ (Kulturwort); /rb&/II and (Sam; adjectival, "belonging to"); ?/rh7/11 (adjectival? cf. Tib /rflhiY7/ "top beam"? but /-n-/ irregular); /Iwm/ (adjectival, cum /-n/afform.); /I&r(r)/ (adjectival); /txt/ (ditto); /xrI/II (ditto?), /yxd/ (ditto), /&1(1)/ (abstract), /&r(r)/ (adjectival), /pl(1)/ (adjectival, "belonging to"; substantivized), /cmt/ (abstract), /cpw/ (adjectival), /xmI/, /&I/sr/, /rb&/II, / Ib&/II, / mn/II, &/ (all numeral adjectives); /In(n/V)/ (ditto); /yd&/ (agential, cum /-n/-afform.). lxxxi) Afformative /-If. This afformative, rarely attested, seems to lend generally a meliorative connotation to the words it forms; therefore, as words for God are also otherwise used to replace superlative,58 B-L's surmise that it may derive from /'il/ deserves serious consideration in the absence of a more plausible suggestion, as in most cases, the vowel agrees, and the initial /'-/ could be secondary.59 The attestations in our materials are in the roots I'r'lf (?cf. the cognates), /krm/, ?/tr'/ (ditto); /gb&/, /qrs/; /&rp/; /I'v/; cf. also the root / I Ism'l/ (if relevant, used in a euphemistic sense); ? /gwz/ (alternative to /gzl/). lxxxii) Afformatives ending in / -m/. The consonant may ultimately go back to the indefinite PN /ma/ again, but hardly directly; in most cases, probably as a remnant of pre-Hbr mimation, although this is usually not provable; in one case, apparently based on the duo afformative. 60 The attestations in our materials are in the roots /'wlm/ (?if the final cons. indeed derives from the mimation of a pre-Hbr ac ending; cf. the cognates); /byn/ (du. afform); ?/dwr/ (here, the /0/ vowel preceding /-m/ suggests pre-Hbr nom; also with following /-i:/, cf. no. lxxx above); /sl(1)1 and Isl&/ (the mimated ac apparently used in a locative function; in the first instance, the identity of the root is disputed, but cf. the note on cognates, Part I Section Bb s.v.); / p/ (again, the mimated ac apparently in a locative function.).

III /

/III/

III /, /I

/tI

I

Cf., e.g., Kelso in AJSL 19 p. 152ff; Smith ib. 45 p. 212f; Caspari in ZDMG 69 p. 393ff. Cf. Part II p. 18ff. 60 On the Iml in the root IpnV I followed by l-i:1 see this afformative (no.lxxx above).

S8 S9

MODIFlCATIONAL MORPHEMES

61

lxxxiii) Mformatives ending in /_n/. 61 Again, there is certainly more than one source, but the large majority derive from the collective/pluralistic element used also as an inflectional afform. in Sem (cf. p. 59 above). Examples: roots /'bd/ (abstract), /'bV/ (adjectival), /'xr/ (ditto), /d'b/ (abstract), /dmV/ (ditto), /dr'/ (ditto), /drb/ (adjectival? substantivized), /hbV/ (basically collective, abstracted), /wtr/ (coll.), /xzV/11 (ditto, abstracted), /xlb/II (coll.); etc.; /'gm/ (adjectival, partly substantivized?), /xrb/ (abstract), /mrs/ (coll.), /ndV/ (ditto), /&bd/ (agential, basically adjectival?), /&qlj (adjectival), /qrb/ (basically collective, whatever is brought as a sacrifice), /flx/ (adjectival?); /'d(d)/ (coll.?), /'ylj (adjectival), /bnV/ (coil., abstracted), /lpt/ (coil., cf. cognates), /mgd/ (ditto), /&d(d)/ (coll.), /pft/ (ditto), /qnV / (ditto); the /a/ vowel in the afform., where not preceded by /u/ in the primary stem syll., may be of Aram origin, in / qnV / Ez & Pentateuch (/bnV / Ez) perhaps attributable to the redactors. In (basically) biradical roots /,lj (coll.?), /gr(r)/ (adjectival, onomatopoeic?), /zyd/ (abstract), /xl(l)/II (adjectival, concretized), /If / (agential? cf. Arab Gur Om vb.), /md(d)/ (coil., with superlative connotation), /ql(l)/ (ditto, pejoratively; also with stem reduplication for added emphasis), / f yf /11 (coll.?); /'sV/ (adjectival; euphemistic?), /g'V/ (abstract), /hmV / (coll.), /xzV/11 (ditto? or abstract), /xrV / (basically adjectival, abstracted), /ygV/ (abstract), /&wV/ (coil., also abstracted), /cy(V)/ (ditto), /rzV/ (basically coll.? abstracted), /rcV/ (abstract), /f'v/ (coil., abstracted); in ?/'pV/ (perhaps) with the It-i-preform. (adjectival); /'tV/ (adjectival, concretized); /dg/ (?or /dgn/?; coll.), /xm(m)/ (adjectival, agential); /xwc/ (adjectival), /qyf/, /ryq/, /twk/ (ditto). The middle rad. of triradical roots is demonstrably geminated in a few instances only: roots /hgV / G, /xm(m)/ Bab, /xpz/, /yd&/, /kIV/, /nqV/ Bab, /&IV/ Sam var., /&cb/ Pal, /&f/sr/ los, /&rb/ G NT, /qnm/, / fbt/, / f g&/, /tmb/; NB. occurrence of a close vowel before and another vowel after a cons. is not a reliable indication of gemination in Pal or the simple Bab punctuation, as secondary auxiliary vowels occur in the latter. position. Some less regular formations could still be cognate with those above, but others are evidently of different origins. Attestations: roots /brq/ (adjectival? concretized); /,lm/ (ditto?), /gl&/ (ditto), /xlb/II (ditto? var.); /yc'/ (colI.), /krf / (LW?); /lwV / and /&ql/ (adjectival, with infixed /+/, substantivized); /tl(l)/?; /nc(c)/ (based on the adjectival /nicca:n/ on the pattern of the /quttu:lj type, no. xlix above»; /&wd/II (Sam only; coll.); /prqd/ (LW?); /cpr/III (diminutive); /qV/ (reduplicated; LW); /qcV/ (LW?), /qrqb/ (wandering word); /fhr/ (adjectival, concretized); /fwf/ (wandering word; /f/sk(k)/ (LW?). The 2nd /-n-/ of /zunu:ni:m/ (root /znV/) follows

61 For the instances of compounds with final /-i:/ see this afformative (no. lxxx above); for those with final /-t/-afformative, the next item below.

62

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

the standard / qutu:li:m/ pattern of abstract pI. formation in metaplastic irnitation of the geminable roots. lxxxiv) Afformatives ending in /-t/. On the origins of these cf. the introductory notes above (p. 59); NB. fern. formations based on the afformative /-i:/ were included in the discussion of this (no. lxxx above), although it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them from the present category. As the primary stem vocalism does not normally have significant semantic correlation here either, the group can be formally divided into three main sub-categories according to the afformative vowels, although these, particularly /0:/ and /u:/, may be amalgamated or otherwise interchange either within one tradition or between different ones. As /u:/ is in clear majority, it may be assumed to have spread analogically at the expense of /0:/ which may also otherwise have been avoided because of its formal identity with the pI.fem. afformative; therefore, where there is evidence for both vowels, /0:/ is assumed to be original; occasionally, original /0:/ is recognizable by having in some traditions developed a diphthongal or bisyllabic form (cf. no. viii above). In our materials, the following attestations of the afformative /-i:t/ are found: roots /,xr/ (abstract), /xrf/s/ (diminutive?), /q7n/ (coll.), /fxr/ (denominative), ?/tlp/ (root uncertain); /xpf/ (agential?); ?/xpf/II (Pal Bab (Tib); abstract?; probably secondary, cf. /-o:t/ below); /sn(n)/ (wandering word); /&m(m)/ (denominative, n.unit.?); possibly also some of those mentioned under lxxx above, such as in the roots /gpr/II, /r'f /, /gg/, / f'r/, /cyc/, /clx/II. Mformative /-o:t/: roots /'hI/II (wandering word), /c1m/ (abstract); /,nJ/ (ditto); /bhm/ (superlative); /wtq/ (abstract), /yd(d)/ (ditto); /xpf/II (G; ditto, concretized); /rglj (locative; also /m-/-preform.); /prz/ (locative, adjectival?); /rwm/ (ditto, superlative?). Examples of the afformative /-u:t/: roots /gbh/, /gs(s)/, /dl(l)/, /yld/, /mlk/, /nbl/, /nqy/ etc. (all abstract), /zkr/ (also coIl.), /fhd/, /fxr/ (partly concretized); (with bisyllabic base) /zrz/, /xsd/II, /yhr/, /krt/, /m&l/, /&lc/, etc. (all abstract), /zrq/, ?/pqd/ (concretized); /hl(l)/II (abstract); (with geminated 2nd rad.) /'mn/, ?/ftp/ (ditto); (with biradical base) /xr/ (ditto); /zl(l)/ (ditto, partly concretized); /mwt/ (ditto); /&wd/ (ditto); ?/Jwb/II (ditto), /tm(m)/ (ditto); (with quadriradical base) /,lm/ (!or with additional /-n-/?); (with additional elements) /'xr/ (+ /-y-/), /xbr/II (+ /hitI), /kzr/ (+ /'- and /-y-/), /l'k/ (+ /m-/), /nkr/ (+ /h-/), /pr&/II (+ /-n-/). lxxxv) Other afformatives based on /t/. Two examples: roots /,yl/ (?etymology uncertain; varr. /'ltyt/, /'ltwt/) and /trft/ (title of foreign origin). Other types of nominal formation are not found in our materials, and as the syntactical functions of the noun involve the use of inflectional forma-

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

63

tives, they are best discussed in connection with these (p. 80ff below). § 18.

Verbal stems and voice.

The verb is usually regarded as the most important element of Hebrew (and generally Semitic) morphological system. Despite considerable variety in the terminology used, it is generally agreed that the inflection is based on a number of stems62 among which a "light" or basic or simple or primary one can be distinguished from the "heavy" or derived or secondary ones; the latter can still be divided into two main categories according to the main means of formation, to wit, those with internal modifications vs. those with external additions. In our materials, as in Hbr generally, the former group consists of those triconsonantal 63 stems formed by means of "gemination" or lengthening of the 2nd rad. of the respective triradical root (or the 2nd cons. of a basically biradical root); or lengthening of the first stem vowel of the usually basically biradical root plus repetition of the 2nd rad.;64 or reduplication of the entire basically biradical root; as well as the passive voices of all of these and a further formation, partially overlapping with the other category, with a It-Ipreformative attached to these secondary stems. As the mediaeval Hbr terms for these stems65 do not adequately reproduce the actual vocalization of the respective forms in large parts of our Hbr materials and are totally inadequate for the comparative materials from cognate languages, a terminological system which satisfactorily identifies the relevant formations has been adopted, largely used in the grammars of some cognate languages and comparative works already. Following the pattern provided by it, the stem with the lengthened66 2nd rad. is termed D-stem, its passive voice D ps, and the ItI-formation based on it, tD-stem; the ones with the lengthened stem vowel (and repetition of the 2nd rad. of the basically biradical root), L-stem, L ps and tL-stem; and those with the reduplication of the entire biradical root, Rstem, R ps and tR-stem, respectively. Similarly in the other category, with external additions, the stem formed by means of a stem preformative with Inl as the basic element is called N-stem; for semantic reasons, it does not form a passive voice nor any further formations; the one with Ih-I preformative or H-stem does have H ps, but its It-I-formation is replaced by Jt-stem which, moreover, is formed of one root only. Equally rare is the T-stem, while A62 This term is preferred to "conjugation", "form" etc. as the equivalent to the native Hbr jbinyan/ building, strncture, as being more concise and/or precise than the alternatives, there being no alternative use for it in the verbal system. 63 Including those in which the 3rd rad. of the underlying root is usually vocalic (III V rooW· Except where the underlying root is triradical (rarely in Hbr). 65 Besides varying in form in different publications (Piel, Pi'el, Pi"e~ Pual, Pu'al, Pu"al, Poek Po'el, Polel etc.). Which may be described as quantitative doubling to provide some justification for the D of the designation; L is more naturally used for the alternative formation from the basically biradical roots, and as G is widely used for the primary stems, no better alternative is available.

64

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

stem may be due to Aram influence. On the other hand, for the primary stem, the Hbr designation as /qal/, abbreviated simply Q, is retained, as the international G (from German Grundstamm) does not have proper justification in English ("ground stem" being hardly used) and the primary stem rarely being referred to by an explicit designation, the occasional appearance of G in that function would not be readily recognizable and could in fact suggest gemination; as Q is not formally nor phonetically radically different from G either, its retention may be justified. Its passive voice is then termed Qps and a /t-/ -formation analogous to those mentioned above, tQ-stem. 67 The primary stem occurs more frequently than all the secondary stems together, in our materials about twice as frequently. It is therefore surprising how little attention is generally paid to the problem of the formation of the stem. The existence of two fundamentally distinct types of stem in its forms of conjugation is generally recognized, but it is not always clear whether the author thinks that the contrast is based on two originally different bases or derives ultimately from one single basis through the effect of some unspecified operation of the principle of polarity. In fact, it is hard to understand how such a principle could have been brought into operation without preexisting stock of vocabulary items reflecting the relevant polarization, in numbers large enough to exert formative influence on less systematized vocabulary items with analogous functions. In other words, even with such a philosophical or psychological principle involved, two distinct types of original bases must still be postulated. What the original character of such bases would have been is not much discussed either, or discussed in negative terms only;68 nevertheless, the plausible assumption may still be that they were nominal in character.69 This is indeed the most plausible conclusion, seeing that both nouns and verbs, as used in syntactical constructions, are more or less complex morphs, but as we shall see in the next paragraph, verbs are more complex than nouns, the simplest forms of the conjugated verb being comparable and sometimes identical with standard forms of nouns, while more complex verbal forms have no parallels in nominal declension. It may not be provable that the Semitic verbal system was originally based on nouns, but the similarity between the simplest forms of the verbal primary stem and certain nominal types is so close that the most plausible explanation is that they have common origins - whether assuming that the noun has diachronical priority or that

67 These are rarely recognizable in Pal Bab (Tib) because of secondary phonetically motivat1M amalgamations, but more common in Sam. Cf. B-L, §35f; Driver, Problems p. 9. 69 Cf., e.g., B-L §35h; Driver, Problems p. lOff for Qag; the basic stem element of Qact must also be considered noun-like, verbal character resulting from activation by formative elements and/or other syntactical reference; cf. H.-P. Muller in LgEbl p. 150 (with n. 20).

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

65

both came into use roughly simultaneously on a common basis. Even in the latter case, the common bases for nominal and verbal stems must have been more nominal than verbal in character. Evidence from historical times points to the same direction. As is well known, in Akk any noun can in principle serve as a basis for the afformative conjugation, and although it is less used and has more restricted functions than its morphological counterparts in WSem, it is clearly verbal, not nominal in character. Verbal nouns likewise serve as bases for analogous formations widely in Aram and also in post-biblical Hbr. Moreover, some types of the afformative conjugation with certain vocalic patterns are generally recognized as based on formally identical nominal types, mostly with adjectival connotation, the corresponding nominal formations serving also as verbal nouns of agent. Now it is true that these types of afformative conjugation are minority ones, and that similar relationship between the majority * j qatalj type and its verbal noun of agent is not readily recognizable. It appears, however, that the lack of similarity in this case is largely-if not entirely-due to secondary phonetic developments,1o as some of our materials demonstrate, cf. the list of agential items in the nominal type j qatalj (§ 17 no. xvi above) as well as the discussion of the verbal noun of agent below (p. 67ff). We may thus conclude that the afformative conjugation is based on stem forms identical with the corresponding verbal nouns of agent and at least of common origin with the three bisyllabic nominal types of the highest frequency of occurrence in early times, jqatalj, jqatilj and jqatulj.71 It is then plausible to assume that the alternative stem form is likewise related to nominal types of high frequency of occurrence, but significantly different in structure, as indicated by the historically attested formations. In Hbr, the commonest type of vocalization in the preformative conjugation as well as in imperative and the noun of action appears to be or presuppose *jqtulj. Needless to say, no such nominal type can be posited on the evidence from early Sem nor on interlingual comparisons; it is therefore commonly assumed that the prototype was *jqutulj. However, this type by itself is hardly so frequent of occurrence either that it could have provided a prototype to which the vast majority of others would have been drawn to conform by analogical attraction; moreover, in Arab - the only language in which it is frequently attested - it occurs mostly alongside j qutlj and according to a tradition72 could be substituted for this anywhere. Be that as it may, in any case there is an intimate connection between the two types; and as is well known, it is normally not possible to tell the two apart in Aram either-what is more important, the stem vowel of the original * jqutlj has been shifted

70 cr. also B-L p. 462q". ~ See § 17 nos. xvi to xviii above. Cf. Grundriss I p. 210.

cr. Brockelmann in ZPhASw 5 p. 146ff.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

66

permanently behind the 2nd rad., to yield /qtul/! Of course, this has presumably taken place over a bisyllabic stage */qutul/, with the shift of the word accent to the ultima; but there is no reason why similar development could not have taken place in prehistoric times already. / qutl/ is much more frequently attested than an original /qutul/ ever can have been, and its meaning is also most frequently actional 73 so that semantically it is also apt to provide basis for verbal description of actions. It seems thus plausible to conclude that the prevalent type of the actional primary stern is ultimately cognate with the nominal type /qutl/, although • /qutul/ may have served as a transitional form. A number of spellings in Qumran texts appears to indicate that such a development was taking place while they were written,74 see roots j'hl/, /'mc/, /'rk/, /gdl/, /xzq/, /lhb/, /smk/, /&rl/, /p&l/, /r'J/, / Jxd/; the standard Sam imp form / qetal/ also agrees with /u/ as the original vowel after the 1st rad., but not after the 2nd (/0/ would be expected). Stern forms with /a/- and Ii/-vocalism are traceable back to /qatl/ and /qitl/ in an analogous fashion, as these are much more frequent of occurrence than the corresponding bisyllabic types and also frequently form nouns of action;75 /qatal/ and /qitil/ (and /qital/), where attested in analogous functions are again conceivable as transitional stages between the original type and the attested /qtal/, /qtil/ -rare in Hbr and also elsewhere outside Ararn (Eth equivocal). It appears, then, that the primary verbal stern is based essentially on two structurally different stern forms, one bisyllabic with agential connotation, the other basically monosyllabic with actional connotation. The former provides the simplest form and hence basis for the form of conjugation in which the formative elements denoting the subject are attached at the end of the stern (traditional "perfect", B-L "Nominal", more recently qtl, "Sufftxkonjugation") and which we therefore propose to call the afformative conjugation or afformal (abbreviated: af) for short, as the most accurate purely formal designation.76

;! Cf.Cf. Abr above, 17 no. xv; also Barth, Nominalbildung Nahrain vol. IV (for 1963-4) p. 72f, 86f. §

§ § 23ff, 74ff etc.

75 Cf. Grundriss I § § 123f; Barth, op.cit. § § 19ff etc. 76 As the term, "perfect", is used in a different sense in European languages and elsewhere,

it is not suitable in a comparative work, besides the fact that it gives the false impression of temporal connotation; "Nominal" suffers from the fact that, as just established, all verbal forms ultimately derive from bases of nominal nature; qtl does have the advantage of being not only purely formal, but also brief; but the principle of using the consonantal skeleton only can lead to confusion in a comprehensive description of the entire language and still more so in a comparative work, as qtl may describe also the imperative and plain or secondarily conjugated verbal nouns and, under certain circumstances, nominal types (and its counterpartyqtl makes distinction between different moods and "tenses" in some languages equally difficult); and in verbal/onnation, the term "formative" describes the function of the element better than suffa, as it is an integral part of the resulting verbal form and certainly not subordinated to it like a suffixed form of pronoun. Similar reasons, mutatis mutandis, are valid for employing the designation, pre/onnal (pref) for the form of conjugation with the elements referring to the subject attached at the beginning of the stem; whereas the traditional designations for different moods

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

67

The same stem form is found as such or slightly modified in most Rbr verbal nouns too. As already found above (p. 65), the types of the so-called active participle or noun of agent (abbreviated: nag) with /i/ or /u/ in the 2nd syll. are formally identical- apart from the length of the vowel in nag, secondary anyway-with af 3.sg.m. of the same root; and some of our materials (notably Sam77) furnish many examples of originally identical vocalization for the category with /a/ in the 2nd syll. too. Moreover, the type of nag generally prevalent elsewhere in Sem, as far as the quality and quantity of the vowels is known and also in other traditions of Rbr, is in relatively small minority in Sam, and its distribution between different roots and accentually variant forms within one and the same root provides clues for the solution of the origin of that type, with long vowel in the first stem syllable. As stated, elsewhere it is the norm, but in Sam it generally occurs only in lengthier inflectional forms than the basic bisyllabic one, the latter usually presupposing short /a/; cf., e.g., /Ia:keb/ vs. /eIJu:keb/; /Ia:ken/ vs. /eIJu:ken/; /I a:mer/ vs. (c.PTir) /a:Io:mer/; also, e.g., /ezzu:req/; /yu:si:fem/; /ya:ca:/, f. /ya:ca:t/ vs. /eyyu:ca:/, f. /eyyu:ca:t/, pI. /yu:ca:'em/ etc.; although in many cases, even the longer forms have /a/ in the first stem syll., probably influenced by the analogy of the much more frequent shorter forms, perhaps also by Aram and (more recently) Arab. The remaining variation, however, is sufficiently numerous and regular to suggest that it has original under accentual variation, the longer forms having been more heavily accentuated and, as a consequence, had their stem vowel prolonged and its articulation basis raised higher than the short /a/, to become eventually /0:/ (= /u:/ usually in Sam). This is further supported by the fact that even in Sam, there are roots with a permanently long first stem vowel, i.e., attested even in the basic bisyllabic form, all of them with clear habitual (sometimes professional) or otherwise intensified connotation apt to create strong emphasis and hence to prolong the stressed vowel; cf. roots IzI(1)1 ("profligate"), IznV I (f. only, "harlot"), /rnrV/ ("rebel"), Isb'l ("drunkard"), Isr(r)/ ("obstinate"), Ipqdl ("avenger", of God only), Iptrl ("interpreter (of dreams)"), Irdpl ("pursuing" in hostile sense), / I p7/ ("judge, arbiter, ruler"), probably also / I7r / ("scribe, overseer"), although the sg. form is not attested. The use of matres lectionis in MT vs. SP78 also supports this conclusion.

appear to be sufficiently unequivocal for them to be retained. On the other hand, those for verbal nouns do not accurately describe their functions in Hbr either, as the so-called infinitive may be used in the same functions as the so-called finite or conjugated verbal forms; nor are the so-called participles the only elements of the verbal system which may be construed nominally also, as other verbal nouns can function likewise; therefore, and to give expression to the basically nominal character of the verbal nouns, we retain the term, "noun" in the designations for the individual verbal nouns too, particularly as this has antecedents in Arabic grammar, cf. /,ismu-l-fi&li/, /-fa:&ili/, /-maf&u:li/; also in Modern Hbr, /Im hp&lh/ for our nact, alt~ugh more recently, /mqwr/ has come to be used for that too. Cf. also Materials vol. III p. 91 (§ Ill; ibk also to what follows). 78 On the problem in general, see my article, On the interpretation of the matres lectionis

68

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

The verbal nag is usually spelt defective in MT even in roots in which SP has a permanently long lu:/, while in some others (/hlkl often, I'kl/, l'pV I, IhyVI, ?IhrVI (Gn 49:26), Ixlm/, IxnV I, Iynq/, 1&IVI, I&md/, Irex/, Irqxl occasionally) where Sam has the lal vowel regularly, MT has Iwl to indicate the rounded vowel, usually in all ross. of the Ginsburg edition and BHS, supported by the Masoretic notes; the only roots in which MT and SP coincide in having Iwl to indicate the rounded vowel are /,yb/, IzI(l)/, IznVI (f.), lyc'l, Iyrfl, Iyfb/, ImrV/, Ing&l, Inffs'l, Isb(b)/, Isr(r)/, Iptr/, Irmflsi; and even in them, the distribution is usually different. In most of them, MT has plene writing in -one or two passages only, although there may be tens of attestations without it; only IzI(l)1 and Isr(r)1 as well as I'ybl on B-CH's evidence agree with SP completely, the frequency of occurrence being lx, 2x, and 53x respectively, and in the last case, accentual factor may have been decisive, the rounded vowel being confined to the plain sg. form in SP. In IznV I (f.), MT has defective spelling in Lv 21:7.14, perhaps because the word was interpreted in a different, technical meaning in postbiblical times at least; in lyc'l, plene spelling occurs only 4x in MT,79 3 of them in the plain sg. where SP regularly has la/,so and in the remaining Dt 28:57, the /,1 is lacking in most mss., indicative of secondary corruption. In Iyrf I, there is agreement on defective spelling in Nm 36:8, on plene one in Dt 18:14, while Dt 12:2 shows contrast, and in Gn 15:3, SP has pref 3.sg. instead of nag. Again, in Iyfb/, all but one of the 18 MT plene spellings are in the plain sg. form in which SP has it in Gn 50:11 Nm 14:14 only; in ImrV I, Ing&l, Isb(b)1 and Iptr/, always spelt plene in SP, MT has only one plene spelling in each, in Isb(b)1 (Gn 2:13) even that only in part of the Ginsburg mss., although the defective varr. may be due to the preceding attestation (ib.:11). In Inf Is' I too, MT spells plene only one of the five extended forms with the rounded vowel in SP; while in Irmf lsi, Sam has the unrounded vowel, presumably arisen from contamination with the related Ns, in both passages where MT has the plene spelling (Gn 1:308:19). It appears thus that the original spelling in both MT and SP was defective, the plene spellings having been introduced secondarily, in SP apparently due to the influence of pronunciation in those passages only in which the rounded, long vowel actually occurred; in MT mostly haphazardly, for some

in biblical Hebrew, in Abr Nahrain vol. XVI p. 66ff; on nag in particular, ib. p. 114ff, where the roots 1v.(l)/, ImrV/, Isb'/, Isr(r)/, Ipqd/, Irdp/, IJ7rl should be added to the second category (with luI always in the 1st syll.); NB. not all of those in that category are assuredly permanently long, but only those in which the plain sg. form is attested; whether j'ybl actually belongs to this class must also be deemed uncertain, as the IiI vowel (which in B-CH's records, Tradition vol. IV p. 17, occurs regularly and exclusively in forms other than the plain sg., while in mine, some fluctuation occurs) cannot assuredly be regarded as an allophone of lul.jf origin. Gn 9:18 (Mandelkern) is defective according to BHS and Ginsburg (all mss.). SO Apart from Dt 14:22 where, however, MT has the determined form spelt defective: Ihyc'l - the SP spelling could thus be secondary.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

69

particular reason not always discernible to US,81 but mostly through scribal inconsistency, whether in the mss. basic to MT or later mistakes. Seeing that, on the other hand, the plene spelling occurs rather frequently in MT even for an /0/ vowel arisen from a short /U/,82 the rarity and evidently secondary origin of it for the verbal nag in the Pentateuch suggests strongly that the underlying vowel was unrounded even in MT. Now, as the Pentateuch was edited apparently in connection with Ezra's return from Babylonia and the subsequent cultic and social reform, at a time of strong Aramaic influence and by people used to write Aramaic,83 it may be plausible to assume that the original defective spelling was due to Aram influence. The overwhelming preponderance of the /0:/ vowel in Pal Bab Tim, cf. the corresponding frequent spelling with /w / in Q, makes in probable that in MT, the defective spelling is a scribal feature; but the variety of vocalism in Sam, largely but not entirely phonetically motivated,84 long vowel and occasional 2nd rad. geminate agreeing with a professional or otherwise habitual or other kind of emphatic meaning makes it impossible to assume that the preponderance of the originally short /a/ in that dialect is secondary, even if Aram influence might have contributed to its prevalence to some extent-there is no parallel elsewhere in Sam for an accentuated long back vowel having been centralized to /a:/, quite apart from the then seemingly freak exceptions in which the back vowel is preserved as /u:/ (or /0:/ as a rare var.), sometimes even where no or very few recent mss. spell it plene.85 The only plausible explanation is that the variety of the vocalism in Sam reflects an ancient state of affairs in that dialect, apparently more resistant to the influence of analogy than the more southern dialects of Hbr, and thus more conservative in this respect. 86 The vowel of the 2nd syll. may not always be original in the prevalent type. There is a general tendency to reduce the sonority of the word, if it passes beyond a certain limit; this happens most easily, if /a/, the most sonorous of all the sounds, is lengthened; short /a/ in the neighbouring syllable is then usually dissimilated into /il or reduced altogether; even a short /a/ may have a similar effect. The phenomenon may be connected with fluctuations

81 Cf. on /znV / above; in /yfb/ limited to plain sg. forms perhaps due to avoidance of mrua~ /Yl's and/or /wl's in the word. 83

her~

See the article quoted above (n. 78). Whether Ezra himself or (also) others accompanying and assisting him is irrelevant

Cf. Abr Nahrain XVI p. 117. Cf. ib. p. 115f. Cf. B-L p. 27Oh; in Eth, the type with long /a:/ appears never to have been very numerous either except in Tigre (Leslau § 7) and has been largely shifted to other functions (Dillmann-Bezold § § l08f, 123; M. Cohen, Etudes p. 165, 286 etc.); I doubt also whether the /a/ of the "participle" of the Akk primary stem is regularly long in all the roots in OAkk anyway. With regard to nact, Arab appears to be the most conservative one, although some of the actually attested forms may be secondary. 85 86

70

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

in accentuation, as the lengthening of sounds is also often connected with it, and therefore forms with lal in both syllables do occur in actually spoken Sem, but a short lal alongside a long one is either rare or evidently secondary or otherwise recent; cf., e.g., the rare occurrence of the nominal type I qata:ll both as a sg. form and as a broken pI. form in Arab, in the latter function usually transformed into Iqita:ll or I'aqta:l/, the latter evidently through *Iqta:l/; the only frequently attested function for it is that of verbal nact in which it may accordingly have gained more ground secondarily, as in Akk still more so; while in Hbr, the excessive sonority has been obviated by raising the articulation basis of the long vowel itself. It is therefore plausible to assume that the prevalent Iii in the 2nd syll. partly derives from lal by way of dissimilation, particularly as in Sam, lal is actually attested in some roots, e.g., lyc'l, Ing&l, If p7I in which the glottal, pharyngal and dorsalized (originally also glottalized?) consonants may have helped to preserve it. Dissimilation of one of two short la/'s appears less frequent, but cf. the total reduction common in Aram and also in st.cstr. in Masoretic Hbr. The dissimilation may, in any case, have taken place normally in connection with the lengthening of the first vowel before the raising of the articulation basis in NWSem, cf. the fact that the same development is presupposed by Akk Arab. Once in majority, the type with the long vowel in the 1st syll. spread to other roots by way of analogy, including some in which the alternative method of intensification, the lengthening of the 2nd rad., appears to be more original, as still preserved in Sam, cf. roots Igrf I, Idbr/, Imkr/, Irqx/, Irqml etc. and on the formation of D-stem below (p. 74f). Another verbal noun derived from the bisyllabic prototype is the so-called passive participle or noun of patient (abbreviated: npt), more originally designating an entity with potential for action87 which we therefore call noun of potent (same abbreviation); as potential for action presupposes the state of being "filled" with the requisite energy or other relevant characteristic, the step to purely passive connotation is small, and so it is not surprising that this shift in meaning took place when the passive voice of Qal came to be disused (cf. below, p. 143f). The type, Iqatu:l/, is apparently derived from Iqatull through prolongation of the 2nd syll. vowel, hence probably used first in the roots with this stem form, but spread secondarily to the other verbal roots as well. A type of noun of action, in Pal Bab (Tib) differentiated to special functions88 ("the absolute infinitive") which we therefore differentiate in these traditions under the term, noun of verb (abbreviated: nvb), is evidently based

87 Cf. the functions of this nominal type in Arab and the article of E. Porath on Die Passivbildung des Grundstammes im Semitischen in Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft dess1udentums (Breslau 1926). Not necessarily emphasizing; cf. G. Goldenberg in lOS I p. 36ff; Muraoka, Emphatic words ch. V.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

71

on the /qatal/ type of nag, again differentiated by means of prolongation of the 2nd syll. vowel with raising of its articulation basis, cf. the same formation as the universal type of nact in Akk and also fairly frequent in Arab. It does occur in Sam too, but not functionally differentiated; and as its existence as a formally and functionally distinct verbal noun is not demonstrable elsewhere in Sem either, it may be an innovation in the (originally) southern dialects of Hbr. As the basic stem form for af and the verbal nouns just discussed thus had character of a primitive noun of agent, we call the inflectional forms based on it the agential group of forms of conjugation of the primary stem (or Qag for short) in contrast to the actional (=Qact) group based on the primitive noun of action. The ontogenesis of the latter stem form was discussed above (p. 65f), essentially preserved in the verbal noun so called here (= nact for short; the traditional "infinitive consruct"),89 and conjugated with afformatives in the imperative mood ( = imp) and also with preformatives referring to the subject, in the preformative conjugation or preformal (=pref; traditional "imperfect", also called "future", "aorist", "Pdifixkonjugation", yqtl) in which subsidiary moods may be differentiated, but not regularly in Hbr; these will be discussed in the next paragraph in connection with verbal pre- and afformatives. Here, it suffices to mention that the vocalic changes by means of which the jussive (=js) mood is distinguishable from the basic or indicative mood90 in some secondary stems and classes of irregular verbs are of accentual origin; these are also shared, in some cases with more extensive changes in vocalism, by the form of pref with the PTcj /w(a)-/ prefixed to the preformative and the word accent on the preformative vowel; as the particle thus affects the stem form, it is considered morphologically part of the resulting form of conjugation which is then, where relevant, specified as w-preformal (=wpref). Sometimes, forms of preformal seem to presuppose bisyllabic stem forms. In most cases, however, these appear to be secondary in origin; so above all those cases in Q Bab where the occurrence of a vowel after the 1st rad. is indicated against Tib Shwa quiescens; these occur regularly in forms with afformatives and/or suffixes causing shift of the word accent; sometimes neighbouring consonants may also have an effect, cf. analogous phenomena in Tib I guttural verbs. The latter may be the reason in such Pal instances in which two stem vowels actually appear in the basic sg. form without afformatives or suffixes, e.g., in the roots /n&m/, /qcr/, although in the latter, the reason for the creation of the secondary vowel after the 1st rad. is not selfevident, perhaps because the accurate phonetic quality of the neighbouring consonants is not known to us. On the other hand, the cases with vowels on

89 90

For reasons of adopting the new terminology see n. 76 above. Usually not specified, therefore no abbreviaton either.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

72

both sides of a guttural have ample parallels in Sam where creation of a svarabhakti before a guttural before its quiescization91 appears to have been the rule, so that in consequence, the forms of the primary stem in II guttural roots have fallen together with those of the D-stem. There are also other cases of apparently phonetic influence leading to the creation of a secondary vowel to avoid assimilation, cf. the root /zkr/ Q vs. H-stem in which the unavoidable contiguity has led to the partial assimilation of /-zk-/ to /-zg-/; the secondary vowels in /b7' /, /bcr/II (?not in /bcr/(I)!), /bq&/, /bqr/ etc. may have a similar origin; while in others, the bisyllabic stem form is evidently original and appears to have given the original impetus to the creation of the D-stem and will be discussed in connection with this (below, p. 74f). Of the irregular verbs, I /' /, III /' / and III vn have stem forms comparable to the regular verb apart from deviations in vocalism caused by the effects of the "weak" radical; III V class also has /-t/-afformative in nact, and so some late attestations of a few III /' / roots, apparently in consequence of quiescization of the final rad., all this as in Tib. In addition, in Pal there are instances of the loss of the root final vowel in the III V class in af 3.sg.m., cf., e.g., roots /xzV/11, /&f /sV /; they may have originated on the analogy of the hollow roots, with the formally identical 3.pl. form as the starting point. In the hollow roots,93 the stem forms are regularly monosyllabic, with a basically short stem vowel in Qag and a long one in Qact, apart from some metaplastic formations in Sam, cf. roots /gwz/, /qwm/, / f /syd/; the last of these is evidently due to the avoidance of the sequence, /-dt-/ apt to lead to assimilation; the second could be an ancient root var., cf. /q'm/ Hos 10:14kt MT, reinforced by a similar formation in Aram; while the first appears to follow the pattern of the geminable roots. These latter are also basically biradical,94 but there are many variant formations following the pattern of the regular verb, thus bisyllabic in Qag, as in Tib; in the monosyllabic forms likewise, the stem vowel is regularly basically short and the 2nd rad. long, where an afformative or suffix follows, but there are exceptions particularly in Sam again, with a short 2nd rad., with the 1st often lengthened instead, cf. roots /gz(z)/, /gr(r)/ (still more anomalous), /kt(t)/, /sb(b)/, /sk(k)/, /qb(b)/II, /qd(d)/ (cf. Tib too), /qc(V)/, /ql(l)/, / fk(k)/, / f /sk(k)/; etc. The auxiliary vowel between the stem and the afformative beginning with a consonant, regularly found in Tib in this class and largely in the secondary stems in the hollow roots is generally found in similar positions in our materials except in Sam in which it is extremely rare and apparently of different origin, created to avoid 91 Or, like here, falling together in the glottal stop; but this could sec~ydary creation, d. the fact that contracted forms also occur.

have been a subsequent

Cf. W. Diem in ZDMG 127 p. 15ff for a thorough discussion of these roots. Cf. F.R. Blake in JAOS 62. p. 109f. 94 Blau's objection (Proc. Int. Conf. on Sem. St. 1965 p. 39) is invalid: /yasattiru/ is patterned on /yuqattilu/, whereas /yasubbu/ had no pre-existing pattern, if it arose from /yasbubu/. 93

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

73

contact between a voiced final radical and the voiceless /t/ of the afformative. 9s In the I /n/ and (original) I /w/ classes, Qag follows the regular pattern as in Tib; Qact likewise follows the pattern familiar from Tib in having a basically biradical stem form in most roots, although variant forms preserving the 1st rad. occur particularly in I /n/ verbs, apparently in imitation of the regular verb in which the 1st cons. of the biradical base is also mostly geminated in pref, giving the impression of the In/-augment having been assimilated to it. In Sam, the same phenomenon is found in some I /w/ verbs too, cf. /yd&/, /yc'/, /yfb/; however, usually not in wpref in which isolated instances without assimilated /n/ are found in the roots /nd(d)/ and /npl/ too; wpref appears thus to preserve more archaic forms.96 A number of roots with more than three radicals also form verbal conjugation; all of them are rarely used and not many in number overall either. Contrary to the tri- and biradical roots, they have only one stem form in the primary stem too, regularly bisyllabic, with a biconsonantal cluster between the stem vowels, thus structurally resembling R-stem with which they share some inflectional characteristics too, such as the /m-/-preformative of nag. In our materials, the following are attested in such a primary stem: /hlq7/, /xsps/, /krsm/ = /qrsm/, /p&nx/, /prns/, /prfz/; /ryqn/ occurs as a var. of /ryq/, with /y/ mostly eliminated; /fxr(r)/ is attested in passive voice only, apart from the fact that, being based on a fundamentally biradical root, its affiliation to this category is disputable, and it could also be classified as an example of a J-stem. 97 Formation of secondary stems. Unlike the primary stem, all of these have only one fundamental stem form on which all the inflectional forms are based; although vocalic patterns vary somewhat between different forms of conjugation, comparison between different dialects and traditions as well as with cognate languages leaves little doubt that such divergent patterns have been formed secondarily. As stated above (p. 63), secondary stems are divisible into two major classes, to wit, those formed by means of root internal modifications only (or principally) and those in which an external (occasionally internalized) stem preformative is the principal means of formation.

95 So in the root /md(d)/ (cf. also B-CH, Tradition V p. 115) and apparently in /Iwb/ HsteWd cf. also /1 /syd/ quoted above. B-CH's idea (Tradition V p. 102) that wpref forms could be "past" (=at) as well as "inverted future" (= wpref) might be feasible as a recent reinterpretation of 3rd pers. masc. forms; but as similar patterns recur in the fern. forms and other persons (cf., e.g., roots /yld/, /yfb/), there is little doubt that the vocalic pattern is ancient, originated well before any tempor~ reinterpretation of these forms of conjugation. Not attested otherwise, and as a judicial term probably borrowed and therefore better classified as a separate (secondary) root. For the sake of completeness, the roots attested in secondary stems only may also be mentioned here; they are /&r7l/ (to-stem) and /flsm'l/ (H-stem); /prns/ is the only one to occur in a secondary stem (to) besides the primary one.

74

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

The stems with internal modifications only appear to have existed originally as divergent patterns of the primary stem; this stage of affairs is preserved almost intact in the old Ethiopic (G&z) language, where few roots are found with a lengthened 2nd rad. or 1st stem vowel beside forms with simple short radicals and stem vowels only; and to a varying lesser degree in modern Eth languages. In Hbr, this stage is reflected in the roots in which the primary stem is not attested at all or only rarely in late texts beside a more frequently and/or earlier attested secondary stem in essentially the same meaning; in the class with internal modifications such a dominant "secondary" stem is the D-stem. Examples: /b&t/, /bqr/, /bqf/, /brk/, /bfr/, /gdp/, /glx/, /grf/, / dbr / etc.; usually, such a root has a meaning implying or presupposing higher degree of attention, diligence, emotional charge or other kind of intensity than most actions. This is apt to intensify the word stress and hence amplify the stressed syllable, including lengthening of the stressed vowel and/or the subsequent consonant (cf. Eth); in Hbr, only the latter98 appears to have survived in verbal stem formation, L-stem being anyway extremely rare in the regular verb. 99 Parallel to this usage, lengthening of the middle rad. in a trirad. root could then be used to indicate a comparable intensification1°O of a more basic meaning expressed by the primary stem; in other words, to create a secondary D-stem from a more original primary stem. Examples of this are so numerous that it may be unnecessary to list any here; particularly in late biblical and post-biblical texts it becomes the most frequently used secondary stem, apparently influenced by Aram in part at least, being formed occasionally even of hollow roots, e.g., /bwf/, /zyp/, /xwb/, /qwm/. More originally, and mostly in our materials too, these and the continuable roots replace D-stem by L-stem, see the roots /bws/, /bwf/, /byn/, /bq(q)/, /gn(n)/, /db(b)/, /hl(l)/II, /zwr/II etc.; a somewhat deviating type of L-stem is formed out of a trirad. roots by repetition of the last rad., see /,pn/II, /n'V /, /r&n/; also from the biradical /dg/ by the addition of a vocalic augment which creates /' / as a secondary 3rd rad. In Sam, the 1st rad. too is sometimes secondarily lengthened, so in /bkr/, /kbs/, /kbf/, /klV/, /nqr/, /nqf/ etc.; while in some others, even the 2nd rad. remains short, so in /'WV/,101 /kbd/,l02 /kpr/, /rnl'/, /spr/II, /qfr/, /fkl/, /flb/; as these are thus structurally comparable to Qag, we classify them as Q II. D-stem does occur in the continuable roots in older texts too, cf. /,r(r)/, /bz(z)/!, /gf(f)/, /hl(l)/, /zq(q)/, /xl(1)/ etc.; in addition, they as well as 98 Perhaps apart from I'rf /s/ in which my Sam recordings show little if any lengthening of /r/iI-CH's also only in forms in which it could have resulted from the assimilation of 1'/. Most of those mentioned by Morag (JAOS 94 p. 310ft) in Bab may be punctuators' mistak'i&see Yeivin, BV ch. XXVII; an exception is /rom/ on which cf. Sam too; and so /kpr/. In the broad sense of having some quality in high degree (cf. the Concise Oxford diction~ty s.v. intense. 1 1 The attested /-ww-/ is recent in origin; an ancient long /w/ would have yielded /h/. 102 The var. with long 1st rad. may be due to contamination with N-stem.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

75

purely biradical roots and (less frequently) hollow roots may form an R-stem by repetition of the basic birad. stem; so in our materials the roots Ibz(z)/,

Ibl(l)/, Igr(r)/, Idq(q)/, Ihb/, Ihr(r)/II, Izw&l, Ixylj, 1x1(l)/II, Ixt(t)/, 17'1, Ikwlj, Iks(s/V)/, IIx/, Is'l, Isk(k)/, Isl(l)/, Ips(s)/, Icx(x)/, Icl(l)/ill, Iql(l)/, Iq&l, Iqr(r)/II. In the vocalism of all these stems, lal with its somewhat closer back and

front allophones preponderates, although particularly in the 2nd syll. it may be replaced by Iii (usually realized as lei) so as to contrast with passive formations or for phonetic reasons. The fact that lui does not appear at all can hardly be original, cf. Akk; its absence in the attested forms may therefore be due to the fact that it has become the characteristic vowel of the passive voice almost everywhere, L-stem being the only notable exception with its Iii vs. L ps lal as the contrastive pair in the 2nd syll. The formation of the passive voices is a secondary development, as it presupposes the existence of the basic, henceforth mainly active stem form from which it is formed by the replacement of the first syllable vowel by lui, whether in the stem or in the preformative, with the exception just quoted. In Sam, with its nearly complete frontation of the original short lui this is further replaced by lei or (before geminates) Iii; nevertheless, it seems to give a clue to the origins of lui as the characteristic of passive voice. Despite considerable variation in the forms of the nag of the root/yIb/, they all are best derivable from a form with lui in the 1st syll. which appears to be presupposed in the root Irbcl too. Although the latter does not occur very frequently in the Bible (lOx in SP), this may be because quadrupeds are not often discussed there in suitable contexts, and so we may assume that these two roots were perhaps the most frequently used ones whose meaning is conceivable in a passive as well as active sense. Because of their frequent use, they may then have been able to exert analogical influence on other roots and so initiate the development of separate passive forms, first in the primary stem and then in the secondary ones, with lui as the characteristic vowel in the 1st syll. The stem of the passive voice is thus fundamentally the same as that of the corresponding active one, apart from the vocalic modifications quoted. In the 2nd syll., either lal or Iii may occur, although in Sam, the latter preponderates, presumably due to the influence of Arab (or Aram already?), while elsewhere, lal appears to have won the field. Distinction between different stems, particularly between Q ps vs. D ps in af and Q ps vs. H ps in pref is not always easy to make because of secondary phonetic developments leading to formal identity between these pairs in Pal Bab (Tib); in I Inl roots too, the vocalism in af may sometimes have been altered from Q ps to N-stem,103 cf. the existence of lyuttanl which can only be Q ps pref of Intnl without corresponding af, and

103 The lui vowel found in N-stem in some Bab and post-biblical texts (cf. Morag in JAOS 94 p.310) may actually derive from Q ps, as it occurs mostly in I Inl roots.

76

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

the fact that in Sam, no fewer than fourteen and perhaps nineteen I /n/ roots have Q ps, although in some of them, it could be a secondary development, as Q ps has replaced an original N-stem even in some hollow roots, treating the stem preformative as the 1st rad., e.g., in the roots /bwk/, /mwl/. Elsewhere, however, Sam Q ps is usually evidently original and thus supports similar forms in other traditions, where attested; the generally accepted criterion of a root showing af like D ps alongside pref like H ps and no active D or H is naturally valid for biblical texts; but in post-biblical texts, stray attestations of some secondary stem passive voices are often found without any supporting active counterparts, sometimes as ad hoc formations (particularly in liturgical poetry), sometimes in imitation of biblical passages; occasionally, it is hard to decide whether such an imitation of a biblical Q ps should still be regarded as Q ps, e.g., root /xpJ/11 (Bab). Another secondary development in this group is the attachment of a stem preformative with /t/ as the characteristic consonantal element; the written /h-/ in the forms without conjugational preformatives is secondary consonantalization of the onset of the prothetic vowel still lacking in Arab104 Eth (cf. SAr). This preformative105 adds to the more original stem a reflexive or reciprocal connotation; only in post-biblical texts, apparently under Aram influence, passive meaning begins to gain ground. As the idea of reflexivity and reciprocity is well compatible with the 2nd pers. particularly in volitive expressions ("You help yourself!", "You fight/help each other!"), it appears connectable with the 2nd pers. PNp, generalized to other persons once become more widely used, cf. "si parla italiano", "Lassen Sie sich's gut gehen!" etc. Prefixed to D-stem, it forms tD-stem which is so common that examples may be superfluous; in post-biblical texts, it is reinforced in af by the /n-/element replacing the prothetic /h-/, but as the element does not appear in other inflectional forms, a term like ntD-stem is hardly justified; cf. roots /,wV/, /,kl/, /bJr/, /gdl/, /gnV/, /grJ/, /xdJ/, /xwb/ etc. Other It-i-stems are less common; examples of tL: roots /,n(n)/, /bws/, /bwJ/, /byn/, /gd(d)/, /gwr/, /gl(l)/, /g&J/ (!trirad.) etc.; of tR: roots /gl(l)/, /zw&/, /mh(h)/, /mr(r)/, /ql(l)/. A It-i-stem of the primary stem, or tQ, is almost non-existent in the Jewish traditions, but Sam proves again true the old assumption that this is due to its assimilation to tD-stem, cf. roots /'bl/, /'wV/, /gbr/, /hpk/, /xb(, /V)/, /xzq/(?), /xkm/, /xJb/(?), /ygr/, /yd&/, /yld/, /mkr/, /nxl/, /nxm/, /nJ' /, /&cb/II(?), /p'r/(?), /pqd/, /rgz/. As indicated, not every one of these is certain, and Aram may have influenced the vocalism to some extent, but hardly to the extent of shortening the 2nd

104 The transition is well documented in modern Arab dialects; cf., e.g., Erwin p. 69ff; Harrell p. 33f; in Sudan, the prothetic vowel too is found, cf. Trimingham p. 122ff, 135 etc. On the me,mng cf. Blake in JAOS 62 p. 110f. Cf. W. Diem in ZDMG 132p. 29ff for a detailed discussion; however, assumption of a vowelless allomorph in proto-Sem already appears unnecessary (cf. the preceding note).

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

77

rad., as the meaning too is usually better compatible with the primary stem; as for /mkr/, its 2nd rad. is long even in QaI. In the other main group, that with external stem preformatives as the main formative element, the /n-/-preformative likewise lends the N-stem primarily reflexive and/or reciprocal connotation, although passive meaning begins to gain ground in the biblical language already, apparently in consequence of the obsolescence of Q ps whose functions N-stem takes over, as recognized long ago. Mainly because of this the stem, nowhere near as frequent as Dand H-stems in the Bible, begins to rival these in post-biblical Hbr so that overall in our materials it is formed from close to the same number of roots. As to the etymology, the original reflexive or reciprocal connotation again suggests pronominal origin, this time with the 1st pers. in which the /n-/element is firmly established as far back as can be ascertained within the S-H phylum, although an allomorph with the labial nasal does appear as a var. in some Chad languages in pI. and some sg. forms are vocalic; the PTd /hin(nV)/ may also be related. The reflexive and reciprocal idea is just as compatible with the 1st as with the 2nd pers.; in fact, they may conceivably have complemented each other (e.g., */na-p&al-ta/ "you cause us (to) do"; */ta-p&al-nu:/ "we cause you (to) do"; but then also reflexive-passively, */na-p&al/, */ta-/ "one/it causes us/you (to) do" = we/you are caused (to) do" whether by inner impulse or outside agent which also may be impersonal) particularly at the pre-Sem stage when only the distinction of speaker vs. addressee appears to have been made in the PNp system. Examples are numerous, e.g., roots /,blj, /'bq/, /,dr/, /'hb/, (late, passive), /,xd/, /,xV /, /'xz/, /'kI/ etc. H-stem is the most frequently attested secondary stem in the Bible; its preformative has long since been connected with the 3rd pers. PNp on the strength of the widespread identity or at least etymological connectibility of its characteristic consonant with that of the latter. Its usual causative or factitive connotation is also conceivable with the assumption of the original role of the preformative as representing the primary object = secondary subject ("I make him do ..."). However, not all instances are easily derivable from the causative connotation, whereas the reflexive one is fitting in them too, e.g., roots / fkm/, / f qp/ -setting a load on one's shoulder (a beast of burden is mentioned nowhere in the context, nor is / fikm/ to my knowledge ever used to mean part of an animal's body) is a typically reflexive action, as is looking out of the window; that the 3rd pers. too can be used in a reflexive sense should be self-evident, cf. e.g. the German phrase quoted above (p. 76). The fact that this is not more often the case may be due to the fact that the /t-/and originally also /n-/-preformative served exclusively in this function, whereas /h-/ alone carried the load of the causative-factitive function; cf. also the fact that in the roots /,rk/ and /clx/ transition from reflexive to

78

MODIflCATIONAL MORPHEMES

causative connotation is actually attested in the H-stem. Reflexive stems being capable of expressing passivity do not normally form passive voices, but because of the mainly causative function H-stem does. In the Bible, H ps is not much used, but in post-biblical literature it occurs rather frequently, in part probably because of the reinterpretation of Q ps pref as H ps pref. On the development leading to its formation cf. above (p. 75). Examples: roots /'gr/, /bdl/, /bw'/, /bws/, /bxr/, /b7x/, /bq&/, /gbh/ etc. A-stem occurs as a rare var. of H-stem, apparently under Aram influence, in the roots /zkr/, /xJV/, /&Jr/, /&J /sr/. The causative-reflexive Jt-stem is found in our materials in two roots, /xwV/ and /&bd/. Another causativereflexive is perhaps attested in the T-stem of /xrV/,106 but the same preformative in /rgl/ can hardly be understood in that sense, rather as an active counterpart of the tD-stem of that root. Other verbal stems are not attested in our materials. Verbal inflection will be discussed in connection with conjugational pre- and afformatives. Verbal stems are, however, classified in still another way. It has been recognized long ago that not all kinds of verbs have the same syntactical value. The traditional dichotomy into intransitive and transitive verbs is an expression of this realization, albeit a crude one. More recently, several scholars107 have realized that this dichotomy, like many other relics of the classical grammar, is insufficient to characterize the Semitic verb. However, normally it is still not realized that connotations characteristic of the various secondary stems are largely present in the primary stem of many verbs, or at least this is not taken into account in the classification. As this semantic criterion is often accompanied by formal ones and offers a more comprehensive basis than any so far proposed, it is used as the basis for this type of classification in this study. The traditional terms, intransitive vs. transitive, are thus used in more restricted meanings. The intransitive class comprises only those verbs in which the action or state of the subject is strictly limited to the subject itself, e.g., /hyV / to be, /'mc/ to be strong, /xrV /11 to dwindle, /xt(t)/ to break down etc. The transitive class, by contrast, then comprises only those verbs in which the action of the subject is concentrated upon an entity other than the subject, traditionally called the object, e.g., /,bs/ to feed, fatten, /'gd/ to gather, bind together, /'gr / to gather in (= /'sp/) etc. The object is, as a rule, introduced by the PTpr /,t/, therefore also called sign of object,lOS or without

106 Blau, quoted in K.B3 s.v.

107 E.g., W.v. Soden, GAG (1952) § § 73c, TIde etc.; J. Aro in Studia Orientalia vol. XXXI (1964) as a fundamental premiss; J. Weingreen, see Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of JewiaAt Studies (1m) (?not accessible to me, but I heard him read the paper). 1 For Latin nota obiecti; the alternative term, nota accusativi, is inappropriate for Hbr, as it does not have cases of noun.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

79

special introductory element; occasionally also by the PTpr 11-1 when the object is the result (rather than preexisting target etc.) of the action or consists of verbal nact; e.g., with roots If Isyml (Gn 21:18 etc.), l'bVI etc. Defined thus, these traditional categories comprise only a minority of Hbr verbs, as in most cases, the action of the subject is confined or at least mainly concentrated in the agent, but at the same time has effects outside it, including taking an object in certain contexts as an alternative construction. E.g., the root lyr'l is sometimes construed with the PTpr lminl or lmippneYI, referring to the emotion concentrated in the agent, cowering in and away from the presence of an enemy; but sometimes with the sign of object, concentrating attention to the entity causing the emotion. Similarly in the root Iqr'l, the primary meaning is that of self-expression, the addressee therefore mostly introduced by II-I, /,1/, 1&1/ etc.; but in some cases, particularly those of naming and invitation, the sign of object appears as an alternative. Verbs denoting primarily movement also belong to this category, the agent being on the move from or towards a place often construed like an object, e.g., lyc'l again with the sign of object besides the PTpr lminl etc.; or Ibw'l, Ihlkl etc. without special introductory element or with the directional afformative I-hi besides various prepositions to refer to the destination or also to the passageway, time etc. 109 The most important common characteristic of this class appears to be the concentration of action or at least of the motivation of action in the agent, although actually or potentially having external effects; as this is also characteristic of secondary stems denoting primarily reflexive action, we term this class of verbs reflexive. As defined here, most Hbr verbs belong to this categoryYo Other classes are not often attested and sometimes not unequivocally distinguishable from the major ones. E.g., Imwtl is called passive rather than intransitive because of its extreme meaning with which its af 3. vocalism is also combinable; I'bdl is semantically close, but is also used in a way suggestive of even the reflexive class, but without goal and also without distinctive formal characteristic best considered intransitive. On the other hand, the primary meaning of I fIx/, to stretch one's hand is typically reflexive; but where another entity occurs as object, it is classifiable as transitive or, when the object is another person, hence secondary agent, as causative. Again, as the root I flkl does not occur in Qal, the H-stem is regarded as the primary one, and its meaning is typically causative-reflexive, as the movement of the

109 Cf. the Arab adverbial accusative; analogous phenomena in other languages, e.g., the Lati't terminal accusative. o The boundaries between categories fluctuate partly perhaps in consequence of transition from an ergative-absolutive to nominative-accusative type of language, cf. H.-P. Muller in Biblica 66 p. 385ff; but pure ergativity is hardly traceable in Sem; in Akk, Supl influence could be involved.

80

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

thrown entity appears to be primarily conceived as self-continuing, cf. /hlk/; and more clearly so in the case of /xwV/ where It-stem must likewise be regarded as the primary one in the absence of any other stem. Finally, the hapax / IkVI H ps, if indeed correctly interpreted, is classifiable as causativepassive.

c. Inflectional formatives. §19. Nominal afformatives and declension.

Inflection of the noun, substantive and adjective, or declension takes place in our materials - as in Hbr generally - by means of inflectional afformatives involving, however, frequent vocalic modifications to varying extent in different dialects and traditions. This variation indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the vocalic modifications are secondary in nature; accordingly, declension takes place primarily by means of afformatives. 111 In historical Hbr, as far as ascertainable, Ns is inflected in number and state only, while Na is usually inflected in number and gender; however, Na may be substantivized and then inflected in state too, occasionally even otherwise. Inflection in state, however, is generally incomplete and apparently secondary, st.cstr. being distinguished from st.abs. mainly by means of scantier vocalization depending on phrase accent, occurring as it does in nominal phrases only; in many nominal types, including the most frequently used ones, even the vocalic distinction is lacking in all or most forms. Distinction between states appears thus to be accentual in origin; even in sgJ. where different forms of afformative are usually found in historical Hbr even in consonant text, they derive evidently from a common prototype, the more conservative form being preserved in st.cstr. under the influence of the phrase accent. Only certain (mainly masc.) pI. forms are distinguished by an apparently originally distinct afformative in st.cstr., but as this too is better compatible with the effect of the phrase accent, its use exclusively in that function is also conceivably result of a secondary development. On the other hand, there are indications that at an earlier stage, at least some substantive nouns too were inflected in gender. E.g., many words denoting children, relatives or young people are evidently cognate, differentiated in gender according to the natural sex, cf. roots Ibn/, Iyld/, I&lm/n, /,x/, Ixm/, originally perhaps even /,nI I and /,nf In; in many other roots,

111 The other subsidiary feature, reduplication, is found in our materials in the root /m/ only; the root being monoradica1 and attested in one Ns used in pI. only, the reduplicated form being found as a var. in st.cstr. and as the only one with SuffIXed pronouns and without solid support in cognate languages (Akk? Cpt) may be regarded as an exceptional reinforcement of an unusually short stem, although perhaps following the pattern of a once more common plural or collective formation, cf. Tib /piYpiyyowt/ and the reduplicated nominal types with frequentative connotation (p. 51ff above).

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

81

complete or near synonyms formally differentiated by the fern. afformative only are found side by side, presumably preserved in different dialects, although some may be secondary formations; cf. roots l'bq/II, I'br/, I'hb/, /,wV I, I'wr/, I'yl/, l'kI/, I'm/, /,mn/, I&zr/, I&cm/, Icdql and so forth. In some cases, fern. afformative absent in Hbr is found in a cognate language, cf., e.g., the cognates to roots Ihwm/, InpJ I, although even the Hbr noun is fern. All this seems to indicate that not only were the gender characteristics distributed unevenly in early times, but that substantive nouns too could undergo gender inflection, being thus not sharply distinguished from adjectives in this respect either. As a rule, both gender and number afformatives are attached immediately at the basic nominal stem, identified as sg.m. The sgJ. afformative in st.abs. is usually I-ah/, phonetically realized as the most common long allophone of that open central vowel phoneme; in a number of instances, however, it is identical with or close to the st.cstr. form which may be represented by the generalized form I-Vtl in which the V stands for somewhat varying allophones of la/, all short, but ranging from presumably central open to mid frontal, occasionally indistinguishable from the open allophones of the close frontal vowel phoneme. l12 Most branches of our materials distinguish between four number afformatives, all of them used mainly or exclusively to denote plural. The most common one consists of the labial nasal preceded in most traditions by the most common - and presumably the closest -long allophone of the close frontal vowel phoneme Ii/; in Sam, however, the vowel is short and more open, mostly identifiable as lei, although somewhat closer allophones occur. The difference in Sam is apparently due to the place of the word accent on the preceding syllable rather than on the afformative itself which appears to have been stressed in the other traditions. This afformative is mostly used with masc. nouns in st.abs., although occasionally an ancient fern. noun may form its pI. with it (cf. root /'nJ I), or it may be used to form a pI. of collective nature besides an individualistic one by a different afformative (e.g., I'lm/, cf. also I&cml etc.). Its counterpart in st.cstr. is mostly realized phonetically as the mid frontal long vowel lei which could be identified as an open allophone of Iii or a close one of lal and is also known to result from monophthongization of the diphthong lay I under certain conditions; the problem can thus be discussed only in the diachronic survey (p. 129ff below). In Sam, however, the vowel is realized as the common long allophone of the close frontal vowel phoneme (li:/). The same afformative forms st.cstr. also to another st.abs. afformative which in Pal Bab (Tib) usually has the form 1112 Occasionally preserved early forms in Gr transcription indicate that such forms with /t/ in st.abs. had the consonant directly attached to the stem without any intervening vowel at an earlier stage; cf. the root /qJ(t)/ and name no. 119 (Part I Sections Ba, A respectively). More details in the diachronic survey (p. 128f below).

82

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

ayim/ (with some allophonic variation in Bab), in Gr Lat (Pal var.) /-aym/ and in Sam has fallen together with the first mentioned afformative. It is used to form pI. of two common nouns of collective nature (roots /m/, / f m/II), but mostly of nouns for parts of human (and occasionally other animated) body occurring in pairs; as these are regularly feminine, this afformative is mostly used to form fem.pI. In addition, it occurs in a few other fern. nouns to form a specific dual number not based on a natural pair; in such cases, it is preceded by the fern. afformative /-at-/ not found in natural pairs;113 e.g., roots /dl(t)/, /m'/, /fn(nV)/; occasionally also in masc. ones, cf. the roots j'lp/, /ywm/ in which even Sam has it, although with /'/ for /y/ in pronunciation. That the afformative is a plural rather than dual one with natural pairs is also indicated by the fact that with them, it is also used to refer to more than one pair, e.g., Is 6:2 Ez 1:6; the use as a dual afformative is accordingly secondary. The other common pI. afformative may be roughly transcribed as /-ot/; the vowel is in most traditions permanently long and may be derivable from the close allophone of the long /a/ phoneme; in Sam, however, the /0/ quality is preserved only when the afformative is unstressed in word final, and is then occasionally replaced even by /a/ (see, e.g., roots /hlk/, /&wl/). In all the other positions, i.e., when long, it is regularly realized as the long back close /u:/, as usually in the Sam back vowel phoneme. The afformative is mostly used to form pl.fem., both st.abs. and st.cstr., the latter mostly with some reduction of vocalism in Pal Bab (Tib), although in Pal, the extent of the reduction is often difficult to determine; in Sam, what occasional differences there are can hardly be attributed to the distinction of st.cstr. from st.abs.; while in the transcriptions the material is too scanty and equivocal for definite conclusions. There are more or less stray instances of other afformatives not belonging to regular declension. The most frequent is the so-called "He locale" which we prefer to call the directional afformative, as its normal function is to indicate the place or entity towards which the movement expressed by the governing verb is directed, whether in a terminal sense or not. It consists of the common long allophone of the fa/ phoneme attached at the end of the noun whose vocalization is usually somewhat contracted, much like when a suffixed pronoun of comparable structure is attached to it; cf. e.g., roots /'rc/, /byt/, /zrx/. However, unlike suffixed pronouns it is regularly unaccented and is attached to any noun, whether in absolute of construct state, including proper names, without consonantal modifications; cf. e.g, Npr no. 1010 (Part I Section A); root /ywm/ etc. In vocalized Hbr script, it is regularly indicated by the letter /h/, whence the traditional name; whether this is always the

113 For an apparent exception see root / fp/; but in this root, the fern. afformative is also otherwise treated as a secondary 3rd rad., cf. the alternative pI. form.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

83

case in unvocalized texts is not clear; the afformative may be attached to some particles, cf. Part I Section E under I'y I, I mill; but it is unlikely that I&attahl (ib. under l&n(/t/)1 contains it, as the final syllable appears to be stressed regularly in those traditions where ultima stress is possible and its function is not fully consonant with the usual function of the afformative either. Another afformative occurring with some frequency is I -iYI occurring mainly in sg.st.cstr. and suffIXed forms of certain nouns of relationship, cf. the roots I'bl, I'xl, Ixm/; whether the sporadically occurring "Yod compaginis", e.g., root Ibnl Gn 49:11, is ultimately of cognate origin is not clear; the parallel"Waw compaginis" (Nm 23:18 etc.) appears functionally closer to it anyway. For details of the regular declension cf. the nominal paradigms (Appendix I).

I

§20. Verbal pre- and afformatives and conjugation. 114

In verbal inflection, it is important to maintain distinction between stem preformatives and conjugational ones. The former belong to the verbal secondary stem formation and were discussed in connection with it (§ 18 above). The latter represent or refer to the subject of the verbal sentence type with a form of the preformative conjugation as its core. They are discussed here. The preformatives are divisible into two different categories. As in most other languages, the verbal conjugation takes place in three different persons in addition to the number and gender distinction of the nominal declension. Distinction between persons is otherwise known from the personal pronoun only, and in fact, the verbal conjugation is the result of the combination of the pronominal and nominal modes of inflection. The preformatives of the 1st and 2nd pers. are the simplest forms of PNp for these persons, actually to be identified as the subjects of the sentences in which they occur, as no other element identifiable as the subject usually occurs alongside it. ll5 On the other hand, in the 3rd pers. a noun or comparable part of speech is often recognizable as the subject; and as a 3rd pers. subject need not be explicit, and the preformatives of that person do not resemble the separate or suffixed forms of PNp for that person, it is more consistent not to consider the 3rd pers. preformatives as pronominal subjects, but as elements of deictic character referring to the actual subject, whether explicit or virtually implied. The vocalization of the actually attested forms varies greatly according to the nature of the context; they may be normalized by not specifying the 114 Cf. H.-P. Miiller's article in Biblica 65 p. 145ff. 115 The separate form of PNp for the same person is usually recognizable as added for

emphasis, even if in late biblical and some post-biblical usage the emphasis need not be remarkable.

84

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

vowel. In the 1st peTS., two forms are then distinguished according to the number, although the so-called pI. form is more properly collective in character (cf. p. 26 above), while in the 2nd, the same form is found everywhere: l.sg. I'V-I, pI. InV-I; 2. ltV-I. In the 3rd pers., there is distinction according to the gender: m. lyV-I, fl. ltV-I, although the m. form may also occur in pl.f., cf. root Iyxm/; whether this reflects an earlier stage in the development of the system is discussed in the diachronic survey (p. 143 below). The preformative conjugation as well as imperative has afformatives serving to distinguish between number and gender, besides some less regular ones to indicate moods other than the indicative. Those for the distinction of number and gender recur again in nominal or pronominal inflection in cognate languages, if not in Hbr. The basic pI. afformative l-u:1 is found as a nominal pl.afform. in Akk, cf. also the Eg I-wi; NB. it is attached to the 2nd and 3rd pers. only which agrees with the conclusion that the 1st pers. was not felt to be pluralistic, but rather collective in character. The 2.sg.f. l-iYI agrees with the final vowel of the separate form in Sam and apparently also of the suffixed form in Q, cf. the cognate languages, except that in the verb it appears to have been permanently long, as it is preserved in all traditions; the 2.3.pl.f. I-(in)nahl is likewise combinable with the final of the corresponding separate forms of PNp; whether the lengthier form is original in the 2nd pers. is very uncertain, as it is preserved in Sam in Ixw(V)1 Ex 1:18 only where it could be due to the influence of the 3rd pers. in v. 17; it is not indicated in vocalized forms elsewhere either, nor in Sam imp pl.f. where even the final vowel is usually lacking, cf. the roots Iqr'l, I m&1 (whereas in /,znl H-stem, only the vowel is preserved, Inl being radical). It is thus possible, if not probable, that the forms for 2nd and 3rd pers. were originally distinct, the former mono-, the latter bisyllabic, cf. *I('anti)nal vs. * I(h)inna/. Other afformatives attached to the preformative conjugation are more occasional and of a limited significance. The most common one is the final 1a hI attached to the 1st pers., usually with a volitive connotation, hence traditionally called cohortative. In some cases, however, volitive connotation is hardly discernible, e.g., in Sam after the PTcj Iw-I used in a consecutive sense in Dt 2:1bis.7b.8ter.26.34bis etc.; while on the other hand, volitive connotation is present in many cases without the afformative, e.g., Gn 1:26 6:7 11:4bis etc., and generally in the case of III V verbs, but also in others, e.g., root Ixkml Ex 1:10 Sam; IJm&1 Ex 24:7 (cf. 20:19); etc. The inconsistency is not surprising, as it is often difficult to see whether a reference to the future contains a volitive moment or not; cf., e.g., I'JiYrahl opening the Song of the Sea (Ex 15:1 MT) with l'azkiYrl opening Yose b. Yose's Aboda for Yom Kippur (my Materials I ms. a xiiR 1). Whether the final I-ahl often appended to imp sg.m. should be classified together with this is not entirely clear; semantically it is very close anyway, whether understood as a somewhat

J

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

85

polite modification of the commanding sense or simply pleonastically; but the fact that the coh afformative in preformal is regularly attached to the 1st pers. only,116 whereas imp always refers to the 2nd pers. is a clear-cut difference. The traditional derivation of both from the Arab energic mood is hardly sustainable, as the Hbr usage has no particularly energetic connotation, the imp var. rather the contrary, and the Arab mood occurs in all the persons; whether common origin despite the shift in meaning involved could be assumed is likewise very dubious, as no transitional stages are preserved elsewhete, e.g., in other NWSem languages where they would be expected in the first place. Moreover, traces of another afformative better combinable with the Arab energic mood are preserved in Hbr too, even if also in a restricted and rather more irregular fashion; to wit, the I-n/-element now and then in evidence between the verbal form proper and an appended suffixed pronoun. In consonant text, it is normally found before the 3rd pers. suffixes only whose initial Ihl it usually assimilates to itself, being itself assimilated to the Inl of the 1st and Ikl of the 2nd pers. suffixes; but in vocalized texts, its presence can usually be discerned in the resulting long consonant, as spontaneous secondary gemination is not normal in such a position and a special emphasis is usually discernible also outside the pause, cf., e.g., Nm 22:6 23:13 24:17bis; that the emphasized form more often occurs in the pause is a consequence of the tendency to place the emphasized verbal form at the end of the utterance, particularly in poetry (ib. 23:9bis.19f.25bis 24:22 etc.). The nasal element found in the suffixed forms of some particles ll7 is perhaps connected with this afformative by way of both being ultimately related to the PTd Ihin(nV)1 (=Arab I'innal, cf. I'anna/), but hardly directly. The so-called Nun archaisticum or paragogicum found occasionally at the end of 2.3.pI.m. and more rarely 2.sg.f. is evidently connected with the same element regular in most forms of Aram and marking the indicative mood in Phoen Ug as well as SSem; it is thus evidently not connected with the nasal element just discussed, although it too mostly occurs in the pause. 118 In afformal, the afformatives denote the subject in the 1st and 2nd pers.; in the 3rd, the basic (3.sg.m.) form is without any afformative, the fern. and pI. ones distinguishing between genders and numbers as in the nominal declension. They form thus two distinct categories along the lines found in the preformatives of the preformal, but there are differences too: in the 1st 116 Is 5:10 Ez 23:20 are textually suspect, cf. Syr to the former and w. 5.16 to the latter besides the fact that abnormal word final vowels are indicated elsewhere in Ez too, e.g., 1:11 8:2.1413:18.20 etc. and sporadically elsewhere, e.g., Gn 21:29 (cf. v. 28; for normal I-dn/); in root /bw'1 besides other anomalies (cf. Ges-K § 4&1), presumably in consequence of an early quiescization of the word final 1'1 leaving the verb in effect largely monoradical. Moreover, evey tfese examples are all in the 3rd pers., none in the 2nd. 1 Cf. Ges-K § 1000. 118 Cf. Ges-K §47mo; in our materials, mostly in Dt (Sam).

86

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

and 2nd pers., the structure of the system as a whole is more elaborate; while in the 3rd, it is simpler - not to say more primitive. In the subjectival category, 1.sg. is difficult to analyse. As a rule, the form appears to be l-tiYI with a permanently long vowel, although in Sam, the quantity is better described as anceps; and in Q Mur texts, a var. without any indication of final vowel occurs, cf. the root Ixkr 1.119 The vowel is in any case parallel to the final vowel of the separate forms of the Hbr PNp, and perhaps originally identical with the suffixed form used mainly in nominal phrases, but the original identity of the consonant remains uncertain; however, as the assumption that it is identical with the fern. afformative has no positive support in Hbr or cognate languages, it may be best to posit a more original ltVI as a NWSem-plus-Arab allomorph to l-kVI of Akk and the rest of SSem, whether the different consonantism be original or secondary.120 In 1.pl., the form attested - apart from slight accentual variation - is everywhere I-nuw I with a permanently long (Sam anceps) vowel; but cognate languages suggest that the original vowel may have been lal and the form thus identical with that in pref 1.pI. The present vowel is then hardly explicable otherwise than due to the influence of the 3rd pers. implying that-unlike in pref-the 1st pers. too was conceived as pluralistic (rather than collective) by the time the formation of afformal was finally settled. In the 2nd pers., the simplest form used as sg.m. is identifiable with the corresponding preformative in pref: I-tal, the vowel apparently anceps, as its presence if not indicated in most verbs in MT ktib and it is usually lacking in the Gr transcriptions too, while elsewhere, it appears to be generally preserved. The sg.f. form is differentiated by means of the /-iY/ vowel again which we likewise met in the same function in pref; but here, it is surviving in MT in a few passages and as Ktib only,121 apparently against underlying northern Israelite linguistic background; it is then not surprising to find the vowel surviving in Sam; in early Q, final I-YI also indicates its presence. 122 The attested pI. forms also generally parallel those in separate forrns of PNp: Bab (Tib) m. I-tam/, f. I-tan/; Pal I-tem/, I-ten/; Sam I-timma/, I-ten/; cf. early Q m. I-tmh/. NB. however, there is no evidence for a final vowel in the fern. form, although in Tib, four of the attested five examples have it (Gn 31:6 Ez 13:11.2034:17 vs. Ez 34:31) in the separate PNp.123

119 Aram influence may have at least contributed to this result, although the heavy accentuation also otherwise discernible in these texts (ct:. Part II p. 153) no doubt facilitated the devf!spment. E.g., originated in nursery language, It I often replacing Ikl in it. 121 Or when misunderstood as l.pers., e.g., Jr 2:20bis; on the whole, cf. Ges-K §44h. 122 Cf. Abr Nahrain IV (for 1963-4) p. 83 (with n. 36). 123 It may have some significance, however, that all but one of the attestations are in Ez where also otherwise unusual final vowels are indicated (cf. the note on p. 93 above) and the remaining one, the only one in the Pentateuch, lacks the final vowel in Sam; Ez 34:17 attested in a Bab ms. also lacks sign for a final vowel, although the final I-hi is present in the consonant text, but this could be a case of defective vocalization.

MODIFlCATIONAL MORPHEMES

87

In the 3rd pers., as stated, the basic form (sg.m.) has no afformative. SgJ. is differentiated from it by means of an afformative identifiable with the nominal sgJ. afformative, although vocalization of the entire verbal form mostly has a pattern somewhat different from those of comparable nominal types; only in the roots with two consonantal radicals (hollow and continuable ones) may parallelism be complete. In most cases, the actually attested form of the afformative is /_ah /, corresponding to the nominal afform. in st.abs.; where a suffixed pronoun follows, the form is (with slight accentual variation) /-at-/, thus corresponding to the nominal afform. in st.cstr. Occasionally, the latter is preserved also word finally, particularly in III V verbs in some post-biblical Bab texts, e.g., in roots /hyV/, /&IV/, /&J/sV/, /pJ/sV/, / qnV/, /r'V/ etc.; more often, however, and regularly124 in the Bible, the afformative vowel is transposed after the consonant, resulting in the familiar /-tah/. In 3.pl., usually no gender distinction is made in the attested forms; the standard afformative is /_uw/ discussed in pref 3.pl.m.; in Sam, this is dissimilated into /-e:-/, if a suffixed pronoun containing /u/ vowel follows. 125 Scattered remnants of a separate fern. afformative /_ah/ are preserved mainly in the consonant text of MT again as ktib against the usual form as qre;126 in our materials, there is a Sam form in root /kbd/ Gn 48: 10. Of the verbal nouns, the so-called infinitives (nact, nvb) show no inflection, while the so-called participles (nag, npt) are inflected like adjectives. On the other hand, although the division of the conjugated verbal forms into the so-called tenses and moods is fundamentally a functional issue, it partly affects the form of the structures involved, thus having a morphological aspect too, and is therefore better discussed in connection with conjugation; but as the division is not parallelled by a system of formative elements in Hbr as attested, it is discussed in a separate paragraph. §21. Functional division of conjugation.

Traditionally, the conjugated Hbr verbal forms are divided into tenses and moods, although more recently, the term "aspect" has been used largely to replace "tense".127 124 With the exceptions mentioned in Ges·K §75m; likewise exceptionally in roots with coDfffantal fmal rad., cf. ib. §44f (and root /,71/ in our Part I Section Ba). The fact that in such cases the pl.afform. has not been indicated by a mater lectionis in the consonant text of MT either except for some very latest books strongly suggests that simi· lar dissimilation took place in the dialect on which the consonant text of the bulk of the Bible is bf~d; cf. Abr Nahrain vol. XVI p. 69. See Ges-K §44m; as to the p13. fmal /-n/ (ib.l), Sam does not have it in Dt 8:3.1611 while in Is 26:16, the authenticity of the text is suspect on other grounds (the reading of 1QIs too i~ uncertain, cf. the next word). 1 7 For a detailed discussion of the various attempts at solution put forward in the course of centuries cf. Leslie McFall, The enigma of the Hebrew verbal system (The Almond Press, Sheffield 1982) who does not propose any new comprehensive solution, but recommends

88

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

Our solution to the "tenses" problem was briefly described in the Introduction (p. 2ft) already. The afformal is used only when the action is familiar or may be presupposed as familiar, just as an adjective may be used as an attribute only when the quality described by it is familiar; in other words, afforrnal is a kind of verbal attribute. That is reflected also by its frequent use in attributive relative clauses; e.g., Dt 1:1.3. 8.11.14 etc.; the fact that preformal may be used in similar functions is no valid objection to this interpretation, as familiar things may also be expressed predicatively. The restriction applies thus in one direction only: afforrnal can only be used to refer to things known or presupposed as familiar, while preforrnal may, in principle, be used with reference to any thing or action, although in practice it is naturally less used in the functions to which affrormal is restricted, hence mostly to introduce something essentially new or unpredictable. This agrees with the fact that all the moods with volitive connotation are based on preformal. A positively volitive expression always puts forward something essentially new, something that cannot be deduced from the context - needless to say, it has not been done or mentioned before. E.g., nothing in Gn 1:1f enables first-time reader to anticipate what God is going to say in v. 3; nor in 1:1-5 to expect that in v. 6; etc. Volitive expressions refer-by definition - to the future, hence they imply a new beginning, not traceable to the past, whether addressed to the (individual or collective) speaker itself, as in cohortative, to the addressee(s) present, as in imperative, or (also) to more remote one(s), as in jussive. In the case of cohortative, it could of course be argued that the speaker must have known in advance what he is going to say; but as /,rnr/ is often used of thinking to0128 and not only of explicit saying, the moment when the desire or idea first became conscious to the speaker may be defined as decisive; moreover, the present writer may not be the only one who has literally heard himself say something not thought about in advance-even what he would not have said, had he thought about it first. 129

William Turner's factual-descriptive solution and the historicai-comparative approach represented principally by Knudtzon, Bauer, G.R. Driver and Thacker as basis for future work. Peter Kustar, Aspekt im Hebriiischen (Basel 1m) also offers a good critique of the various attempts at the solution of the problem; but his own solution (p. 55) that /qtl/ expresses primary, "determining" actions, /yqtl/ determined ones, the division into the two categories depending exclusively ("ausschliesslich'~ on the point of view and judgment of the speaker, puts the issue beyond our ken and is thus unprovable. Moreover, it is hard to see, e.g., what /qr'/ Gn 1:5.10 determines in contradistinction to /wyqr' / in the beginning of the same verses, however acrobatic the mind of the author may have been (for Kustar, correctly in my opinion too, the presence of /w-/ makes no functional difference). Cf. also Brockelmann in ZPhASw 5 p. 148f etc.; also Klingenheben in ZfES 19 p. 241ff (though largely outdated); and H.-P. Muller in BZ 1983 p. 34ff, although he seems to postulate too much systematization for the prehistoric period - the Akk "present" may have originated from roots with original bisyllabic stems and differentiated secondarily for that function, whereas in Hbr, they were mostly amalgamated wit~R-stem. The same is true of Rossler, ZDMG 100 p. 461ff. E.g., Gn 21:16; incidentally, in Gn 1:3.6.9 etc. too it is by no means clear that the writer me,~~ audible utterance. Cf. the Hbr root /b7' /.

MODIFICATIONAL MORPHEMES

89

Volitive expressions tend generally to reduce the amplitude of the utterances, apparently due to accentual factors, commanding tone being usually sharper and more concentrated than in usual discourse. In consequence, the accentuated syllable may gain in prominence, while the neighbouring ones are reduced. This is not immediately apparent in Hbr, but comparison with the equivalent Arab forms makes it clear: imperative and jussive forms without afformatives lack inflectional final vowels in contrast to the indicative and subjunctive moods as well as the afformative conjugation ("perfect"); in consequence of this, normally long stem vowels are short in them. This explains why the stem vowel is short in the jussive forms in the hollow roots and in H-stem elsewhere too, including the regular verb; elsewhere, there are differences, but they are minor. Thus, in imperative, Hbr simply reduces all but the accentuated vowel to the extent possible, the jij sgJ. pl.m. 1st syll. being the least sonorous vowel replacing Shwa in consequence of the impossibility of three-consonantal word initial cluster; in Arab, even biconsonantal ones are impossible, and the problem is solved by prothetic vowel in all the forms. In addition, the stem vowel of the basic imp form in hollow roots is not shortened in Hbr which also has a lengthier form with a final j_ahj; the long vowel of the basic monosyllabic form may be due to its analogy. In the roots III V, the Arab jussive and imperative only shorten the root final vowel; in Hbr, Sam does likewise, but the other vocalized traditions usually apocopate it completely in jussive, although rarely in imp; the resulting word final cluster in js is then mostly broken up by a svarabhakti between the two consonantal radicals. In cohortative which does have a word final j_ahj as a formative element, reduction of vocalism is less evident. On the other hand, the prefixation of the PTcj jw(a)-j to preformal is usually accompanied by the placement of the word accent on the preformative vowel, where this is long or where the stem is biconsonantal; in consequence, subsequent long stem vowels are shortened and root final vowels lost or (in Sam) shortened again, resulting in forms resembling js ones; in Bab (Tib) there are allophonic differences because of different position of the word accent. 130 On the details of conjugation cf. the verbal paradigms (Appendix II). For systematic analysis of a text sample see Appendix III.

130 In Pal, analogous forms occur sporadically, e.g., Materials I p. 43; but the material is too scanty for defInitive conclusions because of the rare use of wpref in post-biblical Hbr and generally defective punctuation of Pal biblical texts. On the other hand, the fact that the root fmal vowel is apocopated less frequently in the 1st pers. is perhaps connected with cohortative (whose afformative is not distinguished from it in III V roots).

CHAPTER THREE COMPLEX MORPHEMES §22. Introductory remarks.

Complex morphs are combinations of more than one principal and/ or modificational ones. Sensu stricto, some of such combinations have already been discussed in the second chapter in connection with the relevant modificational morphemes; but in them, the latter play a formative role, the resulting combinations being extended secondary morphemes or inflectional variants of either these or more basic simple morphemes. The combinations to be discussed in this chapter are no longer formative, but functional in nature; although some of them affect the form of the morphs involved, the variation as a rule l does not involve morphemic interchange, and all of them appear to be mainly or entirely conditioned by the phrase accent. In most cases, the principal morphs are morphologically unaffected, simply juxtaposed to each other; on the other hand, there are also combinations of modificational morphs only. In some earlier works, the present writer has made distinction between the morphological and functional aspects of those combinations morphologically affected, calling them constructions in this sense; and still finds it didactically useful to make such a consistent distinction between syntactical and morphological terminology; but as such morphologically affected constructions form a relatively small minority of Hbr complex morphs, largely cutting across functional morphemes2 and their distinctive morphological characteristics, as just established, are of secondary and non-morphemic origin, complex morphemes are here subdivided on a functional basis only. The sub-categories, named after the dominant morphs, are: 1) nominal phrases (NP), 2) verbal phrases (VP), 3) adverbial phrases (AP), 4) prepositional phrases (PrP), and 5) sentences (St); the last category is by far the largest one and will be further subdivided when discussed.

1 With the exception of the disctinction between st.abs. and st.cstr. in the plural of most masc. and some fem. nouns; but this too appears to be result of a secondary redistribution of pl.afformatives, mainly accentually conditioned, see p. 80f above. Unless those morphologically unaffected because of their phonological properties be included on the strength of the analogy of the affected ones; but as the differences, where found, appear to be of secondary origin, such an extension is hardly justifiable in principle.

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

91

a. Non-predicative units. §23. Nominal phrases.

In the technical sense in which the term is used here, nominal phrases consist of a main morph, called noun regent (Nr), plus one or more subsidiary ones, called attributes (AT). There are basically three kinds of attributes, termed adjectival (ATa), appositional (ATap) and subordinate (ATs). Nr consists regularly of a substantive - rarely adjective or numeral- noun, sometimes of a proper name or a nominal phrase. ATa qualifies Nr by a more or less prominent detail of adjectival nature; it may consist of an adjective, but also of a nominal or verbal phrase on a deeper level of analysis, and even of a subordinate sentence, particularly relative clause; in special cases, even of a substantive noun. An adjective as ATa is determined by a prefixed determinative particle /ha-/ (PTdt), if Nr is determined, either by the same means or by ATs or by virtue of being a proper name. ATap redefines Nr as a whole by an alternative expression; it is not characterized by any systematic formal feature, except that it mostly consists of a nominal phrase rather than of a single noun (or relative clause) and that its Nr is usually a proper name. Unlike the other AT which always follow their Nr, it may also precede the latter, usually so when it consists of a high title by which alone the person referred to would be recognizable in the context. ATs provides Nr as a whole by a wider context, mostly of genitival nature 3; it is formally characterized by the fact that it always immediately follows Nr, thus preceding any other attributes, if present; and that, if ATs consists of a separate word or phrase, Nr is in st.cstr., whereas with the other kinds of AT it is in st.abs. This means further that a NP may contain only one ATs, whereas the number of other AT is unlimited in principle, although multiple ATap are rare; on the other hand, ATs may consist of a subordinate NP which again may contain ATs, and so on. A suffixed pronoun in NP is also always ATs. Proper names also often occur as ATs. NP may be introduced by a PTpr which is also considered a morphological feature, as in some cognate languages (Arab etc.) it governs an oblique case; this in its turn, as also a phrase without a PTpr may be preceded by a PTcj. For examples of NP see Appendix IV. §24. Verbal phrases.

Verbal phrases in our technical terminology consist of a verbal noun, here called verb regent (Vr) in analogy with the noun regent of the nominal phrase, plus one or more verbal adjuncts and/or an attribute, depending on the iden3 Which is why it is often called "genitive"; we avoid case-related terminology, as there are no morphologically defmable cases of noun in Hbr; moreover, not every ATs is of genitival nature; cf., e.g., jbtwlt bt yfr'l/.

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

92

tity of Yr. In most cases, this is a noun of action to which the adjuncts are related as objectival, predicative or adverbial complements or supplements much like their counterparts to the predicate in a St; instead of, or in addition to them, Vr may have a subordinate attribute; in such a case, VP is transformable into a complete St, Vr becoming its predicate and ATs its subject. With a noun of agent as Vr, a suffIXed pronoun may also occur, but it has an objectival rather than attributive function. Other verbal nouns occur rarely as Yr. Nact as Vr is mostly preceded by an introductory preposition, nag in contrast rather rarely; most adjuncts are also introduced by prepositions. For examples of VP see Appendix IV. They occur much less frequently thanNP. §25. Adverbial phrases.

Adverbial phrases are rarely used in Hbr. Most of them could alternatively be defined as composite adverbs, but there are some which this definition does not fit. Most are combinations of prepositions one of which, however, functions as an adverb in the relevant combination, others repetitions of an adverb for emphasis or petrified combinations of a noun with a preposition; one is a combination of the interrogative adverb with a negation, as a rule used rhetorically; another one interrogative pronoun with prefixed preposition functioning as a subjunction; still another one a petrified interrogative sentence plus coordinative conjunction likewise functioning as a subjunction. For examples see Appendix IV. §26. Prepositional phrases.

Prepositional phrases are more frequent, but practically all of them have the same structure, a suffixed pronoun introduced by a preposition, thus resembling the simplest type of the nominal phrase from which many of them have in fact evolved, many prepositions being petrified remnants of inflectional forms of nouns. A subdivision could be made according to whether the preposition is simple or composite, but in the phrase, such a distinction is not functional. Sometimes, when the preposition is repeated, the repetition is introduced by a conjunction which must then be regarded as an integral part of the phrase. For examples see Appendix IV. b. Sentence. § 27.

General observations.

There are several possible ways of classification of sentences, some alternative, some complementing each other. One is the traditional division into

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

93

verbal and nominal sentences, another one likewise traditional into coordinate and subordinate ones, the latter often put into a different category called clauses and subdivided according to their syntactical and/or semantical nature, the elements by which they are introduced or the lack of them etc.; still another is based on the order of the parts of speech in the sentence in which again the relevant parts may be defined differently, according to their syntactical roles or morphological characteristics or various mixtures of both. In the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics, the present writer adopted a procedure paying some attention to all these alternative modes of classification. The sentences were divided, for statistical purposes, into different types mainly according to the morphological identity of their parts which, however, at the same time reflects some aspects of syntactical arrangement because of the fundamentally syntactical basis of even the morphological classification of some key elements, such as prepositions and conjunctions; among the latter, the subordinative ones were additionally specified on purely syntactical grounds; in addition, the position of the subject, if explicitly present, was specified. All these subidivisions are derived from the Hbr material itself, including the position of the subject which, as the fundamental (subiectum, lying under) part of the sentence is singled out by a special case ending in languages which have cases of noun and whose identity must be assumed to have been in the consciousness of Hbr speakers too; on the other hand, e.g., the predicate is recognizable in verbal sentences as the conjugated verbal form, in nominal ones mostly as the other principal nominal or comparable element besides the subject; the object or other predicative supplement similarly in verbal sentences, if not introduced by a special element; and so forth, apart from the fact that such further subdivisions tend to introduce principles from outside, not fully emerging from the material itself. Subordinate sentences could have been further subdivided according to the individual identity of the introductory elements, but as these too are often interchangeable and syntactically generally comparable to each other, as shown by languages in which they usually govern the subjunctive mood (cf. Arab, Akk), such further subdivision is inappropriate for statistical purposes, tending only to further reduce the frequency of occurrence of the different sentence types, already well below 1.5 on the average, towards the unit value and hence insignificance. For these reasons, the same principles of classification are applied in the present study too for statistical purposes. On the other hand, as the present study is not only statistical, it is desirable to discuss some additional aspects of sentences. However, here also the principle of derivability from Hbr material is observed. The traditional division into verbal and nominal sentences is based on that material, generally also that into coordinated and subordinated sentences, while the traditional

94

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

subdivision of the latter is largely not and is therefore replaced here by a division according to the identity of the introductory elements or the lack of any. Traditional terminology may, however, be used alongside, where deemed desirable for the elucidation of the subject. i. Predicational classification. §28. Nominal sentences. As the noun as a morphological category is more basic than the verb, the latter too being based on stems of nominal nature, we discuss the nominal sentences first. An elementary nominal sentence consists as a rule of subject and predicate; only in a vocative sentence, the latter is not necessarily explicit, e.g., /hammaHik/ "0 King!" where it is implicitly the attention requested. Both subject and predicate may be any noun or equivalent nominal expression; mostly, however, the subject is either a proper name, substantive noun or nominal phrase, a pronoun (mostly personal), or the relative particle; adjectives and subordinate sentences as well as verbal nouns occur more often - though still infrequently - as predicate. A subordinated sentence may contain a conjugated verbal form as its predicate; but the sentence as a whole is treated like a noun as a part of a more comprehensive sentence which must then be classified as nominal. The word order in the simple nominal sentence is, as a rule, subject before predicate (S-P), usually preserved also in more elaborate ones4• There is only one fundamental reason for the reversal of this order, viz., that if the predicate attributes something previously known or fundamentally familiar to the subject, it may stand first. A regular case of this is the inte"ogative sentence requesting information in which the addressee as the subject is supposed to have the information requested, e.g., /bat-miY 'at/ Gn 24:23. This rule appears to cover all the cases with pronominal subject too, and so the reversed word order in simple nominal sentence is parallel to the verbal afformative conjugation both structurally and functionally, as its stem noun (functioning as the predicate) likewise precedes the afformative (=subject) and is also used only when the subject matter is previously mentioned or can otherwise be presupposed as familiar. As stated, a nominal sentence may contain other parts besides the subject and predicate; most of these are structurally and functionally of adverbial character, although it would be possible to define them as predicative supplements, if the term, adverbial, sounds anomalous in the absence of a verb; but they are not structurally like Ps in verbal sentences. On the other hand, a

4 Such as those whose S is traditionally called casus pendens (cf., e.g., Muraoka, Emphatic words ch. VI); the rest of the St ( = P) is further analysed as a subordinate one.

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

95

Stn may contain a conjugated verbal form too, of the root /hyV/ to be, when this functions as a copula, i.e., a connecting link between S and P without adding anything substantial to the meaning of the sentence and could therefore just as well be omitted, e.g., /hyth/ Gn 1:2 (cf. the next St), /hyh/ 6:9 etc. The various conjugated forms of this verb are usually employed in this function, when the sentence refers to past or future; in references to the present or indefinite time, a particle or pronoun occurs in the copulative function, e.g., /yf-/ (with suffixed pronoun as S!) Gn 24:49; /huw' /2:14 (20 ) etcS. For more examples of Stn see Appendix IV. §29. Verbal sentences. The elementary verbal sentence also fundamentally consists of subject and predicate, the latter being always a conjugated verbal form which agrees with the subject in person, number and gender6; and if the subject is in the 1st or 2nd pers., it is always combined with the predicate as its pre- or afformative, the entire sentence thus consisting of the verbal form only. The same may be the case in the 3rd pers., if the subject is elliptically omitted, e.g., because mentioned shortly before or otherwise easily identifiable, or impersonal. The separate form of PNp may be present to reinforce the 1.2.pers. subject, and is then best defined as ATap to it; the 3rd pers. S, where present, may again be any nominal expression as in Stn, but is in practice mostly a proper name, substantive noun, nominal phrase or the relative particle. In imp, the S is not normally expressed either. It is customary to say that in verbal sentences (Stv) the normal word order is P-S. With regard to the frequency of occurrence in the preserved biblical text, this is true on the surface at least, as the 3rd pers. occurs much more frequently than the 1st and 2nd combined; however, it is doubtful whether the same was the case in spoken Hbr, as narratives and extensive legal documents which are mainly responsible for the preponderance of the 3rd pers. were presumably not so often quoted in daily life (despite presumably wider practice of storyteller's art then than nowadays); in everyday speech, references to the present and volitive expressions are used more often, and these are usually in the 1st and 2nd pers. and based on pref rather than af, apart from imp which is neutral in this respect. Moreover, even in the 3rd pers. pref there is a deictic element as a preformative referring to the subject, and in the numerous cases of S not being explicitly expressed it is the only element representing S. It would seem, then, that even in Sty, the fundamental word order is S-P, although in the cases where explicit mention of the 3rd pers. S is deemed necessary, this comes as an afterthought after P, apart from

5 Cf. also Muraoka, Emphatic words Ch. IV.

6 However, if P precedes S, it may be in 3.sg.m. without regard to S, particularly in early biblical Hbr.

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

96

the afformal in which reversal of the word order takes place for reasons similar to those in Stn (see above, p. 94t). Sty may have various kinds of adjuncts, either as predicative supplements (Ps) or adverbials (A). Ps may consist of any nominal expressions, including lengthy strings of sentences, the most extensive being the bulk of the book of Dt (5:1-26:19) portrayed as a continuous speech of Moses. Where P is Vt or Vrfl with the attention concentrated outside S, Ps is mostly specifiable after traditional terminology as object (0), whether affected (=target of the action; Oa) or effected (=result of the action; Oe), depending on the character of the action. Causative (Vc) asnd causative-reflexive (Vcrfl) verbs may have double O. A determined 0 is mostly introduced by the PTpr /'t/ also called sign of object, an Oe occasionally also by the PTpr /1-/ (e.g., Gn 21:18). PNp as 0 (occasionally also as an objectival A) is suffixed to the verbal predicate. Adverbials are tradionally divided into local (AI), temporal (At) and modal (Am) ones; from AI, those with animated entity as the centre are better separated as objectival (Ao) and those indicating direction rather than fixed locality, as directional (Adir); the modal category is subdivisible still more extensively. However, all these categories involve introducing concepts from outside the Hbr material and are therefore better used as auxiliary means of classification only; the primary subdivision of A can usually be based on the elements by which they are introduced, whether prepositions, subjunctions or the relative particle. This will be done in the subdivision ii below. For examples of Sty see Appendix IV. ii. Gradation of sentences. §30. Preliminary remarks.

Strictly taken, gradation concerns all the complex morphs, in so far as phrases are embedded in sentences as their parts, and NP and VP may in turn have subordinate sentences as parts of them; however, as the system of gradation provides a convenient framework for the classification of subordinate sentences, and phrases play only a minor role in it, its inclusion in the discussion of sentences may be justified. The system of gradation means in this context analysis of text samples on successively deeper down advancing levels. On the main or first level, the entire text or sample is divided into coordinated sentences and each of these analysed into their constituent parts. Some of these parts may be phrases7 or subordinated sentences; each of them is then analysed on the second level into their constituent parts some of which may again be phrases or subordinated sentences; and so on, in principle without limit, although in practice,

7 In the technical sense, as dermed above (§ §23-26).

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

97

the analysis of a Hbr sentence rarely advances beyond the fourth level. Phrases are nearly always, except as S in early biblical language, introduced by prepositions; coordinate sentences asyndetically or by (coordinative) conjunctions; subordinate sentences mostly by subjunctions or the relative particle; in special cases, such as direct speech, asyndetically; in strings after the first unit also by conjunctions. For analyses of samples from different dialects and traditions see Appendix IV.

§31. Main sentences. The main or first level sentences may be either nominal or verbal, although the latter are generally in large majority. Both may be introduced asyndetically or by a coordinative conjunction. Their extent varies greatly, from one word to several verses of biblical text, in exceptional cases to several chapters. As an illustration we give here the analysis of the Sam sample, Dt chs. 1 to 10 (inclusive) according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, into main sentences: St I = Dt 1:1-2; St II = 1:3; St III = 1:4 to 4:40; St IV = 4:41-42/d&t/; St V = 4:42 /whw'/ to /flfwm/; St VI = 4:42 /wns/ to /h'lh/; St VII = 4:42 /wxy/; St VIII = 4:43; St IX = 4:44; St X = 4:45-46; St XI = 4:47-49; St XII = 5:1 /wyqr' / to /yfr'l/; St XIII = 5:1 /wy'mr/ to 10:22 (and on to 26:19). The exceptional length of St III and St XIII is due to the portrayal of most of the contents of Dt as continuous speeches of Moses, uninterrupted direct speech constituting a single part of a sentence. The main sentences are analysed into constituent parts as follows: St I: PNd-/NP/8, corresponding to syntactical P-S. St II: Cj + Vpref-Pr + NP-STv9 = Cj + cop-At-P. St III: Pr-VP-Pr+ NP-Vaf-/Npr/-VP = At-Al-P-S-Ps. St IV: PTa-Vpref-/Npr/-NP-Pr+ NP-Pr+ VP = At-P-S-Oa-Al-Ps; Ps could also be defined as final or /I/-adverbial (Af). St V: Cj+ /PNp/-PTn-Vnag-PrP-AP = Cj+S-An-P-Ao-At. St VI: Cj + Vaf-Pr-NP = Cj + P-Al. St VII: Cj+ Vaf = Cj+P. St VIII: Pr-Npr-Pr+ NP-Pr + Npr-Cj + Pr-Npr-Pr + Npr-Pr+ Npr-Cj + PrNpr-Pr+Npr-Pr+Npr = Oa-Al-Ao-Cj+Oa-Al-Ao-Cj+Oa-Al-Ao. The sentence is elliptical (Ste), S and P to be understood as in St IV. St IX: Cj+PNd-/NP/ = Cj+P-S. St X: PNd-/NP/ = P-S. St XI: Cj + Vpref-Pr-NP( -Cj + Pr-NP) = Cj + P-Oa; the bracketed element is parallel to the initial part of the comprehensive NP and presupposed by 8 The subject is identified by enclosing it in oblique brackets. 9 The + sign is used to indicate that the morphs so connected

are written as one word; conjunctions, subjunctions and prepositions are not specified as particles (PT) in the analysis, as their function in sentences is purely syntactical.

98

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

the rest of it. StXII: Cj+Vpref-/Npr/-Pr-NP = Cj+P-S-Ao. St XIII: Cj + Vpref-PrP-or.r. = Cj + P-Ao-Ps. At the first glance, it may seem that St III and St VIII are introduced by prepositions, but in fact these introduce only a single part of the sentence in each case. These sentences, as also nos. I, IV and X are thus introduced asyndetically, while the others are introduced by the preflXable conjunction /w-/. These are indeed the most common ways of introducing main sentences; other coordinative conjunctions are used relatively rarely, both in the Bible and in the early post-biblical language (except early Q) in which even /w-/ loses considerable ground to asyndeton because of the disuse of wpref. Only where some special feature, such as alphabetic acrostic in early mediaeval liturgical poetry requires /w/ in the beginning of consecutive lines are lengthier strings of /w-/-initial sentences to be found, e.g., in the sixth stanza of Yose b. Yose's Aboda for Yom Kippur10; similarly other coordinative conjunctions may be favoured by similar features, e.g., / gam/ (ib. fo1. xiiR 1. 24), /kiY/ (ib. fo1. xiv 1. 15); the latter, however, is also used as a subjunction, cf. below (p. 126). The disjunctive /,ow/ introduces sentences rarely, e.g., Dt 14:21; /'uwlam/ (e.g., Ex 9:16) usually clarifies and reinforces the adversative connotation of /w-/; /,ella'/ introduces Ste after a negated one (Bab Ms. Ant 328 MSabb 1:9 etc.); /'ap/ (and /gam/) often reinforces a preceding /w-/ (e.g., Lv 26:24); /7arm/ (?) also introduces formally coordinated sentences, although semantically, they are like temporal adverbials to the respective subsequent sentences (e.g., Gn 24:15.45). Coordinative conjunctions are also used to introduce sentences on subordinate levels in strings of more than one unit after the initial one, particularly in direct speech, often alternating with asyndeta (e.g., Dt 1:6.7.8 etc.).

§32. Subordinate sentences. Subordinate sentences may be divided into three main classes; 1) those introduced asyndetically or by coordinative conjunctions, 2) relative clauses, and 3) those introduced by subordinative conjunctions or subjunctions. Asyndetically or-in strings of more than one sentence after the initial one - by coordinative conjunctions introduced sentences on subordinate levels occur usuallyll in direct speech (cf. the end of the preceding paragraph); asyndetically also as ATa in NP with PTrel as Nr, e.g., Dt 1:33. 36.39

10 With Pal punctuation in my Materials vol. I p. /kw/ (ms. a = Bodleian Ms. Heb.d.55 fol. xiii lines 23-34). 1 but may, on Tib material, be assumed to have occurred in other kinds of Ps as well; cf., e.g., /how'iYl/ governing af (rather than the more common nact) Dt 1:5 Hos 5:11; the Sam jbeyyar/ could indeed be af likewise, but in the absence of any parallel in SP it was deemed better classified as nact (although the Hos passage too points to northern Israelite origin of this feature); in Bab Pal, no examples seem to have survived either in our materials.

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

99

etc. The relative clauses are introduced in the Bible sometimes (mostly in poetry) asyndetically, but usually by the PTrel l'aJr/; sporadically by the PNrel IzV I and in some passages of northern Israelite orgin as well as some of the latest books of the Bible (Eccl, Cnt) by the prefixable IJ-I which becomes prevalent in the post-biblical Hbr. Syntactically, as far as the scanty attestation of IzV I allows us to judge, all of them are equivalent, capable of playing practically any role (except P) in the sentences they introduce. In most instances, however, it occurs as S, e.g., Dt 1:4bis 2:25.36bis 3:2.8.24.25 4:3.6.17bis.18.28.32.40.42.46.47 etc; or as 0, e.g., Dt 1:1.3.82:123:214:44.45 etc.; as an A, PTrel is usually preceded by a preposition, e.g., Dt 2: 1. 12. 14bis 3:2.6.20 etc. which has created the illusory notion that prepositions may be "converted" into subordinative conjunctions by the addition of the relative particle after them, when the syntactical role of the particle has not been understood. In some cases, PTrel as or other Ps is also preceded by the PTpr, e.g., Dt 4:3 9:7, while in some cases, an adverbial PTrel does not have it, e.g., Dt 1:46 9:25 -just as nouns and pronouns too occasionally as adverbials, e.g., Dt 4:40 5:4. Very occasionally, PTrel appears to have lost any specific function in the sentence it introduces, thus acting merely as a subjunction (Sjrel), e.g., Dt 3:24 6:3 (2 0 ). The place of the relative particle or pronoun is always in the beginning of the sentence; only the purely introductory preposition and/or conjunction may precede it. Otherwise, the relative sentence (Strel) does not differ essentially from the structure of normal-sized main sentences; both nominal and verbal varieties occur, and subordinate sentences and phrases often occur as parts of Strel, e.g., Dt 1:1-22:144:36:1-2 etc. As parts of larger units, Strel occur often as ATa in NP, occasionally also as ATs, e.g., Dt 1:3.30.41 3:21 4:34 etc.; as ATap in Dt 8:15; in VP as Ps or various adverbials, e.g., Dt 2:25 5:32 6:19.25; in sentences likewise, e.g., Dt 3:24 10:9, but also as 0, e.g., Dt 4:3 5:11, and as P, e.g., Dt 5:26. In some cases, the unit introduced by PTrel appears better analysed as a nominal phrase, with the particle as regent and the rest as an adjectival attribute consisting of an asyndetic subordinate sentence, when this contains another reference to the correlate of the particle; e.g., Dt 1:33.36.39 3:21 4:5.7.8.14.19.26.27 etc. A somewhat similar case, although without the relative element, is Dt 4:48 where the nominal sentence analysable as ATap may have originated as a gloss. Apart from these cases and Strel, sentences do not seem to occur as parts of NP. In VP, sentences introduced by Sj occur mainly as Ps when verbal, e.g., Dt 6:1-28:1.3, cf. also 2:25 where PTrel introduces the string which is also conceivable as ATa to the preceding NP; in Dt 4:35, a pair of nominal sentences have objectival function.

°

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

100

In sentences of higher level, those introduced by Sj, whether nominal or verbal, occur mostly as Ps or various types of modal adverbials; occasionally also as P, e.g., Dt 2:23 4:3.4 etc.; nominal ones also as 0, e.g., Dt 3:19 9:3, and verbal ones as At, e.g., Dt 4:25. Traditionally, sentences introduced by Sj are divided into partly functional, partly semantic subcategories, including objectival, causal, conditional, concessive, comparative, disjunctive, exclusive, temporal, final and resultative12• That these categories-mostly at least-are not derived from the Hbr material itself is indicated by the fact that the same Sj may occur again and again in different subcategories, often alongside PTrel and even coordinative conjunctions; thus /kiY/ is listed as introducing objectival sentences alongside PTrel, causal ones likewise and also variously augmented, concessive ones augmented by /gam/ and also alongside this as well as /,im/, exclusive ones augmented by subsequent /,im/ or by preceding /,aps/, temporal ones alongside PTrel and a host of composita, resultative ones again alongside PTrel as well as the copulative (!) /w-/. Starting from the Hbr material, these sentences may be divided into two main groups according to the introductory elements. In one of these, the basic and central element is /kiY/ whose deictic origin accounts for its wide range of meaning (cf. Part I Section E s.v.). The basic deictic meaning is close to that of /hin(nV)/, calling attention to what is close by or imminent, even alarming. From this, its coordinative use with explicative meaning is readily understandable, e.g., Gn 29:33, "behold = for (Yhwh has heard... )". The same utterance could also be understood in a causal sense, as giving reason for the child's name, as indeed intimated in the context; more explicitly, this is stated in Gn 3:14 concentrating the attention to it, ''see! = because (you have done this) ". The objectival meaning is likewise directly derivable from the deictic one, e.g., Gn 1:4.10 etc., "(God saw... ) behold = that (it was good)"; the concessive use is an expansion of this, e.g., Is 1:15, "even (given) that = even if. .. "; exclusive ones likewise, e.g., Nm 13:28, "(the) only (trouble is) that ... ", and so the resultative variety, e.g., Gn 40:15, "(... anything) that = in consequence of which. .. ". The temporal usage has arisen from the concentration of attention on time, where this had some special significance, e.g., Gn 6:1, "(Once upon a time,) behind = when. .. ". Because of the wide range of meaning, the various aspects or nuances were occasionally specified more clearly by addition of reinforcing or modifying elements, such as /gam/, /'ap/, /,aps/, /ya&n/, or by the use of alternative elements, such as PTrel and its compounds, /(ba)&(a)buwr/, later also with borrowed elements mixed with Hbr ones, /keYwan /&al tnay The other group is concentrated around /,im/. Although its equivalent in Aram is formally identical with that of /hin(nV)/ and some overlap is found

J-/,

12

cr. Ges-K § § 157-166.

J-;.

COMPLEX MORPHEMES

101

in Arab too, both these phenomena are readily understandable as secondary, and as Hbr Ihenl also appears to be due to Aram influence, I'iml can hardly be etymologically connected with the deictic particle. Its basic meaning appears thus to be possibility. In some connections, as in the compound with lkiYI, this is taken for a fact, ''behold, a possibility = except, only", d. the fact that in Akk, the verbal predicate of conditional sentences is in the indicative rather than the subjunctive mood 13 found in other subordinate sentences. Slightly different aspects are again reinforced by additional, partly borrowed elements, cf. l'illuw/, l'apilluw/, I&al mnat I-I; for more fundamentally different aspects, alternative semantically close expressions are adopted, such as the basically optative IluwI (with some phonetic variation), already found as a reinforcing element in compounds, by itself to express purely hypothetical, often irrational condition, when negated likewise ostensibly wishing away actually irremovable obstacle; the negation is also usually phonetically affected and written together with the main particle as one word. The above mentioned semi-loan from Aram Ihenl is also often used with similar connotation, e.g., Ex 8:22; the post-biblical l'ipJarl (etc.), however, reckons with real possibility. Etymologically unrelated expressions are also used to express aversion from a possibility, usually realistic, as the biblical Ipan/, originally imp of IpnV I, "tum (back, away, aside}!", normally also its post-biblical counterpart I a(m)-mah I, a compound of the prefixable PNrel with the PNid/ir used in the rhetorically questioning, hence prohibitive sense. The comparable use of I'iml itself as a negation in the abbreviated oath formula has arisen from the omission of the apodosis, as recognized long ago.

J

13 In Arab too in the jussive (rather than subjunctive) reflecting a volitive origin, "do! = you do (this, then ... )".

if

CHAPTER FOUR HISTORICAL SURVEY

§33. Preliminary observations. The subject matter of this part being limited to morphosyntactics, it is not methodologically appropriate to discuss the history of the entire language structure within its framework. However, as word formation has been included as a fundamental part of morphology, what remains outside is comparison with phonology and the lexical aspect not affected by word formation. This is best done on a comparative statistical basis, as the diversification of phonology also reflects its history, and the lexicostatistical method was derived for a similar purpose to begin with; but as doubts have been expressed with regard to the validity of the lexicostatistical method as devised by Swadeshl, an alternative lexical conspectus, based on the attestation of cognates of Hebrew roots in the different branches of the phylum and subbranches of Semitic will be substituted; material for this will be prepared in the discussion of roots. The comparison itself will thus remain succinct, in size comparable to an appendix; but as this term implies subsidiary relationship, it will be called comprehensive synopsis and separated from the main body of the volume by a sheet carrying this sub-title.

§34. Proper names. No consistent formal development is observable in, the proper names recorded in the Old Testament and contemporaneous sources outside it, except that the tetragram as the theophorous element in personal names tends to be used more and more commonly in shorter forms in the post-exilic period; in post-biblical texts, still more extensive hypocoristic abbreviations of sentence names gain further ground, e.g., /zakkay/ for /zakaryahwe/ (cf. Part I Section A nos. 536, 538), /yoWxay/ for /yahw(e)xanan/ (ib. no. 712), /yannay/ for /yahw(e)-natan/ (ib. no. 718) etc.; /yw-/ (= /yaw-/?, /yow-I), however, occurs frequently as the initial element in texts of pre-exilic origin already, sometimes as the only form in the Bible, e.g., ib. nos. 703, 706, 727; in no. 702 further dissimilated to /ye:-/; on the other hand, /-yw/ as a final element is confined to the aSm ostraca, hence apparently dialectal. The strengthening tendency to abbreviation and contraction in the late post-exilic and post-biblical periods may be conneted with the contemporaneous generalization ofthe principle ofpatronymy (cf. Lc 1:59.61) in

1

cr., e.g., C.D. Chretien in Language vol. 38 (1962) p.llff.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

103

consequence of which the meaning of the name lost its significance and was easily forgotten. §35. Roots.

In historical Hebrew, as well as in other Semitic languages, nominal and verbal roots are generally definable as triradical, although the concept of radical must sometimes be modified to allow it to refer to a vocalic element replacing a root consonant of the more regular pattern; exceptions from triradicality are usually lengthier, mostly quadriradical roots, mostly recognizable as having been created from the triradical ones by the addition of a secondary augment. In some cases, however, only two radicals or even one only is unequivocally recognizable, in many others, one of the three now generally agreed to be a secondary augment; and as in the other branches of the phylum, biconsonantal roots are more common, the question about the origins of the triradical pattern must be subjected to renewed examination in comparative historical context. We begin with the examination of the nonSem comparative material, as presented in Part I Section Bb. Of those about2 2400 roots distinguished, some 530-40 appear to be of foreign origin, whether Kulturworter and other wandering words, often of unknown provenience, or more recent LWW from identifiable languages, in post-biblical texts often Gr and occasionally Lat or other non-Sem ones. Of the remaining 1860 or S03, non-Sem cognates are quoted for 343; however, in 143 of these, I deem their relevance uncertain to the extent that they are better excluded from primary consideration. There remain thus 200 roots with evident or highly probable non-Sem attestation which are therefore examined first. It was established above (§6) that some consonants and occasionally vowels appeared to be secondary augments, particularly in root initial position. This is generally recognized in the case of the nasal /n/ and the semivowel /w/, in Hbr roots usually identified as /yj. Of the 200 roots, 9 or 4.5% begin with /n/. Out of these, /nhm/ has cognates without the nasal in Te Bed Eg; /nxr/ in Arab Som Berb Cpt; /n7p/ in Gur (LW?) Cush, cf. also root /7p(p)/II; /npl/ in Tu Chad and replaced by /t-/ in Te var., cf. also roots /pl(l)/ and / J pl/; while /ntn/ has varr. with /y-/ in Phoen Ug, with /w-/ in Ebl and with /m-/ in Eg, cf. also root /tn/. On the other hand, /nwd/, /npJ/, /ncr/ and /nJp/ do not show cognates without the initial nasal; /nwd/ may also be cognate with the roots /nd(d)/ and IndY/; while /npJ/, of which /nJp/ may be transpositional var., shows /1-/ instead of the 2 The figures are only approximate because of the existence of root variants, evidently of common origin, but sometimes hard to decide whether sufficient semantic and/or formal differences exist to warrant positing different roots; I am afraid I have not always managed to de~de the issue consistently. Ditto.

104

HISTORICAL SURVEY

nasal in some Chad attestations; on these indications, /1/ and /n/ being in allophonic variation elsewhere to04, the 1st rad. can hardly be a secondary augment in these roots. As for /ncr/, the fact that the nasal is preserved in Hbr in the actional group of conjugations in all the attestations, sometimes even unassimilated to the contiguous 2nd rad. seems to suggest its originality; however, the prevalent meaning of the root is so obviously reflexive that it strongly suggests the identity of the 1st rad. with the characteristic /n/ of the N-stem, and its occurrence throughout the inflection could be due to the influence of the regular verb, cf. such developments in progress in the roots /n7&/, /np1/, /ng&/ (Tib) etc. Moreover, /ncr/ may be ultimately cognate with /chr/ in whch the medial /h/ may be secondary, as Ug Mhr (var.) Eth Chad show forms without it and hollow roots also otherwise have II /h/ variants5 ; and semantically, /ncr/ is perfectly conceivable as reflexive of /chr/. We may thus conclude that /n-/ is a secondary augment in 6 of the 9 roots involved. I /y/ (and /w/) roots number 15; out of them, /yd/ has forms without initial /y-/ in Ug (also /'-/ instead) Syr (secondary) Akk (ditto?) Eg (? with transposition?), with /'-/ instead in ESA (var.) Soq Eth (in SEth apparently lacking secondarily); /yd&/ has root varr. without the semi-vowel in ESA (var.) Cush, in Soq (cf. Har?) with /'-/ instead, cf. also Akk (var.) /i-/ Arab (var.) ESA (var.) G&z /y-/; /yhb/ in Te Ch Sdd Cush ?Eg; /yxm/ in Eg. cf. also root /xm.(m)/; /yk1/ everywhere but Hbr (Aram var. probably Hbr LW); /ymn/ in Te, cf. Eg (where /y-/ usually = Sem /'-/) and root /'mn/; /ynq/ in Arab ESA Cush, cf. Ug Eg caus. and root var. /nwq/; /yc'/ in ?Chad, cf. Soq /'-/ instead as well as Hbr Qal nact & imp and nominal derivatives; /yqd/ in Akk Berb; /yqf/ in Chad; on /yrx/ cf. root /'rx/; /yJ/ in Cush (?) Chad (root varr.), cf. nominal derivatives. What remain are /yzn/, /yld/ and /yrq/II; /yzn/ is attested in Hbr and mostly elsewhere in a /ma-/-preformative noun only which has become a Kulturwort; the verb may be original in Arab Eg only; in /yld/, Hbr Aram Arab Eth etc. Qact and some nominal derivatives lack the semivowel; /yrq/II is also mainly nominal, including at least one widespread Kulturwort, the verb too adjectival; but the semivowel is lacking in one Arab noun and another one has /y-/ instead of the usual /w-/. Accordingly, root initial semivowel may be a secondary augment in all the early roots. Other root initial augments seem to be more sporadic. /,mnl was already mentioned as cognate with /ymn/, with biradical /mnl also attested. Another example of /'-I-augment is /,mr/, apparently connected with /m1(1)/II, cf. Berb ?Eg; I'rk/ also lacks the /'-/ in SEth Cush; I'rcl likewise in Chad; in the Har Wol (Som?) cognates of /'Jk/, Im-/ could be either an

: a. Part n p. 52. a., e.g., roots fbw' j, fbwf/, jrwcj; also jkwnj vs. jkhnj etc.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

105

alternative 1st rad. or the nominal preformative, cf. root IJkV I; in /'tV I, the original Cush cognates again lack I'-/' Total 6. The initial Ih-I of IhyV I (and presumably the cognate IhwV I) could be secondary if Eg Iyw I is relevant, but all the other evidence goes against it and normally, Eg Iy-I = Sem 1'-1; in Ihlk/, this is more probable, Ih-I being replaced by /'-1 or lacking altogether in Cush Chad and Iw-I standing for it in Tu, cf. also Hbr Ug Qact etc. Variation between Ih-I and /' -I occurs in IhrV I (Akk?) Cush Berb Chad, cf. Eg Iy-I too. However, it is not clear whether we can speak about Ih-I-augment in any instance. The case for a possible I&-I-augment is weaker still, as the only possible instance in our materials, the root I &gl/, may not be original outside Sem, apart from the fact that its 1&-1 could be secondary pharyngalization of /'-1, cf. Eth. On the other hand, IfI as an augment is assured of occurrence; but in early roots even it is rare. The only example with non-Sem attestaton that may be considered certain is IJ7p/, readily understandable as a causative of 17p(p)/II, cf. the reflextive In7pl quoted above. Another possible instance is IJ Is7V I, if the augment be reflextive and the root thus semantically parallel to In7V I; but the fact that the latter is largely used actively and In-I appears to be permanent makes the parallel uncertain; no biradical *17VI is attested either, and on the other hand, IJ Isw7I is semantically close enough to IJ Is7V I to make cognate origin possible. Whether IJ pi could be based on Ip(V)1 is not clear; both roots being purely nominal, the semantic connection is vague. Non-Sem attestation of I Jkn/, again is not certain. There are no non-Sem attestations for a It-I-augment. All in all, then, we may regard 28 or one seventh of the 200 roots with fairly certain non-Sem attestation to have been derived from shorter ones by means of an initial augment. Consonantal augmentation does not seem to occur in other positions in these pre-Sem roots. It is true that the labial Ibl of the root IlbJI is absent in the Berb attestations; but the regular root final I-ul in Tu suggests early Berb transposition and subsequent liquefaction as a reason for it, particularly as the labial is present in all the other attestations (nasalized in ?Eg). The possible contrary development of a labialized vowel into Ibl in IJwql ?Eg hardly provides anything like sufficient support for an assumption of a similar origin for the labial in IlbJ/. Non-Sem attestation of I&wl/II is uncertain. On the other hand, there are clear indications of the secondary nature of radicals usually realized as vowels. The possible cognate origins of the roots I /s7V/ and / /sw7/ was already mentioned; starting from hypothetical proto-form *1 u7i/, the differentiation could have started from syllabic prominence being placed differently on the final or initial syllable in different circumstances, with concomitant lengthening of its vowel; the vocalization would then in other respects been adjusted to more regular patterns. The

J

J J

106

HISTORICAL SURVEY

entire categories of III V roots and the hollow ones may indeed have originated in this way; of the former, our pre-Sem stock contains no less than 42 instances or over 20%, to wit, /,bV I, /,rV I, l'tV I, IbkVI, IbnVI, Ig'V I, IgwV I, IglV I, IdkV I, IhwVI, IhyVI, IhmV I, IhrV I, IznV I, Ixy(V)/, IkwV I, IklV III, IlwV I, IlqV I, l&wVI (cf. on I&wl/II), 1&IVI, l&rVI,

I&I/sV/, Ip(V)/, IpnV/. IprV/, IpI/sV/, IcwV/. IqnV/, Iqc(V)/. Iqr'/V/, Iqfv/, Ir'V/, IrbV/, IrdV/. IrmV/, II/sdV/, II/sdV/. IIwV/, II IslY I, IIn(n/V)/, IIqVI. Many of these have in fact cognate roots or root

variants sharing the same two consonantal radicals, as indicated already in the case where the root varr. occur in free variation (or complementary distribution) without difference in "meaning, viz., Ixy(V)/. Ip(V)/. Iqc(V)/, Iqr' IV I, IIn(n/V) I. Of the others, Ibk VI has biradical attestations in Cush; Ibn VI in Om and possibly Cush, and it may also be ultimately related to Ibn/; IgwV I has a widespread biradical nominal derivative; IglV I has forms without the 3rd rad. in G&z (Gur?) Tu, and IgI(I)1 could be ultimately related, cf. Syr; IdkV I is practically a root var. of Idk(k)/, cf. Idwkl and Idk'i too; IhmVI appears cognate with Ihm(m)1 and is semantically closer still to Inhml (cf. above on In-I-augment); IhrVI has no final vowel in Eg and has analogous nominal derivatives in Ug Cush; IznV I has a nominal deriv-ative with the repetition of the 2nd rad. replacing the 3rd; I &wVI has evidently cognate l&wl/II and I&wtl; Iy&l/II appears to be an early root var. of 1&IVI, cf. Eg Iy&r/; l&rV I appears related to l&r(r)/; I&I IsV I has no final vowel in Cush (Sid I-il as the only exception may be secondary); IpnVI is biradical in Cush, cf. Eg and the Akk noun; IprV I has occasional nominal derivatives without the 3rd rad. in Hbr Cush (Ug Eg?); however, they could be secondary; IpI IsV I has biradi-cal forms (the sibilant sometimes repeated) in Eth Cush Eg, cf. also ESA IfI'I; IcwVI is biradical (with transposition) in Eg and has forms with final I-tl in Syr Arab G&z; IqnVI has no final vowel in most Chad attestations; Ir'V I likewise in Cush, with prothetic vowel before Irl instead; IrbVI is cognate with Irb(b)/; IrdV I is biradical in Cush Eg and could be cognate with Irwd/; IrmV I biradical in Chad (Kwang; secondary?); II/sdVI could be related to II/sd(d)/; IIwVI has no final vowel in Eg (Cpt!); on II/slYl and II/sw71 cf. above; for IIqVI, the first Hbr nominal entry presupposes no 3rd rad.: IIuqt/. There is thus at least some positive evidence for the secondary origin of the root final vowel in 30 cases out of 41, and although in some cases it is not conclusive. the fact that there is no positive evidence for phonological length in the preSem period6 supports it. Moreover, roots ending in l-wV I and l-yV I also belong to the category of continuable roots to be discussed below; anticipating the result, this strengthens the case for Ixy(V)/. IgwV/, l&wV/, IcwVI and IIwv I, and adds IhwV I, IhyV I. IkwV I and IlwVI to the list, thus 6

Cf. Part II p. 129.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

107

bringing the total to 34 or 85 per cent. There is thus quite considerable evidence for the assumption that root final vowels generally originated from short ones through positional lengthening which acquired phonological status and structural significance.' Root final /' / is likewise conceivably originated as a glide between two vowels, both of relatively open quality, normally allophones of fa/. Perhaps for this reason there are not many pre-Sem ones, in fact only three undoubtedly so, /bw'/, /yc'/ and /mc'/; in the two latter, moreover, the glottalized 2nd rad. may have contributed to the open quality of the vowel. /yc' / has also /y-/-augment and /bw'/ is a hollow root, and so both of them are originally monoradical. As stated above, in connection with III V roots, the hollow roots generally are most naturally derivable from biconsonantal bases with a prominent vowel between the consonants. In our pre-Sem material of 200 they number 31 or over 15%, viz., /,wr/, /bw'/, /bwJ/, /byc/, /byt/, /gwr/, /gyl/, /dwd/, /dwr/, /zwb/, /xwJ/, /mwt/, /myn/, /nwd/, /&WP/, /&yn/, /pwx/, /chr/ , /cwr/IV, /qwm/, /qwc/, /qwr/, /qy' /, /qyn/, /rwx/, /rwc/, / Jwb/, / Jwq/II, /Jyn/, /Jyt/ and /twr/. That the characteristic long stem vowel was indeed created by lengthening an originally short vowel rather than by elimination of a consonantal semivowel by elision or contraction is shown by the fact that hardly any such semivowels are attested in the non-Sem cognates, whereas nearly all of them show or presuppose forms with short vowels in the respective positions; cf. /,wr/ Ug Akk Caf; /bw'/ Bed Som Om Chad ?Eg; /bwJ/ Cush Berb; /byc/ ?Berb Chad; /byt/ Chad; /gwr/ Som (var.); /gyl/ Som and the probably cognate /gl(l)/; /dwd/ Chad and the cognate /yd(d)/; /zwb/ Eg (vocalism unknown, but the var. with /' / hardly compatible with Sem vocalism and certainly not with a /w/); /xwJ/ Bil and the root /xJ(J)/; /mwt/ Berb (no /w/ between /m/ and /t/ in Chad either, but often a short vowel or /mt/ contiguous); /myn/ Cpt (?); /nwd/ probably cognate with /ndd/, cf. also /nd'/ and /ndV/; /&WP/ Soq Eg; /&yn/ Te (varr.) Cush

7 The traditional view that the consonantal allophones /w/ and /y / are the primary ones has little positive evidence for it. In Hbr verbal inflection they occur regularly only in Qal npt, originated as glides before (now lost) inflectional vowels in m.sg. and before the vocalic onset of the afformatives in fem. and pI.; the sporadic instances elsewhere evidently imitate the pattern of the regular verb. In nominal forms likewise, the radical is usually realized as a vowel, replaced by the consonantal allophone usually only when another vowel (sometimes reduced to vocal Shwa) immediately follows; in Aram, the same principles apply in verbal inflection too. In Akk, consonantal allophones are hardly in evidence at all. In Arab, they occur mainly in the afformative conjunction ("perfect") and subjunctive, normally following the pattern of the regular verb and thus readily understandable as having been created on its analogy; where there is an exception, as in 3.pl., the more original form has evidently been able to withstand the influence of the analogy partly at least. In G&z, the regular pattern has established itself throughout, including 3.sg.&pl., m.&f. To consider that to be the orginal state of things, however, means reversing the natural order of development in which morphological regularity gradually emerges through analogy from the more or less chaotic state created by phonetic developments.

108

HISTORICAL SURVEY

?Chad Eg (var.? however, the alternative transliteration with the semivowel does not seem to have basis in the script and may thus be imitation of Sem spelling); Ipwxl Arab (var.) and the probably cognate Inpx/; Icwr/IV Berb and the cognate Icr(r)/III; Iqwml Akk f-stem; Iqwcl Arab Tu; Iqwrl Arab var. ESA var. ?Soq Eth Eg; Iqy'l Eg (Cpt!); Iqynl Syr var. Eth Berb; Irwxl Som (1st entry) Chad (/-Vnl expansion!); Irwcl Cush; Ifwbl Eg (var.!); Ifwq/II Cush, also Ifq(q)1 Tib; Ifynl Eth (noun) Cush Chad (varr.); Ifytl Syr Arab Cush Om ?Berb Eg (var.). Where consonantal semivowels do occur in non-Sem attestations, as in Ibw'1 Cush varr. Imwtl Chad varr. Iqy'l Tu Irwxl Chad, they are replacements for the final radical not attested in such forms; the only cases where a semivowel does occur between the two radicals actually present are Irwcl Berb Ifwbl Eg var. Itwrl Berb; in Irwc/, Berb contrasts with Cush; in Ifwb/, Eg var. with its own much more common alternative noun form and the entire verb, and although Ifwbty I does seem to be the earlier noun form, Baer doubts whether the Eg entries are really related to the Sem root. Be that as it may, the two or three exceptions are certainly much more easily conceivable as results of aberrant phonetic developments rather than the assumption of original diphthongal and even bisyllabic formations contracting into simple vowels practically everywhere, and then mostly still being shortened or even disappearing altogether! In Sem too, diphthongal formations are found only in languages of relatively late attestation, no indication of them being found in AJck8 Ug; and the bisyllabic formations of Hbr are later still, as shown by the Gr Lat transcriptions in which either simple long vowels or diphthongs still mostly correspond to them, cf. Part I Section A nos. 70, 278, 409, 451 etc.; Section Ba s.vv. fbytf, fmwtf etc. That in Arab, an original long vowel could become diphthong is shown, e.g., by LWW such as ftawra:(t)f for Hbr fto:ra:1 in which the long vowel is attested in the transcriptions already, cf. ib. s.v. lyrV I, as also in all analogous formations, so that assumption of diphthong in the borrowed Hbr original is out of the question9• The remaining major category is the so-called II geminatae, or chain duratives which we call continuable roots, as their 2nd rad. is not nearly always repeated in inflectional forms, but as a rule repeatable in principle. As implied even in the traditional term, the roots are biradical, although the 2nd rad. is repeatable. The contrary definition, that they are triradical with identical 2nd and 3rd radicals which may be assimilated so as to produce a long consonant is, first of all, inaccurate, as in some cases even in Hbr, the 2nd rad. remains short despite a following vocalic afformative; cf., e.g., root

8 The OAkk Ass formations of the type /mua:tu(m)/, /dia:nu(m)/ etc. are evidently due to the analogy of the regular triradical verb, the characteristic vowel being inserted after the original stem vowel in the absence of a consonantal middle radical; in Bab, the original vowel is l~st altogether. Cf. also /sulayma:n/, /$ay7a:n/, etc.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

109

I qd(d)I pref 3.pl. (Sam &

Tib). More importantly, it is in direct contradiction to the principles of incompatibility according to which no two consonants of the same or even neighbouring articulation bases can occur in contiguous positions in the same root, usually not even in non-contiguous positions, although the latter rule is not so strictly observed. It would then be highly anomalous indeed, if the extreme case of the two consonants being completely identical, scrupulously observed the less strict rule, but disregarded the stricter one altogether. It is certainly more consistent to accept the alternative solution that the roots are biradical, but the 2nd rad. repeatable under certain conditions, with the analogy of the regular triradical roots again the most potent factor; as is well known, single radicals of other types of roots too are often repeated particularly in verbal inflection, in L- and Fstems, and even larger parts or entire biradical roots in R-stems and analogous formations. Moreover, while in some languages - Hbr included - there are also strictly biradical roots, the 2nd rad. remaining single and short in all forms of inflection, in others it may appear prolongable and/or repeatable in the same roots. For this reason, no distinction is made here between these fundamentally biradical roots, whether their 2nd rad. is in Hbr geminable or not. The resulting list from among the 200 pre-Sem roots is: I'b/, l'y/II, I'm/, Ibl(I)/,

Ibc/, Ibr(r)/, Igg/, IgwV I, Igl(1)/, Igr(r)/, Idb(b)/, Idk(k)/, Idm/, Idm(m)/, Idq(q)/, IhwVI, IhyVI, Ihl(l)/, Ixy(V)/, Ixm/, Ixm(m)/, Ixt(t)/, IkwV I, IkI(I)/II, Ilb(b)/, IlwV I, Ilq(q)/, III I, ImI(I)/, Imt/, Isk(k)/, l&wV/, I&c/, IcwV/, Icx(x)/, Icr(r)/, Icr(r)/III, Iql(I)/, Iqc(V)/, Ir'l, Irb(b)/, Irq(q)/, IId(d)/, IIwV/, IIm/, IIn(n)/, IIn(n/V)/, IIp/, IIr(r)/, IIlsr(r)/, Itm(m)/. IIrII also appears to be apocopated reduplication of a biradical root; in addition, there is the purely monoradical Im/. This group

comprises thus 53 roots or more than a quarter of the assuredly pre-Sem stock. Some of the roots listed may seem to be contrary to the arguments used in the preceding introductory passage; e.g., Iggl and IIrII, and also I'bl and I'm/, if dissimilated from more original Ibbl and Imm/, to the principles of incompatibility. However, Igg/, /,bl and I'ml are purely nominal roots whose identical consonants are never contiguous, being always separated by the stem vowel, and the rules of incompatibility apply without modifications to triradical roots only; as for IIrII, it was observed already to be basically biradical also. Again, roots ending in l-wV I or l-yV I are likewise basically biradical, the repeated radical basically vocalic, but realized as the consonantal allophone in the middle position, as two vowels cannot occur contiguously; incidentally, roots ending in I -'VI could be analogous, if the original vowel was la/; our list comprises again only two such roots, Ig'V I and Ir'V I, cf. the analogous rarity of III /,1 roots discussed above. In Ixy(V)1 and

110

HISTORICAL SURVEY

/qc(V)/, the optional root final vowel may occur in addition to the basically biradical root, whereas in / J n(n/V)/ it occurs as an alternative to the gemination of the nasal. The remaining roots may be regarded as basically triradical; in the preSem group of 200, they are; /'bd/, /'bn/, /'hlj10, /'zn/, /'xr/, /'np/, /b'r/II(?l1), /b7n/, /bkr/, /bl&/, /b&lj, /bq&/, /brd/, /brk/, /brq/, /gnb/, /grm/, /zbx/, /znb/, /zrm/, /xbJ/, /xmc/, /xnk/, /xsr/, /xm/II, /7&m/, /kbr/, /knp/, /krs/, /lbJ/, /lxm/, /mrx/, /npJ/, /nJp/, /&rb/, /&rb/II, /plg/, /prx/, /prs/, /prc/, /prq/, /cb&/II, /clm/, /cpr/III, /qblj, /qn7/, /qrb/, /qrb/II, /qfr/, /rgl/, /rgn/, /rxc/, /rkb/, /J'l/, /Jlm/, /Jm&/, / J /s&r/ and / J /srp/; the total is thus 58 or litde more than a quarter12 of the whole pre-Sem stock. This leaves more than twice as many originally (mono- and) biradical roots. Seeing that the triradical roots were originally a relatively small minority, the question arises, how the tendency to triradicality gained so much ground as to become prevalent in early common Sem. The answer may be in the transformation of the semantic structure of the vocabulary. More originally, the vocalism too must have carried a part of the basic meaning of the vocabulary items, as is the case in nearly all the other languages of the world, including most non-Sem branches of the phylum. However, the fact that in the pre-Sem period, only two distinct vowel phonemes seem to have existed, even of them one capable of being realized consonantally13 no doubt facilitated the transition to the state generally prevalent in historical Sem in which vowels usually only modify the fundamental meaning characterized by the root consonants 14. This increased the semantic burden of the consonants even apart from the need to express new concepts arising in unusually large numbers in connection with the transformation of the society from a hunting and gathering one into partly nomadic, but increasingly largely sedentary and agricultural and also otherwise industrialized one, including increased commercial activity and larger communities and therefore more complex communal and political activities, all of which took place during the late pre-Sem and early Sem periods leading to the emergence of the historical period. Part of the increased semantic burden was carried by the increase in phonological inventory, achieved through the acquisition of phonological status by earlier allophonic variants, as illustrated by the root 10 Lack of Ihl in Akk Arab var. Ebl may be secondary or scribal. 11 /,1 is not present in non·Sem attestations; but this could be secondary,

and in Sem, it apPfl!:s to be original in any case. 13 29%, to be accurate. 14 See Part II p. 129. The term is used in a generalized sense for the sake of brevity, covering also the root final vowels which may indeed also be represented by consonantal allophones; it does not presuppose any necessarily uniform "root meaning" apart from its actual derivatives either.

111

HISTORICAL SURVEY

varr. and cognate roots frequently quoted above; but even so, possibilities of different combinations of just two root consonants at a time, still further limited by the principles of incompatibility and no doubt other factors more of chance nature, must have been remarkably insufficient - hence the need to increase the extent of the root, whether by the attachment of elements of pronominal or deictic nature, as in the case of /n-/-, / and It-i-augments, or of phonetic origin, as in the consonantalization of the onset of a root initial vowel, presumably in the case of /'-/, /h-/ and the semivowels, or by institutionalizing vocalic prominence, as in III V and hollow roots, or by lengthening or repetition of a root consonant, as in continuable roots; presumably still by other means, as illustrated by cases where semantically close roots are distinguished by just one radical, cf. /ptx/ vs. /pqx/; / JtV/ vs. /JqV/; /qrs/ as var. of /qrx/II; /ntx/ vs. /nt&/ vs. /ntc/ vs. /ntq/ vs. /ntJ/; etc. Seeing that hollow and continuable roots can only in a very extended sense be described as triradical, and that on the other hand, additional radicals continued to be inserted into triradical ones, there can hardly have been any particular tendency to triradicality, just a need to increase the power of expression of the vocabulary stock which was mostly satisfied by units of three radicals. For the purposes of inner Sem comparison we divide the material into the following sub-branches: 1) North-West Semitic (NWSem), with Hbr itself as the principal representative, but including Phoen Ug Arnor Ebl, as their attested vocabulary is largely defective and also semantically uncertain to such a degree that comparisons based on it, whether collectively or by single languages, would not yield reliable results; 2) Aramaic (Aram), including Syriac; 3) East Semitic or Akkadian (Akk); 4) Classical Arabic (Arab); 5) South Arabic (SAr) or ESA Mhr Soq; 6) North Ethiopic (NEth) or G&z Te; and 7) South Ethiopic (SEth) or Har Ch Sdd Wol. As will be seen below, the division is justified by notable differences in the frequency of cognates to Hbr roots, where not by clear geographical separation. Occasionally, other languages besides those listed above are quoted, if the relevant sub-branch has preserved a cognate only in such a language; e.g., Tigrinya for NEth, Amharic or other modern Ethiopian Semitic language for SEth. Of the remaining about 1660 roots without assured non-Sem attestations, only 116 are quoted with cognates in all the above subbranches of Sem; even of them, 22 are deemed uncertain, leaving 94 which can be classified as common Sem in'the strict sense. They are: /'wV/, /,x/, /,xz/, /'kl/, /'nJ/, /'nJ/II, /b'J/, /bJI/, /bJr/, /dwJ/, /zkr/, /zrV/, /zr&/, /xbl/, /xbq/, /xbr/II, /xdJ/, /xnq/, /xc(c)/, /xJb/, /7bx/, /7wV/, /7px/, /yd(d)/ (Tigrinya for NEth), /ywm/, /yrd/, /yrV/, /yrk/, /yrJ/, /ytr/ (in surnames in ESA), /kb/, /kbd/, /kwn/, /kl' /, /kr(r)/II, /krV/, /kr&/, /lhb/, /lqx/, /mxc/, /ml'/, /m&/, /mr(r)/, /mJl/, /n'q/, /nb&/, /nwb/, /npx/, /nJ'/,

J-/-

112

HISTORICAL SURVEY

/smk/, /&br/, /&dV/, /&7p/, /&lq/, /&pr/, /&qb/, /pxm/, /p7r/, /pI7/ (complemented by the cognate /ml7/), /pqd/, /pr(r)/, /prd/, /tpl/, /cl(l)/, /cmd/, /c&n/, /c&r/, /cpx/, /cr(r)/II, /crx/, /qbr/, /qdm/, /q7n/, /qiV /, /qlp/, /qn' /, /qpl/, /qcr/, /qrx/, /qrn/, /r'I/, /rxm/, /rxq/, /r7b/, /rqd/, /Ibr/, /I7x/, /Iyb/, /I/sym/, /I/sbk/, /Ikr/, /Im/II, /I&r/, /Iqlj. The share of regular triradical roots is dramatically higher than in the preSemitic group, 59 in number or nearly two-thirds of the total, illustrating the increased need for expressivity. The number includes /n'q/ in which /n-/ appears to be permanent, cf. the root var. /,nq/; on the other hand, /nb&/ appears to be based on /b&/ and /npx/ on /pwx/, /n-/ being thus an augment in them, as also in /nI' / whose Qact forms usually lack it, and even some of its nominal derivatives. /nwb/ also has permanent In-I; it belongs to the hollow roots which here number only 6 even if /ywm/ is included, although it is more irregular; in the other roots beginning with /y-/ it is again assumed to be an augment, although there is no positive evidence for /ytr /. On the other hand, root initial/'I does not seem to be an augment in any instance, and /I / in / I qlj only. Root final vowels and /' / are still considered secondary; they number 6 and 3, respectively; but /'wV / and /7wV / belong to continuable roots also which then total 9, in addition to the purely biradical /'x/, /kb/ (reduplicated), /m&/ and / I m/II (both pl.tantum). There remain thus about 1565 roots not assuredly attested in all the subbranches of the Semitic stock. Some of the gaps are no doubt secondary, caused by disuse of the items involved or also by the incompleteness of our data, as illustrated by the fact that most of the assuredly pre-Sem roots are not attested in all the Sem sub-branches either. However, as we have strictly maintained the principle of positive attestation so far, we must adhere to it here too for the results to be comparable; and as, on the other hand, factors causing the omissions can usually be pointed out tS ; it may not be grossly 15 Strictly taken the issue is outside the scope of the present study, but in comparative interest, some statistics are given here; NB. the fIgures are approximate, as not all the attestations can be considered certain. Of the 200 roots with assured non-Sem attestations, 7075 are attested in all the seven sub-branches of Sem as defIned above; 40-45 are missing in one and 39-45 in two of them, nearly always such as belong to the south-eastern fringes of the Sem speaking area and largely of the entire S-H phylum, to wit, Akk SAr SEth; sometimes also NEth (usually alongside SEth); Aram Arab 2-3 times only. For omissions in more than two branches specifIc reasons (mostly phonetic or semantic) can be pointed out; those missing in three number 23-27; in four, 10-12; in fIve, 2; in six, 2-3. Those in the last category are /'y/II, /hyV/ and possibly /yq[/; the fIrst two are phonetically extremely feeble, all the radicals being highly susceptible to decay and/or possibly originated as glides; the fIrst is also semantically specialized, unlikely to be used by inland inhabitants, while the second is root var. of the better attested /hwV/; again, /yq[/ is basically biradical, still so in Chad, has also /nq[/ alongside and means a specifIc type of bird catching, therefore easily disused alo~ with the practice. Those missing m fIve sub-branches are /gV/ and /gp,/, the former contaimng one fum consonant only easily confusable with other phonetically close ones, e.g., /gwV/, /gy' /, /ygV/ etc.; while the latter primarily apparently referring to a specifIc arch-like support for the roof of vaulted tent or comparable structure would have been disused along with that type of construction, had it not come to be used of flat roof too in NWSem. Most of those missing in three or four sub-branches have similar or comparable causative factors; e.g., /,rV/ may have

HISTORICAL SURVEY

113

misleading to treat all the remaining roots as belonging to the period after the common Sem one. It appears then that the increase in the proportion of basically triradical roots has abated during that period, only about 710 or some 45 per cent. of the remaining total being triradical as defined above. However, it should be observed that by the end of the common Sem period, the historically attested Sem root system must have been essentially completed, as all Sem sub-branches presuppose it; accordingly, all the augments are to be regarded as permanent radicals, their omission in certain inflectional forms - such as Qact - being due to the analogy of earlier roots of the same class. Similarly, root final (semi)vowels and /' / are to be regarded as permanent radicals, although the former are elided before vocalic afformatives; and analogous to them, continuable roots too on the strength of the forms in which the 2nd rad. is repeated; the forms in which it is lengthened instead may then be regarded as contracted from the normal ones. On the other hand, the hollow roots must still be considered biradical, as they do not develop consonantal middle radicals until late in the historical period, and on the other hand, even triradical roots develop long vowels in certain inflectional forms without having to be considered quadriradical. The hollow roots, however, remain the only major biradical category during this period, numbering 176 or about one ninth of the total; in addition, there are 5316 purely biradical ones with only a short stem vowel in the attested forms, bringing the total of essentially biradical roots during this period to 229 or over one seventh of the total number 17; together with the nine quadriradical roots of evidently Sem origin18 they show that there was still no particular tendency to establish three as the number of the radicals, but only to increase the power of expression of the vocabulary within the limits of linguistic economy.

originally meant gathering of fruit and grain as practised by hunting and gathering communities (cf. Eth Cush), surviving only where transferred to refer to harvesting of any kind; it also has one firm radical only, as /gwV / too (cf. above, on /g'V/) and so /hmV/, /hrV/ etc. /gylj is both phonetically and semantically close to /g1(I)/; /ym/ in its regular form may have been disused in some sub-branches because of the spread of the word for scales as a Kulturwort, cf. Aram; /yxm/ is based on /xrn(m)/ and may in fact been differentiated from it in two different places; and so on. The only cases where the solution is not so obvious are jbq&/ (j-&/ secondary?), /xrm/II (primarily referring to flshin~? in Arab generalized), /lqV/, /myn/ (to avoid confuSion with /mnV/? cf. Te), /ntn/ (competition from /yhb/?), /&J/sV/ (competition from /p&1j ,/&bd/?), /J/sdV/, /J7P/ (replaced by /n7p/ and its causative?), /Jr(r)/ (amalgamated with /JrJ/?), /J/sr(r)/ (competition from /mlk/, /mJIj, /JI7/?) and / J / srp/. In any case, their number is so small that it does not alter the overall result that roots ofpre-Sem origin are generally preserved in a clear majority of Semitic sub-branches (if not individual languages), unless specific reasons for secondary obsolescence can be pointed out. It should also caution scholars against assuming proto-Semitic origin for roots found in two or thre~ historical Semitic languages. 1 Including /r&(V)/ and /Js(v)/ in which the occcasionally attested final vowel appears to be secondary; on the other hand, forms like /xaz/ (from /xzV/11) and /pac/ (from /pcV/) in eHly medieval liturgical poetry are not counted. Some (like /tn/, presupposed by /ntn/) are no doubt of earlier origin, but hardly many. 18 To wit, /gImd/, /hlq7/, /krsm/ = /qrsm/, /sr&p/, /srpd/, /&r71/, /prJz/, /Jxrr/ and /J/sm'l/; some ofthose excluded as Kulturworter (e.g., /xrmJ/) may also be of Sem origin.

114

HISTORICAL SURVEY

In working out the degrees of relationship of the non-Sem branches and of the Sem sub-branches to Hbr we start again from the total of about 1860 original Hbr roots in our materials. However, as it becomes progressively more difficult to recognize cognates with growing distance between the languages compared, particularly as phonetic and phonological correspondences between Sem and the non-Sem branches are still largely to be worked out, some value should be assigned also to attestations considered possible, but uncertain, as otherwise those more remotely related would probably seem to be remoter still than justified by actual facts. Moreover, the available lexical material probably reflects the actual vocabulary of the respective languages to considerably varying degrees, and the interpretation of attestations in languages no longer spoken often also remains uncertain. The uncertainty is reflected by the number of attestations deemed uncertain, in the case of better known languages there being generally less of them as a proportion of total attestations in that language; as no more accurate criterion seems to be available, we propose to give them one half of the value given to the attestations deemed reasonably certain. As the amount of material for most languages is far too large to be given in full, let alone discussed in detail, we begin with the non-Sem branches having least Hbr cognates discussing them in full for the first branch, then simply giving the attested roots with the uncertain ones indicated by question mark, more explicit notes only where deemed necessary in addition to the comments given in Part I Section Bb; for Sem sub-branches, statistics only will be given, as their numbers are too large even for the roots to be identified here again and for a comprehensive check of data the reader would have to go through most of the volume quoted anyway. Om: /,b V I: Caf IbayI, Ibagj refuse, prevent; on the consonantal semivowel cf. Bil etc.; the affricate allophone occurs before front vowels, cf. the paradigm in Cerulli, Cafp. 88 no. 10 (also nos. 9, lli); whether lack of 1'I is original (cf. Hsa) or secondary is not clear, but the meaning agrees so well with SSem (cf. also Tu Hsa) that cognation can hardly be doubted; I'wr I cf. my comments in Part I Section Bb s.v. (as also on the following items, if no comment here); Ibw'l the reconstructed forms accepted on Fleming's authority; Ibwf I; IbnV I Dime Ibinl also from Fleming, cf. Ug Arnor Ebl semantically; on the lack of final vowel cf. Chad (?Tu Cush); Ibrkl on the phonology cf. Bed (Tu Chad), on the transposition SEth Tu Chad; Ibrql on the 2nd rad. cf. Wol (ArnhS ?Hsa); Idml Caf Idamo:/, (vb.) Idaml agree too well with Sem not to be original; accordingly, Fleming's South Om forms show secondary assibilation; /hwV / Caf /haw / phonetically combinable, but appears isolated and semantic shift must be assumed, hence uncertain; IhrV I on the meaning cf. Som, on phonology Ibrk/, Ibrql (Part I Section Bb s.w.); /lb(b)/ NB. the phonological variation; Im/ on prothetic vowel cf. Berb,

HISTORICAL SURVEY

115

postthetic accretion Som (etc.); /mt/ on the alone surviving fern. cf. Hsa; /ng&/ combinable phonologically and semantically, but cannot be considered certain; /&rp/ likewise; semantic connection still more hypothetical; /p(V)/; /clm/ assumes amalgamation of /1/ with the vowel, not normal in Caf, therefore uncertain; / fyt/ also Janjero /se:to:/ hymen (Cerulli, Caf s.v.); /fm/ Janjero /sun/, cf. Leslau, Gur III p. 545; /thV/ plausible phonologically, but uncertain because of the vagueness of the Hbr meaning. Total 21, of which 5 uncertain, yielding 18.5 or 1.0% for comparisons with other branches. 19 Chad: /'b/ (/bb/ probably the original form, cf. my notes s.v.); /'bV/ on the lack of /' / cf. note on Om above); /,zn/; /'1/?; /,m/ (original perhaps /mm/, cf. on /'b/ above); /,nf/?; /'r(r)/?; /,rc/; /'fk/; /b'r/II; /b'f/?; /bw'/; /bxr/?; /b7n/?; /byc/; /byt/; /bIV/?; /bnV/ (cf. also Jungraithmayr & Shimizu p. 56 root C); /b&1/; /bq&/; /bqr/?; /brk/; /brq/?; /gwV/; /dd/?; /dwd/; /dk(k)/; IdlY/? (Kulturwort?); /dm/; /drk/? (phonetics not clear); /hlk/; /hrV/; /zrm/; /xm/; /7wb/? /71(1)/?; /7&m/; /yd/?; /ykl/; /yld/; /ym/? (or /ymn/?); /yc' I?; /yqf/; /yrVI?; /yrx/? (wandering word?); /yfn/; /kwV/; /kw1/?; /kl(1)/II; /lb(b )/; /lwV/; /Jxk/?; /lxm/; /lq( q)/; /If/; /m/; /mwt/; fmc' /; /mrx/; /mt/; /nkVI?; /npl/: /npf/; /nfk/?; /sb(b)/?; /&dV/?; /&yn/?; /&IV/; /&c/; /p(V)/; /pnV/?; /prx/; /prq/; /ptx/?; /cb&/II; /chr/; /cxq/?; /cl(1)/?; /clm/; /qw1/?; /qnV/; /qc(V)/; /qr'/V/; /rbV/; /rg1/; /rwV/?; /rwx/; /rkb/; /rmV/ (cf. the root var. /rbV/II); /r&V/?; /rqd/?; /f'l/?(LW?); /fyn/; /fyr/?; /fm/; /fm&/, /fn(n)/, /fp/?; /fqv/? (or /ftv/?); /frf/ (and/or /fr(r)/); /tlV/? (phonetics unclear); /tm(m)/?; /tr/? Total 103, of which 40 uncertain; comparative value 83 or 4.5%. Berb: /,b/; /,bd/; /,bV/; /,bn/; /'gm/?; /'dm/?; /,hl/; /'xr/; /'m/; /'mr/; /'np/; /,nf/?; /'nf/II?; /'f/?; /bhV/?; /b71/?; /b7n/; /byc/?; /bkr/?; /bl(1)/; /bnV/; /brd/II? /; /brk/; /gg/ (cf. the Hbr (second) and Aram entries); /gzr/?; /gl(1)/; /giV/; /gmr/?; /gr(r)/; /grm/; /gfm/?; /db(b)/; /dbr/; /dwr/; /dm/; /dm(m)/; /dq(q)/; /dqr/?; /hwV/; /hl(1)/; /hlk/; /hmVI?; /hrg/? (phonetics obscure); /hrV/; /znb/; /zrm/; /xb'/VI?; /xy(V)/; /x17/?; /xlm/?; /xnk/; /xsr/; /yd(d)/?; /'jkl/; /yld/; /ypV/; /yqd/; /yqf/; /yrx/; /yrq/II; /kbr/; /kwV/; /lb(b)/; /lbJ/, /lwV/; /lxm/; /lq(q)/; /If/; /m/; /mdr/?; /mhr/?; /mwt/; /m&7/?; /mc'/; /mr'/II?; /mrc/?; /mf(f)/; /mtn/?; /ngfI?; /nwp/?; /nxr/; /n7p/; /nyn/?; /nkr/II?; /npl/; /npf/; /nqV/?; /sbl/?; /sk(k)/; /&IV/; /&r(r)/II?; /&rb/?; /p(V)/; /plg/; /plx/?; /prV/?; /prx/; /prs/; /pf/sv/; /ptl/?; /chr/; /cwr/IV; /cpr/III?; /cr(r)/II?; /cr(r)/III?; /qb1/; /qwm/; /qwc/; /qy'/; /qyn/?; /ql(1)/; /qnV/; /qc(V)/; /qcb/?; /qr' /V/; /qrx/II?; /qrs/?; /qfv/; /r' /; /rgl/?; /rgn/;

19 Caf /yammo:/ (root /zb(b)/), /yabano:/ (/zmn/), /yaro:/ (/zr&/) may have entered the language as wandering words.

116

HISTORICAL SURVEY

jrwcj? (phonetic confusion); jrzV j? (structurally deviant, semantically specialized, if cognate); jrpVj?; jrpJj?; jrqdj?; jJ'lj; jJjsbkj?; jJwVj; j Jytj? (phonetically difficult; but perhaps intentional); j Jknj?; j J n(n)j; jJ&rj?; jJjs&rj; jJqVj; jJr(r)j; jthVj?; jtwrj; jtrj? Total 139 of which 57 uncertain; comparative value 110.5 or 5.9%. Cush: /,bj; j'b(b)j?; /,bdj; j'bV j; /,wrj; j'xrj; /,yj?; j'mj; j'mnj; j'mrj; /,npj; /'nJjll?; /,srj?; /,rVj; j'rkj; j'rcj; /'Jkj; /'tVj; jb'rjll; jb'Jj?; jbhVj?; jbw'j; jbwJj; jb7lj?; jb7nj; jbkVj; Jbkrj; jbl(l)j? (one-sided meaning); jblV j?; jbl&j; jbnV j? (phonetically unusual); jb&lj?; jbcj; jbq&j; jbr(r)j; jbrdj; jbrkj; jbJlj? (LW?); jg'V j; jgbrj?; jgwV j; jgw&j?; jgwrj; jgylj; jgl(l)j; jgrmj; jdb(b)j; jdmj; jdq(q)j; jhwV j?; jhyV j; jhlkj; jhmV j; jhrV j; jznbj; jzrmj; jxbqj?; jxwJ j; jxy(V)j?; jxmj; jxmcj; jxnkj; jxq(q)j?; j7&mj; jydj; jyd&j; jyhbj; jylkj; jynqj; jyrV j?; jyJnj?; jkl(l)jll?; jklV jll; jknpj; jkrjll?; jkrsj; jlb(b)j; lq(q)j; jmj; jmc' j; jmrxj?; jnhmj; jnxrj; jn7pj; jnkrjll?; jnskj?; jnpJ j; jnqrj?; jnJkj?; j&bVj?; j&glj?; j&ynj; j&cj; j&rbj; j&rVj; j&rpj?; j&JjsVj; jp(V)j; jpwxj; jpnV j; jprV j; jprxj?; jpJ jsV j; jcb&jll; jclmj; jcm' j?; jcprjIII; jqblj; jqhlj?; jqwmj; jqrbjll; jqr&j?; jr'V j; jrb(b)j; jrglj; jrdV j; jrwxj (the Som vb. hardly LW); jrwcj; jrm(m)jll?; jrn(n)j?; jrq(q)j; jrqdj?; jJwqjll; jJyj?; jJynj; jJytj; jJkmj?; jJknj?; jJmj; jJn(n)j?; jJjs&rj; jJqVj; jJrJj; jtm(m)j. Total 134, out of which 40 uncertain; comparative value 114 or 6.1 %. Eg: j'bj; j'bV j; /,bnj; /,dmj?; jznj; /,xrj; j'yj?; /,yjll; j'mj; j'mnj; j'mrj?; /,nV jll?; j'npj; jbhlj?; jbw' j?; jbkrj?; jbl(l)j?; jbl&j?; jbqrj?; jbrqj?; jbJlj?; jbJrj?; jgbj?; jgwV j; jgl(l)j; jglV j? (phonetically unusual, semantic shift); jgnbj; jgfmj?; jdb(b)j; jdblj?; jdwrj?; jdlxj?; jdq(q)j; jhwV j; jhyV j?; jhmV j; jhrV j; jzbxj; jzwbj; jznV j; jzrj?; jzrmj; jxbJ j; jxmj; jxm(m)j; jxmcj; jxnkj; jxnqj?; jxpJ j; jxrmj?; jxrmjll; jxrqj?; jxt(t)j; j7b&j?; j7p(p)jll?; jydj; jyhbj?; jyznj; jyxmj; jyldj?; jymnj; jynqj; jyc'j; jyqrj?; jyrVj?; jyrxj; jyrqjll; jyJ&j?; jytrj?; jkbrj?; jklVjll; jkp(p )j?; jkr&j?; jIb(b )j; jIbJ j?; jlxkj?; jlqV j; jlqxj?; jlJ j; jmj; jmhrj?; jmwtj; jmzxj?; jmynj; jmrcj?; jmtj; jn'pj?; jnbxj?; jnhmj; jnhrj?; jnwdj; jnxrj; jn7pj; jnynj?; jnkrjll?; jn&mj?; jn&rj?; jnpJ j; jncV jll?; jncrj; jnqrj?; jnJkj?; jnJpj; jntnj; jsb(b)j?; jswrj?; jsl&j?; jstrjll?; j&wV j orj&wlj; j&wpj; j&z(z)j?; j&ynj; j&lV j; j&cj?; j&cV j; j&rbjll; j&rV j?; jplxj; jpnV j; jprV j; jprxj?; jprsj?; jprcj; jpJ jsV j; /ptx/II?; /cb&/II; /cwV /; jcx(x)/; /cl(l)/III?; /cr(r)/; /cr(r)/III;

/qwr/; /qy'/; /qlb/?; /ql&/?; /qn7/; /qc(V)/; /qrb/; /qrb/II; /qrx/?; /qrs/?; /qr&/?; /qrc/?; /qjr/; /rdV/; /rwm/?; /rxcj; /rn(n)/?; /rtx/?; /Jd(d)/; /J/sdV/; /Jw'/?; /Jwb/; /JwV/; /Jwq/?; /Jwr/II?: /Jxn/?; /f/s7V/; /f7p/; /fyt/; /f1hb/?; /flm/; /fm/?; /fm&j?; /fn(n/V)/?; /f&r/?; /fp/; /fjsr(r)/; /f/sr7j?; /f/srp/; /tk(k)/?; /tm(m)/. Total 172 of

HISTORICAL SURVEY

117

which 82 uncertain; comparative value 131 or 7.0%. As stated above (p. 114), it would take too much space and be little purposeful to list here the cognates in the Semitic sub-branches; the comments in Part I Section Bb on the single entries also indicate as accurately as seems possible to me to state the degree of certainty of the relevance of each of them; those deemed less than probable are also provided with question mark in the list of entries. It thus remains here to give the statistics for each subbranch; following the pattern established above, we begin with the one showing the smallest number of cognates to Hbr. SEth: Total 366, of which 38 uncertain; comparative value 347 or 18.7%.20 NEth: Total 685, of which 91 uncertain; comparative value 639.5 or 34.4%21. AIde Total 724, of which 73 uncertain; comparative value 687.5 or 37.0%. SAr: Total 835, of which 99 uncertain; comparative value 785.5 or 42.4%. Arab: Total 1440, of which 161 uncertain; comparative value 1359.5 or 73.1%. Aram: Total 1478, of which 61 uncertain; comparative value 1447.5 or 77.8%. Taking material from languages other than the regularly quoted ones more fully into account would no doubt have added some items, but hardly in significant numbers, as illustrated by the fact that the material in Leslau's Gur III was in fact included in full, and this added only three certain items and one uncertain to those attested in Har Ch Sdd Wol. We may thus conclude that the figures given above reflect the relationship of the different branches and sub-branches to Hbr fairly accurately. There is thus a clear gap between non-Sem branches and Sem sub-branches, none of the former having more than seven per cent. of the Hbr stock of roots, whereas even the most remote of the latter has close to one fifth. Between the non-Sem branches there is a clearly significant difference between Om and the others, the former having clearly by far the fewest number of cognates, even allowing for the relative scantity of material; for Caf at least, the material in

20 Includes 8 items, of which 1 uncertain, not attested in the systematically quoted Har Ch Sdd Wol, but found in other Gur languages or Amharic. Again, although it is outside the scope of the present study, some statistics may be given here on the mutual relationships of those four representing the main local subdivisions of SEth. The relevant statistics are, in terms of Hbr cognates: Har 223-22?=212, of which it shares with Ch 134-1O?=129; with Sdd 17010? = 165; and with Wol 185-14? = 178, showing thus closest relathionship with Wol, although Sdd is not far behind. Ch has 239-26?=226, of which it shares with Sdd 196-23?=184.5 and with Wol 178-22?=167, showing thus inverse relationship with them compared with Har. Finally, Sdd has 2n-25?=264.5 and Wol 265-30?=250, of which they share 216-27?=202.5 with each other. This yields 78.7% as their average common share; for the others, we obtain 58.9% for Har-Ch; 69.3% for Har-Sdd; n.1% for Har-Wol; 75.2% for Ch-Sdd; and 70.2% for Ch-Wol. Sdd appears thus to be the most conservative one and has also preserved the closest relationship with both Wol and Ch; while Har is about equally close to Wol, but generally the least conservative. 1 Includes 3 items, of which 1 uncertain, quoted from Tigrinya.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

118

which - on the pattern observed elsewhere - the bulk of the cognates was to be expected was fairly complete. On the other hand, for Chad - apart from Hsa which does not seem to be fully representative of the entire stock -, the material available was still somewhat patchy and phonetic correspondences still largely to be worked out, and so its true share could be somewhat higher, but hardly so as to reach the level of the other three in which, moreover, the number of uncertain items is also relatively high. Within Sem, SEth is clearly more remote than any other sub-branch, its number of cognates being little more than a half of those in NEth which is relatively close to the other sub-groups on the south-eastern fringes of the phylum of which SAr, however, is sufficiently ahead for the differences to be considered significant. Finally, Arab and Aram form a much closer inner circle, the latter being again probably significantly closer, particularly as its vocabulary is not known as fully as that of Arab. Vocabulary of other NWSem languages is known too defectively for statistical comparison. There do not seem to be essential structural differences in the root system between sub-branches of Sem apart from some phonetically conditioned ones, such as the replacement of Iw I by Iy I in word initial position in NWSem or the assimilability of Inl somewhat more widespread in early times, but largely reversed later on; they too are mainly matters of inflection rather than of root formation. §36. Numerals.

As established in Part I, Section C, the system of cardinal numerals under 100 is not attested outside Sem, even if some single items or related roots be found in some non-Sem languages; those used as numerals show then such unusual phonetic correspondences that they are understandable only as resulting from borrowing through some unusual channels, such as may in fact have happened in connection with intertribal and international commerce in which numerals may in early times have had an important Sitz im Leben. Within Sem too, most numerals were found to have a plausible etymology only on the assumption of such a secondary spread from language to language as Kulturworter 2• The system must then have orginated some time after the speakers of Sem had parted company with those speaking what was destined to evolve into the non-Sem branches of the phylum, probably partly dispersed already. How long after the separation the system was formed and how long it took to complete is hard to tell because of its evidently secondary diffusion from language to language; however, some archaistic morphosyntactical features suggest a relatively early date. On psycholinguistic principles too, it may conceivably have arisen in conjunction with the so-called neolithic revolution,

22

Consequently, theories about proto-Sem syntax of numerals are idle speculation.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

119

when the production of objects of material culture began to increase so as to make accurate counting necessary, particularly in commerce. One archaistic feature is the ostensible reversal of congruence in nominal phrases involving the numerals 3 to 10, the formally fern. form being used in connection with masc. nouns and vice versa. Assuming Bauer's explanation23 of the phenomenon to be correct, it still leaves the use of the masc. form with fern. nouns anomalous, unless we assume that at the time it originated rules of congruence were still in fluctuation and that it was not necessary-perhaps not normal-to use more than one gender determinant in the entire phrase, and that in optional position; otherwise, I cannot see a reason why the extended form could not have been used everywhere. Abstract principles, such as the "rule of polarity" need concrete foundations from which they can be abstracted. Another archaistic feature is the use of the indeclinable masc.pI. form for tens, consistently explicable only on the assumption of approximative collective use before the exact values were fIxed, as a kind of plural of small numbers with considerable variation in value; only so can the same element have come to mean "two" in the word for 20, but "ten" in the other tens; cf. also the fact that in Akk SAr, the afformative used in these numerals is also used for dual in nominal declension; while in Eth, the element formally identical with the Akk one, does not recur in a connectable function in the nominal flexion and may thus be regarded as collective still. Its indeclinability is also a syntactically archaistic feature, meaning that the numeral is simply juxtaposed to the noun for the thing counted. This agrees with the fact that, as established above (p. 22t), the consonant text of the Bible still generally presupposes such constructions everywhere in connection with smaller numerals too, including the compound ones for 11 to 19, except that from the time of the exile onwards, st.cstr. forms begin to appear, but remain in minority in the consonant text wherever it makes distinction between the states; but after the fixation of the consonant text, constructus-like vocalization is introduced everywhere the consonant text allows it, apparently under the influence of Aram, in Pal Bab (Tib), cf. also esre Ez 40:49 Hi.; in Sam, however, the vocalization remains the same even where the longer form ends in / -t/ in the consonant text; this is then likely to be a foreign element in Sam, inherited from the Jewish dialect as a part of the biblical text. §3Z Pronouns.

In this chapter, pronouns are not divided into functional subcategories, as these often overlap etymologically and also morphologically. Deictic origins of pronouns have been intimated in some connections before; here we can examine the issue more comprehensively. However, as 23

See above, p. 23 with n.21.

120

HISTORICAL SURVEY

our study is centred on Hbr, the discussion is limited to those elements which are attested in the Hbr pronominal system. Anticipating the result of the investigation, these can be identified mainly according to the characteristic consonant underlying the respective elements as i) essentially vocalic; ii) In/element; iii) Ik/-element; iv) lxi-element; v) It/-element; vi) Im/-element; vii) Ih/-element; viii) Iz/-element; and ix) II/-element. i) The essentially vocalic element, although qualitatively varying, may best be regarded as a single one, as it always stands for l.pers.sg. The original vowel of the form functioning as the verbal preformative appears to be lal, as still in Hbr preserved in the forms in which it has been (secondarily) lengthened (e.g., hollow roots), cf. also Ug Akk Arab (primary stem etc.); the 1'1 preceding it in most historical attestations may be secondary consonantalization of the onset24, also in agreement with the open quality of the vowel. Elsewhere, the frontal Ii! is found in Hbr everywhere, although its originality is assured only in the sf. form in which it recurs throughout the phylum, including the otherwise largely deviating Om, in the form l-aYI in Janjero as a var. of the innovative form based on the separate PN, and apparently more commonly as li:1 in Hadya.2S In the Hbr separate forms, l-i:1 is apparently secondary, presumably due to the influence of the sf. form as well as of the verbal afformative, cf. Akk lana:kul to the longer form and /,anal attested or presupposed elsewhere in WSem (apart from SAr?). As for the verbal afformative, if its consonant is not original, its vowel may also be a secondary function of this element, due to the analogy of the suffixed form to which it may owe its quality in any case, even if the consonant be original part of the afformative26, cf. the lui vowel elsewhere in Sem. The vowel is generally preserved throughout, except that in the late Q documents from Wadi Murabba'at it is occasionally lost, cf. root Ixkr/27. The deictic identity is uncertain and, it seems, unattested in Hbr. ii) In/-element. This appears to be connected with the PTd Ihn(h)/ 28 which refers primarily to entities in the immediate visible presence, secondarily also to something conceived as imminent, about to appear at any moment. In pronominal usage, this basic function is realized as reference to what is close by, either the speaker itself or an entity in its immediate presence, such as the addressee or an object close by. More accurate distinctions are made partly by changes in vocalism, partly by the attachment of additional elements; in the PTd, there is an initial vowel whose onset has been consonantalized as Ih-I in Hbr Phoen Ug and early Aram, but as 1'-1 in later

24

Cf. Part II p. 19.

2S Cf. Cerulli, Studi Etiopici III p. 14.

26 Cf. below, on It/-element. 27 May be due partly to Aram influence, as this root wit~he tendency to reduce vocalism observable in these

See Part I Section E s.v.

is loan from Aram; but it agrees well documents, d. Part II p.153.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

121

Aram Arab ?Soq. In the personal pronoun, the element occurs generally in Sem with the prothetic vowel and j'-/ as its onset in the separate forms of the 1st and 2nd pers., although in l.pl., the prothetic element is absent in a Hbr var. Aram var. Akk SSem and in most non-Sem branches (except Eg; in Berb, Prasse reconstructs it for the proto-language) and could thus be secondary, presumably following the analogy of l.sg.; in the non-Sem branches, the nasal is generally confined to the 1st pers. 29 ; in Om, however, it occurs in sg. in the 2nd pers. instead, presumably under the influence of some neighbouring languages30 ; however, even so it is hardly understandable except on the assumption that at the time Om parted company with the rest of the phylum, pronouns were not yet clearly differentiated from the deictic elements, their basic deictic connotation being still in consciousness. In Chad, again, there is a widespread var. with the labial nasal /m/ replacing the oral one; this may be result of a secondary development, as also the denasalization of the consonant in Sdd and no doubt its widespread assimilation to an immediately following cons. in the 2nd pers. In the suffIxed forms as well as in the verbal pre- and afformatives it occurs in l.pI. only3\ without any prothetic element and with some secondary modifications of the subsequent vowel on the influence of the phonetic environments, partly also on functional analogy, /-u:/ being a common characteristic of pI.; this leaves /a/ again as the original vowel. The element is then widely appended at the end of the l.pl. separate form again, particularly in Sem, but also in other branches of the phylum, apparently after its identity with the initial element was forgotten; sometimes this has led to the dissimilatory elision of the initial nasal. The element occurs also in the directional particle /hnhp2; and outside Hbr33 in the demonstrative pronoun for the nearer object. On its role in the verbal N-stem see below (p. 142). iii) /k/ -element. This usually likewise refers to what is close by, whether locally, temporally or ideally, cr. the particles /k'n/, /kh/, /ky/, /kywn/34 etc. In the personal pronoun, however, it is used less frequently, occurring in the separate form of l.sg. more or less regularly in NSem (-Aram) Berb Eg only, perhaps also in Som (voiced); in l.pI., it is widespread in Berb only and could be due to the influence of l.sg., although the fact that it does occur sporadically as a second element in Om (and voiced in Som?) suggests that it might have had more original rudimentary occurrence in Berb too, reinforced and

29 The Eg /n-/ ofthe 2nd (and 3rd) pers. is manifestly secondary, as it is absent in the ear· liesY'0rms. Cf. Cerulli, Studi Etiopici III p. 11. 31 The /-n-/ in the sf. form of l.sg. after words ending (originally) in a vowel is no doubt a hiatus-filler, presumably influenced by the separate form; in 2.3.pl.f. it is a phonetic modificatiOI~ff the /m/-element, cf. below. See Part I Section E S.v. 33 E.g., in All Cush Om Chad; whether the more recent Eg /n/ is related is not clear. Part I Section E S.vv.

34

122

HISTORICAL SURVEY

extended through the influence of l.sg. As a verbal afformative of l.sg. it occurs in Akk SAr Eth (Bil) and probably underlying Berb /-1/, cf. Shilxa var. I-xl, although the former more commonly alternates with /q/ which, however, is not found anywhere in deictic or pronominal function. In the 2nd pers. it is more widespread, occurring in the separate forms in Berb Chad and more sporadically in Cush (mostly in oblique cases); and probably secondarily (based on the sf. form) in Har Ch, as no doubt in the more recent Eg forms; whether the /c-/ of the ancient Eg forms derives from /k/ is not clear. In the sf. forms, however, /k/ is present or presupposed throughout the phylum, wherever sf. forms are used; but in the verbal afformative, it occurs only in (modern) SAr Eth. The It/-element (cf. below) largely alternates with it in the 2nd pers. iv) lx/-element. This element has a very limited distribution, occurring only as the second element in the separate form of l.pers.pl. in Sem35 ; no deictic element with conceivably relevant meaning is found eithe~. Whether a related element has existed in some non-Sem branches (Cush Om Chad?) and lost due to the loss of the phoneme is not clear either. In any case, the only explanation which seems plausible is that the element is an ancient one which was disused in other connections in pre-Sem times already. v) It/-element. This element is used mainly in the 2nd pers., largely in complementary distribution with the /k/ -element, but to varying extent in different branches, sub-branches and even single languages, suggesting that in the earliest times they were facultative variants. However, the present element is used practially always in the 2nd pers. and related functions, occurring in l.sg. in the separate form in Om only (cf. above, on /n/element); even there, the pI. has the It/-element in the 2nd pers. and the verbal afformatives even in sg.37; the sg. separate form is thus a solitary aberration from the general pattern which appears to use this element basically in an objectiva/ sense. This is selfevident in its basic function characterizing the 2nd pers., the addressee being in an objectival relationship to the speaker; but the relationship can be transferred to other contexts, e.g., to the gender distinction in so far as the speaker and the masc. gender are commonly considered to be (more) active, the addressee and the fern. (more) passive; this is illustrated, e.g., by Som verbal flexion in which the sg. forms for the 1st pers. and 3rd pers.masc. are identical and distinct from those of the 2nd pers. and 3rd pers.fem. which again are identical. I think therefore that the /t/element characteristic of fern. in the 3rd pers.sg. verbal pre- and (originally) afformatives as well as in most fern. Ns and the gender inflection of Na and

35 Not attested in Akk SEth, but the lack may be secondary, Ber~/-k-/ is hardly connected, d. above, on /k/-element.

due to phonetic developments;

Pharyngalized var. of /k-/? d. the Mhr PTdt and Blake in JAOS 62 p.lll (but /xa~u/ is sg-fcturally and semantically difficult and /00/ has verbal affmities). See, e.g., Cerulli, Studi Etiopici III p. 15ff.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

123

also in the nominal /t/-preformative38is identical with this element. The particle /'t/, used mostly to specify the object, could also be based on it, with somewhat varying prothetic accretion in NWSem, but always conceivable as primarily vocalic with secondary consonantalization of the onset; in modem SAr, no prothetic element at all; while in Arab, if indeed relevant, the original cons. has been lost. Finally, as the demonstrative pronouns too refer to objectival entities, the /t/-element occurs in them also, in Hbr Arab only in the fern. forms for the nearer object39, but elsewhere (Akk SAr Eth Cush Om, cf. Chad Eg too) in other connetions too, including masc., pI. and the farther object from which it has then often spread to some forms fo the 3rd pers. of the pesonal pronoun; purely deictic use also occurs, e.g., in Bii. On the verbal t-stems cf. below (p. 141ff). vi) /m/-element. This element occurs throughout the phylum, occasionally with the prothetic vowel or other modification, in the interrogative and often also indefinite and relative functions. From the relative usage, the /m/-preformative of nouns, including the verbal nouns of agent and (in Hbr rather infrequent) of action can be identified as formed by means of this element; the indefinite usage again underlies several features some of which, however, are either not attested in Hebrew or are only in petrified remnants. One of these is the so-called mimation, generally accepted to have arisen from the attachment of this element at the end of the noun and as a rule indicating lack of determination; it may be present in Hbr in some PTa afformatives40 and apparently also in the final cons. of the noun pI.masc.41st.abs. /-m/, as its behaviour is largely parallel to that of mimation, in so far as it is lacking when the noun is determined by means of a suffixed pronoun or other subordinate attribute; true, the element does remain, when PTdt is prefixed to the noun, but that is a relatively late, secondary development and shows by its very existence that the original function and significance of the /m/-element had been forgotten. In the pronominal system the element likewise functions as a pI. afformative, in the 2.3.pI. of the personal pronoun. The labial nasal is preserved in the masc. forms, whereas in fern. it is transformed into /n/, apparently due to the influence of the /i! vowel characteristic of fem.sg. in both persons. The forms have been partly harmonized in different ways in different languages; in Aram Akk, the /n/ consonant has been generalized, but the gender distinction maintained in vocalism; in Hbr, the consonantism has been preserved, but the front vowel generalized; so in Mhr too, but in 3.pI. added distinction is given by different initial cons., while in Soq, /n/ has 38

NB. most of the nouns formed by it are fem.; but even where this is not the case, an

obj~~tival connotation is apparent; e.g., /talmiYd/ as the object of the instruction.

In Hbr often regarded as the common fem. afformative; but this does not normally occur in pronouns and on the Arab parallel better identified more directly with the objectival ele~ent. 41

See § 13 above. Plus some fem. nouns, notably in the form /-(ayi)m/.

124

HISTORICAL SURVEY

been generalized along with front vowel, so that there is no general distinction in 2.pI. and in 3.pI. only the different initial cons. does it; in Arab, again, the consonantism has been preserved, but the back vowel generalized. Some harmonization has taken place in the pI. too, as the labial nasal has been preserved in Hbr despite the generalization of the front vowel, whereas in Arab, Inl has been generalized despite the preservation of the lui vowel in nom. That the Arab pI. I-nl is a transformation of mimation is indicated by the fact that the sg. mimation too has been transformed into I-nl and that no nunation follows the pI. afformative and that the consonant of the latter is likewise omitted in st.cstr. and before suffIxes. In Gur, it is used in verbs to042.

vii) Ihl -element. This occurs primarily in the 3rd pers. of the personal pronoun, originally (as still in Hbr) identical with the demonstrative pronoun for the farther object. Relationship with PTdt Ih-I and PTd Ih'/ 43 cannot be ruled out, but in the light of the different distribution and rather patchy attestation of these does not seem probable. Moreover, their Ihl has no sibilant counterpart in items that could be semantically combinable; accordingly, for them to be etymologically connected, secondary origin would have to be assumed and at least the Berb ?Eg attestations of Ih'l deemed to be of separate origin. On the other hand, the stem preformative of the verbal H-stem does appear connected44, as its Ihl interchanges with a sibilant essentially on the same pattern of distribution as in the pronoun45• The question of the relationship between Ihl and the sibilant interchanging with it must still be discussed, as their etymological identity is still disputed46• Arguments against their original identity, however, are unconvincing in the light of the complementary occurrence of the glottal and sibilant in the pronoun and the stem preformative, the sibilant usually belonging to forms attested from earlier periods; and the fact that the glottal fricative is found replacing a more original sibilant both in Sem and elsewhere in the phylum and also in other languages outside it47• It is true that the development cannot be documented within one and the same historical language in these particular forms, but is quite plausible to assume that it has taken place in prehistoric times, as those languages with the glottal in the historically attested forms still show the sibilant in some related structures and often also closely related dialects show the sibilant throughout; moreover, the phonetic

42 Cf. e.g., Leslau in Proc.Int.Conf. on Sem.St. 1965 p.159. 43 See Part I Section E S.vv.

Cf. above, § 18. Assuming Arab /'-1 and Phoen Iy-I to be secondary developments from more original Ih- ~ as 1'-1 demonstrably in Aram. Cf., e.g., F. Rundgren, Bildungen p. 184. 47 E.g., Greek, d. €t, €1!'Ta, €P1IW vs. Lat sex, septem, serpo etc.; in Finnish alternating within the paradigm of one and the same word, e.g., mies "man", gn miehen etc. 44 45

HISTORICAL SURVEY

125

shift is attested in other lexical items beyond any doubt48• Accordingly, etymological connection between the glottal and the sibilant in these forms may be deemed probable, if not certain. viii) /z/-element. In Hbr, this occurs principally in the PNd sg. for the nearer object, but also - partly with vocalic modification - in the scantily attested relative pronoun; both have cognates in the other WSem languages, but not in Akk or the other branches of the phylum. On the other hand, in which seems to be of northern the relative function it has an allomorph / dialectal origin, as it occurs in early biblical texts only in the song of Deborah (Jd ch. 5) doubtless of northern origin and in late post-exilic texts as well as post-biblical Hbr where northern influence is conceivable; it also has cognates in Phoen (Ug?) Akk only. Although etymological connection with /z-/ seems improbable, it may have been functionally connected with the latter as an allomorph in NSem at an early period, but gained predominance only dialectally. /z/ occurs finally also in the rudimentary PNd for the intermediary object alongside /1/ (and /h/). ix) /1/-element. This element occurs in Hbr mainly in the pI. of the PNd for the nearer object (in a late form reduplicated and alongside /h/) which has cognates elsewhere in Sem apart from SEth and may thus be of early Sem origin; and also in the PNd for the intermediary object alongside /z/ (and /h/) which seems to be Hbr innovation.

I-/

§38. Particles.

As the subcategories of particles are largely interconnected and, moreover, do not show much development during the historical period of Hbr at least, they also are best discussed together. In fact, it appears that all the particles may belong to one of two major classes with regard to their origin, although in some cases it is not possible to tell which one, as the historically attested forms are very brief and do not show sufficient formal and/or semantic similarities to elements in other major categories to be deemed etymologically connected, whether in consequence of substantial loss of original phonetic factors or because of original uniqueness. The two categories are: i) deictic-interjectional49 and ii) mor48 E.g., in modern SAr in the roots InpSI, ISm/, ISm&1 etc. and in the numerals for 6 and 7; in ESA, as is well known, the Sabaean dialect has the glottal in the pronoun and the causative stem, but the sibilant still in the causative-reflexive, while the other dialects have the sibilant everywhere; in Arab Eth (and rarely Aram Hbr) too, the sibilant has been preserved in causative-reflexive stems; and in Akk Ug, the sibilant alone occurs in the verbal forms. With regard to the pronoun, Ug is out of step, having Ihl in it already; while in modern SAr, fern. has lsi throughout, but the masc. has fhl except in Jibbali which has lSI which is also found in the causative-reflexive everywhere, whereas causative has Ihl or nothing at all. The phonetic shift is thus incomplete in SAr Ug, showing the pronoun more advanced in Ug, but less so in modern SAr. For a somewhat similar situation in Tu cf. Prasse, Manuel I-III p. 45ff. Cf. also .r:dzard in StOr 55 p. 247ff. 4 For a more detailed treatment of most of these and some related constructions CC.

126

HISTORICAL SURVEY

phosyntactical. i) the deictic-interjectional subcategory is regarded as a single one, because both deictic particles and the so-called pure interjections have most salient characteristics in common: both are more or less emotionally accentuated, abrupt calls for attention. Pure interjections may, on the average, have stronger emotional accentuation, but this too may be due to their only truly distinctive characteristic, to wit, that they call attention to the speaker itself, whereas deictic particles direct it to some other entity. Needless to say, all PTij and PTd belong to this sub-category; but some other PT may also, more or less confidently, be assigned to it. One is /kiY/, fundamentally deictic, apparently cognate with the /k/ -element discussed above in the pronominal system, but mostly used as PTcj, both co-ordinative and subordinative50 ; on the other hand, it is hard to tell whether PTpr /k-/ belongs to the same group, as the semantic connection is rather equivocal and in any case not strong; whereas PTa /kh/ and its derivatives have plausible formal and semantic links. The short form of PTd /hn(h)/ is also used as a subordinative PTcj in some late biblical texts, but this may be due to the influence of Aram. The local PTa /hnh/ and / I m/II are also evidently of deictic orign, the former perhaps ultimately related to the pronominal In/-element and hence again to the PTd /hn(h)/, but not directly, as the Arab cognate is different; the Hbr form is apparently conceived as containing the PTdir /_ah/, likewise of deictic origin and still purely of deictic nature to051 • The negations too are conceivably deictic in origin, particularly the prohibitive one which is almost interjectional in nature; and so the PTdt and probably PTir /h-/; and PTcj jlw(y)j. ii) The morphosyntactical subcategory comprises all the other PT, as far as

their origin is discernible52 • The term means that the relevant particles have originated from certain nominal or verbal inflectional forms or also from entire phrases or short sentenceS. Most adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions belong to this subcategory as well as PTrel /'Ir/, a good example of a PT derived from a Ns in st.cstr. Another one is PTpr /'xr/ of which facultative var. based on pl.st.cstr. is also used alongside and always with the suffixed pronouns; together with simple PTa it also forms compound adverbs which may also function as compound conjunctions; e.g., /'xry kn/, cf. the analogous /&1 kn/, /lkn/, /(w)bkn/. In other cases, st.cstr. of Ns is directly appended to a PTpr to form compound PTpr, e.g., /&1 pny/, /lpny/, /mpny/; more PTpr may be added for more precise meaning e.g., /m&l pny/, MU!8oka, Emphatic words ch. 7. 5 Cf. § 14 above. 1 The fact that ISm/II sometimes occurs in Pal Bab (Tib) too with fmal I_ah I without any directional connotation may be due to archaistic preservation of the final vowel of the particle itseyt cf. Sam in which it is always present. Of doubtful origin are, above all, the preflXable PTpr and PTcj /b-I, Ik-I, II-I, Iw-I; also 1'I(y)1 which may be cognate with II-/.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

127

/mlpny/; simple prepositions may also be combined, e.g., /m't/, /m&lj, /m'xry/. Of verbal origin are, e.g., /'ow/ and /pn/, both originally short forms of imp used as co- and subordinative PTcj, respectively. Contraction of an interrogative NP, also used as an elliptical St is /kycd/, cf. the fuller varr. /kyzcd/, /k'yzh cd/; an elementary verbal St as a rhetorical question is contained in /my ytn w-/, sometimes contracted to /mytn w-/; perhaps also in /mty/, if contracted from */mh 'tV/; also augmented to /'ymty/, /&d mty/. Nouns with petrified mimation are, e.g., /xnm/, /ywmmj.53 The use of compound adverbs and prepositions appears to increase towards the end of the biblical period, allowing for more precise definition of meaning and thus reflecting increasing analytical nature of the language; however, as the dates of origin of the different books are mostly known in rough approximation, it does not seem possible to make a reliable statistical study of it. Our post-biblical material is also mostly too limited and too diverse in nature for a comparative statistical treatment. §39. Formation and declension a/nouns.

As the formation of nominal types overlaps with declension, some features of the latter having become permanent formative elements, discussion of their history is best done in the same paragraph again. It has been established alreadyS" that only a few of the simplest nominal types are demonstrably traceable to the pre-Sem period; to wit, the monoradical /q(V)/; the biradical /qalj, /qulj, /qil/; the triradical monosyllabic /qatl/, /qutl/, /qitl/ and bisyllabic /qatalj. Moreover, /qil/ and /qitl/ may have been in complementary distribution with /qul/ and /qutl/, respectively, the quality of the vowel determined by the phonetic environment. As no unique or even prevalent semantic pattern corresponding to anyone of these types is observable in the pre- nor even common Sem material, origins of the system of nominal types can hardly be dated back to the pre-Sem period. This agrees with the fact that no analogous coherent system exists in the nonSem branches of the phylum; such isolated instances of a semantic feature corresponding to a formal pattern as have been observed are attributable to psycholinguistic or other semantic factors 55 and are in any case far too few to be regarded as constituting a system56• 53 For more examples cf. § § 13-16 above (also for the first subcategory); in Part I Section E the items belonging to the second subcategory are also usually recognizable by the reference to t!>.f underlying root in Section Ba. See Part I Section Bb Introduction p. 53ff. 55 Cf., e.g, Vycichl in Museon 65 p. Iff; OLZ 48 p.293f (an intensive formation). Again, in Berb verbal forms gemination is characteristic of intensive formations or a sub-class of redupliCfJion, cf. Prasse, Manuel VI-VII p. 36, 48f etc. Cf. also Leslau in JAOS 73 p. 164ff. E.g., the frequent prothetic vowel in Berb masc. nouns vis-a-vis the formative /t! in both initial and final position in the fern. ones constitute simply gender distinction, even that rather different in form from the Sem one. The few examples of • /maqtul/ in Eg Berb (Vycichl, Discussions in Egyptology 1 p. 6ff; no evidence for long /u:/) are at best rudimentary beginnings.

128

HISTORICAL SURVEY

On the other hand, as the system is recognizable in all the sub-branches of Sem, even if in considerably variant forms particularly in (modem) SAr and SEth, it must be considered to have common Sem origins. During the protoSem period, several features characteristic also of verbal stem formation as well as both nominal and verbal inflection in fact seem to have emerged; at least, they are not demonstrable for earlier history of Sem. The most important are phonological length of sounds and formation of pI. which are largely interconnected, the phonological length being used for the formation of pI. in many cases. The fact that formation of pI. is attested in all the branches of the phylum does not mean that it should be dated to common SoH period; most other languages of the world likewise form pl., although they may be demonstrably unrelated and never been in contact. Formation of pI. is connected with the need to make distinction between different quantities of objects and/or other entities and therefore with the creation of a numeral system, in principle at least. It may be argued that one of the two is redundant; particularly, if you have an accurate numeral system, grammatical pI. is unnecessary. However, language being an ill-defined entity, all languages show many redundant features; particularly, when an important need arises, several alternative solutions tend to be created more or less simultaneously. As observed above in connection with the numeral system, the increase of agricultural and other industrial production as well as of commerce in the so-called neolithic revolution may have created the need in consequence of which not only the numeral system, but also pI. inflection was created. The latter was therefore probably created about the same time as the numeral system, i.e., during the late common Sem period or soon afterwards. This agrees with the fact that wide differences exist with regard to the means and methods of pI. formation between different sub-branches of Sem, but that nevertheless the same elements frequently recur, even in some non-Sem branches. The issue is further complicated by the fact that pI. formation is frequently intertwined with gender distinction. Distinction of grammatical gender is not response to any obvious grammatical need, but is nevertheless found in a large number of languages, including all the branches of the SoH phylum. It could, therefore, be of preSem origin; but the fact that it is often intertwined with pI. formation indicates that it had at least not been finally settled before the formation of pI. Formation of pI. in effect marked transition from collective to more individualistic, pluralistic concepts. Collective concepts do not distinguish between quantities; the same expression may refer to one or more representatives of common characteristic quality or other factor expressed in the term. In many cases, therefore, an originally collective expression came to be used as pl., while a special afformative was used to form a noun of unit func-

HISTORICAL SURVEY

129

tioning as sri'. With It I as its characteristic consonant, this afformative was formally identical with the prevalent fern. one and was subsequently treated as fern. in many instances (in Hbr, always). More important is, however, that the same (ie., at least etymologically identical) pI. afformative is often applied to nouns of either gender in different languages and even within one and the same language. So in Hbr, although l-iYml is rare in fern. nouns, l-oWtl is more frequent in masc. ones, usually phonetically conditioned, and I-ay(i)ml also occurs in two ancient pI. tantum ones; while l-eY I serves as st.cstr. to any l-iYml and I-ay(i)ml regardless of gender. Interlingually, in G&z numerous masc. nouns likewise form pI. with I-at/, while in SEth, the probably cognate l-ac(c)/, l-oc(c)1 is virtually the only pI. afformative regardless of the gender, except in the western (or central) Gur languages which show hardly any nominal inflection at a1l58• In Som59, the afform. 1-0/, perhaps related to the Sem l-u:/, turns sg.f. into pI.m. and vice versa, while I -ya:ll forms masc. plurals from sg. nouns of either gender. In Berb, I-nl (with secondary differentiation of the preceding vowel) usually forms plurals of either gender, although rudimentary survival of I-tl is attested, e.g., in the pI. of the word for "son (of.J", and perhaps preceding I-nl in some (both masc. and fern.) formations . In Eg61, however, regular distinction of genders appears, masc.pI. being formed by I -wi which survives in Cpt and may be cognate with Sem l-u:/; while for fern., I-tl is added (sometimes without preceding I-w-/) which, however, does not survive in Cpt, leaving behind I-wei, I-wil which indictes that I-w-I was present in the fem.pI. too despite intermittent defective writing; accordingly, fem.pI. was differentiated secondarily from the masc. one by addition of the fern. afformative l-t/ 62 which also implies differentiation of genders only after pI. formation. Finally, the well-known treatment of broken plurals in Arab syntactically as fem.sg. also indicates intimate intertwining of gender distinction and pI. formation. All in all, there may have been beginnings for both in pre-Sem times, but they were not systematized until after the S-H and partly even Sem linguistic community had broken up. The variation in the method and elements used for pI. formation between different Sem sub-branches and partly even single languages also indicates lack of final settlement of the system until well after proto-Sem times; occasionally, fluctuation is observed still during the historical period. Particularly in SSem, the multiplicity of pI. formation is apparent, not only in the socalled inner or broken plural forms, but also in that different forms are used frequently for different sizes of plural, including wider use of dual than generally elsewhere, plurals of small numbers and of large numbers as well as plurals of plurals (of plurals); it may be assumed that such formations 5' Mentioned above in connection with numerals (p. 23 n. 21); for examples see, e.g., my Bro~en plurals, Part II D. " 59 e.g., Hetzron, Gunnan-Gurage p. 52f.

a.,

According to Saeed p. 12. 60 Basset p. 24f; cf. Zyhlarz in ZfES 22p.1ff. 61 E.g., Sander-Hansen p. 54; Steindorff p. 67ff. Lack of indication in some very early texts (Faglkner § 1) could also mean that pI. was not yet differentiated from sg. (cf. Gur). Sander-Hansen p. 52f; cf. Sem.

130

HISTORICAL SURVEY

were created elsewhere to some extent, but were relatively soon discarded as redundant after the generalization of the numeral system, so that only some remnants of dual remained. Outside SSem, pI. formation usually takes place by means of afformatives; it is the origins and history of these which concerns us now. For a starting point, we must still go outside Hbr. It was already observed63 that the socalled diptote declension was probably the earlier one, conceivably deriving from the period when the close vowel phoneme was not yet differentiated into /u/ and /if. The close vowel came to be used to mark the case of the active subject, usually called nominative64, the open one that of the object and comparable parts of utterances. We observe here the same dichotomy into subjectival and objectival entities as discussed in connection with the pronominal /t/-element65 which was also observed to have been applied to the contrast masc. (as mainly active) vs. fern. (as passive). This dichotomy appears to have been applied to the pI. formation in an analogous fashion, the simplest pI. forms have been created by the lengthening of the case vowels, resulting in /-u:/ for masc. and /-a:/ for fem.pI. It is true that these afformatives are not much in evidence in nominal declension; but what evidence we have is indicative of an early origin. /-u:/ occurs in early and middle Akkadian, even there as a functional var. only, and is completely disused in the later periods; but the more common verbal usage66 can hardly be detached from it; the Eg / -w/ can hardly be anything but cognate with it either, although apparently diphthongized, cf. Cpt. As for /-a:/, it is found in some broken pI. forms such as /fi&la:'/, /fu&ala:'/, /fa&a:la:/ etc., and again, it can hardly be detached from the verbal /-a:/. In most cases, however, the simple forms were augmented and, after the differentiation of /i/ from /u/ as a phoneme, also vocalically modified to fulfil the needs for functional differentiation as they arose. The objectival-feminine /-t/ was commonly appended to the fern. /-a:/ in the nominal function, but also to the masc. /-u:/ in functions other than the active subject, cf. Akk. The pronominal /m/-element also discussed above67 provided the rnasc. pI. with the final element parallel to the mimation of the indetermined sg. and other pI. forms, later reinterpreted as st.abs. as against the st.cstr. without the /m/-element as being determined by the subsequent subordinate attribute (noun or sf.). The oblique case was differentiated by substituting the newly phonematized /i:/ for the nominative /u:/; in consequence of this, the labial nasal may have been lar~ely transformed into the front oral one as regularly in the fem.pI. pronouns ; but due to the influence of the nominative, the

See the Introduction, p. 2 above. More accurately probably ergative vs. stative-accusative as the case of the inactive subject and object in the early period, as still reflected, e.g., in Arab in the use of ac as the case of other verbal adjuncts beside the object. However, as our materials do not give occasion to discusUhe problem, we do not go further into it. See above, p. 122. 66 Cf. Moscati in JNES 17 p. 149ff. Even if the sg. case vowels were originally anceps, the lenff. was incidental, not distinctive. See p.123f. 68 See ib. 63 64

HISTORICAL SURVEY

131

Can-Ug sub-branch was either able to withstand the phonetic development or analogically restore the labial nasal to the oblique case which eventually replaced the nominative altogether in Can. The latter development took place in Aram as well, but there, the oral nasal persisted in st.abs., while a special PTdt appended to st.cstr. replaced other means of determination subsequently almost entirely. In Arab, again, the oral nasal replaced the labial one even in the nominative, perhaps aided by the existence of another pI. afformative in which /n/ seems to be original. The element was found in Berb already above as the nearly exclusive pI. afformative, consisting practically of the consonant only; in Chad too, pI. afformatives containing the oral nasal (also the velar one) are occasionally found69, but they are rarely used and it is not clear whether they are in fact cognate or related to the Berb or Sem element. The Berb afformative, however, can plausibly be connected with the Sem one in the light of the wide distribution of both; the starting point may have been / -ani with a short vowel, reduced and partly fronted in Berb, but usually lengthened in Sem and at the same time often shifted to a closer allophone range70• It is found as a regular pI. masc. afformative in Akk (SAr?)71 NEth, but has been specialized to function as duo nominative in Arab ESA(?), the oblique case being differentiated by diphthongal formation /-ayn/. Whether the Hbr Aram minority pI. and duo afformative /-ay(i)m/, /-ayin/ is connected with this is not entirely clear; if so, replacement of the original /-n/ by /-m/, presumably in parallelism with the masc.pl. /-iYm/ would have to be assumed for Can; it is also possible to derive the afformative from the afformative /-e:/ found in the st.cstr. plus the /m/-element, while the Aram form remains equivocal, cf. its diphthongation in st. determinativus. As for the /-e:/- afform. itself, it may be diphthongal in origin, cf. the Arab broken pI. patterns ending in / -aY/ (secondarily monophthongized) and the Eth collectives ending in /_e:j12. In Arab, however /-a:n/ is alsp used as an afformative of certain types of broken plurals, often again of collective character; from this, it appears to have shifted to the formation of adjectives in which it is mostly used in Hbr (with the closer allophone of the vowel, in Sam amalgamated with the close back vowel); the shift is natural, as adjectives presuppose more than one entity from which the quality can be abstracted; and so the more generally ~bstract Ns. In this way, an original inflectional afformative came to be used in nominal stem formation. Another example of similar development is the above mentioned /-a:/, but as */'aryay/ is probably a wandering word, its occurrence in genuine Hbr words is hardly demonstrable. The basic connotation of the /-iY/-afformative too is so genitival that it

69 See, e.g., Jungraithmayr, Ron p. 33; Kraft & Kirk-Greene, Hausa p. 126f. 70 Cf. Part II p. 173. 71 For ESA, the vocaIization is unknown; but the Soq form with the back vowel (Johnstone, MSA p. 21) is connectable; however, the ESA dual /-yn/ (d. Hofner p. 108) suggests specializa~n after Arab pattern, although the parallel is not complete. Cf. Dillmann-Bezold p. 277; most of the examples enumerated (§127c) are manifestly collective in nature, not only those for "army" and "bunch", but also those for insects, birds, animals and plants as generic terms, those for "fog" and "dung" as uncountable entities, perhaps also that for the ruminant stomach as a container for comparable stuff.

132

HISTORICAL SURVEY

appears to be connected with the gn case vowel I-il in the triptote declension. It occurs in all the Sem sub-branches 73 as well as in Eg74, but is hardly demonstrable in the other non-Sem branches of the phylum; its occurrence is thus comparable to that of the pI. afform. l-u:/, and again, the Eg spelling as well as the extant Cpt forms 7 presuppose diphthongal formation; accordingly, simple long vowels are not attested outside Sem. The same is the case with the Eg nouns formed by the afformative I-wi, f. l-wtF6 thus identical with the pI. forms in script and in fact often treated as pI.; they are therefore not comparable to the I-tl-formations based on secondary afformatives derived from the final vowel of III V roots with the fern. afformative; these are in fact later formations, as they do not seem to occur outside NSem71. The afform. I-nl in the root Icpr1111 is probably an early form of I-a:nl discussed above, cf. Berb ib. 1-1/ and I-ml are too scantily attested to allow conclusions beyond what was stated above (p. 66). Nominal types formed with preformatives do not have many parallels outside Sem either, Those formed with the pronominal Im/-element78 occur also in Eg'79; those with the objectival-feminine It_ISO seem to have plenty of parallels in Berb, but their relevance is doubtful, as the element is put both pre- and postpositively just for the indication of gender; as this is against the Sem usage8!, little connection beyond the identity of the It/-element is demonstrable, as any semantic similarity may derive from its basic connotation. Again, the /'-I-preformative being apparently of phonetic origin82, no direct connection between it and the prothetic vowels found more or less occasinally in other branches of the phylum can be assumed; likewise, functional dissimilarity between Iy-I-elements in other branches83 and the Sem one precludes any direct connection, particularly as the latter's distribution in Sem too is limited to NWSem Aram and Arab84. The other preformatives, mainly based on verbal stems8S, have also more or less limited distribution within Sem; as their history is connected with that of the respective verbal stems and their occurrence scanty apart from late formations, they are not further discussed here. As to the origins of the types with preformatives, those with the pronominal Im/-element may indeed be based on elementary sentences, the pronoun being used in relative function, "(he) who ...", "(that) which ... "; however, the ~ includingAkk, cf. v.Soden, GAG §56(p)q.

See, e.g., Sander-Hansen p. 48. 75 Steindorff p. 62ff. 76 Sander-Hansen p. 47f. 71 Cf. B-L p. 504ff; some nouns ending in /-iYt/, however, are substantivized fem. forms wit\the afform. / -iY/. Cf. above p. 55ff. '79 Sander-Hansen p. 49; for survivals in Cpt cf. Steindorff p. 58f. SO Cf. above, p. 57f. 81 In the fem. nouns formed by this element it naturally occurs twice, but as a gender mar~er in the final position only. 8 See above, p. 53. 83 E.g., occasionally in Berb as a var. of prothetic vowel; cf., e.g., Beguinot p. 35f. 84 Cf. B-L p. 487f; also in Phoen Ug in Npr at least, cf. Harris, Grammar in the glossary s.vvJ&rt/, /&mc/ etc.; Gordon, UT Grammar §8.49. See above, p. 54ff.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

133

assumption of contraction from more articulate stmtences86 seems to me to have little basis in the attested forms. With the other preformatives, the assumption of syntactical origin has still less plausibility; the structure of those with /t/-preformative, mostly including fern. afformative too, does not agree with any normal conjugated Sem verbal form, and the later types based on verbal stems rather suggest an interpretation as a verbal noun, cf. the Arab nact of D-, tD- and tL-stems; again, /'-/ is best conceived as a result of phonetic development, as observed above already; while /y-/ has apparently deictic origin87, and although that does have parallel in verbal conjugation, the element seems to have retained more of the original deictic emphasis in the nominal function and can therefore hardly be secondary in relation to the verbal one; the vocalization - usually anyway - does not agree with pref 3.sg.m. either. With regard to the origins of the types without pre- and afformatives, little new can be stated here. As already observed, only a few simplest types are demonstrably traceable to the pre-Sem period88, even they without corresponding distinct semantic patterns; and although it is plausible to assume that other vocalic patterns existed in early times, to be largely disused as the patterns were progressively systematized, there is no positive evidence for the existence of phonological length in them in pre-Sem times89• It was presumably again the need for greater expresssivity caused by the emergence of new cultural and social factors during the common Sem period and subsequently until the early historical times that caused the creation of types with long vowels and/or consonants of permanent status and thus phonological value. Their affective origins are indicated by the fact that they usually occur in roots and/or inflectional patterns or also single nouns with emotionally accentuated or otherwise intensified connotations, including the notion of continuity or Jermanency also psychologically in agreement with prolongation of sounds . In agreement with the principle of linguistic economy, usually only one sound, whether vowel or consonant, was prolonged in the same pattern in early times, the few exceptions carrying a higher affective charge, whether positive, as in the word for "hero" (root /gbr/), or negative, as for "drunkard" (root IJkr/); later on, however, the expressivity of the long sound appears to decrease, and forms with both a long consonant and a long

86 Cf. B-L p. 485, 488. 87 See above, p. 55.

: See above, p. 127. Where evidence for long sound dating from relatively early periods exists - as, e.g., for long consonants in Berb, or long vowels for Eg in Cpt -, the lack of corresponding patterns in other branches usually indicates secondary origin in that branch only; where there is some correspondence between different branches - such as some nomilla agentis or intensive verbal formations - parallelism is explicable on psycholinguistic factors, the length being created by added emphasis inherent also in the notion of continuity or permanency frequently characteristic of nouns of agent and may thus have been originally facultative, without phonological status, cf. the fact that in Hbr-particularly Sam-verbal nouns of agent without long vowels are.Mill in evidence (cf. p. 67f above). Cf. also the reduplication of part or all of the root in the types with repetitive or frequentative connotation, found also in verbal flexion in SSem and also in some non-Sem branches, as well as in pI. formation, although rarely in Hbr.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

134

vowel become more common, particularly the types jqatti:lj and jquttu:lj, to some extent jqattu:lj to091 • The position of the prolonged sound seems to be significant too. It is generally agreed that in the triradical bisyllabic types it is mostly the 2nd rad. and 2nd stem vowel that are prolonged; length of the 3rd rad., where attested, is usually recognizable as secondary, and nouns with an original long vowel in the 1st syll. are few apart from the verbal noun of agent of the primary stem in which it appears to be secondary also92. It also hints to a clue for the solution of the problem; as stated, in SarnH there is variation between a short and a long vowel in the 1st syll. even in the same root, mostly a short one in the basic sg.m. form without any additional elements, sometimes in pl.cs. and fern. forms too, but irregularly, indicating secondary confusion to some extent; in the main, however, it appears that the short vowel occurs in shorter forms which may be assumed to have been more lightly accentuated in ordinary spoken language; the long vowel may thus have been created as an accentual variant in the longer, more heavily accentuated forms, primarily presumably in the determined sg.m. form in which it still most regularly contrasts with the short one presupposed by the plain one, e.~., jya:ca:j (/ < * jyaca' j) vs. jeyyu:ca:j « * jha-ya:ca' j), jJ a:kebj « * jJ akibj) vs. jeffu:kebj « * jha-fa:kibj); where the plain form has the long vowel, an exceptional emotional stress or connotation of permanency appears to be responsible, e.g., jzu:na:j "harlot", j f u:fa7j "judge". The fact that the formative long vowel, where of ancient origin, occurs practically invariably in the 2nd stem syll. thus presupposes the location of the word accent on that syllable at the time of its creation. On the other hand, the just as exclusive location of the formative long consonant in the middle of the triradical root appears to presuppose the word accent on the preceding vowel, i.e., on the first stem syllable. The question is whether this implies free location of the accent on different syllables in different words, or whether some regularity can be discovered. The difference in the effects of the accent on different syllables points to the latter alternative, as a possibility at least. It is generally recognized that secondary "gemination", or lengthening of a consonant is usually associated with a heavier or sharper type of accent on the preceding syllable, so-called expiratory stress, whereas secondary lengthening of a vowel may be associated with a lighter kinds of accent too, including predominantly musical or pitch accent. The different effects of the accent in different locations may thus presuppose qualitative change in the nature of the accent along with a shift in its location; the question is then, which quality and location is the earlier one. It does not seem possible to answer that question on the basis of nominal material alone; anticipating the result of the investigation of verbal stems in the next paragraph we assign priority to the accent on the first stem syllable and lengthening of the subsequent consonant. As the effects of expiratory stress also include reduction in the sonority of unaccented syllables and hence, of vocalism generally, it is then plausible to assume that during the :~ Cf. p. 50f above.

Cf. above, p. 67ff.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

135

period when it was prevalent, short word final vowels - if there had been such previously-were omitted and the basic stem forms thus ended in the last stem consonant; the stress was thus in these basic forms at least-which no doubt were used most frequently-on the penultimate syllable. It is then conceivable that when the accent grew lighter and allowed creation of word final short vowels which led to the creation of first the diptote and then triptote declension, the shift in the location of the accent took place to maintain it on the penultima. The relatively few instances of long vowels in the 1st syll. of ancient origin may have been created during the period of transition. Some developments in irregular roots still require discussion. Lengthening of either the stem vowel or of the 2nd rad. (or alternatively its repetition) in biradical roots may have started about the same time as in the triradical ones, resulting in the creation of the classes of the hollow (II V) and continuable (II gem.) roots. In nominal types, the creation of the latter had an obvious model in the monosyllabic triradical ones, the long consonant standing for the cluster of the 2nd and 3rd rads.; the same pattern is maintained even after the cluster was broken up, by repetition of the 2nd rad. in later formations, such as Pal /renen/ from the root /rn(n)f. For the hollow roots, no such obvious model existed, and so the prolongation of the vowel may have been entirely due to accentual factors, and so it is understandable that, in verbal forms at least, it did not take place in all the inflectional forms, notably those where a cluster of two consonants followed the stem vowel93 ; as this is normally not the case in nominal types, simple prolongation of the existing stem vowel has regularly taken place, where this was close, i.e., lui, as in /gu:r/, /nu:r/, /cu:r/, /ru:x/ etc. or, where differentiated, Iii, as in /di:n/, /ri:b/, /Ji:r/ and secondarily /'i:J/, /&i:r/ etc.; in the case of the open vowel phoneme /a/, the lengthening involved phonetic shift to the closer allophones, mostly a more or less open /0:/, as in /'o:r/, /bo:J/, /mo:t/, /qo:l/ etc., although in some cases again, a frontal allophone may have been created, where a following front oral consonant favoured it, as in /be:c/, /be:t/, /&e:n/ etc; alternatively, where the phonetic environment (gutturals and other back consonants) favoured more open vowels, /0:/ and /e:/ could have resulted from a simple lengthening of a more open allophone of /u/ and Iii, respectively, e.g., in /mo:7(at)/ (glottalized 2nd rad.), /xe:qf. Finally, in a number of cases, the analogy of the most frequent triradical pattern /qatlj caused the transformation of the forms with /0:/ and /e:/ into diphthongal patterns /qawlj and /qayl/, as commonly in Arab and in the Gr Lat transcriptions of Hbr, in Hbr futher developed into bisyllabic forms /qawelj, /qayil/ in consequence of the break-up of word final clusters, while reduced overall sonority in st.cstr. either preserved or restored the simple long vowel in it. The development of diphthongs and subsequent bisyllabic forms may have been aided by the presence of a guttural as the 1st rad. in a number of roots favouring a more open vowel, cf. the roots /'wn/, /,yl/, /'ym/, /xwV/III, /xwc/ (Tib), /xyl/II, /&wl/II, /&wr/III, /&y7/, /&yn/, /&yp/, /&yr/ (Bab pl.II); in /xwr/, /&wl/, /&wr/ etc. more advanced

93

In NWSem at least; cf. the next paragraph.

136

HISTORICAL SURVEY

developments. In Sam, the solemn rhythm of recitation emphasizes the effects of accentuation in both directions, lengthening the accentuated vowels and the subsequent semivowel glide, while reducing the unaccented vowel to short; cf., e.g., roots l'wV I, Ibyt/, Igy'l, Ikws/, Imwt/, If Isydl etc. In the nouns from I Inl roots, the nasal is present practically always apart from the verbal nact wnich is intimately connected with verbal flexion and therefore does not belong here.-vMoreover, even in Inf'l, If a/i'tl may be originally (as still formally) identical with the verbal nact; and the lack of prolongation of the sibilant in Imaf'atl could be secondary, cf. the Tib synonym with fuller vocalization suggesting that our form was originally st.cstr. only. In any case, the possible exceptions from the rule are so few that we may conclude that at the time the non-verbal nouns preserved to us from I Inl roots were formed, the nasal was permanent part of the root practically in all those roots also in which it is a later augment94• On the other hand, in the I Iy I (= orig. Iw I) roots, there are many instances of derived nouns lacking the semivowel, and although some of these may again be based on the verbal nact, others can hardly be; cf. Imad(d)a&l, I&idat/, Ita&lat/, I&icatl, leu/i'atl, lci'l, Ica'ca'(i:m)/, leu'i:/, leu'n/, Imaca&l, Ima(w)ra'i (Sam), Iraftl (roots lyd&l, Iy&d/, Iy&l/, Iy&c/, lyc'l, lyc&l, lyr'l, Iyrf I)· This suggests that the semivowel augment was not yet permanent part of the root in those roots at the time these nouns were created and that, accordingly, the semivowel augment is of somewhat later origin than the nasal one. The fact that it is lacking occasionally in some roots altogether in SSem and non-Sem branches95 and more commonly in root varr. agrees with this. In the III V roots, the root final vowel causes irregularities; in Hbr, it has become frontal practically in all the roots apart from Ibh VI and Ithw I in which the stem vowel lui may have protected it, Ihl allowing the influence of a neighbouring vowel through rather easily, as it consists only of aspiration imposed upon the outgoing air stream; forms like I&an(a)wl and Ifaliwl are probably of dialectal origin. The main bulk of nouns from III V roots thus falls into two subcategories with regard to the final: i) those with purely vocalic ending in all inflectional forms, and ii) those in which the root final vowel is realized as the semivowel allophone Iy I under certain conditions. This difference is fundamental in all the dialects and traditions apart from a few instances of consonantal Iy I of evidently secondary origin in the first category, e.g., roots l&flsVI (Sam), IfVI (Sam Pal Tib). The difference is explicable consistently on the assumption that the final vowel in the first category derives from the diphthong l-aY/, occasionally in fact preserved in archaistic forms, presumably again of dialectal origin, e.g., in the root IfIsdV f. In normal Hbr, however, it is realized as a pure vowel everywhe~: in Sam regularly as l-i:1 (where not omitted before a suffix), in Pal as I-e I (w~ther phonetic vtriation sometimes involved is not clear), in Bab (Tib) as I-a I in st.abs., I-e I in st.cstr., but the difference does not appear to be phonological; it agrees with the general rule of reduced sonority in st.cstr. In : Cf. above, p. 103f. Cf. above, p. 104.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

137

the second category, the vowel is regularly l-i:1 in all dialects and traditions, including Gr Lat transcriptions, and is replaced by the consonantal allophone I-y-I before a suffix beginning or introduced by a vowel which, however, may be reduced in Pal and is regular~ reduced in Bab (Tib), if the suffix initial consonant is followed by a vowel .

§40. Verbal stems and conjugation. Like nominal types and declension, verbal stem formation and conjugation are also best discussed together from historical perspective, as both have been subject to largely simultaneous development. The origins of the verbal system97 are traceable farther back than for the nominal types; in fact, all non-Sem branches show some parallels to the Sem verbal system, although in the case of Chad this is minimal. The verb stem is generally identical with the root and no conjugational formatives are attached to it; lengthier stems are sometimes derived from the root by means of afformatives which are usually vocalic and whose functions do not seem related to Sem secondary stems either. However, there is a reduplicative formation with a frequentative or repetitive connotation and thus comparable to Sem R- or F-stem, although no simplex roots seem to exist alongside them98 ; also a causative stem in Hsa, usually formed by the afformative I-ar/, but this has a partly dialectal, partly positional var. l-asj9'J, and if this be more original, connection with Sem is conceivable. However, Chad as a whole does not seem to have uniform verbal system. Om does not seem to have coherent system either. but some elements related to Sem are discernible. Thus in Janjero, again besides the most common simple primary stem there is a reflexive-passive formation by means of an afformative I-tl and a causative by means of I-s/, both apparently cognate with their Sem counterparts; also a formation with habitual connotation, formed by reduplication of the entire simplex stem plus the attachment of a durative afformative (used also by itself to form a durative stem)l()(); conjugation takes place likewise by afformatives, and the It/-element of the 2nd pers. may be connectable with its Sem counterpart, perhaps also Inl of l.pl., although the same consonant is present in l.sg. and 3.sg.&pl. to0 101. The Caf 96 There is some occasional variation between the two subcategories; e.g., lkilyl (root IIdVIII) behaves like the purely vocalic one in Sam according to B-CH's data (cf. Tradition vol. IV p. 139), cf. also Pal sg.cs. MW 1118, apparently contamination with fl.; similarly, Ipiryl (root IprV I) occasionally liquefies the expected I-y-I before a consonanta sf. or loses it altogether before a vocalic one, as also in pI. before the afformative; etc. These cases, however, only imply fluctuation between the two categories without affecting the main rules for either one o Cf. also Loprieno, Verbal system p. 6ff, 109ff, although he approaches the issue from a diff~ent angle and more theoretically. 99 Cf. lungraithmayr, Ron p. 60. Kraft & Kirk-Greene p. 249. !~ See Cerulli, Studi Etiopici III p. 33ff. Cf. ib. p. 15ff; and on pronouns above, p. 120ff.

138

HISTORICAL SURVEY

verbal system102, apart from an R-stem with frequentative connotation, is more remote. The verb in Cush does not exhibit uniform system either. In southern Agaw103, the prevalent system is largely innovative and therefore not relevant to the present study. However, there are two formatives which may be survivals of an earlier system, although their function too has changed to some extent, particularly that of I-t-I which is found only once in a clearly reflexive meaning in l-yukt-I "scratch o.s.", although the meaning of some others, termed intransitive, is not far from reflexive either, e.g., Isasaqt-I "sweat", 19uJt-1 "borrow", Idunt-I "break" (Vi), Ilegesemt-I "grow long"; or passive, e.g., Ilalent-I "be wounded", Ibeft-I ''be hidden". The other element is I-s-I, termed transitive, but a causative or factitive connotation is often recognizable, e.g., in Igics-I "trade", Idigs-I "bring near, present", lampals-I "unite", Imine is-I "multiply", Ilalens-I "wound", lankwins-I "heat". However, these formatives are no longer productive, and the existing forms are largely denominative. In conjugation, the I.pl.infix Inl and 3,£.2. It I may be connected with the Sem pre- and afformatives. In Bilin104, the same elements are found still in productive functions, although mostly in combinations with each other and with other formative factors. The plain stem is basically active; I-s-I by itself is the usual causative formative, while I-st-I characterizes the simple passive and with subsequent velar nasal, reciprocal formation; I-si followed by the velar nasal forms the reciprocal causative; repetition of the second stem consonant adds frequentative connotation to any of the simple categories, but the velar (or alveolar, as a conditioned var.) nasal is then also present; minor variations are not relevant to our study. The conjugational 1.pI. infix Inl may be connected with the Sem pre- and afformative, perhaps also the 3.£. afform. I-til. In Somali105, likewise, Is/-, Itl- and nasal elements are found, but partly in different functions and the nasal is always the front oral In/; the formations are also structurally partly different. The In/- and Itl-elements are basically reflexive and/or reciprocal, while lsi gives a causative connotation, as usual; the presence of an lal vowel also seems to lend a factitive connotation, I-ani being thus causative-reflexive, as also the rare compounds I-sinl and I-tis/. Among conjugational afformatives, the It/-elements of 3.f. and 2nd pers. (overall) as well as Inl in I.pI. appear to be cognate with their Sem counterparts, and that as the final cons. in 2.pl. afformative may also derive from the same source as the Sem I-m/, as a word final I-ml regularly turns 102 Cf. ib. vol. IV p. 209ff. 103 Cf. Hetzron, The verbal system 104 According to Palmer, The verb

132~

of Southern Agaw, especially p. 61ff. in Bilin (BSOAS XlX/1957 p. 131ff; brief conspectus p.

!Js As worked out by myself from the stories published in Cerulli, Somalia p. 214, 216, 230f; the system described in Saeed, Central Somali p. 18ff, is based on a different dialect and has purely vocalic or diphthongal formatives.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

139

/-n/ in Som. In Bedawye (Bedja, Beja)l06, the /s/-, /t/- and nasal elements also reappear, but here the nasal is the labial /m/ and combinations of the basic elements are used more frequently; their functions and occurrence also depends somewhat on the type of the stem. In the so-called weak stems, only the /s/and /-(a)m/-elements appear, the former in its usual causative (or with adjectival base, transitive) function, the latter in reflexive or passive sense; in compounds, these basic meanings are sometimes modified, but may also remain essentially the same; thus, the Is/-element is used reduplicated as /-si:s-/ to form causative from an adjectival base; /-ams-/ likewise, but a reflexive connotation is discernible; while /-sam-/ forms reciprocal-and/orcollaborative, perhaps also causative-passive verbs. Other combinations also appear, but rarely. In the strong stems, the formatives are used normally singly, /-s-/ again in causative, but /-m-/ usually in reciprocal-and/orcollaborative and maybe passive functions; in addition, a It/-element is used in passive and also in reflexive functions, but in the latter case in some stem classes only. In conjugation, the In/-element reappears as a preformative or infix in l.pl., and the It/-element likewise in 3J.2.; in addition, an afform. I-if is often found in 2.sgJ. In Berb too, there are interlingual differences. In TU107, the stem formatives are mostly familiar from Sem. The gemination or reduplication of the whole or part of the simple stem, with iterative, frequentative or otherwise intensive connotation, is practised more extensively than in Sem, including repetition of the entire triconsonantal base, lengthening of the 3rd rad. together with or without its repetition as well as lengthening of the 3rd rad. of a quadriconsonantal base; lengthening of a stem vowel has mainly a durative connotation, but conative character is sometimes also discernible, e.g., /kuyay/ "persevere in efforts (to ... )"; combination of both, whether in the form of repetition of the 2nd rad. of a triconsonantal base with a long vowel in between, or lengthening of the 1st stem vowel and of the 2nd rad. usually combines the durative connotation with the iterative or intensive one. External formatives are prefixed to the basic stem; /s/ has again causative connotation, /m/ and /n/ basically reflexive, and /t/ or /tw/, passive; reduplication of /m/ (or combination /nmj108) produces reciprocal connotation; otherwise combinations of different preformatives reflect combinations of their basic connotations in the order they occur, e.g., /sm/ causative of reflexive, /ms/ reflexive or reciprocal of causative; also /ss/ causative of causative; /s/ occurs much more frequently than the other preformatives. Conjugational pre- and afformatives 109 are also largely identifiable with their 1~ See Hudson, A structural sketch of Beja (ALS XV/1974 p. 111ff). p. 50ff, 56ff. p. 283. Manuel VI-VII p. 9ff.

108 See Prasse, Manuel VI-VII !09 Cf. Alojaly-Prasse, Lexique

140

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Sem counterparts, but their application to the stem is different, in so far as in the normal indicative system (and also elsewhere), both are used alternatively or also in combination. The preformatives, /n-/ for 1.pl., /t-/ for all 2.pers. forms as well as 3.sg.f., and /y-/ for 3.sg.m. are evidently connectable with the prevalent Sem preformative system; of the afformatives, /-al/ may likewise be cognate with the Akk SAr Eth /-ku/, although it does presuppose unusual phonetic development in Berb; however, Berb-Sem phonetic correspondence is also otherwise largely problematic because of the scantity of proven cognates. On the other hand, it is not clear whether the 2.sg. /ad/ is connectable with the Sem /-tal; if we assume the anomaly of the l.sg. to have originated by secondary voicing of the consonant, this one would be explicable as a parallel, positionally conditioned phenomenon11o; but as word final /t/ does not otherwise show secondary voicing, an additional exceptional factor would have to be assumed. The /-m(-)/ of p1.2. may also be identifiable with the widespread pronominal element found also in the Sem afformative, the / -t/ augmenting it in the fern. form as well as that of pI.3.f. with the common fern. afformative; while the /-n(-)/ of p1.3. generally may be identical with that of the afformative used mostly in nouns in Sem. Otherwise, there is little resemblance with the Sem verbal system, and different patterns of conjugation are much more numerous. In the Nefusi dialect111, the secondary stem formatives are largely similar, but differently developed. The lengthening of a sound is usually restricted to the 2nd rad. and its meaning is habitual; vocalic modification takes the form of changing the quality of the (last) stem vowel or appending one after the final consonant, all again with a habitual connotation. Reduplication of a hiradical root, with frequentative connotation, is rare. Use of stem preformatives is not very frequent either; /s-/ occurs again in a causative or factitive sense, /m-/ with passive, reflexive or reciprocal connotation; the /t-/-element which occurs prefixed to any other secondary stems too with the habitual connotation is used somewhat more frequently; all the preformative consonants may be lengthened, particularly if preceded by a conjugational preformative, but also otherwise, particularly It-I, and may then be preceded by a prothetic vowel; the 1st rad. of the root may also be lengthened, but without specific semantic significance. Combinations of preformatives are rare. To any-primary or secondary-stem, another preformative with a certain temporal (usually identifiable as aorist) connotation and consisting of the /a/ vowel plus a dental cons. may be prefixed. Conjugational formatives are evidently etymologically identifiable with those in Tu.

110 a. Ghadames /-t/, quoted by Prasse p. 9 n. 3; the vocalic modification there might the¥ 1r, alternative to the voicing in Tu. 1 Cf. Beguinot p. 45ff; statistics worked out by myself from texts nos. 5, 6 and the 2nd section of no. 16 (ib. p. 152f, 159-162, 2021).

HISTORICAL SURVEY

141

In Eg112, lengthening of sounds or vocalic modifications are not observable because of the nature of the script; but the reduplication of the entire root or of the last two radicals or the last one, with occasional secondary modifications in irregular roots occurs with frequentative or otherwise intensified connotation; /n-/ occurs mostly prefixed to a reduplicated stem, often with durative connotation from intransitive roots; /y-/ does not seem to have any semantic significance and may thus be of phonetic origin113. In the so-called pseudoparticiple flexion 114, the conjugational afformatives /-k-/, /-t-/, /-n-/ are recognizable in l.sg.; 2.sg.&pl.,m.&f., 3.sg.&pl.f.; l.pl., respectively, despite additional secondary elements; the 3.pl.m. /-w/ may also be identifiable with the Sem /-u:/. In Cpt115, remnants only have been preserved of the old reduplicative and /s-/-formations, but these too are better regarded as separate roots. In Sem, reduplication does not occur much anywhere; mostly as repetition of the entire (basically) biradical root, although repetition of the last two radicals or of the last rad. of a triradical root does occur sporadically even in Hbr (e.g., roots /xmr/II, /,mI/MT/; in G&z with preformative /'n-/, cf. Eg; the meaning is usually frequentative, sometimes with durative connotation. A special frequentative stem with repetition of the 2nd rad. of a triradical root is also found in SAr Eth116• Lengthening of the 2nd rad. with some kind of intensified (in the broad sense) connotation is a common Sem feature, except that in G&z practically always and to various degrees in modern Eth languages it is an exclusive feature of the root, without purely short consonantal primary stem; and so characteristic lengthening of the 1st stem vowel which largely replaces the consonantal lengthening too in SEth and (modern117) SAr; where differentiated consistently, it has mostly an influencing or conative connotation; but outside SSem, it is usually confined to basically biradical roots as an alternative to D-stem and involves repetition of the 2nd rad. In Akk (modern) SAr Eth, the lengthening of the radical or stem vowel is also used in conjugational function, but attempts to find such usage in NWSem must be deemed failed l18 ; it is thus an innovation of Sem southeastern fringe languages. Of the stem preformatives, the sibilant occurs in the causative function in Akk Ug (Aram sporadically), ESA mostly, in SEth little outside Amh; but in causative-reflexive in combination with /-t-/ practically everywhere (in Eth, however, unevenly); in the causative funtion by itself, it is replaced by /h/ in most NWSem, in early north-west Arab dialects, the !!~ Cf., e.g., Sander-Hansen p. 69ff; Loprieno p. 50ff.

114 Cf. also Lefebvre p. 120f. 115 Sander-Hansen p. 91; Lefebvre p. 1 Steindorff § §250, 263-268, 274f. 16 The residual "R-stems" in OAkk

168f; Loprieno p. 97ff.

(cf. R.M. Whiting in Or N.S. 50 p.Ut) are also more clos11'Y comparable to these than to Hbr R-stems partly classifiable as 4-rad. also. 118

~f.~~~~~,d~e~~:~ar §9.2.

142

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Sabaean dialect of ESA as well as modem SAr, by /y-/ in Phoen and by /'/ in Pu, most Aram, (classical) Arab and most Eth (subsequently mostly become quiescent). The /n-/-preformative, with reflexive, reciprocal and often passive connotation may have been original everywhere, but occurs largely sporadically or in restricted contexts in SSem and is not provable in Aram; the disuse may be secondary, caused by the proliferation of /t-/ in similar functions, also in combination with other preformatives and with D-, L- and R-stems; based on primary stem, often transposed after the 1st rad. The conjugational preformatives , /'-/ for l.sg., /t-/ for the 2nd pers. sg.&pl. as well as 3.f.sg.&pl., /y-/ for 3.m.sg.&pl., /n-/ for l.pl. in Hbr generally, may be regarded as common Sem, although some fluctuation occurs, mostly in the 3rd pers. In SEth, the gender is often not differentiated in pI., and /y-/ mostly serves for fern. too even where differentiation does take place, or else the preform. may be purely vocalic. The latter may also be the case occasionally in the 1st pers. sg.&pl., with /1-/ as the initial cons. as an altemative 119• In Te, /1-/ is option in "imperfect" and permanent injussive as the 3.sg.m.&pl. preform. cons. 120 and occurs sporadically in Aram12\ but in Syr, /n-/ has become the regular preform. in these persons122. In Hbr, on the other hand, /y-/ exceptionally occurs in 3.pl.f. to0123, as regularly in JAram Arab G&z and evidently presupposed in Akk; whereas in Ug, /t-/ tends to displace /y-/ even in 3.pl.m., again with a few parallels in Hbr124. In 3.sgJ., however /t-/ is found everywhere which agrees with our assumption that it is basically identical with that of the 2nd pers. 125 and therefore more original in the 3rd pers. than masc. The greater variation in the 3.m. preformative and occasional lack of it also points to later origin; in pI., however, it was able to establish itself in fern. too, because the genders may have been differentiated there at a later stage, if at all (cf. SEth). The analogy of the generally more frequently used masc. forms no doubt helped the development; however, as seen in Ug, the more original fern. form was sometimes able to prevail, presumably on the strength of its originality. Variation in the 1st pers. may be of more recent date everywhere. The original vowel of the common Sem elements may have been /a/, as /i/ is recognizably result of assimilation (in Akk) or dissimilation where it occurs, and /u/ is primary evidently in some secondary stems only. The conjugational afformatives of the 3rd pers. are mostly of nominal ori-

119

Cf., e.g., Cohen, Etudes p. 163, 278ff; Hetzron, Gunniin-Gurage p. 79f.

12

E.g, Brockelmann, Syr p. 84.

120 Leslau, Short grammar p. 6ff. 12; Cf., e.g., Odeberg, Short grammar p. 11f.

123 See Ges-K p. 126f. For JAram Arab G&z Akk, ref. may be superfluous. 124 Cf. Gordon, UT Grammar p. 74 (but ref. to Ot 5:20f is erroneous); Oobrusin in

J~ 13p.5ff. 1 See above, p. 122.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

143

gin, as seen above126, in agreement with the origin of the stem from prototypes of nominal character. In the 2nd pers., the basic element is It I again, evidently identical with that in the preformative; in sgJ. differentiated vocalically as in the PNp separate form, in pI. likewise, only including the consonantal pI. characteristic too; in (modern) SAr Eth, however, It I is replaced by Ikl, apart from secondary phonetic developments. The same is the case in l.sg. in Akk too, apart from the question of the originality of It I in that person in NWSem Arab121; whereas in I.pI., the universal Inl is evidently again identifiable with that of the preformative. In the afformatives used to differentiate the fern. gender, 2.sg. l-i:1 is parallel to the (original) final vowel of the PNp separate form, the In/-element of 2.3.pI. apparently parallel to the last sylL of the respective separate PNp forms. The 2.sg. element is common Sem, but the pI. one attested only in Asiatic WSem, thus apparently of later origin; in Akk Eth (as far as differentiated), l-a:1 appears instead as in af 3. pIPS The 2.pl.m. l-u:1 is evidently identical with that of 3.pl.m. As for the stem formatives, the reduplication and apparently related gemination or lengthening of stem consonants or vowels was found in all the branches of the phylum and must therefore be of ancient origin, although not much systematized in pre-Sem times, as shown by widely differing developments in different branches 129• Of the external stem formatives, the causative lsi and reflexive-passive It I are attested in all the branches except Chad13O; but the functions of the latter are more divergent in different branches, possibly implying slightly later origin. The nasal element is found in Cush Berb Eg beside Sem, but in Cush Berb it is often labial, in Bil even velar, and infrequent in Eg as also in SSem; it is thus evidently later still, as its position too varies more; generally, the external formatives follow the basic stem in (Chad) Om Cush, but precede it in Berb Eg Sem. Formation of passive voice by internal vocalic modification appears to be later still, not even common Sem, as it is lacking in Akk Eth and divergent in form frequently elsewhere too, as far as recognizable. The characteristic lui vowel of Arab Hbr and occasionally in early Aram is hardly provable elsewhere; the prevalent Aram formation has evidently a different basis. In Sam, the back vowel has mostly been fronted, as usual in that dialect; but apparently supported by the prefixed PTcj Iw-I preserved in some instances to show that even Q ps goes back to the old *Iqutil/, *lyuqtalj type rather than being secondary creation after the Aram *Iqti:lj, cf. the roots Ingp/, Intnl for af, Ilqxl for pref. However, where the preformative vowel was long since ancient times, to wit, in Q ps pref and H ps af and pref of the hollow roots, it

126 121 See p. 83, 85. 28 above, p. 86.

ce.

129 On its (nominal) origin cf. above, p. 130. 1 Cf. also Z. Frajzyngier in JSS 24 p. Hf. 130 /s/ possibly there too; cf. p. 137 above.

144

HISTORICAL SURVEY

usually developed into a bisyllabic formation /-u:wwa:/, presumably through a diphthongal stage, /-u:-/>*/-u:w-/>*/-u:wwV-/>*/-u:wwa-/, the latest stages probably assisted by the analogy of I /w/ roots in which the /w/ -augment was permanent part of the root well before the period of the passive formation, thus giving /-u:wa-/ foutarting point in them; examples, e.g., in the roots /qwm/, /rwm/, / Jwb/, / J /sym/ for the hollow roots, /ycq/, /yrd/ for (original) I /w/; proximity of the labial nasal however, seems to have been able to preserve the vocalic character of /u:/ throughout, as the npt with /m-/-preformative never has the bisyllabic formation, cf. /bw'/, /Jwb/; presumably the analogy of this has then influenced the corresponding form even in I /w/ roots, cf. /yc'/; in postvocalic position, however, the influence of /m/ is not without exception, cf. /mwt/ H ps af. In Pal Bab (and, as now generally recognized, Tib), Q ps appears generally disguised as D ps in af and as H ps in pref, recognizable by the fact that the relevant root either has no active D- nor H-stem, nor D ps pref or H ps af either (e.g., /lqx/), or has them in anomalous meanings, the passive formations being semantically related to Qal (e.g., /yld/); the verbal npt, where attested, does not have /m/-preformative either (cf. /,kl/ too). In the I /n/ roots, the af and npt appear to have been assimilated to N-stem, cf. pref /yuttan/ (root /ntn/); also /yiggaJ/ alongside af /niggaJ/ without Qal af and N pref may be related. The development towards obsolescence began with the elision of /h/ in H ps pref leading to its identification with Q ps pref, and gained upper hand with the lengthening of the af 2nd rad. to preserve the characteristic /u/ vowel, leading to formal identification of Q ps and D ps af, except in I /n/ roots in which the analogy of N-stem prevailed. The npt was not always treated the same way either, cf. /htl/, /yld/ and (Tib) /'kl/ besides I /n/ roots above. §41. Syntactical morphemes. 131

As nominal and verbal phrases and also (subordinate) sentences may occur as parts of each other, they too are best discussed under the same 131

This paragraph is mainly based on material analysed in detail in the preparatory work,

Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics, published and printed by the author from typewritten

original by a table-top offset printer; about 50 copies were produced some of which are still left, available from the author for SUS 15.- (including postage by surface mail). The languages analysed were chosen so as to include one from each subdivision of SeJ!l and one from each non-Sem branch of the phylum; however, at the time of the preparation of the analyses (19761978), I was not aware of the proposed separation of Om from Cush, although my own studies of about a decade earlier had already given me the impression that Cush was-an extraordinarily disjointed entity compared with the other branches of the phylum, and so Om remained without a representative. Even now, however, I have sufficient material for a syntactical analysis of Om in Caf only, and as it appears uncertain how far this would adequately represent the entire Om and a preliminary study-admittedly, rather superficial-suggests that the resulting coefficient would hardly affect the overall result of the study of the relationship of Om to Hbr, and as preparation of an adequate analysis, given my previous minimal acquaintance with Om, would probably have taken several months, I decided against it. On the other hand, as my

HISTORICAL SURVEY

145

heading. Moreover, as the method of analysis was discussed and applied to some of the Hbr material in Chapter Three above, supplementary material will be given in appendices, and statistical evaluation will be done in the next paragraph, only such aspects of the material as are relevant to significant syntactical developments are to be discussed here. First, the concept of significant syntactical developments is to be determined. Traditionally, word order is regarded as perhaps the most fundamental syntactical factor, but because of the considerably unequal length of sentences, often limited to that between the most important parts of the sentence, subject and predicate, or also with the object included. However, not all of these are of equal importance, even the same part is not equally important in all the sentences, as seen by the fact that anyone or even all of them at the same time are lacking or, more accurately, unexpressed in many sentences. Looking at the issue from a purely syntactical point of view, the object - or other predicative supplement - is the least central of the three, being in a direct subordinate relationhip to the predicate and often not an essential part of the sentence, being either lacking or also duplicated, depending on the nature of the predicate. Predicate in its turn is dependent on the subject, reporting as it does on the action of the subject; thus, although subject is not always explicitly expressed either, its existence is always presupposed or implied; subject may thus be regarded as the central part of the sentence, and its presence or absence and position in a sentence determines its actual importance in the context. Sentences are therefore divided fundamentally into three categories with regard to the subject: 1) subject initial, 2) subject non-initial, 3) subject unexpressed. Theoretically, it would be possible to further divide the second category, but it would not serve any practical purpose because of the unequal length of sentences, frequently consisting of two parts only, and without clear significance of the difference between medial and final positions in lengthier sentences. As for the predicate, its position is mostly determined by that of the subject, as a non-initial subject is mostly preceded by the predicate, and where this is not the case, both the subject and the predicate are less important in the context than some other part of the sentence, and therefore the order of subject vs. predicate not significant. The presence or otherwise and position of the subject in the sentence is thus the only really significant factor with regard to word order. This is readily transferable to the other syntactical morphemes, as far as they con-

choice of languages for that series had largely depended on the availability of literature in some cases, and Karl-G. Prasse suggested that Tuareg having best preserved the character of ancient Berb would be better representative for that branch than the Nefusi dialect, and I had in the meantime been supplied with adequate literature on Tu, I analysed a Tu sample also. However, although the result showed Tu to be indeed appreciably more conservative than the Nefusi dialect (= Fass), its overall relationship to Hbr was not measurably different morphosyntactically; but as lexical and phonological differences do exist, results from both languages are given below.

146

HISTORICAL SURVEY

tain an element clearly dominant over the others; this is so in nominal and verbal phrases in which the noun or verb regent, respectively, are evidently dominant; and prepositional phrases being comprable to the simplest nominal ones, the preposition may be regarded as dominant in them, most prepositions being actually of nominal origin; adverbial phrases, however, are often equivocal in this respect and therefore better not included here. Another relevant characteristic is the length of the sentence or phrase in terms of significant components. Conjunctions are not regarded as independent significant units, and prepositions only in prepositional and adverbial phrases. Still another significant characteristic is the statistical frequency of occurrence of each relevant morpheme, possibly including division into submorphemes, such as into nominal and verbal ones in the case of sentences. In the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics such a subdivision was not considered structurally relevant; but it does reflect the degree of the nominal vs. verbal component in the language; in nominal phrases too, ATs vs. ATa (and ATap, this too being functionally more adjectival) reflect the emergent distinction of adjectival from substantival, where separable. In recording the relevant data, we follow the pattern of the preceding paragraphs of starting from the non-Sem branches there found to be least like Sem, although here, the results need not necessarily follow that order of resemblance. There being no representative for Om, we begin with Chad. The language representing it is Rausa, and the sample was taken from Kraft & Kirk-Greene, Rausa (1973), consisting of stories on pages 111, 135f, 165f, 174f, 201, 282, 283, 284, 284f, 286, 287. 45 different patterns of nominal phrases ( = NP) occurring 178 times altogether were identified in the sample; of these, 11 patterns occurring 35 times altogether had the noun regent (=Nr) in non-initial position, the rest in the initial one132. 8 patterns occurring 11 times altogether have two attributes, all the others one only, yielding 2.06 significant units as the average length of NP. The AT are not separable. Verbal phrases (= VP) number 19 and occur 39x altogether; of these, 2 patterns occurring 4x have the verb regent (= Vr) in non-initial position, the rest in the initial one. 2 patterns occurring once each have two adjuncts, the others one each, yielding 2.05 as the average length of VP. Adverbial phrases ( = AP) number 11 patterns occurring 29x; 7 patterns occurring 24x consist of two constituent elements, the rest of three, yielding 2.17 as the average length of AP. There is only one pattern of prepositional phrases, consisting of two elements and occurring 16x. The total number of sentence (=St) patterns is 273 occurring 518x altogether; 156 of these, occurring 370x have the subject (=S) in the initial posi-

132 Apart from purely introductory elements such as prepositions (= Pr) and conjuctions (= Cj); they are not included in calculations.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

147

tion; 74, occurring 87x in non-initial position; in the rest, S is unexpressed. 9 patterns occurring 18x have only one significant constituent element; 61 = 168x, two; 99 = 215x, three; 72 = 85x, four; 23 = 23x, five; 8 = 8x, six; and 1 = Ix, seven; yielding 2.91 as the average sentence length. Nominal sentences (=Stn; Strel not separated) number 128 = 225x or 43.4%. For Cush, the representative is Som. The sample is from Cerulli, Somalia p. 214, 216, 23Of. There are 48 NP patterns occurring 200x, with Nr always in the initial position; 21 patterns with one attribute only occur 126x; 18 with two, 65x; 7 with three, 7x; 1 with 4, Ix; and 1 with five, lx; yielding 2.42 as the average length of NP. The AT are not separable. There are 13 VP patterns occurring 18x; 2 patterns occurring 3x have Vr in the initial, others in a noninitial position; 5 patterns with one adjunct occur 7x; 6 with two, 9x, and 2 with three, 2x; yielding 2.72 as the average length of VP. There are 11 AP patterns occurring 23x; 1 pattern occurring twice has three constituent elements, all the others two, yielding 2.09 as the average length of AP. Som having post- rather than prepositions, there are 4 patterns of postpositional phrases (PoP) occurring 12x, all with two constituent elements and PTpo in the final position. The number of St patterns is 233 occurring 283 altogether; 66, occurring 84x have initial S; 83, occurring 92x, non-initial S; in the rest S is unexpressed. 16 patterns occurring 24x have one significant constituent element; 42 = 67x, two; 62 = 74x, three; 56 = 6Ox, four; 34 = 35x, five; 15 = 15x, six, 5 = 5x, seven; and 3 = 3x, eight; yielding 3.34 as the average sentence length. Stn number 68 = l04x or 36.7%. For Berb, as observed above, we have two representatives. The sample for Fass is taken from Beguinot's II Berbero Nerusi di Fassa!o, texts no. 5 (p. 152f),6 (p. 159-162), and the 2nd section of no. 16 (p. 202f). There are 23 NP patterns occurring 143x; 2 of these, occurring once each, have numeral adjectival AT before Nr, the phrases based on Arab; otherwise, Nr is initial; 3 patterns occurring 5x have two AT, others one each; yielding 2.03 as the average length of NP. The AT are not separable. As there are no verbal nouns in our technical sense, there are no VP either. There are 7 AP patterns occurring 8x; 3 patterns occurring 4x have three constituent elements, the others two, yielding 2.50 as the average length of AP. There is one pattern of PrP, with initial PTpr and sf following, occurring 52x. The St patterns number 214 occurring 336x; 38, occurring 52x have initial S; 73, occurring 82x, non-initial S; in the rest, S is unexpressed. 7 patterns occurring 22x have one significant constituent element; 56 = 96x, two; 76 = 133x, three; 48 = 57x, four; 23 = 24x, five; 3 =3x, six; and 1 = lx, seven; yielding 2.93 as the average St length. Stn: 42 = 55x or 16.4%. For Tu, the sample was taken from Alojaly's Histoire des Kel-Denneg avant l'arrivee des Franc;ais p. 37 to p. 43 1. 24, with the omission of lines 8

148

HISTORICAL SURVEY

/inna/ etc. to 12 and 15 /ayyat/ etc. to 18 inclusive, because of their poetical character. There are 72 NP patterns occurring 159x; 4 patterns occurring once each have Nr in the final position, in two cases ATap and once a special type of Na preceding, while in the fourth, Nr is PNid of numeral character; elsewhere, Nr is initial. 18 patterns occurring once each have two AT; one has three, one four and one seven, each again occurring once; the others have one each, yielding 2.18 as the average length of NP. The ATs occur 10lx or 53.7%. There are 11 VP patterns occurring 14x; 7 patterns occurring lOx have initial Vr, the others non-initial; 8 patterns occurring 11x have one adjunct; 2 occurring one each have two, and one has three; yielding 2.29 as the average length of VP. There are only two patterns of AP with two constituent elements and occurring once each. The PrP/PoP patterns are two, occurring 13x, the PTpr /po preceding the sf in 8 cases and following what we define as PNd in5. The St patterns number 237 occurring 254x; S is initial in 71 occurring 75x; non-initial in 91 occurring 95x; in the rest, unexpressed. 8 patterns occurring 11x have one significant constituent element; 59 = 66x, two; 86 = 93x, three; 61 = 6lx, four; 14 = 14x, five; 8 = 8x, six; and 1 = Ix; seven; yielding 3.11 as the average St length. Stn: 32 = 36x or 14.2%. The Sahidic dialect of Coptic (=Cpt) was chosen to represent Eg because of the equivocal character of the scripts used to write earlier forms of the language. The sample is from the Corpus Scriptorum Christiano rum Orientalium vol. 159 p. 11. 11-18 and 1. 22 to p. 4 1. 2 inclusive; p.1l. 1-10.19-21 were omitted because of their apparent unauthenticity. The sample contains 54 NP patterns occurring 206x; Nr is initial in 24 patterns occurring 41x, in the rest non-initial. 22 patterns occurring 82x have two AT; 3, occurring once each, three; and one, occurring once, four; the others have one AT each; yielding 2.44 as the average length of NP. The AT are not separable. There are 34 VP patterns occurring 62x; Vr is non-initial in 2 patterns occurring once each, with pronominal adjuncts preceding; elsewhere initial. 11 patterns occurring 32x have one adjunct; 11 = 15x, two; 6 = 9x, three; and 6 = 6x, four; yielding 2.73 as the average length of VP. There are 6 AP patterns occurring 2Ox; 2 patterns occurring once each have three constituent elements, the others two, yielding 2.10 as the average length of AP. There is one PrP pattern, Pr + sf, occurring 48x. The St patterns number 129 occurring 166x; S is initial in 72 patterns occurring 84x; non-initial in 38 = 55x; unexpressed in others. 3 patterns occurring lOx have one significant constituent element; 17 = 2lx, two; 38 = 59x, three; 44 = 49x, four; 13 = 13x, five; 9 = 9x, six; 4 = 4x, seven; and 1 = lx, nine; yielding 3.50 as the average St length. Stn: 51 = 79x or 47.6%. In the sub-branches of Sem, SEth is represented by Har. The sample is taken from vol. I. Harari, of Leslau's Ethiopians speak: Studies in cultural

HISTORICAL SURVEY

149

background, from p. 68 1. 6 (of the Harari text) to p. 82 1. 6 (likewise). The sample contains 84 NP patterns occurring 295x; Nr is initial in 33 patterns occurring 108x, elsewhere non-initial. 14 patterns occurring once each have two AT; 2, once each, three; others one each; yielding 2.06 as the average length of NP. ATs: 207x or 66.1%. There are 17 VP patterns occurring 25x; Vr is never initial. 4 patterns occurring 6x have two adjuncts, the others one, yielding 2.24 as the average length of VP. There are 26 AP patterns occurring 82x; 10 patterns occurring 32x have two constituent elements; 9 = 35x, three; 5 = 11x, four; and 2 = 4x, five; yielding 2.84 as the average length of AP. There are 2 PrP patterns occurring 24x, consisting of two constituent elements and PTpr initial to both. The St patterns number 317 occurring 499x; S is initial in 74 patterns occurring 98x; non-initial in 86 = 12Ox; unexpressed in others. 13 patterns occurring 37x have one significant constituent element; 66 = 146x, two; 112 = 177x, three; 76 = 89x, four; 31 = 31x, five; 12 = 12x, six; 6 = 6x, seven; and 1 = lx, nine; yielding 2.99 as the average St length. Stn: 59 = 78x or 15.6%. For NEth, Te was chosen as the representative, as the available G&z texts are either translations or otherwise suspect of foreign influence. The sample is part of a text which still remains unpublished, consisting of the first threefifths of the autobiographical narrative of Abdalla Ali Assad of the BenAmer tribes of the Asmara region of Eritrea, as recorded by myself in Addis Ababa in January, 1974, and also written down by the informant in Amharic alphabet. The part of the narrative on which the analysis is based is reproduced in Latin transliteration in Statistical analyses of morphosyntatics VI p. 2-6; but because of the limited distribution of that work it is reproduced below, in Appendix V. The sample contains 79 NP patterns occurring 315x; Nr is non-initial in 26 patterns occurring 98x, ATs never preceding Nr; elsewhere, Nr is initial. 17 patterns occurring 21x have two attributes, the others one; yielding 2.07 as the average length of NP. ATs: 162x or 48.2%. There are 6 VP patterns occurring 8x; Vr is initial in 3 = 5x, in others non-initial; 2 patterns occurring once each have two adjuncts, the others one each; yielding 2.25 as the average length of VP. The AP patterns number 8 occurring 13x; 1 pattern occurring once has three constituent elements, the others two, yielding 2.08 as the average length of AP. There is one PrP pattern, Pr+sf, occurring 76x. The St patterns number 323 occurring 376x; S is initial in 95 patterns occurring 11Ox; non-initial in 123 = 138x; unexpressed in the others. 4 patterns occurring 4x (= once each) have one significant constituent element; 53 = 81x, two; 114'= 135x, three; 94 = 98x, four; 43 = 43x, five; 13 = 13x, six; and 2 = 2x, seven; yielding 3.38 as the average St length. Stn: 50 = 55x or 14.6%. With regard to SAr, the situation is clearer than at the time of my writing

150

HISTORICAL SURVEY

the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics. In that work, I used two Harsusi (=Hrs) stories made available to me for the purpose by Professor T.M. Johnstone who intended to publish them in the meantime. However, this was delayed because of other commitments and ill health, and with Professor Johnstone having passed on in the meantime, the stories have still not been published, but I have been authorized to publish the text. See Appendix VI. The sample contains 70 NP patterns occurring 213x, Nr always initial. 10 patterns occurring 1lx have two attributes each, the others one; yielding 2.05 as the average length of NP. The AT are not separable. There are 4 VP patterns occurring once each, Vr always initial; 2 have one adjunct each, the others two; yielding 2.50 as the average length of VP. The AP patterns number 6 occurring 32x; 3 patterns occurring once each have three constituent elements, the others two; yielding 2.09 as the average length of AP. There is one PrP pattern, Pr+sf, occurring 115x. The St patterns number 333 occurring 44Ox; S is initial in 93 patterns occurring 115x; non-initial in 147 = 183x; unexpressed in the others. 14 patterns occurring 37x have one significant constituent element; 77 = 123x, two; 123 = 158x, three; 84 = 87x, four; 21 = 2lx, five; 8 = 8x, six; 4 = 4x, seven; 1 = lx, eight; and 1 = Ix nine; yielding 2.96 as the average St length. Stn: 89 = 111x or 25.2%. The remaining fringe language, Akk, is taken next; it is represented by the Mari dialect of the Old Babylonian period. The sample is taken from vol. II (Lettres diverses) of the series, Archives royales de Mari, as transliterated and translated by C.-F. Jean, and consists of letters nos. 22, 37, 48, 57, 66, 79, 80,92,94,95, 101, 106, 107, 109 (lines 1-36.47-51), 110, 113, 118, 124 (lines 128), 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 136, 140 and 141. There are 118 NP patterns occurring 54Ox, Nr always initial. 28 patterns occuring 38x have two attributes each, and one, occurring once, three; the others one only; yielding 2.07 as the average length of NP. ATs: 364x or 62.9%. There are 20 VP patterns occurring 23x; Vr is initial in 8 patterns occurring lOx, in the others non-initial, but two patterns occurring once each are of composite nature, containing 2 Vr each; apart from these, 2 patterns occurring once each have two adjuncts, the others one; the average length of VP is thus 2.26. The AP patterns number 7 occurring 2Ox; 2 patterns occurring 3x have three constituent elements, and one, occurring once, four; the others, two; yielding 2.25 as the average length of AP. Again, the only attested PrP pattern, Pr+sf, occurs 23x. The St patterns number 375 occurring 475x; S is initial in 119 patterns occurring 137x; non-initial in 169 = 209x; unexpressed in the others. 8 patterns occurring 18x have one significant constituent element; 51 = 64x, two; 111 = 17Ox, three; 111 = 127x, four; 57 = 59x, five; 24 = 24K, six; 8 = 8x, seven; and 5 = 5x, eight; yielding 3.58 as the average St length. Stn: 25 = 61x or 12.8%.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

151

For Arab, a larger sample was taken in the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics to determine its relationship to Hbr, in some respects ambiguous, with greater accuracy; and although this does not seem to have affected the result significantly, it would not improve the situation either to reduce the sample to standard size, and so we use the entire sample here too, as it is convenient to do so; it consists of the third Sura of the Qur'an. There are 65 NP patterns occurring 439x; Nr is non-initial in 2 patterns occurring 3x, the preceding ATa pronominal in each case; in the others, Nr is initial. 7 patterns occurring llx have two AT, 1, occurring once, three; the others one; yielding 2.01 as the average length of NP. ATs: 347x or 76.8%. There are 23 VP patterns occurring 29x, Vr always initial; 5 patterns occurring once each have two adjuncts each, and one occurring once, three; the others one; yielding 2.21 as the average length of VP. There is only one occurrence of what may be called an AP, consisting of a PTa plus an attributive Strel. Only one PrP pattern, Pr+sf, is likewise attested, but it occurs 161x. The St patterns, after a thorough rechecking, were found to number 797 occurring 1167x; S is initial in 256 patterns occuring 40Ox; non-initial in 323 = 423x; unexpressed in the others. 27 patterns occurring 75x have one significant constituent element; 165 = 351x, two; 261 = 38Ox, three; 203 = 218x, four; 88 = 9Ox, five; 35 = 35x, six; 15 = 15x, seven; 2 = 2x, eight; and 1 = lx, nine; yielding 3.07 as the average St length. Stn: 219 = 344x or 29.5%. For Aram, Syr was chosen mainly because its recorded vocalization probably reproduces the actual pronunciation more accurately than the contemporaneous or earlier Aram dialects. The sample was taken from the chrestomathy of Brockelmann's Syrische Grammatik, from p. 21 * 1. 6 to p. 23* 1. 13, and from p. 23* 1. 19 to p. 25* 1. 12 (the first word) inclusive, but titles of the stories omitted as secondary. The sample contains 96 NP patterns occurring 209x; Nr is non-initial in 27 patterns occurring 37x, initial in the others. 31 patterns occurring 43x have two AT; 2 = 2x, three, the others, one; yielding 2.22 as the average length of NP. The AT are not separable. Only 2 VP patterns are attested, each with initial Vr and occurring once. The AP patterns number 14 occurring 35x; 5 = 7x have three constituent elements, the others two; yielding 2.20 as the average length of AP. There are 2 PrP patterns occurring 44x; Pr+sf occurs 39x and with PNrel prefixed, 5x, the average length is thus 2.11. The St patterns number 159 occurring 175x; S is initial in 39 patterns occuring 47x; non-initial in 59 occurring once each; unexpressed in the others. 5 patterns occurring 6x have one significant constituent element; 18 = 31x, two; 40 = 42x, three; 48 = 48x, four; 21 = 21x, five; 17 = 17x, six; 5 = 5x, seven; and 5 = 5x, eight; yielding 3.82 as the average St length. Stn: 42 = 48x or 27.4%. For Hbr, samples were taken from all the dialects and traditions where at

152

HISTORICAL SURVEY

least tolerably suitable material of independent origin was sufficiently available; unfortunately, this was not the case for all of them. For aPal, the material was too scanty and fragmentary; for G, poetical and not of independent origin. Even for Pal, only poetical non-biblical material was available, but some parts of it were sufficiently prose-like in style to warrant tentative inclusion of a sample, particularly as the samples for Bab and Q had their own peculiarities too and that for Sam was not fully independent in origin either. For Sam, the sample used for Hbr in the preparatory work, Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics, Dt chs. 1 to 10, was adapted to the text of SP by taking into account the variations in it of morphosyntactical character; some of these may in fact be more original, as the book of Deuteronomy is now increasingly recognized as being of northern Israelite origin, although evidently expanded later and re-borrowed by the Samaritans along with the rest of the Pentateuch. As parts of the historical and hortatory sections now appear to have belonged to the original form and expansion has taken place in the more properly legal section too, it was not considered to improve the authenticity of the material essentially, if the sample was taken from a different part of the book. The major additions in the SP text, 2:8a and 5:21b, however, were excluded as being evidently of much later date than the bulk of the text. The adaptation did not affect much the data relevant here. The sample contains 144 NP patterns occurring 1239x; Nr is always initial. 41 patterns occurring 84x have two AT; 5 = 5x, three; and 1 = lx, five; the others, one; yielding 2.08 as the average length of NP. ATs: 819x or 61.2%. There are 91 VP patterns occurring 207x; Vr is always initial. 33 patterns occurring 131x have one adjunct; 30 = 48x, two, 22 = 22x, three; 3 = 3x, four; 1 = lx, five; 1 = lx, six, and 1 = lx, seven; yielding 2.56 as the average length of VP. There are 8 AP patterns occurring 2Ox; 1 = 1x consists of three constituent elements, the others have two; yielding 2.05 as the average length of AP. The main PrP pattern, Pr+sf, occurs 351 times; the other type in which the preceding Cj must be regarded as part of the phrase occurs once; this has no statistical effect. The St patterns number 686 occurring 966x; S is initial in 178 = 25Ox; noninitial in 373 = 5t1x; unexpressed in the others. 11 patterns occurring 35x have one significant constituent element; 84 = 164x, two; 181 = 281x, three; 199 = 266x, four; 127 = 134x, five; 51 = 52x, six; 18 = 18x, seven; 7 = 7x, eight; 5 = 5x, nine; 1 = lx, ten; and 2 = 2x, eleven; yielding 3.64 as the average St length. Stn: 137 = 165x or 17.1 %. The Q sample was taken from lQS 11:1 /whkwhnym/ to IV:14 (end). There are 40 NP patterns occurring 307x; Nr is always initial. 6 patterns occurring once each have two AT, the others one; yielding 2.02 as the average length of NP. ATs: 283x or 90.4%. There are 35 VP patterns occurring 49x; Vr is always initial. 12 patterns occurring 13x have two adjuncts; 2 = 2x, three; 1 =

HISTORICAL SURVEY

153

lx, four; and 1 = Ix, seven; the others one; yielding 2.53 as the average length ofVP. No AP is attested. The only PrP pattern, Pr+sf, occurs 14x. The St patterns number 98 occurring 111x; S is initial in 24 = 24x; non-initial in 23 = 28x; unexpressed in the others. 1 pattern occurring once has one significant constituent element; 22 = 3Ox, two; 40 = 45x, three; 22 = 22x, four; 9 = 9x, five; 1 = lx, ten, 1 = lx, eleven; and 1 = lx, twenty-one; yielding 3.41 as the average St length. Stn: 35 = 42x or 37.8%. The Pal sample consists of the first four stanzas of Yose b. Yose's Aboda for Yom Kippur as published by me in Materials vol. I p. /kg/ff. There are 28 NP patterns occurring 82x; Nr always initial. 2 patterns occurring once each have two AT; 1, occurring once, five; the others once each; yielding 2.04 as the average length of NP. ATs: 62x or 72.9%. There are 15 VP patterns occurring 17x; Vr is always initial. 8 patterns occurring lOx have one adjunct; 5 = 5x, two; and 2 = 2x, three; yielding 2.53 as the average length of VP. There are 2 AP patterns occurring once each, one with two constituent elements, the other three; yielding 2.50 as the average length of AP. The only PrP pattern, Pr + sf, occurs 9x. The St patterns number 86 occurring 97x; S is initial in 12 = 13x; non-initial in 12 = 12x; unexpressed in the others. 2 patterns occurring 2x (= once each) have one significant constituent element; 26 = 33x, two; 28 = 32x, three; 17 = 17x, four; 11 = 11x, five; 1 = lx, six; and 1 = lx, seven; yielding 3.09 as the average St length. Stn: 19 = 27x or 27.8%. The Bab sample consists of fragments of the Mishna tractate Sabbath, 1:1 to 2:1 /qyq/, 22:1 to 23:6, according to Ms. Ant 328, as published by me in Leshonenu vol. XXI p. 2ff; repetition of 1:11 not included in the sample. There are 52 NP patterns occurring 158x; Nr is non-initial in 3 patterns occurring lOx, the preceding AT being either a title or PrP; in the others, Nr is initial. 2 patterns occurring once each have 2 AT; another 2 (one of them compound, with 2 Nr) likewise occurring once each, have three; the others one; yielding 2.04 as the average length of NP. ATs: 107x or 65.2%. There are 19 VP patterns occurring 22x; Vr is always initial. 6 patterns occurring 9x have two adjuncts; 1, occurring once, three; the others one each; yielding 2.45 as the average length of VP. There is one AP pattern with four constituent elements; it occurs twice. The only PrP pattern, Pr+sf, occurs 3Ox. The St patterns number 180 occurring 232x; S is initial in 44 = 61x; noninitial in 38 = 44x; unexpressed in the others. 11 patterns occurring 22x have one significant constituent element; 57 = 85x, two; 41 = 51x, three; 37 = 4Ox, four; 20 = 2Ox, five; 7 = 7x, six; 1 = lx, seven; 3 = 3x, eight; 1 = lx, nine; 1 = lx, ten; and 1 = lx, twenty; yielding 3.09 as the average St length. Stn: 107 = 137x or 59.1 %.

154

HISTORICAL SURVEY

§42. Morphosyntactical summary.

In the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics, some of the main morphemes and sub-morphemes distinguished above133 were recombined on a semantic basis for the purposes of interlingual comparisons. On reconsideration, however, it appears that such a procedure leads to oversimplification, as some of the recombined subcategories actually reflect structural differences between the languages compared. In other words, distinction must be made between structurally significant vs. non-significant variation between different morphemes and their sub-units, and only those subject to the latter kind should be recombined. On this principle, proper names and the cardinal numbers under 100 are still to be combined with the root system to form an ABC block, as they occur in more or less free variation, mainly depending on subject matter, with the root-based nouns and to some extent with verbs too. On the other hand, there is little or usually no free variation between pronouns and determinatives within the same language; interlingual correspondence must thus be regarded as structurally significant and the two categories kept apart; the relative particle, where replacing relative pronoun, may be regarded as a sentence determinative, as it actually sometimes interchanges with the nominal one, and also as a result of a recent development be still combined with the determinatives. Again, adverbs, although partly nominal in origin, have usually deictic function and are therefore combinable with interjections; but adverbial phrases represent a more complicated, analytical stage of development and must therefore be kept apart despite their mostly infrequent occurrence; this shows only that they are atypical of most languages concerned. Prepositional phrases, however, are so similar to the simplest type of nominal phrases, particularly as most prepositions are of nominal origin and/or often compound with additional nominal elements that they are best still combined to form an Had block. However, in the nominal phrases themselves, the occurrence of the subordinate attribute may still be significant, where attributes are distinguishable; in such cases, the prepositional phrases go along with them. Verbal phrases, again, represent usually a more strictly formal stage of development than sentences do and are therefore better kept apart; moreover, in the sentences themselves, the distinction between nominal and verbal ones may be significant, and they are therefore divided here into Hen (nominal) and Hev (verbal) ones; but the relative category does not seem to have structural significance and is therefore divided between these two. NB. any sentence containing a conjugated verbal form as a constituent element is classified as verbal, even if the verb functions as a copula only or in a comparable auxiliary function. In addition, the length of the sentence as well as of nominal and verbal phrases in terms of significant

133

Cf. the introduction, p. 10 for a summary.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

155

units and the presence or otherwise and position of the subject in the sentence and of the regent in the phrase must be taken into account. Pre- and postpositions, conjunctions and comparable purely introductory particles are not considered significant in this context. For comparative purposes, then, we obtain the following fourteen units: ABC) proper names, roots and numerals; D) pronouns; Ea) adverbs and interjections; Eb) prepositions and conjunctions; Ec) determinative (and relative) particles; Fa) nominal types; Fb) verbal stems (and voice); Ga) preformatives; Gb) afformatives; Had) nominal and prepositional phrases; Hb) verbal phrases; Hc) adverbial phrases; Hen) nominal sentences; Hev) verbal sentences. Before comparison, however, the subcategories of H must be reduced to standard size in terms of significant units and the presence (or otherwise) and position of the dominant unit. The dominant unit, where present, being in the initial position more often than not, that is considered its normal position and deviations from that rule quantified in terms of their frequency of occurrence. With regard to the number of significant units, there is difference between phrases and sentences, two being the overwhelmingly most common number in phrases, whereas in sentences, three predominates; standard sizes are therefore defined accordingly. In addition, where there is formal distinction between attributes in nominal phrases, the subordinate attribute being usually substantival and also in majority, it is regarded as the standard one and the frequency of occurrence of the other attributes quantified as a deviation from the standard. Hebrew being the centre of the present study, it is best to begin with it and see whether the different dialects and traditions can be brought under a common denominator. In Sam, ATs number 819 as against the total of 516 ATa/ATap in NP; in addition, there are 352 PrP which make the standard total 1171; the proportion of the adjectival attributes from the overall total of 1687 is .306. Taking this as a coefficient of deviation from the standard, we multiply 1171 with it and add the result (to the nearest integer) to the overall total which gives 2045; this is the weighted value of the overall occurrence of AT in Sam Had. To standardize the number of significant units to two, we add to that sum the total occurrence of NP plus PrP for the regents = 1239 which gives 3284; dividing it by 2 we get 1642 as the standardized frequency of occurrence of the unit Had in Sam. To standardize VP, the total number of significant units, 530, is simply divided by 2, giving 265 as the standard frequency of occurrence of the unit Hb; and likewise with AP: 41 by 2, yielding 20.5 or, rounded to the nearest integer, 21 as that of the unit Hc. In the case of St, the absence and non-initial position of S must also be quantified as deviations from the norm. Of the total occurrence 165x of Stn, S is non-initial in 63 and lacking in 15. The latter represents a lower propor-

156

HISTORICAL SURVEY

tion of the total occurrence of subjectless St than the former of its class; but as this too is well below the average occurrence of Stn and the number of the subjectless St relatively small, the difference in proportions may not be significant, and both categories may be quantified on the same basis. Their proportion of the overall total is .473; multiplying the deviant total of 78 with it and adding the result (to the nearest integer) to the overall total gives 202 as the standardized occurrence of Stn. To standardize the number of significant units to three, that figure is multiplied by the average Stn length of 3.10 significant units and divided by three, yielding 209 as the standardized frequency of occurrence of the unit Hen. Analogically, of the total occurrence 801x of Sty, S is non-initial in 448 and lacking in 190, both proportionately well above the average occurrence of Sty, yielding .797 as a coefficient; multiplying the deviant total of 638 and adding the result to the overall total gives 1309 as standardized Sty occurrence. Multiplying this by the average Sty length of 3.74 and dividing by 3 gives 1634 as the standardized frequency of occurrence of the unit Hev. 134 The same procedure is applicable to the other samples, with minor variations on occasion. For Q, the results are: Had 332; Hb 62; Hc -; Hen (3Ox deviant, 94 units vs. 12x = 43 standard) 210; Hev (57x deviant = 182 units vs. 12x = 59 standard) 440. Pal: Had 145; Hb 22; Hc 3; Hen (25x deviant = 42 units vs. 2x = 6 standard) 50; Hev (59 deviant = 217 units vs. llx = 35 standard) 527. Bab: Had 207; Hb 27; Hc 4; Hen (107x deviant = 359 units vs. 35x = 125 standard) 253; Hev (82x deviant = 201 units vs. lOx = 37 standard) 142. NB. due to the extreme brevity of style and parallel preference for nominal

expressions, even the standardized frequency of occurrence of verbal sentences is here lower than that of nominal ones. After standardization of the subcategories of H, the overall degree of compatibility of the Hbr dialects and traditions can be examined by the application of the chi-square test;13S cf. the table below (p. 157f). For determination of the expected values in the test, the actually attested values for each unit of comparison and their sums are first added together and their relative sizes compared with the overall sum determined.

134 It may be argued that the procedure is not appropriate, as it gives such a skew result. However, where the proportion of deviant patterns is in minority, this implies basically conservative practice which is not likely to manifest itself remarkably in statistics either, as against the contrary case of deviations from the norm being in clear majority; and in this particular case, verbal forms being more complicated than nouns, more deviations from the normal pattern are to be expected of verbal sentences too. Amplification of differences is a common phenomenon in statistical calculations and serves to attract attention to special features which coul~otherwise escape notice. On the details of this test and its applicability cf. Part I Section A p. 54f (with notes) or any textbook on statistics, e.g., Hoel p. 235ff.

157

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Actual (or standardized) values: Unit

Sam136

0

Pal

Bab

Total

ABC D

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21

644

314

47n 1414 347 3039 930 2942 1631 559 1696 2371 376 28 722 2743 23575

Ea Eb Ec Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb Hc Hen Hev Total

209

1634 15861

440

527

578 137 83 361 106 333 224 81 229 303 27 4 253 142

3183

1670

2861

122 26 328 34 508 134 60

282 333 62 210

50

26 139 10 201 111 31 93

93 22 3 50

The coefficient needed for the calculation of the expected value of each unit in the chi-square test is the proportion of the total of each sample out of the grand total; they are: Sam .674; Q .135; Pal.073; Bab .118. Sam: Unit ABC D

Ea Eb Ec Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb Hc Hen Hev

Total

Occ

Exp

Diff

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21

3220 953

+21 +152 -22 +163 +153 -83 +63 +10 -51 +74 +12 +2 -278 -215

209

1634

234 2048

627 1983 1099 377 1143 1568 253 19 487 1849

x2 .137 24.243 2.068 12.973 37.335 3.474 3.611 .265 2.276 3.492 .569 .021 158.694 25.000 274.158

0:

Dec

Exp

Diff

644

645 191 47 410 126 397 220 75 229 314 51 4 97 370

-1 -69 -21 -82 -92 +111

122 26 328 34 508 134 60

282 333 62 210 440

-86

-15 +53 +19 +11 -4 +113 +70

x2 .002 24.927 9.383 16.400 67.175 31.035 33.618 3.000 12.266 1.150 2.373 4.000 131.639 13.243 350.211

136 Apart from the numbers for the subcategories of H, those given for Sam are actually based on MT as used in the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics. The fact that differences between MT and SP are statistically insignificant in morphosyntactical terms was fully corroborated by the rechecking undertaken for the phrases and sentences in connection with their regrouping and standardization, showing that the work needed for the rechecking of the other categories would be wasted.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

158

Pal: Unit ABC D

Ea Eb Ee Fa

Fb

Ga Gb Had Hb

He Hen Hev

Total

Oce

Exp

Diff

314 50 26 139 10 201 111 31 93 93 22 3 50 527

349 103 25 222 68 215 119 41 124 170 27 2 53

-35 -53 +1 -83 -58 -14 -8 -10 -31

200

-77

-5 +1 -3 +327

i 3.510 27.272 .004 31.032 49.471 .912 .538 2.439 7.750 34.876 .926

.500

.170 534.645 694.045

Bab: Oce 578 137 83 361 106 333 224 81 229 303 27 4 253 142

Exp 561 166 41 357 109 346 192 66 199 274 44 3 85 323

Diff +17 -29 +42 +4 -3 -13 +32 +15 +30 +29 -17 +1 +168 -181

x2 .515 5.066 43.024 .045 .083

.488

5.333 3.409 4.523 3.069 6.568 .333 332.047 101.427 505.930

The limit for significance on the conventional .05 probability level being 22.362 for 13 degrees of freedom, it is clear that every sample deviates from the average highly significantly; even Sam which largely determined the structure of the overall total because of its much larger size - two thirds of the total overbids the limit for significance 12.26 times. Examination of the individual chi-square values indicates that the main reason for the great extent of deviation is in the variability of the sentence types. Standardization has not made much impact on it beyond emphasizing the distinction between nominal and verbal ones, the latter being usually somewhat longer and having initial subject less frequently on the average. More important is the change in syntactical style connected with the emergence of a true tense system, Q and still more consistently Bab substituting verbal nouns for conjugated verb forms with reference to present and indefinite time periods; hence the increase in nominal sentence use in Q and their actual majority in Bab; Pal, however, reverts to the biblical great preponderance of verbal sentences. Related to this may be the increased occurrence of nominal types and corresponding decrease in verbal stems in Q, while the decrease in the use of pronouns and particles is due to simpler, less analytical style; the increased occurrence of adverbs in Bab is due to frequent use of negations. The use of nominal and verbal phrases remains fairly steady throughout. All in all, it appears that Sam corresponds best to the norm, as its major deviations too are caused by secondary developments in other samples rather than in itself; the apparent decrease in the use of nominal sentences reflects their sharp increase in Q Bab, that in verbal sentences their extraordinarily high frequency in Pal which may be due to the poetical style of its sample. Again, the apparent increase in the use of pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions and determinatives reflects their actual decrease in Q due to its less

159

HISTORICAL SURVEY

analytical style and in Pal due to its archaizing poetical style. It may therefore be appropriate to regard Sam as representative of a more original form of Hbr from which the others have developed into partly different directions, and therefore also to use it rather than the combined total of all the Hbr samples as a basis for comparison with cognate languages. Having started with Hebrew, it is more natural to proceed from more closely related languages to the outer fringes and the rest of the phylum. Syriac: As the AT are not analysable into different categories, the standardization of the NP consists mainly of halving the overall total of the significant constituent elements, as with the other phrases; however, the fact that in a significant number of NP the Nr is non-initial must also be taken into account. This is done on the same principle as in St; this yields 286 as the standardized value for the unit Had; Hb = 2; Hc = 39; Hen (deviant 25x = 100 units vs. 23x = 55 standard) 66; Hev (deviant 103x = 414 units vs. 24x = 99 standard) 283. Seeing that Sam is largely based on MT with negligible differences where rechecked and that the extant Bab137 mss. of Dt 1-10 also agree with it in all essential morphosyntactical aspects, we replace the term by Hbr in comparisons with other languages. The Syr coefficient is 2921:15861 = .184. Comparison with Hbr: Syr: Unit

ABC D Ea Eb Ec Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb He Hen Hev

Total

Occ

Exp

Diff

x2

584 259 41 299 246

596 203 39 407 144

.242 15.448 .0lD 28.658 72.250

390 206

350

-12 +56 +2 -108 +102 +40 -8 -53 +1 -15 -47 +35 +28 -18

18

202

287 2 39 66

283

214 71

201 302 49 4 38 301

2921

4.571

.299 39.563 .005 .745 45.082 306.250 20.632 1.076 534.831

Hbr: Occ

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21 209

1634 15861

The chi-square aggregate exceeds the conventional limit for significance of 22.362, 23.92 times. The main reasons for the deviation, as indicated by the individual chi-square values, are more frequent use of pronouns, determinatives and nominal sentences and also of adverbial phrases, although their chi-

137 No

Pal mss. of the section are known to me.

160

HISTORICAL SURVEY

square value is inflated by the small expected number, adverbial phrases being atypical of Rbr; and on the other hand, less frequent use of prepositions, conjunctions, preformatives and verbal phrases. This latter feature parallels the more frequent use of Stn, while decrease in the use of PTpr and PTcj is mainly due to different syntactical constructions causing also extensive disuse of preformatives while increasing that of pronouns and determinatives. The NP are largely restructured by the use of the PNrel, while the VP go practically out of use; PNrel figures also frequently in the AP. The scant use of preformatives reflects development of a new tense system. Before proceeding towards the south, we first tum east: Akkadian (of Mari): Had 652; Rb needs adjustment for non-initial Vr; following the procedure established for the non-initial or lacking S in St, we get 34 for it; Hc 23; Hen (55x = 138 units deviant vs. 8x = 19 standard) 92; Hev (283x = 1121 units deviant vs. 129x = 421 standard) 757. Coefficient: 6171:15861 = .389. Comparison with Rbr:

Akk: Unit

Oee

Exp

Diff

ABC D Ea Eb Ee Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb He Hen Hev

1386 462

1261 430 82

+125 +32 +258 -457 -303 -101 +9 +185 +162 +13 -69 +15 +11 +121

Total

6171

340

403

638 461 336 587 652 34 23 92 757

860

303 739

452 151 425 639 103 8 81 636

i 12.391 2.381 811.756 242.848 303.000 13.804

.179 226.656 61.751

.264

46.223 28.125 1.494 23.020 1773.892

Hbr: Oee

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21 209

1634 15861

The chi-square aggregate exceeds the limit 79.33 times and it is easier to identify the categories in which Akk agrees with Rbr than the deviating ones: use of pronouns and verbal stems as a whole as well as of nominal phrases and sentences. Even the use of different types of conjugation differs, as indicated by more copious use of both pre- and afformatives; more frequent use of verbal sentences is parallel to that, as also the slight excess in the use of roots etc., seeing that nouns occur less frequently. The excess in the use of adverbs and deictic particles as against the deficiency in prepositions and

HISTORICAL SURVEY

161

conjunctions is largely due to the classification of the enclitic I-mal as basically a PTd, although functioning as a Cj as well; the lack of determinative particles to the use of pronouns in those functions. Overall, however, the use of these modificational morphs outside verbal forms is less frequent, reflecting less analytical syntax. It is clear that the Akk morphosyntactical structure has largely developed apart from Hbr. Arabic: Had 570; Hb 32; Hc 2; Hen (165x = 469 units deviant vs. 179x = 400 standard) 356; Hev (602x = 1953 units deviant vs. 221x = 757 standard) 1387. Coefficient: 10363:15861 = .6534. Comparison with Hbr: Arab: Unit

Dee

Exp

Diff

ABC D

2155 855

2118 722 139 1445 510 1241 759 253 714 1073 173 14 137 1068

+37 +133 +163 -107 -104

Ea Eb Ee Fa

302

He Hen Hev

1338 406 856 1023 392 689 570 32 2 356 1387

Total

10363

Fb

Ga Gb Had Hb

-385 +264 +139 -25 -503 -141 -12 +219 +319

x2

Hbr:

Dec

10.286

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21

350.080 95.282

1634

1340.293

15861

.646 24.500 191.144 7.923 21.208 119.440 91.826 76.368 .875 235.796 114.919

209

The difference is somewhat smaller than for Akk, 59.94 times the limit for significance. The factors causing the difference are also largely different, apart from the more copious use of preformatives common to both, but even their context, the verbal system, is structurally largely different; the more copious use of adverbs etc. is also on a different, unequivocal ground. Compared with Hbr, more frequent use of pronouns may be connected with the lesser frequency of determinative particles, as the relative nexus is expressed pronominally in Arab. Both nominal and verbal sentences are used more, phrases comparatively less, as also nouns. All this point to increased verbalization of the language which also accommodates more adverbs and uses more preformatives. Structural deviations from Hbr are less radical than in the case of Akk.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

162

Harsusi: The attributes in nominal phrases not being classified separately, the standardized value for Had is 334; Hb 5; Hc 34; Hen (63x = 158 units deviant vs. 48x = 115 standard) 120; Hev (262x = 896 units deviant vs. 67x = 134 standard) 561. Coefficient: 4244:15861 = .268. Comparison with Hbr: Hrs: Unit

Oce

Exp

Diff

i

Hbr: Oee

ABC D Ea Eb Ee Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb He Hen Hev

914 337 127 561 175 415 348 55 258 334 5 34 120 561

867 296 57 592

+47 +41 +70 -31 -34 -93 +37 -49 -34 -105 -66 +28 +64 +124

2.548 5.679 85.965 1.623 5.531 17.026 4.402 23.087 3.959 25.114 61.352 130.667 73.143 35.185

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21 209 1634

Total

4244

475.281

15861

209 508 311 104 292 439 71 6 56 437

The chi-square aggregate is smaller again, 21.25 times the limit for significance; but as chi-square values are on average smaller for relatively small samples, this may not be significant. Again, there are indications of increased verbalization in the increased use of sentences, verb stems and preformatives as well as of adverbs, indirectly also in the lesser frequency of nominal types and both nominal and verbal phrases; the increased value for nominal sentences is partly due to standardization, reflecting the high proportion of sentences with non-initial S or no S; the relatively low expected value inflates the chi-square figure disproportionately. On pronouns vs. deterrninatives cf. the comment on Arab above.

163

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Tigre: The 26 = 98x non-initial Nr in the NP must again be accounted for; doing this as in Syr above, we get 452 as the standardized value of Had; VP too have non-initial Vr in 3 = 3x cases; accounting for this gives 10 as the value for Hb; Hc 14; Hen (26x = 85 units deviant vs. 29x = 82 standard) 68; Hev (24Ox = 835 units deviant vs. 81x = 268 standard) 573. Coefficient: 4011:15861 = .2529. Comparison with Hbr: Te: Unit

Oce

Exp

Diff

ABC D Ea Eb Ee Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb He Hen Hev

987 358 76 428 56 479 342 50 118 452 10 14

820 279 54 559 197 481 294 98 276 415 67 5 53 413

+167 +79 +22 -131 -141 -2 +48 -48 -158 +37 -57 +9 +15 +160

Total

4011

68

573

i 34.011 22.369 8.963 30.699 100.919 .008

7.837 23.510 90.449 3.299 48.473 16.200 4.245 61.985 452.987

Hbr: Oce

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21 209

1634 15861

The deviation is about the same as in Hrs, 21.07 times the limit for significance; but the factors causing it are largely different and more evenly distributed across the board. The higher figures for St and NP reflect mainly the standardization effect for deviant patterns; but the higher incidence of verbal stems and roots etc. suggests that some increase in the use of verbs is partly responsible, and the slightly higher figure for adverbs agrees with this; but the notable decrease in the use of the other modificational morphemes reflects basic simplicity of style in the use of verbs too; some of the increase in the ABC unit is also due to more frequent occurrence of Npr.

164

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Harari: Nr is non-initial in 51 = 187x (390 units) NP patterns; accounting for them as in Syr gives 396 as the standardized value for the unit Had; in VP, Vr is never initial giving 56 as the standardized value for Hb; AP 117; Hen (51x = 143 units deviant vs. 27x = 72 standard) 102; Hev (35Ox = 1037 units deviant vs. 71x = 242 standard) 721. Coefficient: 4484:15861 = .2827. Comparison with Hbr: Har: Unit ABC D

Ea Eb Ee Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb He Hen Hev Total

Oec

Exp

Diff

918 361 120 393 198 518 312 201

916 312 60 625 221 537 328 109

+2 +49 +60 -232 -23 -19 -16 +92

71

309

-238 -68

396 56

117 102 721 4484

464

75 6 59 462

-19 +111 +43 +259

l .004

7.696 60.000 86.118 2.394 .672 .780 77.651 183.314 9.966 4.813 2053.500 31.339 145.197 2663.444

Hbr: Oec

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387

1092 1642 265 21 209

1634 15861

The deviation jumps to 119.11 times the limit for significance, but the effect is due to a relatively minor increase in the use of the AP whose atypi-

cality in Hbr inflates the chi-square figure for them. Otherwise, the apparent decrease in the use of afformatives is mainly due to the classification of a class of partly stereotyped verbal forms as determinatives which are also otherwise totally different from those in Hbr. The higher incidence of preformatives reflects different structure of the verbal system, the lesser one of PTpr /po / cj less analytical syntactical style.

165

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Somali: As usually in the non-Sem branches of the phylum, the AT in NP are not distinguishable on Hbr pattern. This yields 254 as the standardized value for Had. Accounting for the non-initial position of Vr in 11 = 15x = 46 units VP patterns gives 41 as the standardized value for Hb. Hc 24; Hen (64x = 146 units deviant vs. 40x = 99 standard) 113; Hev (135x = 541 units deviant vs. 44x = 158 standard) 366. Coefficient: 2882:15861 = .1817. Comparison with Hbr: Som: Unit ABC D Ea Eb Ee Fa Fb Ga Gb Had

Hb He Hen Hev Total

Oec

Exp

Diff

613 356

589 201 39 402 142 345 211 70 198 298 48 4 38 297

+24 +155 +57 -291 -32 +30 +7 -33 -30

96

111 110 375 218 37 168 254 41 24 113 366

2882

-44

-7 +20 +75 +69

x2 .fl78

119.527 83.308 210.649 7.211 2.609 .232 15.557 4.545 6.497 1.021 100.000 148.026 16.030 716.190

Hbr: Oee

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21 209

1634 15861

The deviation is 32.03 times the limit of significance. Generally lesser use of modificational morphemes is indicative of less analytical syntax again; the higher incidence of pronouns is mainly due to the classification of a determinative element with them; the other determinatives are not comparable to the Hbr ones either. The higher St values are again mainly due to the standardization of anomalous features, that of the AP to its rare use in Hbr.

166

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Hausa: In the NP, the AT are not distinguished; 11 = 35x patterns have non-initial Nr; resulting in Had 206. In the VP, the 2 = 4x patterns with noninitial Vr lead to Hb 40. Hc 32; Hen (94x = 272 units deviant vs. 131 x = 307 standard) 227; Hev (54x = 211 units deviant vs. 239x = 719 standard) 321. Coefficient: 3368:15861 = .2123. Comparison with Hbr: Has: Unit ABC D

Ea Eb Ee Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb He Hen Hev Total

Oce

Exp

Diff

763 530 120 182 38 396 339

688

+75 +295 +75 -287 -128 -7 +92 -82 -58 -143 -16 +28 +183 -26

174 206

40 32 227 321

3368

235 45 469 166 403 247 82 232 349 56

4

44

347

..;

Hbr: Oce

8.176 370.319 125.000 175.627 98.699 .122 34.267 82.000 14.500 58.593 4.571 196.000 761.114 1.948

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21

1930.936

15861

209

1634

The deviation exceeds the limit for significance 86.35 times; here, the central cause is the scant nominal and non-existent verbal inflection, reflected also in the increased occurrence of pronouns replacing the conjugational formatives. The lack of verbal conjugation may also be partly responsible for the relatively high occurrence of nominal sentences and for a lesser one in roots and verbal nouns; the decrease in the use of nominal (and verbal) phrases reflects relative simplicity and brevity of syntactical constructions, that of conjunctions mainly asyndeta replacing the Hbr parataxis and consecutive /w-/; more copious use of adverbs and deictic expressions is also characteristic of simple style, little use of determinatives likewise.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

167

Fassato Berber: AT again not separated; and as the 2 patterns with non-initial Nr are of foreign origin, the anomaly is disregarded in standardization. Result: Had 198; Hb -; Hc 10; Hen (26x = 53 units deviant vs. 29x = 65 standard) 48; Hev (258x = 801 units deviant vs. 23x = 67 standard) 533. Coefficient: 2861:15861 = .1804. Comparison with Hbr: Fass: Unit ABC D

Ea Eb Ee Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb He Hen Hev Total

Hbr: Oce

Oce

Exp

Diff

l

594 306 67 222

585 199 38 399 141 343 210 70 197 296 48 4 38 295

+9 +107 +29 -177 -141 -41 +73 +136 -105 -98 -48 +6 +10 +238

.138 57.533 22.132 78.519 141.000 4.901 25.376 264.229 55.964 32.446 48.000 9.000 2.632 192.014

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21

933.884

15861

302 283 206 92

198 10 48 533 2861

209 1634

The deviation exceeds the limit of significance 41.76 times, i.e., less than Hsa, but more than Som. The main factors, however, are different from both, to wit, more frequent use of preformatives on the cost of afformatives connected with largely differently structured both verbal and nominal flexion; as well as complete absence of determinatives and verbal phrases, the latter due to the absence of verbal nouns which again may be connected with the more frequent use of conjugated verbal forms and hence, of verbal sentences, although the high figure for the latter is mainly due to the effect of standardization of subjectless sentences. Lack of determinatives and scanty use of conjunctions are indicative of simple syntax here too; use of suffixed pronouns has also often deictic character. Less use of nominal phrases is likewise symptomatic of simpler and briefer syntactic structures.

168

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Tuareg: Here, AT were classifiable into different categories. Accounting for the 4 = 4x (5 AT) patterns with non-initial Nr does not affect the result of standardization: Had 223. Accounting for the 4 = 4x (7 adjuncts) VP patterns with non-initial Vr does affect the result: Hb 17; Hc 2; Hen (16x = 32 units deviant vs. 20 = 51 standard) 33; Hev (164x = 630 units deviant vs. 54x = 178 standard) 422. Coefficient: 2395:15861 = .151. Comparison with Hbr: Tu: Unit ABC D

Ea Eb Ee Fa Fb Ga Gb Had Hb He Hen Hev Total

Oce

Exp

Diff

578 179 61 217

489 167 32 334 118 287 175

+89 +12 +29 -117 -118 -106 +8 +135 -59 -25 -23 -1 +1 +175

181 183 193 106 223

17 2 33 422

2395

58

165 248 40 3 32 247

x2 16.198 .862 26.281 40.985 118.000 39.150 .366

314.224 21.097 2.520 13.225 .333 .031 123.988 717.260

Hbr: Oce

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21 209

1634 15861

The deviation is somewhat less over the limit than in Fass, 32.075 times, due to the generally less accentuated differences from Hbr. Apart from that, slightly more frequent occurrence of nominal forms, including verbal nouns and hence, the reappearance of verbal phrases, may be significant; the less frequent use of pronouns may be indirect consequence of that, while the higher frequency of the unit ABC reflects more frequent occurrence of Npr in the sample.

169

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Coptic: Nr being mostly, 30 = 165x (237 AT vs. 54 standard) non-initial and AT not classifiable, the resulting value for Had is 308; the 2 = 2x VP patterns with non-intial Vr are not significant; hence Hb 88; Hc 21; Hen (51x = 158 units deviant vs. 28x = 94 standard) 119; Hev (59x = 131 units deviant vs.56x = 198 standard) 139. Coefficient: 2396:15861 = .15I. Comparison with Hbr: Cpt: Unit

Hbr:

Oee

Exp

Diff

i

D

430 430

Fb

382 16 285 158

489 167 32 334 118 287 175 58 165 248 40 3 32 247

-59 +263 -12 +48 -102 -2 -17 -58 -165 +60 +48 +18 +87 -108

7.119 414.186 4.500 6.898 88.169 .014 1.651 58.000 165.000 14.516 57.600 108.000 236.531 47.223

3241 1105 212 2211 780 1900 1162 387 1092 1642 265 21 209 1634

1209.407

15861

ABC

Ea Eb Ee Fa Ga Gb Had

20

He Hen Hev

308 88 21 119 139

Total

2396

Hb

Oec

The deviation here is 54.08 times beyond the limit for significance. The most conspicuous feature is the extraordinarily high occurrence of pronominals, mainly to compensate for the lack of inflection of the Hbr type. The higher frequency of phrases and nominal sentences may also be connected with this, the scant use of determinative particles likewise, pronominal elements being used in that function too; and so the lower frequency of verbal sentences which again may be connected with that of the roots, although the latter is not very significant. Summing up, not much uniformity is found between the languages and even dialects or traditions of a single language compared. To begin with the latter again, using the average of the four as basis for comparison with the individual Hbr samples and taking (admittedly slightly too large) chi-square value 5.000 for a single unit as the limit for significance, Sam deviates on fewest items and also least in the aggregate, exceeding the norm on determinatives, pronouns and prepositions plus conjunctions, the latter mainly because of the frequent use of the so-called /w/ consecutive; while particularly nominal and also verbal sentences occur less frequently. Next is Bab; but there, nominal sentences deviate most into the positive direction; adverbs less so, and verbal stems are almost on the borderline; whereas verbal sen-

170

HISTORICAL SURVEY

tences occur much less than expected and verbal phrases and pronouns slightly so. Again, in Pal, verbal sentences only occur more frequently than on the average, whereas the determinatives, nominal (and prepositional) phrases, prepositions and conjunctions as well as pronouns are some-what less frequent, with the afformative again close to the borderline. In Q, nominal and (less so) verbal sentences as well as nominal types and afformatives deviate positively; determinatives, verbal stems, pronouns and prepositions plus conjunctions negatively. Taken by the unit, the roots (plus proper names and numerals) are the most stable item, and it may be significant that they are least affected by the vagaries of syntax; although the frequency of preformatives and adverbial phrases also stays below the limits for significance, the latter because of the rarity of occurrence which indicates that they are atypical of Hbr. On the other hand, sentences are on the whole the most volatile ones which agrees with the fact that they are the least affected by formal rules, both with regard to the size and the sequence of the morphological units they incorporate; nominal sentences are the most frequent unit in Q Bab and the least frequent in Sam compared with the expectation; while in Pal where they agree closely with the expected value, the verbal sentences exceed it almost twice over, whereas in Sam Bab, these are heavily on the negative side, in Q somewhat on the positive one. The nominal and verbal phrases, following normally the rule of the regent being initial and also more limited in size in terms of significant units, keep mostly below the limit for significance on the positive side, but the nominal ones fall significantly below the average in Pal and the verbal ones in Bab. The modificational morphs and nominal and verbal stems as well as afformatives show more variation between positive and negative deviations, but less than the sentences. The same overall picture emerges from the comparisons with cognate languages. The ABC unit rarely emerges above the positive limit for significance, and then just narrowly over it except in Te where the somewhat larger deviation is caused by unusually high frequency of proper names; it never crosses the negative limit. Nominal (incl. prepositional) and verbal phrases likewise stay generally within the limits of non-significance except in Arab Hrs where phrases are generally rarely used; and the verbal ones in Syr where, in consequence of extensive restructuring of verbal system, they are virtually non-existent. On the other hand, the frequent high values for adverbial phrases (except in Arab Berb) reflect their scanty use in Hbr and are therefore not significant for the unit the occurrence of which on the whole remains modest everywhere. Sentences, on the other hand, usually figure among the most frequent deviations, the nominal ones being first in Arab Som Hsa and second in Cpt where the unusual proliferation of pronominal elements exceeds them; and third in Syr Hrs in both of which the freak adverbial phrases are first. The verbal sentences lead in Te and are second in

HISTORICAL SURVEY

171

Har (again ostensibly exceeded by the adverbial phrases) and in Berb where the frequency of the preformatives is also verbally motivated; in Akk, they are only in the fifth place; but apart from the adverbial phrases again, the high value for the adverbial and deictic elements is largely due to equivocal classification of a frequent ambivalent element, and the pre- and afformaytives are largely connected with the restructured verbal system. The other kind of sentences is usually below or close to the limit for significance, although the effect of standardization interpreting major deviations as additionallength ostensibly reduces the volatility, not allowing high values on the negative side. Overall, however, it is clear that these purely functional or syntactical morphemes are most easily subject to change, and therefore least attention should be paid to them in working out the characteristics of prehistoric proto-languages, if such attempts are to be even moderately successful. 138 138 E.g., the still popular attempts at reconstructing word order in proto-Semitic (or even proto-Semito-Hamitic) language on the basis of that attested in some historical languages can only be regarded as pure speculation in the light of its great variability between different languages, however closely related, and even between different dialects, styles and stages of development of one and the same language, as seen above on Hbr. To take an example in the traditional syntactical terms, it is still sometimes asserted that in Hbr, the predicate ("verb") precedes the subject in verbal sentences; but in the nominal ones, the subject comes fIrst; although lately, the qualifying adjective, "predominant" has appeared to temper the assertion. With regard to object in verbal sentences, it appears now to be placed after both the predicate and the subject. Against this, my Sam ( =basic Hbr) sample yields the following data: In verbal sentences, the subject precedes the predicate 'lfj7x, the reverse order is found 337X; the latter are in majority, but only about 55.8% vs. 44.2%, not very convincing predominance, let alone unqualifIed rule. The object is more regularly relegated to the last place, but it still precedes the predicate 115x (agst. 384x following) and even the subject 129x ~agst. 21lx following; the discrepancy in the aggregate is mainly due to subjectless sentences, slightly to double objects). In nominal sentences, the order Sop clearly predominates, 285x vs. P-S 3Ox, but as seen, it is not without exceptions either. Moreover, in Arab, the order Sop predominates even in verbal sentences, in our sample 314x vs. P-S 204x; in nominal ones, 242x vs. 6lx; however, the object practically always follows the predicate, with only two exceptions out of a total of 341, but in 41 instances (of which 39 suffixed pronouns) it does precede the subject, and so that rule is not absolute either. All in all, this mode of calculation too agrees with the principle that what is most important comes fIrst; the subject being the dominant part of the sentence, it naturally comes fIrst, unless some other part be more emphasized in the context; and verbal sentences being, on the average, more articulate than the nominal ones, they are more susceptible to variation in detail. Representation by an enclitic pronoun also implies less emphasis and may thus be conceived as part of the verbal form and therefore not detached even when the subject follows (as in Arab, whereas in Hbr, it is optional). The fact that in the earliest conjugated form of the verb, the pronominal subject nevertheless retains the initial position implies also that the position of the subject in the beginning of the sentence must be very old indeed. That was mainly in response to Stephen J. Lieberman's paper on Word order in the AfroAsiatic languages in the Proceedings of the ninth world congress of Jewish studies (1986); unfortunately, his promised paper on the background of the Semitic N-stem has not been accessible to me, if it has been published in the meantime. As the reader can see, I would agree with him on the pronominal origins of the N- and t-stem preformatives; but I cannot see why they, just as the causative stem, should be based on the third person pronoun; in the present paper, Lieberman does not give any reason for this, just seems to take it for granted as the only alternative. After all, even in European languages, Indo-European as well as FinnoUgrian, the conjugated verb uses all three persons of the reflexive pronoun, although the impersonal verbal nouns can be coupled with the 3rd pers. only; why should that restriction apply to the conjugated verb as well in Semito-Hamitic? (On the reflexive use of the 3rd pers.

172

HISTORICAL SURVEY

cf., e.g., p. 75f above.) It is eertainly more plausible to assume that the widespread 1st and 2nd

pers. elements were used in reflexive-reciprocal (and passive) functions too rather than ascribe the origins of such ubiquitous phenomena to elements of restricted distribution and usually auxiliary functions. T. Muraoka is on firmer ground when discussing word order in his Emphatic words and structures in biblical Hebrew (1985); but his samples too are selective rather than random or comprehensive (cf. ib. p. 6 n. 19). The question of the presenee of emphasis or otherwise may also be largely subje¢ve; e.g., I cannot help pereeiving it on the predicate of most of the examples quoted in section vi 2 (p. 15); but what is relevant to the present study (cf. p. 103 above) is that in the whole sec. vi (Muraoka p. 14-17) all examples of the preeeding predicate refer to previously mentioned or otherwise familiar entities; again, in a synchronic study like Muraoka's, the presenee of subject before predicate in all the 1st and 2nd pers. forms of preformal ("imperfect") in the verbal form itself may perhaps be discarded when determining word order in verbal sentenees; but diachronically it is important, as it indicates that at the time of its creation, even a pronominal subject preceded the predicate at least sufficiently regularly to create the prevalent form of conjugation; accordingly, the prevalent order, P-S in verbal sentences in Hbr is a later innovation.

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

1

a. Introductory observations.

The phonological relationships of the different non-Masoretic Hebrew dialects and traditions to each other and their prehistoric antecedents in the light of parallel phenomena in cognate languages were discussed in Part Two to the extent possible on the available material. The morphosyntactic aspects were similarly treated in Part Three, and material for lexical comparison on a more comprehensive basis than Swadeshian lexicostatistics was also prepared in connection with the discussion of the roots. What remains to be done in this final synopsis is to combine the three main aspects of language appropriately to reflect the total structure of Hbr and its development in the light of these sources. At the end of the general introduction to the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics, a brief summary of such a comparison was already given. However, it was prepared on a partly different basis, using Swadeshian lexicostatistics for the lexical component; and the method of combining the three aspects, although endeavouring to take the relative importance of these into account, was artificial and therefore arbitrary to some extent. Here, we attempt to eliminate the artificial nature of the procedure by reducing the results obtained for the three aspects separately to a common denominator. The lexical component is still regarded as the basic one, the number of cognates reflecting the fundamental relationship between the entities compared. To reduce the number of cognates to a more easily manageable size, we adapt it to the percentage scale, as already done in connection with the preparation of the material, the figure 100 meaning thus complete identity, 0 complete lack of cognates and hence, no measurable relationship at all; this also makes it commensurate with the Swadeshian lexicostatistical method, although there, 0 must be replaced by 1 for further calculations, if the relationship has been established by other means. The result of the phonostatistical calculation, as crystallized in the excursus in Part Two §21, is adapted to that by setting the average of the Hbr traditions equal to unit (= 1) and counting deviations in both directions as reductions of the relationship, by dividing the percentage of cognates by the relative ratio, if this exceeds 1, but multiplying it, if the ratio is less than 1. For morpho syntactics, in the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics, the ratio obtained from the chi-square aggregate was further reduced by dividing it by the coefficient of internal complexity obtained by the application of Waring distribution to the total of the morphosyntactical units arranged according to their frequency of occurrence, on the principle that internal complexity is conducive to amplification of morphosyntactical variation. This, however, still leaves values far too high to be applied directly to the results of the lexico- and phonostatistical calculation, as this would disporportionately inflate the relative importance of morphosyntactical developments, these being secondary to both lexical and

2

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

phonological aspects and therefore least fundamental. Moreover, as the size of the lexical stock was reduced to the percentage scale, it appears appropriate to make an analogous reduction here. The reduction should, then, affect the entire population proportionately here too; this is best done in connection with the division by the coefficient of internal complexity which is thus to be multiplied by the ratio of the stock of original Hbr roots to 100, i.e., 18.6. However, this does not account for the internal complexity of Hbr itself; to set this equal to unit, the resulting figure must be divided by the Hbr coefficient, 3.05. The final morphosyntactical coefficient of deviation is then used to divide the result of the multiplication of the lexical and phonological values; this yields the ultimate figure for the relationship between the entire language structures.

b. Comparisons. Hbr being the centre of the study to which the other languages are compared, its internal standard must be determined first. For morphosyntactics, this was done in Part Three §42, where the Sam sample was adopted as the representative for the entire language in the form amended according to textcritical observations, resulting in essential agreement with the other traditions, as far as attested for the passage. For the lexical component, again, the base must be assumed to be identical for all the branches of tradition. For Pal Bab (Tib), this is immediately clear, representing as they do alternative modes of vocalization of actually or potentially any text; and so for the Gr (and Lat) transcriptions; while the few roots attested in Q (and Sam) only may be regarded as accidentally not attested elsewhere, materials for the period covered by our study being defective in any tradition which then covers aPal and Sam too. For Hbr as a whole, then, the lexical component may be set equal to 100. Determination of the phonological standard is somewhat more complicated, particularly as the vo~alism is in some branches of tradition from a widely different period than most of the consonant text; and there are also wide differences in the pronunciation of many consonants between different samples. Most of these, however, are of relatively late origin, and as the morphosyntactical sample reflects the standard of roughly the middle of the last pre-Christian millennium, and the stock of roots may also be practically entirely at least as old, lack of attestation until later being almost always demonstrably accidental by attestation in cognate languages, it is consistent to try to establish the phonological standard according to the pronunciation of the same period, as far as possible. With regard to consonantism, this is fairly simple, as the decay of glottals and pharyngals and also the spirantization of stops belong essentially to later periods, perhaps apart from some rudimentary beginnings which may be ignored for the present purpose. The

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

3

pronunciation of consonants may thus be set equal to the values established in Part Two, as attested in the consonant text of that period apart from the use of certain consonant signs to indicate vowels, generally recognizable. With regard to the vowels, things are more difficult, as accurate information does not begin until centuries later, and that at first on proper names only; the earliest fragments of the continuous texts available, those of the 2nd col. of the Hexapla, also reflect the pronunciation of a period affected by unusually heavy accentuation and of a community whose phonology has been affected by that of Greek. On the other hand, however, trying to reconstruct the vocalization of a continuous Hbr text of about the 6th century B.C. appears too hazardous, and as the Gr influence seems to have affected consonantism rather than vocalism which is generally more conservative than its centuries later equivalents in Pal Bab Tib, and as the present purpose only requires the division of sounds into 3 categories, it was decided to apply the vocalism of the G sample as a collective entity onto the consonantism of a sample of a comparable size from the Book of Deuteronomy. One of the three biblical Hbr samples studied in the general introduction to the Statistical analyses of morphosyntactics, Dt 5:1-21, comes close to satisfying this requirement, and as it was also found to agree with the requirements of a random sample of biblical Hbr, its suitability is evident. The shortfall in the number of original consonants is supplied by the addition of the following two verses;} the sample is thus extended here to comprise Dt 5:1-23; that for the vowels2 Ps 18:26-48 89:26-53 in Gr transcription. The numbers for the different consonants are, then: 1'1 98, Ibl 56, Igl 4, Idl 40, Ihl 50, Iwl 50, Izl 6, Ixl 16, 17/ 4, Iyl 51, Ikl 80, III 90, Iml 93, Inl 59, lsi 3,1&/45, Ipi 12, Icl 13, Iql 12, Irl 60, If I 59, It I 74; of the vowels, six partly allophonic varieties are distinguished with the following frequencies of occurrence: lal 266, lal 136, lei 41, Ii! 87, 101 92, lui 41. For comparisons, the sounds are divided into three classes according to the principles described in Part Two §21 (Excursus) into i) "guttural" sounds, ii) "intermediary" sounds (also with relatively stable articulators), and iii) front oral sounds. In the present sample, class i consists of the consonants /'1, Igl, Ihl, lxi, Ikl, 1&1, Iql as well as the dorsovelar coarticulation3 of 171 and Icl and of the vowels 101 and lui; its frequency of occurrence is thus 446.5. Class ii consists of the consonants Ibl, Iwl, Iml, Ipi and the nasal coarticulation4 of Inl and the vowel la/; its frequency of occurrence is thus 506.5. Class iii consists then of all the remaining sounds and of the front oral coarticulations of 171, Inl and Icl, the total frequency of occurrence being

} This does not affect the randomness of the sample; in fact, it improves the ratio slightly by ~ringing the occurrence of 14 out of the 22 consonants closer to the expected value. Cf. Part Two § 25 a iii; vowels ib. b iii. 3 representing half value in calculations. 4 at half value.

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

4

685. The total number of sounds in the sample is thus 1638. To reduce these values to unity, their mutual ratios must first be determined. In the excursus referred to above, the ratio of classes i & ii vs. iii was found to be decisive with regard to the problem discussed there; but in an overall comparison, the individual relationships of the classes must also be taken into account. This is simplest done by calculating the ratio of class i vs. iii and then mUltiplying it by the other ratio and taking the square root of the result; the size of class ii being a codeterminant in both of these ratios, further calculations are redundant. The ratios are: i) vs. iii) 446.5:685 = 1:1.53; i&ii) vs. iii) 953:685 = 1:.72; multiplying the ratios yields 1:1.10; the square root of this, 1:1.05,5 is the coefficient by which the corresponding figures of other languages are to be multiplied to reduce them to scale. The modified Sam sample having been taken to represent Hbr as a whole for morphosyntactics, calculation of the internal complexity of Hbr is also based on it. However, as the Waring distribution6 is applied to the entire stock of morphs as a whole, without analysis into morphemes and submorphemes, no standardization of phrases and sentences is appropriate here, and so the resulting table, given on the following page, is a reproduction of that in Part I of the Syntactical analyses of morphosyntactics p. 61. Dividing the chisquare aggregate by the conventional (.05 level of probability, or more than one deviation in twenty being significant, i.e., not attributable to pure chance) minimum limit for significance which for 32 degrees of freedom is 46.193, we get 3.05 as the coefficient of the internal complexity of Hbr morphosyntactical structure. This is set equal to unit by dividing the corresponding figure of the language compared by it.'

Calculating additional decimals would give only illusory accuracy. Cf. Part Three § 3. . , Or any resulting figure of which it is an unmodified factor, e.g., as described at the end of sec. a (p. 2 above). 5 6

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 1.

Distribution of morphs in Hbr compared with the Waring distribution.

Frequency class

Oce

Exp

Diff

lx 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x

950 204 97 55 36 30 UJ 20 10 10 6 4 8 4 6 8 7 10 13 13 3 8 5 5 7 7 3 7 12 9 8 12 13

808

+142 -65

8x 9x lOx 1lx 12x 13x 14x 15x 16x 17x 18x 19-2Ox 21-22x 23-24X 25-UJx 27-29x 3O-32x 33-36x 37-4lx 42-48x 49-57x 58-7Ox

71-9Ox 91-13Ox 131-22Ox 221-70lx

Total

5

1616

UJ9 135 81

54 38 29 22 18 15 12 10 9 8 7 6 5 5 8 7 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

-38 -UJ -18 -8 -3 -2 -8 -5 -6 -6 -1 -4 -1 +2 +2 +5 +5 +6 -3 +3 -1 +2 +2 -2 +2 +7 +4 +3 +7 +8

i 24.955 15.706 10.696 8.346 6.000 1.684 310 .182 3.556 1.667 3.000 3.600 .111 2.000 .143 .667 .800 5.000 3.125 5.143 1.500 1.800 .167 .000 .800 .800 .800 .800 9.800 3.200 1.800 9.800 12.800 140.758

In comparisons with cognate languages, the lexical component is likewise the fundamental one, as described in sec. a (p. 1 above). Partly because of this, taking its details into account being correspondingly more important, partly because of the often inadequate amounts of available lexical material particularly for many non-Sem cognate languages, the lexical component was mostly calculated not for single languages, but for entire non-Sem branches and Sem sub-branches, as described in Part Three §3S. As a consequence, the comprehensive comparisons cannot be made on the basis of single lan-

6

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

guages either, but likewise based on these (sub-)branches; however, this is not likely to constitute any great loss, as the degree of relationship with Hbr decreases rather rapidly towards the fringes of the Sem speaking area and still more so outside Sem, so that appreciable differences within the single branches would be either unlikely or atypical. On the other hand, statistical treatment of phonology and morphology can only be based on single languages, and in some cases, more than one language of the same (sub-)branch has been subjected to such analyses. Where this is the case, the average value of these is taken to represent that (sub-)branch in order to minimize the effect of possible freak deviations within a single language. We proceed in the decreasing order of the cognates in the lexical component. Aramaic: Lexical coefficient: 77.8. Phonostatistics: In addition to Part Two §21 Excursus nos. 24-26, analysis was made of a sample of Syriac. Source: C. Brockelmann, Syrische Grammatik (1951) p. 21 * l. 5 to p. 22* l. 10. Total of phonemes: 1160. Result: i) 301.5; ii) 501;-iii) 457.5. Ratios: i) vs. iii) 1:1.52; i+ii) vs. iii) 1:0.65. Resulting coefficients: Syr 1:0.99; TgAram 1:0.43; Jewish Neo-Aram 1:1.23; Ma&lula Aram 1:1.26; mean value of these = phonological coefficient: 1:1.22. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat.anal. III p. 38f): See Table 2 below.

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 2.

Distribution of morphs in Syr on Waring distribution.

Frequency class

Oce

Exp

Diff

1x

389 96 42 27

327 109 55 33 22 16 12 9 7 6 5 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 8

+62 -13 -13 -6 -2 -4 -5 +1 -4 -3 -1 -4 +4 -4 +3 -3 -4 -2

2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x

lOx

11x 12-13x 14-15x 16-17x 18-2Ox 21-24x 25-3Ox 31-39x 4O-57x 58-198x Total

7

20 12 7 10 3 3 4 4 10 1 8 2 1 3 5 7 654

-1

i 11.755 1.550 3.073 1.091 .182 1.000 2.083 .111 2.286 1.500 .200 2.000 2.667 3.200 1.800 1.800 3.200 .800 .000 .125 40.423

Divided by the standard chi-square value for 19 degrees of freedom, 30.144, this gives 1.34 as the coefficient of internal complexity for morphosyntactics. Multiplication of this by 18.6 for reduction of results to percentage scale, and division by 3.05 to reduce the Hbr coefficient to unity gives 8.17 by which the ratio obtained from the comparison with HbrB = 23.92 is divided to yield the overall morphosyntactical coefficient = 2.93. Arabic: Lexical coefficient: 73.1. Phonostatistics: Part Two §21 Excursus nos. 18-21. Resulting coefficients: Soqotran Arab 1:1.10; ClArab 1:0.90; Baghdad Arab 1:2.24; Moroccan Arab 1:1.00; mean = phonological coefficient: 1:1.22. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat. anal. II p. 39f): See Table 3 below.

8 See Part Three § 42.

8

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 3.

Distribution of morphs distribution.

in Arab

Frequency class

Oce

Exp

Diff

1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x lOx 11x 12x 13x 14x 15x 16x 17x 18-19x 20-21x 22-23x 24-25x 26-28x 29-31x 32-36x 37-42x 43-49x 50-6Ox 61-75x 76-100x 101-15Ox 151-432x

919 186 103 53 40 33 24 17 10 12

768

+151

256 128

-70 -25 -24

51 37 28 21 17 14 12 10 8 7

-11 -4 -4

Total

10 9

10 10 4 4 2 10 6

n

-4

-7 -2 -2

-1

+2 +3

6

-2

5 5

-1 -3

9 7 6

+1

4 2

5

-1 -1 -1

6

-4

5

5

6 10 3 6 8 6 7

6 5

+5

5 5 5 5 8

+1 +3 +1 +2 +3

5

11

1535

5

-2

on

Waring

29.689 19.141 4.883 7.481 2.373 .432 .571 .762 2.882 .286 .333 .100 .500 1.286 .667 .200 1.800 .111

.143 .167 .200 2.667 .000 .000 5.000 .800 .200 1.800 .200 .800 1.125

86.599

With 31 degrees of freedom, the standard chi-square value is 44.985; this yields 5.12 as the overall morphosyntactical coefficient. South Arabic: Lexical coefficient: 42.2. Phonostatistics: Part Two §21 Excursus nos. 11-17. Resulting coefficients: ESA 1:0.82; libbali 1:1.27; Hrs 1:1.29; Botahari 1:1.12; Mhr a) 1:1.01, b) 1:1.23; Soq 1:1.13; AK 1:1.24; mean = phonological coefficient: 1:1.13. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat. anal. V p. 34): See Table 4 below.

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

9

Table 4. Distribution of morphs in Hrs (SAr) on Waring distribution.

i

Frequency class

Oce

Exp

Diff

1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x

535 144 62 44 29 20

471 157 79 47 31 22 17 13 10 9 7 6 5 9 7 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6

+64 -13 -17 -3 -2 -2 -5 +2

8.696 1.076 3.658 .191 .129 .182 1.471

-2 -3 +1

.444 1.286 .167

lOx

11x 12x 13x 14-15x 16-17x 18-19x 20-22x 23-25x 26-29x 3O-35x 36-44x 45-57x 58-82x 83-265x

Total

12 15 10 7 4 7 5 7 12 3 2 2 2 5 6 1 3 5 942

.308 .000

.000 -2 +5 -2 -4 -3 -3

.444 3.571 .800 2.667 1.800 1.800

.000 +1 -4 -2 -1

.200 3.200 .800 .167 33.057

The standard chi-square value with 23 degrees of freedon being 35.173, the distribution is within the limits of chance expectation; the resulting morphosyntactical coefficient is 3.71. Akkadian: Lexical coefficient: 37.0. Phonostatistics: Source: ARM II, texts no. 35 and no. 39 lines 45-71; damaged and partly restored readings included except where provided with a question mark. Total of phonemes: 1437. Result: i) 231; ii) 590.5; iii) 615.5. Ratios: i) vs. iii) 1:2.66; i +ii) vs. iii) 1:0.75. Phonological coefficient: 1:1.41. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat. anal. IV p. 60f): See Table 5 below.

10

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 5.

Frequency

class 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x

9x

lOx

11x 12x 13x 14x 15-16x 17-18x 19-2Ox 21-23x 24-26x 27-3Ox 31-35x 36-42x 43-53x 54-72x 13-21Ox Total

Distribution distribution.

of

morphs

in

Akk

on

Oce

Exp

Diff

x2

661 136 67 37 25 17 20 11 10 11 6 2 3 3 6 6 3 8 6 4 9 4 8 4 13

540 180 90 54 36 26 19 15 12 10 8 7 6 5 8 7 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 9

+121 -44 -23 -17 -11 -9 +1 -4 -2 +1 -2 -5 -3 -2 -2 -1 -2 +2 +1 -1 +4 -1 +3 -1 +4

27.113 10.756 5.878 5352 3.361 3.115 .005 1.067 .333 .100 .500 3.571 1.500 .800 .500 .143 .800 .667 .200 .200 3.200 .200 1.800 .200 1.718

1080

Waring

73.139

The standard chi-square value with 24 degrees of freedom is 36.415; this gives 2.01 as the degree of internal complexity and 6.47 as the overall morphosyntactical coefficient. North Ethiopic: Lexical coefficient: 34.4. Phonostatistics: Part Two §21 Excursus nos. 8-10. Resulting coefficients: Tigrinya 1:1.47; Te1:1.51; G&z 1:0.98; mean = phonological coefficient: 1:1.30. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat. anal. VI p. 40f): See Table 6 below.

11

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 6.

Distribution of morphs in Te (NEth) on Waring distribution.

Frequency

Oce

Exp

Diff

Ix 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x

417 139 69 42 28 20 15 11 9 8 6 5 5 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

+73 -29 -23 -6 -7 -5 -3

1Ix 12x 13x 14-15x 16-17x 18-2Ox 21-23x 24-27x 28-33x 34-43x 44-58x 59-85x 86-212x

490 110 46 36 21 15 12 11 8 7 9 9 4 10 4 6 5 5 7 6 4 5 3

Total

833

class

lOx

-1 -1 +3 +4 -1 +3 -2

+2 +1 -1 -2

l 12.779 6.050 7.667 .857 1.750 1.250 .600 .000 .111 .125 1.500 3.200 .200 1.286 .667 .000 .000 .000 .800 .200 .200 .000 .800 40.042

The standard chi-square value with 22 degrees of freedom is 33.924; this gives 1.18 as the degree of internal complexity and 2.82 as the overall morphosyntactical coefficient. South Ethiopic: Lexical coefficient: 18.7. Phonostatistics: Part Two §21 Excursus nos. 1-7. Resulting coefficients: AmhS 1:1.73; Sdd 1:1.51; Ezha 1:1.52; Wol 1:1.29; Ch (with corrective ib. p. 144) 1:2.22; Gafat (ditto) 1:2.26; Har (ditto) 1:1.59; mean = phonological coefficient: 1:1.70. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat. anal. VII p. 38): See Table 7 below.

12

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 7.

Frequency

Distribution of morphs in Har (SEth) on Waring distribution. Oce

Exp

Diff

474

+80 -25 -14

11x 12x 13x 14-15x 16-17x 18-19x 20-22x 23-26x 27-31x 32-38x 39-48x 49-64x 65-187x

554 133 65 47 32 12 9 9 9 5 8 4 3 7 9 7 6 5 3 5 6 1 8

Total

947

class 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x

lOx

158 79 47 32 23 17 13 11 9 7 6 5 8 7 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 8

-11 -8 -4 -2 -4 +1 -2 -2 -1 +2 +2 -1 -2 +1 -4

i 13.502 3.956 2.481 .000 .000 5.261 3.765 1.231

.364

1.778 .143 .667 .800 .125 .571 .800 .000 .167 .800 .000 .200 3.200 .000 39.811

With 22 degrees of freedom again, the degree of internal complexity is 1.17 and the overall morphosyntactical coefficient, 16.69. Egyptian: Lexical coefficient: 7.0. Phonostatistics: Part Two §21 Excursus no. 32. Phonological coefficient: 1:1.82. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat. anal. XI p. 23): See Table 8 below.

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 8.

Distribution of morphs in Cpt (Eg) on Waring distribution.

Frequency class

Oce

Exp

DifJ

Ix 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x

317 106 53 32 21 15 11 9 7 6 5 8 6 6 5 5 5 5 6

+105 -19 -22 -21 -8 -5 -6 -1

51-134x

422 87 31 11 13 10 5 8 7 2 1 4 8 4 6 3 2 4 5

Total

634

lOx

1Ix 12-13x 14-15x 16-18x 19-2Ix 21-27x 28-35x

36-SOx

13

-4 -4 -4 +2 -2 +1 -2 -2 -1 -1

i 34.779 3.406 9.132 13.781 3.048 1.667 3.273 .111 .000 2.667 3.200 2.000 .667 .667 .200 .800 .800 .200 .167 80.565

With 18 degrees of freedom, the standard chi-square value is 28.869 which gives 2.79 as the degree of internal complexity and 3.18 as the overall morphosyntactical coefficient. Cushitic: Lexical coefficient: 6.1. Phonostatistics: Part Two §21 Excursus nos. 27-29. Resulting coefficients: Or 1:0.83; Sid 1:1.06; Som 1:1.24; mean = phonological coefficient: 1:1.04. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat. anal. VIII p. 25f): See Table 9 below.

14

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 9.

Frequency

Distribution of morphs in Som (Cush) on Waring distribution. Oce

Exp

Diff

366 122 61 37 24 17 13 10

+48

23-26x 27-32x 33-4lx 42-155x

414 104 48 43 26 16 16 6 4 3 5 4 4 7 7 6 3 7 5 3

Total

731

class 1x

2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x

lOx

1lx 12x 13-14x 15-16x 17-19x

20-22x

8 7 6 5 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 7

-18 -13 +6 +2 -1 +3 -4 -4 -4 -1 -1 -3 +1 +1 +1 -2 +2

-4

i 6.295 2.656 2.710

.m

.167 .059 .692 1.600 2.000 2.286 .167

.200 1.286 .167 .167

.200 .800 .800 .000 2.286

25.571

With 19 degrees of freedom, the standard chi-square value is 30.144 which gives .85 as the degree of internal complexity (i.e., well within the limits of chance expectation) and 6.18 as the overall morphosyntactical coefficient. Berber: Lexical coefficient: 5.9. Phonostatistics: Part Two §21 Excursus no. 31; Fass, source: Beguinot, story p. 152f; Tu, source: Alojaly, Histoire p. 411. 13 to p. 43 1. 24. Results: Moroccan Berber: coefficient 1:2.42. Fass: Total of phonemes: 1256. i) 236.5; ii) 363; iii) 656.5. Ratios: i) vs. iii) 1:2.78; i+ii) vs. iii) 1:1.10; coefficient: 1:2.03. Mean of coefficients = overall phonological coefficent: 1:2.05. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity. a) Fass (Stat. anal. X p. 24t): See Table 10 below.

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

Table 10.

15

Distribution of morphs in Fass (Berb) on Waring distribution.

Frequency class

Occ

Exp

Diff

1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x lOx 1lx 12x 13-14x 15-16x 17-19x 20-22x 23-27x 28-34x 35-45x 46-7Ox 71-182x

401 111 63 27 22 11 9 9 6 7 2

351 117 59 35 23 17 13 10 8 6 5 5 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

+50 -6 +4 -8 -1 -6 -4 -1 -2 +1 -3 -5 +2 -2 -6 -1 -4 +2 -2 -2 -2

Total

702

9 4 4 1 7 3 3

3

i 7.122 .308 .271 1.829 .043 2.118 1.231 .100 .500 .167 1.800 5.000 .571 .667 6.000 .200 3.200 .800 .800 .800 .800 34.327

With 20 degrees of freedom, the standard chi-square value is 31.410; this gives 1.09 as the degree of internal complexity in Fass. b) Tu: See table 11 below.

16

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 11.

Distribution of morphs in Tu (Berb) on Waring distribution.

Frequency class

Oce

Exp

Diff

x2

1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x lOx 11x 12-13x 14-15x 16-18x 19-21x 22-25x 26-32x 33-44x 45-7Ox 71-16Ox

344 116 48 36 19 19 7 6 2 3 2 2 4 5 1 3 2 2 3 2

328 109 55 33 22 16 12 9 7 6 5 8 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

+16 +7 -7 +3 -3 +3 -5 -3 -5 -3 -3 -6 -2 -1 -4 -2 -3 -3 -2 -3

.780 .450 .891 .273 .409 .563 2.083 1.000 3.571 1.500 1.800 4.500 .667 .167 3.200 .800 1.800 1.800 .800 1.800

Total

656

28.854

With 19 degrees of freedom, chi-square value 30.144 yields .96 as the degree of internal complexity in Tu, accordingly within the limits of chance expectation. As sample size has some effect on chi-square values, the somewhat larger size of the Fass sample, 2612x vs. Tu 2126x, is taken into account in the determination of the mean: .96 multiplied by 2126 and added to the result of 1.09 multiplied by 2612 and the sum divided by the grand total of 4738 gives 1.03 as the overall degree of internal complexity in our Berb samples. The ratios of deviation from Hbr, as calculated in Part Three §42, must likewise be weighted, although there, the standardization of sentences and phrases has slightly reduced the difference in numbers; but the difference in the ratio of deviation is larger. (2861 x 41.76 + 2395 x 32.075) : 5256 = 37.35 as the mean value of deviation divided by the standardized coefficient of internal complexity, 1.03 x 18.6 : 3.05 = 6.28 yields 5.95 as the overall morphosyntactical coefficient for Berb. Chadic: Lexical coefficient: 4.5. Phonostatistics: Part Two §21 Excursus no. 30. Coefficient 1:1.01. Morphosyntactics: Calculation of internal complexity (Stat. anal. IX p. 29): See Table 12 below.

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS Table 12.

17

Distribution of morphs in Hsa (Chad) on Waring distribution.

Frequency

Oce

Exp

Diff

449 135 70 46 31 32 17 8 16 2 1 5 3 3 10 12 2 1 5 2

428 143 71 43 29

+21 -8 -1 +3 +2 +12 +2 -4 +6 -6 -5

class Ix 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x

9x lOx lIx 12x 13x 14-15x 16-17x 18-2Ox 21-23x 24-27x 28-33x 34-4Ix 42-55x

56-SOx 81-257x

Total

2 3 755

20 15 12 10 8 6 5 5 8 6 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

-2 -5 +4 +5 -3 -4 -3 -5 -3 -2

i 1.030 .447 .001

.209 .138 7.200 .267 1.333 3.600 4.500 4.167 .000 .800 3.125 2.667 3.571 1.800 3.200 .000 1.800 5.000 1.800 .800 47.455

With 22 degrees of freedom, chi-square value 33.924 gives 1.40 as the degree of internal complexity and hence, 10.11 as the overall morphosyntactical coefficient. Omotic: Lexical coefficient: 1.0. Phonostatistics: Source: Cerulli, Studi Etiopici IV, text no. III (p. 321t). Total of phonemes: 1012. i) 230.5; ii) 280; iii) 501.5. Ratios: i) vs. iii) 1:2.18; i + ii) vs. iii) 1:0.98. Phonological coefficient: 1:1.46. No morphosyntactical sample analysed. Lexical coefficient multiplied by the phonological one gives .68, less than a quarter of Berb, the second lowest on record.

c. Discussion and conclusions. The comparisons in the preceding section yield the following figures for the degree of relationship between Hbr and the groups of languages compared: Aram 21.76, Arab 11.70, SAr 10.07, Akk 4.06, NEth 9.38, SEth .66, Eg 1.21, Cush .95, Berb .48, Chad .44; Om .68 for lexical and phonological com-

18

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

ponents only. The sequence follows that of the decreasing order of value for the lexical component except for Akk SEth for which the overall figure is remarkably lower, for SEth evidently anomalous, as it places this Sem sub-branch among the non-Sem branches. Looking for the reason for these deviations, the morphosyntactical component is the most likely source, as the figures for it are based on the chi-square aggregates which may give undue emphasis to relatively minor units rarely attested in the central language. In SEth, this is indeed evidently the case, the chi-square value for the unit Hc = adverbial phrases, rare in Hbr, forming 77.1% of the chi-square aggregate. In Akk, however, no such single factor is found, the major deviations from Hbr corresponding to major structural differences in Akk. In any case, however, the less stable base for the morphosyntactical coefficient requires systematic examination of it compared with the other coefficients. To begin with, we give the figures for these other two multiplied together: Aram 63.77; Arab 59.92; SAr 37.35; Akk 26.24; NEth 26.46; SEth 11.00; Eg 3.85; Cush 5.87; Berb 2.88; Chad 4.46; Om .68. Here, deviations from the order of the lexical component reflect major phonological differences, the relatively low figures for Akk SEth being due to the large scale loss of pharyngals and/or glottals and correspondingly increased use of front oral sounds; partly so in Eg too, but here, the exact phonetic identity of many sounds is unknown apart from the fact that vowels are not included; in Berb, there is an internal difference, Fass by itself would give 3.37, Moroccan 2.44, while Tu is close to the average; how far the figure for Chad, phonologically dependent on Hsa only, represents the entire stock is also questionable; and so Om = Caf, but here, the figure is so much lower than those for the other branches that figures from other languages, however different, would not substantially alter its overall position. All in all, on lexical and phonological basis, there is a clear-cut difference between the Sem sub-branches on the one hand and the non-Sem branches on the other; in addition, Aram and Arab form a closer group among the former, while Om is appreciably more remote than the others among the latter. Inclusion of the morphosyntactic component brings about an increase in the size of the deviation in Arab too, but as established for Akk above, this corresponds to major differences in the morphosyntactical structure, particularly increased verbalization, in Akk including major morphological differences in the verbal system, where major phonological differentiation also contributes to the smaller final figure. In SAr, there is also some decrease compared with Aram NEth, although the more remarkable one in Arab Akk SEth makes it less noticeable; here, as in SEth, it is mainly due to a relatively minor increase in the use of adverbial phrases blown up in the chi-square value which in Hrs represents 27.5% of the aggregate-not nearly as much as

COMPREHENSIVE SYNOPSIS

19

in SEth, but still very substantial; in SEth, as established, the considerable phonological deviation also contributes to the smallness of the final figure. 9 In the non-Sem branches (except Berb), the adverbial phrases also cause some exaggeration of the chi-square values, but more fundamental differences minimize the effect on the aggregate to usually less than 10%, so that their effect on the figure of the degree of the relationship to Hbr would hardly be noticeable. 1o To judge from the average of the other languages, the use of nominal sentences in Hbr may also be slightly abnormally low, but the degree of abnormality is too hard to estimate with an accuracy sufficient for it to be quantified. Accordingly, we cannot claim accuracy for the morphosyntactical coefficient, and therefore the figures resulting from calculations in which it is a factor are also approximative only. Moreover, the question of the relative value of the three coefficients can hardly be solved fully objectively and with any great accuracy either. In the figures above, the relationship between the lexical and phonological ones may be satisfactory, seeing that deviations from the purely lexical order reflect major phonological differences in the underlying languages. With the morphosyntactical one, the question is more complicated, mainly becuase of the larger number of individual factors involved. Seeing that its application to the lexico-phonological figure reduces the latter by 3-6 times or even more, the impression is gained that it has been given too much weight. However, as long as it affects all the parties equally, the size of the effect is not crucial; the question is thus whether the variation in its size reflects the relative importance of structural differences adequately. Seeing that the phonological coefficient, more fundamental in value than the morphosyntactical one, rarely reduces the lexical figure by more than 30 per cent. and never by more than roughly one half, it would seem appropriate to reduce the effect of the morphosyntactical one to similar proportions at least. Discounting the effects of the adverbial phrases in SAr SEth and allowing for a freakish overall blowout in Chad, this means further division of the morphosyntactical coefficient by three before application to the lexico-phonological result. This done, and eliminating most decimals as creating illusory impression of accuracy, we obtain the following figures for the degree of relationship with Hbr: Aram 62, Arab 35, SAr 33, NEth 28, Akk 12, SEth 9, Eg 4, Cush 3, Berb 1.5, Chad 1; Om uncertain, but evidently less than 1.11 9 It would be too complicated and would hardly produce exact result either to try to eliminate the effect of the exaggerated chi-square value of the unit Hc from the morphosyntactical coefficient; but as a rough approximation we may say that its elimination in Hrs would reduce the SAr coefficient to 2.69 and hence. the degree of relationship with Hbr would rise to 13.88; in the case of Har/SEth, the corresponding figures are 3.82 and 2.88, respectively; the latter still remarkably low for a Sem sub-branch, but clearly above the non-Sem values - more than the Eg figure. 3x that of Cush and 6x Berb. The second decimal would be affected. but even at present it is hardly exact (given mwwy to preserve some accuracy in possible further calculations). NB. Where the further division reduces the coefficient befow unit value. this is counted as negative deviation.

twicrn

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

Nominal paradigms. Apart from the reconstructed prototypes, actually attested forms only are given. Where the same prototype has developed into different phenotypes within one and the same dialect or tradition, different paradigms are given for each of these, but variation in single forms only is given in footnotes; purely orthographic variation is not given, but allophonic differentiation is recorded, where it is consistent and thus appears to have structural significance. Forms with suffixes, where attested, are given in so far as different suffixes affect the forms of the noun in different ways. The types are in the order of Part III § 17. The dialects and traditions, as far as attested, are in the order of Part I Section Ba. NB. here, G and Lat are transcribed like other materials; for phonetic values of the vowels cf. Part I Section A p. 12ff. i) /qV/. a. /m/ pI.tantum. aPal/mym/. Q /mym/; cs. I /my/, II /mymy/; sf. 3.sg.m. /mymyw/; etc. Sam /mem/; cs. I /rni:/, II /rnimi:/; sf. 2.sg.m. /rnimek/, 3.sg.m. /-mu/. 1 3.pI.m. /rni:rni:yyfmma/. Pal /mayimN cs. I /meY /, II /meYmeY/; sf. l.pI. /meYmeYnw/; etc. Bab /mayim/; cs. I /meY/, II /meYmeY/; sf. 2.sg.m. /meYmaYka/, 3.sg.m. /meYmaYw/, 3.pI.m. /meYmeYham/; pI.II /meYmoWt/. G /maim/; sf. 3.sg.m. /memau/. Lat /maim/. (Am /mema/, /rnima/.) b. /p(V)/, /cy/; j'y/, /cy(V)/ pI.tantum. Q /ph/;3 cs. /py/; sf. 1.sg. /py/;4 2.sg.m. /pykJ;5 etc.; pI. j'ym/,6 /cyymj;? cs. /'yy/. Sam /fa:/, /fa:/; cs. /fi:/; sf. l.sg. /fiyyi/; etc.;8 2.(&3.)pI.m. /fi:kfmma:j;9 pI.cs.j'fyyi, . Pal/pe /; cs. /piY/; sf. l.sg. /piY/; 2.sg.m. /piYk/; etc.; pI. /piYpiyoWt/; pI. /(ha)'yiYm!.; cs. j'iyeYj. Bab /pah /; cs. /piY/; sf. l.sg. /piY/; 2.sg.m. /piYka/; etc.; pI. /ciyiYm/. 1 B-CH

j-moj.

2 Var. jmaymaj.

3 Alternative:

~ Var. jpy' j.

jcyj.

Var. jpykhj.

~ Varr. I'mj, j'yy'mymj. 8 Var. jcyynj. 9 3.sg.m. var.

jfi:yye:':lj (Nm 27:21). 3.pl.m. var. jfunmaj (Dt 31:19).

APPENDIX I

2*

G Ne/; sf. 1.sg. Nil; 3.pI.m. Niam/; pI. */iim/,10 /siim/Y Lat pI. /iim/, /siim/. c. Fern. /cy(V)/. Q /cyh/P Pal /ciyyah /. Bab /ciyah/. ii) /qalj. a) /dm/, /yd/ etc.; /ywm/ -/ym/ (pI. only); /bn/ (ditto); etc. aPal /yd/; pI.cs. /ydy/; pI. /ymm/; pI.cs. /bny/, ?(sg.?) sf. 2.pI.m. /bnkm/. Q /dm/; sf. 3.m.sg. /dmw/; etc.; pI. /dmym/, cs. /-y/, sf. 3.sg.f. /-yh/; etc.; /yd/ etc.; pI.II /ydwtj. Sam /y&d/, /yed/; cs. /yed/; sf. 1.sg.(etc.) /yedi/; 1.pl. /ya:danu/;13 2.pI. m. /yedkfmma/; 3.pI.m. /ye:dfmma/; pI. /yedem/, cs. /-di:/, sf. 2.sg.m. /dek/, 3.sg.m. /_dU/;14 3.sg.f. (etc.) /ye:diyya/; pUI /yadot/; pI. /yamem/, cs. /-mi:/, sf. 1.sg. =; 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-mek/; 3.sg.f. /ya:miyya/, 2.pI.m. /i:kfmma/. Pal /dam/; sf. 1.sg. (etc.) /damiY/; pI. /damiYm/, cs. /dmeY/, sf. 2.sg. f. /damayk/; /yad/ etc.; pI. /ydayim/,15 cs. /yadeY/, sf. 1.sg. (etc.) /yaday/; 3.pI.m. /(b)iYdeYhem/; pI. /yamiYm/;16 cs. /yemeY /;17 sf. 1.sg. (etc.) /yamay/; pI.II /(m)iYmoWt/; pI. /baniYm/, cs. /bneY/;18 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /baneYk/; 3.pI.m. /bneYhem/. Bab /dam/;19 cs. /dam/;20 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /damka/; pI. /damiYm/,21 cs. /dmeY/; sf. 3.sg.m. /damaYw/, f. /damaYha/; 3.pI.m. /dmeYham/; /yad/, cs. /yad/; sf. 1.sg. (etc.) /yadiY/; 2.pI.m. /yadkam/; pI. /yadayim/, cs. /ydeY/;22 sf. 1.sg. (etc.) /yaday/; 2.pI.m. /yideYkam/, 3.pI.m. /ydeYham/; pI.II cs. jyimoWtj;23 pI. jbaniYmj, cs. jbneYj; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) jbanaYkaj; 3.sg.m. /-naYw/; 2.(3.)pI.m. /bneYkam/. G sf. 1.sg. /dami/; (cs.) /ied/; sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /iado/; pI.sf. 1. sg. /iadai/, 2.pI.m. /(m)idexam/; pI.cs. /ime/; pI.cs. /bane/, /bne/; sf. 3.sg.m. /banau/. Lat sf. 3.sg.m. /iado/; pI. /iamim/; pI.sf. sg.2.f. /benaikh/. (Am sf. 3.sg.m. /(ba)diuj.) b. /,b/, /,x/ etc. aPal sf. 2.sg.m. /,xk/; pI.sf. 1.sg. /'xy/. 10 Corrupted to /siim/, var. /siinj. 11

Var. /seim/; in /cy/, corrupted to /essim/ etc. (or different interpretation?; Ez 30:9).

23

Varr.

12 Var. /cy'h/. 13 B.CH /ye:d- j. 14 B-CH I-dol. 15 Defective vocalization (for */yad-/), cf. the other forms. 16 Var. /(m)iYmiYm/ (or defective vocalization?). 17 Varr. /yameY/, /(b)iYmeY j. 18 Var. /haneY/. 19 Var. /dam/. 20 Var. /damj. 21 Var. /-iYnj. 22 Varr. /yid-/, /(b)iYd-/.

/ym_/, /(b)iYm-j.

APPENDIX I

3*

Q /,b/, cs. /,by/; sf. l.sg. =; 2.sg.m. (etc.) /'byk/, /-kh/: pI. /,bwt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /_ty/;24 /'x/; sf. 3.sg.m. /,xyw/;2S pI. sf. /'xykmh/. Sam /,ab/, cs. /-biN" sf. 1.sg. =, 2.sg.m.&f. /-bek/; 3.sg.m. (etc.) /,a:biyyu/; 2.pI.m. (etc.) /'a:bi:kfmma/, f. /-iken/; pI. /,abot/, sf.1.sg. (etc.) /,a:buti/, l.pI. (etc.) /-u:tinu/; /&a/, cs. /&a'i:/; sf. l.sg. =, 2.sg.m. /&ayak/, 3.sg.m. /&a'o/, l.pI. /&a:yanu/, 2.pI.m. /&a:ya:kfmma/; pI. /&a'em/, cs. /-'i:/; sf. l.sg. =, 2.sg.m. /-'ek/, 3.sg.m. /-'0/, f. /-yya/; l.pI. /&a:'inu/, 2.pI.m. /-'i:kfmma/, 3.pI.m. /-yyfmma/. Pal /'ab/; sf. l.sg. /'abiY/, "1.pI. /'abiYnuw/; pI. /,aboWt/; sf. l.pI. (etc.) /'boWteYnuw/; /,ax/; sf. sg.2.m. /-xiYk/; pI. /-xiYm/; sf. sg.3.m. /'exaYw/. Bab /'ab/; cs. /'aby/;27 sf. sg.2.m. (etc.) /'abiYka/; 3.pI.m. /'biYham/ (etc.); pI. /'aboWt/, cs. /'ab-/; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /'botaYka/;28 /,ax/, cs. /'axiY/; sf. l.sg. /'axiY/; 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-iYka/;29 pI. /'axiYm/, cs. /'axeY/; sf. l.sg. /-xay/, 2.sg.m. /-xaYka/, 3.sg.m. /-xaYw/, l.pI. /-xeYnuw/. G cs. /abi/; sf. l.sg. =; /a/. Lat pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /abotham/. c. Fern. /In(n/V)/. aPal / It/; cs. =. Q /Inh/, cs. /Int/; duo /-tym/; pI. /-ym/, cs. /-yj; sf. l.sg. /-wty/. Sam /Iena/, cs. /-at/; sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /Ie:Jatu/; duo /-a:ta'em/; pI. I-emf, cs. /-if.; sf. 3.sg.m. /-0/. Pal /Ianah /, cs. /-nat/; pI. /-niYm/; pI.II cs. /IenoWt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /InoWtaYw/. Bab /Ianah/, cs. /Inat/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /Inatow/; duo /Inatayim/; pI. /I aniYm/, cs. / I neY/. Lat pI. /sanim/, cs. /sane/. d. Fem. Ibn/. aPal cs. /bt/. Q /bt/, cs. =; sf. l.sg. (etc.) /bty/; pI. /bnwt/; sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-ty/. Sam /Mt/, /Mt/, cs. /Mt/; sf. l.sg. (etc.)30 /ba:mlti/, l.pI. (etc.)3! /-u:tinu/. Pal /bat/; pI.sf. 2.sg.f. /benowtyk/,32 3.sg.f. /bnoteYha/. Bab /Mt/; sf. l.sg. (etc.)33 /bitiY/; pI. /banoWt/, cs. /bn-/;34 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /bnoWtaYka/. ~ Varr. 2.pl.m. /'btykm/, 3.pl.m. /-tm/.

Var. /-yhw/. Var. /eb/ (Gn 17:5). ~ I.e., defective vocalization for */'abiY/; (late) varr. /,ab/, /,ab/. 29 Varr. /'ab-/. 30 (late) varr. 3.sg.m. /_iYuw/; 3.pl.m. /-iYn/(!). 31 2.sg.m. /-tek/, var. (Gn 19:1531:31.41) /-tak/. 3.sg.f. var. /-na:t-/ B-CH = Ms. C (agst. Ms. B). 32 Probably defective vocalization for /-tayik/, d. var. /bnowtyyik/(!). 33 2.sg.m. var. I-ttaka/ (ps). 34 Varr. /bnert/ (Eb 22), /bnuWt/ (TK). 26

APPENDIX I

4*

Lat /bath/. e. Fern. j'x/, /xm/. Q j'xwt/; sf. 3.sg.rn. (etc.) /-twj. Sam /&a'ot/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /&a:'iHi/, l.pI. (etc.) /-u:tanu/. Pal j'axoWt/, sf. l.sg. /'xoWtiY/. Bab j'axoWt/, cs. /'ax-/; sf. l.sg. (etc.)3S j'xowtiY/; pI. sf. 2.sg.f. /'axiyoWtek/. iii) /qil/. a. /'1/ (etc.). Q /'1/, sf. l.sg. j'ly/; pI. /'lym/. Sam j'il/,J6 sf. l.sg. j'eli:/.37 Pal j'el/; pI. j'eliYrn/. Bab /'el/. G /el/' sf. l.sg. /eli/; pI. /elirn/. Lat /elj. b. /bn/ (sg. only), /&cj. aPal /bn/; sf. 2.sg.rn. /bnk/; ?(pI.?) 2.pI.rn. /bnkm/. Q /bn/, sf. 2.sg.rn. /bnk/, ?3.sg.rn. /bnyw/;38 /&c/, sf. 3.sg.f. /&ych/; pI. /&cym/,39 cs. /-y/, sf. 3.pI.rn. /-yhrnj. Sam /ben/, cs. =;40 sf. l.sg. (etc.)41 /beni/; l.pI. /be:nanu/; /ic/,42/(a:)_ 'ic/; sf. 2.sg.rn. (etc.)43 /'icak/; pI. /'icern/, cs. /-cij, sf. 2.sg.rn. (etc.) /-cek/. Pal /ben/, cs. =; sf. l.sg. (etc.) /bniY/; /&ec/; pI. /&eciYrn/, cs. /&ceYj. Bab /ben/,44 cs. =; sf. l.sg. (etc.) /bniY/; 2.sg.rn. /binka/; /&ec/;4S pI. /&eciYrn/, cs. /&aceY/;46 sf. 3.sg.rn. /&ecaYw/, f. /-caYha/, 3.pI.rn. /&eYceYharn/. G /ban/; sf. l.sg. /banif.

Lat /ben/. c. Fern. /y&d/, /y&c/ (etc.). Q /&dh/, cs. /&dt/, sf. 3.sg.rn. (etc.) /&dtw/; /&ch/ (etc.), pI. /&cwt/. Sam /'ida:/, cs. /-at/, sf. 2.sg.rn. (etc.) j'i:datak/; pI.sf. 3.pl.rn. /i:cu:ti:yyi.mma/.47 pal£&edah/, cs. /&adat/, sf. 2.sg.rn. /&datak/, 3.sg.f. (etc.) /&adatah/; /&eca /, cs. /&cat/,48 sf. l.sg. /&catiY/. 3S Varr. I'ax-I. J6 Var. lel/. 37 Var. (B-CH) lili/; no pI. (Ex: 15:11 derived from I'yl/). 38 Isa 37:38'rrhaps due to attraction by the pI. form preceding.

I-yn .

39 Var. 40 jbenu/,

I-nil archaistic varr. 4~ Var. 3.sgJ. /bennal (Ex: 4:25). Var. lec/. ,_ Var. 3.sgJ. I eca:/. 44 Var. /bonl (Ec 22). 4S Var. I&ocl (Ec 22). 46 Var. l&eYceYI (TK). 47 See Addenda to Part I Section Ba. 48 Varr. I&ec-I, I&ac-/.

:3

APPENDIX I

5*

Bab /&edah /, cs. /&adat/; /&ecah /,49 cs. /&acat/, sf. 3.pI.m. /&acatamj. iv) /qul/. a. /kx/ (etc.; sg. only). Q /kwx/;50 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /kwxy/. Sam /ka/; sf. l.sg. (etc.) /kawwi/; 2.pI.m. /ku:wwa:kimma/. Pal /kowx/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-xak/. Bab /kox/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-xiy/. b. /lg/. aPal /lg/. Sam /lag/. Bab /log/, sf. 3.sg.f. /luWgah/; pI. /luWgiYm/.51 G (ac) /loggen/.52 c. / m/ (?).53 aPal/Im/. Q /Im/, sf. l.sg. (etc.)S4 /Imy/; pI. /Imwt/, sf. 3.pI.m. /_tm/.55 Sam / Iam/, / I em/; sf. l.sg. (etc.) / I emi/; 3.pI.m. / I e:mlmma/; pI. /Iemot/, sf. 3.pI.m. /Ie:mu:tlmma/. Pal/I emf, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) / I amak/;56 pI. / I emoWt/, cs. / I am-I· Bab /Iem/,57 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /ImiY/; pI. /IemoWt/. cs. /Im-/, sf. 3.pI.m. motam/.58 G /Sam/;59 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /samax/; pI. sf. 3.pI.m. /samoeam/. Lat /sem/. d. Fern. /bwI/, /nwb/.'~ Q /bwIt/,61 sf. 2.pI.m. /-tkmh/. Pal /boIet/, sf. 3.sg.m. /baItowj. Bab /nopat/. v) /qa:l/. a. /rz/. Q /rz/, sf. 3.sg.m. /rzw/; pI.cs. /rzy/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /rzykj. Pal sf. 3.sg.m. /razow /; pI. /raziYm/. b. Fern. /swr/ (etc.). Q /srh/. Sam /saraj. Pal /sarah j.

I

/I

~ Var. /&oc-/ (Eb 22). Var. /kx/ (Sir).

~! Mostly varr. /-iYn/; or /laggiYm/, /-iYn/ (often for kt /lwg-/). Var. /rogen/.

53 Could be original /qil/ formation. ~ Var. /fmy' /; and so 2.sg.m. /fmkh/ besides /fmk/; etc. 56 Var. (Z a) /-tyhfn/· Varr. /fm-/, /f1lD.-/. 57 Post-biblical mostly 58 Var. /-teYham/.

/fum/, var. /fowm/.

59 The short stem vowel could be secondary, but is presupposed by all Hbr forms. 60

Ditto.

61 Var. /bIt/ (Isa, Sir).

6*

APPENDIX I

c. Masc./Fem. /&wbj. Q /&b/; pI. /&bym/; pI.II /&bwt/. Pal /&ab/; pI. /&abiYm/, sf. 2.sg.m. /&abeYk/; pI.II /&aboWt/. Bab /&ab/; pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /&abaYw/. vi) /qe:lj. a. /&wd/ (etc.). Q /&d/; pI. /&dym/, cs. /-Y/; sf. l.sg. =, 3.pI.m. /-yhmh/. Sam /'id/;62 f. /(l)ida/; pI. j'idem/. Pal /&ed/; pI.sf. 2.sg.m. /&eYdeYkj. Bab /&ed/; pI. /&ediYm/,63 sf. 3.sg.m. /&eYdaYw/. G /ed/. b. /byt/ (sg. only), /zyt/ (etc.). aPal /byt/, dir. /-th/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-tkj. Q /byt/, dir. /-th/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-ty/; /zyt/, pI. /_tym/.64 Sam /bet/, /bit/; dir. /bita/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /bitij; /zit/; pI. /zitem/, sf. 2.sg.m. / -tekj. Pal /bayit/, cs. /beYt/,65 dir. /baytah /, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /beYtak/. Bab /bayit/, cs. /beYt/, dir. /baytaY/; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.)66 /beYtka/; /zayit/; pI. /zeYtiYm/, cs. /-teY/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-taYw/. G /bai8/, /be8/;67 cs. /be8/, sf. 3.pI.m. /be8amu/. c. Fern. /gy' j. Q /gy'/.68 Sam /giyya/. Pal/gay' /,69 / geY' j. Bab cs. /geY' j.70 G /gaij, cs. /gej. Lat /ge/, cs. =. d. /xyljII. ?aPal/xylj. Q /xylj,71 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /xylkh/. Sam j'n/;72 sf. 3.sg.m. j'nu/, 3.pI.m. j'i:Hmma/; ?pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /(w)no/ (Ex 15:4). Pal /xayil/, /XeYlj,73 cs. /xeYlj, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-lak/; pI. /xeyaliYm/,14 cs.

:~ Varr. j'ed/(, c. PTdt /'fled/), /&ed/ (Lv 5:1). Var. /&eYd-/ (TK).

~ Also /(hi'Z1ym/; but maybe orthographical only.

66 Var. /hi t/.

Var. 3.sg.m. /hiYtow/ (TK).

~ Name of the letter of the alphabet. 9 Varr. /gy/, /g'y/.

Jr 2:23 only. ?Var. /'!a,e' / (!Ez 47:13). ~ Var. (Is 26:1) /xI/. 73 Also c. PTdt /a:'TI./. In liturgical poetry. 74 Var. /xayy-/ (in liturgical poetry).

6

70

APPENDIX I

7·

/xayleY/. sf. 3.sg.m. /xyalaYw/. Bab /xayilj.7S cs. /xeYlj. sf. 3.sg.m. I-low/; pI. /xyaliYm/. G /ailj. sf. 3.pI.m. /elam/. e. /yyn/. aPal /yn/. (Ard) /yyn/. Q /yyn/. sf. 3.pI.m. /-nm/. /-nrnh/. Sam /yeyyen/.76 sf. 3.sg.m. /yeyyenu/. e.pI.m. /-e:nfmma/. Pal /yayin/. cs. /yeYn/; pI. /yeYnoWt/. Bab /yayin/; pI. /yeYnoWt/. f. Fern. / fyb/ (etc.). Q /fybh/.77 Sam / fibaL. cs. / fibat/. sf. l.sg. / fi:biiti/. Pal /SeYbah/. Bab /SeYbali/. vii) /qi:l/. a. /gyd/. /myn/. /fyr/ (etc.). Q /gyd/; sf. 3.sg.m. /mynw/; pI.cs. /-ny/. sf. 3.pI.m. /-nyhm/. Sam /ged/; sf. 3.sg.m. /minu/. /mi:ne'u/. f. /mina/; pI.{?78)sf. 3.pI.m. /mi:ni:yfmma/ . Pal /giYd/; /miYn/. pI. /-niYm/; /fiYr/. sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-rak/; pI. / fiYriYm/. cs. /-reY/. Bab /giYd/. pI. /giYdiYm/; miYn/. sf. 3.sg.m. /-noW/. /-nehuw/. f. /-nah/. 79 3.pI.m.{!) /-nan/; pI. /miYniYm/.80 cs. /-neY/. G /sir/. sf. l.sg. /siri/. b. /f/syd/. Sam / fiyyadj. Pal/SiYd/. Bab /siYd/. c. Fern. /rnwl/. /rnwt/. / fyr/ (etc.). Q cs. / fyrt/. Sam /firaL. Pal /mi~lah£•.cs. /~at/6 cs. /mer.~at/.81 pI. /miYtoWt/jfiYrah /. ~I. /-roWt/ .. Bab /mtYla /. /mtYta /. cs. /-tat/. sf. 3.sg.m. /-tato /. 3.pI.m.{.) /-tatan/. pI. /-toWt/. viii) /qo:l/. a. /dwd/. /dwr/ (etc.). Q /dwr/. sf. l.sg. /-ry/. 3.sg.m. /-rw/. 3.pI.m. /drm/ (Sir); pI. /dwrwt/. sf.

~~ Var./xayl/ may be defective punctuation.

Var./yeyen/. (orthographic only?) /fbh/ (lOR). 78 So understood nowadays; but the vocalism could derive from a more original collective sg., d. the longer form with sf. 3.sg.m. and MT kt (Gn 1:21); the twofold accent in the attested fo~is incidentt:l). 80 Var./-na f. 8 Var./-iYn/. 1 Perhaps punctuation mistake (for /miY-/). 77 Var.

8*

APPENDIX I

l.pI. (etc.) /-tynw/; pI.II /dwrym/, cs. /-y/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-yhm/. Sam /dod/, sf. 3.sg.m. /dftdu/; pI.sf. 3.pI.f. /du:di:yyfnna/; /dor/;82 pI. /dftrot/, sf. 3.sg.m. /du:ruto/, 2.pI.m. /-u:ti:klmma/, 2.pI.m. /-u:tfmma/. Pal /dowd/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-diY/; pI. /-diYm/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-daYw/; /dowr/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-rak/; pI. /-roWt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-roWtaYwj. Bab /dowd/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-diY/; /dowr/; pI. /dowroWt/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-taYw/. G sf. 3.sg.m. /dodo/; /dor/. Lat sf. l.sg. (etc.) /dodi/; pI. /dodim/; sf. 3.sg.f. /dura/. b. /mwt/ (etc.). Q /mwt/. Sam /mot/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /mftti/, 3.pI.m. /mu:tfmma/. Pal /mawetj.83 Bab /mawat/,84 cs. /moWtj.85 G /m09/ (abs! Ps 49:15; 189:49). c. Fem. /xwb/, /mw7/ (etc.). Q /m7h/, /mw7h/. Sam pI. /ma770tj.8f> Pal /xowbah/ sf. 3.pl.m. /-atam/. Bab /mow7ah/; pI. /-70Wt/; /xowbah /, cs. /-bat/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-batow/. Lat /mota/, pl./ mutothj. d. Masc./Fem. /7wb/ (etc.). Q /7wb/, f. /-bh/; pI. /-bym/, f. /-bwtj. Sam 170b/; f. 17uM/, cs. I-bat/; pI. I-bem/, f. I-bot/, sf. 3.pI.m. /7u:bu:tfmmaj. Pal /70wb/, f. /-bah /, cs. /-bat/; pI. /-biYm/, f. /-boWtj. Bab /70wb/, f. /-bah /, sf. 3.pI.m. (!) /-batan/; pI. /-biYm/, f. /-betj.87 Lat pI. /tobim/. ix) /qu:l/. a. /gwp/, /7wb/, /sws/ (etc.). Q /7wb/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-by/; /sws/; pI. /swsym/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-yw/. Sam /70b/, sf. l.sg. /7ftbi/; /sos/; pI. /sftsem/, sf. 3.sg.m. I-sol. Pal /guwp/; /7uwb/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) I-bow j.88 Bab /guwp/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) I-pow /; pl.cs. /-pey/; /suws/; pI. /-siYm/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-saYw/. G sf. 2.sg.m. /tubaX/; /sus/. Varr. Idar/, Idurj. h Varr. Imawit/, mawta I (in liturgical poetry). : Var. Imawatl (Eb 22). Var. Imetl (Eb 22). 8f> Apparently confused ith Ima77i1 (root In7V/); but d. mitL~nt defective spellings in Q Bab (Tib). Eb22. 88 Var. I-buwI. 82 83

Idarl (ldwrl above); and inter-

APPENDIX I

9·

Lat /SUS/. (Am pI. /zuzima/.) b. Fern. /xwc/, /swp/, /fwb/, /fwx/ (etc.). o /xch/ (?Isa 33:7); /swph/, pI. /spwt/; sf. 3.sg.m. /fwbtw/. Sam sf. 2.s~m. / f u:batakj. /suWpah.;.. cs. /-at/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-atak/. Pal /xuwca Bab /xuwca /; /fuwxa j.89 Lat /sufa/. x) /qall/. a. /&m(m)/ (etc.). o /&m/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /&my/;9Q pI. /&myrn/, cs. /-y/, sf. 3.sgJ. /-yhj. Sam /&am/,91 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /&fmuni/; 2.sg.m. /&arnrnimrna/; pI. /&fimmem/,92 cs. /&fimmi/, sf. 3.sg.m. /(mi:y)fimmo/, f. /-ammiyyaj. Pal /&am/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /&amiY/; pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /&amaYw/. Bab /&am/, /&am/, cs. =; sf. l.sg. (etc.) /&amiY/;93 pI. /&amiYm/, cs. / &ameY/, sf. 3.sg.m. / &amaYw /, f. / &amaYha/. G /am/,94 sf. 2.sg.m. /amrnax/; pI. /amim/.95 Lat sf. l.sg. /ammi/, 2.sg.m. /ammakh/. b. Fern. /'m/II (etc.). aPal /'mb/, pI. /'mt/. o /,mb/;96 duo /'mtym/; pI. /'mwt/. Sam /'amrna/, cS. /(b)amat/;97 duo /'amma:Hi'em/; pI. /'ammot/. Pal /'amah j. Bab /'am+ah / CS. /'Yam+at/; duo /'matayim/;98 pI. /'am+oWtj. C. Fern. /gn(n)/ (etc.). o /gnh/, cs. /gnt/; pI. /gnwtj. Sam pI. /gennot/. 99 Pal cs. /giYnat/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-ntak/;I00 pI. /gannoWt/. Bah /giYnah /; pI. /ginoWt/, ga+not/. xi) /qill/. a. /Ib(b)/ (etc.). aPai/ib/. o /Ib/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /Iby/; pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /Ibwtmh/. Sam /Ieb/,101 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /Ifbbij; 3.pI.m. /libbfmma/, f. /-fnnaj.

6';

: Var. /Jowxah / (Eb 22). 9 Var. /-1/; cf. sf. 3.sg.m. /&mw/, '(ar. /-w' /. ~ Var. /&am/; c. PTdt /&a:m/. /&am/; similar variation in sf. forms. Var. /&ammim/; c. PTdt /&iimmem/. ~ Varr. with gemination of /m/ indicated in sf. and pI. forms. Var. /am/. 95 Varr. /amimim/, /amin/. ~ Var. /'m'/ (3015). B-CH /-mm-/. 98 Defective punctuation (for /'iim+ -I; gemination not always indicated elsewhere either). 99 B-CH /gannot/. 100 Defective punctuation (for /-nat-/). 101 B-CH mostly /lab/ (Pet Schaade /leb/).

10·

APPENDIX I

Pal /leb/, sf. losg. (etc. 102) /libiY/. Bab /Ulb/,103 cs. /leb/, sf. losg. (etc.) /libiY/. G /lab/, sf. losg. /-bbi/, 3.sg.m. /-bboj. b. Fern. /ml(l)/II, /cn(n)/II, /qd/ (etc.). Q /mlh/. Sam /qedda/. Pal sf. losg. /miYltiY/,104 2.sg.m. /-tak/; /cinah/. Bab /milafl /, sf. losg. /-atiY/; pI. /-iYm/, /_iYn/,l05 sf. losg. /-ay/ (ps), 2.sg.m. / -aYkaj. G /sanna/; /kadda/Y16 c. Fern. /gr(r)/. Sam /girra/. Pal/gerah/. Bab /gerallj. xii) /qullj. a. /xq(q)/, /kl(l)/II (etc.). aPal/kl/. Q /xq/, /xwq/, sf. losg. (etc.) /xwqy/; pI. /xqym/, /xwqym/, cs. /_y/;107 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc. lOS) /xwqyk/; /klj (Sir), /kwlj, sf. 2.sgJ. (etc.) /kwlkj. Sam /,aq/, sf. 2.sg.m. /'aqqak/, 2.pI.m. /'aqqa:kimma/, 3.pI.m. /,aqqimma/; pI. /'aqqem/,l09 cs. /,aqqij, sf. 3.sg.m. /,aqqo/; /kalj, /kalj, /kel/; sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /kellu/; lopI. /kallanu/, 2.pI.m. /kalla:kimma/, 3.pI. m. /keIHmma/, f. /kallinnaj.110 Pal /xoWq/; sf. 2.sgJ. /xoqek/, 3.sg.m. /xoWqoW/, 3.pI.m. /xuWqam/; pI. /xuWqiYm/, cs. /-qeY/,111 sf. 3.sg.m. /-qaYw/; /kol/,112 sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /kulow/.113 Bab /xoq/, sf. 2.sg.m. /xoqka/; pI. /xuqiYm/; /kol/,114 sf. 3.sg.m. (etc. 115) /kulow/. G Ixol/. Lat sf. 3.sg.m. /khullo/. b. Fern. /xq(q)/ (etc.). Q /xqh/; pI. /xwqwt/, sf. losg. (etc.) /xqty/.

1~ 3.sg.m. var. IleboWj. TK.; Ilabl TK (ps). 1~ Probably defective punctuation (for I-Iat-/). 1 lob 12:11 etc. 106 lkai-I allograph for Ikii-/.. 107 Another var. Ixwqqy I (Isa 10:11). lOS 3.sg.m. var. I-whyl (lOS 5:11). 1~ Var. I&aqqem/, c. PTdt /&3.-1. 11 B-CH Ik~ throughout. 111 Varr. Ixo qeY/, /xiYqqeYj. 11~ Var. Ikal/; 10/, lu/ often spelt plene in post-biblical texts. 11 Varr. 3.sg.m. Ikolw/ (Ms. cPs 29:9), 3.pl.m. Ikowlam/, Ikuwlahem/. 114 Varr. Ikul/, (Eb 22) /kel/. 115 Varr. with 1-1+ -I (and with plene spelt lui). 1

APPENDIX I

11*

Sam /'aqqa/,116 cs. /-at/; pI. /(b)&qqot/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /aqqiiti/; 3.pI. m. / (b )a:qqu:ti:yyfmma/. Pal cs. /xuWgat/, /xoWqat/. Bab /xuWqaft /, cs. /xuqat/; pI. /xuqoWt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-tay/. G pI. sf. l.sg. /okko8ai/. ?c. Fern. /,m/. 117 Q /,m/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /,my/. Sam /'am/, /'em/,118 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /'fmmi/. Pal /,em/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /'imiY/; pI. /'iYmahoWt/. Bab /'em/, /'uWm/;119 sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /,im+ow/.r1lJ xiii) /qatl/. a. /,bn/,l21 /xsd/, /npf/. /qbr/ (etc.). aPal /npf/; sf. 2.pI.m. /nbfkm/ (lArd); /qbr/. Q /'bn/; pI. /'bnym/, cs. /-Y/. sf. 2.sg.f. /-yk/; /xsd/. sf. l.sg. (etc.) /xsdy/; pI. /xsdym/, cs. /-y/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-ykh/; /npf/. sf. l.sg. (etc.) /npfy/; pI. /npfwt/, sf. l.pI. (etc.) /-tynw/; /qbr/. sf. 3.m.sg. /qbrw/; pI. /qbrym/, (3Q15) /-yn/. Sam /'aben/; pI. /,a:banem/, cs. I-nil, sf. 3.sg.m. /-no/, f. /'a:ba:niyya/; /'esed/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /isdak/;I22 pI. /,e:sadem/; /nafef/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /neffi/; l.pI. /neffanu/, 2.pI.m. /na:fefkfmma/, 3.pI.m. /neffimma/; /qabar/. sf. 3.sg.m. (etc. I23) /qibru/; pI. /qa:barem/. sf. l.pI. /-a:rinuj. Pal /,ebenj;124 pI. /'baniYm/. cs. /'abneY/; /xesed/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /xasdak/; pI.cs. /xasdeY/; /nepef/. sf. l.sg. (etc.) /napfiY/; pI. /npafoWt/,I25 sf. l.pI. /napfuWteYnuw/(!); /qeber/. pI. /qbaroWt/. Bab /,aban/; pI. /'baniYm/, /'ab-/. cs. /'abneY/. sf. 3.sg.m. /,banaYw/; /xasad/. I26 sf. 3.sg.m. /xasdow/; pI. /(ha)xsadiYm/; /napaf/;127 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /napfiY/; pI. /npafoWt/. cs. /napfot/, sf. 2.pI.m. /-teYkam/; /qabar/, pI. /qbariYm/, pUI sf. 2.pI.m. /qabroWteYkam/. G /asd/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /asdaxj;128 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /na~si/.129 Lat /aben/. b. /b&l/. /n&r/, /rxm/ (etc.).

116 C. PTdt /,a-/. 117 The majority front vowel could. be original in Hbr and the word thus belong to the

/qill~ type (no. xi above). 8

C. PTdt /,a'em/.

119 TK, in a figurative sense.

120 Gemination not always indicated; Iii, /e/ occasionally spelt plene.

121 Actually fem., but being well attested and lacking fem. afformative used here; and so

/np~.

Var. /(b)es-/.

1~ /qa:biri/ app'arently mistakenly substituted pl., cf. B-CH /qabrif.

!25 Var. /,eban/(!?). Var. /nap-/.

126 Var. (ps) /xa-f. 127 Var. ~s) Ina-I. 128 V ;:--'_/ 129 ar. 4LU •

NB. l.pl. /na,sinu/.

12*

APPENDIX I

aPal /n&r/. Q /b&lj; pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /b&lyw/; /n&r/, sf. 3.sg.m. /n&rw/; pI. /n&rym/, cs. /-y/; /rxm/; pI. /rxmym/, cs. /-y/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-ykh/. Sam /baI/,130 sf. 3.sg.f. /-Ui/; pI.cs. /-li/, sf. 3.sg.m. /_IU/;131 /nar/; pI. /-rem/, cs. /-ri/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-TO/, l.pI. /na:nnu/; /rem/, sf. 3. sg.f. I-mal; pI. /-mmem/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-mo/. 132 c. Fern. /,hb/, /brk/, /rnlk/, /mnx/, /prs/ (etc.). aPal /brkh/. Q sf. 3.sg.m. /'hbtyw/ (lisa 63:9); /brkh/, sf. l.sg. /brkty/; /rnlk'/; /mnxh/, cs. /mnxt/,133 sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-tw/; /prsh/, pI. /prswt/. Sam (/'a:eba/, cs. /-at/, sf. 3.sg.m. /(b)a:'e:batu/; Qal nact); /ba:riika/, cs. /-at/; sf. l.sg. /ba:r~ktij,l34 2.sg.m. (etc.) /ba:rektak/; pI. /ba:rakot/; /ma:nfi/, cs. /-fit/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-a:'u:ti:ldmma/; /farsa/, pI. /-sot/. Pal /,ahabah/, /-hb-/, cs. /l'ahbat/,135 sf. 2.sg.m. /-takj;136 /brakah/, cs. /birkat/., sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-tiY/; pI. /brakoWt/,137 cs. /birkoWt/; /malkah/; /manxah/,138 /.min-/; pI. /mnuwxoWt/;139 /parsah/. Bab /'ahbah/, cs. /-bat/; /brakah/, cs. /birkat/; pI. /brakoWt/; /malkah/, pI. (rnl~oWt/; /minxah/, c~. (-xa~/, sf:. l.s~. (etc.) /-~atiY/; pI. /mnaxoWt/".;s: /mtnxo t/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-te ham/, /parsa /, cs. /-sat/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-sato /, pI. sf. 2.sg.f. /-soWtayikj. G /manaa/. 14O xiv) /qitl/.141 a. /'blj, /zkr/, /spr/, /cdq/ (etc.). aPal /zkr/; /spr/, pI. /-rm/, cs. /-ryj. Q /'blj, sf. 2.sg.f. /'blk/; /spr/, pI. /-rym/, cs. /-ry/; /cdq/, sf. l.sg. (etc.)

/-qy/.

Sam /,ebel/; /zeker/, sf. l.sg. /zekrij, 3.pI.m. /zekrimma/; /,esfar/,142 sf. l.sg. (etc.) / esfarij; / cedeq/. Pal /,ebelj; /zeYker/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /zikrak/;143 /seper/,l44 pI. /spariYm/; /cedeq/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /cidqak/.

130 Var.

fbaI/.

131 B-CH /-lo/. 132 B-CH / -mm-/ throughout. 133 ?Var. /(w)mnt/ (lOS 10:8). 134 Var. fba:ra:kiitif. 135

Var. /(JJ),eh-/.

!~ Var. /(wme)habtak/.

Kt var. fbyr-/. c Ps 4O:7pm only. 139 Apparently confused with /manuxat/ (root /nwx/), cr. Part I Section Ba s.v. 140 Varr. /-na/, /-nna/, I-anal (etc.). 141 Largely contaminated with the preceding type so as to produce mixed paradigms; partly by the stem vowel of /qatl/ being dissimilated to /i/ before another /a/, partly by /qatl/ exei~g analogical influence on this less frequent type. Var. /(JJ),as-/. 143 Varr. /rikarak/, /zekrak/. 144 Var. /sepr/ (Ms. c Ps 40:8), but may be defective vocalization only. 138 Ms.

APPENDIX I

13*

Bab sf. 3.pI.m. /,iblam/; /zakar/;14S /separ/,l46 pI. /spariYm/; /didaq/.147 G /abl/; /zaXr/; sf. 1.sg. /sadki/, 2.sg.m. /-kaX/. Lat /zakharj;148 /sefar/; /sedek/, sf. 1.pI. /sadekenu/. b. Fern. /bhm/, /cdq/ (etc.). Q jbhrnhj, sf. 3.pI.m. (etc.) jbhmtrnhj; pI. jbhmwtj; jcdqhj, cs. jcdqtj, sf. 1.sg. (etc. 149) /-ty/; pI. /-wt/, sf. 1.pI. (etc.) /-wtynwj. Sam /bimma/, cs. I-mati; sf. 2.sg.m. /-mtak/, /bi:matak/; 3.sg.m. /bimtu/, f. /bi:mata/, 2.pI.m. /-atkimma/, 3.pI.m. /-a:tfmma/; pI. /bimot/, sf. 1. pI. /bi:mu:tinuj. Pal /bhemah j;1so /cdaqah/, cs. /cedqat/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) I-toW/; pI. /cdaqoWtj.lSl Bab /bhemah /, cs. /bahmat/;IS2 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /bhimtka/; pI. /bhemoWt/; /cdaqah /, cs. /cidqat/, sf. 1.pI. (etc.) /-qateYnuw/; pI. /cdaqoWt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /cidqotaYw/. G pI. /bemo8/; sf. 2.sg.m. /sedka8axj. Lat /sadakaj. xv) /qutl/. a. /'zn/, /gdl/ (etc.). Q /,wzn/, sf. 2.pI.m. (etc.) /'wznkmh/;IS3 pI. /'wznym/, cs. /-Y/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-yw/; /gdl/, /gwdl/, (cs.) /gdwl/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /gwdlwj.l54 Sam /'ezen/, sf. 3.sg.m. /fznu/, 3.pI.m. /iznfmma/; pI. /e:zenem/, cs. /(b)ezni/,lSS sf. 2.pI.m. (etc. 1S6) /-e:zni:kfmma/; /gadal/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /gedlak/. Pal /'owzen/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /'oznak/; pI. j'oznaymj,1S7 1.pl. /'azneYnuw/(!); /goWdel/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /godlak/. Bab /'owzan/, sf. 3.pl.m. (etc.)lS8 /,uznam/; pl. /,uznayimjlS9, cs. j-neYj, sf. 1.sg. (etc.) j-nay/; sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /gudlowj. G sf. 1.sg. /ozni/, 2.sg.m. /oznax/. b. /,hl/, /7hr/, / Ihm/ (etc.). Q j'hl/,U;() sf. 2.sgJ. j'hlkyj; /7hr/ (Sir; ?Z a). Sam /'a'ol/, dir. /'a:Ula/, sf. 3.sg.m. /,a:'61u/; pI. /'a:'iJlem/, cs. /-li/, sf. 14S Var.

lza-I (ct! TK).

146 Var. Iso-I (Eb 22). 147 Var. (cs.? Jr 31:23) /ciidq/; or punctuator's mistake.

148 Or confusion with lzakar/, Izuku:r/? (Is 26:14, cr. zochor ib.); however, contamination

wit~~qatl/ is possible, cf. Isadekenu/. ISO 3.sg.m. varr. I-tyw/; ?I-wtwl (or pl.? 1QS 11:3).

Var. /lx;h-I. Var. lciYdqoWtl (abs.!). !~; Var. I-ham-I (in the complicated variety of punctuation). 54 Var. /,znkml (Z a); defectively spelt varr. in pI. too. 1 Var./gdlwj. ISS Var. I-e:reni/. 1567 3.pI.m. var. I -e:ze:ru:yyunma. " "1 15 Probably defective punctuation. 1~: lui mos~ plene in post-biblical texts (and so in pI. forms). 160 Var. I'u zanayyim/ (!TK). 1 Var./(k),whlj. lSI

14·

APPENDIX I

2.sg.m. /-lek/; 2.pI.m. (etc.) /,a:'u:li:kimma/; /7a'or/, sf. 3.sg.f. /7ara/; /fam/. Pal /'ohelj;161 sf. l.sg. /'ohliY/, 3.sg.m. /'ahlow/, 3.pI.m. /'ahlam/; pI. /'owhaliYm/, cs. /'ahleY/,162 sf. 2.sg.m. /'ohleYk/, 3.sg.m. /'owhlaYw/, 3.pI.m. /'ahleYhem/; /7owhar/;163 f.fowham/. Bab /'ohalj, dir. /'ohlal'i/, sf. 3.sg.m. /'uhlow/;164 pI. /'ohaliYm/,165 cs. /'uhleY/, sf. 2.pI.m. (etc.) /,uhleYkam/; sf. 3.sg.f. /7uhraDIe!). G /soom/, /somj. xvi) /qatalj. a. /dbr/ (etc.). aPal/dbrj. Q /dbr/, sf. l.sg. /-ry/, ?3.sg.m. /-ryw/ (or pl.? Isa 66:5); pI. /-rym/, cs. /-ry/, sf. l.sg. =, 3.sg.m. /-rywj. Sam /debar/,166 sf. l.sg. /de:bari/; pI. /-rem/, cs. /-ri/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) =; 2.pI.m. (etc.) / de: ba:ri:kfmmii/. Pal /dabar/, cs. =, /debar/;167 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /dbariY/;168 pI. /dbariYm/, / deb-/; cs. / dibreY/;169 sf. l.sg. (etc.) / dbaray/. Bab /dabar/, cs. /dbar/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /dbariY/; pI. /dbariYm/,170 cs. /dibreY /, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /dbariiy/. G pI. /(a)biiderin/, /-im/,171 cs. /dabrej. Lat pI.cs. /dabre/. b. /nhr/ (etc.). Q /nhr/; pI. /-rwt/, /-rym/, cs. /-ry/, sf. 2.sg.f. /-rwtyk/. Sam /nar/; pI. /narot/, sf. 3.pI.m. /na:ru:tfmmii/. c. Fern. /&gl/ (etc.). Q /&glh/, sf. 3.sg.m. /&gItw/. Sam /&a:gelii/; pI. /&ii:gelot/. 172 Bab /&galah /. G pI. /agalo9 j. d. Fern. /&7r/ (etc.). Q cs. /&7rt/ PI.sf. 3.sg.m. /&7rwtywj. Pal /&a7ara /; /&7eret/; cs. /&7eret/. Bab /&ii7arall /; pI. /&ii7aroW t/.

h

161 Var. I(me)'ohlj cPs 52:7;, defective punctuation?

Varr. l'ahaleYI, l'oWhale' l. Var. 170Whri Or C 9j defective punctuation? 164 Varr. 2.sg.m.(psV.'ohaliika/j 3.sg.m.(sm) /,ahaloWj. 165 Varr. /,uh-I.. /,0 haliYnl (TK). 1~ Var. I(ed)diibar/. 1 Var./(li)dbarj. 168 Var. Ideb-j. 169 Var. Idab-I. 170 Var. l-iYnl (TK). 171 With metathesis (for • Idiib-/)j with some itacistic and other varr. 172 Var. 1-11-1 (Nm 7:3). 162 163

APPENDIX I

15*

Lat pI.173 /atarotb/. xvii} /qatil/. a. /gdr/, /xcr/, /yrx/, /yrk/ (etc.). Q /gdr/, sf. 3.sg.m. /gdrwf; /xcr/. 174 Sam ?/gedar/;175 /'acer/;176 plY7 /&a:cirem/, /'a:cirot/, sf. /(b}a:ci:ru:timma/; ? /yara/;l78 /yerek/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /yfrki/; pI. /ye:rekem/, sf. 3.sg.f. /-e:kiyya/. Pal /gader/, cs. =; sf. 3.pI.m. /gdeYram/; pI. /_rym/,l79 sf. 3.sg.f. /-reYb/; pI. /xceYriYm/; /yarek/; pI.sf. l.pI. /yreYkynuw j.180 Bab /gader/, cs. /gdeYr/, /gadar/;181 /xacer/,182 cs. /xacar/;l83 pI. /xaceriYm/, /xcoroWt/,l84 cs. /xacroWt/; /yaroxj;185 /yarek/, cs. /yarak/, sf. 3.sg.m. /yreYkow /. G /iare/. Lat /iare/, /-ee/. b. Fem. /gdr/, /yrk/ (etc.). aPal pI.cs. /yrkty/. Q pI.cs. /yrkty/. Sam pI. /ga:dirot/; sf. 3.sg.m. /ye:re:ketuj;186 pI. /ye:re:ki1tem/, cs. /ye:ra:ki1tif.187 Pal sf. 3.sg.m. /gdiYratoW/; du./pI.cs. /yarkteY/.188 Bab pI. /gderoWt/; duo /yirkatayim/, cs. /yirkteY/. G pI.sf. 3.sg.m. 189 /gadro8as/; du/pI.cs. /iarx.8e/. c. Masc/Fem. /'xr/. Q j'xr/, f. j'xrt/. Sam /'a'er/, f. /'a:'eret/; pI. j'a:'erem/, f. /-rot/. Pal j'axer/, pI. /'xeYriYm/. Bab j'axer/; f. /'axaratj;190 pI. /'xeriYm/,l9l f. /-roWt/. G ?/aar/ (Neb 7:34); pI. /aerim/. Lat faber/. xviii} /qatul/. a. Masc/Fem. /gdl/ (etc.).

173 Originally maybe sg. with the j-o:tj-afformative; but understood as pI. 174 Var. jxcyrj (Isa 35:7). 175 Or type jqatlj? 176 C. PTdt j&a-j. !~ C. PTdt (both!) (B-CH without j&-j throughout). Or type jqatlj? !~ Defective vocalization (for j-riYmj). Ditto (for j-keYnuwj). 181 All quoted from TK. 182 Var. jxacorj (Eb 22). !~ Var. j(ba)xcarj (TK). Eb22. 185 Ditto. !~ B-CH j-rakk-j; cf. Ms.B: jwyarekatwj. B-CH j-re:k-j. 188 Var. j-kat-j. 189 Apparently a copyist's mistake for j-auj. 190 Var. j-rtj defective vocalization. 191 Varr. j(l)'ax-j, j(fa)'ax-j; j'xor-j Eb 22.

16*

APPENDIX I

Q /gdwl/, f. /-lh/, pI. /-lymj. Sam /gadol/, f. /ga:d611ii/; pI. /ga:d611em/,192 f. /-11ot/. Pal /gadoWlj, cs. /gd-/; f. /gdoWlahj; pI. /-liYm/. Bab /gadoWI/, cs. /gdolj; f. /gdoWlah /; pI. /gdoliYm/, f. I-loti. Lat /gadolj. b. Masc/Fem. /gbh/ (etc.). Q /gbwh/; (Isa) /gbh/, pI. /gbhym/. Sam f. /ga:ba/; pI. /ga:ba'im/, f. /-ba'otj. Pal /gabowh/, f. /gboha h/; pI.cs. /gbeYheY/. Bab /gabowh/; pI. /gbuhiYn/. 193 xix) /qitalj. a. /yqr/, /lb(b)/, /&nb/ (etc.). Q /yqr/; /lbb/, sf. losg. (etc.) /lbby/; /&nb/, pI. /&nbymj. Sam /lebab/; sf. losg. (etc.) /le:babi/, lopI. /-abnu/, 2.pI.m. /-abkimmii/, 3.pI.m. /-a:bfmmii/; /,enab/; pI. /'e:nabem/, cs. /-abij, sf. 3.pI.m. /-a:bi:yyfmmii/. Pal /yeqar/;194 /leYbab/, sf. losg. /lbabiY/, 2.pI.m. /lbabkem/. Bab /lebab/, cs. /lbiib/; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /lbabka/,195 2.pI.m. /lbiibkiim/; /&eYnab/; pI. /&nabiYm/. 196 G /(w)ikar/; sf. 2.pI.m. /liibbabiixiim/, 3.pI.m. /(ba)lbabam/. b. /J/s&rj. Q

/J&rj.197

?Sam / Jar/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-ru/, f. /_raj.198 Pal sf. lopI. /$&areYnu W/. Bab /$e&ar/,199 cs. /$ii&iir/, sf. 3.sg.m. /$&aroW/, f. /-rahj.200 ?Lat /seirj.

xx) /qitil/. a. /xI7/, ?/,zn/. ?Sam sf. 2.sg.m. /,fznak/. Bab /xle7/, sf. 3.sg.m. /xle Y70wj. b. Fern. /brk/, /klm/, /lbn/. aPal/brkh/. Q /brkh/; /klmh/, cs. /-mt/, pI. /-mwt/; pI. /lbnym/. ?Sam /lfbna/, cs. /-nat/; pI. /lfbnim/, sf. 2.pI.m. /libni:kfmmaj.201 Pal /briYka h/; /klima h/;202 /lbeYna h/, pI. /-niYm/.

192

Var. /-elem/.

193 TK. 194 Varr. /yiq-/, /(b)iYq-j. 195 Var. /(bi)lbabaka/ (ct! TK).

196 Var. /(w)&an-/ (once /&an-/; TK). 197 / corrected, but the original character

S/ not clear; hardly /s/ (Isa 7:20). 198 Or type /qatl/? 199 Varr. with Is-I, and so in cs. & sf. forms; once IS-I.

Var. /sa&arah/ (TK). Looks rather like type /qitl/; but cf. Akk where the monosyll. type is attested in late Bab only; and the other traditions. 202 Var. /kel-j. 200 201

APPENDIX I

17*

Bab sf. 2.sg.f. /klimatek/, 3.pI.m. /-tam/; pI. /klimoWt/; /lbeYna h /, pI. /-niYm/. G j. ..irnma/. Lat /lebenaj. (Am /labitu/.) xxi) /qutal/. a. /m&7/, /srq/ (etc.). Q /m&7j.203 Sam /ma7/. 204 Pal /m&a7/, /ma&-/; /seraq/. Bab /m&a7/205 ; /sraq/. G /mat/. b. /krnz/, / &1/11. Sam /kUmaz/. Pal pI. /JuW&aliYmj. Bab /kuwmaz/; /JuW&al/, pI. /-liYm/. c. /'pn/, /&br/, /&gb/, /&cb/. Q /'pn/; sf. l.sg. /&cby/; pI. /&cbym/, sf. 3.sg.f. /-yh/. Sam /,aren/; /&agabj. Pal pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /'owpneYhemN06 pI. /,acabiYm/,207 sf. 3.pI.m. /&cabeYmow/. Bab /'owpan/, pI. /-nymj;208 /&owbar/, pI. /-bariYm/; /&uWgab/, sf. l.sg. /-biY/; pI. /&acabiYm/. d. Fern. /&pr/II, /t1&j. Q /&wprt/; /twl&h/, /-&t/. Sam /,u:faret/; /tu:lat/, pI. /-limj. Pal/toWla&atj. Bab /toWla&at/; pI. /toWla&iYn/. 2f'1) Lat /tholat/. xxii) /qutilj. a. /'pq/, /gdl/, /kpr/, /&rb/III, /Jrq/II (etc.). Q pI. /gwdlym/; /kpyr/, pI. /-rym/; /&wrb/; / Jwrq/. Sam /gedel/; /&iJ.rebj.2lO Pal /&oWreb/, pI. /-rbiYm/; /Jwreq/.2l1 Bab pI. /'apiYqiYm/, cs. /-qeY/; /kpiYr/, pI. /-riYm/; /&oreb/. G pI. /XrParim/; /sorek/. 212

J

203

Var. 1(I)mw&7I.

204 Var. l(wal)mii'a7I.

~5 Var. Im&a7 I.

06 Defective vocalization? 207 Sic, for I&-j. 208 Defective vocalization (for l-iYm/). 2f'1)

TK; var. I-l&-/.

211

Defective vocalization.

210 C. PTdt I&ii-/. 212 Var. I-x/.

18*

APPENDIX I

Lat /khafir/;213 /oreb/, pI. /orbim/; /sorek/. b. Fern. /'bd/, /,plj, /gzr/ (etc.). Q /'bdh/; /,plh/, sf. 2.sg.m. /,pltkhj. Sam /'e:bfdda/, cs. /-idat/;214 /'e:ffiaj. Pal sf. 2.sg.m. /'beYdatak/; /'peYlah /;215 sf. 2.sg.m. /gzeYratak/, pI.sf. 3.sg.f. /-roWteYh/. Bab /'bedah/,216 pI. /-doWt/; /(b)'apelah /;217 /gzeYrah/, cs. /-rat/, sf. 1. sg. /-ratiY/; pI. /gziYriYn/,218 cs. /-reY /,219 sf. 1.sg. /gzeYroWtay/.21I.l xxiii) /qutulj. a. /'pd/, /'In/, /bkr/, /dr(r)/, /xIm/, /nwx/, /q7r/ (etc.). Q /bkwr/, pI.cs. /-ry/; /drwr/; /xIwm/; /nyxwx/. Sam /,lbbod/; ?/blkkor/;221 /dfrror/; /,alom/, sf. 1.sg. /(b)elmi/, 3.sg.m. /'Omu/; pI. /('a:)'a:lamot;/ sf. 3.sg.m. /,e:lamo/,222 /-a:mflto/, 1. pI. /-a:mu:tinu/; /niyya/, sf. 1.sg. /ni:yya'i/; pI.sf. 2.pl.m. /-a:'i:klmma/; /qi7or/. Pal /,iY oWn/; /bkowr/; pI. /-riYm/, cs. /-reY /, sf. 3.sg.f. /-reYh/, 3.pI.m. /-reYhem/; /droWr/;223 /xalowm/, cs. /xI-/; /niYxowx/. Bab /'epowd/; /bkowr/, pI. /bkoroWt/; /drowr/; /xIowm/, sf. 1.sg. /xalwmiY/;224 pI. /xlomoWt/,225 sf. 2.pI.m. /-moteYka/;226 /niYxox/; ?pI. /qi7roWt/. 227 G /al/Jod/, /al/Jud/; /bxor/; /darorf.22P. los /al/Jode/. 229 Lat /efod/; /deror/; /helem/; /kitor/. b. Fern. /'xz/, /,rb/II, /g'l/, /dbr/II, /xnk/ (etc.). Q cs. /,wxzt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /,xztw/; pI. /,rbwt/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-tyhmh/; cs. /g'lt/; /dbwr' /,230 pI. /-rym/. Sam I&azza/, cs. I-at/; sf. 3.sg.m. /'a:zzatu/,231 2.pl.m. I&a:zzatkimma/, 3.pl.m. /-a:tfmmii/; pI. /(w)e:nibbot/; /ga:'elii/, cs. /-eliit/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-Otu/; pI. /du:berem/; cs. /,e:nfkkatj. Pal cs. /,axuzat/;232 pI. /'ruwboWt/; /g'uWlah /, cs. /-at/; cs. /xnuwkatj.

J

213 Var. /ka-/. 214 B-CH /-idd-/. 215 Var. /(w)'ap-/. 216 Var. /(w)'ab-/. 217 Var. /(ba),p'ola hI (Eb 22). 218 TK; var. /,(,iYzeYriYn/. 219 Kt */gyz-/, cf. the preceding note. 220 Ps.

221 Dt 15:19ter; or type /quttu:lJ? :Gn37:8. Var. /dar-/. 224 Defective vocalization? (/w/ hg!). 225 Var. /(ba)xiil-j. 226 Var. /-met-/ (Eb 22). 227 Eb 22 Ez 46:22; hardly original reading. 22P. Var. /-rr-/. 229 Var. /atPude/. 230 Isa 7:18. 231 Varr. with /'-/ in other forms too, d. B-CH. 232 Var. /,x-/.

APPENDIX I

19·

Bab /'axuzah /; sf. 3.sg.m. /_atoW/,233 2.pI.m. /-atkam/, 3.pI.m. /-atam/;234 pI. /dbowriYm/. G cs. / onnaxaO /. Lat /orobba/; sf. 2.sg.m. /goolathakh/; /debbora/. c. Fern. /dkp/, /ksm/, /ktn/, /nxJ/11 (etc.). Q /ksmt/; /ktwnt/, pI.sf. 2.sg.m. /ktnwtyk/;23S /nxwJt/. Sam /du:gifat/;236 /kessamet/; /kittanet/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-antu/; pI. /-anot/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-a:nu:tfmma/; /nfiffet/. Pal/nexoJet/. Bab /duwkiYpat/; /kuwssamat/, pI. /_smiYm/;237 /ktoWnat/, /kutonat/,238 pI. /kutnoWt/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-tam/; /nxoJat/; duo /nxuJtayim/, sf. 2.sg.f. /-ayik/. 239 G pI. /xoOonoO/.240 los /XfOon/. Lat pI. /khasamim/. (Am /nuxuJtu.) d. Masc/Fem. /bJI/, /mr(r)/. Sam /beJol/,241 f. /'afJela/; pI. /me:rarem/, f. /-rot/. Pal/marowr/. xxiv) /qo:tal/. a. /'cr/, /grl/, /xtm/, /&lm/, /Jpr/ (etc.). aPal /xtm/, sf. 2.sg.m. /xtmk/. Q /,wcr/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-rw/; pI. /-rwt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-rwty/; /gwrl/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-lkh/; /xwtm/; /&wlm/,242 pI. /-mym/, cs. /-my/; / Jwpr/, pI. /-rwt/. Sam sf. 3.sg.m. /'u:caro/, pI.sf. l.sg. /-a:ruti/; /gijral/, pI. /gu:ralot/; /'utam/; /,ulam/;243 / Jufar/. Pal /,owcar/, sf. 3.sg.m. I-row/; /gowral/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-rlow /,244 3.pI.m. /-ralam/; /xoWtam/, pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /-maYw/; /&owlam/, pI. /-miYm/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-maYw/; / J oWpar/, pI. /-roWt/. Bab /goWral/, CS. /-ral/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-ralow /, pI. /-raloWt/; /xoWtam/, cS. =;245 pI. sf. 3.sg.m. /xoWtamaYw/, 3.pI.m. /-moWteYham/; /&owlam/, pI. /-miYm/;246 /Jowpar/, pI. /-roWt/.

233

Var. with /'x-/.

234 Ditto. 23S Isa 22:21 (MT sg.). 236 Sic!, kt I-g-/. 237 Var. /-iYn/ (TK). 238 In a biblical quotation.

/a/ slightly misplaced; Eb 22; MT sg.). /k08onoif Graecized var. Ezr 2:69 Bh (/xitonas/ A rell); other varr. incidental. 24~ Ex 12:9; B-CH fbiIfolf (nact D). 24 V arr. /&wlwm/ (IQH), /&Im/ (Mur). 3 Var. /&-/ (Dt 32:7). 244 Sic (twice); defective vocalization? 245 Mishnaic..Jls also the pl.sf. forms. 246 Var. /-miYn/ (TK). 239 Sic Jegendum (the sign for

:

20*

APPENDIX I

G /olam/, pI. /oHimim/; /so¢ar/,247 (Luc) /so¢arj. Lat /olam/; /sofar/. b. Fern. /ytr/, ktr/, /qhl/ (etc.). Sam /yu:taret/. Bab /yoWtarat/; pI. /kotaroWt/; /qohalat/. G /xoOaraO/,248 (Luc) pI. I-roOf; /kolaO/ (Ecc11:1), /koaIaO/ (12:8). xxv) /qo:tilj. a. /ybl/II, /khn/, /nqd/, /spr/II (etc.). Q /ywbl/, pI. /-lym/; /kwhn/,249 pI. /-nym/, cs. /-ny/; /swprj. Sam /yilbelj; /ka'en/,250 pI. /ka:'enemj. Pal /kowhen/; pI. /kohniYm/, cs. /-neY /, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-neYk/; /soWpr/.251 Bab /yowbel/; /kohen/;252 pI. /kohniYm/;253 pI. /noqdym/;254 /soper/, pI. / _riYm/. 255 G /iobel/; /noked/;256 (gn) /sap¢iru/. 257 los /iobelos/. 258 Lat (jiubileus/ los;) pI. /nokedim/; /sofer/. b. Fern. /khn/, /sl(1)/, /&1(1)/, /t&b/ (etc.). Q /swllh/; /&wllt/, pI. /&wllwt/; /tw&bh/, cs. I-btl, pI. /-bwt/. Sam /tuwweba/, cs. I-bat!; pI. /-bot/, sf. 3.pI.m. /tuwwe:bu:tlmma/. Pal /sowllah/; /toW&eYbah /, /-&ebet/,259 pI. /-&boWt/. Bab /kowhanat/; /&owlalat/, pI. /-leYloWt/; /toW&ebah /; pI.cs.(!) /toW&eboWt/,260 sf. 2.sg.f. (etc.) /-&aboWtayik/. xxvi) /qata:l/. /kwnjII, jmq(q)/, /qrbj, jfb7j. Q /qrb/. Pal jqarabj. Bab cs. /mqaq/. G pI.(ac) /xauonas/. 261 Lat pI. /khauonim/; /sabat/. xxvii) /qati:l/. a. /'b(b)/, /'(1)/, /,sp/, /'sr/, /ymn/, /qcr/ (etc.). aPal /,sp/, /ymn/, /qcr/. Q /,byb/, pI. /-bwt/; pI. /'lylym/, cs. /-y/; pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /,syryw/; /ymyn/,

Varr. Iso¢irl S., Isa¢arl dp. MT ( = Luc) pI. (2Ch 4: 121). 249 Varr. Ikh-I (2 ab). 250 May actually belong to the Iqatill type, unless secondarily influenced by Aram. 251 Defective vocalization. 252 Var. Ikeh-I (Eb 22). 253 Var. Ikhen-I (Mishnaic). 254 Defective vocalization. 255 Var. l-riYnl (TK). 256 Varr. I-eel BAh, I-idl 71; other varr. incidental; I(an) akkariml Am 1:1 type Iqattal/· 257 Ez 9:2; apparently infl. by Aram. 258 Graecized, as los usually; pl.ac. Ixanaiasl based on Aram. 259 St.abs.; and so the pI. form. 260 Ant 812 Dt 18:0 and TK. 261 Graecized; varr. I-uan-I, I-bon-I, I-mon-I; others incidental. :

APPENDIX I

21*

sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-ny/; /qcyr/, sf. 2.sg.f. (etc.) /-rk/. Sam /ebeb/; pI. /'e:lilem/; /'asef/; /yfimmen/, dir. /ye:mina/; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc. 262) /yamminak/; /qacer/, sf. 2.sg.m. /qa:cirak/, 3.sg.f. /-iraj, 2.pI.m. / -erkimmaj. Pal /'abiYb/; /'eliYI/, pI. /-liYm/,263 cs. I-leY /, sf. 3.pI.m. /-leYhem/; /,asiYp/; pI. /'siYriYm/, sf. 3.sg.m. /'esiYraYw/; /yamiYn/,264 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /ymiYnak/;265 /qaciYrj. Bab /'abiYb/; pI. /'eliYliYm/; /yamiYn/, cs. /(m)iY-/; sf. l.sg. (etc.) /ymiYniY/; /qaciYr/, cs. /qc-/; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /qciYrkaj.266 G pI. /alilim/;267 cs. /imin/, sf. 2.sg.m. /(u)aminax/, 3.sg.m. /iminoj. Lab (fabib/;268) /iaminj. (Am /asiruj.) b. Fern. /'kl/, /xsd/, /slx/, /qr'/ (etc.). /slyxh/, pI. /-xwt/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-xwtykh/. Sam / ('a:)' e:sidaj.269 Pal /'ekiYla h /; /sliYxa h /;27o /qriY'a h /, cs. /-at/; sf. 2.sg.m. /qriY'tak/,271 3.pI.m. / -'atam{ Bab /'kiYla /,272 cs. /-lat/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-latow/; pI. /-lowt/; /(ha)xsiYda h /; /qri Y'a h /,273 cs. /qiryat/;274 sf. 3.pI.m.(!) /qriY'atan/; pI. /qriyoWt/. G /asida/. 275 Lat /asida/. c. Masc/Fem. /bkr/, /yxd/ (etc.).

o

?O /yxyd/. Sam /bakir/, f. /ba:kira/; sf. 2.sg.m. /ya:'idakj. Pal /yaxiYd/, f. /yxiYda h /; pI. /yxiYdiYm/. Bab /bakiYr/; /yaxiYdj. G sg.f.sf. l.sg. /iidaOij. Lat /iaid/. xxviii) jqato:lj. a. j'rn/, /kbdj, jnkY /tj (etc.). /'rwn/; /kbwd/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-dy/; (pI.?)sf. 3.sg.m. /nktywj. Sam /,aron/; /kabod/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) jka:budi/.

o

262 Var. 3.sg.m. /(miy)ya:minu/ Dt 33:2; /-mm-/ apparently infl. by Aram.

263

Varr. /,1_/.

266

A biblical quotation.

264 Var. /(b)iYm-/ (abs.!). 265 Varr. /yem-/; /-nek/ (ps), /-neka/ (ps).

267 Var. /alalim/ Mmg; other varr. incidental.

~~~~ ~~z~~~.

/a::s- / (overlong vowel). Varr. /sel-/, /sal-I· Defective vocalization? Varr. I(ha/}r/l) 'ak-I (also in cs. & sf. forms). 274 V~rr. /:iyya I, /-iyya' / (TK, as also sf. & pI. forms). 275 Mlshnalc. Var. lass-I. :

271 272 273

22*

APPENDIX I

Pal j'arown/; /kabowd/, cs. /kb_/,276 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.)2n /kbowdakj. Bab /'aroWn/,278 cs. j'ar-/; /kabowd/, cs. /kb-/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /kbowdiY/. ?G (sf.?l79 /nexo8a/. ?Lat (Sf.?)28O /nekhothaj. b. Fern. /nxt{}J31 Bab /nxoWtah/. 282 xxix) /qatu:l/. a. j'lp/, /bxr/, /&td/, /&tq/ (etc.). Q /bxwr/, pI. /-rym/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-ryw/; pI. /&twdym/, cs. /-Y/. Sam /'alof/; pI.cs. /'a:1iifi/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-u:fi:yyfmma/; /bfir/; pI. / &a:tiidem/. Pal sf. l.sg. /'aluwpiY /; pI.cs. /-pey/; /baxuwr/, pI. /-riYm/, sf. l.pI. /-reYnuw j. Bab pI.cs. /'aIupeY/; pI. /baxurym/,283 sf. 3.sg.m. /-raYw/, f. /-raYha/, 3.pI.m. /-reYham/; pI. /&atuWdiYmj. G pI. /a8ukiimj.284 b. Fern. /kbd/, /nb'/ (etc.). Q /nbw'h/. Sam pI. /ka:biidot/. Pal /kbuwdah/, cs. /kebuWdat/; /nbuw'ah/,285 sf. 3.sg.m. /-atow/. Bab /kbuwdah /. c. Masc/Fem. /bkr/, xmr/, /fm&/ (etc.). Q ?/bkwr/, pI.cs. /-ry/; /fmw&h/, sf. l.pI. /-&tnwj. Sam /bakor /, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /ba:kiiri/; pI.cs. =; f. /ba:kiira/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-u:rati/; pI. /-iirot/. Pal f. /xmuWrh/;286 /Jmuw&ah;. Bab /xamuwr/; f. /xmuwrah /; pI. /_riYm/,287 f. /-roWt/; sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /JmuW&ow/; f. /fmuw&ah /. xxx) /qita:l/. /rq(q)/II. Pal cs. /raqaq/. Bab cs. /rqaqj. xxxi) /qiti:lj. a. /ycr/, /kslj, /mr'/, /fxn/ (etc.). Q /ksyl/, pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /-lyhm/; pI. /mry'ymj. Sam / ffi'en/.

276 Var. /keb-/. 2n Varr. /kab-/, /keb-j. 278 Sic, incl. Ec 12Ch 24:8pm (/'r-/ sm). 279

Or understood as fern. (st.abs.), cf. MT kt /nkth/? var. /nar.-/; other varr. incidental.

280 Cf. the note on G above.

281 Cf. also G Lat above (with n.). 282 TK; var. /nxuWta'/ (Mishnaic). 283

Defective vocalization.

284 Varr. /-iin/ B, /-im/ ce; other varr. incidental.

285 Var. /nab-j.

286 Defective vocalization. 287 Var. /-riYn/ (TK).

APPENDIX I

23*

Pal /yciYr/,7i!8 sf. 3.sg.m. /yeciYrow/; pI. /mriY'iYm/; /(bi)JxiYn/. Bab /ksiYI/; /mriY'/; /JxiYn/. G /xsil/.'JP.9 Lat /khasil/, pI.cs. /khisile/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-eem/; /siin/. b. Fern. /zmrjIII, /lb(b)/, /cdV/ (etc.). ?Q pI.(?) /zmrt/ (Isa 24: 16). Sam / ciddiYJ.a/.190 Pal/zmiYra /, pI. /-roWt/; cs. /cdiyyat/. Bab pI. /lbiboWt/. xxxii) /qito:l/. /'zr/, /'lh/, /xmr/ (etc.). aPal pI. /xmrm/. Q /'zwr/; /,lwh/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-hw/, ?2.pI.m. /-hkmh/ (Isa 35:4)291; pI. /,lwhym/292, cs. /-Y/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) =; /xmr/, /xmwr/. Sam /'ela/; pI. /'e:liiwwem/293, cs. /-wwi/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) =; 3.sg.m. (etc.) /'e:lu:wwiyyu/; 2.pI.m. (etc.) /-i:kimma/; /,emor/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /'e:miirak/; pI. /(w)e:miirem/, sf. l.pI. /'e:mu:rinu/, 3.pI.m. /-i:yyimma/. Pal /'eYzowr/; pI. /'elohiYm/, cs. /-hJ/, sf. 1.sg. /_hy/294 ; pI. /xmowriYmj. Bab /'elowh/; pI. /'elohiYm/, cs. /-hJ/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-haYka/, 3.sg.m. /-haYw/, l.pI. (etc.) /-hJnuw/; pl.ll (f.) /'elowhoWt/; /xmoWrj29S, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /(w)xamowriY/, 3.sg.m. /xmowrow/; pI. /xmoriYm/. G /alo/; pI. /aloim/, cs. /-i/, /-e/, I-ail; sf. l.sg. /-ai/, 2.sg.m. /-axj296, 3.sg.m. I-auf, l.pI. /-nnu/297• Lat pI. /eloim/, sf. 2.sg.m. /eloah/ 298• xxxiii) /qutayl/. /xnk/, /xtm/, /&lm/II. Sam pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /&anyako/; /(a:)'atem/, sf. 2.sg.m. /&a:timak/; f. (c. PTdt) /,a:lima/. G f.pI. /alimoO /; /alai-/ B, /aHi-/ S, /ale-/ Orig. xxxiv) /quti:l/. /xzr/II. Q /xwzyr/. Sam (c. PTdt) /,azzer/. Pal/xaziYr/299• Bab /xuziYr/. xxxv) /quto:l/. a. /'nJ/11, /brJ/, /zr&/II.

~ Var. /yec-/. ~ Reconstruction from XEIA and XSIA (incidental varr.). B-CH / cidya/.

291 Probably scribal error (for pI. = MT). 292 Var. /_wym/.

Varr. with /,al-/ (in all pI. forms). Defective vocalization. : Varr. /(~)xim-I (Eb 5), /xmuwr/ (TK). Var. /-ru:x/ (HI.). 297 Scribal error for / -enu/ (= -NNOY for -HNOY). 298 Scribal error for /-akh/ (= -AR for -ACH). 299 Var. /(ha)xz-/.

:

APPENDIX I

24*

aPal/zr&l· Q l'nwJI, pI.cs. I-fyl; IbrwJ/ 300 , pI. I-Jym/, sf. 3.sg.m. I-Jyw/; Izrw&/ 3Cll , sf. l.sg. (etc.) I-&y I; pI.sf. l.sg. =. Sam l(miyy)enoJ I, pI. l'a:nuJem/; Iza:rt1/, sf. 2.sg.m. l-u:wwak/ 302 , 3.sg.m. I-uwwol; pI.cs. I-uwwif. Pal /'enowJ I, /,n-I'; IzroW&/303, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) I-&ak/; pI. 1-&iYm/; pl.II I-&owtl, sf. 3.sg.m. 1-&owtaYw/. Bab l'enowJI; IzroW&/304 , sf. l.sg. (etc.) 1-&iY/. G Ibra8u/; pI.sf. l.sg. Izaru08ai/. ?Lat Ibrais/305 ; Izara/. (Am Izuruxf.) xxxvi) Iqutu:l/. a. Igbl/, Izkr/, Ikrbl (etc.). Q Igbwl/, sf. 2.sgJ. (etc.) I-Iyk/; pI. I-lwtl, sf. 2.sgJ. I-Iyk/, ?3.sg.m. I-Iwtw I (lIsa 28:25); sf. 3.sgJ. (etc.) Izkwrh/; pI. Ikrwbym/. Sam Igebol/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /ge:hUlak/, 2.pI.m. /-bolkimma/; pI. l-hUlot/, sf. 3.sgJ. I-bu:lu:tiyya/; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) Ize:kt1rak/; Ikerob/, pI. /ke:rt1bemf. Pal /gbuwI/, sf. 3.sg.m. IgebuWlowI, 3.pI.m. Igabuwlam/; pI. /gbuWloWtl; /zakuwr/; pI. /karuwbiYm/, /kr-f. Bab IgbuWl/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) l-low/; IzakuWrF'J6; pI. IkrubiYmf. G pI. Ixarubim/307. Lat Igebul/, pI.sf. 2.sgJ. I-laik/; ?/zokhorl (Is 26:14); Ikherub/, pI. I-bim/. b. Fern. I'mn/, /btl/, Igbr/ (etc.). Q I'mwnh/, cs. I-ntl; Ibtwlh/, cs. I-It/, pI. I-lwt/; Igbwrh/, cs. I-rt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) I-rty I; ?pI.sf. 2.sgJ. Igbwrwtyk/ 308• Sam I'amunal Ibe:tula/, pI. I-loti; pI.sf. 2.sg.m. Ige:bu:rt1tekf. Pal /,emuwnah/ hsf. 2.sg.m. /-ntakFnJ, 3.sg.m. I-natoh/; IbtuWlah/, pI. l-loWtj3lO; IgbuWra I, cs. I-atl, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) I-atak/; pI. l-oWtj311, sf.

3.sg.m·l-oWtaYwf.

Bab /btuWlah/, cs. I-latl; pI. IgbuwroWtl. G sf. l.sg. /amuna8i/, 2.sg.m. /amuna8aX/; pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /gabur08auf. Lat /emuna/, sf. 3.sg.m. I-athol; /bethula/; pI. /geburoth/.

Var. /br'wf/. Varr. /'z·/ (also sf. 3.sg.m.). 302 B-CH /-uwwak/. 303 Var. /(h)zer-j. 304 Var. /-&3/. 305 Var. /bratij. 306 Sic (TK). 307 Varr. /-in/, I-emf; c. PTdt /akx-/. 308 Isa 3:25sm (lwt/ hg). 309 Defective vocalization. 310 Var. /bat-f, 311 Varr. /geb-/, /gab-/. 300 301

APPENDIX I

~ii! ~qattalj. a. /,,(lj, /x7' /, /xrf / (etc.). Q / y 1/, pI. /x7'ym/, /xrf /, pI. /-fym/.

25*

Sam /'fiyyalj; pI. /&a77a'em/ 312 ; /&arraf/. Pal pI. /'eyyaliYm/; pI. /x7'iYmj313; pI. /xarafiYm/. Bab /,ayal/; pI. /xa7a'iYm/; /xaraf/, pI. /-fiYnj314. G pI. /attaim/; (pI. /arasimj315). b. Fern. /'ylj, /bhr/, /7b&/, /ybf / (etc.). Q pI. /7b&wt/; /ybfh/. Sam /eyyalii/; /ba:'eret/, pI. /-rot/; /7abbet/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-ettu/; pI. /-e'ot/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-u:tti:yyfmmaj316; /yabbafa/, /-fat/. Pal /7ab&at/, sf. 3.sgJ. /-th+/. Bab /baharat/ 317, pI. /baharoWt/; sf. 3.pl.f. /7aba&tan/; pI. /7ab+ a&owt/, cs. /7ab&ot/, sf. 3.sg.m. /7ab&owtayw/; /yab+afa h/. G pI. /aialo8/. Lat /aiala/. xxxviii) /qattil/. a. /hl(1)/, /krt/ (etc.). Pal /halel/. Bab /karet/, pI. /-eYtoWt/. b. Fern. /ybl/II, / fkl/. Sam /yabbelet/. Pal / f akeYla h/. c. Masc/Fem. /fmn/. Sam /femmen/, f. /femmena/. xxxix) /qattul/. Fern. /kpr/. Q /kprt/. Sam /kebbaret/. Bab /kaporat/. xl) /qittalj. a. /&qr/. Pal /&iYqar/, sf. l.sg. /-qariY/(?), 3.pI.m.(!) /_qranj318. Bab /&iYqar/, cs. =319, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) I-row/; pI. /-riYm/, cs. /_reYj320. b. Fern. IndY /, /pnV/ (etc.). Q /ndh/, cs. /ndt/; /pnh/, cs. /pnt/; pI. /pnwt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-tyw/. Sam /nfdda/, cs. /-at/, sf. 3.sgJ. /niddata/; pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /fenniito/' Pal /piYna h j321, cs. /-at/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-takj322, pI. /-iYm/. 312 C. PTdt /&a:-/. 313 Defective vocalization. 314 TK. 315 In nJ. 316 Contracted; cf. B-CH: /-e:'u:t-/.

Var. /-har-/ (also ct; TK). Defective vocalization (or metrical contraction?). 319 TK. 320 Ditto. 321 ?Var. /pine h/. 322 Defective vocalization. 317 318

26*

APPENDIX I

Bab /nidah /, cs. I-dati, sf. 3.sgJ. /-datah/; pI. /niYdoWt/; pI. /pinoWt/. G /nadda/. xli) /qittil/. a. /dbr/, /xrf /, /ml(l)/II, /&Ig/, /&qf /, /rb&/ (etc.). Q /dybr/(?); pI. /&Igym/. Sam /'irref/. Pal /diYber/, sf. 3.sg.m. /dibarow/, pI. /diYbroWt/; sf. 3.pI.m. /miYllam/; pI. /&iYlgiYm/' Bab /diber/, pI. /dibroWt/; /&iqef/, pI. /&iqfiYm/; pI. /rib+e&iYm/' G lilies/. b. Masc/Fem. /xrf/II, /&IV/ (etc.). Pal /xeref/; pI.f. /&ilyoWt/. Bab /xeref/, f. /xerafat/; f. /&il+iYt/. xlii) /qittul/. /kwr/, /kyr/. Q /kywr/. Sam /kiyyor /. Pal/kiyowr/. Bab /ki+yowr/; /ki+yowr/. xliii) /quttal/. /,Im/II, /,mn/, /k/qpx/, / ftp/. Q /'lm/; /fwtp/' Sam/'illam/. Pal /,owman/. Bab /'uwman/; /kuwpax/, /q-/; / f uWtap/, pI. /-piYmj323. xliv) /quttil/. /frd/. Sam /Jerred/. xlv) /quttul/. a. /pr(r)/II, /cpr/. Q /cpwr/, pI. /-rym/. Sam /ffrror/; /cfbbor/, pI. /cibbiirem/. Bab /cipor/; pI. /cipriYmj324, sf. 3.sg.m. /-raYw/. (?Am pI. /zipperatu/.) b. Fern. /bqr/, /cpr/. ?Sam /,afqarat/. Bab /biqowrat/; /capoWratj325. xlvi) /qatti:I/. a. /Ipd/, /&rc/, /prc/, /cdq/, /fI7/, /tn(n)/ (etc.). Q /Ipyd/; /&ryc/, pI. /-cym/; /pryc/; /cdyq/, pI. /-qym/; /tnynj326, pI.

/-nym/.

Sam /Iebbed/, pI. /labbidem/; /falle7/. Pal pI. /lpiYdiYmj327; /&ariYc/; pI. /pariYciYm/; /cadiYq/, pI. /-qiYm/; /faliY7/; /taniYn/'

323 Var. /-piYn/ fK). 3~ Varr. /ciYpri n/. /-p.-/ (TK). 3 Mishnaic; var. /cip-/ TK. 3~ Var. /tnym/ (Isa 51:9). 32 Defective vocalization.

27*

APPENDIX I

Bab /HipiYd/; pI. /HipidiYm/; pI.cs. /&ariYceY/; /cfidiYq/, pI. /-qiYmj3'Ul;

/ IaIiY7/.

G 1/sadik/329; pI. /saddikim/. Lat /farisJ; /thannin/. b. Masc/Fem. /&lz/. Q f. /&Iyzh/; pI. /-zym/, cs. /-zy/. Pal pI. /&aliYziYm/. xlvii) /qatto:lj. /gbr/, / Ikr/; 1/knr/. Q /gbwr/, 1f. /_rt/'Y!AJ; pI. /-rym/, cs. /-ry/, sf. l.sg. =, 3.pI.m. /gybwryhm/; / Ikwr/, pI.cs. /-ry/; 1/knwr/, pI. /knrwt/. Sam /gfbbor/, pI. /gibburem/. Pal /giYbowrj331 pI. /-rium/, cs. /-reY/. Bab /gibor/, pI. cs. /giboWreY j. G /gibbor/. 332 Lat /gibbor/, pI. /geborim/; pI.cs. /sakkhore/. xlviii) /qattu:lj. a. /,Ip/, /bxr/, /xn(n)/, /m1x/, /&md/, /&td/. Q /&mwd/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-dw/; pI. /-dym/; 1/&twdym/, cs. /-Y/. Sam /&fmrrnod/; pI. (c. PTdt) /&funmudem/; cs. /&ammudi/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-udo/, f. /-u:diyya/, 3.pI.m. /-u:di:yyimma/. Pal /baxuwr/; /xanuwn/; /maluwx/; sf. l.sg. /'aluwpiY/; pI. /baxuwriYm/; cs. /'aluwpeY/; sf. l.pI. /baxuwreYnuw/. Bab /xanuwn/; /maIuwx/; /&funuwd/; pI. /&am+udiYm/; /&atuWdiYm/; cs. /'alupeY/; /&amuwdeY/; sf. 3.sg.m. /baxuraYw/; /&am+udaw/(!); f. /baxuraYha/; 3.pI.m. /baxuwreYham/; /&amuwdeYhfun/. b. Fern. /xbr/. Q /xbwrh/; pI.(1) sf. 3.sg.m. /xbwrtyw/ (Isa 53:5). Sam /&abbura/; sf. l.sg. /(I)ebbu:rati/. Pal /xb+uWrati p33. xlix) /quttu:lj. a. /hI(I)/, /kpr/, /ml' /, /ptx/II, / qc/ (etc.). Q pI. /kpwrym/, cs. /-Y/; / qwc/, pI. /-cym/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-cyhmh/. /.? f 2.p1.m. / -a. ···'··k' "/334., p1.cs. Sam p1. /kibburem , . p.1 / me II::' a em/ , s. 1. Imma /fittUwwi/; pI. sf. 3.pI.m. / Iiqqu:ci:yfmma/. Pal sf. 2.sg.m. /hiYlwlakj33S; /kiYpuwr/, pI. /-riYm/; /miYl'uWy/(!)336; pI.cs. /piYtuWxeY/; pI. / IiYquwciYm/, cs. /-ceY/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-ceYhem/. Bab pI. /hiYluwliYm/; pI. /kipuriYmj337, sf. 3.sg.m. /kiYIluwraYwj338;

I

3'Ul Var. l-qiYnl (TK). 329 Eoiph; cf. Sam. 330 Isa

47:5.7

331 Var. l-bu'Wrj.

:

Var. I(el)gaborl (Thdt). Defective vocalization. 3~ More probably type Iquttulj. 3 Defective vocalization. 336 /,1 quiescent. 337 Var. l-iYnl (TK).

I

28*

APPENDIX I

/miYluWiYj339,

sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-u'ow/; pI. /miluw'iYm/ 34O ; pI. / fiYquWciYn/341, sf. 3.pI.m. / fiquwceYhm/342. G pI. /allulim/, /al-/. Lat ?/mello/343 ; (pI.?)sf. 3.sg.f. /fethee/; pI.cs. /sekuse/. b. Masc/Fem. /bkr/, /gdp/, /gl(l)/, /lmd/ (etc.). Q pI. /bkwrym/; pI. /gdwpym/344, sf. 3.pl.m. /gdpwtm/; pI. /glwlym/, cs. /-Y/; pI. /lmwdym/, cs. /-Y/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-yk/, ?1.sg. /lmdy/345. Sam pI. /bikkiirem/, cs. /-ri/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-rek/, f. /-rot/; pI.sf. 2.pI.m. /gillu:li:kfmma/346, 3.pI.m. / -i:yfmma/. Pal pI. /bikuwriYm/, sf. 3.sg.f. /-reYh/; /giYluwI/, pI. /-liYm/; /limud/, f. /limuwdah /; pI. /limuwdiYm/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-daYw/. Bab pI. /bikuwriYm/ 347, cs. /-reY/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-raYka/; pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /giduWpotam/; pI. /giYluwliYn/348, sf. 2.pI.m. (etc.) /giluwleYkam/; f. /liYmoWdat/ 349 ; pI. /-muwdiYm/, f. /-mowdoWt/. G pI. (dat)350 /bakxuriois/351. Lat f. /bekhkhora/; f. /geddufa/; pI.cs. /gelule/. 1) multiconsonantaI. These are mostly irregular and occur so rarely that a paradigm cannot be constructed. The most common types may be exemplified as follows:a. /qatlax/. /gzbr/, /xfml/ (etc.). Pal pI. /xaf maliYm/. Bab /geYzbar/, pI. /-riYm/; /xafmaI/. G 352 /gasbar-/ 353, /ganzabr-j354. (Lat /gazabar/ Vg.). b. /qatlix/. /brzl/, /grzn/ (etc.). aPal/grzn/. Q /brzl/; /grzn/. Sam /b~rzel/; /gerzen/. Pal /barzel/. Bab /barzal/. 338

Sic (TK).

340

Var. j-iYnj (TK).

346

Var. j~lul-j Ms.C. (Lv 26:30).

350

Graecized; Neh 13:31.

354

Luc (with incidental var.).

339 Var. j_uWyj, both TK. 341 TK. 342 Defective vocalization (for j-hiimj). 343 Cf. the note on Sam. 344 Var. jgNdpyrnj (Isa 43:28). 345 Isa 8:16. 347 Var. j-iYnj (TK). 348 TK. 349 Var. /liWmt .-/ (!Mishnaic).

351 Var. /baxx-j. 352 Graecized; appendage omitted here. 353 Bh (with incidental var.); mostly var. jgarbar-j.

APPENDIX I

29*

Ii) jqalqalf. a. jdr(r)j, jzl(l)jll, jyc'j, jsn(n)j, jq&j (etc.). jdrdrj; pI. jzlzlyrnj; pI. jc'c'ymj, sf. 2.sg.rn. (etc.) j-ykhj; jq&q&j. Sam jdardarj; jqaqa:j. Pal pI. jzalzaIiYrnj; pI.cs. jce'c'eYj; pI.sf. 2.sgJ. jsansaniYkj. Bab pI.cs. jca'aca'eYj; pI.sf. 3.sg.rn. jsansanaYwj; jqa&aqa&j. Lat pI. jsasairnf. b. jkbj, jkr(r)jll (etc.). Q jkwkbj, pI. j-byrnj, cs. j-byj; pI. jkkryrnj355. Sam jkUkabj; pI. jku:kabernj, cs. j-bij; jk§.kkarj, jkekarj356. Pal pI. jkoWkabiYrnj, cs. j-kbeY j. Bab pI. jkoWkabiYnj357, cs. j-kbeYj, sf. 3.pI.rn. j-kbeYharnj; kik+arj, cs. j-karj; pI. j-karoWtj358, cs. j-k+ar-j. G jkaxarj359. los pI. jki77xaresj360. Latjkhokabj;jkhakharf. c. Fern. jgr(r)j, jxyI/, jkwlj, jpr(r)j, jcx(x)j, jqJ j, j fr(r)j (etc.). Q jxlxlhj; pI. jccxwtj. Sam jqafqeletj; pI. j firfarotj. Pal jxalxala j; pI.cs. jcaxcaxoWtf. Bab jgargaratj; jk+alkalah j36l; jparparatj, pI. j-para'owtj, sf. 3.sg.rn. j-proWtaYwj; jqa$qa$atj, pI. j_$iYrnj362. G pI. jsarsaro9 j363. Iii) jqalqilj. a. jpI/. Bab jpalpelj. b. Fern. j7wlj. Q j7171hj. Pal cs. j717eletj364. liii) jqilqilj. a. j&wV j. Q pI. j&w&ymj, j_yyrnj365. Pal pI. j&iYw&iYrnf. b. Fern. jlV jll. Q pI. jlylywtj. G jlili9 f. Lat jlilithj. Q

355 Var. /-yn/ (3015). 356 Gn 13:lOff; B-CH Pet also ch. 19. 357 TK. 358 Var. = cs. (Mishnaic both). 359 Varr. /kiixx-/, /korx-/ (etc.; incidental). 360 Graecized; var. /kix-/ (Ms.O). 361 Sic (TK). 362 Var. /-$iYn/ (TK). 363

Var. /siins-/ A.

364 Defective vocalization. 365 Isa 19:14.

30*

APPENDIX I

liv) /qulqulj. a. /gl(1)/. /7m(m)/. /kd(d)/. /qd(d)/ (etc.). Q /glgl/. pI. /-lym/. sf. 3.sg.m. /-lyw/; /kdkwd/; /qdqdj. Sam /qadqad/. sf. 2.sg.m. /qadqadak/. Pal /galgal/. pI. /glgalym/366; /qadqod/. Bab /7um7owm/367 ; /qudqod/. G /ga.lgill/; /xorxor/. (Luc Cat) /k-/; (V) /xodxodj. Lat /gelgelj; /khodkhodj. b. Fern. /gr(r)/, /IV/, /qr(r)/II. Sam pI. /la:l~'ot/. Bab /groWgarat/, pI. /-groWt/; pI.cs. /lul'ot/; pI. sf. 3.pI.m. / qurqroWteYhfim/. Iv) /qalqi:lj. /zr/. Bab pI. /zarziYriYm/. lvi) /qalqu:l/. /dl(1)/, /xr/II, /xr(r)/, /f&(&)/ (etc.). Q pI.sf. l.sg. /f&f&y/, 3.sg.m. /_&wj3(,s. Sam / (b )a:ruwwar /. Pal pI. /fa&fuW&iYm/, sf. 3.sg.m. /f&fuW&aYw/ 369. Bab pI. /dalduwliYm/; /xarxuwr/; pI. /fa&afuW&ymj370. lvii) /qulqu:lj. /b&/, /dq(q)/, /hr(r)/II, /p7/, /t&(&)/ (etc.). Pal /hiYrhuwr/. pI. /hyrhuWrymj371; sf. l.sg. /t&tuW&iYj372, pI. /tiY&tuw&iYm/. Bab /ba&buW&/; pI.cs. /diqduWqeY/, sf. 3.pI.m.(!)373 /-eYhan/; /hiYrhuwr/; pI. /pa7puw7iYmj. lviii) /qataltalj. a. /,sp/. Sam /(w)assafsafj374. b. Masc/Fem. /'dm/, /hpk/, /xlq/II, /xpr/, /yrq/II, /pqlj, /ptlj (etc.). Q pI. /xprprym/. Sam /,a:damdam/, f. /'a:damdamit/; pI.f. /'a:damdamot/; /ye:raqraq/; pl.f. /ye:raqraqot/; /fa:taltal/. Pal /hpakpak/; pI.f. /xalaqlaqoWt/; /(w)iYraqraq/. Bab /'adamdam/ 375, f. /-damat/; pI.f. /-damoWtj; pI.f. j(ka)xlaqlaqoWtj; jyraqraqj376; pl.f. jpqoWqloWtj. Lat pl.f. jfarfarothj377.

:

Defective vocalization. Var. /-7uwm/ (TK). Sic (Isa 5:7). : D~fective vocalization. Dltto. 371 Ditto. :~ Ditto. 37 TK. 37~ C. PTdt; B-CH: type /qalqal/, root /sp/ (d. kt var. without 376 Var. /'d-~;'in a fern. form too). 377 Var. /(b)l r-/. Sic (Is 2:20). 368

/'I).

APPENDIX I

31*

lix) /qatultul/. Fern. /xcr/. Q pI. /xcwcrwt/. Sam pI. /a:ci:carot/. los /asosraj378. Ix) /qutultul/. a. /bcl/, /nql/, /pqx/. Q /pqxqwx/. Bab /bculcowl/; pI. /nqoWqloWt/. b. Fern. /cmr/. Bab pI. /cmarmowrot/. 00) /qataltu:l/. /'sp/. Pal (pI.?)sf. 3.pI.m. /'spsuwpeYmuwj379. Bab /(ha)'sapsup/. OOi) /qatlal/. a. /&rk/, /prx/. Sam / &arkak/380• Bab /&arkka/381 ; /parxax/ 382• b. Masc/Fem. /r&n/, / I'n/. Q /r&nn/; /I'nn/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-nnkh/; pl.f. /-nnwt/. Sam /renan/. Pal /ra&nan/383, f. /-anah /; / I a'anan/. OOii) /qatlul/. /nhl/, /&wl/. Q pI. /nhlwlym/; /&wlwl/, pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /-lyhmh/. Pal pI. /&oWlaliYm/384, sf. 2.sg.f. /-iYk/. Bab /&owlel/, pI.sf. 3.sg.f. /-lalaYha/. OOv) /qut(u)lal/. /'rnI/. Pal/'uwmelal/. Bab pI. /(b),ameYlaliYn/ 385 • lxv) /qatli:l/. /Ipr/; ?/trI/. ?Sam /terIeI/. Bab sf. 3.sg.m. / Iapriwrw/386. ?G /8arsis/387• ?Lat /tharsis/. lxvi) /qatlu:l/. /n&c/. Q /n&cwc/. Lat /nesus/. lxvii) Preformative /' -/. Divided into single types according to vocalic Var. /-stra/ Mss. OE. Sic (Bodleian Ms. Heb. d. 63 fol. 98b = my ms. b); defective vocalization. c. PTdt /&3.-/. 381 Interpreted as containing sf. 2.sg.m.; var. /&ir-/ (TK). 382 Var. /pir-/ (sm). 383 Var. /-nen/ (c Ps 37:35pm). : Var. /-11-/; defective vocalization? TK. Sic, cf. MT kt; defective vocalization. 387 Var. /8alasses/(!) Dn 10:6. 378

:

386

32*

APPENDIX I

patterns: a. /,aqtal/. /zrx/, /ytn/, /kzr/, /rgz/ (etc.). Q /,zrx/; /,ytn/; /'kzr /. Sam /&azra/'388; /,itan/, sf. 3.sg.m. /(l)i:tarlU/. Pal /'ezrax/; /'eYtan/; pI. /,eYtaniYm/389, cs. /,iYtneY/; /'akzar/; pI. /-zariYm/, cs. /-zreY/. Bab /,izrax/, pI. /-xiYm/; /'eYtan/; /,argaz/. G /e8amj390; /argazj391. Lat /aethamj392; /ethan/, pI. /-nim/. Fern. /zhr/, /zkr/, /mtx/, /prx/, /c&d/ (etc.). Q /'zkrh/. Sam /'e:za:kara/, sf. 3.sg.f. /-arta/; /'emtat/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-ttu/; pI. /'amtatj393, sf. l.pI. /-a:ttinu/, 2.pI.m. /-a:tti:kfmma/; /(k)a:frat/; /e:cadaj394. Pal pIJ(ha)'~k]roWt/. W. W Bab / azhara /, sf. 3.sg.m. /-ato /, pI. /-0 t/. b. /'aqtil/. /,bn7/, /p&V/, /rbV/. Q /'bn7/; /'p&hj395; /,rbh/. Sam /'a:bane7/, pI. /-a:ni7em/; /,arbij396. Pal /'arbe h/. Bab /'abne7/; /,arbah/. los /abane8/(!). Lat /efee/; /arbe/. c. /'aqtul/. Fern. /xlm/II, /rkb/, /Srnr/, /Spt/' Q sf. 3.pI.m. /,Smrtm/; pI.cs. /'Smwry/; pI. /,Sptwt/. Sam /(w)a:lema/; /(b)e:Jmaret/. Pal /,aSmuwrah /, pI. /_roWtP97; /'aJpoWt/. Bab /'axlamah/; /,arkuwban/; /'iJpat/, /'aJpoWtj398. d. /,iqtal/. /mc&/, /cb&/II, /tn/. Q sf. 3.pI.m. /'mc&nj399; /'cb&/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-&w/; pI. /'cb&wt/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-tyw/, 3.pI.m. /-tm/; sf. 3.sg.f. /'tnnh/. Sam /'fcba/, sf. 2.sg.m. /(b)icbak/, 3.sg.m. /-bU/; /'ftnan/. Pal /'ecba&/; pI.sf. l.sg. /'ecb&oWtay/, 3.sg.m. /-ba&owtayw/; /'etnan/. Bab /,imca&a/(!), cs. /-ca&/; sf. 3.sg.m. /,imca&ow/; pI. /-&iyoWt/;

'388 C. PTdt.

~~ ~arr. /-tn-! (defective vocalization?), /,iYtan-/.

9 SIC; var. /at9am/. 31 Varr. /-as/ h, /argoz/ A(cx);

others crrp. Cf. G var. 393 Contracted from • /-a'ot/; 1st syll. vowel secondarily differentiated in sg., cf. B-CR. 394 B-CR /e:cidda/, cf. kt var. 395 Var. /'p&/ (Isa 59:5). 396 C. PTdt /,a-I. 397 Var. /'afmoWroWt/. ~: Both sg. TK. 3Q15. 392

APPENDIX I

33*

j'icba&/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-ba&ow/; pI. /'icba&oWt/, cs. /-b&-/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-b&oWtaYw/400; /'itnan/401 • Note. Other vocalic patterns with this preformative are too irregular and/or scantily represented for setting up paradigms. lxviii) Preformative /b-/. /baqutli:t/. /r'J/. Bab /bre'JiYt/402• lxix) Preformative /h-/. Three main patterns: a. /haqtil/. /ntr/, /qdJ/ (etc.). Bab /hiter/, sf. 3.sg.f. /hiYteYrah/; /haqdeJ/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-eYJ OW /. b. Fern. /haqtalat/. /bdl/, /ydV/ (etc.). Pal /hoWdayyh/403, pI. /-yoWt/. Bab /habdalah /; /hoWdayahj. c. Fern. /haqa:latj. /bw'/, /yct/ (etc.). Bab sf. 3.sg.f. (etc.) /hba'atah+/; cs. /hacaHit/404 • lxx) Preformative /hin-/. /hinqatil/. /&lm/. Bab /he&alam/40S ; pI. /he&aleYmoWtj. lxxi) Preformative /hiJt-j. Fetp.. /hiJtaqtalatj. /xwV /. Pal/hiJtaxwayyh/406• lxxii) Preformative /hit-j. Fern. /hitqattilu:t/. /xbr/II. Pal /hitxabruWt/. lxxiii) Preformative /y-j. Discernible patterns: a. /yaqtalj. /chr/; ?/ynV/II. Q /ychr/; ?/ywnh/, pI. /ywnym/. Sam /ya:carL, sf. /-ccarak/; ?/ya:banaj. ?Pal /yoWnah /, sf. l.sg. /-atiY/, 2.sg.m. /-tak/407 ; pI. /-iYmj. Bab /yichar/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-raka/ (ps); ?/yoWnah/, pI. /-niYm/. b. /yaqtu:l/. /bhJ/, /xmr/III, /nJp/ (etc.). Q /ynJwp/. Sam /yamor/; /yenJofj. Bab pI. /yabhuwJiYn/408 ; /yaxmuwr/; /yanJuwp/. c. /yaqi:l/(?). /ryb/. G pl.sf. l.sg. /iribiai/(!). Lat /iarib/. d. /yuqtal/(?). /xlm/II. Sam /yellam/.

Var. /,ee-I (TK). Var. I-nanl (abs.; TK). 402 Var. Ibr'efeYtl (TK; 1'1 quiescent). 403 Defective vocalization. 404 With secondary gemination after the usual I 405 Var. l(b)e&-I (TK). 406 Defective vocalization. 407 Probably defective vocalization. 408 TK. 400 401

Iyl II Icl root pattern.

34*

APPENDIX I

e. /yuqu:l/(?). /qwm/. Q /yqwm/.

Sam /y~qum/409. Pal /yaquWm/410, sf. l.sg. /yquwmiY/, pI. /-iYm/. Bab /(ha)yiquWm/411. lxxiv) Preformative /m-/. a. /maqtal/. j'kI/, /bcr/, /yc'/, /nJ'/ (etc.). aPal/mwc'/. Q /m'kI/; /mbcr/, pI. /-rym/, sf. 3.sg.f. /-ryh'/; /mwc'/, pI.cs. /-'y/, sf. 3.sg.f. /-'yh/; /mJ'/; ?sf. 3.pI.m. /mJw'm/412. Sam /makal/; ? /ma:bacer/413, pI. /-a:cirem/; /mflca:/, pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /mafJa:/415 , sf. 3.sg.m. /ma:f~'u/, 2.pI.m. /mu:ca:'fmma/414 ; /mafJa:kfmma/416, 3.pl.m. /ma:Ja:'fmma/. Pal /ma'kal/417, sf. 3.sg.m. I-low/; /mibcar/, pI. /_rymj418, /-roWt/; /mowca'/, pI. /_c'iYm/419 ; /maJa'/. Bab /m'akalj420, cs. /ma'akal/; /mabcar/, pI.cs. /-creY /; /mowca'/, pI.cs. /_'eY/421 ; /ma$a'/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc. 422 ) /-'k/. G /maxal/423; pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /mabsaraui/; /mosa/. Lat /makhal/; /mabsar/; /massa/424. Fern. /l'k/, /lxm/, /Jpx/ (etc.). Q /ml'kh/, cs. /-kt/, sf. 3.pI.m. (etc.) /-ktmh/; /mlxmh/, cs. /-mt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-mty/, pI. /-mwt/; cs. /mJpxt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-tw/; pI. /-wt/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-wtm/, /-wtyhm/. Sam /ma:laka/, cs. /-l~kat/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-laktak/, 3.sg.m. /-laktu/(!); /ma:l~mma/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-lamtu/425, pI. /-lammot/426 ; /meJf~/, cs. /-~t/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-&tti/, 3.pl.m. /-a:ttfmma/; pl.cs. /-a'ot/, /_iH/ 427, sf. 3.sg.m. 409 Sic (lui l!Pparently inn. by Im/; B-CH Iyeqom/). 410 Var. 1(I)iYq-l. 411

Or read l(ha)iYquWm/?

412 2K 7:8 (for MT Imfm/, cf. the preceding vb.). 413 Or pattern Imaqatil/; but the 2nd vowel could have originated as a svarabhakti owing

to the distance between the articulation points of /hI and Icl and the 3rd vowel dissimilated sub~r.1luently, cf. var. I-car/. B-CH /-a:yyfmma/; both contracted from *I-a:'iyyfmma/. 415 Var. Imafa:1 = B-CH; if more original, formed before the attachment of the In-L-gugment to the root. ~1 B-CH Ima:fa:kk-/; cf. the preceding note (but I-kk-I does suggest secondary transfer of ~!fination). 4 18 Var. Im'a-I (1'1 quiescent). 1 Defective vocalization. :~ Could be defective vocalization, but more probably 1'1 quiescent. Var. Ima'kalj (Eb 22). 421 Var. Imowc'eYI (TK\v 422 Var. 3.pl.m.(!) Imasa 'ani (Mishnaic). 423 lK 5:25 Orig; var. /maa-/ n; rell aliter. 424 Var. /messa/. 425 B-CH I-Ia:'fmtu/. 426 B-CH I-Ia:motl (with overlong vowel). 427 Occurs in genealogical lists, the vowel contracted apparently because of the peculiar schematic rhythm used to recite them; cf. my Materials vol. III § 2de.

APPENDIX I

35*

/-iitto/, 2.pI.m. (etc.) /-u:tti:kimma/.

Pal cs. /mele'kt/428 sf. 3.sg.m. /ml'aktoW/429; pI. /mlakoWt/(!), cs. /mal'akoWt/; /milxamah/, /-xemet/430, pI. /-xamoWt/; sf. l.sg. /miIpaxty/431; pI.cs. /-pxoWt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-pxoWtaYw/. Bab /mla'kah / 432, /maJ'akah/, cs. /mal'akat/; sf. 2.sg.m. /mla'ktaka/433; 3.sg.m. /mal'aktow/, 1.~. /-ktenuw/, 3.pI.m.(!) /-ktan/, /mla'katan/434 ; pI. /mal'akoWt/; /malxama /, sf. 3.pI.m. /-xamtam/; /maIpaxah /, cs. /-paxat/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-paxtoW/; pI. /-paxoWt/, cs. /-px-/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-pxotaw/(!)435 G /malama/, pI. /-moO/. b. /maqtil/. /zbx/, /yqf/, /smr/ (etc.). Q /mzbx/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-xy/; pI. /-xwt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-xwtyw/; /mwqf/, pI.cs. /-Iy/; /msmr/, pI. /-rym/. Sam /mezba/, dir. /mezba/, sf. l.sg. /mezbi/; pI. /-ba'ot/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-ba:'u:ti:yfmma/; /miiqeI/. Pal /mazbex/, /miz-/; sf. 2.sg.m. /mizbaxak/436; /moWqeI/. Baab /mazbex/, /miz-/; dir. /mazbexah /; cs. /mazbax/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-bxiY/; pI. sf. 3.pI.m. /-bxoWtam/; /moWqeJ/; /masmer/, pI. /-mroWt/. G /mazben/437; /masbe/438, /mazibe/439 ; ?pI. /masmaroO/ 440 • Lat /mokes/. Fem. /'kl/, /drg/, /zlg/, /zmr/, /ncb/ (etc.). Q pI. /mzmrwt/; /mcbh/, cs. I-btl, sf. 3.sg.f. /-bth/. Sam /ma:kkelet/; pI. /mezlegot/, sf. 3.sg.m. /mezle:giito/; /macciba/, cs. /-ibat/, pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /-i:bu:ti:yyfmma/. Pal/madreYgah /. Bab /m'akalat/441 ; pI. /mazmeroWt/; /macebah /, pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /-boWtamj. c. /maqtulj. /gdlj442, /zmr/III, /xsr/ (etc.). Q /mgdl/, pI. /-lym/, /-lwt/; /rnzmwr/; /mxswr/. Sam /megdal/; sf. 3.sg.m. /ma:saru/443. Pal /migdalj, pI.cs. /-loWt/; /mizmowrj. :~Si~ (/'1 quiescent). Ditto.

430 St. abs. 431 Defective vocalization. 432 In the Bible and biblical quotations. 433 Ditto. 434 Mishnaic (ps). 435 1S 10:21, cf. MT. 4 37 var. I-bx-I defective vocalization? 436 Ma12:13 "Hbr". 438 2K 12:10 A. 439 lb. Orig+; varr. I-bi/, I-binI, I-benl etc.

Jr 52:19 (for I(h)mzrqwtl MT); varr. I-mar-I; Imarmar09l, l-ra091 etc. Sic (1'1 quiescent). 442 Placed here on the strength of Npr no. 928 (Part I Section A); in the Ns, the stem vowel apPfHs centralized everywhere. B-CH 1-55-f. :

36*

APPENDIX I

Bab /magdalj, cs. /-dalj; /maxsoWr/. G /mazmor/. (Am sf. 3.pI.m. /maxziramuj.) Fern. /xlq/, /J/skr/, /tkn/ (etc.). Q /rnxlqt/, pI. /-qwtj. Sam sf. l.sg. (etc.) /meJka:nlti/; /matkenet/, sf. 3.sg.f. /-kfnta/444• Pal /maxloWqet/, /-leqet/, pI.cs. /-lqoWt/; sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /maJkurtw/445 . Bab /maxIoWqat/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-laqtow/, pI. /-lowqot/(!). d. /maqti:lj. /yld/, /&md/, /Jxt/ (etc.). Sam /ma:fit/, pI. /-ttem/446• Pal /mowliYd/; /maJxiYt/. Bab sf. 3.pI.m.(!) /m&amiWdan/447; /maJxiYtj. Fern. /ngnj. Pal sf. 3.pI.m. /mangiYnatamj. e. /maqto:lj. /k'b/, /lqf/, /nJ /srj. Q /rnk'wb/; pI. /-bwt/, sf. l.pI. /-bynw/; /mlqwJ/; /mJwrj. Sam sf. 3.sg.m. /ma:ka:'ubu/448 ; /melqoJ/. Pal /mak'ow b/; /malqowJj. Bab sf. 2.sg.f. /mak'obek/, 3.sg.f. /-bah/; /malqowJj. G pI. /maxobim/. f. /maqtu:lj. /yblj (or /nbl/II?), /lbJ/, /n&lj, /sl(1)/ (etc.). Q pI. sf. l.sg. /mlbwJy/. Sam /m~bbolj. Pal pI. /mbowliYm/ 449 ; sf. 2.sg.m. /malbuwJak/, f. /milbuwJek/; /man&uwlj; pI. /masluwliYm/, cs. /masaluwleYIe!). Bab /mab+uwI/; /man&uwlj. g) /maqallj. /md(d)/, /sk(k)/, /cx(x)/, /rk(k)/ (etc.). Q sf. 2.sg.m. /mcxkhj. Sam /mesekj450; /meca:/, sf. 3.sg.m. /ma:di'u/451 ; /mirrak/. Pal/sf. 3.sg.m. /mamadow/; /mecax/, sf. l.pI. /miYcaxeYnuw/. Bab pI. sf. 3.sg.f. /mmadaYha/; /masak/452 ; /macax/, sf. 3.sg.m. /mucxow j. Fern. /&r(r)/II, /cl(l)/III, / J m(m)/ (etc.). Q /m&r'/, cs. I-rtf, pI. /-rwt/; pI. /mJmwtj. Sam /mara:/, cs. /marat/. Pal /ma&rah/, /m&ara h /; pI. /m&aroWt/, cs. /ma&r-/.

I

444 B-CH -kfm- J.

445 Defective vocalization. 446

B-CH Ima:fiitt-I (Lv 22:25; kt mostly Imfxtym/, var. I-xyt-j).

448

B-CH Ima:kii'u:biil (ps).

447TK.

449 Defective vocalization.

450 Or type Imaqill/? but compatible with this, and

451 B-CH Ime:c-I. 452 Var. I-sakI (ps!).

d. Bab (Tib).

APPENDIX I

37*

Bab /m&arah /, pI. /-roWt/; /mJamh/4S3• Lat pI. /mesaloth/. h) /maqa:l/. /ewd/. Q pI. /mcdwtf. Bab pI. /mcadoWt/. Fern. /gwz/, /J/sym/. Q cs. /mgzt/. Bab /msamah /. i) /maqill/. /gn(n)f. Q

/mgn/.

Sam /'emgen/. Pal /magen/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /maginuw/(!). Bab /magen/, pI. /_niYm/4S4. G /magan/, sf. l.sg., /_nni/455. Fern. /'r(r)/, /gl(1)/, /gn(n)/, /zm(m)/, /xc(c)/, /xt(t)/, /sl(1)/ (etc.). Q /mzymh/; cs. /rnzmt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-ty/; pI. /-wt/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-wtm/; /mslh/, cs. /-It/; pI. /-Iwt/, sf. 1.sg. /-Ity/, 3.pI.m. /-lwtyhmhf. Sam /ma:'ica/456 ; /ma:sella/457. Pal pI. /m'eYroWt/; cs. /mgilt/458 ; cs. /mgiYnat/, sf. l.sg. /magiYnty/459, 2.sg.m. /mgiYnatak/; /meziYmah/; cs. /mexiYcat/, pI. /-coWt/; pI. /masiYlwt/4fI.). Bab /m'eYrah /; /mgilah /, cs. /-Iat/; pI. /rnzimoWt/; /mxicah /; /msilah/, pI. sf. l.sg. /msilotay/. G /maaBBa/. Lat /megellaf. k) /maqi:l/. ?/&I(1)/II, ?/r'J/. ?Q /m&yl/· ?Sam /m~'el/461. ?Bab /m&iYl/; /mariYJ /. ?Lat /mail/. Fern. /dyn/, /Iyn/, /ryb/. Q /mrybh/. Sam /ma:riba/, cs. /-bat/. Pal pI. /madiYnoWt/; /mliYnah /. Bab /mdiYnah /, cs. /-nat/, pI. /-noWt/; /mriYbah /.

: : Defective vocalization. Sic (TK). 455 Var. I-nnel (both Hex). 4~ B-CH Imeccal (root IxcVI); the entry form infl. by Aram. :~ B-CH Ima:sna/, cf. kt var. Imsl&l. 5 Defective vocalization.

~Ditto.

Ditto.

461 Var. Imnl (contracted).

38*

APPENDIX I

I) /maqo:I/. /'wr/, /bw'/, /gwr/III, /xwlj,

/rwm/ (etc.).

/kwn/, /&yn/, /qwm/, /qwr/,

Q /m'wr/, pI. /-rwt/; /mbw'/; /mgwr/, pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /mgwrwtyhmh/;

/rnkwn/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-ny/; /m&wn/; /mqwm/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-mw/; pI. /-mwt/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-mwtmh/; /mqwr/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /-rw/; /mrwm/, pI.

/-mymj. Sam /ma'or/, pI. /ma:'iirot/; /ma:bU/; /makon/; (cs.) /miin/; /maqom/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /ma:qiimi/, l.pI.462 /-u:minu/, 3.pI.m. /-u:mfmma/; pI. /-iimot/, sf. /-u:mu:tfmma/; /maqorj. Pal /ma'owr/, sf. 3.sg.m. /m'owrow/, pI. /_oWt/ 463 ; /magowr/; /maxowl/, pI. /rnxowliYm/; /makown/, sf. l.sg. /mkowniY/, pI.sf. 3.sg.f. /mekowneYh/; /ma&own/, cs. /m&-/; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /m&ownak/, pI.sf. 2.sg.m. /-neYk/; /maqowm/, cs. /mq-j4f'\ sf. l.sg. (etc.) /mqoWmiY/; /maqowr/, cs. /mq-/, sf. l.sg. (etc. 465 ) /mqoWriY /; /maroWm/466, cs. /mr_/,467 sf. 2.sg.m. /mrowmak/; pI. /mrowmiYmj4f,s, cs. /-meY /.469 Bab /ma'owr/, cs. /m'-/, pI.cs. /m'owrey /; /maboW'/,470 cs. /mb-/; /magowr/; cs. /rnxowlj; /ma&own/, cs. /m&-/; /maqowm/, cs. /mq-/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /mqowmka/, pI. /-moWt/; /maqowr/, cs. /mq-/, sf. 3.sg.f. /mqoWrah/; /marowm/, cs. /mr-/. G /maolj; /maon/;471 cs. /mokor/. Lat /maor/; /magur/; sf. 3.sg.f. /makomaj. (? Am /maunnuj.) Fern. /kwn/, /nwr/, /&yn/ (etc.). Q sf. 3.sg.m. /mkwntw/; /mnwrh/; sf. 3.sg.m. /m&wntw/. Sam /me:niidi/, cs. /-rilt/; /munaj. Pal sf. 3.sg.m. /mkuWnatoW/; hma&oWnah/,472 sf. 3.sg.m. /m&oWnatoW/. Bab pI. /mkonoWt/; /mnowra /; pI. sf. l.pI. /m&ownowteYnuw/. G pI. / maxono8j.473 Lat pI. /mekhonoth/. m) /maqullj. /gb(b)/, /&g/, /Jg(g)/, /tm(m)j. Q /mtm/. Pal pI. /mJuWgoWt/; /metowm/. Bab /magowbj.

462 Or pl. form? (B-CH).

463 Var. /ma'-/. 464 Varr. /maq-/, /me(~v1' : : Var. 2.sg.m. /maqo rakf. Var. /mer-f. : Ditto. Var. /mar-f. 469 Ditto. 470 Var. /_oWy/ (Mishnaic). 471 Var. /muon/ A (other varr. crrp). 472 Varr. /m&-/, /me&-f. 473 Var. /mox-/ d? 44 (other varr. incidental).

APPENDIX I

39*

G /maog/. Fem./sk(k)/,/f/sk(k)/. Q sf. 3.sg.m. /mfwktw/. Pal sf. 3.sg.m. /mesuWkatuW/(!). n) /maqu:l/. /gwr/, /nwd/. Q pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /mgwryhm/. Sam pI.cs. /me:gerri/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) =, 3.pI.m. /me:garri:yfmma/. Pal sf. 3.pI.m. /mguwram/. Bab pI. sf. 3.pI.m. /mguwreYhiim/. G /manud/. Fern. /nwx/, /nws/, /ewd/ (etc.). Q /mnwxh/, cs. /-xt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-xty/, pI. /-xwt/; /mnws'/(!); sf. l.sg. /mewdty/; pI. /-dwt/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-dwtm/. Sam /ma:nu:wwa/; cs. /me:nusat/.474 Pal /mnuwxah /, sf. 2.sg.m. /_xtak/;475 pI. /manuwxoWt/, /mn-/; /mcowdh/.476 Bab sf. l.sg. /mcuWdatiY/, pI. /mcowdoWt/. G */mnua/;477 (IS 23:19 24:23) /masara/,478 /massara/;479 (Ps 31:31) sf. l.sg. /msuda8i/, pI. /-do8 j. Lat sf. 3.sg.m. /mnuatho/ (Is 11:10). Note. Other vowel patterns of nouns with /m-/-preformatives are scantily attested and either follow those of nouns of agent of secondary verbal stems or show irregularities largely of late origin; cf. the list in § 17 no. lxxiv (end); attestations in Part I Section Ba s.w. lxxv) Preformative In-I. a. /naqtal/. Fern. /yfbj. Q /nwfbt/. Pal /nowfebet/. b. /naqtul/. /xfl/, /ptl/. Q pk.cs. /nxfwly/. Sam pI.cs. /nefHi.li/. Lat pI.cs. /neptule/. c. /naqi:lj. /zyd/. Sam /nezzed/. d. /naqullj. Fern. /&r(r)/. Bab /n&owrat/. lxxvi) Preformative /s-j. ?/saqo:l/. /nwr/. Sam pI.(tantum) /sunnu:waremj.480 474 Var. Ms.C /ma-/ = B-CH.

:~~ Sic (twice!); defective vocalization? Defective vocalization.

:~ Meo lIoua translates /mnwxh/, taking the initial /m/ for the prep. /m-/. :

Varr. /miis-/, /miiss1- (etc., most crrp). Varr. /-sa-/, /-se-/, -sse-I, /-si-/ (etc. incidental). B-CH /sinnuww-/, Pet /sannu'-/.

40*

APPENDIX I

lxxvii) Preforrnative / J-/. / J aqtul/. Fern. /lhb/. ?Q / Jlhwbt/, sf. 3.sg.f. / Jlbth/(!). Bab / JaIhabatf.481 b. /Jaqatlulf. /q&r/. Sam pI. / J a:qa:nirot/. Bab pI. / J qii&iiruwroWt/. lxxviii) Preforrnative It-I. a. /taqtal/. ?/dhr/, /ymn/, /yJb/, /mkr/. Q ?/tdhr/;482 /tyrnn/; /tgr/. Sam (dir.) /ti:rnanii/; /tuJab/, ?sf. 2.sg.rn. /tu:Jabak/;483 pI. /tu:fabern/, sf. 2.sg.rn. /-ek/. Pal /teYrnan/; /toW~b/, pI. /-biYrnf. Bab (dir.) /teYrnana /; /towJab/; /tiigar/. G /8adaar/;484 /8airnanf. Lat /thadaar/;485 /thernan/. Fern. /glx/, /yxl/, /ykx/, /yld/, /ysp/, /y&p/II, /yc'/, /nJrn/, /p'r/ (etc.). Q /twxlh/; /twkxh/, /-xt/, cs. /-xt/, sf. losg. (etc.) /-xty/; pI. /twldwt/, sf. 3.sg.rn. (etc.) /-tyw/; pI. /twc'wt/; /tnJrnt/; /tp'rh/, I-rtf, cs. /-rt/, sf. losg. (etc.) /-rty/. Sam pI. /tuldat/,486 sf. 3.pI.rn. /tu:ldu:tlmma/; /tu:wwefot/; ?sf. 3.sg.rn. /tu:ca:'itu/;487 /tiinJernet/; /(l)e:tfa:'eret/.488 Pal /toWxelet/; /towkaxat/;489 pI. /toWladoWt/,49O cs. /-ld-/; /toWsepet/; pI. /tow&powt/(!); sf. 2.sg.rn. (etc.) /tip'artak/, pI. /-roWtf. Bab /tiigliixiit/, sf. 3.sg.rn. (etc.) /-xtoW/; pI. /towkaxot/; sf. 3 sg.rn. /toWliidtow /, pI.cs. /-ldoWt/; /toWsiipiit/, cs. /_sapiit/;491 pl.cs. /toW&iipot/; pI. /toWca'owt/; /tanfarnat/(ps); /tip'arat/, sf. 2.sg.f. /-rtek/. Lat /thofert/. b. /taqall/. /xn(n)/. Pal /taxan/. Fern. /xy(V)f. Pal /txayah /, cs. /taxyyat/, sf. lopi. /-teYnuw /. Bab cs. /(bi)txayat/ (!).

I-hab-I (ps), I-hb-I (!Eb 22). Varr. Itrhr/, Ithrhr/. 483 Nm 24:22 (for Itfbkl MT). 484 Var. 19addarl (9'; others crrp). 485 Var. Ithaadaorl evidently inferior. 486 Occurs only in genealogical passages of the type lilla tiildat XI or longer and is able to preserve the overlong syllable under its schematic rhythm, cf. my Materials vol. III §2de; the affo./iHlative vowel dissimilated when short. Or type Itaqtali:t/? 488 B-CH: nact of to-stem, cf. kt; but the final I -etl is unparallelled in such a form, so there is little doubt that the interpretation is secondary, the preformative having lost its ori~a1 vowel and obtained a prothetic one to compensate for it. Var. I-kx-I defective vocalization? 490 Varr. I-led-I, I-Id-I. 491 Sic (3x), apparently inaccurate punctuation, cf. var. Isiipt/. :

TK; varr.

APPENDIX I

41*

C. ?/taqa:l/. Fern. /qlV/II. Bab /taqalah /.492 d. /taqtil/. Fem./b&r/, /rdm/ (etc.). Q /trdmhj. Sam /terdimma/. Pal /tab&eYrah/, /tardeYmah/. Lat /tardema/, /tha-/. e. /taqill/. Fern. /hl(1)/, /xl(l)/, /pl(1)/ (etc.) Q /thlh/, cs. /-It/, sf. 1.sg. (etc.) /-lty/; /txlh/, cs. /ty.ylt/; /tplh/, cs. /-It/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-Itkhj. Sam /tella/ cs. /-at/, sf. 2.sg.m. /te:lHitak/; /tella/. Pal /thiYlah/,493 cs. /-at/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.)494 /-atak/, pI. /_oWt/;495 /txiYlahj;496 cs. /-at/; /tpiYlah/, cs. /-at/, sf. 1.pI. (etc.497) /-atenuw/. Bab /txilah/, cs. /-Iat/, sf. 3 sg.m. /-lato h/; /tpilah/, sf. 3 pI.m. /-atam/; pI. /tpiliYm/. G sf. 2.sg.m. /8ala8ax/; sf. 1.sg. /8rpalla8ij. Lat pI. /tallim/; cs. /thefellath/. f. /taqti:lj. /bJl/, /krk/, /Imd/, /pqd/, ? /rJ(J)/, / J mJ/11. Q /tpqydj. ?Sam /terJeJ/. Pal/talmiYd/. Bab tabJiYI/; pI. /takriYkiYn/;498 /talmiYd/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-dak/; pI. /-diYm/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-daYw/; /taJmiYJj. ?Lat /tharsis/. ?Fem. /Ip' /V/. ?Pal pI. /talpiyoWtj. ?Bab pI. /talp[iyoWtj. ?G pI. /9alpio9/. 499 g. /taqi:l/. ? /md(d)j. Q /tmydj. Sam /tamed/. Pal pl.cs. /tmiYdeY j. Bab /tamiYd, pI. /tmiYdiYnj.500 h. /taqo:lj. /hwmj. Q /thwm/, pI. /_mwtj.501 492 Kt */tyqlh/; var. /tqala' / (sm?).

493 Varr. /tah-/, /tah-/. :: Varr. /tah-/, /teh-/; (1.sg.) /tihl-j. Varr. /teh-/; (cs.) /-luWtj. :~ Var. /tex-/. 98 Var. (l.sg.) /tep-/. 4 Mishnaic. 499 Var. /-I~i-/ Ms. A.

SOOTK. 501

Varr. /thm-/, /twm-/.

APPENDIX I

42*

Sam /tum/, pI. /-mot/. Pal pI. /thoWmoWt/.502 Bab /thowm/. i. /taqtulj. /xI' /, /xms/, /ynq/, /yrf j. Q pI. /txlwyym/; /tyrwf/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-rfk/, f. /-rwfk/. Sam pI.sf. 3.sgJ. /te:lla:'iyya/; /tamos/; /tiraf/, sf. 2.sg.m. /ti:rafak/. Pal pI.sf. 2 sgJ. /taxluw'aykiY/;503 /tiYnoWq/; /tiYrowf j. Bab /taxmas/; /tiYnoWq/, pI. /-qoWt/; /tiYrof/, sf. 2 sg.m. /-fka/. Lat /thirosj. Note. Tendency of the back vowel towards greater sonority, partly by prolongation, partly by centralization causes irregularities, but hardly justifies setting up additional types (such as */tiqto:l/ for /ynq/, although in the case of /ynq/ and /yrf/, the preformative may have been /ti-/ to begin with). Fern. /lbf/, /&rb/, /J'V/, /Jbxj. Q /tlbwJt/; pI. /tJ'wt/; /tfbwxtj. Pal/ta&rowbat/. k. /taqtu:lj. /xn(n)/, /lmd/, /mr(r)/, /nxm/, /npx/, /&1(1)/, /&ng/, /flm/. Q pI. /tnxwmym/, sf. 3.sgJ. /-yh'/; pI. /t&lwlym/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-yhmh/; /t&nwg/. Pal /taxnuwn/, pI.cs. /-uwneY/;504 /tapuwx/. Bab pI. /taxanuwniYm/; /Hilmuwd/; pI. /tanxuwmoWt/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-maYka/; /ta&nuWg/(!), pI. /-goWt/; pI. /taJluwmiYm/,505 cs. /-meY/. G pl.sf. l.sg. /8anunaij. Lat pI. /themrurim/; pI. /thalulim/. Fern. /xblj, /&lm/, /&cm/. Pal pI. /ta&cuwmoWt/. Bab pI. /ta&alumoWt/. G sf. 3.sg.m. */8aabula8o/.506 l. /taqu:lj.507 /nwb/, /nwk/, /nwr/. Q /tnwrj. Sam? /tenek/;508 /tfnnor /, pl.sf. 2.sg.m. /tinniirekj. Pal (cs.) /tnuwbj.

502

Var.

Ito hw_/.

: lui uncertain; /,1 could be quiescent. 505 Var. Itex-I (Ms.c). Var. l-iYnl (TK).

5~ lob 37:12, cf. MT kt; attestations slightly crrp (mostly with final -8, varr. -n, -m; without sf. ~7' Graecized in SO). In most cases, the preformative vowel appears to have been assimilated to lui and may often have been that at the time of the formation of the word; but as distinction between single cases usually cannot be made and original identity of the forms is hardly in doubt, it would be futi!'8sto attempt setting up an original • Ituqu:l/. Probably different type (/qutil/? with Itnkl as root).

APPENDIX I

43*

Bab /tnuWk/; /tanuWr/, pI. /tanuWriYn/.SOO G pI. /8annurim/.510 Fern. /bw'/, /byn/, /kwn/, /lwn/, /mwr/, /nwp/, /&wd/, /rwm/, /Jwb/, / Jwq/, / J /sym/ (etc.). Q cs. /tbw't/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-tkh/; /tbwnh/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-ntyw/ (!), pI. /-nwt/; /tlwnh/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-ntm/; /tnwph/, cs. /-pt/, pI. sf. 3.pI.m. /-pwtmh/; /t&wdh/, cs. /-dt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-dty/; pI. /-dwt/, sf, 3.pI.m. /-dwtm/; /trwmh/, cs,. /-mt/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-mtmh/; cs. /tJwbt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-tw/. Sam cs. /te:bUwwat/,Sll sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-wwatak/; pI., /-uwat/,512 sf. l.pI. /-uwwa:tinu/; /te:bUna/; pI. /tillanot/, sf. 2.pI.m. (etc.) /-a:nu:ti:kfmma/; sf. 3.sg.m. /te:mi:ratu/; /te:nufa/, cs. /-fat/, pI. /-fot/; /te:ruma/, cs. /-at/,S13 sf. l.sg. /te:ru:mati/, pI. sf. 2.pI.m. /-a:ti:kfmma/;514 sf. 2.sg.f. (etc.) /ta:Ju:qa:ttek/; cf. /te:Jumat/. Pal cs. /takuWnat/, sf. 2.sg.m. /tkuWnatak/; /tnuwpah/, cs. /-at/hsf. 3.sg.f. /tnupath/;515; /te&uWdah/, /t&-/; cs. /terowmat/; /taJuwba /;516 cs. /tJuwbat/, pI. /-boWt/; /tJuwqah/, sf. 3.sg.f. /taJuWqatah/; cs. /t$uWmat/. Bab /tbuW'ah/, cs. /-'at/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-'atow/; /tmuwrah/, cs. /-rat/, sf. 3.sg.m. ~tc.) /-ratoW/; pI. /-roWt/; /tnuWpah /,517 cs. /-pat/, pI. /-poWt/; /truwma /, cs. /-mat/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-matan/;518 pI. /-moWt/, sf. 2.pI.m. /-moWteYkam/; /tJuwbah /; cs. /t$uWmat/. G pI. / 8buno8 /. Masc/Fem. /dwr/. Bab /taduwr/, f. /tduWrah /. m. /taqV/. /rnxV/, /&rV/, ?/r'V/, Q (pI.?)cs. /trnxy/; /t&r/, sf. 3.sg.f. /t&rh/; ?/t'r/, /t'wr/, /tw'r/, /twr/; sf. 3.sg.m. /tw'rw/, 3.pI.m. /t'rm/. Sam /tir/; ?/tar/. ?Pal /toW'ar/, sf. 3.sg.m. /to'row/, 3.pI.m. /ta'aram/. Bab /ta&ar/, sf. 3.sg.f. /t&arah/. Fern. /'wV/, /'nV/, /grV/, /yrV/, /qwV/, /qr'/V/ (etc.) Q cs. /t'yt/(!); /twrh/, cs. /-rt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-rty/, pI. /-rwt/; /tqwh/, sf. l.sg. /tqwty/. Sam /tawa/, /-wwa/, cs. /te:'uwwat/;519/tura/, cs. /-at/, sf. 1.sg. SOOTK. 510 Varr. /9an-/, /genn-/, /gen-/ (others crrp). 511 Var. /-uat/{!). 512 The afform. vowel

~!! Var. /-ot/

=

dissimilated (and so in the sf. form).

~l. (Ms. B).

Cf. n. 2 above, var. /-mut-/ Ms. B.

515 Defective vocalization? (or "Mappiq" indicating /a/ vowel also?). 516

Varr.

/tS-/, /taS-/.

517 Var. /tin-/ (Ka 5). 518 TK. 519 B-CH /teww-/ (contracted).

44*

APPENDIX I

Itu:rati/;520 pl./tfJ.rotl, sf. l.sg. (etc.) Itu:niti/. Pal Ita'wwah/, cs. Ita'awwatl;521 sf. 3.sf.d. £ta'natah / ; cs. Itigratl; ItoWra'ri/,..c;.. I-~t~, sf.~.s~/-tiY;522 ~.s. I-at!; ItiYqra I. '. Bab Ita awa I, Ito ra I, cs. I-ratl, sf. l.sg. (etc.) l-ratlYI, sf. 3.sg.f. (etc.) Itaqwatah/· G sf. l.sg. 180ra8ij.523 Lat Ithora/. Fem·/bnVI, IklVI, IrbVI, IrmV j. Q Itbnyt/· Sam Itibnetl, sf. 3.pl.m. Itibni:tfmma/; Itfrbetl. Pal ItabniYtj;524 ItakliYtl; ItarbiYtj. Bab ItabniYt/; ItakliYtl; ItarmiYtl. Fern. IznV I, IxrV I, IrbV I. Sam Itfrbotj. Pal pl.sf. 2 sg.f. Itaznwtaykj;525 ItaxruWtl. Bab pl.sf. 2.sg.f. ItaznuWtayikl (ps). lxxix) Afformative I-ej. /,rV III, IyJp/, In'V I, I Jlwj. Q I'ryh/; f. In'wh/; I?Jlwhj. Sam I'arya/; IyeJfej. Pal I'aryeh/; pI. l'rayoWtj;526 f. Ina'wwah/, pI. InawwiYm/; IJalweh/, sf.1.sg. I Jlowyj.527 Bab /,aryeh/, pI. l'rayoWtl; IyaJph/;528 Ina'wah/, f. I-wahl. G laria/, l_ia.j;529 sf. l.sg. Isalui/. Lat laria/, I-ie/. lxxx) Afformatives l-i:/, I-Vyj. Appear attachable to any more basic type (including Npr) and the resulting secondary ones being mostly scantily attested, construction of paradigms for· most of these is hardly feasible or purposeful. Typical examples of the more common ones: a. Iqatli:j. Ipl'/, Ipq&l, Irgl/, IJlw/ll, IJI7/(?), IJIJI, Itxtl (etc.). Q f. Itxtyh/; pl.f. I-ywtl. Sam Irigga:lii'ij;530 I J elwi/; f. I JilJetl; f. Itettetl; pI. Itett~m/·531

~202 Var. j-ruti/ (= pl., cf. kt).

1 Var. 522 Var.

/-'ww./. /-w./.

523 Also cs. */90ra9/ (for /00'/ ms.) on Sperber's authority, HUCA XII p. 268, not having beeMble to consult the original. Var. j-ban/-. 525 Defective vocalization; var. /tiz-/. 526 Var. /(l)'ary-/ (defective vocalization?). 527 DefectIve vocalization. 528 Ditto. 529 Var. /·jai/ probably graphical only; /-iel/ perhaps originally /-ie/ with correction /-ia/ mis!~d and misinterpreted (.IA > IA). Could be different type 1* /riglay/?), but apparently infl. by Aram anyway. 531 Perhaps from original • /tuxti:/, cf. PTpr /txt/ (Part I Section E) and Aram.

APPENDIX I

45*

Pal pI sf. l.sg. /rgalayy/; ?f. / J aI7et/;532 f. /taxtiYt/; pl.f. /taxtyOWt/.533 Bab /paHi'iY/; pl.f. /paqa&iyoWt/; /ragliY/; f. /taxtiYt/; pI. /-iy +im/, f. /-iy+oWt/. b. /qitli:/, /gg/, /xt(t)/, /prz/, / J'r/, / JflII (etc.). Q f. /J'ryt/,534 sf. 2.sg.f. (etc.) /-tk/; /JIy/,535 f. /-yt/. Sam /fe:rfzzij;536/ JiJIi/, f. / JiJIet/. Pal f. / J'eriYt/, sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) I-toW/; / JiJiY/. Bab f. /giYg+iYt/; f. /xitiYt/, sf. 3.pl.m. (etc.) /Stam/; f. / J'eriYt/;537 /JiJ +iY/, f. /JiJiYt/. c. /qutli:/. /br(r)/, /gpr/II, /xpJ/II, /nkr/II, /&zn/(?), /r'J/(?) (etc.). Q f. /gwpryt/, /gp-/; pI. /xpJyym/; f. /nkryh/; pI. /-y'ym/;?f. /r'Jyt/.538 Sam f. /gifret/; /,ifJ if; /nikri/; f. /nikriyya/, pl.f. /-yyot/;?f. (c. PTdt) /&a:zniyya/;539 ?f. /raJet/, sf. 3.pl.m. /ra:Ji:timma/. Pal f. /boryt/;540 f. /gapriYt/, /gop-/; pI. /xawpJiYm/(!); f. /nokriyah/;?f. /re'JiYt/, sf. 3.sg.m. I-toW /. Bab /xupJiY/, pI. /-iYm/; /nukriY/, f, /-iyaY/, /-iYt/; pl.f. /-iyoWt/; ?f. /&uzniyah /; ?f. /re'JiYt/.541 G f. /bori8/;542 ?f. /resi8/,543 /rasi8/. Lat f. /borith/; f. /resith/. d. /qatlo:ni:/. /'dm/, /,yl/, /kp(p)/, /cp&/, /qdm/. Q pI. /cp&wnym/; pl.f. /qdmwnywt/. Sam /'a:da:muni/. Pal /'admoWniY/, pI. /'dmoWniYm/;544 /qadmowniY/. Bab f. /'ayloWniYt/; pl.f. /-iyoWt/; f. /kap+oWniYt/; /qadmoWniY/, pl.f. /-iyoWt/. Lat pI. /saffonim/. e. /qati:li:/. /xmJ/, /yxd/, /&1(1)/, /&r(r)/, /&J /sr/, /rb&/II, / JIJ/, /Jmn/II, /tJ&/ (etc.). aPal f. /&Jrt/; f. /rb&t/; f. /tJ&t/; /_&yt/.545 Q /xmJy/, f. /xmyJyt/; f. /&lyllyh/;546 f. /&Jyryh/; /rby&y/,547 f. /-&yt/; 532 More probably defective vocalization (cf. MT). 533 Defective vocalization.

~~ Varr. /fr-/, .f'yr-/. Var. /fyfyj. ~~ B-CH (c., PTdt) /a:fr-/ (based on a var. with prothetic vowel). Var. /f'or-/ (Eb 22).

538Varr. /r'yf-/, Irf-I, /rft/; primary stem vowel uncertain, perhaps originally different in

diff~J~nt dialects.

B-CH la-I; var. /,a:zfnya/. Defective vocalization. 541 varr./-ref -/; (Eb 22) /ro'f-/. 542 Var. -reS/apparently itacistic. 543 Var. l-seS/ (ditto). : Defective vocalization. Lch; others aSm. 546 Probably accidental dittography. 547 Var. /rby&/ (!Z a). 540

46*

APPENDIX I

/flyfy/. f. /-fyt/. /-fyh/, pI.f. /-fywt/; /fmyny/, f. /-nyt/; f. /tfy&yt/. Sam /a:mifi/; ?f. /e:mfffat/,548 sf. 3.sg.m. /-i:fato/; /&e:ririj, pI. /-irem/; /'e:firi/; ?f. /-rat/; /re:bi/,549 f. /-itj;5SO / fa:Ufi/, f. /-fet/; pI. /-i:fa'em/; /f e:rnini/, f. /-net/; /tiffi/, f. /-itj. Pal /xarniYfiY/; /yxiYdiY/; /&riYriY/; /&afiYriY/; /rebiY&iY/. /rb-/; /f eliYfi Y/. f. / fli Yfiyhj.551 Bab /xmiYfiY/, f. /-fiYt/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-fiYtow/, pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /-fiYtaYw/; /yxiYdiY/, f. /-diYt/; f. /&aliYliyah/; /&riYriY/, pI. /-riYm/; /&a$iYriY/, f. /-riYt/; /rbiY&i Y/, f. /-&iYt/; /fliYfiY/, f. /-fiYt/, pI. /-fiYm/; /frniYniY/; /tfiY&iY/. G f. /seminiO j. Lat /ariri/. lxxxi) Afformative /-1/. ? /,r'l/, /gb&/, /krm/, /&rp/, /qrs/. / f'v /, ? /tr' j. Q /krmlj, sf. 3.sg.m. /-Iw/; /&rpl/; /f'wl/. Sam /ge:bal/; /ktirmel/; /(w)tirfel/; / fiyyol/, dir. / fi:yyiila/. Pal pI.cs. /(b)a'ri'leY /;552 /karmelj; /&arapelj;553 pI. sf. l.pI. /qarsuwleYnuw/; /f'owl/. /fO,WI/.554 Bab /karmalj; /&arapai/; pI.(?)sf. 3.pI.f. /qarsuWlan/.555 G /arielj;556 pI.sf. l.sg. /xorselaij; /sol/; ?/Oraal/, (Luc) /Oroai. Lat sf. 3.pI.m. /areJlam/;557 /khermelj. lxxxii) Afformatives ending in I-mi. ?/'wlm/. /byn/. ?/dwr/, /sl(l)/, /sl&/, / f pI· Q /bynym/;558? /drwm/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-mw/; /swlm/; /sl&m/. Sam ?/darom/; /seJlam/; /se:lam/; /,effamj. Pal ?/darowm/; /suwlam/. Bab ?/'uwlam/; pI.sf. 3.sg.m. /'elamaw/;559 ?/darowm/, sf. 3.sg.f. /drowmah+ /; /suwlam/; /suwl&am/; / apam/. G /ailam/, pI. /-mmin/, /-mmim/, /-mmon/, /-mmoO/;5fIJ /daTon/; /daror/, /-om/, /-um/. ?Lat /ulam/. lxxxiii) Afformatives ending in /-nj. Again, because of frequent secondary

548 Different type? (and so for /'e:firat/?); but cf. /re:bit/ in parallel meaning, hence probably secondary differentiation after the quiescization of /&/; /-ff-/ infl. by the cardinal, cf. ~CH and the sf. form. 5~ Var. /rebij (secondary retraction of the accent). Var. /-iyet/ (pattern with regular consonantism). ;51 Defective vocalization. 52 Var. /(k)'ar'leY/(!). ;~ Varr. /&rap-/, /&arp-/; defective vocalization? 555 Sic (/' / quiescent). TK. 556 (other) varr. crrp. 557 Sg. used collectively; /-11-/ secondary. Varr. /-yn/, /bnymf. 59 Kt sg. (Ez 40:22). 5fIJ Other varr. crrp.

;58

APPENDIX I

47*

changes in vocalism it is not possible to trace all single types; the following represent the most common traceable vocalic patterns. a. /qatlo:n/. ? /'bd/, /,bV/, /,xr/, /drb/, /xzV/11, ? /ytr/, /qdm/ (etc.). Q ?/,bdwn/; /'xrwn/, f. /-nh/; pI. /-nym/, f. /-nwt/; /xzwn/; /qdmwn/. Sam /,a:'eron/, f. /-e:rfnna/, pI. /-e:rfnnem/. Pal ?/'abdoWn/; /'axroWn/, f. /-nah/, pI. /-niYm/; pI. /darbowniYm/; /xazown/; /xezoWn/; pI. /-noWt/; ?/yitroWn/.561 Bab /,axroWn/,S62 f. /-nah/, pI. /-niYm/; /xazoWn/, cs. /xzuWn/;563 pI. /xizyonoWt/. NT /abaddon/. Lat f. /abiona/; /hazon/. b. /qitlo:n/. /,bV/, /zkr/, /xsr/, /xb(,/V)/, /&lV/ (etc.). aPal pI. / &lynm/. Q /'bywn/, pI. /-nym/, cs. /-ny/; /zkrwn/, sf. 2.sg.f. (!?) /-nkh/; /&lywn/, f. /_nhj.S64 Sam /,fuyon/, sf. 2.sg.m. /'ibyiinak/, pI.cs. I-nil; /zekron/ (cs. =); /,illiyyon/.S65 Pal pI. /'ebyowniYm/; /ziYkroWn/,S66 cs. =, sf. 2.sg.m. /-nak/, pI. /-noWt/; /xebayown/; /&elyown/, pI. /-niYm/. Bab /,ibyown/, pI. /-niYm/j. /zikarown/,567 cs. /-kr-/, pI. /ziYkrownoWt/; /xiYsrown/; /&ilyown/, f. /-na /,568 pI. /-niYm/, f. /-noWt/. G / abion/; / alion/. Lat /ebion/, pI. /-nim/; /elion/. c. /qutla:n/. /'gm/, /mrs/, /&bd/, /qrb/, / flx/II (etc.) Q /,gmn/, /'wg-/; sf. 2.pI.m. /qrbnkmh/; / fwlxn/, / fl-/; pI. / flxnwt/, /fwl-/. Sam /qa:nlban/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-a:banak/, 3.pI.m. /-a:ba:nimma/; pI.sf. l.sg. (etc.) /qa:ra:bani/, 2.pLm. (etc.) /-a:ni:kfmma/; /fa:h'inj. Pal /'gman/;569 /qorban/,570 sf. 3.sg.m. /-noW/, pLcs. /qwrbenoWt/; / fuwlxan/, sf. 3.pLm. (etc.) /-nam/. Bab /muwrsan/; /&uwbdan/;S71 /qurban/,572 cs. =,573 sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.574) /-noW/; pI. /quWrbanoWt/, cs. /-bn-/, sf. 3.sg.m. /-bnoWtaYw/; / fUlxanj. :

Var. /(w)ytar-/ (defective vocalization). Var. /-xar-/. Eb22. : Var. /-n'/ (3015). S66 Var. (c. PTdt) /'a:l-/ (B-eR /-ll-/!). Var. /-kar-/ ~ Var, /-kr-/. Var. /-liy-/. 569 Defective vocalization. 570 Var. /qar-/. ~~ Var. /&ab-/ (Mishnaic). Var. /-ban/ (TK). ~~ Varr. /-ban/, /qorban/. Var. /qor-/ (3.sg.f.).

S63

48*

APPENDIX I

NT /korban/. los /korban/.575 ?Lat /agrnonj.576 d. /qatalo:n/. /hgV/, /wtr/, /&wr/, /&rb/, /&J/sr/, /r&b/ (etc.). Q /&wrwn/; /&Jrwn/, pI. /-nym/. Sam /(b)e:wwaron/; /'a:rabon/;577 /iJron/, pI. /iJrunem/; /rabonj. Pal /hegyoWn/ (abs.?), sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-nak/; /wwiYtarownj. Bab /&i$arown/; pI. /&i$rowniYm/, /-noWt/; /re&abown/, (ps)/r&-/. G /aggaon/, /aiaon/;578 (ac) /arrabonaj. NT (ac) /arrabonaj. los /assaron/.579 e. /qalo:n/. /IJ/, /&wV/ (etc.). Q /IJwn/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-ny/, pI. /-nwt/; /&wn/,580 sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-nkh/, pI. /-nwt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-nwty/. Sam /liffun/, sf. 3.sg.m. /liffunu/,581 pI.sf. 3.pI.m. /(li)IJu:no:timma/;582 /'un/, sf. l.sg. /flOi/, 3.sg.m. /'unu/, f. /'una/, 3.pI.m. /,u:nimma/; pI. /,fmot/, sf. 2.pl.m. /'u:nu:ti:kimma/, 3.pI.m. /-timma/; pI.II sf. l.pI. /(I)u:nunuj. Pal /IaJown/, cs. /II_/,583 sf. l.sg. (etc.) /iJowniY/; /&awoWn/,5S4 sf. l.sg. /&owniY/, 2.sg.f. /&awownekiY/(ps), l.pI. (etc.) /&wowneYnuw/, 3.pI.m. pI. /&awownoWt/, sf. l.sg. /&ownotay/, l.pI. /&ewonam/; /&wownoWteYnuw/. Bab /IaJoWn/,585 cs. /II-/, sf. 3.pI.m. /iJownam/, pI. /-noWt/; /&awon/,586 cs. /&W_/,587 sf. l.sg. (etc.588) /&awoniY/, pI. /-not/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) J-noWtaYkaj. G sf. l.sg. /(u)alsoni/(!), pI. /ls.n08/; cs. JaonJ; sf. 3.pI.m. /auonan/ (!). Lat sf. 3.pI.m. /onam/. lxxxiv) Afformatives ending in /-t/. a. /-i:tj. /'xr/, /xpJ/, /xrJlsi, /sn(n)/, /&m(m)/, /q7n/, ? /tlp/ (etc.). Q /,xryt/. Sam /'a:'eret/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /'a:'e:ritij, 3.pI.m. /-i:timma/; sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /&ammitakj. ~;~ Var./korbon(as)/.

577 Appears to follow different pattern, cf. Tib. B-CH 1&-1.

578 Assuming that Iii (perhaps crrp from Ig/, r 579 580 V ar. I"ass- I. Var.

I&wwnl (also in sf. and pI. forms intermittently).

~:~ Var. I(li)/lfonul (contracted, cf. pl.). 5 B-CH I(lil)liffu:nu:t-I.

5:

Varr.

IlaS;j, lief-/.

Var.

= cs. (TK).

Varr. Varr.

I&aw-I (TK), I&iiw-/. I&w-I (TK, Eb 22).

585 Var. 1&0 n/; cs. =, I&aw-I, I&ew-/.

586 Var. I&iiw-I (TK).

:

> I) represents Ig/.

APPENDIX I

49*

Pal /'axriYt/,589 sf. 3.pI.m. (etc.)590 /-tam/; pI. /talpiyoWt/.591 Bab /'axriYt/,592 sf. 2.sg.f. /_rytek/;593 /xapuwfiYt/; /xar$iYtj;S94 /snowniYt/; sf. 3.sg.m. /&miYtoW/;595 pI. /qa7niyoWt/.596 G /xarsi8/, /a_j.S97 Lat /harsith/; sf. l.sg. /amithi/. b. /-o:t/. /'hI/II, /,nf /, /bhm/, /wtq/, /xpf/11, /yd(d)/, /prz/, /clm/, /rgl/, /rwmj. Q /clmwt/; sf. 3.sg.m. /mrgltywj. Pal /behmoWtj;S98 /wwatiYqowt/; /xapfiYtj;S99 /yadiYdoWt/; /prazoWt/; /calmawet/; /rowmeYmoWt/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-mmoWteYkj.600 Bab /'iYfowt/; /xupfiYtf;'~J1 /calmawat/. G /al08/;002 /arprpus08//:lJ3 /aprp-/, /aorpsi8/; /idi808/. Lat /beemoth/. c. /-u:tj. /qatlu:t/: /gs(s)/, /zkr/, /yld/, /mlk/ (etc.). Q /mlkwt/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-tkhj. Sam sf. 3.sg.m. /ma:la:kiituj. Pal sf. l.pI. /gasuWteYnuw/; /yalduWt/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-tk/;604 /malkuWt/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /-tak/; pI. /malkiywt/. Bab /gasuWt/; /zakruWt/; /malkuWt/, sf. l.sg. (etc.) /-uWtiY/, pI. /-iyoWt/. /qVlu:t/: /xl(l)/, /xr/, /mwt/, /&wd/ (etc.). (aPal /xrt/, /xrwt/.t:IJ5 Q /xrt/, /xrwt/; /&ydwt/, pI. /&dwwtj. Sam pI. /,idot/, sf. 3.sg.m. /(w)i:diito/. Pal /zuwluWt/; /xeYruWt/;W6 /&eYduWtj. Bab /miYtut/, /-uWt/; /&edut/, /-uWt/. G /zollo(8?)j. /qati:lu:t/: /zrz/, /xsd/II, /yhr/, /&lc/, /pqd/ (etc.). Pal sf. 3.sg.m. /xsiYduWtoW/; sf. l.pl. /yahiYruWteYnuw/;fiJ7 sf. l.pl.

~: Var. /(w)'xar-/(!).

Var. /-xar-/ (sf.3.sg.m.).

591 Cf.lxxviii f above (for Bab G also). 592 Var. /-xiir-/. 593 Defective vocalization. 594 Var. /xriisiYt/ (both TK). 595 Var. /(b)&iim-/. 596 Var. /qiY7-/ (both TK); cf. also n. 591 on Pal above. 597 Other varr. crrp; cf. also n. 591 on Pal above. 598 Var. /bhem-/. 599 Afform. vowel dissimilated after original stem vowel lui, cf. Bab G. 600 Construed on the analogy of pI. 601 Afform. vowel dissimilated, cf. G below. 602 Var. /aloe/ S (the normal Gr form). 603 Varr. / aifJ-/, / -sioe /; other varr. crrp.

604 Defective vocalization; and so /malkiywt/. 605

Apparently connected with Qumran period.

607

Var. /-rat-/.

W6 Var. /xiYr-/.

50*

APPENDIX I

/&liYcuWteYnuw/. Bab /zriYzuWt/; /pqidut/, /-uWt/. Miscellaneous: /'mn/, /hl(l)/II, /kzr/, /pr&/II, / ftp/ (etc.). Pal /howleluWt/; */,akzriyuWt/. roB Bab /,uwmanuWt/, pI. /-niyOit/; /'akzriyuwt/;fm /por&anuWt/;610 /fuWtapuWt/. lxxxv) Other /t/-afformatives. ?/'yl/; /trft/. ?Bab f. /,aYlatiYtj. G /(a)8arsa8a/,611 (Luc) /(a)8aras8asj.

roB

Combination of two attestations with defective vocalization.

fm Sm; pm /-kiiz-/? 610 Var. /-noWt/. 611 Var. /-8ar-/; other varr. crrp.

APPENDIX II VERBAL PARADIGMS. The general principles of presentation are the same as for nominal paradigms (Appendix I above). The order of the stems and, where applicable, voices is: 1) the primary stem (Qal), its passive voice and t-stem; 2) the group of secondary stems formed by internal modifications of the primary stem (D-, L-, R-stems and their passive voices and t-stems, as far as attested); 3) the group of secondary stems formed by external stem preformatives (N-stem, T- and A-stems). The regular verb with H-stem and its passive voice, three fully consonantal radicals is given first, then the triradical roots with a guttural (=glottal or pharyngal) as the 1st, 2nd or 3rd rad. (=I/II/III gutt. including III 1'/), then the I/'I group with a deviant pattern; then the classes with initial root augments (I Inl and I IyI, with original I Iw I separately); then the class with the 3rd rad. usually appearing as a vowel (III V); then the basically biradical roots with internal modifications (the hollow roots and continuable or geminable ones); and finally the multiconsonantal ones. With regard to the order of inflectional forms, we adopt the principle followed in nominal paradigms of beginning with the basic and thus simplest forms and proceeding towards more complicated ones; as verbal nouns are generally simpler than conjugated verbal forms, they are therefore given first, except that in the primary stem there being two distinct groups of conjugations, Qact and Qag each one is given as a whole, the conjugated forms following after the nominal ones in each group. In the arrangement of persons, numbers and genders the order coincides with the traditional one, the 3rd pers. being mostly simpler than the other ones and beginning with it, it is natural to take the 2nd before the 1st pers.; masc. simpler than fern., and sg. simpler than pI. On the other hand, as the verbal noun of the actional group of conjugations in the primary stem appears to have preserved its original form better than those of the agential group and it is also largely used as the basic form of imperative without substantial modifications, and analogous similarities are found in most secondary stems, it is more natural to begin with these and thus leave the afformative conjugation last, as this also agrees with the more elaborate form of some of its afformatives, although its simplest form, that of 3.sg.m., is as simple as that of the imperative (sg.m.) and simpler than any form of the preformative conjugation. Moods other than imperative not being systematically differentiated are treated as incidental variations. 1

Jt-,

1 Bab attestations are represented comprehensively in I. Yeivin, BV cbs. XIII to XXXV, albeit in a different order.

APPENDIX II

52*

A. The regular verb. QaI. /pqd/, aPal nag pI. / mrm/.

f

/fmr/ (etc.).

Q nact /(l)pqwdF, sf. 3.pI.m. /(I)pwqdmj3; imp pI. /fmwrw/; pref /ypqwd/4, /tfmwr/, /'pqwd/, pI. /yfmwrw/S, sf. 3.sg.m. /ypqwdhw/6, pI. /ypqdwhw/; nag /pwqd/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-dm/; pI. /fwmrym/, cs. /-y/, sf. 3.sg.m. /fmrywj1; npt pI. /pqwdym/, sf. 1.pI. (etc.) /-ynw/; af /pqd/, /-dth/, /-dty/, pI. /-dw/; sf. 3.pI.m. /-dm/, pI. sf. 2.sg.m. /-dwkj. Sam nact /faqad/8, /(If)fmar/, sf. 1.sg. /fe:qiidij9, 2.sg.m. (etc.) /(el)femrakjIo; imp /faqadjI1, /femorjI2, pI. /fe:maru/; pref /(w)yffmar/, /tf-/, If-I, pI. /(w)yifmaru/, /ti-/ 13, /mfmar/; sf. 2.sg.m. /(w)yiJmarak/, 3.sg.m. (etc.) /yif ma:rfnnu/; nag /fiiqed/, /famerjI4, pI.cs. /fa:meri/; af /famar/, /(w)fa:marta/, /fa:qadtij15, pI. / f a:maru/, /-artfmma/; sf. 1.sg. /-a:rani/, 1. sf. 2.sg.m. /-artekj. Pal nact /(li)fmor/, sf. 3.pI.m. /fomram/; imp /fmorjI6; pref /yifmowr/, j'ef-/, pI. /yif meruwjI7; nag / f oWmer/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-erak/; f. /-eret/; pI. /-riYmjI8, cs. /-reY/, sf. 3.sg.f. (etc.) /-reYh/; nvb /(w)pqoWdj19; npt /paquWd(.2O, f.sf. 2.sg.m. /pquWdtakF1, pI. /(wi)famuwriYm/(!); af / f amari, /-rta F2, /paqadtiY/, pI.2. /femartem/; sf. 3.sg.m. /fmarow/, 2. sf. 1.pI. /pqadtanuw/, 1. sf. 2.sg.m. /-tiYk/. Bab nact /(li)fmor/, sf. 1.sg. /puqdiY/; imp pI. /fimruw/; pref /(wa)yipqod/, (f.&2.) /tifmor/, j'ipqod/, pI.2. /tifmruw/ 23; sf. 2.sg.m. /(w)yifmoraka/ 24 ; nag /fowmer/, f. /-marat/; pI. /-mriYm/, cs. /-mreY/; npt /famuwr/; af

2 Var.

j(b)pqdj (Z).

j(b)fmrwj, j-rhj (Z a). Var. jypqdj (Z). 5 Var. jyfmrwj (Z a). ~ Var. j-qd-j (Z). Zb. 8 Var. j(ba:)feqadj; Ms.B j-faqodj. 9 Different type, cf. Ms.B var. in the preceding note. 10 B-CH j(li)Jmarakj (and so with sf. 3.sg.f., but not m.). 11 Var. jfeqadj (Ms.B). 12 Used in solemn or otherwise emphatic contexts. 13 Var. jtiJmaronj. 14 Var. j(a:)fomerj (Gn 4:9). 15 Var. j-attij {,assimilation). 1~ Varr. jpaqo dj, jpeq-j. 1 Sic (pause!). 18 Var. jfuWmariYmj. 19 Defective vocalization? (or no consistent distinction between nact and nvb, cf. Sam). 20 Var. jpq-j, probably defective vocalization. 21 Defective vocal~ion. 22 For ms. jJamrata j, no doubt misplaced vowel sign. 23 Varr. j-mor-j (ps), j(wa)tJimrwj (!; defective vocalization). 24 TK (ps, biblical quotation). 3 Varr.

4

APPENDIX II

53*

/Iamar/, /-rta/, /paqadty/ZS, pI. /IarnruW /, /Imartiim/; sf. 3.sg.m. /I maroW/, 1. sf. 3.sg.m. /pqadtiYw/26. G pref 1. /asmor/, pI. /iasmoruj27; nag /somer/, pI. /somrim/; af 1. /(u)~ad8/11l. Oal II. /gdlj, /zqn/, /kbd/, /lmd/ (etc.). o imp pI. /lmdw/; pref /ylmd/, pI.2. /tlmdw/; npt(?) pI.cs. /lmwdy/, sf. 2.sg.m. /-ykh/; af /lmd/, pI. /lmdw/. Sam pref /(w)yt'kbad/; af f. /ka:beda/ 29; /zaqen/, /za:qi'nti/30• Pal nact /(ly)lmadpt; pref /yigdal/, (f.) /tikbad/, pI. /yilmduw/; nag pI.cs. /gidleY/; npt(?) f. /(biY)lmuwdall/; af /lamadj32, (f.) /gadlah/; /gadaltah /, /zaqanty/, pI. /lamduw/. Bab imp /(wi)lmed/; pref /yilmad/, (f.&2.) /ti-/, /'i-/, pI. /yilmduW j33; pl.1. sf. 3.sg.f. /nilmdanah~; nag /gadel/; f. /gdeYla /; pI. /-liYm/, f. /-lowt/; sf. 3.sg.m. /lmeYdow/; af . /lamadj34, /-dtah/, /-dtiY /, pI. /lamduw/, /lamadnuw/. G pref /iagdalj. Oal III35. ? / IkI/; /ygr/, /ykl/. aPal nag pI. /ykIm/. o ?npt f. / Ikwlh/; af /ykIw/. Sam ?pref /iIkal/; nact /yflkalj, /ya:kalat/; af? / I a:kelti/; /ya:keltij36. Pal nag /yakowlj; af =. Bab nact /ykolat/; nag /yakowl/; f. /ykuW lah j37; pI. /-liwm/; nvb /yakowl/; ?npt pl.f. / IkuloW t/; af /yagortiY/, pI. /yakIuW /. o ps. /gbr/, /7rp/, /kpr/, /sgr/, /pqd/, /qcp/, / I7p/, / IkI/, /tpI/ (etc.) ?O nact /(I)gbr/; pref /ygbr/; af /gbr/; /sgr/, pI. /sgrw/. Sam pref /ye:kafar/; /yiqcaf/, /tf-/; pI. /(w)yiggabbfiru/ 38 ; ZS Defective vocalization. ~ Sic (Eb 22).

2

Ps.

29

So B-CH Pet (Gn 18:20); my recording (=Mss.CD) assimilated to the prevalent type, as

11l Apparently haplography (-A- for -AKA-; Sperber, Br~nno).

/ZCUJ! mostly and /gdlj /lmd/ entirely.

cf. the preceding note. Defective vocalization. 32 Assimilated to the prevalent type. 33 Var. /_uwn/. 34 Assimilated to the prevalent type. 35 There are no clear examples of this type in fully regular roots in our materials; the one possible instance is therefore supplemented by forms from two I /y/ roots not affected by the we~ess of the 1st rad. Var. (Pet); otherwise assimilated to the prevalent type, as /ygr/ /q7n/ entirely. ~ TK (as also the other nag forms). varr. (Pet) /-ggeb-/, /-ggab-/. 31 Varr. (Pet);

54*

APPENDIX II

npt /7aref/; /seger/, pI. /fe:qedem/, cs. /fe:qedi/; /te:fefi/; af /geber/; /7aref/; ? /kafar/; /feqed/; /qecefj39; / fa7af/; 1. / f e:kilti/4O; pI. /ge:beruj. Pal pref2. /t7oWrap/41; afpI. /7owrapuw/. Bab af /fuw7ap/. tQ-stem. /mkr/, pqd/, /rgzj. Sam pref pI.2. /titre:gazu/42 ; af pI. /'itfa:qadu/; 2. /(w)e:tmekkertfmma/43. D-stem44• /bqf/, /brk/, /dbr/ (etc.). aPal npt /brk/; af /bqf/; 1. sf. 2.sg.m. /brktk/. Q nact /dbr/, /(l)d-/; nag /dbr/45, /md-/; pI. /mbqfym/, cs. /-y/, f. /mdbrwt/; imp /dbr/, pI. /brkw/, sf. 1.sg. /bqfwny/; pref /ydbr/, ltd-I, /,d-/, pI. /ydbrw/; 1.(!) sf. 3.sg.m. /hbrknw/; coh /'brkh/, pI. /nb-/; af /dbr/, /-rth/, /-rty/, pI. /-rw/; sf. 3.sg.m. /-rw/, 1. sf. 3.sg.m. /-rtyw/, pI. sf. 1.sg. /bqfwny /. Sam nact /bfrrok/46, sf. 3.sg.m. /berriiku/; /debber/, sf. 2.sg.m. (etc.) /debberak/, 2.pI.m. (etc.) /debberkfmma/; nag /debber/; pI. /debberim/, f. /-rot/; /,amdebber/47, /ma:baqqef/; pI. /ma:baqqefem/48, cs. /-fi/, sf. 2.sg.m. /'embarrekek/; imp /barrek/; /debber/, pI. /debberu/; sf. 1.sg. /barre:kani/; pref /ye:debber/, (f.&2.) /te:-/, /,e:-/, pI. /(w)ye:debberu/, /te:debberon/49, /ne:debber/; sf. 1.sg. (etc.) /(w)ye:barre:kani/, 2.sg.m. /-ekak/; coh /(w)e:debbera/; af /debber/, /debbera/; /debbfrta/, /-frti/, pI. /-eru/, /-ertfmma/, /-frnu/; sf. 2.sg.m. /barrekak/, 3.sg.m. /-e:ke'u/, 1. sf. 2.sg.m. /berriktek/, 3.sg.m. /-iktiyyu/. Pal nact /(l)baqef/, /daber/, sf. 3.sg.m. /(b)dabrow/; nag /mebaqefIso, f. /mbaqefet/, pI.cs. /mebaqfeYjSl; imp /daber/, pI. /baqfuw/; pref /ydaber/, /(we)tdaber/, /tdaberi/52, /'baqef/, pI.2. /tdabruw/; 1. sf. 3.sg.m. /(w)'ibaqfehw/53 ; coh /(w)'dabera/(!); af /diber/, /dibarta/, pI. /biqfuw/, /biqaftem/, /diYbrnuw/(!). Bab nact /(l)daber/S4, sf. 2.pI.m. /(k)dab+ arkam/; nvb /daber/; nag 39 Ms. var. /qacap/. 41 = Pet; B-CH /fakk-/, cf. Ms.B. 40

Transformed after D ps pattern.

42 B-CH / -ragg-/ = tD-stem. 43 Regarded as tD-stem by B-CH, along with his classification of the primary stem as D-

ste",

Including the roots with originally long 2nd rad.

45 Var. /dybr/.

~ Besides /(el)berrek/.

48

Varr. (c. PTdt) /,a:m-/; /(am)ma:-/ (=B-CH).

SO

Besides /te:biirreku/.

49 Besides /(am)ma:debberem/.

51 Besides /mdaber/. 52 Var. /mb-/.

Ps. ~ Defective vocalization; and so below. Var. /-bor/ (Eb 22).

APPENDIX II

55*

/mdaber/, f. /-barat/; pI. /-briYn/ss, cs. /mbaqfeY/, f. /mdabroWt/; imp /daber/, pI. /dabruw/; pref /ydab+er/S6, /(wa)tdaber/, /'adab+erjS7; pI. /ydaboruW/ 58, sf. 3.sg.m. /(wa)ybaqfuhwjS9; coh /(w)'edab+rh/60; af /dib+ar/61, /diYbeYrah / 62, /dib+arta/, /dibartiY/, pI. /dibruw/, /dib+artam/, /dibarnu/. G pref /idabbar/, /(u)iad-/; pI. /idabberu/63• Lat pref /idabberf. Dps. /bqf/, /brk/, /bJl/, /qbl/, /rbk/, /Jbc/, /Jzr/, /JlJ/ (etc.). Q npt /mJwzr/; pref /yqwblf. Sam npt /embarrak/, /'amb£JJal/, /,amJezzar/, /amJanaJ/; f. /,amrabbeket/, /amJaHaJat/; pl.f. /emJabbecot/; pref (f.) /te:b£JJal/; af (f.) /baJJ£la/. Pal npt f. /mJuwleJet/; pref /ybuWqaJ/, /yab-f. Bab npt /mbuwJal/; /.mquwbal/, sf. l.sg. /-balniY/ 64 ; pref /ybuqaJ/, (f.) /tbuwJal/; af (f.) /buJalah/ 6S • tD-stem. /gdl/, /dpq/, /7pl/, /kbd/, /kpr/, /lbn/, /pzr/, /cdq/, /qbl/, /qbc/, /qdJ/, /rgl/ (etc.). Q nact /(l)htgdl/; nag pI. /mtqdJym/; pref /ytgdl/, pI. /ytqbcw/; af /htqdJ/. Sam imp pI. /'itqaddaJu/; pref pI. /yitqaddaJu/, /nic7addaq/; af pI.2. /(w)e:tqaddaJtimma/66• Pal nact /(l)hiYc7 + deq/67, sf. l.sg. /(l)hiYtragaliY/; nag pI. /miYtalabaniYm/(!), /miYtqadJiYm/; pref /yitgadal~ /yitkaper/, 2. /tiYtkabed/, pI. /(w)iYtlabenuw/68; af69/niYtqadaJ/, /-Jta /. Bab nact /(l)hiYtqadaJ/; nag/npt /mitqabel/70, /miY7apel/, f. /miY7ap+alat/; pI. /mitdapqiYm/; imp /hitqabal/; pref /yitpazar/, pI. /yitk+apruw af /niYtqabal/ 72, f. /nitqadaJah/ 73, pI.2. /hitqadaJtamf. N-stem. /kbd/, /ksp/, /str/, /pqd/, /prd/, /Jmd/, /Jmr/ (etc.).

r;

SSTK.

~ Var. j-bo~j (Eb 22). Var. j(w) ed-j.

58

Eb22ps. : Defective vocalization (?or contraction?). 6 Defective vocalization. 1 Var. jdib +erj (ps). 62TK (ctl). 63 ps .

64TK.

TKps. Cf. also to-stem above (with note). ~ Sic; defective (and partly misplaced?) punctuation (ms. b). Sic (Dn 12:10). 69 Post-biblical attestations only. 70 Var. jmitkiip)irj; and so in pI. j-p_riYmj (beside j-priYnj; all TK). ~ Sic (beside j-kiip_-j; both TK); var. jyitliibanuWj (ps). TK. 73 TK;ps? 6S

66

56*

APPENDIX II

aPal imp /hfrnr/.

Q nact /(l)hkbd/, sf. 2.sg.m. /hkbdkh/; nag/npt /nkbd/, f. /-dh/; pI.

/-dym/, cs. /-dy/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-dyhm/; f. /nstrwt/; imp /hfrnr/, pI. /-rw/; pref (ykbd/, f. /tpqd/: 1. /'frnr/, ~I. /ykbdw/; coh /'kbdh/; af /nstr/, f. /-rh/, 2. /nkbdt/, /-th/, 1. /nfmdty/, pI. /nstrw/, 1. /-mw/. Sam nact /ibbarrad/; sf. 1.sg. /(b)e:kka:bedij; nag/npt /nflcbad/, /neksef/; pI. /nistarem/, f. /-rot/; imp /ibbarrad/; /'iffamar/, pI. /-a:maru/; pref /yiffaqad/, /yibbarrad/; f. /tikkabed/; 1. /'i-/; /issater/; pI. /yibbarradu/, 2. /tiffammadon/, 1. /nissatar/; coh /(w)ikka:beda/; af /niffaqad/, f. /nistara/; 2. /neksefta/, /niffa:marta/; 1. /niffammadtij; pI. /nibbarradu/, 2. /niffa:martimma/. Pal nag/npt /niYkbad/; pI. /nifmariYm/; /niYsatariYm/(!), f. /-roWt/; pref 1. /,esater/, pI. /ypaqduWj14; af 2. /niYksaptah/; pI. /nifmedwj15, 1. /niYksapnuwj. Bab nact /hiparadj16, sf. 2.sg.m. ,fhifamdak/77; nag/npt /nikbad/; imp /hipared/; /hifamar/, pI. /-mruw pref f. /tifamer/; 2. /ti~aqad/; pI. /(wa)yiparduw/; coh /(w),uk+abda /(!); af /nifmad/ 78, f. /nistra j. H-stem. /str/I1, /qdf/, /qrb/, / flk/ (etc.). Q nact /(l)hflyk/, sf. 3.pI.m. /-km/; /(l)qryb/; ?/hqrb/; nvb /(w')hstr/; nag /rnstyr/, pI.cs. /mflyky/; pref /yqryb/, /tqdyf/, /'q-/; pI. /yqdyfw/79, /tq-/; 2. sf. 1.sg. /tstymy/; (cons) /wyqrb/; af /hstyr/, /-trth/, /-trty/; pI. /-tyrw/, /hqrbtmh/80 ; sf. 1.sg. /hstyrny/; 2. sf. 3.pI.m. /hqdftm/. Sam nact /istar/, /'&qreb/, /eflek/; /(l)aqreb/; sf. 1.sg. /(l)a:qdi:fani/, 3.sg.m. /aqribu/, 2.pI.m. /(b)a:qrebkimma/, 3.pl.m. /-ri:bimma/; nag /m§'qreb/; pI. /maqribem/, cs. /-bi/; imp /§.qreb/; /(w)aflek/, pI. /efliku/; sf. 3.sg.m. /-i:ke'u/; pref /yester/, /y&qreb/, f. /t&flek/; 2. /t&qreb/, 1. /ester/; pI. /yefliku/, /te_/81 ; /naqreb/; sf. 3.sg.m. /yefli:ke'u/, 3.pl.m. /kimma/; coh /(w)a:flika/; af /eflek/; /'§'qreb/, f. /(w)a:qriba/, 2. /-futa/; 1. /'aqdifti/, /(w)a:stlrti/; pI. /(w)a:qribu/, 2. /-rebtimma/; sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) I f 3.pI .m. / -1.··b'Imma.. /82. / '..aqnibu /.,p.s. Pal nact /haqreb/(!), sf. 2.sg.m. /(la)haqdiYf ak/; nag pI.cs. /mqriYbeY/83, sf. 2.sg.m. /maqdiYfeYk/; pref2. /tafliYk/; pI. /yaqdiYfuw/, 1. /naqriYb/; sf. 2.sg.m. /yaqdiYf ak/, pl.1. sf. 2.sg.m. /na-I; sg.2. sf. 1.sg. ItafliYkeniYI; af 2. Ihistarta/, pI. IhifliYkuwI; sg.2. sf. 3.sg.m. /hqdaftoWI(!).

£;

74

Defective vocalization.

75 Ditto; var.

lnifmarwl (!ps).

~ Var. I-redl (sm). Ps.

~ Sic (ct; Eb 22).

Var·/yqdfw/. Var. I-tm/. :~ Varr. I~liqribu/, I-bon/. Var·l-l:bUmma/. 83 Defective vocalization; and so below. 80

APPENDIX II

57*

Bab nact / (l)haqdiYf /. sf. 2.pI.m. / (b )haqriYbkam/; nvb /hafleYk/84 ; nag /maqdiYf/. pI. /-fiYm/8S ; imp /haqreb/. pI. /hafliYkuw/; pref /yaqriYb/. f. Ita-I; 2. Ita-I; pI. /yaqriYbuw/.2. /ta-/86; (js) /yaster/; (cons) /wayaqreb/. 1. /wa'aflik/; sf. 3.sg.m. /yaqriYbanuw/; pI. sf. 3.sg.m. /yaqriYbuwhuw/; (cons) sf. 3.pl.m. /wayastirem/. 1. sf. 3.pI.m. /wa'aflikem/; af /hiqriYb/. 1. /hiqdaftiY/; pI. /hiqriYbuw/,2. /haqrabtam/; sf. 3.sg.m. (etc.) /hiqriYbow/. G pref2. /9as9ar/87• sf. 3.pl.m. /9as9irem/; af 2. /as9ar9a/. H ps. /bdlj. /qdf/. / flk/ (etc.). Q npt /mwbdlj. f. /mflkt/88 ; pI. /mwbdlym/; pref pI. /ywflkw/; af /hwbdlj. 2. /hwflkth/. Pal npt pI. /muWqdafiYm/; pref2. /toqdaf/; afpI. /howflakuwj. Bab npt f. /muflakat/; pI. /muWqdafiYm/89; af pI. /huWqdafuW/; /hufulkuw/. T-stem. /rglj. Pal af 2. /tyrgaltah /90. A-stem. /zkr/. Sam af 1. /,e:za:karti/91 • Note. Other stems are not attested in regular triradical roots in our materials. B. The irregular verbs. Paradigms are given of those forms only affected by the irregularity, hence also in those branches of tradition only in which the irregularity is observable. Minor differences found in the regular verb too, such as the interchange of /a/. /a/ and /e/ and lack of any vowel in parallel positions in Pal are considered incidental. not constituting irregularity in the sense relevant here. i) I guttural (=glottal. pharyngal or. where applicable. /r/). /,rk/. /hpk/. /xfb/, /&bd/, /rdp/, /rp'/92. Qal. Sam nact /&abodj93; /(l)ebbad/. /(l)abbad/. /(l)affeb/; sf. losg. /'a:fll.ki/. 3.sg.m. /(b)a:faku/. /(l)a:bbadu/. lopl. /(miyy)a:bbadnu/. 3.pl.m. /(l)a:bba:dfmma/; pref /(w)yafak/; /yebbad/. /te-/; /(w)yabbad/. Ita-I; pI.

Varr. I-loki (Eb 22), IhiJleYk/(!). Var. Imii