This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 01 Oct 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Semitic Languages

John Huehnergard, Na‘ama Pat-El

Proto-Semitic

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780429025563-3 John Huehnergard Published online on: 06 Mar 2019

How to cite :- John Huehnergard. 06 Mar 2019, Proto-Semitic from: The Semitic Languages Routledge Accessed on: 01 Oct 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780429025563-3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 than thelatefourthmillennium. later no to dates Proto-Semitic millennium, third the of half first the in already Semitic As notedin§1ofChapter language family and a survey of the individual Semitic languages, see Chapter monolithic than the language actually was. For the internal subgrouping of the Semitic and their distribution are usually not recoverable, and soourreconstruction here is more PS formmustnormallybebasedonevidencefrombothEastand West Semitic. the ancestor of the Semitic languages. A represent myownopinions,althoughI hopeitportraysaconsistentandcoherentviewof ars is taken into account in what follows, this summary must in the end be subjective and speculative, and alsosomething of anart form; and so,while the research of many schol- morphology and syntax. As is well known, linguistic reconstruction is often necessarily phonology,This chapterpresents,incursoryform,areconstruction of Proto-Semitic(PS) 1 INTRODUCTION John Huehnergard PROTO-SEMITIC CHAPTER 3 that their reflexes were glottalic in some of the ancient languages, such as such languages, and ancient Akkadian the of some in glottalic were reflexes their that in ModernSouth Arabian languagessuchasMehri(Chapter 11); thereisalsoevidence but theyareglottalic/ejective in the Ethiopian Semitic languages (see Chapters of reflex the the (and in Arabic of uvularized or pharyngealized members are triads third the of reflexes The member. third a and voiced a voiceless, a of (Huehnergard 2003). can beseenin As Table 3.1, manyoftheconsonantsoccurintriads ative, There isgoodevidence, however, fora30thconsonant,glottalic velar (oruvular)fric- in theinscriptional Ancient South Arabian languagessuchasSabaic(see­ Proto-Semitic is traditionally reconstructed with29consonants, allofwhicharepreserved 2.1 Consonants 2 PHONOLOGY Semitic writingsystemsappearsinChapter 1,§3. a reconstructed linguisticentity,As is unwritten. ofcourse,PS A 1.1 Writing a nounbasewithoutcaseending(forwhichsee§3.3.2.4). Proto-Semitic undoubtedlycompriseddialects,likealllanguages,butsuchdistinctions N ote *x’ (or*χ’),whichmerged with*xinEast Semitic and with *ħ in West Semitic : chapter,this Throughout in as form, a on hyphen final a 1, sincethere is evidence for the split between East and West

guiding principle has been that a reconstructed JOHN HUEHNERGARD PROTO-SEMITIC *bajt- ‘house’,denotes *k’ istheuvularq), brief overviewof Chapter 13). 6–10) and 1, §2. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 in Proto-Semitic: 2013). The followingphonological processes involvingtheconsonantsmaybeobserved to otherformsofarootinwhichtheconditioning factor isnotoperative (Huehnergard is theoppositedevelopment, where aconditioned sound changespreadsanalogically exhibit thesameconsonantphonemesinallforms.Lessfrequent, butalsowellattested, forms of a root are often blocked by paradigmatic pressure, sothat the root continues to phonologically consistent. Thus, conditioned sound changesthatwouldaffect onlysome pharyngeals maynotbegeminated. dant languages, although in some, such as early Aramaic and Hebrew, the laryngeals and appear in Table 3.2. Approximant Lateral Plosive TABLE 3.1 50 than [s]asin Assyrian Akkadian, rather Arabic andEthiopianSemitic. Jibbāli), Hebrew,Aramaic, Akkadian, (Babylonian languages the of several in [ʃ] palatal a is reflex its since environments, some in allophone palatalized a had have may *s voiceless non-glottalicplosiveswereprobablyaspiratedwhensyllable-initial. The fricative suggested by features of Akkadian and Hebrew phonology (Steiner 1982; Faber 1985). The most of the descendant languages,but, again, their affricated nature in the proto-language is see also Voigt 1992). The PSconsonantsreconstructedasaffricates aresimplefricativesin in thehistoryof Arabic (Zemánek1996). pharyngealization underwent and well, as proto-language the in glottalic were they that Hebrew (Cantineau 1951–52, Faber1980,Steiner1982,Kogan2011a), andsoitislikely Fricative Trill Nasal Affricate There is marked tendency for the consonants ofSemitic verbal roots (§3.2)toremain All ofthe consonants couldbegeminated. This isalsothecase in some of thedescen- languages Semitic of sample representative a in consonants PS the of reflexes The The PStriadoffricativelaterals–*ɬ, *w assimilated to afollowing dental-alveolar stop: e.g.,*ja-t-wabal(3 Regressive assimilatory voicing and devoicing of consonantsoccasionally resultedin John Huehnergard pcs ple, the byform rootsandseemingly irregular correspondences among cognates. For exam- Vowels (§2.2). 2006a, 2014a). Forother changes involving languages, e.g., bothwabaːlumandtabaːlum‘tocarry’ in Akkadian (Huehnergard ysis oftheproductthischangeoccasionally resulted inbyformrootssome want, need, claim’, viz., 2 ) > ) REPRESENTATIONS APPEAR INPARENTHESES AFTER THE IPA p (p) b (b) B THE PROTO-SEMITIC CONSONANTS; THE TRADITIONAL SEMITISTIC

ilabial *jawtabal pcs m () w () forms(§3.5.2)ofthePSroots *b-k’-r‘topierce,split’ and*p-k’-r‘to θ (t)ðdθ’ (θ̣/ẓ) (I nter (metathesis; see §3.5.5)>*jattabal -)D ent al *jabk’ur and*japk’ur,could apparently be pronounced the ɬ ( ɬ ʦ (s)ʣzʦ’ (ṣ) D t ()dt’ (ṭ) ent ś) l( (t)ɬ’ (ś – is now well established (Steiner 1977; *l and*(t)ɬ’–isnowwellestablished(Steiner1977; r () n () s (š) al -A veolar /ð ̣ ) ̣ P *w and the palatal glide *j,see under al j (y) t al V k ()gk’ (ḳ/q) x’/χ’ (x x/χ (ḫ)ɣ/ʁġ/ǵ elar ‘he carried along’. Reanal /U 3 ) ̣ vular 1 ħ (ḥ)ʕ(‘,ˤ P haryngeal - recp - G ʔ (’,ˀ) h () carry lott al - . Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 ʔ S P TABLE 3.2 θ m θ’ t (t)ɬ’ ʦ’ ʣ ʕ n w t’ g b p x/χ ɣ/ʁ d r ʦ x’/χ’ h ð s ħ j k k’ l ɬ em roto After EastSemitic broke awayfromtheparent language, most oftheremaining fam- . -

(2- house’ (§3.3.2.4, end);andthecausative marker *s,asin*tu-sa-ʕlij>*tu-ha-ʕlij §3.1.1); theadverbial ending ‘she’pronouns, asinindependent*siʔa>*hiʔa suffixal and ily underwentachangeofprevocalic*s>*hinformssuchasthe3rd-person of whichappearthroughoutthedescendantlanguages(Huehnergard 2014b). byforms, onewithinitial same, [japk’ur]; reanalysis and the tendency for root integrity, noted above, yielded before other word classes do(Phillips1983); before otherword matical relatives ofsuchwords),which areknowntoundergo soundchanges change affecting high-frequency, low-stressfunctionwords(andtheclose gram- ʃ (š) A (B Ø/ʔ (Ø/ˀ) ʃ (š) m () ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) t () ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) ʣ/z (z) Ø/ʔ (Ø/ˀ) n () w () ( t’ g () b () p () x (ḫ) Ø/ʔ/x (Ø/ˀ/ḫ) d () r () ʦ/s (s) x (ḫ) Ø/ʔ (Ø/ˀ) ʣ/z (z) Ø/ʔ (Ø/ˀ) Ø/ʔ/j ( k () k’ ( k’ l () ʃ (š) kkadin caus abylonian ṭ) q,ḳ) REFLEXES OF THE PROTO-SEMITICIN SOMEOF CONSONANTS THE MAIN GIVEN INPARENTHESES DESCENDANT LANGUAGES; REPRESENTATIONSTHE SEMITISTIC ARE Ø/ˀ/y) - ascend.

) s () E ʔ (ˀ) G (C s () m () s’ ( s’ t () tɬ’> s’ ( s’ z () ʕ (ˤ) n () w () g () b () f () t’ ( t’ x (ḫ) ʕ (ˤ) d () r () s () ħ (ḥ) h () z () ħ (ḥ) j (y) k () k’ ( k’ l () ɬ>s (ś>s) thiopic ə pcs lassica ṭ) ʕ ṣ) ṣ) q,ḳ) s’ ( s’ əz ) ‘you sent up’ (§3.5.5). This may be viewed as an incipient

ḍ > ) ṣ

) *b andonewithinitial h () ɬ’ (ź,ṣ θ (t) ð (d) M Ø m () ð’ (ð t () ʦ’/s’ (ṣ z () ʕ/ʔ ( n () w () g () b () f () t’ ( t’ x (ḫ) ɣ (ġ/ǵ) d () r () s () ħ (ḥ) h () ħ (ḥ) j (y) k () k’ ( k’ l () ɬ (ś) ehri ṭ) ḳ) ˤ/ˀ) ) ̣ ́ ) *‑isa, asin*bajt-isa>*bajt-iha ) θ (t) ð (d) S ʃ (s,s dˤ (ḍ) ʔ (ˀ) m () ðˤ (ẓ) t () sˤ (ṣ) z () ʕ (ˤ) n () w () g () b () f () tˤ (ṭ) χ (ḫ) ʁ (ġ/ǵ) d () r () s (ś,s ħ (ḥ) h () ħ (ḥ) j (y) k () q (q,ḳ) l () ? (š,s abaic 1 3 2 ) ) ) s () (C s () (t)ɬˤ/(d)ɮˤ ( θ (t) ð (d) A ʔ (ˀ) ç (š) m () ðˤ (ẓ) t () (t)sˤ (ṣ) z () ʕ (ˤ) n () w () ɟ (j,ǧ) b () f () dˤ (ṭ) x (ḫ) ʁ (ġ/ǵ) d () r () ħ (ḥ) h () ħ (ḥ) j (y) k () q () l () rabic lassica 5 butfurtherspreadofthechange was

*p, of both original roots, reflexes ) ḍ) ʃ s U ʦ’/s’ d/ð (d/d) θ ʔ (ˀ) ʃ m () θ’(ẓ)/ɣ(ġ/ǵ) t () ʦ’/s’ z () ʕ (ˤ) n () w(w)/j(y) g () b () p () t’ ( t’ x (ḫ) ɣ (ġ/ǵ) d () r () ħ (ḥ) h () ħ (ḥ) j (y) k () k’ ( k’ l () ? ? ? ? (s) garitic (t) (š) (š) ṭ) q,ḳ) ? ? (ṣ) (ṣ) *‑su >hu‘his’ (see Proto-Semitic 51 (house- (B ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) ʃ (š) ɬ (ś) ʃ (š) H s () z () ʔ (ˀ) m () ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) t () z () ʕ (ˤ) n () w(w)/j(y) g () b () p () t’ ( t’ ħ (ḥ) ʕ (ˤ) d () r () ħ (ḥ) h () ħ (ḥ) j (y) k () k’ ( k’ l () ebrew iblical ṭ) q,ḳ)

dir ) ) ‘tothe (S A ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) ʕ (ˤ) ʃ (š) s () t () s () d () ʔ (ˀ) m () t’ ( t’ t () z () ʕ (ˤ) n () w(w)/j(y) g () b () p () t’ ( t’ ħ (ḥ) ʕ (ˤ) d () r () ħ (ḥ) h () ħ (ḥ) j (y) k () k’ ( k’ l () ramic yriac 4 ṭ) ṭ) q,ḳ) )

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 corresponding to ˈaja > ˈawa, PS: for already posited be may example, for developments, following The vowel. ness’ <*t’ujb-),unlesspreservedbyparadigmaticpressure. *uj wereunstable, also tending to become vowels, For PSa reconstruction of three short vowels, 2.2 Vowels by paradigmatic pressure), asin*ja-kwun-uː 52 syllable through somephonological process,itisshortened; for example, the ofvowels. aresequences nor Long vowelsdonotoccur in closed syllables; when alongvowelwouldarise in aclosed notpermitted, are clusters consonant syllable ‑final and syllable-initial PS hasonlythree syllable types: shortCV,andlongCVːCVC.Thus, 2.3 nergard 2005:176–8).Itislikely that became stable’, ‘they to acentral system to a greater or lesser extent. In Gəʕəz, for Arabic. In most of the other languages, various developments have obscured the original example, the two short high vowels merged the same historical pattern, (thus, e.g.,theHebrewformrūm‘height’sumably soalsoinPS <*ruːm‑~*ruwmhas equivalent phonetically to *iːand*uː,respectively, in thedescendantlanguagesandpre- sequences languages. The descendant the in respectively) [oː], and [eː] (e.g., vowels long undergo to often simplification and studies, Semitic in thongs section onsyllable structure),butthesequences*ajand*awareoftenreferredtoasdiph- feature ofCanaanitelanguagesisthechange of thelanguages, thelongvowelsremainedlargely unchanged,althoughadiagnostic sometimes lowered orbacked, depending onsyllable structure andwordstress.Inmost < Old Babylonianegrum‘twisted’ <*ħagrumvs.igrum‘hire’ <*ʔigrumvs.agrum‘hired’ of Akkadian, afourthvowelquality, shorteandlongeː,achieved phonemic status, asin *ʔagirum. InHebrew, theshortvowelsweresometimespreserved,reduced, The sequencesVwVandVjV There are nodiphthongsinthe usual senseofasequence of twovowels(seethe next In Proto-NorthwestSemitic, initial *w>*j: Assimilation ofntoafollowingconsonantisregularfeatureseveralthelan- John Huehnergard Syllable structure andstress ( 1995, Steiner2012:380–1). therefore havebeenanancient dialectal feature oranarealphenomenon (Sanmartín may it Semitic); Ethiopian later in not (but inscriptions Gəʕez earliest the in and guages, suchas Akkadian, Ugaritic andHebrew, andisalsoattested in later Sabaic *jaθab-ti ‘yousat’ (sit. earlier, forrootstoremainconsistentacrossparadigms. blocked in mostverbal and nominal roots, again because of thepressure,noted m aː/_CV, but ) *aː, aregood’ but*t’aˈjab-ta>*t’ib-ta (IPAin ǝ as [ɨ]), *iː, *ja-ɬjim-uː *uː, isuncontroversial. This systemispreservedunchangedinClassical 3 aˈwa > mpl

*jaɬiːmuː u and >*ja-ɬiːm-uː C 1 sc bǝrk ‘knee’ <*birk ‑, uC - weresometimesunstable,tending toreduceasingle 2 2 (seeendofpreceding paragraph) is*ja-ɬim(3-set. aˈja > C fsg 3 , asʕōmɛq‘depth’sequences < *ʕumk’‑). The ). i/_CC, as in CwV (3-set. *iː and*uː,respectively (e.g., *t’uːb‑‘good- 1 andCjV >*ja-kuːn-uː (good- pcs *a, *aː to*oː. *warix- >*jarix-‘month’;*waθab-ti - ʔǝzn ‘ear’ <*ʔuðn‑.Inmanydialects mpl *i, *ˈt’ajab-uː 2 msg ) ‘they( 1 *u, and three corresponding long >CV ) ‘you( (3-stable. 6 1 ː inPS(unlesspreserved m *ij and*uwaregenerally > ) set’. *ˈt’aːb-uː msg ) aregood’ (Hueh- pcs - mpl (good- ) ‘they( 3 msg *iw and 3 form mpl pcs m ) ) )

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 e.g., nonbound*ˈwa.ri.xumvs.bound*war.xu ‘month. thus unstressed; a PS rule of vowel syncope probably affected such unstressed forms, (“construct forms”; §3.3.2.3)weremorphosyntactically proclitic to theirdependentsand that are also found ondual nominals ( right-most long syllable other than the final syllable: final the than other syllable long right-most which maythereforealsobepositedforPS,andisnon-phonemic: stress fallsonthe di.dun). gender. 1stpersonformsarecommongender (glossedas and plural have distinct masculine and feminine forms, while the dual forms are common the 2ndand3rdpersonshavesingular, dualandpluralforms(Table 3.3); thesingular In the Proto-Semitic personal pronouns, asin most of the early descendant languages, 3.1.1 3.1 Pronouns 3 MORPHOLOGY 3 3 2 2 1 TABLE 3.3 geminated consonants, asintheparticipial form maːd.dun‘extending the original syllablestructure to alarge extent (exceptions being longvowelsbefore in most of the descendant languages, although Classical Arabic, for example, preserves ‘he set’,withshorti. The restrictions on syllable types are overridden invariousways reconstructed to PS. in afewofthedescendant languages (Ugaritic, Modern South Arabian) but cannot be forms ( the 2ndpersonformsisofuncertain origin and meaning. The endingsofmost ofthese tive construction,forwhichsee§3.5.4. ‘small. syllables are stressed on the first syllable: *waː.ˈθib.tum ‘sitting. also a narrower PS rule of vowel syncope, rule arefrequentlydiminishedbyanalogical leveling (Steiner2012). There isprobably others), butUgariticandancient Hebrew attestboth. The apparentbase*ʔan‑in 3.3 (*ʔana in Gəʕəz, Arabic, Aramaic and others; with *‑aː). f m f m c Classical Arabic and Akkadian exhibit essentially the sameassignment of wordstress, For 1 The dual formsareobviouslyderivedfromthe Personal pronouns nom 2 csg msg ’. PROTO-SEMITIC INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRONOUNS , mostofthedescendant languages haveonlyoneoftheformsshownin Table

*-ta, 1 pl siʔa suʔa ʔanti ʔanta ʔana, ʔanaːku S

ingular *‑nu, etc.) also appear on the base of verbal adjectives in a predica fsg . nom ’, *waː.θi.ˈbaː.tum ‘sitting. nom *ˈʕa.pa.rum ‘dust a >∅/aC

*‑aː, mpl *ʔanaːku in Akkadian, Phoenician, and gen sumaː / ʔantumaː / – D ual 1 sumaj ʔantumaj forms,withthe addition of endings _C / acc nom *ˈwaː.θi.bum ‘sitting. 1

fpl V, asin *‑aj) and dual verbs (marked 1 . nom c ’, thoughtheeffects ofthis . ); a1stpersondualoccurs nom ’. 7 ’. Words withnolong Bound form nominals *k’alalum >*k’allum Proto-Semitic 53 8 . msg . nom sin(±aː) sum(±uː) ʔantin(±aː) ʔantum(±uː) niħnu P msg ’ < *maː. ’ < lura 1 csg . nom and ’, - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 Semitic (apart from Arabic), the3rdpersonpronouns,both strative derived from the relative marker presentative particle The proximaldemonstrative in Akkadian hasabase*hanni‑,whichisderivedfrom situation. PS the reflects probably former the Semitic; West throughout demonstrative A base*ʔvl‑formsa remote demonstrative in Akkadian, but the plural of a proximal 3.1.2 Demonstratives person butnotforthe2ndand3rd. (Table verbs to suffixed when accusative as and prepositions and nouns to suffixed when genitive as functioned person formsprobablyoriginatedasdemonstratives(see§3.1.2). TABLE 3.5 as anaphoric-distaldemonstratives,whichwasprobablytheir originalfunction: endings (see §3.5.4).InCentral Semitic languages, the 2/3 3 3 TABLE 3.4 54 also a set of is there person, 3rd the For clauses. verbal of subjects the contrast or topicalize to and 3 3 2 2 1 2/3 *-na instead of *‑aː(i.e., Thus, PSprobablyexhibitsathree-way contrastindeixis(Huehnergard andPat-El2018). f m f m f m c Closely related to the independent personal pronouns isaset of enclitic pronouns that In the The formsin Table 3.3 arenominative; theyfunctionasthesubjectsofverblessclauses, in house *ʔin ‘in thathouse’. fpl John Huehnergard endingofthePSprefixconjugationverbs(§3.5.3). 2/3 bajt-im PROTO-SEMITIC ENCLITICPERSONAL PRONOUNS PROTO-SEMITIC gen pl forms,the optional endings*‑uː/-aː gen -sa -su -ki -ka gen -iː/-ja - / acc gen / acc (or

*han (see§3.10);thiswasreplaced in West Semitic by ademon- S suʔaːtiː dem ingular siʔaːtiː suʔaːtiː S ingular obl 3.5). Distinct genitive and accusative forms existed for the 1st the for existed forms accusative and genitive Distinct 3.5). . *ʔantin(na) and*sin(na)),where*-naisborrowedfromthe gen ) forms, characterized by an enclitic gen / acc / -niː acc acc ( obl ) 3RDPERSONPRONOUNS *θvː (seethe following section). Throughout – D gen -sumaː / -kuma: / ual -sumaj -kumaj sumaːtiː / D / acc derive from predicative 3rd person ual sumajːtiː fpl nom formsalternatively have *‑tiː (Table and -ni gen gen -sin(±aː) -sum(±uː) -kin(±aː) -kum(±uː) gen / acc / acc P 3.4). The 3rd lura , alsoserve sinaːtiː sumuːtiː P lura acc -na Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 Source: Huehnergard (2006b). mann-um ‘who?- instead nom (The initial consonant of the relative marker is voiceless is declined for genderandnumber, agreeing with itsantecedent in all features butstate. of anounphrase,verbphraseorprepositional phrase (Pat-El and Treiger 2006). It The PSrelative marker (Table 3.6) isaboundform(§3.3.2.3)thatcanserveasthehead 3.1.3 gen gen accusative genitive TABLE 3.6 mi(ː)n-um ‘what?- For ‘what?’, East Semitic and Ethiopian Semitic indicate a base 3.1.4 as theywerein Akkadian andEblaite. Another PSbase, *ʔajj‑,isadjectival,‘which?’. Canaanite exhibit nominative nominative nominative to theinterrogatives (as inEastSemitic, Amharic, Ugaritic); e.g.,*min‑um=ma (what?- in West Semitic; the PS formprobably had voiceless Indefinite pronouns may have been formed by adding an enclitic an adding by formed been have may pronouns Indefinite A common Semiticinterrogativeadverbis / / ‘against theresidentsinhouse’. *ʕalaj ‘The motherwhomheprotecteddied.’ 3 *ta-mut ‘I protectedthelordofhouse.’ 1 *ʔa-nθ’ur against sit acc acc = f sg -die. encl Relative marker Interrogative andindefinitepronouns -

protect . For ‘who?’, most of the languages have a reflex of reflex a have languages the of most ‘who?’, For *mah‑. pcs ) ‘whatever, anything’. THE PROTO-SEMITIC RELATIVE MARKER waːθib-iːna mother- . pcs . ʔimm-um ptcp nom

nom *mijj‑. These formswereprobablydeclined like singular nominals, - lord baʕl-am mpl ’; Amharic ’; Amharic nom . - gen acc

/

acc θ-aːt-u rel rel θa:

mann-ɨn who?- - fsg mɨn); the Central Semitic languages, however, have . msg rel θawiː - nom . . mpl acc θawiː θawuː mpl θawaj θawaː mdu θaː θuː msg θiː . bnd . . gen bnd *mataj ‘when?’.

/

acc acc ja-nθ’ur-u(-sa) 3-protect. house- bajt-im . =‘whom?’), although Ugaritic and bnd *θ [Huehnergard and Pat-El 2018].) in gen *θ in Akkadian, but voiced ʔin pcs - sbrd house bajt-im (-3 Proto-Semitic 55 *mann‑ (Akkadian - *=ma (see§3.10) fsg gen *min‑ (Akkadian ) θawaːti θawaːtu θ(aw)aːtaj θ(aw)aːtaː θaːta θaːtu θaːti fpl fdu fsg *ð 9

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 radical first with roots certain of forms some example, For stage. earlier an at occurred sonants forms, however,Internal reconstruction on thebasisofPS indicates that rootsoftwocon- descended’ andtheverbalnoun*rid-at-(descend. the second or third radical or a prefixal or suffixal element or a combination of these. of a combination Forms oftheroot*s-l-m‘(tobe)whole’ illustratesomeofthesepossibilities: or element suffixal or prefixal a or radical third or second the may besimplevowelmelodies,suchasa .i,buttheyalsoexhibitgemination of which are laid patterns roots comprisinginvariable sequences ofconsonants(called the radicals of aroot),over Most nounsandverbsinPSexhibitnonconcatenative morphology; thatis,theyconsistof 3.2 56 C ‘guarded’ from*n-θ’-r‘toguard’;*waθib‑‘seated’ from *w-θ-b ‘tosit’. The pattern ple, asin*salim‑,isacommonverbaladjective that tendstoberesultative: patterns of suchadjectives and substantives are sometimes salient. Many substantives, too, like Semitic, most adjectives, Across like *salim-at-um , areassociated with verbalroots. 3.3 Nominals (Greenberg 1950). are rare. Gəʕəz e.g., totheproto-language (rare examples are foundinsomelanguages, but they are the result of later developments; bereconstructed cannot radicals second and first identical with with identical second andthirdradicals are common, such as*m-d-d‘tomeasure’, roots or subgroup,andsoitisdifficulttoreconstructanyofthemtheproto-language. second radical is frequently a sonorant. Most suchrootsare restricted to a single language as Akkadian common inother Afro-Asiatic languages.) with tworadicals reduplicated, as in Arabic radical, as in*r-b-j ~*r-b-b ‘(tobe)great’. Finally, someofthe languages exhibit roots exist as byforms,with the third radical either a glide or areduplication of the second of the descendant languages. A only rootsandpatterns(Fox2003: 68). reconstruct whole deverbal noun formstothe proto-language with certainty, butrather some patternswerereplaced by others,ormerged; itistherefore often not possibleto in §3.3.1.Inthedescendantlanguages, thesemanticrangesofmanypatternsshifted,and 1 aC The vastmajority ofverbsinPSarebasedonrootsthreeconsonants,like*s-l-m. There are certain phonological constraints ontheconstituents of aroot:whileroots A fewrootswithfourdiscrete radicals occur in mostofthe descendant languages, such *salaːm-um ‘wholeness- *ti-slam-iː *salim-at-um ‘whole- *nu-sallim (1 John Huehnergard Nominal andverbal roots 2 a:C w, suchas*w-r-d ‘todescend’, lack the initial 11 Further, homorganic consonantsare generallynotfoundasadjacent radicals 3 , asin*salaːm- is a common verbal substantive, used as an infinitive in several ), and roots with identical first and third radicals third and first identical with roots and s-s-l ‘torecede’ <*s-l-s-l), ‘to jump’, Gǝʕəz jump’, ‘to b-l-k-t (2-whole. pl -whole. – templates – that furnish the morphology of words. The patterns pcs f - fact nom - nom fsg *salaːm-um, may be said to derive from verbal roots. The .

’ (adjective) ) ‘youbecamewhole’ pcs listing of some of the reconstructible patterns is presented ’ (substantive;aninfinitivepattern) ) ‘wemadewhole’ d-n-g-ś ‘tobedismayed’;asintheseexamples,the z-l-z-l ‘toshake’.(Biradical roots are more ̣ inf - w, asin f ) ‘descent’. *ja-rid (3-descend. 10 C Further, someroots 1 aC 2 VC 3 , forexam *naθ’ir pcs ) ‘he ‑ - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 posited fortheproto-languageareinsomecasesspeculative. the semantic ranges ofsomepatterns changedinthedescendant languages, andsothose The followinglistisnotintendedtobecomprehensive. noted intheprecedingsection, As 3.3.1 Kogan (2011b). *laban‑ ‘white’,*waruk’‘yellow-green’.Extensive lists areprovidedinFox(1998)and as ‘mother’, *bin‑‘son’,*ʔaxw‘brother’; *ʔimm‑ ‘mother’, ‘head’, reconstructed to the proto-language in toto. Examples are parts of thebody, suchas*raʔs‑ verb), andnotnecessarilytriradical. Unlike manydeverbalnouns,primarynounscanbe bal root(althoughamaybeextracted from suchsubstantives,tocreateadenominal ‘grass’, There are also, however, many substantives that are primary, notassociated with aver *ʔarɬ’‑ ‘earth’,*ʔabn‘stone’,*nahar C C C C Patterns with gemination of thesecondradical are common. In Akkadian, e.g., C Patterns with twohigh vowels are not reconstructible, with the exception of twou 1 1 1 1 1 aːC iC aC aC VC Deverbal nounpatterns approach; (tobe)near’ (seealso§3.5.4).OtherC example, in Aramaic (C adjectives, forming the paradigmatic passive participle of the basic verb stem, for in Akkadian; in West Semitic languages, however, theyarecommon asverbal in Arabic (§3.3.2.2). in Arabic it can be reconstructed to PS. C that family the within enough widely separated are that languages in infinitive or ‘clothing’C from *l-b-s‘towear’; ‘thick’ (cf.kabar C reconstructible withalongvowel inthefirstsyllable. stantives), e.g., < *C sacrifice’; ‘sacrifice’ from forms areoftensubstantivesofaction or result:*ðibħ‑ such asGəʕəznägär<*nagar be) straight’; besides not generally classifiable semantically (and many (and semantically classifiable generally not vowels, i.e., is Proto-CentralSemitic(andmaybeaprimarynoun). ‘wide area’ from*r-ħ-b ‘(tobe)wide’ isProto-West Semitic, and*ʔunaːs‑‘person’ ʕǝbäy <*ʕibay‑‘greatness’ and Hebrew nēkå ‘father’, *ʕajn‑ ‘eye’,*ʔanp‘nose’,*jad-‘hand’;kinshipterms,suchas*ʔabw‘father’, 2 1 *jawm‑ ‘day’,*warix‘month’,*san-at-‘year- 2 2 a(ː)C aC 2 2 V:C VC C iC 3 1 2 formstendtobesubstantives. uC 3 C 3 , theactive participle of thebasicverbstem inPS(§3.5.4),istheonlypattern 3 , with a short second vowel, is a productive verbal adjective, as notedabove; . The pattern . The 3 2 andC aC *salim‑ ‘whole’, other examples are 2 uːC *ʔurk‑ ‘length’ from*ʔ-r-k ‘(tobe)long’. 3 adjectives are markedforplurality or high salience, such askabbar 3 C <*C *maliʔ‑ ‘full’ from 1 1 *k’abr uC uC ‑ ‘thick’; Kouwenberg 1997:49–58).But C 2 2 1 a(ː)C (C aC C 2 ‑ ‘burial, grave’ from 1 )u(ː)C 2 aC uːC 1 3 aC are uncommon patterns for substantives, such as Gəʕəz as such substantives, for patterns uncommon are 2 a:C 3 2 ). i:C 3 . 3 ‑ ‘speech’. , asalso noted previously, isacommonverbal noun C 3 ), inHebrew(C 1 1 aC uC ‘to fill’; ‘to *m-l-ʔ 1 uC 2 ‘river’, *tihaːm‑‘sea’,*ʕiɬ’‘tree’, ‑ ‘river’, 2 i:C u(ː)C C 2 u(ː)C 1 aC 3 and 3 12 2 formsare substantival, e.g., *lubuːs ‑ *k’-b-r ‘to bury’. C C features of thephysical world, such 3 isalsoacommonpatternforplurals 3 C formsare extremely common, and ̄ r < *nikar *jasar 1 1 aC aC *k’arub‑ ‘near’ from 1 C fsg aC 2 1 2 u:C aC ūC ’; somecolorterms,suchas 2 ‑ ‘straight’ from VC 2 3 3 C ) and in Gəʕəz (C Gəʕəz in and ) forms are relatively rare 3 ‑ ‘foreignness’;*riħaːb 3 formsaresubstantives, formsareprimarysub- 1 aC Proto-Semitic 57 2 1 C iC 2 a(ː)C 2 C 3 and 3 alsoforms *k’-r-b ‘to *j-s-r ‘(to *ð-b-ħ ‘to C 1 ǝC *daθʔ‑ 1 uC 2 uC 2 C ‑ - 3 3

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 (son- 2012: 373–5). ‘deaf. 58 nouns are of variable gender in some of the languages, e.g., *ʔuðn- ‘ear’ and ated withtheformation of plurals(see§3.3.2.2):e.g., Arabic ʔatˤraçu‘deaf. some feminines are formedbypattern replacement, a feature that is morewidelyassoci- attested in severalofthelanguages. In Arabic andinsomeEthiopian Semitic languages, *ʔimm- ‘mother’ and stantives in all of the languages are unmarked. These include animate females, such as dual is productive andusedfor‘two’ ofanything, with little or norestriction; in other Semitic languagesexhibitthree numbers,singular, dualandplural. 3.3.2.2 Number in Akkadian andHebrew). A ‘lady’. In most of the descendant languages there is also an allomorph tribution of*-atvs. forms (§2.3);insomelanguages, such asBiblical Hebrew andUgaritic, the resulting dis- mʔt/ hnrd; Hebrew ‘hundred’; /miʔ-t-/ to thenounbase: cally marked as such. The most common marker of the feminine is an ending specifi- are nouns feminine most while unmarked, generally is noun masculine the lar, Nouns in all Semitic languages have two genders, masculine and feminine. In the singu- 3.3.2.1 Gender 3.3.2 In some languages, such as Old Akkadian, Ugaritic and various forms of Arabic, the atrs ih gmntd hr rdcl a as b rcntutd viz., reconstructed, be also may radical third geminated a with Patterns There are also patterns with prefixes, the most common of which is of common most the prefixes, with patterns also are There John Huehnergard f f ) ‘daughter’, the result of aPSvowelsyncope rule that operated onunstressed ) ‘daughter’, Noun inflection adjectival, asin Akkadian gubbuḫ‑‘bald’ andHebrewšikkōr<*sukkur ‘debt’, Hebrewḥănukka and agent nouns throughoutSemitic, such as*dajja(ː)n‑ ( *maC Arabic ʔakbar- ‘greater, verygreat’ from*k-b-r‘(tobe)great’. §3.3.2.2) andalso,in Central Semitic, as acomparative or augmentative, as in from C a derivedstem of the verb that also geminates the third radical (R stem; see §3.5.5). is used for numinous qualities, as in common forcoloradjectives,suchasʔa examples are stems (see §3.5.5). Other pattern prefixes are prefixes pattern Other §3.5.5). (see stems *ʕ-r-b ‘to The enter’. prefix ’; Tigrinya V 1 =short a uC *t’abba(ː)x‑ ‘butcher’ from 2 *r-b-j ‘tobe(come) large’; and*ʔa-,whichiscommoninpluralforms(see uC 1 C 13 2 3 VC Other, lesscommon, markersofthefeminine, such as*-ajand*aːʔ,are C *jad- ‘hand’; but also other substantives, such as*ʔarɬ’-‘earth’. Some 3 , ismoreoftensubstantival,especiallyforabstracts: Akkadian ḫubull‑ ʦ’ǝbbib ‘narrow. 3 i *t’aːb- ‘good’,*t’aːb-at-‘good- formsaregenerally substantives,withawiderangeofmeanings; , oru *majsar *-t becamelexicalinpart(e.g.,Hebrewmēʔa *ʔataːn- ‘female donkey’; most paired parts of the body, ), C 1 ‑ ‘equity’ from*j-s-r‘(tobe)straight’; recent surveyofgenderinSemiticisHasselbach(2014). uC ṣēt <*(t)ɬ’iʔ-t- ̊ ̄ <*ħunukk-at‑‘dedication- 2 uC *mu- markstheparticiples of mostthederived verb 3 m C ’, 3 andperhapsC ‘to slaughter’. C t’-b-x ‘to slaughter’. ʦ’ǝbbab ‘narrow. ‘awe-inspiring’; these are associated with rašubb- ‘awe-inspiring’; these are associated with s Uaii /tsi-t/ ei’ se Steiner see ‘exit’; /(t)s’iʔ-at-/ Ugaritic vs. ̊ ̄ d ōm <*ʔadumm‑‘red’,whilein Akkadian it 1 f iC *ta-, asin*tarbij-t- ’; 2 aC *baʕl- ‘lord’,*baʕl-at-(lord- fsg f ’. Finally, some feminine sub- ‘judge’ from*d-j-n‘tojudge’ 3 ’, Arabic C *ʔurx- ‘road’ (either 3 1 . InHebrew, C uC ̊ ̄ vs. Ugaritic <*miʔ-at-vs. 2 C *maʕrab‑ ‘entry’ from 2 uC ɟubull ‘company’. 3 *‑t, as in formsare often ‘increase m 1 C aC ’, tˤarçaːʔu ‑ ‘drunk’. *‑at added 1 aC 14 2 suchas uC 2 *bin-t- VC m *ma‑. 3 - or C fsg 3 3 C is is f f ) 3 ’

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 family. Throughout thischapter, bound forms(“constructforms”)arelabeled erwise, asinboth Akkadian andSabaic,languagesthatarewidelyseparatedwithinthe of nonboundformsoriginallyhadtwoallomorphs,*‑maftershortvowelsand*-naoth- ending thatfollowedthecasevowel,whereasboundnounslackedending. The marker specifically was bound thus descendant languages),anounnot (a) tactically proclitic (“in construct”), to a following dependent element, which may be In Semiticstudies,theterm“state”referstowhetheranounisbound,i.e.,morphosyn- 3.3.2.3 (1998); onexternalplurals,seeHasselbach(2007). (full- appeared onadjectives, andincorporatedpluralmarkersofpredication; e.g.,*maliʔ-u: pattern replacement, or byacombination of thetwo. The external endingsoriginally marked withspecificendingsaddedtothesingularbaseofnoun;see§3.3.2.4. languages, such as Aramaic and Ethiopian languages, the dual is vestigial. Dual formsare ral sg sg hand- languages, suchasHebrew, itisrestricted to naturally occurring pairs(i.e.,‘hands’ is (< eii lnugs s h gnrlzto o dul mre puas o snuas f the of singulars for pattern plurals marked doubly of generalization the is languages Semitic nal pluralshavebeenleveled through allnouns. A *ʦ'uɣaraːʔu, anoldplural of theadjective guage chapters. In Akkadian, onlyrelics of suchpluralsremain, e.g., ṣuḫarû‘lads’ < pronouns, whichwereanaphoric demonstratives originally (§3.1.2), couldfunctionto ( erally not possible to reconstruct pairs of singular and plural patterns to PS: e.g., while Ethiopian Semitic, ModernSouth Arabian, Ancient South Arabian and Arabic; it isgen- (referred to as“broken plurals” or “internal plurals”) are especially common in (North) f ) are full’ and ‘house’ iscommon Semitic - The plural can be formed either by external endings added to the singular base, or by ete dfnt nr neiie rils a b rcntutd o P. But3rdperson PS. for bereconstructed can articles indefinite nor definite Neither nom eye- *ʕajn-u eye- ‘the eyethatsaw’ ‘her eye’ eye- *ʕajn-u-sa ‘the woman’s eye’ *ʕajn-u i Gʕz and Gəʕəz, in *ʔabjaːt‑) *ʕigal-aː-t-um (calf. another noun, (b) a pronominal suffix or (c) a clause. In PS (and in several of the the of several in (and PS In clause. a (c) or suffix pronominal a (b) noun, another 3 du mpl ’, plural nom nom nom + external + CVCC; suchpluralshavetheform{CVCaC State anddefiniteness rather than hand- ) ‘they ( . . .

bnd bnd bnd -3 woman- *kalab-uːna *maliʔ-aː-t-um ‘full- fsg m ta-ʔmur-u ʔanθat-i-m 3 ) are full’ and f -see.

eye-

pl pcs pl - gen fpl ) and certain time words (suchas‘twodays’); and in still other (dog. - n ibl; o ohr xmls se h idvda lan- individual the see examples, other for Jibbāli; in bɛt sbrd - - f nbnd - *bajt‑, nom eye- *maliʔ-uːna ‘full- pl eye- - ). On pattern replacement, ). On see especiallyRatcliffe mpl fpl pl - . nom f in Qurʔanic Arabic, Qurʔanic in ‘houses’ is bujuːt - *ʦ'aɣir- ‘small, young’; otherwise,theexter nom *ʕajn-aː ‘her eyes’ *ʕajn-aː ‘the eyesthat saw’ *ʕajn-aː-sa ‘the woman’s eyes’ ) ; ’. Plurals formed by pattern replacement *ʕigl-at-um ‘heifer’ (calf du du du shared innovation oftheNorthwest . . . mpl nom nom nom . nom . . . bnd bnd bnd ’; 3-see. -3 woman- *maliʔ-a: (full- fsg pl ja-ʔmur-aː-na ʔanθat-i-m as such with an marked assuchwithan }, asin*kalb-um‘dog. Proto-Semitic 59 pcs gen . - sg du - - f - nbnd sbrd - bnd 3 nom fpl . ) ‘they ), plu- ʔäbjat - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 nom nom argues persuasively “that Semitic was marked- Semitic, both refutes the occasional suggestion that Semitic was at one-time ergative, and uses (including predicate marking). Hasselbach(2013),inathoroughreviewofcase including all prepositions; and accusative, for objects but alsoforawiderangeofother a that jects and(optionally) forthepredicatesofverblessclauses;genitive,afterboundforms, similar sufficiently are languages ancient the as athree-casereconstruction of PSlanguageisstraightforward:nominative, for sub- of several of systems case The 3.3.2.4 guages suchas Amharic, the must be attached to nouns with the article (see Chapter suffixes pronominal personal however, there, emerged; article definite a too, languages, ize adjectives (Huehnergard 2005: 184–6; Pat-El 2009: 25). In the Modern South Arabian substantiv- to used articleis the and pronominal suffixes; personal with words on appear an articled nounandanunarticled adjective constitute a predication); thearticle does not (whereas definite is noun head the if article the bear must adjectives attributive article; languages, its syntaxisthesame: only thelastmember of agenitive chain may bearthe Pat-El 2009,2017:449–52). While theeventual form ofthisnewarticle differs acrossthe *han and*hal(botharereconstructible,bothwerepressedintoserviceasarticles; definite article arose through the grammaticalization of one of two presentative particles, a however, languages, Semitic Central the In Ugaritic). Gəʕəz, Akkadian, (e.g., erwise nergard andPat-El 2012). Severalofthedescendant languages exhibit no article oth- niae definiteness: indicate 60 gen dual acc gen singular adjective triptotic declension” (p. 327). The PS case system is illustrated in Table external pluralendings(theresultingcasesometimesreferredtoas TABLE 3.7 Note: Final gen plura nom As Tablegenitive 3.7 shows,andaccusative constitute a singlecaseinthedualand / / acc acc John Huehnergard Case anddeclension *t’aːb‑ ‘good’. ‑m andnamarknonboundforms;theyareabsent inbound(“construct”)forms. THE PROTO-SEMITIC CASESYSTEM,ON *bajt-u-su ‘his/that/the house’ (house- 3 sg pronominalsuffixesbecamethenormaldefinitearticle. masculine masculine t’aːb-aj-na t’aːb-aː-na t’aːb-a-m t’aːb-i-m t’aːb-u-m t’aːb-iː-na t’aːb-uː-na masculine nom beforeitdeveloped itswell-known *T’AːB‑ ‘GOOD’ 11). InSouthEthio-Semitic lan- nom . bnd obl -3 ). msg / 3.7 with the dem feminine feminine t’aːb-at-aj-na t’aːb-at-aː-na t’aːb-at-a-m t’aːb-at-i-m t’aːb-at-u-m t’aːb-aːt-i-m t’aːb-aːt-u-m feminine ; Hueh- Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 heads: “chiastic concord”): thecardinalsfrom‘3’ to‘10’ exhibitthegenderoppositethatoftheir previously. A Then §3.5.5reviewstheother(derived) verbstems,and§3.5.6surveys“weak”roots. nants thatarenot(generally)subject tophonologicalchange,suchas*ð-k-r‘toinvoke’. are illustratedbywhatSemitists call“soundtriradicalroots,”i.e.,rootswiththreeconso- See §3.2onnominalandverbal roots.In§§3.5.2–3.5.4,formsofthebasicstemverb 3.5.1 3.5 Verbs but in AssyrianAkkadian CaCiC vary from language to language, and so a PS pattern cannot be reconstructed (e.g., While eachSemiticlanguageexhibitsaconsistentpatternfor theordinals,patterns 3.4.2 Ordinals units (Akkadian,Gəʕəz)orexternalpluralsofthe(CentralSemitic). The West Semitic form for‘one’,*waħad‑/ʔaħad,originally meant ‘lone’ (asin Akkadian). certain. changes inthedescendantlanguageshavemadepreciseformsofsomethemless The reconstruction ofthePScardinal numbers isfairlyclear-cut, althoughanalogical 3.4.1 Cardinals 3.4 Numerals really function as suchandarebetter seen asadverbial endings (Hasselbach2013:20–2). the house’. These endings are sometimes also considered case markers, but they do not (the latter > *‑ah(a)in West Semitic), as in*bajt-u(m)‘inthe house’ and*bajt-isa‘to and Gəʕəz; For Two other endings can be reconstructed to PS,alocative ‘Twenty’ isthe dual of‘10’;‘30’ through‘90’ areeither duals ofthecorresponding four *ʔarbaʕ-um ‘four women’ f of‘one’ is*ʕast-aj;the Root *ʕast‑ as the PS form of ‘one’, see Wilson-Wright (2014), whoshowsthat the usual (. msg *CaCiːCiː )- feature of Proto-Semitic numeral syntax isgenderpolarity (also termed nom

5 4 3 2 1 woman- ʔanθ-aː-t-um inHebrew). *xamis‑ *ʔarbaʕ‑ *θalaːθ‑ *θin(aː)‑ *ʕast‑ fpl f formoftheothercardinalsadds*‑attoformslisted - f - CaCuC in Babylonian Akkadian; nom

seven- *sabʕ-at-um ‘seven brothers’ fsg - nom 10 9 8 7 6 brother. ʔaxx-uːna *‑u(m) andadirectional *ʕaɬar *tisʕ‑ *θamaːnij‑ *sabʕ‑ *sidθ‑ ‑ pl - Proto-Semitic 61 mpl in Arabic *CaːCiC . nom *‑isa Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 indicative and injunctive moods. The *jasrik’, etc.,from*s-r-k’ ‘tosteal’. Verbs withthemevowelainthe whole’. markedness (seeespeciallyKorchin2008): of one essentially is two the between distinction semantic the conjugations; prefix as to (for whichsee§3.5.3): as habitual, durative, conditional, potential, and more. The C base with imperative, the is simplest The PS. for posited be can forms verb finite Three 3.5.2 62 of the for PS (Aro 1964). These five vowel classes are listed immediately below, with the vowel in the personal prefix, as in as prefix, personal the in i be markedexplicitly withtheproclitic asseverative particle alia, indicative past (e.g.,‘heinvoked’)orjussive(‘lethiminvoke’);the latter sense can the same vowelappearsinthe imperative and the appears in the imperative and u verb*ð-k-r‘toinvoke’. The vowelbeforeC Table 3.5.3 §3.10). 1 VC Both the short and the long prefix conjugations signify a variety of tenses and both and tenses of variety a signify conjugations prefix long the and short the Both Verbs with themevoweliinthe u ~: i ~a: a ~: a ~i: a ~u: pcl pcs John Huehnergard 2 3.8 presents the probable PS forms of the short prefix conjugation ( conjugation prefix short the of forms PS probable the presents 3.8 Tense–aspect–mood system Inflection (short prefix conjugation) has the base has conjugation) prefix (short categories. Semitic, replaced byanewform,originally the it ismarked for imperfectivity or non-anteriority; this formislostinCentral subordination (see§4.8). V (long prefix conjugation) has a base with a geminated middle radical, pcl 17 1 C The long prefix conjugation has the same markers of person, but the vowel the but person, of markers same the has conjugation prefix long The base listed first, as is traditional; is as first, listed base 3 . The other two are both inflected with prefixes, and thus traditionally referred *jasxun ‘tobe(come)warm’. a smaller class, also frequently intransitive and/or stative; e.g., be(come) whole’; a large class,frequently intransitive and/or stative; e.g., *jisallim ~ *jislam‘to e.g., *jipattaħ~*jiptaħ als, andfricative velars/uvulars) as secondorthirdradicals also jointhisclass, of the languages, many verbs with “guttural” consonants (glottals, pharynge- a smallclassoftransitive verbs; e.g.,*jilammad~*jilmad‘tolearn’;insome a smallerclass,alsooftentransitive;e.g., a large classofmostlytransitiveverbs;e.g., pcl pcs , but for most verbs, the theme vowel of the . Fivepairsoftheme vowels, orvowelclasses,maybereconstructed 3 intheseforms,called the theme vowel, islexical. Foranygivenverb *ʔislam, ‘toopen’; pcs pcl have the same prefixes, as in as prefixes, same the have *tislam, formmaydenoteanytense,andnuancessuch 15 16 examples are *jislam, etc., from pcs C ; forsomeverbsthe same vowel also 1 C *jisarrak’ ~*jasrik’‘tosteal’; pcs 2 V *jiðakkar ~*jaðkur withasetofendingsindicating 1 C 3 3 ; itisunmarkedfor TAM msg pcs *la= (i.e.,*la=yaðkur pcl formmay denote, , with prefix with , differs from that of the *s-l-m ‘to be(come) pcs *ʔasrik’, , however, have pcs ­C ‘toinvoke’; 1 *jisaxxun ~ aC ) *ji‑ or*ja ofthea~ 2 *tasrik’, C 2 V inter ; see 2 C 3 ; Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 study reconstructsthe As noted previously, it has the same theme vowel as the short prefix conjugation. A a inthesecondsyllable, as in*θabar-nu ‘webroke( this constructionevolvedintoanactive,perfective verb fornonstative roots,oftenwith set ofendings,3 not benegated;negativecommandsareexpressedbytheprefixconjugations(see§3.9). in useasthenormaljussiveform. pronouns (§3.1.1),creating a verblesspredication: of theverbaladjective can takeenclitic forms ofthe1stand2ndpersonnominative action. In the basic stem it has the pattern A verbaladjective occurs forall verbsanddenotesprimarily the resultofverbal 3.5.4 for whichseethefollowingsection. invoked’, is an innovation based on the PS verbal adjective in a predicative construction, short prefix conjugation ( conjugation prefix short earlier the marginalized eventually form Westnew Semitic this extent, lesser or greater of the prefixes, whether prefixes, the of 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 TABLE broken’; TABLE 3.9 is/was full’,*jasar forms written with *tiðakkariː f c m c f m c f m c The imperativeoccursonlyin2ndpersonforms;theformsof*ð-k-rappear Table 3.9. The West Semitic suffix conjugation ( conjugation suffix WestSemitic The Non-finite forms *yaðkur, 3.8 *k’arub‑ti (near- or*taðakkariː CONJUGATION OF THE IMPERATIVE INPS; ‘TO INVOKE’ CONJUGATION *ji‑, *ti etc. *yasrik’ andyilmadnotedin§3.5.2(Bjøruforthc.). msg ‑aː (straight-3

*‑a, *taðkur *jaðkur *taðkuriː *taðkur *ʔaðkur S msg *ðukuriː *ðukur S ingular 21 ingular a oriboth,isuncertain: pcs 3 2 , etc.;forsimplicity, theseformselsewhereinthischapterare forms*ðukur, fsg fsg OF ) form*ja-θbirasapasttense,although thelatterremained ) ‘you are/were near’. 3rdpersonformsbear an unrelated ) ‘youare/were near’.

*‑at, 3 THE fpl 22 ) ‘they ( SHORT mpl

sc *‑uː, 3 *sirik’, )

(see §3.3.1). The uninflected base uninflected The §3.3.1). (see *CaCVC f , asin*ðakar-a (invoke. PREFIX ) are/were straight’. In Proto-West Semitic fpl *jaðkuraː *taðkuraː D *θabir-nu (broken- limad, correspondingtothe

*ðukuraː D ual *‑aː, asin*maliʔ-at(full- ual tr CONJUGATION 3 18 msg )’, *Ð-K-R ‘TO INVOKE’

*θabar-a ‘hebroke( *jiðakkar or*jaðakkar, 20 The imperative may Proto-Semitic 63 1 ( sc pcs cpl -3 ) msg ) ‘weare/were IN 3 PS; ) ‘he(has) *jaðkurna *jaðkuruː *taðkurna *taðkuruː *naðkur P fsg tr pcs lura *ðukurna *ðukuruː P lura *Ð-K-R )’; toa ) ‘it (

recent 3 2 msg fsg f 19 )

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 who rides/rode,rider( common prepositions, especiallythe with greaterorlesserregularity. Across Semitic,thesenounsfrequentlyoccuraftercertain In infinitives, Westor nouns verbal as used also are Semitic,otherpatterns,suchas*CiCC, tive in Akkadian, UgariticandHebrew, and may therefore bereconstructedassuch for PS. the finiteformsofpassivederivedstems). prefix have also they the verb. Passive participles of the derived stems seem to be a Central Semitic innovation; structed; they have a prefix a have they structed; is often substantivized; e.g., from e.g., substantivized; often is and aspect, for unmarked adjective, an is It verbs. fientic for form productive a as PS to stem occursinmanyofthedescendant languages, andmaythereforebereconstructed 1 graphs, isoftenreferredtoinSemitic studies astheGstem,fromGerman The basic stem of the verb, exemplified by most of the forms cited in the preceding para- 3.5.5 64 ing’, WestSemitic *ʔin naθ’aːr-im (inprotect. preposition forpurposeandresult;e.g.,*ʔin 2 nant. conso- root third or second the of reduplication or doubling the or prefixes of addition names.) Other stems, with broadly predictable semantic ranges, could be formed by the (The scholarly traditions of theindividual languages refer tothisbasicstem by other (in the basic stem) functions as an infini- an as functions stem) basic Athe (in verbalsubstantivewiththepattern *CaCaːC Active participles of the derived stems (see the following section) may also be recon- As also notedin§3.3.1,anactiveparticiple As with thepattern*CaːCiCforbasicverb John Huehnergard basic stem; the short prefix conjugation form ( form conjugation prefix short the stem; basic have prefixes pronominal the forms, tion and C , o “astv, caatrzd n S y prefix a by PS in characterized “causative,” for C, ʕrib (2 *tu-sa- stem is especially common with verbsofmotion, e.g., from*ʕ-r-b ‘toenter’, to obey’ or‘hecaused(something)tobeheard,heproclaimed (something)’. The C examples, one ofthe objects is usuallyomitted, thus, e.g.,‘hecaused(someone) thing)’. While C forms oftransitive verbs may be doublytransitive, as inthese A ative being characterized instead by West Semitic languages anareal change ofprevocalic *ju-sallim (3-whole. inal prefixhas broke (something) up,apart; he broke(many)’. As theexamples show, thepronom- roots, theDmaybepluralic or indicate increased effect ontheobject: mon asafactitive of stativeroots:G*ji-slam(3-whole sitivity oftheverbalroot(Kouwenberg 1997,Beckman2015).Itisespecially com- tran- the increases stem D The radical. second the of doubling by characterized D, 23 Derived stemsand voice The followingderivedstemscanbereconstructed to PS: 1 causative stemin C 2 *ju-sa-sammaʕ (3- iC *h >ʔin Arabic, inEthiopic, and in Aramaic after the Old Aramaic period.) - 3 caus , thelong( - enter. *la=naθ’aːr-im (to=protect. u intheDstem,asC stem. *mu‑, butthepattern of thebasevariesacrosslanguages(asdo msg pcs pcl *s isalsofoundinmostotherbranchesof Afro-Asiatic. fact )’. ) ‘youcausedtoenter, tookin,sentbrought in’.Inmost ) as*ju-sa-C before the base of the short prefix conjugation form of form conjugation prefix short the of base the before *mu‑ caus . pcs - ) ‘hemade whole, completed, restored’. For transitive hear *r-k-b ‘toride’:*raːkib‑‘riding,havingridden,(one) *h, asin*tu-ha-ʕrib.(Inafurtherdevelopment, caus- loc . pcl / ins 1 aC ) ‘hecaused/causes (someone) tohear(some- preposition for circumstantials and the 2 C inf 2 aC *u rather than *aor*iastheydointhe - gen 3 , 24 pcs ) ‘forprotecting,(inorder)toprotect’. asin*ju-sa-smiʕ(3- ) may be reconstructed as *ju-sa- . In the prefix conjuga prefix the In *s(a). *s >*hresultedintheCstem . pcs ) ‘hebecamewhole’,D inf - gen ) ‘whileprotect- *ju-θabbir ‘he caus Grundstamm - hear dat . pcs / dir - ) .

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 6 5 7 4 3 in infixed t-forms. Associated with each of the G, C, D and L stems is a stem with a prefixed or ‘red’ (see§3.3.1). probably prefixed to the base, thus tG thus base, the to prefixed probably the languagesinwhichCstem*sbecame , hrceie b rdpiain f h tid aia, s n the in as radical, third the of reduplication by characterized R, (Lieberman 1986). diffusion. ancestor of Central Semitic and the Modern South Arabian languages orofanareal likely that these internal passives are the result either of aninnovation in acommon adjective dies aresimplytheverbaladjectives oftherelevantstems,asin Assyrian Dstem does not have such forms,while in Akkadian, passives with distinctive vowel melo or “ablautpassives”). a changeofvowelmelodiesvis-à-vistheactive form (termed“internal passives” by characterized are that verbs passive exhibit stems L and D C, G, the languages, Internal passives. IntheCentral Semitic languages and theModernSouth Arabian also attestmedio-passiveverbsmarkedwith languages Afro-Asiatic Other meaning. in reciprocal and reflexive, medio-passive, undergone the metathesis, perhaps optionally, in the proto-language. The nant; this wasespecially true ofthe tG (*jV-C several ofthelanguages,however, thet came to be infixed, after the first root- conso *jV-C Hebrew D passive *ju-C Hebrew D invoked’, vs.*ja-ðkur‘heinvoked’;buttheotherstemsshowvaryingmelodies, e.g., may be reconstructed as *ju-C broke ( ally passiveormiddle:*θabir transitive verbs thatadjective was normally passive orresultative, N verbsareusu- verbal adjective, prefix a by characterized N, Cushitic), itmaybereconstructedto PS. in in elsewhere (viz., attested Afro-Asiatic is form similar a since But Semitic. East lexical. The L stem is vestigial in the Northwest Semitic languages, and lacking in D stem, via regular phonological processes and the resulting stem is also frequently ‘he blessed’.IntheModernSouth Arabian languages,theL stemhasmerged withthe Gəʕəz in as lexical, become has it however, languages, Semitic as in intent, denotes III”) (“Form stem this Arabic Classical In determine. to difficult is long a by characterized L, ( (Hartmann 1875, Whiting 1981): e.g., Akkadian (OldBabylonian) function is not entirely certain, although it seems generally to have been intensifying a PS stem. Finite forms are rare and vestigial, however, and so its original semantic It occursinseveral other Semitic languages, and maytherefore be reconstructed as ors andphysical characteristics, as injasˤfarir‘it turned yellow, became jaundiced’. e.g., withpattern ( msg m ) isatpeace’ (rootš-ʔ-n).Rstemverbal adjectives are morecommonlyattested, *jV-s-t-aC ) become still ( qaːtala 1 aC intr t. The Ctstemismarkedbys-t,with t immediately after thecausatives,as 2 šallum‑ ‘made whole’, and prefix conjugation forms do not occur. Thus it is C )’. Cognates of the N stem are attested in other Afro-Asiatic languages 3 ‘he fought’, i.e., ‘he tried to kill’, vs. Gqatala ‘he killed’. In Ethiopian iC 1 C 3 2 . This stemiscommon in Arabic (“FormIX”)forroots denotingcol- iC *CaCVC (see §3.5.4), resulting in an ingressive verb. Since for *C 3 (since in thisstem the pcl 1 aC 25 )’ (root The short prefix conjugation ( conjugation prefix short The 2 1 uC uC after the first radical. The function of this stem in PS in stem this of function The radical. first the after aː 3 2 C C *n. This ‑ ‘broken’,*jV-n-θabir (3-n-broken)‘itgotbroken,it š-ḫ-r), Biblical Hebrew suffix conjugation 1 3 C 2 , asin Akkadian aC 2 aC 3 vs. Arabic 3 (with *jV-t-C was originally prefixed to the basic (G) basic the to prefixed originally was *n *s wasnotprevocalic, it remained even in in the prefix), as in as prefix), the in *u *t (Voigt 1987). 1 *h). InthetGandtDstems,twas 1 aC -t-aC *ju-C šaḫurr 2 VC 2 VC 3 1 andtD*jV-t-C aC pcs ‑ ‘still’, Hebrew *ʔadumm‑ 3 ), whichmayalready have 2 C ) formoftheGpassive 2 aC 3 Proto-Semitic 65 . EthiopianSemitic baräkä <*baːraka *ju-ðkar ‘he was ta-šḫarrar ‘you 1 aC šaʔănan ‘it t stems are 2 C pcs 2 VC form 3 . In - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 roots”), theverbaladjective has theform*C adjectives with the pattern *ji-ɬajjam. In Central Semitic, former are the result of a PS syncope rule (viz., interior- these are originally substantives, used adverbially as bound forms, as in Athat function asprepositionscanbereconstructedtoPS.Someof numberofwords 3.6 Prepositions was independentlyleveledoutofthevariousnon-CentralSemiticlanguages. is uncertain whether thisisaCentral Semitic innovation or, lesslikely, aPSfeature that ʕda) ʔi-smaʕ-u(until or withoutarelativemarker): *ʕad(aj) §3.3.2.3), someprepositions are alsocommonassubordinatingconjunctions(with is uncertain. *ʕ-d-w ‘tocross,traverse’; but whether the prepositions or the verbal roots are primary until’ are associated with verbal roots, respectively *‑aj, e.g., verbal adjectivesoftheseroots. The *ja-kun ‘itbecamestable’,*ja-ɬim‘heset’.See§2.2aswellfordevelopmentsinthe vowel: attested; instead,asnotedin§2.2,theglideandfollowingvowelyieldedalong however; e.g.,fromthe root *w-ʦ-p, the short prefix conjugation base and related forms, such as the imperative; e.g., from the root *w-θ-b, e.g., imperative; the as such forms, related and base conjugation prefix short the the radical, already in PS. first as As noted in §3.2,somerootswithw Verbal roots withthe glides 3.5.6 66 I heard’. 2006a). VerbsI–j, suchas*j-b-s‘(tobe)dry’,werealsoregular, asin*ji-jbas(3-dry second radical: These invariablygovernthe proclitic, such as*ka=‘like’,whileothersareCVCforms,*ʔin‘in’ (Voigt 1999). tions, however, isnotevident; some ofthesearesimpleCV forms,whichwereprobably libb-i-ja ‘they ( ‘it became dry’. ( liest Akkadian dialects, and thus were probably inflected normally in PS as well, e.g., *ji-xdaw-uː well, as PS in normally inflected probably were thus and dialects, Akkadian liest logical changesinPS.Expected mpl In stative rootswithidentical second andthirdradicals (traditionally called “geminate as the third radical are essentially regular in Gəʕəz and in the ear the in and Gəʕəz in regular essentially are Verbsradical third the as withwandj Since prepositionsareboundforms, andsinceboundformscangovernclauses(see In rootswithw John Huehnergard ) built’. “Weak” roots m *ja-kuːn-uː, acc (in heart- ) becamestable’ and*ja-ɬjim-uː( *wist’aj ‘in, with’. The prepositions (3-rejoice . bnd *ja-mudd-uː <*ja-mdud-uː(3-measure. house- *ja-θib (3-sit gen orj pcs *ja-ɬiːm-uː; inclosedsyllables,thenewlongvowelwasshortened: . . forms of these roots show metathesis formsoftheserootsshow ofthetheme-voweland bnd pcs gen asthesecondradical,anumberofformsunderwentphono- - -1 mpl ‘withinthehouse’. A *C w orj as their first or second radical underwent developments csg gen . pcs 1 ) ‘they( aC ) ‘in my heart’. Several forms have an optional ending aswell:*ka=kalb-im ) ‘hesat’,*θib‘sit. 2 C pcs 3 pcl cannot be reconstructed in PS, it is likely that the *ja-wʦup (3-add formssuchas*ja-kwun-uː( m formsoftheserootswereregular:*ji-kawwan, ) rejoiced’, 3 -set 1 *ħamm‑um <*ħamam;see§2.3,end). *ʕal(aj) ‘on, against’ and aC . pcs 2 substantival origin of otherpreposi- C - *ʕ-l-j ‘to go up’ and (West Semitic) 2 imp mpl , e.g.,*ħamm‑um‘hot *ta-bnij-uː . (like=dog- pcs !’. OtherverbsI–wwereregular, pcs ) ‘they( ) ‘headded’ (seeHuehnergard - mpl 1 csg ) ‘they( (2-build m gen -hear ) set’ arenotusually ) ‘likeadog’,*ʔin 3 . pcs m *wist’-a bajt-im -stable *ʕad(aj) ‘up to, ) . w islacking in pcs measured’;it - - sbrd nom - mpl . pcs ) ‘until ’; since ) ‘you - . mpl pcs ) ) - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 • • • endings *‑u(m)andisa,see§3.3.2.4, end. • usually proclitic. • ing lexemes)are{toface bound-form substantive, are common; examples found across Semitic (albeit with vary- middle sative case,e.g.,*jawm-am(=ma) (day- words used as adverbs are demonstratives, substantives, and adjectives, often in the accu Only afewtrue adverbs may be reconstructed, e.g., interrogative 3.8 Adverbs proclitic insomelanguages)and PS coordinating conjunctions are 3.7 Conjunctions • • • • • • • A listofprobablePSprepositions follows; formsending with =,suchas*bi=,are As inmany other languages, prepositional phrases, comprising a preposition and a *bi= West Semitic,‘in,with’ ( *bal ‘without,non-’ (Pat-El 2013) *bajn(-aj) between’ (lostin Akkadian, butpresentinEblaite) (also Hebrew ʔɛt);notealsoGəʕəz ‘in’ in East Semitic, but in West Semitic of restricted occurrence, e.g., Gəʕəz e.g., ʔǝn-bälä ‘without’occurrence, (= Akkadian in(a) restricted balu ), andinaformextendedwith( of Semitic West in but Semitic, East in ‘in’ *ʔin *wist’(aj) or > Akkadian Semitic, it is extended withenclitic *=na,as*ha=na Jibbāli he=ʃ in West*ha= ‘to,for’; Semitic, foundonlyinModernSouth Arabian languages(e.g., Arabian, wheretheusualwritings spelling *sin or*ʦin‘toward,at’?OnlyinEblaite (and oneearly Akkadian text),wherethe distinct prepositions, and become has form the Gəʕəz in *min(V) ‘from’;inEthiopian, but Tigre hasmɨn, preposition isthesameasasseverativeparticle *ʕal(aj) ‘on,against’;cf.thePSverbalroot *ʕad(aj) ‘upto,until’;cf.the West Semiticverbalroot *la= West Semitic ‘to, for’ ( *ka= also*kiː /hana/ (Tonietti 2013: 51) early Sabaic;butlaterSabaictextshave *wi/ast’‑ ‘interior’ . ʔǝmǝnnä viaanobscuresetofdevelopments; lost in Akkadian, butEblaite has two bnd *ʔin-t-aj), meaning ‘at, via’ (Gəʕəz } =‘within’, {likemouth si-in indicates initial ‘to him’) and in the in and him’) ‘to Ancient South East language Ḥaḍramitic;in Arabian (and*kaj?)‘like, as’ *wast’(aj) ‘in, at’; as noted above, derived from a substantive min ‘in’ andminu‘from’ (Tonietti 2013:82–8) . bnd } =‘toward’, {inhand. ʔǝn-zä (in- ‘or’. Forsubordinatingconjunctions,see§4.8. *ʔaw ‘or’. loc *s or *ɬ (Tonietti 2013: 90–3), and in Ancient South dat *wa ‘and’, . bnd / / ins dir 3 n indicates initial acc ) } ‘according to’. ) ; apparently lost inEastSemitic, unless the s rel (= ʔǝntä) and‘with’ (Babylonian Akkadian 1 n, with*s) *pa/ʔap ‘and then, and so’ (these two are top ) *ʕ-l-j ‘togo up’ ‘while’ ) ‘today’ or‘daily’). Fortheadverbial bnd *la=, forwhichsee§3.10 ‘through the agency of’, {in } =‘through theagencyof’, *ʦ (inMinaic,Qatabanic, and *ʕ-d-w ‘tocross,traverse’ *mataj ‘when?’.Most Proto-Semitic 67 ana, Eblaite f ) *‑t, *ʔin-tV ʔa 5 ʔǝm itti -na - ,

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 (Bar-Asher Siegal 2011). A verb, finite a is however, Semitic, ­(Hasselbach 2007,Pat-El2009). form, withtheexceptionofimperatives(Huehnergard 1983);e.g.,Ugaritic: 3-invoke [ (both form attested in East and West Semitic: *laːisthe standard negator, while Pat-El (2012) andSjörs(2018)plausiblyreconstruct two PSnegators, both of whichare 3.9 68 even VSO (Kouwenberg 2017:698–703);further, Akkadian nameswithverbalelements are exceptions in Akkadian; forexample, Old Assyrian hasafewexamples of SVOand Arabic and Gəʕəz are predominantly VSO. Akkadian prose, conversely, is SOV. But there The ancient West Semiticlanguages suchasBiblical Hebrew, Old Aramaic, Classical 4.1 4 SYNTAX connector: *la=jaðkur Asseverative In Akkadian, Northwest Semitic,perhapsrelatedtoanegative Two presentative particles, 3.10 Northwest Semiticlanguages. jugation An existentialparticleinCentral Semitic is *jiθ‑‘thereis/are’;thecognateinEast Enclitic The particle Proclitic ,i.e., Old Babylonian ‘It wasthejudgewhodied.’ 3-die. *ja-mut receive John Huehnergard Word order Negation markers Other particles . pcs *jV-C pcs *=ma isatopicalizingparticle: (la=3.invoke. *la= marks asseveration or affirmation, and could be prefixed to virtually any judge- ) ‘mayhenotinvoke’. This originalsystemispreservedintact only inthe + also topicalized whole clauses, and became the most common clause common most the became and clauses, whole topicalized also =ma marks the short prefix conjugation verb specifically asinjunctive: specifically verb conjugation prefix short the marks *la= neg dajja(ː)n-um=ma 1 *law introduceshypotheticals: C 2 VC ad [ and ] nom 3 la=Baal- /la=baʕl-u ileqqû=ma ‘They willreceiveandthendivide.’ ‘Baal hasindeedfallen.’ *ʔal ja-ðkur ( whenusedwithinjunctive modal force,asin*ʔal = + pcs top vol negative counterpart, *han and ) . pcl ‘mayheinvoke’. ]) restricted originally to negating the short prefix con- prefix short the negating to originally restricted ]) nom .3

mpl *j-θ-w, which in Akkadian came to signify ‘to have’ napal-a/ fall. = *hal ‘here is ..’, may be reconstructed to PS top sc divide. - 3 izuzzū msg *law jaðkur‘wouldthathehadinvoked’. ʔin in Arabic andEthiopic. *ʔajn‑ ‘there is/are not’, appears in pcl .3 mpl *ʔal isa marked 26 neg

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 P–S orbothisuncertain: probably marked with *‑ainProto-Semitic (see n.21);whethersuchclauseswereS–P or Verbless clauses are a common feature of most Semitic languages. Predicate nouns were 4.2 are often VS (e.g.,i-šme –il-um3-hear Predicates mayalsobeadverbialadjuncts: noun subjectisthenessentiallyextraposed: Also reconstructible to PS is the use of anaphoric (=3rd person) pronounsas copulas; the genitives, relativeclauses). undoubtedly duetoprolongedcontactwithSumerian,whichisalso SOV. that Proto-Semitic was as isusuallysuggested,thechangetoSOVVSO; in Akkadian is there are numerous instances of VSO clauses (along with other orders). Thus it is likely relatively poetry shows free wordorder. Moreover, inEblaite, which isalsoEastSemitic, bound, as in are simplyjuxtaposed,buttheheadnounlacksending thatmarksnounsasnon- follows itsheadnoun.Inthetypecalleda“constructchain,” theheadanditsgenitive Two typesofgenitivephrases maybereconstructed,inbothofwhichthegenitive 4.3 See §3.10foranexistentialparticle In most Semitic languages (including Akkadian), heads precede modifiers (adjectives, ‘woman ofthehouse’. ‘Her motherisinyour( ‘Your ( ‘Your ( ‘Your ( father- *ʔab-uː-ki small‑ *ʦ’aɣir-a *ʔimm-u-sa father- *ʔab-uː-ki woman- *ʔanθ-at-u mother- Verbless clauses Noun modification acc nom nom fsg msg fsg nom f - / nom ) ) pred . . ) fatherislord.’ father(he)islord.’ bnd bnd fieldissmall.’ . bnd . bnd -2 -2

-3 fsg fsg fsg house‑ field- ħak’l-u-ka lord‑ in 28 dem ʔin suʔa bajt-i-m msg 27 nom baʕl-a . msg ) . house- bajt-i-ka house.’ bnd gen acc . nom -2 - / nbnd pred msg gen . *jiθ‑. pcs lord‑ . – baʕl-a bnd god -2 acc - msg nom / pred ‘thegodhasheard’),and Akkadian Proto-Semitic 69 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 or the (nonbound)headnoun(see§3.1.3): The other construction employs the relative marker, itself a bound form in apposition to 70 fsg 2006c: 17). bīt-um labir-umogy oftheheadnoun;e.g.,OldBabylonianbīt-um (house- Semitic languages such as Gǝʕəz, however, the concord is less strict for inanimates (see Chapter 6).In Arabic, brokenplurals(§3.3.2.2)ofinanimates areconstruedwithfor strict less is concord the however, Gǝʕəz, as such languages Semitic (and case,ifapplicable),thoughnotnecessarilyinboundness. InsomeEthiopian languages, attributiveadjectivesagreewiththeirheadnouns ingenderandnumber Semitic most In confidence. with reconstruct to difficult are PS in agreement of Rules 4.5 Agreement See §3.3.2.3. 4.4 West Semitic. For example, either of the following was possible. The first type became less common in and Arabic (Pat-El2010). This secondtypebecame rare insome West Semitic languages, suchasancient Hebrew the plural:ʔăra where thegenderofnoun in thesingulardeterminesgenderofadjective This contrastswitha West SemiticagreementpatternsuchasthatofBiblicalHebrew, ‘old house’,butpluralbīt-āt-um labir-āt-um ‘oldhouses’ (house- Only thefirsttypeofconstructionwasusedforpronominalpossessionin PS: In bothtypesofconstruction,aclausecouldstandinthepositiongenitive noun. *ʔanθ-at-u-m *ʔanθ-at-u-m ‘his wife’. ‘the womanwhomyou( ‘the womanyou( woman‑ *ʔanθ-at-u ‘woman ofthehouse’. woman‑ woman- *ʔanθ-at-u-su woman- adjectivesandverbs.In Akkadian, agreement inthe plural depends on themorphol- John Huehnergard Definite article f f f f - - - - nom nom nom nom ̊ ̄ y-ōt . - . - bnd bnd nbnd nbnd šōʔăḡ-īm ‘roaringlions’ (lion msg -3 2-invoke.

msg ) invoked’. θaːt-u θaːt-u rel rel ta-ðkur-u msg . . f f - - ) nom nom invoked’. pcs . . bnd bnd - sbrd 2-invoke. house‑ ta-ðkur-u bajt-i-m gen . m pcs - - fpl nbnd - sbrd roaring- mpl fpl ) (seeHuehnergard - nom nom old. old- msg fpl - - nom nom ). ). ) Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 Old Assyrian examples: Old Assyrian Biblical Hebrew.Biblical a with verb the of agreement again, Gəʕəz, In singular whentheyprecede plural subjects;sporadicinstancesofthisarealsofoundin obligatorily marked with a final a with marked obligatorily filled byaresumptivepronoun: see §4.3forexamples. The syntactic roleoftheheadnouninrelative sentence may be slot of attributives, and are introduced either by the relative marker orbya bound form; Interrogative sentences are marked variously in the descendant languages 4.7 See §3.9. 4.6 Negation is optional. bound formnouns,suchas*jawm-a(day noted in§3.6,certain prepositions also function as subordinating conjunctions, as do ducing temporal, causal,comparative and objectclauses(‘when,because,as,that’). As A commonSemiticsubordinating conjunction is *kiː 4.8 Subordination Ethiopic – andsoitisdifficulttoreconstructthePSsituation. tion or stressin Akkadian, proclitic particles in Arabic and Hebrew, enclitic particles in izes Central Semitic, the PS short prefix conjugation form with the subordination marker Semitic and inModernSouth Arabian. Butinadiagnosticdevelopment thatcharacter allomorphs with 2012), (Hasselbach PS from inherited was nominalized, as marked are verbs finite deriving from*‑na(withdissimilation to‑niafteraː).Itislikely that thisfeature, in which Other subordinationmarkers,‑naandni,arealsoattestedin Akkadian, bothprobably Verbs agreestrictlywiththeirsubjectsin Akkadian. InClassical Arabic, verbsare In East Semitic, finite verbs in subordinate clauses, both relative and other types, are types, other and relative both clauses, subordinate in verbs finite Semitic, East In kutān-um *ʔanθ-at-um woman- as brother- ‘as brothergivestobrother’. kīma ‘the textilethatthepalacetook’. ‘the woman textile- Interrogative sentences nom aḫ-um f *‑u afterconsonantsandnavowels. The feature islostinEthiopian - nom

rel ša rel

nom yousawherhouse’,i.e.,‘thewomanwhosehouse saw’. θaːt-u rel palace‑ ekall-um to . f - ana nom . nom bnd brother- aḫ-em *‑u iftheverbhasnootherending,

2-see. 3-take. i-lqe-u ta-ʔmur-u gen - acc pcs

pcs - 3-give i-ddun-u . - sbrd bnd sbrd ) house- ‘when’.Relative clauses occupy the . , withawidesemantic range, intro - pcl bajt-a-sa - sbrd acc f . or bnd 29 pl Proto-Semitic 71 -3 asinthefollowing inanimate subject fsg – e.g., intona - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3

*‑u/*na, e.g., 72 NOTES well as,e.g.,Latin(Salonen1952: 9). shovel’, alsoinSumerian Chapter 1, §2.2.3). imperfective form, aformthat completely replaced the inherited PS form*jiðakkar Arabic from I-E*h Afro-Asiatic cognate sets. extensive to compile difficult notoriously been has it But fly’. flee, ‘to die’ and*p-r-r languages; examples are (PS) *sim‑‘name’, vocabulary androotsmayalsobefoundinBennett(1998)Huehnergard (2011). Proto-Semitic wordsispresentedby Wilson-Wright (forthc.).ListsofcommonSemitic A subgrouping. of issues examine to vocabulary Semitic of survey overviews ofthePSlexicon;inamuchlarger work,Kogan2015usesacomprehensive monograph-length are (2011b) Kogan and (1964–71) Fronzaroli (2005). Names” “Animal by semantic field; two volumes have appeared, “Anatomy of Man and Animals” (2000) and Hebrew alphabet. The Hebrew as ofthemostrecentfascicle(2012),butisstillonly40%complete;itinorder able. The reconstructed toPS. A An extensivesetofpronouns,primarynouns,numerals,verbalrootsandparticlescanbe 5 LEXICON rather perplexingrangeofverbformsacrosstheSemiticlanguages. ing conjunction Indo-European from Sumerian 5 4 3 2 1 (> Akkadian wemay posit PS *sin(=ma) For ‘if’, Common Semitic wordsthat are, or may be, loans include Beyond Semitic itself, a few PSwordsand roots have cognates in other Afro-Asiatic the appearance of subbranches of West Semitic and then spread to most albeit not change The be needy, poor’ fromthePSroot*p-k’-r. (with somesemantic disambiguation) fromthePSroot*b-k’-r , inaddition f-q-r to ‘to vidual language;e.g., Arabic has bothb-q-r‘tosplit,slit’ andf-q-r‘topierce, slit’ indi- an in reflexes have root original single a of byforms two the instances some In cross-linguistically, [s]>[h]ismuchmorecommonthan [ʃ]>[h]. see thethirdofsetphonological processes presented following Table Further, aconditioned change a tie-bar(t Throughout this chapter, affricates are transcribed as ligatures (ʦ, ʣ) rather than with this chapter. The velar/uvular fricatives will be represented simply as velars (x, ɣ, x’) elsewhere in John Huehnergard ʔin). The apodosisofaconditional sentence could beintroduced by thecoordinat Dictionnaire desracinessémitiques(Cohenet al.1970–)runstonearly1,300pages 2 steːr ͜ s, d 3 *tauro‑ and*kr *wa ‘and’.Bothprotasesandapodosesofconditional sentences exhibit a é-gal ‘house-big’,andprobably*θawr *s >*hwasnotaProto-West Semitic phenomenon, butoccurred after msg ͜ z). ‑ ‘star’. 30

complete dictionaryofcommonSemiticvocabularyisnotyetavail- , by Militarev and Kogan, is arranged Semitic EtymologicalDictionary,byMilitarevandKogan,isarranged *jaðkur-u, 31 mar, Egyptian Other words are ofuncertainorigin,e.g.,*marr Otherwords ̥ ‑n-, andthe deity name 3 mpl *s >*hoccurred in early West Semitic, for which

ws enlzd s nw marked new a as reanalyzed was *jaðkuruː-na, mr andperhapselsewhere in Afro-Asiatic, as *lis(aːn)‑ ‘tongue’, and the roots *m-w-t‘to šumma, Aramaic ‑ ‘bull’ and*k’arn‑‘horn’ from *ʕaθtar *hajkal‑ ‑ ‘morning/evening star’

Leipzig-Jakarta list of of list Leipzig-Jakarta hin, Gəʕəz ‘temple, palace’, ‑ ‘spade, ʔǝmmä, (see 3.2; - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3

18 16 15

17 19 20

14 13 12 11 10 7 8 6 9 (err. The final vowels of many of these forms, and also of the pronominal suffixes pre- sented in Table suffixes 3.5areoftenreconstructed with variable length, e.g., pronominal the of also and forms, these of many of vowels final The (2018) positaProto-Berbero-Semitic distinction between perfective *ja-C (2008) offers counter-arguments; seealso Testen (1992).Kossmannand Suchard dual form,*ʔaðkuraː,i.e.,the first-person a exhibit Akkadian (rarely) and languages Arabian South Modern The The vowel of the for anancestralProto-Berbero-Semitic(KossmannandSuchard2018). Essentially the same system of formsand functions has recently been reconstructed occasional minimal pairs distinguished by stress: e.g., Gǝʕəz ˈsǝḥ.tät ‘error’ vs. In someofthedescendantlanguages,soundchangesandmovementstressresultedin root retainedtheoriginal in Akkadian), viz.: 1 viz.: Akkadian), in part, most the for (as, consonants the with homorganic partly were prefixes person is a Central Semitic innovation, and that in PS, forall verb classes, the vowels ofthe Hasselbach (2004b) proposes instead that the distribution for whichsee§3.5.4. The (2014: 141,2018: 165). see Kouwenberg (2005:100–1,2017:485);forModernSouth Arabian, seeRubin For Akkadian, PS. from inheritance reflect they that than duals 3rd-person and 2nd- these areindependentinnovations onthereadyanalogyofmore widelyattested See alsoBar-Asher (2008), whoreconstructs*ðakur,*sarik’and*limad. *ʔanaː (inSemitic scholarship, called “anceps vowels,”andwritten,e.g.,ā ( (whole- Thus, e.g.,forthe root *s-l-m‘(to be) whole’,while languages, atthegeographicalperiphery. all ofthelanguages;changeisnotfoundinseveral Ancient South Arabian was alsoamarkerof Paired partsofthebodyarepresumably ‘memorial stone’. *ja-C of therooty-l-d‘togivebirth’;maṣṣɛbɛt<*manʦ’ib-t-andmaṣṣēå the other the reflex of of reflex the showing one words, some of byforms exhibits fact in Hebrew For theproto-formsof‘father’ see Wilson-Wright and‘brother’, (2016b). stand’. (build. ‘to need’;rootsoftheformC There areexceptions,suchascommonSemitic*n-t-n‘togive’, Akkadian ḫ-š-ḫ ‘(to be)broad’ andsḫw‘breadth’. radical first with roots of forms in alternations similar exhibits Egyptian marker” (Cohenforthc.). constituent-question general abstract “an as it analyzes study recent a so and guages, element The Hasselbach (2004a)forarguments thatthesevowels areoriginallyshort. 3 f -whole. sc 3 1 fpl . C sc 3 3 2 fsg .3 mayinsteadhavehad iC fsg mpl pcs 3 ‘h erd; ilcl erw ˈbå Hebrew Biblical erred’; ‘she ) andstative ) *ʔajj- is also a component in a wide variety of forms inthe descendant lan- wouldhavebecome**halim-at,theform*ti-slam‘shebecamewhole’ ) would have remained unaffected by the rule, and so all forms of the ) ‘they( pcl eventually also appears in the Westin appears also conjugation, eventually suffix Semitic sg fpl *-at; e.g., m

) *ji-C *ʔa‑, 2 ; see§3.3.2.2. built’. *s. 1 C 1 sg 2 1 t‑, likethe lɛdɛt <*lid-t- aC -w-C csg /2 3 pl withthedualending*‑aː.Itismorelikelythat . /3 1 andC fsg f becausethemarkerof 3

*ta‑, fsg 1 and -j-C . ̄ .nū (in.1 3 msg 1 lēdå arealsofound,e.g.,*ð-w-ð‘to /3 ̄ <*lid-at- pl cpl *jaðkur, *jantin

*ji‑, *salim-at ‘sheiswhole’ ) ‘amongus’ vs.bå 1 Proto-Semitic 73 , both attested as cpl

̄ <*manʦ’ib-at- *ni‑. Bar-Asher nom 1 csg w, asinwsḫ

vs. *jislam dual

*ʔana or sǝḥ.ˈtät 1 *-t and C ̆ ). See , 2 *-aː, ̄ uC .ˈnū inf 3 ,

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 24 23 28 27 26 25 oprtv Smtc igitc: A Linguistics: Semitic Bennett, Patrick R. Comparative Further reading:overviews,comparativegrammars,andtextbooks General bibliographyontheSemiticlanguagefamily BIBLIOGRAPHY 31 30 29 21 74 22 Hetzron, Robert(ed.). Processes. Relations, Structures, Features, Languages: Goldenberg, Gideon.Semitic Goldenberg, Gideon.StudiesinSemiticLinguistics Brockelmann, Carl. Grundrissdervergleichenden Grammatik dersemitischen Sprachen. egtäsr Gotthelf. Bergsträsser, Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress, 2013. 2 vol. Berlin:vonReuther, 1908–13. Eisenbrauns, 1983. the Semitic Languages. Text SpecimensandGrammaticalSketches and Notes with Translated Bibliography and an Appendix on the Scripts by Peter T. Daniels, as 1928. Hueber, Max München: grammatische Skizzen. Eisenbrauns, 1998. Babylonian Old as such glide, or pharyngeal, laryngeal, a originally was radical first the which This formisfoundin Akkadian, thoughonlymarginally, forexample, in verbs among thestems,seeBjøru(2014). On therelationships of thestemstovalency and transitivity, andtheinterrelationships 2006c: 10). adigmatic passive participles of thebasicverbstem(seeagain§3.3.1;Huehnergard is fixedasP But theconstructionthatpredicatesaverbaladjectivewithanencliticsubjectpronoun influence, headsfollowmodifiers;seeLeslau(1945),Gensler(1997). In most modern Ethiopian Semitic languages, which are SOV asa result of Cushitic adverb ayyānu‘where?’. Akkadian Babylonian Middle also occurrarelyinHebrew. The N stem and On thelast,see Wilson-Wright (2016a:23–5). For aplausibleanalysisoftheprocess,seeHamori(1973). For thesubordinationmarker It islikely that 3 ogy with the D stem (Tropper 1997: 189–93). In Gəʕəz, PS Gəʕəz, In 189–93). 1997: (Tropper stem D the with ogy to ǝasinotherGəʕəz jawärrǝd ‘he brings down’,from in Another West Semitic development is thefrequentlengthening of thesecondvowel marked nominalpredicates;seeHasselbach(2012). < stem called the ŠD, whichisrestricted to poetry, asinOldBabylonian *ju-ha-C Akkadian, John Huehnergard *ju-sa-narrat’ (3 *CaCVC adjectives, especially as 1 aC *ju-sa-C – S,e.g.,*k’arub‑ti(near- 2 ušaḫḫaz < C 2 aC t stemsalso have internal passives inClassical Arabic; such forms msg 3 The SemiticLanguages > - 1 ifhug n i smtshn pahn Srcpoe und Sprachproben Sprachen: semitischen die in Einführung caus aC

pcl *ju-ʔa-C *‑a isoriginally the same as the 2 C *ju-sa-ʔaxxað (3- -tremble. forms. 2 aC 3 ‑u inEblaite,seeCatagnoti(2012:136–7). hasbeenreplaced by *ju-sa-C yānu ‘thereis/arenot’ derivesfromtheinterrogative 1 aC w-r-d ‘to descend’), with the theme vowel leveled pcl 2 C *CaCiːC and 2 ) ‘shemakes(people) tremble’. Otherwisein aC 2 fsg 3 > . London/New York: Routledge, 1997. ) ‘you caus *jaː-C . Jerusalem:Magnes, 1998. -seize. ( fsg *CaCuːC, which then serve as par 1 aC ) are/were near’; see§3.5.4. are/werenear’; 2 pcl

C Manual. Winona Lake, IN: 2 aC acc ) ‘he incites’, and in the 3 case,whichinter alia → *ju-sa-C 1 C jaC . Winona Lake,IN: 2 aC 1 äC Introduction to 3 , viaananal- 1 2 aC C 2 ǝC 2 ušnarraṭ C 2 3 aC (e.g., 3 > -

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 Izre’el, Shlomo (ed.). Shlomo Izre’el, Huehnergard,Heritage John.“Proto-Semitic Language and Culture.” In TheAmerican Huehnergard, John.“Afro-Asiatic.”InTheCambridgeEncyclopedia oftheWorld’s Huehnergard, John.“Semitic Languages.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Bjøru, Øyvind. “The Morphology of the G-Stem Imperative in Semitic.” Forthcoming in Bjøru, Øyvind.“Transitivity and theBinyanim.” In Proceedings oftheOslo – Austin Beckman, JohnCharles.Toward theMeaningofBiblical Hebrew PielStem.Ph.D. Diachronic Elitzur and Typology“From Siegal, Synchronic Bar-AsherA. Diachrony: to Cohen, David,et al. Dictionaries Weninger, Stefan(ed.).The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Handbücher D. Rubin, Aaron Moscati, Sabatino (ed.).An Lipiński, Edward. Lipiński, Isoglosses.Boston/ Lexical The Semitic: of Classification Kogan, Leonid.Genealogical Kienast, Burkhart.HistorischesemitischeSprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 2: Animal 1: Vol. Dictionary. Etymological Militarev, Alexander, andLeonid Kogan. Semitic Bar-Asher, Elitzur A. “The Imperative Forms of Proto-Semitic and a New Perspective on Aro, Jussi.DieVokalisierungim semitischenVerbum desGrundstammes . Studia Additional references Houghton MifflinHarcourt, 2011. Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition, 2066–78. Boston/New York: University Press, 2004. Ancient Languages, edited by RogerD. Woodard, 138–59.Cambridge: Cambridge edited byJackM.Sasson,4.2117–34. New York: Scribners, 1995. Journal ofthe American Oriental Society Wiesbaden:88. Harrassowitz, 2014. Morgenlandes des Kunde die für Abhandlungen 48–63. Huehnergard, John and Edzard Lutz by Workshopedited inSemiticLinguistics,Oslo,May 23 and24,2013, dissertation, HarvardUniversity, 2015. Historica 32(2011): 43–88. Aspects ofPredicative Possessive Constructions in Akkadian.” zur Sprach-undKommunikationswissenschaft36.Berlin:deGruyterMouton, 2011. Gorgias, 2010. Languages: PhonologyandMorphology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964. Lovaniensia Analecta 80.Leuven:Peeters/Departement OosterseStudies, 1997. Berlin: deGruyter, 2015. 2001. Century. IsraelOrientalStudies20. Winona Lake,IN:Eisenbrauns, 2002. Names. Münster:Ugarit, 2005. Anatomy ofManand Animals. Münster:Ugarit, 2000. sémitiques. Paris/TheHague:Mouton/Leuven:Peeters,1970–. Barth’s Law.” Journalofthe American OrientalSociety Orientalia 31.Helsinki:SocietasOrientalisFennica, 1964. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar Comparative a of Outline Languages: Semitic A Brief Introduction to the Semitic Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Dictionnaire desracines sémitiques ouattestées dans leslangues Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st the of Turn the at Art the of State The Linguistics: Semitic Introduction tothe Comparative . 128(2008):233–55. rammar of theSemitic Grammar Proto-Semitic 75 Folia Linguistica . Orientalia Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 Hasselbach, Rebecca. “External Plural Markersin Semitic: A ae n eii: oe, eain, n Reconstruction and Relations, Roles, Semitic: in Hasselbach, Rebecca.Case Hasselbach, Rebecca. “The Verbal Endings-uand-a: A Hasselbach, Rebecca. “Demonstratives inSemitic.” of Prefixes the in Number and Gender, Person, of Markers “The Rebecca. Hasselbach, Personal Independent and Suffixes VowelsPronominal “Final on Rebecca. Hasselbach, Hartmann, Martin. DiePluriliteralbildungen in densemitischen Sprachen. Mit Hamori, Andras. “A Greenberg, JosephH.“ThePatterningofRootMorphemesinSemitic.” Cohen, Eran.“The Interrogative Element Cantineau, Jean.“Leconsonantismedusémitique.” 76 Catagnoti, Amalia. Fox, Joshua.“Isolated Nouns in the Semitic Languages.” Faber, Alice. “AkkadianEvidence forProto-Semitic Affricates.” JournalofCuneiform Faber, Alice. “Semitic Sibilants in an Afro-Asiatic Context.” Faber, Alice. Fronzaroli, Pelio. “Studie sul lessico commune semitico.” commune lessico sul “Studie Pelio. Fronzaroli, Fox, Joshua. Gensler, OrinD.“Mari Akkadian Press, 2013. Studies inDiachronic &Historical Linguistics 3. Oxford:OxfordUniversity 119–36. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 67. Chicago: Oriental Institute, Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday HuehnergardJohn Presentedthe Nature:to Papers on and Derivation.” In Language Institute, 2009. Cynthia Miller, 123–38. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 60. Chicago: Oriental Studies inSemitic and Afroasiatic LanguagesPresented toGeneB.Gragg,edited by Society 124 (2004b):23–35. G-Preformative Conjugations in Semitic.” Pronouns inSemitic.” des Zweiten durchBildung 1: Wiederholung nach Ersten des und Schluss am Radicales letzten des besonderer Berücksichtigung des Hebräischen,Chaldäischen und Neusyrischen. (1973): 319–24. 162–81. 9 Frne Dpriet d Sine elAtcià Mdov e iacmno e Rinascimento e Medioevo dell’Antichità, Linguistica, 2012. Scienze di Dipartimento Firenze: 29. Comparative SemiticSyntax.” Studies 37(1985):101–7. 29 (1984):189–224. University of Texas at Austin, 1980. der DeutschenMorgenländischen Gesellschaft. Eisenbrauns, 2003. (1998): 1–31. (VII). 246–69 (IV);23(1968):267–303(V);24(1969):285–320(VI);26(1971):603–42 Nazionale deiLincei John Huehnergard 127(2007):1–27. Semitic Noun Patterns. Harvard Semitic Studies 52. Winona Lake, IN: Genetic Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, The . Halle: Waisenhaus, 1875. Note onYaqtulu inEastand West Semitic.” La grammatica della lingua diEbla.QuaderniSemitistica 19(1964):155–72(I),243–80(II);20(1965):135–50(III), Journal ofSemiticStudies Orientalia iš , edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‘ama Pat-El, ‘to,for’ andPreposition-Hopping intheLightof *’ayy- inSemitic.” Forthcoming in Zeitschrift 66(1997):129–56. Journal of the American Oriental Society 49(2004a):1–20. Semitica Journal ofthe American Oriental Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift Rendiconti della Accademia Rendiconti Note on Their Functional 4(1951–52):79–94. Journal ofSemitic Studies New Assessment.” In Archiv Orientální Word 6(1950): . Oxford 2012. Part 41 11 11

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 Khan, Geoffrey A. Khan, Huehnergard, JohnandNa‘ama Pat-El. “The OriginoftheSemitic Relative Marker.” Semitic Languages: An Languages: Kogan, Leonid.“Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology.” InSemitic Definite as Suffixes Possessive Person “Third Pat-El. Na‘ama and John Huehnergard, Huehnergard, John.“TheSemiticBackgroundof InNoTappingArabic faqīr‘poor’.” Huehnergard, John.“Reanalysis and NewRoots: An Akkadian Perspective.” In Huehnergard, John.“AkkadianeandSemitic Root Integrity.” BabelundBibel Huehnergard, John.“Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian.” In The Akkadian Language in Kossmann, Maarten, and Benjamin D.Suchard.“A Korchin, PaulD.MarkednessinCanaaniteandHebrew Verbs . HarvardSemitic Studies International An Languages: Semitic Kogan, Leonid. “Proto-Semitic Lexicon.” In The Huehnergard, John.“OntheEtymologyofHebrewRelative Kouwenberg, N. J.C. Huehnergard, John.“Hebrew Verbs I–w/yandaProto-Semitic Sound Rule.” In Huehnergard, John.“FeaturesofCentral Semitic.” In Biblical and OrientalEssays Huehnergard, John.“Akkadian Huehnergard, John.“Asseverative*la‑andHypothetical Hasselbach, Rebecca. “Agreement andtheDevelopment of GenderinSemitic.” Bulletin oftheSchoolOrientaland African Studies zur Sprach-undKommunikationswissenschaft36.Berlin:de Gruyter Mouton,201 et Weninger Stefan by edited International Handbook, Oxford University, 1988. Articles inSemitic.” 70th Thacskton’s McIntosh Harrassowitz, 2014b. Wheeler of Honor Birthday in Festschrift Philology: around Kunde desMorgenlandes 88. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,2014a. die für 9–27. Abhandlungen Huehnergard, John and Edzard Lutz by edited 24, 2013, Proceedings ofthe Oslo–Austin Workshop inSemitic Linguistics, Oslo,May 23and 445–75. edited byGuyDeutscherandN.J.C.Kouwenberg, 1–18.Leiden:NINO,2006c. BC, Millennium Second and Thirdthe of Akkadian the in Studies Context: Semitic its Steven E.Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz,103–25. Winona Lake,IN:Eisenbrauns,2006b. Perspectives Historical and Typological Setting: Semitic Northwest Its in 58. Winona Lake,IN:Eisenbrauns, 2008. Kommunikationswissenschaft 36.Berlin:deGruyterMouton, 2011b. et WeningerStefan by edited Handbook, Leiden: Van Gorcum, 1997. Studies 81(2018):41–56. Aspects inProto-Berbero-Semitic.” Tishchenko =Babel undBibel M. Diakonoff Memoriae Igor Orientalia 48.Rome:PontificioIstitutoBiblico, 2005. in Memory of William L. Moran,edited by Agustinus Gianto, 155–203. Biblica et Militarev volume).Moscow:RussianStateUniversityfortheHumanities, 2003. Leonid Kogan, 102–19. Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute, 3 (Alexander the American OrientalSociety Zeitschrift derDeutschenMorgenländischen Gesellschaft , edited by Alireza Korangy and Daniel Sheffield, 243–54. Wiesbaden: 243–54. Sheffield, Daniel and Korangy Alireza by edited , Studies inSemitic Syntax Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica. Journal ofHistoricalLinguistics ḫ and West Semitic 103(1983):569–93. 2(2006a):459–74. Loesov,Koslova, S. , editedbyL.Kogan,N. andS. Bulletin of theSchoolOriental and African al., 179–258. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Sprach- zur Handbücher 179–258. al., . LondonOriental Studies 38.Oxford: Reconstruction of theSystem Verb *ḥ.” InStudiaSemitica 81(2018):191–204. 2(2012):25–51. *lū/law al., pp. al., 164(2014):33–64,319–44. šɛ‑.” InBiblical Hebrew inSemitic.” 54–151. Handbücher 54–151. Proto-Semitic 77 , edited by , editedby Journal of 7(2013): 1a. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 Kouwenberg, N. J. C. “Reflections on the Gt-stem inAkkadian.” Gt-stem the on “Reflections C. J. N. Kouwenberg, 78 Rubin, Aaron D. Rubin, Aaron Rubin, Aaron D. Rubin, Aaron Semitic: Comparative and Arabic in Problem Plural ‘Broken’ Ratcliffe, RobertR.The Phillips, Betty S. “Lexical Diffusion and Function Words.” Linguistics 21(1983): 487–99. Pat-El, Na‘ama and Alexander Treiger. “On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases Prepositional of Treiger.Adnominalization “On Alexander and Na‘ama Pat-El, Pat-El, Na‘ama. “Digging Up Archaic Features: ‘Neo-Arabic’ andComparative Semitic Pat-El, Na‘ama.“OnNegationinPhoenician.” In LinguisticStudiesinPhoenician in Pat-El, Na‘ama. “On Verbal Negation in Semitic.” A Article: Definite Pat-El, Na‘ama. “On Periphrastic Genitive Constructions in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Semitic the of Development “The Na‘ama. Pat-El, Lieberman, Stephen J.“The Afro-Asiatic BackgroundoftheSemitic N-Stem: Toward Leslau, Wolf. “The Influence of Cushitic on the Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Kouwenberg, N.J.C.A GrammarofOld . Leiden:Brill, 2017. Assyrian Salonen, Armas. “Alte Substrat- und Kulturwörter im Arabischen.” Steiner, Richard C. EarlyNorthwestSemiticSerpent SpellsinthePyramidTexts. Harvard York:New Languages. American Semitic the in Ṣade Steiner, Richard C. Affricated Steiner,Oriental Richard C. TheCase for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. American Sjörs, Ambjörn. Sanmartín, Joaquín. “ÜberRegeln und Ausnahmen: Verhalten des vorkonsonantischen in SemiticLanguagesandLinguistics72.Leiden:Brill, 2014. Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-concatenative Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1998. Non-concatenative Allomorphy and Analogy in 158 (2006):265–82. ländischen Gesellschaft Assyriologie and Adverbs inSemitic.” and Linguistics89.Leiden:Brill, 2017. Leiden University in theQuestforProto Arabic.” InArabic in Context: Celebrating 400 47–67. Winona Lake,IN:Eisenbrauns, 2013. Memory of Brian J. Peckham, edited by Robert D. Holmstedt and Aaron Schade, Studies 51(2010):43–8. 577–628. the Origins ofthe Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Verb.” of Substratum.” and Linguistics93.Leiden:Brill, 2018. Approach.” JournalofSemiticStudies Semitic Studies61. Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 2011. Academy forJewishResearch, 1982. Series 59.NewHaven: American OrientalSociety, 1977. Languages andLinguistics91.Leiden:Brill, 2018. Bercker; and Butzon Kevelaer: 240. Testament Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, Altes 1995. und Loretz, Orient Oswald Alter and 433–66. Dietrich Manfried by edited Wolfram Freiherrn vonSoden, /n/ im‘Altsemitischen.’ 17/2 (1952):1–12. John Huehnergard 95(2005):77–103. Omani Mehri: A Historical Aspects ofStandard Negation in Semitic. Studiesin Semitic The Jibbali (Shaḥri) Language of Oman: Grammar and Textsand Grammar . Studies Oman: of Language (Shaḥri) Jibbali The Word , editedby Ahmad Al-Jallad, 441–75.StudiesinSemitic Languages 1(1945):59–82. 162(2012):17–45.

Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Festschrift Testament: Alten zum Orient ” InVomAlten Zeitschrift der DeutschenMorgenländischen Gesellschaft

New Grammar with Texts. Studies in Semitic Languages 54(2009):19–50. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen­ Bibliotheca Orientalis 43(1986): Studia Orientalia Years of Arabic at Zeitschrift für

Syntactic

Problem

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:11 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780429025563, chapter3, 10.4324/9780429025563-3 Tonietti,Maria Vittoria. Testen, David.“A Steiner, RichardC.“Vowel SyncopeandSyllable Repair ProcessesinProto-Semitic Whiting, RobertM.“TheRStem(s)in Akkadian.” Voigt, Rainer. “Die Präpositionen im Semitischen – Über Morphologisierungsprozesse im Tropper, Josef.“Probleme des akkadischen Verbalparadigmas.” Wilson-Wright, Aren. “Father, Brother, andFather-in-Law as III-wNounsinSemitic.” Wilson-Wright, Aren. Zemánek, Petr. TheOriginsofPharyngealizationinSemitic Wilson-Wright, Aren. “Rethinking theRelationship between EgyptianandSemitic: Wilson-Wright, Aren. “The Word for ‘One’ in Proto-Semitic.” og, anr “i Ltrleh / ś /ś Lateralreihe “Die Rainer. Voigt, og, anr “eiaie ud flektives und “Derivatives Rainer.Voigt, Studies 51(1992):131–3. a-l 359. tde i Acet retl iiiain 7 Ciao Oriental Chicago: 67. Civilization Oriental Ancient Institute, 2012. in Studies 365–90. Pat-El, on theOccasionofHisSixtieth Birthday HuehnergardJohn to Presented Papers Nature: and Construct Forms.” InLanguage eie b Lt Ezr ad oamd erui 2–3 Wiesbaden: 22–43. Harrassowitz, 1999. Nekroumi, Mohammed and Edzard Lutz by edited Languages, Semitischen.” In Tradition and Innovation: Norm and Deviation in Arabic and Semitic Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Studi orientali1. Venezia: Ca’ Foscari, 2013. Bulletin oftheSchoolOrientaland African Studies BronzeLate Age. Tübingen: MohrSiebeck,2016a. 59 (2014):1–13. Assyriology. Providence,RI:BrownUniversityPress,forthcoming. and Egyptology in Studies Wilbour Štubňová. Silvia Victoriaand Almansa-Villatoro Departure of Ancient Egyptian as aBranchfrom the Afroasiatic Family?,edited by The Origins: the The Phonological andMorphologicalEvidence.” In Rethinking Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1987. and WalterJungraithmayr Herrmann by edited W.1983, Müller, 85–107. Amsterdam/ the FourthInternational Hamito-Semitic Congress, Marburg, 20–22September, Forschungen 24(1997):189–210.

Trace of Barth’s Preradical Athtart: The Transmission and Transformation of a Goddess in the Aspetti del sistema preposizionale dell’Eblaita 142(1992):37–52. / m Semitischen. im ź/ ̣ timSemitohamitischen.” In Proceedings of , edited by Rebecca Hasselbach andNa‘ama in Akkadian.” *i Orientalia 79(2016b):23–32. . Praha:Enigma, 1996. 50(1981):1–39. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Journal of Semitic Studies Journal ofNearEastern Proto-Semitic 79 . Antichistica 2, . Antichistica Altorientalische