DOCSLIB.ORG

Thesis (PDF, 5Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok: A Comparative Perspective By Dorota Molin TRINITY HALL This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies University of Cambridge March, 2021 DECLARATION This thesis is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any work that has already been submitted before for any degree or other qualification except as declared in the preface and specified in the text. The dissertation does not ex- ceed the word limit of 80,000 as set by the Degree Committee for the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. For Sarah Adaqi and the larger ‘Dohok’ community of Maʿoz Ziyyon, Israel. – Yarxi xayax, Sota Sarah! CONTENTS ABSTRACT XV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS XVII LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS XIX LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES XXIII INTRODUCTION 1 Aims and their justification 1 Linguistic and historical background of NENA 3 The linguistic and social background of J. Dohok Neo-Aramaic 4 Literature review 6 Organisation of the thesis 7 Sources & methodology 9 0.6.1. Data collection and sources 9 0.6.2. Transcription 12 0.6.3. Glossing and terminology 13 0.6.4. Linguistic methodology: a theory-grounded grammatical description and study of microvariation 17 PHONOLOGY THE SEGMENTS: CONSONANTS AND VOWELS 23 Introduction 23 Consonants 25 1.2.1. Consonantal phonemes 25 1.2.2. Historical background of selected phonemes 27 1.2.2.1. Dental stops and fricatives /t/, /θ/, /d/ and /ð/ 27 1.2.2.2. The pharyngeals /ḥ/ and /ʿ/ 28 1.2.2.2.1. Words with a historical pharyngeal in the vicinity of an emphatic or q: 29 ii CONTENTS 1.2.2.2.2. Words with a lost historical pharyngeal in J. Dohok 30 1.2.2.2.3. Innovated pharyngeals 31 1.2.2.2.4. Historical background of pharyngeals in NENA 31 1.2.2.3. Emphatic phonemes 32 1.2.2.3.1. Phonetic properties of NENA emphatics 32 1.2.2.3.2. The emphatic phonemes in J. Dohok 34 1.2.2.3.3. The historical Aramaic emphatics /ṭ/ and /ṣ/ 36 1.2.2.3.4. Secondary emphatics in native words 37 1.2.2.3.5. Loan phonemes 39 1.2.2.4. /v/ and /f/ 40 1.2.2.5. /q/ 40 1.2.2.6. /ġ/ 40 1.2.2.7. /ʾ/ 41 Vowels 45 1.3.1. Introduction 45 1.3.2. Vowel phonemes 45 1.3.3. Phonetic properties of phonemes and their allophones 48 1.3.3.1. /a/ and /ă/ 50 1.3.3.2. /e/ 52 1.3.3.3. /i/ 53 1.3.3.4. /o/ 53 1.3.3.5. /u/ 55 1.3.3.6. /ǝ/ as allophone and phoneme 56 1.3.4. Diphthongs and their reflexes 58 1.3.4.1. *ay > e 58 1.3.4.2. *aw > o 58 1.3.4.3. *iy >i, *əw > u and *uw > u 59 CONTENTS iii PHONETIC PROCESSES AND LARGER PHONOLOGICAL UNITS 61 2.1. Phonetically-conditioned processes affecting consonants 61 2.1.1. Devoicing 61 2.1.2. Aspiration 61 2.1.3. Place assimilation 62 2.1.4. Complete phoneme assimilation of the l in L-suffixes 62 2.1.5. Sonorant interchange 62 2.2. Emphasis spread (affecting consonants and vowels) 65 2.2.1. Degrees of emphasis caused by the emphatic phonemes 68 2.2.2. Directionality of spread 70 2.2.3. Domain of emphasis spread 71 2.3. Phonotactics 75 2.3.1. Consonant cluster resolution 75 2.3.1.1. Word-final CC cluster resolved CǝC 76 2.3.1.2. Word-internal CCC cluster resolved CCǝC 76 2.3.1.3. Word-internal CCC cluster with liquid as C2 resolved CǝCC 77 2.3.1.4. Word-initial CCC clusters (with a morpheme boundary between C1 and C2) resolved CəCC 77 2.3.1.5. CC cluster with C1 /ʾ/ resolved with CVC 78 2.3.2. Syllable structure, vowel length and lexical stress 79 2.3.2.1. Lexical stress 79 2.3.2.2. Loanwords 80 2.3.2.3. Complex verbal and enclitic copula forms 81 2.3.2.3.1. Forms based on šaqəl 83 2.3.2.3.2. Forms based on šqəlle 87 2.3.2.3.3. Forms with enclitic copula 87 iv CONTENTS 2.3.2.3.4. The Imperative 88 2.3.3. Annexation units 89 2.3.3.1. Historical construct state 90 2.3.3.2. Neo-construct state 90 2.3.2.3.5. Apocopation causing syllable closure (CV.CV > CV̄C and CVC) 91 2.3.2.3.6. Apocopation causing syllable opening (C.CV > C.əC) 92 2.3.4. Forms with numerals 93 2.4. Intonation units: nucleus stress and pause 94 MORPHOLOGY PRONOUNS 101 3.1. Independent personal pronouns 101 3.2. Demonstrative pronouns 102 3.2.1. Near and far deixis 102 3.2.2. Very far deixis 102 3.2.3. Anaphoric pronouns 103 3.3. Pronominal suffixes on nouns and prepositions 103 3.4. The independent genitive particle 106 3.5. Reflexive pronoun 107 3.6. The pronoun of independence 108 3.7. The pronoun of isolation 108 3.8. Interrogative pronouns 109 3.9. Indefinite pronouns 109 OVERVIEW OF NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES 111 Nouns 111 4.1.1. Singular endings 111 4.1.2. Plural forms 112 CONTENTS v 4.1.2.1. Semantically masculine nouns with -a (SG) and -aθa (PL) 113 4.1.2.2. Semantically feminine nouns with θa/ta (SG): -aθa and -e in PL 113 4.1.2.3. Irregular and suppletive plurals 114 4.1.2.4. Nouns with no singular form (pluralia tantum) 114 Adjectives and their agreement with nouns 115 4.2.1. Inflection of adjectives and agreement 115 4.2.2. Uninflected adjectives 116 Annexation of nouns 117 4.3.1. Annexation by means of the genitive particle –ət 117 4.3.2. Annexation with the independent genitive particle did 118 4.3.3. Historical construct state 118 4.3.4. Neo-construct state 119 VERBAL MORPHOLOGY 121 Introduction: Derivational morphology in Semitic 121 The inventory of patterns, stems and inflectional affixes 124 5.2.1. Patterns and stems and their historical background 124 5.2.2. Šaqəl and the inflectional E-suffixes 129 5.2.3. Šqəlle and the inflectional L-suffixes 130 5.2.4. The Participle 131 5.2.5. Imperative 132 Weak verbs in Pattern I 134 5.3.1. Class I of verba primae /Ø/: ʾamər ‘say’ and ʾaxəl ‘eat’ 135 5.3.2. Class II of verba primae /ʾ/ < */ʿ/: ʾarəq ‘run’ 140 5.3.3. Verba primae /y/: yasəq ‘go up’ 141 5.3.4. Verba mediae /y/, e.g. kayəp ‘bend’ 142 5.3.5. Verba mediae /w/: kawəš ‘go down’ 143 5.3.6. Verba tertiae /ʾ/: šameʾ ‘hear’ 144 vi CONTENTS 5.3.7. Verba tertiae /y/: maxe ‘hit’ 146 Weak verbs in Pattern II 148 5.4.1. Verba mediae /y/: mhayər ‘dare’ 148 5.4.2. Verba mediae /w/: mjawəb ‘answer’ 149 5.4.3. Verbs with identical C2 and C3: t-l-l ‘get wet’, x-l-l ‘wash (one’s hands)’ 149 Weak verbs in Pattern III 151 5.5.1. Verba primae /Ø/: maxəl ‘feed’ 151 5.5.2. Verba primae/ʾ/ maʾărǝq ‘cause to flee’ 153 5.5.3. Verba mediae /w/, e.g. makuš ‘bring down’ 154 5.5.4. Verbs primae /y/, e.g. mayʾəl ‘bring in’ 155 Irregular verbs 156 5.6.1. ‘Want‘ ʾə́be (< *b-ʾ-y) 156 5.1.6.1.1. Overview of forms 156 5.1.6.1.2. Historical background 157 5.6.2. ‘Know’ yaʾe (< *y-ð-ʾ) 163 5.6.3. ‘Give’ yawəl (< *y-h-w) 168 5.6.4. ‘Bring’ meθe (< *ʾ-θ-y) 170 5.6.5. ‘Be able’ ʾəṃṣe (ṃ-ṣ-y) 173 5.6.6. ‘Be born’ and ‘be’ hawe (*h-w-y) 174 Towards a typology of verbal derivation in NENA 178 5.7.1. Root and/or template opacity 179 5.7.2. Stem uniformity across a paradigm and the derivation of stems from stems 181 5.7.3. Analogical change (‘reanalysis’) of the pattern 182 5.7.4. Loanwords 184 5.7.5. Summary 184 CONTENTS vii SYNTAX AND MORPHOSYNTAX THE EXPRESSION OF (PRONOMINAL) OBJECTS AND RELATED ARGUMENTS 189 Introduction 189 Objects of monotransitive 192 6.2.1. Šaqəl-based forms except qam-šaqəl-la with L-suffixes 192 6.2.2. Past perfective forms 193 6.2.2.1. Qam-šaqəl-la with L-suffixes 193 6.2.2.2. Šqəlle with E-suffixes 194 6.2.2.3. Šqəlle with the independent prepositional pronoun ʾal- 198 6.2.3. The Imperative with L-suffixes 198 6.2.4. Wele šqila (resultative) with ʾəll- 199 Ditransitive and constructions with object-like arguments 200 6.3.1. Šaqəl-based forms except qam-šaqəl-la 200 6.3.2. Šaqəl with L-suffixes 200 6.3.3. Šaqəl with the independent prepositional pronoun ṭa- (and ʾəll-?) 202 Past perfective forms 202 6.4.1. Šqəlle with L-suffixes 202 6.4.2. Šqəlle with the independent prepositional pronouns ṭa- (or ʾəll- and ʾəbb-) 204 6.4.3. Qam-šaqəl-la with L-suffixes 205 Object (P, T and R) affixes on past perfective forms in LD in general 208 Differential object marking 212 6.6.1.
Recommended publications
  • Language of the Old Testament: Biblical Hebrew “The Holy Tongue”

    Language of the Old Testament: Biblical Hebrew “The Holy Tongue”

    E-ISSN 2281-4612 Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol 4 No 1 ISSN 2281-3993 MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy March 2015 Language of the Old Testament: Biblical Hebrew “The Holy Tongue” Associate Professor Luke Emeka Ugwueye Department of Religion & Human Relations, Faculty of Arts, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, PMB 5025, Awka- Anambra State, Nigeria Email: [email protected] phone - 08067674763 Doi:10.5901/ajis.2015.v4n1p129 Abstract Some kind of familiarity with the structure and thought pattern of biblical Hebrew language enhances translation and improved ways of working with the language needed by students of Old Testament. That what the authors of the Scripture say also has meaning for us today is not in doubt but they did not express themselves primarily for us or in our language, and so it requires training on our part to understand them in their own language. The features of biblical Hebrew as combined in the language’s use of imagery and picturesque description of things are of huge assistance in this training exercise for a better operational knowledge of the language and meaning of Hebrew Scripture. Keywords: Language, Old Testament, Biblical Hebrew, Holy Tongue 1. Introduction Hebrew language is the language of the culture, religion and civilization of the Jewish people since ancient times. It belongs to the northwest ancient Semitic family of languages. The word Semitic, according to Kitchen (1992) is formed from the name Shem, Noah’s eldest son (Genesis 5:32). It is an adjective derived from ‘Shem’ meaning a member of any of the group of people speaking Akkadian, Phoenician, Punic, Aramaic, and especially Hebrew, Modern Hebrew and Arabic language.
  • The Hebrew-Jewish Disconnection

    The Hebrew-Jewish Disconnection

    Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Master’s Theses and Projects College of Graduate Studies 5-2016 The eH brew-Jewish Disconnection Jacey Peers Follow this and additional works at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/theses Part of the Reading and Language Commons Recommended Citation Peers, Jacey. (2016). The eH brew-Jewish Disconnection. In BSU Master’s Theses and Projects. Item 32. Available at http://vc.bridgew.edu/theses/32 Copyright © 2016 Jacey Peers This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. THE HEBREW-JEWISH DISCONNECTION Submitted by Jacey Peers Department of Graduate Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Bridgewater State University Spring 2016 Content and Style Approved By: ___________________________________________ _______________ Dr. Joyce Rain Anderson, Chair of Thesis Committee Date ___________________________________________ _______________ Dr. Anne Doyle, Committee Member Date ___________________________________________ _______________ Dr. Julia (Yulia) Stakhnevich, Committee Member Date 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my mom for her support throughout all of my academic endeavors; even when she was only half listening, she was always there for me. I truly could not have done any of this without you. To my dad, who converted to Judaism at 56, thank you for showing me that being Jewish is more than having a certain blood that runs through your veins, and that there is hope for me to feel like I belong in the community I was born into, but have always felt next to.
  • Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn Van Putten University of Leiden

    Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn Van Putten University of Leiden

    Chapter 3 Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn van Putten University of Leiden The highly archaic Classical Arabic language and its modern iteration Modern Standard Arabic must to a large extent be seen as highly artificial archaizing reg- isters that are the High variety of a diglossic situation. The contact phenomena found in Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic are therefore often the re- sult of imposition. Cases of borrowing are significantly rarer, and mainly found in the lexical sphere of the language. 1 Current state and historical development Classical Arabic (CA) is the highly archaic variety of Arabic that, after its cod- ification by the Arab Grammarians around the beginning of the ninth century, becomes the most dominant written register of Arabic. While forms of Middle Arabic, a style somewhat intermediate between CA and spoken dialects, gain some traction in the Middle Ages, CA remains the most important written regis- ter for official, religious and scientific purposes. From the moment of CA’s rise to dominance as a written language, the whole of the Arabic-speaking world can be thought of as having transitioned into a state of diglossia (Ferguson 1959; 1996), where CA takes up the High register and the spoken dialects the Low register.1 Representation in writing of these spoken dia- lects is (almost) completely absent in the written record for much of the Middle Ages. Eventually, CA came to be largely replaced for administrative purposes by Ottoman Turkish, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was function- ally limited to religious domains (Glaß 2011: 836).
  • Contact Between Textual Hebrew/Aramaic and Diaspora Jewish Languages: Introduction to the Thematic Special Issue of the Journal of Jewish Languages

    Contact Between Textual Hebrew/Aramaic and Diaspora Jewish Languages: Introduction to the Thematic Special Issue of the Journal of Jewish Languages

    Journal of Jewish Languages 8 (2020) 5–6 brill.com/jjl Contact between Textual Hebrew/Aramaic and Diaspora Jewish Languages: Introduction to the Thematic Special Issue of the Journal of Jewish Languages Sarah Bunin Benor and Ofra Tirosh-Becker Co-Editors-in-Chief, Journal of Jewish Languages When we started this journal eight years ago, we envisioned that it would feature articles on many Jewish languages, written by scholars around the world. Indeed, issues 1–7 included articles on 17 different Jewish languages, as well as a few articles about multiple languages. The authors of these arti- cles reside in 12 countries: 63% in Israel, 19% in the US, 17% in Europe, and 1% in East Asia. This thematic issue continues this diverse orientation with articles by scholars around the world about Jewish English, Judeo-Italian, Judeo-Spanish, and Yiddish, as well as one comparative analysis of Yiddish and Judezmo (Judeo-Spanish). In addition, this issue includes a review essay about Judeo-Arabic and a review of a dictionary of the Hebrew-Aramaic component of multiple Jewish languages. Another aspiration of ours was that the Journal of Jewish Languages would further our understanding of phenomena that many Jewish languages share. Previous articles have explored the influence of Jewish languages on Modern Hebrew, especially in our thematic double issue edited by Edit Doron, z”l, entitled “Language Contact and the Development of Modern Hebrew” (3.1–2 (2015): 3–348). The current double issue explores the influence of Hebrew and Aramaic on Jewish languages, a phenomenon common in most Jewish communities throughout history.
  • Identifying Semitic Roots: Machine Learning with Linguistic Constraints

    Identifying Semitic Roots: Machine Learning with Linguistic Constraints

    Identifying Semitic Roots: Machine Learning with Linguistic Constraints Ezra Daya∗ University of Haifa Dan Roth∗∗ University of Illinois Shuly Wintner† University of Haifa Words in Semitic languages are formed by combining two morphemes: a root and a pattern. The root consists of consonants only, by default three, and the pattern is a combination of vowels and consonants, with non-consecutive “slots” into which the root consonants are inserted. Identifying the root of a given word is an important task, considered to be an essential part of the morphological analysis of Semitic languages, and information on roots is important for linguistics research as well as for practical applications. We present a machine learning approach, augmented by limited linguistic knowledge, to the problem of identifying the roots of Semitic words. Although programs exist which can extract the root of words in Arabic and Hebrew, they are all dependent on labor-intensive construction of large-scale lexicons which are components of full-scale morphological analyzers. The advantage of our method is an automation of this process, avoiding the bottleneckof having to laboriously list the root and pattern of each lexeme in the language. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of machine learning to this problem, and one of the few attempts to directly address non-concatenative morphology using machine learning. More generally, our results shed light on the problem of combining classifiers under (linguistically motivated) constraints. 1. Introduction The standard account of word-formation processes in Semitic languages describes words as combinations of two morphemes: a root and a pattern.1 The root consists of consonants only, by default three (although longer roots are known), called radicals.
  • How Was the Dageš in Biblical Hebrew Pronounced and Why Is It There? Geoffrey Khan

    How Was the Dageš in Biblical Hebrew Pronounced and Why Is It There? Geoffrey Khan

    1 pronounced and why is it בָּתִּ ים How was the dageš in Biblical Hebrew there? Geoffrey Khan houses’ is generally presented as an enigma in‘ בָּתִּ ים The dageš in the Biblical Hebrew plural form descriptions of the language. A wide variety of opinions about it have been expressed in Biblical Hebrew textbooks, reference grammars and the scholarly literature, but many of these are speculative without any direct or comparative evidence. One of the aims of this article is to examine the evidence for the way the dageš was pronounced in this word in sources that give us direct access to the Tiberian Masoretic reading tradition. A second aim is to propose a reason why the word has a dageš on the basis of comparative evidence within Biblical Hebrew reading traditions and other Semitic languages. בָּתִּיםבָּתִּ ים The Pronunciation of the Dageš in .1.0 The Tiberian vocalization signs and accents were created by the Masoretes of Tiberias in the early Islamic period to record an oral tradition of reading. There is evidence that this reading tradition had its roots in the Second Temple period, although some features of it appear to have developed at later periods. 1 The Tiberian reading was regarded in the Middle Ages as the most prestigious and authoritative tradition. On account of the authoritative status of the reading, great efforts were made by the Tiberian Masoretes to fix the tradition in a standardized form. There remained, nevertheless, some degree of variation in reading and sign notation in the Tiberian Masoretic school. By the end of the Masoretic period in the 10 th century C.E.
  • From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages

    From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages

    From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9 Series Editor Terry C. Falla Editorial Board Index Editor James K. Aitken Georgia Kate Kelly Aaron Michael Butts Daniel King Wido van Peursen Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages (PLAL) contains peer-reviewed essays, monographs, and reference works. It focuses on the theory and practice of ancient-language research and lexicography that is informed by modern linguistics. From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek Edited by Tarsee Li Keith Dyer gp 2017 Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2017 ܒ 1 ISBN 978-1-4632-0608-6 ISSN 2165-2600 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Society of Biblical Literature. International Meeting. | Li, Tarsee, editor. | Dyer, Keith D., 1951- editor. Title: From ancient manuscripts to modern dictionaries : select studies in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek / edited by Tarsee Li & Keith Dyer. Description: Piscataway, NJ : Gorgias Press, [2017] | Series: Perspectives on linguistics and ancient languages, ISSN 2165-2600 ; 9 | Includes
  • The Biradical Origin of Semitic Roots

    The Biradical Origin of Semitic Roots

    Copyright by Bernice Varjick Hecker 2007 The Dissertation Committee for Bernice Varjick Hecker certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Biradical Origin of Semitic Roots Committee: Robert D. King, Supervisor Robert T. Harms Richard P. Meier Esther L. Raizen Peter F. Abboud THE BIRADICAL ORIGIN OF SEMITIC ROOTS by Bernice Varjick Hecker, M.A., M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May, 2007 Dedication To Mark Southern, who awakened and sustained my interest in the Ancient Near East. Acknowledgments I would first like to thank Prof. Harms, who supervised my earlier paper, for teaching me that there is no way to conclusively prove a theory about an early stage of a prehistoric language but that it was possible to demonstrate its likelihood. His comments at an early stage of this work were invaluable in showing me how to go about doing so. I would also like to thank Prof. King, my dissertation supervisor, who was an unfailing font of support and who gave me excellent advice and direction. My husband, Ran Moran, was the sine qua non of this project. There is no way that I could have completed it without his help, both in accommodating to my schedule and in expending all the resources that I brought to bear on writing this dissertation. v The Biradical Origin of Semitic Roots Publication No._____________ Bernice Varjick Hecker, Ph.D.
  • Notes on the Emergence of New Semitic Roots in the Light of Compounding

    Notes on the Emergence of New Semitic Roots in the Light of Compounding

    ISSN 0806 -198X Notes on the Emergence of New Semitic Roots in the Light of Compounding LUTZ EDZARD (University of Erlangen-Nürnberg / University of Oslo) Abstract Independently of the question as to whether bi- or triradical roots have historical preponderance in Semitic, there are clear cases of Semitic verbal and nominal roots that have emerged through a process of com- pounding or integration of additional elements (verbal or nominal affixes and even prepositions). In this paper, an attempt will be made to establish a hierarchical typology of such processes of morpho- phonological re-analysis, in both historical and modern times. Key words: affix, re-analysis, root, compounding 1 Introduction It has long been recognized that new roots in Semitic can emerge through the re-analysis of verbal or nominal affixes. On the one hand, there has been the theory of “matrices et éty- mons”, propagated notably by Georges Bohas (e.g., BOHAS 2000) and a number of his pupils, which builds on the observation that roots with two common consonants and a hom- organic, but different third consonant, often share a common semantics. Christopher Ehret (notably EHRET 1995) has developed this theory even further, in trying to reconstruct uni- consonantal semantic core elements at an early stage of Afroasiatic. This well-known line of thought will not be pursued here (for an overview of the pros and cons, cf. e.g., ZA- BORSKI 1991). Rather, with a focus on Arabic and Hebrew, I will give an overview of vari- ous processes that can be described as “compounding”, which involve either the integration of grammatical morphemes—verbal and nominal affixes, including prepositions—or the creation of new roots by exploiting acronyms or the conjunction of clipped elements, cap- tured by the Arabic term na ḥt, literally ‘sculpture’.
  • Psalms 119 & the Hebrew Aleph

    Psalms 119 & the Hebrew Aleph

    Psalms 119 & the Hebrew Aleph Bet - Part 19 The nineteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet is called “Qof” (pronounced kof) and has the sound of “k” or “q” as in “queen”. It appears in the following three forms: Writing the Letter: Qof This letter looks like the English “P”, except that the curved part doesn’t connect with the stem. The aleph bet is what modern Hebrew calls the alphabet (22 letters that Yahweh used to speak the universe into existence). But Biblically, Aleph Tav are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Each individual letter is called an Oat. Oat = sign. It is saying something (giving a Spiritual Message). Qof is the letter which symbolizes the Bride of Christ. It signifies that which is made holy and is set apart for holy use. “It is written, Be ye HOLY, for I AM HOLY,” 1 Peter 1:16. “Holy, Holy, Holy, is Yahweh of hosts, Who was and Is, and is to come!” (Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8). Qof is the first letter of the word Qodesh, meaning, “HOLINESS.” “Worship Yahweh in the beauty of HOLINESS,” Psalm 29:2. “For Yahweh hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation. This is My Rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless her provision: I will satisfy her poor with bread. I will also clothe her priests with Salvation: and her saints shall shout aloud for joy,” Psalm 132:13-16. Qof Study Page 1 Spiritual Meaning of the Qof Qof = K,Q and 100 and means “LAST”, “LEAST”, “HOLY” and “HOLINESS” Yahweh is HOLY, and He desires holiness on behalf of His People, saying, “You shall be holy, for I AM HOLY,” Leviticus 19:26.
  • A Tale of Two Morphologies

    A Tale of Two Morphologies

    A Tale of Two Morphologies Verb structure and argument alternations in Maltese Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie vorgelegt von Spagnol, Michael an der Geisteswissenschaftliche Sektion Sprachwissenschaft 1. Referent: Prof. Dr. Frans Plank 2. Referent: Prof. Dr. Christoph Schwarze 3. Referent: Prof. Dr. Albert Borg To my late Nannu Kieli, a great story teller Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. iii Notational conventions .................................................................................................................... v Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... viii Ch. 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. A tale to be told ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Three sides to every tale ........................................................................................................................... 4 Ch. 2. Setting the stage ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. No language is an island .......................................................................................................................
  • The Syntactic Basis of Masoretic Hebrew Punctuation Author(S): Mark Aronoff Source: Language, Vol

    The Syntactic Basis of Masoretic Hebrew Punctuation Author(S): Mark Aronoff Source: Language, Vol

    Linguistic Society of America Orthography and Linguistic Theory: The Syntactic Basis of Masoretic Hebrew Punctuation Author(s): Mark Aronoff Source: Language, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 28-72 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/413420 Accessed: 07-02-2019 19:33 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Thu, 07 Feb 2019 19:33:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms ORTHOGRAPHY AND LINGUISTIC THEORY: THE SYNTACTIC BASIS OF MASORETIC HEBREW PUNCTUATION MARK ARONOFF SUNY Stony Brook The punctuation (accent) system of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible contains a complete unlabeled binary phrase-structure analysis of every verse, based on a single parsing principle. The systems of punctuation, phrase structure, and parsing are each presented here in detail and contrasted with their counterparts in modern linguistics. The entire system is considered as the product of linguistic analysis, rather than as a linguistic system per se; and implications are drawn for the study of written language and writing systems.* To modern linguistics, discussion of written language has been taboo.