Diphthongs Andtriphthongs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
chapter 5 Diphthongs and Triphthongs 5.1 Introduction The combination of a vowel and either of the semivowels *w and *y in the same syllable is traditionally referred to as a diphthong in Semitic linguistics, although it is unclear to what degree these combinations behaved like single vocalic phonemes, as the term ‘diphthong’ implies. Similarly, the combination of two vowels with an intervening semivowel is frequently called a triphthong; strictly speaking, this is incorrect, as ‘triphthong’ usually describes a single phoneme with three vocalic places of articulation occurring within the same syllable, while Semitic triphthongs are always disyllabic. To avoid confusion, however, the traditional terminology will be maintained in this chapter. The reader will recall that W represents any semivowel, i.e. *w or *y. Diphthongs and triphthongs are often treated together, but as we shall see, they are better considered separately. Accordingly, the first section of this chap- ter will investigate the development of the original diphthongs *aw and *ay. The other diphthongs are not discussed, as their development is either unprob- lematic or very difficult to ascertain. Quite clearly, *iy > *ī and *uw > *ū, as in he was‘ הוַּרד < he will suck (pause)’,*huwrada > *hūrad‘ ִייָ֑נק < yiynaqu > *yīnaq* brought down’. *uy seems to develop to *ī, but the evidence is limited to a few ויישם it may be poured (pause)’ in Exod 30:32 and the kṯiḇ form‘ ִיי ָ֑סְך forms like ,(in Gen 24:33 ַוֻיּיַשׂם in Gen 50:26 and ַוִ֫יּיֶשׂם and he/it was placed’ (vocalized‘ most other cases of *uy having been affected by analogy. These forms come respectively, and do not therefore have *y as their ,שׂים and סוך from the roots first radical, but the neutralization of I-y and II-wy roots in the hip̄ʕil perfect, e.g. *haynīq > *hēnīq and *heqīm > *hēqīm, led to the analogical reshaping of II- wy hɔp̄ʕal and passive qal forms (like the examples given) based on the model yuysaku. Moving on to the other diphthongs, Blau* > ִיי ָ֑סְך ,of I-y roots: thus (2010, 97) holds that *iw > *ū, while Bauer and Leander (1922, 201) believe that it developed to *ī. Again, analogy has heavily clouded the picture, but *yiwkalu he will be able’ does seem to show that *iw > *ū, although‘ יוַּכל < yūkal* < this reconstruction has recently been challenged by Huehnergard and Olyan ,appeasing (m.sg.)’, on the other hand‘ ִניֹחַח < forms like *niwḫāḫum 1;(2013) as a hɔp̄ʕal or passive qal, originally meaning ‘he יוַּכל I am hesitant to accept their analysis of 1 © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004390263_006 diphthongs and triphthongs 123 point towards *iw > *ī. Perhaps we are dealing with different contractions of *iw at different times, with different outcomes. Diphthongs where the semivowel preceded the vowel, when preceded by another consonant, had already lost their semivowel with compensatory lengthening of the vowel in Proto-Semitic: ,sister’ (Brockelmann 1908‘ ָאחוֹת < CWV > *CV̄, as in *ʔaḫwatum > *ʔaḫātum* 186; Wilson-Wright 2016). *aW diphthongs, however, show different reflexes: cf. -to a house’, all from *bayt-, or the differ‘ ַ֫בְּיָתה .my house’ vs‘ ֵבּיִתי .house’ vs‘ ַ֫בִּית death’ vs. *ʕawlatum‘ ָ֫מֶות < ox’ vs. *mawtum‘ שׁוֹר < ent reflex of *aw in *ṯawrum -injustice’. I will argue that *ay regularly contracted to *ē in non-final syl‘ ַﬠְוָלה < lables, while *aw contracted to *ō in nearly all environments. After the diphthongs, we will examine the triphthongs. Triphthongs with a built (m.sg.)’,so only‘ ָבּנוּי < long first vowel remain uncontracted, e.g. *banū́yum triphthongs with a short first vowel will be covered. As their Biblical Hebrew reflexes have already been adequately described, the discussion will focus on the phonetic details of their contraction, as well as this contraction’s place in the relative chronology and its interaction with other sound laws. The chapter closes with a brief investigation into one such related change, the loss of mima- tion, followed by a summary of the conclusions reached on the development of both diphthongs and triphthongs. 5.2 Diphthongs 5.2.1 Previous Suggestions The most important observations on the behaviour of original diphthongs— in the twentieth century, at least—were made by Brockelmann (1908), Berg- strässer (1918), and Bauer and Leander (1922). As the differences between their accounts are minor, we may treat them in the same section, taking them as representative of the traditional view on the development of the diphthongs.2 will be enabled’, as the introduction of such a derived form seems unmotivated. Nor does this to prevail’ in Hebrew and Aramaic, while‘ יכל account for the less grammatical meaning of this could plausibly have given rise to the semantically bleached ‘to be able’ (as suggested to me by Holger Gzella). Given the traces of biradicality many I-w roots show throughout Semitic, it may be easier to explain *khl, attested in other Semitic languages, and *wkl as two separate extensions of an originally biconsonantal root *kl ‘to be able’, parallel to such well- both ‘to be good’,whose original, biconsonantal root is still ,טוב ~ יטב known cases as Hebrew .’ṭābum ‘good* > טוֹב reflected in 2 This view is also adopted by Harris (1939, 31). Another view is put forward by Bravmann (1939), ָ֫מֶות < day’ and *mawtum‘ יוֹם < who attributes the different development of e.g. *yawmum ‘death’ to lexical diffusion (not his term) of a sound change *ay, *aw > *ai, *au; words in which.