sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aramaic

IS NEO- A SEMITIC ?

Simon Hopkins

Introduction

In addition to his studies of individual texts and specific features in particular Semitic E.U. has throughout his career, with a characteristically broad sweep, given much thought to the wider implications of his researches. has written a good deal about several broader aspects of linguistic enquiry. He has always been interested not merely in the grammatical mechanisms and lexical resources of the themselves, but also in the speakers who spoke, and continue to speak them. Subjects such as mutual intelligibility between Semitic languages, bilingualism and trilingualism in the ancient , degrees of kinship between related languages and the classification of the Semitic family, modes of thought and their linguistic expression, translatability etc. are recurring themes in his books and in the four volumes of his collected articles. A fine example is the essay 'Is a language?' Ullendorff (1971), which later gave its title to the first volume ofE.U.'s collected papers, in which it is reprinted as the first item. 1

The Semitic Sprachtypus

If there is such a thing as the basic character of Semitic (i 73) or a Semitic Sprachtypus (ii 228), we should be able to say in what this essential unity of the Semitic (i 187) consists and to describe it in precise concrete, rather than vague impressionistic terms. Such a description, which remains a desideratum in the field (iv 107), should hold good for all Semitic languages, not just for a convenient selection of them. E.U.'s treatment of this question in a celebrated and thought-provoking

The four volumes of collected papers are: Ullendorff (1977), (1987), (1990) and (1995a). These are referred to in the following as i, ii, Hi and iv respectively. IS NEO-ARAMAIC A SEMITIC LANGUAGE? 63

'What is a Semitic language? (A problem of linguistic identification), (Ullendorff (1958), reprinted in i 155-64),2 a study among the most widely read items of his oeuvre, was drawn forth, inter alia, by a somewhat loose statement published shortly beforehand to the effect that the bond binding all (sic) Semitic languages together is so tight that the family likeness can be recognized at first glance.3 In reaction to this claim E.U. pointed out (i 156 and similarly i 31; Ullendorff 1995b: 285), very justifiably, that while this may well be so for the classical Semitic languages,4 it hardly applies to the rest.5 It is one thing to recognize without further ado the patent Semitic character of languages such as (Classical) , Ethiopic or ; the situation would be very different with regard to , or Soqotri. And the relationship between Gurage and Ugaritic,6 or Mandaean and Akkadian can scarcely be called obvious. The description (as opposed to recognition) oflinguistic identity and the portrayal of family resemblance between languages in precise terms is a notoriously difficult task (i 72, 155/6; ii 225). Different scholars will reach different conclusions, depending upon the questions asked and the approaches adopted. E.U. has very properly pointed out the importance of keeping diachrony and synchrony well apart in this exercise (i 69, 156, 162; ii 226); those with a retrospective, diachronic outlook are, of course, likely to be more impressed by the inherited Semitic stock of a given modern Semitic language than those who approach the question in more synchronic terms, unburdened by genetic considerations or historical knowledge. A scholar of the former disposition will be particularly interested in etymology, shared etc. and will deliver his verdict

2 In the reprint the footnotes to the last page of the article are missing. 3 Spuler (1953: 3): 'dass sich alle semitischen Sprachen so nahestehen, dass ihre Verwandschaft auf den ersten Blick zu erkennen ist ... '. It should, in fairnesss to Spuler, be noticed that Amharic is explicitly excluded from his survey as no longer Semitic ('als nicht mehr den eigentlichen semitischen Typ repriisentierend '). 4 At least in their written forms; the spoken versions may have caused some difficulty. Cf. Fleischer (1861: 381, = idem 1885-1888: iii, 468): 'Dass wir morgenllindische Sprachen gewohnlich mehr mit dem Auge filr das Auge als mit dem Ohre filr die Zunge lemen, ist nicht zu lindern, hat aber manche Nachteile'. 5 Cf. the opening sentence of H.J. Polotsky's essay 'Semitics' (Polotsky 1964a: 99): 'The relationship between the older Semitic languages is such that no modem professional training is needed to perceive it' . 6 In the parallel passage ii 226 Ugaritic has been replaced by Phoenician.