Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 ‐əh. Such an explanation would also make sense out of the difference variation in translit‐ eration found in a number of dialects, such as Ṣanʿāni, where (Rossi 1939, p.4 gives ‐ah, but (Watson 2009, p. 110) gives ‐ih. There is also evidence for such a situation in the Negev (Palestine) dialect of the ʿ Azazmih, where the reflex of the 3ms suffix is ‐ih when suffixed to most nouns, but ‐ah when suffixed to verbs whose stem vowel is low: rās‐ih “his head”, but ǧāb‐ah “he brought it” (Shawarba 2012, p. 193). This is paralleled in some cases by the realization of the feminine nominal marker *‐ah, which is ‐it in construct on most nouns but ‐at on verbs whose stem vowel is low: nāg‐it “she‐camel of”, but nām‐at “she slept.” The same is true for Eastern Libyan itself, where Owens notes that Mitchell’s descriptions (Mitchell 1952, 1960, apud Owens 1984, p. 93) give 3ms suffix‐ih, whereas Owens translit‐ erates it ‐ahlanguages. Owens’ examples from Eastern Libyan Arabic are probably similar to other dialects, where the exact quality depends on the phonetic environment. Other dialects have been recorded with a form transliterated as ‐eh (e.g., Yašīʿ; (Isaksson 1991, p. 126)). If correct, the traditional historical explanation for these forms, namely that they rep‐ Article resent frozen genitive or accusative cases, becomes much less convincing. These variants cannotA Historical be explained through Reconstruction the same set of developments of Some as the harmonizing Pronominal group. Suffixes in NoteModern that the variation Dialectal attested in the Arabic vowel before tanwīn (Stokes 2020, pp. 654–58) mir‐ rors that of the 3ms suffix. I suggest that the same neutralization attested before tanwīn occurred before PN suffixes in some dialects as well: Phillip W. Stokes *bayt‐Vcase‐hu/*bayt‐Vcasen > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn Following the loss of final short vowels, the 3ms suffix would follow this non‐pho‐ nemic vowel: Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA; [email protected] bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. As we will see, many dialectsAbstract: with 3msThe morphology‐ih or ‐ah attest of the 2ms pronominal ‐ik and 2fs suffixes ‐ić. Thus, in dialectal it is Arabic are of particular interest for likely that vowels in this positionscholars merged, of the with history a ofhigh Arabic vowel for two surface main reasons.manifestation First, multiple in dialects attest suffixes that, from 11 every instance. It is unclear whata comparative might have perspective, caused such apparently a neutralization retain final shortin this vowels. posi‐ The second and more complicated tion. One possibility is that the issuechange concerns began the in vowelsthe construct, which precede where thethe suffixes case vowel in the on dialects, which are thought to either ṣ the initial noun of the constructhave chain been would case be inflecting in a wa orl epenthetic. position, and In this thus paper, potentially I take up Jean Cantineau’s “embarrassing prone to reduction: question” of how to account for the development of the vowels of the pronominal suffixes. Based *baytu r‐raǧuli “the man’s house” > *bayt Vr‐raǧuli on data from dialectal tanw¯ın in modern dialects, and attestations from pre-modern texts as well, I Another possibility is that post‐stress but non‐word final vowels were reduced and will argue that the pre-suffix vowels did originate in case inflecting vowels, but that no historical merged: model heretofore proposed can satisfactorily account for how the various dialectal forms might have *bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn but al‐bayt‐u and baytu r‐raǧuli arisen. I identify two major historical developments and propose models for each. First, I suggest Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowel manifested as a high front vowel in most that dialects in which the pre-suffixal vowels harmonized with the suffix vowels developed via a contexts, and final short vowels were lost. The construct perhaps continued inflecting for process of harmonization across morpheme boundaries before the loss of final short vowels. For case, but the otherwise‐ubiquitous absolute form eventually replaced it. dialects in which one vowel is generalized, I argue that a post-stress neutralization took place, which This can be summarized by the following steps: led to a single vowel both before suffixes and tanw¯ın as well. Finally, I rely on evidence from the 1. Post‐stress, non‐word finalbehavior neutralization of the suffixes of vowel to argue contrast: that the*bayt final‐ən vowel; bayt‐ə‐ ofhu the; but 3fs suffix was originally long, but that bayt‐Vcase Citation: Stokes, Phillip W. 2021. A those of the 3ms, 2ms, and 2fs were most likely short. case 2. HistoricalGeneralization Reconstruction of Some high vowel realization: *bayt‐in; *bayt‐i‐hu; but *bayt‐V 3. PronominalLoss of Suffixes final in short Modern vowels: baytKeywords:‐in; baytArabic‐ih; bayt dialects; historical dialectology; historical linguistics DialectalIn a Arabic.few dialects,Languages 6:such 147. as Al‐Mahābšeh, however, 3ms is ‐eh but 2ms is ‐ak, suggesting againsthttps://doi.org/10.3390/ a generalization to all contexts. In these cases, there might have been a generaliza‐ tionlanguages6030147 of ‐a before pronominal suffixes, with subsequent raising of ‐ah, as with the tāʾ marbūṭa ‐ah, to ‐eh or ‐ih. 1. Introduction AcademicThe 3fs Editors: suffix Simone is Bettegain most dialectsThe realized morphology as ‐a or of–(V)ha the pronominal. The latter suffixessuggests in an dialectal origi‐ Arabic are of particular interest and Roberta Morano nally long final vowel *‐hā, butfor the scholars former of is the ambiguous. history of Ahmad Arabic for Al‐ twoJallad main (p.c.) reasons. has First, multiple dialects attest pointed out that there is some presuffixes‐Islamic that, Arabic from epigraphic a comparative evidence perspective, for a short apparently *‐ha by retain‐ final short vowels: dialectal Received: 24 June 2021 form in line one of the Namārahdaras inscription,“he studied”, which < reads *darasa mlkbut ʾ ab lu-ki¯‐ ʿ < rb * abVV-kikl‐h /malk, “your ʾal‐ (fsg) father.” This is despite the Accepted: 23 August 2021 ʿ ʿ arabPublished: koll‐ 31ah/ August “king 2021 of all Arab”fact (M.C.E that mostMacdonald’s assume a translation, complete loss from of (Fiema final short et al. vowels 2016 in the pre-modern ancestors of pp. 405–6)). For either /kull‐ha/ allor /kull Arabic‐hā varieties./ we would The expect second, **kl and‐hʾ in more the Nabataean complicated or issue‐ concerns the vowels which thography.Publisher’s Note: (CantineauMDPI stays neutral1936/1937,precede pp. 78, the 182–83) suffixes argued in the based dialects. on data In Classical from the Arabic Syrian (henceforth ClAr), this position Šammarwith regardī and to jurisdictional ʿAnaze claimsBedouin in wasdialects, occupied in which by a 3fs short suffix case was vowel: realizedbab+u¯ C/‐iah/a but+ka post“your‐ door (nom/gen/acc).” In the published maps and institutional affil- modern dialects, which lack morphosyntactic case marking, these vowels vary: bab-Vk¯ iations. “idem.” Several attempts have been made to account for the development of these vowels from a functional case system (Diem 1991; Jastrow 1991; Blau 2006), though none has yet proved entirely satisfactory. The thorniest issue from a historical perspective is how to account for the functional shift of the pre-suffixal vowels, from morpho-syntactic inflection to their current forms, while also assuming the loss of final short vowels, which should Copyright: © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. have eliminated several of the vowels of the pronominal suffixes. Alternatively, several This article is an open access article scholars have recently argued that the ancestors of the dialects came from varieties of distributed under the terms and Arabic that lacked case completely (Retsö 1994; Owens 2006, 2018). In this alternative conditions of the Creative Commons scenario, the pre-suffixal vowels were epenthetic vowels inserted to resolve increasingly Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// un-tolerated consonant clusters. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ In this paper I argue in favor of the case vowel origin and propose reconstructions 4.0/). that address both issues: final vowel length and the nature and development of the pre- Languages 2021, 6, 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030147 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2021, 6, 147 2 of 17 suffixal vowel. Following a discussion of the previous proposals and their deficiencies, I discuss both of these questions, with special focus on the problems posed by the third and second person singular forms. I will argue that data from remnants of case vowels before tanw¯ın in the dialects (dialectal tanw¯ın), as well as historical data in which case was retained longer before suffixes than elsewhere, can help understand the development of these vowels. The implications of these observations for the question of the historical length of the vowels of the suffixes will be discussed at length in Section3. The ultimate goal of these reconstructions is to gain deeper historical insight into the most common surface forms attested across the spectrum of Arabic dialects, as well connect them together in the broader picture of Arabic linguistic history. 2. Pre-Suffix Vowel: Case Vowel or Epenthesis? The pronominal suffix paradigms for the modern Arabic dialects do not inflect for case but nevertheless attest vowels before the pronominal suffixes. The following data (Table1) serve as examples of the regular realizations of these suffixes, regardless of syntax (Fischer and Jastrow 1980, p. 81; Jordanian from Al-Wer(2007, p. 510)): Table 1. Levantine and N.