A Historical Reconstruction of Some Pronominal Suffixes in Modern

Home , Damascus Arabic, Jordanian Arabic, Libyan Arabic, Najdi Arabic

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

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. African Singular Pronominal Sufﬁxes.

Jordanian Cairo Damascus Tunis 3ms -o, -V: -uh, -h -o, -(h) -u, -h 3fs -ha, -a -ha -a, -ha -ha 2ms -ak, -k -ak, -k -ak, -k -ik, -k 2fs -ik, -ki -ik, -ki -ik, -ki -ik, -k

The origin and nature of the vowels preceding the pronominal suffixes in the modern dialects has become rather controversial. They have traditionally been interpreted as frozen reflexes of case vowels,1 which eventually harmonized with the short vowels of the suffixes, e.g., nominative u was frozen based on harmony with 3ms *hu, etc. (Birkeland 1952, pp. 12, 19; Cantineau 1936/1937, p. 180, vol. 2; Fischer and Jastrow 1980, p. 42; Diem 1991). To account for the vowel harmony, which would ostensibly be possible only after the breakdown of case, and thus presumably the loss of final short vowels, Blau(2006, pp. 87–88) appeals to the intentionality of speakers, who decided to avoid a homophony between masculine and feminine forms, which after the breakdown of case and loss of final short vowels, should have both become **bab-k¯ “your (msg and fsg) door.” Instead, they inserted an a vowel before the suffix for the masculine and an i to indicate the feminine. Blau cites a phenomenon in ClAr called naql, “transfer”, wherein speakers would insert a vowel homophonous with the suffixed case vowel on noun of the pattern of CVCC: al-bakru (nom sing) > al-bakuru, etc. (ibid., p. 88). However, Blau does not address the biggest issue with his proposal. Given that he believes that a naql would have occurred only once a final cluster had been created, it is unclear how speakers would have retrieved the etymological a vowel to mark masculine or the i vowel for the feminine if they had been lost word-finally. Diem(1991) offers a different explanation. He recognizes that if loss of case was caused, or at least accompanied by loss of final short vowels, then the vowels of at least some of the pronominal suffixes, like 3ms *-hu and 2ms *-ka, should have also been lost. If such was the case, however, then of course the final vowel, with which the case vowel would harmonize, would have been eliminated. Diem, still believing the initial vowels to be remnants of case vowels, argues that the breakdown of the case system was caused by syntactic factors, especially the redundant nature of the Semitic case system, and not the result of a phonetic loss of short final vowels. In Diem’s scenario, case breakdown resulted initially in a state where the short case vowels were in free variation (ibid., pp. 301–3). Eventually, before pronominal suffixes they were harmonized with the suffix vowel and frozen; in word-final position (including, for Diem, before tanw¯ın), one case was levelled.2 Languages 2021, 6, 147 3 of 17

This is the state of affairs in what Diem calls “nomadic dialects” (i.e., Bedouin dialects) (ibid., pp. 303–4). Most non-nomadic dialects eventually witnessed the total loss of these remnants due to their lack of any meaningful syntactic function. This is an attractive explanation3 because it solves the main objection to the traditional assumptions (see above regarding Blau’s 2006 proposal), namely that case was lost due to loss of final short vowels. If case marking was reanalyzed as marked solely by word order etc., then these variants might have eventually been in free variation.4 It should be noted here that Diem recognizes the loss of final short vowels at some point, but argues that the breakdown of case was not related to this loss (or, probably, multiple losses), and presumably preceded it. Alternatively, Owens(2006, chp. 8) has argued that these initial vowels originated as epenthetic vowels, completely unrelated to case vowels, the quality of which varied depending on the following consonant/vowel: 3ms *hu > u-hu (addition of epenthetic vowel) > uh (loss of final short vowel).5 Owens’s arguments against reconstructing case in the ancestor of all Arabic varieties is unconvincing. There is thus no reason a priori to suggest these vowels cannot be remnants of case vowels. Still, the complete loss of case vowels could have led to their loss before pronominal suffixes as well, presumably in this case, per Blau(2006), via the levelling of pausal forms to non-pausal position, which in turn could have led speakers to insert epenthetic vowels to resolve these newly-created consonant clusters. In other words, since Ø-marked forms were levelled to other contexts where they would be expected to be preserved if the loss of case were the result of a regular phonetic change (*v > Ø/C_#), such as the construct, then it is also possible that these Ø-marked forms were levelled to the position before pronominal suffixes. Deciding between these options is difficult due to the uneven knowledge of the contemporary Arabic dialects, and the virtual absence of historical data for the ancestors to the modern dialects. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the implications of these proposals yields meaningful insights. If we imagine that the vowels in question originated as case vowels, then we must account for speakers presumably sacrificing the morphosyntactic role of case vowels before pronominal suffixes in favor of a non-phonemic epenthetic function. Scholars have thus mostly assumed that this happened following the breakdown of case (cf. Diem 1991). Most likely, then, the loss of case marking on the un-suffixed nouns motivated the levelling of one form, as in the external masculine plural oblique form ¯ın. The presence of very similar suffix forms in Aramaic, and probably for Hebrew as well, provide attractive parallels (Table2; Aramaic and Hebrew data taken from Hasselbach 2014, pp. 204–5):

Table 2. Reconstructed Aramaic (Syriac) and Hebrew Pronominal Sufﬁxes.

Aramaic (Syriac) Hebrew 3ms malk-eh < *malki-hi (Gen) malko¯ < *malku-hu(:) (Acc) 2fs malk-ek(y) < *malki-k¯ı 1 (Gen) malkek¯ < *malki-ki (Gen) 2ms malk-ak < *malka-ka (Acc) (non-Tiberian) malkak < *malka-ka (Acc) 2 1 As indicated by the mater lectionis of the Aramaic form, the i vowel here was apparently long. Benjamin Suchard has suggested to me (p.c.) that this long ¯ı was the result of *ki > k¯ı based on contamination with the imperfect ending. 2 The Tiberian forms are complex. In non-pausal position, Tiberian malk@-ka¯, but pausally, malkéka¯. The latter form suggests < *malki-kah (Suchard, p.c.), or possibly analogy with the feminine singular form (Suchard 2020, pp. 194–96).

There are several reasons to favor positing etymological case vowels as the origin of the pre-suffixal vowels instead of originally vowelless consonant clusters that were only later broken up via epenthesis. First and foremost is a methodological argument. We can confidently reconstruct case for both Proto-Semitic and Proto-Arabic based on comparative and internal data. A case system in which singular (and broken plural) nominal forms are inflected for three cases (nominative, genitive, and accusative), while duals and sound masculine plurals are inflected for two (nominative and oblique) is attested in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Canaanite, as well as ClAr (Huehnergard 2019, pp. 60–61). Classical Ethiopic 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 ‐ah. 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‐ resent frozen genitive or accusative cases, becomes much less convincing. These variants cannot be explained through the same set of developments as the harmonizing group. Note that the variation attested in the 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: *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: bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. As we will see, many dialects with 3ms ‐ih or ‐ah attest 2ms ‐ik and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is likely that vowels in this position merged, with a high vowel surface manifestation in every instance.11 It is unclear what might have caused such a neutralization in this posi‐ tion. One possibility is that the change began in the construct, where the case vowel on the initial noun of the construct chain would be in a waṣl position, and thus potentially prone to reduction: *baytu r‐raǧuli “the man’s house” > *bayt Vr‐raǧuli Another possibility is that post‐stress but non‐word final vowels were reduced and merged: *bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn but al‐bayt‐u and baytu r‐raǧuli Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowel manifested as a high front vowel in most contexts, and final short vowels wereLanguages lost. The 2021 construct, 6, x FOR PEER perhaps REVIEW continued inflecting for 10 of 18 case, but the otherwise‐ubiquitous absolute form eventually replaced it. This can be summarized by the following steps: 1. Post‐stress, non‐word final neutralization of vowel contrast:‐ə h*.bayt Such‐ən an; bayt explanation‐ə‐hu; but would also make sense out of the difference variation in translit‐ bayt‐Vcase eration found in a number of dialects, such as Ṣanʿāni, where (Rossi 1939, p.4 gives ‐ah, 2. Generalization of high vowel realization: *bayt‐in; *bayt‐i‐hu;but but (Watson *bayt‐Vcase 2009, p. 110) gives ‐ih. There is also evidence for such a situation in the Negev 3. Loss of final short vowels: bayt‐in; bayt‐ih; bayt (Palestine) dialect of the ʿ Azazmih, where the reflex of the 3ms suffix is ‐ih when suffixed In a few dialects, such as Al‐Mahābšeh, however, 3ms is ‐eh butto most 2ms isnouns, ‐ak, suggesting but ‐ah when suffixed to verbs whose stem vowel is low: rās‐ih “his head”, against a generalization to all contexts. In these cases, there mightbut have ǧā bbeen‐ah “he a generaliza brought it”‐ (Shawarba 2012, p. 193). This is paralleled in some cases by the Languages 2021, 6, 147 5 of 17 tion of ‐a before pronominal suffixes, with subsequent raising of ‐ahrealization, as with the of ttheāʾ marb feminineūṭa nominal marker *‐ah, which is ‐it in construct on most nouns ‐ah, to ‐eh or ‐ih. but ‐at on verbs whose stem vowel is low: nāg‐it “she‐camel of”, but nām‐at “she slept.” The 3fs suffix is in most dialects realized as ‐a or –(V)ha. TheThe latter same suggests is true an for origi Eastern‐ Libyan itself, where Owens notes that Mitchell’s descriptions nally long final vowel *‐hā, but the former is ambiguous. Ahmad(Mitchell TheAl‐Jallad decisive 1952, (p.c.)1960, blow apudhas to Owens Owens’s 1984, reconstruction, p. 93) give 3ms however, suffix‐ih comes, whereas upon Owens further translit exam-‐ pointed out that there is some pre‐Islamic Arabic epigraphic evidenceinationerates forit of ‐ aha the short. Owens’ Cairene *‐ha examplesby distribution.‐ from The Eastern Egyptian Libyan realization Arabic are of probably *qalb-a-h a¯similar“her heart” to other is form in line one of the Namārah inscription, which reads mlk ʾdialects, alb-a-ha l‐ ʿ ,*rb whereqalb-a-ka kl‐h /malk the“your exact ʾal‐ (msg) quality hearth” depends is alb-ak on the, and phonetic *qalb-i-ki environment.“your (fsg.) heart” Other is dialectsalb-ik, ʿarab koll‐ah/ “king of all ʿArab” (M.C.E Macdonald’s translation,eachhave from as been (Fiema Owens’s recorded et reconstruction al. 2016with a form would transliterated predict. However, as ‐eh (e.g., if theYaš formsīʿ; (Isaksson with epenthesis 1991, p. 126)). were pp. 405–6)). For either /kull‐ha/ or /kull‐hā/ we would expect **klgeneralized,‐hʾ inIf thecorrect, Nabataean as couldthe traditional be or suggested‐ historical by the explanation 2ms and 2fs for forms, these we forms, would namely expect that 3fsg they -aha rep to‐ thography. (Cantineau 1936/1937, pp. 78, 182–83) argued based occurresenton data when frozen from suffixed genitivethe Syrian to or any accusative noun, regardless cases, becomes of morphological much less convincing. pattern. Instead, These however, variants Šammarī and ʿAnaze Bedouin dialects, in which 3fs suffix waswecannot realized find be that Cexplained‐ah on but nouns post through ending‐ the in a same single set consonant, of developments the form as is the -ha, harmonizing i.e., ba arit-ha group.“her cow”,Note that and the not **variationba aritaha attested. The same in the noun, vowel however, before when tanwīn suffixed (Stokes with 2020, a 2mspp. 654–58) or 2fs suffix, mir‐ wouldrors that have of the supposedly3ms suffix. I epenthetic suggest that allomorph, the same i.e., neutralizationba aritak (msg.)/ attestedba aratik before(fsg.). tanw Inīn otheroccurred words, before in a PN dialect suffixes that in fits some Owens’ dialects pattern as well: for the creation of epenthetic allomorphs, we would*bayt‐ haveVcase‐hu/*bayt to suppose‐Vcase thatn > *bayt the epenthetic‐V‐hu/*bayt allomorphs‐Vn of the 2ms and 2fs suffixes were generalizedFollowing everywhere, the loss of but final the short 3fs suffix vowels, retained the 3ms its original suffix would distribution follow (i.e., this occurring non‐pho‐ onlynemic after vowel: CC clusters). Thus, Owens’s theory does not successfully explain the particulars of theb distributionēt‐ih/bēt‐in. of any dialect type. TheAs we question will see, remains many howdialects to model with 3ms this ‐ developmentih or ‐ah attest from 2ms etymological ‐ik and 2fs ‐ić case. Thus, vowel it is tolikely the variousthat vowels surface in this forms. position As noted merged, above, with both a Blauhigh andvowel Diem surface believe, manifestation as I do, that in nounsevery instance. originally11 endedIt is unclear in a short what vowel might that have marked caused nominal such a caseneutralization on singular, in femininethis posi‐ plural,tion. One and possibility most broken is that plural the patterns. change Thebegan question in the ofconstruct, their development where the iscase tied vowel up with on thatthe initial of the simplificationnoun of the construct and eventual chain loss would of Proto-Arabic be in a waṣ morphosyntacticl position, and thus case potentially inflection. Forprone Blau, to reduction: the breakdown and loss of case is related to the loss of final short vowels, and the subsequent*baytu r analogical‐raǧuli “the extension man’s house” of these > *bayt caseless Vr‐ra formsǧuli to non-final position. For Diem, on theAnother other hand, possibility case breakdown is that post was‐stress only but partially, non‐word if at final all, related vowels to were short reduced final vowel and loss;merged: rather, for him it was primarily due to the low functional yield of case in Semitic and Arabic.*bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn but al‐bayt‐u and baytu r‐raǧuli WhileSubsequently, both Blau the and non Diem‐phonemic are undoubtedly vowel manifested correct as that a high both front analogy vowel and in sound most changecontexts, played and final roles, short neither vowels provided were explanations lost. The construct which, perhaps in the end, continued were able inflecting to provide for satisfactorycase, but the reconstructions otherwise‐ubiquitous of the process. absolute Blau form is ultimately eventually unable replaced to compellingly it. answer how shortThis can final be case summarized vowels were by the lost, following thus leading steps: to case loss, without the simultaneous loss of short pronominal suffix vowels. Diem, on the other hand, does not manage to 1. Post‐stress, non‐word final neutralization of vowel contrast: *bayt‐ən; bayt‐ə‐hu; but explain what led to the free variation of case vowels, and ultimately the loss of case. As bayt‐Vcase Blau argued successfully elsewhere (Blau 1972), the low functional yield of case in Semitic 2. Generalization of high vowel realization: *bayt‐in; *bayt‐i‐hu; but *bayt‐Vcase is not, in and of itself, an explanation for its loss. 3. Loss of final short vowels: bayt‐in; bayt‐ih; bayt Another problem that plagues both accounts detailed above is that neither fully integratesIn a few the dialects, only other such feature as Al which‐Mahā providesbšeh, however, direct evidence 3ms is ‐eh of but case 2ms vowels is ‐ak, that suggesting remain inagainst the dialects, a generalization namely dialectal to all contexts.tanw¯ın .In Both these Blau cases,(2002 there, p. 44–46;might have2006) been and Diema generaliza(1991, ‐ 303tion ff.) of ‐ assumea before that pronominal the attested suffixes, surface with forms subsequent of dialectal raisingtanw of¯ın ‐reflectah, as with unaltered the tāʾ the marb caseūṭa vowel‐ah, to ‐ whicheh or ‐ wasih. ultimately generalized. That is, in their reconstructions, any examples of dialectalThe 3fs tanw suffix¯ın is - inin aremost automatically dialects realized assumed as ‐a or to –(V)ha reflect. The a frozen latter genitive suggests *- anin ,origi any‐ dialectalnally long -an finalreflects vowel accusative *‐hā, but *- anthe, etc. former As argued is ambiguous. in Stokes Ahmad(2020), however,Al‐Jallad there(p.c.) arehas reasonspointed based out that on thethere dialectal is some data pre to‐Islamic doubt Arabic this straightforward epigraphic evidence identification. for a short The clearest*‐ha by‐ exampleform in line is found one of in the the Nam southernārah Saudiinscription, dialects which of Bal-Qarn reads mlk and ʾ Ban l‐ ¯ı ʿ Ab rbadil,¯ kl‐h where/malk ʾ anal‐ interestingʿarab koll‐ah/ pausal/non-pausal “king of all ʿArab” distribution (M.C.E Macdonald’s of dialectal tanw translation,¯ın is attested: from non-pausal(Fiema et al.b et-in¯2016 “app. house”/pausal 405–6)). For eitherbet-u¯ /kull“idem.”‐ha/ or The /kull most‐hā likely/ we would interpretation expect ** ofkl‐h thisʾ in is the a vowelNabataean merger or‐ tothography. a high vowel (Cantineau in final position,1936/1937, wherein pp. 78, before 182–83)tanw argued¯ın the based surface on vowel data from is short the front Syrian-i, whereasŠammarī whenand ʿ word-finalAnaze Bedouin the vowel dialects, is back in which high - u3fs(itself suffix apparently was realized lengthened C‐ah but rather post‐ than lost; see Stokes(2020, pp. 655–56) for details). Other evidence suggests a similar merger occurred in most, if not all, ancestors of the modern dialects. For example, in both Bahraini and rural (fella¯h. ¯ı) Iraqi dialects, there is an adverbial tanw¯ın -an that contrasts with the standard dialectal tanw¯ın form -in; crucially, these occur in contexts which could not have been ClAr borrowings (Stokes 2020, p. 650). Rather, the reflexes of dialectal tanw¯ın attest a stage in which phonemic distinction was lost between short case vowels before tanw¯ın: *u,*i,*a > V/C_#(n) (Stokes 2020, pp. 655–60). It is likely that such a merger is responsible for the surface forms of dialectal tanw¯ın in those dialects that retain it. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Mesopotamian Najdi Dafar¯ S. an ani¯ Q@ltu Levantine (Mardin)

(Rossi) C-ah, V-h 3ms C-ih, C/V-h C-eh, V-h -u, -hu -o, -u (Watson) -ih, V-h 3fs (a)ha -ha C-aha/V-ha¯ -a, -wa, -ya -a, -ha (Rossi) -[o]hum -(h)on, -(h)in, 3mp -(i)hum, -ham -hum -@n, -w@n (Watson) -uhum -hum -(i)hin, -(a)hin, (Rossi) -[e]hin 3fp -hin N/A -hin -han (Watson) -ahin 2ms C-ik, C/V-k C-uk, V-k C-ak/V-k -@k, -k -ak, -ek 2fs C/V-(i)ć~ š C-iš, V-š C-iš/V-š -ki -ik, -itš, -tši -kon, -kun, (Rossi) -[o]kum 2mp -(i)kum, -kam -kum -k@n ---kin, -kum, (Watson) -ukum -kam, -kim (Rossi) -[e]kin -kin, -tšin, 2fp -(i)ćin, -ćan -kin N/A (Watson) -akin -tšan 1cs C-i/V-ya -i C-i/V-ya -i, -ya -i 1cp -(i)na, -a(na) -na -[a]na -na -na

3.1. Third Person Masculine and Feminine Forms Numerous and geographically widespread modern dialects attest 3ms C-u/C-o, and -V:. Regarding forms with -o(h), Cantineau 1939) argued that it is the result of dar¯ + frozen accusative a + hu, with subsequent elision of the intervocalic laryngeal: dar-a-hu¯ > dara-u¯ > dar-o.¯ Jastrow(1991) assumes that dar-u(h)¯ /dar-o¯ , as well as dar-a(h)¯ and dar-ih¯ “idem”, were the result of the “freezing” of different case vowels in different dialects. In his scenario, dar-u(h)¯ /dar-o¯ attested the retention of nominative *-u, whereas dara(h)¯ attested a frozen accusative *-a and dari(h)¯ a frozen genitive *-i. However, like Blau and Diem, Jastrow fails Languages 2021, 6Languages, x FOR PEER 2021 ,REVIEW 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 10 of 18

‐əh. Such an explanation‐əh. Such an would explanation also make would sense also out make of the sense difference out of the variation difference in translit variation‐ in translit‐ eration founderation in a number found inof adialects, number such of dialects, as Ṣanʿ āsuchni, where as Ṣan (Rossiʿāni, where1939, p.4(Rossi gives 1939, ‐ah ,p.4 gives ‐ah, but (Watson 2009,but (Watson p. 110) gives2009, ‐ p.ih .110) There gives is also ‐ih. evidenceThere is also for suchevidence a situation for such in athe situation Negev in the Negev (Palestine) dialect(Palestine) of the dialectʿ Azazmih, of the whereʿ Azazmih, the reflex where of the the 3ms reflex suffix of the is ‐ 3msih when suffix suffixed is ‐ih when suffixed to most nouns,to butmost ‐ah nouns, when butsuffixed ‐ah when to verbs suffixed whose to stemverbs vowel whose is stem low: vowel rās‐ih “hisis low: head”, rās‐ih “his head”, but ǧāb‐ah “hebut brought ǧāb‐ah it”“he (Shawarba brought it” 2012, (Shawarba p. 193). 2012,This isp. paralleled 193). This inis paralleledsome cases in by some the cases by the realization ofrealization the feminine of thenominal feminine marker nominal *‐ah, whichmarker is * ‐‐ahit ,in which construct is ‐it onin constructmost nouns on most nouns but ‐at on verbsbut ‐whoseat on verbsstem vowelwhose is stem low: vowel nāg‐it is“she low:‐camel nāg‐it of”, “she but‐camel nām ‐of”,at “she but slept.”nām‐at “she slept.” The same is trueThe for same Eastern is true Libyan for Eastern itself, Libyanwhere Owensitself, where notes Owensthat Mitchell’s notes that descriptions Mitchell’s descriptions (Mitchell 1952,(Mitchell 1960, apud 1952, Owens 1960, 1984,apud Owensp. 93) give 1984, 3ms p. 93)suffix give‐ih ,3ms whereas suffix Owens‐ih, whereas translit Owens‐ translit‐ erates it ‐ah. Owens’erates it ‐examplesah. Owens’ from examples Eastern fromLibyan Eastern Arabic Libyan are probably Arabic aresimilar probably to other similar to other dialects, wheredialects, the exact where quality the exactdepends quality on thedepends phonetic on theenvironment. phonetic environment. Other dialects Other dialects have been recordedhave been with recorded a form transliterated with a form transliterated as ‐eh (e.g., Yaš asī ‐ʿ;eh (Isaksson (e.g., Yaš 1991,īʿ; (Isaksson p. 126)). 1991, p. 126)). If correct, theIf traditional correct, the historical traditional explanation historical for explanation these forms, for namelythese forms, that they namely rep ‐that they rep‐ resent frozenresent genitive frozen or accusative genitive or cases, accusative becomes cases, much becomes less convincing. much less These convincing. variants These variants cannot be explainedcannot bethrough explained the samethrough set theof developmentssame set of developments as the harmonizing as the harmonizinggroup. group. Note that theNote variation that theattested variation in the attested vowel inbefore the voweltanwīn before (Stokes tanw 2020,īn (Stokespp. 654–58) 2020, mir pp.‐ 654–58) mir‐ rors that of therors 3ms that suffix. of the I 3mssuggest suffix. that I thesuggest same that neutralization the same neutralization attested before attested tanwīn before tanwīn occurred beforeoccurred PN suffixes before in PN some suffixes dialects in some as well: dialects as well: *bayt‐Vcase‐hu/*bayt*bayt‐Vcase‐nhu/*bayt > *bayt‐‐VV‐casehu/*baytn > *bayt‐Vn‐V ‐hu/*bayt‐Vn Following theFollowing loss of final the short loss ofvowels, final short the 3ms vowels, suffix the would 3ms suffixfollow would this non follow‐pho ‐this non‐pho‐ nemic vowel:nemic vowel: bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. bēt‐ih/bēt‐in.Languages 2021, 6, 147 7 of 17 As we will see,As many we will dialects see, many with dialects3ms ‐ih orwith ‐ah 3ms attest ‐ih 2ms or ‐ ‐ahik attestand 2fs 2ms ‐ić ‐. ikThus, and 2fsit is ‐ ić. Thus, it is likely that vowelslikely inthat this vowels position in thismerged, position with merged, a high vowelwith a surfacehigh vowel manifestation surface manifestation in in every instance.every11 It isinstance. unclear11 whatIt is unclear might have what caused might havesuch acaused neutralization such a neutralization in this posi‐ in this posi‐ tion. One possibilitytion. One is possibilitythat the change is that began the change in the beganconstruct, toin providethe where construct, a the scenario case where vowel which the on accounts case vowel for theon development of each. We are not told why the the initial nounthe ofinitial the constructnoun of the chain construct would chainbe in awould waṣl position,benominative in a wa andṣl case position, thus would potentially and be frozenthus potentially only when followed by the 3ms suffix. prone to reduction:prone to reduction: I agree that the 3ms suffix forms -u(h) ultimately derives from *u-hu. As we saw above, *baytu r‐raǧuli*baytu “the man’sr‐raǧuli house” “the man’s > *bayt house” Vr‐raǧ >uli *bayt Vrexplaining‐raǧuli these forms involves a model that can explain the freezing of the case vowel Another possibilityAnother is possibilitythat post‐stress is that but post non‐stress‐word but finalbefore non vowels‐word PN suffixes werefinal vowelsreduced before were the and loss reduced of word-final and short vowels. I would suggest the following merged: merged: steps. From the reconstructed Proto-Arabic distribution, vowel harmony across morpheme 1- 2 2- 2 7 *bayt‐u‐hu/bayt*bayt‐un ‐>u ‐*baythu/bayt‐V‐‐hu/*baytun > *bayt‐Vn‐V but‐hu/*bayt al‐bayt‐Vn‐u andbutboundaries albaytu‐bayt r‐‐ura andǧ developed,uli baytu r‐ra whereinǧuli V CV > V CV . Subsequently,Subsequently, the non‐phonemic the non vowel‐phonemic manifested vowel as 1.manifested a highProto-Arabic: front as avowel high *bayt-V infront mostcase vowel n; *al-bayt-V in most case; *bayt-Vcase-hu contexts, andcontexts, final short and vowels final shortwere vowelslost. The were construct lost. The perhaps2. construct Harmony continued perhaps Rule: inflecting continued *bayt-V forcase inflectingn; *al-bayt-V for case; *bayt-u-hu/*bayt-a-ka/*bayt-i-ki case, but the otherwisecase, but the‐ubiquitous otherwise absolute‐ubiquitous form absolute eventually form replaced eventually it. replaced it. Subsequently, final short vowels were lost. This can be summarizedThis can be summarizedby the following by the steps: following steps: 3. Loss of final short vowels: *bayt-Vcasen;’ *al-bayt;*bayt-uh 1. Post‐stress,1. nonPost‐word‐stress, final non neutralization‐word final neutralization of vowel contrast: of vowel *bayt contrast:‐ən; bayt ‐ə‐*baythu;‐ə butn; bayt ‐ə‐hu; but bayt‐Vcase bayt‐Vcase And finally, the neutralization of phonemic contrast before tanw¯ın occurred: 2. Generalization2. Generalization of high vowel of realization: high vowel * baytrealization:‐in; *bayt 4.*‐bayti ‐hu‐;Neutralization inbut; * bayt*bayt‐i‐Vhucase; but of contrast*bayt‐Vcase before tanw¯ın: bayt-Vn; al-bayt; bayt-uh 3. Loss of final3. shortLoss ofvowels: final short bayt‐ invowels:; bayt‐ih bayt; bayt‐in ; bayt‐ih; bayt Steps 3 and 4 are not necessarily linear; they might have been simultaneous, or 4 might In a few dialects,In a suchfew dialects, as Al‐Mah suchābšeh, as Al however,‐Mahābšeh, 3ms however, ishave ‐eh but preceded 3ms 2ms is is ‐ ‐ 3.ehak Unlike but, suggesting 2ms Jastrow is ‐ak , etsuggesting al., however, I also suggest that 3ms -o(h) forms originate against a generalizationagainst a generalization to all contexts. to In all these contexts. cases, In there these mightin cases, *u-hu have thereas well,been might anda generaliza have not been *a-hu‐ a. Thegeneraliza raising‐ of *u to o is widespread,8 and is likely behind tion of ‐a beforetion pronominal of ‐a before suffixes, pronominal with suffixes, subsequent with raising subsequentthe of ‐ realizationah, raising as with of of the ‐ theah tā, ʾas 3ms- marb witho(h)ūṭ thea forms tāʾ marb as well.ūṭa ‐ah, to ‐eh or ‐‐ihah. , to ‐eh or ‐ih. Similar types of harmonization are attested in Arabic. For example, Sibawayh(1988, The 3fs suffixThe is in 3fs most suffix dialects is in most realized dialects as ‐a realizedor –(V)ha asp.. The ‐ 173)a or latter mentions–(V)ha suggests. The a latter type an origi of suggests assimilation‐ an origi that‐ takes place in pause in which CVCC nouns nally long finalnally vowel long *final‐hā, butvowel the *former‐hā, but is the ambiguous. former isinsert Ahmadambiguous. a vowel Al‐Jallad Ahmad to break (p.c.) Al up ‐hasJallad the final(p.c.) cluster has where the second vowel harmonizes with pointed out thatpointed there out is some that there pre‐Islamic is some Arabic pre‐Islamic epigraphic Arabicthe evidence epigraphic first: for aevidence short *‐ hafor by a ‐short *‐ha by‐ form in line oneform of in the line Nam oneā rahof the inscription, Namārah which inscription, reads mlkwhich ʾ iblun readsl‐ ʿ“a mlkrb camel”, kl ‐ʾh /malkl‐ > ʿ ibil rbʾal “idem”,kl‐ ‐h /malk ʾal‐ ʿarab koll‐ah/ʿ arab“king koll of ‐allah/ ʿArab” “king (M.C.Eof all ʿArab” Macdonald’s (M.C.E Macdonald’stranslation,h. ulmun from translation, (Fiema“a dream”, etfrom al. > 2016(Fiemah. ulum “idem.”et al. 2016 pp. 405–6)). Forpp. either 405–6)). /kull For‐ha/ either or /kull /kull‐h‐ha/ā/ we or would/kull‐h āexpect/ we would **klBlau’s‐hʾ expect in discussionthe Nabataean**kl‐hʾ in of naqlthe or Nabataean‐“transfer” representsor‐ a similar process of harmony, wherein a thography. (Cantineauthography. 1936/1937, (Cantineau pp. 1936/1937, 78, 182–83) pp. argued 78, 182–83) basednoun argued on in pausedata based from inserts on the data an Syrian epenthetic from the vowelSyrian that is the quality of the vowel which, when in Šammarī andŠammar ʿAnazeī Bedouinand ʿAnaze dialects, Bedouin in which dialects, 3fs insuffix whichnon-pausal was 3fs realized suffix position, wasC‐ah realized but would post markC‐‐ah but its syntacticpost‐ case:

bakrun > bakur

bakrin > bakir bakran > bakar This process9 is the same kind as is proposed here (CV1CV2 > CV2CV2). It is important, however, to emphasize the difference between the present proposal and Blau’s and Diem’s. Blau’s appeal to naql to explain the pronominal suffix is predicated on the loss of final short vowels as the driver of the breakdown of the case system, which would eliminate the source of the transfer—the final vowels of the pronominal suffixes—he proposes. In the present proposal, a cross-morpheme harmony rule develops before the loss of final short vowels. Case on word-final nouns, as well as before tanw¯ın, likely continued for some time. A round (or several rounds) of word-final short vowel loss subsequently contributed to the loss of case, although it is likely that this process was gradual. The present proposal also differs with Diem’s insofar as it proposes phonological rules to account for each stage, whereas Diem posits a period of randomness in the realization of etymological case vowels that is ad hoc. Returning to the discussion of dar-u(h)¯ and dar-o(h)¯ , the -u and -o in dar-u¯ and dar-¯ o need not therefore be frozen nominatives as such; rather, they should be considered etymological case vowels that have harmonized with the vowel of the suffix. The point is, to my view, significant and thus bears repeating. While the argument here is that the vowels that precede the pronominal suffixes were etymologically case vowels, their development in harmonizing dialects (i.e., where the vowel matches the quality of the PN suffix) represents a stage at which the vowel harmonized regularly with the vowel quality of the following morpheme. It is therefore rather meaningless to speak of “frozen nominative” when referring to the u. Not only does this argument account for how the 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 ‐ah. 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‐ resent frozen genitive or accusative cases, becomes much less convincing. These variants cannot be explained through the same set of developments as the harmonizing group. Note that the variation attested in the 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: *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: bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW As we will see, many dialects with 3ms ‐ih or ‐ah attest10 2ms of ‐18ik and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is likely that vowels in this position merged, with a high vowel surface manifestation in 11 Languages 2021,every6, 147 instance. It is unclear what might have caused such a neutralization in this posi‐ 8 of 17 tion. One possibility is that the change began in the construct, where the case vowel on ‐əh. Such an explanation would also make sense out of the difference variation in translit‐ the initial noun of the construct chain would be in a waṣl position, and thus potentially eration found in a number of dialects, such as Ṣanʿāni, where (Rossi 1939, p.4 gives ‐ah, prone to reduction: but (Watson 2009, p. 110) gives ‐ih. There is also evidence for such a situation in the Negev *baytu r‐raǧulivowels “the man’s began house” to harmonize > *bayt Vr before‐raǧuli the final short vowels of the suffixes were lost, but it (Palestine) dialect of the ʿ Azazmih, where the reflex of the 3ms suffix is ‐ih when suffixed Another possibilityalso avoids is that the post linguistically‐stress but adnon hoc‐word free final variation vowels proposed were reduced by Diem. and to most nouns, but ‐ah when suffixed to verbs whose stem vowel is low: rās‐ih “his head”, merged: In addition to forms with -uh or -o(h), a minority of modern dialects, however, attest a but ǧāb‐ah “he brought it” (Shawarba 2012, p. 193). This is paralleled in some cases by the *bayt‐u‐hu/baytform‐un > -hu *bayt, which‐V‐hu/*bayt quite possibly‐Vn but al derives‐bayt‐u and from baytu *-hu¯ .r‐ Inraǧ theuli Arabic of Mardin, for example, realization of the feminine nominal marker *‐ah, which is ‐it in construct on most nouns Subsequently,post-vocalic the non‐phonemic 3ms suffix vowel is -hu manifestedrather than as a a lengthened high front vowel vowel -V:, in e.g.,mostab uhu¯ “his father” but ‐at on verbs whose stem vowel is low: nāg‐it “she‐camel of”, but nām‐at “she slept.” contexts, and final( Grigoreshort vowels 2007, were p. 228; lost. Talay The 2011 construct, p. 913). perhaps In nearby continued S¯ırt, as inflecting in most for Q@ltu dialects, short The same is true for Eastern Libyan itself, where Owens notes that Mitchell’s descriptions case, but the otherwisehigh‐ vowelsubiquitous have absolute completely form merged eventually to / @replaced/ in every it. phonetic environment (Talay 2011, (Mitchell 1952, 1960, apud Owens 1984, p. 93) give 3ms suffix‐ih, whereas Owens translit‐ This can be summarizedp. 913). Thus by S ¯ırtthem following@fl@s (<*muflis steps:) “broke”, and pronominal suffixes k@n/@n (<*kun/*kin erates it ‐ah. Owens’ examples from Easternand *Libyanhun/*hin Arabic) “your are (cpl)/their probably (cpl)”similar (Grigore to other and Bituna 2012, p. 551). We would thus 1. Post‐stress, non‐word final neutralization of vowel contrast: *bayt‐ə,n; bayt‐ə‐hu; but dialects, where the exact quality dependsexpect on the the phonetic 3ms suffix, environment. derived from Other *u-hu dialectsor *uh , to be realized -@h as well. In some SW bayt‐Vcase have been recorded with a form transliteratedYemeni as dialects, ‐eh (e.g., - huYašisīʿ ubiquitous; (Isaksson 1991, whether p. 126)). the noun ends in a consonant or a vowel. 2. Generalization of high vowel realization: *bayt‐in; *bayt‐i‐hu; but *bayt‐Vcase If correct, the traditional historical explanationComparative for these Semitic forms, data namely suggest that reconstructing they rep‐ Proto-Semitic 3ms suffix with a short 3. Loss of final short vowels: bayt‐in; bayt‐ih; bayt resent frozen genitive or accusative cases,vowel, becomes *-su .much Additionally, less convincing. both Hebrew These variants and Aramaic forms suggest a Proto-Northwest cannot be explained throughIn athe few same dialects, Semiticset ofsuch developments *- ashu Al(Suchard‐Mahā bšeh,as 2020 the however,, harmonizing p. 43). The3ms Arabicis group. ‐eh but dialectal 2ms is ‐ formsak, suggesting ending in -u(h) and -o(h), Note that the variationagainst attested a generalizationin the vowelif the before presentto all tanwcontexts. reconstructionīn (Stokes In these 2020, cases, is pp. correct, there654–58) alsomight mir suggest have‐ been a short a generaliza vowel *-‐hu. If the Arabic rors that of the 3ms suffix.tion of I ‐suggesta before that pronominaldialectal the same -hu suffixes, neutralizationforms with do indeed subsequent attested reflect before raising etymological tanw of ‐ahīn, as *-h withu¯, it couldthe tāʾ suggest marbūṭa that two by-forms occurred before PN suffixes‐ah, to in ‐eh some or ‐ih dialects. existed as well: at the Proto-Arabic node: *-hu and *-hu¯. There is evidence of long and short vowel *bayt‐Vcase‐hu/*bayt‐VcasenThe > *bayt 3fs suffix‐V‐hu/*baytvariants is in most‐Vn of dialects pronominal realized suffixes as ‐a throughoutor –(V)ha. The Semitic. latter suggests In ClAr, an for origi example,‐ pronominal Following the lossnally of final long short final vowels, vowelsuffixes the*‐h following ā3ms, but suffix the short formerwould case isfollow vowels ambiguous. this are non realized ‐Ahmadpho‐ long, Al while‐Jallad those (p.c.) after has long vowels were nemic vowel: pointed out that thererealized is some short: prebi-h‐Islamic¯ı “with Arabic it”, but epigraphicf¯ı-hi “in it” evidence (Fischer for 2002 a short, p. 126). *‐ha by The‐ opposite of this bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. form in line one ofsystem the Nam is attestedārah inscription, elsewhere, which in, e.g., reads Aramaic mlk andʾ l‐ G @ʿ @ z,rb where kl‐h /malk suffixes ʾal‐ with short vowels As we will see, manyʿarab dialects koll‐ah/ with “king 3msoccur of ‐allih after orʿArab” ‐ shortah attest (M.C.E vowels, 2ms Macdonald’s ‐ andik and suffixes 2fs ‐ itranslation,ć. with Thus, long it is vowelsfrom (Fiema typically et al. occur 2016 after long vowels, likely that vowels in thispp. 405–6)).position Formerged, eithercf. Biblical with/kull ‐aha/ Aramaichigh or /kullvowel (Ezra‐h āsurface/ we 5:11) would manifestationavd expectoh¯ ¯ı “his ** servants.”kl in‐h ʾ in the ThisNabataean distribution or‐ led Cantineau every instance.11 It is unclearthography. what (Cantineau might(Cantineau have 1936/1937, caused 1936/1937 such pp. a78, ,neutralization vol. 182–83) 2) to proposeargued in this based a sort posi on of‐ quantitativedata from the harmony, Syrian where the length tion. One possibility isŠammar that theī changeand ʿAnaze beganof the Bedouin suffixin the vowel construct, dialects, harmonizes inwhere which the with 3fs case thesuffix vowel vowel was on preceding realized theC‐ah suffix. but post A further‐ explanation, the initial noun of the construct chain wouldoffered be in in Hasselbach a waṣl position,(2004), and is that thus the potentially suffixes with short forms are original, with the prone to reduction: long forms the result of contamination with the independent form. It is quite possible that *baytu r‐raǧuli “the man’s house” > *baytvarious Vr‐ analogiesraǧuli and developments have led to the distribution attested in the various Another possibility is that post‐stresslanguages but non (‐Suchardword final 2020 vowels, pp. 198–214). were reduced Whatever and the case may be, the presence of long and merged: short forms of the suffixes, originally tied to preceding syllable structure, is very possibly *bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un > *bayt‐V‐hu/*baytbehind‐Vn but the al‐bayt different‐u and contemporary baytu r‐raǧuli realizations of these suffixes across the dialects. This is Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowelundoubtedly manifested the explanationas a high front for the vowel common in most distribution of the 2fs suffix, cf. Damascene contexts, and final short vowels were lost.C- ikThe, but construct V-ki, where perhaps the vowel continued is always inflecting historically for long (Lentin 2006, p. 548). The u forms case, but the otherwise‐ubiquitous absolutein Q form@ltu dialects eventually such replaced as Mardin it. could represent a levelling of the long form to all contexts, 10 This can be summarized by the followingwith a steps: subsequent loss of the laryngeal h after consonants, thus C-u but V(:)-hu. Another possibility is that -hu forms in some dialects reflect analogical protection of 1. Post‐stress, non‐word final neutralization of vowel contrast: *bayt‐ən; bayt‐ə‐hu; but 3ms suffixes, based on analogy with the independent hu¯-based forms. Paradigm pressure bayt‐Vcase can deter an otherwise regular phonetic shift from occurring. For example, the shift in West 2. Generalization of high vowel realization: *bayt‐in; *bayt‐i‐hu; but *bayt‐Vcase Semitic from Proto-Semitic *s1 > h when word-initial was blocked in some roots where 3. Loss of final short vowels: bayt‐in; bayt‐ih; bayt other forms of the paradigm would have remained *s1. The verb sami a, “he heard”, should In a few dialects, such as Al‐Mahābšeh,have however, become everywhere3ms is ‐eh buthami 2msa isbut, ‐ak, likely suggesting due to the imperfect forms, which would have against a generalization to all contexts. Inbeen these word-internal cases, there might and thus have not been shifted a generaliza (yisma ‐not **yihma ), the initial s1 was retained tion of ‐a before pronominal suffixes, with(Al-Jallad subsequent 2015 raising). of ‐ah, as with the tāʾ marbūṭa ‐ah, to ‐eh or ‐ih. Finally, in some instances an etymological *-hu was possibly lengthened by analogical The 3fs suffix is in most dialects realizedpressure as ‐a from or –(V)ha the long. The vowel latter insuggests the 3fs an suffix, origi *-‐ ha¯. Elsewhere in the pronominal suffix nally long final vowel *‐hā, but the formerparadigm is ambiguous. feminine forms Ahmad form Al the‐Jallad basis (p.c.) for analogical has adjustment to the masculine forms. pointed out that there is some pre‐IslamicIn Arabic some cases, epigraphic for example, evidence the for originally a short * feminine‐ha by‐ -i vowel is levelled to masculine forms form in line one of the Namārah inscription,as well: which e.g., Gabalreadsˇ Fayfmlk a¯ʾ (Yemen) l‐ ʿ rb *- klhum‐h /malk/*-hin ʾ>al -‐him/-hin. Elsewhere, the 3fp are extended ʿarab koll‐ah/ “king of all ʿArab” (M.C.Evia Macdonald’s clipping of translation, the feminine from plural (Fiema imperfective et al. 2016 suffix *-nah: e.g., Bani Abadil¯ (Yemen) 3mp pp. 405–6)). For either /kull‐ha/ or /kull‐-hhimā/ webut would 3fp -hinna expect(Behnstedt **kl‐hʾ in the1987 Nabataean, p. 67). Masculine or‐ forms with a doubled nasal and thography. (Cantineau 1936/1937, pp. 78,final 182–83)a were argued created based in many on data dialects from based the Syrian on the feminine forms: e.g., As.-S. alt (Jordan) Šammarī and ʿAnaze Bedouin dialects,- hummuin which/- hinne3fs suffix((Palva was 1994 realized, p. 461); C‐ah apud but (postProch‐ ázka 2014, p. 142)). It is very possible then that the long feminine vowel led to the lengthening of the masculine form in some cases as well.

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 ‐ah. 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‐ resent frozen genitive or accusative cases, becomes much less convincing. These variants cannot be explained through the same set of developments as the harmonizing group. Note that the variation attested in the 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: *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: bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. As weLanguages will see, 2021 ,many 6, x FOR dialects PEER REVIEW with 3ms ‐ih or ‐ah attest 2ms ‐ik and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is 10 of 18 likely that vowels in this position merged, with a high vowel surface manifestation in every instance.11 It is unclear what might have caused such a neutralization in this posi‐ tion. One possibility is that the change began in the construct, where the case vowel on ‐əh. Such an explanation would also make sense out of the difference variation in translit‐ the initial noun of the construct chain would be in a waṣl position, and thus potentially eration found in a number of dialects, such as Ṣanʿāni, where (Rossi 1939, p.4 gives ‐ah, prone to reduction: but (Watson 2009, p. 110) gives ‐ih. There is also evidence for such a situation in the Negev *baytu r‐raǧuli “the man’s house” > *bayt Vr‐raǧuli (Palestine) dialect of the ʿ Azazmih, where the reflex of the 3ms suffix is ‐ih when suffixed Another possibility is that post‐stress but non‐word final vowels were reduced and to most nouns, but ‐ah when suffixed to verbs whose stem vowel is low: rās‐ih “his head”, merged: but ǧāb‐ah “he brought it” (Shawarba 2012, p. 193). This is paralleled in some cases by the *bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn but al‐bayt‐u and baytu r‐raǧuli realization of the feminine nominal marker *‐ah, which is ‐it in construct on most nouns Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowel manifested as a high front vowel in most but ‐at on verbs whose stem vowel is low: nāg‐it “she‐camel of”, but nām‐at “she slept.” contexts, and final short vowels were lost. The construct perhaps continued inflecting for The same is true for Eastern Libyan itself, where Owens notes that Mitchell’s descriptions case, but the otherwise‐ubiquitous absolute form eventually replaced it. (Mitchell 1952, 1960, apud Owens 1984, p. 93) give 3ms suffix‐ih, whereas Owens translit‐ This can be summarized by the following steps: erates it ‐ah. Owens’ examples from Eastern Libyan Arabic are probably similar to other 1. Post‐stress, non‐word final neutralizationdialects, whereof vowel the contrast:exact quality *bayt ‐ədependsn; bayt‐ə‐ onhu ;the but phonetic environment. Other dialects bayt‐Vcase have been recorded with a form transliterated as ‐eh (e.g., Yašīʿ; (Isaksson 1991, p. 126)). 2. Generalization of high vowel realization:If correct, *bayt‐in the; *bayt traditional‐i‐hu; but historical *bayt‐Vcase explanation for these forms, namely that they rep‐ 3. Loss of final short vowels: bayt‐inresent; bayt‐ih frozen; bayt genitive or accusative cases, becomes much less convincing. These variants Languages 2021, 6, 147 9 of 17 In a few dialects, such as Al‐Mahācannotbšeh, however, be explained 3ms is through ‐eh but 2msthe sameis ‐ak, suggestingset of developments as the harmonizing group. against a generalization to all contexts.Note In these that cases, the variation there might attested have in been the avowel generaliza before‐ tanwīn (Stokes 2020, pp. 654–58) mir‐ tion of ‐a before pronominal suffixes, withrors subsequent that of the raising3ms suffix. of ‐ah I, assuggest with the that tā ʾthe marb sameūṭa neutralization attested before tanwīn ‐ah, to ‐eh or ‐ih. Other thanoccurred -u(h)/-o(h) before, the PN 3ms suffixes suffix also in some frequently dialects takes as well: the form -i(h),-eh, or -ah. The 3fs suffix is inIn most a number dialects of realized Najdi*bayt dialects, as‐ ‐Vacase or‐hu/*bayt the –(V)ha vowel. ‐TheVcase preceding nlatter > *bayt suggests‐ allV‐hu/*bayt suffixes, an origi‐Vn singular ‐ and plural, is the nally long final vowelhigh *‐hā vowel, but thei, with former theFollowing exceptionis ambiguous. the of loss the Ahmad 3fsof final suffix, Alshort which‐Jallad vowels, is (p.c.)a (Ingham the has 3ms 2008 suffix, p. would 328). In, follow e.g., this non‐pho‐ pointed out that there isthe some southern pre‐Islamic Hijaznemic and Arabic vowel: Tihama, epigraphic (Proch evidenceázka 1988 for, p. a 192) short reports *‐ha by -ah‐ . Elsewhere, a fronted form in line one of the- ehNamis reported,ārah inscription, for examplebēt ‐whichih/bē int‐ in. thereads dialect mlk ofʾ Yašl‐ ¯ıʿ inrb Yemen kl‐h /malk (Isaksson ʾal‐ 1991, p. 126). ʿarab koll‐ah/ “king of all ʿArab”Dialects (M.C.E that attestMacdonald’sAs we a 3ms will suffix see,translation, many realized dialects from as - a(h)(Fiema with, including, 3ms et al. ‐ih 2016 or e.g., ‐ ah someattest Najdi2ms ‐ik dialects and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is pp. 405–6)). For either (/kullIngham‐ha/ 1982or /kull, p.likely‐h 98)ā/ wethat and would thevowels southern expect in this **H.kl positionij‐haz¯ʾ in (Proch the merged, Nabataeanázka 1988 with ,or p. a‐ high 126), vowel as well surface as some manifestation in thography. (CantineauSudanese 1936/1937, dialects pp. every78, (182–83)Owens instance. argued198411 It), is have based unclear traditionally on whatdata frommight been the have Syrian interpreted caused such as reflectinga neutralization the in this posi‐ Šammarī and ʿAnaze Bedouingeneralization dialects,tion. of in the Onewhich accusative possibility 3fs suffix case is was followedthat realizedthe change by C the‐ah began loss but ofpost in final the‐ construct, short u: *wherea-hu > the ah case vowel on (Cantineau 1939the). Owens initial (noun2006, of pp. the 254–55) construct suggested chain would instead be that in a there waṣ werel position, originally and thus potentially two 3ms suffixprone variants, to reduction: one with a high vowel (usually u, i in Najdi), and one with a low vowel, the quality*baytu of which r‐raǧuli was “the specifically man’s house” conditioned > *bayt Vr by‐ra theǧuli presence of emphatic consonants. As anAnother example, possibility he cites Eastern is that post Libyan‐stress Arabic, but non where‐word the final distribution vowels were is reduced and supposedly attested.merged: Owens then suggests that some dialects levelled the emphatic variant ah, while others the non-emphatic*bayt‐u‐hu/baytih‐.un As > mentioned,*bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt Jastrow‐Vn( 1991but al, p.‐bayt 170‐u et and passim) baytu argues r‐raǧuli that -ah and -ih reflectSubsequently, a frozen accusative the non and‐phonemic genitive vowel respectively.manifested as a high front vowel in most There are reasonscontexts, to and doubt final each short of vowels these explanations, were lost. The however. construct To perhaps begin with, continued it is inflecting for not clear whethercase, dialects but the with otherwise -eh reflect‐ubiquitous either *- iabsoluteor *-a. Relatedly, form eventually it is not replaced always clear it. that contemporary aThisor i canshould be summarized be connected by with the following historical steps: *a or *i. This is especially true of, e.g., the Najdi dialects that constitute the classic examples of dialects with 3ms 1. Post‐stress, non‐word final neutralization of vowel contrast: *bayt‐ən; bayt‐ə‐hu; but suffix -ih and -ah. In most Najdi dialects, historical high vowels *i and *u merged, with bayt‐Vcase phonetic context determining whether the surface form was i or u (Ingham 2008, p. 327). It 2. Generalization of high vowel realization: *bayt‐in; *bayt‐i‐hu; but *bayt‐Vcase is also important to consider issues of transliteration and phonetic reality when discussing 3. Loss of final short vowels: bayt‐in; bayt‐ih; bayt these forms. For example, as illustrated in Table3 above, San ani¯ Arabic is sometimes transliterated with -aIn, as a withfew dialects, Rossi, and such other as Al times‐Mah withābšeh, -i, as however, with Watson. 3ms is It ‐eh is likelybut 2ms that is ‐ak, suggesting presumed etymologicalagainst a correspondence generalization to with all contexts. historical In vowels these cases, influences there which might is have used. been a generaliza‐ I believe thetion most of ‐ obviousa before pronominal explanation suffixes, is that the with forms subsequent -ah,-ih, and raising -@h are of ‐ ultimatelyah, as with the tāʾ marbūṭa the result of a process‐ah, to ‐eh wherein or ‐ih. the distinction between i and a before h word-finally is neutralized. In non-roundedThe 3fs suffix contexts, is in most though dialects transliterated realized as as ‐aah or, the –(V)ha feminine. The latter ending suggests an origi‐ is actually realizednally as long basically final avowel schwa; *‐h e.g.,ā, but Najdi the *-formerah, realized is ambiguous. in neutral Ahmad contexts Al as‐Jallad (p.c.) has @, i.e., xirz@h “bead”,pointed (Ingham out that 2008 there, p.is some 327). pre Ingham‐Islamic elsewhere Arabic epigraphic (Ingham 1986 evidence, p. 283) for a short *‐ha by‐ notes that 3ms suffixform in transliterated line one of the -ih, Nam “his”,ārah is often inscription, realized which similarly reads to themlk ta¯ʾ marb l‐ ʿu¯ .t arb, kl‐h /malk ʾal‐ namely as -@h. Suchʿarab an koll explanation‐ah/ “king of would all ʿArab” also make (M.C.E sense Macdonald’s out of the differencetranslation, variation from (Fiema et al. 2016 in transliterationpp. found 405–6)). in a For number either of /kull dialects,‐ha/ or such /kull as‐hSā. /an weani,¯ would where expect Rossi **(1939kl‐hʾ ,in p. the 4 Nabataean or‐ gives -ah, but Watsonthography.(2009 ,(Cantineau p. 110) gives 1936/1937, - ih. There pp. is also78, 182–83) evidence argued for such based a situation on data in from the Syrian the Negev (Palestine)Šammar dialectī and of ʿAnaze the Azazmih, Bedouin where dialects, the reflexin which of the 3fs 3ms suffix suffix was is -realizedih when C‐ah but post‐ suffixed to most nouns, but -ah when suffixed to verbs whose stem vowel is low: ras-ih¯ “his head”, but gˇab-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: nag-it¯ “she-camel of”, but nam-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 transliterates it -ah. 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., Yaš¯ı ;(Isaksson 1991, p. 126)). If correct, the traditional historical explanation for these forms, namely that they represent frozen genitive or accusative cases, becomes much less convincing. These variants cannot be explained through the same set of developments as the harmonizing group. Note that the variation attested in the vowel before tanw¯ın (Stokes 2020, pp. 654–58) mirrors that of the 3ms suffix. I suggest that the same neutralization attested before tanw¯ın occurred before PN suffixes in some dialects as well: *bayt-Vcase-hu/*bayt-Vcasen > *bayt-V-hu/*bayt-Vn 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, Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 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”, ‐əh. Such an explanationbut ǧ āwouldb‐ah “he also brought make senseit” (Shawarba out of the 2012, difference p. 193). variation This is paralleled in translit in‐ some cases by the eration found in a numberrealization of dialects,of the feminine such as nominalṢanʿāni, markerwhere (Rossi*‐ah, which 1939, isp.4 ‐it gives in construct ‐ah, on most nouns but (Watson 2009, p.but 110) ‐at gives on verbs ‐ih. There whose is alsostem evidence vowel is for low: such nā ga‐ situationit “she‐camel in the of”, Negev but nām‐at “she slept.” (Palestine) dialect ofThe the sameʿ Azazmih, is true for where Eastern the reflex Libyan of itself,the 3ms where suffix Owens is ‐ih when notes suffixedthat Mitchell’s descriptions to most nouns, but ‐(Mitchellah when suffixed1952, 1960, to verbs apud Owenswhose stem1984, vowel p. 93) isgive low: 3ms rās suffix‐ih “his‐ih head”,, whereas Owens translit‐ but ǧāb‐ah “he broughterates it” it(Shawarba ‐ah. Owens’ 2012, examples p. 193). fromThis isEastern paralleled Libyan in some Arabic cases are byprobably the similar to other realization of the femininedialects, nominal where the marker exact * ‐qualityah, which depends is ‐it in on construct the phonetic on most environment. nouns Other dialects but ‐at on verbs whosehave stem been vowel recorded is low: with n āag form‐it “she transliterated‐camel of”, asbut ‐ ehnā (e.g.,m‐at “sheYašīʿ ;slept.” (Isaksson 1991, p. 126)). The same is true for EasternIf correct, Libyan the itself, traditional where Owenshistorical notes explanation that Mitchell’s for these descriptions forms, namely that they rep‐ (Mitchell 1952, 1960,resent apud Owensfrozen genitive1984, p. or93) accusative give 3ms suffixcases,‐ ihbecomes, whereas much Owens less translitconvincing.‐ These variants erates it ‐ah. Owens’cannot examples be explained from Eastern through Libyan the Arabic same setare ofprobably developments similar toas otherthe harmonizing group. dialects, where the Noteexact that quality the variationdepends attestedon the phonetic in the vowel environment. before tanw Otherīn (Stokes dialects 2020, pp. 654–58) mir‐ have been recordedrors with that a form of the transliterated 3ms suffix. asI ‐suggesteh (e.g., that Yaš ītheʿ; (Isaksson same neutralization 1991, p. 126)). attested before tanwīn If correct, the traditionaloccurred before historical PN explanationsuffixes in some for these dialects forms, as well:namely that they rep‐ resent frozen genitive or*bayt accusative‐Vcase‐hu/*bayt cases, ‐becomesVcasen > *bayt much‐V‐ lesshu/*bayt convincing.‐Vn These variants cannot be explained throughFollowing the same the loss set ofof finaldevelopments short vowels, as the the harmonizing 3ms suffix would group. follow this non‐pho‐ Note that the variationnemic attested vowel: in the vowel before tanwīn (Stokes 2020, pp. 654–58) mir‐ Languages 2021, 6, 147 rors that of the 3ms suffix.bēt‐ ih/bI suggestēt‐in. that the same neutralization attested before tanw10īn of 17 occurred before PN suffixesAs we in somewill see, dialects many as dialects well: with 3ms ‐ih or ‐ah attest 2ms ‐ik and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is *bayt‐Vcase‐hu/*baytlikely‐Vcase thatn > vowels*bayt‐V‐ hu/*baytin this position‐Vn merged, with a high vowel surface manifestation in Following the everyloss of instance. final short11 It vowels, is unclear the what 3ms suffixmight wouldhave caused follow suchthis nona neutralization‐pho‐ in this posi‐ Following the loss of final short vowels, the 3ms suffix would follow this non- nemic vowel: phonemic vowel:tion. One possibility is that the change began in the construct, where the case vowel on bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. ṣ bet-ih/b¯ et-in.¯ the initial noun of the construct chain would be in a wa l position, and thus potentially As we will see, many dialects with 3ms ‐ih or ‐ah attest 2ms ‐ik and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is As we willprone see, many to reduction: dialects with 3ms -ih or -ah attest 2ms -ik and 2fs -ić. Thus, it likely that vowels in this position merged, with a high vowel surface manifestation in is likely that vowels*baytu in this r position‐raǧuli “the merged, man’s with house” a high > *bayt vowel Vr‐ra surfaceǧuli manifestation in every instance.11 It is unclearAnother what possibility might have is that caused post such‐stress a neutralizationbut non‐word infinal this vowels posi‐ were reduced and every instance.11 It is unclear what might have caused such a neutralization in this position. tion. One possibility is that the change began in the construct, where the case vowel on One possibilitymerged: is that the change began in the construct, where the case vowel on the the initial noun of the construct chain would be in a waṣl position, and thus potentially ǧ initial noun of the construct*bayt‐u‐ chainhu/bayt would‐un > *bayt be in‐V a‐ wahu/*baytsl position,‐Vn but and al‐bayt thus‐u potentially and baytu proner‐ra uli prone to reduction: . to reduction: Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowel manifested as a high front vowel in most *baytu r‐raǧuli “the man’s house” > *bayt Vr‐raǧuli *baytu r-raguliˇcontexts,“the man’s and final house” short > *baytvowels Vr-ra wereguliˇ lost. The construct perhaps continued inflecting for Another possibility is that post‐stress but non‐word final vowels were reduced and Another possibilitycase, but isthe that otherwise post-stress‐ubiquitous but non-word absolute final form vowels eventually were reducedreplaced and it. merged:merged: This can be summarized by the following steps: ǧ *bayt*bayt-u-hu/bayt-un‐u‐hu/bayt‐1.un >Post *bayt >‐ *bayt-V-hu/*bayt-Vnstress,‐V‐hu/*bayt non‐‐wordVn but final al but‐bayt al-bayt-uneutralization‐u and andbaytubaytu ofr‐ra vowel r-rauli guliˇ contrast: *bayt‐ən; bayt‐ə‐hu; but Subsequently,Subsequently, the thenonbayt non-phonemic‐‐phonemicVcase vowel vowel manifested manifested as a as high a high front front vowel vowel in most in most contexts,contexts, and and final final short2. short Generalizationvowels vowels were were lost. of lost. highThe The constructvowel construct realization: perhaps perhaps continued*bayt continued‐in; *bayt inflecting‐ inflectingi‐hu; but for * forbayt‐Vcase case,case, but butthe theotherwise otherwise-ubiquitous3. ‐ubiquitousLoss of final absolute short absolute vowels: form form eventually bayt eventually‐in; bayt replaced‐ih replaced; bayt it. it. This can be summarized by the following steps: This can be summarizedIn a few dialects, by the following such as Al steps:‐Mahābšeh, however, 3ms is ‐eh but 2ms is ‐ak, suggesting 1. 1.PostPost-stress,‐stress, nonagainst‐ non-wordword afinal generalization final neutralization neutralization to all of contexts. vowel of vowel contrast: In contrast:these *cases,bayt *bayt-‐ə theren; @baytn; mightbayt-‐ə‐hu@; -hu havebut; but been a generaliza‐ case bayt‐bayt-VV case tion of ‐a before pronominal suffixes, with subsequent raising of ‐ah, as with the tāʾ marbūṭa case 2. 2.Generalization Generalization‐ ofah ,high to of ‐ higheh vowel or ‐ vowelih realization:. realization: *bayt *‐bayt-inin; *bayt;*‐bayt-i-hui‐hu; but; * butbayt *bayt‐V - Vcase 3. 3.Loss Loss of final of final short short vowels:The vowels: 3fs bayt suffix‐bayt-inin ;is bayt in; most‐bayt-ihih; bayt dialects; bayt realized as ‐a or –(V)ha. The latter suggests an origi‐ In aIn few a fewdialects, dialects,nally such long such as Al asfinal‐Mah Al-Mah vowelābšeh,abšeh,¯ * however,‐hā, however, but the 3ms 3msformer is ‐eh is but - ehis but2msambiguous. 2ms is ‐ak is, -suggestingak Ahmad, suggesting Al‐Jallad (p.c.) has againstagainst a generalization a generalizationpointed to all out to contexts. all that contexts. there In theseis In some these cases, pre cases, ‐thereIslamic there might Arabic might have epigraphic have been been a generaliza aevidence generaliza-‐ for a short *‐ha by‐ tiontion of ‐a of before -a before pronominalform pronominal in linesuffixes, suffixes,one ofwith the with subsequent Nam subsequentārah inscription,raising raising of ‐ah of which, - asah ,with as reads with the tmlk theāʾ marb ta¯ʾ marb ūl‐ ṭa ʿu¯ .t arb kl‐h /malk ʾal‐ ‐ah,- toah ‐,eh to or -eh ‐orih. -ih. ʿarab koll‐ah/ “king of all ʿArab” (M.C.E Macdonald’s translation, from (Fiema et al. 2016 TheThe 3fs suffix 3fs suffix ispp. in 405–6)). ismost in mostdialects For dialects either realized /kull realized as‐ha/ ‐a oror as –(V)ha/kull -a or‐h. ā–(V)haThe/ we latter would. The suggests expect latter suggestsan **kl origi‐hʾ in‐ anthe Nabataean or‐ nallyoriginally long final long vowel finalthography. * vowel‐hā, but *-(Cantineauh a¯the, but former the 1936/1937, former is ambiguous. is ambiguous. pp. 78, Ahmad182–83) Ahmad Alargued‐Jallad Al-Jallad based (p.c.) (p.c.) on has data has from the Syrian pointedpointed out outthat thatthereŠammar there is some isī and some pre ‐ʿIslamicAnaze pre-Islamic BedouinArabic Arabic epigraphic dialects, epigraphic in evidence which evidence 3fsfor suffixa short for was a *‐ shortha realizedby‐ *-ha C‐ah but post‐ formby-form in line inone line of onethe ofNam theā Namrah inscription,arah¯ inscription, which which reads reads mlk mlkʾ l‐ l- ʿ rb rb kl-h kl‐/malkh /malkal- ʾalarab‐ ʿarabkoll-ah/“king koll‐ah/ “king of of all all ʿArab”Arab” (M.C.E(M.C.E Macdonald’s translation, translation, from from (Fiema Fiema et et al. al. 2016(2016 , pp. pp.405–6)). 405–6)). For Foreither either /kull /kull-ha/‐ha/ or /kull or‐ /kull-hhā/ we a/would¯ we wouldexpect expect**kl‐hʾ in **kl-h the Nabataeanin the Nabataean or‐ thography.orthography. (Cantineau Cantineau 1936/1937,(1936/1937 pp. ,78, pp. 182–83) 78, 182–83) argued argued based based on data on data from from the theSyrian Syrian ŠammarŠammarī and¯ı and ʿAnazeAnaze Bedouin Bedouin dialects, dialects, in which in which 3fs suffix 3fs suffix was was realized realized C‐ahC-ah but butpost post-‐ vocalic V-ha, that the vowel was originally anceps (that is, both long and short), and that its length matched the length of the preceding case vowel. While this fits the data on which Cantineau was focusing, this does not fit many other dialects, which show only one form. So, while I agree with Cantineau that there were possibly two by-forms, one long and one short, of the 3fs suffix, based on realizations of the suffix in other Arabic dialects (see below), as well as ClAr data, it seems unlikely that we can posit a length harmonization for the ancestors of all dialects, and almost certainly not for Proto-Arabic.12 If we posit short and long by-forms for Proto-Arabic, then examples of 3fs suffix realized as -ha seem most likely explained as retentions of *-ha¯. More complicated are forms such as -ah. If, as is maintained here, final short *-a vowels were eventually lost in the ancestors of the dialects, then -ah forms are most likely explained as reflecting the same harmony across morpheme boundaries described above: *Vcase-ha > a-ha > -ah, with harmonization before loss of final short a. Alternatively, -ah forms could reflect an analogical restructuring of the 3fs suffix based on the 3ms forms: -uh/-aha > -uh/-ah. In that case, even these forms could ultimately have descended from an originally long final form *-ha.¯ From such a situation, whether due to loss of a final short *a, or analogical restructuring, we can explain the distribution in a minority of dialects in which 3fs is -eh/-ih, as in the dialect of Giblah,ˇ Yemen (Table4; data from Isaksson 1991, p. 130): Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Table 5. Patterns of *-CVV and *CVC sufﬁxes (Arabian data from Isaksson(1991); Damascene from Brustad and Zuniga(2019, p. 411)).

Mecca Al-Mah. all Damascene 3fs -[a]ha -[a]ha -a 3mp/2mp -[a]hum/-[a]kum -[o]hum/-[o]kum -on/-kon 3fp/2fp N/A -[a]han/-[o]kun N/A 1cp -[a]na -[a]na -na

How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? First, the 3fs and 1cp suffixes, unlike 3ms, 2ms, and 2fs, are re-constructible with long *a¯ vowels, 3fs *ha¯ and 1cp *na¯, which pattern with the heavy CVC syllables of the 3mp/3fp *-hum/*-hin and 2mp/2fp *-kum/*-kin suffixes. I argue that as case inflection broke down, the original short (formerly case-inflecting) vowel was syncopated before long (CVV) and heavy (CVC) syllables13: *bayt-V-ha/hum/kum¯ > *bayt-ha/hum/kum.¯ At some point later in their development, a disallowance for CCVV and CCVC syllables arose in many dialects, resulting in insertion of an anaptyctic vowel in the same slot. Elsewhere, in, e.g., the ancestors of Levantine-like dialects, no such disallowance developed, with either the retention of the laryngeal of the 3rd person forms (as in Dafar;¯ see Table3 above) or loss (as in Damascene). The current proposal can thus be summed up by distinguishing between suffixes that consisted historically of light syllables (i.e., CV) and those that consisted of heavy ones (either CVV or CVC). Before suffixes consisting of light syllables, the final short vowel, Languages 2021, 6, 147 12 of 17

historically a case vowel, in some cases (e.g., Levantine) harmonized with the vowel of the sufﬁxes, and in other cases (e.g., Najdi) lost contrast and manifested as a generalized high vowel.14 Before sufﬁxes consisting of heavy syllables, there was an initial syncope of the short vowel.15 In many dialects, a subsequent phonetic rule disallowing strings of heavy syllables resulted in the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel, while in others no such insertion occurred. In dialects such as Damascene, the laryngeal was elided, but elsewhere no elision occurred (see Table6 for reconstructions).

Table 6. Reconstruction of Meccan and Damascene.

Meccan-Type Damascene-Type *bayt-V-ha/*bayt-V-hum¯ > *bayt-V-ha/bayt-V-hun¯ > 3fs/3mp *bayt-ha/*bayt-hum¯ > *bayt-ha/*bayt-hun¯ > bayt-a/bayt-on bayt-a-ha/bayt-a-hum 2mp bayt-V-kum > *bayt-kum > bayt-a-kum *bayt-V-kun > *bayt-kun > bet-kon¯

3.2. Second Person Masculine and Feminine Forms The 2ms suffix is in many dialects realized -ak after consonants and -k after vowels. These are derivable from *Vcase-ka > *a-ka (via the vowel harmony rule mentioned above) > ak (after loss of final short a), with a post-vocalic variant -k. A significant minority of dialects attest another vowel before the final velar stop, usually either high front -ik, but in a few instances high back -ok/-uk. In the case of 2ms -ik, the feminine form is almost always an affricated -itš or -ić. I have already argued that 3ms -ih in many cases reflects a neutralization of vowel contrast in this position. The dialects with 3ms -ih in which 2ms and 2fs suffixes are -ik and -ić suggst a general loss of contrast, with a high front vowel surface manifestation. The 2ms suffix form realized as -ok or -uk has long baffled commentators (cf. Diem 1973, p. 42; Isaksson 1991, p. 127). In Dafar,¯ for example, the paradigm is as follows (Table7; data from Isaksson 1991, p. 127):

Table 7. Dafar¯ singular forms.

3ms C-eh/V-h 3fs -ha 2ms -uk 2fs -iš

How can the 2ms -uk be explained? One possibility is that, initially, the pre-suffix vowel was universally high: *bayt-Vcase-PN > *bayt-Vhigh-PN. Subsequently, harmonization of the 2fs to the similarly high suffix vowel occurred: *Vhigh-ki > *i-ki > *i-ši > -iš. Before the 2ms, however, the back high u was generalized, with no subsequent harmonization. It is curious that the 3ms and 2fs suffixes, both of which were followed etymologically by high vowels, apparently triggered a front high manifestation of the pre-suffix vowel, whereas the 2ms, with a low vowel, did not. Perhaps there was a pattern that led to this: V-CVhigh > Vfront-CVhigh, but V-CVlow > Vback-CVlow The feminine by-forms -ik/-ki require a bit of comment. Comparative evidence strongly favors a reconstruction of final short i, which we would not expect to remain in these dialects. Diem(1991, p. 301) reconstructs 2fs *- k¯ı. While this is a possible explanation of forms after long vowels with -ki, it cannot explain the nearly ubiquitous existence of -ik forms. Several scholars have suggested rather that -ki forms are due to contamination from the nominative pronoun inti and the imperfect verbal suffix, e.g., Jordanian tuktubi “you Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Table 8. The 3rd and 2nd singular pronominal sufﬁxes.

After Consonant After Vowel 3ms C-eh V-h 2ms C-ak V-k 3fs C-ha V-ha 2fs C-ki V-ki

We can therefore explain the 2ms and 2fs suffix forms via developments from originally short final vowels. As we have seen with the 3ms and 3fs (and the plural forms, obliquely), the vowels preceding the suffixes were originally case inflecting short vowels, which lost phonemic value and subsequently harmonized with the retained suffix vowels.

4. Suffix Vowel Length The length of the final vowels in Proto-Semitic is notoriously difficult to determine because the reflexes of the forms differ across the attested Semitic languages.16 Various scholars have attempted different solutions to this puzzle. Brockelmann(1908/1913, p. 74 ff.) suggested what has been the majority opinion of the past century, namely that the vowels were anceps, meaning that they could be long or short. Brockelmann’s own intuition was that they were originally long, but that some were shortened because they were unstressed (ibid.).17 Blau(1981, p. 63 ff.) held the opposite scenario, namely that the suffix vowels were originally short, but that paradigm pressure, namely the preservation of gender distinctions on suffixes, led speakers to retain them in languages like Hebrew, where short vowels were otherwise lost. Despite the difficulties in reconstructing their length in Proto-Semitic, I follow Hasselbach(2004); Al-Jallad(2014) in analyzing most of the forms as originally short in Proto-Arabic. The reasons, discussed above, concern the consistency with which the dialects agree with ClAr. For example, virtually all modern dialects lack the final vowel on 2ms *-ka, which seems best interpreted as the loss of final short *a. It is necessary, and indeed methodologically preferable, to allow for multiple rounds of final-vowel reduction and loss when modeling the development of the dialects from their ancestors. We should Languages 2021, 6, 147 14 of 17

not constrain ourselves to solving the loss of, say, the word-final *-a of the 2ms suffix in the same stage as the loss of final *-a on the 3ms prefix verb; rather, we should probably factor in multiple rounds of reduction and loss, depending on dialect. The main difference between my reconstructions and those offered by Hasselbach concern the 3fs suffix, which I reconstruct long for Proto-Arabic, based on the form in ClAr, as well as its almost total retention in the modern dialects. Exceptions to these forms are, I believe, explicable by appeal to analogies (on which, see above). However, the Syrian Bedouin data gathered and analyzed by Cantineau suggest the possibility that, in the ancestors of some dialects, and perhaps even Proto-Arabic, a short by-form for 3fs suffix, and a long by-form for the 3ms suffix, based on length assimilation and/or polarization, was created. Table9 presents proposed reconstructions of Proto-Arabic PN suffixes.

Table 9. Reconstructed Proto-Arabic Pronominal Sufﬁxes.

3ms *-hu, *-hu¯ (?) 3mp *-hum(u)¯ 18 3fs *-ha (?), *-ha¯ 3fp *-hin 2ms *-ka 2mp *-kum(u)¯ 2fs *-ki 2fp *-kin 1cs *C-¯ı/*V-ya 1cp *-na¯

5. Conclusions In this paper I have addressed two long-standing issues in the historical study of the modern Arabic dialects. First, I argued in favor of the traditional interpretation of the vowels before the pronominal suffixes of the 3ms, 2ms, and 2fs as originating in etymological case vowels. I provided two different models to account for the modern realizations in the two major attested paradigms. Specifically, I posited two sets of rules. To account for dialects in which pre-suffixal vowels harmonized with the vowels of the pronominal suffixes, I proposed a vowel harmony rule which operated across morpheme boundaries. In order to explain forms in which a single vowel occurs prior to each suffix, I proposed a development by which post-stress vowels were neutralized, leading to a generic vowel (usually front high) surface manifestation. The remaining variants were explained within these models. I contrasted these scenarios with those offered by Blau and Diem, detailing how the arguments here account for variables unaccounted for in these previous proposals. The second topic examined here is that of the historical length of several pronominal suffixes; specifically, the length of the 3ms, 3fs, 2ms, and 2fs suffixes was examined. I concluded that most 3ms forms can be derived from a historical short *-hu, although a long by-form possibly existed at the Proto-Arabic node. I further argued that the 2ms and 2fs suffixes are derivable from historically short forms, *-ka and *-ki, and that exceptions can be explained via analogies that are readily identifiable. Finally, I argued that the 3fs suffix was in the vast majority of cases derivable from a historically long *-ha¯. Furthermore, I argued that the vowels before the 3fs suffixes patterned with those of the 3rd and 2nd plural forms over against the other singular forms, which I argued is due to the fact that the etymological case vowels were syncopated at some point before suffixes of the syllable shape CVV and CVC, with the subsequent insertion of an epenthetic vowel. These vowels behave differently from those of the singular forms because they represent a separate stage of development in the dialects.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

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‐ ‐əh. Such an explanation would also make sense out of the differenceConflicts variation of Interest: in translitThe author‐ declares no conflict of interest. eration found in a number of dialects, suchresent as Ṣan frozenʿāni, where genitive (Rossi or accusative 1939, p.4 givescases, ‐ ahbecomes, much less convincing. These variants but (Watson 2009, p. 110) gives ‐ihNotes. There is alsocannot evidence be explained for such througha situation the in same the Negev set of developments as the harmonizing group. Note that the variation attested in the vowel before tanwīn (Stokes 2020, pp. 654–58) mir‐ (Palestine) dialect of the ʿ Azazmih,1 whereMost the who reflex posit aof nominal the 3ms case suffix system is ‐ih for when Proto-Arabic suffixed reconstruct it essentially as it is found in ClAr. For our purposes, the rors that of the 3ms suffix. I suggest that the same neutralization attested before tanwīn to most nouns, but ‐ah when suffixed toimportant verbs whose point stem is that vowel originally is low: a pronominal rās‐ih “his suffixhead”, would be suffixed to a noun which ended in a case vowel: N + Vcase + but ǧāb‐ah “he brought it” (Shawarba 2012,CV(C). p.occurred So, 193). for This example: before is paralleled *PNkalb-u-hu suffixes in“his some in dog some cases (nom)”/* dialects by thekalb-a-hu as well:“his dog (acc)”/*kalb-i-hu “his dog (gen).” *bayt‐Vcase‐hu/*bayt‐Vcasen > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn realization of the feminine nominal2 markerDiem (ibid.)*‐ah, which argues is that ‐it the in variousconstruct realizations on most of nouns DT, i.e., un, in, and an, reflect frozen forms of the three primary Arabic cases. but ‐at on verbs whose stem vowel is Forlow: an n alternativeāg‐itFollowing “she‐ proposal,camel the of”, loss see but Stokes of nfinalām(2020‐at short “she). vowels, slept.” the 3ms suffix would follow this non‐pho‐ nemic vowel: The same is true for Eastern Libyan3 itself,That where is, other Owens than his notes distinction that Mitchell’s between descriptions ‘nomadic’ and non-nomadic dialects, for which I can find no good evidence in the (Mitchell 1952, 1960, apud Owens 1984,realizations p. 93) giveb ofē 3mst‐ theih/b suffix pronominalēt‐in. ‐ih, whereas suffixes. Owens It seems translit his distinction‐ is instead based here entirely on the DT. However, DT is also erates it ‐ah. Owens’ examples from Easternpresent Libyan in sedentaryAs weArabic will dialects. aresee, probablymany dialects similar with to other3ms ‐ ih or ‐ah attest 2ms ‐ik and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is dialects, where the exact quality 4dependsBlau’s onlikely main the objection thatphonetic vowels to environment. Diem’s in this analysis, position Other with merged, dialects which hewith interacts a high directly, vowel is surface that redundancy manifestation is very in common in linguistic 11 have been recorded with a form transliteratedsystemsevery andas ‐ ehinstance. cannot (e.g., therefore Yaš Itīʿ ;is (Isaksson unclear be considered what1991, a mightp. very 126)). strong have factorcaused on such its own a neutralization (Blau 2006, p. 86). in this Rather, posi Blau‐ posits that pausal If correct, the traditional historicalforms, explanationtion. where Onetanw for possibility ¯ıntheseand caseforms, vowelsis thatnamely werethe thatchange regularly they began rep lost,‐ began in the to intrudeconstruct, into where non-pausal the positionscase vowel as well, on i.e., he argues for an resent frozen genitive or accusative cases,analogical becomesthe initial extension much noun of less pausalof convincing.the Ø-markedconstruct These formschain variants into would non-pausal be in a position. waṣl position, Additionally, and thus however, potentially Blau seems to also hold that cannot be explained through the samesome set sortproneof developments of final to reduction: vowel elision as the took harmonizing place, perhaps group. as a result of this pausal intrusion, but it is not clear to me how he envisions the relationships between these two processes. Note that the variation attested in the vowel before*baytu tanw r‐īran ǧ(Stokesuli “the 2020, man’s pp. house” 654–58) > *bayt mir‐ Vr‐raǧuli 5 It is puzzling that Owens recognizes implicitly in his reconstructions the loss of final short vowels, since this is the typical rors that of the 3ms suffix. I suggest that the sameAnother neutralization possibility attested is that beforepost‐stress tanw butīn non‐word final vowels were reduced and explanationmerged: for the loss of case vowels, which he finds unconvincing (ibid., pp. 2–8 et passim). Since he allows for the loss of these occurred before PN suffixes in some dialectsfinal vowels, as well: which is implicit in his suggested proto-forms and necessary to account for the data, it is not clear why that loss case case *bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn but al‐bayt‐u and baytu r‐raǧuli *bayt‐V ‐hu/*bayt‐V n > *bayt‐V‐couldhu/*bayt not‐Vn account for the absence of case in the dialects. Thus, for Owens, final vowel loss seems a very random, haphazard Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowel manifested as a high front vowel in most Following the loss of final short vowels,process. the 3ms suffix would follow this non‐pho‐ contexts, and final short vowels were lost. The construct perhaps continued inflecting for nemic vowel: 6 This point also argues against some kind of metathesis, i.e., qalb-hu > qalb-uh. First, we would expect that such a metathesis case, but the otherwise‐ubiquitous absolute form eventually replaced it. bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. would be motivated by the same impetus as epenthesis, namely phonotactic considerations. My argument in this section is As we will see, many dialects withthat 3ms the ‐ih epenthetic orThis ‐ah can attest argument be 2mssummarized ‐ doesik and not 2fs accountby ‐ itheć. Thus, following for the it is distribution steps: of these vowels in any dialect. A further argument against likely that vowels in this position merged,the metathesis 1.with Post a argumenthigh‐stress, vowel non is the surface‐word fact that final manifestation the neutralization metathesis in would of vowel have to contrast: have occurred *bayt only‐ən; bayt with‐ə‐ pronominalhu; but suffixes. That is, if every instance.11 It is unclear what mightmetathesis have caused occurredbayt‐V casesuch in the a sameneutralization phonetic environment in this posi (i.e.,‐ -CCV), we would expect the same to affect suffix conjugation suffixes, tion. One possibility is that the changesuch began as2.darasta inGeneralization the“you construct, (msg) wrote” whereof high and the voweldarastu case realization: vowel“I wrote.” on That *bayt these‐in; * formsbayt‐i do‐hu not; but have *bayt dialectal‐Vcase forms **darasat or **darasut, but the initial noun of the construct chain ratherwould3. just bedarasit Lossin a waof(< finaldarastṣl position, short<* darata/darastu vowels: and thus bayt) “I/youpotentially‐in; bayt wrote,”‐ih ; bayt suggests that this did not occur there. 7 This development would have presumably affected nouns in construct when the following noun lacked the definite article: prone to reduction: In a few dialects, such as Al‐Mahābšeh, however, 3ms is ‐eh but 2ms is ‐ak, suggesting *ibnu malikin “a king’s son,” > ibna malikin “idem.” While the topic is slightly outside the scope of this paper, it seems likely that *baytu r‐raǧuli “the man’s house” > *bayt Vr‐raǧuli changesagainst in both a thegeneralization definite and indefiniteto all contexts. construct In these syntagms cases, played there a rolemight in thehave reduction been a ofgeneraliza case inflection.‐ Another possibility is that post‐stress but non‐word final vowels were reduced and ʾ ṭ 8 It is alreadytion of attested ‐a before in pronominal the pre-Islamic suffixes, period with in, e.g., subsequent the corpus raising of Graeco-Arbica, of ‐ah, as with transliterations the tā marb ofū a Arabic into the Greek merged: script‐ fromah, to the ‐eh city or ‐ ofih Petra. in modern-day Jordan (Al-Jallad 2017, pp. 145–46). The same is true in many modern dialects. For ǧ *bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un > *bayt‐V‐hu/*baytLevantine‐Vn but varieties,alThe‐bayt 3fs‐u seesuffix and Brustad baytu is in andrmost‐ra Zunigauli dialects (2019 realized, pp. 407–8). as ‐a or –(V)ha. The latter suggests an origi‐ Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowel manifested as a high front vowel in most 9 In his chapternally long on pausal final forms, vowel called *‐hāb,ab ¯but al-waqf the (Sibawayhformer is 1988 ambiguous., p. 173 ff.), SibawayhAhmad Al discusses‐Jallad these(p.c.) forms has and the phenomenon contexts, and final short vowels were lost.to which Thepointed Blauconstruct refers, out thatperhaps but there without continued is usingsome thepre inflecting term‐Islamicnaql. forArabic Sibawayh epigraphic typically reserves evidence the for term a shortnaql for *‐ha the by transfer‐ of the vowel on case, but the otherwise‐ubiquitous absolute form eventually replaced it. a hamzaformto the in precedingline one of consonant the Nam withārah the inscription, subsequent which loss of reads the hama mlk: al- ʾ h. marl‐ “theʿ rb red kl‐h one,” /malk >la ʾh.almar‐ “idem.” I thank an This can be summarized by the followinganonymousʿarab steps: reviewerkoll ‐ah/ “king for pointing of all thisʿArab” difference (M.C.E out Macdonald’s to me. translation, from (Fiema et al. 2016 1. Post‐stress, non‐word final 10neutralizationPerhapspp. the of405–6)). ClArvowel reverse For contrast: either length /kull*bayt polarization‐‐əha/n; baytor /kull‐ə‐ inhu the‐h; ābut/ 3ms we suffixes,would expect wherein **klV-h‐hu¯ʾ inbut theVV-hu Nabataean, would representor‐ an innovation bayt‐Vcase proddedthography. by the existence (Cantineau of these 1936/1937, by-forms. pp. 78, 182–83) argued based on data from the Syrian 2. Generalization of high vowel11 realization:Alternatively,Šammar *bayt we‐inī and; might *bayt ʿAnaze‐ positi‐hu; a but generalizationBedouin *bayt‐ Vdialects,case of a single in which case, perhaps 3fs suffix nominative, was realized before pronominalC‐ah but post suffixes.‐ After the merger 3. Loss of final short vowels: bayt‐in;of bayt *u and‐ih; bayt *i, the high vowel would be generalized. 12 In a few dialects, such as Al‐MahāInbšeh, varieties however, described 3ms byis ‐ theeh but grammarians, 2ms is ‐ak, which suggesting subsequently became standardized for ClAr pronunciation, a reverse length polarity developed for the 3ms suffix (V-hu¯, VV-hu), whereas 3fs was ubiquitously long. The dialects cannot, of course, have against a generalization to all contexts. In these cases, there might have been a generaliza‐ descended from ClAr since ClAr represents an amalgam of varieties and features. However, the reality of the reverse polarity ʾ ṭ tion of ‐a before pronominal suffixes, withelsewhere subsequent suggests raising that by-forms of ‐ah, as existed with the (or, t toā marb use Cantineau’sū a term, should be reconstructed as anceps), but were distributed ‐ah, to ‐eh or ‐ih. differently across dialects. In some, a length distinction became allomorphic; elsewhere, one form was generalized to all contexts. The 3fs suffix is in most dialects13 realizedThis phenomenon as ‐a or –(V)ha is attested. The and latter remarked suggests upon an by origi the Quranic‐ reading commentator Al-Farra¯ in his Lug˙at¯ al-Qur an¯ (Al-Farra¯ nally long final vowel *‐hā, but the former2014, p. is 30). ambiguous. He notes specifically Ahmad that Al‐ theJallad case (p.c.) vowels has -u (nom) and -i (gen) are syncopated whenever pronominal suffix with a pointed out that there is some pre‐Islamicheavy Arabic syllable epigraphic follows: bayt-kum evidence(nom/gen) for a short but bayta-kum*‐ha by‐ (Acc). Interestingly, traces of this same phenomenon can be seen in the form in line one of the Namārah inscription,Quranic which reading reads traditions mlk ofʾ Ab l‐ u¯ ʿ Amr rb kl and‐h /malk Ibn Ka ʾtal¯ır.‐ For example, in Q2:54 the reciters of Abu¯ Amr read ila¯ bari¯ ikum “to ʿarab koll‐ah/ “king of all ʿArab” (M.C.Eyour Macdonald’s (pl) creator” astranslation,ila¯ bari¯ -kum from, without (Fiema the et genitive al. 2016i due to the following heavy syllable. I thank an anonymous reviewer for pp. 405–6)). For either /kull‐ha/ or /kullbringing‐hā/ we these would examples expect to ** mykl‐h attention.ʾ in the Nabataean or‐ thography. (Cantineau 1936/1937, pp. 78, 182–83) argued based on data from the Syrian Šammarī and ʿAnaze Bedouin dialects, in which 3fs suffix was realized C‐ah but post‐

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, Languages 2021, 6, x FORbut PEER (Watson REVIEW 2009, p. 110) gives ‐ih. There is also evidence for such a situation in the Negev 10 of 18 (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 ‐əh. Such an explanation would also make sense out of the difference variation in translit‐ realization of the feminine nominal marker *‐ah, which is ‐it in construct on most nouns eration found in a number of dialects, such as Ṣanʿāni, where (Rossi 1939, p.4 gives ‐ah, but ‐at on verbs whose stem vowel is low: nāg‐it “she‐camel of”, but nām‐at “she slept.” but (Watson 2009, p. 110) gives ‐ih. There is also evidence for such a situation in the Negev The same is true for Eastern Libyan itself, where Owens notes that Mitchell’s descriptions (Palestine) dialect of the ʿ Azazmih, where the reflex of the 3ms suffix is ‐ih when suffixed (Mitchell 1952, 1960, apud Owens 1984, p. 93) give 3ms suffix‐ih, whereas Owens translit‐ to most nouns, but ‐ah when suffixed to verbs whose stem vowel is low: rās‐ih “his head”, erates it ‐ah. Owens’ examples from Eastern Libyan Arabic are probably similar to other but ǧāb‐ah “he brought it” (Shawarba 2012, p. 193). This is paralleled in some cases by the dialects, where the exact quality depends on the phonetic environment. Other dialects realization of the feminine nominal marker *‐ah, which is ‐it in construct on most nouns have been recorded with a form transliterated as ‐eh (e.g., Yašīʿ; (Isaksson 1991, p. 126)). but ‐at on verbs whose stem vowel is low: nāg‐it “she‐camel of”, but nām‐at “she slept.” If correct, the traditional historical explanation for these forms, namely that they rep‐ The same is true for Eastern Libyan itself, where Owens notes that Mitchell’s descriptions resent frozen genitive or accusative cases, becomes much less convincing. These variants (Mitchell 1952, 1960, apud Owens 1984, p. 93) give 3ms suffix‐ih, whereas Owens translit‐ cannot be explained through the same set of developments as the harmonizing group. erates it ‐ah. Owens’ examples from Eastern Libyan Arabic are probably similar to other Note that the variation attested in the vowel before tanwīn (Stokes 2020, pp. 654–58) mir‐ dialects, where the exact quality depends on the phonetic environment. Other dialects rors that of the 3ms suffix. I suggest that the same neutralization attested before tanwīn have been recorded with a form transliterated as ‐eh (e.g., Yašīʿ; (Isaksson 1991, p. 126)). occurred before PN suffixes in some dialects as well: If correct, the traditional historical explanation for these forms, namely that they rep‐ *bayt‐Vcase‐hu/*bayt‐Vcasen > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn resent frozen genitive or accusative cases, becomes much less convincing. These variants Following the loss of final short vowels, the 3ms suffix would follow this non‐pho‐ cannot be explained through the same set of developments as the harmonizing group. nemic vowel: Note that the variation attested in the vowel before tanwīn (Stokes 2020, pp. 654–58) mir‐ bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. rors that of the 3ms suffix. I suggest that the same neutralization attested before tanwīn As we will see, many dialects with 3ms ‐ih or ‐ah attest 2ms ‐ik and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is occurred before PN suffixes in some dialects as well: likely that vowels in this position merged, with a high vowel surface manifestation in *bayt‐Vcase‐hu/*bayt‐Vcasen > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn every instance.11 It is unclear what might have caused such a neutralization in this posi‐ Following the loss of final short vowels, the 3ms suffix would follow this non‐pho‐ tion. One possibility is that the change began in the construct, where the case vowel on nemic vowel: the initial noun of the construct chain would be in a waṣl position, and thus potentially bēt‐ih/bēt‐in. prone to reduction: As we will see, many dialects with 3ms ‐ih or ‐ah attest 2ms ‐ik and 2fs ‐ić. Thus, it is *baytu r‐raǧuli “the man’s house” > *bayt Vr‐raǧuli likely that vowels in this position merged, with a high vowel surface manifestation in Another possibility is that post‐stress but non‐word final vowels were reduced and every instance.11 It is unclear what might have caused such a neutralization in this posi‐ merged: tion. One possibility is that the change began in the construct, where the case vowel on *bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn but al‐bayt‐u and baytu r‐raǧuli the initial noun of the construct chain would be in a waṣl position, and thus potentially Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowel manifested as a high front vowel in most prone to reduction: contexts, and final short vowels were lost. The construct perhaps continued inflecting for *baytu r‐raǧuli “the man’s house” > *bayt Vr‐raǧuli case, but the otherwise‐ubiquitous absolute form eventually replaced it. Another possibility is that post‐stress but non‐word final vowels were reduced and This can be summarized by the following steps: merged: 1. Post‐stress, non*bayt‐word‐u‐hu/bayt final‐ unneutralization > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt of vowel‐Vn butcontrast: al‐bayt *‐baytu and‐ən baytu; bayt ‐ə‐r‐rahuǧ;uli but case bayt‐V Subsequently, the non‐phonemic vowel manifested as a high front vowel in most case 2. Generalizationcontexts,Languages of 2021and high, 6final, vowel 147 short realization: vowels were *bayt lost.‐in; *Thebayt construct‐i‐hu; but perhaps*bayt‐V continued inflecting for 16 of 17 3. Loss of finalcase, shortbut the vowels: otherwise bayt‐‐ubiquitousin; bayt‐ih; bayt absolute form eventually replaced it. In a few dialects,This suchcan be as summarizedAl‐Mahābšeh, by however, the following 3ms is steps: ‐eh but 2ms is ‐ak, suggesting against a generalization1.14 PostAgain,‐stress, to it isall unclear noncontexts.‐word whether In final these in neutralization these cases, dialects there either might of vowel the have nominative contrast: been a or generaliza * genitivebayt‐ən; casebayt‐ was‐ə‐hu levelled; but to all contexts before pronominal tion of ‐a before pronominalbaytsuffixes,‐Vcase or suffixes, rather there with was subsequent a general loss raising of phonemicity of ‐ah, as with as case the inflection tāʾ marb brokeūṭa down, with the resulting high vowel a result of ‐ah, to ‐eh or ‐2.ih . Generalizationthe general preference of high in vowel these dialects realization: for open, *bayt unstressed‐in; *bayt‐ syllablesi‐hu; but to *bayt contain‐Vcase high vowels. The 3fs 3.suffix15 Loss Iis thank in of most final an anonymous dialects short vowels: realized reviewer bayt as for‐ ‐ina ; pointingor bayt –(V)ha‐ih; outbayt. The that latter this is suggests similar to an a change origi‐ from Pre-Classical to Classical Latin, in which a nally long final vowellight syllable*‐hā, but is deleted the former between is twoambiguous. heavy syllable: Ahmad e.g., lAlarid¯ ‐Jallad¯ı > lard ¯ı(p.c.)“bacon”. has Armin Mester(1994) calls this process “prosodic In a few dialects, such as Al‐Mahābšeh, however, 3ms is ‐eh but 2ms is ‐ak, suggesting pointed out that theretrapping,” is some in pre which‐Islamic the light Arabic syllable epigraphic is not metrically evidence footed. for a short *‐ha by‐ against a generalization to all contexts. In these cases, there might have been a generaliza‐ form in line one16 ofFor the example, Namārah the inscription, 2ms suffix reflects which *- kareadsin Arabic mlk andʾ l‐ G @ʿ @ z,rb but kl‐h is /malk present ʾal in‐ some dialects of Hebrew, in which short final *a tion of ‐a before pronominal suffixes, with subsequent raising of ‐ah, as with the tāʾ marbūṭa ʿarab koll‐ah/ “kingshould of all haveʿArab” been (M.C.E lost. Further, Macdonald’s 2fs reflects translation, *-ki in Hebrew from and(Fiema Arabic, et al. but 2016 in G @ @z, where *u and *i merged to @, the attested ‐ah, to ‐eh or ‐ih. pp. 405–6)). For eitherform /kull is -ki‐J. based Huehnergard on data (p.c.), from who the notes Syrian the cross-linguistic tendency for long vowels to be nally long final vowel *‐hā, but the former is ambiguous. Ahmad Al‐Jallad (p.c.) has Šammarī and ʿAnazerealized Bedouin short whendialects, unstressed in which (as in,3fs e.g., suffix Latin). was realized C‐ah but post‐ pointed18 I have out that not encountered there is some solid pre evidence‐Islamic forArabic the retention epigraphic of the evidence so-called for long a short pronominal *‐ha by forms‐ among the modern dialects. form inSibawayh line one discusses of the Nam the pluralārah inscription, forms in (babu¯ which matuksaru¯ reads f¯ı-hi mlk l-h a¯ʾ u llatl‐ ¯ıʿ hiya rb klal‐amatu¯h /malk l- i d.ʾmalar¯‐ )(Sibawayh 1988, p. 195). For an ʿarab kollin-depth‐ah/ “king discussion of all of ʿArab” these long (M.C.E forms, Macdonald’s see Van Putten translation, and Sidky( Forthcomingfrom (Fiema). et al. 2016 pp. 405–6)). For either /kull‐ha/ or /kull‐hā/ we would expect **kl‐hʾ in the Nabataean or‐ thography.References (Cantineau 1936/1937, pp. 78, 182–83) argued based on data from the Syrian ŠammarAl-Farra¯ī ,andAbu ¯ʿAnazeAl¯ı. 2014. BedouinKitab¯ F ¯ıhdialects, Lug˙at¯ Al-Qur in whichan¯ . Edited 3fs suffix by Gˇ abir¯ was b. realizedAbd All ah¯C‐ah al-Sar but¯ı .post Unpublished.‐ Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2014. Final short vowels in Ge ez, Hebrew atta, and the Anceps Paradox. JSS 59: 315–27. Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2015. Yusap il or Yuhap il, that is the question—Two solutions to sound change s1 > h in West Semitic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 165: 27–39. Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2017. Graeco-Arabica I: The Southern Levant. In Arabic in Context: Celebrating 400 Years of Arabic at Leiden University. Edited by Ahmad Al-Jallad. Leiden: Brill, pp. 99–186. Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2018. The earliest stages of Arabic and its linguistic classification. In The Routledge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics. Edited by Elabbas Benmamoun and Reem Bassiouney. New York: Routledge, pp. 315–31. Al-Wer, Enam. 2007. Jordanian Arabic (Amman). In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Vol. II. Edited by Kees Versteegh. Leiden: Brill, pp. 505–17. Behnstedt, Peter. 1987. Die Dialekte der Gegend von S. a dah (Nord-Jemen). Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Birkeland, Harris. 1952. Growth and Structure of the Egyptian Arabic Dialect. Oslo: I kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad. Blau, Joshua. 1972. On the problem of the synthetic character of Classical Arabic as against Judaeo-Arabic (Middle Arabic). Jewish Quarterly Review 63: 29–38. [CrossRef] Blau, Joshua. 1981. The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A Study of the Origins of Middle Arabic, 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute. Blau, Joshua. 2002. A Handbook of Early Middle Arabic. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Blau, Joshua. 2006. Some reflections on the disappearance of cases in Arabic. In Loquentes Linguis: Linguistic and Oriental Studies in Honour of Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti. Edited by Pier Gorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi and Mauro Tosco. Wiesbaden: Verlag Harrassowitz, pp. 79–90. Brockelmann, Carl. 1908/1913. Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Semitischen Sprachen. Reprint 1961. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, vol. II. Brustad, Kristen, and Emilie Zuniga. 2019. Levantine Arabic. In The Semitic Languages, 2nd ed. Edited by John Huehnergard and Na’ama Pat-El. New York: Routledge, pp. 403–22. Butts, Aaron Michael. 2019. G@ @z (Classical Ethiopic). In The Semitic Languages, 2nd ed. Edited by John Huehnergard and Na’ama Pat-El. New York: Routledge, pp. 117–44. Cantineau, Jean. 1936/1937. Études sur quelques parlers de nomades arabes d’Orient. In Annales de l’Institut d’Études Orientales. Paris: Librairie Larose. Cantineau, Jean. 1939. Le pronom suffixe de 3e personne singulier masculine en arabe Classique et dans les parlers arabes modernes. BSL XL 1: 89–97. Diem, Werner. 1973. Skizzen Jemenitischer Dialekte. Beiruter Texte und Studien, 13. Beirut and Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Diem, Werner. 1991. Vom Alterabischen zum Neuarabischen Ein neuer Ansatz. In Semitic Studies: In Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, 14 November 1991. Edited by Wolf Leslau, Alan Kaye and Thomas Leiper Kane. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. 1, pp. 297–308. Fiema, Zbigniew T., Ahmad Al-Jallad, Michael Christopher Macdonald, and Laïla Nehmé. 2016. Provincia Arabia: Nabataea, the Emergence of Arabic as a Written Language, and Graeco-Arabica. In Arabs and Empires before Islam. Edited by Greg Fisher. Oxford: OUP, pp. 373–433. Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 2002. A Grammar of Classical Arabic, 3rd rev. ed. Translated from the German by Jonathan Rodgers. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fischer, Wolfdietrich, and Otto Jastrow, eds. 1980. Handbuch der Arabischen Dialekte. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Grigore, George. 2007. L’arabe parlé à Mardin: Monographie d’un Parler arabe Periphérique. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. LanguagesLanguages 2021, 62021, x FOR, 6, x PEER FOR PEERREVIEW REVIEW 10 of 1018 of 18

‐əh. Such‐əh. Such an explanation an explanation would would also makealso make sense sense out of out the of difference the difference variation variation in translit in translit‐ ‐ erationeration found found in a numberin a number of dialects, of dialects, such such as Ṣ anasʿ āṢni,an ʿwhereāni, where (Rossi (Rossi 1939, 1939, p.4 gives p.4 gives ‐ah, ‐ah, but (Watsonbut (Watson 2009, 2009, p. 110) p. 110)gives gives ‐ih. There ‐ih. There is also is evidencealso evidence for such for such a situation a situation in the in Negev the Negev (Palestine)(Palestine) dialect dialect of the of ʿ the Azazmih, ʿ Azazmih, where where the reflex the reflex of the of 3ms the suffix3ms suffix is ‐ih iswhen ‐ih when suffixed suffixed to mostto most nouns, nouns, but ‐ butah when ‐ah when suffixed suffixed to verbs to verbs whose whose stem stem vowel vowel is low: is low:rās‐ih r ā“hiss‐ih “hishead”, head”, but ǧbutāb‐ah ǧā “heb‐ah brought“he brought it” (Shawarba it” (Shawarba 2012, 2012, p. 193). p. 193). This Thisis paralleled is paralleled in some in some cases cases by the by the realizationrealization of the of feminine the feminine nominal nominal marker marker *‐ah, *which‐ah, which is ‐it isin ‐ itconstruct in construct on most on most nouns nouns but ‐butat on ‐at verbs on verbs whose whose stem stem vowel vowel is low: is low:nāg‐ itn ā“sheg‐it ‐“shecamel‐camel of”, butof”, nbutām ‐natā m“she‐at “sheslept.” slept.” The sameThe same is true is truefor Eastern for Eastern Libyan Libyan itself, itself, where where Owens Owens notes notes that Mitchell’sthat Mitchell’s descriptions descriptions (Mitchell(Mitchell 1952, 1952, 1960, 1960, apud apudOwens Owens 1984, 1984, p. 93) p. give 93) give3ms 3mssuffix suffix‐ih, whereas‐ih, whereas Owens Owens translit translit‐ ‐ erateserates it ‐ah it. ‐Owens’ah. Owens’ examples examples from from Eastern Eastern Libyan Libyan Arabic Arabic are probably are probably similar similar to other to other dialects,dialects, where where the exactthe exact quality quality depends depends on the on phoneticthe phonetic environment. environment. Other Other dialects dialects havehave been been recorded recorded with with a form a form transliterated transliterated as ‐eh as (e.g., ‐eh (e.g., Yašī ʿYaš; (Isakssonīʿ; (Isaksson 1991, 1991, p. 126)). p. 126)). If correct,If correct, the traditional the traditional historical historical explanation explanation for these for these forms, forms, namely namely that theythat theyrep‐ rep‐ resentresent frozen frozen genitive genitive or accusative or accusative cases, cases, becomes becomes much much less convincing.less convincing. These These variants variants Languages 2021, 6, 147 17 of 17 cannotcannot be explained be explained through through the samethe same set of set developments of developments as the as harmonizingthe harmonizing group. group. NoteNote that thethat variation the variation attested attested in the in vowel the vowel before before tanw tanwīn (Stokesīn (Stokes 2020, 2020, pp. 654–58) pp. 654–58) mir‐ mir‐ rors rorsthat thatof the of 3msthe 3mssuffix. suffix. I suggest I suggest that thatthe samethe same neutralization neutralization attested attested before before tanw tanwīn īn occurredoccurred before before PN suffixes PN suffixes in some in some dialects dialects as well: as well: Grigore, George, and Gabriel Bit, una. 2012. Common Features of North Mesopotamian Arabic Dialects Spoken in Turkey (Sirnak, *bayt*bayt‐Vcase‐hu/*baytVcase‐hu/*bayt‐Vcasen‐V >case *baytn > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn ‐Vn Mardin, Siirt). In Bilim Dü¸sünceve Sanatta Cizre: (Uluslararası Bilim Dü¸sünce ve Sanatta Cizre Sempozyumu Bildirileri). Edited by FollowingFollowing the loss the ofloss final of finalshort short vowels, vowels, the 3ms the 3mssuffix Mehmetsuffix would would Nesim follow follow Doru. this Mardin: nonthis‐ nonpho Mardin‐pho‐ Artuklu Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 545–54. nemicnemic vowel: vowel: Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2004. Final Vowels of Pronominal Suffixes and Independent Personal Pronouns in Semitic. JSS 49: 1–20. [CrossRef] bēt‐ih/bbētē‐tih/b‐in.ē t‐in. Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2014. Agreement and the Development of Gender in Semitic (Part 1+2). ZDMG 164: 33–64. As weAs will we see,will manysee, many dialects dialects with with 3ms 3ms‐ih or ‐ ‐ihah or Huehnergard,attest ‐ah attest 2ms ‐2msik John. and ‐ik 2fsand 2019. ‐ i2fsć Proto-Semitic.. Thus, ‐ić. Thus, it is it In is The Semitic Languages, 2nd ed. Edited by John Huehnergard. New York: Routledge, pp. likelylikely that thatvowels vowels in this in positionthis position merged, merged, with with a high a highvowel49–79. vowel surface surface manifestation manifestation in in 11 11 everyevery instance. instance. It is unclearIt is unclear what what might might have have caused causedIngham, such such a Bruce.neutralization a neutralization 1982. Notes in onthis in the posithis Dialect ‐posi of‐ the D. af¯ır of North-Eastern Arabia. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 45: tion. tion.One Onepossibility possibility is that is thatthe change the change began began in the in construct, the construct,245–59. where [CrossRef where the case ]the casevowel vowel on on the initialthe initial noun noun of the of construct the construct chain chain would would be in be a wainIngham, aṣ lwa position,ṣ Bruce.l position, 1986.and thusand Notes thuspotentially on thepotentiallyAl-Murra¯ of eastern and southern Arabia. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 49: proneprone to reduction: to reduction: 271–91. [CrossRef] *baytu*baytu r‐raǧ ruli‐ra “theǧuli “theman’s man’s house” house” > *bayt > *bayt Vr‐ra Vrǧuli‐raIngham, ǧuli Bruce. 2008. Najdi Arabic. In The Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Vol. III. Edited by Kees Versteegh. Leiden: AnotherAnother possibility possibility is that is postthat ‐poststress‐stress but nonbut‐ nonword‐word finalBrill, finalvowels pp. 326–34.vowels were were reduced reduced and and Isaksson, Bo. 1991. The personal markers in modern Arabic dialects of the Arabian peninsula. Orientalia Suecana 40: 117–45. merged:merged: Jastrow, Otto. 1991. ‘Une question embarrassante’—Jean Cantineau über das Pronominalsuffix 3. Sg. m. in den arabischen Dialekten. ǧ ǧ *bayt*bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐u‐hu/bayt‐un >‐ un*bayt > *bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐V‐hu/*bayt‐Vn but‐Vn al but‐bayt al‐baytu andIn‐u Festgabe baytuand baytu r‐ fürra Hans-Rudolfruli‐ra uli Singer: Zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. April 1990, Überreicht von Seinen Freunden und Kollegen. Edited by Subsequently,Subsequently, the nonthe ‐nonphonemic‐phonemic vowel vowel manifested manifested asMartin a ashigh Forstner.a highfront front Paris:vowel vowel Peter in most Lang, in most pp. 167–74. contexts,contexts, and finaland finalshort short vowels vowels were were lost. lost.The constructThe constructLentin, perhaps J éperhapsrôme. continued 2006. continued Damascus inflecting inflecting Arabic. for In forThe Encyclopedia of Arabic Langauge and Linguistics, Vol. I. Edited by Kees Versteegh. Leiden: case,case, but the but otherwise the otherwise‐ubiquitous‐ubiquitous absolute absolute form form eventually eventuallyBrill, replaced pp. replaced 546–55. it. it. This Thiscan becan summarized be summarized by the by following the following steps: steps: Mester, R. Armin. 1994. The Quantitative Trochee in Latin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12: 1–61. Mitchell, Terence F. 1952. The Active Participle in an Arabic Dialect of Cyrenaica. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14: 1. 1.Post ‐Poststress,‐stress, non ‐nonword‐word final finalneutralization neutralization of vowel of vowel contrast: contrast: *bayt *‐əbaytn; bayt‐ən; ‐ə‐baythu‐ə‐; buthu; but 11–33. [CrossRef] bayt‐baytVcase ‐Vcase Mitchell, Terence F. 1960. Syllabification and Prominence in Arabic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 23: 369–89. case case 2. 2.Generalization Generalization of high of highvowel vowel realization: realization: *bayt *‐baytin;Owens, *‐baytin; *‐bayti‐ Jonathan.hu;‐ ibut‐hu ;* butbayt 1984. *‐baytVA Short ‐V Reference Grammar of Eastern Libyan Arabic. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. 3. 3.Loss Lossof final of finalshort short vowels: vowels: bayt‐ baytin; bayt‐in;‐ baytih; bayt‐ih; baytOwens, Jonathan. 2006. A Linguistic History of Arabic. Oxford: OUP. In a fewIn a dialects,few dialects, such such as Al as‐Mah Al‐Mahābšeh,ābšeh, however, however, Owens,3ms is3ms ‐ Jonathan.eh is but ‐eh 2ms but 2018. is2ms ‐ak Where is, suggesting ‐ak, suggesting multiple pathways lead: A reply to Ahmad Al-Jallad and Marijn van Putten. Abhandlungen für die againstagainst a generalization a generalization to all to contexts. all contexts. In these In these cases, cases, there there Kundemight might des have Morgenländes have been been a generaliza113: a generaliza 95–162.‐ ‐ tion oftion ‐a ofbefore ‐a before pronominal pronominal suffixes, suffixes, with withsubsequent subsequent raisingPalva, raising Heikki. of ‐ah of, 1994.as ‐ah with, as Bedouin with the t āthe andʾ marb t sedentaryāʾ marbūṭa ūṭ elementsa in the dialect of es-Salt.. In Actes des Premières Journées Internationales de Dialectologie Arabe de Paris. Edited by Dominique Caubet and Martine Vanhove. Paris: INALCO, pp. 459–69. ‐ah, to‐ah ‐eh, to or ‐eh ‐ih or. ‐ih. Procházka, Theodor. 1988. Saudi Arabian Dialects. London: Kegan Paul International. The 3fsThe suffix 3fs suffix is in ismost in most dialects dialects realized realized as ‐a asor ‐ –(V)haProcha or –(V)haá.zka, The Stephen.. latterThe latter suggests 2014. suggests Feminine an origi an andorigi‐ Masculine‐ Plural Pronouns in Modern Arabic Dialects. In From Tur Abdin to Hadramawt: nallynally long longfinal finalvowel vowel *‐hā , *but‐hā, thebut formerthe former is ambiguous. is ambiguous.Semitic Ahmad StudiesAhmad Al Festschrift‐Jallad Al‐Jallad (p.c.) in Honour (p.c.) has ofhas Bo Isaksson on the Occasion of His Retirement. Edited by Tal Davidovich, Ablahad Lahdo and pointedpointed out that out therethat there is some is some pre‐ Islamicpre‐Islamic Arabic Arabic epigraphic epigraphicTorkel evidence Lindquisit. evidence for a for Wiesbaden:short a short *‐ha by* O.‐ha‐ Harrassowitz, by‐ pp. 129–48. formform in line in oneline ofone the of Nam the Namārah āinscription,rah inscription, which which readsRetsö, reads mlk Jan. mlk 1994.ʾ l ‐ ʾ iʿ rl ab‐ ¯rb inʿkl the‐rbh /malkkl Forebears‐h /malk ʾal‐ of ʾal Modern‐ Arabic Dialects. In Actes des Premières Jounrées Internationales de Dialectologie Arabe de ʿarabʿ arabkoll‐ ah/koll “king‐ah/ “king of all of ʿArab” all ʿArab” (M.C.E (M.C.E Macdonald’s Macdonald’s translation, Paristranslation,. Edited from byfrom (Fiema Dominique (Fiema et al. et Caubet2016 al. 2016 and Martine Vanhove. Paris: INCALCO, pp. 333–42. pp. 405–6)).pp. 405–6)). For eitherFor either /kull /kull‐ha/ or‐ha/ /kull or /kull‐hā/ we‐hā /would we wouldRossi, expect expect Ettore. **kl‐ h 1939.**ʾ klin‐ htheL’araboʾ in Nabataean the Parlato Nabataean a S.oran‐ a¯or.‐ Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente. thography.thography. (Cantineau (Cantineau 1936/1937, 1936/1937, pp. 78,pp. 182–83) 78, 182–83) arguedShawarba, argued based based Musa. on data on 2012. datafromA Grammarfrom the Syrian the of Syrian Negev Arabic: Comparative Studies, Texts and Glossary in the Bedouin Dialect of the ‘Azazmih Tribe. ŠammarŠammarī andī andʿAnaze ʿAnaze Bedouin Bedouin dialects, dialects, in which in which 3fs suffix 3fs Wiesband:suffix was wasrealized Harrassowitz. realized C‐ah Cbut‐ah postbut ‐post‐ Sibawayh, Abu¯ Bišr Utman.¯ 1988. Kitab¯ S¯ıbawayh, Volume IV. Edited by Abd al-Salam¯ Muhammad Har¯ un.¯ Cair: Maktabat al-Hani¯ gˇ¯ı. . ˇ Stokes, Phillip W. 2020. A Fresh Analysis of the Origin and Diachronic Development of ‘Dialectal Tanw¯ın’ in Arabic. JAOS 140: 637–64. [CrossRef] Suchard, Benjamin. 2020. The Development of the Biblical Hebrew Vowels. Leiden: Brill.

Talay, Shabo. 2011. Arabic dialects of Mesopotamia. In The Semitic Languages: An international handbook. Edited by Stefan Weninger. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 909–20. Van Putten, Marijn, and Phillip W. Stokes. 2018. Case in the Qur anic¯ Consonantal Text. WZKM 108: 143–79. Van Putten, Marijn, and Hythem Sidky. Forthcoming. Pronominal Variation in Arabic among the Grammarians, Quranic Reading Traditions, and Manuscripts. In Formal Models in the History of Arabic Grammatical and Linguistic Tradition. special issue of Language and History 65: 1. Edited by Raoul Villano. Watson, Janet C. E. 2007. Syllabiﬁcation Patterns in Arabic Dialects: Long Segments and Mora Sharing. Phonology 24: 335–56. [CrossRef] Watson, Janet C. E. 2009. S. an an¯ ¯ı Arabic. In The Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Vol. IV. Edited by Kees Versteegh. Leiden: Brill, pp. 106–14. Woidich, Manfred. 2006. Cairo Arabic. In The Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Vol. I. Edited by Kees Versteegh. Leiden: Brill, pp. 323–33.