Notes on Reciprocal Constructions in Akkadian in Light of Typological and Historical Considerations*

ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL Notes on reciprocal constructions in Akkadian in light of typological and historical considerations*

Q 1. INTRODUCTION every aspect of this topic in Akkadian, but will elaborate on certain crucial aspects of reciprocal constructions, 1.1. Reciprocal constructions have received much and will discuss several possible diachronic changes attention over the last decade, especially in the recent that we can trace in the history of Akkadian. As will SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH ¿YH YROXPHV RI WKH VHPLQDO W\SR- EHFRPHFOHDUWKHW\SRORJLFDOREVHUYDWLRQVDOORZXV¿UVW logical study by Nedjalkov in 2007.1 It is unfortunate to recognize and then to understand better the various that Nedjalkov’s enterprise did not dedicate even a diachronic developments occurring in the history of single section to any Semitic language, ancient or Akkadian. PRGHUQ,QWKLVSDSHU,ZRXOGOLNHWR¿OOLQWKLVJDSE\ discussing aspects of these constructions in Akkadian, 1.2. The corpus with comparisons to parallel constructions in other Semitic languages.2 This discussion will not exhaust Working on reciprocity in a extinct language raises D VLJQL¿FDQW FKDOOHQJH DV WKH TXDQWLW\ RI LQVWDQFHV of reciprocal constructions per period or per dialect * Editions of Akkadian texts are quoted with abbreviations LVVPDOO&RQVHTXHQWO\WKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIDQ\JHQHUDO- used in the Assyrian Dictionary, GELB, LANDSBERGER ization on such a restricted corpus is very limited. et alii 1956 [= CAD]. In general, when the examples in Therefore I took the Assyrian Dictionary [= CAD] as this paper appear in the CAD, I followed their translation, the primary corpus for this study, and added examples unless I either disagree with their proposals, or when I thought an alternative translation would be better for from various primary and secondary sources, including the purpose of the argument. For each example, if it is data from several grammar books. I conducted digital known to us, I will also indicate its time, and when neces- searches for English reciprocal expressions (such as sary its location, as at times it will affect the discussion. “each other”) in the on-line volumes of the CAD. Once The interlinear glosses are according to the Leipzig the different Akkadian reciprocal constructions were Glossing Rules. In adopting this system I had to use a LGHQWL¿HGLWZDVSRVVLEOHWRH[SORUHLQRWKHUGLUHFWLRQV different terminology than what is customarily used in the and to examine the behavior of the expressions in context of Akkadian, here are the various terminological adjustments: PST-preterite; SBJV-subordination marker; Akkadian. While, in light of the corpus, it is obviously additional abbreviations: DSM-direct speech marker; impossible to argue decisively for any generalization, ING-ingressive; INJ-injunctive particle; PRC- precative; VXFKJHQHUDOL]DWLRQVDUHVWLOOYHU\VLJQL¿FDQWVLQFH ST-stative. I wish to thank Prof. Eran Cohen, Prof. Benjamin it is telling (statistically) if something is never found Foster, Prof. Eckart Frahm, Mary Frazer, Dr. Uri Gabbay, in this corpus. Similarly, if, for example, this study Prof. William Hallo, Prof. John Huehnergard, Nadine LGHQWL¿HVDXQLTXHEHKDYLRURIDFHUWDLQFRQVWUXFWLRQ Pavie and Adam Strich for reading earlier versions of this paper and for their numerous suggestions, questions and and if it always behaves in the same way in this corpus, corrections. then the probability that this is true for all periods and 1. In addition, one should mention the following two volumes: all dialects of Akkadian is relatively high. FRAJZYNGIER, CURL 1999 and KÖNIG, GAST 2008, and the following articles: KÖNIG, KOKUTANI 2006 and EVANS et alii 2007. 2. At present there exist very few studies on Semitic languages which consider reciprocal constructions. For a study on see SILONI 2001, 2008. In the context of Amharic, Standard Arabic, see KREMERS 1997; on Biblical Hebrew, GOLDENBERG 1991, pp. 537-541 offers a survey of the see JAY 2009; on Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew, see pronominal constructions and AMBERBER 2002 discusses BAR-ASHER SIEGAL forthcoming-a; on Modern Hebrew, the various verbal constructions.

Doi: 10.1484/J.SEC.1.102502 SEM CLAS 4 S 24 (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

In light of this, I decided to treat all periods and all (2) a.DQƗNXX DWWDQLQQDPLU dialects of Akkadian together, distinguishing between I and you 1PL.PST.meet.RECP WKHPRQO\ZKHQWKHFRUSXVUHÀHFWVVLJQL¿FDQWGLVWLQF- We met, you and I (OIP 27 15:22, OA) tions between periods or dialect. Working in such a b. LãWX ǌPLP ãDQLOWDPGX procedure it is of course possible that I do not cover from day-GEN REL 1PL.PST.see.RECP-SBJV all the reciprocal constructions, and hopefully future “Since the day we came to know each other” studies that will focus on a more extensive corpus will (Bagh. Mitt. 2 59 iv 12, OB) EHDEOHWRUH¿QHWKHFRQFOXVLRQVRIWKHSUHVHQWVWXG\ c. [it]WDãTǌ PDƯSXãǌUX¶ǌWDP In addition I will bring examples from the periph- 3MPL.PST.kiss.RECP=and 3MPL.PST.make friendship eral dialects alongside the “core dialects” as long as “They kissed each other and they formed a friendship” they behave similarly to all the dialects. I will note *LOJ<L2% that an example is from a peripheral dialect only when d. ãXPPDDEXXPƗUXNLWPXOǌ the example shows a deviation from the standard with COND father-NOM and son-NOM 3MPL.ST.angry.RECP regards to issues related to reciprocity.3 “If a father and a son are angry with each other” (CT 39 46:75, NA) e. ina GNLWWDλDθǌ Q 2. THE TYPOLOGY OF VERBAL AND in GN 3MPL.PST¿JKWRECP PRONOMINAL RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTIONS “They fought in GN” (ABL 879:13 NA) (3) a. XOLPPDUDλXDλƗãX 2.1. A proto-typical reciprocal construction is a gram- NEG 3SG.DUR.see brother-NOM brother-ACC-3MSG.POSS matical means to denote a mutual event(s). A clause “One person cannot see the other” which contains such a construction is said to substitute (Gilg. XI 112, NA [SB]) at least two propositions, thus we would say that (1a) is b. XUNDWDPDλXPDQDDλLPOƗLQDSSXã semantically equivalent to (1b): afterwards brother-NOM to brother-GEN NEG 3SG.DUR.make.a.claim (1) (a) Emily and Tony admire each other “Afterwards one will not make a claim against the other” (b) Emily admires Tony and Tony admires Emily (TCL 19 63:45, OA) When speaking of reciprocal constructions4 it is c. LQQDãTǌ6DλXDλL7 ¿UVWDQGIRUHPRVWFUXFLDOWRGLVWLQJXLVKEHWZHHQYHUEDO 3MPL-PST-kiss-ING brother- NOM brother-GEN and pronominal encoding of reciprocity. Reciprocal verbs “They began to kiss each other” can be morphologically encoded through different ways (En. El. III132, NA [SB]) RIDI¿[DWLRQDQGLQÀHFWLRQ IRUDGHWDLOHGVXUYH\RI d. ãDDλƗPHãLPDWWDλǌ PDXãDθEDUǌ morphological forms see NEDJALKOV 2007b, pp. 170- REL RECP 3MPL.DUR.lift=and 3MPL.DUR.swing 181). In Akkadian as is the case in the Semitic languages, “(The actors) who lift and swing each other” it is marked by verbal templates, called in the Akkadian (CT 15 44:30, NA). grammars stems. Examples in (2)-(3) demonstrate the two types in Akkadian. The sentences in (2) illustrate the morphological encoding, in which Akkadian has both verbs in the N-stems5 and T-stems. In (3) we include pronominal reciprocals of two types – “two-unit pronouns” (a-c) and “one-unit pronoun” (d): 6. This form is in the N-stem. However, with this root reciprocity is expressed with a T-stem (see example 2c). As for the use of the N-stem in this context, it seems to be the ingressive use of this stem, and therefore the transla- 3. Thus I will not comment on unique forms such as HOƯãX tion: “They EHJDQWRNLVVHDFKRWKHU´,QIDFWLW¿WVWKH in (18d), but I will discuss the unique reciprocal pronouns larger context where this line appears [“They entered from Susa (§ 3.5.1). EHIRUH$QVKDU¿OOLQJ8EVKXNLQQD7KH\EHJDQWRNLVVRQH 4. HASPELMATH KDVMXVWL¿DEO\SURSRVHGWHUPLQRORJ\ another in the Assembly” (En. El. III 130-132)]. Concern- which distinguishes between the semantic plane and the ing the ingressive use of the N-stem, see inter alia VON linguistic expressions, referring to the former as speaking SODEN (GAG 1952 [§ 90e-g]); KOUWENBERG 1997, p. 99. about PXWXDO UHODWLRQV and the latter about reciprocal TESTEN 1998, p. 138 even argues that this is the original FRQVWUXFWLRQV Although I agree with the importance of this function of this stem. distinction, I will follow the common terminology in the 7. The genitive here is not expected. It should be noted, literature and will speak about reciprocity for both planes. however, that on another manuscript it is written logo- 5. However, as VON SODEN (GAG § 90e-g) noted, this func- graphically (ŠEŠ-Xâ(â DQGRQO\WKH¿UVWKDVDSKRQHWLF tion of the N-Stem is very rare. representation of the case. 1RWHVRQUHFLSURFDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLQ$NNDGLDQLQOLJKWRIW\SRORJLFDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV 25

While both strategies express reciprocity,8 they by the associative preposition (itti in Akkadian) as are substantially different from the point of view of in 4b, and not between the members of the subject the argument structure. In fact, as will become clear as in (4a).12 (§ 3.4), expressions of reciprocity with the so-called (4) a. LQDEƗE DN … LPWDJUǌ “reciprocal pronouns” are a subgroup within a larger at gate.of DN … 3MPL.PST.agree.RECP group of strategies in which from the point of view “They came to an agreement at the gate of DN” of the sentence’s argument structure the sentences are (CT 4 47a, OB) “regular”, as the expressions conveying the reciprocals b. ãXPPDUƝϏP«LWWLEƝOHTOLPOƗLPWDJDU meaning (such as “one… another”) appear with the COND shepherd-NOMZLWKRZQHURI¿HOGGEN NEG regular form of the verb, and occupy the regular positions 3SG.PST.reach.agreement of the subject, the object or other syntactic positions. “If the shepherd does not reach agreement In contrast, verbal reciprocals might be regarded as ZLWKWKHRZQHURIWKH¿HOG´ derivatives resulting from a process of detransitiviza- (CH § 57:50, OB). tion,9 characterized by two sets10 of participants which stand in a reciprocal relationship and occupy the same It is worth mentioning that in the context of Akkadian, argument position while the other argument position Streck (2003, pp. 82-86) assumes that the subject in remains “empty” (“Alex kissed Ruth and Ruth kissed reciprocals should comprise two agents. Consequently, Alex” vs. “Alex and Ruth kissed,” in which the latter he considers sentences in the discontinuous construc- does not have a direct object while the former does). tion and sentences with only a singular subject as later conceptually developments, which eventually resulted 2.2. It is very common cross-linguistically that in in the use of Gt verbs in non-reciprocal contexts. the case of verbal reciprocals, in addition to “regular Approaching this material from a more typological constructions” in which both participants are the perspective reveals that nothing is unique to Akkadian subject, there is also the so-called “discontinuous about discontinuous constructions, as even just the construction.”11 In these constructions reciprocity holds following examples from among the Semitic languages between the subject set and the oblique set introduced can demonstrate:

13 (5) NLKZǌPLQQΩθǌ PN1ZPN2ϏPDUOHK when 3MPL.PST.be 3MPL.PTCP.quarrel.RECP

PN1 and- PN2, 3mSG.PST.say to-him 8. There are some studies (inter alia SILONI 2001, BAR-ASHER 311EΩKDGD\GLGLPLQQΩθHW? 2009a) which demonstrate some semantic differences (Jewish Babylonian Aramaic) between the verbal and the pronominal strategies. How- PN1 with-me POSS.1SG 2SG.PTCP.quarrel.RECP ever it is (almost) impossible to determine whether these “When PN1 and PN2 were quarrelling, PN1 said to him: distinctions hold in an extinct language such as Akkadian. ‘are you really quarrelling with me?’” (BM 85b) Below in § 4 I examine whether some parts of the semantic (6) WDςƗUDEDUDMXOXQPDϐDθDGƯTLQ typology are still relevant in the context of our study as well. (Standard Arabic) 9. Similarly to NEDJALKOV 2007a and HASPELMATH 2007, I am 3MSG.PST¿JKWRECP man-NOM.INDF with friend-GEN.INDF using this terminology merely as a schematic description, “A man fought with a friend” without taking a position regarding an actual synchronic (7) KD\HODGLPKLWQDãNXLPKD\HODGRW or diachronic derivation. In fact, BAR-ASHER 2009a (Modern Hebrew) demonstrates that we should not speak about an actual DEF-boy-PLM 3PL.PST.kiss.RECP with DEF-girl-PLF detransitivization as these are two separated items in the “The boys and the girls kissed” lexicon (in the sense of the linguistic “mental storage”). Instead it is advisable to speak about a structural relationship marked by the lexicon. 10. I am speaking about “sets” since the reciprocity can be 12. According to Siloni’s typology (SILONI 2001), such a a relation between groups and not just individuals. As construction is possible only in languages that, according example (20) below demonstrates, in the Akkadian to her theory, express reciprocity by the lexicon. In fact sentence, “The people of Assyria and Babylonia mingle HASPELMATH 2007, p. 2093 proposed the following with each other” the relation is clearly between sets of universal rule: “only verb-marked reciprocals allow individuals. discontinuous construction.” On this matter see also 11. BEHRENS 2007 discusses the choice between the “regular” MASLOVA 2007, p. 337. The fact that in some languages and the “discontinuous” constructions considering infor- discontinuous constructions are allowed with clitics seems mation structure parameters. An examination of this in to be problematic for this universal claim. BAR-ASHER Akkadian will require a more thorough study of the 2009a, pp. 272-275 offered a solution to this problem. context of each example of these constructions in order 13.,QWKLVGLDOHFWRI$UDPDLFWKHLQ¿[t assimilates regularly to reveal the contrast between them. ZLWKWKHIROORZLQJFRQVRQDQWV WKH¿UVWUDGLFDORIWKHURRW 26 (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

After presenting the two strategies of the encoding 3.2. The syntax of the sentences of reciprocity, I shall delve into each of the strategies with the various types of pronouns separately, starting with the various pronominal constructions (§ 3) and then moving to some discussion about Akkadian shows an interesting distribution of the one- the extent of the verbal encoding (§ 4). In (§ 5) I will unit and two-unit pronouns.18 Based on a preliminary EULHÀ\ GLVFXVV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH SURQRPLQDO survey, while the one-unit pronoun may appear with its and the verbal constructions, and examine a claim made antecedent in the same sentence, the two-unit pronouns in previous literature concerning their historical relation. are used only when the antecedents are not part of the sentence. Thus, most often the members of the subject of the sentence with DλƗPLã are the parties participating Q 3. PRONOMINAL CONSTRUCTIONS in the reciprocal relations. They appear either separately (8a) or as a group whose members participate 3.1. As is the case in other language families, there is in such relations (8b): no genetic relationship between the pronouns in the (8) (a) ãXPPDVXUGXƗULEX itti DλƗPLã pronominal reciprocal constructions of each of the θDOWDƯSXãǌ PD different languages. In general, these pronouns are COND raven-NOM and falcon-NOM with RECP¿JKWACC transparent in various degrees in terms of their origins, 3MPL.do.PST =and as they are nouns at different stages of the process of ³,IDIDOFRQDQGDUDYHQ¿JKWDQG«´ &7 grammaticalization, and used for describing mutual (b) PƗWƗWLDQDDλHLãLTDEEQL relations between sets.14 In fact, even within the same country-FPL-OBL to RECP say.DUR.3MPL ODQJXDJH RQH PD\ ¿QG GLIIHUHQW UHFLSURFDO SURQRXQV “The countries say to each other” being used simultaneously or, at least, frequent changes (Craig ARBT 1 26:8 NA) in the pronouns in the history of the language.15 As noted earlier, pronominal reciprocals regularly Moreover, the one-unit pronoun never occurs as the appear with the basic form of the verb (NEDJALKOV subject of the sentence. It is either the direct object or it 2007b, p. 154),16DQGVLPLODUO\WRUHÀH[LYHSURQRXQV is the object of prepositions (for examples see § 3.6). these pronouns either take the position of one of the In contrast to this, in sentences with the two-unit arguments or can appear in the place of other nouns pronouns, the participants in the reciprocal relations do in the sentence. Thus, with regard to basic sentences, QRWKROGJUDPPDWLFDOSRVLWLRQV,QPRVWFDVHVWKH¿UVW pronominal reciprocal constructions can have the same element of the two-unit pronouns is the subject and is argument structure. in the nominative (DλXP ZKLOH WKH VHFRQG ¿OOV WKH Generally speaking, there are two types of recipro- slots of the other arguments in the sentence and appears cal pronouns: the one-unit pronoun co-referring with in the appropriate case (DλDP or DλLP). Therefore, it is the plural subject (“to each-other,” “with each-other,” most often used in impersonal contexts (and very often “each-others”); or the two-unit pronouns, preserving in legal contexts), when the antecedents previously the iconicity of the reciprocal relations between the occur in the text (10), or when they are extraposed two sets participating in a reciprocal relationship (“one appearing in the absolute case (13-14). Thus, a sentence to another,” “one with the other,” “one the others”). with an explicit subject [such as “the children saw one As demonstrated in (3), Akkadian (like English for another”] was probably ungrammatical with two-unit this matter) has both types of pronouns. The two-unit pronouns. The following examples illustrate the use of pronouns consist of a repetition of DλXP “brother”. the two-unit pronouns: The one-unit form is made up of DλƗPLãDλƗLãin its (9) a. DλXPHOLDλLPPLPPDXOƯãX various forms17 brother-NOM toward brother-GEN something NEG 3SG.PST.have “None has a claim upon the other” (PBS 8/1 81:17, OB) 14. For some preliminary collections of forms in the Semitic languages and proposals for their origin, see RUBIN 2005, pp. 22-23, and BAR-ASHER SIEGAL forthcoming-a. 15. This is, for example, the case in the History of Hebrew. See, LELG. 18. Previous work, such as GAG § 43b, mentions all pronouns 16. Later in § 3.4.2 we shall discuss the conditions under together without any discussion about the distribution. which reciprocal pronouns may appear with the detransi- The current survey is a preliminary study based only on tivised verbal form. examples from the relevant entries in the CAD. See also 17. Other forms of both types will be discussed further KOUWENBERG (1997, pp. 325-326) for some review of throughout the article. the strategies to express reciprocity in Akkadian. 1RWHVRQUHFLSURFDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLQ$NNDGLDQLQOLJKWRIW\SRORJLFDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV 27

b. DλXPDQDDλLPXOHUDJJDP met” vs. “the committee has met”).20 However, this brother-NOM against brother-GEN NEG 3MSG.DUR.claim also seems to be an example of a phenomenon not “One will not raise a claim against the other” described yet in the typological literature on agreement (BE 6/I 15:11, OB). (for a summary see CORBETT 2006, p. 160), as it is not (10)DWWDXQDNLUNDWDθθDEEDWƗ PD DλXP that the reference of the subject is semantically plural you and enemy-2MSG.POSS 2MSG.DUR.get.into. (as is the case in “the committee have met”), but rather ¿JKW DQGEURWKHUNOM that the plurality is that of the events, and that in differ- DλDPXãDPTDW ent events the same pronoun refers to a different entity brother-ACC 3SG.DUR.destroy among those who participate in the reciprocal relation. ³reciprocal pronoun DλXP. This can be clearly demonstrated by contrasting (14) to (15), in which (12) a. DλXPDλDPOƗLEDTTDUǌ the encoding of the reciprocity is verbal and not brother-NOM brother-ACC NEG 3MPL.DUR. pronominal and, therefore, a plural subject: raise.a.claim “None should raise claims against the other” (15) LQǌPDDQƗNXXNkWLLQDGN QXãWƗW <26I2% when I and you in GN 1PL.PST.see.RECP-SBJV b. DλXPDλDPLQDPrOƗXGDUUDVǌ “When you and I saw each other in GN” brother-NOM brother-ACC concerning (PBS 7 108:10, OB). water.OBL NEG 3MPL.DUR.treat.opressively While DλƗPLã and DλXPDλDP seem to have a “One should not treat the other oppressively on different distribution, in the sense that only the former account of the water” (TCL 7 23:29, OB). is possible with an explicit antecedent, they, of course, This is a good example of what is known in the litera- do not exclude each other in the larger context. In (16), ture (CORBETT 2006, pp. 155-160) as semantic agreement in order to form a poetic parallelism both strategies are instead of a syntactic agreement (“the committee have used:

(16) DλXDλDOƗLJDPPDOǌOLQDUUǌ DλƗPHã brother-NOM brother-ACC NEG 3MPL.DUR.spare 3MPL. PRC.slay RECP “One should not spare the other, they should slay each 19. A different issue is when the reciprocity stands between other” (Cagni Era IV 135, NB [SB]) the objects of causal relation. In such a case the common strategy for this function is with the preposition ELUƯW (“among”), for example: LQD ELUƯWƯãLQD θDOWDP WDãDNNDL 20. For a further discussion concerning this cross-linguistic “you cause them to quarrel with each other” (RA 24,36). phenomenon see BAR-ASHER SIEGAL forthcoming-a. 28 (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

3.3. Two-units and one-unit pronouns (b) TDTTDUXPHOLTDTTDUXPXWHOOL24 from a diachronic point of view surface-NOM over surface-NOM 3SG.DUR.higher “How much higher is one level In the previous section the syntactic functions of (of water in the water clock) than the other level?” the various types of pronouns within the clauses was (TMB 26 nos. 50:3, 51:1, 52:4, OB). demonstrated as if they were both simultaneously (c) NXVVNXVVkLGDUULV available. Such an assumption is obviously valid since throne-NOM throne-ACC 3SG.DUR.overthrow we encountered an example (36) where the two types “One throne will overthrow the other” co-occur. However, this assumption is not so simple (CT 27 25:24, NA) since there is also a historical aspect to this distribution. (d) DZƯOXHOLDZƯOLPLPPDHOƯãX It is quite evident that on the one hand the one-unit person-NOM to person-GEN thing NEG-3SG.PST.have pronouns are used in a reciprocal meaning only from “They do not owe each other a thing” the Middle Babylonian / Assyrian periods, and on the (MDP 24 328: 8, LB, Achaemenid). other hand that the examples of two-unit pronouns are mostly from the Old periods and appear less frequently Sentence (7b), besides illustrating “reciprocity” later on.212QHFDQVWLOO¿QGWKHWZRXQLWSURQRXQVLQ without pronouns or special verbal form raises another the later periods, however they appear mostly in classical issue that should be discussed further: texts written in SB (examples 3a, 3d and 16), or in legal texts as in the following marriage contract:

(17) PN X PN2 DããDVVXLQDHTOLXOLEELƗ[l-i] PN and PN2 wife-3MG.POSSLQ¿HOGGEN and in city-GEN 3DODλDãDDλXD[λL] HSSXãǌ obligation-ACC of brother-NOM brother-GEN 3PL.DUR.do 24. Sentence (18b) is peculiar in that both of the nouns which “PN and PN2, his wife, will serve each other’s obligations represent the participants of the reciprocal relation are in both country and city” (TIM 4 45:8, MB). in the nominative (TDTTDUXPHOLTDTTDUXP), while the second participant is expected to be in the genitive, as it With this information in mind we may move for a follows a preposition (This is the case both in 50:3 and discussion about the origin of each of the pronominal in 52:4; in 51:1 it is a restoration). While this could be a strategy. ORFDOHUURULWLVLQWHUHVWLQJWKDWZH¿QGDVLPLODUSKHQRP- enon in other sentences with reciprocal constructions, 3.4. The origin of the two-unit pronouns that both participants are in the nominative, while gram- matically one would expect that the second will be in the accusative, as the following examples illustrate: 3.4.1. There is some evidence to support the claim that (a) SLWUXãWXSLWUXãWXLWDSSDO a repetition of any noun, besides DλXP, without a ambiguous(sign)-NOM ambiguous(sign)-NOM VSHFL¿FDWLRQRIWKHSDUWLFXODUUHIHUHQFHRIHDFKRILWV correspond.3SG.DUR tokens “implies another sentence with the reversed “One ambiguous sign corresponds to another” (TCL 6 order of the same noun phrase” (NEDJALKOV 2007, 5 37f, LB, Seleucid) p. 154).22 While it is known to happen with the word (b) DPƝOXDPƝOXODLJDPPLOǌ... DZƯOXP“man” (18d), it occurs in all periods with many man-NOM man-NOM... NEG spare.3MPL.DUR “One man may not spare the other man” other words as can be demonstrated in the following (Cagni Erra IV 135, NB [SB]). examples: The fact that this “grammatical error” recurs is striking. (18) (a) ãDUUXPãDUUDPLQDNDNNLLGkN PD It is very likely that this is a result of the fact that two participants of the “reciprocal relation” are in many senses king-NOM king-ACC in battle-GEN equally the “subjects”, as each of them at the semantic level 3SG.DUR.defeat=and occupies also the subject position, and in these example “One king will defeat the other in battle” the semantics also affects the syntax. It should be noted, <26LL2% 23 however, that (18b) is the strongest example among the three, as it is from a text usually dated, based on the ODQJXDJHDQGWKHZULWLQJWRWKH¿UVW'\QDVW\RI%DE\ORQ or a little later, and written in Old Babylonian. The other 21. See BAR-ASHER SIEGAL forthcoming-a for a diachronic two examples are from later periods, in which the cases explanation for the shift from a two-unit to a one-unit ZHUHQRWDOZD\VV\VWHPDWLFDQGRQHFDQ¿QGWKHHQGLQJ construction. –X when the accusative –a ending is expected. Therefore 22. For a similar phenomenon in other Semitic languages see only with more examples from the older periods this JAY 2009, p. 7, n. 14 and BAR-ASHER SIEGAL forthcoming-a. hypothesis can be strengthened. However, as for (a) note 23. Whether this is example is relevant for our discussion see that this verb is in the Gt stem, thus the direct object is the end of the next discussion. unexpected. 1RWHVRQUHFLSURFDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLQ$NNDGLDQLQOLJKWRIW\SRORJLFDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV 29

3.4.2. “Higher than” is of course not a reciprocal rela- In light of this discussion, it is also not crucial to tion, but a classic example of an asymmetric relation. determine whether (18a) is a “real” reciprocal sentence, However, cross-linguistically reciprocal pronouns are as most likely only one king defeats the other, but it is XVHGPRUHJHQHUDOO\DV³XQVSHFL¿HGSURQRXQVWRH[SUHVV still relevant for our discussion since this is another relations between sets.” As, for example, is the case in FDVH RI XQVSHFL¿HG QRXQV WKDW H[SUHVV UHODWLRQV the following English sentence: between sets. It should be noted, however, that in a negative sentence such as (18d) a reciprocal meaning is (19) They are standing behind each other. always attained (this is a necessary logical deduction): In (19), obviously, the one-unit pronoun HDFKRWKHU (18d) DZƯOXHOLDZƯOLPLPPDHOƯãX does not express reciprocity but merely a relation person-NOM to person-GEN thing NEG-3SG.PST.have between two sets, without specifying which of the sets “They do not owe each other a thing” occupies which position in this asymmetric relation. (MDP 24 328:8, LB, Achaemenid). Thus, a natural conclusion would be that the reciprocity is only an interpretation resulting from the combination of WKHW\SHRIWKHSUHGLFDWHDQGWKHXQVSHFL¿HGSURQRXQV25 3.4.3. In the previous section we saw that in the history (WINTER 2007 reached some similar conclusions).26 of Akkadian a repetition of any noun could express A similar phenomenon is found with the Akkadian reciprocity. Thus naturally one could speculate the one-unit pronoun DλƗPLãas the following example following stages in the grammaticalization of the demonstrates: pronouns: (20) 2 NDNNDEƗQLUDEWLDUNLDλƗPHãLθDUUǌ (22) I. Originally, there was not a single word dedicated two stars-GEN big-GEN after RECP 3MPL.DURÀDVK for expressing reciprocity. At this stage the word DλX ³7ZRJUHDWVKRRWLQJVWDUVÀDVKRQHDIWHU “brother” was used only in contexts where the meaning the other” (Thompson Rep. 202 r. 4, NA27). of “brother” is relevant. II. Later, through a process of grammaticalization, DλX A similar example to (18b) is the following: semantically “bleached” and became a pronoun. (21)ãDGPDUθXãDDPƝOXDUNL One can even imagine that this process began when DPƝOLLOODNǌ DλX was used in contexts similar to the following: mountain-NOMGLI¿FXOWNOM REL man-NOM after man-GEN 3MPL.PST.go (23)EƯWXLWWLEƯWLLQDNNLUDλXDλD ³$GLI¿FXOWPRXQWDLQZKHUHPHQPXVWZDONRQH house-NOM with house-GEN 3MSG.DUR.hostile behind the other” (Wiseman Chron. P.74:11, LB).28 brother-NOM brother-ACC LGkN 3MSG.DUR.kill “Family will turn hostile against family, brother will kill brother” (KAR 148:13, SB). 25. DALRYMPLE et alii 1998 survey the various logical relations that can be expressed by the so-called reciprocal pronouns While this example is late, it shows a context where in English. They examine what the various semantic the original meaning of “brother” is relevant, but it FRPSRQHQWVDUHWKDWGHWHUPLQHWKHVSHFL¿FORJLFDOUHODWLRQV could also be translated more generally as “one will between the various sets that hold the relation expressed by the predicate. kill the other”. 26. According to this description we expect that this will be In the early stage, DλX, was probably used only for the case only with the pronominal encoding of reciprocity people, and kept the gender distinction, as is the case in and not with the verbal. However already in OB we the following examples from OB: encounter the verb UDNƗEXP “to ride, to lie on top” in the Gt form and it is usually translated with the meaning of (24) a. DλƗWDλƗWDPLQDSX]ULDZƗWLXPPD; “to ride on top of the other” (besides the meaning of “to sister sister-ACC in secret-GEN word DSM copulate”). The relation “on top of” is of course asymmet- ³

(25) [ãXPPDHU] DλXDλLLVV PD 3.5. The etymology of the various one-unit pronouns COND eagle.PL.NOM brother-NOM brother-GEN 3MP.DUR.call=and 3.5.1. Cross-linguistically, the elements of the two-units “When eagles call each other” pronoun occasionally fused together (compare “one (CT 39, [Plate] 25, Sm1376:9, NA [SB]).29 another” in English to “einander” in German). With Akkadian it seems unlikely that DλƗPLãDλƗLã derived Another somewhat expected development would from a repetition of DKλXP, but in other dialectal forms EHODFNRIDJHQGHUDJUHHPHQW6RIDU,FRXOGQRW¿QGD such a relationship can be more easily established. clear example with a feminine antecedent. It might be In Old Babylonian texts from Susa30RQHFDQ¿QGRQH the case in example (26), from MB: of the following “one-unit pronoun”: DλPDλDPLPor DλPƗPDPLP (see CAD, A1 p. 193).31 The former is (26) PN X PN DããDVVXLQDHTOLXOLEELƗ[l-i] 2 clearly a fusion of the “two-unit pronouns” into a “one PN and PN wife-3MG.POSSLQ¿HOGGEN and in city-GEN 2 unit pronoun.” In the case of the latter the elision of SDODλDãDDλXD[λL] HSSXãǌ the second /λ/ seems to be a result of haplology obligation-ACC of brother-NOM brother-GEN 3PL.DUR.do (DλDPDλam > DλPƗPDP).32 It is interesting to note “PN and PN his wife, will serve each other’s obligations 2, how the same phenomenon happens in East Aramaic in both country and city” *ςadςad > ςGƗGƝ (with the addition of the plural (TIM 4 45:8, MB). marker). Maybe this is also the case in Greek: ἄλλη Unfortunately the relevant part is restored, and (another, f) ἀλλήλων (each other). In light of the the copyist did not draw the edges of the tablet on his observation that there is a diachronic relation between copy, so there is no way of being certain whether there the two-unit construction and the one-unit construction is enough space for two signs in order to have the (§ 3.3), the fusion of the two-units into one is the feminine form DλDWL instead. phonological representation of this development (see Also relevant for this process of grammaticalization BAR-ASHER SIEGAL forthcoming [Hebrew] for the details is what we encountered earlier in the lack of agreement of such a process). in terms of number (12a-b). Returning to the hypothesis in (22) concerning the 3.5.2. As for DλƗPLãDλƗLãDλƗMLã33 RYHUDOOZH¿QG process of the grammaticalization, the question is whether the variations with the /m/ in the Babylonian dialects, or not stage (II) annulled the possibilities available at starting from the Middle Babylonian period, and the stage (I). In other words, the question is: should we other forms in the Assyrian ones. While it seems likely expect that, once there is a pronoun to express the that these forms are etymologically related to the reciprocity, there will be gradually fewer examples of component Dλ of the “two-unit pronouns” the origin of repetitions of the same nouns? the various endings is obscure. There are two obscuri- DλX, as noted above (§ 3.3) is rare in the later periods. ties with these forms: 1/ What is the origin of the /w/ In light of this, and based on our limited data, it is and the /j/ in each of the dialects respectively? 2/ What striking that in the later periods, there are not a few is the nature of the -iš ending in this context, as it is examples of the repetitions of the same nouns (see usually an adverbial ending in Akkadian? examples 18,21, sentences in n. 13). If our data indeed represent the development in Akkadian then we can conclude that the grammaticalization of the pronouns was independent from the use of the other nouns for this function. Moreover, the shift from two-unit to one- unit did not annul the grammatical basis of the two-unit 30. Susa’s dialect is considered as “peripheral” Akkadian, and pronouns, the repetitions of nominal expressions to it is assumed that its speakers had a different language as express reciprocity. This could explain why even in the a substrate. However this is irrelevant for the typological discussion about the etymology of such pronouns. later periods the two-unit pronouns were still available, 31. Note that in the CAD the entry of these pronouns, as is despite the grammaticalization of the one-unit pronoun. the case with other nouns, are in the nominative. However, as “one-unit pronouns” they cannot appear in the subject position (“one loves the other” vs. “*each other loves”), as in fact the examples in the entry itself demonstrate. For more on these pronouns see VON SODEN 1933, p. 130, n. 1, MEYER 1962, p. 70, and SALONEN 1962, pp. 100-102. I wish to thank John Huehnergard for these references. 29. Note that this is an example of two-units pronouns from 32. See also NEDJALKOV 2007, p. 201. a late period; but as noted this text seems to be written 33. I wish to thank John Huehnergard for discussing this in SB. paragraph and for most of its associated bibliography. 1RWHVRQUHFLSURFDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLQ$NNDGLDQLQOLJKWRIW\SRORJLFDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV 31

GELB (1957, p. 104b) proposed that the origin of Due to this problem, it is worth considering an this pronoun is DλƗZ+išLQZKLFKWKH¿UVWFRPSRQHQW alternative etymology. This brings us back to the various is a plural form of DλXP (compare with Old Assyrian spellings of the Assyrian alternative forms: DλƗMLã and DλXZƗWXP “sisters,” Syriac ϏDςZƗWƗ ³VLVWHUV´ *HՏH] DλƝLã.38 These forms suggest that originally the glide DλDZand ϏL[ZƗQ “brothers” in Arabic).34 However, as before the ending -iš was /y/ and not /w/.39 While one John Huehnergard has noted (p.c.), this is a problem- can suggest a phonological reasons for these forms in atic proposal since the -iš ending does not otherwise the Assyrian dialects,40 in light of the problem of the occur on plural forms. shift from an adverb to a pronoun, it is tempting to However, it is possible to suggest that a historical /w/ propose that there were three components to these in this word was not part of a plural marker, but rather pronouns: Dλ+D\Lã, and that the middle component is a way to expand the root.35 In fact, in Hebrew we simi- the oblique ending of the dual (as is reconstructed for ODUO\ ¿QG WKH DEVWUDFW QRXQ ϏDςZk “friendship,”36 or Proto-Semitic). the Arabic noun ϏXςXZZD W “friendship,” both with a similar expansion. In any case the development of There are two motivations for this proposal: DλƗZLã!DλƗPLã is expected in later dialects. Accord- ingly, the one-unit pronoun originated from a fusion of I. As mentioned in NEDJALKOV 2007b, pp. 176-177, an expanded form of Dλtogether with the -iš ending. ZHGR¿QG WKHXVHRIWKHGXDOLQUHFLSURFDOFRQ- At this point, however, we should raise the issue structions in other languages. This is of course not of the -iš ending in this context. In the next section surprising since a reciprocal relation usually holds we will discuss whether DλƗPLãDλƗLã is a pronoun between two participants (DλXPDλDP). Among the or an adverb. At this point we should only note that Semitic languages, Arabic demonstrates a frequent if “friendship” is indeed the right etymology, then an use of the dual form in the VI form for reciprocal analysis of this form as an adverb is more reasonable, meaning, as the reciprocal relation is between two assuming an original meaning of “brothers-like.” participants.41 Very rarely such a phenomenon is However, as will become clear it is evident that found also in early periods of Akkadian. In Old synchronically in Akkadian, in almost all periods, this Akkadian there are examples of dual verbal agree- is a pronoun, and, thus, we will have to assume a ment in the context of a reciprocal event (with the grammaticalization from an adverb to a pronoun verb PDλƗVXP³WR¿JKW´ 42 and there are exam- – a process unknown in the literature about reciprocal ples of reciprocity with nominal dual endings pronouns (see NEDJALKOV 2007b, pp. 154-163).37 from Old Babylonian when these morphemes were still somewhat productive: (27) šarr-ƗQLWWDNNLUƗ king-DU.NOM 3MPL.DUR.become.hostile.RECP “Two kings will become mutual enemies” <26LLL2% 34. For a recent discussion about -Z as an external plural marker and a summary of the literature on the topic see HASSELBACH 2007, pp. 125-126. It should be noted that the phenomenon of the one-unit pronoun in a plural form is known from other languages. Earlier we saw the pronouns in the Late-Eastern Aramaic dialects, and one could mention the form ἀλλήλων as well. 35. VOIGT 2001, pp. 210-212 argues that the Z is part of the 38. For the periodic/dialectal distribution see CAD, A1, p. 164a. SURWR6HPLWLFURRW)RURXUSXUSRVHVLWLVOHVVVLJQL¿FDQW 39. Assuming that the vowel /e/ represents a contraction of whether this was part of the proto-Semitic root or a the diphthong /D\/. common way to expand bi-radical nouns. 40. Intervocalic /w/ in the Middle Assyrian is usually writ- 36. This word appears only once in the Bible in Zechariah 11:14, ten , but there are examples such as DLOX for DZƯOX P and it is more common in Mishnaic Hebrew. In fact, we “man”. Thus theoretically, in Assyrian DλD L Lã could have an early rabbinic interpretation that demonstrates a represent DλƗZLã. In fact Hecker, § 26a, e; 62a noted relationship between DςZk “friendship” and Dς“brother” for some evidence of this phenomenon already in Old (see 6LIUD%HKDU 5:2). Assyrian. However, the fact that in these dialects DλƝLã is 37. It is of course possible that it developed from something the normal, and forms such as DλDELã are never found similar to the forms from Susa (DλPDλDPLP), discussed suggests an alternative etymology, according to which earlier, with the mimation of the singular form. However, the /y/ is original, as the one proposed here. since Susa is “peripheral” Akkadian, and has non-standard 41. Somewhat relevant to this is Sapir’s note that “the idea of features, probably as it was written by non-native speakers, reciprocity leads naturally to that of duality of terms it is unlikely that its forms are the origin of the other involving mutual relationship” (SAPIR 1931, p. 110). dialects. 42. $I220, p. 39-40. 32 (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

II. The dual Semitic ending D\ is for the oblique. As Accordingly the same phenomena happened in all dia- mentioned earlier (§ 3.2), with such a one-unit lects, but each of them eventually “picked” only one form. pronoun we expect that the forms will not be in the *DλD\ Dλ+D\ Reciprocal pronoun: nominative as they do not take the subject position. “each other” DλDZLã DλDZLã Adverb: There are a few problems with this proposal that “together” should be considered. In the history of Akkadian it The possibility that such to forms will become is expected that the diphthong /D\/ will contract to similar is not unlikely and in a footnote I propose that either /Ư/ or /Ɲ:KLOHWKLVLVLQGHHGZKDWZH¿QGLQ a similar phenomenon may have occurred in two Neo the form DλƝLã, how can we explain the forms DλƗMLã/ Eastern Aramaic dialects.43 DλƗLã? It is possible that the ending -Lã which follows Accordingly the original ending of the reciprocal the dual form, prevented this contraction as it starts pronoun D\UHÀHFWVDGXDODJUHHPHQWZLWKWKHVXEMHFW44 with an /i/ vowel. It is, therefore, possible that such a contraction did not take place with the sequence /D\L/. There is some evidence for such a prevention with 43. In The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Koy Sanjaq (de- the feminine gentilice ending /D\LW/ which in some scribed by MUTZAFI 2004) the regular reciprocal pronoun Akkadian dialects became -DϏLWattesting to the lack is GΩ̗[OH In the context of the adverbial meaning of “together” it has two variants: either EGΩ̗[OH or EΩ̗[OH of contractions in this environment (BUTTS 2010). Similarly, in The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sule- Evidence for a similar glide are found in spellings such maniyya (described by KHAN 2004), while the regular as LVVDλHϏLã reciprocal pronoun is Ot[OH, in the context of the adverbial Another potential problem is the long /Ɨ/ in forms meaning of “together” again there are two variants EOt[OH, such as DλƗLã, which is represented in a spelling such or most frequently Et[OH Both GΩ̗[OHandOt[OHDUHUHÀHFWV of the Eastern reciprocal pronoun ςDGƗGƝor maybe even as DλDDDLã It should be noted, however, that such its older form ςDGςDGƝ (with both /d/ shifts into /l/ in a spelling seems to be extremely rare. Sulemaniyya and only the latter in Koy Sanjaq) Khan The major problem with this proposal is of course (LELG., p. 259) explains the variations of the adverbial the -iš ending. First, again we do not expect it to appear sense of “together” as a result of a reanalysis of the l at after a dual ending; second what is the nature of this the beginning of Ot[OH as a preposition, hence its elision. ending in this context, as it is usually an adverbial 7KLV H[SODQDWLRQ LV SUREOHPDWLF IRU WZR UHDVRQV ¿UVW why it occurs with this preposition and not with the other ending? ones, as Ot[OH appears with other prepositions and only in However, one can propose a solution that will this function it is elided. Second, while it may explain the answer the various problems together, and also the Sulemaniyya’s form it may not explain the form of Koy co-existence of the forms with a /Z/ and those with a /M/, Sanjaq as d- is not a preposition. Moreover, the sociative namely, that both solutions, should co-exist. As men- meaning of the reciprocal meaning is usually attained with tioned above, following the proposal that the etymol- the sociative preposition. Thus in Sulemaniyya the expected preposition is min- (LELG., pp. 346-347), as indeed it ogy is DλƗZLã “friendship” is more reasonable that this happens (LELG, p. 259, example [8]). Therefore I would form evolved in the context of the adverbial sense, and like to consider that both EΩ̗[OHand Et[OH originally had in the case of the discussed form, the meaning of this nothing to do with the reciprocal pronoun ςDGƗGƝ, but adverb was “together.” And, in fact, we demonstrated derive from an independent adverb *EΩςDGL(t) “in one” that similar abstract nouns, close in meaning, with the meaning “together”. Semantically this is very likely. consonant /Z/ are found in other Semitic languages. Adverbs with the sense of together frequently derive from the cardinal number “one”, as for example is the However, as mentioned earlier, the development adverb > Akkadian adverb išteniš (one + adverbial ending). Some reciprocal pronoun is less likely as it is unknown cross- support to this proposal may be found within an older linguistically. Therefore, I propose that this etymology Eastern Aramaic dialect, the Jewish Babylonian dialect (*DλƗZLã) should work for the adverb “together,” and where the sociative preposition is *EΩςDGL>EΩKDGL and that the dual ending (*DλD\Lã) for the pronoun “each- it is very likely that it is another example of an adverb other.” If this is true, it is possible that these forms which became a preposition. If this proposal is correct then, EΩ̗[OH and Et[OH are the original ones and EGΩ̗[OHand merged into one in the course of the history of Akkadian EOt[OH are the secondary, resulting from an assimilation to due to their semantic and phonological closeness. One the reciprocal pronouns in their dialects respectively. could even speculate that, initially the pronominal forms 44. It is interesting to note that the ending Ɲ of the one-unit did not contain the “adverbial” ending -iš (similarly pronoun in the Late Eastern Aramaic dialects: ςGƗGƝ to the forms from Susa), although I am well aware that (Syriac), KGƗGƝ (Jewish Babylonian Aramaic), originated LW LV GLI¿FXOW WR SURYLGH SRVLWLYH HYLGHQFH IRU VXFK D from a repetition of ςDG “one”, can also be explained as resulting from an additional agreement feature: proposal. ςDGςDG! ςDGςDG! ςDGƗG! ςDGƗGƝ Thus I propose the following etymology for both The ending Ɲ can either be a vestige of a dual form (D\!Ɲ), uses of these forms, before their mergence in meaning. or the regular Late Eastern Aramaic plural marker Ɲ 1RWHVRQUHFLSURFDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLQ$NNDGLDQLQOLJKWRIW\SRORJLFDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV 33

The hypothesis that the origin of D\ in the Akkadian As noted in the typological literature (NEDJAL- form originated from an agreement marker is not an KOV 2007b, p. 162-163), in the context of reciprocal ad hoc, as in another Semitic language, Mehri, this constructions the line between adverbs and pronouns phenomenon of an addition of an agreement feature is not so distinct, and, in fact, in some languages is transparent, as the data represented in RUBIN 2010, pronominal reciprocals can also function as adverbs p. 50-51 illustrate. (NEDJALKOV 2007, p. 163 brings Korean as an exam- Occasionally reciprocity is expressed in Meheri, by ple). I believe, though, that the syntax should help us to a repetition of the word αD\W “one”: distinguish between reciprocal pronouns (“each other”) and adverbs (“mutually”). Pronouns saturate the posi- (28) \HαγDZγθΩZD\UαD\Wè̙DUαD\W tion of the “missing” argument (the “goal” in [32]), 3SG.throw.IMP stone one upon one “They throw stones on one another” while adverbs do not and the slot for one of the arguments remains empty (the lack of “goal” in [33]). The (STROOMER 1999, 16, p. 2) DGYHUELQ ¿OOVWKLVJDSDQGLQGLUHFWO\LQGLFDWHV It is reasonable to assume that the more common the identity of the goal.46 In English this distinction is one-unit pronoun αƗαƯGD\is related to a repetition of also revealed by another syntactic behavior as the αD\W)RUWKHFXUUHQWGLVFXVVLRQLWLVVLJQL¿FDQWWKDWWKLV pronouns appear in the appropriate syntactic position one-unit pronoun declines according to its antecedent, (after the preposition), while the reciprocal adverb is depending on whether the subject is plural or dual: not the object of any preposition and can appear in any slot available for adverbs: (29) ϏƗPΩUǀKΩαƗαƯGD\KL 3MD.say.PRF to-RECP-DUdu (32) They gave each other gifts/ gifts to each other. “They (two) said to each other” (33) They mutually gave several proofs of their wit. (STROOMER 1999, 4, p. 17). (30) WǀOLIΩKƝPΩPαƗαƯGD\KΩP Since these are two different strategies to express then 3MP.understand.PEF RECP-3MPL reciprocity, it is not surprising that they do not exclude “then they (pl) understood each other” (STROO- HDFKRWKHUDQGFRQVHTXHQWO\ZHPD\¿QGERWKVLPXO- MER 1999, 59, p. 14). taneously in one sentence: (34) They mutually gave each other the kiss of peace. $FFRUGLQJO\0HKULUHÀHFWVDSRVVLEOHVWDJHZKLFK once the one-unit pronoun grammaticalizes, it results As for DλƗPLãDλƗLã in the classical stages of Akka- with a dependency with the subject, expressed with an dian (below we will discuss possible exceptions), it agreement. seems that this is an example in which the morphology is misleading (see above § 3.5). While it has an adverbial 3.6. DλƗPLã DλƗLã: a pronoun or an adverb? ending, it is quite certain that in the classical periods this “word” (in its various forms) functions as a indeclin- So far I have assumed that the forms DλƗPLãDλƗLã able pronoun (no overt cases) appearing as a one-unit are pronominal. These forms, however, have the SURQRXQDQG¿OOLQJWKHH[SHFWHGV\QWDFWLFSRVLWLRQV VXI¿[iš, known to be an DGYHUELDOVXI¿[HOVHZKHUHLQ 7KXVRQHFDQQRWH[SHFWWR¿QGDQ$NNDGDQHTXLYDOHQW Akkadian, and the same expression is undoubtedly to (34) in which a pair of two-unit pronouns (such as used in Akkadian adverbially in the sense of “together, the pair DKXPDKDPLP) and DλƗPLãappear together. jointly”. Sentence (31) nicely illustrates the contrast Moreover, DλƗPLã functions like any other recipro- between the uses of this form: cal pronoun. Thus, with transitive verbs it occupies the position of the expected direct object: (31) DλƗPHããXQX PDDλƗPHãXJDOODGX together they=and RECP 3MPL.DUR.cause.trouble (35) DλƗPHãLSSDOǌ “They are together and (still) cause trouble for each RECP 3MPL.DUR.pay other” (ABL 528 r. 5f. NA). “They will compensate each other” (Dar 321:29, LB). These facts are probably the reasons why others considered these forms to be adverbial.45 While in the case of the direct object it is hard to demonstrate that DλƗPLã is not an adverb, its appearance as the object of other prepositions reveals its pronominal nature:

45. See, for example DELITZSCH 1889: 221, who discusses this form in the context of the adverbial ending -iš. The CAD characterizes it as an adverb, and so does BUCCELLATI 1996, p. 381. 46. See NEDJALKOV 2007b, pp. 161-163. 34 (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

(36) DQDDλƗPHãXOLNHOOƝ construction (“she disagrees with him”), the combina- to RECP NEG 3MPL.DUR.refuse tion of both (“they disagree with each other”). From “They will not refuse each other…” (TuM 2-3 2: 21) a theoretical point of view, this is similar to the dis- (37)ǌPƯPƗGǌWLDQDOLEELDλƗPHã continuous construction discussed earlier (§ 2.2), as day-PL.OBL many.PL.OBL into heart-of RECP the object of the preposition itti is not occupying NDNNƯãXQXLãHOOLDλƗPHãXUDVVDEǌ a grammatical slot dictated by the verb, and, therefore, weapon-PL.OBL-3MPL.POSS 3MPL.DUR.sharpen it can be added despite the fact that it has the same RECP 3MPL.DUR.cut.down reference as the subject.49 “For many days they would sharpen their weapons at ,WLVH[WUHPHO\VLJQL¿FDQWWRQRWLFHWKDWZLWKDYHUEDO each other, they would cut each other down” form that has a reciprocal meaning we do not encounter (-$26 88, p. 126, NB). DλƗPLãas the object without the associative preposition itti. From what we know from the cross-linguistic Similarly, with the form from Susa (see above § 3.5.1): typology (see SILONI 2001 and BAR-ASHER 2009a) this is what we expect with detransitivized forms, as they (38) PƗUǌãXQXDQDDλPƗPLPX[l]LUDJJDPǌ do not have an object position. Had we encountered child-PL.OBL-3MPL.POSS to RECPGEN NEG 3MPL.DUR.sue DλƗPLã without a preposition we would have charac- “Their children will not sue each other” WHUL]HGLWDVDQDGYHUE7KHIDFWWKDWZHGRQRW¿QGLW (MDP 23 171:9-10, OB). in such a position strengthens our analysis that, despite And in genitival constructions: its appearance with an adverbial ending, DλƗPLãis not an adverb since it behaves perfectly as a pronoun. (39) θƗEƝãDDλƗ,$ãLLGXNNǌ Accordingly, it is another example of a “one-unit” people-PL.OBL of RECP 3MPL.DUR.kill reciprocal pronoun that is mistakenly analyzed by “They are killing each other’s men” modern scholars as an adverb, despite being a regular (ABL 645: 10f, NB). pronoun.50 (40) DQDUHθXWDλƗPHãLWWDNOǌ=ma to help.of RECP 3MPL.PRF.trust=and 3.7. A possible “one-unit pronoun” > “adverb” shift “They trusted in one another’s help” (3R 7 i 43 Shalm. III, NA). As implied earlier, this analysis of DλƗPLã pertains To complete the discussion of the pronoun DλƗPLã to the classical dialects of Akkadian. It is possible, the following example is crucial: however, that at some point in the long history of Akkadian DλƗPLãwas reanalyzed as a reciprocal adverb. (41) QLãƝPƗW$ããXUPƗW.DUGXQLDãLWWLDλƗPHã In fact, evidence for such a process is extant in the people.of country.of Assyria country-of Babylonia late text of the Assurbanipal royal inscription from with RECP the 7th century BCE.51 LEEDOOǌ 3MPL.DUR.mingle “The people of Assyria and Babylonia mingle with 47 each other” (CT 34 39 ii 37, NA SB]). 49. For an elaboration on this theoretical aspect, see BAR- This example introduces the use of DλƗPHã with ASHER 2009a, pp. 266-270. 50. In the Semitic languages, another example is the pronoun predicates that are used by themselves to express recip- KDGDGH in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. For a discussion rocal events. The verb EDOƗOXP “to mix” in the N-stem about this and the support for this argument, see BAR- has a symmetrical meaning (probably also with the ASHER SIEGAL (forthcoming JBA § 8.1.2.3). addition of the ingressive aspect, therefore a better 51. Another possible example is with the verb ãHP. According translation would be “they begin to mingle”).48 As is to CAD, in the Gt form it has the reciprocal meaning of the case in other languages, with symmetric predicates “to accept each other” with the connotation of “making DQDJUHHPHQW´$QGLQIDFWZH¿QGDIUHHIRUPRIDλƗPHã, it is possible to have, in addition to the use of the plural unbound to any preposition: PN X PN DλƗPHã LOWHPǌ subject alone (“they disagree”) and to the discontinuous 2 “PN and PN2 made an agreement with each other” (UET 4 33:14, NB) and DUNƗQLã DλƗPHãLOWDPǌ“After- wards they came into agreement” (TCL 12 14:9, NB [but dated to the reign of Sîn-šar-iškun, one of the last 47. GRAYSON 1972, p. 51 brings this line as an example of Neo-Assyrian kings]). However, it is very likely that “some noteworthy phrases which are particularly common these are perfect forms of the G-stem (see, for example, in this document”. However, he does not say why exactly DOWHPX “I have heard” [ABL 901:5, either NB or NA]) as it is noteworthy. a similar construction is found also with the G-stem: 48. I wish to thank Benjamin Foster for emphasizing this PN XPN2 DλƗPHãLãPXϏPD“PN and PN2 came to an to me. agreement with each other” (VAS 6 331:7, NB). Thus it Notes on reciprocal constructions in Akkadian in light of typological and historical considerations 35

$VPHQWLRQHGHDUOLHULWLVGLI¿FXOWWRGHWHUPLQHLQ RIDSURQRXQ%HVLGHVWKHPRUSKRORJLFPRWLYDWLRQIRU VHQWHQFHVVXFKDV ZKHWKHUDλƗPHã is pronominal WKLVFKDQJH WKHHQGLQJHãLã WKHIDFWWKDWV\QWDFWL RUDGYHUELDODVLQERWKFDVHVLWDSSHDUVZLWKRXWD FDOO\DλƗPHãLQVHQWHQFHVVXFKDV FDQEHDQDO\]HG preposition: DVGHPRQVWUDWHGLQ>@ ERWKDVDSURQRXQDQGDVDQ DGYHUEZLWKRXWFKDQJLQJWKHPHDQLQJFRXOGFRQWULEXWH DλƗPHãXUDVVDEǌ WRWKLVVKLIWDVZHOO RECP 3MPL.DURFXWGRZQ ³7KH\FXWGRZQHDFKRWKHU´ DλƗPHãXUDVVDEǌ !DλƗPHãXUDVVDEǌ 6WUHFN$VE%YLL1% RECP SURQRXQ MPL.DURFXWGRZQRECP DGYHUE 3MPL.DURFXWGRZQ +RZHYHUZKHQWKHYHUEKDVDUHFLSURFDOPHDQLQJ ³7KH\FXWGRZQHDFKRWKHU´ HVSHFLDOO\ZKHQLWLVLQD7VWHPIRUPEDVHGRQRXU 6WUHFN$VE%YLL1$>6%@ SUHYLRXVREVHUYDWLRQDλƗPHãLVH[SHFWHGWRFRPHDIWHU WKHDVVRFLDWLYHSUHSRVLWLRQitti.,QWKHIROORZLQJH[DPSOH ZHHQFRXQWHUDλƗPHãZLWKRXWDSUHSRVLWLRQLQGLFDWLQJ Q 4. THE SEMANTICS OF VERBAL RECIPROCALS WKDWDλƗPHãLQWKLVVHQWHQFHIXQFWLRQVDVDQDGYHUE IN AKKADIAN QLQGDJJDUDDλƗPHã 7KHFRPSDULVRQEHWZHHQODQJXDJHVLQJHQHUDODQG PL.DURDJUHHRECP EHWZHHQWKH6HPLWLFRQHVLQSDUWLFXODUYHU\RIWHQVWD\V ³/HWXVPXWXDOO\DJUHH´ 6WUHFN$VEL1$>6%@ DWWKHGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHV\QWDFWLFOHYHOEHFDXVHDPXFK 7KHUHLVIXUWKHUVXSSRUWIRUWKLVFRQFOXVLRQ$V PRUH FDUHIXO FRPSDULVRQ LV QHHGHG IRU WKH VHPDQWLF DUJXHGDERYHRQO\LIDIRUPLVDUHFLSURFDODGYHUEFDQ OHYHO,WDSSHDUVWREHHYHQKDUGHUDQGVRPHWLPHVHYHQ LWFRRFFXUZLWKDUHFLSURFDOSURQRXQ VHHVHQWHQFH LPSRVVLEOHWRSURSRVHDULFKVHPDQWLFDQDO\VLVIRU ,QIDFWZHHQFRXQWHUVXFKDQH[DPSOHLQWKLVYHU\WH[W H[WLQFW ODQJXDJHV VXFK DV $NNDGLDQ 'HVSLWH WKHVH UHVHUYDWLRQVLWLVVWLOOSRVVLEOHWRORRNIRUVLPLODULWLHV QLãƟPDW$ULELLãWƝQDQDLãWƝQLãWDQDϏϏDOǌ DQGGLVVLPLODULWLHVDPRQJWKHODQJXDJHVWKDWFDQKHOSXV YDULãWDϏϏDOǌ WRGHFLSKHUVHPDQWLFDVSHFWVLQWKHVHDQFLHQWODQJXDJHV people.of land.of Arabia one to one 3MPL.DURDVN $VPHQWLRQHG ZLWKUHJDUGWRWKHLUV\QWDFWLF DλƗPHã SURSHUWLHVPDQ\RIWKH6HPLWLFODQJXDJHVWKDWXVHWKH RECP 7DI¿[IROORZDVLPLODUV\QWDFWLFW\SRORJ\7KHTXHVWLRQ ³7KHSHRSOHRI$UDELDPXWXDOO\NHHSDVNLQJDVNHDFK LV WKHUHIRUH KRZ PXFK WKLV W\SRORJLFDO VLPLODULW\ RWKHU´ 6WUHFN$VEL[1$>6%@ UHÀHFWVWKHVHPDQWLFVDVZHOORUWREHPRUHVSHFL¿F ,WLVZRUWKQRWLQJWKDWWKHH[SUHVVLRQLãWƝQDQDLãWƝQ WR ZKDW GHJUHH D GLVFXVVLRQ DERXW ODQJXDJHV ZLWK D >OLW RQH WR RQH@ LQ WKLV VHQWHQFH LV XQLTXH DV D SUR VLPLODUW\SRORJ\FDQEHJHQHUDOL]HGDQGDSSOLHGWR QRPLQDOUHFLSURFDOH[SUHVVLRQLQ$NNDGLDQ Interest RWKHUODQJXDJHVZLWKVLPLODUV\QWDFWLFEHKDYLRU LQJO\ WKH UHFLSURFDO SURQRXQV LQ (DVWHUQ $UDPDLF BAR-ASHERDIROORZLQJDWKHRUHWLFDOVHPDQWLF FRQVLVW RI D UHSHWLWLRQ RI WKH ZRUG ³RQH´ WKXV VLQFH HODERUDWLRQ PRVWO\SILONI DQGDIMITRIADIS 1HR$VV\ULDQLVVXVSHFWHGRI$UDPDLFLQÀXHQFHWKLVLV GHDOWZLWKWKHH[DFWVHPDQWLFVRIWKLVW\SHRIOH[LFDO PRVWOLNHO\DFDOTXHRI$UDPDLF53$FFRUGLQJO\LWLV YHUEDOHQFRGLQJRIUHFLSURFLW\/HDYLQJWKLVWKHRUHWLFDO SRVVLEOHWRSURSRVHWKDWWKHIRUPDλƗPHãLQWKH1HR GLVFXVVLRQDVLGHIRURXUSXUSRVHVWKHVLJQL¿FDQWFRQFOX $VV\ULDQSHULRGZDVUHDQDO\]HGDVDQDGYHUELQVWHDG VLRQVRIWKLVGLVFXVVLRQZHUHWKDWWKHVH SUHGLFDWHVDUH XVXDOO\LQWKHUDQJHRIGHVFULELQJV\PPHWULFDOERGLO\ HYHQWV NLVVLQJ KXJJLQJ HWF RU SK\VLFDOHPRWLRQDO LVQRWWKH7IRUPWKDWSURYLGHVWKDWUHFLSURFDOPHDQLQJ FRQÀLFWV ¿JKWLQJDUJXLQJHWF 7KHVHW\SHVRIHYHQWV EXWUDWKHUWKHUHFLSURFDOSURQRXQWRJHWKHUZLWKWKHSOXUDO DUHGHVFULEHGE\'LPLWULDGLVDVLUUHGXFLEO\V\PPHWULF YHUE,QJHQHUDOLWVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWDOOWKHVHH[DPSOHV eventsDQGKHSURSRVHG >@LQKLVDUWLFOH WKH are from a late period. $QRWKHUH[DPSOHDSSHDUVLQDWH[WIURP(O$PDUQDDQRWKHU IROORZLQJGH¿QLWLRQIRUWKHVHSUHGLFDWHV GLDOHFWKHDYLO\LQÀXHQFHVE\D1RUWKZHVW6HPLWLFVXEVWUDWH 'H¿QLWLRQ$SUHGLFDWHLVLUUHGXFLEO\V\PPHWULFLI D LW LãWƝQDQDLGLLãWƝQ>OLWRQHWRKDQGRQH@³RQHEHVLGHVWKH H[SUHVVHVDELQDU\UHODWLRQVKLSEXW E LWVWZRDUJXPHQWV RWKHU´ ($ 53.,WVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWDUHSHWLWLRQRILãWƝQ translated to KDYHQHFHVVDULO\LGHQWLFDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQDQ\HYHQW (QJOLVKDV³RQH«DQRWKHU´PD\EHIRXQGDOUHDG\LQ2OG GHVFULEHGE\WKHSUHGLFDWH %DE\ORQLDQLãWLDWXããXULPPDLãWLDWNDOLD “to release one &RQVHTXHQWO\ZHGRQRWH[SHFWWR¿QGWKHVHSUHGL >RIWKHERQGZRPHQ@WRKROGWKHRWKHU´ 7&/I KRZHYHUXQOLNHWKHXQVSHFL¿HGSURQRXQ WKHUH FDWHVXVHGWRGHVFULEHHYHQWVZLWKKLJKWUDQVLWLYLW\ LVQRUHODWLRQH[SUHVVHGEHWZHHQWKHWZRSURQRPLQDO DV GHVFULEHGLQHOPPER, THOMPSON LQZKLFK expressions. WKHUHLVDGLVWLQFWLYHDJHQWDQGDGLVWLQFWLYHSDWLHQWZLWK (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

WKH IRUPHU DFWLQJ XSRQ WKH ODWWHU HVSHFLDOO\ VLQFH LQ HDFK RWKHU´ RU ãXWDQQXQX IURP ãDQƗQX ³WR TXDUUHO WKLVW\SHRIHYHQWVERWKSDUWLFLSDQWVDUHDOVRDIIHFWHGLQ ZLWK´ ,Q DGGLWLRQ VRPH KDYH FODLPHG WKDW WKH YHUE RQHVLQJOHHYHQW7KLVFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQFDQEHLOOXVWUDWHG SDWƗλX³WRVWDE´ZKLFKLVDFOHDUH[DPSOHRIDSUHGLFDWH E\SILONI¶VREVHUYDWLRQDERXWDQRWKHUGLIIHUHQFH ZLWK D KLJK WUDQVLWLYLW\ DOVR IDOOV LQWR WKLV FDWHJRU\ EHWZHHQLUUHGXFLEO\V\PPHWULFDQGQRQV\PPHWULF +RZHYHULWLVKDUGWRVHHKRZWKHDJHQWLVDIIHFWHGE\ SUHGLFDWHV:KLOHWKHQRQV\PPHWULFYHUEDOUHFLSURFDOV VWDEELQJWKHRWKHULQRQHHYHQW,WFDQRQO\EHWKHFDVH VKRZDFRXQWLQJDPELJXLW\WKHLUV\PPHWULFFRXQWHUSDUWV LIWKHUHZHUHWZRHYHQWVRIVWDEELQJ6LPLODUO\LWKDV GRQRWVKRZWKLVDPELJXLW\7KXVLQWKHSURQRPLQDO EHHQDUJXHGWKDWWKHUHLVDQH[DPSOHRIWKHYHUENXOOXPX FRQVWUXFWLRQ D ³¿YHWLPHV´FDQHLWKHUEHWKHWRWDO ³WRVKRZ´LQZKLFKWKHUHLVDQREMHFWDQGWKHUHFLSURF QXPEHURI³NLVVLQJHYHQWV´RUWKHQXPEHURINLVVHVWKDW LW\ LV EHWZHHQ WKH ³VRXUFHV´ DQG WKH ³JRDOV´ RI WKH HDFKRQHRIWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVSHUIRUPHG ZLWKWKHWRWDO VKRZLQJ ³[DQG\VKRZ]WRHDFKRWKHU´ 55 If indeed RI DFWV RI NLVVLQJ ZKLOH LQ WKH YHUEDO FRQVWUXFWLRQ VXFKYHUEVH[LVWLWFRXOGEHDQLQGLFDWLRQWKDWWKHXVHV E WKHRQO\UHDGLQJRIWKHFRXQWLQJLVRFFXUUHQFHV RIWKH7IRUPVVKRXOGEHH[SDQGHGWRFRYHUDODUJHU RIPXWXDONLVVLQJHYHQWV JURXSRIUHFLSURFDOHYHQWV,WLVWKHUHIRUHZRUWKH[DP LQLQJWKHRFFXUUHQFHVRIWKHVHIRUPVYHU\FDUHIXOO\ DGDQYHURQQLãNX]HHW]H[DPHãSHϏDPLP ,QIDFWIRUERWKYHUEVWKHIRUPVDUHuC taC C iC 0RGHUQ+HEUHZ 1 2 2 3 &LQGLFDWHVWKHFRQVRQDQWVRIWKHURRW ZKLFKFDQEH 'DQ DQG5RQ PL.PSTNLVVDEM.MSG ACC DEM.MSG LQWHUSUHWHGPRUSKRORJLFDOO\HLWKHUDVD'WSUHWHULWRUDV ¿YHWLPHPL D ' SHUIHFW 7KXV WKH OLQJXLVWLF HYLGHQFH LV QRW VR L7KHUHZHUH¿YHPXWXDONLVVLQJHYHQWV VWURQJWREHJLQZLWK LL7KHUHZHUHNLVVLQJHYHQWV¿YHE\'DQ ,QWKHFDVHRIWKHYHUENXOOXPX³WRVKRZ´ZHDUH DQG¿YHE\5RQ GHDOLQJZLWKRQHH[DPSOH b.GDQYHURQKLWQDãNX[DPHãSHϏDPLP 'DQDQG5RQPL.PSTNLVVRECP ¿YHWLPHPL SDOJDPãDDQƗNXXDWWDQXNWDODOOLPX 7KHUHZHUH¿YHPXWXDONLVVLQJHYHQWV V\PPHWULFRQO\ FDQDOACC«REL,DQG\RXPL.PRFVKRZQRCPSBJV “TKH FDQDOZKLFK,DQG\RXKDYHMXVWVKRZQVKRZHG 2QHLPSRUWDQWFRQVHTXHQFHRIWKLVW\SRORJ\LVWKDW HDFKRWKHU´ $E%2% DFFRUGLQJ WR SILONI WKLV W\SH RI OH[LFDOYHUEDO UHFLSURFDO SUHGLFDWH LV QRW YHU\ SURGXFWLYH LQ WKRVH $VVXPLQJDUHFLSURFDOUHDGLQJLQWKLVFDVHQHFHV ODQJXDJHVWKDWKDYHLWWKXVWKHUHDUHQRWPDQ\RIWKHP VLWDWHVWUHDWLQJWKLVVHQWHQFHDVDXQLTXHH[DPSOHRID LQDJLYHQODQJXDJH 7VWHPLQZKLFKWKHUHFLSURFLW\LVEHWZHHQWKHVRXUFHV )ROORZLQJWKHVHW\SRORJLFDOVHPDQWLFREVHUYDWLRQV DQGJRDOVRIWKHDFWLYLW\ LHWKDWWKH\VKRZHGVRPH WKHTXHVWLRQUHPDLQVDVWRZKHWKHUZHFDQ¿QGDPRQJ WKLQJ WR HDFK RWKHU 6LQFH QRWKLQJ LQ WKH FRQWH[W WKH6HPLWLFIDPLO\RIODQJXDJHVYHUEDOIRUPVZLWK QHFHVVLWDWHV VXFK D UHDGLQJ WKH UHDGLQJ RI WKLV DV D D 7LQ¿[ WKDW DUH XVHG PRUH JHQHUDOO\ WR H[SUHVV DOO SHUIHFWIRUPLVSUHIHUDEOH UHFLSURFDO HYHQWV HYHQ LI WKH\ LQ IDFW UHIHU WR SOXUDO $ SRVVLEOH UHDVRQ WR EHOLHYH WKDW QXNWDODOOLPX PXWXDO QRQV\PPHWULF HYHQWV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV DUH LQ LVD'WIRUPDQGQRWD'SHUIHFWKDVWRGRZLWK WKHUHH[DPSOHVRIUHFLSURFLW\ZLWKKLJKWUDQVLWLYLW\" WKHIDFWWKDWWKLVVHQWHQFHLVLQDUHODWLYHFODXVHDQG $FFRUGLQJ WR ZKDW ZH ¿QG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH LW LV WKH SHUIHFW LQ JHQHUDO LV YHU\ UDUH LQ VXFK FODXVHV SRVVLEOH WR FRQVLGHU $NNDGLDQ DQ H[DPSOH RI VXFK D +RZHYHUWKLVLVQRWLPSRVVLEOHDQGFDQEHIRXQGLQ ODQJXDJH$VPHQWLRQHGHDUOLHU RQHFDQ¿QGWKH WH[WV IURP WKH VDPH SHULRG VHH MALONEY H[SUHVVLRQRIUHFLSURFLW\DPRQJWKHXVHVRIWKH7VWHPV SSLOESOVSS LQ$NNDGLDQ7KHUHDUHPDQ\H[DPSOHVLQWKH*WVWHP 7KHH[DPSOHZLWKWKHYHUESDWƗλX ³VWDE´ ZKLFK DQGDJURXSRISUHGLFDWHVLQWKH'WVWHP$PRQJWKH PD\KDYHDUHFLSURFDOPHDQLQJDSSHDUVLQWKHIROORZ YHUEVLQWKH'WVWHPRQH¿QGVWKHH[SHFWHGLUUHGXFLEO\ LQJFRQWH[W V\PPHWULFSUHGLFDWHVUXWXPPX IURPUkPX ³WRORYH ãǌNL]ǌãXLQDSDαULSDU]LOOLãLEEƯãXQXXSWDWWHλǌ KHJURRP06*3266ZLWKVZRUGRILURQGENEHOW 3MPL.POSS 3MPL.PSTSLHUFH 7KHUHLVDVXEJURXSRIYHUEVLQWKH'WVWHPZLWKDUHGX SOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRQVRQDQWDQGDPRQJWKHPDIHZZKLFK H[SUHVV UHFLSURFLW\ KOUWENBERG SS VXJJHVWHGWKDW³WKHVHFDVHVRIUHGXSOLFDWLRQVHUYHWR 55.6HHKOUWENBERG SS IRUDOLVWRI'W XQGHUOLQH WKH LQKHUHQWO\ SOXUDO QDWXUH RI UHFLSURFLW\´ UHFLSURFDOYHUEVDPRQJWKHPDOOWKHRQHVPHQWLRQHGKHUH +RZHYHUDVGRONEBERG SS VWDWHGLWLV 6HH LIPIēSKI S IRU D VLPLODU GLVFXVVLRQ LPSRVVLEOHWRDWWULEXWHRQHVSHFLDOPHDQLQJWRWKLVJURXS FRQFHUQLQJWKLVKRPRSKRQLFSUREOHPDQGLWVUHOHYDQF\ DQGLWVHHPVWKDWWKH\DUHMXVWDOORPRUSKVRIWKHUHJXODU IRUWKHGLVFXVVLRQRQSOXUDOIRUPV 'WVWHPV )RUERWKSURSRVDOVVHHQRWHLQ$E%D 1RWHVRQUHFLSURFDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLQ$NNDGLDQLQOLJKWRIW\SRORJLFDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV 37

DλƗPHã among the Semitic languages. However, our only RECP intention was to add other considerations that should “He and his groom stabbed each other with a sword in be included in this discussion. their belts” (Streck Asb 60 vii 36-37, NA [SB])58 Finally, it is worth mentioning in this context the different verbs for “to exchange.” This verb has a natu- The reciprocity here is clearly expressed by DλƗPHã, ral reciprocal meaning, in which each of the “sources” but the question is whether it is also expressed by (giver) is also a “goal” (the receiver). In the argument the verbal form. Reading XSWDWWHλǌas a Dt form will structure of verbs with this meaning there will be require either considering DλƗPHã as an adverb, or another argument, the object of the action that is understanding it as a case in which a Dt reciprocal form expected to be the object. Therefore, we would not takes an accusative.59 +RZHYHU LQ WKLV VSHFL¿F OLQH expect to encounter the T-stem with this verb.61 Indeed as seen earlier (§ 3.7), DλƗPHã uniquely functions in in Akkadian the regular verbs are ãXSrOX and SXλλX, this text as an adverb, and therefore it is possible to both not in a T-stem. However, KOUWENBERG (1997, read the verbal form as Dt. p. 326) proposed that there are examples in the If we read it as a perfect D-stem (“have pierced”), Dt stem. According to what we saw in Akkadian and then the DλƗPHãis either the object of the sentence or in the other languages, this is against our expectation. is an adverb, and therefore lacks a preposition. We $QG LQGHHG KLV H[DPSOH IRU D ¿QLWH IRUP FDQ EH should remember that the pronoun DλƗPHã behaves analyzed as a D perfect form.62 7KH QRQ¿QLWH IRUP differently in the Assurbanipal royal inscription than in SXWXλλƗ that he mentioned, however, is doubtful.63 any other Akkadian dialect that we have encountered 7KXVLWSRVVLEOHWKDWWKLVLVDUHÀHFWLRQRID substrate of another language, and, in any case, it is not the best text to gage the linguistic situation in Akkadian, with regards to reciprocity. This is an example, I believe, of how sensitivity to typological considerations enriches our discussion HYHQ FRQFHUQLQJ D VSHFL¿F UHDGLQJ LQ RQH OLQH RI DQ 61. In Arabic the root EGO has this meaning in different ancient text. Our examination exposed the components forms. In the case of the VI form, Arabic clearly shows a of the reciprocal construction. This understanding GLIIHUHQWEHKDYLRUDVWKLVWLQ¿[VWHPFDQWDNHDQREMHFW combined with the accurate analysis of DλƗPHã as a which can be also passivized: pronoun elsewhere in Akkadian, and the knowledge (50) WDEƗGDOƗQDVUƗOODKZDXOPHUWOϏDVUƗ that verbal reciprocals with T-forms typically have no 3DU.PST.exchange Nasralla and-Olmert 60 DEF-prisoner/PL direct objects, led us to our conclusion concerning “Olmert and the Hizbollah exchanged the prisoners” WKLVVSHFL¿FWH[W (51) WXEǌGLODOϏDVUƗ It should be emphasized that with regards to the last 3MSD.PASS.exchange DEF-prisoner/PL two examples I could not prove that the reciprocal “The prisoners were exchanged” readings are impossible. It is, of course, possible that This is clearly a different behavior than what we see in Akkadian developed a reciprocal encoding unique Hebrew and in Aramaic, as this is a use of a T-stem with a verb with high transitivity, and its inclusion of a clear direct object exhibits a different syntactic behavior. This evidence concerning Arabic invites us to look further for other verbs in Arabic with high transitivity, and to examine whether Arabic developed a true reciprocal marker, or 58. STRECK (1916, p. 61) translated it as a reciprocal “durch- ZKHWKHUWKLVLVMXVWDOH[LFDOIHDWXUHRIWKLVVSHFL¿FSUHGL- bohrten sich,” but did not indicate whether it is due to cate in Arabic (probably developed by some analogy). DλƗPHã only or also due to the verbal form. For a new This is another example of how we should be careful edition of the text see BORGER 1996, p. 59. when we generalize from one language to another. It should 59. In both readings ãLEELãXQX “their belt” should be taken as be noted, however, that not all speakers of Standard Arabic an adverbial accusative. FRQVLGHU WREHJUDPPDWLFDODQGLWPLJKWEHDUHÀHFWLRQ 60. This is also relevant to the verb ]DNƗUX “to swear.” While of different substrates. semantically it can be used in the T-stem for mutual 62. In fact, such a construction is common with a perfect agreement with an oath (as is probably the case with the form, as can be seen from the entry SXλλX in the CAD. verb WDP “to swear” for which we encounter a clear However, Von Soden AHw 1280 also analyzes some of durative Dt form), the syntactic construction is with a the examples as Dt forms. direct object, literally meaning “evoking the name of the 63. The problem with the example he mentions (p. 327) is life of certain god.” Again all of the examples can be read that this verb seems ungrammatical without an object. as D perfect, and the reciprocity, if it existed, is received Since this would be the only example of Dt it would be from the fact that both parties took an oath. better to consider this as a corrupted text. 38 (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

Q 5. VERBAL VS. PRONOMINAL RECIPROCAL to the ambiguity of (52) which has two readings, while CONSTRUCTIONS in most social contexts (53) has only one, due to pragmatic considerations. BUCCELLATI (1996, p. 381) considers verbal and (52) John and Mary got married reciprocal constructions in Akkadian to be similar, one a. Mary married John (and John married Mary) synthetic and one analytic. Indeed, in most sentences, b. John married someone (who is not Mary) and semantically, the two constructions are interchangeable Mary married someone (who is not John) but, as noted in the previous section, typological studies (53) My brother and my sister got married last week. show distinctions between them, and occasionally a. #My brother married my sister last week. they differ semantically as well. Buccellati’s approach b. My brother married someone and also my sister led him to the claim that “the full reciprocal force of married someone (else) last week. the Bt stems seems to have been lost in the later periods of Babylonian, for in these periods adverbs such as ,QWKLVZD\ZH¿QGWKHVDPHDPELJXLW\LQ0RGHUQ DλƗPHã ‘together, mutually’ come to be used more and Hebrew, Modern Greek, and Turkish wherever a more either in place of, or next to, verbal forms of the discontinuous reciprocal is possible: Bt stem”.64 (54) GDQYH\RVLKLWQDãNX Modern Hebrew In fact, Buccellati is referring to two different 'DQDQGtransitive verb with a recip- LL³%RWK'DQDQG

Based on this evidence, if indeed this was also the examples in this paper (inter alia 2d-e).66 In light of case in Akkadian, the appearance of a detransitivized WKHVHREVHUYDWLRQVLILQGHHG%XFFHOODWL¶VFODLPUHÀHFWV verb with the one-unit pronoun DλƗPHã functions the reality, the content of the description should be similarly to other languages with a verbal encoding, rephrased that in the later periods, in the choice between and makes explicit the reciprocal relation between the verbal and the pronominal reciprocal constructions, the members of the subject set. Therefore, this is not the latter was favored. It is possible that this develop- an indication of the loss of the verbal encoding of the ment is in fact related to the historical development reciprocity at the later periods, as argued by Buccellati. discussed above (§ 3.3), the shift from two-unit pronouns As noted it is hard to demonstrate contexts of ambi- to the one-unit pronoun. guity in a extinct language, but possibly the following As demonstrated earlier (§ 3.2), the two-unit pro- example represents a good case were the explicit pronoun nouns are available only without an explicit subject. could disambiguate the meaning: Thus, their use is much more restricted. The one-unit pronoun is available also with explicit subject, and (59) DQDλƗPLãQLQWDλλDθ=mi hence it is used more often. Accordingly, it is not the to-RECP 1PL.PST¿JKWRECP=and case, as argued by Buccellati, that the loss of the “We fought with each other” (AASOR 16 72:10, Nuzi)/ reciprocal meaning of the T-stems motivated the use of On the basis of the context of this lawsuit concerning the one-unit pronoun DλƗPLãThe opposite is in fact WKHUHVXOWRID¿JKWEHWZHHQWZRPHQLWLVUHDVRQDEOH the case: once the shift to a one unit-pronoun happened, that it was important to make it explicit that it is not the the pronominal encoding of reciprocity became more case that they fought together against another party, useful (also with explicit subject). Consequently the but rather that they fought each other. Indeed once it use of pronominal encoding became more frequent, ZDVFODUL¿HGWKUHHOLQHVODWHULQWKHWH[WWKHVDPHIRUP and the need of verbal encoding much less. QLQWDλλDθ=mi appears without the reciprocal pronoun DλƗPLã as this ambiguity was resolved, indicating that it could carry the same reciprocal meaning without the Q 6. CONCLUSIONS pronoun. As for the high frequency of the transitive verbs This paper concentrated on the various reciprocal with reciprocal pronouns in the later periods, although constructions in Akkadian. Starting with the main dis- Buccellati did not provide clear evidence for this tinction between verbal and the pronominal construc- claim,65 the impression from surveying the data for this tions (§ 2), and considering the various pronominal paper is that there is some support for it. If one takes, strategies (§ 3.1) a reciprocal situation may be repre- for example, the uses of the verb DPƗUXP “to see”, in sented in one of the following syntactic forms: the old dialects (and for this matter in SB as well) it is used in the N-Stem with the reciprocal meaning of 1/ A transitive verb with reciprocal pronouns, with either “seeing each other” or “meet”, as, for example, is the a/ a plural subject with a one-unit pronoun and a case in example (1a), repeated below: plural verb (3d) or, b/ a singular verb with the two-units pronoun (3a), (60) DQƗNXXDWWDQLQQDPLU and one of the elements of the pronouns function and you 1PL.PST.meet.RECP as a subject (a few examples with plural verbs “We met, you and I” (OIP 27 15:22, OA). [12a-b] were discussed as well). By contrast, in an example from MB we encounter 2/ A detransitivized verb consisting of either (or a the use of this verb in the G-stem (the transitive stem) semantic symmetric predicates [41]), with either with the reciprocal pronoun DλƗPHã: a/ a plural verb (2c), or b/ a plural verb with reciprocal pronoun after the (61) DλƗPHãOǌQƯPXU associative preposition (41), or RECP INJ 1PL.PST.see c/ only one set in the subject position and the other set “Let us see each other” ($I2 10, p. 3:13 and 15). after the associative preposition (4b, the discon- However, by no means we do not encounter examples tinuous construction). of the T-stems with reciprocal meaning in the later periods – as shown, for example, in some of the

66. From our survey it seems that also in the later periods it 65. For some support for Buccellati’s claim, see PAVIE 2006, ZDV PRUH FRPPRQ ZLWK VRPH VSHFL¿F YHUEV VXFK DV pp. 7-11. PLWλXθX³WR¿JKW´ 40 (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

This is not to say that every reciprocal situation BORGER R. may be encoded with all these strategies, since the verbal 1996 %HLWUlJH ]XP ,QVFKULIWHQZHUN $VVXUEDQLSDOV GLH construction seems to be restricted semantically to a 3ULVPHQNODVVHQ$%& .'()*+-XQG7 certain type of events (§ 4, however, the validity of this VRZLHDQGHUH,QVFKULIWHQ, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. claim in the context of Akkadian has been examined BUCCELLATI G. in this section). 1996 $6WUXFWXUDO*UDPPDURI%DE\ORQLDQ, Wiesbaden, With regards to the pronominal construction it has Harrassowitz. been noted that the various constructions are subgroups BUTTS A.M. within a broader strategy of expressions of reciprocity 2010 “The etymology and derivation of the Syriac with the regular transitive verb (§ 3.4.1). adverbial ending *-ƗϏƯW”, -RXUQDORI$QFLHQW1HDU Besides the various syntactic distinctions between (DVWHUQ6WXGLHV69, pp. 79-86. the one-unit and the two-unit pronominal constructions CORBETT G.G. (§ 3.2), it has been noted that each belong to different 2006 Agreement, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. periods of in the history of Akkadian (§ 3.3). Considering DALRYMPLE M., MAKOTO K., YOOKYUNG K., the history of the pronominal expressions, proposals MCHOMBO S., STANLEY P. for the origins of each of the various constructions 1998 “Reciprocal expressions and the concept of recipro- have been proposed (§ 3.4-6). city”, /LQJXLVWLFVDQG3KLORVRSK\ 21, pp. 159-220. The historical development within Akkadian, and the DELITZSCH Fr. different in syntax between the constructions together 1889 $VV\ULDQ *UDPPDU ZLWK 3DUDGLJPV ([HUFLVHV with the semantic differences between the verbal and *ORVVDU\DQG%LEOLRJUDSK\, Berlin, H. Reuther. the pronominal encodings (§ 4) were used to explain DIMITRIADIS A. the fact that verbal construction seems to appear more 2004 “Discontinuous reciprocals”, Unpublished ms., frequently in the earlier periods and less later (§ 5). UiL-OTS, December. EVANS N., GABY A., NORDLINGER R. +HEUHZ8QLYHUVLW\RI-HUXVDOHP 2007 “Valency mismatches and the coding of reciprocity in Australian Languages”, /LQJXLVWLF7\SRORJ\11, pp. 541-97. 2007a “Reciprocals grammar-writing and typology”, Revue Q REFERENCES de linguistique roumaine, II (4), pp.479-506. FRAJZYNGIER Z., CURL T.S. (dir.), AMBERBER M. 1999 5HFLSURFDOV )RUPV DQG )XQFWLRQV, Amsterdam, 2002 9HUE &ODVVHV DQG 7UDQVLWLYLW\ LQ $PKDULF John Benjamins. (LINCOM, Studies in Afroasiatic Linguistics), GELB I.J. München, Lincom Europa. 1957 “Notes on von Soden’s Grammar of Akkadian”, BAR-ASHER E. %LEOLRWKHFD2ULHQWDOLV12, pp. 93-111. 2009a $7KHRU\RI$UJXPHQW5HDOL]DWLRQDQGLWV$SSOLFD- GELB I.J. LANDSBERGER B., et alii WLRQVWR)HDWXUHVRIWKH6HPLWLF/DQJXDJHV, PhD 1956 7KH $VV\ULDQ 'LFWLRQDU\ Chicago, The Oriental diss., Harvard University. Institute. 2009b “Dual pronouns in Semitics and an evaluation of GLINERT L. the evidence for their existence in Biblical Hebrew”, 1989 7KH *UDPPDU RI 0RGHUQ +HEUHZ, Cambridge, $QFLHQW1HDU(DVWHUQ6WXGLHV 46, pp. 32-49. Cambridge University Press. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL E.A. GOLDENBERG G. forthcoming $Q,QWURGXFWLRQWR-HZLVK%DE\ORQLDQ$UDPDLF 1991 “‘Oneself’, ‘one’s own’ and ‘one another’ in $*UDPPDU%RRN, in J. TROPPER, J. HUEHNERGARD, Amharic”, in A.S. KAYE (dir.), 6HPLWLF6WXGLHVLQ L. KOGAN, D. NICOLAE, J.-P. VITA (dir.), /HKUEFKHU +RQRU RI :ROI /HVODX, Wiesbaden, Otto Harras- 2ULHQWDOLVFKHU6SUDFKHQ /26 7H[WERRNVRI1HDU sowitz, pp. 531-549. (DVWHUQ/DQJXDJHV, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag (JBA). GRAYSON A.K. forthcoming “Diachronic syntactic studies in the Hebrew 1972 $VV\ULDQ5R\DO,QVFULSWLRQV, 1, Wiesbaden, Harras- pronominal reciprocal constructions”, in C. MILLER, sowitz. Z. ZEVIT (dir.), 'LDFKURQ\ LQ %LEOLFDO +HEUHZ, GRONEBERG B. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns (Hebrew). 1989 “Reduplications of Consonants and R-Stems”, BEHRENS L. 5HYXHG¶$VV\ULRORJLH 83, pp. 27-34. 2007 “Backgrounding and suppression of reciprocal HASPELMATH M. Participants: A cross-linguistic study”,6WXGLHVLQ 2007 “Further remarks on reciprocal constructions”, /DQJXDJH31, pp. 327-408. in NEDJALKOV 2007, pp. 2087-2115. 1RWHVRQUHFLSURFDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLQ$NNDGLDQLQOLJKWRIW\SRORJLFDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV 41

HASSELBACH R. MUTZAFI H. 2007 “External plural markers in Semitic: A new assess- 2004 7KH -HZLVK 1HR$UDPDLF 'LDOHFW RI .R\ 6DQMDT ment”, in C.L. MILLER (dir.), 6WXGLHVLQ6HPLWLFDQG ,UDTL.XUGLVWDQ (Semitica Viva, 32), Wiesbaden, $IURDVLDWLF/LQJXLVWLFV3UHVHQWHGWR*HQH%*UDJJ Harrassowitz. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 60), NEDJALKOV V.P. (dir.) Chicago, The Oriental Institute, pp. 123-138. 2007 5HFLSURFDO &RQVWUXFWLRQV, 5 vols, Amsterdam, HECKER K. John Benjamins. 1968 *UDPPDWLNGHU.OWHSH7H[WH (Analecta Orienta- D ³2YHUYLHZ RI WKH UHVHDUFK 'H¿QLWLRQV RI WHUPV OLD 5RPH3RQWL¿FLXP,QVWLWXWXP%LEOLFXP framework, and related issues”, in NEDJALKOV 2007, HOPPER P.J., THOMPSON S.A. pp. 3-114. 1980 “Transitivity in grammar and discourse”, 2007b “Encoding of the reciprocal meaning”, in NEDJAL- /DQJXDJH56, pp. 251-299. KOV 2007, pp. 147-208. JAY J. 2007c “Polysemy of reciprocal markers”, in NEDJALKOV 2009 “Reciprocal constructions in Biblical Hebrew”, 2007, pp. 231-334. *,$/HQV,(OHFWURQLF1RWHV6HULHV 3/1. PAVIE N. KEMMER S. 2006 “Questions relatives au système des %LQ\DQLP 1993 7KH0LGGOH9RLFH$7\SRORJLFDODQG'LDFKURQLF de l’Akkadien”, M.A. Thesis, Hebrew University 6WXG\, Amsterdam, John Benjamins. of Jerusalem. KHAN G. RUBIN A.D. 2004 7KH-HZLVK1HR$UDPDLF'LDOHFWRI6XOHPDQL\\D 2005 6WXGLHV LQ 6HPLWLF *UDPPDWLFDOL]DWLRQ (Harvard DQG+DODEMD, Leiden, Brill. Semitic Series, 57), Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. KÖNIG E., GAST V. (dir.) 2010 7KH0HKUL/DQJXDJHRI2PDQ, Boston, Brill. 2008 5HFLSURFDOVDQG5HÀH[LYHV7KHRUHWLFDODQG7\SR- SALONEN E. ORJLFDO([SORUDWLRQV, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. 1962 8QWHUVXFKXQJHQ]XU6FKULIWXQG6SUDFKHGHV$OW- KÖNIG E., KOKUTANI Sh. EDE\ORQLVFKHQYRQ6XVDPLW%HUFNVLFKWLJXQJGHU 2006 “Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: 0kODPLU7H[WH (Studia Orientalia, 27/1), Helsinki. Focus on German and Japanese”, /LQJXLVWLFV 44, SAPIR E. pp. 271-302. 1931 6RXWKHUQ 3DLXWH D 6KRVKRQHDQ /DQJXDJH 7H[WV KOUWENBERG N.J.C. RIWKH.DLEDE3DLXWHVDQG8LQWDK8WHV6RXWKHUQ 1997 *HPLQDWLRQLQWKH$NNDGLDQ9HUE (Studia Semitica 3DLXWH 'LFWLRQDU\ (3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH $PHULFDQ Neerlandica, 32), Assen (Netherlands), Van Gorcum. $FDGHP\RI$UWVDQG6FLHQFHV65), Boston, Ameri- KREMERS J. can Academy of Arts and Sciences. 1997 +RZ$UDEV6SHDNWRHDFKRWKHUDERXWWKHPVHOYHV SILONI T. $ 6WXG\ RI nafs and EDՏԴ LQ 0RGHUQ 6WDQGDUG 2001 “Reciprocal verbs”, 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH ,VUDHOL $UDELF, M.A. thesis, University of Nijmegen. $VVRFLDWLRQRI7KHRUHWLFDO/LQJXLVWLFV 17 (available LIPIēSKI E. at http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/_english/IATL/17) 1997 6HPLWLF /DQJXDJHV 2XWOLQH RI D &RPSDUDWLYH 2002 “Active Lexicon”, 7KHRUHWLFDO /LQJXLVWLFV 28, *UDPPDU (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 80), pp. 383-400. Leuven, Peeters. 2008 “The syntax of reciprocal verbs: An overview”, in LOESOV S. E. KÖNIG, V. GAST (dir.), 5HFLSURFDOVDQG5HÀH[LYHV 2004 “T-Perfect in Old Babylonian: Current debate &URVVOLQJXLVWLF DQG 7KHRUHWLFDO ([SORUDWLRQV, and a thesis”, %DEHODQG%LEHO 1, pp. 83-181. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 451-498. MALONEY J.F. SODEN W. VON 1982 7KH73HUIHFWLQWKH$NNDGLDQRI2OG%DE\ORQLDQ 1933 “Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen”, /HWWHUVZLWKD6XSSOHPHQWRQ9HUEDO8VDJHLQWKH =HLWVFKULIW IU $VV\ULRORJLH XQG 9RUGHUDVLDWLVFKH &RGHRI+DPPXUDSSLDQG7KH/DZVRI(VKQXQD, $UFKlRORJLH [ZA] 41, pp. 90-183. Unpublished Dissertation, Harvard University. 1952 *UXQGULVV GHU DNNDGLVFKHQ *UDPPDWLN, Rome, MASLOVA E. 3RQWL¿FLXP,QVWLWXWXP%LEOLFXP 2000 “Reciprocals and set construal”, in FRAJZYNGIER, 1965-1981 $NNDGLVFKHV +DQGZ|UWHUEXFK, Wiesbaden, CURL 2000, pp.161-178. Harrassowitz. MEYER L. DE STRECK M.P. 1962 /¶DFFDGLHQGHVFRQWUDWVGH6XVH, Leiden, Brill. 2003 'LHDNNDGLVFKHQ9HUEDOVWlPPHPLWWD,Q¿[ (Alter Orient und Alter Testament, 303), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag. 42 (OLW]XU$%DU$VKHU6LHJDO

STROOMER H. 1999 0HKUL7H[WVIURP2PDQ%DVHGRQWKH)LHOG0DWHULDOV RI70-RKQVWRQH, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. TESTEN D. 1998 “The derivational role of the Semitic N-Stem”, ZA 88, pp. 127-145. VOIGT R. 2001 “Semitische Verwandtschaftstermini”, in A. ZABOR- SKI (dir.), 1HZ'DWDDQG1HZ0HWKRGVLQ$IURDVLDWLF /LQJXLVWLFV5REHUW+HW]URQLQ0HPRULDP, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, pp. 205-218. WINTER Y. 2007 “Reciprocals and the lexical semantics of predicates”, Paper presented at &RQIHUHQFH5HFLSURFDOVFURVV OLQJXLVWLFDOO\, FU Berlin, November 30-December 2, 2007.