2011.Phyla and Waves.Semlangs9

9. Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages 259 9. Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages 1. Introduction 2. Traditional classification schemes 3. Hetzron’s model and Central Semitic 4. Modifications to Hetzron’s model 5. Problems with Hetzron’s model 6. Trees and waves: Causes/sources of similarity among languages 7. Areal features and parallel developments in Central Semitic 8. Shared innovations in Central Semitic 9. Areal features of “South Semitic” 10. Conclusions 11. References Abstract This chapter gives a brief overview of the internal classification of the Semitic language family. The scheme promoted here is based on the earlier challenges made by R. Hetzron to the traditional subgrouping of the Semitic family. Problems addressed include the question of a South Semitic group, the features which distinguish the Central Semitic group, and the merits of the tree vs. wave model of classification. 1. Introduction The internal subgrouping of the Semitic language family has been debated almost since the systematic linguistic study of the family began in the 19th century. In the bibliogra- phy of Semitic studies published by G. del Olmo Lete (2003), the list of works pertain- ing to classification, covering only the years 1940Ϫ2000, runs to forty pages. Indeed, in a recent article on the comparative method, W. R. Garr (2005, 17) refers to “our persistent interest in subgrouping”. There seems to be almost as many approaches to classification as there are scholars who work on the problem, some of them markedly different in methodology and conclusions (for some history of the issue, cf. Hetzron 1974; Voigt 1987; Faber 1997; and Rubio 2003). Schemes of classification have been challenged or updated not only because of disagreement among scholars as pertains to method or relevance of features, but also because advances in the scholarship of languages (both ancient and modern) repeatedly result in an improved understanding of the subgrouping of the family. In this chapter we will briefly discuss the history of the classification of the Semitic languages, then outline the classification as it is best understood today. After some treatment of the usefulness of our models of classification, we will focus on some specific linguistic features that are relevant to the topic. 260 II. Reconstructing Proto-Semitic and Models of Classification 2. Traditional classification schemes For much of the twentieth century, the prevailing view of the internal subgrouping of the Semitic language family was that of such great scholars as Th. Nöldeke (1899; 1911) and C. Brockelmann (1908Ϫ13). This scheme can be found in several other older handbooks, e.g., Zetterstéen (1914), Fleisch (1947), and Moscati et al. (1964). In this view, which was based as much on the ancient location of the languages as on shared linguistic features, there exist three main sub-families within Semitic (see Figure 9.1): Akkadian is the sole member of East or Northeast Semitic; Hebrew, the other Canaan- ite languages (Phoenician, Moabite, etc.), and Aramaic comprise Northwest Semitic; and Arabic, Ethiopian Semitic, the Søayhadic languages (also called the Old South Ara- bian languages; cf. Beeston 1984, 1), and the Modern South Arabian languages comprise South or Southwest Semitic. Some scholars (e.g., Nöldeke) saw these three sub- families as individual nodes of the Semitic family, though the majority have seen a primary split between East and West Semitic, the latter including Northwest and South (or Southwest) Semitic. Languages discovered subsequent to the works of Nöldeke and Brockelmann were easily fit into this scheme. So, Ugaritic was classified by most as Northwest Semitic; Eblaite was classified by most as East or Northeast Semitic. This is not to say that the exact position of Ugaritic or Eblaite has been agreed upon, only that they could be fit into the existing model. This point is highlighted by the fact that F. Israel (2006, 178) recently counted over thirty-five different theories on the exact classification of Ugaritic. Common Semitic West Semitic East Semitic Northwest Semitic South Semitic Southeast Semitic Ethio-Sabaean Canaanite Aramaic Arabic MSA Sayhadic. Ethiopian Akkadian Figure 9.1: Traditional Subgrouping (after Faber 1997) 3. Hetzron’s model and Central Semitic R. Hetzron challenged the traditional view of Semitic classification in a series of works in the 1970’s, emphasizing the importance of morphological innovations over phono- logical innovations and typological similarities in determining genetic relationships (cf. 9. Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages 261 Hetzron 1974; 1975; 1976). Specifically, Hetzron articulated two principles that he con- sidered fundamental for genetic classification. One is the principle of Archaic Hetero- geneity, which “implies that when cognate systems (i.e. paradigms) in related languages are compared, the system that exhibits the most inner heterogeneity is likely to be the closest to the ancestor-system”. The second is the principle of Shared Morpholexical Innovations, on which he wrote that “the phonetic shape of morphological items is the least likely to be borrowed (as against lexical items)” (Hetzron 1976, 89). Hetzron proposed the branching that is illustrated in Figure 9.2. Proto-West Semitic is characterized by a new means of expressing the perfective aspect, the suffix-conjuga- tion, as in Hebrew nāṣartā ‘you (have) guarded’, which in Proto-Semitic (probably also in Proto-Afroasiatic) and in Akkadian was simply a conjugated adjective, as in Akka- dian naṣrāta ‘you are/were guarded’. The speech forms that did not participate in this innovation are labeled East Semitic, and comprise only Akkadian and Eblaite (for other innovations shared by Akkadian and Eblaite, see Huehnergard 2006; Rubio 2006b; ch. 14). On this primary division between East and West Semitic, Hetzron’s model does not differ from the traditional model (Figure 9.1). It is the subgrouping of languages within West Semitic on which Hetzron deviates from the earlier model. Proto-West Semitic, in Hetzron’s scheme, splits into two branches: South Semitic and Central Semitic. On the basis of earlier scholarship (e.g., Haupt 1878; Greenberg 1952), Hetzron plausibly assumed that the Proto-Semitic imperfective form of the verb had the shape we find in Akkadian, Ethiopian, and the Modern South Arabian languages, namely, a form with a two-syllable base and a doubled middle radical, *yaqattal, as in Akkadian inaṣṣar ‘he guards’. For Modern South Arabian, we are assuming that a form like the Mehri G-Stem imperfect yəkōtəb reflects *yəkattəb, just as a Mehri D/ L-Stem perfect like ḥōrəm ‘swear (not to do s.t.)’ reflects an earlier D-Stem *ḥarrama. A few scholars have suggested that the Modern South Arabian imperfect reflects *yaqtulu (e.g., Cohen 1974; 1984, 68Ϫ75; Lonnet 2005, 187Ϫ188); see Goldenberg (1977, 475Ϫ477; 1979) for arguments against this alternative scenario. Following his assumption regarding the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yaqattal, Hetz- ron then suggested that the languages in which this Proto-Semitic form has been aban- doned and replaced with a very different form, *yaqtulu Ϫ namely, Arabic, Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the Canaanite languages Ϫ must have shared a common ancestor, an ancestor that he labeled Central Semitic. Thus, Proto-Central Semitic, with its innova- tive imperfective verb, splits off from Proto-West Semitic. The remaining part of West Semitic, which Hetzron called South Semitic, consisted of Ethiopian Semitic, Søayhadic, and Modern South Arabian. In some of his ideas on Central Semitic, especially as related to the characteristic verbal form *yaqtulu, Hetzron was preceded by Christian (1919Ϫ1920); for discussion, see Voigt (1987). Some Semitists have rejected Hetzron’s model, especially his placement of Arabic in the same branch as Aramaic and Hebrew. In fact, of the most recent monograph- length treatments of comparative Semitic (excluding the works of the present authors), only Belova et al. (2009) presents a scheme deriving from that of Hetzron (according to the modifications discussed below in Section 4). For example, Stempel (1999) clings to the traditional model, while Lipiński (2000) and Haelewyck (2007) follow a more idiosyncratic scheme. Nevertheless, for many Semitists, Hetzron’s model remains foun- dational, and is the point of departure for additional investigation. 262 II. Reconstructing Proto-Semitic and Models of Classification Common Semitic West Semitic East Semitic Central Semitic South Semitic Arabo-Canaanite South Arabian Ethiopian Canaanite Arabic Aramaic MSA Sayhadic. N. Eth. S. Eth. Akkadian Figure 9.2: R. Hetzron’s Model Classification Scheme (Hetzron 1976, etc.) 4. Modifications to Hetzron’s model A number of scholars, while generally accepting this new model, have proposed modifications to it, which have led to the classification scheme outlined in Figure 9.3. One change, which was proposed independently by both J. Huehnergard (1987a) and R. Voigt (1987), was to undo Hetzron’s “Arabo-Canaanite” sub-branch, because the fea- ture that, in Hetzron’s view, tied Arabic and Canaanite together, was discovered in early Aramaic as well. Perhaps the most significant modification was a result of an important study of weak verbs in the Søayhadic languages by N. Nebes (1994). Nebes demonstrated that none of the Søayhadic languages for which there is sufficient evidence exhibits the form yaqattal; the imperfective of the verb is, instead, formed on the pattern yaqtulu (cf. also Voigt 1987). This is important, because it means that these languages participated in the most significant innovation that characterizes the Central Semitic branch, and are therefore also part of Central Semitic. It also means that, contrary to long-standing assumption, none of those languages can be the ancestor of either the Modern South Arabian languages or the Ethiopian Semitic languages (so already Rabin 1963, 108 n. 1), both of which do continue to exhibit yaqattal rather than yaqtulu for the imperfective; Rubin (2008, 69Ϫ70), outlines additional reasons why the Modern South Arabian languages cannot derive from the Søayhadic languages.

Load more