Historical Aspects of Standard Negation in Semitic 9004348549, 9789004348547

tʔ ʔlt ssm bn pdrššʔ ʔl[w] w-l-ḥnqt ʔmr bt ʔbʔ bl tbʔn w-ḥṣr ʔdrk bl tdrkn An incantation against ʕptʔ, the goddess, (against) Ssm, son of Pdrššʔ, the god, and against Ḥnqt-ʔmr: The house I enter, you shall not enter, and the courtyard I tread, you shall not tread.

Although the modality of the negated clauses may still be deontic as an obligation in the form of an indicative statement, it should be stressed that clauses negated by bl are not marked as such, unlike clauses negated by ʔl.15 Therefore,

12   gzly is identified with the infinitive construct followed by the 3rd msg subjective pronominal suffix by Friedrich and Röllig (PPG §187). See also Younger (2002: 138–139). 13  See Isaksson (2013) for this use of the infinitive. Sabaic blty also excludes verb phrases, e.g. N 74:5 (apud Müller 1987: 59) k hyfʕt ḏt bʕdnm zʕmh b-ysṭ mḥrmn ṯlṯt ʔzʕmm blty kwn b-mḥrn kl bʕltm ‘when Ḏt Bʕdnm had announced her invokation in the sanctuary three vocations, without there being (present) in the sanctuary any priestess.’ 14  Donner and Röllig (KAI2 p. 45) parse tbʔn and tdrkn as 2nd fpl yvqtvl, with ḥnqt ʔmr as their subject, while Gibson (1982: 85) assumes 2nd mpl yvqtvlu. Even if the former parsing is admitted, the predicates are indiscrete prefix conjugations, and may also be parsed as yvqtvlu. 15  It may be noted, however, that the negated predicate in a similar construction in Ugaritic is marked for prohibition, cf. UDB 1.170:18 quoted in the beginning of section 4.8. Cf. also the comparison to Akkadian ašar errubu lā terrub made by Pat-El (2013: 57 n. 26).

178

Chapter 6

the negated predicate in (136) likely describes the non-realization of a proposition regardless of the speaker’s will: (136)

KAI5 69:15 (Punic) b-kl zbḥ ʔš yzbḥ dl mqnʔ ʔm dl ṣpr bl ykn l-khn[m mnm]16 From every sacrifice that he who is poor as regards beast or bird sacrifices, there will not be anything for the priest.

The text in (136), part of the so-called Marseilles Tariff, describes fees and portions accorded to priests in proportion to offers made, and it is also possible that the text should be understood as a form of condition: ‘in (the case of) any sacrifice made by a man who is poor as regards beasts or birds, the priests shall not receive anything’ (cf. Pardee 1997). Again, predicates in a consequence clause that are marked for volition are negated by ʔl, cf. e.g. KAI514:6 (quoted on p. 181). Moreover, the use of bl as a restrictive particle, in the following example augmented by -t, can be explained as another implicature of an originally abessive function:17 (137)

KAI5 13:5 (Sidon) w-ʔl trgzn k ʔy ʔd/rln ksp ʔy ʔd/rln 5ḥrṣ w-kl mnm mšr/d blt ʔnk škb b-ʔrn z Do not disturb me, because there is no ʔd/rln of silver, there is no ʔd/ rln of gold, or any mšr/d at all, only I lie in this coffin.

As a matter of fact, restrictive particles typically develop from abessive grammatical morphemes, cf. English barely, German bloß and lediglich (< ‘free of, deprived of’), and Swedish bara and blott ‘only’ (< ‘bare’). The same development can be traced in Arabic. In Arabic, bal (AL 243–244) and balā (AL 275) are the most common reflexes of *bal. In the synchronic layer of Quran Arabic, the most common function of bal and balā is to contradict a preceding proposition. The transition from ‘without,’ i.e. an expression of lack, to ‘on the contrary,’ is 16  For the emendation of the last clause, cf. KAI5 74:6 [b-kl zbḥ ʔš yzb]ḥ dl mqnʔ bl ykn l-khn mnm. 17  For ʔy ʔd/rln, cf. p. 182 below. The reading and meaning of mšr/d are not entirely clear (either), but it is perhaps “indicating something precious” (DNWSI s.v. mšr2). Gibson (1982: 104) prefers mšr with reference to Akkadian mešru ‘riches’ and translates (137) as “they did not gather together silver for me, they did not gather together gold for me nor any riches whatsoever, but only I myself lie in this coffin” (p. 103). If mšr/d is identified with something precious, it makes good sense to assume that blt is a restrictive particle ‘only.’

Phoenician

179

possible as soon as a clause like e.g. Q 34:32 ʔa-naḥnu ṣadadnākum ʕan-i l-hudā baʕda ʔiḏ ǧāʔakum bal kuntum muǧrimīna ‘did we drive you away from the guidance after it had come unto you, without you being guilty?’ may be reanalyzed as ‘did we drive you away from the guidance after it had come unto you? On the contrary, you were guilty.’ An intermediate step is indicated by the use of bal as an adversative conjunction ‘but,’ e.g. Q 3:169 wa-lā taḥsabanna llaḏīna qutilū fī sabīli llāhi ʔamwātan bal ʔaḥyāʔun ʕinda rabbihim ‘do not count those killed on the path of Allah as dead, but (they) are alive with their lord.’18 Given the close connection between adversative conjunctions (‘but’) and exclusive (restrictive) particles, bal also sometimes assumes the meaning of ‘only,’ e.g. Q 2:116 subḥānahu bal lahu mā fī s-samawāti wa-l-ʔarḍi ‘praise be to him, only to him belongs what is in the heavens and the earth.’ Besides bal and balā, *bal is possibly also attested in balha (AL 253; GVG 2 §264). Still, the relevant question, which Pat-El (2013: 57–58) asks, is: “How does a preposition turn into a verbal negative?” Pat-El suggests that the movement from a nominal negator to a verbal negator was motivated by the possibility of the preposition to also negate nominals in predicative function, e.g. Biblical Hebrew Prv 24:23 hakkēr-på̄nīm bə-mišpå̄ṭ bal-ṭōb “it is not good to be partial in justice” (tr. Pat-El 2013: 58). However, the extension of bal from negating nominal predicates to negating verbal predicates presupposes that bal already was a negator, not a preposition. In order to explain the extension from preposition to adverb, it is necessary to assume that the specific feature of the abessive bleached and only the negative inference was left behind. As a matter of fact, since operators that license scale reversal items, like ‘without,’ are a possible source of new negators, it is reasonable to assume that *bal grammaticalized the negative implicature. Through the process of grammaticalization, bal no longer introduced an abessive situation concomitant with a preceding situation, but was also used to negate independent predicates. Prv 24:23 could then be compared by the speakers to Prv 28:21 hakkēr-på̄nīm lō-ṭōḇ. Similarly, Ps 49:13 wə-ʔå̄ḏå̄m b-īqå̄r bal-yå̄līn nimšal kab-bəhēmōṯ niḏmū ‘but a man who is in honor, without that he lasts, he resembles the beasts that perish’ could be compared to Ps 49:21 ʔå̄ḏå̄m b-īqå̄r wə-lō yå̄ḇīn nimšal kab-bəhēmōṯ niḏmū ‘a man who is in honor and does not understand, he resembles the beasts that perish.’19

18  Cf. Dror (2012) for *bal in this capacity in the Quran. It is worth noting that the adversative phrase bal ʔaḥyāʔun is marked for the nominative case, unlike its counterpart ʔamwātan, which indicates that bal introduces a new clause. 19  It is in fact possible that Ps 49:13 yå̄līn should be yå̄ḇīn, cf. LXX: kaí ánṯrōpos en timḗ ṓn ou sunḗken parasuneblḗṯē tois ktḗnesin toís anoḗtois kaí hōmoiṓṯē autoís.

180

Chapter 6

In Phoenician, *bal has developed into a standard negator as well as a nonstandard negator. Apart from its use in independent main clauses as in e.g. (132) and (135), bl in Phoenician also negates adverbial clauses, e.g. KAI5 24:11 w-my bl ḥz pn š šty bʕl ʕdr ‘he who has not seen the face of a sheep, I made him owner of a flock.’20 Hebrew bal, on the other hand, is not used in adverbial clauses marked syntactically, i.e. clauses marked by kī, ʔăšεr, etc. 6.3

The Prohibitor ʔl

There is no discrete evidence for ʔl negating yvqtvlu; all verbs negated by ʔl are in the prefix conjugation, and comparative evidence suggests that the predicate negated by ʔl is yvqtvl. In fact, in (138), the prefix conjugation may be discrete: (138)

KAI5 24:14+15 (Zincirli) w-my b-bny ʔš yšb tḥtn w-yzq b-spr z mškbm ʔl ykbd l-bʕrrm w-bʕrrm ʔl ykbd l-mškbm Now/as for him who among my sons that should sit (on the throne) in my stead and damage this inscription, may mškbm not respect bʕrrm, and may bʕrrm not respect mškbm.

Although the meanings of bʕrrm and mškbm are not entirely clear, -m may be identified with the plural ending, in which case ykbd is discrete yvqtvl.21 Since (138) is the only example of ʔl yqtl with explicit subject, it cannot be ascertained whether SVO word order is the rule. Most of the time, ʔl negates the main clause to a pseudo-conditional relative clause, as above and in the following example:22 (139)

KAI5 14:20+21+21+21 (Sidon) qnmy ʔt kl mmlkt w-kl ʔdm ʔl yptḥ ʕlty w-ʔl yʕr ʕlty w-ʔl yʕmsn b-mškb z w-ʔl yšʔ ʔyt ḥlt mškby Who(ever) you are, any king and any person, he may not open up above me, and he may not uncover above me, and he may not carry me away from this resting place, and he may not lift off this coffin of my resting place.

20  See also KAI5 24:11+12. 21   bʕrr possibly refers to a ruling class of Aramaean conquerors in Sam’al (DNWSI 185), and mškb to the conquered people of Sam’al (DNWSI 701 s.v. mškb2). 22  See also KAI5 14:4+5+5.

Phoenician

181

For Krahmalkov (2001: 279), yvqtvl in these types of clauses, whether the preceding clause is a relative clause or a marked conditional antecedent, expresses a future result (“he shall not”), but it is also possible that yvqtvl is in fact volitive in these types of clauses, cf. Biblical Hebrew (127), which is similar to KAI5 14:6 ʔp ʔm ʔdmm ydbrnk ʔl tšmʕ bdnm23 “even if men speak to you, do not listen to their talk!” (tr. Gibson 1982: 107).24 As such, it differs from e.g. (136), where bl negates a proposition without reference to the speaker’s will. As to yʕmsn in (139), the ending -n is most likely the 1st csg pronominal suffix *-nī, and not an energic ending in absolute position. This also holds for trgzn in the following example:25 (140)

KAI5 13:3+3+4 (Sidon) my ʔt kl ʔdm ʔš tpq ʔyt hʔrn z ʔl ʔl tptḥ ʕlty w-ʔl trgzn Whoever you are, any person, (you) who should acquire this coffin, no, do not open up above me and do not disturb me!

According to Donner and Röllig (KAI2 p. 18) and Friedrich and Röllig (PPG §318.3a), the repetition ʔl ʔl in (140) indicates a strong prohibition. However, the first instance in the sequence ʔl ʔl may be pro-sentential ‘no,’ cf. e.g. Biblical Hebrew (130) ʔal-ʔå̄ḥī ʔal-taʕannēnī ‘let it not be so, my brother, do not force me!’ A pro-sentential negator al is known from Punic, viz. Plautus’ Poenulus 1142 (act 3, scene 6) al annac esti mim ‘no, I will drink water,’ in which case the possibility that al is pro-sentential is indicated by the fact that it does not immediately precede the predicate, and its correspondence in Plautus’ Aulularia 569 (act 5, scene 3) nolo hercle, nam mihi bibere decretum est aquam, which shows that the speaker intends sobriety. Unlike ʔl in (139), the predicate in (140) is 2nd msg, which indicates a direct address, and may be used to explain the use of ʔl as a pro-sentential negator. 6.4 Negative ʔy and ʔy-bl A morpheme ʔy or ʔ- (as in ʔ-bl, cf. ʔy-bl) with negative meaning in Phoenician is usually related to an alleged negator ʔī in Hebrew, ʔi- in Ge’ez, and sometimes even ay/ē in Akkadian. These morphemes have prompted some scholars 23  For bdnm instead of KAI5 b-d
nm, cf. Gibson (1982: 110–111). 24  See also KAI5 13:7 and 14:8+8+8+11 for ʔl yqtl in the consequence clause to a conditional antecedent. 25  See also KAI5 13:6 and KAI5 14:5–6.

182

Chapter 6

to reconstruct a negator *ʔay(y) to Proto-Semitic. However, both Ge’ez ʔi- and Akkadian ay/e are reflexes of *ʔal-. It will be argued below that both Phoenician ʔy-/ʔ- and Hebrew ʔī are derived from an interrogative base *ʔay-. The lexeme ʔy-bl/ʔ-bl, in turn, which previously has been identified as a combination of two negators, ʔy and bl (PPG §249.1, 318.2c), will be explained as a collocation of the focus particle *ʔay- and negative bl. This identification provides a functional explanation for the distribution of ʔy-bl/ʔ-bl. 6.4.1 Negative ʔy As pointed out by Pat-El (2013: 49), there is no conclusive evidence for ʔy negating verbal predicates in Phoenician. It must be noted, however, that the predicates negated by ʔy in the examples from Sidon, from where the only reliable evidence of negative ʔy is available, are ambiguous, for example:26 (141)

KAI5 14:5 (Sidon) qnmy ʔt kl mmlkt w-kl ʔdm ʔl yptḥ ʔyt mškb z w-ʔl ybqš bn mnm k ʔy šm bn mnm Who(ever) you are, every king and every man, do not open this resting place, and do not look for anything in it, because there is nothing in it.

Donner and Röllig (KAI2 p. 19), Krahmalkov (2001: 277), and Gibson (1982: 104, 110) parse šm as the suffix conjugation, while Hoffmann (1889: 41), followed by Ginsberg (1937: 140) assumes a passive participle (“there is not anything deposited in it”), cf. also Garr (1985: 175 and n. 67). Pat-El (2013: 49 n. 2), in turn, identifies šm with the adverb ‘there.’ At least Hoffmann’s and Pat-El’s parsing may be seriously considered, given the fact that ʔēn is a common means to negate clauses with participles and locative adverbs in Hebrew, e.g. KAI5 194:5 (Hebrew) ʔyn šm ʔdm ‘there is no one there’ and KAI5191:1 ʔyn [p]h ksp w-zhb [ky] ʔm [ʕṣmtn] ‘there is no silver or gold here, only his bones.’27 The predicates negated by ʔy in line 4 of (137) are even less clear. One difficulty of interpretation lies in the ambiguous reading between ʔdln and ʔrln, 26  Negative ʔy is restored in KAI5 303:5 ʔy [ksp] ‘there is no silver,’ but the text according to Sznycer’s (2003) collation is ʔ [—] and the example is not conclusive with regard to the morphosyntactic distribution of the morpheme in question. A morpheme ʔy also occurs in KAI5 30:1 [—]hʔ ʔy mpt w-hʔš ʔš[—], which Albright (1941: 16) assumes is negative and translates as follows: “and behold(?) there is no dignitary or noble who.” Müller (1970: 236), however, assumes an indefinite pronoun (“und siehe, irgendein Würdenträger oder ein Oberer, welcher”). The text is not integral enough to allow for a decisive conclusion. 27  A similar construction with the finite verb in Aramaic is negated by *lā: (150) w-l-śmw ʕmy mʔn ksp w-nḥš ‘they have not placed with me any vessel of silver or bronze.’ A relation to Akkadian ayyišam is less probable.

Phoenician

183

and whether the letters belong to one or more than one morpheme. Possible underlying roots include ʔdl, ʔrr, ʔdy and ʔd (see KAI2 p. 18). Krahmalkov (2001: 193, 278) reads ʔī ʔedle-n and identifies ʔdln with a finite verb in the 1st csg of the prefix conjugation with an energic ending -n. Ginsberg (1973: 144 n. 58) in turn assumes a preposition dl, with prothetic ʔ- and 1st csg pronominal suffix, and translates ʔy ʔdln as “there is not with me,” and is followed by Pat-El (2013: 49 n. 2).28 Gibson (1982: 103–104) reads ʔy ʔr ln “they did not gather for me” (noting that also *ʔdy ‘give’ is possible). It is also possible that ʔdr/ln may be identified with a noun in the construct to ksp and ḥrṣ, in which case ʔy is an existential negator ‘there is no ʔdr/ln of silver, there is no ʔdr/ln of gold.’ The origin of negative ʔy can be traced to the interrogative base *ʔay-. The reconstruction of such a base is fairly unproblematic, although there is some hesitation as to its form.29 This base is a productive formant in a number of interrogatives in Semitic, e.g. Ge’ez ʔay-te, Syriac ʔay-kā, and Arabic ʔay-na, all meaning ‘where.’ With the nisba suffix, the base is used to form the interrogative determiner ‘which,’ e.g. Arabic ʔayyun and Akkadian ʔayyum.30 The interrogative determiner *ʔayyv can in turn be used to form additional interrogatives, for example Biblical Hebrew ʔē-zε, comparable to Arabic ʔayš (cf. n. 29 on p. 183), e.g. 1 Kgs 13:12 ʔē-zε had-dεrεḵ hå̄laḵ ‘which is it, the way he went?’ (‘which/what way did he go?’). The interrogative base *ʔay- underlies interrogative ʔy in Phoenician. This is attested in the Punic personal names ʔy-bʕl and y-bʕlym ‘Where-is-Bʕl(ym)’ 28  For the preposition dl (DNWSI 248 s.v. dl6), cf. KAI5 81:2 (Punic) w-dl mlkt hḥrṣ w-dl kl mnm ‘with gold work and with everything whatsoever.’ 29  Regarding the length of y, von Soden normalizes Akkadian ayy- (AHw 25 s.v. ajjum) while the editors of CAD A1 234 settle for ay- (s.v. ajû) for ayyum ‘which.’ The Arabic evidence is at first sight not entirely conclusive. The citation form of the Arabic cognate to ayyum is ʔayyun. However, forms like ʔayna ‘where’ and ʔayma ‘whatever’ suggest a short y. On the other hand, ʔayma exists besides ʔayyumā and may be a contraction of the latter (AL 132a, 138a), comparable to the existence of both ʔayš (Fischer 1905; Singer 1958: 204–253) and ʔayyu šayʔin, in which case a form like ʔayna may also be a contraction of *ʔayyv-na. Lane (AL 132a) also notes for ʔayyun that “sometimes it is without tashdeed,” possibly due to poetic license. The traditional pronunciation of Ge’ez interrogative ʔay ‘which, what, what kind, what sort’ and indefinite ʔay-hi, ʔay-ni ‘whichever, whatever, whoever’ (with clitic -hi, -ni, cf. section 11.3.3) indicates a short y. It may be noted, however, that Leslau (CDG 49) gives Tigrinya ʔayyän and ʔayyänay for ‘where,’ while Kane (TED 1524) has ayän and ayänay. Del Olmo Lete (2004: 76) reconstructs *ʔay with “spontaneous cons. intens. /ʔayy-/.” See further Takács (2011: 10–11) for Afroasiatic cognates. 30  Akkadian ayyītum (fsg) may indicate masculine ayyûm rather than ayyum (Gelb 1955: 104), possibly *ayiy(y)-um, in which case it is tempting to identify -iy(y)- with the ending of nisba adjectives. Hecker (GKT p. 80 n. 1), however, favors ayyum for Old Assyrian.

184

Chapter 6

(Krahmalkov 2001: 260).31 These personal names are comparable to Ugaritic UDB 1.6:vi:4 ʔiy ʔalʔiyn bʕl ‘where is Mightiest Baʕal?’32 To account for the locative meaning, it is possible to assume that locative interrogative ʔy involves the locative ending *-ay or *-ū̆. The existence of both locative suffixes *-ay and *-ū̆ is evidenced by the existence in Akkadian of pairs like adi (*ʕad-ay) and adum (*ʕad-um),33 qadi and qadum, as well as ali and alum.34 Both suffixes are also known from Arabic, as indicated by *-ay in e.g. ʕalā and ʔilā, and -u in taḥt-u, fawqu, qabl-u, and baʕd-u (cf. Kogan 2012: 329 n. 21). Similarly, Biblical Hebrew ʔayyē < *ʔayy-ay in Gen 18:9 ʔayyē śå̄rå̄ ʔištεḵå̄ may be contrasted with ʔē < *ʔayy-ū̆ in Gen 4:9 ʔē ḥεḇεl ʔå̄ḥiḵå̄.35 Much like the interrogative determiner *ʔayyv may contract to ʔē as in interrogative ʔē-zε, as well as to ʔī as in (143), interrogative locative *ʔayy-ū̆ may also contract to ʔī, e.g. 1 Sam 14:3 ʔī-ḵå̄ḇōḏ ‘Where-is-the-Glory?’ and 1 Kgs 16:31 ʔi-zεḇel ‘Where-is-the-Prince?’36 In view of the monophthongized forms ʔī and in Hebrew and Ugaritic (cf. n. 32 on p. 184), Phoenician ʔ- of ʔ-bl may be for /ʔī/ (thus Gibson 1982: 104). When ʔy is identified with *ʔayy-ay or *ʔayy-ū̆, it can be explained as an original locative interrogative pro-adverb that has grammaticalized a scalar

31  Interrogative ʔy is perhaps also attested in Arslan Tash 2:5 (apud Gibson 1982 no. 24:5, p. 89) ʔy ʔl[x] ‘where is ʔl[x]?’, but cf. DNWSI s.v. ʔy3. 32  In Ugaritic, the interrogative locative pro-adverb is attested in the graphemes {ʔiy} and {ʔi} (*ʔayyv is not attested in Ugarit Akkadian, see van Soldt 1991: 408). {ʔiy} is used as a locative interrogative pro-adverb ‘where’ (UG §81.61) in e.g. UDB 1.6:vi:4+5 ʔiy ʔalʔiyn bʕl ʔiy zbl bʕl ʔarṣ ‘where is Mightiest Baʕal? Where is Prince, Lord of the Earth?’ and is likely to be normalized as /ʔeyyê/ or /ʔêyê/, i.e. *ʔayy-ay. Besides ʔiy, there is also a form {ʔi} in UDB 1.5:iv:6 ʔi ʔap bʕ[l] ‘where is Baʕal then?’ which may indicate *ʔayy-ū̆ to be normalized as ʔê, comparable to Hebrew ʔē ‘where.’ Tropper assumes that {ʔiy} /ʔêyv/ or /ʔeyyv/ < *ʔayyv ‘where,’ with raising of [a] to [e] before yy, cf. also Huehnergard (1987b: 275–277). Kogan (2000: 725) indicates the possibility of vocalic dissimilation if the word ends in -a, i.e. *ʔayy-a > *ʔiyya. 33  For adi instead of expected *edi, see Kogan (2011c: 109–110). 34  For locative -u(m) in Akkadian, see also Groneberg (1978–1979). 35  It may also be used with indefinite locative meaning, as in Job 15:23 nōḏēḏ hū lal-lεḥεm ʔayyē yå̄ḏaʕ kī nå̄ḵōn bə-yå̄ḏō yōm-ḥōšεḵ ‘he is wandering about for food wherever (there/ it may be), (for) he knows that the day of darkness is ready in his hand.’ 36  The fact that the first morpheme of ʔī-zεbεl is ‘where’ rather than ‘which’ is indicated by Ugaritic {ʔiy-zbl}. See also perhaps Num 26:30. Ex 28:1 does probably not belong here, see Albright (1954: 225–227; 1958: 34 n. 12).

Phoenician

185

implicature in rhetorical questions, since the shift ‘where(ever)?’ > ‘there is not’ is trivial.37 Such a rhetorical question is posed by a-PI-mi in (142) below: (142)

EA 138:40–42 a-di ma-ti ti7-du-ku-nu [a]-PI-mi ti-ìl-qú LÚ.MEŠ a-na a-ša-bi a-na URU.KI (They moved against me, but I killed them. They said:) “How long will you go on killing us? Wherever will you take people to live in the city?”

Rainey (CAT 3: 109) parses a-PI-mi as an adverbial accusative ayya with enclitic -mi to mean ‘where,’ but in view of Akkadian *ʔayyay-ma > *ayyī-ma > êma ‘wherever’ (Kouwenberg 2012: 54 n. 85), a-PI-mi is probably for ayyēmi, i.e. *ʔay- with the locative suffix *-ay and enclitic -mi.38 Clearly, questions with interrogative ayyēmi are rhetorical, and enclitic -mi in (142) serves to quantify the interrogative pro-adverb as ‘wherever,’ i.e. where in the whole world.’ The implicature of such interrogative pro-adverbs in rhetorical questions are subject to grammaticalization. Grammaticalization explains the shift from Old Babylonian ʔayyānu(m) ‘where’ to Middle Babylonian yānu ‘there is not,’ which is also coupled with phonetic erosion, cf. section 11.2.1. In view of this development, Hebrew ʔēn and Ugaritic ʔin should be derived from an interrogative locative pro-adverb ‘where(ever).’ It is not entirely clear, however, how the locative meaning of the etymon is marked. The uncertainty is to a certain extent connected with the fact that the meaning of *-nv is not clear.39 It is not necessary, however, that it is *-nv that provides the locative meaning, considering the fact that forms with *-nv need not be locative; in qəltu dialects of Arabic, for example, ayna is used for the interrogative determiner ‘which’ rather than the interrogative pro-adverb ‘where’ (al-Jallad 2012: 329). At the same time, formations derived from *ʔay- may be locative without *-nv, in which case it may be argued that location is marked by a locative suffix like *-ū̆ corresponding to Akkadian ayyān-u(m). A cognate to Hebrew ʔēn and Ugaritic ʔin is actually attested in Phoenician too. Ynny in the Punic of Plautus’ Poenulus 1006 rufe ynny cho ‘there is no doctor here,’ which has the variant reading ennu, is identified in DNWSI 46 s.v. ʔyn1 37  It is also possible that the negative meaning if ʔy is the result of contamination in collocation with negative bl. 38  Note that ayyēmi is locative in both space and time, e.g. EA 138:123 a-PI-mi i-nu-ma ia-ašpu-ru ‘where (in the whole world) is when he used to write?’ 39  Walker (1896: 253) identifies *-nv with a demonstrative element, comparing it to Hebrew hinnē and the enclitic particle -nå, as well as Arabic hunnā. Faber (1991), in turn, suggests that *-n(v) is a copula.

186

Chapter 6

as including the 3rd msg pronominal suffix, which is of course tempting on account of the fact that a preceding subject noun is usually followed by a suffixed form of ʔēn in Hebrew. Finally, mention must be made of by (DNWSI 151 s.v. by2), e.g. KAI5 79:8+9 (Punic) by py ʔnk w-by py ʔdm b-šmy, which Friedrich and Röllig (PPG §249.3) and Donner and Röllig (KAI2 p. 97) identify with b + ʔy, i.e. ‘without my order, and without the order of someone in my name.’ Even when the identification of by with b + ʔy is accepted, ʔy may be a negator of existence, i.e. ‘with there not existing an order of mine,’ or ʔy may be the negative determiner ‘no,’ i.e. ‘with no order of mine,’ indicating that *ʔayyv has acquired negative semantics. 6.4.2 ʔy in Collocation with bl As noted above, ʔy-bl/ʔ-bl has previously been identified as a combination of two negators, ʔy and bl (PPG §249.1, 318.2c). It will be argued below that ʔy-bl/ʔ-bl is actually a combination of negative bl and a focus particle. This identification is supported by the fact that the collocation of a negator and a focus particle is commonplace in Semitic, and its explanatory power is indicated by the fact that it provides a functional explanation for the distribution of ʔy-bl/ʔ-bl. The focalizing function of *ʔayyv can be derived from the indefinite determiner *ʔayyv. The indefinite determiner *ʔayyv is well known from Arabic and Akkadian. In Akkadian, ayyum with enclitic -ma, i.e. ayyum-ma, is an indefinite determiner ‘whichever’ that can be used attributively and in postposition, e.g. šarrum ayyum-ma ‘any king, a king whosoever’ (GAG §48h). In Arabic, ʔayyun is used in the construct of a noun phrase, e.g. ʔakramahu ʔayya ʔikrāmin ‘he honored him whatever honor’ (Fischer 1972 §286; Reckendorf 1921 §150.2). *ʔayyv is also used as an indefinite determiner in Ancient South Arabian. In Minaic, ʔy (LM 8) is enclitic, e.g. M 293 A:6 (apud Avanzini 1995: 144) w-sʔr-ʔy ḏ-ngw k-sm ‘and a rest whatsoever (i.e. whatever else) that was announced to them.’ In Sabaic, ʔy is used in the construct of a noun phrase, and is declinable, e.g. k-l-qbly ʔ(y)t ʔrh̬ m ʔl sqyhmw ‘(they sought oracle) because for what(ever) reason he did not irrigate for them(?)’ (apud Multhoff and Stein 2008: 4).40 ʔy is possibly an indefinite pronoun ‘someone’ in X.BSB 101:16 w-hʔ ngw k ʔy nšʔw swrn ‘(since (the right to irrigate) has indeed also been given to him from him

40  In X.BSB 90:3 sʔr-ʔy mhn lʔkk ‘anything else of what you have sent’ (quoted in n. 33 on p. 281), ʔy seems to be enclitic, which may be due to Minaic influence (Stein 2010: 317).

Phoenician

187

on guarantee(?) of his brother,) he announced that some have taken away the boundary walls.’41 As a matter of fact, the indefinite determiner *ʔayyv is also found in Hebrew and Ugaritic.42 It determines a noun in Prv 31:4 ʔal la-mlå̄ḵīm ləmūʔēl ʔal lamlå̄kīm šəṯō yå̄yin ū-l-rōznīm ʔē šēḵå̄r ‘let it not be for kings, Lemuel, let it not be for kings to drink wine and for princes any strong drink!’43 The base underlying ʔē in ʔē šēḵå̄r is probably *ʔayyv in the construct, cf. absolute day ‘sufficiency’ and construct dē (*dayyv < *dwy). Sometimes the heavy diphthong *vyyv is contracted to ī, e.g. Job 37:11 ʔap̄-bə-rī yaṭrīaḥ ‘he burdens the cloud in moisture’ (*ryy < *rwy), Job 30:24 ʔaḵ lō-bə-ʕī yišlaḥ-yå̄ḏ ‘even not in ruin, does one stretch out the hand’ (* ʕyy < *ʕwy), cf. Steiner (2007: 79). Indefinite *ʔayyv is also attested in the contracted form ʔī, again in the Book of Job: (143)

Job 22:30 yəmallēṭ ʔī-nå̄qī ‘he delivers whoever (is) innocent.’

The non-negative interpretation of ʔī is supported by LXX rhúsetai aṯō̂on ‘he will deliver (the) innocent’ and Peshitta ntplṭ zkyʔ ʔyk d-ʔytwhy ‘the innocent

41  In Qatabanic, ʔy (LIQ 9–10) is sometimes an indefinite quantifier in the construct state quantifying a verb phrase, e.g. RÉS 3566:4–5 w-ʔy ftḥ w-sḥr ʔftḥ w-mḥrtm w-ʔṯfṭ w-h̬ wlltm wsṭ swt mqmn ‘whatever (the assembly) ordered and decreed, orders and judgments and regulations, in that meeting,’ cf. Nebes (1991: 144). In the example, ʔy is orthographically enclitic to the preceding connective. In RÉS 3854:4 w-ʔy ʔy ʔsdm b-ydr w-sh̬ dʕ bn wfr ‘whatever any man refuses by refraining from cultivating,’ the second token of ʔy is written with a preceding and following word divider (w-ʔy . ʔy . ʔsdm) and it would seem that it is both nomen rectum to ʔy and nomen regens to ʔsdm, i.e. ‘whatever that whoever man refrains.’ 42  Biblical Hebrew ʔēn is possibly used as an indefinite pronoun in Ex 14:11 ha-mibbalī ʔēn qəḇå̄rīm bə-miṣrayim laqaḥtå̄nū lå̄-mūṯ bam-miḏbå̄r ‘(is it) because of lack of graves anywhere in Egypt, you have taken us to die in the wild?’ (see also 2 Kings 1:3, 2 Kings 1:6, and 2 Kings 1:16). Alternatively, ʔēn is used pleonastically at this point. 43  Müller (1970: 234–237) has suggested that indefinite ʔy occurs in HAE Lak(6)1.2:5–6 ybkr Yhwh ʔt ʔ/[x?x?]y dbr ʔšr lʔ ydʕth “Jahwe strafe, wer immer etwas sagt, wovon du nichts weißt.” Renz and Röllig (HAE 1: 412) read ʔ[dn]y, “Möge Jahwe meinem Herrn eine vorrangige Stellung einräumen!”, but whether something at all (like -dn-) is missing or not from the ostracon is not entirely clear because of the line break (Gibson 1971: 39). Hempel (1938: 130) reads ʔy dbr, “Es strafe Jahwe den, der nicht sagt, was du nicht weißt,” interpreting ʔy as a negator, and is followed by Gibson (1971: 39) and Teixidor (1973: 415). It is worth noting that ḏå̄bå̄r ‘word’ is often in itself indefinite, e.g. 1 Kgs 4:27 lō yəʕaddərū ḏå̄ḇå̄r ‘they did not let lack anything.’

188

Chapter 6

will be freed, wherever he is.’44 Therefore, the reconstruction of a negative ʔī, with comparison to Mishnaic Hebrew ʔy, does not hold, given that Mishnaic ʔy most of the time should be identified with ʔēn (Bar-Asher 2014: 65–67). As a matter of fact, ʔī-nå� qī in (143) can be contrasted with 1 Kgs 15:22 ʔēn nå� qī. A non-contracted form {ʔay} is attested as an indefinite determiner in Ugaritic too (UG §45.13), following its head as in Akkadian rather than preceding it as in (143), in the following example:45 (144)

UDB 1.23:6+6 lḥm . b-lḥm . ʔay . w-šty . b-h̬ mr yn ʔay Eat of any food, and drink of any foaming wine!

Tropper (UG §33.213.1b Anm) assumes that the non-raising of a to e/i in the determiner {ʔay} in (144) may be due to the fact that unlike locative {ʔiy} and {ʔi}, which may have had ultimate stress (/ʔêyyeế/ and /ʔ ayyú̄̆/), the indefinite determiner {ʔay} had penultimate stress (/ʔáyyv/).46 In scale reversal contexts, *ʔayyv contributes to scalar focus. In Cairo Arabic, for example, ʔayyi̊ is common in negative clauses and, according to Woidich (2006: 210), it negates categorically, e.g. ma-lūš ʔayyi̊ maʕna ‘it has not any meaning’ or ‘it has not meaning at all’ (“das hat überhaupt keine Bedeutung”).47 In Tigrinya of Tanbēn, *ʔayyv even forms part of standard negation, cf. n. 18 on p. 323. A conditional clause marked by *ʔayyv, in turn, is rendered into a universal concessive conditional. This is the case with Sabaic ʔy + hn ‘if, when,’ e.g. Gl 44  Sarna (1956: 119) correctly identified ʔī with indefinite *ʔayyv (“he delivers whosoever is innocent”). 45  It may be noted that the indefinite determiner precedes its head in the name of the mace ʔay-mr ‘Anything-Expel’ (Smith 1994: 343 and n. 214). 46  Pardee (2003–2004: 90–91) in turn assumes an interrogative base *ʔay that monophthongized to ʔê (written {ʔi}) and that *ʔay was also formed with clitic -ya, which monophthongized to ʔêya (written {ʔiy}). In Pardee’s view, {ʔay} represents /ʔayy-/ “that retained the /a/ in the sharpened syllable.” On the other hand, personal names like ʔay-ʔab and ʔay-ʔah (with variants ʔayʔih̬ and ʔayh̬ ) also retain a, even though the initial morpheme is presumably ‘where’ rather than ‘which,’ However, these names (unlike ʔiy-bʕl, ʔiy-ʕdm, ʔiy-tlm, and ʔiy-ṯr, Dietrich and Loretz 1996: 20) are also attested in Amorite times, and may reflect historical spelling. Gröndahl (1967: 93), for example, assumes that {ʔay} is simply the older form of {ʔiy}. 47  Woidich (2006 §6.5.3 Anm. 2) also notes that when ʔayyi̊ determines a noun like ḥāga ‘thing, stuff,’ which may be either a count noun or a mass noun, ʔayyi̊ is in free distribution with wala, so that ma-gablīš wala ḥāga = ma-gablīš ʔayyi̊ ḥāga ‘he did not bring me anything at all.’

Phoenician

189

1138:9 (Early Sabaic) w-ʔ-hn yʕkrn yš[hr]-mlk w-l-yndʔ mwm l-fnwtn (apud Stein 2003: 227) ‘(all water belongs to Yšhr-mlk, so) when(ever) Yšhr-mlk contests, let water flow to this canal.’48 As a matter of fact, most attestations of ʔ(y)-bl in Phoenician are found in conditional or pseudo-conditional antecedents, for example: (145)

KAI5 10:13 (Byblos) w-kl ʔdm ʔš ysp l-pʕl mlʔkt ʕlt mzbḥ zn [w-ʕlt pt]ḥ ḥrṣ zn w-ʕlt ʕrpt zʔ šm ʔnk yḥwmlk mlk gbl [y/tšt ʔt]k ʕlt mlʔkt hʔ w-ʔm ʔ-bl tšt šm ʔtk w-ʔm tsr m[lʔ]kt zʔ Every man who would continue to do work on this altar, or on this golden engraving, or on this colonnade, you/he must/may put my own name, Yḥwmlk, king of Gbl, with you on that work; and if-ever you do not put my name (or: ‘if you should ever not put my name’) with you, and if you remove this work …

In view of the scalar meaning of *ʔayyv in scale reversal contexts, including negative clauses as in Arabic and conditional antecedents as in Ancient South Arabian, it seems probable that ʔ- of ʔ-bl in (145) is a scalar focus particle. As such, its semantic contribution to the conditional antecedent seems to be ‘ever’ or ‘at all,’ i.e. a universal concessive condition. This is likely the case also in KAI5 69:18 [k]l mšʔt ʔš ʔy-bl št b-ps z w-ntn l-py hktbt ‘every fee, whatever that is not set down in (the text on) this plaque, shall be tendered according to the writs.’49 At this point, the scale reversal context is licensed by a universal restrictor on a relative clause, which, it may be noted, licenses pleonastic negation in Sabaic, cf. example (224). In the negated consequence clauses of the same inscription, however, the negator is bl, cf. (136). There is also one example in which ʔī + bl does not negate a conditional antecedent:50

48  Enclitic to relative hl, Minaic -ʔy would seem to form a free-choice quantification sortally restricted to relative ‘which,’ e.g. M 293 A:3 (apud Avanzini 1995: 144) ywm hl-ʔy ‘on the day, whichever (it may be).’ On a similar note, enclitic to conditional hm (< *hn-m), i.e. hm-ʔy, ʔy- would seem to form a free-choice quantification sortally restricted to conditional ‘if.’ However, in e.g. Maʕīn 63:6 w-hm-ʔy ḏ-ynḍw ‘and if-ever/whenever someone should destroy,’ it is also possible that ʔy, although enclitic to hm, quantifies the following relative clause, i.e. ‘if anyone whosoever should destroy.’ 49  See also KAI5 69:21 and Pardee’s (1997: 309 n. 45) restoration. 50  Possibly also attested in KAI5 119:7 ʔy-bl-ʔm.

190 (146)

Chapter 6

KAI5 70:4 (Punic) qbr zybqt hkhn[t l-]rbt[—]bt ʕbdʔšmn […] bn ʕbdʔšmn ʔ-bl l-ptḥ Tomb of Zyqbt, the priestess of Lady [—], daughter of ʕbdʔšmn […] son of ʕbdʔšmn. Anyone is not to open!

At this point, it is possible that ʔy corresponds to an indefinite pronoun ‘someone,’ which in a negated clause corresponds to ‘anyone,’ cf. X.BSB 101:16 quoted on p. 186. It should also be pointed out that Minaic lhm, also a combination of a negator and a focus particle, usually used in conditional antecedents, is also used once to negate the infinitive, cf. example (213).

Chapter 7

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam’alian 7.1 Introduction This chapter provides a syntactic description of negative clauses, with a focus on negative asymmetries, in early forms of Aramaic, as well as in the language varieties of Deir Alla and Sam’alian. The chapter also includes an investigation of negation in Western Neo-Aramaic. In Western Neo-Aramaic, lā/la negates the preterite (qvtvla) and the subjunctive (yvqtvlu). However, the standard negator of the present and the perfect, which are innovative formations, is ču/čū (Baxʕa ću/ćū). The section on Western Neo-Aramaic explains the reasons behind this division in workload between the negators, and the historical background of ču/čū, ću/ćū. 7.2

Orthography of lā

The most frequent negator in the Aramaic corpus is *lā. The negator is written l in the inscriptions of Nerab, Bar-Rakib, and Sefire from Syria, as well as in the Deir Alla inscription.1 The spelling l is also known from the ostraca found in Mesopotamia.2 Due to the scarcity of evidence, it is difficult to determine whether this orthography reflects a Syrian tradition or whether it was common for Old Aramaic in general (Gzella 2015: 131). In the Hermopolis papyri, the negator is spelled lh. This is the only corpus from the Achaemenid period which regularly attests to this orthography (Folmer 1995: 412 n. 576), but it is perhaps also attested in the Mesopotamian ostraca (cf. n. 19 on p. 196).3 Notably, the scribe who wrote A:2.1(6/5)–A:2.6(6/5) from Hermopolis often used h as a mater in final position in other words as 1  The evidence from the Bar-Rakib inscription comes from BarRak:1(8):16 l-yšh, in which case the negator may have univerbated with the existential verb, cf. Arabic laysa and Old Assyrian laššu. See also DA(9)2:8 quoted in n. 16 on p. 195. For fragments of l in the Sefire inscription, not further discussed below, see Sf:1(8)B32+32 and Sf:1(8)C:7. 2  This spelling is also used for the negation of the infinitive in AECT-L:*4(7):6 w-l mšwb ‘there is no return’ (Fales 1996: 90). 3  The spelling lh is also attested in Qumran Aramaic, see Muraoka (2011: 256 n. 121). Cook (2015: 124) also reads lh instead of lʔ in 4Q544 fg 1:3 (Visions of Amram).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_008

192

Chapter 7

well (e.g. A:2.2(6/5):4/A:2.6(6/5):6 ksph), where ʔ is used in the orthography of Biblical Aramaic and Achaemenid Aramaic (Porten and Greenfield 1968: 220).4 Actually, the spelling l is found at Hermopolis as well, viz. in A:2.2(6/5):12 l-ʕd (quoted under example 151). In this case, however, it seems probable that the negator had merged with ʕd. The (other) Aramaic texts from Elephantine, including the Aḥiqar text,5 regularly has lʔ. In fact, at one point the negator is spelled lʔ in the Hermopolis papyri: A:2.3(6/5):8 ʔrh lʔ ʔḥy hw ‘see, is he not my brother?’ It is possible that the negator is stressed in this position (cf. section 8.2). The spelling lʔ is also known from the Decree inscription from Syria (Decree(7):[3]+7+8), generally dated to the 7th century, as well as from the Teima inscription from Arabia (example 169).6 It is the rule in later forms of Aramaic. In conclusion, the evidence points to an original *lā, compatible with both l and lh. Since etymological ʔ is regularly represented in the orthography of the Sefire inscription, in both word-internal and word-final position (Fitzmyer 1961: 217), there is no reason to reconstruct *lā̆ʔ. At the same time, since there is evidence for h as a mater in word-final but not word-medial position (Fitzmyer 1958: 465; 1961: 215), the negative l may be regarded as a prefix or proclitic (the Sefire inscription is written in scriptio continua, see Gibson 1975: 19). 7.3

lā yvqtvl

The interpretation and assessment of a number of prefix conjugation verb forms in the Tell Dan, Zakkur, and Deir Alla inscriptions, apparently referring to the past, have sparked a debate on the existence of (wa-)yvqtvl in Old Aramaic and a possible relation to Hebrew wayyiqtol.7 While the parsing of the relevant verb forms in the Tell Dan and Zakkur inscriptions is an open question (there are no formally unambiguous forms),8 the existence of narrative 4  Negative lā is not attested in A:2.7(6/5), written by another scribe. 5  For fragmentary attestations of lʔ in the Aḥiqar text, see C:1.1(5):3, C:1.1(5):167, C:1.1(5):181, C:1.1(5):188, C:1.1(5):193, C:1.1(5):194, C:1.1(5):195, C:1.1(5):211, C:1.1(5):212, C:1.1(5):215, and C:1.1(5):216. 6  It is perhaps also known from TelSheHa:(4):7 lʕm lʔ nbšgb ‘eponym: not Nbšgb,’ cf. Röllig (1997: 371). 7  See Gzella (2004: 322–324; 2015: 81–87) and Knapp (2014: 106–109) for a summary of various positions. 8  There are 7 occurrences of w-yqtl in Tell Dan (Northern Israel) and 3 in Zakkur (Northern Syria). Tropper (1993b) championed the parsing of the prefix conjugation in the syntagm w-yqtl in Tell Dan as yvqtvl, but parsed asyndetic yqtl (TDanSt(9):2 ysq and TDanSt(9):3 yhk)

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

193

(wa-)yvqtvl in the Deir Alla plaster inscription is indicated by morphologically distinct forms, e.g. DA(9)1:1 w-yʔtw. Furthermore, the short prefix conjugation is sometimes negated by lā Deir Alla, for example:9 (147)

DA(9)2:7+7 [—] yrwy ʔl yʕbd ʔl byt ʕlmn by[t—] byt l-yʕl hlk w-l-yʕl ḥtn šm ʔEl is sated, ʔEl has built a house of eternity, a house [—] a house which, he who goes (there) does/did not rise/enter, and a bridegroom does/did not rise/enter there.

Yrwy and yʕl are morphologically yvqtvl, provided that the root of yʕl is *ʕly ‘go up’ (Hackett 1984: 60–61).10 It cannot be excluded, however, that yʕl is *ʕll ‘enter’ and imperfective. Hoftijzer (1976: 225, 299) is of the latter opinion and suggests that the imperfective is of “the determining type”: “a traveller will not enter a house neither will enter there a bridegroom” (Hoftijzer 1976: 180).11 However, the mythological language in (147) may indicate that the propositions refer to a general present, and the general present can be expressed by yvqtvl, cf. Ugaritic (92) rgm l tdʕ nšm ‘the word (which) men do not know.’ As in the Ugaritic example, the negative clauses in (147) form an asyndetic relative construction. A case for negated yvqtvl with generic rather than episodic meaning can also be made for the following example from Aḥiqar: (148) C:1.1(5):122 npšy lʔ tdʕ ʔrḥʔ My soul does not know the way.  as yvqtvlu. More recently, Gzella (2015: 83–85), while considering the possibility that wyqtl may have been a contact-induced phenomenon in the area, suggested that both wyqtl and yqtl are historical presents, yvqtvlu. The speech verbs in Zak(8):1.11 w-yʕnny and Zak(8):1.15 w-yʔmr may very well be yvqtvlu, as suggested by Gzella (2015: 85). Indeed, verbs used to introduce direct speech are sometimes yvqtvlu also in languages where yvqtvl is available, see Tropper (UG 695) for Ugaritic and Streck (1995: 110) for Akkadian. It may be noted that past non-punctual yvqtvl is perhaps available in Sam’alian (KAI5 214:7); for non-punctual wayyiqtol in Biblical Hebrew, cf. n. 42 on p. 157. 9  The lines preceding (147) are missing and the text, as it stands, opens with a mythical language. See Levine (1981: 202–203) for reminiscences of the underworld. 10  Provided that yʕl is identified with *ʕly, the verb forms may be either G /yvʕli/ < *yaʕliy or D /yaʕalli/ < *yuʕalliy (‘he (sc. ʔEl) did/does not raise’). 11  Levine (2000: 144) understands w-yʕbd as preterite, “El fashioned,” and w-l-yʕl as present, “no traveler enters.” Lipiński (1994: 142), however, translates all clauses as future “El will make a house,” “Neither a traveller will enter nor a bridegroom will enter.”

194

Chapter 7

Cohen (1984: 373) pointed out that *ydʕ is normally qvtvla, but noted that the prefix conjugation is not exceptional.12 To be sure, when the subject is 3rd msg, it is not always easy to separate the suffix conjugation from the prefix conjugation of verbs I-y.13 However, while tdʕ in (148) is unambiguously inflected for the prefix conjugation, it is less clear whether it corresponds to yvqtvlu or yvqtvl. In view of Ugaritic (92) referred to above, and the fact that stative verbs typically inflect as general presents (Dahl 1995: 417), it is tempting to assume that the verbal grammatical morpheme of tdʕ in (148) is (3rd fsg) yvqtvl. A third and final possible example of yvqtvl negated by lā involves the root *khl: (149)

DA(9)1:3 w-yqm blʕm mn mḥr rph yd [np]l ymn w-[ṣm yṣm] l-ḥdrh w-lykl ṭmn w-bkh ybkh14 Blʕm rose in the morning, the hand was loose, the right fallen, and he fasted in his chamber. He could not be calm, and cried out loud.

Weippert (1991: 156 n. 18) expects qvtvla after lā, presumably on account of the non-occurrence of negated wayyiqtol in Biblical Hebrew, and considers y- to be a radical of a root *ykl. Another possibility is to read the root *khl, and l-ykl as yvqtvlu, like ybkh in the following clause, so that both clauses are circumstantial to w-yqm or w-[ṣm yṣm], i.e. ‘without being able to be calm, he was crying out loud.’ A third possibility is to parse l-ykl as lā yvqtvl. The preference for the prefix conjugation, whether yvqtvlu or yvqtvl, is that all attestations of the lemma ykl (besides ykhl) in Official Aramaic belong to the prefix conjugation (Folmer 1995: 634), so that the (by-)form *ykl was necessarily not yet around.15 12  Cf. Cohen (1984: 373): “Le verb ydʕ est un de ceux qui sont normalement utilisés à la forme à conjugaison suffixale pour l’expression du présent dans d’autres états de la langue, et en particulier dans les autres documents d’Éléphantine […] Ici, la forme à conjugaison préfixale tendrait à montrer que l’absence d’exemples d’accompli-présent dans Ahiqar n’est pas fortuite et à confirmer par là que la forme à conj. suff. n’est pas ici un véritable accompli.” 13  Potentially ambiguous forms of negated *ydʕ in Aḥiqar include C:1.1(5):113 rtʔ gbr zy lʔ ydʕ mh y[—] ‘pity a man who does not know what [—]’ and C:1.1(5):190 ḥd drk qšth w-hrkb [ḥṭ]h w-lʔ ydʕ ʔt[rh] ‘one drew his bow and shot his arrow but he did not know its place.’ 14  The text provided by Schwiderski follows the reading of Lipiński (1994: 115), which is quite different from that of the editio princeps. 15  See DNWSI 489–490 and GEA 25 for khl in Old and Official Aramaic, and Huehnergard and Olyan (2013) for the background of ykl as a by-form in Hebrew and Aramaic. On the other hand, Deir Alla has several Canaanite features in the lexicon, and ykl may be such a feature.

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

195

While the evidence is not conclusive, admitting the examples discussed above as evidence for lā yvqtvl in Aramaic and Deir Alla is compatible with the evidence for negated yvqtvl (beyond ʔal-yvqtvl) in Ugaritic (lā yvqtvl) and Arabic (lam yvqtvl). 7.4 Negated qvtvla The oldest attestation of negated qvtvla is presumably found in the Sefire inscription.16 In Sf:2(8)C8 w-yʔmr l-zy l-ydʕ ‘he will say to someone who does not understand,’ Degen (1969: 74, 119) and Garr (1985: 185) parse ydʕ as a participle, while Donner and Röllig (KAI2 p. 263) entertain both the possibility that it is a participle and that it is qvtvla. However, stative verbs are generally not used in the progressive, and the predicative participle is typically associated with the progressive in early forms of Aramaic, so qvtvla must be seriously considered (cf. the discussion to example 148). Firm evidence for negated qvtvla in Old Aramaic comes from the Nerab inscription from south-east of Aleppo. The negated predicate is symmetric to its affirmative counterpart in the following example:17 (150) Nerab:2(8/7):6 bkwny w-hwm ʔthmw w-l-śmw ʕmy mʔn ksp w-nḥš They wept for me and were very troubled, and/but they have not placed with me a(ny) vessel of silver or bronze. Negative lā qvtvla is also known from a decree found in Syria: Decree(7):7 w-bʕl pqtʔ zy ḥzwhy w-lʔ ʔḥdwhy lʔ yḥywn ‘and the administrators who have seen him

16  It is possible that negated qvtvla also occurs in (Deir Alla) DA(9)1:2. Levine (1981: 196), for example, reads ʔš l-r[ʔh] “no man has s[een],” but the context is too damaged to be conclusive, cf. Schmitz (1994) for a number of different emendations. A morpheme l is also attested in fragmentary contexts, where its parsing is ambiguous, e.g. DA(9)9:3 [—] l-qb nqb kpwh w[—] and DA(9)2:20 [—]h w-bn l-tzrm [—]. In the former case, it is possible that l is lā and that it negates an infinitive, but it could be expected that the paronomastic infinitive should precede the negated predicate, as in Ugaritic (89) and Biblical Hebrew (but there are exceptions, e.g. Gen 3:4 lō-mōṯ təmūṯūn). The meaning of l in DA(9)2:17 l-dʕt is difficult to ascertain but it should probably be identified with a preposition (cf. Hackett 1984: 30 and Levine 1991: 71), i.e. ‘to know.’ It may be noted that l negates an existential (pseudo-)verb in DA(9)2:8 l-yš b-myqḥ mwt. 17  See also Nerab:2(8/7):4.

196

Chapter 7

but not apprehended him shall not live.’ As in (150), lā qvtvla is syndetic, and it is used as an accompanying action to ḥzwhy and describes the manner of it.18 In the tablets from Mesopotamia, evidence for lā qvtvla is found in conditional antecedents, e.g. AECT-L:*21(7):11 hn ḥṣd ḥṣdn 5 hwh šlm w-hn l-ḥṣd ṣpyʔ yšlm ‘if he harvests 5 reaps(?), he will have restituted, but if he does not harvest, he will have to restitute the white sheep.’19 Again, the negated predicate of the antecedent is symmetric to a non-negated predicate of an antecedent. In contrast to the predicates of antecedents in the Sefire inscription (see n. 35 on p. 204), the predicates are qvtvla and not yvqtvlu in these inscriptions. In the Aḥiqar text, qvtvla predominates in the narrative framework, while yvqtvlu is limited to direct speech and circumstantial clauses.20 The negative counterpart to qvtvla is lā qvtvla, e.g. C:1.1(5):98 w-ʕmmʔ ʕbrw b-hm w-lʔ

18  Syndetic lā qvtvla is perhaps also attested in the Ashur Ostracon: AssOstr(7):8 [zlk] hmw w-l-ṭḥnw lh yṭʕm kʔ. Gibson (1975: 103), for example, assumes that l is negative: “So they did not (any longer) grind (grain) for him. Let this decision be accepted!” Similarly Fales (2010: 196), who translates ṭḥn as ‘serve’: “They are [yours], and they will not serve him.” Hug (1993: 21), however, seems to assume that l is a preposition followed by a personal name: “[Dir] gehören sie und TḤNW ihm soll er befehlen”, while Lindenberger ([1994] 2003: 22) leaves l untranslated: “They have ground it; now let them eat it!,” assuming a proverb equivalent to “they’ve made their bed; now let them lie on it” (p. 24). 19  If one admits the orthography of lh for /lā/, there is also a number of forms of *ntn in the Mesopotamian ostraca that qualify as negated qvtvla, e.g. AECT:53(7):4 hn lh? ntn šʕryʔ z b-ʔdrʔ šʕ[ryʔ] rb[yh/wn?]. Lipiński (1975: 118) and Hug (1993: 26), for example, assume that lh is negative (‘if he does not give (back) that barley on the threshing-floor, the barley will increase’). Folmer (1995: 412 n. 576), however, concedes that a spelling lh would be unusual, and other parsings cannot be excluded. Fales (1986: 241–242), for example, reads hn l-hntn rather than hn lh ntn: “if he will give back.” Fales (1996: 101) identifies l with an asseverative particle, and parses hntn as the C-stem. Even though the C-stem of* ntn is not attested in Aramaic (DNWSI 766–770), Fales assumes that it was productive in Mesopotamian Aramaic. The same argumentation holds for AECT-L:19(7):5 hn lh? ntnw. At this point, Lemaire (2001: 108) also considers the possibility of interpreting lh as asseverative, but settles for the negative interpretation on account of context: the condition probably refers to the ‘abnormal’ situation of the debtors’ not giving. In the case of AECT-L:*4(7):13 hn l/yhtwn kspʔ ypwgn ʔšʔ, the reading is ambiguous. Fales (1996: 91), who reads hn l-htwn kspʔ “if they actually give back the sum,” suggests that l is asseverative and parses htwn as 3rd mpl *ntn C with assimilation of I-n (p. 101 n. 34). As a matter of fact, even if h actually belongs to the verb, l may still be parsed as negative, which would agree with the orthography in AECT-L:*21(7):11. 20  The opposite is true for the proverbial part: qvtvla is quite rare and the prefix conjugation is most common (Segert 1975: 372).

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

197

šbqw hmw ‘the people transgressed them (the gods), and they did not leave them (be).’21 Negated qvtvla is generally symmetric to affirmative qvtvla in the Hermopolis papyri as well, for example:22 (151) A:2.4(6/5):11 zbnt ḥṭbt w-mšḥ bśm l-mtyh lkn w-lh ʔškḥt ʔš l-mytyt lkn I (have) bought striped cloth and sweet oil to bring to you, but I have not (yet) found anyone to bring it to you. Notably, lā qvtvla as in (151) may also include the notion of negative anteriority (as also in Biblical Hebrew, see p. 160). The same notion can also be expressed by l-ʕd, cf. (151) with A:2.2(6/5):12 zbnt mšḥ zyt l-yqh w-ktn w-ʔp lky tqbt šprt w-ʔp mšḥ bśm l-bt bnt w-l-ʕd ʔškḥ ʔš l-mwšrthm lkn ‘I have bought some olive oil for Yqh, as well as a tunic, and also for you a beautiful dress, and also scented oil for the temple of Bnt, but I have not yet found anyone to bring them to you.’ Muraoka and Porten (GEA 173) suggest that A:2.2(6/5):12 ʔškḥ is an error for ʔškḥt. To be sure, qvtvla is attested after l-ʕd in Achaemenid Aramaic, e.g. B:3.13(5):8 w-hn mʔtt w-l-ʕd šlmt ‘if I die and I have not yet paid,’ but so is yvqtvlu too, in the sense of ‘not yet,’ e.g. B:2.11(5):13 lʔ ʕd nplg ʕlyn ‘we shall not yet divide (them) between us’ as well as ‘no longer,’ e.g. A:4.4(5):9 ʕwd ṭʕm lʔ ʕd yhwy lhn tnh ‘may another decree no longer be (delivered) to them here.’ The uses of the different verbal grammatical morphemes are best explained with Driver’s (1892: 32) observation in reference to ʕaḏ in Biblical Hebrew: “the indefiniteness inherent in this conjunction being at times more perceptibly felt may have co-operated in the adoption of the impf. in preference to the perfect.” Indeed, a fluctuation between iprus and iparras in collocation with adīni is also observed in Akkadian (GAG §151d). 21  For another instance of lā qvtvla in Aḥiqar, see C:1.1(5):135 [—] w-mn ʔlhn lʔ npqt ‘it did not proceed from the gods’. Likewise, lā qvtvla is symmetric to affirmative qvtvla in a subordinated clause, e.g. C:1.1(5):51 ʔp šgyʔ snḥʔryb mlkʔ rḥmny ʕl zy hḥytk w-lʔ qṭltk ‘moreover, Snḥʔryb, the king, loved me deeply because I had let you live and not killed you.’ 22  See also A:2.5(6/5):8. It would seem that lā qvtvla is also used symmetrically to qvtvla in conditional antecedents, e.g. A:2.2(6/5):10 hn yhb lky ʕmrh zy ʕl mky šlḥy ly w-h-lh yhb lky šlḥy ly ‘if you are given the wool that is owed by Mky, inform me, and if you are not given (it), let me know.’ On account of the fact that the prefix conjugation is usually preceded by other clause constituents than the conditional marker in conditional antecedents, while the suffix conjugation usually immediately follows hn, Folmer (1995: 480, 644 n. 220) parses yhb in both instances as (Gp) qvtvla. In this sense, the Hermopolis papyri agree with the Mesopotamian tablets, which also have lā qvtvla in antecedents (rather than lā yvqtvlu as in the Sefire inscription).

198

Chapter 7

When the object of a negated predicate precedes the predicate, it contributes to emphatic negation, for example:23 (152) A:2.3(6/5):5 w-kʕt ʔrh spr lh šlḥty b-šmh Now, see, you have not written (even one) letter about him. Muraoka and Porten (GEA §78cd), who refer to this construction as ‘categorical negation,’ suggest that it is the fronting of the direct object that contributes to the emphatic negation. Indeed, this word order is marked in contrast to the one in (151) and A:2.5(6/5):4 w-ʔp mn zy npqt mn swn šʔl lh hwšr ly spr w-mndʕm ‘moreover, since I left Swn, Šʔl has not sent a letter or anything (else) to me.’ The same effect of fronting the direct object can be observed in Biblical Hebrew, cf. 2 Sam 18:13 quoted on p. 160. It seems reasonable to assume that this form of expressing emphatic negation was reanalyzed from a topicalized expression: ‘see, as to a letter.’24 As noted by Folmer (1995: 566–568), fronting of the direct object is particularly common when the object is m(n)dʕm, and, as pointed out by Muraoka and Porten (GEA 303), all clauses with pre-dislocated m(n)dʕm are negated. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that m(n)dʕm sometimes is an adjunct rather than an argument. For example, A:4.7(5):14 w-ʔyš mndʕm b-ʔgwrʔ zk lʔ ḥbl ‘no one destroyed anything in that temple’ is potentially reanalyzed as no one did damage at all’ (see also n. 50 on p. 209). The spelling of mndʕm in A:2.5(6/5):4 quoted above can be contrasted with mndʕm attested in A:2.5(6/5):2 (i.e. in the same letter, quoted in n. 23 on p. 198), A:2.3(6/5):10 (quoted in n. 50 on p. 209), and A:2.1(6/5):10 ʔth lkn mdʕm ‘I shall bring something to you.’ m(n)dʕm is usually connected with a univerbation of mā ‘what’ or man ‘who’ and *ydʕ + mā (Kottsieper 1990: 50–54), but the exact etymology remains debated (Gzella 2015: 116 n. 338). It is well known that similar collocations are found throughout the Semitic languages, cf. Akkadian midde and minde ‘perhaps’ (CAD M 83–85), most likely from mīna and *ʔīdaʕ ‘what do I know?’ (Kogan 2010b: 301), Ugaritic mndʕ ‘perhaps’ (DULAT 554–555; UG 146), Jibbali ma l-dáʕ (Rubin 2014: 338), and Mehri 23  See also A:2.5(6/5):7 and A:2.5(6/5):3 w-kʕt tdʕn zy mdʕm lh mpqn ln mn swn ‘you know that they are not bringing anything to us from Swn.’ 24  Fronting of the object for the sake of emphatic negation is possibly at hand in (Aḥiqar) C:1.1(5):51 qrbtk qdm snḥʔryb mlkʔ w-hʕdyt ḥṭʔyk qdmwhy w-bʔyšt[ʔ] lʔ ʕbd lk ‘I brought you before Snḥʔryb, the king, and I absolved your sins before him, and he did not make any evil thing to you.’ See additional examples with bʔyš(tʔ) in Folmer (1995: 567–568). For ʔyš, see also C:1.1(5):164+164 and (164). See also n. 50 on p. 209.

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

199

ma ~ man ldaʕ (Watson 2012: 337), and cf. also Western Neo-Aramaic činya, a phonetically eroded form of ču nyaḏḏaʕ ‘I do not know’ (see section 7.9.3).25 The collocation involves, in other words, an inanimate interrogative pronoun and a 1st person verb form. However, an animate interrogative pronoun and a 3rd person verb form appears to be used in Tigre man ʔammər ‘perhaps,’ literally ‘who knows’ (TGT 88). Unlike the above lexemes, Aramaic m(n)dʕ-m also involves -m, which in turn is connected with the fact that m(n)dʕm is an indefinite pronoun, ‘something, anything’, and not a modal adverb, ‘perhaps.’ On the assumption that -m of m(n)dʕm was added to m(n)dʕ (cf. Akkadian mindē-ma vis-à-vis minde/midde), and not the other way around, it is tempting to connect m(n)- with the animate interrogative man in a formation *man-yidaʕ ‘who knows’ (alternatively *mānʔidaʕ ‘what do I know’), to which indefinite -mā̆ was added, i.e. *man-yidaʕmā̆ ‘who-knows-what’ (alternatively *mān-ʔidaʕ-mā̆ ‘I-don’t-know-what’) > ‘something.’ A similar development is observed in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic míðən mòdi ‘I don’t know what,’ where míðən is derived from mo yăðən ‘what do I know?’ (Khan 2013: 171) to which the interrogative particle modi is added. This, together with Syriac mndʕm (as a variant of medem) and Mandaic mindam (Bulakh 2013: 9), would mean that -n- is etymological and not the result of dissimilation. 7.5

Negation of qātil

As noted in section (1.3.3), one of the major innovations in Achaemenid Aramaic vis-à-vis Old Aramaic is the integration of the predicative participle into the verbal system. This integration is also observed in the Aramaic of the Hermopolis papyri, and the degree of integration is indicated in part by the negative counterpart to the participle, viz. the negated participle, for example:26 (153) A:2.4(6/5):4 ʔl tṣp l-ḥrwṣ lh šbq ʔnh lh k-dy mṭʔh ydy w-kʕt ʕbd ʔnh lh May she not worry about Ḥrwṣ (because) I am not leaving him as far as my hands reach; now, I am taking care of him.

25  Leslau (EDCG §87c) also notes a form məsəlla “je ne sais pas” in Gafat, involving mən ‘what’ and šalä ‘know.’ For similar derivations of Ge’ez ʔəndāʕi, Tigrinya ʔəndəʕi, and Amharic ʔənǧa, and the nonexistence of a negative *ʔən-, see n. 100 on p. 265. 26  For the negated participle, see also A:2.2(6/5):3 ʔl tṣpw lh lh mns ʔnh lh mn mpy ‘do not worry about him (because) I am not going to take him away from Memphis.’

200

Chapter 7

In other Northwest Semitic languages, the negation of the participle is not always symmetric. In Biblical Hebrew, for example, the (active) participle is regularly negated by ʔēn (but sometimes lō), and the negative counterpart to the participle can also be expressed by lō qvtvla or lō yvqtvlu, see section 5.4.3. In Phoenician, a participle is possibly negated by ʔy (see the discussion to example 141). In Arabic too, qātil is in general not negated by lā, see the discussion to example (179) and n. 17 on p. 231. In other words, the participle is typically negated by non-standard negation strategies, or its negative counterpart is expressed by a negative alloform. In this sense, the Aramaic of the Hermopolis papyri separates itself by not resorting to a non-standard negation strategy in the negation of the participle. This may be taken to indicate that qātil is more integrated into the system of finite verbs. It should be noted, however, that qātil cannot always be distinguished from qvtvla on the basis of the consonantal script, e.g. A:2.1(6/5):4 w-kʕt mṭtny ktnh zy ʔwšrty ly w-ʔškḥth šnṭt klh w-lbby lh dbq lh ‘now, the tunic which you (have) sent me has arrived, and I (have) found it all ripped and (so) my heart does not cling to it.’ It is not clear whether the word order is instructive at this point, but it may be noted that when the subject is explicit and the predicate is discrete qātil, the subject follows rather than precedes the negated predicate.27 It is also not clear whether lā is used to negate the participle in (Aḥiqar) C:1.1(5):173 ʔyš mṣlḥ ʕqn b-ḥšwkʔ w-lʔ ḥzh ‘a man splinting logs in the darkness without seeing.’ It cannot be excluded that lā negates qvtvla in an asymmetric fashion to affirmative qātil, as in Biblical Hebrew (see the discussion to example 114). The use of yvqtvlu as a negative alloform to the participle can presumably be found in Aḥiqar C:1.1(5):185 šbq ḥmr w-lʔ ysblnhy ynšʔ bwt mn knth ‘the donkey (who) abandons (his load) and does not care for it, he bears shame from his fellow’ (or: ‘he (who) abandons the donkey and does not care for it, he bears shame from his fellow,’ cf. Kottsieper 1990: 19). It cannot be ruled out, however, that šbq is qvtvla, and that lā yvqtvlu is used for a modalized situation in the past: ‘The ass abandoned (his load) and refused (or: ‘refuses’) to carry it.’ However, the context is quite elusive and a non-past time reference cannot be excluded. It should also be noted with regard to the periphrastic participle constructions, which are quite common in the Hermopolis papyri (GEA 205–208), that there are no attestations of neg *hwy + qātil, cf. e.g. A:2.2(6/5):15 w-yhwy zbn gšrn w-šbq b-bth ʔl tqmy qdmth ‘let him buy beams and leave them in his house 27  In the case of A:2.3(6/5):6 lʔmr lh šʔl ʕl ḥrwṣ, Muraoka and Porten (GEA §80a) assume impersonal 3rd msg Gp qvtvla “no enquiry was made about Ḥarudj,” but qātil cannot be excluded.

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

201

(and) do not stand in his way.’ In Biblical Aramaic, on the other hand, the participles negated by lā + *hwy (Dan 2:43, 6:3, Ezra 7:26) and lā ʔīṯay (Dan 3:14 and 3:18) may be regarded as symmetric negative counterparts to the periphrastic constructions with *hwy and ʔīṯay.28 Furthermore, as to Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, lyt “appears more often in JBA as a negator of a participle” (rather than lʔ) according to Bar-Asher Siegal (2013: 104 n. 125). 7.6 Negated yvqtvlu In his discussion of lā yvqtvlu, Degen (1969 §86b) draws a distinction between lā yvqtvlu in statements (‘Aussagesätzen’) and lā yvqtvlu in so-called ‘strong apodictic prohibitions’ (‘Prohibitiv’), which in turn are contrasted to the socalled ‘weak prohibition’ (‘Vetitiv’), i.e. ʔal-yvqtvl. Negated statements in the Sefire inscription mentioned by Degen (1969 §84) include Sf:1(8)B25 w-l-ykhl bry [l-]yšlḥ yd b-br[k] “mein Sohn kann nicht die Hand gegen deinen Sohn austrecken” [sic],29 Sf:1(8)B34 l-yk[hl l-]prq w-l-mšlḥ yd “er kann nicht zerstören(?) und die Hand ausstrecken,” Sf:2(8)B6 p-l-ʔkhl “ich kann nicht”, and Sf:3(8):18+18 [w-]hn rqh trqh bnyhm l-yqtl w-l-yʔsr, where l-yqtl and l-yʔsr are translated by “er wird nicht töten” and “er wird nicht binden” by Degen.30 As an illustration

28  See Gzella (2004: 197) and Li (2009: 83–85) for ʔīṯay as an auxiliary to the participle in Biblical Aramaic. 29  It may be noted that Degen (1969: 123), as also Donner and Röllig (KAI2 p. 255, 261), suggests that both *khl and *šlḥ are negated in Sf:1(8)B25 w-l-ykhl bry [l-]yšlḥ yd b-br[k] and Sf:2(8)B6 p-l-ʔkhl l-ʔšlḥ (see also presumably Sf:1(8)B39 [l-tk]hl l-tśʔ). It is not self-evident, however, that l- of the complementary predicate is lā and not the preposition-conjunction lv- known from non-finite complements to *khl, e.g. Sf:1(8)B34 l-yk[hl l-]y?prq w-lmšlḥ yd ‘he will not be able to destroy (it) and raise a hand.’ At this point, l- of l-mšlḥ (and perhaps l- of *prq, cf. KAI5 222:34 l-yk[hl l-]prq) is the preposition lv- (KAI2 p. 256). The complement of the one example of non-negated *khl in the Sefire inscription (Sf:1(8)B33 w-ʔkhl my [—]) is broken and not helpful at this point. To be sure, the use of a finite verb after *khl is well known from the Elephantine papyri (Fitzmyer 1961: 204), but when lā + *khl is followed by a finite verb, that verb is in general non-negated. On the contrary, when lā + *khl is followed by a negated finite verb, the complement, which is syndetic, is also negative, e.g. B:3.8(5):37 lʔ ykhl ʕnnyh w-lʔ yʕbd dyn ‘ʕnnyh shall not be able not to do the law’ and B:3.8(5):39 w-ʔp lʔ tkhl yhwyšmʕ w-lʔ tʕbd dyn ‘and moreover, Yhwyšmʕ shall not be able not to do the law.’ 30  Note that Degen reads [l-y]prq w-l-yšlḥ in Sf:1(8)B34 (cf. the preceding note). Sf:1(8)B39 [w-ʔt l-tk]hl l-štʔ lḥm presumably belongs here as well. Degen also includes lā yvqtvlu in Sf:1(8)A28+28 w-l-ytḥzh (twice), which, however, is better regarded as a negative possible consequence clause (cf. Fitzmyer 1961: 197), see example (160).

202

Chapter 7

of the apodictic prohibition, Degen (1969 §86b) mentions l-ts[k], w-l-tʔmr, and w-l-thrm in the following example: (154) Sf:3(8):5+5+5 w-hn yqrq mny qrq ḥd […] w-yhkn ḥlb l-ts[k l]hm lḥm w-ltʔmr lhm šlw ʕl ʔšrkm w-l-thrm nbšhm mny If a fugitive flees from me […] and they go to Aleppo, you must not give them food, nor say to them: “Stay quietly in your place,” nor incite them against me. It is not clear, however, why the negated clauses in (154) qualify as prohibitions, while l-yqtl and l-yʔsr in Sf:3(8):18+18 quoted above qualify as statements (e.g. ‘if you make peace between them, (then) he must not kill and he must not imprison (him)’). From a syntactic point of view, both examples involve negated consequence clauses, and the basic illocution is apparently declarative. The epistemic rather than deontic modality involved in Degen’s other examples of negated statements, in turn, should of course be explained in relation to the lexeme *khl, but negated ability (epistemic) would seem to correspond to negated permission (deontic). The modalized nature of the consequence clauses in the treaty of the Sefire inscription is also indicated by the following example: (155) Sf:3(8):9+9 w-kl mlkyʔ zy sḥrty ʔw kl zy rḥm hʔ ly w-ʔšlḥ mlʔky ʔ[l]wh l-šlm […] ptḥh ly ʔrḥʔ l-tmšl by b-zʔ w-l-tršh ly ʕly[h] Regarding the kings of my vicinity, or any one who is a friend to me, where(at) I send my messenger to him for peace […] The road must be open to me without you dominating me in this, and thereat you must not assert your authority over me concerning it. On the assumption that the participial clause ptḥh ly ʔrḥʔ forms part of the consequence clause, its modalization (‘the road must be open,’ or perhaps ‘may the road be open’) can be explained as an inference from the nature of a treaty (it stipulates its actors’ obligations). The participle itself is unmarked in terms of modality, but may lend itself such an inference (cf. e.g. Archaic Biblical Hebrew 2 Sam 22:47 ū-ḇārūḵ ṣūrī ‘blessed be my rock’, i.e. ‘may my rock be blessed’). It may be noted in passing that ptḥh is an early attestation of the predicative participle (known elsewhere in Old Aramaic from Nerab2(8/7):5, see Gzella 2004: 131 n. 43), and that ptḥh is, like the predicative participle in Archaic Biblical Hebrew (cf. Notarius 2010; 2013: 285) not active but passive.31 31  It cannot be excluded, however, that ptḥh corresponds to the imperative with heh paragogcium. Such a parsing is viable in view of the fact that heh paragogicum is typically used

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

203

Much like the participle, lā yvqtvlu is also unmarked for modality but lends itself to the secondary speech act of a prohibition in (155).32 The logical relation of l-tmšl to ptḥh is not self-evident. Asyndeton is perhaps used for the sake of introducing a second and independent main line: ‘the road must be open; you must not dominate me in this.’ To be sure, consequence clauses are as a rule asyndetically linked to their antecedents in the Sefire inscription (as in 154).33 This is also true for (Aḥiqar) C:1.1(5):177 hn ʔmḥʔnk bry lʔ tmwt ‘if I beat you, my son, you will not die’ and Decree(7):8 lʔ yḥwyn (quoted on p. 195).34 Alternatively, asyndetic lā yvqtvlu is used to describe a situation concomitant with the preceding clause, as indicated by the translation above. The use of asyndetic lā yvqtvlu to express a concomitant action is also attested in Sf:1(8) B31 w-hn b-ywm zy ʔlhn [—] mrḥyʔ l-tʔth b-ḥylk ‘if on a day on which the gods when the action of the proposition is directed towards the speaker in Biblical Hebrew (Fassberg 1999), which is the case also in (155), cf. ly. The case for heh paragogicum in Aramaic has also been made for (Aḥiqar) C:1.1(5):204 w-ʔnh rkbyk lʔ ʔḥzh ‘I do/will not see your riding.’ Lindenberger (1983: 204) assumes that lʔ ʔḥzh is a negative cohortative: “I want nothing to do with your riding.” Folmer (1995: 503 and n. 880) finds this assumption uncertain, and indeed, ʔḥzh may just as well be interpreted as yvqtvlu. One reason in favor of this parsing is the negator lʔ, which may be contrasted with ʔal- in (166) ʔl nqṭlnhy. Of course, even if one assumes that ʔḥzh is 1st csg yvqtvlu, a deontic modalized interpretation is inferable. 32  In a question, in turn, lā yvqtvlu may lend itself epistemic modality, as in (Deir Alla) DA(9)2:9+9 h-l-ʕṣh bk l-ytʕṣ ʔw l-mlkh l-ytmlk ‘as to council, will he not take council with you, or as to advice, will he not ask for advice?’ Hackett (1984: 64) identifies l of ʕṣh and mlkh as a topicalizer: “As for counsel, is it not you with whom he will take counsel; or for advice, will he not ask advice?” (p. 31), cf. also Greenfield (1991: 117) who suggests that l- preceding the nouns is asseverative: “Will he surely not take counsel with you, will he surely not ask advice (of you)?” The fact that both clauses are interrogative, as indicated by h- and ʔw, suggests that the prefix conjugation is long (yvqtvlu). 33  Degen (1969 §92) notes one instance with p-: Sf:2(8)B6 [—]hn tʔmr b-nbšk w-tʕšt b-lbb[k—] w-bnwh w-ʕqrh p-l-ʔkhl l-ʔšlḥ y[d—] w-l-ḥbzthm w-l-ʔbdt ʔšmhm ‘if you say in your soul and think in your heart: “[—] and his sons and his offspring,” I will not be able to raise a hand [—] either to rout them or destroy their name.’ The call for p- at this point may be due to the intercepted direct speech. It cannot be ruled out, however, that the conditional marker should be restored as [p-]hn as in Sf:2(8)B4 p-hn tšmʕ nḥt [—], in which case p- of the consequence clause relates back to p- of the antecedent. This cannot be proved since the expected consequence clause of the antecedent in Sf:2(8)B4 is not preserved (it is not obvious that nḥm belongs to the consequence clause as assumed by Fitzmyer 1961: 211). 34  However, the relative clause in the Decree(7) is resumed syndetically: Decree(7):3 w-kʕt zʔ ʔyš zy s[l]q mn mt ʔkdh ytnš/śg b-byth w-b-ʕ/qrs/yth w-lʔ yʔḥr/d ‘thus this: A man who […] He must not delay.’ For a discussion of this text, see Kottsieper (2000) and Bhayro (2008).

204

Chapter 7

[—] the rebels, without that you come with your army’.35 Asyndetic lā yvqtvlu after a noun clause, in turn, lends itself a meaning of result as in the following example: (156) C:1.1(5):17 śb ʔnh lʔ ʔkhl l-mplḥ b-bb hyklʔ I am (such) an old man, (that) I cannot serve in the gate of the palace. A similar situation, where asyndetic lā yvqtvlu follows qvtvla and expresses result, is observed in Hebrew (e.g. 107) and Ugaritic (cf. the discussion to example 76). Syndetic wa-lā yvqtvlu, in turn, is used to describe accompanying actions. Syndetic w-l-tršh in Sf:3(8):9 (quoted in 155), for example, is used to describe an action that accompanies l-tmšl in the form of a manner clause.36 It describes the way in which the non-domination must take place.37 Likewise, a negated situation that accompanies another clause of an antecedent is syndetic, e.g. Sf:1(8)B38+38 w-hn l-thb lḥmy [—]šʔ ly lḥm w-l-tsk šqrt b-ʕdyʔ ʔln ‘if you do not give my provision [—] to me the provision, and thereat do not deliver, you

35  The predicate in most antecedents with hn in the Sefire inscriptions is yvqtvlu (Degen 1969 §92). As in Sf:1(8)B31, negative conditional antecedents are also expressed by lā yvqtvlu, e.g. Sf:3(8):19 w-hn l-trqh bnyhm šqrt b-ʕdyʔ ʔln ‘if you do not make peace between them, you have been unfaithful to this treaty’ (see also Sf:3(8):6). Lā yvqtvlu is also attested in other types of subordinated clauses, including relative clauses, e.g. Sf:1(8)C17 w-mn l-yṣr ‘he who does not guard’ and (Aḥiqar) C:1.1(5):138 [gbr z]y lʔ ytrwm b-šm ʔbwhy (restoration according to Kottsieper 1990: 9). The negated prefix conjugation is also attested in an antecedent that follows its main clause in the form of an exception in C:1.1(5):176 ʔl thḥšk brk mn ḥṭr hn lw lʔ tkhl thnṣlnh[y] ‘do not spare your son from the rod, if you would that you could save him.’ Hn lw, a non-assimilated form corresponding to Syriac ʔellū, comparable to Arabic ʔin law (GAL 2 §189), seems to include the notion of hypothesis and volition at this point. 36  For syndetic wa-lā yvqtvlu as an accompanying action in Aḥiqar, see C:1.1(5):188 [—] w-yšmʕ mlh w-lʔ yhḥwh ‘(he who) listens to words but tells it not.’ 37  See perhaps also Sf:1(8)B41, but the preceding letters are obliterated and it is difficult to determine the independency of w-l-ygz[rn]. Sf:1(8)B21 [—] l-bytkm w-l-yšmʕ also belongs here, but the five preceding lines are obliterated, cf. Fitzmyer (1961: 204): “The introductory conjunction, ‘if’, does not appear here, but possibly it occurred in the foregoing lacuna.” On the other hand, it may be that w- is an addition to a nominal phrase that allows for a conditional inference as in (155) w-ʔšlḥ ‘where(at) I send,’ where the addition describes a situation that holds for the nominal phrase w-kl. The same construction is possibly attested in Sf:2(8)B3+3+3 [—]w-l-yšmʕn bnwh l-yšmʕn rbwh w-l-yšmʕ ʕmh w-l-y[—], but again, the preceding line is obliterated.

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

205

will have been unfaithful to this treaty.’38 However, it is not always transparent whether syndetic wa-lā yvqtvlu following a consequence clause of a conditional linking should be construed as an addition to it, for example:39 (157) Sf:3(8):21 w-hn l-hn šqrt b-ʕdyʔ ʔln w-l-tšlḥ lšn b-byty If (it is) not so, you will have been unfaithful to this treaty. And you must not interfere with my house. The affirmative consequence clause in (157), which is in the form of qvtvla, is followed by a syndetic negative clause involving yvqtvlu. If w-l-tšlḥ is admitted to the consequence clause, the use of two asymmetric predicates is comparable to conditional linkings in Biblical Hebrew, where wə-lō yvqtvlu is an asymmetric counterpart to wə-qvtvla in consequence clauses. However, w-l-tšlḥ is not necessarily describing an accompanying action to šqrt in (157) but rather begins a new and independent prohibition.40 It may be noted, finally, that in all examples quoted above, the negator precedes and negates the finite predicate. There is one instance, however, where lā negates another clause constituent in a verbal clause: Sf:2(8)B16 w-l-ʔš yhwnnh. The position of the negator is peculiar to Fitzmyer (1961: 213), but should be explained in terms of a negative scope: The position of lā focalizes the indefinite subject which results in an emphatic form of noun-phrase negation: ‘not (a single) one must oppress him.’ By zooming in on a non-referring entity, the speaker negates the possibility that any member of its type is involved in the proposition.

38  Sf:2(8)B17 possibly belongs here as well: hn tbʕh w-l-t[—] ‘if you seek and thereat do not [—].’ 39  Syndetic lā yvqtvlu following another consequence clause is also attested in the ostraca from Mesopotamia, as in the following juridical contract: AECT-L:3(7):8 mn ʔl mn y[šb] w-ygrh dyn ʔwrh swsn [l-]šhr w-qryt zhb l-nkl yntn w-l-yrqwn bh ‘he who turns to someone and takes legal action shall give a team of horses to Šhr and a barley-measure of gold to Nkl, and they shall not prevail in it/be satisfied with it.’ Fales (2010: 192 n. 16) suggests, on account of the similar language in Neo-Assyrian contracts, where w-ygrh dyn and l-yrqwn bh corresponds to dēnīšu idabbub-ma lā ilaqqe ‘he will litigate but not prevail,’ that yrqwn must correspond to ‘prevail’ rather than ‘satisfy,’ as in Lemaire (2001: 34, 42). As in the NeoAssyrian contract, as in other juridical language, the prohibition is expressed by negated yvqtvlu. See also AECT-L:4(7):19 ʔwrh swsyn ḥwrn yhb l-šhr w-l-yrqh bh. 40  It may be noted, however, that the use of negated *šlḥ + lšn is attested in an asyndetic consequence in Sf:3(8):17 w-hn yrb br[y] […] ʔw yʕbrnh l-tšlḥ lšnk bnyhm ‘if my son quarrels […] or removes him (sc. his brother), you must not interfere with them.’

206 7.7

Chapter 7

Negative Possible Consequence Clauses

There are different ways to express negative possible consequence clauses. This section investigates these various ways and assesses their distribution. ʔal-yvqtvl may be used in negative possible consequence clauses that follow on another injunctive syntagm, as after another ʔal-yvqtvl, for example in Aḥiqar: (158) a. C:1.1(5):141 [mstr]yk ʔl tgly qdm [rḥ]myk ʔl yql šmk qdmyhm Do not reveal your secrets in front of a friend, lest your name be reduced in front of them. b. C:1.1(5):148 ʔl tḥly w-ʔl [y]b[l]ʕwk ʔl tmr Do not be (too) sweet, lest they swallow you, (but) do not be (too) bitter (either)! While asyndeton, as in (158a), agrees with the situation in Ugaritic (cf. the discussion to example 96), syndeton, as in (158b), agrees with the situation in Hebrew (cf. example 129). The morpheme ʔal- is known from Deir Alla as a negator of an existential clause that also functions as a negative possible consequence clause after a volitive clause: (159)

DA(9)1:6+7 tpqy skry šmyn b-ʕbky šm ḥšk w-ʔl n7gh ʕṭm w-ʔl smrky41 May you break the bolts of heaven, (so that) it may be darkness there, so that there may not be brilliance, (so that) there may be gloominess, so that there may not be radiance!

In Hoftijzer’s (1976: 300 n. 30) view, ʔl-ngh forms a compound ‘not-light,’ and ʔl does not have any modal function (cf. Hoftijzer 1991: 129). Davies (1991: 148) suggests in his rejoinder, however, that ʔl “is due to the precative context, and that the gods are asking for the removal of light.” Indeed, in view of the preceding short prefix conjugation, it is a viable alternative that ʔal- is used here to negate a possible consequence clause the predicate of which is a noun phrase. It is worth noting that a nominal predicate negated by ʔal- in a prohibitive clause is also attested in Ugaritic (example 95) and Hebrew, e.g. 2 Sam 1:21 (example 131) ʔal-ṭal ‘may there not be dew’ (which follows a clause ʔal-yvqtvl in 2 Sam 1:20). 41  For tpqy, i.e. *pḏ̣ḏ̣, rather than tpry, see Weippert (1991: 157).

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

207

Syndetic lā yvqtvlu is also used for negative possible consequence clauses. In the following example, wa-lā yvqtvlu is dependent on a preceding ʔal-yvqtvl:42 (160)

Sf:1(8)A28+28 [ ys]q twy ʕl ʔpy ʔrqh w-ʔl ypq ḥṣr w-l-ytḥzh yrq w-l-y[tḥzh] ʔḥwh w-ʔl ytšmʕ ql May twy come upon the face of its land, and may grass not come forth, so that green may not be seen, and so that its vegetation may not be seen. And may a voice not be heard!

The linking of lā yvqtvlu and ʔal-yvqtvl is not one of two coordinated prohibitions, but lā + ytḥzh seems to express a possible consequence clause to the volitions of ysq and ʔl ypq respectively. ʔl ytšmʕ, however, introduces a prohibition on par with the preceding clause ʔl ypq. The use of wa-lā yvqtvlu to express a negative consequence can be regarded as a specialization of the use of wa-lā yvqtvlu to express negative additions (cf. w-l-tršh in example 155), as argued for wə-lō yvqtvlu in Biblical Hebrew, cf. the discussion to example (115). Possible consequence clauses may also be introduced by particles, as l-mʕn in the Nerab inscription: (161) Nerab2(8/7):8 ʕm lbšy śmwny l-mʕn l-ʔḥrh l-thns ʔrṣty With my garments they placed me, so that in the future my grave would not be taken away. Unlike (158), (159), and (160), the call for markedness by means of a particle l-mʕn in (161) may be due to the fact that the clause preceding the possible consequence clause is not itself marked for modality. A negative possible consequence clause may also be introduced by lmh. Such a consequence clause is necessarily dependent on another injunction, which is ʔl thrkb in the following example from the Aḥiqar proverbs:43 (162)

C:1.1(5):126 [—q]štk w-ʔl thrkb ḥṭk l-ṣdyq lmh ʔlhyʔ ysgh b-ʕdrh (Do not bend)? your bow and do not mount your arrow towards a righteous one, lest the gods proceed to his help.

42  Sf:1(8)A32 possibly belongs here as well, if Gibson’s (1975: 30) restoration is accepted: w-ʔ[l ytḥzy] ʕlh qqbtn yštḥt l-yšmn ʔḥwh. 43  It may be noted that ysgh is not inflected for plural, and that this is the only instance of number disagreement in the Aḥiqar proverbs (Folmer 1995: 435). It is not clear whether ʔlhyʔ should be understood collectively, cf. (169) w-ʔlhn w-ʔnš lʔ yhn[p]q/l.

208

Chapter 7

The same implication of *li-mā is known from Hebrew and Phoenician (see the discussion on p. 165). The use of l-mh may be considered a paratactic variant of dlmh ‘lest’ known from Qumran Aramaic (Gzella 2014: 144) and Middle Eastern Aramaic (Pat-El 2012b: 39–46), cf. Hebrew lå̄må̄ with š- (Driver 1890: 123–124; Fassberg 1998). 7.8

The Prohibitor ʔal-

As in the other Northwest Semitic languages, the imperative is not negated and ʔal-yvqtvl is its asymmetric counterpart in Old Aramaic (Degen 1969 §86b). This is clear from the following example in the Sefire inscription:44 (163) Sf:3(8):7 w-hn […] w-tʔmr lhm šbw l-tḥtk[m] w-ʔl tpnw b-ʔšrh If […] and you say to them: “Stay where you are and do not return to his region!” In this example, ʔl tpnw should be regarded as the negative counterpart to šbw. In the 3rd person, in turn, ʔal-yvqtvl is the negative counterpart to affirmative yvqtvl, for example (Aḥiqar) C:1.1(5):138 ʔl ydnḥ šm[š lh] ‘may the sun not shine for him.’45 The difference between lā yvqtvlu (when prohibitive, cf. the discussion to example 154) and ʔal-yvqtvl is a matter of mood: prohibitive lā yvqtvlu is a statement, a declaration of an obligation, while ʔal-yvqtvl is a volition, an expression of the speaker’s will. This distribution is also indicated by the collocation of ʔal-yvqtvl with other volitive verb forms, like the imperative and the jussive. The curses against treaty violations in the Sefire inscription, for example, are expressed by yvqtvl (whether affirmative or negative), e.g. Sf:1(8)A22 w-šbʕ ssyh yhynqn ʕl w-ʔl yš[bʕ] ‘may seven mares nurse a colt, and may it not be satisfied!’46 44  See also Sf:1(8)A22. For ʔl in a main clause, see also Sf:1(8)A28 w-ʔl ypq quoted in (160). The same prohibitor is probably to be restored in Sf:3(8):20 [w-ʔ]l tʕšqny. 45  See also C:1.1(5):193 w-ʔl yʔmr lk ‘may he not say to you!’ and C:1.1(5):206. For ʔal-yvqtvl as the negative counterpart to the imperative in Aḥiqar, see C:1.1(5):52 kʕn ʔnt l-qbl zy ʔnh ʕbdt lk kn ʔpw ʕbd ly ʔl tqṭlny blny l-b[y]tk ‘now, as for you, according to what I have done for you, do thus you too for me! Do not kill me (but) bring me to your house!’ and C:1.1(5):54. 46  See also Sf:1(8)A21+23+23+24+29+33+36 and Sf:2(8)A1+2. See also Bukan(8):12 krsʔh yhpkh hd[d] w-ḥldy w-šbʕ šnn ʔl ytn hdd qlh ‘may Hdd and Ḥldy overturn his throne, and may Hdd not give his voice (i.e. let there not be thunder) for seven years!’

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

209

They are, in other words, volitions rather than statements.47 Indeed, in the Hermopolis papyri, it is not uncommon that ʔal-yvqtvl amounts to a wish: Most examples involve the verb *yṣp ‘worry,’ and as in Old Babylonian and Ugaritic, the expression is most common in formulaic phrases of politeness typical for epistolary language, e.g. A:2.1(6/5):7 w-kʕt ʔl tṣpy ln ly w-l-mkbnt lkn ʔnḥn yṣpn ‘do not worry about us, me and Mkbnt, but we are worrying.’48 With regard to word order, it may be noted that an explicit subject usually follows the negated predicate, e.g. Sf:1(8)B8 ʔl tštq ḥdh mn mly sprʔ zn[h] ‘let not one of the words of this inscription be silent!’49 There are exceptions, however, as in the following example from Anatolia: (164) Daskyleion:1(5):4 hwmytk bl w-nbw zy ʔrḥʔ znh yhwh ʕdh ʔyš ʔl yʕml I (hereby) adjure you by Bl and Nbw: He who will pass by this way, any man may not do (him) harm! In this example, although ʔl negates the predicate and not the subject (cf. Sf:2(8)B16 w-l-ʔš yhwnnh, quoted on p. 205), the subject potentially receives narrow scope focus (‘no one may harm him!’) on account of word order.50 It 47  With a volition in the antecedent, it is also possible to construe the construction in Sf:1(8) A22 as conditionally linked: ‘(even) if seven mares nurse one colt, may it (nevertheless) not be satisfied.’ A similar wording is attested in the Bukan inscription: Bukan(8):6+7 šbʕ šwrh yhynqn ʕgl ḥd w-ʔl yšbʕ w-šbʕ nšn yʔpw b-tnr ḥd w-ʔl ymlʔwhy ‘may seven cows nurse one lamb, and let it not be sated, and may seven women bake in one oven, and let it not be full!’ (cf. also Hos 4:10). ʔal-yvqtvl is also attested in the consequence clause of marked conditional linkings, e.g. C:1.1(5):130 ʔp [h]n tzp zptʔ šlyn l-npšk ʔl tśym ʕd [—] ‘even if you take the loan, (let there be) rest for your soul and do not put [—].’ It is worth noting that the reverse order, in which ʔal- negates what can be construed as an antecedent, is not attested. 48   For similar expressions in the Hermopolis papyri, see A:2.4(6/5):12, A:2.4(6/5):3, A:2.3(6/5):4, and A:2.2(6/5):3 (quoted in n. 26 on p. 199). 49  See also Sf:1(8)C24 ʔl yrt šr[š]h ʔšm ‘his progeny may not inherit a name!’ It may be pointed out that while Gibson (1975: 24, 43) and Fitzmyer (1961: 208) assume that ʔšm involves prothetic ʔ, Pat-El (2013: 59 n. 29) assumes that šm is preceded by a negative ʔ (which is compared to Phoenician ʔ-bl). However, the word for ‘name’ is sometimes preceded by ʔ also where a negative meaning is not felicitous, as in Sam’alian Had(8):21 ʔšm pnmw ‘the name of Pnmw.’ For attestations of ʔšm, see Tropper (1993a: 185). 50  Fronting of an object, however, is not necessarily identified with narrow scope focus. For example, in A:2.3(6/5):10 w-kʕt mdʕm ʔl tzbny ‘now, do not worry at all/about anything!’ it is possible that mdʕm should be analyzed as an adjunct rather than an argument. Fronting of the object is also known from two Mesopotamian texts, viz. AssOstr(7):17 lʔmr qrqy ʔl tḥzw m[—] ‘saying: “Do not look (favorably) on my fugitive!” ’ and Fakh(9):17 mn yld šmy

210

Chapter 7

may be noted that in Old Aramaic, only indicative forms occur following the subject of a clause (Bennett 1984: 48). This emphatic form of negation therefore results from the reanalysis of topicalization (cf. the discussion to example 152). The pre-dislocation for the sake of topicalization is probably at hand in A:2.6(6/5):9 [w-k]ʕt šlm bntsr tnh w-brh ʔl t[ṣpy lh], cf. Lindenberger ([1994] 2003: 34): “Banitsar is well here. As for his son—don’t worry about him.” Investigating the distribution of distinct forms of yvqtvl and yvqtvlu with ʔal- and lā in Aramaic of the Achaemenid period, Folmer (1995: 507) concluded that the verb forms negated by ʔal- as a rule are yvqtvl. However, the Aḥiqar text provided some notable exceptions. At the same time, all instances of the prefix conjugation negated by lʔ in Aḥiqar are yvqtvlu when the verb form is distinct (Folmer 1995: 503 and n. 878). While verb forms III-w/-y as well as verb forms marked by afformatives in general are short when they are negated by ʔal-, e.g. C:1.1(5):157 ʕynyn ṭbn ʔl yʔkmw ‘may good eyes not be blind!’51 a verb form that looks like yvqtvlu is used after ʔal- on a number of occasions in the Aḥiqar proverbs. This happens sometimes to verbs III-w/-y, for example:52 (165) C:1.1(5):84 ʔl tksh mlt mlk rph thwy [l-lbbk] Do not cover the word of a king, (but) let it be a healing for your heart! It is worth noting that tksh *ksy in (165) is yvqtvlu on formal grounds, while affirmative thwy *hwy is yvqtvl. Furthermore, a verb negated by ʔal- followed by a pronominal suffix is sometimes augmented by -n-, contrary to expectations, for example:53 mn mʔnyʔ zy bt hdd mrʔy mrʔy hdd lḥmh w-mwh ʔl ylqḥ mn ydh ‘he who removes my name from the vessels of the temple of Hdd my lord, may Hdd my lord not accept his food and his water from his hand!’ (see also Fakh(9):18). In the Aḥiqar text, ʔal-yvqtvl with VO word order is attested in C:1.1(5):80, C:1.1(5):136+137+147 and C:1.1(5):176 (quoted on p. 204). OV word order, in turn, occurs in (158a). ʔal-yvqtvl with SV word is attested in C:1.1(5):153 and C:1.1(5):157, and ʔal-yvqtvl with a prepositional phrase preceding the predicate occurs in C:1.1(5):130, C:1.1(5):142, and C:1.1(5):205. In C:1.1(5):85 qdmtk mndʕm qšh [ʕl] ʔnpy m[l]k ʔl tqwm, both the subject and the prepositional phrase precedes ʔal-yvqtvl. 51  See also C:1.1(5):141 ʔl tgly (quoted in 158a) and C:1.1(5):146 ʔl thʕdy. 52  See also C:1.1(5):81 ʔ[l] tʔth ʕl blk ‘let it not come to your heart!,’ C:1.1(5):81 ʔl yhwh ṭrpyhm ‘let it not be their pray!,’ and C:1.1(5):90 b-šgyʔ bnn lbbk ʔl yḥdh ‘let not your heart rejoice in a plentitude of sons!’ Folmer (1995: 504) also includes C:1.1(5):87 ʔl thnšq ʕlyk w-tksh kpyk, but tksh may also be understood as an imperfective addition: ‘do not kindle (it) against you, sitting on your hands.’ 53  See also C:1.1(5):86 ʔl yḥznhy ʕl ʔmryk ‘let him not show it (sc. his anger) on account of your sayings!’

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

211

(166) C:1.1(5):61 w-ʕl ʕṭth w-mlwhy ḥyl [ʔtw]r klʔ hww ʔnḥnh ʔl nqṭlnhy The army of entire Aššur relied on his advice and his words. Let us not kill him! Since pronominal suffixes preceded by n are associated with yvqtvlu, Folmer (1995: 506) suggests that in the clause ʔl nqṭlnhy, only one of the two markers for volitive mood occurs, ʔal-. In Folmer’s (1995: 505, 507) view, “the relevant forms in the Aḥiqar proverbs demonstrate the beginning of a development in which the verb form in the constructions with the negative adverb ʔl dropped its volitive marking […] There is a tendency in some texts to drop one of the two markers of volitive mood. In those instances it probably is the verb form and not the negative adverb which is the unmarked form.” A similar explanation has been ventured in connection to the occasional attestations of yvqtvlu after ʔal- in Biblical Hebrew (see p. 168). In other words, ʔal- sufficed as indicator of the prohibition. However, at least for 1st person verbs, -n may be expected also in volitive clauses, considering that in Biblical Hebrew, the ending -å̄ is a word-final allomorph to -ɛn- (Joosten 1999b). While there are no instances of ʔal-ʔɛqṭəlɛnnū in Biblical Hebrew, the use of the pronominal suffix -ɛnnū on the affirmative cohortative is common. In other words, -n- in (166) may be regarded as an allomorph of a cohortative ending before pronominal suffixes.54 The fact that the element of volition is inherent in ʔal- rather than the verb form it negates is also indicated by the distribution of ʔal- in Sam’alian and the Fekheriye inscription. As in Aramaic, ʔal- in Sam’alian is used for prohibitions, for example:55 (167) Had(8):22+22 t[ʔ]kl nbš pn[mw] ʕm hdd w-tšty nbš pnmw ʕm h[d]d hʔ[—]ḥhn zbḥh w-ʔl yrqy bh w-m-z yšʔl ʔl ytn lh hdd May the nbš of Pnmw eat with Hdd, and may the nbš of Pnmw drink with Hdd! As to him […] ḥhn slaughtering. And may he not be pleased with it, and whatever he asks, may Hdd not give to him! Loesov (2012: 444) points out that there are six attestations of the prefix conjugation in the Fekheriye inscription with a prefix in l- instead of y-, and that all of those clauses have volitive meaning, but that the prefix conjugation without the l-prefix can also be volitive, e.g. Had(8):28 w-yqm wth ‘and let him put him.’ It should also be pointed out that the prefix of a 3rd msg verb form in a 54  At one point, ʔal- negates the prefix conjugation augmented by -n without a following pronominal suffix (unless it is assimilated): C:1.1(5):167 gldy ʔl tlqḥn mny ‘do not take away my skin from me!’ 55  See also Had(8):23 and Had(8):26. For fragments, see also Had(8):24 and Had(8):26.

212

Chapter 7

clause which is volitive and negated by ʔal- is always y- and never l-. The situation is, in other words, similar to Akkadian, where l-is the prefix of iprus when it is volitive and affirmative (liprus), while the old prefix is retained when iprus is volitive and negated (ayiprus). As is well known, verb forms in the 3rd person in volitive clauses in the Fekheriye inscription are always marked by the prefix l-. The predicate in Fakh(8):22 llqṭw ‘may they collect’ is a relevant case in point, considering the absence of the afformative -n, known from 3rd mpl yvqtvlu. Elsewhere, whenever the prefix conjugation is not used in a volitive clause, the prefix is y-, e.g. after kn (Fakh(9):11 kn ybl ‘when it becomes worn,’ from *nbl), after ḏ (Fakh(9):11+12 w-zy yld […] w-yśym ‘he who removes […] and places’), and after mn (Fakh(9):16 mn yld ‘whoever removes,’ from *ldd/*lwd). Similarly, the prefix is y- also after ʔal-, even though the clause has a volitive meaning. The III-y verb *rwy in (168) has a relevant form in this connection, since yvqtvl is yrwy (in contrast to yvqtvlu which is yrwh):56 (168) Fakh(9):20+21+21 w-mʔh sʔwn lhynqn ʔmr w-ʔl yrwy w-mʔh swr lhynqn ʕgl w-ʔl yrwy w-mʔh nšwn lhynqn ʕlym w-ʔl yrwy May one hundred ewes nurse a lamb, but let it not be satisfied! And may one hundred cows nurse a calf, but let it not be satisfied! And may one hundred women nurse a child, but let it not be satisfied! This matter of fact may be taken to indicate that ʔal- by itself expresses both the volitive and the negative meaning of the clause. This is also indicated by the use of ʔal- to negate nominal clauses that are volitive, see (159). Therefore, when ʔal- negates what looks like yvqtvlu in (165), ʔal- suffices as indicator of the prohibition. 7.8.1 Excursus on ʔalAn analysis of Schwiderski’s (2008: 37–38) concordance and Folmer’s (1995: 499–507) investigation reveals that the morpheme ʔl /ʔal-/ is attested in the inscriptions from Sefire (e.g. 163) and Hamath (the Zakkur stelae, Zak(8):1.13) near Aleppo, the Deir Alla plaster text from Transjordan, the Assur Ostracon (AssOstr(7):17, quoted in n. 50 on p. 209) from Southern Babylonia, the inscriptions from Tell Fekheriye (e.g. 168) in Eastern Syria, Bukan (see the examples quoted in n. 46 on p. 208 and 470) in Azerbaijan, Daskyleion (Daskyleion:1(5):4, quoted in 164) in Asia Minor, and Zinçirli in Sam’alian (e.g. 167). ʔl is also attested in the texts found in Egypt, including the Aḥiqar text (both the 56  For other instances of ʔl in the Fekheriye inscription, see Fakh(9):19, Fakh(9):22, and Fakh(9):23.

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

213

proverbs and the framework),57 the Arsham correspondence, the Yedaniah archive, private letters in ostraca, and on papyri, the Hermopolis papyri, and the Saqqara papyri.58 At some point in history, however, ʔal- became obsolete. For Western Aramaic, Beyer (1984) traces the obsolescence of ʔal- in Qumran Aramaic, cf. Beyer (1984: 472): “Der Jussiv wird schon vor Christi Geburt durch das (Lang-) Imperfekt und die negation ʔal durch lā ersetzt.”59 It should be noted, nevertheless, that some Hasmonaean texts are copies of traditional literature and may have been composed earlier, and in Gzella’s (2015: 233) view, the use of ʔal- in Hasmonaean may be an archaism in the literary language.60 Indeed, the references to Hasmonaean ʔl in Beyer’s (1984: 510; 1994: 307; 2004: 346) glossaries are all found in Biblical Aramaic texts (Dan 5:10, 4Q112), apocrypha (the Genesis Apocryphon, the Testament of Levi, the Testament of Qahat, the Book of Giants), sapiential texts (4Q569), and targums (Tobit), and not in the private documents (Privaturkunden). At the same time, Beyer (1984: 615; 1994: 369; 2004: 425) lists some examples where lʔ is apparently used in lieu of ʔl, as in a Bar-Kokhba letter (ySK 1:16, apud Beyer 1984: 351) w-lʔ tbsrwn l-mḥd yt syph dy ʕlwy ‘do not neglect to seize his sword.’ As a matter of fact, lā negating the prefix conjugation in what can be interpreted as a volition is also attested in the Teima inscription from Arabia: (169) Teima:1(5):22 w-ʔlhn w-ʔnš lʔ yhn[p]q/l (or: yhns) l-ṣlmšzb br pṭsry mn bytʔ znh w-l-[zr]ʕh w-šmh k-mryʔ byt znh l-[ʕ]l[m(ʔ)] Gods and men must/may not remove Ṣlmšzb, son of Pṭsry, from this house, or his offspring or his name, as priests of this house. In Folmer’s (1995: 361) view, “the negative adverb lʔ probably negates a firm, categorical statement” in (169).61 However, it is not uncommon to express similar prohibitions as volitions rather than statements, and to negate them 57  For fragmentary attestations of ʔl in Aḥiqar, see C:1.1(5):147+192. ʔl in C:1.1(5):155 w-ʔl pmy and C:1.1(5):156 ʔl pm is likely to be identified with a preposition. 58  With one possible exception (Folmer 1995: 503 and n. 877), there are no attestations of ʔl in the legal documents from Egypt. At the same time, lʔ yqtl is common in these texts as can be expected from the association of lā yvqtvlu with legalese. 59  See also Beyer (1984: 152): “Die letzten Beispiele für den Jussiv und für ʔal ‘nicht!’ bietet das Hasmonäische (bis 37 v. Chr.).” 60  Gzella (2009: 67) also indicates that the preservation of ʔal- in Hasmonaean vis-à-vis the rest of contemporary Aramaic may be due to Hebrew influence. 61  The reading of the negated verb is not obvious. Gibson (1975: 149) and Donner and Röllig (KAI5 228:21) read yhn[pq] but Stein (2014: 225) reads [y]hns. Since the verb form is not

214

Chapter 7

with ʔal- in the languages where it is available. A marked volitive form in the affirmative is indeed found in the same inscription, Teima:1(5):14 ʔlhy tymʔ ynsḥwhy ‘may the gods of Tymʔ remove him.’ It cannot be excluded, therefore, that the clause negated by lʔ is in fact volitive and that lā is encroaching on the functional domain of ʔal-. The encroachment of lā on ʔal- to negate volitions is complete in Western Middle Aramaic. For Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Schultess (1924: 58) and Müller-Kessler (1991: 139) only mention lʔ and note that it is also used for the prohibitive. For Samaritan Aramaic, Tal (2013 §9.4.6) notes that “although in most instances lʔ functions as prohibitive, occasionally ʔl plays this role too: ʔl ybʕš b-ʕynyk ‘let it not be grievous in your sight’ (Gen 21:12); ʔl tdʕl ‘do not fear’ (Gen 46:3).” It should be noted, however, that another manuscript has lʔ ybʔš and lʔ tdʕl at these points according to the apparatus criticus (Tal 1980: 71, 198), and a third manuscript has l-ybʕš at Gen 21:12 (Tal 1980: 71).62 Macuch (1982 §126a, b) suggests that l- /æl/ ‘so that not’ is an abbreviation of /ʔæl-/ < *ʔal-. It cannot be ruled out, however, that l- is abbreviated from (or an error for) lā. Very rarely is ʔl found in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic texts.63 While it is notably absent from Palestinian Targumic, ʔl is attested as a variant to lʔ in Targum Onqelos and Targum Jonathan. For example, Ex 20:16 w-lʔ (ytmll) in Targum Onqelos has a variant w-ʔl in another manuscript (Sperber 1959–1973, 1: 123), and 1 Kgs 18:40 lʔ (yštyzb) in Targum Jonathan has a variant ʔl (Sperber 1959– 1973, 2: 260).64 Sokoloff (1990: 58b) also notes the occurrence of ʔl in Leviticus Rabbah but it is extremely rare. Very rarely is ʔl also found in ‘Late Jewish Literary Aramaic,’ e.g. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen 22:12 (apud Clarke 1984: 24) ʔl twšyṭ.65 At the same time, ʔl is not found in original manuscript archival texts nor epigraphic texts. Therefore, when ʔl should not be identified not with an error for lʔ, its occurrence in religious compositions in Jewish Aramaic, including Targum Onqelos, marked by afformatives, the subject must be understood as (collective) singular (cf. e.g. 162 ʔlhyʔ ysgh ‘the gods proceed’). 62  Macuch’s (1982 §126) references to ʔl at Gen 44:18 and Ex 3:5 again have the variant reading lʔ in another manuscript (see Tal 1980: 191, 227). 63  The morpheme ʔal- is not mentioned by Dalman ([1894] 1905). 64  Furthermore, Targum Jonathan, 2 Kgs 18:30 w-lʔ (yrḥyṣ) has a variant reading w-ʔl (Sperber 1959–1973, 2: 314) and Targum Jonathan, Jer 46:27 lʔ (tdḥl) has a variant reading w-ʔl (Sperber 1959–1973, 3: 241). 65  See also Psalms 69:18 w-ʔl tstlq (apud Lagarde 1873: 39) vs. w-lʔ tslq (apud Merino 1982: 129) and Psalms 143:2 ʔl tyʕwl (apud Merino 1982: 187) vs. w-lʔ tʕwl (apud Lagarde 1873: 82). For Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, see Kaufman (2013).

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

215

Targum Jonathan, and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, can possibly be identified with an archaism of a literary style that goes back to Hasmonaean times.66 The fate of ʔal- is connected with the fate of yvqtvl and yvqtvlu, and the obsolescence of ʔal- coincides with the obsolescence of yvqtvl, which in turn coincides with the modalization of yvqtvlu. It could be argued that the obsolescence of yvqtvl would have prompted the extension of ʔal- to negate yvqtvlu when the prohibition was intended to target speaker-oriented modality. However, at some point in history, lā yvqtvlu must have been understood as a more informative means to express the prohibition, and hence ousted ʔal-yvqtvl (as lā iparras, the negated imperfective, ousts the vetitive in Old Babylonian). The morpheme ʔal- also disappears from Eastern Aramaic, and its obsolescence is again tied up with the fate of yvqtvlu. At some point in the history of Eastern Aramaic, the prefix y- of 3rd person masculine yvqtvlu was replaced by l-/n-. Drijvers and Healey (1998: 30), for example, found that inscriptions from Edessa pre-dating the year 200 CE attest to the prefix y-, while l-/n- is used in younger inscriptions. It is reasonable to assume that the prefix y- of yvqtvlu was replaced by l-/n- in analogy to the prefix l- of * lvqtvl < *la-yvqtvl, prompted by a convergence in meaning of yvqtvlu and lvqtvl: In Eastern Middle Aramaic, the prefix conjugation is used both for future time and for clauses with volitive meaning.67 In the following Old Syriac inscription, for example, lā negates the prefix conjugation with a directive meaning typically expressed by ʔal-yvqtvl in other Northwest Semitic funerary inscriptions: As20:4 (apud Drijvers and Healey 1998: 78) grmy mn ʔwznʔ lʔ tzyʕ “Do not remove my bones from the sarcophagus” (tr. Drijvers and Healey).68 This convergence in meaning of yvqtvlu and lvqtvl is probably prompted by the rise of qātil as a new imperfective grammatical morpheme. As lvqtvl (yvqtvlu) acquired modal functions, a push effect prompted by the rise of qātil, it encroached on functions previously associated with lvqtvl (la-yvqtvl). In this way, lā lvqtvl also replaced ʔal-yvqtvl. Bar-Asher Siegal (2013: 226), for example, notes only lʔ (and lʔw) for Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and there is no lemma ʔal- in Sokoloff’s (2002) dictionary. To be sure,

66  See Fassberg (2010) and Gzella (2015: 208, 307) for other common features. 67  See Rubin (2007) for a review of alternative explanations on the background of l-/n-. 68  For other instances of lʔ in Old Syriac where ʔl may be expected, see Bs2:7+8 (apud Drijvers and Healey 1998: 193–194) kprʕ lʔ yhwʔ lh […] w-bnyʔ d-yrmwn ʕprʔ ʕl ʔynwhy lʔ yštkḥwn lh ‘may he have no tomb […] and may there not be (found) for him sons who throw dust over his eyes.’ At one point, lʔ negates a nominal predicate in what seems to be a volitive clause: As20:5 (apud Drijvers and Healey 1998: 78) mn d-nzyʕ grmy ḥrtʔ lʔ hwʔ lh ‘he who removes my bones, may he have no afterlife.’

216

Chapter 7

there are no attestations of ʔal- in Eastern Neo-Aramaic either, where the prefix conjugations themselves are gone. 7.9

Western Neo-Aramaic

While qvtvla, yvqtvlu, and qvtvl are retained in Western Neo-Aramaic, there are two verbal grammatical morphemes in these dialects that are not productive in Old Aramaic or Official Aramaic. These are a new present, formed of the pronominal prefix + qātil, and a new resultative, formed of the pronominal prefix + qtīl for transitive verbs, and the pronominal prefix + qattīl for intransitive verbs (Arnold 1990: 76; 1999). While qātil has been completely verbalized and is the new inflected imperfective base, the old imperfective yvqtvlu is jussive/subjunctive (Table 2). As to the negative counterparts, lā/la negates the preterite (qvtvla) and the subjunctive (yvqtvlu). However, the standard negator of the present and the perfect, which are innovative formations, is ču/čū, Baxʕa ću/ćū (Arnold 1990: 397).69 Table 2

Verbal negation in Western Neo-Aramaic a

Affirmative Negative

Preterite

Subjunctive

Present

Perfect

iqtal lā iqtal

yiqtul lā yiqtul

qōtel ču qōtel

iqtel/qattel ču iqtel/qattel

a See Arnold (1999) for a synopsis of the verbal system.

7.9.1 Negative lā The negated preterite, lā iqtal, is the negative counterpart to affirmative iqtal. This is indicated by the following example: (170)

NW4 4.130 izʕaḳ bē, la aḥref aʕle. ḳarreb, žarʕil ḥōle w ḳarreb aʕle He called on it, (but) it did not answer. He approached, he encouraged himself, and approached it.

69  Ma’lula /č/ corresponds to Baxʕa /ć/, e.g. Ma’lula hačč(i) ‘you’ (2nd msg) vs. Baxʕa haćć ‘you’ (2nd msg), cf. Arnold (1990: 12).

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

217

In contrast to ču maḥref, which is used after affirmative qōtel (cf. the discussion to 175), lā aḥref is used after affirmative iqtal.70 From a thematic point of view, la aḥref in (170) can be understood as a situation on the main-line, since its non-occurrence prompts the subsequent events. This is also the case in the following example: (171)

NW4 3.20 šattril ḥarsōye yayṯunna b-ōḳ ḳūṯa. yawse la irəs yapplēlun, ḳōymin ḳaṭlille He sent his guards to bring it by force. Joseph did not want to give it to them, (so) they stood up and beat him.

As in (170), the situation that results from Joseph’s not wanting is expressed by the present forms ḳōymin and ḳaṭlille, and this situation inherits its past time reference from the preceding negated preterite. A lā iqtal clause that is subsequent to a preceding iqtal sometimes assumes the notion of result. In this case, the state of affairs may be understood as circumstantial to a preceding clause, e.g. NW4 4.10 hanna ebər malka, ḳiršōyəl aybin aṣərfannun, la aṣəf ʕemme mett ‘this son of the king gave them the money which he had, (until) nothing remained with him.’71 Syndeton, in turn, is used for concomitant non-events, for example:72 (172)

NW4 2.37 ṭamraččil lōġ ġurnōyṯa w lā amraṯ l-barnaš She hid the jar without telling anyone.

The clauses in (172) constitute the narrative counterpart to the direct speech in NW4 2.36 nīḳu nṭumrell lōġ ġurnōyṯa w la nīmar l-barnaš ‘let us hide the jar without telling anyone.’ The negated clause expresses a situation which accompanies the preceding one.73

70  For asyndetic la aḥref following a preterite, see also NW4 4.160 ṣappaḥ aʕla, la aḥərfaṯ aʕle, NW4 4.161 sallem aʕla, la aḥərfaṯ aʕle, NW4 4.248 afṭar w ḥakīna la-ḥərfaṯ aʕle, NW4 4.249 ṣappḥaṯ aʕle, la aḥref aʕla, and NW4 4.250 ḥakačče, la aḥref aʕla. Asyndetic la aḥref follows direct speech in NW4 4.86, 4.166 (quoted in example 176), and 4.174. 71  See also NW4 4.222 and NW4 4.324. 72  See also NW4 4.74 and NW4 4.178. 73  A negated predicate in a syndetic clause, as also in asyndetic clauses (cf. example 171) is not necessarily clause-initial, e.g. NW4 4.81 ṯōle ašṭar mennax baḥar, ṯōle azka mennax baḥar w xullun la aḳtar yišwun ʕemma metti ‘many more skillful than you have come, and many more wise than you have come, without anyone having been able to do anything to her.’

218

Chapter 7

The negative adverb lōmar, a merger of lā amar (Spitaler 1938 §115e), negates the subjunctive (Arnold 1990: 397). If the subject is expressed, it precedes lōmar, and a following syndetic predicate is also in the form of the subjunctive, e.g. NW4 3.22 ġazalīṯa lōmar čkarreb w lā čīxul ‘but the deer did not approach, and neither did it eat.’ In contrast to lā iqtal, lōmar yiqtul is marked for contrast. Example (170) above may be contrasted with NW4 4.175 ḳʕalla msallma aʕla, lōmar čaḥref aʕla ‘she sat (down) and greeted it, but it did not answer her.’74 In conditional linkings with lōla, the predicate of the antecedent is the subjunctive, and the predicate of the consequence clause is the preterite, e.g. NW4 4.152 lōla nṣalli ana la ṯiḳnaṯ bini ōtam ‘if I had not prayed, she would not have been a person.’75 lōla is the negative counterpart to affirmative yīb, which is followed by the present, e.g. NW4 4.326 yīb nmaḳətra nisbuḥ ‘if I could swim.’ The prohibition is regularly expressed by the negated subjunctive, e.g. NW4 4.16 amilli: la čbayyninnu ʕal-ibriš ‘he said to me: “Do not show it to your son!” ’76 It is also attested in the 3rd person, e.g. NW4 4.37 la yīxul ‘may he not eat.’ For the 1st person, cf. NW4 2.36 (quoted under 172). This construction, historically corresponding to lā yvqtvlu, has conventionalized its modal implications to the extent that it has replaced the old construction ʔal-yvqtvl. Although negative lā generally precedes the verb, it may also precede the subject, e.g. NW4 4.305 lā ḳzōza maḥki w lā ḳmōša maḥki w lā xēfa mahək ‘neither glass speaks, nor does fabric speak, nor does stone speak.’ Since the unmarked negator of the present is ču, lā in this example must be understood as a constituent negator. For w lā negating nominal constituents, see also example (173) and n. 83 on p. 221. It is worth pointing out that lā can be used to negate the present and the perfect in emphatic negative coordination of the type lā … lā ‘neither … nor.’ In other words, although the unmarked negator of the innovative verbal grammatical morphemes is ču, negative lā is called for in this specific environment. This construction is similar to the use of wa-lā in Arabic negating qvtvla and yvqtvl.

74  In a similar sense, lōfaš < lā afaš (*pwš ‘remain’) and lōrkaʕ < lā arkaʕ (Spitaler 1938 §§113h, 115d; Arnold 1990: 194–196), are marked for temporal quantification, corresponding to ‘no longer, no more.’ Temporal anteriority, in turn, may be expressed by ḳayya ‘yet,’ e.g. NW4 4.203 bnōyəḏ ḏōḏ ḳayya la ṯōlun ‘my cousins have not yet come.’ Other times, the notion of ‘before’ may be simply inferred from the context, see e.g. NW4 4.385. 75  See also NW4 4.150, 151, 237, 238, 239, and 352. 76  See also NW4 4.5, 4.66, and 4.81.

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

219

It may be pointed out, finally, that lā is also the regular pro-sentential negator.77 7.9.2 Negative ču The form of the negator of the present and the perfect is regularly ču. čū with long ū is quite common in the construction čū žōyez (NW4 4.155, 4.156, 4.295, and 4.296). However, ču žōyez also occurs (NW4 2.241, and NW4 2.242 ču žōyez). The length of the vowel is presumably subject to prosody, much like lā varies with la. In the texts collected by Prym and Socin in 1869, and eventually published by Bergsträsser (1915), there is also a negative či. Nöldeke (1917–1918: 218) tentatively suggests that čū̆ is a compound of či + hū. However, či is restricted to occur before /n/, /č/, and /š/, as pointed out by Spitaler (1938 §115f), and is easier to explain as phonetically conditioned. In NW4, či is attested in the form činya (e.g. NW4 4.301), a phonetically eroded form of ču nyaḏḏaʕ ‘I do not know.’ Most of the time, ču is used for the negation of qōtel and iqtel.78 The negated present is symmetric to the affirmative present, e.g. NW4 4.251 ext ʕemmil ebər malka čmaḥki w ʕimmi ču čmaḥki ‘why will you speak with the son of the king, and (why) won’t you speak with me?’ The use of the present in a question seems to invite a modal inference, which may be contrasted with the progressive in (174). Negated qōtel sometimes corresponds to the imperfective, for example: (173)

NW4 4.100 hōḏi ču yōḏʕa, la kayyes wala maḳref This one does not know, neither good nor bad.

While the subjunctive negated by lā is the common means to express a prohibition, the present negated by ču sometimes lends itself to secondary speech act illocution, e.g. NW4 4.355 ana mann napplēle! lā, hašš ču čmapplōle! ‘(the dog said:) “I want to give it to him!” (They said:) “No, you must not give it to him!” ču is also used to negate the progressive, which is made up of the present marked by the prefix ʕam-, for example:79

77  For lā as a pro-sentential negator, see NW4 2.4+4+4, 5, 22, 47 and NW4 4.99, 120, 156, 242, 282, 283, 284, 355, and 356. 78  For additional instances of the negated present not further discussed below, see NW4 1.3, 1.21, 2.5, 2.21, 3.16, 3.18, 4.73, 4.99, 4.215, and 4.284. 79  See also NW4 1.6 and 4.176.

220 (174)

Chapter 7

NW4 4.261 wuš ʔaya ču ʕačmaḥəkya Why are you not talking to me?

While qōtel in the preceding examples is used for the non-past, it is sometimes also used with past time reference. This is common with the verb *ḥrf C ‘answer’ in the narrative sections of the texts, for example:80 (175)

NW4 4.139 ḳʕōle zōʕeḳ bē—ču maḥref aʕle He sat down, called on him (but) he did not answer.

In (175), ḳʕōle is preterite, while the following predicates are qōtel. In this fashion, ču maḥref is used symmetrically to the preceding affirmative participle. In direct speech, however, the meaning is again the imperfective, e.g. NW4 4.180 nimḥakēla ču maḥəfra [sic] aʕli ‘I talk with her, but she does not answer.’81 The negated participle is used symmetrically to the affirmative participle, and the context determines their temporal reference. While the direct speech of NW4 4.180 lends the participle a non-past time reference, the narrative context in NW4 4.171 mḥakēla, ču maḥərfa ‘he spoke to her, (but) she did not answer’ lends the participles a past time reference. In this way, lā iqtel may alternate with ču qōtel, as in the following example: (176) NW4 4:168+168 iʕber, amella: nimmassīš p-xayra yā berčil malka! la aḥərfaṯ aʕle. ex čība? ču maḥərfa aʕle. He entered (and) said to her: “Good evening, O daughter of the king!” (But) she did not answer him. (He said:) “How are you?” She did not answer him. The negated perfect is in fact not very common in the corpus. An example includes NW4 1.13 liʔannu ču yaḏḏeʕ mō ōṯ b-leppe ‘because he did not know what was in it.’82 Since the perfect is often resultative, it may tentatively be assumed that the speaker, rather than negating a situation which results from an anterior state of affairs, negates the non-occurrence of the state of affairs by recourse to the preterite. It should be noted, finally, that ču is not only used as the unmarked negator of the present and the perfect, but is also used for non-standard negation. 80  For other instances of ču maḥərfa, see also NW4 4.80, 90, 92, 170, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 265, and 267. 81  See also NW4 4.279. 82  See also NW4 4.95.

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

221

It is used, for example, to negate īṯ/ōṯ ‘there is,’ with which it merges into čūṯ ‘there is not’ (Arnold 1990: 185).83 Furthermore, ču is used for the negation of the copula ōb.84 The predicative is often a prepositional phrase, e.g. NW4 4.58 ču čōb b-anna suʔōla bnawb ‘you are not (concerned) with this matter at all.’85 Elsewhere, čūb is used for contrastive negation, a typical feature of non-standard negators, e.g. NW4 3.27 čūp xulle mett čmaḳtar čzubnenne p-ḳiršō ‘it is not everything (that) you can buy with money,’ as a form of a cleft sentence (cf. e.g. Ge’ez ʔalbo).86 Moreover, ču is also used for the negation of prepositional phrases, e.g. NW4 4.192 w ṯlaṯinnun ču ʕimmayhun ḳiršō ‘the three had no money,’ which may be compared to the use of čūṯ in NW4 5.21 ḳʕōle hanna, čūṯ ʕemme ḳiršō ‘he sat there, he had not gold.’87 Parisot (1898b: 517) points out that ču also negates the adjective to express privation, e.g. hanna qalmā ču-manfaʕ ‘this pen is useless’ (Parisot 1898c: 160). The privative meaning is also at hand when ču negates ḥayl-, the meaning of which, as pointed out by Arnold (1990: 197), is ‘unable, sick,’ as in the following example:88 (177)

NW4 3.28 ebər malka ču batte ġazalīṯa ču ḥayla The king’s son does not want a sick deer.

Ḥayl- is inflected like a noun with pronominal suffixes, e.g. ḥaylax ‘you (2nd msg) are able,’ ḥayle ‘he is able,’ ḥayle ‘she is able.’ Adjectives, in turn, are 83  See e.g. NW4 1.1 čūṯ šunīṯa aḥla menna b-ʕōlma ‘there did not exist anyone more beautiful than her in the world.’ See also NW4 1.17, 4.70, 4.134, 4.272, 4.66 (čūṯ lzōma), and 4.306. When īṯ/ōṯ is followed by the preposition l-, it merges with it, e.g. īle ‘there is to him’ (Arnold 1990: 185), and its negative counterpart is čūle, see e.g. NW4 4.1 w hanna malka īle ebra, ġōl aʕle baḥar w čūle ġayre ‘this king had a son, very precious unto him, (because) he had no one else.’ See also NW4 1.3, 1.8, and 4.62. Čūṯ can also be used for the negation of possession in collocation with ġappi, as in NW4 3.3 čuṯ ġappi w lā loʕəpṯa ‘I do not even have one toy.’ Note that w lā is used here in order to express emphatic negation. 84   Ču is also used for the negation of batte ‘want’ (Arnold 1990: 192–193). The negation of batte is symmetric, in the sense that the negation is expressed by ču batte, e.g. NW4 4.282 amelle: lā, ču bann nʔahhlennax ‘he said to her: “No, I do not want to marry you”.’ See also NW4 3.16, 3.28 (quoted in 177), 4.357, 4.363, and 4.366. The verboid can perhaps be derived from Arabic bi-waddī or Aramaic bəʕī d- ‘it is desired that,’ cf. Cohen (1979: 226 n. 1). 85  See also NW4 2.41 and 4.76. 86  See also NW4 2.4, 4.281, and 4.293. 87  See also NW4 4.222 ču ʕimm mett bnawb ‘I have nothing at all (banawb).’ 88  See also NW4 4.238 inni ču ḥayla, ʕammoyṯa ‘she is sick, she is dying.’

222

Chapter 7

inflected like verbs.89 For an expression like bišnīṯa fḳīra, only context determines whether fḳīra is a verb (perfect), ‘the girl is poor,’ or an adjective, ‘poor girl’ (Arnold 1990: 363). This also seems to hold for negated expressions, e.g. NW4 4.55 bessi uppe šaġəlṯa eḥḏa ču ḥalya ‘but there was a thing which was not beautiful.’ In other words, the use of ču as a negator of the present and the perfect cannot be separated from its function as a negator of adjectives. 7.9.3 Historical Background of ču As to the origin of ču, Parisot (1898b: 503 n. 1) compares it to Kurdish and (Eastern) Neo-Aramaic ču.90 With regard to Kurdish, Sorani (Central Kurdish) či is an interrogative pronoun ‘what,’ e.g. (Sulaymaniyah) ba či dardē giriftārī “with what ill art thou troubled?” (Mackenzie 1961: 69) and an indefinite determiner ‘what(-ever), which(-ever)’ (Blau 1980: 91). Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish) tu (or ču) is also used as a determiner, e.g. in collocation with the pronoun kes ‘someone’ as in ez tu-kesî nas na-kim [I tu-pron know neg-make.1sg] ‘I do not know anyone.’ It can also be used pronominally, e.g. ez tu nizanim [I tu neg-know.1sg] ‘I do not know anything’ (Bedir-Khan and Lescot 1986: 206). It should be pointed out that the predicate is also negated in this construction. Ču is also borrowed into Eastern Neo-Aramaic, as noted by Nöldeke (1868: 168). Likewise, tə- in Ṭuroyo, e.g. l-uxliwayna tə-mede ‘we have not eaten anything at all’ (Jastrow 1992: 45) can be explained as borrowed from Kurmanji tu rather than ču. For the dialect of Barwar, Khan (2008, 1: 553–554) points out that ču is used as a determiner and that it is restricted to co-occur with negated predicates, e.g. čù pəlxána la-pálxət ʔáti “you shall do no work.” Nöldeke (1868 §172) also noted that ču can be used for emphatic negation, e.g. lā meṣeḵ d-ʕabdaḵ ču məndi “wir sind nicht im Stande, irgend ein Ding zu thun” (1868: 351). As a matter of fact, ču may also be used as a negative determiner in a nonnegated clause, e.g. ʔiqara d-qodiša d-ʔilaha ʕal ʔarʕa ʔaḵ ču məndi-le ‘the glory of the holy God on earth is like no thing’ (Nöldeke 1868: 351).

89  Cf. the pertinent remark by Cohen (1979: 228): “Une telle conjugaison à base nominale n’est pas propre, il importe de le souligner, aux seuls participes en fonction prédicative. Les prédicats adjectivaux peuvent être traités exactement de la même façon et, dans les textes utilisés ici, ils le sont de façon constante.” 90  Spitaler (1938: 125) and Nöldeke (1917–1918: 218) remain agnostic about the etymology of ču. Littmann (1926: 806) supposes *tmm, and compares it to negative tm in Egyptian (cf. n. 5 on p. 364). Correll’s (1974) suggestion, that ču < *lā + ʔīṯ, remains difficult on account of the drastic phonetic reduction implied.

Aramaic, Deir Alla, and Sam ’ alian

223

Brockelmann (GVG 1 §19) assumed that ču in Western Neo-Aramaic was borrowed from Eastern Neo-Aramaic: “Auf einem älteren historischen Zusammenhang mit den östlichen Dialekten weist die Entlehnung der kurdischen Negation čū (eigentlich ‘etwas’) die nur durch Vermittelung der Ostaramäer nach Maʕlūla gekommen sein kann.” A connection to the linguistic area of Eastern Neo-Aramaic was in fact maintained by the villagers of Ma’lula themselves, as reported by Parisot (1898a: 270): “D’áprès leurs traditions, ǧaddan ʕan ǧaddin, les habitants de ce village et des lieux avoisinants seraient des émigrés du pays de Sendjar. Ils disent qu’à une époque ancienne, leurs ancêtres voulant se soustraire aux vexations des musulmans qui avaient envahi la partie septentrionale de la Mésopotamie, auraient traverśe l’Euphrate et le désert de la Palmyrène, pour se réfugier définitivement sur les hauts plateaux de la Syrie orientale, à trois cents lieues de leur pays d’origine.” Later on, Brockelmann (1940: 192; 1964: 157) suggested that ču was not borrowed from speakers of Eastern Neo-Aramaic, but immediately from speakers of Kurdish who travel through Antilibanon to Tripolis for trade. To be sure, Kurdish presence in Syria and Lebanon goes back to at least before the crusades of the 11th century (Nazdar 1993: 196–198; Vanly 1992: 114, 129). The Kurdish origin of this morpheme seems plausible. In fact, indefinites are likely candidates for borrowing, since they are used by speakers to entrust relevant information to the addressee (Matras 2009: 198–199; 2011: 220). The borrowing of such morphemes into Aramaic is also exemplified by hič in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic, which is related to Farsi heč. Like ču, it is used as a determiner in negated clauses in Barwar “by some speakers” (Khan 2008, 1: 553–554), e.g. híč xa-náša lá-maṣe meθéla Bə́lbəl Hazàr “nobody could bring back Bəlbəl Hazar.”91 It is therefore reasonable to assume that ču was borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic, either from one of the Eastern Neo-Aramaic languages, or from Kurdish, as an indefinite pronoun (‘something’), perhaps limited to scale reversal contexts (‘anything’), or as a negative determiner ‘any’ (n-any), that could be used as a scale reversal item ‘at all’ in scale reversal contexts like rhetorical questions. For example, the set phrase činya ‘whatnot,’ derived from ču nyaḏḏaʕ ‘I do not know,’ is likely to have developed from the rhetorical question ‘do I know anything?’ or ‘could I at all know?’ i.e. before ču was reanalyzed as a negator, cf. the discussion on Aramaic m(n)dʕm in relation to A:2.5(6/5):4 quoted on p. 198. 91  Farsi heč is also borrowed into Eastern Greek, e.g. xič na fágou psōmí rén éxou ‘I have not a piece of bread to eat,’ and into Turkish, and can be used for emphatic negation, e.g. oraya hič git-me-di-k [there hič go-neg-pst-1pl] “we have never gone there” (Schaaik 1994: 47).

Chapter 8

Quran Arabic 8.1

Introduction

Verbal negators in Quran Arabic include lā, mā, and ʔin, as well as the negators derived from lā: lam and lan. Negative *ʔal-, on the other hand, is not known to Arabic. This chapter investigates the historical background of mā, lam, lan, and ʔin, and the obsolescence of lā qvtvla and ʔal-yvqtvl, as well as the functional distribution of lā/lam and mā. 8.2

Orthography of lā

The question of the formal background of Arabic lā is straightforward: does one reconstruct *lā or *laʔ? Based on the orthography of cognates with lā in other Semitic languages, Kaye (2007) reconstructs *laʔ to both Arabic and Proto-Semitic.1 The Arabic evidence includes forms like laʔ and laʔʔa in NeoArabic varieties, which in Kaye’s (2007: 597–598) views are original rather than secondary. Classical Arabic lā, on the other hand, is a relatively late development that resulted from the loss of ʔ and compensatory lengthening. It is true that the standard orthography of the negator, i.e. the Lam-Alif ligature, in early manuscripts could represent /laʔ/, because the use of Hamza to indicate the glottal stop is a late development. The fact that one finds {lā} and not {lāʔ} or {lʔ} would therefore indicate that *laʔ had become lā before the grapheme for Hamza was introduced. Based only on the internal evidence of Arabic, the reconstruction of *laʔ is equally possible as the reconstruction of *lā. However, it should be noted 1  Kaye (2007: 597) suggests that, apart from forms with ʔ in Neo-Arabic varieties, and Hebrew and Aramaic {lʔ}, Ancient South Arabian and Ge’ez evidence also supports this reconstruction. Evidence for a form lʔ in Ancient South Arabian, however, is not provided, and the Ge’ez lexeme ʔallā, mentioned by Kaye (2007: 597), does not indicate an original *laʔ (if the form really is to be connected with Syriac ʔellā rather than Greek allá, cf. CDG 17). Kaye (2007: 597–598) further concedes that Ugaritic l, Classical Arabic lā, and Akkadian lā do not support the reconstruction of *laʔ, but suggests that “the Akkadian graphemes might also represent an earlier pronunciation in a pre-Akkadian dialect or in early Akkadian with a final glottal stop before the general loss” (p. 598). However, the use of LA for a closed syllable is not supported by Sargonic Akkadian evidence (see section 3.1.2).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_009

Quran Arabic

225

that lā and its allomorphs with ʔ are typically pro-sentential negators when they occur in Neo-Arabic, e.g. Cairene Arabic laʔ, laʔʔa ‘no’ (Woidich 2006: 166–167) and Moroccan Arabic llaʔ ‘no way, absolutely not’ (Kaye 2007: 596). It is therefore likely that ʔ was added to lā when used interjectionally (cf. GVG 1 §37d: “der im Affekt gesprochenen Negation laʔ ‘nein”’), and hence that laʔ is secondary (it is also possible to reconstruct *lā for predicate negation and *lā�ʔ for pro-sentential negation). The reconstruction of *lā is also supported by negators like lam, since it is more economical to derive lam from *lā-mā� (see section 8.4.1) than from *lā� ʔ-mā�. The evidence from North Arabian languages also supports the reconstruction of *lā. A cognate with Arabic lā is possibly attested in Dedanitic JSLih 40:6 (apud Caskel 1954: 73, 92) f-lh yʕd ‘he did/will not return(?),’2 in which case the spelling lh may indicate a long vowel ā but not a glottal stop. 8.3

lā yvqtvlu in Declarative Main Clauses

The most frequent negator in the Quran is lā (Bergsträsser 1914: 38).3 In the corpus, lā is used as the unmarked negator of independent single clause sentences predicated by yvqtvlu, for example in direct speech:4 (178)

Q 2:124 qāla lā yanālu ʕahdī ẓ-ẓālimīna He said: “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”

Lā yvqtvlu is the symmetric negative counterpart to affirmative yvqtvlu, whether yvqtvlu refers to the present or to the future. The temporal reference of lā yvqtvlu is not always clear. The morphemes sa- and sawfa, which respectively occur 112 and 42 times in the Quran (Badawi and Haleem 2008: 412, 468), do not collocate with negative lā. There is, in other words, no symmetric negative counterpart to sa-yvqtvlu and sawfa yvqtvlu, and lā yvqtvlu may be regarded 2  The context is very damaged, but in comparison to Safaitic (Ma’ani and Sadaqah 2002: 253 no. 2:2) l-grmʔl bn sʕd bn qḥš w-bġy ʔh̬ h f-lm yʕd f-qṣf ‘by Grmʔl, son of Sʕd, son of Qḥš; he sought his brother but he did not return, and he was sad(?),’ it is tempting to compare lh yʕd with lm yʕd, in which case /lā/ negates narrative yvqtvl. Macdonald (2008: 212) opts for “he will not be threatened.” 3  According to Badawi and Haleem (2008: 832), it occurs “some 1723 times.” lam occurs “some 346 times” (Badawi and Haleem 2008: 850). 4  Q 2:285 possibly belongs here as well, although the direct speech is not indicated by a speech verb (which is not an uncommon phenomenon). However, as pointed out by Bergsträsser (1914: 41 n. 2), nufarriqu may be read yufarriqu in comparison with (181).

226

Chapter 8

as an asymmetric counterpart to them. On the other hand, reference to the future is sometimes indicated by context, e.g. Q 57:15 fa-l-yawma lā yuʔh̬ aḏu minkum fidyatun wa-lā min-a llaḏīna kafarū ‘on that day (viz. the last), ransom will not be taken from you, nor from those who have disbelieved,’ in which case fa-l-yawma indicates that the proposition regards the last day which lends the predicate a future time reference.5 The non-markedness of lā yvqtvlu also means that it allows for modal inferences. An example with epistemic modal inference is Q 9:92 qulta lā ʔaǧidu mā ʔaḥmilukum ʕalayhi ‘you said: “I cannot find something to carry you on”,’ and an example with deontic modal inference is Q 2:84 wa-ʔiḏ ʔah̬ aḏnā mīṯāqakum lā tasfikūna dimāʔakum wa-lā tuh̬ riǧūna ʔanfusakum min diyārikum ‘then we took your covenant: “You must not shed each other’s blood and you must not evict each other from your homes”.’ Irrelevant of the modality, the unmarked negator of yvqtvlu is lā in these cases. When deontic modality is at hand, lā yvqtvlu is used much like prohibitive ul iparras in Old Babylonian and lō yvqtvlu in Biblical Hebrew, i.e. a negated statement in the indicative is used to express a prohibition. On the other hand, 2nd person lā yvqtvlu in this sense is not very common. On the contrary, 2nd person lā yvqtvl, the unmarked expression of the prohibition, is used in texts of juridical nature as well (section 8.8). However, lā yvqtvlu is used in texts of juridical nature that describe general situations, as when the subject of the predicate is an entire clause, e.g. Q 4:19 yā ʔayyuhā llaḏīna ʔāmanū lā yaḥillu lakum ʔan tariṯū n-nisāʔa karhan ‘O you who have come to believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by force.’6 Lā yvqtvl and mā yvqtvlu are not used to this purpose. Lā yvqtvlu is also sometimes used as the asymmetric negative counterpart to qātil (as in Hebrew, cf. e.g. 123), which is in general not negated (but see n. 17 on p. 231), for example:7

5  Cf. Reuschel (1996: 241–251) for these markers. Future time is indicated by yawmaʔiḏin, fī l-ʔāh̬ irati or yawma l-qiyāmati in Q 3:77, 4:42, (182), and Q 2:174 (quoted in n. 40 on p. 245). See also Q 59:14, 2:275 (lā yaqūmūna ‘they will not stand up (i.e. on the day of judgment)’), 62:7, 33:17 (syndetic after direct speech), 2:225, and 5:89. This is also the case with lā yazālu (‘will not cease’) in Q 5:13, 9:110, and 22:55. The preceding clause may also be a noun clause with future time reference, e.g. Q 4:121 ʔulāʔika maʔwāhum ǧahannamu wa-lā yaǧidūna ʕanhā maḥīṣan ‘as to them, their refuge is/will be hell, and they will not (be able to) find an escape from it.’ See also Q 2:134+141 for wa-lā with future time reference after a noun clause. 6  See also Q 2:228, 2:229, 2:233, 2:286, 4:95, 5:100, 9:19, 33:52, 57:10, 59:20, and 65:7. See also n. 70 on p. 255. 7  See also Q 2:162, 3:88, 4:98, 5:54, and 33:18.

Quran Arabic

227

(179) Q 3:199 wa-ʔinna min ʔahli l-kitābi la-man yuʔminu bi-llāhi wa-mā ʔunzila ʔilaykum wa-mā ʔunzila ʔilayhim h̬ āšiʕīna li-llāhi lā yaštarūna bi-ʔāyāti llāhi ṯamanan qalīlan Certainly, from among the people of the book is he who comes to believe in Allah and what was revealed to you and what was revealed to them, while being submissive to Allah without changing the verses of Allah for a small price. In the preceding example, lā yaštarūna is the negative counterpart to h̬ āšiʕīna, both describing ‘he who comes to believe’ (man yuʔminu). Similarly in (181) lā nufarriqu bayna ʔaḥadin minhum wa-naḥnu lahu muslimūna ‘without making a distinction between any of them, and we being submitted to Him’, negative lā yvqtvlu is followed by a clause with affirmative qātil. 8.3.1 lā yvqtvlu in Clause Linkings It will be argued in section 8.5 that negative mā developed from the rhetorical question and therefore, that mā yvqtvlu is restricted to main line focal clauses. However, when lā yvqtvlu or wa-lā yvqtvlu is linked to a preceding clause, its semantic integration to that clause is not marked. In the following example, the two clauses with lā yvqtvlu appear to be coordinated:8 (180) Q 5:106 fa-yuqsimāni bi-llāhi ʔin-i rtabtum lā naštarī bihi ṯamanan walaw kāna ḏā qurbā wa-lā naktumu š-šahādata llāhi They will both swear by Allah if you (should) doubt: “We will not exchange it for a price, even if he should be a near relative, and we will not withhold the testimony of Allah.” In (180), both lā naštarī and wa-lā naktumu are of equal status, except that the latter is syndetic, and it would seem that both predicates constitute two commissive acts of equal status. If, however, lā yvqtvlu or wa-lā yvqtvlu follows another type of predicate than yvqtvlu, the negative clause seems to be

8  See also the Throne Verse (Q 2:255) yaʕlamu mā bayna ʔaydīhim wa-mā h̬ alfahum wa-lā yuḥīṭūna bi-šayʔin min ʕilmihi ʔillā bi-mā šāʔa ‘he knows what is before them and what is behind them, and/but they do not encompass anything of his wisdom except for what He wills.’ The relationship of wa-lā yuḥīṭūna to yaʕlamu may be that of contrast or addition. For wa-lā yvqtvlu syndetic to affirmative yvqtvlu, see also Q 4:49, 4:173, and 59:9.

228

Chapter 8

semantically non-main line (while syntactically independent). In the following example, asyndetic lā yvqtvlu follows affirmative qvtvla:9 (181) Q 3:84 ʔāmannā bi-llāhi wa-mā ʔunzila ʕalaynā wa-mā ʔunzila ʕalā ʔibrāhīma wa-ʔismāʕīla wa-ʔisḥāqa wa-yaʕqūba wa-l-ʔasbāṭi wa-mā ʔūtiya mūsā wa-ʕīsā wa-n-nabiyyūna min rabbihim lā nufarriqu bayna ʔaḥadin minhum wa-naḥnu lahu muslimūna We have come to believe in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord, without making a distinction between any of them, and we being submitted to Him. In (181), lā yvqtvlu expresses an action that is semantically subordinated to the matrix clause predicate ʔāmannā, such that it describes the nature of the belief. The same goes for syndetic wa-lā yvqtvlu, which follows a noun clause in the following example and is used as a reason clause: (182) Q 4:77 qul matāʕu d-dunyā qalīlun wa-l-ʔāh̬ iratu h̬ ayrun li-man-i ttaqā wa-lā tuẓlamūna fatīlan Say: “The enjoyment of the world is little, but the hereafter is good for him who has feared (Allah, because) you will not be harmed (even as much as) a thread. The semantic relationship of (wa-)lā yvqtvlu to a preceding clause is in other words not explicit. In the case of Q 4:84 fa-qātil fī sabīli llāhi lā tukallafu ʔillā nafsaka ‘so fight in the cause of Allah—you will not be held responsible except for yourself,’ asyndetic lā tukallafu following qvtvl may express either reason or result. In (183), lā yvqtvlu following qvtvla seems to be an asyndetic result clause:10 9  See also Q 2:136 and 2:285. See also (with syndeton) The Throne Verse (Q 2:255) wasiʕa kursiyyuhu s-samāwāti wa-l-ʔarḍa wa-lā yaʕūduhu ḥifẓuhumā ‘his throne extends the heavens and the earth, without that the preservation of both of them tires him.’ See also Q 2:119. For asyndetic lā yvqtvlu following other clause types, see Q 4:148, 9:10, 58:22, and 65:1. See also Q 2:279 wa-ʔin tubtum fa-lakum ruʔūsu ʔamwālikum lā taẓlimūna ‘if you repent, you will have your capital sums without being wronged’ with asyndeton. 10  For fa-lā yvqtvlu following a clause with a different predicate type, see e.g. Q 4:155 qulūbunā ġulfun bal ṭabaʕa llāhu ʕalayhā bi-kufrihim fa-lā yuʔminūna ʔillā qalīlan ‘(they say:) “Our hearts are wrapped.” On the contrary, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.’ See also Q 4:46.

Quran Arabic

229

(183) Q 2:17 ḏahaba llāhu bi-nūrihim wa-tarakahum fī ẓulumātin lā yubṣirūna 18ṣummun bukmun ʕumyun fa-hum lā yarǧiʕūna Allah went away with their light and left them in darkness (so) they could not see; deaf, dumb, blind, so they will not return. The same notion of result for asyndetic lā yvqtvlu after qvtvla is observed in Biblical Hebrew (for example 107) and Ugaritic (for example 76), cf. also Aramaic example (156). Lā yvqtvlu may also be coordinated with another predicate yvqtvlu that in turn is semantically subordinated to a preceding predicate: (184) Q 24:55 la-yubaddilannahum min baʕdi h̬ awfihim ʔamnan yaʕbudūnanī lā yušrikūna bī šayʔan (waʕada llāhu, Allah has promised that) He will surely substitute security for them after their fear, (because) they worship Me and (because) they do not associate anything with Me. In (184), lā yušrikūna and yaʕbudūna are used to describe the reasons behind Allah’s promise and as such they are coordinated. They are both, however, semantically subordinated to la-yubaddilannahum. By way of conclusion it should be noted that when (wa-)lā yvqtvlu follows (lā) yvqtvlu, both clauses are, as a rule, semantically coordinated. However, when (wa-)lā yvqtvlu follows a clauses with a different verbal grammatical morpheme, e.g. qvtvla or qvtvl, the degree of adverbial integration to that clause is higher. As will become clear, the background of mā yvqtvlu in the rhetorical question prevents it from such an integration. 8.3.2 X lā yvqtvlu It was noted in section 8.3.1 that when (wa-)lā yvqtvlu follows (lā) yvqtvlu, both clauses are as a rule semantically coordinated. However, when (wa-)lā yvqtvlu is to be semantically subordinated to a preceding yvqtvlu, the subject typically precedes it, e.g. Q 5:103 wa-lākinna llaḏīna kafarū yaftarūna ʕalā llāhi l-kaḏiba wa-ʔakṯaruhum lā yaʕqilūna ‘but those who disbelieve invent falsehood about Allah, since most of them do not reason’ (and also fa-hum lā in 183).11 This syntactic feature further separates lā yvqtvlu from mā yvqtvlu: lā, but not mā, is used to negate yvqtvlu in clauses with marked word order. For example, lā negates yvqtvlu whenever the subject precedes the negated predicate: 11  See also Q 2:272+272, 2:279, 2:281, 3:25, 3:161, 4:142, 8:56, 8:60+60, and 49:2.

230

Chapter 8

(185) Q 9:120 ʔinna llāha lā yuḍīʕu ʔaǧra l-muḥsinīna 121wa-lā yunfiqūna nafaqatan ṣaġīratan wa-lā kabīratan wa-lā yaqṭaʕūna wādiyan ʔillā kutiba lahum Indeed, Allah does not waste the reward of the doers of good, and they neither spend a small expenditure, nor a large one, nor cross a valley, without that it is registered for them. As above, this is always the case after ʔinna,12 but typically when a clause constituent is fronted also without a preceding ʔinna, e.g. Q 24:3 az-zānī lā yankiḥu ʔillā zāniyatan ‘the fornicator must not marry except a fornicator.’13 Furthermore, the subject precedes lā yvqtvlu in contrastive constructions, for example when one subject is contrasted with another subject:14 (186) Q 2:216 wa-ʕasā ʔan takrahū šayʔan wa-huwa h̬ ayrun lakum wa-ʕasā ʔan tuḥibbū šayʔan wa-huwa šarrun lakum wa-llāhu yaʕlamu wa-ʔantum lā taʕlamūna Perhaps you hate something (even though) it is good for you, or perhaps you love something (even though) it is bad for you; Allah knows, while you do not know. The subject reference may remain the same but the clause-initial position of the subject indicates a contrast to the preceding clause, e.g. Q 8:21 wa-lā

12  See also Q 2:26, 2:190, 3:5, 3:9, 3:32, 3:194, 4:36, 4:40, 4:48, 4:107, 4:116, 5:51, 5:67, 5:87, 8:58, 8:59, 9:96, 9:120, 22:38, 22:46, and 63:6. This is also the case after bal, e.g. Q 2:100 ʔa-wakullamā ʕāhadū ʕahdan nabaḏahu farīqun minhum bal ʔakṯaruhum lā yuʔminūna ‘is it not the case that every time they took a covenant, a party of them threw it away? On the contrary, most of them do not believe.’ Naturally then, lā negates predicates after lākinna, but also after lākin (unlike mā), e.g. Q 2:12 ʔa-lā ʔinnahum hum-u l-mufsidūna wa-lākin lā yašʕurūna ‘are they not really the corrupters? But they perceive it not?’ See also Q 2:13, 2:154, 2:243, 8:34, 63:7, and 63:8. 13  On one occasion, the object is topicalized: Q 4:11 ʔābāʔukum wa-ʔabnāʔukum lā tadrūna ʔayyuhum ʔaqrabu lakum ‘(as for) your parents and your children, you do not know which of them are nearest to you.’ 14  See also Q 2:232, 3:66, and 24:19. A common construction is wa-llāhu lā yvqtvlu in versefinal position, as a sort of refrain, e.g. Q 5:108 wa-ttaqū llāha wa-smaʕū wa-llāhu lā yahdī l-qawma l-fāsiqīna ‘fear Allah and obey, (because) Allah does not guide the disobedient people’. See also Q 2:205, 2:258, 2:264, 2:276, 3:57, 3:86, 3:140, 5:64, 9:19, 9:24, 9:37, 9:80, 9:109, 33:53, 57:23, 61:5, 61:7, and 62:5.

Quran Arabic

231

takūnu ka-llaḏīna qālū samiʕnā wa-hum lā yasmaʕūna ‘do not be as those who said: “We have heard,” (while) they (actually) did not hear (or: ‘do not hear’).’15 In emphatic negative coordination, lā sometimes precedes and negates the subject, whatever type of predicate, in the case of contrast, for example:16 (187) Q 60:10 fa-ʔin ʕalimtumūhunna muʔminātin fa-lā tarǧiʕūhunna ʔilā l-kuffāri lā hunna ḥillun lahum wa-lā hum yaḥillūna lahunna If you know them to be believers, do not return them to the disbelievers (because) neither are they lawful to them, nor are they lawful to them. In (187), lā negates the subject hunna (feminine plural) of a noun clause, as well as the subject hum (masculine plural) of a verbal clause. The position of lā before the subject marks them as contrasted with each other.17 It may also be noted that although the predicative of existential negation by means of lā is usually in the a-case (accusative), when a verbal clause wa-lā SUB VB follows an existential clause negated by lā, the predicative of the existential clause is in the u-case (nominative), e.g. Q 2:38 fa-ʔimmā yaʔtiyannakum minnī hudan fa-man tabiʕa hudāya fa-lā h̬ awfun ʕalayhim wa-lā hum yaḥzanūna ‘and whenever guidance comes to you from me, he who follows my guidance, neither will there be fear on them, nor will they grieve.’18 15  In contrastive constructions, the affirmative clause is asyndetic to a preceding negated clause, e.g. Q 9:101 lā taʕlamuhum naḥnu naʕlamuhum ‘you do not know them (but) we know them’ (see also Q 9:44, cf. 9:45). If the contrastive clause is negated, it is syndetic, e.g. Q 4:108 yastah̬ fūna min-a n-nāsi wa-lā yastah̬ fūna min-a llāhi ‘they conceal from the people, but they can/do not conceal from Allah’ (see also Q 2:185, 3:119, and 5:116). Such clauses may also be marked for result with fa- (cf. n. 10 on p. 228), e.g. Q 63:3 ḏālika bi-ʔannahum ʔāmanū ṯumma kafarū fa-ṭubiʕa ʕalā qulūbihim fa-hum lā yafqahūna ‘that is because they have believed, (and) then disbelieved; so it was sealed over their hearts so they do not understand.’ See also Q 2:18 (quoted in 183), 2:171, 9:87, and 9:93. 16  For other instances of lā negating the subject of a following verbal predicate, see also Q 2:48, 2:86, 2:162, and 3:88. 17  As a matter of fact, even though a predicate PREP + qātil is usually negated by laysa or mā, if the subject is contrasted with another subject, the clause with qātil is negated by lā, and the negator precedes the subject (constituent negation), e.g. Q 109:3+4+5 lā ʔaʕbudu mā taʕbudūna 3 wa-lā ʔantum ʕābidūna mā ʔaʕbudu 4 wa-lā ʔanā ʕābidun mā ʕabadtum 5 wa-lā ʔantum ʕābidūna mā ʔaʕbudu. For other instances of lā sub qātil in the Quran, although not in the corpus, see also Q 36:40 wa-lā l-laylu sābiqu n-nahāri and Q 31:33 wa-lā mawlūdun huwa ǧāzin ʕan wālidihi. 18  See also Q 2:62, 2:112, 2:262, 2:274, 2:277, 3:170, and 5:69. Bergsträsser (1914: 55 n. 6) tentatively suggests that the use of the nominative and nunation is due to the future meaning of the clause. In this respect it may be noted that while the a-case and nunation is

232

Chapter 8

8.4 Negative lam As is well known, lam is used to negate yvqtvl, the syntagm is used to express the negated past, and lam yvqtvl is one of few syntagms in which yvqtvl is nonvolitive in Arabic.19 This section investigates the use lam yvqtvl as the negative counterpart to qvtvla and provides an explanation for the negative asymmetry as well as the historical background of negative lam. The negative counterpart to a main line narrated by means of fa-qvtvla is fa-lam yvqtvl, as in the following example:20 (188) Q 66:10 ḍaraba llāhu maṯalan li-llaḏīna kafarū mraʔata nūḥin wa-mraʔata lūṭin kānatā taḥta ʕabdayni min ʕibādinā ṣāliḥayni fa-h̬ ānatāhumā falam yuġniyā ʕanhumā min allāhi šayʔan Allah presents an example to the disbelievers, (that of) the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They belonged under two righteous men of our servants, but then they betrayed them, so they (the prophets) did not avail them from Allah at all.

used in formalized expressions like marḥaban, the nominative may be used for modalized phrases like lā salāmun ‘may there not be peace’ (Reckendorf 1921: 118). According to Mubarrad, mentioned by Versteegh (1983: 179), the nominative is explained from an understood question. In Talmon’s (1999: 108 n. 2) view, wa-lā hum yaḥzanūna involves “negation of the person”: “they will not be sorry.” Likewise, the u-case is used in the case of emphatic negative coordination of existential clauses negated by lā, e.g. Q 2:254 ʔanfiqū mimmā razaqnākum min qabli ʔan yaʔtiya yawmun lā bayʕun fīhi wa-lā h̬ ullatun wa-lā šafāʕatun ‘spend from that which We have provided for you before there comes a day with no exchange, nor friendship, nor intercession.’ Lā is also used to negate predicative constituents in emphatic negative coordination (‘neither … nor’), e.g. Q 2:68 qāla ʔinnahu yaqūlu ʔinnahā baqaratun lā fāriḍun wa-lā bikrun ʕawānun bayna ḏālika ‘he (Moses) said that he (Allah) says that it is a cow neither old nor young, but in between that.’ See also Q 2:71, 4:143, and 24:35. 19  For examples of lam negating other parts of speech in other registers than Quran Arabic, see n. 542. 20  See also Q 8:17. For main line fa-qvtvla in the Quran, see Reuschel (1996: 31–36), and for Classical Arabic, see Isaksson (2009: 39–48). See also Q 9:25 la-qad naṣarakum-u llāhu fī mawāṭina kaṯīratin wa-yawma ḥunaynin ʔiḏ ʔaʕǧabatkum kaṯratukum fa-lam tuġni ʕankum šayʔan ‘Allah has indeed/already given you victory in many regions, even on the day of Ḥunayn; then your great number amazed you, but it did not avail you at all.’ For lam yvqtvl after ʔiḏ, see also Q 4:72, 24:13, and 58:13. Also yvqtvlu is used after ʔiḏ, e.g. Q 3:153 ʔiḏ tuṣʕidūna wa-lā talwūna ʕalā ʔaḥadin ‘at that time you were climbing without looking aside at anyone.’

Quran Arabic

233

In the narrative of the wives of Noah and Lot, introduced in example (188), the affirmative main line is narrated by fa-qvtvla ( fa-h̬ ānatāhumā) while the negative main line is narrated by lam yvqtvl ( fa-lam yuġniyā). To be sure, lam yvqtvl is not exclusively concerned with narration. The fact that lam yvqtvl is the negative counterpart to qvtvla is also indicated by the dialogue exchange in Q 49:14 qālat-i l-ʔaʕrābu ʔāmannā qul lam tuʔminū ‘the Arabs say: “We have come to believe,” say: “You have not come to believe”.’ The negative counterpart is in other words asymmetric to the affirmative main line. However, the formal switch between qvtvla and yvqtvl must not necessarily be interpreted as a signal of semantic subordination (cf. (wa-)lā yvqtvlu after qvtvla). Rather, the switch can be explained historically as a retention of negated yvqtvl, while the affirmative narrative exponent was renewed. The retention of a negated verbal grammatical morpheme, which results in a formal switch between negated and non-negated verbal grammatical morphemes, is also observed in e.g. Amharic yəqätl-all vs. negated a-yqätl(-əmm), see section 12.4, and in Middle Babylonian iptaras vs. negated ul iprus, see n. 60 on p. 84. Much like Hebrew wə-lō qvtvla functions as the negative counterpart to wayyiqtol, as well as a means to express negative accompanying actions, so is lam yvqtvl not always on the main line, but can also be used to express (non-) accompanying actions, e.g. Q 5:27 ʔiḏ qarrabā qurbānan fa-tuqubbila min ʔaḥadihimā wa-lam yutaqabbal min-a l-ʔāh̬ ari ‘then they both offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them but it was not accepted from the other.’21 In this case, wa-lam yutaqabbal is a contrastive clause to fa-tuqubbila and describes a concomitant situation to it. Non-main line lam yvqtvl may also be asyndetic in the case of subject switch as in Q 3:174 fa-nqalabū bi-niʕmatin min-a llāhi wa-faḍlin lam yamsashum sūʔun ‘they returned with favor from Allah and (with) bounty, without harm having touched them.’ At this point, the negative clause is asyndetic and circumstantial to the preceding one. The word order in a clause lam yvqtvl is usually VS and lam yvqtvl is in other words clause-initial with one exception, viz. Q 33:19 fa-ʔiḏā ḏahaba l-h̬ awfu salaqūkum bi-ʔalsinatin ḥidādin ʔašiḥḥatan ʕalā l-h̬ ayri ʔulāʔika lam yuʔminū ‘but when the fear left, they attacked you with sharp tongues, begrudged towards the good. As to them, they have not come to believe.’ In this case, ʔulāʔika is topicalized. The clause-initial position of the verbal grammatical morpheme yvqtvl is also observed in Hebrew, see section 5.9. It is true that lammā is dedicated to express negative anteriority (‘not yet’), but, as pointed out by Bergsträsser (1914: 13), lam yvqtvl may also be used in this sense, for example: 21  See also Q 5:41.

234

Chapter 8

(189) Q 33:20 yaḥsabūna l-ʔaḥzāba lam yaḏhabū  They regard the companies (as such that) they have not (yet) withdrawn. In the example above, lam yvqtvl is the predicate of a content clause to *ḥsb:22 The notion of ‘not yet’ is not entirely infelicitous in (189), so in other words, the standard negator may be used for negative anteriority, as also sometimes in Hebrew (cf. 1 Sam 13:12 quoted on p. 160). Lam negates yvqtvl whenever yvqtvl is non-volitive, whether the proposition refers to the past or to the present; for a possible case of generic lam yvqtvl, see (197). Although future lam yvqtvl is not attested in the corpus, Q 18:47 may be a case in point: wa-yawma nusayyiru l-ǧibāla wa-tarā l-ʔarḍa bārizatan wa-ḥašarnāhum fa-lam nuġādir minhum ʔaḥadan ‘on the day when we remove the mountains and you see the earth coming forth, we will muster them and we will not leave anyone behind.’ In this instance, lam yvqtvl is still the negative counterpart to qvtvla, which is non-past at this point (cf. yawma and n. 5 on p. 226).23 8.4.1 Historical Background of lam The derivation of lam from negative lā and a focus particle -mā� is plausible, considering the fact that the collocation of a negator with a focus particle is commonplace in Semitic.24 As such, lam is equivalent to the negative expressions in e.g. Old Assyrian u-lā and Amharic ʔal- … -mm, also made up of a negator and a focus particle. With regard to the phonetic make-up of lam, comparison can be made to the occurrence of the focus particle -mā� in combination with adverbs, prepositions, and connectives. For example, mā is usually written ma in the Quran when following a preposition (Badawi and Haleem 2008: 862). Thus, the cliticization and apocopation of -mā� with lā to lam is formally similar to ḥattā mā > ḥattāmă, ḥattām, fī mā > fīmă, fīm, ʕalā mā > ʕalāmă, ʕalām (Birkeland 1940: 22  For ʔallā in a content clause to *ḥsb, see Q 5:71 wa-ḥasibū ʔallā takūna fitnatun ‘they thought that there would not be a punishment.’ 23  For yawma yvqtvlu + fa-qvtvla fa-lam yvqtvl, see also Q 18:52, 18:53, 28:62, and 28:64 (for yawma yvqtvlu + yvqtvlu wa-lam yvqtvl, see Q 30:13). 24  Brockelmann (GVG 2 §105) also identified -mā� with a focus particle: “So wird lā durch das hervorhebende mā verstärkt, das in der Anlehnung seinen selbständigen Druck und damit seinen Vokal verliert.” Reckendorf (1895 §48.6), on the other hand, assumes the logical make-up “nicht (ist der Fall,) dass,” i.e. probably lā and mā al-maṣdariyya. Testen (1998: 200–202), in turn, assumes la-mā, i.e. asseverative la- and negative mā, but it is worth pointing out that *lā + mā� is also attested in Minaic, where negative mā is not (yet) attested.

Quran Arabic

235

35). It may be that lā existed in a proclitic form lă (cf. Huehnergard and WilsonWright 2014: 10), or that lā underwent ad hoc phonetic erosion like Akkadian ulā > ula > ul. With regard to the functional meaningfulness, the additive focus particle -mā�/mā induces an ordered scale of alternatives under consideration, e.g. Q 4:154–155 wa-ʔah̬ aḏnā minhum mīṯāqan ġalīzan fa-bi-mā naqḍihim mīṯāqahum ‘we took from them a solemn covenant, and because of their breaking (that) very covenant (we cursed them),’ in which case mā singles out the very covenant referred to in the preceding clause (see also ka-mā in example 195 and Sabaic example 231b w-b-m ḏn ‘with regard to that very (matter)’).25 The intercalation of -ma between the preposition and its head is also observed in Akkadian, e.g. Sin 2:5 Sîn inā-ma nāri šēpšu kīnat “as to (the god) Sin, even in the river his foot is firm” (LOB 91), where ‘the river’ is a particularly unlikely place for one’s foot to be steady, and in Minaic, e.g. M 293 A:3 (apud Avanzini 1995: 144) bn-m ʔnṯhtn (see p. 272).26 The additive focus particle ‘even’ invokes a pragmatic scale and generates inferences about all other degrees on the same scale, which results in a maximally informative proposition. For example, in conditional linkings with ʔimma, i.e. ʔin + mā, mā may contribute to a universal condition, e.g. (p. 231) fa-ʔimma yaʔtiyannakum minnī hudan ‘and whenever guidance comes to you from me.’ In the following example, mā is written separate to ʔin: (190) Q 13:40 wa-ʔin mā nuriyannaka baʕḍa llaḏī naʕiduhum ʔaw natawaffayannaka fa-ʔinna-mā ʕalayka l-balāġu wa-ʕalaynā l-ḥisābu And even if we show you part of what we promise them, or take you in death, only upon you is the notification, and upon us the account. 25  In Q 3:159 fa-bi-mā raḥmatin min-a llāhi linta lahum ‘because of the very mercy from Allah, you were lenient with them,’ mā particularizes raḥma as being Allah’s mercy (and not someone else’s), and in Q 71:25 mimmā h̬ aṭīʔātihim ʔuġriqū fa-ʔudh̬ ilū nāran ‘because of their very sins they were drowned and put into fire,’ mā singles out the sinning of the 3rd person as reasons for their drowning and burning (as against any other reason). For focalizing mā (also known as mā z-zāʔida), see Fleischer (1885–1888: 1, 479; 2, 390–391), Nöldeke ([1896] 1963 §51), and Blau (1977: 14–15). In the scope of ʔinna, mā restricts the set of possible alternatives as an exclusive focus particle, e.g. Q 9:60 ʔinna-mā ṣ-ṣadaqātu li-lfuqarāʔi wa-l-masākīni ‘alms are only for the poor and the needy’ (see also example 190). 26  It may be that -mā� at some point cliticized to another clause constituent than the negator. However, the focal scope of -mā� may be attracted to the negator rather than that clause constituent. In the same vein, Old Assyrian u- and Amharic -mm cliticized to the negator and the negated predicate respectively, rather than the part of sentence which is logically under the scope of additive focus.

236

Chapter 8

In (190), it would seem that mā of wa-ʔin mā contributes to a concessive reading of the conditional antecedent. As such, mā is similar to e.g. Harari -m, which may be used to mark conditional clauses as concessive (cf. n. 42 on p. 354). Provided that lam is a compound of lā and a focus particle, it is tempting to assume that lam was originally an emphatic negator ‘not even’ that bleached and underwent phonetic erosion to lam, when the emphatic contribution of -mā� was let go. One may ask why only lā negating yvqtvl was strengthened in this way, and not lā negating yvqtvlu.27 When verbal negation is renewed through emphasis elsewhere in Semitic, the new negator typically affects standard negation in general. According to one explanation, mā yvqtvlu and mā qvtvla may be regarded as former equivalents to *lā� -mā� yvqtvl in terms of emphatic contribution. At some point in the history of Arabic, mā had become a productive means to express emphatic negation, and at this point, mā expressed emphatic negation either independently, or in combination with lā (cf. the existence of both mā … šī and lone šī in Neo-Arabic). The independent use of negative mā was likely restricted to questions, as with the lone -šī in Egyptian Arabic (cf. section 8.5.1), while mā was necessarily combined with lā in order to negate nonvolitive yvqtvl. The fact that mā does not independently negate non-volitive yvqtvl indicates that the expression mā qvtvla was preferred over *mā yvqtvl in rhetorical questions. Over time, * lā� -mā� yvqtvl lost its emphatic contribution, and -mā� became an integral part of the negator. The fact that lam yvqtvl is void of its original emphatic contribution is indicated by the fact that lā yvqtvl is no longer a non-emphatic counterpart to lam yvqtvl. Instead, the emphatic counterpart to lam yvqtvl is mā qvtvla. It may be hypothesized that mā qvtvla was originally an emphatic variant of lā qvtvla, much like *lā-mā� yvqtvl was an emphatic variant of lā yvqtvl. However, the retention of lam yvqtvl as well as the innovation of mā qvtvla must have made lā qvtvla obsolete.

27  It is not likely that lam at any point negated anything else than yvqtvl (like Minaic lhm). In Early Arabic papyri, whenever the two prefix conjugations are discrete (Hopkins 1984 §81b, 82d), there is a number of instances of yvqtvlu where Classical Arabic would have yvqtvl. The instances of lam negating yvqtvlu in Early Arabic papyri coincide in other words with a general collapse of yvqtvl and yvqtvlu. Hopkins (1984 §155) also mentions one instance of lam negating qvtvla. For (Egyptian) Judeo-Arabic, Hary (2009: 94–95, 126–127, 141–143, 215–217) assumes that lam negating qvtvla is a part of colloquial Egyptian Arabic, but that it entered the colloquial speech from the literary register through standardization of hypercorrections. The use of lam in Neo-Arabic most likely stems from pseudo-corrections or borrowings from Modern Standard Arabic, see Brockelmann (GVG 2 184 Anm), Blau (1999: 106, 240), and Humphrey Davies (1981: 302–303).

Quran Arabic

237

Indeed, unlike the Northwest Semitic languages, qvtvla is rarely negated by lā in Arabic.28 The reason may be either that Arabic has preserved another expression of the negative past, lam yvqtvl (in which case, even though qvtvla may be a common innovation to West Semitic or Central Semitic, lā qvtvla is not), or that innovative mā qvtvla has made lā qvtvla obsolete. If the obsolescence of lā qvtvla in Arabic is affected by innovative mā qvtvla, it is still not necessary to assume that mā qvtvla has given up its original emphatic contribution, provided that lam yvqtvl was preserved as its non-emphatic counterpart rather than lā qvtvla. According to another explanation, lam is a borrowing. It is interesting to note that when a negator is borrowed, it is sometimes restricted to a specific verbal grammatical morpheme. This is the case of Gafat and Kistane *tv-, which only negates yvqatvl and is probably borrowed from Cushitic (section 13.2), and Western Neo-Aramaic ču, which only negates the new present (pronominal 28  However, it can be argued that a few occurrences of lā qvtvla, although not in the corpus, point to its prior existence in Arabic, e.g. Q 75:31 ʔilā rabbika yawmaʔiḏin l-masāqu fa-lā ṣaddaqa wa-lā ṣallā ‘on that day, the course of development is to your lord, but he has not believed, and he has not prayed’ (see also Q 90:11). On the other hand, yawmʔiḏin may indicate a future time reference on part of these predicates, cf. n. 5 on p. 226. Lā is also used in the consequence clause to an antecedent with law that is negated by mā but continued by wa-lā: Q 10:16 law šāʔa llāhu mā talawtuhu ʕalaykum wa-lā ʔadrākum bihi ‘if Allah had willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would he have made it known to you’ (see also Q 6:148 and 16:35). Lā qvtvla is also attested in the Obodas inscription (apud Knauf 2010: 233) fa-kāna hunā yabġīnā l-mawtu lā ʔabġāhū ‘when death was claiming us, he did not let it claim.’ However, it is possible that lā negates qvtvla in its non-indicative function: ‘may he not let it claim’ (Negev 1986: 57 “let me not be claimed”). Lā also negates qvtvla after law, e.g. Q 4:77 li-ma katabta ʕalaynā l-qitāla law-lā ʔah̬ h̬artanā ʔilā ʔaǧalin qarībin ‘why have you decreed upon us fighting? Why have you not postponed it for a short time?’, see also Q 9:122, 24:12, 24:13, 24:15, 47:20, and 63:10 (also yvqtvlu is possible in this type of construction, see Q 2:118, Q 5:63 and 58:8). This expression seems to be typical for the language of the Quran (Nöldeke 1910: 21), and was explained by Brockelmann (GVG 2 §111c) as a contamination of two clauses: the first clause is marked as a wish by law and is continued by a negated question. Therefore, the meaning of law-lā ʔah̬ h̬artanā also includes an element of injunction: ‘why not postpone it?’ It is worth noting that this clause is negated by lā even though the predicate is qvtvla, which may be understood as optative at this point. Once, mā follows law: Q 15:7 law mā taʔtīnā bi-l-malāʔikati ʔin kunta min-a ṣ-ṣādiqīna ‘perhaps you could come with the angels, if you (really) are among the righteous.’ At this point, it would seem that mā contributes to a dubitative meaning. As it turns out, most if not all examples of lā qvtvla involve modality. At one point, qvtvla occurs in a clause negated by lā, also interrogative, but the scope of lā is a prepositional phrase, viz. in Q 9:49 ʔa-lā fī l-fitnati saqatū ‘is it not in the trial they fell?’ For negative lā qvtvla in questions in Christian Arabic and Judeo-Ararbic, see Blau (1999: 260–261).

238

Chapter 8

prefix + qātil) and the new perfect (pronominal prefix + qtīl/qattīl) and is presumably borrowed from Kurdish (section 7.9.3). A negator based on negative lā and the focus particle -mā� is also found in Minaic (section 9.2.2), Amiritic (section 9.5), and Safaitic l-grmʔl bn sʕd bn qḥš w-bġy ʔh̬ h f-lm yʕd f-qṣf (apud Ma’ani and Sadaqah 2002: 253 no. 2:2) ‘by Grmʔl, son of Qḥš; he sought his brother but he did not return, and he was sad(?).”29It could therefore be that Arabic lam is borrowed from one of those languages. If Minaic lā� m is the source of Arabic lam, the restriction to yvqtvl in Arabic may be a calque on the restriction to qvtvla in Minaic. As a borrowing, lam was not necessarily associated with emphasis. It may be noted, finally, that lam is used today in the Jewish dialect of Iskenderun in the area of Antioch for negation of the present, e.g. lam amyəktob ‘he does not write’ (Arnold 1998: 117, 292). It is not clear whether the syntax of Iskenderun lam should historically be identified as an extension of Old Arabic lam (cf. n. 27 on p. 236), or whether lam in Iskenderun Arabic is an independent innovation of the same matter. Such independent innovations may be true for all languages referred to in the previous paragraph. 8.5 Negative mā The frequent use of mā to express negation separates Arabic from other Semitic languages. In the following sections, it will be argued that the background of mā as an interrogative pronoun, interrogative particle, and scale reversal item, described in 8.5.1, paved way for the reanalysis of rhetorical questions with mā into negative statements (section 8.5.3). The syntactic features of negative mā and its differences to lā/lam are investigated in section 8.5.4. 8.5.1 Interrogative and Focalizing mā In order to account for the development of negative mā, it is necessary to briefly review the various functions of mā in Arabic and its cognates in related languages. A common function of *mā (or *mah) in Semitic is that of an interrogative pronoun ‘what.’30 Quran Arabic mā is attested in this capacity too, e.g. Q 20:17 wa-mā tilka bi-yamīnika yā-mūsā qāla hiya ʕaṣāya ‘(he said:) “What is in your right hand, O Moses?” (and) he said: “It is my staff”.’ An interrogative pronoun is

29  Cf. Macdonald (2008: 212) and al-Jallad (2012: 332 n. 377). 30  See Militarev (2014 no. 96) and Takács (2008: 9–13, 2011: 10) for cognates in Semitic and Afroasiatic.

Quran Arabic

239

also often used as an indefinite pronoun (GVG 2 §370; Goldenberg 2013: 113–115) and mā in Arabic is no exception, e.g. Q 2:235 wa-ʕlamū ʔanna llāha yaʕlamu mā fī ʔanfusikum ‘know that Allah knows what is within yourselves.’31 Related to the indefinite pronoun is the indefinite determiner, e.g. Q 38:11 ǧundun mā hunālika mahzūmun ‘some army is put to flight over there’ and Q 38:24 wa-qalīlun mā hum ‘they are (only) some few.’ In this capacity, mā sometimes intercalates between the head and its preposition of the prepositional phrase, e.g. Q 23:40 ʕam-mā qalīlin la-yuṣbiḥunna nādimīna ‘after some while, they will certainly become regretful.’32 In a scale reversal context, like negative, interrogative, or conditional clauses, the contribution of ‘(some)thing’ is more informative than in realized contexts, because in these environments, reference to a minimal degree generates inferences about all other degrees on the same scale, and results in a maximally informative proposition, e.g. ġayra mā ḍiġnin (apud Nöldeke [1896] 1963 §51.2) ‘without (even) a little grudge,’ i.e. ‘without any grudge.’ This fact explains the propensity for mā to collocate with lā (as in *lā-mā� ‘not even’ > lam), and with ʔin (as in ʔimmā ‘even if’). In a clause with interrogative basic illocution, mā indicates a rhetorical question, e.g. Q 11:63 fa-man yanṣurunī min-a llāhi ʔin ʕaṣaytuhu fa-mā tazīdūnanī ġayra tah̬ sīrin ‘who would protect me from Allah if I disobeyed Him? Would you increase me at all except in loss?’ It is true that fa-mā tazīdūnanī ġayra tah̬ sīrin can be translated as a statement, cf. Haleem (2004: 140) “You would only make my loss greater.” However, the fact that the preceding man-clause is interrogative, albeit posing a rhetorical question that contains its answer within itself, and the fact that the mā-clause is coordinated to it by means of fa-, suggests that the mā-clause may also be 31  Reduplication of mā, i.e. mah-mā, results in an indefinite pronoun (cf. also Akkadian mamman (*man-man in n. 48 on p. 80), e.g. Q 7:132 mah-mā taʔtinā bihi min ʔāyatin ‘whatever sign you bring us.’ It may be pointed out that reduplication is a typologically common means to form such words (König 1991: 64). Sometimes it would seem that mā itself is a free-choice quantifier, e.g. Q 2:168 kulū mim-mā fī l-ʔarḍi ‘eat from what(ever) is on earth!’ 32  See also Q 51:17 kānū qalīlan min-a l-layli mā yahǧaʕūna ‘they used to sleep (only) a little some of the night.’ It may also be noted that mā is used in queclaratives. This is most clearly brought forth when the predicate is ʔaqtal, e.g. Q 2:175 fa-mā ʔaṣbarahum ʕalā n-nāri “how patiently they shall endure the Fire!” (Arberry). When the predicate is not ʔaqtal, mā may be ambiguous. For example, the second clause of Q 2:88 laʕanahum-u llāhu bi-kufrihim fa-qalīlan mā yuʔminūna ‘Allah has cursed them for their disbelief …’ may be either ‘because they believe (only) a little’ or ‘and how little they believe,’ cf. also Q 7:3 qalīlan mā taḏakkarūna ‘how little do you remember’ and Q 7:10 qalīlan mā taškurūna ‘how little you are grateful.’ See also Q 2:71 fa-ḏabaḥūhā wa-mā kādū yafʕalūna ‘then they slaughtered her, but how near they were from (not) doing it!’

240

Chapter 8

interrogative. However, mā is not necessarily used as an interrogative pronoun ‘what,’ but as an interrogative particle. As an interrogative particle, it converts a sentence with interrogative basic illocution into a rhetorical question (like mā in a clause with declarative basic illocution converts it into a queclarative, cf. n. 32 on p. 239).33 By posing a question with a scale reversal item, like did he (even) lift a finger to help me?, the speaker presupposes that any weaker question, like did he help me?, would also have received a negative answer. The fact that the question without a scale reversal item would receive a negative answer entails that the question with a scale reversal item also will receive a negative answer. By resorting to a question with a scale reversal item, the speaker converts that question into a rhetorical one. This use of mā may be compared to šayʔ in Neo-Arabic, e.g. enclitic -šī in Cairene Arabic, which, just like mā, is related to an indefinite pronoun.34 In Cairene Arabic, -šī lends the question a dubitative meaning according to Woidich (2006: 358), e.g. maʕak-ši sigāṛa salaf “kannst du mir vielleicht eine Zigarette leihen?” (tr. Woidich). Singer (1951: 81) provides a plausible account for this meaning: “Nun ist ein Satz wie ʔakalt šī oder tākul šī ‘du hast etwas gegessen, du ißt etwas’ als Aussagesatz recht sinnlos, dagegen sehr sinnvoll in der Frage. Da aber der Ausdruck für ‘etwas’ meist bereits dem Sinne eines Verbums inhäriert, d.h. ‘hast du gegessen?’ ohnehin ‘hast du etwas gegessen?’ bedeuten konnte, war der Weg dafür frei šī ‘etwas’ zur Fragepartikel umzudeuten.” Therefore, it is not always necessary to parse mā as an interrogative pronoun (nor as a negator ‘not,’ see section 8.5.3), but it can also be parsed as a scale reversal item that promotes a rhetorical question. To be sure, Arabic mā in a question is not always the information-seeking ‘what,’ but can also be used for ‘who,’ e.g. Q 10:83 fa-mā ʔāmana li-musā ʔillā ḏurriyyatun min qawmihi ‘who believes Moses except the offspring of his people?’ Mā may also be used as a 33  Wehr (1953: 36) is on the right track, when he suggests that it is the clause itself that is reanalyzed when mā is negative: “Denn die sogennante rhetorische Frage hat ja nur noch ganz äußerlich fragende Form; sie fällt bereits ein höchst subjektives Urteil und hat den Wert einer lebhaften Meinungsäusserung. So ist also nicht das Fragewort mā zur Negation geworden, wie man sekundär feststellt, sondern der nur noch halb als Frage empfundene Affektsatz wurde zum verneinten Satz.” 34  The interrogative enclitic -šī is found in Southern Arabia, Syria-Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt (Cairo), Malta, Libya, Tunis, Algeria, and Morocco (Singer 1958: 80–89). The interrogative function is known at least from 17th century Egyptian Arabic, e.g. ṭbh̬ t ly-šy bslt aw ʕds aw bysar “have you cooked me (any) peas or lentils or bysar?” (Humphrey Davies 1981: 275). It may be noted in passing that there is also a prefixal interrogative š-. In a question like Iraqi Arabic šamilt ‘what did you do?’ Obler (1990: 142) explains the interrogative use of š- as a development from the phrase ʔayyu šayʔin or the clause ʔayyu šayʔin huwa.

Quran Arabic

241

quantifier in a rhetorical question, e.g. Q 6:104 fa-man ʔabṣara fa-li-nafsihi waman ʕamiya fa-ʕalayhā wa-mā ʔanā ʕalaykum bi-ḥafīẓin ‘he who sees, it is for his soul, and he who is blind, it is harmful against him; (then) am I some sort of guardian to you?’ and Q 7:20 wa-qāla mā nahākumā rabbukumā ʕan hāḏihi š-šaǧarati ʔillā ʔan takūnā malakayni ‘(Satan) said: “Has your lord forbidden you this tree in any way (at all), except that you become angels?”’ 8.5.2 Comparative Considerations It has been suggested that negative mā is not an innovation in Arabic, but that its origin should be traced further back. Faber (1991), for example, suggests that mā is inherited from Afroasiatic *(m)ba, and Rabin (1951: 191 n. 19) relates it to the Middle Egyptian negative verb ìmì. However, the functional distribution of mā in Arabic is highly indicative of its historical background in the rhetorical question (sections 8.5.3 and 8.5.4). Yet, the use of *mā (or *mah) in rhetorical questions is also known from other Semitic languages. Sometimes in Hebrew, for example, må� is not a clearcut information-seeking ‘what,’ e.g. Ex 14:15 ma-tiṣʕaq ʔēlå� y ‘why do you cry unto me?’ and sometimes, må� has even been interpreted as negative.35 This may be the case in 1 Kgs 12:16 ma-llå� nū ḥēlɛq bə-ḏå� wīḏ wə-lō-naḥălå� bə-ḇɛnyišay, where ma-llå� nū ḥēlɛq is parallel on the one hand to wə-lō-naḥălå� , and on the other hand to 2 Sam 20:1 ʔēn-lå� nū ḥēlɛq. Må� also seems to promote an interrogative clause to a rhetorical question: (191) Num 23:8 må� ʔɛqqōḇ lō qabbō ʔēl ū-må� ʔɛzʕōm lō zå� ʕam Yhwh How can I curse at all, (when) God has not cursed it? How can I defy at all, (when) the Lord has not defied? Similarly, interrogative my in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic may promote a rhetorical question, e.g. w-my ḥmyrʔ ṭpy “is it really more stringent” (Bar-Asher Siegal 2013: §8.3), as well as mā in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, e.g. mā ʔatt ṭāḇ min rabbāḵ ‘are you perhaps better than your teacher?’ (Dalman [1894] 1905 §46.2). Mā also promotes rhetorical questions in Old Assyrian, e.g. TC 3 63:12 ana mannim mīnam ina barīkunu h̬ abulāku ul mīnam gimi(l)lī h̬ abulākkunūtī-ma mā kaspī ana beʔālim addanakkunūti ‘what do I owe to whom among you? Not anyone do I owe favors! Then should I really give my money to you for

35  Cf. the examples in Hartmann (1960), Wagner (1964: 263), Dahood (1975), and Wehr (1953: 37). Some examples of må� which need not be ‘what’ include Gen 44:16, Ex 14:15, 15:24, Jud 14:18, Prv 20:24, Job 9:2, 11:8, 16:6, 19:28, 22:17, 31:1, Songs 8:4, and Sir 13:2+17.

242

Chapter 8

disposal?’36 The fact that an interrogative wh-word is not always informationseeking is also indicated by the fact that a clause with it can also be negated by ulā (rather than lā) in Sargonic Akkadian, e.g. Ki 1:5 mīnum ulā abī atta ‘are you perhaps/really not my father?’ While mīnum is literally ‘why,’ this question is clearly not information-seeking (cf. also Mari Akkadian, p. 104). The quantifying function known from mā in Arabic is also attested in Literary Old Babylonian (see GlgSB 15 in n. 126 on p. 107) ul šadûm-ma ‘is he not a mountain of sort?’ and Biblical Hebrew, e.g. Jer 8:9 hinnē ḇi-ḏḇar-Yhwh må� ʔå� sū wə-ḥå� ḵmaṯ-mɛ lå� hɛm ‘see, they have rejected the word of Yhwh, and the little wisdom that they have.’ It is reasonable to conclude that while an interrogative clause with mā may be interpreted as a rhetorical question (hence with negative polarity) in other Semitic languages, Arabic is separated from those languages by the fact that this implication has been grammaticalized. 8.5.3 Development of Negative mā The frequent use of mā to express negation separates Arabic from other Central Semitic languages. There are, however, different opinions on the development of negative mā. This section investigates the historical background of negative mā and its relation to interrogative mā in Quran Arabic. As to the grammaticalization of negative mā, it is generally assumed that it grammaticalized from an interrogative pronoun mā ‘what’ used in a rhetorical question (see section 1.2.1).37 It must be pointed out, however, that it was not (only) mā as an argument (pronoun), but mā as an adjunct (adverb), that was reanalyzed as a negator. In view of the Old Babylonian interrogative proadverb ayyānu(m), that grammaticalized into yānu in Middle Babylonian, it would seem that an interrogative pronoun like mā ‘what’ would grammaticalize into a negative indefinite pronoun ‘nothing.’38 Although the grammaticalization of ‘nothing’ > ‘not’ is entirely possible, a comparison to the reanalysis of 36  See Kienast (1961) for this use of mā in Akkadian. 37  For example, Rubin (2005: 50): “Such a construction is certainly the source of the Arabic negative mā (that is to say, ‘what evil is in my hand’ → ‘there is no evil in my hand’).” For another view, see Reckendorf (1895 §48.2): “mā ist vielleicht ursprünglich das Fragepronomen mā ‘was?’, also mā yaqtulu eigentlich ‘Was? Er tötet?’. Danach hätte es ursprünglich zur Zurückweisung einer Aussage, von der der Augenschein das Gegenteil lehrt, gedient,” and Wehr’s (1953: 35–36) criticism. 38  Cf. Lucas (2009: 21 n. 9): “Given an example along the lines of ‘what do I know?’ > ‘I know nothing,’ one would expect an intermediate negative quantifier stage: interrogative > negative quantifier > negator. Since we have no textual evidence of the prehistory of this change, we have no way of knowing whether this was the case or not.”

Quran Arabic

243

interrogative šayʔ in Neo-Arabic would indicate that the negator mā developed not from the interrogative pronoun mā ‘what,’ but from a scale reversal adverb mā ‘at all.’ As pointed out in section 8.5.1, šayʔ in Neo-Arabic is sometimes used as a scale reversal item in questions to mark them as dubitative. It is worth noting that in a number of Neo-Arabic varieties, post-predicate šayʔ alone, i.e. without pre-predicate mā, can also be used to express negation. Lucas (2010) noted that post-predicate -šī without mā is used in Cairene Arabic to negate the suffix conjugation, the imperfect, and various verboids including ʕand- ‘to have.’ However, the use of this negative expression is restricted to (embedded) interrogative clauses and conditional antecedents. It is, in other words, not used in declarative clauses.39 While sometimes and in some Neo-Arabic varieties, the use of negative lone post-predicate šayʔ is the result of the deletion of prepredicate mā, it is also possible that the different negative expressions developed side by side in different environments. In Lucas’ (2010: 184–185) view, as soon as -šī was reanalyzed as negative in the discontinuous negative construction, it could also be used to express negation without mā in questions and conditions, i.e. scale reversal contexts. On a similar note, it is possible that mā acquired the properties of a scale reversal item in collocation with lā (in the construction that eventually became lam). Then in an interrogative clause, i.e. in a scale reversal context, mā could be used without lā to express negation as soon as the rhetorical question was reanalyzed as a negative statement. However, negative mā is often difficult to separate from interrogative mā in Quran Arabic, as also conceded by Bergsträsser (1914: 29). When a clause with mā is coordinated with a question that is marked for interrogation, it is tempting to analyze the clause with mā as a rhetorical question that amounts to a negative statement, for example: (192) Q 2:85 ʔa-fa-tuʔminūna bi-baʕḍi l-kitābi wa-takfurūna bi-baʕḍin fa-mā ǧazāʔu man yafʕalu ḏālika minkum ʔillā h̬ izyun fī l-ḥayāti d-dunyā So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in an(other) part? Then what is the recompense of him who does that among you, except disgrace in the worldly life? 39  Negation by means of a lone post-verbal negator in Palestinian Arabic, however, is possible and common with imperfect verbs, including those without the b-prefix, and the verboids fī ‘there is,’ bidd- ‘want,’ and maʕ- ‘have,’ but generally infelicitous with qvtvla and the verboid ʕind- ‘to have’ (Lucas 2010). In other words, the basic illocution of the clause, whether declarative or interrogative, plays no role in the distribution of purely post-verbal negation in Palestinian.

244

Chapter 8

While mā in (192) is usually translated as negative (for example Haleem 2004: 11, “the punishment for those of you who do this will be nothing but disgrace”), the fact that mā correlates with ʔa- by means of fa- invites the possibility to parse it as interrogative (see also Q 37:58). Then mā in the clause mā ǧazāʔu man yafʕalu ḏālika may also be interpreted not as an interrogative pronoun ‘what,’ but as a scale reversal item. In that case, it would promote the clause, provided that it has interrogative basic illocution, to a rhetorical yes-no question: ‘is the recompense of him who does that among you anything at all, except disgrace in the worldly life?’ Likewise, when a mā-clause is followed by ʔam, it is potentially intended as rhetorical question, e.g. Q 38:27 wa-mā h̬ alaqnā s-samāʔa wa-l-ʔarḍa wa-mā baynahumā bāṭilan ḏālika ẓannu llaḏīna kafarū […] 28ʔam naǧʕalu llaḏīna ʔāmanū wa-ʕamilū ṣ-ṣāliḥāti ka-l-mufsidīna fī l-ʔarḍi ‘have we really created the heaven and the earth and what is between them aimlessly? That is the assumption of those who disbelieve! […] Or should we treat the believers and the wrong-doers like corrupters in the land?’ Notably, verse 28 is continued by ʔam, which seems to presuppose a preceding question, which, as indicated by mā, is rhetorical. Nöldeke (1910: 19–20) notes that ʔan-clauses following inherently or implicitly negative lexemes (cf. section 2.4.1) are typically non-negated, e.g. Q 2:114 waman ʔaẓlamu mim-man manaʕa masāǧida llāhi ʔan yuḏkara fihā smuhu ‘who is more unjust than he who prevents the mosques of Allah that his name be mentioned in them?’ This is also true for the ʔan-clause after mā manaʕa(hum) in the following example: (193) Q 9:54 wa-mā manaʕahum ʔan tuqbala minhum nafaqātuhum ʔillā ʔannahum kafarū bi-llāhi wa-bi-rasūlihi What prevented them that their expenditure would be accepted from them, except that they have disbelieved in Allah and in his Messenger? However, mā manaʕa is also sometimes followed by ʔallā, e.g. Q 7:12 mā manaʕaka ʔallā tasǧuda (but cf. Q 38:75 mā manaʕaka ʔan tasǧuda), which may indicate a fluctuation on the part of the speaker as to whether mā is negative or not (cf. Nöldeke 1910: 19–20). Furthermore, the shift of mā towards negation is indicated by the diffusion of new interrogative morphemes, e.g. ʔayš (Hopkins 1984: 152 n. 1; Blau 1999: 108–109) and māḏā (the latter being restricted to verbal clauses in Classical Arabic, Rubin 2005: 24). For example, Muḥammad’s response upon receiving the first revelation is māḏā ʔaqraʔu (cf. Is 40:6 må� ʔɛqrå� ) according to al-Ṭabarī (Tarikh I, 3: 1150.4–5), while in Ibn Hišām’s (Sirah I, 1: 152.17–20) recension of

Quran Arabic

245

Ibn Isḥāq, both mā ʔaqraʔu and māḏā ʔaqraʔu are attested. Furthermore, one ḥadīṯ tradition, as transmitted by al-Zuhri (d. c. 742), has mā ʔaqraʔu, while in Uqayl’s transmission of the Zuhri recension, the Prophet responds with mā ʔanā bi-qāriʔ (Schoeler 2011: 70–71). It would seem that the latter expression is more clearly marked as negative than the former on account of bi-qātil. As a matter of fact, māḏā too is used for questions which within themselves contain the answer, e.g. Q 10:32 fa-māḏā baʕda l-ḥaqqi ʔillā ḍ-ḍalālu ‘what is it that is after the truth if not error?’ The distinction between a rhetorical question and a negative statement is in other words a matter of pragmatics rather than polarity. 8.5.4 The Use of Negative mā The historical background of mā as an interrogative morpheme can be elicited from its syntactic as well as its semantic distribution in Quran Arabic. As to its syntax, mā is always clause-initial (with the exception of a preceding connective),40 and it only negates clauses that are syntactically independent that are typically main line focal clauses. For example, with regard to mā negating a predicate that is different from the one of a preceding clause, mā yvqtvlu following la-yvqtvlanna in (194), unlike lā yvqtvlu following la-yvqtvlanna in (184), does not seem to be semantically subordinated: (194) Q 60:4 la-ʔastaġfiranna laka wa-mā ʔamliku laka min-a llāhi min šayʔin I will surely ask forgiveness for you, but I can (certainly) not exercise authority for you against Allah in anything. Rather, mā yvqtvlu in the example above may be understood as a contrastive focal clause, i.e. an adversative coordinated clause. This fact may be explained from its origin in a clause of a different basic illocution (interrogative): ‘(How) can I possibly exercise authority for you against Allah in anything?’ 40  The rule that mā does not negate verbal predicates when an explicit subject precedes the negated predicate (which are negated by lā/lam) has one exception in the corpus: Q 2:174 ʔulāʔika mā yaʔkulūna fī buṭūnihim ʔillā n-nāra wa-lā yukallimuhum-u llāhu yawma l-qiyāmati wa-lā yuzakkīhim ‘as to them, they will only eat fire in their bellies and Allah will not speak to them on the day of resurrection, nor purify them.’ This example stands out because of the fronted subject and that the proposition likely refers to the future. The fronting should be explained from pre-dislocation, as in the translation above. The word order and the temporal reference can be taken to indicate that mā is actually interrogative at this point.

246

Chapter 8

> ‘I can certainly not exercise authority for you against Allah in anything.’ While Bergsträsser (1914: 31 n. 2) suggested that mā-clauses involving min šayʔ are negative, it should be pointed out that min šayʔin is used in interrogative clauses too (cf. n. 49 on p. 249). In (195), wa-mā yvqtvlu follows qvtvla but is unlikely to introduce an accompanying action: (195) Q 6:94 wa-la-qad ǧiʔtumūnā furādā ka-mā h̬ alaqnākum ʔawwala marratin wa-taraktum mā h̬ awwalnākum warāʔa ẓuhūrikum wa-mā narā maʕakum šufaʕāʔakum-u llaḏīna zaʕamtum ʔannahum fīkum Indeed, you have come to us alone, just as we created you the first time, (in that) you have left behind you that which we had bestowed upon you. And we do not see with you your intercessors whom you claimed are with you. As discussed in section 8.3.1, lā yvqtvlu following qvtvla potentially results in a result clause, e.g. (183) wa-tarakahum fī ẓulumātin lā yubṣirūna ‘he left them in darkness (so) they could not see.’ The use of negative mā in (195), on the other hand, does not indicate the same degree of semantic integration on part of the clause to the preceding taraktum. Again, this fact should be explained from the origin of mā in the rhetorical question. As such, mā is similar to other renewals of expressions of negation in being restricted to main clauses. With regard to the semantics, mā yvqtvlu and mā qvtvla are the emphatic negative counterparts to lā yvqtvlu and lam yvqtvl respectively. Others have attempted at distinguishing mā from lā/lam in terms of aspect. Reckendorf (1921 §25.1), for example, suggested that qvtvla negated by mā is usually anterior or resultative; it is the negative counterpart to qad qvtvla, which in Reckendorf’s view (1921 §155), is anterior or resultative: “er hat getötet” or “er hatte getötet,” but not “er tötete.”41 However, Wehr (1953: 28) adduced several examples of mā qvtvla with the past meaning (from Ayyām al-ʕArab), but admitted that mā yvqtvlu is not used for future time.42 41  Cf. also Bergsträsser (1914: 29): “Dabei drückt das pf zwar nicht so scharf die vollendete Handlung aus wie der apok nach lam – es ist nur selten pf pr.” 42  Cf. Wehr (1953: 32): “Wenn unmittelbar nach einer Beteuerungsformel, einer bekräftigen Redewendung oder einem Schwur in Kontaktstellung eine Verneinung folgt, so ist die Negation mā; dabei macht es wiederum keinen Unterschied, ob ein Perfekt oder Imperfekt folgt oder ob es sich um einen Nominalsatz handelt […] Nur wo die Aussage futurisch gemeint ist, heißt es lā afʕalu oder auch lastu afʕalu, da mā afʕalu bekanntlich den Bereich der Zukunft nicht mit umfaßt.” For a promissory oath with lā, see (180). See

Quran Arabic

247

Rather, mā is functionally separated from lā/lam as the emphatic negative counterpart. For example, it is typically used in (assertory) oaths (cf. n. 27 on p. 303), e.g. Q 5:107 fa-yuqsimāni bi-llāhi la-š-šahādatunā ʔaḥaqqu min šahādatihimā wa-mā ʕtadaynā ʔinnā ʔiḏan la-min-a ẓ-ẓālimīna ‘they shall both swear by Allah: “Indeed our testimony is truer than their testimony, and we have certainly not transgressed, because then we would be among the wrongdoers”.’ The use of mā in oaths further indicates its emphatic contribution to the negative proposition, corresponding to la- of the affirmative clause. As indicated above, mā typically negates a verbal predicate when negation is intended to be emphatic. Emphasis is sometimes indicated by absolute objects, as in Q 33:23 wa-mā baddalū tabdīlan ‘they did not change at all,’43 or by adverbs, as in Q 4:157 wa-mā qatalūhu yaqīnan ‘they did not kill him, for sure.’44 Mā also separates itself from lā/lam by way of its background as a quantifier. This is indicated by the fact that it often collocates with the restrictor ʔillā as in (193).45 As a rhetorical question, a clause with ʔillā contains within itself its answer, since the clause with ʔillā presupposes the same clause without ʔillā

also Q 4:65 fa-lā wa-rabbika lā yuʔminūna ‘no, by your Lord, they will not believe’ and Q 33:15 wa-la-qad kānū ʕāhadū llāha min qablu lā yuwallūna l-ʔadbāra ‘they have already promised Allah from before (that) they will not turn back.’ According to Pat-El (2012a: 26), mā yvqtvlu (in Classical Arabic) is co-temporal with another verb, with reference to raʔaytuhu musaylimata qāʔiman wa-mā ʔaʕrifuhu (from Ibn Hišām, apud Reckendorf 1921: 45) ‘I saw Musaylimah standing without recognizing him.’ 43  See also Q 57:27. 44  See also Q 10:93 (parallel to la-qad). 45  Wehr (1953: 36) actually assumes this to be a locus for reanalysis through analogy with collocations of lā/lam and ʔillā: “Gerade in dem so häufigen Satztypus ‘mā—Nominativ— illā—Nominativ’ oder ‘mā—transitives Verbum—illā—Akkusativ’ konnte mā leicht zur Negation umgedeutet werden, ohne daß sonst an dem Satz etwas geändert wurde; mā—illā konnte nämlich hier mit dem unendlich häufigen Ausdrücken für ‘nur’ lā—illā, lam—illā, laisa—illā assoziiert und analog gedeutet werden, wobei sich am Sinnwert des ganzen Satzes so gut wie nichts änderte.” However, it may be pointed out that there are no attestations of lam yvqtvl together with ʔillā in the corpus. As a matter of fact, in the entire Quran, there are only 8 out of 139 instances of lam yvqtvl that collocate with ʔillā (Dahlgren 2006). mā qvtvla in collocation with ʔillā, however, is by no means uncommon. For examples of mā followed by ʔillā not further discussed below, see (negating qvtvla) Q 2:143, 2:213, 3:19, 3:65, 3:126, 4:64, 5:117, 8:10, 9:31, 16:64, 33:22, 35:42, 45:17, 57:22, 57:27, 64:11, 74:31+31, 98:4, and 98:5. For mā yvqtvlu with ʔilla, see Q 2:26, 2:99, 2:269, 2:272, 3:7, 3:69, 4:113, 4:120, 6:4, 6:48, 6:59, 6:123, 7:126, and 74:31.

248

Chapter 8

and entails that the alternative does not satisfy that clause if the exception was substituted by a variable.46 With a negative quantifier or a scale reversal item in a scale reversal context, a restrictive exception marker often functions as an excluding particle. Such an excluding particle may introduce a ranking scale, as in Q 3:7 wa-mā yaʕlamu taʔwīlahu ʔillā llāhu ‘no one knows its interpretation except Allah,’ i.e. ‘only Allah knows its interpretation,’ or Q 51:36 fa-mā waǧadnā fīhā ġayra baytin min-a l-muslimīna ‘we did not find in it (sc. ‘the city’) other than a house of muslims,’ i.e. ‘we only found a house of muslims.’ At this point, the speaker uses mā to negate not only the possible presupposition that a specific token is involved in the proposition, but that no member of its type is involved either, the only exception being Allah. As a scalar restrictive particle, ʔillā may be followed by another negative expression with scalar focus as in the following example:47 (196) Q 2:9 yuh̬ ādiʕūna llāha wa-llaḏīna ʔāmanū wa-mā yah̬ daʕūna ʔillā ʔanfusahum wa-mā yašʕurūna 10fī qulūbihim maraḍun fa-zādahum-u llāhu maraḍan They (try to) deceive Allah and the believers, but they only deceive themselves, and they do not even perceive (it, because) in their hearts is disease, and Allah has increased their disease. Mā yašʕurūna, which follows a clause with ʔillā (which in turn lexically resumes a preceding verb in 196), receives a scalar interpretation in these contexts.48 The scalar contribution of mā is also evidenced whenever lākin follows it, e.g. Q 4:157+157 wa-mā qatalūhu wa-mā ṣalabūhu wa-lākin šubbiha lahum ‘they did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but his likeness.’ At this point, verb phrase negation with mā apparently results in narrow scope focussed negation. This fact can be explained from the background of mā as an interrogative pronoun in which case mā as the interrogative morpheme would have been focussed.

46  Cf. also Dahlgen (2006: 75) for the subjective meaning of clauses involving ʔillā: “An expression with ‘only’ reflects the attitude of a person, since it indicates that something is less than it should be.” 47  See also Q 3:69, 4:113, 6:26, and 6:123. 48  Contrast with e.g. Q 4:108 quoted in n. 15 on p. 231.

Quran Arabic

249

Indeed, with verbs of gain and loss, mā may possibly be analyzed as a negative indefinite pronoun ‘nothing’ in an affirmative clause (but cf. n. 38 on p. 242).49 On the other hand, mā may also be interpreted as a scale reversal item in a rhetorical question, e.g. Q 2:16 ʔulāʔika llaḏīna štarawu ḍ-ḍalālata bi-l-hudā fa-mā rabiḥat tiǧāratuhum ‘those are the ones who purchased error for guidance, but did their deal profit at all?’50 The syntactic and semantic restrictions on mā, in conclusion, indicate that it is a relative newcomer in the system of negation in Quran Arabic. There is, in other words, no reason to assume that negative mā is inherited, as is sometimes done. 8.6

Negated Interrogative and Subordinate Clauses

The distribution of the negators lā/lam and mā in non-declarative clauses and in non-main clauses is indicative of the historical background of mā. This section serves to show that the distribution of lā/lam and mā in these clause types indicate that mā is a relatively recent innovation in the expression of negation, and that it can be derived historically from the rhetorical question. The interrogative origin of negative mā is indicated by the fact that yes-no questions marked by an interrogative particle are in general not negated by it. Thus, after ʔa-, lam yvqtvl is used instead of mā qvtvla in e.g. Q 2:33 ʔa-lam ʔaqul lakum ʔinnī ʔaʕlamu ġayba s-samāwāti wa-l-ʔarḍi ‘have I not told you that I know the unseen of the heavens and the earth?’51 Similarly, lā yvqtvlu is used 49  Although not in the corpus, it may be noted that Q 111:2 tabbat yadā ʔabī lahabin wa-tabba mā ʔaġnā ʕanhu māluhu wa-mā kasaba ‘may the hands of ʔAbū Lahab be ruined, and he is ruined. (Then) has his wealth gained him at all?’ is regarded as negative by Bergsträsser (1914: 31 n. 2) on account of min šayʔin (see also e.g. Q 11:101 and 46:26). On the other hand, min šayʔin occurs in questions too, e.g. Q 14:21 fa-hal ʔantum muġnūna ʕannā min ʕaḏābi llāhi min šayʔin ‘can you avail us anything against the punishment of Allah?’ 50  See also Q 26:207 ʔa-fa-raʔayta ʔin mmattaʕnāhum sinīna 206ṯumma ǧāʔahum mā kānū yūʕadūna 207mā ʔaġnā ʕanhum mmā kānū yumattaʕūna ‘have you considered: if we provided for them for years, and then that which they were promised came to them, would that with which they were provided really have availed them?’ 51  For questions of the type ʔa-lam yvqtvl, see also Q 2:33, 2:106, 2:107, 2:243, 2:246, 2:258, 3:23, 4:44, 4:49, 4:51, 4:60, 4:77, 4:141, 5:40, 9:63, 9:70, 9:78, 9:104, 24:41, 24:43, 57:16, 58:7, 58:8, 58:14, 59:11, and 64:5. For questions of the type ʔa-wa-lam yvqtvl, see Q 2:260 and for ʔa-fa-lam yvqtvl, see Q 47:10. This is also the case after ʔam, e.g. Q 2:6 sawāʔun ʕalayhim ʔa-ʔanḏartahum ʔam lam tunḏirhum ‘it is all the same to them whether you have warned them or not warned them.’ See also Q 63:6 (quoted in n. 97 on p. 264).

250

Chapter 8

instead of mā yvqtvlu, e.g. Q 9:13 ʔa-lā tuqātilūna qawman ‘would you not fight a people?’52 In other words, the interrogative background of mā lingered on in the Arabic of the Quran to the extent that it was not combined with other interrogative markers.53 The interrogative origin of negative mā is also indicated by the fact that it is not used in syntactically subordinated clauses. As a marker of rhetorical questions in origin, it was only felicitous in declarative main clauses. Therefore, syntactically subordinated predicates are negated by lā or lam.54 For example, lam yvqtvl occurs to the exclusion of mā qvtvla in relative clauses marked by mā, e.g. Q 48:27 fa-ʕalima mā lam taʕlamū ‘he knew what you did not know.’55 Likewise, if the predicate of a relative clause with mā is yvqtvlu, it is negated by lā, for example Q 8:48 ʔinnī ʔarā mā lā tarawna ‘indeed, I (can) see what you do/can not see.’56 Similarly, clauses marked by allaḏī are negated by lam or lā, never mā, e.g. Q 3:170 wa-yastabširūna bi-llaḏīna lam yalḥaqū bi-him min h̬ alfihim ‘they receive good tidings about those who have not (yet) joined them from behind.’57 52  See also Q 24:22. For questions of the type ʔa-fa-lā yvqtvlu, see Q 2:44, 2:76, 3:65, 4:82, 5:74, and 47:24. For ʔa-wa-lā yvqtvlu, see Q 2:77 and 9:126. For ʔa-lā ʔinna followed by a noun clause, see Q 2:12, 2:13, 2:214, 9:99, 24:64, 58:18, 58:19, and 58:22. Similarly after ʔam in e.g. Q 4:53. 53   lā yvqtvlu is also used as the negative predicate in questions marked by mā li- followed by a pronominal suffix, e.g. Q 4:75 wa-mā lakum lā tuqātilūna fī sabīli llāhi ‘what is the matter with you (that) you do not fight in the cause of Allah?’ (see also Q 4:78 and Q 5:84). The literal meaning of such questions is ‘what do you have, to not fight’ or ‘what is to you, that you do not fight’ (GVG 2 §292c), and the negated predicate forms part of an asyndetic clause to the preceding one. It may be noted that the negative clause following mā li- may also be ʔallā yvqtvla as in Q 8:34 (quoted on p. 261). Another construction marked for interrogative illocution is law lā followed by yvqtvlu or qvtvla (when not a noun phrase or ʔan, cf. n. 65 on p. 253), see the examples in n. 28 on p. 237. 54  For lam yvqtvl after min ḥayṯu, see Q 59:2. For lā yvqtvlu after ḥayṯu, see Q 65:3. 55  See also Q 2:236, 3:151+188, 5:20, and 9:74. 56  See also Q 2:30, 2:80, 2:202, 2:169, 2:171, 3:154, 4:104, 4:108, 5:70, 5:76, 22:12, 61:2, and 61:3. Such a clause may acquire past time meaning as in Q 2:87 ʔa-fa-kulla-mā ǧāʔakum rasūlun bi-mā lā tahwā ʔanfusukum-u stakbartum ‘were you (not) arrogant every (single) time a messenger came to you with what your hearts did not desire?’ 57  See also Q 5:41, 24:31+58, and 65:4 for lam yvqtvl after allaḏī. For lā yvqtvlu, see Q 2:113, 2:118, 4:127, 8:22, 9:29, 9:45, 9:79, 9:91, 24:33, and 24:60. Negated situations that accompany predicates made relative by means of allaḏī are usually syndetic by means of wa-, e.g. Q 8:72 wa-llaḏīna ʔāmanū wa-lam yuhāǧirū ‘those who have come to believe and not emigrated.’ See also Q 4:52, 9:4, 9:16, 9:18, 18:1, and 24:6 for lam yvqtvl in this capacity. If the accompanying action is posterior, it is marked by ṯumma, e.g. Q 24:4 wa-llaḏīna yarmūna l-muḥṣanāti

Quran Arabic

251

This is also true for asyndetic relative clauses.58 Likewise, the predicate yvqtvlu in a clause marked by ʔanna or ʔinna is negated by lā, never mā, e.g. Q 3:195 fa-staǧāba lahum rabbuhum ʔannī lā ʔuḍīʕu ʕamala ʕāmilin ‘their Lord responded to them: “I will not allow to be lost the work of a worker” ’ and Q 5:25 qāla rabbī ̆ ʔinnī lā ʔamliku ʔillā nafsī ‘he said: “My Lord, I only have authority over myself”.’59 The use of lā/lam over mā in these constructions is due to the background of the latter in rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions were in other words not used in relative clauses and clauses fronted by ʔanna/ʔinna. It may be noted that lā yvqtvlu in attributive and adverbial clauses allows for past time reference. In the following example, asyndetic relative lā yvqtvlu belongs to the past: Q 5:115 fa-man yakfur baʕdu minkum fa-ʔinnī ʔuʕaḏḏibuhu ʕaḏāban lā ʔuʕaḏḏibuhu ʔaḥadan min-a l-ʕālamīna ‘he who disbelieves afterwards from among you, I will certainly punish him with a punishment with which I have not punished anyone (else) from among the worlds.’60 Syndetic wa-lā yvqtvlu also allows for past time reference, e.g. Q 9:54 ʔillā ʔannahum kafarū bi-llāhi wa-bi-rasūlihi wa-lā yaʔtūna ṣ-ṣalāta ʔillā wa-hum kusālā wa-lā yunfiqūna ʔillā wa-hum kārihūna ‘(what prevented them […]) except that they have disbelieved in Allah and in his Messenger, by not coming to prayer except ṯumma lam yaʔtū bi-ʔarbaʕati šuhadāʔa fa-ǧlidūhum ‘those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses, lash them!’ (see also Q 9:4, 49:15, and 62:5). At one point, lam yvqtvl is asyndetic: Q 33:25 wa-radda llāhu llaḏīna kafarū bi-ġayẓihim lam yanālū h̬ ayran ‘Allah has repelled those who have disbelieved, in their rage not having obtained good.’ For circumstantial clauses with lā dependent on predicates in relative clauses marked by allaḏī, see Q 2:262, 2:264, 4:38, 8:55 ( fa-hum lā yuʔminūna), 9:34, and 33:39. 58  For asyndetic relative clauses with lā yvqtvlu, see Q 2:78, 3:118, 24:37, and 66:6. For lam yvqtvl in asyndetic relative clauses, see Q 4:164, 5:41, 9:26, 9:40, 33:9+27, and 48:21+25. For asyndetic relative clauses with lā yvqtvlu to noun phrases fronted by ʔanna (in a form of cleft sentence), see Q 5:58, 8:65, 9:6, 9:127, 59:13, and 59:14. Lā yvqtvlu also forms part of an asyndetic relative clause to yawman in Q 2:48 wa-ttaqū yawman lā taǧzī nafsun ʕan nafsin šayʔan ‘fear a day when a soul will not suffice for another soul at all’ (see also Q 2:123). lā yvqtvlu is also attested as the nomen rectum after yawma, e.g. Q 66:8 ʕasā rabbukum ʔan yukaffira ʕankum sayyiʔātikum wa-yudh̬ ilakum ǧannātin taǧrī min taḥtihā l-ʔanhāru yawma lā yuh̬ zī llāhu n-nabiyya ‘perhaps your Lord will remove from you your misdeeds and lead you into gardens beneath which rivers run, on the day when Allah will not disgrace the Prophet.’ 59  See also Q 3:171, 5:82, and 9:120 for lā yvqtvlu after ʔanna, and Q 8:59 for lā yvqtvlu after ʔinna. 60  See also Q 2:101 nabaḏa farīqun min-a llaḏīna ʔūtū l-kitāba kitāba llāhi warāʔa ẓuhūrihim ka-ʔannahum lā yaʕlamūna ‘a party of those who had been given the scripture tossed away the scripture of Allah behind their backs, as if they did not know.’

252

Chapter 8

while being lazy, and by not spending except while being unwilling?’ To be sure, lam yvqtvl also refers to the past, e.g. Q 2:259 qāla bal labiṯta miʔata ʕāmin fa-nẓur ʔilā ṭaʕāmika wa-šarābika lam yatasannah ‘he said: “On the contrary, you have stayed a hundred years. Look at your food and drinks which have not changed”.’ At one point, however, it would seem that an asyndetic relative clause with lam yvqtvl is used with generic rather than episodic meaning:61 (197) Q 47:15 maṯalu l-ǧannati llatī wuʕida l-muttaqūna fīhā ʔanhārun min māʔin ġayri ʔāsinin wa-ʔanhārun min labanin lam yataġayyar ṭaʕmuhu The like of paradise, which the righteous are promised, wherein there are rivers of water without brackishness, and rivers of milk the taste of which does not change. In relative clauses with qvtvla after man, lam yvqtvl is its negative counterpart, e.g. Q 2:249 fa-man šariba minhu fa-laysa minnī wa-man lam yaṭʕamhu fa-ʔinnahu minnī ‘he who drinks from it is not of me, but he who does not taste it is indeed of me.’62 In such constructions, lam yvqtvl also seems to denote a timeless condition.63 Furthermore, while lam is not used to negate the predicate of a consequence clause to ʔin (fa-mā qvtvla is used for this purpose), it negates the predicate of a consequence clause to ʔiḏā, and again, its meaning is not always the past, e.g. Q 24:40 ʔiḏā ʔah̬ raǧa yadahu lam yakad yarāhā waman lam yaǧʕal-i llāhu lahu nūran fa-mā lahu min nūrin ‘when he stretches forth his hand, he is far from seeing it, (because) he to whom Allah has not given light, there is no light to him.’64

61  A similar use of negated yvqtvl is also found in Ugaritic, see (92). 62  See also Q 2:196, 4:25+92, 5:44+45+47, 5:89, 48:11+13, and 58:4+4. If, however, the relative subject man follows the predicate, the predicate is negated by lā as in Q 5:105 lā yaḍurrukum man ḍalla ‘he who has gone astray will not harm you.’ 63  If, however, the predicate of the man-clause is yvqtvl, the negative counterpart is lā yvqtvl, e.g. Q 4:123+124 man yaʕmal sūʔan yuǧza bihi wa-lā yaǧid lahu min dūni llāhi waliyyan wa-lā naṣīran 124wa-man yaʕmal min-a ṣ-ṣāliḥāti min ḏakarin ʔaw ʔunṯā wa-huwa muʔminun fa-ʔūlāʔika yadh̬ ulūna l-ǧannata wa-lā yuẓlamūna naqīran ‘he who does a wrong will be recompensed for it, and he will not find besides Allah a protector nor a helper; and he who does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer – those will enter paradise and will not be wronged (even) a dot.’ Notably, lā yuẓlamūna, i.e. lā yvqtvlu, is the negative counterpart to yadh̬ ulūna, i.e. yvqtvlu, which is used instead of yvqtvl due to the SV word order and syndeton of the main clause. 64  For other instances of lam following a clause with ʔiḏā qvtvla, see also Q 3:135, 4:102, 24:39, 24:62, and 58:8.

Quran Arabic

253

It is true that Dahlgren (2006: 65–66) points to 8 instances of negative mā in subordinated clauses from the Mekkan periods. However, the subordinate status of these clauses is not conclusive. The mā-clauses in Q 12:40, 53:23, and 53:51 may just as well be parsed as independent, as also admitted by Dahlgren (2006: 66). The wa-mā-clauses in Q 7:72 and 10:45, in turn, may also be considered independent rather than subordinate (i.e. not belonging to the preceding allaḏīna-clauses), and the mā-clauses in Q 12:73 and 17:102 may be parsed as ‘direct speech’ after *ʕlm. As to Q 30:55 yuqsimu l-muǧrimūna mā labiṯū ‘the sinners will swear they have not tarried,’ cf. Songs 8:4 hišbaʕtī ʔɛṯḵɛm bənōṯ yərūšå� lå� m mah-tå� ʕīrū ‘I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, that you not arouse.’ The fact that mā, in conclusion, is not used to negate interrogative and subordinated clauses is indicative of its origin in questions. Furthermore, it can be concluded from the use of lam yvqtvl in non-past environments that the syntagm is not exclusively concerned with narration, but that lam negates yvqtvl in all of its non-volitive capacities. 8.7

Negated Conditional Linkings

This section investigates the distribution of lā, lam, and mā in conditional linkings. It will be argued that their distribution indicates the volitive and nonvolitive opposition between lā yvqtvl and lam yvqtvl, as well as the background of mā in rhetorical questions. Mā qvtvla is used to the exclusion of lam yvqtvl in the consequence clause of conditional linkings marked by ʔin or law. When a conditional antecedent with a verbal predicate is marked by law, the negated predicate of the consequence clause is mā qvtvla, e.g. Q 3:168 law ʔaṭāʕūnā mā qutilū ‘if they had obeyed us, they would not have been killed.’65 The consequence clause is always 65  If the negative predicate of an antecedent marked by law is a noun phrase, it is in the nominative and negated by lā, e.g. Q 24:21 wa-law-lā faḍlu llāhi ʕalaykum wa-raḥmatuhu mā zakā minkum min ʔaḥadin ‘if it was not for the favor of Allah upon you and his mercy, a single one of you would not have been pure.’ For other examples of law lā faḍlu llāhi, see Q 2:64, 4:83, 4:113, 24:10, 24:14, and 24:20 (in the latter two examples, the consequence clause is suppressed, cf. Nöldeke 1910: 19). See also Q 2:251 and 22:40 (law lā dafʕu llāhi), Q 8:68 (law lā kitābun) and Q 48:25 (law lā riǧālun). The main clause to such an antecedent is always asyndetic. At one point, lā negates a clause with ʔan: Q 59:3 wa-law-lā ʔan kataba llāhu ʕalayhim-u l-ǧalāʔa la-ʕaḏḏabahum ‘if it was it not the case that Allah had decreed evacuation for them, he would (certainly) have punished them.’ For law lam, cf. Q 24:35 (quoted in n. 73 on p. 256), and for law mā, see Q 15:7 (quoted in n. 28 on p. 237).

254

Chapter 8

asyndetic.66 However, mā qvtvla in a consequence clause to a condition marked by ʔin is syndetic, e.g. Q 4:90 fa-ʔin-i ʕtazalūkum fa-lam yuqātilūkum wa-ʔalqaw ʔilaykum-u s-salama fa-mā ǧaʕala llāhu lakum ʕalayhim sabīlan ‘if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made a cause for you against them.’ In this type of conditional linking, the negated consequence clause with mā qvtvla is always syndetic by means of fa-.67 However, lā yvqtvl is also used for negative consequence clauses. The distribution of mā qvtvla and lā yvqtvl depends on the predicate of the antecedent. The predicate of the consequence clause is lā yvqtvl if the predicate of the antecedent is yvqtvl. Furthermore, unlike consequence clauses with mā, the consequence clause with lā yvqtvl is always asyndetic, for example:68 (198) Q 22:73 wa-ʔin yaslubhum-u ḏ-ḏubābu šayʔan lā yastanqiḏūhu minhu If the fly steals from them (even the least) thing, they (can) not recover it from it. The use of lā yvqtvl over mā qvtvla seems to be conditioned by modal congruence. This is indicated by the fact that the clauses are asyndetic, as in linkings of the type Q 20:27–28 wa-ḥlul ʕuqdatan min lisānī yafqahū qawlī ‘untie the knot from my tongue (so that) they may understand my speech.’ Indeed, an affirmative predicate to a conditional antecedent ʔin yvqtvl is also yvqtvl, as in Q 47:36 wa-ʔin tuʔminū wa-tattaqū yuʔtikum ʔuǧūrakum wa-lā yasʔalkum ʔamwālakum ‘if you believe and fear, he will bring you your rewards and he will not ask you for your properties.’ This means that it is prohibitive lā yvqtvl (section 8.8) that is used for conditional linkings rather than indicative lam yvqtvl.69 This is also 66  See also Q 2:253+253, 3:154, 4:66, 5:36, 5:81, 10:72, and 33:20. 67  There is one exception in Q 2:145 wa-la-ʔin ʔatayta llaḏīna ʔūtū l-kitāba bi-kulli ʔāyatin mā tabiʕū qiblataka ‘even if you brought to those who were given the Scripture every sign, they would (still) not follow your qibla,’ in which case the conditional linking is concessive (wa-la-ʔin). 68  See also Q 3:75, 3:120, 9:8, and 49:14. 69  Cf. also Larcher (2008–2009). As in Q 47:36 above, a consequence clause with yvqtvl may be continued with lā yvqtvl, but it may also be continued by ṯumma lā yvqtvl as in Q 47:38 wa-ʔin tatawallaw yastabdil qawman ġayrakum ṯumma lā yakūnū ʔamṯālakum ‘if you turn away, he will replace you with another people, then they will not be your likes.’ However, if ṯumma introduces a state of affairs the realization of which is not directly dependent on the antecedent, it is expressed by lā yvqtvlu, e.g. Q 3:111 wa-ʔin yuqātilūkum yuwallūkum-u l-ʔadbāra ṯumma lā yunṣarūna ‘if they fight you, they will show their backs, then they will not be aided.’

Quran Arabic

255

indicated by the fact that a consequence clause to a condition with lam yvqtvl is mā qvtvla, considering the fact that lam negates yvqtvl in its indicative rather than volitive function, e.g. Q 5:67 ballig mā ʔunzila ʔilayka min rabbika wa-ʔin lam tafʕal fa-mā ballaġta risālatahu ‘announce that which has been revealed to you from your lord, and if you do not do it, you have not announced his message.’ As such, lam yvqtvl is the negative counterpart to affirmative ʔin qvtvla. This originally non-volitive use of yvqtvl, which is indicated by the negator lam instead of lā, is similar to the use of iprus in negated antecedents in Akkadian (see the discussion to example 44). Without modal congruence, when the predicate of the antecedent is qvtvla or lam yvqtvl, and the predicate of the consequence clause is yvqtvlu rather than qvtvla, it is negated by lā.70 Antecedents marked by ʔin are negated by lam. There are no occurrences of a conditional antecedent with ʔin negated by mā (but cf. example 190), which is indicative of its interrogative origin. However, ʔin + lā yvqtvl (in the form ʔillā yvqtvl) is also used for antecedents. The difference between lam yvqtvl and lā yvqtvl in the antecedent depends on the predicate of the consequence clause. When the predicate of the consequence clause is yvqtvl, and the antecedent to that clause is negated, it is in the form of ʔillā yvqtvl, for example Q 9:39 ʔillā tanfirū yuʕaḏḏibkum ʕaḏāban ʔalīman wa-yastabdil qawman ġayrakum wa-lā taḍurrūhu šayʔan ‘if you do not proceed, he will punish you with a painful punishment and replace you with another people, and you will not harm him at all.’71 The consequence clause is again asyndetic to the antecedent and the clause linking shows modal congruence. The predicate of the consequence clause to an antecedent which is lam yvqtvl, on the other hand, is fa-qvtvl, fa-lā yvqtvl, fa-mā qvtvla, or fa-NCl, for example:72

70  As in independent main clauses, lā yvqtvlu is used for propositions of juridical nature, e.g. Q 2:230 fa-ʔin ṭallaqahā fa-lā taḥillu lahu ‘if he has divorced her, then she is not lawful to him’. Furthermore, lā yvqtvlu is used for future consequence clauses, e.g. Q 59:12 la-ʔin ʔuh̬ riǧū lā yah̬ ruǧūna maʕahum ‘even if they are driven out, they (sc. the others) will (still) not leave with them’ (see also Q 2:217, 33:16, and 59:11). For law qvtvla followed by ṯumma lā yvqtvlu, see Q 48:22. As is the case with antecedents with lam yvqtvl to consequence clauses with fa-mā qvtvla, the negative counterpart to affirmative ʔin qvtvla is ʔin lam yvqtvl also when the consequence clause is lā yvqtvlu, e.g. Q 33:60. 71  See also Q 8:73 and 9:40. 72  For consequence clauses with fa-qvtvl and fa-lā yvqtvl, see Q 2:24, 4:43, 5:6, 5:41, 24:28, and 28:50. For consequence clauses with fa-NCl, see Q 2:265, 2:282, 2:283, 4:11, 4:23, 33:5, and 58:12. For consequence clauses with fa-mā qvtvla, see Q 4:90 and 5:67. Fa-mā also negates the predicate to man in Q 4:80 and 24:40.

256

Chapter 8

(199) Q 4:91 fa-ʔin lam yaʕtazilūkum wa-yulqū ʔilaykum-u s-salama […] fa-h̬ uḏūhum If they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace […] then seize them! As above, a predicate following lam yvqtvl in the condition may inherit its negative polarity. This fact explains why the consequence clause is always syndetic.73 By way of conclusion one notes that both asyndetic lā yvqtvl (not lam yvqtvl) and syndetic fa-mā qvtvla are used in consequence clauses to antecedents marked by ʔin. Their use is conditioned by the predicate of the antecedent. If the predicate of the antecedent is yvqtvl, the negated predicate of the consequence clause is yvqtvl. This use of yvqtvl is conditioned by modal congruence. Negated antecedents, in turn, are ʔin lam yvqtvl or ʔillā yvqtvl. Again, ʔillā yvqtvl is used if the predicate of the consequence clause is yvqtvl. The non-use of negative mā in antecedents is explained by its background in interrogative clauses, i.e. the non-use of rhetorical questions in antecedents of conditional linkings. 8.8 Prohibitive lā yvqtvl and lā yvqtvlanna The absence of the prohibitive construction ʔal-yvqtvl and the use of lā yvqtvl in its stead separates Arabic from the other Central Semitic languages. Section 8.8.1 provides an explanation for this situation. Section 8.8.2, in turn, provides a discussion of lā yvqtvlanna, i.e. negated Energicus 1, and its distributional similarities to lā yvqtvl. 8.8.1 lā yvqtvl There is no trace of the prohibitor *ʔal- in Arabic or North Arabian. Negative a in Palestinian Arabic, tentatively compared by Wagner (1953 §70 n. 1) to the negator of the vetitive in Akkadian, must be explained with Bauer (1926: 122–123)

73  The exceptions include Q 5:73, in which case the consequence clause is la-yvqtvlanna, and Q 9:58, in which case the consequence clause is introduced by ʔiḏā. At one point lam negates an antecedent with law, in which case it follows its consequence clause: Q 24:35 yakādu zaytuhā yuḍiʔu wa-law-lam tamsashu nārun ‘its oil would almost glow even if/ though untouched by fire.’ For the consequence clause preceding ʔin lam yvqtvl, see also Q 4:176 wa-huwa yariṯuhā ʔin lam yakun lahā waladun ‘and he will inherit from her if she has no child’ (see also Q 4:12+12).

Quran Arabic

257

as abbreviated (sometimes dissimilated) from mā.74 It will be argued in the following that the loss of *ʔal-is a push effect from the innovation of a new prohibitive expression, lā yvqtvl. In the 2nd person, lā yvqtvl is the negative counterpart to qvtvl, e.g. Q 9:80 istaġfir lahum ʔaw lā tastaġfir lahum ‘ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them!’ In the 3rd person, lā yvqtvl is the negative counterpart to (la-)yvqtvl, e.g. Q 2:282 wa-l-yattaqi llāha rabbahu wa-lā yabh̬ as minhu šayʔan ‘let him fear Allah, his Lord, and let him not leave anything out of it!’75 Lā yvqtvl is also used to express prohibitions of juridical nature, e.g. Q 2:187 ṯumma ʔatimmū ṣ-ṣiyāma ʔilā l-layli wa-lā tubāširūhunna wa-ʔantum ʕākifūna fī l-masāǧidi tilka ḥudūdu llāhi ‘then complete the fast until the night, and do not have relations with them while you are staying for worship in the mosques. These are the limits of Allah.’ It may be noted that this use of qvtvl and yvqtvl is closer to the use of the same verbal grammatical morphemes in Proverbs and Psalms, rather than the legal texts in Biblical Hebrew. However, the phrase ḥudūdu llāhi indicates the legal nature of this verse, and is comparable to the introduction of the Deuteronomic Code: Deut 12:1 ʔellɛ ha-ḥuqqīm wə-hammišpå� ṭīm ‘these are the statutes and the ordinances.’76 Most attestations of lā yvqtvl are syndetic by means of wa-.77 Since lā yvqtvl is the asymmetric negative counterpart to qvtvl, the continuation of qvtvl with wa-lā yvqtvl does not necessarily imply subordination. Thus, wa-lā yvqtvl in e.g. Q 5:48 fa-ḥkum baynahum bi-mā ʔanzala llāhu wa-lā tattabiʕ ʔahwāʔahum 74  Wagner (1968: 268) also compares Arabic interrogative hal to *ʔal- (cf. Reckendorf 1895: 78), which is difficult to explain without resorting to ad hoc sound changes. It is also difficult to reconcile the different distributional properties of them from a historical point of view. 75  While prohibitive Gp yvqtvl in the 2nd person is not attested, it occurs perhaps in the 3rd person: Q 2:233 lā tukallafu nafsun ʔillā wusʕahā lā tuḍārra wālidatun bi-waladihā ‘no person is (or: ‘may be’) charged (with more) than his capacity. No mother should be harmed by/through her child!’ In the case of tukallafu, it would seem that yvqtvlu may be used in lieu of Gp yvqtvl. Alternatively, tuḍarra should be parsed as yvqtvlu too, with -a instead of -u. See also Q 2:282 wa-lā yuḍārra kātibun ‘let no scribe be harmed!’ 76  See also the introduction to the Commandments in Deut 5:1, the beginning and the end of the Covenant Code (Ex 21:1 and Ex 24:7) and the beginning of the Holiness Code (Lev 17:2). 77  For other instances of wa-lā yvqtvl in the 2nd person not discussed below, see Q 2:41+41, 2:42, 2:60, 2:152, 2:168+168, 2:187, 2:190, 2:191, 2:195, 2:196, 2:208, 2:221, 2:224, 2:231+231, 2:235, 2:237, 2:267, 2:282, 2:283, 2:286, 3:73, 3:103, 30:105, 3:139+139, 3:194, 4:2+2, 4:6, 4:22, 4:29, 4:32, 4:36, 4:49, 4:89, 4:94, 4:104, 4:105, 4:107, 4:171, 5:44, 5:77, 8:20, 8:21, 8:46, 8:47, 9:49, 9:84, 24:4, 33:1, 33:33, 33:48, 47:33, 49:11, 49:12, 59:10, 59:19, 60:10, and 65:6. In the 3rd person, see Q 2:282+282, 3:176, 9:85, 24:2, 24:22, 24:31+31, 49:12, and 65:1.

258

Chapter 8

‘so judge between them with what Allah has revealed—do not follow their inclinations!’ may be understood as either functionally coordinated to qvtvl or as functionally subordinated to it. Actually, such a clause may in turn receive the notion of negative result, e.g. Q 2:222 fa-ʕtazilū n-nisāʔa fī l-maḥīḍi wa-lā taqrabūhunna ḥattā yaṭhurna ‘so keep away from the women during menstruation, so that you do not approach them until they are pure.’ Likewise, asyndetic lā yvqtvl may also be intended as a negative result clause, e.g. Q 65:1+1 wa-ttaqū llāha rabbakum lā tuh̬ riǧūhunna min buyūtihinna wa-lā yah̬ ruǧna ‘fear Allah, your Lord, lest you turn them out of their houses, and lest they (themselves) leave.’78 As a matter of fact, negative consequence clauses that follow a prohibition need not be negated at all, but can be grammatically affirmative. In the following example, the clause is introduced by fa-:79 (200) Q 2:35 wa-lā taqrabā hāḏihi š-šaǧarata fa-takūnā min-a ẓ-ẓālimīna But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers. Such a clause inherits negative polarity from the preceding one, and the notion of result in relation to that clause is indicated by fa-.80 78  Elsewhere, asyndetic lā yvqtvl usually follows a vocative phrase, e.g. Q 3:118 yā-ʔayyuhā llaḏīna ʔāmanū lā tattah̬ iḏū biṭānatan min dūnikum ‘O you who have come to believe, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves!’ or a speech verb, e.g. Q 4:154 wa-qulnā lahum lā taʕdū ‘we said to them: “Do not transgress!”’ For asyndetic lā yvqtvl preceded by a vocative, see also Q 2:104, 2:264, 2:286, 3:8, 3:130, 3:156, 4:29, 4:43, 4:144, 4:171, 5:2, 5:41, 5:51, 5:57, 5:77, 5:87, 5:95, 8:27, 9:23, 24:21, 24:27, 33:53, 33:69, 49:1, 49:2, 49:11, 60:1, 60:5, 60:13, 63:9, and 66:7. For asyndetic lā yvqtvl after a speech verb (*qwl), see also Q 2:11, 9:40, 9:94, 24:53, and 63:7. For lā yvqtvl in verse initial position, see Q 3:28, 9:66, 9:108, and 24:63. For asyndetic lā yvqtvl after a relative clause, see Q 24:11. 79  See also Q 33:32. Such a clause may also be introduced by ʔan, e.g. Q 4:135 fa-lā tattabiʕū l-hawā ʔan taʕdilū ‘do not follow inclination that you (not) be just’ (see also Q 49:2). A negative result clause with ʔan lā yvqtvl is also attested after qvtvla: Q 22:26 wa-ʔiḏ bawwaʔnā li-ʔibrāhīma makāna l-bayti ʔan lā tušrik bī šayʔan ‘we provided the temple ground for Abraham (such) that: “do not associate anything with me!”’ Since ʔan + lā is elsewhere followed by yvqtvla, ʔan is not subordinative but a marker of direct speech at this point. 80  The negative syntagm fa-lā yvqtvl is actually most common when it follows a noun clause, e.g. Q 2:102 ʔinnamā naḥnu fitnatun fa-lā takfur ‘we are truly a trial, so do not disbelieve!’ or introducing the consequence clause after ʔin, e.g. Q 4:34 fa-ʔin ʔaṭaʕnakum fa-lā tabġū ʕalayhinna sabīlan ‘but if they obey you, then do not seek means against them!’ Reckendorf (1895: 793 n. 3) points out that a clause introduced by fa- that follows a noun phrase is almost always directive. For fa-lā yvqtvl after a noun clause, see Q 2:187, 2:229, 3:60 (quoted in relation to 201), 3:175, 4:135 (cf. n. 79 on p. 258), 9:28, 9:36, and 51:59. For fa-lā yvqtvl after an antecedent with ʔin, see also Q 4:20, 24:28, 33:32, and 60:10. Lā yvqtvl is also

Quran Arabic

259

As to the historical background of directive lā yvqtvl, it seems probable that it is the innovation of lam yvqtvl that paved the way for the reanalysis of indicative lā yvqtvl. In the same vein, it is the innovation of mā qvtvla that paved the way for the reanalysis of lā qvtvla (see the modalized examples of lā qvtvla in n. 28 on p. 237). Rather than dropping out from the language altogether, both syntagms were reanalyzed as marked for the negative volitive counterpart to negative mā qvtvla and lam yvqtvl. The possibility for lā yvqtvl and lā qvtvla to be reanalyzed as volitive indicates that the verbal grammatical morphemes themselves were not marked for the indicative. Indeed, a volitive use of these verbal grammatical morphemes is also known in the affirmative. Thus, when the nonvolitive function of yvqtvl was lost except after lam, speakers reanalyzed the construction lā yvqtvl as volitive in analogy to the use of affirmative yvqtvl. 8.8.2 Lā yvqtvlanna The energetic (or ‘energic’) forms, i.e. yvqtvlanna and yvqtvlan, are the least frequently occurring verbal grammatical morphemes in the Quran and their functional distribution in relation to the other prefix conjugations, as well as their historical background, are still quite elusive.81 Zewi (1999: 47) discusses the thematic distribution of lā yvqtvlanna: “Most of the negative sentences express a prohibition and a warning; the majority of them deal with matters of thought and belief […] Some prohibitions deal with matters of laws expressed by Muḥammad. The speaker of most of the instances found in the Qurʔān is Allah, and they tell about reward and punishment, affirmation of the words of Allah, and warnings against Satan […] It seems that the use of verbs with an -n(n) is chosen for these subjects in positive statements as well as negative.” The connection of lā yvqtvlanna to prohibitions was maintained already by Bergsträsser (1914: 39): “Der energ ist bei lā nie aussagend, sondern stets prohibitiv.” In Owens’ (2013) view, however, yvqtvlanna in the Quran is used for both assertions and volitions: “It can be said to represent an assertion on the part of the speaker that the event or state of affairs represented in the predicate will with a high degree of certitude occur. It is, as it were, a certitude operator. In the case of imperatives it expresses a syndetic with fa-when it introduces the matrix clause after ʔiḏā, see Q 2:232, 8:15, and 58:9. fa-lā yvqtvl also occurs after qvtvla, e.g. Q 5:3 al-yawma yaʔisa llaḏīna kafarū min dīnikum fa-lā tah̬ šawhum wa-h̬ šawnī ̆ ‘today those who disbelieve have despaired from your religion, so fear them not, but fear me!’. See also Q 2:22, 4:89, 4:140, and 5:44. For fa-lā yvqtvl following other clause types, see Q 2:150, 9:55, 4:129, and 47:35. 81  For discussions of their formal background, see Testen (1993) and Hasselbach (2006), cf. n. 93 on p. 262.

260

Chapter 8

strong desire on the part of the speaker that an event should or should not occur” (p. 225).82 It would therefore seem that while non-negated yvqtvlanna can be used for both statements and injunctions, lā yvqtvlanna would always be prohibitive. It is difficult, however, to determine whether this prohibition is in the form of an assertion, an obligation in the form of a statement, or a volition on the part of the speaker. In the Quran, all occurrences of negated Energicus 1 are in the 2nd or 3rd person, and in the 3rd person, the verb is usually followed by a pronominal suffix in the 2nd person. A volitive meaning is actually indicated by the fact that lā yvqtvlanna often collocates with qvtvl, e.g. Q 22:67 fa-lā yunāziʕunnaka fī l-ʔamri wa-dʕu ʔilā rabbika ‘let them not contend with you over the matter, but invite them to your Lord!’83 Furthermore, the similarities of lā yvqtvlanna with lā yvqtvl are sometimes lexical: (201) Q 2:147 ʔinna farīqan minhum la-yaktumūna l-ḥaqqa wa-hum yaʕlamūna 147 al-ḥaqqu min rabbika fa-lā takūnanna min-a l-mumtarīna Indeed, a party of them conceal the truth (even though) they know (it). (But) the truth is from your Lord, so do not be among the doubters. Q 2:147 above may be compared to Q 3:60 al-ḥaqqu min rabbika fa-lā takun min-a l-mumtarīna.84 The lexical similarities may be taken to indicate that lā yvqtvlanna at this point is built on lā yvqtvl.85 82  Owens (2013: 223–224) also notes that yvqtvlanna often co-occurs with other morphemes that co-mark the “energic” meaning, most of the time la-. It cannot be ruled out that the “emphatic” meaning of yvqtvlanna depends on such illocutionary operators. 83  See also Q 5:2, 5:8, 8:59 (cf. 8:58), 24:57, and 35:5 (cf. 35:6). The expression lā yaḥsabanna in Q 3:178, 3:180 and 3:188+188, however, does not occur in tandem with qvtvl. Nevertheless, they all occur in proximity to each other. Cf. also Q 3:169 (quoted in the following note). 84  Similarly, Q 3:169 wa-lā taḥsabanna llaḏīna qutilū fī sabīli llāhi ʔamwātan bal ʔaḥyāʔun ʕinda rabbihim ‘and do not think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead; on the contrary, they are alive with their Lord’ may be compared to Q 2:154 wa-lā taqūlū li-man yuqtalu fī sabīli llāhi ʔamwātun bal ʔaḥyāʔun ‘and do not say to/about he who is killed in the way of Allah: “They are dead”; on the contrary, they are alive.’ 85  However, lā yvqtvlanna is also attested in what can be parsed as an asyndetic relative clause in Q 8:25 wa-ttaqū fitnatan lā tuṣībanna llaḏīna ẓalamū minkum h̬ āṣṣatan ‘fear a trial which will not exclusively strike those who have wronged among you!’ If lā tuṣībanna is indeed a relative clause, a volitive function is not likely. It could, however, be argued that lā yvqtvlanna is used with a generic meaning, which is also known from yvqtvl (cf. example 197).

Quran Arabic

261

Much like lā yvqtvl, lā yvqtvlanna is also used in negative result clauses, e.g. Q 3:102 yā-ʔayyuhā llaḏīna ʔāmanū ttaqū llāha ḥaqqa tuqātihi wa-lā tamūtunna ʔillā wa-ʔantum muslimūna ‘O you who have come to believe, fear Allah as he truthfully should be feared, so that you do not die, if not as being muslims’ (see also Q 2:132). This use of lā yvqtvlanna in a negative possible consequence clause is similar to the use of lā yvqtvl in e.g. Q 65:1 (quoted on p. 258). Since lā yvqtvlanna typically appears in environments similar to lā yvqtvl it is reasonable to conclude that lā yvqtvlanna is also volitive and functionally similar to lā yvqtvl, potentially derived from it. 8.9 Negated yvqtvla As is well known, the verbal grammatical morpheme yvqtvla is in general restricted to subordinated clauses in Arabic. The negative syntagm lan yvqtva, however, provides an important exception. This section investigates the functional distribution of yvqtvla in negated clauses with particular reference to lan yvqtvla. The verbal grammatical morpheme yvqtvla is negated by lā or lan. If the negator is lā, the negator is always preceded by ʔan (usually in the form of ʔallā), kay, or ḥattā.86 ʔallā is used for negative content clauses e.g. Q 3:176 yurīdu llāhu ʔallā yaǧʕala lahum ḥaẓẓan fī l-ʔāh̬ irati ‘Allah intends to not give them a share in the hereafter.’87 This is also the case when an entire clause is the predicate, e.g. Q 3:41 qāla ʔāyatuka ʔallā tukallima n-nāsa ṯalāṯata ʔayyāmin ‘he said: “your sign is that you will not speak to the people for three days”’ and Q 8:34 wa-mā lahum ʔallā yuʕaḏḏibahum-u llāhu ‘why should Allah not punish them?’88 ʔallā is also used after *h̬ wf as in Q 2:229 ʔillā ʔan yah̬ āfā ʔallā yuqīmā ḥudūda llāhi ‘unless they fear that they will not keep the limits of Allah’ (see also Q 2:229 and Q 4:3). Lā yvqtvla after (li-)kay and ḥattā, in turn, expresses negated finality or 86   ʔan + lā yvqtvla is used instead of ʔallā if it follows affirmative ʔan yvqtvla (i.e. ʔan yvqtvla wa-/fa-lā yvqtvla) as in Q 3:80 (cf. 3:79), Q 33:51, and 33:59, or if it is followed by wa-lā yvqtvla as in Q 60:12 (i.e. ʔan lā yvqtvla wa-lā yvqtvla). In Q 22:26 (quoted in n. 79 on p. 258), ʔan lā is followed by yvqtvl. 87  See also Q 2:246, 3:183, 5:8, 57:29, and 60:12. 88  See also Q 2:246, 2:282+282, 4:3, 9:97, 33:51, 33:59, and 57:10. Similarly in Q 3:64 taʕālaw ʔilā kalimatin sawāʔin baynanā wa-baynakum ʔallā naʕbuda ʔillā llāha ‘come to a common statement between us and you: that we will only worship Allah’ and Q 9:92 waʔaʕyunuhum tafīḍu min-a d-damʕi ḥazanan ʔallā yaǧidū mā yunfiqūna ‘while their eyes overflowed from tears of sadness (over the fact) that they (can) not find to spend anything.’

262

Chapter 8

consecution to a preceding qvtvla or yvqtvlu, e.g. Q 3:153 fa-ʔaṯābakum ġamman bi-ġammin li-kay-lā taḥzanū ʕalā mā fātakum ‘he has repaid you with distress upon distress, so that you should not grieve for that which had escaped you.’89 The negator lan only negates yvqtvla. Since negated yvqtvla elsewhere is most common after ʔallā, it is generally assumed that lan is a compound of lā and ʔan.90 As to the meaning of lan yvqtvla, the common opinion is that it expresses negation that involves universal quantification over time, corresponding to English ‘never,’ and/or emphasis. Such a meaning, however, was disputed by Lane (it may be noted that lan collocates with ʔabadan in Q 2:95, 5:24, 9:83, 18:20+57, and 48:12).91 In Brockelmann’s (GVG 2 §394,2b) view, lan yvqtvla is the negative counterpart to sawfa, sa-,92 and it may be noted that like the Energicus (GAL 1 §14), lan yvqtvla only refers to the future (except perhaps in example 203). Unlike lā yvqtvlanna, lan yvqtvla is more or less equally common with all grammatical persons.93 It apparently expresses a statement about the future, e.g. Q 2:80 wa-qālū lan tamassanā n-nāru ʔillā ʔayyāman maʕdūdatan qul ʔa-ttah̬ aḏtum ʕinda llāhi ʕahdan ‘they said: “The fire is (definitely) not going to

89  See also Q 4:65, 22:5, and 57:23. 90  Cf. Reckendorf (1895 §48.5) “lā + ʔan ‘nicht (ist der Fall,) dass’,” Wright (GAL 1 §362hh) “it will not be that,” and Testen (1994: 152) “*laa ʔan ‘(it is) not that …’.” According to Aartun (1976), lan is a compound of lā and an emphasizing -n(v) (“hervorhebende Partikel”), which does not really explain the use of yvqtvla. 91  Cf. Lane (AL 3013) on lan: “A particle denoting negation, rendering the aor. manṣoob, and restricting it to the future sense: not implying corroboration of the negation, nor its neverending continuance.” Bergsträsser (1914: 16) concedes that “derartige Feststellungen zu sehr von subjektiver Gewöhnung des Sprachgefühls abhängen.” 92  Cf. also Reckendorf (1921: §29): “Es bildet eine kräftige Verneinung einer zukünftigen Handlung und wird als die Verneinung von sa- mit Indik. angesehen.” 93  The functional relationship between yvqtvlanna and yvqtvlan is not clear. In Zewi’s (1999: 13–14) view, “it seems that no difference exists between the usage of geminate forms and the usage of non-geminate forms.” Indeed, at least historically, the endings -an and -anna are merely allomorphs. Testen (1993: 303–305), for example, reconstructs two allomorphs, *-am and *-nim: The former allomorph is present in yvqtvlan, and -nna of yvqtvlanna results from vowel syncope of *-nn < *-nim, in turn resolved by a final vowel (cf. e.g. yardud, yarudda). Hasselbach (2006: 324–325) also reconstructs two allomorphs, *-an and *-n. The ending -anna, however, is explained as resulting from a reanalysis of *-an followed by the 1st csg pronominal suffix *-nī, i.e. *-annī. This ending, which historically was a compound of the energic-ventive ending *-an and the pronominal suffix -nī, was reanalyzed as an ending -ann followed by a 1st csg pronominal suffix -ī in analogy to the pronominal suffix used with nouns.

Quran Arabic

263

touch us, except for a few days.” Say: “Have you taken a promise with Allah?”.’94 The fact that the saying lan tamassanā prompts the response ‘have you taken a promise with God?’ indicates that the speaker assumes that the certitude of a proposition negated by lan is high.95 The speaker’s certitude of the non-realization of negative lan yvqtvla is also indicated by the fact that in conditional linkings, the consequence clause is negated by lan yvqtvla if the condition is a universal concessive and the consequence clause is adversative, as in the following example:96 (202) Q 9:80 istaġfir lahum ʔaw lā tastaġfir lahum ʔin tastaġfir lahum sabʕīna marratan fa-lan yaġfira llāhu lahum Ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them. (Even) if you should ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah is (still) not going to forgive them. Furthermore, in Q 9:53 ʔanfiqū ṭawʕan ʔaw karhan lan yutaqabbala minkum ‘spend willingly or unwillingly, it is (still) not going to be accepted from you,’

94  It is not uncommon that a clause lan yvqtvla is marked by ʔinna, e.g. Q 3:10 ʔinna llaḏīna kafarū lan tuġniya ʕanhum ʔamwāluhum ‘as to the ones who have disbelieved, their wealth will not avail them.’ For additional instances of ʔinna llaḏīna pred lan yvqtvla, see also Q 3:116, 3:177, 3:90, 3:91, 22:73, 47:32, and 47:34. For the same construction without a preceding ʔinna, see Q 47:4. For other subjects introduced by ʔinna followed by lan yvqtvla, see Q 3:176, 4:145, 5:22, and 5:24. For lan yvqtvla following a noun clause, see Q 3:111, 58:17, 33:62, and 47:35. For fa-lan yvqtvla following a subject with man, e.g. Q 4:52 wa-man yalʕan-i fa-lan taǧida lahu naṣīran ‘he whom (Allah) has cursed, he will not find for him a helper,’ see also Q 3:85, 3:115 (mā), 3:144, 4:88, 4:143, and 5:41. For additional instances of lan yvqtvla not discussed below, see Q 2:55, 2:61, 2:95, 2:120, 3:24, 4:141, 3:92, 9:83, 9:51, 9:83, 22:37, 22:47, 33:16, 48:15, 48:23, 60:31, and 63:11. 95  See also Q 2:111 wa-qālū lan yadh̬ ula l-ǧannata ʔillā man kāna hūdan ʔaw naṣārā tilka ʔamāniyyuhum qul hātu burhānakum ʔin kuntum ṣādiqīna ‘they have said: “One is not going to enter paradise except he who is a Jew or a Christian,” (but) that is their wishful thinking, (so) say: “Give your proof, if you should be truthful”,’ in which the proposition lan yvqtvla is characterized as ʔamāniyyum. 96  See also Q 5:42 and 8:19. In the case of Q 4:129, a concessive condition follows lan: walan tastaṭīʕū ʔan taʕdilū bayna n-nisāʔi wa-law ḥaraṣtum ‘you are not going to be able to be equal (between) wives, even if you should strive to.’ The coordination in Q 9:94 lā taʕtaḏirū lan nuʔmina may also be rendered concessively: ‘(even if) you make excuses, we will not believe you.’

264

Chapter 8

the speaker’s willingness is contrasted by two opposites which are purported as irrelevant to the (non-)realization of lan yvqtvla.97 A proposition negated by lan may in turn be contradicted by an oath, e.g. Q 64:7 zaʕama llaḏīna kafarū ʔan lan yubʕaṯū qul balā wa-rabbī la-tubʕaṯunna ‘those who have disbelieved have claimed that they are not going to be resurrected, (so) say: “On the contrary, by my Lord, you will certainly be resurrected”.’ In this example, the oath is marked by wa-rabbī as well as la-yvqtvlanna.98 Therefore, if lā yvqtvlanna has more in common with yvqtvl, lan yvqtvla has more in common with statements and seems to involve speaker’s certitude. At one point, lan yvqtvla expresses a conditional modality: (203) Q 4:172 lan yastankifa l-masīḥu ʔan yakūna ʕabdan li-llāhi Messiah did/would not disdain to be a servant of Allah. Although it cannot be ruled out that *-n is added to a negator of indicative yvqtvl (as in lam), it is tempting to assume that the meaning of lan yastanfika may also be that of a conditional mood, ‘Messiah would not have disdained,’ much like the conditional -n in Modern South Arabian, e.g. Mehri (apud Lonnet 1994: 247) lu śīnək tēk l-əġrēbən tēk əláʔ ‘if I had seen you, I would (still) not have recognized you.’ The same goes for lan yvqtvla in (202). It may be pointed out that a clause lan yvqtvla may also be marked as a question, for example:99 (204) Q 3:124 ʔiḏ taqūlu li-l-muʔminīna ʔa-lan yakfiyakum ʔan yumiddakum rabbukum bi-ṯalāṯati ʔālāfin min-a l-malāʔikati munzalīna Then you said to the believers: “Will it not really be sufficient for you that your Lord should reinforce you with the three thousand angels sent down?” The fact that the sufficiency questioned by lan yvqtvla involves ‘three thousand angels,’ which must be understood as ranking high on a scale of reinforcement, 97  See also Q 63:6 sawāʔun ʕalayhim ʔa-staġfarta lahum ʔam lam tastaġfir lahum lan yaġfira llāhu lahum ‘it is all the same for them whether you have asked forgiveness for them or have not asked forgiveness for them, Allah is (still) not going to forgive them.’ 98  For ʔan lan yvqtvla, see also Q 22:15, 48:12 (after ẓanna), and Q 47:29 (after ḥasiba). 99   Lan yvqtvla also occurs as a parenthesis to an antecedent, as in Q 2:24 fa-ʔin lam tafʕalū wa-lan tafʕalū fa-ttaqū n-nāra ‘if you do not do it, and you are not going to do it, then fear the fire!’ At this point, lan yvqtvla fine-tunes what started out as a condition to a statement about the future.

Quran Arabic

265

indicates that the question is more informative than a corresponding question without that endpoint. It can be stated then, by way of conclusion, that lan yvqtvla is particularly common in adversative clauses that are linked to a remarkable opposite, for example a concession. This fact indicates that lan yvqtvla expresses a high degree of confidence on the part of the speaker in the knowledge upon which the proposition is based. 8.10 Negative ʔin Negative ʔin has variously been identified with conditional ʔin, Hebrew ʔēn, and an asseverative particle ʔin ‘verily’ (abbreviated from ʔinna).100 100  See Leslau (1969b) for earlier etymological considerations of negative ʔin in Arabic. Pennacchietti’s (1968) comparison to Soqotri inɛ́m must be doubted as long as its etymology is tentative (cf. LS 67 for some speculations). Furthermore, the existence of a negative (ʔ)ən- in Ethiosemitic can be seriously disputed. ʔən- of Ge’ez ʔənbala must be identified with *in(a) ‘from,’ considering that the collocation of a locative-ablative preposition with *bal is commonplace in Semitic, e.g. Akkadian ina balum, Hebrew mib-bəlī, and Sabaic blt-n, cf. section 6.2. Ge’ez ʔəndāʕi (CDG 28), Tigrinya ʔəndəʕi, and Amharic ʔənǧa (AS §335; Cohen 1936: 313–314, 333), with palatalization of d to ǧ, is explained by Dillmann (EG §163.3) and Leslau (CDG 28; 1969b: 140) from a negative ʔən- and verbal noun of *ydʕ. It is, however, more likely from mən-dāʕi (Bulakh 2013: 7–9), cf. the discussion on Aramaic m(n)dʕm in relation to A:2.5(6/5):4 quoted on p. 198. The prohibitive meaning of ən-qvtvla (Leslau 1969b; Hetzron 1977: 88; Chamora and Hetzron 2000: 47), which is available in Muher and Western Gurage (except Mäsqan), e.g. Muher ən-käfätho and Inor ən-käfädxä ‘do not open!’ is presumably also inferred from an interrogative context. Indeed, Ford (1991: 280) notes that these forms are also used as questions in Chaha, marked by intonation, to mean ‘why didn’t you …?’ for example əm-bw ärxä ‘why didn’t you go?’ (wärxäm ‘you went’). This is the case in Leslau (1964 no. 31. 20): ebxäta? bäṭwäta anäräm. ən-anäwiye? ‘(he said:) “Where is the milk (of the cow)?” (She said:) “It dried up in its breast.” (He said:) “Why did not one milk it?”’ It is therefore possible that (ʔ)ənshould be identified with an interrogative morpheme, but let it be pointed out that a good morphological study of the substrate languages may also provide an explanation for the construction (cf. Hetzron 1976: 200). According to Leslau (1969b: 143), the prefix is an- in Ǝndägeñ, the difference being only in the absence or presence of KTD. In Gyeto, Leslau (1969b: 141) suggests that negative past qvtvla is identical to prohibitive qvtvla, both being ən-käfätxä ‘you did not open’ and ‘do not open!’ However, the form in Hetzron (1977) is an-, cf. n. 39 on p. 376. In Inor, it is worth noting that prohibitive qvtvla does not co-occur with KTD, which cliticizes to negative past qvtvla (cf. 13.5.3). The form in Muher, in turn, is unique in that it is inflected with Main Verb Markers (ən + käfät-hä + u) unlike the negative past an-käfäthä ‘you did not open’; the only other suffix-conjugated forms in Muher

266

Chapter 8

The identification with conditional ʔin is most tempting on account of the fact that conditional ʔim and šumma in Hebrew and later forms of Akkadian sometimes denote a negative proposition, even without a following consequence clause. In fact, ʔin may be parsed as conditional in the following example: (205) Q 4:62 yaḥlifūna bi-llāhi ʔin ʔaradnā ʔillā ʔiḥsānan wa-tawfīqan They swear: “By Allah, if we wanted (anything) but good conduct and accomodation.” In cases like these, the clause with ʔin should be understood as the antecedent of a consequence clause denoting something unwanted.101 This is especially clear if bi-llāhi is understood as a clause constituent of the oath rather than the verb of swearing. Negative ʔin in Arabic can in other words be explained in the same way as the logically inverted oath clauses known from Hebrew and Akkadian recently discussed by Edzard (2012b). As pointed out in the introduction (section 2.4.1), such inferences are also known from English, e.g. I am a rogue if I drunke to day (Shakespeare’s Henry IV) and German, e.g. Ob ich das verstehen kann!.

which have Main Verb Markers are the past tense copula banno ‘he was’ and the present tense existential verb näno ‘there is’ (Hetzron 1977: 88). Moreover, Main Verb Markers are not expected to co-occur with negation. 101  See also Q 2:78, 4:117, 4:159, 9:107, and 33:13. Negative ʔin is usually followed by ʔillā, and this is always the case in the corpus. However, the relationship to conditional ʔin can be gathered also in the following example: Q 21:111 wa-ʔin ʔadrī la-ʕallahu fitnatun lakum ‘I know not, perhaps it is a trial for you’, i.e. ‘if I (only) knew, perhaps it is a trial for you.’ For ʔin without a following ʔillā, see Q 10:68, 17:76, 21:109, 35:41, 46:26, and 72:25.

Chapter 9

Minaic, Sabaic, and Ancient South Arabian 9.1 Introduction Sabaic separates itself from the rest of Central Semitic by virtue of using ʔl < *ʔal- for the negation of clauses that are non-prohibitive. At the same time, negative *lā known from Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic is marginal. The common negators of non-prohibitive clauses in Minaic, in turn, include l and lhm, whereas ʔl is primarily used for prohibitions. This chapter provides a review of the evidence for these negators and an account of their distribution. It is argued that *lā is found in both Minaic and Sabaic. It also includes an assessment of the historical background of Sabaic dʔ and Minaic lhm. 9.2 Minaic As to negation, Minaic is usually treated on the same note as the other Ancient South Arabian languages in the handbooks. However, it will be argued that Minaic maintains negative *lā in the form of l as well as in the compound lhm. The productivity of *lā separates Minaic from Sabaic. The following sections include a review of the evidence for negative l and lhm, a comparison of their functional distribution, and an assessment of the historical background of the latter. The investigation is concluded with a description of negative ʔl. 9.2.1 Negative lā Since the existence of negative *lā in Minaic has not been systematically assessed in previous research, this section provides a review of the evidence. The least ambiguous evidence for negative lā in Minaic comes from the following Period B inscription:1

1  The letters lʔ in Maʕīn 76:2 (cf. Bron 1998: 86) ʔwsʔl w-ġwṯʔl w-w[—]lʔ ʕm-sm ʕlyʔl ‘ʔwsʔl and Ġwṯʔl and W[—]lʔ and their uncle ʕlyʔl’ are likely part of a proper name.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_010

268

Chapter 9

(206) DhM 399:4 (Period B) b-ṭbn nkrḥ w-b-kl ʔhl ḥtśf ʔhl šʕr w-ʔhl l šʕr By the command of Nkrḥ and by the whole clan Ḥtśf, a(ny) known clan and a(ny) not known clan. The expression ʔhl šʕr w-ʔhl l šʕr is similar to the common Sabaic expression ḏ-dʕw w-ʔl dʕw ‘those who are known and (those) who are not known,’ cf. (219). šʕr may be either the suffix conjugation or a participle, as in Sabaic. However, Amiritic lm tšʕr (lm yqtl) in a similar context (section 9.5) indicates that a finite verb might be preferred at this point which in turn suggests that šʕr in (206) is qvtvla. l in (207) can also be identified with negative lā:2 (207) al-Jawf 04.37A:4 (Arbach and Schiettecatte 2006: 52) ʕmkrb ḏ-nḍrn ṣdq kl ḏ-dyns w-l ḏ-ʔh̬ h̬r b-ʔḥlsw kl qnym gwlm w-l tʕly ʕmkrb ḏ-Nḍrn ratified everything pertaining to him and for the future among his goods, all property in its entirety and without objection. The counterpart in Sabaic is ʔl tʕlym, e.g. X.BSB 55:4 [—] tʔh̬ rm klhw gwlm w-ʔl kl tʕlym ‘[—] any alteration at all, and there may not be (or: ‘without’) any objection.’3 The fact that tʕlym ‘tampering, violation’ has mimation in Sabaic indicates, as pointed out by Stein (2010: 217), that the word in question is a nominal form. It is therefore reasonable to assume that l in (207) is used to negate a noun phrase. l is likely to be negative lā also in a number of Minaic penitentiary inscriptions.4 In Amiritic penitentiary inscriptions, clauses introduced by b-hn seem to express the reason for penance, whether affirmative, e.g. Haram 40:2 ḥrm bn ṯwbn tnh̬ y w-tnḏrn l-ḏ-smwy b-hn qrb mrʔtm b-ḥrmw ‘Ḥrm, son of Ṯwbn, confessed and did penance to ḏ-Smwy, because he had approached a woman during her forbidden period,’ or negative, e.g. Haram 10:3 (quoted in 238) [b-]hn ʔl hwfyhw mṭrdhw ‘(they did penance to DN) because they had not (duly) performed for him his rite.’ It is reason, therefore, to assume that b-hn l is the Minaic counterpart to Amiritic b-hn ʔl in the following example:

2  The existence of negative lā in (207) was pointed out to the author by Peter Stein in September 2014 (personal communication). 3  For the possibility of ʔl to negate a noun clause that is volitive, see section 9.3.4. The use of *ʔal- to negate a volitive noun clause is also known from Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew, see examples (95) and (131). 4  For the corpus and typology of these texts, see Agostini (2012).

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

269

(208) Shaqab 19:14 (Gnoli 1993: 103) ʕmyṯʕ nbṭ bn ʔbkrb mlk mʕn w-mʕn w-yṯl ʔrš w-ntḏr k-ʕṯtr ḏ-yhrq b-hn mśr ʔsṭr[…] w-b-hn l-sʕtny ʔqhl s[ʔl] mʕn ʕmyṯʕ Nbṭ, son of ʔbkrb, king of Mʕn, and (the people of?) Mʕn and Yṯl, has (or: ‘have’) done penance to ʕṯtr ḏ-Yhrq because he (or: ‘they’) had removed the documents […] and because he (or: ‘they’) had not helped the communities with the claim of Mʕn. The verb form in question, sʕtny, may be 3rd msg or (defective) 3rd mpl. The text of (208) is somewhat damaged in line 14, but the s of sʕtny is quite legible. Reading negative l sʕtny makes good sense: the speaker has previously reported on reasons for giving penance, having transgressed the statutes of the irrigation canal. Indeed, Gnoli (1993: 108 ad locum) also translates l as a negator (“perché non avevano rispettato”), but cautiously, since he considers it a hapax. Negative l is presumably also attested in (209), but the evidence is not conclusive: (209) YM 10886:5 (Robin 2002: 198) ʔlsmʕ ḏrḥn mlk kmnhw w-šʕbs kmnhw nth̬ y w-ntḏr k-ḏ-mdhww b-hn l ḏbḥ mḏbḥ ṯwwr šty mḏbḥ ṯwrt b-ʕbrs w-bhn sfnw ġyln b-šty šʔmt blty ḏ-mdhww ʔlsmʕ Ḏrḥn, king of Kmnhw, and his tribe Kmnhw, confessed and did penance to ḏ-Mdhww, because he (or: ‘they’) had not? sacrificed a sacrifice of bulls after/before(?) a sacrifice of cows in his favor and because he (or: ‘they’) had diverted the canal towards the north without (the permission of) ḏ-Mdhww.5 The meaning of l hinges on the meaning of šty, which is only known from this inscription (Robin 2002: 200). Therefore, it cannot really be ascertained whether l is negative or not. A meaning ‘instead,’ for example, could indicate an affirmative l, cf. Multhoff (2007: 296): “that they have slaughtered a sacrifice of bulls instead of (?) a sacrifice of cows for him.”6 On the other hand, given the more reliable evidence for negative l in (206) and (207), one is on firm ground to assume that l can be negative here too. Besides the instances of l negating a form qtl quoted above, and what is probably a noun phrase in (207), there may also be examples of l negating the

5  For the second b-hn-clause, cf. Stein (2007: 24 n. 32). 6  See also Robin (2002: 198): “Parce qu’ils ont fait un sacrifice de taureaux à la place (?) d’un sacrifice de vaches.” Robin settles for “à la place,” but notes that a temporal preposition is also possible on account of its possible etymological connection to Arabic *štw ‘winter.’

270

Chapter 9

prefix conjugation.7 However, the interpretation, again, is not conclusive. It may be that a reason clause marked by b-hn not only refers back, as a causal clause, but also forward, as a final clause. In this sense, b-hn followed by the prefix conjugation may indicate what should happen (or what should have happened), in the following example: (210) Fr-Ṣanʕā 5:5+8+10 (Frantsouzoff 2010: 161–163) ḏ-mrkrb rym bn ʔlsmʕ mlk kmnhw w-šʕbs kmnhw nth̬ y w-ntḏr k-ḏ-mdhww b-hn l-ystwffy b-ġylm w-b-hn yġw b-swl yṯʕds mṯl w-b-hn l-ykyl ḏ-krb b-ywmh sdn b-ywm ṯmr w-b-hn l-yft ḏ-ymth̬ ḍ b-mwfrn Ḏ-Mrkrb Rym, son of ʔlsmʕ, king of Kmnhw, and his tribe Kmnhw, confessed and did penance to ḏ-Mdhww, because he (or: ‘they’) had not? safeguarded their canal, and because he (or: ‘they’) had misdirected the stream that the document allotted, and because he (or: ‘they’) had not? measured what he offered/blessed on the day of performing service, on the day of (collecting) crops, and because he (or: ‘they’) had not? correctly divided what was appointed among the cultivated lands. The parsing l in these examples must be done with caution. Frantsouzoff (2010: 164) suggests that l would “impart a modal sense of duty or obligation to the following verb”: “because they had to be surely protected by means of their water-course.” It is true that if l is negative here, it would negate a form yqtl with past meaning (for another possible example, see n. 14 on p. 274). In summary, it is reasonable to posit a negative l in Minaic, no doubt cognate with negative *lā as attested elsewhere in Semitic. The existence of negative l brings Minaic, if not Ancient South Arabian, closer to Central Semitic than to Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian. 9.2.2 Negative l(h)m Besides l, *lā is also attested in negative l(h)m. Most attestations of lhm are found in conditional antecedents (Bron 1994: 184), specifically after hn, hm (< *hn-m), and hnʔy.8 Although the predicate negated by lhm is qtl, such antecedents need not be concerned with the past: 7  It may be noted that example (206) belongs to Period B, while (208) and (209) belong to Period A. Stein (2007: 24 n. 32) dates the latter to the 7th century BCE. Frantsouzoff (2010: 161) dates (210) to the 3rd or 2nd c. BCE. 8  Thus also in the minuscule inscription Mon.script.sab 624/6 (apud Stein 2011: 1063) w-hn ʔy lhm ḏrʔw ‘when they have not sown’, in which the phrase hn ʔy lhm is comparable to

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

271

(211) M 333:4 w-sʕyd b-ysbrr w[—]n kl ʔlhm w-ʔnsm w-hm lhm sbrr sʕ[—] And Sʕyd will be acquitted/released and [—] all gods and men. And if he does not (ever) acquit/release Sʕ[—] The beginning of the consequence clause to the antecedent quoted in (211) is not preserved. However, in (212), the consequence clause with qtl is syndetic by means of w-, i.e. w-qtl: (212) Kamna 26:9 (Gajda and Maraqten 2010: 236) [—] w-frʕh ʕṯtr ṣdq bn kmnhw b-tṯwqht ʕhdn hn mn lhm fdy tṯq-s ʕd yʕly bn ʕm-s bʕl mmlkn w-h̬ lʔ tṯq-s b-ftḥ nbṭʕly ḏrḥn [—] and first-fruits (to) ʕṯtr Ṣdq from Kmnhw as guarantee of the pact: If anyone (ever) does not redeem his obligation before the master of the domain frees him from his debt, his obligation will be withdrawn from him according to the decree of Nbṭʕly Ḏrḥn. The 3 lines preceding (212) are obliterated, but may refer to the speaker having harvested and dedicated the first-fruits. As to the etymological background of lhm, one may assume a univerbation of negative *lā and a focus particle -m. In Minaic, the distribution of the focus particle -m is similar to that of -m(w) in Sabaic.9 Clitic to relative mh, i.e. mh-m, the focus particle renders an indefinite relative phrase, e.g. Maʕīn 44:5 hn [m]h-m (ʕ)k(r) ‘if anyone whosoever opposes him.’ Thus, the difference between mh and mh-m is similar to that between mh ‘he who’ and mh-m(w) ‘whoever’ in Sabaic.10 Clitic to the conjunction mty, mty-m is perhaps ‘whenever’ rather than ‘when,’ e.g. M 293 A:3 (apud Avanzini 1995: 144) mty-m trd ʕṯr ‘whenever ʕṯr goes down.’ In such a case, the distinction between mty and mty-m is similar to the difference between Sabaic ʔ-hn ‘when’ and ʔ-hn-mw ‘whenever’ (cf. Nebes 1991: 134 n. 4). Nevertheless, although mty, i.e. without -m is also attested (LM 62), mty-m was perhaps lexicalized at some period in time, given the common collocation of preposition-conjunctions with clitic -m (Nebes 1991).11  Phoenician (145) w-ʔm ʔ-bl. Lhm may also follow hn without a word divider, as in M 293 A:2 (apud Avanzini 1995: 144) hn-lhm bhṯ bn ḏbḥhy ysʕrb mʕn w-bhnt-sm ‘if he is not pleased with the sacrifices that Mʕn and its daughters offer.’ 9  Examples of enclitic -m in Minaic are collected by Arbach (LM 58) and Nebes (1991: 142–143). 10  Similarly, Arabic mah-mā ‘whatever’ is indefinite (AL 3016; GAL 1 §353.2), cf. n. 31 on p. 239. 11  Cf. Stein (2003: 228 n. 169): “Überdies müssen wohl zahlreiche mit der enklitischen Partikel verbundene Konjunktionen bereits als lexikalisiert gelten, da sie kaum

272

Chapter 9

In the expression M 293 A:3 (apud Avanzini 1995: 144) bn-m ʔnṯhtn, -m is cliticized to the preposition bn and quantifies the head of the prepositional phrase as ‘some of the women,’ as if -m logically belongs what follows. In Arabic too, clitic -mā̆ may follow the preposition rather than its head in a prepositional phrase (section 8.5.1). Notably, Arabic evidence of clitic -mā̆ also indicates that a negative noun phrase quantified by it contributes to a form of emphatic negation, since the scales are reversed, given that a little with affirmative polarity means a lot with negative polarity, e.g. ġayra mā ḍiġnin (apud Nöldeke [1896] 1963 §51.2) ‘without (even) a little grudge,’ i.e. ‘without any grudge.’ Therefore, lhm is (at least historically) an ‘emphatic’ negative ‘not even’ that invokes a scale against which the negative proposition is evaluated as particularly remarkable. Conditional antecedents negated by lhm are therefore likely universally concessive ‘if-ever not.’ H of lhm is most likely not etymological, but probably plene-writing of ā̆. Non-etymological h, whether as mater lectionis or excrescent, is widespread in Minaic (Stein 2003: 39–40 and n. 184 with references; Voigt 2012). As a mater lectionis, it is perhaps not only concerned with ā. The ending -h in the construct singular (Gnoli 1993: 34), regardless of case, which may be connected with the construct ending -a in Ge’ez, and the 1st csg personal pronoun ʔhnk, indicate that h as mater lectionis also could be used for a (Stein 2011: 1049, 1051– 1052, 1055). The fact that lhm does not negate the prefix conjugation (except perhaps b-yqtl, cf. below),12 unlike lm in Amiritic (section 9.5) and lam in Arabic, indicates that lhm may be an independent development in Minaic. In fact, negative lhm is attested already in the earliest period of Minaic, as in (212), which Gajda and Maraqten (2010: 235) date to the late 8th or early 7th c. BCE. Indeed, the collocation of a negator with a focus particle like -m, also comparable to the discontinuous negative construction ʔa(l)- … -mm in Amharic, is a trivial innovation. The predicates negated by lhm in the above examples are in the suffix conjugation. In the following example, however, the negated predicate is presumably an infinitive: anderweitig, d.h. ohne die Partikel, bezeugt sind.” See also del Olmo Lete (2008) for the many combinations of -m with preposition-conjunctions in Semitic. 12  The evidence in M 381:1 and M 365:1 is damaged and inconclusive. Since twr in M 381:4 w-lhm twr m[—] is a hapax and occurs in a damaged context, not much else can be said than that lhm apparently does not negate yqtl. A similar expression occurs in M 320:3 w-hm lhm s[brr] and M 289:4 w-hm lhm s[brr]. hm is perhaps to be restored in M 377:5 [—] lhm ṯwb b-qny b-ġzt, cf. Bron (2013: 178): “s’il n’est pas revenu avec ses biens à Gaza.”

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

273

(213) Maʕīn 3:1 w-lhm ʕrb h̬ lfhy hgrn kl ḏ-ysṯb b-s tḏnt b-ʔmrh wd There is no entering the gates of the town of anyone who fornicates in it, by the command of Wd. The inscription is found on a town gate, and lhm ʕrb was identified by G. Ryckmans (1953) as a prohibition (cf. also Bron 1991: 36–39). It is worth noting that the text begins with w- (compare with w-ʔl in Sabaic example 226) which may have a deictic function. The possibility to identify ʕrb with the infinitive is indicated by similar constructions in Northwest Semitic, e.g. Late Biblical Hebrew Est 4:2 ʔēn lå� ḇōʔ ʔɛl-šaʕar ham-mɛlɛḵ ‘there is no going in (through) the gate of the king,’ cf. also Punic (146). lhm is perhaps spelled lm in as-Sawdā? 34:5 (apud Avanzini 1995: 136) [š]k-lm b-yḥr ṯny “così che non siano attuati due” (Avanzini 1995: 138). A similar construction šk-lm b-yqtl is attested in as-Sawdā? 31:5 (apud Avanzini 1995: 130) b-šk-lm b-yśq. These inscriptions, which are only available in copies by Halévy, are quite fragmentary. It may be noted, however, that lm in both cases follows šk and precedes b-yqtl, and that affirmative verbs following šk are also b-yqtl (Avanzini 1995: 71). If lm is identified with negative lā̆m, it would indicate that the negator is not restricted to qtl, but also used to negate b-yqtl. In summary, lhm should be derived from a univerbation of negative *lā and a focus particle -m. As such, it is on par with Arabic lam but can be treated as an independent innovation in Minaic that is used to negate qtl. The existence of lhm brings further support to the reconstruction of negative *lā to Minaic. 9.2.3 Negative ʔl According to Bron (1994:183), negative ʔl is not attested in Minaic.13 To be sure, the evidence for a negative ʔl in the monumental inscriptions is not entirely reliable. Besides the possible example restored by Arbach and Audouin (2007: 98), see n. 14 on p. 274, Arbach (GM 33; LM 4) provides two further examples of negative ʔl. While one, Y.90.B.A 14 (A+B)/6, is still unpublished, another is not conclusive: M 375:6 wd bn ʔrbʕtn ʔl ʕqb yʕrb k-s[—] ‘Wd, son of ʔrbʕtn ʔl, the governor, will offer [—].’ It would seem that ʔl possibly belongs to the former personal name, or to ʕqb, which could also be parsed as a personal name. However, ʔl is attested in a Minaic minuscule inscription quoted by Stein: (214)

Mon.script.sab. 133.3–4 (Stein 2011: 1060) w-ʔntmw ʔl tʕdn And you, do not take into account!

13  See Bron (1994: 183): “La négation usuelle en sudarabique épigraphique est ʔl, attestée en sabéen, qatabanite et ḥaḍramawtique, mais non en minéen.”

274

Chapter 9

Although most evidence in Minaic for 3rd mpl of the prefix conjugation is written yqtln (GM 22), it is written yqtlw when the prefix conjugation is narrative in function, e.g. M 338:2 (apud Gruntfest 1999: 174) w-yfqr zydʔl b-wrh̬ h ḥtḥr w-yfnnw kb bn kl ʔbytth ʔlʔlt mṣr ‘Zydʔl died in the month of Ḥtḥr and they sent linen from all the temples of the gods of Egypt.’ However, the 3rd mpl of the prefix conjugation is written yqtln also in (214), where it is negated by ʔl, in which case yvqtvl is expected based on comparative evidence. The clause in (214) may be understood as a prohibition, which is entirely in line with the distribution of negative *ʔal- in Northwest Semitic and Akkadian. It can be argued then, that tʕdn, i.e. 2nd mpl *ʕdw, corresponds to yvqtvlu rather than yvqtvl. It may indicate that yvqtvlu had encroached on yvqtvl, perhaps coinciding with innovative b-yvqtvl. It is also possible that tʕdn corresponds to yqtl augmented by energic -n. Another instance of ʔl in a Minaic minuscule inscription negates qvtvla:14 (215) Mon.script.sab 74 (p.c. Peter Stein) wdʕ […] hm bn ʔbn qtl wldsmn wdʕ w-hm bn ʔmn wdʕ w-ʔl fnw dʕ Does he (sc. the god) know […] if their child was killed by the father? Does he know, if by the mother? Does he know, but/even though he has not revealed the knowledge? It would seem that ʔl negates a factual situation, possibly a concessive clause that contrasts with the presupposition of the question, viz. that the god perhaps does not know.

14  There is perhaps an instance of ʔl negating qvtvla also in YM 24905 (apud Arbach and Audouin 2007) ʕṯtryhn bhn ʕwhn ntḏr k-ʕhn b-hn l yḏbḥns w-ʔ[l] ʕrb nḏ-s ‘ʕṯtryhn, sons of ʕwhn, did penance to ʕhn so as to sacrifice for him (or: ‘because they should have made a sacrifice for him’), even though they had not offered his penance (or: ‘the nḏs’).’ As to yḏbḥn, it would seem to indicate a plural subject and defective-spelling of the predicate (for yqtlwn, as in Minaic minuscule inscriptions, cf. Stein 2011: 1060), in which case ʕṯtryhn may be interpreted as a plural gentilic noun (‘the ʕṯtreans’). In this case, it is worth noting that yḏbḥn, i.e. 3rd mpl *ḏbḥ, does not correspond to yvqtvl (cf. 214). Nevertheless, Arbach and Audouin (2007) assume that yḏbḥn belongs to the past: “ʕAthtaryahân’s son of ʕAwhân has apologised to ʕAhan because he sacrificed but he didn’t offer his penance.” It is possible that -n is augmented for the sake of the pronominal suffix (cf. section 9.3.2). Notably, w-ʔ[x] is reconstructed by Arbach and Audouin as w-ʔl negating qtl. It is also possible that l is negative: ‘ʕṯtryhn, sons of ʕwhn, did penance to ʕhn because they had not made a sacrifice for him and ʔx offering his penance (or: ‘the nḏs’),’ cf. the discussion to (208).

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

9.3

275

Early and Middle Sabaic

The most frequently occurring negator in Early and Middle Sabaic is ʔl, most probably /ʔal/ or /ʔal-/.15 It is used, for example, to negate qtl in declarative verbal main clauses (section 9.3.1). This fact separates Sabaic from Minaic, Northwest Semitic, and Arabic, but agrees with the situation and Modern South Arabian and Ethiosemitic languages. As noted in section 1.3.5, Sabaic further distinguishes a non-augmented prefix conjugation yqtl from an augmented prefix conjugation yqtln, the meaningfulness of which remains obscure. The distribution of ʔl yqtl and ʔl yqtln is discussed in section 9.3.2. It will further be argued that Sabaic in fact retains negative l, most probably /lā/, albeit in very restricted environments, as far as the evidence goes (section 9.3.3). The following sections also provides an investigation into the use of ʔl as a constituent negator in verbal clauses (section 9.3.4), as well as negative asymmetries in subordinated clauses, and an assessment of the use of ʔl yqtl in non-main clauses (sections 9.3.5 and 9.3.6). 9.3.1 Negated qtl Affirmative qtl is as a rule negated symmetrically as ʔl qtl. For example, ʔl qtl (ʔl ʕlwt) in (216) is the negative counterpart to qtl (gbʔt):16

15  Bron (1994:183) succinctly notes that ʔl is the common negator in Sabaic and Ancient South Arabian: “La négation usuelle en sudarabique épigraphique est ʔl.” For additional instances of ʔl, where the context is too damaged to merit a syntactical discussion, see RÉS 4768:2 and X.BSB 116:5. See perhaps also line 5 of the undefined inscription CIH 600B for negative ʔl. 16  See also Ja 576:6, X.BSB 115:2, and X.BSB 128:3. ʔl also negates qtl in Ja 665:48 w-ḥmdw h̬ yl w-mqm mrʔhmw ʔlmqh bʕl ʔwm w-l-wzʔ h̬ mrhmw ʔlmqh ʔtw hmw w-gyšhmw b-wfym w-ʔl tfqd bn gyšhmw ġyr ʔsm ‘and they praised the strength and power of their lord, ʔlmqh Bʕl ʔwm, and may ʔlmqh keep to safeguard them. They returned, in safety, themselves as well as their troop, and no one was lost from their troop except (or: ‘not even’) one man.’ As for tfqd, it may be parsed as tG/tD qtl (for the difference in meaning between t as prefix and infix, see Stein 2003: 157–159), and not, as Jamme (1962: 170) seems to assume, yqtl: “and that may continue to vouchsafe to them ʔIlumquh [that] themselves and their troop [would] come back in safety and [that] there would not be sought [in vain] among their troop even one man from [any] expedition.” In other words, ʔl tfqd is the negative symmetric counterpart to ʔtw.

276

Chapter 9

(216) CIAS 39.11/03 n6:9 w-gbʔt šfnʔb l-hḥḍrn b-ḏ-hbs w-ʔl ʕlwt b-ʕmhw bthw ddt Šfnʔb returned to make pilgrimage in (the month of) ḏ-Hbs but Ddt her daughter did not go up with her. However, the narrative infinitive and the narrative prefix conjugation are not negated by ʔl in the corpus.17 Instead, a narrative prefix-conjugation may be replaced by the negated suffix conjugation, similar to Biblical Hebrew negative wə-lō qvtvla in lieu of the negated wayyiqtol. This is the case in the following example: (217) Ja 576:10 w-yʔdbhmw hmt ʔḥmrn k-l-yqdmnn l-mhrgtm ʕdy sr ngrrm w-yhṣrn mlkn ʔlšrḥ yḥḍb w-ḏ-bn ʔqwlhw w-h̬ mshw w-ʔfrshw ʕdy ḏt mẓʔw śʔd yklʔ w-ʔl hbrrw hmw ʔḥmrn l-mhrgtm They challenged them, those Ḥimyarites, to proceed for battle to the valley of Ngrrm, and king ʔlšrḥ Yḥḍb, as well as some of his chiefs, his troops, and his cavalry, marched forward until they arrived at Śʔd Yklʔ, but those (aforementioned) Ḥimyarites did not come out to fight. In (217), the negative counterpart to the narrative prefix conjugations (w-yʔbdhmw and w-yhṣrn) is ʔl qtl (ʔl hbrrw), i.e. asymmetric. There are no instances of the negated prefix conjugation with perfective meaning in the past. However, ʔl yqtln may be used for the past imperfective, cf. example (229) below. Negated qtl can also be used for present relevance:18 (218) CIH 611:5 w-bn[w] gdnm f-ʔl sʔlw bny sṭrn bn kl ʔṯmr tṯmrn hʔ fnwtn As for Banū Gdnm, they do not have claim to the Banū Sṭrn with regard to all the produce which that canal produces.

17  However, if the main clause predicate is negated, subsequent infinitives inherit the polarity of that predicate, cf. (230). 18  In (218), f- is used to resume the fronted clause constituent bn[w] gdnm. It may be noted that f- is not obligatory when the predicate is negated, as indicated by (221). Nebes (1995: 238) notes that the asyndetic continuation of a fronted clause constituent is attested from ca. 200 BCE, but it may be noted that (221) of Ry IIIa ductus suggests a dating to between the 5th and 3rd century. As such, the asyndetic ʔl-clause is similar to asyndetic lō qvtvla in Biblical Hebrew, e.g. 2 Kgs 17:25 wayhī bi-ṯḥillaṯ šiḇtå� m šå� m lō yå� rəʔū ʔɛṯ-Yhwh way-yišlaḥ ‘in the beginning of their dwelling there, they did not fear the Lord, and (so) he sent.’

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

277

The clause ʔl sʔlw in (218) is most likely an indicative statement,19 because in line 7 of the same inscription, the predicate of a prohibition that is also in the construction w-X f-ʔl vb, is yqtl, cf. (220).20 Mention must also be made of the common expression ʔl dʕw, e.g. (219), in which case dʕw is 3rd mpl qtl or a participle (Stein 2003: 198, 204):21 (219) Ja 578:42 šnʔm ḏ-rḥq w-qrb w-ḏ-bnhw dʕw w-ḏ-bnhw ʔl dʕw An enemy who is far or near, whom they know or whom they do not know. In CIAS 39.11/06 n3:11 ḏ-bnhw šʕrw w-ḏ-bnhw ʔl šʕr, the negated predicate is asymmetric to the affirmative predicate: Either PNG-inflection of ʔl šʕr must be supplied from the preceding šʕrw, or the negated predicate is an asymmetric grammatical morpheme, possibly the infinitive.22 It is not always possible to distinguish finite predicates from non-finite predicates on the basis of the consonantal script. For example, Stein (2003: 203–204) recognizes the possibility that ẓy may be either a participle or a finite verb in the following example: CIAS 39.11/r1:8 b-ḏ-bhʔt mḥrmhw w-ʔlbshw ʔl ẓy ‘because she had entered his sanctuary while her clothes were not clean.’23 On account of the fact that the subject follows ʔl vb when it negates finite verbs 19  For a different view, see e.g. Müller (1983: 277–278): “Und was die Sippe Gadanum betrifft, so sollen sie nicht beanspruchen,” and Mazzini and Porter (2009: 284): “And, as for the Bnw Gdnm, so may they not lay claim.” 20  It is also possible that ʔl śnyw describes an obligation in the form of a statement in Ja 702:9 ʔl śnyw śyq b-wsṭ mḥrm gnztn ‘they are/were not allowed to herd in the middle of the cemetery.’ The parsing of śnyw as derived from *śnn ‘law’ follows Biella (DS 507). As such, ʔl śny is the verbal counterpart to ʔl śn ‘it is not lawful,’ cf. (226). However, the parsing is not conclusive. Jamme (1962: 192, 193) parses ʔl śny as ‘water’ and ʔl as dependent on śbb in what precedes: (he) “has occasioned [that] the beasts did not draw water in the middle of the sacred precinct.” 21  See also RÉS 4139:11, CIAS 39.11/06 n1:16, CIAS 39.11/07 n5:12, Ja 571:8, 572:16, 578:42, 614:20, 615:28, 616:40, 617:15, 619:20, 623:24, 647:33, 650:35, 651:55, 661:9, 691:12, 703:11, 739:19, and 758:20. The predicate of this phrase may also be yqtln, e.g. CIAS 39.11/03 n8:23 w-bn kl mngt w-ʔʔrh̬ swʔm ḏ-ysfhnn w-ḏ-ʔl ysfhnn ‘from all evil chance and affair, whether they are aware of (it) or not aware of (it).’ 22  A negated predicate may be continued by a non-negated predicate, which still must be interpreted as negative, e.g. CIH 429:7 w-ḏ-bnhw ʔl dʕw w-šʕrw ‘whom they do not know (nor) are aware of,’ in which case the negator is gapping. For the infinitive inheriting negative polarity, see (230). 23  Biella (DS 224) assumes qtl of a verb *ẓyw ‘be held captive’ while SD 173 an adjective ‘clean’ (*ẓyw or *ẓyy).

278

Chapter 9

elsewhere (except of course in the construction w-sub f-ʔl vb), the former parsing may be seriously taken into consideration. Although qātil is generally negated by non-standard negators in e.g. Biblical Hebrew and Arabic, ʔl is in fact the unmarked negator also for non-finite predicates in Sabaic. It is used, for example, to negate what appears to be the infinitive (cf. Minaic example 213), e.g. CIH 610:3+4 (Early Sabaic) w-ʔl yhwfd bh ʕmd w-ʕlbm w-ʔl hṯmr kl ṯmrm ʔl sqy ‘and vine stocks or ʕlb-trees must not be planted in it, and there must not be cropping of any crop, which is not irrigated (or: ‘there must not be irrigation’).’ The predicate of the first negated clause is yqtl, but hṯmr may be either an infinitive in the construct state (without the n-augment as in Early Sabaic, Stein 2003: 198–199) or qvtvla.24 It is not clear whether ʔl hṯmr is marked for the prohibition, or whether such an interpretation is an inference in the context of a juridical inscription, or inherited from ʔl yhwfd (potentially with the meaning of result).25 As a matter of fact, a dedicated negator of non-verbal predicates, as found in e.g. Hebrew ʔēn and Arabic laysa, has not been elicited from the corpus. This fact is worth noting in comparison to the situation in Ethiosemitic, for which it is argued that only *ʔal- should be reconstructed. On the other hand, the Ethiosemitic languages attest to several innovative expressions of non-verbal negation, e.g. Ge’ez ʔalbo and ʔakko and Amharic yällämm (see Bulakh 2012: 400–406). 9.3.2 Negated yqtl and yqtln In Nebes’ (1994a: 202–203) view, ʔl yqtl, but not ʔl yqtln, is used for the prohibition: “Für den Vetitiv können wir die Negation ʔl in Verbindung mit yfʕl, nicht aber mit yfʕln belegen, wohinter durchaus eine Regel vermutet werden darf.” Prohibitive ʔl yqtl is attested in Early Sabaic, e.g. CIH 610:3 w-ʔl yhwfd bh ʕmd w-ʕlbm ‘and vine stocks or ʕlb-trees must not be planted in it.’ In Middle Sabaic, prohibitive ʔl yqtl is attested in the following example: 24  As to ʔl sqy, Stein (2003: 87 n. 341) considers both the possibility that the clause is another independent prohibition (“(es soll) keinerlei Bewässerung (erfolgen)!”) or an asyndetic relative clause (“die nicht bewässert wird”). As a matter of fact, Biella (DS 136) assumes that also hṯmr is a relative clause in the form of qtl: “Let no one cultivate(?) there naturally or artificially irrigated lands, nor those (which) yield any crop without irrigation.” 25  Similar constructions are also attested in CIH 949:3 (Early Sabaic) w-ʔl hʕly ḏn ʔtbn wṯn yyfʕn l-mšrʕn ‘there may not be any removal of this boundary stone which goes up to the private land’ and CIH 654:2 (Early Sabaic) yhrm bn ʔsdkrb bny w-ʔl kmtt ḥrtn w-[w]ṯn nh̬ ln ‘Yhrm son of ʔsdkrb built (this), and there must not be any violation of the irrigation canal and the boundary of the palm-grove.’

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

279

(220) CIH 611:7 w-bnw sṭ[rn] w-ʔwldhmw f-ʔl ymnʕw bny gdnm w-ʔwldhmw bn hyʕ lhmw [h]ʔ fnwtn As for Banū Sṭrn and their children, may they not hinder Banū Gdnm and their children from the flowing to them of the canal. It is not entirely clear, however, whether ʔl yqtl is marked for prohibitions corresponding to ʔal-yvqtvl, provided that the syntagm is also used in adverbial clauses marked by e.g. k- (see n. 48 on p. 287), hm (231a), and lw (231b).26 This is in contrast to ʔal-yvqtvl in Northwest Semitic, which is only prohibitive and not used in adverbially marked clauses. However, as pointed out above, there are no examples of narrative ʔl yqtl, so ʔl yqtl in a main clause is typically prohibitive. Naturally, even if ʔl yqtln is indicative, it is subject to speech act conversions.27 In (221) the negated verb possibly carries deontic or epistemic modality, and the non-occurrence of the future action seems to be contingent in terms of possibility on another event:28 (221) X.BSB 87:5 w-b-ʔrh̬ qwrfn ʔl ykbn ḏ-fnwk w-b ʔbʕtm wḍʔw b-ʔḏnk l-rṯnnh And concerning the matter of the fields, he will/must not obtain that which you have sent, because, in (agreement) with ʔbʕtm, they have put (a request) in your ear that they (themselves) will/should inherit it. On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that the expression ʔl yqtln may (also) be used as a prohibitive mood (as in Minaic, cf. example 214), in which case the preceding example may translate as ‘may he not (or: ‘let him not’) obtain that which you have sent.’ 26  As for negated yqtl, it seems to be used in similar environments as affirmative yqtl except for the perfective. As to yqtl in non-negated clauses, Tropper (1997: 43) notes that in the indicative, yqtl in main clauses is used for time-less predications (of the type ‘this boundary stone faces east and west,’ cf. CIH 570 quoted n. 42 on p. 284) and for narration in the past. In non-main clauses, yqtl is used after relative ḏ (Nebes 1994a: nr. 18) and, marked by l-, after locative ʕdy (Nebes 1994a: nr. 38, but see section 9.3.3), as well as in conditional antecedents. With volitive meaning, yqtl is used in main clauses, in consequence clauses to conditional antecedents, and in content clauses marked by k-ḏ (Nebes 1994a: nr. 29; ‘he instructed them k-ḏ yḥwr sbʔ that Sbʔ should settle’). 27  When the speaker refers to himself in the 3rd person, the proposition may be interpreted as an indicative statement in which the speaker obliges himself to some future action, e.g. X.BSB 131:5 w-hʔ f-ʔl yh̬ dgn ʕlk ʔbdm kl dynm ‘and he (sc. the sender) will not ever fail to settle any debt to you.’ 28  See also X.BSB 130:9.

280

Chapter 9

In fact, ʔl yqtln often lends itself a prohibitive meaning. This is the case, for example, when it is parallel to the imperative in X.BSB 118:3 w-ʔntmy f-htlwn ḏ-rḥbm l-mqyḥhw ḏ-ʕbrn h̬ bn w-ʔl th̬ ybnnhw ‘and you, make he of Rḥbm a tly, on account of his success that is from H̬ bn, and do not disappoint him!’ It is also parallel to l-yqtln, for example: (222) X.BSB 131:7 w-ʔt f-l-tḥmdn b-rwḥn mʕṭfthw w-(ġ?)frhw w-ʔl thšʔmnhmy You, may you be thankful for the bringing back of his mantle and his head-gear(?) and do not buy them! However, unlike ʔl yqtln in (221), the verb form is always followed by a pronominal suffix in these cases.29 It cannot be ruled out that ʔl yqtln followed by a pronominal suffix corresponds to *ʔal-yvqtvl-vn- followed by a pronominal suffix, while ʔl yqtln not followed by a pronominal suffix corresponds to a different verbal grammatical morpheme followed by -n.30 In other words, n in a clause ʔl yqtlnhw may be parsed as an integral part of the pronominal suffix (yqtl-nhw). 9.3.3 Pleonastic *lā A morpheme l is sometimes used before the verb in relative clauses and clauses marked by ʕdy. Beeston (1962 §43.3) discusses this l together with deictic particles and suggests that it is used pleonastically. Stein (2003: 239–240), in turn, treats this l as an asseverative particle (“tatsächlich”). However, it is possible that this l is in fact negative lā. This may be the case of l after ʕdy, for example: (223) RÉS 4176:4 […] w-l-k-ḏ l-yqny tʔlb bʕl trʕt ʕšr ġlẓ […] w-ʕšr m[ḥ]mytn ḏ-rtʕ mṣyḥm ʕdy l-yrtʕ śdn hgr w-mdyh […] and (so) that Tʔlb, lord of Trʕt may receive the tithes of Ġlẓ […] and the tithes of Mḥmytn, which extends alongside the canalization-fields, until it does not reach the dam of Hgr and its two overflow channels. The virtual negation of a predicate dependent on *ʕaday is known from Akkadian (GAG §173h; CAD A1 114), e.g. BIN 6 10:17–18 (Old Assyrian) adi amtam ana šīmim lā taddinu ‘until you have not sold the slave girl,’ i.e. ‘before you have sold the slave girl,’ and it is therefore tempting to parse l in (223) as negative. Tropper (1997: 41) notes that rtʕ is stative, “es ist gelegen; es ist (gerade) 29  For additional examples, see also X.BSB 104:5, X.BSB 121:6, X.BSB 122:6, and X.BSB 160:3 (scribal practice). 30  In Late Sabaic, however, ʔl yqtln without a pronominal suffix is parallel to the imperative in example (233).

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

281

ausgestreckt,” but concedes that the switch from qtl to yqtl after ʕdy is notable. However, the switch may possibly be explained as an asymmetry under negation. In fact, many attestations of pleonastic lā negates yqtl. It is also attested after quantifying mn, for example:31 (224) Gl 1520:5+5 (Early Sabaic, apud Stein 2003: 226, 239) ʔl yqwm kl ʕlbm b-fnwtn w-mhn l-yfdw ʔbʕl ḏ-brdm b-fnwtn [w]-l yfdw ʔʕmdm f(-?)ʔ[—] There must be no ʕlb-tree (planted) by the canal. And whatever the lords of ḏ-Brdm plant by this canal, and plant by the vine-stocks, so ʔ[—] At this point, l seems to indefinitely quantify a universal restrictor. The use of a scale reversal item, like a negator, after a universal quantifier is known from other Semitic languages, like the use of -ni in Tigrinya of Hamasen, which, besides its obligatory collocation with negative predicates, also serves to render relative predicates indefinite, e.g. (289).32 Negative lo can also be used to this effect in Modern Hebrew, as in ma-še-lò ‘no matter what’ (Rosén 1977: 229). It may be pointed out that in Minaic, for example (212) ʕd yʕly ‘before he frees (him),’ ʕd is used to the same effect without pleonastic lā, and that the function of lā in (224) is similar to that of ʔy- of ʔy-bl in Phoenician, for example KAI5 69:18 (quoted on p. 189). See also Biblical Hebrew 2 Sam 2:26 (p. 164) wə-ʕaḏmå� ṯay lō-ṯōmar ‘until when (is it that) you (not) say?’ which may be contrasted with example (121) ʕaḏ-må� ṯay tištakkå� rīn ‘till when will you drink?’ without lō. See n. 54 on p. 83 for pleonastic lā in Old Assyrian. The reconstruction of negative *lā, while at a late stage of grammaticalization into a pleonastic negator, brings Sabaic closer, together with Minaic, to Central Semitic than to Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian. 9.3.4 Noun Phrase Negation in Verbal Clauses ʔl sometimes negates a constituent other than the finite verb in a verbal clause, for example:33 31  See also CIH 602:2, CIH 603abc:3+12, and CIH 947:3. 32  Pleonastic l after mn is also attested in Qatabanic, e.g. RÉS 4337B:9 mn l-ysʕrb. 33   ʔl also negates a prepositional phrase in CIH 619:2 w-ʔl ḏ sʔl bkrm w-ʔh̬ yhw w-bnyhmw bny mqrm kl ʔ[n]sm bhṯm w-qṭnm w-ʔl bn ʔdm w-ʔmh bny mqrm qtbrn b-qbrhmw ʔḥrm ‘let there not be anyone who lay claim against Bkrm, his brothers and their sons, the Banū Mqrm, any person, great or small, nor from the male or female vassals of Banū Mqrm, on being buried in their grave ʔḥrm.’ See also X.BSB 90:2 w-ʔnt lʔk tʔbm ʔmrytn b-ḥnḍlm w-ʔl b-hndyn w-sʔr-ʔy mhn lʔkk ‘you, send Tʔbm of ʔmrytn with colocynth but not with

282

Chapter 9

(225) X.BSB 128:5 w-ʔnt f-l-thḥmdn b-yfʕ mrkḍm w-ḥdṯnhw k-ʔl ʕd ʔh̬ ḏw mṣrytn ʕdy ʕṣrn w-whbm f-h̬ mr bn ḏ-ḥnbṣm ṯmn rḍym w-ʔl hṯʕdhw ʕdy ḏn ʕṣr You will cause thankfulness, in that Mrkḍm is coming and telling him (sc. me, the sender) that they have not yet/even touched the Egyptians before this (time of) distress. And as to Whbm, he has gifted the son of ḏ-Ḥnbṣm with seven solid (coins), but he has not distributed it up until this (time of) distress.34 ʕd in ʔl ʕd ʔh̬ ḏw mṣrytn ʕdy ʕṣrn arguably conveys a scalar implicature.35 The use of ʕd in the sense of ‘even’ is also known from e.g. Biblical Hebrew (p. 147) ʕaḏ-ʔaḥaḏ lō nɛʕdå� r ‘not even one lacked’ and Modern South Arabian (cf. n. 42 on p. 308). Special mention needs to be made of the constructions in which ʔl precedes and negates the subject of a clause rather than its verbal predicate, e.g. ʔl ḏ sʔl in CIH 619:1 (quoted in n. 33 on p. 281). In this case, ʔl negates the existence of the subject which is in the construct state, such that it is qualified by a predicate (nomen rectum). The subject is either ḏ, ʔs, or śn. The predicate of such a construction may be an infinitive, for example:36 (226) CIH 400:1 w-ʔl śn hʕzln w-hrʔšn bn kl ṣrf ʔlmqh bʕl brʔn bn mḥrmn brʔn Now, it is not lawful to remove and take away from any silver of ʔlmqh Bʕl Brʔn from the sanctuary Brʔn. This inscription begins with w-ʔl (Jamme 1955: 317–323), and it would seem that w- is deictic as sometimes in Ancient North Arabian (Eksell 1999), cf. also Minaic example (213). It is less clear whether ʔl is prohibitive at this point, i.e. the tamarind or anything else of what you have sent.’ This may also be the case in Ja 643:15 w-yrʔyn mlk ḥḍrmwt k-ʔl ʕbrnhw hyʕ mngt, which Jamme (1962: 143) translates as “and the king of Ḥaḍramawt decided not to let him build up this security [which] he had announced for the persons of the men whom he had raised up.” If ʕbrnhw is identified with the preposition ʕbrn, it may be that ʔl is a constituent negator of the prepositional phrase: ‘he decided that (it would not be) him that would announce the success(?).’ 34  The construction b-yfʕ, although similar to e.g. Minaic b-yqtl, seems to indicate a circumstantial action in the form of a prepositional phrase with a finite verb phrase as its head. 35  See also X.BSB 119:8. See perhaps also X.BSB 87:4 sṭrw l-krybm k-šḥṣm hʔ b-mryb w-ʔl ʕd ṣbʕhmw ʕd štʔ mh̬ mrn ‘they have written to Krybm because he is sick in Mryb. He has not even lifted a finger to them to show gratitude.’ The verb ṣbʕ may be understood as denoting an action of minimal quantity, cf. Ugaritic (quoted in n. 42 on p. 129) l mtm ʔuṣbʕt ‘he is not dead by a finger.’ 36  See also CIH 449:2. See J. Ryckmans (1953) for additional examples of this construction.

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

283

‘may/let it not be a right (i.e. permitted),’ or simply negating a statement (cf. example 218). In the context of a juridical document, it would seem that similar propositions, where ʔl negates a following relative clause, are prohibitive, e.g. in the promissory note X.BSB 55:3 w-ʔl ḏ-ʔh̬ rw w-ḏh̬ r ʕwdn ‘may there not be any one who delay or withhold the payback.’37 The predicate may also be qtl (227a) or yqtln (227b):38 (227) a. CIH 657:2 (Early Sabaic) w-ʔl ʔs sʔl ḏ-mrydʕ b-nh̬ lhw sqmn Let there not be a man to claim ḏ-Mrydʕ of his palm grove Sqmn. b. X.BSB 107:5 l-yḥmdnnk w-ʔlʔs ylyʕn tʔbytm b-śnk They (the writers) will thank you! May there not be a man who will provoke dispute with you. These types of constructions express a general prohibition given the universal reference of the subject, i.e. ‘let no one VB.’ Noun phrase negation is used to negate the type rather than the token. This type of negative obligation is therefore similar to obligations of the type lā yvqtvlu/lā iparras rather than prohibitions of the type ʔal-yvqtvl.39 9.3.5 Negated Subordinate Clauses While negated subordinate clauses are, as a rule, symmetric to their affirmative counterparts, they sometimes indicate negative asymmetries. In a clause marked by the particle k- (Stein 2003: 207–208), the negated verbs are generally symmetric to their affirmative counterparts, and retain the function known from main clauses. For example, a situation ʔl qtl in a k-clause belongs to the

37  See also CIH 619:1 (quoted in 649) and X.BSB 64:12 (legal document). 38  See also RÉS 4781:11 (Early Sabaic), CIH 318:2+6, 652:4, and X.BSB 90:3 for qtl, and X.BSB 124:10 for yqtln (cf. Stein 2010: 435 and Stein 2003: 61 n. 110). The construction is also attested in CIH 656:2 w-ʔl ʔs sʔlhw of unknown provenance. 39  Furthermore, these types of constructions, like lā yvqtvlu/lā iparras, need not denote deontic modality. The continuation of the letter X.BSB 100:7 quoted in n. 48 on p. 287 is as follows: w-mṯl ḏ-grfm hʔ fmn ʔl ḏ-h̬ dg sbʕy blṭm k-l-m ftdyn sʔlm whbkmhw ‘(You know it all!) And the parable of ḏ-Grfm is the (following) word: There is no one who leaves (unpaid) 70 blṭ(-coins), because in order to fulfill a claim, you have (already) given it.’ In this case, X.BSB 100:10 ʔl is an existential negator that negates the existence of such a predicate as it is described by the relative clause. The clause is that of a proverb (Stein 2004) and seems to describe a general situation pertaining to customs of debt, cf. Stein (2004: 333): “No one leaves (unpaid) seventy blṭ(-coins), since for paying a demand you have (already) spent it [scil. the money?].”

284

Chapter 9

past like ʔl qtl in a main clause:40 Ja 720:7 ṣlmn ḏ-ṣrfm tḏrm l-qbly ḏ-hh̬ ṭʔw b-mrʔhmw ʔlmqhw bʕl ʔwm k-ʔl ṣbnw wṯb b-mḥrmn ‘(they dedicated to DN) the statue of blown brass because they had committed a sin (against) their lord ʔlmqhw Bʕl ʔwm, when they did not turn away the person sitting in the temple.’ At this point, k-ʔl qtl serves to describe the contents of the sinning, which in turn is the reason behind the speaker’s having raised and dedicated a statue. Similarly, k-ʔl ytqln refers to a future situation, e.g. X.BSB 114:11 w-mhrk k-ʔl yh̬ fgnk ‘have you taken care that he will not harm you?’41 However, while a non-negated predicate in a possible consequence clause marked by k-ḏ ‘so that’ (SD 75) is usually in the prefix conjugation (and marked by l-, Stein 2003: 226), the negated predicate in the following example is qtl: (228) CIH 562:3+5 b-ʔʔrh̬ w-mḥr b-hw yhṯ[bnn — ʔk]brhmw w-ʕmthmw w-ṯkmthmw l-k-ḏ [ʔ]l sʔlw sbʔ w-fyšn sqy kl msqym b-ḏbḥ rbʕm w-l-k-ḏ mw[—] ytrm w-b ʔbyt ʔlʔltn w-ʔl sʔl šym kl ʔšwbm In the judgements and decree by which they decree [—] their kbr:s, and their people, and their ṯkmt: that Sbʔ and Fyšn not lay claim to the irrigation of any irrigated land with a fourth sacrifice, and that water(?) [—] Ytrm and in the temples of the gods, and (that) he not lay claim to the offering of any of the ʔšwbm. ʔl sʔlw in line 3 is a discrete finite verb, and so is reasonably ʔl sʔl in line 5 as well. Although some of the text preceding ʔl sʔl is damaged, it is probably also in the content of l-k-ḏ (although a prohibitive inference of qvtvla lends itself independently to constructions of the type ʔl ʔs sʔl, cf. 227a). If sʔlw and sʔl in (228) are parsed as qvtvla, the prohibitive inference can be understood as syntactically determined by l-k-ḏ which constitutes the contents of the decree.42 40  See also X.BSB 87:7 (after *ʕlm) and X.BSB 115:3 (after *rqm ‘write’). 41  Alternatively, in the form of a statement: ‘you have taken care, that he will not harm you,’ cf. Stein (2010: 403). k-ʔl yqtln is also attested in a somewhat contextually difficult clause in X.BSB 131:9. 42  This is probably the case also in CIH 318:4 [— l?]k-ḏ-ʔl sʔl h̬ drn ṯʕdtm [—] ‘(so) that (no one) claim the tomb as cultivated land.’ Elsewhere in CIH 318, the prohibition is ʔl ʔs sʔl (cf. lines 2 and 6). A construction with ʔl and what seems to be qtl with prohibitive force must be understood as a content of l-k-ḏ in CIH 570:7 as well: ʔwṯn ymh̬ rn qtbn w-y[ṯ]lm w-l-k-ḏ bn sfrt nh̬ ln nqbn y[ḍ]ʔn tḥrw byn nh̬ lnhn nq[b]n w-nʕwn l-kwn ʕbrn nʕwn ʔwṯnn mnḍḥt mwn w-mʔkly ṯmrm w-ʔl hsʔl nh̬ ln nqbn ‘the boundary stones do/will/may face Qtbn and Yṯlm, so that, from the extent of the palm grove of Nqbn, a delimitation goes out between the two palm groves of Nqbn and Nʕwn, in order that there be boundaries from Nʕwn, an outlet of the water, and two storehouses of crops, and (that) anyone not claim

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

285

Apart from k-ḏ, negated possible consequence clauses are sometimes marked by bn (k-ḏ), i.e. ‘(be it far) away (that),’ e.g. MAFRA-Ḥaṣī 1:4–5 bn qtbr ‘(with the assurance) to not bury’ (quoted on p. 289), where bn corresponds to e.g. Biblical Hebrew min. It is worth noting that the verb *mnʕ in (220) is followed by bn, similar to *mnʕ when followed by min in Hebrew (cf. n. 36 on p. 155) and ʔallā in Arabic, cf. the discussion to example (193). A negated clause marked by the phrase l-qbly ḏ may be used to give the reason to the main clause (Ryckmans 1954). The predicate of such a clause may be qtl (as also in the affirmative, cf. Ja 720:7 quoted on p. 284), e.g. CIAS 39.11/05 n3:4 hqnyw [ʔlm]qhbʔlʕwm ṣlmn ḏ-ḏhbn l-qbly ḏt ʔl ḥyw lhw wldm ‘NN has dedicated to ʔlmqh-Bʕl-ʔwm the bronze statue, because a child has not survived him.’43 Negative ʔl yqtln is also attested, for example: (229) Ja 628:6 ṣlmn [ḥg-n] wqhhmw ʔlmqhw b-msʔlhw b-kn tflw b-ʕmhw l-mʔh̬ dhmw ḏ-yfd l-qbly ḏt-ʔl yʔtwn ʕdyhw sqym ([They dedicated] to ʔlmqhw) the statue as ʔlmqhw had commanded them in his oracular answer, when they asked from him regarding their reservoir of ḏ-Yfd, because irrigation-water was not coming to it. It would seem that ʔl yqtln expresses a situation that is still going on at the time of erecting the statue.44 In other words, the negated prefix conjugation can be used for past imperfective situations.45 the palm grove of Nqbn.’ It is not self-evident whether ʔl hsʔl is coordinated with l-kwn, in which case it is symmetric, or coordinated with y[ḍ]ʔn, in which case it is asymmetric (if identified with qtl). The TAM of ymh̬ rn is not straightforward either. Tropper (1997: 40), with reference to CIH 555:2 ymh̬ rw ʔln ʔwṯnn nsr mšrqn w-nsr mʕrbn, compares Nebes’ (1994a: 194) translation, “diese Grenzsteine sind nach Osten und nach Westen gerichtet,” with that of Biella (DS 272), “let these boundary stones face toward the east,” and proposes yet a third, “diese Grenzsteine wurden ausgerichtet,” as well as a fourth, “sie (sc. gewisse oben genannte Personen) haben diese Grenzsteine … ausgerichtet.” 43  The predicate of Ja 570:3 [—]ṣlmn ḏ-šft[hw l-qbl]y ḏ-ʔl tgn b-ywm ṯmny[m] ‘(PN has dedicated to DN) the statue, as he promised him, because he did not collect the produce on the eighth day’ is probably tG (or tD) qtl as well. However, the same root *gnn (DS 74) occurs as Dt infinitive gtnnn in line 9 of the same inscription, and in line 8 as gtnn, probably haplographic (Stein 2003: 197 n. 252). 44  Cf. Stein (2003: 65 ex. 81): “weil keine Bewässerung es (mehr) erreicht,” and Stein (2003: 34 n. 130): “Weil er (sc. ʔLmqhw) ihm keine Bewässerung mehr zuführt.” 45  The same function of l-qbly ḏ-ʔl yqtln is also evident in RÉS 4964:15 k-hʔ hsṭw gḏm[n] bnhw l-qbly ḏ-ʔl yẓbnn ʕtlhw w-stmlʔn b-ʕmhw b-kl ḏ-yʕtkrnn ‘(they dedicated the statue) because/that he (had) vouchsafed the deliverance of his son, since he had not/ never refrained from besieging him and imploring from him concerning all who (had)

286

Chapter 9

When the predicate of the antecedent is affirmative yqtln, the consequence clause may be introduced by w- or f- (Sima 2001: 286–287).46 When the predicate is negated yqtln, the consequence clause to a negated antecedent is always introduced by f-, for example:47 (230) X.BSB 51:5 w-hmy ʔl yhbnn w-hġrn w-ṣdq w-wfyn bnw ḏ-mwṯbn nśḥ b-ḏn ḍhrn b-ḏn mwʕdn f-l-yškrn w-rbḥ w-tśfn mšśntm If the Banū ḏ-Mwṯbn do not give, change, justify and/or fulfill the forfeit in this document (with)in this appointed time, let an interest and fine be imposed and inflicted. The preceding co-text in this document of stipulations includes a requirement that the Banū ḏ-Mwṯbn give over and change the penance (line 5: l-yhbnn w-hġrn bnw ḏ-mṯbn nśḥ) before the coming of spring. It is worth noting that the negated finite verbs is continued by the infinitive, which inherits the negative polarity. A narrative infinitive is otherwise not negated. 9.3.6 Negated yqtl in Conditional Linkings As pointed out in section 9.3.2, ʔl yqtl in main clauses is prohibitive. However, ʔl yqtl is also used in subordinated clauses where the prohibitive meaning is

contested (with him).’ Similarly, b-ḏt ʔl yqtln may have a similar function in X.BSB 126:1 w-b-lbk l-yftḥn b-ḏt ʔl tbrṯnhmw b-šʔm ṯny rmḥn ḏ-ʕkrkmw ‘let there be complaint in your heart, in that you (still) do not settle their debt for the purchase price of the two spears that you requested.’ 46  Nebes (1995: 92) concludes from his corpus that a consequence clause to an antecedent with yqtln is always introduced by f-. The predicate of the consequence clause may also be the imperative, e.g. X.BSB 124:9 w-hmy ʔl tkbn mmtm f-sṭrn lhw ‘if you do not receive linseed, write to him!’ (also quoted in Stein 2011: 1067). In conditional linkings with qtl in the antecedent, the consequence clause may be introduced by w- (Nebes 1995: 219). However, unlike hm(y) qtl w-l-yqtl(n), the consequence clause to a negated antecedent ʔl qtl is always introduced by f-, and its affirmative predicate need not marked by l-, e.g. X.BSB 126:6 hmy ʔl mḍʔkhmw ṣdqm f-yzʔnn ʔh̬ ḏ mʔh̬ ḏm ʕmn ʔʔmrn ‘if you do not come to them, which is the duty, they will keep taking hostages from the people of ʔʔmr.’ For an occurrence of hmy ʔl qtl f-l-yqtln, see X.BSB 49:3 (quoted in Stein 2011: 1064). For w-hm ʔl qtl f-qtl, i.e. with an imperative in the consequence clause, see RÉS 4558:2 and RÉS 4088a:4. The preference of f- over w- is indicated by X.BSB 86:11 w-hm ʔl fnh f-yhgbn f-l-ngbʔk ‘if he has not sent it, he will (have to) answer and we will give it to you,’ in which the scribe first wrote w- and then changed it to f- (Stein 2010: 306). 47  See also X.BSB 39:3 for the pattern hmy ʔl yqtln f-l-yqtln.

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

287

less compatible.48 For example, negated yqtl in the antecedent of a conditional linking is attested after hm and lw: (231)

a. X .BSB 36:4 w-l-trḍn ʔlt tmrnhn b-ʔtwt h̬ rf ḏ-h̬ rf ʔlʔmn bn fḍḥm w-hm ʔl trḍn b-ḏn mwʕdn f-l-tškrn b-ʕlhw mrbʕtm Let these dates be delivered by the coming of spring of the year of ʔlʔmn son of Fḍḥm. And if they should not be delivered, then let him be fined a four-fold(?). b. X.BSB 114:9 w-lw ʔl yfdy ytʔtwn ʕlyhw b-gzʔhw Even if he would not be released, he (sc. the sender himself) will come to him with his share. The subject of *rwḍ Gp in (231a) is, as suggested by Stein (2010, 1: 159), ʔlt tmrnhn, which means that trḍn is 3rd fpl yqtl. It may be noted that non-negated yqtl is also attested after hm, cf. Sima (2001: 286), and also after hmy, cf. (232). The conditional antecedent in (231b) is likely concessive, marked by both wand lw. It may be noted that in the other instance of a lw-clause known from Sabaic, the predicate is affirmative qtl (Stein 2003: 243). As noted in section 9.2.3, ʔl qtl in example (215) is apparently also used in a concessive clause in Minaic. It will be argued in section 16.3 that the use of ʔl in concessive clauses provides a bridging context for the reanalysis of a prohibitor into an emphatic negator. According to this scenario, the conservative reading of ʔl yfdy in (231b) is ‘may he not be released.’ While ʔal-clauses in other Central Semitic languages rarely lend themselves a conditional inference (unlike affirmative clauses with yvqtvl), a possible exception is also known from Biblical Hebrew 2 Kgs 6:27 wə-ʔiššå� ṣåʕå� qå� ʔēlå� w l-ēmōr hōšīʕå� ʔaḏōnī ham-mɛlɛḵ wayyōmɛr ʔal-yōšiʕēḵ Yhwh mē-ʔayin ʔōšīʕēḵ ‘(there was) a woman crying unto him: “Help me, my lord, (Oh) king!” He said to her: “If not even God helps you, from where can I (possibly) help you?”’ It may be pointed out that while the negated predicate in (231a) and (231b) is yqtl, the predicate of the consequence clause is yqtln, and in the latter example, 48   ʔl yqtl is attested in a k-clause: X.BSB 100:7 w-ʔntmw ʕlmkmw k-ʔl yḥtsbkmw hny śʕ ʔbhhmw w-ʔmrʔhmw w-ʔntmw ʕlmkmw kl ‘and you know that any wealth of their ancestors and/ or their masters may/will not be accounted to you. You know it all!’ At this point, the meaning of k-ʔl yḥtsbkmw can be derived from prohibitive ʔl yqtl on the assumption that the k-clause is (in origin) not subordinating but coordinating. It may also be noted that affirmative yqtl is attested in a content clause marked by k-ḏ that amounts to an indirect command in RÉS 3945:16 (Early Sabaic) w-ʕtb smhyfʕ w-nšn k-ḏ yḥwr sbʔ b-hgrn nšn ‘he (sc. Krbʔl) instructed Smhyfʕ and Nšn that Sbʔ should settle in the city Nšn.’

288

Chapter 9

the consequence clause is asyndetic. In the following example, the predicate of the both the antecedent and the consequence clause is yqtl, and the consequence clause is marked by f-:49 (232) X.BSB 112:6 w-hmy yʔs [ʔ]wskmw bnhw f-ʔl yʔs hwʔ bnkmw (Even) if he had to give up his son as a replacement to you, he would not himself give up your son, though. In (232), ʔl yqtl is used in the consequence clause of a clause linking that invites a concessive relationship. According to the present reconstruction, since a concessive notion involves a general incompatibility between the antecedent and the consequence, and concessive markers can be used to hedge an alternative point of view and boost that viewpoint, *ʔal- was used in order emphasize (and negate) the relevance of its proposition in relation to the presupposition with which it contrasts. 9.4

Late Sabaic and Negative dʔ

In Late Sabaic, ʔl is replaced to some extent by negative dʔ. The following sections review the evidence for ʔl and dʔ in Late Sabaic and provides an account of the historical background of dʔ. 9.4.1 Negative ʔl As to the epigraphic inscriptions, Stein (2003: 239 n. 239) noted that the occurrences of ʔl in juridical texts are likely to be regarded as fossilized. Notably, most of these attestations are expressions of prohibitions, and this environment tends to be conservative with regard to the renewal of the expression of negation. With Stein’s (2010) publication of minuscule texts, more examples of ʔl in Late Sabaic have come to light. Again, it is most common in prohibitions, for example:50 (233) X.BSB 139:9 w-ḥgn wqhw fʕlnn w-ġyrhw ʔl tʕtqbnn Act according to his command, and do not ensue anything else!

49  For another instance of f-ʔl yqtl in a consequence clause to k-, see also MAFRAY Ḥusn ʔĀl Ṣāliḥ 1:9 (apud Robin 1987: 167) w-k-ʔḥd yflqn f-ʔl ybdr ʔḥd ʔḥd ‘when one is opened, one may not go before the other,’ cf. Nebes (1995: 50). 50  See also X.BSB 139:4, 47:3, 146:7+9, and 151:8.

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

289

In this example, ʔl yqtln, not ʔl yqtl, is the negative counterpart to the imperative. This prohibitive expression separates Late Sabaic from Middle Sabaic because, as pointed out in section 9.3.2, prohibitive ʔl yqtln- in Middle Sabaic involves a pronominal suffix. However, ʔl also negates qtl. ʔl qtl is attested in a relative clause in X.BSB 139:8 ḏ-ʔl ʕbr b-ʕlyhmw ln qdmm ‘which has not come to them since a long time,’ and in the antecedent of a conditional linking:51 (234) X.BSB 46:5 w-hmy ʔl brʔ h̬ bšm b-mʕdhw f-sfḥ-mw ḏ-ṣḥbm b-ʔfq If H̬ bšm does not settle (the debt) within its appointed time, he of Ṣḥbm is appointed to regulate (it). ʔl also negates noun clauses in which the predicate is a prepositional phrase, e.g. X.BSB 138:5 w-ʔl bhw ḏ-l-ywsnnkmw ‘there is not anyone with him who can support you,’ with epistemic inference, which is similar to Ge’ez ʔalbo and Tigre ʔaläbu.52 ʔl also negates constituents, e.g. X.BSB 133:5+5–6 w-lhw ʔl n[xx]m w-ʔl [—]m ‘he has neither nxxm nor [—]m.’ The coordination ʔl … w-ʔl is likely emphatic (i.e. ‘neither … nor’), as indicated by the translation, since unlike the preceding example, ʔl does not precede and negate the prepositional phrase but the logical subject. Such constructions may be regarded as conservative, cf. the discussion to example (261). In summary, most examples of ʔl involves non-standard negation, including prohibitions, subordinated clauses, noun clauses, and constituent negation. 9.4.2 Negative dʔ There are different opinions on the etymological background of negative dʔ.53 Praetorius (1899: 16) derives dʔ from negative lʔ. However, besides the difficult 51  See also X.BSB 147:9 for hmy ʔl qtl. The consequence clause in this example is damaged. 52  For another instance of ʔl negating a prepositional phrase, see also X.BSB 133:4 w-hmy ʔl lhw myrm f-w[xx]w ʔwld ‘if he has no settlement, the offspring w[xx]w’ and (after k-) X.BSB 133:3 ʕkrk k-ʔl lhmw ḍhrm ‘you have contested that they do not have the (necessary) document.’ 53  As to the formal properties, it may be noted that the morpheme d in CIH 540:67 d-rʔẓm is related to dʔ according to Kropp (1994: 124) and Beeston (SG §29:4), who compare it to al-Miʕsāl 2:12 dkbmw (d-k-bmw?) ‘without’ (apud Müller 2010: 26). Biella (DS 79) and Beeston et al. (SD 34), on the other hand, assume that d is used in the sense of ḏ, but see the discussion in Stein (2003: 209–210). As to d- in d-l-ywfynn in MAFRA-Ḥaṣī 1:5, it is hardly negative: (apud Robin 2004: 885) l-qtbr b-hn ʔyhdn w-b-hymntm bn qtbr b-hmw ʔrmym d-lywfynn l-ʔyhdn ‘to bury jews in it, with the assurance to not (bn) bury with them non-Jews (ʔrmym), d-l-ywfynn towards the Jews.’ Stein (2003: 210 and n. 31) opts for ‘while’: “Weil

290

Chapter 9

phonetic development implied in the transition, negative *lā (in the form l) has lost parts of its negative polarity and become pleonastic already in Early Sabaic and is absent from Middle Sabaic. Wagner (1966: 263) and Müller (1989: 52) compare dʔ to interrogative enclitic -do in Tigrinya and post-verbal -da of the Inor discontinuous negation pattern of qvtvla (an-käfätä-da), which, however, must be identified with the KTD-suffixes (see section 13.5.1). Rabin (1951: 40) suggests that Himyaritic and Sabaic *dv is an Afroasiatic retention and compares it to Sidamo (Cushitic) di, which seems unlikely due to the absence of dʔ from Early and Middle Sabaic.54 In the present reconstruction, negative dʔ should be regarded as a borrowing from Aksumite dʔ. Aksumite dʔ in turn is probably a compound similar to Tigre däy, perhaps /də-ʔi/, given that it occurs in an inscription in which the standard negator is ʔi-: compare RIE 192:7 gbr krśtś ḏ-dʔ yglb ḍr ‘the servant of Christ, whom the enemy does not conquer’ with RIE 192:2 w-gbr kl ḏt ystrʔ [w-]ḏt ʔ-ystrʔ ‘the servant of everything that is visible and that which is not visible’ (cf. Schneider 1974).55 The possibility of areal diffusion of this negative morpheme is indicated by the attestations of a similar lexeme dw in Himyaritic

sie den Juden vorbehalten sein sollen.” In this sense, d is comparable to e.g. Jibbali d-/ð-, which often serves to introduce a circumstantial action with yvqatvl (Rubin 2014: 161–162). 54  Kropp (1994: 125 n. 7), in turn, suggests the possibility that d- is phonetic augment. This proposal is difficult to falsify conclusively. 55  Tigrinya däy is likely related to Tigre däy as well, although in Tigrinya, däy is restricted to a certain number of environments, notably questions. This is why Tigrinya däy is usually considered a compound of an interrogative morpheme -do/-da (the former being more common, GVG 2 191), e.g. PTCT 119 mĕsākhādò ʔĕllaliḗ ‘can I be friends with you?’ Enclitic -do is proclitic d- in d-əyyu, d-ällo, and däy, but there is also an instance with do-ʔay (note that the negator is repeated, GVG 2 191) in mesākā dōʔai̯ ʔai̯ u̯ aʕālan leǧǧ Salabā “con te non passava il giorno l. S.?” (apud GVG 2 191). The proclitic status is confirmed by John 9:40 ʕamirt-do ʔina ‘are we blind?’ where Rödiger’s manuscript has ʕamirt do-ʔina according to Rundgren (1955: 236). In fact, Rundgren suggests that the proclitic status of d- with d-əyyu, d-ällo, and däy came about through sandhi. Besides yes-no questions, -do is used in WH-questions, e.g. məntay-do gädifu (Leslau 1949a: 245), and it may also cliticize to the imperative and prohibitive, so the interrogative function is perhaps secondary and the focussing one original. Indeed, Leslau (DTGT §160fα) notes that it is clitic to the element which is intended to be emphasized in questions (“[il] s’ajoute à l’élément de la proposition sur lequel on veut insister”), but that nägälä däy-qätälän “est-ce qu’il n’a pas tué un tel?” is synonymous to nägälä ʔay-qätälän-do, except that the former always expects an affirmative answer. According to Rundgren (1955: 237), -do is derived from ʔəndo/ ʔənda while according to Brockelmann (GVG 2 §112b), the morpheme is borrowed from Cushitic.

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

291

which is known from al-Hamdānī (fl. 10th c.), who translates it with Arabic lā, lam, and laysa.56 In fact, Himyaritic dw, although in the sense of a prosentential negator ‘no’ rather than a sentential negator ‘not,’ resurfaces in Yemeni Arabic of Taʕizz, Mōzaʕ and Moxāʔ as dow, in el-Ḥuǧayriyya as dā, and in the region of Zabīd as dåwwa (Wagner 1966: 263).57 As to the syntactical distribution of dʔ, most, if not all, of the time, it negates qtl, for example: (235) CIH 541:50 w-bʕdn wṣḥhmw ḏn ʕhdn hqdmw brdnn brṯ ydnn ʕrbn ʔlht dʔ gbʔw ʕm yzd After this information had reached him, he sent messengers so that the Arabs would submit themselves, those that had not returned with Yzd. Dʔ also negates qtl in relative clauses, e.g. CIH 540:66 w-k-wrd mlkn b-ḥmyrm w-ḥḍrmwt rʕẓm b-ʔšʕbm ḏ-dʔ ḥr ʕlyhmw tqh ‘then the king went to Ḥmyrm and Ḥḍrmwt while ordering the tribes who had not (yet) acquitted themselves of their duties (?) towards him(?),’ and qtl in a content clause with k-, e.g. X.BSB 141:5 (Ry IVb) w-hmw f-ngyw l-s[ṭ]r ʕbrkmw k-dʔ mḍʔhmw ʔšrʕ ‘as to him, they requested to write to you that ʔšrʕ has not come.’58 In the following example, dʔ appears to negate the prefix conjugation: (236) X.BSB 145:3 (Ry IVb) w-hmw f-h̬ wdhw dnrtn w-dʔ ydʕ k-ʔlt y[—] As to them, they have given him the dinar, but he does/did not know that this y[—]. 56  See Rabin (1951: 40), al-Selwi (1987: 89–90), and Müller (1989: 52) for dw in Himyaritic. Belova (1988: 28, 32 n. 2) suggests that Late Sabaic d may represent Himyaritic sub- or adstrate. 57  See also Rossi (1938a: 242 and n. 3; 1938b: 471). Behnstedt (1985: 170, table 117) gives daʔ, dawʔ, and duwwayy ‘no,’ i.e. with /ʔ/ in the former two. Diem (1979: 33) explains daw along the lines of maw < mā hū, i.e. dā hū, and suggests that dawwa is formed in analogy to ʔēwa ‘yes,’ cf. the variation in Damascene Arabic between mū, mō, and maw (Grotzfeld 1964 §124a; 1965 §99c). 58   Dʔ also negates kwn in an existential clause: CIH 541:12 w-sṭrw ḏn mśndn k-qsd w-hh̬ lf b-gzmn yzd bn kbšt h̬ lfthmw ḏ-sth̬ lfw ʕly kdt w-dʔ kn lhw h̬ lftn ‘he wrote this inscription, while Yzd, son of Kbšt, had rebelled and broken the oath, his governor whom he had appointed governor of Kdt, when it did not have a governor.’ Dʔ also negates a noun clause without kwn, although text is damaged: X.BSB 144:8 (Ry IVb) w-dʔ lhmw n-[—] ‘and they do not have [—].’ Dʔ kwn is also attested in a broken context: X.BSB 204:9’ (Ry IVb) w-dʔ kn bnk[—] ‘and your son was not [—].’

292

Chapter 9

Since the root for ‘know’ is bisyllabic dʕ elsewhere (cf. example 219 and Stein 2003: 198), ydʕ seems to be yqtl (thus Stein 2010: 508–509). However, the prefix conjugation of this particular root is potentially atemporal. Since dʔ elsewhere negates qtl, it cannot be ruled out that y- was integrated to the root and subsequently reanalyzed as qtl, parallel to Hebrew yå� ḵōl (*khl, Huehnergard and Olyan 2013). 9.5 Negative lm in Amiritic Amiritic (also known as Haramitic), a northern dialect of Sabaic from the Jawf, separates itself from Standard Sabaic by sharing several features with North Arabian. These features include, among others, the preposition mn (instead of bn), PNG-suffixes for the 1st and 2nd person in -t (instead of -k), and the use of the negator lm with the prefix conjugation (Stein 2007), for example: (237) Haram 34:4–5 b-hn qrbh mrʔ ywm ṯlṯ ḥgtn w-hʔ ḥyḍ w-mšy w-lm yġtsl w-ʕwdt mrʔ w-h[—] (She did penance) because a man had approached her on the third day of pilgrimage, while she was menstruating, and he had gone away and not washed and she had caused the man to return, and [—] In (237), lm yġtsl is parallel to affirmative qtl (mšy and ʕwdt).59 Therefore, the negative clause is asymmetric to its affirmative counterpart. There can be little doubt that Amiritic lm is borrowed from Arabic, on account of other Arabic features present in the inscriptions from Haram. The counterpart to Minaic (206) l šʕr and Sabaic (219) ʔl šʕr is lm yšʕr in Amiritic, e.g. Haram 33:8–9 b-ḏt h̬ ṭʔt bllm ʔl b-hn šʕrt w-ʔl lm tšr f-hḍrʕt ‘(she did penance) because she had sinned many times, those she knew of as well as those she did not know of, and she humbled herself.’ Lm yqtl is also attested in conditional antecedents, e.g. Haram 13:6 w-hm lm ydmw l-yẓlʕn h̬ ms ḥyʔlym ‘and if he is not defiled with blood, let him pay five ḥyʔl(-coins).’60 In Arabic too, antecedents marked by ʔin are negated by lam (section 8.7).

59  Cf. also the parallel in Haram 40:7 w-lm yġtsl. 60  See also X.BSB 95:2 and X.BSB 97:3 w-b-lbk l-ftḥ hn lm-twkdh ‘let it be complaint in your heart, if you did not acknowledge her.’

Minaic, Sabaic, And Ancient South Arabian

293

To be sure, ʔl is also attested in Amiritic and it negates qtl (Stein 2003: 239), for example:61 (238) Haram 10:3 [ʔh]l ʔmrm w-ʔhl ʕṯtr [tn]h̬ y(w) w-ntḏr l-ḥlfn [b-]hn ʔl hwfyhw mṭrdhw b-ḏ-mwṣbm The clan ʔmrm and the clan ʕṯtr confessed and did penance to Ḥlfn because they had not (duly) performed for him his rite in the (month) ḏ-Mwṣbm.62 In (238), b-hn ʔl qtl seems to correspond to Minaic b-hn l qtl. In fact, Sima (2001: 293–294) suggested that the construction b-hn ‘because’ was borrowed from Minaic. ʔl also negates qtl in main clauses, e.g. Haram 10:8 nsʔw mṭrdn ʕd ḏ-ʕṯtr [ f-]ʔl hwfyhmw f-fgr šrghmw b-dṯʔn w-h̬ rfn mn mwm qllm ‘they postponed the rite until ḏ-ʕṯtr, and (therefore) he (sc. DN) did not bestow them (their request) but caused their watercourse to flow in the spring and autumn with little water.’ At this point, f-ʔl + qvtvla ( f-ʔl hwfy-hmw) is the negative symmetric counterpart to affirmative f + qvtvla ( f-fgr). The difference between ʔl and lm as far as the evidence goes in Amiritic suggests that the former only negates qtl while the latter only negates yqtl.63

61  See perhaps also X.BSB 105:4. The evidence for a possible occurrence of lm in RÉS 3912:2 is not conclusive. See also Stein (2007: 30 n. 51): “[N]icht ausgeschlossen werden kann, daß durchaus beide Partikeln zum Repertoire einer lebendigen Sprache gehört haben können, wie auch das Klassische Arabische mehr als eine Negationspartikel zur Verneinung vorzeitiger Aussagen kennt.” 62  For the rite of mṭrd, cf. Stein (2007: 36 n. 73). 63  See also X.BSB 96:1–2 and X.BSB 97:5+8 for lm yqtl.

Chapter 10

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian 10.1 Introduction While standard negation in Soqotri is expressed by a reflex of *ʔal- in preverbal position, e.g. SAE 4 114.18 ål ʕérobk ‘I do not understand,’ it is a characteristic feature of continental Modern South Arabian that negation in some languages is expressed by a discontinuous negative construction, e.g. Jibbali SSS 3 6.5 el qeflót bob lo ‘she did not close the door,’ and in other languages by a clausefinal negator only, e.g. Harsusi HTO 4.5 ʔáygeb beh laʔ ‘he did not like it.’ Unlike the negative construction in certain Neo-Arabic varieties and Ethiosemitic languages, however, the second part of the negative construction is clause-final rather than a clitic or suffix to the predicate. This chapter investigates the distribution of clause-final lo in Jibbali, and describes how a pro-sentential negator grammaticalized as part of standard negation. 10.2

Allomorphs of the Preverbal Negator

Before turning to the distribution of the clause-final negator in Jibbali, it is necessary to review the background of the preverbal negator. It has occasionally been suggested that there is a preverbal negator *lā in Modern South Arabian. However, the various realizations of the preverbal negator can and should be explained as allomorphs of *ʔal-. 10.2.1 Soqotri Allomorphs Soqotri is the only Modern South Arabian language in which the expression of standard negation is a lone preverbal negator.1 This negator is a reflex of *ʔal-. The lateral approximant is usually velarized in Soqotri but exceptions apply, especially in proximity to the front vowel i, where l may be realized as light. Naumkin and Kogan (2015: 12–13) provisionally opt for two phonemes, dark l transcribed as ḷ (as in the negator aḷ) and light l transcribed as l’, but admit that further research may reach diverging conclusions. The velarized pronunciation of l can occasion the backing of the preceding vowel, and the negator is transcribed as ål in SAE. 1  Negation in Soqotri is treated at some length by Simeone-Senelle (1994), including the dialects of Abd-el-Kuri, Haghyer, Noged, Qalansiya, and Qadhub. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_011

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

295

There exists, however, other realizations as well. Various dialectal differences on Soqotra are documented by Simeone-Senelle (2003). While the negator in Mogar, e.g. ɔl ʕīk ləfśēʔ ‘I do not want to eat’ and ɔl tsē ‘do not eat!’ is similar to the standard negator in the SAE corpus (ål), the negator in other dialects is sometimes distinct, for example: (239) Simeone-Senelle (2003: 8) a. Ḥiloho a-yīte ‘He doesn’t eat.’ b. Ḥiloho ɔ-ste ‘Do not eat!’ c. Haghyer a-tšemtel ‘Do not speak!’ d. Haghyer al tšəmətol toh ‘You do not speak with me.’ However, a correspondence closer to ål of SAE is also found in Ḥiloho, e.g. (Simeone-Senelle 2003: 8) ɔl ʕɛk līte ‘I do not want to eat.’ The various forms of the negator are therefore best explained as different realizations of the same negator *ʔal-, and can be regarded as allomorphs of one and the same morpheme. Regarding (ʔ)a in Haghyer (239c), Simeone-Senelle (1994: 207) noted that this negator is also attested in the Vienna corpus of Soqotri from Abd-el-Kuri.2 In Abd-el-Kuri, ā negates yvqtvl (240a), as well as yvqatvl (240b) and qvtvla (240c):3 (240) a. SAE 4 104.11 (Abd-el-Kuri) ā táṣbaḥak May it not be morning for you! b. SAE 4 95.12 (Abd-el-Kuri) ā tíqaʕi di mah̬ azín You (f) must not open this cell!4 c. SAE 4 109.17 (Abd-el-Kuri) ā šígaʔk-šē yōm ṣaíqebk I have not done anything (since) the day I was created. Wagner (1953 §70 n. 1) compares Abd-el-Kuri ā to the Akkadian negator ay. However, twice in the Soqotri of Abd-el-Kuri, the negator is al/āl, like Haghyer ́ ‘go away, so he does not eat us’ and SAE 4 (239d), viz. SAE 4 100.4 ṭáhor āl itīkī

2  Simeone-Senelle must identify Haghyer (ʔ)a with Abd-el-Kuri ā: “Cette particule ʔa n’a été relevée par la Sudarabische Expedition que dans le texte en dialecte de ʕAbd-al-Kuri.” 3  For additional instances of ā, see SAE 4 94.2, 95.7, and 105.20. 4  yvqtvl of *kzʕ in Abd-el-Kuri is l-aqzá (SAE 4 108.17). ā tákza is parallelled in Soqotri by ā teáśśi, cf. SAE 6 69.18 taʕśéś wa-yáʕśeś ‘get up! And he gets up.’

296

Chapter 10

105.7 al eṭámaʕ ‘I cannot.’5 It is therefore more reasonable to assume that ā is an allomorph of al/āl. It may be pointed out that ā̆l in Abd-el-Kuri is followed by a vowel, but ā by a consonant. Leslau (LS 38–39, 41) notes that l may assimilate in Soqotri, and that assimilation sometimes undergoes subsequent degemination.6 However, it is also possible to explain the loss of l as resulting from a vocalization of it. This process of l-vocalization is documented for Mehri and Jibbali.7 Rubin (2010a: 17–19), for example, notes that l is often lost in the environment CVlC in Mehri, and that the vocalic outcome may differ depending on the preceding consonant, as in ḳāb ‘heart’ and ʔɛ̄f ‘thousand.’ It is therefore assumed here that the vocalization of l in Soqotri, including the realization of the vowel, is the result of various phonetic conditions, possibly including stress, pace, and following phones.8 Negative ḗ in Soqotri of Soqotra must be treated on a similar note. This form is attested three times in SAE 6, always in poetic texts, and has sometimes been used for the sake of reconstructing a negative *ʔay(y).9 However, ḗ is best understood as a vocalized form of *ʔal-, for example: (241)

SAE 6 333.7 ʕa tirbénen hek il-gádal il kínef wa-ḗ le-góngin “Laß dich nicht beraten von denen mit dem Zopfe, Nicke dazu nicht mit dem Kopfe.” (tr. Müller)

It is worth noting that ḗ le-góngin continues another prohibition, ʕa tirbénen.10 As noted by Wagner (1953 §275c), negative clauses that follow on ʕa yvqtvl are 5   The form al is also found in Wellsted (1835: 228), e.g. alà tiyéʔi ‘do not take away!’ and alankah ‘do not bring!’ 6   The assimilation of l of ål is actually attested before n in Soqotri, see Simeone-Senelle (1994: 199 n. 26). See also SAE 4 p. 173 (no. 29.2) without gemination. 7   See further Watson (2012: 35–37) for Mehri and Rubin (2014: 35–37) for Jibbali. It may be noted that while *l is usually preserved in Soqotri, it is lost in gad ‘skin’ (LS 101) and mése ‘rain’ (LS 234, *lsy). 8   Indeed, Simeone-Senelle (2003: 8) has suggested a morphophonological explanation: “In some dialects, the loss of l could depend on the initial phoneme of the verb, and not on the verbal mode (indicative vs prohibitive). So, in these dialects, there would be only one negative form, with two combinatory/contextual variants.” 9   Leslau (LS 47–48) compares Soqotri ḗ to Ge’ez ʔi- and Hebrew ʔī. The reference to Ge’ez is only true in as much as ʔi- is also a reflex of *ʔal- (section 11), but Hebrew ʔī must be derived from interrogative-indefinite *ʔayyv (section 6.4). 10  Negative ʕa < *ʕan ‘from’ (LS 292) is here an example of how an ablative preposition is used for the negation of a prohibition and is comparable to the use of e.g. Jibbali min, cf. (264) below.

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

297

usually ål yvqtvl, e.g. SAE 6 25.5 ʕa néḍol misséb ʕed dé di-ʕaíg w-ål nšége le-nófoš dur “laß uns nicht umkommen wegen des Lebens dieses Mannes, und laß uns nicht Blut auf uns nehmen” (tr. Wagner 1953 §275c). It is therefore possible that the printed text misrepresents the word boundaries for el l-egóngin.11 For the evowel, comparison can also be made to ʕe- < *ʕal-, where -l of *ʕal- is vocalized before pronominal suffixes, e.g. ʕek ‘against you’, as well as Soqotri be- for *bal.12 In summary, negative ā and ḗ in the SAE corpus cannot be used for the reconstruction of a negative *ʔay(y) in Soqotri, as has previously been done. Rather, ā and ḗ must be regarded as dialectal and contextual realizations of a negative *ʔal-. 10.2.2 Jibbali Allomorphs In Jibbali, the basic allomorph of *ʔal- in SAE is el (Johnstone and Rubin: ɔl), but may also be realized as li (example 254), le (example 258), and l-, e.g. SSS 3 1.12 ṯro (e)ġóho l-ibġód fáh̬ ere ló ‘two brothers do not go together.’ li, le, and l- are certainly allomorphs of el, as suggested by Bittner (SSS 2 57).13 When the negated predicate is yvqtvl, however, there is a possible confusion of l- with the subjunctive particle l-, at least in 1st csg, for example:14

11  It seems probable that there is a misinterpretation of the word boundaries also in SAE 6 341.14 di-ål ṣaúwelob ʕátam ḥéyre di ḗ lóklis “Daß man keine fette schlachtet, Für den, der es nicht vergelten kann, ist besser” (tr. Müller). In the third example, -l of ål is likely vocalized: SAE 6 333.2 dolq d-énhor wa-dólq d(y)aḥtéten ḥeb ke-ʕaíg ḗ téken ʕaíge “viele Tage werden schwinden, viele Nächte, bist du auch ein Mann, doch nicht der rechte” (tr. Müller). 12  In SAE, bal is written both with final -l, i.e. bal, and without final -l, as be. Although Leslau (LS) assumes two different lemma for bal and be, be is *bal with l-vocalization. The writing bol is also attested and is probably due to velarization of l. Since the subject agreement markers of yvqtvl in 1st csg/cdu and 3rd person msg/mdu/mpl are marked by l- (Naumkin et al. 2014: 42), *bal is be- or ba-, e.g. SAE 6 173.2 bódik ber ṣáraḥk bé-l(y)iṭéqeṭ ʕéfo ‘you lied when you crowed before the people woke up’ and SAE 6 336.8 iṭóhor be-rʕób bá-l-(y) amráḥ ‘the ignoble leaves before saying goodbye.’ It is worth noting that Müller’s l(y) indicates that l is clear rather than dark (Naumkin and Kogan 2015: 12 n. 6). 13  Cf. also the subjunctive particle in eltaġek for letáġek in (268) and SSS 3 p. 62 n. 8. Johnstone (JL 158) notes the allomorphs l- and lə for ɔl. 14  See also SSS 3 3.25. According to Bittner (SSS 2 58), l- is almost always used in 3rd csg, 3rd mpl, and 1st csg of yvqtvl, but according to Wagner (1953: 52), l- is, as a rule, only used in 1st csg of yvqtvl. Rubin’s (2014: 145–146) investigation indicated some fluctuation between the prefix t- and l- in the Gp-, D-/L-, H-, Hp-, and Q-stems.

298

Chapter 10

(242) a. SSS 3 5.4 ʕoñrót brit ṣelṭán: l-enḍóf liš lo ḍol h̬ atíq-i The daughter of the sultan said: “I will not spread the seam of my robe for him.” b. SSS 3 5.9 fírqek l-ešfók tun brit-š lo I fear that he will not let his daughter marry us. L- in (242a) and (242b) is either negative el in its allomorph l-, or the subjunctive particle l-, in which case the clauses are negated only by clause-final lo. However, negation by means of lo without el is elsewhere conditioned by activation (cf. the discussion to example 266), which is not the case in (242a), and clauses after verbs of fearing, as in (242b), are usually negated by means of el alone (cf. n. 53 on p. 312). Therefore, l- in the above examples is *ʔal- realized as l- before vowel-initial words. However, l- preceding yvqtvl after dhar/dḥar (< *d-aḥór, Rubin 2012), must be identified with the subjunctive particle l- only, because there is an attestation of el dhar l- in SSS 3 p. 92.2 ʕoñrót hiš brit-š: eí ko el tešfók lo? ʕoñr his el dhar l-ešfók lo ‘his daughter said to him: “Father, why will you not marry?” He said to her: “I will not marry”.’15 Johnstone (1981: 2) also notes an allomorph ɔ of ʔɔl, i.e. without -l in the reflex of *ʔal-, negating yvqatvl when the intended meaning is habituative. Johnstone gives the following minimal pairs: (243) JL 2 a. ʔɔ ykɔ́ təb lɔʔ “He does not write.” ʔɔ tkɔ́ təb lɔʔ “She does not write.” b. ʔɔl d-ikɔ́ təb lɔʔ “He is not writing.” ʔɔl tkɔ́ təb lɔʔ “She is not writing.” On the other hand, Hofstede (1998: 161) has pointed out that Johnstone’s distinction does not always bear out, as in the following example: (244) JL 267 ʔɔl yŝéf ʕaḳ ʕamḳ ɛ-yyúhm lɔʔ ‘He never sleeps at midday.’ In fact, Lonnet (1994: 222–223) suggested a morphophonological explanation: l of *ʔal-was first velarized (as in Soqotri) and subsequently vocalized: *ʔal > åḷ > ɔḷ > ɔ. This development took place before the prefixes y- (3rd m) and t- (3rd 15  See also Bittner SSS 3 p. 92 n. 5. The preverbal negator also precedes the future particle ḥa (< *dḥar) in Eastern Jibbali (Hofstede 1998: 161–162).

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

299

f and 2nd c), so that *ʔɔl-y- > ʔɔ-y- and *ʔɔl-t- > ʔɔ-t-. However, the particle d(cf. 243b) would have prevented its vocalization before the same prefixes.16 Thus, after d-ʕad, where the d-imperfect is expected, the preverbal negator is ʔɔl: (245) Lonnet (1994: 222) a. d-ʕɔd d-iśɔ́ gər bi “Il ne cesse de me promettre le paiement pour plus tard.” b. hɛt d-ʕɔk ɔl ets̃təġélən lɔʔ hés śink tɔk “Tu étais encore en train de ne pas travailler quand je t’ai vu.” This means that in (245b), the preservation of -l of ɔl is due to a following d-, so that ɔl is actually *ʔal + d-. However, the predicate in (244), which according to Johnstone’s translation refers to a habituative state of affairs, is negated by ʔɔl with preserved -l, even though yŝéf cannot likely be the d-imperfect. Lonnet (1994: 222–223) also admits that ʔɔ is expected rather than ʔɔl in (244). In fact, Hofstede (1998: 159) has also noted two occurrences of ʔɔ … lɔ negating qvtvla,17 so the realization of *ʔal- is not conditioned by the verbal grammatical morpheme. It is therefore possible that l of *ʔal- is sometimes let go ad hoc. According to Rubin (2014: 37, 330–331), word-final l is in general lost in fast speech, especially before a following l or r. In the corpus, the reflex of *ʔal- always preserves l, so no vocalization has taken place in the synchronic layer of Central Jibbali attested in the corpus (unless Müller’s transcription is historical at this point). In summary, it is not necessary to reconstruct any preverbal negator other than *ʔal- in the expression of standard negation. 10.2.3 Mehri Allomorphs In Watson’s (2012: 44) view, the various attestations of preverbal al- in Mehri are the result of sonorant metathesis, given that there is a preference for consonants with low sonority to occur in syllable onset position. For Watson then, al- in ḏōmah al-hēh gīd lā ‘this is not good,’18 would be a metathesis of la 16  Rubin (2014: 145) points out that the prefix d-/ð- is usually not pronounced before t-. 17  It is not clear whether ʔɔ also negates d-qvtvla. According to Johnstone (JL xv), d-qvtvla is asseverative, e.g. də-ḳɔ́ dɔ́ r “he did manage!; indeed he could!” In Rubin’s (2014: 161–164) view, d-qvtvla is used for circumstances anterior to the main-line predicate, for English present perfect, and for English present with stative verbs. 18  Read ḏōmah ‘this’ with Rubin (2010a: 42) as near demonstrative.

300

Chapter 10

(*lā), as in la-hēh wōḏam yiḳaʔ šīn lā “there is no need for him to be with us” (tr. Watson 2012: 44). Sima (2003: 92–93), in turn, assumes two discontinuous negative constructions in Mehri of Oman, one with ʔəl … lā, e.g. MTO 32.1 hē ʔəl yəġōrəb ḥōrəm lā ‘he did not know the way,’ and one with lā … lā, e.g. MTO 37.9 hō l-ənhōḥəg lā ʔār bə-xəláwḳiye ‘I do not (cannot) dance unless I have my clothes.’ Sima’s reason to interpret l- in l-ənōḥəg as derived from lā rather than ʔəl are some seven examples in MTO where the text has lā … lā. However, in six of these examples, Rubin (2010a: 266–267; 2011: 76) emends lā to l-ʔād, for example:19 (246) MTO 60.8 l-ʔād! śīnən tīhəm zōyəd lā ‘We never saw them again.’ In (246), Rubin’s emendation is confirmed by Johnstone’s own audio recordings.20 For MTO 6.13, 19.25, 94.6, and 98.4, however, Johnstone’s audio recordings are missing, so Rubin’s readings must be regarded as conjectures. Rubin has nevertheless made a good case for these readings, noting that in MTO 19.25 (247a), for example, we expect l-ʔād with zōyəd, as in (246), and in MTO 6.13 (247b), the construction is parallel to MTO 6.5 (247c) where Johnstone indeed has l-ʔād: (247) a. MTO 19.25 l-ʔād? təḥfēr zōyəd lā ‘Do not dig anymore!’ b. MTO 6.13 l-agərē l-ʔād? təhɛ̄rəs lā ‘Because you have not married yet.’ c. MTO 6.5 l-agərē l-ʔād yəhɛ̄rəs lā ‘Because he has not married yet.’ Rubin (2010a: 266–268) admits one instance of preverbal lā, but suggests that it is prosentential rather than clausal: MTO 28.15 lā šaṯḳələm ḥənfəykəm lā “no, do not think yourselves a burden!” (tr. Rubin 2010a: 267).21 Sima’s (2003: 93) last example of lə for lā is not discussed by Rubin (2010a), but corrected in the Appendix (p. 321) to əl: MTO 62.13 ʔādi lə/əl kə́sk ʔəḥād lə-hīs tīhəm lā ‘so far I have not found anyone like them.’ Moreover, Rubin (2010a) corrects all negative 19  Arabic negative lāta, which is only attested once in the Quran, viz. in Q 38:3 kam ʔahlaknā min qablihim min qarnin fa-nādū wa-lāta ḥīna manāṣin ‘how many a generation have we destroyed before them! And they cried out, but it was no longer time for escape,’ can perhaps, if not equated with Aramaic lā + īṯ, be compared to neg + *ʕdy, e.g. Jibbali ɔl-ʕɔ́ d ‘no longer,’ for which Bittner (1914: 31) has lāt (Mehri lād). Wagner (1953: 34 n. 3) points out that lāt in Mehri often translates Arabic lam, but refrains from deciding whether lād and lāt are the same word. On the other hand, lam sometimes has the meaning of ‘not yet’ (cf. example 189), and Jibbali ɔl-ʕɔ́ d sometimes has the meaning ‘not at all’ (Rubin 2014: 334–337). 20  This is also true for MTO 40.7 (Rubin 2010a: 266) l-ʔād təbkɛ̄ lā ‘do not cry anymore!’ 21  For šaṯḳələm instead of expected təšaṯḳələm, see the discussion in n. 51 on p. 311.

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

301

l- to əl, and reads MTO 37.9 əl ənōḥəg for l-ənhōḥəg (Rubin 2010a: 317). It is not clear whether these corrections are made according to the actual sound recordings, or according to etymological principles. In summary, there is no conclusive evidence for preverbal *lā in Mehri, and the preverbal negator in the other Modern South Arabian languages suggests that the etymon of al, la-, l-, əl, and lə in Mehri is *ʔal-. 10.2.4 Harsusi Allomorphs Thomas (1937: 251) noted that negation of noun clauses is sometimes discontinuous in Harsusi, given the examples aghaik lā qanūn lā “the man is not small” and lā qwi lā ghaik “the man is not strong.” Wagner (1953: 35) asserts, basing himself on Thomas’ examples, that the discontinuous negative construction of the noun clause is lā … lā, i.e. with both pre- and post-predicate lā. Alternatively, pre-predicate lā could have been misheard on part of Thomas, since at least the clause-final negator is sometimes realized as əlaʔ, e.g. Johnstone (1975: 28) ha(h) gəd əlaʔ. There is one example in HTO where the pre-positioned negator is realized as la: (248) HTO 4.22 la h-abnēdem, ġār kēn h-amṭāya wélla ḥawrūn wélla śī, we-lā h-abnēdem It is not for human beings, only for riding beasts or goats and so on, and not for people. Elsewhere, the preverbal negator is realized as el but the very use of it is not common at all. Johnstone (HL 2) notes that el is common only in emphatic negative coordination el … w-el ‘neither … nor,’ e.g. HTO 2.19 w-hes wēḳa ð̣ ār aṣéwwer mešeġerēt w-el wēḳa beh śī laʔ el ṯēber w-el ʔatwōr ‘when he got on to the second rock nothing happened to him, nor was anything broken nor was he hurt.’ Negation is probably expressed by lone preverbal el in HTO 4.5 we-hah ṭām śī-la ʔaśē. gēṣ seḥaṭen aderhīṣen. w-el hah ṭām śī-la men ʔaśē ‘he tasted no supper; it was hardly worth slaughtering our kid, because he did not taste anything of the supper,’ because la is likely part of a negative indefinite śī-la rather than a clause-final negator. Elsewhere, negation in Harsusi is expressed by clausefinal laʔ (əlaʔ) only (Johnstone 1975: 28), as in e.g. Western Yemeni Mehri.22

22  There is another example of Harsusi negation in Thomas (1937) that is discontinuous according to Leslau (1947: 199): umkōl iraḥak lā ‘it is not far’ (apud Thomas 1937: 277). Leslau suggests that umkōl is compounded of um-k-ōl ‘from there not,’ um being the preposition m ‘from’ and k the demonstrative element expressing distance. This would mean that

302 10.3

Chapter 10

Negation in Jibbali

Negation in Central Jibbali, as well as in Eastern Jibbali, is as a rule a discontinuous construction in which el precedes the predicate and lo has clause-final position.23 10.3.1 The Historical Background of Clause-Final lo Lucas (2009: 91–92) and Lucas and Lash (2010: 399–400) suggest that the clause-final negator in Modern South Arabian is reanalyzed from lā ‘no’: “It seems likely that this laʔ ‘no’ was reanalyzed as a clause-final negator in ‘resumptive’ contexts where it was appended to the end of a sentence in either declarative contexts (‘I don’t like that, no’) or in tag questions (‘You didn’t like it, no?’)” (Lucas and Lash 2010: 400). At least the former scenario, where ‘no’ resumes a negative declarative proposition, may be seriously considered, at least for the discontinuous negative construction.24 The formal similarity of the clause-final negator with the pro-sentential negator in Modern South Arabian indeed suggests a common source. However, unlike the clause-final negator in Harsusi and Mehri, the clause-final negator in Jibbali, lo, is not identical with the pro-sentential negator, which is la in the Vienna corpus, for example:25

ōl is to be identified with *ʔal-. But ol can perhaps also be analyzed as demonstrative, cf. Soqotri diól ‘until’ (LS 126), compounded of id ‘to’ and demonstrative ʔol (LS 59–60). 23  See also SSS 2 57 for standard negation in Central Jibbali and Simeone-Senelle (1994: 201), Hofstede (1998: 157), and Rubin (2014: 330) for standard negation in Eastern Jibbali. 24  It is not entirely clear how tag-questions are resumptive (although maybe presumptive?). In fact, a clause with interrogative illocution and a negated predicate continued by lā results in an affirmative proposition (or a question that expects an affirmative answer), as in the tag ɔl hɛ̃ lɔ ‘isn’t that so?’ (JL 158; Rubin 2014: 300), i.e. ‘it is so.’ As a matter of fact, the clause-final negator is sometimes missing in negated questions in Jibbali (for example 262). Watson and Rowlett (2012) also assume that lā originally marked tag questions (see also Watson 2012: 311), e.g. Sima (2009: 26.17) ykūn lbōn—lǟ—ykūn ḳwī “es war weiß—nicht war?—es war fest.” It is clear from this example, however, that a negative tag lǟ marks a proposition in which the predicate is not negated by a preverbal negator as a question which expects an affirmative answer. 25  See also SSS 3 4.47, 4.76, 5.25, and 5.46. la can also be used to contradict a negative statement, in which case the pro-sentential negator states that the truth value of the previous statement is false (corresponding to French si), e.g. SSS 3 6.10 dhar l-esfúk be-brít-š. ʕoñrót: el ši brit (e) lo. ʕoñr: la, šiš brit! ‘(he said:) “I want to marry your daughter,” (but) he said: “I do not have a daughter,” (and) he said: “No (that is not true), you do have a daughter”.’

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

303

(249) SSS 3 6.29 ʕoñrót hes ʕalít-s: heróg šiš śe? ʕoñrót: la. Her lady said to her: “Has he said anything to you?” She said: “No!” Nevertheless, once in the corpus the pro-sentential negator is lo: SSS 3 4.41 (= SAE 7 80.17) er ʕagk tedfáʕ híni l-ešéef ʕáṣer tel tíṯ-k be-l-ah̬ rég hek úñl-ek begehóz-ek. ʕoñr: lo ‘(he said): “If you will, you should grant me to sleep one night with your wife, and I will bring you your fortune and your ship,” (but) he said: “No”.’ Bittner (SSS 3 47, p. 47 n. 11) emends lo to la, but it is possible that there was variation in the expression of pro-sentential negation, and that lo is an allomorph to la. However, the preference for lo in clause-final position indicates a degree of divergence from the pro-sentential negator, connected with a degree of grammaticalization, which in turn indicates that it is no longer identified with a pro-sentential negator but a clausal negator. In Hofstede’s (1998: 92, 157) and Rubin’s (2014: 306–307) Jibbali texts, besides lɛ(ʔ) and la(ʔ) for ‘no,’ which are in fact identified as borrowings from Arabic, the interjections ob, lob, ob-lób, lób-lób (JL 5 s.v. ʔwb, 166 s.v. lwb) are also attested in a prosentential function. It is tempting, in view of e.g. Ge’ez ʔənb‘no,’ to compare ob to *ʔby and lob to either *ʔal + *ʔby or *lā + *ʔby. The use of the root *ʔby for ‘no’ is also known from Yemeni Arabic (ʔabaʔ, ʔabeʔ ‘no,’ Behnstedt 1985: 170), as well as in collocation with lā in the sense of ‘refuse’ (Landberg 1920, 1: 14–15). It is likely that the material source of lo, i.e. lā, is borrowed from Arabic. It must be pointed out that none of the functions of lā known from Akkadian and Central Semitic are found in Modern South Arabian, except for the prosentential one. However, this may be an innovation in Central Semitic.26 It may therefore be that lā in the Modern South Arabian lexicon is borrowed from Arabic and not a retention from Proto-Semitic.27 The borrowing of (emphatic) pro-sentential negators is a common feature of language contact, as is borrowing of affirmators. Indeed, such discursive particles form part of the grammatical category that is by far the most susceptible to borrowing according to Matras (2007), and particles of the like borrowed

26  In Akkadian, the meaning ‘no’ for lā is not included in AHw 520. Although CAD L 1 gives the translation value ‘no,’ it is not supported by examples. Kämmerer and Schwiderski (1998: 268) and Cohen (2011: 142) give ē, lā, anṣu and ulla as translation equivalents to ‘nein’ and ‘no’ respectively. For ulla, cf. n. 7 on p. 12. 27  See Q 4:65 quoted in n. 42 on p. 246 for pro-sentential lā in Arabic and example (121) for prosentential lō in Hebrew.

304

Chapter 10

from Arabic abound in continental Modern South Arabian.28 However, in the insular language of Soqotri, as attested in the Vienna corpus, a negative response to a question is usually formed by repeating the predicate as negated, for example:29 (250) SAE 4 114.18 hat ʕérobk di-ḥarf di méthel ʕémor hês ål ʕérobk “Do you understand the meaning of the parole?” He said to her: “I do not understand.” This expression is used both in response to an affirmative question, as in (250), and to a negated question, e.g. SAE 4 70.19 wa-ʕémor hês we-hêt ål giérš waʕémero ål geʕérk ‘he said to her: “Are you not sick?” She said: “I am not sick”.’30 The pro-sentential negator lā is attested once, viz. in SAE 4 127.14 ʕémor hēh téʕed šhe, ʕémor qaíhen lā tbéleg tho ‘he said to him: “Come with me!” The small one said: “No, leave me!” ’ in response to a preceding injunction.31 It is therefore not entirely unlikely that the pro-sentential negator lā in the continental Modern South Arabian languages, which also make use of a clause-final negator based on lā, is borrowed from Arabic as an emphatic way of response. If so, *lā was lost in Proto-Modern South Arabian, as in Ethiosemitic, and borrowed into continental Modern South Arabian as a prosentential negator.32 Pat-El (2012a: 24–25) in turn reconstructs clause-final *lā to Proto-Modern South Arabian but that would leave its absence in Soqotri unexplained. It is therefore possible to assume that the grammaticalization of 28  The only systematic investigation into the issue of borrowing from Arabic into Modern South Arabian is Lonnet (2005; 2011), who notes that especially “particules grammaticales” abound in Modern South Arabian, e.g. ʔəkīd ‘certainly,’ and Rubin for Mehri (2010a: 307–309), e.g. ṭayyəb ‘fine’ and bəð̣ ð̣abṭ ‘exactly.’ 29  See also SAE 4 86.25 and 115.25. 30  Repeating the predicate is also the most common way to give an affirmative answer to a question, e.g. SAE 4 113.16 ål śīk ʕášyok ʕémor énhe śēnik ‘(he said:) “Do you not see the (grain’s) ears?” he said: “I see them”.’ 31  With regard to pro-sentential negation in Soqotri, Simeone-Senelle (1994: 198) also notes that bíśi ‘there is not’ can be used to this effect. This may be the case in SAE 4 73.28 ṭálaima sam bês wa-ʕémero heh bîśi “ ‘Is there poison in the dinner?”. She said to him: “No/There is not”,’ although, it is true, bíśi negates an answer to a non-verbal question at this point. For non-verbal negators used as pro-sentential negators, cf. also e.g. Amharic yällämm ‘no.’ The pro-sentential function common to non-verbal negators can explained from the fact that they are often clauses (sentences) themselves. Indeed, the affirmative copula näw in Amharic may also indicate agreement with a statement (RGA §51.1.4). 32  Apparently, Kogan (2015: 114 n. 326), whose book appeared after the closing of the present investigation, independently reached a similar conclusion.

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

305

lā in this position is an innovation common only to continental Modern South Arabian, or to one of those languages from where it subsequently has spread. 10.3.2 Standard Negation The clause-final position, rather than a position immediately after the predicate, indicates that lā should be identified with the pro-sentential negator, as pointed out by Pat-El (2012a: 25): “lā was re-introduced into the verbal system from its regular function as a negative response. The position of lā at the very end of the sentence, and not necessarily after the element it negates, may support such a process.” When the predicate has no arguments in Jibbali, clausefinal position coincides with verb-final position, for example:33 (251)

SSS 3 5.28 enfét led-ís be-ḍerbét ṭit b-endíq b-el h̬ argót lo, be-led-ís beeñšgorót b-el h̬ argót lo be-led-ís be-štó, ʕad h̬ ergót First he fired one shot with the gun, but it did not die. He shot it with a second (shot), but it did not die, and he struck it with the sword, until it died.

Negation is in general symmetric to its affirmative counterpart, so that the negative counterpart to qvtvla is el qvtvla lo (as in 251), and the negative counterpart to yvqatvl is el yvqatvl lo, e.g. SSS 3 4.7 dhar l-esáh̬ ber ém-es, se tsbe b-mut m-el tsbe b-mut lo ‘I will ask her mother if she is worth one hundred or if she is not worth one hundred.’34 In the corpus, lo is by default clause-final when the argument is a pronoun, e.g. SSS 3 4.69 ʕáṣer ḏékun ġeríg lis, el zḥoñ-s lo ‘that night he was late to her, (in fact,) he did not come to her,’ a prepositional phrase, e.g. SSS 3 3.7 he dhar l-eġád šis, el baʕáḍk tos lo ‘I will go with her, (because) I have not (yet) warned her,’35 or a noun phrase, for example:36 (252) SSS 3 6.5 min ser šh̬ erít gáḥen degóg, el qeflót bob lo The chicken entered behind the old lady, (because) she had not closed the door.

33  See also SSS 3 4.22 and 4.62. 34  Bittner (SSS 3 p. 34 n. 30) assumes that m-el is ʔam-lā, but there is no reason to not assume negative el. 35  See also SSS 3 4.8 and 6.24. For *bʕḍ ‘warn,’ cf. Bittner (SSS 2 p. 34 n. 2). 36  For a combination of these, see e.g. SSS 3 3.9 el zúñt-is eñtbé lo ‘she did not give her food’ and SSS 3 6.36. Hofstede (1998: 159) notes for Eastern Jibbali that lo follows (prepositional) objects in the negative construction.

306

Chapter 10

When the negated clause is asyndetically linked to the preceding clause, as in (252), a semantically subordinate relation to the preceding clause is inferable.37 When the predicate consists of two asyndetically linked verb phrases, as in (253), the first negator negates the matrix verb, and the post-positioned negator follows the verb complex:38 (253) SSS 3 4.40 ʕoñr: el gesórk l-ezém-š lo He said: “I do not trust myself that I will give it”. In (253), the meaning is not ‘I trust myself that I will not give it,’ but ‘I do not trust myself that I will give it,’ which means that lo is a post-verbal negator of gesórk.39 However, adjuncts to a clause negated by the discontinuous negative construction follow clause-final lo. This is the case, for example, with temporal clauses:40 (254) SSS 3 5.48 ʕoñr: li fṭúniš lo, yum erédek eyel-í He said: “Do you not remember when I made my camels kneel?” Likewise, when an object is qualified by a participle that in turn governs a prepositional phrase, lo precedes that (prepositional) object as in the following example: (255) SSS 3 4.44 el kesk tóhum meṣḥáyr lo be-ʕalúñt felán ber felán […] (If) you do not find them hot branded with the sign of so-and-so, son of so-and-so […]

37  See also SSS 3 4.78 nkín lek śehód, el tġórb-is lo? ‘should we be witnesses to you (to the fact) that you do not know her?’ The same is true for Soqotri. It would seem that a syndetic clause with wa-, with or without subject switch, indicates a higher degree of semantic coordination than asyndeton. Syndeton may be used for reasons of contrast, e.g. SAE 4 64.8 šeh salēṭ wa-ʕéqaleh šē wa-ḥer ål ʕégib-he ‘this (man) had olive oil and stored it with me, but now he does not want it’ and SAE 4 133.21 wa-loṭ ṭáher idéh sáṭehān wa-dihé ġáġa ål ʕérebih ber dihé ġáġa ‘thereupon the sultan went to him, but his brother did not recognize that he was (actually) his brother.’ However, asyndeton, as in e.g. SAE 4 133.4 ʕézbeh ål šímteleh wa-ṭáher ‘he left him, did not speak to him, and walked away,’ indicates that ål šímteleh is also paraphrasable as ‘without speaking to him.’ 38  See also el dhar l-ešfók lo quoted on p. 298. 39  See also SSS 3 2.5 ġayg-e-šíš sqof ʕaq ġór, el hemm yedré ló ‘the man (who was) with him sat in the well and could not get up.’ 40  See also (267) and (275).

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

307

In the example above, the participle phrase meṣḥáyr has another prepositional phrase as an adjunct that follows the post-positioned negator. It can be noted, by way of conclusion, that lo is typically clause-final in the negative discontinuous construction. Pat-El’s (2012a: 25) suggestion, that the position of the second negator may indicate its origin as a pro-sentential negator, is in other words plausible. It can be envisaged that the second negator was appended at the end of the clause in order to resume the proposition with a new assertion that fine-tunes it (cf. section 2.5.3). By way of its clause-final position, the secondary negator in Jibbali separates itself from e.g. focus markers employed in negative constructions, which are typically clitic to the negator or the predicate. 10.3.3 Resumptive Negation In certain environments, the clause-final negator lo is optional. These environments allow for an investigation into the background of lo as a pro-sentential negator. This investigation will be carried out in the following paragraphs. Negated clauses followed by an adjunct marked by ʕad deserve a special mention. In general, a negative clause that includes ʕad is negated by the discontinuous negative construction el … lo, e.g. SSS 3 5.19 hes ʕad el ġadót yum lo, ġalqót tiṯ be-śenút ṯalóṯ ġáʔeg ‘since the sun had not yet set, the woman saw and noticed thirty men.’41 However, when a negative clause is followed by another clause marked by ʕad, as in (256), it may be negated by the lone preverbal negator: (256) SSS 3 2.16 ʕad el ez(e)ḥám-s, ʕad teh̬ írig min diní I will not come to you any more, before she is gone from earth. The purpose of such an adjunct is to qualify the temporal relevance of the proposition, such that it only holds until a certain point in time. This qualification seems to cancel the relevance of negating the preceding clause by means 41  Hofstede (1998: 164) noted that the meaning of a negative clause with ʕad depends on whether ʕad precedes or follows el. In the latter case, ʕad is included within the scope of negation, and the meaning of el ʕad + qvtvla/yvqatvl + lo is ‘not be still’, i.e. ‘no longer,’ for example SSS 3 4.35 zémen toš úñl-en yibtáḍaʕ biš b-el ʕad zḥúñ-tun lo ‘we have given him our fortune, so that he trades with it, and (so that) he does not come to us any more’ (see also SSS 3 3.13, 5.25, and SAE 793.10). However, when ʕad precedes the negative construction el … lo, its contribution is outside the scope of negation. Rubin (2014: 335) also notes that ɔl-ʕɔ́ d … lɔ, when ʕɔd is conjugated, has this function. As such, conjugated ɔl-ʕɔ́ d … lɔ is synonymous to d-ʕɔd ɔl … lɔ.

308

Chapter 10

of clause-final lo. Nevertheless, in the following example, an adjunct with ʕad follows a negative clause negated by the discontinuous negative construction: (257) SSS 3 5.33 el tġélq-eš naʕḏánu lo, ʕad ke-ḥáṣaf Do not let him see it now until/before in the morning! It may seem that lo negates the following ʕad, i.e. ‘not until in the morning.’ However, in constituent negation, lo follows rather than precedes its constituent. Therefore, the use of lo indicates resumptive negation (section 2.5.3): it may be envisaged that lo originally served to fine-tune a negative clause el tġélq-eš: ‘do not let him see it now, absolutely not, until in the morning.’ In the same vein, a negative clause followed by an adjunct with ʕar is sometimes negated by el without a following lo, as in the following example:42 (258) SSS 3 4.2 nḥag be-úñl í-iš, ʕad le bqe talóš ʕar út-iš He spent the money of his father until it did not remain (anything) with him except his house. However, the discontinuous negative construction negating a clause followed by ʕar is also attested, for example: (259) SSS 3 4.1+1 b-el téšfuk lo, ʕar tel Heláhil b-el téšfuk lo, ʕar qeléb-is mut43 Do not marry except from (the tribe of) Hilāl, and do not marry, except if her purchase price is one hundred. Given the variation between (258) and (259), lo in the latter example may be regarded as resumptive in the sense that it serves to fine-tune the expression of negation. The re-analysis of lā as forming part of clause negation may be traced to such a discontinuous negative construction, where lā originally served as a resumptive negator: (260) el téšfuk lo ʕar tel Heláhil not marry no except by Hilāl *Do not marry, not at all, except from (the tribe of) Hilāl. 42  See also SSS 3 4.17 and 4.34. This construction is also noted by Rubin (2014: 313, 332–333). Sometimes it would seem that ʕad contributes to emphatic negation, e.g. SSS 3 6.25 el ʕad šek ʕar ṭánu ‘you have nothing at all except just that.’ This is also the case in Harsusi, e.g. HTO 4.15 we-ādeh tewyīs kálles laʔ ‘he did not even eat all that.’ 43  Bittner (SSS 3 p. 32 n. 24) has tešfúk, which would indicate the internal passive (cf. JL 260 s.v. šfḳ). Müller (SAE 7 73.16), however, has téšfuq.

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

309

Originally, the clause would have been negated by the preverbal negator only, which, in order to achieve further semantic precision and higher informativeness, was resumed by lā ‘not at all.’ Subsequently, lā was reinterpreted as part of the clause, which resulted in its losing independent stress and by phonetic erosion became lo (cf. Brazilian Portuguese nã́o → não, example 16) The preceding examples indicate that a clause negated by el is sometimes followed by lo in order to achieve further semantic precision. It seems therefore probable that the discontinuous negative construction was initially an emphatic, i.e. more informative, negative construction that existed side by side with the original negative construction as it is attested in Soqotri, and that it subsequently lost its emphatic flavor through grammaticalization. What prompts the Jespersen cycle as formulated originally by Jespersen (1917: 4), is the formal weakening of the preverbal negator. However, the explanation in terms of phonetic erosion does not seem to hold for Modern South Arabian. Soqotri attests to the loss of phonetic substance in forms like ā, ɔ, and ḗ (section 10.2.1), without having introduced a second negator. In Jibbali, however, the form el, used consistently in the corpus with final -l (besides allomorphs l-, li, and le), is used in tandem with clause-final lo for the expression of standard negation. Therefore, the grammaticalization of the discontinuous negative construction is better regarded as the reanalysis of a variant to the old expression of standard negation. It can be hypothesized that the very existence of the negative construction in Modern South Arabian is a calque on Yemeni or Omani Arabic, which also attest to discontinuous negation, albeit with different morphemes. It is noteworthy that this construction occurs in isolation in the south of the Arabian Peninsula. However, Lucas (2009: 90–99) has suggested the opposite direction of change, viz. that the development in the Arabic of Yemen and Oman was triggered by the Modern South Arabian languages.44 Nevertheless, even if the discontinuous construction in Modern South Arabian was not triggered by discontinuous negation in Yemeni or Omani Arabic, but the other way around, the employment of a pro-sentential negator in clause-final position may have been borrowed from Arabic. Bauer (1920) drew attention to a passage in Ibn Baṭūṭah (Riḥla 2, pp. 225– 226), who complains on the Arabic spoken in Qalhāt, Oman: ‘Their speech is not good Arabic, even though they are Arabs, because to every utterance

44  Lucas also discusses and rejects two alternative hypotheses: according to one hypothesis, discontinuous negation spread to the south through trade contacts with Egypt. According to another, the negative construction originated in the south of the Peninsula, and was subsequently brought to North Africa by migrants of Yemeni origin.

310

Chapter 10

(kalima) they say, they add lā, saying for example: taʔkulu lā, tamšī lā, tafʕalu ka-ḏā lā.’ It is not clear whether Ibn Baṭūṭah’s examples should be interpreted as questions implying a positive answer, questions implying a negative answer, or affirmative or negative statements.45 According to al-Sālimī’s (Tuḥfa 1, p. 364) 19th century commentary, lā is not used as freely as described by Ibn Baṭūṭah, but only added ‘to the end of certain expressions in certain situations, like desire of excitation (tanbīh) and incitement (ḥaṯṯ) to action, and they add to it a silent h, and say lāh, when they wish to emphasize the desire.’46 In that case, the clauses in Ibn Baṭūṭah should be construed as directive or expressive illocutionary acts: ‘you will go, no(?)’, i.e. ‘you should go.’ At the same time, a discontinuous negative construction (with negative meaning), including a clause-final negator which is identical to the pro-sentential one, is known from Arabiyya, as in Abū Tammām’s Ḥamāsah (apud Reckendorf 1921: 335) šarafan mā nālahu ʕarabiyyun lā wa-lā kādā̆ ‘a nobility which an Arab has not attained, not at all, not even come close.’47 10.3.4 Negation with Lone el or lo While standard negation in Jibbali is typically expressed by the discontinuous construction el … lo, there are certain environments that are sometimes negated by only the preverbal or the clause-final negator. These environments are indicative of the historical background of lo as a pro-sentential negator. Apart from constructions involving an adjunct with ʕad or ʕar, negation without lo is also attested in certain other syntactic environments. One such environment, also identified by Simeone-Senelle (1994: 203), Hofstede (1998: 157), and Rubin (2014: 333–334), is emphatic negative coordination of the type ‘neither … nor.’ B-el in the following examples is compounded of b- (*wa-) and el (SSS 2 57; LS 86):48 45  Bauer (1920: 209) interprets these as negative tag questions: “Du ißt, nicht? Du gehst, nicht? Du machst es so, nicht?” while Gibb ([1962] 1993: 2, 396–397) interprets them as statements with a negative tag: “You eat, no; you walk, no; you do so-and-so, no.” Similarly Defrémery (Ibn Baṭūṭah, Riḥla 2, p. 226): “Tu manges, non; tu marches, non; tu fais telle chose, non.” 46  There is a printing error in Aṭafayyīsh’s edition: Read 364.4 kalima min kalāmihim and 364.5 hīʔa tanbīh. The ‘silent h’ probably refers to -h that sometimes occur in pausal forms, see Birkeland (1940: 31–45). 47  See additional examples in Bloch (1986: 111). 48  See also SSS 3 4.77. Emphatic coordination of noun phrases is also negated with lone el, e.g. SSS 3 6.35 še hes tiṯ, el biš fáḥal b-el ʕagríz ‘he is like a woman, he has neither a member nor a testicle.’ Müller (SAE 7 107.18–19) reads er lešé hes tiṯ lo el biš fáḥal bel ʕagríz “er kann keine Frau haben, er hat weder Glied noch Hoden,” the sense of which is the same as Bittner’s translation, when read interrogatively, i.e. “Ist er denn nicht ein Weib etc.” Léšé

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

(261)

311

SSS 3 4.76 la, el eġórb-iš b-el eġórb út-iš b-el eġórb toš No, I do not know you, neither do I know your house, nor do I know you.

The fact that the syntactic environment of emphatic coordination is negated by el only, which is the older negative construction, indicates that emphatic coordination is a conservative environment with regard to renewal in the expression of negation. Furthermore, the retention of *ʔal- is also attested in emphatic negative coordination in Harsusi, in which standard negation otherwise is clause-final lā only (section 10.2.4). The grammaticalization of lā in this context is not as progressive as in others. Negative questions, including both wh-questions and yes-no questions, are also sometimes negated by el without lo:49 (262) SSS 3 4.18 ʕoñrot: ko el tedré to ʕamq-és? She said: “Why did you not let me climb inside it?”50 The fact that a question does not need to be negated by lo in postposition is indicative of the origin of the clause-final negator as pro-sentential: if lo was used in clause-final position of a negated question, it could possibly be interpreted as providing an answer to that question, in which case it would no longer be interpreted as a negated question (cf. Wagner 1964: 270–271). Negative possible consequence clauses are also sometimes negated without lo. To be sure, the common expression of prohibition in Jibbali is el yvqtvl lo, for example:51 should be identified with el šé (Bittner SSS 3 p. 84 n. 7), and not Arabic laysa as Müller has suggested. 49  This was also noted by Brockelmann (GVG 2 §105g). See also SSS 3 3.31 and 4.49. 50   tedré is glossed as drek, i.e. 2nd msg qvtvla, cf. Bittner (SSS 3 p. 38 n. 17). At least in Rubin’s corpus, the causative meaning is not clear, cf. Rubin (2014: 118) ɛdré ‘climb to the top.’ 51  See also (257), (259) and SSS 3 1.5. In Harsusi, post-predicate la negates yvqtvl, e.g. HTO 2.57 terṣān lā amṭāyek ḥelōkmeh ‘do not tie your burden camels there!’ (see also HTO 2.51 and 7.18). It is noteworthy that the negator immediately follows the predicate and precedes its argument. Sometimes in Jibbali the PNG-prefix t- of yvqatvl/yvqtvl is lost. When yvqtvl without a t-prefix is negated, it is superficially similar to a negated imperative, e.g. SSS 3 3.22 ḏénu mi, el ḏʕér-iš lo ‘this water, do not pour it out!’ As noted by Wagner (1953 §8 n. 1), the PNG-prefix t- is lost before ḏ in SSS 3 3.22, which seems reasonable, even though the loss of t- in this environment is not typical for the Jibbali of Johnstone’s (1980) speakers. However, as pointed out by Testen (1992), the loss of the prefix is connected to the historical quality of the PNG-prefix *tu-, so it is tempting to parse ḏʕér as the C-stem in which *ḏʕr is also attested in the sense of ‘spill’ (JL 44). Hofstede’s (1998: 163) example of a

312

Chapter 10

(263) SSS 3 5.23 kell šerókk toš, el tiklíṯ biš lo, kín kinnét Everything which I have done, do not tell it, keep quiet! Negative consequence clauses too may be formed as el yvqtvl lo, and syndetic by means of *wa-, e.g. SSS 3 4.60 dhar l-ezém-k h̬ uñš ġoróš b-el tiqṣéṣ min ġayg lo! ‘I will give you five talents, so that you do not cut it out from the man.’ Furthermore, a negative possible consequence clause can also be marked by min, for example: (264) SSS 3 6.8 ʕaśśót ġabgót telúqeṭ ṣágt-is min degóg el tdfénʔn-is lo The girl got up to pick up the jewelry, so the hen would not bury it. The use of an ablative marker for a negative consequence clause is also known from, among other languages, Soqotri (ʕan, cf. n. 10 on p. 296), Sabaic bn (cf. p. 285), and Hebrew min (cf. 2 Sam 14:11, quoted on p. 155).52 A clause marked by min is sometimes in addition negated by el: (265) SSS 3 6.5 ḥadír be-ḥíṭ min degóg el ttén-iš Take care of the grain, so that the chicken do not eat it. In (265), unlike (264), the clause is dependent on an injunction. The fact that negative consequence clauses marked by min can also be negated by el … lo, suggests that the expression of negation in (265) is pleonastic after ḥadír.53 negated form of the imperative ʔɔl ɛśnɛ ‘do not show’ must also be the prefix-conjugation with loss of the t-prefix. There are also examples of la negating what appears to be the imperative in Harsusi, e.g. HTO 13.5 háwzem táyn lā līsen ‘do not put pressure on us about them!’ and HTO 2.51 afnōn lūk temśi laʔ ḳeréb līs w-eð̣ ḥōl laʔ ‘take care not to defecate or urinate near to it!’ 52  This use of men is common in Harsusi, e.g. HTO 3.9 menyām beheláyt ṭet men teġwīhem bīs, teġwīhem be-ṭaydáykem we-teltéġem ṭaydáykem ‘take one word (as a war cry) lest you go astray from one another and kill each other’ (see also HTO 2.44, 2.57, and 3.11). Unlike Jibbali, a men-clause in Harsusi is not negated by pre- or post-predicate negators, which indicates that it is understood as negative by itself. In Harsusi, a clause negated by men may be used to introduce a negative consequence clause without a preceding injunction, e.g. HTO 6.8 ʔamōr hīs ḥamed, neśtél háśen? ʔamerōt heh, men aḏhīb yeśelélkem ‘Hamed said to her: “Why should we move?” She said to him: “Lest the flood carries you away”.’ It is worth pointing out that the subject follows men and precedes the predicate (see also HTO 10.2). 53  For pleonastic el without lo, cf. Simeone-Senelle (1994: 206): “En Jibbali, il semble que le seul cas, en phrase verbale complexe, où la négation est réduite au premier élément,

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

313

In certain contexts, negation is expressed by lone lo, i.e. without preverbal el.54 Negation without el seems to be felicitous only when the proposition being negated is explicitly activated in the sense of Dryer (1996), i.e. inferable and previously mentioned in the discourse. Such activation may be signaled by lexical resumption:55 (266) SSS 3 5.7 ʕoñr heš: kleṯ híni! ʕoñr heš: dhar l-ekléṯ hek lo He said to him: “Tell me!” He said to him: “I will not tell you.” In (266), negation is expressed by lone lo. The propositional contents of the negated clause, that of telling, is mentioned immediately in an affirmative clause preceding the negative one, which resumes it by the same lexeme. It is not relevant whether the clause negated by lo without el is syntactically independent or not. In (267), lo negates qvtvla in an antecedent without any preverbal negator:56 (267) SSS 3 4.5 dhar l-ezém-k h̬ uñš ġoróš le-ḥábel ʕanút. er zḥamk to lo be-h̬ úñš ġoróš le-ḥábel ʕanút, l-eqṣéṣ min edén-ek ézin h̬ uñš ġoróš I will give (lend) you five talents for the course of one year. (But) if you do not bring me the five talents in the course of one year, I will cut out from your body the weight of five talents. sous la forme longue ou brève, ʔɔ(l), est celui de la négation explétive qui, après un verbe d’espoir, de crainte, d’hésitation, de refus, introduit la complétive dont le verbe est toujours au subjonctif.” According to Hofstede (1998: 157), el without lo occurs “in some complex clauses, especially after verbs expressing fear, refusal, warning, prevention, after modal particles expressing warning, introducing an adverbial clause which action/state has not yet occurred,” cf. also Rubin (2014: 332–333). 54  This expression of negation is also mentioned by Wagner (1953 §58ßß), Hofstede (1998: 162), and Rubin (2014: 334). 55  See also SSS 3 4.52, 4.59, 6.13, and 6.31. Non-verbal predicates may also be negated by means of lo without el if the proposition to be negated has been activated, e.g. SSS 3 1.38 er ken kisk eñġréf talókum, aḥóñl ʕaqíd-kum b-en ken še talókum lo, lókum min tolí h̬ amsín arčób ‘if I find that the bottle is with you, I will take your chief. And if it is not with you, you owe me fifty camels.’ It may be pointed out that the resumption need not be lexical if it refers to the same state of affairs, e.g. SSS 3 1.38 be-yeʕóñr hóhum: šúkum eñġréf-i, šeróqkum toš. yeʕóñr: telún lo ‘he said to them: “My bottle is with you, you have stolen it,” (and) they said: “It is not with us” ’ (see also SSS 3 3.28). 56  See also SSS 3 6.38. The verb form used in an affirmative verbal antecedent is usually qvtvla in Jibbali (Wagner 1953 §322; Rubin 2014: 344), and all negative antecedents in the corpus are negated qvtvla, also when they refer to the future as in (267).

314

Chapter 10

Again, prior to uttering the condition, the speaker has already mentioned its propositional content in the form of a statement. Negation with lone lo also occurs after bulú (*wa-law), in which case resumption is activated by presupposition:57 (268) SSS 3 5.12 bulú ber tékum fśó-i lo be-bér sqófkum ẓer eñḍef-i lo, eltáġek tókum If you had not already eaten my lunch and not already sat on my blanket, I would kill you. Negation without el does not necessarily contradict an activated proposition, but is sometimes used to negate in agreement with another negated proposition, as long as that has been activated, as in the following example: (269) SSS 3 4.11 el tesbé b-mut lo. (i)n-qerféd leš, ʕoñr heš: brít-i tsbe b-mut (e) lo “She is not worth one hundred.” He replied to him and said to him: “My daughter is not worth one hundred.” There are, however, two examples of lone clause-final lo negating propositions which are not explicitly activated: (270) a. SSS 3 5.7 ko tebrék iyel-ák lo? Why do you not make your camels kneel? b. SSS 3 3.4 het šek ġageníti lo, ġabgót ʕar tel feqír You do not have (any) girls, only the poor one has a girl. The text corresponding to (270a) in SAE 7 88.27 is actually ko tebrék iyelák[lo], which may indicate that lo was originally an emendation on part of Müller, and that (270a) is to be understood as an affirmative question. The text corresponding to (270b) is actually het šek ġágeníti lō (SAE 7 64.9). Jibbali lo is stressed ló (lō) also in SSS 3 2.5 (quoted in n. 39 on p. 306) and SSS 3 3.13 el ʕad se tiṯ-s ló. Also in (242a) l-enḍóf liš lo ḍol h̬ atíq-i ‘I will not spread the seam of my robe for him,’ Müller (SAE 7 88.12) actually has lenḍóf liš lō, and it is worth pointing out that the second negator is not clause-final but precedes the object of the verb. It may indicate that lo in (270b) is not part of the preceding clause, but 57  Rubin (2014: 333) also notes the use of ɔl without lɔ after bélé ‘even if’ in his corpus.

Jibbali and Modern South Arabian

315

a negative resumption of an affirmative one, perhaps posed in the form of a question.58 In Musandam, more than 200 miles north of the port of Qalhāt, Thomas (1930) recorded the use of clause-final lā in Arabic as a means to respond to questions among the members of the Shihhi tribe: (271)

Thomas (1930: 842) hal ǧāʔ ar-raǧul ǧāʔ lā “Has the man come?—Has he come. No.”

According to Thomas (1930: 842), the negative response is formed by repeating the verb interrogatively and adding lā.59 In contemporary Shihhi Arabic of Musandam, standard negation is expressed either by preverbal mā, as in most Neo-Arabic dialects, or by lu ( ʔay- > ʔəy- > ʔi-. It is the first step, *ʔal- > ʔay-, that has not received a systematic explanation, since palatalization of l is not facultative in Ge’ez or Tigrinya. Indeed, the only direct evidence for the mere existence of *ʔal- in Northern Ethiosemitic comes from Ge’ez ʔal-bo ‘(there is) not in it’ with cognates, and most probably ʔakko, which is usually explained as *ʔal-kona (Praetorius 1886: 143; Rundgren 1955: 36), with unique assimilation of l (GVG 1: 176) and loss of -n. The identification of ʔakko with *ʔal-kona is supported by a comparison to Argobba of Tollaha ak-kuna-m, the negative counterpart of the copula nä-, with geminated kk resulting from assimilation of l,9 as well as the syntax of Tigre ʔi-kon, which with a following relative clause, like Ge’ez ʔakko za-, is used to negate the predicate of cleft constructions, e.g. Tigre PEA 1 79.15 ḥuye ʔi-kon lä-ʔəlu qätälka ḥäšil kädän tu ‘it is not my brother whom you have killed, it is a jackal of the wild,’ comparable to e.g. Ge’ez Matthew 19:11 ʔakko kwəllo za-yāʔammər (apud EG §197b) ‘it is not everyone who comprehends.’ Dillmann’s (EG §64b) derivation of ʔakko from *ʔal- and ko ‘thus,’ is therefore not probable. The irregular erosion of a

5  See also Leslau (1945a: 5 n. 25) and Hetzron (1972: 21) for the Tigre in Reinisch. 6  Reinisch also attests to negative ʔay- in a letter to Nöldeke from 1883, e.g. aytethága “du redest nicht,” quoted by Littmann (1898: 146). 7  In eilebulu ‘they don’t tell him,’ Praetorius (1868: 748) suggests that we read eibelulu, but cf. Tigre of Mensa ləbulo ‘they tell him’ (3rd mpl ləblo, TGT 40, 64), so eilebulu is probably for ʔay-ləbulo. See also Nöldeke (1890: 294) on the vowel change before R3 with suffixes. 8  Thus Praetorius (GTS §160), Littmann (1913: 14 no. 6 ad l. 2), Conti Rossini (PTCT p. 33), Ullendorff (1955: 138 n. 33), and Hetzron (1972: 21, 28). 9  See Wetter (2010 §3.7.1.3) for ak-kuna-m in Argobba of Tollaha. In Argobba of Aliyu Amba, the negative copula is a-hune-yu (Leslau 1997 §38.4, for y-insertion, cf. §15), with simplification of the originally assimilated consonant (Bulakh 2012: 405). In fact, h is the only consonant that is not geminated (Leslau 1997 §9.1).

320

Chapter 11

verboid consisting of a negator and an existential verb is also known from lexemes like Arabic laysa, Assyrian laššu, and Amharic a-ydoll- (cf. Kistane *aydäbl-, p. 366).10 The possibility that ʔay- results from the palatalization of l in *ʔal- is easiest to conceive for Tigre, where palatalization of l is the rule before the 1st csg pronominal suffix -yä. For example, when the 1st csg pronominal suffix is added to ʔəl ‘to’ in Tigre of Mensa, the preposition either becomes zero, or l is elided without acoustic compensation, since /y/ is not geminated (TGT 5, cf. Leslau 1948: 128), for example [hallaye] /halla ʔəl-ye/ ‘I have’ and [bəḥəl bal-ʔəye] /bəḥəl bal-ʔəl-ye/ ‘excuse me.’11 It may also be noted that the loss of l is sometimes attested in the root *wld. While wåld/wåd is used before vowel-initial suffixes, and wäl is used before consonant-initial suffixes, wåd (with rounding and vocalization of l) is used elsewhere, as in the common expression wåd PN ‘son of PN’ (LiHöTig 430; Leslau 1945b: 167).12 In Tigrinya, in turn, palatalization in the environment of front vowels is perhaps attested in ʔaǧbo < *ʔayib 10  Bulakh’s (2012) suggestion, that the negator of non-verbal forms is *ʔala-, does not seem to hold under closer scrutiny. In forms like Tigre ʔaläbu, -ä- is likely to be epenthetic, as indicated by the pairs albem and aläbem in Gafat and Tigrinya yälbon (for y-, cf. n. 21 on p. 324). As regards Amharic alä and yalä (RGA §107), also found in Eastern Gurage (Meyer 2005: 247 for Zway; Meyer 2006: 159–160 for Wolane; Gutt 1997: 910 for Silte), it may be that -ä is only epenthetic (cf. Amharic ʔalbālē “ohne Eigentümer,” GVG 1 §248B), but for Wolane, Meyer (2006: 160, 220–221) suggests that -ä in e.g. ʔalä-däləmkä ‘without interest’ is a connecting vowel possibly originally marking the construct state, i.e. the ‘accusative marker’ *-a (cf. Hetzron 1996a: 249 for accusative -ä in Eastern Gurage). The same explanation could hold for Amharic ʔal-ä. 11  According to Ullendorff (1955: 139 n. 36), the loss of l is not a case of palatalization but rather assimilation. The l of ʔəgəl is indeed often assimilated to a following word (GVG §100e, Leslau 1945b: 167), e.g. ʔəgən nəmbär for ʔəgəl nənbär, and ʔəgər räbbi for ʔəgəl räbbi. But cf. Leslau (1957: 158) on ʔəl and ʔəgəl: “These are the only examples that show palatalization of l in Tigre, but this is not surprising since they are words of current usage, and we know that words of current usage can undergo certain changes that are not usual in the language otherwise; cp. for instance Ge’ez yəbe ‘he said’ (from the root bhl) which shows the disappearance or the reduction of l to a vowel, a phenomenon that does not occur in the language otherwise. The palatalization in ʔəyyä, ʔəgəyyä is sporadic, but cannot be ignored.” It may be noted, however, that the definite article la following a particle is usually assimilated to it, e.g. [mənnā bet] /mən la-bet/ ‘from the house’ (TGT 5). 12  In Tigre of Habab, assimilation of final -l before the 1st csg pronominal suffix -ye occurs in ʔəl and ʔəgəl, yielding ʔəyye ‘to me’ and ʔəgəyye ‘for me’ (Elias 2014: 31). Assimilation of -l to a following or preceding obstruent at a word boundary is noted for relative la- (also to a following obstruent with loss of -a), lākin, and ʔəgəl. Word-internally, l assimilates and degeminates in *məsla > məsa.

Tigre And Tigrinya

321

< *ḥalib and läyti ~ Ge’ez lelit, Tigre lali (GTS §84).13 Deletion, or assimilation with subsequent degemination of l, in turn, is attested in wädi (*wld) and məs (*mṯl), as in Tigre. However, palatalization is not facultative in Ge’ez, and the phonetic realization of l, whether dark or light, for example, is unknown.14 Nevertheless, loss of l is attested for the root *bhl in verbal forms without afformatives in the prefix conjugation, i.e. 3rd person singular yəbe, 2nd msg təbe, 1st csg ʔəbe, and 1st cpl nəbe. In verbal forms with afformatives, -l- is retained, i.e. 2nd fsg təbeli, 2nd person plural təbelu and təbela, and 3rd person plural yəbelu and yəbela. This is also the case of verbal forms followed by object suffixes, e.g. yəbelomu ‘he said to them.’ There are two prevalent explanations for this situation. In Hetzron’s (1969a) view, yəbe is an indicative yvqtvl, and since the stress is assumed to be on the first syllable, i.e. yv́qtvl, final -l was palatalized, cf. Hetzron (1969a: 7):15 “The -l closing a final non-stressed syllable became weakened because of its position, and this weakening was realized through palatalization: *y’əbay. It is very possible that -y is the reflection of an older allophone of -l in this position, which merged with -y when stressed ceased to be relevant.” According to Lambdin (1978: 182), the loss of -l of yəbe results from a misdivision in collocation with the preposition *li-, so that yəbel lo was re-interpreted as yəbe-lo. However, this explanation fails to account for -e of yəbe. If yəbe is yvqtvl, *yəb(h)al is expected (cf. yəbäl), if yəbe is yvqatvl, *yəbah(h)əl or *yibahil is expected. Voigt (1997) therefore assumes that, while the loss of -l results from a metanalysis of *bhl in collocation with the preposition *li-, -e of yəbe results from a monophthongization of -ay which in turn results from the palatalization of -al: *yəbhal (loss of the glottal) > *yəbal (palatalization) > *yəbay (monophtongization) > yəbe. Forms with a pronominal suffix, yəbe-lo must then be explained by analogy. 13  Praetorius (GTS §84) also assumes that ʔəyyu < lalihu and that häḳäyta is derived from säb ʔäḳät(ə)lay by haplology and subsequent metathesis of l and t. 14  Mittwoch (1926: 10) notes that in the traditional pronunciation of Ge’ez, l is pronounced as in Amharic, which in Mittwoch’s (1907: 190) description is similar to its pronunciation in Arabic. The derivation in GVG §48d of moqeḥ from malqeḥ ‘chain,’ which would suggest a dark pronunciation resulting in the vocalization of l, is disputed by Leslau (CDG 354). It may be noted, however, that -l (and -r and -n) in coda is syllabic when preceded by a consonant in monosyllabic lexemes, e.g. yəbl ̥ (Mittwoch 1926: 16). 15  It is not necessary to assume phonemic stress to explain the different realizations of indicative yəbe and modal yəbäl. It could be the case that the former was grammaticalized before the shift of stress, or that the grammaticalization led to divergence in the sense of Hopper (1991: 24–25).

322

Chapter 11

Both Hetzron (1969a: 8) and Voigt (1997: 590) admit that the palatalization *al /__# > *ay in the relevant forms of *bhl does not have any parallels. However, the palatalization of l in *bhl dovetails with the palatalization of l in *ʔal-: As a clitic, the status of *ʔal- is somewhere between that of an independent morpheme and an affix. Like prepositions before nouns (Lambdin 1978: 5), *ʔal- was unstressed before verbs, but the word boundary between the negator and the verb was maintained. In such a position, -l of *ʔal- closed a final non-stressed syllable and palatalized to -y. While *yəbay > yəbe attests to a monophthongization ay > e, negative ʔay> ʔi- attests to a monophthongization ay > i.16 The monophthongization ay > i (ī) is probably the result of the prosodic nature of the negator: When the nucleus a of a diphthong ay is unstressed, it is more susceptible to being totally assimilated to the glide y than a stressed nucleus, so that *ai̯> *ii̯> ī, while *ay > ē (Steiner 2007: 78). Common to the loss of l in the lexemes quoted above is their relatively high frequency, and high frequency lexemes are known to undergo lenition (Bybee [1976] 2007; 2000), cf. Ge’ez ʔakko < *ʔal-kona, with unique assimilation of l (cf. Argobba of Tollaha ak-kuna-m) and deletion of -na. In view of the lack of cognates to a negative *ʔay(y), it is therefore more economical to reconstruct *ʔal- as the etymon of the standard negator in Northern Ethiosemitic. It is tempting to assume that if l was palatalized, palatalization first occurred in the environment of palatals, i.e. before the verbal prefix y-. From there, the palatalized pronunciation of *ʔal- as [ʔaly-] spread to other environments in the same paradigm by pressure. In Amharic, this paradigm included the prefix conjugation, while in Northern Ethiosemitic, the paradigms included both the prefix conjugation and the suffix conjugation, so that *ʔal- effectively became ʔay-, and eventually ʔi- in Tigre and Ge’ez. 11.2.1 The Allomorph yvApart from ʔay- and ʔi-, there is also a preverbal negator in the form of yv-. It will be argued below that yv- is an allomorph to ʔay-/ʔi-, and that yv- cannot be used in support of the reconstruction of a negative *ʔi-. The preverbal negator yv-, known from Tigre of Habab, e.g. yə-gisko-nni ‘I did not go’ (Elias 2014: 121–122), and Dahalik, e.g. yi-ʔammer-ni ‘he does not know,’ yi-meʔeki-ni ‘he did not visit you’ (Simeone-Senelle 2010: 137), should be explained as an allomorph of ʔi-/ʔay-. The allomorphic relation is indicated partly by the fact that the negator of existence in Tigre of Habab may be either 16  The Proto-Semitic diphthong *ay either monophthongized in Ge’ez to e (ē), e.g. bet ‘house,’ or was retained, e.g. ʕayn ‘eye.’ See Huehnergard (2005) for conditioning factors.

Tigre And Tigrinya

323

ya-halla-nni or ʔi-halla (cf. Argobba of Aliyu Amba ellaw and yellaw, Leslau 1997 §39.2), with the former being more common (Elias 2014: 70). Bulakh (2012: 391, 401 n. 22), quoting Saleh Mahmud Idris, also notes an allomorph yə- before verbs I-gut in Tigre of Mensa.17 A similar exponent with a glide onset is also known from Tigrinya of Tanbēn. It is noteworthy that in Tigrinya of Tanbēn, the negative construction yä- … -y only negates qvtvla, while ʔay- … -y negates yvqatvl (Littmann 1902: 223–224).18 The same form of diphthongal metathesis is known from a number of existential negators, including Amharic yällämm, Tigrinya yällon, and Harari ēlam/ miēla, which are all made up of negative *ʔal- and the existential verb *hlw.19 Indeed, Tigrinya yällon is usually explained as ʔay-ʔallo-n (GTS §161; Rundgren 1954: 99; Voigt 1977: 238), with deletion of ʔ of the negator, and 17  Leslau (1945b: 167) quotes Grammatica della lingua tigré, con anessor vocaboiario tigréitaliano, p. 66 [non vidi] ʔiyəkəhəl ‘I cannot’ from ʔi-ʔəkəhəl, with ʔi-ʔə- having become ʔiyə- (as in Ge’ez). 18  As to enclitic -y in the negative construction in Tigrinya of Tanbēn, it is ‘at least as frequent’ as -n (Praetorius 1874: 442). Enclitic -y with negative predicates is attested in Southern Tigrinya variants, specifically Tigrinya of Tanbēn (Littmann 1902: 223; Praetorius 1874: 446), Tigrinya of May Tchew (Voigt 2006a: 896), Tigrinya of Agame (Schreiber 1887: 82), and Tigrinya of Dogga (Conti Rossini 1906: 298; cf. Voigt 1977: 61 n. 2). It is worth pointing out that -y is also an additive particle in Tigrinya of Tanbēn, e.g. ʔanä-y ʔəssə-ka-y ‘both I and you’ (Littmann 1902: 224; Voigt 1977: 236; Leslau 1939: 75 n. 10), and that it is omitted from negated predicates when the clause is relative or subordinate (Littmann 1902: 224). There is also an example of a negative interrogative clause without enclitic -y in ʔay-konido ‘is it not?’ unless -i- is a trace of y. According to Praetorius (1874: 442) and Littmann (1902: 224), additive -y is related to Ge’ez -hi (EG §168.3; CDG 213) ‘also, and, further, even, the very, for one’s part.’ As an additive particle, -hi in Ge’ez either cliticizes to both coordinands, e.g. ʔana-hi wa-wəʔətu-hi ‘both I and he,’ or to the first coordinand only, with -ni cliticized to the second, e.g. ʔəmmuntu-hi wa-ʔabuhomu-ni ‘they as well as their father.’ Ge’ez -hi also cliticizes to mannu and mənt, mostly in negative clauses, for the expression of indefinite ‘no one,’ and to ʔəmma-, i.e. ʔəmma-hi, to form concessive conditions (‘even though’). The focus particle -hi is probably related to *ʔayyv in view of Hadramitic -hy (Nebes 1991: 146) corresponding to Sabaic ʔy. Therefore, -y in the negative discontinuous should be identified with an additive scalar focus particle, ultimately related to *ʔayyv (cf. Phoenician ʔy-bl), and the use of -y and its functional motivation pattern the use and functional motivation of -n in other varieties of Tigrinya and -mm in Amharic. 19  The negative counterpart to affirmative hala in Modern Harari (CL §68) is ēlam or miela, a compound of ʔal- and hal and the clitic m, which is proclitic or enclitic (CL §69). Cerulli (CL §68) notes that ē- of ēlam can be pronounced ye- “per un diffuso mutamento fonetico.” Indeed, ē- of ēla- is diphthongized (miela) in Cerulli’s transcription, as is the auxiliary in negative compound yvqatvl: igadl-um-iel ‘he does not kill’ (CL §27, cf. LV p. 23 n. 2).

324

Chapter 11

y-ʔa- > yä-.20 Positing ʔay- is supported by more integral forms like ʔay-ällon (Leslau DTGT §87f) and ʔay-allon (Schreiber 1887: 58).21 There is no reason to reconstruct a negator *ʔi- on account of Amharic yällämm either. In the corpus of Old Amharic, its form is usually ʔellä, i.e. without -mm and with ʔ- rather than y-. The form ʔellä must be derived from *ʔalhallawa with loss of h as in affirmative ʔallä, and haplology of -al- with fronting of a to e.22 The glide onset in Modern Amharic yäll- is accompanied by the opening of e to ä (but cf. relative yäl-ellä).23 It would seem then, that a falling diphthong ay is sometimes raised to ya, similar to Iraqi Arabic yā ‘which, what’ (Erwin 1963 §13.3.15), corresponding to Classical Arabic *ʔayyv, and Middle Babylonian yānu corresponding to Old Babylonian ayyānu. This is occasioned if the onset of ii̯ < ai̯ assumes higher sonority, and may be prompted by iotation (Tropper 1995c) to compensate for vocalic onset as soon as word-initial ʔ is weakened. 11.3

Negation in Tigre

Negated clauses in Tigre are sometimes asymmetric to their affirmative counterparts beyond the presence of the negator ʔi-. These asymmetries, and their functional motivation, will be discussed in section 11.3.1. Section 11.3.2 provides an investigation into the functions of negative däy and its historical 20  Praetorius (GTS §161) notes that onset ʔ is missing in some negative lexemes of high frequency: “In einigen häufig gebrauchten negierten Ausdrücken fällt das anlautende ʔ der Negation ab so dass y als Anlaut zurückbleibt: yälbon, yällon/yällan, yäbəllun.” Note that ʔ of ʔallo also disappears after the relative marker: z-ällo ‘that which is (in a place)’ from zə + ʔallo (cf. Elias 2014: 249 n. 34). 21   yälbon (Voigt 1977: 240–242) is, unlike Ge’ez ʔalbo, uninflected. Like yällon, it is the negative counterpart to existential ʔallo. Praetorius (GTS §161), Rundgren (1954: 99), and Voigt (1977: 237) suggest that yälbon is derived from ʔay-ʔal-bo-n, i.e. with two negators (cf. Voigt 1977: 240: “Da ʔal- nun im Tña kein produktives Negativformans ist, wurde ʔalbo zusätlich mit der Verneinung ʔay- -n versehen”). But the variant form ʔalbon (GTS §161; Schreiber 1887: 58; Leonessa 1928: 138) suggests that the original form was ʔalbo-. y- of yälbon is then not originally part of a negative morpheme (ʔa)y- (< *ʔal-), but the result of a sound change ʔ > y, perhaps in analogy to yällon (as with yäbəllun). 22  Praetorius (GTS 243 n. 2) suggests that the negator in yällä-mm is ʔal- with elision of ʔ and l > y. Praetorius (AS §210a), however, suggests that the negator is ʔi-, noting at the same time that the form yällä-mm does not attest to the expected compensatory lengthening from the loss of the guttural. 23  Leslau (RGA §19.3) notes that some nouns with initial e have variants with initial y + vowel, e.g. eli/yäli ‘tortoise’ and enšu/yänšu ‘small gazelle.’

Tigre And Tigrinya

325

background, and section 11.3.3 reviews the evidence for a discontinuous negative construction in southern varieties of Tigre. 11.3.1 Negative Asymmetries The negator is ʔi- in Tigre of Mensa (TGT 76) and it is proclitic to the finite predicate. With auxiliaries, it is the auxiliary that is negated, e.g. PEA 1 16.24 ʔəgəl ləsərär ʔi-däqbä ‘he could not jump.’24 In the negative counterpart to analytic TAM-constructions, it is also the auxiliary that is negated (Leslau 1945b: 199). For example, qātəl halla, i.e. the participial form qātəl with the existential verb *hallawa, denotes the perfective present (Raz 1977: 162–163). In the negative counterpart, it is the auxiliary that is negated: (276) PEA 1 25.17 wä-lähäy bello wälka ḥärmaz qätläyu kä-həmmäm häye wälye gädəm ḥarmaz qatlu ʔi-halla ʕaṭal qätläyu bela That one said: “The elephant has killed your son.” And the leopard, however, said: “Now, my son, the elephant is not his killer (= has not killed him), the goats have killed him.” Similarly qātəl ʕala, which denotes the perfective past, is in the negative qātəl ʔi-ʕala:25 (277) PEA 1 52.7 qäš ʕaddəmkel qarəʔ ʔi-ʕala Priest ʕAddəmkel was not a reader (i.e. ‘he could not read’). However, one of the three basic verbal grammatical morphemes may also be used as a negative counterpart to the analytic constructions. This was noted by Leslau (1948: 132) for the construction ʔəgəl yvqtvl tu, which denotes what is about to, or soon to, happen, or what will happen, e.g. PEA 1 50.5–6 ʔəgəl ləqətälänni tu ‘he is going to kill me.’ The negative counterpart is either ʔiyvqatvl or ʔəgəl yvqtvl ʔi-kon, with ʔi-kon as the negative counterpart to the 3rd msg copula tu. The use of ʔi-yvqatvl as the negative counterpart to ʔəgəl yvqtvl tu is an example of archaism under negation: While the expression of a grammatical category for future tense was renewed in the affirmative, the older expression was preserved in the negative.

24  Sometimes both the auxiliary and the lexical verb are negated, e.g. PEA 1 8.18–19 lä-ʔəbn ʔəgəl ʔi-ʔəšfäṭ ʔi-ʔədäqqəb ‘I cannot sew up the stone.’ 25  See also PEA 1 22.17.

326

Chapter 11

yvqatvl halla, formally an analytic combination of yvqatvl and the existential verb *hallawa ‘to be (in a place),’ expresses, among other things, the present progressive, habitual, or iterative aspect (Hetzron 1977), as lərʔe halla in the following example: (278) Raz (1977: 149) kalāli ʔət ləsakbo hətu qasna kalaʕəntātu fazza wahətan ʔi-sakkəb lərʔe halla belaya And when they lay down at night he fell asleep and his eyes were open, and they said: “He is not sleeping, he is seeing.” In (278), ʔi-sakkəb, corresponding to ʔi-yəsakkəb (ʔi-yvqatvl), is the negative counterpart to affirmative lərʔe halla (yvqatvl halla) in the present progressive. In other words, negation is expressed asymmetrically. However, the auxiliary of yvqatvl halla may also be negated, as in PEA 1 52.17 ʔəgəl ʔaddam tətqällaʕ ʔi-hallet ‘she does not appear to men.’ Yvqatvl ʕala, an analytic construction of yvqatvl and the existential verb ʕala, which is used for expressing existence in the past, is the past counterpart to yvqatvl halla, and expresses the progressive past, descriptive past, and recurrent and simultaneous activity in the past, for example: (279) PEA 1 50.13 wä-kəm ḥawänä säwhat näbra ʔi-räkba däʔam ḥälib loṭa lətḥannäk ʕala As he was weak, he never found appetite for food, but he used to swallow milk with difficulty. In (279), ʔi-räkba (ʔi-qvtvla) corresponds to affirmative lətḥannäk ʕala (yvqatvl ʕala). But again, the auxiliary of yvqatvl ʕala may also be negated, as in PEA 1 35.19 wä-säb bädir kəflät wä-fəntit ʔammər ʔi-ʕala ‘the people of old did not know dividing and parting.’26 In fact, ʔi-yvqatvl may also be used for the habitual, as in the description of the life of the tribe in PEA 1 283.9 ʔəkəl ʔəb täräb leṭä bälluʕ ʔi-läḥarso ‘they only eat corn from the caravan, they do not plough.’ The neutralization of paradigmatic TAM-distinctions under negation can be explained from the fact that if a situation does not pertain, the information expressed by the analytic construction is not necessarily made. Since negative

26  See also PEA 1 15.19 for ʔammər ʔi-ʕala and PEA 1 29.10 däʔam higa lä-ʔakärrit ʔəgəl bəʕəd lässəʔulo ʔi-ʕaläw ʔəb bəzuḥ rəmq ḥätḥätte fargo mənnu däʔikon ‘but they did not teach anybody else the language of the hyaenas, but only after much entreaty they interpreted a little of it a time.’

Tigre And Tigrinya

327

situations are mentioned when the affirmative counterpart is presupposed, certain aspects may already be known to the addressee and hence there is less need to specify them. Negative yvqatvl may be interpreted with prohibitive secondary illocution, as in the following example regulating taboos during a pregnancy: (280) PEA 1 99.3 mən ʔaḥa šənguli lä-tətbähal ʔəzən hallet kä-ḥalib ʔəlla ʔaḥa ʔəlla ʔi-təsätte […] wä-ʔi-tərəʔya ḥərəm ta There is a sort of cattle called šənguli. She must not drink the milk of this cattle […] Nor must she look at them. It is taboo. ʔi-təsätte is distinct yvqatvl (vis-à-vis təste for yvqtvl). Such statements can be converted pragmatically to prohibitions of apodictic nature, corresponding to indicative statements with the imperfective in Central Semitic and East Semitic. The illocutionary point is reinforced by ḥərəm ta ‘it is taboo,’ cf. Deut 12:1 ʔellɛ ha-ḥuqqīm wə-hammišpå̄ṭīm and Q 2:187 tilka ḥudūdu llāhi (p. 257). The standard exponent of prohibitions, however, is ʔi-yvqtvl, the negative counterpart to the imperative: (281)

PEA 1 10.5 wä-wäd ḥašil təm bali ʔi-təbkäy […] bella The fox said to her: “Be silent, do not cry!”

The prohibition preserves in other words the same expression ʔal-yvqtvl as found in most Semitic languages. This syntagm is marked for prohibition, unlike ʔi-yvqatvl, where directive illocution is secondary, and it is the verb form that is marked for mood, not the negator. ʔi-yvqtvl after ʔəgəl may be dependent on an imperative in the expression of a negative possible consequence clause, e.g. PEA 1 48.25 ʔəgəl ʔi-timut qənäs ‘rise so that you may not die.’ The negative possible consequence clause denoted by ʔəgəl ʔi-yvqtvl may also be dependent on an injunction that is not marked as such, e.g. PEA 1 99.14 ʔi-tərʔe lä-wəllada kəm ḥəbr lä-wäʔat ʔəgəl ʔi-ləgbaʔ ‘she must not look at them, so that the color of her child does not become like that of the cattle.’ The predicate regulating the taboo in this example is likely intended as yvqatvl, as in (280). In this case, since the speech act is converted into a prohibition, the dependent injunction should also be interpreted as a negative possible consequence clause. The negative counterpart to ʔəndo ‘while’ is ʔəndäy, which attests to the preservation of the form *ʔay- of the negator. While the predicate of an affirmative clause with ʔəndo is almost always qvtvla (TGT 92), ʔəndäy usually negates yvqatvl:

328

Chapter 11

(282) PEA 1 13.5 däʔam qəwaʕ lä-mada ʔəndäy bäṣṣəḥ ʔəndo bärrä gesa But the raven, without touching (coming into) the fire, flew and went. There is, in other words, an asymmetry between affirmative and negative predicates after ʔəndo/ʔəndäy in ʔəndo bärrä, lit. ‘while it flew’ and ʔəndäy bässəḥ, lit. ‘while it does not come.’27 11.3.2 Negative däy Negation of verbal main clauses is sometimes expressed by däy and not ʔi-. Negative däy may be considered as belonging to the poetic register based on its occurrences in poetry. Raz (TGT 92) and Littmann and Höfner (LiHöTig 374) consider däy an abbreviation of ʔəndäy (as in 282), as if the clause which it negates would be subordinated.28 However, it is not always possible to parse a clause negated by däy as subordinate, e.g. (284), where däy negates an independent interrogative clause. It makes more sense, therefore, to see in däy a univerbation of clitic *dv and negative ʔay. In Tigre, enclitic -di (LiHöTig 509 “hervorhebung”; TGT 87 “indeed, in fact, really”; PEA 3 ix “also, doch”; see also n. 55 on p. 290) is focalizing, e.g. PEA 1 1.6–7 ḥəna-di ʔəgəl ḥəd təssaläməna lä-ʔadug haye ʔəgəl mi […] ḥəd dännäwu ‘as to us, we have greeted each other. As to the donkeys also, why have […] they bowed to each other?’ In this instance, -di serves to topicalize ḥəna and contrast it to lä-ʔadug haye.29 Tigre -di also cliticizes to mən in concessive conditions, e.g. mən-di qälle “although he is in distress” (Leslau 1945b: 201). As such, -di may be identified with a scalar additive focus particle. Notably, the focus particle is proclitic in di-yom (LiHöTig 508 s.v. yom), e.g. Rodén (1913: 37.19) ḥašäla ʔəlli kəm sämʕa di-yomä ʔəndo belä ʔəb nädər wä-ʔəb däqb lä-ʔədehu mən näzfä mən lä-qäṣir təbärrärät ‘Ḥašalā, when he heard this, while saying: “Even this day!” with anger and power, while pushing his arm with rage and force, liberated himself from the lance.’ The clitic status of di is compared to that of tu by Littmann (PEA 3 ix): “So sind z. B. die Wörtchen ma ‘auch’, di ‘also, doch’ immer mit dem vorhergehenden Worte zusammengeschrieben, 27  See also PEA 1 24.17. 28  See, for example, Raz (TGT 119): manfaʕat leṭa day gabbi ḥəna-ma kəm ḥəsbat wəlādʔaddām nāy ʔəlli ḥaban ʔəlli matkāflat ʔəgəl nəgbaʔ saʔayo bəna “As it is not [a matter of] utility alone, we too—as human beings wish (lit. ‘like the belief of human beings’)— have a hope of becoming participants in this honor” (tr. Raz, TGT 119). day is parsed as ‘while not.’ 29  It is perhaps related to Bilin [Cushitic] -dī “mit, in gesellschaft; und” (Reinisch 1887: 93).

Tigre And Tigrinya

329

während tu, bu u.s.w. für sich stehen, trotzdem sie dynamisch ähnlich zu beurteilen sind wie ma und di. Aber bei einer Schriftsprache muss eben normiert werden, müssen Kompromisse geschlossen werden.” When proclitic, di- is also də-, e.g. Conti Rossini (1901: 23.17–18) wä-ḥašäla lä-ʔəde-hu ʔəb lä-däm ʔət lä-qäṣir yəbəst ʔət ʔənta də-yom belä ‘Ḥašalā, whose hand on the lance flowed with blood, said: “Even this day!” ’ Therefore, də- in də-la ‘whoever, everybody, whatever,’ must be identified with the additive focus particle followed by relative la. The universal concessive meaning that results from də-la also points in this direction. In (283), it is possible to interpret di as focalizing the object rather than the negator, although proclitic to it: (283) PEA 1 234.19+19 ʔəmbäl garo mi gäbbəʔ lägesa ʔəb lä-ʕərarät / ʔaḥahu däy tətʕaššär wä-qəršu däy ləššaläg Who is it, if not Gārō, that went his own ways of glory? / With regard to his cattle, it is not tithed, and with regard to his silver, it is not measured. Other times, *dv seems to focalize the negator. Then it is also possible to understand däy as contributing to emphatic negation, i.e. ‘his cattle is not even measured.’ Rundgren (1955: 236) suggests that proclisis arose through sandhi, so that qəršu-dä ʔi-ləššaläg “was sein Silber anbetrifft, so wird es nicht gemessen” > qəršu däy ləššaläg. The procliticization likely carried the focal shift to the negation so that däy is an emphatic negator, as in the following example:30 (284) PEA 3 no. 17.3+4+4 wä-ʔafo hətu däy gäyəs dəmmäl bet ʔab däy ʕalləb / wä-ʔafo ʔana däy ʔəṣännəḥ The conservative interpretation of (284) would be: ‘Why, with regard to him, did he not go? (Why), with regard to the revenge of (his) family, did he not fear (it)? Why, with regard to me, do I not remain?’ while the innovative interpretation would be: ‘Why did he not even go? (Why) did he not even fear the revenge of (his) family? Why do I not even stay?’31 In other words, while -di focalizes a non-predicative constituent, di-/də- in däy focalizes the negator. A scalar interpretation clearly lends itself to däy in collocation with minimizers, e.g. PEA 3 no. 32.8 sema däy ʔəwädde ‘I do not even do anything.’ In passing 30  Although Brockelmann (GVG 2 185) assumes that däy is from ʔəndäy, he correctly suggests that it is “das Einzelwort scharf verneinden.” 31  For ʔafo in exclamatory utterances, see Raz (TGT 88).

330

Chapter 11

it may be noted that enclitic -ma ‘also, even’ also contributes to emphatic negation with negated predicates, e.g. PEA 1 30.6 ʔi-nəṣennəyo-ma tello wä-hətu ʔifalki ‘you say to him: “May we not even sniff at it?” but he (replied): “No”.’32 11.3.3 Negation with Clitic n Clitic *-ni, which forms part of the expression of standard negation in Tigrinya (section 11.4.1), is also found in certain dialects of Tigre. The following section reviews the evidence for enclitic *-ni as part of a discontinuous negative construction and argues that its diffusion in southern varieties of Tigre is to be explained from contact with Tigrinya. In Tigre of Habab, negation is expressed by ʔi- or yə- … -n(ni) (Elias 2014: 121–122), and in Dahalik, negation is expressed by (y)i- … -ni (Simeone-Senelle 2010: 137). Littmann and Höfner (LiHöTig 348) also note that in Tigre of the Mäsḥalīt tribe of Semhar and in Tigre of Massawa, standard negation is expressed by ʔi- … -ni. Beurmann and Merx (1868: 31, 72) give an early example of negation in Tigre of Massawa, jeamirne ġari “ich kann nicht lesen,” which is parsed as ʔi-ʔaʔmər ʔanä. However, Praetorius (1868: 748) is probably right in reading ʔi-yaʔmər-ne, interpreting -ne as a part of the negative construction, considering that Littmann and Höfner (LiHöTig 348) note that the negation in Massawa is ʔi- … -ni.33 This is also the case in the short texts published by Conti Rossini (1903a), e.g. Conti Rossini (1903a: 15.18) lakín ellí mesāgĭd́ kúllu mäsrĭyā i-wodäwò-ni labäzzéḥ terék woddoyò ‘but the Egyptians did not make all these mosques; the Turks made most.’34 The Sabderat texts published by Conti Rossini (1903b: 75–78) also attest to ʔi- … -ni in one instance: Conti Rossini (1903b: 76.32) däm ʔi-nafəssəs təräf mənəna beläwo wä-hətu ʔi-ḥaddəgäkkum-ni beläyom ‘they said to him: “We will 32  Additive -ma probably also occurs in sema ‘anything,’ which is almost only found in negative clauses (TGT 45). According to Littmann (1897: 315), followed by Leslau (1945b: 192 n. 128), sema is a compound of Arabic šay and indefinite -m, cf. also Bilin sḗmā “keineswegs” (Reinisch 1887: 304). But there is also a form sema-ma (LiHöTig 172), e.g. PEA 1 2.6 semama ʔi-räkäbko ‘I have not found anything at all.’ 33  However, Abbadie (in Appendix p. 59 to Dillmann 1865) gives ʔay- only as a negative adverb in Tigre of Massawa. 34  See also Conti Rossini (1903a: 15.7) i-leggässēttä̀n-ni (təgassa). But the one example of non-verbal negation is ʔi-kon, i.e. without -ni: Conti Rossini (1903a: 14.4) mäṣʔayyò kahetú wä-rämäsú asék ḥatté ǧäzirä̀t därräkäyyò wa-laʔenā́s eb umrú ganḥá i-kòn ‘(the wave) overtook him as well as his raft until it pushed him unto an island, and no one had been there in his life.’ The omission may be due to the special status of the non-verbal negator. In Tigre of Habab, for example, ʔi-halla is used besides ya-halla-nni, and in Amharic, yällä, without -mm, is not entirely uncommon (AS §324c).

Tigre And Tigrinya

331

not shed blood! Get away from us!” and he said to them: “I will not leave you”.’ It may be the case that ʔi- … -ni is emphatic here, as it denotes a contrast to the previous proposition. Elsewhere, the negator is ʔi-, for example Conti Rossini (1903b: 76.5+5) məsekkä ʔi-nəgäbbəʔ wä-ʔəgələkkä sem ʔi-nəwäddekkä ‘we will not be with you, and we will not do anything for you.’35 Standard negation in the Tigre of Habab texts published by Raz (1992), dating to the beginning of the 20th century, is expressed by ʔi-, e.g. Raz (1992: 4b12) wa-hətom ʔi-nahaybakkum belawom ‘and they said said to them: “We shall not give you” ’ and Raz (1992: 4b15) konātka qatlatto ʔi-qatalna ‘it is your lance that killed him, we did not kill (him).’36 In Tigre of Habab in Ginda, however, standard negation is expressed by yə- … -n(ni) or ʔi-. Elias (2014: 121) suggested that ʔi- and yə- … -n(ni) occur in free distribution, except that only ʔi- negates yvqtvl. No longer texts are published, but from all the examples of negated verbs in the grammar, the following observations can be made: yə- … -n(ni) only negates qvtvla in main clauses, and ʔi- is only attested in subordinate and interrogative clauses, negating qvtvla as well as yvqatvl and yvqtvl. Elias (2014: 249) suggested that the negative verboid of existence in Tigre of Habab, ya-halla-nni, developed by analogy to Tigrinya y-ällä-n/y-ällo-n, which seems likely. In fact, the occurrence of *-ni in all South-Eastern Tigre dialects is likely to be the result of language contact with Tigrinya. This is indicated by its concentration to southern varieties of Tigre, in contrast to its absence in the north. As a matter of fact, according to Saleh Mahmud Idris, quoted as personal communication in Simeone-Senelle (2010: 137), (y)i- … -ni is “common in the Tigre dialects of the eastern lowlands of Eritrea.” These lowlands, it should be noted, border to the Tigrinya speakers. The relatively recent diffusion of the negative discontinuous construction is indicated by the fact that the earlier texts in Tigre of Habab do not make use of enclitic *-ni as part of standard negation. See further section 12.3.3 on the diffusion of -mm in Amharic. 11.4

Negation in Tigrinya

As is well known, declarative verbal main clauses in Tigrinya are typically negated by a discontinuous negative construction ʔay- … -n. The purpose of the following sections is to illustrate the use and non-use of -n and to explain its historical background.

35  See also Conti Rossini (1903b: 76.4+7+13+13+31+32, and 77.11). 36  See also Raz (1992: 4b16, 6a1, and 7a22).

332

Chapter 11

11.4.1 Negation with Clitic n Standard negation in Tigrinya of Hamasen is expressed by the discontinuous construction ʔay- … -n (Praetorius 1874: 442; Leslau 1939: 75 n. 1; Voigt 1977: 61, 235), for example:37 (285) ZHS 218.7 näzi məkrəzi ʔay-fäläṭəwwo-n ʔay-fätäwəwwo-n This confab, he neither recognized it nor did he like it. Enclitic -n as part of standard negation is also attested in Tigrinya of Akele Guzai (DTGT §§94b, 102), Tigrinya of Adwa (GTS §160), and Tigrinya of Aksum (Praetorius 1874: 442). Enclitic -n is -ən if the word ends in a consonant in Tigrinya of Adwa (GTS §167) and Tigrinya of Akele Guzai (DTGT §160aɑ). In Tigrinya of Hamasen, however, it is -ni (Leslau 1939: 75), compare ZHS 210.4 ʔay-yəgäbbər-(ə)ni and ZHS 210.5 ʔay-yəgäbbəru-n. One even finds -ni after a vowel, e.g. PTCT 76 ʔay-woddĕʔā-nì ‘they do not end’.38 In fact, -ni is probably the older form, cf. Ge’ez -ni. Leaving the negative discontinuous construction aside, enclitic -n(i) in Tigrinya is also used for focussing, e.g. zäräba-n ‘words, to be sure’ (PTCT 366; Leslau 1949a: 245).39 Ge’ez -ni, in turn, can be identified with an additive focus particle.40 For example, ʔəmma-ni denotes a concessive condition ‘even if, though’ in relation to ʔəmma ‘if.’ -ni also cliticizes to the interrogative particles, e.g. mənt, ʔay, māʔze, and ʔayte, to form scale reversal items, e.g. wa-ʔi-məntə-ni ‘nothing whatsoever,’ wa-ʔi-ʔayte-ni ‘not anywhere.’ Considering that the condition marked by ʔəmma-ni ‘even if, though’ is concessive, i.e. presupposes a relevant alternative against which the concession is evaluated as highly unlikely, the negative construction involving -n in Tigrinya should be regarded as an emphatic expression of negation in origin, in which -n marked the negative predicate as ranking on the extreme end of a pragmatic scale. Such predicates are more informative than predicates without -n, since the former types of predicates presuppose the latter, and evaluate themselves against them. In view of the speaker’s tendency to be as informative as possible, predicates involving -n were subject to diffusion. 37  For additional instances not discussed below, see also ZHS 198.7, 200.7, 205.9, 205.10, 212.11, 215.2, 227.2, 229.5, 230.13, PTCT 64, 76, and 129. 38  See also Leslau (1949a: 245) and PTCT 106 ʔay-sĕtte-nì […] ʔay-sĕmmāʕ-ĕnì. 39  Focussing -n also occurs in Gafat (GDR §114b) in the sense of ‘as for, indeed, as to.’ Cf. also Tigre -ni ‘then’ (LiHöTig 323) and Amharic -ənna ‘and’ (Rundgren 1955: 260–261). 40  Cf. Leslau (CDG 380): -ni “too, also, even, even so, the very, likewise, again, as for, for one’s part (e.g. nəguśə-ni ‘the king for his part’).”

Tigre And Tigrinya

333

Although n is usually enclitic to the predicate, it is sometimes proclitic to the negator and merges with it as näy- (Voigt 1977: 237; PTCT p. 33), for example:41 (286) PTCT 102 werqì ʔĕntè ṭef ʔè, mizā̀n werqì ney-ṭef ʔè (Even) if the gold is lost, as for the gold scale, it is not lost. Leslau (1949a: 245) suggests that the word boundaries are misinterpreted on part of Conti Rossini, so that n actually belongs to the preceding word.42 But näy- occurs in ZHS too: (287) ZHS 269:14 däḥar nässu bə-säḥāqh ḥəlqh yəlu ʔanä wäräy däʔa təmʔəmʔanni ʔəmbäy ʕasf ʕəsra qw əršatkum näy-dälli (We beg you to not betray us! Please accept these twenty talents! …) Afterwards, he, dying in laughter, said: “It pleases me rather to tell my story; as for your twenty talents, I do not need (it).” Näy- is probably used here instead of the more common ʔay- … *-ni, e.g. ZHS 216.5 gänzäbkum ʔay-yədällə-n ‘I do not need your money,’ because the proposition being negated has been previously activated.43 Qwəršatkum näy-dälli would have originally been for qwəršatkum-ni ʔay-(yə)dälli ‘as for your twenty talents, I do not need (it)’ or ‘I do not even need your twenty talents.’ Indeed, näy- is preferred when the proposition to be negated has been activated, as in the example above and in the following:44 (288) PTCT 173 bĕlā̀ʕ ilù ney-ebĕlʕakhā̀. He who says: “Eat!” does not make you eat.

41  According to Voigt (1977: 62), näy- is only used in “gehobener poetischer Ausdrucksweise, wie in Gedichten und Sprichwörtern.” According to Kane (TED 1300), n cliticizes before negative yvqatvl in the expression of “an action that cannot or may not be accomplished or an unreal negative condition.” 42  Cf. Leslau (1949a: 245): “I wonder, however, whether the n of näy does not belong to the word preceding the verb […] nägärka näy-sämʕakka ‘non ascolta la tua parola’ should be divided as nägärka-n aysämʕakka.” 43  The prefix of 1st csg yvqatvl is assimilated in Tigrinya of Hamasen and is indicated by gemination in Kolmodin’s edition, e.g. ZHS 231.3 ʔanä-ss ʔay-yəwwanaʔ-ni ‘as for me, I will not fight.’ See also ZHS 207.6, 210.2, 213.4, and cf. ZHS 219.3. 44  See also PTCT 77, 83, and 150.

334

Chapter 11

It may be noted, finally, that while the enclitic -n does not usually co-occur with negative predicates that are subordinated (next section), it is attested in relative clauses in PTCT, for example: (289) PTCT 326 z-ey-elĕqh-ĕnì qetālì, z-ey-mellĕs-ĕnì ketārì Anyone who does not lend is a killer, anyone who does not return is a robber. This use of -n is curious to Leslau (1949a: 245). However, it seems that -n with a relative predicate forms a free-choice quantifier, and such free-choice quantifiers are typically used in free (independent) relative clauses. Free-choice quantifiers are similar to universal quantifiers (‘all, every’), but unlike universal quantifiers, they seem to quantify over a structured domain, or (implied) pragmatic scale (König 1991: 66–68).45 It is possible that a conservative interpretation of (289) would be ‘as for him who does not lend, he is a killer, as for him who who does not return, he is a robber,’ with -n functioning as a topicalizer.46 11.4.2 Negation without Clitic n Clitic -n is not used with negation when the predicate is yvqtvl or occurs in a subordinated clause, and sometimes also when the predicate is yvqatvl or qvtvla in a main clause. yvqtvl in a clause with directive illocutionary point is negated with ʔay- only (GTS §215; DTGT §112), e.g. ZHS 221.2 ʔay-tərädu ‘do not go down!’ and PTCT 192 hibkà ʔay-tĕklā̀ʔ, fetikhā̀ ʔay-tĕṣlā̀ʔ ‘having given, do not refuse; having loved, do not hate.’47 This is also the case when yvqtvl is used in a proverb with generic rather than episodic meaning, for example:48 (290) PTCT 157 baʕàl ḥadè ʕaynì ʔay-gesgĕś , baʕàl ḥadé bĕʕĕrāỳ ʔay-leggĕś 49 He with one eye does not hurry, he with one ox does not spend generously. 45  The same situation pertains to Amharic and Harari -mm/-m, e.g (307) and (308a), where -mm/-m with negative relative predicates is used in free relative clauses. 46  Free-choice quantification with a relative predicate with -n is also found with the nonverbal negator, e.g. PTCT 152 bĕʕĕrāỳ z-ey-bĕllù-n, kuĕrĕmtì z-ey-bĕllù-n, kāb ṭuṭuʕumù yterrĕf́ ‘anyone who has neither ox nor molar teeth is left (without) anything tasty.’ 47  See also ZHS 205.4, 205.6, 218.5, 221.5, and 229.4. 48  See also PTCT 69, 79, 85, 87, 90, 96, 97, 133, 174, 187, and 193. The predicate type of PTCT 93 is indistinct. 49  Cf. a similar proverb in DTGT 374.

Tigre And Tigrinya

335

In other words, it does not matter whether yvqtvl is prohibitive in interpersonal discourse or juridical language, or used with generic meaning, it is always negated by ʔay- without -n.50 Predicates that are preceded by a subordinator are also negated with preverbal ʔay- only (GTS §160; DTGT §94bɑ, 158e), e.g. with k-äy- ‘so that not, in order not to,’ for example:51 (291)

ZHS 209.3 ʔab ḥaṣäy tedros k-äy-yərräʔayu ʔab däbrä-bəzen ʔatäwu He went to Däbra-Bəzen, in order to not appear before Emperor Tedros.

With regard to the negation of k-clauses, the negation of kə-yvqatvl may be either k-äy-yvqatvl or k-äy-qvtvla, the latter being more common (Voigt 1977: 257), e.g. PTCT 66 k-ey-deqqesè yĕḥaddĕr ‘he spends the night without sleeping,’ and, coordinated with the converb, e.g. ZHS 231.3 ʔatyom k-äy-täwagəʔu ‘having arrived, without having fought.’ In this example, k-äy-qvtvla is used as a negative alloform to the converb, which in general is not negated, as in Ge’ez (cf. n. 33 on p. 374).52 K-äy- is also used in the sense of ‘before’, coordinated with k-älläwu (formally qvtvla, but with the syntax of kə-yvqatvl) in the following example: (292) ZHS 232.2 däggəyat wäldänkiʔel gena nab ḥamasen k-äy-ʔatäwu ʔab ʔəkkwəlägwizay k-älläwu wärä mäṣom Before däggəyat Wäldänkiʔel had arrived in Ḥamasen, while he was (still) in ʔƎkkwəlä-Gwizay, the news reached them.

50  Negative yvqtvl is also used to denote prohibitions in juridical language, as in the commandments: Ex 20:13–15 ʔay-təqtäl ʔay-təzämu ʔay-təräq. Similarly in Loggo Sarda: (Conti Rossini 1903b: 61.6) täwafiru zä-ʕahaza mədri loggo ʔay-yəšiṭ “colui che per sorteggio (a scopo di coltivazione) ha preso la terra (commune) dei Loggo non (la) venda” (tr. Conti Rossini 1904: 12). See also Conti Rossini (1903b: 61.6+8–9+10). 51  See also PTCT 64 and 97. After verbs of fearing the negator is pleonastic, as in ZHS 223.3 nərʔəsu k-äy-yədəggäm käʔa färhe ‘he feared that the same fate waited him.’ See also ZHS 219.2. 52   k-äy-qvtvla is the negative counterpart to the converb, which is normally not negated. Cf. Leslau (DTGT: 83): “Le parfait négatif peut remplacer le gérondif: ʔay-mäṣʔən ‘il n’est pas venu”.’ See also Voigt (1977: 59): “Offensichtlich ist hier die Parallele zum Ger., das, da es nicht verneint werden kann, die negative Komplementärkonstruktion mit käy- aufweist.” See Voigt (1977: 169) for the negative converb: it occurs occasionally in the protasis after ʔəntä. Furthermore, the converb in analytic constructions is also “replaced” by qvtvla. The negative counterpart to qatilu näbärä, for example, is ʔay-qvtvla näbärä (DTGT §96).

336

Chapter 11

Negative relative clauses marked by z-äy- (< zə + ʔay) are also negated by the preverbal negator only, e.g. ZHS 218.7 z-äy-yəḥəmm säb ʔabäy ʔallo ‘where is there a man who does not suffer?’53 The absence of -n from negation in subordinated clauses can be explained from the focussing function of the clitic, which is not felicitous with non-assertive clauses. It also happens that main clauses with yvqatvl or qvtvla are negated with ʔay- only, especially when the negative predicates are asyndetically linked to each other, for example:54 (293)

a. Z HS 208.6+6 särawit ʔagäw-nəgusä xäʔä bäbbəzälläwəwwo ṭäläməwwom bäʕal qäməš ʔay-täräfä bäʕal ṭäbänǧa gašša ǧagriʔu ʔay-täräfä mämmaxära kwəllu ṭäliməwwom The army of ʔAgäw-Nəgusä, wherever it found itself, would betray them: The shirt-bearers did not remain, the rifle-bearers, his squires, the advisers did not remain. Everyone betrayed them.

b. PTCT 70+70 bĕ-weriḗ ʔay-negsù, bĭ-ʔĭdòm ʔay-kaḥasù You (3rd mpl) do not rule with news/talk/fame, you do not compensate with your own hand. The absence of -n occurs in “pointierter Redeweise” according to Voigt (1977), for example in proverbs.55 According to Praetorius (GTS §160), the reason is diachronic, but, as Leslau (1939: 64) remarks, the language of the proverbs (published by Praetorius) is often archaic (cf. PTCT p. 33: “In tigrino come in amarico esso è spesso omesso, in poesia e nei proverbi, che sogliono tramandarci arcaismi”). However, the absence of -n can also be explained from the asyndetic linking of two negated predicates. Since it is argued that -n in the negative discontinuous construction is historically connected with the focus particle -n, one should note that when the focus particle -n is used for coordination, it cliticizes to both coordinands, e.g. kälb-ən ʔadg-ən ‘a dog and a donkey’ (DTGT §§24b, 160a), bə-yäman-ni bə-ṣägam-ni ‘right and left’ (Voigt 1977: 236 n. 6), ʔabo-n wädu-n nab gərat käyədom ‘father and son went to the field’ (TED 1300). The absence of -n from two negative predicates in asyndeton 53  See also ZHS 202.4, 223.8, 228.2, PTCT 77, 78, 79, 98, 101, 129, 135, 145, 147, 181, 194, and 195. Similarly for compounds with z-äy, like käm-z-äy denoting the content in declarations, e.g. ZHS 221.5 käm-z-äy-yəxonällom rəʔəyom ʔabäyu ‘seeing that it was not possible for him (to comply), he refused.’ See also ZHS 223.4. 54  For other similar constructions, see PTCT 104, 107, 128, 163, and 179. 55  Cf. Kolmodin (1917: 80) on yälbo, which is a “poetische Form” according to him.

Tigre And Tigrinya

337

supports the identification of -n of negative predicates with the focus particle -n. Two negative predicates with ʔay- … -n could, at least originally, be interpreted as a means of negative emphatic coordination ‘neither … nor,’ cf. (285). As a matter of fact, all examples quoted by Voigt (1977: 235) of negation in main clauses without -n involve two negated predicates in asyndeton. Furthermore, Praetorius (GTS §160) noted that it is not entirely uncommon that -n is not used with negation in the R-manuscript of the four gospels in Tigre of Adwa, made by Däbtära Matewos in the 1830s (cf. GTS 10–11). Since the text is not published, it is difficult to determine the contexts in which Praetorius’ examples occur (only the negated predicate without its co-text is quoted), but some of the examples are asyndetic, e.g. Luke 7:33 ʔay-bäläʕa ʔay-säta ‘he does not eat, he does not drink,’ Luke 20:35 ʔay-yäʔəttəwu ʔaytəʔatatäwu ‘you are not married, you will not given in marriage,’ and John 8:19 ʔay-təfälṭu ‘you do not know me (? and you do not know my father).’ In another context, the absence of -n may be due to the interrogative context, viz. in Matthew 12:3 ʔay-näbäbkumu-do ‘have you not read?’ Notably, enclitic -mm, part of standard negation in Amharic, is also sometimes absent from questions and negated predicates that are asyndetically coordinated (cf. section 12.5 and n. 46 on p. 355).56 Rarely is the main clause predicate negated without -n in other cases. In the following cases, it may be due to the fact that the negation has narrow scope focus:57 (294)

a. Z HS 223.10 dəḥri ḥəǧi nə-bäxit ʔayya däʔa ʔəmbär käntiba ʔay-təbäləwwa Hereafter one will call Bäxit not for Käntiba, but rather ʔAyya. b. P TCT 127 weddì mebelletsì mĕngā̀h megeddì yfellĕ́ṭ, mĕbtā̀k negèr ʔay-fellĕ́ṭ58 The son of a widow does know to get up early in the morning, (but) he does not know how to decide on an issue.



56  In two cases quoted by Praetorius, Matthew 2:18 ʔay-konəwwa ‘they are (no more)’ and Luke 7:30 ʔay-täṭämmäqu ‘they are not baptized,’ the lack of -n may be due to the fact that these predicates occur in the context of refusal, in which case ʔay- may be merely pleonastic (cf. the absence of French pas in certain scale reversal contexts, section 2.4.1). 57  See also PTCT 84 and 136. 58  In the second hemistich, Conti Rossini (PTCT p. 45) prints ayfellĕ́t, which is a mistake for ayfellĕ́ṭ, cf. Leslau (1949a: 246).

338

Chapter 11

In (294a), negation belongs logically only to käntiba, and in (294b), negation is contrastive of mĕbtā̀k. It should be noted that constituent negation is usually expressed without -n, for example PTCT p. 161.12 ʔay-bə-dästa ‘not with joy.’ In other words, verb phrase negation is here used with narrow scope focus. By way of conclusion one notes that -n is not used in non-standard negation, i.e. in the negation of non-declarative clauses or subordinated clauses. Furthermore, -n is sometimes absent from the negation of verbal main clauses when two negated predicates are asyndetically linked, or when verb phrase negation is used for narrow scope focus.

Chapter 12

Amharic and Harari 12.1 Introduction Negation of declarative verbal main clauses in Amharic is, as a rule, expressed by a discontinuous construction that involves a preverbal negator ʔal- or ʔaand enclitic -mm. A cognate with this clitic is also used with negation in Harari. Negation of yvqtvl and negation in subordinated clauses, however, do not involve enclitic -mm. This chapter investigates the background of Amharic -mm and Harari -m and provides a functional explanation for their distribution in Amharic and Harari. 12.2

The Preverbal Negator in Amharic and Harari

The preverbal negator of qvtvla in Amharic is regularly ʔal-:1 ʔal-qättälä-mm.2 This negator is apparently identical to the negator of 1st person singular verb forms in the prefix conjugation: ʔal-qätl-əmm (negative yvqatvl) and ʔal-əqtäl (negative yvqtvl). In the prefix conjugation and before the PNG-prefix yə-, the preverbal negator is ʔa- and ə is elided: ʔa-yqätl-əmm.3 Before verb forms with the PNG-prefix tə-, t- is either pronounced simple without ə, or is geminated and the pronunciation of ə is preserved: ʔa-tqätl-əmm or ʔat-təqätl-əmm. According to the traditional explanation, the negator of both the suffix conjugation and the prefix conjugation goes back to *ʔal-. Praetorius (AS §50a), for example, assumed that l underwent palatalization before the prefix y- and that it later spread to all positions except 1st csg. It is also possible that -l- palatalized before yə-, without resulting in gemination of -y-, and assimilated to tə-, with optional degemination (Bulakh 2012: 393). 1  ʔ of the pre-predicate negator is optionally pronounced as word-initial ʔ in pre-vocalic position in general (RGA §2.3.1). It may be noted that while the negator is usually written with ʔ in the 1st order, ʔă, it is written in the 4th order, ʔā, in the Oxford manuscript of the Royal Songs (Littmann 1947: 491). 2  In the suffix conjugation, l of ʔal-, may assimilate to a following r in Modern Amharic (RGA §54.4.3). No examples of verbs I-r in the negated suffix conjugation was found in the corpus of Old Amharic. 3  However, ə is retained when R1 is geminated, see (305) and cf. RGA §18.4, 55.2.1.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_013

340

Chapter 12

According to Hudson (2003), however, the negator of the suffix conjugation is *ʔal- but the negator of the prefix conjugation is *ʔay-. As to the lateral of 1st person singular verb forms in the prefix conjugation, ʔal-qätl-əmm and ʔaləqtäl, Hudson assumes that it does not derive etymologically from the negator *ʔal-, but the asseverative particle *la-, which is present in affirmative yvqtvl, i.e. l-əqtäl (AS §279b), but usually not in affirmative yvqatvl, which, it should be noted, is ʔəqätl-allähw. However, as Bulakh (2012: 394) has pointed out, asseverative la- is not expected in negated clauses according to Huehnergard’s (1983) reconstruction. Another fact which should be added to the rejection of Hudson’s reconstruction is that 1st csg negated yvqtvl is ʔal-əqtäl at a period in time when 1st csg affirmative yvqtvl is əqtäl. It seems unlikely that *la- was first added to negative 1st csg yvqtvl (**ʔay-lä-əqtäl).4 ʔal-əqtäl is found in the Royal Songs, e.g. K 10.61 gw ältxän ʔal-əsṭ lä-way ‘I will not give away your fief to way’ and negative yvqatvl in 1st csg also attests to -l- of ʔal- in Old Amharic, for example:5 (295) Piq 101 zare-ss ḳoyy ʔal-əsämʕaš-əmm b-iläññ-əmm ʔal-agw ərämärrəm-əmm If he says to me: “As for today, wait, I will not listen to you,” I will not grumble. Furthermore, the shift *ʔay-t > *ʔat- faces the same difficulties as *ʔal-t > *ʔat(Bulakh 2012: 393, 395), and cannot be used in favor of reconstructing *ʔay-. As noted in section 1.2.5, Bulakh (2012) reconstructs *ʔal- to Proto-South Ethiosemitic. However, this *ʔal- is not identified with a Proto-Semitic *ʔal(cf. Hebrew ʔal-), which is *ʔala- in Bulakh’s reconstruction, but with an allomorph in Proto-South Ethiosemitic to *ʔay-, with ‘hardening’ of -y- to -l- in intervocalic position.6 However, as discussed in section 11.2, negative ʔayshould be reconstructed as a palatalized form of *ʔal-.

4  Indeed, in Ludolf’s (1698 Lib. II cap. V5) grammar, affirmative 1st csg yvqtvl is ʔənbär ‘let me/ may I stay.’ 5  See also e.g. EMML 1943 c 2.17, dated to the late 16th century, quoted in Getatchew Haile (1979). His hesitation (1979: 234) on identifying -l-, however, is unnecessary, since -l- surfaces also in K. 6  Bulakh (2012: 408) regards the shift -y- to -l- as a hypercorrect interpretation of palatalization where -l- shifted to -y-.

Amharic And Harari

341

As in Amharic, l of *ʔal- is retained in Harari when it negates the suffix conjugation,7 as well as when it negates 1st csg yvqtvl, e.g. HTAS B361 zi-nafsi ḥuḳūḳ-be al-ḥilḳa ‘I do not consider it in the right of the soul.’8 In forms with the prefix t-, a- developed from *ʔal- by assimilation and later reduction of the lengthened consonant (Wagner 2011: 1262). The reduction of gemination is of course also found in verbs (Hetzron 1972: 43–44). In forms with the prefix y-, a- may as well be derived from *ʔal- by palatalization.9 The most economical solution is therefore to reconstruct *ʔal- as the preverbal negator of both the suffix conjugation and the prefix conjugations in Amharic and Harari. 12.3

Negation with Clitic *-ma in Amharic and Harari

As is well known, negation of declarative verbal main clauses in Amharic is expressed by a discontinuous construction that involves enclitic -mm. Section 12.3.1 offers an investigation into the historical background of this clitic in the negative construction and identifies it with a scalar additive focus particle. A cognate with Amharic -mm is also used in the expression of negation in Harari. The distribution of enclitic -m in Ancient Harari is investigated in section 12.3.2, and it will be argued that its diffusion in Harari is the result of language contact with Amharic. Section 12.3.3, finally, assesses the distribution of the negative discontinuous construction as a linguistic area feature. 12.3.1 Historical background of *-ma Negation of declarative verbal main clauses in Old Amharic is expressed by ʔal- … -mm. The oldest evidence of this construction comes from the Royal Songs:10 (296) K 2.97 ʕalämun gäzzawaččo bä-gədd / ʔal-gäzzawaččo-mm bä-wədd He dominated the world with force / He did not dominate it with love. 7  See HTAS B11, B153, 256, 257 and B52 (*kwn) for negated qvtvla without -m on either verb or other clause constituents. For assimilation of l, as in e.g. (299b), see LV §6a. 8  See also HTAS B222 s-äl-ḥur ‘while I cannot go’ and Wagner’s discussion ad locum (HTAS p. 127), HTAS B229 isälboʔ ‘before I enter,’ and HTAS B318 arräsʕa ‘I will not forget,’ with assimilation of l to r. See perhaps also HTAS B308 anḳäbṭa unless it is 1st cpl. 9  For palatalization in Harari, see Cerulli (CL 102, 117), Leslau (LV 18 and n. 3), and Rose (2004). Palatalization of coronals is the rule before the front vowel /i/. 10  See also K 5.38/39/45/46, 7.22, Tar 35a5–6, 35b3, Piq 8, and 108–109.

342

Chapter 12

Enclitic -mm in Amharic has previously been identified with -mm expressing indefiniteness (Praetorius AS §210b; Cohen 1936: 125–126; Leslau 1949a: 245), interrogative ma (PTCT p. 33), conjunctive -mm (Hetzron 1972: 97–98), and emphatic, topicalizing-mm (Hetzron 1973). In fact, the various meanings associated with -mm are likely to be context-dependent inferences of one and the same focus particle (Girma Demeke and Meyer 2008).11 The focus particle -mm in Amharic is treated at some length by Leslau (RGA §162). The essential functions include: (1) emphatic coordination: ‘and, in addition, both … and, as a … as a, as well as, as much … as’; (2) addition: ‘too, also, so’; (3) concession: ‘though, even though, although, even if, even, even so’; and (4) formation of indefinite pronouns, when clitic to interrogative pronouns. The various functions described for -mm by Leslau are all common properties of additive focus particles. For example, the combination of an interrogative morpheme with an additive focus particle is one of the major strategies in the languages of the world in forming indefinite pronouns (König 1991: 64–66). The Amharic indefinite pronoun mən-əmm ‘anything’ is such an indefinite pronoun, formed on man ‘what’ and the focus particle -mm.12 In a negative clause with an indefinite pronoun, like mən-əmm, -mm may be present or absent from the negated predicate in Modern Amharic (RGA §54.5.5). This is also true for Old Amharic. In (297a), -mm is cliticized to mən as well as to the negated predicate, whereas in (297b), -mm is omitted from the negated predicate:13 11  Girma Demeke and Meyer (2008: 624–625) leave the identification of -mm with negative predicates in Amharic and the focus particle -mm for further research, but the interaction of -mm with negative predicates and focalizing -mm suggests that they in fact should be identified with each other (cf. also Gasser 1985: 63 n. 2). 12  For interrogative mən in Old Amharic, see for example K 8.9/11 mən ḳärräx bä-wäsän ‘what remains for you within limits?’ In Piq 162 lä-ṣadḳan-əss mən-əmm ʔay-yəggwaddäläʔək(k)o-n ‘as for the righteous, nothing is lacking,’ the absence of -mm from the negative predicate may be due to the fact that -mm occurs with mən. Alternatively, the negative predicate is relative, and əkkon is for yəkkon ‘it is to be’ (tähonä), i.e. ‘for the righteous, it is to be nothing which he lacks.’ 13  While Amharic may represent a language that allows for multiple focus (Girma Demeke and Meyer 2008: 612–613), in a clause ləǧǧu-mm al-mäṭṭa (RGA §54.4.4) ‘even the child didn’t come’ or ‘the child too didn’t come,’ it is the subject that is focussed, whereas a clause ləǧǧu al-mäṭṭa-mm is not marked for focus synchronically. Since -mm with negative predicates does not contribute to focus from a synchronic point of view, a clause ləǧǧu-mm al-mäṭṭa-mm could also be interpreted with single focus on the subject. The example in Girma Demeke and Meyer (2008: n. 11) of multiple focussing involves a subject marked by -mm in a conditional clause marked -mm. Since conditional predicates with -mm tend to be concessive, it may be that -mm of b-ibbäsač̣č̣ u-mm ‘even if he was

Amharic And Harari

343

(297) a. K 5.42/48/50 mən-əmm ʔal-h̬ wänä-mm bäläwwat Tell her: “Nothing happened!”

b. Piq 18–19 kä-säbʕatu h̬ aṭiyat mən-əmm ʔay-yəgw addäläwwat She did not lack anything from the seven sins.

In Modern Harari too, when additive -m occurs on a clause constituent, it can be omitted from the negative predicate, as in (298a), or preserved, as in (298b): (298)

a. H S D18–19 yi zalta alāy yilamdubōzāl awwal-be zidīǧalēna taʔlīm attāy kabīr gārin ta yī-m mulluʔ waḳtīm yitlamadēl ḳurān gēy-kuta Besides this, the kabīr gār is another teaching institution which has come down to us from earlier times, in which it is taught. This (the curriculum of the kabīr gar) is also not taught as early on as in the Quran school.



b. E SS 1 149.11 yäxnimām därma al-tiqēbāleyu-m wåḥačāču-m täs al-āyeyu-m However, the young men did not accept them, and the girls too were not happy about it.

The correlation between the presence of -mm/-m on scale reversal items or elsewhere in the clause with the presence/absence of -mm/-m with negated predicates is indicative of their interrelationship. On the assumption that -mm/-m is a scalar additive focus particle, negation with -mm/-m should be understood as a form of emphatic negation (‘not even’) in origin, that by grammaticalization has lost its emphasis and become part of the expression of standard negation (‘not’). In an affirmative clause, however, -mm retains its function as a scalar additive focus particle, e.g. yəhən gudday lä-ənatu yawrall yasayall-əmm (apud Girma Demeke and Meyer 2008: 611) ‘he tells this matter to his mother, he also/even shows (it to her).’ In other words, standard negation in Amharic is asymmetric to affirmation with regard to focus marking, in that negation involves a marker -mm that expresses additive focus in non-negative contexts. It is, then, as if standard negation always had to be marked for focus. However, -mm of the discontinuous negative construction does not express emphatic negation, but its semantic annoyed’ is not really interpreted as focalizing the predicate synchronically, but that relative predicates with -mm had become concessive by default and hence lost its focalizing contribution.

344

Chapter 12

bleaching and obligatorification in standard negation is the result of the grammaticalization of an earlier construction where -mm did in fact mark emphatic negation. Historically, the relevant focus particle can be formally connected with e.g. Tigre -ma, Harari -ma, and Akkadian -ma.14 12.3.2 Distribution of -m in Ancient Harari While in Modern Harari, as in Amharic, standard negation is usually expressed by a discontinuous construction al-säbärä-m or al-säbära-m (LV §6a; HTAS 15, 73),15 enclitic -m in Ancient Harari is very rare (HTAS p. 300). It is attested in the following negated main clauses:16 (299)

a. H TAS B66–B67 näbi bi-llāhi-zo attešata al-ḳäbäṭa-m mauʕidata alḥadäga-m limadota hayye-läh̬ wädaǧi al-niwazota (Oh) Prophet, who acted by means of his God; he neither failed the promise, nor failed to learn (the teaching of God)—hayye-läh̬ do not be unstable to a friend!



b. H TAS B47 z-odädo gafi wädaǧi siṭota wädaǧi za-allāhu karāmāta arräh̬ äbo-m bi-ḥīlata ḥayye-läh̬ wädaǧi arrisaʔota To give a friend to the beloved servant, is a miracle of God’s friend; he is not found through trickery—hayye-läh̬ do not forget a friend! c. H TAS B62 kullu nafsin ḏāʔiḳatuni l-mauta a-iräh̬ bo-m aya dāʔim ḥuinata Every soul tastes death—aya eternal life will not be found.



While -m had not become an obligatory part of negation in Ancient Harari, there existed other means to express emphatic negation, as with enclitic -n, e.g. 14  In its focalizing function, Amharic -mm can be compared to so-called ‘substantivizing *ma’ (Cohen 2000) in Akkadian, and in its coordinative function, to the so-called ‘*ma of sequence,’ for which also the ma-clause in Harari (Littmann 1921; Leslau 1970) provides an important parallel. See further Del Olmo Lete (2008) for the distribution of enclitic -m in Semitic. 15  According to Garad and Wagner (HS pp. 159–163, 167), ä is an allophone of a. 16  It may be noted that the negated predicates in these examples are followed by interjections, h/ḥayye “paß auf” (HTAS p. 291) or aya “oh” (HTAS p. 275), and that in one manuscript (A), both -m and aya are omitted in (299c). In (299a) -m is likely used for emphatic negative coordination. Cerulli (CL) does not discuss any negative enclitics in Ancient Harari in connection to his corpus.

Amharic And Harari

345

CL p. 291.8 and CL p. 309.30 im allāh-zō tarāḥaqōt zāna taqārabōt a-ydablulō-n ‘he who has made himself removed from God will not unite with him in proximity.’ Enclitic -n ‘and, also’ is included as an allomorph of -m in CL §156c (cf. also CL pp. 187–188 for Modern Harari).17 If Harari grammaticalized -m as part of standard negation as a result of polysemy copying on Amharic (see below), it is possible that in its initial stages, other additive focus particles than -m competed in the process. Šayʔ, for example, is also used to this purpose, perhaps as a calque on Arabic, e.g. HTAS B211 däd zi-muʔmin bi-ḳalbi yuṭur šayʔi bi-ǧismi-zo dilḥi a-iṭur ‘he who carries the love of the faithful in (his) heart, does not carry any sin in his body’ (see perhaps also HTAS B 184). -M is not always cliticized to the verb in Modern Harari (Praetorius 1869: 463; LV §6a; HS §9).18 This is also true for Ancient Harari. In the following example, -m is cliticized to ḥandi: (300) HTAS B422 ǧamīʕ anbiyāč aḳänaʕaläna iñña-m li-ḥandi-m al-aḳänaʕna He guided to us all prophets; we, on the other hand, have not guided even once. In (300), enclitic -m of iñña-m is presumably adversative (Wagner HTAS p. 184: “wir dagegen”), cf. also (308a). Enclitic -m of ḥandi-m, however, is presumably an additive scalar focus particle, ‘not even once,’ and comparable to Amharic and-əmm (RGA §162.16).19 The fact that -m contributes to a scalar implicature is indicated by that fact that enclitic -m is not obligatory with ḥandi in negative clauses, e.g. HTAS B 164 handi wulat a-iḳäbṭo bi-däda ‘not one thing will be lost in love.’20

17  Cf. perhaps also HTAS E1 ḏ-äitilayini, i.e. 3rd msg relative negative ta-laya. 18  This appears to be especially common with non-verbal ēla, as in Amharic, cf. Hetzron (1972: 96): “In an emphasized negation, -m may be transferred from the final negative verb to the negated emphasized element.” As in Modern Harari, e.g. ESS 1 127.4 isātu-m ēla ‘there is no fire,’ -m may be cliticized not to ēla but the thing possessed. There are two examples of the negative existential verb ēla in HTAS in which its predicative is marked by the enclitic -m, e.g. HTAS B535 ḥoǧi bi-dinät ge-m elbäna way geš bi-āh̬ irat-um elbäna way ‘we do not have misery on earth today, neither will we have misery in the hereafter tomorrow’ (see also HTAS B509). 19  In Zway too, had combines with enclitic -m in collocation with negative predicates (Meyer 2005: 91–92). 20  See also HTAS B 109.

346

Chapter 12

Yvqatvl too, like qvtvla, is usually negated by lone al- in Ancient Harari.21 But when Lucas (2009: 284) suggests that there are 65 instances of negation without -m in Ancient Harari, where it would be obligatory in Modern Harari, he must also include the negated yvqatvl. While it is true that there is only one instance of ay-qätli-m (299c), it would be wrong to conclude that -m ever was obligatory with negated yvqatvl. One of most salient differences between Ancient Harari and Modern Harari in the verbal system is the replacement of Ancient Harari yvqatvl by the compound of yvqatvl and the auxiliary *hlw (yvqtvl-al), known as an analytic construction for the present progressive in Tigre (and Ge’ez). The negative counterpart to this (originally) compound verb form is yvqatvl + *ʔal-hal(l)awa, with m proclitic to the auxiliary, i.e. yiqätl-u-mēl.22 Compound yvqatvl only occurs a few times in HTAS; both simple affirmative yvqatvl and the simple negative yvqatvl are the standard exponents of the imperfective.23 In Modern Harari, however, yvqatvl-al has ousted the simple yvqatvl to subordinate clauses. But this is only true as far as affirmative subordinate clauses go. In negative subordinate clauses, the negative counterpart to subordinate yvqatvl is negative yvqtvl, which, as shown by Wagner (1997) is due to Oromo influence.24 Compound yvqatvl-al is also known from Amharic (and Argobba). Since yvqatvl-al replaced yvqatvl in a period between the attestations of Ancient Harari and Modern Harari, Bulakh and Kogan (2013: 605–606) conclude that the replacement observable in Amharic and Argobba on the one hand, and Harari (and Eastern Gurage) on the other, is an areal feature of parallel development that began in the former group of languages, and subsequently spread to the other group of languages. This is likely the case of -m with negative predicates in Harari is well: while it is attested only sporadically in Ancient Harari, its grammaticalization with main clauses in Modern Harari is a relatively

21  For negative yvqatvl in main clauses, see HTAS B39, 107, 120, 130, 176, 213, 242, 280, 308, 357, 390, 426, 460, C7, D26, 32, and perhaps A15. 22  Cf. also Hetzron (1972: 96): ‘This -um is not the trace of an -m after the imperfect. The negative auxiliary is properly eel-um and it is here attached to a positive form yisäbr (and not *a-ysäbr-).” Similarly in the relative, yiqätlizāl, probably from yiqätli + z-al. Negative yvqatvl-al without clitic m is yiqätlēl (HS §9). 23  The negative compound yvqatvl is not found in Cerulli’s corpus (CL p. 361). There is perhaps an instance of the negative compound yvqatvl in a relative clause in HTAS B225 aiʕuḳzal, but the problem, as noted by Wagner (HTAS p. 129), is that compound yvqatvl is not negated in Ancient Harari. In Modern Harari, z-äiqitäl is expected. 24  Hetzron (1972: 95) suggests Somali influence, which also attests to convergent vocalism in the jussive and the negative, albeit with a/o instead of a/u.

Amharic And Harari

347

recent phenomenon and the result of language contact with Amharic, parallel to the adoption of yvqatvl-al. 12.3.3 Diffusion of the Discontinuous Negative Construction Hetzron (1972: 97–98) identified -mm in the Amharic standard negation construction with “the conjunctive element -m,” which, as suggested above, is only an inference of the focus particle -mm. The proof, according to Hetzron, lies in the substratum language Awngi, in which -kí is optionally cliticized to negative predicates.25 In Hetzron (1978: 123, 127) -kí, is known as a topic marker (Hetzron 1969b: 77 merely identifies it with a connective function), and in the example aqí-kí ɣuna-kí “both the man and the woman” (Hetzron 1972: 98), it is glossed as an emphatic coordinator.26 In fact, in the brief Awngi text in Hetzron (1969b: 75–76), almost every new sentence begins with-kí cliticized to the first or second element. Yet, the only negative predicate with -kí is the negative order (1969b: 75 no. 9) kisisé-ki ‘do not accuse!’27 While in Awngi -kí is optional and may be used with negative orders (unlike the focalizing particles in Ethiosemitic), it is restricted to main clauses in Amharic. Hetzron (1972: 95, 98) assumes that the construction in Amharic is a calque on Awngi, possibly one of the earliest influences when the southward migration of Semitic speakers started. On this note it is worth recalling that Praetorius (AS §324–325) suggests that in southern texts of Amharic, -mm is less common with negative predicates than in northern texts. A cognate with Amharic -mm is also used for standard negation in Modern Harari and Gafat, and the semantic counterpart *-ni is also used for standard negation in Tigrinya, Southern Tigre, and Dahalik.28 It may well be the case 25  In Hetzron (1969b: 14), negation with enclitic -kí is given as a variant form in the ‘short order’ paradigm, dissé-kí and dissé both meaning ‘do not study!’ but according to Hetzron (1972: 98), -kí is also optional with negative statements, e.g. desá-la and desá-la-kí, both meaning ‘he does not study.’ 26  Hetzron (1978: 127) also notes that -kí can be used to conjoin nouns: “Unlike when it is used as a topic marker, it has to appear after each conjunct. The approximate translation of this type of conjoining is ‘both … and …’.” 27   -Kí is not found with negative predicates in the oldest specimen of Agaw, in the Agaw Damot of Bruce (1805: vol. 8 pl. III), e.g. col. 2.1 kantiyan ‘do not look!’ (also quoted in Hetzron 1969b: 73 n. 1). See also col. 2.2 and 2.3 for negative predicates. 28  Hetzron (1972: 96, 96) claims that *-ma is also used with negation in Kistane, Dobbi, Muher, Zway, Silte, Wolane, Mäsqan, and Central Western Gurage. However, *qvtvla-ma (säbbärä-m#), i.e. the original present perfect, has taken over the expression of past in general in Muher, Central Western Gurage and Peripheral Western Gurage (Hetzron 1972: 113). In other words, while focalizing -m (corresponding to ‘topicalizing -ma’ in Akkadian)

348

Chapter 12

that the diffusion is due to contact-induced grammaticalization by polysemy copying, in the sense of Heine and Kuteva (2003),29 as suggested by Lucas (2009: 286–287). In this case, speakers of Tigrinya, for example, identified their coordinator -ni with the coordinator -mm in Amharic, and subsequently extended the use of -ni in a fashion similar to -mm in Amharic. The advantage of explaining this grammaticalization as contact-induced is that it is more economical to posit this in only one language, which then subsequently diffused to the neighboring ones. For example, the fact that at least in Tigrinya, -ni is not a productive part of indefinite pronouns, which Amharic -mm is, suggests that its grammaticalization with negative predicates is a calque on the additive function of Amharic -mm.30 The fact that the other Ethiosemitic languages also make use of *-ma as a contrastive focus marker, but not in standard negation, suggests that it is only the grammaticalization with standard negation that is a calque, not the collocation of focus particles with negation to express emphatic negation itself. Enclitic -m in Western Gurage, for example, has functions similar to -mm in Amharic (Hetzron 1970a: 573–581, 1977: 128–130; Chamora and Hetzron 2000: 60–62), but has nevertheless not grammaticalized with negative predicates. This suggests that the grammaticalization is an areal feature, restricted to Amharic, Argobba, Harari, Gafat, Tigrinya and Southern Tigre, and Dahalik.31 grammaticalized with negation in some languages, sequential -m (corresponding to ‘sequential -ma’ in Akkadian) grammaticalized with affirmative qvtvla in Western Gurage. In Kistane and Dobbi, main qvtvla is followed by the Main Verb Marker, qvtvla+u > qvtvl-o, and in Zway by the declarative marker -u, see section 1.3.7. In Silte, Wolane, and Mäsqan, negation expressed is without any enclitic. 29  Cf. Heine and Kuteva (2003: 555): “Speakers of the replica language, rather than replicating the process, appear to have used a shortcut by simply copying the initial and final stages of the process.” 30  In fact, indefinite pronouns are formed with -m in Tigrinya, e.g. mann-əm ‘anybody’ (DTGT §83). 31  It can be gathered from Leslau (1951) and Gutt (1988), for example, that -m in Silte occurs in contexts similar to -mm in Amharic. It is used in collocation with scale reversal items, e.g. Leslau (1951: 218) addä-m al-anžehä ‘did you not see anyone?’ anne wåqtä add-əm säb an-närä ‘at this time none was present,’ mənä-m bətlə əläu̬ säma ‘whatever you say I will not listen to’ or ‘I will not listen to anything you say,’ and Wagner (1983b no. 7) addä̆-m-gĭn tāi̯ḳā́ba ‘without turning around even once.’ However, -m is also used in negated subordinated clauses, e.g. Leslau (1951: 218) mogot-ä-kä t-a-ykäfl-əm hedä ‘he went without paying his debt’. See also Meyer (2006: 201–206) for -m in Wolane: it is used to mark concessive conditional clauses and emphatic coordination, as well as for contrastive focus, much like Amharic -mm.

Amharic And Harari

349

To be sure, the combination of an emphatic coordinator with negation is not an exclusive property of these languages. The collocation of the (emphatic) coordinator with the negator for the formation of negative scalar polarity items is known from Ge’ez, e.g. Jud 4:16 wa-ʔi-tarafa wa-ʔi-ʔaḥadu ‘and there was not even one left’ (apud EG §197a). Notably, in Dillmann’s view (EG §168.1), Ge’ez wa- “corresponds frequently to our stronger ‘also” ’ rather than ‘and.’32 Indeed, the presence of a focus particle in a negated clause is a common means to express emphatic negation, and is also observed in Tigre, e.g. ʔi-nəṣennəy-oma ‘may we not even sniff at it?’ as well as Mari Akkadian, e.g. LAPO 16 p. 167 n. 98 ištēn awīl-am ulā̆-mi nitabbal-šunūti ‘we have not even taken away one man from them’ (cf. also line 10) and Epistolary Old Babylonian, e.g. AbB 1 27:8 amtam ulā̆-mi anaddinakkunūši[m] ‘I will not buy a female slave for you at all.’ 12.4

Negative Asymmetries

Renewal in the expression of grammatical categories like tense, aspect, and mood, typically start out in affirmative clauses and leave negative clauses unaffected. This development results in negative asymmetries, which will be discussed below. 12.4.1 Negative Asymmetries in the Prefix Conjugation The replacement of yvqatvl by compound yvqatvl-al is one of the major differences in the verbal system between Old Amharic and Modern Amharic. The development is perhaps traceable already in the Royal Songs, where the compound yvqatvl is nevertheless extremely rare (Wagner 1999: 165).33 From the end of the 16th century to the 18th century, yvqatvl-al is the standard exponent of the imperfective, although yvqatvl still occurs occasionally (Wagner 1999: 165–166; Bulakh and Kogan 2013: 605–606). With the introduction of yvqatvlal, the simple yvqatvl was ousted from affirmative main clauses to negative 32  Which, to be fair, is “auch” in the German original. A similar observation is made by Eksell (1999: 94) on Akkadian: “(Akkadian and Ge’ez Ethiopic) w- disjunctive (‘auch’) is declared in the grammars to be more ordinary than the simple conjunctive w-.” It is not clear why Eksell calls w- disjunctive at this point. However, the grammaticalization of an emphatic coordinator with negation is attested in Akkadian ul < *wa-lā ‘not even,’ and Arabic wa-lā, cf. Brustad (2000: 306–312). 33  There are two attestations (Bulakh and Kogan 2013: 605 n. 6). Wagner (1999: 165 n. 33) suggests the possibility that yvqatvl-al stems from scribal hypercorrections, since one of the examples has a variant reading.

350

Chapter 12

main clauses and subordinate clauses. In Piq, for example, yvqatvl-al is most frequent (but the simple yvqatvl also occurs, Cowley 1983: 25). However, as in Modern Amharic, negative non-past predications are negative yvqatvl:34 (301) Piq 86+87 käbtum yah̬ alfall ʔa-yəkkättäl-əmm yaläḳərena ʔa-ywäsdəmm Wealth will pass, it will not follow, without any remainder, one will not take (it) away. The preservation of yvqatvl in negative main clauses is a case of archaism under negation. While yvqatvl was renewed in the affirmative as yvqatvl-al (yah̬ alfall in the example above), it remained simple in the negative as ʔal-yvqatvl (ʔayəkkättäl-əmm in the example above). The reason is that non-negative situations need not be renewed for reasons of informativeness, since the situation still does not pertain (cf. p. 326). There is thus a formal asymmetry between the affirmative and negative exponent of the imperfective in Amharic. The affirmative exponent is a compound of yvqatvl and *hallawa, while the negative exponent is the negated non-compounded yvqatvl. In Harari, the negative exponent is symmetric to the affirmative one in the sense that both make use of a compound of yvqtvl and *hal(l)awa. However, the exponent of the imperfective in negative subordinate clauses is based on yvqtvl, while its affirmative counterpart is based on yvqatvl, cf. Table 3, p. 351. The asymmetry between affirmation and negation is also true for other compounds and periphrastic verb forms. The innovative syntagm yvqatvl näbbärä, a combination of yvqatvl and the locative verb *nbr ‘to sit,’ expresses habitual action in the past. In the following example, its negative counterpart is ʔal-yvqatvl: (302) Piq 15 lä-ʕaläm təššälläm təkw əḥal näbäräčä ḥandolät s-at-təššälläm ʔat-təwʕəl-əmm She was always adorned and painted her eyes, she would not spend a single day without being adorned. Here too, the simple yvqatvl is preserved in the negative, while in the affirmative, the expression was renewed by the analytic construction yvqatvl näbbärä.

34  See also Piq 4, 45, 141, and 153.

351

Amharic And Harari Table 3

Verbal negation in Amharic, Modern Harari, and Argobbaa Amharic

Main affirmative past Main negative past

M. Harari

qättälä qätäla al-qättälä-mm al-qätälä-m/ al-qätäla-m Main affirmative non-past yəqätl-all yiqätl-āl Main negative non-past a-yqätl-əmm yiqätl-um-ēl Subord. negative non-past -a-yqätəl -a-yqitäl

Argobba of Aliyu Amba

Argobba of Tollaha

qättäla qättäl al-qättäla-w al-qətäla-m yəqätl-äl a-yqätl-u -a-yqätəl

qätl-äll i-qätl-əm -a-yqätəl

a See Leslau (RGA §§54.1, 54.4, 55.2, 55.4, 56) for Amharic, Leslau (LV §§5, 6, 12, 19, 20) for Harari, Leslau (1997 §§45, 47, 49–50) for Argobba of Aliyu Amba and Wetter (2010: 399–400, 406–407) for Argobba of Tollaha.

In conclusion it may be noted that negated clauses sometimes preserve grammatical structures that have become obsolete in affirmative clauses. The reason is that the information expressed by the analytic construction is not necessarily made when the clause is negated. Since negative situations are mentioned when the affirmative counterpart is presupposed, certain aspects may already be known to the addressee and hence there is less need to specify them. 12.4.2 Negative Asymmetries in the Suffix Conjugation As can be seen in Table 3, R2 in the suffix conjugation of Type A, corresponding to Proto-Semitic qvtvla G, is geminated in Amharic but not in Harari. The gemination of R2 in affirmative qvtvla of Type A is a principle innovation in South Ethiosemitic that is missing from Harari and Eastern Gurage. Bulakh and Kogan (2010) posit two possible explanations: Harari and Eastern Gurage either did not participate in the innovation, or at one point underwent the innovation, but gave it up in the course of their history. Indeed, Harari and Eastern Gurage are known to give up gemination in all verb types, including Type B (corresponding to the Common Semitic D-stem) where the original presence of gemination is not in doubt. If the latter scenario is considered, viz. that Harari and Eastern Gurage took part in the innovation but subsequently gave up gemination, it is still possible that the innovation only affected affirmative qvtvla Type A. In other words, R2 of negated qvtvla Type A was never geminated. This scenario is argued for Kistane (and Northern Gurage, see section 13.4). The explanatory power of this

352

Chapter 12

scenario comes from the fact that it also accounts for the distribution of gemination and non-gemination of R2 in two dialects of Argobba (Table 3, p. 351), the language closest to Amharic.35 In Argobba of Aliyu Amba, as in Amharic, both affirmative and negative qvtvla attest to gemination of R2 in Type A. In Argobba of Tollaha, however, gemination is absent in the negative but present in the affirmative. At the same time, the base of negated qvtvla is similar to that of yvqtvl (yiqtäl) in that both lack a vowel after R1 (Wetter 2006; 2010: 74 n. 20).36 On the other hand, on the assumption that gemination of R2 as an innovation common to Proto-South Ethiosemitic only affected non-negated qvtvla, the appearance of gemination in negative al-qättäla-w in Argobba of Aliyu Amba (and negative al-qättälä-mm and Amharic) can be explained as the result of paradigm pressure from affirmative qättäla. In Argobba of Tollaha, however, gemination never spread from qättäl to al-qətäla-m.

35  For negation of verbal predicates in Argobba, see Table 3. While standard negation in Argobba of Shonke and Tollaha is a(l)- … -m, e.g. al-awida-m ‘he did not pay,’ a-yawd-əm ‘he does/will not pay’ (Wetter 2010: 406, 40), standard negation in Argobba of Aliyu Amba is a(l)- … -u/-w/-m, with -u after a consonant and -w after a vowel in the suffix conjugation (Leslau 1997 §47.1, 49.2). -M is used in the 2nd and 3rd person plural of yvqatvl, e.g. a-yqätlu-m, at-təqätlu-m vs. 3rd msg and 2nd msg a-yqätl-u, a-tqätl-u. The comparison between Argobba of Shonke and Tollaha, and the form of the suffix in the 2nd and 3rd person plural yvqatvl in Argobba of Aliyu Amba, suggest that enclitic -u/-w < *-m, perhaps through an intermediate rounded mw or nasalized w̃ ; cf. Argobba worfa ~ Amharic märfe ‘needle’ (*rf ʔ) and intervocalic m > w in Akkadian. Negation of main clause predicates is al- … -m already in the earliest evidence of Argobba too (Cohen 1939: 415), e.g. Cohen (1939: 401) al-haragu-m ‘I did not slaughter,’ with data from the questionnaire used by Madame de Monfreid in 1929–1930. There are no negators in the vocabularies published by Lefebvre (1845: 405–409) and Seetzen (1816: 301–305), cf. the examples in Cohen (1931: 364–375), and see Leslau (1949b) for an investigation of these vocabularies. Cohen (1939: 401–402) correctly assumed al-wodu ‘I do not want’ to be yvqatvl, but remained agnostic about -u, which is of course enclitic *-ma. As in Amharic, the negative counterpart to compound yvqatvl is simple yvqatvl. 36  For the consonantal ending of affirmative qvtvla in Argobba of Tollaha, Zelealem and Siebert (1994: 20), with reference to Argobba of Shonke, suggest an underlying zero-morpheme (“the Argobba empty morpheme [zero] stands for the masculine”), thus qättäl-Ø. Wetter (2006: 908 n. 2), quoting personal communication with Meyer, suggests that the lack of a vowel may be due to Oromo influence. This form is known as the “abbreviated perfect” in Leslau (1997 §139.6.1) and is compared to colloquial Arabic (1997: p. 134 n. 1). Leslau (1999 §69.1), however, is hesitant to the possibility of contact-induced change, since it also occurs in Zway.

Amharic And Harari

353

Therefore, the origin of non-geminated R2 and the vowellessness after R1 of al-qətäla-m is likely to be found in the historical background of negated qvtvla Type A. The formal similarity of the base of negative al-qətäla-m to the base of yvqtvl is in other words coincidental.37 There is, in conclusion, an asymmetry between negative and affirmative qvtvla. If the introduction of gemination in Type A at some point was more informative than non-gemination, the preservation of the short R2 in negative forms may be similar to the ‘switch’ from the D-stem in the affirmative to the G-stem in the negative as sometimes in Hebrew, e.g. Gen 15:10 wa-yḇatter […] lō ḇå̄tå̄r ‘he cut in half […] he did not cut (in half)’ (Jenni 1968: 95–101). In other words, the contribution of gemination was not relevant for non-events. 12.5

Non-standard Negation in Amharic and Harari

Enclitic -mm/-m is not used with negated yvqtvl in Amharic (AS §324a) or Harari, e.g. Piq 122 ʔa-yamləṭəx ‘let it not escape you!’ and HTAS B307 zi-läbäsa allāh a-imiräṭa ‘may God, who clothed us, not strip us!’38 The expression of the prohibition is in other words the Common Semitic ʔal-yvqtvl. However, -m may occur elsewhere in the clause, e.g. ESS 1 116.3 allā-m a-yläyäna ‘as to God, may he not separate us!’ At this point, -m serves to topicalize the subject. Subordinated clauses marked by a modifier are also negated without -mm in Amharic (but see 307), e.g. conditional Tar 34b3 (cf. n. 43 on p. 354) k-almäṭṭa-bbät ‘if it has not come to him’ and Piq 160 b-a-yläwwäṭ ‘in case it does not change.’39 In Ancient Harari, ʔal-yvqatvl is still the standard exponent of 37  Likewise, Voigt (2006b: 245–246) is highly skeptical to accept Meyer’s (2006: 194) connection of the verbal grammatical morpheme of Zway ʔal-qətäl-o to Common Semitic (narrative) yvqtvl considering the fact that the verbal grammatical morpheme of Zway ʔal-qətäl-o is marked by PNG-suffixes, while yvqtvl is marked by PNG-prefixes (and suffixes): “Ich halte diesen Unterschied für kaum überwindbar.” 38  For examples of negated yvqtvl in the corpus of Old Amharic, see Tar 37a2–3, Tar 53a8 and Piq 38, 69, and K 5.19 (reading ʔal-ə- with Littmann 1947: 485). For negated yvqtvl in Ancient Harari, see also HTAS A31/19/20/24, B9, 10, 49/49, 110, 120, 146, 256, 271, 281, 282, 287, 340, 413, 463, 464, 475, C2, and D12. 39  Negative yvqatvl with sə- denotes posteriority to the situation of the main clause, i.e. ‘before,’ e.g. Tar 52b9 s-al-mot ‘before I die,’ see also Tar 35a8 and 35b3 and cf. AS §356b. Likewise, the temporal connective (i)s- in Harari (EDH 33; CL §116, 156p; HTAS p. 60) with negative yvqatvl means ‘before,’ in which case it denotes posteriority to the matrix clause, e.g. HTAS B120 näbo is-ä-ilu ḳalbi ayanḳiḥa ‘before they say “O Prophet,” may he (the Prophet) not let the heart awaken’ and HTAS B63 näläh̬ näbo is-än-mota ‘before we

354

Chapter 12

the negative imperfective in subordinated clauses, i.e. the use of yvqtvl as in Modern Harari has not yet diffused.40 As expected, it shows no trace of clitic -m, which is also true for subordinate qvtvla.41 In Modern Harari, negative antecedents are also negated without clitic -m, e.g. ESS 1 106.2 amān ḥangūr al-xāna gir yilāyo-ma muṭṭi-zo yārdoḥol ‘if it is not a good meal, it is put to the side.’ As a matter of fact, with focussing -m, which cliticizes to gir ‘if, when,’ the antecedent is concessive, e.g. ESS 1 151.10 wåldi māwläd al-xašu gir-um afēt-ziyuw amān tāgir mātqēra yitfärākäyumēl ‘even if they do not like children, so long as they are healthy, it cannot be avoided.’42 This fact indicates the scalar contribution function of -m, similar to šumma ul in Mari Akkadian (cf. p. 83). The preservation of the negative expression with ʔal- and without -mm in subordinated clauses indicates that subordinated clauses are less susceptible to grammaticalization than main clauses, which is implied also by the preservation of the simple yvqatvl in subordinated clauses, while yvqatvl in main clauses is renewed.43 Furthermore, on the assumption that -mm was used in origin to lend additive scalar focus to the negated clause, its absence from subordinated clauses can be explained from the fact that they typically lack assertive force.44 die, let us say “O Prophet!” ’ (see also HTAS B12, 229, and D3 for the sense of ‘before’). It is also used in the sense of ‘when not,’ see HTAS B222, B223, B404, and 410. The same is true for im-, m-, e.g. HTAS B315 a-ih̬ un dīn bustān imäih̬ un rubʕa ‘religion is not a garden, before it is pure,’ see also HTAS A31 and B12, with a negative matrix clause, HTAS A16, B334, B467, D3 with an affirmative matrix clause, and B36, 43, 316 in the sense of ‘when not.’ 40  Cf. Cohen (1936: 389). But there are perhaps traces of the development towards negative yvqtvl in subordination already in Ancient Harari, cf. HTAS B63 and 404. 41  See HTAS B219, 261, F24 for subordinate negative qvtvla. See HTAS B374 for k- with subordinate negative yvqatvl, and HTAS A31, B27, 43, 61, 87, 108, 137, D7, 11, and 28 for negative relative yvqatvl. 42  On gir, see HS §178. On gir-um, see HS §§205–206. 43  It may be pointed out that with -ənna, which often has a subordinating function, but may be equivalent to a copula or demonstrative (Cowley 1983: 30–31), the negative predicative is marked by -mm in Tar 34b3 yan gize säw mäkära k-al-mäṭṭa-bbät fäṭariwən ʔa-yawḳəmm-ənna ‘and at that time, (since) people, if misfortune has not come to them, do not recognize their creator.’ 44  In fact, Hetzron (1973: 8) has made a similar note: “The true scope of negation, asserting that in the circumstances ‘it is not so’, appears in main predications only. In subordination it is secondary, often already established in the preceding context. Thus, the discrimination between main and subordinate negation is not illogical.”

Amharic And Harari

355

In general, -mm is omitted in contexts in the corpus of Amharic where it may also be omitted in Modern Amharic.45 It is usually absent in asyndetic coordination (AS §324c; RGA §55.2.3), for example:46 (303) K 4.18–19 yəbälo ʔal-ṣaffäṭäw ʔəxəl / yəṭäṭṭa ʔal-ṣaf ( f )äṭäw ḳəməbər He eats, he did not like the food. / He drinks, he did not like the beer. As a coordinator, -mm coordinates noun phrases in emphatic coordination. According to Girma Demeke and Meyer (2008: 617–618), the difference between the connectives -mm and -nn is that in a clause gäbs-ənna mašəlla zärra ‘he sowed barley and maize,’ the two constituents (maize and barley) are considered as a single set, without specific focus on either, whereas in a clause gäbs-əmm mašəlla-mm zärra ‘he sowed barley and also maize,’ the two constituents belong to different sets and are considered against each other with selective focus.47 If -mm ‘too, also’ is added to two negative predicates in coordination, the meaning would be ‘neither,’ i.e. the negative counterpart of ‘too,’ which forms negative emphatic coordination. In emphatic coordination, the coordinands are contrasting in some way, so that one of the coordinands is not expected to co-occur with the other. When two negative predicates are in negative emphatic coordination, both have -mm:

45  While -mm in a negative interrogative clause may or may not be omitted in Modern Amharic (AS §342b; RGA §54.4.4), it is used for interrogative clauses in the corpus, see Piq 6 and Tar 35a4.4. The omission of -m in interrogative clauses is also attested in Gafat (EDCG §64b), cf. the discussion under example (309). It may be pointed out that the existential negator ʔellä occurs in a question with interrogative -ən (cf. Cowley 1983: 22) and without -mm: Piq 138 yərarrah̬ ʔellä-n ‘is he not one who is merciful?’ (it is worth noting that it follows rather than precedes a relative predicative). See also Piq 62 for ʔellä without -mm. The omission of -mm is slightly more common for yällä-mm according to Praetorius (AS 324§c). -mm may also be omitted in direct speech (RGA §55.2.3). This is the case in Piq 151 h̬ onä ʔan-nəʔawḳ ‘(much like this happened to people who said:) “We do not know”.’ 46  See also K 2.9–10. Leslau notes that -mm is “omitted in proverbs, especially when they consist of two hemistichs”. Cf. also Mittwoch (1907: 198): “… [F]inden wir in Sprichwörtern, Rätseln, Liedern usw. häufig für die negative Aussage das einfache Imperfektum ohne -mm.” 47  For -mm as a coordinator on the discourse-level, see Kapeliuk (1978) and Gasser (1985).

356

Chapter 12

(304) Piq 30+30 kä-ʔərgänana kä-kəf ʔat ʔay-yadh̬ ən-əmm wä-fädfadunäm kä-mot ʔay-yamälṭu-mm (If they gave away the wealth,) it would neither save from old age and from evil, nor, in particular, would they escape death. In the example, the special status of the second coordinand is also indicated by wäfädfadunäm ‘in particular.’ In Modern Amharic, -mm may be added twice in negative emphatic coordination, e.g. a-yzäfn-əmm-əmm a-ydännəs-əmməmm ‘he neither sings nor dances’ (RGA §55.2.3). The fact that -mm is repeated for emphatic negative coordination, suggests that -mm of negative predicates was not interpreted as denoting negative emphatic coordination. In Modern Harari there there is also an example where -m is absent from a negated predicate that is asyndetically coordinated with its antonym in ESS 1 151.9 xašo al-xašo wåldī-m ziḥtäñ wåḥri-be yidīǧal ‘(whether) one liked it (or) not liked it, as to the child, it will arrive after nine months.’ Occasionally, -mm is cliticized to the content of negative *bhl, rather than to the speech verb itself, e.g. Piq 10 ḳoyyi-mm ʔal-aläwat ‘he did not say to her: “Wait!”.’ This is also the case in the Harari composite verb construction with bāya ‘say,’ when -m cliticizes either to the ideophone or to the speech verb (see also example 298b), e.g. LV §6b zala abbama gārzo zäsēma täs-um al-āyeu ‘the owner who sold his house is not pleased.’ At this point, -m cliticizes to täs, i.e. lit. ‘he did not say pleased-m,’ from the compound täs bāya ‘be pleased.’ 12.5.1 Negated Relative Clauses Negated relative clauses deserve special mention, because in Old Amharic, asyndetic negative relative clauses are frequent whereas their affirmative counterparts are not. Furthermore, while -mm/-m as a rule does not occur in negated relative clauses in Amharic and Harari, there are exceptions which are indicative of the relation of -mm in the discontinuous negative construction to the scalar additive focus particle -mm/-m. The following section offers an investigation into negated relative clauses in Old Amharic and Ancient Harari. When the predicate of a relative clause is yvqatvl, the relative marker is yämm- or əmm- in Modern Amharic, in contrast to the relative marker of qvtvla which is yä- (RGA §33.2).48 yämm- is likely a compound of yä- and 48  Hetzron (1973: 10) suggested that əmm- attests to the loss of yä-, so that yämm- would be the older form. But it seems more likely that yä- was added to əmm- in analogy to relative yä-qvtvla at a point when əmm-iqatvl was already grammaticalized. The nonoccurrence of -mm- with relative qvtvla, in turn, was explained by Hetzron (1973: 9) as due to the fact that situations in the past are more likely to be known, whereas situations in the

Amharic And Harari

357

-mm,49 and it is worth pointing out that the cliticization of -mm to yä- occurred with affirmative predicates before negative predicates.50 This is again indicative of the conservative nature of negated clauses. In the corpus, all syndetic relative clauses with negated yvqatvl are introduced by yä-, not yämm-, for example:51 (305) Piq 13 yä-ṣäggawa nägär bəzuh y-a-yəggwäddäl Her riches are abundant, such that would not be lacking.52

non-past need to be more clearly stated. Hetzron (1973: 9) also added a phonetic explanation, namely that yä- was too weak before the prefixes of the prefix-conjugation so that -mm- became fixed after yä-. Hudson (1983), in turn, suggested that -mm- nominalized yvqatvl and was therefore not necessarily used with qvtvla due the latter’s nominal origin. But the fact that -mm- does not cliticize to relative yä-qvtvla is due to the fact that relative qvtvla was already marked as relative by yä-. 49  Regarding the use of -mm- with relative yvqatvl, Girma Demeke and Meyer (2008: 625) and Gasser (1985: 62 n. 1) do not identify it with the focus particle -mm for structural reasons: with relative predicates, mm- is proclitic rather than enclitic and it is restricted to verb forms. However, the formation of relative clauses with mm- can be explained as a result of a leveling of information structure (in the sense of Lehmann 2008) denoted by -mm, which brought about a transfer of -mm from the head to the predicate in a form of sandhi, given that in Old Amharic, unlike Modern Amharic, relative clauses still may follow their head rather than precede them. It may be that focalizing -mm was originally restricted to relative yvqatvl when its head was referential, designating a constituent that was part of the presupposed knowledge shared by the speaker and the addressee. For example, in Piq 36–37 kä-zziya ʔəsat y-äsäddäduš gize ʔəsatu-mm y-a-ybärd ʔənč̣ätu-mm ʔay-h̬ älḳ ‘when they exile you to that fire, the fire which does not cool, nor is the wood exhausted,’ the referential status of ʔəsatu-mm is marked by the definite article -u. The focus particle -mm prepares it as the topic of relative y-a-ybärd while at the same time focalizing it. Hetzron (1973: 9) also suggested that -mm- of the relative construction was originally a topicalizing particle restricted to restrictive relative clauses. But the assumption that -mm is topicalizing is only an inference, due to its position in the clause (Kapeliuk 1978 and Girma Demeke and Meyer 2008). 50  As noted by Hetzron (1973), Praetorius’ (AS §93a) examples of relative yvqatvl without -mm- are all negated: y-a-yəttawwäq “welcher nicht gekannt wird,” y-a-yfär “welcher sich nicht fürchtet,” and y-a-yəssäffär “qui non mensuratur.” Getatchew Haile (1970: 79–80) similarly found y-a-yəggäzza ‘that does not obey,’ whereas the relative marker of affirmative relative yvqatvl has -mm- (as in Praetorius). Also in EMML 1943, an Old Amharic manuscript dated to the late 16th century (Getatchew Haile 1979), -mm- is missing from the negative relative yvqatvl, e.g. c 2.12 and c 2.16. 51  See also Piq 37, 86–87, 116, 118, 132, 146; K 5.24, 5.25, 5.26, 10.46, and 10.47. 52  Also quoted in Goldenberg (1977: 488).

358

Chapter 12

Affirmative relative clauses, on the other hand, have yämm- or əmm-, e.g. Piq 39 ṭərs yämmi-yanḳäṭäḳḳəṭ which makes teeth tremble.’ Old Amharic also made use of asyndetic relative clauses (Polotsky 1949: 37 n. 8; Goldenberg 1977: 487–489; Girma Demeke 2014: 200–202), which only occurs vestigially in Modern Amharic.53 In the affirmative, two forms are found to be asyndetic relative clauses in the corpus, yəlhəḳ (cf. Modern Amharic yələḳ ‘to be more’) and yäʔaxəl (cf. Modern Amharic adjective yahəl ‘like’), which probably were fossilized already at the time of composition (Cowley 1983: 23). In the negative, however, asyndetic relative clauses are productive, for example:54 (306) Piq 11 näbbäräčä ḥand set ṣ́ənuʕ mälkəʕam ḥand ʔay-yəggw addäläwwat There was a woman, determined, comely, from whom nothing was lacking. That such clauses are intended as relative clauses is supported by the fact that in another manuscript, the same forms have the marker yä- (Cowley 1983: 23). It is also supported by the fact that they are negated without -mm. There is also a negative relative clause with predicative qvtvla with -mm: (307) Piq 118–119 y-al-šäš-əmm ʔa-yamälṭəš Anyone who does not flee will not escape you. Such relative predicates behave like free-choice quantifiers, and also occur in the affirmative, e.g. Piq 83 yä-täṭäbbäbä-mm yamälṭ təl ‘you say: “Whosoever is wise will escape”.’ -mm in this function is similar to -ni with relative predicates in Tigrinya (e.g. 289 above). Such free-choice quantifiers typically occur in free relative clauses. In Ancient Harari too, enclitic -m occurs four times with relative negative qvtvla. In Modern Harari, the predicate of a relative clause is negated by alwithout -m. Therefore, Wagner (HTAS p. 73) treats -m of relative predicates as additive -m (“und, auch, sowohl, als auch”). Although additive -m is not expected on verbs, Wagner assumes that it was admissible since the verb in the relative clause is nominalized (“substantiviert”).55 Wagner’s reading may work for (308a), where three relative clauses are coordinated, but is less likely for

53   Yvqatvl is also used in asyndetic relative clauses in Gunnän-Gurage and Gafat and likely belongs to Proto-Ethiosemitic (Goldenberg 1977: 489). 54  See also Piq 37, 40, 42, 43, 43, and 64+64+64. 55  Cf. CL §114 for -m (suffixed to a noun or pronoun) and §117 for -mā (suffixed to verb). See Leslau (1965b: 158 and n. 17) for relative yvqatvl as a noun, which as such also takes -wā.

Amharic And Harari

359

(308b). The relative clauses rather lend themselves an interpretation as freechoice quantifiers: (308)

a. H TAS B50–52 z-äl-ḥaräsa-m yiraḥbata z-äl-fätäla-m yibärdata z-älamäna-m yimagdota iñña-m bi-näbina amännata56 Whosoever has not plowed, will hunger. Whosoever has not spun, will freeze. Whosoever has not believed, will be burnt. We, on the other hand, believe in our Prophet.



b. H TAS B159 ṣalli ʕalā näbi aḥmada ḏikri-zah̬ ah̬ u lilmäda bi-ṭäy mädda bi-ḳalam raʕda z-äl-lämäda-m ah̬ h̬a yälmäda Bless the Prophet Aḥmad! To think of him, I want to learn! Through black ink, through the sound of the feather, may, whosoever has not learnt, now learn.

Such relative clauses come close to free-choice quantifying ‘whosoever’ which constitutes an argument in the matrix clause. In fact, this occurs in Modern Harari as well, e.g. ESS 1 98.1 z-äl-täräfewu-m šilīngi-be zägäñew sussum ‘whosoever cannot spare, (will get) as much č̣āt in a bundle as can be found for a shilling.’57 Such a parsing is compatible with the assumption that -m is a scalar additive focus particle, given the fact that the expression of universal concessions often involve additive scalar focus. 12.6

Excursus: The Negated Imperfective in Wolane and Silte

The negated imperfective of main clauses in Wolane is characterized by a portmanteau prefix that indicates grammatical person, the non-past, and negation (Meyer 2006: 107, 109–110): ʔəll- in the 1st person, ʔətt- in the 2nd, and ʔəl- in the 3rd.58 Similar portmanteau prefixes are used for the negated imperfective in main clauses in Silte, cf. Table 4. It would seem at first glance that the forms involving the prefix əl- have preserved l of the negator *ʔal-. Hetzron (1972: 28), for example, suggests that in 56  The negator has independent stress in these verses, cf. Blois (1985). 57  See also ESS 1 44.13. 58  It is also noteworthy that the agreement marker of the first person ʔəll- further triggers the gemination of the initial root-consonant (in bi- and triconsonantal root-morphemes). In Silte, the 1st csg is əläw-, 1st cpl is əläw- or əlä- (əläww- before non-back vowels), cf. Gutt (1986: 35).

360

Chapter 12

Silte and Wolane, y- dropped in favor of l of the negator, and that a became ə. Leslau (EDCG §70; 1969b: 143), in turn, assumes that əl- is an abbreviation of *ʔal-. Yet, the preservation of l of the negator *ʔal- in 3rd person verb forms of the prefix conjugation would be unique in the Ethiosemitic languages. It will be argued below that these portmanteau prefixes actually involve the auxiliary *hlw. In affirmative compound yvqatvl of Wolane, the auxiliary of the compound comes, as it were, in two forms (Table 4). Uninflected -ān occurs in 3rd msg, 3rd cpl, and 1cpl, and inflected -ā-AgrS elsewhere (Meyer 2006: 96–97). For -ā- and -ān in Wolane and Silte, Hetzron (1972: 40) and Meyer (2006: 96) reconstruct *hlw, with deletion of -l- in every person except the third, which became -n- in Wolane and Silte. The sound change *l (or *ll) > n is not regular in Eastern Gurage, but occurred here and with the benefactive l-complement (Cohen 1931: 162).59 Table 4

3 msg 3 fsg 2 msg 2 fsg 1 csg 3 cpl 2 cpl 1 cpl

Negation of the imperfective in Wolane and Siltea Wolane non-past Affirmative

Negative

Silte non-past Negative

yəqätlān təqätlāt təqätlā təqätliyāš yəqätlāwx/yəqätlāw yəqätlwān təqätlwāhum yəqätlənān

ələqätəl əttəqätəl əttəqätəl əttəqätli əlləqqätəl ələqätlu əttəqätlu əlləqqätlənä

əläqätəl əttəqätəl əttəqätəl əttəqätəl/əttəqätli əläwqätəl əläqätlu əttəqätlu əläqätləna/əläwqätləna

a For Wolane, see Meyer (2006: 97, 110–111, 240–241); for Silte, see Wagner (1983b: 370) and Gutt (1997: 921–923), cf. also Hetzron (1996a). In Wolane negative yvqatvl, 2nd msg and 3rd fsg are identical, which is an archaic feature of Semitic languages. Note that Schlobies has əttədäbəl (attəqätəl) in 2nd fsg (Wagner 1983b), while Gutt has ittinakči (əttəqätli); cf. Argobba 2nd fsg atqätlu, which Leslau (1997 §49.2) explains as -i-u > -u.

59  It is also possible that *hlw is only used in 3rd msg, 3rd cpl and 1st cpl (cf. the distribution of -ān), while -ā is used elsewhere. Such a distribution would parallel the distribution of the auxiliary in the affirmative. For the complementary distribution of -ā and -äl in Zway, see Meyer (2005: 147–149).

Amharic And Harari

361

As a matter of fact, the portmanteau prefixes of negative yvqatvl are likely formed on a negated form of *hlw. It is unlikely that l of the prefix əl- only represents l of *ʔal-, considering the fact that 3rd person yvqtvl does not attest to it (cf. Wolane 3rd msg ay-qətäl < *ay-yəqtäl < *ʔal-yəqtäl). In fact, Wagner (1983b: 370) tentatively suggested that -äw- in Silte əläw-qätəl is “transported” from affirmative əqätl-aw (cf. Wolane yəqätlāwx, yəqätlāw): “Das seltsame -äw im Präfix ist vielleicht aus der Endung -aw (< *-allähw) des positiven zusammengesetzten Impf. transponiert worden.” The negative verb of existence in Silte and Wolane is (3 msg) ēlä (Gutt 1997: 933; Meyer 2006: 94–95), and a phonetically heavily eroded form of *ʔal-hal(l)awa is known from elsewhere in Ethiosemitic, cf. Tigrinya yällo-n, Amharic yällä-mm, and Harari ēla- m/m-iela. Likewise, the affirmative verb of existence, is 3 msg alä, 1 csg alawx (Meyer 2006: 95), while the etymologically related auxiliary, as already noted, is 3 msg -ān, 1 csg -āw. Therefore, l of the prefixes in əl- should be derived from an auxiliary formed on *ʔal- and *hlw.60 In other words, in the compound imperfective of Harari and Silte, it is the auxiliary that is negated, as in Harari yiqätl-um-ēl. However, it may be noted that in the negated form of the relative imperfective, the auxiliary is affirmative, e.g. Wolane ʔa-ysäbrey-ān gəz (or y-ā-ysäbrey-ān gəz) ‘the thing which he does not break,’ cf. affirmative yəsäbr-ān ‘he who breaks’ (Meyer 2006: 126; Gutt 1997: 929). Yet, the fact that in relative yvqatvl, both the affirmative and negative forms have the auxiliary, suggests that the auxiliary is present in negated yvqatvl of main clauses as well. It seems unlikely that the auxiliary was cliticized to relative negative yvqatvl only, without also being cliticized to negated yvqatvl in main clauses.

60  The compound of the negator with AgrS preceding the verbal lexeme may be a calque on Somali. In Somali, in the negative preterite and optative, modality and PNG are expressed by a compound of the negator + AgrS, e.g. ma-ʔaan kɛɛn-in “ich habe es nicht gebracht” and ma-ʔaad kɛɛn-in “du hast es nicht gebracht” vs. yaan-an kɛɛn-in “ich soll es nicht bringen”, yaad-an kɛɛn-in “du sollst es nicht bringen” (Lamberti 1988: 221, 229). Recourse to Somali, one of the adstrate languages of Northern Gurage, can also be used to explain the use of what appears to be yvqtvl as the negative counterpart to qvtvla in Zway, since the negative of the preterite and the optative share the same verbal form, which is an uninflected verbal lexeme + in.

Chapter 13

Gafat, Kistane, and Peripheral Western Gurage 13.1 Introduction Type A qvtvla in Kistane exists as it were in three variants (cf. Table 5): One variant is used in main clauses, has geminated R2, and is marked by the socalled Main Verb Marker *-u (qättäl-o), another is used in subordinated clauses (and wh-questions, cf. Goldenberg 1968: 92), has geminated R2 but no Main Verb Marker (qättälä), and a third is used in negated clauses and has neither a geminated R2 nor a Main Verb Marker (al-qätälä).1 In Modern Gafat, R2 of negated qvtvla Type A is geminated like non-negative qvtvla, but is distinguished from it in main clauses, besides by means of the negator, also by enclitic -m, as in Amharic and Harari. Hetzron (1972: 96) assumes that at some point in the history of Kistane, negated qvtvla in main and subordinate clauses was also distinguished by means of clitic -m, which by phonetic erosion subsequently has disappeared. This chapter includes an investigation into the distribution of -m in Gafat and an evaluation of its grammaticalization, and provides an account for the use of negative al-qätälä over affirmative qättäl-o/qättälä, as well as other negative asymmetries, in Kistane. While both yvqatvl and qvtvla in affirmative main clauses in Kistane are marked by the Main Verb Marker *-u with allophones, this marker is only found with the verboids for ‘to be’ and ‘to have’ in Gafat.2 By virtue of the Main Verb Marker, independent predicates are distinguished from non-independent predicates in affirmative clauses in Kistane. The distinction between independent and non-independent predicates which are yvqatvl in negative clauses is in turn marked by the negator: *tə- in Kistane as well as Gafat only negates yvqatvl in main clauses, while predicates of subordinate predicates are negated by *ʔal-. There is thus a distinction between negative main and non-main predicates in the prefix conjugation. 1  Leslau (ESS 3 19) suggests that subordinate qvtvla is used in negative clauses, which is not quite to the point, since negated qvtvla does not attest to geminated R2 in Type A. 2  See Goldenberg (1968) for Kistane, and Hetzron (1977: 23, 88–92) for Main Verb Markers in general. For traces of Main Verb Markers elsewhere, see Hetzron (1968: 169–171). The fact that only Muher yvqatvl is marked by Main Verb Markers in wh-questions suggests, according to Leslau (1977: 127), that “they are older companions of the former than of the latter.”

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_014

363

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage Table 5

Verbal negation in Mäsqan, Modern Gafat, Kistane, and Inor a

Main affirmative past Main negative past Relative affirmative past Relative negative past Main affirmative non-past Main negative non-past Relative affirmative non-past Relative negative non-past

Mäsqan

M. Gafat

Kistane

Inor

qättälä an-qätälä yä-qättälä y-an-qätälä yəqätəl e-qätəl yəqätəl e-qätəl

qättälä al-qättäla-m yä-qättälä y-al-qättälä yəqätəl t-iqätl-am yəqätəl a-yqätəl

qättäl-o al-qätälä yä-qättälä y-al-qätälä yəqätl-u t-iqätl yəqätl a-yqätl

qätälä an-qätälä-da ä-qätälä an-qätälä yəqätl a-yqätəl-ka yəqätəl-ka a-yqätl

a See Leslau (ESS 3 18; ESS 5 16–17; 1952b: 74; 1996; 2004: 1–10), Goldenberg (1968), Chamora and Hetzron (2000: 21, 46–48), and Hetzron (1972: 68).

This chapter also includes an assessment of the historical background of the negator of main clause yvqatvl in Gafat and Kistane. The last sections of this chapter accounts for the historical background of standard negation in Peripheral Western Gurage, which is characterized by a discontinuous negative construction involving a suffix KTD, cf. Inor in Table 5. It is argued that this suffix should be identified with former definite markers. 13.2

The Preverbal Negator in Gafat and Kistane

As to the negator of subordinate yvqatvl, Hudson (2003: 216) assumed that since the PNG-prefix t of Gafat is short (atəqätəl), *ʔal- can hardly be reconstructed as its negator, since it would have resulted in assimilation and gemination (cf. Table 6). However, short t in Gafat atəqätəl (as well as negated yvqtvl) is likely secondary and the result of degemination. In fact, in the paradigm of sälla ‘come’ given by Leslau (EDCG §85b), 2nd msg negative subordinate yvqatvl is attəsälä with geminated t. For negative verbs in the 2nd person quoted in context in Leslau (EDCG), gemination is not uncommon, e.g. §102aɣ attəslä ‘do not come!’ (vs. atəslä, §85b); attəsawwä ‘do not play!’; attəgäzä ‘(before) you buy’; attəṭärəgwi ‘(before) you sweep’ (also quoted in §31b); attəbälä ‘(before) you prepare’; §98g attəhur ‘do not go!’ (perhaps from *tähorä and not ahorä); §23k/31b attəbälä ‘(before) you eat,’ but forms without gemination also occur, e.g. EDCG §72b atəgläǧ “ne te ceins pas!” and atəftäy “ne meurs pas!”

364

Chapter 13

Therefore, in the case of the negative subordinate yvqatvl in Gafat, as well as negative yvqtvl, nothing prevents a reconstruction of the negator *ʔal- with assimilation of l. The gemination in Kistane attəqätl also implies this.3 Before yə-, l was presumably palatalized and deleted. The negator of main clause yvqatvl involves t- already in the earliest documents of Kistane and Gafat.4 The negator separates these languages from the other Ethiosemitic ones. Rundgren (1955: 285–289) and Leslau assumed that the negator is a compound of a morpheme t(v) and negative *ʔal-.5 The gemination of the PNG prefixes t- and n- would imply the assimilation of l, e.g. Gafat 2nd msg təttəfärkam < *təl-təfär(ə)k-, and in forms with the PNG-prefix y-, l would have been assimilated or palatalized, e.g. Gafat 3rd msg tifärkam < *təyəfär(ə)k- < *təl-yəfär(ə)k-. The contraction of təyə- to ti- is trivial, and attested for yvqatvl marked by the conjunction tv-, e.g. Kistane t-ibäla ‘while he eats’ (affirmative subordinated yəbäla).6 As it turns out, certain negated verbal forms in Gafat coincide with temporal yvqatvl marked by the conjunction tv-, were it not for enclitic -m, e.g. 3  Assimilation of l in Kistane is not regular, but occurs with verbs of frequent use, e.g. bakkäm for balkäm ‘you said’ (balä) and šakkäm for šalkäm ‘you knew’ (šalä), cf. Leslau (EDCG §16d). This is also the case in Gafat. 4  When Cohen (1931: 214) gives the Kistane counterpart to French ne … pas as al-, it is not clear whether he refers to the prefix or the suffix conjugation. Cohen’s (1931) description of Kistane (“Aymallal”) is based on the material published up to that point. The oldest documents in Kistane are found in Mayer (1878), where Kistane is known as “Gurage.” Mayer includes vocabularies (pp. 8–19), a few grammatical forms (pp. 20–26), and Matthew 2 (pp. 27–28). Praetorius (AS pp. 506–523) description of Kistane (“Gurague”) is based in Mayer’s material as well as a translation of John 2, which he had acquired from Peterman, which he also published (pp. 507–508). Praetorius’ (AS p. 521) examples of ʔal- negating the prefix conjugations are subordinate (Matthew 2:12, 22) or prohibitive (John 2:16). For John 2:24, see n. 37 on p. 375. 5  Leslau (1944: 60; GDR §75b) suggests that t- of tə(l)- in Gafat is a phonetic augment that was needed to strengthen the negator a- < *ʔal-, which, through the loss of ʔ and l, had become a mere vowel neither preceded nor followed by a consonant (except in 1st csg): “This element was no longer felt as an element of negation and hence the prefix t.” However, elsewhere in the Semitic languages, the negative expression in main clauses is typically renewed by means of the reanalysis of a variant, more informative, negative expression, and not prompted by phonetic erosion. Leslau (EDCG §70) also suggests that tə(l)- is a compound of two morphemes, but remains agnostic about t-; the second part is compared to the negative əl- in Silte as a reduction of al-. Rundgren (1955: 288) relates t to demonstrative t of e.g. Harari in-ta. Lipiński’s (1997: 455) suggestion that t- …-m (as in Gafat t-ifärka-m) is related to Egyptian tm has little to commend itself; Egyptian tm is the verb ‘to complete,’ related to Semitic *tmm (Loprieno 1995: 89). 6  For *ə-yə > i in Kistane and Gafat, see Leslau (ESS 3 7) and Leslau (EDCG §12a) respectively.

365

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage Table 6

Negation of the prefix conjugations in Kistane and Modern Gafat a yvqtvl

Kistane Gafat Kistane Gafat Kistane Gafat

3 msg 3 msg 2 msg 2 msg 1 csg 1 csg

Main non-past

Subordinate non-past

Aff.

Neg

Aff.

Neg.

Aff.

Neg.

yäqtəl yäqtäl təqtäl – näqtəl ləqtäl

ayəqtäl – attəqtäl atəqtäl annəqtäl –

yəqätl-u yəqätəl təqätl-u təqätəl äqätl-u əqätəl

tiqätl tiqätl-am təttəqätl təttəqätl-am täqätl tə/i/lqätl-am

yəqätl yəqätəl təqätl təqätəl äqätəl əlqätəl

ayqätl ayqätəl attəqätl atəqätəl annəqätl al-qätəl

a See ESS 3 18 and Goldenberg (1968) for Kistane and EDCG §§68, 70, 71 for Gafat.

t-isälä ‘when he comes’ and t-isäla-m ‘he does/will not come,’ təlbälä ‘when I eat’ and təlbäla-m ‘I do/will not eat.’ It is unlikely, however, that ti- of the negated verb is the result of contraction, since this is the form of the negator also for C yvqatvl, e.g. ti-yagäba ‘he does not marry’ (affirmative subordinated yagäba).7 Negated subordinate yvqatvl, however, is t-a-yagäba ‘without that he marries’ (*tv-ʔal + yagäba), t-at-tagäba ‘without that she marries’ (*tv-ʔal + tagäba). The gemination of t may therefore be a phonetic augment, as also suggested by Goldenberg (1968: 94) and Hudson (2003), as a means to avoid syncope and the possible assimilation of it to R1. While -l- of Gafat 1st csg negated yvqatvl was explained by Leslau and Rundgren as a remnant of *ʔal-, it is worth pointing out that -l- is also found in 1st csg affirmative subordinated yvqatvl (-əlqätəl) (EDCG §68d), and is best understood as an allomorph to the PNG-prefix of the 1st person in non-initial position, which is also attested in e.g. Zway (Meyer 2005: 96) and Chaha (in the corresponding form of -n-), see Bulakh (2015).8 Therefore, l of Gafat təlqätlam/ tilqätlam may be secondary and formed by analogy with -al-qätəl (and/or 7  Note that Hetzron (1977) has tə- where Leslau has ti-, e.g. GG II.7 tə-yatäləq-q ‘it does not sink him,’ GG IV.6 tə-yadg ‘he does not throw.’ 8  For Bulakh (2012: 413 n. 48; 2015: 73–75, 90), l of 1st csg affirmative subordinated yvqatvl is the result of a reanalysis of *ʔal- (neg.1sg) as ʔa-l- (neg-1sg), facilitated by the presence of l- in 1st csg yvqtvl. This reanalysis paved way for -l- to be reinterpreted as marker of 1st csg verb forms in Inlaut environments.

366

Chapter 13

əlqätəl), where it goes back to original *ʔal-. As to the variation in the 1st person between Gafat təlqätlam/tənnəqätlam and tilqätlam/tinnəqätlam, it coincides with a variation in general between i and ə (Leslau EDCG §10d), cf. n. 7 on p. 365.9 In Kistane, in turn, -l- is not used after negative tv-, nor is it used in 1st csg affirmative subordinated yvqatvl (-äqätəl).10 In Kistane 1st csg yvqatvl, the vowel of tv- is elided either before ä- or its etymon which is *ʔə- (Polotsky 1951: 16–17), i.e. either tv-äqätl > täqätl or tv-ʔəqätl; cf. the C-stem, e.g. GG V.8 t-awərr ‘I do not talk.’ While the evidence in Modern Gafat points to a negator tə-/ti- of verbal forms, the non-verbal negator is tädäbəll for expected *tə-/ti-däbəllam. It indicates that tə-/ti- was added to negative *aydäbl, not affirmative *yədäbl (cf. Bulakh 2012: 404 n. 31). *aydäbl as negator of the copula was probably inherited, cf. Kistane ädäbəll and Old Amharic ʔa-ydoll-.11 Kistane ädäbəll also indicates an ad hoc reduction of the negator, which is conceivable for a grammatical morpheme, cf. Bulakh (2012: 404).12 As to the etymology of the negator, Leslau (1952b: 76–77) and Hetzron (1972: 97) compare negative t- of Kistane and Gafat to Cushitic, specifically Sidamo di- and Southern Agaw -tí-.13 The comparison with Sidamo di- is possible for Kistane, and the comparison with Awngi -tí- for Gafat. T- does not occur, however, in Zway or any of the other Eastern Gurage languages, where Sidamo substrate is most prevalent. It is noteworthy, however, that -tí- in Awngi is used to 9  It may be pointed out that in Gaf 14.21 the b of bv-honä is written with a left and a right stroke, i.e. as if both bəhonä and bihonä. 10  For 1st csg negative yvqatvl of Kistane, Rundgren (1955: 287) reconstructs *l (*tälmaṭā) but the attested forms never show gemination (as a result of assimilation) of R1. 11  The Amharic dialect in Gojjam has aydollä-mm (Hailu Fulass, Getatchew Haile, and Cowley 1976: 97). See Leslau (EDG) and Bulakh (2012) for its relation to *dbl ‘add, unite.’ 12  Indeed, there is some variation in the early texts of ädäbəll. Praetorius (AS p. 521, John 2:12) has ʔədäbəl(l), Mayer (1878: 15) ʔădäbäl(l) and in Mayer (1878: 25) it is fäyya däbəl(l) “es ist nicht gut,” i.e. without the first syllable, perhaps due to the preceding -a. Cohen (1931: 193) has adebel “ce n’est pas,” but Cohen’s vowels cannot really be trusted (Goldenberg 1968: 66). 13  Praetorius (GTS p. 521) identifies the negator with the conjunction ‘from’: “Es mag sein, dass die negative Bedeutung von tə- aus der Bed. von, als dass entstanden ist.” Leslau (GDR §75b) compares t- to the conjunction tə-, but Leslau (EDCG §70) asks despondently why a conjunction would be used in a main clause. However, such ablative morphemes seem to be subject to grammaticalization into negative possible consequence clause negators (cf. for example 264). Although Hudson’s (2003: 216) suggestion that the negator may be related to a topicalizing/emphatic morpheme in t/dv is tempting, it would make more sense if the construction had traces of negative *ʔal-.

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

367

negate the so-called definite imperfect (Hetzron 1969b: 12–13), and that t- in Gafat and Kistane is used to negate to yvqatvl. A dental stop negator occurs in Awngi and Sidamo.14 In Awngi, negative -tíis synchronically an infix between the verbal stem and the PNG/TAM markers (Hetzron 1969b: 72; Appleyard 1984: 209), e.g. imperfect definite desáɣá ‘I will study’ vs. desá-tí-ɣá ‘I will not study.’15 The infixal nature of -tí- may be secondary; in fact, since the endings of the imperfect definite are originally an auxiliary *ku ‘to be’ (Hetzron 1969b: 72; 1980: 44–47), the negator formally precedes the auxiliary. The prefixing rather than infixing nature of *tv- is also supported if the relation between Awngi -tí- to Sidamo negative di- is accepted, as proposed by Hetzron (1980: 54–55), Appleyard (1984: 216) and Vetoshkina (1988: 153). Since a negator *tv- is not known from other Cushitic languages in the area, the negator in Cushitic is perhaps borrowed from Omotic.16 The fact that a dental stop negator is restricted to Gafat and Awngi on the one hand, and Kistane and Sidamo on the other, in isolation among the other neighboring Cushitic and Semitic languages, suggests that the negator is borrowed, likely 14  Sidamo di-, which is proclitic, is morphologically distinct from the negators in the other languages of Highland East Cushitic (cf. Appleyard 1984: 216; Treis 2012). The proposed occurrence of a t-negative in the Agaw languages other than Awngi, namely t(ə) in the negative imperatives of Kemant, Quara, and Xamir (Appleyard 1984: 210), is rejected by Hetzron (1980: 54 n. 56), who suggests that -t- should be identified with the marker of the second person; the negator itself has disappeared (cf. Vetoshkina 1988: 54). The same explanation can be extended for the Highland East Cushitic languages with a suffix in *-t of the negative imperative, including the Hadiyya subgroup (Hadiyya and Libido), Kambaata subgroup (Kambaata, Alaaba, and K’abeena) and Gedeo (see PlazikowskyBrauner 1957: 23–24; Treis 2012: 12–15 for “negative t” in these languages). It worth noting that in Sidamo, the suffixes of the negative imperative are 2nd csg -tooti and 2nd cpl -tinoonte (Kawachi 2007: 425), i.e. with t rather than d, which favors Hetzron’s explanation. Brockelmann (1950: 55) suggests that the plural suffix bōte with affirmative imperatives in Kafa is related to Sidamo -toti/-tinoonte. 15  In the imperfect, the person marker precedes -tí-, but the number marker follows (Gragg 2011: 49). Note that in 1st cpl, the subject marker occurs twice: desnáɣá ‘we will study’ vs. desná-tí-nɣá, cp. 3rd cpl desánkwií ‘they will study’ vs. desá-tí-nkwi ‘they will not study’ (cf. Vetoshkina 1988: 153). Negative -tí- is also used for the negative imperative, negative subjunctive, negative terminative, and negative conditional protasis imperfect (Hetzron 1969b: 73). 16  In Hetzron’s (1980: 54–55) view, negative *tv-, in Awngi as well as Sidamo, was ultimately borrowed from Omotic, which attest to a negative suffix *-t (Plazikowsky-Brauner 1957: 23–24; Hetzron 1980: 55). Vetoshkina (1998: 153–154) suggests that a negative t belongs to Afroasiatic given that, since Omotic *-t is a suffix and since Sidamo is a suffixating language, the reason behind the shift of the negator from suffix to prefix would be unclear.

368

Chapter 13

from Cushitic to Semitic, i.e. from Awngi to Gafat and from Sidamo to Kistane, or, if Gafat and Kistane were neighboring languages at some point, only once from one of those Cushitic languages.17 13.3

Negation in Gafat

The negative counterpart to qvtvla in declarative verbal main clauses in Gafat is al-qvtvla-m, for example:18 (309) Gaf 8.17 ṣärahu-ni ăl-āmbäläbälä-m I called (him), he did not answer. In the example above, the negated predicate is asymmetric to the affirmative predicate in the sense that the negative counterpart to qvtvla is marked by both the negator and clitic -m. All examples of negated qvtvla in the corpus of Old Gafat occur in main clauses and attest to this clitic. In Modern Gafat, negated qvtvla with -m is only used in main clauses, while negated qvtvla without -m is used in subordinated clauses (EDCG §64). It is also once omitted in an interrogative main clause, təlam səläməni gäǧǧəǧǧä al-sällaha ‘why didn’t you come to me yesterday?’ which is reminiscent of the situation in Amharic. The preverbal negator of main clause yvqatvl in the Gafat corpus is ta-, for example:19 (310)

Gaf 14.13 + 14 əǧəgu əgä fəqərš aṭefat ta-yfärk-am əgoč ta-ytənäbabäḍu-m Much water cannot extinguish the love, waters cannot remove (it).

While the form of the preverbal negator in the Song of Songs is ta- /tā-/, it is tä- in a proverb quoted by Ludolf (1681: Ch. X §60): säboñ tälṣälam bəleñ tälbälam yəṣeläñ amam ‘I do not strike the man, I do not eat grain, they hate me 17  Hetzron (1972: 97) notes that the area of Gafat and Kistane (and Zway) constitutes an almost straight, but now discontinuous line. 18  The ā-vowel in ăl-āmbäläbälä-m in (309), as well as the ā-vowel in Gaf 4.16 ăl-ābäläbä-m, is due to the prefix *ʔa- of the C-stem. Gaf 1.20 ăl-āqäbhu-m ‘I did not watch,’ in turn, is due to the root *ʕqb. For the etymology of biliteral aǧä in Gaf 1.17 ăl-āǧäč-əm, see Leslau (GDR p. 142) s.v. with references. 19  See also Gaf 3.8 wäddi ta-lšəl-am wäddi dəräs ‘I love, I do not know (it) before I love’ (or: ‘I love, until I love I will not know (it)’). Read talšəlam with the manuscript (and Rundgren 1955: 285, tālšəlām). For wäddi instead of əwäddi, cf. Leslau (GDR §24b).

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

369

in vain’ (hominem non laedo, frumentum non aedo, oderunt me frustra).20 The form ta- in the Song of Songs cannot be reconciled with tä- in Ludolf and tə- in Modern Gafat based on regular sound change. Therefore, Rundgren (1955: 288) assumed that tə(l)- is secondary and derived from tä(l)-, which in turn is an irregular reduction of ta(l)-. However, due to the lack of an orthographic tradition of Gafat, the manuscript that contains the Song of Songs is not exempt from inconsistencies, as noted by Leslau (GDR p. 15): “The vowel is not well rendered only because of the lack of a tradition in the writing, as in yänäti 2.10 for yanäti, mätnäsä 4.26 for matnäsä, 3.7 guna beside gunä” (cf. Polotsky 1949: 39). In fact, most of Leslau’s examples attest to the interchange between the vowels a and ä. Therefore, tais presumably for tä-. Ludolf’s tä-, in turn, is likely only a variant of tə-. Leslau (EDCG §10f) notes a hesitation in Modern Gafat between ä and ə in “some examples” (EDCG p. 274: “often a hesitation”). Indeed, in Modern Gafat, word-final -ä becomes ə if followed by a consonant, e.g. säwwä ‘man’, säwwə-š ‘the man’ (Leslau EDCG §10f).21 Negated yvqatvl, like negated qvtvla, is also marked by enclitic -m in main clauses. In the prefix conjugation, enclitic -m is preceded by a vowel a in 1st csg and 3rd person singular: (310) ta-yfärk-am, ta-lšəl-am (quoted in n. 19 on p. 368), and Gaf 11.10 ta-(č)čəl-am ‘(my heart) does not know.’ After -u, the clitic is -m, as in (310) ta-ytənäbabäḍu-m. In the suffix conjugation, the clitic is -m after a vowel, e.g. (309) ăl-āmbäläbälä-m and Gaf 1.20 yantən wäynä ălāqäbhu-m ‘I did not watch over my (own) vineyard.’ After a consonant, it is -əm, e.g. Gaf 1.17 č̣äbärit ăl-āǧäč-əm ‘the sun did not see (me)’. In Modern Gafat, however, clitic -m is always preceded by -a-, i.e. -am, e.g. al-aǧǧähw -am ‘I did not see,’ al-näbbärimw-am ‘they were not’ (Leslau EDCG §64a), tifärkimw-am ‘they cannot’ (Leslau EDCG §70). The diffusion of the clitic with vocalic onset co-occurs with the reduction of the suffixes, e.g. *-ku > hw in 1st csg qvtvla: Old Gafat *ʔal-säb(b)är-ku-m vs. Modern Gafat al-säbbär-hw-am. While it is true that -ä becomes -ə in Modern Gafat before e.g. the definite article, -ä is also sometimes lengthened, as before the enclitic copula -n, e.g. əmmunä ‘big’, əññə əmmuna-n ‘he is big’ (Leslau EDCG §10g). Therefore, unless -ä- is simply a variation in the orthography for -a-, as in ta- and tä-, it is possible that -ä was in variation with -a also before enclitic -m, as in Harari al-säbärä-m and alsäbära-m (Leslau 1958 §8; HTAS: 73). 20  See also AS pp. 13–14 for this proverb. The enclitic ñ is n of insistence (EDCG §103d; GDR §114b). 21  In Beke (1846: 105–107), the preverbal negator is te- in telshilám ‘I do not know’ (cf. n. 19 on p. 368), and tu- in tulwásham ‘I do not want it,’ probably for tə-.

370

Chapter 13

13.3.1 The Distribution of *tv-, *ʔal-, and -m The description in Leslau (GDR §75), that “the negative imperfect is formed by the prefix al- and the suffix -m,” is not clearly illustrated by the examples, since most predicates negated by al- are not followed by -m. Negation with aland without -m is used for subordinated clauses, e.g. Gaf 1.24 dəmawaš y-ātšəli ‘since/if you do not know yourself,’ relative clauses with yä-, and prohibitions with yvqtvl, e.g. Gaf 1.17 agäṣäñähu-m ă-t(ə)ǧuñ ‘(although) I am black indeed, do not look at me!’ Notably, the expression of the prohibition is Common Semitic *ʔal-yvqtvl. Furthermore, enclitic -m is not used for relative predicates marked by -mə-, as in Gaf 11.22 gumbəraš əgä ən[dä]-m-āyrəqši əndä mäqläd ləzbuwan wətato ‘your navel is gentle like a cup, which the water is not far from.’22 In Modern Gafat, when the relative predicate is yvqatvl, it is positionally indicated by preceding its head, so the relative marker -mə- is likely an Amharism (EDCG p. 65 n. 1), cf. n. 49 on p. 357. There are also two examples of yvqatvl in main clauses that are negated by al- and -m, for example: (311)

Gaf 14.16 nəbrätaš yələm säbuwä yäwabä əndähon akäfah ă-ylut-əm If a man gives his whole wealth because of love, they will not tell him: “You are wrong.”

This construction is not expected, given that -m is restricted to main clauses where the expected preverbal negator of yvqatvl is *tv-. However, aylutəm, probably for yəlu (*bhl) + 3rd msg pronominal suffix -t, is an Amharism (Leslau GDR §103a).23 This fact suggests that the negated predicate may be borrowed from Amharic in its entirety, which would explain why it is not negated by *tv-. In Gaf 13.16 əč̣ə ḵä yänet ă-ynəquñ-əm ‘I shall kiss you, they will not despise me,’ it is worth noting that the affirmative predicate is formed as a compound of yvqatvl and yänet ‘to be,’ which is likely a calque on Amharic yvqatvl-al (*yvqatvl hallawa).24 However, its negated counterpart retains the old construction with simple yvqtvl. Again, the construction is likely to be an Amharism. 22  Leslau prints əndäm-ayrəqši, i.e. with the preposition-conjunction əndä + relative -məfrom yä-mə/ə-mə-. In the manuscript, only ən- and -mayrəqši are visible, with an ink stain in between. In Modern Gafat, the relative marker is yä-qvtvla, which is y-al- with the negator, e.g. y-al-fättärä (EDCG §42). 23  The t-suffix also occurs after -u in əndiwədu-t (Leslau GDR §53). Akäfah is for Amharic akäffah (käffa). 24  Leslau (GDR §103a) has a-yənquñ-əm.

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

371

There is also a verb form negated by *tv- but without -m: (312)

Gaf 4.22 ṣäbäṭhu-ni ta-ladəgwi kämuyätǧe gäǧä əmətgäbä dəräsni25 I have seized (him), I will not let him go before I introduce (him) into the house of my mother.

This fact indicates that the preverbal negator was rooted in Gafat prior to the diffusion of -m. Indeed, enclitic -m is not obligatory with negated predicates in Kistane with which Gafat shares the preverbal negator *tv-.26 At the same time, Kistane -m has properties similar to -mm in Amharic as a focus particle (Hetzron 1977: 129). It is common formant, for example, of scale reversal items, e.g. att-əm ‘anything’ from indefinite at(t) ‘a, one.’ Interrogative morphemes too form their negative indefinite counterparts in negative propositions with -m, e.g. mäčä-m ‘ever’ from mäčä ‘when’ (Hetzron 1977: 129), and mən-əmm yahəl ‘anything’ from mən yahəl ‘how much,’ e.g. ESS 3 70.6 mən-əmm yahəl al-wəzäyä ‘he did not do anything.’27 It is also used in concessive conditions with ənkwa (Leslau ESS 3 34), e.g. ESS 3 112.8 yä-soddo bayy mən-əmm ənkwa y-amara bayy yahəl b-ay-əqäṭo ‘even though a child of Soddo is not disciplined as much as a child of Amhara.’ -M may also be used for emphatic coordination of negated predicates, e.g. GG V.3–4 t-ädäʔ-əm t-äč̣čạ wät-əm balännət za goš-äw abi-ddi wädäʔ-əm wäč̣čạ wät-əm ənke balä-m ‘he said to him (his son): “I will neither laugh nor chat”; that son of his said: “My father refused to laugh as well as to chat”.’28 The additive function of -m, besides in t-ädäʔ-əm t-äč̣čạ wät-əm, is also at hand in the last clause, where the infinitives wädäʔ-əm wäč̣čạ wät-əm are coordinated in the content clause to the composite verb ənke bala ‘say no’ (= ‘refuse’). The productivity of -m, without being obligatory, lends support to the suggestion that the grammaticalization of a focus particle with negation is an areal phenomenon. The use in Gafat of -m in main clauses negated by *ʔal-, as 25  For ta-ladəgwi, see Polotsky (1949: 40). 26  Praetorius (AS pp. 520–521) notes that -m is rare with negation in Kistane. In John 2:4 gize-di gänä-m ʔal-säla ‘with regard to time, it has not yet come,’ gänä-m is the negative counterpart ‘(not) yet’ of gäna ‘still.’ 27  The verb has to be negative or at least have negative semantics, e.g. att-əm qäbbäṭäm ‘he missed att-əm’ = ‘he did not find any,’ i.e. a morpheme that licenses a scale reversal context. 28  Similarly in Muher, -m may coordinate two clauses, including the negative subordinate, e.g. ESS 4 140.10 bä-t-waddädmw-əm b-an-t-wadädmw-əm wädgaba nänä-bämwət ‘whether they loved one another, whether they did not love one another, to marry one another is upon them.’

372

Chapter 13

in (311), and its absence from a main clause negated by *tv-, as in (312), together with the fact that it is not part of a discontinuous negative construction in Kistane, indicate that its distribution in Gafat is the result of language contact with Amharic (cf. also the use of the compound imperfect in Gaf. 13:16). 13.4

Negative Asymmetries in Kistane

The expression of negation in Kistane is characterized by a number of formal asymmetries in relation to its affirmative counterpart. One feature of Northern Gurage, also shared with Mäsqan and Ezha (known as the ‘geminating languages,’ Hetzron 1977: 39–40), is the preservation of short, non-geminated, R2 in negated qvtvla Type A, in contrast to its affirmative counterpart, cf. Table 5 on p. 363 (and cf. Argobba of Tollaha, Table 3 on p. 351). While the innovation of gemination of R2 in Type A affected the affirmative forms, R2 in the negative forms was maintained short in these languages (Goldenberg 1977: 485).29 Furthermore, one notes that the suffix conjugation of Type B has the vowel -i- after the first radical in the affirmative, tikkälä ‘he planted,’ but the vowel -äin the negative, al-täkkälä (Leslau ESS 3 19; Girma Demeke 2003: 238 n. 12). The emergence of a front vowel after R1 of qvtvla Type B is an important innovation in South Ethiosemitic (Bulakh and Kogan 2010: 278). However, it appears that this innovation did not occur in the negative. The preservation of-ä- in negated qvtvla Type B dovetails with the preservation of a non-geminated R2 in negated qvtvla Type A, in the sense that both grammatical morphemes have not taken part in the innovations that affected their affirmative counterparts. In Modern Gafat, however, R2 is geminated in both affirmative and negative Type A qvtvla (e.g. fättärä ‘die’ and al-fättär-am). It is impossible to say whether R2 of Type A in Old Gafat is geminated, or whether gemination of R2 affected negative Type A qvtvla at a point in time after the translation of Song of Songs, due to lack of evidence. To be sure, in certain languages, like Amharic, gemination eventually spread to the negative forms as well (Bulakh and Kogan 2010: 276–277), cf. section 12.4.2. As to additional negative asymmetries, Hetzron (1972: 113) notes that while the past and the present perfect in Kistane are morphologically distinct in the affirmative (säbbär-o vs. säbbär-äm), this distinction is neutralized in the negative: “alsäbärä may be used either as ‘he did not break’ or ‘he has not 29  Cf. Hetzron (1977: 87): “In the geminating languages, the negative prefixes are attached to the archaic forms of the perfect,” cf. also Leslau (1951: 221, 226), Rundgren (1963: 97), and Goldenberg (1974: 237).

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

373

broken’.” Thus, the aspectual distinction introduced between these two verb forms is not marked under negation. The reason, as argued above for the neutralization of TAM-distinctions in e.g. Amharic, is again that the information conveyed by the present perfect is less relevant if the event did not take place, or presupposed, considering the functional status of negation. In Muher, as well as in Peripheral and Central Western Gurage, the present perfect qättälä-m is generalized as the new exponent of the past.30 Only in Mäsqan is yvqatvl not accompanied by a Main Verb Marker, nor is qättälä-m generalized as a new exponent of the past. One concludes, then, that the languages that mark yvqatvl and qvtvla with a Main Verb Marker, as in Kistane and Dobbi, or yvqatvl with a Main Verb Marker and qvtvla with -m, as in Muher, or only qvtvla with -m as in Peripheral and Central Western Gurage, have not grammaticalized -m with negated predicates. The present perfect in Kistane, qättälä-m, is homonymous with the m-converb, but positionally distinct from it.31 Just as there is no symmetric negative counterpart to past qättäl-o and present perfect qättälä-m, the m-converb is normally not negated either. When the m-converb expresses a circumstantial action, it is replaced by t-a-yqatvl, formally the preposition-conjunction tə- and subordinate negative ʔal-yvqatvl. In the following example, yvqatvl-m is coordinated with t-a-yqatvl: (313)

ESS 3 95.4 bayy bäsängən morä yəttonna-m t-a-yətnäffäs qolähwan yizəm yəqwräṭṭəmu The child munches his roasted grain, sitting near the wall, without breathing, holding it.

In (313), t-a-yənäffäs is coordinated with yəttonna-m and yiz-əm. t-a-yqatvl also ‘replaces’ the m-converb of qvtvla denoting anteriority, for example:

30  It may be pointed out that the present perfect in Wolane and Silte involves the auxiliary *hlw. In this construction, the auxiliary is uninflected and always -ān in Wolane (Meyer 2006: 118–119), e.g. säbär-ān ‘he has broken,’ säbärt-ān ‘she has broken.’ In Silte, however, it is conjugated, e.g. nakat-ān ‘he has beaten,’ nakat-tāt ‘she has beaten’ (Gutt 1997: 920). However, in Wolane, the compound form is also apparently starting to replace qvtvla (Meyer 2006: 121). The present perfect formed on *hlw therefore seems to develop on the same trajectory as the present perfect in Muher and Peripheral and Central Western Gurage. 31  Hetzron (1972: 94) assumes that -m of the converb and -m of the present perfect go back to the same etymon, *-ma, which is the form in Harari. The present perfect denotes past events that constitute an achievement for the present or a narrative present (Hetzron 1977: 84), e.g. GG V.1 (Kistane) məss gärräzä-m ‘a man has become old.’

374 (314)

Chapter 13

ESS 3 123.12 yahoññ kitt wärä gäna bəṭäbbäṭku-m t-an-nəč̣irrəss nässam č̣illäṭännət Two months ago from today, I, having mixed (but) before having finished it, he picked it up and drank it in one gulp.

In (314), bəṭäbbäṭku-m (qättälä-m) is coordinated with t-an-nəč̣irrəss (t-ayqatvl) and the event designated by t-an-nəč̣irrəss is presented as posterior to nässa-m č̣illäṭänn-ət.32 In fact, such an asymmetry is also observable in Ge’ez: the converb qatilo is in general not negated, as in Tigrinya and Amharic, but replaced, so to speak, by soba or ʔənza ‘while’ + neg-qvtvla (Lambdin 1978 §31).33 However, there are examples of the negative t-iqätl with -m. In the following example, negative yvqatvl-m is main negative yvqatvl, as indicated by the preverbal negator tə-:34 (315)

ESS 3 154.6 tət-tawärr tət-təzibbər-lä qäna tət-təbl-əm tət-tažənn She does not talk, she does not answer him, she does not look straight into his eyes.

In this case the negative converb is formed with balo, so that the construction is serial, i.e. ‘do you not say-and do you not look.’35 32  Similarly in Muher, the converb is not negated (Hetzron 1977: 103). Converbial notions are expressed by alloforms, like an-qätälä and t-eqätəl, the latter negating both qättälä-m and yəqätəl-əm, as suggested by the coordination with qättälä-m in ESS 4 152.12 subi-m säb t-e-tnässa yä-smat-əx’ta wäṭṭačč-əm təgäbe ‘early morning, the people not having got up, having gone out to urinate, she returns home’ (for ‘before the people get up, having gone out to urinate’). 33  Ge’ez attests to the negated converb with the lexeme ʔaʔmara ‘know’ (Weninger 2001: 230–231) and some other rare exceptions. In Amharic of Gojjam, the converb may in fact be negated, and it is noteworthy that it also functions as an independent verb in this dialect (Hailu Fulass, Getatchew Haile and Cowley 1976: 95), possibly the result of insubordination. In other words, the possibility of negating the converb goes hand in hand with its status of finiteness in the sense of Lehmann (1988): if a desententialized verb can express polarity by itself, it may also be negated. However, a desententialized verb, like the converb, will usually inherit its polarity from the main verb. 34  See also ESS 3 147.3 bəč̣əli yədnäbbəru al-əbačč-əm al-kočäš ‘were you not afraid that the mule might bolt?’ 35  There is also an instance of subordinated negative yvqatvl with -m as indicated by the preverbal negator ʔal-: John 2:10 (apud AS pp. 507–508) säb kullu ʔat-təbiddär-əm fiyya ṭäǧ yəmäṭawu ‘everyone brings out the choice wine first.’ In fact, in the negative counterpart to the construction with bäddärä ‘precede’ followed by -m and yvqatvl in the sense of ‘do something before,’ it is the main verb that is negated in Muher, e.g. bäddärä-m e-säč̣ ‘he should not drink before.’

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

375

The affirmative past anterior is formed on qättälä-m + näbbär in Kistane (known as past perfect in Hetzron 1970b, 1977: 84, and as pluperfect in Leslau ESS 3 20). The past anterior is used to denote earlier finished actions or events (Hetzron 1977: 84). In the negative past anterior, it is the lexical verb that is negated (Hetzron 1977: 87), e.g. GG VIII.10 (Dobbi) an-bäsa ba ‘he had not come’ (with Dobbi ba corresponding to Kistane näbbär). There is one example of the negative past anterior with näbbär in the corpus: (316)

ESS 3 146.9 angättədi maläs tändəriyy däffahunnəm näbbär inəddi gən al-fäṭämkw näbbär I had turned my face a little toward the ground, but I had not closed my eyes.

In the negative, past anterior is neg-qätälä näbbär instead of *neg qät(t)älä-m näbbär, the reason being that the converb is not negated. The durative-habitual past in Kistane is based on subordinate yvqatvl + uninflected näbbär. Hetzron (1977: 87) notes that the negative durative-habitual past is b + negative yvqatvl, as in Chaha b-a-yqätəl.36 In the negative, Kistane has b-al-qvtvla, e.g. ESS 3 89.4 yäqəb aräyi dəro ənnäz b-al-ädägu ‘formerly the sediment was not thrown away.’37 The purposive, the subordinate counterpart of yvqtvl, is formed on subordinate yvqatvl + k/hom ‘like’ or yy(ä)n ‘toward’ (Hetzron 1977: 99). In the corpus, only the former formation is found in the negative, e.g. ESS 3 191.10 yälellän säb täsänäw lalä ay-diggəs-kom yəṭṭəbabbäqu ‘he sees to it that he who has no money does not prepare a feast above his means.’38

36  Hetzron’s examples include GG XVIII.22 b-a-yßärʔa-ka ‘he did not eat food’ in Gyeto, and GG XXIII.5 b-a-yaaheer-ka ‘he did not know’ in Inor (with enclitic -ka as in Peripheral Western Gurage). 37  See also ESS 3 81.2, 149.11, and 152.8. There is also an example in Praetorius’ corpus which is formed with subordinate negative yvqatvl + näbbär: John 2:24 (apud AS pp. 507–508) ʔiyäsus ʔa-yamnäm näbbär ‘Jesus would not trust them.’ Praetorius notes in relation to this example that it is negative yvqatvl with *ʔal-rather than *tv-. This should be explained from its co-occurrence with näbbär. In Muher, subordinate yvqatvl followed by -ba (for banno ‘he was’) expresses a habitual action in the past (ESS 4 23). The negative counterpart is expressed by negated yvqatvl, e.g. ESS 4 91.12 dərä känä b-əgzär eyyamnəmw bä-waq yamnəmw-ba ‘formerly they did not believe in God, they used to believe in Waq,’ where negative yvqatvl is coordinated with affirmative yvqatvl-ba. 38  The construction yvqatvl + yy(ä)n + ən, i.e. the purposive followed by the copula, forms the so-called imminent future (Hetzron 1977: 85; 1970b: 567), e.g. ESS 3 114.10 alf-əyyän-ən ‘I am about to go.’ The construction is not found in the negative. However, a-yqatvl + k/

376

Chapter 13

There is a number of asymmetries, in summary, between negated and nonnegated predicates in Kistane, e.g. non-gemination of R2 in Type A (al-qätälä vs. qättäl-o) and ä-vowel in Type B (al-täqqälä vs. tikkälä) in the suffix conjugation, the use of ʔal-qvtvla to negate both qättäl-o and qättäl-äm (the present perfect), and the lack of a symmetric negative counterpart to the converb. The common feature of the non-negated verbal grammatical morphemes is that they are more innovative than their negated counterparts. 13.5

Excursus: Negation in Peripheral Western Gurage

Negation of declarative verbal main clauses in Peripheral Western Gurage is expressed by a discontinuous construction that involves ʔal- and a KTD-suffix. This suffix is also used with affirmative relative yvqatvl and affirmative temporal t-yvqatvl. It will be argued below that this suffix was used in origin to mark the predicate for old information (‘the above-mentioned’), like the definite marker. 13.5.1 Distribution of KTD in Western Gurage Common to Peripheral Western Gurage is the distribution of a suffix KTD in various syntagms beyond the definite future, which it shares with Central Western Gurage. There are two sets of KTD-suffixes in Western Gurage, those followed by e and those followed by a/ä (Hetzron 1972: 67–71; 1977: 92–93). The former set, namely -kwe/-te/-de in Inor (somewhat simplified elsewhere in Peripheral Western Gurage) and -te in Central Western Gurage, is used with yvqatvl in the formation of the definite future (Raz 1991; Hetzron 1996b). The latter set, at least in Inor (and Ǝndägeñ), is used with negative main clause qvtvla and yvqatvl, affirmative relative yvqatvl, and affirmative temporal t-yvqatvl (Hetzron 1977: 92–93; Leslau 1971: 182, 184).39 hom + ən, e.g. ESS 3 136.4 at-təč̣affərrə-hom-ən ‘it is so that she should not scratch him’ may be used to denote what should not happen, cf. also ESS 3 119.5. 39  Gyeto is included in Peripheral Western Gurage in Hetzron (1977: 17), but the use of KTD with relative yvqatvl and temporal t-yvqatvl is not attested in Hetzron’s (GG pp. 226–235) corpus of Gyeto, contrary to the impression given by Hetzron (1977: 92–93). For relative yvqatvl without KTD in Gyeto, see e.g. GG XVIII.3 ä-šfaara doonä gaz yərämd nəq məs baan-tä ‘Dune of the Mud was a great man who likes war’ (see also GG XVII.7, 8 XVIII.18). Negated main clause predicates, however, have KTD, e.g. GG XVIII.26 ã-bärʔaa-ka ‘I will not eat’ and GG XVIII.9 an-qänäfhä-y-ta ‘did you not hit me?’ At the same time, there is an example of negated yvqatvl without KTD in Hetzron (1996b: 108): at bər təbäda-te at-bäda ‘will you take a dollar or will you not take (it)?’ It may also be noted that the Gyeto proverb

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

377

As to the background of the KTD-suffix, Wagner (1966: 263) compares -da/ta of Inor negative qvtvla (an-käfätä-da) to interrogative enclitic -do in Tigrinya (but cf. n. 55 on p. 290). Leslau (1952b: 74), in turn, suggests that Inor -da/-ta is related to Sidamo di-, while Hudson (1986: 382) suggests that the suffix might be borrowed from Hadiyya, “in which emphatic verbs have -da.”40 However, -da and -ta are allomorphs of -ka, and the various consonants of KTD are allomorphs in complementary distribution: -k is suffixed to verbs without PNGsuffixes, i.e. to the final radical of the verb, -t is suffixed to a long vowel, a diphthong, or a palatal, and -d is suffixed elsewhere, i.e. to consonants other than PNG-suffixes, and to short vowels (Hetzron 1972: 69–70; Chamora and Hetzron 2000: 21–22).41 The formation known as the definite future possibly took place before the breakup of Central and Peripheral Western Gurage, since it is attested in both groups.42 The construction is used for future situations that are considered in Leslau (1983b: 69) gēf meya bäwäri a-ydžäpwäri-te ‘if one goes on a long journey, someone will not return’ attests to the negative definite future, unless -te is for -ta. Since KTD is obligatory with negated predicates in Gyeto, but not with relative yvqatvl or temporal t-yvqatvl, KTD potentially grammaticalized with negative predicates prior to its diffusion with relative yvqatvl and temporal t-yvqatvl. 40  Hadiyya seems indeed to be an important language at least for speakers of Ǝndägeñ, since most Ǝndägeñ-speakers also speak Hadiyya due to frequent intermarrying (Bustorf 2006: 49). A complete shift to Hadiyya is observed for speakers of Məsməs (cf. Meyer 2011b: 245), another (former) Peripheral Western Gurage language. However, an emphasizing -da in Hadiyya is not found in Hudson (1976), although mention is made of a suffix -du which emphasizes jussives and imperatives (Hudson 1976: 268). Sim (1988: 82 n. 4) suggests that the suffix is -d-u, because -d- also combines with -aʔe in -dʔe, and that -u is topicalizing in some way (Sim 1989: 299). 41  In Ǝndägeñ, the form is -kkä after a vowel, -kä after a consonant, and -dä after qvtvla (there is no phonological environment for -kä), which becomes -ttä in forms that end in -m (*-mdä > -ttä). For Inor, Chamora and Hetzron (2000: 21–22) note that -d- becomes zero after u, ʃ, and x, e.g. ã-səpərxu-a ‘I did not break,’ ã-səpərſ-a ‘you (fsg) did not break’ (used alternatively with ã-səpərʃua-ta) and ã-səpərəc-a ‘she did not break’ (cf. ã-səpərə-da ‘he did not break’). 42  The very category of the definite future is likely a calque on Cushitic. Leslau (1952b: 77) suggested that its formation in the Gurage languages was influenced by the Sidamo dialect of Kambaata, cf. Leslau (1952b: 77): “The creation of a separate future in these Ethiopic languages is no doubt due to the influence of Cushitic.” A tense “definite future” is known from e.g. Agaw (Hetzron 1969b: 12–13) and Oromo of Wellega (Gragg 1976: 189). Noteworthy, in Kambaata, the same form is used for both the relative imperfect and the future: woqär-äyyoʔu ‘he hits,’ woqär-äno ‘he will hit,’ woqär-äno manču ‘the man who hits, who will hit’ (Leslau 1952a: 356). This is also true for Agaw: the imperfect of the so-called subjectal relative construction is the same as the imperfect definite (Hetzron 1969b: 18).

378

Chapter 13

certain, e.g. zəraß yəzräß-šä? ənk, yəzärəß-te ‘(A:) “Will it perhaps rain tomorrow?”; (B:) “Oh yes it will rain” ’ (Hetzron 1996b: 101, 103). While speaker A asks a question without commitment to the certitude of the proposition by recourse to the indefinite future (yvqtvl-šä), the use of the definite future yvqatvl-KTD in B’s reply indicates a degree of certitude about the future state of affairs. Hetzron (1972: 67–71; 1977: 93) explained the allomorphic distribution of KTD in the Peripheral Western Gurage definite future as partly reflecting the historical distribution of the Main Verb Markers, still preserved with the past copula, e.g. baanä-dä ‘he was,’ in which -dä is identified with the Main Verb Marker -t, and baanäw-tä ‘they were,’ in which -tä is identified with the Main Verb Marker -tt.43 The allomorphic distribution of KTD in the definite future became the principle that guided the allomorphic distribution of KTD in the other syntagms in which it subsequently appeared in Peripheral Western Gurage, viz. with negated predicates and affirmative relative yvqatvl and affirmative temporal t-yvqatvl. The fact that the allomorphic distribution of KTD in syntagms other than the definite future is formed in analogy to its distribution in that syntagm, and not the other way around, is supported by the fact that the definite future is shared by both Central Western Gurage and Peripheral Western Gurage and hence is older; while it is true that the form in Central Western Gurage is -te, it is likely a simplification of the allomorphs in Peripheral Western Gurage.44 13.5.2 KTD and the Definite Article The material origin of -k- and -t- of KTD is usually explained as Cushitic (Heztron 1972: 67–68; Raz 1991).45 Peripheral Western Gurage -d-, however,

43  Cf. the following remark in Hetzron (1972: 66): “An absolutely decisive proof of the historical identity of the P[eripheral] W[estern] G[urage] endings with the M[ain] V[verb] M[arker]s lies in the peculiarity of their distribution,” with reference to the allomorphic distribution of -dä and -tä; similarly in Hetzron (1968: 170). 44  Cf. Hetzron (1972: 70): “When the distributional rules were solidly established in the Definite Future, the negative and subordinate forms of the same Cushitic inspiration also adopted them in PWG (but not in CWG).” The reference to “Cushitic inspiration” is not clear. 45  KT in Cushitic seems to be a sort of determinative in origin (Plazikowsky-Brauner 1958; Hetzron 1980: 18–21), which shows the Afroasiatic contrast t (feminine) vs. k (masculine), as in the Sidamo adnominal demonstratives te ‘this’ (feminine), ko ‘this’ (masculine) (Kawachi 2007: 200–203).

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

379

is not immediately explained from Cushitic. Hetzron (1972: 67) therefore assumed that *-tt was identified with Sidamo plural -t, since -tt is mainly plural, and that *-tt then became -t and *-t became -d. However, there are good reasons to assume that -d- should be identified with a definite marker. The definite marker (or ‘definitizer’) in Kistane, Dobbi, and Mäsqan is -i (Kistane also feminine -iti), in Eastern Gurage it is -i/-y (masculine and plural) and -te (feminine), and in Muher-Ezha it is -we (Hetzron 1977: 56; 1996a: 248). Elsewhere in Gunnän-Gurage, it is the third person independent pronoun that is suffixed to the clause constituent that is made definite (Hetzron 1977: 56). In Chaha, the form of the definite marker coincides with the pronominal suffix -(ä)ta (masculine) and -(ä)xta (feminine). In Inor, the 3rd person singular independent personal pronouns are huda ‘he’ and hida ‘she,’ while the corresponding pronominal suffixes are -hwa and -ša respectively.46 The definite marker may be preserved integrally, e.g. GG XIX.6 (Inor) məs huda adood-hwa gwar awaʔ’a ‘the man (məs huda, lit. ‘man he’) took his mother behind the house.’ However, according to the present scenario, the pronoun gone definite marker following verbs should be identified with a clitic form of the independent personal pronoun. The possibility of identifying at least -d- of KTD with a clitic form of the independent pronoun is supported by the fact that Ǝndägeñ -d- is -dä (qvtvla-dä), comparable to the independent pronoun which is hu-dä ‘he’ and ši-dä ‘she.’47 Regarding the syntax of the definite marker, Hetzron (1977: 56) notes that it “is used ‘discourse-referentially’, in the sense of ‘the above-mentioned’, and never generically or for general reference. It appears much more rarely than definite articles in European languages and is not automatically added to already known items. It is used when there is a switch of focus in the discourse, but the new topic has already been mentioned in a secondary position.” This is the case in the following Kistane example:

46  Hetzron (1977: 59; 1972: 58) relates huda, hida to Proto-Ethiosemitic *huta, hita, with voicing of t to d. 47  For the independent personal pronouns in Ǝndägeñ, see Hetzron (1977: 58 n. 20). For the grammaticalization of the definite article from a possessive pronoun in Amharic, see Rubin (2010b); for parallels in other Semitic languages, see Huehnergard and PatEl (2012). See also Meyer (2010) for various endophoric uses of demonstratives in Muher.

380 (317)

Chapter 13

GG I.2–3 kənnämu-m quna bora-nna quna älam näbbärä-nnäm. bor-i y-anbässa, älam-i gən yä-zanǧärä näbbärätt They had one ox and one cow. As for the ox, it was the lion’s, and as for the cow, it was the monkey’s.

The definite marker -i anaphorically resumes the referents of the first clause, while at the same time establishing the topics (bor-i and älam-i) of the following predicates. Such a resumptive and topicalizing use of the definite marker is also evident in what Leslau (1950 §9.4) calls ‘noun of manner’ in Chaha, which is actually a cleft sentence consisting of a relative clause with -m plus -(ä)ta, i.e. the pronominal suffix gone definite marker, and a predicate denoting manner, like zəkka ‘thus,’ e.g. Leslau (1950: 35.6) yidär. yidäri-m-äta zəkko “(They) offer a blessing. And it is thus that the blessing is done” (tr. Polotsky 1951: 27), with zəkka + copula -u. As a cleft sentence, the relative clause is topicalized while the predicate focalized.48 A similar construction exists in Inor. In the following example, the first clause is resumed by a temporal clause with KTD and a predicate denoting manner: (318)

ESS 5 150.2 bä-ʔäǧ yəčūǧi. t-ičūǧəwa-ta bä-g’äz-ən One cultivates by hand. When they cultivate, it is by cooperative work.

In this construction, KTD in Peripheral Western Gurage is used in a fashion similar to the definite marker in Chaha, in the sense that it anaphorically resumes a referent already established, while at the same time topicalizing it with a subsequent switch of focus in the following clause.49 The topicalizing function is nevertheless likely only inferred from the position of KTD in the beginning of the clause, which is the natural place for the topic.50 At least in its 48  Polotsky (1951: 27) notes that such clauses “occur in sentences which perform the task of specifying the information contained in an immediately preceding sentence, by supplying some kind of adverbial complement (manner, time, cause etc.); the verb of the prior sentence is either repeated in the second or replaced by the substitute verb ‘to do’.” 49  A similar construction with t-yvqatvl is found in Ford’s (1991: 256) ‘cohesion clause,’ e.g. at məš faraxy banä. tifärx məšt gadänä ḳar banäč “There was a patient man. While he was patient, his wife was talkative.” 50  Notably, similar constructions in Amharic make use of -mm, e.g. iyärusalem wärrädäčč. yä-wärrädäččəbbät-əmm məknəyat əndi näw “she went down to Jerusalem. And the reason for which she went down is this” (Kapeliuk 1978: 275). In Amharic too, -mm in the beginning of a clause is not topicalizing per se, but conveys contrastive focus; it indicates the

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

381

incipit, KTD with temporal yvqatvl would have been restricted to a discoursereferential use, in which KTD pointed out that the reference of the temporal clause is a situation referred to in the discourse; a conservative interpretation of (318) would be ‘when they cultivate at that time referred to.’51 Furthermore, relative clauses with the definite marker can be used in free relative clauses, e.g. Chaha yä-gäpha-ta ‘that which came in,’ damo yuriy-äta ‘he whom one calls Damo’ (Leslau 1950 §16.2).52 The pro- rather than adnominal nature of KTD is indicated by the relation of wā-da ‘this one’ to wā, e.g. ESS 5 157.1 (Inor) wā səṭəna ‘this drink,’ with -da as an abbreviated form of the independent personal pronoun. While wā precedes a noun, wā-da is used without a noun (Hetzron 1977: 57), i.e. the former is adnominal while the latter pronominal.53 It is worth noting that the relative clause of a cleft sentence in Eastern Gurage also has the definite marker, e.g. y-ewädt-äñ-te zägädo näbärt ‘it was the jackal that told me,’ comparable to e.g. Inor ESS 5 147.10 bīd yaṭawrā-ta xənã-tä ‘it is they who clean the house.’54 Hetzron (1996a: 248) also mentions a definite marker -kä in Enneqor, which is identified with the 3rd msg possessive pronominal suffix. It is therefore assumed here that the material origin of KTD is in the clitic form of the independent personal pronoun, and not borrowed from Cushitic. 13.5.3 KTD and Negation in Peripheral Western Gurage The use of KTD in negated clauses can be compared to the use of KTD in relative clauses. In Inor, for example, KTD is more or less obligatory with relative yvqatvl, e.g. ESS 5 158.5 yasäxər-ka səṭəna a-ysäč̣əwa-ta ‘they do not drink

given information, topicalizes it by virtue of its early position in the clause, and indicates contrastive focus (cf. Girma Demeke and Meyer 2008: 608–609). 51  Hetzron’s (1973: 4 n. 6) comparison to Chaha is noteworthy at this point: with the optional addition of gamwä ‘time’ after t-yvaqtvl, the clause can only be temporal, not stative. 52  Ford (1991: 259) similarly notes that in Chaha, relative clauses either precede their head, or have the definite article: təčän gäräd ‘the girl who comes’ and y-almaz yədärgnaxuta ‘the one who hits Almaz.’ 53  Inor wā-da is analogous to Chaha zəx-äta (Leslau 1996: 118), where -äta is the pronominal suffix (Leslau 1950 §19.1), which is equated with the ‘definite article’ by Leslau (1950 §16.1). Plazikowsky-Brauner (1958: 140) mentions an emphatic demonstrative wodda in Hadiyya alongside woda; the latter is also used in woddáʔa “dieser, diese” and woddáʔē “jener, jene,” cf. n. 40 on p. 377. 54  For the use of -tä as copula, see Crass, Girma Demeke, Meyer, and Wetter (2004).

382

Chapter 13

drinks that intoxicate.’55 It seems reasonable to assume that KTD with relative yvqatvl originally fulfilled a function similar to the definite marker in its referential function. If so, it was originally restricted to relative clauses in which the head was already definite or identified de re, i.e. assumed to be part of general knowledge or at hand in the speech environment, i.e. either disourse-referential or recognitional. The function of KTD was then to reassume and comment on a referent already established. With a head, KTD would logically seem to mark the referent rather than the predicate. But the clitic position on the predicate is actually the natural position of the definite marker with relative predicates (as in Amharic, where the definite article is cliticized to the relative predicate), e.g. GG IX.6 (Dobbi) b-ihermu-bbwä-y mädär qärräbätt-əm ‘she approached the place where they were digging.’ Similarly in noun phrases, the definite marker follows rather than precedes the head, unlike other qualifiers, and is placed after the first word of the phrase. The transfer of KTD from the head to the relative predicate is then a form of sandhi. Unlike Amharic, where -mm- precedes the relative predicate, and the relative predicate likely followed the head at the time of the grammaticalization of -mm- (cf. n. 49 on p. 357), KTD in Inor follows the relative predicate, which suggests that KTD was grammaticalized at a time when the relative predicate was already preceding the head.56 The restriction of KTD to relative yvqatvl is likely due to its asyndetic nature; relative qvtvla on the other hand is marked by yä-, i.e. yä-qvtvla, which already marks endophora.57 The grammaticalization of KTD with relative yvqatvl is in other words a form of grammaticalization of information structure: the information structure that motivated the use of KTD is leveled by the coalescence of two semantically connected clauses. 55  Chamora and Hetzron (2000: 22) note that it is non-obligatory but very common, and Hetzron notes in passing that KTD occurs after the “Relative Imperfect as a non-compulsory determinative element,” without further specification. 56  For a similar grammaticalization in Cushitic, see Hetzron (1995): In Hetzron’s reconstruction, *ku/ti/kun started out as pre-nominal demonstratives marking the definiteness of the possessee in a genitive construction. Subsequently, due to the definite nature of the possessee inherent in genitive constructions, the markers became functionally redundant and became interpreted as genitive markers. 57  It does not mean that KTD is excluded from yä-qvtvla, e.g. ESS 5 153.11–12 šäräd-xwa usa-n yəwä̃rʔä-kwä-da xuda gən ä-tḇaytärä-da-n aʔar [food-poss.3sg usa.bread-cop eat. ipfv.3sg-obj.3sg-KTD thing but rel-differ.pst-KTD-cop thing] ‘their food is usa-bread, but the things which one eats with it varies.’ In Amharic, yä- probably grammaticalized with relative əmm-iqätl in analogy to yä-qvtvla, while in Inor, KTD is used with yä-qvtvla in analogy to yəqätəl-KTD.

Gafat, Kistane, And Peripheral Western Gurage

383

As already noted, standard negation in Inor is discontinuously marked by the preverbal negator and the KTD-suffix: neg-qvtvla-KTD and neg-yvqatvlKTD. There are no examples in the Inor corpus of negative qvtvla and yvqatvl in main clauses without KTD. It is likely in the discourse-referential function that KTD grammaticalized with negated predicates. Givón (2001, 1: 370–371) points out that “negative assertions are typically made on the tacit assumption that the hearer either has heard about, believes in, is likely to take for granted, or is at least familiar with the corresponding affirmative.” Negative predicates are in other words felicitous only in contexts where the corresponding affirmative is at hand. Givón (1978) further argues that negative sentences are presup positionally more marked than their affirmative counterparts;58 the corresponding affirmative is at hand in the context as background information, and negative sentences suppose these affirmative counterparts. Horn (2001: 198–200) also discusses the relation between negation and the Gricean Maxim of Relation: it is the presence of the corresponding affirmative in the discourse context that provides the felicity condition behind a speaker’s uttering a negative sentence. It is therefore probable that KTD was originally used for negative predicates in propositions of denial, i.e. contradictions of their affirmative counterparts de re. In Gura, in which KTD is not obligatory with negative predicates, KTD occurs once with a negative predicate in GG: (319)

GG XVI.39 bä-čäfwär-kä anqa a-tm̃ ena b-iwən-n äga a-tčäfr-e-ta-we bwarä-n-’ə When (the hyeana) told him: “If I swallow you, you will not (even) fill my mouth,” (the rat) said: “Well then, will you not swallow me?”

The negative response resumes the protasis of the preceding proposition. In this sense, the use of KTD with negative predicates in Inor is also a form of leveling of information structure: the grammaticalization of KTD implies a loss of presupposition which must have been present at the time of the formation. A similar situation, where negative and subordinate clauses are obligatorily marked by a suffix that marks new information in affirmative clauses, which is historically related to a pronominal suffix, is known from Bella Coola, cf. the discussion to (4). With regard to negative asymmetries, Hetzron (1977: 87) has pointed out that the distinction between the present, yvqatvl-KTD, and yvqtvl-šä is neutralized 58   Presupposition in this case refers to discourse presuppositions and not logical presuppositions.

384

Chapter 13

under negation in Western Gurage. For example, Ford (1991: 279) notes that an-ar ‘I will not go’ in Chaha is the negative counterpart to ar ‘I go,’ ar-te (definite future) ‘I will go,’ and äwär-šä (indefinite future) ‘I shall/may go.’ Ford also notes that the past continuous, formed by a combination of yvqatvl followed by banä, e.g. yəčot banä ‘he was working’ or ‘he used to work,’ is usually negated as an-čotä ‘he did not work,’ i.e. negative qvtvla also replaces the past continuous; although ɛčot banä ‘he was not working’ also occurs, it is unusual. The distinctions introduced in the affirmative, like the present perfect and the definite future, have in other words no symmetric counterpart under negation.

Part 3 Concluding Discussion

∵

Chapter 14

Innovative Expressions of Negation Some of the markers associated with the negation of declarative verbal main clauses in Semitic, as summarized in Table 1 (p. 10), can be explained as innovations. The most celebrated case in Semitic is perhaps the diffusion of šayʔ ‘thing’ in Neo-Arabic, which was touched upon in section 2.5.1. In this sense, Jespersen’s (1917: 4) observation in Negation in English and other languages, that negative expressions are often reinforced by an additional morpheme, also holds for Arabic. Sometimes a negative expression is reinforced by an additional morpheme without that it becomes an obligatory part of the negative expression, e.g. Arabic (182) lā tuẓlamūna fatīl-an [neg be.harmed.ipfv.2mpl thread-acc] ‘you will not be harmed (even as much as) a thread.’ Similar additions are found in other Semitic languages, e.g. Old Babylonian (n. 42 on p. 129) ina ubān-i lā talappat [with finger-gen neg touch.ipfv.2msg] ‘do not touch (him even) with a finger!’ These expressions have in common that a minimizer, a morpheme of minimal degree, invokes a pragmatic scale against which the proposition is evaluated. It is worth noting that a scale invoked by a minimizer is sometimes additionally marked by an additive focus particle ‘also, even,’ as in e.g. Hebrew (p. 147) ʕaḏ-ʔaḥaḏ lō nɛʕdå̄r [also-one neg lack.res.3msg] ‘not even one lacked.’ In fact, the semantics of minimizers entail the semantics of additive scalar focus particles. While Jespersen assumed that the reinforcement by an additional morpheme is the result of the original negator having become weakened, it has been argued here that it is not the weakening of the original negative adverb that prompts the strengthening, but that the strengthening is motivated by reasons of informativeness (cf. section 2.5). The process of renewal is a result of a speaker’s intention to be as informative as possible (according to cooperative principles). The following processes by which the expression of verbal negation is renewed were recognized in the preceding part:

• • • • •

Collocation and univerbation of negation with focus particles. Reanalysis of scale reversal contexts. Collocation of negation with markers for old information. Collocation of negation with a pro-sentential negator. Borrowing.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_015

388

Chapter 14

Common to all these is that the expression results in a more informative (‘emphatic’) negative proposition. In the case of borrowing, the negative construction may be a calque on the source language rather than a reanalysis of emphatic negation. 14.1

Collocation and Univerbation with Focus Particles

The collocation of a focus particle and a negated predicate is a common expression of emphatic negation. In the Ethiosemitic languages, the focus particle is generally a morpheme added after the negated predicate. This process is recognized for Amharic, Argobba, Harari, Gafat, Tigrinya, Southern Tigre, and Dahalik. In other languages, the original negator univerbates with the focus particle and the new formation is, at least in origin, an emphatic negator. This process can be recognized for Akkadian ulā, Arabic lam and Minaic lhm, Tigre däy, Tigrinya näy, and Phoenician ʔy-bl. 14.1.1 Negation in Ethiosemitic with *-ma and *-ni In the Ethiosemitic languages, the focus particle is generally enclitic to the negated predicate. The reason that the focus particle is enclitic to the predicate rather than the negator may be explained from the fact that the negator is prefixal/proclitic to the verb and is not separated from it. Historically, the focus particles can be identified as *-ma (Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gafat) and *-ni (Tigrinya, Southern Tigre, and Dahalik). Mention may also be made of the enclitic particle -y in Tigrinya of Tanbēn, related to *ʔay- (cf. n. 18 on p. 323). In non-negated clauses in Tigrinya, *-ni may be used for emphatic coordination and is cliticized to all phrases in coordination, e.g. kälb-ən ʔadg-ən [dog-ən donkey-ən] ‘both dog and donkey’. Amharic -mm (< *-ma) is used for the same purpose, e.g. säw-u-mm nəgus-u-mm [man-defmm king-def-mm] “the people as well as the king” (Girma Demeke and Meyer 2008: 616). In emphatic coordination, the combination of the two sets is expressed as somehow unexpected (see the discussion to example 303). Amharic -mm is also used as an additive focus particle enclitic to (affirmative) verbs. This construction is nevertheless very rare: (320) yəh-ən gudday lä-ənat-u yawrall this-acc matter to-mother-poss.3msg tell.npst.3msg yasayall-əmm show.npst.3msg-mm He tells this matter to his mother. He also/even shows (it to her). (p. 343)

Innovative Expressions Of Negation

389

A predicate marked by -mm can be evaluated as ranking on the extreme end of a pragmatic scale, as if the predicate is unexpected or surprising. This scalar additive function of -mm is also at hand in conditional clauses, which are rendered concessive by -mm, e.g. b-izänb-əmm ənnəhedallän [if-rain.ipfv.3msgmm go.npst.1pl] ‘we will go even if it rains.’ Such a concession presupposes a relevant alternative against which the condition is evaluated as an extreme, i.e. as highly unlikely or informative in relation to it. Furthermore, -mm forms indefinites from interrogatives that are typically used in scale reversal contexts. For example, mann-əmm is ‘whoever,’ formed on man ‘who’ and enclitic -mm. Such indefinite pronouns are similar to concessions, because they seem to operate over an unrestricted but ordered domain to form a universal concessive. For example, a clause məgəb-u-n mann-əmm yəbla-w [meal-def-acc who-mm eat.jus.3msg-obj.3msg] ‘anyone may eat the meal’ indicates that whoever wants to may eat the meal, even if s/he be someone unlikely. *-ni is not used in these functions in Tigrinya, but they are known from -ni in Ge’ez. In view of its function as an additive scalar focus particle, the cliticization of -mm to negated predicates in Amharic should be understood as a pragmatic means of expressing emphatic negation. Thus, a negated predicate marked by -mm was a means to express a negative proposition that was more informative than a negative proposition without it. It can be hypothesized that -mm was felicitous when the speaker wished to mark the salience of the negative speech act, and that the speaker marked the negative proposition with -mm in order to evaluate it against a proposition that satisified the same truth semantics but without -mm. However, already in the earliest records, -mm is obligatory in standard negation in Amharic and is likely to have lost its original contribution. Indeed, -mm on the negated predicate sometimes co-occur with -mm on another clause constituent. From a synchronic point of view then, it would seem as if standard negation always had to be marked as emphatic in relation to its affirmative counterpart. According to Hetzron (1972: 95, 98), the use of -mm with negated predicates in Amharic is a calque on Awngi. At least the function of emphatic coordination is known from that Cushitic language, e.g. (p. 347) aqí-kí ɣuna-kí ‘both the man and the woman.’ However, while the distribution of -mm as part of the negative discontinuous construction in Amharic broadly speaking is restricted to declarative and interrogative main clauses, -kí in Awngi is optional and also admissible in negated directive constructions, unlike Amharic -mm. In fact, the use of an additive particle for the sake of emphatic negation is also attested in other Ethiosemitic languages, like Ge’ez (with wa- ‘and, also’), e.g. (p. 349) wa-ʔi-tarafa wa-ʔi-ʔaḥadu [wa-neg-remain.pst.3msg wa-neg-one]

390

Chapter 14

‘and there was not even one left’ and Tigre (with -ma), e.g. (p. 330) ʔi-nəṣennəyo-ma [neg-smell.ipfv.1pl-obj.3msg-ma] ‘may we not even sniff at it?’ (cf. Mari Akkadian (with -mi), e.g. (p. 349) ištēn awīl-am ulā̆-mi nitabbal-šunūti [one man-acc neg-mi take.away.pfv.1pl-obj.3mpl] ‘we have not even taken away one man from them’). Therefore, it is the grammatical status as obligatory with negated predicates that is an innovation in Amharic, not the collocation of negation with a focus particle. However, the distribution of the negative construction involving an additive focus particle in the Ethiosemitic languages is likely the result of areal diffusion. While the use of -m with negated predicates in Modern Harari is the rule, it is very rare in Ancient Harari and it is therefore probable that the diffusion of -m in Harari is a calque on Amharic. Provided that the additive function of *-ni in Tigrinya and Tigre is not as plastic as Amharic -mm (it is not a common formant of scale reversal items in Tigrinya), it seems likely that the obligatoriness of *-ni with negated predicates in Tigrinya and certain varieties of Tigre is a calque on Amharic, which came about through speakers’ identifying the additive particle of Amharic with a functional synonym. This also holds for Dahalik and Southern Tigre, which are areally close to Tigrinya. 14.1.2 Akkadian ulā In Old Assyrian, the particle u and negative lā combine to form the negator ulā. It is worth noting that the cliticization of u to the negator is a feature common to both Assyrian and Babylonian, and is likely to have occurred before verb final word order became default. In this connection, the particle u is an additive focus particle ‘also, even.’ The morpheme u may be used for emphatic coordination (‘both … as well as’) of e.g. noun phrases which are to be considered separately, as in GKT §104a bīs-su u aššas-su u šerrū-šu adaggal [house-poss.3msg u wife-poss.3msg u childposs.3msg watch.ipfv.1sg] ‘I will keep an eye on his house as well as his wife and his child.’ The additive particle u is also used as a correlative (wāw apodoseos) after e.g. kīma ‘as’ and šumma ‘if,’ e.g. (p. 73) kīma PN ah̬ ū-ka-ni u anāku lū ah̬ ū-ka [as PN brother-poss.2msg-subord u I emph brother-poss.2msg] ‘as PN is your brother, I too/also am certainly your brother.’ As an additive particle, u is also sometimes used with a scalar implicature. In collocation with šumma in Mari Old Babylonian, for example, the conditional antecedent u šumma is concessive ‘even if’ (the affirmative counterpart to šumma ul). All these features are typical for additive focus particles. The coordinative as well as the correlative function of u are also used in negative clauses, in which case u is proclitic to the negator rather than initial in the clause (whenever these positions do not coincide), e.g. (32) matīma u-lā

Innovative Expressions Of Negation

391

taškun-am-ma kasap-ka ištēn šiql-am u-lā niṣbat [ever u-neg make.pfv.2msgall-and silver.of-poss.2msg one shekel-acc u-neg take.pfv.1pl] ‘you have not ever made a deposit to here, nor have we recovered (even) one shekel of your silver’ and (29) kīma annak-ū batqū-ni mimma u-lā ašām [as tin-nom.pl be.low.res.3mpl-subord any u-neg buy.pfv.1sg] ‘as tin is low (in supply), I have also not bought any.’ As an additive particle with scalar implicature, a clause marked by u and negated by lā may convey emphatic negation. Thus, a clause negated by ulā may also be understood as emphatic, as in ‘you have not even ever made a deposit, and we have not even recovered one shekel of your silver.’ The scalar implicature is most clear in collocation with minimizers, as with ‘one shekel’ in the preceding example, and ‘a pawned slave-girl’ in the following example: (321) mala amt-im qaqqid-im mah̬ ṣ-im u-lā as.much.as slave.girl-gen head-gen tapped-gen u-neg admiq-ak-kum serve.pfv.1sg-all-dat.2msg I am not even worth as much as a pawned slave girl to you (lit. ‘a slave girl tapped on the head’). (example 36) In this case, ‘a pawned slave girl’ must be understood as ranking low on a value scale. It is worth pointing out that even if the minimizer may be understood as the focalized constituent (‘we have not recovered even one shekel’ and ‘I am not worth even as much as a pawned slave girl’), the focus particle is proclitic to the negator which lends the predicate the focal scope. Although in Old Assyrian, as well as in Literary Old Babylonian, the contribution of u and lā is still analyzable as the sum of its parts, in Epistolary Old Babylonian, the combination *wa-lā has bleached semantically and does not convey a scalar implicature. Through semantic bleaching, a phonetically eroded form ul (< ulā < *wa-lā) has become the new standard negator which is used for the negation of any clause with declarative basic illocution. 14.1.3 Tigre däy and Tigrinya näyTigre däy is a combination of the focus particle -di or də- and negative *ʔay-. The focus particle is also attested in non-negated clauses. In these clauses, it is generally enclitic as -di to whatever phrase is within its scope. For example, enclitic to the conditional particle mən, -di renders the condition concessive (like enclitic -ma in mən-ma ‘even if’). However, the focus particle də- is proclitic, e.g. to the relative pronoun la, and the collocation də-la results in an indefinite relative pronoun ‘who-ever.’ In other words, the particle -di/də- may be used

392

Chapter 14

to convey a scalar implicature, such that whatever phrase is within its scope, is considered to be more informative than the same phrase without it would have been. Negative däy is the result of a transfer from the narrow focal scope of -di over a single clause constituent to wide focal scope over the negated predicate. For example, a clause (283) qərš-u d-äy ləššaläg [silver-poss.3msg dəneg be.measured.ipfv.3msg] ‘his silver is not even measured’ would have resulted from *qərš-u-di ay-ləššaläg [silver-poss.3msg-di neg-be.measured. ipfv.3msg] ‘as to his silver (or: ‘even his silver’), it is not measured.’ In the first clause, däy focalizes and negates the predicate, whereas in the latter clause, the additive focal scope of -di is restricted to the preceding phrase (qəršu), as in e.g. kəm sərʕat din-di ʔi-tətʕalläb [as rite.of religion-di neg-be.regarded. ipfv.3fsg] ‘it is actually not regarded as a religious rite.’ Similarly, while -ni is generally enclitic to a negated predicate in Tigrinya, as pointed out above, it is on occasion proclitic to the negated predicate in the dialect of Hamasen, e.g. (287) qwəršat-kum n-äy-dälli [talent-poss.2mpl ni-negneed.ipfv.1sg] ‘I do not even need your talents,’ rather than qwəršat-kum-ni ʔay-yədälli [talent-poss.2mpl-ni neg-need.ipfv.1sg] ‘as for your talents, I do not need (it)’ (or: ‘I do not even need your talents’) or qwəršat-kum ʔay-yədällən [talent-poss.2mpl neg-need.ipfv.1sg-ni] ‘I do not need your talents.’ 14.1.4 Phoenician ʔy-bl Negative ʔy-bl is a combination of the focus particle (not a negative particle) *ʔayyv and negative *bal. *ʔayyv is an interrogative determiner ‘which’ in Arabic and Akkadian that can be analyzed as the interrogative base *ʔay- and the nisbe-ending. In a clause with non-interrogative basic illocution, such a morpheme may be used as an indefinite quantifier, e.g. with the focus particle -ma in Akkadian šarrum ayy-um-ma [king-nom which-nom-ma] ‘a king whoso-ever’ (‘any king’). In Ancient South Arabian, *ʔayyv is sometimes used in conditional-temporal clauses to render them indefinite, e.g. Sabaic (p. 189) w-ʔ-hn yʕkrn [and-ʔ-when contest.npst.3msg] ‘and whenever he demands.’ In a negated clause in Cairo Arabic, especially when the argument is a mass noun, ʔayyi̊ need not be an indefinite quantifier, but an adverb that contributes to emphatic negation, e.g. (n. 47 on p. 188) ma-gab-lī-š ʔayyi̊ ḥāga [neg-bring.pst.3msg-to.obj.1sg-neg ʔayyi̊ something] ‘he did not bring me anything at all.’ It is worth noting that Phoenician ʔy-bl is most common in scale reversal contexts, like conditional or pseudo-conditional clauses. With the scalar contribution of *ʔayyv proclitic to a conditional-temporal marker in Sabaic in mind, it is tempting to assume that *ʔayyv in Phoenician lends these negated

Innovative Expressions Of Negation

393

clauses a universally concessive meaning, for example (145) w-ʔm ʔy-bl tšt šm ʔt-k [and-if ʔayyv-neg put.ipfv.2msg name.poss.1sg with-obj.2msg] ‘and if you should ever not put my name with you.’ ʔy-bl is in other words more informative than bl. *ʔayyv also collocates with bl in relative clauses that are dependent on a universal restrictor, another instance of a scale reversal context, e.g. (p. 189) kl mšʔt ʔš ʔy-bl št [every fee rel ʔayyv-neg put.pst] ‘any fee that ever is not set down (or: ‘they did not ever set down’).’ It is therefore reasonable to assume that ʔy-bl is an ‘emphatic’ counterpart to bl. 14.1.5 Arabic and Minaic lam and l(h)m In Arabic and Minaic, negative lā is sometimes extended by the focus particle *-ma. Unlike *-ma in Ethiosemitic, which is enclitic to the negated predicate, but like u in Akkadian ulā, the focus particle *-ma is cliticized to the negator. The function of *-ma as an additive focus particle and its contribution to emphatic negation should be clear from the discussion of negated predicates with *-ma in Ethiosemitic (section 14.1.1). The scalar contribution is also known from Akkadian, e.g. (p. 235) inā-ma nār-i šēp-šu kīnat [in-ma river-gen footposs.3msg be.firm.res.3fsg] ‘his foot is firm even in the river.’ In this function, -ma places the river on a scale of places where the foot may be steady or not, and singles it out as (one of) the least likely places where the foot is steady. The clause entails the corresponding clause without -ma; however, by lending scalar additive focus to the river, the situation becomes more remarkable and more informative, since it is true also at the scalar endpoint. It is worth noting that while -ma cliticizes to the preposition rather than its head, its focal scope must be understood as including the entire prepositional phrase. In Arabic and Minaic, the focus particle *-ma also occurs in non-negative clauses. When it focuses on a conditional antecedent, it generally has an additive scalar interpretation, as in Quran Arabic ʔimmā (*ʔin-mā̆) ‘when-ever’ or ‘even if’ (190). In other words, a situation described by an antecedent marked by *-mā̆ is more remarkable than other alternatives under consideration. The concessive idea is also at hand when it collocates with an interrogative pronoun. Such an expression is typically used for a free-choice quantifier, which can be analyzed as a concessive condition, like Minaic mh-m ‘who-ever,’ which corresponds to ‘even if it may be X,’ where X is an endpoint on a pragmatically accessible scale of consideration. It seems likely that at some point in the history of Minaic, the negator lhm existed as a marked alternative to lā, which in addition to lā, also involved the focus particle m (< *-ma). The clause negated by lhm entailed the same negated clause without -m, but the former is more emphatic than the latter,

394

Chapter 14

since -m contributes to a more informative proposition that is true also in the scope of additive scalar focus. Indeed, negative lā is also attested in Minaic, but it is not always easy to delineate a complementary distribution between the negators. It is worth pointing out, however, that lhm in Minaic, like ʔy-bl in Phoenician, is most common in scale reversal contexts like conditions, and it cannot be ruled out that -m sometimes lends scalar focus to the condition, e.g. (212) w-hm mn lh-m fdy tṯq-s [and-if someone neg-m redeem.pst.3msg obligation-poss.3msg] ‘if anyone ever should not redeem his obligation.’ In Arabic, -m is obligatory with lā whenever it negates yvqtvl in a clause that is non-volitive. It is possible that the cliticization to lā at some point contributed to emphatic negation in Arabic. On the other hand, it is also possible that negative lam is in fact borrowed from Minaic, in which case it is difficult to determine whether lam was ever understood as more emphatic than lā. The best explanation is perhaps to regard the collocation of lā and *-ma as parallel developments in Arabic and Minaic, since the collocation of a negator with a focus particle is commonplace. If lam is treated as an innovation in Arabic, the restriction of enclitic -m to lā negating yvqtvl but not lā negating yvqtvlu and qvtvla can be understood in the light of negative mā, which is restricted to negate yvqtvlu and qvtvla and does not negate yvqtvl. Provided that negative mā is originally interrogative mā, the non-occurrence of negative *mā yvqtvl indicates that mā qvtvla was preferred over *mā yvqtvl as an emphatic negative counterpart to *lā qvtvla, but that *lā-mā̆ yvqtvl was preferred as an emphatic negative counterpart to non-volitive lā yvqtvl. It is difficult to elicit clauses negated by lā that also involve the focus particle -mā̆ (beyond clauses negated by lam). However, it is clear from its occurrence in scale reversal contexts that it can contribute to emphatic negation, e.g. (p. 272) ġayra mā ḍiġn-in [without mā grudge-gen] ‘without (even) any grudge.’ However, in the synchronic layer of Quran Arabic, lam is void of any emphatic contribution. 14.2

Reanalysis of Scale Reversal Contexts

A negative proposition does not need to be expressed by a negated clause, but can also be inferred in a scale reversal context (section 2.4.1). A rhetorical question, for example, may be understood as a negative statement. In the negative statement, a negative indefinite pronoun or adverb corresponds to an interrogative pronoun or proadverb in the non-negated question; ‘who?,’ for example, corresponds to ‘no one,’ and ‘where?’ corresponds to ‘nowhere.’

Innovative Expressions Of Negation

395

A yes-no question, on the other hand, corresponds to a negated clause. The rhetoricity of a question can be signaled by various means including grammatical morphemes. For example, questions that include a scale reversal item are always rhetorical (Sadock 1971). A scale reversal context may be signaled by other means as well, including negative adpositions like without and conditional markers like if. Common to all these contexts is that they license scale reversal items. 14.2.1 Arabic mā The negator mā in Arabic is an emphatic counterpart to negative lā/lam. The morpheme has grammaticalized the implicature of negation in rhetorical questions. The identification of the bridging context with rhetorical questions, rather than any other syntactic environment, is indicated in part by the restriction of negative mā to main clauses in direct speech. It cannot be ruled out that this implicature has become grammaticalized, while at the same time being (possibly) homonymous with interrogative mā. Interrogative mā in Arabic is usually an interrogative pronoun ‘what?,’ e.g. (p. 238) mā tilka bi-yamīn-i-ka [what that in-right.hand-gen-poss.2msg] ‘what is that in your right hand?’ This function is also known from other Semitic languages. However, the reflexes of *mā (perhaps *mah) are not always used as the information-seeking pronoun ‘what.’ When the answer to ‘what’ is implicit, a question asked by mā is understood as rhetorical rather than informationseeking. For example, Hebrew (p. 241) ma-llå̄nū ḥēlɛq bə-PN [ma-to.obj.1pl share in-PN] ‘what share have we in PN?’ may be understood, if it is assumed that the addressee knows the answer, as ‘we have no share in PN.’ In this capacity, *mā can be parsed as a negative quantifier in the corresponding statement. However, in an equational clause, e.g. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (p. 241) mā ʔatt ṭāḇ min rabbā-ḵ [mā you good in.relation.to teacher-poss.2msg], mā does not need to be understood as a quantifier (‘how (or: ‘to what extent’) are you better than your teacher,’ i.e. ‘you are no better than your teacher’), but as a morpheme that promotes a rhetorical question (scale reversal item): ‘are you at all (any) better than your teacher?’ On the same note, interrogative *mā in an interrogative clause in which the predicate is transitive does not necessarily correspond to a negative indefinite pronoun in the statement. For example, the statement corresponding to Hebrew (191) må̄ ʔɛqqōḇ lō qabb-ō ʔēl [må̄ curse.ipfv.1sg neg curse.res.3msg-OBJ.3MSG God] ‘what can I curse, (when) God has not cursed it,’ can be either ‘I can curse nothing, (since) God has not cursed,’ in which case interrogative må̄ is parsed as ‘what,’ or ‘I can certainly not curse, (since) God has not cursed,’ in which case må̄ is parsed

396

Chapter 14

as a morpheme that promotes the rhetorical question ‘how can I curse at all, (when) God has not cursed it?’ The rhetoricity of mā may be compared to interrogative -šī in Neo-Arabic. In Cairo Arabic, -šī lends a question dubitative modality, e.g. taxud-ši̊ fī xamsīn ʔirši̊ w tiddihūli “würdest du vielleicht fünfzig Piaster dafür nehmen und ihn mir geben?” (Woidich 2006: 358). In Quran Arabic, it is not easy to distinguish interrogative mā, whether as an interrogative wh-word or as a morpheme promoting a rhetorical question, from negative mā. This is a natural outcome of the combination of two facts: the distinction between a rhetorical question and a negative statement seems to be a matter of pragmatics rather than polarity, and the contextual pragmatics are not always self-evident. In other words, mā is at an early stage of grammaticalization. Even when the answer is known to a question like (192) mā ǧazāʔ-u man yafʕalu ḏālika [mā recompense.of-nom rel do.ipfv.3msg that] ‘what is the recompense of him who does that,’ given that the contents of ‘that’ is to disbelieve in the Quran, the clause preceding this one is marked as a yesno question by means of ʔa-, which indicates that the clause with mā may pragmatically be understood as a question too. It cannot be excluded that the Quran is full of rhetorical questions with mā rather than negative statements with mā. If mā is admitted as a negative lemma, it should at any rate be understood as a, relatively speaking, recent newcomer in the expression of negation on account of its syntactically restricted distribution. 14.2.2 Phoenician ʔy The negative meaning of ʔy in Phoenician is an inference of its use in a rhetorical question. It cannot be ruled out that this implicature has become grammaticalized, while at the same time being (possibly) homonymous with interrogative ʔy. It cannot be determined, however, whether ʔy originally asked a yes-no question or a wh-question. If *ʔay- is marked by the locative suffix *-ū̆, for example, the formation may be identified with a locative interrogative pro-adverb ‘where’ with the negative implicature of existential negation. On the other hand, if Phoenician ʔy is identified with an interrogative determiner *ʔayyv, as ʔy should be parsed in collocation with bl, it is possible that a question including ʔy is a yes-no question posed as a rhetorical one, promoted by *ʔayyv. The difficulties in parsing ʔy stem from the fact that the predicates following ʔy cannot conclusively be parsed as verbal or non-verbal. For example, (137) ʔy ʔd/ rln ksp may be ‘there is no ʔd/rln of silver,’ ‘there is not silver with me,’ ‘they did not gather/give silver for/to me,’ or ‘I do not possess silver’ (see p. 182).

Innovative Expressions Of Negation

397

14.2.3 Phoenician bl The morpheme *bal can be reconstructed as a marker of the abessive (‘without’) in Semitic, as in Old Babylonian (p. 173) balu išâl-anni ušeṣṣû-šu [without ask. ipfv.3msg-obj.1sg make.go.out.ipfv.3mpl-obj.3msg] ‘they send him away without asking me.’ As in other scale reversal contexts, *bal is also sometimes followed by a negated clause, e.g. Old Assyrian (49) balum mimma … tamkārum ē itbal [without anything … merchant-nom neg carry.off.pfv.3msg] ‘with less than that … the merchant does not carry off anything’ as well as Biblical Hebrew (n. 42 on p. 187) ha-mib-bəlī ʔēn qəḇå̄rīm [q-from-without there.is.not grave.pl] ‘(is it) because of lack of there are not graves?’ In these cases, the negators ē and ʔēn are pleonastic (see section 2.4.1). In Phoenician, *bal has shifted from an exponent of the abessive to the negative. This shift results from the grammaticalization of a conventional implicature. Givón (2001, 1: 267–68, 382–83) has pointed out that words for ‘lack’ share implicatures with negation: He lacks knowledge ⊃ He does not know. Givón (2001, 1: 267) further remarked that ‘in the process of grammaticalization, their more specific semantic features are bleached out, leaving only their negative inference.’ Thus, then, a clause like Biblical Hebrew (133b) hikkū-nī ḇal-ḥālīṯī [strike.res.3pl-obj.1sg without-be.sick.res.1sg] ‘they have stricken me, without that I was hurt’ is potentially reanalyzed as ‘they have stricken me, I was not hurt,’ since the absence expressed by bal has the same implicature as negation. This implicature can be observed in Ps 49:13 (p. 179) wə-ʔāḏām b-īqār bal-yālīn nimšal kab-bəhēmōṯ niḏmū [and-man in-honor without-stay. ipfv.3msg be.like.res.3msg as.def-beast.pl perish.res.3pl] ‘but the man who is in honor, without that he lasts, he resembles the beasts that perish,’ comparable to verse 21 in the same psalm, (p. 179) ʔāḏām b-īqār wə-lō yāḇīn nimšal kab-bəhēmōṯ niḏmū [man in-honor and-neg understand.ipfv.3msg be.like.res.3msg as.def-beast.pl perish.res.3pl] ‘the man who is in honor and does not understand, he resembles the beasts that perish.’ It appears that this implicature has become part of the meaning of bl in Phoenician. Indeed, unlike Hebrew bal, it is also used in adverbially marked clauses, e.g. (p. 180) w-my bl ḥz [and-who neg see.pst.3msg] ‘he who has not seen.’ 14.2.4 Arabic ʔin Negative ʔin in Arabic is homographic with the conditional particle ʔin. Without a following consequence clause, it seems to involve a negative implicature. The use of a morpheme marking conditions with a negative implicature is also known from Hebrew and (later forms of) Akkadian, e.g. 2 Sam 11:11 ḥayyɛḵå̄ wə-ḥē nap̄ š-ɛḵå̄ ʔim ʔɛʕɛ̆śɛ ʔɛṯ-had-då̄ḇå̄r haz-zɛ [life-poss.2msg and-life.of soul-poss.2msg ʔim do.ipfv.1sg obj-def-thing def-this] ‘by your life and the

398

Chapter 14

life of your soul, if I will do this thing,’ i.e. ‘I will not do this thing by your life and your soul.’ The negative implicature is especially prominent after an oath, as in the preceding example, with an implied unwanted consequence clause. Similarly, Arabic (205) yaḥlifūna bi-llāh-i ʔin aradnā [swear.ipfv.3mpl byAllah-gen ʔin want.pst.1pl] ‘they swear: by Allah, if we wanted (it),’ i.e. ‘we did not want it by Allah.’ It is possible that an example like the preceding one forms a bridging context, depending on whether ‘by Allah’ is understood as an adjunct to the verb of swearing, or as an abridged consequence clause to the conditional antecedent. It is not clear whether ʔin, homographic with conditional ʔin, is a negative lemma in Quran Arabic. However, without any explicit consequence clause, the clause marked by ʔin has a negative implicature. 14.3

Collocation with Markers for Old Information

In Peripheral Western Gurage, standard negation is characterized, besides by the preverbal negator *ʔal-, also by the suffix KTD. The same suffix is also used with the affirmative relative yvqatvl and the affirmative temporal t-yvqatvl. The suffix KTD should be identified with clitic forms of the independent personal pronouns in origin. The personal pronouns can be used in a discoursereferential function in the sense of ‘the above-mentioned.’ For example, cliticized to a relative predicate, the KTD-suffix forms an existentially quantified relative clause, e.g. (p. 381) bīd yaṭawrā-ta ‘the ones who clean the house.’ It is tempting to assume that KTD was in origin clitic to relative predicates that was adnominal to an antecedent already definite or referential de re, and that the suffix served the purpose of re-assuming that referent. This is also indicated by the fact that KTD is not obligatory with relative qvtvla, which on the other hand is marked endophorically by yä-. KTD grammaticalized with negated predicates in this discourse-referential function. Since negative clauses are felicitous in contexts where the corresponding affirmative proposition is presupposed from a discursive point of view, the call for KTD with negated predicates may be explained as a means to refer to that proposition and subsequently comment on it in the form of a predicate negated by *ʔal-. 14.4

Collocation with Pro-Sentential Negators

In the continental Modern South Arabian languages, standard negation is characterized by clause-final *lā. Unlike focus particles in negative expressions, this

Innovative Expressions Of Negation

399

morpheme is clause-final rather than cliticized or suffixed to the negator or the negated predicate. In Jibbali, standard negation is usually expressed by a discontinuous negative construction, involving preverbal el (*ʔal) and a clause-final negator lo (*lā). The latter is originally the pro-sentential negator ‘no,’ which was appended at the end of the clause for the purpose of expressing so-called resumptive negation. After the speaker uttered a negative proposition, s/he resumed it by the pro-sentential ‘no’ for the sake of semantic precision. For example, a clause like (259 and 260) el téšfuk lo ʕar tel TN [neg marry.jus.2msg neg except with TN] ‘do not marry except from (the tribe of) TN,’ the verb phrase el téšfuk is within itself integral, corresponding to Common Semitic ʔal-yvqtvl. Nevertheless, the speaker resumes this prohibition by the pro-sentential negator lā in order to be more informative: ‘do not marry, not at all.’ This resumption is called for by the addition of the ʕar-phrase, which includes an exception to the prohibition. When lā was no longer understood as a pro-sentential negator, but as an integral part of clausal negation, the syntactico-semantic divergence from lā went hand in hand with a phonetic divergence, such that the clausal negator became lo. It may be noted that renewal through the grammaticalization of resumptive negation is not restricted to declarative verbal main clauses, unlike renewal through the grammaticalization of focus particles. In Harsusi, the clause-final negator has assumed the functional load of expressing clausal negation, and a reflex of *ʔal- is no longer needed in prepredicate position. However, negation by means of the lone clause-final negator in Jibbali is only felicitous as long as the proposition to be negated is activated by being mentioned or inferred in the discourse. It is possible that in some instances of negation by means of a lone clause-final negator, the preverbal negator was not used in the construction to begin with. In such cases, the speaker would have posed a non-negated question which s/he answered him- or herself. For example, (270b) het šek ġageníti lo ġabgót ʕar tel feqír [you with.obj.2msg girl.pl neg girl only with poor] ‘you do not have girls, only the poor one has a girl,’ is possibly reanalyzed from ‘do you have girls? no, only the poor one has a girl.’ 14.5 Borrowing Renewal in the expression of negation seems to arise predominantly through the grammaticalization of pragmatic variants of emphasis expressions. Generally, these emphatic expressions are not sensitive to the predicate type as long as that predicate type can be used for declarative verbal main clauses.

400

Chapter 14

However, in a few Semitic languages, a negator is restricted to only one of the predicate types that can be used for this purpose. Common to these negators seems to be borrowing. 14.5.1 Western Neo-Aramaic ču Negative ču is the unmarked negator of the present and the perfect in Western Neo-Aramaic. The present, corresponding historically to qātil, and the perfect, corresponding historically to qtīl, qattīl, are innovative verbal grammatical morphemes in Western Neo-Aramaic. The morpheme ču is also known from Kurdish and Eastern Neo-Aramaic. In Kurdish, the morpheme functions as an interrogative pronoun ‘what’ and as an indefinite determiner in scale reversal contexts. As for Eastern Neo-Aramaic, in the Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar for example, ču is also used as a determiner and is restricted to co-occur with negated predicates. It can be argued that ču was borrowed in this capacity into Western Neo-Aramaic, considering that indefinites are likely candidates for borrowing, and that the morpheme was reanalyzed as independently negative rather than a negative determiner. Such an association on part of the speakers of the target language is plausible if the morpheme is restricted to scale reversal contexts in the source language. 14.5.2 Gafat and Kistane *tv-, Aksumite and Late Sabaic dʔ The fact that *tv- in Gafat and Kistane only negates yvqatvl indicates that it is not necessarily the result of the grammaticalization of an emphasis construction, in which case it would likely have been extended to negate qvtvla as well. Rather, the easiest explanation seems to be to assume that *tv- is borrowed from Cushitic. As a matter of fact, a negator that includes a dental stop is only found in Sidamo among the Highland East Cushitic languages, and in Awngi among the Agaw languages. Therefore, since Sidamo di- and Awngi -tí- is attested in isolation among the Cushitic languages, just as *tv- among the Ethiosemitic languages, it seems probable that the negator is borrowed between these languages, perhaps from Awngi to Gafat and from Sidamo to Kistane, or, provided that Gafat and Kistane at some point neighbored, only once from one of those Cushitic languages to one of the Semitic languages and from there it was borrowed anew. In Awngi, negative -tí- is restricted to negate the base of the so-called definite future. It is therefore not entirely unlikely that the restriction of *tv- in Gafat and Kistane to yvqatvl is a calque on this construction in Awngi. On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty that *tv- is not

Innovative Expressions Of Negation

401

related to Tigre däy. It is worth noting that däy also seems to be restricted to negating yvqatvl. In Late Sabaic, ʔl is replaced to some extent by negative dʔ. It appears that dʔ only negates qtl and not the prefix conjugation (with a possible exception in example 236). Although the retention of ʔl negating the prefix conjugation may be due to the formulaic expressions in which it occurs, ʔl is in fact also attested as a negator of qtl in Late Sabaic. At any rate, the restriction of dʔ to qtl indicates that the negator was not necessarily introduced as an emphatic variant to ʔl in all contexts. It cannot be ruled out that this negator is borrowed from Aksumite dʔ or Tigre däy < *dv-ʔal-. The attestation of a negator dw in 10th c. Himyaritic and the pro-sentential negators dow, dā, and dåwwa in contemporary Southern Yemeni Arabic, indicate an areal diffusion of a negator beginning in d-.

Chapter 15

Other Negators and Negative Asymmetries The negative expressions referred to in the preceding chapter are innovations that coexist with other expressions of negation. Sometimes the innovative expression is a pragmatically conditioned variant to another non-emphatic expression of negation of the same clause type, and sometimes one or the other of the negative expressions is restricted to a specific clause type. Many times, the negators of subordinated clauses can be internally reconstructed as more original. Furthermore, the negative expressions are not always symmetric to their affirmative counterparts. For example, various innovations in affirmative clauses do not always affect their negative counterparts and sometimes the negative counterpart of an affirmative clause is expressed by a different grammatical morpheme altogether. There is one such negative alloform that pertains to all Semitic language groups, viz. the negative counterpart to the imperative. 15.1 Akkadian The unmarked expression of standard negation in Old Assyrian is lā. The same negator is also used for non-standard negation; for example, to negate nondeclarative verbal clauses and non-main verbal clauses. The form ulā is a syndetic counterpart to lā and typically negates a clause that is an addition to another clause. When the clause negated by ulā is not an addition to another clause, ulā invokes a pragmatic scale and contributes to emphatic negation. In this capacity, ulā is a form of emphatic negator that is marked for additive focus. Negative ulā in Old Assyrian and the abbreviated forms ula and ul in Babylonian are restricted to the negation of clauses with declarative basic illocution. This holds for statements, as well as yes-no questions. The illocutionary point of a clause negated by ulā is in other words less relevant, as long as the formal expression of the clause is declarative. The use of lā as an exponent of standard negation is not productive in Babylonian non-poetic texts. Instead, ul(a) has replaced lā in this function. In Old Babylonian, lā is restricted to non-standard negation; for example, to negate non-declarative verbal clauses and non-main verbal clauses. The negator of the predicate iparras with directive illocutionary force is lā, e.g. Old Assyrian (51) lā tuwaššar-šunu [neg release.ipfv.2msg-obj.3mpl] © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_016

Other Negators and Negative Asymmetries

403

‘do not release them.’ Clauses marked for non-declarative illocution also include clauses marked by šumma and WH-words, e.g. (84) šumma lā išaqqalak-kum [if neg pay.ipfv.3msg-all-dat.2msg] ‘if he will not pay you.’ It is worth pointing out that šumma-clauses negated by ul in Mari Babylonian are concessive and correspond to affirmative u šumma (see p. 83). Furthermore, a predicate marked by -u/-ni in subordination is negated by lā, e.g. (p. 82) kīma wer-û mimma ina ēkall-im lā uṣ-an-ni [that copper-nom any from palace-gen neg go.out.pfv.3msg-all-subord] ‘(they informed us) that no copper has left the palace to here.’ This is due to the non-assertiveness of subordinate clauses, which implies that they are not used for focus. Predicates marked by -u/-ni are not restricted to clauses marked by a subordinating conjunction but are also used in oaths. They are nevertheless (as a rule) negated by lā, e.g. p. 80 DN1 u DN2 liṭṭulā mimma libb-ī lā ilammin-u [DN1 and DN2 witness.vol.3du any heart-poss.1sg neg be.angry.ipFv.3msg-subord] ‘may both DN1 and DN2 be witnesses: my heart will not be angry at all.’ The relatively recent formation of the verbal grammatical morpheme iptaras in Akkadian is in general not negated, and a negated iprus serves in its stead. Therefore, regardless of the functional motivation behind iptaras entering the inflectional verb system, negated iprus was preserved as its negative alloform. In other words, the information expressed in a situation predicated by iptaras does not need not be expressed when the situation did not even take place. In a clause marked by šumma, for example, iparras and iptaras may be used for non-past reference, e.g. BIN 6 22:33 (quoted in n. 62 on p. 85) šumma itamma/ittama ‘if he swears.’ The negative counterpart in the same example, šumma lā itma ‘if he does not swear,’ is expressed by recourse to negated iprus, whereas affirmative iprus would be used for past reference (šumma itma ‘if he swore’). It is worth pointing out that the negated iprus in this capacity is nonpast, whereas non-past iprus elsewhere is usually modal (as in *la-iprus) or generic (rather than episodic). To be sure, the predicate type iprus is sometimes used instead of iparras as the negative counterpart to purus, the imperative, which is never negated. Unlike iprus in its indicative function, which is negated by lā (or *wa-lā), iprus in its modal function is negated by *ʔal-, e.g. (46) libb-ī ē amraṣ [heart-poss.1sg proh be.sick.pfv.1sg] ‘may I not be sick in my heart.’ As a matter of fact, the modal function resides in ē, provided that the same verb form not preceded by ē would be non-modal. Negative *ʔal- becomes residual in the history of Akkadian and is replaced by the innovative expression lā iparras which became marked for prohibition in Old Babylonian. The markedness coincides with ul becoming the marker of standard negation in Babylonian. The loss of force in negative meaning is indicated by the fact that ē is used for (synchronically)

404

Chapter 15

pleonastic negation in certain scale reversal contexts, as in clauses marked for fear (or affection), for example by the lexeme assurrē, e.g. (48) assurrē ē iddinū [fear proh sell.pfv.3mpl] ‘‘I fear’: may they not sell (it),’ i.e. ‘I fear they might sell (it).’ All in all, two negators can be reconstructed for Akkadian, *lā and *ʔal-. In Sargonic Akkadian, negative lā is always written la1. In view of the fact that la2 is /laʔ/, the negator does not need to be reconstructed with a final glottal stop. Negative ulā (ula, ulv, and ul) is a compound of *wa- and lā and cannot be identified with West Semitic *ʔal-. On the contrary, the cognate to West Semitic *ʔal-, which is restricted to clauses with a directive illocutionary point as in Northwest Semitic, has lost the final lateral in Akkadian, and the vocalic outcome is variously ā, a, and ē, depending on the dialect and following phone(me). The fact that the reflex of *ʔal- is sometimes separated from the predicate, as in the construction ē lā, indicates that it is proclitic, at least to a following consonant. 15.2

Northwest Semitic

Two verbal negators can be reconstructed for Northwest Semitic, *lā and *ʔal-. However, in Proto-Phoenician, *lā was given up in favor of *bal as a standard negator, and among the reconstructed negators, only *ʔal- is unequivocally attested. It is not clear whether Phoenician bl sometimes represents *bv-lā rather than *bal, which would indicate that *lā was not entirely lost. *bal can be reconstructed in Hebrew and Ugaritic as a marker for the abessive, while *ʔalcan be reconstructed for all the Northwest Semitic languages as a negator of clauses with a directive illocutionary point when the predicate is yvqtvl. In Ugaritic epic narration, yvqtvl negated by lā can be used for negative events in the main line. These events are norm-breaking, e.g. (74) l-pʕn DN l tpl l tštḥwy [before-foot.of.du DN neg fall.pfv.3mdu neg prostrate.pfv.3mdu] ‘they (sc. the messengers) did not fall before DN, they did not prostrate,’ where the event of not showing reverence is evaluated as an effrontery. It may be concluded that even if the functions of yvqtvl and yvqtvlu had become blurred as affirmative predicates at this point in Ugaritic, there is no reason to assume that they were not maintained distinct as negated predicates. Lā yvqtvl is presumably attested in the language of Deir Alla as well, e.g. (147) byt l-yʕl hlk [house.of neg-go.up./enter.pfv.3msg go.ptcp] ‘a house which, he who goes (there) does/did not rise/enter.’ However, there is no symmetric negative counterpart to wayyiqtol in Hebrew. Yet, the existence of neg

Other Negators and Negative Asymmetries

405

yvqtvl in Ugaritic and Deir Alla (and Amarna Canaanite) suggests that negated yvqtvl with indicative meaning belonged to Northwest Semitic. It may be hypothesized that the fossilization of *wa- with yvqtvl made lā yvqtvl obsolete in Hebrew. However, also in Archaic Biblical Hebrew, where asyndetic yvqtvl is attested, negated yvqtvl is missing. Rather, the obsolescence of the negated yvqtvl results from the fixation of yvqtvl to the clause-initial position in Hebrew. As soon as yvqtvl was restricted to this position, the negation of yvqtvl by means of *lā became ungrammatical and lō qvtvla entered as the negative counterpart to wayyiqtol in its stead. There is thus a formal asymmetry between affirmative wayyiqtol and negative lō qvtvla. However, this asymmetry does not mean that all instances of lō qvtvla are non-main line, simply because of the switch in verbal grammatical morphemes. The asymmetrical negated counterpart must rather be explained historically as an innovation that results from the fixation of yvqtvl to clause-initial position. It is true that yvqtvl was probably clauseinitial by default, but the variation in word order known from Ugaritic (and Amarna Canaanite) is not admissible in Biblical Hebrew. While the use of qvtvla for non-past situations is known from other Semitic languages, the generalization and profusion of wə-qvtvla as an expression of an accompanying action in a non-past context is an innovative feature of Hebrew. However, this innovation has not affected the negated qvtvla. Rather, wə-lō yvqtvlu is used as the negative counterpart to wə-qvtvla, e.g. (115) lēḵ wə-hikkīṯ̄å� … wə-lō taḥmōl ʕå� lå� w [go.imp.2msg and-smite.res.2msg  … and-neg pity. ipfv.2msg upon.obj.3msg] ‘go and smite (him) … and thereat do not pity on him.’ It seems reasonable to assume that affirmative wə-yvqtvlu had the function of an accompanying action in Proto-Hebrew too, and that the retention of negated yvqtvlu in this capacity is a retention of an older verbal grammatical morpheme yvqtvlu that was replaced in affirmative clauses by wə-qvtvla. A similar retention of an older verbal grammatical morpheme is observed in the negative counterpart to qātil, for which lō qvtvla or lō yvqtvlu serve as negative alloforms. This is the case in example (123) raq śəp̄ å�ṯ-ɛhå� nå� ʕōṯ wə-qōl-å� h lō yiššå� mēaʕ [only lip.nsg-poss.3fsg move.ptcp.nsg and-voice-poss.3fsg neg be.heard.ipfv.3msg] ‘only her lips were moving, but her voice was not heard.’ Provided that the active participle in predicative function is a relative newcomer in the verbal system of Biblical Hebrew, it should come as no surprise that the innovation has not yet affected the negative counterpart. The reason is that it is not necessary to express the progressive meaning associated with the participle as long as the situation expressed did not take place at all, or, given that negative situations are generally presupposed in the discourse, the progressive meaning may be at hand without having to be specified.

406

Chapter 15

Negative *ʔal- in Northwest Semitic is used for prohibitions. The proclitic rather than prefixal nature of ʔal- in Hebrew is indicated by its occasional separation from the verb by -nå� . Most of the time, the lexical content of the prohibition is expressed by the verbal grammatical morpheme yvqtvl, e.g. Hebrew (125) ʔal-yå� śem ham-mɛlɛḵ [proh-put.pfv.3msg def-king] ‘let not the king put.’ Yvqtvl negated by ʔal- is not restricted to clause-initial position, unlike affirmative yvqtvl, which indicates that ʔal- is a sufficient means to indicate the intended verbal grammatical morpheme. This fact suggests that the few attestations of verb forms that look like yvqtvlu and are negated by ʔal- in Hebrew and Aramaic should be parsed as yvqtvl. There are also attestations of *ʔal- as a negator of non-verbal parts of speech, e.g. Hebrew (131) ʔal-ṭal wə-ʔal-må� ṭå� r [proh-dew and-proh-rain] ‘let there not be dew, and let there not be rain,’ Deir Alla (159) ʔl ngh [proh brilliance] ‘(so that) there may not be brilliance,’ and Ugaritic, e.g. (95) ʔal kbkb [proh star] ‘may there be no star.’ While clauses negated by ʔal- in Hebrew and Phoenician are generally independent clauses, Ugaritic ʔal- is sometimes used for negative consequence clauses, e.g. (96) nġr ʕnn ʔilm ʔal tqrb [take.care.imp.2du servant.of.du god. gen.pl proh approach.pfv.2du] ‘take care, servants of the gods, lest you come (too) close.’ This use of *ʔal- is also known from Aramaic, e.g. (158a) [mstr]y-k ʔl tgly qdm [rḥ]my-k ʔl yql šm-k [secret.pl-poss.2msg proh reveal. pfv.2msg before friend.pl-poss.2msg proh be.small.pfv.3msg nameposs.2msg] ‘do not reveal your secrets in front of a friend, lest your name be reduced.’ In Ugaritic, ʔal- may even be used pleonastically, as after ʔik ‘how,’ e.g. (99) šmʕ mʕ l-bn DN1 DN2 ʔik ʔal tmth̬ ṣ [hear.imp.2msg with.obj.1sg voc-son. of DN1 DN2 how ʔal fight.pfv.2msg] ‘listen to me, O son of DN1, DN2, (or) how will you fight.’ 15.3 Arabic The unmarked standard negator in Arabic is lā and its allomorph lam. In Proto-Arabic, the system of negation inherited from Proto-Central Semitic was reorganized as a result of the generalization of the negative implicature of interrogative mā. Push-effects of this development included the loss of the morpheme *ʔal- and the obsolescence of lā qvtvla. However, the fact that the negator mā is restricted to the negation of main clauses in Quran Arabic is indicative of its relatively recent appearance in the negative system of Arabic. The unmarked negative counterpart to qvtvla is expressed by a different verbal grammatical morpheme, yvqtvl, which is negated by lam. In other words,

Other Negators and Negative Asymmetries

407

the negation of qvtvla is expressed asymmetrically as lam yvqtvl. There is reason to assume that the use of yvqtvl after the negator is a retention, and that the (in relation to East Semitic) more progressive development of qvtvla as an exponent of the past only applied to affirmation. It is difficult, however, to ascertain whether this development of qvtvla began already in West Semitic, or independently on lower nodes. As a matter of fact, even if the anteriorperfective meaning of qvtvla is a Proto-West Semitic innovation, it cannot be ruled out that negated yvqtvl was preserved for this function in Proto-West Semitic. Then the anterior-perfective uses of negated qvtvla are independent but parallel innovations in the various West Semitic languages and formed on analogy with affirmative qvtvla. The verbal grammatical morpheme yvqtvla in Arabic is negated by lā if it is subordinated, e.g. by means of ʔan, but by lan when it is used in a main clause. This is also the only instance where yvqtvla is used in an independent clause. Lan yvqtvla typically occurs in adversative clauses that are linked to a remarkable opposite which indicates that it is used to express a high degree of confidence on part of the speaker in the knowledge upon which the proposition is based. 15.4

Ancient South Arabian

The standard negator in Middle Sabaic is ʔl, for example (217) w-ʔl hbrrw hmw [and-neg go.out.pst.3mpl they] ‘and they did not go out’ and (221) w-b ʔrh̬ qwrfn ʔl ykbn [and-in matter.of field.pl neg obtain.npst.3msg] ‘and concerning the matter of the fields, he will/must not obtain.’ ʔl is also used for the negation of non-declarative clauses like directive ones, e.g. (220) w-ʔwld-hmw f-ʔl ymnʕw [and-child.pl-poss.3mpl and-neg hinder.npst.3mpl] ‘as to their children, may they not hinder.’ It is not clear whether the verb form yqtl in this example, in comparison to yqtln in the preceding one, marks the clause as a prohibition rather than a statement. It may be pointed out, however, that when ʔl yqtln lends itself an interpretation as volitive on account of context in Middle Sabaic, it is always followed by a pronominal suffix, e.g. (222) w-ʔl thšʔmn-hmw [and-neg buy.npst.2msg-obj.3mpl] ‘and do not buy them’ (rather than ‘you must not buy them’). This indicates a close relationship between the n-augment and the pronominal suffix, and that prohibitive ʔl-yqtln(hw) was actually ʔl-yqtl-n(hw). ʔl is also used for the negation of subordinated clauses, e.g. (229) l-qbly ḏt-ʔl yʔtwn ʕdy-hw sqym [for-on.account.of which-neg come.ipfv.3msg

408

Chapter 15

unto-obj.3msg water] ‘because irrigation-water was not coming to it.’ It may be pointed out that negated yqtln seems to express an imperfective situation in the past. In main clauses, negated yqtl and yqtln are not used for the narration of events, but replaced, so to speak, by negated qtl. The absence of narrative neg yvqtvl is related to the obsolescence of lā. Nowhere did ʔal-yvqtvl replace narrative lā yvqtvl. Negative l is attested in Early Sabaic as a (synchronically) pleonastic negator in scale reversal contexts, as after ʕdy, e.g. (223) ʕdy l-yrtʕ śdn [until neg-reach. npst.3msg dam] ‘before it reaches the dam’ and in relation to a universal quantifier, e.g. (224) w-mhn l-yfdw [and-whatever neg-plant.npst.3mpl] ‘and whatever they do (not) plant’ (i.e. ‘whatever they plant’). Negative l is attested in Minaic too (besides in the form lhm), for example (206) ʔhl šʕr w-ʔhl l šʕr [clan be.known.pst.3msg and-clan neg be.-known.pst.3msg] ‘a clan that is known as well as a clan that is not known.’ The fact that both *lā and *ʔal(-) can be reconstructed to Proto-Ancient South Arabian indicates a closer affiliation to the Central Semitic languages than to Modern South Arabian and Ethiosemitic. 15.5

Modern South Arabian

It is clear that the function of lā as a clausal negator in Modern South Arabian is an innovation. Indeed, lā in this function is not known from the insular language of Soqotri, but only occurs in the continental Modern South Arabian languages. In fact, even in continental Modern South Arabian, negation is sometimes expressed by the preverbal negator and without the clause-final one, as in emphatic negative coordination, e.g. Jibbali (261) el eġórb-iš b-el eġórb út-iš [neg know.npst.1sg-obj.2fsg and-neg know.npst.1sg houseposs.2fsg] ‘I do not know you nor your house,’ and negative questions. The reason is that if the pro-sentential negator was used in clause-final position to a negated question, it could possibly be interpreted as providing an answer to that question. The various preverbal negators without a lateral approximant, like Soqotri ḗ, Abd-el-Kuri ā, and Jibbali ʔɔ, are the result of l-vocalization. The various preverbal negators with a lateral approximant in onset position, like Jibbali l-, li, and le and Mehri l- and la, result from loss of the vocalic onset in el and əl. It is therefore not necessary to reconstruct any other (verbal) negator to ProtoModern South Arabian than *ʔal(-) (section 10.2). In fact, it is not self-evident that Proto-Modern South Arabian inherited Proto-Semitic *lā at all. The only function of lā in Modern South Arabian that

Other Negators and Negative Asymmetries

409

is also shared with other Semitic languages is that of pro-sentential negation. This is also the source of lā as a clausal negator. If the existence of lā in the Modern South Arabian lexicon is a retention from Proto-Semitic, it could be expected to have preserved other functions as well. Yet, the post-position in constituent negation of the type śe lo, for example, must be explained from the reanalysis of clause-final *lā (cf. the discussion to example 274). It is therefore not entirely unlikely that lā was borrowed in its pro-sentential function from Arabic, especially in view of the abundance of other utterance-modifying morphemes borrowed from Arabic into continental Modern South Arabian. 15.6 Ethiosemitic In general, the various expressions of negation that involve *-ma or *-ni are restricted to standard negation. Negated yvqtvl, for example, which is an expression marked for prohibition, is always negated by *ʔal- without *-ma or *-ni. Similarly, subordinated clauses are in general not negated by the discontinuous negative construction, e.g. (p. 353) b-a-yläwwäṭ [if-neg-change. ipfv.3msg] ‘in case it does not change.’ When a negated predicate of a subordinated clause is marked by *-ma or *-ni, the focus particle is not an integral part of the negative construction but used for the sake of rendering the clause indefinite or universal, e.g. Tigrinya (289) z-ey-elĕqh-ĕnì qetālì [rel-neg-lend. npst.3msg-ni killer] ‘whoever does not lend is a killer.’ Hetzron (1972: 94–95) suggested that the distinction made between main and subordinated negative verbs in Ethiosemitic languages is due to Cushitic influence. However, since the same restriction on the combination of a negator and a focus particle to main clauses is found in Akkadian, the reason behind the restriction may as well be due to the functional nature of subordinated clauses as non-assertive. As to the formal exponent of negation, one negator, *ʔal-, can be reconstructed to Ethiosemitic. All forms of the preverbal negator (with the plausible exception of Gafat and Kistane *tv-) are derived from this morpheme. The negator ʔay- in Aksumite, Tigrinya, and Tigre of Bogos should be explained as derived from *ʔal- through the palatalization of -l in the coda of a non-stressed syllable in word-final position. It is tempting to assume that palatalization first occurred in the environment of palatals, i.e. before the verbal prefix y-. From there, the palatalized pronunciation of *ʔal- as [ʔaly-] spread to other environments in the same paradigm by pressure. In Amharic, this paradigm included the prefix conjugation, while in Northern Ethiosemitic, the paradigms included both the prefix conjugation and the suffix conjugation, so that *ʔaleffectively became *ʔay-, see further section 11.2. Negative ʔi- in Ge’ez and Tigre

410

Chapter 15

of Mensa, in turn, results from a contraction of that diphthong. This unique contraction into i must be explained from the prosodic nature of the negator with assimilation of a to the glide (p. 322). The negators with a glide onset, like *yv- in Tigre of Habab and Dahalik, which are also known from the expressions of negative existence in Tigrinya y-ällo- and Modern Amharic y-ällä-, result from the raising of a falling diphthong ai̯ to i̯a. Part of the evidence comes from the variants ʔay-ällo- vs. yällo- in Tigrinya and ʔellä- vs. yäll- in Old and Modern Amharic respectively, as well as the pair ella-/yella- in Argobba of Aliyu Amba (see section 11.2.1). Many Ethiosemitic languages have renewed various TAM-categories that are connected with finiteness by grammaticalization of different morpho-syntactic means like auxiliaries, copulas, and focus particles. Most of the time, the renewal is restricted to main clause predications. Furthermore, many times, the renewal is restricted to affirmative main clause predications. This restriction causes a formal asymmetry between affirmative and negative expressions of similar categories. The formal counterpart to Ge’ez hallo yvqatvl/yvqatvl hallo, i.e. a combination of the imperfective and the existential verb *hlw, is grammaticalized as an inflective verbal grammatical morpheme in a number of Ethiosemitic languages to the extent that the original exponent, yvqatvl, is restricted to secondary functions. In Harari, the negative counterpart to the combination yvqatvl + *hlw, which is yiqätlāl, is formed on a combination of yvqatvl and the negated auxiliary ēlu (*ʔal + *hlw), i.e. yiqätl-um-ēl, with *ma proclitic to ēlu. In Silte and Wolane, the exponent of the imperfective is marked by a suffix -ā or -ān, which is also likely to be identified as eroded forms of *hlw (section 12.6). In the negative counterpart, negated *hlw precedes yvqatvl. In Amharic, however, the negative counterpart to compound yvqatvl + *hlw, which is yəqätlall, is a-yqätləmm, i.e. *ʔal-yvqatvl-ma. In other words, the exponent of the negative imperfective preserves the original verbal grammatical morpheme yvqatvl. In South Ethiosemitic, the second radical is geminated in qvtvla Type A, which is known as the G-stem in Northern Ethiosemitic and elsewhere in Semitic. While this feature is present in most languages, and is likely to be an innovation in Proto-South Ethiosemitic, the second radical in the negative counterpart is simple in a number of South Ethiosemitic languages. Nongemination can be regarded as a retention of the more original situation, as in Northern Ethiosemitic. In other words, the innovation of geminating R2 of qvtvla Type A in South Ethiosemitic only took place when it was not preceded by *ʔal-. After the separation of the attested languages from Proto-South Ethiosemitic, R2 of negated qvtvla Type A was geminated in some languages, like Amharic, possibly in analogy to its affirmative counterpart. Nevertheless,

Other Negators and Negative Asymmetries

411

the non-gemination was retained in other languages, like Kistane. It seems likely that the retention of simple R2 is due to the fact that whatever contribution the gemination of R2 was for affirmative predicates, this contribution was not relevant when the state of affairs was negated (see section 12.4.2). The situation may be compared to Hebrew Gen 15:10 wa-yḇattēr … lō ḇå� ṯå� r [and-cut. in.half.pst.3msg … neg cut.pst.3msg] ‘he cut in half … he did not cut.’ A predicate of reduced finiteness, like the converb, is usually not negated. The reduction of finiteness, or desententialization, is manifest in the fact that the converb inherits, so to speak, its PNG or TAM-values from the main clause predicate. As a desententialized predicate, the converb will also inherit its polarity from the main clause predicate, which explains why the converb cannot express polarity independently. Therefore, the negation of converbial functions will be expressed by other means, e.g. through the negation of a predicate of higher finiteness. Such a periphrastic expression, like t-a-yqatvl, functions as a negative alloform to the converb, e.g. Kistane (313) bayy bäsängən morä yəttonna-m t-a-yətnäffäs [child by-wall side sit.npst.3msg-cnv while-neg-breath.npst.3msg] ‘a child, sitting near the wall without breathing.’ In Kistane, as well as in Dobbi and Mäsqan, qättälä-m, a verb form that is homonymous with the converb based on qvtvla but positionally distinct from it, is also used as a present perfect. The negative counterpart to this formation, however, is ʔal-qvtvla. In Muher and Peripheral and Central Western Gurage, the present perfect is generalized as the unmarked exponent of the past in affirmative main clauses, e.g. Muher qättälä-m. Nevertheless, the negative counterpart is formed on the old expression of qvtvla, e.g. Muher an-qätälä.

Chapter 16

Reconstruction Several of the constructions associated with standard negation can be explained as the result of innovation. It is therefore argued that it is only necessary to reconstruct *lā and *ʔal-. What remains to be explained is the functional distribution of *lā and *ʔal- as standard negators in the different language groups and their functional development. 16.1

Distribution of *lā and *ʔal-

All preverbal negators that form part of the expression of standard negation, apart from Aramaic ču and Phoenician bl (and presumably Gafat and Kistane *tv-), derive from one of two etymons, *lā or *ʔal-. It does not seem warranted to reconstruct any other preverbal negator to Proto-Semitic. The classification potential of these negators must not be exaggerated. On account of the fact that *lā and *ʔal- are attested in both West Semitic and East Semitic, it is necessary to reconstruct both negators to Proto-Semitic. However, their functional distribution in the attested Semitic languages differs. *Lā may be reconstructed as the standard negator of Northwest Semitic, North Arabian, and East Semitic, while *ʔal- can be reconstructed as the standard negator of Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian (Table 9). The evidence offered by Ancient South Arabian is less conclusive, if one reconstructs *lā to Proto-Minaic and *ʔal- to Proto-Sabaic. At any rate, the attestations of *lā in Ancient South Arabian bring these languages closer to Central Semitic than to Modern South Arabian and Ethiosemitic. The reconstruction of the standard negators may be given an areal characterization: geographically speaking, the standard negator is *ʔal- in the Semitic languages attested south of the Yemeni Jawf, i.e. in Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian, as well as in the Ancient South Arabian languages excluding Minaic. The same negator *ʔal- is generally restricted to the negation of yvqtvl in Northwest Semitic and East Semitic, and only if the clause has a directive illocutionary point. In order to reconcile these facts, it is possible to assume, unless the variation belongs to Proto-Semitic itself, either that the situation in Proto-Modern South Arabian and Proto-Ethiosemitic is original, and that *ʔal- has specialized in Northwest Semitic and Akkadian, or that the situation in Proto-East

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004348554_017

Reconstruction

413

Semitic and Proto-Northwest Semitic is original, and that *ʔal- has generalized in Modern South Arabian and Ethiosemitic. An argument in favor of reconstructing *ʔal- as a standard negator in origin is that it seems to be more common for a standard negator to develop into a non-standard negator than the other way around. This tendency is indicated by e.g. the fate of lā in Old Babylonian, lā in Arabic dialects, and *ʔal- in Ethiosemitic. On the other hand, the observed development, it is argued here, is the result of renewal of the standard negator. In Old Babylonian, lā is restricted in distribution as a result of innovative ul, in Arabic dialects as a result of innovative mā, and *ʔal- in Ethiosemitic as a result of the innovative discontinuous construction (e.g. Amharic (ʔ)al- … -mm). These innovations (initially) only affected standard negation, such that the former standard negator passed into a non-standard negator. However, the restricted distribution of *ʔal- in those languages that retain both negators cannot be regarded as a push-effect of *lā, since *lā must be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic. Therefore, although the development of *ʔal- in Southern Semitic (not a genealogical subgroup) indicates a development from a non-standard negator to a standard negator, i.e. an extension rather than a specialization, the reanalysis is not the result of the innovation of a new negator. On the contrary, the following arguments speak in favor of reconstructing *lā as the standard negator:

• *lā is a standard negator in languages belonging to both West Semitic and East Semitic. • Most languages in which *lā is the standard negator are relatively older than the languages in which *ʔal- is the standard negator. • Most languages in which *ʔal- is the standard negator show no trace of *lā,

while most languages in which *lā is the standard negator also retain *ʔal(archaic heterogeneity).

In the languages that retain both *ʔal- and *lā, *ʔal- is most of the time highly restricted in distribution. Generally speaking, it only negates yvqtvl and the construction expresses a prohibition. If *lā is reconstructed as the standard negator in Proto-Semitic, it is necessary to explain how *ʔal- was generalized and extended in Ethiosemitic, Modern South Arabian, and Ancient South Arabian. However, explaining the extension of *ʔal- is complicated by the fact that those languages that generalized *ʔal- by and large also have given up *lā. It is difficult therefore to determine the path of development which led to the generalization of *ʔal-, since from the very earliest records, *ʔal- is already the

414

Chapter 16 Proto-Semitic *lā East Semitic *lā

West Semitic *lā Ethiosemitic *ʔal-

Modern S. Arabian *ʔal(-)

Ancient S. Arabian *lā Minaic l, l(h)m

Sabaic ʔl

Arabiyya lā, lam

Central Semitic *lā

Eblaite lā

Aramaic *lā

Canaanite *lā

Phoenician bl

Akkadian *lā

Ugaritic l

Hebrew lō

diagram 3 Distribution and reconstruction of the standard negator in Semitic.

standard negator. On the other hand, the languages that retain both *lā and *ʔal- sometimes employ *ʔal- in a way that indicates the possibility of reanalysis (bridging contexts). 16.2 Negated yvqtvl in Northwest Semitic and Akkadian A vexing question in comparative Semitic linguistics is how to reconcile the manifold functions of yvqtvl(/iprus), notably as an exponent of both narration and volition.1 Both the narrative and the volitive function of yvqtvl belong to Common Semitic, since they are attested in both West Semitic (Central Semitic) and East Semitic. Even the attested Semitic languages had to grapple with this question, so to speak, and resorted to different means to retain its different functions. For example, in Akkadian, the volitive functions of yvqtvl (i.e. 1  That the different functions represent different grammatical morphemes distinguished by stress, as Hetzron (1969a) suggests, is improbable, given that stress was likely only lexical and not grammatical, see for example Kouwenberg (2010: 130).

Reconstruction

415

iprus) are restricted to certain syntagms in the so-called precative paradigm (*la-yvqtvl, *law yvqtvl, *ʔal-yvqtvl). In Quran Arabic, on the other hand, the non-modal function is restricted to the syntagm lam yvqtvl (and lam-mā yvqtvl). The restriction of one function to certain syntagms led at the same time to the extension of other functions in other syntagms. Thus, the restriction of the non-narrative functions of yvqtvl in Akkadian to the precative paradigm paved the way for its narrative function in other positions. With regard to negated yvqtvl, lā negates it in all of its non-volitive functions. This is true for yvqtvl in narration, e.g. Ugaritic (74) l-pʕn DN l tpl l tštḥwy [before-foot.of.du DN neg fall.pfv.3mdu neg prostrate.pfv.3mdu] ‘they did not fall before DN, they did not prostrate’ and Old Babylonian, e.g. (59) qanâ ubil-šū-ma lā iṭh̬ i-am ana DN [arrow.acc bring.pfv.3msg-obj.3msg-and neg approach.pfv.3msg-all to DN] ‘he sent the arrow against him but it did not come near DN.’ Furthermore, lā also negates yvqtvl when it is not used in narration, but still is non-volitive, as in conditional antecedents, for example (44) awāt il-ī uṣur šumma lā taṣṣur [command.of.acc god-gen.pl guard.imp.2msg if neg guard.pfv.2msg] ‘tend to the command of the gods, if you will not tend,’ relative clauses, e.g. Ugaritic (92) ʔabn brq d l tdʕ šmm [discern.ipfv.1sg lightning.acc rel neg know.pfv.3mpl sky.pl] ‘I (can) discern the lightning which the skies do not know,’ and comparative clauses, e.g. Akkadian (n. 55 on p. 134) kīma kūb-u lā ēniq-u šizib ummī-šu [as foetus-nom.sg neg suck.pfv.3msgsubord milk.of mother.gen-poss.3msg] ‘as a stillborn child does not suck the milk of his mother.’ This is also true for Arabic yvqtvl negated by lam, which is the functional counterpart to Ugaritic and Akkadian lā yvqtvl/lā iprus, e.g. (197) ʔanhār-un min laban-in lam yataġayyar ṭaʕm-u-hu [river.pl-nom of milkgen neg change.pfv.3msg taste-nom-poss.3msg] ‘(in paradise there are) rivers of milk whose taste never changes.’ Likewise, lam also negates yvqtvl in conditional antecedents that refer to the future, for example (p. 255) balliġ mā ʔunzila ʔilay-ka min rabb-i-ka wa-ʔin lam tafʕal [announce.imp.2msg rel be.revealed.res.3msg to-obj.2msg from lord-gen-poss.2msg and-if neg do.pfv.2msg] ‘announce that which has been revealed to you from your lord, and if you do not do (it).’ iprus is also used in Old Assyrian for posteriority in the future, e.g. (p. 85) lā-ma allik-an-ni šaddinī-šu [neg-ma come.pfv.1sgall-subord make.pay.imp.2fsg-obj.3msg] ‘before I arrive, make him pay!’ However, when the illocutionary point of a clause whose predicate is yvqtvl is directive, it is negated by *ʔal-, e.g. Old Assyrian (45) ē tadgul [proh wait. pfv.2msg] ‘do not wait!’ and Ugaritic (93) ʔal tbk-n [proh cry.pfv.2msgobj.1sg] ‘do not cry for me!’ It is worth pointing out that any clause negated by *ʔal- is directive, even when the predicate is non-verbal, e.g. Hebrew (131) ʔal-ṭal wə-ʔal-må� ṭå� r [proh-dew and-proh-rain] ‘let there not be dew, and let

416

Chapter 16

there not be rain!’ It is also worth pointing out in this context that there are no clauses whose predicate is iparras or yvqtvlu that are negated by *ʔal-. The illocutionary force of such clauses can of course be directive, but they are nevertheless negated by *lā in this instance. It is also worth pointing out that the grammatical form and use always coincide in clauses with *ʔal-, i.e. they are not subject to speech act conversion. Therefore, the basic function of *ʔal- seems to be that of a prohibitor. Most of the time, the propositional content of that prohibition is expressed by the verbal grammatical morpheme yvqtvl(/iprus). If yvqtvl in Proto-Semitic was used both as a narrative grammatical morpheme and as a volitive grammatical morpheme, it must be the negator that denotes the prohibition in ʔal-yvqtvl, not the verbal form (nowhere is ʔal-yvqtvl used with narrative function). The fact that it is *ʔal- that denotes volition alone, not yvqtvl, is also indicated by the fact that lā yvqtvl is non-prohibitive in the languages that have preserved both *ʔal- and *lā. *ʔal- had in other words in itself the meaning of ‘may/let it not be the case that’ (or perhaps ‘may/let it be the case that not’), and the following (grammatical) morpheme simply served to mention the prohibited action (like the so-called injunctive after mā́ in Vedic, which, however, is also marked for aspect). It does not mean that *ʔal- was a negator of non-indicative or volitive verbal forms. For example, *ʔal- is not used to negate the imperative qvtvl/purus or Central Semitic yvqtvlu/East Semitic iparras with modal meaning. Rather, *ʔal- was restricted to the negation of yvqtvl, which in this function was not volitive either, but only served to mention the propositional content of the prohibition. The prohibitive nature of *ʔal- is also indicated by the fact that the illocutionary force of a clause negated by *ʔal- usually cannot be converted, unlike clauses negated by *lā (cf. n. 77 on p. 168). This is true as far ProtoSemitic goes. In the attested languages, both components of the construction ʔal-yvqtvl could possibly be interpreted as marked for modality. It is worth pointing out that the prohibitive expression ʔal-yvqtvl is attested in all Semitic language groups except Arabic. It is therefore the most conservative syntagm in Semitic with regard to renewal in the expression of negation, much like the exponent of its affirmative counterpart, the imperative qvtvl(/purus), which has been preserved integrally in all of the major Semitic language groups. If *ʔal- rather than yvqtvl is understood as the marker of volition in ʔalyvqtvl, yvqtvl should be understood as an exponent of lexical information and PNG-inflection. In this sense, yvqtvl is a generic verbal grammatical morpheme (rather than a generic tense or a generic aspect) of minimal marking. Whether one should reconstruct the narrative or the volitive function of yvqtvl to ProtoSemitic is in other words a moot point, cf. Huehnergard (1988: 20): “It seems

Reconstruction

417

more likely, however, that in early Semitic there simply was no distinction between the two functions, that yaqtul was a single form that expressed the perfective aspect of verbal action and could be used both in simple assertions, where it would normally refer to events in the past, and in injunctions.”2 In fact, Rundgren (1963: 93–94) likewise understood the volitive meaning to be a component of the negator: “Beim Verbot wird aber das interjektionelle Element auf die Negation übertragen, wobei der Vokativ-Imperativ nicht mehr als berechtigt erscheint. Denn die abwehrende Negation in solchen Typen etwa den semantischen Wert von ‘lass, lass ab von!’, weshalb ein Subjektiv oder ein Infinitiv hier angebracht ist. So tritt zunächst der neutrale Injunktiv ein, der ausserdem vielleicht nicht so schroff ablehnend gewesen ist wie Negation + Infinitiv.” Therefore, the functions of yvqtvl in narration, as well as in prohibitions marked by *ʔal-, are inferences from a zero-grammatical morpheme. In narration, the narrative function resides in the context, and in prohibitions, the modal function resides in *ʔal- (besides the negative meaning). 16.3

Development of *ʔal- to a Standard Negator

In order to explain the extension of *ʔal-, from being restricted to prohibitive clauses with yvqtvl/iprus as in Northwest Semitic and Akkadian, to a standard negator in Sabaic, as well as Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian, it is helpful to consider the development of *ʔal- in Akkadian, which also maintains lā, considering the fact that in later Akkadian varieties, *ʔal- is sometimes used to negate a statement, for example (see additional examples in CAD A1 219): (322) Lambert (1960: 158.27) (Middle Assyrian) lū etell[āku…] šānina ia-a arši “I (the date palm) am indeed lordly, I have no rival whatsoever.” (tr. CAD A1 219a) “[I am] indeed an aristocrat […] I certainly have no rival.” (tr. Lambert 1960: 159) According to von Soden (GAG §81j), followed by Kouwenberg (2010: 219 n. 34), this use of the vetitive negator developed in analogy to the morpheme lū. 2  Cf. also Bauer (1910: 10–11): “Als eine solche Sprache mit zeitlosem d. h. allzeitigem Verbum haben wir mithin auch das Protosemitische aufzufassen” and (p. 11) “Die Jussivbedeutung der Form jaqtul ist ja nur ein Ausläufer ihrer früheren universalen Funktion.”

418

Chapter 16

Nevertheless, the use of lū to mark a proposition as asseverative is in itself noteworthy, given the fact that lū too is used to mark a proposition as contrary to fact, for example as an unattainable wish. In other words, there seems to be a connection between asseverative and contrary-to-fact propositions. Indeed, the context sometimes allows for completely different interpretations of one and the same clause with lū, as in the following example: (323) AbB 9 228:16–17 atta lū šamšum-ma ṣētka luštah̬ an According to Stol’s (1981: 143) interpretation, lū šamšum is asseverative: “You truly are the sun, so let me warm myself in your heat.” Cohen (2005a: 156) opts for a directive, “Be the sun (so) I may warm myself in your bright light,” but concedes that the clause may also be interpreted as a wish (e.g. ‘would that you were the sun’) or a conditional precative (e.g. ‘if you were the sun’). In order to explain the various meanings of lū, Huehnergard (1983: 574) assumes a basic hypothetical meaning: “It simply denoted that a statement was hypothetical, that a proposition was deemed by the speaker to be contrary to known fact or to reasonable expectation; it was, then, roughly equivalent to English ‘were it (true/the case) that’.” In order to explain the asseverative contribution of *law in Akkadian, the concessive contribution may form a bridging context. In fact, it would seem that a concession marked by lū in Old Babylonian may be either a non-factual concessive (‘even if’) or a factual concessive (‘even though’). In the following example, the clause marked by lū is apparently non-factual: (324) AbB 7 84:6’–7’ šā[r]um kīma ištaknu lu-ú mūšum-ma nušerreb As soon as the wind has subsided, even if it (may) be night, we will harvest (the barley).3 As pointed out by Cohen (2005a: 155), the time of the subsiding of the wind is unknown, and therefore the factuality of the concession is hypothetical. However, the factuality status is not always clear-cut.4 As a matter of fact, 3  Cf. Kraus (1977: 63): “Sowie der Wind sich gelegt haben wird, werden wir, sei es auch nachts, (die Gerste) einfahren” and n. d ad locum: “Annahme eines konzessiven Nominalsätzchens drängt sich hier auf.” 4  For example, in the case of AbB 11 94:8–9 kanikšunu mah̬ ar dSîn-Išmeanni tušēzibanni umma attā-ma kanikku lū qurrum-ma pûm lū šakin ‘(when) you made me draw up their sealed document in front of Sîn-Išmeanni, you said,’ the contents of the direct speech are translated by Cohen (2005a: 62) as “the document is available but let an oral statement be made,” in which

Reconstruction

419

concessive conditionals seem to acquire properties of genuine concessives over time (König 1988: 153–154).5 The reason is that the conventional implicature of a factual concessive is similar to that of a conditional concessive: both describe a general incompatibility between the antecedent and the consequence.6 Therefore, ‘even if’ may be given a factual interpretation on account of context (Haspelmath and König 1998: 572–576). This is the case in the following example: (325) AbB 2 115:9–16 imqut-ma ubtazzih̬ šu u yâšim magriātim ša ana eṣēnim lā naṭâ idbub ṣuh̬ ārī-ma lu-ub-ta-az-zi-ih̬ yâti ammīnim inazzaranni (PN) attacked and hurt him (sc. my servant), even (u) to me has he made rude and disgusting remarks; and even though he has hurt my servant, why should he hate me? In such a case, lū suggests that the proposition is factual and needs to be accommodated to the common ground: ‘admit (from conviction) that he has hurt my servant.’ Moreover, in the case of a concessive linking, the concessive clause is contrasted with a following clause. A standard concessive construction resumes a statement X in the form of a concession X’ which in turn is followed by a potential refutation Y.7 On the other hand, morphemes that case lū qurrub is clearly factual, but as “even if a sealed document is available, let an oral statement be made” by Stol (1986: 57), in which case lū qurrub is non-factual. 5  Cf. also König (1988: 152): “The differentiation between concessive conditional and concessive interpretation is often left to the context, the mood (subjunctive vs. indicative) or some other marking of the verb.” As a matter of fact, it is not self-evident whether the factuality of the clause with lū is marked by grammar, or needs to be inferred from context. In order to refrain from the factuality, lū may be equivalent to ‘admit (from conviction or for the sake of argument that).’ As a matter of fact, Chen (2000) assumes that hypothetical and factual concessive markers all develop from a general concessive marker that is unmarked for factuality. 6  In a conditional concessive ‘even if p, q,’ the conditional relation ‘if p, then q’ is asserted for even the most unlikely, hence also the most informative, antecedent. A factual concessive ‘even though p, q’ has a presupposition ‘if p, then normally not q.’ 7  The concessive nature is especially clear when the following clause is a question, e.g. AbB 2 129:4–9 aššum ipir GN nadānim lū ašpurakkum ana mīnim lā taddin ‘though I have written to you about the ration of GN, why have you (nevertheless) not given (it)?’ (cf. Frankena 1966: 87: “Ich hatte dir fürwahr brieflich befohlen, daß du die Verpflegung der Jataratum geben solltest. Weshalb hast du (sie) nicht gegeben?”). Both clauses in the preceding example make up the beginning of a letter, immediately following the obligatory introductory formulas. At this point, lū serves to emphasize the factuality of the proposition in the first clause, since, from the viewpoint of the speaker, it contrasts with the presupposition of the following question (‘you have not given it’). The concessive clause accommodates a proposition that is in

420

Chapter 16

are used to mark concession do not always need to follow this schema. For example, English though as an adverb rather than a connective, which may be sentence-final, may be used to hedge an alternative point of view and boost that viewpoint. Indeed, sometimes it would seem that the speaker marks a clause by lū in order to emphasize its relevance in relation to a presupposition with which it contrasts. This is often the case in the court-room where a swearing speaker needs to answer to some lingering doubt, e.g. on part of a jury.8 In the following example, it seems as if a certain Mār-Amurrum has bought a garden from the legal heirs of Sîn-Magir. Anum-Bāni, an adopted son of Sîn-Magir, has contested the sale and is court-ordered to make the following statement: (326) VAB 5 259:9–12 kīam izkur umma šū-ma lū mār Sîn-Māgir anāku ana mārūtim ilqianni kunukkī lā ih̬ h̬ipu Thus he (sc. Anum-Bāni) swore, saying: “I am the son of Sîn-Magir though! He has adopted me, my sealed document is not broken.” Cohen (2005a: 57) points out that in cases like these, “it is important to note […] that the contrast is not with the co-text, but rather with a lingering doubt outside the text.” The presupposition in the court-room may be ‘it is doubted that the speaker is the son of Sîn-Magir.’ A response to this presupposition may be ‘I am the son of Sîn-Magir, though,’ i.e. ‘I am truly the son of Sîn-Magir.’ In this case, lū is not a marker of concession, but a marker of asseveration.9 Notably, the negative counterpart to lū in (326) is lā iprus-u rather than lū lā iprus or ʔal-iprus(-u). However, considering the use of *law as a marker of both factual and non-factual concessions, as well as a marker of asseveration, a similar development for *ʔal- may also be envisaged. In view of the meaning of *ʔal- as a prohibitor, the following development for *ʔal- is possible:

opposition to the speaker’s own assertion put forth in the following clause, and that proposition may come directly from an interlocutor, or be part of a doubt in the context. 8  Cf. Edzard (1973: 129): “Eine Aussage wird bekräftigt, sei es, um echten oder eingebildeten Zweifel des Zuhörers auszuschalten, sei es, um den Inhalt einer Aussage zu beschwören (assertorischer Eid), wobei etwaige Unrichtigkeit der Aussage Fluch oder Strafe nach sich ziehen würde.” 9  It is not always straightforward. Thus, for CCT 3 16b:12–13 URUDU meʔāt biltim bu-tù-qá-e lū āmur, the editors of CAD A2 9 have “I have had losses of hundreds of talents of copper,” while the editors of CAD B 356 have “even if I were to experience a loss of a hundred talents of copper.” See also the discussion to example (323).

Reconstruction

421

(327) a. may it not be the case P (deontic) > (it may not be the case P (epistemic) >) b. even if it is not the case P > even though it is not the case P > c. it is not the case P, though > it is not the case P The outcome of the development suggests that *ʔal- may be used as an emphatic negator, and it is this function that led to its reanalysis as a standard negator and subsequent ousting of *lā. The concessive use of *ʔal-, corresponding to (327b), may be present in Biblical Hebrew 2 Kgs 6:27 wə-ʔiššå� ṣåʕå� qå� ʔēlå� w l-ēmōr hōšīʕå� ʔăḏōnī ham-mɛlɛḵ way-yōmɛr ʔal-yōšiʕēk Yhwh mē-ʔayin ʔōšīʕēḵ ‘(there was) a woman crying unto him: “Help me, my lord, (Oh) king!” He said to her: “If not even God helps you, from where can I (possibly) help you?” ’ The intermediate step of negating factual antecedents of concessive linkings, as argued for Minaic (214), is also indicated by the following Old Assyrian example: (328) Michel (1991: 2, no. 177:9) umma attā-ma H̬ annān[-Nāram] ṣabat-ma h̬ urāṣam u ṣibassu šašqilšu Aššur u Amurrum liddiā[ni] ē ša šattim ištēn ṣibtam ina ṣerīšu al-qé-ú mimma kaspam ištēn šiqlam [lā ak]busūka You said: “Get hold of H̬ annān-Nārum and have him pay the gold as well as its interest!” May Aššur and Amurrum abandon me; even though it is not true that I have got interest from him for one (whole) year, I (swear I) have indeed not put pressure on you for any silver, (not even as much as) one shekel. It may be pointed out that this construction is rare indeed (cf. Balkan 1967: 400 n. 1) and not without difficulties.10 At any rate, the construction ē ša is similar to lū ša in AbB 9 15:7–11 lū ša ištu ṣeh̬ h̬erēnū-ma ištēniš nirbû ištu ilam taršî matīma […] šumī ul tah̬ susī ‘although it is true that we grew up together

10  Garelli (1966) restores the negator of akbusūka as ē, but the parallel text KTP 33 has lā. Garelli (1966: 93), who reads li-dí-a in line 8, translates: “Qu’Aššur et Amurrum le sachent! Puissé-je ne pas percevoir d’intérêt sur lui d’une seule année! Puissé-je ne pas te faire perdre quelque argent, ne serait-ce qu’un sicle!” i.e. with the subjunctive of pouvoir. For other alternative translations, cf. Balkan (1967: 400): “May Aššur and Amurru abandon me (if the following is not true): for a whole year I contracted debts on his behalf, (but) I did not violate your interests even for one shekel of silver”; Michel (1991: 242) “Qu’Aššur et Amurrum m’abandonnent (si je mens disant que) durant toute une année, je n’ai pas prélevé d’intérêt sur lui et je n’ai pas violé (tes affaires) même pour un sicle d’argent”; CAD K 9: “I have not received interest for even one year from him and I have not put pressure upon you for even one shekel of silver.” See also Hirsch (1972: 430).

422

Chapter 16

since we were very young, since you got lucky, you have not ever mentioned my name,’ i.e. it remarks upon a factual situation. Furthermore, ā ibluṭ in (329), a Standard Babylonian copy of the Gilgameš epic, may be a case of concessive factual *ʔal-:11 (329) Glg  XI:175–176 (GE 1: 714) [ayyān]um-ma uṣi na-piš-ti a-a ibluṭ amēlu ina karāš[i] (From) wherever (in the whole world) did (this) living creature escape, even though one man did/should not survive the destruction?12 George (GE 2: 891) concedes that lū lā ibluṭ may be expected,13 but a concessive interpretation may be admitted on account of the preceding question.14 It is noteworthy that the wh-word is marked by the additive focus particle -ma which quantifies the question as interrogative ‘where-ever,’ i.e. ‘where in the whole world.’ In the following example in the affirmative, the wh-word is again marked by -ma and forms an indefinite pronoun, and the concession is marked by lū: (330) Falkenstein (1963: 58.11–15) kussûm šeberum šēp imēr[i]m la[p]t[um] u h̬ aṭītum ul ibši magana ayyum-ma ša annītam iqbû-ma libbam ušamriṣu kussûšu lū ih̬ h̬aser šēp imērīšu lū illapit h̬ a-ṭi-i-tum šâti ša [i]bbašû ana pānim liqbi “A broken saddle, an injured foot of a donkey, but there was still not (even any) damage”; O come on, anyone (in the whole world) that said this and caused anger, provided his saddle did break, provided the foot of his donkey was injured, would report the damage which occurred.15 11  For a possible instance in Old Assyrian, cf. n. 66 on p. 86. 12  Cf. George (GE 1: 715): “[From] where escaped (this) living creature? No man should survive the destruction!” 13  Cf. George (GE 2: 891): “Further research is needed to discover whether the negation of past lū ibluṭ ‘would that he had survived,’ can really be ay ibluṭ and not, as expected, lū lā ibluṭ (cf. in form positive and negative wish with the stative, lū damqat : lū lā damqat).” 14  It also also possible to interpret ā ibluṭ as a modalized past, ‘no one should have survived,’ cf. Edzard (1973: 132): “Niemand hätte überleben sollen.” Cf. also the parallel in Atra-Hasis (Lambert and Millard 1999: 100, vi:9–10) ayyānu uṣi napištum kī ibluṭ awīlum ina karāši “Where did life escape? How did man survive in the destruction?” (tr. Lambert and Millard 1999: 101). 15  Cf. Falkenstein (1963: 62): “Ein zerbrochener Sessel, ein verletzter Eselfuß—aber eine (echte) Verfehlung ergab sich nicht. Jetzt mag irgendeiner, der das folgende sagte und dadurch Zorn erregte, (indem er sagt): ‘Sein Sessel ist heruntergerissen worden, der

Reconstruction

423

The last stage, corresponding to (327c), is indicated by the following example from Assurbanipal: (331)

Borger (1999: 60, A 7:45) pagaršu a-a ad-din (var. a-a-din) ana qebēri eli ša mah̬ ri mītūssu ut-ter-ma qaqqassu akkis (Ummanaldaš laid the body of that Nabû-Bēl-Šumāti in salt and had his messenger give it to me, but) I did not commit his body for burial, (on the contrary) I added (to) his death, (in that) I cut of his head.

At this point, *ʔal- seems to be used for contrastive negation and may be considered an emphatic counterpart to the standard negator. It is in this function that *ʔal- can be assumed to have replaced *lā in Proto-Ethiosemitic, ProtoModern South Arabian and the southern Ancient South Arabian languages. It seems likely that the extension of *ʔal- in Modern South Arabian and Ethiosemitic, as well as in Ancient South Arabian, was facilitated as soon as the narrative function of yvqtvl was no longer productive. Then, in the clause ʔalyvqtvl, the modal meaning was no longer associated with *ʔal- but with yvqtvl. In other words, if *ʔal- was originally marked [+neg] and [+vol], while yvqtvl was unmarked (or underspecified) for volition (and other TAM-distinctions), eventually when yvqtvl became marked [+vol], *ʔal- could be reanalyzed as marked [-vol]. Then in a prohibitive construction ʔal-yvqtvl, the prohibitive meaning resided in the verbal grammatical morpheme rather than the negator. It appears that the loss of the narrative function only facilitated the extension of *ʔal- and was not a prerequisite, considering that yqtl is used as a narrative grammatical morpheme in Sabaic while *ʔal- is at the same time the standard negator. To be sure, the narrative function of yvqtvl becomes non-facultative at some point in the Northwest Semitic languages too. However, since yvqtvl and yvqtvlu converge in form (yiqtol), maintaining both *ʔal- and *lā became a means to distinguish an indicative clause from a prohibitive one. The possible relation of *lā and *ʔal- to each other, as well as to Egyptian n (cf. n. 8 on p. 12), and the possible relation of *ʔal- to Berber wəl/wər/ur/ wə, is left for further research. It is tempting, however, to posit an etymological relationship between negative *lā and asseverative la-. While Faber (section 1.2.3) assumed that asseverative *la- was reinterpreted as negative in collocation with negation as in *la-neg or neg-*la ‘surely not,’ one can also surmise that *lawas interpreted as negative in other scale reversal contexts, like questions and

Fuß seines Esels ist verletzt worden’, dies Verfehlung, die (angeblich?) vorliegt, weiter verbreiten.”

424

Chapter 16

conditions (cf. Ugaritic l, section 4.2). As noted in the discussion to (5), one and the same marker is apparently used for both emphatic and negative propositions in Kobon. In Oromo of Wellega in turn, hín is used for emphasis, while hin (low tone) is obligatory with all negative forms. Furthermore, Woidich (1968: 213–215) explains the use of Cairene Arabic ma as a modal particle in clauses like ma-tīgirāyiḥ fēn “komm doch, wo gehst du hin?” from the reanalysis of rhetorical questions (“kommst du etwa nicht?!”). This potentially explains why *la- is not used in negative clauses: it is historically identical to negative *lā. If so, *lā̆ would have been an asseverative particle in statements (‘he really did do it’), and a modal particle in scale reversal contexts (‘did he really do it?’, ‘if he really did it…’). A rhetorical question marked by *lā̆ could in turn be analyzed as an emphatic negative statement: ‘he really did not do it.’ The question of whether *lā̆ was originally negative or asseverative would then be moot.

References Aartun, Kjell. 1974. Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen: 1 Teil. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Aartun, Kjell. 1976. “Arabisch lan.” Oriens 25/26: 187–189. Agostini, Alessio. 2012. “New Perspectives on Minaean Expiatory Texts.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42: 1–12. Ahl, Sally. 1973. “Epistolary Texts from Ugarit: Structural and Lexical Correspondences in Epistles in Akkadian and Ugaritic.” PhD dissertation, Brandeis University. Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aistleitner, Joseph. 1939. “Die Anat-Texte aus Ras Schamra.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 16: 193–211. Albright, William. 1941. “New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 83: 14–22. Albright, William. 1954. “Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century BC.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74: 222–233. Albright, William. 1958. “An Ostracon from Calah and the North-Israelite Diaspora.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 149: 33–36. al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2012. “Ancient Levantine Arabic: A Reconstruction Based on the Earliest Sources and the Modern Dialects.” PhD dissertation, Harvard University. al-Sālimī, ʕAbd Allāh ibn Ḥumayyid. Tuḥfa 1961. Tuḥfat al-aʕyān bi-sīrat ahl ʕumān. 2 volumes, edited by Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm Aṭafayyīsh. Cairo: Maṭbaʕat al-shabāb. al-Selwi, Ibrahim. 1987. Jemenitische Wörter in den Werken von al-Hamdānī und Našwān und ihre Parallellen in den semitischen Sprachen. Berlin: Reimer. al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ǧaʕfar Muḥammad ibn Ǧarīr. Tarikh. 1879–1901. Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir At-Tabari. 15 volumes, edited by Michael de Goeje. Leiden: Brill. Andersen, Francis. 1974. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton. Anderson, John. 2007. “Finiteness, Mood, and Morphosyntax.” Journal of Linguistics 43: 1–32. Appleyard, David. 1984. “The Morphology of the Negative Verb in Agaw.” Transactions of the Philological Society 1984: 202–219. Arbach, Mounir. 1993. “Le maḏābien: Lexique—Onomastique et Grammaire d’une langue de l’Arabie méridionale préislamique.” 3 volumes. PhD dissertation, Université de Provence Aix Marseille. Arbach, Mounir and Jérémie Schiettecatte. 2006. Catalogue des pièces archéologiques et épigraphiques du Jawf au musée national de San’ā’. Sana’a: Centre français d’archéologie et de sciences sociales de Ṣan’ā’.

426

References

Arbach, Mounir and Rémy Audouin. 2007. Collection of Epigraphic and Archaeological Artifacts from al-Jawf Sites. Ṣan’ā’ National Museum. Part 2. Sana’a: UNESCO-SFD, Ṣan’ā’ National Museum. Archi, Alfonso. 1985. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 1: Testi amministrativi: Assegnazioni di tessuti, archivio L. 2769. Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria. Archi, Alfonso. 2002. “Prepositions at Ebla.” In Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, vol. 4, edited by Cyrus Gordon and Gary Rendsburg, 1–21. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Archi, Alfonso and Maria Biga. 1982. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 3: Testi amministrativi di vario contenuto (archivio L. 2769: TM.75.G.3000–4101). Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria. Arnold, Werner. 1990. Das Neuwestaramäische, vol. 5: Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Arnold, Werner. 1991. Das Neuwestaramäische, vol. 4: Orale Literatur aus Maʕlūla. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Arnold, Werner. 1993. “Zur Position des Hobyot in den neusüdarabischen Sprachen.” Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 25: 17–24. Arnold, Werner. 1998. Die arabischen Dialekte Antiochiens. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Arnold, Werner. 1999. “Das Verbum in den neuwestaramäischen Dialekten.” In Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen. Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, edited by Norbert Nebes, 1–8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Aro, Jussi. 1957. Glossar zu den mittelbabylonischen Briefen. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. Astour, Michael. 1968. “Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27: 13–36. Aufrecht, Walter. 1989. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Lewiston, New York: E. Mellen Press. van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. “The Jespersen Cycles.” In Cyclical Change, edited by Elly van Gelderen, 35–71. Amsterdam: Benjamins. van der Auwera, Johan. 2010a. “On the Diachrony of Negation.” In The Expression of Negation, edited by Laurence Horn, 73–109. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. van der Auwera, Johan. 2010b. “Prohibition: Constructions and Markers.” In Contrasting Meaning in Languages of the East and West, edited by Dingfang Shu and Ken Turner, 443–475. Oxford: Peter Lang. van der Auwera and Ludo Lejeune. 2005. “The Prohibitive.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures, edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie, 290–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Avanzini, Alessandra. 1991. “Linguistic Data and Historical Reconstruction: Between Semitic and Epigraphic South Arabian.” In Semitic Studies: In Honor of Wolf Leslau

References

427

on the Occasion of his 85th Birthday, edited by Alan Kaye, 107–118. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Avanzini, Alessandra. 1995. Inventaire des inscriptions sudarabiques 4: As-Sawdā’. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard. Avanzini, Alessandra. 2005. “Some Remarks on the Classification of Ancient South Arabian Languages.” In Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics (Florence, 18–20 April 2001), edited by Pelio Fronzaroli, 117– 125. Florence: Università di Firenze. Avanzini, Alessandra. 2009. “Origin and Classification of the Ancient South Arabian Languages.” Journal of Semitic Studies 54: 205–220. Avishur, Yitzhak. 1981. “The Ghost-Expelling Incantation from Ugarit (Ras Ibn Hani 78/20).” Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 13–25. Badawi, Elsaid and Muhammad Haleem. 2008. Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage. Leiden: Brill. Baerentzen, Per. 1995. “Semantische Typen der deutschen ohne daß-Sätze.” In Aspekte der Sprachbeschreibung: Akten des 29. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Aarhus 1994, edited by Per Baerentzen, 5–8. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Balkan, Kemal. 1967. “Contribution to the Understanding of the Idiom of the Old Assyrian Merchants of Kanish.” Orientalia 36: 393–415. Bar-Asher, Moshe. 2014. Studies in Classical Hebrew. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur. 2013. Introduction to the Grammar of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Bauer, Hans. 1910. Die Tempora im semitischen. Leipzig: August Pries. Bauer, Hans. 1920. “Gedankenlose Negationen und Fragewörter im Semitischen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 74: 208–209. Bauer, Leonhard. 1926. Das palästinische Arabisch: Die Dialekte des Städters und des Fellachen. 3rd revised edition. Leipzig: Hinrich. Bausi, Alessandro. 2005. “Ancient Features of Ancient Ethiopia.” Aethiopica 8: 149–169. Bedir-Khan, Djeladet and Roger Lescot. 1986. Kurdische Grammatik: Kurmancî-Dialekt. Bonn: Kurdisches Institut Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. Beeston, Alfred. 1962. A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. London: Luzac. Beeston, Alfred. 1969. “A Sabaean Trader’s Misfortunes.” Journal of Semitic Studies 14: 227–230. Beeston, Alfred. 1984. Sabaic Grammar. Manchester: University of Manchester. Beeston, Alfred, Mahmud Ghul, Werner Müller, and Jacques Ryckmans. 1982. Dictionnaire sabéen (anglais-français-arabe). Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Behnstedt, Peter. 1985. Die nordjemenitischen Dialekte, Teil 1: Atlas. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

428

References

Beke, Charles. 1846. “On the Languages and Dialects of Abyssinia and the Countries to the South.” Proceedings of the Philological Society 2: 89–107. Belova, Anna. 1988. “The Position of Himyaritic within the South Semitic Group of Semitic Languages (Yemenite-Ethiopian Isoglosses).” In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Ethiopian Studies, Moscow, August 26–29, 1986, edited by Andrei Gromyko, 28–34. Moscow: Nauka. Ben-Hayyim, Zeev. 2000. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Bennett, Stephan. 1984. “Objective Pronominal Suffixes in Aramaic.” PhD dissertation, Yale University. Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1914. Verneinungs- und Fragepartikeln und Verwandtes im Ḳur’ān. Leipzig: Hinrich. Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1915. Neuaramäische Märchen und andere Texte aus Maʕlūla, hauptsächlich aus der Sammlung E. Prym’s und A. Socin’s. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1929. Hebräische Grammatik, Teil 2: Verbum. Leipzig: Hinrich. Berkooz, Moshé. 1937. “The Nuzi Dialect of Akkadian: Orthography and Phonology.” Language 13: 5–64. Bernabela, Roy. 2011. “A Phonology and Morphology Sketch of the Šihhi Arabic Dialect of əlǦēdih, Musandam (Oman).” Master’s thesis, Universy of Leiden. Bernand, Étienne, Abraham Drewes, and Roger Schneider. 1991. Recueil des inscriptions de l’Ethiopie des périodes pré-axoumite. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard. Bernini, Giuliano and Paolo Ramat. 1996. Negative Sentences in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter. Beurmann, Moritz and Adalbert Merx. 1868. Vocabulary of the Tigré Language, Published with a Grammatical Sketch. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Beyer, Klaus. 1984. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Beyer, Klaus. 1994. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Ergänzungsband. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Beyer, Klaus. 2004. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Band 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bhayro, Siam. 2008. “The Aramaic ‘Fugitive’ Decree: A New Interpretation.” Aramaic Studies 6: 1–15. Biella, Joan. 1982. Dictionary of Old South Arabic, Sabaean Dialect. Chico, California: Scholars Press. Biga, Maria and Lucio Milano. 1984. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 4: Testi amministrativi: Assegnazioni di tessuti (archivio L. 2769). Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria. Birkeland, Harris. 1940. Altarabische Pausalformen. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad. Birot, Maurice. 1960. Archives royales de Mari, IX: Textes administratifs de la salle 5. Paris: Geuthner.

References

429

Bittner, Maximilian. 1914. Studien zur Laut- und Formenlehre der Mehri-Sprache in Südarabien, vol. 4: Zu den Partikeln. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bittner, Maximilian. 1916. Studien zur Šh̬ auri-Sprache, II: Zum verbum und zu den übrigen Redeteilen. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bittner, Maximilian. 1917. Studien zur Šh̬ auri-Sprache, III: Zu ausgewählten Texten. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Blake, Frank. 1911. “Vocalic R, L, M, N in Semitic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 31: 217–222. Blau, Joshua. 1977. An Adverbial Construction in Hebrew and Arabic: Sentence Adverbials in Frontal Position Separated from the Rest of the Sentence. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Blau, Joshua. 1999. The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic. 3rd revised edition. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute. Blau, Joyce. 1980. Manuel de kurde (dialecte Sorani): Grammaire, textes de lecture, vocabulaire kurde-français et français-kurde. Paris: Klincksieck. Bloch, Ariel. 1986. Sudies in Arabic Syntax and Semantics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Blois, François de. 1985. Review of Harari-Texte in arabischer Schrift, by Ewald Wagner, Die Welt des Orients 16: 181–186. Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton. Bordreuil, Pierre and André Caquot. 1979. “Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1977 à Ibn Hani.” Syria 56: 295–315. Bordreuil, Pierre and André Caquot. 1980. “Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1978 à Ibn Hani.” Syria 57: 343–373. Bordreuil, Pierre and Dennis Pardee. 2009. A Manual of Ugaritic. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Borger, Rykle. 1979. Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke. 2nd edition. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Borger, Rykle. 1989. “bal und lo’ = ‘noch nicht’, ‘kaum’, ‘eben erst’.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 2: 86–90. Borger, Rykle. 1999. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bright, John. 1973. “The Apodictic Prohibition: Some Observations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92: 185–204. Brockelmann, Carl. [1908–1913] 1966. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik. 2 volumes, reprint. Hildesheim: Olms. Brockelmann, Carl. 1940. Review of Grammatik des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʕlūla (Antilibanon), by Anton Spitaler, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 43: 190–193. Brockelmann, Carl. 1941. “Zur Syntax der Sprache von Ugarit.” Orientalia 10: 223–240. Brockelmann, Carl. 1950. Abessinische Studien. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

430

References

Brockelmann, Carl. 1964. “Das aramäische, einschliesslich des syrischen.” In Handbuch der Orientalistik, vol. 3: Semitistik, edited by Anton Baumstark, 135–162. Leiden: Brill. Bron, François. 1991. “Deux inscriptions de la porte ouest de Ma’in.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 21: 35–40. Bron, François. 1994. “Note sur la négation en sudarabique épigraphique.” Matériaux arabes et sudarabiques 6: 183–185. Bron, François. 1998. Inventaire des inscriptions sudarabiques 3: Ma’in. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard. Bron, François. 2013. “Notes d’épigraphie minéenne.” Semitica 53: 173–178. Brongers, Hendrik. 1981. “Some Remarks on the Biblical Particle halō’.” Oudtestamentische Studien 21: 177–189. Bruce, James. 1805. Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile. 2nd edition, edited by Alexander Murray. Edinburgh: Archibald Constable. Brustad, Kristen. 2000. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Dialects. Washington, District of Colombia: Georgetown University Press. Bulakh, Maria. 2012. “Negative Markers *ay-, *i- and *al- in Ethio-Semitic.” Babel und Bibel 6: 385–420. Bulakh, Maria. 2013. “The Diachronic Background of the Verbs wīda and ġerōb ‘to know’ in Mehri.” In Archaism and Innovation in the Semitic Languages, edited by Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala and Wilfred Watson, 1–32. Cordoba: Oriens Academic. Bulakh, Maria. 2015. “The Proto-Semitic ‘Asseverative *la-’ and the Innovative 1sg Prefixes in South Ethio-Semitic Languages.” In Semitic Languages in Contact, edited by Aaron Butts, 68–96. Leiden: Brill. Bulakh, Maria and Leonid Kogan. 2010. “The Genealogical Position of Tigre and the Problem of North Ethio-Semitic Unity.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 160: 273–302. Bulakh, Maria and Leonid Kogan. 2013. “More on Genealogical Classification of Ethiopian Semitic.” Babel und Bibel 7: 599–608. Bustorf, Dirk. 2006. “Oral Traditions on the Inter-ethnic Relations of the Leemo Hadiyya and the Endägañ Gurage.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg, July 20–25, 2003, edited by Siegbert Uhlig, 48–57. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bybee, Joan. [1976] 2007. “Word Frequency in Lexical Diffusion and the Source of Morphophonological Change.” In Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language, edited by Joan Bybee, 23–34. New York: Oxford University Press. Bybee, Joan. 2000. “The Phonology of the Lexicon: Evidence from Lexical Diffusion.” In Usage-based Models of Language, edited by Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, 65–85. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.

References

431

Caquot, André 1984. “Une nouvelle interprétation de la tablette ougaritique de Ras Ibn Hani 78/20.” Orientalia 53: 163–176. Caquot, André and Anne-Sophie Dalix. 2001. “Un texte mythico-magique.” In Études ougaritiques I: Travaux 1985–1995, edited by Marguerite Yon and Daniel Arnaud, 393–407. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les Civilisations. Caskel, Werner. 1954. Lihyan und Lihyanisch. Köln and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Catgnoti, Amalia. 2012. La grammatica della lingua di Ebla. Florence: Università di Firenze. Catagnoti, Amalia and Marco Bonechi. 1998. “Magic and Divination at IIIrd Millennium Ebla, 1.” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 15: 17–39. Catagnoti, Amalia and Pelio Fronzaroli. 2010. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 16: Testi di Cancelleria: Il re e i funzionari. Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria. Cerulli, Enrico. 1936. La lingua e la storia di Harar. Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente. Chamora, Berhanu and Robert Hetzron. 2000. Inor. Munich: Lincom Europa. Chen, Guohua. 2000. “The Grammaticalization of Concessive Markers in Early Modern English.” In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, edited by Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, 85–110. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Clarke, Ernest. 1984. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken, New Jersey: KTAV. Cohen, David. 1979. “Sur le système verbal du néo-araméen de Maʕlūla.” Journal of Semitic Studies 24: 219–239. Cohen, David. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique. Leuven: Peeters. Cohen, Eran. 2000. “Akkadian -ma in Diachronic Perspective.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 90: 207–226. Cohen, Eran. 2005a. The Modal System of Old Babylonian. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Cohen, Eran. 2005b. “Addenda to Non-verbal Clauses in Old Babylonian.” Journal of Semitic Studies 50: 247–279. Cohen, Eran. 2006. “The Old Babylonian Paronomastic Infinitive in -am.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 126: 425–432. Cohen, Eran. 2012. Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Cohen, Marcel. 1924. Le système verbal sémitique et l’expression du temps. Paris: Éditions Ernest Leroux. Cohen, Marcel. 1931. Études d’éthiopien méridional. Paris: Éditions Geuthner. Cohen, Marcel. 1936. Traité de langue amharique. Paris: Paris: Institut d’Ethnographie. Cohen, Marcel. 1939. Nouvelles études d’éthiopien meridional. Paris: Honorée Champion. Cohen, Mark. 2011. An English-to-Akkadian Companion to the Assyrian Dictionaries. Bethesda: CDL Press.

432

References

Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1901. “Tradizioni storiche dei Mensa.” Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana 14: 41–99. Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1903a. “Documenti per lo studio della lingua Tigrè.” Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana 16: 1–32. Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1903b. Ricordi di un soggiorno in Eritrea. Asmara: Tipografia della Missione Svedese. Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1904. “I Loggo e la legge dei Loggo Sarda.” Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana 17: 1–63. Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1905. “Canti populari Tigrai.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 18: 320–386. Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1906. “Canti populari Tigrai.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 19: 288–341. Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1942. Proverbi, tradizioni e canzoni tigrine. Verbania: Ambrogio Airoldi Editore. Cook, Edward. 2015. Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Correll, Christoph. 1974. “Ein Vorschlag zur Erklärung der Negation čū (ćū) in den neuwestaramäischen Dialekten des Antilibanon.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 143: 271–285. Cowley, Roger. 1983. “Ludolf’s Fragmentum Piquesii: An Old Amharic Tract about Mary who Anointed Jesus’ Feet.” Journal of Semitic Studies 28: 1–47. Crass, Joachim, Girma Demeke, Ronny Meyer, and Andreas Wetter. 2004. “Copula and Focus Constructions in Selected Ethiopian Languages.” University of Leipzig Papers on Africa: Languages and literatures, 25. Leipzig: Institut für Afrikanistik. Croft, William. 1991. “The Evolution of Negation.” Journal of Linguistics 27: 1–27. Cunchillos, Jesús-Luis, Juan-Pablo Vita, and José-Ángel Zamora. 2003a. The Texts of the Ugaritic Data Bank. 4 volumes. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press. Cunchillos, Jesús-Luis, Juan-Pablo Vita, and José-Ángel Zamora. 2003b. A Concordance of Ugaritic Words. 5 volumes. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press. de Cuypere, Ludovic, Johan van der Auwera, and Klaas Willems. 2007. “Double Negation and Iconicity.” In Insistent Images, edited by Elzbieta Tabakowsa, Christina Ljungberg, and Olga Fischer, 301–320. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dahl, Östen. 1979. “Typology of Sentence Negation.” Linguistics 17: 79–106. Dahl, Östen. 1995. “The Marking of the Episodic/Generic Distinction in Tense-Aspect Systems.” In The Generic Book, edited by Gregory Carlson and Francis Pelletier, 412– 425. Chicago: University of Chicago. Dahl, Östen. 2010. “Typology of Negation.” In The Expression of Negation, edited by Laurence Horn, 9–38. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Dahlgren, Sven Olof. 2006. “Sentential Negation in Arabic.” In Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon II, edited by Lutz Edzard and Jan Retsö, 65–78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dahood, Mitchell. 1963. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I.” Biblica 44: 289–303.

References

433

Dahood, Mitchell. 1964. “Ugaritic Lexicography.” In Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 1: Écriture sainte – ancient Orient, edited by Eugene Tisserant, 81–104. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Dahood, Mitchell. 1975. “The Emphatic Double Negative m’yn in Jer 10:6–7.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37: 458–459. Dalman, Gustaf. [1894] 1905. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch. 2nd revised edition. Leipzig: Hinrich. Davey, Richard. 2013. “Coastal Dhofārī Arabic: A Sketch Grammar.” PhD dissertation, University of Manchester. Davies, Graham. 1991. “Response to J. Greenfield and J. Hoftijzer.” In The Balaam Text from Deir ʕAlla Re-evaluated, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, 143–148. Leiden: Brill. Davies, Humphrey. 1981. “17th-Century Egyptian Arabic.” PhD dissertation, University of California. Davies, John. 1981. “The Syntax of the Simple Sentence in Kobon.” Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 21: 1–70. Davis, Virginia. 1979. “Syntax of the Negative Particles bw and bn in Late Egyptian.” PhD dissertation, Yale University. De Moor, Johannes. 1979. “Contributions to the Ugaritic Lexicon.” Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 639–653. De Moor, Johannes. 1980a. “An Incantation Against Infertility (KTU 1.13).” UgaritForschungen 12: 305–310. De Moor, Johannes. 1980b. “An Incantation against Evil Spirits (Ras Ibn Hani 78/20).” Ugarit-Forschungen 12: 429–432. De Moor, Johannes. 1987. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Leiden: Brill. De Moor, Johannes. 1988. “East of Eden.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100: 105–111. De Moor, Johannes and Klaas Spronk. 1982a. “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Kirtu: I.” Ugarit-Forschungen 14: 153–171. De Moor, Johannes and Klaas Spronk. 1982b. “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Kirtu: II.” Ugarit-Forschungen 14: 173–190. De Moor, Johannes and Klaas Spronk. 1984. “More on Demons in Ugarit (KTU 1.82).” Ugarit-Forschungen 16: 237–250. Degen, Rainer. 1969. Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh. v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio. 2004. “The Biconsonantal Semitic Lexicon. 1: The series /’-x-/.” Aula Orientalis 22: 33–88. Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio. 2008. “The Postpositions in Semitic: The Case of Enclitic -m (With Special Attention to NWS).” Aula Orientalis 26: 25–29.

434

References

Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio and Joaquín Sanmartín. 2003. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 3rd revised edition translated by Wilfred Watson. Leiden: Brill. Delitzsch, Franz. [1859–1860] 1889. A Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Translated from the 4th German edition by David Eaton and James Duguid. New York: Funk and Wagnalls. Delitzsch, Friedrich. 1889. Assyrische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, Übungsstücken, Glossar und Literatur. Berlin: Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Deutscher, Guy. 2009. “The Semantics of Clause Linking in Akkadian.” In The Semantics of Clause Linking, edited by Robert Dixon and Alexandra Aikhenvald, 56–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diem, Werner. 1979. “Studien zur Frage des Substrats im Arabischen.” Der Islam 56: 12–80. Diem, Werner. 2014. Negation in Arabic: A Study in Linguistic History. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Loretz. 1977. “Ein Spottlied auf ’Aṯtar (KTU 1.6 I 50–52): zu ug. ’m, mrh und kms.” Ugarit-Forschungen 9: 330–331. Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Loretz. 1984. “Der Brief KTU 2.70 (RS 29.93).” UgaritForschungen 16: 63–68. Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Loretz. 1996. Word-list of the Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Dietrich, Manfred, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 1974. “Eine briefliche Antwort des Königs von Ugarit auf eine Anfrage: PRU 2,10 (= RS 16.26).” UgaritForschungen 6: 453–455. Dietrich, Manfred, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 1975. “Einzelbemerkungen zu RS 24.251 = Ug. 5, S. 574–578 Nr. 8.” Ugarit-Forschungen 7: 127–131. van Dijk, Jan. 1972. “Une variante du thème de ‘l’Esclave de la Lune’.” Orientalia 41: 339–348. van Dijk, Teun. 1975. “Action, Action Description, and Narrative.” New Literary History 6: 273–294. Dijkstra, Meindert. 1994. “The Myth of Astarte, the Huntress (KTU 1.92): New Fragments.” Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 113–126. Dillmann, August. [1857] 2005. Ethiopic Grammar. Reprint of the translation by James Crichton of the 2nd edition revised by Carl Bezold. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers. Dillmann, August. 1865. Lexicon Linguae Aehtiopicae cum Indice Latino. Leipzig: Weigel. Donner, Herbert and Wolfgang Röllig. [1964] 1968. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, Band 2: Kommentar. 2nd revised edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Donner, Herbert and Wolfgang Röllig. 2002. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, Band 1: Texte. 5th revised edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

References

435

Dossin, Georges. 1938. “Les archives épistolaires du palais de Mari.” Syria 19: 105–126. Dossin, Georges. 1946. Archives royales de Mari, I: Lettres. Paris: Geuthner. Dossin, Georges. 1978. Archives royales de Mari, X: Correspondance féminine. With André Finet. Paris: Geuthner. Drijvers, Han and John Healey. 1998. The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene. Leiden: Brill. Driver, Samuel. 1890. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Driver, Samuel. 1892. The Use of the Tenses in Hebrew. 3rd revised and improved edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dror, Yehudit. 2012. “Some Notes about the Functions of the Particle bal in the Qur’ân.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 49: 176–183. Dryer, Matthew. 1996. “Focus, Pragmatic Presupposition, and Activated Propositions.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 475–523. Durand, Jean-Marie. 1988. Archives royales de Mari, XXVI Archives épistolaires de Mari, 1. Paris: Geuthner. Durand, Jean-Marie. 1997–2000. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. 3 volumes. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Edel, Elmar. 1955–1967. Altägyptische Grammatik. 3 volumes. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Edzard, Dietz. 1973. “Die Modi beim älteren akkadischen Verbum.” Orientalia 42: 121–141. Edzard, Dietz. 1981. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 2: Verwaltungstexte verschiedenen inhalts aus dem Archiv L. 2769. Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria. Edzard, Dietz. 1984. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 5: Hymnen, Beschwörungen und Verwandtes aus dem Archiv L. 2769. Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria. Edzard, Lutz. 2012a. “Introduction: Semitic and Afroasiatic.” In Semitic and Afroasiatic: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Lutz Edzard, 23–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Edzard, Lutz. 2012b. “The Hypotaxis-parataxis Dichotomy and Elliptic Conditional Clauses in Semitic.” In Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na’ama Pat-El, 13–25. Chicago: University of Chicago. Eidem, Jersper. 2010. The Royal Archives from Tell Leilan. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Eidem, Jesper and Jörgen Læssøe. 2001. The Shemshara Archives 1: The Letters. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. Eisser, Georg and Julius Lewy. 1930–1935 Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom Kültepe. 4 volumes. Leipzig: Hinrich.

436

References

Eksell, Kerstin. 1999. “On the Functional Development of w- in Proto-Arabic and Some Other Semitic Languages.” Acta Orientalia 60: 88–112. Elias, David. 2014. The Tigre Language of Gindaʕ: Short Grammar and Texts. Leiden: Brill. Eriksen, Pål. 2011. “‘To Not Be’ or Not ‘To Not Be’: The Typology of Negation of Nonverbal Predicates.” Studies in Language 35: 275–310. Eskhult, Mats. 2010. “2 Samuel and the Deuteronomist—A Discussion of Verbal Syntax.” In Die Samuelbücher und die Deuteronomisten, edited by Christa SchäferLichtenberger, 18–31. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Ewald, Heinrich. [1870] 1891. Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. Translated from the 8th German edition by James Kennedy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Faber, Alice. 1988. “Indefinite Pronouns in Early Semitic.” In Fucus: A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Memory of Albert Ehrmann, edited by Yoel Arbeitman, 221–238. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Faber, Alice. 1991. “The Diachronic Relationship Between Negative and Interrogative Markers in Semitic.” In Semitic Studies: In Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His 85th Birthday, edited by Alan Kaye, 411–429. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Faber, Alice. 1997. “Genetic Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 3–15. London: Routledge. Fales, Frederick Mario. 1986. Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Fales, Frederick Mario. 1996. “An Aramaic Tablet from Tell Shioukh Fawqani, Syria: The Text.” Semitica 46: 81–111. Fales, Frederick Mario. 2010. “New Light on Assyro-Aramaic Interference: The Assur Ostracon.” In CAMSEMUD 2007: Proceedings of the 13th Italian Meeting on AfroAsiatic Linguistics, edited by Frederick Mario Fales and Giulia Francesca Grassi, 189–204. Padova: Sargon. Falkenstein, Adam. 1963. “Zu den Inschriftenfunden der Grabung in Uruk-Warka 1960– 1961.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 2: 1–82. Fassberg, Steven. 1990. “Negative Final Clauses in Biblical Hebrew.” [Hebrew] In Studies on Hebrew and Other Semitic Languages Presented to Professor Chaim Rabin, edited by Moshe Henry Goshen-Gottstein, Shlomo Morag, and Simcha Kogut, 273–294. Jerusalem: Academon Press. Fassberg, Steven. 1998. “Constructions of Purpose and Intended Result in the Hebrew of the Mishna.” In Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Steven Fassberg, 151–163. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Fassberg, Steven. 1999. “The Lengthened Imperative in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 40: 7–12. Fassberg, Steven. 2010. “Salient Features of the Verbal System in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts

References

437

from Qumran at Aix-en-Provence, June 30–July 2, 2008, edited by Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, 65–78. Leiden: Brill. Fauveaud-Brassaud, Catherine. 1986. Corpus des inscriptions et antiquités sud-arabes: Tables. Leuven: Peeters. Fenton, Terry. 1969 “Command and Fulfilment in Ugaritic—‘tqtl: yqtl’ and ‘qtl: qtl’.” Journal of Semitic Studies 14: 34–38. Finet, André. 1956. L’Accadien des lettres de Mari. Bruxelles: Palais des Académies. Fischer, August. 1905. “Arab. ayš.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 59: 807–818. Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1972. Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fitzmyer, Joseph. 1958. “The Aramaic Suzerainty Treaty from Sefire in the Museum of Beirut.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20: 444–476. Fitzmyer, Joseph. 1961. “The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire I and II.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 81: 178–222. Fleischer, Heinrich. 1885–1888. Kleinere Schriften. 2 volumes. Leipzig: Hirzel. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1990. Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. London: Routledge. Folmer, Margaretha. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. Leuven: Peeters. Ford, Carolyn. 1991. “Notes on the Phonology and Grammar of Chaha-Gurage.” Journal of Afroasiatic languages 3: 231–296. Foster, Benjamin. 1996. Before the Muses. 2nd edition. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. Frankena, Rintje. 1966. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 2: Briefe aus dem British Museum. Leiden: Brill. Frankena, Rintje. 1968. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 3: Briefe aus der Leidener Sammlung (TLB IV). Leiden: Brill. Frankena, Rintje. 1974. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 6: Briefe aus dem Berliner Museum. Leiden: Brill. Frantsouzoff, Serge. 2010. “Once More on the Interpretation of mṯl in Epigraphic South Arabian (A New Expiatory Inscription on Irrigation from Kamna).” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40: 161–170. Frayne, Douglas. 1993. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods: Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Friedrich, Johannes and Wolfgang Röllig. [1951] 1999. Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 3rd edition revised by Maria Guzzo. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Fronzaroli, Pelio. 2003. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 13: Testi di cancelleria: I rapporti con le città. Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria. Fronzaroli, Pelio and Amalia Catagnoti. 1993. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 11: Testi rituali della regalità, archivio L.2769. Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria.

438

References

Gajda Iwona and Mohammed Maraqten. 2010. “A South Arabian Dedicatory Inscription from the Kingdom of Kaminahū.” Semitica et Classica 3: 235–239. Garad, Abdurahman and Ewald Wagner. 1998. Harari-Studien: Texte mit Übersetzung, grammatischen Skizzen und Glossar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Garbini, Giovanni. 1974. Iscrizioni sudarabiche, vol. 1: Iscrizioni minee, edited by Anna Capuzzi. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Garelli, Paul. 1966. “Tablettes Cappadociennes de collections diverses.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 60: 93–152. Garelli, Paul. 1982. “Serments et procès dans l’ancienne Assyrie.” In Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, edited by George van Driel and Fritz Kraus, 56–66. Leiden: Brill. Garr, Wesley Randall. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 BCE. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Garr, Wesley Randall. 2007. “The Paragogic nun in Rhetorical Perspective.” In Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, 65–74. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Gasser, Michael. 1985. “Amharic -m and -ss: Morphology, Theme and Assumed Knowledge.” Lingua 65: 51–106. Gaster, Theodor. 1944. “Folklore Motifs in Canaanite Myth.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 30–51. Gelb, Ignace. 1955. “Notes on von Soden’s Grammar of Akkadian.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 12: 93–111. Gelb, Ignace. 1957. Glossary of Old Akkadian. Chicago: University of Chicago. Gelb, Ignace. 1961. Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago. George, Andrew. 2003. The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Getatchew Haile. 1970. “Archaic Amharic forms.” In Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, University of Addis Ababa, April 3–7, 1966, edited by Richard Pankhurst and Stanislaw Chojnacki, 61–80. Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies. Getatchew Haile. 1979. “Panegyrics in Old Amharic, EMML* 1943, f. 3v.” Israel Oriental Studies 9: 228–236. Getatchew Haile. 1983. “Old Amharic Features in a Manuscript from Wollo (EMML 7007).” In Ethiopian Studies: Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday, edited by Stanislav Segert and András Bodrogligeti, 157–169. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gibb, Hamilton. [1962] 1993. The Travels of Ibn Battuta. 2nd edition in 5 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

439

Gibson, John. 1971. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gibson, John. 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 2: Aramaic Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Dialect of Zenjirli. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gibson, John. 1978. Canaanite Myths and Legends. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Gibson, John. 1982. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3: Phoenician Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ginsberg, Harold. 1936. “The Rebellion and Death of Ba’lu.” Orientalia 5: 161–198. Ginsberg, Harold. 1937. Review of A Grammar of the Phoenician Language, by Zellig Harris, Journal of Biblical Literature 56: 138–143. Ginsberg, Harold. 1946. “The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies 2/3: 1–50. Ginsberg, Harold. 1973. “Ugaritico-Phoenicia.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5: 131–147. Girma Demeke. 2001. “The Ethio-Semitic Languages (Re-examining the Classification).” Journal of Ethiopian Studies 34: 57–93. Girma Demeke. 2003. “The Clausal Syntax of Ethio-Semitic.” PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø. Girma Demeke. 2014. The Origin of Amharic. 2nd edition. Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press. Girma Demeke and Ronny Meyer. 2008. “The Enclitic -mm in Amharic: Reassessment of a Multifunctional Morpheme.” Linguistics 46: 607–628. Givón, Talmy. 1973. “The Time-axis Phenomenon.” Language 49: 890–925. Givón, Talmy. 1978. “Negation in Language: Pragmatics, Function, Ontology.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, edited by Peter Cole, 69–112. New York: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction. 2 volumes. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Gnoli, Gherardo. 1993. Inventaire des inscriptions sudarabiques 2: Shaqab-al-Manaṣṣa. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard. Goetze, Albrecht. 1951–1952. “The Laws of Eshnunna.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 31: 1–197. Goetze, Albrecht. 1953. “Ugaritic Negations.” In Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen Septuagenario A.D. VII id. nov. Anno MCMLIII a Collegis Discipulis Amicis Dicata, edited by Flemming Hvidberg, 115–123. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Goldenberg, Gideon. 1968. “Kestaneñña: Studies in a Northern Gurage Language of Christians.” Orientalia Suecana 17: 61–102. Goldenberg, Gideon. 1974. “L’étude du Gouragué et la comparaison chamitosémitique.” Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei—Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura, quaderno 191: 235–249.

440

References

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1977. “The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia and Their Classification.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African studies 40: 461–507. Goldenberg, Gideon. 2013. Semitic Languages: Features, Structures, Relations, Processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gordon, Cyrus. [1945] 1998. Ugaritic Textbook. Reprint of the revised 1967 edition. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Goldenberg, Gideon. 1977. “Poetic Legends and Myths from Ugarit.” Berytus 25: 5–133. de Graef, Katrien. 2002. “Ay amši aqram … Que je n’oublie jamais ce qui est précieux.” Akkadica 123: 119–129. Gragg, Gene. 1976. “Oromo of Wellegga.” In The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, edited by Lionel Bender, 166–195. East Lansing, Michigan: African Studies Center, Michigan State University. Gragg, Gene. 1997. “Ge’ez (Ethiopic).” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 242–260. New York: Routledge. Gragg, Gene. 2011. “Grammaticization and Paradigm Formation in Afroasiatic: Verbal Negation in Cushitic.” Aula Orientalis 29: 43–60. Grayson, Kirk. 1987. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods: Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC). With the assistance of Grant Frame, Douglas Frayne, and a contribution on Nuzi by Maynard Maidman. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals, With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: De Gruyter. Greenberg, Joseph. 1990. “Relative Pronouns and P.I.E. Word Order Type in the Context of the Eurasiatic Hypothesis.” In Language Typology 1987. Systematic Balance in Language, edited by Winfred Lehmann, 123–138. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Greenfield, Jonas. 1991. “Philological Observations on the Deir ʕAlla Inscription.” In The Balaam Text from Deir ʕAlla Re-evaluated, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, 109–120. Leiden: Brill. Greenough, James. 1891. “Some Uses of Neque (Nec) in Latin.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 2: 129–141. Greenstein, Edward. 1997. “Kirta.” In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon Parker, 9–48. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Greenstein, Edward. 1998. “New Readings in the Kirta Epic.” Israel Oriental Studies 18: 105–123. Greenstein, Edward. 2006. “Forms and Functions of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative Verse.” In Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, 75–101. Jersalem: Magnes Press. Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

References

441

Gröndahl, Frauke. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Groneberg, Brigitte. 1978–1979. “Terminativ- und Lokativadverbialis in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten.” Archiv für Orientforschung 26: 15–29. Groneberg, Brigitte. 1981. “Philologische Bearbeitung des Agušayahymnus.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 75: 107–134. Groneberg, Brigitte. 1997. Lob der Ištar: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin. Groningen: Styx. Grotzfeld, Heinz. 1964. Laut- und Formenlehre des Damaszenisch-Arabischen. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. Grotzfeld, Heinz. 1965. Syrisch-arabische Grammatik: Dialekt von Damaskus. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gruntfest, Yaakov. 1999. “The Consecutive Imperfect in Semitic Epigraphy.” In Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, edited by Yitzhak Avishur and Robert Deutsch, 171–180. Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center. Guidi, Ignazio. 1889. “Le canzoni geez-amariña in onore di Re Abissini.” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di szienze morali, storiche e filologiche 4/4: 53–66. Gutt, Ernst-August. 1986. “On the Conjugation of Silt’i Verbs.” Journal of Ethiopian Studies 19: 91–112. Gutt, Ernst-August. 1988. “Towards an Analysis of Pragmatic Connectives in Silt’i.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, University of Addis Ababa, November 26–30, 1984, edited by Taddese Beyene, 665–678. Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies. Gutt, Ernst-August. 1997. “Concise Grammar of Silt’e. In Silt’e-Amharic-English Dictionary (With a Concise Grammar), edited by Eeva Gutt and Hussein Mussa, 895–957. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press. Gzella, Holger. 2004. Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gzella, Holger. 2009. “Dating the Aramaic Texts from Qumran: Possibilities and Limits.” Revue de Qumrân 24: 61–78. Gzella, Holger. 2011a. “Northwest Semitic in General.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson. 425–451. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Gzella, Holger. 2011b. “Imperial Aramaic. In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson. 574–586. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Gzella, Holger. 2014. Review of Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic, by Na’ama Pat-El, Hugoye 17: 141–152.

442

References

Gzella, Holger. 2015. A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam. Leiden: Brill. Hackett, Jo Ann. 1984. The Balaam Text from Deir ʕAllā. Chico, California: Scholars Press. Hailu Fulass, Getatchew Haile, and Roger Cowley. 1976. “The Amharic Language: Dialect Variation.” In Language in Ethiopia, edited by Lionel Bender, Donald Bowen, Robert Cooper, and Charles Ferguson, 90–99. London: Oxford University Press. Haleem, Abdel. 2004. The Qur’an. A New Translation. New York: Oxford University Press. Hartmann, Eduard. 1960. “Es gibt keinen Gott außer Jahwe: Zur generellen Verneinung im Hebräischen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 110: 229–235. Hary, Benjamin. 2009. Translating Religion: Linguistic Analysis of Judeo-Arabic Sacred Texts from Egypt. Leiden: Brill. Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. “Coordination.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 2: Complex Constructions, edited by Timothy Shopen, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haspelmath, Martin and Ekkehard König. 1998. “Concessive Conditionals in the Languages of Europe.” In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, edited by Johan van der Auwera, 563–640. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2006. “The Ventive/Energic in Semitic—A Morphological Study.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 156: 309–328. Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2007. “The Affiliation of Sargonic Akkadian with Babylonian and Assyrian: New Insights Concerning the Internal Sub-grouping of Akkadian.” Journal of Semitic Studies 52: 21–43. Haul, Michael. 2000. Das Etana-Epos: ein Mythos von der Himmelfahrt des König von Kiš. Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität. Hecker, Karl. 1968. Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Heim, Irene. 1984. “A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness.” In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society vol. 14, edited by Charles Jones and Peter Sells, 98–107. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2003. “On Contact-induced Grammaticalization.” Studies in Language 27: 529–572. Held, Moshe. 1961. “A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15: 1–26. Hempel, Johannes. 1938. “Die Ostraka von Lakis.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 56: 126–139.

References

443

Herdner, Andrée. 1939. “La signification de al dans les textes de Ras Shamra.” Groupe Linguistique d’Études Chamito-Sémitique 3: 57–58. Hetzron, Robert. 1968. “Main Verb-Markers in Northern Gurage.” Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 38: 156–172. Hetzron, Robert. 1969a. “The Evidence for Perfect *y’aqtul and Jussive *yaqt’ul in ProtoSemitic.” Journal of Semitic Studies 14: 1–21. Hetzron, Robert. 1969b. The Verbal System of Southern Agaw. Berkeley: University of California. Hetzron, Robert. 1970a. “Vocalic Length and Stress in Ennemor.” Le Muséon 83: 559–581. Hetzron, Robert. 1970b. Review of Ethiopians speak, Studies in Cultural Background 3: Soddo, by Wolf Leslau, Journal of the American Oriental Society 90: 561–568. Hetzron, Robert. 1972. Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in Classification. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hetzron, Robert. 1973. “The Element -mm in the Amharic Verbal System.” Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 33: 1–10. Hetzron, Robert. 1976. “Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction.” Lingua 38: 89–108. Hetzron, Robert. 1977. The Gunnän-Gurage Languages. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Hetzron, Robert. 1978. “The Nominal System of Awngi (Southern Agaw).” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 41: 121–141. Hetzron, Robert. 1980. “The Limits of Cushitic.” Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 2: 7–126. Hetzron, Robert. 1995. “Genitival Agreement in Awngi: Variation on an Afroasiatic Theme.” In Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, edited by Frans Plank, 325– 335. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hetzron, Robert. 1996a. “Notes on East Gurage.” In Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, edited by Petr Zemánek, 245–259. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Oriental Institute. Hetzron, Robert. 1996b. “The Two Futures in Central and Peripheral Western Gurage.” In Essays on Gurage Language and Culture: Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday, edited by Grover Hudson, 101–109. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hirsch, Hans. 1961. “Zu einer neuen Edition altassyrischer Texte.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 57: 43–58. Hirsch, Hans. [1961] 1972. Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion. 2nd revised edition. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag. Hirsch, Hans. 1972. Review of Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte, by Karl Hecker, Orientalia 41: 390–431. Hoffmann, Yair. 1977. “Did Amos Regard Himself as a Nabi?” Vetus Testamentum 27: 209–212.

444

References

Höfner, Maria. 1980. Beleg-wörterbuch zum Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum pars IV, inscriptiones ḥimyariticas et sabaeas continens (CIH). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hofstede, Antje. 1998. “Syntax of Jibbali.” PhD dissertation, University of Manchester. Hoftijzer, Jacob. 1976. “Interpretation and Grammar.” In Aramaic Texts from Deir ʕAlla, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, 173–224. Leiden: Brill. Hoftijzer, Jacob. 1991. “What Did the Gods Say? Remarks on the First Combination of the Deir ʕAlla-Plaster Texts.” In The Balaam Text from Deir ʕAlla Re-evaluated, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, 121–142. Leiden: Brill. Hoftijzer, Jacob and Karel Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. With appendices by Richard Steiner. Leiden: Brill. Honda, Isao. 1996. “Negation: A Cross-linguistic study.” PhD dissertation, University of New York at Buffalo. Hopkins, Simon. 1984. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic: Based upon Papyri Datable to before 300 A.H./912 A.D. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hopper, Paul. 1991. “On Some Principles of Grammaticization.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, edited by Elizabeth Traugott and Bernd Heine, 17–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Horn, Laurence. 1978. “Some Aspects of Negation.” In Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax, edited by Joseph Greenberg, 127–210. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Horn, Laurence. 2001. A Natural History of Negation. Reissue with supplemental bibliography. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications. Horn, Laurence. 2010. “Multiple Negation in English and Other Languages.” In The Expression of Negation, edited by Laurence Horn, 111–148. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Hudson, Grover. 1976. “Highland East Cushitic.” In The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, edited by Lionel Bender, 232–277. East Lansing, Michigan: African Studies Center, Michigan State University. Hudson, Grover. 1983. “Evidence for the Nominal Origin of the Perfect in Amharic.” In Ethiopian Studies: Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday, edited by Stanislav Segert and András Bodrogligeti, 236–242. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hudson, Grover. 1986. Review of Ethiopians Speak, Studies in Cultural Background 5: Chaha-Ennemor, by Wolf Leslau, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 106: 381–383. Hudson, Grover. 2003. “Ethiopian Semitic Negative Nonpast.” In Afrasian: Selected Comparative-historical Linguistic Studies in Memory of Igor M. Diakonoff, edited by Lionel Bender, David Appleyard, and Gábor Takács, 209–218. Munich: Lincom Europa.

References

445

Huehnergard, John. 1979. “The Akkadian Dialects of Carchemish and Ugarit.” PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Huehnergard, John. 1983. “Asseverative *la and Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103: 569–593. Huehnergard, John. 1986. “On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 76: 218–249. Huehnergard, John. 1987a. “Three Notes on Akkadian Morphology.” In Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, edited by David Golomb, 181–193. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Huehnergard, John. 1987b. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Huehnergard, John. 1988. “The Early Hebrew Prefix-conjugations.” Hebrew Studies 29: 19–23. Huehnergard, John. 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Huehnergard, John. 1991. “Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages.” In The Balaam Text from Deir ’Alla Re-evaluated, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, 282–293. Leiden: Brill. Huehnergard, John. 1995. “What is Aramaic?” ARAM 7: 261–282. Huehnergard, John. 1996. “New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages.” In The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Jerrold Cooper and Glenn Schwartz, 251–272. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Huehnergard, John. 2000. A Grammar of Akkadian. 3rd printing, with corrections. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Huehnergard, John. 2002. “Comparative Semitic Linguistics.” Israel Oriental Studies 20: 119–150. Huehnergard, John. 2005. “Reflexes of *qatl Forms in Ge’ez.” In Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorff, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 26–36. Leiden: Brill. Huehnergard, John. 2006. “Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian.” In The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context, edited by Guy Deutscher and Norbert Kouwenberg, 1–23. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Huehnergard, John. 2013. “Akkadian e and Semitic Root Integrity.” Babel und Bibel 7: 445–475. Huehnergard, John and Aaron Rubin. 2011. “Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson. 259– 278. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Huehnergard, John and Aren Wilson-Wright. 2014. “A Compound Etymology for Biblical Hebrew zūlāṯī ‘except’.” Hebrew Studies 55: 7–17. Huehnergard, John and Na’ama Pat-El. 2012. “Third-person Possessive Suffixes as Definite Articles in Semitic.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 2: 25–51.

446

References

Huehnergard, John and Saul Olyan. 2013. “The Etymology of Hebrew and Aramaic ykl ‘to be able’.” Journal of Semitic Studies 58: 13–19. Hug, Volker. 1993. Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh.s v. Chr. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Ibn Baṭūṭah. Riḥla. 1853–1858. Voyages d’Ibn Batoutah. Texte arabe, accompagné d’une traduction. 4 volumes, edited and translated by Charles Defrémery. Paris: Imprimerie impériale. Ibn Hišām, Abū Muḥammad ʕAbd al-Malik. Sirah. 1858–1860. Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed Ibn Ishâq bearbeitet von Abd-el Malik Ibn Hischâm. 3 volumes, edited by Ferdinand Wüstenfeld. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Universitäts-Buchhandlung. Isaksson, Bo. 1989. “The Position of Ugaritic among the Semitic Languages.” Orientalia Suecana 38: 54–70. Isaksson, Bo. 2009. “An Outline of Comparative Arabic and Hebrew Textlinguistics.” In Circumstantial Qualifiers in Semitic: The Case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by Bo Isaksson, 36–150. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Isaksson, Bo. 2013. “Subordination.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 657–664. Leiden: Brill. Isaksson, Bo. 2015. “The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A Clause Combining Approach.” In Clause Combining in Semitic: The Circumstantial Clause and Beyond, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 169–267. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Israel, Felice. 2006. “yānu + accusativo nel semitico siro-palestinese e il sincretismo dei casi nel semitico.” In Loquentes Linguis: Studi linguistici e orientali in onore die Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, edited by Pier Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi, and Mauro Tosco, 337–353. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Israel, Michael. 2011. The Grammar of Polarity: Pragmatics, Sensitivity and the Logic of Scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Izre’el, Shlomo and Eran Cohen. 2004. Literary Old Babylonian. Munich: Lincom Europa. Jagersma, Abraham. 2010. “A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian.” PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Jamme, Albert. 1955. “Inscriptions de al-’Amâyid à Mâreb.” Le Muséon 68: 313–324. Jamme, Albert. 1962. Sabaean Inscriptions from Maḥram Bilqîs (Mârib). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Jastrow, Otto. 1978. Die Mesopotamisch-arabischen qeltu-dialekte. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Jastrow, Otto. 1992. Lehrbuch der Ṭuroy-Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jean, Charles-François. 1950. Archives royales de Mari, II: Lettres diverses. Paris: Geuthner. Jenni, Ernst. 1968. Das hebräische Pi’el: Syntaktisch-semasiologische Untersuchung einer Verbalform im Alten Testamen. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag.

References

447

Jenni, Ernst. 2002/3. “Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Kohortativ.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik. 15/16: 19–67. Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Andr. Fred. Høst and søn. Johnstone, Thomas. 1975. “The Modern South Arabian Languages.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 1: 92–121. Johnstone, Thomas. 1977. Ḥarsūsi Lexicon and English-Ḥarsūsi Word-list. London: Oxford University Press. Johnstone, Thomas. 1980. “The Non-occurrence of a t-prefix in Certain Jibbāli Verbal Forms.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43: 466–470. Johnstone, Thomas. 1981. Jibbāli Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joosten, Jan. 1999a. “The Long Form of the Prefix Conjugation Referring to the Past in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Hebrew Studies 40: 15–26. Joosten, Jan. 1999b. “The Lengthened Imperative with Accusative Suffix in Biblical Hebrew.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111: 423–426. Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. [1991] 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd revised edition. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Kahrel, Peter. 1996. “Aspects of Negation.” PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Kämmerer, Thomas and Dirk Schwiderski. 1998. Deutsch-akkadisches Wörterbuch. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Kammerzell, Frank. 1995. “Zur Umschreibung und Lautung des Ägyptischen.” In Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch: die Sprache der Pharaonen (2800–950 v. Chr.), edited by Rainer Hannig, xxiii–lix. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Kane, Thomas. 2000. Tigrinya-English Dictionary. Springfield, Virginia: Dunwoody Press. Kapeliuk, Olga. 1978. “Particles of Concatenation and of Reference in Amharic.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 41: 272–282. Kaufman, Stephen. 2013. “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.” Aramaic Studies 11: 1–26. Kawachi, Kazuhiro. 2007. “A Grammar of Sidaama (Sidamo), a Cushitic Language of Ethiopia.” PhD dissertation, State University of New York. Kaye, Alan. 2007. “Classical and Colloquial Arabic Archaisms.” In Approaches to Arabic Linguistics: Presented to Kees Versteegh on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Everhard Ditters and Harald Motzki, 595–607. Leiden: Brill. Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 volumes. Leiden: Brill. Khan, Geoffrey. 2013. “Remarks on Negation in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects.” In Nicht nur mit Engelszungen. Beiträge zur semitischen Dialektologie: Festschrift für Werner Arnold zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Renaud Kuty, Ulrich Seeger, and Shabo Talay, 171–183. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

448

References

Kienast, Burkhart. 1960. Die altassyrischen Texte des orientalischen Seminars der Universität Heidelberg und der Sammlung Erlenmeyer-Basel. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kienast, Burkhart. 1961. “Satzeinleitendes mā im älteren Akkadischen.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 54: 90–99. Kienast, Burkhart. 2001. Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kienast, Burkhart and Walter Sommerfeld. 1994. Glossar zu den altakkadischen Königsinschriften. Stuttgart: Steiner. Kienast, Burkhart and Konrad Volk. 1995. Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur. Stuttgart: Steiner. Klima, Edward. 1964. “Negation in English.” In The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, edited by Jerry Fodor and Jerrold Katz, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Knauf, Ernst. 2010. “Arabo-Aramaic and ’Arabiyya: From Ancient Arabic to Early Standard Arabic, 200 CE–600 CE.” In The Qur’ān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qur’ānic Milieu, edited by Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx, 197–254. Leiden: Brill. Kobayashi, Yoshitaka. 1979. “A Study on the Transcription of the Old Babylonian Hypocoristic Names I-din-ia and I-din-ia-tum.” Acta Sumerologica 1: 12–18. Kogan, Leonid. 2000. Review of Ugaritische Grammatik, by Josef Tropper, UgaritForschungen 32: 717–732. Kogan, Leonid. 2008. “Accusative as Casus Pendens? A Hitherto Unrecognized Emphatic Construction in Early Akkadian Royal Inscriptions.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 102: 17–26. Kogan, Leonid. 2010a. “Genealogical Position of Ugaritic: The Lexical Dimension.” Sefarad 70: 7–50. Kogan, Leonid. 2010b. “Genealogical Position of Ugaritic: The Lexical Dimension.” Sefarad 70: 279–328. Kogan, Leonid. 2011a. “Old Babylonian Copies of Sargonic Royal Inscriptions as Linguistic Evidence.” In Akkade is King: A Collection of Papers by Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, edited by Gojko Barjamovic, et al., 163–188. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Kogan, Leonid. 2011b. “On Some Orthographic Oppositions in the Old Babylonian Copies of Sargonic Royal Inscriptions.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 68: 33–56. Kogan, Leonid. 2011c. “Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson, 54–151. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Kogan, Leonid. 2012. Review of The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background, by Norbert Kouwenberg, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 102: 304–322.

References

449

Kogan, Leonid. 2014. “Waw Sargonicum. On Parataxis in Sargonic Royal Inscriptions.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 104: 42–55. Kogan, Leonid. 2015. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kogan, Leonid and Andrey Korotayev. 2007. “Epigraphic South Arabian Morphology.” In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, edited by Alan Kaye, 167–192. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Kolmodin, Johannes. 1912. Traditions de Tsazzega et Hazzega: Textes tigrigna. Rome: Casa Editrice Italiana di Carlo de Luigi. Kolmodin, Johannes. 1917. Tigrinische Wochenbettlieder. Uppsala: Edvard Berlings. König, Eduard. 1897. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache: 2:2. Leipzig: Hinrich. König, Ekkehard. 1988. “Concessive Connectives and Concessive Sentences: Crosslinguistic Regularities and Pragmatic Principles.” In Explaining Language Universals, edited by John Hawkins, 145–166. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. Korchin, Paul. 2012. “Grammaticalization and the Biblical Hebrew Pseudo-cohortative.” In Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na’ama Pat-El, 269–284. Chicago: University of Chicago. Kottsieper, Ingo. 1990. Die Sprache der Ahiqarsprüche. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kottsieper, Ingo. 2000. “Der Mann aus Babylonien—Steuerhinterzieher, Flüchtling, Immigrant oder Agent? Zu einem aramäischen Dekret aus neuassyrischer Zeit.” Orientalia 69: 368–392. Kouwenberg, Norbert. 2003–2004. “Initial Plene Writing and the Conjugation of the First Weak Verbs in Akkadian.” Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 38: 83–103. Kouwenberg, Norbert. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Kouwenberg, Norbert. 2012. “Spatial Deixis in Akkadian: Demonstrative Pronouns, Presentative Particles, and Locational Adverbs.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 102: 17–75. Kouwenberg, Norbert. 2013. Review of Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian, by Nathan Wasserman, Babel und Bibel 7: 321–351. Krahmalkov, Charles. 2001. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: Brill. Kraus, Fritz. 1964. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 1: Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 43 und 449). Leiden: Brill. Kraus, Fritz. 1972. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 5: Briefe aus dem Istanbuler Museum. Leiden: Brill.

450

References

Kraus, Fritz. 1977. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 7: Briefe aus dem British Museum. Leiden: Brill. Kraus, Fritz. 1984. Nominalsätze in altbabylonischen Briefen und der Stativ. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. Krebernik, Manfred. 1982. “Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla, Teil 1.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 72: 178–236. Krebernik, Manfred. 1984. Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla. Hildesheim: Olms. Krebernik, Manfred. 1985. “Zur Entwicklung der Keilschrift im III. Jahrtausend anhand der Texte aus Ebla.” Archiv für Orientforschung 32: 53–59. Krebernik, Manfred. 1988. Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Krebernik, Manfred. 1992. “Mesopotamian Myths at Ebla: ARET 5, 6 and ARET 5, 7.” In Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, edited by Pelio Fronzaroli, 63–149. Florence: Università di Firenze. Krebernik, Manfred. 1996. “The Linguistic Classification of Eblaite: Methods, Problems, and Results.” In The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-first century. The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, Winona Lake 1996, edited by Jerrold Cooper and Glenn Schwarz, 233–249. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Krebernik, Manfred and Michael Streck. 2001. “šumman lā qabi’āt ana balāṭim … Wärst du nicht zum Leben berufen … Der Irrealis im Altbabylonischen.” In Sachverhalt und Zeitbezug: Semitistische und alttestamentliche Studien. Adolf Denz zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Rüdiger Bartelmus and Norbert Nebes, 51–78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kropp, Manfred. 1994. “‘… nur zum Abschluß planmäßiger Bauarbeiten, keinesfalls als Katastrophenhilfe!’ Das politische Management eines Dammbruchs bei Marib durch König Šaraḥbi’il Ya’fur (CIH 540, 64–72).” In Arabia Felix. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien. Festschrift für Walter W. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Norbert Nebes, 122–131. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kupper, Jean-Robert. 1950. Archives royales de Mari, III: Correspondance de Kibridagan, governeur de Terqa. Paris: Geuthner. de Lagarde, Paul. 1873. Hagiographa Chaldaice. Lepzig: Teubner. Lambdin, Thomas. 1978. Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Ge’ez). Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Lambert, Wilfred. 1960. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lambert, Wilfred. 1987. “A Further Attempt at the Babylonian Man and his God.” In Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, edited by Francesca Rochberg-Halton, 187–202. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Lambert, Wilfred. 1990. “A New Babylonian Descent to the Netherworld.” In Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran,

References

451

edited by Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller, 289–300. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Lambert, Wildred and Alan Millard. 1999. Atra-H̬ asīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Lamberti, Marcello. 1988. Die Nordsomali-Dialekte: Eine synchronische Beschreibung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Landberg, Carlo. 1920. Glossaire daṯînois. 3 volumes. Leiden: Brill. Lane, Edward. [1863–1893] 1968. An Arabic-English Lexicon. 1968 reprint, 8 volumes. Beirut: Libraire du Liban. Larcher, Pierre. 2008–2009. “Les systèmes conditionnels en ’in de l’Arabe classique.” Bulletin d’études orientales 58: 205–232. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 1967. Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 1971. “Slander.” Orientalia 40: 317–324. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 1974. “The Old Assyrian Colonies in Anatolia.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94: 468–475. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 1976. The Old Assyrian City-state and Its Colonies. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag. Lawler, John. 1977. “Ample Negatives.” Chicago Linguistic Society 10: 1–21. Lee, Chang. 1998. “A Comparative Study in the Syntax of Old Babylonian Royal and Private Letters.” PhD dissertation, University of California. Lefebvre, Théophile. 1845. Voyage en Abyssinie exécuté pendant les annés 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843. Paris: Arthus Bertrand. Lehmann, Christian. 1988. “Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by John Haiman and Sandra Thompson, 181–225. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lehmann, Christian. 2008. “Information Structure and Grammaticalization.” In Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization, edited by Elena Seoane and María José López-Couso, 207–230. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lemaire, André. 2001. Nouvelles tablettes araméennes. Geneva: Librairie Droz. Leonessa, Mauro. 1928. Grammatica analitica della lingua tigray. Rome: Tipografia poliglotta vaticana. Leong, Tien. 1994. “Tense, Mood, and Aspect in Old Babylonian.” PhD dissertation, University of California. Leslau, Wolf. 1938. Lexique Soqotri (Sudarabique moderne). Paris: Klincksieck. Leslau, Wolf. 1939. “Observations sur quelques dialectes du Tigrigna.” Journal Asiatique 231: 61–115.

452

References

Leslau, Wolf. 1941. Documents Tigrigna (éthiopien septentrional): Grammaire et textes. Paris: Klincksieck. Leslau, Wolf. 1944. “The position of Gafat in Ethiopic.” Language 20: 56–65. Leslau, Wolf. 1945a. “The Verb in Tigré.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 65: 1–26. Leslau, Wolf. 1945b. “Grammatical Sketches in Tigré (North Ethiopic): Dialect of Mensa.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 65: 164–203. Leslau, Wolf. 1945c. Gafat Documents: Records of a South-Ethiopic Language. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Leslau, Wolf. 1947. “Four Modern South Arabian Languages.” Word 3: 180–203. Leslau, Wolf. 1948. “Supplementary Observations on Tigré Grammar.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 68: 127–139. Leslau, Wolf. 1949a. Review of Proverbi, tradizioni e canzoni tigrine, by Conti Rossini, Journal of the American Oriental Society 69: 241–246. Leslau, Wolf. 1949b. “Examen du supposé Argobba de Seetzen et de Lefebvre.” Word 5: 46–54. Leslau, Wolf. 1950. Ethiopic Docments: Gurage. New York: Viking Fund. Leslau, Wolf. 1951. “Archaic Features in South Ethiopic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 71: 212–230. Leslau, Wolf. 1952a. “Notes on Kambatta of Southern Ethiopia.” Journal of the International African Institute 22: 348–359. Leslau, Wolf. 1952b. “The Influence of Sidamo on Ethiopic Languages of Gurage.” Language 28: 63–81. Leslau, Wolf. 1956. Étude descriptive et comparative du gafat (éthiopien méridional). Paris: Klincksieck. Leslau, Wolf. 1957. Review of The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Comparative Phonology, by Edward Ullendorff, Annales d’Ethiopie 2: 147–166. Leslau, Wolf. 1958. The Verb in Harari (South Ethiopic). Berkeley: University of California. Leslau, Wolf. 1961. “Remarks on the Gemination of the Gurage Dialect of AzarnatMugo.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 18: 19–20. Leslau, Wolf. 1963. Etymological Dictionary of Harari. Berkeley: University of California. Leslau, Wolf. 1964. “The Farmer in Chaha Song: Dedicated to Abba François Markos.” Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 34: 230–242. Leslau, Wolf. 1965a. Ethiopians Speak, Studies in Cultural Background 1: Harari. Berkeley: University of California. Leslau, Wolf. 1965b. “Gleanings in Harari Grammar I.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 85: 153–159. Leslau, Wolf. 1968. Ethiopians Speak, Studies in Cultural Background 3: Soddo. Berkeley: University of California.

References

453

Leslau, Wolf. 1969a. “Toward a Classification of the Gurage Dialects.” Journal of Semitic Studies 14: 96–109. Leslau, Wolf. 1969b. “The Negative Particle ’in in Arabic and (’)en in Ethiopic.” Istituto Orientale di Napoli 19: 137–145. Leslau, Wolf. 1970. “The ma-clause in Harari.” In Mélanges Marcel Cohen: Études de linguistique, ethnographie et sciences connexes offertes par ses amis et ses élèves, edited by David Cohen, 263–273. The Hague: Mouton. Leslau, Wolf. 1971. “The Verb Forms of the Gurage Dialect of Endegeň.” In Afrikanische Sprachen und Kulturen: Ein Querschnitt, edited by Veronika Six, Norbert Cyffer, Ekkehard Wolff, Ludwig Gerhardt, and Hilke Meyer-Bahlburg, 180–188. Hamburg: Deutsches Institut für Afrika-Forschung. Leslau, Wolf. 1979. Etymological Dictionary of Gurage. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Leslau, Wolf. 1981. Ethiopians Speak, Studies in Cultural Background 4: Muher. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Leslau, Wolf. 1983a. Ethiopians Speak, Studies in Cultural Background 5: Chaha-Ennemor. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Leslau, Wolf. 1983b. “Popular Interpretation of Dreams in Ethiopia.” In Guirlande pour Abba Jérome: Travaux offerts à Abba Jérôme Gabra Musé par ses élèves et ses amis, edited by Joseph Tubiana, 61–82. Paris: Mois en Afrique. Leslau, Wolf. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Leslau, Wolf. 1996. “Čaha and Ennemor: An Analysis of Two Gurage Dialects.” In Essays on Gurage Language and Culture: Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday, edited by Grover Hudson, 111–122. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Leslau, Wolf. 1997. Ethiopic Documents: Argobba. Grammar and Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Leslau, Wolf. 1999. Zway Ethiopic Documents: Grammar and Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Leslau, Wolf. 2004. The Verb in Mäsqan as Compared with Other Gurage Dialects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Levine, Baruch. 1981. Review of Aramaic Texts from Deir ʕAlla, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, Journal of the American Oriental Society 101: 195–205. Levine, Baruch. 1991. “The Plaster Inscriptions from Deir ʕAlla: General Interpretation.” In The Balaam Text from Deir ʕAlla Re-evaluated, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, 58–72. Leiden: Brill. Levine, Baruch. 2000. “The Deir ʕAlla Plaster Inscriptions.” In The Context of Scripture, vol. 2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, edited by William Hallo, 140–145. Leiden: Brill.

454

References

Lewy, Julius. 1946. “Studies in Akkadian grammar and Onomatology.” Orientalia 15: 361–415. Lewy, Julius. 1950. “H̬ atta, H̬ attu, H̬ atti, H̬ attuša and Old Assyrian H̬ attum.” Archív Orientální 18: 366–411. Lewy, Julius. 1960. “Grammatical and Lexicographical Studies.” Orientalia 29: 20–45. Li, Tarsee. 2009. The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel. Leiden: Brill. Lindenberger, James. 1983. The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Lindenberger, James. [1994]. 2003. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. 2nd edition, edited by Kent Richards. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Lipiński, Edward. 1975. Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics 1. Leuven: Peeters. Lipiński, Edward. 1994. Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics 2. Leuven: Peeters. Lipiński, Edward. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Leuven: Peeters. Littmann, Enno. 1897. “Die Pronomina im Tigre.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 12: 188–230, 291–316. Littmann, Enno. 1898. “Das Verbum der Tigresprache.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 13: 133–178. Littmann, Enno. 1902. “Tigriña-Texte im Dialekte von Tanbên.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 16: 211–225. Littmann, Enno. 1910–1915. Publications of the Princeton Expedition to Abyssinia. Leiden: Brill. Littmann, Enno. 1913. Sabaische, griechische und altabessinische Inschriften. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Littmann, Enno. 1914. Die altamharischen Kaiserlieder. Strassburg: Heitz. Littmann, Enno. 1921. “Die Partikel ma im Harari.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 33: 102–122. Littmann, Enno. 1926. “Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Maʕlūla.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 29: 803–809. Littmann, Enno. 1947. “Altamharisches Glossar.” Rivista degli studi orientali 20: 473–505. Littmann, Enno and Maria Höfner. 1962. Wörterbuch der Tigrē-Sprache: Tigrē-DeutschEnglisch. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Loesov, Sergey. 2004. “T-Perfect in Old Babylonian: The Debate and a Thesis.” Babel und Bibel 1: 83–181. Loesov, Sergey. 2012. “A New Attempt at Reconstructing Proto-Aramaic.” Babel und Bibel 6: 421–456. Loesov, Sergey and Leonid Kogan. 2005. Review of Literary Old Babylonian, by Shlomo Izre’el and Eran Cohen, Babel und Bibel 2: 743–772.

References

455

Longacre, Robert. 1979. “The Discourse Structure of the Flood Narrative.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion Supplement 47: 89–133. Lonnet, Antoine. 1994. “Le verbe sudarabique moderne: Hypotheses sur des tendances.” Matériaux arabes et sudarabiques 6: 213–255. Lonnet, Antoine. 2005. “Emprunts intra-sémitiques: L’exemple des emprunts arabes en sudarabique moderne.” Aula Orientalis 23: 199–206. Lonnet, Antoine. 2006. “Les langues sudarabiques modernes.” Faits de langues 2: 27–44. Lonnet, Antoine. 2011. “South Arabian, Modern.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. 4, edited by Kees Versteegh, 297–300. Leiden: Brill. Loprieno, Antonio. 1975. Review of Syntax of the Negative Particles bw and bn in Late Egyptian, by Virginia Davis, Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 35: 277–282. Loprieno, Antonio. 1986. Das Verbalsystem im Ägyptischen und Semitischen: Zur Grundlegung einer Aspekttheorie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lucas, Christopher. 2009. “The Development of Negation in Arabic and Afro-Asiatic.” PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. Lucas, Christopher. 2010. “Negative -š in Palestinian (and Cairene) Arabic: Present and Possible Past.” Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 2: 165–201. Lucas, Christopher and Elliott Lash. 2010. “Contact as Catalyst: The Case for Coptic influence in the Development of Arabic Negation.” Journal of Linguistics 46: 379–413. Ludolf, Iob. 1681. Historia Aethiopica. Frankfurt: David Zunner. Ludolf, Iob. 1698. Grammatica Linguae Amharicae. Frankfurt: David Zunner. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ma’ani, Sultan and Ibrahim Sadaqah. 2002. “New Safaitic Inscriptions from the Mafraq Office Department of Archeology of Jordan.” Syria 79: 249–269. Macdonald, Michael. 2000. “Reflections on the Linguistic Map of Pre-Islamic Arabia.” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11: 28–79. Macdonald, Michael. 2008. “Ancient North Arabian.” In The Ancient Languages of SyriaPalestine and Arabia, edited by Roger Woodard, 179–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mackenzie, David. 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies. London: Oxford University Press. Macuch, Rudolf. 1982. Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramäisch. Berlin: De Gruyter. Matouš, Lubor and Karel Petráček. 1956. “Beiträge zur akkadischen Grammatik I: Die Liquiden in ihrem Verhältnis zum Vokal im Assyrischen.” Archív Orientální 24: 1–14. Matras, Yaron. 2007. “The Borrowability of Grammatical Categories.” In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel, 31–74. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

456

References

Matras, Yaron. 2011. “Universals of Structural Borrowing.” In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, edited by Peter Siemund, 204–233. Berlin: De Gruyter. Mayer, Johannes. 1878. Kurze Wörter-Sammlung in Englisch, Deutsch, Amharisch, Gallanisch, Guraguesch. Basel: Chrischona. Mayer, Werner. 1992. “Das ‘gnomische Präteritum’ im literarischen Akkadisch.” Orientalia 61: 373–399. Mazzini, Giovanni. 2007. “The System of the Prefixed Verb in Proto-Ancient South Arabian.” In XII Incontro italiano di Linguistica Camito-semitica (Afroasiatica). Atti, edited by Marco Moriggi, 251–261. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino. Mazzini, Giovanni and Alexandra Porter. 2009. “Stela BM 102600=CIH 611 in the British Museum: Water Regulation between Two Bordering Estates.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39: 283–294. McCarter, Kyle. 1991. “The Dialect of the Deir ʕAlla Texts.” In The Balaam Text from Deir ʕAlla Re-evaluated, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, 87–99. Leiden: Brill. Merino, Díez. 1982. Biblia políglota Complutense: Tradicíon sefardí de la Biblia Aramea. 4.1 Targum de Salmos. Madrid: El Instituto Francisco Suárez. Metzler, Kai. 2002. Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Meyer, Ronny. 2005. Das Zay: Deskriptive Grammatik einer Ostguragesprache (Äthiosemitisch). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. Meyer, Ronny. 2006. Wolane: Descriptive Grammar of an East Gurage Language (EthioSemitic). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. Meyer, Ronny. 2010. “The Use of Muher Demonstratives for Reference in Space and Discourse.” Afrika und Übersee 91: 161–201. Meyer, Ronny. 2011a. “Gurage.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson, 1220– 1257. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Meyer, Ronny. 2011b. Review of Language Death in Mesmes: A Sociolinguistic and Historical-comparative Examination of a Disappearing Ethiopian-Semitic Language, by Michael Ahland, Aethiopica 14: 244–262. Michalowski, Piotr. 1993. Letters from Early Mesopotamia. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Michel, Cécile. 1986. “Réédition des trente tablettes ‘cappadociennes’ de G. Contenau.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 80: 105–140. Michel, Cécile. 1991. Innaya dans les tablettes paléo-assyriennes. 2 volumes. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Michel, Cécile. 2001. Correspondance des marchands de Kaniš au début du II e millénaire avant J.-C. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.

References

457

Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation: The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Militarev, Alexander. 2014. “A Complete Etymology-based Hundred Wordlist of Semitic Updated: Items 75–100.” Journal of Language Relationship 11: 159–185. Mittwoch, Eugen. 1907. “Proben aus amharischem Volksmunde.” Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen 10: 185–241. Mittwoch, Eugen. 1926. Die traditionelle Aussprache des Äthiopischen. Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter. Moran, William. [1950] 2003. “A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets.” In Amarna Studies: Collected Writings by William Moran, edited by John Huehnergard and Schlomo Izre’el, 1–130. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Moran, William. [1960] 2003. “Early Canaanite yaqtula.” In Amarna Studies: Collected Writings by William Moran, edited by John Huehnergard and Schlomo Izre’el, 179– 195. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Moran, William. 1980. Review of Archives royales de Mari: X, by Georges Dossin, Journal of the American Oriental Society 100: 186–189. Moran, William. 1988. Review of Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Berkeley, by Martin Stol, Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 307–309. Moshavi, Adina. 2007. “hl’ as a Discourse Marker of Justification in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 48: 171–186. Moshavi, Adina. 2012. “Rhetorical Question or Assertion? The Pragmatics of hl’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 32: 91–105. Muller, Claude. 1978. “La négation explétive dans les constructions complétives.” Langue française 39: 76–103. Müller, David. 1902. Südarabische Expedition, Band 4: Die Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Sprache 1: Texte. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Müller, David. 1905. Südarabische Expedition, Band 6: Die Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Sprache 2: Soqoṭri-Texte. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Müller, David. 1907. Südarabische Expedition, Band 7: Die Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Sprache 3: Šh̬ auri-Texte. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Müller, Hans-Peter. 1970. “Notizen zu althebräischen Inschriften I.” Ugarit-Forschungen 2: 229–231. Müller, Walter. 1983. Review of Dictionary of Old South Arabic, Sabaean Dialect, by Joan Biella, Die Welt des Orients 14: 267–271. Müller, Walter. 1987. “Zwei sabäische Votivinschriften an die Sonnengöttin Nami 74 und Yemen Museum 1965.” In Sayhadica: Recherches sur les inscriptions de l’Arabie préislamique offertes par ses collègues au professeur A.F.L. Beeston, edited by Christian Robin and Muhammad Bāfaqīh, 57–73. Paris: Geuthner.

458

References

Müller, Walter. 1989. “Ein himjarischer Satz bei al-Malik al-Ašraf.” In On Both Sides of alMandab. Ethiopian, South Arabic and Islamic Studies Presented to Oscar Löfgren on his Ninetieth Birthday 13 May 1988, edited by Ulla Ehrensvärd and Christopher Toll, 49–53. Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. Müller, Walter. 2010. Sabäische Inscriften nach Ären datiert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Müller-Kessler, Christa. 1991. Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen. Hildesheim: Olms. Multhoff, Anne. 2007. “‘A Parallel to the Second Commandment …’ Revisited.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39: 295–301. Multhoff, Anne and Peter Stein. 2008. “Tempeldiebstahl und andere Schlechtigkeiten: Zwei verkannte sabäische Inschriften.” Orientalia 77: 1–44. Munzinger, Werner. 1859. Ueber die Sitten und das Recht der Bogos. Winterthur: Verlag von J. Wurster. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1985. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2011. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic. Leuven: Peeters. Muraoka, Takamitsu and Bezalel Porten. 1998. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Leiden: Brill. Nater, Hank. 1984. The Bella Coola Language. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. Naumkin, Vitaly, Maria Bulakh, Dmitry Cherkashin, Leonid Kogan, Ahmed Issa alDa’rhi, and Issa Gumaan. 2014. “Studies in the Verbal Morphology of Soqotri I/1: Strong Triconsonantal Roots in the Basic stem.” Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 59: 25–56. Nazdar, Mustafa. 1993. “The Kurds in Syria.” In A People Without a Country, edited by Gerard Challand. 2nd revised edition translated by Michael Pallis, 194–201. London: Zed Books. Nebes, Norbert. 1985. “Zwei Miszellen zur sabäischen Verbalmorphologie.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 42: 27–39. Nebes, Norbert. 1991. “Die enklitischen Partikeln des Altsüdarabischen.” In Études sudarabes: Recueil offert à Jacques Ryckmans, edited by Christian Robin, 133–151. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institute Orientaliste. Nebes, Norbert. 1994a. “Verwendung und Funktion der Präfixkonjugation im Sabäischen.” In Arabia Felix. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien. Festschrift für Walter W. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Norbert Nebes, 191–211. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Nebes, Norbert. 1994b. “Zur Form der Imperfektbasis des unvermehrten Grundstammes im Altsüdarabischen.” In Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag. Band 1: Semitische Studien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Südsemitistik, edited by Gregor Schoeler and Wolfhart Heinrichs, 59–81. Stuttgart: Steiner.

References

459

Nebes, Norbert. 1995. Die konstruktionen mit /fa-/ im Altsüdarabischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Negev, Avraham. 1986. “Obodas the God.” Israel Exploration Journal 38: 56–60. Niccacci, Alviero. 2010. “An Integrated Verb System for Biblical Hebrew Prose and Poetry.” In Congress volume Ljubljana 2007, edited by André Lemaire, 99–127. Leiden: Brill. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1868 Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia See und in Kurdistan. Leipzig: Weigel. Nöldeke, Theodor. [1880] 1904. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated by James Chrichton from the 2nd and improved German edition. London: Williams & Norgate. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1890. “Tigre-Texte.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 4: 289–300. Nöldeke, Theodor. [1896] 1963. Zur Grammatik des classischen Arabisch. Revised by Anton Spitaler. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1904. Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Trübner. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1910. Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Trübner. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1917–1918. “Texte im aramäischen Dialekt von Maʕlūla.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 31: 203–230. Notarius, Tania. 2010. “The Active Predicative Participle in Archaic and Classical Biblical Poetry.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 47: 241–269. Notarius, Tania. 2013. The Verb in Archaic Biblical Hebrew. Leiden: Brill. Nötscher, Friedrich. 1953. “Zum emphatischen Lamed.” Vetus Testamentum 3: 372–380. Nougayrol, Jean. 1955. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit III: Textes accadiens et hourrites des Archives Est, Ouest et Centrales. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Nougayrol, Jean. 1956. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit IV: Textes accadiens des Archives Sud. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Nougayrol, Jean. 1970. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit VI: Textes en cunéiformes babyloniens des Archives du Grand Palais et du Palais Sud d’Ugarit. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Obermann, Julian. 1946. “Sentence Negation in Ugaritic.” Journal of Biblical Literature 65: 233–248. Obler, Loraine. 1990. “Reflexes of Classical Arabic šay’un in the Dialects: Synthetic Forms of Language Change.” In Studies in Near Eastern Culture and History in Memory of Ernest T. Abdel Massih, edited by James Bellamy, 132–152. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Oppenheim, Leo. 1939. “Lexikalische Untersuchungen zu den ‘kappadokischen’ Briefen.” Archiv für Orientforschung 12: 342–362.

460

References

Oppenheim, Leo, Erica Reiner, et al. 1956–2011. The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago. Owens, Jonathan. 2013. “The Historical Linguistics of the Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 133: 217–247. Pardee, Dennis. 1977. “A New Ugaritic Letter.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 34: 3–20. Pardee, Dennis. 1981. “A Further Note on PRU V, No. 60: Epigraphic in Nature.” UgaritForschungen 13: 151–156. Pardee, Dennis. 1983–1984. “Ugaritic. The Letter of Puduhepa.” Archiv für Orientforschung 29/30: 321–329. Pardee, Dennis. 1984a. “Ugaritic. Further Studies on Ugaritic Epistolography.” Archiv für Orientforschung 31: 213–230. Pardee, Dennis. 1984b. “Three Ugaritic Tablet Joins.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43: 239–245. Pardee, Dennis. 1987a. “Epigraphic and Philological Notes.” Ugarit-Forschungen 19: 199–217. Pardee, Dennis. 1987b. “Ugaritic Bibliography.” Archiv für Orientforschung 34: 366–471. Pardee, Dennis. 1988. Ras Shamra—Ougarit 4: Les textes para-mythologiques, de la 24e campagne, avec une notice archéologique de Jacques-Claude Courtoish. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations. Pardee, Dennis. 1993. “Poetry in Ugaritic Ritual Texts.” In Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, edited by Johannes De Moor, 207–218. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker. Pardee, Dennis. 1997. “A Punic Sacrificial Tariff.” In The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, edited by William Hallo, 305–309. Leiden: Brill. Pardee, Dennis. 2002a. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature. Pardee, Dennis. 2002b. “Ugaritic Letters.” In The Context of Scripture, vol. 3: Archival Documents from the Biblical World, edited by William Hallo, 87–115. Leiden: Brill. Pardee, Dennis. 2002c. “RIH 77/27, RIH 77/12, RIH 78/26 et le principe de l’écriture cunéiforme alphabétique.” Syria 79: 51–63. Pardee, Dennis. 2003–2004. Review of Ugaritische Grammatik, by Josef Tropper, Archiv für Orientforschung 50: 1–404. Pardee, Dennis. 2008. “Canaanite Dialects.” In Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, edited by Roger Woodard, 103–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pardee, Dennis. 2009. “Two Epigraphic Notes on the Ugaritic šaḥru-wa-Šalimu text (RS 2.002 = CTA 23).” Semitica et Classica 2: 219–222. Pardee, Dennis and Robert Whiting. 1987. “Aspects of Epistolary Verbal Usage in Ugaritic and Akkadian.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 50: 1–31.

References

461

Parisot, Jean. 1898a. “Le dialecte de Maʕlula. Grammaire, vocabulaire et textes.” Journal Asiatique 9/11: 239–312. Parisot, Jean. 1898b. “Le dialecte de Maʕlula. Grammaire, vocabulaire et textes.” Journal Asiatique 9/11: 440–519. Parisot, Jean. 1898c. “Le dialecte de Maʕlula. Grammaire, vocabulaire et textes.” Journal Asiatique 9/12: 124–176. Parker, Simon. 1997. “Aqhat.” In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon Parker, 49–80. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Pat-El, Na’ama. 2006. “Syntactical Aspects of Negation in Syriac.” Journal of Semitic Studies 51: 329–348. Pat-El, Na’ama. 2012a. “On Verbal Negation in Semitic.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 162: 17–45. Pat-El, Na’ama. 2012b. Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press. Pat-El, Na’ama. 2013. “On Negation in Phoenician.” In Linguistic Studies in Phoenician, in Memory of J. Brian Peckham, edited by Robert Holmstedt and Aaron Schade, 47–67. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Patterson, Richard. 1970. “Old Babylonian Parataxis as Exhibited in the Royal Letters of the Middle Old Babylonian Period and in the Code of Hammurapi.” PhD dissertation, University of California. Payne, John. 1985. “Negation.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure, edited by Timothy Shopen, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennacchietti, Fabrizio. 1968. “Sull’origine della particella negative arabe ’in.” Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 28: 15–25. Pettinato, Giovanni and Franco D’Agostino. 1998. Thesaurus Inscriptionum Eblaicarum, vol. B. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Peust, Carsten. 1999. Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language. Göttingen: Peust und Gutschmidt. Pirenne, Jacqueline. 1968. Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique. Tome VIII: Tables et index des tomes V, VI, VII. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Pirenne, Jacqueline, Alfred Beeston and Maria Höfner. 1977–1986. Corpus des inscriptions et antiquités sud-arabes. 2 volumes. Leuven: Peeters. Pitard, Wayne. 1998. “The Binding of Yamm: A New Edition of the Ugaritic Text KTU 1.83.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57: 261–280. Plazikowsky-Brauner, Herma. 1957. “Die Hilfselemente der Konjugation in den kuschitischen Sprachen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 107: 7–30. Plazikowsky-Brauner, Herma. 1958. “Die determinativen Elemente der sog. kuschitischen Sprachen.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 6: 121–141.

462

References

Polak, Frank. 2010. “The Book of Samuel and the Deuteronomist—A Syntactic-stylistic Analysis.” In Die Samuelbücher und die Deuteronomisten, edited by Christa SchäferLichtenberger, 34–73. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Polotsky, Hans. 1949. Review of Gafat Documents: Records of a South-Ethiopic Language: Grammar, Text and Comparative Vocabulary, by Wolf Leslau, Journal of the American Oriental Society 69: 36–41. Polotsky, Hans. 1951. Notes on Gurage Grammar. Jerusalem: The Israel Oriental Society. Pomponio, Francesco. 2008. Archivi reali di Ebla, Testi 15: Testi amministrativi: Assegnazioni mensili di tessuti periodo di Arrugum (archivio L. 2769). Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria. Pope, Marvin. 1986. “Enigmatic Bible Passages—The Timing of the Snagging of the Ram, Genesis 22:13.” Biblical Archaeologist 49: 114–117. Porten, Bezalel and Jonas Greenfield. 1968. “The Aramaic Papyri from Hermopolis.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 80: 216–231. Praetorius, Franz. 1868. Review of Vocabulary of the Tigré Language, by Moritz Beurmann and Adalbert Merx, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 22: 746–748. Praetorius, Franz. 1869. “Ueber die Sprache von Harar.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 23: 453–472. Praetorius, Franz. 1871. Grammatik der Tigriñasprache in Abessinien hauptsächlich in der Gegend von Aksum und Adoa. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Praetorius, Franz. 1874. “Ueber zwei Tigrinãdialekte.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 28: 437–447. Praetorius, Franz. 1879. Die amharische Sprache. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Praetorius, Franz. 1886. Äthiopische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, Litteratur, Chrestomathie und Glossar. Karlsruhe und Leipzig: Reuther. Praetorius, Franz. 1899. “Bemerkungen zu den beiden grossen Inschriften vom Dammbruch zu Marib.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 53: 1–24. Puech, Émile. 1984. “Un emploi méconnu de wl’ en araméen et en hébreu.” Revue Biblique 91: 88–101. Qimron, Elisha. 1983. “The Negative word ʔal in Our Early Sources.” [Hebrew] In Sefer ha-Yovel le-Ze’ev ben-Hayyim, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, et al., 473–482. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Qimron, Elisha. 1986. The Hebrew of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Rabin, Chaim. 1951. Ancient West-Arabian. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press. Rahman, Furat. 1996. “Old Babylonian Hypocoristica Ending with -ia, -iatum.” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1996 nr. 77.

References

463

Rainey, Anson. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna tablets. 4 volumes. Leiden: Brill. Rainey, Anson, William Schniedewind, and Zipora Cochavi-Rainey. 2015. The El-Amarna Correspondence. 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill. Rammelt, Gustaf. 1883. “Über die zusammengesetzten Nomina im Hebräischen.” PhD dissertation, Halle. Raz, Schlomo. 1977. “Complex Verbal Expressions of Time-relations in Tigre.” Israel Oriental Studies 7: 144–172. Raz, Schlomo. 1983a. Tigre: Grammar and Texts. Malibu, California: Undena. Raz, Schlomo. 1983b. “Source Materials for the Study of the Tigre Language.” In Ethiopian Studies: Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday, edited by Stanislav Segert and András Bodrogligeti, 307–322. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Raz, Schlomo. 1991. “Semitic South-Ethiopic: The Definite Future Revisited.” In Semitic Studies: In Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his 85th Birthday, edited by Alan Kaye, 1248–1264. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Raz, Schlomo. 1992. “Degem Habāb Ad Hebtes.” Israel Oriental Studies 12: 193–233. Rechenmacher, Hans. 2003. “l’ and ’yn in Nominal Clauses.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 29: 67–85. Reckendorf, Hermann. 1895. Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen: Erste Hälfte. Leiden: Brill. Reckendorf, Hermann. 1921. Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Reid, Thomas. 1939. “Non, nen and ne with Finite Verbs in French.” In Studies in French Language and Mediaeval Literature: Presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope by Pupils, Colleagues, and Friends, 305–313. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Reiner, Erica. 1964. “The Phonological Interpretation of a Sub-system in the Akkadian Syllabary.” In Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim, edited by Robert Biggs and John Brinkman, 167–180. Chicago: University of Chicago. Reinisch, Leo. 1887. Die Bilin-Sprache, Band 2: Wörterbuch der Bilin-Sprache. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rendsburg, Gary. 1990. “Monophthongization of aw/ay > ā in Eblaite and in Northwest Semitic.” In Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, vol. 2, edited by Cyrus Gordon and Gary Rendsburg, 91–126. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Rendsburg, Gary. 2003. “A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexicon.” Orient 38: 5–35. Renz, Johannes and Wolfgang Röllig. 1995–2003. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 4 volumes. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Retsö, Jan. 2013. “What is Arabic?” In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, edited by Jonathan Owens, 433–450. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retsö, Jan. 2014. “The b-imperfect Once Again: Typological and Diachronic Perspectives.” In Proceedings of the Oslo-Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics,

464

References

Oslo May 23 and 24, 2013, edited by Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard, 64–72. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Reuschel, Wolfgang. 1996. Aspekt und Tempus in der Sprache des Korans. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Richter, Renate. 1997. “Some Linguistic Peculiarities in Old Amharic Texts.” In Ethiopia in Broader Perspective: Papers of the 13th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Kyoto, December 12–17, 1997, edited by Katsuyoshi Fukui, Eisei Kurimoto, and Masayoshi Shigeta, 543–551. Kyoto: Shokado Book Sellers. Ricks, Stephen. 1989. Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Rin, Svi. 1963. “Ugaritic-Old Testament Affinities.” Biblische Zeitschrift 7: 22–33. Robin, Christian. 1987. “Trois inscriptions sabéennes découvertes près de Barāqish (Republique Arabe du Yemen).” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 17: 165–177. Robin, Christian. 2002. “Vers une meilleure connaissance de Kaminahū (Jawf du Yémen).” In Studies on Arabia in honour of Professor G. Rex Smith, edited by John Healey and Venetia Porter, 191–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robin, Christian. 2004. “Himyar et Israël.” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 148: 831–908. Rodén, Karl. 1913. Le Tribù dei Mensa: Storia, legge e costumi. Stockholm: Evangeliska Fosterlands-Stiftelsens Förlag-Expedition. Röllig, Wolfgang. 1983. “The Phoenician Language: Remarks on the Present State of Research.” In Atti del I. congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Roma 5–10 Novembre 1979, vol. 2, edited by Piero Bartoloni, 375–385. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Röllig, Wolfgang. 1997. “Aramaica Haburensia II: Zwei datierte aramäische Urkunden aus Tell Šēh̬ Ḥamad.” Altorientalische Forschungen 24: 366–374. Römer, Willem. 1966. “Studien zu altbabylonischen hymnisch-epischen Texten (2). Ein Lied über die Jugendjahre der Götter Sîn und Išum.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 86: 138–147. Römer, Willem. 1967a. “Studien zu altbabylonischen hymnisch-epischen Texten (1). Ein kummu-Lied auf Adad.” In Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient: Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966, edited by Dietz Edzard, 185–199. Wiesbaden: Harrassowtiz. Römer, Willem. 1967b. “Studien zu altbabylonischen hymnisch-epischen Texten (3). Ein Lied mit Bezug auf einen Šubartum-Feldzug H̬ ammurapis (CT 15, 1–2)?” Die Welt des Orients 4: 12–28. Rose, Sharon. 1997. “Theoretical Issues in Comparative Ethio-Semitic phonology and morphology.” PhD dissertation, McGill University Montréal. Rose, Sharon. 2004. “Long-distance Vowel-consonant Agreement in Harari.” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 25: 41–87.

References

465

Rosén, Haiim. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton. Rosenthal, Franz. 1961. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Roth, Martha. 1997. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd edition, with a contribution by Harry Hoffner. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Rubin, Aaron. 2004. “An Outline of Comparative Egypto-Semitic Morphology.” In Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam Werner Vycichl, edited by Gábor Takács, 454–486. Leiden: Brill. Rubin, Aaron. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Rubin, Aaron. 2007. “On the Third Person Preformative l-/n- in Aramaic, and an Ethiopic Parallel.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44: 1–28. Rubin, Aaron. 2008. “The Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages.” Language and Linguistics Compass 21: 61–84. Rubin, Aaron. 2010a. The Mehri Language of Oman. Leiden: Brill. Rubin, Aaron. 2010b. “The Development of the Amharic Definite Article and an Indonesian Parallel.” Journal of Semitic Studies 55: 103–114. Rubin, Aaron. 2012. “The Future Tense in Jibbali.” In Grammaticalization in Semitic, edited by Domenyk Eades. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 29: 193–204. Rubin, Aaron. 2014. The Jibbali (Shaḥri) Language of Oman: Grammar and Texts. Leiden: Brill. Rundgren, Frithiof. 1954. “Neoaethiopica.” Studia Linguistica 8: 91–102. Rundgren, Frithiof. 1955. Über Bildungen mit š- und n-t-Demonstrativen im Semitischen. Uppsala: Almqvist Wiksell. Rundgren, Frithiof. 1963. Erneuerung des Verbalaspekts im Semitischen: Funktionelldiachronische Studien zur semitischen Verblehre. Uppsala: Almqvist Wiksell. Ryckmans, Gonzague. 1928–1950. Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Ryckmans, Gonzague. 1953. Review of Les monuments de Ma’in, by Khalil Nami, Le Muséon 66: 400–403. Ryckmans, Jacques. 1953. “A propos du m’mr sud-arabe.” Le Muséon 66: 343–369. Ryckmans, Jacques. 1954. “Le sens de ḏ’l en sud-arabe.” Le Muséon 67: 339–348. Sadock, Jerrold. 1971. “Queclaratives.” Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 223–232. Sadock, Jerrold and Arnold Zwicky. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure, edited by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saleh Mahmud Idris. 2005. “Tigre Dialects.” Journal of Eritrean Studies 4: 45–73. Sallaberger, Walther. 1999. ‘Wenn du mein Bruder bist, …’ Interaktion und Textgestaltung in altbabylonischen Alltagsbriefen. Groningen: Styx. Sapir, Edward. 1912. “The Takelma Language of Southwestern Oregon.” PhD dissertation, Columbia University.

466

References

Sarna, Nahum. 1956. “A Crux Interpretum in Job 22:30.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15: 118–119. Schaaik, Gerjan. 1994. “Turkish.” In Typological Studies in Negation, edited by Peter Kahrel and René van den Berg, 35–50. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Schachter, Paul and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California. Scheil, Jean-Vincent. 1918. “La poème d’Agušaya.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 15: 159–182. Schmitz, Philip. 1994. “The Deir ʕAlla Plaster Text, Combination One, Line Two.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 25: 81–87. Schneider, Roger. 1974. “Trois nouvelles inscriptions royales d’Axoum.” In IV Congresso Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Roma, 10–15 Aprile 1972), vol. 1, 767–786. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Schoeler, Gregor. 2011. The Biography of Muḥammad. Translated from German by Uwe Vagelpohl. New York: Routledge. Schreiber, Jules. 1887. Manuel de la langue Tigraï. Vienna: Alfred Hœlder. Schultess, Friedrich. 1924. Grammatik des christlich-palästinischen Aramäisch. Hildesheim: Olms. Schwegler, Armin. 1983. “Predicate Negation and Word-order Change: A Problem of Multiple Negation.” Lingua 61: 297–334. Schwegler, Armin. 1988. “Word-order Changes in Predicate Negation Strategies in Romance Languages.” Diachronica 5: 21–58. Schwegler, Armin. 1991. “Predicate Negation in Contemporary Brazilian Portuguese: A Change in Progress.” Orbis 34: 187–214. Schwiderski, Dirk. 2004. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften. Band 2: Texte und Bibliographie. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schwiderski, Dirk. 2008. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften. Band 1: Konkordanz. Berlin: De Gruyter. Seetzen, Ulrich. 1816. Proben deutscher Volksmundarten: Dr. Seetzen’s linguistischer Nachlass, edited by Johann Vater. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer. Segert, Stanislav. 1975. Altaramäische Grammatik. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Seminara, Stefano. 1998. L’accadico di Emar. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Shulman, Ahouva. 1996. “The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Shulman, Ahouva. 2000. “The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13: 168–180. Sim, Ronald. 1988. “Violations of the Two-consonant Constraint in Hadiyya.” African Languages and Cultures 1: 77–90. Sim, Ronald. 1989. “Predicate Conjoining in Hadiyya: A Head-driven PS Grammar.” PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

References

467

Sima, Alexander. 2001. “Altsüdarabische Konditionalsätze.” Orientalia 70: 283–312. Sima, Alexander. 2003. Review of Mehri-Texts from Oman, by Harry Stroomer, Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 42: 88–94. Sima, Alexander. 2009. Mehri-Texe aus der jemenitischen Šarqīyah. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. 1994. “La négation dans les langues sudarabiques modernes.” Matériaux arabes et sudarabiques 5: 249–277. Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. 2003. “Soqotri Dialectology, and the Evaluation of the Language Endangerment.” Conference paper at The developing strategy of Soqotra Archipelago and the other Yemeni islands, December 14–16 2003, Aden, Yemen. Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. 2006. “Some Characteristics of Dahalik: A Newly Discovered Afro-Semitic Language Spoken in Eritrea.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg, July 20–25, 2003, edited by Siegbert Uhlig, 861–869. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. 2010. “The Specificity of the Dahalik Language within the Afro-Semitic Languages.” In History and Language of the Tigre-speaking Peoples, edited by Gianfrancesco Lusini, 127–145. Naples: Università degli studi di Napoli L’Orientale. Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. 2011. “Modern South Arabian.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson, 1073–1113. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Singer, Hans-Rudolf. 1958. “Neuarabische Fragewörter: Ein Beitrag zur historischen und vergleichenden Grammatik der arabischen Dialekte.” PhD dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität. Sivan, David and William Schniedewind. 1993. “Letting Your ‘Yes’ be ‘No’ in Ancient Israel: A Study of the Asseverative l’ and hl’.” Journal of Semitic Studies 38: 209–226. Smith, Mark. 1994a. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol. 1: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2. Leiden: Brill. Smith, Mark. 1994b. “The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol. 1: Corrections to Transcriptions.” Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 455. Smith, Mark and Wayne Pitard. 2009. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol. 2: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4. Leiden: Brill. von Soden, Wolfram. 1931. “Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen, Teil I.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 40: 163–227. von Soden, Wolfram. 1933. “Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen, Teil II.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 41: 90–183, 236. von Soden, Wolfram. 1965–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. von Soden, Wolfram. 1988. “Sonderfälle bei der regressiven Assimilation von l, m und n an stimmlose Konsonanten im Akkadischen.” In Ad Bene et Fideliter Seminandum:

468

References

Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987, edited by Gerlinde Mauer and Ursula Magen, 269–285. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. von Soden, Wolfram. [1952]. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition revised by Werner Mayer. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Soggin, Jan. 1965. “La ‘negazione’ in Geremia 4,27 e 5,10a, cfr. 5,18b.” Biblica 46: 56–59. Sokoloff, Michael. 1990. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Sokoloff, Michael. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. van Soldt, Wilfred. 1990. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 12: Letters in the British Museum Part 1. Leiden: Brill. van Soldt, Wilfred. 1991. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. van Soldt, Wilfred. 1994. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 13: Letters in the British Museum Part 2. Leiden: Brill. van Soldt, Wilfred. 2010. “The Akkadian Legal Texts from Ugarit.” In Trois millénaires de formulaires juridiques, edited by Sophie Démare-Lafont and André Lemaire, 85–124. Genève: Libraire Droz. Sommerfeld, Walter. 2012. Review of Sargonic Akkadian, by Rebecca Hasselbach, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 102: 193–284. Sperber, Alexander. 1959–1973. The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. 4 volumes. Leiden: Brill. Spitaler, Anton. 1938. Grammatik des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʕlūla (Antilibanon). Leipzig: Brockhaus. Stabnow, David. 2000. “A Discourse Analysis Perspective on the Syntax of Clauses Negated by l’ in the Primary History.” PhD dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary. Stamm, Johann. 1939. Die akkadische Namengebung. Leipzig: Hinrich. Stein, Peter. 2003. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des sabäischen. Rahden, Westfalen: Marie Leidor. Stein, Peter. 2004. “A Sabaic Proverb. The Sabaic Minuscule Inscription Mon.script.sab. 129.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 34: 331–341. Stein, Peter. 2007. “Materialien zur sabäischen Dialektologie: Das Problem des amiritischen (‘haramischen’) Dialektes.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 157: 13–47. Stein, Peter. 2010. Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München. 2 volumes. Berlin: Wasmuth. Stein, Peter. 2011. “Ancient South Arabian.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson, 1042–1072. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.

References

469

Stein, Peter. 2014. “Ein aramäischer Kudurru aus Taymāʔ.” In Babylonien und seine Nachbarn in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit, edited by Manfred Krebernik and Hans Neumann, 219–245. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Steiner, Richard. 1987. “Lulav versus *lu/law: A Note on the Conditioning of *aw > ū in Hebrew and Aramaic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 107: 121–122. Steiner, Richard. 2007. “On the Monophthongization of *ay to ī in Phoenician and Northern Hebrew.” Orientalia 76: 73–83. Steiner, Richard. 2012. “Vowel Syncope and Syllable Repair Processes in ProtoSemitic Construct Forms: A New Reconstruction Based on the Law of Diminishing Conditioning.” In Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na’ama Pat-El, 365–390. Chicago: University of Chicago. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. 1987. “Narrativ-Langformen 2. und 3. Person von zweiradikaligen Basen nach qalY im biblischen Hebräisch.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 13: 109–145. Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter, and Barbara Partee. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Stol, Marten. 1976. Studies in Old Babylonian History. Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Stol, Marten. 1981. Altbabylonische Briefe im Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 9: Letters from Yale. Leiden: Brill. Stol, Marten. 1986. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 11: Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago and Berkeley. Leiden: Brill. Streck, Michael. 1995. Zahl und Zeit: Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen. Groningen: Styx. Streck, Michael. 2000. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Streck, Michael. 2009. “Notes on the Old Babylonian Epics of Anzu and Etana.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129: 477–486. Streck, Michael. 2010. “Notes on the Old Babylonian Hymns of Agušaya.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 130: 561–571. Streck, Michael. 2011. “Eblaite and Old Akkadian.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson. 340–359. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Stroomer, Harry. 1999. Mehri Texts from Oman, Based on the Field Materials of T.M. Johnstone. Wiesbaden: Harraossowitz. Stroomer, Harry. 2004. Harsūsi Texts from Oman, Based on the Field Materials of T.M. Johnstone. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1987. “Syntax, Meaning, and Origin of the Indo-European Particle kwe.” In Scripta minora. Selected Essays in Indo-European, Greek, and Latin, vol. 1:

470

References

Indo-European, edited by Patrick Considine and James Hooker, 367–395. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Sznycer, Maurice. 2003. “L’inscription punique dite ‘urbanistique’ de Carthage.” Semitica 51: 31–55. Takács, Gábor. 1991. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, vol. 1: A Phonological Introduction. Leiden: Brill. Takács, Gábor. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, vol. 3: m-. Leiden: Brill. Takács, Gábor. 2011. “Semitic-Egyptian Relations.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson, 7–17. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Tal, Abraham. 1980. The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, vol. 1: Genesis, Exodus. Tel Aviv: Bet ha-Sefer Le-Mada’e ha-Yahadut. Tal, Abraham. 2013. Samaritan Aramaic. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Talmon, Rafi. 1999. “The Syntactic Study of maf’ūl muṭlaq: A Study in Qur’ānic Syntax.” In Arabic Grammar and Linguistics, edited by Yasir Suleiman, 107–129. London: Curzon Press. Teixidor, Javier. 1973. “Bulletin d’épigraphie sémitique.” Syria 50: 401–442. Testen, David. 1992. “The Loss of the Person-marker t- in Jibbali and Socotri.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55: 445–450. Testen, David. 1993. “On the Development of the Energic Suffixes.” In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 5, edited by Mushira Eid and Clive Holes, 293–311. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Testen, David. 1994. “On the Development of the Arabic Subjunctive.” In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 6, edited by Mushira Eid, Vicente Cantarino, and Keith Walters, 151–166. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Testen, David. 1998. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics: The Development of Arabic la- and Related Semitic Particles. Leiden: Brill. Testen, David. 2007. “West Semitic Perspectives on the Akkadian Vetitive.” In Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg, edited by Cynthia Miller, 201–213. Chicago: University of Chicago. Thomas, Bertram. 1930. “The Kumzari Dialect of the Shihuh Tribe, Arabia, and a Vocabulary.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 62: 785–854. Thomas, Bertram. 1937. “Four Strange Tongues from Central South Arabia: The Hadara Group.” Proceedings of the British Academy 23: 231–331. Thompson, Sandra. 1998. “A Discourse Explanation for the Cross-linguistic Differences in the Grammar of Interrogation and Negation.” In Case, Typology, and Grammar, edited by Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song, 309–341. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tonietti, Maria. 1992. “La cosiddetta L-Reduktion nel sillabario di Ebla.” Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università degli Studi di Firenze 3: 113–124. Tonietti, Maria. 2012. Aspetti del sistema preposizionale dell’Eblaita. Venice: Edizioni Ca’Foscari.

References

471

Treis, Yvonne. 2012. “Negation in Highland East Cushitic.” In Burning Issues in AfroAsiatic Linguistics, edited by Ghil’ad Zuckermann, 20–61. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Tromp, Nicholas. 1981. “The Hebrew Particle bal.” In Remembering All the Way: A Collection of Old Testament Studies, edited by Bertil Albrektson, 277–287. Leiden: Brill. Tropper, Josef. 1991. “Finale Sätze und yqtla-Modus im Ugaritischen.” UgaritForschungen 23: 341–52. Tropper, Josef. 1993a. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Tropper, Josef. 1993b. “Eine altaramäische Steleninschrift aus Dan.” Ugarit-Forschungen 25: 395–406. Tropper, Josef. 1994. “Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Language?” In Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992, edited by George Brooke, Adrian Curtis, and John Healey, 343–353. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Tropper, Josef. 1995a. “Die semitische ‘Suffixkonjugation’ im Wandel.” In Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Freiherrn Wolfram von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, edited by Manfred Dietrich und Oswald Loretz, 491–516. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Tropper, Josef. 1995b. “Die sieben Frauen des Königs Keret.” Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 529–532. Tropper, Josef. 1995c. “Die phönizisch-punischen Kausativbildungen im Lichte von Präjotierung und Dejotierung im Semitischen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 145: 28–37. Tropper, Josef. 1997. “Subvarianten und Funktionen der sabäischen Präfixkonjugation.” Orientalia 66: 34–57. Tropper, Josef. 1998. “Althebräisches und semitisches Aspektsystem.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 11: 153–190. Tropper, Josef. [2000] 2012. Ugaritische Grammatik. 2nd revised edition. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Tropper, Josef. 2003. “Eblaitisch und die Klassifikation der semitischen Sprachen.” In Fetschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage, edited by Gebhard Selz, 647–657. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Tropper, Josef and Juan-Pablo Vita. 1999. “Der Wettergott von Halab in Ugarit (KTU 4.728).” Altorientalische Forschungen 26: 310–313. Tropper, Josef and Juan-Pablo Vita. 2005. “Der Energikus an Jussiven im KanaanoAkkadischen der Amarna-Periode.” Orientalia 74: 57–64. Tropper, Josef and Juan-Pablo Vita. 2010. “Die ugaritische Gefäßbezeichnung spl /saplu/ und die Rechtsurkunde RS [Varia 31].” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 27: 19–25. Tsevat, Matitiahu. 1960. “A Chapter on Old West Semitic Orthography.” In The Joshua Bloch Memorial Volume: Studies in Booklore and History, edited by Abraham Berger,

472

References

Lawrence Marwick, and Isidore Meyer, 82–91. New York: The New York Public Library. Ullendorff, Edward. 1955. The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Comparative Phonology. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press. Ungnad, Arthur. [1906] 1926. Babylonisch-assyrische Grammatik mit Übungsbuch (in Transkription). 2nd edition. Munich: Beck. Ungnad, Arthur. [1906] 1949. Grammatik des Akkadischen. 3rd edition. Munich: Beck. de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill. Vanderhooft, David. 1995. “The Edomite Dialect and Script: A Review of the Evidence.” In You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother, edited by Diana Edelman, 137–157. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Vanly, Ismet Chériff. 1992. “The Kurds in Syria and Lebanon.” In The Kurds: A Contemporary Overview, edited by Philip Kreyenbroek and Stefan Sperl, 112–134. London: Routledge. Veenhof, Klaas. 1972. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology. Leiden: Brill. Veenhof, Klaas. 1986. “Two Akkadian Auxiliary Verbs: le’ûm ‘to be able’ and mu’ā’um ‘to want’.” In Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J.H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, edited by Herman Vanstiphout, et al., 235–251. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Veenhof, Klaas. 2002. “Notes on a New Volume of Old Assyrian Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental society 122: 797–802. Veenhof, Klaas. 2005. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft 14: Letters in the Louvre. Leiden: Brill. Veenhof, Klaas and Jesper Eidem. 2008. Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period. Fribourg: Academic Press. Verreet, Eddy. 1988. Modi Ugaritici: Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung über das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen. Leuven: Peeters. Versteegh, Kees. 1983. “A Dissenting Grammarian: Quṭrub on Declension.” In The History of Linguistics in the Near East, edited by Kees Versteegh, Konrad Koerner, and Hans-Josef Niederehe, 167–193. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Versteegh, Kees. 2014. The Arabic Language. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Veselinova, Ljuba. 2009. “Standard and Special Negators in the Slavonic Languages: Synchrony and Diachrony.” In Diachronic Slavonic Syntax: Gradual Changes in Focus, edited by Björn Hansen and Jasmina Grković-Major, 195–208. Vienna: Kubon and Sagner. Vetoshkina, Tatiana. 1988. “Negation in the Agaw Languages: Problems of Reconstruction.” In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Ethiopian

References

473

Studies, Moscow, August 26–29, 1986, edited by Andrei Gromyko, 149–156. Moscow: Nauka. Virolleaud, Charles. 1931. “La lutte de Môt, fils des dieux et d’Aleïn, fils de Baal.” Syria 13: 113–163. Virolleaud, Charles. 1965. Le Palais d’Ugarit V: Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des Archives Sud, Sud-Ouest et du Petit Palais. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Vogelzang, Marianna. 1988. Bin Šar Dadmē: Edition and Analysis of the Akkadian Anzu Poem. Groningen: Styx. Voigt, Rainer. 1977. Das tigrinische Verbalsystem. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Voigt, Rainer. 1997. “On the Irregular Form yebe in Classical Ethiopic.” In Ethiopia in Broader Perspective: Papers of the 13th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Kyoto, December 12–17, 1997, edited by Katsuyoshi Fukui, Eisei Kurimoto, and Masayoshi Shigeta, 583–595. Kyoto: Shokado Book Sellers. Voigt, Rainer. 2005. “Gafat Language.” In Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 2, edited by Siegbert Uhlig, 650–651. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Voigt, Rainer. 2006a. “Südtigrinische Dialekte: Das einfache und zusammengesetzte Präsens im Dialekt von May-C̣� äw (Tigray).” In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg, July 20–25, 2003, edited by Siegbert Uhlig, 893–898. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Voigt, Rainer. 2006b. Review of Das Zay: Deskriptive Grammatik einer Ostguragesprache (Äthio-semitisch), by Ronny Meyer, Aethiopica 9: 232–248. Voigt, Rainer. 2008. “Zum Tigre.” Aethiopica 11: 173–193. Wagner, Ewald. 1953. Syntax der Mehri-Sprache unter Berücksichtigung auch der anderen neusüdarabischen Sprachen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Wagner, Ewald. 1964. “Der Übergang von Fragewörtern zu Negationen in den semitischen Sprachen.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 10: 261–274. Wagner, Ewald. 1966. “Der Jemen als Vermittler äthiopischen Sprachgutes nach Nordwestafrika.” Die Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 12: 252–279. Wagner, Ewald. 1983a. Harari-Texte in arabischer Schrift. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Wagner, Ewald. 1983b. “Selt’i-Verse in arabischer Schrift aus dem Schlobies-Nachlass.” In Ethiopian Studies: Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday, edited by Stanislav Segert and András Bodrogligeti, 363–374. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wagner, Ewald. 1997. “The Negative Imperfect in Ancient and Modern Harari.” In Ethiopia in Broader Perspective: Papers of the 13th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Kyoto, December 12–17, 1997, edited by Katsuyoshi Fukui, Eisei Kurimoto, and Masayoshi Shigeta, 596–600. Kyoto: Shokado Book Sellers. Wagner, Ewald. 1999. “Das Verb im alten und modernen Harari.” In Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen. Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, edited by Norbert Nebes, 159–169. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

474

References

Wagner, Ewald. 2011. “Harari.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson. 1257– 1265. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Walker, Christopher. 1983. “The myth of Girra and Elamatum.” Anatolian Studies 33: 145–152. Walker, Dean. 1896. “The Semitic Negative with Special Reference to the Negative in Hebrew.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 12: 230–267. Wasserman, Nathan. 2009. “The Modal particle tuša in Old Babylonian.” In Egyptian, Semitic, and General Grammar: Studies in Memory of H.J. Polotsky, edited by Gideon Goldenberg and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, 149–168. Jersualem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Wasserman, Nathan. 2012. Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Watson, Janet. 2012. The Structure of Mehri. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Watson, Janet and Paul Rowlett. 2012. “Negation in Mehri: Stages of Jespersen’s Cycle.” In Grammaticalization in Semitic, edited by Domenyk Eades. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 29: 205–225. Watson, Wilfred. 1978. “Parallels to Some Passages in Ugaritic.” Ugarit-Forschungen 10: 397–402. Watson, Wilfred. 1989. “Parallelism with Qtl in Ugaritic.” Ugarit-Forschungen 2: 435–442. Watson, Wilfred. 1990. “The Particle p in Ugaritic.” Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 7: 75–86. Watson, Wilfred. 1991. “The Negative Adverbs L and LM + L in Ugaritic.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 17: 173–188. Wehr, Hans. 1953. “Zur Funktion arabischer Negationen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 103: 27–39. Weippert, Manfred. 1991. “The Balaam Text from Deir ʕAllā and the Study of the Old Testament.” In The Balaam Text from Deir ʕAlla Re-evaluated, edited by Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, 151–184. Leiden: Brill. Wellsted, James. 1835. “Memoir on the Island of Socotra.” Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 5: 129–229. Weninger, Stefan. 2001. Das Verbalsystem des Altäthiopischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Westenholz, Joan. 1971. “Some Aspects of Old Babylonian Syntax as found in the Letters of the Period.” PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Westenholz, Joan. 1997. Legends of the Kings of Akkade. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Wetter, Andreas. 2006. “The Argobba of T’ollaha: A Comparative Overview.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg, July 20–25, 2003, edited by Siegbert Uhlig, 899–907. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

References

475

Wetter, Andreas. 2010. Das Argobba: Eine deskriptive Grammatik der Varietät von Schonke und T’ollaha (Zentraläthiopien). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. Whiting, Robert. 1987. Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar. Chicago: University of Chicago. Whitley, Charles. 1975. “Some Remarks on lû and lô’.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 87: 202–204. Whitney, Gordon. 1988. “lō’ (‘not’) as ‘not yet’ in the Hebrew Bible.” Hebrew Studies 29: 43–48. Wilcke, Claus. 1997. “Amar-girids Revolte gegen Narām-Su’en.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 87: 11–32. Wilmsen, David. 2014. Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woidich, Manfred. 1968. “Negation und negative Sätze im Ägyptisch-Arabischen.” PhD dissertation, University of Munich. Woidich, Manfred. 2006. Das Kairenisch-Arabische: Eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wolff, Ekkehard. 2011. “Semitic-Chadic Relations.” In The Semitic languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck, and Janet Watson, 27–38. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Worthington, Martin. 2012. Principles of Akkadian Textual Criticism. Berlin: De Gruyter. van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London: Routledge. Wright, William. [1859–1862] 1951. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Reprint of the 3rd edition, revised by William Robertson Smith and Michael Jan de Goeje. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wyatt, Nicolas. 2002. Religious Texts from Ugarit. 2nd revised edition. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Xella, Paolo. 1981. I testi rituali di Ugarit. 1. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. Younger, K. Lawson. 2002. “Cebel Ires Daǧi.” In The Context of Scripture, vol. 3: Archival Documents from the Biblical World, edited by William Hallo, 137–139. Leiden: Brill. Zelealem, Leyew and Ralph Siebert. 1994. Survey on Least Known Languages of Ethiopia: Argobba. S.L.L.E. Linguistic Reports. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University. Zevit, Ziony. 1975. “A Misunderstanding at Bethel: Amos VII 12–17.” Vetus Testamentum 25: 783–790. Zevit, Ziony. 1979. “Expressing Denial in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 29: 505–509. Zewi, Tamar. 1999. A Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Subject Index abessive 173–179, 397, 404. See also privative ablative 155, 175, 265n, 296n10, 312, 366n13 accusative 50, 185, 231, 320n10 adjective 40, 85n64, 120n, 130, 153n32, 221–222, 222n89 Afroasiatic 12n8, 16–18, 20–21, 173n2, 183n29, 241, 290, 367n16, 378n45 Agaw 347n27, 366, 367n14, 377n42, 400 anterior(ity) 102, 119, 160, 160n50, 197, 218n74, 220, 233–234, 246, 373–375, 407 antonym 71, 356 assimilation 91, 91n83, 108, 296, 296n6, 319, 320n11, 320n12, 322, 339, 341, 363–364, 410 auxiliary 8–9, 38, 41, 323n19, 325–326, 325n24, 346, 346n22, 360–361, 360n, 367, 373n30, 410 borrowing 55, 222–223, 223n, 236n, 237–238, 290, 290n55, 292–293, 303–304, 304n28, 309, 367, 367n16, 370, 377, 394, 399–401, 409. See also language contact case 64n4, 111n140, 124, 175, 179n18, 231, 231n18, 272 circumstantial 96, 119, 194, 196, 217, 233, 250n57, 282n34, 289n53, 373–374 cleft 221, 251n58, 319, 380–381 cohortative 166n69, 170, 202n, 211 compound nominal 16, 18, 21, 59, 65–66, 80n48, 130, 139n74, 165, 166n69, 175, 206, 219, 236, 262, 290, 301n22, 330n32, 364. See also univerbation verbal 323n19, 346, 349–350, 360–361, 370, 373n30, 410 concessivity 52–53, 79, 83, 188–189, 235–236, 263, 272, 274, 287–288, 323n18, 328–329, 332, 342, 348n31, 354, 371, 389–391, 393, 403, 418–422 converb 44, 335, 335n52, 373, 373n31, 374–376, 374n32, 374n33, 411 copula 9, 38, 185n39, 221, 304n31, 319, 319n9, 325, 366, 369, 378, 380, 410

Cushitic 43, 290, 328n29, 366–368, 377n42, 378–379, 382n56, 389–400, 409 denial 80–81, 80n49, 144n5, 383 deontic 93, 95n94, 125, 145, 157, 161n53, 177, 202, 226, 279 direct speech 28, 67–68, 100–101, 118, 122n23, 125, 145, 152, 158, 192n8, 196, 203n33, 217, 220, 225, 253, 258n79, 355n45, 395 dislocation 160, 168n78, 198, 210, 245n. See also fronting Egyptian 12n8, 16–17, 222n90, 241, 364n5, 423 energ(et)ic 121, 125n32, 134n56, 181, 183, 259–261, 262n93, 274, 280 foreground 37, 37n5, 149. See also negative events; main line fronting 198, 198n24, 209n50, 230, 245n, 251, 276n18. See also dislocation; topicalization Ge’ez 14–15, 20–21, 32–33, 173n3, 173n4, 181–183, 265n, 296n9, 318–319, 321–322, 321n14, 323n18, 332, 349, 374n33, 389, 409–410 generic 127, 133–134, 134n55, 193, 252, 334–335, 416 infinitive 58, 107, 111, 112n142, 122, 129–130, 135n59, 146n12, 152–153, 155, 167, 174, 176–177, 195n16, 272–273, 276–278, 282, 286 informativeness 46, 51–52, 54, 79, 215, 235, 239, 264–265, 309, 332, 350, 353, 387–389, 392–394, 399, 419n6 la- (asseverative) 16, 18, 21, 111n139, 113–117, 125–126, 141, 165n64, 173n2, 196n19, 234n24, 280, 340, 423–424 language contact 22n14, 192n8, 303–304, 309n, 330–331, 346–348, 352n36, 371–372. See also borrowing

477

Subject Index main line 96, 98, 101, 117, 120, 149–150, 149n, 203, 217, 227, 232–233, 232n20, 245, 404. See also negative events Mari Akkadian 73n32, 83, 90, 104, 127n38, 349, 390 mimation 64n4, 131. See also nunation minimizer 50–52, 77–78, 81, 94, 129, 129n42, 147, 160, 282n35, 329, 387, 391 negation asymmetry and negation 4–5, 8–9, 40–43, 49, 96, 123, 132–133, 136, 149–150, 156–157, 174, 200, 205, 225–226, 233, 257–258, 276–277, 280–281, 292, 325–328, 343–344, 349–353, 368, 372–376, 383–384, 402–411 categoric negation 131, 188, 198 constituent negation 36, 45, 58, 128–131, 164–167, 172n, 218, 231n17, 281n33, 308, 338, 409 existential negation 8n6, 14–15, 45, 58–59, 131, 153n31, 172, 183, 206, 231, 278, 291n58, 319–320, 323, 324n21, 345n18, 355n45, 396 negative events 37, 37n4, 101, 105, 117, 119–120, 123, 149–150, 152, 217, 353, 373, 404, 408 noun-phrase negation 45, 128–131, 172, 176, 205–206, 253, 268, 272, 281–283 pro-sentential negation 12n7, 55–56, 58, 129, 142n, 144, 163, 171–172, 181, 224–225, 302–311, 398–399, 401, 408–409 scope of negation 36–37, 45, 59, 78, 129n42, 130, 166n69, 170, 205, 209, 235n26, 237n, 248, 307n, 316, 337–338, 354n44, 391–394 negative morphemes ʔən- 265n ʔakko 319, 322 ʔal- passim ʔalbo 289, 320n10, 324n21 ʔay- < *ʔal- 89–95, 318–322 ʔay- … -y 323n18 ʔaydollämm 366, 366n11, 366n12 ʔēn 13–15, 131, 182, 185, 187n42 ʔi- (Ge’ez) 318–322



ʔī (Hebrew) 187–188 ʔi- ... -n (Tigre) 330–331 ʔin (Arabic) 265–266, 265n ʔin (Ugaritic) 130–131 ʔihalla 322–323, 330n34 ʔybl 186–190 ʕan 296n10 bal 21, 173–180, 297n12, 397 bəlī 166n71, 175–176 biltī 167, 175n8 bíśi 304n31 bn 285 by 186 ču 219–223 dʔ 289–292 däy 290n55, 328–330 ḗ 296–297 ēlam 323n19, 361 l (Minaic) 267–270 l (Sabaic) 280–281 lā passim lāma 85, 103, 103n115 la⁠m ̊ ̄ a⁠⁠  ̊ ̄ 165–166 lammā 233–234 lan 262–265 lāta 300n19 laysa 45, 191n1 lhm 270–273 lmh (Aramaic) 207–208 lm (Amiritic) 292–293 lm (Phoenician) 165n67 lób 152n28, 303 lyš 195n16 lyšh 191n1 mā (Akkadian) 241–242 ma⁠⁠  ̊ ̄ 241n35, 253 min 155, 312 miš 59 näy- 333 pεn 155n36 šayʔ 28, 50–51, 240, 243, 249n49 tv- 364–368 uli 108 yälbon 324n21 yällämm 324 yānu 14–15, 59, 131n47, 185, 242, 324 yv- 322–324

478 Neo-Arabic 28, 50–51, 58–59, 144n8, 152n28, 188, 224–225, 236, 236n, 240, 240n34, 243, 392, 396, 424 nominative 107n126, 122n20, 131, 179n18, 231, 231n18, 247n45, 253n. See also case non-main line 96, 228, 233, 405 noun clause 8–9, 107n126, 120n, 137, 172, 226n5, 231, 258n80, 289, 291n58, 301, 317 nunation 131, 231n18. See also mimation oath 8, 80n49, 164n61, 246n42, 247, 264, 266, 398 Oromo 43, 346, 352n36, 377n42, 424 participle 26–27, 124, 130–131, 152–153, 159, 161–162, 182, 195, 199–203, 215–216, 220, 222n89, 226–228, 231n17, 245, 268, 277–278, 325, 400, 405 passive 122n20, 153n32, 182, 202 phonetic erosion 31n30, 92, 107–108, 185, 198–199, 219, 235–236, 309, 319–320, 361–362, 391, 410 posterior 85, 140, 160, 173n4, 250n57, 353n39, 374, 415 privative 85n64, 166, 166n71, 173, 221. See also abessive Proto-Semitic 16–21, 144, 144n8, 224, 303, 340, 351–352, 408–409, 412–417, 423–424

Subject Index rhetorical question 13–15, 17–18, 46, 58–59, 115–116, 165–166, 184–185, 223, 236, 238–247, 249–251, 253, 394–396, 399, 402, 408, 422–424 scalar focus 51–53, 58, 75, 77–79, 85, 106–107, 129, 129n42, 160, 184–185, 188–189, 248, 282, 323n18, 328–330, 343, 345, 349, 354, 387, 389–394 scale reversal 45–47, 50–51, 80, 88–89, 179, 188–189, 223, 238–240, 243–244, 248–249, 281, 332, 337n56, 343, 348n31, 371, 387, 389–390, 392–395, 397, 400, 404, 408, 423–424 Sidamo 290, 366–368, 377, 378n45, 379, 400 substrate 265n, 347, 366 topicalization 159–160, 198, 209–210, 230n13, 233, 328, 334, 347, 347n28, 353, 357n49, 366n13, 379–380, 380n50. See also fronting; dislocation univerbation 18, 48, 53, 59, 104, 191n1, 198, 271, 328, 387–388. See also compound word order 24–25, 76, 118, 120n, 123, 136n64, 161n53, 180, 198, 200, 209, 209n50, 229, 233