Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar: Second Edition [Hardcover ed.] 9042908157, 9789042908154

Citation preview

ORIENTAL IA LOVANIEN SIA ANALECTA Semitic Languages Outline of a Comparative Grammar

Second Edition

PEETERS

· omJ,71"\lllll1l!:l!:l11!:W'0)9>"J 1:'1"1)))1ttn,.!Vo•".l:l71 '11,V

l ,~~

~

Ell~' "i,'J.l'';Jl'IK!)"lJJ,'

, 7"'.JJ!

;i.:ipli;p1J1½1:i6p.:i ,)L•

1 1 0"1,l!l 'll!llll,.:i•,y.:m•oi::,,.m:nt, ~ i:J,:lNJ1 '1J!l).l':-U,\,.:,r,1J"l)V'0:l"JV

1

U'.J£l~t'.,N71·1),.JVoi)l.'.lOM';l-rr.l'7

r:ii'•:111"'".1'.!l:l '1lJ ·i".!V:i-w ,; ,r,~01.1'.:II

l.JJ!.· I

, ,-,i.,.,;, \· "

"''-'?'

o:,)ll!)l ;\l'.)V N:'I

-'-,ui,.:, ~

Page of David Qim~i's philological treatise Sefer Mikhlol from the Kennico/1 Bihle, Oxford, Bodleian Library, ms. Kennicott I, fol. 443' (Courtesy Bodleian Library).

ORIENT ALIA LOY ANIENSIA ANALECTA - - - 80 - - -

SEMITIC LANGUAGES OUTLINE OF A COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR BY

EDWARD LIPINSKI

SECOND EDITION

UITGEVERIJ PEETERS en DEPARTEMENT OOSTERSE STUDIES LEUVEN - PARIS - STERLING (VIRGINIA) 2001

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lipinski, Edward. Semitic languages : outline of a comparative grammar/ by Edward Lipinski.-- 2nd ed. p. cm. -- (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta ; 80) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 9042908157 I. Semitic language--Grammar, Comparative. I. Title. II. Series. PJ3021.L57 2001 492' .045--dc 21

2001033837

Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Second Edition---;- Leuven: Peeters, 2001. - 780 p.: ill., 24 cm. - (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta: 80). © 2001, Peeters Publishers & Department of Oriental Studies

Bondgenotenlaan I 53, B-3000 Leuven/Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the rights to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. D. 2000/0602/20 ISBN 90-429-0815-7 (Peeters, Leuven)

CONTENTS

PREFACE

15

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

19

I. SEMITIC LANGUAGES

21

I. Definition .

21

2. Afro-Asiatic .

D. Chadic

24 24 25 26 27 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 40

3. Proto-Semitic

42

4. Classification of Semitic Languages

48

5. North Semitic

51 51 52 54

A. Egyptian . a) Old Egyptian b) Middle Egyptian c) Late Egyptian d) Demotic e) Coptic. B. Cushitic a) Bedja . b) Agaw. c) East Cushitic d) West and South Cushitic.

c.

Libyco-Berber

A. Palaeosyrian B. Amorite

c.

Ugaritic

6. East Semitic . A. Old Akkadian B. Assyro-Babylonian

c.

Late Babylonian

55 56 56 58

CONTENTS

6

7. West Semitic. A. Canaanite. a) Old Canaanite b) Hebrew c) Phoenician d) Ammonite e) Moabite f) Edomite . B. Aramaic . a) Early Aramaic b) Official or Imperial Aramaic c) Standard Literary Aramaic d) Middle Aramaic e) Western Late Aramaic f) Eastern Late Aramaic g) Neo-Aramaic

c.

Arabic. a) Pre-Islamic North and East Arabian b) Pre-Classical Arabic c) Classical Arabic d) Neo-Arabic or Middle Arabic e) Modem Arabic .

8. South Semitic A. South Arabian a) Sabaic. b) Minaic c) Qatabanic d) 1:la~ramitic e) Modem South Arabian B. Ethiopic . a) North Ethiopic Ge'ez . Tigre Tigrinya b) South Ethiopic Amharic Argobba Harari .

59 59 59 60 61 63 63 64 64 64 64 66 66 69 69 72

74 74 77

78 80 80 81 81 83 84 84 84 84 85 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 89

CONTENTS

Gurage. Gafat

9. Language and Script A. Cuneiform Script B. Alphabetic Script

c.

Transcription and Transliteration

II. PHONOLOGY

7

89 89 90 90 92 97 101

F. Voiced and Unvoiced Sounds

102 102 105 106 108 109 110

G. Emphatic Sounds .

111

H. Proto-Semitic Phonemes .

112

I. Basic Assumptions . A. Linguistic Analysis B. Consonantal Sounds

c.

Vowels

D. Intonation E. Phonemes

2. Labials.

115

3. Dental Plosives .

122

4. Interdentals

124

5. Dental Fricatives

129

6. Prepalatal and Palatal

133

7. Laterals

135

8. Liquids and Nasal

139

9. Velar Plosives

144

10. Laryngals, Pharyngal and Velar Fricatives

148

11. Synopsis of the Consonantal System

157

12. Vowels

158

13. Diphthongs

172

CONTENTS

8

14. Geminated or Long Consonants.

179

15. Syllable

184

.

I 6. Word Accent

187

I 7. Sentence Stress or Pitch

I 90

18. Conditioned Sound Changes .

192

A. Assimilation. . . . a) Assimilation between b) Assimilation between c) Assimilation between

. Consonants . Vowels . a Consonant and a Vowel

193 193 196 197

B. Dissimilation

198

C. Metathesis

198

D. Haplology

200

E. Prosthesis

200

F. Anaptyxis

201

G. Sandhi

202

H. Elision

203

I. Hypercorrection

III. MORPHOLOGY.

206 207

I. The Root Morpheme

207

2. The Noun.

215

.

.

.

A. Noun Stems or Patterns a) Simple Patterns. . b) Patterns with Diphthongs c) Patterns Extended by Gemination . d) Patterns Extended by Reduplication e) Patterns with Preforrnatives and Infixes Preforrnatives '-/' - . Preforrnative yaPreforrnatives w-/m-/nPreforrnative tInfix -tPreforrnative .f- . f) Patterns with Afforrnatives Affonnative -iin. .

215 216 218 219 220 221 221 222 222 225 227 227 227 227

CONTENTS

Afformatives -iy/-ay/-iiwi/-yal-iyya. Afformatives in -t . Other Afformatives Afformative -ayim/n of Place Names g) Nominal Compounds .

B. Gender c. Number a) Dual b) Plural . External Plural Plural by Reduplication Internal Plural c) Paucative. d) Collective Nouns e) Singulative D. Case Inflection . a) Diptotic "Ergative" Declension b) Use in Proper Names . c) "Classical" Triptotic Declension d) "Adverbial" Cases. e) Historical Survey of Case Inflection E. The "States" of the Noun a) Construct State . b) Predicate State . c) Determinate State . d) Indeterminate State e) Paradigms F. Adjectives G. Numerals. a) Cardinals . b) Ordinals . c) Fractionals d) Multiplicatives . e) Distributives. f) Verbal Derivatives.

3. Pronouns .

A. Independent Personal Pronouns B. Suffixed Personal Pronouns.

9

229 231 233 234 234 235 242 242 244 245 250 251 257 258 259 259 261 265 266 267 269 272 272 273 274 279 281 285 288 288 300 302 303 304 304 305 306 314

CONTENTS

10

c.

Reflexive Pronoun.

D. Independent Possessive Pronouns .

E. Demonstrative Pronouns . F. Determinative-Relative Pronouns G. Interrogative and Indefinite Pronouns.

339 Preliminaries 339 343 Tenses and Aspects 343 a) Fully Developed System . 349 b) Simplified Systems 352 c) Transitivity - Intransitivity 354 d) Modem Languages Moods 359 Actor Affixes 367 a) Suffix-Conjugation. 367 b) Imperative 374 c) Prefix-Conjugation 376 Set I 377 384 Set II Stems and Voices . 386 a) Basic Stem 387 b) Stem with Geminated Second Radical Consonant. 390 c) Stem with Lengthened First Vowel 393 d) "Causative" Stem . 395 e) Stem with n-Prefix. 401 t) Stems with t-Affix. 404 411 g) Frequentative Stems h) Reduplicated Biconsonantal Stems 414 i) Stems with Geminated or Reduplicated Last Radical. 414 415 j) Other Stems . k) Verbs with Four Radical Consonants . 415 I) Passive Voice 416 m) Recapitulation of Stems 418 424 Infinitive and Participle a) Infinitive . 424 b) Participle. 428 c) Neo-Aramaic Verbal System 430 d) Participial Tense Forms in Other Languages 433

4. Verbs . A. B.

c. D.

E.

F.

319 320 323 332 336

CONTENTS

11

G. Particular Types of Verbs a) "Weak" Verbs . b) Biconsonantal Verbs . c) Verbs with Pharyngals, Laryngals, Velar Fricatives.

434 434 445 454

H. Verbs with Pronominal Suffixes

459

5. Adverbs

462

A. Adverbs of Nominal Origin .

462

B. Adverbs of Place and Negatives

463

c.

468

Adverbs of Time

6. Prepositions .

468

A. Primary Prepositions

470

B. Prepositions of Nominal Origin

474

c.

479

Compound Prepositions .

7. Connective and Deictic Particles

480

A. Conjunctions

480

B. Presentati ves

482

c.

484

Subordinate Conjunctions

D. Copulae

485

E. Expression of Possession

490

IV. SYNTAX

491

I. Classes of Sentences

493

A. Minor Clauses

493

B. Major Clauses

494

c.

Nominal Clauses

494

D. Verbal Clauses .

497

E. Concord of Subject and Predicate .

501

2. Nominal Phrases

504

A. Attribute .

504

B. Apposition

506

c.

507

Genitival or Subjoining Relation

CONTENTS

12

514 515 519

3. Verbal Phrases A. Accusative B. Infinitive . 4. Clauses A. Particular Types of Main Clauses . B. Parallel Clauses. C. Subordinate Clauses a) Relative Clauses b) Temporal/Causal Clauses c) Final/Consecutive Clauses d) Substantival Clauses e) Conditional Clauses

522 522 526 530 532 538 544 546 547 555

V. LEXICON. 1. Etymology

557

2. Derivatives

566

3. Languages in Contact .

569

4. Internal Change .

578

5. Proper Names

580 581 583

.

A. Anthroponomy . B. Toponymy . GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LINGUISTIC TERMS

589

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

609

1. Semitic Languages in General

609

2. North Semitic

613

3. East Semitic .

615

4. West Semitic

618

A. "Canaanite"

618

B. Aramaic

623 628

C. Arabic

CONTENTS

5. South Semitic

13

636

A. South Arabian

636

B. Ethiopic

638

6. Libyco-Berber

641

7. Cushitic

644

8. Egyptian

647

9. Chadic.

649

I 0. Languages in Contact .

651

11. Anthroponomy and Toponymy .

656

GENERAL INDEX

.

.

INDEX OF WORDS AND FORMS Agaw . Amharic Ammonite . Amorite. Arabic . . Aramaic, Mandaic, Neo-Aramaic, Syriac Argobba . . . . . . . . . . Assyro-Babylonian, Late Babylonian, Old Akkadian Bantu . . . . Bedja Chadic Coptic . . . . East and West Cushitic . Egyptian Gafat Ge'ez Greek Gurage Harari Hausa Hebrew. Hittite Latin

663 705 705 705 708 708 709 720 726 727 738 738 739 739 739 740 742 743 746 747 750 750 751 756 757

14

CONTENTS

Libyco-Berber, Numidian, Tuareg. Moabite. . . North Arabian. Oromo . . Palaeosyrian . Persian . . . Phoenician and Punic Rendille. . . Semitic, Common Somali . . . . South Arabian, Epigraphic . South Arabian, Modern . Sumerian Tigre. . Tigrinya Ugaritic. TABLES, MAPS, AND TEXT FIGURES

757 760 760 761 762 764 764 766 766 768 768 770 771 772 774 775 779

PREFACE

When the decision to publish this second edition of Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar was taken, less than two years after the first appearance of the book, it was already obvious that this reference work answers, beyond expectation, a real need of the scholarly world. The fact that it was published in English has certainly broaden the scope of its potential audiences, but it also had the advantage of coming out after a long period of relative drought, the effect of which had actually been felt by the Author himself. Having thus taught the introduction to the Semitic languages and their comparative grammar for more than a quarter of a century, year by year, he had decided finally to acquiesce to a long-standing suggestion and to undertake the task of publishing the results of his research and teaching in the form of a textbook. In fact, the usefulness of an outline of a comparative grammar of the Semitic languages was self-evident since the last original work of this kind was published more than twenty-five years ago by B.M. Grande, Boe,uem1e o cpaBHHTeJibHOe HJyqeHHe ceMHTCKHX j!JbIKOB (Moscow 1972). This work was based mainly on the so-called classical Semitic languages, viz. Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew, Syriac, Classical Arabic, and Ge'ez, but paid little attention to other Semitic languages, both ancient and modem, and it abstained from a systematic treatment of the syntax and of semantic problems. However, it was felt in different quarters that it is important to draw the attention of the students to certain tendencies discernible in modern dialects and to clearly bring out the main common features of Semitic syntax. In addition, the material had increased considerably during the last decades and the need for a synthesis taking the new information into account was growing steadily. Finally, comparative Semitics without a broader Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic background is - in some areas at least - methodologically questionable, although C. Brockelmann's famous Grundriss and its epigones seem to neglect this type of comparisons. Yet, the right approach was already outlined in 1898 w.hen H. Zimmem published his Vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, where he gives some paradigms showing the connections between Semitic and other Hamito-Semitic languages. Designed to come out in the centenary of the completion of Zimmem 's work, which resulted in the first comparative grammar of the

16

PREFACE

Semitic languages ever published, the present book owed a similar approach to itself. Besides, as I.M. Diakonoff had rightly stressed in 1988, the Afro-Asiatic language families "cannot be studied, from the point of view of comparative linguistics, in isolation from each other". The scope of the present Outline is thus larger, in a certain sense, that the one of earlier comparative grammars of the Semitic languages, but it is nevertheless intended primarily as an introductory work, directed towards an audience consisting, on the one hand, of students of one or several Semitic languages, and, on the other, of students of linguistics. Its aim is to underline the common characteristics and trends of the languages and dialects that compose the Semitic language "family" by applying the comparative method of historical linguistics. The object it has in view is not a mere juxtaposition of forms belonging to various languages, but a comparison and an explanation of the changes they incurred, seen in both a diachronic and a synchronic perspectives which must be used together, if some part of the evidence is not to be veiled. To avoid an excessive overloading of the text, references are given, as a rule, only when they cannot be found easily in current grammars of the particular languages. No Semitist can be assumed today to be at home in all the Semitic idioms, and the present work relies to a great extent on publications of other scholars, especially of A.F.L. Beeston, J. Cantineau, I.M. Diakonoff, W. Fischer, I.J. Gelb, Z.S. Harris, T.M. Johnstone, E.Y. Kutscher, W. Leslau, E. Littmann, R. Macuch, S. Segert, W. von Soden. It is clear, of course, that the views exposed in this book differ sometimes from the opinions expressed by the above-mentioned Semitists and by other scholars. Nevertheless, the Author deemed it unwise to explain here at full length why the preference was given to certain theories to the exclusion of others, and thus to corroborate his views by quoting literature in extensive notes. The selection of linguistic facts and the degree of their condensation may also be subject to discussion and to criticism. For a more detailed presentation and analysis of linguistic data, however, the advanced students should rather refer to specific grammars, a selective list of which is given in the bibliography, at the end of the volume. In view of the great variety and intricacy of the material presented, especially from spoken languages and dialects, it is inevitable that inconsistencies will appear in the transliteration and the spelling of Afro-Asiatic words and phrases. For such occasional lack of uniformity and for certain redundancies, aimed at lessening the possibility of misinterpretation, the Author must ask the user's indulgence. The

PREFACE

17

opportunity has nevertheless been taken in this new edition to correct the errors and printing mistakes, to improve and supplement a few passages, and to update some statistical data and the bibliography, in which a new section has been added. But otherwise this edition remains substantially the same book as the first one. It might therefore be useful to stress again that the present work is intended as a compendious and up-to-date analysis of the nature and structure of the Semitic languages. It is a comparative analysis of a language family, not a comparative study of the views expressed by competing linguistic schools: Semitics is more wonderful than linguistics! Consequently, the Author does not attempt to apply the latter's arsenals of technical vocabulary to the Semitic languages, but rather to present as clearly as possible the fundamental insights about the wide world represented by the history and the present reality of the concerned language family. Part One is introductory. It situates the Semitic languages in the wider context of Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic language family, the five main branches of which are Semitic, Egyptian, Cushitic, Libyco-Berber, and Chadic. The Semitic group, the single languages of which are briefly described, includes such languages of antiquity as Palaeosyrian, Old Akkadian, Assyro-Babylonian, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, and Epigraphic South Arabian, as well as Arabic, Neo-Aramaic, and the contemporary languages of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The last section of Part One deals with the problems of language and script. Part Two is devoted to phonology. The presentation of the basic assumptions is followed by a synchronic and diachronic description of the consonants, vowels, and diphthongs. Questions related to the syllable, the word accent, the sentence stress, and the conditioned sound changes are examined in this part as well. Part Three concerns the morphology. After a preliminary section dealing with the problem of the Semitic root, the nouns, the pronouns, the verbs, the adverbs, the prepositions, the coordinative and deictic particles are examined from a diachronic and a synchronic points of view. Part Four treats of the main features of Semitic syntax, with questions such as classes of sentences, nominal and verbal clauses, particular types of main clauses, parallel, coordinate, and subordinate clauses. Diachronic factors come here distinctly to the fore in relation to word order, i.e. to the sequence in which words are arranged in a sentence. In fact, both fixed and free orders are found mingled in widely varying proportions in a great number of Semitic languages.

18

PREFACE

Part Five aims at presenting some fundamental insights about lexicographical analysis. Etymology, derivatives, languages in contact, internal change, proper names - these are the main questions examined in this part. It is followed by a glossary of linguistic terms used in Semitics, by a selective bibliography, by a general index, and by an index of words and forms. It is the Author's pleasure to acknowledge again his gratitude to the many classes which have inspired the successive drafts of this grammar. He has profited in particular from a number of questions raised by his Kurdish students and from the constructive comments of those who have followed his seminars in the Department of Epigraphy at the Yarmouk University. He also wishes to express his sincere thanks to the colleagues who have commented upon the first edition of this book. The Author is grateful to the Publisher for inviting him to make such changes in the text as were useful to improve its wording and bring it up to date. He also wishes to acknowledge his debt to the typists and compositors who have set up this complicated piece of printing.

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

The Books of the Bible Gen., Ex., Lev., Nb., Deut., Jos., Judg., I Sam., II Sam., I Kings, II Kings, Is., Jer., Ez., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mich., Nah., Hab., Soph., Hag., Zech., Mai., Ps., Prov., Job, Cant., Ruth, Lam., Qoh., Esth., Dan., Esd., Neh., I Chr., II Chr., Sir., I En., Act.

Other Abbreviations accusative Amorite Arabic Aramaic Archives royales de Mari, Paris 1950 ff. ARM Assyro-Babylonian Ass.-Bab. circa, about ea. Consonant C cf. confer, compare Classical Arabic Cl.Ar. Coll. Colloquial cor. corrected, correct in DN divine name E Egyptian execration texts published by G. PosENER, Princes et pays d'Asie et de Nubie, Bruxelles 1940. e.g. = exempli gratia, for example EA = The El-Amama tablets numbered according to J.A. KNUDTZ0N, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (VAB 2), Leipzig 1915; A.F. RAINEY, El Amarna Tablets 359-379 (AOAT 8), 2nd ed., KevelaerNeukirchen-Vluyn 1978. E.S.A. = Epigraphic South Arabian Fem., fem., f. = feminine Gen., gen. = genitive Hebr. = Hebrew KTU = M. DIETRICH - 0. LORETZ - J. SANMARTIN, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras lbn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition), Mi.inster 1995. lit. = literally, etymologically M.Ar. = Modem Arabic Masc., masc., m. = masculine = Modem South Arabian M.S.A. msec. = millisecond(s) Ms., mss. = manuscript(s) Acc., acc. Amor. Arab. Aram.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

20

Norn., nom. n.s. O.Akk. O.Bab. Pers., pers. Plur., plur.

PN

= = = = = = = =

Pr.-Sem.

nominative new series Old Akkadian Old Babylonian person plural personal name Proto-Semitic

P.Syr. = Palaeosyrian 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, etc. = Texts from Qumran cave I, 2, 3, etc. = Repertoire d'Epigraphie Semitique, Paris 1905-68. RES

Sing., sing.

= singular

TAD

=

TSSI

=

Ugar. V

= =

v

=

vs.

=

B. PORTEN - A. YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt I-IV, Jerusalem 1986-99. J.C.L. GIBSON, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions I. Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions, 2nd ed., Oxford 1973; II. Aramaic Inscriptions, Oxford 1975; III. Phoenician Inscriptions, Oxford 1982. Ugaritic vowel long vowel versus, against

Symbols, Determinatives

II

[l ()

* < > ! ?

II I

+

ki

LUGAL urn

enclose phonemic transcriptions; enclose phonetic approximations or reconstructed parts of a text; enclose words not found in the original, but needed in the translation; indicates form or vocalization supposed, but not attested as such in texts; signifies that the preceding form has developed from the following one; signifies that the preceding form develops or has developed into the following one; to be especially noticed, e.g. because of a new reading; dubious reading or interpretation; parallel with; indicates alternative forms, appellations, symbols, when placed between two letters, syllables, words, etc.; the colon indicates length in linguistics; it is generally replaced by the macron in the present Outline; joins lexemes or morphemes forming one word. hyphen used to connect the elements of certain compound words, as well as cuneiform and hieroglyphic "syllabic" graphemes pertaining to one word. abbreviation of the determinative DINGIR, "god", in cuneiform texts; postpositional determinative Kl, "country", in cuneiform texts; small capital letters indicate logograms, sumerograms; determinative URU, "city", in cuneiform texts.

I SEMITIC LANGUAGES

1.

DEFINITION

1. 1. The "Semitic" languages were so named in 1781 by A.L. Schlrezer in J.G. Eichhorn's Repertorium fuer biblische und morgenlaendische Literatur (vol. VIII, p. 161) because they were spoken by peoples included in Gen. 10,21-31 among the sons of Sem. They are spoken nowadays by some three hundred and fifty million people and they constitute the only language family the history of which can be followed for four thousand five hundred years. However, they do not stand isolated among the languages of the world. They form part of a larger language group often called Hamito-Semitic, but lately better known as Afro-Asiatic. The existence of a relationship between Berber in North Africa and Semitic was perceived already in the second half of the 9th century A.O. by Judah ibn Quraysh, from Tiaret (Algeria), in his work known as Risiila. Ibn Quraysh is rightly regarded as one of the forerunners of comparative Semitic linguistics, based on Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but his intuition connecting the languages of this group with another branch of Afro-Asiatic, at least in some particular cases, did not yield fruit before the 19th century. A broader interrelationship was first recognized by Th. Benfey in his sole work on Semitic linguistics: Ueber das Verhaeltnis der aegyptischen Sprache zum semitischen Sprachstamm (Leipzig 1844), where he expresses the opinion that also Berber and "Ethiopic", i.e. Cushitic in his terminology, belong to the same large language family. As for Hausa, the best known of the Chadic languages, it was related to this group in the very same year by T.N. Newman who had appended a note on Hausa in the third edition of J.C. Prichard's Researches as to the Physical History of Man (vol. IV, London 1844, p. 617-626), and was then followed by J.F. Schon in the latter's Grammar of" the Hausa Language (London 1862). The designation "Cushitic" was introduced by 1858, and the entire language family was named "Hamito-Semitic" in 1876 by Fr. Muller in his Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft (Wien 1876-88), where Muller describes the concerned group of languages. J.H. Greenberg, instead, considering that this is the only language family represented in both Africa and Asia, proposed

22

SEMITIC LANGUAGES

to call it Afro-Asiatic in his work The Lan[?Uaf?es of Africa, issued in 1963.

1.2. The languages in question are spoken nowadays in Western Asia, in North Africa, and in the Hom of Africa, but their oldest written attestations, dating back to the third millennium B.C., are limited to Mesopotamia, North Syria, and Egypt. Whereas the relation between the various Semitic languages can be compared with that of, say, the various Germanic or Romance or Slavic languages, Afro-Asiatic would more or less correspond to the group of Indo-European languages. The latter has a few points of contact with Afro-Asiatic, but these are scarcely sufficient to warrant assumption of any genetic connection; anyhow, this topic is outside the scope of the present study. On the other hand, there is a structural analogy between Afro-Asiatic and the east Caucasian languages, as first shown by I.M. Diakonoff (Semito-Hamitic Lan[?Uaf?es, Moscow 1965) who reached the important conclusion that Afro-Asiatic belonged originally to an ergative language type (esp. p. 15-18, 58-60, 86-87), characterized by the opposition of a casus a[?ens (nominative, instrumental, locative) to a casus patiens (accusative, predicative).

1.3. In the broadest sense, a language is characterized as "ergative" if it treats an intransitive subject in the same manner as a transitive object and differently from the transitive subject. In Classical Arabic, e.g., the morphological marking of the intransitive subject in mii 'akrama I- 'amira, "How noble is the emir!", is the same as that of the transitive object in qatalu I- 'amira, "they killed the emir". Instead, there is a different morphological marking of the transitive subject in qatalahu I- 'amiru, "the emir killed him". Of course, the first example is an exclamatory sentence in which "accusative" (-a) and "nominative" (-u) alternate a good deal in ancient Arabic idioms, but this floating usage precisely reveals the passage from an ergative to a nominative pattern. In fact, the "exclamatory accusative", just like the "accusative" occurring in other particular constructions, is a remnant of the ergative pattern, generally replaced in historical times by the nominative one. Syntactic processes have preserved traces of the ergative pattern as well. Thus, the intransitive pronominal subject of the stative is suffixed to the root like the transitive pronominal object, e.g. Assyro-Babylonian zikar-ii-ta, "you are a man", and i:jbat-ka, "he seized you". Instead, the transitive pronominal subject is prefixed to the root, e.g. ta-!jbat-anni, "you seized me". The changing function of the stative disrupted this pattern. Ergative languages are thus characterized by

BANTU

23

the opposition of a casus agens (transitive subject, instrument, situation) to a casus patiens (intransitive subject, object, predicate).

1.4. The links of Afro-Asiatic with the great Bantu linguistic stock of Central Africa seem to be more precise. Bantu belongs to the large NigerCongo family and most likely had its origin in eastern Nigeria and in Cameroon, where peripheral Bantu languages continue to be spoken close to areas of Chadic speach. It subsequently spread eastward and southward, becoming differentiated into the great number of languages which are its present-day representatives. Some similarities between spoken Bantu and Afro-Asiatic may appear as simple assonances, but other are not and must reflect real language affinities, though Proto-Bantu grammatical reconstructions along the lines of C. Meinhof's Grundzuge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen (2nd ed., Hamburg 1948) seem to follow a different path. If the noun prefix mu- (e.g. K wena mu-rut-i, "teacher", built on the stem -rut-) has a different function than the m-preformative in Afro-Asiatic (§29.20-26), at least one should notice that it designates human beings in the singular and that 30% of the Libyco-Berber proper names are formed precisely with the prefix m-. In the syntactical field, the copulative verb na- in Shona, an Eastern Bantu language, is comparable with the n-copula of the South Ethiopian languages (§49.20). Morphological relationship is indicated e.g. by the reciprocal verb suffix -an- (e.g. Sotho ho-op-an-a, "to be striking one another"; Swahili patiliz-an-a, "to vex one another"), and the causative suffix -is- I -is- (e.g. Kwena au-rut-is-a, "to cause to teach"; Swahili fi111g-is-a, "to cause to shut"). Some Bantu languages, like Luganda (Uganda), Guzii (Kenya), Kuria (Tanzania), Shona, also have a causative -y- suffix; e.g. Luganda ek-an-a, "to be equal", vs. ek-an-y-a, "to equalize"; Guzii ak-an-a, "to pay", vs. ak-an-y-a, "cause to pay"; Kuria tet-a, "to marry", vs. tet-y-a, "to give in marriage". Its function is parralleled by the Afro-Asiatic y-1-y affix (§41.13). Besides, like in Afro-Asiatic (§41.34 ), there is a -tl" suffix marking the iterative, e.g. Bafia (Cameroon) su', "to come in", vs. suk-ti", "to come back". These suffixes are phonemic exponents of morphological categories and are thus the language components which are the least likely to be borrowed. A reference to the Bantu languages will be made only occasionally, although there are many features of semantics and idiom which are common to African languages and to Semitic. For example, parts of the body are often used as prepositions and the extended metaphoric use of words, e.g. of the verb "eat", can lead to meanings like "win, gain, use", etc. One may point also at

24

SEMITIC LANGUAGES

some lexical contacts between Afro-Asiatic and Bantu, like Egyptian dm, "to pronounce", and Bantu -dimi, "tongue", Egyptian bin and Bantu -bi, both meaning "bad", or the Egyptian pronoun nty, "who, which", and the Bantu root -ntu used as base of nouns meaning "thing", "something", "man", etc. (§49.19). Even basic prepositions occur in both language families; e.g. Bafia situational [6t] corresponds to Semitic b(§48.5), while explicative [IA] is comparable with Semitic I- (§48.6)

2. AFRO-ASIATIC

1.5. The languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic group are classified in four main families (§2), besides the Semitic family which will be described below (§3-8). The pertinent observations are restricted here to the prerequisites necessary for an understanding and a reconstruction of Semitic linguistic history. A more detailed approach is unnecessary, since comparative Egypto-Semitic linguistics is still in its infancy, while none of the other African members of the Afro-Asiatic group is really known from sources earlier than the 19th century, except ancient Ethiopic or Ge'ez, which is a Semitic language, and Libyco-Berber, first represented by inscriptions only partly understandable in the present state of our knowledge.

A. Egyptian 2.1. The Egyptian language was the speech of the Nile valley from the earliest historical times until some time after A.O. 1000. Only Egyptian and some Semitic languages have records from very ancient times. Even in the third millennium B.C., however, these two branches were very distinct. Among the similarities is the phonological system, although next to nothing is known about the vowels of the older stages of Egyptian. The morphologies of Semitic and Egyptian were characterized by consonantal roots which are combined with vowel patterns and affixes. Both possess two genders (masculine and feminine) and three numbers (singular, dual, and plural). Egyptian has a suffix verb form, namely the old perfective or "pseudo-participle", which is related to the Semitic stative, and a prefixed form in J/s which corresponds to the Semitic causative stem. There are also some affinities in the vocabulary, independently from loanwords. Despite these analogies, the practical use

EGYPTIAN

25

of Egyptian in morpho-syntactic analysis and in comparative AfroAsiatic studies in general is limited. This results partly from Egyptological research done into Middle Egyptian over the last thirty-five years, in particular into the verbal system which has been reinterpreted by H.J. Polotsky and the representatives of the so-called "Standard Theory", that too often postulates syntactic principles unheard in language study and, therefore, cannot serve comparative purposes. However, recent developments resulted in a critical review of the "Standard Theory" and in an approach which corresponds better to linguistic studies in general. Nevertheless, there remains the intrinsic default of the hieroglyphic writing system that lacks any indication of vowels and geminations, while its limits are not compensated by any living tradition. Only Coptic dialects (§2.7) give some insights into the latest phase of a number of grammatical categories in a language that underwent important changes in the course of time. a) Old Egyptian

2.2. The main sources for our knowledge of the language of the Old Kingdom are the biographic texts, the royal decrees, and the Pyramid texts discovered on the walls of chambers inside the pyramids of the kings of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties. These texts, which were incantations for the well-being of the dead king, show peculiarities of their own, including very archaic linguistic features. Besides the old perfective, Old Egyptian has a series of suffix-conjugations, which are peculiar to Egyptian and are not paralleled in the other Afro-Asiatic languages. Since Egyptian is linked by evident lexical and morphological isoglosses with Semitic, Libyco-Berber, Chadic, and Cushitic, it is unlikely that it could have diverged from common Afro-Asiatic before the latter had developed its verbal system. Therefore, it stands to reason that Egyptian has lost the prefix-conjugation in prehistoric times. A possible vestige may be found occasionally in the Old Egyptian "aorist" form of some "weak" stems having an /-prefix instead of the reduplication of the second radical, as in lp3 vs. p3, "to fly". The loss of the prefix-conjugation can eventually be ascribed to the influence of a Macro-Sudanic adstratum or substratum of the Nile valley, without linking it to the shaky hypothesis of a special affinity between ancient Egyptian and the Eastern Nilotic Ik language, also known as Te(u)so, which is spoken by small scattered groups in Eastern Uganda. The Nilotic languages, which are mainly monosyllabic and tonal, inflect largely by internal change of

26

SEMITIC LANGUAGES

vowel quality, length or tone. However, because of the lack of vocalization in Egyptian, it is extremely difficult to ascertain that the Egyptian conjugation system had developed under a Nilotic influence. For example, like Nilotic languages, Old and Middle Egyptian dispense, as a rule, with any equivalent of a definite or indefinite article, but an important feature of several Nilotic languages consists in showing definiteness by the use of verbal forms involving an internal vowel change, viz. the "qualitative" (indefinite) and the "applicative" (definite); e.g. Anyuk a kffo ki giiiiy, "l am paddling a canoe" ("qualitative"), a kiia giiiiy, "I paddle the canoe" ("applicative"). Now, such vocalic differences cannot be expressed in hieroglyphic script. We know at least that, along with Nilotic languages, Egyptian has a special verb for "not-knowing": rlj, "to know", vs. ljm, "not to know". Egyptian vocabulary also comprises words alien to Afro-Asiatic but related to Old Nubian, as k3i, "to think out, to plan", vs. Old Nubian ki-, "to think", lrp, "wine", vs. Old Nubian orpa-gir, "to make wine", negative m vs. Old Nubian negative morpheme m. In another domain, Egyptian religion presents the same basic characteristics as the Nilotic religion of the Dhinka and Shilluk tribes of southern Sudan, the only ones of whose religious ideas there is definite knowledge. b) Middle Egyptian

2.3. Middle Egyptian is the classical stage of ancient Egyptian. It developed from Old Egyptian and was based on the language spoken towards the end of the third millennium B.C., being used for all purposes from that time until the mid-second millennium B.C. The suffixconjugations of Old Egyptian remained the major verb forms in use through Middle Egyptian, but the influence of the spoken language is reflected by the occasional use of forms which were to become standard only in Late Egyptian. However, the grammar of the Coffin Texts, written between the 22nd and the 17th centuries B.C., contains remarkable features and deserves a particular consideration. Middle Egyptian survived in later times for many monumental inscriptions and for some literary compositions. 2.4. At least as early as the Middle Kingdom, a special system known as "group-writing" was devised for the transcription of foreign names and words, particularly Semitic. This system involves the use of certain

EGYPTIAN

27

hieroglyphic or hieratic signs indicating a consonant followed by a weak consonant or a semi-vowel (3, i, w, y). These "syllabic" signs are thought by some to represent Semitic syllables, but they are often combined with "alphabetic" signs marking just one consonant (Fig. I). Besides, since the Egyptians did not distinguish between r and I in their script, they usually used the sign 3 to transcribe these two Semitic phonemes in Middle Egyptian texts (e.g. l-s+3-n = 'sqln), but they represented them also by signs which Egyptologists transcribe with "r" and "n". There are also some hesitations in the transcription of Semitic voiced consonants, for instance in the name of Byblos, Gbl in Semitic but K-p-n or K-b-n in ancient Egyptian. Besides, the traditional transliteration of the hieroglyphs (Fig. 1), adopted also in this Outline, does not correspond in a few cases to their real phonetic value and is then replaced by c = "!", ( = "d", and i; = "~" in W. Schenkel' s grammar of Classical or Middle Egyptian. Finally, phonetic changes, as w > y, s (z) > s (s), l > t, rj, > d, occur in some Middle Egyptian morphemes. Any interpretation of Semitic names in the Egyptian execration texts (§5.3) should take these data into account.

c) Late Egyptian 2.5. Late Egyptian shows striking differences when compared with Old and Middle Egyptian: the old verb forms were being replaced, definite and indefinite articles were used, many phonetic changes occurred, and numerous foreign words appeared. Fairly accurate deductions may be made about the phonetic value of the consonants and of the vowels thanks to cuneiform texts, particularly the Amama letters from the 14th century B.C. It appears also, for instance, that the Egyptian phoneme interpreted as "!'' by Egyptologists corresponds then to Semitic s (e.g. Egyptian Jwfy vs. Hebrew sup, "papyrus plant") and that the alleged "~" is the phonetic equivalent of Semitic $ (e.g. Egyptian rj,b' vs. Semitic '$h ', "finger"). However, such rules cannot be applied mechanically in both directions. Egyptian dialects and inner-Egyptian phonetic shifts have to be considered, as well as the different phonetic values attached to some graphemes in various Semitic languages, e.g. "if' used in Aramaic for s, !, and .f > s, or "J:i" corresponding to I} and b- Thus Egyptian b can be expressed perfectly in Aramaic by "I;i", e.g. in the month name pJ-(n-)bn.f(.w), Aramaic pl}ns, but the Egypto-Phoenician transcription. of the personal name PJ-dl-bn.f(.w) is P[kns, with a spirantized k. On the other hand, Egyptian! can be marked by "s" in Aramaic, e.g. TJl-l}p-(n )lm.w = Sl}pymw, hence Sab-pi-ma-a-ti in Neo-

SEMITIC LANGUAGES

28

SIGN

~ ~ (ol~~ (2)\\

TRANS• LITl!:RATION

OBJECT DEPICTED

J

Egypli:111 vulture

i

flowering reed

.

l

y

(1) lwo reed-flowers

( l) oblique strokes

.-.....LI

r

forearm

}

w

quail chick

J

b

foot

p

stool

~

I

homed viper

~

m

owl

n

water

r

mouth

ru

It

reed shelter in tiel,i>

l

!t

wick of twi~ted flax

®

/J b

placenta (?)

□

--

e-==-

:rnimal's belly with teats

l

(1) bolt

~(•)~

s

c:==i

!

pool

Ll

,j

hill-slope

~

k

basket wi1h handle

ffi

g

stand for jar

c.

t

loa.f

=

t

tethering rope

c:::::,

d

hand

7

d

sn:ike

(l) folded clo1h

Fig. I. The uniconsonantal signs in the Egyptian hieroglyphic script according to A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., London 1957, p. 27.

EGYPTIAN

29

Assyrian, "May Apis take them", while its Phoenician transcription is S~1pmw. Here, different Egyptian dialects explain the use of~ and l, since the verb fli appears in Coptic as .X.€ 1 [cei] and ~~n:'1~ .,

...,i

. ~~1Y\'-M'()~

~~" ,, ,.·,·:-:

n~~, .~~'~'!?.' ~ ~~t~~

i.

v.,w

~tl't.!'"\i'~-de'il,M

~~'; .X~\;',, tm'' \'(?'