- The University of Texas at Austin
Department of Middle Eastern Studies
1 University Station, F9400
Austin, TX 78712-0527
Na'ama Pat-El
The University of Texas at Austin, Middle Eastern Studies, Faculty Member
- Languages and Linguistics, Arabic Language and Linguistics, Corpus Linguistics, Afro-Asiatic Linguistics, Syntax, Language Evolution, and 43 moreAramaic Dialectology, Contact Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Semitic languages, Hebrew Language, Comparative Semitic Linguistics, Historical Syntax, Linguistic Typology, Canonical Typology, Suppletion, Language contact, Historical Dialectology, Historical Morphology, Language Variation, Neo-Aramaic, Language Typology, Comparative Linguistics, Old Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Phoenician, Loanwords, Language contact & change, Canaanite Languages, Biblical Hebrew (Languages And Linguistics), Dialectology, Aramaic, Comparative Semitics, Language Variation and Change, Northwest Semitics, Semitic Languages (Languages And Linguistics), Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA), Syntactic Change, Comparative Syntax, Argument Structure, Linguistics, Semitic Linguistics, Typology, Cleft Sentence, Subordination, Demonstrative, Relative Pronoun, Late Biblical Hebrew, and The definite article(Aramaic Dialectology, Contact Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Semitic languages, Hebrew Language, Comparative Semitic Linguistics, Historical Syntax, Linguistic Typology, Canonical Typology, Suppletion, Language contact, Historical Dialectology, Historical Morphology, Language Variation, Neo-Aramaic, Language Typology, Comparative Linguistics, Old Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Phoenician, Loanwords, Language contact & change, Canaanite Languages, Biblical Hebrew (Languages And Linguistics), Dialectology, Aramaic, Comparative Semitics, Language Variation and Change, Northwest Semitics, Semitic Languages (Languages And Linguistics), Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA), Syntactic Change, Comparative Syntax, Argument Structure, Linguistics, Semitic Linguistics, Typology, Cleft Sentence, Subordination, Demonstrative, Relative Pronoun, Late Biblical Hebrew, and The definite article)edit
Inspired by the work of renowned linguist John Huehnergard and featuring contributions from top scholars in the field, Bēl Lišāni showcases the latest research on Akkadian linguistics. Chapters focus on a wide range of topics, including... more
Inspired by the work of renowned linguist John Huehnergard and featuring contributions from top scholars in the field, Bēl Lišāni showcases the latest research on Akkadian linguistics. Chapters focus on a wide range of topics, including lexicon, morphology, word order, syntax, verbal semantics, and subgrouping. Building upon Huehnergard’s pioneering studies focused on the identification of Proto-Akkadian features, the contributors explore linguistic innovations in the language from historical and comparative perspectives. In doing so, they open the way for further etymological, dialectical, and lexical research into Akkadian.
Research Interests:
This collection showcases the contributions of the study of endangered and understudied languages to historical linguistic analysis, and the broader relevance of diachronic approaches toward developing better informed approaches to... more
This collection showcases the contributions of the study of endangered and understudied languages to historical linguistic analysis, and the broader relevance of diachronic approaches toward developing better informed approaches to language documentation and description.
The volume brings together perspectives from both established and up-and-coming scholars and represents a globally and linguistically diverse range of languages.The collected papers demonstrate the ways in which endangered languages can challenge existing models of language change based on more commonly studied languages, and can generate innovative insights into linguistic phenomena such as pathways of grammaticalization, forms and dynamics of contact-driven change, and the diachronic relationship between lexical and grammatical categories. In so doing, the book highlights the idea that processes and outcomes of language change long held to be universally relevant may be more sensitive to cultural and typological variability than previously assumed.
Taken as a whole, this collection brings together perspectives from language documentation and historical linguistics to point the way forward for richer understandings of both language change and documentary-descriptive approaches, making this key reading for scholars in these fields.
The volume brings together perspectives from both established and up-and-coming scholars and represents a globally and linguistically diverse range of languages.The collected papers demonstrate the ways in which endangered languages can challenge existing models of language change based on more commonly studied languages, and can generate innovative insights into linguistic phenomena such as pathways of grammaticalization, forms and dynamics of contact-driven change, and the diachronic relationship between lexical and grammatical categories. In so doing, the book highlights the idea that processes and outcomes of language change long held to be universally relevant may be more sensitive to cultural and typological variability than previously assumed.
Taken as a whole, this collection brings together perspectives from language documentation and historical linguistics to point the way forward for richer understandings of both language change and documentary-descriptive approaches, making this key reading for scholars in these fields.
Research Interests:
The Semitic Languages presents a comprehensive survey of the individual languages and language clusters within this language family, from their origins in antiquity to their present-day forms. This second edition has been fully revised,... more
The Semitic Languages presents a comprehensive survey of the individual languages and language clusters within this language family, from their origins in antiquity to their present-day forms. This second edition has been fully revised, with new chapters and a wealth of additional material. New features include the following: • new introductory chapters on Proto-Semitic grammar and Semitic linguistic typology • an additional chapter on the place of Semitic as a subgroup of Afro-Asiatic, and several chapters on modern forms of Arabic, Aramaic and Ethiopian Semitic • text samples of each individual language, transcribed into the International Phonetic Alphabet, with standard linguistic word-byword glossing as well as translation • new maps and tables present information visually for easy reference. This unique resource is the ideal reference for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students of linguistics and language. It will be of interest to researchers and anyone with an interest in historical linguistics, linguistic typology, linguistic anthropology and language development.
The present volume has largely emerged from a section on “Comparative Semitic and Arabic studies” at the conference “Horizons of Islamic Theology”, which was held at Goethe University Frankfurt in September 2014. It comprises five... more
The present volume has largely emerged from a section on “Comparative Semitic and Arabic studies” at the conference “Horizons of Islamic Theology”, which was held at Goethe University Frankfurt in September 2014. It comprises five contributions and covers an area reaching from general and comparative Afro-Asiatic syntax to South Arabian phonology to diachronic and synchronic Arabic linguistics.
Research Interests:
Interest in non-canonically case-marked subjects has been unceasing since the groundbreaking work of Andrews and Masica in the late 70's who were the first to document the existence of syntactic subjects in another morphological case than... more
Interest in non-canonically case-marked subjects has been unceasing since the groundbreaking work of Andrews and Masica in the late 70's who were the first to document the existence of syntactic subjects in another morphological case than the nominative. Their research was focused on Icelandic and South-Asian languages, respectively, and since then, oblique subjects have been reported for language after language throughout the world. This newfangled recognition of the concept of oblique subjects at the time was followed by discussions of the role and validity of subject tests, discussions of the verbal semantics involved, as well as discussions of the theoretical implications of this case marking strategy of syntactic subjects. This volume contributes to all these debates, making available research articles on different languages and language families, additionally highlighting issues like language contact, differential subject marking and the origin of oblique subjects.
Research Interests:
Historical syntax has long been neglected in the study of the Semitic languages, although it holds great value for the subgrouping of this diverse language family. Focusing on the development of adverbial subordination, nominal modifiers... more
Historical syntax has long been neglected in the study of the Semitic languages, although it holds great value for the subgrouping of this diverse language family. Focusing on the development of adverbial subordination, nominal modifiers and direct speech marking, as well as reviewing changes through language contact and drift, this book is the first step in the syntactic reconstruction of the Aramaic dialect group, the longest-attested branch of the Semitic language family.
Research Interests: Diachronic Linguistics (Or Historical Linguistics), Historical Linguistics, Dialectology, Comparative Semitic Linguistics, Historical Syntax, and 7 moreAramaic Dialectology, Aramaic, Comparative Linguistics, Loanwords, Language contact & change, Word order, Northwest Semitics, and Demonstrative Pronouns
While most Akkadian dialects use two coordinators, a phrase and clause level u= and a clause level =ma, in the Neo-Assyrian period both are mostly missing from native Assyrian texts. Not only is lack of overt coordination exceptional... more
While most Akkadian dialects use two coordinators, a phrase and clause level u= and a clause level =ma, in the Neo-Assyrian period both are mostly missing from native Assyrian texts. Not only is lack of overt coordination exceptional among the Semitic languages, cross-linguistically asyndeton is a rare strategy, only attested in languages with no writing tradition. In this paper, we will concentrate on u=. We sketch the various environments where u= is no longer used in Neo-Assyrian and consider what other strategies are used to mark coordination in this dialect. Finally, we propose a diachronic path to explain which processes contributed to the loss of the coordinator u=.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Unlike many West-Semitic languages, for most of its history Akkadian did not develop a copula. Some scholars (GAG §196c; Hämeen-Anttilla 2000: 107; de Ridder 2018 §676) argue that at least in Neo-Assyrian, and possibly in Middle Assyrian,... more
Unlike many West-Semitic languages, for most of its history Akkadian did not develop a copula. Some scholars (GAG §196c; Hämeen-Anttilla 2000: 107; de Ridder 2018 §676) argue that at least in Neo-Assyrian, and possibly in Middle Assyrian, a copula, on the basis of the 3rd person personal pronoun, is used. In this paper, we will argue that the 3rd person personal pronoun in Neo-Assyrian has not, in fact, grammaticalized to become a copula. We will show that the pronoun in Akkadian shows none of the expected behaviors of a copula and therefore should not be considered one.
Research Interests:
Assyriologists and Semitists have assumed that the attributive masculine plural morpheme-ūt found in Akkadian is a secondary development in analogy with the feminine plural-āt. In this paper I suggest that this morpheme should be... more
Assyriologists and Semitists have assumed that the attributive masculine plural morpheme-ūt found in Akkadian is a secondary development in analogy with the feminine plural-āt. In this paper I suggest that this morpheme should be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic. My arguments are based on some attributive pronouns in West Semitic and the existence of a distinction between attributive and predicative plural morphology in both branches of Semitic.
Research Interests:
Aramaic was the lingua franca in the Levant in the millennium prior to the Muslim conquests. The exact nature of the spread of Arabic and the specifics of language shift in the Middle East are not yet well understood. Many scholars assume... more
Aramaic was the lingua franca in the Levant in the millennium prior to the Muslim conquests. The exact nature of the spread of Arabic and the specifics of language shift in the Middle East are not yet well understood. Many scholars assume that Arabic primarily spread in the immediate aftermath of the Muslim conquest. The common opinion is that in the new empire, Arabic was learnt imperfectly by speakers of other languages, and the resulting dialects bear the marks of those underlying languages (Versteegh 2012). Specifically, in the Levant and parts of Mesopotamia that language was Aramaic. Several features of the colloquial dialects of the Levant and Mesopotamia were argued to be a result of an Aramaic substrate. In this paper we concentrate on the alleged Aramaic substrate in the modern Arabic dialects of the Levant, where information about the Arabic dialects is more complete, and draw attention to a number of methodological flaws in the scholarly work supporting this hypothesis. We show that some core 'Aramaic' features in Levantine Arabic are unlikely to originate from Aramaic. We further argue that the evidence is not consistent with a rapid and imperfect language shift, which resulted in substrate influence, but rather with a prolonged period of contact between bilingual populations, which resulted in the expected transference of specialized lexical items, but almost no grammatical features.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In this article, we rebut Suchard's critique of our linguistic analysis of the Valediction of Moses.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Hebrew has two suffixed plural morphemes: -ōṯ and -īm. Typically, grammars describe the plural morpheme -ōṯ as marking the plural of feminine nouns and the plural morpheme -īm as marking the plural of masculine nouns. However, the... more
Hebrew has two suffixed plural morphemes: -ōṯ and -īm. Typically, grammars describe the plural morpheme -ōṯ as marking the plural of feminine nouns and the plural morpheme -īm as marking the plural of masculine nouns. However, the distribution of plural morphemes
with substantives is not always predictable, although gender assignment
is not affected. The question of this gender-number morphological mismatch in all phases of Hebrew is a long-standing problem; attempts
to explain it have mostly been synchronic and restricted to evidence from Hebrew. In this paper, I contextualize the Hebrew
case within a wider Semitic context and ask whether this system
is especially typical of Hebrew, and, if not, what that tells us
about plural formation in Hebrew.
with substantives is not always predictable, although gender assignment
is not affected. The question of this gender-number morphological mismatch in all phases of Hebrew is a long-standing problem; attempts
to explain it have mostly been synchronic and restricted to evidence from Hebrew. In this paper, I contextualize the Hebrew
case within a wider Semitic context and ask whether this system
is especially typical of Hebrew, and, if not, what that tells us
about plural formation in Hebrew.
Research Interests:
Despite the important contribution of Semitic to linguistics, the field has been in decline for many years: fewer students are interested in investing in languages, fewer positions exist to support it. In this paper some of the signs of... more
Despite the important contribution of Semitic to linguistics, the field has been in decline for many years: fewer students are interested in investing in languages, fewer positions exist to support it. In this paper some of the signs of decline are reviewed, such as the reduction of “Semitic” to mean only Arabic or Aramaic, and some of the underlying reasons for it are identified, such as the balkanization of the Semitic languages by religion: Hebrew is studied in Old Testament departments, Arabic in Institutes for the study of Islam, etc. I provide a few examples to illustrate how such practices are damaging to the health and progress of the field. Finally, a couple of tentative solutions are proposed to change course.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In a recent paper, Cohen (2018) suggested that nominal sentences without overt subjects are a regular and common part of Semitic grammar. More specifically, he suggested that some arguments in Semitic relative clauses are gapped, namely... more
In a recent paper, Cohen (2018) suggested that nominal sentences without overt subjects are a regular and common part of Semitic grammar. More specifically, he suggested that some arguments in Semitic relative clauses are gapped, namely are missing on a regular basis. This, he argued, is especially common in relative clauses where the predicate is a prepositional phrase. In the current paper, I argue that relative clauses exhibit the same syntax as main clauses. I also provide additional evidence from Syriac and Assyrian Akkadian that prepositional phrases following a relative marker are phrasal, not clausal.
Research Interests:
The Semitic languages share the same pattern for adverbial subordination, but they do not share cognate subordinators. Following widely accepted approaches to syntactic reconstruction, such as Harris & Campbell (1995), it is possible to... more
The Semitic languages share the same pattern for adverbial subordination, but they do not share cognate subordinators. Following widely accepted approaches to syntactic reconstruction, such as Harris & Campbell (1995), it is possible to reconstruct a proto construction for this family, even without cognate material. However, in this article I argue that adverbial subordination cannot be reconstructed to the proto language and the shared structure is a case of parallel development which was motivated by influence from a type of relative clause. I suggest that parallel development was triggered by the presence of a shared structural feature, which created similar pressures in different nodes and allowed for identical lines of development to take place, but nevertheless yielded distinct outcomes. The development of adverbial subordinators as outlined here shows that despite structural similarities in adverbial subordination among the Semitic languages, it is unlikely that this pattern is reconstructable to the proto language.
Research Interests:
The Assyrian subordinative morphemes-u/-ni are treated as allomorphs with the same distribution and function. In this paper we will examine the syntax of these morphemes in Assyrian and argue that they are in fact two distinct morphemes... more
The Assyrian subordinative morphemes-u/-ni are treated as allomorphs with the same distribution and function. In this paper we will examine the syntax of these morphemes in Assyrian and argue that they are in fact two distinct morphemes with no allomorphic relation. We will further follow a number of significant syntactic developments in the use of the subordinative morphemes in Neo-Assyrian.
Research Interests:
The Aramaic preposition lwāt has two distinct meanings: kinetic ('towards') and stative ('with'). In this paper, I discuss the origin and etymology of this preposition, previous attempts to account for its form and other examples of... more
The Aramaic preposition lwāt has two distinct meanings: kinetic ('towards') and stative ('with'). In this paper, I discuss the origin and etymology of this preposition, previous attempts to account for its form and other examples of similar polysemy in Semitic.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
One of the sub-branches of Central Semitic, Northwest Semitic, contains a number of languages with no established hierarchical relation among them: Ugaritic, Aramaic, Canaanite, Deir Alla, and Samalian. Over the years, scholars have... more
One of the sub-branches of Central Semitic, Northwest Semitic, contains a number of languages with no established hierarchical relation among them: Ugaritic, Aramaic, Canaanite, Deir Alla, and Samalian. Over the years, scholars have attempted to establish a more accurate sub-branching for Northwest Semitic or to suggest a different genetic affiliation for some languages, usually Ugaritic. In this paper, we will argue that Aramaic and Canaanite share a direct ancestor, on the basis of a number of morphosyntactic features: the fs demonstrative *ðaˀt, the direct object marker *ˀayāt, the development of dative subjects with adjectival predicates, the use of the construct state with prepositions, the G imperfect inflection of geminate verbs, and the plural form of *bayt. We will also address arguments that Ugaritic is a Canaanite dialect, or that Canaanite and Ugaritic are more closely related. This proposal not only outlines a more coherent family tree for Northwest Semitic, but also accounts
for numerous “Aramaic”-like features in some Canaanite dialects, primarily Biblical Hebrew, which have thus far been treated as the result of language contact in the early Iron Age.
for numerous “Aramaic”-like features in some Canaanite dialects, primarily Biblical Hebrew, which have thus far been treated as the result of language contact in the early Iron Age.
Research Interests:
A syntactic pattern involving non-canonical subject marking in some Northwest-Semitic languages is fascinating for two main reasons: 1) it cannot be reconstructed to the proto-language and it must have developed relatively late in the... more
A syntactic pattern involving non-canonical subject marking in some Northwest-Semitic languages is fascinating for two main reasons: 1) it cannot be reconstructed to the proto-language and it must have developed relatively late in the history of the family, which affords us an opportunity to observe its development through textual attestations (cf. Barðdal and Eythórsson 2009); 2) the predication is by and large non-verbal, which seems to counter explanations based on passive derivations and agentivity as a possible origin (Haspelmath 2001). I suggest instead that non-canonical subjects originated from free datives in clauses where the typical agreement cannot be applied. In such cases, the dative, which is animate, definite and associated with the subject, eventually outranked the original subject, which is typically a nominalization and never animate or definite. I further discuss the special features of the non-canonical subject and argue that it is quite stable.
Research Interests:
email npatel@austin.utexas.edu for the Latex file
Research Interests:
All Semitic languages use a relative marker as at least one strategy of rela-tivization, and all branches show reflexes or relics of reflexes of an inter-dental relative marker. The wide consensus that the relative pronoun was originally... more
All Semitic languages use a relative marker as at least one strategy of rela-tivization, and all branches show reflexes or relics of reflexes of an inter-dental relative marker. The wide consensus that the relative pronoun was originally identical to the proximal demonstrative is based on the formal identity between the bases of the two in West Semitic, and on the wide attestation of the process Demonstrative > Relative in world languages. In this paper, we will show that there are a number of significant problems with the reconstruction of the relative pronoun, which, when taken together, make tracing its origin to the demonstrative highly unlikely. Instead we will argue that the opposite is true: the demonstrative in West Semitic is a secondary formation on the basis of the relative marker.
All Semitic languages use a relative marker as at least one strategy of relativization, and all branches show reflexes or relics of reflexes of an interdental relative marker. The wide consensus that the relative pronoun was originally... more
All Semitic languages use a relative marker as at least one strategy of relativization, and all branches show reflexes or relics of reflexes of an interdental relative marker. The wide consensus that the relative pronoun was originally identical to the proximal demonstrative is based on the formal identity between the bases of the two in West Semitic, and on the wide attestation of the process Demonstrative > Relative in world languages. In this paper, we will show that there are a number of significant problems with the reconstruction of the relative pronoun, which, when taken together, make tracing its origin to the demonstrative highly unlikely. Instead we will argue that the opposite is true: the demonstrative in West Semitic is a secondary formation on the basis of the relative marker.
Research Interests:
Classical Arabic has been considered a highly conservative Semitic language. It has been assumed that some of its features are the closest we will get to Proto Semitic (e.g., the phonemic system, the case system etc.). In this talk, I... more
Classical Arabic has been considered a highly conservative Semitic language. It has been assumed that some of its features are the closest we will get to Proto Semitic (e.g., the phonemic system, the case system etc.). In this talk, I argue on the basis of comparative Semitics that other forms of Arabic, namely Neo-Arabic and Middle Arabic, which are not normalized and do not attempt to imitate a non native variety, preserve archaic features much better than Classical Arabic. I will demonstrate this point using syntactic and morphological features. Some of these features are attested in Akkadian and Ugaritic as well as other languages, but not in Classical Arabic. I suggest, therefore, that the dialects are essential to the study of proto-Arabic.
Research Interests:
The biblical text implies that the language of the southern and northern monarchies differed, though with the exception of one anecdotal story no specifics are offered. While the hypothetical existence of a number of dialects is widely... more
The biblical text implies that the language of the southern and northern monarchies differed, though with the exception of one anecdotal story no specifics are offered. While the hypothetical existence of a number of dialects is widely accepted, several scholars have claimed that there is actual evidence for at least two, possibly three, dialects in the text of the Hebrew Bible. In order to substantiate this claim a long list of grammatical features has been suggested over the past three decades. In this paper I will evaluate the evidence purported to prove the existence of Hebrew dialects, and show that it is weak and does not support the dialectal hypothesis. Keywords dialectology – Biblical Hebrew – Israelian Hebrew
Research Interests:
The Canaanite subgroups is defined on the basis of four features, most of which are vocalic; however, the attested Canaanite dialects, with the exception of Biblical Hebrew, are unvocalized. It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain the... more
The Canaanite subgroups is defined on the basis of four features, most of which are vocalic; however, the attested Canaanite dialects, with the exception of Biblical Hebrew, are unvocalized. It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain the genealogical affiliation of new or even existing texts based on these features. In this paper we propose two new morpho-syntactic features, which can be identified in texts written primarily in consonantal orthography. These features will help with the correct linguistic identification of texts discovered in the future.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
There are two strategies of relativization in Semitic. In the first, the head of the relative clause assumes the form of a construct noun, typically before an unmarked relative clause. In the second, an absolute form (i.e. “nunated”... more
There are two strategies of relativization in Semitic. In the first, the head of the relative clause assumes the form of a construct noun, typically before an unmarked relative clause. In the second, an absolute form (i.e. “nunated” form), is positioned typically before a relative pronoun, as can be seen in. Most of the daughter languages attest to these two patterns, either as a regular system, like in OSA or Akkadian, or as relics, as is the case with Hebrew. Arabic stands out as presenting not only a different strategy, but in fact an opposite one. Some scholars insist that the Arabic strategy of apposition with no overt marking is also proto-Semitic. I examine the evidence for it, argue that there is almost none and explain why Arabic relatives are the way they are.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Several prominent scholars have recently doubted whether it is possible to differentiate borrowing from internal change, to the point that in some cases subgrouping is not feasible or is restricted (Dench, 2001; Dixon, 2001). Since a... more
Several prominent scholars have recently doubted whether it is possible to differentiate borrowing from internal change, to the point that in some cases subgrouping is not feasible or is
restricted (Dench, 2001; Dixon, 2001). Since a situation of prolonged and intense contact between closely related languages is very common, language contact and its results are a major
problem if not a real hazard to historical linguistics. The main practical problem is how to differentiate internal changes, changes motivated by internal processes, from external changes,
changes due to language contact, when the structure of the languages is so similar. In other words, how do we know which linguistic form is the source of the change: one of the attested
languages, or the mother of both of them? In this paper, I suggest two preliminary criteria to isolate the source language in cases of contact: 1) the existence of intermediary stages, and 2) an even spread of the change across categories. I will show, using test cases from the Semitic language family that these criteria can help us distinguish between internal and external changes.
restricted (Dench, 2001; Dixon, 2001). Since a situation of prolonged and intense contact between closely related languages is very common, language contact and its results are a major
problem if not a real hazard to historical linguistics. The main practical problem is how to differentiate internal changes, changes motivated by internal processes, from external changes,
changes due to language contact, when the structure of the languages is so similar. In other words, how do we know which linguistic form is the source of the change: one of the attested
languages, or the mother of both of them? In this paper, I suggest two preliminary criteria to isolate the source language in cases of contact: 1) the existence of intermediary stages, and 2) an even spread of the change across categories. I will show, using test cases from the Semitic language family that these criteria can help us distinguish between internal and external changes.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Semitic languages, Hebrew Language, Arabic Language and Linguistics, Aramaic, Bible Translation, and 18 moreUgaritic Language, Egyptian language, Canaanite Languages, Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Sumerian, Akkadian, Comparative Semitics, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East, Northwest Semitics, Arabic Dialectology, Berber, Chadic, Egyptian, Cushitic, Old South Arabian Linguistics, Classical Ethiopic, Ge'ez, and Afroasiatic linguistics(Ugaritic Language, Egyptian language, Canaanite Languages, Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Sumerian, Akkadian, Comparative Semitics, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East, Northwest Semitics, Arabic Dialectology, Berber, Chadic, Egyptian, Cushitic, Old South Arabian Linguistics, Classical Ethiopic, Ge'ez, and Afroasiatic linguistics)
(Ugaritic Language, Egyptian language, Canaanite Languages, Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Sumerian, Akkadian, Comparative Semitics, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East, Northwest Semitics, Arabic Dialectology, Berber, Chadic, Egyptian, Cushitic, Old South Arabian Linguistics, Classical Ethiopic, Ge'ez, and Afroasiatic linguistics)
This paper is part of the recent discussion of the origin of the Hebrew relative particle šeC-, this time from a syntactic perspective. It argues that, based on its syntactic distributions, the origin of the particle from the relative... more
This paper is part of the recent discussion of the origin of the Hebrew relative particle šeC-, this time from a syntactic perspective. It argues that, based on its syntactic distributions, the origin of the particle from the relative particle
’ăšer as proposed by John Huehnergard is more likely than a recent suggestion that the two particles are unrelated.
’ăšer as proposed by John Huehnergard is more likely than a recent suggestion that the two particles are unrelated.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
One of the best-known features of Neo-Ethio-Semitic languages is the use of the third-person possessive suffix as a definite article (Appleyard 2005, Rubin 2010). In this study we show that third-person possessive suffixes are also used... more
One of the best-known features of Neo-Ethio-Semitic languages is the use of the third-person possessive suffix as a definite article (Appleyard 2005, Rubin 2010). In this study we show that third-person possessive suffixes are also used as definite articles in other Semitic languages, although in none of them is this function fully grammaticalized, as it is in Ethio-Semitic. Beyond adding data that have received little attention so far, we offer an explanation for the phenomenon in Semitic, rather than concentrating on one branch, as has been done thus far in the literature.
Research Interests:
J. M. Allegro has convincingly shown that the archaic Hebrew relative pronoun ze can function as a genitive marker in a common Semitic pattern N Pron N (cf. Aramaic baytā dī-malkā). So far, it has been assumed that once ze was replaced by... more
J. M. Allegro has convincingly shown that the archaic Hebrew relative pronoun ze can function as a genitive marker in a common Semitic pattern N Pron N (cf. Aramaic baytā dī-malkā). So far, it has been assumed that once ze was replaced by ʾǎšer this pattern was no longer possible in Hebrew. The current paper offers data which indicate that at least in Biblical Hebrew ʾǎšer can still function as a genitive marker.
Research Interests:
While there have been many studies of negative expressions and negation in a number of Semitic languages, negation is not normally used in comparative Semitic linguistic and is avoided in discussions about subgrouping. This study reviews... more
While there have been many studies of negative expressions and negation in a number of Semitic languages, negation is not normally used in comparative Semitic linguistic and is avoided in discussions about subgrouping. This study reviews the negation of verbal predicates in an attempt to reconstruct the original Semitic set of negation particles. It concludes that verbal negation in Semitic was originally a set containing two
particles with distinct functions: *ʾl was used to negate indicative verbal forms, while *lā was used to negate non-indicative ones. Many languages generalized the indicative negation particle to negate all verbal forms, a move which subsequently led to the loss of the original syntactic distinction. The reconstruction of the innovations in Semitic corroborates
the subgrouping of Semitic suggested by Hetzron (1976) and modified by Porkhomovsky (1997) and Huehnergard (1991; 2005), and in fact validates the modification of Hetzron’s proposal.
particles with distinct functions: *ʾl was used to negate indicative verbal forms, while *lā was used to negate non-indicative ones. Many languages generalized the indicative negation particle to negate all verbal forms, a move which subsequently led to the loss of the original syntactic distinction. The reconstruction of the innovations in Semitic corroborates
the subgrouping of Semitic suggested by Hetzron (1976) and modified by Porkhomovsky (1997) and Huehnergard (1991; 2005), and in fact validates the modification of Hetzron’s proposal.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
All the Semitic languages use a relative marker as at least one strategy of relativization, and all branches show reflexes or relics of reflexes of an interdental relative marker. The wide consensus among semitists that the relative... more
All the Semitic languages use a relative marker as at least one strategy of relativization, and all branches show reflexes or relics of reflexes of an interdental relative marker. The wide consensus among semitists that the relative pronoun was originally identical to the proximal demonstrative is based on the formal identity between the bases of the two in West Semitic, and on the wide attestation of the process Demonstrative > Relative in world languages (Heine and Kuteva 2002; Diessel 2009). In this paper we will review the evidence supporting these assumptions and argue that the current analysis of the Semitic relative is a procrustean bed, into which the Semitic evidence does not fit comfortably.
We will show that there are a number of significant problems with the reconstruction of the relative pronoun, which, when taken together, make tracing its origin to the demonstrative highly unlikely. We will discuss the syntactic behavior and morhology of the relative marker to show that it is unlikely to be derived from the demonstrative. Instead, we will argue, that the opposite is true: the demonstrative in West Semitic is a secondary formation on the basis of the relative marker.
We will show that there are a number of significant problems with the reconstruction of the relative pronoun, which, when taken together, make tracing its origin to the demonstrative highly unlikely. We will discuss the syntactic behavior and morhology of the relative marker to show that it is unlikely to be derived from the demonstrative. Instead, we will argue, that the opposite is true: the demonstrative in West Semitic is a secondary formation on the basis of the relative marker.
Research Interests:
In his seminal comparative study, Khan (1988:227) remarks that syntactic parallels may have one of three explanations: (1) an existing common syntactic feature on the basis of which a subsequent development is built (i.e., parallel... more
In his seminal comparative study, Khan (1988:227) remarks that syntactic parallels
may have one of three explanations: (1) an existing common syntactic feature on
the basis of which a subsequent development is built (i.e., parallel development); (2)
areal contact (i.e., Sprachbund); and (3) independent development due to typological
tendencies. Khan notes that it is possible that in most cases none of these explanations
would be verifiable. It seems, however, that in most historical studies, only the latter
two options are taken into account, while similarity stemming the first is considered
unusable for subgrouping or reconstruction (starting from Meillet 1918). In this paper,
I will argue that in some well-defined cases, parallel development can be proven as a
feature of the linguistic structure and is therefore relevant for historical linguistics. I
further suggest that parallel development is likely to recur in languages of a genetically
cohesive family, which share relevant structural features. Several Semitic examples will
serve to illustrate this point.
may have one of three explanations: (1) an existing common syntactic feature on
the basis of which a subsequent development is built (i.e., parallel development); (2)
areal contact (i.e., Sprachbund); and (3) independent development due to typological
tendencies. Khan notes that it is possible that in most cases none of these explanations
would be verifiable. It seems, however, that in most historical studies, only the latter
two options are taken into account, while similarity stemming the first is considered
unusable for subgrouping or reconstruction (starting from Meillet 1918). In this paper,
I will argue that in some well-defined cases, parallel development can be proven as a
feature of the linguistic structure and is therefore relevant for historical linguistics. I
further suggest that parallel development is likely to recur in languages of a genetically
cohesive family, which share relevant structural features. Several Semitic examples will
serve to illustrate this point.
Research Interests:
Several current lingusitic approaches offer formulaic paths of change, suggesting that linguistic change is restricted by the initial material from which it arose. Grammaticaization theory assumes change is possible only in a specific... more
Several current lingusitic approaches offer formulaic paths of change, suggesting
that linguistic change is restricted by the initial material from which it arose. Grammaticaization
theory assumes change is possible only in a specific direction (lexical
> grammatical), and Sources and Targets have a close functional relationship. For
example, copulas change to existentials, dative becomes possessor etc. Thus, similar
source-to-target combination in different languages are treated as an identical process.
In this talk I will argue that a superficial similarity, such as dative-to-possessor in
different languages does not imply similarity of processes and that methods focusing
on source-to-target are superficial and do not explain language change; rather, our
focus should be on the process itself, regardless of source or target. I will review a
few cases of classic source-to-target changes in Semitic and Indo-European languages
which do not reflect similar process despite their superficial similarities.
References:
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vincent, Nigel (1995). Exaptation and Grammaticalization. Historical Linguistics
1993. H. Andersen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 433–445.
that linguistic change is restricted by the initial material from which it arose. Grammaticaization
theory assumes change is possible only in a specific direction (lexical
> grammatical), and Sources and Targets have a close functional relationship. For
example, copulas change to existentials, dative becomes possessor etc. Thus, similar
source-to-target combination in different languages are treated as an identical process.
In this talk I will argue that a superficial similarity, such as dative-to-possessor in
different languages does not imply similarity of processes and that methods focusing
on source-to-target are superficial and do not explain language change; rather, our
focus should be on the process itself, regardless of source or target. I will review a
few cases of classic source-to-target changes in Semitic and Indo-European languages
which do not reflect similar process despite their superficial similarities.
References:
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vincent, Nigel (1995). Exaptation and Grammaticalization. Historical Linguistics
1993. H. Andersen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 433–445.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Several scholars have claimed that there is ample evidence for at least two, possibly three, dialects in the text of the Hebrew Bible: Judahite, Israelian and possibly Benjaminite (e.g. Mitchell Dahood, Cyrus Gordon, James Davila, and... more
Several scholars have claimed that there is ample evidence for at least two, possibly three, dialects in the text of the Hebrew Bible: Judahite, Israelian and possibly Benjaminite (e.g. Mitchell Dahood, Cyrus Gordon, James Davila, and Gary Rendsburg). The main difference between the two main dialects was argued to be a result of contact between Hebrew speakers of the northern kingdom with speakers of Aramaic and Phoenician (Dahood 1952). Most of the material presented as evidence is lexical, but several morphological, phonological and syntactic features have also been argued to be indicative of the northern dialect (Rendsburg 2003).
Although there have been several critical evaluations of the idea of Israelian Hebrew, There hasn’t been a systematic evaluation of the linguistic evidence (Fredericks 1996; Schniederwind and Sivan 1997). In this paper, I will examine the linguistic features that have been claimed to be distinctive of the northern dialect. The results will show that despite biblical stories reporting on the dialects, there is little if any linguistic evidence for different dialects in the language of the Hebrew Bible. That is not to say that a dialectal differentiation did not exist, but rather that we cannot identify these dialectal features from the text of the Bible. These findings are also important for the dating of biblical texts, as alleged dialectal features have been used to dismiss the validity of dating (Young et al. 2008 I: 200).
Although there have been several critical evaluations of the idea of Israelian Hebrew, There hasn’t been a systematic evaluation of the linguistic evidence (Fredericks 1996; Schniederwind and Sivan 1997). In this paper, I will examine the linguistic features that have been claimed to be distinctive of the northern dialect. The results will show that despite biblical stories reporting on the dialects, there is little if any linguistic evidence for different dialects in the language of the Hebrew Bible. That is not to say that a dialectal differentiation did not exist, but rather that we cannot identify these dialectal features from the text of the Bible. These findings are also important for the dating of biblical texts, as alleged dialectal features have been used to dismiss the validity of dating (Young et al. 2008 I: 200).
Research Interests:
This paper deals with the history of the Semitic relative clauses and its development in different branches all the way to Hebrew. It will be argued that Hebrew shows conservatism as well as innovation, some of which a result of other... more
This paper deals with the history of the Semitic relative clauses and its development in different branches all the way to Hebrew. It will be argued that Hebrew shows conservatism as well as innovation, some of which a result of other syntactic innovations and changes within the Canaanite branch.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
It has been observed in many languages that third person subject markers on verbs are frequently zero, while those of first and second person are overt. There have been several explanations for this phenomenon: some argue that they are... more
It has been observed in many languages that third person subject markers on verbs are frequently zero, while those of first and second person are overt. There have been several explanations for this phenomenon: some argue that they are less frequent in discourse, bot others (e.g., Givón) argue that first and second persons, which are more accessible, constantly regenerate, while the third person markers do not. Proponents of this explanation assume that third person subjects do develop, but are subsequently lost and reduce to zero. For example, Middle Welsh 1sg oedwn vs. 3sd oed (Watkins 1962).
In this paper I suggest that in the paradigm of the West Semitic perfect (< Akkadian stative), the suffixes of the third person are nominal (i.e., reflect genfer-number inflection), while first and second person suffixes are pronominal (i.e., reflect gender-number-person). In other words, I suggest that proto Semitic did not have a third person subject form at all. The short vowel used to mark the 3ms perfect form is, I suggest, a reanalysis of the 3fs –at.
In this paper I suggest that in the paradigm of the West Semitic perfect (< Akkadian stative), the suffixes of the third person are nominal (i.e., reflect genfer-number inflection), while first and second person suffixes are pronominal (i.e., reflect gender-number-person). In other words, I suggest that proto Semitic did not have a third person subject form at all. The short vowel used to mark the 3ms perfect form is, I suggest, a reanalysis of the 3fs –at.
Research Interests:
The Canaanite subgroup is one of the better-studied branches of Semitic. The position of this branch in relation to other Semitic languages is a matter of almost unanimous consensus, the result of many detailed studies. However, despite... more
The Canaanite subgroup is one of the better-studied branches of Semitic. The position of this branch in relation to other Semitic languages is a matter of almost unanimous consensus, the result of many detailed studies. However, despite the fact that most of the texts written in Canaanite dialects are consonantal, the features that distinguish Canaanite from the other Northwest Semitic languages are essentially vocalic (for example, the Canaanite shift). In this paper we will suggest a couple of additional morpho-syntactic features, which should beconsidered a Canaanite innovation: the relative particle *ˀaṯar and the morpho-syntax of the infinitives. These features are easily detected in non-vocalized texts and improve our ability toidentify texts written in Canaanite dialects.
Research Interests:
The emergence and development of complex structures have always fascinated historical linguists. Only recently, however, attention has been shifted to the origin(s) of clausal subordination from a typological point of view (Heine and... more
The emergence and development of complex structures have always fascinated historical linguists. Only recently, however, attention has been shifted to the origin(s) of clausal subordination from a typological point of view (Heine and Kuteva 2007; Hendery 2012; Givón 2009; Givón and Shibatani 2009). Two main paths of change have been suggested to explain the rise of clausal subordination cross-linguistically: nominalization (or “expansion”) and clause integration (Heine and Kuteva 2007; Heine 2009):
1. Expansion: S [NP] > S1 [S2]
2. Integration: S1 + S2 > S1 [S2]
But are these typological pathways viable cross linguistically and properly representative of the diachrony of relative clauses? On the basis of evidence from Semitic, it will be suggested that the assumption that sentential subordination is a unique pattern because it has complex internal syntax is biased. The evidence in Semitic does not follow any of the paths outlined above. It is therefore better to acknowledge that Proto-Semitic did not have a specific strategy to subordinate sentences and they were treated as any other nominal attribute. Typologists regularly note languages where the relative and genitives fall together (Gil 2011). I argue that in Semitic adnominalization is a category.
1. Expansion: S [NP] > S1 [S2]
2. Integration: S1 + S2 > S1 [S2]
But are these typological pathways viable cross linguistically and properly representative of the diachrony of relative clauses? On the basis of evidence from Semitic, it will be suggested that the assumption that sentential subordination is a unique pattern because it has complex internal syntax is biased. The evidence in Semitic does not follow any of the paths outlined above. It is therefore better to acknowledge that Proto-Semitic did not have a specific strategy to subordinate sentences and they were treated as any other nominal attribute. Typologists regularly note languages where the relative and genitives fall together (Gil 2011). I argue that in Semitic adnominalization is a category.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Classical Arabic is considered conservative among both the Semitic languages and variants of Arabic. Many Arabists consider it the most archaic form of Arabic and even the source of some of the modern dialects. The most archaic features... more
Classical Arabic is considered conservative among both the Semitic languages and variants of Arabic. Many Arabists consider it the most archaic form of Arabic and even the source of some of the modern dialects. The most archaic features of the language are its consonantal inventory and its nominal inflection (case system). Indeed for the most part these features are not attested in the modern dialects, which are considered by many linguists innovative.
In this paper I will discuss several morpho-syntactic features in modern Arabic dialects, which are not found in Classical Arabic. I will show that these features date back to earlier phases, namely before the split of the Arabic sub-branch, and were lost in the Classical language. The data presented in this paper strongly suggests that some dialects preserved important archaic features where the Classical language innovated. In other words, we cannot assume a-priori that Classical Arabic is conservative; rather, the relative archaism of any Arabic feature needs to be evaluated compared with evidence from other Semitic languages. I argue, therefore, that Classical Arabic existed in tandem with some of the existing dialects hut is unlikely to be their source. I further discuss the role of standardization and prestige in preserving archaisms in non-standard variants.
In this paper I will discuss several morpho-syntactic features in modern Arabic dialects, which are not found in Classical Arabic. I will show that these features date back to earlier phases, namely before the split of the Arabic sub-branch, and were lost in the Classical language. The data presented in this paper strongly suggests that some dialects preserved important archaic features where the Classical language innovated. In other words, we cannot assume a-priori that Classical Arabic is conservative; rather, the relative archaism of any Arabic feature needs to be evaluated compared with evidence from other Semitic languages. I argue, therefore, that Classical Arabic existed in tandem with some of the existing dialects hut is unlikely to be their source. I further discuss the role of standardization and prestige in preserving archaisms in non-standard variants.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Languages change all the time; not in a grand, dramatic sweep, but rather slowly, feature-by-feature. And yet they also retain many features which were inherited from their common ancestor. But how to explain these changes? what motivates... more
Languages change all the time; not in a grand, dramatic sweep, but rather slowly, feature-by-feature. And yet they also retain many features which were inherited from their common ancestor. But how to explain these changes? what motivates them and can we detect any commonalities in their slow evolution? Even more difficult: how can we evaluate similarities between languages? My aim in this presentation is to review the main two approaches to language change: historical linguistics and Grammaticalization and evaluate the very basic terms at their core: similarity and mechanism. I propose new definitions for these terms and further suggest that any explanation for language change must specifically account for the mechanisms which produce the change. This discussion leads me to reevaluate the phenomenon of parallel development which was thus far considered to reflect meaningless similarity. I will attempt to show that when evaluated through mechanistic explanation, parallel development may be evidence of common descent.
A definite article developed independently and along different pathways several times in the Semitic language family. The most recent development is attested in North East Neo-Aramaic (NENA), a large dialect group spoken primarily in Iraq... more
A definite article developed independently and along different pathways several times in the Semitic language family. The most recent development is attested in North East Neo-Aramaic (NENA), a large dialect group spoken primarily in Iraq and Iran. The definite article in these dialects is based on the demonstrative and was assumed to be a classic case of grammaticalization (Rubin 2005): hanna payta (dem.ms house.ms) 'the/this house'. In this talk I will outline the different stages that pushed for the change and will argue that the rise of demonstrative>edfinite article is a side effect of a much more substantial systemic change in Aramaic and that looking at it from the narrow prism of grammaticalization obscures its historical context.
Doing historical linguistics in Semitic normally involves looking at- and comparing features of the big 5: Akkadian, Classical Arabic, Classical Hebrew, Classical Ethiopic and Aramaic. This is problematic, as John Huehnergard has noted.... more
Doing historical linguistics in Semitic normally involves looking at- and comparing features of the big 5: Akkadian, Classical Arabic, Classical Hebrew, Classical Ethiopic and Aramaic. This is problematic, as John Huehnergard has noted. He suggested that we should work upward: reconstruct each branch independently and then compare it to others. Conventionally, we look for clues in the earliest attested documents of a language to attempt reconstruction. In the case of Arabic, scholars normally look at Classical Arabic. This dialect is considered conservative, i.e., preserving archaic features and grammatical structures. But Classical Arabic is a very problematic entity: it is normalized and idealized. I suggest that other forms of Arabic, like Neo-Arabic and Middle Arabic, which do not attempt to imitate a non native variety, preserve archaic features much better than the earlier Classical Arabic. In order to prove that these features are archaic and not later development I will use comparative evidence.
So far, changes claimed to be a result of exaptation have been primarily morphological (e.g., Lass 1990; Giacalone Ramat 1998; Willis 2010), while some examples of syntactic exaptation, or ‘functional renewal’, have been shown to be... more
So far, changes claimed to be a result of exaptation have been primarily morphological (e.g., Lass 1990; Giacalone Ramat 1998; Willis 2010), while some examples of syntactic exaptation, or ‘functional renewal’, have been shown to be modeled on already existing syntactic patterns (Giacalone Ramat 1998; Traugott 2004; contra Brinton & Stein 1995). In this talk, I offer a possible case of syntactic exaptation, which is responsible for the innovation of the definite article in a branch of the Semitic language family. This category did not originally exist in Semitic, thus no model was available for the innovation.
The development of the Central Semitic definite article (e.g., Arabic ʾal-/ʾaC-, Hebrew haC-) has been regularly described along the lines of a usual grammaticalization scenario: DEM > DEF (e.g., Voigt 1998; Tropper 2001; Rubin 2005). The development of the Central Semitic article is not traced to proto Central Semitic, since not all the language of the branch developed it, but rather to developments in individual languages (Huehnergard 2005). In this paper, I will argue that the definite article could not have developed from a demonstrative, but was rather originally a syntactic marker of adnominal position which was co-opted for a new function (Pat-El 2009).
In Semitic, N-Adj. can be interpreted as a sentence or an NP. e.g., Akkadian šarr-um dann-um king-NOM strong-NOM 'a/the king is strong' or 'a/the strong king’. One of the ways to disambiguate the pattern is to attach a prefix (*han) to an adnominal modifier. The prefix was later attached to the head noun with no additional function. Finally, the prefix ended up marking the difference between a definite nominal, originally adnominal, and an indefinite nominal, originally predicative. The following stages, all of which are attested, represent the change; exaptation took place between stage 2 and 3.
Stage 1: kalb- han-ṭāb- 'a/the good dog'
as opposed to
kalb- ṭāb- ‘a/the dog is good’
Stage 2: han-kalb- han-ṭāb- 'a/the good dog'
Stage 3: han-kalb- han-ṭāb- 'the good dog'
as opposed to
kalb- ṭāb- 'a good dog'.
The pattern in stage 1 is still used in various functions. The result set up a model for a later development of the definite article in Aramaic. In the first centuries bce, the article in Aramaic has eroded to the point where it no longer functioned as a marker of definiteness and a new form of definite article emerged, with its initial attestation as marker of adnominal modifiers: adjectives, relative clauses and genitives (Pat-El 2010).
The data and analysis presented in this paper show that exaptation is responsible for a new feature which did not exist previously in the language family, and that the result constitutes a category innovation through a ‘catastrophic jump’, rather than grammaticalization. Further, exaptation is shown to have replicated within a single language family (cf. Narrog 2007).
Brinton, L. and D. Stein (1995). Functional Renewal. Historical Linguistics 1993. H. Andersen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 33-47.
Giacalone-Ramat, A. (1998). Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. The Limits of Grammaticalization. A. Giacalone-Ramat and P. J. Hopper. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 107-127.
Huehnergard, J. (2005). Features of Central Semitic. Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran. A. Gianto. Roma, Pontificium Insitutum Biblicum: 155-203.
Lass, R. (1990). "How to Do Things with Junk: Exaptation in Language Evolution." Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 79-102.
Narrog, H. (2007). "Exaptation, grammaticalization, and reanalysis." California Linguistic Notes 32(1).
Pat-El, N. (2009). "The Development of the Definite Article in Semitic: A Syntactic Approach." Journal of Semitic Studies 54: 19-50.
Pat-El, N. (2010). "The Origin and Function of the So-Called “Correlative” in Classical Syriac." Folia Orientalia 45-46: 125-133.
Rubin, A. D. (2005). Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns.
Traugott, E. C. (2004). Exaptation and Grammaticalization. Linguistic Studies Based on Corpora: 133-156.
Tropper, J. (2001). "Die Herausbildung des bestimmten Artikels im Semitischen." Journal of Semitic Studies 46: 1-31.
Voigt, R. M. (1998). "Der Artikel im Semitischen." Journal of Semitic Studies 43: 221-58.
Willis, D. (2010). Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: evidence from Slavonic. Grammaticalization: current views and issues. E. Stathi, E. Gehweiler and E. König. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 151-178.
The development of the Central Semitic definite article (e.g., Arabic ʾal-/ʾaC-, Hebrew haC-) has been regularly described along the lines of a usual grammaticalization scenario: DEM > DEF (e.g., Voigt 1998; Tropper 2001; Rubin 2005). The development of the Central Semitic article is not traced to proto Central Semitic, since not all the language of the branch developed it, but rather to developments in individual languages (Huehnergard 2005). In this paper, I will argue that the definite article could not have developed from a demonstrative, but was rather originally a syntactic marker of adnominal position which was co-opted for a new function (Pat-El 2009).
In Semitic, N-Adj. can be interpreted as a sentence or an NP. e.g., Akkadian šarr-um dann-um king-NOM strong-NOM 'a/the king is strong' or 'a/the strong king’. One of the ways to disambiguate the pattern is to attach a prefix (*han) to an adnominal modifier. The prefix was later attached to the head noun with no additional function. Finally, the prefix ended up marking the difference between a definite nominal, originally adnominal, and an indefinite nominal, originally predicative. The following stages, all of which are attested, represent the change; exaptation took place between stage 2 and 3.
Stage 1: kalb- han-ṭāb- 'a/the good dog'
as opposed to
kalb- ṭāb- ‘a/the dog is good’
Stage 2: han-kalb- han-ṭāb- 'a/the good dog'
Stage 3: han-kalb- han-ṭāb- 'the good dog'
as opposed to
kalb- ṭāb- 'a good dog'.
The pattern in stage 1 is still used in various functions. The result set up a model for a later development of the definite article in Aramaic. In the first centuries bce, the article in Aramaic has eroded to the point where it no longer functioned as a marker of definiteness and a new form of definite article emerged, with its initial attestation as marker of adnominal modifiers: adjectives, relative clauses and genitives (Pat-El 2010).
The data and analysis presented in this paper show that exaptation is responsible for a new feature which did not exist previously in the language family, and that the result constitutes a category innovation through a ‘catastrophic jump’, rather than grammaticalization. Further, exaptation is shown to have replicated within a single language family (cf. Narrog 2007).
Brinton, L. and D. Stein (1995). Functional Renewal. Historical Linguistics 1993. H. Andersen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 33-47.
Giacalone-Ramat, A. (1998). Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. The Limits of Grammaticalization. A. Giacalone-Ramat and P. J. Hopper. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 107-127.
Huehnergard, J. (2005). Features of Central Semitic. Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran. A. Gianto. Roma, Pontificium Insitutum Biblicum: 155-203.
Lass, R. (1990). "How to Do Things with Junk: Exaptation in Language Evolution." Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 79-102.
Narrog, H. (2007). "Exaptation, grammaticalization, and reanalysis." California Linguistic Notes 32(1).
Pat-El, N. (2009). "The Development of the Definite Article in Semitic: A Syntactic Approach." Journal of Semitic Studies 54: 19-50.
Pat-El, N. (2010). "The Origin and Function of the So-Called “Correlative” in Classical Syriac." Folia Orientalia 45-46: 125-133.
Rubin, A. D. (2005). Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns.
Traugott, E. C. (2004). Exaptation and Grammaticalization. Linguistic Studies Based on Corpora: 133-156.
Tropper, J. (2001). "Die Herausbildung des bestimmten Artikels im Semitischen." Journal of Semitic Studies 46: 1-31.
Voigt, R. M. (1998). "Der Artikel im Semitischen." Journal of Semitic Studies 43: 221-58.
Willis, D. (2010). Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: evidence from Slavonic. Grammaticalization: current views and issues. E. Stathi, E. Gehweiler and E. König. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 151-178.
The emergence and development of complex structures have always fascinated linguists, as early discussions regarding the origin of Indo-European subordination clearly show (e.g., Hermann 1895). Only recently, however, attention has been... more
The emergence and development of complex structures have always fascinated linguists, as early discussions regarding the origin of Indo-European subordination clearly show (e.g., Hermann 1895). Only recently, however, attention has been given to the origin of clausal subordination from a typological point of view (Heine and Kuteva 2007; Hendery 2007; Givón 2009; Givón and Shibatani 2009). Two main paths of change have been suggested to explain the rise of clausal subordination: nominalization (or “expansion”) and clause integration (Heine & Kuteva 2007:214; Heine 2009):
a. Expansion: S [NP] > S1 [S2]
b. Integration: S1 + S2 > S1 [S2]
Expansion is a process by which tools used for nominalization assume the function of subordination. Integration is a process by which two formerly independent sentences fuse, making one of the sentences subordinate to the other.
In the Semitic languages, there are two strategies to mark a relative clause: via a relative pronoun or via nominal annexation (“construct”). Various scholars have argued that relativization through nominal annexation is the original pattern, while the pronominal relative developed secondarily (e.g., Deutscher 2001:410). In this study I examine both patterns and address the following questions: (1) Are these patterns developmentally dependent? (2) Can the development of the relative clause in Semitic be traced along the lines of one of the paths of change suggested in Heine and Kuteva (2007)? I will suggest that there are several significant syntactic and distributional differences between the two relative types, as they are reflected in attested languages, and hence are unlikely to be related. Hence, these differences point to a different path of development for each of the relative types, rather than a related one. Second, I will argue that the two paths of change described above do not account for the Semitic development.
References:
Deutscher, G. (2001). "The Rise and Fall of Rogue Relative Constructions." Studies in Language 25(3): 405-422.
Deutscher, G. (2009). Nominalization and the Origin of Subordination. Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. T. Givón and M. Shibatani. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 199-214.
Givón, T. (2009). The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Givón, T. and M. Shibatani, Eds. (2009). Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Heine, B. and T. Kuteva (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: a Reconstruction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hendery, R. (2007). The Diachronic Typology of Relative Clauses. Canbera, AU, The Australian National University. PhD.
Hermann, E. (1895). "Gab es im Indogermanischen Nebensätze?" Zeitschrift für vergleischende Sprachwissenschaft 33: 481-534.
a. Expansion: S [NP] > S1 [S2]
b. Integration: S1 + S2 > S1 [S2]
Expansion is a process by which tools used for nominalization assume the function of subordination. Integration is a process by which two formerly independent sentences fuse, making one of the sentences subordinate to the other.
In the Semitic languages, there are two strategies to mark a relative clause: via a relative pronoun or via nominal annexation (“construct”). Various scholars have argued that relativization through nominal annexation is the original pattern, while the pronominal relative developed secondarily (e.g., Deutscher 2001:410). In this study I examine both patterns and address the following questions: (1) Are these patterns developmentally dependent? (2) Can the development of the relative clause in Semitic be traced along the lines of one of the paths of change suggested in Heine and Kuteva (2007)? I will suggest that there are several significant syntactic and distributional differences between the two relative types, as they are reflected in attested languages, and hence are unlikely to be related. Hence, these differences point to a different path of development for each of the relative types, rather than a related one. Second, I will argue that the two paths of change described above do not account for the Semitic development.
References:
Deutscher, G. (2001). "The Rise and Fall of Rogue Relative Constructions." Studies in Language 25(3): 405-422.
Deutscher, G. (2009). Nominalization and the Origin of Subordination. Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. T. Givón and M. Shibatani. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 199-214.
Givón, T. (2009). The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Givón, T. and M. Shibatani, Eds. (2009). Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Heine, B. and T. Kuteva (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: a Reconstruction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hendery, R. (2007). The Diachronic Typology of Relative Clauses. Canbera, AU, The Australian National University. PhD.
Hermann, E. (1895). "Gab es im Indogermanischen Nebensätze?" Zeitschrift für vergleischende Sprachwissenschaft 33: 481-534.
As was noted by a number of historical linguists (e.g., Harris and Campbell 1995) most changes have multiple causations. However, in the case of genetically related languages, the main practical problem is how to differentiate internal... more
As was noted by a number of historical linguists (e.g., Harris and Campbell 1995) most changes have multiple causations. However, in the case of genetically related languages, the main practical problem is how to differentiate internal changes, changes motivated by internal processes, from external changes, changes due to language contact, when the structure of the languages are so similar. In other words, how do we know which linguistic form is the source of the change: one of the attested languages, or the mother of both of them. Even if the cultural history of both languages is fully or mostly known to us, it still doesn’t offer any indication which one of them is the source. I suggest three criteria which are by no means fail-safe and are not easily available in every case: (1) intermediary stages, (2) consistency across categories and (3) similarity, but non-identity. I will use these criteria to examine several test cases from the Semitic family: proleptic genitive in Aramaic (allegedly under Akkadian influence), a causal subordinator in Hebrew (allegedly under Aramaic influence) and the use of the active perfect as a part of the verbal system (in various languages).
It has long been known that several Neo-Ethio-Semitic languages use the possessive suffix as a definite article. The best-known example is Amharic, but the function is attested for a number of other Ethio-Semitic languages (Appleyard... more
It has long been known that several Neo-Ethio-Semitic languages use the possessive suffix as a definite article. The best-known example is Amharic, but the function is attested for a number of other Ethio-Semitic languages (Appleyard 2005; Rubin 2010): Amh. lǝǧ-u (boy-def) 'the boy'. In this study we show that third person possessive suffixes are also used as definite articles in other Semitic languages, although in none of them is this function fully grammaticalized as it is in Ethio-Semitic, e.g., Old Assyrian: ina ḫarp-ē-šu 'in the summer', Biblical Hebrew: hǎ-tôṣîʾ mazzārôt bə-ʿitt-ô ‘Can you bring forth the constellations during the season?’ (Job 38:32). Beyond adding data that have received little attention so far, we offer an explanation for the phenomenon in Semitic, rather than concentrating only on the Ethiopic branch, as has been done thus far.
The Semitic languages have two types of predication: verbal, where the subject is morphologically marked on the verb as an agreement affix, and nominal, where the subject is overt and must agree fully with the nominal predicate. The... more
The Semitic languages have two types of predication: verbal, where the subject is morphologically marked on the verb as an agreement affix, and nominal, where the subject is overt and must agree fully with the nominal predicate. The subject, if not coded on the verb, normally follows the predicate and has the form of an independent (nominative) noun or pronoun:
1) ʾānā tēlēkî
where to go.impf.2fs
‘where are you going to?’ (Genesis 16:8)
2) ʾiššā yəpat marʾe ʾat
woman pretty.cnst.fs image you.fs
‘you are a beautiful woman’ (Genesis 12:11)
Furthermore, there is a minor predication type, attested in some classical languages, which consists of an uninflected existential predicate (Hebrew yēš, Aramaic ʼīt) whose subject is ambiguous or is introduced by a preposition l ‘to’:
3) yēš l-î rāb
there.is to-me much
I have plenty (Gen. 33:9)
Since in some languages (Arabic and Akkadian) this predicate has a canonical subjects, the originality of the non-canonical syntax is unclear. Furthermore, several Central-Semitic languages Hebrew saw a proliferation of the non-canonical syntax from Biblical Hebrew to its Modern variant (Berman 1980):
4) ḥālîlā l-î mē-ʿǎśôt zōʾt
far-be-it to-me from-do.inf this.fs
Far be it for me to do it (Genensis 44:18)
5) ma ṭṭôb l-ā-ʾādām ba-ḥayyim
what good to-def-man in-life
How great a life a man has! (Ecclesiastes 6:12)
Similar patterns are attested in Syriac (Late Aramaic) and some Neo-Arabic dialects, where they are rather restricted and not productive. The Biblical Hebrew pattern differs from other well known cases (e.g., Icelandic, Dravidian languages), because predicates are adjectives and particles and only rarely stative adjectival verbs (‘to be distressed, to be angry”). In later stages of Hebrew, full verbs are excluded from this pattern and tense is assigned syntactically through the verb ‘to be’. In this talk, I discuss the analysis of this pattern and its typical characteristics and suggest some tests for subjecthood properties (Cole 1980; Onishi 2001 a.o.). I further examine several possible avenues for the rise of the pattern and finally I provide a path of change which accounts for the subsequent developments in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic until their modern stages.
This pattern in Central-Semitic is a fascinating example for two main reasons: 1) it cannot be reconstructed to the proto-language and developed relatively late in the history of the family, which affords us an opportunity to observe its development through textual attestations (cf. Barðdal 2001 and Barðdal and Eythórsson 2009); 2) the predication is by and large non-verbal, which seems to counter explanations based on passive derivations and agentivity as a possible origin (Haspelmath 2001).
References:
Barðdal, J. (2011). "The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelenadic: a diachronic construction grammar account." Lingua 121: 60-79.
Barðdal, J. and T. Eythórsson (2009). The Origin of the Oblique Subject Construction: An Indo-European Comparison. Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. V. Bubenik, J. Hewson and S. Rose. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 179–193.
Cole, P., W. Harbert, et al. (1980). "The Aquisition of Subjecthood." Language 56(4): 719-743.
Haspelmath, M. (2001). Non-Canonical Marking of Core Arguments in European Languages. Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon and M. Onishi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Onishi, M. (2001). Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. A. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon and M. Onishi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 1-51.
1) ʾānā tēlēkî
where to go.impf.2fs
‘where are you going to?’ (Genesis 16:8)
2) ʾiššā yəpat marʾe ʾat
woman pretty.cnst.fs image you.fs
‘you are a beautiful woman’ (Genesis 12:11)
Furthermore, there is a minor predication type, attested in some classical languages, which consists of an uninflected existential predicate (Hebrew yēš, Aramaic ʼīt) whose subject is ambiguous or is introduced by a preposition l ‘to’:
3) yēš l-î rāb
there.is to-me much
I have plenty (Gen. 33:9)
Since in some languages (Arabic and Akkadian) this predicate has a canonical subjects, the originality of the non-canonical syntax is unclear. Furthermore, several Central-Semitic languages Hebrew saw a proliferation of the non-canonical syntax from Biblical Hebrew to its Modern variant (Berman 1980):
4) ḥālîlā l-î mē-ʿǎśôt zōʾt
far-be-it to-me from-do.inf this.fs
Far be it for me to do it (Genensis 44:18)
5) ma ṭṭôb l-ā-ʾādām ba-ḥayyim
what good to-def-man in-life
How great a life a man has! (Ecclesiastes 6:12)
Similar patterns are attested in Syriac (Late Aramaic) and some Neo-Arabic dialects, where they are rather restricted and not productive. The Biblical Hebrew pattern differs from other well known cases (e.g., Icelandic, Dravidian languages), because predicates are adjectives and particles and only rarely stative adjectival verbs (‘to be distressed, to be angry”). In later stages of Hebrew, full verbs are excluded from this pattern and tense is assigned syntactically through the verb ‘to be’. In this talk, I discuss the analysis of this pattern and its typical characteristics and suggest some tests for subjecthood properties (Cole 1980; Onishi 2001 a.o.). I further examine several possible avenues for the rise of the pattern and finally I provide a path of change which accounts for the subsequent developments in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic until their modern stages.
This pattern in Central-Semitic is a fascinating example for two main reasons: 1) it cannot be reconstructed to the proto-language and developed relatively late in the history of the family, which affords us an opportunity to observe its development through textual attestations (cf. Barðdal 2001 and Barðdal and Eythórsson 2009); 2) the predication is by and large non-verbal, which seems to counter explanations based on passive derivations and agentivity as a possible origin (Haspelmath 2001).
References:
Barðdal, J. (2011). "The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelenadic: a diachronic construction grammar account." Lingua 121: 60-79.
Barðdal, J. and T. Eythórsson (2009). The Origin of the Oblique Subject Construction: An Indo-European Comparison. Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. V. Bubenik, J. Hewson and S. Rose. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 179–193.
Cole, P., W. Harbert, et al. (1980). "The Aquisition of Subjecthood." Language 56(4): 719-743.
Haspelmath, M. (2001). Non-Canonical Marking of Core Arguments in European Languages. Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon and M. Onishi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Onishi, M. (2001). Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. A. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon and M. Onishi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 1-51.
The Semitic relative clause, as it is reflected in attested languages, particularly Akkadian, can be found in two forms: nominally headed, where the clause is syntactically dependent on a nominal antecedent (“construct phrase”), or... more
The Semitic relative clause, as it is reflected in attested languages, particularly Akkadian, can be found in two forms: nominally headed, where the clause is syntactically dependent on a nominal antecedent (“construct phrase”), or pronominally headed, where the clause is syntactically dependent on a pronoun while the antecedent is independent (‘nunated’). This system is attested in Old akkadian and in vestigial forms in a number of Semitic languages. However, there is evidence, albeit scant, that independent (‘nunated’) nouns can be heads of relative clauses in some languages, primarily Biblical Hebrew. Moreover, in Arabic, independent (‘nunated’) nouns are overwhelmingly heading unmarked relatives while non-nunated nouns head pronominal relatives. That is, Arabic shows the exact opposite of the Semitic system. Brockelmann (Grundriss II:553) and recently Gensler (2002) suggest that this third type is an original Semitic pattern. In this paper, I will show that in most of the examples in Hebrew, the construct is excluded. I will also attempt to explain the diachronic path that led to the Arabic system and the lack of nunation on formally definite nouns. Finally, I will argue that Brockelmann and Gensler’s assumption of a third relative type does not have much to support it.
Brockelmann, C. (1908-1913). Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Berlin, Verlag von Reuther & Reichard.
Gensler, O. (2002). On Explaining Why Relative Pronouns Lost Case-marking in Semitic. Paper read at Tel Aviv University, March 2002.
Brockelmann, C. (1908-1913). Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Berlin, Verlag von Reuther & Reichard.
Gensler, O. (2002). On Explaining Why Relative Pronouns Lost Case-marking in Semitic. Paper read at Tel Aviv University, March 2002.
There are two strategies to mark a relative clause in Semitic: via a relative pronoun (ex. 1) or via nominal annexation (“construct”) (ex. 2). In both strategies, the head (nominal or pronominal) takes its inflection from the main clause,... more
There are two strategies to mark a relative clause in Semitic: via a relative pronoun (ex. 1) or via nominal annexation (“construct”) (ex. 2). In both strategies, the head (nominal or pronominal) takes its inflection from the main clause, i.e. it is not affected by the syntax of the relative clause. The relative-pronoun type shows obligatory repetition of the head noun in the relative clause via an affixed pronoun (“resumption”) (all examples are from Arabic).
1) wa-sʾal-hum ʿan l-qaryat-i llatī kānat ḥāḍirata l-baḥr-i
and-ask-them about def-city.fs-gen rel.fs be.pf.3fs present.ptcl.fs def-sea-gen
‘And ask them about the town which stood by the sea’ (Qurān 7:163)
2) ʾilā yawm-i yubʿatūna
to day-gen.ms.cnst raise.pf.pass.3mp
'Until the day they are raised [from the dead]' (Qurān 7:14)
While the syntax and morphology of the relative is shared by all ancient Semitic languages, each one of them developed a separate set of adverbial subordination particles, with almost no overlap between them. This means that adverbial subordination is not a Proto-Semitic feature. So how did adverbial subordinating develop?
In this talk I will argue that the two original relativization strategies presented above split into two separate types of subordination: relativization through a pronoun continues to serve as such in most languages, while nominal annexation developed into adverbial subordination. The process was motivated by loss of inflection on the nominal head, a bleaching of its meaning and a subsequent loss of resumption. This created a set of fossilized nouns whose sole function was to mark adverbial subordination. In the following, ḥīna is a noun meaning ‘time.acc’, though synchronically nothing conditions the case anymore:
3) ʾaḫtʾa-hū sahm-ī ḥīna ramaytu
miss.pf.3ms-him arrow-my when shoot.pf.1cs
‘My arrow missed him when I shot’
Moreover, wherever the relative pronoun itself lost its inflection, it too shifted to mark other types of subordination (adverbial and complement). It will be shown that the incentive for relativizer > adverbializer is loss of inflection. While the development of adverbial subordination took place independently in each branch, the path of change is dependent on their shared structure.
References:
Kortmann, B. (1998). "The Evolution of Adverbial Subordinators in Europe". Historical Linguistics 1997. M. S. Schmid, J. R. Austin and D. Stein (eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 213-228.
Pat-El, N. (2008). “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination”. Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting. H. Gzella and M. L. Fomer (eds.). Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 55-76.
1) wa-sʾal-hum ʿan l-qaryat-i llatī kānat ḥāḍirata l-baḥr-i
and-ask-them about def-city.fs-gen rel.fs be.pf.3fs present.ptcl.fs def-sea-gen
‘And ask them about the town which stood by the sea’ (Qurān 7:163)
2) ʾilā yawm-i yubʿatūna
to day-gen.ms.cnst raise.pf.pass.3mp
'Until the day they are raised [from the dead]' (Qurān 7:14)
While the syntax and morphology of the relative is shared by all ancient Semitic languages, each one of them developed a separate set of adverbial subordination particles, with almost no overlap between them. This means that adverbial subordination is not a Proto-Semitic feature. So how did adverbial subordinating develop?
In this talk I will argue that the two original relativization strategies presented above split into two separate types of subordination: relativization through a pronoun continues to serve as such in most languages, while nominal annexation developed into adverbial subordination. The process was motivated by loss of inflection on the nominal head, a bleaching of its meaning and a subsequent loss of resumption. This created a set of fossilized nouns whose sole function was to mark adverbial subordination. In the following, ḥīna is a noun meaning ‘time.acc’, though synchronically nothing conditions the case anymore:
3) ʾaḫtʾa-hū sahm-ī ḥīna ramaytu
miss.pf.3ms-him arrow-my when shoot.pf.1cs
‘My arrow missed him when I shot’
Moreover, wherever the relative pronoun itself lost its inflection, it too shifted to mark other types of subordination (adverbial and complement). It will be shown that the incentive for relativizer > adverbializer is loss of inflection. While the development of adverbial subordination took place independently in each branch, the path of change is dependent on their shared structure.
References:
Kortmann, B. (1998). "The Evolution of Adverbial Subordinators in Europe". Historical Linguistics 1997. M. S. Schmid, J. R. Austin and D. Stein (eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 213-228.
Pat-El, N. (2008). “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination”. Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting. H. Gzella and M. L. Fomer (eds.). Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 55-76.
There are two strategies to mark a relative clause in Semitic: via a relative pronoun (ex. 1) or via nominal annexation (“construct”) (ex. 2). 1) wa-sʾal-hum ʿani l-qaryat-i llatī kānat ḥāḍirata l-baḥr-i and-ask-them about... more
There are two strategies to mark a relative clause in Semitic: via a relative pronoun (ex. 1) or via nominal annexation (“construct”) (ex. 2).
1) wa-sʾal-hum ʿani l-qaryat-i llatī kānat ḥāḍirata l-baḥr-i
and-ask-them about DEF-city.FS-GEN REL.FS be.PF.3FS present.PTCL.FS DEF-sea-GEN
‘And ask them about the town which stood by the sea’ (Qurān 7:163)
2) ʾilā yawm-i yubʿatūna
to day-GEN.MS.CNST raise.PF.PASS.3MP
‘Until the day they are raised [from the dead]’ (Qurān 7:14)
Both strategies are reconstructed to Proto-Semitic and are attested in all branches of the Semitic language family. They share some common syntactic features: the head, whether nominal or pronominal is in construct with the clause, but its morphological attributes reflect its function in the main sentence. Furthermore, there seems to have been no semantic difference between them, although at least Arabic developed a secondary distributional distinction. Therefore, it has commonly been assumed that the pronominally-headed relative clause developed secondarily, on the basis of nominally-headed one (Deutscher 2009).
In this talk, I would like to suggest that there are at least three significant syntactic and distributional differences between these clauses. These differences seem to suggest a different path of development for each of the relative clauses, rather than a related one.
References:
Deutscher, G. (2009). “Nominalization and the Origin of Subordination.” Syntactic Complexity:
Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. T. Givón and M. Shibatani. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 199-214.
Givón, T. (2009). The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Heine, B. and T. Kuteva (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: a Reconstruction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
1) wa-sʾal-hum ʿani l-qaryat-i llatī kānat ḥāḍirata l-baḥr-i
and-ask-them about DEF-city.FS-GEN REL.FS be.PF.3FS present.PTCL.FS DEF-sea-GEN
‘And ask them about the town which stood by the sea’ (Qurān 7:163)
2) ʾilā yawm-i yubʿatūna
to day-GEN.MS.CNST raise.PF.PASS.3MP
‘Until the day they are raised [from the dead]’ (Qurān 7:14)
Both strategies are reconstructed to Proto-Semitic and are attested in all branches of the Semitic language family. They share some common syntactic features: the head, whether nominal or pronominal is in construct with the clause, but its morphological attributes reflect its function in the main sentence. Furthermore, there seems to have been no semantic difference between them, although at least Arabic developed a secondary distributional distinction. Therefore, it has commonly been assumed that the pronominally-headed relative clause developed secondarily, on the basis of nominally-headed one (Deutscher 2009).
In this talk, I would like to suggest that there are at least three significant syntactic and distributional differences between these clauses. These differences seem to suggest a different path of development for each of the relative clauses, rather than a related one.
References:
Deutscher, G. (2009). “Nominalization and the Origin of Subordination.” Syntactic Complexity:
Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. T. Givón and M. Shibatani. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 199-214.
Givón, T. (2009). The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Heine, B. and T. Kuteva (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: a Reconstruction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
The influence of Aramaic on Biblical Hebrew is well known and needs no introduction. The focus so far has mostly been lexical: lexical replacement, loan words or calques, and many of which have already been identified (Wagner 1966,... more
The influence of Aramaic on Biblical Hebrew is well known and needs no introduction. The focus so far has mostly been lexical: lexical replacement, loan words or calques, and many of which have already been identified (Wagner 1966, Hurvitz 2003). However, several scholars have expressed doubts regarding the validity of Aramaisms as indicators of textual dating (Young, I., R. Rezetko, et al. 2008) or pointed that there may be other explanations to the existence of Aramaic lexemes in the Biblical text (Rendsburg 2002, 2003).
While lexical interference is very common cross-linguistically, syntax requires more extensive contact and is normally found only after some borrowed lexemes have already been naturalized (Moravcsik 1978). The influence of Aramaic on the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew has not been seriously investigated so far. In this talk I will argue that syntax is less easily transferable compared to lexemes and therefore is more reliable for internal dating. Furthermore, syntactic Aramaic dialectal variation can serve as a solid benchmark for dating (Pat-El 2008); such variations are extra biblical evidence the dating of which is far less controversial. Moreover, while certain Aramaic lexical items in the Hebrew Bible may be an inheritance from a common ancestor, the syntactic patterns discussed in this study are not.
A number of cases where assumed late biblical texts show Aramaic syntactic patterns attested later than the Babylonian exile will serve as examples. The data used in this study include material collected from official and middle Aramaic dialects as well as the text of the Hebrew Bible. On the basis of these data, it will be suggested that when a Hebrew text shows innovative syntactic features otherwise attested only in Official Aramaic or later it must be considered a late text. Finally it will be argued that while lexical transference is on occasion ambiguous, syntax, though harder to detect, is a far more reliable tool for internal dating.
While lexical interference is very common cross-linguistically, syntax requires more extensive contact and is normally found only after some borrowed lexemes have already been naturalized (Moravcsik 1978). The influence of Aramaic on the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew has not been seriously investigated so far. In this talk I will argue that syntax is less easily transferable compared to lexemes and therefore is more reliable for internal dating. Furthermore, syntactic Aramaic dialectal variation can serve as a solid benchmark for dating (Pat-El 2008); such variations are extra biblical evidence the dating of which is far less controversial. Moreover, while certain Aramaic lexical items in the Hebrew Bible may be an inheritance from a common ancestor, the syntactic patterns discussed in this study are not.
A number of cases where assumed late biblical texts show Aramaic syntactic patterns attested later than the Babylonian exile will serve as examples. The data used in this study include material collected from official and middle Aramaic dialects as well as the text of the Hebrew Bible. On the basis of these data, it will be suggested that when a Hebrew text shows innovative syntactic features otherwise attested only in Official Aramaic or later it must be considered a late text. Finally it will be argued that while lexical transference is on occasion ambiguous, syntax, though harder to detect, is a far more reliable tool for internal dating.
Biblical Hebrew has a set of three relative particles: zV, ʾǎšer and šeC. While zV is the older defunct relative particle, the nature of the two others, which are much better documented, and the relationship between them is still debated.... more
Biblical Hebrew has a set of three relative particles: zV, ʾǎšer and šeC. While zV is the older defunct relative particle, the nature of the two others, which are much better documented, and the relationship between them is still debated. In the last several years the topic has been addressed by a number of scholars from a variety of approaches (Holmstedt 2001, 2006, 2007; Huehnergard 2006; Huehnergard & Pat-El 2006). Huehnergard suggests that šeC is an apocopated form of ʾǎšer; Holmstedt, however, claims that all three particles existed at the same time and that šeC could be a borrowing from Akkadian. He also argues that ʾǎšer functions only as a relative particle and complementizer. In this talk I would like to once again look at the syntax of these particles, in comparison to each other and to other Semitic languages. The results will show that šeC and ʾǎšer do not share the same syntax and that the syntax of ʾǎšer closely resembles that of relative particles in other Semitic languages. This will have implication on our assessment of the origin of šeC and ʾǎšer.
There are two strategies to mark a relative clause in Semitic: via a relative pronoun or via nominal annexation (“construct”). The relative pronoun agrees in gender, number and case with the nominal antecedent. The relative-pronoun type... more
There are two strategies to mark a relative clause in Semitic: via a relative pronoun or via nominal annexation (“construct”). The relative pronoun agrees in gender, number and case with the nominal antecedent. The relative-pronoun type shows obligatory repetition of the head noun in the relative clause via an affixed pronoun (“resumption”). While the syntax and morphology of the relative is shared by all ancient Semitic languages, each developed a separate set of adverbial subordination particles, with almost no overlap between them. This means that adverbial subordination is not a Proto-Semitic feature. So where do adverbial subordinating particles come from?
In this talk I will argue that the two original relativization strategies presented above split into two separate types of subordination: relativization through a pronoun continues to serve as such in most languages, while nominal annexation developed into adverbial subordination. This happened independently in each branch (drift). Moreover, wherever the relative pronoun lost its inflection, it too shifted to mark other types of subordination (adverbial or complementizer). Based on the evidence, it will be argued that the incentive for relativizer > adverbializer is loss of inflection and the status of resumption.
In this talk I will argue that the two original relativization strategies presented above split into two separate types of subordination: relativization through a pronoun continues to serve as such in most languages, while nominal annexation developed into adverbial subordination. This happened independently in each branch (drift). Moreover, wherever the relative pronoun lost its inflection, it too shifted to mark other types of subordination (adverbial or complementizer). Based on the evidence, it will be argued that the incentive for relativizer > adverbializer is loss of inflection and the status of resumption.
This paper attempts to point to another connection between Neo-Aramaic innovations and processes which are attested in much earlier dialects of Aramaic. Aramaic shows a cyclic change of Demonstrative order, from the common Semitic... more
This paper attempts to point to another connection between Neo-Aramaic innovations and processes which are attested in much earlier dialects of Aramaic. Aramaic shows a cyclic change of Demonstrative order, from the common Semitic post-position in Old Aramaic (Sefire: b-sprʾ znh ‘in this inscription’), to pre-position in Late Aramaic (Mandaic: halin nišmata ‘these people’) and back to post-position in Central Neo-Aramaic (Ṭuroyo: u-bayt-āno 'this house'). While Aramaic is not the only West-Semitic language which has changed its nominal word order throughout its history, it seems to have done so as a result of internal pressure, and not contact. In this paper, I will argue that the word order change is related to the growing use of anticipatory pronouns to mark definite nouns in all dialects since Official Aramaic. The use of prolepsis has spread gradually to all syntactic positions. Eventually, the preposed demonstrative was used as a definite article in some Neo-Aramaic dialects (Western and Central Neo-Aramaic). In these dialects, the demonstrative in its function as a definite article remains pre-posed (Dem-N), while the demonstrative in its function as a demonstrative moves to post-position (N-Dem): e.g., Western Neo-Aramaic hān šaġlōta hannen. Much like the participle-based Neo-Aramaic verbal system, the processes which gave rise to the definite article and the demonstrative order are detectable to at least Late Aramaic, if not earlier, and show another example of a cyclic change.
Every Semitic language has its own set of negation particles and there is no set that is shared by all of them, sometimes even within the same sub-branch. While there have been many studies of negative expressions and negation in a number... more
Every Semitic language has its own set of negation particles and there is no set that is shared by all of them, sometimes even within the same sub-branch. While there have been many studies of negative expressions and negation in a number of Semitic languages, negation is not normally used in comparative Semitic linguistic and is generally avoided in discussions about subgrouping. The reason for this is not hard to see: the amount of particles and their distribution makes it very hard to suggest even a basic reconstruction. Take for example Central Semitic: Arabic uses mā and lā and OSA uses ʾal. Or even a more tightly related branch: Phoenician and Hebrew: the first uses bal and ʾal and the second lō and ʾal. In addition, in Akkadian, the set seems different than that of West Semitic: ula or ul and lā. Many scholar (e.g., Testen 1998) have tried to argue for a relationship between ʾal and ul. Similarly, some scholars (e.g., Lipiński 2001, Pardee 2003-2004) suggested that lā and ʾal are connected, i.e. the latter is identical to the former with an ʾa- prefix.
In this paper, I will attempt to reconstruct the original Semitic set, which I argue is at least proto-West Semitic, and will discuss subsequent changes in the daughter languages. My reconstruction will show that Semitic had two particles: for the indicative and non-indicative verbal forms. I will also show how later Semitic languages (Late and Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Arabic, Ethio-Semitic) fit into this suggested scenario.
In this paper, I will attempt to reconstruct the original Semitic set, which I argue is at least proto-West Semitic, and will discuss subsequent changes in the daughter languages. My reconstruction will show that Semitic had two particles: for the indicative and non-indicative verbal forms. I will also show how later Semitic languages (Late and Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Arabic, Ethio-Semitic) fit into this suggested scenario.
In Old Aramaic, like in other Semitic languages, the demonstrative follows the noun is modifies: b-sprʾ znh ‘in this inscription’ (Sef. IB:33). In Late Aramaic and subsequent dialects, however, the demonstrative precedes the noun is... more
In Old Aramaic, like in other Semitic languages, the demonstrative follows the noun is modifies: b-sprʾ znh ‘in this inscription’ (Sef. IB:33). In Late Aramaic and subsequent dialects, however, the demonstrative precedes the noun is modifies, though other adnominal modifiers follow it: CPA haw sābā ‘this old man’ (Schulthess 124, 114:10); Mandaic halin nišmata ‘these people’ (Šišlam I:110).
It is difficult to determine the cause for this change. Since the change is systematic across all dialects, borrowing and other kinds of external pressure are improbable. In this paper I propose that the pre-position of the demonstrative is the result of a long process of pronominal pre-position, commonly known as prolepsis. The overwhelming use of prolepsis in Aramaic in contrast to other Semitic language, which may use it only in one pattern or not at all, may explain why the demonstrative was pre-posed only in Aramaic, but remained stable in all the other Semitic languages.
It is difficult to determine the cause for this change. Since the change is systematic across all dialects, borrowing and other kinds of external pressure are improbable. In this paper I propose that the pre-position of the demonstrative is the result of a long process of pronominal pre-position, commonly known as prolepsis. The overwhelming use of prolepsis in Aramaic in contrast to other Semitic language, which may use it only in one pattern or not at all, may explain why the demonstrative was pre-posed only in Aramaic, but remained stable in all the other Semitic languages.
The system of negation in Phoenician is inconsistent with the situation elsewhere in North-West Semitic, especially its closest relative, Biblical Hebrew: the language lacks the negation particle lā, shared by all NWS languages, and uses... more
The system of negation in Phoenician is inconsistent with the situation elsewhere in North-West Semitic, especially its closest relative, Biblical Hebrew: the language lacks the negation particle lā, shared by all NWS languages, and uses the particle bl as the main negation of the prefix and suffix conjugations. In this talk I will discuss the etymology of Phoenician’s main negation particle and will suggest a scenario to explain this innovation. I will further discuss the alleged disappearance of lā and compare the Phoenician system to related NWS languages. I hope to show that Phoenician is in fact not so different from Hebrew as it superficially appears.
In the past two decades, there have been many papers attempting to reconstruct the definite article in Central Semitic; however, all of them dealt with the morphology of the article and almost none of them examined its syntax. This paper... more
In the past two decades, there have been many papers attempting to reconstruct the definite article in Central Semitic; however, all of them dealt with the morphology of the article and almost none of them examined its syntax. This paper looks at what the syntax teaches us about the history of the article. The conclusions are the following:
1. the article’s original function was not to mark ‘definiteness’;
2. the article original position was not on the noun, but rather on the adjective.
1. the article’s original function was not to mark ‘definiteness’;
2. the article original position was not on the noun, but rather on the adjective.
Aramaic has three types of genitive constructions: a synthetic construct, which is inherited from Semitic, a periphrastic genitive, which utilizes the relative particle d- and a proleptic genitive, which in addition to the relative... more
Aramaic has three types of genitive constructions: a synthetic construct, which is inherited from Semitic, a periphrastic genitive, which utilizes the relative particle d- and a proleptic genitive, which in addition to the relative particle also has a proleptic pronoun on the head noun. The origin of the periphrastic genitive in Aramaic was discussed in the literature ad extensu (Kutscher 1971; Garr 1990; Folmer 1995, ch. 4.1; Hopkins 1997 inter alia); there is a general agreement that the periphrastic construct in Aramaic is a calque of the Akkadian ša- construct (Kutscher 1971; Kaufman 1974; Muraoka 1983-84, Muraoka & Porten 1998 inter alia).
In this talk, the evidence for the assumption of Akkadian provenance will be reviewed and will be shown to be misguided. The periphrastic and proleptic patterns will be analyzed in light of Aramaic syntax and the syntax of other Semitic languages, especially Ethiopic, which exhibit similar patterns to Aramaic and Akkadian. It will further be shown that the development of these patterns in Aramaic is a smooth continuation of existing developments in this language. The conclusion of the paper is that it is highly likely that the development of the periphrastic and proleptic genitive in Aramaic is independent of the development in Akkadian; therefore, the existence of periphrasitc and proleptic genitive in both Aramaic and Akkadian should be considered a parallel development.
In this talk, the evidence for the assumption of Akkadian provenance will be reviewed and will be shown to be misguided. The periphrastic and proleptic patterns will be analyzed in light of Aramaic syntax and the syntax of other Semitic languages, especially Ethiopic, which exhibit similar patterns to Aramaic and Akkadian. It will further be shown that the development of these patterns in Aramaic is a smooth continuation of existing developments in this language. The conclusion of the paper is that it is highly likely that the development of the periphrastic and proleptic genitive in Aramaic is independent of the development in Akkadian; therefore, the existence of periphrasitc and proleptic genitive in both Aramaic and Akkadian should be considered a parallel development.
One of the functions of the demonstrative in Syriac is the so-called ‘correlative’, i.e. a demonstrative redundantly standing before a relative clause, despite there being an overt nominal antecedent. The function of the demonstrative was... more
One of the functions of the demonstrative in Syriac is the so-called ‘correlative’, i.e. a demonstrative redundantly standing before a relative clause, despite there being an overt nominal antecedent. The function of the demonstrative was said to 'emphasize' the relative particle (Costaz) or to relate somehow to the preceding head noun (Nöldeke, Goldenberg). Part of the problem assessing the function of the demonstrative is the common assumption that the position of the demonstrative in Syriac is either free or is N-Dem. (Avinery, Muraoka inter al.). This paper will review the problem of nominal word order in Syriac and will argue that the word order of demonstratives in Syriac is a rather stable Dem.-N order. In addition, it will be shown that the 'correlative' is used before attributes of definite nouns and functions as a definite article, but of the attribute, not the head noun. Comparison to Neo-Aramaic will substantiate this analysis.