Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2021 / The Reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic Genitive Ending and a Suggestion on its Origin

The Reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic Genitive Ending and a Suggestion on its Origin

Summary

Suchard revisits the reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic genitive ending on triptotic nouns. The standard view is unbound *-im and bound *-i. Akkadian, however, has a long -ī- before pronominal suffixes, and nobody had explained that length. Drawing on Akkadian, Classical Arabic, Ugaritic and Geʿez, plus internal reconstruction, he argues that the long vowel is inherited. On this view the Akkadian bound form is *-ī, which also explains why it survived word-finally while bound *-u and *-a were lost. The West Semitic short *-i then results from analogy with the nominative and accusative pairs, so Proto-Semitic itself had bound *-ī. An even earlier stage had unbound *-ī-m, shortened the same way as *ʔab-ū-m > *ʔab-um 'father'. This makes the genitive nearly identical to the nisbe adjective suffix. The paper then offers an explicitly speculative scenario: phrases meaning 'royal house' were reanalysed as 'king's house'. The scenario also accounts for a puzzle. Diptotic nouns, which lacked mimation, and duals and plurals, which nisbe forms were never built on, kept only the older nominative–oblique contrast.

Key points

  • The Akkadian genitive -ī- before suffixes counts as long for three reasons: it is often written plene, it scans as heavy in poetry, and it blocks syncope of following light syllables (Hecker 2000). Examples include ab-ī-ka, ṭupp-ī-ka and kalb-ī-ka.
  • Most Proto-Semitic declensions distinguish only nominative and oblique:
    • triptotic: -um/-im/*-am
    • diptotic: -u/-a
    • dual: -āna/-ayna
    • 'masculine' plural: -ū(-na)/-ī(-na)
    • 'feminine' plural: -ātum/-ātim
  • Old Akkadian bound forms contrast genitive -i with an endingless nominative–accusative (naḥas-i vs naḥas). Old Babylonian generalized one of these per noun: -i in libb-i, zero in kalab.
  • The proposed rule is that long vowels shortened in closed word-final syllables. This turns *-ī-m into *-im, parallel to kinship nouns like *ʔab-um.
  • The nisbe suffix -īy-/-iy- is explained as *-ī plus a hiatus-breaking glide. The triptotic inflection that Classical Arabic diptotes take after al- may come from the analogically spread bound *-i.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. An unexplained irregularity, here the Akkadian vowel length, is treated as a retained older state and not as noise, and the rest of the system is rebuilt around it. — For Mova (learn): when a construction is repeatedly mis-parsed or "repaired", log it as a candidate genuine pattern before self-induced repair rules flatten it, and keep a negative control to test both readings.
  • I2. An adjective derived from a noun ("royal house") and a possessive ("king's house") can share one meaning but have different structure, and one can be reanalysed into the other. — For Mova (frames): map denominal adjectives like "royal", "presidential" or "Ukrainian" (amod) and possessors (nmod:poss) onto the same relation frame, so the world model stores one owner/origin link for either phrasing.
  • I3. Gaps in a paradigm are explained by the input conditions of the process that created the form (no mimation, or no inflected base), not by listing them as exceptions. — For Mova (tokens): model English case syncretism and irregular paradigms ("you", "her", plural possessives) as conditioned outputs in the morphology crate, so each lemma decision carries an explainable reason.
  • I4. A regular relationship between bound and unbound forms ("bound = unbound minus mimation") serves as a test that a reconstruction must pass. — For Mova (learn): check induced lexicon paradigms against expected systematic relations (e.g. base vs -s vs -'s forms) and flag lemmas that break the pattern for review.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics: Akkadian and cuneiform NLP

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI https://doi.org/10.23993/store.98387

@inproceedings{suchard2021reconstruction,
  title = {{The Reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic Genitive Ending and a Suggestion on its Origin}},
  author = {Suchard, Benjamin},
  booktitle = {Studia Orientalia Electronica 9},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.23993/store.98387},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.23993/store.98387}
}

References

56 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. A l -J allad , Ahmad & Marijn van P utten 2017. The Case for Proto-Semitic and Proto-Arabic Case: A Reply to Jonathan Owens. Romano-Arabica 17: 87–117. find
  2. B arth , Jakob 1913. Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Hinrichs. find
  3. B auer , Hans & Pontus L eander 1927. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer. find
  4. B eekes , Robert S.P. 2011. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  5. B irkeland , Harris 1940. Altarabische Pausalformen. (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse 4) Oslo: Dybwad. find
  6. B lau , Joshua 2006. Topics in Hebrew Grammar [Hebrew]. Lĕšonénu 68: 183–200. find
  7. B rockelmann , Carl 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, I: Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. find
  8. CAD = G elb , Ignace J. et al. (eds) 1956–2010. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago. find
  9. C ohen , Eran 2019. Semitic Genitive Constructions: An Expanded View. Journal of Semitic Studies 44(1): 1–50. find
  10. D iakonoff , Igor M. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Translated from the Russian by A.A. Korolev and V.Ya. Porkhomovsky. (Languages of Asia and Africa) Moscow: Nauka. find
  11. D irbas , Hekmat 2019. Animal Names in Semitic Name-giving. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 464) Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 33 Forms like Biblical Hebrew pnīm-ī ‘inner’, derived from the plurale tantum noun pān-īm ‘face’, are clearly exceptional. find
  12. E dzard , Lutz, Manuel S artori & Philippe C assuto (eds) 2018. Case and Mood Endings in Semitic Languages – Myth or Reality?/Désinences casuelles et modales dans les langues sémitiques – mythe ou réalité? (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 113) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. find
  13. F ischer , Wolfdietrich 1972. Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch. (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 11) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. find
  14. F ischer , Wolfdietrich & Otto J astrow (eds) 1980. Handbuch der Arabischen Dialekte. (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 16) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. find
  15. F riedrich , Johannes & Wolfgang R öllig 1999. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. 3rd edn. (Analecta Orientalia 55) Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. find
  16. G elb , Ignazio 1930. La mimazione e la nunazione nelle lingue semitiche. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 12: 217–265. find
  17. G zella , Holger 2015. A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam. (Handbook of Oriental Studies/Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section 1. The Near and Middle East 111) Leiden: Brill. find
  18. H aelewyck , Jean-Claude 2006. Grammaire comparée des langues sémitiques: éléments de phonétique, de morphologie et de syntaxe. Brussels: Safran. find
  19. H asselbach , Rebecca 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. find
  20. H asselbach , Rebecca 2007. External Plural Markers in Semitic: A New Assessment. In: C.L. M iller (ed.), Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 60): 123–138. Chicago: University of Chicago. find
  21. H asselbach , Rebecca 2013. Case in Semitic: Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 3) Oxford: OUP. find
  22. H ecker , Karl 2000. i oder ī im Status constructus? Altorientalische Forschungen 27(2): 260–268. find
  23. H ock , Hans Heinrich 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  24. H uehnergard , John 2004. Afro-Asiatic. In: R.D. W oodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages: 225–246. Cambridge: CUP. find
  25. H uehnergard , John 2006. Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. In: G. D eutscher & N.J.C. K ouwenberg (eds), The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: 1–23. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. find
  26. H uehnergard , John 2008. Afro-Asiatic. In: R.D. W oodard (ed.), The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia: 225–246. Reprint of Huehnergard (2004). Cambridge: CUP. find
  27. H uehnergard , John 2010. Introduction to the Comparative Study of the Semitic Languages. Unpublished manuscript. find
  28. H uehnergard , John 2011. A Grammar of Akkadian. 3rd edn. Winona Lake, MI: Eisenbrauns. find
  29. H uehnergard , John 2019. Proto-Semitic. In: J. H uehnergard & N. P at -E l (eds), The Semitic Languages. 2nd edn. (Routledge Language Family Series): 49–79. London: Routledge. find
  30. J astrow , Marcus 1950. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, I–II. NY: Pardes. find
  31. J oüon , Paul & Takamitsu M uraoka 2009. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd edn., 2nd reprint. (Subsidia Biblica 27) Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press. find
  32. K ienast , Burkhart 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. find
  33. K ogan , Leonid 2015. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Boston: De Gruyter. find
  34. K ouwenberg , N.J.C. 2017. A Grammar of Old Assyrian. (Handbook of Oriental Studies/Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section 1. The Near and Middle East 118) Leiden: Brill. find
  35. K uryłowicz , Jerzy 1951. Le Diptotisme et la construction des noms de nombre en arabe. WORD 7(3): 222–226. find
  36. L ipiński , Edward 2001. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd edn. Leuven: Peeters. find
  37. M oscati , Sabatino (ed.) 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 6) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. find
  38. N orde , Muriel 2011. Degrammaticalization. In: B. H eine & H. N arrog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. doi : 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.003, accessed online on 15 July 2020. ↗
  39. O siander , Ernst 1866. Zur himjarischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde. Published posthumously by M.A. Levy. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 20: 205–287. find
  40. P hilippi , Friedrich W.M. 1871. Wesen und Ursprung des Status Constructus im Hebräischen: Ein Beitrag zur Nominalflexion im Semitischen überhaupt. Weimar: Boehlau. van P utten , Marijn 2017a. The Development of the Triphthongs in Quranic and Classical Arabic. Arabian Epigraphic Notes 3: 47–74. van P utten , Marijn 2017b. The Feminine Ending -at as a Diptote in the Qurʾānic Consonantal Text and Its Implications for Proto-Arabic and Proto-Semitic. Arabica 64: 695–705. find
  41. R ubin , Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake, MI: Eisenbrauns. find
  42. S chneider , Roey 2020. Case Syncretism in Semitic: The Case of Arabic Plurals. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University. find
  43. S oden , Wolfram 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edn. (Analecta Orientalia 33) Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. von S ommerfeld , Walter 1987. Untersuchungen zum Altakkadischen. Habilitationsschrift, University of Münster. find
  44. S tempel , Reinhard 1999. Abriß einer historischen Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. find
  45. S uchard , Benjamin D. 2017. A Triconsonantal Derivation of the lamed-he Paradigm. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 22: 205–221. find
  46. S uchard , Benjamin D. 2019a. Sound Changes in the (Pre-)Masoretic Reading Tradition and the Original Pronunciation of Biblical Aramaic. Studia Orientalia Electronica 7: 52–65. find our card
  47. S uchard , Benjamin D. 2019b. The Development of the Biblical Hebrew Vowels: Including a Concise Historical Morphology. (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 99) Leiden: Brill. find
  48. S uchard , Benjamin D. 2020. Review of Edzard et al. (2018). Journal of Semitic Studies 65(2): 641–645. find
  49. S uchard , Benjamin D. & Jorik (F.J.) G roen 2021. (Northwest) Semitic Sg. *CVCC-, Pl. *CVCaC-ū-: Broken Plural or Regular Reflex? Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 84(1): 1–17. find
  50. T agliavini , Carlo 1929. Alcune osservazioni sul primitive valore della mimazione e nunazione nelle lingue s emitiche. In: Donum Natalicium Schrijnen: 240–260. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt. find
  51. T esten , David 1985. The Significance of Aramaic r < *n. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44(2): 143–146. find
  52. T ropper , Josef 2002. Altäthiopisch. Grammatik des Ge’ez mit Übungstexten und Glossar. (Elementa Linguarum Orientis 2) Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. find
  53. T ropper , Josef 2012. Ugaritische Grammatik. 2nd edn. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273) Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. find
  54. V oigt , Rainer M. 2001. Semitische Verwandschaftstermini. In: A. Z aborski (ed.), New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron in memoriam: 205–218. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. find
  55. W eninger , Stefan 2011. Reconstructive Morphology. In: S. W eninger (ed.), The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36): 151–178. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. find
  56. W ilson -W right , Aren 2016. Father, Brother, and Father-in-law as III-w Nouns in Semitic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 79(1): 23–32. find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/suchard-2021-reconstruction-proto-semitic-genitive-ending/