2019 Proto-Semitic PDF
2019 Proto-Semitic PDF
2019 Proto-Semitic PDF
LANGUAGES
Second Edition
List of maps ix
List of figures x
List of contributors xi
Preface xiii
List of glossing and other abbreviations xv
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS
1 Introduction to the Semitic languages and their history
John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El 1
2 Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Gene Gragg 22
3 Proto-Semitic John Huehnergard 49
4 The Semitic language family: a typological perspective Na‘ama Pat-El 80
LANGUAGE CHAPTERS
5 Akkadian Rebecca Hasselbach-Andee 95
6 Gǝʕǝz (Classical Ethiopic) Aaron Michael Butts 117
7 Tigre of Gindaʕ David L. Elias 145
8 Tigrinya Maria Bulakh 174
9 Amharic Lutz Edzard 202
10 Gurage (Muher) Ronny Meyer 227
11 Mehri Aaron D. Rubin 257
12 Soqotri Leonid Kogan and Maria Bulakh 280
13 Ancient South Arabian Anne Multhoff 321
14 Safaitic Ahmad Al-Jallad 342
15 Classical Arabic Daniel Birnstiel 367
16 Levantine Arabic Kristen Brustad and Emilie Zuniga 403
17 Egyptian Arabic Thomas Leddy-Cecere and Jason Schroepfer 433
18 Moroccan Arabic Mike Turner 458
viii CONTENTS
John Huehnergard
1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents, in cursory form, a reconstruction of Proto-Semitic (PS) phonology,
morphology and syntax. As is well known, linguistic reconstruction is often necessarily
speculative, and also something of an art form; and so, while the research of many schol-
ars is taken into account in what follows, this summary must in the end be subjective and
represent my own opinions, although I hope it portrays a consistent and coherent view of
the ancestor of the Semitic languages. A guiding principle has been that a reconstructed
PS form must normally be based on evidence from both East and West Semitic.
Proto-Semitic undoubtedly comprised dialects, like all languages, but such distinctions
and their distribution are usually not recoverable, and so our reconstruction here is more
monolithic than the language actually was. For the internal subgrouping of the Semitic
language family and a survey of the individual Semitic languages, see Chapter 1, §2.
As noted in §1 of Chapter 1, since there is evidence for the split between East and West
Semitic already in the first half of the third millennium, Proto-Semitic dates to no later
than the late fourth millennium.
note: Throughout this chapter, a final hyphen on a form, as in *bajt- ‘house’, denotes
a noun base without a case ending (for which see §3.3.2.4).
1.1 Writing
As a reconstructed linguistic entity, of course, PS is unwritten. A brief overview of
Semitic writing systems appears in Chapter 1, §3.
2 PHONOLOGY
2.1 Consonants
Proto-Semitic is traditionally reconstructed with 29 consonants, all of which are preserved
in the inscriptional Ancient South Arabian languages such as Sabaic (see Chapter 13).
There is good evidence, however, for a 30th consonant, a glottalic velar (or uvular) fric-
ative, *x’ (or *χ’), which merged with *x in East Semitic and with *ħ in West Semitic
(Huehnergard 2003). As can be seen in Table 3.1, many of the consonants occur in triads
of a voiceless, a voiced and a third member. The reflexes of the third members of the
triads are pharyngealized or uvularized in Arabic (and the reflex of *k’ is the uvular q),
but they are glottalic/ejective in the Ethiopian Semitic languages (see Chapters 6–10) and
in Modern South Arabian languages such as Mehri (Chapter 11); there is also evidence
that their reflexes were glottalic in some of the ancient languages, such as Akkadian and
50 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
Plosive p (p) b (b) t (t) d (d) t’ (ṭ) k (k) g (g) k’ (ḳ/q) ʔ (’, ˀ)
Nasal m (m) n (n)
Trill r (r)
Fricative θ (t) ð (d) θ’ (θ̣/ẓ) s (š) x/χ (ḫ) ɣ/ʁ (ġ/ǵ) ħ (ḥ) ʕ (‘,ˤ) h (h)
x’/χ’ (x̣)
Affricate2 ʦ (s) ʣ (z) ʦ’ (ṣ)
Lateral ɬ (ś) l (l) (t)ɬ’ (ś ̣/ð̣)
Approximant w (w) j (y)
Hebrew (Cantineau 1951–52, Faber 1980, Steiner 1982, Kogan 2011a), and so it is likely
that they were glottalic in the proto-language as well, and underwent pharyngealization
in the history of Arabic (Zemánek 1996).
The PS triad of fricative laterals – *ɬ, *l and *(t)ɬ’ – is now well established (Steiner 1977;
see also Voigt 1992). The PS consonants reconstructed as affricates are simple fricatives in
most of the descendant languages, but, again, their affricated nature in the proto-language is
suggested by features of Akkadian and Hebrew phonology (Steiner 1982; Faber 1985). The
voiceless non-glottalic plosives were probably aspirated when syllable-initial. The fricative
*s may have had a palatalized allophone in some environments, since its reflex is a palatal
[ʃ] in several of the languages (Babylonian Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Jibbāli), rather
than [s] as in Assyrian Akkadian, Arabic and Ethiopian Semitic.3
The reflexes of the PS consonants in a representative sample of Semitic languages
appear in Table 3.2.
All of the consonants could be geminated. This is also the case in some of the descen-
dant languages, although in some, such as early Aramaic and Hebrew, the laryngeals and
pharyngeals may not be geminated.
There is marked tendency for the consonants of Semitic verbal roots (§3.2) to remain
phonologically consistent. Thus, conditioned sound changes that would affect only some
forms of a root are often blocked by paradigmatic pressure, so that the root continues to
exhibit the same consonant phonemes in all forms. Less frequent, but also well attested,
is the opposite development, where a conditioned sound change spreads analogically
to other forms of a root in which the conditioning factor is not operative (Huehnergard
2013). The following phonological processes involving the consonants may be observed
in Proto-Semitic:
same, [japk’ur]; reanalysis and the tendency for root integrity, noted above, yielded
byforms, one with initial *b and one with initial *p, of both original roots, reflexes
of which appear throughout the descendant languages (Huehnergard 2014b).4
After East Semitic broke away from the parent language, most of the remaining fam-
ily underwent a change of prevocalic *s > *h in forms such as the 3rd-person
pronouns, as in independent *siʔa > *hiʔa ‘she’ and suffixal *-su > *-hu ‘his’ (see
§3.1.1); the adverbial ending *-isa, as in *bajt-isa > *bajt-iha (house-dir) ‘to the
house’ (§3.3.2.4, end); and the causative marker *s, as in *tu-sa-ʕlij > *tu-ha-ʕlij
(2-caus-ascend.pcs) ‘you sent up’ (§3.5.5). This may be viewed as an incipient
change affecting high-frequency, low-stress function words (and the close gram-
matical relatives of such words), which are known to undergo sound changes
before other word classes do (Phillips 1983);5 but further spread of the change was
52 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
blocked in most verbal and nominal roots, again because of the pressure, noted
earlier, for roots to remain consistent across paradigms.6
Assimilation of n to a following consonant is a regular feature of several of the lan-
guages, such as Akkadian, Ugaritic and Hebrew, and is also attested in later Sabaic
and in the earliest Gəʕez inscriptions (but not in later Ethiopian Semitic); it may
therefore have been an ancient dialectal feature or an areal phenomenon (Sanmartín
1995, Steiner 2012: 380–1).
In Proto-Northwest Semitic, initial *w > *j: *warix- > *jarix- ‘month’; *waθab-ti >
*jaθab-ti ‘you sat’ (sit.sc-2fsg).
2.2 Vowels
For PS a reconstruction of three short vowels, *a, *i, *u, and three corresponding long
vowels, *aː, *iː, *uː, is uncontroversial. This system is preserved unchanged in Classical
Arabic. In most of the other languages, various developments have obscured the original
system to a greater or lesser extent. In Gəʕəz, for example, the two short high vowels merged
to a central ǝ (IPA [ɨ]), as in bǝrk ‘knee’ < *birk-, ʔǝzn ‘ear’ < *ʔuðn-. In many dialects
of Akkadian, a fourth vowel quality, short e and long eː, achieved phonemic status, as in
Old Babylonian egrum ‘twisted’ < *ħagrum vs. igrum ‘hire’ < *ʔigrum vs. agrum ‘hired’
< *ʔagirum. In Hebrew, the short vowels were sometimes preserved, sometimes reduced,
sometimes lowered or backed, depending on syllable structure and word stress. In most
of the languages, the long vowels remained largely unchanged, although a diagnostic
feature of Canaanite languages is the change of *aː to *oː.
There are no diphthongs in the usual sense of a sequence of two vowels (see the next
section on syllable structure), but the sequences *aj and *aw are often referred to as diph-
thongs in Semitic studies, and often undergo simplification to long vowels (e.g., [eː] and
[oː], respectively) in the descendant languages. The sequences *ij and *uw are generally
equivalent phonetically to *iː and *uː, respectively, in the descendant languages and pre-
sumably so also in PS (thus, e.g., the Hebrew form rūm ‘height’ < *ruːm- ~ *ruwm- has
the same historical pattern, C1uC2C3, as ʕōmɛq ‘depth’ < *ʕumk’-). The sequences *iw and
*uj were unstable, also tending to become *iː and *uː, respectively (e.g., *t’uːb- ‘good-
ness’ < *t’ujb-), unless preserved by paradigmatic pressure.
The sequences VwV and VjV were sometimes unstable, tending to reduce to a single
vowel. The following developments, for example, may be posited already for PS: ˈawa,
ˈaja > aː/_CV, but aˈwa > u and aˈja > i/_CC, as in *ˈt’ajab-uː > *ˈt’aːb-uː (good-3mpl)
‘they (m) are good’ but *t’aˈjab-ta > *ˈt’ib-ta (good-2msg) ‘you (msg) are good’ (Hueh-
nergard 2005: 176–8). It is likely that CwV1 and CjV1 > CV1ː in PS (unless preserved
by paradigmatic pressure), as in *ja-kwun-uː > *ja-kuːn-uː (3-stable.pcs-mpl) ‘they (m)
became stable’, *ja-ɬjim-uː > *ja-ɬiːm-uː (3-set.pcs-mpl) ‘they (m) set’.
‘he set’, with short i. The restrictions on syllable types are overridden in various ways
in most of the descendant languages, although Classical Arabic, for example, preserves
the original syllable structure to a large extent (exceptions being long vowels before
geminated consonants, as in the participial form maːd.dun ‘extending.msg.nom’ < *maː.
di.dun).
Classical Arabic and Akkadian exhibit essentially the same assignment of word stress,
which may therefore also be posited for PS, and is non-phonemic: stress falls on the
right-most long syllable other than the final syllable: *ˈwaː.θi.bum ‘sitting.msg.nom’,
*waː.ˈθib.tum ‘sitting.fsg.nom’, *waː.θi.ˈbaː.tum ‘sitting.fpl.nom’. Words with no long
syllables are stressed on the first syllable: *ˈʕa.pa.rum ‘dust.nom’.7 Bound form nominals
(“construct forms”; §3.3.2.3) were morphosyntactically proclitic to their dependents and
thus unstressed; a PS rule of vowel syncope probably affected such unstressed forms,
e.g., nonbound *ˈwa.ri.xum vs. bound *war.xu ‘month.nom’, though the effects of this
rule are frequently diminished by analogical leveling (Steiner 2012). There is probably
also a narrower PS rule of vowel syncope, a > /aC1 _ C1V, as in *k’alalum > *k’allum
‘small.nom’.
3 MORPHOLOGY
3.1 Pronouns
3.1.1 Personal pronouns
In the Proto-Semitic personal pronouns, as in most of the early descendant languages,
the 2nd and 3rd persons have singular, dual and plural forms (Table 3.3); the singular
and plural have distinct masculine and feminine forms, while the dual forms are common
gender. 1st person forms are common gender (glossed as 1c); a 1st person dual occurs
in a few of the descendant languages (Ugaritic, Modern South Arabian) but cannot be
reconstructed to PS.
For 1csg, most of the descendant languages have only one of the forms shown in Table
3.3 (*ʔana in Gəʕəz, Arabic, Aramaic and others; *ʔanaːku in Akkadian, Phoenician, and
others), but Ugaritic and ancient Hebrew attest both. The apparent base *ʔan- in 1csg and
the 2nd person forms is of uncertain origin and meaning. The endings of most of these
forms (2msg *-ta, 1pl *-nu, etc.) also appear on the base of verbal adjectives in a predica-
tive construction, for which see §3.5.4.
The dual forms are obviously derived from the mpl forms, with the addition of endings
that are also found on dual nominals (nom *-aː, gen/acc *-aj) and dual verbs (marked
with *-aː).
In the 2/3pl forms, the optional endings *-uː/-aː derive from predicative 3rd person
endings (see §3.5.4). In Central Semitic languages, the 2/3fpl forms alternatively have
*-na instead of *-aː (i.e., *ʔantin(na) and *sin(na)), where *-na is borrowed from the
2/3fpl ending of the PS prefix conjugation verbs (§3.5.3).
The forms in Table 3.3 are nominative; they function as the subjects of verbless clauses,
and to topicalize or contrast the subjects of verbal clauses. For the 3rd person, there is
also a set of gen/acc (or obl) forms, characterized by an enclitic *-tiː (Table 3.4). The 3rd
person forms probably originated as demonstratives (see §3.1.2).
Closely related to the independent personal pronouns is a set of enclitic pronouns that
functioned as genitive when suffixed to nouns and prepositions and as accusative when
suffixed to verbs (Table 3.5). Distinct genitive and accusative forms existed for the 1st
person but not for the 2nd and 3rd.
3.1.2 Demonstratives
A base *ʔvl- forms a remote demonstrative in Akkadian, but the plural of a proximal
demonstrative throughout West Semitic; the former probably reflects the PS situation.
The proximal demonstrative in Akkadian has a base *hanni-, which is derived from a
presentative particle *han (see §3.10); this was replaced in West Semitic by a demon-
strative derived from the relative marker *θvː (see the following section). Throughout
Semitic (apart from Arabic), the 3rd person pronouns, both nom and gen/acc, also serve
as anaphoric-distal demonstratives, which was probably their original function:
Thus, PS probably exhibits a three-way contrast in deixis (Huehnergard and Pat-El 2018).
PROTO-SEMITIC 55
mSg fSg
mPl fPl
The vast majority of verbs in PS are based on roots of three consonants, like *s-l-m.
Internal reconstruction on the basis of PS forms, however, indicates that roots of two con-
sonants occurred at an earlier stage. For example, some forms of certain roots with first
radical w, such as *w-r-d ‘to descend’, lack the initial w, as in *ja-rid (3-descend.pcs) ‘he
descended’ and the verbal noun *rid-at- (descend.inf-f) ‘descent’.10 Further, some roots
exist as byforms, with the third radical either a glide or a reduplication of the second
radical, as in *r-b-j ~ *r-b-b ‘(to be) great’. Finally, some of the languages exhibit roots
with two radicals reduplicated, as in Arabic z-l-z-l ‘to shake’. (Biradical roots are more
common in other Afro-Asiatic languages.)
A few roots with four discrete radicals occur in most of the descendant languages, such
as Akkadian b-l-k-t ‘to jump’, Gǝʕəz d-n-g-ś ̣ ‘to be dismayed’; as in these examples, the
second radical is frequently a sonorant. Most such roots are restricted to a single language
or subgroup, and so it is difficult to reconstruct any of them to the proto-language.
There are certain phonological constraints on the constituents of a root: while roots
with identical second and third radicals are common, such as *m-d-d ‘to measure’, roots
with identical first and second radicals cannot be reconstructed to the proto-language
(rare examples are found in some languages, but they are the result of later developments;
e.g., Gəʕəz s-s-l ‘to recede’ < *s-l-s-l), and roots with identical first and third radicals
are rare.11 Further, homorganic consonants are generally not found as adjacent radicals
(Greenberg 1950).
3.3 Nominals
Across Semitic, most adjectives, like *salim-at-um, are associated with verbal roots.
Many substantives, too, like *salaːm-um, may be said to derive from verbal roots. The
patterns of such adjectives and substantives are sometimes salient. C1aC2VC3, for exam-
ple, as in *salim-, is a common verbal adjective that tends to be resultative: *naθ’ir-
‘guarded’ from *n-θ’-r ‘to guard’; *waθib- ‘seated’ from *w-θ-b ‘to sit’. The pattern
C1aC2a:C3, as in *salaːm-, is a common verbal substantive, used as an infinitive in several
of the descendant languages. A listing of some of the reconstructible patterns is presented
in §3.3.1. In the descendant languages, the semantic ranges of many patterns shifted, and
some patterns were replaced by others, or merged; it is therefore often not possible to
reconstruct whole deverbal noun forms to the proto-language with certainty, but rather
only roots and patterns (Fox 2003: 68).
PROTO-SEMITIC 57
There are also, however, many substantives that are primary, not associated with a ver-
bal root (although a root may be extracted from such substantives, to create a denominal
verb), and not necessarily triradical. Unlike many deverbal nouns, primary nouns can be
reconstructed to the proto-language in toto. Examples are parts of the body, such as *raʔs-
‘head’, *ʕajn- ‘eye’, *ʔanp- ‘nose’, *jad- ‘hand’; kinship terms, such as *ʔabw- ‘father’,
*ʔimm- ‘mother’, *bin- ‘son’, *ʔaxw- ‘brother’;12 features of the physical world, such
as *ʔarɬ’- ‘earth’, *ʔabn- ‘stone’, *nahar- ‘river’, *tihaːm- ‘sea’, *ʕiɬ’- ‘tree’, *daθʔ-
‘grass’, *jawm- ‘day’, *warix- ‘month’, *san-at- ‘year-fsg’; some color terms, such as
*laban- ‘white’, *waruk’- ‘yellow-green’. Extensive lists are provided in Fox (1998) and
Kogan (2011b).
C1VC2C3 forms tend to be substantives. C1aC2C3 forms are extremely common, and
not generally classifiable semantically (and many C1aC2C3 forms are primary sub-
stantives), e.g., *k’abr- ‘burial, grave’ from *k’-b-r ‘to bury’. C1iC2C3 and C1uC2C3
forms are often substantives of action or result: *ðibħ- ‘sacrifice’ from *ð-b-ħ ‘to
sacrifice’; *ʔurk- ‘length’ from *ʔ-r-k ‘(to be) long’.
C1aC2VC3, with a short second vowel, is a productive verbal adjective, as noted above;
besides *salim- ‘whole’, other examples are *jasar- ‘straight’ from *j-s-r ‘(to
be) straight’; *maliʔ- ‘full’ from *m-l-ʔ ‘to fill’; *k’arub- ‘near’ from *k’-r-b ‘to
approach; (to be) near’ (see also §3.5.4). Other C1aC2VC3 forms are substantives,
such as Gəʕəz nägär < *nagar- ‘speech’.
C1aC2V:C3. The pattern C1aC2a:C3, as also noted previously, is a common verbal noun
or infinitive in languages that are separated widely enough within the family that
it can be reconstructed to PS. C1aC2i:C3 and C1aC2u:C3 forms are relatively rare
in Akkadian; in West Semitic languages, however, they are common as verbal
adjectives, forming the paradigmatic passive participle of the basic verb stem, for
example, in Aramaic (C1aC2i:C3), in Hebrew (C1aC2ūC3) and in Gəʕəz (C1ǝC2uC3
< *C1uC2uːC3 < *C1aC2uːC3).
C1iC2a(ː)C3 and C1uC2a(ː)C3 are uncommon patterns for substantives, such as Gəʕəz
ʕǝbäy < *ʕibay- ‘greatness’ and Hebrew nēkå̄r < *nikar- ‘foreignness’; *riħaːb-
‘wide area’ from *r-ħ-b ‘(to be) wide’ is Proto-West Semitic, and *ʔunaːs- ‘person’
is Proto-Central Semitic (and may be a primary noun).
Patterns with two high vowels are not reconstructible, with the exception of two u
vowels, i.e., C1uC2(C2)u(ː)C3. C1uC2u(ː)C3 forms are substantival, e.g., *lubuːs-
‘clothing’ from *l-b-s ‘to wear’; C1uC2u(ː)C3 is also a common pattern for plurals
in Arabic (§3.3.2.2).
C1aːC2iC3, the active participle of the basic verb stem in PS (§3.5.4), is the only pattern
reconstructible with a long vowel in the first syllable.
Patterns with gemination of the second radical are common. In Akkadian, e.g.,
C1aC2C2aC3 adjectives are marked for plurality or high salience, such as kabbar-
‘thick’ (cf. kabar- ‘thick’; Kouwenberg 1997: 49–58). But C1aC2C2a(ː)C3 also forms
58 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
agent nouns throughout Semitic, such as *dajja(ː)n- ‘judge’ from *d-j-n ‘to judge’
and *t’abba(ː)x- ‘butcher’ from t’-b-x ‘to slaughter’. C1uC2C2uC3 forms are often
adjectival, as in Akkadian gubbuḫ- ‘bald’ and Hebrew šikkōr < *sukkur- ‘drunk’.
Patterns with a geminated third radical may also be reconstructed, viz., C1aC2VC3C3
(V = short a, i, or u), C1uC2uC3C3 and perhaps C1iC2aC3C3. In Hebrew, C1aC2uC3C3 is
common for color adjectives, such as ʔå̄dōm < *ʔadumm- ‘red’, while in Akkadian it
is used for numinous qualities, as in rašubb- ‘awe-inspiring’; these are associated with
a derived stem of the verb that also geminates the third radical (R stem; see §3.5.5).
C1uC2uC3C3 is more often substantival, especially for abstracts: Akkadian ḫubull-
‘debt’, Hebrew ḥănukkå̄ < *ħunukk-at- ‘dedication-fsg’, Arabic ɟubull ‘company’.
There are also patterns with prefixes, the most common of which is *ma-.
*maC1C2VC3 forms are generally substantives, with a wide range of meanings;
examples are *majsar- ‘equity’ from *j-s-r ‘(to be) straight’; *maʕrab- ‘entry’ from
*ʕ-r-b ‘to enter’. The prefix *mu- marks the participles of most of the derived verb
stems (see §3.5.5). Other pattern prefixes are *ta-, as in *tarbij-t- ‘increase-fsg’
from *r-b-j ‘to be(come) large’; and *ʔa-, which is common in plural forms (see
§3.3.2.2) and also, in Central Semitic, as a comparative or augmentative, as in
Arabic ʔakbar- ‘greater, very great’ from *k-b-r ‘(to be) great’.
3.3.2.2 Number
Semitic languages exhibit three numbers, singular, dual and plural.
In some languages, such as Old Akkadian, Ugaritic and various forms of Arabic, the
dual is productive and used for ‘two’ of anything, with little or no restriction; in other
PROTO-SEMITIC 59
Neither definite nor indefinite articles can be reconstructed for PS. But 3rd person
pronouns, which were anaphoric demonstratives originally (§3.1.2), could function to
60 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
Note: Final -m and -na mark nonbound forms; they are absent in bound (“construct”) forms.
PROTO-SEMITIC 61
Two other endings can be reconstructed to PS, a locative *-u(m) and a directional *-isa
(the latter > *-ah(a) in West Semitic), as in *bajt-u(m) ‘in the house’ and *bajt-isa ‘to
the house’. These endings are sometimes also considered case markers, but they do not
really function as such and are better seen as adverbial endings (Hasselbach 2013: 20–2).
3.4 Numerals
3.4.1 Cardinals
The reconstruction of the PS cardinal numbers is fairly clear-cut, although analogical
changes in the descendant languages have made the precise forms of some of them less
certain.
1 *ʕast- 6 *sidθ-
2 *θin(aː)- 7 *sabʕ-
3 *θalaːθ- 8 *θamaːnij-
4 *ʔarbaʕ- 9 *tisʕ-
5 *xamis- 10 *ʕaɬar-
For *ʕast- as the PS form of ‘one’, see Wilson-Wright (2014), who shows that the usual
West Semitic form for ‘one’, *waħad-/ʔaħad-, originally meant ‘lone’ (as in Akkadian).
The f of ‘one’ is *ʕast-aj; the f form of the other cardinals adds *-at to the forms listed
previously. A feature of Proto-Semitic numeral syntax is gender polarity (also termed
“chiastic concord”): the cardinals from ‘3’ to ‘10’ exhibit the gender opposite that of their
heads:
‘Twenty’ is the dual of ‘10’; ‘30’ through ‘90’ are either duals of the corresponding
units (Akkadian, Gəʕəz) or external plurals of the units (Central Semitic).
3.4.2 Ordinals
While each Semitic language exhibits a consistent pattern for the ordinals, the patterns
vary from language to language, and so a PS pattern cannot be reconstructed (e.g.,
CaCiC in Assyrian Akkadian but CaCuC in Babylonian Akkadian; *CaːCiC in Arabic
and Gəʕəz; *CaCiːCiː in Hebrew).
3.5 Verbs
3.5.1 Root
See §3.2 on nominal and verbal roots. In §§3.5.2–3.5.4, forms of the basic stem of the verb
are illustrated by what Semitists call “sound triradical roots,” i.e., roots with three conso-
nants that are not (generally) subject to phonological change, such as *ð-k-r ‘to invoke’.
Then §3.5.5 reviews the other (derived) verb stems, and §3.5.6 surveys “weak” roots.
62 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
pcs (short prefix conjugation) has the base C1C2V1C3; it is unmarked for TAM
categories.
pcl (long prefix conjugation) has a base with a geminated middle radical, C1aC2C2V2C3;
it is marked for imperfectivity or non-anteriority; this form is lost in Central
Semitic, replaced by a new form, originally the pcs with a set of endings indicating
subordination (see §4.8).
The vowel before C3 in these forms, called the theme vowel, is lexical. For any given verb
the same vowel appears in the imperative and the pcs; for some verbs the same vowel also
appears in the pcl, but for most verbs, the theme vowel of the pcl differs from that of the
imperative and pcs. Five pairs of theme vowels, or vowel classes, may be reconstructed
for PS (Aro 1964). These five vowel classes are listed immediately below, with the vowel
of the pcl base listed first, as is traditional;16 examples are 3msg, with prefix *ji- or *ja-
(for which see §3.5.3):
a ~ u: a large class of mostly transitive verbs; e.g., *jiðakkar ~ *jaðkur ‘to invoke’;
a ~ i: a smaller class, also often transitive; e.g., *jisarrak’ ~ *jasrik’ ‘to steal’;
a ~ a: a small class of transitive verbs; e.g., *jilammad ~ *jilmad ‘to learn’; in some
of the languages, many verbs with “guttural” consonants (glottals, pharynge-
als, and fricative velars/uvulars) as second or third radicals also join this class,
e.g., *jipattaħ ~ *jiptaħ ‘to open’;
i ~ a: a large class, frequently intransitive and/or stative; e.g., *jisallim ~ *jislam ‘to
be(come) whole’;
u ~ u: a smaller class, also frequently intransitive and/or stative; e.g., *jisaxxun ~
*jasxun ‘to be(come) warm’.
Both the short and the long prefix conjugations signify a variety of tenses and both
indicative and injunctive moods. The pcl form may denote any tense, and nuances such
as habitual, durative, conditional, potential, and more. The pcs form may denote, inter
alia, indicative past (e.g., ‘he invoked’) or jussive (‘let him invoke’); the latter sense can
be marked explicitly with the proclitic asseverative particle *la= (i.e., *la=yaðkur; see
§3.10).
3.5.3 Inflection
Table 3.8 presents the probable PS forms of the short prefix conjugation (pcs) of the a ~
u verb *ð-k-r ‘to invoke’.
Verbs with theme vowel i in the pcs have the same prefixes, as in *ʔasrik’, *tasrik’,
*jasrik’, etc., from *s-r-k’ ‘to steal’. Verbs with theme vowel a in the pcs, however, have
i in the personal prefix, as in *ʔislam, *tislam, *jislam, etc., from *s-l-m ‘to be(come)
whole’.17 The long prefix conjugation has the same markers of person, but the vowel
PROTO-SEMITIC 63
TABLE 3.8 CONJUGATION OF THE SHORT PREFIX CONJUGATION (pcs) IN PS; *Ð-K-R
‘TO INVOKE’
1c *ʔaðkur *naðkur
2m *taðkur *taðkuruː
2f *taðkuriː *taðkurna
2c *taðkuraː
3m *jaðkur *jaðkuruː
3f *taðkur *jaðkurna19
3c *jaðkuraː
2m *ðukur *ðukuruː
2c *ðukuraː
2f *ðukuriː *ðukurna
As also noted in §3.3.1, an active participle with the pattern *CaːCiC for the basic verb
stem occurs in many of the descendant languages, and may therefore be reconstructed
to PS as a productive form for fientic verbs. It is an adjective, unmarked for aspect, and
is often substantivized; e.g., from *r-k-b ‘to ride’: *raːkib- ‘riding, having ridden, (one)
who rides/rode, rider (msg)’.
Active participles of the derived stems (see the following section) may also be recon-
structed; they have a prefix *mu- before the base of the short prefix conjugation form of
the verb. Passive participles of the derived stems seem to be a Central Semitic innovation;
they also have prefix *mu-, but the pattern of the base varies across the languages (as do
the finite forms of the passive derived stems).
A verbal substantive with the pattern *CaCaːC (in the basic stem) functions as an infini-
tive in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Hebrew, and may therefore be reconstructed as such for PS.
In West Semitic, other patterns, such as *CiCC, are also used as verbal nouns or infinitives,
with greater or lesser regularity. Across Semitic, these nouns frequently occur after certain
common prepositions, especially the loc/ins preposition for circumstantials and the dat/dir
preposition for purpose and result; e.g., *ʔin naθ’aːr-im (in protect.inf-gen) ‘while protect-
ing’, West Semitic *la=naθ’aːr-im (to=protect.inf-gen) ‘for protecting, (in order) to protect’.
3 L, characterized by a long aː after the first radical. The function of this stem in PS
is difficult to determine. In Classical Arabic this stem (“Form III”) denotes intent,
as in qaːtala ‘he fought’, i.e., ‘he tried to kill’, vs. G qatala ‘he killed’. In Ethiopian
Semitic languages, however, it has become lexical, as in Gəʕəz baräkä < *baːraka
‘he blessed’. In the Modern South Arabian languages, the L stem has merged with the
D stem, via regular phonological processes and the resulting stem is also frequently
lexical. The L stem is vestigial in the Northwest Semitic languages, and lacking in
East Semitic. But since a similar form is attested elsewhere in Afro-Asiatic (viz., in
Cushitic), it may be reconstructed to PS.
4 N, characterized by a prefix *n. This *n was originally prefixed to the basic (G)
verbal adjective, *CaCVC (see §3.5.4), resulting in an ingressive verb. Since for
transitive verbs that adjective was normally passive or resultative, N verbs are usu-
ally passive or middle: *θabir- ‘broken’, *jV-n-θabir (3-n-broken) ‘it got broken, it
broke (intr)’. Cognates of the N stem are attested in other Afro-Asiatic languages
(Lieberman 1986).
5 R, characterized by reduplication of the third radical, as in the pcs form
*jV-C1aC2C3iC3. This stem is common in Arabic (“Form IX”) for roots denoting col-
ors and physical characteristics, as in jasˤfarir ‘it turned yellow, became jaundiced’.
It occurs in several other Semitic languages, and may therefore be reconstructed as
a PS stem. Finite forms are rare and vestigial, however, and so its original semantic
function is not entirely certain, although it seems generally to have been intensifying
(Hartmann 1875, Whiting 1981): e.g., Akkadian (Old Babylonian) ta-šḫarrar ‘you
(msg) become still (pcl)’ (root š-ḫ-r), Biblical Hebrew suffix conjugation šaʔănan ‘it
(m) is at peace’ (root š-ʔ-n). R stem verbal adjectives are more commonly attested,
e.g., with pattern *C1aC2uC3C3, as in Akkadian šaḫurr- ‘still’, Hebrew *ʔadumm-
‘red’ (see §3.3.1).
6 t-forms. Associated with each of the G, C, D and L stems is a stem with a prefixed or
infixed t. The Ct stem is marked by s-t, with t immediately after the causative s, as
in *jV-s-t-aC1C2iC3 (since in this stem the *s was not prevocalic, it remained even in
the languages in which the C stem *s became *h). In the tG and tD stems, the t was
probably prefixed to the base, thus tG *jV-t-C1aC2VC3 and tD *jV-t-C1aC2C2VC3. In
several of the languages, however, the t came to be infixed, after the first root conso-
nant; this was especially true of the tG (*jV-C1-t-aC2VC3), which may already have
undergone the metathesis, perhaps optionally, in the proto-language. The t stems are
medio-passive, reflexive, and reciprocal in meaning. Other Afro-Asiatic languages
also attest medio-passive verbs marked with *t (Voigt 1987).
7 Internal passives. In the Central Semitic languages and the Modern South Arabian
languages, the G, C, D and L stems exhibit passive verbs that are characterized by
a change of vowel melodies vis-à-vis the active form (termed “internal passives”
or “ablaut passives”).25 The short prefix conjugation (pcs) form of the G passive
may be reconstructed as *ju-C1C2aC3 (with *u in the prefix), as in *ju-ðkar ‘he was
invoked’, vs. *ja-ðkur ‘he invoked’; but the other stems show varying melodies, e.g.,
Hebrew D passive *ju-C1uC2C2aC3 vs. Arabic *ju-C1aC2C2aC3. Ethiopian Semitic
does not have such forms, while in Akkadian, passives with distinctive vowel melo-
dies are simply the verbal adjectives of the relevant stems, as in the Assyrian D stem
adjective šallum- ‘made whole’, and prefix conjugation forms do not occur. Thus it is
likely that these internal passives are the result either of an innovation in a common
ancestor of Central Semitic and the Modern South Arabian languages or of an areal
diffusion.
66 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
3.6 Prepositions
A number of words that function as prepositions can be reconstructed to PS. Some of
these are originally substantives, used adverbially as bound forms, as in *wist’-a bajt-im
interior-acc.bnd house-gen ‘within the house’. A substantival origin of other preposi-
tions, however, is not evident; some of these are simple CV forms, which were probably
proclitic, such as *ka= ‘like’, while others are CVC forms, such as *ʔin ‘in’ (Voigt 1999).
These invariably govern the gen as well: *ka=kalb-im (like=dog-gen) ‘like a dog’, *ʔin
libb-i-ja (in heart-gen.bnd-1csg) ‘in my heart’. Several forms have an optional ending
*-aj, e.g., *wist’aj ‘in, with’. The prepositions *ʕal(aj) ‘on, against’ and *ʕad(aj) ‘up to,
until’ are associated with verbal roots, respectively *ʕ-l-j ‘to go up’ and (West Semitic)
*ʕ-d-w ‘to cross, traverse’; but whether the prepositions or the verbal roots are primary
is uncertain.
Since prepositions are bound forms, and since bound forms can govern clauses (see
§3.3.2.3), some prepositions are also common as subordinating conjunctions (with
or without a relative marker): *ʕad(aj) ʔi-smaʕ-u (until 1csg-hear.pcs-sbrd) ‘until
I heard’.
PROTO-SEMITIC 67
A list of probable PS prepositions follows; forms ending with =, such as *bi=, are
usually proclitic.
• *ʔin ‘in’ in East Semitic, but in West Semitic of restricted occurrence, e.g., Gəʕəz
ʔǝn-bälä ‘without’ (= Akkadian in(a) balu), and in a form extended with (f) *-t, *ʔin-tV
(also *ʔin-t-aj), meaning ‘at, via’ (Gəʕəz ʔǝntä) and ‘with’ (Babylonian Akkadian itti,
Hebrew ʔɛt); note also Gəʕəz ʔǝn-zä (in-rel) ‘while’
• *ʕad(aj) ‘up to, until’; cf. the West Semitic verbal root *ʕ-d-w ‘to cross, traverse’
• *ʕal(aj) ‘on, against’; cf. the PS verbal root *ʕ-l-j ‘to go up’
• *bajn(-aj) between’ (lost in Akkadian, but present in Eblaite)
• *bal ‘without, non-’ (Pat-El 2013)
• *bi= West Semitic, ‘in, with’ (loc/ins)
• *ha= ‘to, for’; in West Semitic, found only in Modern South Arabian languages (e.g.,
Jibbāli he=ʃ ‘to him’) and in the Ancient South Arabian language Ḥaḍramitic; in East
Semitic, it is extended with enclitic *=na, as *ha=na > Akkadian ana, Eblaite ʔa5-na
/hana/ (Tonietti 2013: 51)
• *ka= also *kiː (and *kaj ?) ‘like, as’
• *la= West Semitic ‘to, for’ (dat/dir); apparently lost in East Semitic, unless the
preposition is the same as the asseverative particle *la=, for which see §3.10
• *min(V) ‘from’; in Ethiopian, Tigre has mɨn, but in Gəʕəz the form has become ʔǝm
and ʔǝmǝnnä via an obscure set of developments; lost in Akkadian, but Eblaite has two
distinct prepositions, min ‘in’ and minu ‘from’ (Tonietti 2013: 82–8)
• *sin or *ʦin ‘toward, at’? Only in Eblaite (and one early Akkadian text), where the
spelling si-in indicates initial *s or *ɬ (Tonietti 2013: 90–3), and in Ancient South
Arabian, where the usual writing s3n indicates initial *ʦ (in Minaic, Qatabanic, and
early Sabaic; but later Sabaic texts have s1n, with *s)
• *wist’(aj) or *wast’(aj) ‘in, at’; as noted above, derived from a substantive
*wi/ast’- ‘interior’
3.7 Conjunctions
PS coordinating conjunctions are *wa ‘and’, *pa/ʔap ‘and then, and so’ (these two are
proclitic in some languages) and *ʔaw ‘or’. For subordinating conjunctions, see §4.8.
3.8 Adverbs
Only a few true adverbs may be reconstructed, e.g., interrogative *mataj ‘when?’. Most
words used as adverbs are demonstratives, substantives, and adjectives, often in the accu-
sative case, e.g., *jawm-am(=ma) (day-acc(=top) ‘today’ or ‘daily’). For the adverbial
endings *-u(m) and *-isa, see §3.3.2.4, end.
68 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
Asseverative *la= marks the short prefix conjugation verb specifically as injunctive:
*la=jaðkur (la=3.invoke.pcs) ‘may he invoke’.
The particle *law introduces hypotheticals: *law jaðkur ‘would that he had invoked’.
Enclitic *=ma is a topicalizing particle:
*ja-mut dajja(ː)n-um=ma
3-die.pcs judge-nom=top
‘It was the judge who died.’
In Akkadian, =ma also topicalized whole clauses, and became the most common clause
connector:
4 SYNTAX
4.1 Word order
The ancient West Semitic languages such as Biblical Hebrew, Old Aramaic, Classical
Arabic and Gəʕəz are predominantly VSO. Akkadian prose, conversely, is SOV. But there
are exceptions in Akkadian; for example, Old Assyrian has a few examples of SVO and
even VSO (Kouwenberg 2017: 698–703); further, Akkadian names with verbal elements
PROTO-SEMITIC 69
are often VS (e.g., i-šme – il-um 3-hear.pcs – god-nom ‘the god has heard’), and Akkadian
poetry shows relatively free word order. Moreover, in Eblaite, which is also East Semitic,
there are numerous instances of VSO clauses (along with other orders). Thus it is likely
that Proto-Semitic was VSO; as is usually suggested, the change to SOV in Akkadian is
undoubtedly due to prolonged contact with Sumerian, which is also SOV.
In most Semitic languages (including Akkadian), heads precede modifiers (adjectives,
genitives, relative clauses).27
*ʔab-uː-ki baʕl-a
father-nom.bnd-2fsg lord-acc/pred
‘Your (fsg) father is lord.’
*ʦ’aɣir-a ħak’l-u-ka
small-acc/pred field-nom.bnd-2msg
‘Your (msg) field is small.’
Also reconstructible to PS is the use of anaphoric (=3rd person) pronouns as copulas; the
noun subject is then essentially extraposed:
*ʔanθ-at-u bajt-i-m
woman-f-nom.bnd house-gen-nbnd
‘woman of the house’.
70 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
The other construction employs the relative marker, itself a bound form in apposition to
the (nonbound) head noun (see §3.1.3):
This second type became rare in some West Semitic languages, such as ancient Hebrew
and Arabic (Pat-El 2010).
In both types of construction, a clause could stand in the position of the genitive noun.
For example, either of the following was possible. The first type became less common in
West Semitic.
*ʔanθ-at-u ta-ðkur-u
woman-f-nom.bnd 2-invoke.pcs-sbrd
‘the woman you (msg) invoked’.
or
Only the first type of construction was used for pronominal possession in PS:
*ʔanθ-at-u-su
woman-f-nom.bnd-3msg
‘his wife’.
4.5 Agreement
Rules of agreement in PS are difficult to reconstruct with confidence. In most Semitic
languages, attributive adjectives agree with their head nouns in gender and number
(and case, if applicable), though not necessarily in boundness. In some Ethiopian
Semitic languages such as Gǝʕəz, however, the concord is less strict for inanimates
(see Chapter 6). In Arabic, broken plurals (§3.3.2.2) of inanimates are construed with
fsg adjectives and verbs. In Akkadian, agreement in the plural depends on the morphol-
ogy of the head noun; e.g., Old Babylonian bīt-um labir-um (house-nom old.msg-nom)
‘old house’, but plural bīt-āt-um labir-āt-um ‘old houses’ (house-fpl-nom old-fpl-nom).
This contrasts with a West Semitic agreement pattern such as that of Biblical Hebrew,
where the gender of the noun in the singular determines the gender of the adjective in
the plural: ʔărå̄ y-ōt šōʔăḡ-īm ‘roaring lions’ (lion.m-fpl roaring-mpl) (see Huehnergard
2006c: 17).
PROTO-SEMITIC 71
Verbs agree strictly with their subjects in Akkadian. In Classical Arabic, verbs are
singular when they precede plural subjects; sporadic instances of this are also found in
Biblical Hebrew. In Gəʕəz, again, agreement of the verb with a f or pl inanimate subject
is optional.
4.6 Negation
See §3.9.
4.8 Subordination
A common Semitic subordinating conjunction is *kiː, with a wide semantic range, intro-
ducing temporal, causal, comparative and object clauses (‘when, because, as, that’). As
noted in §3.6, certain prepositions also function as subordinating conjunctions, as do
bound form nouns, such as *jawm-a (day-acc.bnd) ‘when’. Relative clauses occupy the
slot of attributives, and are introduced either by the relative marker or by a bound form;
see §4.3 for examples. The syntactic role of the head noun in the relative sentence may be
filled by a resumptive pronoun:
In East Semitic, finite verbs in subordinate clauses, both relative and other types, are
obligatorily marked with a final *-u if the verb has no other ending,29 as in the following
Old Assyrian examples:
Other subordination markers, -na and -ni, are also attested in Akkadian, both probably
deriving from *-na (with dissimilation to -ni after aː). It is likely that this feature, in which
finite verbs are marked as nominalized, was inherited from PS (Hasselbach 2012), with
allomorphs *-u after consonants and *-na after vowels. The feature is lost in Ethiopian
Semitic and in Modern South Arabian. But in a diagnostic development that character-
izes Central Semitic, the PS short prefix conjugation form with the subordination marker
72 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
*-u/*-na, e.g., 3msg *jaðkur-u, 3mpl *jaðkuruː-na, was reanalyzed as a new marked
imperfective form, a form that completely replaced the inherited PS form *jiðakkar (see
Chapter 1, §2.2.3).30
For ‘if’, we may posit PS *sin(=ma) (> Akkadian šumma, Aramaic hin, Gəʕəz ʔǝmmä,
Arabic ʔin). The apodosis of a conditional sentence could be introduced by the coordinat-
ing conjunction *wa ‘and’. Both protases and apodoses of conditional sentences exhibit a
rather perplexing range of verb forms across the Semitic languages.
5 LEXICON
An extensive set of pronouns, primary nouns, numerals, verbal roots and particles can be
reconstructed to PS. A complete dictionary of common Semitic vocabulary is not yet avail-
able. The Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques (Cohen et al. 1970–) runs to nearly 1,300 pages
as of the most recent fascicle (2012), but is still only 40% complete; it is in the order of the
Hebrew alphabet. The Semitic Etymological Dictionary, by Militarev and Kogan, is arranged
by semantic field; two volumes have appeared, “Anatomy of Man and Animals” (2000) and
“Animal Names” (2005). Fronzaroli (1964–71) and Kogan (2011b) are monograph-length
overviews of the PS lexicon; in a much larger work, Kogan 2015 uses a comprehensive
survey of Semitic vocabulary to examine issues of subgrouping. A Leipzig-Jakarta list of
Proto-Semitic words is presented by Wilson-Wright (forthc.). Lists of common Semitic
vocabulary and roots may also be found in Bennett (1998) and Huehnergard (2011).
Beyond Semitic itself, a few PS words and roots have cognates in other Afro-Asiatic
languages; examples are (PS) *sim- ‘name’, *lis(aːn)- ‘tongue’, and the roots *m-w-t ‘to
die’ and *p-r-r ‘to flee, fly’. But it has been notoriously difficult to compile extensive
Afro-Asiatic cognate sets.
Common Semitic words that are, or may be, loans include *hajkal- ‘temple, palace’,
from Sumerian é-gal ‘house-big’, and probably *θawr- ‘bull’ and *k’arn- ‘horn’ from
Indo-European *tauro- and *kr̥ -n-, and the deity name *ʕaθtar- ‘morning/evening star’
from I-E *h2steːr- ‘star’.31 Other words are of uncertain origin, e.g., *marr- ‘spade,
shovel’, also in Sumerian mar, Egyptian mr and perhaps elsewhere in Afro-Asiatic, as
well as, e.g., Latin (Salonen 1952: 9).
NOTES
1 The velar/uvular fricatives will be represented simply as velars (x, ɣ, x’) elsewhere in
this chapter.
2 Throughout this chapter, affricates are transcribed as ligatures (ʦ, ʣ) rather than with
a tie-bar (t͜ s, d͜ z).
3 Further, a conditioned change *s > *h occurred in early West Semitic, for which
see the third of the set of phonological processes presented following Table 3.2;
cross-linguistically, [s] > [h] is much more common than [ʃ] > [h].
4 In some instances the two byforms of a single original root have reflexes in an indi-
vidual language; e.g., Arabic has both b-q-r ‘to split, slit’ and f-q-r ‘to pierce, slit’
(with some semantic disambiguation) from the PS root *b-k’-r, in addition to f-q-r ‘to
be needy, poor’ from the PS root *p-k’-r.
5 The change *s > *h was not a Proto-West Semitic phenomenon, but occurred after
the appearance of subbranches of West Semitic and then spread to most albeit not
PROTO-SEMITIC 73
all of the languages; the change is not found in several of the Ancient South Arabian
languages, at the geographical periphery.
6 Thus, e.g., for the root *s-l-m ‘(to be) whole’, while *salim-at ‘she is whole’
(whole-3fsg) would have become **halim-at, the form *ti-slam ‘she became whole’
(3f-whole.pcs) would have remained unaffected by the rule, and so all forms of the
root retained the original *s.
7 In some of the descendant languages, sound changes and movement of stress resulted in
occasional minimal pairs distinguished by stress: e.g., Gǝʕəz ˈsǝḥ.tät ‘error’ vs. sǝḥ.ˈtät
(err.sc.3fsg) ‘she erred’; Biblical Hebrew ˈbå̄.nū (in.1cpl) ‘among us’ vs. bå̄.ˈnū
(build.sc.3mpl) ‘they (m) built’.
8 The final vowels of many of these forms, and also of the pronominal suffixes pre-
sented in Table 3.5 are often reconstructed with variable length, e.g., 1csg *ʔana or
*ʔanaː (in Semitic scholarship, called “anceps vowels,” and written, e.g., ā̆). See
Hasselbach (2004a) for arguments that these vowels are originally short.
9 The element *ʔajj- is also a component in a wide variety of forms in the descendant lan-
guages, and so a recent study analyzes it as “an abstract general constituent-question
marker” (Cohen forthc.).
10 Egyptian exhibits similar alternations in forms of roots with first radical w, as in wsḫ
‘(to be) broad’ and sḫw ‘breadth’.
11 There are exceptions, such as common Semitic *n-t-n ‘to give’, Akkadian ḫ-š-ḫ
‘to need’; roots of the form C1-w-C1 and C1-j-C1 are also found, e.g., *ð-w-ð ‘to
stand’.
12 For the proto-forms of ‘father’ and ‘brother’, see Wilson-Wright (2016b).
13 Hebrew in fact exhibits byforms of some words, one showing the reflex of *-t and
the other the reflex of *-at; e.g., lɛdɛt < *lid-t- and lēdå̄ < *lid-at-, both attested as inf
of the root y-l-d ‘to give birth’; maṣṣɛbɛt < *manʦ’ib-t- and maṣṣēbå̄ < *manʦ’ib-at-
‘memorial stone’.
14 Paired parts of the body are presumably f because the marker of the nom dual, *-aː,
was also a marker of fpl; see §3.3.2.2.
15 Essentially the same system of forms and functions has recently been reconstructed
for an ancestral Proto-Berbero-Semitic (Kossmann and Suchard 2018).
16 The vowel of the pcl eventually also appears in the West Semitic suffix conjugation,
for which see §3.5.4.
17 Hasselbach (2004b) proposes instead that the distribution *jaðkur, *jantin vs. *jislam
is a Central Semitic innovation, and that in PS, for all verb classes, the vowels of the
person prefixes were partly homorganic with the consonants (as, for the most part,
in Akkadian), viz.: 1sg *ʔa-, 2sg/2pl/3fsg *ta-, 3msg/3pl *ji-, 1cpl *ni-. Bar-Asher
(2008) offers counter-arguments; see also Testen (1992). Kossmann and Suchard
(2018) posit a Proto-Berbero-Semitic distinction between perfective *ja-C1C2uC3,
*ja-C1C2iC3 and stative *ji-C1C2aC3.
18 The Modern South Arabian languages and (rarely) Akkadian exhibit a first-person
dual form, *ʔaðkuraː, i.e., the 1csg with the dual ending *-aː. It is more likely that
these are independent innovations on the ready analogy of the more widely attested
2nd- and 3rd-person duals than that they reflect inheritance from PS. For Akkadian,
see Kouwenberg (2005: 100–1, 2017: 485); for Modern South Arabian, see Rubin
(2014: 141, 2018: 165).
19 The 3fpl may instead have had t-, like the 3fsg.
20 See also Bar-Asher (2008), who reconstructs *ðakur, *sarik’ and *limad.
74 JOHN HUEHNERGARD
21 It is likely that 3msg *-a is originally the same as the acc case, which inter alia
marked nominal predicates; see Hasselbach (2012).
22 Another West Semitic development is the frequent lengthening of the second vowel
in *CaCVC adjectives, especially as *CaCiːC and *CaCuːC, which then serve as par-
adigmatic passive participles of the basic verb stem (see again §3.3.1; Huehnergard
2006c: 10).
23 On the relationships of the stems to valency and transitivity, and the interrelationships
among the stems, see Bjøru (2014).
24 This form is found in Akkadian, though only marginally, for example, in verbs in
which the first radical was originally a laryngeal, pharyngeal, or glide, such as Old
Babylonian ušaḫḫaz < *ju-sa-ʔaxxað (3-caus-seize.pcl) ‘he incites’, and in the
stem called the ŠD, which is restricted to poetry, as in Old Babylonian ušnarraṭ
< *ju-sa-narrat’ (3-caus-tremble.pcl) ‘she makes (people) tremble’. Otherwise in
Akkadian, *ju-sa-C1aC2C2aC3 has been replaced by *ju-sa-C1C2aC3, via an anal-
ogy with the D stem (Tropper 1997: 189–93). In Gəʕəz, PS *ju-sa-C1aC2C2aC3 >
*ju-ha-C1aC2C2aC3 > *ju-ʔa-C1aC2C2aC3 > *jaː-C1aC2C2aC3 → jaC1äC2C2ǝC3 (e.g.,
jawärrǝd ‘he brings down’, from w-r-d ‘to descend’), with the theme vowel leveled
to ǝ as in other Gəʕəz pcl forms.
25 The N stem and t stems also have internal passives in Classical Arabic; such forms
also occur rarely in Hebrew.
26 Middle Babylonian Akkadian yānu ‘there is/are not’ derives from the interrogative
adverb ayyānu ‘where?’.
27 In most modern Ethiopian Semitic languages, which are SOV as a result of Cushitic
influence, heads follow modifiers; see Leslau (1945), Gensler (1997).
28 But the construction that predicates a verbal adjective with an enclitic subject pronoun
is fixed as P – S, e.g., *k’arub-ti (near-2fsg) ‘you (fsg) are/were near’; see §3.5.4.
29 For the subordination marker -u in Eblaite, see Catagnoti (2012: 136–7).
30 For a plausible analysis of the process, see Hamori (1973).
31 On the last, see Wilson-Wright (2016a: 23–5).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General bibliography on the Semitic language family
Further reading: overviews, comparative grammars, and textbooks
Bennett, Patrick R. Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1998.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen: Sprachproben und
grammatische Skizzen. München: Max Hueber, 1928. Translated with Notes and
Bibliography and an Appendix on the Scripts by Peter T. Daniels, as Introduction to
the Semitic Languages. Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Brockelmann, Carl. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.
2 vol. Berlin: von Reuther, 1908–13.
Goldenberg, Gideon. Studies in Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998.
Goldenberg, Gideon. Semitic Languages: Features, Structures, Relations, Processes.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Hetzron, Robert (ed.). The Semitic Languages. London/New York: Routledge, 1997.
PROTO-SEMITIC 75
Dictionaries
Cohen, David, et al. Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues
sémitiques. Paris/The Hague: Mouton/Leuven: Peeters, 1970–.
Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1:
Anatomy of Man and Animals. Münster: Ugarit, 2000.
Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 2: Animal
Names. Münster: Ugarit, 2005.
Additional references
Aro, Jussi. Die Vokalisierung des Grundstammes im semitischen Verbum. Studia
Orientalia 31. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1964.
Bar-Asher, Elitzur A. “The Imperative Forms of Proto-Semitic and a New Perspective on
Barth’s Law.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128 (2008): 233–55.
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. “From Typology to Diachrony: Synchronic and Diachronic
Aspects of Predicative Possessive Constructions in Akkadian.” Folia Linguistica
Historica 32 (2011): 43–88.
Beckman, John Charles. Toward the Meaning of the Biblical Hebrew Piel Stem. Ph.D.
dissertation, Harvard University, 2015.
Bjøru, Øyvind. “Transitivity and the Binyanim.” In Proceedings of the Oslo – Austin
Workshop in Semitic Linguistics, Oslo, May 23 and 24, 2013, edited by Lutz Edzard
and John Huehnergard, 48–63. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 88.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014.
Bjøru, Øyvind. “The Morphology of the G-Stem Imperative in Semitic.” Forthcoming in
Journal of the American Oriental Society.
76 JOHN HUEHNERGARD