Table Of ContentPOLSKA AKADEMIA NAUK . KOMITET J^ZYKOZNAWSTWA
PEACE J^ZYKOZNAWCZE
67
JERZY KURYLOWICZ
STUDIES IN SEMITIC GRAMMAR
AND METRICS
WROCLAW • WARSZAWA • KRAKOW . GDANSK
ZAKLAD NARODOWY IMIENIA OSSOLINSKICH
WYDAWNICTWO POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK
LONDON —CURZON PRESS LTD
1?73
STUDIES IN SEMITIC GRAMMAR
AND METRICS
POLSKA AKADEMIA NAUK • KOMITET JJJZYKOZNAWSTWA
PRACE JIJZYKOZNAWCZE
67
Komitet Redakcyjny
WITOLD DOROSZEWSKI, WITOLD TASZYCKI,
ZDZISLAW STIEBER, JAN SAFAREWICZ
WROCLAW • WARSZAWA • KRAKÖW • GDANSK
ZAKLAD NARODOWY IMIENIA OSSOLINSKICH
WYDAWNICTWO POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK
JERZY KURYLOWICZ
STUDIES IN SEMITIC GRAMMAR
AND METRICS
WROCLAW • WARSZAWA • KRAKOW • GDANSK
ZAKLAD NARODOWY IMIENIA OSSOLINSKICH
WYDAWNICTWO POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK
LONDON —CURZON PRESS LTD
1973
Curzon Press LTD • London
SBN 7007 0025 0
Printed in Poland
Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich— Wydawnictwo, Wroclaw
Oddzial w Krakowie
Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, Krakow,
ul. Czapskich 4
PREFACE
When invited to prepare a second edition of my book L'apophonie
en sémitique I decided to insert in it some topics which seemed worth
treating from the structuralist point of view: the structure of the Semitic
verbal root, the so-called verbal aspect, metrical questions. As a result
the présent monograph consists of a number of chapters devoted to sundry
problems of Semitic linguistics. As regards apophony important changes
have been made concerning the structuralist explanation of its rise and
of the mechanism of differentiation.
The term structuralism is used here in the sense „classical structuralism“
proclaiming the intrinsic solidarity and interdependence of morphological
structure and function and of their changes, a standpoint represented
among others by the Prague School.
Though most of the tenets of phonemics have been already acknowl
edged and applied by Semiticists, the central i.e. morphological problems
often continue to be treated in an obsolete way. Such fundamental con
cepts as system-conditioned (primary) and context-conditioned (second
ary) functions and their hierarchy, the sharp distinction between mo
tivated and non-motivated forms and the corollaries of this distinction,
the relation between range and content, the notions of redundant features
and of polarization (not to be confounded with C. Meinhof’s „polarity“),
and so on, still remain scarcely known or even unknown.
It seemed therefore useful to inquire into the applicability of these
recent methodological implements in the field of Semitic. Future must
show whether the points of view and the solutions proposed here will be
acceptable to the experts.
Considering the aim of the book, an excessive cumulation of material
has been avoided. The choice of Akkadian, Hebrew and Arabic as repré
sentants of the main dialectal groups seems sufficient to give an adequate
idea of the structural skeleton of Semitic in its preliterary development.
Other languages have been mentioned only occasionally.
Since the question of the Heb. vowel system still remains open the
traditional transliteration of GVG I has been adopted in spite of its
awkwardness as regards lenited stops. But sva simplex and -h (without
mappiq) have been ignored, and the sign of length serves exclusively to
render a mater lectionis.
Chapter I. THE VERBAL BOOT IN SEMITIC
§ 1. The idea of the original biconsonantal character of some Sem.
verbal roots goes back as far as the first appearance of Gesenius’ Ileb.
grammar, i.e. to the beginning of the XIXth ct. (1817). A special mono
graph would be necessary to describe in detail the history of this theory
and the arguments adduced in its favour. The most frequent, although
least convincing one, was the fact that semantically related verbal roots
frequently differ only by the third radical (B3)x. Cf. Heb. p-r-d 'divide5,
p-r-m 'rend5, p-r-s 'break5, p-r-s 'burst, break5, p-r-q 'tear off5, p-r-r 'break,
burst5. But the impossibility of determining the semantic value of R3 or
at least its morphological (suffixal) origin permits to consider the possibility
of other factors like contamination („Reimwortbildung“), phonetic sym- ’•
holism („Lautsymbolik“) etc.
A structural comparison between such alleged enlargement of a bicon
sonantal root and the so-called I.E. root-determinatives („Wurzeldeter-
minative“) would be not only superficial but also fallacious. In the first
place the I.E. determinatives have their counterparts in productive suf
fixes represented by identical consonantal elements, though in a varying
degree, dental stops, s and „laryngeals“ being much more frequent than ’
velar or labial stops. Secondly, the attested consonantal suffixes being in
Sem. rare (-£-, -n-, -in- -an-), the chief source of „determinatives“ in Sem.
are old prefixes whose function qua prefixes can be demonstrated.
§ 2. Looking for prefixal „determinatives“ has therefore proved a much
more reliable method of reconstructing old biconsonantal verbs than hav
ing recourse to hypothetical suffixes1 2. Cf. k-n ir Ar. kdna 'to be5, Heb.
(nif'al) 'be firm(ly established)5, Akk. kdnu (same meaning), and Ar.
sal-ana = Heb. sachan — Ugar. skn 'dwell5, Akk. Sakanu (caus.) 'lay down5.
The „determinative“ s occurs as prefix in the derived verbal class *iusaq-
tilu, cf. Akk. usapris, Ax. ia-s-ta-qtilu etc. ’
1 The first to draw attention to this fact was the Ar. philologist al-Baidani
(XIIIth ct.), cf. H. Fleischer, Traite de philologie arabe, 1964, 256.
2 Although the theoretical possibility of suffixal enlargements cannot be
contested, a cogent proof of their existence is scarcely possible. As regards the
origin of some E3 = i, a, cf. infra § 13.
THE VERBAL ROOT IN SEMITIC 7
§ 3. In order to prove the identity of the „determinative“ s with the
historically attested prefix it would be hopeless to appeal to semantic
considerations since the s of the verb s-lc-n has long ago ceased to be
felt as a derivational element. We must rely upon the general theory
of the derived verbal classes. Deverbative verbs generally stem from
deverbative nouns which are themselves derivatives of the basic verb.
Thus:
1. basic verb -> 2. deverbative noun -> 3. denominative verb.
The prehistoric development l.->2.->3. may be parallelled with
historical specimens of quadriliteral verbs derived from deverbative nouns.
E.g. Ar. dahaba ’go, pass’ > madhabu 'religious sect’ > tamadliaba 'ad
here to a sect’; nattaqa 'gird’ > mintaqu 'girdle’ > tamantaqa 'put on
a girdle’.
The direct association l.-»3. changes the denominative verb into
a deverbative one3. The derived verbs of the type (Ar.) qattala, qatala,
’aqtala, inqatala, iqtatala and so on, owe their origin to deverbative nouns
of the form qattaxl, qataxl, ’aqtaxl, inqataxl, iqtataxl< *itqataxl. The fréquent
disappearance of 2. has facilitated the direct association between 1. and 3.
If the prefixes of the derived verbal classes served originally to form
deverbative nouns, it would be a vain attempt to look for a semantic
identity between the s of the noun * s-lc-n and the s of the verb s-k-n.
In the former case we would have to do with a nominal category like
adjective or agent noun, in the latter case with a verbal category like
iterativity, durativity and so on. This difference of meaning is only
a corollary of the change of opposition l.->2. becoming l.->3.
■Whereas the semantic function of the s of iaskunul-sakana cannot be
determined, its préfixai origin seems highly probable. Not so in the case
of the alleged suffixal origin s in Heb. p-r-s 'break’: neither its value is
known nor can its morphological character be rendered probable.
The derivation 2. -> 3. produces in the first instance (sakun > ) * iaskunu,
but according to chap. II (§ 35 and § 37) the productive rule implies apo
phony both in the root (« > i) and in the prefix (a > u), hence iuskinu.
The form* iaskunu is therefore residual. It continues certain secondary
lexical or/and morphological functions of iuskinu. In the majority of cases
we simply have to do with léxicalized forms4.
3 The I.E. verbal classes (in -ielio-, -ske]sîco-, reduplicated, etc.) must be
explained in much the same way, viz. via deverbative nouns derived from
radical verbs {L'apophonie en indo-européen, p. 31).
4 Morphological differentiation exists e.g. in the case of iuqattilu : iaqattulu
(iaqattilu, iaqattalu). The secondary function of the intensive form iuqattilu was
8 CHAPTER I.
§ 4. Similar examples may be cited for other verbal prefixes: Heb.
td’al) besides ia’ab 'to long for’ („determinatives“ t and i); n-’-u and i-’-u
'be befitting for’; n-f-l 'fall’: §-f-l 'sink down’; Ar. sa-dala — ha-dala 'let
hang down (one’s hair)’: sa-ru’a — ha-ri'a 'hasten’; na-biha = ’a-baha
'remember’; na-dima = sa-dima 'feel remorse’; na-fyaza = na-haza 'sting,
prick’; na-gara — ua-gira 'be enraged, have a spite’.
The consonants t, n, s (Ar. s), ’, A are prefixes which continue to be
productive in historical verb-formations. The apparent infix t in Ar.
iqtatala, Akk. iptaras etc. is in reality a prefix, cf. Ar. t(a)qattala, t(a)qdtala
(the Sem. metathesis of t 4- sibilant > sibilant + t has been generalized).
The prefixal status of m is borne out by the types maqtal, miqtal, maqtul etc.
(chap. VI, § 50 ff). To this list let us add u-, a notorious prefix represented
by numerous verbs with B1 = u like Ar. ualada : ialidu, Heb. ialad, ieled * 6.
Finally, the prefix i which has left a few traces in nominal derivatives
like Heb. iishar 'oil’ (hashir 'make shining’); Ar. 'asub =ia*sub 'queen
bee5; ‘aqid 'thickened’ : ui qul 'thickened honey’.
A direct proof of a morphological enlargement of biconsonantal roots
is their reduplication: Rj-Ea > quadriconsonantal root R1-R2-R1-R2.
E.g. Ar. ma-fyada 'shake’ = hadhada-, na-hama = hamhama 'bawl (ele
phant)’; ua-gala = galgala 'penetrate’.
§ 5. A second series of procedures serving to enlarge biconsonantal
into triconsonantal roots is of a totally different origin: lengthening of
the root-vowel (i > i; w > %); gemination of R2. This does not mean that
all concave verbs or all verbs with B2 = R3 originate in biconsonantal
iterative and durative. After the structural split iuqattilu : iaqattulu etc. the
latter form functioned as a durative present, chiefly in Akk. (iparras, iparris,
iparrus) where it ousted the inherited present form (chap. Ill § 8, § 15 ff).
6 Many of apparently pertinent examples may be due to late dialectal
developments. E.g. Bx = a is assimilated in the Ar. VIIIth class to the follow
ing t, uasala 'bind’ : ittasala. The latter form is ambiguous, tt being the result
of either u + t or t 4- t (compare ittaba'a from tabi'a 'follow’). Hence the pos
sibility of a double interpretation entailing the formation of a new present.
Instances of w-B2-B31| f-B2-B3 are rather numerous in Ar.: tahima — uahima
'suffer from indigestion’; ’atka’a 'make somebody lean (upon)’ : ualca’a 'lean
(upon)’; tahila = uahala 'trust’; ’atlaja=’aulaja 'make enter, put (into)’.
6 Cf. the frequent alternation of m-B1-B2 and Bx-w-B2 (or Bx-j-B2) in Heb.
E.g. i-g-r/g-u-r 'be afraid’; i-t-b/t-u-b 'be good’; i-m-r/m-u-r 'change’; i-'-s/'-u-s
'advise’; i-s-rl?-u-r 'form’; i-s-t/s-u-t 'set on fire’; i-h-l/h-i-l 'wait’; i-q-s/q-i-$
'awake’. Hence also, according to § 8, the alternation u-Bx-B2 : Bx-B2-B2,
e.g. i-m-§lm-s-S 'touch, grope’; i-r-q/r-q-q 'spit’.
The distribution of stems as in u-l-d : l-d is the chief example for the well-
known formula established by H. Bauer: certain prefixes gained a footing
first in the „perf.“ and only afterwards penetrated into the „imperf.“ Another
instance of this rule is the relation ’aqtala : iuqtilu in the IVth class of Ar.
