Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background

THE AKKADIAN VERB AND ITS SEMITIC BACKGROUND
LANGUAGES OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Editorial Board Gonzalo Rubio, Pennsylvania State University Editor-in-Chief
James P. allen Gene b. GRaGG John huehneRGaRd manfRed KRebeRniK antonio loPRieno h. CRaiG melCheRt PiotR miChalowsKi P. oKtoR sKJRv miChael P. stReCK Brown University The Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago Harvard University Friedrich-Schiller-Universitt Jena Universitt Basel University of California, Los Angeles University of Michigan Harvard University Universitt Leipzig
1. A Grammar of the Hittite Language, by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. and H. Craig Melchert Part 1: Reference Grammar Part 2: Tutorial 2. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background, by N. J. C. Kouwenberg 3. Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian, by Nathan Wasserman
The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background
by
n. J. C. K ouwenbeRG
The University of Leiden
Winona Lake, Indiana EisenbRauns 2010
2010 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kouwenberg, N. J. C. The Akkadian verb and its Semitic background / by N. J. C. Kouwenberg. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-193-1 (alk. paper) 1. Akkadian languageVerb. I. Title. PJ3291.K678 2010 492156dc22
2010040187
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. 1 18 2 3 4 5 17 16 15 6 7 8 9 14 13 12
20
19
11
10
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part one xi xii
Preliminaries
Chapter 1. Objective, Structure, and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2.1. (Diachronic) Typology 2 1.2.2. Grammaticalization 3 1.2.3. The structure of paradigms 5 1.3. The Structure of the Present Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.4.1. Akkadian 9
1.4.1.1. Third-Millennium Akkadian 11 1.4.1.2. Babylonian 12 1.4.1.2.1. Archaic Babylonian 13 1.4.1.2.2. Old Babylonian 13 1.4.1.2.3. Middle Babylonian 15 1.4.1.2.4. Neo-Babylonian 15 1.4.1.2.5. Late Babylonian 16 1.4.1.2.6. Standard Babylonian 16 1.4.1.3. Assyrian 17 1.4.1.3.1. Old Assyrian 17 1.4.1.3.2. Middle Assyrian 18 1.4.1.3.3. Neo-Assyrian 19
1.4.2. Semitic 19 1.4.3. Afroasiatic 20 1.5. Excursus: The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadian . . . . . . 21
Chapter 2. Structure and Organization in the Akkadian Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . 28

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2. The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.1. The basic structure 29 2.2.2. Derivational categories related to the verb 33 2.2.3. Lexicalization and grammaticalization 35 2.3. The Structure of Individual Verb Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.3.1. The root-and-pattern system 37 2.3.2. The rise of vowel alternation in Semitic 38 v
vi
Contents 2.3.3. The root and the radicals 40 2.3.4. The pattern and the base 44 2.4. Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.5. The Personal Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Part two
the Basic stem

Chapter 3. The Paradigm of the G-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.2. The G-stem as the Basis of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3. Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs . . . . . . . 54 3.3.1. Fientive verbs with a stative meaning 55 3.3.2. Adjectival verbs 58 3.3.3. List of adjectival verbs 60 3.3.4. Deviating adjectives in Assyrian 64 3.4. Transitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.5. The Vowel Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.5.1. Form and function 68 3.5.2. The individual vowel classes 71
3.5.2.1. 3.5.2.2. 3.5.2.3. 3.5.2.4. 3.5.2.5. The vowel class I/i 71 The A/u or Ablaut class 72 The vowel class U/u 73 The vowel class A/a (including E/e) 74 The vowel class A/i 75
3.5.3. Changes in vowel class 75 3.6. Appendix: List of G-stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class . . . . . 81
Chapter 4. The Impact of Gemination I: The Imperfective iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 The Imperfective: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 The Imperfective: Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 The Historical Background of iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.4.1. The controversy about the Proto-Semitic imperfective 97 4.4.2. The emergence of iparrVs 100 4.4.3. Evidence 103
4.4.3.1. Historical evidence from Akkadian 103 4.4.3.2. Comparative evidence from Afroasiatic 104 4.4.3.3. Typological evidence 107
4.5. From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal- to Akkadian iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.5.1. The development of a variable imperfective vowel 109 4.5.2. The pluractional of the derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs 112 4.5.3. The ending(s) of Proto-Semitic *yiqattal- 115 4.6. Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 4.6.1. iparrVs and yqattl 117
Contents 4.6.2. The quadriradical and quinqueradical verbs in South Semitic 123
vii
Chapter 5 The Perfective and the Imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 The Perfective: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 The Perfective: Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 The Historical Background of the Perfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 The Imperative: Form and Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Chapter 6. The t-Perfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 6.2. The t-Perfect: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 6.3. The t-Perfect: Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6.3.1. The t-perfect in Old Babylonian 141 6.3.2. The t-perfect in third-millennium Akkadian 149 6.3.3. The t-perfect in Old Assyrian 150 6.3.4. The t-perfect in the later dialects 153 6.4. The Historical Background of the t-Perfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Chapter 7. The Stative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.2. The Stative: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.3. The Stative: Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 7.3.1. Statives derived from adjectives and nouns 165 7.3.2. Statives derived from verbs 168 7.3.3. Marginal and secondary uses of the stative 174 7.4. The Prehistory of the Stative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 7.4.1. The formal background of the stative 176 7.4.2. The relationship with the West Semitic perfect 181 7.4.3. The suffixed stative conjugations of Afroasiatic 189
Chapter 8. The Nominal Forms of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 8.2. The Infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 8.2.1. Form and function 194 8.2.2. Historical background 199 8.3. The Past Participle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 8.3.1. Form and function 200 8.3.2. Historical background 202 8.4. The Present Participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 8.4.1. The simple present participle 203 8.4.2. The present participle with the suffix -n- 207 8.4.3. Historical considerations 209
viii
Contents
Chapter 9. The Secondary Members of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 9.2. The Irrealis Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 9.2.1. The precative 212 9.2.2. The vetitive: form and function 217 9.2.3. The prohibitive 219 9.3. The Subjunctive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 9.3.1. The form of the subjunctive 220 9.3.2. Other subjunctive-like suffixes 224 9.3.3. The function and the historical background of the subjunctive 227 9.4. The Ventive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 9.4.1. The form of the ventive 232 9.4.2. The function of the ventive 233
9.4.2.1. 9.4.2.2. 9.4.2.3. 9.4.2.4. The ventive as allative 234 The ventive as dative 235 Other ventives 236 The ventive as a linking morpheme 238 9.2.1.1. Form and function 212 9.2.1.2. Historical background 213
9.4.3. The ventive in a historical perspective
240
Part three
the Derived Verbal stems

Chapter 10. The Derived Verbal Stems: General Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.4. 10.5. 10.6. 10.7. 10.8. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Formal Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Functional Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 The Relationship between the G-Stem and the Derived Stems . . . . . . . . . 250 Oppositions between Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems . . . 256 10.8.1. Verbal plurality 256 10.8.2. Causative and factitive 256 10.8.3. Voice 257
10.8.3.1. Passive 259 10.8.3.2. Mediopassive 260 10.8.3.3. Direct reflexive 261 10.8.3.4. Indirect reflexive or autobenefactive 263 10.8.3.5. Reciprocal 263 10.8.3.6. The middle voice and middle verbs in Akkadian 265
Chapter 11. The impact of gemination II: the D-stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

11.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 11.2. The Form of the D-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Contents 11.3. The Function of the D-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 11.3.1. D-stems of intransitive process verbs 272 11.3.2. D-stems of intransitive action verbs 274 11.3.3. D-stems of transitive process verbs 274 11.3.4. D-stems of transitive action verbs 274 11.4. D tantum Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 11.5. The Essence of the D-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 11.6. The D-Stem in Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 11.6.1. The D-stem in Semitic and Afroasiatic 280 11.6.2. The development of the factitive function 282
ix
Chapter 12. The Prefix n- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

12.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 12.2. The N-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 12.2.1. The form of the N-stem 288 12.2.2. The function of the N-stem 294
12.2.2.1. The N-stem of transitive verbs 294 12.2.2.2. The N-stem of intransitive verbs 297 12.2.2.3. The N tantum verbs 298
12.3. 12.4. 12.5. 12.6.
12.2.3. The essence of the N-stem 299 The naparraru Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 The Verb mlulu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 The Historical Background of the Prefix n- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 12.6.1. The prefix n- as an original light verb 314 12.6.2. The development of the N-stem 321
Chapter 13. The Prefix - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

13.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 13.2. The -stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 13.2.1. The form of the -stem 324 13.2.2. The function of the -stem 327
13.2.2.1. 13.2.2.2. 13.2.2.3. 13.2.2.4. 13.2.2.5. The -stem as causative of transitive verbs 327 The -stem as causative or factitive of intransitive verbs 328 The elative use of the -stem 331 The denominal function of the -stem 332 The relation of the -stem to the D-stem and the N-stem 333
13.3. The D-stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 13.4. The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefix - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 13.4.1. The ubalkutu group 338 13.4.2. The uparruru group 340 13.4.3. The uarruru group 341 13.4.4. ukennu and upellu 346 13.5. The -stem in Other Semitic Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 13.6. The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Chapter 14. The t-Infix and Its Ramifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

14.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Contents 14.2. Formal Aspects of the t-Infix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 14.2.1. The form of the Gt-stem in historical Akkadian 356 14.2.2. Assimilation and metathesis of the t-infix in general 359 14.3. The Function of the Gt-Stem in Historical Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 14.3.1. The Gt-stem in older non-literary texts 361
14.3.1.1. Third-millennium Akkadian 361 14.3.1.2. Assyrian 362 14.3.1.3. Old Babylonian 363
14.3.2. The Gt-stem in later non-literary texts 365 14.3.3. The Gt-stem in literary texts: Standard Babylonian 367 14.3.4. The functional development of the Gt-stem in Akkadian 369 14.4. The Evolution of the Gt-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 14.4.1. The formal evolution of the Gt-stem in Semitic: from prefix to infix (and back) 375 14.4.2. The functional development of the Gt-stem in West Semitic 380 14.5. The Remaining Secondary Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 14.5.1. The Dt-stem 383 14.5.2. The t1-stem 386 14.5.3. The Neo-Assyrian stems with a double t-infix 388 14.5.4. The Nt-stem 391 14.5.5. Comparison with West Semitic 392 14.5.6. Excursus: The Eblaite verbal nouns with both prefixed and infixed t 395 14.6. The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the t2-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 14.6.1. The pattern taPRvS(t) 397 14.6.2. The t2-stem 403
14.6.2.1. The paradigm of the t2-stem 403 14.6.2.2. The function of the t2-stem 404 14.6.2.3. Comparison with West Semitic 412
14.7. The tan-Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 14.7.1. The function of the tan-stems 415 14.7.2. The Gtn-stem 417 14.7.3. The Dtn-stem 422 14.7.4. The tn-stem 424 14.7.5. The Ntn-stem 425 14.7.6. The historical background of the tan-stems 431
Chapter 15. Verb Forms with Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438

15.1. 15.2. 15.3. 15.4. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 The Dtr-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 Deverbal Nouns with Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 Derived Verbal Stems with Reduplication in Other Semitic Languages . . 445
Contents
xi
Part Four
the Minor Paradigms

Chapter 16. The Weak Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
16.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 16.2. The I/w Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 16.2.1. The corpus 448 16.2.2. The forms of the G-stem 450 16.2.3. The derived stems 454 16.2.4. The historical background of the I/w verbs 457 16.3. The I/*y Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 16.3.1. The prefix forms of the adjectival I/w verbs 462 16.3.2. The original I/*y verbs 464 16.3.3. The verbs id to know and i to have 465 16.4. The I/n Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 16.4.1. The assimilation or non-assimilation of n to the following consonant 469 16.4.2. The elision of word-initial n 470 16.4.3. The paradigm(s) of n/tadnu to give 472 16.5. The II/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 16.5.1. The sources 474 16.5.2. The paradigm of the G-stem 476 16.5.3. The derived stems 480
16.5.3.1. 16.5.3.2. 16.5.3.3. 16.5.3.4. 16.5.3.5. The Gt-stem 480 The Gtn-stem 480 The D-stem 482 The -stem and the t2-stem The N-stem 488
485
16.6. The II/gem Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 16.6.1. Formal aspects of the II/gem verbs 491 16.6.2. Semantic aspects of the II/gem verbs 494 16.7. The III/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 16.7.1. The sources 496 16.7.2. The paradigm of the III/voc verbs 499
16.7.2.1. 16.7.2.2. 16.7.2.3. 16.7.2.4. The original paradigm 499 Further developments in third-millennium Akkadian 501 Further developments in Assyrian 501 Further developments in Babylonian 506
Chapter 17. The Verbs with Gutturals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

17.1. 17.2. 17.3. 17.4. 17.5. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 The Strong in Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 17.5.1. E-colouring in the older dialects 525 17.5.2. E-colouring in later Babylonian 534
xii
Contents 17.6. The I/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 17.6.1. Introductory remarks 537 17.6.2. The paradigm of the G-stem 542 17.6.3. The derived stems 546
17.6.3.1. 17.6.3.2. 17.6.3.3. 17.6.3.4. The Gt-stem and the Gtn-stem 546 The D-stem 547 The -stem and its derivatives 548 The N-stem and the Ntn-stem 550
17.7. The II/H Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554 17.7.1. Introduction and sources 554 17.7.2. (Pre-)Sargonic Akkadian and Mari Old Akkadian 557 17.7.3. The II/H verbs in Assyrian 560 17.7.4. The II/H verbs in Babylonian
17.7.3.1. The strong paradigm 560 17.7.3.2. The weak paradigm 563
566
17.8. The III/H Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 17.8.1. Introduction and sources 572 17.8.2. The III/H verbs in third-millennium Akkadian 573 17.8.3. The III/H verbs in Assyrian 576 17.8.4. The original III/H verbs in Babylonian 582
17.7.4.1. The II/ verbs in Babylonian 566 17.7.4.2. The II/ verbs in Babylonian 570
Part Five
Proto-semitic from an Akkadian perspective

Chapter 18. The Verbal Paradigm of Proto-Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
18.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 18.2. The Main Developments from Proto-Semitic to Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 18.3. The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 18.3.1. The basic stem 587 18.3.2. The derived stems 591 18.4. The Sub-grouping of Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 Index of words from other languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 Index of Akkadian words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653
PreFACe
This book is the result of the project The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background, financed by the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (NWO) in the years 20012005. It represents the completion of a long preoccupation with the structure and the history of the Akkadian verb, which started with my 1997 doctoral dissertation on the D-stem. It would not have been written if the NWO had not provided me with a generous grant that allowed me to focus completely on this research project for almost four years without being distracted by other obligations. I am grateful for this grant and for the trust they have had in me. I would also like to thank the Faculty of Arts of Leiden University and the Netherlands Institute for the Near East (NINO) for the facilities they offered me during and after this period. It is a great pleasure to thank the people who have contributed to the completion of this book. In the first place, I thank my supervisor, Klaas Veenhof, who spent much time and energy on this project, dealing with the paperwork for the NWO, and, in the final stages, reading the manuscript, giving valuable comments, and providing me with additional material, especially in Old Assyrian matters. Gonzalo Rubio, editor-in-chief of Eisenbrauns series Languages of the Ancient Near East, Wilfred van Soldt, Holger Gzella, Guy Deutscher, and Bram Jagersma also read the manuscript, and Harry Stroomer and Joris Borghouts read parts of it. I would like to thank all of them for their valuable comments. Obviously, none of these colleagues are responsible for any errors, omissions, and incongruities that remain. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my wife Yvonne not only for undertaking the troublesome task of reading through the entire manuscript to eradicate the barbarisms of my English and to improve the style but also for her unfailing moral support and her tolerance during the years that I have been engrossed in the intricacies of the Akkadian verb.
xiii
List oF ABBreViAtions, syMBoLs, AnD terMinoLogy
1. Abbreviations of series, Periodicals, Dictionaries, and Manuals

AfO AHw AION AJSL AMMK AMMY AnOr. AOAT AoF AOS ArAn. ARES ArOr. AS ASJ Assur AuOr. BagF BBVOT BiOr. BM BSOAS CAD CDA CDG CDLJ CILT CM CRRAI DRS DTCFD FAOS FM GAG GAG3 GAV GKT GLECS HSAO Archiv fr Orientforschung. Vienna. = von Soden 1959/81. Annali dellIstituto Orientale di Napoli. Naples. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature. Chicago. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Mzesi. Konferanslari. Ankara. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Mzesi. Yll. Ankara. Analecta Orientalia. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Altorientalische Forschungen. Berlin. American Oriental Society. Archivum Anatolicum. Ankara. Archivi reali di EblaStudi. Archv Orientln. Prague. Assyriological Studies. Acta Sumerologica (Japonica). Tokio. Assur, Monographic Journals of the Near East. Malibu. Aula Orientalis. Barcelona. Baghdader Forschungen (BagF 18 = S. M. Maul, Zukunftsbewltigung). Berliner Beitrge zum vorderen Orient. Texte. Bibliotheca Orientalis. Leiden. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. London. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, ed. J. Black, A. George, and N. Postgate. Santag 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. = Leslau 1987. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cuneiform Monographs. Comptes rendus de la rencontre assyriologique internationale. = D. Cohen 1994. Ankara niversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Corafya Fakltesi Dergisi (Revue de la Facult de langues, dhistoire et de gographie). Ankara. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien. Florilegium Marianum. Mmoirs de NABU. Paris. = von Soden 1952a. = von Soden 1995. = Kouwenberg 1997. = Hecker 1968. Comptes rendus des sances du Groupe linguistique dtudes chamito-smitiques. Paris. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient.
xiv
List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

Harvard Semitic Studies. Hebrew Union College Annual. Cincinnati. Israel Oriental Studies. Tel Aviv and Winona Lake, IN. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society. New York. Journal of the American Oriental Society. New Haven, CT. Journal of Cuneiform Studies. New Haven, CT. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux. Leiden. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. London. Journal of Semitic Studies. Manchester. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. Waltrop. Littratures anciennes du Proche-Orient. = Gelb 1957. Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires. Paris Mesopotamian Civilizations. Mitteilungen des Instituts fr Orientforschung. Berlin. Mlanges de lUniversit Saint-Joseph. Beyrouth. Materiali Epigraphici di Ebla. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brves et Utilitaires. Paris. Old Assyrian Archives, Studies. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Oriental Institute Publications (OIP 27 = I. J. Gelb, Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity). Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta. Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica. Leuven. Orientalia. Rome. Oriens Antiquus. Rome. Orientalia Suecana. Uppsala. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden, voorheen Publications de lInstitut historique-archologique nerlandais de Stanboul. QuSem. Quaderni di Semitistica. RA Revue dassyriologie et darchologie orientale. Paris. RSO Rivista degli Studi Orientali. Rome. SAACT State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts. SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies. SED I/II = Militarev and Kogan 2000 and 2005. SEL Studi epigraphici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico. Verona. SSLL Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics. StAT Studien zu den Assur-Texten. StEb. Studi Eblaiti. Rome. StOr. Studia Orientalia. Helsinki. TTK Trk Tarih Kongresi. TTKY Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlarndan. TSL Typological Studies in Language. UF Ugarit-Forschungen. Mnster. WdO Die Welt des Orients. Gttingen. WKAS Wrterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1958. WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Verffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Vienna. ZA Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archologie. Berlin. ZAh Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik. Stuttgart. ZAL Zeitschrift fr arabische Linguistik. Wiesbaden. ZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen. ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden. HSS HUCA IOS JANES JAOS JCS JEOL JNES JRAS JSS KUSATU LAPO MAD 3 MARI MC MIO MUSJ MEE NABU OAAS OBO OIP OLA OLP Or. OrAnt. OrSuec. PIHANS
xv
xvi
2. Abbreviations of text Publications

Editions of Akkadian texts are referred to with the abbreviations enumerated in AHw III: ixxvi, with the following additions:
S. Izre'el, Adapa and the South Wind. Mesopotamian Civilizations 10. Winona Lake IN, 2001: Eisenbrauns. AIHA F. Rasheed, The Ancient Inscriptions in Himrin Area. Baghdad: The State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage, 1981. AKI I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Knigsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. FAOS 7. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990. AKT Ankara Kltepe Tabletleri / Ankaraner Klltepe-Texte (1/2: E. Bilgi et al., 4: I. Albayrak, 5: K. R. Veenhof, Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1990, 1995, 2006, and 2010; 3: E. Bilgi and C. Gnbatt, FAOS Beiheft 3, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1995). ARET Archivi reali di EblaTesti. Roma: Missione archeologica in Syria. Balag-Komp. K. Volk, Die Balag-Komposition ru -ma-ir-ra-bi. FAOS 18. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1989. BAP B. Meissner, Beitrge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht. Assyriologische Bibliothek 11. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893. BDHP L. Waterman, Business Documents of the Hammurabi Period I. AJSL 29 (1913) 145204; II. ibid. 288303; III. AJSL 30 (1913/14) 4873. CTMMA Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vols. IIII. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 19872005. Diagnostik N. P. Heeel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik. AOAT 43. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. Edikt F. R. Kraus, Ein Edikt des Knigs Ammi-aduqa von Babylon. Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia, vol. V. Leiden: Brill, 1958. ELTS I. J. Gelb; P. Steinkeller; and R. M. Whiting, Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991. Epilepsy M. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia. CM 2. Groningen, 1993. EV Estratti di Vocabulari (in Pettinato 1982: 34781). Fernhandel B. I. Faist, Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jh. v. Chr. AOAT 265. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001. FI M. Civil, M. The Farmers Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. AuOr. Supplementa 5. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1994. GAKI B. Kienast, Glossar zu den altakkadischen Knigsinschriften. FAOS 8. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994. Gilg. A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Giricano K. Radner, Das mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von Giricano /Dunnu-a-Uzibi. Subartu XIV. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Innya C. Michel, Innya dans les tablettes palo-assyriennes II: Edition des texts. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991. Itar B. Groneberg, Lob der Itar, Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgttin. CM 8. Groningen, 1997. kt Siglum of unpublished tablets from Kltepe (Kani). Kaufvertragsrecht B. Kienast, Das altassyrische Kaufvertragsrecht. FAOS Beiheft 1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1984. Land Tenure A. Suleiman, A Study of Land Tenure in the Old Babylonian Period with Special Reference to the Diyala Region, Based on Published and Unpublished Texts. Ph.D. dissertation, London, 1966. Legends = Westenholz 1997. LB Siglum of unpublished tablets in the de Liagre Bhl Collection, Leiden. Adapa

Lugal MARV MATC MATSH MBTU MesMagic MHET MSL SS MVN 3 NATN NATSH NBNippur NTA OAA OBAH OBE OBHorn 1 and 2 OBLAP OBRED OBTA POAT Prag I RIMA Rm-Anum RIME RitDiv. A SAA
xvii
J. van Dijk, LUGAL UD ME-LM-bi NIR-GL. Leiden: Brill, 1983. H. Freydank, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte IVII, 1976 2006. S. Jakob, Die mittelassyrische Texte aus Tell Chura in Nordost-Syrien. Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung, Band 2, Teil III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. = Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996. O. R. Gurney, The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1983. Mesopotamian Magic. Textual, Historical and Interpretative Perspectives, ed. T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn. Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx, 1999. Mesopotamian History and Environment: Texts. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1991. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon, Supplementary Series. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1986. D. I. Owen, The John Frederick Lewis Collection. Materiali per il vocabolario neosumerico, vol III. Rome: Multigrafica, 1975. D. I. Owen, Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts Primarily from Nippur. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982. K. Radner, Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall amad. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall amad/Dr-Katlimmu, Band 6, Texte 2. Berlin: Reimer, 2002. = Cole 1996. V. Donbaz, Ninurta-Tukulti-Aur. TTKY VI/19. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1976. Old Assyrian Archives. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2002. F. N. H. Al-Rawi and S. Dalley, Old Babylonian Texts from Private Houses at Abu Habbah, Ancient Sippar. Baghdad University Excavations. -DUB-BA-A 7. London: NABU Publications, 2000. U. Jeyes, Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Museum. PIHANS 64. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1989. M. Sigrist, Old Babylonian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. Andrews University Cuneiform Texts IV and V. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1990 and 2003. K. van Lerberghe, Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia. OLA 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. L. Dekiere, Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum. MHET, Series III, vol. II, 16. Ghent: University of Ghent, 19941997. = Whiting 1987. W. C. Gwaltney Jr., The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts. Hebrew Union College Annual Supplements 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1983. K. Hecker, G. Kryszat, and L. Matou, Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln aus den Sammlungen der Karlsuniversitt Prag. Prague: Filozofick fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, 1998. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. A. Rositani, Rm-Anum Texts in the British Museum. Nisaba 4. Messina: Di.Sc.A.M, 2004. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. I. Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner. BM 12. Malibu: Undena, 1983. S. M. Freedman, If a City Is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series umma lu ina Ml akin, Volume I: Tablets 121. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 17. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1998. State Archives of Assyria. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987.
xviii
SAB Sadberk
= Kienast and Volk 1995. V. Donbaz, Cuneiform Tablets in the Sadberk Hanim Museum. Istanbul: Sadberk Hanim Mzesi, 1999. ShA J. Eidem, and J. Lsse, The Shemshara Archives, Vol. I: The Letters. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 2001. SKS W. Farber, Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf!, Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwrungen und -Rituale. MC 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. St. Alp Hittite and other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, ed. H. Otten et al. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1992. St. Biggs Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, June 4, 2004, ed. M. Roth et al. From the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Volume 2. AS 27. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2007. St. Birot Miscellanea Babylonica: Mlanges offerts Maurice Birot, ed. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985. St. de Meyer Cinquante-deux rflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien, offertes en homage Lon de Meyer, ed. H. Gasche et al. Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional Publications 2. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. St. Dietrich Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift fr Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. O. Loretz et al. AOAT 281. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002. St. Finet Reflets des Deux Fleuves: Volume de mlanges offerts Andr Finet, ed. M. Lebeau and P. Talon. Akkadica Supplementum VI. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. St. Garelli Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs: tudes sur la civilization msopotamienne offertes Paul Garelli, ed. D. Charpin and F. Joanns. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991. St. Kraus Zikir umim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. van Driel et al. Leiden: Brill, 1982. St. Landsberger Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, ed. H. G. Gterbock and T. Jacobsen. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. St. Larsen Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen. PIHANS 100. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004. St. Moran Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, ed. T Abusch et al. HSS 37. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. St. Nimet zg Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its NeighborsStudies in Honor of Nimet zg, ed. M. J. Mellink et al. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1993. St. Oelsner Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift fr Joachim Oelsner, ed. J. Marzahn and H. Neumann. AOAT 252. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. St. Pettinato Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurck: Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato, ed. H. Waetzoldt. HSAO 9. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2004. St. Reiner Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton. AOS 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. St. Sjberg DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, Studies in Honor of ke W. Sjberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1989. St. Veenhof Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabe Oosten, 2001. St. von Soden (AOAT 1) Lin Miturti: Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden, ed. W. Rllig. AOAT 1. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969. St. von Soden (AOAT 240) Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995.

St. Walker Tall Bia TAZ TB 1 TCBI TPAK VE
xix
Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker, ed. C. Wunsch. Babylonische Archive 1. Dresden: ISLET, 2002. = Krebernik 2001. = Sommerfeld 1999. = Ismail et al. 1996; 2: L. Milano; W. Sallaberger; P. Talon; and K. van Lerberghe. Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Seasons 19962002). Subartu XII. Turnhout, 2004. Tavolette cuneiformi . . . delle collezioni della Banca dItalia, 2 vols. Rome: Banca dItalia, 2006. C. Michel and P. Garelli, Tablettes palo-assyriennes de Kltepe, volume I (Kt 90/k). Paris: De Boccard, 2001. (Sinossi del) Vocabulario di Ebla (in Pettinato 1982: 197343).
3. other Abbreviations
AA Afroasiatic Acc accusative Adj adjective Akk Akkadian All allative Ar Arabic Aram Aramaic ArBab Archaic Babylonian Ass Assyrian Bab Babylonian Bo Boazky c. br. context broken c. st. construct state comm. sect. commentary section (in CAD) cp(s) copy/copies CT consecutio temporum Dat dative DN divine name DNF feminine divine name Du dual duf dual feminine dum dual masculine Ebl Eblaite e.o. each other ESA Epigraphic South Arabian Eth Ethiopian Fem feminine Gen genitive GN geographic name He Hebrew Imp imperative Impf imperfect Impfv imperfective incant. incantation Indic indicative Inf infinitive intr. intransitive Juss jussive LB lex. sect. lit. LL MA Masc MB MN MSA NA NB Nn Nom OA OAk OB Obl p Partc Perf pf Pl pm PN PNF PPartc Prec Pres Pret Proh prov. PrPartc PSAk PSem R1 R2 R3 R4 Late Babylonian lexical section (in CAD) literal(ly) (attested in a) lexical list Middle Assyrian masculine Middle Babylonian month name Modern South Arabian Neo-Assyrian Neo-Babylonian noun (indexes) nominative Old Assyrian Old Akkadian Old Babylonian oblique case person participle perfect plural feminine plural plural masculine proper name feminine proper name past participle precative present preterite prohibitive provenance present participle Pre-Sargonic Akkadian Proto-Semitic first radical second radical third radical fourth radical
xx
RI(s) SAk sb. SB Sem sf Sg sm Stat sth. Subj Sum royal inscription(s) Sargonic Akkadian somebody Standard Babylonian Semitic singular feminine singular singular masculine stative something subjunctive Sumerian

Syr TN t-Pf tr. trans. Ugar var. Vb Vent Vet WSem Syriac temple name t-perfect translation transitive Ugaritic variant verb (indexes) ventive vetitive West Semitic
4. symbols
/.../ [...] surrounds a phonological interpretation of a transliterated word or a cuneiform sign surrounds a phonetic approximation of a phonological interpretation1 (surrounding a cuneiform) sign indicates the specific reading of the sign (capitals indicate the name of the sign): Pi = wa, bad = be > and < indicate a phonological change, e.g. *baytum > btum; *yilqa > yilq > ilq; iakin > (Ass) iikin, or a semantic change, e.g. aknum appointed > governor. and indicate (1) a morphophonemic or morphosyntactic (analogical) change or replacement, e.g., *uaz uaaz; nmurum nanmurum; iakn (Ass) iikn; (2) a relationship of derivation, e.g., iparrVs paris; iparras ipparras. // separates different manuscripts (duplicates) of the same text. * precedes a reconstructed but not actually attested form. ** precedes an incorrectly reconstructed or presupposed form: **putanrrusum (Inf Dtn), **innimir.
Conventions of transcription and terminology

For Akkadian, I have in general adopted a transliteration system that is fairly close to what may be considered to be the actual form of the wordi.e., basically that of von Soden and Rllig 1991 rather than the more objective system of Gelb 1970 and CAD; see Reiner 1973: 3945 for a discussion of some relevant points. I will also adhere to the traditional convention of distinguishing between long vowels with a circumflex (if they are contractions of adjacent vowels) and long vowels with a macron (if they are originally long or compensate for a lost guttural or sonant), although it is unlikely that there is a phonological motivation to do so. However, for third-millennium Akkadian, this system is problematic for several reasons (see Rubio 2003b: 36367 and Hasselbach 2005: 2425). Therefore, I have adopted for Sargonic Akkadian Gelbs system of transliteration, which is also used in Hasselbachs recent grammar of Sargonic Akkadian (2005), supplemented by a phonological interpretation (which is of course subjective), e.g. ga-ti-su /qtsu/, l-gi /yilq/, i-du-ud /yisdud/, etc.2 For Mari Old Akkadian,
1. For instance, in Old Assyrian /qabyku/ represents what I take to be the most likely phonological representation of q-b-a-ku and q-bi-a-ku I have (been) told. Occasionally, I have ventured to posit a more phonetic reconstruction, e.g. [qabiyku]. 2. The contrast between the phoneme /s/ of Sargonic Akkadian corresponding with // elsewhere (including Mari Old Akkadian; Hasselbach 2005: 13536) is awkward in cross-dialectal comparison. There-
xxi
which has only one series of sibilants as compared with the two series found in Sargonic Akkadian (A. Westenholz 1978: 163a), I will use for the reflex of PSem */, e.g. -u-r-id /y?urid/ AKI p. 361 M 4:4), where Sargonic Akkadian would have /yusrid/.3 For Ur III Babylonian, I will normalize the transliteration in accordance with later Babylonian practice. Whenever this seemed relevant, I have added to third-millennium quotations an indication of the genre and the provenance of the text.4 Also for Eblaite, where the distance between spelling and the (presumably) intended form is fairly large and many interpretations are uncertain, I have preferred the more cautious transliteration that is employed by most specialists; for instance, I write mu-sa-ga-i-nm (VE 1306) rather than mu-a-k-i-nm for what is phonologically doubtless /muskayyinum/ (Bab muknu commoner; see 13.4.4, p. 347). For the second-millennium and later dialects, I use the traditional system of transcription as it is applied in the standard manuals and dictionaries, although this is not always phonologically accurate and sometimes inconsistent with the third-millennium transcriptions. I use the forms of Old Babylonian, but without mimation, as the default dialect for quoting verbs in contexts where no specific dialect is referred to or when the form in question is not attested nor reconstructible for the dialect under discussion; for instance, I speak of the verb pet to open. Other forms, such as Old Assyrian patum or Middle Assyrian patu, will only be quoted when this is relevant in the context. With regard to other Semitic languages, I have opted for a transcription system that suits the historical and comparative orientation of the present study. For Hebrew, this is basically the Moscati system (Moscati, ed. 1964: 50), with e for er ( ), e for s egl (), a for pata ( ), or o for qme ( ), o for olem ( ), and u for ireq ( ), with an additional macron if the vowel is long, and the superscript version for p and pata furtivum. Spirantization of consonants will be ignored. For Geez, I will also follow Moscati, ed. 1964: 54 in using a for the 1st order, for the 2nd order, for the 3rd order, for the 4th order, for the 5th order, or for the 6th order, and for the 7th order. For consonants of Proto-Semitic for which there is no generally accepted symbol, I will use the rather traditional and typographically convenient system of Moscati, ed. 1964: 4344, with, however, for the voiceless interdental (> Akk ), for the voiced interdental (> Akk z), for the glottalic interdental (> Akk ), and for the glottalic lateral fricative (> Akk ), which is also written or elsewhere (see also Huehnergard 2004: 14243). For the Proto-Semitic sibilants, I will use the familiar signs *, , and *s rather than *s1, *s2, and *s3 (cf. Faber 1981: 25357). With regard to grammatical terminology, there are two particular areas where the juxtaposition of forms from different languages leads to terminological difficulties: the tense/aspect system and the system of derived verbal stems. The tense/aspect system of the older Semitic languages is based on a binary opposition between a marked and an unmarked category, the former having an imperfective aspect and usually referring to non-past tense, whereas the latter may basically be a perfective but is generally used as a straightforward past tense. In the various Semitic languages, different terms are traditionally used to refer to these categories, such as Imperfect, Present, and
fore, I will ignore this difference and use Babylonian in the pertinent words, except in the phonological representation of Sargonic Akkadian words between slashes, e.g. /yus/, the Perf of wa to go /come out, but elsewhere yu. 3. See 16.2.3 (p. 455) for this form. 4. For the label Me-sg, which refers to the Sargonic Akkadian texts of BIN 8 coming from the estate of Me-sg in the Umma or Girsu region, see Foster 1982a: 6 and 1982b: 301.
xxii
Durative for the marked category, and Perfect and Preterite for the unmarked category (whereas in Akkadian Perfect refers to a third category). If we include other branches of Afroasiatic, a massive terminological confusion arises in which no term can be taken at its face value and in which categories that correspond across languages have quite different labels. In order to avoid ambiguity on the one hand and cumbersome formulations on the other, Iat least for Semiticuse the terms imperfective and perfective for the marked and the unmarked variants of the prefix conjugations, respectively, regardless of the traditional term in a given language and no matter whether the category in question is perhaps more temporal than aspectual (as is certainly the case in Akkadian; see 4.3, pp. 9195): so Akk iparrVs, Ar yaqtVlu, He yiqol and Geez yqattl are imperfective; Akk iprVs, Ar yaqtVl, and He (way)yiqol are perfective (in so far as they have indicative function). For the rest, I use the traditional terms perfect and jussive for the West Semitic suffix conjugation (qatVla) and the irrealis use of yaqtVl, respectively. For the Akkadian past tense with infixed t (iptarVs), I use the label t-perfect to avoid confusion with the West Semitic perfect. For other languages, I use the terms imperfective and perfective when these are clearly appropriate, or else the labels current in the specific language (with an initial capital), with a definition when ambiguity might arise. The abbreviations of grammatical terms in the list of abbreviations are mainly used as tags to specific forms quoted. Each Semitic language also has its own terminology for the derived verbal stems,5 and even for Akkadian itself two different systems are in use. For specific languages, I will use the system current for that language, but for comparative purposes and when referring to a specific stem across languages, I follow the Akkadian notation employed by W. von Soden in his grammar (GAG) and his dictionary (AHw), which is transparent and mnemonically superior. For the derived stems with a lengthened vowel, which occur in some West Semitic languages but not in Akkadian, I use the symbol L when that is convenient.
5. See Goshen-Gottstein 1969 for a description of the history of the terms; Tropper 2002: 100101 and Lipiski 1997: 334 contain handy tables for comparing the various terminological systems.
Preliminaries
Objective,structure,andmethOd
PartOne
Chapter 1
1.1. objective
This book has two closely related objectives: to describe the Akkadian verbal system during its period of attestation, and to reconstruct its prehistory on the basis of internal reconstruction, comparison with cognate languages, and typological evidence. The first of these aims is a necessary prerequisite for the second: before we start comparing aspects of the Akkadian verb with corresponding phenomena in related languages, we must squeeze the maximum amount of information out of the languages involvedin particular, Akkadian itself. Moreover, description of the Akkadian verb has a merit of its own, because Akkadian has one of the longest documented histories of all languages: data are available from about two and a half millenniaalthough the data are not without interruptions and are not always as copious as we would like. During the course of this history, numerous developments took place, illustrating how languages change over time and offering parallels for the reconstruction of changes that occurred in poorly documented periods. Knowledge of historical processes enables us to go backward in time by extrapolating them into prehistory, especially because such processes are often cyclic. There is no lack of detailed and competent studies of the Akkadian verb and specific aspects of it, among which we of course single out W. von Sodens monumental Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (1952), which has lost little of its relevance as a comprehensive description of Akkadian, although several of its historical and more theoretical statements are in need of revision. Nonetheless, even further progress can be gained from a variety of strategies. The first one is a more detailed and more comprehensive look at our primary evidence, the Akkadian texts themselves, which constitute our basic set of data. They still contain untapped resources that can be made available by means of systematic comparison between dialects, detailed investigation of orthographical features, and the exploitation of new data from recently published texts and to some extent also from the language of Ebla, which is gradually revealing more and more of its secrets. A second strategy is a greater emphasis on the systematic nature of the Akkadian verb. A verbal system is a complex structure, with its own dynamics based on and driven by the functions it has to perform. This means that we should not limit ourselves to an atomistic description of the verbal categories in isolation from one another but also study their interactions and the ways they influence each other through the course of time. The structure of the paradigm and the 1
Method 1.2.
dependency relations between its members hold important clues for understanding diachronic processes and thus also for reconstructing its prehistoric development. A third strategy is the use of typological evidence, which provides insight into the question of what kinds of developments are common or uncommon in the history of languages. Therefore, it is an important tool in evaluating the likelihood of proposed hypothetical developments and particularly relevant in situations where actual data are inadequate. By combining these strategies, I will describe the verbal categories of Akkadian as they developed in the historical period, reconstruct the oldest attainable situation, compare this with other Semitic languages, and formulate a hypothesis regarding the structure of the verb in ProtoSemitic from an Akkadian perspective, in order to bridge the gap between Akkadian and the rest of Semitic and to shed light on the diachronic processes that have led to their diversification. Deeper comparison on the level of Afroasiatic is not a specific aim of this book, although I will not hesitate to use Afroasiatic evidence if I consider it relevant to the point under discussion. In fact, achieving some kind of consensus about the nature of Proto-Semitic is a major condition for a fruitful study of Afroasiatic.
1.2. Method
The methods used will be in accordance with the objectives outlined in the preceding section. The extant Akkadian texts provide the primary data for a description of the verbal system. This description is in principle synchronic, but because of the large time span covered by the recorded history of Akkadian, this is hardly the appropriate term. A synchronic description is only possible for the individual dialects or periods of Akkadian, even though generally speaking the differences between themor rather between the written forms in which they are available to usare surprisingly small. I will instead use the term historical for the descriptive part of the present study, in contrast to prehistoric, when referring to the reconstruction of the genesis of the verbal system, which mainly took place in the prehistoric period. The reconstruction of the prehistoric development will primarily be based on the time-honored methods of historical linguistics: internal reconstruction and the comparative method (in this order). However, they can be supplemented by other approaches that have been developed in the domain of general linguistics in the past few decades. I will single out three of them that are immediately relevant to the historical study of language in general, and to the present study in particular: (diachronic) typology, grammaticalization, and the structure of paradigms.
1.2.1. (Diachronic)Typology
Of particular importance to historical linguistics is the typological approach to language, which originates with Greenbergs studies on word-order universals (Greenberg 1963, 1966) and was carried on by others, such as Bybee (1985, 2001), Croft (1991, 2003), Givn (especially 1979, 1995), Hopper and Thompson (1980, 1984), to mention only those who have been a particular source of inspiration for the present study. This typological approach starts from the assumption that variation in language is subject to universal restrictions that are ultimately grounded in the function(s) language performs. It investigates these restrictions in order to detect cross-linguistic regularities and ultimately to establish what is a possible human language or, perhaps more modestly, what is a more probable, as opposed to less probable, human language (Song 2001: 3). The basic method of typologists is large-scale comparison on the basis of a representative corpus of languages. Studies of this kind have revealed remarkable parallels in the way in which par-
1.2. Method
ticular domains of grammar are encoded cross-linguistically, such as the expression of the passive (Siewierska 1984; Keenan 1985; Haspelmath 1990), the middle voice (Kemmer 1993), the causative (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973; Song 1996), the resultative (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988), tense/aspect in general (Dahl 1985; Bybee et al. 1994), adjectives (Dixon 1982; Wetzer 1996; Dixon and Aikhenvald 2004), intransitive predicates (Stassen 1997), and nominal predicates (Hengeveld 1992). It has also become clear that these domains tend to be grammaticalized through a restricted number of diachronic processes. This is the field of diachronic typology, which studies occurring changes (Greenberg 1995) in order to understand the limits of possible diversity (Givn 1999: 110). Diachronic typology conceives language states as stages in a process of change, so that the focus of attention shifts from the states themselves to the transitions between them (Croft 2003: 23244). This has blurred the borderline between synchronic and diachronic linguistics, which has had the status of a dogma since Saussure and has long tended to relegate historical linguistics to a marginal position. It is now recognized that both approaches are equally valuable, that change is an inherent property of language, and that there are grammatical phenomena that can best be meaningfully described in a historical perspective (Hopper 1987; Heine and Claudi 1986: 14750; Heine et al. 1991: 24852; Bybee 2001: 57, 189215). The typologists maintain a different emphasis from the more traditional comparative linguists: they are primarily interested in the process of diachronic change itself and the principles that govern it, and therefore focus on historical stages of languages that are attested over a long period. They do not shun reconstructions but regard them as by-products rather than as goals in themselves (Givn 1999: 10911). Their studies have shown that diachronic developments in languages tend to follow rather narrowly circumscribed paths that recur again and again with different lexical means even in unrelated languages. This enables us to determine which kinds of historical processes are common in language development, and which kinds are uncommon or even not attested, and thus to check our hypotheses and reconstructions. The importance of this kind of information for the reconstruction of prehistoric stages of a language is obvious: a hypothetical reconstruction that has parallels in historical developments has a greater plausibility than one that has few or no parallels. The latter is not automatically disqualified but needs to be supported by stronger evidence to be acceptable.
1.2.2. Grammaticalization
The study of diachronic processes in language has demonstrated the importance of grammaticalization as a pervasive principle of language development. Grammaticalization is that subset of linguistic changes whereby a lexical item or construction in certain uses takes on grammatical characteristics, or through which a grammatical item becomes more grammatical (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 2).1 If an element undergoes grammaticalization, it becomes more frequent but less independent, it gets a more general and more grammatical meaning, a reduced form, and a less variable position. Ultimately, it may lose its status as an independent word and become a clitic or an affix with a grammatical rather than a lexical meaning. Accordingly, grammaticalization is an important mechanism for creating new grammatical categories and for replacing existing ones, in contrast to sound change and analogy, which normally only modify existing
1. General introductions are Hopper and Traugott 2003 and Heine et al. 1991; see also Croft 2003: 25379; Bybee et al. 1994: 49; Joseph and Janda, eds. 2003: 575601. A non-technical account of grammaticalization and its role in the development of language, with special attention to the rise of the Semitic verbal system, is Deutscher 2005.
Method 1.2.
categories (Meillet 1948b: 133). It has its own dynamics and follows its own rules, and is often cyclical: a new mode of expression that has arisen because of its greater expressivity gradually replaces the older expression, loses its expressivity in the process and becomes vulnerable to being replaced in its turn.2 The study of well-documented grammaticalization processes has provided a considerable amount of knowledge that is applicable to the clarification of synchronic states of languages without a documented past. Since it is inherently diachronic, it hastogether with typologystrongly contributed to ending the (post-)Saussurean bias in favour of synchronic analysis and to creating an upsurge in diachronic research. A grammaticalization process that is particularly relevant for the present study is the renewal of tense and aspect categories. As far as I am aware, Jerzy Kuryowicz was the first to draw attention to the regularity and recursiveness in the way the verbal categories referring to the present and the past evolve over time. He formulates the development of present categories as follows (1975: 104):
The most important phenomenon which has repeated itself over and over again and has left numerous traces in the old I.E. languages, is the renewal of the durative character of the verbal forms denoting the moment of speaking (present-imperfect system). The durative form may easily invade other semantic spheres: general (timeless) present, futurity, modality (capability, eventuality), etc. This expansion, involving the loss of expressiveness (i.e., of concentration on durativity), is the cause of drawing upon derived forms designed to renew the durative function. A formal split is likely to ensue: durative present (new form) and general or indetermined present (old form), present (new form) and future (old form), indicative (new form) and subjunctive (old form).
A corresponding process for the past tense starts with the perfect:
As regards the so-called perfect the normal evolution seems to be: derived form (or verbal noun + auxiliary verb) > perfect > indetermined past (pass indfini) > narrative tense. The derivative is adopted as a regular member of the conjugation in order to replace the old form of the perfect, which, having been additionally charged with the narrative function, has lost its expressiveness. (Kuryowicz 1975: 106; see also ibid. 128).
Kuryowiczs claims have been confirmed by the cross-linguistic study of grammaticalization processes by Bybee et al. (1994) and have been applied to the Semitic languages by D. Cohen (1984) in his monumental study of the renewal of verbal categories in Semitic. Bybee et al. have established far-reaching commonalities in the ways verbal categories that are semantically parallel develop over time even in unrelated languages. They investigate in particular the evolution of past tense forms, the rise of futures and irrealis forms, andmost importantly for the present studythe renewal of present and imperfective categories. D. Cohen uses the long period of attestation of most West Semitic languages to investigate the evolution of the verbal system and
2. See Heine et al. 1991: 24347 (they refer in particular to Hodge [1970], who illustrated this with examples from Old Egyptian and Coptic); Hopper and Traugott 2003: 12224; Givn 1971; Croft 2003: 253; Haspelmath 1998: 5455. Prominent examples of cyclic processes in Semitic are the renewal of the verbal categories by means of periphrastic constructions (to be described in chap. 4), the restriction of the perfective iprVs to subordinate clauses in later Akkadian, a repetition of what happened to the original Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, which became a subjunctive in Akkadian (see 9.3.3, pp. 227232); the introduction of the new pluractional category ipta(na)rrVs after the earlier pluractional iparrVs had become the regular imperfective (see 14.7.6, pp. 431437); and the development of the original stative/ resultative suffix conjugation into the West Semitic perfect, which is a repetition of what happened to the earlier Proto-Semitic perfective *yiqtVl.
1.2. Method
to show in detail how the same functional tendencies repeatedly trigger the renewal of existing verbal categories. Since this is an important clue to the understanding of the evolution of the verb in prehistoric times as well, I will discuss it in greater detail in chap. 4 on the Akkadian imperfective iparrVs.3 In sum, the interest in diachronic typology and grammaticalization has proved highly fruitful for the historical study of language, especially for the solution of diachronic problems, such as the way in which complex grammatical systems develop over time. This approach is crucial for the solution of the problems caused by the Akkadian verb and its relation to the verb in other Semitic languages.
1.2.3. Thestructureofparadigms
An important means for language speakers to handle complex morphological structures is to organize them in paradigms. According to Bybee (1985: 49), a paradigm is a group of inflectionally related words with a common lexical stem.4 Each form (or member) is specified for one or more of the relevant inflectional categories constituting the paradigm. In a nominal paradigm, these typically include case, gender, and number; in a verbal paradigm, they include person, gender, number, tense/aspect, mood, and diathesis (Booij 1998: 15). A paradigm has a hierarchical structure, in which some forms are (more) basic and others (more) derived. Generally speaking, the more basic forms are those that perform the prototypical functions of the paradigm. For a verbal paradigm, this means that verb forms are more basic when they are finite rather than non-finite, when they refer to an event rather than to a state, and when they are realis (indicative) rather than non-realis.5 Among the finite realis forms, the most basic forms are those that refer to the actual moment of speechthat is, those of the present or imperfectiveand among the persons of this category, it is the third-person singular that is the most basic form of the verbal paradigm.6 In accordance with their prototypical status, the finite realis forms also tend to show the greatest number of morphosemantic distinctionstypically,
3. For a survey of grammaticalization processes in Semitic languages, see Rubin 2005. Deutscher 2000 is a pioneering study of the grammaticalization of complement markers in Akkadian. For an application of the results of Bybee et al.s investigations on the verb in Biblical Hebrew, see T. D. Andersen 2000. Cook 2001 also offers a grammaticalization approach to the Hebrew verbal system. 4. Cf. also Hock (1991: 168), who defines a paradigm as the set of inflected forms of a given word. 5. See in general Bybee 1985: 4965; for events versus states: Givn 1984: 5156; for realis versus non-realis: Manczak 1958: 38788; Greenberg 1966: 46; Hopper and Thompson 1984: 708, 726; Givn 1995: 56. 6. For the basicness of the present or imperfective, see Mnczak 1958: 388; Greenberg 1966: 4849; Hock 1991: 218220; H. Anderson 1990: 810; Croft 2003: 162. With regard to Semitic languages, Greenberg (1966: 48), Benmamoun (1999), Ratcliffe (1998a: 33 n. 6), and Heath (2002: 12021) argue that the imperfective is the basis of word formation in Arabic. For the third-person singular as the most basic form of a verbal paradigm, see Kuryowicz 1964: 137; Bybee and Brewer 1980: 21014; Bybee 1985: 50; Hock 1991: 22022; Aikhenvald and Dixon 1998: 6162; van Loon 2005: 13 and 46. The main arguments are the following. First, semantically, the third person is the zero person, which refers to the one who is not present at the speech situation and which accordingly often has zero expression (Benveniste 1966; Kuryowicz 1968: 74); second, where word counts are available, the third person usually turns out to have the highest frequency (Greenberg 1966: 4445); third, in language acquisition by children, the third-person singular present is acquired first in many languages and used initially for all other forms of the paradigm (Bybee 1985: 5051; Bybee Hooper 1980); fourth, in historical change, this form often serves as the basis for the innovation of the paradigm or for the remake of other forms (Bybee and Brewer 1980: 21014 for Spanish and Provenal dialects). In nominal paradigms, it is usually the nominative or the absolutive that is basic (Hock 1991: 21618).
Method 1.2.
those of tense/aspect, mood, diathesis, person, number, and gender; the less prototypical forms, in contrast, often show varying degrees of neutralization of these verbal distinctions. The prototypical members also tend to be the most frequent, and according to Bybee (1985: 11718), frequency is the ultimate criterion for determining basicness: each time a form is heard and produced, it becomes more entrenched in the speakers mind and acquires what she calls a greater lexical strength. A great lexical strength entails a high degree of autonomythat is, the degree to which the word in question is represented as an independent item in the speakers mental lexicon. Autonomous forms are relatively resistant to change (see below) and are the basis on which other, less frequent and therefore less autonomous, forms are built. In a complex paradigm, the members are organized in subgroups on the basis of similarity in meaning. Similarity in meaning can be measured by means of Bybees concept of relevance that is, the degree to which the contrast between the respective forms affects the semantic content (Bybee 1985: 33): a contrast is more relevant as it has more drastic consequences for the nature of the action. In a verbal paradigm, for instance, differences in person are less relevant than differences in aspect, because for the nature of the action it makes less difference who performs it than how it is performed; in the noun, differences in case are less relevant than differences in number and gender, since the former do not affect the lexical meaning. Traditionally, forms that are similar are arranged in conjugations (in the verb) and declensions (in the noun). The definition of a paradigm quoted above stipulates that the members of a paradigm have inflectional status. As such, they are opposed to (etymologically or historically) related forms with derivational status.7 The difference is aptly summarized by Haspelmath (1996: 47): the most basic property of inflectional forms is that they are described exclusively in grammatical paradigms, whereas derivational formations are described by listing them individually in a dictionary. In more concrete terms, inflectional forms generally serve to express a relatively small, closed set of grammatical functions; they are predictable in meaning and function and often also in form, and they are fully productive, since they must be available for each lexeme, unless semantic factors interfere (Booij 1998: 1415). Derivation typically serves to create new lexemes on the basis of others in order to express complex meanings that are in some way related to the basic word. It cannot be applied automatically and may therefore be more or less productive (Hock 1991: 17375; Booij 1998: 1617). The semantic relationship between source word and derivation is much more unpredictable than in the case of inflection: since a derivational form is essentially an independent lexeme, it undergoes lexicalization more easily than an inflectional member of a paradigm (Bybee 2001: 118).8 However, the boundary between inflection and derivation is not clear-cut (Bybee 1985: 81 84, 1089; Dressler 1989). Instead, it is a continuum, with prototypically inflectional and prototypically derivational categories at both ends, and in between are the categories that are more
7. A selection of the huge literature about inflectional versus derivational categories should include Kuryowicz 1964: 3538; Bybee 1985: 81110; Dressler 1989; Haspelmath 1996; Booij 1998; Stump 2001: 25260. 8. An often-quoted difference between inflection and derivation is that derivation entails a change in the syntactic category (word class) of the word. This is indeed often the case, but it does not seem to be an essential property (Haspelmath 1996; Booij 1998: 1214). Well-known derivational categories such as diminutives (nouns from nouns), derived adjectives (such as English adjectives with -ish: bluish from blue), and verbs from verbs (in particular, the derived verbal stems of Semitic; see 10.5, pp. 250252) do not entail a category change. Nor is it an essential property of inflection that it does not entail a change in wordclass; cf. infinitives and participles, which are nouns and often inflectional members of the verbal paradigm (Haspelmath 1996).
1.2. Method
or less inflectional or derivational depending on the number of features they show of either kind (Kuryowicz 1964: 37). The gradual nature of the contrast makes it possible for categories to shift from (more) derivational to (more) inflectional and vice versa: lexicalization and grammaticalization, respectively (see 2.2.3, pp. 3536). A paradigm is a dynamic structure: the relations between its members are in a constant flux. Some of them may be expanding their range of use, usurping functions of others; other members may be in a process of gradual decline or replacement by another form. Therefore, the structure of a paradigm is also relevant from a historical point of view.9 The most important point is that the hierarchy among its members influences the type of change to which they are exposed. We can distinguish three kinds of historical changes affecting the members of a paradigm: sound change, analogical (morphophonemic and morphosyntactic) change, and grammaticalization. Basic forms will be affected by both sound change and grammaticalization, the former because it indiscriminately affects all words that meet the phonological conditions for the change, the latter because it is triggered by semantic and discourse factors that lead to renewal of categories regardless of their status in the paradigm. Basic forms will not normally be affected by analogical change, since they are the source rather than the target of analogical change; this is Kuryowiczs (194549: 2325) second law (see Hock 1991: 21222). Derived forms, on the other hand, are affected by all three kinds of change, but in particular by analogical change. Sound change affects them directly if they meet the phonological conditions for the change, or indirectly, when their basic form is affected, since they will tend to adjust to the new base form. In this way, the effects of the sound change will gradually penetrate into the more derived forms, whether or not they meet the phonological conditions (it is not always easy to determine whether a change in a derived form is caused by sound change or analogy). Even where no sound change is involved, analogical change will tend to make derived forms more regular and predictable.10 In general, derived forms are sensitive to any kind of change in their base form. This agrees with the principles formulated by Maczak (1958, 1980), who establishes that among the forms of a paradigm some will be more conservative and others more prone to change, that the more conservative forms include the singular, the present, the indicative, the third person, inferior numerals (vs. superior numerals), and the cardinal numbers (vs. the ordinal numbers), and that these forms trigger reformation of other forms more often than vice versa. These are the categories that, also according to other criteria, are the basic ones in their respective domains.
9. For a striking example of change under the influence of the paradigm, see Malkiel 1968, in particular pp. 4749. 10. See Hock 1991: 16789, Givn 1995: 5859, and in particular Bynon 1977: 34: in contrast however with phonological change, which operates independently of grammatical and semantic structure, analogy is concerned precisely with the relationship between phonological structure and grammatical structure. It is in fact the very mechanism which, either by modifying existing linguistic forms or by creating new ones, brings back into alignment phonological forms and grammatical function after the relationship between these has been disrupted by sound change. A good example from Akkadian is offered by the independent personal pronouns (GAG 41). Their paradigm shows a striking difference between the nominative, which is the basic form (both in function and in frequency), and the oblique cases: whereas the nominative remains more or less stable in form throughout the history of Akkadian, the oblique cases have a different form in almost every dialect and period. Another example is the imperfective: since the form referring to the actual moment of speech is the basic category of the verbal paradigm, a change in the present or imperfective of a given language will have important consequences for the entire paradigm. Accordingly, in Akkadian the introduction of a new imperfective with gemination of the second radical (iparrVs) led to a drastic restructuring in many other areas of the verbal paradigm, as I will argue in the rest of the present study.
The Structure of the Present Work 1.3.
Generally speaking, there will be a strong tendency within a conjugation to level formal distinctions that are not central to its function, such as stem differences in the finite verb (Maczak 1958: 30112; Bybee 1985: 65; Koch 1996: 22937; see also Bybee Hooper 1980: 16680). The outcome of all this is that derived forms are far more vulnerable to change than basic forms.11 Irregular derived forms tend to be preserved only when they are frequent enough to have a high lexical strength and thus to be stored in the speakers mental lexicon as independent forms (Bynon 1977: 3536; Bybee 1985: 12122). Very frequent forms, derived or not, may become irregular because they are subject to phonetic attrition (Zipfs Law; cf. Bybee 2001: 6062). Language is a system in which tout se tient, to use once more Andr Meillets worn-out dictum, and this is particularly relevant to the close-knit system of a paradigm. Accordingly, we should try to reconstruct paradigms or systems rather than individual categories (Petrek 1984: 43436). The Akkadian verbal paradigm offers numerous illustrations of this, as will become clear in the course of the present study.
1.3. the structure of the Present Work

In accordance with the objectives outlined in 1.1, the description of the Akkadian verbal system will be twofold. On the one hand, it will be factual in the sense that it describes the form and function of each verbal category during the recorded history of Akkadian. On the other hand, it will be hypothetical to the extent that it attempts to reconstruct the prehistory of each category by means of (primarily) internal reconstruction and (subsequently) comparison with corresponding Semitic and Afroasiatic categories. In the factual parts, I will give a detailed description of each verbal category in the various periods and dialects in which it occurs, with particular attention (a) to its relations with competing and contrasting categories, (b) to its position in the system as a whole, and (c) to the consequences this may have for its form, its function and its development over time. Obviously, the degree of detail is limited by the quantity of the available sources and by what is possible in terms of the acceptable size of a monograph. For practical reasons, Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian will have centre stage: they are the earliest dialects for which a very large corpus is available, they are both fairly uniform, and Old Babylonian has a sophisticated orthography that reveals the underlying language with more precision than most other dialects. With the results drawn from this description, I will turn to other Semitic languages (and to Afroasiatic languages if reliable correspondences are available) and compare the Akkadian forms with the evidence they provide in order to reconstruct the prehistoric development of the category in question. Ultimately, this should enable us to derive the Akkadian category from its Semitic ancestor (if any) and thus to explain the Akkadian form, to the extent that a language form is explained as soon as we know where it has come from. The order in which the individual categories will be discussed is in principle from basic to derived, which by and large means from simple to complex. This gives rise to a main division of this monograph into four parts (not counting the present one, Part I, which includes the preliminaries):
11. In this context we should also view the conclusions of Fox, who observes (2003: 52) that in the case of deverbal nouns usually only the patterns, rather than individual words, are reconstructible to ProtoSemitic, but that isolated nounsnouns that are not primarily associated with a verbal rootcan often be reconstructed back to intermediate proto-languages or even Proto-Semitic itself in their full form (see the list in Fox 2003: 7287). This is a consequence of the ongoing reformation and renewal typical of deverbal categories.
1.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic
Part II deals with the categories belonging to the basic stem (the G-stem) of the strong triradical verb; it describes their form and also includes a discussion of functional aspects such as tense/aspect and mood, which of course also apply to the corresponding categories of other types of verbs. Part III deals with the form and function of the derived verbal stems. There is some overlap with Part II as a result of the diachronic process whereby derived stem-forms penetrate into the paradigm of the G-stem (the imperfective iparrVs and the t-perfect iptarVs); therefore, some issues that strictly speaking belong to this part are actually discussed in Part II. Part IV gives a succinct account of the paradigms of the weak verbsthat is, verbs with w, y, and/or a vowel as radicaland verbs that (originally) had a guttural consonant among their radicals. The weak-verb paradigm is ostensibly modelled on that of the strong verb, but occasional deviations may provide important information about relations between forms. The importance of the verbs with gutturals is that the loss of guttural consonants is a relatively recent phenomenon in the earliest documents, so ensuing changes can be observed in the texts. Of all verbal categories, these verbs show by far the greatest number of changes in the historical period, which makes them crucial for dialect classification and particularly interesting for observing the kind of restructurings which occur after the loss of a radical. Part V, finally, consists of a single chapter that wraps up the results achieved in the preceding parts concerning the verbal categories to be reconstructed for the common parent language from the perspective of Akkadian and attempts anaturally hypotheticaldescription of the main features of the Proto-Semitic verbal system.
1.4. Akkadian, semitic, and Afroasiatic

The following sections contain a short description of Akkadian and its dialects and an even shorter one of the languages of the Semitic family and the branches of the Afroasiatic phylum to which Akkadian belongs. The dialect classification of Akkadian itself is not a primary concern of the present study, but in a historical description of Akkadian it is obviously essential to refer constantly to the source of the forms discussed in terms of dialect and chronology. Therefore, the main purpose of the enumeration of Akkadian dialects is to define the labels I will use and to point out some features or problems in individual dialects that are relevant in this context. Most of it is uncontroversial. In 1.4.2, I will briefly describe the subgrouping of Semitic as presupposed in the present study, and in 1.4.3 the relevance of Afroasiatic.
1.4.1. Akkadian
The earliest traces of the Akkadian language consist of personal names in Sumerian documents from ca. 2600 B.C. onward. The earliest extant documents in Akkadian date from ca. 2350 B.C., and the last ones from the beginning of the Christian era. As a spoken language, it is likely to have become extinct several centuries earlier, presumably around the middle of the first millennium B.C., although this is somewhat controversial.12 It was eventually replaced by Aramaic, doubtless after a prolonged period of bilingualism. Akkadian was originally spoken in Mesopotamia by the Babylonians and the Assyrians, but the cultural hegemony of its speakers
12. For instance, Streck (1995a: xxiiixxiv) places the disappearance of Akkadian as a spoken language some time during the Hellenistic period (against Buccellati 1996: 345), but Leichty (1993: 27) puts it in the eighth century B.C.; see also Streck 1997/98: 322b); Rubio 2007b: 4852; and A. Westenholz 2007.
10
Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic 1.4.
caused its use to spread to many of the adjacent areas, at least as a written language, in particular to the Levant and present-day Turkey. As a result, texts in Akkadian have been found in numerous centres outside Mesopotamia, such as Elam, Boghazky (ancient Hattusas, the capital of the Hittite empire), El-Amarna, Alalakh, Ugarit, Emar, and Nuzi. These texts were often written by people with a different native language, and to varying degrees they show divergences from the texts in core Akkadian and influences from the local language.13 Therefore, they are adduced here only in cases where evidence from core Akkadian is lacking. The very long period during which Akkadian is attested and its wide geographic expanse entails the existence of different varieties according to place and time of attestation. If we take mutual comprehension to be an important criterion distinguishing languages from dialects,14 and if we assume that the spelling more or less reliably represents the language as it was spoken (which is more plausible for the earlier than for the later periods), there can be little doubt that the varieties of Akkadian we find in the texts constitute dialects rather than languages (see below regarding Eblaite).15 For the sake of convenience, I will speak of dialects for variations both in place and in time, although strictly speaking the latter should be called periods rather than dialects. Actually, if we take into account the more than 2,000 years that separate the oldest and the latest attested forms of Akkadian, the rate of observable change is surprisingly smallmuch smaller, for instance, than that between present-day English and the totally different language that is generally reconstructed as its ancestor of 2,000 years ago, or, to limit ourselves to Semitic, than that between modern Aramaic and its ancestor around the beginning of the Christian era. It is quite likely, however, that the spelling, in particular that of the latest dialects, was much more conservative than the spoken language and that therefore the actual difference was larger than is visible to us.16 Most changes taking place during this period are of a type familiar from language history in general. In the domain of phonology, we observe cases of erosion of phonological substance, such as the loss of mimation and short final vowels, contraction of adjacent vowels, and simplification of consonant clusters. In morphology and morphosyntax, there are instances of the gradual elimination of non-basic and less frequent categories such as the dual (replaced by the plural), the third-person singular feminine (in Babylonian replaced by the masculine form), the vetitive (replaced by the prohibitive), and some of the derived verbal stems, such as the t-stems (see chap. 14). The most salient change in this domain is doubtless the gradual replacement of the inherited perfective iprVs by the t-perfect iptarVs as the past tense in affirmative main clauses. It is significant that we do not find developments that drastically change the verbal system as a whole. In particular, there are no changes that have an effect comparable to what we observe in West Semitic, where the basic verbal functions of imperfective and perfective are renewed by means of completely different categories on the basis of periphrastic constructions with parti13. For an enumeration of the different types of Peripheral Akkadian and bibliographical references, see GAG3 2l* and Huehnergard 2005a: xxv, xxxi. 14. See, for instance, Payne 1997: 1819. However, Gelb (1987: 72) flatly denies the usefulness of this criterion. 15. See, for instance, Joanns, ed. 2001: 27b. A dissenting voice is Woodington (1982: 1): What we call the dialects of Akkadian are more appropriately referred to as languages. She gives no motivation for this statement, however. Reiner (1966: 21) states: I would be inclined to consider Old Akkadian and NeoBabylonian as distinct languages (the absence of Neo-Assyrian from this statement is surprising). Parpola (1988: 294) takes it for granted that Babylonian and Assyrian were mutually understandable. 16. See also Buccellati 1996: 345. I disregard here changes in vocabulary, which obviously have a drastic effect on comprehensibility but do not affect the grammar.
11
ciples and particles. Even the replacement of iprVs by iptarVs is not a complete innovation but rather a shift in the division of tasks between two already-existing categories. A consequence of this situation is that dialect classification depends on a fairly small number of isoglosses, which leads to many uncertainties, especially in the rather poorly documented period of thirdmillennium Akkadian. In the next sections, I will enumerate the individual dialects, using the labels I will employ in the rest of the present study and with short references to the main sources on which our knowledge is based. For second- and first-millennium Akkadian, I will not attempt to justify the classification, since it is generally uncontroversial. However, for third-millennium Akkadian, I will be more specific about the classification I am adopting, without undertaking an exhaustive discussion of the issue. In the Excursus to 1.5 (pp. 2125), I will elaborate on the dialect classification of third-millennium Akkadian and the relationships among its dialects.
1.4.1.1. Third-MillenniumAkkadian
I will distinguish four third-millennium dialects: Pre-Sargonic Akkadian, Mari Old Akkadian, Sargonic Akkadian, and Ur III Babylonian; the latter two can perhaps be combined under a single heading, for which I will use the label Old Akkadian (tout court); see 1.5 below (p. 27). For Eblaite, which is better classified as a separate language, see also 1.5 (p. 22). 1. Pre-Sargonic Akkadian is known to us almost exclusively from proper names contained in very early texts that otherwise are written in Sumerian; most of them are conveniently listed by A. Westenholz (1988), Biggs (1988), and Krebernik (1998: 26070). In the Excursus to 1.5, I will come back to its most important feature in terms of dialect classification. 2. Mari Old Akkadian is known from several groups of third-millennium texts found at Mari (Tell Hariri, on the upper course of the Euphrates).17 They range from the Pre-Sargonic period until after the end of the Ur III period, which at Mari is called the akkanakku period, and comprise votive inscriptions of early Mari rulers; administrative texts, both from the Pre-Sargonic and the akkanakku period; and a collection of liver omina. I will also include in this dialect the closely related corpus of texts found at Tell Beydar (ancient Nabada, in the far north of Mesopotamia on the Habur river), dating from ca. 2400 B.C. These texts are mainly administrative.18 3. Sargonic Akkadian is the official language of the Sargonic Empire (ca. 2350 to 2170 B.C.). As the language of royal administration, it was used throughout Mesopotamia, replacing the earlier writing conventions associated with the Pre-Sargonic Kish Civilization (Sommerfeld 2003: 58386) and fell into disuse with the decline of the Empire. The extant
17. Mari Old Akkadian is not an early stage of the second-millennium dialect of Mari (which belongs to Old Babylonian) and should be strictly distinguished from it. 18. A survey of the Mari sources can be found in A. Westenholz 1978: 16061 and Gelb 1992. The votive inscriptions are collected in AKI pp. 35567 and discussed in Gelb 1992: 15260; for the Pre-Sargonic administrative texts, see Charpin 1987 and 1990; the texts from the akkanakku period were published by H. Limet in ARM 19, apart from a single but extremely interesting legal text published by J.-M. Durand in MARI 1 (1982) 7989. According to Durand, it is Pre-Sargonic, but I concur with Gelb (1992: 16769), who dates it to the same period as the administrative texts of ARM 19. The liver omina were published by M. Rutten in RA 35 (1938) 3670 and are discussed by Gelb (1992: 16971). They are an unreliable source for the Mari Old Akkadian dialect, because they combine forms with a different background, among which we can discern a heavy Babylonian influence (A. Westenholz 1978: 161 n. 9; Gelb 1992: 16971, 195). For Tell Baydar, see Ismail et al. 1996; Milano et al. 2004. Grammatical studies of Mari Old Akkadian are Limet 1975; A. Westenholz 1978; Charpin 1987: 8990; and Gelb 1992: 171200. The orthography of the different kinds of Old Akkadian Mari texts is discussed in great detail in Gelb 1992.
12
Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic 1.4. sources consist of royal inscriptions, letters and administrative documents, and a small number of other texts, among which a fairly long and well-preserved incantation (MAD 5, 8, edited and discussed by J. and A. Westenholz (1977).19 4. Ur III Babylonian is the term I will use for the hundred-odd texts written in Akkadian dating from the Ur III Period (ca. 2110 to 2000 B.C.).20 They consist of letters, administrative documents, royal inscriptions, and a few very fragmentary incantations. All sources are listed in Hilgert 2002: 2085. The available evidence, scarce as it is, is sufficient to prove that Ur III Babylonian is a direct predecessor of the Babylonian dialect of the second millennium.21
1.4.1.2. Babylonian
From the second millennium onward, the dialect classification of Akkadian is fairly straightforward. After Ur III Babylonian, we can divide Babylonian on a linguistic and chronological basis into Archaic Babylonian, Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, Neo-Babylonian, and Late Babylonian. Likewise, we can divide Assyrian into Old Assyrian, Middle Assyrian, and Neo-Assyrian. The boundaries between the stages are not only linguistic but usually coincide with major gaps in our documentation: most dialects are separated by several centuries from which few texts are extant (GAG 187c). This geographical and chronological classification is intersected by the literary dialect of Standard Babylonian (see 1.4.1.2.6, pp. 1617). The difference between Babylonian and Assyrian is large enough to make it fairly easy to identify even a short passage as Babylonian or Assyrian, but most differences are rather superficial, such as differences in vowel pattern (often resulting from the Assyrian vowel assimilation rule; see 2.4, pp. 4849), differences in vowel contraction, and the specifically Assyrian ni-subjunctive. The number of lexical differences is limited, at least for the core vocabulary (see Kogan 2006a). Generally speaking, there can be little doubt that they were mutually understandable and dialects of a single language rather than different languages. This is confirmed by the fact that their development over time runs remarkably parallel (Parpola 1988: 29394): many changes occur in both dialects (though not always simultaneously), such as the loss of mimation and short final vowels, the gradual introduction of vowel contraction, the development of the t-perfect iptarVs as a simple past tense in main clauses and the concomitant reduction of the perfective iprVs to secondary clause types, the gradual loss of the t-stems, etc. This presupposes protracted and fairly intensive contact between the inhabitants of Babylonia and Assyria, for which there are also many other indications.22
19. The royal inscriptions are conveniently edited by I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast in AKI and by G. Frayne in RIME 2; most of them are only extant in Old Babylonian copies, which in general seem to be rather reliable (see A. Westenholz 1996: 12021, but cf. Hasselbach 2005: 1113). The letters are edited by K. Volk and B. Kienast in SAB. There is no comprehensive edition of the administrative texts, but Hasselbach (2005: 25562) gives a full list of extant texts that have been published so far. A recent grammatical description of Sargonic Akkadian is Hasselbach 2005, which replaces I. J. Gelbs pioneering Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (1952; 2nd ed., 1961). 20. See Hilgert 2003: 11 n. 57. 21. This fairly recent insight is associated in particular with the names of A. Westenholz (1978, esp. 163b n. 24 end), Whiting (1987), and Sommerfeld (2003); see the Forschungsgeschichte in Hilgert 2002: 515. 22. Several concrete facts show that Babylonia had a strong cultural influence on Assyria, such as the use of Babylonian for literary purposes, the adoption of the Babylonian syllabary in Middle Assyrian, and the appearance of Babylonian names in the Middle Assyrian onomasticon (Saporetti 1970: II 90). A remarkable grammatical feature that Middle Assyrian may have borrowed from Babylonian is the use of in the dative pronoun of the first-person plural -ni(n); see W. Mayer 1971: 34 and Huehnergard 2006: 12 n. 57.
13
1.4.1.2.1. ArchaicBabylonian
Archaic Babylonian roughly covers the first half of the Isin-Larsa periodthat is, from the fall of the Ur III empire until the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon (ca. 2000 to 1900 B.C.). The main texts comprise a corpus of letters from Eshnunna, published by R. M. Whiting as OBTA nos. 130, some other letters, and a few royal inscriptions of kings ruling in this period.23 There is a great deal of continuity between Ur III Babylonian and Archaic Babylonian: the two share several important features, the most salient of which are global E-colouring (see 17.5.1, pp. 525534), the absence of contraction of heterogeneous vowels, the weak conjugation of II/ verbs and the occasional use of a subjunctive particle -na. On the other hand, Archaic Babylonian shows a few remarkable differences from Ur III Babylonian: occasional deviations from global E-colouring, the 3ms independent subject pronoun t he, the common use of the dual, and the use of ta- as 3fs prefix (see for details Whiting 1987: 821 and Hilgert 2002: 15868). Since these features are reminiscent of Assyrian, they may simply be due to the fact that the extant sources of Archaic Babylonian have a more northern provenance than most of the Akkadian Ur III sources. Hilgerts conclusion (2002: 168) that Ur III Babylonian is more closely related to Classical Old Babylonian than to Archaic Babylonian should probably be seen in this light.
1.4.1.2.2. OldBabylonian
Attestation for Old Babylonian roughly coincides with the First Dynasty of Babylon (ca. 1900 to 1600 B.C. in the conventional chronology that is followed here). There is no chronological gap between Archaic and (early) Old Babylonian: the transition is gradual, and the dividing line is not always clear-cut. The main criterion distinguishing them is the appearance of contraction of heterogeneous vowels, not only because it is readily observable in a substantial number of forms, but also because it is an innovation that provides a clear terminus ante quem. A. Westenholz (1978: 164 n. 29) dates it to the time just before Sumu-abum, both in Babylonia and in the Diyala areathat is, ca. 1900 B.C. It is convenient to set the first century of this period apart as Early Old Babylonian (see Whiting 1987: 1617). It is mainly known from letters, mostly from Eshnunna, and published by R. M. Whiting in OBTA nos. 3155. Subsequently, the main period of Old Babylonian begins with the reign of Hammurapi and his successors. The language of this period is often taken to be representative of Akkadian par excellence and has more or less acquired the status of a standard against which all other dialects are measured. It is characterized by a high degree of standardization in grammar and orthography, doubtless made possible by a well-functioning system of scribal education: a relatively simple and accurate syllabary; and an unusually abundant and varied quantity of texts, many of which belong to the highlights of Mesopotamian civilization. Where necessary, I will distinguish this period as Classical Old Babylonian. 24 In spite of this standardization, there is evidence of local varieties during the Old Babylonian period.25 Linguistic differences from Classical Old Babylonian are found in particular in texts from the north of Mesopotamia. Best known among these is the dialect of Mari Old Babylo23. The most important texts are enumerated by A. Westenholz (1978: 163b n. 25). An important addition is the inscription of Iddi(n)-Sin of Simurrum, edited by Shaffer and Wasserman (2003). 24. For some more-or-less detailed lists of sources, one might consult Lieberman 1977: 914. See also GAG 189 for a general characterization of Old Babylonian. Buccellati 1996 is a grammar that specifically describes Old Babylonian, but almost all grammars with Akkadian in the title basically describe the Old Babylonian dialect (e.g., Huehnergard 2005a) or take it as the default form of Akkadian (e.g., GAG). 25. In particular, in the domain of the sibilants, see Sommerfeld 2006: 37174 and Streck 2006: 237. The differences between northern and southern texts pointed out by Goetze (1945a) seem to be mainly orthographical; see Kraus 1973b: 33 (but cf. Izreel and Cohen 2004: 2829).
14
nian, attested in the huge archive of the palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari (see Finet 1956; Lambert 1967). It is only marginally different from Classical Old Babylonian; the only major divergence is the regular contraction of ia to (e.g., iqbm [passim] instead of iqbiam he said to me, i-med /imd/ ARM 1, 6:34 it will become numerous instead of imad ). A very similar dialect is found in the letters from Shemshara (Kupper 2001). Traces of a more northern kind of Old Babylonian are also preserved in a few letters found at Mari but sent from Iln-ur, which is in the vicinity of Tell Leilan according to Charpin (1989: 31); this dialect is studied by Charpin (1989). Not a different dialect but a different stylistic register is what von Soden (1931/33) calls der hymnisch-epische Dialekt and what I will call literary Old Babylonian. It is found in a specific and fairly small set of literary works, mostly hymns and epic texts, of which the most typical examples are the Aguaya text, recently reedited by Groneberg (1997) along with several other specimens of the same genre. Other instances are the so-called love poems about a king and a goddess, incantations, religious texts, royal inscriptions (especially the Prologue and Epilogue of Hammurapis law code), and several fragments of royal epics.26 The language of these texts is more or less consciously embellished by stylistic devices, such as a special vocabulary, changes in word order, parallelismus, sound effects such as assonance, and various unusual morphological forms.27 Grammatically, literary Old Babylonian differs only superficially from normal Old Babylonian, so it can hardly be considered a dialect. 28 There are two basic types of differences. The first concerns the cultivation of archaisms, such as the case endings -i and -um, the 3fs prefix ta-, the perfective forms of I/voc and I/w verbs with (uir, umid, etc.; see 16.2.3, pp. 455456), the suffix pronouns with apocopation of the final vowel (- instead of -u/a, etc.), and occasional uncontracted vowels. The second is the tendency of Babylonian scribes to exploit derivational patterns in order to adorn their style by creating novel forms that were not part of ordinary language and could therefore be felt as literary. In the nominal declension, for instance, they opted for different construct-state forms (Edzard 1982: 8788) and greatly extended the use of the old case endings -i and -um. In the verb, they used the formal and functional similarity between the D- and the -stems to derive -stems where ordinary usage required a D-stem, and even combined their use in the D-stem (see GAV pp. 27177, 33640; and 13.3, pp. 334337). This creative process started during the Old Babylonian period but reached its peak in the postOld Babylonian stage of Standard Babylonian. Finally, a striking feature of literary Old Babylonian is that it has a much freer word order. In particular, the clause-final position of the verb is often not maintained, and the order of noun and adjective is often reversed. It remains to be determined whether this represents the preservation of an archaic feature (also attested in Eblaite and Mari Old Akkadian; see 1.5, pp. 2223) or a secondary development dictated by metrical, prosodic, and/or stylistic factors.29 After the Old Babylonian period, this literary dialect developed into Standard Babylonian, which will be discussed below.
26. See von Soden 1931/33: I 16675; Groneberg 1972: 727. Remarkably enough, the most famous Old Babylonian epics, Atraasis and the Old Babylonian fragments of Gilgamesh, do not use this literary Old Babylonian extensively but apparently prefer a much more prosaic and straightforward style using ordinary words, short clauses, and relatively few stylistic adornments. This also applies to the Old Babylonian fragments of the smaller epics, Anzu and Etana. A catalogue of all Old Babylonian literary texts can be found in Wasserman 2003: 185224. 27. See GAG 186e/f; Von Soden 1931/33, esp. II 16081; Groneberg 1996. 28. A recent description of literary Old Babylonian is Izreel and Cohen 2004; specific grammatical features are mentioned and/or discussed in von Soden 1931/33, Groneberg 1972, and Huehnergard 2005a: 34648. Metzler 2002 contains a detailed account of the use of the tenses. 29. There is some debate about the time of origin of this literary dialect. On the basis of similarities with Sargonic Akkadian, von Soden (1931/33: I 164, II 17677) and Lambert (1973: 358) situate its origin in the
15
1.4.1.2.3. MiddleBabylonian
Middle Babylonian is usually taken to start with the fall of the First Dynasty of Babylon ca. 1600 B.C., but the earliest texts are from a much later date (from ca. 1400 B.C. onward), so there is a considerable gap between Old and Middle Babylonian. The texts mostly consist of letters and administrative documents, mainly from Nippur, Dr-Kurigalzu, Ur, and Babylon (the latter were found at El-Amarna in Egypt). Some other contemporary texts, such as the Epic of TukultiNinurta and a corpus of boundary stones (BBS) are in principle written in Standard Babylonian, though they occasionally contain Middle Babylonian forms.30 This also applies to the extant royal inscriptions of Babylonian and Assyrian kings of this period, which are written in an assyrianized Middle Babylonian (Aro 1955: 15; Stein 2000). Generally speaking, Middle Babylonian is a natural continuation of Old Babylonian, and most of its distinctive features are already more or less sporadically attested in (late) Old Babylonian.31
1.4.1.2.4. Neo-Babylonian
Neo-Babylonian is usually dated to the period 1000600 B.C. (GAG 2g). For linguistic purposes, the most important corpus consists of the Kuyunjik letters written in Neo-Babylonian, which were originally published in ABL and in CT 54.32 They were sent to Assyrian kings by their officials in Babylon and elsewhere and mainly deal with political and historical matters. As a result, they can therefore be accurately dated within the 120-year period from the reign of Sargon II (722705) to the fall of the Assyrian Empire shortly before 600 (Woodington 1982: 25), so they only cover the final part of the Neo-Babylonian period. An important new corpus of NeoBabylonian letters found in Nippur and dating from around 750730 B.C. has been published by Cole (1996). From a linguistic point of view, Neo-Babylonian rather accurately continues Middle Babylonian, although it is often credited as having been strongly influenced by Aramaic (GAG 192; but cf. Streck 1997/98: 322b).33
Sargonic Period. Whiting (1987: 1819), however, points out that most of its archaic features are still found in the early letters from Eshnunna and that there is therefore no reason to discount the Isin-Larsa period as the time of origin. This does not exclude the possibility that even older elements have survived. A plausible example are the perfective forms with : uir, etc., which are common in Sargonic Akkadian but in Old Babylonian are mainly restricted to literary texts that are directly associated with the king: the Prologue of Hammurapis law code and a text about Naram-Sin, first published by Lambert (1973) and reedited by J. Westenholz (1997: 189201). It seems likely that these particular forms are intended as reminiscences of the inscriptions of the Sargonic kings. Generally speaking, the tendency to create a specific literary language is insolubly connected with the emergence of a written language used for purposes other than simple accounting, and this makes it likely that already in the third millennium B.C. there were words, forms, and expressions specifically used in literary creations. See Hasselbach 2005: 1115 for a characterization of Sargonic Akkadian literary texts. 30. Aro (1955: 1518) lists the sources that were then available; see also Pedersn 1998: 10325. The texts found in Ur were published by O. R. Gurney in MBTU. 31. The main tools for the study of Middle Babylonian are Aro 1955 and 1957; Bloch 1940 is in most respects outdated. See also GAG 190 for a general characterization. For the differences between Old and Middle Babylonian, see Reiner 1966: 113 and Lieberman 1977: 89 n. 21. 32. Most of these texts have recently been (re)edited in the SAA Series (SAA 17 and 18); see also de Vaan 1995. 33. Grammars of Neo-Babylonian are Woodington 1982 for the Kuyunjik letters and de Vaan 1995 specifically for the letters sent by Bl-ibni. See also GAG 192 for a general characterization of Neo-Babylonian.
16
1.4.1.2.5. LateBabylonian
Late Babylonian comprises the non-literary cuneiform texts from after the fall of the Assyrian Empirethat is, from the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Seleucid periods (GAG 2h).34 They consist of a vast quantity of letters and administrative documents; see Dandamaev (1984: 629) and Streck (1995a: xxvi-xxix) for convenient surveys. The literary texts and royal inscriptions of this period are to be considered part of Standard Babylonian.35
1.4.1.2.6. StandardBabylonian
In the English-speaking world, Standard Babylonian is the established term for the literary and scientific variety of Akkadian after the Old Babylonian period (German: jungbabylonisch). The name is unfortunate in that the standard for Standard Babylonian is actually Old Babylonian (GAG 2f; Izreel and Cohen 2004: 2): Standard Babylonian owes its existence to the fact that the learned scribes of the post-Old Babylonian period attempted to emulate Old Babylonian without being completely successful (and getting more and more unsuccessful in the course of time), because they were influenced by their own everyday speech. Literary Babylonian is another possible label, but it has the disadvantage that Standard Babylonian also comprises many texts that we would designate learned prose style or the like rather than literary. The Standard Babylonian corpus is huge and varied; it contains literary texts in the usual sense of the word (epics, hymns, poems, wisdom texts, incantations, etc.), but also what we would call historical texts (royal inscriptions and chronicles) and scientific texts: medical, divinatory, mathematical and astronomical texts, and various (other) types of omen texts. To some extent, the contrast between literary and ordinary Old Babylonian discussed in 1.4.1.2.2 (p. 14) continues to exist in the various degrees of literariness that we observe in Standard Babylonian for different genres. The genres that used the most literary kind of Babylonian during the Old Babylonian period continue to do so and adhere most closely to the Old Babylonian tradition of the hymnic-epic dialect. Here belong the religious epic of Enma El and other hymnic texts. A more simple form of Standard Babylonian is represented by epics and other narrative texts and by royal inscriptions. Finally, various branches of scholarly activity developed their own jargon while using more or less the same grammatical features; clear examples are medical texts, extispicy literature, and other omen texts. They lack most of the stylistic adornments of the previously mentioned text types. Apart from emulating Old Babylonian, the Babylonian scribes also strove for stylistic originality by using and exploiting forms that were not used in their everyday languagenot only vocabulary items but also grammatical forms. This explains their fondness of, for instance, the case endings -i and -um. In the framework of the Akkadian verbal system, the most important feature of their style is the extensive use of derived verbal stems that were not or no longer in use in contemporary non-literary texts. The most prominent cases, which will all be discussed more fully in due course, are the D-stems (see 13.3, pp. 334337), the literary -stems (see 13.2.2.2, pp. 329331), and the non-prefixed forms of the Gt-stem (see 14.3.4, pp. 372376).36
34. There is some debate about where to put the dividing line between Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian. For other opinions, see Brinkman 1966: 294a and Streck 1995a: xxvi. 35. A grammatical study of Late Babylonian numerals and the verbal system is Streck 1995a. Blasberg 1997 contains a detailed study of Late Babylonian orthography and morphology, with particular attention to word-final vowels. See also GAG 193 for a general characterization. 36. There is as yet no comprehensive grammar of Standard Babylonian; see von Soden 1931/33 and Huehnergard 2005a: 59598. Groneberg 1987 is a grammar of the hymnic texts from the first millennium B.C., focusing on their literary aspects.
17
Unlike GAG and AHw, I will label as Standard Babylonian almost all texts that belong to the literary and scientific tradition of Mesopotamia from the post-Old Babylonian period, regardless of their place of origin. This means that many texts that these handbooks list as Middle and Neo-Assyrian, Middle and Neo-Babylonian, and perhaps Late Babylonian are labeled Standard Babylonian here. The other labels are mostly restricted to texts belonging to genres that are relatively free of literary influence, such as letters and administrative documents. There are, however, also occasional instances of texts of other genres written (partly or entirely) in these dialects, such as the Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties edited by S. Parpola and K. Watanabe in SAA 2 and the Neo-Assyrian prophecies edited by S. Parpola in SAA 9. Moreover, many texts contain a mixture of literary (Standard Babylonian) and non-literary forms; for instance, Assyrianisms in the royal inscriptions of Assyrian kings (which are in principle written in Standard Babylonian) and Standard Babylonian passages in Neo-Assyrian letters (see 1.4.1.3.3, p. 19).
1.4.1.3. Assyrian
The homeland of the Assyrian dialect is located at the upper course of the Tigris River in the northeastern part of Mesopotamia. Its development can be divided into three periods: Old Assyrian, Middle Assyrian, and Neo-Assyrian. Apart from differences in language, an important reason for this division is historical: each dialect consists of a specific corpus of texts from a particular period and location. Although they are separated by fairly long periods for which we have (almost) no documentation, the general impression is one of more or less uninterrupted development. In many respects, Assyrian is more archaic than Babylonian but it shows at least one important innovation: the vowel assimilation rule (see 2.4, pp. 4849).
1.4.1.3.1. OldAssyrian
Old Assyrian has come down to us mainly in texts excavated in Anatolia, where Assyrian merchants had established various trading colonies, one of which, the Krum Kani (Kltepe), has produced huge quantities of texts that constituted the archives of this colony; some other places in Anatolia have yielded similar texts but in much smaller numbers.37 They cover a relatively short period and can be accurately dated on archaeological and historical grounds: most texts date from Kani Level II (ca. 19501835 B.C.); after a break of about 35 years, further texts come from Kani Level Ib (ca. 18001730; see Veenhof 2003; all dates according to the middle chronology). Systematic differences in language between the texts of the two layers have not (yet) been established.38 From the Assyrian capital Assur itself, we have a few royal inscriptions of Assyrian kings from roughly the same period that are basically written in Old Assyrian; they were published by A. K. Grayson in RIMA 1.39 Almost all Old Assyrian texts are letters and administrative and legal documents that concern the business activities of the merchants and are written in a rather difficult, specialized jargon. However, aspects of their daily life are occasionally discussed as well, giving us a good idea of
37. In GKT 1, K. Hecker enumerates the Old Assyrian texts available to him at the time of the publication of his grammar (1968); important new text editions include AKT 15, Prag I, TPAK 1, and VS 26; thousands of other texts remain unpublished. Michel 2003 is a full bibliography. 38. See the remarks by Balkan (1955: 4163), Lewy (1957), Garelli (1963: 5179), and Hecker (1998: 300). 39. The few inscriptions we have of earlier rulers of Assur contain hardly any Assyrian elements but are written in the traditional style that goes back to the inscriptions of the Sargonic kings of the third millennium. As a result of the rising cultural prestige of Babylonia, later kingsfrom ami-Adad I (ca. 18081776) onwarddraw up their inscriptions in Babylonian.
18
their daily language.40 The style is unadorned and simple. The spelling is rather defective, and the exact shape of many Old Assyrian words can only be established by internal reconstruction and comparison with the corresponding Babylonian forms, which usually show a more accurate spelling. The general impression of Old Assyrian is a surprisingly uniform dialect, which in many respects is more archaic than other dialects and therefore of crucial importance for the history of Akkadian.41
1.4.1.3.2. MiddleAssyrian
Middle Assyrian covers the period ca. 1500 to 1000 B.C. Most texts date from the latter half of this period and come from Assur itself and from Kr-Tukulti-Ninurta in its immediate vicinity, or from Assyrian outposts in various parts of the empire that served as residences of Assyrian officials, who themselves doubtless originated from the leading circles in Assur. Outposts of this kind include Dr-Katlimmu and Tell Sabi Abyad. The texts mainly include letters and administrative documents, an important corpus of legal texts (the Middle Assyrian Law Code and the Harem Edicts), inventories, and some rituals.42 Most literary texts from this period, in particular the royal inscriptions, are written in Standard Babylonian, although they occasionally contain Assyrian words and phrases. Our knowledge of Middle Assyrian is rather incomplete. The number of texts is far smaller than for Old Assyrian. Many of the economic texts, and even some of the letters, are stereotyped and provide little grammatical information (W. Mayer 1971: 4). On many points of detail, therefore, we have to supplement our knowledge of Middle Assyrian grammar by inference from earlier and later stages.43 On the other hand, the importance of Middle Assyrian also lies in the fact that it uses a different orthography that is less defective and more precise than that of Old Assyrian. In contrast to Old Assyrian, for instance, it often distinguishes voiceless, voiced, and glottalized consonants, the vowels e and i (e versus i, etc.), and vowel and consonant length (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 6971). This allows us to observe distinctions that in Old Assyrian we can only reconstruct. In most respects, Middle Assyrian seems to be a close successor to Old Assyrian, in spite of the time gap.44
40. However, the almost complete absence of other genresin particular, literary and religious texts hides a large part of its vocabulary from view. A noteworthy exception is the Assyrian version of a Sargon epic, first published by C. Gnbatt (ArAn. 3 [1997] 13155); see the recent discussion in Dercksen 2005. It is remarkable that the few extant Old Assyrian incantations (listed in Michel 2003: 13738) show a strong Babylonian influence in their morphology and vocabulary. 41. The basic tool for the study of Old Assyrian is Hecker 1968 (GKT); for a short general characterization, see also GAG 2i and p. 194. 42. W. Mayer (1971: 13) lists the sources then available; see also Pedersn 1998: 80103. Important, more recent publications include H. Freydanks MARV 17 and the letters from Dr-Katlimmu (CancikKirschbaum 1996). A few specimens of the text finds from Tell Sabi Abyad were published by Wiggermann (2000). 43. The basic tool for Middle Assyrian is still W. Mayer 1971; see also Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 6269. For a short general description, see GAG 2j and p. 195. 44. See also Reiner 1966: 113. There are, however, at least three Middle Assyrian features that cannot be derived from Old Assyrian: the first-person plural dative pronoun with (see n. 22, p. 12 above); the N-stem perfective forms with an ending, which have i in Old Assyrian (iikn, etc.) but again show the original a in Middle Assyrian (iakn) (see 12.2.1, p. 289); and the use of the vowel a, which sometimes appears in Middle Assyrian where Old Assyrian has an allegedly secondary ee.g., OA ile versus MA ila he is able.
19
1.4.1.3.3. Neo-Assyrian
Neo-Assyrian covers the time from the beginning of the first millennium B.C. until the fall of the Assyrian Empire shortly before 600 B.C., but almost all extant texts date from the last 150 years of this period.45 The main corpus consists of letters sent to Assyrian kings and other types of documents related to the royal court (grants, decrees, treaties) that were found in the royal library of Niniveh (Kuyunjik). Smaller groups of letters and legal documents come from various places in the Assyrian empire, such as Assur, Nimrud (CTN 5), and Dr-Katlimmu (NATSH).46 There are also a few literary texts written in Neo-Assyrian or with a strong Neo-Assyrian influence (see 1.4.1.2.6, p. 17), although Standard Babylonian is the normal medium for such genres. Royal inscriptions from this period are invariably in Standard Babylonian, but those of some kings show a heavy Assyrian influence.47 Because of their varied subject matter and relatively unadorned style, the letters seem to be the best evidence for our knowledge of Neo-Assyrian. Although many of them were written by scholars and high officials and are interspersed with learned forms and quotations from Standard Babylonian (Parpola 1983: 44243; Worthington 2006), it is usually not too difficult to distinguish these from genuine Neo-Assyrian elements. What is very difficult, however, and has hardly been attempted so far, is to get a reliable idea of the actual Neo-Assyrian dialect from the doubtless largely conventional and perhaps archaizing orthography. As far as we can tell, NeoAssyrian seems to be a close successor to Middle Assyrian in all important respects; it must have been subject to Aramaic influence, but to what extent any innovations were caused by this fact is hard to say.48
1.4.2. Semitic
Evidence from other Semitic languages is indispensable for a reconstruction of the (pre)history of Akkadian and will play an important role in this study. The relationships among the Semitic languages are fairly close; compared to Indo-European, they are on the level of similarity of the Romance or Germanic languages rather than that of Indo-European itself (Ullendorff 1971: 34). Nevertheless, there are striking differences between Akkadian and the rest of Semitic (in particular, in the verbal system) that are large enough to make the reconstruction of the verb in Proto-Semitic a hotly debated issue. Also controversial is the subgrouping of Semitic, but this mainly concerns the internal relationships of West Semitic and is not directly relevant to Akkadian, which together with Eblaite constitutes the East Semitic branch. The present study will not be directly concerned with the internal subgrouping of West Semitic, although its results may be of some consequence for it.49
45. See K. Deller and A. R. Millard, BagM 24 (1993) 235; and Luukko 2004: 15. Interestingly, the recently published Neo-Assyrian texts from Dr-Katlimmu (NATSH) date from the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604562), thus, after the fall of Niniveh (see Radner 2002: 1619). 46. For lists of (published) texts, see Luukko 2004: 1719, 191212, and Pedersn 1998: 13081. Most of them, in particular the letters, have been (re)published in the SAA series. 47. See, for instance, Deller 1957a and 1957b on Assyrian elements in the inscriptions of Aurnairpal II and Tukulti-Ninurta II, respectively. 48. A comprehensive Neo-Assyrian grammar is an urgent desideratum. Ylvisakers pioneering study of 1912 is largely outdated. For the present, we have Deller 1959, Hmeen-Anttila 2000, Luukko 2004, and numerous articles by S. Parpola, who was the first to place the study of Neo-Assyrian on a firm footing. For short characterizations, see Reiner 1966: 114; GAG 2k and p. 196. 49. See Faber 1997 on the subgrouping of Semitic (with earlier literature) and, more recently, Huehnergard 2005b.
20
However, the subgrouping of West Semitic has terminological implications in that there is a major dividing line between two groups of languages according to the imperfective they use. One group uses an imperfective consisting of a simple prefix conjugation, sometimes with a special set of endings: Arabic yaqtulu, Hebrew yiqol, Syriac neqol, etc. The other group uses an imperfective that has (or once had) gemination of the second radical: e.g., Geez yqattl and Mehri yrkz. Because in the present study the former group is routinely contrasted with the latter, I will use the label Central Semitic to refer to the former (Arabic, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Epigraphic South Arabian, etc.) and South Semitic to refer strictly to Modern South Arabian and the Semitic languages of Ethiopia.50 An important motive for this is convenience, since it avoids the necessity of constantly referring to South Semitic without Arabic and Central Semitic plus Arabic. It is true that in many other respects Arabic is more closely related to South Semitic (e.g., with regard to the broken plural; see Ratcliffe 1998b), and in chap. 18, I will argue that this is where Arabic indeed belongs, because the imperfective yaqtulu, on which its classification as Central Semitic is largely based (Faber 1997: 89), is a shared retention of Arabic and Northwest Semitic and therefore a poor diagnostic for subgrouping. So the terminology I will use in the course of the present study is based on the following diagram (see also Voigt 1987d: 15): Proto-Semitic West Semitic Central Semitic Northwest Semitic Epigraphic South Arabian Arabic East Semitic South Semitic Ethiopian Semitic Modern South Arabian
Figure1. SubgroupingoftheWestSemiticLanguages.
1.4.3. Afroasiatic
From a wider perspective, Semitic is one of the branches of the Afroasiatic language family. The other branches are Berber, Old Egyptian, Cushitic, Chadic, and perhaps Omotic.51 The study of this family is still in its infancy and the relationship between the branches is rather distant. However, it is precisely in the morphology of the verb that convincing correspondences are found. There are three points of correspondence in particular. First, there is a striking agreement in the personal prefixes of the fientive verb in Semitic, Berber, and Cushitic (see 2.5, p. 52) and of the suffixed person-markers of stative categories in at least Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber (see 7.4.3, pp. 189193). Second, there are strong correspondences between several markers of derived verbs: a sibilant with causative function (see 13.6, pp. 351352); t with detransitive function (see 14.4, p. 375); and n or m, also with detransitive, in particular (medio)passive,
50. This is basically Voigts classification (e.g., Voigt 1987d; see the tree diagram on p. 15); in Hetzrons classification (1976a: 106), Epigraphic South Arabian is part of the South Semitic branch alongside Ethiopian and Modern South Arabian. 51. For an extensive survey of Afroasiatic, see Hayward 2000. Other literature includes Hodge, ed. 1971; Sasse 1981; Loprieno 1986: 126; Diakonoff 1988; Petrek 1988; Lipiski 1997: 2347; Voigt 2002; Huehnergard 2004.
1.5. The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian
21
function (see 12.6.1, pp. 315317). Third, perhaps less conspicuous but no less remarkable and of particular relevance to the present study is the common tendency of present renewal (but with different formal means), as described above in 1.2.2 (pp. 35), in many, if not all, branches of Afroasiatic (see 4.4.3.2, pp. 104107). For the study of the verb in Semitic, therefore, Afroasiatic represents a potentially valuable source of information. The use of Afroasiatic evidence raises numerous problems, however. There is a huge chronological gap between the earliest Semitic data we have (from around 2500 B.C., as indicated above) and the data from other branches of Afroasiatic, whichwith a few negligible exceptionsdo not predate the 19th century a.d. (with the obvious exception of Old Egyptian). When we compare phenomena attested in Akkadian with putative parallels in, say, Berber and Cushitic, we should be aware that the latter languages have undergone at least 4,000 years of developmentand probably far moresince their separation from some prehistoric stage of Akkadian (Kossmann 1999: 1314). This often makes it difficult to assess the value of such parallels. In order to attain a more solid basis for comparative studies on the Afroasiatic level, we urgently need reconstructions of the common ancestors of these subfamilies, especially of ProtoBerber and Proto-Cushitic (Sasse 1980: 154; Zaborski 1994a: 23436; Huehnergard 1996: 26465). Otherwise, comparison may easily degenerate into picking out convenient pieces and equating them with similar pieces elsewhere, without an understanding of the system to which they belong. This has not yet been achieved, however, and for the moment I will accept Afroasiatic evidence that I regard as sound and plausibleon the basis of typological evidence, for instancemainly in support of claims and hypotheses concerning (Proto-)Semitic that are ultimately based on data from Semitic itself.
1.5. excursus the Dialect Classification of third-millennium Akkadian

The dialect classification of third-millennium Akkadian raises vexing problems for which only provisional solutions can be offered. Important causes for this are the scarcity of (published) texts, the difficulties in establishing their provenance and date, the (in many respects) unusual orthography, with ensuing difficulties of interpretation, and, last but not least, the fact that a large part of the evidence must be extracted from proper names, with all of the uncertainties this involves. In recent years, it has become clear that the traditional view of third-millennium Akkadian, represented, for instance, in GAG 2c and in I. J. Gelbs (1961) grammar, which lumps together all extant texts under the heading Old Akkadian and regards the later dialects of Babylonian and Assyrian as continuations of Old Akkadian, is far too simplistic.52 Two major innovations seem to have met with general approval.53 First, third-millennium Akkadian is by no means a coherent unity but a conglomerate of several dialects or a dialect continuum. Second, the (very scarcely attested) Akkadian texts of the Ur III Period represent the earliest manifestation of what will later be the Babylonian dialect (hence the term Ur III Babylonian; see 1.4.1.1, p. 12 above). In other matters, there is not much unanimity about the relationships among the various dialects. If we consider the geographic location of each of the dialects distinguished in 1.4.1.1 above and the patterns of isoglosses that unite or separate them, a fairly consistent picture arises. In the
52. This insight is already found in Reiner 1966: 21 and Kienast 1981: 98. 53. The revision of traditional views on third-millennium Akkadian was in particular initiated by A. Westenholz (1978) and Sommerfeld (2003); see also Hilgert 2002: 16870 and 2003; Rubio 2003a: 16569, 2006: 11012; Hasselbach 2005: 23135, 2007.
22
The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian 1.5.
far northwest of Mesopotamia, we find the Old Akkadian dialect of Mari and Tell Beydar. As far as we can judge from the sparse material, it is very archaic. It shows the following phonological archaisms: preservation of at least part of the Proto-Semitic gutturals no E-colouring no vowel contraction Morphological archaisms are: the forms PaRRvS and aPRvS (versus PuRRvS and uPRvS, see below) the original vowel (< *aw) in the -stem of I/voc verbs (-u-r-id /y?urid/ AKI p. 361 M 4: 4); see 16.2.3 (p. 455) the a vowel in ti-i-da-u /titay/ MARI 1 81:23 they drank; see 16.7.1 (pp. 496497) extensive use of the dual (Limet 1975: 3943) retention of case, gender, and number distinctions in the determinative/relative pronoun (Limet 1975: 4547). Particularly important is the fact that Mari Old Akkadian has a few features that it shares only with Eblaite (to be discussed below), such as: no E-colouring the third-person plural prefix ti- (see 2.5, p. 51) instances of S-V-O word order the prepositions sin to, towards (at Tell Beydar), and perhaps *qidm in front of (if this is indeed the correct reading of iGi-me).
This brings us to the position of Eblaite itself, the language that is preserved on tablets from the archives of the kings of Ebla in northern Syria, to be dated to ca. 2400 B.C. Eblaite is very closely related to Akkadian, but the exact degree of relationship is a matter of debate: the question is whether it is a dialect of Akkadian or whether it should instead be classified as a separate branch of East Semitic, a sister language of (Proto-)Akkadian (see Huehnergard 2006: 35; Rubio 2006: 110123). Eblaite has a number of specific features that set it apart from (the rest of) Akkadian and, conversely, Akkadian has several common characteristics that are absent from Eblaite. An Eblaite innovation not shared by Akkadian is L-reduction, the apparent weakening of the phoneme /l/, presumably to y or (Krebernik 1982: 21011).54 A common Akkadian innovation not shared by Eblaite is the dissimilation of the instrumental noun prefix ma- to na- in roots that have a labial radical. Of most other contrasting features, it is difficult to be certain which is innovative and which is a retention, but the sheer quantity of differences supports the view that Eblaite is a separate language rather than a dialect of Akkadian. Therefore, in the present study I will treat it as the closest relative of Akkadian that we know about but nonetheless a separate branch of East Semitic.55 The commonalities between Mari Old Akkadian and Eblaite are in keeping with their geographic location in the extreme northwest of Mesopotamia and their extensive contacts in the Early Dynastic period of the Kish Civilization, discussed in particular by Gelb (1992 and many other publications). It is not the case, however, pace Gelb, that Mari Old Akkadian and Eblaite
54. Unless this is a purely graphic phenomenon, as argued by Rubio (2006: 17, with further literature). 55. Similarly, Pettinato 2003; Huehnergard 2005b: 157 n. 9, 2006: 4; and Rubio 2006: 121. Krebernik, however, prefers to regard Eblaite as an Akkadian dialect (1996: 249, but cf. also 2006: 84).
23
are virtually the same dialect: on balance, the former shows more commonalities with the rest of third-millennium Akkadian than with Eblaite. Among these we may single out: the merger of Proto-Semitic * with z and * with / (for the latter point, see A. Westenholz 1978: 163a) the dissimilation of the instrumental noun prefix ma- to na- if the root contains a labial radical (Charpin 1987: 90) the change of ay to , which does not seem to have occurred in Eblaite (Conti 1990: 35) the loss of the Proto-Semitic prepositions min from and bayn between, which are still used in Eblaite the fact thatas far as we knowMari Old Akkadian does not share the numerous Eblaite lexemes with a West Semitic background (which are also absent from other Akkadian dialects). Opposite Mari Old Akkadian in the far northwest of Mesopotamia, we have to assume the presence of (Pre-)Assyrian in the northeast, although we have no texts in Assyrian from the third millennium. In many respects, Assyrian stands apart from all other dialects, particularly because of the innovative feature of vowel assimilation (see 2.4, pp. 4849) and the use of personal pronouns with -ti for the dative (GKT 4849), but also because of numerous other morphosyntactic features, different vowel patterns, and many specific vocabulary items (see Kogan 2006a).56 These are more than enough to show that Assyrian is not a fairly recent split-off of another dialect but has had an independent development that must go back far into the third millennium. Where Assyrian agrees with other dialects, in particular with Mari Old Akkadian and Sargonic Akkadian, it almost invariably concerns shared retentionssuch as the partial preservation of gutturals; PaRRvS and aPRvS in the non-prefix forms of the D- and the -stems; the absence of vowel contraction; the alternation PitRvSPitaRS in the Gt-stem; the use of -kunu/-unu, etc., for the accusative; and the oblique plural ending - in the noun (Hasselbach 2007: 4041). Farther to the south, in Central Mesopotamia, is where we should look for the core area of Sargonic Akkadian. In all likelihood, Sargonic Akkadian is the dialect of the homeland of the Sargonic kings (Sommerfeld 2003) that, according to Gelb (1992: 124), was an area north of Babylonia proper, which was bounded by the Tigris, the Lower Zab, the mountains, and the Diyala Riveralthough this is not universally accepted (see A. Westenholz 1999: 3134). Gelbs location tallies with the fact that in many respects Sargonic Akkadian is linguistically intermediate between the dialects of Mari Old Akkadian and later Old Assyrian in the north and Babylonian in the south. Phonological features of Sargonic Akkadian that have parallels in the north are:57 the at least partial preservation of gutturals local E-colouring58
56. Most typically Assyrian features are retentions: for example, PaRRvS and aPRvS (see 11.2, pp. 269271, and 13.2.1, pp. 325326); PitRvSPitaRS in the Gt-stem (14.2.1, pp. 358359); the I/voc N-stem with a long vowel innmer (17.6.3.4, pp. 550551); the ni-subjunctive (9.3.3, pp. 222224); the accusative suffix pronouns -kunu, -unu, etc.; the II/voc D perfective ukayyin (16.5.3.3, pp. 482483)to mention only the most salient points. Innovations (or at least independent developments) are, apart from vowel assimilation, the vowels of the precative (9.2.1.2, pp. 213216); the t-perfect of II/voc verbs with a (iddak, iqtap, see 16.5.2, p. 478); the generalization of in the -stems of I/w verbs (ubil, etc., see 16.2.3, p. 456); the loss of -- in the dative pronouns; and the change wa- > u- in word-initial position (GKT 12). See also Table 1 below (p. 27). 57. See also Hasselbach 2005: 234. 58. That is, the change a > e in immediate contact with the guttural only, in contrast to global E-colouring, which also affects other a vowels in the word; see 17.5.1 (pp. 525534) for details.
24
The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian 1.5. the absence of vowel contraction the change *ay > (rather than ).
Morphological features agreeing with northern dialects include: the (residual) use of the subjunctive particle -ni the partial preservation of the original vowel (< *aw) in the -stem of I/voc verbs (alongside ) PitRvSPitaRS in the Gt-stem (see 14.2.1, pp. 358359) the 3mp accusative suffix pronoun -unu (only in copies of royal inscriptions) the oblique plural - in the noun the preposition in (rather than ina). On the other hand, Sargonic Akkadian shares a number of features with the southern dialect of Babylonian: the pattern PuRRvS/uPRvS in the non-prefix forms of the D- and the -stems the prefix vowels of the precative the weak form of the D perfective of the II/voc verbs (ukn/ukn; see 16.5.3.3, pp. 482483) preservation of the dative pronouns with -- and the use of genitive/accusative plural forms with -ti (unti, etc.) the regular absence of the ni-subjunctive (apart from residual cases) the preposition ana (Hasselbach 2005: 167). This raises the question of the relationship between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian, which is one of the main problems in the dialect classification of third-millennium Akkadian. Hilgert (2002: 168; 2003: 11) emphasizes the differences between Sargonic Akkadian and Ur III Babylonian and concludes that there is no continuity between them, which means that Babylonian is not a later stage of Sargonic Akkadian. A similar view was expressed earlier by A. Westenholz (1978: 163b n. 24). Hasselbach (2005: 2, 23435; 2007: 4142), on the other hand, points out that the similarities between them, although not very numerous, are more significant than the differences, because most of them are shared innovations and therefore indicate a period of common development. In fact, if we consider the differences between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian, it turns out that most of the Babylonian features can be regarded as later stages of the corresponding Sargonic Akkadian features: the complete (instead of partial) loss of the gutturals (except the strong aleph, for which see 17.4, pp. 520525) the contraction of heterogeneous vowels (post-Ur III) the loss of the ni-subjunctive (and its variant with -na), which is the endpoint of a process already well under way in Sargonic Akkadian the loss of the 3fs prefix ta the decline of the dual the loss of the genitive ending -i in the construct state (A. Westenholz 1978: 165a; Hasselbach 2005: 183), which can be explained from analogy with the nominative and accusative the oblique plural suffix pronouns -unti, etc., resulting from a gradual replacement of the original accusative -unu with the independent pronoun unti, which itself became a suffix in the process (see Gensler 1998: 23839, 274)
25
the use of -ninni instead of -ni as the 1s direct object suffix after the long vowels - and - (Hasselbach 2005: 154 n. 23; cf. Kouwenberg 2002: 22223) the replacement of in by ina, perhaps caused by the analogy with ana (Hasselbach 2005: 168) and of iti by itti 59 The main question is whether all differences between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian can be regarded as internal developments of Sargonic Akkadian. If the answer is positive, nothing prevents us from classifying Babylonian as a later stage of Sargonic Akkadian. Unfortunately, the rest of the evidence is equivocal and therefore inconclusive. The relevant features are the change *ay > and E-colouring. A first point of divergence between Sargonic Akkadian and Ur III Babylonian is that the Proto-Semitic diphthong *ay becomes in Sargonic Akkadian but in Babylonian. If the latter dialect is a later stage of Sargonic Akkadian, we have to adduce arguments for a regular change > between the two stagese.g., Proto-Semitic *baytum > SAk btum > Bab btum. Hasselbach (2005: 91 n. 186) does indeed assume this sort of process and adduces parallels for it from other languages. The problem is, however, how to account for numerous vowels in Babylonian from various sources that have not become .60 Second, a salient difference between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian is the kind of Ecolouring: if Sargonic Akkadian has E-colouring, it is of the local typee.g., e-ra-si-i / ersis/ SAB p. 183:23 (Gasur) in order to cultivate. In Babylonian, it is globale.g., eleqq I will receive < *alaqqa (cf. Ass alaqq, which is also local; see 17.5.1, pp. 525529). Several scenarios that might explain this difference can be envisioned, each with its own problems. It is possible that the global form is a secondary extension of the local onethat is, Babylonian would have had alaqq first and changed it to eleqq laterthus a case of Babylonian vowel harmony (see 17.5.1, p. 525). The problem is that it does not account for forms such as the Stat leq (< *laqi) and the Inf leq, in which there is no other e. We have to resort to a different mechanism such as, for instance, an analogical process iparras : paris ipett : pet, which is possible but a complicating factor nonetheless. From a purely Babylonian perspective, it is more elegant to assume that E-colouring was global from the outsetthat is, that *alaqqa > eleqq without an intermediate alaqq, since this directly accounts for pet < *pati. However, this implies that E-colouring in Babylonian was a fundamentally different process from E-colouring in Sargonic Akkadian (and Assyrian). Finally, we should mention another point of difference between Babylonian and Sargonic Akkadian, namely, the formation of the -stems of I/w verbs. Hilgert (2002: 16667) adduces the fact that the -stems of I/w verbs have the vowel in Ur III Babylonian as an important indication of the distance between Ur III Babylonian and Sargonic Akkadian, since the latter either has the original vowel < *aw or (more often) . This argument must be questioned, however. First of all, the Ur III Babylonian evidence consists of a single form: t-a-ba-lam TCS 1
59. More difficult is the appearance of Bab el < *alay instead of SAk al < *al (Hasselbach 2005: 168). We have to assume either that el took over its final vowel from other prepositions, such as itt with, ad until, qad together with, etc., or that Sargonic Akkadian also had an unattested al alongside al. 60. Instances: (a) near gutturals (blu lord < *balum, ipett he opens < *yipatta, menu shoe < *maanum, and passim); (b) near and r (ru back < *ahrum, ru head < *raum); (c) other cases: ui he caused to go out ( Pfv of wa, see 16.2.3 [pp. 455456], already in use in Sargonic Akkadian!), udi he informed ( Pfv of id to know). Is it possible to assume that near gutturals remained because it arose only when the change > was no longer operative?
26
The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian 1.5.
370:8 you will have (sth.) brought to me.61 Remarkably enough, it is precisely this verb that in Sargonic Akkadian shows a few exceptional forms with alongside regular ones with : lu-sab-la-kum /lusbilakkum/ SAB p. 141:12, 14 (Kish) I will send to you and perhaps u-da-ab-la / ustbila/ OAIC 10:8 (Diyala) I considered (Subj), if this form is correctly interpreted as coming from wablu t2 to consider (Hasselbach 2005: 227). Since usbil existed as a variant of usbil in Sargonic Akkadian, t-a-ba-lam provides no evidence for discontinuity between Sargonic Akkadian and Ur III Babylonian. We have to await evidence from other verbs before we can draw any reliable conclusion about these particular forms. The commonalities between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian are significant, but our view on E-colouring and the outcome of Proto-Semitic *ay will determine whether we classify Babylonian as a later stage of Sargonic Akkadian or assign it an independent position as a closely related sister of Sargonic Akkadian. It is clear, however, that the two dialects had close contacts or a substantial period of common development during the third millennium. There is a final set of data to be considered here, and these concern Pre-Sargonic Akkadian. The most striking feature of the proper names attested in Pre-Sargonic Akkadian texts is that several of them show E-colouring and the loss of a syllable-final guttural. The forms in question are /yism/ he heard and /bl/ my lord in the following proper names: I-me--lum (A. Westenholz 1988: 115 no. 215, 116 no. 292) I-me-lum (A. Westenholz 1988: 115 no. 216, 116 no. 293), and -me-lum OrAnt. 18 225:I 9; see Foster 1982: 307 s.v. be6 (PI)-l in, e.g., -l-be6 (PI)-l (A. Westenholz 1988: 115 no. 220). The loss of the final guttural may be inferred from I/-me-lum, which not only shows Ecolouring but also vowel contraction (or syncope) over two gutturals (< *Yisma-ilum). This suggests that the process of weakening of the gutturals was far advanced.62 According to A. Westenholz (1988: 101), during the Pre-Sargonic period, forms such as these are only found in Nippur and further south. Since they are typical of the Babylonian dialect and restricted to what will later become the Babylonian dialect area, it is attractive to see the first attestations of Babylonian in these forms.63 This seems to support the idea that what we find as Babylonian many centuries later had very ancient roots in the south of Mesopotamia and coexisted with what we find as Sargonic Akkadian more to the north, close enough to explain the shared innovations listed above. Table 1 summarizes the preceding discussion in the form of a list of the most important innovations on which the classification proposed here is based. It includes neither shared retentions nor features that are lost in more than one dialect, since these are less consequential for subgrouping. I have also omitted Pre-Sargonic Akkadian because of the lack of data on most of the relevant features.
61. Hilgert (2002: 339) registers a second -stem of a I/w verb, -sa-ti-ir AKI p. 326: 51 (RI from Elam) he gave in addition from watru to exceed, surpass, but as long as watru is only attested in Babylonian, it offers no evidence for dialect classification. 62. Although it is not certain that we may generalize on the basis of proper names about the state of the gutturals, see Kouwenberg (20034b: 36364) regarding Old Assyrian names in which gutturals are dropped that are never dropped in other circumstances. 63. Cf. D. O. Edzard, RlA 9 (19982001) 108a 3.2 and Hilgert (2002: 170 n. 205). A. Westenholz (1999: 33 n. 81) is skeptical. Hasselbach (2005: 9 n. 50) summarizes the debate without taking a position. However, if these Pre-Sargonic forms indeed represent the oldest traces of the Babylonian dialect, this is incompatible with the claim that Sargonic Akkadian is an early form of Babylonian.
27
table1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
L-reduction -ma > na- with labials merger of * and *z ay > or SOV word order PaRRvS > PuRRvS E-colouring yusbil > yus/bil Acc -unu, etc. > -unti vowel contraction Gt PitaRSv > PitRvSv in replaced by ina Dat -unim, etc. > -unti vowel assimilation ni-subjunctive Ebl + MariOAk + + + () b SAk + + + () + + /+a /+a /+a c Bab + + + () + + + + + + + + c Ass + + + () + + + + + + +
Notes to the Table: a blank cell indicates lack of reliable data. a. The feature is incipient and both types of forms are found b. If si-dar-KI-u is indeed Inf Gt of arqu, see n. 24 to chap. 14 (p. 362). c. Apart from residual cases without a clear function, see 9.3.2 (p. 225).
This leads to the provisional diagram shown in fig. 2 for the relations among the third-millennium languages or dialects (only those without an asterisk are actually attested): *Proto-East Semitic Eblaite Mari Old Akkadian *Proto-Akkadian *(Pre-)Assyrian Assyrian *Old Akkadian Ur III Babylonian
Sargonic Akkadian
Figure2. Sub-groupingsofthird-millenniumAkkadian. Note that there is a global correspondence between a dialects position in this tree and its geographical location: from left to right roughly corresponds with northwest to southeast. The location of Eblaite far to the northwest of other kinds of East Semitic and from the centre of Mesopotamian civilization is in perfect agreement with its linguistic position: it shows a greater difference from Akkadian than the third-millennium dialects do among themselves.
structureandOrganizatiOninthe akkadianverbalParadigm
Chapter 2
2.1. introduction
In order to master and use a system that is as complex as the Akkadian verb, a tight organization and a transparent structure are indispensable. Organization refers here to the hierarchical relations among forms and categories, which constitute a paradigm with the properties described in the previous chapter (1.2.3), and structure to the structure of individual forms. This chapter investigates the organization of the Akkadian verbal system as a paradigm and the structure of each of its constitutive members in terms of the root-and-pattern system. There are several reasons to start the description of the Akkadian verb with a general account of its organization and structure. First, this makes it possible to draw a precise picture of the relationships between the various verbal categories and the way they interact with each other. Second, it enables us to distinguish the verbal paradigm from derivational forms that are outside the paradigm but are related to it and interact with it. Third, as I argued in 1.2.3 (pp. 78), the position of a form in the verbal paradigm influences the way it develops over time. It is convenient here to point to a terminological difficulty concerning the term stem. This term is used in two different meanings in Semitic linguistics:1 it refers both to a word without its inflectional ending(s) and to a specific type of morphosyntactic categorynamely, the derived verbal stems, in well-established terms such as the G-stem, the D-stem, the -stem, etc.2 On the one hand, we call, for instance, arr- the stem of arru king, -parras- the stem of iparras they separate, and pars- the stem of parsku I am/have separated; on the other hand, both iparras and parsku are said to be the G-stem of parsu to separate. In order to avoid confusion, I will use the term inflectional stem for stem in the morphological sense (the word minus the inflectional endings), and verbal stem or derived (verbal) stem for the functional categories traditionally referred to as G-stem, etc., whenever confusion is possible. Finally, I will use the term stem vowel for the vowel between R2 and R3 that replaces the root vowel (see 2.3.4, p. 45) in most grammatical categories, e.g., i in the D Pfv uparris (root vowel u). Among the stem vowels, the vowel of the G-stem Impfv iparrVswhich I will call the imperfective vowelhas a privileged status, because it is introduced into several categories derived from the G-stem imperfective (see 4.2, pp. 8990).
1. The stem is in general defined as minimally consisting of the root, but usually it is extended with a derivational morpheme, and it may or may not be a complete word (Payne 1997: 24). 2. See chap. 10 n. 2 (p. 246) for alternative designations of what I will call the derived verbal stems.
28
2.2. The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm
29
2.2. the organization of the Verbal Paradigm 2.2.1. Thebasicstructure

The Akkadian verbal paradigm formally distinguishes eight major grammatical categories (see GAG 74): four finite indicative categories for the expression of tense/aspect: the imperfective, the perfective (usually called preterite), the t-perfect, and the stative; one irrealis category: the imperative; three verbal nouns: the infinitive, the past participle (usually called verbal adjective; see n. 14 to chap. 8), and the present participle. These categories are shown in Table 2.1 in their Old Babylonian form; by way of illustration, this table contains the forms of the paradigmatic verb parsu to separate, decide in the G-stem; the finite forms are third-person singular (masculine), apart from the imperative, which is secondperson singular masculine; the nominal forms are nominative singular masculine. Category (1) imperfective (2) perfective (3) t-perfect (4) imperative (5) stative (6) infinitive (7) past participle (8) present participle Form i-parras i-prus i-p-t-aras purus paris pars-um pars-um pris-um suffix base PaRvS prefix base -PRvS Type of Stem
nonfinite
finite
table2.1:theeightmembersoftheakkadianverbalparadigm.
Parsu represents the conjugation of the strong triradical verb, which is the norm for all other types of verbs, both basic and derived. In principle, the verbal paradigm functions independently of any specific type of verb: all Akkadian verbs have essentially the same paradigm, although they do not all have the full range of formal distinctions shown by the basic verb.3 These eight categories are inflectionally related to one another and constitute the primary members of the verbal paradigm. There are three other types of categories that are in some way related to it and dependent on it: a number of secondary members, also with inflectional status, which will be discussed at the end of this section; and two kinds of derivational categories: deverbal nouns and derived verbs, for which see 2.2.2 (pp. 3335). The structure of this paradigm can be described on the basis of the criteria outlined in 1.2.3 (pp. 58). The eight members form a functional hierarchy with the prefix conjugations of imperfective, perfective, and t-perfect at the top. They represent the quintessentially verbal forms, on which the tense/aspect system of Akkadian is based and which therefore constitute the core of the
3. The adjectival verbs discussed in 3.3.2 (pp. 5860) have a more restricted paradigm and a different relationship among some of their members.
30
The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm 2.2.
verbal paradigm. As prototypical verb forms, they can express all morphosyntactic distinctions of the Akkadian verb: person, number, and gender (by means of prefixes and suffixes) tense/aspect (by means of differences in stem) mood (by means of a prefix [l- in the precative] and proclitic particles [i, l, /ay, l]) orientation (by means of the suffix -am/-m/-nim of the ventive) subordination (by means of the subjunctive suffix -u).
Their basic status is confirmed by the fact that they show different vowel patterns, whichat least in the basic stemare unmotivated. This variation lies at the basis of the vowel classes; see 3.5 (pp. 6871). Among the three prefix conjugations, the imperfective has the highest rank in the functional hierarchy of the verbal paradigm, since it is the only one that can refer to the actual moment of speech. Its basic status, in particular that of the G-stem iparrVs, is demonstrated by the strong influence it has exerted on other categories; see 4.2 (pp. 8990). The perfective and the t-perfect, as past tenses, are semantically subordinate to the imperfective. In one respect, the relationships among the prefix conjugations are atypical: the imperfective is the basic member, but it is not unmarked: in Akkadian it is the perfective that is formally unmarked; see further 4.2. The stative is also a finite indicative form, but it is lower in rank because it refers to a state. This is reflected in the fact that it does not make the typically verbal distinctions of tense and diathesis (see 7.3, pp. 163165, for details) and that it is predictable in form, since it has the same inflectional stem PaRiS as the past participle, from which it is historically derived. The stative can also have the patterns PaRuS or PaRaS in the G-stem, but only in primary adjectives. This agrees with the fact that a primary adjective is a basic, unmotivated form, whereas a past participle is a low-ranking derived category. The imperative is closely associated with the prefix conjugations and, particularly, with the perfective, whose inflectional stem it shares and from which it is derived by means of subtraction of the personal prefixes (at least synchronically; see 5.5, pp. 133134). It is subordinate in rank to the prefix conjugations because of its irrealis function. The highly irregular semantic relationship between the imperative and the perfective (which is basically a past tense) can be understood from a historical perspective: in an earlier stage of the language, the inflectional stem -PRvS was also employed for the imperfective, as I will argue in 4.4.2 (pp. 100103). The three remaining categoriesthe infinitive, the past participle, and the present participle are peripheral members subordinate to the finite forms, since they do not serve as predicate but as an argument or an attribute to an argument and accordingly have nominal morphology. Their lower rank is reflected in the fact that they are predictable in form and show neutralization of verbal distinctions such as tense, aspect, mood, and diathesis, which is a typical property of decategorized verb forms (Hopper and Thompson 1984: 73738). I have classified the infinitive and the participles as inflectional on the basis of the criteria mentioned in 1.2.3 (pp. 58): they are generally productive, predictable in meaning and form, and strongly dependent on the corresponding finite verb forms in some of their uses (see below).4 It is true that they also show derivational features, such as a change in word class from verb to noun and idiosyncrasies in their meaning. However, a change in word class does not automatically lead to derivational status. According to Booij (1998: 1314), such forms can be inflectional if they are felt to belong to the paradigm and can be made for each word of the relevant word
4. Cf. Izre'el (2005: 545), who places them somewhere mid-way on the derivational-inflectional continuum.
31
class. In a similar vein, Haspelmath (1996) argues that word-class-changing processes are not necessarily derivational. He introduces (1996: 5859) the additional criterion of syntactic behaviour: if a noun derived from a verb preserves its internal syntaxi.e., its syntactic behaviour as a verbit can still be inflectional; if, on the other hand, it adopts the internal syntax of the noun, it is derivational. According to this criterion, the infinitive is inflectional, at least in the older stages of Akkadian, where it can be construed verbally, with the subject in the nominative and the direct object in the accusative (see 8.2.1, pp. 197198). The past and present participles, on the other hand, always have the internal syntax of the noun, if they are the head of a noun phrase or syntagm; they are construed, for instance, with a genitive rather than an accusative. However, they also have some typically verbal functions in which they are closely dependent on the finite verb; for instance, in alp ditu threshing oxen, the present participle is closely associated with its finite counterpart in alp idi the oxen are threshing; and in awlu ablu a wronged man, the past participle is closely associated with awlu abil the man has been wronged and more distantly with awla ibul (someone) wronged the man (see further 8.3.1, pp. 200203, and 8.4.1, pp. 203207). Although both participles are admittedly more often used as lexicalized nouns, this verbal part of their use which certainly for the past participle and perhaps also for the present participle is more originaljustifies their classification as inflectional members of the verbal paradigm. Formally, the eight members are contrasted by differences in their inflectional stem, apart from the fact that the perfective and the imperative on the one hand, and the stative and the past participle on the other, have the same inflectional stem for historical reasons (see 5.5, p. 137, and 7.4.1, pp. 176177, respectively). Table 2.1 (p. 29) shows that the G-stem paradigm consists of no less than six inflectional stems; in most derived stems, the number is lower because some contrasts are neutralized, as we will see in the respective chapters. The finite members are conjugated for the typically verbal categories of person, gender, and number; these are expressed by endings (prefixes and suffixes) that are basically the same for all verbal conjugations; they will be briefly discussed in 2.5 (pp. 4952). The non-finite members are declined for case and some of them also for number and gender, depending on their function, with the same nominal endings as nouns in general. The endings are the same across all conjugations with parallel functions.5 This causes an association between forms that have both the same function and the same form across conjugations, such as first-person singular forms with the prefix a- or causatives with the prefix --. Such an association functions as a morphological relation, in the terminology of Bybee (1985: 118), and enables speakers to identify such elements as markers of a specific function. The most important dividing line among the inflectional stems is the contrast between the prefix stems (nos. 1 through 4 in Table 2.1), which are built to accommodate prefixes (even if they do not have them), and the suffix stems (nos. 5 through 8), which are built to take suffixes (including zero). Each actually comprises three different forms, one simple and two extended (or marked). Among the three prefix stems, -PRvS of the perfective and the imperative is unmarked and is overall the simplest of all inflectional stems; the other two prefix stems are marked by means of an extra consonant, the geminate in -PaRRvS and the t-infix in -PtaRvS. Among the
5. In this respect, Akkadian is similar to many other languages: since distinctions of tense/aspect and diathesis are more relevant (in the sense of Bybee 1985: 1314 and 2223; see 1.2.3, pp. 58) to the meaning of the verb than distinctions of person, number, and gender, the morphemes expressing them tend to have a more central position in the word, whereas the morphemes for person, number, and gender tend to occupy a more peripheral position. In accordance with this tendency, Akkadian uses different stems for the former and different endings for the latter.
32
three suffix stems, PaRvS- of the stative and the past participle is the simplest, whereas PaRSand PRiS- of the infinitive and the present participle, respectively, are marked by means of a long vowel. It is convenient to introduce the term prefix base for the simple prefix stem -PRvS, and suffix base for the simple suffix stem PaRvS. The contrast between prefix and suffix base also plays a prominent role in some of the derived stems, even though they tend to have far less different inflectional stems. Table 2.1 clearly shows the peculiar position of the stative: it is finite but belongs to the deverbal members because of its form. This testifies to its relatively recent verbalization and its penetration into the verbal paradigm as an inflectional form (see chap. 7). Before this happened, there was an even stronger correlation between prefixation = verbal = finite and suffixation = deverbal (nominal) = non-finite. For the G-stem, see Table 2.2:
Category Pfv stem Inflectional stems prefix stems Impfv stem t-Pf stem PPartc stem Inf stem PrPartc stem
Strong verb -PRvS -PaRRvS -PtaRvS PaRiS PaRS PRiS
Markedness simple marked marked simple marked marked
Status finite
suffix stems
non-finite
table2.2:thesixinflectionalstemsofthebasicverb
A common inflectional stem implies a close relationship, not only in function but also in historical background, as in the case of the stative and the past participle. If, on the other hand, forms have a markedly different inflectional stem, it is likely that they come from different sources. This holds in particular for those members of the paradigm of the basic stem that have a consonantal addition to the simple triradical stem (and are therefore not basic in the strict sense of the word): the imperfective (PaRRvS) and the t-perfect (PtaRvS). This suggests that they originally did not belong to the basic stem but have penetrated secondarily into a pre-existing paradigm.6 It is generally assumed that this is indeed the case for the t-perfect (see chap. 6), and in chap. 4 I will argue that it also applies to the imperfective. Each of the eight members forms a conjugation based on its common inflectional stem. In the finite conjugations of imperfective, perfective, t-perfect, and stative, the third-person singular (masculine) is the basic form; in the imperative, the endingless second-person singular masculine; and in the nominal categories, the nominative singular masculine. Since this is based on theoretical considerations rather than on any specific Akkadian evidence,7 it is perhaps more
6. That this is indeed the case is confirmed by a comparison with Central Semitic, where all members of the verbal paradigm of the basic stem have a simple inflectional stem without consonantal additions. In my view, this can only be an archaism; see chap. 4 and 18.3.1 (p. 590). 7. The criteria for establishing the basicness of the third-person singular (masculine) mentioned in chap. 1 n. 6 (p. 5) are difficult to apply to Akkadian. It does not have zero expression and is not unmarked in relation to the other persons (except in the stative). Statistical data on the relative frequency of Akkadian verb forms are not available to me and probably difficult to obtain, because almost all extant genres have some
33
cautious to state that the endingless forms of the finite conjugations are basic to the forms with endings. This is clear from the way the latter tend to be changed by analogy with the former, rather than vice versa.8 As I stated above, the eight members of the verbal paradigm included in Table 2.1 do not represent the whole array of inflectional forms constituting the paradigm. There is a second group of inflectional forms that are formally dependent on the primary members. These secondary members are presented in Table 2.3 in their Old Babylonian form: Category (1) Impfv Finite (2) Pfv (3) t-Pf (4) Imp (5) Stat Nonfinite (6) Inf (7) PPartc (8) PrPartc Realis iparras(-am, -u) iprus(-am, -u) iptaras(-am, -u) paris(-am, -u) Irrealis liprus(-am), ay iprus(-am), l iparras(-am) (l iprus(am)) purus(-am) l paris(-am), l paris(-am) parsum parsum prisum, prisnum
table2.3:thesecondarymembersoftheverbalparadigm
The function of the finite secondary members is modal (for the precative, the vetitive, and the prohibitive), syntactic (for the subjunctive), or deictic (for the ventive). The secondary participle prisnu serves to renew the verbal nature of the present participle prisu (see 8.4.2, pp. 207209). The secondary members with modal (irrealis) function show a continuum of expression from bound (prefixes in most forms of the precative) via half-bound (proclitics in some precative forms and in the vetitive) to periphrastic (in the prohibitive and the asseverative forms with the particle l);9 these categories will be discussed in 9.2 (pp. 211220). The appurtenance of these forms to the verbal paradigm and their inflectional status is shown by the fact that they are fully productive and predictable in form and meaning.
2.2.2. Derivationalcategoriesrelatedtotheverb
Outside the verbal paradigm, there is a large number of deverbal categories with derivational status. They are of two kinds: verbal and nominal. The verbal derivations comprise what is generally known as the derived verbal stems: the D-stem, the -stem, etc. They will be discussed
particular bias for a specific kind of form: letters for first and second person, omen texts for third person, royal inscriptions for either first or third person (and sometimes a mixture of both), etc. There are hardly any texts that can be regarded as a written reflex of the normal use of language in conversation and very few with a natural, unadorned kind of narrative. 8. Examples of this process are the G-stem imperative ( purus purs/; see 5.5, p. 133), the nonprefixed Gt forms (original pitrus - pitars pitrus - pitrus in Babylonian; see 14.2.1, p. 358), the Old Assyrian N-stem (original iikin - iakn iikin - iikn; see 12.2.1, p. 289), the Babylonian N-stem of I/voc verbs (ipparras - ippris innammar - innmir instead of innmir; see 17.6.3.4, p. 552), the Middle and Neo-Assyrian t-perfect (ilteq - iltaqy (OA) ilteq - ilteqi (MA); see 6.2, p. 140, and 16.7.2.3, pp. 505506), and the paradigm of the III/voc verbs in general; see 16.7.1 (p. 498). 9. Which I have put in parentheses, since it is unclear to me to what extent the asseverative represents a mood in its own right; see the recent discussion in E. Cohen 2005: 1768.
34
in later chapters. The nominal derivations comprise a large number of deverbal patterns with a more-or-less specific semantic function, mostly in the sphere of abstract nouns, agent nouns, instrument nouns, etc. Their productivity tends to be limited and their meanings show many idiosyncrasies. It is also typical that there is a considerable overlap between similar patterns rather than a strict semantic differentiation. An exhaustive enumeration is to be found in GAG 55/56. The most important derivational categories of the verbal paradigm are the following: 1. The patterns PaRRiS and PaRRS are used to form agent nouns derived from fientive verbs; in spite of their geminate second radical, they belong to the basic stem (GAG 55o; GAV pp. 6566). Common examples of PaRRS are arrqu thief, rakkbu sailor, dayynu judge, erru cultivator, farmer, and karu (OA) donkey driver; examples of PaRRiS are babbilu carrier (from wablu), maiu robber, abbiu butcher, and aggiu murderer. For lists of the relevant forms and a discussion of their nature, see GAV pp. 5866. These patterns compete with the G-stem present participle PRiS, which is also regularly used for agent nouns (see 8.4.1, p. 205). 2. The pattern maPRaS(t) is a common device for the formation of deverbal nouns with a wide range of meanings (GAG 56b/c; Streck 2002b). It comprises abstract nouns that express the verbal content (madau procession from adu to walk in procession), the result of the verbal action (mre (t) u cultivated field from eru to cultivate), the instrument (naglabu razor; cf. gullubu to shave), and the place of the action (maallu resting place from allu to sleep). A few instances serve as abstract nouns of adjectives (nmequ wisdom from emqu wise). 3. The pattern PiRS and its feminine form PiRiSt are very productive as verbal nouns to fientive verbs, which may subsequently acquire a wide range of meanings (GAG 55c; Fox 2003: 14142). They are sometimes used as abstract nouns (e.g., rimku washing) but are more often concretized (riksu bundle, ipru messenger [OA], migru favorite, ibittu prison). 4. Derivational patterns of the derived verbal stems are not very numerous, but a prominent case is PitRS derived from the Gt-stem, a derivational variant of the past participle PitRuS (GAG 56n, Streck 2003a: 99101 and 14.2.1, p. 359), e.g., itru splendid (cf. aru and itruu with a similar meaning); most of them are restricted to literary texts, but a few have a wider use, e.g., mitru of equal size, equivocal and itbru partner, associate (OB and OA) (see 14.2.1 about the question of whether the a is long or short). Less productive deverbal patterns with derivational status, which I will not further discuss, are PuRS (GAG 55k; Fox 2003: 22930), PuRS (GAG 55l; Fox 2003: 209), and PuRuSS (GAG 56o and von Soden 1989: 6982). A few other relatively productive derivational patterns are de-adjectival rather than deverbal, such as PaRRS, which is a plural formation of a small number of adjectives, especially adjectives denoting dimensions, such as kabbaru thick (cf. kabru); see GAV, pp. 5258, and PuRS, which derives abstract nouns from adjectives, e.g., dunnu strength from dannu strong (GAG 55d).10 A feature of derivational forms is that they are less subject to the pressure of the verbal paradigm than inflectional forms (Dressler 1989: 8 sub 17; Booij 1998: 16). They have not only a greater freedom to go their own way semantically but in some cases also formally. The pattern maPRaS(t) provides two illustrations of this. First, its prefix ma- is replaced by na- if the root contains a labial consonant (GAG 31b), whereas the prefix mu- of the present participle, which has inflectional status, always remains mu-; cf., for instance, the maPRaS(t) form nablau
10. It is arguable that these de-adjectival patterns are ultimately deverbal.
35
healing, recovery versus the D PrPartc muballiu, from balu to live, to be(come) healthy. The pressure of the verbal paradigm prevents dissimilation, but outside the paradigm this pressure is not strong enough to do so.11 Second, in II/gem roots there is a tendency of identical radicals to cluster together if they are separated by a short vowel; in Arabic, for instance, II/gem verbs show forms such as yaruddu he returns instead of *yardudu in conformance with the strong verb (Fischer 1972: 11113). In the Akkadian verbal paradigm, this tendency is suppressed: Akkadian has idbub, idbub he/ they spoke, just as the strong forms iprus, iprus. However, in maPRaS(t) forms of these verbs, we find instances in which the two final radicals occur as a cluster: maallu resting place from allu to sleep, madakku mortar from dakku to crush; maaddu pole from addu to pull, to stretch and namaddu measuring vessel from maddu to measure. In addition, the regular form with the two identical radicals separated by a vowel is also found, in particular in feminine nouns, e.g., makaktu harrow from akku to harrow and napatu ointment from pau to anoint (Streck 2002b: 250).12
2.2.3.Lexicalizationandgrammaticalization
As stated in 1.2.3 (pp. 58), there is no clear-cut boundary between inflectional and derivational categories. In between the prototypical instances of inflection and derivation, there are intermediate categories that combine features of both types, such as the nominal members of the verbal paradigm discussed in 2.2.1 (pp. 2933). In a historical perspective, these often show a tendency to shift gradually from (more) inflectional to (more) derivational (lexicalization), or vice versa (grammaticalization).13 An important reason for emphasizing the distinction between inflection and derivation is that it clarifies various aspects of the behaviour of these intermediate forms. Lexicalization in the sense intended here is the process of emancipation of members of a paradigm, which makes them (more) derivational and may ultimately make them into independent lexemes.14 In the verbal paradigm, the non-finite, nominal members are most affected by this process: Present participles tend to develop into agent nouns, e.g., miu weaver (cf. mau to hit, to strike), mukinnu witness (cf. knu D to confirm). Past participles are often substantivized and acquire some lexicalized meaning, e.g., aknu appointed > governor, arpu (refined) silver, eru (cultivated) field; see the end of 8.3.1 (pp. 201202.15
11. The exception mentioned in GAG 31b, nubattu evening, related to btu () to spend the night, actually confirms the rule, since in spite of its prefix mu-, it is a derivational form and not a regular participle. 12. An interesting instance of the phenomenon discussed here is the verb pitqudu: originally a Gt-stem of paqdu to entrust, provide, muster, it became lexicalized in the meaning to be careful and in NeoBabylonian developed an irregular stative/past participle putqudu (but imperative pitqid ), with the assimilation of i-u to u-u, as in izuzzu > uzuzzu and and itlu > utlu (see GAG 107d, 107j). This is a symptom of its separation from its verbal origin: in regular Gt forms with i-u (stative/past participle and infinitive pitrus (u)), the sequence i-u was maintained. 13. On lexicalization versus grammaticalization, see Kuryowicz 1964: 36; Comrie 1985a: 1013; Anttila 1989: 14952; Brinton and Traugott 2005, especially pp. 6288. 14. Cf. Anttila 1989: 151: Whenever a linguistic form falls outside the productive rules of grammar it becomes lexicalized. 15. The lexicalization of past and present participles is often accompanied by adopting the nominal ending -/- (or -) instead of -tu/i in the masculine plural; see 8.3.1 (p. 201) and 8.4.1 (p. 203), respectively.
36
The Structure of Individual Verb Forms 2.3. Infinitives may become abstract nouns (e.g., balu to live > life) and thence concrete nouns (e.g., dannu strength > stronghold (as part of the liver, OB) and nadnu to give > gift (NB, Pl nadntu); see the end of 8.2.1 (p. 198).
As these examples illustrate, the starting point of this process is usually that the form in question acquires a specialized meaning with a relatively high frequency. This gives it its own niche in the vocabulary and so opens the way for an independent development. Lexicalization primarily occurs on the level of individual words, but if it involves numerous members of the same category, it becomes more difficult for speakers to recognize the category as a coherent entity with a specific function, so that it becomes less productive and may disintegrate into individual words that only share a similar form.16 For lexicalization in the derived verbal stems, see 10.4 (p. 250). The opposite process, the incorporation of derivational forms into the paradigm, may be called grammaticalization, although this term normally has a wider meaning (as described in 1.2.2, pp. 35).17 In the context of the verbal system, it can also be called verbalization. This process occurred with the Akkadian stative; see chap. 7. Another process is the incorporation of a derived verbal stem into the paradigm of the basic stem; this occurred at least twice in the history of Akkadian: with the t-perfect iptarVs (see chap. 6) and with the imperfective with gemination iparrVs (see chap. 4). It is also possible that the nominal members of the verbal paradigm, or some of them, have originated as derivational forms that gained in productivity and penetrated into the paradigm. It is well-known that infinitives often originate as abstract nouns (cf. the Arabic madars). To what extent this also applies to the nominal forms of the Akkadian verbal paradigm remains unclear. Since membership in the verbal paradigm is only open to categories, not to individual forms, verbalization normally concerns entire categories. Only under exceptional circumstances (in Akkadian, this mostly means: if the verb has an exceptional form) may individual members of a derivational pattern be included in the verbal paradigm. This happened, for instance, with the PaRRS forms kayynu normal, regular and tayyru returning, relenting, which replace the regular present participles *kinu of knu to be(come) stable, true and *tiru of tru to return, and with ma/upras forms of irregular verbs, which serve as present participles: md knowing from id and muzzazzu standing from izuzzu.18
2.3. the structure of individual Verb Forms

In addition to the organization of verb forms in a tightly-structured paradigm, the complexity of the Akkadian verbal system was made manageable for its speakers by the high degree of transparency and predictability in form and meaning of the verb forms themselves. This was achieved by two interrelated strategies: first, vowels and consonants were invested with different aspects of the meaning of a verb form; and, second, the basic members of the paradigmwhich serve as the input of the derivational rules for creating the more derived membershave severe restrictions on their form. The first strategy gave rise to the division of tasks between consonants and vowels that we know as the root-and-pattern system; the second lies at the basis of the predominant triradicality of the verbal root in Semitic. I will discuss each of these strategies in the following sections.
16. Sometimes this leads to a renewal of the old function by means of a new formfor instance, the renewal of the present participle by means of the suffix -n-; see 8.4.2 (pp. 207209). 17. Inflectionalization would be more accurate, but this term does not seem to be in common use. 18. An example similar to kayynu and tayyru is arrqnu from arqu to steal. It usually replaces the present participles riqu and riqnu, which for no obvious reason are hardly ever used; see chap. 8, n. 39 (pp. 207208).
2.3. The Structure of Individual Verb Forms
37
2.3.1. Theroot-and-patternsystem
In the root-and-pattern system, which is generally regarded as the hallmark of the Semitic language type,19 consonants and vowels have different functions: the consonants, which make up the root, provide lexical information, whereas the vowels, which constitute the pattern, specify the grammatical function and/or the meaning (basically, according to whether the word is inflectional or derivational). In addition, there may be an optional third element consisting of one or more consonantal affixes that also have grammatical or lexical function. For instance, Akkadian has a root rkb (corresponding to Proto-Semitic rkb) that expresses the general meaning of riding (an animal) and sailing (a boat). Combining it with different patterns, we get, first of all, inflectional forms of the verb to ride, sail with grammatical meaning, such as the infinitive rakbu (pattern C1aC2C3), the imperfective irakkab he rides (pattern -C1aC2C2aC3), the stative rakib he (has mounted and now) is riding (pattern C1aC2iC3), the causative uarkib he caused to ride (pattern -a-C1C2iC3), etc.; and second, derivational forms such as the agent noun rakkbu sailor (pattern C1aC2C2C3), the instrument nouns rukbu vehicle, boat (pattern C1uC2C3) and narkabtu chariot (< *markabtum, pattern ma-C1C2aC3 with the feminine ending -t), and the action noun rikbu riding, often used as a collective noun for crew (pattern C1iC2C3). Consistent application of such a system makes the morphology of a language completely transparent, and, as long as there is a reasonable balance between the number of functional and of morphological categories, also highly isomorphic. It enables the language user to assign a rather precise grammatical or lexical function to many words on the basis of their vowel pattern alone and to get at least a general idea of their meaning on the basis of their consonantal skeleton. Because the root-and-pattern system embeds regular forms in a formal and semantic network of associations, it stabilizes both the form and the meaning of words and makes both the root and the pattern applicable to new itemsthat is, productive. Since the pattern normally expresses a grammatical function (in the widest sense of the word), an enumeration of the patterns with their functions is an indispensable part of the grammars of Semitic languages, in particular for the classical Semitic languages of Akkadian, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Geez (Goldenberg 1994: 3132). However, the working of the root-and-pattern system is dependent (1) on the possibility of associating a specific pattern with a particular function on the basis of the fact that it recurs in a substantial number of other words with a parallel function but with different consonants and (2) on the possibility of associating a specific root with a particular lexical meaning on the basis of the recurrence of the consonants in other words with a related meaning (Cantineau 1950b: 12021; Larcher 1999: 104). It is of little use (and counter-intuitive, as pointed out by Schramm 1991: 1402) to posit a root for combinations of consonants that only occur in a single word or a few words without a clear semantic relationship, or to posit a pattern for a vowel sequence that has no obvious meaning. Therefore, the root-and-pattern system is only applicable to productive processes of inflection and derivation of the kind we typically find in verbal paradigms and their deverbal derivations. Its usefulness for nominal derivation is far more restricted: many nouns remain unaccounted for. This applies to two kinds in particular: primary nouns and deverbal nouns with sporadic unproductive vowel patterns that do not have an obvious function, such as Akkadian akkru drunk person (cf. akru to be(come) drunk), sikkru bolt (cf. sekru to lock), and zuqqpu
19. See, for instance, Cantineau 1950a, 1950b; Goldenberg 1994; Fox 2003: 3744; and in particular Rubio 2005, which is an exhaustive discussion of recent literature on the nature of root and pattern in Semitic from a general linguistic point of view.
38
The Structure of Individual Verb Forms 2.3.
scorpion (cf. zaqpu to erect, to rear up). The former kind is extremely common in all Semitic languages. Primary nouns typically have a fixed vowel pattern and use suffixation rather than the root-and-pattern system to create secondary derivations (see Fox 2003: 6168). This applies in particular to Akkadian (Buccellati 1996: 4345, 13942).20 In this respect, there is an important difference between Akkadian and the rest of Semitic, especially Classical Arabic, which has exploited the potential of the root-and-pattern system to its utmost, also implicating in it (a part of) nominal derivation, particularly for the formation of plurals, diminutives, and elative adjectives (Cantineau 1950a: 74; Fischer 1993: 4041).
2.3.2. TheriseofvowelalternationinSemitic
The root-and-pattern system is a purely synchronic mechanism. In the context of the present study, it has to be supplemented with a reconstruction of how the typically Semitic division of tasks between consonants and vowels came into being.
20. Buccellati posits a fundamental difference between the verbal system and nominal derivation. The former employs internal inflection (i.e., the root-and-pattern system) for its most essential distinctions (tense/aspect and diathesis) and external inflection (i.e., suffixation) for person, number, and gender and for the secondary inflectional categories of the subjunctive and the ventive. Nominal derivation, on the other hand, only employs external derivation: both primary and deverbal nouns only use suffixation for operations such as plural formation and derivation of abstract nouns, with very few exceptions (alkaktu, Pl of alaktu gait, behaviour, derived from alku to go /come). However, there are some instances of internal inflection in primary nouns: 1. Plural forms with gemination, mainly in kinship terms: abb (Ass abb) fathers, etc.; see 4.4 (p. 96) (admittedly, the insertion of gemination is not a prototypical instance of internal inflection, since the pattern itself is not affected). 2. A few expressive derivations (diminutives?) of primary nouns by means of reduplication: kulbbu ant (at least if derived from kalbu dogi.e., little dog?) and *prru (little?) mouse (only attested in the further derivation prrtu; cf. AHw 856b s.v.) < *parru, of which the basic form *prum has been lost (Landsberger 1934: 1067; cf. Ar far rat). 3. A few (other) diminutives of which the basic noun is not attested in Akkadian but has parallels elsewhere in Semitic (Testen 2006): unqu young female goat (cf. Ar anq female kid), uru male goat and uzru pig (< piglet); they show the (Proto-)Semitic diminutive pattern -u-ay- (with ay > in Babylonian), which is well-known from Arabic (see von Soden 1991a). It is attested for East Semitic by the Eblaite noun u-ga-ga-b-um VE 1128 /duqqaypum/ (or the like) scorpion (Krebernik 1983: 39; Testen 2006: 14649), which regularly becomes zuqqpu in Akkadian. This demonstrates that it was possible in Akkadian to derive diminutives from primary nouns by means of internal inflection, just as in other Semitic languages. In Akkadian, it is also possiblebut not very commonto derive a verb from a primary noun by abstracting its consonants and treating them as radicals; cf. the D-stems wazzunum to listen attentively (OA) from uznu ear (first noted by K. R. Veenhof; see AHw 1494a s.v.), uppulu to delouse (SB) from uplu louse, ruggubu to provide with an attic (OB) from rugbu attic, and ammunu to anoint with oil (NA) from amnu oil. Moreover, the noun at partner(s), which comes from au brother with the reciprocal t-infix (see 14.2.1, p. 359), presupposes a denominal verb in the Gt-stem (I am aware that this is not quite consistent with my remarks in Kouwenberg 2005: 99). There are even a few instances of verbs derived from loanwords, which are also primary nouns to the extent that they are unmotivated: nukkusum to balance an account (SAk) from nikkassu account (B. R. Foster, NABU 89/115), and lull to provide abundantly (SB) from lal desire, charm, luxury (both loanwords from Sumerian). To a very limited extent, then, it was possible in Akkadian to break open a primary noun and use the consonants to derive a noun or a verb. However, this does not impair the overall validity of Buccellatis distinction between internal and external inflection.
39
Complex systems usually evolve from more simple ones, and the root-and-pattern system is no exception. An important factor in its emergence is the well-known fact that vowels are less stable than consonants. They are particularly susceptible to influence from the environment: their quality tends to be influenced by adjacent consonants and by vowels in neighbouring syllables, and their quantity by accent. This relative instability lies at the basis of widespread phenomena such as vowel harmony and Umlaut and Ablaut (apophony), in which original phonological vowel alternations are exploited for grammatical purposes (Hock 1991: 6668, 14143). Accordingly, derivation by means of vowel alternation is a common phenomenon in the languages of the world; in this respect, the Semitic languages are not very special. Kuryowicz (1972, especially pp. 3640) has argued that the guttural consonants and the semi-vowels, in particular, are responsible for the rise of apophony, since they are known to have the greatest influence on neighbouring vowels.21 Semitic also makes wide use of affixation, both prefixation (in the verb and in deverbal nouns) and suffixation (both in the verb and the noun), and combines this freely with vowel alternation, thus accumulating derivational processes: a derived form is taken as the input for a new derivation, often with the aim of strengthening or renewing its form.22 This may lead to a large formal difference between the original source word and its derivative, particularly when the intermediate stages no longer survive. The gradualness of the process may be obscured by the fact that, once a productive derivational relationship has established itself, the intermediate steps may be skipped (Kuryowicz 1972: 7). In this way, an association arises between words that are far apart in form. The difference will appear in the vowels more than the consonants. Because inflectionally related forms have the same meaning and derivationally related forms different but related meanings, speakers will associate the meaning of the forms in question with their only common element, the consonants, and because productive derivation will assign a specific function to parallel derived forms, the patterns will come to be associated with this function. In this way, vowels and consonants underwent a gradual specialization: they were automatically given their different association with lexical meaning and grammatical meaning, respectively (Rundgren 1980: 8990). The association of lexical meaning with the consonants only and the location of grammatical meaning in the vowels are, as it were, accidental consequences of the increasing complexity of patterns and the ensuing absence of an invariant sequence of phonemes that could be abstracted as a linear stem with a lexical meaning. The ultimate form of the root-and-pattern system was achieved by the mechanism of derivation by associationthat is, the common practice in Semitic of combining categories that formally come from different sources in a derivational or even inflectional relationship on the basis of a purely semantic association. Extreme examples of this procedure are the Arabic pattern taqtl which serves as madar to Stem II qattala (already in Akkadian; see 14.6.1, pp. 401402), the patterns qatl and qutl as feminine to the elative aqtal (Kuryowicz 1972: 97) and numerous broken plurals and madars of the basic stem (aqtilah from qatl, etc.). This kind of derivation is a weak type of suppletionthat is, the secondary combination of forms that are formally unrelated into a single paradigm (Payne 1997: 100101). It is well known in the Indo-European languages, where it mostly occurs in individual words of high frequency: English go and went, good and better/best, Latin sum (present) and fui (perfect) to be, Classical Greek phr (present), os (future), and nenkon (aorist) to carry, bring, etc. In the Semitic cases, the words in question also have a different background, although they belong to the same root.
21. Petrek (1960: 57482) discusses a number of earlier proposals to explain the rise of apophony in Semitic. 22. See, for instance, Fleisch 1961: 362469; 1968: 4992; GAV pp. 2833.
40
The Arabic examples mentioned above are extreme cases, but a milder form of derivation by association is ubiquitous in Semitic morphology: entire morphosyntactic categories are associated with each other via this process. For instance, the four finite categories of the Akkadian verb, the imperfective iparrVs, the perfective iprVs, the t-perfect iptarVs, and the stative parVs, all have a different background and have entered into an inflectional relationship through a secondary association based on their function. The same applies to the basic opposition between the prefix and the suffix conjugation of West Semitic, to which I will return below.23 In the course of history, the difficulty of isolating a fixed stem in the verbal paradigm has steadily increased. In Proto-Semitic, the finite categories of the basic verb (insofar as they are reconstructible) still have a single inflectional stem *-qtVl- (which occurs in the imperfective *yiqtVlu, the perfective *yiqtVl, and the imperative *q(V)tVl ).24 Surely there is another inflectional stem, *qatVl- (in the infinitive *qatl-, the past participle *qatil-, and the present participle *qtil-), but it is restricted to the non-finite and therefore subordinate forms of the verbal paradigm (see further chap. 8). In Akkadian, on the other hand, the four finite categories of the verb that I mentioned above all have a quite different inflectional stem as a result of different verbalization processes. In West Semitic, the rise of qatala as a new perfect instead of older yaqtul entailed the penetration of the erstwhile deverbal stem *qatVl into the core of the paradigm, creating a situation in which the two most basic forms have different inflectional stems, from which it is no longer possible to extract a fixed sequence of consonants and vowels. As a result, the speakers had to break up the stem and rearrange its parts in order to use it as a basis for derivation. This paved the way for other rearrangements and was undoubtedly an important stimulus for the huge increase in the importance of internal inflection.25 Ultimately, Semitic word formation is not essentially different from that in other languages. The difference between the use of apophony in Semitic and in Indo-European languagese.g., the Ablaut of English sing/sang/sunglies in the extraordinary degree of productivity and complexity of the former rather than in its nature (Ullendorff 1958: 69; Rubio 2005: 5859). This applies even to Arabic, which has exploited the possibilities of apophony to an extreme that has hardly any parallel in the languages of the world.
2.3.3. Therootandtheradicals
The root is usually defined as the element that is common to all members of the paradigm of a given verb and its deverbal derivations. The nature of the Semitic root is one of the most disputed problems of Semitic comparative linguistics. The most important issues were summarized
23. Petrek (1963: 613) argues for the same kind of origin for the apophonic passive in the West Semitic languages. 24. The arguments supporting this statement will be provided in the course of the present study; see in particular chap. 18. 25. Another consequence of this process is the relative stability of Semitic radicals over a long time. It is instructive to compare their rate of change with the situation in Indo-European, where the consonants reconstructed for the proto-language show massive changes in their development toward the historically attested daughter languages. The consonant inventory of many Semitic languages preserves a considerable part of the phonemes of the proto-language. To a large extent, this is due to the fact that the internal inflection causes a radical to be word-initial or word-final in some forms, intervocalic in others, and the first or last part of a cluster in still other forms. This means that sound changes will only have effect if they are more or less unconditional, because as long as a consonant is unaffected in some of its positions, the pressure of the paradigm will tend to preserve it also in other positions, thus effectively blocking the change. A radical will often undergo phonological change only if the change is unconditional and thus affects all environments (e.g., p > f in South Semitic and Arabic and g > j in Arabic (Diakonoff 1965: 35 and 1991/92: 94; Voigt 1995: 518).
41
and extensively discussed by del Olmo Lete (2003); a more recent discussion is Rubio (2005). Therefore, I will restrict myself to the issues that are directly relevant to understanding the structure and the evolution of the Akkadian verbal paradigm: strong versus weak roots, the possible existence of biradical roots, the incompatibility of radicals, and the difference between verbal and nominal roots. 1. In its prototypical form, the Semitic root contains three strong radicals, which remain unchanged during all inflectional and derivational processes.26 Strictly speaking, the definition given above only applies to such strong roots. In reality, we have to allow for the existence of weak roots as well, which have one or more radicals that are unstable and may undergo changes such as assimilation, replacement by another phoneme, or total disappearance. Already in ProtoSemitic, there were weak roots with a semi-vowel (*w or *y) among their radicals and others with the long vowels * and * as second radical: e.g., mt to die and m to fix, decree (see 16.5.1, pp. 474476); and as third radical: e.g., r to scatter and bk to cry (see 16.7.1, pp. 496498). In Akkadian, too, the verbal paradigm is based on strong roots, but various phonological changes have greatly increased the number of verbs with weak radicals. As a result of the loss of the Proto-Semitic guttural consonants, which mostly have become vowels or glides (see 17.3, pp. 515520), the original I/H verbs have become I/voc verbs, the II/H and the III/H verbs have joined the paradigms of the II/voc and the III/voc verbs, respectively, and the original I/y verbs have also become I/voc verbs. Moreover, Proto-Semitic verbs with *w and *y as R3 occur as III/ voc verbs in Akkadian. All in all, we can distinguish the following types of weak roots (the paradigms of which will be discussed in chaps. 16 and 17):27 1. Roots with n as R1 (the I/n verbs), which is weak because it regularly assimilates to the next consonant, e.g., nuR to guard (in other positions, n is strong); see 16.4 (pp. 469471). 2. Roots with u as R1 (traditionally called the I/w verbs), e.g., uLiD to give birth; u interchanges with w (short u does not occur as R2 or R3); see 16.2 (pp. 448462). 3. Roots with the vowels a or e as R1 (the I/a and the I/e verbs, together the I/voc verbs), e.g., aMuR to see, ePu to do /make, aLiK to go /come; these verbs go back to verbs with a guttural in Proto-Semitic; see 17.6 (pp. 537554). 4. Roots with a long vowel (, , , or ) as R2: the II/, II/, II/ and II/ verbs, together the II/voc verbs, e.g., MT to die, Q to give, B to become ashamed, and RQ to be/ go far away. The II/ and II/ verbs probably all go back to verbs with a guttural in ProtoSemitic. See 16.5 (pp. 474490) for the II/ and II/ verbs; and 17.7 (pp. 554572) for the II/ and II/ verbs. 5. Roots with a long vowel (, , , or ) as R3: the III/, III/, III/, and III/ verbsas a group, the III/voc verbs, e.g.BN to build, TR to take/bring along, ML to be(come) full and LQ to receive. The III/ and III/ verbs probably all go back to verbs with a
26. Apart from superficial phonological processes of assimilation to a suffix, such as Akk anaddikkum < anaddin-kum I will give to you from nadnu, abassu < *abat-u I seized him from abtu, and uamma < uab-ma I will sit down and from wabu. 27. For an economical description of the weak verbs, it is more efficient to allow for both semi-vowels (u and i ) and real vowels (a and e) as radicals than to hold to the axiom of only consonantal radicals. The same kind of development took place between Geez and Amharic, according to Gragg (1987: 140). Izre'el (1991; 2005: 534) also assumes vocalic radicals. For vocalic radicals in Arabic, see Voigt 1988a: 15 (who accepts u and i as vocalic radicals, but not a, because it cannot open a syllable).
42
The Structure of Individual Verb Forms 2.3. guttural in Proto-Semitic. See 16.7 (pp. 496509) for the III/ and III/ verbs and 17.8 (pp. 572583) for the III/ and III/ verbs.
Some verbs have more than one weak radical but never two successive ones. If two successive radicals belong to the class of weak radicals, one of them is treated as strong. Examples are N to be(come) quiet (II/ but with strong n as R1), LW to surround (III/ but with strong w as R2), nWR to shine (I/n but with strong w as R2), B to pass (II/, but with strong final ), and W to be(come) few (II/ but with strong w as R1). 2. If we allow for vocalic and semi-vocalic radicals, no Akkadian root has less than three or more than four radicals.28 There are hardly any verbal forms that cannot be derived from a triradical or quadriradical root. More specifically, Akkadian has no verb forms that are unambiguously derived from a biradical root. However, there are a few individual verbs and groups of verbs of which the root can be broken down into a sequence of two consonants plus an additional third consonant that is arguably a secondary accretion.29 The most plausible instances of individual verbs are aknu to place, which is perhaps a fossilized causative of the root kn (Akk knu) to be(come) stable, firm, true (Kuryowicz 1972: 67), the twin verbs alu and nalu to sift, where the alternation of and n also suggests an old prefix (without an obvious semantic motivation, however); and atu to fear, because of tu/attu fear, panic.30 The most plausible instances of groups of verbs are the following: a group of I/n verbs denoting sounds, which can be derived from onomatopoeic interjections containing two consonants (see 12.6.1, pp. 314321) a group of I/n verbs that denote directional motion and show biradical forms in other Semitic languages (see 12.6.1) the fientive I/w verbs, which preserve a biradical PiRS or PuRS derivation; e.g., ubtu domicile from wabu to live, stay (see 16.2.4, p. 460). None of these verbs have preserved a clearly biradical form in their historical paradigm, with the possible exception of the Assyrian imperative din give! of tadnu to give.31 I will discuss this issue in greater detail in the respective sections on the paradigms of the weak verbs in chaps. 16 and 17.32
28. In addition, Akkadian has various subparadigms to accommodate verb forms with five or even six consonants but uses these only in non-basic categories: in the derived verbal stems (where it has to allow for the additional consonant of the prefix or for the cluster caused by gemination or both) and in the quadriradical verbs. 29. Note that this does not imply that such a sequence of two consonants was itself ever in use as a root. 30. The claim in GAG 73b that Akk apru to send is related to the well-known biradical sequence PR, which is part of many triradical roots denoting some nuance of separation, seems rather doubtful. If we include instances from other Semitic languages, we might adduce aplu to be(come) low, cf. He npal to fall. However, the fact that aplu is intransitive does not increase the plausibility of this association. 31. It cannot be ruled out, however, that din is a secondary shortening of the regular form idin (the Babylonian form), although in Assyrian this verb is not normally a I/n verb; see 16.4.3 (p. 474) for details. The allegedly biradical imperatives of the I/w verbs are poor candidates for being genuine biradicals since they can be derived from the triradical perfective by means of the regular rule of imperative formation, namely subtraction of the personal prefix, such as bil bring! from tubil like parris separate! (Ass, D-stem) from tuparris, see 5.5 (pp. 133134) and 16.2.4 (pp. 459460). 32. All other cases where two radicals alternate can also, and even more plausibly, be explained as variations of an originally triradical pattern (Zaborski 1991; Goldenberg 2005: 1819). Akkadian instances are arru / tarru to tremble, ez / tez to defecate, and dakku to crush versus dku to beat, kill, for which see 16.6.2 (pp. 495496).
43
3. A remarkable and often discussed feature of the verbal root in Semitic concerns the incompatibility rules, the co-occurrence restrictions of certain (groups of) radicals in the strong root. These rules were first formulated by Cantineau (1946: 13336) for Arabic, but are best known from Greenbergs classic article (1950) and later were applied to other Semitic languages by other scholars.33 In a Semitic root, R1 and R2 are never identical nor homorganic (i.e., having the same place of articulation); R2 and R3 are never homorganic unless they are identical; and R1 and R3 may be homorganic and identical, but this occurs only rarely. The absence of identical and homorganic R1 and R2 cannot be separated from the fact that in the basic forms of the verbal paradigm as it existed in Proto-Semitic, and without any doubt also in Afroasiatic, R1 and R2 were adjacent in the prefix conjugations of the basic stem (the ProtoSemitic Impfv *yiqtVlu and the Pfv *yiqtVl; see Kuryowicz 1972: 22, 3031; Zaborski 1991: 168487). This caused assimilatory changes, the product of which could spread to forms where R1 and R2 were not adjacent. Traces of this process are visible in the existence of variants of the same root, such as He aq and zaq to scream, where -- became -z- by assimilation of voicing, and in irregular sound correspondences between cognates in different languages, e.g., He sbal and Akk zablu to carry, where -sb- became -zb- (Kuryowicz 1972: 3031).34 Where total assimilation would occur (as in the case of homorganic radicals), a loss of transparency would result, which was apparently avoided in Proto-Semitic (Kuryowicz 1972: 16). The reason why R2 and R3 may be identical but not homorganic is also primarily phonetic and due to ease of articulation: similar but not identical phonemes in close vicinity tend to be avoided: they are either assimilated or dissimilated.35 Moreover, since R2 and R3 are contiguous in various deverbal categories (in Akkadian even in the verbal paradigm itself as a result of the vowel syncope rule), they were subject to assimilation, the product of which could also easily spread to other environments.36 The restrictions on the co-occurrence of R1 and R3 doubtless have the same phonetic background but are far weaker than the other ones. The strength of the incompatibility therefore nicely correlates with the degree of adjacency of the radicals: R1 and R2 have the strictest incompatibility, since they are immediately adjacent in the core members of the verbal paradigm; R2 and R3 are close but rarely contiguous; and R1 and R3 are relatively distant.37 So it is the verbal paradigm that determines the incompatibilities and explains them in a historical perspective.38 Akkadian inherited the incompatibilities of the Proto-Semitic root (see Buccellati 1996: 66 68 for a discussion and examples).39 There is one type that Buccellati does not mention explicitly:
33. Such as Kuryowicz (1972: 1531). Zaborski (1994b and 1996b) has shown that the exceptions occur mainly in denominal and onomatopoeic verbs or are clearly secondary developments. See also del Olmo Lete 2003: 7076 and, for Akkadian, Buccellati 1996: 6667. 34. Instances of this kind of alternation within Akkadian include baqru and later paqru to claim, contest and perhaps also zakru and saqru to speak (Sem kr), although the details are unclear. 35. Cf. Akk zannu to rain, compared to Geez zanma and Sabaic nm to rain; Tigria znb or znm, Tigre zlma or znma (CDG 641a s.v. zanma), and He zerem heavy rain show a different solution to get rid of the apparently all too similar radicals n and m. 36. See 16.6.2 (pp. 494496) for the background of II/gem roots. 37. For changes in R3, cf. also Akk kabtu to be(come) heavy versus West Semitic kbd (which is also Neo-Assyrian), an alternation that may be caused by assimilation of d to the feminine suffix t: -dt- > -tt-. Within Akkadian, similar cases are Ass nbudu to flee and bidu to spend the night versus Bab nbutu and btu (). 38. For a different view on the incompatibilities, see, for instance, Petrek 1964 and Voigt 1981. 39. Incidental instances of incompatible radicals in Akkadian include the following: R1 = R2 only occurs in a to spit (doubtless onomatopoeic) and lull to provide abundantly (a loanword from Sumerian
44
the incompatibility of a glottalized consonant and in the position of R1 and R2: there are no Akkadian roots that (originally) had as R2 and , , or q as R1 and vice versa.40 This is related to Geers Law, which forbids more than one emphatic (i.e., glottalized) radical in an Akkadian root (Buccellati 1996: 68). However, there is no ban on a sequence of glottalized consonant plus as R2 and R3: cf. wa to go /come out, ka to be(come) cold, ma to be sufficient, and a to err, which are all original III/ verbs (see Kouwenberg 2003: 8384).41 4. A further issue is the difference between verbal and nominal roots. A nominal root (i.e., the consonantal skeleton of a primary noun) shows less restrictions on its form than a verbal root: it need not be triradical and has no incompatibility of radicals.42 This is caused by the fact that in Semitic the nominal paradigm is far simpler than the verbal paradigm; in particular, it does not include prefixation, which was an important determinant of the incompatibility of radicals and as I argued in the preceding sectionan important trigger of the rise of the root-and-pattern system. In most cases, therefore, we can do with an invariable stem as the basis of nominal inflection and derivation (see also GAG 51h; Diakonoff 1970; Fronzaroli 1973). However, because many primary nouns are also triradical, they can easily be analyzed as if they consist of a root and a pattern, even though the pattern does not have an identifiable function. This makes it possible to integrate them into the verbal system as denominal verbs (Fischer 1993: 4041; Fox 2003: 6365; Rubio 2005: 5152; Goldenberg 2005: 1415). Moreover, the oldest stages of Semitic already show clear instances of diminutives formed according to the root-and-pattern system. This is doubtless related to the fact that diminutives are, in origin, expressive derivations and therefore have a greater capability of incorporating additional elements, in particular as reduplicated syllables, which may disrupt the stem and cause internal changes.
2.3.4. Thepatternandthebase
The pattern (also called scheme or template) is the vocalic complement of the consonantal root: a vowel sequence, sometimes extended with one or more consonantal affixes, which is shared by the members of a specific grammatical category (inflectional or derivational) and can therefore be seen as carrier of its function; the pattern -a--, for instance, characterizes the G-stem infinitive PaRS in Akkadian. This implies that not every vowel sequence is a pattern.
and a D tantum verb; see n. 20); bablu is secondary to wablu. The ban on homorganic R1 and R2 does not affect I/w verbs, as is clear from verbs such as wablu, wabu, wamlu, wamum, wap, and wapu; see 16.2.1 (pp. 448450). Identity of R1 and R3 is not uncommon: au to need, kanku to seal, karku to collect, nadnu to give (Bab), abu to collect (taxes); agu to murder, sabsu to be(come) angry (Ass, Bab absum), and the denominal verb alu to do for the third time. 40. Because in Babylonian has been dropped, original II/ verbs can no longer be distinguished from II/*h verbs and original II/ verbs (if there are any). The assumption made here is that Babylonian II/ verbs starting with a glottalized consonant were not II/ verbs but original II/h (or II/?) verbs. Apart from the very problematic verb nu to load, fill, this only concerns lu to quarrel, of which the Old Assyrian forms are ambiguous but compatible with an original root hl; see chap. 17 n. 152 (p. 557). 41. Arabic and Geez have a number of roots with R1 = glottalized and R2 = , but they seem all to be denominal or otherwise secondary; see Zaborski 1994b: 47. 42. For instance, verbal roots in Akkadian never have a dental and a sibilant as R1 and R2 (Hirsch 1975: 293; Bucccellati 1996: 68), but nominal roots do; cf. d grass, spring in the Babylonian noun du grass (< *dium), cf. OA daum spring and the adjective de luxuriant; dp honey in the noun dipu honey and the adjective dapu sweet (the infinitive dapu occurring as a citation form in lexical texts is doubtless artificial). What applies to nominal roots also applies to the roots of numerals: cf. t of the numeral ti nine and l of al three, with R1 = R3. The shape of these roots identifies them immediately as non-verbal.
45
Among the vowel patterns that can be combined with a root, a special position is occupied by the root vowel, an unmotivated short vowel between R2 and R3. The combination of root and root vowel is the base; for instance, the root prs of parsu to separate, decide has a base PRuS.43 The root vowel is not a pattern insofar as it has no obvious (synchronic) function; its importance lies in the fact that it is the basis of inflection and derivation and therefore historically prior to the purely consonantal root, which owes its role to the rise of a more-and-more-complex apophony and the ensuing gradual phase-out of the root vowel (see 2.3.2, p. 40). Most of the categories in which the root vowel originally occurred were replaced by categories with other vowel patternsusually more complex onesso that the root vowel was marginalized: in Akkadian, it only surfaces in the perfective and the imperative of the G-stemi.e., iprus and purus, respectively, for the verb parsu. Elsewhere, it was sacrificed to the demands of inflection and derivation (GAG 1b; Schramm 1991: 1403). However, this description mainly applies to strong roots, in which there is a clear distinction between the root and the pattern. In weak roots, the boundary between root and pattern tends to be blurred. In the G infinitive of the I/voc verbs, such as amru to see, the initial vowel a is both part of the root aMR and of the G infinitive pattern PaRS. In the II/voc verbs, the vocalic radicals , , , and do double service as radical and as root vowel. Therefore, there are no vowel classes: all II/ verbs are conjugated in the same way: e.g., iqap - iqp he entrusts/entrusted (OB), and likewise all II/, II/, and II/ verbs. This also applies to the III/voc verbs. Insofar as they originally had a consonantal R3, their final vowelwhich is at least structurally long (see 16.7.2.1, p. 499)is the reflex of the root vowel plus the original weak radical: e.g., iml it became full < *yimla in the III/ verbs, and ilq he received < *yilqa in the III/ verbs. Something similar may have happened in the III/ and III/ verbs: e.g., ibk he cried < *yibkiy and imn he bound < *yimnuw (but the long vowel may also be original here). The outcome of these developments (which will be discussed in greater detail in chaps. 16 and 17) is that the final vowel serves both as radical and as root vowel and thus determines the vowel class: a III/ verb automatically belongs to the I/i class, a III/ verb to the U/u class, etc.44 This double function makes the vowel in question relatively stable, because where it is not required as radical, it may still be required as root vowel and vice versa (Kienast 2001: 6364). For instance, whereas the root vowel u of parsu only surfaces in the perfective iprus and the imperative purus, the root vowel of mtu to die not only appears as root vowel in the perfective imt and the imperative mt but also as radical in the imperfective imat, the infinitive mutum, and the deverbal noun *mawtum death (> mtu), at least as long as it is not removed by vowel contraction. In this respect (but not historically), a form such as imt can be seen as based on *imwut iprus.45 Thus the weak roots bridge the gap between root and (inflectional) stem, because they are both at the same time.
43. This use of the term base is to be distinguished from its use as part of the designations prefix base and suffix base introduced in 2.2.1 (p. 32). The term base is already used by Brockelmann (1908: 287); see also Fronzaroli 1973: 23 and Wolff 1977: 203. 44. However, this only applies to historical Akkadian. In the oldest texts we have, there are some traces of a more complex situation, such as the Mari Old Akkadian form titay they drank, with y as R3 and the root vowel a, from at, which is an I/i verb in later dialects; see 16.7.1 (pp. 496497). 45. Cf. Voigt 1988a: 59, 7378.
46
Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation 2.4.
2.4. Vowel syncope and Vowel Assimilation

In principle, the inflectional stem is the part of a word that remains after the inflectional endings have been removed, and also the form that after the attachment of an ending gives a complete surface form. In some cases, however, the combination of inflectional stem and ending must still be adjusted to the requirements of three superficial phonological rules: vowel syncope (in all dialects of Akkadian), vowel assimilation (only in Assyrian), and vowel harmony (only in Babylonian). Here, I will discuss the first two rules; the (Babylonian) vowel harmony rule can best be discussed in the context of the verbs with E-colouring in chap. 17. The vowel syncope rule stipulates that if an inflectional stem contains a sequence of two or more short syllables apart from the final syllable, the vowel of the last syllable of the sequence is syncopated.46 For sequences of two syllables, cf. the t-perfect 3mp iptars < iptrs they have separated and the PPartc parsu < *prsum separated, Pl parstu < *prstum, in contrast to the PrPartc prsu, Pl prstu, which remains unaffected (the relevant sequence of syllables is underlined). For sequences of three short syllables, cf. the feminine singular of the adjective damiqtu good < dmqtum (versus Masc damqu < *dmqum), the non-prefixed Gt forms with an ending in Old Assyrian, e.g., the Gt PPartc pitarsum (GKT 88a) < *ptrsum,47 whereas the form without ending is regularly pitrus < *ptrus (Gt Stat 3ms) (see further 14.2.1, p. 358), the suffixed pronouns -kunu/-unu, etc., in libbaknu your (Pl) heart < *libbknu (and similarly the other suffix pronouns of the second and third person plural; see GKT 49a),48 and the Ntn imperfective of the quadriradical verbs, such as the 3ms ittanablakkat < *ittnblakkat (GAG Verbalpar. 39; see further 12.5, p. 312). The overall working of this rule is regular and pervasive and it has a profound influence on the shape of Akkadian; Knudsen (1986: 724) appropriately calls it one of the most characteristic features of Akkadian phonology. Of particular interest is that it can apply across word boundaries (Greenstein 1984: 3334), as in the preposition n, which often appears as an, and, more remarkably, in compound proper names, such as OB A-ri--l-u /Ar-ilu/ < air-ilu cared for by his god and Kur-bi-la-ak /Kurb-ilak/ < kurub-ilak pray to your god!; and OA almaum for alim-aum the brother is well, Wardilu for Warad-ilu servant of his god, and Taqnabum for Taqun-abum the father is well.49 However, in these compound names, it is the middle of three short syllables that is syncopated: almaum < lm-um, rather than **alimum, perhaps because they had a different stress pattern from single words: alim-aum (in contrast to *dam iqatum). There are, however, a few exceptions and difficulties in the details. First, a short vowel is sometimes preserved before r, e.g., labru old; in particular, if it is a short (including a short that has developed from ), as in zikru male, iru straight, ikru beer, aru place,
46. See GAG 12 and especially the extensive discussion in Greenstein 1984. 47. The corresponding Babylonian form pitrus results from an analogical change on the basis of the endingless form pitrus < *pitarus; see 14.2.1 (p. 358). It is not an indication that vowel deletion can also affect the antepenultimate syllable. 48. The spelling libbakunu is also attested and is perhaps morphophonemic (GKT 49a). For libbakunu in Babylonian, see below. 49. References for Ar-ilu: AbB 2, 154:1; for Kurbilak: see Hilgert 2002: 58990 s.v.; for almaum: l-ma-u-um Prag I 557:6; for Wardilu: Wa-ar-d-li-u HSS 10, 223:1; for Taqnabum: Tq-na-bi4-im BIN 6, 190:9; Ta-aq-na-bu-um ICK 1, 33b:5 (all OA). A possible instance outside proper names is the genitive construction ri-ig-ma-dIKuR YOS 10, 18:47 (OB), if it stands for /rigm-Adad/ < rigim Adad the thunder of Adad (CAD R 332b s.v. rigmu 4).
2.4. Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation
47
epru (< *aprum) earth, soil, epr (Pl) provisions, and eret (< *arat) ten (Fem).50 Some other exceptions include Sumerian loanwords (Goetze 1946b: 23536; Buccellati 1971: 82), but the quantity of the vowels in Sumerian loanwords is often hard to establish. A few forms suggest that l may have the same effect (Huehnergard 1987b: 192), but this is extremely rare: it only occurs in akalu bread alongside regular aklu, a PaRs form of aklu to eat, and perhaps in the irregular trisyllabic perfective forms ubil, ubilam, etc., of wablu to carry, which will be discussed in 16.2.2 (pp. 451452).51 Second, in contrast to Old Assyrian forms of the libbaknu type, Babylonian always shows the full suffix (libbakunu, etc.), in apparent violation of the rule. We could explain Babylonian libbakunu as a morphophonemic spelling, but this does not seem very likely, since we would expect to find at least some instances of the phonemic spelling, as we do in Old Assyrian. It seems more plausible to assume that -kunu is restored on the basis of other environments, where the rule does not apply, such as the Gen Sg libbkunu,52 or that the Babylonian form is actually libbkunu, with by analogy with the other long vowels that may come after the stem: the Gen Sg - and the plural endings - and -. Third, there is at least one case where the application of vowel syncope is blocked by paradigmatic pressure, namely in the non-prefixed forms of the t2-stem of II/voc verbs (GAG Verbalpar. 28), e.g.: Inf tknu to confirm (e.g., u-ta-ku-nu-um ARM 28, 155:11 (OB Mari) and tndu to praise ((ana) u-ta-nu-di-im BagM. 34, 150: XIV 13 (OB)) Stat 3fp tq they are intermingled BE 14, 4:6 (MB) Imp tqp (u-ta-q-ip FM 1 p. 128:30 buy on credit! (OB Mari)). This is based on the relationship between the corresponding strong forms: utaparras : utaprVs(u) utakn : utakVn(u) (instead of **utkVn(u)); see 16.5.3.4 (pp. 487488) for the paradigm of these forms. In later dialects, in particular in Neo-Assyrian, more forms emerge in which short is restored on the basis of the strong verbfor instance, in the -stem of II/voc verbs: lu--di-il-lu /luadill/ SAA 2 p. 53:575 var. Q (NA) may they cause to ride around aimlessly from dlu (see 16.5.3.4, p. 487) li--ib /liab/ Wedg. 16: r.3 (LB) may he make pleasant from bu (earlier lib), and also in the quadriradical verbs, which will be discussed in 13.4.1 (p. 339), e.g., Impfv uabalakkat for earlier ubalakkat. Sporadically, we find exceptions the other way around: vowel syncope in cases that do not meet the criteria of the vowel syncope rule, usually of a short vowel following a long syllable.
50. See GAG 12b Anm.; Goetze 1946b: 23435; Matou and Petrek 1956: 1012. This happens especially in Babylonian; Assyrian more often (but not always) shows syncope in these words: e.g., epru dust (ep-ra-am BIN 4, 10:26) and ikru beer (e.g., -ik-ri-im CCT 4, 7b:6) versus iaru (i-a-ru- OIP 27, 15:11 they are correct) and igaru wall (i-ga-ri-im RA 80, 128 no. 26:30, both without vowel assimilation!). 51. The Old Assyrian instances mentioned by Matou and Petrek (1956: 11) of the type bu-q-lam KTK 67:12 malt alongside bu-uq-lm TC 3, 181:15 and u-q-lu-um TC 3, 81:19 package (for shipping metals) alongside uqlum (passim), both PuRS forms, and perhaps also imperatives such as u-ku-nam TC 3, 1:29 place for me! beside u-uk-nam TC 3, 1:22 from aknu are instances of vowel epenthesis rather than vowel syncope. 52. For long in the genitive singular, see Aro 1953: 78 and Hecker 2000.
48
Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation 2.4.
This occurs in meru (mru?) cultivated land (see CAD M/2 27a s.v. meru) (OB) and in meltu (mltu?) mature age, a maPRaS form related to elu young man (SB).53 Finally, the application of the rule to vowels followed by a semi-vowel or an (original) is a difficult point. Most pertinent forms suggest that the rule does not work in this position, e.g., Bab rabiku I am big/old from the III/ verb rab, and OA zakuku I am free from zak (III/), which correspond to parsku in the strong verb (Greenstein 1984: 2829).54 In the discussion of the paradigm of the weak verbs, I will argue that in principle vowel syncope also applies to this environment but that it was restored (in Old Assyrian often and in other dialects always) by introducing an epenthetic vowel; see 16.7.2.34 (pp. 501509). Vowel syncope is a phonological process that operates across the board, i.e., regardless of grammar or word class. It gives important information on the quantity of vowels in the word independently of the actual orthography and thus greatly helps us to reconstruct the exact form of words. It is valid for all dialects of Akkadian and is therefore certainly Proto-Akkadian, but it is uncertain to what extent it was already operative in Eblaite, especially because of the highly ambiguous orthography (cf. Huehnergard 2006: 8; Krebernik 2006: 8688). The vowel assimilation rule is a specifically Assyrian phenomenon.55 It stipulates that a short in the penultimate syllable of a word of three or more syllables is assimilated to the vowel of the final syllable: e.g., ippris > ippiris, but bisyllabic pris does not change.56 Accordingly, Old Assyrian has autum (Nom) - aitim (Gen) - aatam (Acc) instead of OB aatum - aatim aatam wife; in the verb, Assyrian has iakkan, iakkun instead of OB iakkan, iakkan he/ they (will) place, and tabit instead of tabat you (Fem) seized, etc.57 Occasionally we find forms in which an apparent short does not show assimilation (GKT 10 end): kar-p-tim kt c/k 1645:9, Gen Sg of *karpatum jar alongside regular karpitim, and
53. Perhaps the difficult verb forms mutedqi from edqu t2 to put on in mu-u-te-ed-q aplutim JRAS CSpl. p. 67: 11 (OB) clad in armour and tuttepam from epu t2(?) in tu-u-te-te-ep-a-am AbB 14, 116:26 (OB) you have caused to be made for me for expected mutdiq- and tutetpiam also belong here. 54. Unless zakuku is to be interpreted as a D-stem zakkuku, see chap 3 n. 76 (p. 65). 55. Traditionally called vowel harmony in Akkadian grammar. However, this term as it is usually defined in handbooks of phonology is exclusively applied to rules that stipulate that all vowels of a word must share one or more specific phonological properties, such as being all either front or back, rounded or unrounded, etc.; see, for instance, Katamba 1989: 211. The Assyrian phenomenon does not satisfy this condition, because it only concerns the penultimate vowel. 56. GAG3 10e/f; for Old Assyrian: GKT 10; for Middle Assyrian: Meyer 1971: 12 8 sub 1a) a (the forms W. Mayer quotes sub 1a) b) and 1a) g (sic) are uncertain [see Postgate 1974: 27374] or belong to a different category); for Neo-Assyrian: Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 30f.; see also Greenstein 1984: 38 n. 48 (but read only a instead of usually a for Old Assyrian). The formulation excludes the first syllable of a word from being affected, but there are a few words that in Babylonian have short in the first syllable but in Assyrian i or u, just as in the next syllable: istu tower (Bab astu) and ziqpu stake (Bab zaqpu), kulmu lamb (Bab kalmu). Perhaps these forms are a kind of side-effect of the rule. Other words with short in the first syllable do not have assimilation, such as maru market. 57. The first syllable of a bisyllabic word is affected by way of exception in kulu (also kalu), Gen kili, Acc kala all (GKT 10c) and perhaps also in i-ri- + suffix pronoun, Gen of arum place, but as long as no Nom **urum is attested, it is not certain that i- of ir- is caused by vowel assimilation. The forms -neand -nu- instead of -na- in the imperfective of tan-stems such as utenebbal, tn imperfective of wablu to bring/take, and ittunar, Gtn imperfective of tru to come back, are not instances of this rule but analogical formations (utakkal : utanakkal utebbal : utenebbal, etc.; see 16.2.3 sub 3 (p. 457). It is questionable whether the vowel variation in the declension of p mouth is caused by vowel assimilation, as GAG3 10f claims: several other forms are attested than the ones quoted, and the details remain to be established.
2.5. The Personal Affxes
49
ma-ak-na-ki-im CCT 4, 7c:3 seal (Gen Sg) alongside ma-ak-ni-ki-im BIN 6, 241:6. It is hard to establish whether these exceptions reflect the actual pronunciation or whether they are only examples of careless or partly morphophonemic spellings. It is possible that, in a word such as maknakum, forms with long and short coexisted (cf. the agent nouns karum donkey-driver versus *arrqum [> arruqum] thief), but this is unlikely in the case of *karpatum. Whatever the explanation, the important thing for our purpose is that, wherever the rule is applied in general, we have to do with an original short . Like vowel syncope, vowel assimilation is basically a phonological process that is purely conditioned by formal criteria. In one environment, however, it has spread beyond its original domain, namely in the perfective of the N-stem: the 3ms ippiris (< ippris, as in Babylonian) has extended its i to the forms with an ending, e.g., 3mp ippirs; see 12.2.1 (p. 289). Chronologically, vowel assimilation is posterior to vowel syncope: first, because it is an Assyrian innovation whereas vowel syncope is pan-Akkadian; and second, because it is posterior to the change a > e in the vicinity of a guttural, as is clear from forms such as ilqe they received < *yilqa versus iul they asked < *yial, and maenum shoe < *maanum versus namudum large quantity < *namadum. These forms would otherwise be **ilqu and **maunum. So the chronological order of the three great vowel-changing developments of Assyrian is: vowel syncope E-colouring vowel assimilation. Vowel assimilation also operates in Middle and Neo-Assyrian (W. Mayer 1971: 1112; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 30). However, in Middle Assyrian, its effects are partly reversed by the change u > a in an open syllable preceding a stressed u (Postgate 1974: 274). It causes forms such as errabni he enters (Subj) instead of errubni (Indic errab) and azatni she has been married for expected azutni (Indic azat) (for references, see W. Mayer 1971: 12, where the attested Middle Assyrian instances are listed).58 As Postgate argues, this is doubtless a side-effect of a stress shift caused by the additional syllable. In Neo-Assyrian, the u > a change before a stressed u becomes widespread, affecting not only verbal forms but also nouns (e.g., a-nu-t SAA 16, 139:6 utensils for untu) and pronouns (atta-nu-u-ni SAA 1, 25:9 you (Pl) for attunu + Subj) (Luukko 2004: 9394). Interestingly, the existence of the rule is exploited to express (or rather to restore) a morphosyntactic contrast between the third person masculine singular and plural of verb forms that had coincided as a result of the generalization of the subjunctive marker -ni in Middle Assyrian (see 9.3.1, pp. 223224). For instance, both the 3ms ekkal he eats and the 3mp ekkul they eat have a subjunctive ekkulni in Middle Assyrian, which may become ekkalni through the u > a change. In Neo-Assyrian, the latter form is in practice mainly used for the plural they eat (Subj), whereas ekkulni is mainly reserved for the singular he eats (Subj) (Fabritius 1995; Luukko 2004: 9397). The mechanism behind this diversification is not clear to me: is it a tendency to maximize the formal contrast: 3ms ekkal ekkulni versus 3mp ekkul() ekkalni ?
2.5. the Personal Affixes

In principle, Akkadian has only one set of personal affixes for all finite categories, apart from superficial distinctions resulting from vowel contraction, E-colouring, and similar processes. The deverbal, non-finite members of infinitive and present and past participle all show the regular nominal declension consisting of endings for case, number, and gender (insofar as these are
58. Interestingly, several exceptions to vowel assimilation in Old Assyrian can be explained as very early instances of this rule: (a . . .) i-l-ku-ma BIN 6, 11:13 (who) should go (normally lluk); -a-ada-ru-ni TC 2, 2:31 they frighten me; see GKT 47c and 79g for a few other examples.
50
The Personal Affxes 2.5.
applicable), which I will not further discuss here (see GAG 63). Table 2.4 presents the set of personal affixes of the strong verb (without E-colouring; see 17.5.1, pp. 525534) in its Old Babylonian form (--- represents the stem; forms within parentheses are obsolete in Old Babylonian).59 Prefix Conjugations 3ms. 3fs 2ms 2fs 1s 3du 3mp 3fp 2mp 2fp 1p i --(ta ---) ta --ta --- a --(i --- ) i --- i --- ta --- ni --u --(tu ---) tu --tu --- u --(u --- ) u --- u --- tu --- nu ----- ----- Imp Stat ----- at --- ta/i, -t --- t, -ti --- k(u) (--- ) --- --- --- tunu --- tina --- nu
table2.4:thepersonalaffixesofthefiniteverbforms.
In the prefix conjugations, the prefixes are the basic person markers. The suffixes provide additional specification of gender or number in the second and third persons, but not consistently.60 The stative only has suffixes, which will further be discussed in 7.4.1 (pp. 176181). The variation between the prefixes with a/i and those with u is predictable: the u-set is only used for the D- and the -stems and their derivatives and in the G-stem imperfective and perfective of I/w verbs. However, the prefix of the present participle of the derived stems is always mu-, even in
59. See also GAG 75d/h; Reiner 1966: 6970. I do not see any advantage in assuming that the prefixes are basically consonantal and that the following vowel belongs to the stem, as claimed by Izre'el (1991), Goldenberg (1994: 3536), and Buccellati (1996: 9293). This would be justified if the prefix vowels had a consistent function separate from their environment; this is not the case, however, as can be inferred from Akkadian u. In terms of descriptive simplicity, it makes little difference, since it reduces allomorphy in the prefixes, but it increases allomorphy in the stem (although stem allomorphy is strongly disfavoured in Akkadian; cf. p. 33 n. 8). Moreover, the fact that all non-prefixed forms start with the first radical rather than with a vowel is a strong indication that the first radical should also be taken as the beginning of the stem in prefixed forms. Especially in derived verbal stems, where the inflectional stem is relatively stable, it seems counter-intuitive to claim that the prefix forms have a stem uPaRRvS (Izre'el 1991: 44), whereas the nonprefixed forms obviously have PaRRvS. 60. Actually, this only occurs in the second person singular and the third person plural. The identity of second person singular masculine and the third person singular feminine (before the latter was given up in Old Babylonian) is a pervasive feature of Semitic. After the 3fs prefix ta- was lost in Babylonian, no new gender distinction arose in the third person singular. The overall inconsistency in the formal distinctions of person, gender and number suggest that the combination of prefixes and suffixes as we know them in Akkadian was not devised with the express function of indicating unambiguously all possible combinations of person, gender and number, but is the outcome of accidental grammaticalization processes.
2.5. The Personal Affxes
51
the stems that elsewhere have a/i.61 Instead of the second person ta-, the defective verbs id to know and i to have have ti- in all dialectse.g., OB 2ms td you know, t you have, where t- includes the original weak first radicalagainst t- or t- in all other I/voc verbs; see 16.3.3 (p. 465). The forms in the Table 2.4 are basically valid for the strong verb in all dialects, with the following qualifications: the special 3fs prefix ta- gradually disappears in the early Old Babylonian period.62 the 3ms and 3pl prefixes i- and u- appear in their older form yi- and yu- in thirdmillennium Akkadian, as indicated by the use of the specialized signs <i> and <u>, in contrast to other i- or u-signs (Hasselbach 2005: 19092), except in Ur III Babylonian.63 Mari Old Akkadian shows a 3pl prefix ti- instead of (y)i- (which does not seem to be attested): tim-a- they beat, ti-ku-lu they ate, ti-i-da-u they drank, ti-il-tap-tu they rubbed each other in MARI 1, 81:2124; ti-ku-lu ARM 19, 382, and tim-za-u they cleaned(?) ARM 19, 3845.64 The 3du affixes are regularly used in Mari Old Akkadian, Sargonic Akkadian, and Old Assyrian, but are residual in Babylonian.65 On the other hand, Old Babylonian shows a few instances of a first person dual in reciprocal verbs, consisting of the first person singular with the dual ending - affixed: lurtm let us love (each other), lunnamr let us meet; see Kouwenberg 2005: 100101.66 a sporadically occurring deviation from the forms in the table is the second-person prefix ti- instead of ta- in Old Babylonian: (a) ti-q-bi- AbB 9, 253:9 whom you mention, ([l]) [t]i-A-da-ar ibid. 19 do not worry, and ti-iq-bi-am AbB 14, 82:6 you said to
61. Since mu- is absent in the basic stem, one could argue that it belongs to the stem and is therefore not an inflectional affix. However, it behaves like the personal prefixes in that it is followed by the prefix base, and therefore it is more efficient to classify it as an inflectional affix. The present participle is the only member of the paradigm for which the derived stems show a form fundamentally different from the basic stem. 62. See GAG 75h, Hilgert 2002: 160 and Whiting 1987: 11. In Old Babylonian, it occurs occasionally in literary texts (von Soden 1931/33: II 14851), in particular in the precative preceded by the particle i; see chap. 9 n. 8 (p. 213), and very rarely in letters (tu-i-ib AbB 7, 52:13 she stayed; ta-at-ta-na-la-ka-ku AbB 14, 49:14 she keeps coming to you. 63. Also in Eblaite, as is clear from spellings with <i>: e.g., i-da-a- /yiaa/ OrAnt. 18, 341: I 4 and Plate 37 they come near; see Fronzaroli 1982: 109 sub k; and with <u9> (e.g., u9-ga-da-ra /yuqaar(a)/ ibid. 112 he will sacrifice incense. According to Krebernik (1988a: 52), some instances of the prefix aalternating with i- may represent an older form ya-, as in the interchange of a-me-tum and i-me-tum right (hand) < *yamittum (Sem ymn). 64. For an extensive discussion, see Bonechi 1988. It also occurs in Ebla (alongside yi-, as in i-da-a-; see the previous note), in peripheral Akkadian (Emar) and West Semiticnamely, in some Amarna letters, especially those of Rib-Addi (Rainey 1996: II 4345)and in Ugaritic (Tropper 2000: 43241). Tropper argues that in Ugaritic y- is archaic and t- an innovation. Hasselbach (2004: 2526) suggests that the consonant t- arose from leveling with the 2p t- and the 3fp t- (which is not actually attested but reconstructed on the basis of Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Amarna letters) and that the vowel of ti- arose by analogy with yi- in the third person singular and dual masculine. This is all extremely speculative. See, for earlier explanations, Edzard 1985, Lambert 1992: 5354, and Gelb 1992: 18889. 65. See Limet 1975: 3943 for Mari Old Akkadian; Hasselbach 2005: 191 for Sargonic Akkadian; GKT 73a for Old Assyrian. In Ur III Babylonian, the dual is not attested (except in the curse formulae of royal inscriptions, where it is doubtless traditional; see Hilgert 2002: 161), but since it is still used occasionally in later Babylonian, it cannot have been completely extinct; see Whiting 1987: 1516. 66. Since the second person plural (also) has the ending -, we cannot establish whether there was a second person dual, since it would doubtless have the same ending.
52
The Personal Affxes 2.5. me, and perhaps in the Sargonic Akkadian incantation MAD 5, 8:11 = Or. 46, 201:11 (Kish) ti-ib-da-ad-ga,67 if this stands for /tibtatq/ you (Du) cut off for yourselves (Gt perfective).68
There are some clear similarities between the personal prefixes and the independent subject pronouns. In the second person, the prefix ta- agrees with -ta/-ti/-tunu, etc., in the pronouns atta < *an-ta, atti < *an-ti, attunu < *an-tunu, etc. In the first person plural, the prefix ni- corresponds to the pronoun nnu we, and also in the first person singular - recurs in the personal pronoun, if we assume that PSem *an(ku) comes from *an-(ku). There is also a connection between the 3fs prefix ta- and the nominal feminine suffix -(a)t. With regard to the gender and number suffixes, the third person plural gender markers - and - are also used as (parts of) the nominal and adjectival plural markers. On the basis of purely theoretical considerations (i.e., grammaticalization processes of person markers in better-documented languages), it is plausible that the personal prefixes represent either cliticized pronominal elements or cliticized auxiliary verbs containing a pronominal element. This implies a gradual shortening until they acquired the monosyllabic form that is actually attested.69 Since Berber and Cushitic show a set of prefixes that is very similar to the Semitic set, this process must be situated in the Afroasiatic period or even earlier.70 This makes further speculations about the details of this process rather fruitless.71 The fact that they cannot easily be reduced to a uniform paradigm in Proto-Semitic is doubtless caused by recurrent remodelling through analogy and the influence of neighbouring elements, which is difficult to retrace but which may have made them quite different in form from their original pronominal shape.72
67. Interpreted as 2du by J. and A. Westenholz (1977: 208); according to Lambert (1992: 54) and Hasselbach (2005: 19192), it is 3duf; if so, it belongs to the cases mentioned previously. 68. 3fs ti- has parallels in Eblaite as well: ti-ig-da-ra-ab ARET 11, 1: r.ix 5 /tikta(r)rab/ she blesses, ti-a-ba-an ARET 5, 3: I 2 she makes bricks /tilabban/, alongside ta- in da-ne-a-al6 ARET 11, 1: iii 1 / tanal/ she lies down (see also Gelb 1992: 18889; Edzard 2006: 80). 69. A recent discussion with a survey of earlier literature is Hasselbach 2004. 70. See, for instance, Lipiski 1997: 38083. 71. The claim that the Semitic prefixes go back to originally vowelless forms that needed an epenthetic vowel to be attached to the verb (Testen 1994a: 43234; Hasselbach 2004: 3234) is not acceptable to me. First, it is unclear what kind of status such a monoconsonantal element could have had unless it was a reduction of a longer element that included at least one vowel. Second, it seems illogical to assume that an original independent element was first reduced to a single consonant and subsequently acquired an epenthetic vowel to be combined with a verb stem. Such a development is inconsistent with what we know from grammaticalization processes. Another important point is that the very existence of vocalic sonants in Semitic remains to be proven. The parallel with Indo-European to which Testen refers (1993b: 5) is unconvincing because the Indo-European languages have many different forms to base the existence of vocalic sonants on, and a clear morphological raison dtre: the coexistence and the morphological alternation of full and zero grade forms in the same paradigm; this makes it necessary to create alongside a form such as *bheugh (full grade) : *bhugh (zero grade) or *leikw : *likw from a root such as *bhendh a zero grade *bhdh and from *pleH a zero grade *pH, etc. This morphological motivation for the existence of these cross-linguistically not-very-common phonemes is absent in Semitic. See also Voigt 2002: 276, who argues against the existence of syllabic sonorants in Afroasiatic. 72. For the sake of convenience, I will adopt Hetzrons (1973/74: 40) reconstruction of the ProtoSemitic personal prefixes of the basic stem (*a-, *ta-, *yi-, *ni-) when quoting Proto-Semitic verb forms, with the qualification that there are reasons to assume that there was an additional series of prefixes with i in all persons, mainly or exclusively for prefix forms with a as root vowel (*yiqtal(u)), in accordance with the Barth-Ginsberg Law; see especially 16.3.1 (pp. 462464).
thebasicstem
theParadigmOftheg-stem
ParttWO
Chapter 3
3.1. introduction
In this chapter, I will take a closer look at the paradigm of the G-stem. In particular, I will discuss the semantic and formal distinctions that hold among the G-stem verbs. The semantic distinctions concern the subclasses of fientive, stative, and adjectival verbs on the one hand and differences in transitivity on the other; the formal distinctions concern the vowel classes. Fientive, stative, and adjectival verbs show differences in the structure of their paradigm and also in the meaning of some tense/aspect categories (3.3). Differences in transitivity influence the meaning of the stative, the possibility of passivization, and the choice of derived stems (3.4). Finally, the vowel classes reflect differences in transitivity and Aktionsart (3.5).
3.2. the g-stem as the Basis of the Verbal Paradigm

The paradigm of the G-stem of the strong triradical verb is the norm for all other paradigms. It owes this status to the fact that triradical verbs are more frequent than any other type of verb, that the class of strong verbs is much larger than any class of weak verbs (although all weak verbs taken together are not much less in number than the strong verbs), and that their paradigm is more transparent. In relation to the other verbal stems, the G-stem is dominant because it is unmarked and, again, much more frequent than any derived stem individually. The unmarked nature of the G-stem concerns both form and function.1 With regard to form, the G-stem has no special marker, it has the greatest number of formal distinctions,2 and, most importantly, it shows variation in its vowel pattern, because it has an unmotivated vowel between R2 and R3: the root vowel. This is a typical feature of unmarked categories (van Loon 2005: 6773). The G-stem is also semantically unmarked because it expresses verbal concepts in their most natural valency and because there are no restrictions on the nature of the situations (i.e., actions, events, processes, and states) it can denote. Finally, it is the semantic nature of the G-stem
1. For markedness and its criteria in general, see Greenberg 1966: 912; Croft 2003: 87101; Givn 1995: 2569; Battistella 1996; van Loon 2005: 111. 2. It has six inflectional stems, as we saw in 2.2.1 (pp. 3132), and it is the only stem in which the infinitive and the past participle have a different form ( parsu versus parsu).
53
54
Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs 3.3.
(whether it is transitive or intransitive, stative or fientive, etc.) that to a large extent determines which of the derived stems can be selected as productive derivations (see 10.6, pp. 252254). Therefore, the G-stem contains verbs of widely different meanings and can be divided into several classes on the basis of differences in Aktionsarti.e., in fientive, stative, and adjectival verbs (3.3); and on the basis of differences in transitivityi.e., in transitive and intransitive verbs on the one hand and high- and low-transitivity verbs on the other (3.4). Both Aktionsart and transitivity are relevant to another distinction among the G-stem verbs, namely, the formal distinction of the vowel classes (3.5).
3.3. Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, stative, and Adjectival Verbs

The term Aktionsart will be used herefor want of a better oneto refer to the type of situation that is inherent in the meaning of the verb. The most common Aktionsarten are such notions as punctual versus durative, telic versus atelic, stative versus dynamic (fientive), iterative and ingressive.3 Most verbs have a single Aktionsart, which is a constant property, independent of the context or the grammatical category in which the verbs happen to be used.4 Aktionsarten are lexical categories, which may or may not be grammatically relevant. In this and the next sections, we are only concerned with a single set of Aktionsarten, namely, the distinction between fientive (i.e., dynamic), stative and adjectival verbs.5 There is a fundamental distinction in language between dynamic and static situations, on the basis of which we can distinguish dynamic (usually called fientive in Semitic studies) and stative verbs.6 Since it is the primary function of a verb to express an event or a process, most verbs are inherently dynamic. Many languages also have a small number of stative verbs, such as English to know, possess, live, belong, contain (Lyons 1977: II 7067; Binnick 1991: 18388); in general, states are more typically expressed by non-verbal clauses or copula constructions. Changes from stative to fientive or vice versa are typically expressed by lexical or derivational processesi.e., by using a derived verb or an altogether different verb as, for example, English know (stative) vs. learn (dynamic), which corresponds to German kennen versus erkennen, Russian znatj versus uznatj, Dutch weten versus te weten komen or vernemen (Lyons 1977: II 706; Bybee 1985: 21; Buccellati 1988: 178). The situation in Akkadian is quite different. Akkadian has grammaticalized the contrast between dynamic and static situations in the opposition between the prefix conjugations and the stative.7 Since the stative is an inflectional category of the verb, Akkadian does not have a
3. For a definition, see, for instance, Bybee 1985: 21 (aspectual distinctions expressed lexically [. . .] such as English do vs. complete, know vs. realize). Lyons (1977: II 706) calls it aspectual character (The aspectual character of a verb (. . .) will be that part of its meaning whereby it (normally) denotes one kind of situation rather than another), and Smith (1997) speaks of situation aspect. See also Comrie 1976: 67 n. 4, 4151; Binnick 1991: 14446, 17078; D. Cohen 1989: 3133. 4. It is therefore better not to use the term Aktionsart for the functions of the derived verbal stems, although some of them express the same kind of meaning (e.g., pluractional in the tan-stems and ingressive in the N-stem). Iterative as an Aktionsart is found in a G-stem verb such as bau to drip; see 16.6.2 (pp. 494495). 5. In other chapters, we will find other Aktionsart distinctions playing a certain role in Akkadian, such as durative versus punctual in the use of the imperfective (see 4.3, pp. 9195) and telic versus atelic in the stative (see 7.3.2, p. 169). 6. For the difference between dynamic and stative situations, see, for instance, Comrie 1976: 4851; Lyons 1977: II 483; Binnick 1991: 18388; Bybee et al. 1994: 55. 7. See also Leong 1994: 14; Metzler 2002: 89899.
3.3. Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs
55
semantic distinction between inherently fientive and stative verbs but a grammatical distinction between fientive and stative forms of the same verb, which are inflectionally related. This means that the question whether an Akkadian verb expresses a static or a dynamic situation depends on the form in which it is used rather than on the Aktionsart of the verb itself: in the stative, it expresses a state; in the prefix conjugations, an event or a process.8 The verb kabtu to be(come) heavy, for instance, which looks like a typical stative verb, denotes a process if it is used in a prefix category such as the perfective ikbit; its fientive meaning is usually interpreted as ingressive: it became heavy.9 A verb such as paru to come together, on the other hand, denotes a movement and therefore seems typically fientive. Used in the stative, however, it denotes a state that results from a previous event, e.g., bum pa-e-er the army is assembled (ARM 6, 52:22 and elsewhere). This explains why it is often difficult to determine whether a given Akkadian verb is stative or not. This applies especially to intransitive change-of-state verbs such as ablu to be(come) dry, taklu to put ones trust in, to trust, and mal to be(come) full. For ablu, for instance, we cannot establish on the basis of its meaning alone whether it is parallel to kabtu, i.e., basically stative to be dry, with ingressive prefix forms (bal it became dry, dried out), or parallel to paru, i.e., basically fientive to become dry, with a resultative stative abil it has become (and therefore is now) dry. This difficulty is recognized by scholars who have attempted to classify Akkadian verbs on the basis of their meaning.10 Aro (1964: 710), for instance, points out that for intransitive verbs the criteria for deciding whether a verb is stative or fientive often contradict one another. He concludes (ibid., 9) that there is no clear-cut distinction between stative and fientive, but that these concepts are instead the two poles of a system, and that individual verbs are only a potiori stative or fientive. In sum, the distinction between stative and fientive as a lexical opposition in Aktionsart is not applicable to Akkadian; however, as a grammatical opposition within the verbal paradigm it is one of the most fundamental features of the Akkadian verb. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons that will become apparent in the course of the present study, it is difficult to dispense completely with a distinction between (prototypical) fientive verbs on the one hand, and at least two other types of verbs that are not prototypically fientive, on the other: formally fientive verbs with a stative meaning (3.3.1), and adjectival verbs (3.3.2).
3.3.1. Fientiveverbswithastativemeaning
There is a small group of verbs in Akkadian that have a prototypical stative meaning yet are mostly used in the prefix conjugations (GAG 78b). The most common examples are ba to exist, be available, i/uzuzzu to stand, kullu to hold,11 au to need, wish, le to be able,
8. Nevertheless, the existence of fientive and stative verbs is taken for granted in most studies on Akkadian and Semitic. For instance, GAG 52a claims that there is a distinction between the Schilderung von Handlungen und Vorgngen and the Beschreibung von Zustnden und Eigenschaften. The former is the domain of das eigentliche Verbum, the latter is the domain of the adjective and the verb derived from it (the Zustandsverben). It is more or less implied that only the fientive verb is a real verb (52a, 73c), whereas the stative verb is actually a conjugated adjective, which, for instance, has no part in the vowel classes. On the other hand, there is no clear formal difference between the two types (73c end). 9. See Comrie 1976: 1920; Lyons 1977: II 713; Wetzer 1996: 18892; Stassen 1997: 16264. 10. For instance, W. von Soden in GAG 87b Anm., Rowton (1962: 264), and Kienast (1967: 67). 11. Kullu is only partially a stative verb: it is fientive in the meaning to offer, provide (CAD K 51516 s.v. 4).
56
muu (OA) to be willing (always with negation: to refuse), blu to be master/owner of, to rule, rmu to love, and zru to hate.12 Their stative meaning is so dominant that even their prefix forms can express a state, although most of them may also denote an event, depending on the context. This results in a number of deviations from ordinary fientive verbs in the use of several verbal categories. First of all, their imperfective is used to refer to states in present, past, and future, adopting the neutrality towards tense of the stative (which also has imperfective aspect; see 7.3, pp. 164).13 The verb ba is the prototype of these verbs. Its imperfective iba has a purely stative meaning, is present, is available, and may even be used in a way that is very similar to a copula, as in (01), but may also refer to past (02) or future (03):14 (01) KH xlviii 21/4 (OB) (a lord) a kma abim wlidim ana ni i-ba-a-u- who is (present) like a natural father for the people (also Syria 33, 66:69; ARM 28, 147: r.13) (02) ARM 10, 50:910 (OB) GNF ul wabat u alm a mara ul i-ba-u- Blet-ekallim was not staying there and the statues in front of her were not present either (see also Metzler 2002: 500; note the coordination of stative and imperfective) (03) YOS 10, 31: XIII 3435 (OB) kuum mdum i-ba-a-i a severe cold will occur15 Second, the perfective of these verbs is also neutral towards the contrast between event and state: it may refer to a state in the past (04), but it may also express an event, namely, the beginning of the statethat is, it may also be ingressive (05): (04) VS 8, 71:2325 (OB) ((I swear that) the silver) itti PN abya l ib-u- ittya l i-ba-a-u- was not in the possession of PN, my father, and is not in my possession (05) BagM. 2, 57: II 1314 (OB) itl ina libb<a?> ib-u- ina libbi PN ib-i the idea that occurred to me also occurred to PN Both iba and ib can refer to a past state, but the perfective ib is far less common and presumably states more emphatically that the situation no longer exists.16
12. The defective verbs id to know and i to have, the so-called prefixed statives (GAG 78b and 106q/r), also belong to this group semantically; they will be discussed in 16.3.3 (pp. 465468). 13. Therefore, stative verbs are prominent among the imperfective forms with past reference (see 4.3, p. 92). 14. Ba also shows other features of copular behaviour (see Hopper and Thompson 1984: 72930; Pustet 2003: 4041). First, it tends to become invariable: already in Old and Middle Assyrian, it may be in the singular, even if the subject is plural (GKT 115f and W. Mayer 1971: 97), and this becomes the norm in Neo-Assyrian (Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 103). Second, it is often placed at the beginning of the clause, either in its existential meaning or as an emphasizing adverb (e.g., in Neo-Assyrian; see Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 109). The suggestion that ba arose from a verbalization of the West Semitic preposition *ba- followed by the 3ms suffix pronoun -u is contradicted by Sargonic Akkadian spellings, which show that the middle radical was originally *; see Rubin 2005: 4546, with earlier literature; Hasselbach 2005: 45 with n. 91. 15. In the future, the distinction between the state itself and its beginning is usually neutralized. 16. The perfective ib is mainly used as part of the precative (lib, etc.), where it appears for purely formal reasons; see, in particular, CAD B 14546 s.v. ba v. 1b-1 about Old Assyrian. There seems to
57
The same semantic relationship exists between izzz and izzz from i/uzuzzu to stand (up): izzz either denotes a past state he was standing or a past event (and is then telic and ingressive): he stood up (Metzler 2002: 500), e.g.:17 (06) AbB 13, 77:3 (OB) (concerning the field rent) a ina qtka iz-zi-zu which was (lit., stood) in your hand (07) AbB 2, 65: 2728 (OB) niti ul issnit[ma] ul ni-iz-zi-iz (since) they did not summon us, we did not stand up (as witnesses) Third, a peculiarity, which is puzzling at first sight, is that most of these verbs do not or only rarely occur in the stative.18 Ba, for instance, has a stative ba, which alternates with iba without observable difference in meaning, but it is comparatively rare (mainly Standard Babylonian) and gives the impression of being secondary; an Old Babylonian instance is (08), which alternates with the imperfective in (09):19 (08) AbB 3, 88:2021 anku uznya ana kim ba-i-a-ku As for me, my attention is on you20 (09) AbB 11, 106:1314 kma bla u belta uznya i-ba-a-i-a-ni-kum My attention is on you as (if you were) my Lord and my Mistress (tr. M. Stol) The reasons for the rarity of the stative of these verbs are that they are basically atelic and therefore incompatible with the resultative function of the stative (just like atelic activity verbs; see 7.3.2, p. 169) and that the stative is a derived and therefore marked form: if a verb has a stative meaning anyway, there is no need to use this form, and the speaker may fall back on the basic form of the imperfective. Fourth, just like the adjectival verbs to be discussed in the next section, many of these stative verbs do not have a present participle, because this is basically an agent noun restricted to fientive verbs denoting actions, as we will see in 8.4.1 (p. 206).21 In the rest of this study, I will reserve the term stative verb for members of this small set of verbs, which are conjugated like fientive verbs but have a prototypically stative meaning. On the other hand, I will not use the term stative verb for the much larger group of adjectival verbs to be discussed in the next section, since these are only stative when they are used in the stative.
be no t-perfect *ibta (Maloney 1981: 32), but perhaps the rather common t-perfect of the N-stem ittab replaces this form. 17. An interesting case of such an ingressive perfective is the form yiram/taram in Sargonic Akkadian proper names, such as Dar-m-A-ga-d KI MDOG 132 (2000) 140 fig. 3 She has conceived love for Akkad > She loves Akkad, the name of a daughter of Naram-Sin; see 17.7.2 with n. 157 (p. 558). These perfectives have a resultative nuance (just as in id to know and i to have; see 16.3.3, pp. 465468), which is perhaps an archaic trait; see 5.4 (p. 130). 18. Obviously, this does not apply to au, of which the stative is common for to need, whereas the imperfective seems to express the more active nuance of wishing for or demanding something but is also used for to need in the future; see von Soden 1964: 438 and Loesov 2005: 13738. In many contexts, however, which translation one prefers is rather subjective. 19. For ba = iba in Late Babylonian, see Streck 1995a: 17273. 20. I.e., presumably bai (3fp) + ku(m) (or 1s baiku, so that the sentence is an anacoluthon caused by the emphatic anku in front?). 21. Kullu is an obvious exception, in the light of the ubiquitous mukillu (see 16.5.3.3, pp. 484485). On alleged present participles such as **b and **b, see chap. 8 n. 32 (p. 206).
58
3.3.2. Adjectivalverbs
Apart from the cases discussed in the preceding section, there is yet another subclass of fientive verbs that significantly differs from prototypical fientive verbs in their morphosyntactic behaviour, namely, verbs that are closely related to primary adjectives, such as lemnu to be(come) bad, rab to be(come) big, and warqu to be(come) green. Therefore, I will call them adjectival verbs. Adjectival verbs are not stative, since their verbal paradigm denotes the meaning of the adjective as a process (it is usually ingressive); only the adjective itself and its predicative form, the stative, are stative in meaning. The adjectival verbs differ from prototypical fientive verbs in several respects:22 1. Since they are not action verbs, their verbal paradigm does not include a present participle (GAG 85d and Buccellati 1996: 405). 2. They do not have a past participle either. Its place is occupied by the primary adjective itself, but rather than being a low-ranking member of the verbal paradigm (see 8.3.1, p. 200), it is the basic form from which the entire paradigm of the adjectival verb is derived.23 Accordingly, the adjective has an unpredictable vowel pattern, PaRiS, PaRuS, or PaRaS. The formal relationship between adjective and adjectival verb is complex, in the sense that the vowel class of the latter is not quite predictable from that of the adjective, although there is a clear tendency: adjectival verbs usually belong to the I/i class (for the exceptions, see A3 and A4 in 3.3.3), but those corresponding to PaRuS adjectives predominantly belong to the U/u class (for the exceptions, see B2 and B3 in 3.3.3). A major cause of this lack of regularity is doubtless the instability of their vowel pattern (see below). 3. The fact that fientive verbs have a predictable stative/past participle PaRiS24 implies that verbs that do not have PaRiS must be adjectival. This agrees fairly well with the overall meaning of the latter verbs, with the exception of a few specific types discussed in n. 30 (p. 59). For adjectives of the pattern PaRiS, we need additional semantic information to decide whether the corresponding verb is adjectival or not. 4. In two classes of weak verbs, there are some differences in form between fientive and adjectival verbs. First, in II/gem verbs the 3ms stative is bisyllabic in fientive verbs (madid from maddu to measure, balil from ballu to mix) but monosyllabic in adjectival verbs (dn from dannu to be(come) strong, l from ellu to be(come) clean; see 16.6.1 (pp. 492493) for details. Second, in the prefix forms of the I/w verbs, the adjectival verbs are conjugated like I/y verbs (Impfv tter from watru to exceed, rriq from warqu to be(come) green), but the fientive verbs have the prefix vowel u (Impfv u from wa to go /come out, urrad from wardu to descend); see further 16.3.1 (pp. 462463).25
22. According to Hopper and Thompson (1984: 726) and Wetzer (1996: 3031), adjectival verbs often differ in some respect from prototypical verbs, in particular in having a defective paradigm. 23. This view of the relationship between adjective and adjectival verb is also expressed by Aro 1964: 200201 and Tropper 1995a: 49697. 24. At least in Babylonian; see 7.2 (p. 162) for a few exceptions in Assyrian. 25. In the literature, some other differences are mentioned, which have to do with the occurrence or nonoccurrence of specific categories; see, in particular, Buccellati 1988: 166 and 1996: 4058: stative verbs do not normally occur in the N-stem and have a factitive D-stem, whereas intransitive fientive verbs have a causative -stem. These criteria have a limited value, however: they are tendencies rather than rules and are sometimes contradictory. For instance, tru to return (intr.) is stative according to the criterion of the D-stem but clearly fientive because of its meaning and the fact that its G-stem does not even have a stative ( pace Buccellati 1996: 409).
59
5. A semantic criterion to identify adjectival verbs is the kind of property they express: a verb is more positively adjectival as the corresponding adjective denotes a more stable, inherent, or permanent property.26 6. There is, finally, also a distributional criterion, namely, the relative frequency of verb and adjective: in adjectival verbs, the adjective is unmarked vis--vis the verb and is therefore expected to occur more frequently. For part of the adjectival verbs listed below in 3.3.3, this is borne out by an impressionistic survey of the dictionaries, although exact statistics are not available to me. This criterion can obviously only be applied to common adjectives, or if the difference in frequency is so large that even small numbers are statistically valid, as in the case of adjectives without corresponding prefix forms, such as barmu multicoloured, paglu strong, and dapu sweet.27 A corollary of this difference in frequency is the fact that primary adjectives tend to be relatively stable in their vowel pattern,28 whereas adjectival verbs show a fair amount of variation, in particular when they do not belong to the I/i class, which is the default vowel class for adjectival verbs. This may be inferred from the footnotes to 3.3.3, where alternative vowel patterns are listed.29 All in all, these criteria do not lead to a hard and fast distinction between adjectival verbs and the rest of the fientive verbs. There is rather a continuum with some verbs more clearly adjectival than others, and with a substantial number of verbs which are difficult to classify.30 In some cases
26. According to Dixon (1982: 16), the properties that cross-linguistically are most typically expressed by adjectives are dimension, physical properties, colour, human propensity, age, value, and speed. However, other linguists give slightly different lists; see Stassen 1997: 16479 for an extensive discussion. 27. Some of these have, however, an infinitive in lexical texts as citation form. 28. Primary adjectives show very little variation, apart from a weak tendency to adopt the most frequent pattern PaRiS, e.g., in palu frightful and raub moist; see 3.3.3). There are, however, a few important differences between Babylonian and Assyrian which point to changes in vowel pattern in the prehistoric period; see 3.3.4 below. 29. To conclude from this that adjectives originally did not have a prefix conjugation (e.g., Tropper 1995a: 497; Voigt 2004: 4445) would be unjustified: rather, we cannot reconstruct it because of the amount of variation in vowel pattern. The relatively infrequent use of adjectival verbs makes them vulnerable to analogical changes. 30. This applies in particular to change-of-state verbs with a PaRiS stative, such as ablu to be(come) dry and kabtu to be(come) heavy, discussed in 3.3 (p. 55), and three specific groups: 1. Adjectives and verbs of speed: lasmu to run (U/u) alongside lasmu swift (lasim), aru to hurry (A/a) alongside aru quick (aru), and amu to hurry (U/u) alongside amu quick (amu). The verbs are prototypically fientive because they denote motion, and the adjectives are not resultative and therefore primary. The irregularity of their vowel patterns is doubtless related to the fact that the concepts they express are common both as properties (to be quick) and as events (to move quickly). This makes verb and adjective relatively independent of each other. 2. A number of PaRiS adjectives related to atelic activity verbs: gau ferocious and gau to gnash the teeth, tarru trembling and tarru to tremble, g/qarru round and garru to roll, and perhaps also apu strong, resistant alongside apu to grip, twist and zaqtu pointed alongside zaqtu to sting (cf. W. R. Mayer 2003: 37071 n. 3). These adjectives are not resultative and therefore not past participles (see 8.3.1, p. 200). They are etymologically related to the verbal paradigm but (synchronically) independent of it. Similar cases occur in the D-stem, e.g., gunnuu constantly wrinkling the nose alongside the verb gunnuu; see GAV p. 402 n. 4. 3. Three adjectives of location and the corresponding verbs: qerbu near and qerbu to come near, r/qu far and rqu to go far, and nes far (nes) and nes to go far (E/e). I have added no vowels to the first two because they are very unstable. I will discuss them below, in 17.7.3.2 (p. 565).
60
it seems appropriate to assign a verb to both classes and posit, for instance, both a fientive el to go /come up and an adjectival el to be high. Similar cases include aq with roughly the same meanings, and eru to be straight, normal, just (adjectival) versus eru to go straight toward (fientive). Since the adjectival verbs form a marked subgroup among the fientive verbs, the correct procedure is to classify a verb as adjectival only when there is sufficient positive evidence and to classify all doubtful cases as fientive. Since they are intransitive, the adjectival verbs can only belong to the isovocalic vowel classesmostly I/i, sometimes U/u, and rarely A/a (see 3.5.2, pp. 7175). Actually, it would be more useful to characterize adjectival verbs by means of the vowel of the adjective and the vowel of the prefix conjugations: e.g., to call kabru to be(come) thick A/i because of kabar, ikabbir/ ikbir), and lemnu to be(come) bad, evil U/i because of lemun, ilemmin/ilmin), etc. I will not use this notation, however, in order to avoid confusion.
3.3.3. Listofadjectivalverbs
This section contains a list of verbs that, on the basis of the criteria discussed above, can be plausibly classified as adjectival, arranged according to the pattern of the adjective. For reasons of clarity, the adjective is mostly mentioned in its 3ms stative form, where the relevant vowel is visible (in some cases this form is inferred from the feminine adjective) and the verb in its 3ms imperfective. Since we have far more data on Babylonian than on Assyrian, the list is based on Babylonian. Where no indication of dialect is added, the Assyrian form is either the same or not attested; where Bab is added, Assyrian is known to have a different form. Specifically Assyrian forms are listed and discussed separately in 3.3.4. However, where Assyrian is only different in not having E-colouring in the first syllable or in having instead of , this is simply indicated by Ass a or Ass . References are only given for forms not listed in the dictionaries. A1. PaRiS adjectives with i in the prefix forms: arik rrik ban ibann damiq idammiq 32 eb bb edi ddi ekil kkil el ll eni nni gair igair kabit ikabbit labir ilabbir long beautiful good thick new dark 33 high weak (Ass a?) powerful heavy old pe rab salim alim eir adil alim an apil el wasim ipe irabb isallim iallim ieir iaddil iallim iann iappil iell ssim white (Ass a) big 31 friendly dark, black small (Ass a) wide, spacious good, sound34 different low, deep blunt appropriate35
31. Earlier Pfv islam (s-lam ARM 2, 40:6; s-la-am A. 488+492:94 quoted FM 6, 148 n. 108, both OB); see 3.5.3. 32. For bb, cf. Prec lu--bi ZA 75, 200:35 (OB). 33. Also fientive in the meaning to go /come up. 34. Earlier Pfv ilam (I-lam-gi ELTS p. 147 no. 41: IV 13 (Pre-Sargonic kudurru from Sippar); Ilam-dinGiR CTMMA 1, 6 nr. 6: III 36 (SAk account text from Sippar); I-la-am-DN Tall Bia p. 52 no. 48:5 (early OB); and Ina-pm-lu--lam ARM 13, 1: VII 40 (OB). 35. Earlier, perhaps wasum in theophoric PNs of the type Ina-am-wasum, DN-wasum, etc. Contrary to Stamm (1939: 81), I do not interpret the spelling Pi-sm in such names as a D-form wussum but as a G stative wasum, first, because the use of PuRRuS forms in theophoric names is exceptional: they almost
3.3. Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs ma ma nawir ima ima inawwir sufficient, able insufficient bright zaqir zen izaqqir izenn/ high, steep36 angry (Ass a)
61
A2. PaRiS adjectives of II/voc verbs: pq rq sq ipaq iraq isaq narrow (Bab) empty (Bab) narrow (Bab) b w iab iwa gray, old (Ass ) few (Ass )
A3. PaRiS adjectives with u in the prefix forms: daim emi idaum mmu dark37 hungry38 lasim am ilassum iamm swift thirsty
A4. PaRiS adjectives with a/e in the prefix forms: ber ka iberr ika hungry39 (Ass a) cold41 mal imall full40
A5. PaRiS adjectives without prefix forms attested: bair emi eri er laim masik hot sour 42 wise naked hairy bad, ugly pagil pel qarid qaid sakil zaqin strong white heroic 43 holy (< *qadum) foolish, stupid bearded
always contain simple adjectives (cf. Stamm 1939: 81, 229), and second, because we would expect to find occasional instances of this rather common type of name where the geminate is graphically indicated or with initial - instead of wu-; such spellings do not occur, as far as I know. However, we have to distinguish these theophoric names with the stative wasum from the Sargonic Akkadian PuRRuS name Wussum(t)um (AHw 1498a s.v. and GAV p. 376) and from names with the construct state of wusmum ornament, fitting attribute, such as DN--su-um-am DN is a fitting ornament of heaven (Stamm 1939: 81). 36. Also izqur and izaqqar ; see AHw 1513a s.v. zaqru I G. 37. Only in [i]-da-a-u-mu LKA 105: IV 6 (SB, but the spelling with a and u reveals that this form has an Old Babylonian source; see 17.4, p. 520), versus id-I-im Legends p. 70:62 (OB) and i-da-im AMT 85, 1: VI 6 (SB). This distribution makes it difficult to establish which vowel is more original; I have opted for U/u on the basis of the general drift from U/u towards I/i; see 3.5.3 (pp. 7879). 38. Stat emi according to e-mi-i OBTA p. 52 no. 12:35 (ArBab); for mmu, cf. im-mu-a(-a) BWL 40:44 (SB). 39. Originally perhaps A/a; cf. SAk a ib-ra /ay yibr/ SAB p. 163:5 (Diyala) let it (the field) not starve, i.e., lie fallow. 40. SB rarely imall. 41. SB also ika. 42. Emi 1x OB (e-mi-i Sumer 13, 113:12); also u in SB. 43. The Fem qarrattu (q-ra-at-ta Itar p. 75: I 2 (OB lit.) and elsewhere) is the feminine of qarrdum.
62
Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs 3.3. B1. PaRuS adjectives with u in the prefix forms (at least originally; see 3.5.3):44 ba e gapu abur amu arub arup kar naqud pauq iba igappu iabbur iammu iarrub iarrup ikarr inaqqud ipauq thin45 dark (Bab)46 huge, massive noisy quick (to hurry) waste49 early short51 worried narrow /sabus aun amu ap aq ar taqun aud zak i/sabbus iaun iammu iapp iaqq iarr itaqqun iaud izakk angry (Bab) warm prosperous loud, dense47 high (Bab)48 rich (Bab)50 certain abundant clean, free
B2. PaRuS adjectives with i in the prefix forms: emuq mmiq52 lapun ilappin lemun ilemmin wise poor 53 bad54 (Ass. also a) matuq waruq imattiq rriq sweet green (Bab)
B3. PaRuS adjectives with a in the prefix forms (at least originally; see 3.5.3): aru maru nes/ rra imarra iness quick (to hurry) ill (Bab)56 far palu ipalla qerub iqarrab rq/rq irq awesome55 (Bab) near (Bab)57 far (Bab)
B4. PaRuS adjectives without prefix forms attested: barum daup multicoloured sweet raub raub awe-inspiring moist58
44. Ordinal numbers, which regularly have PaRuS in Babylonian but PaRiS in Assyrian (GAG 70a/b), are not included. 45. Also Stat ba and Impfv iba. 46. The Impfv is only based on Gilg. p. 234:39 (OB) i--ma u4-mu, cf. A. R. George, NABU 2004/49; mu is unlikely to be plural, cf. also Sg u4-mu in 35); elsewhere I/i. 47. Also iapp (SB); this might be the same word as ap thick (A5). 48. Also iaqq (SB). 49. Also iarrib (LB). 50. Also iarr (SB). 51. Also ikarr (OB, SB). 52. Only based on Gilg. p. 580:104 (SB) i -m-iq he will become wise. 53. It occurs as I/i in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian (i-l-p-nu AKT 1, 21:9; il5-t-p(-ma) ArAn. 1, 48 n. 23 kt 88/k 507b:14), alongside U/u in SB (lu-ul-pu-un-mi ZA 43, 86: I 6). The stative pattern *lapun suggests that U/u may be older, and this would also agree with the general pattern of change. 54. But NB ilemmun. 55. Palu only in SAk and OB proper names, later pali. 56. But NB imarru. 57. Iqarrab inferred from sporadic OB Pfv iqrab (e.g., iq-ra-ab Legends p. 198:46), later Bab iqerri/ub; OA iqarrub, Stat qurub; see 17.7.3.2 (p. 565) for this verb and the next one. 58. But also raib (ra-i-ib YOS 10, 33: II 24. 26; ra--ib-tum ARM 27, 66:18). Cf. also the noun ra-ab-tum terre irrigue ARM 26/1, 217 no. 76:26 (OB). Perhaps raib is already attested in Ebla, if la-ti-bat [um?] // la-ti-tum stands for /raibtum/ (Krebernik 1983: 42).
3.3. Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs kazub narub na raum/n luxuriant59 (Bab) soft, moist (Bab) appropriate loud aru waru z/ap/bur proud, magnificent dirty, impure evil, malicious
63
C1. PaRaS adjectives with i in the prefix forms (at least originally; see 3.5.3): iar kabar nakar qatan ir ikabbir inakkir iqattin straight, just thick foreign thin, fine rapa waqar waa watar irappi qqir i? 60 ttir wide, broad rare, precious fierce exceeding
C2. PaRaS adjectives of II/voc verbs: md sm imad isam numerous (Bab)61 red b iab good, pleasant
C3. PaRaS adjectives with vowel class U/u (at least originally): No instances. C4. PaRaS adjectives with vowel class A/a: No instances in Babylonian.62 C5. PaRaS adjectives without prefix forms attested: amar dry
D1. Adjectives of II/gem verbs with i in the prefix forms: dn idannin b bbib l llil m mmim erur(!)63 rrir strong pure pure, free hot dry mr ql raggu rq imarrir iqallil iraggig iraqqiq bitter light (of weight) bad, wicked thin, fine
59. Only as PNF Kazubtum (Ka-zu-ub-tum AbB 14, 46:3; CT 6, 4: I 6, both OB). 60. Only based on i-i- [a] Erra IIIc 49 (SB). CAD does not have a verb au, only an adjective au (A/2 47576). 61. Bab md, imad replaces an earlier II/ adjective and verb with maad and imaid (belonging to C1), which is preserved in Assyrian; see 16.5.1 (pp. 474476). 62. One might include here Ass balaiballa to live, be(come) healthy (corresponding to Bab bali iballu), but there is insufficient reason to classify balu as an adjectival verb. See 7.2 (p. 162) for the Stat bala. 63. Erur, a rather abnormal form, occurs in JCS 24, 66 no. 66:8 e-ru-r (OB). It cannot be ruled out that it is a Pfv with e- prefix instead of i-. For rrir, cf. l ir-ri-ra BAM 1, 22:34 (// l i-ba-l [a] 6, 515: I 65), said of herbs; and for the meaning, see Kcher 1965.
64
Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs 3.3. D2. Adjectives of II/gem verbs with u in the prefix forms: d ddud? 64 sharp z, eziz zzu/iz angry rb irabbu/ib soft, weak
D3. Adjectives of II/gem verbs without prefix forms attested: daqqu very small sr false65
E. Adjectives of unknown pattern but with corresponding verb: erpu rrup cloudy anpu iannup dirty
3.3.4. DeviatingadjectivesinAssyrian
For the adjectives that have a different pattern in Assyrian, the vowel class of the corresponding adjectival verb is often unknown, so it is no use listing them in the way that I have listed the Babylonian ones above. Instead, I will arrange them according to the corresponding verb of the Babylonian adjective. There are three types:66 1. Ass PaRiS corresponding to Bab PaRuS: mari narib sabis eriq aq ar imarra ill moist67 angry green high rich Bab maruimarra (B3) (< *weriq < *wariq)68 Bab aqiaqq (B1) Bab ariarr (B1)69
iaqq (MA/NA) iarr
2. Ass PuRuS corresponding to Bab PaRuS: qurub70 rq71 iqarrub iraq near far Bab qerubiqarrab (B3), Bab rq/rq, irq (B3)
64. Based on several doubtful forms (all SB): id-du-ud AnSt. 30, 101:19 // Iraq 60, 192:19 (= Ludlul I 19, SB), of uncertain interpretation, and e-du-ud AfO 14, pl. IV: ii 17; ACh. Spl. 8:9, 11, which at first glance is a stative (like ed-de-et in the same context, e.g., ACh. 2. Spl. 1: I 10), but the subject qarnu horn is feminine, so it is a 3ms Perfective, in spite of e-. 65. There are, however, N forms with stem vowel a, which is highly irregular: Impfv is-sa-ra-ar/r LSS 1/6, 33:2, 4 and t-Pf it-tas-ra-ar MSL 1, 48:10 he will prove/has proved to be unreliable (both SB); perhaps also in AbB 12, 32:28 (OB). 66. The forms are Old Assyrian, unless indicated otherwise. 67. Fem Adj naribtum (e.g., na-ri-ib-tum Prag I 429:11). 68. OA also has warqum (stem vowel unknown, also written barqum: bar-q-t [u]m RA 58, 64 no. 7:5), and substantivized in rabi ur-q/wa-ar-q TMH 1, 27b:2 and VS 26, 125:13 the overseer of the vegetables. 69. The OA adjective e---tim JCS 14, 3:21, said of textiles, which AHw 266a s.v. e I 4 connects with Bab e dark might be another instance. It is, however, more likely that this eium is a variant of WA-D-um, an adjective of unknown meaning that qualifies textiles, hides, and saddles; see Veenhof 1972: 186 and 2010: 141. 70. Attested in Old Assyrian (ana m qurbtim on short terms; see CAD Q 215a s.v. qerbu adj. 2; q-ru-ub Prag I 483:25; q-ur-bu OAA 1, 83:26), Middle Assyrian (qur-bu--te KAV 1: III 24:44), and Neo-Assyrian (qu-ru-ub SAA 16, 125:9 and passim). See further 17.7.3.2 (p. 565). 71. Rqu (< *ruqum; see 17.7.3.2, p. 565) occurs in Old Assyrian as adjective in ru-q-um(-ma) RA 88, 121:20; as stative in ru-q BIN 4, 32:27; in Middle Assyrian perhaps in the PNF t-ru-[q-at] KAJ
3.3. Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs pulu72 kuzub73 frightful charming
65
3. Ass PS corresponding to Bab PS in II/voc verbs: rq iraq pq (NA)74 sq (MA/NA)75isaq (NA) empty narrow narrow ~ class A2 in Bab ~ class A2 in Bab ~ class A2 in Bab
The fact that the differences between Assyrian and Babylonian concern groups of adjectives rather than individual cases is striking, but the historical significance of this is not very clear. The most remarkable fact is the rare occurrence of PaRuS in Assyrian. There are only three instances: la/emnu bad, evil, zak clean, free, and na appropriate.76 The rest of the Babylonian PaRuS adjectives show either PaRiS (Type 1) or PuRuS (Type 2) in Assyrian. The importance of Type 1 is enhanced by the fact that it also includes the ordinal numerals from three to ten: they normally have the pattern PaRiS instead of Bab PaRuS (GKT 69). I would not dare to speculate on which form is more original. The PuRuS pattern of Type 2 is the only pattern of basic adjectives that does not show a in the first syllable. Apart from the four adjectives listed above, it also occurs in a few statives of verbs that do not seem to be adjectival: *pur they are assembled from paru (U/u) in pu--ru OIP 27, 62:25 (OA), pu-u-ru SAA 5, 21:14 and elsewhere in NA muul it is similar from malu (mostly A/u) in mu-u-ul SAA 10, 382: r.9 and elsewhere in NA A possible explanation is that PuRuS is secondary, resulting from the occasional assimilation of a to u in the next syllable.77 This reminds us of the vowel assimilation rule discussed in 2.4 (pp. 4849). Although this rule does not regularly affect the first syllable of a word, there are a few similar cases, such as Ass kul/kil/kal all and kulmu lamb for Bab kalmu (see chap. 2, n. 56, p. 48). It is unclear, however, why la/emnu, zak, and na were not affected. Moreover, this also presupposes the existence of *paur and *maul, which remains speculative.78
16:14 (PN, see CAD R 424b s.v. rqu 3a); for Neo-Assyian, cf. perhaps ru-qu-ti SAA 10, 58: r.6; but most, if not all, instances may be Standard Babylonian intrusions; cf. 1.4.1.3.3 (p. 19). 72. Attested in the 3fs Stat pulat: e-za-at pu-ul-a-at Or. 66, 59:1, an Old Assyrian incantation, corresponding to OB e-ze-et pa-al-a-at YOS 11, 20:1 she is furious and frightful. The regular stative of palu to fear is palV he is afraid (pattern unknown), e.g., p-al-a-ni JEOL 35/36: 103: r.5 we are afraid. 73. Attested in the Fem Sg kuzubtum: awtam ku-zu-ub-tm Or. 36, 410 kt b/k 95:14. 74. Attested in pa-aq-t SAA 9, 3: III 8 (NA) and pa-a-qu Diri I 266 (SB), quoted by S. Parpola, SAA 9, p. 25 ad III 8. 75. Sq is attested in sa-qa-at Iraq 31, 31:44 (MA) and sa-a-qu-u-ni SAA 10, 364:5 (NA); for isaq; see CAD S 170a s.v. squ v. 1d. 76. Of these, la/emnum is atypical because of its e and nam because it is only used predicatively and in Old Assyrian does not agree in gender with the subject (see CAD N/2 131a s.v. na A adj. c 2). It is further unclear to what extent forms of zakm belong to the G-stem or the D-stem; see the comments in CAD Z 25b s.v. Note that there are also a few instances of zak with i: za-ki-am BIN 4, 23:4 (OA) and za-ki-a MVAG 41/3, 16:35 (MA), both Masc Sg Acc. 77. This is also Parpolas view (1983: 220) about the Neo-Assyrian instances (qurub, rq, pur, muul ); he does not mention the Old Assyrian parallels. 78. Von Soden (1948: 301), followed by Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 26) and Luukko (2004: 85 n. 262), explains qurbu as [qorbu], in which [o] is caused by the surrounding consonants q and r. However, forms such as muul and pulat show that it is unlikely to be an occasional instance of Vokalfrbung.
66
Transitivity 3.4.
Finally, the three II/voc adjectives rqu, pqu, and squ of Type 3 may well be more original than their Babylonian counterparts rqu, pqu, and squ, because the latter can easily be explained as remodelled on the basis of the fientive II/ verbs, such as qpu () to entrust (see 16.5.2, pp. 476479): Impfv iqap : Stat qp iraq : x, where x is rq, replacing rq.
3.4. transitivity
A second important semantic dividing line between different kinds of G-stem verbs in Akkadian concerns transitivity. Two kinds of transitivity are currently distinguished, syntactic and semantic. The former represents the traditional concept of transitivity: a binary distinction between transitive verbs, which normally require a direct object, and intransitive verbs, which normally do not. Semantic transitivity, on the other hand, is a gradient feature that is determined by a combination of factors involving not only the meaning and the construction of the verb but also the clause as a whole (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 252). Prominent among them are the degree of agentivity and volition of the subject, the degree of affectedness and individuation of the object (the patient), and the degree of telicness of the verb (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 252; see also Lakoff 1977: 24445; Givn 1990: 56566). The more these features are present, the higher the degree of transitivity. If all features of high transitivity appear together in a clause, we can speak of prototypical transitivity, because semantic transitivity is a prototype concept (Givn 1984: 9697; Croft 2003: 17578). Since the most important of these criteria depend on the semantic nature of the verb, we can qualify verbs that normally occur in clauses with a high degree of transitivity as high transitivity verbs and verbs that normally occur in clauses with a low degree of transitivity as low transitivity verbs. Syntactic and semantic transitivity are often closely parallel: semantic high transitivity implies syntactic transitivity, because it requires a strongly affected patient. Syntactic intransitivity normally correlates with low transitivity. The most crucial difference is that a verb that normally has a direct object may still have inherent low transitivitywhen this object does not meet the important criteria of affectedness and individuation (see Givn 1984: 98104). Examples of low transitivity verbs with a direct object are expressions such as to sing a song, to cross a street, to pass an exam, to have the flu. It is this kind of verb in particular for which the concept of semantic transitivity proves to be illuminating. This description also applies to Akkadian. Both syntactic and semantic transitivity can be relevant for a description of the Akkadian verb. Generally speaking, if we are dealing with verbs that are prototypically transitive or intransitive in the syntactic sense, we need not bother too much about degrees of transitivity. Syntactic transitivity is relevant to processes such as passivization (only transitive verbs can be passivized; see 10.8.3.1, p. 260), transitivization (only intransitive verbs can have a D-stem with transitivizing force; see 10.8.2, pp. 256257, and 11.5, p. 279), and the membership of the vowel class A/u (which is only open to transitive verbs; see 3.5.2.2, pp. 7273). It is especially for verbs whose meaning makes them borderline cases between transitive and intransitive that the notion of semantic transitivity can help solve problems of classification and can provide a better understanding of their peculiar behaviour (see also GAV pp. 9598). The most important group consists of transitive low-transitivity verbs, i.e., verbs that are construed with a direct object (or at least a noun in the accusative) without being high-transitivity verbs, because this direct object does not have the semantic status of a patient. In contrast to normal transitive verbs, these verbs cannot be passivized: if they occur in the N-stem at all, the N-stem form tends to be ingressive, just as N-stems of intransitive verbs (see 12.2.2.2, pp. 297298); if they have a D-stem, it has factitive function (i.e., it is the agentive counterpart of the G-stem; see 11.3.3, p. 274), although this function is normally restricted to D-stems of intransitive verbs.
3.4. Transitivity
67
Moreover, it is typical of such verbs to be construed alternatively with an accusative or with a prepositional phrase. This applies in particular to the following semantic classes:79 verbs of approaching and addressing (saru + Acc or ana to turn to, emdu + Acc or ana to lean on, reach as far as, take refuge with, and kadu listed in the next group) verbs of praying (karbu, s/ull, supp, sarruru, all + Acc or ana) some other individual cases including qu and (w)aq to wait for (+ Acc or ana; cf. GAG 143c), nalu to look at, usually + Acc but + ana to look for support, wait (CAD N/2 125b s.v. 3), mek to be negligent (CAD M/2 89 s.v. 1b), and kapdu to plan, devise (+ Acc or ana, cf. CAD K 17273 s.v. 1a versus 1b).80 Most importantly, this phenomenon is found in motion verbs: kadu + Acc or ana, adi and ana r to reach, arrive (see n. 81) alku to go /come may express the path as a direct object or as a prepositional phrase (sqa alku or ina sqi alku to walk along the street, ra alku or ina/eli eri alku to walk in the open country, arrna alku or ana arrni alku to set out on a journey or an expedition) erbu to enter normally has ana, but an Acc is also found (typically bba door, abulla gate, and bta house) wa to go /come out mostly has ina, itu, etc., but occasionally it has an Acc, in particular bba door and abulla gate; in Mari Old Babylonian, we find ana arrni wa (ARM 2, 20:7) beside arrna wa (2, 138:7), and ana gerri wa (FM 2, 34 no. 10:5) alongside gerra wa (MARI 7, 45:12 and 15); cf. alku above wabu to sit down, settle usually has ina, but a few times it has an Acc (OB: AbB 7, 42:13 (lam); Kisurra no. 153:24 (a place name); OA: EL 7:8 (btam); 286:1 (eqlam). The two constructions do not always have the same meaning: the transitive construction with an accusative often correlates with a higher degree of affectedness of the patient than the prepositional construction.81 This double construction makes it difficult to classify these verbs as syntactically either transitive or intransitive (cf. Aro 1964: 910; Kienast 1967: 67). Their semantic transitivity shows that semantically they belong to the class of intransitive verbs and throughout also behave as intransitive verbs. Finally, both syntactic and semantic transitivity play a role in the characterization of the vowel classes. The large A/u class is only open to verbs that are syntactically transitive, i.e., that normally have a direct object (see 3.5.2.2, pp. 7273). The vowel class A/a, on the other hand, typically comprises low transitivity verbs, regardless of whether they are (syntactically) transitive (e.g., lamdu to learn), intransitive (e.g., ablu to become dry), or both (e.g., mal to be(come) full; fill, cover) (see further 3.5.2.4, pp. 7475).
79. For references, see in general the dictionaries. 80. A particularly intriguing case is tam to swear, which has an Acc (AHw 131718 s.v. G I 2) or ina (ibid., II 1) for the object sworn by, e.g., OA patram or ina patrim a Aur tamum to swear by the dagger of Aur (Hirsch 1972: 65a); likewise, we find mamtam tamum to swear an oath in Old Assyrian (AHw 1317b s.v. G I 2), but ina mamtim tamm in Old Babylonian (ibid., II 1, e.g., AbB 9, 216:1011). 81. See also GAV pp. 9798. A good example from Akkadian is kadu, which, in addition to the alternation of an accusative and a prepositional phrase in the meaning to reach, arrive, may also mean to acquire, conquer, but then only takes an accusative.
68
The Vowel Classes 3.5.
3.5. the Vowel Classes

The prefix conjugations and the imperative of the G-stem show a variable and unpredictable vowel between R2 and R3, on the basis of which we can divide the G-stem verbs into five formal types, the vowel classes. The vowel classes properly belong to the G-stem, although they have been extended to part of the derived stems as well, and correlate in a complex way with certain semantic and syntactic properties of the verb. They owe their existence to the combination of the inherited root vowel (see 2.3.4, pp. 45) and the vowel of the new geminated imperfective, which brought along its own vowel, into a single paradigm. I will discuss the details of this process (insofar as they are recoverable) in chap. 4. In the next sections, I will focus on the vowel classes as they appear and develop in the historical period of Akkadian.
3.5.1. Formandfunction
The vowels determining the vowel class of a verb appear in the imperfective, perfective, t-perfect, and imperative. In the G-stem, the vowel of the t-perfect is identical to that of the imperfective (see 6.2, pp. 138139), and the vowel of the imperative is always identical to that of the perfective (see 5.5, p. 133). Therefore, we can define the vowel classes by means of the vowels of imperfective and perfective alone. The three imperfective vowels a, i, and u (of the A-verbs, I-verbs and U-verbs; see 4.2, pp. 8890) combine with the root vowel of the perfective to form the five possible vowel classes:82 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. the I/i class (e.g., ipaqqid ipqid he entrusts/entrusted the U/u class (e.g., imaqqut imqut he falls/fell the A/a class (e.g., ilammad ilmad he learns/learned the A/u or Ablaut class (e.g., iakkan ikun he places/placed the A/i or weak class (e.g., uab uib he is sitting down/sat down)
The first three are isovocalic: they have the same vowel in the imperfective and the perfective. The last two are anisovocalic and are also called the Ablaut classes, in particular in reference to the very large A/u class. The vowel of the stative is not included in the definition of the vowel classes, since it is predictable in fientive verbs (always i ). This is not the case in adjectival verbs, but here the adjective is outside the verbal paradigm (see 3.3.2, p. 58), and their past participle slot is empty.83 The five vowel classes characterize the strong triradical verbs and all weak verbs in which the weak radical is not in direct contact with the relevant vowel(s)i.e., the II/gem verbsand the verbs with a weak R1i.e., the I/voc, I/w, and I/n verbs. The other types of weak verbs have their own specific system. As I argued in 2.3.4 (pp. 4445), their weak radical also serves as root vowel and determines the vowel pattern, so that there is no unpredictable variation. In the II/voc verbs, it is the long vowel serving as R2 which plays this role. As a radical, this vowel has no obvious correlation with any semantic or syntactic features, such as transitivity ( pace GAG
82. See also GAG 73cd and 87ad; Kienast 1967 (= 2001: 23749); Aro 1964; Kuryowicz 1972: 5456; Moscati, ed. 1964: 12223. For lists of verbs, see Aro 1964: 1843 with Aros own additions apud Jucquois 1967: 311. GAG 87a speaks of Bedeutungsklassen (but Wurzelvokalklassen in 87c), which is a rather unfortunate term, because there is no direct correlation between vowel class and meaning; see below. 83. Since the vowel of the stative/past participle is not included in the definition of the Akkadian vowel classes, they cannot be directly compared with the vowel classes in West Semitic, which are based on the vowels of the prefix conjugation and the suffix conjugation (e.g., Ar yaqtulu qatala), especially because the most common type of suffix conjugation, qatala, has no counterpart in Akkadian.
3.5. The Vowel Classes
69
104ce; see 16.5.1, p. 476). In the III/voc verbs, the long vowel that serves as final radical determines the vowel class (see 2.3.4, p. 45): a III/ verb is automatically I/i, a III/ verb U/u, etc.84 Therefore, the III/voc verbs can only belong to the isovocalic vowel classes.85 In these circumstances, it is questionable to what extent we are justified in speaking of vowel classes stricto sensu, but it is still convenient to use the term, if only to retain the parallel with the strong verb. The function of the vowel classes poses a delicate problem. On the one hand, they are primarily formal categories, based on vowels that are unmotivated (at least synchronically) and do not have a grammatical function. Even in the Ablaut classes, the contrast of imperfective versus perfective is primarily conveyed by gemination (see 4.2, pp. 8889).86 This is particularly clear from the behaviour of the weak verbs, where it is the radical itself rather than a semantic or syntactic feature of the verb that determines the vowel pattern, and from the nature of the A/i class, membership of which is purely determined by the form of the verb (see 3.5.2.5, p. 75). It is also shown by the fact that a G-stem verb can switch from one class to another or can belong to more than one vowel class without any observable consequence for its meaning.87 Such cases will be discussed in greater detail in 3.5.3 (pp. 7581).88 On the other hand, in the strong verb there are definitely some correlations between vowel class and certain syntactic and semantic features of the verb in terms of Aktionsart and transitivity.89 The main correlations are the following (for the details, see 3.5.2 below): 1. Syntactic transitivity is relevant to the A/u class, almost all members of which are transitive, and the U/u class, which is predominantly intransitive. 2. Semantic transitivity is a prominent feature of the A/a class, which mainly contains lowtransitivity middle verbs. 3. Aktionsart is involved in the U/u class, insofar as it contains many atelic (durative) activity verbs, and in the fientive part of the I/i class, insofar as it mainly contains punctual verbs.90
84. At least in historical Akkadian, see n. 44 to Chapter II. 85. With the notable exception of MA/NA u, u from uu to go /come out, which developed secondarily from earlier u, u, see chap. 16 n. 176 (p. 498). 86. In this respect, the vowel classes can be regarded as conjugations in the sense familiar from Latin, where almost all verbs belong to one of four conjugations on the basis of the final vowel of their stem (there are -stems, -stems, -stems, and consonant-stems [i.e., with vowel]; see Aronoff 1994: 4553), or from Germanic languages with their classes of strong and weak verbs. The weak correlation with certain semantic and syntactic parameters, to be discussed presently, undermines the similarity, however. 87. Pace GAG 87d and von Soden 1989: 18182; Kienast 1967: 82 sub 4). 88. In a very small number of cases, the vowel classes distinguish different verbs with the same radicals, such as au (A/u) to take off, tear off and au (I/i) to jump, attack, aq (I/i) to give to drink and aq (U/u) to be(come) high. This is far too incidental, however, to qualify as a function. There is no observable tendency in Akkadian to systematically distinguish identical roots in this way: other homonymous verbs also share the same vowel class, e.g., kamsu (I/i), which means both to kneel, bow down and to gather, finish, and du () which means to melt (intr.) and to turn about, spin. 89. The attempts to assign a specific semantic function to the vowels a, i, and u by themselves, e.g., by Gelb (1969: 209: a for the neutral action, i for the punctual action, and u for the durative action) and by Castellino (1962: 48), or to their combination in a specific vowel class (e.g., by von Soden [GAG 87c], Kienast [1967: 69], and Sgral [2000: 287]) are to be considered unsuccessful. Cf. Kuryowicz 1972: 43: The association of a given root-vocalism with a certain fundamental meaning (like trans. intrans. stative) can be rightfully established only for derived verb-forms, whether deverbative or denominative. To look for a constant association between the vocalism of R2 and the fundamental meaning of non-motivated (primary) verbs is a methodological derailment tantamount to the old theory of Lautsymbolik (emphasis original). 90. Sometimes much more precise definitions of the meaning of a vowel class are given. For instance, GAG 103b characterizes the I/w verbs with A/i as Verben der Bewegung mit bestimmtem Ausgangs-
70
These correlations are not rules, but tendencies that may be stronger or weaker. Moreover, they are not symmetrical: a vowel class mostly contains verbs that share certain semantic features, but these features are not specific to that particular vowel class. For instance, almost all A/u verbs are transitive, but not all transitive verbs have A/u; many U/u verbs denote atelic activities, but not all atelic activities are expressed by U/u verbs; the A/a class mainly contains low-transitivity verbs, but there are far more low-transitivity verbs outside the A/a class, etc. On the basis of its vowel class, then, we can infer some semantic and syntactic features of a verb with a reasonable rate of success, but it is more difficult to predict the vowel class of a verb on the basis of these features. Here too, however, there are a few tendencies. For instance, an atelic activity verb has a high probability of being U/u, a transitive verb with a punctual Aktionsart is likely to be I/i, and an intransitive verb is very unlikely to be A/u. In this respect, the vowel classes are not essentially different from vowel patterns in general: as a result of the root-and-pattern system, words with a parallel meaning or function tend to share the same vowel pattern, but this pattern is not necessarily restricted to nouns of that particular semantic class, since it may comprise words of quite diverse origins. For instance, abstract nouns derived from adjectives often have the pattern PuRS in Akkadian (GAG 55d), but not all nouns of this pattern are abstract nouns of adjectives, as is clear from nouns such as ummu mother, zumru body, and uznu ear. The ambivalent nature of the vowel classes is a consequence of the way in which they have emerged: they are an accidental by-product of the combination of the inherited perfective with the new geminated imperfective *yiqattal- in a prehistoric stage of Akkadian. Both categories brought along their own vowel: the perfective its root vowel, and the new imperfective presumably a fixed vowel a, at least originally; I will discuss this problem in detail in chap. 4. Once the paradigm based on these two categories was established, the vowel classes gradually acquired their historical form through the mechanism of semantic association: groups of verbs with the same vowel class served as a magnet for attracting existing and new verbs with a similar meaning, so that the similar meaning became more and more dominant and typical of the class in question. Eventually, this led to a situation in which large groups of semantically similar verbs shared the same vowel pattern. On the other hand, since the vowels that determine the vowel classes do not have a meaning of their own, a particular vowel class is not closed to verbs with other meanings, but such verbs are isolated and therefore more vulnerable to undergoing change, such as shifting to another class or being discarded altogether. In sum, we can say that on the level of individual verbs the vowel classes increase the isomorphism of the verbal system, because they make verbs that share a semantic feature also more similar in form. On the level of the verbal paradigm as a whole, they increase its uniformity and coherence, because they constrain the number of possible relationships between the vowels of the basic members of the verbal paradigm to five, although they do not make one form fully predictable from the other one (see further 5.2, p. 126). It is important to note that there is a fundamental difference between the vowel classes of the G-stem and those of the derived stems. Whereas the former are unmotivated and grammatically non-contrastive, the latter are motivated and usually have a grammatical function. They express, for instance, the contrast between imperfective and perfective (e.g., uparras versus uparris in the D-stem), between imperative and stative (e.g., pitras versus pitrus in the Gt-stem), or between
oder Zielpunkt, and Kienast (1967: 72) claims that transitive I/i verbs denote ein Abtrennen oder Loslsen eines Teiles vom Ganzen bzw. ein Zusammenfgen von Einzelnem, d.h. eine Aktivitt, die ein gewisses Richtungsmoment beeinhaltet. Such characterizations are either too vague to be meaningful or too specific to do justice to the observable variety of meaning.
71
different derived stems (e.g., Gtn Prec liptarras versus Dt(n) Prec liptarris). Therefore, it is methodologically incorrect to treat the vowel patterns of the basic stem in the same way as those of the derived stems as, for instance, Kienast (1967: 7682) does. Insofar as the derived verbs show variation in their vowel pattern (e.g., in the t-stems and the tan-stems and in the imperfective of the N-stem), it is determined by the imperfective vowel of the corresponding G-stem (see 4.2, p. 89). This explains the relative stability of the vowel patterns of the derived stems, whereas in the basic stem we observe a considerable fluctuation over time, as I will show in 3.5.3. The quadriradical verbs show a comparable picture: the N-stem, which is their basic stem, has vowel classes (A/i, I/i, and U/u; see 12.5, pp. 307310), but the derived -stem has the fixed A/i pattern of all -stems (see 13.4.1, p. 338).91 Finally, unlike West Semitic, Akkadian has never exploited the possibilities of vowel alternation for expressing differences in grammatical voice. In Arabic, for instance, we find contrastive pairs such as malaa (yamluu) to fill versus malia (yamlau) to be full and azana (yazunu) to sadden versus azina (yazanu) to be sad (Kuryowicz 1972: 6768). This is virtually unknown in Akkadian.92 It is hard to say whether the West Semitic cases are a secondary development in which Akkadian took no part or the remains of a Proto-Semitic system that was discarded in Akkadian. The former option seems more likely, because they can hardly be separated from the rise of apophonic voice distinctions in general in West Semitic, which in particular resulted in a class of middle verbs of the pattern qatila/yiqtalu and the internal passive forms of the type of Arabic qutila/yuqtalu.
3.5.2. Theindividualvowelclasses 3.5.2.1. ThevowelclassI/i

The appendix of 3.6 sub 1 contains 359 verbs of the I/i class, which makes it by far the most numerous class.93 There does not seem to be any restriction on the range of meanings expressed
91. The vowel classes in the derived stems are an Akkadian innovation, see 14.2.1 (pp. 356357) for the Gt-stem, 14.7.2 (p. 417) for the Gtn-stem, 12.2.1 (pp. 288290) for the N-stem, and 12.5 (pp. 307310) for the quadriradical verbs (so already Knudsen 1984/86: 23233). See also the statement of Kuryowicz quoted in n. 89. 92. Possible candidates, all extremely rare and marginal, are: (1) taru A/u to stretch (trans.) versus U/u to be right, correct, which can perhaps be derived from a single underlying root trto be straight; (2) qarru U/u to flow, overflow versus A/u to pour (only once: i-qar-ra-ru quoted by CAD Q 127b s.v. qarru 2 (MB legal), which may be a mistake for a D form uqarrar); (3) zaqpu A/u to plant, erect versus zaqpu (U/u) to appear in court, take up a position, which might be a middle or reflexive derivation of zaqpu A/u (to erect oneself), but it only appears in Neo-Assyrian and is clearly late and secondary; (4) a remarkable but also indecisive case concerns the two verbs rau: rau (I/i) to flood, inundate (also to run quickly, cf. AHw 943a s.v. rau I G 3; same verb?), often with Adad as subject, and rau (A/u) to wash, rinse. If they have a common origin, which seems semantically plausible, they have doubtless been differentiated secondarily. For W. von Sodens speculations on the different vowels of this verb, see von Soden 1947: 45657. The alleged transitive verb au A/u to worry (sb.), disturb, alongside au U/u to be worried (Kuryowicz 1972: 57) is to be cancelled: the transitive verb is actually au to catch in a net with a strong (see 17.4, pp. 520521), cf. the Impfv iaa and in particular the Inf a a-a-u quoted in CAD A/2 423a s.v. au A lex. sect. and 425a s.v. au B lex. sect. The fact that the Sumerian version of the two instances clearly points to au to worry suggests some confusion on the part of the Babylonian scribes. 93. This includes all strong verbs and the III/ verbs, but not the II/ verbs, for which see 3.6 sub 7 (40 verbs). According to 3.3.3, there are 51 adjectival I/i verbs (listed in A1, B2, C1, and D1) and thus 308 fientive I/i verbs.
72
by it, but two specific groups of verbs stand out: on the one hand, high transitivity verbs denoting punctual actions (GAG 87c), such as naksu to cut, slaughter, pau to erase and amdu to harness, yoke and, on the other hand, adjectival verbs. These groups are semantically each others opposite, occupying the two ends of the transitivity continuum. Intermediate between them, we find a host of verbs with other meanings, such as transitive durative verbs (e.g., malku to advise, deliberate and zablu to carry), telic motion verbs (e.g., alqu to run away, disappear, rabu to lie down, kamsu to kneel), punctual event verbs (barqu to flash, ganu to cough and au to jump), and even some durative activity verbs (which we would rather expect to find in the U/u class): nazqu to squeak, worry, paslu to turn around, palu to crawl, sapdu to mourn, armu to exert oneself, and adu to move in procession. For purely formal reasons, all III/ verbs belong to this class regardless of their meaning (see 2.3.4, p. 45); for the very few II/gem verbs of the I/i class, see 16.6.1 (p. 491). The size of the I/i class and the virtually unlimited range of meanings it can accommodate make it the productive default vowel class. In Babylonian in particular, there is a widespread drift from other classes towards the I/i class, which especially affects the weak verbs of the III/voc class and most verbs with E-colouring (see 17.5, pp. 525537), but also many strong verbs. I will discuss this phenomenon in 3.5.3 below.
3.5.2.2. TheA/uorAblautclass
The A/u or Ablaut class is the second largest vowel class after the I/i class; it contains 219 verbs according to the Appendix of 3.6 sub 2. Its major feature is syntactic transitivity: almost all members are basically construed with a direct object (Kienast 1967: 6970). It has no connection with a specific degree of semantic transitivity: it contains many typical high-transitivity verbs, such as anqu to strangle, parsu to separate, sapu to scatter and abu to slaughter, but also many transitive verbs that do not meet all criteria for high transitivity, such as amru to see, aknu to place, apru to send, etc. Nor has it any association with a specific Aktionsart: although most A/u verbs are punctual, we also find some typically durative verbs, such as aklu to eat, daglu to watch, naru to guard, nalu to see, look at, assu to think, mention, karbu to pray, bless, aru to write, and zakru to speak, swear. Intransitive A/u verbs are exceptional; apart from some uncertain and problematic instances, they include:94 abtu to flee in Old Assyrian, cf. CAD A/1 45 s.v. abtu B 1; it corresponds to an N-stem nbutu in Babylonian, which remarkably is I/i.
94. Other A/u verbs reported to be intransitive (e.g., in Aro 1964: 23, 3132) are not to be considered as part of this class: adru to fear, magru to do a favour to, qannu to nest, and anu to void (excrement) are not really intransitive. Of apru to squint and kammu to grind ones teeth no perfective is attested, so that the vowel class remains unknown (A/u or A/a). Of abtu to move across, only a Pfv ibut is attested with certainty; all imperfective forms with a are either N-stems or belong to one of the other abtu verbs; see especially Kraus 1975: 3140. This also applies to several verbs in AHw that are characterized as A/u: allu to creep, steal (A/u) is only found in the Pfv ilul; the single instance of iallal (TBP 22: III 6 i-al-la-la) is obscure; palsu to look at (+ Dat) is normally N; the only certain G forms attested are statives; cf. AHw 814a s.v. G 2; note that a-pa-al-la-s-ku-um St. Reiner p. 192:61 (OB) may also be N, and that ip-ta-la-s ARM 1, 109:41 (OB) stands for iptaras, see Durand 1997/2000: I 198 note c. Maru to move in a circle/etwa umschreiten is A/u according to AHw and CAD s.v.; however, the single imperfective instance quoted in the dictionaries (a-ma-a-a-ar ARM 2, 120:21) does not exist; see Durand 1997/2000: II 262 note b. For darru to add an intercalary month, the NA Impfv idarrar (SAA 10, 42: r.20 ni-da-ra-ru-ni ) alongside Pfv idrur (SAA 13, 60: r.1 ni-id-ru-ur) may be explained from the Neo-Assyrian change u > a before stressed u (see Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 31).
73
aggu to become angry: SB Impfv ggag and ggug (e.g., ig-ga-gu NBNippur p. 272 no. 128:59 // i-gu-gu BWL 114:58), suggesting a fluctuation between A/u and U/u; Pfv gug OB/SB passim. naggu to bray: OB/SB Impfv inaggag, SB also inaggug; Pfv ingug (1x SB: in-gu-ug CT 40, 36:56); semantically, naggu typically belongs to the large U/u class of atelic activity verbs, which may may explain the rise of inaggug. The deviant Impfv inaggag may have an onomatopoeic background. erbu to enter in Assyrian; it has switched to U/u in Babylonian (like epu, see 3.5.3, p. 76); for erbu + Acc, see 3.4 (p. 67) malu to resemble, be half ragmu to call out to, complain against (mostly + Dat): SAk, OA, and OB Impfv iraggam, OB and later both iraggam and iraggum, Pfv always irgum, see CAD R 6364 s.v. 4b and GKT 81b. Iraggam is attested earlier but the meaning (an intransitive verb of sound) suggests that it is originally an U/u verb. Remarkably, the typically legal terms baqru to claim, magru to agree, and abu to collect show the same interchange of a and u in the imperfective; see also 3.5.3. With regard to the weak verbs, the A/u class contains I/voc verbs (e.g., amru to see) and I/n verbs (e.g., naru to guard, but no I/w verbs (which are A/i, unless their third radical is also weak). It does not contain III/voc verbs, which are all isovocalic, for the reason expounded in 3.5.1 above, nor II/ verbs, which all have A/a or I/i (GAG 98e; see 17.7.1, pp. 554 556).95 The II/ verbs have developed their own variant of A/u: Babylonian Impfv idk < idak, Pfv idk, which is doubtless modelled on iparrasiprus (see 16.5.2, pp. 476478). Diachronically, the A/u class loses a substantial number of verbs to the I/i class, in particular in Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, and a few to the U/u class. Also in Babylonian, original A/u verbs shift to an isovocalic class, as soon as they acquire E-colouring, mostly I/i, sometimes U/u (see 3.5.3 sub 5 for details).
3.5.2.3. ThevowelclassU/u
The U/u class is the third largest vowel class after the I/i and the A/u classes and contains 160 verbs according to 3.6 sub 3.96 Their semantic range is wide, but two semantic types are dominant. The first one comprises atelic activity verbs, especially verbs of sound (agmu to roar, salu to cough (up), zamru to sing, and dabbu to speak), and verbs of non-directional motion (rapdu to roam about, lasmu to run, saru to turn around). They are basically intransitive, and if they can have a direct object, they tend to be low-transitivity verbs.97 The second semantic type consists of adjectival verbs associated with PaRuS adjectives, which were enumerated in 3.3.3 sub B1 (p. 62).98
95. Except for MB latu to swallow (secondary form of altu) and nadu to praise (Pfv i-ud AfO 18, 50:19 = Tn-Ep. I 19), which is doubtless secondary, remade on the basis of Impfv inaad and a shift to the A/u class. 96. This includes the 34 adjectival verbs listed in 3.3.33.3.4 under A3, B1, D2, and E and the Assyrian Types 1 and 2. It does not include, however, the 51 II/ verbs of Section 3.6 sub 6. 97. E.g., zamru and dabbu can have words for song and utterance as direct object, and saru can have a direct object in the meaning to look for. 98. The borderline between atelic activity verbs and adjectival verbs is not always easy to draw, especially for verbs that denote emotions: it is difficult to distinguish emotional activities from emotional states. A verb thataccording to the dictionariescan indicate both is rabu (U/u) to tremble (from fear or anger) and to be angry, furious. It seems plausible that various verbs for emotions originally denoted some kind of bodily activity that accompanies the emotion and gradually acquired a more neutral, adjectival
74
A smaller group of U/u verbs comprises telic motion verbs, such as maqtu to fall, namu to depart, and paru to come together. In addition, the U/u class contains a fair number of other verbs that cannot easily be brought under a general heading, such as kapdu to plan, devise and parru to dissolve. Some of them are even transitive: nasku to throw, samdu to grind, and the variants latu/ altu to swallow. The U/u class also contains a large number of weak (III/voc) verbs, which show a much wider semantic variation. They comprise a relatively large number of transitive verbs, such as kam and kas to bind, na to hit, qal to burn, roast, qam to burn, ap to irrigate, at to weave, war to lead, and tar to lead, take along. It seems plausible to assume that these verbs originally belonged to the large transitive A/u class, e.g., *yikassaw *yiks from kas. As a result of the change aw > , this regularly became ikass iks in historical Akkadian. Their membership of the U/u class is therefore secondary, at least for part of these verbs. The U/u verbs show a marked tendency to switch to the I/i class, especially the III/ verbs among them. Moreover, as already stated above with regard to the A/u class, there is some fluctuation between U/u and A/u; see 3.5.3 (pp. 7581) for these developments.
3.5.2.4. ThevowelclassA/a(includingE/e)
The relatively small A/a class comprises 43 verbs according to 3.6 sub 4. Historically, however, the 54 II/ and II/ verbs of 3.6 sub 8 should be added to this number, since virtually all of them were A/a verbs before they lost their guttural R2. The A/a verbs consist of two different groups. One comprises verbs with a guttural as R2 or R3 and is therefore primarily based on a formal criterion, although most of the verbs in question also fit in quite well semantically with the rest of the A/a class. The guttural causes a strong predilection for the root vowel a, which becomes e if it causes E-colouring (see 17.5, pp. 535537).99 Generally speaking, these verbs have preserved their original paradigm much better in Assyrian than in Babylonian; the details will be discussed in chap. 17. The other group is based on a semantic criterion: it mostly contains verbs that are semantically homogeneous and can be characterized as middle verbs (see 10.8.3.6, pp. 265267). They denote concepts that are typically stative and are often expressed by stative verbs in languages that do not have a grammaticalized opposition between fientive and stative, e.g., lamdu to know, labu to wear, ablu to owe, palu to fear, etc. They may be transitive or intransitive, but if transitive, they are of low transitivity.100 They have an exact counterpart in West Semitic, especially in Arabic, Hebrew, and Geeznamely, the verbs with the vowel pattern A/i (yaqtaluqatila). For instance, Ar yalbasulabisa to wear is completely parallel to Akk ilabbailba, stative labi). According to Kuryowicz (1972: 6768), they are a residue of ancient mediopassives (see further 18.3.1, pp. 588589). A few A/a verbs, however, do not share this low-transitivity character: mau to hit and abtu to seize. They also differ from the rest of this class in the form of their imperative, which has the pattern PaRaS (maa hit!, abat seize!), whereas most other A/a verbs have PiRaS (e.g., limad learn!, rikab ride!; see 5.5, p. 134). Moreover, the verb tablu to take/
meaning through bleaching, such as galtu (U/u) to quiver, shake > to fear, and nakdu (U/u) to palpitate (of the heart) > to worry. 99. However, there also are verbs that originally had a guttural as R2 or R3 but i as root vowel, e.g., na (I/i) to carry and wa (I/i) to go /come out, and a few with u, e.g., am (U/u) to be(come) thirsty, eb (U/u) to sink. See further 16.7.1 (pp. 497498). 100. This is eloquently shown by their behaviour in the N-stem and the D-stem: if they have an N-stem, it is usually ingressive rather than passive (see 12.2.2.1 sub 4, p. 296), and if they have a D-stem, it is mostly factitive, just as with intransitive verbs (see 11.3.3, p. 274).
75
bring along (Imp tabal) is also atypical, but this may be related to the fact that it originates as a Gt-stem of wablu to carry, bring (see 16.2.3, p. 454). There are indications that the A/a class was much more numerous in the earlier stages of Akkadian, not only because the loss of the guttural consonants and the concomitant change a > e caused it to fall apart into several subgroups but also as a result of the reorganization of original III/*y verbs. This is suggested by the Mari Old Akkadian form ti-i-da-u MARI 1, 81:23 they drank, i.e., /titay/, which shows that this verb had the root vowel a, as in other Semitic languages, and also by the final - forms of the doubly weak verbs le to be able, e to look for, and re to tend (sheep), which may originally go back to perfective forms *yilay, *yiay and *yiray (see further 16.7.1, pp. 496497). In historical Akkadian, there is a drift from A/a towards I/i: many A/a verbs show occasional I/i forms, especially the III/ verbs; this is part of the general trend for III/voc verbs to shift to the I/i class (see further 3.5.3).
3.5.2.5. ThevowelclassA/i
The vowel class A/i differs from the previous ones in that it only contains weak and irregular verbs: the fientive verbs of the I/w class, insofar as they do not have a weak R3 (in which case they are isovocalic; see 3.5.1 above and 16.2.1, pp. 448449), and the two irregular verbs alku to go (llakillik; see 17.6.2, pp. 545546) and Ass tadnu to give (iddaniddin; see 16.4.3, pp. 472474).101 Accordingly, only 10 verbs can be assigned to it with certainty; see 3.6 sub 5. The A/i class constitutes a purely formal category without any obvious semantic uniformity. A far more prominent use of the contrast A/i is found in the derived stems, where it is one of the means of distinguishing imperfective from perfective in the D-stem, the -stem, and their derivatives, and in part of the N-stems (see 4.5.2, pp. 112115).
3.5.3. Changesinvowelclass
The system of the vowel classes remains stable during the entire history of Akkadian. There are no signs that additional combinations of vowels become possible in the course of time, nor do existing ones disappear completely. Moreover, there are no instances of verbs that do not conform to one of the five licensed classes.102 The only type of change we observe is the shift of a verb from one class to another. Differences in vowel class between Babylonian and Assyrian show that this already occurred in the prehistoric period of Akkadian. Well-known instances are: balu to live, recover (A/a in Ass, U/u in Bab) pardu to be(come) worried (I/i in OA, U/u in OB, later also I/i) au to need, want (A/a in OA, I/i and A/u in Bab) alu to do (for the) third (time) (I/i in OA, U/u, A/u or I/i in Bab, see n. 106)103
101. The verb i/uzuzzu to stand (up) (izzzizzz), which is sometimes included in this class, e.g., by Tropper (1998a: 20 n. 41) and Kienast (2001: 239), does not belong here, since it is a (fossilized) N-stem; see 16.5.3.5 (pp. 488490). 102. If we find an illicit pattern, e.g., a Neo-Assyrian Pfv ilbur to an Impfv ilabbir from labru to be(come) old (cf. AHw 52223 s.v. G 1) or iru versus iarri (cf. CAD 100a s.v. aru C to flare up), the most likely explanation is that the verb fluctuates between two vowel classes, mostly as an intermediate stage in a transfer from one to the other. A vowel class I/u, as assumed by Castellino (1962: 45), does not exist. Pairs such as iblaiballu adduced by Kuryowicz (1972: 56) belong either to different dialects (in this case, Assyrian versus Babylonian) or to different periods of the same dialect. 103. I/i only in the PN I-a-li-i-ilum CT 8, 34a:11 the god will do (give) for the third time.
76
The Vowel Classes 3.5. qerbu (Ass *qarbu) to come near (U/u in OA, A/a, later I/i in OB) rqu (Ass ruqu) to be/go far away ( in Bab, in Ass).104
In the historical period, we can distinguish various types of changes: 1. In particular in the older dialects, there is some variation between the imperfective forms iparras of the A/u class and iparrus of the U/u class.105 It is usually difficult to establish which form is more original; possible criteria are the period of attestation and whether the verb is transitive or not, but often the evidence is conflicting. A shift from iparras to iparrus may be posited for the following verbs: epu to make, do: originally ppa (still in Assyrian), early OB ppe through E-colouring, later ppu; see Whiting 1987: 45 erbu to enter: originally rrab (still in Assyrian), Bab rrub magru to agree: imaggar passim, imaggur MB and later baqru to claim: ibaqqar passim, ibaqqur rarely OB, later also I/i; see below sub 2 abu to collect (taxes): iabba OB and SB, iabbu MB and SB qannu to nest: iqannan OB (ta-qa-an-na-nu ARM 1, 18:23), SB also iqannun The following instances of fluctuation are indeterminate, mainly because of conflicting evidence (i.e., A/u is attested earlier but the verb is intransitive): ragmu to call out to, complain against (+ Dat); see 3.5.2.2 above naggu to bray: inaggag OB, SB also inaggug (see 3.5.2.2; same comment as ragmu) zannu to rain: normally U/u, except i-za-an-na-an YOS 10, 36:I 9 and MIO 12/2, 50:11 (both OB), and i-za-an-na-nu Gilg. p. 708:91 var. (SB) zamru to sing: normally U/u, except a-za-ma-ar WO 4, 12:I 1 (OB) nasku to throw, pile up: normally U/u, except i-na-as-s-ka ARM 27, 4:11 (OB) qaddu to bow: normally U/u, except i-qd-da-ad CT 51, 124:I 23 (SB); i-q-adda-a[d ] KUB 4, 35:5 (Bo) Insofar as the instances attested make inferences about the direction of the shift feasible, it seems that the iparras forms are generally older than the iparrus formsi.e., the direction of change is from A/u to U/u (Kienast 1967: 71). This would be in line with the general drift from anisovocalic to isovocalic, which is manifest in later periods (see below). In the same vein, the relatively early date of most of the exceptional iparras imperfectives of the second group suggests that they might be archaisms. If this is true, it lends support to the claim I will make in 4.5.1 (pp. 109112) that the geminated imperfective originally had a fixed vowel pattern with a in the place of the root vowel (iparras).106
104. See 17.7.3.2 (p. 565) on the vowel patterns of qerbu and its antonym rqu. 105. For Neo-Assyrian forms such as ilaqqut (instead of ilaqqat) from laqtu to glean (see AHw 537b s.v. G 2a) and inaur (instead of inaar, e.g., i-na-ur SAA 1, 93:9) from naru to guard, see HmeenAnttila 2000: 33. 106. Problematic cases are napu and alu. Napu to blow, become visible, rise, set fire to, which is normally A/u but once shows an Impfv ina-pu-u KAR 384:20 (SB) it hisses (of a snake). It may come from a different verb. alu to do for the third time has a Pfv ilu and once an Impfv ialla (eqla i-alla- MSL 1, 53:38 (SB) he will break the field for the third time) in Babylonian, apart from ialli in a proper name (see n. 103); in Assyrian, it is an I/i verb. On the basis of other verbs derived from numerals, such as reb to do for the fourth time and amu to do for the fifth time (see in particular OBTI 24:8, 11, 15, and 20), we would expect it to be U/u in Babylonian. Is the imperfective ialla here because it has a direct object (cf. n. 92)?
77
2. Far more important in terms of quantity is the shift from A/u to I/i. Mostly, the A/u forms can be argued to be older, because of greater frequency and/or earlier attestation; in the case of gamlu, karu, and parku, the A/u forms are restricted to texts of the third millennium, showing that for some verbs the shift started quite early. The following A/u verbs shifted to I/i at some stage of Akkadian (see also Kienast 1967: 71): baqru to claim (I/i in MB and later, see also above) barmu to seal (I/i in NA) gamlu to be obliging, spare (I/i in OB and later)107 ablu to oppress, wrong (A/u only OB, I/i OB and later) abtu to rob, plunder (rarely I/i in NB) amu to burn (rarely I/i in SB)108 kamru to pile up (I/i in NA) kasmu to cut, chop (I/i in SB) karu to repair (I/i in OB and later [keru])109 kau to master (I/i only in EA) maggu to stretch out (I/i in SB, if i-man-g[i-ga] Gilg. p. 600:231 is restored correctly) mau to rob, plunder (also I/i in SB am-ta-i-i AnSt. 11, 152:50) nakmu to store, pile up (also I/i in MB/SB) naku to bite (rarely I/i in SB) nazru to insult (also I/i in SB and NA) parku to block (I/i in OB and later)110 sadru to set in a row (I/i in SB and later), salu to pierce (I/i in SB lis-i-il- STT 179:48) sapu to cover, overwhelm (I/i already OB: is-i-ip-u ARM 14, 4:11) akku to harrow, string (I/i already OB: li-i-ki-ik OBHorn 2, 261:10) alpu to draw, pull out (I/i in SB i-al-lip ZA 16, 180:34) alu to rule, dispose of (I/i in SB and NA) aqlu to weigh, pay (I/i already in OB: i-a-q-il OBRED 5, 588:10 he will pay)111 arku to grant, bestow (I/i in SB li-rik KB 6/2, 44:19 arpu to burn (I/i in EA: VAB 2, 53:39 and 55:41 i-ar-ri-ip-) zaqtu to sting (I/i in SB i-zaq-qit!-su TU 6:I 17 zarqu to sprinkle (I/i SB and later).
To these verbs should be added the A/u verbs that became I/i in later Babylonian after adopting E-colouring; they are listed below sub 5. According to Kienast (1967: 72), just under (knapp) 20% of the original A/u verbs were transferred to the I/i class at one time or another. Kienast explains the coexistence of A/u and I/i forms from the archaizing tendency of the literary language. He also claims (ibid., 7576) that the shift occurred in stages from A/u to U/u and then to I/i. This is hard to verify. There are
107. A/u only in Sargonic Akkadian: Impfv a-ga-ma-lu-su4 / agammalsu/ SAB p. 117: r.6 (Girsu); Pfv igmul in PNs, see MAD 3, 118 s.v.; similarly in Ebla (Krebernik 1988b: 45). 108. In i-a-me-a LKA 94: II 11 according to CAD G 151b s.v. amu B. 109. A/u in Sargonic Akkadian: Impfv a-ga-sa-ar /akassar/ SAB p. 183: 15 (Gasur); Pfv ik-sur OAIC 36: 2, see Gelb 1984b: 27476. 110. A/u in Ur III Babylonian: p-ru-uk-u NATN 917:2 I blocked his way, and perhaps in literary Old Babylonian: ip-ru-ku-[. . .] Itar p. 81: VII 21. 111. Cf. also the N-stem Impfv iaqqil quoted in CAD /2 12 s.v. 9.
78
indeed two verbs for which this can be documented: baqru to claim (OB ibaqqaribqur, rarely ibaqquribqur (see above sub 1), from Middle Babylonian onwards ibaqqiribqir) and eru to cultivate (originally A/u as in Assyrian, OB rru (1x: i-ru-u BDHP 37: r.5)ru (i -ru-u OBTA p. 78 no. 25:3), elsewhere rriri). In general, however, the shift A/u to I/i only affected transitive verbs (see the preceding list), and the shift U/u to I/i mainly intransitive ones; see the lists below sub 2. It seems more likely, therefore, that the two processes developed in relative independence. Generally speaking, it would be extremely interesting to know more details about these shifts, in particular, which formthe imperfective or the perfectiveis the first to change, but the available material does not allow a firm conclusion about this. On the basis of the same criteria of frequency and earlier occurrence, a very small number of I/i verbs may have undergone the opposite shift from I/i to A/u:112 karu to pinch off (normally I/i, but A/u rarely in SB) palq/ku to slaughter (normally I/i, but A/u rarely in SB) au to need, want (I/i in OB and later, A/u in SB, but A/a in Ass). 3. The vowel class U/u is also affected by a shift towards I/i, especially in Babylonian (Kienast 1967: 74).113 This is demonstrated by the numerous U/u verbs that have occasional forms with i. Among the strong U/u verbs, this applies to: galtu to be frightened (rarely I/i in SB) arbu to become waste (I/i in LB i-ri-ib TCL 9, 138:17) kanu to bow (rarely I/i in SB) kapdu to plan, care for (rarely I/i in OB [ta-ka-ap-p-da-u-um AbB 14, 31:23], MB and SB) nasku to shoot, throw, pile up (rarely I/i in SB) pardu to be frightened (OB U/u, except ta-pa-ri-dam! Kisurra no. 177:25,114 SB also I/i [as in OA, see CAD P 142 s.v. 1a]) rabbu to be(come) soft, weak, to relax (rarely I/i in OB [i-ra-ab-bi-ib/bu ARM 14, 74:9, 12] and SB [ta-ra-ab-bi-ib ZA 64, 146:49]) rau to trust (I/i in SB and NA) artu to break wind (both U/u and I/i in OB and SB) taru to be(come) straight, in order (I/i only in EA) atw to speak (only Gt) (also I/i in SB) ba to be(come) thin (U/u and I/i in SB, not attested in OB) eg to be(come) negligent (also I/i from OB onwards) e to be(come) dark (U/u perhaps once in OB; see n. 46 (p. 62); elsewhere I/i) kam to capture, bind (also I/i already in SAk and from OB onwards) kar to be(come) short (U/u and I/i from OB onwards) kas to bind (also I/i from OB onwards, OA only I/i)
In the III/voc verbs with U/u, the shift took on massive proportions (GAG 105d):
112. For mals/u to pluck out and saltu to split, cut, not enough data are available for conclusions about the direction of change. 113. Interchange of I/i and U/u without clues as to the original vowel class occurs in the adjectival verbs damu to be(come) dark (see n. 37, p. 61) and lapnu to be(come) poor (see n. 53, p. 62). 114. For U/u in Old Babylonian, cf. also i-pa-ar-ru-ud ARM 26/1, 171 no. 37: r.17 and p. 573 no. 275:21, 24; ip-ru-ud MARI 8, 349:13.
3.5. The Vowel Classes lab to growl, groan, cry out (U/u and I/i in SB, not attested in OB) man to count, recite (rarely also I/i in SB/LB) na to hit, beat (U/u, except [i ]-i MSL 1, 10:38 (SB))115 pan to turn to, precede (U/u, esp. OA, later also I/i) qal to burn, roast (also I/i in SB and later) qam to burn (also I/i from OB onwards) seg to move about (I/i in LB) ap to irrigate, moisten (rarely I/i in SB) al to throw, shoot (occasionally I/i in SB, see CAD /1 272 s.v. al A 1b) ap to be(come) loud, dense (rarely I/i in SB) aq to be(come) high (rarely I/i in SB; I/i in Ass; see 3.3.4, pp. 6465) ar to be(come) rich (rarely I/i in MB (Elam) and SB) eg to be(come) rabid (also I/i in SB, N-stem only; see 12.2.2.2, p. 297) el to be(come) negligent (also I/i in LB) war to lead, bring (I/i exceptional; see chap. 16, p. 453, n. 21; more often i in the Gtn-stem) zak to be(come) clean, free (rarely I/i in SB) zar to scatter, sow (I/i in SB i-zar-ri LKU 33:2122).
79
The same shift is observable in quadriradical verbs, such as napark to cease, leave (U/u in OB, U/u and I/i in SB), and neqelp to drift down, glide along (with U/u and I/i coexisting from OB onwards); see 12.5, pp. 309310. 4. Parallel to the shift U/u > I/i is the shift from A/a to I/i. Early instances are: qerbu to come near (early OB Pfv iqrab [see n. 57, p. 62], later iqrib [but OA iqrub, see 17.7.3.2, p. 565]) salmu to make peace (Pfv islam in OB Mari [see n. 31, p. 60], later islim) almu to be(come) sound, in good condition (Pfv ilam in PSAk, SAk, and OB PNs, see n. 34, p. 60), later always ilim) Later instances of A/a shifting to I/i are found in the following verbs:116 anu to sing, lament, moan (I/i in SB in-ni-i Racc. 44b:5) kal to detain, withhold (also I/i in SB and LB) ka to be(come) cold (also I/i in SB ) pau to cool, calm down (I/i already in OB, also in SB, but cf. also lip-u-a-am-ma JAOS 103, 206:47) mal to be(come) full, to fill (also I/i in SB) taklu to trust (also I/i in SB and NA) tam to swear (NB/LB t-Pf ittem) 5. In Babylonian, adoption of E-colouring (see 17.5, pp. 525537) led to membership of an isovocalic class, mostly I/i. Comparison with Assyrian and some archaic forms in Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian shows that in some cases I/i was the original vowel class (e.g., in ekmu
115. According to CAD N/2 132b s.v. na v. (in one section with im-a-a, i-du-uk and i-pi [Sumerian broken]). 116. For the I/i forms of labu to put on, wear in the Gt and N forms (such as iltabi and illabi), see chap. 14, p. 357 n. 5.
80
to take away, eru to ask, and edu to harvest), whereas in other cases I/i replaced another class: A/u in emdu to lean against, reach, eru to cultivate (but see above for an Impfv rru in Old Babylonian), and perhaps in ezbu to leave. I/i may have replaced U/u in etqu to pass through.117 The cause of the shift is the introduction of global E-colouring in Babylonian (see 17.5.1, pp. 525534), which changed the imperfective vowel to e (e.g., 3ms *ymmed instead of *yiammad ); since e can be an allophone of i, this form was assimilated to the many I/voc imperfective forms with i (kkim, rri, id, etc.) and became mmid, which caused the Pfv mud to be replaced with mid. A few E-verbs, however, do not partake in this change: epu to make/do and erbu to enter joined the U/u class instead (see above), and eb to sink, an original U/u verb, stayed in this class.118 Finally, the verb eru to draw, design shows interchange of u and i in Old Assyrian, which is unique in that dialect, as far as I know.119 In the course of Babylonian history, the number of E-verbs continually increased (see 17.5.1, pp. 528529), especially through the influx of verbs that have r or among their radicals. This also led to adoption of I/i instead of their original vowels. So, in Middle Babylonian or later the following A/u verbs joined the I/i class: aru to cut off, clarify (in NB eru I/i: i-e-ri-i-u SAA 18, 152: r.4) karu to join, bind (in SB also keru I/i: i-ke--ir Izbu 185:3 acc. to CAD K 260a s.v. 2c) makru to irrigate (in MB also mekru I/i) malu to resemble, be half (in MB melu I/i) rasnu to moisten (in NB resnu I/i)) samu to unite, join (in Nuzi semu I/i)) apru to press, inlay (in SB also epru I/i) armu to break, cut (I/i in LB ermu (only i-i-ri-ma TMH 2, 140:8)). It is not always easy to establish the direction of the shift for each individual verb on independent grounds, but the overall picture seems to be beyond doubt and allows the following conclusions. First, there is a tendency to generalize the vowel class I/i at the cost of all other classes (except A/i). Second, there is also a tendency to abolish rather than to introduce vowel alternation (Kienast 1967: 7073), undoubtedly with the motive of discarding a contrast that has no grammatical function. Third, these changes do not entail a semantic change. Fourth, only a minority of the
117. For emdu, cf. Ass emdu A/u, and OB Pfv i-mu-du-u AbB 9, 267:16 (no imperfective attested); for eru, cf. Ass aru A/u, and OB Pfv i -ru-u OBTA p. 78 no. 25:3; for ezbu, original A/u is suggested by the particle ezub (also ezib) apart from, a frozen imperative (but Assyrian also has I/i); for etqu, cf. Impfv i-tu-uq, i-tu-q ARM 18, 7:7; Pfv i-tu-q ARM 27, 80:46 (but i-ti-q ibid., 18, 37); t-Pf e-te-tu-uq AbB 12, 56: 8 (but OA etqum is I/i, so U/u may be secondary). 118. Forms with u are also found in the E-verbs eddu to be(come) sharp (uncertain, see p. 64, n. 64), emu to be(come) hungry (Impfv im-mu-a(-a) BWL 40:44 [SB]), erpu to be(come) cloudy, erru to be(come) dry (see p. 63, n. 63) [OB]), ezzu to be(come) angry (li-zux(SU)-uz Itar p. 78: V 13 (OB); i-zu-uz Ee I 42; VAB 4, 218:11 [both SB]), lemnu to be(come) bad (il-mu-un SAA 10, 79: r.17 [SB omen quotation]), and qerbu to come near (often in Standard and Neo-Babylonian, interchanging with i; cf. AHw 915b s.v. G). Another possible exception is ennu to do a favour (A/u in Assyrian), but it is very rare (mainly in proper names) and suspect, because there seem to be several homonymous ennu verbs; cf. AHw 217 ss. vv. (three verbs) and CAD E 16265 (four verbs). 119. See Veenhof 1995: 331; i is the most common vowel; u occurs in the Pfvs n--ur DTCFD 34, 261:10; le--ra-kum C 43:7 (1s Prec, unpublished, quoted in Veenhof 1995: 330); and t--ra-ni ICK 2, 296:3.
3.6. Appendix: List of Gstem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class
81
Akkadian verbs are involved in these changes: most verbs hold on to the vowel class they have in the earliest sources.
3.6. Appendix: List of g-stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class

This section contains lists of verbs arranged according to vowel class. Only verbs that can reliably be assigned to a specific vowel class are included. If a verb shows fluctuation between classes, I have included it in the class that I regard as the most original. Variant forms are ignored. However, if Babylonian and Assyrian disagree, I have included the verb in its Babylonian form, with the Assyrian vowels between parentheses. As a result, each verb appears only in one class. 1. Vowel class I/i
*abtu flee (only N; Bab; Ass A/u) apru wear (on the head) arku become long awum calculate (OA) balu become large bau smell bad bak cry balmu tie up balu stare ban build ban become beautiful barqu flash bar see bamu build ba be, exist balu stop, end bed cheat(?) beu stir (Ass) bel become extinguished dapu push dalpu be/keep awake damqu become good dannu become strong dan be of inferior quality(?) darsu trample ebbu become pure ebu gird eblu catch ebru cross ebu swell(?) ebu gird eb become thick edlu close, lock edpu blow away edqu put on, don edru embrace edu elu eggu egru ekb/pu ekku eklu ekmu ekku elu ellu elpu elu el emrum emmu emru emu ennu enqu enu en epqu epru ep eqqu eq eru erru eru er es/ku eslu espu esqu esru esru edu become new bind moan, cry become twisted come near scratch become dark take away scratch sprinkle become pure, free sprout swell, rejoice become high, go up pile up (OA) become hot become swollen try punish suck become weak change embrace, overgrow provide with food bake become paralyzed(?) anoint act aggressively become dry ask become pregnant assign inflate collect carve lock up put under pressure harvest elu enu epu eru e ebu eru e etqu etqu elu eru eru e ew ezbu ezhu ezru gadmu gal ganu garmu garu ger adlu akmu akru albu alpu alqu amdu amlu amu am anmu anpu anu an paralyze smell twine, double draw, design slit grow profusely go straight, prosper confuse cross bend, twist become a man save, take away pay become dark turn into leave gird insult cut off banish cough orbit (planet) become powerful quarrel, sue go back(?) understand reduce(?) milk wear, be dessed disappear hide plan break in two paralyze bloom flatter bare ones teeth put under pressure(?)
82
Appendix: List of Gstem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class 3.6.

labu lamu lakdu lak law lemnu lem leznu maddu madlu madu malku marru marsu mar ma madu ma matqu ma mazu mek men nadu nalu namu nasu nau nab naddu nadnu nad nalu natu nasu nasu nau naklu nakpu nakru naksu naku nap naq na naqu nau na na/tpu nawru nazqu neb nez pad growl consume run become weak surround become bad eat slander escape salt, pickle become numerous advise become bitter squash fatten, become slow become sufficient strike, comb (OA A/u) forget become sweet become insufficient squeeze become negligent love attend, be worried make wet advance boldly chew gasp for breath(?) name, invoke cede(?) give (Bab) throw, leave hand over become small go back lament prosper act cleverly gore, butt become hostile cut set aside sift sacrifice tear, scrape kiss sniff(?) lift, carry tear out be(come) bright squeak, worry shine void excrement spare pazu pakru pallu palq/ku pangu paqdu par paslu pasmu pasqu padu panu palu pau patlu patnu patqu patqu pe pe qab qadpu qad qallu qan qatnu qat qebru qem qer rabqu rabu rab rab radpu raggu rau ram rapqu rapqu rapsu rapu raqqu raq rasb/pu rapu ra ra re ret sab/pu sabku sab samu be arrogant chain guard slaughter mount, cap entrust insult turn around veil choke, strangle(?) carve veil (Ass) crawl erase turn, wrap become strong form, build drink close, plug become white speak, say ? hoot become light acquire become thin end bury grind invite, take away ? lie down become big go down, set pursue become bad trample, destroy set in place hoe fasten beat, thrash become wide become thin, fine hide slay, destroy pile up, build get, acquire itch beget, impregnate fix ? bring into contact(?) brew beer be under pressure(?)
aptu triumph, prevail ardu wake up, guard ()armu cover arpu cut aru be in labour aru graze aspu pluck out asru blunt, chip anu shelter au need, want (Ass A/a) a become dark atnu protect atpu slaughter atru wag (tail), flutter at smite amu muzzle, block a sin, neglect az/m object epru dig ep break er dig es cover kabru become thick kabtu become heavy kadru become arrogant kadru establish a border kalu shrivel, roll up kamlu become angry kamsu gather, finish kamsu squat, kneel k/qaplu roll up kap/bs/u curl, droop karku block, collect karmu hinder k/garu pinch off kartu cut off kaspu perform a kispu sacrifice kasru dam kapu think, wish kapu bewitch karu be successful kau cut off ka cover ka increase (intr.) katru call to aid katru wait kazbu tell lies kezru curl the hair(?) labu infect labku become soft labnu beg humbly labnu make bricks labru become old
3.6. Appendix: List of Gstem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class

saklu appropriate saklu get stuck or loose sakpu push away salu tremble sallu flutter, flap salmu make peace salqu go up saltu split, cut salu deceive(?) s/zamrum establish (OA) sanp/bu tie sanqu check, arrive s/anu insert sapdu mourn sapqu be sufficient, able sardu load, pack sarmu cut, incise satlu plant sekru dam sepru write alphabetically se press down ab wish almu become dark, black alpu cross out, cancel alu put down amdu harness, yoke amru strive for, plot apru trim, strip armu apply oneself eru abu adu adlu aglu agu au au akru almu al amdu amtu anu an an an aplu apu ap/tu ap aqru aqtu aq arqu as atnu atpu at become small strike, sweep march, proceed become spacious appropriate ? kill jump, attack become angry become drunk become well submerge oneself apply mark sneer do again; change run flood, wet become low, deep grip exercise authority wrap, fasten pierce ? give to drink steal call, summon urinate groove drink aw ebru eru equ ep er er er e takpu tar temru te/z apru aw ep er wabu wamlu wap waqru warqu wasmu wau watru wa zablu zarpu
83
roast break pass, cross sneeze(?) ask take refuge lay down redeem(?) spread out speckle lift bury defecate press towards spin, twine add, register penetrate weed become veiled, misted become clear become rare, precious become green become appropriate become stiff exceed go out carry buy
2. Vowel class A/u:

abku abku abtu adru aggu agru azu aklu allu amru aplu aru arru aru aru au ballu baqmu baqru barmu batqu send, lead overturn destroy fear become angry hire take, marry eat hang see answer destroy curse cultivate (Bab I/i) muster catch in a net mix pluck (wool) claim seal cut daglu daku dalu dallu darku emdu watch press in disturb glorify pack lean on, impose (Bab I/i) ennum do a favour (OA) epu make, do (Bab U/u) erbu enter (Bab U/u) gaddu chop, cut galbu shave gamlu be obliging, spare gamru complete, use up gannu confine gazzu shave ablu oppress, wrong ablu borrow abtu rob, plunder abtu borrow addu incise adlu allu allu alu alu ammu amu amu anqu appu arru aru aru assu abu au alu au au kabbu tie up, knot detain creep, slink squeeze out scrape off collect tear off burn strangle break up, smash dig, groove cut off, clarify graze think, mention break off break, build (a reed hut) crush hurry(?) excavate burn
84
kaddu kabsu kamru kanku kannu kappu kapru kapru karbu karru kasmu kaspu kassu kabu karu kau kau kadu karu kau katmu labbu lammu lappu laptu laqtu latku maddu maggu magru mau maru makku makru malu mallu mal/su marqu marru marsu maru mau malu maru mau mau matu mazqu maz/sru mazu nadu naggu nalu nakmu

rub in, anoint step upon pile up seal twist, coil bend, curve wipe off, rub trim, uproot pray, bless put, place cut, chop chip, break off gnaw reduce join, bind grind ones teeth trim, mutilate reach, acquire repair master cover rage chew wrap touch, affect, write glean test, question measure stretch out favour, comply with soak, soften receive, confront spread irrigate tear out consume, plunder pluck out crush, grind break (a field) stir rub, scratch measure, compute resemble drag wipe rob, plunder lift, carry suck block, withhold squeeze (Ass I/i) praise bray sift store, pile up napu naplu naplu napu napu naqbu naqru nasu nasqu nabu naru naku naru nalu nazlu nazru pau parku palku palu parsu paru paru paru passu paru pau patu patnu paru qalpu qannu q/gardu q/garnu qaru qatlu qatpu rabku rabum blow, light dig out, demolish compensate kick, smash pluck, comb deflower tear down, scrape tear out choose suck guard, watch bite cut off, deduct see, look at pour out insult strike, crush block delimit drill cut, sever break clear away cut off erase loosen anoint pierce dine loosen peel nest tear out, pluck (wool) pile up trim, carve kill pluck, cut off distill, stir substantiate a claim (OA) raddu pursue ragmu shout, complain rau rinse, bathe raksu bind rasnu moisten sadru set in a row salu pierce sapu cover, overwhelm salu sprinkle salqu boil salu sprinkle, infect samu mix, unite samku cover, remove(?) sapu scatter sapnu saqlu sarqu abru atu anhu apru aru aru aru arpu abu addu alu atu au akku aknu alu allu alpu alqu alu ammu amu annu anu ap/bu apku apru aqlu aru arku armu arpu aru atqu aru au tabku tallu tamu taru tarku taru abu aplu ardu zakru zannu zaqpu zaqtu zarqu level, destroy take away strew, sprinkle bend, twist? extract have diarrhea press, inlay lament, cry heat dispatch quickly refine, fire collect (also u/u) pull, carry sift wash, clear take off, pull off harrow, string place tear off kidnap, plunder draw, pull out cut open, split rule, dispose of paralyze strip off rival obstruct sprinkle heap up, pour send, write weigh, pay pick, tear out grant, bestow break, cut burn tear split write slit open pile up, pour stretch, span seize dig beat, palpitate stretch (out) slaughter insult, slander send, drive away declare, invoke provide (food) erect, plant sting sprinkle
3.6. Appendix: List of Gstem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class 3. Vowel class U/u
altu arru ar au *aw az ba balu barru baru damu dabbu dakku dal dammu damu daqu eddu eg emu erpu galtu ganu gapu ge abbu abru abu ab addu ad a allu alpu amu amu am anbu arbu arpu au aw kam kanu kapdu kar kas kau latu lab lapnu lasmu swallow tremble vomit worry speak (only Gt) hiss become thin live (Ass A/a) glow, shine shine brightly become dark speak gambol draw (water) mourn humble oneself bend down become sharp become negligent become hungry become cloudy quiver, fear lift (lip or nose) become massive, swell belch murmur, chirp make noise be swollen, elated draw (water) rumble, rustle rejoice cough pipe, wheeze slip in/through be/do fifth hurry rely, be confident grow abundantly lie waste be early swell, rejoice growl bind bend, submit plan become short bind become dizzy(?) swallow howl, groan become poor run lez ma maksu man maqtu marru napu nabbu nabu nabu nabu nabzu nag naru nakdu nalu namu napu naru nasku nassu napu natku na nazmu nazzu padu paru pan pardu parru paru par paqu qaddu qal qam qannu qan qaru q/garru q/garru qatru rabu rabbu radu rau rau ramku rammu ram rapdu continue become frenzied collect taxes count fall leave wither play the flute(?) bark shine brightly rise (flood) bleat sing joyously snort palpitate, worry dew depart relax, expand tremble throw complain blow away, winnow drip beat complain grunt, rustle be in terror come together go to, go in front start, fear (Ass I/i) dissolve sprout vomit become narrow bow burn, roast burn nest acquire freeze fear wind, roll, flow rise (smoke) tremble become soft, relax become viscous trust, entrust mobilize ? bathe roar become loose run around, traverse raqdu rasbu raanu rau rau rattu rapu red salu sabu sag sau saru sakpu saktu samdu sam seg se/ah abbu abru am ap aru arru artu abbu abu agmu au anu atu alu al A amu amru ap A ap B aq arru ar at eg el taqnu tarru taru tar adu anpu eb war
85
dance err become loud ring (ears) glow tremble start be appropriate cough toss, churn trouble tremble turn, seek lie down be silent grind vacillate move about become disturbed spread (wings) flit, prattle become thirsty irrigate flare up flow, sparkle break wind glow settle (dust) roar, buzz crumble, dissolve become warm fear, respect do third (Ass I/i) shoot, throw thrive, flourish surge, rage be silent flicker, billow become high, rise go ahead become rich weave become rabid (only N) become negligent become secure tremble become correct take along become abundant become dirty sink lead
86
zak zamru

become clean, free sing zannu rain zar sow
4. Vowel class A/a (including E/e)

ablu anu aru balu ber dek id kal ka katu labu lamdu lazzu leq let dry out be(come) tired hurry boil, ripen become hungry summon know detain, withhold be(come) cold take as security put on, wear learn continue, persist take, receive split le mau mal maru mes nep nes palu pau pet qerbu rau rakbu red be able, win hit, weave become full, cover become ill wash abduct move away fear, respect cool, calm open come near (OA U/u) run ride, sail follow, accompany re abtu allu aru eb em e tablu taklu w/tam teb e wat zen tend, look after seize sleep win, vanquish become sated hear look for, search take away trust swear rise come near find become angry
5. Vowel class A/i

alku tadnu wablu waddu go, come give (Ass) carry, bring love waldu wapu wardu give birth abuse descend wabu wabu wapu add sit down, settle exorcise
6. Vowel class II/ of the II/voc verbs
bru
bum dku dlu *durum gu b/pu lu qu u knu kru ku ku ldu lu lu
stay firm come kill walk around surround (SAk) hurry purify dissolve go give become firm, true become depressed flay, skin be late bend, kneel knead keep in check
lumum mu mnu mtu mu muu muum nu npu nqu nqu nu pugu puu qdu qlu qpu
put pressure on (OA) set out ? supply with food die vomit check (NA) be willing (OA) rest, become still pay in addition cry run, go quake, shake take away (Ass) agree (Ass) set afire pay attention buckle
rbu rdu ru s/zku sru du du bu u u u tpu tru pu zbu zru zzu
tremble tremble become friends pound, crush whirl, dance prowl, spin melt sway, tremble pull, drag be negligent fly be attentive return ? dissolve twist divide
3.6. Appendix: List of Gstem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class 7. Vowel class II/ of the II/voc verbs
*bu stamp btu spend the night dnu judge du thresh gru challenge? su install lu scream qu mix ru choose u hurry ku help k/qium seal in a case (OA) lp/bu ? mru buy? nku nlu pqu qlu qpu qu rmu rbu ru rqu ru s/tu smu have intercourse lie down (also II/) become narrow fall trust give bestow replace remain become empty jubilate be left over become red squ u u bu u lu mu nu u bu wru wu zqu become narrow laugh decline become gray, old grow coat, smear decree urinate be negligent become good go become small, few blow (wind)
87
8. Vowel class II/ and II/ of the II/H verbs

du blu bru bu bu blu bru bu du ru gsu gu u kdu ksu lku lmu msu mu notice pray catch become ashamed pass rule, possess select move away harass, dupe become awake bestow rumple worry be distressed? ? lick consume crush, destroy despise, disregard ndu nu nru nu ntu nu pdu pru rmu ru rmu rqu ru rtu sbu sdu sdu praise scorn kill recover surround loosen, turn imprison search love ? have mercy be far, go away (Ass II/) help spit out draw (water) slay support sru lu nu u lu mu lu nu qu ru u tb/pu tu tlu tlu mu nu zru plaster fight, quarrel load immobilize ask buy whet, sharpen put on shoes measure level rise early disdain, be negligent ? cover, hide pronounce dock, moor? inform grind hate
theimPactOfgeminatiOni: theimPerfectiveiParrvs
Chapter 4
4.1. introduction
In this chapter and those following, I will describe the form and function of the members of the verbal paradigm individually and in relation to one another. The functional description that followswhich is summary, unless there is a specific reason to elaborate on a particular point is valid for all types of verbs. For the form, on the other hand, I will concentrate on the standard paradigm, that of the G-stem of the strong triradical verb. The formal aspects of the other types of verbs will be dealt with later in the relevant chapters. The description is twofold: it starts with an account of the category under discussion in Akkadian itself, distinguishing according to dialect whenever doing so is relevant to the presentation. The findings will be compared with what we know from other Semitic and sometimes also Afroasiatic languages to get an idea about the state of affairs in Proto-Semitic and the prehistoric development of Akkadian. The first of these chapters deals with the imperfective (also called present or durative), not only because it is the most basic category of the verbal paradigm but also because a large part of the prehistoric developments that took place in the Akkadian verb can only be understood from the emergence of the G-stem imperfective iparrVs instead of an earlier imperfective form without gemination.
4.2. the imperfective: Form

The inflectional stem of the G-stem imperfective of the strong triradical verb has the form PaRRvS, with gemination of R2 and a variable vowel between R2 and R3. Gemination of R2 is the hallmark of the Akkadian imperfective.1 The variable stem vowel a, i, or u (iparras, iparris, or iparrus), which I will call the imperfective vowel, has no grammatical function (perhaps with the partial exception of a; see below) but belongs in the sphere of the vowel classes.2 On the
1. In the early days of Assyriology, there was uncertainty about the presence of gemination in iparrVs, since it is often not indicated in the script. This gave rise to interpretations such as ipar(r)as or ipa(r)ras. Goetze established that the correct form is iparras (explicitly so in 1942: 4 n. 43), and this was canonized by W. von Sodens GAG of 1952; see also Greenberg 1952: 12 and Kienast 2001: 29394. Rssler (1958: 115 n. 19) aptly stated that ipar(r)as is not akkadisch but berholt-assyriologisch. Surprisingly, it turns up again in a recent handbook (Malbran-Labat 2001). For the claim that the basic contrast between imperfective and perfective is the vowel a after the first radical, see n. 51 below (p. 103). Finally, it should be noted that there is no evidence at all for the existence of verb forms which have a long vowel instead of a geminate R2, like the Arabic Stem III and Geez Stem I/3 qtala, as is claimed by Zaborski (2003). W. von Soden (GAG 3 88f*) mentions this possibility, only to reject it with good reason. 2. For e instead of a as imperfective vowel in Babylonian as a result of E-colouring, see 17.5.1 (p. 526).
88
4.2. The Imperfective: Form
89
basis of the imperfective vowel, we can distinguish A-verbs, I-verbs, and U-verbs (for E-verbs, see 17.5, pp. 525537). The combination of the imperfective vowel with the root vowel of the perfective and the imperative gave rise to the vowel classes discussed in the previous chapter. In the anisovocalic vowel classes A/u and A/i, we can observe their respective roles, especially to what extent they recur in derived categories. It is the imperfective vowel that recurs elsewhere, whereas the root vowel is never used outside the perfective and the imperative of the G-stem. In Table 4.1, the positions where the imperfective vowel occurs are shown in capitals; the forms that preserve the root vowel are printed in bold. As a contrasting example of an isovocalic verb, the I/i verb paqdu to entrust, provide has been added; it has i in all forms:3 v.cl. A/u tense Impfv t-Pf Pret Imp Impfv t-Pf Pret Imp Impfv t-Pf Pret Imp G-stem iparrAs iptarAs iprus purus uAb ittaAb uib ib ipaqqId iptaqId ipqid piqid Gtn-stem iptanarrAs (see 14.7.2) iptarrAs pitarrAs ittanaAb ittaAb *itaAb iptanaqqId iptaqqId pitaqqId Gt-stem iptarrAs iptarAs pitrAs N-stem ipparrAs ittaprAs (ipparis)4 (napris) Ntn-stem ittanaprAs ittaprAs itaprAs
A/i
I/i
*iptaqqId *iptaqId *pitqId
ippaqqId ittapqId ippaqid napqid
ittanapqId ittapqId itapqId
table 4.1: the distribution of the imperfective vowel and the root vowel.
As the table shows, the imperfective vowel recurs in the t-perfect of the G-stem (iparras iptaras, ipaqqid iptaqid) and in most finite forms of the derived stems that adopt the vowel pattern of the G-stem: the Gtn-stem (iparras iptanarras, ipaqqid iptanaqqid ), the Gt-stem (iparras iptarras, ipaqqid iptaqqid), the imperfective of the N-stem (iparras ipparras, ipaqqid ippaqqid), and the Ntn-stem (iparras ittanapras, ipaqqid ittanapqid). Therefore, the imperfective vowel is the characteristic or defining vowel of a specific verb. Among the three imperfective vowels a, i, and u, a has a special status, since it occurs not only in the G imperfective of all A-verbs but also in several imperfective forms of the derived verbal stems. Only the Gt-, Gtn-, N-, and Ntn-stems have another present vowel, if they come from an I-verb or an U-verb. This makes a an important secondary imperfective marker in addition to gemination. The respective spheres of use of the imperfective vowel and the root vowel reflect both the hierarchical relationship between the imperfective and the perfective as defined in 2.2.1 (p. 30), and their historical relationship, with the imperfective as the innovative and expanding category,
3. The D-stem and the -stem are omitted because they have a fixed vowel pattern independent of vowel class. 4. The N perfective normally has a fixed i independent of vowel class; see 12.2.1 (pp. 289290) for the complexities in the vowel pattern of the N-stem. The rare instances of the N imperative all seem to have this vowel, too, perhaps on the model of the D and imperatives (Ass parris/apris); see chap. 12, p. 290, n. 8.
90
The Imperfective: Form 4.2.
and the perfective (or rather the inflectional stem on which it is based) as the receding category that is gradually being replaced (cf. also the replacement of iprVs by iptarVs). As stated in 1.2.3 (p. 5), there are good reasons to assume that the imperfective is generally the most basic form of a verbal paradigm. That this also applies to Akkadian is demonstrated by at least three features of the G-stem imperfective: 1. It is formally differentiated from other categories with more consistency than any other member of the verbal paradigm. With very few exceptions, imperfective forms are recognizable as such without any context,5 whereas all other categories show varying degrees of syncretism. For instance, there is syncretism of the infinitive and the past participle of all derived stems, and of the perfective of the t-stems and the t-perfect of the corresponding primary stems. In the tan-stems, except for the Gtn-stem, the imperfective is the only category that has a form of its own, whereas all other forms are identical to those of the corresponding t-stems. In these cases, we need the context to identify a particular form. 2. The G-stem imperfective imposes its vowel on the t-perfect of the G-stem and on the imperfective of the derived verbal stems that take part in the vowel classes, as shown above. 3. The G-stem imperfective also exerted such a strong formal influence on the imperfective forms of the derived verbal stems that most of them introduced gemination where this is formally possible, in addition to the more original imperfective marking by means of the stem vowel a between R2 and R3. This accounts for doubly-marked imperfective forms such as the N Impfv ipparras, the t2 Impfv utaparras, and the and t imperfectives of the I/voc verbs (uakkal and utakkal ). The details will be discussed in 4.5.2 (pp. 112115). In one respect, the relationship between the imperfective and the rest of the verbal paradigm is atypical: the imperfective is basic, but not unmarked; on the other hand, in Akkadian it is the perfective that is formally unmarked.6 In this respect, Akkadian agrees with many other Semitic and Afroasiatic languages.
5. The exceptions are the Gt imperfective, which is identical to the Gtn perfective, and the Babylonian G imperfective forms of the II/ and II/ verbs without ending, such as im and ibl, which we conventionally and conveniently distinguish in our transcriptions from the perfectives im and ibl. Of course, this claim is only valid for the actual forms of Akkadian, not for the way they are spelled, so it does not allow for defective spellings such as i-pa-q-id from paqdu, which may be G Impfv ipaqqid, N Impfv ippaqqid, and N Pfv ippaqid, or i-ri-i from eru to ask, which may be G Impfv rri and G Pfv ri. 6. Generally speaking, the verbal category referring to the present is semantically unmarked vis--vis the category referring to the past (Jakobson 1990: 138). Therefore, the former tends to be formally unmarked as well (see chap. 1, p. 5, n. 6). However, the common renewal of present categories by stronger marked formations is responsible for the widespread occurrence of marked presents, such as the English progressive form (for the rise of the progressive in English, see Bybee et al. 1994: 13237 and the literature mentioned in Lass 1997: 31819). This process is also responsible for the situation in Akkadian. Comrie (1976: 111) notes that in general, the morphological criteria [of markednessNJCK] are the least telling, since the morphology often reflects systematic correspondences of an earlier period in the history of a language. He mentions an exact parallel from the history of Persian, where a marked imperfective with the prefix mi- has been generalized except in a few stative verbs (ibid., 121). With regard to aspect, Aikhenvald and Dixon (1998: 62) state that [c]oncerning aspect, there is often no markedness in the system and when there is there seems to be no cross-language consistency as to which term is unmarked (also referring to Comrie 1976: 11122). This can be ascribed to the same process, since in languages where aspect is dominant the new form tends to become an imperfective, as in many branches of Afroasiatic.
4.3. The Imperfective: Form
91
4.3. the imperfective: Function 7

The Akkadian imperfective combines temporal, aspectual, and modal functions, but its aspectual function is marginal. In a context that is unspecified for its location in time, the imperfective refers to the future or to activities (usually habitual ones) taking place at the moment of speech, as opposed to the perfective and the t-perfect, which refer to the past. The imperfective is the only form available for referring to present and future events and therefore covers all possible modalities, such as the actual present, habitual present, generic present, immediate future, and more remote future (GAG 78c/d). Since this use is well-known, I will refrain from giving examples.8 The stative, however, can also refer to the present and indicate simultaneity, but it differs from the imperfective in that it can only refer to a state (see 7.3, pp. 163165), e.g., Impfv adabbub I am talking versus Stat almku I am well.9 An example is the interchange of the stative and imperfective in the following passage, from a description of a (figure of a) goddess:
7. For other descriptions of the use of the imperfective, see GAG 78; Streck 1995a: 19094; Leong 1994: 3132, 292360; Huehnergard 2005a: 9899; Metzler 2002: 88692; Loesov 2004b: 41617, 2005; E. Cohen 2006. 8. Loesov (2005: 1056) argues that the Akkadian imperfective is not used to refer to telic events taking place at speech time and that Akkadian codes such situations in different ways according to the inherent temporal properties of the situation, but in particular by the use of the stative. It is true that imperfectives referring to telic events taking place at speech time are very hard to find. The question is: is this caused by the function of the imperfective itself, or by the nature of our sources? For the time being, I prefer the latter option. The nature of the extant Akkadian texts is not very favourable to the occurrence of this kind of situations: they are typically found in natural conversation, and apart from occasional instances of dialogue in literary texts, the closest thing that we have to natural conversation are letters. However, the problem with letters is that we usually do not know enough of the correspondents and their background to distinguish between references to the present and to the immediate future. Take, for instance, ARM 6, 5:1213, in which the writer communicates to his lord that a boulder has fallen into a canal and has blocked it (see Durand 1997/2000: II 597). He continues: inanna abnam ti -a-ap-pa: nothing in the context nor in our knowledge of the background of this letter allows us to decide whether the writer intends to say now I am breaking down this boulder or now I am going to break down this boulder. This applies to dozens of other cases as well (cf. Loesov 2005: 11415 for a discussion of some of them). Moreover, Loesovs instances of statives referring to telic events ongoing at speech time are all in some respect problematic and are certainly insufficient to prove such a far-going claim. Actually, the Mari letters contain several good candidates for this kind of imperfectives, such as ARM 28, 134:7 itu 3 u4 PN ina GN waib [u] lam -da-an-na-an since three days PN is staying in GN and he is fortifying the town; perhaps also ARM 3, 1:9, 14 and ARM 6, 58:18. 9. This contrast is clear enough as long as prototypical fientive and prototypical adjectival verbs are concerned, but in the case of peripheral members of these categories, the distinction may be blurred and speakers may fluctuate in their use of either form. This applies to the stative verbs discussed in 3.3.1 (pp. 5557), whose imperfective can have stative meaning, and to verbs such as wabu to sit down, stay, allu to sleep, and rakbu to ride, e.g., uab and waib he stays, lives from wabu and iallal and alil he sleeps, is asleep from allu. In their fientive forms, these verbs are basically ingressive and telic, but in the imperfective they may drop their telicity and indicate a state or an activity: uab I am seated, arakkab I am riding (although the imperfective of most of these verbs more often has future or irrealis meaning: iallal he can/will sleep). This is caused by the convergence of two semantic/pragmatic factors: first, the meaning we expect it to have theoretically (I am sitting down [but not yet seated], etc.) is hardly used at all, since it is appropriate in very few contexts. Second, the imperfective aspect of uab, etc., with its typical open-endedness clashes with the basically telic meaning of wabu itself; this neutralizes the telic meaning and allows the verb to take on the meaning of to sit rather than to sit down. For the same reason, these verbs show an overlap in use between their past and present participles (see 8.3.1 end, p. 202).
92
(01) MIO 1, 70/72: III 4145 (SB) the goddess is girt (rak-sa-at: Stat) with a girdle (. . .), in her left (hand) she has/carries (na-at: Stat) a child, it feeds from (lit., eats) (ik-kal: Impfv) her breast, with her right (hand) she prays (i-kar-rab: Impfv) (i.e., is in a praying posture) The imperfective also has an important irrealis use, which is related to its future meaning (Leong 1994: 3132, 4023; Gianto 1998: 18788): it can express intention, obligation, injunction, prescription, etc. In affirmative clauses, the choice between indicative and irrealis use usually depends on the context; in an omen apodosis, for instance, iddk will indicate a prediction he will be killed; elsewhere it may also indicate an injunction he must be killed.10 However, the particle l can be used to convey the notion of an emphatic statement, especially in a promissory oath; see the final part of 9.3.3 (pp. 231232).11 In negative clauses, the contrast between future tense and irrealis is at least partly indicated by means of the use of a special negation l for the irrealis use, the prohibitive (see 9.2.3, pp. 219220). In Babylonian, there is a clear distinction, since the non-irrealis use normally has ul or ul; for example: (02) AbB 5, 210:910 (OB) libba ki l i-ma-ra-a u libb ul i-ma-ra-a do not be cross, and I wont be cross either In Assyrian, the distinction is less pronounced, since l may also be used in indicative clauses (GKT 105c and GAG 122a/b). The aspectual function of the imperfective is only activated when the temporal location is specified as past by the context or the situation in general.12 In this case, it expresses incompleted action, simultaneity with a past event (non-anteriority), and verbal plurality and serves to exclude the completed or anterior function and the implication of a once-only event entailed by the perfective (see 5.3, pp. 127128).13 Apart from literary narrative, this use is rare, especially in main clauses, and when it occurs, it usually concerns the stative verbs discussed in 3.3.1 (pp. 5557), such as ba to be present, available, izuzzu to stand, and kullu to hold, and the verb alku to go /come in its atelic meaning to go /walk around (without a specific goal), e.g., (02) quoted on p. 56, and:14 (03) AbB 4, 132:89 (OB) pna inma ana rdka a-al-la-ku formerly, when I served as one of (lit., went to) your rds (04) AbB 6, 1:26 (OB) inma ina pti az-za-az-zu when I was (lit., was standing) still in service.15 Instances with other verbs are:
10. See GAG 78d ; Streck 1995a: 9499; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 112. 11. See GAG 152b and 185bd, Edzard 1973: 12930; E. Cohen 2005: 1768. 12. Many Old Babylonian instances of this use contain the adverb pnnum formerly; with a perfective, it refers to a once-only event (e.g., Sumer 14, 48 no. 24:56), with an imperfective to a repeated event, a habit, etc. (e.g., AbB 10, 1:1316). 13. For the use of the imperfective in past contexts, see also GAG 78ef; Leong 1994: 34346 and 34950; Streck 1995a: 11112 and 11619; 1995b; Metzler 2002: 14749, 49395, and 88891. 14. More examples in Leong 1994 and Metzler 2002. 15. In these stative verbs, the perfective often has ingressive function (see 3.3.1, p. 56): azzz I stood up, allik I went (in the sense of I started moving). An important reason for the use of the imperfective is presumably to exclude this interpretation.
4.3. The Imperfective: Form (05) ARM 27, 133:89 (OB) ina mui eper a i-a-ap-pa-ku izziz it (the army) took position on top of the ramp it was building (06) AbB 11, 7:1314 (OB) alpum ipurma amm i-ka-al [imq]utma imtt the ox strayed away, and while it was grazing (lit. eating grass), it dropped dead.
93
In (05), the perfective would be a kind of pluperfect (see 5.3, p. 128), implying that the ramp was already finished (which it had built), and in (06) it would make the events sequential: the ox strayed away, ate grass, and dropped dead. The use of the imperfective excludes these interpretations. The remarkable use of the imperfective to introduce direct speech in narrative contexts may have a similar background, e.g.: (07) HSAO [1], 186:7 (OB) DN pu puamma ippuri kala il is-s-aq-q-ar Enlil opened his mouth and spoke in the assembly of all gods (followed by Enlils words).16 The use of the imperfective issaqqar may also be aimed at avoiding the implications of the perfective, which might be interpreted by the hearer as referring to a previous utterance instead of the actual quotation that is still to come. This explanation is essentially the same as Jacobsens (1988: 191) explanation of the same phenomenon in Sumerian.17 In punctual and telic verbs, the imperfective in past contexts can be frequentative (08) or habitual (09) and perhaps emphasizes that an intended event was not realized or completed (10); with the negation ul, it can denote a refusal (GAG 151c), as also in (10): (08) ARM 28, 104:3435 (OB) bl []atkma ana GN ul a-a-ap-pa-ar inanna anumma ana GN a-a-ap-pa-ar for fear of my lord I never wrote to GN; but now I am going to write to GN (09) ARM 27, 1:3839 (OB) aum 1 GuR.m a pnnum i-ka-lu PN imur concerning the one kor each, which they formerly enjoyed, they turned to PN (10) ARM 27, 1:3637 (OB) pnnum 1 GuR.m a-na-ad-di-in-u-nu-i-im-ma ul i-ma-a-ru in the past, I wanted to give them one kor each, but they did not accept (it) (so how should they now accept 100 qa?).18 Cases such as (10) and perhaps also (15B) quoted below may be related to the irrealis use of the imperfective. Finally, the imperfective with past reference is also used in narrative passages in literary texts, as described in detail by Streck (1995b), E. Cohen (2006), and W. R. Mayer (2007). In main clauses, this especially concerns backgrounded events and processes that are durative or iterative (Streck 1995b: 3750); in subordinate clauses, it often occurs in circumstantial, final, and consecutive clauses (1995b: 5373). Streck (1995b: 7577) explains this use from its function of non-anteriority, which is related to imperfective, but the fact that it often has a durative or itera-
16. For more instances, see Sonnek 1940; Streck 1995a: 10611; Metzler 2002: 52039. 17. See Streck 1995a: 10911 and 193 for a discussion and more literature. In Indo-European languages, too, the use of the (historical) present or the imperfective of verbs of speech is widespread to introduce direct speech in narrative; see Kiparsky 1968: 32 n. 3 and Fleischman 1990: 8283. 18. For similar cases in Old Assyrian, see GKT 74c; for Middle Babylonian, see Aro 1955: 80; for Neo-Assyrian, see Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 11112.
94
tive nuance, or rather that of verbal plurality in general (cf. in particular Metzler 2002: 495517, 88891) may be a residue of its original pluractional function (see 4.4, p. 9597).19 In the protasis of conditional clauses, the use of the imperfective is determined by its temporal relationship to the main clause, just as in the subordinate clauses quoted so far. The imperfective indicates that the event of the protasis either has not yet taken place or has started but is not yet completed. In the former case, the protasis often indicates an intention, usually in punctual verbs: (11) KH 138: 1417 (OB) umma awlum rtau a mr l uldum i-iz-zi-ib if a man wants/intends to leave his first wife who has not born him children.20 In the latter case, the meaning of the verb is usually durative or iterative and denotes ongoing or repeated processes or activities, which are not temporally bounded by the realization of the apodosis. This occurs only rarely in legal texts, as in (12), but is ubiquitous in all kinds of omen texts; for example, (13): (12) KH 141:3342 (OB) umma aat awlim (. . .) bssa -s-ap-pa-a mussa -a-am-a if the wife of a man (. . .) squanders her estate and treats her husband badly21 (13) CT 40, 34: r.8 (SB) (if a horse has become rabid and) l tappu l aml -na-ak bites all the time/wants to bite/tries to bite/is prone to biting its companion or people. The perfective and the t-perfect would indicate that the event is completed at the moment referred to in the apodosis; see 5.3 (pp. 127128), 6.3.1 (p. 148), and GAV pp. 15457, and compare (13) with (14): (14) CT 40, 34: r.16 (SB) umma ss ana bt amli rubma l imra l amla i-uk if a horse has entered a mans house and has bitten a donkey or a person. A striking example of an imperfective indicating uncompleted action in a umma-clause occurs in the following pair of protases: (15A) HUCA 41/2, 90: II 2732 (OB) umma erm l nnam l iram ibatma ipparamma ina mu-u-u-ur awlim i-ku-ul if an eagle has caught a fish or a bird, has flown away and has eaten (kul: Pfv) it on a mans roof22 (that man will experience a loss) (15B) ibid., 91: III 1417 um[ma] er[m] ina r awlim summata i-ka-al-ma u-ta-ad-du--u
19. As Bybee et al. (1994: 1517) have shown, the synchronic use of a grammatical category may still bear traces of the earlier stages it went through during its grammaticalization. In that case, it is an instance of what Hopper (1991: 2830) calls persistence. See also the comments by Metzler (2002: 891) and Loesov (2004b: 413). 20. See GAG 161i; other cases are i-ig-ga-ar KH 274:22 he wants to hire (discussion in Metzler 2002: 14647) and i-na-ad-di-in KH 122:36 he wants/intends to give; -pa-a-an KAV 1: VI 41:1 he intends to veil in the Middle Assyrian laws; also passim in the recipes of YOS 11, 24/26 (see Metzler 2002: 28384 and Loesov 2004a: 141). 21. Also KH 142:72 and 143:8 (same verbs), 172:18 (-s-a-a-mu-i they put her under pressure), and 186:46 (i-i-a-a he searches). 22. I interpret ina mu-u-u-ur awlim as ina mu(i) r awlim with crasis (GAG 17b).
4.4. The Historical Background ofiparrVs if an eagle wants to eat/starts to eat (kkal: Impfv) a dove on a mans roof, but people have forced it to drop it (that man will increase in wealth) (similarly, ibid., 92: IV 4 versus 12)
95
In (15A), the perfective is used as it normally is in conditional protases; in (15B) its use is avoided because it would mislead the hearer into thinking that the act of eating was completed successfully, and the imperfective is used instead. The imperfective excludes the implication of a single, completed event that adheres to the use of the perfective. This explains why in umma clauses we often find the imperfective of the Gtn-stem contrasting with the perfective of the G-stem, as in (16):23 (16) Dreams 330:5657 (SB) umma nra i-la-a (. . .) umma nra i-ta-na-lu if he has dipped (Pfv G) into a river (. . .); if he dips (Impfv Gtn) into a river time and again The various uses of the imperfective suggest that it may be described as an aspect (denoting incompleted action) and as a relative tense (denoting non-anteriority).24 This conclusion would also be in line with the corresponding categories in other Semitic languages, in particular the imperfective (yaqtVlu) of Classical Arabic, which is part of a basic opposition between simultaneity (yaqtVlu) and anteriority (qatVla) (Kuryowicz 1973). However, the temporal use of the Akkadian imperfective is so dominant in terms of frequency that it is best regarded basically as a tense,25 the more so because the contrasting categories, the perfective iprVs and the t-Pf iptarVs, are clearly temporal in function as well. It is possible that the more temporal nature of the Akkadian imperfective as compared to Ar yaqtVlu is a consequence of the rise of iparrVs instead of the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, -nV: one might argue that the development from a pluractional to a progressive focusing on the actual moment of speech (see 4.4.3.3, pp. 107109, below) has enhanced the temporal nature of the imperfective and that its marginal use in past contexts is a residue of its older, more aspectual function.
4.4. the Historical Background ofiparrVs

The G-stem imperfective iparrVs is firmly established from the earliest attested period onward: it shows no significant differences between Babylonian and Assyrian, nor do the very few reliable data about the imperfective in Eblaite reveal any.26 This shows that it had already fully developed in Proto-East Semitic. The few changes that occur during the historical period of Akkadian are instantiations of general phonological processes not specific to the imperfective, such as the spread of E-colouring (see 17.5, pp. 525537) and vowel contraction, or shifts from one vowel class to another in individual verbs (see 3.5.3, pp. 7581). None of these affect the essence of the category. A type of development that is conspicuously absent in Akkadian is the re23. The Gtn perfective is hardly found at all in such contexts. Most alleged instances recorded as such in the dictionaries are undoubtedly t-perfects of the G-stem. 24. For the Akkadian verb as basically aspectual, see Tropper 1998b: 15759 and Stempel 1999: 127; for descriptions as a relative tense system, see, for instance, Kuryowicz 1973 and Streck 1995a: 19094. See also Kouwenberg 1998: 81516 and in particular the discussion in Loesov 2004b: 4019. 25. See the section on terminology (pp. xxixxii) for an explanation of why I continue to call it imperfective in the present study. 26. For the G imperfective in Eblaite, see Gelb 1992: 190; Krebernik 1988a: 59 with n. 37; 1996: 245; Edzard 2006: 7980; and Rubio 2006: 122; e.g., i-da-a- /yiaa/ they come near, cf. Bab e (see chap. 2 n. 63, p. 51), and i-na-- ARET 5, 1: VI 8 he lives (/yinaa/), cf. Bab nu to live, to recover.
96
The Historical Background ofiparrVs 4.4.
newal of the imperfective by means of periphrastic forms or grammaticalized participleswhich is such a prominent feature of almost all other Semitic languages.27 Consequently, there is little direct evidence from Akkadian itself to clarify the prehistory of iparrVs by means of internal reconstruction. There are, however, some soft indications that point in a certain direction. First, gemination, especially of the second radical, has a clear iconic background in Akkadian (GAV pp. 2426): it reflects an increase in expressivity, intensity, and in particular plurality, both nominal and verbal. Several grammatical and lexical categories in Akkadian combine gemination with some type of expressive, intensive, or pluractional meaning (see 10.8.1, p. 256, for this term): Nominal plurality underlined by gemination of R2in addition to the normal plural endingsis found in a few individual nouns: abb fathers (Ass abb) from abu, a brothers from au, atu sisters (Ass autum) from atu, and i trees from iu; in a group of adjectives of the pattern PaRRaS (rarely PaRRiS) denoting dimensions, e.g., arraku long, seeru (Ass *aaru > auru) small, young, and rabb big < *rabbium (GAV pp. 5257); and in adjectives of the pattern PuRRuS (Ass PaRRuS), which is often used as the plural of simple adjectives and statives (GAV pp. 35971). Verbal plurality underlined by gemination of R2 is found in the D-stem of transitive verbs, which are often pluractional and sometimes intensive (see 11.3.4, pp. 274277, and GAV pp. 11775); in the pluractional Gtn-stem (see 14.7.2, p. 417); and in the agent nouns of the patterns PaRRS and PaRRiS, which denote habitual activities, often professions (GAV pp. 5866). Expressivity and intensity underlined by gemination of R2 is found in the group of PuRRuS (Ass PaRRuS) adjectives that denote highly expressive and stable qualities, often salient bodily characteristics (GAV pp. 37178).28 It also occurs in a small number of (substantivized) adjectives with unusual patterns, most of which are exceedingly rare (GAV p. 34): e.g., akkru drunkard from akru to be(come) drunk), muttqu sweetmeats from matqu sweet, and kussimtu cut wood from kasmu to cut (gikuus-s-im-tam ARM 28, 152:8). The use of gemination in these categories is completely conventionalized, i.e., a speaker of Akkadian could not replace a single consonant by a geminate ad libitum,29 and is the result of a long
27. It is not a foregone conclusion that such replacements were completely absent; if they existed, they must have concerned (at least initially) the imperfective in its function of referring to the moment of speech. However, as Loesov (2004a: 13132 n. 107; 2004b: 41617; 2005) has aptly observed, this function of the imperfective is very poorly represented in our sources, which because of their nature contain far more imperfective forms with other meanings, such as future, prescriptive, general imperfective, and prohibitive. The concomitant use of the imperfective is typical of dialogue, which is heavily underrepresented. Moreover, this kind of renewal typically starts in everyday speech and does not penetrate into the written language until much later (or perhaps not at all, if this language is conservative and/or highly stereotyped, as most forms of late Akkadian are). 28. These instances of the pattern PuRRuS must be distinguished from the far more numerous PuRRuS forms that serve as stative/past participle to the corresponding D-stem. In GAV pp. 34244, I call these two functions of PuRRuS the lexical and the inflectional function, respectively. The inflectional PuRRuS forms cannot be used as evidence for the (erstwhile) existence and the meaning of adjectives with gemination since their meaning is derived from that of the D-stem. 29. There are several expressions attested in Akkadian showing that a living iconic effect could be achieved by repeating an entire word, e.g., (trtum) lapt lapt they (the omens) are unfavourable each time from an OB Mari letter quoted by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, NABU 1988/17 no. [34]. An inter-
4.4. The Historical Background ofiparrVs
97
process of grammaticalization. Even though the Impfv iparrVs has little or no relationship with plurality, it seems reasonable to assume that its gemination has the same background but that grammaticalization replaced plurality with the more abstract aspectual function of imperfectivity, a kind of process for which there are ample parallels in Afroasiatic, as I will argue in the next sections.30 This also implies that iparrVs has a very long history: its genesis as a form (whatever its function) must date back to a remote period, a fact that is confirmed by the Afroasiatic parallels I discuss below. Second, the inflectional stem of iparrVs is an intruder within the paradigm of the G-stem: with the exception of the t-perfect, which is generally agreed to be an intruder as well, all other members are based on the simple triradical root without consonantal additions.31 This ties in with the fact that there is no predictable formal relationship between imperfective and perfective (see 5.2, pp. 126127). Since the latter is of unsuspected Proto-Semitic extraction, it is likely that it already existed when iparrVs emerged as its imperfective counterpart. All these facts point to iparrVs having a different background from the rest of the verbal paradigm and therefore also being a relative newcomer.32 Third, in comparative perspective, this is further supported by the fact that the imperfective has no exact cognates in other Semitic languages: the corresponding forms in Central Semitic, such as Ar yaqtVlu, have no gemination, and South Semitic has an imperfective that does have gemination but differs from Akkadian in some important respects (see 4.6.1, pp. 117121). These facts suggest that the Impfv iparrVs represents a renewal of an older imperfective.
4.4.1. ThecontroversyabouttheProto-Semiticimperfective
The historical background of the Akkadian imperfective with gemination and its relationship to the imperfective forms of West Semitic is one of the most controversial issues of comparative Semitics.33 The Semitic languages generally show two kinds of forms to express the imperfective: East Semitic and South Semitic use a prefixed stem that either has gemination (Akk iparrVs and Geez yqattl ) or had it originally (Modern South Arabian, e.g., Mehri yrkz); Central Semitic uses a simple prefixed stem without gemination but (at least originally) with a suffix -u/mediate stage must have been the use of reduplication, and there are indeed a few instances of the use of reduplication for repetition in the Akkadian verb; see chap. 15. 30. The same happened in the D-stem of intransitive verbs, where the original association with expressivity and intensity was grammaticalized as the factitive function, also a shift from lexical (more concrete) to grammatical (more abstract) (see 11.6.2, pp. 282287). 31. If we consider the forms of the verbal categories alone, it looks as if all forms are derived from the perfective (iprVs), which does have the expected simple stem. This also applies to those of the derived stems that have different inflectional stems, such as the Gt-stem and the N-stem. The Gt PrPartc muptar(i)sum, for instance, looks as if it derives from the Pfv iptaras rather than from the Impfv iptarras, and the N PrPartc muppar(i)sum seems to come from ipparis rather than from ipparras. In view of the dominant position of the imperfective, this is an anomaly, which may be explained on the basis of a scenario in which the form with gemination is a replacement of an earlier form with the simple stem. 32. This is also argued by Rundgren 1955: 32325. The situation of a single inflectional stem for the whole G-stem paradigm (and mutatis mutandis also for all individual derived verbal stems) still exists in Central Semitic (Gensler 1997: 23031). Gensler points to the curious exception of the madar of Stem II in Arabic (taqtl from qattala), for which see 14.6.1 (pp. 400402). 33. I will not repeat here the full history of the debate. It has been described by many others: see, in particular, Rundgren 1959a: 12940; Moscati, ed. 1964: 13334; Hodge, ed. 1971: 1719; Fleisch 1979: 20724; Kienast 2001: 29395. For a bibliography, see also Knudsen 1982: 9 n. 24 with additions in Knudsen 1984/86: 238 n. 1 and 1998: 5 n. 8. An important more recent contribution is T. D. Anderson (2000).
98
nV to distinguish it from another form with the same stem without suffix, which serves as a past tense and/or an irrealis category. The fundamental issue is whether the similarity between the East Semitic and the South Semitic imperfectives justifies the reconstruction of a geminated imperfective in Proto-Semitic, or whether Proto-Semitic instead had an imperfective based on the simple prefix conjugation, like Ar yaqtulu, -na. The former option originates with P. Haupt (1878), who proposed associating Akk ikaad with Geez yqatl (in his notation). Those who follow him ascribe a tense/aspect system with (at least) three different inflectional stems to Proto-Semitic: a long prefix stem with gemination and imperfective function (*yiqattVl-); a short prefix stem without gemination, which has both perfective (or preterite) and irrealis functions (*yiqtVl); and a suffix stem (the stative in Akkadian, the perfect in West Semitic). Those who opt for the latter possibility reconstruct a tense/aspect system with two inflectional stems: a simple prefix stem that performs multiple functions by means of different suffixes, at least the imperfective (*yiqtulu, -nV) and the perfective/jussive (*yiqtul, -), and the suffix stem for the stative/perfect. If we call the former view the three-stem system and the latter the two-stem system, we can summarize this as in Table 4.2: Impfv three-stem (Akk/SSem) two-stem (CSem) -QaTTvLPfv/ Juss -QTvL-QTvLStat/Perf QaTvLQaTvL-
table 4.2: the inflectional stems of the basic verb in semitic.
Neither the three-stem nor the two-stem system as they are currently described offers a plausible explanation for the development of the Semitic verbal system. The three-stem system is unsatisfactory for three reasons. (1) The first concerns the status of the simple prefix form with the suffix -u, -nV, which survives in the Arabic Impfv yaqtulu, -na. The similarity in form between this form and the Akkadian subjunctive in its Assyrian form iprusu, -ni compels us to reconstruct *yiqtulu, -nV in Proto-Semitic, as I will argue in 9.3.3 (pp. 228231). However, which function did it have? Was it an imperfective as in Arabic, a subjunctive as in Akkadian, or something else? Actually, it cannot have been the Proto-Semitic imperfective, if one claims that this function was performed by *yiqattVl-. The usual explanation is, therefore, that the suffix -u, -nV was a marker of subordination but spread to main clauses in Central Semitic and developed into an imperfective marker. This is typologically unlikely, since the usual development goes in the opposite direction: verb forms restricted to subordinate clauses are typically residual categories that were once in general use but were ousted from main clauses by a competing form (see in particular Haspelmath 1998 and 9.3.3, pp. 229231).34 (2) Second, in all attested instances of the renewal of present categories as described by various authors,35 the innovating form is more contrasting, more voluminous, andat least origi-
34. The purely theoretical nature of the Szenarium that Voigt (2004: 4950) proposes to explain the spread of *yiqtVlu, -nV from subordinate to main clauses eloquently shows the lack of any substantial evidence for such a process. The development proposed by Hamori (1973) and adopted by Rubin (2005: 14748) is implausible for the same reason: it requires that a subordinate form *yiqtVlu in relative clauses was powerful and frequent enough to spread to main clauses and oust a better marked and doubtless far more frequently used imperfective with gemination. 35. E.g., Bybee et al. 1994:12575; D. Cohen 1984; Haspelmath 1998.
99
nallymore transparent than the old one.36 This is what we would expect, since the renewal is motivated by the desire to encode the category in question in a more expressive and/or more user-friendly way. According to these criteria, it is unlikely that *yiqtVlu, -nV is a replacement of *yiqattVl-. Quite to the contrary, they suggest that *yiqattVl- replaced *yiqtVlu, -nV, since it has a stronger marking, is more transparent because of its gemination, and is more clearly differentiated from the (original) perfective *yiqtVl, -. (3) The third major deficiency of the three-stem system is that there is no trace of *yiqattVlin Central Semitic.37 It is of course quite normal for grammatical categories to drop out of use, but this particular case is inconsistent with everything we know about the evolution of verbal categories. If *yiqattVl- was indeed the Proto-Semitic imperfective, it was the basic form of the verbal paradigm and therefore a very unlikely candidate for vanishing without a trace. The usual fate of similar categories in other languages is that they are replaced by more expressive ones in a gradual process that tends to leave a residue of older forms, often in secondary functions (Haspelmath 1998). This is the picture that clearly arises from D. Cohens (1984) investigation into the verbal systems of other Semitic languages. There are no such phenomena relating to a geminated imperfective in Central Semitic.38 This is even more surprising, since the development of the Akkadian imperfective outside the G-stem shows that the introduction of a new imperfective in the G-stem has a strong influence on imperfective forms of other categories, as we will see in 4.5.2 (pp. 112115), and that the same seems to have happened with the geminated imperfective in Geez (but in a different way; see 4.6.1, pp. 120121). There is no trace of such an influence in any of the Central Semitic imperfective forms. So much for the main objections against the three-stem system. The two-stem system also has a major defect, insofar as it implies that Proto-Semitic did not have a form *yiqattVl-. This is inconceivable for at least three reasons. (1) First, *yiqattVl- has parallels in Afroasiatic namely, the Berber imperfective with gemination and the Beja imperfective with infixed nasal, which suggest that *yiqattVl- has an Afroasiatic background; see further 4.4.3.2 (pp. 104107). (2) Second, although Akkadian iparrVs may arguably be younger than *yiqtVlu, -nV as an imperfective, it does not look like a recent formation, as Voigt (1990a; 2004: 3538) rightly points out, and it is hard to envisage how it could have developed in the relatively short period between Proto-Semitic and Proto-East-Semitic.39 (3) Third, in reconstructing the prehistory of a language, it is generally more plausible to assume a process of simplification than the emergence of a totally
36. Opaque forms are generally older than transparent forms, as emphasized by Voigt in the context of the Proto-Semitic verb (1990a: 8789; 2004: 3536). 37. There is a long discussion about this issue; see the earlier literature collected by Knudsen (1982: 9 n. 25), but a broad consensus seems to have grown that there are no reliable traces of *yiqattVl- in Central Semitic, as may appear from recent contributions, such as T. D. Anderson 2000: 25 and Kerr 2001. It is significant that Rainey (1996: II 22734) does not find traces of it in Amarna Akkadian, nor does Tropper (2000: 46061) in Ugaritic. However, some dissenting voices remain: Lipiski 1997: 339; Kottsieper 2000; Voigt 2004: 5051 (see Kerr 2001: 14547 for a criticism of Kottsieper). For Amorite, an imperfective with gemination is sometimes assumed on the basis of a handful of proper names (Kerr 2001: 136), but others find the evidence inconclusive (von Soden 1985; Knudsen 1991: 879 with n. 14). 38. See, however, n. 50 (below, p. 102) on possible traces of *yiqattal- as a derived verbal stem. 39. Because of the (probable) amount of time separating Proto-Semitic from Akkadian, we should regard all Akkadian verb forms as Proto-Semitic, since however long this period may have lasted, it was certainly too short to allow for the rise of the relatively opaque verbal categories of Akkadian; relatively young categories are generally more transparent in form, such as the periphrastic categories of West Semitic (Voigt 2004: 3743).
100
new category (Voigt 1990a: 93).40 It is therefore more likely that the two-stem system of Central Semitic is a reduction of an older, more comprehensive system than that the three-stem system is a relatively recent extension of the two-stem system (Voigt 2004: 36).
4.4.2. TheemergenceofiparrVs
The circumstantial evidence discussed in 4.4 suggests a solution that obviates the shortcomings of both the three-stem and the two-stem systemsnamely, to reconstruct both imperfective forms in Proto-Semitic: a basic imperfective *yiqtVlu, -nV and a derived imperfective *yiqattal-, which gemination reveals to have originally been the imperfective of a derived stem with pluractional function. This leads to the following hypothetical account of what happened after the proto-language split up into the historically attested branches. (1) The basic stem of the Proto-Semitic verb had an Impfv *yiqtVlu, -nV, which is reconstructible on the basis of the correspondence between the Ar yaqtulu, -na and the Akkadian Subj iprusu, -ni (see 9.3.3, pp. 228231).41 (2) In addition, Proto-Semitic had a derived verbal stem serving for the expression of verbal plurality, similar in function to the later Gtn-stem of Akkadian: a pluractional G-stem, or GPL-stem. Its imperfective can be reconstructed as *yiqattal-, with gemination of R2. It is different from the D-stem, which had an Impfv *yuqattilu, -nV (see below).42 (3) After the Proto-Semitic stage, East Semitic substituted its basic imperfective with that of the GPL-stem. The ultimate motive for this change was the need to increase the formal contrast between the Impfv *yiqtVlu, -nV and the Pfv *yiqtVl, -, which was apparently felt to be insufficient since they only differed in the presence or absence of the suffix -u/-nV; this issue will further be discussed in 18.3.1 (p. 591). Therefore, it was only the imperfective and not the entire
40. Hetzron (1976a) calls this the principle of archaic heterogeneity and invokes it (1976a: 104) to argue for the primacy of the Akkadian and South Semitic systems, with their geminated imperfectives, over the Central Semitic system, with the imperfective *yiqtVlu. This principle says that, if cognate languages share a specific (sub)system that is similar enough to be related but more heterogeneous in one language than in another, the relatively most heterogeneous system may be regarded as the most archaic, and the more homogeneous ones are more likely to result from simplification (1976a: 93). Accordingly, Hetzron (1976a: 104) argues that the three-stem system of Akkadian and South Semitic is more archaic than the two-stem system of Central Semitic and closer to Proto-Semitic. The same reasoning is implicit in Voigt 1990a: 93. I accept the general usefulness of Hetzrons principle for morphological developments and I agree with his conclusion insofar as the Akkadian imperfective is concerned, but for the evolution of verbal categories in general the principle can easily be shown to be invalid, if we compare the expression of the present tense in other languages, e.g., in modern English and standard German: English has two present categories, a simple present (I write) and a compound present, the progressive (I am writing), whereas standard German only has one (ich schreibe). According to the principle of archaic heterogeneity, the English situation would be more original and the German one would result from a simplification. However, we actually know that the reverse is true: German has preserved the Proto-Germanic situation with a single (reconstructible) present, and English has innovated (see also Bybee et al. 1994: 144). The same applies to the rise of past tense forms, which tend to be enriched by old resultatives or completives (Kuryowicz 1975: 106, 128; Bybee et al. 1994: 51105). In an earlier article (1975: 127), Hetzron still adds a reservation to the validity of his principle: unless we find obvious motivation for the enrichment of the richer system. This is clearly the case where the renewal of verbal categories is concerned. 41. Everything points to Ar yaqtVlu, -na not being an innovation but an ancient form (Voigt 2004: 3637), the great antiquity of which is further demonstrated by parallels of the -u/-nV suffix in Cushitic (Hetzron 1974) and Chadic (Voigt 1988a: 121); see further 18.3.1 (p. 589). 42. For the time being, I will write this derived form as *yiqattal-. In 4.5.3 below (pp. 115117), I will discuss whether or not it also had the ending -u/-nV of the basic Impfv *yiqtVlu.
101
conjugation of the G-stem that was replaced. In this respect, the emergence of iparrVs from the GPL-stem is parallel to that of the t-Pf iptarVs from the Gt-stem, which is also an individual form taken from a complete conjugation (with the important difference that in the case of the t-perfect we know this for certain, since this conjugation continued to be used in its original function).43 The extension of the use of yaqattal- was accompanied by a corresponding weakening of its association with plurality: from a pluractional he kills all the time, repeatedly, etc., it developed into a progressive he is killing and took over the hic-et-nunc function of the basic Impfv *yiqtVlu and later also most of its other functions (Kuryowicz 1962: 5960; see below for parallels). This was a specifically Akkadian innovation in which West Semitic took no part: Central Semitic continued to use the Proto-Semitic basic Impfv *yiqtVlu, -nV, and South Semitic initially did the same, but followed the example of Akkadian in a later stage and replaced it with a form with gemination of R2 (Geez yqattl; see 4.6.1, pp. 117121). In Akkadian, the ancient basic imperfective was relegated to subordinate clauses, where its ending was reanalyzed as a marker of subordination (Kuryowicz 1972: 60; see 9.3.3, pp. 228231). The view that Proto-Semitic had two coexisting imperfective forms has also been proposed by other scholars, but it does not seem to have been elaborated systematically.44 In particular, it was advocated by Rssler (1950: 466 and elsewhere) and Kuryowicz (1962: 53, 5960; cf. also 1972: 5354).45 Prima facie, this view may seem no more than a weak compromise between conflicting viewpoints. Moreover, we should generally avoid multiplying the number of morphosyntactic categories that we reconstruct, not only for the sake of simplicity, but also because the more categories we posit, the weaker the explanatory power of our model becomes.46 In this case, however, the reconstruction of two imperfective forms in Proto-Semitic is fully justified, since it offers a relatively straightforward explanation of the state of affairs attested in the diverse languages and a plausible account of the processes that have led to it, supported by some evidence from cognate languages (see 4.4.3.2) and abundant typological evidence (see 4.4.3.3). The scenario outlined above accounts for most of the problems raised by both the three-stem and the two-stem systems: 1. It gives due credit to the high antiquity of iparrVs: iparrVs is an innovation, but only insofar as it has a new function, as Kuryowicz (1973: 120 n. 5) emphasizes: The renewal did not consist in the creation of a new form, but in the shift derivative > inflectional form, i.e., in the incorporation of a derivative into the system of conjugation. 2. It explains the different functions of *yiqtVlu, -nV in Akkadian and Central Semitic as the typologically common restriction of an old form to secondary contexts: *yiqtVlu, -nV
43. Faced with the same problem, West Semitic chose to renew the perfective *yiqtVl by replacing it with the suffix conjugation qatala; see 18.3.1 (pp. 591). 44. In several publications, W. von Soden suggested the existence of a contrast between a durative and a punctual imperfective, of which the former has gemination (1957: 207a; 1991b: 469). Similar views were expressed by Blau (1971: 144), T. D. Anderson (2000: 2425), and Kerr (2001: 154). 45. The scenario proposed here notably differs from Rsslers in that Rssler regards the geminated imperfective as part of the basic stem rather than as an (originally) derived stem. This leads to the difficulties inherent in the three-stem system discussed above. 46. This is perhaps more evident in historical phonology: in reconstructing the phoneme inventory of a proto-language, we can easily achieve complete regularity if we posit a different phoneme for each individual sound correspondence we find. However, apart from leading to a an atypical number of phonemes for the proto-language, the resulting system will obscure important generalizations and so conceal rather than clarify what actually happened in the course of its development.
102
preserves its original function in Central Semitic but was relegated to subordinate clauses in Akkadian. 3. It reduces the absence of *yiqattal- in Central Semitic to a problem of more manageable proportions. As I argued above, this is a major problem for the three-stem system as it is usually formulated. It remains an explanandum, of course, but if *yiqattal- is a derived imperfective with pluractional meaning, most of the reasons why its disappearance is so unlikely are no longer valid. A derived pluractional is interchangeable with an analytical (lexical) construction and can therefore easily be replaced by it, a process that is crosslinguistically very common.47 In this particular case, one could plausibly argue that the disappearance of *yiqattal- is related to competition with the D-stem:48 two derived stems with the same basic marker, even though they have a different origin, may easily influence each other. 4. It clarifies the relationship between iparrVs and the D-stem. In spite of the fact that both categories share gemination of R2, they have a different origin: the D-stem is originally a denominal category derived from adjectives (see 11.6.2, pp. 283284), whereas the Impfv *yiqattal- originates in the category of fientive verbs (see below for details). Neither of them is derived from the other.49 However, if we assume that *yiqattal- had a complete conjugation, their conjugations must have been rather similar, especially in the forms without prefixes; see 4.5.3 below.50
47. See van Loon 2005: 43, 8183 about the loss of marked categories. 48. The loss of the imperfective with gemination in Central Semitic is often ascribed to its formal similarity to the D-stem (e.g., Brockelmann 1951: 143; Polotsky 1964: 11011; Hetzron 1975: 127; 1976a: 105; Voigt 2004: 49). Their view crucially differs from the one proposed here in that they regard *yiqattal- as the basic imperfective of Proto-Semitic. Ratcliffe (1998b: 123) claims that gemination became redundant once the suffix conjugation had become established as the usual indicator of the perfective tense/aspect in West Semitic). However, these are post factum arguments that are only relevant if we have first established the existence of such an imperfective on other grounds. Note that in Akkadian the G-stem Impfv iparrVs and the D-stem forms uparras and uparris have coexisted for several millennia without observable problems. 49. The relationship between iparrVs and the D-stem has played a prominent role in the discussion. Rundgren, in particular, argued (1959a: 12627, 267, and elsewhere) that iparrVs arose from prefixation of the stative patterns qata/i/ul under the influence of the D-stem, in order to renew the cursive (i.e., imperfective) aspect, his famous remploi de lintensif. However, there is no good reason to posit any formal connection between the stative and the imperfective; see the next note (n. 50). For similar objections, see, for instance, Kienast 2001: 294. 50. It is not impossible that remnants of *yiqattalu as a derived stem are found in a few Hebrew D-stems, such as dibber to speak, zimmer to make music, riqqed to dance, and hillek to go. They are atypical because of their meaning (durative activities of low transitivity) and/or the absence of a corresponding basic stem, as was already observed by Landsberger (1926b: 972) and several other scholars after him, e.g., Goetze (1942: 78), von Soden (1957: 2067), Kuryowicz (1962: 53), Aro (1964: 19394), Kerr (2001: 14748), and H.-P. Mller (2003: 439). As durative verbs, they were relatively often used in the derived pluractional *yiqattal- and may therefore have survived the decline and ultimate disappearance of this form, to be incorporated in the very similar D conjugation, in spite of their aberrant meaning. The atypical nature of these verbs may also have a different backgroundthey may be denominal, for instancebut the present explanation is supported by a few atypical Hithpael forms in Hebrew and perhaps by the vowel pattern of the Arabic Stem V (yataqattalu), as I will argue in 14.5.5 (p. 394). It is also possible that the existence of agent noun patterns with gemination in West Semitic thatjust as their Akkadian counterparts PaRRS and PaRRiSsemantically do not belong to the D-stem (Loretz 1960; Kerr 2001: 15054) also testifies to the erstwhile existence of a verbal category with gemination different from the D-stem. Finally, it is conceivable that the well-known alternation of II/gem and II/voc roots in Arabic and Hebrew discussed by Kuryowicz
103
5. It decides the controversy about whether gemination is the actual imperfective marker or whether it is a secondary phenomenonfor instance, a consequence of a stress shift, to preclude syncope of the vowel between R1 and R2, etc. The original pluractional function indicates that gemination is the essential and defining feature of *yiqattal-.51 An important consequence of this scenario is that Central Semitic preserves the Proto-Semitic paradigm of the basic stem most faithfully, in particular the Impfv *yiqtVlu, -nV, which has become Arabic yaqtulu, -na, and the Pfv *yiqtVl, -, which is preserved in Arabic as a past tense after the negation lam and in the Hebrew imperfective with waw consecutive wayyiqol. With regard to South Semitic, we might argue that it replaced its original imperfective with that of the derived pluractional in the same way as Akkadian. There are good reasons, however, to separate iparrVs from yqattl and regard their emergence as parallel but independent processes. I will discuss this issue in detail in 4.6.1 (pp. 117123).
4.4.3. Evidence
There are three kinds of evidence in favour of the reconstruction proposed in the preceding section: internal historical evidence from Akkadian itself (4.4.3.1), comparative evidence from Afroasiatic (4.4.3.2), and typological evidence, especially from other Semitic and Afroasiatic languages, to be discussed in 4.4.3.3.
4.4.3.1. HistoricalevidencefromAkkadian
The Akkadian evidence in support of the scenario proposed above concerns two phenomena, the Assyrian form of the subjunctive and the tan-stems. The endings of the Akkadian subjunctive in the form in which they may be reconstructed for (Pre-)Assyrian are so similar to those of the imperfective of Classical Arabic that the two categories must have a common origin. The
(1972: 1011), e.g., Ar dakka (u) and dka ( ) to grind, He zrr to squeeze and zwr to press, wring, goes back to a reinterpretation of pluractional forms as basic verbs; see 16.6.2 (pp. 495496). 51. This controversy was mainly sparked by the initial uncertainty about the exact form of the Akkadian imperfective, iparVs or iparrVs. The defective spelling of geminates and the reluctance to accept the existence of gemination as a grammatical marker in the basic stem led scholars to claim that iparVs is the primary imperfective form (usually explained as a derivation of iprVs by means of vowel insertion and a shift of stress) and that gemination is secondary and only served to safeguard this a from being syncopated (e.g., Sayce [1877: 3940], Klingenheben [1956: 21819], Gelb [1969: 205], Janssens [1972], Diakonoff [1988: 86], H.-P. Mller [1998: 149], Kropp [1999: 100] and Rubio [2006: 124, 131]). Other Semitists, inspired by the identity of the vowel in the final syllable of Akk iparras and the West Semitic active/transitive perfect qatala, have maintained that there is a genetic relationship between them and that iparras arose from prefixation of a stative pattern PaRaS and secondary insertion of gemination for the same reason. This was first proposed by Barth (1887) and followed by many illustrious others, such as Delitzsch (1889: 23536), Brockelmann (1908: 569), Bauer (1910: 44), Rundgren (1959a: 12627; 1963b: 106), and Kuryowicz (1962: 55). However, it is only based on the superficial similarity of the shared a-vowel in the final syllable of both forms. Aro (1964: 18) rightly calls it ein Spiel des Zufalls. There are no other reasons to suppose that there is a connection between qatala (which is undoubtedly a secondary development specific to West Semitic) and iparras. At least since the publication of W. von Sodens GAG in 1952 (and even earlier, from A. Goetzes studies; see n. 1 in this chapter, p. 88), it has been established wisdom that the Akkadian G-stem imperfective always has gemination. This means that all these speculations are irrelevant (so also Kienast 1982: 19; 1995: 126; 2001: 294). The argument that the vowel a after the first radical is the actual imperfective marker becomes invalid if we regard gemination as original: this a is the default vowel in all verbal forms in which R2 consists of a geminate or a cluster (and in many others as well), so that an intervening vowel is necessary. It is purely morphological and does not have a morphosyntactic function (see also Buccellati 1996: 88).
104
hypothesis that the subjunctive is a residual form that in its core function was replaced by the new imperfective with gemination offers a plausible explanation for their difference in function. I will come back to this issue in 9.3.3 (pp. 228231). Furthermore, the tan-stems provide indirect proof of the original pluractional function of iparrVs. Since their historical development can best be treated in the context of the development of the t-infix in Akkadian in chap. 14, I will only give a brief summary here. The tan-stems are an Akkadian innovation, but the oldest forms of their conjugation are rooted in Proto-Semitic, specifically in the Pfv iptarrVs. IptarrVs goes back to a form with gemination of R2 and the marker t, which was originally prefixed: *yi-t(a)-qattal-. In some prehistoric stage of Akkadian, this form became *yiqtattal, the direct ancestor of iptarrVs. The double marking shows it to be the pluractional of the Gt-stem *yiqtatVl-. However, after iparrVs had ousted *yiqtVlu, -nV as the basic imperfective, iptarrVs was re-employed to provide the new imperfective with a new pluractional counterpart, thus restoring the old contrast between a neutral and a pluractional form, see Table 4.3. Proto-Semitic basic Impfv plur. Impfv *yiqtVlu, -nV *yiqattalAkkadian iparrVs iptarrVs
table 4.3: Basic and pluractional imperfectives in Proto-semitic and Akkadian.
Thus the form iptarrVs testifies to the former existence of a derived pluractional imperfective in the Gt-stem. The principle that a marked category will not show distinctions that the corresponding unmarked category does not have entails that the G-stem must have had a derived pluractional as well.52 It is not difficult to guess what it must have looked like: gemination but no t-infix, in other words, *yiqattal-. As I will argue in chap. 14, this process was ultimately made possible by the previous decline of the Gt-stem, which already started in Proto-Semitic. The Gtn-stem is only one of several categories that owe their emergence to this decline and the ensuing reemployment of some of its forms for different purposes. The historically attested conjugation of the Gtn-stem with the Impfv iptanarrVs as its most salient member is based on iptarrVs, and the other tan-stems are based on the Gtn-stem; see further 14.7.6 (pp. 431437).
4.4.3.2. ComparativeevidencefromAfroasiatic
Outside Semitic, there are imperfective forms in Afroasiatic languages that show a striking resemblance to the Akkadian imperfective iparrVs. The forms most widely discussed come from the Berber languages and the Cushitic language Beja (Bedauye).53 In spite of considerable differences among the Berber languages, their verbal paradigm can generally be described as comprising three categories for the expression of affirmative predicates (we will not be concerned with the additional categories used in negative clauses): an aorist, a perfective, and a third form that is basically a kind of imperfective, usually construed with
52. For this principle, see, for instance, Greenberg 1966: 2728. 53. The main protagonists of the relevance of these forms for Proto-Semitic are Rssler (1950, 1951, 1952, and elsewhere), Greenberg (1952), Voigt (e.g., 2002: 28186); see also Rubio 2003a: 17276; 2006: 12332. Others have denied a direct relation between these forms, e.g., Klingenheben (1956: 22627); D. Cohen (1984: 7881).
105
particles. It is known under various names, in particular intensive aorist, but I will simply call it imperfective (see D. Cohen 1984: 80; Chaker 1995: 55; Kossmann 2002: 354 n. 2). It basically has two markers: either gemination of a consonant or a prefixed t- or tt-, but both procedures may be accompanied by vowel alternation (D. Cohen 1984: 7980; Kossmann 2002: 35456); see the following instances of aorist versus imperfective from Tashelhit (examples from Aspinion 1953: 26973): gemination: tt-prefixing: gemination + apophony tt-prefixing + apophony krz krrz to plough kks ttkks to take away dl ddal to cover dm ttdam to work
In Tuareg, where the reflex of a has remained distinct () from that of i and u (), the earlier vowel pattern of these forms is still visible (the examples come from Prasse 1972/4: III 86 and 92; see also Heath 2005: 34142): gemination: t-prefixing: krz krrz to plough kks tkks to take away
Which of the two basic imperfective markers applies to a given verb largely depends on the form of the basic stem (that of the aorist): gemination is particularly frequent in stems of the form CCC and CCV; prefixing is typical of longer stems, but also of monoconsonantal stems. A combination of gemination and prefixing is very unusual (Kossmann 2002: 35556). It has not gone unnoticed that the imperfective with gemination is very similar to the Akkadian imperfective.54 Rssler (1950: 467, 48384; 1951: 36669; 1952: 150) has equated it directly with iparrVs, arguing that these forms are genetically related and go back to an Afroasiatic imperfective. However, there is a wide consensus among berberologists that the imperfective is a diachronically secondary formation and that at an earlier stage the basic opposition was between the aorist and the perfective (D. Cohen 1984: 8081; Chaker 1995: 5557, 23031; Kossmann 2002: 35658, with earlier literature). This suggests that the Berber imperfective is originally a derived verbal stem that has penetrated into the tense/aspect system. Rssler (1951: 106) claims that this is not possible, because it is formed from all stems and has definite syntactic uses. However, this argument is only valid synchronically and does not say anything about its historical background, the more so because there is no doubt that the other marker, the prefix t(t)-, also goes back to a derived stem, which is well attested over the entire Afroasiatic area (Kossmann 2002: 35859). There is no reason, therefore, why the form with gemination should not have a similar origin. The Akkadian t-Pf iptarVs and, as I am arguing here, iparrVs itself show that derived stems can become inflectional members of the basic stem. The historical background of the Berber imperfective with gemination cannot be determined on the basis of Berber evidence alone but can only be studied in a wider Afroasiatic context (Kossmann 2002: 364). It is, more specifically, unclear whether we should associate it with the Akkadian imperfective iparrVs (i.e., in my account with the derived pluractional stem *yiqattal-)
54. Kossmann (2001: 7172) reconstructs the 3rd p. sg. masc. of the triradical verb in Proto-Berber as *yv-CCC (where v stands for a high vowel or ).
106
or with the D-stem (assuming that we recognize any relationship at all). Two observations should be made in this context. First, there are no clear indications of the existence of the D-stem in Afroasiatic outside Semitic (see 11.6.1, pp. 280282). If it did exist originally, the Berber languages have either lost it completely or they have conflated it with the Berber counterpart of the Proto-Semitic pluractional *yiqattal-.55 Perhaps a detailed study of the history of the Berber verb will shed more light on this matter. Second, there is one important argument in favour of associating the Berber imperfective with gemination with *yiqattal-: verbs denoting typical adjectival properties rather consistently form their imperfective by means of the prefix t(t)- rather than by gemination (see Prasse et al. 1998: 43439, 448 for Tuareg, about the verb classes IV and XIII, which comprise stative verbs; Aspinion 1953: 272 for Tashelhit, and also Lumsden 2000: 202). If the Berber imperfective is in some way related to the D-stem, we would expect these verbs to have a particular preference for using gemination, since in Semitic the D-stem is typically associated with adjectives (see 11.6.2, pp. 282287). In sum, if we assume that both the Berber imperfective with gemination and Akk iparrVs go back to the derived pluractional *yiqattal-, which thereby proves its Afroasiatic ancestry, we can plausibly account for the origin of the former as a derived stem as well as for its similarity to the Akkadian imperfective. In that case, they have both undergone a parallel process of being incorporated into the basic system as an imperfective. Among the Cushitic languages, there is one that has an imperfective reported to be genetically related to iparrVs, Beja. Here, too, the issue is controversial.56 Beja has five imperfective categories that are markedly different from each other (Voigt 1988c: 39598). One of these is characterized by an infixed -n- which in biliteral verbs comes before the first consonant, e.g., Pret dah, Impfv ndh to be fat (1st p. sg.), and in triliteral verbs before the second one, e.g., Pret bib, Impfv ambb to look (1st p. sg.) (the examples come from Voigt 1988c: 396). There are two competing explanations of the imperfective forms. The first one takes them to be the reflex of an originally periphrastic construction consisting of an auxiliary verb containing nwhich is also preserved independentlypreceding a nominal form of the verb. This n became a prefix in the biliteral imperfective forms, but by an analogical process got incorporated before the middle consonant in the triliteral ones (Voigt 1988c: 38182, with earlier literature). The second one, which was promoted by Rssler (1950) and Greenberg (1952: 6), explains the n-infix as secondary nasalization of an original geminate and equates this imperfective type directly with the geminated imperfective of Akkadian and the imperfective of Berber (Voigt 1988c: 38286). If this is correct, we must add Beja to the Berber languages and Akkadian as a third source providing evidence for the existence of a geminated imperfective in Afroasiatic. After discussing in detail the pros and cons of both theories, Voigt (1988b, 1988c) rejects the former and forcefully pleads for the latter, giving some strong arguments against the auxiliary verb hypothesis. I am not in a position to judge the issue and must leave a final judgementif possibleto the
55. The closest parallel to the Semitic D-stem in Berber is presumably to be found in the Tuareg class IV verbs with adjectival meaning, many of which have gemination of the second consonant in the perfect (parfait), e.g., izwag to be red, perfect zggag, imgar to be big, perfect mqqr/mqqor ; see Prasse et al. 1998: 422; Heath 2005: 38793; and Rssler 1952: 14647. These forms may be parallel to adjectives with gemination in Semitic, which are the starting point of the development of the D-stem (which is a denominal category of such adjectives; see 11.6.2, pp. 282285). Of course, they do not directly point to the existence of a derived verbal stem parallel to the Semitic D-stem; on the contrary, in Tuareg they have been incorporated into the paradigm of the basic stem as perfects, with a kind of resultative meaning (Prasse 1972/4: III 18184, 19396 [type c]). 56. A detailed history of research can be found in Voigt 1988c. See also Zaborski 1994a: 23637.
107
specialists of Beja. However, the important point is that the model advocated above with a basic and a pluractional imperfective in Proto-Semitic enables us to recognize a genetic relation between the Akkadian, Berber, and Beja imperfectives, while at the same time maintaining that Akk iparrVs is an innovation replacing an older Proto-Semitic Impfv *yiqtVlu. The only problem we face is that we have to assume that the development from derived pluractional imperfective to basic imperfective occurred independently in Akkadian, Berber, and Beja. I will elaborate on this in a wider context in the next section.
4.4.3.3. Typologicalevidence
There is abundant typological evidence for the frequent occurrence of present renewalas I will henceforth call the phenomenon for the sake of convenienceacross languages. In 1.2.2 (p. 4), I have quoted Kuryowiczs (1975: 104) classic formulation of this process. It is investigated from a historical and typological perspective by Bybee et al. (1994: 12575), who discuss numerous examples of what they call progressives; in many languages from their sample that have a progressive, it has a transparent etymological background and thus a relatively recent origin. This is an indirect indication that renewal is a fairly common phenomenon. For the Semitic languages, D. Cohen (1984) collected a wealth of evidence for the continuous renewal of the West Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, -nV by various formal devices.57 In this section, I will adduce typological evidence to answer three more specific questions: (1) What can we say about the cause of the process and the source of the new category? (2) How likely is the occurrence of the Akkadian development from pluractional to present/imperfective? (3) Most importantly, how likely is it that this process occurred independently in several related languages rather than once in the proto-language? D. Cohens (1984) detailed account of present renewal in West Semitic demonstrates that it tends to have the same cause and very similar consequences. The cause is the tendency to introduce a form with the specific function of explicitly expressing what D. Cohen calls concomitance, i.e., that the event is taking place at the actual moment of speech (1984: 58691 and passim). Initially, the new form is an optional, expressive alternative, but it has a tendency to replace the neutral form, until it becomes obligatory. This reduces the old form to secondary functions, such as the generic, the habitual and the historical present, and the future, if the old present also had future meaning (see also Kuryowicz 1975: 104; Bybee et al. 1994: 14044, 15360; Haspelmath 1998: 3641, 56). Subsequently, the new category may extend further to the secondary functions of the old form. The old form may then disappear altogether or may be preserved as a special verb form for even more secondary clause types, such as subordinate, nonindicative, and negative clauses. This is a classic instance of a grammaticalization process: the function of the new form develops from highly specific to more and more general, increases in frequency, and at the same time undergoes the pertinent formal changes of morphologization (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 14059). The tendency to create more expressive modes of expression is a universal feature of language, and this particular manifestation of it is so common that it is questionable whether any particular reason is required for the present renewal to be set in motion.58 It is plausible, however,
57. Later contributions include Gzella 2004: 2013; 2006, and Rubin 2005: 12952. For the same process in other branches of Afroasiatic, see Sasse 1981: 207 for Cushitic and Wolff 1979 (see the quotation at the end of this section) and 2001 for Chadic. 58. See also Hopper and Traugott 2003: 124: Rather than replace a lost or almost lost distinction, newly innovated forms compete with older ones because they are felt to be more expressive than what was available before. This competition allows, even encourages, the recession or loss of older forms.
108
that a more concrete cause may be the fact that at a particular stage of a language the formal contrast between the present/imperfective and its main contrasting category (the past or the perfective) was felt to be marked insufficiently, for instance as a result of phonological changes, such as the loss of final vowels. A case in point is the Berber imperfective discussed in the previous section. Chaker (1995: 230) argues that its penetration into the tense/aspect system of Berber alongside the aorist and the perfective is caused not only by la tendance naturelle linsistance et lemphase, but also by the loss of the distinctiveness of aorist and perfective in an important class of verbs after the partial or complete merger of short vowels. A second instance of a similar cause is the Geez imperfective yqattl, as I will argue in 4.6.1 (pp. 117123). This may also have played a role in Akkadian, as I suggested in 4.4.2, especially because the original pluractional *yiqattal- only replaced the G-stem *yiqtVlu, -nV in the imperfective. The second question concerns the likelihood of a basic present/imperfective developing out of a category that originally expressed notions such as verbal plurality and intensity. There seems to be a fair amount of typological support for such a development. Bybee et al. (1994: 16674) adduce instances of a development from iterative/frequentative to habitual, from there to progressive and ultimately to imperfective;59 most of their instances concern forms with reduplication. In the Semitic languages, this type of development is not very well represented. Apart from Akkadian iparrVs, it is only Ethiopian Semitic that shows something comparable: the Geez imperfective yqattlbut it is questionable whether this is a good parallel (see 4.6.1 on the Geez form). In other branches of Afroasiatic, however, we find important parallels, apart from the forms in Berber and Beja mentioned in the previous section. Wolff (1977, 1979, 2001) argues that in Chadic languages there is widespread use of original pluractional categories to renew the basic imperfective. He demonstrates that gemination and infixation of a, which are primarily used as plural markers both in the noun and in the verb, have further developed into aspect markers in some individual languages, basically for the expression of a kind of imperfective. To what extent similar phenomena also occur in Cushitic (apart from Beja) is not quite clear to me. Zaborski (1975: 165) regards it as dubious whether intensive and plural verb forms are used for the renewal of the imperfective in Cushitic, but Sasse (1981: 173) reports that the Cushitic language Dasenech has used a frequentative stem for the creation of a new present category. In conclusion, then, the mechanism that Akkadian used to renew its imperfective has typological parallels in other branches of Afroasiatic and beyond, even though it may be more or less unique in Semitic and perhaps generally less common than other means of present renewal.60 The third question is by far the most important. The development I have argued for Akkadian in the preceding part of this chapter presupposes the occurrence of the same process in at least two and possibly three languages separately: Akkadian, Berber, and Beja, and not in their common ancestor, since it had not yet occurred in Proto-Semitic, as is clear from the situation in Central Semitic (and also in South Semitic, as I will argue below). Is it not much simpler to assume that it happened only once in the proto-language? This is a classic problem in historical linguistics.61 The likelihood of the first option crucially depends on the probability of the processin
59. See also Rets 1989: 162; Givn 1991: 305. 60. It is interesting to speculate on the background of its geographical distribution. Within Afroasiatic, this means of present renewal may have been more typical of the languages located (at the present moment) in Africa than in the Asiatic Near East, especially if we assume that its use in the Semitic languages of Ethiopia is due to areal influence of neighbouring Chadic (and perhaps Cushitic) languages. If this is correct, Akkadian is of course a glaring exception. Does this point to a very early period of contiguity between Akkadian and the African branches of Afroasiatic? 61. See, among others, Meillet 1948a: 43; D. Cohen 1984: 106; and Harrison 2003: 23239.
4.5. From ProtodSemitic *yiqattal to AkkadianiparrVs
109
other words, on the extent to which it is a natural development in the history of a language. In the light of the ubiquity of present renewal in Semitic, as demonstrated by D. Cohen (1984), and in other branches of Afroasiatic, there can be no doubt about its naturalness. Another question is to what extent these processes are independent of each other. On the one hand, the entire range of the Semitic languages (or at least West Semitic) can safely be regarded as a single linguistic area. To this extent, the parallel developments are doubtless not quite independent of each other. This is fairly obvious, for instance, for the parallels between Hebrew and Aramaic in the predicative use of the present participle and among modern Arabic dialects in the use of particles to renew the imperfective. Outside Semitic, this also applies to the strengthening of the imperfective by means of particles in almost all Berber languages (Chaker 1995: 5562) and to the use of pluractional forms in Chadic for the same purpose. On the other hand, the large variety in the formal means of renewal shows that the inspiration may have come from areal influence but that the actual realization was independent in different languages and that the process started afresh in many different places.62 The process in question is attested or can be reconstructed independently for so many Afroasiatic languages that we may speak of a genuine drift, as Wolff (1979: 169) does with regard to the Chadic development mentioned above:
[W]e could very tentatively assume that the Proto-Afroasiatic dialect cluster shared a drift towards integrating verbal plurals, which all of the dialects seem to have possessed, into their AUX-systems based on the fact, that verbal plurals when they are used to indicate frequentative/repetitive/ habitual action have strong imperfective connotations (Iterativity).
In sum, a definitive answer to the question how likely is it that the rise of a geminated basic imperfective *yiqattal- has taken place independently in Akkadian, Berber, and Beja? can obviously not be given, but there is no good reason to reject the possibility that it is the result of parallel innovations.
4.5. From Proto-semitic *yiqattal- to Akkadian iparrVs

So far, I have referred to the derived Proto-Semitic imperfective as *yiqattal-, a form that is meant to be non-committal in several respects but that in fact conceals a number of problems. If we try to reconstruct the details of the prehistoric development from *yiqattal- to iparrVs, some difficulties arise that are not easily explained, although they do not seem serious enough to invalidate the scenario proposed here. In the next sections, I will give a more detailed account of this process and discuss the problems it raises. The main issues are, first, how *yiqattal- developed a variable vowel (4.5.1); second, what the specific form was of the derived verbal stems of ProtoSemitic that corresponded to the G-stem pluractional *yiqattal- (if they had any) (4.5.2); third, to what extent the pluractional imperfective originally had a complete conjugation (4.5.3).
4.5.1. Thedevelopmentofavariableimperfectivevowel
The reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic pluractional *yiqattal- with a fixed stem vowel a is based on the fact that derived verbal stems tend to have a fixed vowel pattern63 and that a is
62. Generally speaking, the kind of grammaticalization process discussed here is often subject to areal influence. A parallel may be the emergence of the have-perfects in European languages. Heine (1994: 56) observes that have-perfects are quite common in Europe but virtually absent in all other parts of the world, which clearly points to areal influence: the have-perfect in one language arose as a calque of that in a neighbouring language. 63. The variable vowel in the Akkadian Gt-, Gtn-, N-, and Ntn-stems is likely to be an innovation; see 4.2 (p. 89).
110
From ProtodSemitic *yiqattal to AkkadianiparrVs 4.5.
widespread in Afroasiatic as a marker of the imperfective and of plurality (Greenberg 1952: 78; Voigt 1987b: 343). Both functions coincide in *yiqattal-. A concrete parallel to *yiqattal- may be found in the Berber imperfective, which is often characterized by a in addition to gemination or a prefixed t(t)- (see 4.4.3.2, pp. 105106). In Cushitic, the basic aspectual opposition was also based on the contrast of imperfective a versus perfective i, but the imperfective forms reconstructed by Sasse (1980: 16971) do not have gemination.64 For a as the imperfective marker of the Akkadian derived verbal stems, see 4.5.2. This suggests that the variable vowel of iparrVs is an innovation, caused by the gradual incorporation of *yiqattal- into the paradigm of the G-stem. In this respect, the development of iparrVs is parallel to that of the t-Pf iptarVs: as a Gt perfective, it doubtless had a fixed vowel (presumably i; see 14.4.1, p. 376), but as a t-perfect it adopted the imperfective vowel: iparras iptaras, ipaqqid iptaqid, imaqqut imtaqut (see 6.2, pp. 138139). This implies that the vowel classes A/a, A/u, and A/i preserve the original situation, whereas the vowel classes I/i and U/u have replaced a in the imperfective with i and u, respectively. This presupposes a massive shift from iparras to iparris or iparrus in the preliterary period of Akkadian, since the latter two patterns comprise about two-thirds of all verbs. The occurrence of such a shift has indeed been proposed by several scholars, such as Kienast (1967: 7172), Kuryowicz (1972: 5760), Voigt (1988a: 108), and Tropper (1998a: 1920 with n. 41)), but the available evidence is rather scanty and mostly speculative.65 The following arguments can be adduced in favour of the replacement of *iparras by iparris or iparrus: 1. The changes in vowel class observable in the historical period (discussed in 3.5.3, pp. 7581), especially the rather common shift from A/u to I/i and the incidental shift from A/u to U/u, point to a gradual expansion of isovocalic verbs at the cost of the originally anisovocalic ones and a concomitant reduction in the number of iparras imperfectives. This process may have started already in prehistoric times and be responsible for at least part of the iparris and iparrus imperfectives we already find in our earliest sources. 2. A few I/i verbs actually show an imperfective with a in Sargonic Akkadian, which in later dialects is replaced by i : nadnu to give: SAk Impfv inaddan, Pfv iddin, Bab inaddin, iddin (see 16.4.3, pp. 472474, for details) ba to exist, be present: SAk Impfv yiba < *yibaay, Pfv yib, Bab iba, ib
64. See also Zaborski 1975: 164; Hetzron 1980: 39; D. Cohen 1984: 88102; Voigt 1985. 65. Kuryowicz (1972: 5760) has argued that iparras was specific to transitive verbs and that intransitive verbs had iparris or iparrus from the outset. This would greatly reduce the number of verbs that must have shifted (mainly the transitive I/i verbs). However, vowel alternation on the basis of transitivity (or any other semantic or syntactic factor) is typical of basic categories and does not seem to occur anywhere in derived verbal stems in Semitic. Kuryowiczs reconstruction is related to his claim that iparrVs arose through the verbalization of the agent nouns PaRR/S and PaRRiS by means of prefixing a person marker: zabbilum always carrying > *yi-zabbil he always carries (1972: 57). This has also been argued by others, e.g., Klingenheben (1956: 24950). It is true that agent nouns with gemination of R2 are as old as the pluractional imperfective, since at least QaTTL can be reconstructed to Afroasiatic on the basis of Semitic and Berber (Kienast 2001: 551). It seems not very likely, however, that the pluractional imperfective was derived from them: first, because agent nouns are typically deverbal, so that it is far more plausible that the PaRR/S and PaRRiS forms are derived from a verbal form with gemination than vice versa (so also Rssler 1950: 477); second, there are no agent nouns with the pattern PaRRuSwhich only comprises (verbal) adjectivesso that the numerous iparrus imperfectives are still to be explained as secondary.
111
qab to say, tell: SAk Impfv yiqabb he says < *yiqabbay, Pfv yibq, Bab iqabb iqb (see 16.7.2.1, pp. 499500, for the latter two verbs) Note that iba and iqabb also occur as such in Assyrian, where ay becomes . This rules out a purely phonological change of ay to . To what extent these verbs are representative of the III/voc verbs of the I/i class or even the I/i class as a whole is impossible to say. 3. The quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu group also replaced a by i in the imperfective during the historical period: they tend to have A/i apophony in Old Babylonian (Impfv ibbalakkat, Pfv ibbalkit ), but I/i in Standard Babylonian (Impfv ibbalakkit, Pfv ibbalkit ); see 12.5 (pp. 307311) for details. The question is whether this is an aftermath of the same shift in the triradical verb in prehistoric times or whether it is a completely independent development specific to the quadriradical verbs. 4. As noted in 3.5.2.3 (p. 74), the III/voc verbs of the U/u class that are atypical because they are transitive can plausibly be explained as original A/u verbs that have become U/u as a result of the change aw > , e.g., from kas to bind: Impfv ikass < *yikassaw alongside Pfv iks. 5. More speculative is the possibility that several Akkadian A/u verbs that correspond to Arabic verbs with i in the imperfective may go back to original A/i verbs, in which i has become u under the influence of a neighbouring labial (Frolova 2003: 8586; see also Kuryowicz 1972: 59). Such verbs include, apart from some less reliable instances: abbu to caress (Akk ibub, but Ar yaibbu to love) kabsu to trample (Akk ikbus, but Ar yakbisu to make even, fill) kaspu to break into pieces (iksup vs. yaksifu) laptu to touch (ilput vs. yalfitu) naplu to make a supplementary payment (ippul vs. yanfilu) napu to winnow (iup vs. yansifu) parsu to sever, decide (iprus vs. yafrisu) qalpu to peel, skin (iqlup vs. yaqlifu) qatpu to pluck (iqtup vs. yaqifu) sapnu to level, devastate (ispun vs. yasfinu) arpu to refine (metal) (irup vs. yarifu) apru to send, order (ipur vs. yasfiru to chase, remove).66
The scale of the required shift of iparras to iparri/us may perhaps be reduced by assuming that in adjectival verbs, which almost all have I/i or U/u (see 3.3.23.3.3, pp. 5866), the iparri/ us imperfectives do not go back to *yiqattal- directly but only emerged when the geminated imperfective was fully established as an inflectional member of the verbal paradigm in fientive verbs.67 Typological evidence suggests that if a new imperfective develops from an originally pluractional category, this process will start in verbs for which plurality of action is most relevant, i.e., in punctual telic verbs to express frequentativity and in atelic activity verbs to express durativity (Sasse 1991: 43). It is therefore plausible that originally PSem *yiqattal- was typically associated with fientive verbs.68 In adjectival verbs, the new imperfective may have appeared
66. In several of these verbs, Hebrew sides with Akkadian in having o (< u) as root vowel (e.g., yikbo ikbus, yilpot ilput, yiqop iqtup, yirop irup, yipor ipur), but since there is a large-scale shift toward o in Hebrew transitive verbs, this says little or nothing about the original root vowel. 67. So Voigt 1988a: 11516. 68. Also in historical Akkadian, pluractional (Gtn) forms of adjectival verbs are rather uncommon.
112
in a later stage and simply have adopted the root vowel, e.g., from kabtu (I/i): *yikbit(u) he/it becomes/became heavy *yikabbit. The new imperfective vowel in iparris and iparrus is always identical to the inherited root vowel and thus to the vowel of the original imperfective *yiqtilu, -nV in the I/i class and *yiqtulu, -nV in the U/u class. This suggests that in verbs that did have *yiqattal- initially, the original imperfective imposed its vowel on the pluractional imperfective during the transitional period in which the two forms competed: *yiprisu *yiparras became *yiprisu *yiparris and *yiprusu *yiparras became *yiprusu *yiparrus (mainly in intransitive verbs).69 After the new imperfective had established itself as the basic form of the verbal paradigm and had relegated *yiprVsu to subordinate clauses, the derivational relationship was reversed and the historical relationship imperfective perfective with the five vowel classes came into being. The existence of such a transitional period is also presupposed by the historical paradigm of the I/voc verbs, which will be discussed in detail in 17.6.117.6.2 (pp. 537546). Let it suffice to state here that the long vowel in the imperfective of these verbs (mmar I see from amru, rrab he enters [Ass] from erbu), which cannot be explained from a regular vowel contraction rule (see Kouwenberg 20034a: 9498), is introduced by analogy with forms where the guttural had been dropped much earlier since it was syllable-final, especially older imperfective forms such as *ymuru. The presence of a long vowel in the basic forms triggered the same process in the derived pluractional forms, giving rise to the historical form mmar. This illustrates how the old imperfective may have influenced the form of *yiqattal- pluractionals during the process of their incorporation in the basic stem.
4.5.2. Thepluractionalofthederivedverbalstemsandthequadriradicalverbs
In principle, the formal aspects of verb types other than the strong triradical verb are discussed in later chapters together with the rest of their paradigm, but an exception has to be made for the imperfective forms of the derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs. The rise of the historical imperfective forms of these verb types is the outcome of a single process under the influence of the geminated imperfective of the G-stem. Therefore, they can best be discussed together in the context of this process. Just as in the G-stem, the imperfective is always the marked member of the imperfective perfective opposition. The derived stems have three different markers: gemination of R2, a/i apophony, and infixing of -na-. They may occur alone or in various combinations, and some weak verbs have all threee.g., utanakkal he repeatedly causes to eat, the tn imperfective of aklu to eat (Pfv utakkil; see 17.6.3.3, pp. 549550). Table 4.4 shows the imperfective of the derived verbal stems of the strong verb with the corresponding perfective in smaller print; Table 4.5 shows that of the quadriradical verbs, exemplified by nabalkutu to cross. It is precisely the complexity of imperfective marking in these verb typescaused by the competition of different markers and by the tendency to create an unambiguous distinction between imperfective and perfectivethat gives us the clues necessary to reconstruct their historical background. Gemination and apophony are the oldest markers, dating at least from the Proto-Semitic period, whereas -na- is an Akkadian innovation. There are good reasons to assume that gemination was initially specific to the G-stem and the Gt-stem and a/i apophony to the other derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs (see below). However, as the marker of the basic stem, gemination spread secondarily to all imperfective forms where it was phonologically possible without
69. For this kind of overlap, see Heine 1993: 4853.
4.5. From ProtodSemitic *yiqattal to AkkadianiparrVs primary stems () G N D iparrVs

iprVs
113 tertiary stems (-tan-) iptanarrVs

iptarrVs
secondary stems (-t-) iptarrVs

iptarVs
ipparrVs
ipparis
(see 14.5.4, pp. 391392) utap(ar)ras

utapris
ittanaprVs
ittaprVs
uapras
uapris
utanapras
utapris
uparras
uparris
uptarras
uptarris
uptanarras
uptarris
table 4.4: the imperfective of the derived verbal stems.
N N ibbalakkat
ibbalkit
Ntn ittanablakkat
ittablakkat
ubalakkat
ubalkit
utanablakkat
utablakkat
table 4.5: the imperfective of the quadriradical verbs.
disrupting important associations between paradigms (Knudsen 1984/86: 237; Goldenberg 1994: 46), in addition to a/i apophony. Secondary introduction of gemination was phonologically possible if the position of R2 was occupied by a simple consonant or a cluster of two consonants. A simple consonant was geminated, e.g., in the imperfective of the I/voc and the I/w verbs: uakkal I cause to eat from aklu and uabbal (Bab) I cause to bring from wablu . The corresponding strong form does not have gemination (uapras), nor does the perfective (ukil, ubil, strong uapris).70 This means that gemination can only be caused by the corresponding G Impfv iparrVs, which caused an original *ukal (< *uakal ) and *ubal (replacing *ubal < *uawbal ) to adopt gemination, presumably with shortening of the long vowel: uakkal, uabbal.71 For a similar process in the corresponding tn imperfective forms utanakkal and utanabbal (Bab), see 17.6.3.3 (pp. 549550). Gemination also penetrated into the N Impfv ipparras, which later adopted the imperfective vowel, replacing a with i or u in the I-verbs and the U-verbs (see 12.2.1, pp. 289290). If a cluster occupied the position of the second radical, the cluster was dissolved by an epenthetic vowel to allow its second member to be geminated: e.g., utapras *utapVras utaparras in the t2-stem, and *ibbalkat *ibbalVkat ibbalakkat in the quadriradical verbs.
70. This shows that Edzards proposal (1996: 24) to regard these forms as influenced by the -stem of I/n verbs (Impfv uaddan, Pret uaddin, etc.) is incorrect; see also Tropper 1998a: 16. 71. This explanation was also proposed by Knudsen (1984/86: 23334). Other accounts of these forms were given by Steiner (1981), Voigt (1987a), and Tropper (1997a: 19093); they will be discussed in the context of the tan-stems (14.7.6, pp. 431433). As Knudsen (1984/86: 234) points out, this process presupposes the previous loss of syllable-final in *uakal.
114
This process is based on the model of the G-stem, where the same happens (although it has a quite different historical background): utapras utaparras iprVs iparrVs, where the relevant part of the word is underlined (cf. 4.6.1 below for the same process in Geez).72 There is one major area in which gemination did not penetrate: the D-stem, the -stem, and their detransitive derivations Dt and t1. This is only one of the numerous features by which these stems stand apart from the rest of the verbal stems and constitute a separate system of their own (see 10.3, p. 247). For D and Dt, the reason is phonological: gemination does not penetrate into forms that already have gemination. This is most clearly shown by the quadriradical verbs, where the nabalkutu type shows imperfective gemination (ibbalakkat ), but the naparruru type does not (ipparrar, not **ippararrar) (see 12.3, p. 302, and 12.5, p. 309, respectively). Therefore, gemination could not penetrate into the D Impfv uparras and the Dt Impfv uptarras. This does not apply, however, to the and t1 imperfectives uapras and utapras. Here, gemination is phonologically possible by dissolving the cluster: uapras **uaparras > uparras after vowel syncope,73 and utapras utaparras. Both forms actually exist, but with a different function: uparras is known as the imperfective of the D-stem, which will be discussed in 13.3 (pp. 334337), and utaparras is the imperfective of the t2-stem. The reason that uapras and utapras did not get gemination is that this would disrupt the parallelism with the D-stem and the Dt-stem, on which the -stem and the t1-stem are strongly dependent in form and in function (see 13.2.1, pp. 324325, and 14.5.2, p. 386).74 This can be graphically represented as follows: D uparras uapras Dt uptarras t1 utapras
This is confirmed by the fact that the t2-stem, which is not dependent on any other derived stem (see 14.6.2.2, pp. 404407), did introduce gemination and so acquired the imperfective utaparras.75 The third imperfective marker, the infix -na-, is restricted to the tan-stems. It is the only marker in the Gtn- and the Ntn-stem and was added to a/i apophony in the Dtn- and the tn-stems. It is an Akkadian innovation connected with the rise of the tan-stems and will be discussed in detail in that context (14.7.6, pp. 431437). In historical Akkadian, all primary stems have a corresponding tan-stem with pluractional function. This is a consequence of the tendency in the Semitic verbal system to extend formal distinctions in the basic stem to the derived stems, although the resulting stems often have an
72. Note that the inversion of the correct analogical formula (which would be imperfective perfective) is only apparent: strictly speaking, the rise of the new imperfective forms is not by analogy with the perfective but by analogy with the older imperfective category, which had the same inflectional stem as the perfective (the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu). It is actually this form that is historically the first member of the analogical proportion, as shown in 4.5.1 (p. 112). 73. The development *uaprras > *uparras > uapras proposed by Tropper (1997a: 189) is phonologically impossible: the first form is subject to the vowel syncope rule and can only be realized as uparras. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that in Akkadian a shift of accent can be made responsible for changes in the form of a word, apart from the vowel syncope rule itself. 74. Similarly Goldenberg 1994: 46. 75. Another reason why the t2-stem utaparras developed gemination is that it is derived from a quadriliteral base, namely, the deverbal noun taPRvS(t) (Voigt 1988a: 152), as I will argue in 14.6.2.2 (pp. 404 411), and is thus associated with the imperfectives ibbalakkat and ubalakkat of the quadriradical verbs.
115
incomplete paradigm.76 The existence of *yiqattal- as derived pluractional of the basic stem, therefore, suggests that the derived stems that can be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic (see 18.3.2, pp. 591593) also had a secondary derived stem with pluractional function. Its marker may have been the stem vowel a, contrasting with the stem vowel i in the (relatively) basic stem, as presented in Table 4.6 with the relevant forms of the Gt-stem, the D-stem, and the -stem: Impfv basic pluract. G *yiqtVlu *yiqattalGt *yiqtatilu *yiqtattalD *yuqattilu *yuqattal *yuaqtilu *yuaqtal-
table 4.6: the original pluractional imperfective of the derived stems
The basic imperfective with the vowel i is preserved as such in the derived stems of Arabic; it differed from the perfective only in its ending, just as in the G-stem: D Impfv *yuqattilu vs. Pfv *yuqattil G *yiqtVlu vs. *yiqtVl. In Akkadian, after the basic Impfv *yiqtVlu was replaced by the pluractional imperfective in the basic stem, the same happened in the derived stems, e.g., in the D-stem: *yuqattal- instead of *yuqattilu. West Semitic has discarded the secondary derived forms with the stem vowel a together with the basic form *yiqattal-, since just as new distinctions in the basic stem tend to be copied in the derived stems, the loss of such distinctions also tends to lead to their loss in the derived stems.77 It is possible, however, that Modern South Arabian preserves traces of an original a in the imperfective of the causative stem (see 4.6.2, p. 125). The reconstructed forms *yuqattal-, *yuaqtal-, etc., are obviously inspired by the historical forms of the D and imperfective uparras and uapras, which in this way find their natural (but circular) explanation, even though they are ultimately based on the Afroasiatic a as a marker of imperfective and plurality. The closest parallels are found in Berber, where the derived stems, such as the causative, show imperfective forms with a contrasting with aorist forms with , presumably from i, such as Tashelhit ssa wad ssa wd (i.e., [ssa wd ]) to stand (sth.) upright (Kossmann 2002: 35859), and Tuareg skrs skrs to cause to build (Prasse 1972/4: III 87; Heath 2005: 447; cf. also Rssler 1950: 485 and Willms 1972: 12729). Rssler (1951: 106) cites Tuareg isfras versus isfrs (his transcription) he causes/caused to cut as a striking commonality with Akk uapras/uapris.
4.5.3. Theending(s)ofProto-Semitic*yiqattalIf we reconstruct *yiqattal- as a derived verbal stem in Proto-Semitic on the model of the derived stems in the historical languages, we should deck it out with a complete paradigm
76. Apart from Akkadian, the system of the verbal stems in Geez is a good example of this: after the verbal stems with geminated R2 (Stem I/2) and with a long vowel (Stem I/3) had become independent from the simple stem (I/1), they acquired the same range of derived stems as the latter; see, for instance, D. Cohen 1984: 6162. For incomplete paradigms in derived categories, see also Edzard 1996: 1718. 77. The homonymous passive imperfective/jussive forms of Arabic, such as Stem II yuqattal(u) and Stem IV yuqtal(u) have nothing to do with these pluractional forms. They represent an independent development that accidentally had the same outcome as the new Akkadian imperfective. The Arabic forms are analogical extensions of the passive imperfective yuqtalu of the basic stem and can only have emerged after the development of the apophonic passive at some stage of Central Semitic or perhaps West Semitic (Huehnergard 2005b: 182). However, these Arabic forms are a good illustration of the principle invoked here that in Semitic languages morphosyntactic distinctions in the basic stem tend to spread to the derived stems.
116
comprising more or less the same forms as the basic stem *yiqtVlu, -nV. Because derived stems tend to have a predictable vowel pattern, it is not difficult to envisage what such a paradigm (if it existed) may have looked like for the pluractional *yiqattal-, see Table 4.7:78 G-stem Impfv Pfv Imp Inf PPartc PrPartc *yiqtVlu *yiqtVl *q(V)tVl *qatl- (e.g.) *qatVl*qtilGPL *yiqattalu *yiqattal *qattil *qattVl(*qattVl-) *muqattil-
table 4.7: the Proto-semitic g and gPL stems.
It is questionable, however, whether this is a plausible reconstruction. There is only one direct parallel to a pluractional derived stem in the Semitic languages, namely, the Akkadian tan-stems, which are the direct successors of *yiqattal- and the secondary pluractional stems derived from it. In several respects, the paradigm of the tan-stems is significantly different from that of the other derived stems. First, except for the Gtn-stem, only the imperfective is different in form from the corresponding t-stems. Second, the imperfective of the tan-stems is by far the most frequent form; the other forms are significantly less common or even hardly exist at all. Third, there are good reasons to assume that the formal distinction between the imperfective and the perfective of the tan-stems (e.g., Gtn iptanarrVs vs. iptarrVs) is secondary and that the imperfective form is an innovation; see further 14.7.6 (pp. 431437). A similar state of affairs may apply to the Proto-Semitic GPL-stem. First of all, it may have lacked (part of) the non-finite forms. Second, the non-prefix forms and the present participle may have been identical to those of the D-stem, because the only consistent difference between GPL and D concerns the prefix vowel and the stem vowel, and the latter may safely be assumed to conform to the overall vowel pattern of the derived stems. The same applies a fortiori to the pluractional of the D-stem. Table 4.8 shows my reconstruction of these two stems; see 11.6.1 (pp. 280282) for more details. D-stem Impfv Pfv Imp Inf PPartc PrPartc *yuqattilu *yuqattil *qattil *qattVl*qattVl*muqattilDPL-stem *yuqattalu *yuqattal *qattil ? *qattVl- ? *qattVl- ? *muqattil- ?
table 4.8: the Proto-semitic D and DPL stems.
78. The reconstruction of the basic stem paradigm will be motivated in greater detail in chap. 18.
4.6. Akkadian iparrVsand the South Semitic Imperfective
117
The partial overlap in form between the GPL-stem and the D-stem is not a serious drawback, however, in view of the functional similarity between them (in particular in transitive verbs; see 11.5, p. 279), and even less serious when we recall that in historical Akkadian the paradigm of the tan-stems is on many points identical to that of the t-stems (see 14.7.6, p. 431). The greatest problem is created by the differentiation of imperfective and perfective. There is no direct reflex of *yiqattalu, -nV in Akkadian: the historical imperfective is simply iparrVs, and iparrVsu, -ni only occurs as a subjunctive. The disappearance of the suffix -u, -nV in the indicative must be a consequence of its reanalysis as a marker of subordination. However, it is also conceivable that *yiqattal, -i.e., the form corresponding to the perfective in other verbal stemswas unspecified for tense/aspect in the pluractional stems. This has the advantage of associating *yiqattal, - directly with iparrVs, whereas the existence of an imperfective *yiqattalu, -nV makes the restructuring of -u, -nV as a marker of subordination a more complex process. These issues will be discussed in 9.3.3 (pp. 227231). It does not seem possible to take a definitive position on this issue. As a working hypothesis for the rest of this study, I will assume that the pluractional stems were distinct in the imperfective and the perfective only, with the opposition Impfv *yiqattalu, -nV versus Pfv *yiqattal, -, as elsewhere in the verbal paradigm, while expressly leaving open the possibility that they were not formally distinct.79 Accordingly, I will henceforth speak of the GPL-stem *yiqattalu.80
4.6. Akkadian iparrVs and the south semitic imperfective 4.6.1. iparrVsandyqattl
A final issue to be discussed is the background of the South Semitic imperfective with gemination and its relationship to the Akkadian Impfv iparrVs, because it was the similarity between iparrVs and Geez yqattl that led Haupt (1878) to contest the Proto-Semitic status of the Arabic Impf yaqtVlu, -na and to advocate its replacement with the alleged common ancestor of iparrVs and yqattl. Two of the three branches of South Semitic have a G-stem imperfective with gemination or one that is likely to have had gemination at some stage in the past: Ethiopian Semitic (represented here by Geez) and the Modern South Arabian (henceforth: MSA) languages (represented by Mehri).81
79. The consequences of the historical development proposed here for the subgrouping of the older stages of Semitic will be discussed in 18.4 (pp. 595598). 80. The existence of this form is also assumed by Hetzron (1972: 452), who states that there is good reason to believe that proto-Semitic once possessed a non-past (present-future, imperfect) conjugation of the following pattern. . . . [followed by a paradigm of verb forms with gemination and the endings -u, -nV]. Since Hetzron assumes a basic conjugation of the type non-past *yaqattalu versus a past yaqtVl (translated into my notation), he is at a loss to explain the function of this ending: It does not seem to have fulfilled any clear-cut function in proto-Semitic. It was a redundant element confined to an indicative nonpast stem. It may have been more functional in the derived verbal forms (. . .) where no stem-difference can be reconstructed with certainty for the different tenses and moods (1972: 453 n. 2). The problem is solved if we regard *yaqattalu as a derived stem, with -u, -nV as the imperfective marker contrasting with in the perfective. 81. The third branch of South Semitic, Epigraphic South Arabian (ESA), has a purely consonantal alphabet, which makes it difficult to reach definitive conclusions about anything related to vowel patterns, but specialists on ESA seem to agree with Nebes (1994a) and Stein (2003: 1661) that ESA does not have an imperfective with gemination, even though this makes the subgrouping of the South Semitic languages rather problematic (Appleyard 1996: 209, 225).
118
Akkadian iparrVsand the South Semitic Imperfective 4.6.
Geez has an Impfv yqattl,82 and Mehri has yrkz he puts upright (also spelled with ), the long vowel of which can be equated with the geminate of yqattl, because as a rule the MSA languages have lost gemination of the second radical, both in the imperfective and in what used to be the D-stem.83 The scenario with the double imperfective of Proto-Semitic advocated here seems to provide an easy solution for the South Semitic imperfective as well: we might simply argue that South Semitic replaced its original imperfective with the imperfective of the derived pluractional *yiqattalu, just as Akkadian did. Although this is not impossible, it is unlikely because of the systematic differences that exist between the Akkadian and the South Semitic forms in the stem vowel of the imperfective in the G-stem and in the derived verbal stems. They become apparent if we consider the verbal paradigm of the South Semitic languages as a whole rather than the imperfective forms in isolation. I will argue, therefore, that we can achieve a more satisfactory account of the Geez forms if we assume that they have developed parallel to but independently from Akkadian. First of all, the Geez Impfv yqattl does not formally correspond to the historical form of Akk iparrVs with its variable vowel, nor to its prehistoric ancestor *yiqattalu. To start with the latter, since in Geez i and u have merged into but a remains unchanged, *yiqattalu would give **yqattal.84 We can of course discard this as an unimportant detail, but in all verb forms that can safely be regarded as inherited from Proto-West Semitic or even Proto-Semitic, there is a fairly exact correspondence between the vowels of Geez and those of other (West) Semitic languages, in particular Arabic.85 The G-stem jussive is either yqtl or yqtal, forms that are equivalent to Ar yaqtu/il and yaqtal, respectively. In spite of some fluctuation between yqtl and yqtal, most verbs with yqtl can be matched with Arabic yaqtulu or yaqtilu verbs, and most verbs with yqtal with Arabic yaqtalu verbs. The same correspondence holds in the G-stem imperative, which has the same vowel as the jussive. There is a similar correspondence between the Geez perfect qatala and Ar qatala on the one hand and Geez qatla < *qatla and Ar qati/ula, on the other.
82. The presence of gemination in this form is based on the traditional pronunciation of Geez; cf. Goldenberg 1977: 48487, 1994: 47; Voigt 1990b. The debate about whether it is original or a secondary phenomenon seems to be decided in favour of the first option; see in particular Voigt 1990b. 83. Cf. Greenberg 1952: 5; Voigt 1994: 297301; Lonnet 1993: 70; and Appleyard 1996: 213. Leslau (1953: 166), however, argues that the original presence of gemination in these forms is not evident. D. Cohen (1984: 6875) also explains the long vowel in a different way (but cf. Goldenbergs [1977: 47577; 1979] criticism). An important difference between Geez and the Modern South Arabian languages is that in the latter not all verbs have two prefix conjugations with different inflectional stems for the imperfective and the jussive. Transitive verbs have an apophonic passive/intransitive form, which uses the same form for both: the Mehri verb br to break, for instance has a passive/intransitive br, with ybr as imperfective and jussive (doubtless from qatila, yVqtal-; cf. Voigt 1994: 29799). The same pattern occurs in some basically intransitive verbs, e.g., wl to arrive, reach, imperfective and jussive ywl, and in some weak verb patterns (1994: 298), but the exact state of affairs is difficult to extract from the available reference works on Mehri. It is unclear whether in this language group gemination was introduced in transitive verbs only and never penetrated to all verbs, as it did in Geez, or whether the absence of gemination in intransitive verbs is secondary. Appleyard (1996: 21013) prefers the latter option. 84. The fact that the prefix vowel has become is irrelevant, since Geez has generalized , except in the causative stems, presumably from i (whereas Arabic has generalized a); see Hasselbach 2004. 85. For the Geez verb, see in particular Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 140212; Tropper 2002: 87136; and Rubio 2006: 12426.
119
Second, there is also an exact correspondence in the stem vowel of the prefix conjugation(s) of the derived verbal stems: where Arabic has i, Geez has , but where Arabic has a, Geez also has a; cf. Table 4.9:86 Geez Impfv/Juss Stem I/2 ~i Stem I/3 Stem II/1 Stem IV/1 a~a Stem III/2 Stem III/3 yqttl/yqattl yqttl/yqtl yqattl/yqtl ystaqattl/ystaqtl ytqttal/ytqattal ytqttal/ytqtal Stem II Stem III Stem IV Stem X Stem III Stem VI Arabic Impfv/Juss yuqattil(u) yuqtil(u) yuqtil(u)) yastaqtil(u) yataqattal(u) yataqtal(u)
table 4.9: the stem vowels of derived stems in geez and Arabic.
These instances illustrate the overall stability of the vowel patterns in the Geez verb: categories that are inherited from an earlier period usually preserve their original vowels. This is broadly confirmed by the MSA languages, although drastic phonological changes have obscured the original situation.87 The important thing is that the imperfective, such as Mehri yr/kz he puts upright, also has a fixed vowel , whereas the jussive has a variable vowel that tallies rather well with the corresponding vowel in Geez and Arabic, and this also applies to the variable vowel of the perfect. In transitive verbs, the Arabic pattern of jussive u or i versus perfect a (Ar yaqtu/ilu qatala) can be reconstructed as the dominant pattern for the whole of South Semitic, and the same applies to jussive a versus perfect i (Ar yaqtalu qatila) for intransitive verbs (Voigt 1994: 29399). The stability of the vowels in inherited categories makes it difficult to equate yqattl with reconstructed *yiqattalu. If we prefer to compare it with the imperfective iparrVs in its historical form, the problem becomes even bigger: there is no conceivable reason why Geez would abandon the alternating stem vowel of a PSem **yiqattVlu, whereas it faithfully preserves all other inherited vowel alternations.88 Therefore, rather than assuming an idiosyncratic behaviour that is
86. An exception is the Geez Stem III/1 ytqattal/ytqatal versus the Arabic Stem VIII yaqtatil(u). This is an additional indication that these stems have a different background, as I will argue in 14.4.2 (pp. 380382). 87. For (basically synchronic) descriptions of the MSA verb, see Bittner 1911, Johnstone 1975, 1987, and Simeone-Senelle 1997, 1998; for diachronic analyses, see Wagner 1993, Voigt 1994, and Appleyard 1996, 2002. In general, the verbal paradigm of the MSA languages stems from the same source as that of the languages of Ethiopia; cf. the pertinent remarks of Bittner (1911: 45), W. W. Mller (1964), Kienast (2001: 3067), and Appleyard (2002: 4056). 88. Those who follow Haupts thesis about the genetic relationship between iparrVs and yqattl tend to dismiss this difference as unimportant. Landsberger (1926b: 970) calls it unwesentlich; Gensler (1997) and Voigt (2004: 4950) ignore it; Rssler (1950: 5045) and Kienast (2001: 228) attribute it to secondary levelling. This is unsatisfactory: why would levelling only affect the imperfective and not the jussive, imperative, and perfect? On the basis of the hierarchy in the verbal paradigm, we would rather expect the latter categories to be levelled. Aro (1964: 194 n. 1), on the other hand, correctly observes that the Geez state of affairs presupposes eine etwas gewaltsame Umvokalisierung und Vereinheitlichung der Form. In addition, M. Cohen (1953: 8990) rejects the connection between iparrVs and yqattl because of the difference in vowel pattern.
120
hard to motivate on independent grounds, it seems far more plausible to regard the invariable in yqattl as an original feature and thereby dissociate it from both *yiqattalu and iparrVs. Fixed vowel patterns are typical of motivated forms, such as the derived stems, which do not distinguish vowel classes outside Akkadian. Of particular importance is the fact that the Geez imperfective is immune to the influence of neighbouring gutturals (Kuryowicz 1972: 59): it has even if R2 and/or R3 are gutturals, although the other finite verb forms are sensitive to gutturals and take the vowel a (Tropper 2002: 11014). This is a strong indication that yqattl is originally a derived verbal stem, and several authors have indeed claimed that it goes back to the D-stem form *yuqattilu, which we may reconstruct for Proto-West Semitic on the basis of the Arabic Stem II Impfv yuqattilu.89 F. Rundgren, in particular, has argued for such a development in many publications, the remploi de lintensif.90 He relates it to another innovation of the Semitic languages of Ethiopia, namely, the loss of a grammatical relationship between the basic stem and the derived stems with gemination (Stem I/2) and with vowel lengthening (Stem I/3): their relationship is completely lexicalized, i.e., the two are used as variants of the basic stem or as separate lexemes.91 This made it possible to use the D imperfective *yuqattilu > yqattl for renewing the G-stem imperfective after the latter had coincided in form with the jussive as a result of the loss of word-final -u. So this is one more instance of the penetration of a derived stem into the paradigm of the basic stem. The adherents of Haupts thesis have ignored rather than refuted Rundgrens arguments,92 without offering a more convincing account of the fixed vowel of yqattl.93 The difference in background between iparrVs and yqattl is confirmed by the derived verbal stems.94 As we saw above, Akkadian primarily marks the imperfective by means of a/i apophony, sometimes secondarily strengthened by gemination. Geez, on the other hand, distinguishes the imperfective from the jussive only by means of gemination, and where a form already has gemination, it introduces a vowel in the first syllable of the imperfective stem.95 The stem vowel of imperfective and jussive is always the same; see by way of illustration the Geez column in Table 4.9 above. Only one of these procedures can go back to Proto-Semitic, and it is fairly clear
89. And also to Proto-Semitic as a whole; see 11.6.1, pp. 280282. 90. For instance, in Rundgren 1955: 32829, 1959a: 29294, and 1963b: 6468. I do not agree with Rundgren that the rise of iparrVs is a case of remploi de lintensif, but the term is fully appropriate for what happened in Geez. 91. The remploi did not lead to the loss of the D-stem: it coexisted with the Impfv yqattl, and the D imperfective was differentiated by introducing (yqttl). Sasse (1980: 173) mentions the case of the Cushitic language Dasenech as parallel to Akkadian: auch im Dasenech ist der Frequentativstamm zur Bildung einer neuen Prsenskategorie verwendet worden und besteht trotzdemwie im Akkadischenals abgeleiteter Stamm weiter. 92. There was criticism by Voigt, however (1990b: 1011; 2004: 3940). His main objections are obviated by the scenario proposed here. Rundgrens proposal is endorsed by Stempel (1999: 133). 93. Recently, Hudson (2005) has argued that the geminate of yqattl in A-type verbs (i.e., Stem I/1, the basic verb) results from an analogical extension from B-type (i.e., I/2) verbs, which have gemination of R2 in their entire paradigm (2005: 2012). Since the class of I/2 verbs goes back to the Proto-Semitic D-stem, this is very similar to the development assumed here on the basis of Rundgrens ideas. The difference is that Rundgren posits a remploi of the corresponding D form *yuqattil(u) of the same verb, whereas Hudson assumes that *yiqtVlu is renewed by analogy with the geminated imperfectives of I/2 verbs in general. Especially significant is the fact that Hudson also assumes that the geminate of yqattl in the basic stem is secondary (2005: 204). 94. Testen (1998a: 132 n. 10) also doubts the equation iparrVs yqattl because of the discrepancies in the imperfective formation of the derived stems, such as uparras versus yqttl. 95. The source of is a matter of debate that need not concern us here; see Voigt 1990b: 611, with the comments of Gensler 1997: 23637 n. 11.
121
that it is the Akkadian a/i apophony that does so96 because it has Afroasiatic backing, is difficult to explain as secondary, and may have survived in MSA, as I will argue in the next section. The Geez procedure can easily be explained as an innovation: when imperfective and jussive had coincided after the loss of word-final -u, the formal contrast was renewed by introducing gemination of R2 from the G-stem, where it had emerged for the same reason through the replacement of the original imperfective by the former D-stem imperfective. If the consonant that is to be geminated is part of a cluster, as in Stems II/1 (yqtl ) and IV/1 (ystaqtl ), the cluster is first dissolved by the insertion of a, in the same way as in the Akkadian t2-stem (utaparras) and the quadriradical verbs (ibbalakkat); see 4.5.2 above (pp. 113114). Furthermore, in Geez, it is the G-stem (I/1) which provides the model: I/1 II/1 IV/1 yqtVl yqtl ystaqtl ( yqtVl) ( yqtVl) ( ystaqtVl) yqattl
yqattl
ystaqattl
So in spite of the superficial similarity of these imperfectives to their Akkadian counterparts, they can be explained more plausibly as inner-Ethiopic innovations triggered by the introduction of gemination in the basic stem than as retentions from Proto-Semitic. This conclusion is important for the explanation of another type of Geez imperfective, which has been claimed to offer incontrovertible evidence for the three-stem system discussed in 4.4.1 (pp. 97100). Gensler (1997) points to the striking similarity between the quadriradical Impfv ydanaggd in Geez and the corresponding Akkadian Impfv ibbalakkat 97 and claims that it provides a new argument against those who may still hesitate to accept the Geez/Akkadian tripartite tense/aspect system as representing the Proto-Semitic one (1997: 255).98 Therefore, we have to discuss Genslers argument in some detail. The forms involved are shown in Table 4.10. For reasons that will be become clear later on, it includes not only the quadriradical verbs of the dangada type but also the quadriradical verb type of Arabic that follows the paradigm of the D-stem, the quinqueradical verbs of Geez, and both types of verbs from MSA, represented by Mehri. The categories involved are the imperfective, perfective/jussive, and stative/perfect: root Geez IV-rad Mehri Arabic Akk V-rad Geez Mehri Juss Pfv ydangd ykrbl yutarjim ibbalkit yngargr ynqrb Impfv ydanaggd ykrbl yutarjimu ibbalakkat yngaraggr ynqrb Perf Stat dangada karbl tarjama nabalkut angargara nqrb
table 4.10: Quadri- and quinqueradical verbs in Akkadian and south semitic. 96. So also Greenberg 1952: 56. 97. For the quadriradical verbs, Geez dangada to be upset, Ar tarjama to translate, Mehri krbl to crawl on the knees (Johnstone 1987: 213), and Akk nabalkutu to cross over (see 12.5, pp. 307314) will serve as examples. For the quinqueradical verbs (cf. Tropper 2002: 13436), I will use Geez angargara to wallow, roll and Mehri nqrb to be curled, wrinkled (Johnstone 1987: 234). 98. For an earlier discussion, see von Soden 1987: 564.
122
First, I will focus on the similarity between ydanaggd and ibbalakkat. Gensler describes these forms as a near-exact match (ignoring derivational prefixes) (1997: 246) and specifies four points of detail: the added vowel of the imperfective is specifically a, it serves to enable gemination, gemination comes at the same place, and in most relevant verbs R2 is a sonorant (n, l, r ) (1997: 24647).99 He concludes that this suggests the straightforward reconstruction to ProtoSemitic of this shared Geez/Akkadian pattern and rejects the opposite possibility: that the Geez and Akkadian patterns represent independent secondary innovations vis--vis some hypothetical earlier pattern (1997: 247). However, none of these four points is specific enough to justify such a conclusion. The first three actually form a single phenomenon that follows from the procedure of imperfective formation on the model of the basic stem that I have described above. In other words, we can add ydangd ( ydangd ) ydanaggd to the three categories included, just as I have included ibbalakkat in the account of the parallel forms in Akkadian in 4.5.2 (pp. 113114). The fourth point, that R2 is usually a sonorant, indicates that this type of quadriradical verb is a common legacy from Proto-Semitic (which is not at issue, see below), but it does not say anything about the historical background of its actual conjugation. Gensler isolates the quadriradical verbs from the II/1 and IV/1 Stems and only mentions the latter in passing (1997: 231). However, these categories constitute a natural formal class of verbs whose antepenultimate and penultimate radicals form a cluster, which is of crucial importance for the formation of the imperfective.100 I argued above that the way the II/1 and IV/1 Stems form their imperfective does not go back to Proto-Semitic but is an innovation following the introduction of gemination in the basic stem. This implies that the Impfv ydanaggd is an innovation as well. The strikingly similar Akkadian Impfv ibbalakkatbut note the vowel contrast in the final syllable, which Gensler ignores, parallel to that between yqattl and iparrasis the result of a parallel development: originally it contrasted with the perfective by means of a/i apophony (Impfv *yibbalkat vs. Pfv *yibbalkit ), but secondarily acquired gemination together with most of the other non-basic imperfective forms. As a result of the introduction of gemination to mark the imperfective, both Akkadian and Geez faced the contradictory desideratum (Gensler 1997: 233) that they had to include gemination but also conform to the dominant triradical pattern. Both achieved this in the same way by sacrificing conformity to the triradical pattern, but not at a high price: a new conformity is obtained, namely to the patterns of (part of) the derived stems. As Gensler elegantly demonstrates (1997: 23335), this is the most efficient way of solving the dilemma. It is quite possible that two languages, faced with the same challenge, independently come up with the same solution, if this solution is the most efficient one. Against the view that ydanaggd and ibbalakkat represent a parallel development, Gensler argues that the dominant structural principle responsible for the rise of these forms cannot have worked independently in Akkadian and Geez, because it was already present in Proto-Semitic itself (1997: 249). This, however, is a perfect case of circularity. It leads directly to another point: Genslers claim is crucially dependent on the existence in Proto-Semitic of a geminated triradical (basic) imperfective: if it does not exist, there is no point in reconstructing a quadriradical im99. Gensler does not discuss the difference in stem vowel, but see 1997: 247 n. 28 (where his remark that this same position [i.e., the vowel of the final syllable of the stemNJCK] is often variable in the triliteral inflection as well is unjustified; see the beginning of this section. 100. Therefore, it does not apply to the Gt-stem (Stem III/1) and the stem with vowel lengthening (Stem I/3), where the penultimate consonant is intervocalic, nor to Stem I/2, where it is a geminate.
123
perfective of the same type. He offers no arguments for this claim, however; he simply takes the tripartite tense system as represented by Akkadian and Geez as given.101 Even by Genslers own methodological principles, the Geez and Akkadian imperfective forms are parallel developments. He states that independent parallel genesis based on a triliteral model would be plausible only if it served somehow to create a more regular verb system (. . .), either (1) generalizing some dominant structural principle of the triliteral verbal system, and/or (2) conforming to some pre-existing triliteral inflectional pattern (1997: 248). I have argued that the quadriradical imperfective does indeed do (1)i.e., it generalizes gemination of the penultimate radical. It does not do (2), since that is impossible, but instead it conforms to the quadriradical pattern of the derived stems. This leads to the conclusion that the similarity between ydanaggd and ibbalakkat is not the compelling kind of evidence Gensler argues it to be. Rather than providing a new argument for the tripartite tense/aspect system of Proto-Semitic, it does exactly the opposite: it suggests that Geez and Akkadian represent independent developments as an answer to the same challenge.102 This is not to say that the alternative optionthat ydanaggd is a survival of Proto-Semitic as a quadriradical counterpart to *yiqattaluis impossible: one could argue that even though *yiqattalu was discarded, the corresponding quadriradical category remained in use and adopted as stem vowel by analogy with the triradical verb. This is an ad hoc explanation, however, which does not do justice to the systematic nature of the developments that have taken place both in Akkadian and in Geez as a consequence of the introduction of gemination in the basic imperfective.
4.6.2. ThequadriradicalandquinqueradicalverbsinSouthSemitic
A more detailed study of the paradigm of the quadriradical and quinqueradical verbs in South Semitic supports the conclusion of the preceding section (see Table 4.10 for the relevant forms). The closest Geez counterpart to the Akkadian verbs of the nabalkutu type is not the dangada type but the small group of quinqueradicals with n as first radical, most of which consist of reduplicated biliteral elements, e.g., angargara to wallow, roll and anssawa to walk about (Tropper 2002: 13436). They are defined as quadriradical in Akkadian because the nasal has the status of a prefix (e.g., it is replaced by in the -stem; see 13.4.1, pp. 338340). In Geez it is a stable part of the conjugation, although several of the verbs in question have variants without n (2002: 134).103 This should not detract us from the fact they are obviously related; there is even at least one cognate pair among them, which is exceptional for this kind of verbnamely, the abovementioned angargara and Akk nagarruru with about the same meaning (see 12.6.1, pp. 319320).104 Their imperfective is parallel to that of dangadayngaraggrand can be explained in the same way. Its Akkadian counterpart, the imperfective iggarrar, cannot be directly compared, since it results from an inner-Akkadian development (see 12.3, p. 302). There
101. He states, for instance, that I will take it for granted that the Akkadian/Ethiopic three-way pattern, with gemination of the Present/Imperfect, is archaic and reconstructible to Proto-Semitic (1997: 232; cf. also 249), and that it is now generally accepted as reflecting a pattern reconstructible to Proto-Semitic (1997: 230). I agree, but with the small change I have proposed above, that the form in question is not the basic imperfective, which makes a big difference. 102. The same conclusion was drawn by D. Cohen (1984: 1067) and T. D. Anderson (2000: 25). 103. Several dictionaries, such as CDG, do not list them under n but under the second radical: e.g., angaragara under grgr (CDG 202a). 104. I will argue in 12.6.1 (pp. 319320) that this type of quadriradical verb forms the Akkadian counterpart to the quadriradical verbs of the structure C1C2C1C2 elsewhere in Semitic.
124
can be no doubt that the Akkadian quadriradical verbs and the Geez quinqueradicals with n as first radical are both inherited from the common proto-language, one of the many highly archaic shared retentions of these two branches of Semitic.105 With very few exceptions, Akkadian does not have quadriradical verbs without the prefix n-.106 In Geez, the quinqueradical verbs of the angargara type are a marginal group, numerically dwarfed by the mass of quadriradical verbs of the dangada type. This suggests that the angargara type is a residual group and that dangada represents the productive way of conjugating quadriradicals.107 We can glimpse the contours of a historical development here. Originally, quadriradical elements needed a conjugational prefix n- to be conjugated as verbs. This stage is attested by the Akkadian nabalkutu group. In West Semitic, an alternative arose in which the two middle radicals were treated as a cluster equivalent to the geminate of the D-stem. Hence, new quadriradical verbs were regularly conjugated on the model of the D-stem (Gensler 1997: 22930): Arabic tarjama yutarjimu qattala yuqattilu, Hebrew gilgel to roll, conjugated as a Piel verb, and Geez dangada *ydangd (which survives as a jussive).108 This conjugation, which had the great advantages of being transparent and having a high type-frequency, gradually replaced the older one with the prefix n-. The process has reached its completion in Central Semitic, where no traces of quinqueradical verbs with n as R1 survive, and is almost completed in Geez. Accordingly, the conjugation of quadriradical verbs on the model of the D-stem is a West Semitic innovation. This is in keeping with the data from Geez: in Geez, the forms of the dangada type closely correspond to those of Ar tarjama (see Tropper 2002: 131), except the imperfective ydanaggd. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the original conjugation of the quadriradical verbs of the dangada type was exactly like in Central Semitic and that the deviating imperfective is a secondary form that arose after the introduction of gemination in the basic stem. This is supported by the fact that the closest relatives of Geez, the other North Ethiopian languages Tigre and Tigrigna, have a quadriradical imperfective without gemination (see Hudson 2005: 201, 207 Table 5). Moreover, this also applies to the corresponding verb types in MSA. The Mehri imperfective forms, as presented in Table 4.10, show that Mehri did not take part in the introduction of gemination: the quadriradical ykrbl he crawls and the quinqueradical ynqrb it is curled, wrinkled may be derived from *yVkarbl(u) and *yVnqarb(u), respectively, on the model of similar forms discussed by Voigt (1994: 3056). Even though the vowels of this reconstruction may be wrong, the important thing is that these forms clearly lack the geminate penultimate radical of ydanaggd. So Mehri has also preserved the West Semitic conjugation in the imperfective. In conclusion, there is plentiful evidence indicating that the quadriradical imperfective forms of Geez and Akkadian result from parallel but independent developments, triggered by the introduction of gemination as the basic feature of the imperfective. This happened in Geez more
105. See Cantineau 1932; von Soden 1987. 106. An exception is parumu to let live to old age (NA); see chap. 12, n. 69 (p. 307). A partial exception is mlulu to play (see 12.4, pp. 305307). 107. In Modern South Arabian, the number of quinqueradicals with the prefix n- seems to be somewhat larger: Johnstones Mehri lexicon contains about 45 instances. 108. With the exception of the infinitive (the madar): the triradical verb has taqtl and the quadriradical verb has tarjamah (Fleisch 1979: 448), doubtless because the secondary formation taqtl (see 14.6.1, pp. 397402) could not easily be adapted to a quadriradical root. There are also a few quadriradical verbs of a quite different type that are not relevant to the issue at hand; see Fleisch 1979: 45363 and Larcher 2003: 13233.
125
consistently than in Akkadian, since Akkadian also disposed of a/i apophony to differentiate between imperfective and perfective. This option was apparently not open to Geez, which suggests that the Proto-Semitic pluractional forms of the derived verbal stems had already fallen into disuse. However, there is a possible trace in some MSA forms. The causative stem of the strong verb in Mehri, for instance, has an imperfective yhnsm and a jussive yhnsm (Johnstone 1987: xxxviixxxviii; Voigt 1994: 301). The most straightforward way to account for these forms is to derive them from *yuhaqtal(u?) and *yuhaqtil, respectively, parallel to Akkadian uapras uapris (Rssler 1951: 106; Voigt 1994: 301). If this analysis is correct, MSA uses an imperfective that goes back to the Proto-Semitic PL-stem *yuaqtalu. It is possible that a different analysis will present itself as we learn more about the historical background of MSA morphology, but for the time being these forms provide an additional argument for the ProtoSemitic nature of the Akkadian system rather than the South Semitic one and for the survival of the Proto-Semitic system in at least one class of MSA forms. Moreover, they show that the corresponding Geez form, the II/1 Stem Impfv yqattl, is an Ethiopic innovation (Voigt 1994: 301), as we already concluded above on the basis of comparison with Akkadian. The same applies to the reconstructed quadriradical and quinqueradical forms I have mentioned above: if the stem vowel a that I have posited above in *yVkarbl(u) and *yVnqarb(u) is correct, it provides a parallel with the corresponding reconstructed Akkadian imperfective *yinbalkat, which is the predecessor of the historical form ibbalakkat (see 12.5, pp. 309310). It is conceivable that Proto-Semitic had a basic quadriradical imperfective *yi-n-balkitu and a derived pluractional imperfective *yi-n-balkatu, but in view of the overall semantic nature of the verbs involved, it is also possible that only the latter form existed. In that case, the in the final syllable of ydanaggd arose by analogy as a result of the joint pressure from all other derived categories.
thePerfectiveandtheimPerative
Chapter 5
5.1. introduction
The form and the function of the perfective (which is usually called preterite; see pp. xxi xxii) and the imperative are straightforward and require little comment. Therefore, the main topic of this short chapter will be their historical background (little as we know about it) and the relationship between the past tense function of the perfective and its irrealis use in the precative and the vetitive.
5.2. the Perfective: Form

The perfective and the imperative are the simplest forms of the Akkadian verbal paradigm: their inflectional stem consists only of the prefix base PRvS (see 2.2.1, pp. 3132). The perfective is the unmarked prefix conjugation, and in the G-stem its basic feature is a negative onethe absence of gemination. The additional contrast between the root vowel and the imperfective vowel in the anisovocalic vowel classes does not seem to play a significant role. The relationship between the two is not arbitrary, since only five out of the nine possible combinations actually occur, which represent the five vowel classes discussed in 3.5 (pp. 6875); see Table 5.1: A/u Impfv Pfv iparras iprus A/i uab uib A/a ilammad ilmad I/i ipaqqid ipqid U/u imaqqut imqut
table 5.1: the imperfective vowel and the root vowel of the five vowel classes.
Nor is the relationship between imperfective and perfective predictable in either direction:1 an imperfective with u and i entails a perfective with the same vowel, but an imperfective with a allows any vowel in the perfective. Conversely, a perfective with a entails an imperfective with a, but a perfective with u allows both u and a in the imperfective. A perfective with i entails i in the imperfective, except in the small group of I/w verbs and irregular verbs of the A/i class. Only by including semantic factors can we obtain a higher rate of predictability. For instance, only if the verb is transitive do we expect an imperfective with a to have a perfective with u and a perfective with u to have an imperfective with a (see 3.5.2, pp. 7175). As a past tense, the perfective is functionally subordinate to the imperfective, but since it is unmarked, not predictable in form, and highly frequent (at least until it was ousted from most
1. In the derived stems, the perfective is usually predictable on the basis of the imperfective.
126
5.3. The Perfective: Function
127
environments by the t-perfect), it has a relatively independent status. Hence, the Akkadian verbal paradigm can best be described as built on two basic forms rather than one.2 Their relationship is understandable from a diachronic point of view: the prefix base PRvS represents the basic form of the verb in the period before the introduction of iparrVs, when the root vowel was still the basic vowel. Where the new imperfective *yiqattalu held onto its original stem vowel a,3 the root vowel lost its status as dominant vowel and remained restricted to the forms in which it was historically present, the perfective and the imperative, whereas the new imperfective vowel expanded to derived categories dependent on the G imperfective, as was shown in 4.2 (pp. 8890).
5.3. the Perfective: Function 4

In the older dialects, the basic functional opposition among the finite fientive categories is between imperfective and perfective. As opposed to the imperfective, the perfective indicates past tense, perfective aspect, and realis mood, but in practice it has the value of a simple past tense: it presents the event as real, anterior to a temporal reference point and completed (in telic verbs) or terminated (in atelic verbs). A series of perfectives, therefore, denotes a succession of events, which makes it the main form for narrative (E. Cohen 2006: 5460). The perfective has no correlation whatsoever with the durative or punctual nature of the event, pace Landsberger (1926a: 35960) and W. von Soden (GAG 79a). Therefore, it is freely compatible with durative qualifications, e.g.:5 (01) ArAn. 1, 48 n. 23 kt 88/k 507b:1112 (OA) itu mtn 10 antim ab ib-l-a after the plague, my father was (still) alive for ten years (02) ARM 27, 2:10 (OB) amm kayyni iz-nu-un (from the 3rd(?) to the 14th day of the month) it rained continuously (also MARI 8, 327:78); (03) YOS 3, 140:89 (NB) 20 mu.an.na.m maarta (. . .) k a-u-ru after I had kept watch for 20 years. Whatever the objective duration of the event, by using the perfective the speaker presents it as completed.6 If an event or an activity is not completed at the moment of reference, the perfective is normally avoided, as in examples (05) and (06) of chap. 4 (p. 93).
2. In this respect, Akkadian agrees typologically with a great number of languages that have a verbal paradigm with a basic distinction between present and past or perfective and imperfective in such a way that these categories are not formally predictable from each other (cf. the strong verbs in Germanic, the imperfective stem versus the aorist stem in Greek, and the infectum versus the perfectum in Latin, etc.). The West Semitic contrast between prefix and suffix conjugation is another example. 3. This only happened in a minority of all verbs: in most verbs, the root vowel was strong enough to impose itself on the new imperfective and oust its original a, as we saw in 4.5.1 (pp. 109112). 4. For definitions of the function of the perfective, see also GAG 79; Streck 1995a: 19596; Buccellati 1996: 101; Huehnerguard 2005a: 19; Leong 1994: 3031, 62136; Metzler 2002: 87374. These works also deal with some secondary uses of the perfective that I will not discuss, such as the Koinzidenzfall and the gnomic perfective; see GAG3 79b* with literature. 5. See also Loesov 2005: 111; more examples with discussion can be found in Leong 1994: 13436. 6. When the actual length of the period in the past is unspecified, as with adverbs such as pnnum formerly (OB) or kayyntam (and variant forms) regularly, constantly, there is a strong tendency to use the imperfective (see 4.3, pp. 9295), because an indefinite period of time lacks the boundedness that
128
The Perfective: Function 5.3.
In subordinate clauses, the perfective is anterior because of its function of denoting completed action (versus the non-anterior function of the imperfective); this makes it into a kind of pluperfect in past contexts: (04) AbB 11, 116:1314 (OB) x a. e.gi. a am-u-ru itbalma alp a ina marya il-q- ana libbu x eqlim uti [i ]talal he appropriated the 2 bur of sesame field that I had received and dragged the oxen which he had taken from me to that 2 bur field. In conditional clauses, the perfective indicates that the protasis is completed at the moment the apodosis is realized; see (14) and (15A) in 4.3 (p. 94). This is especially common in legal texts, where the condition normally has to be fulfilledi.e., the unlawful act must have been committedbefore the specified sanction can apply (cf. GAG 161df; Hirsch 1969: 125). The most noteworthy functional aspect of the perfective is its competition with the t-perfect (iptarVs). As a neutral past tense that does not say anything about the attitude of the speaker toward the event in terms of his own involvement in it, its current relevance, or its actuality, the perfective was exposed to competition from a more expressive form that enables a speaker to include this kind of nuance. This is a typologically common process.7 Akkadian opted for an unorthodox solution to fill this need: it pressed the perfective of the Gt-stem into service; the details of this process are problematic and will be dealt with in chap. 6, which deals with the t-perfect. The tendency to replace the perfective with the t-perfect is already observable in the oldest period. Instances of the perfective in contexts where speaker involvement, actuality, and recentness are likely to be presentas far as we can judgeare mostly restricted to very early texts, such as Sargonic Akkadian and Archaic Babylonian letters, which have relatively few t-perfects; see 6.3.2 (pp. 149150).8 As the t-perfect became more common, the perfective came to be associated with the absence of the nuances expressed by the t-perfect and was restricted to the function of a neutral (narrative) past tense. From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, there was a syntactic distinction between the t-perfect and the perfective: the former was the regular past tense in affirmative main clauses and Satzfragen, whereas the latter was relegated to negative and subordinate clauses and Wortfragen. This process will further be discussed in 6.3.4 (pp. 153155). The equivalents of the Akkadian perfective in other Semitic languages also have an irrealis function. In Akkadian, this is only possible with an explicit markernamely, in the precative and the vetitive, which will be discussed in chap. 9. However, in Late Babylonian the perfective is attested with a volitive function and without the precative markers l- and i (GAG 81g; Streck 1995a: 12741). In the first-person plural of the precativethe cohortativethis also occurs in Neo-Assyrian (Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 93; Streck 1995a: 13941), and sporadic instances can even be quoted from Old Babylonian Mari (Finet 1956: 216 78gh) and Standard Babylonian (GAG3 81g*).9 It is difficult to determine whether this process is related to the fact that in Late
is inherent in the meaning of the perfective (see Langacker 1987: 8084 and Smith 1997: 6566 for the bounded nature of perfective aspect). 7. See Kuryowicz 1975: 106, quoted in 1.2.2 (p. 4); D. Cohen 1984 passim; Bybee et al. 1994: 51105. 8. However, after the asseverative particle l, the perfective held its ground: although semantically l would agree very well with the t-perfect, it occurs with the perfective to denote an emphatic statement in the past tense (GAG 81f, 152b). Instances with the t-perfect are extremely rare (AbB 2, 47:8, 115:15 [OB]); cf. also E. Cohen 2005: 4950, 6971. This may be an indication of its relatively recent origin (Loesov 2004a: 123). 9. Additional instances include ni-i-i-i ARM 28, 113:14 let us attack; NI-sa-a-i-ir (sic!) ibid. 16 let us turn around (trans.); ni-i-a-bi-it ibid. 155:19 let us compete with each other. In ShA 1, 109
5.4. The Historical Background of the Perfective
129
Babylonian the perfective is no longer used in affirmative main clauses, so that no ambiguity can arise from the omission of the precative marker, or whether it is an independent development related to the widespread use of past tense forms in irrealis function, an issue I will address in the next section. It is possible that Aramaic influence is also involved, as argued by Streck (1995a: 24547) and Lipiski (1997: 51314).
5.4. the Historical Background of the Perfective

The Proto-Semitic ancestry of the perfective iprVs is beyond doubt. Both its form and its function demonstrate that it is a very old formation. Formally, it has exact correspondences in West Semitic, not only in the basic stem of the strong triradical verb, for which we can reconstruct PSem *yiqtVl, but also in most other verb types, e.g., the N-stem *yinqatil (see 12.6.2, pp. 322323), and the D-stem *yuqattil (see 11.6.1, p. 280), the quadriradical perfective *yinbalkit (see 12.5, p. 309), and the weak perfective of the II/voc verbs *yimt (see 16.5.2, p. 476).10 Parallels in Berber and Cushitic show that *yiqtVl already existed in Afroasiatic. For Berber, Kossmann (2001: 72) reconstructs a 3ms aorist y-C1C2vC3, contrasting with a preterite y-vC1C2C3 (where v stands for or ). Sasse (1980: 170) reconstructs a prefixed perfective *yu/iqtu/il for the strong triradical verb in Proto-Cushitic, and Beja also has a prefixed perfective with a stem CCvC (G. Gragg apud Kienast 2001: 6034). It is therefore futile to explain the constituent parts of *yiqtVl on the basis of (Proto-)Semitic formations, as, for instance, Bauer (1910: 8) does when he claims that *yiqtul arose from the combination of a pronominal subject with a verbal stem qutul, which was at the same time imperative and infinitive.11 In principle, this kind of development is plausible, but it ignores the fact that *yiqtVl must have emerged long before the Proto-Semitic period. The use of iprVs and its counterparts in West Semitic also suggest a high antiquity. As a past tense, it has been or is being marginalized in the historical period. In Akkadian, it is gradually replaced by the t-perfect, a process that will be investigated in detail in the next chapter. In the rest of Semitic, it only occurs in the oldest stages of several early Central Semitic languages and survives there as a residual past tense (T. D. Anderson 2000: 1314, 1720). In Ugaritic, it is restricted to poetic texts as a narrative form in competition with the suffix conjugation, whereas prose texts only use the latter (Tropper 2000: 69597). In Aramaic, too, it is only found in some of the oldest inscriptions (Muraoka 1995: 1920). In Biblical Hebrew, it occurs as a narrative past in the consecutive imperfect wayyiqol (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 13941; T. D. Anderson 2000: 20) and occasionally elsewhere (2000: 5152). In Arabic, it is also restricted to a few specific environments: e.g., after the negations lam not and lamm not yet and in conditional clauses (Wright 1967: II 41; Fischer 1972: 96). We may conclude that *yiqtVl was the standard perfective formation in Proto-Semitic but that it was replaced by other formations after the
no. 39:1617 (OB Shemshara), a 1p Prec i ni-il-wi let us lay siege to is followed by ni-ir-i let us obtain without i, which is also attested in Mari (Finet 1956: 216 78g). For Standard Babylonian, see also W. R. Mayer 1987: 58. 10. For a selection of individual verbs in the basic stem that we can reconstruct for Proto-Semitic on the basis of an exact correspondence in the root vowel, see 18.3.1 (p. 588). 11. Similar ideas were expressed by Bauer and Leander (1922: 176), Kienast (2001: 196 and elsewhere), and Cook (2001: 130). Cook identifies the verbal stem involved with the Common Semitic *q(u)tul infinitive form (like Bauer and Leander). The infinitive seems a less likely candidate from which to derive a resultative; see Bybee et al. 1994: 6768. Moreover, Cooks example *ya-qrub he is drawn near is unfortunate, since all evidence points to *yVqrab as the correct Proto-Semitic perfective of the verb in question; see 17.7.3.2 (p. 565).
130
The Historical Background of the Perfective 5.4.
break-up of the parent language: by the t-perfect in East Semitic and by the suffix conjugation qatVla in West Semitic.12 However, typological parallels can give us an idea about the historical background of *yiqtVl. Grammatical categories denoting a simple past tense usually represent a very late stage in a grammaticalization process. As Bybee et al. (1994: 51105) have shown, they arise either from an earlier completive, or from a resultative, or from a perfect (which itself often comes from a resultative).13 Since *yiqtVl does not contain a marker that could have had completive function (completives are often grammaticalizations of a verb to finish; 1994: 5661), it is most likely an ancient resultative that has developed into a perfect, a past, or a perfective, just as the West Semitic suffix conjugation qatVla must have done at a later point in time. Resultatives often come from a combination of a copula (which may be zero) with a past participle (1994: 6768); so nothing prevents us from speculating that *yiqtVl goes back to the univerbation of a pronominal subject (+ copula) + participle in a very early stage of Afroasiatic.14 A small piece of evidence in favour of this is formed by the defective stative verbs id to know and i to have: they are iprVs forms, yet they can refer to the present (GAG 106q/r). This suggests that they are a remnant of the original resultative meaning of *yiqtVl, since it is a typical feature of resultatives of stative verbs to denote a present state.15 A major problem concerning *yiqtVl is the historical and functional relationship between its use as a past tense and its irrealis function to express wishes, exhortations, injunctions, etc. The two coexist in Central Semitic, although, as stated above, the past-tense function is mostly dependent on a specific syntactic environment; see Gai 2000 for a survey. In Akkadian, this dual nature was abandoned, since the irrealis function is obligatorily marked by a prefix or a particle. Hetzron (1969) proposed solving the problem by assuming that the two functions were dif ferentiated by stress: he reconstructs an irrealis form *yaqtVl with final stress and a past tense 16 *yqtVl with penultimate stress. There are, however, serious difficulties with this proposal. First, it is widely held that in early Semitic stress was automatically assigned according to syllable structure and was therefore not contrastive. Second, the actual evidence Hetzron adduces (from Akkadian, Geez, and Hebrew) is unconvincing and open to a different interpretation.17 The only Akkadian evidence is the opposition between l as the marker of the precative and l as an asseverative particle: the former contracts with a following iprVs form (if it starts with a vowel): liprus, etc. (see 9.2.1.1, p. 213), whereas the latter remains separate: l iprus. Hetzron explains this difference from an original contrast between *l iprs > liprus and *l prus, which
12. The very early date of the rise of *yiqtVl is indirectly confirmed by the incompatibility rules for Semitic roots, which were discussed in 2.3.3 (pp. 4344). The strictest rules concern the first two radicals, which can be explained from the fact that these radicals were most often contiguous. This also pleads for a verbal paradigm based on both *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl as posited above, where the first two radicals are adjacent in all basic forms. 13. See also Givn 1991: 305: [ p]ast tense morphemes seldom arise directly, but rather as reanalysis of either the perfect or perfective aspects. 14. Regarding the personal prefixes, the most we can say is that it is typologically plausible that they ultimately have a pronominal background (personal pronouns in the first and second persons, perhaps demonstrative pronouns in the third person), as already stated in 2.5 (p. 52). 15. See Bybee et al. 1994: 7478, 92. The perfect of stative verbs in West Semitic languages shows the same feature (Tropper 1995a: 510). 16. Hetzrons views are also found in Lipiski 1997: 336 (without reference to Hetzron; Lipiski cites examples from Modern Colloquial Arabic and Modern South Arabian); Buccellati 1996: 183; and Voigt 2004: 44. 17. For Arabic, Hetzron (1969: 18) himself admits that [t]here is no indication whatsoever of an earlier formal opposition between them [i.e., the yaqtVl forms for past tense and jussiveNJCK].
5.4. The Historical Background of the Perfective
131
remains unchanged. This is ad hoc and unlikely: the difference between asseverative and precative can more plausibly be explained as a difference in degree of grammaticalization, as I will argue in 9.2.1.2 (pp. 214216). Hetzrons evidence from Geez concerns a single form: yb he said, which is the only trace of a *yiqtVl perfective in Ethiopic. In all other words it was replaced by the suffix conjugation. The corresponding jussive is ybal. Hetzron traces this contrast back to a difference in stress: *yVb(h)l versus *yVb(h)al. In the latter form the final l was weakened and palatalized to y: b(h)al > *ybay > yb. He admits, however, that this explanation is strongly hypothetical *yV and highly questionable (1969: 8). And indeed, the interpretation of yb is so controversial (see Tropper 2002: 12527) that it can hardly be regarded as serious evidence for such a far-reaching hypothesis. It is far simpler to assume that the idiosyncratic behaviour of this verbalso in other forms, in particular the loss of its middle radical his related to its high frequency. The Hebrew evidence consists of the difference between the jussive and the consecutive imperfect wayyiqol in some types of weak verbs: yqm may he stand up and yibn may he build, with final stress, versus wayyqom he stood up and wayyiben he built, with penultimate stress. However, there is no reason to question the more common explanation that these forms reflect an original endingless perfective and jussive *yqtVl and an imperfective *yaqtVlu 18 (see Huehnergard 1983: 58788 n. 165). This leads to the conclusion that none of Hetzrons arguments is compelling and that there is no reason to doubt the unitary nature of PSem *yiqtVl. So we have to look for a functional or developmental explanation for its double function. A functional explanation usually consists of a proposal to assume an original function that either encompasses the actual functions to be reconciled or is in some way intermediate between them. In order to account for the apparent contradiction between the past tense function of *yiqtVl and its irrealis function, which in temporal terms refers to the future, W. von Soden (GAG 79a) supposes an original Zeitlosigkeit, and Tropper (1998b: 15859) argues that it is purely aspectual (perfective). This does not solve the problem of the irrealis use, however. It is true that the imperfective iparrVs includes an irrealis use in addition to its basic indicative function (see 4.3, p. 92), but this is based on its temporal function of referring to the future. IprVs does not normally refer to the future, since perfective is closely associated with past tense, which means that there is no path leading from perfective to volitive, as Tropper calls its irrealis use. The fact that the future may be aspectually represented as perfective plays no role here.19 A more likely explanation can be given if we consider the special association between past tense and irrealis (Kuryowicz 1972: 64; Muraoka 1975: 6667). Kuryowicz points to the widespread use of past tense forms with non-realis function in modern languages, such as English if he wrote. . . , French sil crivait, Russian esli by (na)pisal. A well-known Semitic parallel is the use of the suffix conjugation for wishes, e.g., Arabic raimah llhu may God have mercy on him! (Fischer 1972: 92), and for the prophetic perfect in Hebrew (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 363). Fleischman (1989) offers a cognitive explanation: tense is basically used to locate an event chronologically in relation to a reference point, usually the now of the utterance. What is happening here and now (what is proximate) can usually be vouched for by the speaker, who experiences it as actual and real. An event that takes place not-here and not-now (which is distant) cannot be vouched for by the speaker in the same way: it is not experienced as actual and real. Therefore, there is a move from spatial and temporal proximity to a broader conceptual and cognitive proximity of actuality/reality, and a move from spatial and temporal distance to
18. Objections to Hetzrons thesis have also been raised by Streck (1997/8: 31920) and Gai (2000: 25). 19. Kienasts explanation (2001: 336) is incomprehensible to me.
132
The Historical Background of the Perfective 5.4.
conceptual and cognitive distance (non-actuality/non-reality) (Fleischman 1989: 23). In this way, temporal distance in the direction of past is pressed into service to express modal distance, in particular to signal the speakers assessment of the certainty-/reality-/actuality-status of a predicated situation (1989: 4). Synchronically, this use of past tense forms is simply an extension of their basic meaning (1989: 38), but over time it may give rise to purely irrealis categoriesfor instance, when the past tense function is taken over by a new form.20 According to Kuryowicz (1972: 64), this happened in West Semitic when yaqtVl was replaced by qatVla. This started in its primary past tense function, leaving yaqtVl mainly with its secondary, irrealis use as jussive, prohibitive (with l), and a potentialis or irrealis in conditional clauses; afterward, qatVla tended also to oust yaqtVl from other functions, such as conditional clauses (where yaqtVl and qatVla interchange: in yaqtul if he killed is equivalent to in qatala) and in wishes. The use of qatVla in wishes represents Fleischmans (1989: 2) synchronic extension toward irrealis contexts.21 This explanation seems to be better founded than the one usually encountered in literature on Semitic grammarthat the perfective in wishes results from a tendency to represent the desired state of affairs as already realized (e.g., Streck 1995a: 19596, with other literature).22 In Akkadian, the irrealis use of iprVs is restricted to the fixed environment of the precative and the vetitive. In an earlier stage, it must also have been a secondary synchronic extension of its temporal use. Already in Proto-Semitic, *yiqtVl had a strong association with a particle with initial l- (Testen 1993b: 3). In the historical period, the irrealis use was not grammaticalized as a result of the loss of the past tense function, as in West Semitic, but because the particle became obligatory. From that moment, the irrealis function resided in the particle. (See further 9.2.1, pp. 212217, for the precative and 9.2.2, pp. 217219, for the vetitive.) In historical perspective, iprVs is a residual form that in the course of time cedes more and more of its original function(s) to other categories with a more explicit and therefore more expressive marking. In this respect, it shows a striking similarity to the injunctive in Indo-European, as pointed out by Rundgren (1960). The injunctive is a verbal form with the secondary (i.e., basically past tense) endings of the aorist and the imperfect but without the augment (*e-) that marks these forms. It survived precariously in Indo-Iranian and Ancient Greek before being replaced by forms that have a more overt marking. In itself, it is neutral toward tense and mood, but in contrast to a marked present or imperfective, it has past or perfective (including narrative) function, and in contrast to marked indicative forms, it can have non-indicative function.23 This is very similar to the way *yiqtVl is used in Semitic. However, it is not directly useful to clarify the problems raised by *yiqtVl, since it raises the same kind of questions.
20. According to Bybee et al. (1994: 230), renewal of an old form typically starts in main asserted clauses, and it takes over all its functions only gradually. Non-assertive clauses are not used for the expression of focus or topic and tend to be conservative. So the old form continues to be used in such non-assertive contexts and adopts irrealis semantic aspects from it. Subsequently, it can again be used in main clauses, bringing their irrealis use with them. For the same process in the domain of the imperfective, see 9.3.3 (pp. 229231). 21. According to Kuryowicz (1964: 136), the subjunctive and the optative of Indo-European languages also go back to old indicatives. Imperfective-future categories give rise to the subjunctive (eventuality), whereas past-tense categories give rise to the optative (wish). These represent secondary functions that were formally renewed in their fundamental function; cf. the irrealis use of the future in French and similar phenomena in other Romance languages. 22. A general account of the relationship between past tense and irrealis forms is found in Palmer 2001: 20316. He discusses various solutions that have been proposed (in particular on the polite use of past tense auxiliaries in English) without coming to a definitive conclusion. 23. For the Indo-European injunctive, see, for instance, Szemernyi 1996: 26366.
5.5. The Imperative: Form and Function
133
5.5. the imperative: Form and Function

The function of the imperative is straightforward and needs no further comment. It is restricted to the second person and is not normally combined with a negation.24 Commands or exhortations in other persons are expressed by the precative (for which see 9.2.1, pp. 212213), and negative commands by the prohibitive, i.e., l + imperfective: alik go!, but l tllak do not go! (see 9.2.3, pp. 219220). The imperative can take the usual dative and accusative suffixes and the ventive endings. For obvious reasons, it does not take the subjunctive endings. The imperative has the same inflectional stem as the perfective, namely, the prefix base (see 2.2.1, p. 32), i.e., in the G-stem PRvS. Synchronically, it is derived from the perfective in its secondary irrealis function by subtraction of the personal prefix, e.g., -prus from ta-prus.25 In historical perspective, however, the relationship is different, as I will argue at the end of this section. The resulting forms have an illicit initial cluster, which is resolved by an epenthetic vowel: Sg Masc purus decide! The other two forms of the imperative, the singular feminine with the ending - and the plural (communis generis) with - (the same endings as in the second person of the prefix conjugations), are based on the singular masculine form but lose their second vowel through the vowel syncope rule: 2ms 2fs 2p ta-prus ta-prus ta-prus *-prus, realized as purus *-prus, remodelled on the Sg Masc purus as *purus > purs *-prus, remodelled on the Sg Masc as *purus > purs.26
The G-stem imperative has four different vowel patterns correlating with the three root vowels (the root vowel a includes two patterns), as in Table 5.2 (see also GAG Verbalpar. 7): vowel class Pfv A/u + U/u iprus purus purs purs I/i + A/i ipqid piqid piqd piqd A/a ilmad limad limd limd A/a ibat abat abt abt
2ms 2fs
2p.
table 5.2: the four vowel patterns of the g-stem imperative.
Generally speaking, in the derived verbal stems and most types of weak verbs, the same subtraction rule applies, although historical changes and phonological rules sometimes obscure
24. See GAG 81a. The fact that the imperative does not take a negation is also found in other Semitic languages (Edzard 1973: 131) and typical of many other Afro-Asiatic languages (Greenberg 1952: 8b). 25. So also Gai 2000: 26; Kienast 2001: 200; Bravmann 1977: 19799, with earlier literature. A good illustration is found in modern colloquial Hebrew, where a new imperative has emerged that is derived from the second person of the prefix conjugation by truncating the prefix t- and the following vowel or only the vowel: ftax, Fem ftexi open! < tiftax/tiftexi, and tmale, Fem tmali fill! < temale/temali, instead of the older imperative patax, pitxi and male, mali (Bolozky 1979; Bat-El 2002). Other parallels are He qa and Ugar q take! from lqa, where the absence of the first radical depends on its absence in the prefix forms yiqqa, etc., in which l is assimilated to q (see 12.6.1, p. 319). For Arabic, Benmamoun (1996; 1999: 19295) argues that the imperative is derived morphologically from the imperfective. Here the mechanism is even clearer, since the initial cluster is preserved if the preceding word ends in a vowel: ta-qtul > qtul (uqtul if there is no preceding vowel); see Fleisch 1961: 16162 and 19899. 26. Alternative forms of the type puruss/ turn up occasionally in most dialects; see GAG 87f. They may point to a different stress pattern related to the specific function of the imperative.
134
The Imperative: Form and Function 5.5.
the pattern. The connection between the perfective and the imperative is apparent from the fact that they always have the same stem vowel: in the Gt-stem iptaras pitras, iptaqid pitqid ( paqdu Gt to be cautious) and terub etrub (erbu G = Gt to enter), in the Gtn-stem iptarras pitarras, etc., in the N-stem ipparis napris; in the D-stem uparris purris (Bab), etc. See the respective types of verbs for more details. In comparison to other members of the verbal paradigm, the imperative shows an unusual amount of formal variation and instability over time. The first type of variation concerns the epenthetic vowel that dissolves the initial cluster. As Table 5.2 shows, it is sensible to the root vowel: it is identical to the root vowel in purus and piqid, but if the root vowel is a, the epenthetic vowel may be i (limad ) or a (abat ). The distribution of i and a is complex and unstable. A few A/a verbs always have a: abat from abtu to seize maa from mau to hit tabal from tablu to bring/take along27 The first two differ from most A/a verbs in being high-transitivity verbs (see 3.4, pp. 6667), so there is a semantic correlate to their deviating form.28 The a of tabal may be related to the fact that tablu is a secondary verb derived from wablu to bring/take and therefore belongs to the second type to be discussed presently. Moreover, PaRaS is also the normal pattern for the imperative of II/ verbs of the A/a vowel class (OA aam buy!, raam love!, etc.); see 17.7.3.1 (p. 560) and 17.7.4.1 (p. 567). A larger number of A/a verbs always has i; it includes a few III/voc verbs with E-colouring that originally belonged to the A/a class (see Kouwenberg 2001: 240 n. 39): limad from lamdu to (get to) know pila from palu to fear, respect rikab from rakbu to ride ilal from allu to sleep kil from kal to hold, detain kit from katu to take as security (OA). liq from leq to take, receive29 pit from pet to open rid from red to follow, accompany im from em to hear (see GAG 3 105f*) tib from teb to stand up i from e to approach30
27. An additional instance may be *raa, attested with a ventive in ra-a-a-am ShA 1, 110 no. 40:8 and 114 no. 43:12 (OB) come here quickly; it presupposes a Pfv ira he ran, although only iri is attested (1x): awtka li-ir-i-a-am AbB 11, 1:1415 let your word hurry to me (tr. M. Stol, ArBab), and thus a verb *raum or perhaps rau (see 17.4, pp. 520525), which may be a by-form of ru to come to aid (see 17.2, pp. 512513). Note, however, that CAD R 75 s.v. rau D to gather(?) lists another verb rau, which also has both iri and ira as perfectives. 28. However, the A/a verb kal to detain is from the same semantic sphere as abtu but still has an imperative with i: kil. 29. E.g., li-i-q Kisurra 157:12 (OB) and Iraq 58, 162:8 (SB). 30. In verbs with E-colouring, it is mainly the Assyrian form that shows that the first syllable has i. If these verbs had a PaRaS imperative, they would show a in the first syllable in Assyrian, because Assyrian has local E-colouring; see 17.5.1 (pp. 525527). Alternatively, they might be PiRiS forms, but it is fairly clear from numerous plene spellings with final e that these verbs do not belong to the I/i class.
5.5. The Imperative: Form and Function A third group occurs with i or a, usually according to dialect: tikal/takal from taklu to trust pia/paa from pau to calm down tiab/taab from wabu to sit down tim/tam from tam to swear (perhaps ultimately from SAk wamum to swear)
135
The verbs taklu and pau mostly have tikal and pia (in PNs, e.g., pi-a-a-dingi r AbB 13, 131:3), but in third-millennium proper names we find takal and paa.31 The other two instances come from an I/w verb and from a verb starting with t-, which can plausibly be explained as a secondary verb derived from the Gt-stem of a I/w verb (see 16.2.3, p. 454). In the older dialects, a predominates and most i forms are from later periods.32 This suggests that the form with a is older and that i is expanding, and that at least part of the limad imperatives are secondary substitutes for an earlier form with a.33 It seems unlikely, however, that all PiRaS imperatives are secondary, since they have a close parallel in Arabic, which has (u)qtul and (i)qtil but (i)qtal parallel to purus, piqid, and limad. This suggests that the use of i before the root vowel a goes back to Proto-Semitic and is related to the parallel use of i in the prefix conjugations, where according to the Barth-Ginsberg Law we may perhaps reconstruct 1s *iqtal(u), 2ms *tiqtal(u), and 3ms *yiqtal(u), etc., versus 1s *aqtu/
31. Paa is only found in Sargonic Akkadian PNs (MAD 3, 218; Hilgert 2002: 198 n. 91) and not later; takal, on the other hand, has a wider distribution: it is the usual form in Sargonic Akkadian (cf. MAD 3, 295, e.g., Ilis-da-gal and Suns-da-gal ); just once, tikal occurs (ti-ga-a[l ] SAB p. 72:5, Girsu). Moreover, it is still used a few times in Ur III Babylonian alongside the more common form tikal (Hilgert 2002: 2023). In Old Assyrian PNs, it may be in use alongside tikal (Hirsch 1972: 11b, 42b), but it is also possible that OA takal is a stative, just like alaq, waab, and bala (see 7.2, p. 162). However, the coexistence of Auri-takil and Auri-tikal in CCT 5, 19b:3, 8, and 13, which obviously refer to the same person, should warn us against taking these forms too seriously. One could argue that the Sargonic Akkadian instances also represent PaRaS statives, but Sargonic Akkadian has no other instances of PaRaS statives where other dialects have PaRiS. 32. Taab and tam are the usual forms in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian; there are no reliable instances of tiab in these dialects; see AHw 133738 s.v. *tabu (the reading ti !?-i-ba-am(-ma) in Sumer 14, 73 no. 47:25 [OB] is implausible), but tiab occurs passim in Standard Babylonian (AHw loc. cit.). However, there is one possible instance of tim in Old Babylonian: ti-ma-a ARM 26/1, 437 no. 208: r.19 (reading according to AHw 1317b s.v. tam II G 4). J.-M. Durands objections against ti-ma-a in MARI 3, 153 n. 26 are only partially valid; for a introducing an oath that not, cf. VAB 5, 13:2830 n DN u RN a awt tuppim annm -na-ka-ru oath by DN and RN that they will not change the words of this tablet; cf. CAD N/1 168b s.v. nakru 10a). Tim also occurs in Neo-Babylonian: ti-ma-an-na-a- SAA 13, 185:25 swear to us. 33. This conclusion is somewhat unexpected in view of the fact that in general the default epenthetic vowel in the first syllable of verb forms is i, as may be inferred from numerous verbal categories, such as the non-prefixed forms of the Gt- and Gtn-stems (PitRvS and PitaRRvS, respectively). Without the PaRaS imperatives, we could even argue that the imperative also uses i in principle (**PiRuS, PiRiS, PiRaS) but that **PiRuS was realized as PuRuS, because Akkadian tends to avoid i and u in the same word by means of assimilation. There are several indications for this. First, there are no nominal patterns of the types **PiRuS and **PuRiS. Second, the infinitives izuzzu to stand (up) and itlu to lie down (a fossilized N-stem and a fossilized Gt-stem, respectively; see Huehnergard 2002b) have both developed by-forms uzuzzu (Bab) or izizzu (OA) and utlu as a result of assimilation (GAG 107d, j; Huehnergard 2002b: 173), and another lexicalized Gt-stem, pitqudu to be cautious, also appears as putqudu in Neo-Babylonian (CAD P 44142 s.v.). This tendency may also have been responsible for changing an original **pirus to purus, which caused u to spread to the Fem purs and the Pl purs. In regular (i.e., non-lexicalized) verb forms of the pattern PitRuS, the sequence i u was protected against assimilation by the pressure of the verbal paradigm.
136
The Imperative: Form and Function 5.5.
il(u), 2ms *taqtu/il(u), and 3ms *yiqtu/il(u), etc., when the root vowel is not a.34 Since the pattern *yiqtal (corresponding to the A/a vowel class in Akkadian) is typical of low-transitivity verbs, this suggestion is supported by the fact that abtu and mau, which are high-transitivity verbs, do not have a PiRaS imperative. The second type of variation concerns the I/w verbs. They show a tendency to replace their monosyllabic imperatives with bisyllabic ones: taab sit down!, ta go out!, tar take/ bring!, and perhaps the above-mentioned tabal take/bring along!, instead of monosyllabic ib, , r, and bil.35 These forms will be discussed in greater detail in 16.2.2 (p. 453). There is also variation in the imperative of nadnu (Ass tadnu) to give: Bab idin versus Ass din give!, the background of which is not quite clear; see 16.4.3 (p. 474). Noteworthy later developments in the imperative concern Middle and Neo-Assyrian. From Middle Assyrian onward, II/gem verbs show an ending -u in the singular masculine imperative: du-ub-bu KAV 201:24 and MARV 1, 13:15 speak! from dabbu, mu-ud-du MARV 1, 15:7 measure! from maddu. This form also appears in Neo-Assyrian, not only in II/gem verbs, e.g., du-ub-bu SAA 15, 95:10 and ku-ur-ru SAA 1, 235: edge 1 put down! from karru, but also in strong verbs, e.g., u-up-ru SAA 5, 115:12 send! and mu-ut-u SAA 15, 123: r.2 raise! from matu. In this dialect, it is part of a wider tendency to copy the vowel of the first syllable after a cluster of R2 and R3; cf. the imperatives --la SAA 16, 63: r.1 ask! (Sg) from alu, and it-zi SAA 5, 63: r.5 stand! from izuzzu.36 The nature of this phenomenon is unclear to me.37 A highly interesting development in Neo-Assyrian is the tendency to strengthen the imperative of alku (without ventive) by reduplicating it (Parpola 1984: 18592): likalka go! (Pl) < (a)lik-alk, e.g., li-kal-ka CTN 5 p. 44:8. The usual plural Imp alk is preceded by the singular Imp alik, of which the initial syllable is dropped. According to Parpola, the reason for this renewal was the confusion between alk and the singular imperative with ventive alka (< alkam), which obscured the crucial contrast between come! and go! (Parpola 1984: 19192). Other imperatives of motion verbs, too, are sometimes strengthened by alk, e.g., et-qa al-ka StAT 2, 163: r.14 come here!, and especially i-al-ka SAA 5, 14:13 come and bring (them) (< i alk, with i < i from na; cf. 17.8.3, p. 581), where it has coalesced with the preceding imperative. Generally speaking, the form of the imperative is firmly grounded in Proto-Semitic: other Semitic languages show the same procedure of subtraction and vowel epenthesis (Moscati, ed. 1964: 13637; Kienast 2001: 200202). Arabic, however, resolves the cluster by introducing a vowel before the cluster, as we saw above (unless the preceding word ends in a vowel). This is
34. Needless to say, this reconstruction of two contrasting prefix conjugations (see also chap. 2, n. 72, p. 52) is highly speculative and is largely meant to be a working hypothesis. See 16.3.1 (pp. 463464) for the Barth-Ginsberg Law in Akkadian. 35. There are some other verbs, mostly doubly weak, that show occasional imperatives extended by means of t-: in Old Babylonian, teq from eq to daub, paint and tapul from aplum to pay (normally apul ): te-q-i-u MSL 4, 114:16 (OB) paint it!, which is undoubtedly an imperative, because it is parallel to zu--I-in /zuin/ (ibid., 15) and equated with the Sumerian imperative []u.tag.ga.a b and ta-puul-u AbB 4, 57:16 pay him! In Old Assyrian, we find ten from en to change in qtka t-ni TC 3, 101:7 change your attitude alongside qtkunu e-ni-a TC 3, 63:8. The problem with many forms of this type is that they can also stand for a defectively spelled imperfective, which can also express an injunction (although this is not very common). A different case is tis from as (OB, e.g., ti-si AbB 7, 134:30), a variant of the regular form is caused by dissimilation of the two sibilants. 36. See S. Parpola, Iraq 34 (1972) 2425 with n. 11 and Luukko 2004: 12930. 37. It cannot be explained as a ventive ending assimilated to the vowel of the preceding syllable, as GAG 101f claims; cf. Parpola, loc. cit.
5.5. The Imperative: Form and Function
137
also the standard procedure in other contexts in Arabic (Fleisch 1961: 16162, 198200; Fischer 1967: 4044). Since other West Semitic languages agree with Akkadian in this respect (e.g., He qol kill!, xab lie down!; Geez ngr speak!, gbar make!), this seems to be an Arabic innovation. According to Fischer (1967: 4244), this applies at least to Arabic nouns starting with a cluster, such as ismun name, and ibnun son.38 The relationship between the imperative and the other members of the verbal paradigm is complex and can only be understood from a historical perspective. Before the emergence of the imperfective iparrVs, all finite fientive verb forms of the G-stem used the prefix base PRvS as their inflectional stem. This created a tight unity between imperfective (*yiqtVlu), perfective (*yiqtVl ), and imperative (*q(V)tVl ), especially between the imperfective and the imperative because of their semantic relationship in the temporal sphere (incompleted, non-past events). In Akkadian, this relationship was disrupted by the rise of iparrVs, which isolated the imperative from its natural partner and associated it secondarily with the perfective, to which it is most similar in form, although the precative may have played a role in establishing a kind of functional connection as well. So the subtraction rule represents the synchronic way to describe the derivation of the imperative. Historically, however, the imperative is prior to the perfective and all other finite forms in the sense that it represents the pristine form of the verb in the period before the other finite categories developed their specific grammatical markers by means of the grammaticalization of independent words or clitics. It did not take part in most of these developments, because an imperative is always second person, refers to the moment of speech, and is by definition irrealis, so that it can dispense with person, tense, and mood markers.39 Once the other categories had acquired their own markers, this pristine form became an imperative by default. It is unlikely that it already had specifically imperative function, since this would make it unfit to serve as basis for the development of verbal forms with other functions. Cross-linguistically, therefore, the imperative is often the stem in isolation and the shortest member of the paradigm.40 This agrees perfectly with its function, since commands are more urgent and efficient when they are shorter.
38. For a recent discussion of imperative forms in Afroasiatic, see Banti 2005: 6566. 39. The only kind of marker we regularly find on imperatives are gender and number markers agreeing with the addressee(s) and markers of degrees of urgency (e.g., the energic endings (u)qtulan(na) on Arabic imperatives). Some kinds of voice markers are also possible, e.g., middle voice markers, but not normally passives, since passive imperatives are highly marked. Akkadian can also add the ventive to the imperative to denote the direction of the motion or as a first-person singular dative; see 9.4.1 (pp. 232233). 40. Cross-linguistically, this is the most common way to express a command (Martin 1957).
thet-Perfect
Chapter 6
6.1. introduction
The third prefix conjugation of Akkadian is the t-perfect. It has drawn more attention than most verbal categories in the scholarly literature on Akkadian grammar because of two controversial issues: (1) the nature of its opposition to the perfective and (2) its relationship to the Gt-stem, whose perfective is formally identical to the t-perfect of the G-stem.1 Moreover, the use of the t-perfect shows a clear diachronic development from a semantic opposition to the perfective in the older dialects to a syntactic one in the later dialects. Because of the principally diachronic aim of the present study, I will focus on the earlier dialects and on Old Babylonian in particular, which provides the most copious sources and has been studied most extensively (see below), and on the diachronic development of the t-perfect. In this chapter, I will only discuss the t-perfect itself and its historical background. The process that already in Proto-Semitic affected the use of verb forms with a t-infix in such a way that they could develop the function of a perfect tense will be discussed in chap. 14.
6.2. the t-Perfect: Form

The basic marker of all t-perfects is an infixed -t- or -ta-, but further details differ according to verb type. In the G-stem of the strong triradical verb, -ta- is inserted after R1 and the root vowel is replaced by the imperfective vowel: iparras (root vowel u: iprus) iptaras, ipaqqid iptaqid, imaqqut imtaqut (see below for the Assyrian forms). In many other verb types, however, it is not the imperfective vowel that appears between R2 and R3 but the vowel of the corresponding perfective, i.e., the root vowel or the stem vowel (see 2.1, p. 28, for definitions of these terms). Obviously, this only applies to verbs in which these vowels are not identical, i.e., the G-stem verbs of the anisovocalic vowel classes, several types of weak and irregular verbs, and a part of the derived verbal stems. Table 6.1 shows the relationship of the vowels in the imperfective, the t-perfect, and the perfective; the arrow indicates the direction of the dependency:
1. I will not go into the problem of how to distinguish it from the homonymous perfective of the corresponding t-stem. Since the t-perfect is more frequent than any of the t-stems and becomes more and more frequent in later texts, whereas the t-stems gradually drop out of use (see chap. 14), an ambiguous form should be interpreted as a t-perfect unless there is positive reason to assume otherwise. Actually, it is only in the very small number of cases where there is no clear difference in meaning between the t-stem and the corresponding primary stem that any confusion may arise; examples include ittalak from alku G to go / come or Gt to start going, set out (see 14.3.4, pp. 371372) and uttazzim he (has) complained from nazmu D = Dt (see 14.5.1, p. 385).
138
6.2. The tPerfect: Form Impfv G A/u G A/i N alkum II/voc Ass D izuzzum tadnum Ass II/voc. Bab iparras uab ipparras llak imat uparras uapras izzz iddan imt t-Pf iptaras ittaab ittapras ittalak imtuat uptarris utapris ittazz ittidin imtt uib ipparis illik imt uparris uapris izzz iddin imt Pfv iprus
139
table 6.1: the relationship between the vowels of imperfective, t-perfect, and perfective.
The question is how this situation arose and which of the two directions is the most original. There is one class of verbs in which we can establish with certainty that the identity between the t-perfect vowel and the perfective vowel is the original situationnamely, the II/voc verbs, where Assyrian has imtuat, iqtiap, whereas Babylonian has imtt, iqtp (GAG Verbalpar. 2627).2 Since an original imtuat would give **imtt in Babylonian, the Babylonian form is original and Assyrian has innovated by introducing the imperfective vowel: iparras : iptaras imat : imtuat. This agrees with the D and forms (uptarris, utapris), where the t-perfect preserves the perfective vowel i of the corresponding t-stem. These forms are originally the perfectives of the Dt-stem and the t-stem, which were introduced into the paradigm of D and by analogy with the introduction of iptarVs into the G-stem. This leads to the conclusion that the forms in the upper half of Table 6.1 are innovations: they have introduced the imperfective vowel in the t-perfect, first in the G-stem itself, and from there in the categories whose vowel pattern is based on that of the G-stem (see 4.2, pp. 8890).3 Since the Gt-stem has also adopted the imperfective vowel of the G-stem and has further extended it to the Gt perfective and t-perfect (see 14.2.1, pp. 356357), the identity of the t-perfect of the G-stem and the perfective of the Gt-stem was maintained. The vowel change in iptarVs is a consequence of its change in status from derivational to inflectional (Kuryowicz 1972: 62). As long as it was the perfective of the Gt-stem, iptarVs doubtless had a fixed vowel pattern, like other derived stems, presumably *yiptaris, as suggested by the comparison with Ar yaqtatil(u) (see further 14.4.1, p. 376). Another consequence is that it became necessary to create a t-perfect for all verbs, including the existing t- and tan-stems. The obvious solution would be to double the t-infix. However, for a very long period this method was avoided, doubtless because it meant breaking out of the extremely stable and isomorphic matrix of the derived stems (see 10.310.4, pp. 246250). In Old Babylonian, forms with a double t-infix are very unusual; in Old Assyrian, they do not seem to occur at all; only in later dialects do they start appearing on a somewhat larger scale. I will come back to this issue in the description of the individual t- and tan-stems in chap. 14.
2. See 16.5.2 (p. 478) for a more detailed account of these forms. 3. The t-perfect forms of izuzzu and Ass tadnu are problematic. See 16.5.3.5 (p. 489) for ittazz and 16.4.3 (p. 472) for ittadin.
140
The tPerfect: Function 6.3.
The Assyrian conjugation of the G-stem t-perfect iptarVs offers yet another interesting innovation. IptarVs is subject to the vowel assimilation rule, so we find, for instance, iptiqid < iptaqid and imtuqut < imtaqut, if the imperfective vowel is i or u, respectively. If a vocalic ending is attached, the vowel does not change, e.g., 3mp iptaqd, imtaqt in Old Assyrian (GKT 10b). In Middle Assyrian, however, the vowel of the endingless forms is extended to the rest of the paradigm if it is u but not if it is i; cf. the following t-perfect forms of namu U/u to depart, move as opposed to those of qarbu I/i to come near and tadnu A/i to give: ta-tu-mu-u St. Pettinato p. 131:9 vs. it-tu-um-u-n MATSH 118 no. 6:25, 28 she/they departed aq--ri-ib MATSH 96 no. 2:29 vs. iq-ar-bu KAV 159:4 I/they came near ittidin vs. ittann (passim) he/they gave (< ittadn, see chap. 16, n. 90, p. 472) In weak verbs of the III/voc class, however, both and show this phenomenon, e.g., iqtib, iqtibi he/they said from qab (I/i), and *izzuk, izzuk he/they became available from zak U/u (see further 16.7.2.3, pp. 502503). In Neo-Assyrian, the penetration of i and u into the forms with an ending also extended to the strong I/i verbs, but not consistently; cf. the following t-perfect forms of namu U/u, saru U/u to turn, labnu I/i to make bricks, and au I/i to sin: at-tu-mu RIMA I/2, 197:54 vs. at-tum4- RIMA 2/I, 174:54 I set out (Ass forms in a SB RI) i-su-ur SAA 5, 129:3 vs. is-su-ra SAA 5, 204: r.7 he returned *issibin vs. i-si-ib-nu /issibn/ SAA 15, 156: r.5 and r.7 they made bricks, with -ss< -lt- (Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 31) a-ti-i SAA 16, 36:3 I have sinned vs. i-ti-i-u--nik-ka /itittnikka/ ABL 879:4 they have sinned against you4 Other I/i verbs preserve the ancient scheme of iptiqid iptaqd, e.g.: e-ti-bir CTN 5 p. 41:5 vs. e-tab-ru ibid. 12 he/they crossed from ebru ni-iq-i-[r]i-ib CTN 5 p. 45:8 versus iq-ar-b[a] p. 77:7 we/he approached from qerbu ittidin vs. ittann passim from tadnu, fossilized as a result of its frequency
6.3. the t-Perfect: Function 5

The overall function of the t-perfect, as it appears in Old Babylonian, is that of referring to a past event, not as a neutral past, but with a specific nuance. Starting with Goetze (1936), most authors agree that this nuance is actuality: the speaker represents the past event as still actual to the moment of speech.6 Following Loesov (2004a), we might define the basic function of the
4. For the spelling with -- rendering original - -, see 17.8.3 (pp. 577578). III/ verbs such as au are generally conjugated as strong verbs in Neo-Assyrian; the situation with the III/voc verbs is the same as in Middle Assyrian. 5. Earlier literature includes Oppenheim 1935; Goetze 1936; von Soden (GAG 80); Maloney 1981; Leong 1994: 151225; Streck 1995a and 1999; Metzler 2002: 87586; Loesov 2004a. 6. The formulations used are slightly different. Goetze (1936: 312) states that the t-perfect serves to link the past to the present; (. . .) it denotes the action which has just been performed and still affects the situation. This is translated almost literally by W. von Soden in GAG 80b: vor allem soeben erst vollendete bzw. als solche gedachte und noch wirksame Handlungen. Maloney (1981: 33 and elsewhere) chooses the term current relevance. Most recently, Loesov (2004a: 172) defines the t-perfect as expressing now
6.3. The tPerfect: Function
141
t-perfect as follows: by using the t-perfect in reporting a past event, the speaker relates it to the present situation and includes it in his (subjective) perception of the present (the time of utterance). The reasons for doing so are manifold: he may be personally interested or involved in it, the event may be very recent and/or still unknown to the addressee (the hot news perfect), or he may wish to highlight (foreground) it vis--vis other events. At least in origin, the t-perfect typically belongs to the deictic register of discourse rather than to the narrative register (Loesov 2004a: 1089). It is therefore very common in letters, the genre most closely related to spoken language that we have.7 In its function of referring to past events, the t-perfect contrasts with both the perfective, which denotes a simple past event and is neutral as to the speakers attitude towards it, and the stative, which denotes a (usually present) state resulting from a preceding event.8
6.3.1. Thet-perfectinOldBabylonian
A major feature of the t-perfect in Old Babylonian is that it is mostly restricted to a small number of syntactic environments. The great majority of Old Babylonian t-perfects occur in three fixed syntagms: 1. In a sequence of a perfective or a string of perfectives + -ma + t-perfect, the so-called consecutio temporum, which will be discussed below; 2. In temporal and conditional clauses dependent on a main clause with future reference; 3. In letters as an epistolary t-perfect, i.e., after inanna and/or anumma. For the sake of convenience, I will call such t-perfects bound t-perfects and t-perfects outside these syntagms free t-perfects. In spite of their relative rarity, the free t-perfects are a better guide for establishing the specific value of the t-perfect than the bound ones, since the use of the latter may not only be determined by the value of the t-perfect itself but also by the syntagm in
extended past-wise, i.e., a past fact possessing a resultative component that is temporalized at the moment of observation coinciding with the coding time. In other words, it is a present perfect (cf. also 2004a: 1078), which grammaticalizes the notion of speakers time, i.e., the time-span that the speaker perceives as extending from the event itself up to the present moment (2004a: 107). 7. There are also, however, some rather differentand in my view untenableviews on the function of the t-perfect, in particular, those of Buccellati (1996: 87, 10812), Streck (1995a: 21934; 1999) and Metzler (2002: 384, 87576). I will not discuss them in detail here, apart from a specific point of criticism in n. 22 (p. 145) below. For Buccellatis claim that the temporal function of the t-infix is no more than a specific realization of its alleged separative function, see Kouwenberg 2005 and 1998: 17778. For further criticism of Buccellatis and Strecks views on the t-perfect, see also Sallaberger 1999: 138 n. 194 and Loesov 2004a: 8790. 8. In contrast to Loesov, I prefer not to use the term resultative in the definition of the t-perfect. In the first place, it is not the result of the event that stays prominent in the mind of the speaker but the event itself. Therefore, the t-perfect is not, like the stative, restricted to telic verbs: prototypically atelic verbs, such as to dance and to walk around, are also used in the t-perfect. Second, it might obscure the basic difference between t-perfect and stative: the stative of a fientive verb denotes the state resulting from a previous event. It is therefore in principle restricted to verbs denoting events that can result in a state, usually telic verbs. This is the kind of misunderstanding to which Leong (1994: 3233) has fallen victim when he defines the t-perfect as a semantic fusion of a perfective event and a stative situation. It describes both the anterior event as well as a stative situation that resulted from it. (. . .) [the perfect] also expresses the current relevance of that anterior perfective event, i.e., the event resulted in a state that has sustained validity. It is also prominent in Rowtons description of the function of the stative, e.g., Rowton 1962: 29091. For the difference between stative and perfect, see also Maslov 1988: 6465.
142
which it occurs. The bound t-perfects have developed from the fixation of patterns of free use that were frequent enough to become stereotyped. Free t-perfects in main clauses can be found in letters and in dialogue passages of literary texts. They convey notions such as involvement of the speaker/writer, urgency, and actuality; the events in question arouse strong feelings in the speaker, are recent or relevant to the present situation and/or the people involved, and often as yet unknown to the addressee.9 Here are three examples from Old Babylonian letters and two from literary texts:10 (01) MARI 5, 178:5 PN im-tu-ut PN has died (beginning of a letter) (02) AbB 14, 135:46 atka im-tu-ut ummaka maratti u PN mr im-tu-ut your sister has just passed away, your mother is ill and PN my son has (also) passed away11 (03) AbB 14, 18:612 tu-u-ta-am-ri-i libb 12 u muru libbi rabiam ana pnya ta-a-taka-an kma l aturrma ina puur aya umi bt abi l azakkaru te-te-ep-a-an-ni you have hurt me and caused me great chagrin, and you have made it impossible for me to mention the name of (my) family ever again in the company of my relatives!13 (04) Gilg. p. 234:33 ibr a-ta-mar antam my friend, I have seen a second (dream)14 (05) Atr. p. 52:162 [upikku] atru id -du-uk-ni-a-ti excessive toil has killed us15
9. For the letters, see Oppenheim 1935: 1213; Goetze 1936: 30821; Maloney 1981: 3338, 7785; Leong 1994: 16064; Sallaberger 1999: 14447; E. Cohen 2006: 52. For the hot news perfect, see McCawley 1971: 104. For literary texts, see Metzler 2002, in particular pp. 384492; E. Cohen 2006: 5052. A full study of the use of the t-perfect in Old Babylonian narrative passages in literary texts still has to be done. Metzlers discussion is marred by the fact that he does not distinguish adequately between narrative and dialogue (see in particular his discussion (2002: 42223) of Gilg. p. 172:24 tamar and 26 tamar, the first of which is narrative in the consecutio temporum and the second of which is a free t-perfect (see also Loesov 2004a: 118 n. 77) and by his assumption of a Perfekt des Fortschreitens, which in my view does not exist (see n. 22 below, p. 145). Even so, the Old Babylonian epic texts, especially Gilgamesh and Atraasis, contain many t-perfects that are not easy to explain. 10. Cf. also the (rare) use of the t-perfect in proper names, where it expresses das unmittelbar Erlebte according to Stamm 1939: 9495 ( pace Streck 2002a: 112 n. 5), in names such as tana-il I have had enough, my God (but perhaps a Gt perfective; see 6.3.2, p. 150), tamar-DN I have seen DN and Ittabi-dn-Aur the verdict of Assur has (just) come about (MA). Streck (2002a: 112) observes that the earliest instances are first persons (if Imtda(m) also belongs here, it is not a counterexample, since it has a first-person dative). For the use of T-forms in Eblaite proper names (as abbreviations of perfective + DN?), see Krebernik 1988a: 5759. 11. Perhaps the emotional involvement is also indicated by the i-Modus maratti; see Kraus 1973a, especially p. 264, and chap. 9, n. 3 (p. 211). 12. Note the very unusual inversion of verb and direct object: is this also a sign of strong emotions? 13. Further examples from letters include Sumer 23, pl. 5/6:11 i-te-ep-a-ni, versus 28 i-pu-a-ni (in a question); AbB 14, 88:45; ARM 1, 4:58; ARM 28, 145: r.89. 14. The t-perfect also occurs elsewhere in this phrase, e.g., Gilg. p. 172: 26; 232: 4; 238: 84; 242: 9. However, another Old Babylonian version of Gilgamesh uses a perfective in this phrase, but with the verb nalu instead of amru: Gilg. p. 248: 3 ibr uttam a--ul, since the perfective can always replace the t-perfect. 15. Other likely instances include Gilg. p. 242:1; 278: II 12; 280: IV 12; Atr. p. 72:7.
143
The use of the t-perfect is optional. However, when a t-perfect is available, the speaker will tend to use it, since an explicit indication of actuality heightens the interest of the hearer and by not using it he runs the risk that his words will be misinterpreted as purely historical information.16 If there is no t-perfect available, as in the case of t-stemssince in Old Babylonian a double t-infix is avoided (see 14.2.1, pp. 357358, for details)the perfective can be used (Loesov 2004a: 11011), e.g., in (06A), where we expect a t-perfect on the basis of similar contexts, such as (06B), an example pointed out by Sallaberger 1999: 145 n. 202: (06A) AbB 2, 3:67 kaparr a qtni ana rd um-ta-al-lu- the shepherds under my command have been assigned (Pfv Dt) to the rds (06B) AbB 2, 26:611 kartapp a qtya (. . .) PN ana rd u ilkim am um-ta-al-li-u-nu-ti PN has assigned (t-Pf D) the grooms under my command to the rds and a different ilku-task Generally speaking, free t-perfects are not very common, since often more than one event is reported, especially in letters. In this case, the existence of the actual t-perfect alongside the neutral perfective offered a ready opportunity to create a semantic ranking between successive past events, e.g., in reporting personal experiences. A fairly complex instance from an Old Babylonian letter is: (07) AbB 2, 87:711 (as soon as I had entered GN) amall imr il-q-ma i-ta-li-iq u anku am-ta-ra-a ina napitim e-li-i u am-tam(sic) a ana bulim ana rka im-tu-ta-an-ni my assistant has run off (t-Pf), taking (Pfv) the donkeys with him; in addition, I have fallen ill (t-Pf) to the point of (almost) losing (Pfv) my life, and the slave girl who was destined to be sent to you has died (t-Pf) on me. Here, at least amtara and imttanni are free t-perfects, highlighting the main events that involve the sender of this letter; italiq is semantically on a par with them, but since it is preceded by ilqma, it is formally bound; as I will argue below, the event denoted by ilq is subordinated to italiq; the perfective l modifies the preceding amtara (cf. the unusual asyndeton and the fact that ina napitim l is obviously metaphorical; it is not in the t-perfect because it is not a major reported event).17 In this way, the t-perfect came to express the central event in a sequence of events, the event on which the action in subsequent clauses is based (Huehnergard 2005a: 157). An example is (08), in which all events are situated in a rather remote past, but by means of a t-perfect the writer singles out the last one as the event that is most crucial to the present situation: (08) AbB 9, 50:512 my mother, a nadtum-priestess, adopted (il-q-e-ma: Pfv) a youth, but that youth ran away (ta[m i ]r-i-ma: Pfv), and I brought together (-pa-a-iir-um-ma: Pfv) 20 elders of the town with regard to him, I put (a-ku-un-ma: Pfv) his case before them. Because that youth has run away (tam ir-u-: Pfv Subj) itu mu.3.kam ina atim at-ta-sa-a-u I removed him (t-Pf) from (his) position as my brother three years ago
16. For a few instances of perfectives where the context would lead us to expect a t-perfect, see Loesov 2004a: 11011. 17. For this passage, again see Loesov 2004a: 11819. He interprets italiq and amtara as Gt perfectives, which is purely pour besoin de la cause and very unlikely, if not impossible, in view of the general use of the Gt-stem in Old Babylonian letters.
144
In accordance with its foregrounding function, the t-perfect tends to be avoided in negative, relative, and interrogative clauses (apart from rhetorical questions and Satzfrageni.e., questions without an interrogative word) (Maloney 1981: 3738; Loesov 2004a: 12425). The latter kind of clause typically contains information that is not asserted but presupposed, which leads to a backgrounded status (Maloney 1981: 8485). There are numerous instances of t-perfects in affirmative main clauses contrasting with perfectives in a corresponding negative (09), relative (10), or interrogative (11) clause:18 (09) AbB 3, 77:1420 2 ward ana GN ana ekallim u-ta-ri (. . .) ana GN wardam uti ul -a-ri I have had two slaves brought (t-Pf) to GN (. . .) that slave I have not had brought (Pfv) to GN (10) AbB 12, 177:910 ina pim p alpim i-te-bi-ir alpum a pu i-bi-ru (. . .) with an axe he broke (t-Pf) the foot of an ox; the ox whose foot he had broken (Pfv) (. . .) (11) ARM 10, 38:1217 ana mnim 2 amtim limdtya [t]a-ap-ru-s (. . .) 1 amtam ta-ap-ta-ra-as why have you withheld (Pfv) the two slave girls promised to me? (. . .); you have withheld (t-Pf) one slave girl! In the course of time, the difference between foregrounding t-perfect and backgrounding perfective was interpreted as a contrast between main event and subordinate event, respectively. Accordingly, a perfective or a series of perfectives followed by a t-perfect can often best be translated by means of a subordinate clause. Illustrative examples include ilqma in (07), murma in (12), and especially imdma in (13), where the contrast between the t-perfect as main verb and the perfective plus -ma as semantically subordinate is especially clear, since they come from the same verb: (12) Gilg. p. 174:32 murma a-ta-du anku (when) I saw it (Pfv), I rejoiced (t-Pf). (13) Sumer 14, 23 no. 5:47 ina libbu Gab.du munnabt i-mi-du--ma itlam kam abat umma anakma anna munnabt im-ti-du (since) among the the number of fugitives has become large (Pfv), I have deliberated as follows: surely, the number of fugitives has become large (t-Pf)19 Sporadic instances in third-millennium Akkadian (see (25) and (27)) and perhaps in Old Assyrian (see 6.3.3 below, pp. 152153) show that this process was already under way in the earliest period attested. The perfective(s) and the t-perfect are usually connected by -ma. This confirms their respective roles, since the basic function of -ma is to establish a logical connection between the surrounding
18. Additional examples of affirmative versus negative clause: VS 7, 149:810 (el); ARM 4, 74:611 (erbu); ARM 1, 1: r.49 (alqu); ARM 26/2, 183 no. 373:32, 46 (laptu); OBTR 101: 2025 (nadnu); AbB 10, 145:1518 (nadnu); ARM 1, 4:916 (abtu); MARI 6, 263:58 (arqu); ARM 10, 160:2325 (wuuru); of main clause versus subordinate clause: AbB 9, 42:2122 (batqu); KH 267 (ba ); AbB 12, 102:2324 (leq); AbB 4, 119:910 (nad); AbB 1, 127:1718 (sekru); ShA 1, 84 no. 12:611 (abtu N); ARM 2, 22:1920 (ardu); LE p. 46 5:2526 (eb D); of affirmative versus interrogative clause: AbB 4, 43:512 (baqru). For a similar alternation in umma-clauses, see the end of this section. 19. For this passage, see also Loesov 2004a: 11215 (with a different interpretation).
145
predicates (GAG 123a: und dann, und daher, und demgemss). In the words of Maloney (1981: 92), -ma indicates (. . .) that the whole thrust of the construction is towards the final clause which represents the culmination of the -ma chain.20 If, on the other hand, t-perfects are used in succession in coordinated structures, they represent independent clauses of equal rank.21 In a series of one or more subordinated perfectives and a t-perfect, the t-perfect always comes at the end. This fixed order is known as consecutio temporum (henceforth: CT), which is an inaccurate term, insofar as the essential difference between perfective and t-perfect in the CT is not one of temporal order or sequentiality (which is iconically expressed by the order of the predicates and does not require further marking),22 but of rank, namely virtual subordinationin other words, it is a consecutio ordinum. Actually, it is an automatic consequence of the strictly verb-final word order of Akkadian, which entails that most types of subordinate clauses precede the main clause. For this reason, the foregrounded (main) event with the t-perfect regularly landed in final position and became fixed there, so that it could also be interpreted as signaling the end and the culmination of the clause.23 The use of the perfective as virtually subordinate to the t-perfect foreshadows the situation in the later dialects of Akkadian, where the contrast between them has developed into a purely syntactic opposition in which the t-perfect is restricted to affirmative main clauses and the perfective mainly to subordinate clauses. I will return to this process below. A past tense with an additional nuance of actuality has a natural propensity to extend its domain, since it enables the speaker to heighten the interest of the addressee. Accordingly, the t-perfect came to be used in narrative contexts as well (Loesov 2004a: 11719). Various factors contributed to this: first, the fact that there is no clear-cut boundary between the relating of personal experiences, experiences of others, and historical events; second, the rise of the CT, which provided a convenient means of foregrounding and backgrounding events in an unobtrusive way, which is vital to narrative; and third, the development of the t-perfect toward the standard past tense in affirmative main clauses. Yet, free t-perfects in narrative texts are rather uncommon; they usually seem to indicate momentous events that have consequences of crucial importance for the rest of the story (see also von Soden 1965: 106). Examples are: (14) Atr. p. 72:5 DN i-te-me rigimin Enlil heard their (the peoples) noise (15) Atr. p. 100:5 makurra i-ta-ma-ar q[urdu DN] the hero Enlil saw the vessel
20. Cf. also Patterson 1970: 11314. The subordination of a predicate without conjunction is not peculiar to this construction: the imperfective with -ma is used as a virtual conditional clause (see GAG 3 160ab) and the stative with -ma often serves as a circumstantial clause (GAG3 159a* with lit.), as in AbB 6, 64:1011 gerrum pa-ri-is-ma adi inanna ul apurakki because the road was blocked, I have so far not written to you. 21. Loesov (2004a: 15253) argues that the succession of perfective and t-perfect represents a shift from the narrative to the deictic register, which in laws and in letters is irreversible. This does not seem incompatible with the formulation adopted here. 22. There is therefore no reason to assume that the t-perfect has the function of indicating Nachzeitigkeit, pace GAG 80d, GKT 76c, and Streck 1995a: 21934; 1999, nor that there is a Perfekt des Fortschreitens, pace Metzler 2002: 384, 87576. 23. Maloney (1981: 127) explains the fixed position of perfective and t-perfect in Koppelungen by claiming that a mechanical rule of Old Babylonian syntax is restraining a perfect from appearing in penultimate position. There may indeed be such a rule, but it is completely grounded in the actual use of the t-perfect as a superordinate category.
146
(16) Anzu RA 46, 88:1 Enliltam i-te-ki-im He (Anzu) took away the Enlilship (first line of a new tablet) In contrast, instances of the CT in Old Babylonian narrative texts are quite common (Metzler 2002: 384492; E. Cohen 2006: 6062). The t-perfect usually comes after a string of perfectives at the end of a passage; its impact often seems to be to recapitulate the previous events and highlight their meaning for the sequel of the story (as in the instances from Atra-asis discussed by Metzler [2002: 38791] and the two texts he quotes on pp. 39495 [ibtan in Aguaya and terub in the merum-incantation]). The t-perfect also automatically downplays the preceding event(s); an illustrative example from a hymnal context is: (17) JRAS Cspl. 68: II 14 ta-am-gu-ur-ma arram u kalunu im-ta-ag-ru / ta-ab-bi massu u kalunu it-ta-bi-i- you (DN) have shown (Pfv) your favour to the king and they have all (i.e., all other gods) done (t-Pf) the same; you have ordained (Pfv) his destiny, they have all done (t-Pf) the same. However, it seems more accurate to translate the perfectives as subordinate: because/after you had shown your favour to the king, they have all done the same, etc. Other t-perfects in literary texts seem no more than mechanical instances of the CT in which its foregrounding nature can still be detected, but is hard to isolate from the natural emphasis that lies on the last-mentioned item of a series of events, e.g.: (18) Atr. p. 48:8990 DN1 i-di-il bbu kakku il-q it-ta-zi-iz maar DN2 DN1, after having closed (Pfv) his gate and taken (Pfv) his weapons, appeared (t-Pf) before DN2. The interchange of perfective and t-perfect may also serve a stylistic purpose, as in (19) and especially (20), where the stylistic sophistication is underlined by the chiastic arrangement of the two final constituents:24 (19) Gilg. p. 200:16566 p i-pu-ku rabtim / an 3 bil i-tap-ku they cast (Pfv) big hatches, they cast (t-Pf) axes of three talents each (20) Atr. St. Garelli p. 399:15, 18 arktum ik-ru- lmin / arktum mazzzina ik-ta-ru- the tall became short (Pfv) in stature (. . .); the tall, their stature became short (t-Pf) Significantly, the t-perfect is virtually absent from the narrative of Old Babylonian royal inscriptions. This is doubtless related to their generally stereotyped, solemn, and sometimes archaizing style, which did not promote the use of an innovating form.25
24. Other instances include Bab. 12:1617:67 (Etana) (ulid ittalad ); Atr. p. 42:1718 (l [it]tard). 25. Instances from RIME 4 are it-ta-a-ka-an-um p. 376:32 and -t-di p. 669:9. A reason for these t-perfects (discussed by Metzler 2002: 45859) may be that they are the first main verb after a rather intricate temporal clause (as is typical for these texts): the t-perfect may signal that the main clause has started. A third instance, in the recurring phrase ge-ra-am i-ta-BA-al RIME 4, 708:11 // 710:11 // 711:11 in Archaic Babylonian inscriptions should instead be interpreted as Gtn perfective ittabbal (from wablu to carry) or tappal (from aplu to answer). Note that W. Farber (NABU 1998/129) reads the preceding word as zi-ra-am, with a variant zi-ra-tim hostile actions/words (for the expression zrti aplu; cf. ze-re-tim u parktim i/ta-ta-na-ap-pa-la-an-ni Syria 33, 67:21, 26 (OB Mari) he/you keep(s) answering me with hostile words and lies (tr. CAD P 185b s.v. pariktu B).
147
The second type of bound t-perfect in main clauses is the epistolary t-perfect of verbs of sending and writing in letters, usually underlined by anumma, inanna, or both, as in (21):26 (21) AbB 7, 155:1417 inanna PN ana marka a-ar-dam eam kaspam i-di-i-um-ma ana GN li-ib-lam herewith I am sending you PN: give him barley and silver so that he can bring it to me in GN This type represents a conventionalized use of the regular function of the t-perfect. The writer of the letter transfers the event of writing or sending from his own temporal perspective (present or future) to the speakers time of the addressee, when this event is in the addressees (actual) past (Loesov 2004a: 13031). The actuality is often made explicit by means of a following injunction, in the form of an imperative or a precative, as in (21) (Leong 1994: 157; Huehnergard 2005a: 15758). In Late Babylonian, the epistolary t-perfect is often introduced by amur or enna amur (also enna alone) (Streck 1995a: 15556) instead of OB anumma and/or inanna, e.g.: (22) CT 22, 52: 2122 a-mur PN al-tap-rak-ka see, I am sending PN to you. The Imp amur see! underlines even more clearly than anumma and/or inanna that the writer visualizes the moment at which the recipient takes note of the contents of the letter and takes it as his reference point. Therefore, he expresses the act of writing or sending as a recent past event, the result of which the addressee has before his eyes.27 The use of a perfective instead of an epistolary t-perfect does not seem to be impossible (pace Loesov 2004a: 130), although it is very rare: (23) AbB 4, 54:12 ina qab bla a-pu-ra-ak-kum I am writing to you by order of my lord28 The third bound use of the t-perfect concerns temporal clauses that refer to the future, where the t-perfect serves as a future perfect ( futurum exactum): it indicates an event that is anterior to the main clause (in accordance with its regular past function) but posterior to the moment of speaking (GAG 170f, 171h, 172f, 174af; Maloney 1981: 19699; Loesov 2004a: 13440), e.g.: (24) AbB 2, 5:1719 itu nram uti te-e-te-ru- ipram a apurakkum [e] pu after you have dug (t-Pf) the canal, do the work I wrote you about! In this context, the t-perfect is regular whereas the perfective is very unusual, if it occurs at all. The reason for preferring the t-perfect here may be that it relates the event to the moment of speaking because of its nuance of actuality, whereas the perfective would suggest that the event
26. For the epistolary t-perfect, see Maloney 1981: 5976; Pardee and Whiting 1987; Leong 1994: 191202; Loesov 2004a: 1012, 13034. 27. Therefore, the epistolary t-perfect is not a future perfect, as contended by Wilcke (1978: 20809 n. 6) and Streck (1995a: 15559; 1999: 1035)cf. the comments by Maloney (1981: 6775) and Metzler (2002: 48486)nor is it a Koinzidenzfall, as claimed by Heimpel and Guidi (1969), nor does it refer to an event he [the speaker] is doing at the moment of speech (Leong 1994: 191). This kind of t-perfect indicates precisely what the t-perfect indicates elsewhere. The fact that we can conveniently translate it by means of an English progressive form (I am sending you this letter . . .) is simply a matter of idiomatic expression in English, not a feature of the Akkadian t-perfect itself. 28. Other cases are ARM 10, 19:511; FM 2, 104 no. 62:1114, 63:2122. The instance quoted by Streck (1999: 119): ARM 6, 55:1012 inanna anumma tuppam ana r arrim -a-bi-lam, is not an epistolary perfective, since the king is not the addressee of the letter containing this message.
148
already belongs to the past. It is arguably a secondary development, because earlier texts, e.g., in Old Assyrian (see 6.3.3 below, pp. 151152) use either the perfective or the imperfective in the same circumstances, and at least the imperfective is still possible in Old Babylonian.29 It is a symptom of the gradual syntacticization of the t-perfect, the shift from a semantic or pragmatic motivation toward a syntactic one. It is significant that in Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian, where the t-perfect is generally not used in subordinate clauses, it is still used in temporal clauses with a future main clause (see 6.3.4 below, p. 155). The t-perfect also occurs in conditional clauses as a future perfect, since the apodosis of a conditional clause is typically situated in the future.30 It alternates with the perfective (see 5.3, p. 128); both indicate that the event of the protasis is completed at the moment the apodosis is realized. If all finite verbs of a conditional clause are in the t-perfect or in the perfective, it is hard to observe a clear difference between them (Maloney 1981: 270). It is much more common, however, to find a t-perfect preceded by one or more perfectives in the CT (Maloney 1981: 27199; Hirsch 1969), especially in the complex protases of the Old Babylonian law collectionsthe Codes of Hammurapi and of Eshnunna. In this case, the t-perfect typically expresses the most important condition for the sanction expressed in the apodosis to apply (Maloney 1981: 27778; Huehnergard 2005a: 157), whereas the conditions expressed by means of a perfective are typically backgrounded: they are circumstantial or qualifications of the main condition.31 So the use of the t-perfect in umma-clauses is syntactically parallel to that in main clauses (Loesov 2004a: 147).32 This is further demonstrated by the fact that it is often avoided if there is a negation.33
29. In particular after itu; see GAG 171i; in the instances presented in GAG 171g, the context suggests that itu has shifted here toward a causal meaning, parallel to English since. An instance after inma is AbB 6, 126:18 inma i-il-la-ka-ku-nu-i-im when he comes to you (followed by an imperative in the main clause); see GAG 170g; 30. For the t-perfect in conditional clauses, see Hirsch 1969; Maloney 1981: 23148; Streck 1999: 11213; Metzler 2002: 3850; Loesov 2004a: 14047. Von Sodens claim (GAG 161f) about the t-perfect in umma clauses as potential oder hypothetisch is generally rejected; see Loesov 2004a: 146 n. 137 with earlier literature. 31. A counter-example to this claim seems to be KH 22:2225 umma awlum ubtam ibutma it-taa-ba-at, with the crime in the perfective and the legally superfluous statement that he has been caught in the t-perfect. However, the correct interpretation is doubtless if a man has been caught in the act of committing a robbery, with the two verbs in a kind of hendiadys, and the core statement is that the seizure occurred flagrante delicto, as Loesov (2004a: 154) has observed. 32. In Akkadian, conditional clauses are main clauses, since they have the verb in the indicative. According to Loesov (2004a: 14445), this is due to the fact that the realization of the main clause depends on the realization of the condition, which makes a conditional clause more foregrounded than other types of subordinate clauses. The fact that conditional clauses employ the negation l is due to the association of l with modality (cf. the prohibitive) rather than to its use in subordinate clauses. For the non-factual status of conditional clauses, compare the use of the precative and the prohibitive with the function of a conditional clause. 33. See, for instance, it-ta-la-ad KH 146:47 she has given birth versus l -li-id 147:61, and cf. also 146:52 aum mr ul-du because she has given birth (Pfv) to sons in a relative clause. Other instances include AbB 4, 80:4 and 11 and AbB 9, 196:7, 14. However, from time to time the t-perfect is carried over to the negated alternative, as in: AbB 9, 16:1114 umma i-te-er-ba-ak-ki (. . .) umma l i-te-er-ba-ak-ki if he has entered into your (Fem) presence, (. . .); if he has not entered into your presence, (. . .). For details, see Maloney 1981: 34452, with a summary on p. 344: sometimes the t-perfect is replaced by perfective in the negated clause, and sometimes it is not; the conditioning factor is unknown. Yet, according to Maloney (1981: 23233), the umma-clause is the only place in Old Babylonian where t-perfects regularly occur with a negation.
149
6.3.2. The t-perfectinthird-millenniumAkkadian

Among the four third-millennium dialects distinguished in 1.4.1.1 (pp. 1112), only Sargonic Akkadian and Ur III Babylonian offer reliable instances of t-perfects.34 Although they are very few in number, they suggest that there are no substantial differences from what we find in Old Babylonian as regards the use of the t-perfect. Sargonic Akkadian shows two instances from a single letter and one from a royal inscription: (25) SAB p. 116:3 (Girsu) -m-ma a-da-tu / asmama(?) atad/ when I heard (it), I rejoiced (26) SAB p. 116:67 e-ni awtsu i-ti-i i-da-a-az /ytaaz/ now he has taken his affair into his own hands. (27) AKI p. 304:3739 ip-la-a-su-ma e-da-ra-ab /(y)iplasma (y)tarab/ sadsum (the enemy leader,) having got frightened of him, fled into the mountain(s) All of them represent usages that are familiar from Old Babylonian: (25) and (27) are model instances of the CT, (26) contains a prototypical t-perfect, underlined by e-ni, which (perhaps) means now. It is remarkable that other Sargonic Akkadian letters do not contain any t-perfects.35 In a few cases, we find a perfective in a context where later texts would doubtless have a t-perfect, which perhaps indicates that its use was less common in the third millennium than in later periods, e.g.: (28) SAB p. 170:48 (Eshnunna) x k.babbar PN1 l-gi-ma /yilqma/ ana PN2 i-ti-in /yiddin/ PN1 has received x silver and has given it to PN2 (29) SAB p. 167:1315 (Diyala) epinn i-zu-a-ma /yissuma/ eql ana err i-ti-na /yiddin/ (two persons?) have taken away my plough and have given my field to (the?) farmers36
34. The occurrence of the t-perfect in Eblaite remains uncertain. There are several verb forms with infixed t that seem to be t-perfects rather than t-stems, in particular ni-da-za-an ARET 13, 9: r.VI 19 we have weighed from waznum (see 16.2.4, p. 458). Other forms of the same type are doubtless Gt-stems, since they occur as such in Akkadian or elsewhere (e.g., i-da-al /yitaal/ he deliberated or the like, and i11-da-mar in proper names [for the controversial meaning of the latter, see Pagan 1998: 24]), or their interpretation is uncertain (e.g., the forms mentioned in Rubio 2006: 122). A remarkable phenomenon pointed out by Krebernik (1988a: 5759) is the use of perfective forms with infixed t (i.e., t-perfects?) in abbreviated names where the subject (a god) has been omitted, whereas the corresponding full name uses the perfective; see also Pagan 1998: 2223. 35. Three other instances quoted by Hasselbach (2005: 19899) are no doubt Gt perfectives: yittalk in ana GN l it-tal-ku SAB p. 116: r.3 they have indeed gone to / set out for GN comes from atluku to start going, set out (see 14.3.4, pp. 371372), since l is hardly ever followed by a t-perfect; see chap. 5, n. 8, p. 128; da--da-bu /tatap/ SAB p. 186:9 (Gasur) you were silent is from a verb that is regularly used in the Gt-stem (G: ap); see 14.3.4 (pp. 371372), and Streck 2003a: 70 no. 186; and id-ba-lu /yitbalu/ OAIC 7:24 (Diyala) he took along (Subj) is a perfective of tablu to take along; see Kouwenberg 2005: 8990. 36. For err instead of Inf eri, as interpreted by Kienast and Volk (SAB p. 167), see Sommerfeld 1999: 19.
150
In the narrative style of the Sargonic Akkadian royal inscriptions, we would not expect to find t-perfects at all, so (27) is highly remarkable; it comes from a rather late (slightly post-Sargonic) inscription of Erridu-pizir of the Gutian dynasty.37 In Ur III Babylonian, the t-perfect is attested a few times in letters and legal documents and does not seem different from its later use. An example is: (30) TMH NF 1/2, 7:79 nadnam iqbumma i-ta-d-in he promised to give him (the amount due), and he has indeed given (it)38 Finally, third-millennium Akkadian offers a few proper names containing a verb form with infixed -t-, some of which may be t-perfects (although this is hard to prove for lack of context). The most likely examples are: Imtda(m) it has become (too) much for me in Ur III Babylonian (Hilgert 2002: 380 82), apparently a t-perfect of mdu () to be(come) much, numerous39 tana I have had enough! from anu in Sargonic Akkadian (A-da-na-a ELTS p. 130 no. 40 side C: IV 6 (Manituu Obelisk) and in Ur III Babylonian (in various spellings, see Hilgert 2002: 238, 23435 n. 22). This name is still common in later periods (Stamm 1939: 163)40
6.3.3. Thet-perfectinOldAssyrian41
In some respects, the use of the t-perfect in Old Assyrian is markedly different from the use in Old Babylonian, although there are also some striking similarities. The main differences are that Old Assyrian makes a more sparing use of the t-perfect (GKT 76h) and that there is little reason to distinguish between free and bound t-perfects as defined in 6.3.1 (p. 141). Most t-perfects are basically free, and their use is largely parallel to the use of the free t-perfects of Old Babylonian: they typically express recent events that have an effect on the persons involved. We often find the t-perfect when the speaker relates an event that concerns him personally and has aroused his anger, impatience, disappointment, or any other emotion. Referring to the speaker, it often expresses a personal experience, as in (31); elsewhere, the speaker often expresses his feelings
37. The verb form in g r . n i ta2 g r . n i ta2 i -da-ga-an AKI p. 292:15 he has appointed governors everywhere is doubtless a Gtn perfective /yistakkan/. 38. Similar instances are i-ta-d-in ZA 82, 184a:12 he has given; u-te-li ASJ 12, 52:8 he has dispossesssed; and ir-t-i- FAOS 17, 127:13 she has got. 39. Instances of third-millennium t-perfects that are uncertain but still worth mentioning are: -DA-bibu-si(-ma) Or. 46, 201:30 (incant. from Kish), which is interpreted as a t-perfect of ebbu by AHw 181a s.v. D 4 but for which a derivation from dabbu D, as proposed by J. and A. Westenholz 1977: 210, seems more likely, precisely because of the rarity of the t-perfect in this period; ti-ib-da-ad-ga in line 11 of the same text (according to Lambert 1992: 5354 /tibtatq/, a t-perfect of batqu to cut off but perhaps also an indirect reflexive Gt-stem (they(?) cut off for themselves); ir11-ti-ab MAD 3, 229 s.v. R3B in a broken context; and the PN Dar-ti-bu (MAD 3, 229) she has replaced (Gasur), perhaps an abbreviation of Tartb-DN, both from rbu () to replace (which, however, more often shows the form rabu in Sargonic Akkadian PNs (Yirib-DN, etc.; see 17.7.2, p. 558). 40. However, since t-perfects in proper names remain very unusual until the Neo-Babylonian period (Stamm 1939: 38, 94), it may also be a lexicalized Gt-stem; see 14.3.4 (pp. 371372), and cf. perhaps the taPRS noun tn/u (see 14.6.1, p. 409). 41. An earlier and thorough treatment was presented by K. Hecker in GKT 76. However, some of his instances are to be explained as t- or tan-stems, especially the putative instances of future meaning in 76d (the t-Pf -ta-a-a BIN 6, 113:5 mentioned there is not very clear but presumably refers to the past) and the tn Pfv u-t-bi4-l-ku-ni TC 1, 2:19 (= OAA 1, 47:19) mentioned in 76g.
151
about negative behaviour of the addressee or a third person who has failed to do something he promised or something he has a moral obligation to do, as in (32)(34): (31) BIN 4, 35:910 l libbi ilimma erum i-a-b-ta-ni unfortunately, I have been confined to bed (lit., the bed has seized me) (32) ICK 1, 187:7, 19 mu e-ta-at-q his term has already finished!42 (33) AKT 1, 27:2023 umma tma llak kaspam ubbalakkum isliannma kaspam l i-ta-b-l-am he said to me I will bring you the silver, but he has cheated me and has not brought me the silver (similarly TPAK 1, 3:1518) (34) CCT 4, 45b:1619 mium kma sinnitim itu itu.10.kam iqqerab lim ta-p-ta-a-a-ni-i why have you held me locked up in the town like a woman for 10 months? When a t-perfect and a perfective of the same verb are used side by side, the contrast is one of recent past versus more remote past, as in (35) and (36), and/or personal involvement versus a more neutral attitude, as in (37) and (38): (35) TPAK 1, 191:56, 1419 adi inu ina dittim t-a-i-l-ni-[m]a (. . .) e-a-ni-ma yti (. . .) ina dittim t-u-ta-i-l-ni twice you questioned (Pfv) me in court (. . .); now you have questioned (t-Pf) me again in court (also CCT 1, 49b:1417 with mam, quoted in GKT 76e)43 (36) BIN 6, 104:39 abki (. . .) i-pu-ra-am u anku ura u napert ar abki -ta-p-ra-am your father wrote (Pfv) to me and (now) I have sent (t-Pf) my servants and my message to your father (. . .) (37) TC 2, 3:711 etalluttam puma uql ipur annik il5-q app awlim sarrim t annakam yam il5-t-q he acted high-handedly, opened my container and took (Pfv) my tin: instead of a criminal, he himself has taken (t-Pf) the tin which is mine! (38) OAA 1, 126:2225 t ira awlma m uti ta-q-ip-ma yti ul ta-aq-t-p-ni he is (apparently) a better man than I am: you have put (Pfv) your confidence in him, but you have not put (t-Pf) your confidence in me Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian also differ in their use of the t-perfect in the following ways. First, the epistolary t-perfect is very rare in Old Assyrian letters.44 Second, the use of the t-perfect
42. This t-perfect contrasts with the perfective in the same text (ICK 1, 187), line 49 mu e-t-q, which means the same but lacks the urgency of the first two times the writer uses this expression. In Old Assyrian, the t-perfect occurs passim in similar contexts with etqu, alku, and mdu () to be(come) (too) much. 43. However, recentness alone is not a sufficient condition for using the t-perfect: a trivial recent event is often expressed by a perfective, e.g., CCT 2, 29:911 10 mana mam kunukka ak-nu-uk-ma nakkum today, I have sealed (Pfv) 10 minas of silver with my seal and I am bringing it to you, where aknuk is doubtless too colourless a verb to deserve a t-perfect (cf. also ICK 1, 51:78 and the two examples of mam + perfective quoted in GKT 76h). 44. Only OIP 27, 5:3 // 6:4. The instance mentioned by Pardee and Whiting (1987: 23)TC 1, 2:19, quoted in n. 41 aboveis without any doubt a tn perfective.
152
as a future perfect in temporal clauses is exceptional (GAG 172h and GKT 76f).45 In temporal clauses situated posterior to the moment of speech, Old Assyrian normally uses the perfective or the imperfective, e.g.: (39) TPAK 1, 42:r.9 kma kaspam ta--q-lu-u-ni as soon as you have paid (Pfv) him the silver (send your message to me and my representative) (40) CCT 2, 1:89 ina mim a tupp ta-a-me- as soon as (lit., on the day when) you hear (Impfv) my tablet (, buy tin for our joint property) Third, the Babylonian tendency to avoid the t-perfect in negative, interrogative, and subordinate clauses is not very conspicuous in Old Assyrian, although there are some examples suggesting the contrary.46 A difficult point is the existence of the CT in Old Assyrian. From time to time we encounter phrases that are strongly reminiscent of it, such as: (41) RA 58, 120:1113 n-gu5-ur-ma aru ni-i-ta-p-ar we (have) rented (Pfv) (a messenger) and have sent (t-Pf) (him) to him (42) TC 1, 34:610 anku u PN n-ru-ub-ma tasistum (. . .) n-ta-mar PN and I entered (Pfv) and we looked (t-Pf) for the memoranda (cf. also GKT 76c and 134b) (43) OAA 1, 127:811 uzrum e-gi5-ri-ma am-q-ut-ma p -t-bi4-ir-ma ak-ta-l a pig crossed (Pfv) my path and I fell (Pfv); (now) I have broken (t-Pf) my foot and have become delayed (t-Pf) The perfectives in these clauses precede one or two t-perfects and may be interpreted as semantically subordinate and thus as instantiations of the CT. The question is, however, whether this sequence has a special syntactic status in Old Assyrianas it undoubtedly has in Old Babylonianor whether it is only one out of many possible sequences. These clauses may simply result from the general tendency in Akkadian to save the most salient information for the end. Actually, there is wide variation: apart from the rather common perfective t-perfect order, we also find the reverse order (44) and a succession of t-perfects, as in (45) and (46): (44) OAA 1, 12:1517 annakam abbu im-t-du-ma ani nu---ib here his fathers have become (t-Pf) numerous, so we convened (Pfv) our colleagues (45) BIN 6, 114:1416 kuum i-s-ni-iq-ni-a-t-ma ellutum i-ib-t-re winter has reached (t-Pf) us and the caravan has become (t-Pf) hungry47 (46) CCT 4, 14b:89 DN u ilka qt i-a-b-t-ma -t-lim Assur and your (personal) god have seized (t-Pf) my hand and I have become (t-Pf) well (again)
45. A good example is BIN 4, 63:67 kma awtim annitim ni-i-ta-am--ni although we have heard (about) these matters (we do not intend to leave); also CCT 2, 48:25 (i-a-b-t-) and Prag I 715:26 t-Ku-ta-i-na-ni (both after itumma) 46. E.g., TC 3, 252 case: 21/3 umma . . . i-tab-lu-nim versus TC 3, 252 case: 25 umma l ub-lu-nim. 47. Cf. OAA 1, 50:89 kuum is-ni-iq-ni-a-t, where the same event is expressed neutrally with a perfective.
153
It seems most likely that the order perfective + -ma + t-perfect is not (yet) syntacticized but that each constituent still has its own specific function. Finally, a major problem is the use of the t-perfect in conditional clauses with umma (GKT 137d). In umma clauses that are anterior to the moment of speech, the perfective is used (GKT 137c); if the condition is posterior to the moment of speech, both perfective and t-perfect may be used (cf. GKT 137d). The difference between them is unclear; in some contexts, the t-perfect seems to be used if a previously affirmed future event is negated in a umma clause, or vice versa,48 as in: (47) Prag I 491:1113 (PN will send [uebbalam] silver to me) umma in miqit nigallim l u-t-bi4-lam if he has not sent it by the time of the falling of the sickle (i.e., harvest time) (he will pay a fine) (48) AKT 1, 76:67 (PN has married PNF and he will not marry [ul az] a second wife) umma e-ta-a-az u e-t-zi-ib- if he (nevertheless) has married (another woman) and has left her (i.e., the first woman) (he will pay (a fine of) 5 minas of silver) (and often in similar contexts) Comparing the use of the t-perfect in Old Assyrian and in Old Babylonian, we can provisionally conclude that its development is basically parallel in the two dialects but that Old Assyrian represents an earlier stage than Old Babylonian. This is also suggested by the remarkable fact that the differences between them no longer seem to exist in later periods: the use of the t-perfect in Middle Assyrian is virtually identical to its use in Middle Babylonian (see below). A more detailed study of the Old Assyrian t-perfect is required to obtain more clarity regarding how this came about.
6.3.4. Thet-perfectinthelaterdialects
From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, the perfective and the t-perfect have the same temporal function of referring to a past event, but they differ syntactically in the fact that they occur in different types of clauses: the t-perfect is the regular past tense in affirmative main clauses and Satzfragen (i.e., without a question word), and the perfective is used elsewhere i.e., in subordinate and negative clauses and in Wortfragen (which include a question word).49 The roots of this differentiation are already observable in the CT of Old Babylonian, in which the perfective denotes virtual subordination, as we saw in 6.3.1 (pp. 144146). The (partial) replacement of the perfective by the t-perfect is an instance of a typologically common process, caused by the fact that the t-perfect with its nuances of involvement, actuality, and recentness is more expressive than the perfective and therefore tends to be overused and gradually generalized at the cost of the neutral form, at the same time losing its expressiveness (Bybee et al. 1994: 8687). In this particular case, we can establish the course of this process in some detail. The use of the t-perfect in Old Babylonian shows that the replacement started in
48. This is presumably what J. Lewy (MVAeG 35/3 (1935) 169 n. 1) intends with his proposal to translate the t-perfect in Old Assyrian with wirklich, tatschlich, jetzt wirklich, or nunmehr. It is also reminiscent of the use of the negated t-perfect in umma clauses of Hammurapis Laws, of which Loesov (2004a: 15657) states that it indicates behaviour that is contrary to the normal (expected) course of events, most typically penalized omissions. 49. From this period onward, the term (t-)perfect is strictly speaking inappropriate (as it is in the West Semitic suffix conjugation): it should rather be called simple past or preterite, but this would cause confusion; see also Streck 1995a: 212 n. 487.
154
affirmative main clauses. This is due to the fact that such clauses are typically foregrounded: they are used for the most important and most salient part of the message, to convey new information, and to refer to highly focalized events. Consequently, it is in affirmative main clauses that new and more expressive words and constructions tend to be introduced first. Other clause types are more likely to contain information that is presupposed (non-challengeable), already known to the interlocutors, and therefore backgrounded. After the rise of innovative forms in affirmative main clauses, they will be formally different in that they preserve older forms (Bybee et al. 1994: 23036; Haspelmath 1998; Loesov 2004a: 123 n. 93)). In a later stage, the new forms may spread to all environments and thus completely replace the older ones, but in Akkadian this did not happen with the perfective: it was not given up but was restricted to secondary environments. The details of the process are, however, fairly complex. Generally speaking, conservative types of language use, especially literary and legal texts, lag behind in completing the strict syntactic division between the two tenses. The literary dialect of Standard Babylonian never adopted it at all and continued using perfectives in main clauses, just as in Old Babylonian, side by side with t-perfects. For Middle Babylonian, Aro (1955: 81) distinguishes between letters on the one hand and legal texts (Urkunden) and kudurru-inscriptions on the other. In letters, the t-perfect is the usual past tense in affirmative main clauses, whereas the perfective is found in questions and negative clauses. However, in the legal texts and the kudurru-inscriptions, the perfective is also used in affirmative main clauses. Aro ascribes this to the difference between Behauptung (for the t-perfect) and Feststellung (for the perfective) defined by W. von Soden (GAG 80f). It should instead be ascribed to a difference between contemporary usage on the one hand and archaizing or formulaic style on the other (Streck 1995a: 15354).50 This is confirmed by the fact that the t-perfect does appear in legal texts but only in verbatim quotations of the persons involved (Aro 1955: 8283). However, Aro (1955: 8386) also points to a fair number of perfectives in main clauses of letters, and among these are the perfective of qab to say and apru to write. These examples indicate that the replacement of the perfective in main clauses by the t-perfect was not yet quite completed and that these frequent and colourless verbs preserved their old form longer than other verbs. As Aro states (1955: 86), a more detailed study on a wider basis is required. Finally, in conditional clauses, the t-perfect has largely replaced the perfective (1955: 14445), and in temporal clauses it is used as a future perfect (1955: 14849), continuing Old Babylonian usage. Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian essentially show the same picture (Woodington 1982: 8788; Streck 1995a: 12026). Interestingly, in Late Babylonian legal documents, the perfective still continues to be used in affirmative main clauses alongside the t-perfect (1995a: 12224). Streck plausibly explains this as due to their stereotyped and traditional style (1995a: 15354). It shows that the advance of the t-perfect was gradual and took place first in passages that are closest to everyday language. The details for Middle Assyrian are unclear, since W. Mayers representation of the facts (W. Mayer 1971: 58 and elsewhere) is too laconic to be of much use. In Middle Assyrian letters,
50. W. von Sodens (GAG 79b, 80f) distinction between the t-perfect as a Behauptungsform and the perfective as Form der blossen Feststellung in later dialects has no basis in the actual use of these tenses and is directly refuted by the syntactic distribution that I have described above: if two categories differ in that one mainly occurs in affirmative main clauses and the other one in other kinds of clauses, they cannot also differ in that one expresses Behauptungen and the other Feststellungen. Moreover, the use of the t-perfect in Satzfragen directly contradicts the claim that it is a Behauptungsform, as Streck (1995a: 208) points out.
6.4. The Historical Background of the tPerfect
155
the situation seems to be parallel to Middle Babylonian, with the t-perfect in affirmative main clauses and the perfective in subordinate clauses, negated clauses and questions (CancikKirschbaum 1996: 63), e.g.:51 (52) MATSH p. 96 no. 2:5456 ana ne mull a be u imr alqte a GN l tu-ma-al-li imr um-ta-al-li why have you not provided (Pfv) compensation for the lost workers and donkeys of GN? I have provided (t-Pf) donkeys Other kinds of Middle Assyrian texts show a less consistent picture. In the legal texts of the Harem Edicts, the past tense in main clauses may still be expressed by the perfective (e.g., riksa irkus AfO 17, 280:60 he [the king] issued a binding regulation in the introductory formula), and this is also found in contracts. However, W. Mayer (1971: 58) claims that in younger texts, such as the economic texts from the time of Ninurta-tukulti-Assur (ca. 1130 b.C.), the t-perfect has replaced the perfective as the past tense in main clauses. So here, too, we witness a gradual replacement, with the Harem Edicts and the contracts doubtless representing a more archaic stage. In the conditional clauses of the Middle Assyrian laws (which doubtless also represent an older stage), the CT is used as it was in the Old Babylonian law collections (W. Mayer 1971: 11011), but the t-perfect tends to become more frequent (Hirsch 1965: 131). In subordinate clauses the t-perfect is used if the main clause refers to the future (W. Mayer 1971: 112, 115), an interesting Babylonian-style innovation versus Old Assyrian. In relative clauses, only perfectives are used for past tense (W. Mayer 1971: 58). All instances of Wortfragen referring to the past quoted by W. Mayer (1971: 108) have the perfective rather than the t-perfect. He makes no mention of Satzfragen. The situation in Neo-Assyrian, as described by Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 110), seems a close continuation of the tendencies observable in Middle Assyrian: the t-perfect is the usual form in affirmative main clauses and Satzfragen, the perfective is used in subordinate clauses, negative clauses and Wortfragen. Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 110) also reports the use of the epistolary t-perfect in the formula m annuri(g) assapra or assaprakka herewith I am writing to you. This is remarkable, since it does not seem to be attested in earlier Assyrian.52
6.4. the Historical Background of the t-Perfect

There is a broad consensus among Semitic scholars that the t-perfect of the G-stem goes back to the Gt-stem and that it represents a specific development of the originally detransitive function of the t-infix. However, this seems largely based on the lack of an alternative explanation (Loesov 2004a: 167): apart from the well-known and widespread T-forms in Semitic (including Akkadian), there does not seem to be any plausible source for the t-perfect. There are, however, a few positive arguments for this derivation. First, there is no distinction in form whatsoever between the t-perfect forms of the primary stems and the perfective of the corresponding t-stem. Second, infixes do not easily emerge: they are by far the least common type of affix (Greenberg 1963: 73; Ultan 1975; Mayerthaler 1988: 78). Therefore, a unitary origin of t-perfect and t-stem
51. According to Cancik-Kirschbaum (1996: 63), the perfective is also found in Aussagestze (. . .) fr die Vorvergangenheiti.e., in main clauses. However, this cannot be substantiated from the texts, as demonstrated by Streck (1997: 272). 52. The rare use of the t-perfect as a future perfect is mainly attested in the legal formula a (. . .) dnu dabbu ubtani who (. . .) lodges a complaint, which according to Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 111) is a petrified formula dating from the Middle Assyrian period.
156
The Historical Background of the tPerfect 6.4.
is a priori much more likely than the assumption of two homonymous infixes emerging through different historical processes. Obviously, this presupposes the existence of a plausible development from a detransitive voice marker in the perfective to a tense marker with the function of a perfect. Given this point of departure, there are two major problems regarding the historical background of iptarVs. First, how did it acquire its function as perfect of the basic stem? and second, is the t-perfect an Akkadian innovation, or did it already exist in Proto-Semitic or even Afroasiatic? The second question seems to be relatively easy to answer. Other Semitic languages do not have a perfect characterized by a t-infix among their tense/aspect categories, and it is therefore generally assumed that the perfect function of iptarVs is an Akkadian innovation. There are, however, at least three dissenting voices. First, Zaborski (2004) claims, on the basis of Berber evidence (see below), that already in Afroasiatic the t-infix was used as a perfect and that the existence of numerous Arabic Stem VIII (iqtatala) verbs that do not have the regular detransitive meaning of this stem (reflexive, etc.; see 14.4.2, pp. 380381) but have the same meaning as Stem I or are isolated are a residue of this perfect. This line of reasoning is questionable, however. What these verbs demonstrate is that the t-infix of Stem VIII has lost part of its original force and has largely become a variant to the basic stem, in accordance with the development that will be described in chap. 14. They do not provide any evidence for the existence of a perfect with infixed t. In order to prove that these T-forms were once a perfect, we also need to show that this perfect was an inflectional part of the basic stem with a paradigmatic relationship to the other finite categories, the imperfective and the perfective (see, for instance, Loesov 2004a: 164). This was not really proved by Zaborski. Second, Voigt (1987c: 9397; 2002: 28485) adduces T-forms in Berber and Beja as evidence for the fact that parallels to iptarVs already existed in Afroasiatic. This is unconvincing, since in Berber the T-forms have imperfective function (see 4.4.3.2 above, pp. 104106). In Beja, they characterize what Voigt (2002: 28485) calls the present and the perfect of a specific class of verbs but are lacking in the corresponding aorist. So their function is sufficiently different from that of iptarVs to raise serious doubts about this parallel. The forms in question instead show that iptarVs is not the only instance of the penetration of t as prefix or infix into the paradigm of the basic stem: in Berber and Beja, this also happened but in tense/aspect categories different from Akkadian. The general explanation behind these parallel developments is the fact that at a very early moment the detransitive function of t started to weaken so that it lost its function or was reused for a different function. In Semitic, this happened on a large scale, as I will argue in chap. 14.53 Third, Loprieno (1986: 12341) has also argued in favour of the Proto-Semitic provenance of the t-perfect iptarVs. His view is intimately connected with his reconstruction of the functional evolution of the t-infix and with his claim that the Semitic t-infix is cognate with the suffix t of the Egyptian sm.t=f form. He argues that the t-infix originally had perfective function, which is preserved as such in Akkadian but was replaced in West Semitic by the suffix conjugation qatVla, and that the reflexive, reciprocal, and passive functions are secondary developments. This is very unlikely, however. It is contradicted by massive typological evidence, which strongly suggests that exactly the opposite has happenednamely, that the reflexive function is original and the
53. Lipiski (1997: 338) quotes two Ugaritic Gt forms construed with a direct object in support of a Proto-Semitic origin of the Gt-stem used as a perfect. However, Tropper classifies both of them as unclear (2000: 521 s.v. m and 525 s.v. bm), and D. Testen (IOS 20 [2002] 517) rightly observes that more evidence is needed for such a far-reaching claim.
157
other functions are successive stages in a continuing grammaticalization process, of which the temporal function of t in Akkadian is undoubtedly the last. Loprienos claim that the Semitic t-infix (which was originally a prefix; see 14.4.1, pp. 375 380) and the suffix t of the Egyptian sm.t=f form are genetically related remains to be proven. It is true that the derivational prefixes of Semitic occur as suffixes in other Afroasiatic languages, especially in Cushitic and Chadic, but Egyptian sides with Semitic, at least in the case of the causative sibilant and the detransitive n (or m), both of which are prefixed in Egyptian.54 This raises the question why t would appear as a suffix, if it is indeed related to the Semitic t. Moreover, it is far from clear how the sm.t=f form should be analyzed. In view of its three main functions (after prepositions, after the negation n with the meaning not yet or before . . ., and as a complement after verbs of seeing, speaking, etc.), Edel (1955/64: 368 732) deems it most likely that it is actually a nomen actionis rather than a finite category. Others regard it as a finite form, however: Loprieno (1995: 78) describes it as a subordinate negative perfective form, Zonhoven (1998: 600, 61213) as a verbal verb form (as opposed to a substantival verb form) indicating a relative future tense, and Schenkel (2005: 2057) as a tense with two temporal reference points, one in the past and one in the future. This is strikingly similar to Strecks (1995a: 196209; 1999) definition of the Akkadian t-perfect iptarVs, and Schenkel explicitly mentions the possibility that the two categories are etymologically related (Streck 1995a: 207). However, Strecks account of the t-perfect has not found general acceptance among Assyriologists (see n. 7 above, p. 141). According to the description of its function given here, which is based on earlier studies by authors such as Goetze, Maloney, and Loesov, there is very little similarity with the sm.t=f form. Consequently, since neither the function nor the form of sm.t=f provides a sufficient basis for treating it as cognate with Akkadian iptarVs, I will not include Egyptian in the discussion of the next sections nor in the reconstruction of the evolution of the t-infix in chap. 14. In sum, there are no compelling reasons to assume that the verb forms with infixed t were used as a perfect anywhere but in Akkadian. This means that the perfect function of the t-infix is an Akkadian innovation and the t-perfect itself a relative newcomer in the Akkadian verbal paradigm.55 The second and more difficult question is how the original perfective of a t-stem acquired the function of perfect of the corresponding primary stem in a paradigmatic relationship with its imperfective and perfective. This implies a double change: from a simple past tenseor perhaps, more accurately, a perfectiveto a perfect, which is a typologically bizarre development, since it is the opposite of the common development from perfect to perfective or preterite (Kuryowicz 1975: 106, 128; Bybee et al. 1994: 81, 104), and from detransitive to active, which seems to be unusual as well. Essentially, two kinds of developments have been proposed for this change, one based on the well-attested development from resultative to perfect, the other based on the original indirect reflexive function of the t-infix.56
54. See 13.6 (pp. 351352) on the causative sibilant and 12.6.1 (p. 315) on the prefix n in Egyptian and their relationship to the Semitic forms. 55. This is also claimed by Loesov (2004a: 123) on functional grounds. 56. I will not discuss other views that I think lack any plausibility, such as the claim that the t-perfect arose from a specific use of t in its separative function, as was proposed by Goetze (1936: 33233), Gelb (1955b: 110), von Soden (1965: 104b; 1991b: 472), and Buccellati (1996: 87, 10812); see my arguments (Kouwenberg 2005) against this alleged separative function. A striking piece of verbal acrobatics (entirely fanciful in my view) deriving the t-perfect from the reflexive function of t (which in itself is quite plausible; see presently) can be found in Lieberman 1986: 627. For possible Sumerian influence on the rise of iptarVs, see the end of this section. Loesov (2004a: 16272) presents a brief discussion of the most important proposals.
158
The claim that the Akkadian t-perfect goes back to a resultative use of the t-infix originates with Kuryowicz (1962: 6465; 1972: 61; 1975: 110) and was taken upwith minor variationsby various others, such as Voigt (1987c: 8889), Stempel (1995), and the present author (GAV pp. 7275).57 It is based on the observation that, cross-linguistically, many perfects come from a resultative, a common verbal category indicating the state which is the result of a preceding event.58 Resultatives often become passives as well, as is shown by the widespread use of the same marker for both categories. In many European languages, for instance, the copula is used to denote the perfect and the passive (Kuryowicz 1964: 5657). In Akkadian, the stative has come very close to expressing both notions, in the active versus the passive stative; see further 7.3.2 (pp. 168174). Since the t-infix also combines both functions in Akkadianif not in the Gt-stem, then at least in the Dt-stem and the t1-stemthis seems to be an attractive solution. On closer inspection, however, it does not seem applicable to the Akkadian t-perfect. The main reason is that the t-infix is not a resultative, neither in actual use, because it never has resultative function, nor in origin, because we can be confident that it goes back to a reflexive, as I will argue in chap. 14. In view of the general polysemy of detransitive voice markers (see 10.8.3, pp. 257258), this may seem too critical an attitude: if the t-infix can be direct and indirect reflexive, reciprocal, (medio)passive, and perhaps denote yet other detransitive notions, why could it not be resultative as well? The answer is that reflexive and resultative belong to two different grammaticalization processes. The reflexive is usually part of a development: reflexive noun reflexive/reciprocal affix middle spontaneous event passive (see 14.3.4, pp. 369370). The resultative, on the other hand, is part of a development: stative expressions resultative passive and/or perfect. In the corpus studied by Bybee et al., there are no instances of reflexives developing to resultatives. Instead, resultatives tend to go back either to stative expressions, such as clauses with a copula, or to auxiliary verbs for to remain or to come (Bybee et al. 1994: 6769). This has three important consequences. First, the passive may arise from both reflexive and resultative markersapart from other possible sources (see Haspelmath 1990)but these are different processes unrelated to each other. This is illustrated by most of the Romance and Slavic languages, which use both types of passives side by side. Second, if passive and resultative are diachronically related, the development is from resultative to passive, not vice versa (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 49), as the situation in Akkadian would require, if we wanted to derive the perfect from a resultative use of t. Third, if we want to derive the perfect function of iptarVs from a resultative, we have to combine two grammaticalization paths that are superficially similar and may lead to the same outcome but which should actually be kept distinct. This leads to the conclusion that the use of the t-infix for the perfect cannot be derived from a putative resultative function. The second option that has been proposed is to derive the perfect meaning from the indirect reflexive. In the indirect reflexive, the subject is coreferential with the indirect object. As such, it can have autobenefactive meaning: the subject does something for his own benefit, as in
57. The present account of the rise of the t-perfect (and its complementary part in chap. 14) replaces my explanation of the t-perfect in GAV pp. 7277, which includes some implausible developments, as pointed out by, for instance, Streck (1998b: 52728) and Loesov (2004a: 166). 58. For the development from resultative to perfect, see Kuryowicz 1975: 10910; Voigt 1987c: 8893; Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 4144; Bybee and Dahl 1989: 6873; Bybee et al. 1994: 6869, 1045. For the development from resultative to passive, see Kuryowicz 1964: 5658; Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 4549; Voigt 1987c: 9092 n. 15.
159
the middle voice of Classical Greek. Coreferentiality with the subject may easily develop into subject-affectedness (Waltereit 1999: 26573), which does not seem to be too far removed from subject involvement. As we saw above, this is an important feature of the use of the t-perfect in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. Along these lines, L. B. Anderson (1982: 25657) has argued that the form with infixed t was an ethical dative, which took on the expression of relevance of experience and in combination with past tense became a category similar to the English perfect of have plus participle. Andersons characterization of the t-infix as an ethical dative does not seem very plausible (at least not as its original function), but the notion of ethical dative is closely related to subject involvement, so this idea is compatible with a development from an indirect reflexive. Likewise, Loesov (2004a: 167) derives the perfect use of the t-infix from its use as a middle voice. The problem is that this does not answer the question why and how this originally indirect reflexive completely lost its detransitive meaning and became restricted to the past tense.59 For the time being, we can say little more than that the rise of the t-perfect is likely to be related to the autobenefactive meaning of the t-infix, but further details remain completely obscure.60 Finally, several authors have argued that Sumerian influence played a role in the emergence of the t-perfect. The first was probably Goetze (1936: 33234), but the classical formulation comes from von Soden (1965).61 He points to similarities in use between the Akkadian t-perfect and Sumerian verbs forms with the prefixes ba-, imm a-, and u- and argues that the first two prefixes occur in narrative in places where an event is highlighted (hervorgehoben; 1965: 107a), just as the t-perfect may function in narrative contexts, and that the use of the prospective prefix u- is parallel to the future perfect use of the t-perfect.62 In the present state of our knowledge, it does not seem possible to decide this issue. On the one hand, the functional parallel between the t-perfect and any specific Sumerian verbal category
59. Loesov (2004a: 171) states that the form with t was at a certain point put to the service of expressing an explicit temporal relation of past facts to the speaker, but he does not explain how. His attempt (2004a: 16772) to find iptarVs forms in Old Babylonian letters that would show a trace of this original medial value (his terms) are generally unconvincing: they are more likely to be t-perfect forms, although not all of them completely fit the normal use of the t-perfect. 60. It is possible that the use of the reflexive marker se in Spanish gives an idea of how these processes may have come about, although I do not wish to argue that Akkadian must have had exactly the same development. Apart from the usual functions of a reflexive marker, se can also have completive function in transitive clauses, if their direct object refers to a finite quantity (Nishida 1994: 428) in a way that is reminiscent of preverbs in Germanic languages: the contrast between comer and comerse is parallel to the conrast between to eat and to eat up in English (1994: 45051). This implies that apart from being detransitive, se can also increase the transitivity of a clause. Moreover, the completive meaning of se associates it more closely with perfective than with imperfective aspect (Maldonado 1999: 177). This may give us a hint why the grammaticalization of the t-infix to a tense/aspect form of the basic stem only took place in the perfective. As shown by Bybee et al. (1994: 5761), completives are a well-known source of perfects. Maldonado (1999: 15455) describes the non-detransitive use of se as benefactive or completive or as expressing full involvement of the subject. The last-mentioned function makes it clear that this use of se is a natural extension of reflexive se in its function of indirect reflexive to do something for oneself. The Spanish reflexive pronoun shows that it is possible for a detransitive voice marker to lose its detransitive value and to acquire an association with completive function. We do not know whether the t-infix in Akkadian underwent a similar development, but it seems at least theoretically possible. For the parallel between se in Spanish verbs such as irse to go away and t in Akkadian atluku to start going, to set out, see 14.3.4 (pp. 371372). 61. Others have taken up this idea: Streck (1995a: 221), Woods (2001), and Huehnergard (2006: 1314). 62. For a more recent discussion of these prefixeswith a rather different interpretationsee Rubio 2007a: 134449.
160
or group of categories is far from obvious (see Streck 1998a: 19091 for a discussion of possible parallels). Generally speaking, the function of Sumerian verb forms is more problematic than that of the Akkadian forms, so trying to explain the latter on the basis of Sumerian is tantamount to explaining obscurum per obscurius. Moreover, there is a widespread tendency in languages to develop a past tense form that underlines the recentness, current relevance, etc., of a past event. This increases the possibility that Akkadian and Sumerian developed this function independently. On the other hand, the likelihood of Sumerian influence also correlates with the absence of a plausible inner-Akkadian explanation. I have argued above that there is one, but admittedly it is far from conclusive. In conclusion, it cannot be ruled out that contact with Sumerian was indeed a factor in the rise of the t-perfect, butas is usual in such matterspositive evidence is difficult to find.
thestative
Chapter 7
7.1. introduction
The last of the finite verbal categories to be discussed is the stative. It offers both historical and typological interest. Historically, the stative is a fairly transparent combination of an adjectival (rarely nominal) stem and a pronominal subject, and it has become an important member of the Akkadian verbal paradigm. It is related to verb forms with suffixed person markers in other Semitic languages and further afield in Egyptian and Berber. Functionally, it represents an intermediate stage between Berber, where it is essentially a conjugation of predicative adjectives, and West Semitic, where it has evolved into a perfective and/or past tense. Typologically, it belongs to a cross-linguistically common category of deverbal adjectives (past participles) that penetrate into the verbal system and gradually take on functions such as (medio)passive, resultative, perfect, and, ultimately, past tense.
7.2. the stative: Form

The G-stem stative consists of an inflectional stem combined with suffixed endings for person, gender, and number. The stem is mostly that of an adjective, but may under certain conditions also come from a noun. Table 7.1 shows the standard paradigm of the G-stem stative as it appears in the main dialects, using the adjective almu sound, in good shape.1 Since many formal details of the stative endings have a strong diachronic aspect, they will be dealt with in 7.4, which deals with its historical background. person 1st 2nd masc. 2nd fem. 3rd masc. 3rd fem. singular almku, -k almta, -ti, -t almti (-t?), -t alim almat alm alm/ alimt
table 7.1: the conjugation of the stative.
dual
plural almnu, -ni almtunu almtina alm alm
In the G-stem, the stative is built on the suffix base PaRvS, which originally belongs to the (verbal) adjective. Statives derived from primary adjectives have PaRiS, PaRuS, or PaRaS, corresponding to the (unmotivated) vowel of the adjective. Statives derived from verbs regularly
1. For details about the variant endings, see 7.4.1 (pp. 176181). See also GAG 3 75bc; GKT 72a; Huehnergard 2005a: 21920. For the stative forms of E-verbs, see 17.5.1 (pp. 525526).
161
162
The Stative: Form 7.2.
have the inflectional stem PaRiS, at least in Babylonian.2 Assyrian shows more variation: apart from PaRiS, there are two other (marginal) patterns: PaRaS and PuRuS (see 3.3.4, pp. 6466) in the following verbs:3 waab he is sitting, staying from wabu (A/i) alaq he/it is lost from alqu (I/i) bala he is alive from balu (A/a) qurub he/it is near from *qarbu (U/u) rq he/it is far away from ruqu () (see 17.7.3.2, p. 565) *kuzub he is charming (no corresponding verb attested) *pulu he is frightful from palu (A/a) *puur it is assembled, together from paru (U/u) muul he/it is similar from malu (only NA, U/u?)
The Assyrian forms are all from intransitive verbs that are semantically close to denoting stative situations, similar to the verbs of the A/a vowel class (see 3.5.2.4, pp. 7475) and can be regarded as borderline cases between fientive and adjectival verbs. In the G-stem forms, the stem vowel is only visible if there is no endingi.e., in most 3ms forms: alim (cf. Fem adjective alimtu), maru (marutu) ill, and kabar (kabartu) thick. Statives derived from nouns simply copy the stem of the noun. In the derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs, the stative has the stem vowel u (Pa/uRRuS, naPRuS, naBaLKuT, etc.) and is always identical in pattern to the infinitive. As a finite verbal form, the stative canat least in principletake the same range of endings and suffixes as the prefix conjugations: the endings of the ventive and the subjunctive and the suffix pronouns of dative and accusative. For ventive forms after a stative, see 9.4.1 (p. 233).4 The subjunctive was originally not used with a stative, but during the history of Akkadian there was a growing tendency to attach the subjunctive ending -u to the third-person singular (see 9.3.1, p. 221, for details). The first and second persons of the stative do not take ventive or subjunctive endings for morphological reasons (Reiner 1966: 97), but they do occasionally take suffix
2. A systematic exception concerns the stative of II/ verbs in Babylonian, which have : m it has been bought (e.g., a(-a)-am YOS 8, 66a:16 // 66b:30, Fem a-ma-at TCL 1, 133:4); see 17.7.4.1 (p. 567). The only other genuine exception seems to be epu, a rare by-form (MB/SB) of regular epi, from epu to make, do (e-pu-u VAB 2, 10:35 (MB); CT 13, 35:1; IV R 25: III 58 (both SB); e-pu-us-si BWL 236: II 13 (SB), d -u (/epu/) A 1, 96:99100, cf. Huehnergard 1987a: 221 n. 10). The corresponding past participle sometimes has the feminine form eputu in Neo-Babylonian; see CAD E 247a s.v. epu adj. 1e. This verb has a strong general predilection for the vowel u; cf. also the atypical N forms Impfv inneppu, Pfv innepu, and t-Pf ittenpu , which will be discussed in detail in 12.2.1 (p. 291). For other instances of past participles with u derived from fientive verbs, all rather doubtful and most of them unique variants of normal PaRiS forms, see Kouwenberg 2000: 5859 nn. 3334; an additional instance is at it has been found from wat (a-tu MSL 5, 50:3 (SB)). 3. For a possible fourth instance naal from nlu to lie down, see chap. 16, n. 100 (p. 475). In addition, Assyrian has a few Fem nouns with the pattern PaRaSt, which may be derived from obsolete PaRaS past participles: aatu need, requirement, napatu life, and abartu (broken) piece, block, for which Babylonian has PaRiS (napitu) or PiRiS (ietu and ibirtu). It is also possible that the Sargonic Akkadian proper name -lu-ga-sa-ad RA 8, 158 AO 5659:3 contains a PaRaS stative /kasad/; cf. the Old Babylonian name type DN-kaid (Huehnergard 1987a: 221 n. 10). References for the PuRuS statives and adjectives were given in 3.3.4 (pp. 6466). 4. Since the stative denotes a state (see below), it is normally incompatible with the ventive as allative, but not with the ventive as dative (see Kouwenberg 2002: 2013); an exception is napata quoted below.
7.3. The Stative: Function
163
pronouns from Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian onward, although not very frequently; cf. the following selection of first- and second-person statives with a suffix pronoun:5 1. after -k(u) (1st p. Sg): dam-q-ku-um AbB 3, 33:19 (OB) I am favourably disposed toward you (damqk(u) + -kum) na--a-ku-nu-t Prag I 709:7 (OA) I am bringing to you (Pl) (nak(u) + -kunti) ka-ab-s-ak-u-nu-ti ARM 26/1, 421 no. 195:16 (OB) I have trampled them (kabsk(u) + -unti) a-bu-l-ak-u-um AfO 31, 17:37 (OA) I owe him (abbulk(u) + -um)6 i-ra-ka-u KAR 66:24 (SB) I have chosen it (rk(u) + -au) 2. after -ti, -ta, -t (2nd p. Sg): (atta) m-a-ta-an-ni ARM 10, 8:9 (OB) you disregard me (mt(a) + -anni (atta) a-a-a-as-s ARM 28, 81: r.10 (OB) you want (to do something) against him (at(a) + -u(m)) a-ak-na-as-s MSL 4, 82:87 (SB LL)you have been placed for him (aknt(a) + u(m) 3. after -at (3fs): nap-a-ta SAA 10, 31: r.5 (NA) she (the planet Venus) has risen (napat + a(m))7 ma-a-ra-ta-an-ni BE 17, 43:6 (MB) it has confronted me (marat + -anni) na-ad-na-ta-u(-ma) RIMA 2/I, 13:32 (SB) it has been given to him (nadnat + -au) a-da-tak-ka Dreams 340: IV 8 (SB) it (amltu mankind) rejoices in you (adt + -akka) Although there seems to be no reason why statives in the first- and second-person plural should not be able to accommodate a suffix pronoun, I am not aware of any instances.
7.3. the stative: Function 8

The grammatical function of the stative is the expression of a state.9 It is used indiscriminately for all kinds of states, whether permanent or transient, whether a pure state or a state resulting from a previous event. As such, it is opposed to the fientive members of the verbal
5. It makes no difference whether the stative is derived from a verb, an adjective, or a noun, but most instances are from verbs, and instances from nouns with a ventive or suffix pronoun are not known to me. This is not caused by the nature of the stative but by the meaning of the affixes in question, which are far more compatible with verbal than with adjectival or nominal predicates. Dative suffix pronouns attached to statives that do not seem to be verbal at all include ka-a-a-an-um AfO 18, 65:22 it is constant for him, ka-ia-na-kum AbB 1, 37: r.14 it is constant for you (both OB). 6. By way of exception, the final -u of -ku may be preserved: a-bu-l-ku-u-um OAA 1, 63:34. 7. This form is unique, as far as I know, in that it is the only instance of a 3fs stative followed by a pure ventive. It is less uncommon to find forms with a ventive followed by another element such as a nisubjunctive (e.g., ibid. 3 nap-a-ta-ni (napat + a(m) + ni ) (see Parpola 1983: 14 ad loc.), (a . . .) e-ua-ta-ni KAV 205:6 (MA) (which) has been taken out), the particle -ma ((a. . .) ab-ka-ta-am-ma YOS 7, 7:44 (which) has been led away [LB]), or a suffix pronoun (see above). 8. Earlier literature on the function of the stative includes GAG 77; GKT 72c/e; Rowton 1962; Kraus 1984; Huehnergard 2005a: 21923; Metzler 2002: 892900. 9. According to Lyons (1977: 483), [a] static situation (. . .) is one that is conceived of as existing, rather than happening, and as being homogeneous, continuous and unchanging throughout its duration.
164
The Stative: Function 7.3.
paradigm, which express events.10 This opposition is formally underlined by the contrast between the suffixes and the originally nominal stem of the stative (PaRvS) versus the prefixes and the verbal stem of the prefix conjugations (PRvS). A corollary of the stative function is the lack of tense distinctions: the stative may refer to the present, the past, andmuch more rarelythe future.11 This is ultimately grounded in pragmatics: tense distinctions are less relevant as the situation they denote is more prolonged, and stative situations typically continue over a longer period of time than prototypical eventsi.e., they are more time-stable (Givn 1984: 5156). Aspectually, the stative has imperfective aspect, since it does not envisage the beginning or the end of the state.12 The stative is basically uniform in function, but for a more detailed description we should distinguish between statives derived from adjectives, from nouns, and from verbs. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to them as verbal statives, adjectival statives, and nominal statives, respectively, but these terms purely refer to their derivational background and not to their grammatical status, which is verbal in all cases. Adjectival and nominal statives (to be discussed in 7.3.1) are simply the predicative form of the corresponding adjective or noun. Verbal statives, on the other hand, have a complex relationship to the verb they are derived from, a relationship based on their historical development and on the fundamentally different properties of states versus events. First of all, for the reasons explained in 2.2.1 (p. 30), the verbal stative is subordinate in rank to and (synchronically) derived from the fientive prefix conjugations: iparrVs/iprVs/iptarVs paris. Historically, of course, the stative is derived from the past participle, but the verbalization of the stative has reversed their relationship (see 8.3.1, pp. 200201, and Kouwenberg 2000: 5963). The dependence of the verbal stative on the verbal paradigm, and in particular on the fientive forms, is most clearly demonstrated by the active stative to be discussed in 7.3.2 below and by verbal statives that differ semantically from the corresponding past participle, such as: taklku I trust in (+ Dat) from taklu + Dat to trust, put ones trust in (versus the adjective taklu reliable, good, lit., that which can be trusted) qpku I trust, I believe (+ Acc) from qpu () to entrust, believe (versus qpu trustworthy, usually substantivized as official, administrator) kadku I have arrived, I am at my place of destination (GAG 77d) from kadu to arrive (versus kadu obtained, successful, sufficient) Second, in terms of semantic transitivity, statives have zero transitivity, since they do not indicate a change in the state of the world. Accordingly, they cannot have an agentive subject, since agentivity implies a conscious volitional act on the part of the subject and is therefore only applicable to actions (Binnick 1991: 187).13 Moreover, since statives do not envisage the termination of the state, as noted above, they are by nature atelic, whereas the fientive verb itself must be telic in order to have a stative at all. Finally, statives derived from verbs are neutral for voice: they can be active or passive. This is due to the fact that they only refer to the result of an event and
10. Only in very specific, exceptional circumstances are some statives capable of referring to events; see 7.3.3 (pp. 174176). 11. For the stative with future reference, see GAG3 77d*; Leong 1994: 244. 12. Comrie 1976: 5051; Binnick 1991: 18788; Smith 1997: 32. For adjectival states, Akkadian uses the prefix forms of the corresponding adjectival verb to express the beginning of the state. 13. This is important for Akkadian insofar as it bears on the interpretation of some types of active statives that Rowton (1962) claims to have an agentive subject. I will briefly discuss some of Rowtons views in n. 32 below (p. 170).
165
do not indicate how it came about; it is therefore immaterial whether its subject was the agent or the patient of the event. These features will be discussed further in 7.3.2. The sum of these semantic differences sets the stative apart from the fientive prefix categories and explains why it has a strong tendency to lexicalizei.e., to develop its own meaning different from that of the other forms of the same verb, a process that is especially prominent in the active statives to be discussed below (Rowton 1962: 26768). The nature of the stative has given rise to a controversy concerning its nominal or verbal character. In particular, Buccellati (1968) has claimed that the stative is (also synchronically) a nominal sentence consisting of a nominal (adjectival) base and an enclitic subject pronoun, and that it is therefore a syntactical rather than a morphological category that can be more economically treated in the grammar in the sections on the noun and the pronoun, respectively.14 In Kouwenberg 2000: 2226, I argued that this view is untenable for a variety of reasons and that from a synchronic point of view the stative is a verbal category. Briefly summarized, the main arguments are the following. First, the stative is verbal in syntax, since it is always the predicate of the clause, has the verb-final word order of the verbal clause (whereas in non-verbal clauses with a pronoun the subject is clause-final), and can be a complete clause in itself (whereas a nonverbal clause needs an explicit subject, unless it is existential). Second, it is verbal in morphology, since it has personal endings and can have most of the verbal endings and suffixes that the prefix conjugations can have.15 Only semantically is the stative similar to non-verbal clauses in being tenseless and expressing states. However, semantic criteria are inferior to morphological and syntactic ones as a basis for deciding whether a form is verbal or not. In the next two sections, I will first deal with the adjectival and nominal statives (7.3.1) and subsequently with verbal statives (7.3.2).
7.3.1. Stativesderivedfromadjectivesandnouns
An adjectival stative is the predicative form of a primary adjective (GAG 77b; Rowton 1962: 236; Reiner 1970: 292). For instance, arru dn the king is powerful is the predicative form of arru dannu the powerful king. Adjective and stative do not differ in meaning but only in their syntactic status. The stative is directly derived from the adjective without interference from the verbal paradigm. Needless to say, the root vowel of the adjective is copied in the stative, where it only surfaces in the 3ms: kabar he is thick from kabru (< *kabarum, cf. Fem kabartu. For a predicative adjective, the use of the stative is more or less obligatory, especially in the older dialects. Very rarely, however, we find a predicative adjective in the nominative; this seems to occur mainly if the adjective is substantivized (01) and if it is followed by the enclitic particle -ma (02) but exceptionally also in other cases for unclear reasons, as in (03)-(04) (see Kouwenberg 2000: 3438 for more examples): (01) TC 3, 70:1112 (OA) ke-e-nu-um anku I am an honest person (02) ARM 26/1, 111 no. 13:1213 (OB) bt mrt [k]a dam-q-um-ma the house of your daughter is excellent
14. See also Buccellati 1988 and 1996: 12122; Huehnergard 1987a: 23031; and Kouwenberg 2000: 22 n. 3 for more references. 15. A nominal feature of the stative, however, is its combination with the precative particle l (GAG 81b; e.g., l i-a-ra-a-ti MSL 4, 74:227 (OB) may you be prosperous!; bl l a-di ARM 10, 26:7 (OB) may my lord be glad!), which is also used in nominal clauses (GAG 127d). For the stative with l as a prohibitive, see chap. 9, n. 36, p. 220).
166
(03) St. Larsen p. 14:32 (OA) (four persons) e-lu-tum unu they are free of claims (elsewhere Stat ell, e.g., St. Nimet zg p. 133:14 and p. 135:35 e-lu) (04) OBTR 120:1416 (OB) ina lim GN [e].b a wa-aq-rum u .gi wa-aq-rum in the city of Assur barley rations are expensive and sesame oil is expensive (05) MATSH p. 131 no. 8:49 (MA) me-e-tu t is he dead? However, in the later stages of Akkadian, and especially in Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, it is quite common to find predicative adjectives in the nominative (Kouwenberg 2000: 33 n. 16; De Vaan 1995: 17476) It is possible that Aramaic influence is involved, as suggested by Buccellati (1968: 9).16 See the following instances: (06) CT 54, 22: r.40 (NB) a-as-si u pu-ut-qu-du atta you are wise and circumspect (07) SAA 10, 245: r.6 (NA) al-mu it is safe (08) SAA 9, 3: III 8 (NA lit.) DNF pa-aq-t Itar is slight (tr. S. Parpola) Apart from the vowel pattern, adjectival statives are not formally different from verbal statives. Their identification depends on the difference between fientive and adjectival verbs, which was discussed in 3.3.2 (pp. 5860). However, in the II/gem verbs, there is a difference in form between adjectival and verbal statives: the former are monosyllabic in the 3ms, e.g., dn he is strong and l he is pure (see 16.6.1, p. 492) from dannu and ellu, respectively; but the latter are bisyllabic, e.g., balil it has been mixed or polluted, madid it has been measured and akik it has been harrowed from ballu, maddu, and akku. This difference is due to a difference in derivation: dn and l are derived from the adjectives dannu and ellu by subtraction of the case ending and mimation (see 7.4.1, p. 178), whereas verbal statives such as balil are derived from the corresponding fientive forms (iballal balil ) on the model of iparrVs paris.17 The stative of nouns is a subcategory of the stative of adjectives.18 A predicative noun may be conjugated as a stative, if it has the function of an adjective (i.e., if it is classifying rather than identifying) and constitutes a simple predicate (i.e., if it is not accompanied by any qualification or complement, such as an attributive adjective, a genitive, a suffix pronoun, a relative clause, or an enclitic particle), e.g., arrku I am (a) king. It is not possible, however, to use the stative in a clause such as arru dannu anku I am a mighty king or if the predicative noun identifies the subject as a specific individual (i.e., if it is referential), as in: (9) VAB 2, 4:8 (MB) lugal atta you are the king (i.e., you are the one who decides)19
16. The available grammars of these dialects do not allow us to determine the extent and the details of this development. 17. There are some counter-examples, however, in Standard Babylonian; see 16.6.1 (p. 492). 18. For a detailed discussion and an enumeration of nouns occurring in the stative, see Kouwenberg 2000: 3848, and earlier discussions in Rowton 1962: 26162 and Kraus 1984: 1417. 19. The logogram l u g a l can only be interpreted as a nominative arru.
7.3. The Stative: Function (10) OIP 27, 56:7 (OA) wbil tuppim t dam.gr-ru-um the bearer of (this) tablet is the creditor (tamkru) (i.e., he is the person who is entitled to the money specified in the tablet)
167
The stative of nouns mainly occurs in two types of (con)texts: in legal (con)texts, in order to classify a person as belonging to a social group and thus being entitled to its rights or subject to its obligations, as in (11) and (12); and in literary texts, as an epithet on a par with adjectives, as in (13):20 (11) CHJ pp. 7071 no. 143:1617 (OB) PNF mrt ul a-ma-at PNF is my daughter, she is not a slave girl (12) AKT 3, 88:56 (OA) l a-wi-l-t be a gentleman (also in OB: ARM 1, 69: r.13) (13) RIMA 2/1, 239:3436 (SB) ar-ra-ku be-la-ku na-a-da-ku ge-ra-ku kab-ta-ku ur-ru-a-ku (. . .) qar-ra-da-ku lab-ba-ku u zi-ka-ra-ku I am king, I am lord, I am praised, powerful, honoured and famous, (. . .) I am a hero, a lion and a he-man However, even if a predicative noun is non-referential and qualifies for being in the stative for other reasons as well, it may be in the nominative; this is common in all dialects and again seems to be the only possibility in the later dialects.21 Here are a few examples: (14) ShA 1, 138 no. 64:62 atta l a-wi-lum be a man (OB, also Kisurra 156:16); (15) Legends p. 184:18 (OB lit.) bl attma l la-bu my lord, verily you are a lion (tr. J. Westenholz) In practice, mainly animate nouns are used in the stative, as is clear from the examples given so far; a rare example of an inanimate noun (from agurru kiln-fired brick) is:22 (16) Gilg. p. 538:20 (SB) umma libittau l a-gur-rat (see) if its (Uruks) brickwork is not kiln-fired brick (tr. A. R. George) There is a contrast in markedness between statives of adjectives and statives of nouns: for predicative adjectives the use of the stative is unmarked, whereas that of the nominative is marked, and for predicative nouns the situation is the opposite (Huehnergard 1986: 23233; Kouwenberg 2000: 55).23 The nominal stative developed secondarily as a subcategory of the adjectival
20. Outside literary texts, statives of nouns are very rare; in the Old Babylonian letters of AbB 110, for instance, Kraus (1984: 14) counts only 20 nominal statives among 1200 instances of statives. 21. Nominal statives are very hard to find in Neo- and Late Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, which is not surprising in view of the fact that even predicative adjectives are often in the nominative in these dialects, as stated above. One exception is known to me: mu-ke-n-ku ABL 1059:6 (NB) I am a commoner (but muknu is a borderline case between noun and adjective; cf. the nominative in arru mu-ke-e-nu SAA 10, 43:15 (NA) is the king a poor man?). However, it is not always easy to see whether a form is a stative or a nominative because of the loss of final vowels and the resulting inconsistencies in spelling. 22. See Kouwenberg 2000: 3940 for a list (add perhaps JRAS CSpl. 71:20 [OB lit.] DN a qabalu n-e-re-et whose onslaught is murder(ous), from nrtu murder). 23. This is in keeping with the general markedness relationships between different kinds of nominal predicates, as established by Hengeveld 1992: 13055 and Stassen 1997: 12531; see also Pustet 2003: 7273. Nouns are less likely to occur as predicates than adjectives and are therefore marked in this respect (Pustet 2003: 18687).
168
stative.24 This is demonstrated by the fact that if a nominal stative is derived from a noun with the feminine marker t, this t is omitted in the stative, a peculiarity that was taken over from the adjectival stative, where a single stem serves for masculine and feminine (see 7.4.1, p. 177), e.g.:25 (17) ARM 10, 31: r.7 (OB) umma anku s-ni-a-ku (even) if I am (only) a woman (i.e., sinniku from sinnitu) (18) Or. 36, 120:65 (SB) ma-ra-ku kal-la-ku i-ra-ku ab-rak-ka-ku I (DNF) am daughter (mrtu), bride (kallatu), spouse (rtu) and housekeeper (abrakkatu)
7.3.2. Stativesderivedfromverbs
Verbal stativesi.e., statives derived from fientive verbsare the most common and most complex type. In contrast to adjectival and nominal statives, which differ only syntactically from the adjective or noun they are derived from, verbal statives have the same syntactic status as the other finite forms of the verb but a different meaning: they denote the state that results from the event expressed by the fientive forms of the verb (GAG 77e).26 A few random Old Babylonian instances are: (19) AbB 6, 219:1415 napakum (. . .) pa-te-e-ma eum le-q the storehouse (. . .) has been broken into (lit., pierced) and barley has been taken (20) CT 47, 63:5759 tupptum ina ina bt PN i-li-q-ma (. . .) kma tupptum ina al-q-a these tablets disappeared from the house of PN (. . .); because these tablets are gone, (. . .) (21) FM 7, 15 no. 5:510 (the weapons of Adad of Aleppo have arrived here) ina bt DN2 ina GN2 ka-le-ek-u-nu-ti I have stored them [hence: I keep them] in the temple of Dagan in Terqa
24. So already B. Landsberger 1926b: 971, Huehnergard 1986: 23839; Voigt 1988a: 121; Tropper 1995a: 49899. The opposite claim, that the ability to form statives of nouns is an archaic feature (e.g., Rssler 1950: 471; von Soden 1961b: 41) is implausible, since it goes against the markedness relationship referred to in the previous note, which implies that the predicative use of nouns presupposes the predicative use of adjectives. This also sheds light on the rarity of statives of nouns in Neo-Assyrian and NeoBabylonian: the decline in the use of the stative of nouns must have preceded the decline in the use of the stative for predicative adjectives. 25. The 3fs (e.g., sinniat she is a woman from sinnitu) is only an apparent exception, since -at of the stative has developed into a different ending from -(a)t- as the feminine marker, in spite of their historical identity. 26. Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988: 6) define the resultative as follows: The term resultative is applied to those verb forms that express a state implying a previous event. The difference between the stative and the resultative is as follows: the stative expresses the state of a thing without any implication of its origin, while the resultative expresses both a state and the preceding action it has resulted from. With regard to Akkadian, it seems that the definition of Nedjalkov and Jaxontov puts too much weight on the preceding event at the cost of the resulting state. Since Akkadian has both a resultative and a t-perfect, which typically expresses a past event that the speaker includes in his subjective present (see 6.3, pp. 140141), it seems better to define the Akkadian stative in its resultative function as expressing a state and implying (rather than expressing) the preceding action it has resulted from; cf. Bybee et al. 1994: 54: a state exists as a result of a past action.
169
In (20), for instance, the stative alq they (Fem) are gone expresses the result of the past event iliq they got lost, disappeared. Usually, the preceding event is not explicitly mentioned. The occurrence of resultative statives is therefore restricted to verbs denoting telic events, which culminate in a state. Atelic verbs for activities, such as malku to deliberate, s/ull to pray, u () to laugh, and zannu to rain, do not normally have a stative.27 On the basis of the valency relationship between the fientive forms of a verb and the stative, we can distinguish three kinds of verbal statives: intransitive statives, passive statives, and active statives.28 The intransitive stative applies to single participant verbs and describes the state of the subject of the preceding event after its completion (John has sat down > John is (now) seated ). Examples are (20) quoted above, and, e.g.: (22) ARM 5, 43:89 (OB) nakrum ina GN pa-i-ir the enemy is assembled in GN (23) KH 240:72 (OB) eleppau e4-bi-at his ship has sunk (and is therefore on the bottom of the river) The most typical cases are statives of intransitive verbs of telic movement, such as alqu to get lost, kamsu to kneel down, paru to come together, qerbu to approach, rabu to crouch, lie down, teb to stand up, and wabu to sit down, and change-of-state verbs, such as bel to go out (of fire), mtu to die, pau to become calm, and eb to become satisfied. As argued in 3.3 (p. 55), there is no clear-cut borderline between the intransitive statives of the latter type and adjectival statives, as in the case of ablu to be(come) dry and mal to be(come) full. If the verb is transitive, either the subject or the direct object of the underlying fientive clause may become the subject of the stative, depending on the context and on semantic and pragmatic factors outside the stative itself, which, as stated above, is neutral with regard to voice. If it is the direct object, we have a passive stative.29 It describes the state of the object (the patient), e.g., the lion in: arru na idk the king killed the lion nu dk the lion is dead as a result of being killed.30 Therefore, it usually requires a passive translation, as in (19) quoted above and: (24) St. von Soden (AOAT 240), p. 45:1015 (OB) PN GN1 ul ibat / lam GN2 PN ibat (. . .) mimma GN1 ul a-bi-it Bun-ma-Addu has not seized Apar, B. has seized the town of adura (. . .). Apar has not been seized [or, more accurately: is unseized] The passive stative competes with the fientive forms of the derived stems with (medio)-passive function, the N-stem, the Dt-stem, and the t1-stem. In principle, the latter refer to the event itself
27. For cases such as lasmu quick (Stat lasim he is quick) beside lasmu to run, see chap. 3, n. 30 (p. 59). 28. Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988: 810) speak of the subjective, objective and possessive resultative, respectively. 29. If we take the terms active and passive in their strict sensei.e., as denoting an action which an agent performs on a patient and an action which is undergone by a patient, respectivelythey are inappropriate to the stative, because the stative does not denote any action. Nevertheless, I will retain them as convenient terms in a purely syntactic meaning: in relation to the stative, passive only means that the original direct object appears as subject, active means that the original subject remains the subject of the stative. This use is also prompted by the fact that most European languages do not have a grammatical category stative and often have to use passive constructions to translate the passive stative. 30. Promotion to subject of other participants than subject and direct object is exceptional: see 10.8.3.1 (p. 260) for an example of the indirect object promoted to subject in the verb qab to speak.
170
rather than to the resultant state, and sometimes this nuance is tangible, as in (25A) versus (25B), but in practice there is often little difference, so that the choice depends on the subjective decision of the speaker, as in (26), where the stative and the N perfective occur as variants:31 (25A) ARM 5, 67:910 (OB) bum bqimu ul ibai immertum ul ba-aq-ma There are no sheepshearers (available/present) and the sheep are still unshorn (Stat) (25B) ARM 2, 140:810 (OB) am aittum iznunma 1 m e immertum ul ib-ba-aq-ma since it has been raining incessantly, one hundred sheep have not yet been shorn (N Pfv) (similarly FM 2, 140 no. 76:17, 19 and AbB 4, 79:7 vs. 25) (26) B 14:5 (OB) amnum s-pi-i-ma (var. i-s-pi-i-ma) ksam iml (if) the oil has been scattered and has covered the (surface of the) bowl (similarly KH 120:14). If the subject of the underlying transitive clause retains its subject position in the stative, we have an active stative, which describes the state of the subject after the completion of the event, e.g., the army in: bum lam ilw the army laid (Pfv) siege to the city bum lam law the army holds (Stat) the city under siege.32 There is no standard way to translate an active stative into English; we often need some kind of periphrasis; cf. the following clauses: (27) ARM 3, 1:67 (OB) ipir nr GN a-ab-ta-ku I am engaged in (lit., I have seized) work on the canal of GN
31. See Rowton (1962: 27985), who argues that the passive stative may be used instead of the N perfective and that [I]f (. . .) the speaker selects paris, then the continued bearing of the past event on the existing situation is rendered explicit by the choice of that tense (1962: 284). This is not borne out by the examples he cites and confuses the stative with the t-perfect (which also vitiates Rowtons account of the active stative; see below); see also Maloney 1981: 15153. It is true, however, that there is a tendency for the stative to encroach upon the domain of the t-perfect (see 7.3.3 below, pp. 174175), and the situation in the passive is more complex than in the active, also because of the relative rarity of the N t-perfect (ittaprVs). A more detailed study is clearly required. 32. The active stative was the subject of a detailed description by Rowton (1962). His study is welldocumented, exemplary as to how a grammatical problem should be addressed, and pioneering in its inclusion of competing categories such as the t-perfect and the passive. However, his semantic interpretation of many statives is highly questionable. Using the term permansive for the stative, he distinguishes two functions: the descriptive permansive, which describes the subject in terms of his condition, position, location, appearance, etc.; and the active or agentive permansive, in which the subject is an agent who is engrossed in the action and which serves to emphasize persistency or sustained care on the part of the subject (1962: 234). He characterizes the latter kind of permansive with terms such as control, persistency, and sustained effort, and once claims that it expresses not merely action, but a highly intensive aspect of action (1962: 299). These notions are quite alien to the nature of the stative, however, which purely expresses a state resulting from a previous event. Any impression of effort or persistency on the part of the subject resides in the meaning of the verb itself and/or in the context (and is sometimes read into the text by Rowton without actually being there). To quote only two instances: Rowtons no. 116 on p. 251with greatest care I have examined (i-a-ku) the inscriptions on stone (dating) from before the flood: in my view, ku simply means I have examined/studied (with the result that I am now expert in), without any implication of effort, just as amrku simply means I (have seen so that now I) know; likewise, Rowton (1962: 255 no. 166) translates AbB 2, 74:1112 PN ani rabm a-ab-la-an-ni-a-ti PN, our elder brother, persists in wronging us; in my view, this verb simply means has wronged us (so that we are now victims of injustice), or the like. Earlier criticism of some of Rowtons views can be found in Kraus 1984: 610; Maloney 1981: 15153; and Streck 1995a: 177. For Rowtons views on the use of the stative as a t-perfect, see below.
7.3. The Stative: Function (28) AbB 13, 110:2829 (OB) inanna iprum a-ab-ta-an-ni at the moment, work keeps me busy (lit., work has seized me).
171
Through its resultative nature, the active stative is closely related to the fientive past tenses of perfective and t-perfect. There are many situations that the speaker can describe in different ways, according to whether he prefers to stress the past event itself (perfective), its association with the present moment (t-perfect), or the resultant state (stative).33 Therefore, we find instances of perfective and stative alternating in the same context, e.g.: (29A) CT 47, 13:23 (OB) kirbnam ana nrim is-su-uk he has thrown (Pfv) a clod into the river, versus: (29B) CT 47, 13a:23 kirbnam ana nrim na-si-ik (Stat) (see Veenhof 1973: 36667) (30A) St. Dietrich, p. 586 nr. 7:1820 (MA) (garments) a ikkartu ma-a-ru--ni (Stat) which the farmers have received, versus: (30B) ibid. p. 587 no. 9:1718 (garments) a ikkartu im-u-ru-ni (Pfv) Stative and t-perfect are two sides of the same coin: the t-perfect represents a past event as still associated with the present moment, whereas the stative describes a state resulting from a past event. Accordingly, the choice is often subjective, and we find both forms used in the same context: (31A) AfO 18, 65: II 31 umma awlum uru nu ka-at-ma if a mans brows hold his eyes covered (Stat) (31B) YOS 10, 56: II 23 umma izbum uznu nu ik-ta-ta-ma if an anomalys eyes have covered (t-Pf) its ears (32) AbB 14, 119:69 (OB) (with regard to the three textiles which are your impost) ina libbi 3 ubtka itn na-ad-na-a-ti u aniam anku annikam at-ta-di-in from your three textiles, you have given (Stat) one and I have given (t-Pf) another one here34 Whether the stative of a transitive verb is active or passive primarily depends on the context. The presence of an accusative does not automatically entail an active interpretation, as is clear from (33), nor does its absence guarantee a passive one; see (34) and (35): (33) BAM 4, 393: r.5 (OB) umma awlum kalbam na-i-ik if a man has been bitten by a dog (or, more accurately, if a man has a dogbite) (34) AbB 10, 7:14 (OB) 2 b.i.a a ibai al-da the two cows that are present have calved (/ald/ < wald) (35) ATHE 46:18 (OA) annakam emr ak-lu- the donkeys have eaten here (i.e., they are well fed now) However, verbs exhibit large differences in the likelihood that their stative will be active or passive. Statives of high-transitivity verbs are almost always passive. This is due to the fact that
33. See also Leong 1994: 3233; Streck 1995a: 16689. For a similar contrast in Egyptian between stative and eventive verb forms, see Reintges 1997: 36264. 34. In this passage, the stative doubtless implies that the addressee is now free of his legal obligation, whereas the t-perfect indicates the news value of the message for the addressee and/or its recentness and relevance.
172
it is the degree of affectedness of the participants that determines whether the resultant state is more likely to be predicated of the subject (the agent) or of the object (the patient). Since in high-transitivity verbs the direct object (the patient) is strongly affected by the event, whereas the agent usually suffers no relevant effect as a result of having performed the action in question (see 3.4, p. 66), it will generally be the state of the object that is described by means of a stative.35 It is therefore unlikely that we will ever find active statives of verbs such as dku to kill and pet to open: clauses such as *arru na dk the king has killed a/the lion or *awlu bba pet the man has opened the/a door would imply that these actions have left some kind of mark on the subject that is relevant enough to be described in the form of a resultative stative, a situation that will not often occur. Statives of low-transitivity verbs, on the other hand, can be both active and passive, because the direct object of low-transitivity verbs is not or not significantly affected by the action (see 3.4, p. 66), so that their subject becomes proportionally more salient and therefore a more likely candidate to be described as having performed the action (Kozinskij 1988: 51721). Therefore, most active statives come from transitive verbs with a low degree of transitivity. This is confirmed by the list of active statives attested in Akkadian that was compiled by D. Cohen (1984: 25758).36 The fact that the stative describes an entity in terms of the result of a previous event makes the active stative eminently suitable for legal (con)texts to describe the legal status of a person (Rowton 1962: 29294), as in the following instances: (36) KH 158:28 (OB) (a woman) a mr wa-al-da-at who has given birth to sons (i.e., who has sons, is the mother of sons) (also LE 59: A IV 29) (37) CT 6, 6:5 (OB) eqlum a PNF (. . .) a-ma-at the field that PNF has bought (and therefore now owns) (38) AbB 3, 2:11 (OB) ani erum aatam ul a-i-iz our youngest brother has not taken a wife (i.e., is still unmarried) (39) YOS 8, 150:1922 (OB) a p kunukkim annm kaspam gamram l na-ad-na-ku I have certainly given/paid all the silver in accordance with the words of the document! (40) CCT 5, 11d:67 (OA) (an amount of gold) a ana PN a-p-k-t-ni which you have invested for PN (41) KAV 1: VII 47:2831 (MA) (in accordance with the words of the tablet that you have sworn to (ta-am--a-ta-a-ni: Stat + Subj) before the king and his son) ta-am--a-ta you have sworn (i.e., you are bound by this oath)37 The subject of these clauses has performed an act which has brought him or her into a state with legal consequences,38 and the stative emphasizes the ensuing rights or obligations. The corre35. See Comrie 1981b: 7071; what Comrie argues here for the perfect applies to the stative in Akkadian. 36. D. Cohens list could be augmented substantially, but the overall picture is not likely to change significantly. D. Cohen concludes (1984: 260) that the active stative is typical of the verbs that M. Cohen (1935) has called dponents internes and that we would call middle verbs or low-transitivity verbs, see 18.3.1 (p. 588). 37. Many additional examples are quoted in Rowton 1962: 29294. 38. [E]ine juristisch bedeutsame Situation (Aro 1964: 8); similarly, Rowton 1962: 292.
173
sponding perfectives or t-perfects would simply have stated the occurrence of the event. This explains why so many active statives come from verbs denoting legally binding actions.39 As I stated above, active statives have a particular tendency to develop a lexicalized meaning if they are used frequently enough. The most common instances are four verbs that express different modalities of taking or acquiring, and whose active stative denotes the corresponding state of possession, as was first established by Ungnad (1918): abtu to take, seize, leq to receive, maru to receive, and na to lift, carry. The first three verbs often occur in the legal contexts referred to above and express different nuances of possession. abtu often refers to the ownership of real estate: he owns, he is the legitimate owner of (but it also has a more general use, see, e.g., (27) and (28) above), and leq and maru to ownership of commodities that someone is entitled to and has received, e.g.:40 (41) AbB 4, 40:7 (OB) eqel bt aba a itu m mdtim a-ab-ta-nu the field of my fathers estate which we have owned for a long time (PN has claimed from me) (42) AbB 6, 43:89 (OB) 1/2 g n 15 e kaspam la-q-a-ku I have received 1/2 shekel and 15 grains of silver (43) AbB 11, 47:1213 (OB) eam ma-a-ra-a-ta libbaka b you have received the barley, (so) you are satisfied (i.e., you have been paid and have no further claims) The stative of na, on the other hand, typically refers to the transportation of goods with which somebody is on his way: to have on oneself, carry, especially in Assyrian, but occasionally also in Babylonian: (44) Prag I 553:1315 (OA) itti kaspim (. . .) PN na--a-kum PN is on his way to you (naakkum) with (carrying) the rest of the silver (45) AbB 1, 132:7 (OB) kaspam ul na-i-a-ku I have no silver with me (tr. CAD N/2 95a s.v. na v. A 2d2) Numerous other verbs have an active stative with more or less lexicalized meanings, among which I may single out (see Rowton 1962: 267 for a longer list): amru to see, Stat to know, have experienced41 lamdu to learn, Stat to know katmu to cover (action), Stat to cover (state) law to lay siege to, Stat to besiege (i.e., to lie around (a city)) rakbu to mount (an animal or a ship), Stat to ride, sail
39. For active statives in Old Assyrian, see Rowton 1962: 28588. A very atypical case is the legal but apparently non-resultative use in: (a woman) u-ba-at ak-l-at u p-a-at itunu St. Larsen p. 12:14 // 14:1718 shall live, eat, and be anointed together with them (the owners of the house). The usual form in such contexts is the imperfective, e.g., the ubiquitous kkal he has the usufruct of (a field), which comes close to stative meaning in this context, where a situation rather than an event is described (see Loesov 2005: 111). This may explain the shift to the stative in this clause. 40. Many additional examples are quoted in Rowton 1962: 24345. For an atypical use of the active stative of na to lift, carry, see chap. 17, n. 212 (p. 574). 41. Cf. Greek (w)oida, Sanskrit veda I know, which are also resultatives of a verb to see, preserved in the Greek aorist (w)eidon I saw and Latin vidre; cf. also the Gtn stative of amru: to have seen many times > to know well (AHw 41b s.v. Gtn 2).
174
In their typological study of resultatives, Nedjalkow and Jaxontov (1988: 2226) use the term possessive resultative for this kind of active stative, and they observe that it is cross-linguistically the least common type.42 In Akkadian, however, it is fairly widespread and productive, although less frequent than the passive stative.43 Moreover, the term possessive resultative does not capture the essence of the active stative and is far too restrictive. There are numerous instances in which the notion of possession is quite inappropriate, such as the passages (39), (40), and (41) quoted above.
7.3.3. Marginalandsecondaryusesofthestative
Not all verbal statives conform completely to the definition of a resultative as given above. First of all, the stative of some verbs may express a state that, strictly speaking, does not result from a previous event, doubtless as a secondary extension of their core function. This applies in particular to the frequent locational statives of aknu to place (see (47)) and nad to put down (see (48)), which have developed more or less into a copula in such contexts (see CAD /1 13233 s.v. aknu 3b; N/1 9192 s.v. nad 5) and to the stative of aknu with a double accusative to provide with (see (49)); but it sporadically occurs in other verbs as well, such as kabsu to tread on, trample in (50): (47) AbB 4, 1:11 (OB) (a good field) a ana m a-ak-nu that is situated along/borders the water (48) RA 44, 13:14 (OB) umma (. . .) l mdtum na-du- if there are numerous holes (49) MIO 1, 74:24, 29 (SB) qaran alpi ga r-in (. . .) kapp gar-in he has (lit., is provided with) the horn of an ox (. . .) he has wings (in a description of a figure of a god, and passim in such contexts) (50) Sg. 8:375 (SB) (a figure of two goddesses) a iar pina uk-bu-sa labb nadrte erbettaunu the soles of whose feet are standing on four raging lions (tr. CAD K 11a s.v. kabsu 7b; also MIO 1, 80: VI 3 and elsewhere with kabsu G; for the -stem, see 13.2.2.2, pp. 330331) Second, resultative forms have a widespread tendency to develop into perfects and further into past tense forms, as we saw in 6.4 (pp. 157159). The Akkadian stative did not become a productive perfect, doubtless because Akkadian already had one in the iptarVs form,44 but it was not
42. See Kozinskij (1988: 51622) for a thorough discussion of functionally similar categories in a variety of languages. 43. The active stative is attested in all dialects but is apparently most common in Old and Standard Babylonian. For third-millennium Akkadian, the only instances I know are TCBI 1, 235:11 (wool for the palace) PN za-bi-it /abit/ PN has in his possession, and the problematic na-se11-a-nim AKI p. 256:55 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) they (Fem: the people) carry for me (see chap. 17, n. 212, p. 574). It also occurs in the latest dialects, but the available handbooks do not make it clear how common it is. Instances are aas-sa-na-i-ni SAA 10, 39:14 (NA) he has thought about us (Subj) from assu, and ma-rak SAA 18, 160:13 (NB) I have received from maru. Streck (1995a: 16970) mentions a few instances from Late Babylonian. 44. This was already argued by Kraus (1984: 1112), who discusses various Old Babylonian passages with a stative that cannot be interpreted as denoting a state but only indicate that the event in question has occurred or not occurred. See also Loesov 2004a: 86 on the similarity between perfect and stative.
175
completely immune to such a development.45 The clearest cases are the passive stative of dku to kill and the intransitive stative of mtu to die; cf. the following instances: (51) VS 26, 26:49 (OA) 6 imr (. . .) u ura ina GN de8-ku six donkeys (. . .) and my servants have been killed in GN (also AMMK 1995 p. 150:7, 12, 18, 20) (52) AbB 13, 181:3132 (OB) ina mituri 1 mr GN di-i-ik one man from GN was killed in the clash (also AbB 8, 24:1720 and ARM 2, 63:14 according to Durand 1997/2000: I 487 n. 144) (53) BIN 4, 141:13 (OA) (I sent half a textile to PN) inmi merassu me-ta-at-ni when his daughter (had) died (54) KAV 1: VI 45:8586 (MA) umma l ittra ina mte antemma me-e-et if he has not returned but has died in another country (also KAV 1: VI 43:22 with the stative l me-e-et parallel to the Pfv l innbit: if he has either died or fled) (55) Or. 24, 243:3 acc. to CAD /3 220 s.v. uklultu c (SB) (the ghost of a person) a ina uklulti mtu mi-tu4 who died at the completion of his allotted lifespan In themselves, the statives dk (Bab)/dk (Ass) and mt/mt mean he has been killed (and therefore is now dead) and he has died (and therefore is now dead), respectively, and simply describe the condition of the subject. However, the inclusion of a specification of the time and/ or the place of death (as in all these instances) shifts the attention from the present state to the previous event, since it can only refer to the event itself. Therefore, the stative is used as a perfect here.46 Instances from other verbs include: (56) AbB 3, 48:3233 (OB) awtum ekallam ka-a-da the words/matters have reached the palace (cf. Kraus 1984: 1112 on the interpretation of this stative) (57) AbB 10, 208:45 (OB) kma ina pa- ni -tim ina aptya a-mi-a-ta as you heard from me (lit., from my lips) in the past (58) AbB 7, 59:911 (OB) itu mu.2.ka m eqlam (a. -lam) tu-ur-ra-an-n-i-im Seit zwei Jahren hat er uns das Feld zurckgegeben (tr. F. R. Kraus) (59) ABIM 20:82 (OB) (a slave girl) a mdi namrat itiu inma wa-al-da-at who is in very good shape and has given birth once or twice already (i.e., has one or two children)
45. Rowton (1962, especially 29295) also claimed that the stative tends to become a perfect. In principle, he is right, but he supports his claim in particular by means of numerous active statives in legal (con) texts for which an English translation with a present perfect is often possible or even unavoidable (see above, (36)-(41)). However, as I argued above, these are pure statives that describe the state of the subject, whatever English translation we prefer. 46. It is interesting in this context that dku does not seem to have an N-stem perfective or t-perfect; there is only an N Impfv iddk (earlier iddak), familiar from the Old Babylonian law codes. So it is conceivable that the stative dk serves to fill an awkward gap, since a passive perfective of the verb to kill seems hard to dispense with. This explanation does not apply to mtu, however, whose t-Pf imtt is commonplace in Old Babylonian; see (01) and (02) in chap. 6 (p. 142), for instance.
176
The Prehistory of the Stative 7.4.
Third, in Standard Babylonian literary texts, we find occasional instances of statives in contexts that exclude a stative interpretation. They are apparently employed as stylistic variants of the other finite categories. A detailed investigation of this phenomenon is required before we can venture an explanation; I will therefore restrict myself to a few examples. The three following statives replace an active imperfective (in (60)), an active perfective (in (61)) and a passive (narrative) perfective (in (62)), respectively: (60) AGH 68:1617 ma u imma umki itammar qurudki dal-la night and day they keep praising your name and they extol your heroism (also OECT 6, 73:18) (61) Gilg p. 622:59 var. (the shepherd) [a] kayynamma tumr up-pu-kak-ki (var. of i-pu-kak-ki) who regularly piled up for you (bread baked in) embers (tr. A. R. George) (62) Ash. p. 92 61:1415 l pu-ul-lu-q asl u-ub-bu-u armann qudduu sur-ru-qu kiukki bulls were slaughtered, lambs slain, holy armannu was scattered on the censer (tr. CAD A/2 291a s.v. armannu a)47
7.4. the Prehistory of the stative 7.4.1. Theformalbackgroundofthestative

From a formal point of view, the stative is a relatively transparent combination of a nominal/ adjectival stem and person affixes of nominal or pronominal descent. This does not imply, however, that it is of recent origin. On the contrary, many of its formal and functional characteristics presuppose a long grammaticalization process. The formal ones will be discussed below; the most important functional characteristic is the active stative. Since the past participle of transitive verbs is typically passive (see 8.3.1, pp. 200201), it is likely that the earliest verbal statives had passive meaning. Typological evidence shows that passive statives are much more common than active statives in the languages of the world and that the existence of an active stative presupposes the existence of a passive one (Nedjalkow and Jaxontov 1988: 22). There can therefore be little doubt that the active stative is a secondary development that started from intransitive statives (Huehnergard 1987a: 228; Tropper 1995a: 502). This is confirmed by the fact, stated above, that most active statives come from low transitivity verbs, which generally form a bridge between prototypically transitive and intransitive verbs. Since adjectives constitute the most typical kind of predicative nominals (see 7.3.1, pp. 165 168), it is plausible that the univerbation that created the stative started with primary adjectives and spread from there to past participles, which have the same form. If it is possible to derive a predicative form marku I am ill from maru ill, for instance, it is not a big step to derive ablku I have been wronged from the PPartc ablu wronged and thus indirectly from the verb ablu to wrong. This related the stative paradigmatically to the established finite members of the verbal paradigm and incorporated it into the verbal paradigm as a resultative.48 Since
47. Metzler (2002: 63940) signals a possible instance from an Old Babylonian Sargon legend: Legends p. 84: I 17 qarrdu ap-lu-ni-u his warriors answered him. 48. Loesov (2004b: 41718, 2005: 14245) argues that the stative originated with past participles and spread from there to primary adjectives. This seems to be contradicted by the evidence from Berber, where the suffix conjugation is only open to primary adjectives; see 7.4.3 below (pp. 191192). This does not
7.4. The Prehistory of the Stative
177
a resultative state is dependent on the previous occurrence of the event expressed by the verb, the stative abandoned its dependence on the past participle to become hierarchically dependent on the fientive prefix conjugations. This enabled it to express the resulting state of any event, both active and passive, and to adopt more and more verbal properties. The past participle itself became a deverbal derivation of the stative, semantically subordinate to it, so that the historical derivational relationship past participle stative became stative past participle.49 This process of verbalization was essentially completed in the pre-literary period. The few historical changes we observe in the conjugation of the stative, especially the gradual adoption of the u-subjunctive in the third-person singular, are the final stages on the road to verbal status.50 The univerbation of stem and personal pronoun had two important consequences. The first is the creation of a single stem for all persons regardless of gender and number. Differences in gender and number are only encoded in the personal endings themselves. This is a common outcome of grammaticalization processes (simplification, according to Croft 2003: 26364).51 It was doubtless strengthened by the fact that almost all conjugations of Akkadian have an invariable stem.52 The second is that the third person could occur without an explicit subject even though it does not contain a subject marker: e.g., ar he is king. This only became possible after the stative had acquired verbal status, since other finite verb forms do not need an explicit subject either. A non-verbal form cannot in itself be a complete (propositional) sentence (Diem 1997: 47). For instance, ammurapi arru H. is king and arru he is king are well-formed clauses, but arru alone cannot mean he is king. The first- and second-person endings have a pronominal origin, and the third-person forms are only provided with gender and number markers agreeing with the subject. This reflects the fundamental contrast between the participants in the speech situation and the persons who are absent and spoken about. It is related to the non-existence of personal pronouns of the third person in languages all over the world.53 However, even without a personal suffix, the third-person stative forms are unambiguously marked through their contrast to the other forms. I will start with the third-person endings, shown in Table 7.2, which also includes the nominal endings of adjective and noun (cf. GAG Nominalparadigmen 1):
mean, however, that originally only adjectives had a suffix conjugation (e.g., Tropper 1995a: 49798). The similarity between the prefixed perfective of adjectival verbs in Akkadian (ikbit he became heavy, etc.) and the aorist of adjectival verbs in Berber languages (which often have the structure C1C2vC3; see D. Cohen 197071: 182) shows that the prefix conjugation of property concepts goes back at least to the common Berber-Semitic period, and probably further. 49. See also Kouwenberg 2000: 5668 for a more detailed description of this process. 50. There is no compelling reason why we should assume Sumerian influence on this development, as maintained by Streck (1995a: 185), although it cannot be ruled out. 51. Although it was deemed problematic by Kraus (1984: 20) and Diem (1997: 73). 52. Streck (1995a: 184) attributes the invariable stem of the stative to Sumerian influence. Although this cannot be ruled out (cf. n. 50 above), it is especially hard to believe that the relatively rare predicative use of nouns that Streck mentions (l u g a l . m e . e n I am (the) king, lugal.me.en.d.en we are (the) kings, with invariable l u g a l) would be able to impose its pattern on the vastly more frequent statives of verbs. 53. The fact that Semitic uses pronouns that are originally demonstrative as independent subject pronouns of the third person, alongside the real personal pronouns of the first and second person (see Table 7.3), has the same background. See, in general, Benveniste 1966: 22831; Comrie 1981a: 21920; for IndoEuropean: Beekes 1995: 207; for Semitic and Afroasiatic: D. Cohen 1984: 1089; Huehnergard 1987a: 22122 ; Tropper 1995a: 49394; Streck 1995a: 18283; Satzinger 1999: 24 (interlocutive versus delocutive). Furthermore, in Neo-Aramaic, several of the new suffix conjugations have a zero marker in the 3ms; see D. Cohen 1984: 462 for Western, and p. 512 for Eastern Neo-Aramaic; and also Jastrow 1997: 343, 363.
178 stative 3ms 3fs 3mp 3fp 3dum 3duf alim almat alm alm alm alm/alimt
The Prehistory of the Stative 7.4. adjective (Nom) almu alimtu almtu almtu almn alimtn noun (Nom) 54 arru arratu arr arrtu arrn arratn
table 7.2: the third-person forms of the stative.
The third-person singular forms have a zero ending in the masculine and the nominal suffix -at in the feminine,55 so that they are identical to the corresponding nominal forms without case ending and mimation.56 They result from the subtraction of these elements, which symbolizes the loss of nominal or adjectival status: alim lmum and almat lmtum (the outcome is somewhat obscured by the effect of the vowel syncope rule). For verbal statives, this statement is only historically true, however, since synchronically they are derived from the prefix forms, as I argued above; for statives derived from nouns and adjectives, it is also synchronically valid. Statives such as arrq he is a thief and qtt he stands surety come directly from the nouns arrqu and qttu, respectively, and dn he is strong is directly derived from dannu strong (see 16.6.1, pp. 492493).57 The historical reason why the third-person singular of the stative has no ending is doubtless a consequence of the fact that, when adjectives in their primary attributive function acquired case markers, their predicative form remained the same.58
54. From arru king and arratu queen. 55. In proper names from the third millennium, there are 3fs forms without -t, e.g., Si-be-la /-bla/ MAD 1, 163: I 28 she is lord/lady, especially in Mari Old Akkadian: E4-dar-dam-ga /Etar-damqa/ ARM 19, 303:4, Ma-ma-a-li-a /Mama-alia/ ARM 19, 384:12, and E4-dar-a-li-a /Etar-alia/ ARM 19, 384:13, and exceptionally in Old Babylonian: Um-mi-na-da my mother is exalted (quoted by Gelb 1961: 216), Um-mi--ba my mother is good and Ba-ba6-i-la Baba is divine (quoted by Stol 1991: 195 as Ba--i-la); see also Gelb 1961: 15051, 1965: 74. We would expect damqat she is good, aliat she is sublime, etc. It is not clear to me whether we may regard these forms as alternatives for the 3fs stative or secondary forms determined by their position in a proper name, e.g., because of the sex of the bearer of the name according to the principle established by Edzard (1962) that the sex of the bearer may overrule the gender required by the subject of the sentence that forms the name. 56. See Tropper 1995a: 49394, who convincingly refutes Huehnergards (1987a: 22122) contrary view. The reconstruction of Diem (1997: 6971), who derives the third-person endings from the second part of the independent pronouns of the third person (as reconstructed by him), just as the first- and secondperson endings come from the second part of the corresponding pronouns (-ta from anta, etc.), is unconvincing, since it does not account for the background of this process. Presumably, the first- and secondperson independent pronouns are compounds themselves, for instance, of a former copula and an enclitic pronoun: an-ku (it is) me. It is unclear how an analysis of, say, hua/iat into hu/i- plus -a/-at fits into this picture. I will come back to Diems views in 7.4.2 (pp. 182183) for a different problem. 57. For arrq he is a thief, see, e.g., awlum a-ar-ra-aq KH 7:5556 (OB) that man is a thief, and for qtt, e.g., PN au q-ta-at VS 26, 120:33 (OA) PN, his brother, stands surety. 58. However, this issue is intimately connected with the prehistoric development of the 3ms stative. The corresponding form in West Semitic, the 3ms perfect qatVla, does have an ending -a, and both the background of this -a and the question whether it can be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic or not are highly controversial. I will discuss this further in the next section.
179
In the plural, the third-person endings - and - are parallel to the nominal and adjectival endings without the suffix -tu and could also be explained from a process of subtraction. However, it is more likely that they were taken over from the corresponding endings of the prefix conjugations (e.g., Impfv 3mp iparras, 3fp iparras), as part of the process of incorporation of the stative into the verbal paradigm.59 This was suggested by Kuryowicz (1972: 93) and explains both the absence of -t- in the third-person plural feminine and the remarkable fact that this ending is always -, even if the corresponding adjective has -tu, as in ertu, Fem Pl of eru small, young, but 3fp stative er.60 The dual forms are restricted to the oldest dialects: Sargonic Akkadian has a 3dum (l) za-a-ra /ar/ () zu-ku-na /zuqqun/ SAB p. 158:10 (Diyala) they (the two slaves) must be young and not have a beard, and a separate 3duf s-lim-da /salimt/ SAB p. 177 top: 9 (Eshnunna) they two are well. This special feminine form is not found anywhere else, with the remarkable exception of na-mu-ra-ta (nu) TIM 9, 65:12 // 66:24 its eyes are shining in an Old Babylonian incantation. Mari Old Akkadian has the dual form mar (spelled mar-za) (they are) ill both for men (e.g., ARM 19, 55:2; 57:2) and for women (ARM 19, 19:2) (Limet 1975: 4950). Old Babylonian instances include zi-za /zz/ UET 5, 114:12 they (the two brothers) have divided (the inheritance); wa-a-ba-a(-ma) St. de Meyer p. 85:11 they (two partners) are present. In proper names, we find Dingir.dingir-dan-na /Iln-dann/ AbB 10, 200:1 the twin gods are strong; Dingir.dingir-ra-bi-a /Iln-rabi/ CT 8, 44b:7 the twin gods are great; Mara-an-ki-na /Mrn-kn/ the two sons are legitimate (quoted in Stamm 1939: 296).61 These dual forms have a different structure from the plural: whereas the plural forms are built on the stem (al(i)m-), the dual forms are derived from the singular of the corresponding gender by adding : alim alm, but almat alimt (originally lmat lmt, a form preserved in namurrat).62 It is remarkable that these forms are built exactly like the thirdperson dual forms of the Arabic perfect (if we ignore -a of the 3ms): 3ms qatala qatal and 3ms qatalat qatalat (see Fleisch 1979: 11719) and the corresponding forms of the Modern South Arabian suffix conjugation, e.g., Mehri 3dum ktb, 3duf ktbt (Johnstone 1975: 16). The suffixes of the first- and second-person have a pronominal origin, as is clear from their similarity to the independent subject pronouns; see Table 7.3.
59. Since the moot problem of - versus -n as original 3fp ending mainly concerns West Semitic, I will not go into it; for a recent summing up of the discussion, see Diem 1997: 5361. 60. Cf. Kouwenberg 2000: 57. The absence of -t in the plural forms, especially in the 3fp alm, results from a morphosyntactic process and cannot be compared with the loss of final t in Arabic (-ah < -atum) and Aramaic (- < -t), as claimed by Streck (1995a: 183 n.427). The latter is a phonetic process of attrition at the end of a word for which there are no parallels in Akkadian at so early a date. 61. For Old Babylonian dual forms in the verb in general, see Stol (1988: 178). 62. This also applies to the adjective, which has -n/-n (Ass -n/-n) instead of -: Masc almu almn, Fem alimtu alimtn, e.g., Masc k-ab-t-an VS 26, 157:5 (OA) from kabtu heavy, a-ni-an UM 5, 156: r.5 (OB) from ann this, mi-it-a-ri-in YOS 10, 62:30 (OB) from mitaru of equal size; Fem p-t-t-en6 OAA 1, 88:4 (OA) from pet open (< *patitayn), re-ti-ta-an Legends p. 198:49 (OB) fixed (ret), ra-ab-ba-ta-an Itar p. 24:43 (OB) from rabbu soft; ra-q-t-en CTMMA 1, 121 no. 85a:12 (OA) from raqqu thin (< *raqqatayn). The Sargonic Akkadian Nom Fem da-m-iq-t Or. 46, 201:7 (incant. from Kish) from damqu good, beautiful is irregular in that it lacks the final -n. Is this a defective spelling for -tn or a kind of absolute state serving as a vocative? The latter option is taken by J. and A. Westenholz (1977: 207), referring to GAG 62j, and Hasselbach (2005: 184). In the noun, the same principle holds: aptu lip, Pl aptum, but Du aptn (e.g., a-ap-ta-an Itar p. 24:43, OB). A parallel in the verbal system is the sporadically attested reciprocal first-person dual mentioned in 2.5 (p. 51; lurtm let us love (each other), etc.), which is derived from the first-person singular by affixation of the dual ending -; see Kouwenberg 2005: 100101.
180 person 1s. 2ms. 2fs. (3ms. (3fs. 1p. 2mp. 2fp. (3mp. (3fp. pronoun anku atta atti

The Prehistory of the Stative 7.4. stative almku (-k) almta (-ti, -t) almti (or -t?) (-t)
alim) almat)
nnu attunu attina

unu ina
almnu (Ass. -ni) almtunu almtina

alm) alm)
table 7.3: the subject pronouns and the personal endings of the stative.
The emergence of the first- and second-person forms almku, almta, etc., presupposes the existence of a predicative 3ms alim(-) or perhaps alima(-). They consist of this form plus a short, probably enclitic, form of the independent pronoun, which apparently lacked the element an-: *-()ku), *-tV, *-t, etc.: almku < alim + -ku. Stem and pronominal element coalesced into a single word through univerbation (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 14549), with the pronouns developing from independent words to clitics and then to personal endings. Some problematic aspects of this development will be discussed further in the next section. However, the match between pronoun and suffix is far from perfect. In spite of atta, the 2ms form -ti is doubtless older than -ta: -ti is standard in Old Assyrian (sometimes reduced to -t, see GKT 72a, 45a) and is also typical of Archaic Babylonian and Early Old Babylonian, see GAG 3 75c* and Stol 1988: 178.63 So -ta may be a secondary adaptation of -ti to the form of the independent pronoun. Old Assyrian seems to have -ti for both genders (GKT 72a), but it is conceivable that the feminine was actually -t. The short forms without final vowel are found from the oldest period onwards, e.g., SAk l tu-mu-at /tummut/ SAB p. 53:10 (Adab) be (2ms) bound by an oath from tam D to cause to swear,64 OB la-ab-a-a-at AbB 6, 22:15 you (Fem) wear from labu, and OA q-bi4-a-at Prag I 727:7 you (Masc) have promised from qab to say, promise. They are doubtless secondary, just as is 1s -k for -ku. In the first-person plural, Babylonian -nu contrasts with Assyrian -ni (GAG 75b; GKT 72a). It is hard to determine which is more original: on the one hand, the Babylonian form may be due to the influence of the pronoun, which has -nu in both dialects (nnu or nnu)65; on the other hand, Assyrian -ni may result from influence of the genitive suffix pronoun -ni. In conclusion, we cannot rule out the possibility that the similarity between the independent subject pronouns and the personal suffixes of the stative results from a gradual convergence rather than from an original identity.
63. Add to the instances mentioned there (l) wa-a-ba-a-ti YOS 10, 36: III 14 the town where you live. 64. This is the only 2ms stative attested so far in Sargonic Akkadian, so it is unknown whether a longer ending -ta or -ti also existed (Hasselbach 2005: 18990). 65. The forms nni and anni appearing in Neo-Babylonian and occasionally in Standard Babylonian are doubtless secondary, perhaps influenced by the suffix pronoun -ni.
181
Apart from the variations shown in Table 7.3, the endings of the stative are relatively stable during the history of Akkadian, with the exception of Neo-Assyrian, where a noteworthy development takes place: -t- of the second person is replaced by -k- (GAG 75b; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 9091), e.g., -ka instead of -ta (kam-mu-sa-ka SAA 1, 107:8 you are staying), -ki for -ti (ur-ba-ki Or. 23, 347:14 you (Fem) are magnificent (NA lit.), and -kunu for -tunu (pal-a-ku-nu CTN 5 p. 13:26 you (Pl) are anxious).66 This may be explained as an analogical extension starting from -k- in the first-person singular and represents a remarkable parallel with the same (but undoubtedly independent) development in South Semitic (Moscati, ed. 1964: 139; see 7.4.2 below).
7.4.2. TherelationshipwiththeWestSemiticperfect
Diachronically, the Akkadian stative is closely related to two other categories in cognate languages: the suffix conjugation of West Semitic, which is traditionally called the perfect (originally qatVla, in fientive verbs usually qatala), on the one hand, and several suffix conjugations with basically stative meaning in Afroasiatic, on the other. In this section, I will discuss some aspects of the relationship between the stative and the West Semitic perfect. The common origin of the Akkadian stative and the West Semitic perfect is ascertained by the commonalities in the personal endings, by the correspondence between the non-active perfects qatila/qatula and the Akkadian adjectival statives, and by the correspondence between the intransitive or low-transitive qatila perfects and the passive/intransitive stative pattern PaRiS in Akkadian. Moreover, the function of the West Semitic perfect can be understood as a further development of the resultative function of the verbal stative in Akkadian (Aro 1965; Tropper 1995a: 50412; T. D. Anderson 2000: 2632; Cook 2001: 12730). It underwent the well-attested grammaticalization process from resultative to perfect and further to perfective or simple past (Bybee et al. 1994: 8187).67 The oldest function of the suffix conjugation as a predicative form of adjectives is preserved in West Semitic in the use of the perfect of adjectival verbs to denote a state or a quality (Tropper 1995a: 510; Cook 2001: 129): e.g., Hebrew kbd it is heavy, habt I love (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 359), Arabic kafar they are unbelievers (Reckendorf 1977: 1011, who calls this prsentisch-resultativ).68 In this process, the perfect replaced the earlier perfective *yiqtVl, which is still in use in Akkadian and survives as a residual past tense in West Semitic (apart from a fully-fledged irrealis function); see 5.4 (pp. 129130). The similarity between the personal endings of the Akkadian stative and the West Semitic perfect confirms their common origin: see Table 7.4 (p. 182), which compares Akkadian with Arabic and Geez as representatives of Central and South Semitic, respectively.69
66. By way of exception, this also occurs in Neo-Babylonian: ku-u-u-pa-ku-nu ABL 301: r.2 you (Pl) are planning; ma-a-a-ku-nu ABL 1146: r.4 you (Pl) are able; see Woodington 1982: 94 (but note that in the latter form -- is typically Assyrian; see Kouwenberg 2003: 85). The alleged Old Babylonian instance of a second person with -k- (ka-a-da-ki AbB 2, 135:4) mentioned by Gelb (1955b: 108b), Tropper (1995a: 509 n. 53), and Lipiski (1997: 362) is actually a first-person singular with a second-person feminine dative suffix: kadk(u)-ki(m) I have come to you. 67. Not to mention the various other functions the perfect has developed in the West Semitic languages, such as the prophetic perfect in Hebrew (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 363) and the Arabic use of the perfect in wishes (Fischer 1972: 92). 68. According to Fleisch (1979: 19394), Arabic normally employs a nominal clause or the copula kna to express a state and has restricted the perfect to fientive use: kna karman he was generous versus perfect karuma he became generous. This is modelled on the situation in the fientive verb and doubtless represents a secondary development. 69. See Moscati, ed. 1964: 137; Lipiski 1997: 35961; Kienast 2001: 203; for Arabic: Fischer 1972: 102; for Geez: Tropper 2002: 88.
182 person 3ms 3fs 2ms 2fs 1s 3dum 3duf 2du 3mp 3fp 2mp 2fp 1p Akkadian parVs parsat parsti, -ta, -t parsti/, -t parsk(u) pars pars/parist pars pars parstunu parstina parsnu, -ni Arabic qatala qatalat qatalta qatalti qataltu qatal qatalat qataltum qatal qatalna qataltum() qataltunna qataln
The Prehistory of the Stative 7.4. Geez nagara nagarat nagarka nagarki nagarku nagar nagar nagarkmmu nagarkn nagarna
table 7.4: the personal endings of the semitic suffix conjugation.
There are four major differences between the Akkadian and the West Semitic paradigms as they can be reconstructed on the basis of Arabic, Geez, and other languages not included in the table. Three of these concern the endings: the distribution of k and t in the first and second persons, the presence of between stem and ending in these persons in Akkadian, and the vs. a ending in the third-person singular masculine. The fourth one concerns the stem vowel a in most West Semitic forms, which has no counterpart in Akkadian.70 With regard to k and t, there is a general consensus that Akkadian represents the original situation and that Central Semitic has extended t to the first-person singular, whereas South Semitic has extended k to all second persons (see in particular Hetzron 1976a: 9394). According to Diem (1997: 1416), this solution was first formulated by Theodor Nldeke. Its correctness is confirmed by the stative conjugations of Egyptian and Berber (to be discussed in the next section), which have the same distribution of k and t as Akkadian (Tropper 1999a: 175). The three remaining differenceswhich are intimately connected with each otherare less easy to solve. I will start with the difference between Akkadian and West Semitic with regard to the vowel -- between stem and ending in the first and second persons.71 A popular explanation, which according to Diem (1997: 19) goes back as far as Brockelmann (1908: 583) and Bergstrsser (1928: 12 n. 2) and which is still embraced by Diem (1997: 22), claims that the presence of -- in the first-person plural and all second persons of Akkadian is due to an analogical extension from the first-person singular, where it comes from the pronoun anku. The original stative endings would thus be identical to the pronouns (in historical times anku, atta [< *anta], att [< ant ], etc.) minus the element an-: 1s almku < al(i)m-ku, but 2s *alim-ta/t (as in West Semitic), which was later replaced by the historical form almta by analogy with almku. A consequence of this view is that the West Semitic first-person singular without -- (qatVltu
70. I will not try to account for the other (minor) differences between the Akkadian and West Semitic personal endings; see Diem 1997 for a recent discussion. 71. A detailed Forschungsgeschichte is given by Diem (1997: 1926).
183
<*qatVlku) must be a secondary form modelled on the persons that did not have --, i.e., an extension from the first-person plural and the second persons (Diem 1997: 1923). This explanation is possible but seems unnecessarily complicated. Since -- does not actually occur in West Semitic, what reason is there to introduce it into a prehistoric stage of its development, only to have it subsequently removed by an analogical process? It is far simpler to assume that West Semitic never had -- at all and that the original first-person singular was *-ku, which in West Semitic became -tu by analogy with the combined force of all second persons.72 In this case, only Akkadian has innovated substantially, first by replacing PSem *qatVlku by al(i)mku as a rhyme building to anku and subsequently by extending -- to the first-person plural and all second persons.73 An indication in support of this is the fact that, in Old Babylonian letters, statives are often accompanied by a (seemingly superfluous) subject pronoun in phrases such as anku wabku I am staying (somewhere) (Kraus 1984: 2122). This is particularly frequent with the first-person singular, and in many cases there is no obvious reason, such as emphasis or contrast; perhaps the independent pronoun represents a renewal of an earlier construction with a cliticized pronoun. A further argument in favour of PSem *qatVlku, *qatVlta, etc., is that the stative conjugation in Berber does not show signs of a different vowel quantity before the consonants of first- and second-person singular suffix (see below). There is also a quite different explanation for the Akkadian --, which we find, for instance, in Rssler (1950: 473), Loprieno (1986: 15758), and Tropper (1999a: 18287) in slightly different versions. It regards -- as a stress-conditioned lengthening of a short a between the stem and the pronominal ending. Tropper, for instance, starts from the view that the adjectival or nominal base of the stative had a predicative ending -a, e.g., 3ms *qatVl-a, 2ms *qatVl-a-ta, etc. Before enclitic subject pronouns, it was lengthened in Akkadian (*alim-a-ta > al(i)mta) but syncopated in West Semitic as a result of antepenultimate stress (*qatVl-a-ta > qatVlta). Although this might work for Akkadian (Tropper adduces the genitive singular as a parallel: bli-u > blu of his lord), it seems too ad hoc to be credible for West Semitic and against the usual stress patterns. The question of this short after the stem brings us to the two most problematic differences between Akkadian and West Semitic, namely, (1) the third-person singular masculine ending, for which Akkadian has (parVs) but West Semitic (originally) -a (qatVla), and (2) the origin of the stem vowel a in the West Semitic active/transitive perfect qatala. I will start with the second problem. On the surface, it may seem to concern West Semitic alone and thus to fall outside the scope of the present study. However, it bears directly on the reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic verbal system in so far as we have to answer the question whether Proto-Semitic had or did not have an active participle *QaTaL.
72. Some authors have argued that this must have occurred in West Semitic, since it has left traces in some types of weak verbs, especially in the Hebrew conjugation of the II/gem verbs, e.g., sabbt, sabbt I/you surrounded from sbab (e.g., Tropper 1999a: 186; Kienast 2001: 203). This would be plausible if we knew for certain that the first-person singular also had -- originally. Since this is not the case, it is one hypothesis piled on top of another. Actually, we do not need an original long vowel to explain these forms: starting from an original 1s *sabbatu (3ms *sabba 1s *sabbatu (or -ku) modelled on the strong form *qatVla *qatVltu) may become *sabbta by vowel lengthening and sabbt by regular sound change (Tropper 1999a: 186). It is also possible that the vowel was lengthened in order to conform to the prosody of the corresponding strong form *qatVltu (etc.). Bauer and Leander (1922: 430) explain from analogy with the III/w verbs (< aw), which is also possible. 73. The source of -- in the pronoun itself is not clarified by this proposal, of course, but this falls outside the scope of the verbal system.
184
There seems to be a general consensus that the qatala perfect is a West Semitic innovation.74 The earliest factual evidence for its existence comes from Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic, i.e., the 14th century b.C.75 Rainey (1996: II 296301) mentions forms such as na-da-an VAB 2, 298:26 he has given, a-ka-an VAB 2, 114:8 he has established, and a-bat VAB 2, 114:17 he has taken. In Ugaritic, we find a few syllabic spellings showing a: ta-ba-a he departed, a-ma-ta it devolved (Huehnergard 1989: 68 with n. 142; van Soldt 1991: 442; Tropper 2000: 464).76 However, since we do not have earlier reliable sources, we cannot determine when these forms emerged for the first time. As to the source of the qatala perfect, two possible options present themselves: it may represent the verbalization of a QaTL participle, which was the active counterpart of the wellestablished passive/intransitive QaTiL form, or it may be a secondary offshoot of a doubtless more original perfect with the pattern qati/ula. I will start with the first option, which is the most far-reaching. From a typological point of view, it is not implausible that qatala arose from the grammaticalization of a periphrastic construction built on an active participle, parallel to the rise of qati/ula from QaTiL. This is indeed a widespread view, originating with Bauer (1910: 1215).77 Aro (1964: 19899) rejected it because of the cross-linguistic rarity of past active participles with the meaning having done sth.. It is true that such participles are rare (Haspelmath 1994: 15457), but parallels from Modern Arabic show that the meanings expressed by qatala can very well develop from a present participle. This is based on the inherent ambiguity of a present participle. On the one hand, it can describe somebody as engaged in the activity expressed by the verb, e.g., Ar qtilun killing. As such, it may acquire an implication of habituality and thus develop into an agent noun (Ar. qtilun killer, murderer, and prominently in Akkadian; see 8.4.1, pp. 205 206). On the other hand, if a participle of a transitive verb is qualified by a definite noun, e.g., qtilu Zaydin the killer of Zayd, it refers to a single event and the clause has an implicature: if someone is a killer of Zayd, he has killed Zayd. In this way, the present participle of a transitive verb may evolve into a resultative or a perfect (D. Cohen 1984: 269328, esp. 275; Brustad 2000: 18284 with additional literature). Concrete cases of this process have occurred in various Eastern Arabic dialects. According to D. Cohen (1984: 283), in the dialect of Bahrain the perfect is replaced by a predicative participle for the expression of perfect meaning in terminative verbs, whereas the participle in atelic motion verbs normally indicates the actual present. In the dialect of Baghdad, the perfect is the unmarked form for past reference, whereas the participle can serve as a resultative perfect. However, in verbs of state and movement the participle can express ongoing processes or processes about to begin (1984: 28788).78 Johnstone (1967) reports a similar state of affairs for Kuwaiti, Baraini, and Qaari Arabic (1967: 144, 153, and 163, respectively).
74. A selection of pertinent views includes Fleisch 1947/48: 51; Rssler 1951: 37071; Rundgren 1959a: 280; Petrek 1963: 592; Diakonoff 1988: 94; Tropper 1995a: 504; Kienast 2001: 2023. 75. For the putative occurrence of QaTaL in Eblaite and the (non-existence of) earlier qatala perfects in Amorite proper names, see n. 93 (p. 189). 76. It is significant, however, that the attested perfects of II/ verbs, where the stem vowel can be inferred from the preceding , all have i: lik /laika/ he sent, sid /saida/ he served food, and il / aila/ he asked (Sivan 1997: 113; Tropper 2000: 470). 77. See also, for instance, Nyberg 1920: 188; Brockelmann 1951: 146; Rundgren 1966: 137; Kuryowicz 1972: 66; Loprieno 1986: 15260; Tropper 1995a: 51213; T. D. Anderson 2000: 3134; Kienast 2001: 202. 78. Further afield, T. D. Anderson (2000: 4041) adduces evidence for this development from Japanese and Dravidian languages.
185
Moreover, T. D. Anderson (2000: 3450) argues that the Hebrew perfect qal has many imperfective-like uses in addition to its main perfective function, the most important of which is its consecutive derivation wqal, which is problematic in almost all theories that attempt to explain the highly controversial verbal system of Hebrew. He proposes to account for this apparent contradiction by starting from qatala as an active participle. This scenario presupposes the existence of an active QaTL participle in Proto-Semitic or, at least, in a very early stage of West Semitic. There is, however, hardly any evidence for this. Particularly detrimental to its existence in Proto-Semitic is the absence of unambiguous traces in Akkadian (Rssler 1950: 473).79 Akkadian has a rather marginal adjectival pattern PaRaS, but it does not have the required meaning: it comprises primary adjectives, most of which express prototypically adjectival concepts. They were enumerated in 3.3.3 under C15 (p. 63) and some additional Assyrian cases in 3.3.4 as Type 3 (p. 65). Moreover, Assyrian has a few PaRaS statives, already mentioned in 7.2 (p. 162): waab, alaq, and bala. They suggest that PaRaS statives of fientive verbs may once have existed and that therefore the predominance of PaRiS in Akkadian may be secondary (so also Kienast 1967: 65).80 However, even if these statives are fientive, they are neither transitive nor active (in the sense of denoting an action) and are therefore poor parallels to the West Semitic qatala perfect. Other possible traces of QaTL in Akkadian are also disputable. First, the agent noun PaRRS (residually PaRRS; see n. 81), might be interpreted as an expressive extension of a hypothetical pattern PaRS with active/transitive meaning. Second, since vowel lengthening is a common indicator of substantivation in Semitic (Kuryowicz 1972: 113; Kienast 1989: 281, 2001: 376), one could arguewith Kuryowicz (1972: 109)that the Akkadian infinitive pattern PaRS is a substantivation of a participle PaRS with active meaning, which contrasted with the farbetter-known detransitive past participle PaRiS. The identity of past participle and infinitive in all Akkadian derived verbal stemsboth have the stem vowel umay be taken as an argument that in the G-stem, too, the infinitive was derived from the past participle (see further 8.2.2, pp. 199200). This line of reasoning obviously contains a high degree of speculation, and the forms involved may quite well have a different background. With regard to West Semitic, the only direct evidence for the former existence of an active QaTL participle consists of the residual agent noun pattern QaTaL in Classical Arabic, studied by Fleisch (1955), e.g., akam arbitre, taba qui suit). It is the basis for the more productive extended patterns QaTL and QaTTL.81 However, Fox (2003: 161) is reluctant to accept Fleischs claim that the extended patterns with a or in the second syllable are affective derivations of an original QaTaL pattern. He points out (2003: 179) that QaTL has no evident semantic connection to *qatal, which does not normally serve for action nouns. This is remarkable,
79. In so far as there are any traces of QaTaL in Berber, they are prototypical adjectives, as in Akkadian (Rssler 1950: 303), and there is nothing that points to an active participle with this pattern. 80. It may be added hereif only for the sake of completenessthat several nouns that can plausibly be derived from primary adjectives or past participles with the pattern PaRiS actually have PaRaS: alamtu corpse (cf. almu to be(come) sound, well [see Eilers 1954/59: 32223 n. 3], Adj alim), kaspu silver (cf. kaspu to break in little pieces, Stat kasip), kabattu liver (cf. kabtu (i) heavy), and almu statue, construct state alam (cf. almu (i) black), and perhaps wardu slave, construct state warad (cf. wardu to go /come down, PPartc warid ). See for this phenomenon Eilers, 1954/59: 32223 n. 3. It is difficult to judge the relevance of such forms: they may represent indirect evidence of an earlier past participle pattern PaRaS, but they may also have a quite different background. 81. Fleisch also mentions QaTTaL, but this does not seem to occur in Arabic. It does occur in Old Assyrian arruqum thief < arrqum and in Hebrew (with > ); see Fox 2003: 25760. QaTL occurs in many languages as a rare actant noun according to Fox (2003: 179); QaTTL is pan-Semitic as an agent noun.
186
since QaTiL and QaTL are closely related and even overlapping in function, and likewise QaTuL and QaTL (2003: 157). So the problem is whether we are justified in positing any historical relationship between them.82 It could be argued, however, that already in Proto-Semitic QaTL as an action noun was completely replaced by QaTL. A parallel of such a development can be found in Akkadian PaRRS, which has almost completely replaced PaRRS as an agent noun (see n. 81 above), so that in historical Akkadian the remaining PaRRS forms have a quite different function from PaRRS (they comprise plural and perhaps intensive adjectives; see GAV pp. 4958). It does seem possible, therefore, to posit an active participle *QaTaL for Proto-Semitic transitive verbs, opposed to the well-attested passive/intransitive past participle *QaTiL. *QaTaL was substantivized as an action noun *QaTL (widespread as an infinitive; see 8.2.2, pp. 199200), on the one hand, and as an agent noun, on the other, in which function it was largely replaced by various longer patterns. As productive active participle, it was renewed by *QTiL (< *QTaL?). According to Rundgren (1974: 200), it was this process that left QaTL with the function of an abstract verbal noun (> infinitive). Needless to say, all this is just as speculative as the Akkadian traces of QaTL discussed above. All in all, there are three (de)verbal categories that combine the stem vowel or with an active meaning: the G-stem infinitive PaRS and the agent noun PaRR/S in Akkadian, and the active/transitive perfect qatala in West Semitic.83 Even so, it remains questionable whether this constitutes sufficient evidence for attributing a QaTL participle to Proto-Semitic, which could be pressed into service as the source of qatala. The residual QaTL agent nouns of Arabic might indicate that it developed subsequently in West Semitic, but this remains a matter of speculation as well. So it may be easier to abandon Proto-Semitic QaTL as an active participle and assume that the qatala perfect was split off from the inherited qati/ul(a) perfect at some point in the development of Proto-West Semitic.84 Semantically, the derivation of an active/transitive perfect from an originally passive/intransitive participle is unobjectionable, as the active stative of Akkadian shows. There also is a fair number of active qatila perfects in West Semitic that can be directly derived from the Proto-Semitic past participle QaTiL, especially the low-transitivity a/ i verbs of the yalbasu labisa type discussed in 3.5.2.4 (pp. 7475). However, it is unclear what kind of mechanism can be made responsible for the rise of the stem vowel a in the great majority of transitive verbs of the yaqtulu and yaqtilu types (T. D. Anderson 2000: 3031).85
82. There is also another group of QaTaL agent nouns in Classical Arabic that are quasi-plurals of QTiL participles, i.e., they are not used with numerals, and can often be used as singular or as plural alike (Fox 2003: 160 with n. 21): alab seeking (Pl), pursuing (Pl), group of students, adam group of servants (of a household), taba group of followers, raad group of ambushers, and aras group of guards (Foxs glosses). Moreover, its feminine derivation QaTaLat is one of the possible plural patterns of the present participle QTiL (Ratcliffe 1998a: 99100), e.g., alabah from lib student. As plural forms, these nouns should presumably be kept apart from the present discussion; they may be representatives of the internal a-Plurals studied by Greenberg (1955). 83. The Akkadian Impfv iparras does not belong in this series, since, as I argued in 4.5.1 (pp. 109110), its stem vowel is the imperfective vowel a of the derived verbal stems and/or the marker of plurality. 84. In modern European languages, the active perfect with to have is also more recent than its passive counterpart with to be; see Kuryowicz 1972: 66 n. 4; 1975: 10910. 85. Kuryowicz (1972: 66) argues that a results from the replacement of i in the vicinity of a guttural consonant, a typically structuralist argument that awaits confirmation from factual and typological parallels. Voigt (2004: 47) explains a of qatala by inference from a of iptaras (which is Proto-Semitic in his view, a view I do not share; see 6.4, pp. 155ff.). Rssler (1951: 37071) claims that the vowel pattern of qatala
187
Finally, we come to the difference in the third singular masculine ending between Akkadian (parVs-) and West Semitic (originally qatVl-a). Only one of these forms can reasonably be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic, and which one has been a matter of debate since the beginning of the previous century. Diem (1997: 4252) gives an exhaustive Forschungsgeschichte, showing that most scholars have opted for -a, since it seems easier to explain the loss of -a in Akkadian than its emergence in West Semitic. In itself, this is a sound argument, since loss of final vowels is ubiquitous in the history of languages, whereas the addition of a vowel requires some specific analogical proportion or grammaticalization process, but it should of course be backed by concrete evidence. The question is, therefore, whether the earliest stages of Akkadian show evidence for a third singular masculine ending -a in the stative and for a rule that accounts for its subsequent loss. If so, the issue can be regarded as solved: Proto-Semitic had *qatVla, which became parVs in (Proto-)Akkadian. However, neither question can definitely be answered in the affirmative. The existence of a third singular masculine ending -a for the stative has been claimed on the basis of Sargonic Akkadian proper names containing a predicative noun or adjective with -a, which were collected and discussed by Gelb (1961: 14753; 1965: 7374), e.g., u-be-la he is lord, A-i-a-ba my brother is kind, dul-gi-na-da ulgi is praised.86 Gelb also points out that the great majority of predicative nouns in Sargonic Akkadian have a zero ending (1965: 74), e.g., A-b-a-ab my father is kind, A-bu-a-b the father is kind, and Be-l-a-ab my lord is kind, or sometimes a nominative ending (e.g., A-bi--bu and Be-l-a-bumx(balaG) (all quoted in MAD 3, 301). Hasselbach (2005: 1024) uses the names with -a as evidence that short final a is dropped in Sargonic Akkadian.87 She argues that final -a is an archaic feature preserved in this small group of Sargonic (or even earlier) proper names and that the corresponding names without -a represent a later stage in which -a has been dropped. If this is correct, the answer to both questions formulated above is affirmative. However, the argument rests solely on proper names, andapart from the fact that evidence from proper names is unreliable, if it is not confirmed by other data (see, e.g., Rundgren 1965/66: 6768 and Huehnergard 1987c: 71415)88there is also a different and perhaps more straightforward explanation for the alternative use of -a and - in these names. In comparable names of later periods, predicative nouns may either be in the nominative or in the stative (see Kouwenberg 2000: 3738):89 cf. the Old Babylonian names Adad-arrum Adad is (the) king, Erra-blum Erra is (the) lord, and Abum-blum the father is (the) lord; this even applies to predicative adjectives:
was modelled on that of Proto-Semitic yaqattal, for which he compares Mehri, where qatala und yaqattal als Perfekt und Prsens gleichzeitig nebeneinander standen und gleichsam ein Gespann bildeten. In my reconstruction of the history of yaqattal, this is not an option, however, since it implies that yaqattal was either already lost or in serious decline in Proto-West Semitic. Tropper (1995a: 5045) argues that qatal was created on the basis of qatil, because it became Ablautpartner of *yiqtul, just as iparras in Akkadian. Therefore, it takes over the vowel a of iparras. This goes back to Rssler (1950: 51012) and Voigt (1988a: 11617) and is not acceptable to me, either. 86. See also GAG 3 77a* with further literature. 87. See also Huehnergard 2005a: 591 and 2006: 67 with n. 31. 88. A good illustration of this fact is the occurrence of proper names with -a whose subject is feminine, mentioned in n. 55 (p. 178) above (e.g., E4-tr-a-li-a Etar is sublime), although the 3fs stative in context always has -at. This strengthens the impression that grammatical features from proper names should not be taken as representative of the grammar of the language to which they seem to belong, unless they are backed by other evidence. 89. This also applies to predicative nouns in general: one can say either ammurapi ar or ammurapi arru Hammurapi is king; see 7.3.1 (pp. 166168) and Kouwenberg 2000: 3738.
188
Sin-waqrum Sin is precious (beside the usual DN-waqar), Pa-dannu her word is strong, and Middle Babylonian -bantum she is beautiful alongside -ba-na-at (for references, see Kouwenberg 2000: 3738). In spite of these predicative nouns in the nominative, we know for certain that in Old Babylonian the 3ms stative never has an ending -u(m). When we find -u(m), it is not a stative but a predicative noun or adjective. In Sargonic Akkadian, the matter is more complicated, because we also find -a beside -u(m), but the principle is the same: if we find -, the form is likely to be a stative, but if we find -u(m) or -a, the form may just as well be a predicative noun or adjective. In that case, names with -a differ syntactically from names with -, and the replacement of a by may represent a change in construction rather than a phonological change. Consequently, as long as we do not find a verbal stative with -a in context, there is no evidence for the existence of a stative with an ending -a. Whether the names with -a are older than names with - has to be established on different grounds (basically, the date of the tablets on which they appear). The fact that names with -a are no longer used in later periods does indeed suggest that they are archaisms, but there is no reason to assume that there is a phonological change of -a to -. This leads to the conclusion that these names neither provide evidence for the existence of a 3ms stative ending -a nor for a sound change involving the loss of final -a.90 There does not seem to be much other evidence for the loss of final -a. Several concrete instances of final -a actually plead against such a rule: the a-subjunctives from the Diyala region (see 9.3.2, p. 224) and the accusative pronoun su4-a (/sua/ or /suwa/) this, which occurs in the standard curse formula of Sargonic royal inscriptions. There are occasional instances of the loss of final vowels other than a, e.g., in the suffix pronouns (- for -u, etc.) and in prepositions (el for eli, ad for adi until), although prepositions are proclitic, so that their final vowels are not strictly word-final. However, a counterexample for u is the u-subjunctive.91 A further argument adduced is the loss of case vowels in the construct state during the Sargonic Akkadian period (Hasselbach 2005: 18283). It seems doubtful that this can count as an instance of the loss of final vowels: they are not strictly final, because the construct noun is proclitic, and it seems likely that morphosyntactic processes were also involved in their loss.92 The evidence, then, for a sound change a > /_# in early Akkadian seems inconclusive. The situation in Eblaite is not very clear, as usual. Eblaite also shows proper names with predicative
90. The nature and the function of -a in these names is a matter of debate. It has been argued that it serves to indicate a specifically predicative form (Lipiski 1997: 360); that it indicates the status determinatus, as later in Aramaic (Kienast 2001: 15859); or that it is a case ending, either simply the accusative of later Akkadian (Gelb 1965: 7980; Krebernik 1991b: 138) or an absolutus, identical with or related to the later(?) accusative (Streck 2000: 28490. It is possible that it is the same ending as the one found in descriptive proper names consisting of a single element (Kienast 2001: 155), such as Arnaba hare, Dumqa good one, and Qarnna horned one (although -a in this kind of name may also be hypochoristic) and some early Akkadian loan words in Sumerian, such as na.gad a shepherd (cf. nqidu), ma.d a land (cf. mtu), and d a m . a . ra battle (cf. tamru) (2001: 157). Actually, its exact nature is of minor importance for the issue at hand. The important thing is that in all proposals -a belongs to the realm of the noun or the adjective, not to the verb, and that there is no trace of an ending -a in any unambiguously verbal form. For a more extensive survey of opinions, see also Rubio 2003a: 17881. 91. On the other hand, in the light of the preservation of both the u-subjunctive and the a-subjunctive, one might argue that these vowels were lengthened, since they were always in pausal position at the end of a (subordinate) clause and may have marked this prosodically by means of a lengthened vowel; cf. the common plene spellings of subjunctives in Old Assyrian (GKT 79g). 92. Huehnergard (2006: 7 n. 31) adduces the dual endings -n and -n (or -n) < *-na/*-ayna (cf. Arabic -ni and -ayni with dissimilation).
189
nouns or adjectives with -a (Gelb 1981: 32; Krebernik 1988b: 9; Pagan 1998: 1216), and the same alternation between forms with -a, with -u and with -i and forms without ending (Krebernik 1988b: 9).93 On the other hand, there are clear examples of endingless stative forms in Eblaite, both in texts and in proper names: wa-zi-in /wazin/ ARET 13, 15: r. III 1 he has weighed from waznum (see 16.2.2, p. 458) and A-b-na-im / abu-naim/ the father is good (Krebernik (1996: 244).94 In West Semitic, the situation is comparable in that, initially, forms with -a only occur in proper names and are therefore liable to the same objections as their Akkadian counterparts. Buccellati (1966: 21920) mentions Amorite names from the Ur III period with -a attached to nouns and adjectives. Gelb (1965: 7579) shows that in Amorite, too, names with -a alternate with names with -u and -. This means that they are as unreliable for Amorite as the corresponding Akkadian forms are for Akkadian for establishing the (original) form of the 3ms stative or any corresponding category. The earliest instances of suffix conjugation forms with -a outside proper names only occur during the 14th century b.C. in Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. Amarna Akkadian shows a number of forms that Rainey (1996: II 288) calls possible hints to the existence of the short -a vowel on the native Canaanite of that day, e.g., da-a-k VAB 2, 154:19 he has killed, ta-ra VAB 2, 85:54 he returned. Most forms have a -suffix, however. Ugaritic, too, shows a number of unambiguous qatVla forms both in syllabic transcription (e.g., al-li-ma he has paid (D-stem)) and in III/ verbs (e.g., na he lifted /naaa/; mla it was full /malia/) (Tropper 2000: 464; Sivan 1997: 110). Here, too, as in the case of QaTaL, the absence of earlier reliable evidence prevents us from dating the emergence of -a. On the other hand, it is difficult to envisage a possible source for -a so late in the historical period. It seems that the problem of -a vs. - in ProtoSemitic cannot be solved on the basis of the available data and that we must leave the issue open for the time being.
7.4.3. ThesuffixedstativeconjugationsofAfroasiatic
The Akkadian stative can be associated with various formations in Afroasiatic outside Semitic on the basis of similarities in their personal endings. These are strong enough to establish the existence of a suffix conjugation with stative meaning in Afroasiatic, which I will call the stative conjugation.95 Together with the commonalities in the personal prefixes of the fientive verbs, it provides one of the strongest arguments for the existence of the Afroasiatic language phylum. There can be no question of a detailed discussion of these formations, their relationships, and
93. The question whether Eblaite had a qatala suffix conjugation parallel to the West Semitic perfect has been hotly debated (see the recent discussion in Pagan 1998: 1216). It has not resulted in any convincing instance ( pace Pagan 1998: 1416), so the answer remains negative for the time being (see also Rubio 2006: 133 n. 93). According to Pagan (1998: 15), instances of an active/transitive perfect are found in Ur III Amorite, but I have not found a single convincing case among the relevant names collected by Buccellati (1966: 196). Pagan (1998: 15 n. 39) mentions in particular A--da-il or A-aw-te-il /Hawd-il/ Il has praised, but if this is the most convincing one to be found, the situation is fairly desperate. 94. Several other possible instances are obscured by the Eblaite spelling practice of indicating wordfinal consonants by means of Cv-signs: na-zi-b ARET 13, 1: r.IX 12 egli in attesa may plausibly be read /naib/. Cf. also ma-i-la ARET 2, 5: VIII 1 he has received(?), according to Fronzaroli 1982: 113, i.e., /maira/, and ne-da-la (= n ) VE 841, which Krebernik (1983: 40) reads /nitla(?)/ (vermutlich ein Stativ auf -a); both may also be read without final vowel. Finally, we have a possible stative form a-ba-ad ARET 13, 6: IV 6 egli in fuga (cf. Ass abtu to flee) (the Italian glosses are from Fronzarolis ARET 13 glossary). 95. See, for instance, Diakonoff 1965: 8891; Sasse 1981: 13940.
190
their development: this would require a separate monograph. I will restrict myself to a general characterization and highlight those aspects that are relevant to the historical background of the Akkadian stative. Table 7.5 compares the personal suffixes of Akkadian (copied from Table 7.3), Proto-West Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Eastern Cushitic (as given in Sasse 1981: 140):96 Akkadian 1s 2ms 2fs 3ms 3fs 1p 2mp 2fp 3mp 3fp -ku, -k -ta, -ti, -t -ti (-t?), -t - -at -nu, -ni -tunu -tina - - Proto-WSem *-ku *-ta *-ti *-a(?) *-at *-na *-tumu *-tin(n)a *- *- Egyptian -kwj -tj -tj -j -tj -wjn -tjwnj -tjwnj -w -tj Berber - -d -d - -t -it -it -it -it -it ECush. *-i-yu *-i-tu *-i-tu *-a *-a *-i-nu *-i-tin *-i-tin ? ?
table 7.5: the personal endings of the Afroasiatic stative conjugations.
I will start with the stative conjugation of Egyptian (which is also known under other names, such as the pseudo-participle and the old perfective). It is of particular importance, not only because it shows a greater similarity to Akkadian than the stative conjugations of Berber and Cushitic, but also because in the fientive verb forms Egyptian and Akkadian (or Semitic as a whole) show a completely different development: Egyptian only employs suffix conjugations (of another kind than the stative) and Akkadian only prefix conjugations. Important details about the form of the stative conjugation are unknown to us because of the purely consonantal script of Egyptian. In their consonantal guise, the forms of the endings agree fairly well with those of Akkadian.97 The nature and background of the additional -j after most of the personal endings is problematic, but it is doubtless secondary (see Jansen-Winkeln 1993: 1618). In many respects, the function of the stative conjugation is similar to that of the Akkadian stative.98 First, it is neutral with regard to voice: it is resultative/stative in intransitive verbs, active or passive in transitive verbs (see Reintges 1997: 36166), and stative in verbs denoting adjectival properties. Derived from verbs, it shows the well-known development from present perfect in the oldest stages of Egyptian to preterite in Middle Egyptian, in complementary distribution with the sm.n=f form (Satzinger 2002: 241). Already in the oldest available documents,
96. For similar tables, see also Diakonoff 1988: 9293 and Lipiski 1997: 37879. For the Proto-West Semitic forms, cf., for instance, Moscati, ed. 1964: 13841. 97. Note, however, that in the oldest period the first-person singular is mostly spelled -k or -kj and that kw only becomes common in Middle Egyptian (Edel 1955/64: 27172 573). The interpretation of the spelling -kwj is uncertain; Reintges (1997: 270 n. 21) suggests that it is an orthographic compromise between the old and the new form. 98. For the function, see Gardiner 1957: 23742; Edel 1955/64: 28088 58496; Jansen-Winkeln 1993: 716; Reintges 1997: 35566.
191
it tends to be restricted to circumstantial clauses qualifying a main verb or an indefinite noun. As main verb, it mainly occurs in first-person singular narrative and in other persons with a modal value. These features strongly suggest that the Egyptian stative conjugation was originally a resultative and may ultimately have been derived from a verbal adjective. They also presuppose a fairly long history, which implies that the stative conjugation cannot be a recent development. These are important parallels with the Akkadian stative. In other respects, the Egyptian stative conjugation does not contribute much to our understanding of its Akkadian counterpart. Finally, there is a controversy among Egyptologists about the vowel pattern of the stative conjugation, which may be relevant to Proto-Semitic. Kammerzell (1990 and elsewhere) and Schenkel (1994) have argued on the basis of a specific spelling pattern, especially in older texts, that the consonantal spelling of the stative conjugation actually hides two different conjugations, one with perfect meaning and one with stative meaning. In the former, the personal endings of the first and second persons are attached directly to the stem, but in the latter a vowel -- ap pears between the stem and the ending; for the first-person singular, this gives *CvCvC-kVj and *CvCC-kVj, respectively, which may perhaps be vocalized as *saVm-kuw and *sam-kuw from the verb sm to hear (Satzinger 1999: 29). If these claims are correct,99 the similarity between the Egyptian and the Semitic suffix conjugations is even stronger than so far assumed. Actually, it is strong enough to make one suspicious, especially because of the huge differences between Egyptian and Semitic in the rest of the verbal system, and to raise the question to what extent this reconstruction is actually inspired by the situation in Semitic. If it is right, we are compelled to assume that Egyptian and Semitic have inherited these two conjugations from their common ancestor, as indeed has been argued by Satzinger (2002: 241), because such a strong similarity can hardly result from a parallel development. However, there is not a shred of evidence that Proto-Semitic had two suffix conjugations, a perfect *qatVlku and a stative *qatlku. In all Semitic languages, only one suffix conjugation is used as both a stative and as a perfect. Moreover, there is abundant typological evidence for a close diachronic relationship between these functions in that a stative often develops into a resultative and hence into a perfect. So there is no functional reason to posit a different origin for the two functions. In the end, the claim that there are two stative conjugations is based exclusively on the spelling patterns in older Egyptian; there is no other support available, and all functional evidence pleads against it. I am not in a position to evaluate the strength of Schenkels orthographic argumentation, but if any other explanation of this phenomenon is feasible, it should probably be preferred. The stative conjugation in Berber is less similar in form to the Akkadian stative but also much less controversial. Among the Berber languages, it only occurs in Kabyle Berber, in several varieties of Libyan Berber, in Zenaga Berber of Mauretania, and in a much-contaminated form in Tuareg (Taine-Cheikh 2003: 66669), but it is likely to have been more widespread in the past (Chaker 1995: 233, referring to an example on p. 139). The endings shown in Sasses table refer to Kabyle Berber (without the regular spirantization of in this language). Of particular importance are the stative forms of Zenaga Berber, which have only fairly recently become known (Taine-Cheikh 2003). This language has a distinct class of prototypical adjectives, denoting colours, physical defects, and other salient features, which differ from nouns both morphologically and syntactically: they do not have the prefixes that all nouns have, and, in contrast to nouns, they
99. Different explanations of the spelling pattern in question have been proposed by Depuydt 1995 and Borghouts 2001 (see especially p. 31).
192
can serve as predicates without needing the predicative particle . However, only a part of the typically adjectival properties is expressed by these adjectives; other properties are encoded by means of verbs (Taine-Cheikh 2003: 662) or nouns (p. 663). The most important morphological feature of these adjectives is that they are the only words which can be conjugated by means of the stative conjugation. Taine-Cheikh (2003: 664, 671) gives the endings shown in Table 7.6: Sg 1st p. 2nd p. 3rd p. Masc 3rd p. Fem -g -d -d -id Pl
table 7.6: the stative conjugation of Zenaga Berber.
They differ from the Kabyle endings shown in Table 7.5 in that they do not show pharyngealization, which makes their phonological correspondence to the Semitic endings more convincing. A specific feature of the Berber forms is that the plural persons all have a single ending consisting of i plus a dental. It is attractive to associate this with the adjectival plural -tu in Akkadian (see Table 7.2 above, p. 178),100 but this remains highly speculative. Apart from its form, the Berber stative conjugation is important, because it provides tangible evidence for the fact that the stative conjugation is in origin a conjugation of adjectives (TaineCheikh 2003: 67172). Accordingly, it is often called the Qualitative from the verbes de qualit, i.e., the adjectival verbs, from which it is derived. This, too, applies in particular to Zenaga Berber. In the course of its development, it was gradually amalgamated with the prefix conjugations, so that we find, on the one hand, the first- and second-person suffixes extended towards the prefix forms in several dialects and, on the other hand, the prefixes attached to forms of the stative conjugation (Taine-Cheikh 2003: 672). In Tuareg Berber, for instance, the personal prefixes (and the accompanying suffixes) have invaded the suffix conjugation to such an extent that only the third-person singular masculine still differs from the regular prefix conjugations in the absence of the prefix i-: mqqr he is big, parfait of imgar to be big versus ikrs or ykrs he built, parfait of rs (Prasse et al. 1998: 418, 422). Moreover, what is left of the stative conjugation serves in Tuareg as the perfect (parfait, which others call the preterite) of stative verbs. In other categories, such as the aorist and the imperfective, these verbs are conjugated by means of prefixes, in the same way as all other verbs. So the stative conjugation has been incorporated into the verbal paradigm but in a different way from the Akkadian stative.101 According to Rssler (1950: 48283; 1951: 105), the stem of the stative verbs to which these endings are attached shows the same vowel patterns as those of primary adjectives in Akkadian and occurs both with a single and a geminate radical: QaT(T)iL, QaT(T)uL, and QaT(T)aL (see also D. Cohen 197071: 182). I will not further go into the East Cushitic forms of Sasses table. Sasse (1981: 139) states that Cushitic has renewed the morphology of the stative but that some of the endings of the East Cushitic stative may go back to Afroasiatic. Banti (2001: 1421), however, argues that this
100. See, for instance, Diakonoff 1988: 93 n. 7; D. Cohen 1983: 84. 101. See Prasse (1972/74: VI 1619) for an attempted reconstruction of the development of the personal endings in Pre- and Proto-Berber.
193
paradigm is actually cognate with the Egyptian fientive suffix conjugations (sm=f, sm.n=f, etc.) rather than with the stative conjugation. As long as the experts on Cushitic have not clarified this issue, these forms are too controversial to shed light on the prehistory of the Afroasiatic stative conjugation. In Beja, there is a quite different stative conjugation, which according to Rssler (1950: 49394, 50710) shows some similarities to the stative in Egyptian and Berber; however, Zaborski (1989: 418) concludes after a long discussion that it cannot be directly identified with categories elsewhere. In sum, the similarities in form and function between the stative conjugations of Akkadian, Egyptian, and Berber strongly suggest that they go back to the Afroasiatic proto-language and presumably started as a conjugation of predicative adjectives. However, the time depth and the vast overall differences between the languages involved make it difficult to go beyond this simple statement and to fill in some details about their early development.
thenOminalfOrmsOftheverbalParadigm
Chapter 8
8.1. introduction
This chapter continues the description of the primary members of the verbal paradigm by discussing the non-finite derivations of the suffix basei.e., the infinitive, the past participle, and the two present participles.
8.2. the infinitive 8.2.1. Formandfunction

The infinitive expresses the verbal content as an argument to the predicate, without any reference to specific features of the situation, such as person, tense/aspect, mood, or diathesis. This makes it suitable to be used as a citation form in lexical texts as well as in modern handbooks. All verbs have an infinitive, although that of adjectival verbs is rare (see 3.3.2, pp. 5860), since it is mainly used as an action noun.1 As a non-finite member of the verbal paradigm, the Akkadian infinitive is dependent on the finite members in form and meaning, and it has a single predictable form. The G-stem is the only verbal stem in which the infinitive has a separate form from the past participle: parsu versus parsu.2 Everywhere else, they have the same form, which is universally characterized by the stem vowel u: pitarrusu in the Gtn-stem, pa/urrusu in the D-stem, nabalkutu in the quadriradical verbs, etc.; see the sections about the respective verbal stems.3
1. Goetzes remark (1942: 4b) that the infinitive falu belongs exclusively to the action type verb ignores the fact that adjectival verbs also have infinitives, not only as citation form in lexical texts, such as paglu to be strong and barmu to be multicoloured, but also in the paronomastic infinitive construction (e.g., (08) below). Moreover, some adjectival verbs have a substantivized infinitive: dannu strength, labru long duration, damqu kindness, success, almu health, well-being, salmu friendly relations, etc. 2. GAG3 87k* mentions infinitives with the pattern PaRS. Aro (1961: 1415) shows that they are typical of the inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Sargonid kings and are always in the construct state before a noun. He argues, therefore, that they are likely to represent a Neo-Assyrian phonetic development of a to a kind of , spelled as i/e. An alternative explanation is that they are verbal adjectives in the construct state that are used as infinitives by analogy with the derived verbal stems, where the two forms are identical (see n. 3 on other verbal adjectives used as infinitives). 3. Identity of infinitive and past participle also occurs in the G-stem, namely, in the III/voc and the III/H verbs, at least in Old Babylonian, where the accusative of the infinitive of III/voc and III/H verbs verbs has i in the penultimate syllable: e.g., kalia(m) from kal to detain and leqiam from leq to receive; see further 16.7.2.4 (pp. 507508) for the III/voc verbs and 17.8.4 (p. 583) for the III/H verbs. The use of the G-stem past participle of a strong verb in the function of an infinitive is also attested, but it is so rare that it may be due to scribal errors or poor language use. Possible instances are ana (. . .) wa-a-bi-im AbB 14, 40:20 from wabu to sit down, stay and ana ba-al--im FM 2, 38 no. 11:15 from balu to live, be(come) healthy.
194
8.2. The Infnitive
195
The infinitive is morphologically a noun with case endings andin the older dialectsmimation, but since it refers to an action or a process, it also has a number of verbal features, especially in its syntactic behaviour.4 As a noun, it occurs in the nominative as subject (01), in the accusative as direct object (02) and complement (03), and in the genitive, where it can depend on a preposition (04), a particle (a, mala, aar, etc.) (05), or another noun (06): (01) FM 2 p. 210 no. 117:48 (OB) [ma]tm wa--u-nu ibai when will their (the prisoners) release (lit., coming out) take place? (02) ARM 2, 32:1314 (OB) kma erim irub ba-ka-am he started to cry like a child. (03) UM 5, 100: II 78 (OB) mam ana purum (sic!) tu-ur-ra-am iqb they ordered to return the case to the assembly5 (04) CCT 3, 24:27 (OA) ana a-k-li-ni-i lau there is nothing to eat for us (lit., for our eating) (05) KH 134:2728 (OB) umma (. . .) ina btu a a-ka-li-im l ibai if there is nothing to eat in his house (06) ARM 4, 6:17 (OB) eleppt e-b-ri-u-nu ships to carry them across (lit., of their crossing)6 A special use of the nominative is the paronomastic infinitive construction, in which an infinitive with the ending -um, usually followed by -ma, co-occurs with a finite form of the same verb (GAG 150a; Aro 1961: 11115; E. Cohen 20034).7 Its function is to add emphasis to the predicate or to topicalize it: (07) AbB 13, 114:1819 (OB) sa-na-qum-ma ul isniqam he has definitely not arrived (tr. W. van Soldt) (08) ARM 4, 34:1214 (OB) awl (. . .) da-ma-qum-ma damq the men (. . .) are very good indeed!.8 The infinitive can also take the terminative ending -i to express a purpose (GAG 67b; Aro 1961: 11618; Veenhof 1986: 24243). This is typical of the older dialects, such as Sargonic
4. For the syntax of the infinitive, see the extensive descriptions in GAG 149150; GKT 127; Huehnergard 2005a: 33745; Deutscher 2000, especially 12734; and especially Aro 1961. 5. Deutscher (2000: 12432) has shown that this kind of complement clause only uses the infinitive when the main verb refers to the past; otherwise, a paratactic construction with a precative is used: so alkam taqbum you told him to go but qibumma lillik tell him to go! 6. For infinitives after a noun in the construct state, see Aro 1961: 3145. 7. It is often argued that this form contains the locative ending -um (e.g., GAG 66b, 150a; Huehnergard 2005a: 313, 341; E. Cohen 20034: 11011). The locative is typical of locative expressions such as (ina) libbu and (ina) qerbu(m) in (the midst of) and has a number of idiomatic uses (GAG 66). Since there is no locative nuance involved here at all, it seems simpler to assume that the paronomastic construction is an idiomatic use of the nominative, which is after all the unmarked case, not necessarily restricted to subject use. 8. Other paronomastic constructions involving adjectival verbs occur in ARM 26/1, 582 no. 282:16 (ma to be(come) able, sufficient, OB) and AbB 14, 31:5 (zen to be(come) angry, OB). On the other hand, in adjectival verbs the adjective itself could be used in this construction instead of the infinitive: ARM 26/1, 320 no. 154:29 i-a-ru-um-ma i-a-ra they (the extispices, trtum) are very favourable; OBTR 156:1617 e-e-ru-um-ma e-e-e-e-er it (the harvest) becomes smaller and smaller (both OB).
196
The Infnitive 8.2.
Akkadian (09) and Ur III Babylonian (10), and sporadically survives into Old Assyrian (11), Old Babylonian, and Standard Babylonian, where it is normally replaced by ana + gen.: (09) SAB p. 183:2223 (Gasur) umma e-ra-si-i /()ersis/ na if it (the field) is fit for cultivation (10) NATN 613:8 li-i-mu na-da-ni-i he refuses to give (11) TC 1, 13:1112 umma ubtam l imu l-q -i if they refuse to accept the textile As a noun, the infinitive can only have the suffixed pronouns of the genitivenot those of the accusative or dative, which are only attached to finite verb forms. The genitive pronoun can be both subject (04) and object (12) of the event expressed by the infinitive. If an infinitive requires a dative or a ventive, the ending or suffix is attached to the main verb, as -am in (13), -nim in (14), and -um in (15), or it is left unexpressed (16): (12) KH 141:4447 (OB) umma mussa e-z-eb-a iqtab i-iz-zi-ib-i if her husband has stated that he intends to leave her (lit., her leaving), he may leave her (13) TC 2, 23:3637 (OA) kaspam (. . .) bulam q-bi4-am he has been instructed (qab) to send the silver hither (-am) (14) CCT 3, 49b:8 (OA) a-l-kam l im-t--nim they did not want to come (15) ARM 1, 32:1617 (OB) umma btum ana na-da-nim i-re-ed-du-um if that house is suitable to be given to him (16) AbB 14, 34:11 (OB) a-la-ki qerub my going (or: coming) is imminent On the other hand, the infinitive is not a prototypical noun, since it refers to an action or a process. Accordingly, various nominal optionssuch as pluralization and qualification by means of an adjective, a demonstrative pronoun, or a relative clauseare very unusual for it (Aro 1961: 29899). The following instances are therefore exceptional: (17) and (18) are accusative plural forms; (19) and (20) are infinitives qualified by an adjective and a relative clause, respectively: (17) ARM 28, 2:5 (OB) ena i-tu-li ukn I have considered two options, lit., I have established two considerations (/itl/, Acc Pl of itlu, Gt infinitive of lu Gt to deliberate) (18) ARM 8, 1:45 (OB) da-ma-q-u-nu idammiq le-m-ni-u-nu ilemmin il jouira de leurs joies; il souffrira de leurs peines (tr. M. Birot, presumably /damqunu/, Acc Pl of the G infinitive damqu to be(come) good)9
9. This passage is from an adoption contract. A similar expression occurs in Old Babylonian marriage contracts; its fullest version is erba rrub waa u zena izenn salma isallim she (the second wife) will enter and leave as she (the first wife) does, and be angry and reconciled as she (the first wife) is; see, for instance, VAB 5, 4:2123; 5:68; BAP 89:78; CT 4, 39a:1617; BM 97159:1819 (quoted by K. R. Veenhof, St. Finet, p. 185 n. 10). This infinitive seems to be equivalent to a circumstantial clause: when PN1 acts in such and such a way, PN2 will do the sameand may well be a plural accusative representing a general validity: whenever . . .. It is also possible that the form is actually a terminative: erbia, salmia, but -- is never spelled explicitly, as far as I am aware.
8.2. The Infnitive (19) Prag I 680:2021 (OA) a-lu-qm rabiam tuallaqanni you are ruining me completely (lit., a great ruining, D infinitive of alqu) (20) AbB 9, 61:1012 (OB) ana i-ta-pu-ri a tatanappar amidma l addikkim in answer to your frequent appeals I have been evasive and have not (yet) given (them) to you (adapted from M. Stols translation; itappuri(m) is Gtn infinitive of apru to write)10
197
These restrictions do not apply to the numerous infinitives that have been lexicalized and have become abstract nouns, such as qab speech, apru message, balu life and eru harvest (Aro 1961: 299): (21) Atr. p. 60:244 (OB) imma anniam q-ba-a they (the gods) heard this speech of hers (22) AbB 6, 63:56 (OB) mnum a-pa-ru-um annm a tapurim what is that message that you (Fem) wrote to me? (23) RA 22, 174:58 (OB) arkam driam ba-la-a-am a long and everlasting life (24) AbB 10, 96:2 (OB) e-re-a-am uppulam the late harvest Whereas the morphology of the infinitive has always maintained its nominal character, its syntax has adopted some verbal features in that it can be construed as a finite verb with the subject in the nominative and the direct object in the accusativejust as the corresponding finite clausewhen they are expressed by nouns (Aro 1961: 30722): (25) AbB 6, 96:78 (OB) tupp anniam ina a-ma-ri-im in seeing this tablet/letter (Acc) of mine (i.e., when you see. . .) (26) KH r.XXIV 5960 (OB) (I wrote my precious words on a stele) dannum enam ana l a-ba-lim in order that the strong man (Nom) should not oppress the weak man (Acc) (27) ARM 1, 22:78 (OB) (I have written to you several times) aum ina[nn]a a-bu-[u]m ana rka l a-la-ki-im about the fact that the troops (Nom) cannot come to you right now The rather complex constructions (26) and (27) derive from clauses such as dannum enam l iabbal let the strong man not oppress the weak man and inanna abum ana rka l llakam the troops cannot come to you right now. This construction is not possible if the participants are encoded by means of suffixed pronouns. It is more common, however, to adapt the case of the noun to that of the infinitive, and when the infinitive is preceded by a preposition, to put the noun between them in the genitive (Frankena 1978: 89); cf. the nominative in (28) in contrast to (03) quoted above, and the genitive in (29) as compared to (25) and (26), and (30) as compared to (27):
10. All instances of an infinitive with a relative clause known to me are of this type: cf. also (22) and: e-p-e-um annm a tteneppuu ana manni muul AbB 7, 179:1113 (OB) this doing that you are doing all the time, who else would act like that? (lit., to whom is it similar?), and [mi-t]a-u-ru a ina qt PN1 PN2 (. . .) im-ta-a-ru MBTU 38:1 (MB) The repeated receiving which PN2 did from PN1 (cf. MBTU 39:1 mi-ta-a-ru a ina qt PN1 PN2 (. . .) ma[-ru]).
198
The Infnitive 8.2.
(28) AbB 3, 91: r.8 (OB) eqlum (a.-um) tu-r-ru-um ittaqbi it has been ordered that the field (Nom!) should be returned (also AbB 3, 34:40; 4, 139:1416) (29) AbB 5, 136:5 (OB) (the canal workers that have been assigned to you) ana iprim e-p-i-im in order to do the work (cf. Aro 1961: 15171) (30) ARM 3, 13:89 (OB) (PN keeps writing hither) ana a-bi-im Yamadyi at-[l ] u-ki-im regarding the departure of the soldiers of Yamad This verbal construction of the infinitive is interchangeable with the nominal construction in which the subject or the direct object is in the genitive (Aro 1961: 31122), cf. (31A) versus (31B) from the same text: (31A) BagM. 2, 56: I 27 (OB) ana bim l e-re-bi-im amgurunti I agreed with them that the army should not enter (the town) (lit., for the army not entering) (31B) BagM. 2, 57: II 12 ana l e-re-eb bim amgurunti (same translation, lit., for the not entering of the army) Finally, if the object of the infinitive is a demonstrative pronoun (usually ann this), the infinitive is construed as a noun and the pronoun agrees with it (Aro 1961: 18, 210, 29899; Veenhof 1986: 250 n. 23): (32) AbB 2, 64:1112 (OB) ana e-p-i-im an-ni-i-im k l tapla why are you not afraid to do this? On the basis of the construction of a nominal direct object we would expect *ana anntim epim or *anntam ana epim in order to do this, but these do not seem to be attested. The heyday of the verbal use of the infinitive are the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian periods. Later on, the verbal construction declines: the infinitive is more often construed as a noun with a genitive (Aro 1961: 32122), and in complement clauses it is gradually replaced by other types of complements, such as subordinate clauses (Deutscher 2000: 123). As a deverbal noun, and thus a peripheral member of the verbal paradigm, the infinitive lexicalizes easily, primarily as an abstract noun (see 2.2.3, p. 36). This is particularly prominent in adjectival verbs (see n. 1, p. 194) and in verbs denoting atelic activities, such as dabbu speech, complaint, lawsuit, qab speech, utterance, epu action, edu harvest, rmu love, zamru song, ablu wrongdoing, and karbu prayer. Lexicalized infinitives of other stems include the D-stems s/ull and supp prayer, and nubb lament. The change to nounhood can be underlined by adding the feminine or abstract suffix -t, as in awtu word, matter (i.e., *awtum from *awum to speak; see chap. 17 n. 87, p. 538) and alaktu way, road, behaviour from alku to go /come, all from the G-stem. In the derived stems we find, for instance, itltu deliberation from lu Gt to deliberate. In later dialects, some of these abstract nouns also develop a concrete meaning, such as aru copy, text (SB and later) from aru to write, nadnu gift, tribute (MB and later) from nadnu to give, which has a plural nadntu (NB), and amdu team (of mules) (NB), with a plural amdni from amdu to harness (see Cole 1996: 135 for this form).
8.2. The Infnitive
199
8.2.2. Historicalbackground
The infinitive pattern PaRS has close parallels in various Semitic languages and is therefore reconstructible as a G-stem infinitive for Proto-Semitic (Moscati, ed. 1964: 14647; Lipiski 1997: 41516; Fox 2003: 179), perhaps alongside other patterns (Huehnergard 1995: 2130; 2004: 152).11 It also occurs in Berber. In Tuareg, for instance, the pattern aCCaC < *()CaCCin which *- is a secondary prefixis the normal infinitive (or verbal noun) of the strong triradical verb (Prasse 1972/4: II 225; Greenberg 1952: 5 n. 14; Kienast 2001: 551; Heath 2005: 514), e.g., almad from lmd to learn. The infinitive patterns of the derived verbal stems are, to a large extent, language-specific: languages have often gone their own way in choosing a specific derivational procedure to (re)create these forms. Insofar as they are relevant to Akkadian, they will be discussed under the respective derived stem. Insofar as nouns are concerned, the pattern QaTL has few other uses in Semitic (see Fox 2003: 17986). There are a few primary nouns, such as *atn- (Akk atnu) she-ass, and agent nouns, e.g., He q and m oppressor (2003: 184), and, perhaps more importantly, hardly any abstract nouns that are not explicable as infinitives, such as Ar bayd whiteness and a few other abstract nouns of colour adjectives, quoted by Fox (2003: 182). It is plausible that its productivity as infinitive prevented other functions from arising and/or led to the discarding of pre-existing QaTL nouns with a different function. As noted in the previous section, everywhere but in the G-stem, the Akkadian infinitive is identical with the past participle. This might suggest that in origin the infinitives outside the G-stem are substantivized past participles (Kuryowicz 1972: 109; cf. also 1964: 2931 for the process in general). It is, however, difficult how to envisage such a process in practice.12 In historical Akkadian, zero derivation of abstract nouns from adjectives is exceptional,13 and substantivation of a masculine past participle virtually always leads to a noun with concrete meaning, usually a person (see 8.3.1, pp. 201202, for examples). Only feminine adjectives may normally be used as abstract nouns, which are a possible source of infinitives. In the G-stem, the formal relationship between PaRS and the past participle PaRiS is obscure, but it is clear that the former is not simply derived from latter. The fact that vowel lengthening often accompanies substantivation (see 7.4.2, pp. 185186) seems to suggest that PSem QaTL
11. PaRS also seems to be the regular G-stem infinitive in Eblaite, e.g., a-ga-lu-um (= k) / aklum/ to eat (Krebernik 1983: 6); ba-a-um/u-um (= u .) /paum/ to anoint (1983: 18), and wa-za-nu-um (g i . m a ) /waznum/ to weigh (cf. Ar wazana) (1983: 16; see also 16.2.4, p. 458). However, there may be instances of infinitives with the pattern PiRS; see Krebernik 1983: 22 n. 72. Krebernik prefers to interpret them as resulting from reduction of unstressed a > , but they may also come from dissimilation of a, just as the common Arabic G-stem madar qitl may come from dissimilation of qatl (Fox 2003: 224). Another possibility is that the forms in question are actually PiRS nouns, with the construct state PiRaS (as in Assyrian): b-da-gi-i-ti[m], a variant of ba-da-gi-i-tim (= u.k u5), which presumably stands for /batq yidim/ cutting of the hand (Krebernik 1983: 19), i.e., either /bitq yidim/ as infinitive, or /bitaq yidim/ from bitqum; similarly mi-za-i 2 - u (= n g . a . u . l u) (1983: 46), i.e., /mis or misa yiday(n)/ washing of the hands, ne-sa-gu(-um) (= n e . s ub5) (1983: 33), i.e., /niqum/ or /ni(a)qum/ kiss(ing), and perhaps si-ga-p-um (= . d i . di) (1983: 40), i.e., /ikbum/ or /ik(a)bum/ lying down, if it is related to He kb. Fronzaroli (1991: 46365) regards these form as manifestations of a rule that weakens pretonic a to i/e. 12. Vycichl (1991: 434) mentions French entre and Italian entrata and uscita entering and leaving as parallels in West European languages of abstract nouns derived from perfect participles. It is clearly a marginal phenomenon. 13. A few cases are quoted in 8.3.1 below. Normally, either the feminine is used (lemuttu evil, allatu booty, past participle of allu to plunder), or the patterns PuRS and PiRS (ulqu loss, lost object, ibtu seizure), or the suffix -t/-utt- (Bab danntu strength). See GAG 55cd, 56s.
200
The Past Participle 8.3.
may come from a deverbal adjective QaTL. This brings us back to the topic of the previous chapter, where it was argued that the existence of such a form remains to be proven.
8.3. the Past Participle 8.3.1. Formandfunction

The past participle14 is primarily an adjective expressing the state of an entity that results from a previous event. As such, it is the attributive counterpart of the verbal stative: what the stative expresses as a predicate, the past participle expresses as an attribute. Their close functional association is underlined by the fact that they have the same inflectional stem, PaRiS in the G-stem, and forms with the stem vowel u elsewhere (D-stem Pa/uRRuS, etc.; see 7.2, pp. 161162, where also some exceptions to PaRiS are mentioned). Some random examples are wardu alqu (cf. LE 50 A IV 3 // B IV 7) a lost/runaway slave and awlu ablu (cf. KH r. XXV 3) a wronged man (both OB). The first is the attributive counterpart of the clause wardu aliq the slave has run away (and is now gone), the second of awlu abil the man has been wronged. In the hierarchy of the verbal paradigm, the past participle represents the final and lowest stage in a dependency relationship of finite fientive form stative past participle, e.g.:
wardu ialliq the slave runs away
X awla iabbal X wrongs the man
wardu aliq
awlu abil
wardu alqu
awlu ablu
Accordingly, the use of the past participle is largely determined by the use of the corresponding stative.15 Verbs that do not have a stative (atelic activity verbs; see 7.3.2, p. 169), do not have a past participle either. Just as the stative, the past participle can be derived from both transitive and intransitive verbs and is (at least in principle) neutral with regard to the active/passive distinction. However, to an even larger degree than that of the stative, its actual use is severely constrained by semantic and pragmatic factors. An essential semantic condition for its use is that the resulting state must be sufficiently relevant to the entity qualified to make it worthwhile to mention this entity in the form of an attributive construction with a past participle.16 In practice, this means that only past participles of high-transitivity verbs are used more than incidentally, since these verbs describe a salient change in the state of the patient.17 As we saw in 7.3.2 (pp. 171172), statives of high-transitivity verbs are almost always passive, and this applies even more strongly to their past participles. There is one important exception, however, namely zzu (Ass zzu) from zzu to divide. It is used with active meaning in the
14. For other literature on the past participle, see GAG 77g; Kouwenberg 2000: 5868 (where it is called verbal adjective). The most common term for this category seems to be verbal adjective, which I have replaced with the more accurate past participle, because verbal adjective is more appropriate for a derivational category (Haspelmath 1996: 61). Another possible term is perfect participle or stative participle (Buccellati 1996: 85), but not passive participle, since the past participle is not principally passive. An even better term might be resultative participle (Haspelmath 1990: 40; 1994: 15762), but this is too cumbersome. For the identity between the infinitive and the past participle in Akkadian outside the G-stem, see the previous sections on the infinitive. 15. When the meaning of the past participle deviates from that of the stative, this usually results from lexicalization of the past participle; see below. 16. Cf. GAG 77g; Haspelmath 1994: 15761; about Akkadian: Landsberger 1926a: 362; Aro 1964: 8. 17. Cf. Hopper and Thompson 1980: 25255; Kouwenberg 2000: 6365; GAG 77g.
8.3. The Past Participle
201
expression a l z/ztu brothers who have not (yet) divided (their paternal estate).18 This is a nominalization of the stative of zzu to divide in clauses such as KAV 1: III 25:84 (MA laws) a muta l ze-e-zu the brothers of her husband have not (yet) divided (their paternal estate) (CAD Z 7881 s.v. zzu 2d). The exceptional active meaning of this past participle is caused by the fact that (not) having divided the inheritance results in a legally relevant situation for the persons involved. This is parallel to the common use of active statives in legal contexts discussed in 7.3.2 (pp. 172173). This expression illustrates that the past participle is not passive in principle but only for semantic and pragmatic reasons. It also reveals another reason for the rarity of active past participles: they cannot accommodate a direct object, which the active stative usually has.19 If one wants to qualify a noun by means of more than a single word, only a relative clause is possible. The semantic and pragmatic limitations on the use of the past participle are also responsible for the fact that passive, causative, and iterative verbs do not normally have a past participle. Past participles of the pluractional tan-stems are not found at all (GAG 77g), and those of other derived stems only occur when the verb in question is lexicalized to such an extent that it has the status of a basic verb, e.g., -forms such as kulu fattened (from aklu to cause to eat), and ulputu destroyed (from the lexicalized -stem ulputu to destroy), and t2 forms such as ut teamed (ultimately from at partners; see 14.6.2.2, p. 407) and utt facing each other. A distinct group of past participles in the -stem are the so-called elatives, such as urb magnificent and uq sublime, which will be discussed in 13.2.2.3 (pp. 331332). Derived verbs with passive meaning do not have a past participle of their own because that of the corresponding active stem is used (GAG 77g). Past participles of the N-stem, for instance, only exist for N-stems with non-passive meaning, such as nbutu fugitive and napruu flying from the N tantum verbs nbutu to flee and napruu to fly, and nanuzu burning from nanuzu to flare up (of fire), an idiomatic N-stem of azu to take, marry (see 12.2.2.1 sub 4, p. 296). In terms of its syntactic status, the past participle is basically adjectival and, accordingly, has the masculine adjectival plural -tu/i, etc., rather than the nominal plural -/ (GAG 61).20 In practice, however, it is no less frequently used as a noun than as an attributive adjective, and the impression one gets from the dictionaries is that this increases over time (no exact statistics are available to me). In fact, the typical use of the past participle, especially in the later dialects, is as a more-or-less lexicalized noun. With regard to Neo-Assyrian, for instance, inspection of the glossaries of SAA suggests that the attributive use of the past participle in its original meaning has become marginal and that it mainly survives in nouns, referring to functions, such as qpu
18. See CAD Z 149 s.v. zzu adj. 2; AHw 1534b s.v. zzu I. It also occurs in the singular: mr awlim l zi-zu LE 16 B I 12 (OB). In the same text as a l zztu, the past participle with passive meaning is also found: ina eqle l ze-e-ze KAV 2: II 4:27 (MA) on an undivided field. 19. Very rarely, the past participle is construed with a dependent genitive, e.g., in the expression a-akna-at napitim KH r.XXVII 18 those who are provided with life, i.e., the people, mankind (aknt with ellipsis of ni), and in some Old Babylonian proper names such as Takil-ilu a loyal (servant) of his god and Ar-ilu < Air-ilu cared for by his god (Stamm 1939: 258). Such constructions are transformations of a stative with an accusative adjunct: X napita akin, etc., in the same way that the present participle + genitive is a transformation of an active finite verb plus an accusative direct object. It is also possible to attach the ending -am to the first member of such syntagms, the damqam-nim construction; see Wasserman 2003: 4560 for a recent discussion. 20. In frequent substantivized past participles (and adjectives in general) there is often fluctuation between the plural endings - and -tu, e.g., in agru hireling (cf. CAD A/1 151b s.v.: agr in older dialects, agrtu in NA/NB), in ebbu as the designation of an official, which has both ebb and ebbtum as plural in Old Babylonian (CAD E 1b s.v. 2), and similarly in bu witness (CAD /2 390a s.v.).
202
The Past Participle 8.3.
delegate, aknu governor, agru hireling; to commodities, such as tabku stored grain, arpu silver, altu groats (resulting from ellipsis of the head word); and sometimes also to abstract notions, such as baqru and its plural baqr claim (from the past participle of baqru to vindicate), batqu deficit, damage (cf. batqu to cut off, reduce), balu interruption (cf. balu to stop, interrupt), taru reach, time (cf. taru to stretch out), and karu slander (originally the past participle of karu to pinch off (AHw 450b s.v.: Abgekniffenes, Verleumdung). In the latter function, the past participle usually has a feminine suffix, e.g., abiktu defeat, alimtu peace, safety, batiqtu information, and galtu deportation. Some of these nouns have acquired concrete meaning: egirtu message.21 Generally speaking, there is a clear-cut contrast between the past participle and the present participle, both in form and in function (see 8.4.1 below for the form and the function of the present participle). In some verbs, however, the resultative meaning of the past participle and the active meaning of the present participle more or less coincide so that they converge in function and become more or less interchangeable (GAG 3 87b*), e.g., in wabu to sit down, allu to fall asleep, and rakbu to mount:22 wabu having sat down > being seated vs. wibu sitting, staying (somewhere), allu having fallen asleep > sleeping vs. lilu sleeping, and rakbu having mounted > riding vs. rkibu riding, sailing.23 This explains the alternative use of wabu and wibu in, for instance, l.me wa-a-bu-ut GN FM 2, 204 no. 116:12 the inhabitants of GN versus wa-i-bu-ut lim ARM 27, 1:24 the inhabitants of the town (both OB Mari).24
8.3.2. Historicalbackground
The functional development of the past participle in Akkadian is determined by its relationship to the stative. Historically, the past participle is primary and the stative has evolved from its combination with person markers, butas argued in 7.4.1 (pp. 176177)its incorporation into the verbal paradigm has reversed their relationship and made the past participle dependent on the stative and thus a derivation of it.25 After the rise of the stative to cover the predicative use of adjectives and past participles, the past participle itself only preserved its attributive function. Since, for the reasons explained in the previous section, past participles are far less frequently employed as attributes than as predicates, their use diminished drastically. This fact,
21. Two uses of the past participle are extremely rare but still interesting enough to mention. First, it may replace the present participle in the paronomastic construction with a finite form of the same verb to express an indefinite subject (mtu imt someone will die); see 8.4.1 with n. 33 (p. 206). Second, it is used in combination with the ending -n- of the present participle in a single Old Assyrian form; see n. 40 (p. 208). Related to these phenomena is the use of a primary adjective instead of a paronomastic infinitive in the case of adjectival verbs (see n. 8, p. 195). 22. These are the same verbs that also show some degree of overlap in use between the stative and imperfective; see chap. 4, n. 9 (p. 91). 23. This alternation also occurs between the present participle as epithet and the stative as predicate in expressions such as pir(at) ag wearing a crown versus its finite equivalent ag apir/aprat he/she wears a crown; see CAD A/2 167a s.v. apru 1b. 24. Other present and past participles that are very similar in meaning include those of palu to fear, respect, kanu to submit (GAG3 87b), magru to agree, obey (see CAD M/1 45 s.v. mgiru and 47b s.v. magru b/c), and sakpu to lie down, sleep (see CAD S 77a s.v. skipu and 81a s.v. sakpu B). In many cases, the present participle is typically used after a negation: allu sleeping, but l lilu sleepless, restless; see the dictionaries. 25. A formal trace of this difference in derivation is preserved in the difference between the feminine forms of primary adjectives and past participles of II/gem roots (see GAG Verbalpar. 20a): dannu strong has a feminine dannatu but sakku blocked, deaf, past participle of sakku to block, has sakiktu; see further 16.6.1 (pp. 492493).
8.4. The Present Participles
203
in combination with their more nominal character, makes the past participle one of the most marginal members of the verbal paradigm. The past participle pattern PaRiS can confidently be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic. Its West Semitic counterpart QaTiL survives not only as a common pattern of primary adjectives (Fox 2003: 16571), just as in Akkadian, but also as the inflectional stem of the perfect with the stem vowel i, such as Ar yalbasu, labisa to put on, wear. The Akkadian past participle parsu < *parisum, the PaRiS statives, and the West Semitic qatila perfect can all be derived from the Proto-Semitic past participle *QaTiL. However, West Semitic QaTiL is no longer used as a past participle: that function has been usurped by more extended patterns, such as maqtl in Arabic, qatl in Aramaic and qtul (< *qutl < *qatl through assimilation? Fox 2003: 200) in Geez. The qatila perfect was restricted to low transitivity and stative verbs after the rise of qatala as the dominant pattern for active/transitive verbs. In Arabic, the contrast between qatila and qatala was strengthened by the introduction of u in the first syllable: qutila, which gave rise to the apophonic passive (see Kuryowicz 1972: 6768).
8.4. the Present Participles

The last member of the Akkadian verbal paradigm to be discussed is the form that is traditionally called the participle (GAG 85c/d, 148a), which I will call the present participle in contradistinction to the past participle. It comes in two forms: a simple present participle, which in the G-stem has the pattern PRiS and elsewhere a prefix mu- plus the stem vowel i (e.g., Gt-stem muptar(i)su, D-stem muparrisu, etc.), and a form extended with the suffix -n-: prisnu, muparrisnu, etc.26 I will first deal with the simple form (8.4.1) and subsequently with the extended form (8.4.2).
8.4.1. Thesimplepresentparticiple
The simple present participle indicates the entityusually animatethat performs the activity expressed by the verb. Because it is descriptive rather than referring, it is in principle an adjective,27 but it is much more frequently used as a noun ( pace GAG 148a). When it is an attributive adjective, it has the adjectival masculine plural ending -tu/i; as a noun, it mostly has the nominal masculine plural -/-; the feminine plural ending is -tu in both cases. As a noun or adjective, it is in principle neutral with regard to tense, but its function more strongly associates it with the present than with the past (GAG 85d).28 This is reinforced by the rise of the extended present participle with the suffix -n-, which is more specifically associated with past tense, as we will see in the next section. For the simple present participle employed as a noun, we can broadly distinguish three usages: two verbal, in which it serves as a real participle, i.e., directly dependent on an underlying verb, and a more nominal usage, in which it is more or less strongly lexicalized as an agent noun.
26. Some irregular or defective verbs use a pattern mupras as present participle (GAG 56d): md (Ass mde()um) knowing (< *mdaum) from id to know (see 16.3.3, p. 466), muzzazzu witness, attendant, lit., standing from izuzzu to stand (up) (see 16.5.3.5, p. 489), and perhaps mdadu beloved (or loving ?) from *waddu to love; see Kouwenberg 20034b: 36566. 27. See Wierzbicka 1986, esp. 362; Stassen 1997: 255; Fox 2003: 2729. 28. Cf. also an expression such as (a woman) l wlittu and (sheep (Pl)) l wlidtu) who is/which are unfertile, lit., not bearing (offspring) (cf. AHw 1458b s.v. wlidu 5), where the present participle may seem to refer to the past but actually means that from the past situation of not having given birth a general property is derived of not being able to give birth; cf. also (36) and (37) below.
204
The Present Participles 8.4.
The first verbal use is in the construct state followed by a referential noun;29 the simple present participle refers to a person who has performed a specific action, usually one that was mentioned previously or is implied in the context, e.g.: (33) CT 29, 42:13 (OB) da-i-ik PN ul d I do not know the murderer of PN (34) CCT 4, 24a:910 (OA) u umma a-im btim la and if there is no buyer of the house (35) OAA 1, 89:20 (OA) (concerning the confiscated textiles) a-bi4-it ubt (. . .) llakam the person who seized the textiles (. . .) will come I have the impression that this use is rare in Old Babylonian, which seems to prefer the present participle with -n- in such contexts (see the next section), but not uncommon in Old Assyrian, which hardly uses the extended participle, if at all. It is possible that some epithets from literary Babylonian belong here, such as: (36) KH III 6567 (OB) na-di-in napitim ana AdabKI (the king) who gave life to Adab, or: giver of life to Adab (37) RIMA 2/I, 148:26 (SB) ka-id mt GN (the king) conqueror of the land of GN, or: who conquered the land of GN Although these epithets may refer to a single occasion because of the referential genitive singular, the habitual meaning of the present participle (see below) makes it also possible that they express the kings status as benefactor or possessor, hence the translations giver of life and conqueror beside who gave . . . and who conquered . . ..30 In literary texts, the simple present participle is only rarely used to refer to a specific action that a person or a god has performed. It more frequently refers to a permanent quality and is therefore mostly followed by a genitive referring to some general concept rather than an individual entity; thus (36) and (37) are fairly atypical and (38) is a much more typical example: (38) RIMA 2/I, 224:4 (SB) mu-ak-ni l kantu (the king) who brings to submission those who have not submitted to him The second use in which the simple present participle has preserved a close relationship with the corresponding verb concerns the paronomastic use of the nominative with a finite form of the same verb to express an indefinite subject, someone, a person, or whoever: (39) ARM 8, 1:27 (OB) ba-q-ir ibaqqaru whoever (lit., a claimer who) claims from him (and passim in contracts) (40) ARM 26/2, 398 no. 471: r.4 (OB) e-mu-um [ ]a iemm mnam iqa[bbi ] whoever will hear (this), what will he say?
29. From the two possible genitive constructions (status rectus with a or construct state without a), the present participle regularly uses the one without a, which generally expresses a tighter connection between rectum and regens. Present participles construed as a verb with the direct object of the action in the accusative are extremely rare. A few possible instances from literary texts are quoted in GAG 3 148c*. 30. Kienast (2001: 76) argues that the perfective use of the present participle, as in (36) and (37), is older. This seems unlikely, because active perfective (or past) participles are cross-linguistically rare (Haspelmath 1994: 15457): the usual situation (widely attested in European languages) is an active present participle alongside a passive past participle, and this is also the normal state of affairs in Semitic.
8.4. The Present Participles (41) OAA 1, 66:68 (OA) aar a-li-um ir bt abni l i-a-lu- epu take care that nobody does any harm to our firm (42) CT 38, 35:51 (SB) (that man) a-gi- iaggissu someone will murder him31 (43) CT 31, 8a: r.2223 (SB) a-si-su (. . .) mata iassas someone will remember what was forgotten (44) SAA 10, 107: r.14e-s.2 (NA) a-ki-lu-ti a ulmannu (. . .) kalni the persons who have enjoyed gifts (lit., the eaters who have eaten . . .)
205
The third and by far the most common use of the simple present participle is as an agent noun, especially for names of professions and profession-like activities, such as miu weaver from mau to hit, weave; rkibu sailor from rakbu to mount, go aboard; liku traveler from alku to go; muqerribu guide, escort from qerbu D to bring near, escort; and muizu teacher from azu to teach. A few of these agent nouns show the well-known development to noun of instrument (Dressler 1986: 52426). Already in Old Babylonian we find muarrirtu, a kind of dish. Later instances include kl dike (lit., holder), ntiktu (a vessel, lit., dripper, LL), pliu lance or chisel (lit., piercer) in the G-stem, and munaqqtu offering vat and mukarris/u (a kind of bowl) in the D-stem. Generally speaking, this use is marginal, however. The use of the present participle as an attributive adjective is far less common; a few representative examples are: (45) AbB 11, 86:21 (OB) alp da-i-u-tim threshing oxen (i.e., oxen used for threshing) (46) ZA 71, 61:2 (OB) akallum s-i-ip-tum a net that swoops down (47) ARM 10, 38:910 (OB) urink ka-ri-bu-um your praying emblem (i.e., which has the function to pray for you) (48) AbB 6, 140:2425 (OB) ilam mu-te-er-ra-am a god who brings back (i.e., whose function it is to bring back, viz., a person evicted from his house) (49) AfO 18, 304:29 (MA) 4 utabr ga-ri-u-tu four mating utabru-animals (description of a figurine) Just as in the agent nouns, the simple present participle has a strong habitual nuance here and refers to a habit rather than an ongoing action: the alp ditum of (36) are not oxen that are threshing at the moment referred to but oxen that are habitually used for threshing. Likewise, in nu niru a roaring lion (cf. CAD N/1 15051 s.v. niru), niru is not a description of the actual behaviour of the lion at a specific point in the narrative, but it is an epitheton ornans. Normally, the noun qualified is animate (in (37) only metaphorically), but some present participles also occur with inanimate nouns in a lexicalized meaning. For instance, liku going can mean movable (of various objects and substances), falling out (of hair), blazing (of a furnace), approaching (of time), and in Mari OB in an abstract sense fitting, appropriate (CAD A/1 347 s.v. liku adj.). Another example is ribu, lit., entering, which is used in idioms such as attu ribtu the coming year and waru ribu the coming month (CAD E 293a s.v. ribu adj. 1).
31. Not: a murderer will murder him, as CAD /1 6768 s.v. agu 2a and 71b s.v. aggiu a translates. Furthermore, there is no reason to interpret the subject noun as aggiu rather than giu; see GAV p. 60.
206
The fact that the present participle is predominantly a habitual agent noun has a number of implications for its use. First, verbs that do not denote actions do not normally have a present participle. This applies in particular to adjectival verbs and the stative-like verbs discussed in 3.3.12 (pp. 5560): there is no **dmiqu from damqu to be(come) good (not even in the meaning becoming good, because this is not an action), nor **iu from au to need.32 Second, verbs denoting actions that are unlikely to develop into a habit normally do not have a present participle either (Aro 1964: 9): e.g., maqtu to fall, paru to come together, mtu to die (see 8.4.2, p. 209, for mitnu), sanqu to arrive, and alqu to disappear. However, they may have a present participle in the paronomastic construction discussed above, e.g.: (50) AbB 13, 60:75 (OB) ba-i-u libanniti so that whoever comes to shame will do so on account of us (tr. W. van Soldt)33 Third, Akkadian has no passive present participles (GAG 85d),34 in marked contrast to other Semitic languages. Verbs in derived stems that regularly have passive function, such as Dt and N, can only form a present participle if they have a non-passive meaning, for instance, munnabtu fugitive from nbutu to flee and mupparu flying from napruu to fly, etc.; but **munnagru he who has been hired from agru to hire does not exist. For the Dt-stem, this means that muptarrisu will normally belong to the Dtn-stem, and for the t-stem, it means that mutaprisu will normally be a tn- or a t2-stem. Fourth, since the present participle does not refer to an ongoing action, it cannot be used predicatively as a kind of progressive form. From a verb such as lasmu to run one cannot derive a stative lsimku (or a verbless clause lsimu anku) in the meaning I am/was running. If we find a stative of a present participle, the latter is substantivized, either as a name of a profession, as rd soldier in (51) and rbiu representative in (52), or as a habitual activity, as wtu wayward woman in (53), or as an epithet, as piru commander in (54),35 or it is a lexicalized adjective, as liku moving in (55):36
32. Undoubtedly, this also applies to ba to be present, available, le to be able, and several comparable cases, of which the dictionaries CAD, AHw, and CDA list a present participle b and l. These words should instead be interpreted as past participles: ba and le (in III/voc verbs, the difference between the parsu and prisu is usually invisible in the spelling). The same reasoning suggests de abundant instead of d, ap silent instead of p, and eb sated instead of b. This is not contradicted by e-e-bu-[] MSL 12, 185:17, where the plene spelling doubtless indicates the quality of the vowel rather than its quantity; see A. Westenholz 1991: 13: cf. the infinitives pe-e-tu--um MSL 13, 22:161 and de-e-u-um MSL 2, 151:40, which certainly have a short e. Perhaps we should also read a instead of sinful, sinner, incorrect, as suggested by the plural r u-u-u-te BagF. 18, 495:2 (SB) wrong omens, since PuRRuS plurals are fairly common for adjectives and past participles but not for present participles; see GAV pp. 35971. However, /a looks like a typical borderline case; perhaps both forms coexisted. 33. Alternatively, such verbs may replace it with a past participle in this construction, if we may go by the common omen apodosis mtu imt someone will die; see CAD M/2 14142 s.v. mtu a 2c, e.g., mitu imtma arkassu damqat Or. 32, 384:15 (OB) someone will die but his estate will be in good condition. CADs translation (the deathly ill person will die) is nonsensical. 34. What GAG 85d, referring to 55i, calls a passive participle with the pattern PaRS is in reality a derivational deverbal adjective outside the verbal paradigm: karbu blessed, balu subject (mostly Fem Pl baltu, lit., dominated), ramu loved. It is very rare and mainly literary. 35. This is rather common in proper names, e.g., DN-nir DN is guardian, DN-muter DN is one who gives good guidance, etc.; see GAG 77b. 36. Literary texts provide a few instances of non-lexicalized present participles used as predicate in the stative: Tn-Ep. I 11 (MB lit.) qa-e-da-at erssu his aggressiveness sets afire (tr. CAD Q 52b s.v. qdu 2), lit., is kindling, and BWL 183:10 (SB) ka-bi-sa-ku a-gu[r-ri] I am one who treads a pavement of kiln-
8.4. The Present Participles (51) AbB 7, 125: r.17 (OB) re-de-nu we are soldiers (52) St. Alp p. 33:45 (OA) ra-bi4-a-t atta you are a representative (53) KH 143:67 (OB) umma l naratma wa--a-at if she (the wife of an awlum) is not circumspect but wayward (cf. SALl.tll a = wa-i-i-tum MSL 12, 158:26 // 177:29 a wayward woman) (54) RIMA 2/I, 166:32 (SB) -pi-ra-ku I am a commander (55) ZA 75, 200:30 (OB) l a-li-ka purdka let your legs be in motion (parallel to 31 qablka limmu let your hips move)
207
As an agent noun, PRiS competes with two other agent noun patterns, PaRRS (e.g., aggu murderer) and PaRRiS (e.g., zammeru singer). Their geminate R2 underlines the permanent, habitual nature of the activity (see GAV pp. 6061) and so downplays the verbal background of the word, making it more nominal, because nominal and verbal status correlate with a higher versus a lower time-stability (see especially Givn 1984: 5156). Whereas PaRRS is almost always a noun, PaRRiS is occasionally found in attributive constructions as well, mainly in literary texts (see GAV p. 59).
8.4.2. Thepresentparticiplewiththesuffix -nFrom the present participle, a secondary participle can be derived by means of the suffix -n-: prisnu in the G-stem, muparrisnu in the D-stem, etc.37 This form owes its rise to the tendency of many simple present participles to make themselves independent of the verbal paradigm through lexicalization because they are predominantly used as agent nouns with habitual meaning (see 2.2.3, pp. 3536, and the previous section). The function of -n- is that of renewing the verbal nature of the simple present participle.38 This is demonstrated by the fact that present participles with -n- typically occur in contexts where the action in question is either mentioned beforehand by means of a finite form of the same verb, or at least implied. They are, for instance, often used in legal contexts to refer back to a person who has performed a specific act with legal consequences. (56) is an example from an Old Babylonian letter and (57) and (58) are from the Middle Assyrian laws, where this form is very common: (56) ARM 28, 142:416 People have kidnapped (8: i-bu-tu-) three sons of one of your shepherds. They have been spotted in GN. Let my lord send (a message) with the bringer of this tablet that they seize the boys and the persons who have kidnapped (them) (15: l.mea-bi-ta-ni)39
fired bricks (tr. W. G. Lambert), where the predicative present participle even has a postponed direct object. In all cases, the habitual meaning of the present participle is maintained. 37. Strictly speaking, the present participle with -n- belongs to the secondary members of the verbal paradigm, which will be treated in chap. 9, but it is more convenient to discuss it together with its simple counterpart. 38. The suffix -n- has a wider use than only in present participles. For these other uses, see GAG 56r; Goetze 1946; and Streck 2005. 39. An interesting case is KH 8:5769 (OB) If a man has stolen (60: i-ri-iq) an ox, a sheep, an ass, a pig, or a boat, he will pay compensation. If the man who has committed the theft (67: ar-ra-q-nu-um) has nothing to give, he will be killed. It shows that arrqnu, although it is explicitly marked as habitual by its
208
(57) KAV 2: V 12:1317 if a man has planted (14: id-di ) an orchard (. . .), it is free of claims for the person who planted it (17: ana na-di-a-ni ) (58) KAV 1: IV 28:110 if a widow has entered the house of a man, while carrying her posthumous son (in her womb), and if he has grown up in the house of the man who married her (4: a-i-za-ni-a), but no tablet of his adoption is written, he will not receive a share (of the inheritance) from the estate of the man who brought him up (6: mu-ra-bi-a-ni-u) (. . .), but he will have a share in accordance with his portion from the estate of the man who begot him (9: a-li-da-ni-u)40 Goetze (1946a: 12829), followed by GAG 56r, has given a slightly different definition of the function of -n-, namely, as individualizing: it cancels the habitual implication of the present participle and restricts its scope to a single occurrence. Thus, whereas diku from dku to kill basically refers to somebody who habitually kills, diknu refers to somebody who has killed on a specific occasion: e.g., da-i-ka-an aya AbB 10, 19:10 (OB) the murderer of my brother. Likewise, imnu and ndinnu are not a buyer or seller in general but the person who bought or sold something in a particular case: (59) KH 9:4347 a-a-a-ma-nu-um ina bt na-di-na-nim kasap iqulu ileqq the man who bought (the goods lost by another) will take the money he has paid from the estate of the person who sold (them) However, this is not the essence of the function of -n- but a consequence of its function of renewing the association with the verb.41 It is the dependence on a concrete previous event that individualizes the range of the present participle and so deprives it of its habitual nature. This is demonstrated by the fact that even among the earliest instances with -n- there are some that clearly contradict any individualizing notion (Streck 2005: 23536) but that are closely associated with the corresponding verb; cf. the following Old Babylonian instances, in which the participle with -n- indicates an indefinite subject, as in (41)-(47) quoted above: (60) KH 9:9 na-di-na-nu-um-mi iddinam someone sold it to me (61) ARM 8, 11:27 ba-q-ra-an ibaqqaru anyone who makes a claim (cf. (38) above)
pattern, has taken the place of the regular present participle riqu, doubtless through frequent use, and that its habitual nature has worn off, a remarkable development which is directly opposite to the usual development of these agent nouns, which is away from the verb; see GAV p. 65. riqnu itself is also attested, but is apparently very rare: MARI 6, 26364 M.11009+11010:9 a-ri-qa-nu-um the person who stole (the sheep), cf. ibid. 6 i-ri-q and 8 i-ta-ar-q. 40. A unique instance (as far as I am aware) of -n- attached to a past participle, which clearly conveys the same meaning, is abbulnum the (aforementioned) debtor in St. Larsen p. 252:7277 (OA) if an Assyrian has become indebted (72: ittabal) to a Kaniite and goes abroad, they will not seize somebody else but they will sue the indebted person (76: a-bu-l-nam) for the amount. 41. Goetzes and von Sodens explanation of the meaning of the present participle with -n- was also criticized by Gelb (1955b: 106) and by Streck (2005). Streck argues that the grammatical function of -n- is to derive concrete substantives from other nouns (2005: 236) and compares its use with other words, such as the PN Asqudnum who is like a hamster from asqudu hamster and qaqqadnu important person from qaqqadu head. However, nouns derived from other nouns by means of -n- are typically substantivized adjectives, so this use should rather be defined as adjectivization. Moreover, since present participles are predominantly used as nouns anyway, it is hard to see the relevance of an extra suffix to express this.
8.4. The Present Participles (62) RA 85, 13:19 ba-q-ra-nam mala ibba whatever claimant will turn up42
209
Just as the simple present participle, the form with -n- is in principle tenseless, but in practice it often refers to a past event mentioned beforehand, as in most examples quoted so far. As a result, it was secondarily associated with past tense, and it seems that this association has been exploited in the unusual form mitnu from mtu to die, which apparently means recently deceased: (63) TDP 166:9192 (SB) (if the patient is hot in the morning and cold in the night and at midnight utters cries of grief:) au ma-a-a-ta-nu ittiu rakis his recently deceased brother is (still) connected (lit., bound) with him43 The use of the present participle with -n- differs according to dialect. In Old Assyrian, there are no reliable instances.44 In Middle Assyrian, it becomes very common, as we saw above, not only in the G-stem, but also in the D-stem (W. Mayer 1971: 4647). However, the picture may be somewhat distorted by the fact that a significant part of our Middle Assyrian sources consists of law codes and other legal texts, where this form is typically at home. In Old Babylonian, both present participles are used side by side, the simple one in the two verbal functions and as an agent noun, the one with -n- mainly in the verbal functions. This situation seems to continue in Middle Babylonian. In Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, the forms with and without -nare indiscriminately used for professionse.g., pinu confectioner, zqipnu caretaker of a an orchard, pqirnu claimant (all NB), murabbnu tutor, muribbnu (a profession), and muallimnu (a craftsman) (all NA). Thus the form with -n no longer seems to have a special force.
8.4.3. Historicalconsiderations
The present participle is inherited from Proto-Semitic. Both the G-stem pattern PRiS and the patterns of various derived stems recur in other Semitic languages.45 The further background of PSem QTiL is a matter of speculation. It has often been explained as a derivation of QaTiL with lengthening of the first syllable (Kuryowicz 1972: 42; Kienast 2001: 76, 195; H.-P. Mller 1988: 84 n. 42). The long vowel may iconically reflect the inherent durative or imperfective nature of
42. Cf. also liknum AbB 6, 79:31; 14, 140:47 (OB): does this mean someone who has come in accordance with the general function of -n- in the older dialects, or is it simply traveler? In the latter case, it is a very early instance of the lexicalization of the present participles with -n-, which becomes common in Neo- and Late Babylonian; see below. 43. This interpretation seems more plausible than todgeweiht (AHw 587b s.v. majjitnu) or dying(?) (CAD M/1 121b s.v. majitnu). 44. GKT 57c does not mention any instance, but we have a-i-ma-ni Prag I 481:5 in an unclear context (Acc Pl?). There are also a few apparent prisn- forms as proper names: Bqilnum and imnum (PN d u mu Ba-q-l-nim AKT 2, 13:13 and PN d u mu a-i-ma-nim AKT 2, 13:25 (although imnum, lit., buyer, sounds rather improbable as a proper name, it can hardly be anything else). Perhaps these names represent a different function of the suffix -n-. For the Early Old Babylonian name E--da-nu-um BIN 9, 388:4, which is harvester acc. to AHw 253a s.v. idu, see CAD A/2 383b s.v. a v. comm. sect., where it is more plausibly interpreted as a variant of U-dannum A-strong-one-has-come. 45. For PRiS in Semitic, see Moscati, ed. 1964: 146; Lipiski 1997: 419; Loprieno 1986: 15960; T. D. Andersen 2000: 1617; Kienast 2001: 195; Fox 2003: 23743. For the derived stems with mu-, compare Akkadian muparris with the Arabic Stem II active participle muqattil and He m eqal, see Moscati, ed. 1964: 15758; Lipiski 1997: 42021. For speculations about the source of the prefix mu-, see Fleisch 1961: 42234. QTiL is also reconstructed as an agent noun pattern in Egyptian (Osing 1976: 12033; Loprieno 1986: 15960).
210
a present participle but also makes QTiL an outsider among the productive patterns of Semitic, where vowel lengthening is typical of the second syllable (Fleisch 1968: 6364; Kuryowicz 1972: 42; Fox 2003: 23738).46 Moreover, QTiL does not share the association with low transitivity of QaTiL. It has therefore been suggested that QTiL was actually derived from the elusive Proto-Semitic active participle QaTL, which was discussed in 7.4.2 (pp. 184186), through vowel lengthening in the first syllable and dissimilation of a to i in the second (Brockelmann 1908: 342; cf. also Rundgren 1974). Functionally, there is a crucial difference between the present participle in Akkadian and that in other Semitic languages. In several Central Semitic languages, it plays a major role in the tense/aspect system, since it may be used as predicate and as such competes with and partly replaces the inherited verbal forms (see 4.4.3.3, pp. 107109), e.g., for the expression of the actual present in Hebrew and Aramaic (e.g., He et ay n mebaqqe I am looking for my brothers [Gen 37:15]), or in circumstantial clauses in Arabic (daala Zaydun wa-huwa dikun Zayd came in laughing; cf. Wright 1967: II 33031). Akkadian cannot use a present participle in these contexts: the actual present can only be expressed by means of the imperfective itself if necessary, supported by an adverb, such as inanna now; circumstantial clauses are mainly expressed by paratactic finite forms, e.g., at-ta-ab a-bak-ki Gilg. p. 712:138 (SB) I sat down crying, lit., I sat down I was crying. Since the Akkadian present participle is primarily an agent noun, cannot express concomitant action, and is hardly ever used as a predicate, it is an unlikely source for the creation of new tense/aspect forms.
46. This unusual feature associates qtil with the derived verbal stem qtala, Stem III in Arabic, Stem I/3 in Geez. It has been argued with good reason that this stem originates as a class of denominal verbs derived from QTiL (Rundgren 1974: 2012; Zaborski 1999a with earlier literature).
thesecOndarymembersOftheverbalParadigm
Chapter 9
9.1. introduction
This chapter deals with the secondary members of the verbal paradigmi.e., those that have inflectional status but are formally derived from a primary member.1 Although these categories are often subsumed under the term moods, they are rather diverse in character. Among them is a group of irrealis formsthe precative, the vetitive, and the prohibitiveto be discussed in 9.2, but also a purely syntactic category that indicates subordinationthe subjunctive (9.3), and a deictic category that indicates orientationthe ventive (9.4).
9.2. the irrealis Categories

Apart from the imperative, which has a position of its own, Akkadian has three verbal categories to express (mainly deontic) modality: the precative, the vetitive, and the prohibitive.2 They can be conveniently called volitives (cf. Leong 1994: 361).3
1. Apart from the present participle with the suffix -n-, which is also a secondary member but was already discussed in the previous chapter; see 8.4.2 (pp. 207209). 2. For the terms irrealis and realis, see Bybee et al. 1994: 23640. For moods and modality in general, see Palmer 2001; for moods in relation to Akkadian, see Edzard 1973 and E. Cohen 2005; on deontic versus epistemic modality in Akkadian, see E. Cohen 2005: 1112; for the problematic nature of this distinction applied to Sumerian, see Rubio 2007a: 133840. 3. I will not discuss the so-called i-Modus (Jacobsen 1960: 111 n. 12; von Soden 1961a: 16061; Edzard 1973: 12728; and especially Kraus 1973a). It consists of an additional i vowel that is mostly attached to the last word of a clause (which is normally a verb form), usually (or always?) in combination with gemination of the preceding consonant and/or lengthening of the vowel of the final syllable. Forms such as amtti I will die (a-ma-at-ti AbB 10, 4:33, 41, OB) and adkki I will kill (a-da-ak-ki Iraq 54, 106:20, OB, cf. regular i-du-uk-ka-an-ni Iraq 54, 106:19, 21 he will kill me) show that it is not a verbal ending, since these II/voc imperfective forms adopt the root vowel with following gemination if they have an ending, e.g., 3mp idukk they will kill, 2fs tamutt you (Fem) will die. Moreover, since it may also be attached to non-verbal forms, when a clause does not end in a verb (e.g., ibtum ma-di-i-i UET 5, 24:89 (OB) it is urgently needed!), it is not even a verbal category (Edzard 1973: 12728). It is more likely to be a prosodic phenomenon that is not yet fully grammaticalized. It seems that it either reflects some kind of heightened emotionality or represents a pausal phenomenon (Kraus 1973a: 264). A detailed study of the conditions under which it occurs will doubtless shed more light on its function. In this context, it is interesting that in Middle and Neo-Assyrian a suffix -i is also occasionally used with some kind of delimitating or coordinating function; see W. Farber (NABU 1990/117) and Luukko 2004: 10809.
211
212
The Irrealis Categories 9.2.
9.2.1. Theprecative 9.2.1.1. Formandfunction

The precative expresses a broad range of volitive nuances, such as a wish (01), a polite request (02), an injunction (03), an intention or promise (04), a purpose (05), a concession (06), a condition (07), doubt (08), and (in the first-person plural) an exhortation (09):4 (01) Sumer 14, 42 no. 18:57 ina anntim attka lu-mu-ur may I see your brotherly attitude in this (02) AbB 11, 78:89 (OB) bl kanktu li-mu-ur may my lord inspect his documents! (03) AbB 9, 149:89 (OB) alikma amtam li-di-kum go and let him give the slave girl to you (cf. 15 amtam id-nam give the slave girl to me!) (04) Prag I 582:14 (OA) l--q-l-kum (if you go away somewhere, will you pay without process or oath?) (yes,) I will pay you (05) Sumer 23, pl. 3:810 (OB) urdama simmam li-mur send him (the doctor) here so that he can look at the disease (06) LE 27 A II 3334 (OB) m attim itiat ina btu liimma (< liib-ma) ul aat even though she has been living in his house for a whole year (lit., she may have lived . . .), she is not a (legitimate) wife (07) ARM 28, 155:20 (OB) li-le-an-ni-ma arn luttai if he defeats me, I will bear my punishment (directly contrasting with a conditional use of the imperfective: 21 e-le-i-u-ma aranu littai if I defeat him, let him bear his punishment) (08) Gilg. p. 276: I 15 (OB lit.) mat [ma] mtum li-mu-ra-am arru ami when may a dead man see the rays of the sun? (Tr. A. R. George; see E. Cohen 2005: 1056) (09) AbB 6, 137:21 (OB) i ni-in-na-wi-ir let us meet! (GAG 81g; Edzard 1973: 131) The precative is in a suppletive relationship with the imperative and is therefore restricted to first and third persons;5 it is negated by means of the prohibitive and the vetitive. Table 9.1 shows the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian forms together with the perfective forms on which the precative is built.6 They remain the same in the later periods,7 and the Old Babylonian forms are also valid for third-millennium Akkadian (as far as we know).
4. See GAG 154; Edzard 1973: 13031; Huehnergard 2005a: 14446 and 1983: 58687; Buccellati 1996: 19293; Waerzeggers 1997; E. Cohen 2005: 73143. 5. A remarkable second-person precative, doubtless motivated by its concessive force, is l ta-a-pura-ma ul ubilakkum AbB 7, 149: 56 (OB) even though you have written to me, I did not send it to you. A possible Old Assyrian instance is Prag I 492:27 (from the two donkeys, sell [Imp Pl din] the inferior one and) damqam l ta--ra!-nim! keep the best (lit., good) one for me! (reading according to K. R. Veenhof, p.c.). Beyond these examples, there do not seem to be second-person precative forms, although there are sporadic instances of l plus a second-person imperfective with a similar meaning; see n. 21 (pp. 216217) below. 6. See also GAG 81c; GKT 77a; Huehnergard 2005a: 14445. 7. The only major change occurs in Late Babylonian, where the perfective may have volitive function also without precative marker; see 5.3 (pp. 128129).
9.2. The Irrealis Categories G-stem person 3ms 3fs 1s 3mp 3fp 1p Pfv iprus taprus aprus iprus iprus niprus Bab Prec. liprus (i taprus) luprus liprus liprus i niprus
8
213 D-stem Ass Prec. liprus l taprus laprus liprus liprus l niprus Pfv uparris tuparris uparris uparris uparris nuparris Bab Prec. liparris (i tuparris) luparris liparris liparris i nuparris Ass Prec. luparris l tuparris luparris luparris luparris l nuparris
table 9.1: the paradigm of the precative.
As the table shows, the precative is marked by a prefix l-, if the perfective form starts with a vowel, and by a proclitic particle, if it starts with a consonant: l in Assyrian, i in Babylonian. The vowel following l- differs according to dialect and according to the vowel of the person prefix; the background of this variation will be discussed in the next section. In both dialects, l is also used before the stative in all persons, as in (10), and before nouns in verbless clauses, as in (11) and (12), to express the same irrealis nuances as the precative (GAG 81b, 127d):9 (10) l almta l balta may you be well and healthy! (passim in Old Babylonian letters) (11) AbB 7, 84: r.7 lu- mu-um-ma nuerreb we will bring it (the barley) in, even though it is night (cf. GAG 158c and E. Cohen 2005: 14460) (12) BIN 4, 39:27 (OA) lu a-bu-um iyti may he be a father to me! In addition, l also has asseverative function (GAG 81f; GKT 77c; Edzard 1973: 12930; E. Cohen 2005: 1768)i.e., it can be used as an emphatic particle stressing the truthfulness of the statement, in particular in oaths (GAG 185) and in narrative. Further details about these particles and the form of the precative itself can best be discussed from a historical perspective. This will be done in the next section.
9.2.1.2. Historicalbackground
There is considerable debate on the historical background of the precative paradigm, especially concerning the etymology of the precative markers and the divergent formal development in Babylonian and Assyrian.10
8. The Babylonian 3fs i taprus is rare and restricted to early and literary texts. It is normally replaced by the masculine form liprus. A prominent instance is i tu-uk-t [a]-bi-it (. . .) i ta-ab-bi (. . .) i ta-ad-di (. . .) i ta-a-du let her be honoured (. . .) let her call (. . .) let her place (. . .) let her rejoice Atr. 64:295302 (OB). For comments and further references, see Lambert and Millard 1969: 154; Lambert 1973: 36263; von Soden 1978: 82; and W. R. Mayer 1987: 197 top. The form i te-en-n-pu-u Lugal 485 = XI 23 (SB) cannot be a precative, because it is second person, but must be a vetitive: do not (allow yourself to) be made, which points to confusion between the vetitive and the precative particle i. 9. Interestingly, the precative of the defective verb id to know usually has a detached l as well: l d may I know, l td may you know, etc.; see 16.3.3 (pp. 465467) for details. Precative forms of i are exceptional: see chap. 16 n. 79 (p. 467). 10. Another problem concerning the precative, the double function of iprVs for past tense on the one hand and as a irrealis form on the other, was discussed in 5.4 (pp. 130132).
214
Table 9.1 gives the vowel after the prefix l-, the precative vowel, as short and that of the particle l as long. The short precative vowel is mainly based on the fact that the precative forms of the I/w verbs show vowel syncope when they have a vocalic ending: forms such as 3ms libil may he carry (Bab), 1s lubil may I carry from wablu to carry, bring lose their root vowel i if an ending is added: liblam may he bring here, libl may they carry in Old Babylonian, corresponding to lublam, lubl, etc., in Old Assyrian. This proves that the precative vowel is short, just as the vowel of the corresponding perfective (ubil, ubl, etc.; see 16.2.2, pp. 451452, on the paradigm of the I/w verbs).11 The fact that it is short in the I/w verbs, in spite of their weak first radical, is conclusive proof that it is also short in the strong verb; apparently, prefixation of l- does not affect the quantity of the prefix vowel. This is also suggested by the fact that there is no compelling orthographic evidence for a long precative vowel (Izre'el 1991: 52). On the other hand, it has been claimed that this vowel must be long because it results from contraction of the vowel of the original precative particle with that of the personal prefix (e.g., Ungnad and Matou 1964: 69; Buccellati 1996: 18084).12 I will argue below that this argument is invalid. The quantity of the vowel of the precative particle l is also controversial.13 The idea that it is long is based on the fairly frequent occurrence of plene spellings (lu-), especially in Babylonian and Middle Assyrian, and on its etymology. It seems plausible that l is the regular Akkadian reflex of Proto-Semitic *law, which basically has counterfactual function but is also used in various kinds of wishes in West Semitic (Testen 1998b: 9798). This seemingly contradictory result raises the question of the relationship between the prefix l- and the particle l and their historical development. Both l and l- clearly belong to a set of particles containing l that are used in various Semitic languages in slightly different ways but virtually always with irrealis and/or emphasizing function; for an overview, see Huehnergard 1983 and Testen 1998b: 95134. It seems rather straightforward to assume that the prefix l- is a shortening of l due to a grammaticalization process, specifically in its precative function in those persons where the personal prefix starts with a vowel.14 However, this explanation has been questioned for several reasons. First, the contracted forms of the prefix do not conform to the usual vowel contraction rules of Akkadian.15 Second, the particle l does not contract with the following vowel, if it has asseverative function (Huehnergard 1983: 57273; Testen 1998b: 11718). Third, the contracted forms also occur in Sargonic Akkadian and Assyrian, dialects that do not normally have vowel contraction. On closer inspection, these objections do not seem to hold ground. First of all, the contraction rules formulated in GAG 16 only apply to word-internal contraction, as the title of 16 explicitly indicates: Vokalkontraktion innerhalb des Wortes. It is questionable whether they are also valid for contraction of
11. See especially Huehnergard 1987b: 19193, contra Izre'el 1991: 52 and Buccellati 1996: 254. There are, however, instances, especially in Sargonic Akkadian, that do not show vowel syncope; see 16.2.2 (pp. 451452). 12. W. von Soden in GAG 81c and Verbalpar. 10 also takes the precative vowel as short but adds in GAG 81c that die kontraktionslangen Prfixvokale werden in unbetonter und in geschlossener Silbe verkrzt. However, vowel shortening in unstressed syllables is further unknown in Akkadian, and vowel shortening in closed syllables is difficult to establish objectively but certainly not a regular feature; see Kouwenberg 20034a: 88. 13. W. von Soden (GAG 81, Verbalpar. 10 and AHw 558f s.v. l A/B) and Izre'el (1991: 51), for instance, opt for l, but CAD L 22427 s.v. lu indecl. writes lu, followed by Testen (1993b; 1998b: 11821). 14. GAG 81c; see also Hetzron 1969: 4; Diakonoff 1988: 102; Kienast 2001: 26364. 15. For attempts to account for this fact, see Gelb 1961: 173; Huehnergard 1983: 58789; Buccellati 1996: 18384; Edzard 1973: 131; Streck 1995a: 210 n. 480; Testen 1993b; 1998b: 12429.
9.2. The Irrealis Categories
215
successive words.16 Second, the fact that the precative vowel is short shows that it did not arise from contraction at all. Third and most important, grammaticalization is a process that is fundamentally different from sound change and follows its own rules. It need not surprise us, therefore, that its outcome differs from that of vowel contraction and that it occurs in dialects that normally do not have vowel contraction at all. Since the outcome of this grammaticalization process is different for Babylonian and Assyrian, it must have started after the Proto-Akkadian period.17 The Assyrian system is the most simple one from a descriptive point of view: it maintains the prefix vowel after l- in all forms, so that synchronically l- is simply prefixed to the perfective forms. In the Babylonian system, the G-stem shows signs of conflicting tendencies: it either preserves the prefix vowel (in the 3ms and 3mp liprus()) or shows a reflex of the vowel of l (in 1s luprus). The vowels of the D-stem and the -stem are modelled on those of the G-stem, regardless of the difference in prefix vowel, which causes the highly atypical situation that the precative has a distinction between first- and third-person singular, which the corresponding indicative forms do not have. In Babylonian, then, the personal prefix of the perfective is replaced by a special precative prefix consisting of l + vowel. The difference between asseverative l (always a particle) and precative l/l- (partly a particle, partly a prefix) can also be explained from a difference in degree of grammaticalization caused by their difference in frequency and in function. The precative is far more frequent than the asseverative (GAG 81f). Moreover, in the precative, l is obligatory and semantically crucial to distinguish it from indicative use, whereas asseverative l is optional and its presence assigns emphasis but does not entail a significant change in meaning. This leads to a greater cohesion of particle and verb in the precative and thus to a faster and more radical grammaticalization process, with the usual consequences of cliticization, formal reduction, and coalescence.18 Asseverative l, on the other hand, kept its proclitic status, if not that of an independent word.19 In practice, this caused a diversification of l into two different elements (cf. Bybee 2001: 6162; Hopper 1991: 2425 [divergence]). An illustrative parallel is found in the standard example of grammaticalization, the reduction of going to in English: used in its literal meaning as a motion verb (I am going to London) it is pronounced more or less integrally but as a kind of future particle (it is going to rain) it is reduced to gonna (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 13). Although this explanation does not answer the question of why the precative developed the forms it shows in historical Akkadian and why Babylonian and Assyrian ended up with a
16. Vowel contraction across a word boundary may occur if the words involved form a fixed and frequent combination (and presumably also an accentual unit). As far as I am aware, two types occur in Akkadian: one consists of the negation l in its function of word negation (GAG 17a), which may be attached to a following noun (lmtu Nicht-Wort < l amtu) and to a following verb form (Babylonian lmu or lmu he does not want < l ima()). The other type concerns compound proper names, to which special rules apply; see Kouwenberg 20034b: 36364. The subject is discussed in GAG 17, where it is called Krasis. It is convenient to distinguish this from sandhi, which represents a shift in the word boundary between the final consonant of a word and the initial vowel of the next word without further consequences, e.g., -li-le-q AbB 11, 27:13 he will not receive for ul ileqq. 17. It seems plausible to associate its beginning with the loss of the weak consonants y and during the Old Akkadian period. However, since the precative in third-millennium Akkadian does not seem to be different from that in later Babylonian, although word-initial y and were still preserved, it must have been established in its historical form already before the loss of y and . 18. So also Izre'el 1991: 55. 19. In Standard Babylonian royal inscriptions, l is occasionally combined with the following verb form; see GAG 81f.
216
different conjugation, it seems to be more straightforward than the proposals of Huehnergard (1983) and Testen (1993b; 1998b: 12429). Huehnergard posits an independent particle *l/ law with counterfactual and hypothetical meaning and a proclitic particle *la- with asseverative meaning, both of which developed a precative function in Akkadian and entered into a suppletive relationship, with l before consonants and l- < *la- before vowels (1983: 58889). This scenario seems unnecessarily complicated, especially because of the clear identity in meaning and use between l and l- and because of the fact that Huehnergards own analysis of the function of all l- holding elements in Semitic shows that precative and asseverative function often go together in the same element. Moreover, with la- as basic form of the prefix, we still cannot account for all forms without assuming various analogical changes in the vowel following l-, as Testen (1998b: 12124) points out. Testen himself (1993b; 1998b: 12429) argues that the Proto-Semitic form of the particle is *l, which directly accounts for the Assyrian forms with a vowel-initial prefix (1993b: 7). For the Assyrian forms starting with a consonant, he assumes a syllabic allomorph *, which is realized as lu: 2ms lu taprus, 1p lu niprus. However, as stated above, the particle is l rather than lu and therefore unlikely to be a reflex of a vocalic sonant, and there is no other evidence for the occurrence of a vocalic in Akkadian.20 Moreover, the same objection seems to be valid here as for Testens explanation of the personal prefixes (see chap. 2, n. 71, p. 52): since prefixes typically originate from the grammaticalization of proclitics and proclitics from that of full words, it seems counter-intuitive to assume that the longer form lu is posterior to *-; it seems far more plausible that *- stems from a longer particle, whatever its form. To explain the divergent Babylonian forms, Testenjust as Huehnergardneeds to assume a complex and ad hoc analogical rearrangement (1993b: 78). In addition to l- and l, Babylonian also uses a particle i (or ) in some persons of the precative. Buccellati (1996: 18182) argues that i is also a prefix, attached to the verb form and therefore long (he writes nikud, nukaid ); otherwise, the vowel u of nukaid would be syncopated. It is difficult to find decisive arguments against this view, but there are two indications that i is not a prefix but a proclitic particle. First, there are a few instances of a first-person plural precative in which i is omitted, especially when more than one precative is used in succession (see chap. 5, n. 9, p. 128). This is not unusual for a proclitic particle but hardly conceivable for a prefix. Second, the simplest way to describe the irrealis markers in general is to assume that all irrealis elements before vowel-initial perfective forms are prefixes (this applies to l- only), but that those before consonant-initial forms are proclitic particles. This enables us to treat not only i and l of the precative, but also l of the asseverative, /ay of the vetitive, and the negation l of the prohibitive on the same footing. The fact that at least the vetitive particle is detachable from the verbnamely, in the Assyrian idioms l and + stative (see 9.2.2 below)means that the others are detachable as well. The etymology of i (or ) in the Babylonian first-person plural (i niprus) and the archaic thirdperson singular feminine (i taprus) is a vexing question. As stated above, Babylonian also uses lin the stative and before nouns and sporadically before the second-person prefix ta-/tu- (see n. 5, p. 212).21 This distribution suggests that i is a residual formative, preserved in Babylonian
20. The different outcome of Ar *bnum (> ibnum) and *l-yaktub (> li-yaktub) can be explained from the difference between l and other phonemes without recourse to a syllabic , and the negation ul versus West Semitic al (etc.) definitely does not go back to *, as Testen (1993b: 6) claims: ul is a reduction of ul (l?), which itself is a strengthening of l. For the alleged existence of vocalic , see 16.4.2 (p. 471). 21. There are also a few instances of l with a second-person imperfective to express a strong injunction, e.g., l tu-wa-a-ar YOS 11, 12:913 you must release; l te-te-bi-am YOS 11, 6:11 you must rise;
217
in the precative paradigm itself before consonant-initial prefixes but in Assyrian completely replaced by l since the earliest texts.22 This does not answer the question where i comes from, since it has no obvious cognates anywhere in Semitic. In principle, it might be a negation in origin: the cohortative meaning of, e.g., i nillik let us go, might go back to a negative question: shouldnt we go? There is indeed a negation i in Geez, but it is more likely to correspond to the Akkadian vetitive particle /ay (Tropper 2002: 148).23
9.2.2. Thevetitive:formandfunction24
The standard form of the vetitive consists of the perfective combined with a proclitic particle that differs according to dialect and is spelled in many different ways, but basically seems to have the form ay.25 In Sargonic Akkadian (Hasselbach 2005: 2023), it occurs in this form before the third-person prefix yi-/yu- in the spelling a: a u-gi-il /ay yukl/ AKI p. 259:165 may he not hold (cp RI of Naram-Sin), and a e-ru-ub /ay yrub/ SAB p. 189:r.5 (Gasur) may he not enter. Before other consonants, it may also be spelled a, e.g., before the prefix ta-/tu- in a daq-b /ay? taqb/ SAB p. 90:10 (Girsu) do not say, and once before a stative: a zu-ku-na /ay? zuqqun/ SAB p. 158:10 (Diyala) they (Du) must not have a beard. Edzard (1973: 132) explains this a as a defective spelling for ay. If this is correct, it implies that the form ay, which is presumably regular before y- of the prefix, because the two ys form a geminate, is analogically transferred to positions before other consonants, where it should regularly have become in Sargonic Akkadian (see 1.5, p. 25, and Hasselbach 2005: 91). In fact, (spelled e) also occurs, e.g., e tal-li-ik / tllik/ SAB p. 174:14 (Eshnunna) she must not go and e da-ti-in / taddin/ SAB p. 174:20 she must not give. It is even introduced before y of the 3ms prefix yi-/yu-, e.g., in e u-gi-il GAKI p. 382:102 may he not hold and e i-ba-at GAKI p. 382:106 may he not seize (cps of RIs of Naram-Sin), which I interpret as /ey yibat/ and /ey yukl/, with ey as a positional variant of before y- (cf. Edzard 1973: 132 n. 39).26 Old Assyrian has e both before a consonant and before a vowel (GAG 81i; GKT 77d), i.e., //, the regular Assyrian outcome of the diphthong ay (e.g., e i-ta-l-ak VS 26, 37:18 let him not depart). In Babylonian, the usual distribution is e before a consonant (e ta-a-la-li ZA 75, 200:39 do (Fem) not sleep!; e ni-i-la-al YOS 11, 24: I 21 let us not sleep!) and ay before a vowel, spelled in many different ways.27 Ay before the third-person prefixes is the regular outcome of *ay plus yi- (ay+yiddin > ayyiddin), so that it dates from the period before the loss
and perhaps also lu!(sign ) ta-at-ta-la-ki Or. 23, 338:21 you (Fem) must go away! in Old Babylonian, and l ta-an-na-as-sa-a l ta-at-ta-a[l-lak] ZA 23, 374:86 you must be eradicated and go away! in Standard Babylonian. These passages come from very similar contexts in Old Babylonian incantations; see W. von Soden, Or. 23, 344 at line 21 and GAG 81e (but note that the first example mentioned in GAG 3 81e* l taassas Gilg. Y VI 43 should be discounted; see Gilg. p. 206:271). This suggests that this unusual construction is an innovation, perhaps modelled on the corresponding combination of l + imperfective, the prohibitive. 22. Note, however, that l before ta- already occurs in Mari Old Akkadian: (DNF) e.numu n-u lu tal-gu-ud /l talqut/ AKI p. 360 M 3:10 may Itar destroy his progeny. 23. Testens (1993b: 10) proposal to regard i as the phonological outcome of * before ni- (* niprus > niprus > i niprus) leaves i in i taprus unexplained (* should become lu here according to his explanation). 24. For further literature, see GAG 81ij; Edzard 1973: 132. 25. For a survey of spellings, see CAD A/1 21819 s.v. aj ; AHw 23 s.v. ai I. 26. Note that this spelling only occurs in copies of royal inscriptions (Hasselbach 2005: 2023). 27. The most common spelling is a-i+a, in which i+a = ia, iu, j in the awkward notation of von Soden and Rllig 1991: 19 sub 104); alternatives are a-a, a-i, i-a and simply a, which is perhaps archaizing (see CAD A/1 218 s.v. aj 1a with many examples).
218
of word-initial y-. However, the form is irregular: *ay before a consonant should give ** in Babylonian (GAG 11a). Although the vetitive particle is sensitive to the initial phoneme of its host word, it is not a prefix,28 because it may be detached from the verb in the Assyrian idiom with l and because in the oldest texts it may also precede a stative (see below for this construction). Moreover, it is also attested sporadically as an independent interjection no! (AHw 180a s.v. II). As regards its etymology, ay/ is usually associated with the Geez negation i (AHw 23a s.v. ai I; Tropper 2002: 148), which, however, is not restricted to irrealis functions. Since ay is also an interrogative particle where in Akkadian (AHw 23b s.v. ai III), and since there is a diachronic path from interrogative to negation (Faber 1991), it is possible that all three go back to this particle (cf. also Lipiski 1997: 456).29 The vetitive is basically the negative counterpart of the precative and, rarely, of the imperative; first-person vetitives are relatively rare.30 As such, it competes with the prohibitive (l + imperfective). There are two major differences between them: first, the vetitive is a residual category that is gradually becoming obsolete, whereas the prohibitive is fully productive and expanding; second, the vetitive seems to be more polite than the prohibitive: it is typically used for wishes and more-or-less formulaic exhortations, whereas the prohibitive has a wider use that especially includes negative commands (see 9.2.3, pp. 219220). The vetitive mainly flourished in the older dialects. In Sargonic Akkadian, the prohibitive is not (yet?) attested (Hasselbach 2005: 203) and the vetitive is fairly common; all known instances are quoted by Hasselbach (2005: 2023). Old Assyrian offers the most copious evidence. It typically employs the vetitive in more-or-less conventional expressions that concern the interpersonal relationship of the correspondents and other people involved, e.g.: (13) Prag I 502:26 libbaka e im-ra-a may you (lit., your heart) not be annoyed (angered, disappointed, etc.) (likewise in the -stem, see CAD M/1 275b s.v. maru 6a2) (14) BIN 4, 39:1819 libbuu e il5-m-in may he not become angry (lit., may his heart not become bad (likewise in the D-stem, see CAD L 118b s.v. lemnu 6) (15) OAA 1, 71:25 e t-re-i-q-ni do not keep it (the silver) away from me! (16) OAA 1, 134:39 e t-a!-li-q-ni do (Fem) not ruin me! In most of these expressions the prohibitive also occurs; for instance, we also find libb l imarra alongside (13) and libb l ilammin alongside (14).31 On the other hand, it is unusual to find the vetitive expressing a concrete negative command (GAG 81i/j; GKT 77d; Edzard 1973: 13132). This is the typical domain of the prohibitive.
28. Pace Reiner 1966: 7172 and Buccellati 1996: 181. 29. Note, however, that Gragg (2004: 428) explains i from *ay, which he derives from the common West Semitic negation *al through palatalization. 30. Examples are: e a-s-li-i ATHE 39:17 may I not be cheated; e p-la-a CCT 1, 50:15 may I not be afraid (both OA); a-ia a-mu-ur Gilg. p. 278: II 13 may I not see; e ni-i-la-al YOS 11, 24: I 21 (OB) let us not sleep!; and ayyab may I not come to shame in Old Babylonian proper names; see Stamm 1939: 174. 31. See in particular the alternation of the prohibitive l ta-t-ar do not renounce! (lit., turn back) and the vetitive e ta-tur4 in the same clause in OAA 1, 34:2829.
219
In Old Babylonian letters, the vetitive is rare and mostly restricted to formulaic politeness expressions, as in (17) (see Leong 1994: 380; E. Cohen 2005: 1012). The vetitive used as a conditional clause in (18), like the precative in (07), is unique in Old Babylonian (E. Cohen 2005: 148): (17) AbB 2, 113:67 ilum nir aba ibtam a-j ir-i may the god who protects my father not get an (unfulfilled) need (18) AbB 12, 169: r.2326 ikam uti tu-da-ni-in bt abka kalu l umt if you fail to strengthen that dike, I will put to death the entire family of your father The preponderance of stereotyped formulae among the instances of the vetitive in Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian letters is a clear symptom of its decline. This is doubtless also the reason why the prohibitive is strongly preferred for the expression of commands: as an old formation, the vetitive had lost too much of its strength, whereas the prohibitive, based as it is on the relatively new Impfv iparrVs and the productive negation l, was innovative and thus more expressive and forceful. The decline of the vetitive is also shown by the fact that in the older dialects it displays traces of a wider use:32 in Sargonic Akkadian and Old Assyrian, it can still be used with a stative, as in ay? zuqqun (quoted above and in (19); see GKT 77d),33 and in Old Assyrian it can also be combined with l to express an urgent request, as in (20) (see GKT 105a): (19) CCT 1, 50:13 annakam e na--a-t I hope you do not have the tin with you (20) TC 3, 64:27 e l ta--q-ul do not fail to pay As regards the later dialects, the vetitive survives in Standard Babylonian, doubtless as a literary archaism,34 but seems to be completely replaced by the prohibitive elsewhere: Aro (1955: 8687) does not mention it for Middle Babylonian, and it is not found in Middle Assyrian,35 NeoAssyrian, and Neo-Babylonian, according to GAG 81i, W. Mayer 1971: 6061, Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 94, and Woodington 1982: 323.
9.2.3. Theprohibitive
The prohibitive consists of the negation l followed by an imperfective (GAG 81h; E. Cohen 2005: 95, 1012). In the second person, it is the negative counterpart of the imperative; in the other persons, it has the same range of meaning as the precative (see 9.2.1.1, pp. 212213). It is common in all periods, with the exception of Sargonic Akkadian (Hasselbach 2005: 203) and Mari Old Akkadian, where it is not yet attested; this may well be fortuitous, however.
32. There are no instances of with a t-perfect, pace AHw 23b s.v. ai I 2a and GKT 77d n. 1 (on p. 130); ta--t-pu TC 3, 53:29 in tatup do not keep silent is a perfective of a lexicalized Gt-stem; see 14.3.4 (pp. 371372) and Streck 2003a: 70 no. 186. 33. Exceptionally also in literary Old Babylonian: ina eru dNidaba a a-ni-ib Legends p. 260: r.7 may grain not be abundant in his furrow(s), which is no doubt an echo of a third-millennium royal inscription. Normally, Old Babylonian uses l in this context; see n. 36. 34. The idiosyncratic uses we find in Standard Babylonian, namely in a subordinate clause (noted in GAG 3 176a for ZA 43, 19:74 = SAA 3, 32: r.34 au (. . .) ai i-u-ni a-a is-niq-u-ni ), and with asseverative force (GAG 81j) are secondary and artificial. The latter use is doubtless modelled on the double meaning of l. 35. The Middle Assyrian instance mentioned in GAG 81i: ja izziz (e.g., RIMA 1, 134:61) comes from a royal inscription and is a formulaic phrase taken over from earlier models.
220
The Subjunctive 9.3.
Historically, the prohibitive is based on the irrealis use of the imperfective, which in its turn is related to its function of denoting future events (see 4.3, p. 92). This irrealis use is not restricted to negative clauses, but the availability of a specific irrealis negation lat least in Babylonianversus realis ul() made it possible to formally distinguish between realis and irrealis meanings of the imperfective, a distinction that remains purely contextual in affirmative clauses.36 This is the ultimate reason for distinguishing a separate category prohibitive, after all.
9.3. the subjunctive

Akkadian has two formatives that serve to mark the clause as subordinate: a verbal ending -u and an enclitic particle -ni. I will refer to both of them as subjunctive37 and distinguish the u-subjunctive from the ni-subjunctive whenever this is relevant. The u-subjunctive is used in all dialects; the ni-subjunctive is mainly restricted to Assyrian and is one of the defining characteristics of the Assyrian dialect. In Sargonic Akkadian and in the oldest stages of Babylonian, we find some other subjunctive markers that are used incidentally and whose exact status remains problematical. In Classical Old Babylonian and in Assyrian, the use of the subjunctive shows a great deal of regularity. I will first describe the regular u-subjunctive and ni-subjunctive in Babylonian and Assyrian.38
9.3.1. Theformofthesubjunctive
Babylonian uses only the u-subjunctive on a regular basis. It is attached to forms of the prefix conjugations that have no other ending, as in (21).39 Whenever these forms have an ending of their owni.e., a number and/or gender ending, as in (22), or a ventive, as in (23)there is no subjunctive and the form is identical to the form used in main clauses. (21A) tuppam apur (21B) tuppum a apuru (22A) tuppam ipur (22B) tuppum a ipur (23A) tuppam ipuram (23B) tuppum a ipuram I sent a letter the letter that I sent they sent a letter the letter that they sent he sent a letter to me the letter that he sent to me
36. The prohibitive use of l with the stative (GAG3 81k), e.g., ana eim anummm l ta-ak-la-ta ShA 1, 129 no. 59:7 (OB) do not count on this grain (tr. J. Eidem)) and l wa-a-ba-at AbB 11, 139:13 (OB) let her not sit is doubtless modelled on the prohibitive use of the imperfective. 37. Von Soden (1973) proposes the term Subordinativ, which has the advantage that it does not have the association with modality that adheres to the term subjunctive; cf. Noonan 1985: 51: Non-indicative s[entence]-like complement types can be referred to by the semantically neutral term subjunctive. The Akkadian subjunctive, however, has no irrealis function and is in that respect a pure indicative. If we keep this in mind, however, there is no reason to replace the well-established and familiar term subjunctive. 38. See also GAG 83; GKT 79; Huehnergard 2005a: 18384. 39. In the prefix conjugations, absence of the subjunctive ending is so rare that it may be considered incorrect. An instance is (kma l) i-ta-ar OBTR 2:18 (OB). An intriguing exception is the Old Babylonian expression itu ama iz-za-a-az from sunrise, lit., since ama stands (AbB 7, 50:9; 10, 150:17; CTMMA 1, 87 no. 69:7); Wilcke (1987: 91) ingeniously suggests that ama izzz is a call sung out by the guards on duty at the city gates or on the city walls functioning as the name of a specific moment in the course of the day, so that it is a name or a quotation equivalent to a noun.
9.3. The Subjunctive
221
If a suffix pronoun is attached to the verb, the subjunctive ending remains, with -u preceding the suffix (24B), unless the suffix is built on the ventive (see 9.4.2.4, pp. 238240, and Kouwenberg 2002: 22223), as in (25B): (24A) tuppam apurum (24B) tuppum a apurum (25A) tuppam apurakkum (25B) tuppum a apurakkum I sent a letter to him the letter that I sent to him I sent a letter to you the letter that I sent to you
In the stative, the u-subjunctive can only occur in the third-person singular (3ms paris, 3fs parsat). In Old Babylonian, it regularly occurs in the masculine,40 but not in the feminine, as in (26A) versus (26B); (27) is exceptional: (26A) RA 13, 13132:78 ina ba-al- u a-al-mu when he has completely recovered (lit., is alive and sound) (26B) UM 8/2, 215:7 ina ba-al-a-[at] u a-al-ma-at (idem with she) (27) AbB 4, 58:13 awiltum (. . .) a ina ekallim wa-a-ba-a-tu the lady ho lives in the palace (this is the only instance known to me, quoted in GAG 83a)41 In Middle Babylonian and later, the suffix -u extends to the feminine as well, but only in letters, as in (28) and (29), not in texts with a more literary style, as in (30) from a kudurru inscription (Aro 1955: 73; Woodington 1982: 106): (28) BE 14, 40:11 adi PNF ba-al-a-tu as long as PNF lives (29) UM 1/2, 72:5 (a woman) [a] irassu mar-a-tu4 whose breast is diseased (30) BER 4, 146:2931 (a field) a ultu m pna iku l ap-ku ab.si m l -zu-za-at ana mriti l -lu-ku- where since ancient times no dike had been built (Masc: Subj), where no furrow had been established (Fem: no Subj) and which was unfit for cultivation (Masc: Subj) In the latest period, the use of the subjunctive interferes with the loss of final short vowels (GAG 83g). In Neo-Babylonian, it is usually written according to traditional usage but is sometimes omitted; instead of -u it is also spelled -i (Aro 1975: 1516; Woodington 1982: 10312; Hackl 2007: 14446). Sometimes, the third radical appears geminated, possibly indicating a shift of stress one syllable to the right (Aro 1975: 1617; see also GAG 83d).
40. Here, too, forms without -u occur in northern Old Babylonian texts: for Mari, see Finet 1956: 261 91d; Charpin 1989: 34, e.g., kma (. . .) wa-i-ib ARM 26/2, 339 no. 435:9; at Tell al Rimah: ([a (. . .) wa]-i-ib OBTR 301:89; lma na-wi-ir 304:12 before dawn. 41. Finet (1956: 188) mentions two cases where the third singular masculine form apparently replaces the third singular feminine subjunctive. The first is ARM 5, 8:1516 btam/aar a sinnitum wa-a-bu the house/the place where this woman lives; its relevance is seriously undermined by the fact that the writer also uses the indicative waib to refer to the same woman (line 9), alongside correct wabat (line 8). The second one is ARM 6, 49:1115, which is, however, ambiguous: u-ur-ku-bu may refer (if only ad sensum) to the barbers rather than to the entum.
222
Assyrian makes extensive use of both the u-subjunctive and the ni-subjunctive. The usubjunctive occurs in the same circumstances as in Old Babylonian, i.e., after the endingless forms of the prefix conjugations and the 3ms stative (GKT 79).42 In addition, Assyrian has a subjunctive particle (not a verbal ending) -ni. The basic rule in Old Assyrian is that -ni must be used if a subordinate clause is not marked by the u-subjunctive, as in (31), (32), and (33), and may be used elsewhere in addition to the u-subjunctive, as in (34):43 (31) tuppum a ipurni (32) tuppum a ipuranni (33) tuppum a ipurninni (34) tuppum a apuru or apurni (35) tuppum a apurunni (36) tuppum a apurakkunni the letter that they sent the letter that he sent to me (< ipuram-ni) the letter that they sent to me (< ipurnim-ni) the letter that I sent. the letter that I sent to him (< -um-ni) the letter that I sent to you (< -kum-ni).
If there is a suffix pronoun, -ni is separated from -u and attached to the end of the verb form:
It is not clear whether -ni is obligatory after a suffixed pronoun, if there is also an u-subjunctive; forms without it are found sporadically, but most editors tend to correct them by adding -ni .44 It is not possible to use a ni-subjunctive without an u-subjunctive in cases where the latter is possible: in (35), **apurunni would be ungrammatical.45 The 3ms stative also has -u, and may in addition have -ni, as in (37) and (38); the other persons of the stative cannot have -u and therefore must have -ni, as in (39): (37) AKT 3, 62:15 kaspam a p-aq-du luwairnim let them release for me the silver which was entrusted (to them) (38) TPAK 1, 190:1213 itu PN me-t-ni since PN is dead (more often me-t(-) in this phrase) (39) OAA 1, 115:4 kma mt GN (. . .) s-a-a-at-ni since the land of GN is in turmoil In verbless subordinate clauses, -ni is usually attached to the final constituent (GKT 79c):
42. The rare Old Assyrian instances where against the general rules the u-subjunctive is lacking are doubtless errors; a few are quoted in GKT 7980 (but in BIN 6, 169:1213 K. R. Veenhof (p.c.) reads u-ma rather than [k]i-ma). An additional example is AKT 3, 81:7. 43. See also Bar-Am 1938. For some instances where -ni is lacking, see GKT 7980. Note that the two last examples mentioned there have two closely coordinated verbs of which the first lacks -ni: is this regular? (cf. also (a) i-u- (. . .) i-u- (. . .) i-u--ni Prag I 677:5, 10, 13). Other exceptions include Bell. 231, 223:67 (iami . . .) ta-a-me-a on the day that you (Pl) will hear (collated by K. R. Veenhof); cf. Bell 231, 225:7 ta-a-me-a-ni; (a) ta-ar-de8-a Prag I 521:9 which you (Pl) transported; (mamman a) i--a-ni AfO 31, 16:3031 whoever wants to sue me (V. Donbaz: i--a-ni-ni ); with a stative: awtum a ma-al-a am OAA 1, 134:1213 matters that fill/cover the sky (perhaps a proverbial expression; note the word order!). 44. GKT 79b mentions two such cases: (a) a-d-nu-u-nu-t TC 2, 3:25 (what) I gave to them, and (adi) -a-a-bu-t-u BIN 4, 37:8 (until) I will have them caught; additional instances are (aar) -a-izu-u Prag I 724:1819 where I have instructed him; (a) i-ta--lu-u Prag I 711:1517 about which he interrogates him; mala anku -na-i-du!-k AKT 3, 88:51 according to what I have informed you about. 45. Pace Kienast 1995: 124.
9.3. The Subjunctive (40) BIN 4, 223:35 kma PN a-u-k-ni because PN is your brother
223
(41) Prag I 442:1819 igi krim pka pit kma tamkrum a-q-il5 da-t-ni declare before the krum that the merchant is a dtum-payer (/dtinni/ < dtim-ni, see K. R. Veenhof, JAOS 122 [2002] 798) These rules lead to a situation in which the u-subjunctive mainly occurs on its own after verb forms that have neither ending nor suffix. As stated above, -ni may be used optionally here, but forms without -ni are more common (Bar-Am 1938: 28), cf.: (42) AKT 3, 92:36 inmi annakam t--ni (. . .) itu annakam t- when you left (from) here (. . .) after you had left (from) here (. . .) (43) CCT 2, 42:11, 14 they went here to the city authorities on account of the silver which was seized (i--ib-t-ni) in PNs house, the silver that was seized (i--ib-t) was a votive offering (tr. CAD 40b s.v. abtu 13a-2). It is possible that in some cases the option to use or omit -ni is exploited to (re)introduce a distinction between the third person masculine singular and plural, e.g. (from two letters by the same sender): (44A) AKT 3, 85:33 al wa--bu where he is staying (44B) AKT 3, 87:2425 [a]l PN1 u PN2 wa--bu-ni where PN1 and PN2 are staying. Middle Assyrian shows two developments as compared to Old Assyrian (see W. Mayer 1971: 5960) First, -u has spread to the 3fs stative, as in (45); (46) is an exception with the older form: (45) NTA p. 25 no. 1765:45 k PNF mar-u-tu--ni (a sheep has been sacrificed) when PNF was ill46 (46) KAJ 223:4 (a chariot) a ana arri qar-ru-bat-ni which was offered to the king47 Second, -ni has become obligatory in all subordinate clauses, also where it was still optional in Old Assyrian, both in verbless clauses (W. Mayer 1971: 112 102.3), as in (47), in verbal clauses with an u-subjunctive, as in (48), and in verbal clauses with a stative, as in (49): (47) KAJ 13:1314 (a garden plot) a bru ina -bi-u-ni in which there is a well (libbi-ni) (48) ZA 73, 78:2123 mimma a ana dabbka il-lu-ku-ni everything that pertains to your lawsuit (49) MARV 3, 24:78 (oil) a bt PN la-a-qi--ni that has been taken from the house of PN48
46. Note the vowel assimilation: < *maratni; likewise pe-gu-tu--ni MARV 3, 19:7 < *pegatni (from pugu to take away). Occasionally, there is no vowel assimilation: (a) a-za-tu--ni KAV 1: VIII 55:11 who has been taken (in marriage) (beside a-zu-tu--ni KAV 1: VI 45:75); these are early instances of the change u > a before a stressed ; see W. Mayer 1971: 12 and Postgate 1974: 274 for Middle Assyrian and Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 31 for Neo-Assyrian. 47. W. Mayers interpretation of this form (1971: 8 nr. 42) is to be rejected; see Postgate 1974: 273. 48. An exception where -ni is lacking is: (a) la-at-ku- MARV 3, 38:7 which has been tested: a mistake?
224
This means that in Middle Assyrian the u-subjunctive can no longer occur by itself and that -ni has become the general and obligatory marker of subordination (W. Mayer 1971: 59; BarAm 1938: 30), a perfect example of Kuryowiczs first law of analogy (Kuryowicz 194549: 2023), which, briefly formulated, states that a complex marker will replace a simple marker with the same function. In Neo-Assyrian, the use of the subjunctive does not seem to be different from that of Middle Assyrian, although the stem to which it is attached has changed, especially to restore the distinction between the third-person masculine singular and plural, which had been lost at least since Middle Assyrian. Whereas the latter has, for instance, paqdni for both singular (< paq(i)d + u + ni) and plural (< paqd + ni) it/they have been entrusted, Neo-Assyrian replaces the singular paqdni by paqidni, always with a broken spelling: pa-qi-id-u-ni, etc., with i (re)introduced from the indicative paqid: Pl paqd paqdni : Sg paqid paqidni (Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 9192).
9.3.2. Othersubjunctive-likesuffixes
Apart from the canonical use of -u and -ni in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian as described in the previous section, Sargonic Akkadian and the older stages of Babylonian occasionally show other forms with apparent subjunctive function and non-canonical instances of the suffix -ni. We can distinguish the following cases.49 1. Sargonic Akkadian shows several instances of a suffix -a in subordinate clauses that is equivalent in function to the u-subjunctive (cf. Gelb 1955a: 190; 1961: 17071): (50) OAIC 21:57 (a quantity of flour) u ana PN a-ti-na / addina/ which I gave to PN (51) OAIC 3:710 (witnesses to the fact that) 1 pi e PN1 ana PN2 i-ti-na /yiddina/ PN1 gave 1 pi of barley to PN2 (52) OAIC 1:1012 (8 witnesses to the fact that) PN1 ana PN2 i-du-da /yisduda/ PN1 measured the house for PN250 All forms come from the same collection of tablets that probably originate from the Diyala region (Gelb 1955a: 174). Because of the small number of instances, it is difficult to establish their exact nature beyond the fact that they seem to be used exactly like the u-subjunctive elsewhere in Akkadian. They are certainly not ventives without -m, as claimed by Kienast (1960: 15253 n. 2, 2001: 27273) and Lipiski (1997: 35153), because the use of a ventive in the contexts of (50)(52) is highly unlikely and final -m is not normally omitted in Sargonic Akkadian (see Gelb 1969: 1034; Edzard 1973: 127; Kouwenberg 2002: 217; and Hasselbach 2005: 204 n. 157). In this collection of texts, a normal subjunctive 3ms id-ba-lu /yitbalu/ (which) he took (OAIC 7:24) and a normal ventive (here as dative) i-ti-nam /yiddinam/ he gave to me (OAIC 35:10) also occur. We have to wait for additional evidence before we can hope to learn more about the nature and background of these forms. 2. In the great majority of cases, Sargonic Akkadian has the Babylonian-type subjunctive (Hasselbach 2005: 2056), but it also has a few instances of what appears to be a ni-subjunctive (Gelb 1961: 16970; Zadok 1996: 15354). Most instances come from a single clause that occurs in
49. See also Gelb 1961: 17071; GAG3 83bc; Hasselbach 2005: 2049. 50. And a few other cases, for which see Hasselbach 2005: 206.
225
the curse formula of almost all royal inscriptions (53). Otherwise, -ni occurs only sporadically; the most reliable cases are (54)(57): (53) AKI p. 82:5759 (RI of Naram-Sin) a dub a u-sa-za-ku-ni /yusatstsakni/ whoever removes this inscription (and passim in Sargonic RIs, see GAKI pp. 25556) (54) BIN 8, 134:89 (M-sag) nu arrum u-ur-da-ni /yurdanni/ when the king came down (hither) (< urdam-ni) (55) BIN 8, 265:58 (M-sag) (receipt of goods) nu ana e.ba enga r-e PN1 u PN2 i-li-ga-ni /yillikni/ when PN1 and PN2 had gone (come?) for barley for the ploughmen (56) SAB p. 69:8 (Girsu) t in tu.ra u--i-ru-un /yirn/ Diejenigen, die wegen Krankheit (mit der Arbeit) in Verzug geraten waren (tr. B. Kienast and I. J. Gelb), where -n is probably a short form of -ni or -na (see also chap. 17 n. 12 [p. 514] and n. 111 [p. 545] for this form) (57) Or. 46, 201:38 (incant. from Kish) l da-ba-a-i-ni /tapaani/ (I swear that) you (Fem) will not have peace! The consistent use of -ni in yuassakni and its rarity elsewhere are difficult to explain but are doubtless related to its stereotyped nature. Hasselbach (2005: 2078) also points out that the relative pronoun a is irregular (Sargonic Akkadian would require u) and suggests that the phrase was imported into Sargonic royal inscriptions from a different literary tradition together with the rest of the curse formula. This is possible, but the other cases of -ni show that the situation was more complicated.51 A few cases of -ni also survive in early and literary Babylonian, of which (58) from Ur III Babylonian doubtless imitates an ancient model and does not give any information about the contemporary use of -ni (Hilgert 2002: 312): (58) AKI p. 330:18 a dub a -a10-s-ku8-ni who removes this tablet (RI from Elam) (69) RIME 4, 51:3035 inma kittam ina mt GN1 u GN2 a-ku-nu-ni when I established justice in the land of Sumer and Akkad (RI of Lipit-Etar of Isin, ArBab) (60) Itar p. 87: V 2325 arrum a anniam zamram (. . .) i-mu-ni a king, who has heard this song (OB lit.) (61) St. Reiner p. 192:31 (the mountain) aru ml mrida l i-u-ni where the ascent has no descent (tr. W. G. Lambert, OB lit.) (62) St. Reiner p. 192:49 m ta-am-la--ni dulla the days when you were full of suffering (OB lit.) In so far as these forms are reliable, they are doubtless archaizing, but may represent traces of an erstwhile more extended use of the same particle -ni as is found in Assyrian.
51. There are two other instances of -ni that apparently occur in main clauses: AKI p. 82:51 (RI of Naram-Sin) i-dar-su-ni-i /tarsns(u)?/ they asked him(?), and AKI p. 159:94; 173:99 (cps RIs of Sargon) mari RN i-za-zu-ni /izzazzni/ they stood before RN (subject two cities, so dual expected). Krebernik (1993: 128) takes -ni as a ventive without -m; Edzard (1991: 259) as an affirmative mood, but the existence of this category is uncertain; see n. 57 (pp. 227228).
226
3. Early Babylonian also has a few instances of a suffix -na with subjunctive function (Whiting 1987: 13, 43; Zadok 1996: 15456). Its earliest occurrence is in an Ur III royal inscription and in the Mari liver omens, which show a strong Babylonian influence: (63) RIME 3/2, 141:710 nu mt GN1 u GN2 -a-li-q-na when he had destroyed GN1 and GN2 (RI of ulgi) (64) RA 35, 47 no. 22:16 inmi arrum mtam nakartam ana ru -ti-ru-na when the king had brought (back) the enemy land under his rule (65) RA 35, 44 no. 10:58 inmi ubari i-s-a-ru-na after the Subareans had returned Note that (63) and (64) are singular, but (65) is plural; in this respect -na is parallel to Assyrian -ni, which often has the same ambiguity. The suffix -na also occurs a few times in Archaic Babylonian royal inscriptions [(66)(70)] and letters [(71)(74)] and even a few times in Old Babylonian letters [(75)-(76)]; Whiting (1987: 4344) lists the cases known to him; I repeat them here with two additional instances, namely, (69) and (70):52 (66) RIME 4, 679:2330 [inma] (. . .) qaqqad ummnim iti im-a--na when he defeated (lit., hit the head of) that army (RI of Anum-mutabbil of Dr) (67) and (68) RIME 4, 655:2328 inmi DN bl i-di-na-an-na u DNF blt tappt i-li-ku-na when my lord DN had pronounced a judgement in my favour (< idnam-na) and my lady DNF had come to my help (RI of Ashduni-iarim of Kish) (69) ZA 93, 8: IV 1013 (a land which . . .) biltam [ana] mammana [l] ub-lu--na had brought tribute to nobody (RI of Iddi(n)-Sin of Simurrum) (70) ibid. 9: V 79 a alm u iirt -[a-s]-ku-na who removes my effigy and inscription (71) OBTA p. 41 no. 6:12 aar l -da-ni -nu-na if I had not strengthened it (72) OBTA p. 85 no. 30:46 ana ume . . . it-ta-na-la-ku-ni-in-na concerning (the fact that) they continually come to me (< --nim-na) (73) TIM 7, 116:8 ana agr a e-am ub-lu-na for the workers who carried the barley (74) AbB 11, 1:89 adi awtka -la-k-na until your word comes here (< llak-am-na) (75) UET 5, 265 case: 9 l i-pa-a-ru-na that he will not redeem (76) UET 5, 265:12 l i-q-bu-na that he will not say (~ case: 11 ul i-q-bi)
52. Whitings nr. 11 = ARM 1, 3:20 i-ku-na-an-na should not be included in this group, according to Durand 1997/2000: III 73 n. 1 (read i-ku-na-an-ni).
227
Just as -ni in Old Assyrian, -na can follow a 3s subjunctive, e.g., in (66) and (75); a 3mp ending -, as in (73); and a ventive or a dative, e.g., in (67), (72), and (74).53 This suggests that it is a dialectal variant of -ni and goes back to the same source. 4. Literary Old Babylonian shows various instances of -nim, which normally has ventive function (see 9.4.1, pp. 232233, below), attached to an u-subjunctive in a subordinate clause (GAG3 83b):54 (77) and (78) AnSt. 33, 148:2831 a[d]i ta-ak-ka-lu-nim ayy kul il aka adi atta ta-a-at-tu-nim ayy it il aka as long as you are eating, the gods your brothers shall not eat; as long as you are drinking, the gods your brothers shall not drink (79) St. Reiner p. 192:57 k ta-da-am-mi-q-nim atta (and) that you are well-favoured (tr. W. G. Lambert) (80) MIO 12, 54: r.17 [ ]a qerbuu ni-it-ta-a-a-bu-nim ri (a court) in which we used to sit joyfully55 Normally, the ventive morpheme -nim only comes after the plural endings - and -, and the forms collected here do not show a typical ventive function. They may represent reanalyzed (misunderstood?) forms ultimately based on earlier -ni and partly associated in form with the ventive, or even hypercorrect spellings of -ni, although, as we have seen, -ni is very rare in Babylonian.
9.3.3. Thefunctionandthehistoricalbackgroundofthesubjunctive
The main function of the subjunctive is to mark a clause as subordinate; it is obligatory in relative clauses and clauses introduced by a conjunction (except the conditional conjunction umma).56 In addition, it has the marginal function of marking the verb in statements under oath; I will ignore this use in the main part of this section and return to it at the end. It should be emphasized that according to the usual definition of modality (cf. Palmer 2001: 118; E. Cohen 2005: 912) the subjunctive is not a mood (Edzard 1973: 127; Kienast 2001: 269): a subjunctive form only differs syntactically from the corresponding indicative form.57
53. This means that there is no suffix -anna in Akkadian parallel to the Arabic Energic I yaqtulanna (see 9.4.3, pp. 242243), pace Zaborski 1996a: 7172. 54. Completely atypical and hard to explain is Gilg. p. 248:4 anku am.me erim a-a-ab-ta-nim I had taken hold of (some) bulls from the wild (OB lit., tr. A. R. George; see his note on p. 250). 55. An additional instance might be Legends p. 84:17 mimma a ta-qa-bi-ni-im lpu I will do whatever you (Itar ?) order (but according to J. Westenholz, the qarrdya of line 16 are addressed, which requires the correction ta-qa-bi-a-nim). I assume that (a) ta-a-pu-ri-NI AbB 9, 225:5 is a mistake for tapurim (what) you (Fem) wrote to me, and l ta-ma-ga-ri-ni-in-ni AbB 3, 15:28 a mistake for l ta-maga-ri-ni -in-ni (if I do something wrong,) do (Fem) not agree with me. 56. Conditional clauses are treated as main clauses in Akkadian; see chap. 6, n. 32 (p. 148). 57. It still must be ascertained whether the subjunctive can be used in main clauses to render insistence or emphasis, especially in Mari texts (Finet 1956: 26263: subjonctif dinsistance ou demphase). Most of the instances Finet mentions have meanwhile found an easier explanation, so that only two or three deserve more serious consideration: i-ma-ar-ru-u ARM 6, 13:12 he will see it, a-ku-un-nu 4, 86:11 I have provided, and perhaps ad-bu-bu 6, 76:25 I spoke. The first two are not regular subjunctives but also have gemination of R3, which is reminiscent of the so-called i-Modus of Old Babylonian, which was discussed in n. 3 (p. 211). The i-Modus also occurs in Mari; see Durand and Charpin 1988: 1213 nos. [16][18]. It is possible that ad-bu-bu is a defective spelling of a similar form /adbubbu/ (if it is not simply a mistake). Rather than accepting a highly unusual and exceptional use of the subjunctive, it seems more satisfactory
228
To understand the rise and development of the subjunctive, it is important to distinguish between the u-subjunctive and the ni-subjunctive and, accordingly, between Babylonian and Assyrian. Since the subordinate clauses in which it occurs are also marked by other means, the subjunctive is functionally redundant. The two dialects have reacted to this fact in different ways. Babylonian only marks subordination on verb forms that have no (other) ending and leaves it unmarked elsewhere. This is particularly revealing for its historical background: if -u arose for the specific purpose of marking subordination, it is hard to understand why such a large part of the relevant verb forms are not marked as subordinate at all. It rather suggests that -u is a residual morpheme that originally had a more relevant function but in historical Babylonian has become trapped in subordinate clauses in the final stage of a grammaticalization process. Assyrian, on the other hand, developed a consistent way of marking subordination in all dependent clauses by means of the particle -ni. The fact that -ni was initiallyi.e., in Old Assyrianoptional in subjunctive forms with -u and obligatory elsewhere, but in Middle Assyrian became obligatory also in the forms where it used to be optional, suggests that it was originally not present in the forms where it was optional and that it was introduced there by analogy with the forms where it was obligatory. From this we may conclude that the original domain of -ni consists of forms that also have a gender and/or number suffix, and that initially the other forms only had -u. If this conclusion is correct, there is a striking commonality between the original form of the Akkadian subjunctive and the imperfective prefix conjugation of Classical Arabic: the distribution of -ni in Pre-Assyrian is identical to that of -na in Classical Arabic,58 as may be seen from a comparison of the third and the rightmost columns of Table 9.2. Here the perfective has arbitrarily been taken as model, but there are no differences observable between imperfective, perfective, and t-perfect with regard to the subjunctive. This demonstrates that both conjugations go back to a common Proto-Semitic ancestor, which I will indicate as *yiqtVlu, -nV, without attempting to specify the final vowel. The difference in function between the Arabic and the Assyrian forms can be accounted for by typological evidence. In the history of languages, the relegation of verbal categories to subordinate clauses and their subsequent reanalysis as indicating subordination is a well-known process (see Haspelmath 1998 for a general account and D. Cohen 1984 for its occurrence in Semitic). This makes it plausible that the tense/aspect function of Arabic is primary and that the Akkadian subjunctive represents the residual function of a verbal category that has been replaced by a new form in its main uses (Kuryowicz 1972: 60), a view that is corroborated by the fact mentioned earlier that it is functionally redundant. It is true that the subjunctive is somewhat atypical insofar as it has not acquired a irrealis function, but this is
to explain these forms as variants of this i-Modus. The putative subjunctive of the verb kas to bind in a-ka-as-s(-ma) ARM 2, 94:23 (OB Mari) testifies to the original U/u vowel class of this verb, and this explanation may also apply to l i-ra-a-u- ARM 27, 25:18 and li-ir-u VOM p. 186 A.1101:35 from ra to get, acquire, which is I/i elsewhere but may have had an (older?) U/u alternative in accordance with the general drift of III/voc U/u verbs towards the I/i class (see 3.5.3, pp. 7879). The only form that remains as a witness for an emphatic use of the subjunctive is l ta-ma-a-u- St. Reiner p. 192:56 do not forget! (OB lit.), which is clearly too narrow a basis for a grammatical category. It is of course possible that some of these forms are ultimately related to the use of the subjunctive in oaths. 58. This was already observed by Landsberger 1924: 12122; Kuryowicz 1962: 5455; Kienast 1995: 124; and Hasselbach 2005: 2089. The Arabic alternation of -na and -ni is determined by the quality of the preceding vowel. The Proto-Semitic origin of the Arabic forms is confirmed by Ugaritic (Tropper 2000: 45760), Aramaic (Segert 1990: 24951), and by vestigial remains in Hebrew (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 13638).
9.3. The Subjunctive Pfv Indic 3ms 3fs 2ms 2fs 1s 3du 3mp 3fp 2p 1p iprus taprus taprus taprus aprus iprus iprus iprus taprus niprus Pre-Ass Subj *yiprusu *taprusu *taprusu *taprusni *aprusu *yiprusni *yiprusni *taprusni *niprusu
60
229 OA Subj iprusu or -ni taprusu or -ni taprusu or -ni taprusni aprusu or -ni iprusni iprusni iprusni taprusni niprusu or -ni MA Subj iprusni taprusni taprusni taprusni aprusni iprusni iprusni taprusni niprusni Ar. Impfv 59 yaqtulu taqtulu taqtulu taqtulna aqtulu yaqtulni yaqtulna (yaqtulna) taqtulna naqtulu
*yiprusni
table 9.2: the spread of the subjunctive endings in Assyrian.
not a major problem.61 In fact, Akkadian itself offers an exact parallel, namely, the old perfective iprVs, which was restricted to subordinate clauses (and some other clause types; see 6.3.4, pp. 153155) without becoming an irrealis form. This does not mean that all details of this process are straightforward and easy to reconstruct. In particular, it is problematic how to envisage the shift of the ending -u, -nV from an imperfective to a subordination marker and its subsequent disappearance from main clauses. We may hypothesize the following scenario, which builds on Kuryowiczs (1962: 5255, 5960; 1972: 60; 1973) pioneering explanation. Two features of the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, -nV are crucial for the development of -u, -nV towards a subordination marker: the fact thatjust as the imperfective of the older daughter languagesit could indicate simultaneity with a past event (Kuryowicz 1973: 11920) and the fact that it had the same inflectional stem as the perfective *yiqtul.
59. For the Arabic paradigm, see, for instance, Fleisch 1979: 11920. I have omitted the persons that do not exist in Akkadian (the 2du taqtulni and the 2fp taqtulna), and I have bracketed the 3fp yaqtulna, the backgound of which is a matter of controversy; see Faber 1997: 7 and Diem 1997: 5361. Krebernik (1993: 125) plausibly claims that -na is taken over from the respective feminine personal pronouns, which also end in -na (Ar antunna you and hunna they). 60. As far as I know, this form is only attested in Sargonic Akkadian: i-li-ga-ni /yillikni/ BIN 8, 265:8 they two went (Subj), quoted as (55) above. 61. It is more common that verb forms that are secondarily restricted to subordinate clauses have some kind of irrealis function as well (Noonan 1985: 5154); the subjunctive categories in Romance and Germanic languages are typical examples. In this respect, the term subjunctive may be somewhat misleading; cf. Noonans definition quoted above in n. 37 (p. 220). Finite verb forms exclusively used to indicate subordination do occur outside Akkadian, however. Noonan (1985: 50) only mentions the dependent forms in Irish. Another instance is Amharic, where a new present formation, the Compound Imperfect ysbrall (cf. Leslau 1995: 34145), arose in affirmative main clauses, leaving to the old form, the Simple Imperfect ysbr (1995: 300302), the negative main clauses and irrealis and subordinate clauses including relative ones (1995: 344); see also Haspelmath 1998: 52, who refers to Leslaus description, and Rundgren 1963b: 69.
230
The replacement of *yiqtVlu, -nV with the new Impfv iparrVs in Akkadian started in main clauses, as is usually the case,62 and left its predecessor *yiprVsu, -nV stranded in subordinate contextsi.e., both subordinate clauses and asyndetic uses dependent on a main verb, such as circumstantial clauses. In these clause types, the imperfective typically expresses simultaneity with a past event. This strengthened the association of *yiprVsu, -nV with past tense, a development that was greatly enhanced by the fact that it has the same inflectional stem as the inherited perfective iprVs. The contrast between iprVs in main clauses and iprVsu in subordinate clauses caused the endings of the old imperfective to be reanalyzed as subordination markers. As a result, they became obligatory in subordinate clauses and thus also attached to other finite forms, including the stative (insofar as possible), and they were banned from main clauses. This entailed the replacement of an original *yiparrasu, -nV (see 4.5.3, pp. 115117) by *yiparras, -, and also created the usual markedness relationship of an unmarked main clause and a marked subordinate clause.63 This process was greatly facilitated by the fact that the different endings were no longer needed to distinguish the imperfective from the perfective, which was now based on gemination. Initially, the reanalysis of -u, -nV led to a period of fluctuation and inconsistency, which is reflected in our third-millennium sources as described in 9.3.2 (pp. 224227), both in the nature of the vowel after n (-ni versus -na) and in the conditions under which the additional suffix -nV was used. The incidental cases of -nV in Sargonic Akkadian and the earliest stages of Babylonian show that the marker -nV started to develop in the same direction as in Assyrian but did not become productive (or lost its productivity before our earliest texts). In the second millennium, the situation crystallized into the divergent systems of Babylonian and Assyrian. Babylonian gradually discarded -nV; Assyrian, on the other hand, reinterpreted it as an additional marker of subordination to be added to the end of the clause rather than to the verb form. This made it possible to detach it from the verb (when there is a suffixed pronoun), and to add it to the end of all subordinate clauses, both verbal and nominal.64 Admittedly, this scenario is fairly speculative. However, it has the great advantage of solving various vexing problems that led to a great deal of fruitless speculation in the past. First, we can discard all claims about the background of -u as a nominal marker (case marker or otherwise) that in some way has come to be attached to a finite verb form;65 none of these is in the least convincing.66 Second, we have a straightforward explanation for the etymology of Assyrian -ni,
62. See Bybee et al. 1994: 23036; Hock 1991: 332; Givn 1979: 4850 about the tendency of embedded clauses to be conservative. 63. For the markedness relationship between main and subordinate clauses, see Givn 1995: 3239. 64. See also Eilers 1968; T. D. Anderson 2000: 24. Eilerss claim that the loss of -u/-ni in main clauses can be attributed to a phonetic processthe omission of endings at the end of a clause in pausal positionis very unlikely. Other endings do not seem to be affected by such a process until much later in the history of Akkadian. 65. Several scholars have put forward proposals to this effect, although it is difficult to envisage how a case ending could spread to a finite verb form (unless indirectly, if this verb form goes back to an earlier nominal form), e.g., Diakonoff 1965: 91 n. 88, referring to earlier publications by A. P. Riftin, and Diakonoff 1988: 103; Gelb 1969: 10812; Tropper 1994 (with Knudsens [1998] rejoinder); Voigt 1997: 21921; Lipiski 1997: 351. Others have explained -u as a marker of nominalization parallel to the Sumerian suffix -a, e.g., Fleisch 1966: 27576; von Soden 1991b: 473. Hetzron (1976a: 105) proposes to derive WSem *yaqtVlu from the jussive *yaqtVl with an indicativizer -u/-nV (an original he is so that he would do ~ he is to do becoming he does/will do). A similar explanation was proposed by Voigt (2004: 4950). It may be theoretically possible, but there does not seem to be any factual or typological evidence in support of it. For the methodological background of all these proposals, Genslers (2000: 26163) remarks are relevant. 66. For some speculations about the structure of PSem *yiqtulu, -nV, see 18.3.1 (pp. 589590).
231
which Edzard (1973: 129) considered noch ungeklrt, implicitly disavowing all explanations then available.67 Third, we can dispense with the typologically unlikely spread of -u/-nV from subordinate clauses in Akkadian to main clauses in the rest of Semitic, which is often adduced to account for the different imperfective categories in Akkadian and West Semitic (see 4.4.1, p. 98).68 We still have to discuss the second function of the subjunctive, that of indicating that a statement is an oath. Akkadian basically has two formal devices to mark a clause as an oath, which we can conveniently distinguish as with umma and without umma.69 The construction with umma (which normally introduces conditional clauses) mainly occurs in the later dialects and is therefore arguably secondary. Its importance for the present study lies in the fact that in Old Babylonian it can still have the indicative (GAG3 185gg*), whereas later on it has the subjunctive. Since umma in its normal use as a conditional conjunction does not have a subjunctive, the use of the subjunctive in oaths introduced by umma must be secondary, taken over from the oath construction without umma.70 In oaths without umma, which are characteristic of the older dialects, the use of the subjunctive is probably original. Negative oaths consistently use l with the subjunctive.71 Positive oaths show greater variation: according to whether they are assertory (with the verb in the perfective or the stative referring to past or present tense) or promissory (with the verb in the imperfective referring to the future), they may have the verb in the subjunctive or the indicative and they may have or not have l.72 However, the actual form the oath takes does not provide us with any clear information about the crucial question to be addressed here, namely, why the subjunctive is used in oaths in the first place. This is still a matter of speculation.73 The most likely assumption is that it is also a residual use of the original imperfective, since oaths are arguably a conservative environment
67. Among these is Kienasts (1960: 158; 2001: 269) claim that both -u and -ni are nachgestellte Demonstrativa (which is vacuous without an additional account of how they could become a verbal ending), and that of Gelb (1969: 107) that -uni combines the subjunctive endings -u and -i (sic!) with n as a glide (which presupposes a process of agglutination of discrete morphemes that is completely alien to the structure of Semitic). 68. E.g., R. Voigt 1988a: 118; 2004: 3637; Lipiski 1997: 342, 351; Kienast 2001: 338. This view was criticized by T. D. Anderson (2000: 22). Among earlier comments, see in particular Polotsky (1964: 111): no really convincing answer has yet been given to the third question [i.e., about the emergence of *yiqtVlu], and Kienast (1995: 124): die abweichende Funktion [of -u in Ar yaqtulu versus the Akkadian subjunctive] bleibt zu erklren). 69. For general accounts, see GAG 185; GKT 13132; Huehnergard 2005a: 43638; Malbran-Labat 1979/84. 70. For reported instances of subjunctives in main clauses apart from oaths, see n. 57 (p. 227). 71. In Old Assyrian, rarely ul (GAG 185c; GKT 132b). 72. The t-perfect does not seem to be used in oaths, as stated explicitly in GKT 131c for Old Assyrian; GAG 185 does not quote any oaths with a t-perfect (apart from a few exceptional cases in umma-oaths quoted in GAG3 185g*). If this is correct, it is another archaic feature of the oath formula. 73. Because oaths in Old Babylonian predominantly occur in legal documents, which are strongly dependent on Sumerian models in their formulations, Dombradi (1996: II 343) argues that the use of the subjunctive results from a literal translation of the corresponding Sumerian formula, which uses a dependent (nominalized) construction to express the contents of an oath. This may be an attractive explanation for the oaths in these particular texts, but it leaves us empty-handed with regard to another large corpus of subjunctives in main clauses: the Old Assyrian treaties, such as those published by S. een and K. Hecker in St. von Soden (AOAT 240), pp. 3141 and the two published by C. Gnbatt in St. Larsen, pp. 24968. It seems unlikely that Sumerian influence has played a role here.
232
The Ventive 9.4.
where old forms can survive.74 According to Haspelmaths investigation of old presents (1998), the main new functions of presents that have been ousted from their original function are future and subjunctive, but many of them also have additional minor functions, such as being used in proverbs, in stage directions, in narrative, as performatives, etc. It seems plausible that, in a specific language, oaths can also retain old forms that have become obsolete in other environments. It is, however, not the case that in oaths the original imperfective *yiqtVlu, -nV has simply been maintained: oaths use exactly the same forms as subordinate clauses, with the imperfective subjunctive iparrVsu referring to the future and the perfective subjunctive iprVsu referring to the past, and in Assyrian the particle -ni comes at the end of the verb form both in oaths and in subordinate clauses (GKT 132a, in particular BIN 4, 184:19 quoted there). This shows that the subjunctive in oaths was reanalyzed on the basis of its use in subordinate clauses and that in fact the oath was felt as a kind of subordinate clause without an introductory conjunction.75
9.4. the Ventive 9.4.1. Theformoftheventive

The finite forms of an Akkadian verb can be extended with a suffix that appears in three allomorphs in complementary distribution: -am, -m, -nim. It is traditionally called ventive, a term coined by Landsberger (1924: 114), who was the first to gain a correct insight into the nature of this grammatical category. The suffix -am occurs after otherwise endingless forms, i.e., immediately after the verb stem, -m only after the suffix - of the second-person singular feminine, and -nim after the plural and dual endings - and -; see column II of Table 9.3 for the conjugation in its Old Babylonian form, with the perfective as the model for the prefix conjugations. I Pfv 3ms. 3fs. 2ms. 2fs. 1s. 3du. 3mp. 3fp. 2mp. 2fp. 1p. iprus (taprus) taprus taprus aprus iprus iprus iprus taprus niprus II Pfv + Vent iprus-am taprus-am taprus-m aprus-am iprus-nim iprus-nim iprus-nim III Imp purus purs IV Imp+Vent ---purs-am purs-m pursnim V Stative paris parsat parsta parsti parsku pars pars pars parstunu parstina parsnu VI Stat+Vent pars-am pars-nim pars-nim pars-nim
(taprus-am)
taprus-nim purs niprus-am
table 9.3: the ventive endings after perfective, imperative, and stative. 74. Or where new forms do not penetrate: a good parallel of this is the absence of the t-perfect in assertory oaths, although semantically the t-perfect would fit very well there; see especially 6.3.1 (pp. 142144). 75. One could argue that the reason for the subjunctive in oaths is that the statement is actually dependent on an unexpressed main verb I swear that . . . or the like, with the complement clause introduced by kma that, for instance (cf. Deutscher 2000: 3760). However, in historical Akkadian this construction is not actually attested with verbs of swearing.
9.4. The Ventive
233
In the stative, the ventive morpheme can only be attached to the third-person singular masculine (pars-am) and the third-person plural forms (3mp pars-nim, 3fp pars-nim).76 This is doubtless a secondary development by analogy with the prefix conjugations, just as in the subjunctive.77 The ventive cannot be attached to non-finite verb forms. However, if an infinitive dependent on a main verb needs a ventive, it is possible to add the ventive to the main verb (GKT 78b; Veenhof 1986: 24849), see (13) and (14) in 8.2.1 (p. 196). If a ventive is followed by a suffixed accusative or dative pronoun, final -m is assimilated to the initial consonant of the pronoun, in spite of the fact that m does not regularly assimilate to a following consonant: urdau send him to me! < *urdam-u, apurakkum I wrote to you < *apuram-kum, etc.; see 9.4.3 (pp. 242244) on this problem. After the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period and occasionally already earlier, final -m is dropped.78 In Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, -ni is sometimes replaced by -nu (Woodington 1982: 10910; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 92). The existence of ventive forms without -m as a dialectal feature of third-millennium texts from Ebla and Mari (Gelb 1987: 66; Lipiski 1997: 353) is not ascertained: the forms adduced as evidence are either proper names (which are dubious evidence, because they tend to be shortened) or ambiguous spellings.79 The ventive occupies the same slot in the structure of a finite verb as the u-subjunctive, namely, the one directly after the verb stem, so that the two categories are mutually exclusive. Since the function of the ventive is semantic and that of the subjunctive only syntactic, the ventive takes precedence: if a verb needs a ventive, it does not take the subjunctive ending. However, there are some instances, especially in the oldest available texts, where a ventive seems to stand for a subjunctive (see below).
9.4.2. Thefunctionoftheventive80
We can distinguish four different uses of the ventive, of which the first two are closely related and represent its core function: the ventive as allative and the ventive as dative. The third use is a conglomerate of problematic instances, mainly in literary texts, and the fourth one is its purely
76. There is no reason why a ventive should not be possible after a 3fs stative (parsatam), and there is indeed a Neo-Assyrian instance napata and there are also several cases with the ventive marker as a linking morpheme; see 7.2 with n. 7 (p. 163). There are, furthermore, a few interesting instances where the ending -at seems to be simply left out before a ventive, but they may be mistakes: e.g., ala[kt]um ana maar PN sa-ad-ra-am AbB 3, 35:89 (OB) the caravan comes to PN (here) regularly. 77. However, the ventive morpheme in its function as a link between verb form and enclitic pronoun (see below) may be attached to other persons of the stative; see, for instance, 1s rakau I have chosen it (rk(u) + -au) and 2ms matanni you disregard me (mt(a) + -anni) quoted in 7.2 (p. 163). 78. An unusual ventive form occurs in Old Babylonian extispicy prayers: er-ba-an . . . u-uk-na-an RitDiv. 36:14142 enter (. . .) and place for me! (see W. R. Mayer 1994:11314 for full references). Since they are imperative forms corresponding to Sg erbam (e.g., er-ba-am 1994: 30:13) and uknam (e.g., u-ukna-am 1994: 30:8), they are likely to be shortened forms of erbnim and uknnim, as Mayer argues. For occasional instances of -nim after singular verb forms in literary Old Babylonian, which do not have ventive function but are more like subjunctives, see 9.3.2 end (p. 227). 79. A proper name with a ventive without -m is tra in Tu-ra-dDa-gan Dagan, return to me! (e.g., Tu-ra-dDa-gan AKI p. 363 M 9:1), normally tram. This kind of form cannot be separated from the general tendency to drop mimation in proper names, presumably as a kind of shortening; cf. Hilgert 2002: 134. An ambiguous spelling is --NI RA 35, 49 no. 30: 3 it will come out from wa to go /come out (III/ ), which Gelb (1987: 66) interprets as yia, although several other readings of ni are conceivable, such as /yui/ or /yu/ (actually, the form is rather an imperfective: yui or yu). 80. For a more detailed account of the function of the ventive and more examples, see Kouwenberg 2002; other literature includes GAG 82; GKT 78; Landsberger 1924; Huehnergard 2005a: 13335; and Loesov 2004c, 2007. For an exhaustive Forschungsgeschichte up to 2002, see Hirsch 2002.
234
The Ventive 9.4.
formal use as a linking morpheme between the verb stem and a suffixed pronoun. Just as in the case of the subjunctive, it has to be noted that the ventive is not a mood (Edzard 1973: 127): it does express the viewpoint of the speaker but basically concerning the direction of the action or the process in motion verbs.
9.4.2.1. Theventiveasallative
First of all, in motion verbs, the ventive is an allative, indicating that the motion is directed towards the participants in the speech event, the speaker, and/or the addressee. If a motion verb has no ventive, the motion is directed towards some other location, or it is not goal-directed.81 In its purest form, this use applies to motion verbs that have no explicit goal mentioned. For instance, wa +Vent usually means to come into view (from some location), appear, become visible; -Vent, it renders the opposite notions of to go away (towards some location), disappear from sight. Similar are el +Vent to come up, emerge (into the speakers view); -Vent, to go up (and away), often out of the speakers sight, and especially alku +Vent to come, -Vent to go. This distinction may also extend to verbs that are not motion verbs in themselves, if they have the contextual nuance of coming into view, such as rab to grow up in (81), almu to be(come) safe and sound in (82), and nawru, when it refers to the rising of the sun in (83): (81) UM 5, 100: I 11 (OB) itu ar-bi-a-am when I had grown up (82) KH 2:49 (OB) (if the river god has cleared that man and) i-ta-al-ma-am he has come out safe and sound (83) Sumer 14, 35 no. 14:15 (OB) lma in-na-aw-ra-am before it has become dawn82 If the ventive is used in combination with a specific goal, the speaker associates this goal with the location of the speech event and views the motion from the perspective of the goal. If he says ana Bbilim alkam come to B., he implies that he is or will be in Babylon at the moment of reference; if he says ana Bbilim llakam I will come to B., he implies that the addressee is or will be there, too, or he imagines that this is the case (Kouwenberg 2002: 20616). As a rule, the goal will be the first person if the subject is second person and vice versa; if the subject is third person, the goal may be first and/or second person. If we take the singular masculine forms of alku +Vent as an example, we have the following basic possibilities (cf. also Landsberger 1924: 114): llakam = I will come (to you) tllakam = you will come here (to me/us) vs. llak = I will go (somewhere else) vs. tllak = you will go (somewhere else)
llakam = he will come here (to me/us or to you) vs. llak = he will go (somewhere else)
81. E.g., alku in a clause such as St. Garelli 399:16 (OB Atr.) qaddi i-il-la-ka ina sqim they (the people) walk hunched in the street. This use of alku is especially common in the Gtn-stem; cf. CAD A/1 32427 s.v. 6. 82. Similarly in other verbs that can refer to the rising of the sun: napu (e.g., kma amim i-ta-an-pua-am ZA 75, 198:26 (OB) rise every time like the sun, and aq (e.g., adi ama l i-q-a-am CTMMA 1, 87 no. 69:6, 18 (OB) until the sun has risen.
9.4. The Ventive
235
If the intended goal is a person, there is a strong tendency to make this explicit by adding an appropriate suffix pronoun or a prepositional phrase, especially if the goal is a second person (Kouwenberg 2002: 21013), e.g., ana marka llakam or llakakkum I will come to you; ana rka aardam or aardakkum I herewith send (to) you (passim in Old Babylonian letters); llakam and aardam alone are less commonly found with this meaning. The allative function of the ventive can also be extended to non-motion verbs to add a directional nuance to their meaning. In (84A), for instance, as compared to its opposite (84B), the verb dku to kill, defeat borrows an allative component from the context: (84A) B 2, 18:24 (OB) nakrum ummnam (variant: ummnka) i-du-ka-am the enemy will (come and) defeat (+Vent) the army (var. your army) (similarly B 2, 14:5) (84B) B 2, 17:23 (OB) ummn (variant: ummnka) nakram i-da-a-ak my (var.: your) army will (go and) defeat (-Vent) the enemy Other ventives of non-motion verbs come from ventive anticipation: if the second of two closely connected verbs has a ventive, the first verb often gets a ventive ending as well, even though it is semantically superfluous or even inappropriate (Landsberger 1924: 116; GAG 82c; Kouwenberg 2002: 21822), cf. rqu () to be empty, idle in (85): (85) AbB 6, 174:1519 (OB) kma ar-ti-q-am anku ana rka a-la-kam-ma libbaka ub as soon as I have time (+Vent), I will come to you and satisfy you
9.4.2.2. Theventiveasdative
The second function of the ventive is to indicate the first-person singular dative, both as an indirect objectespecially in verbs of giving and addressingand as a benefactive in all kinds of verbs. As such, it is in a suppletive relationship with the suffixed dative pronouns -kum to /for you (Sg), -um to /for him, etc., e.g., iddinam he gave to me, taqbiam you told me, kurbam pray for me! The fact that the ventive as dative only refers to the first-person singular but as allative also to the second person caused a difference in the second person between the dative -kum and the allative -am or -akkum, which had important consequences for the formal development of the suffix pronouns (see 9.4.2.4, pp. 238240). The function of the ventive as described so far is mainly based on Old Babylonian letters. The few available accounts of the ventive in letters of later Babylonian do not report significant deviations from Old Babylonian usage.83 We do not have a detailed account of the use of the ventive in Assyrian, but in this dialect its use in motion verbs and as a first-person singular dative seems to correspond broadly to what we observe in Babylonian.84
83. For Middle Babylonian, see Aro 1955: 8791; for Neo-Babylonian, see Woodington 1982: 10312, esp. 11011, and Hirsch 1998. An interesting difference with Old Babylonian is the fact noted by Aro (1955: 91) that ventive anticipation, common in Old Babylonian (Kouwenberg 2002: 21822) is no longer found in Middle Babylonian. For Standard Babylonian (which is of course a different genre), Hirsch 2002 provides a huge amount of material. 84. What we do have for Assyrian is a list of Old Assyrian ventives collected by Hirsch (2001) and a list of verbs that are attested with a ventive ending in GKT 78df, but neither of these publications is very specific about what it actually means. This also applies to W. Mayers treatment of the ventive in Middle Assyrian (1971: 5859) and Hmeen-Anttilas (2000: 92) of Neo-Assyrian. Parpolas (1984) reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian imperative forms of alku (see 5.5, p. 136) shows that at least for this verb the contrast between coming (+Vent) and going (-Vent) was fully alive. This also applies to alku in the Neo-Babylonian
236
The Ventive 9.4.
9.4.2.3. Otherventives
Apart from the fairly regular and well-defined use of the ventive as allative and dative, there is also a third group of ventives that are neither clearly allative nor dative. They typically (but not exclusively) occur in literary Babylonian.85 The function of these ventives is problematic, but an educated guess might be that they represent a kind of ethical dative, underlining the involvement of the speaker and therefore conveying a certain emphasis or insistence.86 This agrees with the fact that many instances occur in wishes, exhortations, and questions. Similar cases also occur in prose texts, but their number is insignificant as compared to ventives with allative and dative function.87 Some typical cases taken from Old Babylonian literary texts are the following:88 (86) Gilg. p. 276: I 15 mat[ma] mtum li-mu-ra-am arru ami when may a dead man see the rays of the sun? (tr. A. R. George) (87) Gilg p. 278: III 13 martum li-i-ta-ad-da-a-am ina sunnka let a wife enjoy your repeated embrace! (tr. A. R. George) (88) Atr. p. 44:44 + 46:58 al-ka-nim i ni-i-i-a ina ubtu come (Pl), let us expel (lit. lift up) (him) from his abode (with -a for -am , as usually in this text) (89) ZA 75, 200:5051 kma rma i-q- elya rm li-i-q-a-am eli rma just as her love rose (-Vent) above me, may my love rise (+Vent) above her love (90) Legends p. 216: V 1416 inimmammn l i-mu-ut-tu e-nu / inimmammn l i-muut-tu a-i- / inimmammn l i-mu-tu-ni-im Alas, will they not die (-Vent), the nu-priests? Alas, will they not die (-Vent), the nobles? Alas, will they not die (+Vent)? (tr. J. Westenholz)89 (91) Atr. p. 96: III 51 // 98: V 39 e-a-a A-nu il-li-kam // il-li-ka-am bl mi where has Anu the president gone?
corpus studied in Hirsch 1998. 85. For collections of ventives in literary texts (mainly Standard Babylonian), see in particular Landsberger 1924: 11516; Groneberg 1987: 14752 (from texts in the late Standard Babylonian hymnal style); and Hirsch 2002 (from the epics of Gilgamesh and Erra). 86. So, for instance, Kienast 2001: 272. The ethical dative has played an important role in the discussion about the ventive in Sumerian; see Kraus 1958: 8283 regarding the ethical dative in Sumerian and the critical remarks by Krecher (1985: 16769) on the subjective and thus unverifiable nature of emotional involvement. 87. See Kouwenberg 2002: 23132 with n. 62. An intriguing instance, not in a literary text but in a Mari letter from the governor of Saggartum to the king of Mari with a report about a man accused of having stolen (7: i-ri-[iq-ma]) slaves and sheep, is the following passage: I interrogated him, saying why have you stolen (13: ta-a-ri-q-am +Vent) slaves and sheep in/from the land of GN? He answered: It was not I who stole (14: a-ri-iq -Vent) them. (. . .) Bring me to the king and in the presence of the king I will identify the men who stole (27: i-ri-q -Vent) the slaves and the sheep. (ARM 14, 51: 727, OB). If we may speculate about the motive of the ventive in tariqam, it gives the impression of giving a certain emphasis to the question, as an ethical dative would. See now Loesov 2007, especially pp. 11021, on this type of ventive. 88. Old Assyrian instances are very rare, as we would expect in the light of the absence of literary texts, but cf. a-ta-an-a-am BIN 4, 70:15 I have had enough of it, which interchanges with a-ta-na-a KTH 15:22 (however, Hirsch [2002: 257] interprets tanam as an anticipatory ventive). 89. For mtu + Vent, see also YOS 10, 31: IX 27. A similar instance is YOS 11, 5:13, in which several instances of ulid he/it gave birth to in the middle of lines 23 interchange with ul-du-nim at the end of line 1. This suggests a prosodic explanation.
9.4. The Ventive (92) Gilg. p. 176:145 eil ta-i-[a-a]m where do you hurry to, fellow? (tr. A. R. George).
237
Note that (91) and (92) contain motion verbs in which the ventive does not have the usual nuance of motion towards the speech location. This shows that it is not an allative as defined above (which should be incompatible with whereto?). Even more difficult to explain is the frequent use of the ventive in the formula introducing direct speech in Old and Standard Babylonian, even though the person addressed is a third person. Unlike all previous cases, which come from dialogue, this concerns narrative. One out of countless instances is: (93) Gilg. p. 176:9495 (OB) arimtum pa i-pu-a-am-ma is-s-qar-am ana dEnkidu the prostitute opened (+Vent) her mouth and spoke (+Vent) to Enkidu This formula often contains two verbs, both of which may have a ventive, as in (92); the first one can be anticipatory, but issaqqaram is hard to explain. The ventive occurs with other verbs of speaking, too, as in (94) and (95), but may also be absent, as in (96): (94) Gilg. p. 172:25 (OB) [i]tb i-ta-wa-a-am ana ummu he (Gilgame) stood up and spoke (+Vent) to his mother (95) RA 46, 94:7 (OB) Anzm i-pu-lam qurdu DN the hero DN answered (+Vent) Anzu (96) Gilg. p. 206:272 (OB) [dEnkid ]u pu i-pu-a-am is-s-qar ana dgi Enkidu opened (+Vent) his mouth and spoke (-Vent) to Gilgamesh Other passages in literary texts suggest that the ventive can be used as little more than a stylistic variant of the form without ventive, in poetry perhaps for metrical reasons (GAG 82b; Landsberger 1924: 119), e.g.: (97) Gilg. p. 176:99102 i-ku-ul aklam Enkidu adi ebu ka i-ti-a-am 7 assammim Enkidu ate (-Vent) the bread until he was sated, he drank (+Vent) the ale, seven jugs (full) (tr. A. R. George) Finally, another kind of atypical ventive occurs in subordinate clauses and gives the impression that the ventive actually stands for a subjunctive; at least, there does not seem to be any other motive discernible: (98) AKI p. 265:7 (SAk) nu GN en-a-ra-am when he had destroyed GN (cp RI of Naram-Sin) (99) BAM 4, 393:2 (OB) (a lamb) a adni ammam l i-ru-m that has not yet eaten grass A detailed investigation on the basis of much more material might shed light on the exact nature of the ventives that are not allative or dative. Notions like emotional involvement and emphasis can only be reliably established on the basis of very large text corpora (if at all); without these, any account will remain impressionistic. By far the most vexing question is whether the noncanonical ventives are a secondary use of the ventive as a kind of ethical dative and therefore irrelevant to the prehistory of the ventive, or whether they are evidence of a more original function than allative and dative. This is a crucial point for clarifying its historical background and its relationship to formally similar categories in other Semitic languages, an issue to which I will return in 9.4.3 (pp. 240244).
238
The Ventive 9.4.
9.4.2.4. Theventiveasalinkingmorpheme
The fourth and final use of the ventive is of a quite different nature: in the course of the history of Akkadian, the ventive morpheme came to play an ever more important role as a linking morpheme between the verb stem and the suffixed pronouns of dative and accusative. This occurs in certain forms already in the earliest records, and it continues to spread to more and more environments during the historical period. Thanks to our fairly rich documentation, we can follow this process in detail. I have given a full description in Kouwenberg 2002: 22231 and will restrict my discussion here to a summary.90 As a verbal ending, the ventive can be followed by an enclitic pronoun, each element contributing its own specific meaning, as in urdau < urd-am-u send him (-u) here/to me (-am) (versus urussu < *urud-u send him (somewhere else) and iddinau < *iddin-am-u he gave it (-u) to me (-am) (versus ana X iddiu < iddinu he gave it to X).91 In other cases, the pronoun strengthens or specifies the meaning of the ventive. This may trigger a process of coalescence, in which ventive and pronoun become an inseparable unit. The first environment where this happened is the first-person singular accusative pronoun. Its original form -ni (see Moscati, ed. 1964: 1089) is only preserved after the gender and number suffixes - , -, and - in Sargonic Akkadian and Old Assyrian (Hasselbach 2005: 154; GKT 49a).92 Everywhere else, it is preceded by the ventive morpheme. In the two dialects just mentioned it is replaced by -anni < -am-ni after a consonant (see sources just cited); in Babylonian, it is replaced by -anni after a consonant,93 by -nni after a second-person singular feminine,94 and by -ninni after a plural ending, with the same allomorphic pattern as the ventive itself (see Landsberger 1924: 11819). The intrusion of the ventive morpheme in the first-person singular is easy to understand from its association with the speech location, especially the speaker, and is doubtless facilitated by the fact that a vowel-initial suffix is easier to attach to a verb form ending in a consonant. The first-person plural suffixes -niti (Acc) and -niim (Dat) follow the trend set by the first-person singular, with a short time lag, and are gradually replaced by -anniti and -anniim (see Kouwenberg 2002: 22325). In the second person, a similar process was triggered by the original difference between the second-person allative, which could be expressed by the simple ventive: apuram I wrote to you, and the second-person dative (which was expressed by suffix pronouns, e.g., addinkum
90. For the situation in Sargonic Akkadian, see also Hasselbach 2005: 15960. 91. The frequency of such forms led to an analogical extension in which a second-person singular dative pronoun could also be extended with a third-person accusative pronoun: iddinam : iddinau iddinakkum he gave to you : x, where x = iddinakkuu he gave it/him to you. This combination of an enclitic dative pronoun with an enclitic accusative pronoun is only possible if the dative is second-person singular (-kum, -kim) and the accusative any third person (example of -kim: u-ta-ri-a-ki-i-i AbB 1, 27:24 I have caused her to be brought to you (Fem); cf. also 1, 134:12). The fact that this particular combination is relatively frequent, whereas other combinations that are semantically possible do not occur at all, makes Genslers claim (1998: 23940) that it is accidental that only instances of second-person singular dative with thirdperson accusative are attested implausible. 92. Old Assyrian also has - as accusative pronoun (GKT 49a); it only occurs after a consonant (including ) and is therefore restricted to endingless verb forms. GKT does not mention -ninni nor any form coming from a III/voc verb with a first-person singular suffix pronoun. 93. The form imurni, allegedly meaning he received (from) me, which has been haunting the Akkadian grammatical literature at least since Gelb (1969: 99, 137, 153) used it in his largely fanciful paradigms, does not exist (see also Buccellati 1996: 191, 203, 211, and my comment in Kouwenberg 1998: 17677). 94. Strictly speaking, we cannot be certain whether the second-person singular feminine is always -inni rather than -ni, because a geminate is often left unexpressed.
9.4. The Ventive
239
I gave to you) (Kouwenberg 2002: 22728). As stated above, there was a tendency to make a second-person allative explicit by means of a prepositional phrase with ana (maar/r) or a suffixed dative pronoun: apurakkum I wrote to you. The fact that we never find a dative pronoun of the second person by itself as an allative (**apurkum, **apurkunim, etc.) proves that in this form the pronoun is a secondary addition to the ventive.95 This ending -akkum was transferred as a whole to the second-person singular dative: iddinakkum he gave to you, a form that, strictly speaking, is contradictory, because it combines -am to me and -kum to you. Babylonian uses both iddinkum and iddinakkum, but in Assyrian -kum is almost completely replaced by -akkum, both as allative and as dative.96 Just as -anni, -akkum has the advantage that it can be attached to a verb stem ending in a consonant without causing an awkward consonant cluster. The compound form -akkum was the starting point for an analogical spread of the ventive morpheme to the third person, in spite of the fact that it is originally incompatible with motion towards the third person: beside ipur-um he1 sent to him2 and iddin-um he1 gave to him2, the forms ipur-aum and iddin-aum arose with the same meaning, modelled on ipur-akkum and iddin-akkum. This purely formal development deprives the ventive morpheme of its own meaning and makes itat least in this environmenta mere link between verb stem and suffix. This opened the way for further extensions to the third person. Already in Old Babylonian, the third-person dative -um (etc.) is frequently replaced by -aum, both as allative and as dative: apuraum and iddinaum (see Kouwenberg 2002: 23031). In Old Assyrian, this is far less common; examples include -pu-ra-um Prag I 678:13, 16 I wrote to him and a-da-na-u-um RA 80, 115:14 I will give to him. The ventive morpheme also spread to the second- and third-person accusative: -akka (etc.) alongside -ka, and -au (etc.) alongside -u. Examples of the former are not uncommon Old Babylonian, e.g., ik-ta-a-da-ka AbB 10, 74:14 he has come to you (/iktadakka/) alongside ik-ta-a-ad-ka ShA 1, 92 no. 18:20. The rise of -au at the expense of -u clearly happened in a later stage. If we find -au as an accusative suffix in Old Babylonian, it is usually a real ventive plus -u, as in urdau send him to me. Only very rarely do we find cases that are difficult to explain in this way, e.g., a-a-ab-ta-u AbB 11, 25:7 I have seized him, e-ki-ma-a-u AbB 8, 78:38 I will take away from him. The spread of -aum is also related to the loss of mimation during the Old Babylonian period, which caused a merger of several dative and accusative suffix pronouns, such as -u him and -um to him. The new form -au made a new differentiation between accusative and dative possible: -u versus -au (-niu after plural forms). In Middle Babylonian, where mimation has disappeared, -au has all but replaced -um (Aro 1955: 57). Note also the situation in the third-person plural as shown by Aro (1955: 58): the Old Babylonian dative pronoun -unim has been replaced by -aunti versus Acc -unti. However, there is one instance of the ancient second-person dative -kuni used as accusative: l a-a-ba-at-ku-nu-i-i VAB 2, 9:28 shall I not plunder you (Pl)?. This foreshadows the Neo-Babylonian situation, where in the secondperson plural only the ancient dative form -kuni/u survives, but in the third person only the accusative pronoun -unti/u (Woodington 1982: 3637). In other respects, Neo-Babylonian shows essentially the same picture as Middle Babylonian (1982: 37): the dative suffixes consist of the
95. This also applies to a second-person goal expressed by a prepositional phrase: **ana erka/marka apur is never found; it is always ana erka/marka apuram (Kouwenberg 2002: 213). 96. GKT 49b is misleading here, because it gives as dative forms -kum, -kim, -kunti, -kinti. In fact, almost all examples have -akk-.
240
The Ventive 9.4.
accusative suffixes plus the ventive, except in the first-person plural, where -annu/i and -nu/i are used indiscriminately (1982: 4142). As in many other aspects, Middle Assyrian follows the development of Middle Babylonian. W. Mayers examples (1971: 3234) seem to show that in the second person the ventive morpheme has become a fixed part of the dative pronoun: -akku to you (Masc), -akkunu to you (Pl), -au/-niu and -ae to /for him/her, -aunu/-niunu to /for them (NTA p. 22 no. 1746:8 (a) it-ta-nu-ni-u--ni)97 versus accusative -ka, -kunu (but 1 -akkunu: i-pa-a-ra-ku-nu he will release you (pl.) KAV 1: VII 47:28; no feminine instances are known). In the third person, we find -(u), -i for the accusative singular and -unu for the accusative plural. Especially noteworthy is the emergence of a first-person plural suffix pronoun -ni(n) instead of OA -niti, with a apparently borrowed from Babylonian (see chap. 1 n. 22, p. 12). For Neo-Assyrian, Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 49) gives two alternative forms for dative and accusative, one with and one without the ventive morpheme, but without details about their use.
9.4.3. Theventiveinahistoricalperspective
The historical background of the ventive in Akkadian is a vexing problem for which I do not pretend to have a solution. In this section, I will restrict myself to discussing a number of issues bearing on the problem and to suggesting some very conjectural possibilities.98 Of the four uses of the ventive discussed in the previous sections, the ventive as a linking morpheme and the ventive as dative can safely be put aside as secondary. The dative function of the ventive is arguably secondary to the allative function.99 The development from directional to dative is an instance of the well-known grammaticalization path from concrete to abstract, or, as far as case systems are concerned, from local to grammatical case. Dative prepositions in modern European languages typically originate as directional (allative) prepositions: French to stems from Latin ad towards, and Modern Greek s(e) from Classical Greek eis towards; for English to the allative meaning is older than the dative meaning (Lehmann 1995: 10910; Heine et al. 1991: 15054). There can be little doubt that this is also true for Akkadian ana.100 This leaves us with the allative ventives in motion verbs and the other ventives of 9.4.2.3, whichfor lack of a more appropriate labelI will call emphatic here. The main question is whether the directional function is a specialized use of the emphatic function in motion verbs, or whether the latter is a secondary (or rather tertiary) development of the directional function, via the path allative > dative > ethical dative > emphatic, or the like.101 As long as we do not know the answer, we can only speculate about the historical background of the ventive and, in particular, about its relationship to similar verbal categories in West Semitic.
97. According to the copy on pl. 8; the transliteration omits -ni-. 98. Nothing definite can be said about the ventive in Eblaite. There are several verb forms attested which end in the sign AN (which might be read am6 ), but its function is obscure: -wa--da-an (which) I have ordered (quoted in Fronzaroli 1984: 152); -sa-ti-an ARET 13, 19: III 7 I announced; lu-sa-ti-an ARET 13, 19: III 11 he(?) announced; i-ba-ti--an ARET 13, 1: IV 8 it is/was opened, and nu-da-b-an ARET 13, 9: r.IX 11 we brought(?). Moreover, i-da-kam4 ARET 13, 5: r.X 12 may possibly be interpreted as /yittalkam/ or the like (Edzard 1992: 214), a Gt-stem of (h)alkum to go /come with ventive, which is common in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. 99. There is no factual basis for the speculations by Testen (1993a: 300301 n. 10) about an original difference between the ventive and the first-person singular dative. 100. For a more-detailed account of the functional development of the ventive, see Kouwenberg 2002: 23339, and the critical comments in Loesov 2004c, 2007. 101. This was argued, for instance, by Gelb (1969: 136) and Kienast (2001: 272).
9.4. The Ventive The most important of these categories are the following:
241
the cohortative suffix - in Hebrew and Ugaritic, which is used for exhortations in the first person and after the imperative (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 143, 37475; Tropper 2000: 45557) the Arabic subjunctive yaqtVla, which is used in subordinate clauses to express purpose and intention, and after a number of modal particles and conjunctions (Fischer 1972: 97) various formations with a suffix containing -n(n)-, in particular the energicus formations in Arabic, Ugaritic, and (in traces) in Hebrew and Aramaic. The historical background of these categories and their mutual relationships are themselves controversial and the subject of much speculation. The general idea seems to be that at least the Arabic subjunctive is a secondary formation ultimately derived from the energicus via pausal forms in which -an becomes -a.102 The most promising candidates for comparison with the ventive, then, are the formations with a suffix containing -n(n)-, since they contain a nasal like the ventive and may show similarities in use. There are several of them, but they are rather heterogeneous and their exact function is often elusive (Krebernik 1993; Testen 1993a: 296302; Hasselbach 2006). By far the best known is the energicus in Arabic. It comes in two forms, a long one, traditionally called energicus I, and a short one, energicus II. Table 9.3 (adopted from Wright 1967: I 298) shows the conjugation of the energicus I and II and the corresponding forms of the other prefix conjugations of Classical Arabic: Impfv 3ms 3fs 2ms 2fs 3dum 3duf 2du 3mp 3fp 2mp 2fp 1p yaqtulu taqtulu taqtulu taqtulna yaqtulni taqtulni taqtulni yaqtulna taqtulna taqtulna taqtulna naqtulu Subj yaqtula taqtula taqtula taqtul yaqtul taqtul taqtul yaqtul taqtulna taqtul taqtulna naqtula Juss yaqtul taqtul taqtul taqtul yaqtul taqtul taqtul yaqtul taqtulna taqtul taqtulna naqtul energicus I yaqtulanna taqtulanna taqtulanna taqtulinna yaqtulnni taqtulnni taqtulnni yaqtulunna taqtulnnni taqtulunna taqtulnnni naqtulanna energicus II yaqtulan taqtulan taqtulan taqtulin yaqtulun taqtulun naqtulan
table 9.4: the prefix conjugations of Arabic with the energicus i and ii.
According to Wright (1967: II 4143), the most prominent uses of the energicus comprise emphatic future statements (preceded by la-), commands, prohibitions, wishes, questions, and conditional clauses, both in the protasis and the apodosis.103
102. For the secondary nature of the Arabic subjunctive, see Fleisch 1947/8: 5556; Testen 1994b; and Tropper 1997b: 4034. 103. See also Reckendorf 1967: 6364; Fleisch 1979: 13132; and Zewi 1999.
242
The Ventive 9.4.
Superficially, the endingless forms of the energicus II neatly correspond to the Akkadian ventive: yaqtulan iprusam (cf. the ending of the accusative singular: -an -am).104 If we consider the conjugation as a whole, however, an important difference appears: the ventive shows an alternation of three morphemes in complementary distribution according to the final vowel of the verb form: -am, -m, and -nim. This allomorphy has no synchronic motivation but must go back to an earlier stage of Akkadian (or Proto-Semitic). In the energicus I, a single morpheme is added to all verb forms regardless of their ending and the resulting phonological problems are solved by means of a purely phonological adjustment. The energicus can therefore simply be accounted for by the synchronic phonological rules of Arabic, which suggests that the energicus suffix(es) is/ are less integrated into the verbal system than the ventive and that it may therefore be a more recent development. Reckendorf (1967: 63) and Zaborski (1996a: 75), for instance, regard -an(na) as a particle attached to the conjugation of the jussive or the subjunctive (to which it is functionally most closely related), with the concomitant shortening of final and (e.g., *yaqtul + -nna > yaqtulunna). This suggests that the energicus I forms result from an inner-Arabic (or innerCentral Semitic; see below) development and are not directly related to the Akkadian ventive. The relationship between the two energicus forms is problematic: it is unclear whether the long variant yaqtulanna is an extension of the short one yaqtulan or whether it is the other way around.105 It is generally assumed that Ugaritic also has a verbal category with a suffix -anna parallel to the Arabic energicus I, which Tropper (2000: 497501) calls Energikus I. There is no conclusive evidence pointing to the existence of a form parallel to the Arabic energicus II with the suffix -an (Troppers Energikus III, 2000: 5046). Tropper also identifies an Energikus II, which is formally characterized by a double suffix: -nn- (2000: 5014); it is an allomorph of the Energikus I and functionally parallel to it, but its formal interpretation is uncertain. The consonantal script makes these distinctions extremely tentative. An important point is that the suffixes in question can also be attached to forms other than the prefix conjugation: the imperative (as in Arabic), the suffix conjugation, and even the narrative infinitive (2000: 22223, 500, 503). The suffix nn is often separated from the verb itself by a word divider (a single wedge). All these features strengthen the possibility that n and in particular nn are actually particles rather than verbal endings.106 Sabaic may also provide some interesting evidence, in spite of its purely consonantal script (see Testen 1993a). In this language, the prefix conjugation may have a suffix -n in the singular and -nn in the plural: yqtl-n versus yqtl-nn (Testen 1993a: 29798; Stein 2003: 18185). Testen (1993a: 304) interprets these forms as *yaqtVlan and *yaqtVlnin, respectively, and employs them to clarify the etymology of the Arabic energicus I and II. He argues that the singular form is
104. The contrast between word-final -m in Akkadian and -n in West Semitic, which is specific to grammatical morphemes, is a subject of debate itself. A change -m > -n has been posited by Brockelmann 1908: 13637; Voigt 1997: 211; and Testen 1993a. Conversely, it has also been argued that Akkadian -m goes back to an earlier suffix *-n (e.g., Hasselbach 2006: 315), in particular because of its assimilation to a following suffix pronoun, which is regular for n but unusual for m (see Krebernik 1993: 128 and Kienast 2001: 292 for a discussion of the issue; and also von Soden [1988: 27681], who is sceptical). A less far-reaching explanation is perhaps preferablefor instance, the fact that ventive and suffix form a close-knit unity in a peripheral position in the word, which may favour assimilation more than other positions. 105. See Zaborski 1996a for some inconclusive speculations. 106. See also Pardee 1984: 24445 n. 14. Kienast (2001: 280) also ascribes a directional meaning to verb forms with a suffix -n- in Ugaritic. Tropper (2000), however, does not mention anything of the kind.
9.4. The Ventive
243
directly related to the short energicus II yaqtVlan in Arabic and that the plural form lies at the basis of the energicus I: he explains -anna from -nin, which became -nna or -nni through the regular syncope of a short vowel between identical consonants and the addition of a final vowel to avoid a word-final geminate. Subsequently, the two forms became optional variants of each other as energicus I and II (1993a: 3026). The uncertainty about the exact function of the Sabaic forms and the purely consonantal alphabet of Sabaic make the interpretation of these forms hazardous, but if Testens interpretation is correct, the Sabaic forms provide a striking parallel to Akkadian iprusam, iprusnim. Both conjugations may then go back to PSem *yiqtVlam, -nim through the change of word-final -m to -n in Sabaic.107 Finally, Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic have preserved a number of forms that may offer an important formal and semantic parallel to the Akkadian ventive. The first one is the cohortative suffix -. Fassberg (1999) has shown that in Biblical Hebrew the imperative with this suffix (qolh) is used when the action of the verb is directed to the speaker, whereas the simple imperative is used when the action of the verb is directed elsewhere (1999: 10). The second form is the morpheme -n(n)-, which in Hebrew and Aramaic is often inserted between endingless prefix forms and a suffixed object pronoun, e.g., He yiqlenn he kills him (alongside yiqleh) (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 17273; Segert 1990: 31011). It is generally assumed to be a residue of an energicus suffix *-an. This -n(n)- is also used in the imperative before suffixes, and Joosten (1999) argues that such imperative forms show the same semantic feature as the imperatives with the suffix -, e.g. tnennh 1 Sam 21: 10 give it to me. These two points suggest, first, that the cohortative ending -h goes back to -an, parallel to the Arabic energicus -an, which has a pausal form -, and, second, that there may also be a possible functional relationship between the Akkadian ventive and at least some of the West Semitic suffixes starting with a. These diverse scraps of evidence suggest that, in addition to the Impfv *yiqtVlu, -nV and the Pfv *yiqtVl, - Proto-Semitic had a third prefix category *yiqtVlam, *yiqtVlnim (of which the plural form is rather uncertain). It is built on the imperfective by means of the suffix -(a)m, since -nim occurs in those persons that according to the reconstructed original distribution of -nV (see 9.3.3, pp. 228229) have -nV in Proto-Semitic,108 with the function of conveying emphasis and/ or expressing a kind of first-person benefactive.109 The former may survive in the emphatic ventives of Akkadian discussed in 9.4.2.3 (pp. 236-37) and in the energicus formations of Central Semitic, the latter has greatly expanded and systematized in Akkadian, and survives marginally in the Hebrew cohortative forms elucidated by Fassberg (1999) and Joosten (1999).
107. Stein (2003: 182) endorses Testens view, but Hasselbach (2006: 315) rejects it. See Nebes 1994b about the difference between the short and the long forms of the prefix conjugation (especially pp. 2024); and Tropper 1997c. 108. This does not apply to the second-person singular feminine, which has -m rather than -nim in the ventive, whereas it has -na in Arabic (taqtulna) and -ni in the Assyrian subjunctive (taprusni ). This is not surprising, however: as in many other cases in Semitic, the Akkadian second-person singular feminine is (re)modelled on the corresponding masculine form: taprus : taprusam taprus : taprusm. This is doubtless also the reason why the second-person feminine prefix is not **ti- (as might be expected on the basis of the independent subject pronoun att), but ta-, as in the masculine. It is possible that **ti- was analogically replaced by ta-, as claimed by Kienast 2001: 197 and Hasselbach 2004: 31, but it is questionable whether it ever existed at all. 109. To what extent this *yiqtVlam, -nim can be related to, or even built on, the Sargonic Akkadian form ending in -a, which appears to be an alternative to the u-subjunctive (see 9.3.2, p. 224), is hard to determine.
244
The Ventive 9.4.
It has been argued that the directional use of the ventive morpheme has arisenor perhaps has become predominantunder the influence of the Sumerian ventive, which is expressed by the prefix mu-.110 This is possible but difficult to prove.
110. This idea goes back to Landsberger (1924: 123) and has been endorsed by various others, for instance, Edzard 1984: 111 n. 1; Pedersn 1989: 434; Krebernik 1993: 127 n. 11; Testen 1993a: 301. Von Soden (1988: 27778) is sceptical.
thederivedverbalstems
thederivedverbalstems: generalfeatures
Partthree
Chapter 10
10.1. introduction
This chapter describes the general aspects of the system of derived verbal stems as it is found in Akkadian: their systematic structure, their status as derived verbs, the contrast between regular and irregular verbs in terms of their meaning, productive and unproductive derivation, and a general account of the kind of functions they perform. In later chapters, I will discuss the individual stems in detail, compare them with other Semitic languages and describe how they may have developed in prehistoric times.
10.2. Definition
One of the most characteristic features of the Semitic languages is the existence of a highly systematic pattern of verbal derivation.1 It is used to derive secondary verbs from basic verbs by adding one or more formatives to the simple stem. These formatives include infixes, prefixes, gemination, reduplication, vowel lengthening, and combinations of them. Generally speaking, a formative has a specific function, so that its presence correlates with a predictable semantic or syntactic modification of the meaning of the simple verb. From the G-stem verb parsu to cut, separate, for instance, we can derive several secondary verbs, such as naprusu with passive meaning by means of a prefix n(a)-, purrusu with intensive and pluractional meaning by means of gemination of R2, and uprusu with causative meaning by means of a prefix (a)-. Each of these verbs has a full paradigm that has the same structure as that of the simple verb, with only such adaptations as are necessary to accommodate the extra formative, and many of them have a regular semantic relationship to the basic verb.
1. Literature on the derived verbal stems is legion; for Semitic in general, see Brockelmann 1908: 50444 (257); Castellino 1962: 11439; Moscati, ed. 1964: 12231; Lipiski 1997: 378415; Stempel 1999: 11018; and Kienast 2001: 207236. For specific languages, see in particular Wright 1967: I 3047 and Fleisch 1979: 271335 for Arabic; Joon and Muraoka 1991: 14970 and Waltke and OConnor 1990: 35161 for Hebrew; Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 140212 for Ethiopic; GAG 8695 and Edzard 1965 for Akkadian.
245
246
Formal Aspects 10.3.
Most verbs have several such secondary verbs. This gives rise to an intricate system of derived verbs, which can be classified into derived verbal stems or simply derived stems according to their formative2 and which is exploited for the expression of various kinds of semantic and grammatical notions, among which voice (passive, reciprocal, etc.), causation, and verbal plurality are prominent. However, hardly any verbs have the full range of possible derived stems; how many and which ones a given verb will have is basically unpredictable (and for Akkadian at least partly dependent on chance occurrence), but there is a clear correlation with meaning and frequency: transitive verbs tend to select a different set from intransitive verbs, and frequent verbs tend to have a larger set than infrequent verbs.
10.3. Formal Aspects

The main formatives of the derived verbal stems of Akkadian are the prefixes n(a)- and (a)-, the infixes -t- and -tan-, gemination of R2, and combinations of these; for some others, which occur sporadically, see below (p. 248, no. 3). On the basis of these formatives, the verbal stems can be divided into primary, secondary, and tertiary. The primary stems (the Hauptstammformen according to GAG 86b) are the G-, the N-, the -, and the D-stem. The G-stem (iparrVs) is the simple stem; the other three are extended by means of the prefix n(a)- (the N-stem ipparrVs < *yi-n-p . . .), the prefix (a)- (the -stem uapras), and gemination of R2 (the D-stem uparras), respectively. These stems are primary because they can serve as the basis for a (further) derivation by means of infixes, which gives rise to the secondary and tertiary stems. The secondary stems (or t-stems) have an infixed -t- after the first consonant of the inflectional stem of the primary stem. This results in the Gt-stem iptarrVs, the (very rare) Nt-stem ittaprVs, the t1-stem utapras, and the Dt-stem uptarras (see below for the t2-stem utaparras). Finally, to each primary stem corresponds a tertiary stem (or tan-stem), which (at least in the imperfective) adds -n- to the sequence -ta- in the secondary stems, or alternatively, inserts -tan- after the first consonant of the inflectional stem of the primary stem: the Gtn-stem iptanarrVs, the Ntn-stem ittanaprVs, the tn-stem utanapras, and the Dtn-stem uptanarras. We can represent the primary, secondary, and tertiary stems in a diagram, as in Table 10.1, illustrated by means of the imperfective of the usual sample verb parsu: primary G N D iparras ipparras uapras uparras 1,316 Gt 395 Nt 369 t1/2 935 Dt secondary iptarras ittapras utap(ar)ras uptarras 167 Gtn 6 Ntn 36+94 tn 237 Dtn tertiary iptanarras ittanapras utanapras uptanarras 312 98 53 88
table 10.1: Diagram of the Akkadian derived verbal stems.
The numbers are meant to give an impression of the frequency of each verbal stem. They are based on a count of the verbal stems listed in AHw and should not be taken too literally because
2. I will use the term (derived) verbal stems as the most simple and self-evident designation. Other terms current in the literature are verbal themes, modifications, conjugations (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 124), forms (Wright 1967), (derived) measures (Versteegh 1997), patterns (Holes 1995), degrees (Hetzron 1973/74: 36 n. 1), classes (Kuryowicz 1972: 4849 and Izre'el 2005: 536), stirpes (Diakonoff 1988: 104), Stammformen (von Soden, GAG 86a), and the Hebrew term binyanim; see in general Goshen-Gottstein 1969: 7071 n. 1.
10.3. Formal Aspects
247
of the numerous uncertainties inherent in interpreting cuneiform texts, the ambiguity of many forms, the subjective decisions involved in counting verbal forms in general, and the numerous new instances from texts published since the appearance of AHw.3 The members of the diagram are arranged so as to show the regular structure they have relative to each other. The primary derived stems have an explicit morpheme distinguishing them from the unmarked G-stem; the secondary stems share the infixes -t- and -tan-, respectively, as their distinctive element and are in addition characterized by the morpheme of the corresponding primary stem (zero in case of the G-stem), so that most of them are doubly marked. There is a clear increase in complexity from left to right caused by the number or the length of the morphemes added to the stem. There is also an increase in complexity from top to bottom, but only between the G-stem on the one hand, and the other three primary stems, on the other. The latter are marked vis--vis the G-stem but not marked in relation to each other. In addition, the two upper rows of G- and N-stem with their derivatives, taken together, contrast with the two lower rows of D- and -stem and their derivatives on four points:4 they share the same prefix vowels (i/a versus u in D and ) they copy the imperfective vowel (see 4.2, pp. 8889) of the G-stem, whereas D and have their own fixed vowel pattern they have different prefix and suffix bases (see 2.2.1, pp. 3132): -PRvS, PaRvS(-) for G, -n-PaRvS, na-PRvS(-) for N, whereas D and have a single base for their entire paradigm (Pa/uRRvS and a/uPRvS) the t-perfects of G and N have the same vowel as the imperfective, whereas the t-perfects of D and have the same vowel as the perfective (see 6.2, pp. 138139) Most of these differences are determined by the relationship of these stems to the G-stem and by the way they developed historically; I will discuss them in greater detail in the sections about the individual stems. It is important to realize, however, that the diagram has a certain historical relevance as well, insofar as the primary and secondary stems have close parallels in other Semitic languages and may therefore be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic, whereas the tertiary stems are (largely) an Akkadian innovation. The formal regularity and transparency of the system of the verbal stems is immediately obvious. Already in the first full-scale grammar of Akkadian, that of Delitzsch, the verbal stems are presented as a coherent system of oppositions in the form of a diagram (Delitzsch 1889: 229), which was modelled on the one developed for Geez in Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 141.5 Table 10.1 is essentially Delitzschs diagram translated into modern notation, with the addition of a few stems Delitzsch had not yet identified and a different order in the vertical column. However, this kind of scheme has an important drawback: inevitably, some forms do not fit in and as a result run the risk of being marginalized in grammatical description. In addition, it requires a certain degree of schematization and subjectivity as to what criteria we adopt for including or excluding a given formal category as a derived stem. Therefore, Table 10.1 is an ideal scheme, since it also depends on a number of subjective choices:
3. The numbers are adopted from GAV pp. 11011. Verbs and derived stems found in texts published after the publication of AHw are not included. Streck (2003a: 1) gives slightly different numbers for some stems. 4. See also Goetze 1947: 59. 5. See Goshen-Gottstein 1969: 7479 for the history of this form of representation.
248
Functional Aspects 10.4.
1. It does not include the quadriradical verbs, which have their own more reduced system, basically restricted to N- and -stems with the corresponding secondary and tertiary stems; they will be discussed separately in chaps. 12 and 13. 2. I have excluded the D-stem, which does not fit into the scheme: it is not primary, because it cannot be extended with the -t- or -tan- infix (not counting a few doubtful forms), nor obviously secondary or tertiary. Moreover, it is arguably an artificial creation of the literary language; see further 13.3 (pp. 334337). 3. I have also omitted some marginal devices for extending the stems included in the diagram: gemination of R3 in the paradigm of the II/gem verbs (see 16.6.1, pp. 493494) and reduplication of R2 in a small group of Dt-stems (see chap. 15). These forms are best regarded as variants of the corresponding regular forms. 4. However, I have included the t2-stem as a variant of the t1-stem because of its frequency and its similarity in form, although it does not belong in the diagram if we consider its function, as I will argue in 14.6.2.2 (pp. 404411). The number of verbal stems, including the G-stem, can conveniently be taken to be fourteen, the thirteen members of the scheme (separating t1 and t2) plus the D-stem. These fourteen stems can be regarded as the canonical stems.6 They comprise the vast majority of Akkadian verb forms. A second point in which the diagram may be misleading is that it suggests that all stems are neatly distinguished from each other in their entire paradigm. This is not the case. A major source of complications is the fact that some formatives are used both to mark a verbal stem and a tense. First, the t-infix functions as the marker of both the t-perfect and the secondary stems, so that the t-perfect of the primary stems is identical with the perfective of the corresponding secondary stem: iptaras is both t-perfect of the G-stem and perfective of the Gt-stem, uptarris both t-perfect of the D-stem and perfective of the Dt-stem, etc. Which of the two options applies in a given case can only be determined on the basis of the context. Second, gemination of R2 serves as the imperfective marker in the G-stem and most derived stems but also as the marker of the Gtn-stem and the D-stem. Another source of ambiguity is the fact that except for the Gtn-stem the tertiary stems are identical in form to the secondary stems in all forms outside the imperfective, so that the same form serves as a passive and as a pluractional active of a primary stem. For instance, the form uptarris, which I just mentioned, can also be the perfective of the Dtn-stem.
10.4. Functional Aspects

Most derived verbs express a predictable semantic or syntactic modification of the simple verb. Therefore, the diagram also has a functional side: the formal oppositions shown in the diagram reflect the functional oppositions among the derived stems, at least in principle. If we include in the scheme presented above the hierarchy which determines these functional relationships by means of arrows, its systematic nature becomes even more apparent; see Table 10.2 This diagram is identical to the formal diagram (Table 10.1), apart from the fact that the primary stems are in the middle, between the secondary and tertiary stems.7 This reflects their functional relationship: both the secondary and the tertiary stems are derivations of the primary stems, but
6. They are comparable to the Stems IX in Arabic, which are usually contrasted with the rare Stems XI to XV; see, e.g., Fleisch 1979: 274 les formes drives usuelles versus ibid. 330 les formes verbales drives dites rares. 7. The t2-stem has not been included, because it does not have a regular functional relationship to another stem; see 14.6.2.2 (pp. 404411).
10.4. Functional Aspects secondary Gt Nt Dt t1 primary G N D tertiary Gtn Ntn Dtn tn
249
table 10.2: the functional relations among the derived verbal stems.
synchronically they are not directly related to each other: the tertiary stems do not function as pluractionals to the secondary stems, in spite of the fact that they share the infix -t-.8 This curious fact can be explained from the way the tertiary stems developed historically: although they originated as derivations from the secondary stems, they came to be associated with the primary stems, a process which will be described in detail in 14.7.6 (pp. 431437). As a result, Table 10.2 reflects the actual relationships between the verbal stems, whereas Table 10.1 shows the original state of affairs from a historical point of view. The increase in formal complexity noted in the previous section is paralleled by an increase in functional complexity. For instance, the -stem is normally causative to the G-stem, and the tn-stem is pluractional to the -stem, so that the tn-stem is both causative and pluractional. This gives the system an extraordinary degree of transparency and isomorphismand hence of stability: already in the oldest texts, it exists in its complete form (as far as we can tell), and it remains largely unchanged in the course of Akkadian history, apart from the fact that from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward some stems started to drop out of use, especially the t-stems (see 14.3.4, p. 371; and 14.5.3, p. 388). However, whereas the formal regularity applies to almost all verbs, the functional regularity only applies to a part of them. Each derived stem includes verbs with an irregular, unpredictable meaning. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to them as irregular derived verbs, but this only refers to their meaning, not to their form (unless indicated otherwise). Regular derived verbs have a predictable meaning that can be analysed into the lexical meaning of the basic verb and the grammatical function of the stem in question. For instance, aknu to place has a regular causative -stem ukunu whose meaning can be described as to place + CAUS and a passive N-stem nakunu that means to place + PASS. Of these features, the notion of placing resides in the radicals kn, the notions CAUS and PASS in the prefixes (a)- and n(a)-, respectively, in combination with the specific pattern imposed upon the radicals. As a result, regular derived verbs are embedded in a network of associations. On the one hand, because of their lexical stem they are associated with other derived stems of the same root, especially with the basic verb; on the other hand, because of their derived stem affix, they are associated with other members of the same verbal stem. This network has a double function: it makes the system productive, thus enabling a speaker to create new verbs with a specific form and meaning, and for existing derived verbs, it strengthens the formal and semantic association with the basic verb, stabilizing the form and the meaning of the derived verb and thus countering lexicalization.
8. For possible exceptions, see chap. 14 n. 249 (p. 434).
250
The Relationship between the GStem and the Derived Stems 10.5.
Irregular derived verbs, on the other hand, have a fundamentally different status: since they are not analysable and not part of a productive process, they are in principle independent verbs9 in which the verbal stem is simply a formal vehicle for expressing a certain lexical concept. Almost all derived stems include irregular verbs. Overall they form a fairly small minority, but the proportion of regular to irregular verbs varies considerably. Generally speaking, irregular verbs are relatively numerous in the primary derived stems, relatively rare in the secondary stems, and very rare in the tertiary stems (with the possible exception of the Ntn-stem). I will discuss this further in the context of the individual stems. The existence of irregular derived stems is an inherent feature of the system, caused on the one hand by the universal process of semantic change, and on the other hand by the specific way each derived stem has developed. The two main causes of irregularity are lexicalization (see 2.2.3, pp. 3536) and denominalization. The former changes the meaning of an individual derived verb and thus tends to separate it from the basic verb. Derived verbs with a high frequency are especially prone to this. bulu, for instance, the -stem of wablu to bring, carry, originally means to cause to bring/carry but in practice it is used as an independent verb to send. Denominalization creates verbs that may formally belong to a derived stem but get their meaning from the source noun rather than from another verb. It is responsible for the notoriously irregular function of the t2-stem and is also an important function of the D-stem (see 14.6.2.2, pp. 404411; and 11.4, pp. 277278, respectively). Finally, and most importantly, what neither of the two diagrams shows is that, under the surface of this regularity, massive changes can be going on that undermine the structure of the system without visibly affecting it. Lexicalization disrupts the semantic associations between different verbal stems of the same verb; grammaticalization causes whole categories to shift from one slot to another and thus to disrupt the isomorphic structure of the verbal paradigm. This happened, for instance, with the shift of iptarVs from a Gt perfective to a t-perfect of the basic stem and the rise of gemination in the paradigm of the G-stem. As I will argue in chap. 14, this kind of shift is a major cause of the decline of the secondary stems during the course of Akkadian history.
10.5. the relationship between the g-stem and the Derived stems
The relationship between the G-stem and the derived stems is determined by the unmarked nature of the G-stem (see 3.2, pp. 5354; and Edzard 1965). The G-stem is the pivot of the entire system from which all other stems are derived, either directly or indirectly via the corresponding primary stem. Within the primary stems, there is an opposition between the G-stem on the one hand, and the N-, D-, and -stems, on the other, but the latter are not directly in opposition.10 The derived stems, then, constitute a multi-level system in which a derived stem may itself be the basic form of another derived stem. In principle, this process is unidirectional.11
9. For the status of regular derived verbs, see 10.5 below. 10. In other words, the N-stem is not normally used as a passive to the D-stem, nor is the used as a causative to the D-stem, etc. However, in verb classes that do not have a G-stem (the quadriradical verbs and some N tantum verbs), N and are directly in opposition to each other; see 13.2.2.5 (p. 333). 11. Under certain conditions, however, the functional relationship may be reversed: there are some G-stems that may secondarily serve as intransitives to frequent transitive D-stems: for instance, qerbu to be/come near may be used as passive/intransitive to qurrubu to offer, lit., to bring near (CAD Q 234 s.v. 4), and paru to come together occurs also as passive/intransitive of puuru to bring together in Old Assyrian (CAD P 27 s.v. 1e). The frequency of these D-stems makes them independent of the G-stem and a likely basis for derivation themselves, even to the degree of pressing the G-stem into service.
10.5. The Relationship between the GStem and the Derived Stems
251
An alternative way of organizing the verbal stems is to regard all stems as derived from the verbal root and thus of equal status. This, however, ignores the functional relationships between them and, therefore, the hierarchy on which they are based. Only by deriving the secondary stems from the primary stems can we explain that for detransitivization it is not an arbitrary derived stem that is chosen but the one corresponding to the primary stem: an N-stem in the case of a G-stem, a Dt-stem in the case of a D-stem, etc. Thus, the passivization rule presupposes a specific active stem, not just a root.12 In this respect, the four primary stems constitute four parallel subsystems, each with its own detransitive and pluractional category. As the term indicates, the derived verbal stems have derivational rather than inflectional status. They show many features that are typical of derivation. First, they do not meet the criterion of obligatoriness (Booij 1998: 1415), because a verb may or may not have a specific derived stem; instead, they show the restrictions in productivity and idiosyncrasies in meaning that are typical of derivation. Second, the functions they express are cross-linguistically typically expressed by derivational categories: valency changes, especially detransitive and causative (Bybee 1985: 3031, 9899), and verbal plurality (1985: 100101, 15051). Third, their formal exponents, changes in the stem, are a typical feature of derivation, whereas inflectional categories tend to be expressed by more peripheral markers (Booij 1998: 2021).13 The Semitic verb, with its person marking by means of prefixes and suffixes, is a prototypical representative of this tendency.14 From a grammatical point of view, then, derived verbs are separate lexemes with their own paradigm. However, their actual degree of independence vis--vis the basic verb may vary considerably according to their semantic nature and their frequency. Irregular derived verbs are by definition independent, since their meaning is unpredictable. Regular derived verbs, however, are dependent on the basic verb to the extent that they can be analyzed into a lexical and a grammatical part, as described in 10.4 (p. 249), and are thus semantically complex (Bybee and Brewer 1980: 2023). The lexical part guarantees a close semantic association with the basic verb. For instance, the passive/intransitive N-stem nakunu to be placed and the causative -stem ukunu to cause to place quoted in 10.4 have their own paradigm, but semantically they are strongly dependent upon aknu to place, and it seems counter-intuitive to regard them as independent verbs. This applies even more strongly to the pluractional Gtn-stem itakkunu to place continuously. On the other hand, a derived verb has a more independent position as it has a higher frequency. Frequency contributes to independence, since it increases the lexical strength of a word according to Bybees (1985: 11718; 2001: 11316) terminology, i.e., the degree to which it is stored as
12. The G-stem is also described as the basis of the derived stems by D. Cohen 1984: 6061; Wright 1967: I 29; Fleisch 1979: 27273 n. 2. A prominent dissenting voice comes from Waltke and OConnor 1990: 35161; see also Hoftijzer 1992: 11819 n. 7 for a discussion, mainly concerning Hebrew. 13. However, the most important criterion for the distinction between inflection and derivation does not apply here, namely, that derivation forms independent lexemes and inflection does not (Booij 1998: 11). This is precisely what is at stake here. 14. Aronoff (1994: 12346) argues that the verbal stems are inflectional classes, mainly because they are obligatory in the sense that every verb must belong to a verbal stem, just as any verb in Latin belongs to a conjugation and any noun to a declension. However, the difference is that verbs and nouns in Latin typically belong to a single class and only exceptionally to more than one, with a corresponding difference in meaning (such as iacre to throw versus iactre to throw repeatedly or energetically, and iacre to lie (i.e., to be thrown down), whereas in Semitic a verb typically occurs in more than one verbal stem and the semantic relationships are largely predictable and productive. Thus the verbal stems have a clear grammatical function. The problem of the obligatory character of the system can be solved by assigning an essentially different place to the basic stem, as the default stem, outside the system of derived stems.
252
Oppositions between Stems 10.6.
a separate unit in the mental lexicon of the speaker. Therefore, derived verbs which are relatively frequent are also relatively independent of their basic verb. This applies to causative -stems such as bulu to cause to bring > to send and to cause to go /come out > to take/bring out, as well as factitive D-stems such as kunnu to establish, confirm and qurrubu to offer. Ultimately, an increase in frequency may lead to lexicalization, as we saw in 2.2.3 (pp. 3536), and to complete independence from the basic verb. Altogether, this demonstrates that for regular derived stems an absolute classification as derivational may be grammatically correct but that their actual status is rather more complex and variable. There is a continuum from independent to dependent. It is ultimately based on the way these forms are stored in the mental lexicon of the speaker and produced in an actual speech situation: the more independent forms are stored as whole units just as basic forms are, whereas the forms with a high degree of dependency are derived on the spot by means of a productive morphological rule, whenever the speaker needs them (Bybee 1985: 134).
10.6. oppositions between stems

The function of a derived stem is determined by two factors: its historical background and its opposition to other stems. The first factor will be discussed in later chapters. This section contains a general survey of the oppositions between the individual stems. In a seminal article, Edzard (1965) has attempted to specify all attested oppositions on the basis of contrasting pairs of different stems of the same verb, in principle limiting himself to Old Babylonian (1965: 11112). The results, summarized in a diagram (1965: 115), show a bewildering complexity and suggest that almost every stem can be in opposition to every other stem. However, this is largely caused by the fact that Edzard does not differentiate according to the number of verbs to which an opposition applies, although he points out (1965: 11516) that there are large differences in productivity. For all practical purposes, Edzards system should be divided into a series of subsystems to which a verb is assigned on the basis of its semantic features. The subsystem determines the derivational options of a given basic form. Insofar as our sources allow this, I will make a three-way distinction between productive derivations, regular but (presumably) unproductive derivations, and all the resti.e., unproductive, irregular, and incidental derivations. In addition, it is useful to distinguish literary from non-literary texts, since there are strong indications that, in the former, the system of derived stems has been exploited for stylistic variation, so that several derived stems are mainly or even exclusively found in literary texts.15 The use of the derived stems in non-literary texts is considerably simpler, and many of the more complex stems, if they are used at all, appear to be strongly lexicalized, i.e., they were available to the speakers as ready-made entities rather than productive derivations. If we restrict ourselves to the productive and regular oppositions that (also) occur in nonliterary texts, it turns out that there is only a small number of derivational paths that a verb can follow and that are largely determined by its meaning or, more specifically, by its syntactic and semantic (degree of) transitivity. The following derivations may be considered productive (and therefore regular by definition) for verbs whose basic stem is the G-stem: 1. All G-stems can have a pluractional Gtn-stem, although it is attested only for a minority of them (see Table 10.1).
15. See especially 13.3 (pp. 334337) on the D-stem, 13.2.2.1 (pp. 329331) on the literary use of the -stem, 14.3.4 (pp. 372374) on that of the Gt-stem, and 14.7.5 (p. 430) on that of the Ntn-stem.
10.6. Oppositions between Stems
253
2. Transitive G-stems can have a passive N-stem and a causative -stem.16 The following figures may give a rough impression of the frequency of the combination GN: AHw contains about 700 transitive G-stems, of which 126 have both an N-stem and a -stem attested; most of them are very common verbs. In addition, there are 162 transitive G-stems with only an N-stem (mostly medium frequency verbs) and 66 with only a -stem (mostly rather infrequent verbs). The relatively low frequency of causative -stems is due to the fact that the causative of transitive verbs is a highly marked category and generally far less frequent than the passive. The distribution of N-stems and -stems shown by the figures is in keeping with this fact: the absence of a -stem in medium-frequency verbs and of an N-stem in low-frequency verbs can safely be ascribed to non-attestation rather than to non-existence. The numbers also show that about 350 transitive G-stems have neither an N-stem nor a -stem; most of them are very rare verbs. Many transitive G-stems also have a D-stem, for which see below under #7. 3. Intransitive G-stems17 have either a D-stem or a -stem as their transitive counterpart, usually a D-stem in process verbs and a -stem in action verbs, but this is a mere tendency; see further 10.8.2 (pp. 256257) below and the references given there. For verbs in the remaining primary stemsthe N-stem, the D-stem, and the -stem, whether they are themselves derived from a G-stem or notthe following derivations may be regarded as productive: 4. They can all have a corresponding pluractional stem (N Ntn, D Dtn, and tn). 5. Transitive D-stems and -stems can have a detransitive secondary stem (D Dt and t1). 6. N tantum verbs (most of which are quadriradical) can have a causative -stem. Verbs in the secondary and tertiary stems do not have any further productive derivation. It is not easy to determine to what extent a derivation is actually productive in Akkadian. However, a few derived stems, even some that are quite common, give the impression of constituting a closed class, resulting from a derivational process that was productive in an earlier period. The following cases may belong here: 7. Transitive G-stems frequently have a D-stem,18 which in comparison to G N and G shows a high degree of idiosyncrasy. It often involves plurality, or is lexicalized, or appears to be interchangeable with the G-stem (see 11.3.4, pp. 274277, for details). The problem is aggravated by the fact that many D-stems of transitive verbs mainly occur in Standard Babylonian, with its often highly stereotyped language. These features make it questionable whether the D-stem belongs to the productive derivations of a transitive G-stem, in spite of its frequency. Note also that several very frequent transitive G-stems that are not typical high-transitivity verbs do not have a D-stem (see 11.5, pp. 278279). 8. Transitive G-stems with a suitable meaning may have a reciprocal Gt-stem; this is probably productive in Old Babylonian, fossilized in Old Assyrian, and artificially kept alive in Standard Babylonian (see 14.3, pp. 360375).
16. With the qualifications that transitive II/voc verbs starting with a sibilant cannot have a -stem (see GAV pp. 24849) and that transitive low-transitivity verbs cannot be passivized; if they have an N-stem at all, it is usually ingressive; see 12.2.2.1 sub 4 (p. 296). 17. Including transitive verbs with a low degree of transitivity, such as lamdu to learn, etc.; see 3.4 (p. 66). 18. Roughly 420 of the approximately 700 transitive verbs listed in AHw have a D-stem.
254
Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal Stems 10.7.
9. Reciprocal Gt-stems in Old and Standard Babylonian may have a causative t2-stem (see 14.6.2.2, pp. 405406); it is sporadic but may be or may have been productive. 10. Dt-stems in Old and Standard Babylonian may have reduplication as an additional marker to underline plurality or repetition (a Dtr-stem; see chap. 15). Again, it occurs sporadically, but in certain dialects it may be or may have been productive. If we include literary texts, the picture becomes much more complex. The Babylonian scribes exploited derivations that were marginal and/or residual to create additional possibilities for stylistic variation. Edzard (1965) includes them in his more-or-less complete enumeration, and they will all be discussed in the following chapters under the respective verbal stem; here I will restrict the discussion to the most salient instances: 11. Intransitive G-stem factitive -stem (in process verbs instead of D; see 13.2.2.2, pp. 328331). 12. Intransitive G-stem ingressive N-stem (see 12.2.2.2, pp. 297298). 13. Transitive and intransitive G-stem Gt-stem without reciprocal meaning (see 14.3.4, pp. 372373). 14. D-stem D-stem (see 13.3, pp. 334337). 15. Gt-stem Dt-stem to underline plurality (see 14.5.1, p. 385). Edzard lists various other oppositions that are not mentioned here because they seem to be indirect, resulting from accidentally non-attested direct oppositions or from incidental analogical creations. They include Dt t2 (Edzard 1965: 117; see 14.6.2.2, p. 410, for lemnu t2), Gtn Dtn, Gtn tn, Gtn Ntn and N Dt (or vice versa) (1965: 113). Indirect in a chronological sense is N t2 in a few reciprocal N-stems, such as amru N to meet and emdu N to join one another (1965: 117), which themselves replace a reciprocal Gt-stem (see 14.6.2.2, pp. 405, 410). Derived stems that do not play a role in these productive processes are the marginal Nt-stem (see 14.5.4, pp. 391392), the stems with a double t-infix, which are a Neo-Assyrian innovation (see 14.5.3, pp. 388390), andwith a single exceptionthe t2-stem, which is basically denominal and thus not derived from another verbal stem (see 14.6.2.2, pp. 404411).
10.7. Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal stems

The diachronic development of the derived verbal stems involves their origin and growth in prehistoric times, on the one hand, and their further development in the course of Akkadian history, on the other. Both issues belong to the chapters about the individual stems. Here, I will only discuss some general points. Most formatives of the derived stems have clear cognates in other Semitic languages and even in Afroasiatic, implying that the Akkadian system of derived verbal stems must have a very long prehistory. I will not speculate about the form it had in Afroasiatic, but for Proto-Semitic we are on firm ground: the combined evidence of the older Semitic languages and some additional data from Afroasiatic allow us to reconstruct the Proto-Semitic system with a reasonable degree of certainty (see chap. 18). It differs from the Akkadian system in some important respects, the most salient of which is the existence of a derived verbal stem with pluractional function characterized by gemination in the basic stem (the GPL-stem *yiqattalu) and the stem vowel a elsewhere (D-stem *yuqattalu, etc.), as I argued in chap. 4. As far as we can tell, the Akkadian system is already fully developed in the earliest texts in much the same form as in later and better-documented periods. Since it is virtually the same in all
10.7. Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal Stems
255
older dialects, it can be reconstructed for Proto-Akkadian. The few data we have on the derived stems in Eblaite suggests that the Eblaite system was not very different from the Akkadian (see Edzard 2006: 7982), with one exception: the action nouns or infinitives with a double t-infix and a different vowel pattern, which will be discussed in 14.5.6 (pp. 395397). Thus, the Akkadian system dates back to Proto-East Semitic, although Proto-East Semitic itself may have had additional derived stems that were lost in Proto-Akkadian. Once it was established, the system proved to be extremely stable throughout the history of Akkadian, which is doubtless related to its regular and isomorphic structure. The main type of change affecting the system is the gradual decrease in productivity of individual stems, which is particularly evident in the secondary stems with infixed t: they gradually disappear from all but literary texts after the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian periods. This decline corresponds to a concomitant increase in the use of the t-perfect, which from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward is the regular past tense in affirmative main clauses. There can be little doubt that there is a causal relationship between the two processes. The tertiary stems also decline but apparently at a somewhat later date, mainly in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian, and this decline does not affect their whole paradigm: the imperfective of the tan-stems, which in all dialects is vastly more frequent than the other forms, remains in use. The rise of new forms during the attested period of Akkadian is very limited and only occurs in the margins of the system. There is one instance of what one could call a new derived stem, namely the D-stem, which I will argue in 13.3 (pp. 334337) is a literary artifice rather than a natural development instigated by ordinary speakers of the language. Another change is the creation of t-perfect forms with a double t-infix in the secondary and tertiary stems: Gt iptatrVs, Gtn iptatarrvs, Dt(n) uptatarris, t(n) utatapris, etc. They became indispensable after the rise of the t-perfect as an inflectional member of the verbal paradigm. Their actual attestation provides eloquent proof of the stability of the system of derived stems. Even though the t-perfect was a fully productive and frequent category in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian, the use of forms with a double t-infix was staunchly avoided: in Old Babylonian they are very rare, and in Old Assyrian they seem to be absent altogether. Old Babylonian partly suppletes the missing form by using the t-perfect of the N-stem (see 12.2.2.1, p. 295); Old Assyrian seems to solve the problem by simply using the perfective instead. Only in Middle Babylonian did forms with a double t-infix become less exceptional, but they still were fairly rare, because by that time the secondary and tertiary stems themselves had started to decline.19 Directly related to this process is the emergence of another new form: in Neo-Assyrian (and rarely in Neo-Babylonian), the inherited Dt and t1 forms (Impfv uptarras and utapras) are replaced by forms with a double t-infix (uptatarras and utatapras), the first of which has made it into most grammars of Akkadian as the Dtt-stem. These forms are a reaction to the increasing predominance of the tense function of t, which made it unsuitable as a valency marker. Since it is hard to dispense with a passive for the predominantly transitive D- and -stems, NeoAssyrian created a new passive by extending the existing double t of the t-perfects uptatarris and utatapris to the imperfective and the perfective (see further 14.5.3, pp. 388390). In the weak verbs, more changes take place over time, mostly after the Proto-Akkadian stage but still in the preliterary period. This is clear from differences between Babylonian and Assyrian that are already established in the oldest texts, such as the t-perfect of the II/voc verbs (Bab imtt versus Ass imtuat), the N perfective of the II/voc verbs (Ass iiim versus Bab im),
19. All these developments will be discussed in detail in chap. 14 on the history of the t-infix. Therefore, the presentation given here is schematic and without examples or references.
256
The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems 10.8
the imperfective of the II/voc verbs (Bab ubt versus Ass ubat), and the N perfective of the I/voc verbs (Ass innmer versus Bab innmer). All these forms will be discussed in the relevant chapters. Generally speaking, the behaviour of the weak verbs confirms the stability of the system of derived stems. In particular, the rise of new weak verbs as a result of the loss of the guttural consonants is illustrative: the affected verbs tend to join existing schemes of weak verbs rather than creating a new conjugation that would not be derivable from the strong paradigm. In Babylonian, for instance, the original II/H verbs adopt the patterns of the II/voc verbs. In these processes, morphophonemic (analogical) change is much more prominent than phonological change. In sum, the general picture is that Akkadian has experienced a stage of drastic changes in its derived verbal stems in the preliterary period after the Proto-Semitic stage; and this gave rise to a well-balanced system that subsequently existed virtually unchanged for several millennia, except for a gradual decline in the productivity of some individual stems. The heydays of the system in terms of the number and productivity of stems lie in the early periodin Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian, and perhaps even more in the literary dialect of Standard Babylonian, which preserves and even extends the Old Babylonian system. The later non-literary dialects show a rather drastic decrease in the use of all but the primary stems: Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian seem to preserve mainly a simplified system consisting of a passive N-stem, a causative -stem, and a largely lexicalized D-stem (usually factitive).
10.8. the grammatical Functions expressed by the Derived Verbal stems

It is convenient to give an overview of the grammatical functions expressed by the derived verbal stems, especially since the chapters on the individual stems are lengthy enough in themselves. In Akkadian, these functions concern verbal plurality, causativity, and voice.
10.8.1. Verbalplurality
Verbal plurality or event plurality refers to a quantification of the event or the process expressed by the verb, i.e., whether it refers to a single, a repeated, a protracted, or a more intensive occurrence. According to Dresslers (1968) seminal account of verbal plurality, we can distinguish four basic realizations (1968: 5684): iterative (which includes frequentative, repetitive, habitual, etc.), continuous or durative, distributive, and intensive. A definition of these notions and illustrations from Akkadian can be found in 14.7.1 (pp. 415417), which deals with the functions of the tan-stems. For the sake of convenience, I will subsume all these nuances under the noun phrase verbal plurality and under the adjective pluractional (following Newman 1990: 5354), when there is no need for a more specific term. The main verbal stems for indicating verbal plurality in Akkadian are the tan-stems, to be discussed in chap. 14, but it is also an important function of the D-stem of transitive verbs. The typical marker of verbal plurality is gemination of R2. Gemination of R3 and reduplication are also used, but they are marginal (see 16.6.1, pp. 493494; and 15.2, pp. 439444, respectively.
10.8.2. Causativeandfactitive
An important function of derived verbal stems is causativization, i.e., to indicate an increase in valency. Akkadian has two verbal stems for this purpose, the -stem and the D-stem, but since they are different in character, I will call them causative and factitive, respectively (see also GAV pp. 23744). This distinction is based on the semantic distinction between agent-oriented verbs
10.8 The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems
257
(shortly, action verbs) and process-oriented verbs (shortly, process verbs) (Payne 1997: 5462; Haspelmath 1993: 9096). Action verbs refer to events that require the intervention of an agent for their realization, so they normally have an agentive subject. Process verbs denote events that can (also) occur spontaneously, without intervention by an agent, and are characterized by the absence of agent-oriented meaning components (Haspelmath 1993: 93). Examples of English process verbs are break and redden (in their intransitive reading), in contrast to, for instance, cut and paint. Process verbs focus on the result of the process rather than on its modalities. Therefore, one can say that something broke or reddened but not that it cut or painted. The verbs cut and paint specify to some extent how the action was performed and are therefore agent-oriented. Process verbs are often related to adjectives and indicate the inception of the quality or the condition expressed by the adjective (to become what the adjective indicates). Action verbs and process verbs behave quite differently when an external agent is added, i.e., when they are causativized. For action verbs, the addition of an extra agent on top of the one that is inherently present results in a prototypical causative event in which not only the original event and the external agent are clearly distinguishable but often also the original agent, the causee, who may keep a certain control over the action (Comrie 1981a: 16667)). This is a highly marked situation for which an explicit marker is indispensable. Akkadian uses the -stem for this purpose. The -stem is a fully-fledged causative that can causativize both intransitive and transitive action verbs. Process verbs, on the other hand, do not have an inherent agent, and the addition of an agent to instigate the process in question usually results in a two-participant clause that is not significantly different from that of an ordinary transitive clause. Moreover, it is not a causative clause as defined above. The typical function of the D-stem of intransitive verbs is to underline the presence of such an agent in process verbs that are intransitive in the G-stem. I will call this function factitive. A factitive D-stem, then, does not indicate the presence of an additional agent but a change in the subject from non-agentive to agentive. We can define its function as indicating derived agentivity. In terms of a valency change, it denotes a qualitative valency increase in contrast to the quantitative valency increase of the causative. The fact that the factitive D-stem is usually also transitive is of secondary importance, as I will demonstrate further in 11.3.1 (pp. 272274). The actual use of the D-stem in Akkadian shows that it cannot be causative, i.e., it cannot add an extra agent to a clause which already has one. Therefore, D-stems of action verbs have the same valency as the G-stem and are never causative (see further 11.3.4, pp. 274277).
10.8.3. Voice
In contrast to causativization, the term voice as it is usually defined refers to a reduction in valency. It concerns the different ways in which the argument structure of a clause can be changed by rearranging the arguments or reducing their number. There are three basic voice types: active, middle, and passive. In languages with a nominative/accusative system, the active is the unmarked voice: it selects the constituent performing the action as subject. The passive selects the patient as subject and demotes the subject of the corresponding active clause to oblique status or leaves it unexpressed altogether. In the middle voice, the subject is also an agent (or at least the initiator of an event) but is at the same time affected by the event (Croft et al. 1987: 184; Shibatani, ed. 1988: 34). Passive and middle differ in some important respects. First, passivization basically represents a rearrangement of arguments, rather than a reduction, and therefore entails a change in focus but not a significant change in meaning vis--vis the corresponding active clause. However, it amounts to a valency reduction as well, if the original subject is not overtly expressed. In fact,
258
the most common pragmatic reason for using the passive is either to avoid mentioning the agent or to describe the event from the perspective of the object (Givn 1990: 56667). The middle voice, on the other hand, involves a salient change in the meaning of the clause by ascribing to the subject the status of affected entity, which is absent from a normal active clause. Second, the passive affects the status of the subject of the active clause, i.e., the first argument, whereas many types of middle voice affect the object, i.e., the second argument. Therefore, passive and middle can be distinguished as first argument reduction versus second argument reduction (Dik 1997: II 1214). The latter especially concerns reflexive and reciprocal clauses. The distinction between first- and second-argument reduction is useful for the description of voice in Akkadian. Akkadian has two derivational categories for valency reduction, the secondary stems with infixed t (Gt, Dt, and t1) and the N-stem. G-stem verbs realize first-argument reduction (passive and mediopassive) by means of the N-stem and second-argument reduction (reflexive, reciprocal, and middle) by means of the Gt-stem or the N-stem. The primary derived stems only have one verbal means of valency reduction, namely, the secondary stems, which accordingly are used for all detransitive categories. In addition, the stative, strictly speaking a resultative, syntactically behaves like a kind of (medio)passive if it denotes the resulting state of the direct object of the active clause (see 7.3.2, pp. 169170). The way Akkadian expresses valency reduction is very common in the languages of the world: according to Haspelmath (1990: 2829), the most widespread passive morpheme is a marker affixed to the verb. Passive affixes tend to have other functions as well, such as reflexive, reciprocal, mediopassive, and occasionally also fientivization (1990: 3237). Generally speaking, valency reduction markers are typically polysemous; they denote derived intransitivity or detransitivity in general but which type of detransitivity is purely determined by the meaning of the verb and the context.20 Rather than looking for a single overarching value to comprise all types of voice reduction, we should attempt to establish a diachronic process that shows how one function can develop into another, allowing for the possibility that early stages show little or no similarity to later ones.21 Because there is little terminological consistency in the literature, it may be useful to give definitions of some basic types that are relevant to Akkadian and describe their main features in this language. I will distinguish the following detransitive categories: passive, mediopassive, reflexive, reciprocal, and middle.
20. See Keenan 1985: 25356; Haspelmath 1990: 3237. 21. The polysemy of voice markers occasionally leads to problems of classification. A vexing case in Akkadian is the common verb labu to put on, wear. Its Gt- and N-stems are usually classified as reflexive (which is at least partly inspired by their modern translation equivalents; see n. 29 below, p. 261), but this violates the main condition for reflexivity, namely, that the basic stem should mean to dress (sb. else) (see 10.8.3.3, p. 261). This can only be expressed by the D-stem lubbuu, however; labu G can only have clothing as its object. The N-stem of labu can aptly be characterized as ingressive: ubta labi he wears a garment ubta illabi he put on a garment (see 12.2.2.1 sub 4, p. 296), but this does not work for the Gt-stem: there are no transitive Gt-stems with ingressive function (the ingressive Gt-stems of motion verbs such as alku Gt to start going are something quite different; see 14.3.4, pp. 371372) nor with passive function. The easiest solution may be to assume that labu G did mean to dress (sb. else) in some prehistoric stage of Akkadian but lost this meaning to the factitive D-stem (i.e., that labu once was a factitive G-stem; see 11.6.2, p. 286., and GAV pp. 43841). Accordingly, I will treat labu Gt as a reflexive Gt-stem in the rest of this study, with all due reservations.
259
10.8.3.1. Passive
In the passive, the direct object of a transitive clause is promoted to subject and the original subject is either suppressed or demoted to oblique status but is implicitly present. In Akkadian, the original subject is almost always left unexpressed.22 There are, however, a few Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian instances of passive statives with an explicit agent, introduced by itti or ina (see (01)(04)), and at least one Standard Babylonian case of itti with a passive N-stem (see (05)):23 (01) KTS 1, 24:68 (OA) ina utukk u ina eamm a-am-du-a-ni we are plagued (? or the like) by demons and spirits of the dead (also RA 59, 166:1315) (02) YOS 10, 17:1 (OB) niqi awlim itti ilim ma-i-ir the mans sacrifice has been accepted by the god (cf. TuL p. 41 VAT 9518:2 (OB) niqi awlim ilum im-u-ur the god has accepted the mans sacrifice with the corresponding active construction) (03) AbB 6, 73:4 (OB) itti arrim -u-ra-nu we have been discharged by the king (OB, R. Frankena: beim Knig, which makes no sense) (04) RIME 4, 616:79 (OB) (he dedicated two silver bags) a ina dumu.me ummntim u-uk-lu-[la] which had been perfectly fashioned by the artisans (also ibid. 618: 1517) (05) JNES 33, 276:51 (SB) lu-na-ir (var. lu-un-n-ir) ittka let me be saved by you24 It is more common to qualify passive forms by means of an adjunct accusative with instrumental function, e.g.: (06) RA 80, 117:39 (OA) (the textiles (. . .) which arrived later) ssam l-p-t were moth-eaten (07) BAM 4, 393: r.5 (OB) umma awlum kalbam na-i-ik if a man has been bitten by a dog (= (33) in chap. 7, p. 171)
22. Faber (1980: 89104) gives a survey of agent marking in passive sentences in the older Semitic languages except for Akkadian. Her conclusion that Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic had at the very least vestiges of a passive agent construction (1980: 105) and that [t]his construction was a retention from Pre-Semitic stages of Afroasiatic (p. 111) is vigourously contested by Liebermann (1986: 59798 n. 103). 23. Other passive statives with an agent are AfO 18, 65:32; 66: II 4445; CT 44, 37:3; YOS 10, 46: II 44, III 41, 44 (all from Old Babylonian omens), and perhaps ARM 5, 67:1213 (OB letter). Standard Babylonian instances are CT 20, 25:8 and SpTU 3, 93:13 according to E. Frahm, NABU 1998/10. It seems that passive statives with an agent are less unusual than passive N-stems with an agent. 24. Malbran-Labat (1991) also includes inanimate constituents in her collection of passives with agents. These cannot be agents, however (unless they are personified), since agents are by definition volitional. Strictly speaking, this also applies to constituents introduced by a compound preposition such as ina qtby (the hand of), but because the compound preposition gradually replaces the simple one, its basically instrumental meaning will become more general and include that of agent, without a clear-cut boundary being discernible. Malbran-Labat (1991: 986 sub 3.3.3) mentions some other instances of passive forms with itti (unfortunately without references), which, however, should be interpreted differently: adduk ittiu (reference unknown to me) is a Gt-stem to fight (itti with), and ittu ikkammal (BBR 25:10) is an ingressive N-stem of kamlum itti to be(come) angry with.
260
In Akkadian, passivization is restricted to transitive fientive verbs with prototypical direct objects.25 Intransitive verbs have no passive (i.e., there is no impersonal passive in Akkadian), and passives of transitive verbs denoting stative-like concepts (see 3.3.1, pp. 5557) are very unusual.26 Accusatives that have no direct object status cannot be promoted to subject (see GAG 144d). This concerns the adjunct accusative with verbs such as mal to be(come) full (of/ with) and katmu to cover (with), etc., and the accusative with verbs of movement (gerra alku/wa to go on a journey or an expedition (OB), bta erbu to enter the house, bba wa to go out of the door, eqla etqu to travel overland, etc.).27 Indirect objects and similar constituents cannot be passivized either, with one exceptionthe verb qab to say, order (+ Dat), in which the indirect object may occur as subject of a passive stative in Old Assyrian and also very rarely in Old Babylonian: (08) CCT 2, 31a:2125 (OA) (an amount of copper) a (. . .) ina suuppim laqam q-bi4-a-t-ni which you have been authorized to take from the depot (see further CAD Q 3738 s.v. 4e) (09) St. Reiner p. 192:50 (OB) ummamn l q-bi-ja8(Pi)-at ana balim if you had not been ordained to life (tr. W. G. Lambert)28
10.8.3.2. Mediopassive
The mediopassive is similar to the passive in that it promotes the object of an underlying transitive clause to subject, but there is no implied agent: the action occurs spontaneously. It is also known under various other terms, such as anticausative (Haspelmath 1990: 33; Payne 1997: 218). In Akkadian, it forms a single category with the passive and is expressed by the same categories. Two Old Babylonian examples, an N-stem of ebru to break (trans.) and a Dt-stem of passu to annul, destroy, are: (10) ARM 5, 66:711 ina atallukya (. . .) GIgigir ina qabltu i-e-bi-ir during my voyage (. . .) that chariot broke in the middle (11) RIME 4, 382:5254 (six great forts . . .) ina labirtunu in ramnunu up-ta-as-s-s in their old age they had fallen into ruin on their own accord (tr. D. R. Frayne) The choice between a passive and a mediopassive interpretation depends on the meaning of the verb and the context, but it is possible to make the mediopassive interpretation explicit by means of ina ramni- and similar expressions, as in (11).
25. These categories represent the class of basic passives according to Keenan 1985: 24750. 26. This phenomenon is found in many other languages; cf. Siewierska 1984: 189204. In Akkadian in particular, it applies to verbs of the following semantic types: knowledge verbs (but see below for lamdu), verbs of fearing (atu, palu, adru, etc.), and verbs of possession (ra to get, kadu to obtain, au to need, ablu to owe, etc.). If these verbs occur in the N-stem, it is usually ingressive rather than passive, e.g., ablu N to become indebted (OA). Yet there is no ban on passivization of these verbs. The D tantum verb kullu to hold, offer has a quite common Dt-stem with passive meaning to be held (alongside other meanings), and lamdu N occurs with passive meaning in a specific context in literary texts, presumably a literary artifice, e.g., BWL 265: r.7 m ili ul il-lam-mad (SB) the will of a god cannot be understood (tr. W. G. Lambert; cf. CAD L 58b s.v. 9). 27. Most of these accusatives interchange with prepositional phrases; see 3.4 (p. 67). This is syntactic proof of their non-direct object status. 28. The normal construction in Old Babylonian is to promote the infinitive to subject; see Frankena 1978: 89. An example is (28) quoted in 8.2.1 (p. 198). Note that in the Old Assyrian instance (08) the infinitive keeps its accusative case (laqam).
261
10.8.3.3. Directreflexive
Whereas passive and mediopassive involve first-argument reduction, the remaining types of detransitivity (reflexive, reciprocal and middle) involve second-argument reduction: they affect the status of the direct object rather than the subject. The first to be discussed is reflexivity. Reflexivitys basic feature is that the subject of the sentence is coreferential with another argument, either the direct object (direct reflexivity) or another constituent (indirect reflexivity) (Lichtenberk 1994: 3505). The subject is prototypically a human agent who acts volitionally, and the event is usually an action. It is important to distinguish between prototypical reflexive verbs and natural reflexive verbs. In the former, the subject performs on him/herself an action normally performed on some other entity (English kill, blame, hurt, curse). This is a highly marked situation, in which a reflexive marker is indispensable. In contrast, natural reflexive verbs are verbs which because of their semantics have a natural propensity to be used in reflexive situations, e.g., verbs of body care: wash, shave, dress, etc.29 Their reflexive use isat least in specific contextsjust as common or even more common than other uses, so that a reflexive marker carries little meaning and can therefore easily be dispensed with. As a result, the marker is liable to weakening and this may give rise to the class of middle verbs to be discussed in 10.8.3.6 below (pp. 265267). In Akkadian, reflexivity is mostly expressed by a nominal marker, usually ramnu (also ramanu, ramnu; see CAD R 11725 s.v.), but in Old Babylonian also by pagru, lit., body (CAD P 1617 s.v. 4) and in Ur III Babylonian and Old Assyrian sometimes also by qaqqadu, lit., head.30 Here are a few examples: (12) Kaufvertragsrecht p. 121 no. 12:34 (OA) PN ra-ma-u ipur PN redeemed himself (13) KH 32:23 (OB) ra-ma-an-u ipaar he himself will redeem himself (14) CBSM p. 122 56:10 var. (SB) Lamatu iabbassu ra-man- idk (ga z-ak) Lamatu will seize him and he will kill himself (see pl. 45 K.2809: IV 9) (15) ARM 10, 3: r.8 (OB) pa-ag-ri uallim je me suis prserve (tr. G. Dossin) (16) FAOS 17, 127:6 (Ur III Bab) (PNF . . .) q-q-s ana m iddin PNF sold herself (lit., her head) (into slavery)
29. It should be emphasized that a basic condition for reflexivity is that the verb in question is basically (or at least originally) a two-argument transitive verb in which the two arguments happen to refer to the same entity. This condition is often not observed in grammatical studies of Akkadian, with the result that a fairly large number of verbs are incorrectly classified as reflexive, although they should rather be defined as intransitive, ingressive or mediopassive, and thus belong to 10.8.3.2 (e.g., in GAG 3 90f/f*; Kienast 1967: 7879 n. 32, 2001: 247; and Streck 2003a: 3845). A major reason for labeling such verbs reflexive seems to be the fact that they can be translated with a reflexive pronoun in languages such as German and French. This is of course not a valid reason. For the problems this criterion may cause for some verbs, see n. 21 above (p. 258). 30. For qaqqadu in Old Assyrian, see Veenhof 1972: 265 and Kouwenberg 2005: 101. It is not always possible to be certain whether these nouns are used in their original meaning or whether they have acquired the status of a reflexive noun. For instance, there is no compelling reason to regard the nouns qaqqadu and napi/atu in the clauses quoted by Finet 1956: 37 18c, as reflexive: they are used in their literal meaning of head and life.
262
For prototypical reflexive situations, only nominal markers are used; for natural reflexive situations nominal markers may also be used, as in (17), but here they compete with the verbal markers of the N-stem and the secondary stems. (17) KUB 4, 17:11 [i ]pu r [a-m]a-an- ullal the exorcist purifies himself Generally speaking, the use of verbal reflexive markers is marginal. There are a number of reflexive Dt-stems (see 14.5.1, p. 384), but reflexive Gt- and N-stems are extremely rare (see 14.3, pp. 361364, and 12.2.2.1, p. 296, respectively), and reliable instances of reflexive t-stems do not seem to occur at all, neither in the t1-stem (the canonical passive of the -stem; see 14.5.2, p. 387), nor in the t2-stem (for which see 14.6.2.2, pp. 404411).31 For the equivalence of nominal and verbal markers, compare the different reflexive constructions of naru to guard (Gt in (18A) with pagru in (18B) and with ramnu in (18C)), and of aknu in the expression uma aknu to provide with a (good) name, give renown32 (Gt in (19A), N in (19B) and with pagru in (19C) (all OB): (18A) AbB 6, 107:4 eid i-a-ar be careful and watch out! (also RA 53, 35a:11) (18B) ARM 10, 80:2122 pa-ga-ar-ka uur guard yourself, i.e., be on guard (18C) AbB 14, 148:7 ra-ma-an-ka uur (idem) (19A) FM 6, 184 no. 14: r.11 umam damqam blni li-i-ta-ka-an may my lord establish a good reputation (for himself)33 (19B) ARM 10, 107:2325 dawdam dkma umam na-a-ki-in give battle and establish renown for yourself34 (19C) AbB 1, 115: r.4 um ablim pa-ga-ar-ki taakkan you (Fem) will establish a reputation of wrong-doing for yourself35
31. The instances adduced by Streck (1994: 16972 and 17576) under the headings 3.1. t2 als Reflexiv zu and 4.2 t2 als Reflexiv zu D do not qualify as reflexives under the definition of reflexivity adopted here: their meanings cannot be regarded as regular reflexive derivations (i.e., with coreferential subject and object) of transitive -stems (and are not volitional); see chap. 14, n. 176 (p. 407). For ama utbib RitDiv. 30: 8 ama, purify yourself! (Streck 1994: 176 with n. 81), see 14.6.2.2 (p. 408). 32. See Kraus 1960: 12830, Rmer 1971: 38 n. 3, and J.-M. Durand, ARM 26/1, 275 note d about this expression. Similar cases are aknu Gt and N in the idiom piam maiam nakunu/itkunu, which perhaps means to speak humbly or the like (N in YOS 10, 23:8, 25:5; Gt in Izbu p. 204:1819, 2122, all OB; cf. also YOS 10, 31: I 29 with a slightly different construction), aknu N in p itn or p da nakunu to provide oneself with a single mouth, i.e., to come to an agreement, unite oneself (RIMA 1, 236:37 and BWL 207:14, both SB), and finally aknu N with libbu as object in libbam rapam na-a-ki-in-um ARM 4, 45: r.5 (OB), lit., provide yourself with a wide heart towards him, i.e., perhaps show yourself merciful towards him (but cf. Durand 1997200: II 279: aie pleine confiance en lui, lit., que tu sois dot dun coeur vaste! with nakin as a passive N-stem). 33. Also Gilg. p. 200:160 and p. 202:188; ARM 1, 69: r.15; RIME 4, 606:58 (all OB). 34. Also ARM 26/2, 84 no. 318:30; FM 2, 206 nr. 116:44; FM 3, 192 no. 20:14; OBTR 115:17 (read ta-a-a-ak-ni; see the copy) (all OB). 35. This construction also occurs in Old Assyrian: umam ra-ma-ni (i.e., /ramanni/, Acc) l ni-i-ku-un Prag I 711:3334 we want to establish renown for ourselves. The G-stem without reflexive marker may also be used, e.g., um a-ku-un RIME 4, 603:54 (OB).
263
In principle, reflexive verbs have an animate subject, since only animate beings can do something to themselves. As they develop toward middle verbs, however (see 10.8.3.6 below, pp. 265267), they are often extended to inanimate subjects as well, and this leads to the introduction of the nominal markers in clauses with an inanimate subject. This can also be observed for ramnu. An Old Babylonian instance is (20); in later periods it becomes more common, as in (21)(22): (20) B 2, 13:2 umma amnum ana inu ra-ma-an-u i-zu-uz (var. iz-zu-uz) if the oil has divided itself in two (also B 2, 17:18 and 18:26 [the latter with ana erbu]); (21) Sn. 108:5961 (SB) (a precious material) ina GN ukallim ra-ma-nu-u showed itself in GN, i.e., became visible (also Sn. 127d: 6f acc. to AHw 989b s.v. ramnu 2c) (22) SAA 10, 21: r.910 (NA) (the king knows) k bt DN ra-man- id-dip-u-ni that the temple of DN collapsed (lit., knocked itself over) (tr. CAD R 119a s.v. ramanu b-5 )36 The diachronic development that is observable in the expression of reflexivity in Akkadian will be discussed in 14.3.4 (pp. 369375).
10.8.3.4. Indirectreflexiveorautobenefactive
In the indirect reflexive, the subject is coreferential with a constituent other than the direct object, often the indirect object. This indicates that the subject performs an action for his own benefit, in his/her own interest, etc.; it is therefore also called autobenefactive. In Akkadian, the expression of indirect reflexivity seems to be completely taken over by nominal markers, such as ana ramn- on behalf of oneself, e.g.: (23) AbB 2, 110:1718 (OB) ana ra-ma-ni-ja mnam teneppu what do I ever do for myself? (24) KTH 16a:2730 (OA) kma (. . .) annakam u ubt ana ra-m-ni-u-nu itbulni since they (. . .) have taken along the tin and the textiles for themselves However, the secondary verbs tablu and tar to take/bring along are likely to go back to fossilized Gt-stems with indirect reflexive meaning: to take/bring with oneself (mit sich nehmen/ bringen); see 16.2.3 (p. 454). This suggests that in prehistoric times this function could also be performed by verbal markers.
10.8.3.5. Reciprocal
In a reciprocal sentence, the subjectwhich is necessarily pluralperforms an action on some other entity but simultaneously undergoes this action at the hands of the other entity involved (they punched each other ). Semantically, reciprocal situations are closely related to reflexive ones: both typically have animate subjects and are usually actions rather than states; moreover, here too we can distinguish between direct and indirect reciprocals and between prototypical and natural reciprocals (see 10.8.3.3, p. 261). The latter prominently include verbs of meeting, conversing, embracing, and similar acts (Kemmer 1993: 102). Generally speaking, reciprocal can be seen as a subtype of reflexive that is restricted to a specific class of verbs and only occurs with a plural subject.
36. Similar instances with dapu in Neo-Assyrian include SAA 1, 138:12 and 13, 28: r.12 // 29: r.4.
264
Reciprocity is often expressed by a special reciprocal marker, such as English each other and German einander (Akk ami ), but many other languages use the reflexive marker also for reciprocal situations, e.g., se in French and sich in German (alongside einander ). Akkadian, too, uses the same verbal markers for both concepts: the t-stems (mainly Gt) and the N-stem; see 14.3 (pp. 360375) and 12.2.2.1 (pp. 294295), respectively.37 Akkadian has both nominal and verbal markers for reciprocity. The nominal markers differ according to period. The older dialects use various syntactic paraphrases to express each other: a noun in two different semantic roles such as Latin manus manum lavat, the preposition (ina) bir- (Ass bari-) or birt between (like Latin inter se), and au brother (or atu sister) in different cases. The latter expression is by far the most common in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. Cf. the following instances: (25) Prag I 446:3334 (OA) tup-pu-um tup-p-am imaa tablet will kill tablet (i.e., the two tablets [quittance and debt note] will cancel each other) (26) ARM 4, 20: 2122 (OB) n ilni ina bi-ri-ti-ni dannam i nizkur let us swear a strong oath by the gods to each other (27) BIN 4, 72:9 (OA) a atta i-ba-ri-ni nitakkir you are my brother: should we fight among ourselves? (tr. CAD N/1 166a s.v. nakru 6) (28) TIM 4, 40:2021 (OB) a-u-um libbi a-i-im ub brother has made the heart of brother content, i.e., they have given each other satisfaction. That the word brother in such contexts is to be taken literally (rather than being grammaticalized into a semantically empty grammatical marker) may be deduced from the fact that, if the subject is feminine, atum sister is found instead (CAD A/1 173a s.v. atu A 3): (29) CT 6, 42b:910 (OB) a-a-tum ana a-a-tim ul iraggam sister will not raise claims against sister, i.e., they (the two women) will not raise claims against each other On the other hand, the beginning of a process of grammaticalization is observable from the fact that there are also instances of aum as subject but with the verb in the plural: (30) TSifr. 37:1920 (OB) a-u-um a-a-am l i-tu-ru l i-ge-er-ru- they will not sue each other again (= tablet, but the case (TSifr. 37a:1820) has the verb in the Sg: a-u-um a-a-am [l] i-ta-ar-ma [l] i-ge-er-ri ) From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, we find another reciprocal marker: ami each other, obviously derived from the earlier construction with au; but the details of this development remain unclear; see CAD A/1 16468 s.v. ame for examples.
37. This may lead to ambiguity, for instance, in the verbs laptu and pau in the following passages, which describe the ceremonial feast following the conclusion of a legal transaction (see Gelb et al. 1991: 24344): MARI 1, 8182:2024 (6 persons, his witnesses) sikktim timha ninda tkul ka titay u ti-il-tap-tu who drove in the pegs, ate bread, drank beer and anointed each other with oil; ARM 22, 328: II 4647 b akalam kul ikaram u kar[nam] it u [ ]amnam ip-ta-a-u the witnesses ate bread, drank beer and wine and anointed each other with oil (similarly ARM 8, 13:1114 with ip-ta-u), where themselves (e.g., Gelb 1991: 168) is grammatically possible but less appropriate; cf. Gelb et al. 1992: 244.
265
The verbal markers for reciprocity are the same as for reflexive, but especially the Gt-stem is far more often reciprocal than reflexive. Although most instances concern more-or-less natural reciprocals, there are even instances that are similar to prototypical reciprocals. I will discuss the reciprocal use of the t-stems and the N-stem below in later chapters. In this section, however, it is convenient to discuss several special nuances of reciprocity relevant to Akkadian (see also Streck 2003a: 8283). First, the subject may be a collective rather than a plural noun, such as mtu the people, bu the troops, or puru the assembly: (31) YOS 10, 49:5 (OB) mtum (kalam) i-a-ba-at i-ta-ka-al the (people of the) land will fight and destroy (lit., eat) one another Second, the reciprocal meaning may give rise to the collective use of the reciprocal (Streck 2003a: 38 soziativ), in which the subject is a group of people (at least two) that carry out an action together (Kemmer 1993: 98, 12325). It is not very common in Akkadian; an example is: (32) BDHP 80:69 (OB) (the wall that PNF bought from PNF2 is a party wall) itu qaqqari adi elnum i-it-pu-ka they (the two women) have erected it jointly from the ground up to the top Note that ame can have this function, too, especially when preceded by itti (cf. CAD A/1 16667 s.v. ame 2). Other traces of this use are the nouns tkultu (common) meal and tarbu stable (where animals lie together), which are originally deverbal nouns of reciprocal Gt-stems (see 14.6.1, pp. 397402). Third, reciprocal verb forms may also be used with a singular subject and the other participant(s) introduced by itti (Babylonian) or iti (Assyrian), or simply omitted. This doubtless serves to single out the subject as more topical or more in focus. (33) AbB 14, 140:43 (OB) ittiu ti-i-bu-ta-ku I have a dispute with him. (34) OBTR 121:13 (OB) anku itti PN ti-du-ku- ad-da-ak must I have a fight with PN? (tr. S. Dalley) The other participant(s) may be omitted, if they are self-evident or irrelevant; I will call this pseudo-reciprocal (see also Streck 2003a: 8384). Instances are: (35) AbB 1, 121: r.10 (OB) mi-it-a--im fight! (Fem) (versus maa hit!) (36) Gilg. p. 242:5 (OB) atta ta-at-ta-ak-ki-ip-ma kma lm tuabraqu you will lock horns and batter him like a bull (tr. A. R. George) (37) TCS 2, 31 no. 13:47 (SB) [pulu] rit-ka-ban-ni ram, mount me! The pseudo-reciprocal is the starting points for a weakening of the reciprocal meaning observable in a number of reciprocal verbs, especially speech verbs, e.g., atw to speak (OA atawwum), where the t-infix seems to have lost its force already in the older dialects. In Standard Babylonian, this has caused a rather frequent use of Gt forms with no apparent difference from the corresponding G form, as I will argue in chap. 14.
10.8.3.6. ThemiddlevoiceandmiddleverbsinAkkadian
The term middle voice derives from a specific verbal conjugation in Classical Greek that combines various detransitive functions such as direct and indirect reflexive, autobenefactive, and
266
(medio)passive. In modern linguistic literature, it refers more generally to verbal categories in which the subject is both the initiator of the action and at the same time affected by it (see, e.g., Kemmer 1993: 14). In an insightful analysis, Kemmer (1993) has shown that in many languages a specific class of middle verbs has developed, i.e., verbs that are reflexive in form but not in meaning according to the definition of prototypical reflexivity cited in 10.8.3.3 (p. 261) above: coreferentiality of participants in events in which the participants are normally distinct entities. This phenomenon is well known in Germanic and Romance languages: e.g., German sich frchten to be afraid and sich irren to make a mistake; French se douter to suspect, sasseoir to sit down; Spanish asustarse to be startled, irse to go. Middle verbs typically belong to a small number of event types that are strikingly similar across languages. Prominent among them are verbs of body care (wash, shave), intransitive motion verbs (turn, bow, go, leave), verbs referring to natural reciprocal events (meet, converse, embrace), emotion verbs (be angry, grieve, be frightened ), speech verbs (complain, lament, boast, confess), cognition verbs (think, believe), verbs of acquiring (acquire, take for oneself ), and verbs for spontaneous events (grow, stop, change) (1993: 1620). The trigger of this development is the fact that in natural reflexive verbs (see 10.8.3.3, p. 261), the reflexive marker is predictable to a certain extent and therefore liable to lose its force. Since natural reflexive verbs are semantically similar to ordinary one-participanti.e., intransitive verbs, there is a possibility of extending the use of the reflexive marker to intransitive verbs as a mainly formal exponent. The development of such middle verbs happens especially when the frequent use of the reflexive marker in natural reflexive situations has weakened its force to such an extent that it has triggered a renewal of the reflexive marker in prototypical reflexive clauses. In this case, the older reflexive marker becomes available to accompany both natural reflexive verbs and middle verbs and develops into a middle marker.38 In languages with more than one reflexive marker (which Kemmer [1993: 2428] calls twoform languages), there is a consistent correlation between the heaviest of the two markers with prototypical reflexive function, on the one hand, and the light marker with natural reflexive function, on the other. Languages in which this situation obtains are Russian (heavy: sebja, light: sja) and Dutch (heavy: zichzelf, light: zich).39 Moreover, if the heavy and the light marker are etymologically related, the light one tends to be a reduction of the heavy one (as in Russian), or the heavy one an extension of the light one (as in Dutch). This suggests the well-known grammaticalization path of functional weakening and formal erosion, with a subsequent renewal of function in the prototypical instances of the reflexive function. Kemmer describes this process in detail for the development of sik in Scandinavian languages and se in Latin and Romance (1993: 15193). She argues that the corresponding cognitive development consists of a gradual loss of the distinguishability of the participants in reflexive situations (1993: 66). Whereas in a reflexive event type the two participants, even though they refer to the same entity, are conceptualized as separate entities, in middle verbs with a reflexive marker they are not distinguished conceptually by the speaker but viewed as a single entity, so in this respect middle verbs are like ordinary intransitive verbs.
38. See also Croft et al. 1987, esp. pp. 18081, 190. 39. In Dutch, the strong marker zichzelf (originally emphatic) is used in prototypical reflexive situations. The older and weaker form zich can only be used in natural reflexive situations (zich aankleden to dress (oneself), zich wassen to wash (oneself) but is also used in intransitive verbs such as zich vergissen to make a mistake and zich schamen to be ashamed, which are reflexive only in form (there are no corresponding verbs without zich).
267
It may be clear from this description that the middle voice, as Kemmer defines it, is a different category from the types of detransitivity discussed in the previous sections. It represents a lexicalization of an original voice distinction in a group of reflexive verbs. The reason to include it among the detransitive categories is that it clarifies the nature of a number of otherwise problematic Gt-stems in Akkadian. Akkadian is a two-form language in which the reflexive nouns ramnu, etc., are the strong markers and the verbal markers (the stems with infixed t and secondarily also the N-stem) are the weak (and therefore older) markers. It is typologically parallel to Latin, where the deponent verbs, characterized by endings that mostly contain r, are a typical middle category, which is gradually being replaced by the new reflexive marker, the pronoun se/ sibi/sui (Kemmer 1993: 152). The t-infix goes back to a prototypical reflexive marker in a very remote period of Afroasiatic (see 14.4, p. 375), which in Akkadian has only preserved its reflexive function in a small and residual group of naturally reflexive verbs.40 In addition, it occurs in a large number of Gt-stems that either do not show a significant difference in meaning from the G-stem or have some idiosyncratic difference that is seemingly unrelated to reflexivity, especially the alleged separative Gt-stem of alku to go /come. These verbs can be regarded as the Akkadian representation of middle verbs, as I will argue in detail in chap. 14.
40. It has also developed a fairly productive reciprocal function, but that is irrelevant here.
theimPactOfgeminatiOnii: thed-stem
Chapter 11
11.1. introduction
The first of the derived stems to be discussed is the D-stem, which is by far the most productive derived stem of Akkadian: about 900 verbal roots occur in the D-stem, mostly as derived verbs but in some cases only in the form of a Pa/uRRuS adjective (GAV p. 111).1 It is problematic because of its multiple functions and the high number of unpredictable and idiosyncratic instances among its members. The D-stem has two regular derivatives, the secondary Dt-stem and the tertiary Dtn-stem, and a third one, the D-stem, which is atypical. In this chapter, I will only discuss the D-stem itself; the three derivatives will be dealt with as part of the t-stems, the tan-stems, and the -stem, respectively. Rather than giving a straightforward description dictated by functional principles, I will focus on the historical development and attempt to describe the various uses of the D-stem in its successive stages.2
11.2. the Form of the D-stem

The D-stem is characterized by gemination of R2 and the prefix vowel u (GAG 88a). It has no vowel-class distinctions, and all forms are built on a single base PaRRvS (which in Babylonian appears as PuRRvS in forms without prefixes; see below). The vowel between R2 and R3 is the usual one in the derived stems: a in the imperfective; i in the perfective, t-perfect, imperative, and present participle; and u in the stative, infinitive, and past participle. Table 11.1 gives the eight inflectional members of the D-stem.3
1. It is important to distinguish the D-stem proper from two other categories with gemination of R2 (see 4.4, p. 95): first, the deverbal patterns for agent nouns PaRRiS, PaRRaS, and PaRRS, discussed exhaustively in GAV p. 5864; they are generally associated with the G-stem rather than the D-stem; second, the pattern PaRRaS, which includes plural formations of adjectives that have nothing to do with the factitive D-stems of these adjectives, cf. GAV pp. 5258. Strictly speaking, the Pa/uRRuS adjectives which do not have a corresponding verbal D-stem should also be left aside. Their relationship to the verbal D-stem is similar to that of the primary PaRvS adjectives to the G-stem (see 3.3.2, pp. 5860). However, since they are identical in form to past participles of the D-stem, and since the borderline between them is fuzzy (see GAV pp. 34359), it is more convenient to regard them as D-stems as well. 2. The description of the D-stem given here is essentially a condensation and sometimes a reformulation of the more-detailed description in GAV, especially chaps. 5 through 8. 3. For the patterns taPRS and taPRiSt, which serve as productive verbal nouns of the D-stem, see 14.6.1 (pp. 400402).
268
11.2. The Form of the DStem D-stem (Bab) Impfv Pfv t-Pf Stat Imp Inf/PPartc PrPartc purrus purris purrusu muparrisu D-stem (Ass)
269
uparras uparris uptarris parrus parris parrusu
table 11.1: the paradigm of the D-stem.
The D-stem paradigm is identical to that of the -stem (see 13.2.1, pp. 324325), except for their different verbal bases: PaRRvS versus aPRvS. This formal similarity is strengthened by the fact that the factitive D-stems have a function that is very similar to the causative function of the -stem (see 10.8.2, pp. 256257). The individual forms of the D paradigm give little reason for further comment. A noteworthy development is the specifically Middle Babylonian change of a to e if the next syllable contains i: Pfv uperris, t-Pf upterris, and PrPartc muperris instead of uparris and muparris (GAG 3 88b and Aro 1955: 4050), e.g., Pfv -e-bi-ta-na-i BE 17, 55:14 he seized us from abtu D (normally uabbit), t-Pf ug-de-mi-ru UM 1/2, 29:8 they completed from gamru D (normally ugdammir ). See 13.2.1 (p. 325) for a parallel change in the -stem, and 17.5.2 (pp. 534535) for a tentative explanation. The weak verbs show very few deviations from the pattern of the strong verb, with the predictable exception of the II/voc and the II/H verbs, whose weak or vocalic R2 cannot normally be geminated. These forms will be discussed in 16.5.3.3 (pp. 482485) and 17.7.217.7.4 (pp. 557572), respectively. The main diachronic issue concerning the D-stem is the contrast between Babylonian PuRRvS and Assyrian PaRRvS in the non-prefix forms, parallel to uPRvS versus aPRvS in the -stem.4 It is one of the major dialect features differentiating the two dialects. There can be no doubt that PaRRvS is the original form. This is demonstrated by the parallel with the corresponding form aPRvS, which has left numerous residual forms in Old Babylonian; this form will be discussed in 13.2.1 (pp. 325326). Moreover, a rather than u is the default vowel to separate R1 and R2 in verbs forms when at least one of these is a cluster or a geminate (see chap. 4 n. 51, p. 103). The geographical distribution of the two forms shows that PuRRvS is an innovation that originated in the South of Mesopotamia and from there spread northward. Core Babylonian has PuRRvS consistently. The northern varieties of Old Babylonian (i.e., in texts from Mari, Shemshara, and Tell Leilan), have a residue of PaRRvS forms in the I/w verbs wuuru to release and wutturu to augment alongside the expected PuRRvS forms, e.g.: wa-at-te-ra-nim ARM 26/1, 205 no. 62:30 enlarge (Pl) for me! (Mari) wa-a-u-ru ARM 28, 125:9 they have been released (Mari) wa-a-e-er ShA 1, 71 no. 1:67 release! (Shemshara) wa-a-u-ur Vincente 1991: 88 no. 28: r.3 he has been released (Tell Leilan),
4. The contrast between Assyrian a and Babylonian u in the first syllable also occurs in some nouns: Ass labu versus Bab lubu garment, etc., see Reiner 1966: 75. However, this is a later inner-Assyrian development related to the overall change u > a before a stressed u in the next syllable; see Postgate (1974: 274) for Middle Assyrian and Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 31 for Neo-Assyrian.
270
The Form of the DStem 11.2.
alongside regular forms such as wu--e-er-i ARM 28, 36:7 release her!. The fact that precisely these two I/w verbs show forms with a points to a dissimilatory tendency that temporarily blocked a change of a to u after w. Since PaRRvS is the original form, there is no reason to regard these forms as Assyrianisms.5 Assyrian was never affected by the innovation and thus always has PaRRvs. The much scarcer evidence from the third millennium broadly confirms this scenario. The southern dialect of Ur III Babylonian only shows PuRRvS forms (Hilgert 2002: 165), e.g., Inf (a-na) du-mu-q-im AKI p. 326:40 (RI from Elam), and many proper names with the pattern PuRRvS, such as Duumum, Kubbutum, etc. (Hilgert 2002: 22023 and elsewhere; list on p. 515). Sargonic Akkadian (which in most respects sides with Babylonian against Assyrian; see 1.5, pp. 2425) also regularly has PuRRvS,6 e.g.: Inf u-zu-zi-i /utstsutsis/ HSS 10, 197:13 (Gasur) as a reminder Stat 3dum (a) zu-ku-na /zuqqun/ SAB p. 158:10 (Diyala) they should not have a beard PPartc -u-ru-tum / uurtum/ TAZ 1, 20:16 (Tutub) delayed Imp /nuid/ in the PN -la-ak-nu-id MAD 5, 14:7 (Kish) praise your god!7
On the other hand, in third-millennium texts from the more northern area of Mari, we only find PaRRvS: PPartc (substantivized) da-u-ba-timx /dauptim/ ARM 19, 393:4 sweets (cf. dapu sweet) Inf (i) ga-ur /kaur/ ARM 19, 64:2 in order to repair (objects)8 Less-certain instances are the dual adjectives appuwn and rabbun, the former possibly a PaRRvS form of ap thick(?), the latter doubtless one of rab big, e.g.: 1 ma-a-na-an s-pu-wa-an ra-bu-a-an ARM 19, 295:13 one (pair of) thick? and large sandals Even further north, in Ebla, PaRRvS seems to be the most common form as well, e.g.: Inf ga-du-ru12 in ga-du-ru12 u9-ga-da-ra /qatturu(m) uqattar(a(m)?)/ ARET 2, 34: VIII 1112 (cf. Akk qatrum D to fume incense?) Inf na-b- in -na-ba-ga-ma na-b- /unabbakma nabbuu(m)/ StEb. 4, 43 no. 25:12 13 (cf. Akk nubbm to lament?) Stat 3mp da-nu-nu /dannun/ ARET 5, 3: IV 7 and 3fp da-nu-na /dannun/ ARET 5, 3: V 3 (cf. Akk da/unnunu strong) Stat 3mp ax(NI)-b-u / abbu/ ARET 5, 3: IV 6 and 3fp ax(NI)-b-a / abbu/ ARET 5, 3: V 2 (cf. Akk ebu to gird)9
5. PaRRvS is also found in a few geographical names in Mari texts: Sallun (see M. Bonechi, NABU 1994/96); Qattunn (passim in ARM 27, spelled Qaunn, but also Quttunn: Q-ut-tu-na-anKI FM 8, 152 no. 43:39), cf. Akk qatnu small; and perhaps also a-ar-ru-wa-tim KI MARI 8, 362 no. 10:11 and FM 3, 187 A.815:12, if it comes from er to dig. Even if these names belong to a different dialect or language than that of the Mari letters, they show the occurrence of PaRRvS forms in this northern area. 6. See Gelb 1961: 16869; Sommerfeld 2003: 569; and Hasselbach 2005: 212. 7. A possible counter-example is BE 3, 116: 16 1 b n da-ku-ku-tum, an Akkadian loanword in a Sumerian context, which AHw 152a s.v. dakkukum translates as zerstoen(es), a PaRRuS form of dakku to crush. 8. Cf. also the PN aumu, if it means bought (Gelb 1992: 19192), which does not seem very plausible. 9. However, PuRRvS and uPRvS are also attested, e.g., -b-tum (= n.Gilim.di) // su-b-tum // sa-btum (= n.Gilim.a/e.di), i.e., / ubbuum/, /ubuum/, /abuum/; cf. Krebernik 1983: 41 n. 146 and 1996:
11.3. The Function of the DStem
271
In the third millennium, then, PuRRvS is restricted to South and Central Mesopotamia (Babylonian and Sargonic Akkadian); in the second millennium, it has taken over Northwest Mesopotamia as well (Mari and the even more northern Shemshara and Tell Leilan). This confirms the 10 general direction of the spread. With regard to the cause of the change in Babylonian, it is often claimed (e.g., Kuryowicz 1972: 50) that it happened under the influence of the u of the prefix conjugations; cf. the corresponding N forms such as the N stative naprus (not *nuprus) because of ipparras, etc. However, this explanation is difficult to apply directly to the many Babylonian PuRRuS adjectives without a verbal paradigm, most of which refer to salient bodily characteristics (see GAV pp. 37178).11 Another factor may be the influence of the -stem: a number of very common -stems come from I/w verbs (wa to go /come out, wabu to sit down, wablu to bring); their non-prefix forms have < aw in the first syllable for a purely phonological reason: Imp bil < *awbil, etc. (see 16.2.3, pp. 455456). This may have caused u to spread to the corresponding forms of strong -stems and from there to non-prefixed D forms.12
11.3. the Function of the D-stem

If a D-stem has a corresponding G-stem, its function varies with the semantic nature of the G-stem. Therefore, the distinction between action verbs and process verbs made in 10.8.2
239 with n. 18, where he compares Akk ebu to bind. Conti (1996) discusses all relevant cases and concludes (1996: 202) that the forms with u are restricted to a particular version of the Eblaite bilingual lexical lists. This suggests that this version may have originated in an area where the patterns PuRRvS and uPRvS are indigenous, i.e., in central or southern Babylonia. It shows that the change of PaRRvS and aPRvS to PuRRvS and uPRvS in this area dates back to an earlier period than the earliest Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian sources. 10. Babylonian does not seem to have preserved other traces of PaRRvS. I am not sure whether the late (Standard Babylonian) epithets of witches and demons with the pattern PaRRuStu (GAG 56o) are to be considered as archaic survivals of PaRRuS or secondary forms of later origin: -a-u-i-tum abbu-ri-tu Maql III 54 flashing(?) and attacking (cf. abru to move quickly or the like, and au to attack), and ab-bu-ti-ti urpu III 77 snatcher (cf. abtu to seize). A different meaning has ballutu, a kind of bird (AHw 100a s.v.), lit., with protruding . . .; cf. balu to protrude. Similar in meaning but from a completely different genrenamely, a Neo-Babylonian letteris pauz cad, scoundrel (SAA 18, 102:9 ) from the late verb pazu to be arrogant. It is uncertain whether spellings such as aA-A-du/di- . . . and a-A-A-u/i- . . . should be interpreted as ayyud- and ayyu-, as AHw 1075b ss. vv. ajjud and ajju does. It seems simpler to derive them from the more common pattern PaRRS, as in CAD 66 ss.vv. ajdu and aju. Only an unambiguous spelling such as a-a-a--d/ . . . or a-jA--d/ . . . can decide the matter. 11. It is possible, however, that these adjectives, or at least most of them, are themselves deverbal, as is clearly the case for buqqumu with scarce hair, derived from baqmu to pluck; uulu crippled, from alu to crush; and gullubu bald from galbu to shave (see n. 24 below, p. 277), even though we often do not know the source verb. According to Kuryowicz (1972: 153), it is a typical feature of Semitic to express colours and physical defects by means of intensive deverbal formations (see also Rundgren 1959a: 27273). We have to assume, then, that the majority of verbal PuRRvS forms imposed its vowel on the relatively small group of PuRRuS adjectives without a verbal paradigm. 12. It is not very likely that PaRRvS > PuRRvS is a simple assimilation process (pace Hasselbach 2005: 123), because the imperative PaRRiS also becomes PuRRiS, whereas the N-stem naPruS is not affected. According to Diem (1982: 74), PuRRvS and aPRvS owe their u to the influence of the corresponding t-stem forms PutaRRvS and utaPRvS. This is unlikely because the latter forms are far more infrequent than Pa/uRRvS and a/uPRvS; and as deverbal members of the paradigm of the Dt- and the t-stems, which themselves are dependent on the D- and the -stems, they occupy a much lower position in the hierarchy of the verbal paradigm, the more so since Pa/uRRvS isat least in an etymological sensethe basic form of the entire D-stem paradigm; see 11.6.2 (pp. 283284).
272
The Function of the DStem 11.3.
(pp. 256257) is of crucial importance. We can distinguish four possibilities: intransitive process verbs (11.3.1), intransitive action verbs (11.3.2), transitive process verbs (11.3.3), and transitive action verbs (11.3.4).
11.3.1. D-stemsofintransitiveprocessverbs
If the G-stem is an intransitive process verb, the D-stem is factitive, i.e., it is the agentive counterpart of the G-stem (see 10.8.2, pp. 256257). Most of these verbs belong to the adjectival verbs discussed in 3.3.2 (pp. 5860) and to fientive change-of-state verbs, such as qat to come to an end, D to end, finish; parru to fall apart, D to dissolve, scatter; and bel to go out (of fire), D to extinguish. But they also include a number of fientive verbs such as tru to go /come back, D turru to bring back; paru to come together, D puuru to bring together; and saru G to turn (intr.), D to turn (trans.). The D-stem of such a verb regularly indicates that the process is instigated by an agent, e.g., from paru to come together: (01A) Iraq 54, 106:1516 (OB) mtum ana dannati i-pa-u-ur the people will gather (G) in a stronghold (01B) Iraq 54, 106:2 nakrum mtam ana dannatim -pa-a-ar the enemy will gather (D) the people in a stronghold (i.e., presumably, in this context, will force/induce them to gather In a prototypical factitive clause, the subject of the corresponding intransitive clause (mtum in (01A)) appears as direct object. This function of D is regular and productive for the relevant verbs; an enumeration of factitive D-stems comprising 235 items can be found in GAV pp. 293 300. However, the D-stem has to compete with the -stem in this domain; for the difference between D and , see 10.8.2 (pp. 256257) and 13.2.2.2 (pp. 328331). However, as I argued in 10.8.2, the essential feature of the factitive D-stem is not that it makes an intransitive process verb transitive but that it changes the nature of the subject from non-agentive to agentive: it expresses derived agentivity. This is demonstrated by the following phenomena. First, the change-of-state verb mal to be(come) full, fill, cover can both be transitive and intransitive in the G-stem but takes the D-stem when its subject is agentive. For the G-stem, compare (02), which is intransitive with the container as subject and an adjunct accusative specifying the substance, with (03), which is transitive, with the substance as subject and the container as direct object:13 (02) ARM 13, 35:11 (OB) elepptum ina m li-im-la-a let these ships be loaded (G) with (lit. become full of) barley14 (03) Atr. p. 96:6 (OB) kma kull im-la-a-nim nram like dragon flies they (the drowned people) filled (G) the river For the D-stem, compare (04A), where mal is transitive but does not have an agentive subject, with (04B), in which the subject is agentive:
13. Usually, to cover is a good English equivalent for this construction. 14. The accusative m in (02) has no direct object status but is an accusative adjunct that can be omitted, e.g., BWL 144:19 (SB) a amli muttapraidi ma-li karassu the belly of a wandering man is full, in contrast to that of (03), which cannot be omitted.
11.3. The Function of the DStem
273
(04A) Sg. 8:143 (SB) ssunu urr natbak ad im-lu(-ma) their horses [i.e., of the vanquished enemy] filled (G) the ravines (and) torrents of the mountain (04B) RIMA 2/I, 211:11415 (SB) pagrunu urru natbaku a ad -ma-li I filled (D) the ravines (and) torrents of the mountain with their corpses (tr. A. K. Grayson)15 Second, some factitive D-stems can be used intransitively, in which case they differ from G in denoting an action or an activity rather than a process. For instance, dummuqu to make good/ better, the factitive D-stem of damqu to be(come) good, can also mean to act well, do a favour to, behave properly or bravely, etc., with a personal subject and without direct object,16 e.g.: (05) ARM 27, 142:2829 (OB) (among the soldiers of my lord) bum mdumma -da-m-iq many soldiers performed well (also in 26) (06) AbB 11, 5:89 (OB) ana bti abka -da-mi-iq I did favors for your family (tr. M. Stol) Third, when process verbs, especially adjectival verbs, are used in combination with a fientive main verb (Koppelung; cf. Kraus 1987), they tend to appear in the D-stem even when they are intransitive, e.g., dunnunu to do severely, energetically, from dannu to be(come) strong, difficult (Kraus 1987: 2022) in (07), surruru to act fraudulently, from sarru to be false, deceitful (CAD S 175a s.v. 2a) in (08), and uddudu to act quickly from eddu to be(come) sharp (Kraus 1987: 18) in (09): (07) AbB 4, 19:1517 (OB) ana PN1 u PN2 -da-an-ni-nam-ma atapram I have written to PN1 and PN2 in strong words (08) KH 265:6667 (OB) (if a shepherd) -sa-ar-ri-ir-ma imtam uttakkir has fraudulently altered the mark (on the animals) (and sold them) (09) AbB 11, 121:5 (OB) ud-di-dam-ma sinqam arrive here quickly17 Fientive verbs, on the other hand, use either the G-stem (as in amu to hurry [Kraus 1987: 18], tru [1987: 12] and saru to do again [1987: 13] and abtu to start [1987: 1516]), or the D-stem (as in qat D to do completely (1987: 17) and aru to go /come quickly (CAD A/2 222a s.v. aru A 2b)), or they use both G and D without an appreciable difference in meaning (e.g., gamru to do, give, pay, etc., completely [Kraus 1987: 16], sadru to do regularly, periodically [1987: 1011], an to do for the second time [1987: 13]) and alu to do for the third time (1987: 13).18 The consistent use of the D-stem in the case of adjectival verbs can be attributed to the fact that verbs in Koppelung not only must agree with the main verb in person, number, gender, and tense but also with regard to the agentive or non-agentive nature of the subject. This makes the G-stem of such verbs unsuitable so that the D-stem is used, even though the verb has no direct
15. 16. 17. 18.
For more examples, see GAV pp. 25254. Cf. CAD D 6263 s.v. 2c1 and 4 (in proper names), 2d1, AHw 156b s.v. D 3a/b. For more examples, see GAV pp. 25961. For more detailed references, see the dictionaries under the respective verbs.
274
object. This is confirmed by an unusual instance of the adjectival verb almu in the G-stem in Koppelung where the subject is inanimate and therefore non-agentive: (10) AbB 2, 98:1213 (OB) eleppum i-a-al-li-ma-am-ma iturram will that boat return hither safely?
11.3.2. D-stemsofintransitiveactionverbs
As I argued in 10.8.2 (pp. 256257), the D-stem cannot add an extra agent to a clause that already has one. If, therefore, the G-stem is an intransitive action verb, the corresponding D-stem is also intransitive. This only concerns a small number of atelic activity verbs with a rather narrow range of meanings: they mostly express sounds (e.g., nabu G and D to bark and nazmu G and D to complain), bodily functions (e.g., salu G and D to cough and nau G and D to have diarrhea), and mental activities (e.g., kapdu G and D to think, plan and armu G and D to strive for, be concerned with). Most of them only occur sporadically, and from the few available contexts it is hard to infer what the difference between G and D is, but the original function of gemination (see 11.6.2, p. 284) suggests that D indicates a more intensive and/or prolonged activity than G.19
11.3.3. D-stemsoftransitiveprocessverbs
If the G-stem is a transitive process verb, the D-stem behaves in the same way as in the intransitive process verbs of 11.3.1 and is factitive. Since process verbs are usually intransitive, this only concerns a small group of verbs, the most common of which include labu to wear, put on, D to dress sb., provide sb. with clothes, lamdu to know, learn, D to inform; id to know, D (wudd) to identify, inform, assign; palu to fear, respect, D to frighten; ablu to become indebted to (Dat), D to make indebted to; and assu to think of, mention, D to remind (see further GAV pp. 98100). Although the meaning of these D-stems may seem to entail an extra participant, they hardly ever have a double accusative. They usually mention a single object argument, and when they mention two (e.g., in a context such as to inform sb. of sth. or to dress sb. in a garment), only one of them becomes direct object; if the other one is mentioned at all, it usually takes an oblique case (a dative, an adjunct accusative [GAG 145c] or a prepositional phrase). This is an essential difference from the causative -stem to be discussed in 13.2.2.1 (pp. 327328).
11.3.4. D-stemsoftransitiveactionverbs
Finally, if the G-stem is a transitive action verb, the corresponding D-stem tends to be used in a rather idiosyncratic way.20 Many of these D-stems are used to underline plurality of the event and/or its participants, especially of the direct object, e.g.: (11A) RIME 4, 603:2627 (OB) nrtim -p-et-ti I dug (lit., opened) (D) canals
19. This is indeed claimed by the dictionaries for some of them. For nabu, AHw 694 s.v. distinguishes G bellen from D klffen; for salu, AHw 999a s.v. distinguishes G husten from D lange husten; and for ganu, AHw 280a s.v. distinguishes G husten from D husten und wrgen and CAD G 39b s.v. remarks that D does not refer simply to coughing but rather to fits of coughing and retching, etc. A somewhat more objective indication is the fact that, in a Standard Babylonian lexical list, kapdu G and D are equated with a form without and with reduplication, respectively: ir pa.ag.pag = ka-pa-du / ir.pag.ag.ag = kup-pu-du MSL 16, 81:11213. 20. A more detailed description of the use of D in these verbs is given in chap. 6 of GAV.
11.3. The Function of the DStem (11B) RIME 4, 603:47 nram ep-te-um I dug (G) a canal for it (GN)
275
Generally speaking, the greater the effect of an action on the patient, the stronger the tendency to use the D-stem if the direct object is plural. Thus, the consistency with which it is used is particularly strong in high-transitivity verbs, such as: verbs that entail a partial or total destruction of the object (ep to break, naksu to cut off, fell, aru to tear, ebru to break, abu to slaughter) verbs that entail a violent impact on the object (kabsu to trample, mau to hit, smash, wound, naku to bite, palu to pierce, sapu to disperse) verbs that entail a less drastic or permanent change in the condition of the object than in the previous group, such as verbs of closing and opening (edlu to close, pet to open), of binding and loosening (elu, kas, karu, raksu to bind, ret to fix, paru to loosen), verbs of covering and smearing (katmu to cover, laptu to affect, smear), verbs of seizing (abtu to seize) verbs of creating (eru to draw, design, waldu to give birth to, produce) Many other transitive verbs can also have the D-stem more or less incidentally in correlation with a plural object. There are great differences between individual verbs in this respect, and it is not easy to formulate a general rule. The plural constituent may also be the subject, as in (12), or the indirect object, as in (13): (12) RIMA 1, 1012:515 (MA) drum a RN1 RN2 RN3 RN4 RN5 mr RN6 abbya -up-p-u-ni nama (. . .) e-pu-u (. . .) rubu urkiu enma drum t numa e-ep-pu-u DN1 u DN2 ikribu iammeu the wall that RN1, RN2, RN3, RN4, and RN5, the son of RN6, my forefathers, had built (D) had become dilapidated, and I rebuilt (G) (it) (. . .); (as for) a future prince, when that wall becomes dilapidated and he rebuilds (G) (it), DN1 and DN2 will listen to his prayers (other examples in GAV pp. 14849) (13) AfO 10, 43 no. 102:89 (1 sheep for PN1, 1 sheep for PN2, 2 sheep in total ) a ana abullte pa-qu-du-ni which have been entrusted to (the men of) the gates (contrasting with paqid and paqd if the dative is Sg, cf. AfO 10, 43 no. 102:3444 passim; other examples in GAV pp. 14951) In some cases, where no plural participant is involved, the intended nuance instead seems to be plurality of the event itself, a function that is more commonly performed by the tan-stems (see 14.7.1, pp. 415417). In (14A), for instance, D refers to a habit or a repetition, in contrast to G in (14B), which refers to a one-off event in the past: (14A) CT 40, 34: r.8 (SB) (if a horse has become rabid and) l tappu l aml -na-ak bites all the time/wants to bite/tries to bite/is prone to biting its companion or people (14B) CT 40, 34: r.16 (if a horse has entered a mans house and) l imra l amla i-uk has bitten a donkey or a person (see GAV pp. 15457 for more details and examples)21
21. For the contrast between imperfective and perfective, see 4.3 (p. 94), where these clauses are quoted as (13) and (14).
276
Likewise, the Old Assyrian D-stem of aqlu to pay typically refers to payments on different occasions and/or in instalments, or payment to different persons: (15) TTK 10/2, pp. 47273:615 x kaspam ana perdim -ql (. . .) x kaspam ana bt krim adduatam -ql x urudu (. . .) ana ki-ra-nim -ql (. . .) mimma annim ina GN aumi perdim -a-q-il5 I paid (G) x silver for a perdum (. . .), I paid (G) x silver to the bt krim as a addutum-fee (. . .), I paid (G) x copper for a . . .. (. . .). All this I paid (D) in GN for a perdum (likewise aqlu G in 19, 21, 24, 26, and 27, versus mimma annim uaqqil in 35) Some other instances are: (16) TDP 182:4445 (SB) umma ubassu -na-kas4 if he (the patient) constantly tries/wants to tear his garment into pieces (17) ZA 75, 202/4:9697 (OB) kma as[k]u[ pp]a[t]im lu-ka-bi-is-k[a] / kma qaq[qari ]m ltettiqka like a threshold I want to step upon you / like the ground I want to walk over you (with D coordinated with etqu Gtn) (18) BKBM 30:43 (SB) adi ibu -al-lat he swallows seven times (with ellipse of the object) In still other transitive verbs, the D-stem seems to be intensive, i.e., to underline a more prolonged or forceful action, such as amu G to take off, remove (usually clothes), versus D to tear off, tear away (often metals from an object) (see GAV p. 176). This seems to be marginal, however, and usually it is quite difficult to establish such a nuance from the context in a sufficiently objective way. An original contrast in intensity has been lexicalized in dabbu G to speak, D to talk much or to talk loud > to complain, grumble (intr.) and to pester, harass, entreat (trans.),22 kadu G to reach, arrive, D to pursue, (try to) catch and to drive away, expel, remove (cf. CAD K 28081 s.v. 4/5),23 and (rarely) assu G to think of, mention, D to study, ponder (CAD 125b s.v. 9), alongside the far more common factitive meaning to remind. The polysemous nature of the use of the D-stem of transitive action verbs makes it sometimes difficult to establish the intended nuance, as in (19), where we may hesitate between frequentative (repeatedly), intensive (severely), or even plurality of the subject (all together: (19) AbB 12, 65:29 (OB) ina d [ab]bim -ma-ah-hi--u during the trial they beat him repeatedly (tr. W. H. van Soldt) The use of the D-stem for plurality of the event or its participants seems to be optional: in all cases mentioned, the G-stem can also be used, and in most verbs it is actually far more common. Many other D-stems of transitive verbs, however, do not have an obvious association with plurality, intensity, or similar notions. Some of them have acquired an idiomatic meaning (e.g., kas G to bind, D to demand payment from, raksu G to bind, D to bind someone to an
22. Cf. AHw 147b s.v. D viel reden, perhaps attested in ARM 2, 24:1213 (OB) anntim u mdtim -da-ab-bi-ib-u these and many (other) things I spoke to him; for to complain, grumble, see CAD D 1112 s.v. 8a (G is also found in this meaning; cf. CAD D 1011 s.v. 5, AHw 147a s.v. G 3); for to pester, harass, entreat, see CAD D 1213 s.v. 8bc. 23. For the semantic change from catch to chase away, cf. French chasser to hunt and to chase away, from Vulgar Latin captiare to try to catch (cf. capere to take, catch); see Jongen 1985: 13132.
11.4. D tantum Verbs
277
agreement or to bandage), or interchange with the G-stem without observable difference. The latter type is widespread in Standard Babylonian with, for instance, gamru G and D to finish, katmu G and D to cover, paru G and D to loosen, especially on a fairly large scale in the more-or-less technical vocabulary of scholarly texts (medical and ritual): kapru G and D to rub, wipe clean, alu G and D to scrape, marqu G and D to crush, tabku G and D to pour, heap up, G and D naq to sacrifice, etc. In literary (con)texts, the equivalence between G and D can be exploited for stylistic variation, as in (20): (20) SpTU 3, 76:18 (SB) ina dimti bu-ul-lu-la-ku ina eper bal-la-ku I am stained (D) with tears, I am smeared (G) with dust
11.4. D tantum Verbs

There are also many D-stems without corresponding G-stem, the D tantum verbs, such as kullumu to show, puu to exchange, kullu to hold, offer, and bu to search, examine. Lists of several types of D tantum verbs can be found in GAV pp. 31016. There is no clear-cut distinction between ordinary D-stems and D tantum verbs. Apart from the possibility that a specific G-stem may accidentally be unattested,24 the decision whether a D-stem is sufficiently similar in meaning to qualify as a derivation of a G-stem of the same root is often subjective.25 In the D tantum verbs, the D-stem does not have a grammatical function in the sense of a regular semantic relationship to a (relatively) basic stem. In most cases, there is no obvious reason why a G-stem is lacking, yet among the D tantum verbs we can distinguish two specific groups. First, many of them are denominal, i.e., closely associated with and directly derived from a noun:26 gullulu to act unjustly towards, commit (a sin) from gillatu sin, lull to provide abundantly with from lal desire, charm, luxury (recognizable as non-verbal in origin from
24. A good example is the alleged D tantum verb gullubu to shave: in a recently published Old Assyrian letter the corresponding G-stem has appeared: ArAn. 5, 3:61 a-a-at -ni qaqqassa ana Itar ta-aglu-ub our sister has shaved her head for Itar. The existence of galbu is not unexpected in the light of the deverbal nouns gallbu barber, naglabu razor, and gulbtu hair cuttings, but it reminds us of the necessarily provisional nature of our classifications. This instance has the additional interest that it allows us to make a plausible reconstruction of how the replacement of a G-stem by a D-stem came about. The occurrence of a PuRRuS name Gullubu, which doubtless means bald (rather than shaven), suggests that parallel to galbu an expressive PuRRuS adjective existed of the type discussed in GAV pp. 34849 in 10.3.2, e.g., buqqumu with scarce hair alongside baqmu to pluck and uulu crippled alongside alu to crush. These forms belong to the group of PuRRuS forms for salient bodily characteristics (GAV pp. 37178), many of which refer to a condition of the hair. It seems plausible that the D-stem gullubu is a denominal verb of this adjective with factitive meaning: to make bald > to shave, which replaced the simple verb in Babylonian and later Assyrian. 25. For instance, the D-stems lupputu to tarry, be delayed and zubbulu to linger, keep waiting differ so markedly in meaning from laptu to touch, smear, affect and zablu to carry, respectively, that they can be considered to be D tantum verbs with good reason. On the other hand, burr to usher in, announce (CAD B 331a s.v. burr, but in AHw 109b s.v. bar I to see D) can be explained as a lexicalized factitive of bar to see, and qubb to lament (CAD Q 292a s.v. qubb, AHw 890a s.v. qab II to speak II D) as an intensive of qab to speak. Murruru to check (CAD M/2 223b s.v. murruru v., AHw 609a s.v. marru I D 3) seems to be a plausible case of a lexicalized D-stem of marru to be(come) bitter via the meaning *to taste (whether something is bitter). Strangely enough, CAD lists lupputu (L 92a s.v. laptu 4k) and zubbulu (Z 4 s.v. zablu 3/4) under the G-stems laptu and zablu, but the other three as independent verbs. 26. For a list of denominal D-stems, see GAV pp. 31012. A few additional instances are battuqum (OA) to send by means of an express messenger (a btiqum) (ATHE 30:28), nugguru to denounce from
278
The Essence of the DStem 11.5.
the identity of its first and second radical), ullulu to cover with a roof, to provide shade, from ullu, ulultu roof, ultimately from illu shade, uuzu to mount in precious materials (D/Dt), from iz mountings, and OA wazzunum to lend ones ear, listen carefully, from uznu ear.27 Since denominal verbs are mainly recognizable by their close association with the source noun, they tend to have a very specific, often more-or-less technical meaning. Therefore, most of them are rather uncommon. The D-stem is not the only verbal stem to accommodate denominal verbs (cf. GAV pp. 3057), but it is by far the most common one and may be regarded as the standard form for this purpose. An important reason is that it is the most productive of all verbal stems (see 11.1, p. 268) and that its conjugation is completely regular, with a single base and no vowel-class distinctions. It is true that the G-stem is far more common in terms of the quantity of verbs, but in normal cases there was already a G-stem of the same root so that the use of the D-stem avoided homonymy; with an existing D-stem, this is usually less harmful, since most D-stems are far less frequent than some G-stems. In the case of transitive denominal verbs, the association of the D-stem with transitivity was doubtless a crucial factor. Most denominal D-stems are indeed transitive; see the list in GAV pp. 31016.28 Second, a fairly large number of D tantum verbs denote activities that are inherently durative or repetitive: verbs of waiting (qu), lingering and delaying (lupputu, uuru, zubbulu, and possibly also muqqu to hesitate), verbs of praying (s/ull, supp, mu, sarruru (NA)), verbs of observing ( puqqu, ubb) and reflecting (ummu), and verbs of searching (bu, naddudum (OA)). The reason why these verbs use the D-stem as their default form is undoubtedly related to the general pluractional meaning of gemination of R2. Since it is semantically unlikely that they go back to an adjective or a past participleas other D-stems do (see 11.6.2, pp. 282283)it is conceivable that at least some of them come from the GPL-stem *yiqattalu but were incorporated into the very similar conjugation of the D-stem when *yiqattalu lost its association with verbal plurality. There are also D tantum verbs derived from adjectives that do not have a corresponding G-stem (GAV pp. 30910). They are a subclass of the denominal D-stems and have factitive function. Instances include duupu to make sweet from dapu sweet and du to provide abundantly from de abundant. Such cases represent the original way of deriving factitive D-stems, as I will argue in 11.6.2 (pp. 283285).
11.5. the essence of the D-stem

We can summarize the function of the D-stem as follows. If the G-stem is a process verb and thus has a low degree of semantic transitivity and is non-agentive, the D-stem is factitive and indicates that the process is brought about by an agent. Accordingly, it is usually transitive and by definition agentive and denotes a qualitative increase in valency. If the G-stem itself is a transitive
ngiru herald (Durand 1997/2000: I 102); and parumu to outlive somebody (NA) from purumu old man (see chap. 12 n. 69, p. 307). 27. See AHw 1494a s.v., attested twice as an Imp Pl: wa-zi-na ATHE 64:43; -zi-na AKT 2, 32:23 (see J. G. Dercksen, JESHO 41 [1998] 221 for this interpretation). 28. In a few cases, the D form may have been chosen because the verb is derived from a noun whose form is similar to forms of the D paradigm: e.g., puu to replace, exchange from pu replacement, and nukkusu to balance an account (SAk) from nikkassu account (cf. B. R. Foster, NABU 1989/115). In the case of adjectives, it is a plausible assumption that the gemination of the D-stem ultimately goes back to gemination of R2 in adjectives (see 11.6.2, pp. 282283).
11.5. The Essence of the DStem
279
action verb, and therefore agentive by definition, the D-stem maintains the valency of the G-stem but often adds a nuance of plurality or intensity. The upshot of this is that almost all D-stems with a corresponding G-stem are transitive and agentive. Since the factitive function implies an agentive subject and a patient object, and since most transitive action verbs with a D-stem are high-transitivity verbs in themselves (see below), these D-stems are prototypical high-transitivity verbs. Only two groups of D-stems do not conform to this pattern: the intransitive action verbs of 11.3.2 (p. 274) and a part of the D tantum verbs of the previous section. The close association with high transitivity is an essential characteristic of the D-stem. This is confirmed by the fact that there are two semantic classes of verbs that do not or only rarely have a D-stem. The first and most striking class concerns transitive verbs that are not high-transitivity verbs, because they typically have a non-patient direct object, i.e., one which is not saliently affected by the action. The verbs in question belong to the following groups (I only mention the most common verbs; for more instances and further details, see GAV pp. 1023): 1. verbs of giving and taking, e.g., azu to take, marry, ekmu to take away, leq to receive, nadnu to give, sell, mu to buy, arku to grant, dedicate, arqu to steal 2. verbs of placing and sending, e.g., aknu to place, nad to put down, leave behind, na to lift, carry, apru to send, wablu to bring, carry, war to bring, lead, tablu and tar to take/bring along 3. verbs of observing and watching, e.g., amru to see, naru to guard, watch, nalu to look at, watch, em to hear 4. verbs of possession, control, care and love/hate, e.g., ra to get, kal to detain, withhold, gamlu to spare, oblige, rmu to love, zru to hate 5. verbs of eating and drinking: aklu to eat, and at to drink29 Only very rarely do we find D-stems of these verbs and other verbs of the same semantic nature, in spite of a few noteworthy exceptions, such as paqdu to entrust and aqlu to pay (in Old Assyrian), which occur in the D-stem quite frequently. However, the contrast between the absence or extreme rarity of the D-stem in these very common verbs and its frequent occurrence in transitive verbs with a high degree of transitivity is strong enough to show how close the association between the D-stem and high transitivity is. The second semantic type of verbs that often lack a D-stem is that of intransitive motion verbs, such as alku to go /come, etqu to pass, ebru to cross, etc. Since they are action verbs, they belong to the small group of verbs discussed in 11.3.2 (p. 274), such as salu to cough. Unlike these, however, they are semantically unlikely to distinguish different degrees of intensity or expressivity, and as action verbs, they cannot be factitive. So they have no conceivable function for a D-stem. To express verbal plurality, they use the Gtn-stem in accordance with their lowtransitivity nature (see 14.7.2, pp. 417419). In 11.6.2, I will give a reconstruction of the functional development of the D-stem that will show how its actual functions can be derived from its original iconic association with plurality and intensity.
29. In these verbs, the less-than-prototypical transitivity is related to the fact that in many contexts the activity of eating and drinking is more prominent than the substance that is eaten or drunk. Therefore, the object of these verbs is often less relevant and frequently omitted.
280
The DStem in Historical Perspective 11.6.
11.6. the D-stem in Historical Perspective 11.6.1. TheD-steminSemiticandAfroasiatic

The Proto-Semitic origin of the D-stem is proven beyond doubt by an overall correspondence in form with other Semitic languages and a far-reaching similarity in function (to be discussed in the next section).30 Table 11.2 shows the relevant forms in Akkadian, Arabic, Hebrew, and Geez. Forms that are not directly comparable to the corresponding Akkadian forms are given in brackets. The rightmost column shows my reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic paradigm, repeated from Table 4.8 in chap. 4. Akkadian Ipfv Pfv Imp Inf PrPartc uparras uparris parris (Ass) parrusu (Ass) muparrisu Arabic (yuqattilu) yuqattil qattil (taqtl-) muqattilHebrew (yqael) yqael qael (qael) (qiel) mqael Geez (yqttl) yqattl qattl (qattl(t)) (qattala) (qattli) PSem *yuqattilu *yuqattil *qattil *qattVl*qattVl*muqattil-
Stat/PPartc parrus(u) (Ass) (qattala)
table 11.2: the D-stem in the main semitic languages.
For the divergent imperfective forms, see chap. 4, especially 4.5.2 (pp. 112115). The Akkadian perfective, imperative, and present participle match completely with the West Semitic forms. However, only Arabic offers evidence of the finite prefix vowel u; elsewhere it has become , which in Geez may also come from i and in Hebrew also from i and a (Bauer and Leander 1922: 324 opt for a).31 The agreement between Akkadian and Arabic strongly favours u as the original prefix vowel. The difference in prefix vowels between D and (which have u) on the one hand, and G and N (which have alternating i/a) on the other seems to defy an explanation for the present, but it certainly existed already in Proto-Semitic.32
30. See Moscati, ed. 1964: 124; Lipiski 1997: 38284; Kienast 2001: 22731. 31. The prefix vowel of the Ugaritic D-stem remains unclear. The first person singular has a-; the vowel of the other persons is unknown (Sivan 1997: 133; Tropper 2000: 54546). Tropper posits u or, less probably, a, mainly on comparative grounds. 32. The most common explanation, favoured, for instance, by Brockelmann (1908: 560), Bauer and Leander (1922: 324), and Rundgren (1959a: 265 and 1963a: 99100) is that a changed to u in open pretonic position, i.e., D *yaqattilu > *yuqattilu. This is an ad hoc solution not confirmed by convincing parallels in other domains of the language, as argued by Christian (1953: 88) and admitted by Rundgren (1963a: 1012), and is contradicted by the existence of weak perfective forms such as *yakn(u) he/it became firm and the derived pluractional *yiqattalu (2ms *taqattalu) that is assumed in the present work. Kienasts (1957a) claim that u is taken over from the -stemwhere it derives from the independent 3ms pronoun in its function of causative markerdepends on his (and Speisers 1967: 40416) explanation of the historical background of the -stem, which is highly questionable (see 13.6, pp. 352353). This does not mean, however, that u may not ultimately come from the -stem. For Lipiskis (1997: 368) view that u represents the ergative case and a/i the non-active case of an erstwhile ergative verbal system in Common Semitic, with the corollary that G-stem verbs were originally intransitive and D-stems transitive, see n. 39 below (p. 283). For the background of u, see also Izre'el 1991: 45 n. 37 and Hasselbach 2004: 29 n. 43. The idea that u in prefixes is a remnant of a verbal copula is interesting but requires more solid underpinning; it
11.6. The DStem in Historical Perspective
281
In the infinitive and the stative/past participle, the individual languages have gone their own way, as is usual in categories that are low in the hierarchy of the verbal paradigm. The Akkadian Inf parrusu has no certain parallels: the Hebrew form goes back to *qattil-, apparently by analogy with the prefix stem (Bauer and Leander 1922: 32425); the Geez form qattl(t)- is ambiguous: if is from u, it may be parallel to parrusu, apart from the secondary suffix.33 An indirect trace of parrusu may have survived in the Arabic Inf taqattul of Stem V (taqattala): it suggests that Stem II may originally have had *qattul.34 However, the productive infinitive (madar ) of Stem II has the form taqtl, which is unrelated to the D-stem and actually comes from the Gt-stem, as I will argue in 14.6.1 (pp. 400401). Even without taqtl, it is unlikely that Arabic would have preserved *qattul, since it has remodelled all other derived infinitives on the basis of the vowel sequence -i-- (qitl, (i)nqitl, etc.), and indeed a rare infinitive pattern qittl is also attested (Wright 1967: I 115 sub 6). Finally, the stative/past participle parrus(u) can be compared etymologically with the West Semitic perfect, but the actual forms of the latter are remodelled in various ways; see Huehnergard 1992 for a discussion of the West Semitic forms. The vigour and productivity of the D-stem in Semitic contrasts sharply with its apparent absence in other Afroasiatic languages. The other languages typically use reduplication to express plurality and intensity. As to Cushitic, Sasse (1981: 209) and Gragg (apud Kienast 2001: 613) mention various derived verbal stems with reduplication that have intensive function. Frajzyngier (1979) quotes many similar examples of simple verbs with a reduplicated counterpart that indicate plurality of the object or the subject, intensity, and frequentativity in various Chadic and Cushitic languages and in Egyptian. In Tuareg, more than in other Berber languages, total and partial reduplication is widespread in verbs with intensive, iterative, and similar meanings (Prasse 1972/4: III 4755). They belong especially to Prasses verb classes VII (frsfrs to cut into many pieces, cf. frs to cut and lkslks to crush vigorously in a mortar from lks to crush in a mortar), VIII (bkbk to shake out), IX (blglg to burst into flames, XI (zmmmrt to drag oneself along, XV (hulhl to ramble), and XVI ( fuffrt to rub). Although some of them are clearly extensions of a simple verb, they are not normally assigned to the derived verbal stems of the Berber languages (which only include categories with prefixes). Alongside reduplication, gemination is also used in these languages as a grammatical marker but apparently on a much smaller scale. From the Chadic languages Pero and Kanakuru, Frajzyngier (1979: 56) quotes a parallel use of both devices: in Pero, some verbs use gemination and others reduplication to indicate a plural object (and sometimes also for transitivizing an intransitive verb; see below), e.g., look lokk to hang, but men memmun to like and kub kubbub to taste a liquid. In Kanakuru, a small group of verbs has gemination of the second
was proposed by Hetzron 1973/74 for the u prefixes of the West Semitic apophonic passive, but it may be relevant to the D-stem as well, especially if we assume that it was originally a conjugation of adjectives, as I will argue below. 33. Geez also has a past participle qttul (< *quttl) associated with the D-stem (Tropper 2002: 97), which it is tempting to equate with pa/urrusum. It is more likely, however, that it is modelled on the G-stem past participle qtul < *qutl, which is functionally equivalent to qatl in other Semitic languages (Tropper 2002: 97 n. 127; Fox 2003: 200) but has no pendant in Akkadian and must be a West Semitic development. 34. Wright (1967: I 117) mentions a pattern tiqittl as infinitive of Stem V and seems to assume that this is primary to taqattul. However, tiqittl can easily be explained as secondary, since it is clearly modelled on the general infinitive pattern with the sequence -i--. The pattern taqattul is isolated and therefore difficult to explain as an analogical creation. Kuryowicz (1972: 50) equates it with the corresponding Akkadian form putarrus(u); see further 14.5.5 (pp. 394395).
282
consonant to indicate plurality of subject or object (muti - mutte to die). Berber languages use gemination as one of the two main features of the imperfective, as discussed in 4.4.3.2 (p. 105). However, a derived verbal stem that is parallel to what I will describe presently as the original nature of the D-stemi.e., primarily consisting of denominal verbs associated with adjectives and expressing various aspects of verbal pluralitydoes not seem to be attested outside Semitic.35 On the other hand, as I argued in chap. 4, several branches of Afroasiatic had a pluractional imperfective characterized by gemination of R2, which survives in the Proto-Semitic GPL-stem *yiqattalu and in imperfective forms of Berber and Beja and is therefore likely to have originated in the common Afroasiatic period. This category differs from the D-stem in that it must have been mainly associated with fientive rather than with adjectival verbs. An indication that this was indeed the case is the fact that in Berber verbs that denote typical adjectival concepts do not normally use gemination to form their imperfective, but the prefix t(t)-: e.g., Tuareg itimgar from imgar mqqr to be big, and itiwag from iwag - ggag to be red (see 4.4.3.2, p. 106). This short and doubtless incomplete survey leads to the conclusion that the use of gemination and reduplication as grammatical markers in Semitic is the opposite of that in the rest of Afroasiatic: in Semitic, gemination is widespread and reduplication marginal (see chap. 15), whereas elsewhere it is the other way around (Rubio 2003a: 17576).
11.6.2. Thedevelopmentofthefactitivefunction
The use of the D-stem in other Semitic languages is basically parallel to that in Akkadian as described in 11.3 (pp. 271277). In textbooks, the functions of intensive/pluractional and factitive/causative figure prominently: see, for instance, Wright 1967: I 3132 for Arabic; Joon and Muraoka 1991: 15456 for Hebrew; and Segert 1990: 36667 for Aramaic.36 The denominal use is also mentioned widely.37 Only in South Semitic is the situation different. The corresponding stem in Geez, Stem I/2, does not have a productive opposition to the basic stem: most I/2 verbs do not have a corresponding basic verb and are lexically determined, like the D tantum verbs of Akkadian (Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 14546; Rundgren 1959a: 1819, 5260; Hudson 1994: 48). Nevertheless, Tropper (2002: 106) mentions the same functions as in other Semitic languages (intensive, pluractional, factitive, declarative, and denominative). This suggests that many I/2 verbs are lexicalized with the meaning they originally acquired on the basis of the functions that are also attested elsewhere.38 The Modern South Arabian languages have replaced gemination of R2 with vowel
35. As already observed by Kienast (1982: 20 and 2001: 563). 36. A more detailed look at the older West Semitic languages, however, suggests that they differ somewhat from Akkadian in that the pluractional function has become marginal as compared to Akkadian. Most grammars mention it and give a few examples, but they also state or imply that it is rather rare compared to the factitive function (see GAV p. 9 for examples, and also Greenberg 1991). This suggests that these West Semitic languages represent a later stage of development in which the original function has been reduced and the factitive function has expanded. On the other hand, the pluractional use of Stem II still exists in modern Arabic, as demonstrated by Lentin (1991); in addition, Stem II has almost completely taken over the causative function of Stem IV (Fischer and Jastrow 1980: 46, 7071). 37. In addition to other verbal stems, especially the G-stem and the -stem; for the G-stem, see GAV p. 306 for Akkadian, and, e.g., Fleisch 1979: 26370 for Arabic; Bauer and Leander 1922: 289 for Hebrew; for the -stem, see 13.2.2.4 (pp. 332333). 38. This is confirmed by the fact that the I/2 verbs of Amharic are transitive to a greater extent than is to be expected statistically (Hudson 1991: 681), in accordance with the Akkadian D-stem. Moreover, as already observed in 4.6.1 (pp. 119120), the fact that Stem I/2 does not have a variable vowel like Stem I/1 also points to an originally derived status ( pace Hudson 1991, 1994).
283
lengthening, conflating their original D-stem with the counterpart of the Arabic Stem III and the Geez Stem I/3 (both qtala) (see 4.6.1, pp. 117118). The functions of this conglomerate are similar to those of the D-stem elsewheretransitivizing and denominaland often there is no corresponding basic stem (Simeone-Senelle 1998: 7779). We may conclude that the loss of the grammatical opposition between the basic stem, the D-stem, and the stem with vowel lengthening (where it exists) is a specific innovation of South Semitic (Rundgren 1959a: 5253). As argued in 4.6.1 (p. 120), this was an important factor in the reanalysis of the old D-stem imperfective *yuqattil(u) as imperfective of the basic stem (yqattl ). Already in Proto-Semitic, then, the D-stem combined the functions of pluractional/intensive and factitive/causative and was also used for deriving verbs from nouns and adjectives.39 In Akkadian, the D-stem has a close association with adjectives: almost all common simple adjectives have a derived PuRRuS and/or PaRRaS adjective, and most of them also have a verbal D-stem with factitive function. Among the factitive D-stems, verbs that denote typical adjectival conceptsi.e., states and qualitiespredominate. It seems therefore a plausible assumption that the D-stem is originally a denominal category derived from adjectives with gemination of R2.40 Such adjectives must have been wide-spread in Proto-Semitic. They are amply attested in Akkadian with the patterns Pa/uRRuS and PaRRaS and sporadically with other patterns (see 4.4, p. 96) and have preserved the original iconic force of gemination in their association with plurality and intensity. Other Semitic languages also preserve a substantial number of such adjectives (Fox 2003: 26480). Hebrew shows the patterns qattl and qattl, which Joon and Muraoka (1991: 253) describe as intensives of qatl and qatl, and a small group of adjectives referring to mental and physical characteristics with the pattern qittel (1991: 253). Arabic has a number of sporadic patterns with gemination of R2 and (usually) a long vowel in the second syllable; most of them comprise only a very small number of words; a few examples of such words are farrq very fearful, kubbr very great and qudds very holy (Fleisch 1961: 35859; Wright 1967: I 13738). They typically denote qualities of persons and colours; in Moscati, ed. 1964: 7879, they are described as adjectives with intensive meaning, and similar qualifications are found in Fleisch and Wright.41 Verbs derived from adjectives are among the most common types of denominal verbs (Comrie 1985b: 34546; Kuryowicz 1964: 88) and naturally adopt meanings such as to be, to become, or to bring about the property expressed by the adjective. Akkadian has developed a threefold division of labour: for to be, it uses the stative; for to become the fientive forms of the G-stem (see 3.3.2, pp. 5860); and for to bring about the D-stem in its factitive function.
39. There is little or no reliable evidence supporting Lipiskis (1997: 345, 368, 379) claim that the G-stem represents the original conjugation of intransitive verbs in opposition to the D-stem for transitive verbs, even though it is true that the great majority of D-stems are transitive. It is not only based on the very speculative association of the prefix vowel u of the D-stem and the -stem with an ergative case ending and the association of i/a of the G-stem with a non-active case ending but also fails to account for the remarkable fact that a significant quantity of transitive G-stems are reconstructible to Proto-Semitic, including their root vowelbut hardly any intransitive verbs are (see 18.3.1, p. 588). It is also disproved by the existence of hundreds of transitive G-stems in all historical Semitic languages. Moreover, Waltisberg (2002a) has shown convincingly that there is no good reason at all to attribute an ergative system to Proto-Semitic; see also Rubio 2003a: 179181. 40. The denominal origin of the D-stem has been asserted by many scholars, such as Wright (1890: 198), Rundgren (1964: 7677), Kuryowicz (1972: 154), and Ryder (1974: 92, 165). 41. In the rest of Afroasiatic, adjectives with gemination occur in Berber; see Rssler 1950: 48283. In Tuareg, they have been incorporated into the TMA system as perfects of the stative/adjectival class IV verbs; see chap. 4 n. 55 (p. 106).
284
The specialization of the D-stem of process verbs to clauses with an agentive subject may have originated in cases where a simple adjective and an adjective with gemination of R2 coexisted and where both of them had a derived fientive verb. An example is rapu alongside rappau wide in historical Akkadian, the latter of which is mainly used with plural nouns (GAV p. 54). The identity of the radicals in the two corresponding verbs and their similarity in meaning provided an ideal starting point for a functional differentiation: speakers of Akkadian tended to prefer the form with gemination in sentences with an agentive subjecti.e., to express to make widebecause of the high degree of transitivity inherent in such sentences. This led to the restriction of the G-stem to clauses that do not have these characteristics, i.e., to intransitive clauses denoting a process.42 The reason why the D-stem was selected for clauses with an agentive subject was precisely the presence of gemination. The originally iconic association of gemination with plurality and intensity was metaphorically extended to (or, rather, reinterpreted as) an association with high transitivity, since the verbs in question happened to be predominantly high-transitivity verbs. It is likely that the connection between intensity and high transitivity is formed by the high degree of agentivity of the subject: an increase in agentivity can easily be equated with an increase in intensity. The general connection between intensity and high transitivity was pointed out by Hopper and Thompson (1980: 264), and the semantic shift from one to the other is by no means restricted to the D-stem. It may be posited for all cases where originally intensive categories have causative (or factitive) function. This is found in many languages (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973: 1920). A well-known case is the suffix -*eye/o- in Indo-European: it is intensive and iterative in some words, causative in others, and also denominal (Szemernyi 1997: 27475); the same applies to -*ske/o-, which is originally iterative or durativeit still has this function in Hittite and Greek but is also causative in Tocharian B and inchoative in Latin (Kuryowicz 1964: 1067; Szemernyi 1997: 27374, 300). For Semitic, one can point to the Arabic causative Stem IV aqtala, which shares its stem with the elative pattern aqtalu, and the Arabic Stem III (qtala), which, in addition to many other functions, also has intensive and causative meaning (Fleisch 1979: 29596). According to Frajzyngier (1979: 78), some Chadic languages use forms with reduplication and gemination, which normally denote plurality (see the preceding section), also with transitive-factitive meaning: Pero ct to stand, ctt to raise, Ngizim tl to get up, tltl to raise. Since recurrent similarity of form must reflect similarity in meaning (Haiman 1985: 26), these parallels show that there is a relationship between the categories intensive (or whatever name we choose for the phenomenon in question) and causative (or factitive). Once the association of the D-stem with actions (e.g., ruppuu to make wide) and the restriction of the G-stem to processes (e.g., rapu to be(come) wide) had become productive, it also became obligatory, because it filled a gap in the system: cross-linguistically, the tendency to make a morphological distinction between actions and processes is a widespread phenomenon.
42. This explanation of the factitive function of the D-stem was anticipated by Rundgren (1959a: 273 74; 1963a; 1964: 77; 1966: 13536), who based his conclusions on Kuryowiczs explanation (1956: 8694) of the causative function of the Indo-European suffix *-eye/o-. Rundgren points to the striking similarity between the development of *-eye/o- from iterative/denominative to causative and that of the D-stem. However, Rundgrens insistence on the fact that the iterative function must have become unproductive for the factitive function to develop (1963a: 111, 114) seems to be contradicted by Akkadian: the use of the D-stem for event plurality, intensity, etc., does not become lost but is restricted to transitive verbs for which a factitive function does not develop. This suggests that in factitive verbs the association with these notions was only abandoned as a result of the rise of the factitive function, not vice versa.
285
According to Nedjalkov and Silnitsky (1973: 4) and Haspelmath (1993: 100103), only a few languages share the peculiarity of English that it frequently uses the same form for intransitives and causatives, as in change and break. Moreover, this distinction between action and process verbs made the association of the D-stem with high transitivity more consistent and thus its use more uniform. On the other hand, the restriction of the D-stem to factitive clauses caused the loss of the distinction between the neutral meaning of the G-stem and the original pluractional and intensive meaning of the verb with gemination. In other words, ruppuu was no longer used with meanings such as to be(come) wide repeatedly, to be(come) wide (said of a plurality of entities), or to be(come) very wide.43 This function was taken over by the Gtn-stem. In transitive verbs with a D-stem, however, the D-stem did not become factitive but preserved its pluractional/intensive function. This explains why the Gtn-stem is rare in these verbs. After a productive derivation had been established from intransitive G-stem to factitive D-stem, it could also be applied to intransitive change-of-state verbs, which cannot be strictly distinguished from adjectival verbs anyhow (see 3.3, pp. 5455), such as bel to go out (of fire): the model of rapu ruppuu gave rise to bel bull to extinguish. Transitive action verbs (which cannot be factitive; see 10.8.2, p. 257) frequently have a D-stem as well. Here the past participle may have played a pivotal role. Because there is no formal distinction between primary adjectives and past participles in Akkadian, derivation from the former entails derivation from the latter.44 Once this had become productive, the source of derivation shifted from the past participle to the verbal paradigm as a whole. As we saw in 8.3.1 (p. 200), past participles are used more frequently as the verb has a higher degree of inherent transitivity. This perfectly agrees with the fact observed above in 11.5 (p. 279) that the D-stem is mainly formed from transitive verbs with a high degree of transitivity verbs and much less from those with a low degree of transitivity. There is also a semantic factor involved in this phenomenon: high transitivity actions lend themselves more easily to differentiation of degrees than low transitivity actions: it is much easier to envisage an intensive or drastic form of hitting, cutting, destroying, etc., than of giving, placing, bringing, and similar notions. Furthermore, plurality of participants is a more salient factor in high-transitivity verbs, since it makes a significant difference whether these actions are performed on a single object or on a plurality of objects. This expansion eventually led to a situation in which a D-stem could be derived from any G-stem, even without the existence of a past participle, through a direct association between the G-stem and the D-stem. This development is an example of the process whereby the relationship 1. basic verb 2. deverbal noun 3. denominal verb changed into 1. basic verb 2. deverbal verb by skipping the intermediate stage (cf. Kuryowicz 1972: 7, 154). This even allowed the creation of D-stems of intransitive activity verbs, which do not have a past participle, such as nabu to bark nubbuu to bark (loudly?).45 On the other hand, in light of the widespread
43. This process is an example of Kuryowiczs fifth law of analogy: Pour rtablir une diffrence dordre central la langue abandonne une diffrence dordre plus marginal (194549: 31). In this case, the semantic (and partly redundant) difference between G and D is abandoned in favour of a syntactic difference. Another matter is whether we should speak of rtablir or perhaps of tablir for this Akkadian process. 44. A similar development took place in the stative; see 7.4.1 (pp. 176177): just as the stative was verbalized by its expansion from primary adjectives to past participles, the D-stem became more closely dependent on the corresponding G-stem as soon as it was also derived from past participles. 45. The geminate in this type of D-stem cannot be explained from the assimilation of an infixed n, as Goetze (1942: 7) claims (uraqqid he danced < *yu-ra-n-qid), since such an infix (which Goetze infers from the imperfective of the tan-stems) does not exist; see 14.7.6 (pp. 431437).
286
occurrence of gemination of R2 in all types of categories, it seems likely that verbs with gemination have existed from the outset, side by side with corresponding simple verbs and independent of those that were derived from adjectives, and that such forms were subsequently incorporated into the D-stem. In other words, it is possible that such verbs originally belonged to the same category as the GPL- stem *yiqattalu (see chap. 4). The historical reality of this scenario is confirmed by the fact that a few originally intransitive verbs have escaped the functional differentiation between G and D and can still be used in the G-stem as a (transitive) action verb. The most prominent ones are emdu and kamsu (see GAV pp. 43940 for details, references, and instances). Emdu G basically means to lean (intr.) against, to reach (+ Acc or ana) but also to impose, with abstract conditions as direct object, such as labour, punishment, taxes, etc. The latter meaning is actually the factitive counterpart of the former. So emdu G can be its own factitive. Its D-stem is also factitive and means to place upon, impose, mainly used with concrete objects (body parts, beams, merchandise, ships (to moor), etc. In a similar way, the G-stem of kamsu means to gather (people, livestock, harvest) both in its intransitive (albeit rarely) and transitive (i.e., factitive) meaning, whereas D is always transitive.46 It is possible that these two verbs are residues of an earlier situation in which G-stem verbs (or a significant part of them) were indeterminate with regard to process-oriented versus agent-oriented use (like English change and break, etc.), before the D-stem became a productive means of distinguishing them.47 As stated in 11.5 (pp. 278279), the outcome of the process outlined above was that the great majority of D-stems are uniformly high-transitivity verbs. If the G-stem is a low-transitivity verb, its D-stem has high transitivity, i.e., it has become transitive; if the G-stem itself has high transitivity, the D-stem has it as well but also preserves its iconic association with plurality and intensity. Consequently, the association with high transitivity does not only explain the fact that D-stems of intransitive verbs are factitive but also the fact that those of action verbs are not factitive: if we add an external agent to such a verb, we get a real causative, and this can only be expressed by the -stem (see 10.8.2, pp. 256257). Accordingly, the D-stem of intransitive verbs normally denotes a valency increase ( paru to come together versus puuru to bring together), whereas that of transitive verbs preserves the valency of the G-stem, so that abtu and ubbutu both mean to seize.48
46. The intransitive use of kamsu is rare and doubtless residual; it only occurs in Old Babylonian, as far as I am aware (YOS 10, 36: I 37; ARM 26/2, 347 no. 437:30; ARM 28, 53: r.8; OBTR 305:14). 47. These verbs are the Akkadian counterparts of the verbs in other Semitic languages that express the same distinction by means of vowel alternation (apophony). Arabic, for instance, has verb pairs such as azina to be sad versus azana to make sad, afiya to be hidden versus af to hide, and Hebrew has ml to fill beside ml to be(come) full. In a few cases, exactly the same form is used, e.g., Ar waqafa to stop (trans. and intr.), adala to be equal and to make equal, abara to perish and to destroy. For this phenomenon, see especially Brockelmann 1913: 13941; Kuryowicz 1972: 6768; Fleisch 1979: 28081 n. 1; Saad 1982: 66; D. Cohen 1984: 14849). As Fleisch (1979) and Saad (1982) clearly state for Arabic, such cases are residual: in Arabic, factitives are productively derived by means of Stems II and IV and in Hebrew by means of the Piel. This suggests that these derived stems have replaced the factitive G-stems with and without apophony (see also Rundgren 1966: 13637; 1980: 5961). Akkadian has no trace of an opposition between intransitive and factitive by means of vowel pattern only, so this is likely to be a West Semitic innovation that perhaps became only possible after the development of the pattern QaTaL with active meaning (see 7.4.2, pp. 184186) in opposition to intransitive QaTiL and QaTuL. 48. According to Kuryowicz (1956: 88), quoted by Rundgren (1966: 135), Les exposants formels du mode daction deviennent des morphmes indiquant la diathse (voix) ou se lexicalisent. The former happened to the factitive D-stems, the latter to many D-stems of transitive verbs and of intransitive action verbs.
287
In sum, the factitive function of the D-stem is the outcome of a process of grammaticalization of gemination of R2, which has replaced the originally iconic (semantic) function of plurality and intensity with the more grammatical and more abstract function of underlining agentivity and high transitivity. This represents an instance of the common grammaticalization path from semantic to syntactic function, i.e., from more concrete to more abstract. The rise of the factitive function is likely to have taken place at least partially in the Proto-Semitic period, since it recurs in all other Semitic languages. On the other hand, the historical processes involved are common enough to allow for a considerable amount of parallel development. The different functions of the D-stem represent different stages in this development. Together with typological parallels, they make a reliable reconstruction of its origin and history possible.
thePrefixn-
Chapter 12
12.1. introduction
This chapter deals with the verb forms that are characterized by the prefix n-. Most of them belong to the canonical N-stem, but other categories with the prefix n- are the verbs of the naparruru group, the verb mlulu in part of its conjugation, the quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu group, and a number of I/n verbs in which n is arguably a secondary accretion to an originally biliteral element. These manifestations of the prefix n- will be discussed in 12.212.5. In 12.6, I will argue that they all ultimately come from a kind of light verb that was used to conjugate elements that did not easily fit into the patterns of verbal conjugation, especially elements that were biliteral and quadriliteral or longer. I will also describe the evolution of the n-prefix from this light verb into a prefix and the subsequent development of the paradigms in which it occurs.
12.2. the n-stem 12.2.1. TheformoftheN-stem1

Among the derived verbal stems, the N-stem is unusually complex because of the unstable nature of n in general, the variations in its vowel pattern, and the existence of fundamental differences between verb classes in the way the N-stem is formed. Table 12.1 gives the eight inflectional members of the N paradigm for the different vowel classes of the strong verb (cf. also GAG Verbalpar. 13). A/u Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc ipparras ipparis ittapras napris naprus naprusu mupparsu A/a iabbat iabit ittabat nabit nabut nabutu *muabtu I/i ippaqqid ippaqid ittapqid napqid napqud napqudu muppaqdu U/u (Bab) inneppu innepu ittenpu *nenpu ?? *nenpu nenpuu *munnepu
table 12.1: the paradigm of the n-stem of the strong verb and epu to do/make.
The basic marker of the N-stem is -n- or na- prefixed to the first radical. -n- is used in the prefix base -nPaRvS in the imperfective, the perfective, and the present participle: Impfv i-n-parrVs
1. Earlier literature on the N-stem includes Goetze 1947; GAG 90; Testen 1998a; Kouwenberg 2004.
288
12.2. The NStem
289
(> ipparrVs), Pfv i-n-parVs (> ipparVs), PrPartc mu-n-paris-u (> mupparsu).2 It always assimilates to the following consonant (for -nn- in the I/voc verbs, see 17.6.3.4, p. 552). Na- occurs in the suffix base naPRvS: Imp na-pris, Stat na-prus, etc.3 However, the division between the prefix and the suffix base is not quite parallel to that in the G-stem. First, the t-perfect uses the suffix base naPRvS: i-n-t-aPRvS > ittaprVs, because only naPRvS is able to accommodate an infixed t after the first consonant.4 Second, the imperative, which is normally derived from the prefix base by means of truncation of the personal prefix (see 5.5, pp. 133134), is also derived from the suffix base na-pris, because the use of the prefix base would lead to an unmanageable initial cluster nC- > C1C1- (Testen 1998a: 131). The Assyrian paradigm differs in one important way from the Babylonian: the perfective forms without ending are subject to the vowel assimilation rule: ippiris, iibit, ippiqid. In Old Assyrian, this i is analogically extended to the forms with an ending, which, strictly speaking, do not fall under the rule (GKT 10b; GAG 90d; Kouwenberg 2004: 33335), e.g., 3mp ippirs instead of the expected form ippars. Surprisingly, this analogical extension seems to be reversed in Middle and Neo-Assyrian, where the a-forms reappear (W. Mayer 1971: 64 and GAG 90d), e.g.: i-a-ab-tu KAV 1: VII 47:3 (MA) they were seized from abtu N i-a-ak-nu(-)-ni KAJ 107:12 (MA) (which) were placed from aknu N ik-kal--ni /ikkalni/ KAV 1: IV 36:105 (MA) he was held (Subj) from kal to hold, detain i-a-ak-nu-u-ni SAA 1, 31:18 (NA) (idem) li-kar-ku SAA 10, 6: r.6 (NA) let them be gathered from karku N 5 If there is no ending, the form with vowel assimilation is still used (W. Mayer 1971: 63):6 la-pi--ir Fernhandel p. 252:22 (MA) that I may be released from paru N lip-pi-i-i SAA 10, 318: r.4 (NA) let him anoint himself from pau N The vowel pattern of the N-stem is complex, even if we omit for the moment the arguably secondary N-stems of the U/u class. In the prefix categories, this is caused by the fact that their vowels have a different background. The imperfective adopts the imperfective vowel of the G-stem (see 4.2, p. 89): iparras > ipparras, iabbat > iabbat, ipaqqid > ippaqqid;7 the t-perfect adopts the vowel of the N imperfective, as in the G-stem: ipparras > ittapras, iabbat > ittabat, ippaqqid > ittapqid. The perfective, however, has a fixed vowel i, independent of the imperfective vowel:
2. Evidence for i in the participle comes from feminine forms such as mu-pa-ri-tu Lugal 92 = III 3 winged (Fem) and construct states such as mun-na-rib-u-nu Sn. 47:34 their fugitive(s) (both SB). 3. There is no trace in Akkadian of an older suffix base **naPaRvS, from which naPRvS derives by vowel syncope, as is sometimes argued (Bauer 1912), in contrast to PitRvS from *PitaRvS, which is presupposed by the Old Assyrian alternation pitrVspitars (< *pitarVs : *pitarVs). This is as expected, since *PitaRvS is a relatively recent replacement of *taPRvS, as I will argue in 14.4.1 (pp. 378379), whereas naPRvS is the original form of the suffix base of the N-stem; see 12.6.2 (pp. 321322). 4. The t-Pf ittaprVs is a relatively recent inner-Akkadian formation, because it could only emerge after t had become an infix (see 14.4.1, pp. 375380) and had acquired the inflectional function of perfect (since in its original function it was incompatible with the N-stem). Otherwise this form would doubtless have been something like **yi-ta-n-parVs. 5. However, i-bi-i- Iraq 41, 90:40 (MA) they came into being from ba N preserves the Old Assyrian form. 6. For the difficult form i-a-bi-[it] mentioned by W. Mayer, see Postgate 1973: 21. 7. This rule also applies most types of weak verbs, but not to the U/u verbs of Type 4 discussed below.
290
The NStem 12.2.
ipparis, iabit, ippaqid. No doubt, this originally also applied to the imperative with i, since the imperative is based on the (stem of the) perfective (see 5.5, p. 133). It may still be the case in historical Akkadian, but we cannot be certain as long as we do not know the form of the imperative of epu N (see below).8 This complexity derives historically from the fact that the Pfv ipparis is inherited from Proto-Semitic, whereas the imperfective and the t-perfect are innerAkkadian innovations modelled on the G-stem and therefore determined by its vowel class. The remaining forms in the lower half of Table 12.1 are independent of vowel class and follow the general pattern of the derived stems: i for the present participle and u for the stative, the infinitive and the past participle. These are precisely the forms that are also predictable in the paradigms of the G-stem, the Gt-stem, and the Gtn-stem.9 Because of the predominantly (medio) passive function of the N-stem, they are also fairly infrequent and mainly restricted to non(medio)passive N-stems.10 There are a few incidental irregularities in the vowel pattern of the N-stem. First, some I/i verbs show N forms with a in the imperfective and the t-perfect, e.g., Impfv in-na-za-aq ARM 26/2, 526 no. 533:4 and t-Pf ta-at-ta-an-za-aq ARM 18, 36:13 from nazqu (I/i) N to become worried (both OB Mari), and ik-kam-ma-lu BBR 25:10 they will become angry from kamlu (I/i) (SB). They testify to a tendency to adopt the vowel pattern A/i from other derived stems and some frequent irregular verbs. The opposite development also occurs: pau (A/u) to anoint shows N forms with i in Middle and Standard Babylonian: t-Pf it-ta-ap-i-i Adapa p. 20:65 (MB) he anointed himself, and Impfv ip-pa-a-i-i KUB 37, 55: IV 29, 35 he will anoint himself and l tap-pa-i-i[ ] Gilg. p. 728:15 do not anoint yourself! (both SB), instead of the expected forms ittapa and tappaa. Perhaps they represent an analogical extension of i from the Pfv ippai to the other finite forms, or they may be related to the general shift in vowel class from A/u to I/i (see 3.5.3, pp. 7778).11 The N-stems with a vowel u, shown in the fourth column of Table 12.1, behave rather erratically (see also Testen 1998a: 14245). Since the related vowel class U/u mainly consists of intransitive activity verbs that rarely have an N-stem, they are few in number and only occur in Babylonian, so that they are likely to be a secondary development specific to this dialect.12 Even so, they can be divided into four types.
8. All other N imperatives known to me, albeit few in number, have the pattern naPRiS, e.g., na-aki-in ARM 10, 107:25 (OB) provide yourself (with) from aknu (A/u); ne-en-mi-da ShA 1, 74 no. 3:20 (OB) ally (Pl) yourself! from emdu (I/i); na-a-bi-ta SAA 2, 54:590 (NA) be (Pl) seized!) from abtu (A/a); and na-ak-li-i AbB 1, 31:8 (OB) stay here! (nakl < nakli ) from kal (A/a). Cf. also nani(am) quoted in (03) and (04) below. 9. GAG 90a/b/c; Goetze 1947: 5356; Reiner 1966: 81. 10. It is possible that there are a few deverbal nouns derived from the N-stem with the pattern naPRS, parallel to PitRS alongside the Gt Inf PitRuS: GAG 56h sub 17 mentions naplsu view, glance (na-apla-su-u-u RA 22, 172:15 (OB)), nazzzu das Hintreten, and nalbbu das Wildwerden. They are rare and literary, and Kienast (1989: 282, 2001: 377) may be right in describing them as old infinitives that have been replaced by naPRuS and survive as action nouns outside the verbal paradigm. However, two of the three instances concern roots with a labial, so they may also be instrument nouns with the prefix ma-, which becomes na- in such roots. Note that nazzzu is not in the dictionaries in this form but occurs as nanzzu (AHw 73132) or nanzazu (CAD N/2 26162). More often than not it refers to a person (attendant, courtier). A formally similar noun is na/erru (OB) later n/rru help, (military) aid, but it has no etymology, so it is unclear whether it is a naPRS derivation of a root rr ; see the end of 12.3 (p. 304). 11. A similar phenomenon occurs in the Gt-stem; see chap. 14 n. 5 (p. 357). 12. The common Neo-Assyrian form immagur (CAD M/1 43 s.v. 10b; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 33; Luukko 2004: 11213) from magru is doubtless a secondary development.
12.2. The NStem
291
1. The first type consists of a single verb, epu N to be made, done, treated, which is included in Table 12.1. It is by far the most common U/u verb with an N-stem. It is therefore convenient to discuss it here, although as a I/voc verb it actually belongs to chap. 17. Epu originally belonged to the A/u class and is still a regular A/u verb in Assyrian: G Impfv ppa, Pfv pu, t-Pf tapa, N Impfv inneppa, Pfv innpi, t-Pf ittpa.13 In Babylonian, it has become U/u secondarily (GAG 97t): after Babylonian had replaced the Impfv ppe (with E-colouring; see 17.5, pp. 525526) with ppu, u also penetrated into the G t-Pf tepu and in the N Impfv, which, as I argued above, is based on the G Impfv: ppu > inneppu, which replaced an earlier (ppe >) inneppe, which is also attested. Subsequently, innepu replaced *innepi in the perfective and ittenpu replaced ittenpe in the t-perfect.14 The Pfv innepu is the only attested N perfective of a transitive verb that does not have i. It replaced *innepi through the combined pressure of u in all other prefix forms of the G-stem and the N-stem. The uniqueness of this u finds a remarkable parallel in the stative epu, which sporadically appears in Middle Babylonian and later alongside regular epi and is also more or less unique among the statives derived from fientive verbs; see 7.2 with n. 2 (p. 162) for references. 2. Other transitive U/u verbs with an N-stem regularly show an imperfective with u, e.g.: im-ma-ak-ku-s Edikt p. 36: V 2 (OB) it will be collected from maksu is-sa-am-mu-ud RA 73, 70a:3 (OB) it will be ground from samdu in-na-a-- AbB 10, 14:21 (OB) he will be beaten from na but they probably have a perfective with i, although among the forms in which the vowel between R2 and R3 is visible, only III/voc instances are known to me: iqqal from qal to burn in li-iq-qa-li ARM 3, 73:15 (OB) imman from man to count (e.g., li-im-ma-ni SAA 3, 4: r.II 28, SB) As we saw in 3.5.3 (pp. 7879), they are not quite reliable as evidence, since they fluctuate between u and i in the greatest part of their conjugation.15 3. Most intransitive U/u verbs with an N-stem16 have u in both the N imperfective and the N perfective, i.e., they are isovocalic, like almost all intransitive verbs. The imperfective forms include:
13. For the long in the perfective (innpu, innrub), see 17.6.3.4 (pp. 550551) and Kouwenberg 2004. See further GKT 90d for Old Assyrian and W. Mayer 1971: 6768 for Middle Assyrian (he only mentions G forms, but cf. N Impfv in-n-pa- MATSH p. 131 no. 8:44). For Neo-Assyrian, cf. Impfv in-n-ep-pa- SAA 10, 339: r.4, Pfv in-n-pi-u-ni SAA 10, 100: r.2 (Subj), t-Pf it-te-pa- SAA 1, 188:13. 14. For the older form of the imperfective and the perfect, cf., e.g., in-n-e-ep-pe-e AbB 11, 160:28 and it-te-en6-p-e15 FM 2, 113 no. 71: r.15 (both OB)). Unfortunately, the older form *innepi of the perfective seems to be unattested, in spite of the fact that it is mentioned among the forms of epu N in AHw 228b s.v. e. II N. It is not included in Goetzes (1947: 5356) collection of N-forms either. For the infinitive, cf. ne-en6-pu-a ARM 13, 144:32 (Acc) (for en6, see Durand 1997/2000: I 479 n. 126). 15. An instance from a strong verb might be li-iz-za-mir Wedg. 16: r.11 it must be sung (SB) from zamru to sing, which is usually U/u. However, there is also an Impfv a-za-ma-ar WO 4, 12: I 1 (OB), which points to A/u and thus makes classification uncertain. The situation is even more complicated if iz-za-mi-ir in TuL 93:14 ann a ana DN ina attal iz-za-mi-ir this is what is sung to DN during an eclipse (tr. CAD Z 38b s.v. 4) is indeed an imperfective, as CAD translates: this would testify to I/i. 16. Not included here are arru and tarru to tremble, which fall under Type 4; see below. Nor have I included e to confuse (cf. (l) te-en-ne- Legends p. 363:156 and en-n- ibid. 349:88, because it has mainly become I/i (cf. 3.5.3).
292
The NStem 12.2.
*iggappu from gapu N to become huge, massive, inferred from the t-Pf it-tag-pu- CT 15, 34:27 (SB) im-ma-u SBH p. 13 no. 6:6 (SB) from ma N to become frenzied17 (l) ta-an-na-ku-ud AbB 7, 42:18 (OB) from nakdu to worry18 i--u-un AfO 23, 40:8 (SB) from anu N to become warm The perfective forms of these verbs with u are: im-ma-u ARM 10, 7:7 (OB) from ma N to become frenzied (but see n. 17) i--pu BWL 88:292 (SB) and li-i-e-pu BWL 172: IV 8 (SB) from ap N to be(come) loud The vowel u in the imperfective is regular, since it is based on u in the G imperfective, but that of the perfective is remarkable and shows that these verbs deviate from the pattern ipparis. In fact, we may assume on the basis of this limited evidence that in these intransitive verbs an imperfective with u entails a perfective with u (Testen 1998a:144): *iggappu *iggapu, imma *imma, innakkud *innakud, iaun *iaun, and *iapp ia/ep. Four of these five verbs also have u in the stative: gapu, nakud, aun, and ap.19 There are also two intransitive N tantum verbs with u in the imperfective and the perfective: nrubu to flee, run has an Impfv innerrub (in-ner-r [u!-ub] VS 1, 69:7 acc. to AHw 1580a s.v. (SB)), a Pfv innrub (in-ne/n-ru-bu ARM 26/1, 152 no. 24:9 and ARM 10, 60:13 (OB)), later also inn/rub (in-na-ar-bi LKU 14: II 9 (SB)),20 a highly atypical Imp Pl nerrub (n-er-ru-ba BAM 3, 248: IV 2 flee! (Pl) (SB)), for which one would expect *nenrub, an Inf ne-ru-bu-um MSL 12, 59:727 (OB) and a present participle munne/arbu fugitive, running (passim) nent, a technical term in astronomical texts: einander berdecken (AHw 777f s.v.), to go with each other, go parallel to each other (CAD N/2 16566 s.v.) has an Impfv *innett (inferred from the t-Pf it-te-en-tu DA 103:5) and a Pfv innet (in-n-tu TU 16: r.23) (all SB) These verbs do not have a stative, so their u perfective cannot be derived from the stative and is doubtless original, the more so since there are also U/u verbs among the quadriradical N verbs (see 12.5, pp. 308310). 4. A few intransitive verbs of the U/u class do not have U/u in the N-stem, but A/i, as if their G-stem belonged to the A/u or A/a verbs. By far the most important is saru to turn, look for (U/u), with the N forms Impfv issaar, Pfv issair, t-Pf ittasar. Their antiquity is confirmed by their occurrence in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian and by an early instance of an N Pfv
17. Already in Old Babylonian, ma also occurs as an I/i verb (Pfv im-ma-i ARM 10, 8:7), showing that it takes part in the general drift of III/voc U/u verbs towards the vowel class I/i (see 3.5.3, pp. 7879). This also accounts for the alternative SB im-ma-i LKU 14: II 29. 18. This very common expression is spelled with a single n everywhere else, which suggests that it is normally a G-stem, although we cannot exclude the possibility that it is always an N-stem, just as its (near-) synonym naduru/naduru. It is also possible, therefore, that ta-an-na-ku-ud is a poor spelling for the G Impfv /tanakkud/. 19. There is no stative attested of ma. There is, however, in Ur III Babylonian a substantivized adjective in the Gen lma-im RA 24, 44:5 (= TCS 1, 369:5), which cannot come from ma ( pace CAD M/1 90b s.v. d) because of its spelling and because ma is not attested before MB/SB. The earlier forms either represent a G-stem adjective ma (only LL) or a D-stem adjective mu, see GAV pp. 4023 n. 6. 20. The form in-ne/n-ru-ub Izbu 226:489 (SB) is ambiguous; see also 17.6.3.4 (pp. 550551).
12.2. The NStem
293
issaer in the Mari liver omina (i-s--er RA 35, 44 no. 12:5).21 The other two are arru and tarru to tremble: both are U/u, but have an N imperfective with a: i-r-ra-r TDP 112:28; i-r-ra-ru CT 17, 5:34 (both SB); it-tar-ra-ru Tn-Ep. I 14 (MB) he is/they are trembling. Since saru has a Stat sair and arru has arir (a-ri-ir ZA 43, 96:14 (SB) he is tremulous(?)), it seems a plausible assumption that the vowel pattern of the N-stem is based on that of the stative, as argued by Testen (1998a). The formal characteristics of the N-stem associate it more closely with the G-stem than with the D-stem and the -stem: it copies the vowel class of the G-stem, it has the same prefix vowels as G, and if imperfective and perfective have a different vowel, the t-perfect of the N-stem follows that of the imperfective (see 6.2, pp. 138139). This tallies with the close functional relationship between the N-stem and the G-stem, since the former is a productive detransitive derivation of the latter, and situates N near the inflectional end of the continuum between inflectional and derivational status, as argued in 10.5 (p. 251).22 In several types of weak verbs, the N-stem presents idiosyncratic features that are important for the reconstruction of its prehistory, especially the I/voc verbs, which are built on a different stem in Assyrian (see 17.6.3.4, pp. 550554), and to some extent also the II/voc verbs, which have an incomplete paradigm, comprising only an imperfective and a perfective (see 16.5.3.5, p. 488). In frequency, the N-stem belongs to the most common derived verbal stems of Akkadian: AHw lists about 400 verbs with an N-stem (see GAV p. 111). There are no certain (medio)passive N-stems attested in Sargonic Akkadian (Hasselbach 2005: 21213),23 nor in Ur III Babylonian, where we only have N forms of the idiomatic N-stem naplusu to look favourably at, all of them in proper names, except ip-p-al-su-m AKI p. 334:9 he looked at him with favour (Subj) in a royal inscription from Elam (Hilgert 2002: 22324).24 In view of the later productivity of the (medio)passive N-stem, we must assume that its absence in these early dialects is accidental. The earliest instances occur in the Mari liver omina (which are difficult to date; see chap. 1 n. 18, p. 11), e.g., Impfv i-a/s-k-an RA 35, 44 no. 12:6 and 49 no. 29:5 it will happen from aknu to place, Pfv i-p-al-u 44 no. 11:6 they were breached from palu, and i-l-q-i ibid. 8 it was taken from leq. From then on, the N-stem occurs frequently in its various functions and remains productive until the latest stages of Akkadian.25 We are very poorly informed about the N-stem in Eblaite. Since geminates are not written in Eblaite, imperfective and perfective forms of the triradical N-stem are hard to recognize, if they
21. Saru may take a direct object if it means to look for, but its more basic meaning is doubtless to turn around, with the U/u vocalism that is typical of atelic activity verbs (see 3.5.2.3, pp. 7374). 22. Reiner (1966: 75) also assigns the N-stem a middle position between G on the one hand and D + on the other. 23. However, i-ma-ri-[] TAZ 1, 48: II 7 (Tutub) they will be fattened from mar may be one; see W. Sommerfelds note on p. 107; for mar in Sargonic Akkadian, cf. the Inf ma-ra-i MAD 1, 159:3 (Eshnunna) in order to fatten. There is also an instance of the quadriradical N-stem nabalkutu; see Hasselbach 2005: 212, and several forms of izuzzu to stand (up), which is a fossilized N-stem according to Huehnergard 2002b; see 16.5.3.5 (pp. 488490). 24. Hilgert also mentions N forms of paru to release (2002: 223), naru to guard (2002: 313) and amru to see (2002: 245), but these, too, come from proper names and are of uncertain interpretation. 25. With regard to the latest periods, Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 88) states that the use of the passive N-stem is very limited in Neo-Assyrian. This may be true in a relative sense, but the number of N-stems in various functions in Neo-Assyrian letters is considerable, even though some of them are doubtless due to Standard Babylonian influence. According to Woodington (1982: 81), the N-stems make up 1% of the verbal attestations in her corpus of Neo-Babylonian letters (versus 8% for D and 5% for ; the rest consists of G forms).
294
The NStem 12.2.
had the same form as in Akkadian.26 A single form in context has been interpreted as an N-stem so far: i-ba-ti--AN ARET 13, 1: IV 8 it is/was opened, which may stand for yippat(t)ian/-am (Edzard 2006: 80), perhaps with a ventive (see chap. 9 n. 98, p. 240). Among the Eblaite proper names we find En-a-mar and En-a-mi-ir, which look very much like the forms we would expect as third singular masculine imperfective and perfective, respectively, of the N-stem of amru to see, N to be seen, appear, meet (Krebernik 1988a: 59; see chap. 17 n. 137, p. 552, about these forms). There is also positive evidence for the existence of the quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu type in Eblaite (see 12.5, p. 314, below).
12.2.2. ThefunctionoftheN-stem
The N-stem has two major functions (GAG 90eg): when derived from transitive G-stems, it is a marker of detransitivity; when derived from intransitive G-stems, it has ingressive function. The former is by far the most important and concerns more than 80% of all N-stems. It is fully productive and remains so throughout the recorded history of Akkadian. The ingressive function is marginal: it is common for a few specific verbs but in all other verbs it is sporadic and mainly restricted to literary texts.
12.2.2.1. TheN-stemoftransitiveverbs
The detransitive function of the N-stem of transitive verbs can be divided into four subtypes: (medio)passive, reciprocal, reflexive, and a few idiosyncratic cases. I will discuss them one by one. 1. The (medio)passive use (see 10.8.3.12, pp. 259260) is by far the most important, since it is the only way to passivize a G-stem. Here are a few typical examples, (01) for the passive, (02) for the mediopassive: (01) KH 3:6667 (and passim) awlum id-da-ak that man will be killed (OB) (02) CT 40, 3:65 umma gur bt amli i-eb-ru if the beams of a mans house have broken (SB) The mediopassive use of N may lead to a lexicalized, idiomatic meaning (Streck 2003a: 95), which usually coexists with the passive meaning, e.g., amru N and nalu N to be seen and to appear, be(come) visible, ezbu N to be left behind and to stay behind, be delayed (OB), kal N to be detained and to stay behind (GAG 3 90f*: mediale Bedeutung), paru N to be untied, be demolished and to fall apart, go away, disappear, paru N to be loosened and to relax, show leniency, and aknu N to be placed, provided with, and to occur, come into existence, be located, happen. 2. A small number of N-stems of transitive verbs can (also) be reciprocal, competing with the Gt-stem and nominal markers of reciprocity (see 10.8.3.5, pp. 263265). In Old Assyrian, the verbs amru N to meet, magru N to come to an agreement, and abtu N to seize each other, quarrel are common, and ezbu N to divorce, ger N to quarrel, litigate, law N to
26. I.e., if the n prefix assimilated to R1, as it does in Akkadian. The evidence for n-assimilation is equivocal (Sanmartn 1995: 45255): on the one hand, the personal pronouns an-da and an-da-nu, corresponding to Akk atta you (Masc Sg) and attunu you (Masc Pl) do not show it (but the spelling of these pronouns may be morphophonemic). On the other hand, n does not appear before the feminine suffix t, e.g., a/i-me-tum /ya/imittum/ VE 534 right (hand) from *yamintum, and li-ba/b-tum /liba/ittum/ VE 146 brick from *liba/intum (or is the absence of n purely orthographic?) (Huehnergard 2006: 5 n. 18).
12.2. The NStem
295
meet (?, cf. G to surround), maru N to meet, and parsu N to divorce are occasionally found.27 In Old Babylonian, the Gt-stem is very common in reciprocal function (see 14.3.1.3, pp. 363364), but a few verbs use the N-stem instead. The verbs amru N to meet and emdu N to be joined to each other, meet, work together occur especially frequently.28 Occasional instances include azu N to marry, edru N to embrace, eru N to advance against each other (in-ne-e-i-ra // i-n-i-ra YOS 10, 58:2 // 57: 4 = B 2, 13:2), and naqu N to kiss (each other) ((kma) ni-na-a-q ShA 1, 139 no. 65:9). A remarkable phenomenon in Old and Standard Babylonian is the use of a reciprocal N form in the t-perfect in a suppletive relationship with the Gt-stem in order to avoid a double t-infix (see 14.2.1, p. 357). This is attested in the following verbs: ger N to quarrel, litigate (OB, e.g., ni-it-te-eg-ri AbB 2, 107:12; SB, e.g., it-te-eg-ru- Gilg. p. 562:114) magru N to come to an agreement (OB, e.g., i-ta-am-ga-ru VAB 5, 301:12)29 maru N to meet (OB, e.g., it-tam-a-ru Gilg. p. 180:214) abtu N to seize each other, quarrel (OB, e.g., it-ta-a-ba-tu YOS 10, 36: I 50; SB, e.g., it-ta-a-ba-ta BWL 52:26)30 abru to flit, prattle (SB: it-ta-a-ba-ra BWL 34:71)31 In Standard Babylonian, those reciprocal N-stems that already occurred earlier continue to be used, doubtless as literary archaisms, especially amru N, edru N, emdu N, and once naqu N (in-ni-qu Ee III 132). Yet there are also a few new instances, not attested in Old Babylonian (so far), such as mau N to fight each other (e.g., im-ma-a-a-a SAA 4, 280: r.14), and malku N to deliberate (passim). In these two verbs, N is a replacement of the gradually disappearing Gt-stem (see 14.3.4, pp. 369371). In addition, the N tantum verb nent mentioned in 12.2.1 (p. 292) above presumably has a reciprocal meaning. In other than literary texts, reciprocity is almost always expressed by the nominal marker ami each other after the Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian period (see 10.8.3.5, pp. 264265). I am not aware of any reciprocal N-stems from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian.32 In Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian, however, malku N to deliberate is still in use, apparently replacing the Gt-stem of this verb, which was very common earlier on.33
27. For a possible (pseudo-)reciprocal N-stem of *awum to speak (normally Gt), see chap. 14 n. 27 (p. 363). 28. Note the first-person dual with reciprocal meaning lu-un-nam-ra ARM 10, 118:13 and lu-na-am-ra ARM 26/2, 259 nr. 404:6 (OB Mari) let us meet, parallel to similar Gt forms, discussed in chap. 14 n. 32 (p. 364). 29. Also in Nuzi: all Nuzi forms are t-perfects according to CAD M/1 43a s.v. magru 10a. 30. However, OB abtu also shows a single instance of N that is not a t-perfect: ARM 28, 155:19 anku u maar abya ni-i-a-bi-it (for i niabit) moi et lui, que nous nous empoignions en prsence de mon pre (tr. J.-R. Kupper); note that the Gt-stem would be niabat. Uncertain cases include VAB 5, 293:56 aum zittu itti PN (. . .) i-a-bi-it prozessierte er (AHw 1071a s.v. N II, but possibly was seized by PN; see 10.8.3.1, pp. 259260); ARM 5, 75:56 PN ina rya i-a-bi-it-ma u karya ana arrim kul PN sen est pris moi et ma calomni auprs du roi (tr. Durand 1997/2000: I 98, but it is far from clear what the combination of abtu N with ina r- means. 31. An additional instance may be it-tar-ka-su/s KH 109:29 from raksu N to band together, conspire, but a corresponding Gt-stem in this meaning is not attested. 32. However, the t-perfect of maru N is common in Nuzi in the stereotyped phrase alluded to in n. 29 above. 33. See CAD M/1 15758 s.v. malku A 5a for N, and ibid. 15657 s.v. malku A 4 for Gt. Another possible reciprocal N-stem in Neo-Assyrian comes from taru, if the phrases um it-ta-a[t]-ru-u SAAS 5,
296
The NStem 12.2.
3. The N-stem can also have direct reflexive function (see 10.8.3.3, pp. 261263), but this is exceptional. For Old Babylonian, I can only mention aknu N to provide oneself with in uma nakunu to provide oneself with a (good) name, to establish renown for oneself, quoted in 10.8.3.3 as (19) with n. 35 (p. 262), and some other expressions quoted in chap. 10 n. 32 (p. 262). From Middle Babylonian onward, we find a few reflexive N-stems replacing earlier reflexive Gt-stems, namely, labu N to put on and pau N to anoint oneself.34 The earliest known instances are the t-perfects it-ta-al-ba-a Adapa p. 20:64 he put on and it-ta-ap-i-i Adapa p. 20:65 he anointed himself (MB lit.), which interchange with Gt imperatives in the same text (li-it-ba-a and p-i-a-a Adapa p. 18:32).35 In Standard Babylonian, pau N completely takes over the reflexive function of Gt (see AHw 844a s.v. Gt and N) and even survives in Neo-Assyrian: arru li/lip-pi-i-i SAA 10, 315: r.21 and 318: r.4 may the king anoint himself.36 Labu Gt, on the other hand, remains common in literary texts (see 14.3.3, pp. 367369). Other putative reflexive N-stems (for instance, most of those mentioned in GAG 3 90f) do not meet (or probably do not meet) the main condition for reflexivity, namely, that the basic verb expresses the same action as the N-stem, but with a different (non-coreferential) entity as direct object (see 10.8.3.3, p. 261). 4. There are several atypical or irregular N-stems or groups of N-stems of transitive verbs. The first one is na to lift, carry, N to bring/take along. Since it offers vital evidence on the background of the N-stem, I will defer its discussion to 12.2.3 (pp. 299300). The second one is azu to take, N to flare up (with fire as subject), which is not easy to explain semantically.37 The third one consists of some verbs of the lamdu type discussed in 11.3.3 (p. 274): they are transitive verbs with a stative-like meaning and a low degree of transitivity. Accordingly, they behave like intransitive verbs, so that their N-stem is ingressive rather than passive: for instance, ubta illabi means he put on a garment and is the fientivization of ubta labi he wears a garment (CAD L 19 s.v. 1e; Testen 1998a: 13839).38 It is not possible to construe this verb with ubtu as subject. The main verbs to which this applies are ablu to borrow, owe, be indebted, alpu to put on (clothes), au to need, desire, labu to put on and apru to put/wear on the head. However, lamdu to know, learn, which also belongs to this group, has a few Standard Babylonian instances of a passive N-stem (see CAD L 58b s.v. 9). These verbs show that the dividing line between the passive and the ingressive functions of the N-stem is not so much determined by syntactic transitivity (the presence of a direct object) as by semantic transitivity.
65 no. 42:1 Now they have come to an agreement and [. . .] ursna it-ta-at -ru-u SAAS 5, 75 no. 48:5 by means of the ordeal they have reached agreement (both tr. R. Jas) do indeed contain t-perfect forms of the N-stem. For the N-stem in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian in general, see Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 88 and Woodington 1982: 9092, respectively. 34. See, however, chap. 10 n. 21 (p. 258) for the problems with the reflexive function of labu N and Gt ( pace GAG 90f and Streck 2003a: 4243, 4647, 95). 35. This reminds us of the suppletion of Gt-stems by means of the t-perfect of the N-stem discussed above sub 2. It is possible that the replacement of Gt by N started in the t-perfect to avoid a double t-infix and spread from there to the other forms. 36. For pau N with passive meaning, cf. ip-pa-a-a-a ZA 75, 198:23 (OB) it must be rubbed in. 37. The G-stem of azu is never associated with fire, as far as I know; the -stem uzu to kindle serves as transitive to N (see 13.2.2.5, p. 333). 38. Pace CAD L 21 s.v. labu 4 to be clothed, robed: in all instances quoted, the person who is clothed is subject, so to put on is equally possible; the forms in question are syntactically active (ingressive), even though it may be possible to translate them as passives.
12.2. The NStem
297
12.2.2.2. TheN-stemofintransitiveverbs
The second major function of the N-stem is ingressive, i.e., it denotes the beginning of a situation. With the few exceptions just mentioned, it is restricted to intransitive verbs and is far more infrequent than the N-stem of transitive verbs. No more than 20% of the attested N-stems come from intransitive verbs, and most of these are only sporadically attested. Since the explicit indication of ingressivity is especially relevant to verbs that refer to a static situation, it mainly occurs in fientive verbs with a stative meaning (see 3.3.1, pp. 5557) and in adjectival verbs (3.3.2, pp. 5860). For intransitive verbs with fientive meaning, it is exceptional to have an N-stem. The only verb occurring more than sporadically is saru to turn, go around, look for, whose N-stem seems to have roughly the same set of uses: to turn around, return, turn to, but always with an animate subject.39 Among the stative and adjectival verbs, frequent N-stems are those of ba to be present or available, N to become available, emerge and taklu to trust, N to put ones trust in.40 In addition, there are a few G-stem statives or adjectives that use the N-stem as their default fientive form: naduru (OA) and naduru (Bab) to become worried (cf. Stat a-dir Tn-Ep. II E 23 he was worried (MB lit.) nanduru to become rabid, raging (cf. Adj. num na-ad-ru-um a raging lion JRAS Cspl. 72:29 (OB) neg to become rabid (cf. Stat e-gi LE 56 A IV: 20 it (the dog) is rabid, Adj. kalbim a-ge-e-em ARM 3, 18:15 a rabid dog (Gen) (both OB) nasluu N to become ill (cf. Stat s-li-I MSL 9, 80:171 he is ill (OB)) In other adjectival verbs, the ingressive N-stem is very rare in the older non-literary dialects. The following cases are known to me: bel N to go out (of fire): ib-b-el-li OBTR 144:22 (OB) ad N to rejoice, to become happy: a-a-[d]u- BE 17, 27:26 (MB)41 madu N (OA) to become numerous: e.g., i-m-du-ni (/immdni/ CCT 4, 8b:13 (OA) ma N to become frenzied, insane: im-ma-u/i ARM 10, 7:7, 8:7 (OB) mal N to become full: am-ma-a-lu- ARM 10, 173:14 (OB) masku N to become bad, ugly: im-ma-as-s-ik YOS 10, 54: r.24 (OB) nadu N to attend, take care: l ta-an-na-I-i [d] AbB 9, 225:16 (OB, poor spelling for G?) nau N to become prosperous, healthy: [i ]n-na-i-i, [i ]n-na-a-u MSL 4, 55:645 46 (OB LL) nakdu N to palpitate, worry: l ta-an-na-ku-ud AbB 7, 42:18 (OB, poor spelling for G? see 12.2.1 sub 3, p. 292)
39. The most salient difference between G and N of this verb is that N is only said of animate beings and denotes a volitional act of turning (see CAD S 5254 s.v. saru 1617) whereas the G-stem has a much wider range of subjects: it usually describes a (change in) the position of an object, especially when used in the stative (see CAD S 3747). The contrast G : N reminds one of that between alku G and Gt, as described in 14.3.4 (pp. 371372). 40. However, most instances are perfective (attakil, ittakil, ittakl, etc.; see CAD T 6768 s. v. 4. These forms may also be G-stems with the vowel class I/i, which replaced A/a in Standard Babylonian and later, see 3.5.3 sub 4 (p. 79). 41. The Late Babylonian instance of the same verb i-i-du- UM 13, 82:5 is doubtless a bad spelling for G id.
298
The NStem 12.2.
nazqu N to become worried (quoted in 12.2.1 above, p. 290, because of an irregular a vowel, OB) pau N to become cool, calm down: ip-pa-a-u RA 46, 90:29 (OB lit.) eb N to become sated: i-e-eb-bu- MIO 12, 54:6 (OB lit.)42 tarru N to start to tremble (it-tar-ra-ru Tn-Ep. I 14 (MB lit.) In Standard Babylonian, on the other hand, they proliferate: about 40 different verbs are attested, but apart from the four verbs mentioned above (na/ duru, nanduru, neg, and nasluu), almost all of them are extremely rare, and many are hapax legomena.43 This lends support to the idea that N was preferred for stylistic reasons, parallel to the stylistically determined use of some - and Gt-stems (see 13.2.2.2, pp. 329331, and 14.3.4, pp. 372374, respectively), and that many of them may even be artificial creations based on the model of a few verbs, similar to the Gt statives and infinitives to be discussed in 14.3.4. An important reason for the rarity of the ingressive N-stem is the fact that in adjectival verbs it competes with the G-stem, which is the unmarked option for expressing the fientive, and therefore ingressive, side of an adjective. For instance, the adjective kabtu heavy (Stat kabit) is never fientivized by means of the N-stem, but by the G-stem: Pfv ikbit it became heavy, t-Pf iktabit it has become heavy, etc., and this seems to apply to most verbs of this kind. Where G and N are both used, there does not seem to be a significant difference in meaning between them.44
12.2.2.3. TheNtantumverbs
Apart from the (medio)passive and ingressive N-stems, there is also a group of triradical N tantum verbs (for quadriradical N verbs, see 12.5, pp. 307308). It includes the following verbs: nbutu to flee (I/i: Impfv innabbit, Pfv innbit, later innabit; see 17.6.3.4, pp. 550554)45
42. Uncertain but notable cases include the following verbs: anu to become tired, exert oneself (l i-na-na-a Itar p. 78: V 11: form?); damu to be(come) dark (li-id-da-I-[im] Atr. p. 94:34 and id-da[i-mu] RA 46, 96:76: N or Gtn or Dt?); se/a N to become rebellious, confused (es-se-[i] Legends p. 272:8: N Pfv or G t-Pf?); ap N to become loud, flicker, billow: i-a-pu St. Reiner p. 190:7 (or read i-ta-pu?, see CAD /1 489b s.v. ap A v. 3). 43. Apart from the ones already mentioned, the verbs in question are (see the dictionaries for details): aggu N to become angry, damqu N to become good, ebu N to get cramps(?), eddu N to become sharp, emru N to get intestinal trouble, erru N ? (said of stars), er N to become pregnant, eslu N to become constipated(?), ebu N to grow profusely, eru N to become prosperous, gapu N to become huge, massive, aru N to be in labour, kamlu N to become angry, kamsu N to squat, kneel down, kan (CAD: kunn) N to be honoured, cherished, karu N to become successful, achieve, kep N to become bent, blunt, labbu N to start raging, mdu N to become numerous, ma N to become frenzied, insane, mal N to become full, nabu N to shine brightly, naglu N to glow(?), nu N to rest, become still, naw/mru N to become bright, palu N to fear, respect, pau N to become cool, calm down, pel N to become red, sarru N to become false, cheat, se/a N to become rebellious, troubled, anu N to become warm, aplu N to become low, go down, ap N to become loud, flicker, billow, u N to decline, wane, u N to become agitated, warqu N to become green, yellow or pale, zabbu N (AHw: abbu) to go into a trance, become wild. 44. The proposal of K. Hecker (GKT 84b) for a semantic distinction between G and N of intransitive verbs is difficult to verify from their actual use. His contrasting example of taklu N versus G is unsuitable, because the G form is a stative; such a contrast must arise from a comparison of a fientive G form with a fientive N form. 45. Old Assyrian, however, has a G-stem abtum in the same meaning but of the vowel class A/u, which is highly irregular for intransitive verbs (see 3.5.2.2, pp. 7273). However, the present participle of nbutu is attested as a proper name: Mu-na-bi-tim (Gen) BIN 6, 250:7 (see 17.6.3.4 with n. 144, p. 553).
12.2. The NStem nabutu to migrate (A/i: Impfv iabbat, Pfv iabit) (also G?) naplusu to look at (A/i: Impfv ippallas, Pfv ippalis) (rarely G) napruu to fly away (A/i: Impfv ipparra, Pfv ippari ) narq to hide (I/i: Impfv *irraqq (cf. t-Pf ittarq), Pfv irraq) (rarely G in OB) nrubu to flee, run (U/u; see 12.2.1 sub 3, p. 292) (G perhaps represented by SAk harbum fugitive, see below) nent (a technical term in astronomical texts) (U/u; see 12.2.1 sub 3, p. 292)
299
Apart from naplusu and perhaps nent, these verbs form a semantic cluster with the notion of fleeing and moving away and are basically intransitive, which associates them with the ingressive N-stems. The rare G forms attested for some of them suggest that they are originally derived from intransitive G-stems now lost. In the case of nrubu, there is a Sargonic Akkadian noun arbum fugitive, attested in -ra-ab-s[u-n]u AKI p. 192:25 (cp RI of Rimu), i.e., /harabsunu/, as proposed by A. Westenholz (1996: 118), and perhaps also in the PN La--ra-ab (see A. Westenholz 1978: 168 with n. 61). This suggests that nrubu replaces an original G-stem *harbum, which is attested in Eblaite: -ra-b-um // -la-b-um (= ba.kar ) VE 1027, i.e. /harbum/ (see Krebernik 1983: 37). Similarly, its synonym nbutu may be built on *abtum, which belongs to the G-stem abtum (A/u) still attested in Old Assyrian (see n. 45). Another possible N tantum verb is the irregular verb izuzzu to stand (up), discussed in 16.5.3.5 (pp. 488490). It is presumably a fossilized N-stem that originally had ingressive meaning (Huehnergard 2002b). Its n- prefix is parallel to the t-infix in itlu to lie down, which may have the same function (see 14.3.4, pp. 371372). The semantic development to stand up > to stand is parallel to that of na to lift > to carry (see the next section).
12.2.3. TheessenceoftheN-stem
(Medio)passive and ingressive are two sides of the same coin and are expressed by the same or cognate markers in many languages, such as the auxiliary verbs get in English and werden in German.46 We can, therefore, derive the detransitive and the ingressive use of the N-stem from a single function, namely, that of fientivizing the stative: the N-stem basically serves to derive fientive verb forms from statives and adjectives. This is a syntactic function, of which the grammatical functions of denoting detransitive voice and ingressivity are a by-product, as was argued convincingly by Testen (1998a: 13738). The (medio)passive meaning of the N-stems of transitive verbs is a consequence of the fact that the stative of these verbs is mostly passive. The ingressive function is based on the fact that fientive forms derived from lexically stative verbs tend to adopt ingressive meaning.47 The irregular N-stem of na to lift, carry offers a striking illustration of the dependency of the N-stem on the stative (Testen 1998a: 138). In Old Assyrian and at least once also in Old Babylonian (quoted as (03)), it is not detransitive but has the same active voice as the G-stem and typically refers to the transportation of goods by persons: to take along (without ventive) and to bring along (with ventive) (GKT 84c; CAD N/2 111f s. v. na A v. 9), rather similar to tablu and tar (see 16.2.3, p. 454), e.g.:
46. See Haspelmath 1990: 34 and Kuryowicz 1964: 89 (the latter with parallels of the development from ingressive to passive). 47. For literature, see chap. 3 n. 9 (p. 55).
300
The NStem 12.2.
(03) AbB 1, 43:18 (OB) (Have them make a sealed receipt and) kankunu atta na-an-i take it with you (F. R. Kraus: nimm du an dich!)48 (04) OAA 1, 20:12 (OA) (If anyone should be willing to give you even one shekel of silver for your joint-stock investment) na-an--am bring it along! (05) OIP 27, 7:1314 (OA) 1 nalaptam (. . .) PN i-ni-i-a-am PN has brought (along) one nalaptum-textile for me (German: hat mitgebracht) The G Stat na typically occurs in the same transportational contexts and is in complementary distribution with the N-stem: it refers to the state of somebody who is on his way with goods in his possession: he has with him (er hat bei sich), whereas the N-stem, usually in the imperative (as in (03)(04)) or the perfective (as in (05)), focuses on the event as imminent or completed: take/bring along/with you!, and I/you/he took/brought along, respectively.49 Thus na N serves as a fientive counterpart to na in this specific meaning (in contrast to na G in other contexts), and its unusual active meaning is due to the fact that the stative of na has predominantly active meaning as well (see 7.3.2, p. 173), as argued by Testen (1998a: 138). The association between the N-stem and the stative is confirmed by their respective vowel patterns: as Testen (1998a) has demonstrated, the perfective of the N-stem, which is the oldest finite form of the N paradigm, copies the stem vowel of the stative. In transitive verbs, the Stat PaRiS corresponds to the N Pfv ipparis; in intransitive verbs, PaRiS usually follows the pattern of ipparis as well (e.g., naziq innaziq, saer issaer, etc., quoted in 12.2.1, pp. 292293) and, as we saw above, the very rare N pattern ipparus broadly corresponds to the stative PaRuS.50 Moreover, the deviant stative pattern of the II/ verbs in Babylonian (see 17.7.4.1, p. 567), e.g., m it has been bought from mu to buy, corresponds to in the N perfective: im it was bought. Testen (1998a: 138) concludes, therefore, that the Pfv ipparis is actually derived from paris and that it primarily serves to make a verb out of an adjectivein other words, to fientivize a stative. It ultimately owes its form to the addition of a verbalizing prefix n(a)- to a past participle *parisum or an adjective *parVsum in prehistoric Akkadian. So the N-stem belongs to a crosslinguistically very common type of passive that is derived from verbal adjectives, as in many Indo-European languages (Haspelmath 1990: 3740). In 12.6.1 (pp. 314317), I will argue that this prefix ultimately goes back to an independent verb. However, this account of the N-stem implies that its reciprocal and reflexive function is secondary: it is a side-effect of the mediopassive use and more specifically a consequence of the fact that the N-stem was felt to be a substitute for the Gt-stem, which was reflexive and reciprocal from the outset (Testen 1998a: 14142; cf. also pp. 13637 for the same process in Hebrew).
48. The fact that this use of na N is rare in Old Babylonian is doubtless related to the fact that the normal expression for this concept in Old Babylonian letters is leq with a ventive, e.g., AbB 14, 141:911 kanku lzibma PN li-il-q-a-am-ma ana erim likudam let him draw up his document and let PN bring it along, so that it arrives here before the seeding starts. 49. It is often claimed that na N is ingressive along with the intransitive N-stems: AHw 765b s.v. na II N II 2 says ingr[essiv] aufnehmen, bringen, and CAD N/2 111b s.v. na v. A 9a/b translates to pick up and keep and calls it ingressive. However, this does not explain why na N is active nor does it capture its precise meaning, as K. Hecker (GKT 84c) observes. Actually, it is the G-stem itself that means to pick up, lift (and secondarily to carry). If na N is ingressive, it is ingressive of the stative, not of the G-stem. 50. Most exceptions concern III/ and III/ verbs in which the fluctuation between u and i is so common (cf. 3.5.3, pp. 7879) that it is of little if any importance in this context.
12.3. The naparraruGroup
301
12.3. the naparraru group

The naparraru group consists of a handful of intransitive II/gem verbs (all with r or l as R2 and R3) with an N-stem which is different in form from the regular N-stem in that it has a geminated R2 throughout its conjugation.51 It includes the following verbs: nadarruru to move about freely (OB, SB; also Ntn);52 there is also a triradical verb darru (see CAD D 109a s.v. darru A lex. sect.) with an N-stem (Inf LL na-ad-ru-ru and Pfv 3mp id-da-ar-ru Atr. p. 60:245 they ran together (OB, tr. W. G. Lambert)); a deverbal noun is andurru remission (of debts), manumission naallulu to sneak around (N only as Inf LL [dir] = na-al-lu-lu CT 12, 29a:12 (SB)); mostly Ntn (OB, SB); cf. allu to creep, steal nagarruru (or naqarruru) N to roll over (OB, SB, MB, MA; also Ntn and ); cf. g/qarru to roll (intr.) naparruru N to fall apart, become dispersed, confused (OB, SB; also Ntn and );53 cf. parru to dissolve, fall apart, and purruru to scatter54 *naqallulu to hang, float (NA lit.; also )55 nasarruru to behave deceitfully (but von Soden 1951: 260 das Weite suchen, sich davon machen); related to sarru to be(come) false, to cheat? naarruru funkeln?? according to AHw 1085a s.v. arru I N; CAD 105b s.v. arru A lex. sect. gives no meaning (only SB Inf na-ar-ru-ru CT 12, 29a:9); cf. arru to flash?56
51. Further literature: GAG 101g; Goetze 1945b: 24649; Heidel 1945: 24953; von Soden 1950b, 1951: 25766; Speiser 1967: 48184; Kienast 2001: 634. 52. An instance not in the dictionaries is the PrPartc mu-ut-ta-ad-ri-ra-at YOS 11, 19:2 (OB) /muttadrir(r)at/, a 3fs stative she is one who roams about. 53. In Boghazky, the imperfective forms ipparrir (i-pa-ar-ri-ir JCS 47, 24:18) and ipparrur (ip-prru-ur KUB 4, 66: II 5) are attested. It is not clear to me whether these forms are correct and whether they represent N Impfv forms of a triradical verb parru U/u or I/i (parru U/u exists, but its meaning is unclear; see CAD P 162a s.v. parru A 1). 54. A deverbal abstract noun derived from the infinitive or past participle is naparrurtu dispersion (na-pa-ru-ur-tum Sumer 34, 45:17; na-pr-ru-ur-tu KAR 153:30, both SB). Another (older?) form of this word is napurratu dispersion (na-pur-ra-tumx(d) MDP 57, 67 no. 3: r.44; na-pur-ra-at (ummn nakri) MDP 57, 61 no. 3:1 (OB Susa)), which cannot be derived from naparruru but must have a triradical source; perhaps a metathesis of *naprur(a)tu, a feminine abstract noun based on the suffix base naPRvS? Cf. the interchange of na-mur-rat and nam-ru-rat, construct states of namurratu splendour, radiance. Or is napurratu modelled on the expressive de-adjectival nouns of the namurratu type (GAG 55p)? 55. It only occurs in ta libbi abul am at-ta-qa-al-la-al-la SAA 9, 3: II 1516, which S. Parpola translates as I issued forth as a fiery glow from the gate of heaven (cf. Parpolas note on p. 24). According to Parpola, this verb is a denominal verb of anqullu, which means Mittags-, Hochsommerglut u. according to AHw 54a s.v., but CAD A/2 143b s.v. is more cautious: an atmospheric phenomenon. This is possible but unproven in the absence of parallels; a relationship with uqallulu (see 13.4.3, pp. 341346) and its derivative aqullu, primarily an atmospheric phenomenon as well but also a weapon and a plant (CAD A/2 452b s.v.), and indirectly with qallu light (in weight) can also be considered: I floated down or the like, as in CAD /3 331b s.v. uqallulu 1e; however, the translation as an imperfective there is incorrect: the form is a regular first-person singular t-perfect with gemination of the final radical and a ventive ending. Note, however, that the semantic relationship between *naqallulu and uqallulu is somewhat irregular, since the latter is not (always) a causative of *naqallulu. See also Streck 2003a: 130 no. 417. 56. There is no corresponding Ntn-stem attested, pace AHw 1085a s.v. arru I Ntn: i-a-na-ra-ra AGH 116:11 is a Gtn-stem.
302
The naparraruGroup 12.3.
naallulu to slither (OB, SB; also Ntn); cf. G allu to slither (only Inf LL, e.g., la 4 = a-la-lum OEC 4, 152: II 21 acc. to AHw 1142b s.v. allu II G) and N nalulu (Imp Pl na-a-li-la-ni Ugar. 5, 31:40 beside na-al-li-la-ni BAM 6, 574: IV 29) *naarruru: hell aufstrahlen according to von Soden 1951: 264 and GAG 101g, only in the Ntn Impfv it-ta-na-a-ra-ru RIMA 1, 183:13 (A. K. Grayson: to flash); von Soden associates it with arru U/u etwa hin und her schwanken (which is not in AHw s.v. arru I or II), and also with arru Strahlenglanz Table 12.2 contains the N and Ntn paradigm of the naparruru verbs with the regular triradical N-stem for comparison: Trirad. N Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc ipparrVs ipparis ittaprVs napris naprus naprusu mupparsu naparruru N ipparrar, Pl ippararr ipparrir, Pl ipparirr? ittaparrar, Pl ittapararr? naparrir, Pl naparrir naparrur, Pl naparrur naparruru mupparirru? Trirad. Ntn ittanaprVs ittaprVs ittataprVs itaprVs itaprus itaprusu mutaprisu nap(ar)ruru Ntn ittanaprar, Pl -rar(r) ittaprar, Pl -rar(r) ittataprar, Pl -rar(r) itaprar, Pl -rar(r) itaprur, Pl -rur(r) itaprur(r)u mutaprir(r)u
table 12.2: the n and ntn paradigm of the naparruru verbs.
All verbs of this type have the vowel pattern A/i. Three of them (nag/qarruru, naparruru, and *naqallulu) have a causative/transitive -stem (Impfv ugarrar, Pfv ugarrir, Inf ugarruru, etc.), which is conjugated in the same way as the quadriradical -stem of the nabalkutu group and the uarruru group, and will be further discussed in that context (see 13.4.2, pp. 340341). The verbs of the naparruru group show a number of highly remarkable features. First of all, they differ from the triradical N-stem in having gemination of R2 in all forms. The gemination is of the iconic type that also occurs in the Gtn-stem and underlines the repetitive meaning of these verbs. As a result, their conjugation is identical to that of the nabalkutu verbs (see 12.5 below, p. 309), except in the imperfective (ipparrar versus ibbalakkat): ipparrar lacks the imperfective gemination of ibbalakkat for the same reason as elsewhere (e.g., in the D-stem and the Gtn-stem; see 4.5.2, p. 114): a geminate cannot take additional gemination. These verbs also share the prefix n- with nabalkutu, for which see 12.6.1 below (pp. 314317). Second, perhaps their most salient featurewhich they share with the II/gem verbs in general (see 16.6.1, pp. 493494)is that they can have gemination of the final radical before a vocalic ending. This is attested in the following N forms:57 nag/qarruru: Impfv 3mp iq-qa/q-ra-ar-ru ARM 2, 31:6, 10 (OB); Impfv 3mp ig-gara-ru MVAeG 41/3, 14:13 (MA, with -arr, because there is no vowel assimilation) naparruru: ip-pa-ra-ar-ru CTN 4, 63: VI 23 (SB) acc. to CAD P 164a s.v. parru A 4a All four instances are imperfective, which makes one wonder whether this is accidental or whether it means that gemination of the final radical was restricted to the imperfective. A reason
57. The form it-ta-lal(-la) adduced by von Soden 1951: 26364 as a t-perfect of the N-stem is actually an Ntn perfective of allu to plunder; see CAD /1 196f s.v. allu A lex. sect.
12.3. The naparraruGroup
303
for this could be that unlike all other forms the imperfective is not different from that of the regular N-stem. It is conceivable that the final radical was geminated to make up for this; a similar device may have operated in the Ntn-stem, which will be discussed below. Since R3 is not consistently spelled with gemination, we do not know whether gemination is obligatory, but it is quite possible that it was a regular feature of the naparruru verbs. Neither do we know whether, when R3 was geminated, R2 was geminated as well. Von Soden (1951: 26465) claims that R3 has obligatory gemination but that R2 has no gemination: iqqararr rather than iqqarrarr, muarirru rather than muarrirru (see below). This is supported not only by the imperfective forms just quoted but also by the conjugation of the verbs naarruru (see the end of this section) and mlulu (see 12.4, pp. 305306) and by the verbs of the uarruru group (see 13.4.3, pp. 341346), where the same issue holds. Until a form appears that proves the contrary, we may assume that von Soden is right, although the number of forms available at present is too small to be conclusive.58 Note, however, that the non-prefix forms cannot have a simple R2 and a geminated R3, since this would violate the vowel syncope rule: Inf **nprurru. Because of the high degree of predictability of these forms in general (see 2.2.1, p. 30), I assume that they are regulari.e., with gemination of just R2. Gemination of the final radical is particularly frequent in the Ntn forms: naallulu: Impfv 3mp it-ta-na-a-lal-lu CT 16, 44:103 and SpTU 2, 1: II 21; PrPartc mut-ta-lil-lum Diri RS Recension Section I E 16 (quoted CAD M/2 304a s.v. muttalilu) (cf. also mut-ta- i -lil-lum MSL 15, 74:332) (all SB) nag/qarruru: Inf [i]-ta-aG-ru-ur-ru MSL 15, 40:16 (OB LL); Impfv 3mp it-ta-na-qara-ar-ru ZA 77, 204:20 (sic; see below, MB); it-ta-naG-ra-ar-ru KAR 389: I 21; it-tanGa-ra-r-ru IAsb. 86:8 (sic; see below); Pfv 3mp it-taG-ra-ar-[ru] MSL 9, 109: 6a; Inf LL i-tG-ru-ur-r CT 18, 49: II 17 (all SB) naparruru: Stat 3mp [i-ta-a] p-r [u]-ur-ru ARM 26/2, 425 no. 489:16; Inf i-ta-ap-ru-urru-um ZA 65, 188:116 (both OB); Impfv 3mp. it-ta-nap-ra-r-ru CT 16, 34:218; PrPartc mut-tap-ri-ir-rum/ru ZA 9, 161:27; CT 17, 15:3+(all SB) naallulu: Impfv 2p ta-at-ta-na--lal-la K.10943:36 (quoted AHw 1143a s.v. allu II Ntn); 3mp it-ta-na--lal-lu CT 16, 34:214 (both SB) Again, we do not know whether it is obligatory, but it is the only feature distinguishing these forms from regular Ntn-stems (see Table 12.2). This suggests that the contrast between the regular N paradigm and that of the naparruru verbs, which is neutralized in endingless forms of the Ntn-stem because R2 is a cluster (Pfv ittanapras ~ ittanaprar), was restored in forms with an ending by geminating the final radical: Pfv ittanapras ittanaprarr). The ambiguity of many spellings makes it difficult to prove this, but it reminds one of the II/voc verbs, which also geminate the final radical because the second radical (a long vowel) cannot be geminated (see 16.5.2, pp. 476477). The Ntn-stem of the naparruru verbs shows some other deviations from the expected paradigm. There are two deviating imperfective forms: a MB 3mp it-ta-na-qa-ra-ar-ru ZA 77, 204:20 they roll over constantly(??), and a SB 3mp it-tan-ga-ra-r-ru IAsb. 86:8 or i-tan-ga-ra-ru SAA 9, 1: I 10 they roll constantly.59 Moreover, there is an Ntn PrPartc with additional gemination: mu-ut-ta-a-li-lum VAB 4, 84 no. 5: II 3 sneak thief, i.e., /muttaallil(l?)um/ instead of
58. In other verbal stems, various forms are known which do have double gemination, such as the Gtnand Ntn-stems quoted in 16.6.1 (pp. 493494). 59. The form it-ta-na-qa-ra-ar-ru seems to represent /ittanaqar(r)arr/ instead of regular /ittanaqrarr/, i.e., it either lacks vowel syncope or is a scribal error with qa for aq. The other two forms apparently
304
The naparraruGroup 12.3.
muttalil(l)um.60 An isolated instance of a t-perfect with a double t-infix is at-ta-ta-aq-ra-ar BE 17, 5:19 (MB) I rolled over repeatedly. Semantically, the naparruru verbs refer to repetitive, iterative activities (GAG 101g and von Soden 1951: 25758). This is formally reflected in their tendency to have gemination and to occur in the Ntn-stem, and also in the fact that they have identical final radicals, just as the fientive II/gem verbs, of which most or perhaps even all of the naparruru verbs are extensions. Perhaps we can describe the difference between the N and the Ntn forms of these verbs as follows: the gemination in the N forms underlines the inherent repetitive meaning, whereas the Ntn forms indicate an additional, external repetition or temporal extension of the activity expressed by the verb. Finally, there is another verb that is conjugated like the naparruru group but atypical in some respects: naarruru to come to sb.s aid, to help (no Ntn, no ).61 We may reconstruct the paradigm as follows (with n shown unassimilated for the sake of clarity; for = / /, see 17.4, pp. 520521; all forms are OB): Impfv /inarrar/ (1s an-A-ra-ar RA 35, 181b:17), with ending /inar(r)ar(r)-/ (3s in-Ara-ar-ra-ak-kum ARM 2, 72:14), but apparently also with stem vowel i: an-a-ri-ra-am A.2821: 19 quoted FM 5, 200 n. 259; i-a-ri-ru-ni AbB 12, 99:12 (imperfective according to W. van Soldt, but perfective is not excluded) Pfv /inarir/ (3s in-A-ri-ir ARM 2, 26: r.1; 1s an-A-ri-ir ARM 10, 178:15; 1p i niI-A-ri-ir Sumer 14, 65 no. 39:20), with ending /inarr/ (li-in-A-ar-ra-am ARM 2, 72:16), or /inar(r)ir(r)-/ (3s [li]-in-A-ri-ra-am A. 3567:9 quoted ARM 26/1, 184; 3mp li-in-A-ri-ru-ni-kum ARM 1, 60:10) t-Pf /ittanarram/ (at-ta-A-r[a]-am ARM 4, 26:31) Imp. Pl. na-a-ar-ri-ra ARM 26/2, 323 no. 427:12 (but also n-a-ar-ra-nim ARM 26/2, p. 216 no. 389:15) Inf /naarrur(r?)um/ (na-A-ar-ru-ri-im RA 53, 29 D12: r.2) PrPartc. /munar(r?)ir(r?)-/ (mu-A-ri-ri-im ARM 1, 90:12, see J.-M. Durand, MARI 5, p. 170) The verb also has a deverbal noun narru (OB), in OB Mari also nerru, later n/rru help, (military) aid. It looks like a naPRS form of a root rr (see n. 10, p. 290). However, the unusual paradigm of naarruru suggests that the verb is derived from the noun, so this root may not have existed in the G-stem. Points to be noted here are the occurrence of both i and a in the imperfective, the assimilation (outside Mari, except for the present participle) or non-assimilation (regularly in Mari, except for the t-perfect) of n to the following , the coexistence of a short and a long form in the perfective (inarram and inar(r)ir(r)am) versus only a short form in the t-perfect, and, most importantly, the absence of geminate spellings of the penultimate radical, except in the infinitive, which must have gemination of R2 to prevent the vowel syncope rule from operating. This leaves the possibility open that elsewhere only the final radical was geminated. Naarruru is atypical in three more ways: instead of being (mainly) literary, it only occurs in Old Babylonian letters, especially in Mari; it has no inherent iterative meaning, and it also lacks a triradical counterpart (although
render /ittangar(r)arr/ instead of the expected ittanagrarr, or it may be from /ittanagar(r)arr/ with vowel syncope. 60. The form mu-ut-a-li-lum St. Landsberger p. 34:8 can hardly be correct: emend to mu-ut-ta-ali-lum ? 61. See also von Soden 1951: 25859.
12.4. The Verb mlulu
305
the short forms can be analyzed as normal N-stems). Therefore, it is not clear if the analysis to be proposed below in 12.6.1 (pp. 319320) for the other naparruru verbs is also valid for this verb, whose etymological background is completely obscure.
12.4. the Verb mlulu

The verb mlulu to play shows a unique configuration: it has the prefix n- in the prefix conjugations and the present participle, just as the naparruru and the nabalkutu groups, but not in the non-prefix forms. It also resembles the naparruru group because R3 and R4 are identical, which leads to forms with gemination of the final radical. Table 12.3 gives my reconstruction of its paradigm.62 N-stem Impfv Pfv Perf Imp Stat Inf PrPartc mlulu mummellu, Fem mummeltu
table 12.3: the paradigm of mlulu.
Ntn-stem ittenemlel
imme/allel, Pl imme/alell immlil, Pl immlil and/or immlil, Pl immell *ittemlel mlil, Fem mlil
It is based on the following forms (more instances are listed in the dictionaries, s.v.): G Impfv: 3s im-ma-le-el AbB 7, 126:15; im-me!-le-e[l] TuM NF 3, 25:15 (cf. CAD M/2 16a s.v. lex. sect.); 1s em-me-le-el AbB 10, 55:25; 3fp i-im-me-l [e]-el-la ZA 79, 16:9 (all OB); 3mp im-ma-lel-lu SpTU 2, 1: II 19; im-me-lel-lu CT 16, 44:101 var. (both SB) G Pfv: 3s im-me-lil Dreams 329: II 1011 (SB); im-me-li-l [u] FM 9, 267 n. 138 M.15107:10 (Subj) (OB); im-me-el-lu BL p. 118:5 (Subj) (SB); 3mp [li ]-me-li-lu FM 9, 274 no. 69:15; im-me-l-lu FM 3, 225 no. 51:5; li-me-el-lu Itar p. 86:19 (all OB); im-me-el-lu Tn-Ep. V 41 (MB); lim-mel-lu RA 46, 38:16 (SB)63 G Imp: me-li-il Gilg. p. 278:9 (OB); Fem me/m-li-li KAR 158: VII 30; RA 12, 78:10 (both SB) G Inf: me-lu-lu-um ARM 2, 118:17; (ana) me-lu-[l]i-i-im ZA 79, 16:7 (both OB); me-lul- BA 5, 564:5 (SB)64 G PrPartc: mu-um-m-el-lum RT 19, 59:2 (MB); mu-um-m-lum(!sign a for rum) MSL 12, 136:236; mu-um-mel-lu RA 51, 108:8; Fem mu-um-mil-tum AGH p. 132:38 (all SB) Ntn Impfv: 1s e-te-ne-em-le-el AbB 10, 55:22 (OB)
62. See in particular Landsberger 1960: 11920 n. 30 for the paradigm, and further AHw 644 s.v. and CAD M/2 1617 s.v. 63. For li-me-li-lu-ki AK 1, 27:45, adduced by Landsberger (1960: 11920 n. 30), W. G. Lambert, St. Kraus p. 204:45, reads li--li-lu-k[i ] from allu . 64. Derived from the Inf mlulu is also the deverbal noun mlultu play and the nisbe adjective mlul player, actor (or something similar) (me-lu-lu--um MSL 12, 202: fr. II 11 acc. to CAD M/2 17a s.v. mlul).
306
The Verb mlulu 12.4.
PrPartc: mu-u-me-li-il (ku-l-l) Legends p. 166:162 who makes dragonflies (or wreaths?) dance65 Landsberger (1960: 120 n. 30) connects mlulu with He ml and m el dance, play and posits a quadriradical stem mll, itself a deverbal noun (of instrument or place) of ll with the prefix ma-. ll also survives in the substantivized infinitive ellu jubilation (CAD E 80 s.v.), or frhliches Lied (AHw 197b s.v. e. I). This denominal background explains its idiosyncratic paradigm and also fits with the forms of the imperfective and the infinitive, but the rest of the forms require the assumption of a restructuring on the basis of the imperfective. The imperfective itself can be reconstructed as an original *yi-n-malal > immlel, in which the first l was geminated along with all other imperfectives and the preceding vowel shortened: *immlel > immellel. Because of the identity of R3 and R4, gemination seems to shift to the second l when this form has an ending, just as in the naparruru group: 3mp immelell. Since immellel is identical in structure to the N imperfective in general (ipparrVs), other forms could be restructured by analogy with the regular N paradigm, starting from a base neMLvL (like naPRvS). Alongside *yi-n-malal, we may assume an original perfective *yi-n-malil > *yimmlil. This form is attested in the 3s Subj im-me-li-l [u] and the 3mp Prec [li ]-me-li-lu from Mari Old Babylonian. The only perfective form without ending is the 3s im-me-lil, which is ambiguous: it may represent the expected form immlil, but in view of the plural immell, a shortened form immlil must have existed, too. This form can be explained as a remake on the basis of the imperfective immellel by analogy with the regular imperfectiveperfective relationship in the N-stem: ipparrVs : ipparis immellel : x, where x is immlil, replacing *immlil.66 This also explains the absence of any reflex of (apart from e) in the form of a long vowel or a glide in immell. The formal relationship between immelil and immell is reminiscent of naarruru: inarir inarr (see the end of 12.3, p. 304). The t-perfect is not attested but can be reconstructed as *ittemlel on the basis of neMLvL and inferred from the Ntn Impfv ittenemlel, cf. ittaprVs alongside ittanaprVs. The present participle mummellu is (re)built on the basis of the imperfective: ipparrVs : mupparsu immellel : x, where x is mummellu. For the feminine mummeltu, cf. mukillu mukltu in the D-stem of II/voc verbs (see 16.5.3.3, pp. 484485). The most remarkable feature of this verb is that the rest of the forms do not have the prefix n-, in contrast to the naparruru and nabalkutu groups. They follow the model of the West Semitic quadriradicals that have the paradigm of the D-stem (see 4.6.2, p. 124): Imp mlil < *malil, Inf mlulu < *malulum (cf. parris, parrusu in the D-stem).67 The few forms attested of (other) derived stems, the Ntn Impfv ittenemlel and the D PrPartc mumellilu (J. Westenholz 1997: 166), also presuppose a base neMLvL or its causative counterpart uMLvL. In an Eblaite lexical list, we find another form that looks like a PrPartc of this verb, in which may still be present: mu-sa-ma-a-lum // mu-sa-ma--lum (eze n) VE 1448. As
65. Rather than dancer (adorned) with wreaths(?), as J. Westenholz translates, which ignores the causative. 66. The same development took place in the N perfective of the I/voc verbs, where innmir (Ass) became innmir in Babylonian; see 17.6.3.4 (pp. 552554). 67. This is another parallel (cf. the previous note) with the I/voc verbs: mlil, mlulu like nmir, nmuru (n- in the latter forms is the passive/intransitive prefix, not the verbalizing prefix of the quadriradical verbs, although the two are historically identical; see 12.6.1, pp. 314321, below). B. Landsbergers suggestion that the N forms of the prefix categories are only apparent N forms and that -mm- actually goes back to -m(1960: 119 n. 30) is phonologically impossible and unnecessary.
12.5. The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutuGroup
307
usually in Eblaite, the interpretation is conjectural, but the most straightforward one seems to be /mumaallum/, parallel to Akkadian present participles of verbs with identical R3 and R4, such as maqalillu hanging ladder, to be discussed in 13.4.3 (pp. 341346).
12.5. the Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu group 68

There are not very many quadriradical verbs in Akkadian, in marked contrast to Arabic and Geez, for instance, which have huge numbers of them. Almost all of them are conjugated by means of what I will call a conjugational prefix, either n- or - (or both), which is the reason why they are discussed as part of this and the next chapter.69 In all other respects, their paradigm is based on that of the triradical strong verb, with the necessary adaptations for accommodating the extra radical. The nabalkutu group comprises about 20 verbs, a few of which are quite common; the rest are fairly rare and mainly occur in literary texts. They have four radicals, the second of which is always a liquid (l or r ); the final radical may be weak and the last two may be identical; in one case (neell), the second and third radical are identical and form a geminate. Note, however, that if the last three radicals are identical, the verb belongs to the naparruru type discussed in 12.3 (pp. 301305). The nabalkutu verbs show three vowel classes, A/i, I/i, and U/u, the latter being restricted to verbs whose final radical is weak. Semantically, they are all verbs of low transitivity: most of them are intransitive, but a few may take a direct object, such as nabalkutu to cross, act against and nekelm to look angrily at.70 They regularly have a pluractional Ntn-stem (to be discussed below), and some of them have a parallel -stem for the corresponding transitive/causative action, sometimes with a tn-stem. The and tn forms will be discussed in 13.4.1 (pp. 338340) under the -type quadriradicals. The verbs of the nabalkutu group can be divided into four kinds according to the nature of their radicals:71 1. Quadriradical verbs with four different strong radicals:72 nabalkutu (OB+ A/i, in late SB and NB also I/i) to cross, pass through, act against, rebel, turn over (also Ntn and )
68. For further literature, see also GAG 110; Heidel 1940: 11226. 69. A partial exception is mlulu, discussed in the previous section. There is also a full exception, namely the verb parumu to let live to old age. Parumu is only found in Neo-Assyrian and is doubtless a denominal verb of pa/urumu old, grey, which occurs from Old Babylonian onward (Goetze 1945b: 247). The attested forms are two precatives (lu!-pa-ar-i-man-ni SAA 10, 227: r.9 may he (the king) grant me old age and lu-par-i-im SAA 10, 227: r.14, 228: r.7), and a few Dtt imperfective forms (see 14.5.3, pp. 388390): 3mp up-ta-tar-u-mu SAA 13, 56: r.16 and 2ms [tu-up]-ta-tar--am SAA 10, 185: r.23 they/you will be granted old age. As far as we can see, it is conjugated in the West Semitic way, like a D-stem with a cluster -r- instead of the geminate. Could this be due to Aramaic influence? 70. GAG 110a aptly formulates this as follows: Keines der ganz berwiegend intransitiven Verben dient als Ausdruck fr eine unmittelbar auf das Objekt gerichtete Handlung. 71. For a similar enumeration, see Kienast 2001: 63435. 72. With regard to vowel class, the first and the second kind belong to A/i or I/i. However, in order to distinguish A/i from I/i, we need imperfective or t-perfect forms (the perfective always has i ), which are not always attested for each individual period, so some verbs remain unclassified for some periods. The third kind is U/u or I/i and shows the same fluctuation as the III/voc verbs (see 3.5.3, pp. 7879). A few related forms attested in Eblaite will be mentioned below.
308
The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutuGroup 12.5. *naarbuu (OB/SB A/i) to freeze (cf. urbu, see below)73 naarmuu (OB A/i, SB also I/i) to dissolve, crumble, melt (also Ntn and )74 napalsuu (OB A/i, SB also I/i) to fall to the ground, squat (also ) naparqudu (OB A/i, later also I/i) to lie flat(also Ntn and )75 naparudu (OB unknown, SB I/i) to escape, flee (also Ntn);76 for OA ta-p-ta-na-raa-ad KTK 66: x+9 (= 11), see n. 87 below naarbu/u (only SB Inf; I/i according to Ntn) to chase around, flit (also Ntn)77
2. Quadriradical verbs with identical third and four radicals: naarmumu (only SB, vowel class unknown) to collapse (also ) naaruu (only SB Inf)78 zusammenbrechen? (AHw 713a s.v.); mng. uncert. (CAD N/1 127b s.v.) nazarbubu (OB/SB, only Inf and Stat) to rage, be furious 3. Quadriradical verbs with a weak fourth radical, the IV/voc verbs: nemerk (mostly Bab: MB U/u, SB/NB I/i) and namarkm (mostly NA, U/u) to stay behind, be late (also Ntn and ) napard and neperd (SB U/u, 1x I/i) to become bright, cheerful (also ) napark (SB rarely neperk) (OB U/u, SB also I/i, MA U/u (see below)) to cease, stop working, leave (also Ntn(?) and ) negelt (SB also nagalt) (OB/MB/SB U/u and I/i) to wake up neel (SB also naal) (OB I/i, SB U/u and I/i) to slip, glide (also Ntn(?) and ) nepelk (SB also napalk) (OB/SB, vowel class unknown) to be wide open (also ?) neqelp (SB rarely naqalp)79 (OB I/i (1x), SB U/u and I/i; MA U/u) to drift down, glide along, sail downstream (also Ntn and ) neelp (SB, only Inf and Imp) to glide, slither80 napal (MB/SB, vowel class unknown) to pass, miss (also ) nekelm (SB also nakalm) (OB/MB E/e; SB I/i, rarely U/u) to look angrily (also Ntn) 4. The verb neell, which will be discussed separately at the end of this section.
73. N only in the t-Pf at-ta-ar-ba-a CRRAI 35, 13:6 (OB), but A/i is confirmed by the Standard Babylonian Ntn form it-ta-na-a(!sign aR)-ra-ba- CT 39, 15:29; see below. 74. Note also the Impfv i-a-ra-am-ma- AuOr 17/8, 192:18 (OB). 75. Cancel SB KAR 357:58 (= BAM 4, 339) ip-pa-ra-qid: read ip-pa-la!-sa acc. to CAD N/1 272a s.v. 1b1. 76. The original pattern A/i is indirectly shown by Ntn forms such as lit-tap-ra--du Maql VIII 58; see below. 77. A form that looks as if it also belongs to this type of quadriradical verb is nagalmuu, in LL equated with gitmlu perfect, aq high, sublime and nab shining, brilliant; see CAD N/1 106b s.v. The situation is complicated by a variant agalmuu, which has the shape of an Assyrian -stem of this verb (Bab *ugalmuu), but is equated in LL with different forms of palu to fear, respect (CAD /1 62b s.v.: terror(?)). The two meanings are difficult to reconcile. 78. And perhaps an imperative, if na-ar--i SKS p. 86: 361 is a mistake for naari; see W. Farbers commentary. 79. The A-forms occurring in Old Babylonian are determined by the Babylonian vowel harmony rule; see 17.5.1 (pp. 531533) and Kouwenberg 2001: 23334, 245. 80. See CAD N/2 192a s.v. (not in AHw, but see von Soden 1975: 327): Imp Pl n-el-pa-a BAM 3, 248: I 49; Inf LL n-al-pu- CT12, 29a:4.
309
Table 12.4 contains the inflectional forms of the three kinds of verbs of the nabalkutu group, arranged according to vowel class, with nabalkutu, naparudu, and napark as examples (see also GAG Verbalp. 3940): N-stem Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc A/i ibbalakkat ibbalkit ittabalkat nabalkit nabalkut nabalkutu mubbalkitu I/i ipparaid ipparid ittaparid *naparid *naparud naparudu mupparidu U/u ipparakku ipparku ittaparku ? naparku napark muppark81
81
table 12.4: the n-stem of the verbs of the nabalkutu group.
The paradigm of the quadriradical N-stems is based on a quadriliteral base BaLKvT,82 to which the prefix n(a)- is added; the reason why will be discussed in 12.6.1 (pp. 314321) below. After a personal prefix and the prefix mu- of the present participle, its form is -n-, which assimilates to the first radical, e.g., Pfv ibbalkit < *yi-n-balkit. In principle, the root or stem vowel in the second syllable of BaLKvT follows the pattern of the N-stem: the vowel of the imperfective and the t-perfect is determined by the vowel class (A/i or I/i), that of the perfective is in principle i but u in the U/u class. The stative, the infinitive, the two participles, and presumably also the imperative have the fixed vowels of all derived stems. As we saw in 12.2.1 (pp. 289290), the fixed vowel of the perfective is specific to the N-stem, as opposed to the T- and the tan-stems (where the perfective has the imperfective vowel), but this does obviously not apply to the U/u verbs. The vowel classes A/i and I/i show an interesting development: all extant Old Babylonian imperfective and t-perfect forms have a, and i only occurs in Standard Babylonian and later alongside a; some verbs with a in Old Babylonian appear with i in Standard Babylonian. This shows that the strong verbs of the nabalkutu type (groups I and II) originally had A/i, in accordance with the A/i pattern of the derived stems, but may later shift to I/i. This is in keeping with the fact that in the triradical N-stem I/i also seems to be secondary, caused by i in the G imperfective (see 12.2.1, pp. 289290). The change is clearly shown in the frequent verb nabalkutu, where imperfectives and t-perfects with i start to appear in Standard Babylonian and become the norm in Neo-Babylonian. The verbs of the third kind, the IV/voc verbs, are always isovocalic, just like the III/voc verbs: they are either U/u or I/i and preserve their root vowel in the prefix categories (although I am not aware of an imperative showing the stem vowel). There is a great deal of fluctuation between u and i, which is reminiscent of the III/voc verbs, whichas we saw in 3.5.3 (pp. 7879)show a strong tendency to shift from U/u to I/i and to a lesser extent from A/a to I/i. However, in the IV/voc verbs, it is much less obvious that the direction of the shift is from u towards i: in negelt,
81. Note the uncontracted PrPartc mu-pa-ar-ki-um RIME 4, 51: 8 (ArBab RI of Lipit-Etar). 82. Heidels claim (1940: 11617) that the stem balkVt is secondary and that -blakVt is a more original stem-form can only be upheld by assuming a large number of hypothetical changes. Heidels reconstruction of the formal background of the quadriradical paradigm is vitiated by his reliance on stress patterns that are unproved and far-fetched.
310
The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutuGroup 12.5.
neel, nepelk, and neqelp, the I/i forms occur already in Old Babylonian and are older than the U/u forms or just as old, as far as we can judge. In Standard Babylonian, forms with u and i appear to be used indiscriminately. In this context, it is useful to look at the few Assyrian forms available, since Assyrian is far more conservative with regard to the root and stem vowel. Ass namark, napark, and naqalp are U/u verbs, e.g.: iq-qa-al-pu-a JEOL 2, 136:8 (MA) it (a boat) drifted down (hither) (l) ip!-pr-rak-ku Sumer 15, 16 pl. 1: r.4 acc. to AHw 1578a s.v. (MA) let him not cease im-mar-rak-ku SAA 1, 237:11 (NA) it will be in arrears la-am-mar-ku CTN 5 p. 49:5 (NA) let me delay. However, the single Neo-Assyrian instance of naal has i : it-ta-al-i SAA 13, 192:6 he slipped which agrees with the fact that all Old Babylonian instances of neel also have i. Perhaps we may conclude, then, that nemerk and neqelp are original U/u verbs and neel an original I/i verb. For the verb nekelm, the plene spelling ik-ke-le-em-me-e-u JRAS CSpl. 70:16 he looks angrily at him and the Pfv li-ik-ke-el-mi RIME 4, 674:72 (both OB) suggest an original A/i verb that once had an E-colouring guttural as R4, i.e., from a root klm or klm. I am not aware of any convincing etymology ( pace Huehnergard 1991: 692). For the rest of the IV/voc verbs, we have to wait for more unequivocal evidence.83 Some of the individual forms of Table 12.4 call for comment. The base BaLKvT occurs as such in all forms except the imperfective, in which gemination has been introduced from the G-stem Impfv iparrVs through the mechanism described in 4.5.2 (pp. 113114): *iprVs(u) : iparrVs ibbalkVt(u) : x, where x = ibbalakkat, or on the basis of the rule insert gemination in the imperfective wherever possible.84 The quadriradical paradigm shows a number of irregular forms, even if we disregard the erratic interchange of A- and E-forms in Standard Babylonian. Examples are the infinitives n-ek-le-muu MSL 5, 73:296 var. S8 instead of nekelm, and nam-zar-bu-bu and na-az-ra-bu-bu, which are bizarre (incorrect?) variants of na-zar-bu-bu MSL 17, 37:195, and the statives na-pal-si-i TuL 92:8 // CLBT pl. 1:7b (instead of napalsu) (all SB), and nak-la-mu-u-ni RA 53, 130:19 (instead of nakalmni) (NA lit).85
83. It is unclear why some of the IV/voc verbs regularly have E-colouring already in Old Babylonian (negelt, neel, nepelk, and neqelp), while others do not (naparkm). The standard explanation for E-forms is that the verb used to contain an E-colouring guttural, but in that case we would expect them (or most of them) to belong to the A/i class rather than to the U/u class (like nekelm). It is possible that other consonants (l and/or [in neel]) are responsible for most E-forms; see GAG 9b. 84. In late texts, there are several instances which superficially look like the more original imperfective *ibbalkat, but they are invariably spelled with CvC signs, which are also used for CvCv in this period (von Soden and Rllig 1991: xxivxxv). Therefore, spellings of the type ib-BAL-kat are to be interpreted as / ibbalakkat/ rather than /ibbalkat/, because they interchange with unequivocal spellings of /ibbalakkat/ and because *ibbalkat is completely lacking in earlier periods. 85. The Neo-Assyrian form presumably stands for *naklumni, an adaptation to the regular N Stat naPRuS, with the change u > a before stressed (Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 31). The Inf nablakutum listed in GAG Verbalpar. 39 is to be disregarded according to GAG 3 110c*.
311
The nasal prefix is an affix rather than a fixed part of the root. This is shown not only by the corresponding forms (see 13.4.1, pp. 338340) but also by the existence of sporadic nonverbal forms without the prefix:86 palk wide open, related to napalk purqidam on ones back, supine, related to naparqudu urb/au frost, shivers, doubtless related to naarbuu (a denominal verb?) It seems plausible that the instrument nouns nabalkattu crossing, ladder, revolt from nabalkutu and napalsatu footstool or the like from napalsuu also lack the prefix na- of the N-stem and have the instrument noun prefix ma- instead, which has become na- because of the labial in the root (GAG 31b); but this is hard to prove, of course.87 The fact that the second radical of the verbs of the nabalkutu group is always r or l has given rise to the claim that it goes back to a vocalic sonant /, so that balkVt- is a realization of earlier *bkVt and parVd- of *pVd.88 There is no compelling reason to assume this, although it escapes us why the second radical is always r or l as long as we do not know the etymological background of these verbs. Nor is there an obvious advantage to be gained, unless we want to squeeze these verbs into a triradical mould, for which there is no reason at all. The absence of reliable cognates of the nabalkutu verbs makes it impossible to establish whether they are extensions of triradical roots and, if so, which of the four consonants is secondary.89 The background of the nasal prefix, which these verbs share with the N-stem, will be discussed in 12.6.1 (pp. 314321). Some of the nabalkutu-type verbs have a pluractional Ntn-stem (nabalkutu, naparqudu, naparudu, naarbuu, neel, nekelm, neqelp, and perhaps napark).90 Its paradigm, insofar as it is attested, is laid out in Table 12.5 (see also GAG Verbalp. 3940):
86. The possible relationship between namark and wark later (suggested in AHw 725b s.v.), that between napark and parku to block, and that between negelt and galtu to twitch, start is too speculative to be included. Similar to palk, there may be an adjective/stative erk/gm adorned in Sargonic Akkadian (si-ir-gu-a idu Or. 46, 201:25 [incant. from Kish] his arms are adorned), which may correspond to a Geez root srgw (CDG 512b s.v. *sargawa), as first suggested by von Soden (1972); see also Hasselbach 2005: 140 n. 81. This connection remains uncertain, however, because of e in the first syllable, unless we are prepared to assume a > e in the vicinity of r (J. and A. Westenholz 1977: 210). See further Gelb 1982, who rejects von Sodens proposal, and Civil (1987: 235), who endorses it and compares Sum. e - e r - k a - an . . . d u g4 to adorn, apparently a loan from this word. 87. Verbal forms without the nasal prefix do not seem to occur. However, Old Assyrian has an intriguing form, unfortunately unique and in an unclear context, which may be a quadriradical form without the prefix: ta-p-ta-na-ra-a-ad KTK 66: x+9 (= 11). As it stands, it looks like a Gtn imperfective of (na)parudu, and it is exactly the form we would expect on the basis of the Gtn imperfective of the triliteral verb (iptanarras). On the other hand, it violates the vowel syncope rule because of the extra short syllable caused by the additional radical (taptnraad > **taptanraad ). 88. In particular by W. von Soden (1950b: 332, GAG 110a/c). Insofar as it is based on exceptional irregular forms such as n-ek-le-mu- and na-az-ra-bu-bu (see above), it is unconvincing, since these forms are either unreliable or can easier be explained otherwise (see n. 85 for the former). 89. Huehnergard (1991: 69192) suggests etymologies (on the basis of alleged Modern South Arabian cognates) for neel, nekelm, and neqelp, but neither the formal nor the semantic similarities involved are particularly convincing. This also applies to Lipiskis (1997: 407) proposals. 90. The alleged Ntn forms of napark all have E-colouring (it-te-n-ep-rek-ku/GU TDP 70:14; 176:5; STT 403:43; it-te-n-ep-rek-ka-a TDP 170:15, 17) and their meaning is unclear, so it is doubtful that they belong to this verb; cf. CAD N/1 282a s.v. 5 uncert. mng.. If not, we have to add a separate Ntn-stem neperk/gm with uncertain meaning.
312 A/i Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc
The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutuGroup 12.5. I/i ittanapraid *ittapraid U/u itteneqleppu itteqleppu
ittanablakkat ittab(a)lakkat ittatablakkat *itablakkit *itablakkut itablakkutu muttablakki/atu
iteqlepp muttapraidu mutteklemm
table 12.5: the ntn paradigm of the nabalkutu group.
The paradigm of these complex and rare verbs shows an uncharacteristic amount of idiosyncrasy and variation, especially in the presence or absence of gemination. The information given above about the vowel classes of the nabalkutu group is also valid here; cf. especially it-ta-na-ap-raqa-ad MDP 57, 118 no. 5:23 (OB) it keeps falling backward, which in Standard Babylonian also appears with i: it-ta-nap-ra-qid Rm. 106+:2021 quoted by AHw 735a s.v. naparqudu Ntn. The imperfective is regular; as in all tan-stems apart from Gtn, it differs from the perfective in the extra syllable -na-. Both imperfective and perfective contain a sequence -blakkat, which goes back to *-balakkat after application of vowel syncope; -balakkat itself is from the inflectional base BaLKvT, with gemination introduced from the Gtn-stem. In the perfective, however, there is some fluctuation between regular ittablakkat (e.g., in li-tab-l-k-at ATHE 64:9 (OA) let it cross repeatedly) and ittabalakkat, which violates the vowel syncope rule (ittblakkat), e.g., it-ta-balak-ka-at TuL 42:3 (OB), and it-ta-ba-la-ak-ka-tu CT 37, 6:13 (SB). Of other verbs, I only know regular perfective forms: it-ta-[r]a-me-u PKT pl. 26: r.5 (MA) they melted, lit-tap-ra--du Maql VIII 58 let them (the sorceries) flee, and lit-te-eq-le-pu (var. lit-te-eq-lep-pa-a, lit-taqlap-pa-a) Erra IV 118 let it (the boat) drift downriver (all SB). The t-perfect occurs in at-ta-tab-lak-ka-ta CCEBK 92:17 I have crossed repeatedly, but there is also a form without gemination: it-ta-ta-bal-ki-tu RIMA 2/I, 149:31 he constantly traversed (Subj).91 For the infinitive, cf. (ina) i-tab-lak-ku-ti BWL 44:104 through twisting (tr. W. G. Lambert), i-te-eq-lep-pu-u MSL 9, 96:205 and i-te-ek-lem-mu- V R 16, 45cd (all SB). Particularly common is the Ntn present participle, which shows various idiosyncrasies. The regular form occurs, for instance, in mut-ta-rab-bi-u-ti- CT 16, 15: V 40 drifting, mut-tapra-i-di roaming, roving BWL 144:19, and mu-ut-te-ek-lem-mu ZA 43, 100:6 angry-looking (Stat 3ms). In addition, there is a form without gemination: mut-ta-par-i-du IAsb. 73: r.1 (of birds) (all SB).92 In Old Babylonian, a very unusual Ntn present participle of nabalkutum is found with a as stem vowel: mu-ut-ta-ab-la-ka-tu ShA 1, 93 no. 19:13 they are rebels (Stat 3mp).93 It may be parallel to the stem vowel a in the Gtn present participles with additional gemination of R3 mutabbabbu and muktaau, which will be discussed in 16.6.1 (pp. 493494). If this is correct, we may have to interpret this form as /muttablakkatt/.94
91. Unless this is a dittography for the N t-Pf it-ta-ta-bal-ki-tu), which is also suggested by the vowel i (although there are parallels for this in Standard Babylonian; see above). 92. AHw 689b s.v. muttapraidu reads mut-ta-par(a)-i-du, which is possible but also irregular. 93. GAG Verbalpar. 39 gives the expected form muttablakkitu without references; perhaps it is not attested but inferred from the corresponding -form mutablakkitu, for which see 13.4.1 (pp. 338340). 94. A difficult form that may belong here is i-ta-la-a-nu MVAeG 40/2, 68:11 (SB): AHw 403a s.v. etwa Haarausfall??; CAD I/J 293b s.v. dislocated), apparently from neel. It may be interpreted as italanu, i.e., a past participle (*itala) with the suffix -nu (GAG 56r).
313
An atypical and formally isolated member of the nabalkutu group is neell, which AHw 774b s.v. interprets as (herum)suchen, and CAD N/2 149a s.v. as to run around, to drool(?).95 The difference from nabalkutu is that R2 and R3 are identical and form a geminate, and from the naparruru group, that R4 is weak and different from R2 and R3. The first radical is a strong . With a few reservations, its N and Ntn paradigm can be reconstructed as in Table 12.6, with nabalkutu for comparison: nabalkutu N Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc ibbalakkat ibbalkit ittabalkat nabalkit nabalkut nabalkutu mubbalkitu neell N *iell iell *itteell *neell neell neell *muell nabalkutu Ntn ittanablakkat ittab(a)lakkat ittatablakkat *itablakkit *itablakkut itablakkutu *muttablakkitu neell Ntn itteneell itteell *itteteell *iteell *iteell iteell *mutteell
table 12.6: the reconstructed paradigm of neell.
For the N-stem, there is a 3ms Pfv i-el-li(!sign tu) MSL 16, 195:144; with a Vent i-el-la-am MSL 16, 195:143, an Imp Fem n-e-li- AfO 19, 53:166, a 3ms Stat ne-e-lu4 STT 279:11,96 and an Inf n-e-lu(-) MSL 16, 195:142. The Ntn-stem occurs in a 3ms Impfv it-te-n-e-lu- CT 16, 37:19 and i-te-n-el-lu- SpTU 2, 1: II 23 and IV 14, in a 1s Pfv lut/lu-ut-te-e-lu BWL 78:141, and in an Inf LL i-te-e-lu- quoted CAD N/2 149a s.v. lex. sect. (equated with saru).97 All attested forms are Standard Babylonian. The interpretation of the few instances attested is hampered by the ambiguity of the -sign, which may render a CV or a VC sequence. The paradigm presented in Table 12.6 assumes that neell follows nabalkutu, with one important difference: because R2 and R3 form a geminate, they do not have additional gemination in the N imperfective and in the entire Ntn paradigm; so the N imperfective is parallel to *ibbalkat, the Ntn imperfective to *ittanabalkat, and the Ntn infinitive to *itabalkutu, etc.98 There is no obvious etymology for neell. What we can say is that the final radical is likely to have been * or * because of the E-colouring (which cannot have been caused by the first radical, since a strong never goes with E-colouring; see 17.4, pp. 520525). Therefore, a connection with el to go /come up (l ) seems impossible and is also semantically unlikely.
95. See also W. von Soden 1951: 15658 for this verb. 96. The text reads: (umma amlu k a-u) ne-e-lu4 dipa pe unaabma inae if a mans mouth is drooling(?) (or his nose running?), he sucks white honey and he recovers (tr. CAD N/2 149b s.v. 2; or perhaps from nilu? cf. AHw 790a s.v. nlu II). Could this verb be related to nlu/nilu saliva, spittle? 97. Note that the Ntn forms, except for the perfective and the present participle, violate the vowel syncope rule. For similar cases, see 2.4 (p. 47). 98. According to AHw 690a s.v. mutte/ill etwa der sich herumtreibt, mutte/ill is a participle of neell. The regular form would be mutteell ( muttablakkitu). CAD, however, has this word as muttilu (a demon), Fem muttiltu (M/2 313a) without reference to neell. I would rather write this form as muttlu, muttltu and assume that it is a Dtn form of nlum to lie down, i.e., who constantly lays down, an appropriate name for a demon. For a formal parallel to this present participle, see 16.5.3.3, pp. 484485 (muknu, mukntu, etc.).
314
The Historical Background of the Prefx n 12.6.
Finally, it is convenient to mention here that Eblaite lexical lists contain two verbs ostensibly related to the nabalkutu type: na-sar-du-lu-um (= G[Rgun]) VE 1129; since GRgun = u l4 = arum to hurry, Sjberg (2004: 272) proposes a similar meaning for this verb na-bar-su-um (= al.ba l(!sign Kul)) VE 993b, of unknown meaning, with an Ntn PrPartc in ma-wu mu-da-bar-si--tum (= a.bal) /mw muttabarsi(H)tum/ . . . water (Krebernik 1983: 25) The infinitives do not provide any new information (apart from illustrating the similarity between Eblaite and Akkadian), but the Ntn present participle is noteworthy because it has no gemination, exactly like the incidental forms of the type muttabalkitu quoted above. This could be an indication that the introduction of gemination in the Ntn-stemprompted by that of the Gtn-stem (see 14.7.6 (pp. 435436)is a later development.
12.6. the Historical Background of the Prefix n- 12.6.1. Theprefixn-asanoriginallightverb

The multiple functions of the prefix n- in Akkadian and parallel formations in West Semitic and Afroasiatic enable us to make a plausible reconstruction of its historical background. Our starting point will be the nabalkutu group and its South Semitic cognates, which offer the most crucial evidence. As I stated briefly in 4.6.2 (pp. 123124), Geez has a class of expressive verbs with four or more radicals that are conjugated by means of a nasal prefix,99 and the same applies to Modern South Arabian.100 They come in several types, of which the most common are:101 1. verbs with four different radicals, e.g., Geez anfaraa to exult, dance,102 Mehri nqrb to be curled, wrinkled (p. 234), and nxrb to be disarranged, disordered (p. 446) 2. verbs with a reduplicated final radical, e.g., Geez anzhlala to become weak, languid, Mehri nbb to become smart, active and clever (p. 189), derived from the adjective bb, and nbb to screech, grunt looking for a young one (said of a camel) (p. 291) 3. verbs with a reduplicated biliteral element, e.g., Geez angargara to wallow, roll, anqaqaa to tremble, Mehri nfsfs to disperse (intr.) (p. 103) and ntgtg to be tickled (p. 400) Some of these verbs also occur without an- as quadriradical verbs, e.g., Geez ssa and anssa to move back and forth, or have a corresponding noun or adjective without an-,
99. See Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 16466 (87 sub V); Tropper 2002: 13435; Lambdin 1978: 229 30; Moscati, ed. 1964: 13031. For lists of verbs, see also Heidel 1940: 1820; M. Cohen 1955: 19697; Conti 1980: 7393, 106. 100. See M. Cohen 1955: 19596; Simeone-Senelle 1997: 401. Leslau (1937) discusses these verbs in Soqotri and characterizes them as expressive and denominal. In Epigraphic South Arabian, verbs of this type do not seem to be attested (Beeston 1962: 1920). 101. The MSA examples come from Mehri; the numbers are the page numbers of Johnstone 1987, where they are listed under the respective consonantal roots. 102. The initial a- is generally regarded as taken over from the causative categories, just as in the prefix conjugations (yngargr, etc.); see, e.g., Garr 1993: 14647, 151).
12.6. The Historical Background of the Prefx n
315
e.g., Geez aff juice and anafafa to ooze (Lambdin 1978: 22930; Tropper 2002: 134), and the Mehri adjective bb alongside nbb. The similarity of these South Semitic verbs to Akkadian verbs with the prefix n- is manifest. The first type, which usually has r or l as R2, corresponds to the nabalkutu verbs, the second type to the nabalkutu verbs that have identical R3 and R4, and the third type corresponds to the verbs of the naparruru group, as I will argue below. A further commonality with Akkadian is that the MSA verbs tend to come in pairs: an intransitive verb with the prefix n-, and a transitive or causative verb with the prefix a- or zero, depending on the nature of R1 (Johnstone 1987: xiii). For instance, aqrb to curl, xrb to put into disorder, fsfs to break up (tr.), and tgtg to tickle are the transitive counterparts of the corresponding verbs mentioned above. However, the verbs with a- or zero comprise numerous intransitive verbs as well, especially when there is no corresponding verb with n-, e.g., abrbr to make incomprehensible sounds (p. 51), krbl to crawl on the knees (p. 213), and trm to mumble, talk drivel (p. 403). Occasionally, both verbs are intransitive, e.g., awsws to be too worried or preoccupied to listen to someone and nwsws to be preoccupied by worry (pp. 43031). This agrees with the situation in Akkadian, where the quadriradical verbs with the prefix - are transitives or causatives of the corresponding intransitive verbs with n- but are intransitive themselves when there is no such verb (see 13.4, pp. 337350). Outside Semitic, we find a small group of similar verbs in Egyptian, mostly derived from biradical and reduplicated roots. Cannuyer (1983: 27) characterizes them as expressive and intensive (e.g., nftft to leap, ngsgs to overflow, nny become stormy, furious alongside nj.t storm, and nhmhm to shout alongside a simple nhm (Reintges 1994: 234)).103 Even though the verbs of the nabalkutu type show little of the expressive nature of the South Semitic verbs, they are undoubtedly genetically related and go back to a single class of verbs in Proto-Semitic and Afroasiatic.104 The fact that few, if any, individual verbs are found both in South Semitic and in Akkadian is typical of categories with an (originally) expressive character: usually, only their patterns can be reconstructed and not the individual words, which tend to have a low token frequency and a relatively short life span. The main question raised by the quadriradical verbs with an ]. One could argue that it expresses the contrast with the causative -prefix in the same verb (ubalkutu, etc.), but this is unsatisfactory, because the overall meaning of the verbs with n- shows that they are basically intransitive. Hence they have as little need of a marker as the average intransitive G-stem. The corresponding -stems, on the other hand, are not only formally but also semantically derived. This agrees with the fact that the nabalkutu verbs show vowel classes (see 12.5, pp. 307308), but the corresponding -stems have the fixed a/i apophony of other derived stems (see 13.4.1, p. 338). Another option is to assume that n- is ingressive, as in some adjectival verbs (see 12.2.2.2, pp. 297298); this is claimed, for instance, by W. von Soden in GAG 110a. However,
103. For Egyptian, see also M. Cohen 1955: 200202; Edel 1955/64: 18687; Derchain-Urtel 1973; Conti 1980: 4771; Rubin 2004: 47778. A typically Egyptian feature is that some roots prefixed with ncan be made transitive by prefixing the causative prefix s- to the n-prefix rather than replacing it (Reintges 1994: 23435). Cushitic and Berber do not seem to have verbs of this kind with an n-prefix; see M. Cohen 1955: 203204 and Conti 1980: 37. However, at least one Cushitic language seems to use a prefix n- with passive meaning, parallel to the Semitic N-stem, see n. 125 below. Moreover, Cushitic and Berber do have a formative m with detransitive function, prefixed in Berber and suffixed in Cushitic, which may be related to the prefix n elsewhere (Lieberman 1986: 600604). Lieberman also discusses some possible cognate markers in Chadic (1986: 60203). 104. M. Cohen 1955: 205; Castellino 1962: 113; Conti 1980: 108; Gensler 1997: 25054.
316
as stated above, ingressivity typically belongs to stative verbs, whereas these quadriradicals are fientive, so an explicit marker of ingressivity is superfluous. There is, therefore, little reason why we should not find an intransitive **balkutu opposed to a transitive or causative ubalkutu, just as we have an unmarked G-stem raqdu to dance opposed to a causative -stem urqudu. Crucial for determining the function of n- is the fact that, if the verbs with the prefix n- can be associated with a (non-deverbal) noun or adjective, this word usually lacks the n-prefix.105 This shows that the prefix exclusively belongs to the verbal paradigm. For Akkadian, I already mentioned purqidam, palk, and urbu alongside naparqudu, napalk, and naarbuu, respectively, and for Geez aff juice alongside anafafa to ooze. Among the MSA quadriradical verbs with n-, several are derived from a quadriradical adjective, such as the above-mentioned nbb, and likewise nhw(w) to become fawn, creamy in colour (Johnstone 1987: 360) from hww cream-coloured, or from a quadriradical noun, sucth as nlawm to have spleen trouble, a disease of the spleen from laym spleen (Johnstone 1987: 410). This suggests that n- is a conjugational prefix that is added to a form to enable it to be conjugated as a verb. Such an element is likely to go back to an ancient verb itself, before it became a prefix in the course of a grammaticalization process. Hence we may surmise that the quadriliteral elements from which the nabalkutu verbs are derived originally depended on a support verb for their use as predicate. For instance, if we assume for the sake of the argument that nabalkutu and neel go back to the very early stage in which this process must have taken place (which is unlikely), ibbalkit originally meant something like he did (or: became, went, said, etc.) BLKT, ieli he did L, etc. Cross-linguistically, it is fairly common to conjugate non-verbal elements by means of a light verb,106 i.e., a verb that has little lexical semantic content of its own and forms a single concept with another element, in this case a noun. English examples are take a walk, have a rest, give a shout, etc. The idea that many of the grammatical morphemes used in the Afroasiatic languages to create derived verbs for the expression of tense/aspect and voice distinctions ultimately go back to the grammaticalization of such verbs is by no means new107 but has gained a renewed popularity in recent years as a result of the upsurge in the study of grammaticalization processes.108
105. This means that the non-prefix forms starting with na- of Table 12.4 owe their prefix to their deverbal nature: na- is taken over from the prefix conjugations in accordance with the dependency relations in the verbal paradigm (see 2.2.1, pp. 29-30). However, this did not take place in the verb mlulu (see 12.4, pp. 305307), nor in the N-stems of I/voc verbs (Pfv innmir versus Inf nmuru, etc.); see 17.6.3.4 (pp. 550554). Even some deverbal categories with derivational status may copy the prefix of the verbal forms, such as naparrurtu, mentioned in n. 54 (p. 301). 106. Cf. Edzard 2003: 14243 for a similar use of the verb du11(-g)/e/d i in Sumerian. In the Akkadian dialect of Nuzi, the verb epu is frequently used to accommodate Hurrian words in an Akkadian context; see CAD E 20125 s.v. epu v. 2c, where numerous Hurrian infinitives ending in -umma appear among the objects of epu. Examples further afield are Turkish etmek, Persian kardan, and Japanese suru. 107. The first to have published this idea is generally reported to be Praetorius (1894: 32934), but see the survey of earlier work in Voigt 1985: 8790. 108. This is mainly at the cost of the alternative explanation that they go back to deictic or pronominal elements. Recent adherents of this view include Lieberman (1986, esp. p. 592 for n and p. 619 in general) and Kienast (2001: 208). The main objection is that they have not been able to indicate a plausible grammaticalization path leading from such elements to the grammatical function performed by the N-stem (cf. Zaborski 2001: 593). A different etymology for n- was suggested by Rets (1989: 154), who considers the possibility that it was originally a dummy subject, inspired by the Hausa use of an in this function. Hetzron (1973/74: 4547) also proposes an auxiliary verb as the source of n, namely, the copula wn attested in Cushitic and Egyptian. This may provide a plausible explanation of n as marker of the (medio)passive N-stem but not as a verbalizer in quadriradical verbs and in the I/n verbs.
317
Among the Afroasiatic languages, it is particularly well known from Cushitic and from the Semitic languages of Ethiopia, doubtless under Cushitic influence. According to D. Cohen et al. (2002), the grammaticalization of verbs meaning to say and to do is an areal phenomenon of East Africa, not only in present-day Cushitic and Ethio-Semitic languages such as Afar and Amharic but already in Egyptian: they argue that the Egyptian sm-k-f, sm-r-f and sm-jn-f conjugations go back to the verbs k to intend, r to shout and an ancient verb j cognate with Cushitic *y to say (2002: 23839; and see also Plazikowsky-Brauner 1957: 1112, Zaborski 1999b: 48, and Appleyard 2001). The similarity between these developments and the use of the n-prefix in the quadriradical verbs suggests that n- also goes back to this kind of light verb. It had n among its radicals, was conjugated by means of personal prefixes, and had an appropriate meaning, such as to do, but other options are also conceivable, e.g., to say, to be, become, or to go. Actually, the existence of an Afroasiatic light verb Vn-/nV- or the like has long been recognized.109 Since it occurs as a prefix in at least Semitic, Egyptian, and Cushitic (see above), it may have been a prefix already in Afroasiatic (although some degree of parallel development should be reckoned with), but it also continued to be used as a light verb in Cushitic (Zaborski 1975: 1718; 2005b: 8586), as is often the case in grammaticalization processes. By the Proto-Semitic stage, n- had long since been reduced to a prefix with the general function of making verbs out of non-verbal (or deverbal) elements. We can identify at least five and possibly six categories in which it occurs in Akkadian. 1. The first radical of some I/n verbs can be explained as going back to the prefix n- in its function as a verbalizer added to a biconsonantal element in order to conjugate it in accordance with the prevailing triradical verbal paradigm.110 The clearest examples are I/n verbs that can plausibly be explained as built on onomatopoeic interjections (GAG 102b), such as nabu (U/u) to bark (to say bu), napu (U/u) to blow (to say pu), naqu (I/i) to kiss (to make a iq sound), and natku (U/u) to drip (to do tuk). Other cases include naru to roar (no prefix forms attested), nabzu (U/u) to bleat, naggu (A/u, U/u) to bray, neigh, naru (U/u) to snore, nassu (U/u, OB also A/a) to wail, cry, nazmu (U/u) to complain, nazqu (I/i) to squeak (same verb as nazqu to be annoyed/worried?), and nazzu (U/u) to hiss, rustle.111 Many of these verbs recur in other Semitic languages (see von Soden 1968a: 176), showing that this use of n- dates back to Proto-Semitic. For instance, nabu corresponds to Ar nabaa (yanbau), naqu to kiss to He naq, etc. The frequent combination of the light verb with an onomatopoeic interjection such as *bu woof! became grammaticalized into a verb form *yi-n-bu it said bu, it barked (Akk ibbu), after which n- was (re)interpreted as the first radical, an easy way to make the verb triradical. By analogy with *yiprVsu parVs, *yi-n-bu(u) gave rise to a suffix base nabV, on which the non-prefix forms are based, such as the Inf nabu and the PrPartc nbiu. This process
109. See, for instance, Reinisch 1909: 186; Voigt 1978: 4849; Orel and Stolbova 1995: 12 no. 40 (*an- speak). A survey of the traces it has left is to be found in Zaborski 2001: 59598. 110. Von Soden (1968a and GAG 102ab) calls it a Wurzelaugment. As Voigt (1988a: 87) points out, these verbs do not provide evidence for biradical roots, since the onomatopoeic elements were not roots themselves but presumably a kind of interjection; the root only came into existence when it was combined with n. 111. The I/n verbs contain many verbs of sounds, and most of these may have the same background, but it is difficult to delimitate this group sharply from other I/n verbs, especially because of semantic changes that seem to have taken place in some of them.
318
was doubtless facilitated by the fact that there must have been a number of original I/n verbs (see below). In historical Akkadian, these verbs are thoroughly triradical and have left no concrete traces of their original biliteral shape, with one exception: the noun tku drop, related to natku to drip.112 The claim that they go back to a biliteral element is exclusively based on their semantics. However, in combination with the reconstructed background of the n-prefix as a light verb, von Sodens analysis seems beyond doubt. To what extent the first radical of other I/n verbs also goes back to this prefix is a moot question.113 It seems likely that there are also I/n verbs that have an ordinary triradical root (cf. von Soden 1968a: 177), e.g., the I/n verbs that are also II/voc verbs: nu () to rest, nku () to have intercourse, nu () to shake, and the verb nawru to shine, as suggested by nru light. More problematic is another group of I/n verbs consisting of rather common verbs, such as na (I/i) to lift, carry, nad (I/i) to lay down, leave, nadnu (I/i) to give (Bab), nalu (A/u) to look at, and naru (A/u) to guard (originally to watch). In Akkadian, they do not show any indisputable traces of biradicality, although phenomena such as the interchange of Bab nadnu with Ass tadnu and its biradical Imp din (for which see 16.4.3, p. 474) may be interpreted as such.114 For further evidence, we should turn to West Semitic, where some of these roots occur with biradical forms: in Hebrew, for instance, we find the Infs tt < *tin-t, with first-person singular suffix titt < *tin-t- from ntan to give, eet from n to carry and geet from nga to approach, alongside regular triradical forms such as n eo and n eton (Kuryowicz 1972: 72).115 These infinitives typically go with a biradical imperative: ten give!, carry!, and ge approach! W. von Soden (GAG 102b) claims that in these verbs the n- prefix has a directional meaning (richtungsbestimmend), since they all refer to actions directed toward a goal. This is questionable, however, because directionality is an inherent part of the meaning of these verbs, and it seems arbitrary to associate it specifically with n-.116 Actually, the background of these verbs remains a matter of speculation. We can consider at least two possible scenarios. The first possibility is that n has the same background as in the onomatopoeic I/n verbs, i.e., that it serves to expand a biliteral sequence, e.g., Pfv *yi-n-i he lifted (Akk i ) may be based
112. Cf. the I/w verbs, many of which have deverbal nouns without w-, such as ubtu from wabu; see 16.2.4, p. 460). 113. Von Soden (1968a: 176) assigns many other verbs to this group, both from Akkadian and other Semitic languages, including high-transitivity verbs of the I/n class such as naksu to cut, slaughter and napu to kick, hit, which seems questionable. 114. Similar but less reliable cases of the interchange of I/n with other verb types are nez, tez/ and ez to defecate, nalu and alu to sift, nadu to be attentive, and the marginally attested du with the same meaning (AHw 14a s.v.). For nadnu, note also that a root with identical R1 and R2 is unlikely to be original and points to R1 being secondary. This kind of alternation is far more common in West Semitic. Instances where the prefix n is involved are listed by Kuryowicz 1972: 8, 11 and Nldeke 1910: 179201: Hebrew nw and yw to be befitting for, npal to fall and apel to sink down; nbel to fade, decay, and bl to be worn out; Arabic naara = waara to saw (cf. Akk aru saw < *arru), nabiha = abaha to remember, nadima = sadima to feel remorse, naaa = waaa to thrust, naaza = waaza to sting, prick, nagara = wagira to be enraged, spiteful, wagala and galgala to penetrate, nahama = mumble, growl and hamhama to sigh, moan, and other less convincing instances. 115. For Testens (2000: 8588) (untenable) claim that i to have is from the same root as na, see chap. 16 n. 76 (p. 467). 116. This argument would only be valid if we also had forms of the same root without n that are not directionalfor instance, if alongside the root nd to put down (cf. nadm) there was a root d to lie (on the ground), or the like. This does not seem to be the case.
319
on *i, and *yi-n-t/din he gave (Akk iddin) on *t/din (see 16.4.3, pp. 472474). In this case, the bilateral element is not onomatopoeic but presumably the product of the previous attrition of a longer form (perhaps with another weak radical), which needed to be boosted for easier insertion into the triradical paradigm.117 The semantic similarity may be due to the fact that, after one verb had acquired the prefix, it became a model for others. It is further arguable that a form such as *yini is a strengthening of an earlier Pfv *yii, a member of a real biradical conjugation *yii(u) parallel to *yubil(u) to be discussed in 16.2.4 (pp. 458462). The Assyrian Imp din and the biradical Hebrew forms may represent vestiges of this conjugation. The second possibility is that the biradical forms are secondary. Many of them are imperatives, which may become biradical through the application of the regular rule of imperative formation, e.g., Akk bil carry! from tubil (see 5.5, pp. 133134, and 16.2., p. 453). In Hebrew, at least two of the existing biradical imperatives are demonstrably secondary: first of all, qa take!, depends on the imperfective yiqqa (< *yilqa) (see chap. 5 n. 25, p. 133), with l assimilated to q. This is not a regular assimilation process but caused by the high frequency of this verb (and perhaps influenced by its antonym ten). The second case is lek go! from hlak, where the initial h has been dropped (as in the Impfv yelek).118 In the I/n verbs such as nga to approach, Imp ga, the absence of n may be determined by the fact that in the imperfective n is assimilated to R2: yigga (as it is in Akkadian; see 16.4.1, p. 469). These verbs also have a biradical infinitive: qaat, leket, and geet, which can hardly be explained other than as a derivation of the imperative (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 186). Similar cases are leket to go from lek, imperative of hlak; daat to know from da, imperative of yda; and ebet to sit down from eb, imperative of yab, all of them verbs denoting actions that are frequently used in commands. It seems that this second explanation of the biradical forms as a secondary development is preferable, since it is less speculative and more down-to-earth than the first. The most important conclusion is that, whatever the details concerning the formal background of these I/n verbs, they can be fitted into the overall development of the prefix n- as outlined so far. 2. The nabalkutu type may well belong to the oldest layer of verbs with the n-prefix, since it results directly from the combination of the light verb and a quadriliteral element. Once the n-prefix was established as a fixed part of its paradigm, n- was preserved in Akkadian, even though it had no clear morphosyntactic function (and since it was present anyhow, it could support and underline the contrast with the causative -prefix). In West Semitic, however, another type of quadriradical verbs emerged: it was conjugated like the D-stem and did not have the prefix. As we saw in 4.6.2 (pp. 123125), in Geez this type coexists with the quadriradical verbs with n-, but in Central Semitic the n-prefix was discarded, and quadriradical verbs fully adopted the conjugation of the D-stem. Since these are also the languages in which the N-stem is productive (apart from Aramaic, where both uses of the n-prefix are absent), it is tempting to posit a connection between the rise of the N-stem and the loss of the quadriradical verbs with n-. 3. The verbs of the naparruru group (see 12.3, pp. 301305) are associated with the quadriradical verbs discussed so far, because they also have the prefix n-, but they are different in that they ultimately come from triradical roots. Their background is clarified by a number of cognates in other Semitic languages:
117. For the mechanism involved, cf. Voigt 1988a: 8788: in the case of the root ntn (Akk nadnu), Voigt suggests ya-ttin replacing ya-tin followed by dissimilation of tt. Though speculative, this is the kind of process we should envisage. 118. Blau (2003: 7273) derives He lk go! from *hlik on the basis of a sound shift that could survive in this verb because of its frequency but was undone in less frequent verbs.
320
nag/qarruru is clearly related to Geez angargara to wallow, revolve, roll (CDG 202 s.v. grgr; Kienast 2001: 634) naallulu may be compared in meaning, if not in form, to Ar istalla and tasallala to steal away (Kienast 2001: 220) nadarruru is related to (late) He dirder sich wlzen and Ar tadardara herumlaufen (AHw 163a s.v. darru I) and to Meri adrdr to go around so./sth. (Johnstone 1987: 73) naparruru can be associated with a widespread biliteral segment PR with the general meaning of separation and splitting (GAG 73b; Moscati, ed. 1964: 73; Kienast 2001: 6667) Many of these cognates occur in quadriradical verbs of the C1C2C1C2 type, i.e., with reduplication of a biliteral element,119 a type that is widespread in West Semitic but absent in Akkadian.120 This remarkable fact may be explained by assuming that the naparruru type is the Akkadian counterpart of the West Semitic C1C2C1C2 verbs and that the stem parrVr- goes back to *parpVr-, darrVr- to *dardVr-, allVl- to *alVl-, etc. However, this cannot be a purely phonological instance of assimilation, because assimilation of such clusters normally has a different outcome: cf. cases such as qaqqaru ground < *qarqarum, kakkabu star < *kabkabum and daddaru (a kind of plant) perhaps < *dardarum. If this assumption is right, there must (also) be some morphosyntactic factor involved. It is possible, for instance, that the coexistence of triradical forms with gemination, especially the G-stem imperfective (idarrar, iallal, etc.), and original quadriradical C1C2C1C2 forms such as *yiddardar and *yialal (< *yi-n-. . . , conjugated like nabalkutu) caused a contamination resulting in the historical forms iddarrar and iallal. This may be speculative, but it clarifies at least one feature of these verbs that is hard to explain otherwise, namely, why they are conjugated by means of the nasal prefix of the quadriradical verbs.121 4. The canonical N-stem of the triradical verb arose from the combination of the verbalizing prefix n- with a past participle (PaRiS) or a primary adjective (PaRvS): Pfv ipparis < *yi-n-paris; see the next section. 5. The N-stem of the I/voc verbs in its original form (preserved in Assyrian), e.g., innmir from amru to see, arose from the combination of n- with the suffix base nmVr (< *namVr) of the N-stem: innmir < *yi-n-namir; see further 17.6.3.4 (p. 552). 6. It is conceivablebut as yet rather speculativethat some Ntn-stems, especially those that are not clearly pluractionals of the corresponding N-stem, arose from the combination of n- with a deverbal taPRvS(t) noun: Pfv ittaprVs < *yi-n-taprVs; see chap. 14 n. 239 (p. 430).
119. West Semitic verbs of this type are studied by Conti (1980), Fischer (1993), and Prochzka (1995). 120. However, an Akkadian instance may be the OB (Mari) Inf i-ta-GA-WA-GA-a-am in A.731:8 quoted by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand in MARI 7 pp. 37374 irub i-ta-GA-WA-GA-a-am ils se mirent en grve (it is preceded by irub itassm they started yelling). It may be related either to Geez angogawa to wander about restlessly or to Geez asqoqawa to howl, lament (in spite of the different prefix; see above); both seem semantically appropriate. The Akkadian form can be explained as Ntn infinitive: itaGawaGGm like itablakkutu (GAG Verbalpar. 39) (although strictly speaking we would expect itaGwaGGm), but itaGawGm, an Ntn-stem without gemination (see 12.5, p. 312), is also possible. Hopefully, the Mari texts will reveal more forms of this verb. 121. It is unlikely that n- in the naparruru verbs can be motivated semantically, as in the verbs of the napruu type (see 12.2.2.3, pp. 298299), since the naparruru verbs denote atelic durative activities and are not ingressive ( pace W. von Soden [GAG 101g], who characterizes them as ingressiv-durativ).
321
With regard to the relative chronology of these categories, we may safely assume that categories 1 (nabu, etc.), 2 (nabalkutu, etc.), and 3 (naparruru, etc.) were the first to develop, since they show the original function of the light verb or the prefix that arose from it. This is in keeping with the fact that they are attested throughout the entire Semitic area, and categories 2 and 3 also in Egyptian. The combination of n- with a past participle or adjective (category 4), which became the N-stem, is likely to be a secondary stage because it presupposes the prior bleaching of its lexical meaning to do. Presumably, the prefix first came to be associated with ingressivity, perhaps in verbs of the na and nadnu type discussed under 1 above, and from there acquired its (medio)passive function. From a chronological point of view, the most remarkable category is no. 5, the N-stem of the I/voc verbs, since it presupposes that the verbs in question had dropped their first radical. Because this must have happened shortly before the historical period (see 17.6.1, pp. 539542), these forms show that the derivation of quadriradical forms by means of n- was still productive then. If category 6 does indeed exist, its rise should be associated with that of the t2-stem and of the tan-stems to be discussed in 14.6 (pp. 397414) and 14.7.6 (pp. 431437), respectively. This implies that it is an inner-Akkadian development.
12.6.2. ThedevelopmentoftheN-stem
Historically, the N-stem results from the combination of n- with past participles and adjectives with the simple adjectival pattern PaRvS: *yi-n-paris(u). Hence the stem vowel of the N-stem is the same as that of the past participle: i in fientive verbs, sometimes u in a few PaRuS adjectives (Testen 1998a). *Yi-n-paris(u) lies at the basis of the prefix base of the N-stem (see 12.2.1, pp. 288290) and thus of the emergence of the N-stem as a whole.122 Since the past participle is a member of the verbal paradigm, the forms with the prefix n- were incorporated into this paradigm, and n- was invested with the grammatical function of (medio)passive, in opposition to other formatives, in particular the prefix -. Its incorporation into the verbal paradigm also required the creation of forms without prefixes. This was achieved by analogy with the existing I/n and/or secondary I/n verbs, just as in the case of nabu described above: in the same way as *yi-n-bu(u) gave rise to a suffix base nabV by analogy with *yiprVsu parVs, *yi-n-paris gave rise to na-prVs and thus to the prefix na- of the suffix base. In this way, n- was emancipated from the presence of the personal prefix that according to this reconstruction was originally required. The same analogy must have operated in the non-prefix forms of nabalkutu (*yi-n-balkit na-balkVt).123 The N-stem with detransitivizing function is only attested in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Arabic (see below). It is absent in Aramaic and in South Semitic. Its absence in Aramaic is likely to represent a secondary loss, because it must have existed in its ancestor Proto-Northwest Semitic, although it is remarkable that it seems to have left no traces.124 As shown in the previous
122. In passive categories, the dependency relations between the members of the verbal paradigm are different from the active: passives are often resultative, which is strongly associated with past tense. Therefore, past passive forms are more frequent and thus more basic than present passive forms (Langacker and Munro 1975: 82427; Keenan 1985: 267). This explains the relative frequency of the N perfective over the N imperfective (which almost invariably has future meaning) and over the N t-perfect (which is a marked form competing with the G stative). 123. Therefore, the alternation of n- (in prefix forms) and na- (in non-prefix forms) does not result from a phonological process, such as the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel in an alleged *n-PRVS, as proposed by Garr (1993: 148), but is determined by the model of the strong verb. 124. Garr 1985: 121; Brockelmann (1908: 536) considers the possibility that it once had similar forms on the basis of Syriac n eef to be barefooted versus Ar afiya. This instance typologically belongs to the
322
section, South Semitic has the n- prefix in its conjugation of quadriradical verbs, but does not use it as a verbal stem with detransitive function. This means that either the grammaticalization process halted before n developed its grammatical function or that South Semitic acquired this function with the rest of West Semitic but gave it up again before the historical period.125 In Ugaritic, Arabic, and Hebrew, the emergence of the N-stem led to the abandoning of the verbalizing function of n- so that only the grammatical function of detransitivization remained. In Akkadian, on the other hand, the initial stage remained productive, as is clear from the creation of the N-stems of I/voc verbs (see 17.6.3.4, pp. 550554). The emergence of N as a voice marker is also related to the destiny of the verbal stem with infixed t, the Gt-stem. In the Semitic languages with an N-stem, the Gt-stem is clearly in decline and has largely lost its productivity. We may hypothesize that the rise of the N-stem was a reaction to the decline of the Gt-stem or at least strengthened by it. Other languages, such as South Semitic and Aramaic, reacted to the decline of the Gt-stem by renewing it by means of the creation of a new prefixed t-, presumably by analogy with the derived stems (see 14.4.2, pp. 381382). The final issue to be discussed is the form and development of the N-stem paradigm in Semitic. The verbal stems of Central Semitic that correspond to the Akkadian N-stem in form and function are the Arabic Stem VII, the Hebrew Niphal, and the N-stem in Ugaritic. Table 12.7 presents the relevant forms. Forms that are not directly comparable with the corresponding Akkadian forms are given in brackets. The rightmost column shows my reconstruction of the ProtoSemitic paradigm. Akkadian Impfv Pfv Imp Inf Stat/PPartc PrPartc ipparrVs ipparis napris naprusu naprus(u) mupparsu Arabic (yanqatilu) yanqatil (i)nqatil ((i)nqitl-) ((i)nqatala) munqatilHebrew (yiqqel) yiqqel hiqqel (niqal, niql) Ugaritic *yiqqatVl *naqtil ? (*naqtala) *munqatilPSem *yinqatil *naqtil *naqtl- ?
(*yiqqatVlu) *yinqatilu
(hiqq/l, niql) (*naqtl)
table 12.7: the n-stem of the triradical verbs in semitic.
The perfectives of Akkadian, Arabic, and (presumably) Ugaritic go back to a single form *yinqatil, which must also have existed in Hebrew. This also applies to the present participle *munqatil- on the basis of Akkadian and Arabic. In the other forms, the languages have gone their own way. Arabic has generalized the prefix base -nqatVl at the cost of naqtVl, with a prothetic vowel to avoid an initial consonant cluster (Testen 1998a: 131). This is the usual procedure
use of n- as a verbalizing element and is not evidence for the former presence of a derived verbal stem with n-. 125. On the other hand, Sasse (1981: 209) mentions a verb form from the Cushitic language Saho, which suggests that the use of the n-prefix with passive function is even older than Proto-Semitic: yi-gdif-e he killed, yi-n-gidif-e he was killed (alongside a causative yi-s-gidil-e he caused to break and a reflexive yi-g-gidil-e < *yi-t-gidil-e it broke [intr.]). Note, however, that the Saho passive marker is basically m, as elsewhere in Cushitic (and Berber), which becomes n before a velar (Welmers 1952: 24045). Although these Saho forms require further investigation, they make it possible that the detransitive N-stem already existed in (a part of) Afroasiatic and that its absence in both Aramaic and South Semitic is secondary.
323
in Arabic; cf. also Stem VIII ( yaqtatilu, (i)qtatala), discussed in 14.4.1 (p. 376), the strong Imp (u)qtul, etc. (see 5.5, pp. 136137) and nouns such as (i)bn son. Hebrew has done the same, but only in the imperative and one type of infinitive (where initial h- has been borrowed from the causative Hiphil; cf. Garr 1993: 15556). In the remaining forms, it preserves a separate suffix base (1993: 14445), which shows that the Akkadian system with two bases is more original than the one-base system of Arabic. In Hebrew, ni- regularly goes back to na- in closed unstressed syllables (Bauer and Leander 1922: 19394). The original vowel is preserved in the middle weak verbs, e.g., nkn it was established (Garr 1993: 15758). As for the vowel patterns, niqal is modelled on the G Perf qal, niql on the G Inf ql (Bauer and Leander 1922: 32223).126 The evidence for the infinitive is contradictory, as in the other derived stems. Akkadian has naprusu with the stem vowel u, but He niqtl and Ar (i)nqitl (which replaces *naqtl) point to Proto-Central Semitic *naqtl. It is possible that the Akkadian naPRS forms mentioned in n. 10 (p. 290) should also be connected with this form, in which case it would be of Proto-Semitic date. The Akkadian past participle has no exact counterparts in Central Semitic; the Hebrew participle niql is clearly modelled on the N Perf niqal. The Ugaritic N-stem is a problematic category (Tropper 2000: 53243; Sivan 1997: 13132), since its marker n normally assimilates to a following consonant and is therefore only visible when separated from it by an intervening vowel, i.e., in the non-prefix forms. Many of the examples Tropper quotes seem to be rather problematic: it is unclear whether they actually represent N-stems and/or how they are to be interpreted. The forms given in Table 12.7 are Troppers reconstructions; if we may rely on them, the N paradigm agrees fairly well with the Akkadian paradigm, especially in its preservation of the original non-prefix forms in the imperative(?) and the infinitive.127
126. See also Garr 1993 for the formal development of the Hebrew Niphal. For Garrs (1993: 147) claim that the original derivational prefix is *n and that na- results from the insertion of a vowel to dissolve a prohibited sequence of three consonants, see n. 123 above. 127. However, Tropper (2000: 540) also mentions two forms with initial i that might be imperatives and therefore suggest an imperative similar to those in Arabic and Hebrew.
thePrefix-
Chapter 13
13.1. introduction
The prefix -, the marker of the causative -stem, is functionally the opposite of the prefix n- studied in the preceding chapter, but in many respects it is parallel to n-: both are used as a conjugational prefix, mainly in quadriradical verbs, and both go back to an ancient light verb. I will first describe the form and function of the -stem (13.2), the D-stem (13.3), and four different types of quadriradical verbs with the prefix - (13.4). Subsequently, I will compare the results with parallel formations in other Semitic languages (13.5), and describe the historical development of the -prefix (13.6).
13.2. the -stem 13.2.1. Theformofthe-stem

The -stem is characterized by a morpheme a- prefixed to a base of the form PRvS, which is invariant, so that aPRvS is both the prefix and the suffix base. In Babylonian, however, aPRvS is replaced by uPRvS in all non-prefix forms (see below). In the prefix conjugations, a- is preceded by the personal prefixes with the vowel u: uapras he causes (sb.) to separate. The vowel between R2 and R3 is the usual one in the derived stems: a in the imperfective; i in the perfective, t-perfect, imperative, and past participle; and u in the stative, infinitive, and past participle. Table 13.1 gives the eight inflectional members of the -stem. -stem (Bab) Impfv Pfv t-Pf Stat Imp Inf/PPartc PrPartc uprus upris uprusu -stem (Ass) uapras uapris utapris aprus apris aprusu muaprisu
table 13.1: the paradigm of the -stem.
The paradigm of the -stem is identical to that of the D-stem, apart from the base itself (aPRvS versus PaRRvS), as a comparison of Table 13.1 with Table 11.1 in chap. 11 (p. 269) shows, a parallel that also extends to the respective t- and tan-stems. Moreover, in Babylonian D and share a common historical development, the change a > u in the first syllable of the non-prefix forms 324
13.2. The stem
325
(see below for details). The close association between D and is strengthened by the fact that they both have a valency-increasing function: causative in the -stem, factitive in (part of) the D-stem. This association is even more strikingly demonstrated by the Babylonian paradigm of the -stem of II/voc verbs, which have gemination of the final radical in all forms with an ending even though the corresponding strong forms do not have gemination (uapris and uapras; see 16.5.3.4, pp. 486488, for more details), e.g., (all SB): u-dak-ku- TBP 50: r.9 they will have him killed, 3mp Impfv of dku u-i-ib-bu KAR 16: r.22 they made pleasant, 3mp Pfv of bu u-b-ba UFBG 473:8 to make pleasant, Inf (Acc) of bu The source of the gemination can only be the corresponding D forms udakk, uibb, and ubba. This shows that the -stem paradigm of these verbs is modelled on that of the D-stem.1 Parallel to the D-stem, Middle Babylonian shows e instead of (and alongside) a in the forms that have i in the next syllable: Pfv uepris, t-Pf utepris, and PrPartc muperrisu instead of uapris, etc. (GAG 3 89b and Aro 1955: 4050), e.g., li-e-e-bi-su BBS 8: IV 31 may he cause him to seize, ul-te-es-i-ir BBS 6: I 41 he caused to turn, and mu-e-ed-bi-bi MDP 2, 105:17 who causes to speak. See 11.2 (p. 269) for a parallel change in the D-stem and 17.5.2 (pp. 534535) for a tentative explanation. Another parallel to the D-stem is the Babylonian form uPRvS versus Assyrian aPRvS in the non-prefix forms. The Assyrian form is original, as shown especially by a large number of residual forms with a in Babylonian, mainly in literary sources and doubtless preserved as stylistically marked forms:2 1. There are several aPRvS adjectives, most of them rare and literary: bulu dry, dried, from ablu to be(come) dry, doubtless preserving a- to avoid homonymy with bulu (< awbulum) from wablu to cause to bring, see GAG 97i albubu furious, raging from labbu to rage (cf. also albbu below) *nuu exhausted in the adverb nui from anu to be(come) exhausted (St. Sjberg p. 327:97 and Legends p. 212: IV 12) (the adjective itself is always nuu) confused from e to confuse (Gilg. p. 592:97, 100) (but instead of is unexpected) zuzu furious from ezzu to be angry (also zuzu) 2. There are also a number of deverbal nouns derived from a -stem: adduttu collection of debts (OB) (also anduttu, anduntu and adduntu, cf. CAD /1 47b s.v.) from nadnu to cause to give, collect (taxes); according to CAD loc. cit., all instances are from Northern Babylonia, which tallies with the general distribution of u- and a-. The expected form with u may be attested in u-du!--tim VS 8, 30:6 (from Sippar?) and in u-ud-du-un-tam MARI 4, 405 n. 126:2 bultu consignment, shipment < *aybultum (Whiting 1987: 11617) from wablu to bring, carry3
1. Formally, these forms could be characterized as D-stems, but they differ from real D-stems in that this is their only available form, whereas D-stems are optional literary alternatives to D or ; see 13.3 below (pp. 334337). 2. These residual forms conclusively show that aPRvS is more original than uPRvS and therefore refute Kienasts (1957a; 2001: 21214) account of the origin of the -stem; see further 13.6 below (pp. 351354). 3. This form presupposes a root variant of wablu with initial y, for which there is some evidence, but mainly in Assyrian; see 16.2.4 (pp. 461462). Although is the regular Babylonian outcome of ay, it is
326
The stem 13.2.
zubtu leave, time off (OB) from ezbu to leave (also tzubtu) aklultu perfection, completion (OB: a-ak-lu-ul-ti BagM. 34, 138: I 2, RI from Eshnunna) aluqtu disaster, destruction (OB, SB), from alqu (but in the meaning to destroy only alqu D is current, so that aluqtu is formally isolated) alputtu destruction, desecration (OB, SB) from laptu to destroy (OB: a-al-puut-ti BagM. 34, 140: IV 2, RI from Eshnunna) arartu deathly silence, devastation (SB) from ururu to devastate4 3. A few other words with different patterns are: apqu hardship, anguish (OB, SB) from paqu to be(come) narrow, difficult *arbbu weakness (SB) (only as an adverb arbbi or arbba, see CAD /2 59b s.v.) from rabbu to be(come) weak albbu furious (SB) from labbu to rage, but also wise; cf. libbu heart; see CAD /1 241 s.v.; cf. albubu above, to which albbu is related as PitRS is to PitRuS; see 14.2.1 (p. 359) arabbatu devastation (late SB) from arbu to lie waste5 The uPRvS form is already found in Ur III Babylonian: Imp [u]-ub- AKI p. 338:17 cause to be present! from ba in a royal inscription from Elam, and Inf u-lu-am ASJ 12, 56:4 to cause to go up (Acc) from el . The evidence we have for the other third-millennium dialects shows that Sargonic Akkadian sides with Babylonian and has u according to the infinitive (in) sum6-lu-su /sumlusu/ MDP 14, 90:13 (incant. from Susa) in filling it up (beside Impfv u-sa-am-la-su4 MDP 14, 90:12) and the stative su-ku-ud /skud/ SAB 68:5 (Girsu) he is in a hurry(?) from the obscure I/voc verb *ekdu (assuming that *ekdu is not actually a I/w verb).6 However, the PN Sa-am-ru-zum /Samruum/ AIHA 4: III 2 in a text from the Hamrn basin (Sommerfeld 2003: 569) is a counterexample. Mari Old Akkadian, on the other hand, has aPRvS (as it has PaRRvS; see 11.2, p. 270), e.g., ax(di)-ku-u[l-t]imx MARI 4, 167 TH 82-138:8 kultum-rite (Gen), and a-a-lu-uq-t RA 35, 49 no. 28:1 destruction (c. st.).7 For the possible cause(s) of the change of a- > u-, see 11.2 (p. 271). Apart from this a/u interchange, the paradigm of the -stem of the strong verb gives little reason for comment. Noteworthy deviations in the weak verbs and the verbs with gutturals occur
hard to explain why this noun has , whereas in the verbal forms of I/w verbs we only find (e.g., Pfv u from wa to go /come out) or (e.g., Pfv ubil from wablu ); see 16.2.3 (pp. 455456). Once, a form bultu occurs in Old Babylonian: KH 112:57 var. according to CAD /3 189f s.v. bultu B-2. Mari Old Babylonian (J.-M. Durand, ARM 21 pp. 51215) and later Babylonian use bultu. 4. It seems clear that aluqtu, alputtu, arartu, and arabbatu (see below) have influenced each other in the preservation of a-. AHw 1150a also mentions alquttu, but this example should be disallowed acc. to CAD /1 262a s.v. 5. A possible additional case is andu, if this is derived from ndu to praise, but this does not seem likely. First, ndu does not have a -stem. Second, the large number of variants of this word (cf. CAD /1 40910 s.v.) suggests that its derivation was obscure to the scribes who used it, and the equivalents in lexical texts (cf. CAD loc. cit.) point to a meaning hero, heroic rather than illustrious or famous. Nevertheless, a form undu is also attested. 6. The assumption that su-ku-ud and the only other form of this verb attested in Sargonic Akkadian, the Prec li-sa-ki-id /liskid/ SAB p. 66: r.3 (Girsu) (see Hasselbach 2005: 268), come from a verb *ekdu is only based on the semantically rather tenuous association with the Standard Babylonian adjective ekdu fierce, wild. 7. Although this may not be a good example, since, as we saw above, even Babylonian has preserved aluqtu instead of the expected *uluqtu as an archaism.
13.2. The stem
327
in the I/w verbs (see 16.2.3, pp. 455457), the I/voc verbs (see 17.6.3.3, pp. 548550) and the II/voc verbs (see 16.5.3.4, pp. 485488, and 17.7.34, pp. 560572). With regard to the distribution of forms over the various dialects of Akkadian, there do not seem to be any significant changes in the productivity of the -stem during the course of Akkadian history. It is attested frequently in the third millennium and appears to remain productive even in the latest period, when some other derived stems show clear signs of decline (in particular those with infixed -t-; see 14.3.4, pp. 369375), if we may base ourselves on the information provided by Woodington 1982: 82 about Neo-Babylonian and Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 89 about Neo-Assyrian.8 The little we know about the -stem in Eblaite does not point to significant differences from Akkadian. There are a few aPRuS infinitives such as sa-u-sum (= dim) EV 056, which is presumably from azu to take (/audum/) (Fronzaroli 1984: 149).9 Finite forms include a Pfv -sa-ti-an ARET 13, 19: III 7, which perhaps represents / uaw/ydian/ I have announced (Fronzaroli 1984: 149; Edzard 2006: 8081), and some other forms of this verb, which corresponds to Akk d to inform, a Impfv u-a-na-ga ARET 13, 14: VII 1, claimed to be from enqu to suck, for which see chap. 16 n. 71 (p. 465), and a possible t-stem u-da-si-ir / yutayir/ he has prepared; cf. Akk eru t2 (Fronzaroli 1984: 151). Among the -stems of quadriradical verbs, Eblaite shows several forms parallel to Akk ukennu to prostrate oneself, which will be discussed in 13.4.4 (pp. 346347).
13.2.2. Thefunctionofthe-stem
The -stem is the causative formation par excellence in Akkadian. It is convenient to distinguish four different uses: as causative of transitive verbs (13.2.2.1), as causative or factitive of intransitive verbs (13.2.2.2), as elative (13.2.2.3), and the denominal function of the -stem (13.2.2.2.4). 13.2.2.5 deals with the relationship between the -stem and other derived stems.
13.2.2.1. The-stemascausativeoftransitiveverbs
The -stem makes transitive verbs doubly or bitransitive. It is the only causative formation available for these verbs (for the small lamdu group, see 11.3.3, p. 274). It belongs to their regular stem derivation (see 10.6, p. 253) and seems to be fully productive, although for many transitive verbs it is not actually attested because of the highly marked nature of trivalent (bitransitive) causatives in general.10 Even for very frequent verbs, such as aknu to place, apru to send, and paqdu to entrust, the dictionaries tend to list only a handful of instances of the -stem. A somewhat higher frequency is shown by lexicalized -stems that have developed a specialized, more-or-less idiomatic use, such as bulu to send, lit., to cause to bring, from wablu; uddunu to collect (taxes), lit. to cause to give, from nadnu; kulu to feed, lit., to cause to eat, from aklu; urkubu to load, lit., to cause to go on board, from rakbu; nuqu to suckle, lit., to cause to suck, from enqu; and ur to provide with, lit., to cause to get, from ra. In the case of uuddu to appeal, inform, the corresponding G-stem du to know,
8. Woodington lists forms on pp. 8586, 94, 98, 1012, 113, 120, 126, 130, 137, and 142. Taken together, they give a good impression of which verbs occur in the -stem and suggest that there is no significant difference from earlier periods. 9. For the occurrence of PuRRvS and uPRvS in a particular version of the lexical texts, see chap. 11 n. 9 (p. 270). 10. There may be one formal limitation on this productivity: it appears that II/voc verbs starting with a sibilant do not form a -stem, doubtless for phonetic reasons; see 16.5.3.4 (p. 486).
328
The stem 13.2.
observe is almost obsolete,11 and in the case of r from war to bring, lead, the -stem seems to be used as a replacement of the G-stem, which is more or less restricted to the older dialects. A few -stems of transitive verbs, while showing some similarity in meaning to the G-stem, are not strictly causative: uuru to safeguard, guard carefully (cf. naru to guard), ussuu to remove, transfer (cf. nasu to tear out, remove), and ussuku to remove, annul (cf. nasku to throw (away). Quite unpredictable in meaning are ulputu to destroy (cf. laptu to touch, affect)12 and zubu to save (cf. ezbu to leave). Finally, in literary texts, -stems of transitive verbs are occasionally used as literary variants of the D-stem and do not have causative meaning (see the end of 13.2.2.2).
13.2.2.2. The-stemascausativeorfactitiveofintransitiveverbs
The -stem also serves as a causative of intransitive verbs, but here it competes with the D-stem. As argued in 10.8.2 (pp. 256257), the general rule is that the D-stem is restricted to process verbs and serves to derive an agentive (i.e., usually transitive) counterpart to an intransitive process verb, underlining that the process in question is initiated by an agent rather than coming about of its own accord. The -stem, on the other hand, is primarily a genuine causative indicating the presence of an additional and external agent in action verbs but may also take the role of the D-stem in process verbs. Among the intransitive action verbs causativized by means of the -stem, motion verbs and atelic activity verbs are prominent, i.e., two classes of verbs that tend to have no D-stem (see 11.5, p. 279). Motion verbs with a frequent -stem include alku to go /come, bu to go along, pass, btu to spend the night, ebru to cross, el to go /come up, erbu to enter, etqu to cross, itlu to lie down, i/uzuzzu to stand (up), maqtu to fall, rabu to lie down, teb to rise, wardu to descend, and wabu to sit down. Atelic activity verbs with a common causative are bak to cry, dabbu to talk, dammu to mourn, raqdu to dance, agmu to roar, aktu to be/fall silent, zannu to rain. The existential verb ba to be present, available also has a common -stem. In order to transitivize change-of-state verbs and adjectival verbs, the D-stem is the most common option (see 11.3.1, pp. 272274), but a few of them use the -stem instead (which is factitive rather than causative here), e.g., mtu to die, balu to be(come) ripe, cooked, eru to be(come) straight, prosperous, absu to be(come) angry, watru to exceed, surpass. A few other verbs use the -stem more often than the D-stem, e.g., ablu to be(come) dry, maru to be(come) ill, annoyed, paqu to be(come) narrow, waqru to be(come) precious, rare, expensive, wasmu to be proper, suitable, and wap to become visible. The reason why these verbs prefer the -stem is not obvious, but it is remarkable that there are many I/w verbs among them. The fact that both the - and the D-stem can be used to make an intransitive verb transitive made it possible to exploit them for the expression of subtle semantic and stylistic differences.13 Thus, a lot of intransitive verbs have both a - and a D-stem with a more or less similar meaning. Among these, we can broadly distinguish four types:
11. It is mainly attested in Mari Old Babylonian: ni-A-dam ARM 2, 107:18; 14, 109:24; 26/2, 489 no. 517:8; i-A-du-nim 26/2, 21 no. 291:18 (cf. W. Heimpel, NABU 1996/64, who reads um instead of dum). Other instances are i--a-ad Tn-Ep. VI 25 (MB lit.) and i-ad-da (var. ia-a-ad) Ee VII 114. The verb may also occur in the Old Babylonian PNs lu-A-ad-DN May I know, DN! and lu-A-du-um (AHw 1542a s.v.). For uuddu, see 17.7.4.1 (p. 569). 12. ulputu also occurs as the regular causative of laptu: -al-pa-si RA 18, 26: II 10 (SB) he will make her touch. 13. See GAV pp. 26581 for a detailed description of the contrast between and D in intransitive verbs.
13.2. The stem
329
1. The -stem is associated more with the agentive aspect of these verbs and D usually restricted to their more process-like or stative aspects; el, for instance, has a causative to cause to go /come up corresponding to its fientive meaning to go /come up but a factitive D to make high(er) corresponding to its adjectival meaning to be(come) high(er). 2. The -stem is a more-or-less regular causative, whereas D is more lexicalized and idiomatic, e.g., erbu to enter, to cause to enter but D to enter in a list, to register (OB and OA); ar to be(come) rich, to make rich but D to provide plenty (fodder to horses, MA); and waqru to be(come) rare or valuable, to make/regard as rare or valuable, D to finish, use up. This kind of relationship is much more common in transitive verbs, where is a regular causative and D is largely lexicalized (see 11.3.4, pp. 276277). 3. Many D- and -stems of intransitive verbs are used without observable difference. Prominent examples include labru to be(come) old, naw/mru to shine, be(come) bright, nes to withdraw, go away, pau to calm down, ru to be left over, rqu to be(come) empty, an to change, and watru to be(come) excessive, superfluous. 4. The most interesting point is the use of the -stem as a literary alternative to the D-stem. In a limited number of literary texts, especially royal inscriptions, religious texts (i.e., hymns, prayers, mythological texts, etc.), laudatory parts of other texts, and the epics of Enuma Eli and Erra,14 many verbs that are normally transitivized by means of the D-stem can also have the -stem in the same function. These texts contain many -stems that are never or hardly ever used in other, non-literary kinds of texts and that occur in exactly the same contexts as the corresponding D-stems. This suggests that they were used because they had an additional stylistic value. It is a common feature of Babylonian literary texts that they use grammatical forms that are not or no longer used in non-literary texts. In this respect, the -stem is analogous to the D-stem (see 13.3 below, pp. 334337), to many statives, imperatives, and infinitives of the Gt-stem (see 14.3.4, pp. 372374), many N-stems of intransitive verbs (see 12.2.2.2, pp. 297298), and many Ntn-stems (see 14.7.5, p. 430). Occasional instances of literary -stems also occur in a wider range of scholarly literature (omens, medical, and astronomical texts). Common examples of such literary -stems include arku D and to lengthen (especially with m day and pal reign as object), galtu D and to frighten, amu D and to burn (trans.), labu D and to dress (sb.), cover, coat, lamdu D and to inform, teach, mal D and to fill, cover, rab D and to enlarge, raise (children),15 and bu D and to make good, pleasant (especially with libba or kabatta as object: to please sb.). Because the D-stem and the -stem are equivalent in function in the domain of intransitive verbs, it is not surprising to see replacing D for stylistic reasons. Much more unexpected is the fact that we occasionally also find -stems of transitive verbs interchanging with the corresponding D-stems, in spite of the fact that the - and the D-stem of transitive verbs normally have a quite
14. There is a striking difference between Enuma Eli and Erra, on the one hand, and other epics, such as Gilgame, Atrahasis, Anz, Etana, and Adapa, on the other, in the use of the literary -stems. In the latter texts, hardly any literary -stem forms are found. This contrast correlates with the period in which they were created: they date from the Old Babylonian period, whereas Enuma Eli and Erra date from Middle Babylonian times or later. For a general discussion and characterization of literary texts, see Oppenheim 1964: 25075; Kraus 1973b: 3233; GAG 186, 191. 15. The difference claimed by GAG 89d to exist between D to raise (children) and to enlarge is not borne out by the available evidence, see GAV pp. 27374.
330
The stem 13.2.
different meaning. In particular, the stative of the -stem is popular as a literary alternative to the stative of the D-stem. Consider the following clauses, all SB: (01A) CT 51, 195:6 (// SpTU 2, 12: II 18) l u-u-u-a lemnta u maskta may the misfortune and evil affecting me be removed (01B) BBR 26: III 15 l u-u-u-a lemnta may the evil affecting me be removed (02) Sg. 8:229 ina de u abbur u-ru-at tmirtu the meadow was planted with grass and sprouting shoots (03) Or. 36, 124:132 (a . . .) pulatsu ul-bu-at adni whose terror envelopes (lit., clothes) the mountains In (01A), uu is an ordinary D stative of the transitive verb au to take away, strip off with pluractional function; in (01B) it is replaced by a -stem, although it is unlikely that a causative reading such as may (the evil) be caused to be removed is intended. This also applies to the (passive) stative of eru to plant in (02) and certainly to the active stative of labu to wear in (03). This use of the -stem of transitive verbs is especially popular in a small number of Standard Babylonian texts, among which the annals of King Sargon II of Assyria and the epic of Enuma Eli stand out. This can be regarded as an additional argument for their literary and artificial character. We can extend the argument to active instances as well; cf. the following pairs (all SB): (04A) CT 22, 1:1617 DN1 u DN2 nmeqa li-gam-me-ru-ni may DN1 and DN2 give me all wisdom (04B) RA 11, 109:8 (// CT 36, 21:8) DN (. . .) nmeqi -/a-ag-mi-ir-u DN (. . .) gave him all wisdom (05A) BagF. 18, 301:17 (DNs) mu-pa--i-ru .me gi [sk]im.me ul.me who dissolves bad omens and signs (05B) BagF. 18, 241:70 (DN1) mu-ap-ir/r .me ul.me a balt DN2 who dissolves the bad omens of the subjects of DN2 Here the same argument applies: and D seem to be interchangeable, and there is no obvious motivation for a causative interpretation of the (B) clauses. Generally speaking, such -stems used in active sentences are ambiguous unless all three participants involved in the causative of a transitive verb are explicitly mentioned. Usually, this is not the case, since more often than not the causee is omitted. This can make it difficult to decide whether we are dealing with a real causative or a literary -stem; cf. the following instance: (06) Ash. p. 97 65:33 (the king who has broken (uai) the rulers who do not submit to him like reeds in the swamp, and) -ak-bi-sa puu tramples (them) underfoot (tr. CAD K 11a s.v. kabsu 7b, ignoring the perfective form). Strictly speaking, -ak-bi-sa means had them trampled, viz., by his soldiers, as AHw claims (416a s.v. kabsu 3 niedertreten l[assen]). It seems, however, that a non-causative translation is more natural, not only because of the coordination of uakbisa with the non-causative uai but also because of the extremely egocentric style of Assyrian royal inscriptions.16 Most actions
16. Another instance of the literary use of kabsu is the active stative uk-bu-sa Sg. 8: 375, which was quoted as (50) in chap. 7 (p. 174). It is semantically parallel to ulbuat in (03), and even AHw 416a s.v. 4 does not insist on a causative translation for it: treten nieder.
13.2. The stem
331
narrated in royal inscriptions are not performed by the king himself, and yet we only rarely find a real causative form.17 It is difficult to see why in this particular instance the king should want to indicate explicitly that he did not trample his enemies himself. Therefore, it is plausible that uakbisa is a literary variant of ukabbis rather than a real causative.18 In sum, the attractiveness of as a literary alternative to D was apparently such that the difference in function in the case of transitive verbs could be overruled. This is perhaps less surprising if we realize that causativity is primarily a semantic and syntactic phenomenon, namely, a type of sentence characterized by a specific arrangement of arguments. This arrangement can be made explicit by the use of a special verb form, but if the semantic and syntactic conditions for a causative interpretation are absent, the causative function of such a form can easily be neutralized.
13.2.2.3. Theelativeuseofthe-stem
Finally, the use of the -stem as a literary device has one further ramification: the so-called elative use of the past participle uPRuS in Babylonian. Speiser (1967: 46593) has argued that a number of uPRuS forms are actually independent of the -stem and have an elative function, i.e., they denote some intensification of the basic meaning (1967: 473). He based this claim on the fact that they are parallel to the Arabic elative pattern aqtal and a group of Hebrew denominative Hiphil forms that are not causative but denote such non-transitive concepts as colours, physical states, and the like (1967: 466). He argues that the similarity between these categories indicates that they go back to Proto-Semitic and that the causative is a specialized, and hence later, application of the morpheme used for the elative (1967: 493). Speiser lists the following instances of elative uPRuS forms (1967: 47380; the glosses are his): urb supreme, turu surpassing, uq exalted, quru most precious, upuqu most difficult, umruu sorely afflicted, painful, nuu exhausted, uduru in mourning, in consternation, upuu peaceful, udlupu agitated, tuqu surpassing, and andu illustrious. We can expand this list substantially with additional instances, some of which have only turned up after Speisers publication, such as p illustrious, zuzu furious, uruu glorified, sumu befitting, appropriate, urubu awe-inspiring, urudu well-founded, umuu hasty (Or. 61, 20:1a), l high, elevated (VAB 4, 278: VI 33), uglutu terrifying, and uknuu obedient (VAB 7, 839: C 3).19 Speisers claim about the background of these adjectives is important because it bears on the prehistoric development of the -stem. For it to be valid, it has to be demonstrated that the elatives are independent of the verbal -stem, in the same way that many Pa/uRRuS adjectives can be shown to be independent of the D-stem (see GAV pp. 34651). This does not seem to be possible, however. On the contrary, it is more likely that they are dependent on, and therefore derived from, the -stem: most of the uPRuS adjectives belong to verbs that use either or both and D as factitives, in spite of the fact that they come from typical adjectival verbs. Moreover, many of them belong to the group of literary -stems discussed in the previous section. This means that
17. It is common in many languages to leave a causative situation unexpressed if the context itself clearly shows that the subject does not perform the action himself; cf. Rundgren 1966: 13334. 18. Similar cases include -ak-tim Sg. 8:256 (from katmu to cover ; see CAD K 302b s.v. 9b it [the army] overwhelmed, but CAD E 258a s.v. erebi translates I had [the armies] cover); u-up-ru-su VAB 4, 112:23 (from parsu to block ); uk-u-ru BWL 134:129 (from karu to join ), and u-up-qu-ud-du Ash. p. 75 48:2 (from paqdu to entrust ); in all these cases, is a variant of G and/or D and a causative interpretation is inappropriate. Insofar as this phenomenon concerns statives, an influence from the elative (see presently) is likely. For ban to build, CAD explicitly indicates that is a poetic form of G (B 89b s.v. ban A 6), and for dalu to disturb, it translates the -stem as the G-stem with the comment poetic only (D 45b s.v. 4). 19. For other references, see especially CAD /3 ss.vv.
332
The stem 13.2.
there is no reason to assign them a special status, different from other statives and past participles of the -stem. Speisers argument (1967: 47374) that the past participle urb cannot be derived from the verb urb to make big(ger), great(er), because it would mean magnified, which is unsuitable as a divine epithet, is invalid, since Akkadian does not distinguish between absolute states and states that are the result of a previous process or action (see GAV pp. 35157). Depending on the context, urb can mean great, magnificent as well as made big(ger), great(er), just as, for instance, dunnunu can mean both (very) strong and strengthened.20 The main difference between the elative uPRuS forms and the corresponding simple adjectives appears to be stylistic: they occur only in a small number of literary texts, mostly as epithets of gods, kings, or highly esteemedoften religiousobjects, acts, and institutions. This makes them more special than other adjectival patterns and therefore more expressive. Whether they are also elatives, as Speiser claimsi.e., whether they denote an intensification as compared to the normal G-stem adjectiveis difficult to prove or disprove, especially because they typically occur in highly stereotyped and formulaic language.21 An exception is umruu from maru to be(come) ill, annoyed, which normally has a factitive -stem (see, e.g., AHw 610 s.v. D and ), of which umruu is the ordinary stative and past participle.22 Even if we accept that the uPRuS forms have an elative meaning, there are no indications that they go back to Proto-Semitic, as Speiser claims (1967: 493). The fact that they occur in literary texts may indicate that they are archaisms, but since literary Babylonian is also highly innovative in the sense that the Babylonian scribes consciously exploited derivational mechanisms in order to create novel forms for a literary effect, they may also be secondary formations. The creation of literary -stems as variants to (mostly factitive) D-stems doubtless also included the creation of uPRuS forms as literary variants to PuRRuS forms.
13.2.2.4. Thedenominalfunctionofthe-stem
Apart from the grammatical functions of causative and factitive, the -stem can also be denominal. It is not always easy to distinguish denominal -stems from (lexicalized) causative -stems, but the most likely instances are: um to do during the night, stay awake, trans. to keep awake, from mu night (my) umulu to do in the afternoon, from mullu sleeping time, siesta, midday (itself from allu to sleep) uklulu to perfect, make complete, finish, from kullatu totality upuqu to get into trouble, from puqu trouble (acc. to GAG 89e) lulu to jubilate, acclaim, from allu, a harvest or work song (acc. to GAG 3 89e*) utlumu to bestow, grant (if related to (a)tulimnu both hands, talmu favourite brother and *tilmu in ti-li-im libbu BagM. 34, 140: IV 1 (OB) his hearts desire (or the like)23 Historically, the denominal function of the -stem is much more important than can be inferred from this small group of verbs, since it applies to many, if not all, t2-stems, which can
20. So also Bravmann 1968: 3133. 21. The main argument for elative meaning would be the parallel with the Arabic pattern aqtal, which is also both elative and causative (in Stem IV yuqtilu - aqtala). 22. It is found, for instance, in Old Babylonian letters, cf. CAD /3 282b s.v. (add AbB 4, 137:8; ARM 26/1, 561 no. 259:22; OBLAP 21, 23:8; UET 5, 561: II 8 (the latter two in proper names). 23. See Krispijn 2001: 25355 about the basic meaning of tlm: close beside each other, closely related.
13.2. The stem
333
be explained as denominal verbs derived from nouns starting with the deverbal prefix ta-, the taPRvS(t) nouns. This will be discussed in 14.6.2.2 (pp. 404411).
13.2.2.5. Therelationofthe-stemtotheD-stemandtheN-stem
A point that should finally be mentioned is the relation of the -stem to the other primary derived stems, the D-stem and the N-stem. There are no incontestable instances of -stems serving as causatives to D-stems.24 It is, however, possible, at least in literary texts, to combine and D in the D-stem, but this is a purely formal procedure that does not alter the meaning of either D or (see 13.3 below). With regard to the relationship between the -stem and the N-stem, we should distinguish between transitive and intransitive verbs. Only in the former can we speak of a regular relationship between and N (since N-stems of intransitive verbs are not productive; see 12.2.2.2, pp. 297298). This relationship is indirect and passes through the G-stem, as represented in Table 13.2: Detransitive N-stem nabutu to be seized Basic (transitive) G-stem abtu to seize Causative -stem ubutu to cause to seize
table 13.2: the relationship between g, n, and .
As I argued in 10.6 (p. 253), this scheme represents the most important stem derivation of the transitive verb in Akkadian. If there is no G-stem, however, there is a direct relationship between N and , with N being intransitive and its transitive counterpart. This is typical of N tantum verbs, both the triradical verbs (see 12.2.2.3, pp. 298299) and the quadriradical verbs (see 12.312.5, pp. 301314). Triradical N tantum verbs with a causative -stem include: naplusu to watch (rarely G), uplusu to cause to watch napruu to fly, upruu to cause to fly nabutu to migrate, roam around (perhaps also G), to cause to roam (only tu--a-ba-ta-an-ni TuL 20:9 you cause me to wander (OB)) A few of these /N pairs are a sub-paradigm of another verb, sometimes with a lexicalized meaning: nadurum to worry (intr.), udurum to worry (trans.) in Old Assyrian, corresponding to naduru uduru in Babylonian, ultimately derived from adru to be worried nanuzu to flare up (fire), uzu to set fire to, ultimately derived from azu to take For the -stems of the nabalkutu group, see 13.4.1 (pp. 338340).
24. The -stem uaglib in Legends p. 234:7 (OB) and ArAn. 3, 135:61 (OA), both from historical narratives about Sargon of Akkad, which arguably means I/he caused to shave, cannot be unambiguously derived from gullubu to shave, because a G-stem galbu also existed (see chap. 11 n. 24, p. 277). Moreover, the interpretation of these passages meets the same difficulty as the literary -stems quoted as (04)(06) above: it is unlikely that the king performed these actions in person, but this is not sufficient to prove that uglubu is a real causative, and in the immediate context non-causative forms (G and D) are used for similar acts. So it is unclear whether we should interpret these forms as real causatives. In Standard Babylonian, there is at least one instance of a -stem serving as a literary alternative to a D tantum verb: uklumu for kullumu to show (see GAV p. 275).
334
The Dstem 13.3.
13.3. the D-stem

The D-stem (GAG 95a) as a purely literary category distinct from the -stem was first identified by W. von Soden (1931/33: II 15155). It is not found in Assyrian, and in Babylonian it is more or less restricted to literary texts belonging to what von Soden (1931/33) has termed der hymnisch-epische Dialekt. A few D-stems are already attested in literary Old Babylonian (id, naru, naw/mru, pau, and pazru; see the list below), but most of them are Standard Babylonian. Actually, the majority of D-stems come from a few specific texts or text groups that have a special predilection for it: Enma Eli, the royal inscriptions of Sennacherib, and the two literary prayers to Marduk edited by Lambert (1959/60: 5566), especially the second one (cf. Lamberts comments on p. 49).25 The only attested forms of the paradigm of the D-stem are the imperfective (uparras), the perfective (uparris), and the present participle (muparrisu). Most instances come from strong verbs and III/voc verbs, but there are also two II/gem verbs (dannu and rabbu) among them, and the (at least originally) I/w verb wudd. The list on p. 335 shows the data necessary for establishing the nature and background of the D-stem. It includes the attested forms, their translation, the period of attestation, and their semantic relationship to the corresponding D-stem and -stem (if any).26 The most important point emerging from the list is that in most of the verbs the D-stem corresponds in meaning to the D-stem rather than to the -stem. Only four verbs have a D-stem and no -stem (dannu, mes, naru, and pazru). Nine others have a -stem that clearly differs in meaning from both D and D, either because it is lexicalized (alqu, id, ma, rabbu, and red) or because they are transitive, so that the -stem is causative and the D-stem not (nasqu, pau, paru, and pet). Most others are non-committal on this point, since the corresponding D- and -stems have the same meaning. Some of these belong to the group of specifically literary -stems described in 13.2.2.2 (kullumu, mal, pardu, rab, and rapu) and others to the -stems that are used interchangeably with the D-stem (kanu, naw/mru, nes, and pau). Only in five cases is the D-stem obviously associated with the -stem, since there is no corresponding D-stem: man, nabu, napruu, ram, and ra (all of which occur only once). W. von Soden already observed (1931/33: II 152) that the D-stem is far more closely related to the D-stem than to the -stem and that it does not seem to show a significant difference in meaning from the corresponding D- or -stem.27 These facts, in combination with other peculiarities, especially the fact that it is restricted to literary texts, has an incomplete paradigm, and can only be formed from a small range of verb types, indicate that it is a redundant category with a function that can equally well be performed by other verbal stems. This suggests that it is a more-or-less artificial category created by Babylonian scribes with the purpose of enhancing the literary nature of a text by means of forms that are not found in ordinary language. In this respect, the D-stem is parallel to the literary -stems described in 13.2.2.2 and the other derived verbal stems mentioned there, which also acquired a specifically literary function. Thus, Speisers claim (1967: 487) that [t]he evidence clearly precludes a late development and that it has a common Semitic origin is unfounded. The fact that the D-stem is not found
25. It contains five D forms that are attested nowhere else and that come from transitive verbs, a fact that is even more significant (see below). 26. In the rightmost column, diff. means that the stem has a different meaning from the D-stem; lit. that it has the same meaning but only occurs in literary texts; caus. (only for transitive verbs) that it is a causative (in contrast to D, which is never causative). 27. So also Poebel (1939: 69), in contrast to Goetze (1945b: 248 n. 13) and Speiser (1967: 48587); see GAV p. 339.
13.3. The Dstem Verb dannu alqu Attested form(s) Impfv u-dan-na-an BHLT 72:22) Impfv nu-u-al-laq Ee I 45 Prec lu-u-al-liq Ee I 39 id Pfv u-we-ed-di/-du- JCS 31, 103:4950 kanu Impfv [u]-kan-na- BWL 174c:2 kullumu PrPartc mu-kal-lim AfO 19, 57:108 mal Impfv (t)umalla/i/u pass. Pf umalli/u passim man PrPartc mu-man-ni Ee VI 151 (see JCS 46 (1994) 132 ad line 151) ma PrPartc mu-man-i AnSt. 30, 105:27 mes Impfv(!) tu-mas-si AfO 19, 65: III middle 7 nabu Impfv u-na-an-ba SpTU 5, 225:8 napruu Pfv u-pa-ri RA 27, 18:16 naru Impfv u-na-ar-ra-a Itar p. 77:IV 14 u-nar/na-ra Lugale I 45 nasqu Impfv tu-na-s-saq AfO 19, 63:48 nawru Impfv u-na-wa-ru Or. 42, 503:9 Impfv (t)unammar passim Pfv (t)unammir passim PrPartc munammiru passim nes Impfv(!) tu-na-as-si PSBA 17, 139:11 pardu Impfv u-par-ra-ad St. Kraus 194:9 pau Impfv (t)upaa passim pau paru pazru pet rabbu rab ram rapu ra red Impfv tu-pa--a AfO 19, 64:93 Impfv tu-pa-ar AfO 19, 64:89 PrPartc mu-u-pa-az-ze-er KH IV 11 Impfv(!) tu-pat-ti BWL 134:149, 153 tu-pat-te Erra IIIc:41 Prec li-rab-bi-ib Ee II 48; III 52 Pfv urabbi passim Pfv(!) u-ram-ma Ee IV 146 Pfv u-rap-pi Sn. 153:19 Impfv(!) u-ra-i // - AnSt. 30, 105:23 // Iraq 60, 192:23 Pfv u-rad/ra-ad-di passim Gloss I will strengthen we will destroy let me destroy I have assigned I/he subjugates he who reveals (to fill, cover) he who counts he who reduces you wipe away he causes to shine he caused to fly she/it causes to tremble you select (to brighten, make radiant) you remove she scares off you/he calm(s) down you obliterate (c. br.) you separate he who hides/ protects you open/reveal may he subjugate she/I elevated/ enlarged he installed I made wide he causes to get I/(s)he added Period D SB =D SB =D OB SB SB SB SB SB SB =D =D =D =D =D =D
335 (diff.) (diff.) = (lit.) (lit.) (caus.) (diff.) = = (caus.) =
SB SB OB, SB = D SB OB SB =D =D
SB =D SB =D OB, SB = D SB SB OB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB =D =D =D =D =D =D =D =D
= (lit.) = (caus.) (caus.) (caus.) (diff.) (lit.) = (lit.) = (diff.)
336
The Dstem 13.3.
in the huge and varied corpus of Old Babylonian letters strongly suggests that it simply did not exist in everyday language, and its complete absence in Old Assyrian, which in many respects is more conservative than Babylonian, proves beyond any doubt that it results from a secondary, inner-Babylonian development and has no Semitic ancestry. This does not absolve us from the task of explaining how it arose. Its relationship to the D-stem suggests that it is a secondary derivation of the D-stem, and the question is through what kind of mechanism it was created. The key to the answer is to be found in the II/voc verbs of Babylonian; as shown in 13.2.1 above (p. 325), their -stems have adopted gemination of the final radical from the D-stem, where it replaces gemination of R2 (see further 16.5.3.4, p. 486). So the dependency relationship is:
D Impfv ub, Pl uabb D Pfv ub, Pl uibb Impfv ub, Pl uabb Pfv ub, Pl uibb
This relationship, which can be summarized as take the D form and insert before the first radical, has provided the model to derive the forms uparras and uparris from uparras and uparris, respectively. Relatively frequent -stems of II/voc verbs such as mtu to cause to die, mdu to make numerous, nlu to cause to lie down, and bu to make pleasant (only literary!) must have played an important role in the creation of the D-stem. This implies that, from a purely formal point of view, the -stem of the II/voc verbs is actually a D-stem. It would be unjustified, however, to classify it as such, because within the system of derived verbal stems it functions as an ordinary -stem, whereas the D-stem has the quite different status of a marked alternative to (mostly) the D-stem.28 There is also an alternative explanation for the D-stem, which, however, seems less satisfactory. Since there is a strong tendency to extend gemination from the G-stem iparrVs to other imperfective forms (see 4.5.2, pp. 112115), one might argue that an imperfective form such as uallaq is derived from ualaq by inserting gemination (*uaallaq becoming uallaq through vowel syncope). This is possible and may have been an additional factor in the rise of the D-stem, but it is unlikely that it was the main mechanismfirst, because it incorrectly associates the D-stem more closely with the -stem than with the D-stem and, second, because it does not directly account for the D perfective and present participle. Instead, we have to assume a two-step process: first, the rise of the new imperfective and, subsequently, the expansion of gemination to the perfective and present participle. This seems unnecessarily complicated. A final point worth mentioning concerns the numerous D-stems of III/voc verbs. We expect to find final - in the imperfective and final - in the perfective, but almost all forms that seem to be imperfective on the basis of the context actually have -.29 An imperfective with - is only attested in Standard Babylonian for the frequent D-stem of mal (see AHw 599a s.v. mal IV D).30 Apparently, the Babylonian scribes based themselves on a paradigm with - in both tenses:
28. So already von Soden 1931/33: II 15152, against Poebel 1939: 7071. Poebel is apparently not aware of the fact that the normal -stem of II/voc verbs geminates its final radical before a vocalic ending. 29. I have marked these forms as Impfv(!) in the list. There are also a fair number of spellings with -u (cf. u-rain the list, and also u-mal-lu CT 34, 36: III 55), which should warn us against attaching too much value to the spellings of the final vowel. The perfective with -a in u-ram-ma Ee IV 146 is also remarkable but might be explained according to the following note. 30. Actually, these forms might contain a ventive ending. The ventive often appears in Standard Babylonian without any obvious function (cf. GAG 82b), so that a form such as u-mal-la AGH 102:9 could perhaps be interpreted as /umall/ < umalliam, although we would rather have a plene spelling u-malla-a in that case.
13.4. The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefx
337
umall umall, traces of which are also found in D- and -stems of III/voc verbs in Standard Babylonian (GAG 105l). A possible explanation of this phenomenon is that gemination was deemed to be sufficient to mark the imperfective. We are left with a few forms that are difficult to fit into the system or can be analyzed in different ways. A genuinely literary form is the Inf utraqqudu in u-ut-ra(-aq)-q-du (anti) Itar p. 76: III 8, 12 (OB lit.); it is best analyzed as a tn-stem of raqdu to dance (regular utarqudu) with additional gemination of R2 for verbal plurality (see 14.7.1, pp. 415417) (*utaraqqudu), and subsequent vowel syncope: to cause (sb.) to dance the antu(-dance?) continually.31 The same expression also occurs in Standard Babylonian with the verb in the D-stem: enma tu-raaq-qi-du anta KAR 158: II 40 when you have danced the antu(-dance?). Since raqdu is a prototypical action verb, its D-stem falls under the forms included in 11.3.2 (p. 274) and can therefore not be causative (this would require the -stem); it may rather be durative or intensive, but the expression is too obscure to allow a definite conclusion. In texts that do not belong to the narrow range of literary texts defined above, a few forms occur that can formally be explained as D-stems but may also have a different background: u-gal-lit CT 38, 47:46 and u-ta-ga-lit CT 41, 31: r.29 (SB) he has scared, perfective and t-perfect, respectively, of galtu to twitch, start, D to scare in a umma lu omen. If we interpret utagallit as a D-stem, it is a unique instance of a t-perfect of D. It is also possible that these forms are occasional adaptations to the quadriradical paradigm (like ubalkit and utabalkit; see 12.5, p. 309, and GAG Verbalpar. 39). tu-u-ka-at-ta-ma CT 19, 45a: r.8, imperfective of katmu to cover in a Standard Babylonian list of diseases(?) u-ra-ka-bu Emar VI/3 p. 356 no. 373:180, imperfective of rakbu to ride, sail in an Emar ritual (l) t-u-ma-ra-a VAB 2, 170:9 and (l) t-u-ma-ra-a-nim VAB 2, 170:40, prohibitive of maru to be(come) ill, annoyed in an Amarna letter u-pal-li-ka CT 22, 221:6 and lu-u-pal-li-ka CT 22, 221:14, imperative and precative, respectively, of palku to cut off, distribute in a Neo-Babylonian letter (GAG 95b: wohl (aramaisierende?) Neubildungen). These forms are too few in number and/or too uncertain of interpretation to raise doubts about the purely literary and artificial character of the D-stem as described above. I have left some other forms out of account as being even more uncertain. For the alleged D-stems of garru and parru, see 13.4.2 (pp. 340341).
13.4. the Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefix After the description of the quadriradical verbs with the prefix n- in the previous chapter, it is now the turn of the quadriradical verbs with the prefix -. I will distinguish four types: the -stems of the nabalkutu group (13.4.1), those of the naparruru group (13.4.2), the verbs of the uarruru group (13.4.3), and the verbs ukennu and upellu (13.4.4).
31. GAG 95c calls it an Iterativ- oder Habitativform zum D; AHw 957b s.v. raqdu lists it as a Dt-stem; see also von Soden 1931/33: II 15455 and Groneberg 1972: 76.
338
The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefx 13.4.
13.4.1. Theubalkutugroup32
Most of the nabalkutu verbs (see 12.5, pp. 307314) have a derived causative with the prefix -:33 ubalkutu, caus. of nabalkutu to cross over (passim, already in SAk: Impfv u-ba-laga-ad /usbalakkat/ MDP 14, 90:10 (incant. from Susa) he will remove; also tn in OA, OB, SB, and perhaps t1 in OB Mari and Nuzi; see below) uarmumu, caus. of naarmumu to collapse (SB) uarmuu, caus. of naarmuu to melt, dissolve (SB) umark, caus. of namark to stay behind (NA t-Pf us-sa-mar-ki K.9462: 15 quoted in CAD N/1 209 s.v. 3) upalsuu, caus. of napalsuu to prostrate oneself (OB, SB) upal, apparently caus. of napal to pass, miss (only SB LL: tu--pala-a V R 45:VI 55) upard, caus. of napard to become bright or cheerful (SB) upark, caus. of napark) to cease, stop working, leave (OB, SB, NB) uqelp, caus. of neqelp to drift down, sail downstream uel, caus. of neel to slip (OB, SB) upelk, caus. of nepelk to open wide (SB) up/barzuu to make abundant (SB) (no corresponding N-stem attested). Table 13.3 shows the regular forms and the attested tn forms (see below) of ubalkutu in Babylonian; some alternative forms are discussed in the commentary. -stem Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc ubalakkat ubalkit utabalkit ubalkit ubalkut ubalkutu mubalkitu utablakkutu mutablakkitu utablakkit tn-stem utanablakkat utablakkit IV/voc verbs upalakk upalk utapalk upalk upalk upalk mupalk
table 13.3: the paradigm of nabalkutu and tn.
As derived -stems, these verbs have the fixed vowel pattern of the triradical -stem, i.e., a in the imperfective and i in the perfective and the t-perfect, regardless of the vowel pattern of the corresponding N form, e.g.: tu-u-pa-ra-ak-ka AbB 7, 170:18 (OB) do not allow to be lost tu-u-qa-lap-pa LKA 123:13 (SB) you must allow to float down li-i-q-al-p-a-am AbB 13, 72:15 (OB) let it float down hither
32. See also GAG 110 and Verbalpar. 39/40. Many of GAGs interpretations of individual forms are vitiated by unproven and unjustified assumptions about vocalic l and r. 33. The form uparqudu to lay flat does not exist ( of naparqudu): u-pr(a)-qad KAR 437: r.12 according to AHw 735a s.v.; is to be read u-dak-u she will have him killed according to CAD N/1 283a s.v. naparqudu comm. sect.
13.4. The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefx us-qa-al-p--ni MARV 4, 35: 7 (MA) they caused to drift (Subj) us-sa-mar-ki (NA) quoted above Other forms calling for comment are the following:
339
1. In Middle Babylonian, the perfective and the t-perfect have e instead of a before i in the next syllable, just like the D- and the -stem and their derivatives (see 11.2, p. 269, and 13.2.1, p. 325), e.g., li-i-b-l-ki-ta BE 17, 49:11 let him transfer and u-te-b-l-ki-it BE 17, 49:3. See further 17.5.2 (pp. 534535). 2. In Assyrian, non-prefix forms are extremely rare and not uniform. We would expect them to have a-, as in the triradical -stems, but in Old Assyrian we actually find u-: Inf u-baal-ku-tu[m] St. Larsen p. 398: r.34. It is the only form attested, but it is confirmed by nonprefix forms of the verbs ukennu and upellu to be discussed in 13.4.4 (pp. 346350). Perhaps u- replaced a- in this context by analogy with the non-prefix forms of the t(n)-stem(s), such as the Imp utapris and the Stat utaprus, which are prosodically parallel. However, Neo-Assyrian shows a substantivized infinitive (ina mui) -bal-ku-te SAA 10, 2: r.6 overthrowing, rebellion.34 It is possible that this form is secondary and that a- replaced u- by analogy with -a- in the triradical -stems and/or in the prefix forms of the type luabalkit; see no. 3 below. 3. In Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, and occasionally also in Standard Babylonian, a vowel a/e appears between and R1, e.g.: lu--bal-ki-ta SAA 1, 1: r.60 (NA) let him make (them) cross tu--par-ka CT 22, 52:13 (NB) do not leave (it) unfinished! -e-qel-pu- Sn. 73:62, 64 (SB) they let (them) sail downstream. The insertion of a is probably by analogy with the triradical form uapras, where -a- is stable. It may be a consequence of the weakening of the vowel syncope rule in the late dialects.35 One of the verbs listed above, ubalkutu, also has a tn-stem. The attested forms are listed in the table; a selection of attestations is: Impfv t-u-ta-na-b-[l]a-k-at OAA 1, 21:18 (OA) and u-ta-nab-la-kt TDP 92:37 and 39 (SB) Pfv ul-tab-lak-ki-is-su Gilg. p. 552:250 and tul-tab-lak-kit-su Gilg. p. 554:264 (SB) Imp Pl u-ta-b-l-ki-ta-u-nu kt 94/k 1106:13 keep turning them over (textiles)! (OA, quoted by courtesy of M. T. Larsen) Inf u-tab-lak-ku-tu MSL 13, 237:301 (SB LL) PrPartc mu-u-tab-la-ki-tum MSL 12, 163:186 (OB LL) This verb may also have a passive t1-stem, if (ina) u-ta-ba-al-ku-tim ARM 3, 29:23 (OB) while being transported can be so interpreted.36 Finally, there is a deverbal noun utablakkuttu
34. For Neo-Assyrian, Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 159) also mentions aarruru and amark, but I have not succeeded in locating these forms. 35. All imperfective forms with a between and the first radical that I know of are spelled with a CvC(v) sign (nu-u--bal(a)-kta- SAA 1, 103: r.9 (NA); --bal(a)-kt YOS 3, 193:17 (NB), tu--pr(a)-ka CT 22, 52:13 (NB); tu--pal(a)-a V R 45: VI 55 (SB); --bal(a)-kt BAL 2 p. 87:18 (SB, the Assyrian version has u-ba-lak-ka-ta). Does this mean that they are to be interpreted as uabalkat, etc.in other words, that they have simplified the geminate in order to avoid the form uabalakkat with three short syllables in a row? 36. Other (uncertain) instances of a passive t1-stem of nabalkutu come from Nuzi, e.g., t-Pf u-te-etbal-kat it has been transferred, cf. CAD N/1 20a s.v. 6. According to GAG 110f, these are tn-stems.
340
or utabalkuttu, ein Signalholzbeutel? acc. to AHw 1290b s.v., a bag with a marking(?) or cycle, acc. to CAD /3 394b s.v., a substantivized verbal adjective (spelled u-ta-bal-kut-t, u-tab-lak-ku-t, or u-tab-lak-kut-tum). It shows the fluctuation between presence and absence of gemination that also appears in some Ntn forms (see 12.5, p. 312).
13.4.2. Theuparrurugroup
Two verbs of the naparruru group discussed in 12.3 (pp. 301305) have a causative -stem:37 ugarruru to roll (trans.), allow (an animal) to roam from nag/qarruru to roll over uparruru to spread out, broaden from naparruru to fall apart, become confused Their paradigm can be reconstructed as in Table 13.4:38 Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc uparrar uparrir utaparrir uparrir uparrur uparruru *muparriru
table 13.4: the -stem of the naparruru group.
As far as we can tell, this paradigm is regular and directly based on that of the corresponding N-stem: Impfv N ipparrar uparrar, etc. Its most important feature is the absence of any extant form with gemination of the final radical, an important characteristic of the corresponding N forms, as we saw in 12.3 (pp. 302303). It may be accidental that such forms are not attested, but it is also conceivable that they did not exist, because as a derived category the forms are more regular and predictable than the N forms; cf. the vowel pattern of the N and forms of the nabalkutu verbs. A deviating form that may be connected with ugarruru is the past participle ugurruru freeroaming in imru u-gu-ru-ru free-roaming donkey? acc. to CAD /3 202b s.v. (but AHw 1260b s.v. calls it unklar). A tn-stem may be attested of uparruru: Impfv tu-ta-[na] p-ra-ar TuL 98: 14 (SB) according to CAD /3, 318a s.v. uparruru d, but both reading and interpretation are uncertain. The classification of ugarruru and uparruru is controversial.39 They have been analyzed in particular as D-stems of q/garru and parru. It is true that their paradigm is superficially identical to that of the D-stem (see 13.3, p. 334), but there are good reasons for classifying
37. The dictionaries list them as independent verbs (AHw 1259f s.v. ugarruru; AHw 1278b s.v. uparruru; CAD /3 31718 s.v. uparruru), except that CAD lists both nag/qarruru and ugarruru under garru A (G 48). Von Sodens claim (1951: 261) that a relationship between naparruru and uparruru is sehr unwahrscheinlich on semantic grounds seems exaggerated, but it is clear that some amount of lexicalization has been going on in the use of both verbs. 38. For attestations, see the dictionaries. The form u-da-ra-ru(-u) CAD /3 193a s.v. (in LL, equated with andurru) is too problematic to justify the positing of a -stem of nadarruru. 39. See Heidel 1940: 30 (only about uparruru); Goetze 1945b: 248; von Soden 1950b: 331; Whiting 1981: 56.
341
them as causativesperhaps to some extent lexicalizedof nag/qarruru and naparruru. The recognized D-stems are variants of D-stems or (rarely) -stems with which they are used interchangeably, they have an incomplete paradigm (no non-prefix forms), and they are for the most part restricted to literary texts. These two verbs, however, are not variants of a corresponding D- or -stem, do not have an incomplete paradigm, and at least ugarruru is not a literary word: it also occurs in Old Babylonian letters (tu-u-ga-ri-ru AbB 3, 4:12; li-i-ga-ri-ir-u-nu-ti AbB 10, 101:15), in Middle Assyrian (tu-u-ga-ra(-a)-ar BVW passim; u-ga-ri-ra KAV 203:29), and in Neo-Babylonian, if the above-mentioned ugurruru does indeed belong to it. If the hypothesis I advanced in 12.6.1 (pp. 319320) about the background of the naparruru verbs is correct, these two verbs also go back to ancient quadriradical verbs with reduplication of a biliteral sequence C1C2 C1C2 verbalized by means of the prefix -. This implies that they are etymologically related to the triradical forms of the roots prr and q/grr but have undergone their own specific development.
13.4.3. Theuharrurugroup
The uarruru group consists of only three verbs:40 uarruru to become still, abate uqallulu to hang (intr.), be suspended and to hang (trans.), suspend41 uqammumu to fall silent, rarely transitive to silence These verbs are superficially similar to the two verbs of the preceding section, but on closer inspection they show some crucial differences. First, they are usually intransitive, which means that they are not derived causatives. Second, they sometimes show gemination of the final radical in the forms with prefixes, just as in other basic categories with identical final radicals. Third, in the older dialects they haveapart from a more-or-less regular quadriradical conjugationalso a set of shorter forms that have a/i instead of u in the personal prefixes and a- instead of u- in the non-prefix forms. I will start with this short conjugation. Except for a single form in Old Assyrian and some more-or-less divergent Standard Babylonian forms, it is typically found in Old Babylonian. The following forms are attested (all OB, unless indicated otherwise):42 1. uarruru: Impfv 2ms [t]a-a-a-ra-a[r] OBTA p. 58 no. 14: r.9 (ArBab) Stat 3ms a-u-ur ZA 90: 196:10; a-u-ur-ru Atr. p. 94:47;43 3fs a-u-ur-ra-at Atr. p. 76:15; Adj a-u-ur-ru-tim Itar p. 24:37; note also the derived verbal noun
40. For earlier discussions, see Heidel 1940: 2637 and 92106; Goetze 1945b: 24748; von Soden 1950b: 33132; GAG 109a/h; Speiser 1967: 48184; Whiting 1981: 514 and 1920. 41. There is also a noun aqullu (an atmospheric phenomenon, a weapon, and a plant according to CAD A/2 45253 s.v.), which is related to this verb (e.g., CT 39, 32:24 quoted CAD /3 331a/b). Its pattern recurs in andurru remission (of debts), manumission from nadarruru (see 12.3, p. 301). Comparison with the vowel pattern -i-- of Arabic madars suggests that they are ancient verbal nouns. A second deverbal noun may be uqulllu (an ornament: u-ql-la-li.me PRU 3, 182:2 [Ugarit]), but it is only attested in a peripheral text. 42. See also Whiting 1981: 6 for the short forms (but ignore i-a-ra-ra: read u- according to CAD /3 204a s.v. uarruru 1a). 43. The syntax is unclear: the subject is rigm, so a 3ms stative is expected. Is it an adjective in predicative function? This is not impossible (see Kouwenberg 2000: 3536) but without parallel in an Old Babylonian literary text.
342
aurratum (CT 15, 4: II 5 and YOS 10, 36: IV 7, which also appears as uarratum (BM 120022: 17 quoted in CAD /1 108a s.v. aurratu b) 2. uqallulu: Impfv 3ms i-q-l-al BIN 4, 63:4 (OA); i-qa-la-al YOS 10, 25:6365; 26: IV 13; 3fp i-q-lal-la TU 8:16 (SB) Pfv (Prec) 1s lu-u-qa-li-il TIM 9, 72:13 (i.e., /luqalil/ from *iqalil (short)? Or /luqallil/ from uqallil (regular form)?) 3. uqammumu: Impfv(?) 3ms i-q-ma-a-am MIO 12, 54: r.20; Stat 3mp a-q/q-um-mu ZA 90, 196:10 // RA 32, 181:11; Stat 3fp a-q-um-ma-a ZA 90, 195:3; Adj aqummu quiet, silent, with an adverb aqummi (OB, SB), see CAD /1 3334 ss.vv. This survey shows that we only have imperfectives and statives or adjectives of the short conjugation. Particularly vexing is the fact that we do not have a perfective form showing whether it has gemination like the imperfective, or notin other words, whether it is *iarrir or *iarir. The only perfective form attested, the precative lu-u-qa-li-il, is ambiguous. If the perfective is iarrir, we may reconstruct the original conjugation as in the left column of Table 13.5; if it is iarir, we may reconstruct it as in the right column. conjug. based on iarrir Impfv Pfv Imp PPartc/Adj PrPartc iarrar iarrir *aarrir (> u . . .) *aarruru (> u . . .) *muar(r)ir(r)u conjug. based on iarir iarrar iarir *arir *aruru (> aurru?) *muariru (> *muarru)
table 13.5: Possible older paradigms of uarruru and uqammumu
The left column is more like the historically attested forms: it only requires a change of prefix from a/i to u and the well-attested Babylonian replacement of a- with u-. It may therefore be regarded as more plausible. However, we need the right columnor something like itto account for the short non-prefix forms aurru and aqummu.44 The forms given in the right column of Table 13.5 can be compared with the historical N-stem: Impfv ipparras, Pfv ipparis, Imp napris, PPartc naprusu, and PrPartc muppar(i)su.45 After the Old Babylonian period, the prefix forms of the short conjugation with the vowel i/a no longer occur, except for the form i-q-lal-la TU 8:16 (// u-q-lal-la CT 40, 33:18 and LKU 124: r.10), which is a sporadic survivor, if not a mistake.46 However, the short stative/ adjective survives in a variety of forms. aurru lives on in the abstract noun aurratu, and aqummu continues to be used as stative, adjective, abstract noun (aqummatu), and adverb
44. In particular, if we assume that aurru is actually a realization of a-PRvS in roots with identical final radical, i.e., if it stands for *arurum, cf. napurratum for napruratum quoted in chap. 12 n. 54 (p. 301). 45. A vestige of this conjugation may be preserved in that of naarruru discussed in 12.3 (pp. 304305): Impfv inarrar, Pfv inarir (as shown by forms with an ending, such as the precative + ventive linarram). 46. Presumably, the same applies to i-q-li-la KAR 389b:4, in view of u-qa-li-la KAR 389b:13. I assume that the form u-u-ru-ru MSL 5, 75:310 (variant of -ur-ra-tum) is also an error.
343
(aqummi). In later texts, there are numerous deviations in the vowel pattern of these forms: instead of aur(ru), there is also a Stat u-u-rat Atr. p. 112:33 (SB, replacing OB a-u-ur-ra-at Atr. p. 76:15), which fits neither in the short nor in the regular conjugation of uarruru: perhaps it represents /uurrat/ or a PuRRuS form /uurat/. We also find an adverb uarri (uar-ri JNES 17, 138:15) and a noun uarratu (u-ar-rat (c. st.) KAR 239: II 5), which echo OB uarratum mentioned above. Beside aqummu also uqammu seems to occur (in ur.sag u-qm-ma KUB 4, 47: r.39).47 These forms are contaminations of the short form with -a-u- and the regular stative/past participle uarrur(u). The variation in the non-prefix forms suggests that there was some fluctuation in, or uncertainty about, the exact form of these doubtless exclusively literary words. After the Old Babylonian period, the three verbs under discussion largely conform to the regular quadriradical conjugation.48 Table 13.6 shows a reconstruction, arranged according to whether they have an ending or not. no ending Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc uqallal uqallil utaqallil uqallil uqallul + ending uqallal or uqalall uqallil or uqalill utaqallil (or utaqlill?) uqallil uqallul uqallulu muqallilu or muqalillu
table 13.6: A reconstructed paradigm for the regular uharruru group.
This table is based on the following selection of instances (SB unless indicated otherwise): 1. uarruru: Impfv 3fp u-a-ra-r-ra AGH 98:18, 20 var.; 2ms tu-ar-ra-ar SBH p. 40 no. 20a:2 Pfv 3mp u-ar-ri-ru Iraq 16, 192:60; Prec 3ms li-ar-ri-ir KB 6/2, 42:12 Stat u-ar-ru-ur AGH 134:75; Adj u-ar-ru-ru-tu JAOS 103, 212:11 Inf u-ar-ru-ru MSL 17, 160:276. 2. uqallulu: Impfv 3fp u-q-lal-la CT 40, 33:18 and LKU 124: r.10 (// i-q-lal-la TU 8:16); u-q[ ]-lal-la Iraq 18 pl. XXV: I 17 t-Pf 3ms u-ta-qal-lil SBH p. 122 no. 70:9 (var. u-[ta]q-lil; see n. 47) Stat 3ms u-qal-lul CT 39, 32:24; 3mp u-qal-lu-lu MIO 1, 82:31
47. Sporadically, Standard Babylonian shows triradical forms instead of the forms shown in Table 13.6: for uqallulu, a Pfv -aq-lil and a t-Pf u-[ta]q-lil occur as variants to u-ta-qal-lil (see CAD /3 330b s.v. uqallulu lex. sect.) and an Inf u-uq-lu-lum MSL 13, 57:12 (which according to CAD /3 332a s.v. uqallulu comm. sect. is probably to be emended to u-uq-q-lum). From uarruru there is a t-Pf u-ta-ari-ru Gilg. p. 544: 116 and a Stat []u-u-ru-ur KUB 4, 47: r.39 (perhaps from ururu to destroy?), and a deverbal noun arartu deathly silence (all SB). Their rarity and late date justify the assumption that they are secondary formations (supposing in the first place that they are interpreted correctly). 48. I am not aware of any attestations in other late dialects. After the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period, these verbs are clearly obsolete except in literary texts.
344
Inf u-q-al-lu-lum MSL 13, 57:13 (OB LL); u-qal-lu-la BWL 253:11 Note also the instrument noun maqalillu hanging ladder ([ma-qa]-lil-lu MSL 9, 170: ad 230, restored from ma-qa-li-lu MSL 9, 189:39, var. of ma-qa-lil-t [um], see CAD M/1 381b s.v. maqalillu 3. uqammumu: Impfv 3mp u-qa-ma-am-mu LSS 1/6, 44:32; u-q-ma-am-ma CT 38, 8:2627; u-qa-am-ma-mu SpTU 4, 129: II 5 Pfv 3mp u-qa-mi-im-mu AnSt. 30, 106:102 // u-qa/qam-m-mu BWL 36:102 Imp u-[qa]m-m-im BWL 108:15 Stat 3ms u-qam-mu-um AnBi. 12, 283:36; 3mp u-qam-mu-mu TuL 163:9; Adj u-qam-mu-m Iraq 42, 43: I 13 Inf u-qam-mu-mu MSL 16, 123:304 If the prefix forms with an ending show gemination, it is either R3 or R4 that is geminated, in accordance with W. von Sodens (1951: 26465) principle provisionally accepted in 12.3 (pp. 302303). Apparently, two options were availablee.g., in the third-person plural masculine imperfective uqallal or uqalall. It is possible that uqallall also existed, but I am not aware of explicit spellings to prove it. The non-prefix forms only show instances of gemination of R3, which is mandatory in order to avoid syncope of the second vowel (**qlullu is illicit). Presumably, this implies that they do not geminate R4. The conjugation of Table 13.6 is typical of Standard Babylonian. Only a few non-prefix forms are already attested in Old Babylonian: the above-mentioned Inf u-q-al-lu-lum and a Stat u-aru-ur RA 46, 88:2.49 On the other hand, no prefix forms with u are attested in the early dialects (Whiting 1981: 6). The earliest unambiguous cases appear in Middle Assyrian (e.g., tu-u-qala-al PKT 34:16 (trans.!)) and in (literary) Middle Babylonian (u-a-ra-ra Legends p. 128:22). This shows that the short forms are original and that the adaptation to the paradigm started during the Old Babylonian period and was more or less completed in Standard Babylonian. The historical background of these verbs and of the short conjugation in particular is very problematic, mainly because of the lack of adequate data and the absence of a convincing etymology in two of the three verbs. Therefore, the following account is somewhat speculative. Few as they are, the three verbs fall into two subtypes: uarruru and uqammumu on the one hand, against uqallulu on the other. I will start with the former pair. The meaning of uarruru and uqammumu and the relative frequency of their adjective and stative aurru and aqummu suggest that the verbs are derived from the adjectives, as Goetze (1945b: 248) and Speiser (1967: 481) have argued. Following Goetze, we can envisage a derivation aurrum *yiarar (without ending) and *yiarr- (with ending), which would be parallel to the regular derivation of triradical adjectival verbs: al(i)mum *yilim(u).50 With the expansion of gemination to all imperfective types, this *yiarar became the historical imperfective iarrar alongside a perfective *iarir, as in the right column of table 13.5. This iarrar took over the prefix vowel u from the (quadriradical) -stem, and the new form uarrar triggered a
49. A deviating form s-u-ru-ri-im, probably an infinitive, is attested in Mari Old Akkadian in the omen amt s-u-ru-ri-im a ummnum i-is-u-ur RA 35 p. 46 no. 16:14 the/an omen of . . . (which means): the army has turned around(?) It may be the local dialect form of uarruru, but there is obviously some kind of play on isur. Mari Old Akkadian has aPRvS rather than uPRvS in the triradical -stem; see 13.2.1, p. 326. 50. A parallel (at least typologically) can be found in the Arabic Stem IX (yamarru [ jussive yamarir ], imarra), which we may assume to be originally derived from an adjectival pattern QaTvLL-, even though this is obviously not true synchronically.
345
complete adaptation to the quadriradical -stem, including the new base uPaRRvR for the nonprefix forms. The OB Stat u-a-ru-ur RA 46, 88:2 shows that this process already started in Old Babylonian. A complication is that aurru and aqummu belong to a rare and literary adjectival pattern PaRuSS, which also includes raubbu awesome, namurru of awesome brightness,51 daummu dark, and alummu of awesome radiance, as observed by von Soden (1950b: 331). Their most common occurrence is in the feminine as abstract nouns (aurratu, aqummatu, namurratu, daummatu, raubbatu, alummatu), and it is even possible that the adjectives are backformations derived from these nouns. This seems to suggest that - of aurru and aqummu is not a prefix but part of the root, at least at this stage of their development.52 It is therefore possible that the of the verbs uarruru and uqammumu is not the -prefix that we also find in the -stem. If it is, however, it seems attractive, though speculative, to assume the same formal background for uarruru and uqammumu as for the naparruru verbs (see 12.6, p. 320): a reduplicated CvC element verbalized by means of -: *yi--ar-ar replaced by iarrar and *yi--qam-qam replaced by iqammam.53 The use of - interchanging with n- in this kind of root has an exact parallel in Geez, which alongside the quinqueradical verbs with an- of the angargara type discussed in 12.6.1 (pp. 314315) also has a few similar verbs with a prefix as-, e.g., asqoqawa to lament and asqorara to feel horror, loathe (Tropper 2002: 135). Similar forms occur in Tigre: asqamqama to groan and asnaqnaqa to be shaken (Raz 1983: 55). They are remarkably parallel to Akkadian, not only in their reduplicated structure but also in the fact that the sibilant does not have causative meaning because it does not contrast with n. The remaining verb uqallulu is clearly fientive and thus has a different, more verbal background. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that no adjective or past participle **aqullu seems to be attested. Moreover, it has a fine etymologyor even more than one:54 it can plausibly be
51. Cf. also na-ma-ra-at Or. 66, 59:2 (OA) she is radiant (said of Lamatu), i.e., /namarrat/? 52. This does not rule out the possibility that they ultimately consist of the prefix plus a II/gem root, even though as members of the PaRuSS pattern they had synchronically become unanalyzable. Goetze (1945b: 248) suggests Ar garr dull, inexperienced and qamm dry, withered as etymologies for aurru and aqummu, respectively, but this is semantically doubtful. For aqummu, no other plausible etymology has been proposed, to the best of my knowledge; for aurru, Whiting (1981: 89) points to Bravmanns (1977: 2034) analysis of the Arabic verb saara or saara to overthrow, subdue (with cognates in other Semitic languages) as a fossilized causative of arra to fall down, prostrate oneself. Whiting accepts this etymology and points out that it was suggested earlier by C. Brockelmann. It may be correct, although it is semantically disputable. 53. It is possible (but speculative) that this verbalizing - is also present in the adjective agapru mighty or the like, used as an epithet of gods in Old and Standard Babylonian, which may be derived from gapru to be(come) powerful. 54. The other option, at first sight even more alluring, is to connect uqallulu with aqlu to hang (which secondarily also means to weigh and to pay); see Goetze 1945b: 247 and Whiting 1981: 6, 16. It is even possible to assume that qallu, uqallulu, and aqlu are all related to each other, i.e., that aqlu is a causative derivation of qallu: to make light > to hang. This is precluded, however, by the fact that aqlu has a perfect Arabic cognate aqala (u) to weigh, showing that its goes back to PSem * rather than to the causative prefix *. Note, however, that two Sargonic Akkadian instances of this verb (from a period in which the reflexes of PSem * and * are still different), namely, a-sa-ga-al / asaqqal/ SAB p. 174:21 (Eshnunna), and i-sa-gal /yisaqqal/ UCP 9, 83: IV 13 according to A. Westenholz 1996: 120 n. 8, point to * rather than *. Whether uqallulu originally had * or * cannot be established: in the former case, it contains the prefix - in its denominal function; in the latter case, it must go back to a (non-attested) PaRuSS adjective *aqullum, on a par with aurru and aqummu, which seems semantically unlikely. Thus, there
346
related to qallu light (of weight), which as a II/gem root may be originally biradical. Analogous to the naparruru verbs, we may derive uqallulu from the reduplication of ql verbalized by means of the prefix -: *yi--qal-qal he/it behaves as something light, which became iqallal under the influence of the regular prefix forms of qallu, such as iqallil (see 12.6, p. 320). However, this conclusion necessarily remains speculative as long as we do not know whether in uqallulu comes from PSem * or * (see n. 54).
13.4.4. ukennuandupellu
The quadriradical verbs ukennu to prostrate oneself and upellu to exchange (listed in the dictionaries as uknu and uplu)55 have a weak penultimate radical (R3, if we regard as R1). This has caused vowel contractions and hence a rather drastic rebuilding on the model of the II/H verbs with E-colouring, especially in Babylonian.56 Their Assyrian conjugation is more original but far more poorly attested. Table 13.7 shows the Assyrian conjugation of ukennu, largely based on reconstruction, including a few extant forms from Sargonic Akkadian and Eblaite, and its Babylonian counterpart; the identification of the weak radical as y anticipates the conclusions and should be taken as provisional.57 Assyrian and older Impfv Pfvt t-Pf Imp Stat/PPartc Inf PrPartc ukayyunum mukayyinum ukayyan? MA ukn, Pl ukann ukayyin utakayyin ukayyin Babylonian ukn, Pl ukenn ukn (ukn?), Pl *uke/inn ? utekn ukn, Pl ukenn *ukn ?? ukennu muknu
table 13.7: the paradigm of *ukayyunum/ukennu.
The forms of the left (Assyrian) column are based on the following attestations: Impfv: 3ms u-ka-an MVAeG 41/3, 8:3132; 3mp u-ka-nu MVAeG 41/3, 14:13 (MA; cf. 3ms u-ka-an KAR 139:9, and 1s + Vent u-ka-na KAR 73:31 in literary texts from this period) Pfv: 3ms u-ga-en /yuskayyin/ AKI p. 164:22 (SAk; cp RI of Sargon); 1s u-k-i-in BIN 4, 114:19; 1p nu-u-k-in ATHE 23:10; 2ms + Vent t-u-k-i-nam TC 1, 87:49 (all OA); cf. also Eblaite 3du u-ga-i-na ARET 13, 1: V 12 /ukayyin/
are good reasons not to associate aqlu with uqallulu. Moreover, there is not even a remote parallel for this type of derivation in Akkadian, in spite of Whitings (1981: 1820) attempts to find one. 55. It is possible that we should actually write uknnu and upllu; see chap. 16 n. 102 (p. 477). 56. Earlier literature includes Heidel 1940: 3745; GAG 109i/m; Speiser 1967: 48792. Whether there is really a quadriradical verb ube or the like parallel to these two verbs, as posited, e.g., by von Soden (1951: 15152 and AHw 1256b s.v.) must await further confirmation from additional attestations. Cf. also Groneberg (1981: 124), who prefers to derive the attested forms from bu to let pass. 57. In peripheral texts, this verb appears with an Impfv uean and a Pfv uei/en. Since these forms are clearly not correct Akkadian, I will not discuss them; see Heidel 1940: 4546; GAG 109m; Tropper 1999b.
347
t-Pf: 1s ul-ta-ka-in KAJ 302:3 (MA) Imp: Pl u-k-i-na kt 94/k 842:58 (OA, courtesy M. T. Larsen) Inf: based on the uncontracted infinitives in Mari OB: u-ke--nim ARM 26/1, 134 no. 21:18 and u-ke--un ARM 26/1, 134 no. 21:22 (c. st.) according to J.-M. Durand, NABU 1990/24 (who also quotes u-ke--nu-um from unpublished A.3833: 6); it goes back to ukayyun- with prevocalic a > e perhaps by analogy with the prefix conjugations PrPartc: the form given is inspired by Eblaite mu-sa-ga-i-nm (= ma.en.GaG) // [m]u-suga-i-nu-um VE 1306 (see Krebernik 1983: 43; Fronzaroli 2003: 16) These forms show that in Sargonic Akkadian and Assyrian the weak radical does not cause E-colouring and is structurally a geminate; otherwise, vowel syncope would have operated in forms such as the imperative and the infinitive. This leaves us with , *h, or y (w can be ruled out on other grounds). For ukennu, the third-millennium spellings with i rather than in Ebla and en in Sargonic Akkadian, which may stand for /yin/ (see 17.2, p. 514), strongly favour y. This tallies with Fronzarolis (1984: 146) equation with the Arabic root kyn to humble oneself (Stem IV akna to humble, Stem X istakna to humble oneself [WKAS I pp. 51618]).58 This does not account, however, for the imperfective forms, which are not attested earlier than Middle Assyrian. The form without ending is ambiguous, but the restu-ka-nu, etc.can hardly be interpreted otherwise than as /ukann/, etc. In combination with the uncontracted perfective and t-perfect forms, this shows that the conjugation is based on the regular Assyrian D paradigm of II/voc verbs: Impfv ukn(?), ukann, Pfv ukayyin, t-Pf uktayyin (see 16.5.3.3, pp. 482484). This is supported by the fact that the same process occurred in Babylonian. Another noteworthy form is the Imp ukayyin with u-, although the triradical verbs have ain the forms without personal prefixes. We saw the same phenomenon in the t Inf u-ba-al-kutu[m] St. Larsen p. 398: r.34 quoted in 13.4.1 (p. 339), and it also occurs in Assyrian forms of upellu to be quoted presently. As I suggested in 13.4.1, u- may have replaced a- by analogy with the non-prefix forms of the t(n)-stem(s), such as the Imp utapris and the Stat utaprus. Turning now to Babylonian, the following selection of attestations provides evidence for the details of the conjugation of ukennu in Babylonian: Impfv: 3mp -ke-en-nu St. Birot p. 178:3, 7; 1p nu-u-ke-en6 ARM 13, 29:22 (both OB); 3ms u-ken CT 4, 5:7; 3mp u-ken-nu-u Ee V 85; u-ken-nu TCS 5, 120:8 (all SB) Pfv: 3ms -ke-e-en St. Birot p. 178:12; -ke-en RA 42, 129:15; -ki-in ARM 14, 122:12 (all OB);59 3mp li-ke-e-nu Legends p. 286:19 (MB) t-Pf: 3ms u-te-ke-ni JAOS 103, 53:47 Imp: u-ke-na-i AfO 19, 54:216 (Pl, SB) Stat/PPartc: not attested, but cf. u-ku-ni-i RIMA 2/I, 151:77 (SB) humbly? 60
58. Tropper (1999b) suggests deriving ukennu from a root kn, a variant of a Central Semitic root kn to bow, duck, wince, with metathesis of the two final radicals, a phenomenon that is rather widespread in Akkadian. If this were correct, the verb would be a D-stem, but this is unlikely because it neither shows the very specific restrictions of the D-stem to a certain type of text nor its incomplete paradigm (see 13.3, pp. 334336). Moreover, the of kn should have caused E-colouring in the Assyrian forms (cf. the Impfv ureyyaq from rq; see 17.7.3.2, p. 565). 59. The form -u-ki-in ARM 10, 84:10, 38 (OB), which is transitive (mtam ti -u-ki-in il a soumis ce pays, tr. G. Dossin), is apparently read -tq-q-in by CAD; cf. CAD /3 218a s.v. uknu comm. sect. Mta tuqqunu is a well known expression for to bring order to the country; see AHw 1323b s.v. taqnu D 2a. 60. The correct form would rather be *ukenni, as in the infinitive, but it may be modelled on the regular forms of II/voc verbs, which have u, such as uubbu from bu to be(come) good, pleasant; see 16.5.3.4 (pp. 485486) and Goetze 1945b: 249.
348
Inf: u-ke-nu-um St. Birot p. 178:4 (OB); u-ken-nu CT 18, 30: IV 25; u-ken-ni BWL 38:14; u-ken-na BWL 134:131 (all SB) (for Mari OB u-ke--un, see above) PrPartc: muknum passim, e.g., mu-u-ke-e-nam AbB 1, 100:21 (OB); abstract noun (ana) mu-u-ke-e-nu-ti-ia AbB 11, 82:17 (OB)61 The contracted forms presented so far, and especially the forms with gemination of the final radical, show that Babylonian, too, adapted the paradigm of these verbs to that of the D-stem of the II/H verbs with E-colouring (see 17.7.4.2, pp. 571572). Insofar as e and i are distinguishable, we usually find e-signs, although i-signs also occur (e.g., OB -ki-in). It is significant that the very common (substantivized) present participle muknu is never spelled with -nn-: it has apparently developed directly from *mukayyinum and has escaped adaptation to the paradigm of the II/H verbs because of its frequency, unlike the regular II/H PrPartc mukinnu (see 16.5.3.3, pp. 484485). The paradigm of upellu seems to be identical to that of ukennu. The main problem of upellu is its etymology and the existence of a deverbal noun or a set of nouns whose form is difficult to explain. Table 13.8 presents the Old Assyrian and Babylonian paradigm of upellu itself and of its passive/reciprocal t1-stem. Assyrian Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc Partc *upayyulu upellu mupellu
table 13.8: the paradigm of upellu.
Babylonian upl, Pl upell

63
Babylonian t1 utepl, Pl -ell utepl, Pl -e/ill ?
upayyil utapayyil upayyil
upl, Pl upe/ill utepl, Pl -e/ill ?
A selection of relevant Assyrian attestations is: Pfv: 1p nu-u-p-il5 TC 1, 84:17; 3mp u-p-i-lu KTH 35:12 t-Pf: 3mp u/ul-ta-pa/p-i-lu JEN 251:4; 282:4; 225:4 (Nuzi, representing Middle Assyrian) Imp: u-p-i-li (Fem) Ka. 876:22 quoted CAD /3 322a s.v. 1b PPartc: *upayyulu is inferred from the deverbal noun u-pa-ul-ti KAJ 175:6 (MA) For u- rather than a- in the forms without personal prefixes, see the remark above concerning the Imp ukayyin. A selection of relevant Babylonian attestations is:63
61. Perhaps the PrPartc of the royal epithet mu-ta-a-kin kibrt arbai V R 33: I 40 (MB RI of AgumKakrime) who causes the four quarters to submit is meant to be a t(n?) form of this verb (so CAD /3 218a s.v. 3, against von Soden 1950b: 332). 62. Or perhaps upll; see n. 55 above (p. 346). 63. I have not included the Old Babylonian Imp Sg Masc u-up-pi-il AbB 4, 68:19 instead of expected *upl; cf. F. R. Krauss n. 68b on p. 47. If it is correct, it suggests that upellu could be reinterpreted as a D-stem uppulu.
349
Impfv: 3mp u-pe-el-lu4 MDP 2, 109:32; 2fs tu-u-pe-el-li IV R 56: II 3+D; 3mp u-peel-lu MDP 10, 91:30; 3ms Subj u-pe-e-lu VAB 7, 184: r.10 (all SB) Pfv: 3ms u-p-el TIM 5, 39:4; 3mp u-p-lu- VAB 5, 276:9; u-p-I-lu TIM 4, 39:6 (all OB); u-pe-el-lu VAB 4, 274: III 20 (SB) t-Pf: 3ms u-te-pi-i[l ] LE A II 20:11 acc. to CAD /3 321f s.v. 1b; u-te-pe-el KH r.XXVI 8, 30; 3mp u-ta-p-lu VAB 5, 112: edge 2 (all OB); 3ms u-te-pe-li MVAG 13, 211:19; 3mp u-te-pel-lu RA 65, 126: II 10; [u]-ta-pi-lu Maql III 58 (all SB) Inf: u-[ p]-e-el-lum MSL 13, 120:208; u-p-lam KH r.XXVI 75; u-pe-li-im UET 5, 486:2 (all OB); u-pel-li TCS 5, 148:46 (SB) PrPartc: mu-pe-el (c.st.) UFBG p. 519:8 (SB); mu-pe-lu- Tn-Ep. IIIa 33 (MB lit.). t1 Impfv: 3ms Subj u-te-pe-el-lu RIME 4, 385:16 (OB); 3ms Subj u-te-pe-el-lu OEC 6, 28:6; 2fs tu-u-te-pe/pel-li AGH 60:14; 3ms (sic!) u-ta-pe-el-lu Or. 36, 118:61 (all SB) t1 Pfv: 3mp u-te-p-lu- YOS 14, 155:17; u-ta-p-lu Dilbat 25:16; u-t [e]-p-i-lu FLP 1384: 3 quoted in CAD /3 321a s.v. 1a1 (all OB); 3ms u-te-pe-li SBH p. 60 64 no. 31:r.19 (SB) The fairly numerous spellings with gemination of the final radical show that upellu, too, has adopted the paradigm of the II/H verbs with E-colouring. However, this process is not yet completed in Old Babylonian, as is shown by several of the verb forms mentioned above (especially u-p-I-lu, i.e., /upeil/), and instances of an uncontracted deverbal noun: the noun listed as upltu exchange, trading in CAD /3 319a s.v. occurs in Old Babylonian in uncontracted forms such as u-p--ul-tum AND 118:1 and u-p-ul-tim UCP 10, 145 no. 75:9 alongside contracted u-pe-e-el-tum MSL 13, 123:313 and u-p-el-ti TEBA 19:11.65 The same word also occurs in Middle Assyrian (u-pa-ul-ti KAJ 175:6) and frequently in Nuzi (u-p--ul-ti JEN 662:69, 71, alongside u-p-el-ti JEN 247:1). Surprisingly, it turns up in Neo-Assyrian as apssu or the like (e.g., -pu(-u)-su SAA 14, 39:4, 10), apparently < *apuHHultum, which is reminiscent of Sargonic Akkadian sa/a-bu-ul-ti MAD 3, 280 s.v. pl? (Tell Asmar) and Susa Old Babylonian a-pu-ul-ta-am (MDP 24, 366:13, 367:6).66 A possible explanation for the uncontracted forms of both verbs is that the weak radical whatever its naturewas geminated, since there are various indications that geminated weak consonants blocked vowel contraction for a longer period than simple consonants; cf. the strong forms of the Gtn-stem and the D-stem of the II/voc verbs (see 16.5.3.23, pp. 480485) and of the II/H verbs (see 17.7.4, pp. 566572). In Table 13.9, I have opted for y as the original weak radical of upellu. This is exempli gratia and purely based on the parallel with ukennu; I am not aware of any etymological support for a
64. Neo-Babylonian also has forms based on a triradical -stem upulu, e.g., Pfv -ap-i-lu BR 8/1, 40:3 and Imp up-i-il NBNippur 117: r.II 12, see Cole 1996: 243; it must be a secondary derivation of upellu. The lexical text V R 45 includes a form tu--pa-a-la V R 45: VI 52, which is similar to the forms of the nabalkutu verbs with a inserted between the prefix and the first radical (see 13.4.1, p. 339): /tuapaala/. 65. Standard Babylonian seems to have only upltu, Neo- and Late Babylonian mostly upltu, more rarely upltu; see AHw 1279 s.v. 5. 66. It is possible that these forms should instead be derived from wablu (normally bultum), but Whitings argument (1987: 117) that they cannot come from upellu ignores the possibility that the spellings from the older dialects may also represent /apuultum/ without contraction. Note also that the alternation of the stems upaul- and apuul recurs in uarrur- versus aurrur (in s-u-ru-ri-im RA 35 p. 46 no. 16:2 (Mari OAk), quoted in n. 49 above (p. 344).
350
The stem in Other Semitic Languages 13.5.
root pyl nor of any other satisfactory etymology for upellu itself.67 Perhaps we can be a little more positive about the rather unusual form of ukennu and upellu: in the light of the verbalizing use of - in its function of conjugational prefix, it seems plausible to assume that they are denominal verbs derived from nouns with gemination of R2 (which are usually deverbal themselves), i.e., with a pattern such as C1vC2C2v/vC3.
13.5. the -stem in other semitic Languages

Causative formations with a sibilant causative marker (PSem * or, rather, *s1) parallel to the Akkadian -stem occur in Ugaritic, the Epigraphic South Arabian languages except Sabaic, and sporadically in Old Aramaic.68 (I am omitting the t-stem for reasons that will become clear later on). All other West Semitic languages have a causative with a guttural marker: Stem IV in Arabic, Hiphil in Hebrew, Stem II/1 in Geez, and Haphel/Aphel in Aramaic, etc.69 For the sake of convenience, I will call the sibilant marker the S-prefix and the guttural marker the H-prefix. When the prefixes are used with a causative function, I will speak of an S-causative and an H-causative, but it is important to distinguish the prefix as such from the causative function, since not all verbs with these prefixes are causatives. On the basis of the correspondence between Akkadian and Ugaritic, we may assume the existence of a Proto-Semitic verbal stem with the prefix - *yVaqtil- that has causative and denominal function.70 However, these languages do not agree on the vowel of the personal prefix: Akkadian has u, but Ugaritic shows first-person singular forms with a, such as arb KTU 1.14: IV 42 I cause to enter (Tropper 2000: 587). Since this also seems to apply to the D-stem (2000: 54546), where Proto-Semitic undoubtedly employs u according to the joint testimony of Akkadian and Arabic, we might conclude that Ugaritic either introduced the G-stem prefixes in the D-stem and the -stem or that an original u had been shortened to , as in later stages of Canaanite. The latter solution is adopted by Tropper (2000: 54546, 58788). However, the same difference is found between Akk utap(ar)ras and Arabic yastaf ilu in the t-stem (where the corresponding vowel in Ugaritic is unknown (Tropper 2000: 606). Although
67. Speiser (1967: 489) connects this verb with the Hebrew root pl to do and in particular with poal deed, wage and p e ull work, wage, from which he posits an Akkadian noun puultum or puullatum return for services. However, the Akkadian verb forms presuppose a form with a geminated R2 (see below). Tropper (1999b: 9394) suggests a connection with the Central Semitic root lp (He/Aram) or lp (Ar) to (ex)change, invoking a rather complex metathesis involving the guttural. This is possible but by no means compelling. According to Falkenstein (1960: 310), upellu is a loan from Sum u.ba l. This is unlikely in view of the original guttural consonant or sonant that must have been present in upellu between p and l. 68. For general surveys, see Bravmann 1977: 200205; Rets 1989: 5294; Tropper 1990: 817; Lipiski 1997: 38792; Kienast 2001: 20815. For Ugaritic, see Sivan 1997: 13840; Tropper 2000: 585 604; for Epigraphic South Arabian, Beeston 1962: 19; for Aramaic, Segert 1990: 25859; Aramaic also has a few causatives with , but these seem to be either loans from Akkadian or a lexicalized residue of the original causative form (cf. Kaufman 1974: 12324 and Creason 2004: 411). The earliest representative of West Semitic, Amorite, does not show an S-causative (nor an H-causative, for that matter: its original presence is generally assumed on the basis of the idea that the yaqtil form is a contraction of a form with h or (Knudsen 1991: 88081; Streck 2000: 33637). Rets (1989: 8690) argues that this form is actually a basic form pressed into causative use through opposition to other vowel patterns. 69. Actually, there is also a fourth marker, y in Phoenician, which I will leave out of account as arguably secondary; see Tropper 1990: 9. 70. I do not share Retss (1989: 8690) doubts about the existence of the S-causative in Proto-Semitic (he claims that there are only scattered lexemes of sibilant augmented denominal verbs [1989: 88]). The denominal function is especially represented by the t2-stem; see 14.6.2.3 (pp. 412414).
13.6. The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefx
351
further speculation on the background of these conflicting forms may be fruitless, it might be argued that the person prefixes with u originated in the D-stem and are secondary in the Akkadian -stem, caused by the pressure that the D-stem exerted on the form of the -stem (see 4.5.2, pp. 114115, and 13.2.1, pp. 324327).71 This would lead to PSem *yiaqtil- and *yitaqtil-. It is possible that the residual Akkadian forms of the iqallal type (see 13.4.3, pp. 341343) support this, but they are obviously not causatives and may have evolved differently. For the time being, I will leave the matter open and write the Proto-Semitic -stem as *yVaqtil-.72 The languages that regularly employ the H-causative do not entirely lack traces of the S-prefix and even of the S-causative. The S-prefix with a non-causative function occurs in a large number of expressive descriptive nouns in various West Semitic languages, such as Ar sarhab glutton, sabdi exhausted from hunger, and Hebrew nouns such as alhebet flame, sanwerm bright light, and qa arrt depths (Rets 1989: 84).73 It also occurs in a few quadriradical verbs in Ethiopic, mentioned in 13.4.3 above (Geez asqoqawa, etc., p. 345), parallel to the far more common use of the prefix n-. The S-causative occurs in a number of verbs starting with a sibilant that can be analyzed as a fossilized remnant of a former S-prefix. Brockelmann (1908: 522) mentions cases such as Ar sabaqa to leave behind (cf. baqiya to stay), sakana to live (also He kn, originally transitive: to fix (an abode) with ellipse of the direct object) (cf. kna to be fixed), saaa to spread out (cf. a to be spread), and sadala to let (the hair) hang down (cf. dla to hang).74 These verbs suggest that the S-causative once existed also in West Semitic. Thus they support the reconstruction of a Proto-Semitic causative *yVaqtil- and show that the H-prefix and the H-causative are a West Semitic innovation. The rise of the H-prefix and the H-causative will be briefly touched upon in 14.6.2.3 (pp. 412414).
13.6. the Historical Background of the sibilant Prefix

Manifestations of the S-prefix are attested with broadly the same functions as in Semitic throughout the entire Afroasiatic area.75 Egyptian has a prefix s- that is causative and denominal in a specific set of verbs, e.g., sp to let fly from p to fly and stp to satisfy from tp to be satisfied (see Edel 1955/64: 19497). It is a fossilized marker rather than a productive derived verbal stem (Loprieno 1986: 142; 1995: 54). The Berber languages show particularly close commonalities with Semitic in their causative formation: they also use a sibilant prefix as causative and denominal. For the causative, Rssler (1951: 106) and Kienast (2001: 56366) compare the Tuareg Impfv isafras, Pret isfrs, and Imp sfrs directly with Akk uapras, uapris, and (Ass) aprus (for the Tuareg forms, see also Prasse 1972/74: III 87 and Heath 2005: 447). A denominal instance is sgyul to behave like a donkey from agyul donkey (Chaker 1995: 73
71. Kienast (1957a, 2001: 213) proposes the opposite development, but the argument is based on his views on the origin of the causative prefix, which in my view are untenable; see the next section. 72. One could adduce H-causatives as evidence for this problem, such as Ar yuqtilu, Syriac naqtel, and Geez yngr (Subj), but apart from the fact that these appear to show the same fluctuation between u and a, it is doubtful that they can be traced back directly to S-causatives through some sound change from sibilant to guttural; see the next section. 73. All these nouns ultimately come from Nyberg (1920: 191215). For remains of the S-prefix in Hebrew, see also Soggin 1965 and Wchter 1971. Neither of them manages to find a particularly convincing set of instances. 74. A few other instances are mentioned by Wright (1967: I 46); see also Bravmann 1977: 2023. 75. For general discussions of the sibilant causative marker in Afroasiatic, see Hodge, ed. 1971; Rets 1989: 8086; Lipiski 1997: 387.
352
The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefx 13.6.
n. 4; Lipiski 1997: 388). Similar formations occur in Cushitic: Welmers (1952: 243) and Sasse (1981: 209) mention Saho yi-s-gidil-e he caused to break alongside yi-g-gidil-e < *yi-t-gidile it broke (intr.) and yi-n-gidif-e he was killed, which neatly correspond to the -stem, the Gt-stem, and the N-stem of Semitic, respectively (see also 12.6.2, pp. 321323). The prefixing verbs of Beja also have a causative S-prefix (Gragg apud Kienast 2001: 61314). The suffixing verbs of Cushitic generally have a causative suffix with a sibilant. Thus, the S-prefix can be reconstructed to the Afroasiatic proto-language. Because of its great antiquity, any account of its etymological background will contain a high degree of speculation. An important clue, however, is the close parallel with the n- prefix discussed in the previous chapter, which started as a light verb, became a verbalizing prefix, a secondary radical in I/n verbs, and finally a grammatical marker to indicate detransitivization. The S-prefix is also used as a verbalizing prefix in quadriradical verbs (in Akkadiansee 13.4.3, pp. 345346, and 13.4.4, p. 350; and in Geez), as a secondary radical in a few verbs starting with , especially aknu to put, place, alu to sift, filter, and atu to fear (see 2.3.3, p. 42), and finally as a grammatical marker. Consequently, if n- harks back to an ancient light verb, it is plausible that the same applies to the S-prefix. This is an old idea that was already at the beginning of the previous century put forward by well-known scholars, such as Haupt (1907: 114), Bauer and Leander (1922: 28384), and Vycichl (1934: 105). However, it was rejected by leading Semitists such as Brockelmann (1908: 52021 n. 1) and Nyberg (1920: 26162), and was completely eclipsed by Speisers theory of a pronominal origin.76 On the basis of the fact that the Semitic languages generally use the same phoneme for the causative and for the third-person independent subject pronouns, Speiser (1967: 40416, originally published in 1936) argues that the S-prefix comes from the pronoun (which he reconstructs as PSem ha/a [1967: 411]) and is a reflex of the causee (the secondary agent in his terminology) in a causative clause. He analyses a form such as Akk uabni he caused to build as A ordered or induced B to build, in which B was expressed by means of the third-person pronoun in its function of giving emphasis (1967: 414). This pronoun developed into a prefix, gradually replacing the corresponding pronouns of all other persons. Some languages chose the masculine pronoun with h-, others the feminine pronoun with - in this process. For non-causative -stemswhich often belong to stative verbsSpeiser assumes that the prefix is a reflex of the pronoun used as a copula, a construction occurring in nominal clauses in various Semitic languages (1967: 41315).77 This bold attempt to account all at once, not just for the causative form and function of the causative markers in Semitic but also for the distribution of the S-prefix and the H-prefix, is unconvincing in the end. The identity of the initial consonant of prefix and pronoun is by no means a general feature (cf. the table in Voigt 1987e: 60). It only applies to in Akkadian, h in Hebrew
76. Another important source of causative morphemes is pointed out by J. J. Song (1996: 7380): he demonstrates that in a large number of languages there is a relationship between purposive and directional markers on the one hand and causative morphemes on the other, and he offers plausible arguments, both formal and functional, for a grammaticalization process from purposive to causative. In this case, too, there is a relationship between the original function of the formative and the developing causative function but less direct than in the case of a verb to do, make, or the like. In this light, it is interesting to note the directional element -/-h that occurs in various Semitic languages, in Akkadian mainly as the terminative case after nouns and as a dative marker after pronouns (-um for/to him, etc.). This is worth considering and far more likely than Speisers pronoun-theory, but in the end a verbal origin of the S-prefix seems the most likely. 77. Speisers proposal is accepted, for instance, by Kienast (1957a; 2001: 21214), Gelb (1969: 174 75; Woodington (1982: 82); and Loprieno (1986: 14244); it is rejected by Rundgren (1963a: 1012), Rets (1989: 8182), and Voigt (1987e: 5960). Rets has a fairly recent and thorough discussion.
13.6. The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefx
353
and Sabaic, and s1 in Minaic. Even if we assume that different realizations of the H-prefix, as in Arabicwhich has in the causative versus h in the pronounscan easily be explained as secondary,78 we are still left with Ugaritic, which has in the causative but h in the pronouns. From a functional point of view, we can object that in causatives of transitive verbs the causee is usually left unexpressed, so that the grammaticalization process from pronoun to prefix assumed by Speiser will get little or no chance to start. Moreover, Speiser leaves the denominal function unexplained: his explanation of intransitive -stems (for which he derives the prefix from the pronoun in its function of copula [1967: 413]) is untenable, since the -stems in question have a different meaning from the alleged nominal clauses from which Speiser derives them: they are usually fientive, which non-verbal sentences can never be. His example is He he edm (it) has turned red. However, this form is not identical in meaning to the corresponding nominal clause with the pronoun between subject and predicate, since the latter can only mean is red. It is also unlikely that so uniform a category as the -stem should arise from two separate grammaticalization processes. In fact, the earlier idea that the causative marker comes from a light verb is functionally far more likely. Analytical causatives tend to be expressed by semantically suitable verbs whose meaning is something like to cause, to make, to order, to say, or, for permissive causatives, to allow, etc. The source of morphological causativesi.e., those that are expressed by bound morphemes on the verbis often unknown, but it is plausible that a major source will be the grammaticalization of this kind of verb. There are some recent proposals that the S-prefix indeed goes back to such a verb. Hetzron (1976b: 377) connects it with a verb to make in the Agaw languages of the Cushitic (sub-)family: Awngi has a causative suffix -c (/ts/ and a verb cw to make, Xamir-Agaw has -s and sab-, Kemant-Agaw has - and b.79 He also points to similar commonalities in Turkish (causative maker -T and the verb et- to do, make and Japanese (s)ase and s(u)- to do. Zaborski (1999b) reviews the proposals made in the past concerning the identity of the verb that is the source of the S-prefix; they all turn out to be extremely tentative, and none of them is really convincing. However, the plausibility of this theory is not dependent on the existence of a concrete verb to which we can trace back the prefix. The S-prefix has such a long history that it is not very likely that the verb in question still exists, the more so since it may well have been a rather short verb with one or more weak radicals. It was doubtless conjugated by means of personal prefixes and was used with nouns as direct object with sufficient frequency to develop into a light verb and subsequently a prefix serving to verbalize the following noun. This is the direct source of the verbalizing and denominal use of the S-prefix. The development of the causative function must have been triggered either by its combination with a deverbal forms (a noun or an adjective) or by its use as an auxiliary verb beside a finite main verb. This kind of development would explain the remarkable parallel in the use of - and n-, especially in the quadriradical verbs, as shown by Geez and Akkadian, and their opposite meaning if they occur both in the same verb, such as nabalkutu versus ubalkutu. Whereas the intransitive N forms may go back to a verb meaning to be(come), to do, to say, the transitive forms may owe their contrasting function to a verb meaning to make, to cause, to put down, etc.80
78. However, the possibility that can be a weakening of h, as is sometimes suggested, is rejected by Fleisch (1979: 66 n. 1). 79. This is echoed by Lipiski 2001: 39596. 80. The active meaning of the - prefix is also apparent in the t2-stem, whichas I will argue in 14.6.2.2 (pp. 404411)is a denominal derivation of taPRvS(t) nouns and typically means to perform the
354
The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefx 13.6.
For similar instances of transitive/intransitive pairs of light verbs, see also Zaborski 1999b: 48; Appleyard 2001: 8; D. Cohen et al. 2002: 22832).81 In the triradical verb, there is an important difference between and N: has a single base for prefixes and suffixes (aPRvS), whereas N has two different bases, -nPaRvS for prefixes and naPRvS for suffixes (see 12.2.1, pp. 288289). The cause of this difference is a matter of speculation, but it may go back to a difference in form between the two original light verbs or to the influence the D-stem has exerted on the paradigm of the -stem because of the close association between them, or even to a chronological difference: no doubt, the incorporation of the S-prefix into the system of verbal stems was earlier than that of n.82 The West Semitic languages that do not have the S-prefix make use of the H-prefix instead, which appears in the forms h and . The relationship between S and H is a controversial issue in comparative Semitics, but since it has no bearing on the history of Akkadian, I will not discuss it. In 14.6.2.3 (pp. 412414), however, I will briefly return to the subject in the context of the t-stem(s).
action or activity which the taPRvS noun indicates, e.g., utmuqu to perform a tm/qu (i.e., prayer), hence to pray, supplicate. 81. Hetzron (1976b: 377) points to the situation in Turkish, which has a causative marker -t related to the verb et- to do, make, whereas the passive marker -Il shows striking similarity to the verb ol- to be. 82. On the formal relationship between the prefixes and n, see also Garr 1993: 14849 and my comments in chap. 12 n. 123 (p. 321) on Garrs explanation of na-.
thet-infixanditsramificatiOns
Chapter 14
14.1. introduction
This chapter investigates the functions and the historical development of the t-infix. The extent and complexity of its history mirrors the complexity and versatility of the infix itself. In Akkadian, it has three major grammatical functions: it expresses perfect tense, it is a detransitive voice marker (in the secondary stems), and it is a marker of verbal plurality (in the tertiary stems). In addition, it has a number of uses that are as yet poorly understood, e.g., in the t2-stem. At first sight, these functions seem to have little in common, but there are good reasons to assume that they are manifestations of the same marker. First, from a formal point of view there is only one t-infix: it makes no difference whether a form is a t-perfect or a secondary or a tertiary stem. This is the reason why so many forms with infixed t are ambiguous and can only be interpreted on the basis of the context. Second, the phonological consequences of the infixation of ti.e., the assimilations and the metatheses described in 14.2.2 (pp. 359360)are exactly the same for all forms. If the t-infix came from different sources, we would expect to find at least some traces of this in the form of a slightly different behaviour. Third, infixes do not emerge easily: they are usually the outcome of a long grammaticalization process. Since two of the three functions of the t-infix are not found in Proto-Semitic and therefore represent Akkadian innovations,1 it is hard to see how they could have emerged in the intermediate period: it is far more plausible that they represent new uses of an old marker. On the basis of factual evidence from Akkadian, comparative evidence from Semitic, and typological evidence, I will therefore argue that all categories with a t-infix have the same marker t, which has diversified and renewed itself several times. The prime mover of these developments is the basic stem with infixed t, the Gt-stem. There are various indications that already in ProtoSemitic the Gt-stem had lost a large part of its specific function of expressing detransitivity to other categories and was being marginalized or completely replaced, not only by other derived stems, such as the N-stem and a derived stem with a prefix t, but also by lexical categories. This process is in full swing in Akkadian and is partly observable from the texts themselves and partly reconstructible from typological parallels. The decline of the Gt-stem had far-reaching effects. First of all, verbs in the Gt-stem came to be used in ways that are not obviously related to its original detransitive function, in various lexicalized meanings, and especially as literary variants of the corresponding G-stem. Second, specific members of its paradigm were put to use for other functions, which caused the infix to be reinterpreted as a carrier of these new functions; in this way, it came to be a marker of the perfect and of verbal plurality. Third, this decline also resulted in the rise of the t2-stem in an indirect way, via the deverbal action nouns with the pattern taPRvS(t), from which the t2-stem is derived.
1. I.e., the t-perfect (see 6.4, pp. 155160) and the pluractional function in the tan-stems (see 14.7, pp. 415437).
355
356
Formal Aspects of the tInfx 14.2.
An investigation into the corresponding verbal stem in other Semitic languages shows that this process of decline had already started in the proto-language, although in these languages it did not lead to extensive renewal on a scale that is comparable to Akkadian. The development of the t-infix from a perfect marker to a general past-tense marker in affirmative main clauses after the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period (see 6.3.4, pp. 153155) entailed a major increase in frequency, with the consequence that its older detransitive function was either discarded or formally renewed. Thus, the productivity of the t-infix as a tense marker was a catalyst that accelerated the decline of the secondary stems, especially the Gt-stem itself. However, the Dt-stem and the t1-stem also became more and more infrequent, and in NeoAssyrian they were replaced by new verbal stems with a double t-infix. The structure of this chapter roughly follows the various stages in the development of the t-infix. The various aspects of the Gt-stem are discussed first: its form (14.2), its function (14.3), and its historical development (14.4). This sets the scene for the other categories: the secondary stems (14.5), the pattern taPRvS(t) and its offshoot the t2-stem (14.6), and finally the tertiary (TAN-)stems (14.7).
14.2. Formal Aspects of the t-infix 14.2.1. TheformoftheGt-steminhistoricalAkkadian

Table 14.1 gives the eight inflectional members of the Gt paradigm for the different vowel classes of the strong verb (cf. also GAG Verbalpar. 13) and the verb atwm to speak.2 A-verbs Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc iptarras iptaras iptatras pitras pitrus pitrusu OA pitarsum muptarsu I-verbs imtallik imtalik imtatlik mitlik *mitluk
3
U-verbs terrub terub *tetrub qitrub qitrub
atwm (OB) taww taw *tatw atw atw atwm OA atawwum mtawm
mitluku qitrubu OA *mitalkum mumtalku *mterbu
table 14.1: the paradigm of the gt-stem of the strong verb.
The basic marker of the Gt-stem is an infixed t after R1. Accordingly, it has a prefix base -PtaRvS for the three prefixed tenses and the present participle and a suffix base PitaRvS for the remaining forms. I will come back to this form below. The vowel pattern of the Gt-stem is complex. The prefix conjugations and the imperative adopt the imperfective vowel of the G-stem,4 but the remaining forms have the fixed vowel of the derived stems: u in the stative, the infinitive, and the past participle, and i in the present participle
2. Further literature on the Gt-stem includes GAG 92; Gelb 1955b: 110; Diem 1982: 7379; Streck 1994: 178 n. 95; 2003a; and Kouwenberg 2005. 3. The I/i verb malku does not have a stative, but cf. kitmus from kamsu I/i to kneel, squat, itpur from apru I/i to put on the head, etc. 4. This is presumably an Akkadian innovation; see 6.2 (pp. 138139).
14.2. Formal Aspects of the tInfx
357
(which is usually syncopated).5 Gt forms of U-verbs are rare; the table combines erbu Gt to enter and qerbu Gt to come near, neither of which is an original U/u verb (see 3.5.3, pp. 7576), and both are mainly attested in literary texts.6 A more-or-less complete paradigm is attested of the doubly-weak verb atw (OA atawwum) to speak, which I have therefore also included.7 The Gt Impfv iptarrVs is identical in form to the Gtn perfective, an important fact that will be discussed in 14.7.6 (pp. 431437). The Gt perfective is identical in form to the t-perfect of the G-stem. They can only be distinguished on semantic and syntactic grounds; this is usually unproblematic (see chap. 6 n. 1, p. 138). The t-Pf iptatrVs is very rare.8 It is not found in Old Assyrian, and the only Old Babylonian instances I know of are it-ta-ti-il KH 130:62 (and elsewhere) from the fossilized Gt-stem itlu to lie down and a-ta-ta-al AbB 11, 118:14 from lu Gt to consider, deliberate (von Soden 1950a: 388).9 In Old Babylonian, forms with a double t-infix were avoided either by using the perfective instead of the t-perfect (see 6.3.1, p. 143) or by replacing the t-perfect of the Gt-stem by that of the N-stem (see 12.2.2.1, p. 295). Forms with a double t-infix are more common in the derived stems, where there was no alternative in the form of an N-stem (see 14.5.1, p. 384, for Dt forms; 14.5.2, p. 386, for t1 forms; and 14.6.2.1, pp. 403404, for t2 forms. From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, we do find Gt forms with a double tinfix, but they remain very rare. This is due to the fact that by this period the Gt-stem had become obsolete outside Standard Babylonian, apart from a few lexical remnants, such as alku Gt to start going. Accordingly, this is almost the only verb that occurs more than incidentally with a double t-infix (ittatlak) in the later dialects.10 In Neo-Assyrian, a new paradigm emerged with a
5. There are a few cases of fluctuation between the A- and the I-verbs. It usually concerns forms with i where we expect a: for Old Babylonian, cf. i-ta-li-ik VAB 5, 162:8 he will leave and i-t-li-ik MDP 28, 405:1617 he will go (Susa) instead of ittalak. In Standard Babylonian, we find perfectives such as am-dai-i Sn. 31:2 and elsewhere I fought, im-ta-ir Gilg. p. 706:59 it corresponded, and (ay) il-ta-pit Gilg. p. 688:175 let it (your hand) not touch(?), and the imperfectives al-tab-bi Gilg. p. 656:91 I will put on and tal-tap-pit Gilg. p. 600:239 you rub yourself (? c. br.). Perhaps they result from the expansion of the I/i vowel class (cf. GAG 92b and Kienast 1967: 81). Some of them may simply be orthographic variants (pitx for pat) or mistakes (taltappitu for tultappitu?, as suggested in AHw 536a s.v. Gtn 1). A similar phenomenon occurs in the N-stem; see 12.2.1 (p. 290). Landsberger (1968: 110 n. 42) suggests a secondary differentiation between t-perfects of the G-stem with a and reciprocal and reflexive Gt forms with i. The reverse development is represented by the imperatives pit-qd Ash. p. 83 53:26 (SB) acc. to AHw 826a s.v. paqdu Gt 1 be attentive! from the I/i verb paqdu (GAG 3 92a*) and mi-it-la-ka CT 22, 121:13 (NB) take counsel! (Pl) from the I/i verb malku. 6. Attestations of erbu Gt include Impfv i-te-er-ru-ub YOS 10, 25:68; Imp et!-ru-ub Bab. 12, 38:10, et-ru-ba-am Iraq 25, 184:36, and Fem et-ru-bi ZA 32, 174:45 (all OB). For qerbu Gt, cf. Stat q-it-ru-ba Gilg. p. 242:2 (OB); Imp q-it-ru-ub KAR 170:10 (SB); Inf qitrubu passim in SB. 7. For references for atwm (SB atm), see the dictionaries; note in particular the Stat (a) at-mu- KAR 45:24 who spoke, and the Imp at-ma-a RA 11, 113:35 speak! (both SB). Remarkable is the Imp a-ta-ma-a Ee VI 22 /atamm/, which seems to represent the original PitaRS pattern, which is preserved in Old Assyrian (e.g., a-ta-wa TC 3, 28:17, i.e., /ataww/). It is also possible, however, that it is a secondary form modelled on the Gtn-stem. For the present participle, cf. mu-ta-wu- MSL 12, 162:164, c. st. mtawi in mu-ta-wi anitim MSL 12, 161:118. For the conjugation of atawwum in Old Assyrian, see Kouwenberg 2008. 8. See also Streck 1995a: 22233 for a discussion of double t forms of all secondary and tertiary stems. 9. It seems unlikely that a-ta-ta-al is a Gtn perfect, but it cannot be ruled out (Streck 1995a: 223). The form it-ta-at-la-[ak] ARM 4, 22: 14 is to be read it-ta-ad-la-[a], see Durand 1997/2000: II 94 n. 195. 10. Cf. CAD A/1 323b s.v. 5d and Aro 1957: 10 for Middle Babylonian; Middle Assyrian has a Perf 3ms? [it?]-ta-at-la-ak MATC 15:30; Standard Babylonian has it-ta-at-la-ku KAR 25: I 15; see further
358
Formal Aspects of the tInfx 14.2.
double t-infix; most relevant forms concern the Dt(t)-stem, but former Gt-stems with a double t-infix are attested for alku and lu (see 14.5.3, pp. 388391).11 The non-prefix forms of the Gt-stem are all based on the suffix base PitaRvS, which is a relatively recent replacement of a form with a prefixed ta- (taPRvS), as I will argue in 14.4.1 (pp. 375380). PitaRvS actually represents the generalization of the prefix base -PtaRvS to the entire conjugation, with the initial cluster Pt- resolved by means of an epenthetic i. This i is determined by the a/i prefix of the finite forms, especially i- of the basic third-person singular: iptarVs pitrVs just as in the Gtn-stem iptarrVs pitarrVs and in the Dt-stem uptarrVs putarrVs.12 With its succession of short syllables, PtRvS is subject to vowel syncope (see 2.4, pp. 4648). The outcome is preserved in its pure form in Sargonic Akkadian and Old Assyrian: Stat 3ms pitrus < *ptrus and Imp Sg Masc pitras < *ptras, but Stat 3mp pitars < *ptrs, Imp Pl pitars < *ptrs, and Inf pitarsum < *ptrsum, etc.13 In Babylonian, however, this alternation was leveled in favour of the endingless forms: Stat pitrus, pitrus, Imp pitras, pitras, Inf pitrusu, etc.,14 because the corresponding forms of all other derived stems have a single fixed stem: Stat purrus(), uprus(), naprus(), Imp purris(), upris(), napris(), etc. A number of residual forms of the pattern PitaRS- in Old Babylonian show that the Babylonian state of affairs is secondary: a-ta-al-ki JCS 15, 6:19 go away, Imp Sg Fem of alku Gt (for regular atlak) a-ta-al-ka-am Legends p. 176:3 come here!, Imp Sg Masc + Vent of alku Gt (for atlakam) i-ta-an-nu KH r.XXVII 61 and i-ta-na-at ZA 65, 178:3 he/she is competing with, 3ms Stat (Subj) and 3fs Stat, respectively, of annu Gt to compete (for regular itnunu, itnunat) i-ta-la AbB 10, 163:18 and i-ta-lam/la-am FM 1, p. 63:21 and ARM 26/1, 181 M.6874:16 to deliberate, Imp Pl /itl/ and Inf Acc /itlam/, respectively, of lu Gt (< *ital/-am, as in Old Assyrian, regular itl/-am like pitrus/am) In Standard Babylonian, there are a few past participles that preserve this form, presumably as frozen relics, if not Assyrianisms:
Streck 1995a: 232. Other t-perfect forms of Gt from later periods are [im-ta]-at-ar MSL 1, 17/8:25, 30 from maru Gt (SB: ibtu itti e-i[m im-ta]-at-ar the interest equaled (the capital in) barley (tr. CAD M/1 52a s.v. lex. sect.), in-ta-at-a-a(-) KUB 3, 7:11 and 14:5 from mau Gt to fight, and il-tete-mu- RA 25, 58 no. 8:7 from em Gt to listen to e.o., make an agreement (Neo-Babylonian: (PNs) ame il-te-te-mu-, interchanging with ame i-mu- RA 25, 58 no. 9:7; see CAD /2 28586 s.v. 4). 11. For NA taru with a double t-infix, see chap. 12 n. 33 (p. 295). 12. For the exceptional occurrence of u instead of i in utlu to lie down, uzuzzu to stand (up), and NB putqudu to be attentive, alongside itlu, izuzzu and pitqudu, see chap. 5 n. 33 (p. 135). Elsewhere, i is the default epenthetic vowel before a in the next syllable, as in the imperative (see 5.5, pp. 133136). 13. The only Sargonic Akkadian instance is e-dam-da / etamd/ Or. 46, 201:37 (incant. from Kish) they are adjacent, touching, 3pdu Stat of emdu Gt. Another third-millennium instance may be Mari OAk (adi) si-dar-ki-u, for which see n. 24 (p. 362). 14. So also Edzard 1986: 361b and Diem 1982: 74. For such a levelling process in general, cf. Bybee 1985: 123: morpho-phonemic changes tend to eliminate alternations between forms that are most closely related, e.g., person/number forms in the same aspect or tense. For similar developments in Akkadian, see chap. 2 n. 8 (p. 33). Other explanations for the contrast between Bab pitrusu and Ass pitarsu presuppose a stress shift for which there is no independent evidence or an ad hoc assumption of a difference in underlying form (e.g., Gelb 1955b: 110; Greenstein 1984: 3435; Testen 1993b: 910; and Tropper 1997a: 19697).
14.2. Formal Aspects of the tInfx
359
itaru magnificent, a by-form of itruu/itru proud, magnificent, cf. CAD /3 13334 s.v. itrau a) e/itepu in mas-su-am e-te-ep-E-im RIME 4, 40: II 1314 (OB) and mass i-te-ep- AGH 106:2 (SB) expert, capable leader etamdu joined, accumulated in igis e-ta-an-du-te BWL 60:93 accumulated donations, and in na 4 e-tan-de-e-tum MSL 10, 33:105 (LL, meaning: ?) from emdu Gt to join (beside normalized itmudu in urpti it-mu-da-tu Bab. 7, 233:17 accumulated clouds) The past participle pitrusu has a deverbal offshoot with the pattern PitR/S, which is mainly used as a variant of PitRuS in Standard Babylonian. However, a few non-literary words of this pattern already occur earlier, such as mit/ru of equal size, square and itb/ru (OA). It is generally assumed that a is long, both on the basis of a few plene spellings (see Streck 2003a: 101) and comparative evidence (Testen 1999).15 However, this is contradicted by OA mitiri (m-it-i-ri-i St. Nimet zg p. 143:15 and Prag I 837:19).16 It is conceivable that the situation is similar to that in PaRR/S: lengthening of a may have been dependent on regular use as a noun, so that a distribution arose with for adjectives and for nouns, but we have too little evidence to verify this. Moreover, lengthening may have been less advanced in Assyrian than in Babylonian: cf. OA arruqum thief (< arrqum) versus Bab arrqum. Thus, mitiri is no proof that PitRaS has a short a in Babylonian, nor that it always has a short a in Assyrian. The t-infix also occurs in a few nouns to which it imparts a reciprocal nuance: at brothers, partners from au brother (usually as a plural noun but as a stative in at-u-a-ni BIN 6, 16:7 and a-ta-u-a-ni (/ata(u)wni/ kt n/k 404:5, both OA), and itbru (itbaru?) associate or the like from i/ebru colleague; see CAD I/J 294 s.v.; AHw 403b s.v. Freund, Gesellschafter. Nouns are usually rather resistant to this kind of derivation (see 2.3.1, pp. 3738), so that these instances may actually be deverbal, remnants ofas yet unattestedreciprocal verbs.17 With regard to the weak verbs, the Gt-stem causes complications for I/w verbs (see 16.2.3, p. 454), for I/n verbs (see 16.4.2, pp. 470471), and for I/voc verbs (see 17.6.3.1, pp. 546547).
14.2.2. Assimilationandmetathesisofthet-infixingeneral
The infixed t interacts with the first radical if it is a dental, a sibilant, or g (GAG 96df). In the prefix forms, where t directly follows the first radical, it assimilates to a dental or a sibilant: -dt- > -dd- (*idtk > iddk he killed from dku), -t- > -- (*itei > iei he came near from e), -st- > -ss- (*istaniq > issaniq he arrived from sanqu), -s- > -- (*itabat > iabat he seized from abtu) and -zt- > -zz- (*iztakar > izzakar he mentioned from zakru). Partial assimilation occurs in the cluster -gt- > -gd-, e.g., igdamar he finished from gamru. Historically important is the fact that this outcome of the dental and sibilant assimilation differs from the outcome elsewhere. For instance, if the feminine suffix -t follows d or z, the outcome is -tt- and -st-, respectively, e.g., sipittum mourning < *sipid-tum) and manzastu position from *manzaz-tum (from
15. The dictionaries differ in their interpretation: according to Streck (2003a: 101), AHw consistently writes long . CAD is inconsistent (e.g., itbru, mitru, gitmlu, and gitpu, but itlapu, mitgaru, and itrau). Streck (2003a: 101) reports plene spellings for atmu, bitrmu, and itpu only. 16. The single instance of itbru we have (it-ba-ra-ni OIP 27, 15:16 we are associates) is unrevealing in this respect. 17. My interpretation of this form as containing pluractional gemination (Kouwenberg 2005: 99 /atauni/) is unnecessary. The form a-ta-u-a-ni is a regular Gt stative according to the III/ verbs; cf. the denominal verb a, ya to be/become/act like a brother in Arabic (Fleisch 1979: 264). At-u-a-ni, on the other hand, is derived from at treated as an ordinary noun with a fixed stem atu(w)- (pattern PitRuS).
360
The Function of the GtStem in Historical Akkadian 14.3.
the verb izuzzu to stand (up)), see GAG 3 29e, 60c*. With the t-infix of the verb, however, -dt- becomes -dd- and -zt- becomes -zz-, as shown above. The latter outcome actually conforms to what is regular if t precedes the sibilant or dental. This means that these assimilated forms go back to the period when t was still a prefix.18 In the non-prefix forms, where t and the first radical are separated by a vowel (Pit(a)RvS, etc.), metathesis of t and a sibilant or a dental as R1 occurs (GAG 36a): cf. the infinitives tibutu to quarrel and tidku to fight rather than **itbutu and **ditku. As a result, t is (again) a prefix. However, forms like tibut are not original, since it is likely that the original form had a in the first syllable (taPRvS) (see 14.4.1 below, pp. 377378). They are based on the model pitrVs, but either they switched back to the original order after first having been replaced by the new infixed form (e.g., *tabVt *itbVt, later > tibut) or they kept the original order of t and sibilant but adopted the vowel pattern of PitRvS. The latter explanation is the simplest and therefore the most likely (so also Huehnergard 1997b: 44041). If R1 is , this metathesis is optional, e.g., in Old Babylonian 3fp Stat i-it-pu-ka OBRED 5, 808:7 they (Fem) have jointly erected beside 3mp ti-i-pu-ku VS 8, 22:5; in Old Assyrian Gt Inf (Gen) t-a-p-ki-im RA 80, 118:9 beside -ta-p-ki-im OAA 1, 92:17, all from apku Gt. These assimilation and metathesis rules apply to all verb forms with an infixed t. Some examples from other verbal stems than Gt will be given in the appropriate places. Specific to the Gt-stem is the situation that the t-infix is immediately followed by another consonant, namely R2 in the non-prefix forms: pitrVs, etc. In this case it completely assimilates to R2:19 p-i-a-a Adapa p. 18:32 (MB lit.) anoint yourself! < *pita from pau Gt i-is-sa-as BWL 108:14 (SB) remember! < *itsas from assu Gt i-a-ar RA 53, 35a:11 (OB) watch out! < *itar from naru to guard ina i-du-di-im OBTI 9:19 (meaning unclear, OB), i.e. /iddudim/ < *itdudim from addu Gt
An instance with nasalization of the resulting geminate is (l) mn-du-da Gilg. p. 704:29 (SB) they should correspond from maddu Gt. The outcome of the assimilation process is always identical to the original radical and is undoubtedly also influenced by the tendency to keep the radical intact for reasons of transparency.
14.3. the Function of the gt-stem in Historical Akkadian

The overarching value of the Gt-stem (and of the t-infix in general) is detransitivization, i.e., a reduction of (semantic) transitivity vis--vis the basic stem. This is realized in different ways according to the meaning of the verb and the context (see 10.8.3, pp. 257258). By far the most important function is reciprocity; a marginal one is reflexivity, represented by a very small number of verbs in the older dialects. In addition, there is a third group of Gt-stems, many of them from intransitive verbs, in which the meaning of the t-infix is unclear. I will call them lexicalized
18. So also Diem 1982: 51. This explanation is far more likely than Hirschs proposal (1975: 293) to make a different stress responsible for it: *sipdtum versus *dtagal and *qtdudu. An additional factor was doubtless that the outcome of the order t + R1 guarantees a more transparent relationship with the other forms of the paradigm than the reverse order: izzakar is more clearly derived from zakru than **istakar would be. When the prefix became an infix in other verbs, the forms iabat, issaniq, and izzakar were established firmly enough to hold their own. Diakonoff (1991/92: 52) relates the difference to the original affricate pronunciation of the sibilants; cf. Streck 2006: 218. 19. A similar change also occurs in eu new < *edum, qau holy < *qadum, eu sixth < *edum; see GAG 29d.
14.3. The Function of the GtStem in Historical Akkadian
361
Gt-stems as a convenient label. As stated in 10.8.3, the Gt-stem never has passive function: only the N-stem can be used to passivize basic verbs.20 At least two other uses of Gt are mentioned in the literature: a separative and a durative/intensive function (e.g., GAG 92ef; Streck 2003a). I have argued elsewhere (Kouwenberg 2005) that the motion verbs that are traditionally labeled as separative should instead be explained as lexicalized middle verbs, some of which have acquired ingressive function vis--vis the basic verbespecially alku Gt to start goingand that the alleged durative or intensive function is a secondary development specific to literary texts. The use of the Gt-stem has recently been described in great detail by Streck (2003a), and there is no need to duplicate this. In order to clarify the historical development of the Gt-stem and of the t-infix in general, I will concentrate on the diachronic developments observable in the texts by differentiating according to dialect, period, and genre. The most important distinction is between non-literary and literary texts. In non-literary texts, there is a fundamental difference between the older dialects, in which the Gt-stem is fairly common, and the later dialects (from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward), in which it is virtually extinct. In Standard Babylonian, on the other hand, it keeps flourishing until the latest period, and even shows a considerable expansion to new verbs and new uses. In the case of common Gt-stems, I will generally refer to Streck (2003a) for references and mention after each verb the number (printed in bold) that is assigned to it by Streck, especially for Old and Standard Babylonian. Only in the case of rare instances or instances not mentioned by Streck will I give a direct reference to the text where it is found.
14.3.1. TheGt-steminoldernon-literarytexts 14.3.1.1. Third-millenniumAkkadian

In the small number of extant texts from the third millennium, the reciprocal function of the Gt-stem is predominant. It comprises the following verbs: azu Gt to give battle (3du i-da-a-za /ytaz/ AKI p. 228:81 and GAKI p. 365:13)21 mau Gt to give battle (imx-da-a-za /yimta/ AKI p. 168:30) emdu Gt to be entwined (e-dam-da / etamd/ Or. 46, 201:37 (incant. from Kish) laptu Gt to anoint e.o. (3mp ti-il-tap-tu /tiltapt/ MARI 1, 82:24, legal text from Mari)
In proper names, we find two other verbs that can be either reciprocal or reflexive:
20. An enigmatic apodosis with two Gt-stems, one of which occurs nowhere else (from mau to rob and epru to provide with food rations [80]) is Lenormant, Choix 91: r.5 quoted in CAD M/1 362a s.v. mau 2: epirtu teppira maitu imtaa the woman who has food will be fed, the woman who is destitute will be robbed (tr. CAD M/1 362a). If this translation is correct, it is a unique instance of a passive Gt-stem. A reflexive interpretation would also be unique, since it concerns a prototypical reflexive situation, which is always expressed by a nominal marker (see 10.8.3.3, pp. 261263). It may therefore rather be an instance of the confusion between Gt and Gtn that sometimes occurs in Standard Babylonian (see Streck 2003a: 1013); in this case, the translation is (with pirtu and mitu interpreted as present participles): the woman who (always) provides will keep providing, the woman who (always) robs will keep robbing. Another point is that pirtu and mitu may represent instances of the paronomastic use of the present participle to express an indefinite subject described in 8.4.1 (pp. 204205); see especially (39)(44). This would result in a translation such as some woman will. . . , another woman will . . .. 21. In the edition, both instances are transliterated incorrectly i-t-a-a, i.e., /yitta/ from mau Gt (also in Streck 2003a: 22 no. 8). However, assimilation of -mt- to -tt- is not further attested at so early a date, and the deverbal noun tzu battle shows that azu Gt to seize e.o. could have the metaphorical meaning of giving battle.
362
malku Gt to deliberate (Im4-da-li-ik /yimtalik/, Dam-da-lik /tamtalik/, see MAD 3, 176; CAD M/1 157 s.v. m. A 4a)22 lu Gt to deliberate, take counsel (La-i-da-al /l-yistaal/ BIN 8, 121:28) The lexicalized Gt-stem of alku (atluku to start going, set out) occurs for the first time in l it-tal-ku SAB p. 116: r.3 (Girsu) they have indeed departed.23 Other lexicalized Gt-stems are ap Gt to become silent (186) and allu Gt to jubilate (162) as an imperative in proper names from Mari: I-it-ll-DN MARI 4, 153:5; It-ll-DN AKI pp. 35657 no. 1011, ARM 19, 21213:9 and passim in ARM 19. ap and allu Gt also occur in later dialects as lexicalized Gt-stems.24 The most we can conclude about the use of the Gt-stem in third-millennium Akkadian is that it does not seem to be significantly different from that in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. Apart from the uncertain form itarqu (see n. 24 below), there are no Gt-stems that do not reappear in later dialects.
14.3.1.2. Assyrian
In Old Assyrian, the reciprocal function is again predominant. It is found in the following verbs, the first three of which are fairly common, whereas the others are more or less unique: lu Gt to deliberate, take counsel (47 and 72) (which may also be reflexive) apku Gt to store, deposit jointly (68), a kind of collective reciprocal (see 14.3.1.3, p. 364, on apku Gt in Babylonian) nalu Gt to look at e.o., be face to face in the expression ana i-ta-a-lim (tadnum) (to sell) for cash (64)25 amru Gt to meet (Pfv ni-ta-ma-ar TPAK 1, 68:19, normally N) emdu Gt to be in contact (31) en Gt to exchange, do in turn (Impfv e-ta-ni- /tanni/ St. Nimet zg p. 135:31) etqu Gt to travel together(?) (Prec le-ta-at-q-nim OAA 1, 98:37, perhaps a collective reciprocal; see 10.8.3.5, p. 265) magru Gt to agree with e.o. (Imp sm m-it-ga-ar VS 26, 56:19; Pl m-ta-ag-ra VS 26, 56:15 (normally N) mau Gt to fight with e.o. (8) malku Gt to deliberate (44, also Impfv ni-im-ta-lik Prag I 711:8 ) malu Gt to resemble e.o. (PPartc m!-ta-a-lu-tim AMMY 2002, 163:12 acc. to J. G. Dercksen, NABU 2003/45) nakru Gt to be(come) hostile towards e.o. (6) ragmu Gt to sue e.o. (9)26
22. For the Sargonic Akkadian proper names Mi/M-da-lik and Mi-da-ar, see n. 212 (p. 421). 23. Since l is hardly ever combined with a t-perfect (see chap. 5 n. 8, p. 128), this form is doubtless a perfective, even though this letter contains two indisputable t-perfects in lines 3 and 7, quoted as (25) and (26) in 6.3.2 (p. 149). 24. An uncertain case is adi si-dar-ki-u AKI p. 364 M 9:23 and p. 367 M 2: r.6 (Mari OAk): it may represent a Gt Inf itarqu (with the original PitaRS- pattern; see 14.2.1, pp. 358359) from arqu to steal, Gt to steal away, disappear?, as proposed by CAD /3 129a s.v. itarqu; see also Streck 2003a: 45 no. 83. The only other Gt form of arqu is the PrPartc mutarqu secret lover (SB), discussed in 14.7.2 (pp. 419420). 25. Sporadically in other forms: Impfv i-ta--lu CCT 4, 30a:17 they are watching e.o.. 26. Uncertain cases are aklu Gt in li-tk-lu-u(-ma) Or. 50, 103:22, 33 (meaning obscure), and *remum Gt to take pity, have mercy on e.o. in BIN 6, 14:56 anku u atti ni-ir-t-a-am. This may be the verb that appears in other dialects as rmu from PSem rm (cf. 17.7.1, p. 556). However, the use
363
The reciprocal function of the t-infix is also evident in the reciprocal nouns at and itbru mentioned above in 14.2.1 (p. 359). Finally, the common verb atawwum to speak is a fossilized reciprocal without corresponding G-stem.27 A few Old Assyrian Gt-stems can have direct reflexive meaning: pau Gt to anoint oneself (78), especially in (oil) ana pitaa to anoint myself with (CAD P 248b s.v. 2) labu Gt to put on (clothes) (76), e.g., in (clothes) ana litaba for me to put on (CAD L 18 s.v. 1c1) (but see the reservations expressed in chap. 10 n. 21, p. 258) aknu Gt to provide oneself with in a-ar-a-am -ta-k-an ArAn. 3, 134:16 I put on a snake (as a girdle), see Dercksen 2005: 112 (in a text where no t-perfects occur) perhaps also laptu Gt to be registered, have oneself registered (as a guarantor)28 Finally, Old Assyrian has a few lexicalized Gt-stems: alku Gt to start going, set out (93) ap Gt to become silent (186), which also occurs in Sargonic Akkadian (see above) perhaps le Gt in the expression (u)l al-t-e I am lost, at my wits end, if this is not a t-perfect of the G-stem; see Veenhof 1986: 23839 for a discussion29 Generally speaking, the use of the Gt-stem in Old Assyrian is more restricted than in Old Babylonian (see below) and is often stereotyped or idiomatic. In some cases, Old Assyrian uses the N-stem where Old Babylonian uses the Gt-stem (e.g., magru N to come to an agreement, abtu N to seize e.o., quarrel and ger N to quarrel, litigate; see 12.2.2.1, pp. 294295).
14.3.1.3. OldBabylonian
Of all non-literary dialects, Old Babylonian shows by far the greatest productivity of the Gt-stem. All three functions we distinguished abovereciprocal, reflexive, and lexicalizedare represented. Here, too, the reciprocal function is strongly predominant: Streck (2003a: 90) counts 53 reciprocal Gt-stems for Old Babylonian (including two cases that he classifies as soziativ, i.e., collective; 2003a: 38). Since Streck (2003a: 2038) enumerates and discusses them extensively, I will only give some examples. Most of the Old Babylonian reciprocal Gt-stems are natural reciprocals (see 10.8.3.5, p. 263), such as nakpu Gt to butt e.o., fight (5), mau Gt to fight (8), annu Gt to vie with e.o., compete (11), lu (lu) Gt to quarrel, fight (14), and magru Gt to agree with e.o. (20). However, there are also a few prototypical reciprocals among them, such as bru Gt to rebel against e.o. (2), baqru Gt to claim from e.o. (3), rmu Gt to love e.o. (21),30 zru N
of a -sign for Proto-Semitic * has no parallels in Old Assyrian; we would actually expect nirteam < *nirtaam. The verb rmu to love would also fit the contexteven betterbut in that case both and e are irregular. Rmu Gt does not (further) seem to occur in Old Assyrian with a reciprocal meaning. 27. The alleged G forms of this verb mentioned in the dictionaries come from two other verbs awum (I/i); see Kouwenberg 2008: 17173 and Dercksen 2004: 14851. The form na-wu-a-ku AKT 3, 103:7 may be an N-stem of *awum to speak; cf. Dercksen: 2004: 151 n. 424. 28. Always used in combination with qttum guarantee; see Veenhof 2001: 1056 with examples and Streck 2003a: 43 no. 77. It interchanges with the N-stem and seems to be either a passive or a reflexive causative; however, both functions are without parallel for the Gt-stem. 29. Some other possible Gt forms are too uncertain of interpretation to be included here. 30. Including lu-ur-ta-a-ma MIO 12, 50:14, lu-ur-ta-a-ma MIO 12, 48:3 and lu-ur-ta-ma St. Reiner p. 422: I 3, which are reciprocal Gt forms rather than Gtn forms, as claimed by Streck (2003a: 78 no. 207); see Kouwenberg 2005: 100101 and n. 32 below.
364
to hate e.o. (16),31 aklu Gt to eat e.o. or together (26 and 66), and lamdu Gt to (come to) know e.o. (51). They testify to the vitality of the reciprocal function of the Gt-stem. The verb apku Gt to build a party wall together (68) is a good example of a collective reciprocal. The verbs atw Gt (no G) to speak (43), zakru (saqru) Gt to speak (192) (passim in the introduction of direct speech; see Sonnek 1940), and perhaps a few others may be regarded as fossilized (pseudo-)reciprocals.32 In addition to the Gt-stem, there are various lexical means for expressing reciprocity, especially for prototypical reciprocal situations (see the examples mentioned in 10.8.3.5, pp. 264265). Old Babylonian also shows a few reflexive Gt-stems, all referring to natural reflexive situations (see also Streck 2003a: 3845): pau Gt to anoint oneself (78), labu Gt to put on (clothes) (76) (but see chap. 10 n. 21, p. 258), laptu Gt to rub oneself (77),33 epru Gt to provide oneself (with food) (80), and aknu Gt to provide oneself with, especially in the construction uma itkunu quoted in 10.8.3.3 (p. 262) to establish renown for oneself (82). In addition, there are a few lexicalized reflexives, such as naru Gt to watch out, be on guard, lit., to guard oneself (69), which interchanges with naru G plus ramnu and pagru (see 10.8.3.3, pp. 261263), and perhaps paqdu Gt to act cautiously, lit., to take care of oneself (71). Finally, malku Gt (44 and 70) and lu Gt (47 and 72), which have already been classified as reciprocal, may also be regarded as reflexive in some of their uses.34 As stated in 10.8.3.3, reflexivity is mostly expressed analytically by means of reflexive nouns and only rarely by the verbal markers. In addition to the reciprocal and the reflexive Gt-stems, Old Babylonian shows a fairly large number of lexicalized Gt-stems. They come both from transitive and intransitive verbs. Most of them occur only sporadically and more typically in literary texts than in prose texts. Since their function is problematic, I will list here all reliable instances that are known to me, starting with those which are found in Old Babylonian prose texts (some of them also occur in literary texts): alku to go /come, Gt to start going (93; see 14.3.4, pp. 371372) bar to see, Gt to watch carefully(?) (87 and 141)
31. The Gt forms of zru can also be reciprocal N-stems because both -nz- and -tz- give -zz-; cf. especially the PrPartc mu-un-ze-r MDP 57, 62 no. 3:15 (OB Susa), where -nz- may be secondary dissimilation, however, in accordance with GAG 32b. I have included them here because a reciprocal function is more common for the Gt-stem than for the N-stem. 32. Note the first-person dual that is specific to reciprocal verb forms (Gt and N; see chap. 12 n. 28, p. 295) in the form lurtm let us love (references quoted in n. 30, p. 363) and lu-u-ta-al-a YOS 11, 24:22 let us make love (? or the like) from alu Gt (not attested elsewhere in this meaning); see Kouwenberg 2005: 100101. They look like secondary forms derived from first-person singular forms by adding the dual ending - (elsewhere the dual is also derived from the singular, e.g., in the stative; see 7.4.1, p. 179). An exact parallel form is found in the Modern South Arabian languages for the first-person singular dual subjunctive: cf. Mehri l-rkz, Harssi lbd (see Wagner 1952 and Johnstone 1975: 17). The MSA forms are not restricted to reciprocal contexts, so perhaps the Akkadian forms are the last vestige of an earlier, more-widespread first-person dual form. However, such a form is not normally reconstructed for Proto-Semitic; see the table in Lipiski 1997: 37071. 33. The use of a Gt form in YOS 11, 25:49 (ingredients) izba ta-al-ta-pa-at you rub with milk is difficult to explain: a lexicalized form that has lost its reflexive force? (cf. Streck 2003a: 6869 no. 176). 34. Rare Gt-stems with (possibly) reflexive meaning further include ebu Gt to gird oneself (27), au Gt to anoint onself (75), karu Gt in the imp. kiar, which is equated in MSL 4, 119:36 with etbi and nenzi and therefore may mean gird yourself (elsewhere, karu Gt is reciprocal rather than reflexive; cf. Streck 2003a: 46 no. 85); epru Gt to provide oneself (with food rations), Gt Imp et-pi-ir in YOS 11, 24: I 23 balam et-pi-ir provide yourself with life/health; anqu Gt to strangle or hang oneself in A-ta-an-na-aq AbB 14, 149:32 I will hang myself(?) (Gt or Dt?).
14.3. The Function of the GtStem in Historical Akkadian el to go /come up, Gt to lose (+ ina) (95; see 14.3.4, pp. 371372) erbu to enter, Gt id. (164; see 14.3.4, pp. 371372) eru to ask, Gt id.35 kamru to heap up, Gt id. (147) kadu to reach, arrive, obtain, Gt ? (172) re to herd, Gt id. (156) adu to march, proceed, Gt id. (102) amru to rage, be(come) excited, Gt id. (128) ap Gt (no G) to be silent (186) wa to go /come out, Gt id. (97; see 14.3.4, pp. 371372).
365
Special mention should also be made of the fossilized Gt-stem itlu to lie down, see Huehnergard 2002b: 17884 and Streck 1997/98: 321. The following lexicalized Gt-stems are so far only found in Old Babylonian literary texts: aku to go, Gt id. (92) allu Gt (no G) to shout, rejoice (162) bak to weep, lament, Gt id.36 eklu to be(come) dark, Gt id. (110) enu to be(come) weak, Gt id. (113) ezbu to leave, Gt id.?37 abu to rejoice, Gt id.? (114) anbu to bloom, grow abundantly, Gt id.38 amru Gt (no G) to praise in PNs (163)39 ap to be loud, thick, Gt id. (129) aru to be glorious, boast, Gt id. (131)
They are forerunners of the flourishing of lexicalized Gt-stems in Standard Babylonian to be discussed in 14.3.4 (pp. 372374).
14.3.2. TheGt-steminlaternon-literarytexts
In Middle Assyrian, the Gt-stem is virtually extinct as a productive category (cf. W. Mayer 1971: 64). I know of a single instance of magru Gt (im-tg-ru--ni Abr-Nahrain 22, 161:15 they came to an agreement [Subj]) in a doubtless traditional legal formula, and also lu Gt to ask, deliberate must have been preserved, since it reappears in Neo-Assyrian with a double t-infix (see 14.5.3, p. 389). Elsewhere, the reciprocal and the reflexive use of Gt are replaced by the periphrastic constructions with ai and ramunu, respectively (W. Mayer 1971: 3435). Among the lexicalized Gt-stems, only alku Gt (Impfv ta-at-ta-lak Or. 17, 312: IV 7) continues to be used.40 There are also a few Gt-stems attested in PNs: aplu Gt in the meaning to requite
35. Gt is attested in et-ru(-)-a-[a]t YOS 10, 36: II 41 and 46: III 44, apparently with the same meaning as G. 36. Gt is attested in bi-it-ki-a St. Moran p. 291:2, 4. 37. Gt is attested in li-te-ez-ba-an-ni Atr. St. Garelli p. 401:24 (c. br.). 38. Gt is attested in mu-u-x-ta-an-bu St. Reiner p. 422: I 7. 39. Proper names with amru Gt already occur in Eblaite: i11-da-mar-DN; see Krebernik 1988a: 5859. 40. The other two Gt forms of alku mentioned by W. Mayer 1971: 92 (i-it-ta-lak KAV 1: IV 36:85 and i-it-tal-ka-an-ni KAV 2: VII 19:9) are doubtless t-perfects. This also applies to at-ta-lak in the greeting formula ultakain ana dinn bla at-ta-lak (e.g., KAJ 302:5) I have prostrated myself and have gone (i.e., have made myself available) as a substitute for my lord, where ultakain shows that both forms are
366
in DN-mtapl (CAD M/2 297a s.v. mtaplu) and amru Gt to praise in DN-timar (cf. CAD /1 298a s.v. . B 2b4 ). However, these names also occur in Middle Babylonian and may therefore be borrowed from Babylonian, just like many other verb forms in Middle Assyrian names. The large corpus of Middle Assyrian letters published in Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996 (MATSH) does not contain any indisputable Gt forms. In Neo-Assyrian, the trend visible in Middle Assyrian has reached its completion: the inherited verbal stems with infixed tnot only the Gt-stem but also the Dt and (both) t-stems have become obsolete, and the use of the single t-infix has been completely monopolized by the t-perfect (Deller 1965: 271; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 88).41 What survives of the old system of secondary stems is a new set of forms with a double t-infix, which will be discussed in 14.5.3 (pp. 388391). However, both in Middle and in Neo-Assyrian, we still find a number of deverbal Gt forms, which were common enough earlier on to survive as independent lexemes outside the verbal paradigm, e.g. mitru of equal size or degree in various expressions (CAD M/2 136b s.v. 1a1 c) mundau warrior < *mumtaum (mun-da-u-ti SAA 10, 111: r.13)42 In non-literary Middle Babylonian, the Gt-stem has become exceedingly rare.43 Reciprocal and reflexive situations are normally expressed by the periphrastic constructions with ami and ramnu, respectively (Aro 1955: 58, 117). Two lexicalized Gt-stems have survived: the ubiquitous alku Gt to start going, set out (Aro 1957: 10) and amru Gt to praise, which mainly occurs in proper names, such as DN-it-mar, DN-t-mar, and lultamar-DN (CAD /1 298a s.v. . B 2b2)44 but also a few times in texts: lu-u-ta-mar BE 17, 20:29 let me praise and al-taam-mar BE 17, 20:11 I will praise, presumably under literary influence. With regard to the Neo-Babylonian Kuyunjik letters, Woodington (1982: 90) reports that the t-infix that indicates a passive, mutual, or reciprocal action does not occur in these texts. In other Neo-Babylonian texts, however, we find a few instances, such as il-te-te-m mentioned in n. 10 above (p. 358) they listened to e.o. (> they made an agreement) from em to hear, doubtless a traditional legal formula.45 In addition, some deverbal forms that originally belonged to the Gt-stem have survived outside the verbal paradigm (Woodington 1982: 11415), such as:
t-perfects. Note that in all instances of this formula (see the references in CAD /3 218a s.v. uknu 2b1 and MATSH Gloss. p. 218) ittalak is spelled with a single l, so it is unlikely to be a Gt imperfective or a Gtn perfective. 41. Strecks criticism of Hmeen-Anttila (2003b: 127) is unjustified. He points to the Gt forms mitur SAA 10, 241: r.1, itqul SAA 8, 140/141/142:3, and ttabkanni SAA 13, 190:25e. However, mitur is an isolated lexicalized adjective (the context is: l mit-ur this does not make any sense (tr. S. Parpola), but since mitur does not seem to occur elsewhere in Neo-Assyrian, the reading mit-ar is preferable); itqul is a Standard Babylonian technical term (the genuine Assyrian form should be *itaql); ta-ta-ab-kan-ni is an ordinary t-perfect of tabku in the meaning to weaken, ruin or the like; see CAD T 7b s.v. 3d. A large part of the extant Neo-Assyrian letters are written by scholars who frequently use Standard Babylonian words, forms and phrases (see 1.4.1.3.3, p. 19). 42. The form it-ta-u ABL 879:13, listed as Gt in both dictionaries, is in a main clause and therefore doubtless a t-perfect (mau G can also mean to fight in Neo-Assyrian; see CAD M/1 77b s.v. 1h). 43. We do find a number of Gt-stems in peripheral texts from the Middle Babylonian period, e.g., aklu Gt to eat together (66, Emar), maru to come to an agreement (59, Emar), mau Gt to fight (8, Boghazky), and lu Gt to quarrel (14, Amarna, Nuzi). In this respect, the Akkadian of these areas is more like Standard Babylonian than are the contemporary non-literary dialect. 44. But also lultammar-DN, with the verb reanalyzed as a Gtn form; see 14.3.4 (p. 374). 45. For Late Babylonian forms that look like irregular imperfectives of alku Gt (at-ta-tal-lak, etc.), see 14.5.3 (pp. 390391).
367
muntalku counselor from malku Gt (e.g., mun-tal-ku ABL 1286: r.10) multau survivor from au to jump (which has no other Gt forms!) (e.g., mul-ta-u ABL 1342:9) itltu deliberation (e.g., i-tul-ti ABL 1387:10) pi/utqudu ( pitqidu, pitqadu) prudent, cautious from paqdu Gt (e.g., pu-ut-qu-du ABL 521:26), see CAD P 44142 s.v. pitqudu46 In sum, there is a remarkable similarity between the development of the Gt-stem in Assyrian and non-literary Babylonian: in both dialects, it is practically obsolete from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward: the reciprocal and reflexive Gt-stems have been replaced by periphrastic constructions, and the lexicalized Gt-stems have been largely discarded, except for the very frequent verbs alku Gt and lu Gt. We will come back to this development in 14.3.4.
14.3.3. TheGt-steminliterarytexts:StandardBabylonian
In Standard Babylonian, the Gt-stem has basically the same functions of reciprocal, reflexive, and lexicalized as in other dialects. What is different, however, is the huge increase in the number of verbs that show Gt forms. In stark contrast to the contemporary non-literary dialects, the Gt-stem reaches the summit of its productivity in Standard Babylonian (Streck 2003a: 8990). As I will argue below, this is primarily caused by the fact that the Babylonian scribes have cultivated the obsolete forms of this stem to enhance the literary flavour of their works. A substantial part of the Standard Babylonian Gt-stems have reciprocal function and are a continuation of Old Babylonian usage: the most frequent reciprocal Gt-stems of Old Babylonian remain in use, and a significant number of new cases are found for the first time. Streck (2003a: 90) counts a total of 89 reciprocal Gt-stems in SB. Since they can easily be found in Strecks list (2003a: 1981), I will not enumerate them here. The number of reflexive Gt-stems in Standard Babylonian is insignificant in comparison. They comprise mostly the same verbs as those mentioned above for Old Babylonian as certainly or probably reflexive (pau, labu, laptu, epru, aknu, naaru, paqdu, malku, and lu. Streck (2003a: 3845) adds six others, but all of these are more or less hapax legomena and many are semantically of the labu type and therefore doubtful representatives of reflexive function (see chap. 10 n. 21, p. 258). Even more than in Old Babylonian, reflexivity is expressed by the nominal reflexive marker ramnu. The most important innovation in Standard Babylonian is the increase in the number of lexicalized Gt-stems that are neither reciprocal nor reflexive (Streck 2003a: 8992, especially the table on p. 90). Some of them are already attested in Old Babylonian (see 14.3.1.3, pp. 363365), but most of them occur for the first time in Standard Babylonian. Since they are problematic because of their function and offer important evidence for the development of the Gt-stem in general, it is useful to give a list here, even though they are also listed by Streck (2003a: 4574) under the headings of Mediopassiv, Separativ, Intensiv(?), and funktionell unklarer Gt. The list also contains lexicalized Gt verbs that also have reciprocal and/or reflexive function. For reasons to be specified below, I have indicated in which forms each verb is attested.47
46. The lexicalized Gt-stem pitqudu to be prudent, cautious is still found in Neo-Babylonian in the imperative, but in an irregular form: pt-qa-du SAA 18, 4: r.4 (for regular pitqid). 47. For various reasons, which usually amount to ambiguity of form or uncertainty of interpretation, I have not included here the (alleged) Gt-stems of the following verbs: bar to be continuous? (193), idu to speak(?) (133), anu to bare the teeth(?) (166), lam to surround (36), napu to kick (169), red to lead (106; see Kouwenberg 2005: 99), abbu to roast, burn (183), aku to be wild(?) (127),
368

nadu Gt to pay attention (136, Pfv, Imp, Inf) nasu Gt to lament (134, Inf) namu Gt to set out, depart (99, Inf LL) napu Gt to light (a fire) (146, PrPartc) palu Gt to fear, respect (152, Stat, Imp) pardu Gt to become frightened (123, Stat) parsu Gt to be interrupted (55, Stat) qardu Gt to pluck (wool) (81, Imp) qerbu Gt to come near (60, Stat, Imp, Inf) ramku Gt to bathe (155, Stat) rapu Gt to be wide (125, Stat, Inf) ranu Gt to make a loud noise (122, PrPartc) re Gt to herd (156, Impfv, Pfv, Inf LL, PrPartc) sanqu Gt to be tight or the like (137, Stat) abru to flit, prattle (138, Imp, Inf, PrPartc) amru Gt to strive (191, Stat) atu Gt to fear, respect (157, Stat) au Gt to jump, attack (100, PrPartc) aknu Gt to place (158, Stat, Inf.) alu Gt to dominate, have authority (159, Stat) amru Gt to praise (163, Impfv, Pfv, Imp) amru Gt to rage, be(come) excited (128, Impfv, Stat, PPartc, Inf) an Gt to be(come) different, change (56, Stat) nu Gt to urinate (189, Impfv, Inf LL) apru Gt to govern, rule (Inf)51 apru Gt to outfit oneself, attire oneself with (187, Stat, Inf) aptu Gt to be malicious, treacherous(?) (179, PrPartc with abstract noun mutapttu) ap Gt to be silent (186, Stat, Imp) ap Gt to be loud, thick, etc. (129, PPartc) aru Gt to be boastful (131, Stat, Imp, PPartc, PrPartc with abstract noun mutartu) arqu Gt to steal (83, PrPartc)52 taklu Gt to trust (139, Imp) zakru (saqru) Gt to speak (192, Impfv, Pfv, Imp) zamru Gt to sing (161, Impfv, Pfv, Imp)
azu Gt to take(?) (48, Stat, Inf) aku Gt to go (92, Stat, Inf) alku Gt to start going (93, all forms) allu Gt to rejoice (162, Impfv, Pfv, Imp) apru Gt to put on ones head (74, Stat) barmu Gt to be multicoloured (109, Stat) bar Gt to see (87 and 141, Impfv, Imp, Inf) damu Gt to humble oneself (132, Impfv(?), Inf LL) ebu Gt to be tied, have cramps (27, Stat, Imp) elu Gt to bind (52, Stat) ekdu Gt to be concerned (135, Imp) eklu Gt to be(come) dark (110, Inf) ekpu Gt to approach (58, Pfv, Stat, Inf) elu Gt to rejoice, jubilate (111, Pfv) el Gt to lose (+ ina) (95, Impfv) epu Gt to be active (142, Inf) erbu Gt to enter (164, Pfv, Imp) garu Gt to be(come) powerful (121, PrPartc) abu Gt to swell, be elated (114, Stat) alpu Gt to dress, cover, be intertwined (84, Stat)48 arbu Gt to lie waste (117, Stat) amu Gt to hurry (116, Stat and adverb itmui) amu Gt to burn (145, Inf)49 am Gt to paralyze (144, Stat) anbu Gt to bloom, grow abundantly (PrPartc)50 assu Gt to heed, remember (143, Stat, Imp) el Gt to shine, be(come) bright (115, Stat) kamlu Gt to be(come) angry (7, Stat) kamru Gt to heap up (147, Stat, Inf) kamsu Gt to kneel, squat (118, Stat, Inf, PPartc) kanu Gt to submit, bow down (119, Stat) kapdu Gt to plan, take care of (148, Pfv, Stat, Imp) karbu Gt to pray (149, Imp, Inf) lau Gt to whisper (150, Inf) lamdu Gt to (come to) know (151, Stat) lemnu Gt to be(come) bad, evil (120, Stat)
As is clear from the indications of attested forms, most of these verbs only show non-prefix forms (statives, imperatives, and infinitives) and present participles. This is of crucial importance if one wants to understand the nature of the Gt-stem in Standard Babylonian. Since this topic can best be described in a diachronic perspective, I will postpone further discussion to the next section,
*ardu to be solid(?) (188), aru to clutch(?) (40), el to be blunt (184), and war to lead, bring (104). 48. Some of the forms show confusion with elpu to be grown together, be entangled. 49. The other instances mentioned in AHw 316b s.v. amu III Gt are more likely to be Dt forms. 50. In [m]u-u-ta-an-bu LSS 2/4, 23:3 waxing (said of Sin, tr. CAD M/2 177b s.v.); also OB; see 14.3.1.3 (pp. 363ff.). 51. In it-pur mtti Iraq 38, 94:6 acc. to CAD /1 448a s.v. 3b2. 52. Perhaps already attested in Sargonic Akkadian, see n. 24 (p. 362) and also 14.7.2 (pp. 419420) for its relation to mutarriqu.
369
which deals with the diachronic development of voice markers in general and the Gt-stem in particular.
14.3.4. ThefunctionaldevelopmentoftheGt-steminAkkadian
The data presented in the previous sections can be interpreted diachronically on the basis of abundant typological evidence about the origin and development of detransitive voice markers. A common grammaticalization path of voice markers starts with an analytical marker of prototypical reflexivity (see 10.8.3.3, p. 261), often a noun referring to the body or a body part, especially head.53 Subsequently, it comes to be used for emphasis (my body/head, etc. > myself) and hence as a reflexive, starting in prototypical reflexive situations and then also in natural situations. This may trigger several other uses in a grammaticalization process that is remarkably uniform across languages.54 First, reflexive markers often allow a reciprocal interpretation if the subject is plural and the meaning of the verb allows it (like se in Romance and sich in German).55 A further offshoot of the reciprocal is the collective function (Kemmer 1993: 99100; Streck 2003a: 18 [soziativ]), when several subjects perform an action together. Second, extension of the reflexive marker to inanimate subjects may lead to the mediopassive (anticausative) function: just as X hurt the man becomes the man hurt himself through reflexivization, X opened the door may become the door opened itself, in other words, the door opened.56 If in such an environment an agent is implied or even expressed, the marker may also acquire passive meaning: the door opened (by somebodys action) > the door was opened (by somebody). Third, as described in 10.8.3.6 (pp. 265267), the use of a reflexive marker in natural reflexive situations may lead to a weakening of its reflexive function and ultimately to the emergence of middle verbs. This kind of process is often accompanied by a parallel formal development. There are roughly three types of reflexive markers across languages: special reflexive nouns, reflexive pronouns, and affixes on the verb (Faltz 1985: 2866). Diachronically, reflexive (pro)nouns tend to develop into verbal markers over time. This starts with the tendency among the reflexive (pro)nouns to drift to the verb and attach themselves to it (1985: 5253, 21435), after which they tend to be reduced to clitics or affixes. It goes without saying that detransitive voice markers can also have a different background that entails a different grammaticalization process (Givn 1990: 600623; Haspelmath 1990).57
53. Schladt (1999) points out that all reflexives in African languages, and a large part of them in languages all over the world, originate as nouns for the body or salient parts of the body, especially the head, and gives an account of the step-by-step development of their grammaticalization. He also asserts that expression of reflexivity by means of (original) pronouns is typical of European languages only (1999: 11011). 54. Cf. Heine 1999; Kemmer 1993: 196200; Faltz 1985. 55. Kemmer 1993: 98; Heine 1999: 8, 12; Frajzyngier 1999: 181; Lichtenberg 1999: 5657. The common element in reflexive and reciprocal functions is a low distinguishability of participants (Kemmer 1993): the initiator is also the endpoint of the action, or both initiators are also endpoints. 56. Cf. also Langacker and Munro 1975: 800806: reflexive and (agentless) passive have in common that the subject and the direct object are non-distinct, either because they are coreferential or because the subject is unspecified; since coreferentiality is a special case of non-distinctness, the development from reflexive to passive represents a generalization in function. 57. This evidently also applies to the t-infix: its origin and development remain a matter of speculation. However, no satisfactory alternative seems to have been proposed. Lieberman (1986: 619) and Kienast (2001: 218) argue that t is originally a demonstrative pronoun, but why and how this developed into a reflexive remains unclear; I am not aware of any typological parallel for this. Hetzron (1973/74: 4546) and Zaborski (2005b: 86) derive t from an auxiliary verb to become. This implies that it is originally (medio)
370
A case in point is the development of the N-stem, as described in 12.6.1 (pp. 314321): as a combination of verbalizing prefix n(a)- and a past participle, its primary function in fientive verbs must have been (medio)passive. This is in keeping with the actual data we have, both in Akkadian and in other languages that have a productive N-stem (see 12.2.3, pp. 299300, and 12.6.2, pp. 321323). The occasional instances of reflexive and reciprocal N-stems are a secondary consequence of its gradually replacing the Gt-stem (see below). This means that the functional development of the N-stem is the opposite of that of the Gt-stem. Even though we do not know the etymology of the t-infix, the use of the Gt-stem fits neatly into the grammaticalization process of reflexives outlined above. If we include in our description the use of the N-stem and of the nominal markers in the domains of reciprocal, reflexive, and (medio)-passive, the following picture emerges. The marginal use of the Gt-stem for natural reflexives in the older dialects suggests that it started as a fully-fledged reflexive in both prototypical and natural reflexive situations but that by the beginning of the historical period it had been marginalized as a result of the competition from two sides: from the nominal reflexive markers ram/anu, pagru, and qaqqadu, and from the N-stem (at least for G-stem verbs). The nominal markers were used initially for prototypical reflexives but predictably also invaded the domain of natural reflexives. The rare use of the N-stem in reflexive function (see 12.2.2.1, p. 296) can best be understood in the framework of the general decline of the Gt-stem to be discussed presently. Thus, the few surviving reflexive Gt-stems are the last vestige of the (direct) reflexive function of the Gt-stem. The indirect reflexive function of t was lost already in prehistoric times: only the verbs tablu and tar to take/bring along, in which t occurs as a fossilized element that has become one of the radicals, preserve a trace of its former existence (see 16.2.3, p. 454). From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, reflexivity is only expressed by means of nominal markers, apart from its artificial preservation in Standard Babylonian. The reciprocal use of the Gt-stem met the same fatebut in a later period. Although still robust and productive in the older dialects, it is also threatened from two sides. The most formidable threat was posed by the periphrastic expressions for reciprocity discussed in 10.8.3.5 (pp. 264265), especially the use of au brother in various cases. It is clear, however, that this construction is a relative newcomer, since it is completely transparent: au usually behaves like an ordinary noun and takes the exact form that is required according to the grammar (see 10.8.3.5 for examples). This implies that it has not yet been grammaticalized to a significant extent. The reciprocal Gt-stem was also threatened by the N-stem. There are not many reciprocal N-stems (about a dozen; see 12.2.2.1, pp. 294295), but some of them belong to the most frequent reciprocal verbs (such as amru N, emdu N, and magru N). However, the increasing dominance of the periphrastic markers prevented this use of the N-stem from becoming very productive.58
passive (like the N-stem), which is contradicted by the fact that also in a historical perspective t is most prominently used for second argument reduction (see 14.4.2 below, pp. 380382), which points to an original reflexive function. 58. The actual replacement of the Gt-stem by the N-stem can be demonstrated by means of the verbs labu to get dressed and pau and laptu to anoint oneself: they normally use the Gt-stem in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian but the N-stem in Standard Babylonian and later to express reflexivity (cf. GAG 3 *92h). The latest form of pau Gt is p-i-a-a Adapa p. 18:32 (MB lit.); the same line also includes labu Gt (li-it-ba-a ), which occurs in later texts only exceptionally (Streck 2003a: 4243 no. 76). These two Gt imperatives interchange with the N t-perfects it-ta-al-[ba]-a and it-ta-ap-i-i Adapa p. 20: 6465. As I argued in 12.2.2.1 (p. 295), these t-perfects were used to avoid a double t-infix, and it is possible that these N forms were the trigger for the transfer of the whole paradigm to the N-stem. Laptu Gt is still used in Standard Babylonian but often in the meaning of G (or Gtn?) (Streck 2003a: 6869 no. 176).
371
After the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period, reciprocity was regularly expressed by the marker ami, doubtless a grammaticalized form of au in various cases (see 10.8.3.5, pp. 264265), and the Gt-stem had been ousted from its reciprocal function, except perhaps in a very small number of lexicalized Gt verbs (such as magru and lu Gt in Middle and Neo-Assyrian; see 14.3.2, pp. 365366). Only in Standard Babylonian do reciprocal Gt-stems remain in use. The fact that the reciprocal use of Gt held out longer than the reflexive use can be attributed to two factors. First, it may have started later, since it constitutes a secondary use of the reflexive in specific circumstances. Second, the reciprocal function differs more saliently from the normal meaning of the verb than the reflexive function (which is often closely similar to intransitive), so that a derived form with reciprocal meaning is lexicalized more easily and can survive as an individual verb on its own. The third important detransitive domain is that of the (medio)passive voice, which unlike reflexive and reciprocal represents first argument reduction, as stated in 10.8.3 (pp. 257258). The Gt-stem is not used as a (medio)passive of the G-stem in historical Akkadian; this is the exclusive domain of the N-stem. Whether the Gt-stem ever had mediopassive function in an earlier stage of the language is hard to say. On the one hand, the Dt- and t1-stems show that t was capable of performing this function, and the fact that the N-stem still continues to replace reciprocal and reflexive Gt-stems in historical times may suggest that in prehistoric times it did the same with the (medio)passive forms. On the other hand, it is significant that no residual (medio)passive Gt-stems have been preserved and that the West Semitic verbal stem with infixed t hardly ever has (medio)passive function (see 14.4.2 below, pp. 380382). The final outcome of these developments is that from the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian period onward the Gt-stem has virtually disappeared as a detransitive voice marker. However, this is not the end of the story. First, it survives as a literary artifact in Standard Babylonian with reflexive and reciprocal function, as we saw in 14.3.3 (pp. 367369); and second, already in the oldest texts there is a group of lexicalized Gt-stems, which are remarkably resilient and become enormously productive in Standard Babylonian. The earliest instancesfrom third-millennium Akkadian and Old Assyrianare ap Gt to be silent, allu Gt to jubilate, and alku Gt to start going (see 14.3.1.12, pp. 361363). In Old Babylonian, they greatly increase in number, especially in literary texts (see the list in 14.3.1.3, pp. 364365), so that we can get an idea of their nature. They are clearly neither reciprocal nor reflexive, and they come from both transitive and (more often) intransitive verbs but not from high-transitivity verbs. Among them, a small group with some peculiar features stands out: alku Gt to start going, el Gt + ina to lose, erbu Gt to enter, wa Gt to go /come out, and the fossilized Gt-stem itlu to lie down. These are intransitive motion verbs typically occurring with a personal subject and, unlike most other lexicalized Gt-stems of Old Babylonian, they are not predominantly literary.59 This group of verbs leads us to an explanation for the lexicalized use of the Gt-stem, since they have a remarkable typological parallel. In her study of the middle voice, Kemmer (1993: 5657, esp. pp. 15658) points to the occurrence of motion verbs with reflexive or middle morphemes that focus on the initiation of the motion activity, whereas the corresponding unmarked forms often refer to the intermediate or final stage of a journey (1993: 157). A prominent example is Old French, where some intransitive motion verbs developed a reflexive counterpart marked
59. They are therefore more or less restricted to Old Babylonian, since later non-literary dialects no longer use the Gt-stem. However, the dictionaries mention instances of alku Gt for Middle and Neo-Babylonian and for Middle and Neo-Assyrian (AHw 33b s.v. Gt 1; CAD A/1 32324 s.v. 5df; see also 14.3.2, pp. 365367); Neo-Assyrian normally uses the Gtt-stem instead; see 14.5.3 below (pp. 388391).
372
with the reflexive pronoun se: sen aler to leave, go away, sen venir to come, sen fur to flee, run away; but some other Indo-European languages also provide instances: Spanish irse to go away, Italian andarsene, Old Norse ganga-sk go away and hlaupa-sk to run (away) (1993: 57). It seems a plausible assumption that the t-infix underwent a similar evolution and also expanded its domain to include intransitive motion verbs with the nuance of denoting the initiation of a motion performed by a human being. Kemmers definition perfectly fits the use of alku and itlu and also accounts for the other verbs, in which the focus on the beginning of the motion is less evident because they are inherently ingressive. So this group of lexicalized Gt-stems are middle verbs and show the t-infix in its final stage of grammaticalization as a middle marker, which I discussed in 10.8.3.6 (pp. 265267). Natural reflexive actions are by definition performed by volitionally acting human beings. Accordingly, the middle verbs that in some languages developed from natural reflexive verbs, including this group of motion verbs, typically have a human subject. It is conceivable, therefore, that -t- expanded to these verbs to underline the human, volitional nature of the subject, in contrast to the basic stems of these verbs, which can often have a much wider range of subjects and are therefore less specific in meaning.60 Among the lexicalized Gt-stems in Old Babylonian, motion verbs and speech verbs are particularly well represented: apart from those mentioned above, the motion verbs include aku Gt to go,61 ezbu Gt to leave, and adu Gt to march, proceed. The speech verbs are bak Gt to weep, lament, eru Gt to ask, allu Gt to jubilate, amru Gt to rage, be(come) excited, ap Gt to be silent, amru Gt to praise, ap Gt to be loud, thick, etc., and aru Gt to boast.62 These Gt-stems and the remaining forms quoted in 14.3.1.3 (pp. 364365) do not seem to differ significantly in meaning from the corresponding G-stem, insofar as there is one. Their meaning and the absence of high-transitivity verbs among them suggest that they are also a kind of middle verb that in practice has become a variant of the G-stem. In Standard Babylonian, the number of lexicalized Gt-stems increases dramatically (see the list in 14.3.3, p.368). As I stated before, this is largely artificial, a feature of the literary language cultivated by the scribes on the basis of the Old Babylonian models they emulated. A more detailed investigation of what kind of verbs are used in the Gt-stem and what kind of meaning they have confirms this. The lexicalized Gt-stems that occur in Standard Babylonian for the first time show two unusual features. First, they interchange with the corresponding G forms, without any trace of a detransitive function. Second, they show a striking preponderance of non-prefix forms and present participles and a corresponding scarcity of finite prefix forms. I will elaborate these two points separately. The first feature can be illustrated by means of Gt G pairs of new Gt-stems such as the statives itmui ami quickly (116), bitrum barim is multicoloured (109), kitmus kamis kneels down (118), litmun lemun is bad, evil (120), pitlu pali is respectful (152), pitrud parid is fearful (123), ritmuk ramik is steeped (in) (155), ritpu rapa is wide (125), itmur amur is raging (128), itru ari is proud, glorious (131), and various others. Similar pairs of imperatives include issas usus think about! (143) and kitrab kurub
60. See, for instance, CAD A/1 30213 s.v. alku 1/4 for the use of alku G with non-animate subjects (e.g., blood and other secretions, eyes, water, messages, fire, wind, periods of time, prices, etc.). 61. For references, see 14.3.1.3 (pp. 363365); numbers in bold refer to Streck 2003a. 62. However, the two most common speech verbs in the Gt-stem, atw (always Gt) and zakru (saqru) (Gt in literary texts), are more likely to be original reciprocals that have lost their reciprocal value (Streck 2003a: 8486). In the case of atw, the replacement was doubtless stimulated by its doubly weak character.
373
bless! (149). Moreover, various Gt-stems that were reciprocal or reflexive in Old Babylonian have lost this meaning and occur now as equivalents of the G-stem: ituz aiz has learned > knows (48), litbu labi is dressed in, wears (76 and 86), itlup alip is dressed in, wears (84),63 litmud lamid is acquainted with (151), itkun akin is situated, provided with (158), and itnu ani is different, strange (56). Generally speaking, these are the cases for which W. von Soden in GAG 92f tentatively suggests the meaning etwas fr die Dauer tun and which Streck (2003a: 5366) lists under the heading Gt als Intensiv(?) in Opposition zu G. Whether these forms are really intensive or durative or the like is hard to establish on the basis of the context, but their frequency in literary texts suggests that they were felt to be appropriate or conducive to the literariness of the style. Their essential semantic feature seems rather to be their otherness, i.e., the fact that they are different from the forms used in everyday language. In this respect, they are similar to the elative forms with the pattern uPRuS (see 13.2.2.3, pp. 331332) the use of the -stem as a literary alternative to the factitive D-stem (see 13.2.2.2, pp. 328331, and GAV pp. 27176), and the purely literary D-stem (see 13.3, pp. 334337, and GAV pp. 33639). The elatives in particular are closely parallel to these literary Gt forms and raise the same problems with regard to their interpretation as intensive (see GAV pp. 29192 n. 39). Several factors have contributed to the loss of the original detransitive function of these forms. In some cases, the reciprocal force of t has weakened because it was extended to pseudoreciprocal (see 10.8.3.5, p. 265, and Streck 2003a: 8486) or even non-reciprocal contexts. This happened, for instance, with the verb atw to speak, originally to speak with e.o., to converse, with a plural subject (A and B speak with e.o.). One of the subject participants could also be introduced by itti (iti in Assyrian): A speaks with B. Eventually, the reciprocal marker was also used if there was no other participant and became a fossilized part of the verb.64 Streck (2003a: 8486) mentions the statives mitgur, qitrub, kitmul, pitrus, and itnu, among others, as Gt-stems that may have undergone this kind of weakening. One could perhaps add kiur it is joined (85) and kitmur it is heaped up (147). Even a small number of such alternating G/Gt pairs is sufficient to provide a model that the Babylonian scribes could exploit to create further Gt forms that are synonyms of the corresponding G form. These forms need not show any functional resemblance to the original Gt-stems.65 An even more important factor in the loss of the detransitive function of the Gt-stem was the general decline of the t-infix as a voice marker as a result of its increasing importance as marker of the t-perfect in affirmative main clauses from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward (see 6.3.4, pp. 153155, and Streck 1995a: 220 with n. 506). The resulting increase in frequency
63. An instance of the lexicalization of a reflexive Gt-stem in SB may be the use of laptu Gt in the meaning of laptu G to anoint, rub (someone else) (176). 64. A clear example of the weakening of reciprocal force is the quadriradical -stem upellu to (ex) change (see 13.4.4, pp. 348350). It has a derived t-form that is reciprocal or passive in Old Babylonian (cf. CAD /3 321a s.v. 1a and 323a s.v. 3). In Standard Babylonian, however, it is also used in the same way as the forms without t (see the examples quoted CAD /3 322b s.v. 2 after the remark note with reciprocal(?) -t-form; it is impossible to interpret these instances as reciprocal. Moreover, already in the oldest texts, but especially in Standard Babylonian, the - and t-stems of some verbs are used interchangeably, e.g., uru and uturu to put or keep in order (OB), usuru and utasuru to surround (OB), and perhaps also uzu and utuzu to kindle (SB). 65. A nice indication of the artificial nature (in more than one sense) of these Gt forms may be the stative st-nu-uq (137): the scribe in question seems to have applied the model PaRvS PitRuS to saniq mechanically and came up with sitnuq, forgetting to apply the metathesis rule that is required in verbs starting with s (GAG 36a): the grammatically correct form (which is also attested) is tisnuq.
374
of the t-perfect made the t-infix increasingly unfit for the expression of other grammatical functions. This was particularly felt in the prefix conjugations of the imperfective (Gt: iptarrVs) and the perfective (Gt: iptarVs), which are formally very similar (in the case of iptarrVs) or identical (in iptarVs) to the t-perfect of the G-stem (but also in the finite forms of other t-stems, as will be illustrated below). On the other hand, it hardly applies to the non-prefix forms of the Gt-stem, which cannot be confused with the t-perfect of the G-stem. As a result, the Babylonian scribes tended to avoid the finite prefix forms of the Gt-stem but exploited the non-prefix forms as literary alternatives to the usual G forms and even derived them from verbs that never had a Gt-stem. This explains the second striking feature of many of the new Gt-stems emerging in Standard Babylonian: they occur mainly as non-prefix forms and as present participles (see GAG 92f) and Streck 2003a: 8788 and elsewhere) and relatively rarely in the imperfective and the perfective. This is a very unusual situation and the opposite of what we normally find for the relative frequency of the finite indicative forms vis--vis the non-finite and irrealis forms, but it finds its natural explanation in the development just mentioned. In order to illustrate this, I have indicated in the list in 14.3.3 (p. 368) which members of the verbal paradigm are actually attested for each verb. A further indication of the decline of the Gt-stem is the fact that after the Old Babylonian period we sometimes find Gt forms that are reinterpreted as Gtn forms (many instances in Streck 2003a: 1013). Well-known cases include the Middle Babylonian proper name Lutammar-DN as compared to earlier Lutamar and itmar/Timar (Streck 2003a: 12) and imdai for earlier imtaa (see also p. 357 n. 5). It is significant that this only concerns prefix forms, where confusion with the t-perfect was possible.66 In conclusion, both the disappearance of the Gt-stem from non-literary texts after the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period and the way it is used in the literary texts of Standard Babylonian testify to the state of decline of its original detransitive function as a result of the competition from other markers and the expansion of the secondary perfect function. The phenomena we observe in Akkadian represent the final stages in the life cycle of a voice marker. Interestingly, this is not the end of the marker itself. On the contrary, it remains as vigorous and productive as ever, but in other functions. Various forms that originally belonged to the paradigm of the Gt-stem or were directly associated with it came to be reemployed in a new function, as part of the paradigm of another verbal stem. This applies to at least four categories: 1. The Gt perfective iptarVs became a perfect to the corresponding primary stem, as discussed in 6.4 (pp. 155160). 2. The Akkadian Gtn-stem, which was the pluractional of the Gt-stem (*yit(a)qattal-) as long as iparrVs was the pluractional of the G-stem, became the pluractional of the G-stem after iparrVs had ousted the older Impfv *yiqtVlu (see 4.4.3.1, pp. 103104, and 14.7.6, pp. 431437). 3. The pattern taPRiS(t), the original deverbal noun of the Gt-stem, gave rise to the denominal category of the t2-stem (see 14.6.2.2, pp. 404411). 4. The pattern taPRiS(t) also became productive as the verbal noun of the D-stem already in Proto-Semitic (see 14.6.1, pp. 401402). More incidental cases of recycling are the (non-prefix) Gt forms used as literary variants of G in Standard Babylonian and some individual G-stem verbs going back to original Gt forms: tablu to take/bring along and tar to take/bring/lead along are originally Gt-stems of I/w verbs (see
66. See in this context also the alternation of present participles represented by mutarqu mutarriqu, discussed in 14.7.2, pp. 419420 (although I do not think that the latter form is a Gtn present participle).
14.4. The Evolution of the GtStem
375
16.2.3, p. 454), and atnu to urinate arose from the Gt-stem of a II/ verb nu (see Streck 2003a: 7273 no. 189). These developments were made possible, or at least facilitated, by the previous functional disintegration of the Gt-stem. In the next section, we will see that in West Semitic, too, the Gt-stem was being replaced or had already been replaced by other formations. This means that the decline must have begun already in Proto-Semitic.
14.4. the evolution of the gt-stem

Verbal forms with prefixed or infixed (rarely also suffixed)67 t are widespread in the Afroasiatic languages and belong to the oldest reconstructible grammatical formatives of this phylum. The actual functions most commonly attributed to it are reflexive, reciprocal, middle, and passive.68 Some quite different functions are also reported, but it is unclear to what extent they hark back to the common proto-language or represent later secondary developments.69 The latter is certainly true of the pluractional function of t in the Akkadian tan-stems, as I will argue in 14.7.6 (pp. 431437) below. I will further concentrate on the evolution of t in Semitic, first on its formal aspects (14.4.1) and then on its functional development (14.4.2).
14.4.1. TheformalevolutionoftheGt-steminSemitic: fromprefixtoinfix(andback)

Derived verbal stems with the detransitive voice marker t occur in all Semitic languages. Attached to the basic stem, it is widespread but greatly varies in form and productivity. As an infix, it mainly appears in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and (Classical) Arabic. Scattered instances of infixed Gt forms are further attested in Amorite, Moabite, and Sabaic, and in the earliest stages of Aramaic and Phoenician (Garr 1985: 11920; Lipiski 1997: 397; Friedrich and Rllig 1999: 94; Streck 2003a: 1034). In Hebrew, the Gt-stem with infixed t is virtually extinct. Perhaps it survives in a few fossilized forms used as place-names and other obscure instances (Bauer and Leander 1922: 281; Testen 1999: 56). Such remains are of little use by themselves but they show that once the infixed t was more widespread and also occurred in languages that later only show prefixing of t.70
67. A suffixed -t occurs in Cushitic (Klingenheben 1956: 25859; Plazikowsky-Brauner 1957: 2829) and in Berber, if we assume that the enigmatic final -t on Berber verbs, especially in Tuareg (Prasse 1972/74: III 7374 and Heath 2005: 29499), is to be equated with the voice-marker t, as claimed by Kienast 2001: 63841. 68. For Afroasiatic in general, see Lieberman 1986: 61019 and Diakonoff 1988: 1045. For Berber, see Rssler 1950: 48081; Prasse 1972/74: III 41, 63; and Kossmann 2002: 35863. For Egyptian, see Rssler 1950: 309. For Cushitic, see Rssler 1950: 49293 (Beja); Hayward 1975: esp. 2089; and Voigt 2002: 28485. For Semitic, see Brockelmann 1908: 528, 53335; Moscati, ed. 1964: 127; and Lipiski 1997: 396. See also Streck 2003a: 1034 for a general survey. 69. Such functions include frequentative or habitual in Berber (Steiner 1981: 2123, 26; Castellino 1962: 13233; Lipiski 1997: 395) and causative in Cushitic (Castellino 1962: 13233). For the alleged separative and durative/intensive functions of the t-infix in Akkadian, see 14.3.4 (pp. 369374) and more extensively Kouwenberg 2005. 70. Very problematic is the situation in the Modern South Arabian languages. They have at least two verbal stems with infixed t and none with prefixed t (Appleyard 1996: 218). In Mehri, one stem has an imperfective yftkrn with a perfect ftkr to consider, and the other has an imperfective yftgr with a perfect fatgr to burst, split open (Johnstone 1975: 14; Voigt 1994: 303). The relationship of these forms to derived verbal stems in other Semitic languages is controversial. Voigt (1994: 303), for instance, equates the yftgr, fatgr type with the Geez III/1 Stem, i.e., the simple stem with t-prefix, and the yftkrn,
376
The Evolution of the GtStem 14.4.
In the other Semitic languages that have preserved the Gt-stem (in particular Geez, Aramaic, and modern Arabic dialects), t is a prefix (see further 14.4.2, pp. 380382).71 For comparison with Akkadian, the most important data is provided by Arabic and Ugaritic. Table 14.2 shows the relevant forms of the Gt paradigm of Akkadian and their formal counterparts in these two languages.72 Akkadian Impfv Pfv Stat/Perf Imp Inf PrPartc iptarrVs iptarVs pitrus pitrVs pitrusu muptar(i)su Arabic yaqtatilu yaqtatil (i)qtatala (i)qtatil (i)qtitl muqtatil Ugaritic *yiqtatVlu *yiqtatVl *(i)qtatila ? *(i)qtatVl
table 14.2: the gt paradigm in Akkadian, Arabic, and Ugaritic.
In the prefix categories of the (im)perfective and the present participle, there is broad agreement between the languages: they can be reconstructed as *yiqtatVl(u) and *muqtatil-, respectively. However, in the (im)perfective (and the imperative) Akkadian distinguishes vowel classes, whereas Arabic shows the fixed vowel pattern of the derived stems.73 In all likelihood, Arabic preserves the original situation; in Akkadian, the G imperfective has imposed its vowel on the Gt-stem, as it has done in all derived stems with the exception of the D-stem and the -stem and their derivatives (see 4.2, pp. 8890, and 4.5.2, pp. 112115). Since the t-perfect of the G-stem iptarVs has also adopted the imperfective vowel (see 6.2, pp. 138139), it still has the same vowel as the Gt perfective. The non-prefix forms cannot be derived from a single Proto-Semitic form, but they share an important feature: in all three languages, they result from the fact that the prefix forms have imposed their base on the non-prefix forms (Moscati, ed. 1964: 153). This happened in different ways in Akkadian and in the two West Semitic languages. Whereas Akkadian avoided the resulting word-initial cluster of -PtaRvS by means of an epenthetic i (see 14.2.1, p. 358), Arabic introduced a prothetic vowel, as it also did in Stem VII ((i)nqatala), the equivalent of the N-stem (see 12.6.2, pp. 322323). As a result, all forms have the same base -qtatVl. Ugaritic seems to have reorganized its Gt paradigm in the same way as Arabic: the imperative (e.g., itm hear!) and the perfect (e.g., itir it was left over) also show a prothetic vowel.
ftkr type with the III/2 Stem (ytqttal, taqattala), or the III/3 Stem (ytqttal, taqtala). Appleyard, on the other hand, does the opposite (1996: 21619): he equates the yftgr, fatgr type with the Geez III/3 Stem and regards the yftkrn, ftkr type as a reflex of the simple stem with t. So it seems that we need more clarity about the background of these forms before we can use them profitably for comparative purposes, and I will leave them out of account in the discussion on the development of the t-stems (cf. also Diem 1982: 56 n. 47). 71. Hebrew has one possible example of a prefixed Gt-stem: the form hitpqed to be mustered (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 15859; but they leave open the possibility that it has an original long , like the Arabic Stem VI yataqtala). 72. The Ugaritic forms are based on Krebernik 1991a: 22833; Sivan 1997: 12831; and Tropper 2000: 51832 73. In Ugaritic, the vowel between second and third radical may be a or i; cf. Krebernik 1991a: 23031; Sivan 1997: 129; Tropper 2000: 519.
377
The original form of the stative/perfect, the imperative, and the infinitive was characterized by a prefix ta-. In Akkadian, this is preserved in a number of deverbal taPRvS(t) nouns that are semantically linked to the Gt-stem (see also Goetze 1936: 324 and Streck 2003a: 102). They will be discussed in greater detail in 14.6.1 below (pp. 397402), so a few examples may suffice here: tamru battle from maru Gt to confront e.o., tamlku counselor from malku Gt to deliberate, tabittu quarrel from abtu Gt to quarrel (OB Mari), tanintu rivalry, battle from annu Gt to compete, and ta/em and tamtu concord, harmony from em Gt to listen to e.o.. These action nouns are ancient deverbal derivations of the Gt-stem dating from a period in which ta- was still a productive verbal prefix. Thus, they point to the existence of a prehistoric Gt paradigm preceding the paradigm of Table 14.1 in which the Gt-stem had a suffix base taPRvS parallel to naPRvS in the N-stem (Diem 1982: 37; Testen 1999: 4). This means that for the Akkadian non-prefix forms we can reconstruct an Imp *taprVs, an Inf/PPartc *taprusu, and a deverbal adjective tapr/s,74 which were replaced by pitrVs, pitrus, and pitr/s already in prehistoric times. The Proto-Semitic background of these forms is shown by deverbal taQTvL nouns in various West Semitic languages that can also be associated with the Gt-stem, such as the following: 1. The word for twins, which can be reconstructed as PSem *taw/m on the basis of Akk t/mum, He t amm, and Ar tawam, Pl tawim (Brockelmann 1908: 79, 384). Arabic also preserves a corresponding verb in the reciprocal Stem III wama to agree. For the meaning, cf. Akk tplu pair from aplu Gt to correspond to e.o., mentioned in 14.6.1 (p. 398). 2. Testen (1999: 714) has pointed to Arabic deverbal nouns starting with tu- (with the patterns tuCC- and tuCaCat- < *t-wCC-, etc.) and associated with Stem VIII verbs with w as R1, such as tujha facing, opposite (a noun grammaticalized into a preposition) alongside ittajaha to face, be oriented towards (cf. wajh face). They are remnants of an earlier deverbal noun pattern with a prefixed t-,75 which was later replaced by the new and productive pattern (i)qtitl (in this case (i)ttijh). 3. There are also a few other nouns with tV- in Arabic that can be associated with Gt verbs in Arabic itself or in other languages: tahlukah and tuhlk ruin (presumably < *tahlk acc. to Wright 1967: I 11516), which look very similar (at least in form) to Akkadian tluku mentioned in 14.6.1 (p. 400), can be compared to the common Gt-stem atluku to start going in Akkadian: both are t-derivations of the root hlk to go (Ar to perish) tilq occurs as a verbal noun of laqiya (I and VIII) to meet timl image, statue is derived from maala to resemble, cf. Akk malu Gt to resemble and tamlu image, likeness
74. The imperatives tabal and tar take/bring along! from tablu and tar, respectively, which are secondary verbs derived from the Gt-stem of wablu to bring, take, carry and war to bring, take, lead (see 16.2.3, p. 454), may be residual forms with the prefix ta-. According to Voigt (1987c: 99), the imperative also has a direct parallel in Tuareg: tkrh < *takraz , a t-stem of krz to acquire, referring to Prasse 1972/74: III 88; see also Heath 2005: 46768. 75. It is questionable whether we may generalize a strong verb pattern t-CCC from this pattern tuCC of the I/w verbs, as does Testen (1999: 1214). As I will demonstrate in 16.2 (pp. 448462), the I/w verbs show many specific forms that are not based on the paradigm of the strong verb. There is no reason why they should not have tuCC, whereas the strong paradigm has taCCC. See also my objections against working with affixes whose basic form is purely consonantal in chap. 2 n. 71 (p. 52).
378
The Evolution of the GtStem 14.4. He talbet and Syriac talbt, both meaning garment, can be compared to Akk labu Gt to put on He tt outlets corresponds to Akk ttu sortie, offspring < *tawatum, cf. wa Gt = G to go /come out (see 14.6.1, p. 399)
4. Geez has a few verbal nouns of the pattern tVqtl that semantically belong to the G-stem or the Gt-stem, such as tabb astuteness, skill from taab(a)ba to be astute, act wisely and tamy conversion from tamaya to turn (intr.) (Barth 1894a: 293; Testen 1999: 45). They mostly have the pattern taCCC, but there are also a few cases with in the first syllable, pointing to an earlier tiCCC or tuCCC.76 In West Semitic, the number of taQTvL forms connected with Gt-stems is much smaller than in Akkadian, for which see 14.6.1 below (pp. 397401). The great majority of nouns with prefixed ta- are either so strongly lexicalized that they preserve no traces of their former association with a Gt-stem or they have made the same switch as many taPRiS(t) forms in Akkadian and have gone over to the D-stem.77 A generous selection can be found in Kienast 2001: 11315.78 Even so, they show that West Semitic once had the same pattern for the deverbal forms of the Gt-stem.79 Thus the paradigm of tables 14.1 and 14.2 replaces an earlier Gt paradigm with a prefix base -QtaTvL (as in historical times) and a suffix base taQTvL, as shown in table 14.3:80 Impfv Pfv Imp Inf PPartc PrPartc *yiqtatilu *yiqtatil *taqtil ? *taqtl- ? *taqtVl- ? *muqtatil-
table 14.3: the gt paradigm in Proto-semitic. 76. The regular verbal noun (or infinitive) pattern is taqatlo(t); see Tropper 2002: 9697. 77. The relationship between these deverbal nouns and the Gt-stem was already observed by Praetorius (1889: 38) but categorically rejected by Barth (1894a: 27576) and has apparently been more or less forgotten since. Kuryowicz (1972: 12022) states that ta- serves to reinforce verbal abstracts and infinitives and is also used as a simple phonetic prop (without semantic value) used as expressive enlargement or euphonic element (p. 120); cf. doublets such as Ar liq and tilq meeting, timl and mil image, hulk and tuhlk as madars of halaka to perish. He also regards Akkadian taprs and taprs as derivations of pars and pars with ta- as the exponent of substantive value (p. 122). This might apply to a few individual cases, but it ignores the semantic association of many ta-PRvS nouns with the Gt-stem and leaves the source of t- unexplained. Kienast (2001: 11315) distinguishes t- with a verbal function, obviously associated with the t-stems and the D-stem, and a nominal t- which he derives from a pronoun plus a nominal clause. This seems needlessly complicated, and the two kinds are difficult to distinguish, as Kienast admits (p. 113). 78. For Arabic, see Fleisch 1961: 41922; 79. As I will argue in 14.6.2.2 below (pp. 406407), the taPRvS nouns, although they are themselves residual in historical Akkadian, have played a major role in the development of the Akkadian verbal system, since they are the source of two quite productive categories: the taPRiS(t) forms associated with the D-stem and the t2-stem. 80. It is sometimes claimed (see Diem 1982: 3537) that taQTvL goes back to an earlier taQaTvL (cf. especially the Geez Gt Inf taqatlo(t)-). There is no factual evidence for this; it is purely based on the view that QtvL is always secondary to QaTvL and is therefore parallel to the claim that the finite prefix category *yi-QTvL goes back to an earlier *yi-QaTvL. For this form there is no factual evidence either, and it must be situated in a Pre-Afroasiatic period anyhow, since in the Afroasiatic proto-language the shorter form *yi-QTvL is already firmly established; see 18.3.1 (pp. 587590).
379
The fact that the prefixed forms of East and West Semitic have the same structure, whereas the non-prefix forms are quite different, shows that the replacement of the latter must have taken place after the split of the two main branches of Semitic. The vowel patterns of the imperative and the infinitive remain uncertain because of conflicting evidence. However, it is possible that the stem vowel a or of the deverbal taPRS or taPRaS forms investigated in 14.6.1 (pp. 397399) and their formal successors, the PitRS forms discussed in 14.2.1 (p. 359), may be connected with in the Arabic madars (Stem III qitl, Stem IV iqtl, etc.). The sequence -i-- may be based on an original QaTL > QiTL in the basic stem that is no longer used as such in Arabic but has left several traces (see Kienast 2001: 38384). Thus, we may perhaps reconstruct an Inf *taqtl or perhaps *tiqtl, which in Arabic was replaced by (i)qtitl. It is plausible to assume that also in the finite forms with personal prefixes t was originally prefixed to the stem (Impfv *yitqatVlu and Pfv *yitqatVl) and that the subsequent process of infixation started in these forms, where t and R1 were adjacent. This caused them to change places for phonological reasons (Diem 1982: 4546): t is very low in sonority and therefore easier to process as second than as first member of a cluster. The metathesis may have started in clusters where the difference in sonority is very high, such as t + sonant, fricative, or (Clements 1990: 287). As Ultan (1975: 17879) has established, metathesis is one of the most common processes for creating infixes. Moreover, as we saw in 14.2.2 (pp. 359360), the outcome of the assimilation of the t-infix to a sibilant presupposes the original order with t before the sibilant. The fact that both the Akkadian Gt-stem and the corresponding Arabic and Ugaritic stemsnot to speak of the sporadic instances of infixed t in other West Semitic languagesshow infixation implies that this metathesis must have taken place in the Proto-Semitic period. The subsequent (post-Proto-Semitic) replacement of the non-prefix forms in both East and West Semitic is caused by the fact that the finite prefix categories dominate the non-finite categories in the hierarchy of the verbal paradigm (see 2.2.1, pp. 2930) and therefore impose their structure on the latter (Diem 1982: 45).81 No doubt, the switch from prefix to infix in the nonprefix forms was a gradual analogical (morphophonemic) process that may have started a long time after the emergence of the finite forms with infixed t.82 In all events, there must have been a sufficient time span for many deverbal nouns with the old prefix ta- to become lexicalized and survive as independent nounsmostly action nouns (going back to infinitives), but also a few agent nouns (see below). This leads to the conclusion that prefixing of t is original and that infixing is secondary. However, there are also West Semitic languagesespecially Geez, Aramaic, and modern Arabic dialectsthat exclusively or predominantly use a prefixed t in the Gt-stem. In the next section, I will argueas others haveon the basis of functional arguments that the historical forms with prefixed t in these languages do not hark back to Proto-Semitic but result from the rise of a new
81. This explanation of the non-prefix forms was already intuited by early Semitists, such as F. Philippi, H. Bauer and P. Leander; see Diem 1982: 45 n. 27 for references. It is much simpler and therefore more convincing than purely phonological explanations that have been put forward. An example is Testens attempt (1999: 1114) to derive the Arabic Stem VIII madar (i)qtitl from an original *t-qtvl via insertion of an epenthetic vowel between the second and the third consonant: t-qvtl, metathesis of the first two consonants, and the usual prothetic vowel. It seems more straightforward to assume that (i)qtitl replaces an earlier *taqtl or the like and is remade on the basis of the Impfv yaqtatilu and the Perf (i)qtatala in combination with the infinitive pattern -i-a-. This makes a hypothetical form *t-qtvl superfluous. 82. The fact that Old Assyrian still preserves the original distribution of patterns based on the vowel syncope rule in the non-prefix forms of the Gt-stem (PitRvS versus PitaRS-; see 14.2.1, pp. 358359), may be an indication that the rise of the Akkadian non-prefix forms is a fairly recent phenomenon.
380
The Evolution of the GtStem 14.4.
prefixing Gt-stem by analogy with the prefixed t-derivations of the D-stem and the causative stem, after the infixing Gt-stem had become more or less extinct.
14.4.2. ThefunctionaldevelopmentoftheGt-steminWestSemitic
For the functional evolution of the Gt-stem in West Semitic, we have to distinguish again between languages with t as an infix (mainly Ugaritic and Arabic) and t as a prefix (Geez, Aramaic, and modern Arabic dialects). The former are the most informative for the development of t in comparison to Akkadian, since they also have a detransitive N-stem competing with the Gt-stem. With regard to the function of the Ugaritic Gt-stem, Krebernik (1991a: 23639) mentions direct and indirect reflexive (e.g., r Gt to wash (oneself) and sp Gt to collect for oneself, respectively), reciprocal/collective (e.g., b Gt to fight), and a fairly large number of unclear cases, which are partly a result of our inability to distinguish Gt from Dt. It is uncertain, according to Krebernik (1991a: 237), whether Gt can also be passive/intransitive. Tropper (2000: 53132) also attributes reflexive and reciprocal function to the Ugaritic Gt-stem and adds a durative/iterative function. He mentions other functions as well, namely, intransitive and einfach transitiv. These seem to be less well established.83 With regard to the durative/iterative cases, one might assume that the forms in question are actually lexicalized Gt-stems that have partly lost their specifically detransitive meaning, the more so since the Ugaritic Gt-stem is a largely literary category. This would be parallel to what happened in Akkadian. Important for establishing the exact status of the Ugaritic Gt-stem is Troppers (2000: 528) observation that the suffix conjugation (*iqtatVla) is very rare and that the prefix conjugation (*yiqtatVl(u)) is especially common in the poetic corpus but rare in prose texts (p. 531). This suggests that it is an archaic category preserved in literary style but no longer (or less) used in ordinary language, just as the Gt-stem in later Babylonian.84 This is in keeping with what we know about other languages from the same area. Moabite has several forms of the verb lm to fight with infixed t. In the oldest Aramaic texts, we also find a few instances of infixed t (Garr 1985: 11920), but later Aramaic only uses prefixed forms, unless the first consonant is a sibilant (Segert 1990: 256).85 Arabic also provides important information about the diachronic development of the Gt-stem. For Classical Arabic, Stem VIII (iqtatala) is described by Wright (1967: I 4142) as properly the reflexive or middle voice of the basic stem: it is both direct and indirect reflexive, reciprocal, and passive, the latter especially if there is no Stem VII (inqatala). Moreover, in not a few verbs, Stem VIII shows no discernible difference in meaning from the basic stem. Joon (1935: 11115) states that iqtatala is originally an indirect reflexive but tends to become similar to the basic stem and can also be direct reflexive and passive (his examples suggest that he instead means mediopassive or anticausative). Fleisch (1979: 30914) states that iqtatala is often indirect reflexive or the intransitive counterpart of transitive verbs and that it is often synonymous with the basic stem (p. 314). Finally, Diem (1982: 7073) states that iqtatala expresses direct and indirect reflexivity and reciprocity, that it is nicht frei bildbar but stark lexikalisiert, and that
83. In contrast to Tropper, I classify b and m Gt to fight as (original) reciprocals (cf. 10.8.3.5, pp. 263265); hlk Gt umhergehen may conceal a form with gemination like Akk alku Gtn and He hithallek (for which see 14.5.5, p. 394). 84. This is reminiscent of the difference between the ancient perfective *yiqtVl and the new perfect qatVla: poetic texts use the former, other texts mainly the latter (Tropper 2000: 69597; Sivan 1997: 99). 85. Amorite may have had past participles with infixed t; cf. proper names of the type Batarum (from br to select), Yatarum (from yr to be straight, right), and some others, suggesting the existence in Amorite of a Gt-stem with infixed t; see Streck 2000: 340.
381
in modern Arabic dialects its function is largely taken over by inqatala and/or the Neubildung itqatal. Rets (1983: 2829), however, stresses the passive use of both inqatala and iqtatala and claims that it tends to be underrated. In contrast, Wright (1967: I 4041) characterizes Stem VII (inqatala) as approach[ing] more nearly to a passive and also ascribes a direct reflexive and effective signification to it, with which, judging by his examples, he actually means a mediopassive or anticausative, e.g., inkasara to break (intr.), to be broken. He also emphatically states that it is never reciprocal. Joon (1935: 11115) and Fleisch (1979: 30914) observe that inqatala is often used in process verbs with inanimate subjects or, if the subject is animate, describes involuntary events. Reckendorf (1967: 49) describes inqatala in a similar way but adds that it is also used for the passive. Perhaps we may summarize these descriptions by stating that, broadly speaking, Stem VIII primarily serves for second argument reduction and Stem VII for first argument reduction (see 10.8.3, pp. 257258).86 This agrees with the functions of the Gt-stem and the N-stem, respectively, in Akkadian. Just as the Gt-stem, Stem VIII is highly lexicalized and is often interchangeable with Stem I (see Zaborski 2004 for many examples)87 but also shows clear traces of an original association with reflexivity and reciprocity. The use of Stem VII (often passive, but also used to express processes and involuntary events) agrees well with the historical background of the N-stem as described in 12.6.1 (pp. 314321). This suggests that in Arabic, too, the voicemarker t is older and more lexicalized than n, that t has lost its force in many verbs and has been replaced by n in certain functions. The evidence from Ugaritic and Arabic ties in with the detailed evidence from the recorded history of Akkadian and suggests that the decline of the Gt-stem and its replacement by the N-stem and nominal markers already began before Proto-Semitic was split up. This is indirectly confirmed by the West Semitic languages that have lost the Gt-stem with infixed t, especially Aramaic and Geez. They have developed a Gt-stem with t as a prefix in all forms. In Geez (Stem III/1 ytqattal, taqat(a)la) and Aramaic (e.g., Syriac Ethpel neqel, eqel), it is the productive means of creating a detransitive (mostly passive) derivation of the basic stem. Although there can be little doubt that t was originally a prefix in (Pre-)Proto-Semitic and earlier in Afroasiatic, there are good reasons to assume that the consistent prefixing of t in these stems in Geez and Aramaic is a secondary development and that infixing of t once existed but disappeared with the original Gt-stem itself.88 The presence of prefixed t forms in Geez and Aramaic coincides with the absence of a productive N-stem with (medio)passive function. This suggests that the rise of a
86. Cf. also Reckendorfs formulation of the difference between VIII and VII (1967: 49): [W]hrend die andern vier Medialformen [i.e., the derived stems with t as infix or prefixN.J.C.K.] bezeichnen, dass die Wirkungen unter mehr oder weniger positivem Zutun des Subjekts zu Stande kommen, scheint bei der VII Konjug. ursprnglich die lebendige Mitwirkung des Subjekts in den Hintergrund zu treten, sie bedeutete wohl: die Wirkungen der von der I Konjug. bezeichneten Handlung unter indifferentem Verhalten ber sich ergehen lassen. Der Anteil des Subjekts ist negativ. 87. I do not agree with Zaborskis conclusion (2004: 170) that these forms are traces of iptaras Perfects and show that this category already existed in Afroasiatic. In order to qualify for being such a perfecti.e., a finite member of the basic stemit is not enough to show that t does not have its usual detransitive meaning. It should also be demonstrated that it is in a paradigmatic relation to the other finite members of the basic stemfor instance, that it contrasts with a G-stem imperfective of the same verb and denotes a difference in tense/aspect. 88. For Geez, this is argued by Diem 1982: 5758. Traces of infixing occur in the oldest Aramaic documents; see Garr 1985: 11920. However, Brockelmann (1908: 529), Lieberman (1986: 614), and Fischer (1982: 84) consider itqatal to be original (Fischer: eine altertmliche Bildungsweise) and Classical Arabic iqtatala secondary, comparing it with Aramaic Ethpel. If they mean that it is older than the
382
The Remaining Secondary Stems 14.5.
new Gt-stem with prefixed t is caused by the urge to create a new (medio)passive for the G-stem and explains why it is much more predominantly (medio)passive than the original Gt-stem. The model for this was formed by the derived stems which had a detransitive derivation with prefixed t- all along (Rets 1989: 149):89 in Aramaic (with Syriac as example), the Ethpaal neqaal, eqaal beside the active Pael nqael, qael, in Geez the III/2 Stem ytqttal, taqattala, and the III/3 Stem ytqttal, taqtala, which neatly correspond to the Arabic Stem V (yataqattalu, taqattala) and Stem VI (yataqtalu, taqtala). Thus the Geez III/1 Perf taqat(a)la is a backformation based on taqattala and taqtala and does not go back to the original Proto-Semitic suffix base *taqtVl-, which was lost in the common West Semitic period. Its fluctuation between a and < i or u (with taqatala mainly in verbs with gutturals) is based on the same phenomenon in the perfect of the G-stem (qatala or qatla < *qati/ula).90 This also applies to the corresponding Aramaic forms. The same process as in Aramaic and Geez can be observed in modern Arabic dialects. Very few of them preserve the derived stem with infixed -t- (Stem VIII) as a productive category. According to Rets (1983: 164), it mainly survives in a rather small group, being limited to the south of the Arabian peninsula (Yemen, adramaut). Elsewhere, it was replaced by forms with prefixed t of the type itqatal (Diem 1982: 6466; Lipiski 1997: 39798). Just as in Ethiopic, the rise of this itqatal form is usually accompanied by a more-or-less strong decline of the other detransitive stem, Stem VII (Diem 1982: 6566). The final conclusion is that in all West Semitic languages the use of the original prefixing Gt-stem is drastically reduced over time. Apart from Arabic, it is restricted to the oldest attested stages. In Classical Arabic, it manages to hold its own fairly well but shows clear signs of loss of function and lexicalization. In modern Arabic, it is largely replaced by prefixed forms, and this also happened more consistently in Geez and Aramaic. The fact that Akkadian shows the same picture suggests that this decline already started before the split between East and West Semitic (even if we allow for the much later date of attestation of the latter). This is confirmed by the function of the nouns of the pattern taPRiS(t) to be discussed in 14.6.1 below (pp. 397402) and perhaps by the background of the Arabic Stem V (yataqattilu, taqattala) discussed in 14.5.5 (pp. 394395). From a typological perspective, the decline of the Gt-stem with infixed t is not an unusual development: Ultan (1975: 171) observes that [I]nfixes tend to decay semantically more rapidly than other affixes (see also pp. 18588). One of the reasons is that infixes are always firmly and closely bound to their roots. This close physical bond leads to blurring and eventual fusion of the semantic value or function of the infix with that of its root (p. 171).
14.5. the remaining secondary stems

The other secondary stems, the Dt-stem and the t1-stem, are in many respects parallel to the Gt-stem: they have the same functional relation to the D-stem and the -stem, respectively, as the Gt-stem has to the G-stem. Unlike the Gt-stem, however, the Dt-stem and the t1-stem can also have (medio)passive function. This has saved them from becoming totally obsolete after
corresponding prefix forms, this is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the evidence concerning the overall development of the verbal stems with t, apart from the chronological problem. 89. I do not agree with Rets that this suggests that t in the derived stems is older than in the basic stem. The whole evolution of t in the Semitic languages militates against this. 90. It is possible that the older form *taqtala is preserved in tana to rise < *tanaa, from the root n , reanalyzed as a quadriliteral verb (Brockelmann 1908: 528; Moscati, ed. 1964: 153). However, Tropper (2002: 132) regards it as a denominal verb from the deverbal noun tne Auferstehung.
14.5. The Remaining Secondary Stems
383
losing their reciprocal and reflexive function to nominal markers. However, it is clear that they were also affected by the ever-stronger association of the t-infix with perfect function: in the late dialects, they have become very rare, and in Neo-Assyrian they were renewed by means of a new form with a double t-infix.
14.5.1. TheDt-stem
Table 14.4 shows the paradigm of the Dt-stem and the t1-stem (to be discussed in the next section), which are parallel apart from their inflectional stem: Dt-stem Impfv Pfv t-Pf Stat Imp Inf/PPartc PrPartc uptarras uptarris uptatarris putarrus putarris putarrusu muptarrisu t1-stem utapras utapris utatapris utaprus utapris utaprusu mutaprisu
table 14.4: the paradigm of the Dt-stem and the t1-stem.
The paradigm of the Dt-stem is derived from that of the D-stem by infixation of t after R1, which results in a base PtaRRvS.91 If there is no personal prefix, the initial cluster is avoided by inserting -u-, e.g., Imp putarris. This happens both in Babylonian and Assyrian, so that the Dt-stem does not show the dialectal difference in the D-stem between Bab PuRRvS and Ass PaRRvS. The vowel u is taken over from the personal prefixes in accordance with the usual hierarchy in the verbal paradigm (see 2.2.1, pp. 2930). The t infix interacts with the first radical in the same way as in other t- and tan-stems (see 14.2.2, pp. 359360). However, for the metathesis of t and R1 I can only mention Assyrian forms, such as the following: Imp Masc Sg t-za-ki Prag I 428:24 (OA) clear yourself! from zak to be(come) clean, free Imp Masc Sg t-a-bi CCT 3, 27b:10 (OA) satisfy yourself! from eb to be(come) sated Inf (a) tu-sa-u-re Assur 2/4, 96: B II 11 (MA) (textiles) which are to be turned from saru Inf c. st. tu-al-lu-um MARV 4, 78:27 (MA) to be transported from almu D Because of its predominantly (medio)passive meaning, the Dt-stem is mainly used in the finite forms of imperfective and perfective (see below on the t-perfect). Other forms tend to occur only in non-passive Dt-stems. Especially rare are the stative and the past participle, which are regularly replaced by those of the D-stem with passive meaning (see GAG 93a).92
91. Occasionally, the multiple use of both gemination of R2 and the infix t leads to homonymous forms, such as the PrPartc muptarrisu, which can be both Gtn and Dt(n), and this also applies to the 3s Prec liptarris, if the verb belongs to the I/i class. 92. A noteworthy instance is the abstract noun utarrutu magnificence (u-ta-ru-u-ti- RIMA 2/I, 151: 75, SB), which is based on a past participle *utarruu, derived from a Dt Stat utarru, e.g., (with a
384
Forms of the t-perfect with a double t-infix (uptatarris) are rare, as is true of other double t forms, although some instances occur already in Old Babylonian: uq-ta-ta-at-tu- AbB 14, 8:14 it has been completed from qat (cf. Pfv uq-ta-at-tu- in 16) u-ta-ta-i RA 90, 124:16 I showed indifference from uta (see below) []-te-te-zi-zu Atr. p. 90:43 they have become angry with each other from ezzu93 From Middle Babylonian, I can only mention u-ta-ta-li-qu BE 17, 28:29 from alqu to become lost, escape (in obscure context). In Standard Babylonian, we find -ta-tab-bit SBH p. 114 no. 60:14 it was destroyed from abtu and ul-ta-tal-li-t[u] OEC 6, pl. 20 K.4958:3 they were split apart from saltu.94 Dt forms with double t-infix do not seem to occur in Old or Middle Assyrian.95 In Neo-Assyrian, however, they gave rise to the Dtt-stemwhich is something quite different (see 14.5.3 below, pp. 388391)so they must have existed as well or have developed in the preceding period. The Dt-stem is the detransitive counterpart of the D-stem. Its use was illustrated extensively in GAV pp. 318333, so a few examples may suffice here. Its main function is that of expressing the passive (with an agent implied) and the mediopassive (without an agent), as illustrated in (01) and (02), respectively:96 (01) UET 5, 75:45 (OB) alam PN uram -ta-a-a-az the statue of PN will be inlaid with gold, from uuzu to inlay (02) BagM. 21, 341:1416 (SB) aktum (. . .) labri illikma up-te-e-ir Das Aktu (. . .) war alt geworden und fing an zu zerbrckeln (tr. A. Cavigneaux and B. Kh. Ismail)97 In addition, the Dt-stem has several marginal uses. It can be reflexive, as in (03), and reciprocal, as in (04): (03) TDP 170:10 (SB) [If a patient . . .] libb qaqqad iqabbi up-ta-sa-am says my belly, my head! and keeps veiling himself, from pasmu G and D to veil (04) Gilg. p. 732:88 (SB) (Gilgamesh and Enkidu) innedrma ut-tata--qu embraced each other and kissed from naqu G and D to kiss
slightly different meaning) ul u-ta-ar-[r]u-u Legends p. 64: 29 (OB) he was not thirsting for glory (tr. J. Westenholz). 93. See Kouwenberg 2001: 231 with n. 19. Strecks criticism (2003a: 7576) that such a Dt form could only mean they have made each other angry ignores the fact that the Dt-stem is not only a detransitive derivation of the D-stem but also a plural counterpart of the Gt-stem (see below and GAV pp. 32931). A direct parallel is lemnu Dt as quoted in CAD L 118b s.v. 7. The form cannot be a t-perfect of the Gt-stem for formal reasons, as Streck (1995a: 223) shows, and the restoration [i ]-te-te-zi-zu as a Gtn t-perfect does not fit in with the context. 94. Unclear cases are u-ta-ta-i-il TDP 218:9 (from alu to crush in some idiomatic meaning?); ul-ta-ta-ni-i BAM 6, 514: II 27 (anu Dt?); -te-te-e-i/e ACh. Ad. 20:49 he/it becomes dark (the context requires an imperfective or a perfective, see Streck 1995a: 225), Epilepsy p. 65:41 (doubtless an imperfective), and Diagnostik p. 256:68; ub-ta-ta-i ABL 1264: r.8 (bu Dt? in broken context). 95. For Old Assyrian, GKT 76a mentions -ta-ta-e-ra-ni from tru D to return (tr.) from an unpublished text but suggests that it is a scribal error. 96. I am not aware of any passive Dt forms with an explicit agent (see 10.8.3.1, p. 259). 97. This use is common in verbs of destroying and loosening, etc., such as ep to break, paru to loosen (exemplified by (02)), passu to erase (see ex. (11) in chap. 10, p. 260), and many similar verbs.
385
Moreover, it can fientivize a D stative (just like the N-stem can fientivize a G stative), as in (05), it can contrast with a D stative to express an activity, as in (06), and it can underline plurality of the subject, especially in contrast to the Gt-stem, an outgrowth of the original association of the D-stem with plurality, as in (07):98 (05) Asb. B V 11 (SB) apassu uk-tam-bil-ma nu iir his lip became paralyzed and (his) eye became small (versus kubbul he/it is lame, paralyzed and eer he/it is small) (06) Gilg. p. 550:21112 (SB) (in Uruk) aar Gilgame (. . .) k rmi ug-da---ru eli elti where Gilgame (. . .), like a wild bull, acts overbearingly towards the men (cf. guur he is powerful, from garu to be(come) powerful) (07) RA 65, 74:81 acc. to CAD R 104a s.v. 11 (OB) zinn ina am r-ta-ak-ka-s[u] rain clouds will gather in the sky, versus ACh. Spl. 4:10 (SB) zunnu rit-ku-su continuous rain Finally, it can be used instead of D to underline the intransitive nature of the action, especially in activity verbs denoting sounds, such as lau Dt to whisper, naru Dt to roar, nazmu Dt to complain, and ranu Dt to make a loud noise (see GAV pp. 28186). There are also a few lexicalized Dt-stems, such as uta (mainly OB) to show indifference,99 putuqqu to be attentive or the like (also D), utaqq to wait (from waq), and perhaps also *mutuzzu to refuse (see CAD M/1 440a s.v. *mzu v.). The relationship between the Dt-stem and the D-stem mirrors that between the Gt-stem and the G-stem, except for the fact that the Dt-stem can also be (medio)passive. So it covers the functions of Gt and N taken together and is therefore rather common: AHw includes approximately 237 verbs with a Dt-stem versus 903 with a D-stem (see GAV p. 111 n. 1). The diachronic development of the Dt-stem is partially parallel to that of the Gt-stem. Its reflexive function is marginal and its reciprocal function is somewhat more common, but both functions were increasingly taken over by nominal markers. However, since the Dt-stem is also used for the (medio)passive, it preserved a domain of its own and was not affected to the same degree as the Gt-stem. Accordingly, the Dt-stem is still usedalbeit sporadicallyin Neo-Babylonian, where the secondary stems are strongly in decline: Woodington (1982: 91) mentions instances of paru Dt to be assembled, esru Dt to be confined, and the D tantum verb kupputu to concentrate.100 Additional cases are almu Dt to be compensated (lul-ta-lim NBNippur 20:33) and amu Dt to join forces, with reciprocal meaning, strengthened by it-ta-a-mi (us-sa-am-ma-a NBNippur 16:28). Ebeling (1953: 192) mentions uq-ta-at-ta YOS 3, 109:22 from qat to come to an end and us-sa-ab-bi-is YOS 3, 136:27 from /sabsu to be(come) angry (Ebeling 1953: 200). In Neo-Assyrian, the Dt-stem is replaced by the Dtt-stem, which will be discussed in 14.5.3 below (pp. 388391). For deviations in the conjugation of Dt-stems of weak verbs, see the respective sections in chaps. 16 and 17. There are two secondary developments involving the Dt-stem: the Old
98. Cf. for Arabic, Wright 1967: I 37: iftaraqa expresses the mere separation, tafarraqa the separation into a great many groups or in various directions. 99. According to Landsberger (1960: 120 n. 30), this verb is cognate with Syriac ete to play, but the Syriac verb rather looks like a loan from Akkadian. 100. The exact forms are up-ta-a-ru SAA 18, 101: r.9 they come together; -ta-sar CT 54, 22:17 he will be confined (the clause may be an omen quotation, however); and uk-tap-pat CT 54, 258:6 (c. br.).
386
Babylonian Dtr-stem to be discussed in chap. 15, which is an extension of the Dt-stem by means of reduplication of R2, and the Neo-Assyrian Dtt-stem.
14.5.2. Thet1-stem
The paradigm of the t1-stem, as shown in Table 14.4 (p. 383) in the previous section, is derived from that of the -stem by infixation of t after the first consonant (base taPRvS)101 and is completely parallel to that of the Dt-stem. This is caused by the fact that the relationship t1 (uapras utapras) is modelled on, and dominated by, the far more frequent relationship D Dt (uparras uptarras) in the D-stem. This is why the t1 imperfective does not have gemination, although this would phonologically be possible, as I argued in 4.5.2 (p. 114). The t1 imperfective of the I/voc and the I/w verbs does have gemination, however, because the corresponding -stem has it as well, e.g., from wa to go /come out: ue he causes to go out ute (e.g., u-te-e-e SpTU 2, 16: II 7 (SB) he will be caused to go out) (see 16.2.3, pp. 456457). As a result, these classes of verbs do not have a formal distinction between the t1-stem and the t2-stem: ute can also be the imperfective of the t2-stem ut to quarrel. Another noteworthy point with regard to the t1-stem of weak verbs is that t1 forms of II/voc verbs do not seem to be attested. For other aspects of the t1-stems of weak verbs, see the respective sections of chaps. 16 and 17. The comments made in the previous section on individual forms of the Dt paradigm are also valid for the t1-stem.102 Reliable t1 forms of the t-perfect with a double t-infix are very rare. There is, however, an Old Babylonian instance, quoted as (11) below.103 The few Standard Babylonian examples that are sometimes quoted are all very uncertain.104 Since the t1-stem is almost always (medio)passive, reliable forms of the imperative, stative, infinitive, and past and present participles are uncommon or unattested (GAG 94b). If such a form seems to occur, it usually belongs to the t2-stem or the tn-stem. The parallel with the Dt-stem also applies to the function of the t1-stem: it is the detransitive counterpart of the -stem, so it is an anticausative in the strict sense of the word. Since this is generally a highly marked form, the t1-stem is not very common, although it was doubtless productive and could be created whenever it was needed. AHw counts 36 verbs with a t1-stem, and Streck (2003a: 115) counts 35 instances, but many of these do not conform to the criterion
101. The paradigm of the t1-stem is identical to that of the t2- and tn-stems, except in the imperfective, where t1 has utapras, t2 utaparras (see 14.6.2.1, p. 403) and tn utanapras (see 14.7.4, p. 424). This makes it often problematic from which stem to derive a given non-imperfective form. The main criterion is that a t1-stem should be a regular detransitive derivation of a -stem, preferably one that is actually attested. 102. The vowel u in the non-prefix forms comes from u in personal prefixes, just as in the Dt-stem. Troppers claim that it replaces i (the default epenthetic vowel) under the influence of the preceding (Tropper 1997a: 197 n. 18) is contradicted by Gt forms of verbs starting with , such as itkun, itmur, etc. 103. The difficult verb form tu-u-te-te-ep-a-am AbB 14, 116:26 (OB) you have caused to be made for me, which apparently represents tuttepam for the expected tutetpiam from epu t1 may be another example. 104. They include u-ta-tl-pit SBH p. 55 no. 28: r.11 it has become ruined and u-ta-ta-ri-ir SBH p. 31 no. 14:2 it has become silent; however, both forms occur in texts that do not use other t-perfect forms and are therefore more likely to be interpreted as perfective forms: u-tatl-pit and u-tata-ri-ir (Streck 1995a: 22526). See Streck 1995a: 22234 for a critical discussion of these and other attested verb forms with a double t-infix. Streck points to the difficulty of interpreting many double t forms as perfects because they occur in texts that normally use the perfective for past tense; he explains such forms as Dtt-, tt-, and Gtt-stems. This is not acceptable to me, as I will argue below in 14.5.3 (pp. 390391).
387
formulated here (see n. 101), so I prefer to regard them as either t2-stems or tn-stems or too uncertain to merit inclusion.105 Good examples of typically anticausative t1-stems are: (08) VS 8, 26:2123 (OB) x gn k.babbar ana PN1 PN2 u-ta--q-il PN2 (the guarantor) was made to pay x shekels of silver to PN1 (see S. Lafont, FM 6 p. 75) (09) AMT 54, 1:9, 12 (SB) (you have him inhale medicated vapor) u-ta---al and he will be induced to expectorate (tr. CAD S 1b s.v. salu c, passive of an unattested salu to cause to cough) (10) KAR 428:29 (SB) nakru allat ilq u-ta-ad-da the enemy will be caused to abandon the booty he took (from nad t1, passive of to cause to drop) However, most t1 forms come from lexicalized -stems that function as more-or-less independent verbs, e.g., ulputu to destroy, bulu to send, uddunu to collect (taxes), or from -stems that do not have a corresponding G-stem, e.g., uklulu to make perfect, finish. Reflexive and reciprocal t1-stems are very hard to find. A reciprocal t1-stem is (11), and a reflexive one may be (12), but it is problematic: (11) AbB 12, 5:2526 (OB) alpam kma alpim nuptema kank mtim nu-u-te-te-zi-ib we have exchanged one ox for another and have had a sales document drawn up for each other from zubu to have (a document) drawn up106 (12) AnSt. 33, 148:2526 (OB) alik atta l nr tentim tu-u-te-p ramnuk go and be the light of mankind, make yourself visible/shining from p to make visible (my tr., cf. Streck 2003a: 128 no. 409)107 The functional development of the t1-stem is largely parallel to that of the Dt-stem as described in the previous section. Most instances come from Old and Standard Babylonian (see n. 105). Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian do not furnish a single reliable t1-stem, which may be due to the scarcity of texts. In Neo- and Late Babylonian, t1-stems are very rare, but the way they are used suggests that the (medio)passive t1 was still a productive category, available when
105. Reliable Old Babylonian t1-stems include maru t1 to be made ill, annoyed, nadnu t1 to be collected (taxes), nad t1 to be caused to drop, red t1 to be caused to flow (water) and wap t1 to be made visible, be proclaimed. In Standard Babylonian, we find adru t1 to be frightened, become afraid, ezbu t1 to be saved, escape unharmed, arbu t1 to be destroyed, laptu t1 to be destroyed, nasku t1 to be annulled (words, etc.), (w)ap t1 to be made visible, be proclaimed, (w)a t1 to be brought out, ururu t1 to be destroyed, and uklulu t1 to be finished, be successful. The recent survey of t1-stems compiled by Streck includes several instances not mentioned here (the comment in parentheses briefly explains why I have omitted it): ebbu (327) (uncertain), edqu (328) (t2), elpu (329) (t2), el (330) (peripheral), eru (331) (perhaps all forms are t2: in I/inf verbs there is no difference between t1 and t2), akmu (333) (to be deleted; see n. 109), assu (337) (t2), naru (345) (t2), nalu (346) (OB to be deleted, SB uncertain), pet (348) (uncertain) and ar (353) (to be deleted). 106. The editor, W. van Soldt, transliterates nu-u-te-te-zi-ib as a perfect, which seems an unnecessary correction: the preceding reciprocal Dt form suggests that the following form may quite well be reciprocal, too, and since a t-perfect is appropriate in this context, the double t-infix is exactly what we expect (even though it is very unusual in Old Babylonian). 107. This interpretation implies that the reflexive noun ramnuk strengthens the reflexive meaning of tutepp. There does not seem to be a good reason for interpreting tutepp as a t2-stem, made reflexive by ramnuk.
388
needed (cf. Woodington 1982: 91).108 In Neo-Assyrian, no t1-stems are attested according to Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 89), but there is a form with double t-infix parallel to the Dtt-stem (see 14.5.3, p. 389).109
14.5.3. TheNeo-Assyrianstemswithadoublet-infix
The best illustration of the decline of the t-infix in all functions except the perfect is the situation in Neo-Assyrian. In this dialect, the use of t as a past-tense marker was apparently so dominant that the simple t infix became unsuitable for other uses. As a result, its detransitive function virtually ceased to exist,110 and a new form emerged: insofar as former t-stems were indispensable or frequent enough to be safeguarded from extinction, they were replaced by forms with a double t-infix, the Dtt-stem and the tt-stem. For the same reason, the very few Gt verbs which still existed developed a double t-infix in at least part of their paradigm. The most common category is the Dtt-stem.111 Since most D-stems are transitive, the lack of a clearly marked (medio)passive form after the demise of the regular Dt-stem must have been a real handicap. Therefore, a repair mechanism was employed: the double -t- infix that existed all along in the t-perfect (uptatarris) was generalized to all (finite) forms.112 Table 14.5 shows the forms of the common D-stem gammuru to complete, finish:113 D Impfv t-Pf Pfv ugammar ugdammir ugammir Dt before NA ugdammar ugdatammir ugdammir Dtt in NA = ugdatammir, ugdatmir ugdatammar, ugdatmar 114
ugdatammir (only as Prec)
table 14.5: the forms of the Dtt-stem and their relationships. 108. Instances are ul-ta-ad-ba-bu SAA 18, 101: r.9 they are made to speak, ul-ta-la-qu SAA 18, 83: r.10 he is allowed to escape (Subj), [u]l-ta-ma-u CT 54, 122:9 from amu to despoil (in broken context), and ul-ta-a-ba-tu- VS 6, 84:3 they are/will be induced to take (work). 109. In SAA 10, 263: r.8, the alleged t1 form -sa!-ka-mu-ni (cf. AHw 1044b s.v. simnu 2 end and 1558a s.v. akmu t), can be read as a Impfv --ka-mu-ni (): in places which the king will specify; for , cf. SAA 10, 384:7 --kam- I will explain to him, which is also a imperfective, and lu--kim- SAA 10, 238: r.18, where sa is impossible. There are no certain instances of akmu t1 in the SAA volumes. 110. Deller 1965: 271; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 88, and see n. 41 above (p. 366). 111. Previous literature includes von Soden 1950a: 39093; Parpola 1984: 199; Streck 1995a: 23133; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 89; Luukko 2004: 14546. 112. See von Soden 1950a: 391. It is not quite accurate to state, with von Soden (1940a: 391), Parpola (1984: 199), and Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 89), that in the t-perfect a triple infix is expected: the actual device consists in copying the double infix of the t-perfect, not simply adding an additional infix, which I think is not a possible step. If the t-perfect had not already contained a double infix, this solution would have been impossible. 113. Sporadic Dt forms with a single t-infix in Neo-Assyrian are presumably either borrowings from Standard Babylonian (e.g., uk-ta-at-ti-mu SAA 10, 226: r.3 they have been covered) or they are Dtt forms with three successive dentals, of which one is syncopated for euphonic reasons (Parpola 1983: 130; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 89), e.g., -ta-da-ar SAA 10, 196: r.6 he must keep in the dark (if this is not a loan from Standard Babylonian). 114. It is not quite clear whether we have to assume d or t in the second syllable of the infix of this verb, since the spelling wavers between ta, da, and dam. Since verbs that do not have the partial assimilation -gt- >
389
The forms of the Dtt-stem that have an ending occur in a long and a short variant. In the short variant the second syllable of the infix is reduced to -t- and the geminate is simplified. Instances of long imperfective forms are (see also Parpola 1984: 208): ug-da-at-am-mar SAA 10, 74: r.21 it will be completed ug-da-da-mar-u-[ni] SAA 1, 47: r.13 it will be finished (Subj) ut-ta-ta-zu-mu SAA 10, 353: r.4 they are complaining from nazmu Dtt up-ta-tar-u-mu SAA 13, 56: r.16 they will be granted old age from the quadriradical verb parumu (see chap. 12 n. 69, p. 307) -sa-ta-pu-lu SAA 1, 82: r.5 they will move downstream from aplu Dt (/ussatappulu/ < *utatappul) -sa-at-a-lam SAA 14, 163: r.4 and 164: edge 9 he will be paid in full from almu Dtt (/ussatallam/ < *utatallam) An example of a short imperfective form is: up-ta-at-u-ru SAA 5, 227: s.1 they will assemble (or: be assembled) from paru Dt. Long forms of the t-perfect are: ug-da-ta-me-ru CTN 5 p. 41:11 they have been finished off -za-ta-ki SAA 1, 175:6 he prepared himself (/uzzatakki/) from zak Dt up-ta-ta-i-di Iraq 4, 186:16 it was destroyed from padu Dt Short forms of the t-perfect are: ug-da-at-me-ru SAA 1, 80:9 they have been completed us-sa-at-mi-nu SAA 10, 226: r.2 they have been anointed (/ussatminu/ < *utat(am) min from the denominal D-stem *ummunu to anoint (cf. amnu oil) The perfective seems to occur only as basis of the precative (Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 89 n. 81): lu-uk-ta-ti-ni SAA 5, 163:10 let him be tried (/luktatn(i)/) from kunu Dt lu-un-ta-ta-zi-qu SAA 1, 229: r.5 let it (water) be sucked from mazqu to suck It is unlikely that this Dtt paradigm had other forms than the three mentioned in the table. Because of its passive meaning, it doubtless did not have an imperative, a stative, and a present participle. It may have had a passive infinitive, however. There is at least one instance in Neo-Assyrian of a tt-stem replacing a passive t1-stem: lu-u-sa-te-li SAA 16, 207:9 let him be promoted, i.e., / lussatli/ < *lutatli from l to promote, lit., to cause to go up (el ). Since the passive t1-stem always develops parallel to the Dt-stem, such forms are to be expected. The fact that they are so rare is caused by the rarity of the t1-stem.115 Finally, at least two Gt-stems that are well-known from earlier periods have survived in NeoAssyrian: lu Gt to deliberate, inquire and alku Gt to start going. The former shows a double t-infix in li-sa-ta-al- CTN 5 p. 65:4 let (the king) interrogate him, i.e., /lissatlu/ < litatlu.116 Alku Gt occurs much more frequently with a double t-infix, but some of its forms
-gd- generally have ta, I have opted for ugdatammar, etc. 115. The form u-ta-ta-i-ru-ni in BBR 120:41 itu kakkab amm u-ta-ta-i-ru-ni (NA ritual), which must mean something like after the stars of heaven have been provided for, may be a Neo-Assyrian tt-stem of aru to take care of, adapted to Standard Babylonian phonology (i.e., with -t- preserved). 116. Cf. Streck 2003a: 13 n. 12. There is no reason to doubt that this form goes back to a Gt-stem rather than a Gtn-stem: already since Old Assyrian, lu Gt is used in contexts where the reciprocal meaning has
390
have developed in a way that makes them almost unrecognizable, especially through the assimilation of -lk- > -kk-.117 Parpola (1984: 199) has reconstructed its paradigm as in the rightmost column of table 14.6: G in NA 3ms Impfv 3mp Impfv 3ms t-Pf 3mp t-Pf 3ms Pfv (Prec) 3mp Pfv (Prec) illak illuku ittalak ittalku (l)illik (i)lliku Gt before NA Gt(t) in NA ittallak italluk ittatlak ittatluk (l)ittalak (l)ittalk *ittatallak *ittatalluku ittatlak ittatakku (< ittatalku), ittatku littatlak *littatakku (also littatku ?)
table 14.6: the neo-Assyrian paradigm of alku gt.
The only forms actually attested with a double t-infix are t-perfect forms and a single precative (see also Parpola 1984: 19395). Selected attestations of the t-perfect are it-ta-at-lak SAA 15, 37: r.4 he went away, it-ta-tak-k[u] SAA 5, 19: r.7, and it-ta-ta-ku CTN 5 p. 281:11 they went away, i-ta-ta-ku--ni CTN 5 p. 241b:7 they came, and i-ta-ta-ka CTN 5 p. 291:19 he came. A shortened form is i-ta-at-ku SAA 5, 32:11 and SAA 5, 217:9 they went away. The shortening follows the same pattern as in the Dtt-stem (Parpola 1984: 199200). The perfective seems to occur only as precative; the only form I know of is li-it-ta-at-lak SAA 15, 24: s.1 let him depart. However, the imperfective forms with a double t reconstructed by Parpola are not (yet?) attested. This raises the question of whether they really existed (cf. i-tal-lu-ku SAA 5, 126: r.8 with a single t !). If not, the only change regarding the t-infix vis--vis earlier Assyrian is represented by the precative (littatlak and lissatl ). If we explain this form as an occasional analogical formation (iprus : liprus ittatlak : littatlak), which does not seem implausible, we no longer need to posit a Gtt-stem on a par with the Dtt- and tt-stem. It is possible that a few Late Babylonian verb forms with a double t-infix and passive meaning result from the same process, either independently or under the influence of Neo-Assyrian: ut-tatap-pa-lu- UM 2/1, 112:11 they will be held responsible from aplu,118 and un-da-ta-na-- BE 10, 132:17 it will be charged to him from man (< umtatann-au). The same explanation may apply to the Late Babylonian Impfv at-ta-tal-lak (discussed by Streck 1995a: 22728), which may be a real Gtt form replacing an earlier Gt form attallak, identical to the (not attested) Neo-Assyrian imperfective of table 14.6. In addition, numerous other verb forms with a double t-infix are found, especially in peripheral Middle Babylonian and in Neo- and Late Babylonian. However, they cannot be explained in the same way as the Neo-Assyrian forms, since they are neither passive nor t-perfects of secondary stems. Streck (1995a: 23133) argues that they also represent stems with a double t-infix: Dtt-, tt-, and Gtt-stems. For instance, he explains the Neo-Babylonian form ami il-te-te-m RA 25, 58 no. 8:7 they agreed with each other as a Gtt perfective, since this text is expected to
worn off; see CAD /1 281 s.v. 4. Perhaps i-te-te-li SAA 16: 201:4 he came up is a parallel (and unique?) instance of el Gt in Neo-Assyrian. 117. Apart from the t-perfect forms quoted in the text, this assimilation is also attested in the imperative: a-[t]a-[k]a-ni CTN 5 p. 23:50 come (Pl) here, i.e., /atakkni/ < atalknim. 118. It is, however, also possible to read ut-tatap-pa-lu- as a normal passive Dt-stem.
391
use perfectives rather than t-perfects (the duplicate RA 25, 58 no. 9:7 has i-mu-), and the NeoBabylonian form u-te-te-e-e-er VAB 4, 210:19 I will keep in good order as a tt imperfective (Streck 1995a: 22728). It is true that many of these late double t forms are difficult to explain, but it is unlikely that we are justified in positing a specific set of verbal stems to account for them. The main reason is that it is hard to imagine a mechanism to trigger duplication of the infix unless it has two different functions which can be combined in a single form. This is what happened in the Old Babylonian forms with a double t-infix mentioned in 14.2.1 (pp. 357358) and 14.5.1 (p. 384) and in the Neo-Assyrian Dtt-stem: the passive t-perfect ugdatammir it has been finished combines a passive t with t as perfect marker, and this combination spread to the imperfective and the precative. For active forms, only the t-infix as perfect marker is available, so that it is difficult to see how double t forms could arise. A second reason why it is unlikely that a Dtt-, tt-, and Gtt-stem as proposed by Streck could arise is that it does not appear to have a distinctive function contrasting with the G-stem and/or the Gt-stem. Therefore, it seems preferable for the time being to regard the active forms with a double t-infix that cannot be perfects of secondary or tertiary stems as hypercorrect forms, solecisms, and scribal errors (dittography). As Streck shows (1995a: 23031), they make up only a minute percentage of the total number of secondary stems, and a significant number comes from peripheral texts. This confirms the impression that they might not be correct Akkadian.
14.5.4. TheNt-stem
The existence of an Nt-stem was posited (with some reservations) by W. von Soden in GAG 3 95d* and under several entries in AHw, but it has never found wide acceptance.119 AHw registers the following Nt forms (with or without a question mark) in the alphabetical order of the verb to which it belongs: 1. it-te-ki-pu CT 38, 4546:15 (SB) from ekpu to draw near (AHw 195a s.v.: Ntn od[er] Nt) 2. it-te-en-mi-i-du B 2, 62:14; it-te-en6-mi-id YOS 10, 36: III 28 (both OB) and it-te-enm[i-da] CT 28, 9:26 (SB) from emdu to reach, lean on (AHw 213b s.v.: Ntn (od[er] Nt?)) 3. lit-tap-ra/ra- JNES 15, 140:27 // CT 17, 22:144 (both SB) from napruu to fly (AHw 740b s.v.: Nt) 4. at-ta-qa-al-la-al-la SAA 9, 3: II 16 (NA lit.) from *naqallulu (AHw 893b s.v. qallu II: unregelm[ssiger] Nt 5. it-ta-a-ba-ra BWL 34:71 (SB) from abru to flit, prattle (AHw 1065b s.v. abru I: Nt = Gt?) 6. it-ta-a-ba-tu YOS 10, 36: I 50 (OB) and it-ta-a-ba-ta BWL 52:26 (SB) from abtu to seize (AHw 1071a s.v.: Nt) 7. i-ta-mar BWL 252:16 (SB), Imp of amru to praise (AHw 1154b s.v. amru II: Nt(n) fr Gt)120 8. (l)ittasqar, (l)ittazkar from zakru (saqru) to mention, invoke, cf. AHw 1505a s.v. zakru Nt (all SB) with active meaning
119. See also Edzard 1965: 111 n. 5 and especially the detailed discussion by Streck (2003a: 16 n. 13, 12931). I largely concur with his interpretations and conclusions. 120. However, the editor W. G. Lambert has a quite different interpretation, in which he is followed by CAD M/1 284a s.v. marmatu and 179a s.v. i, but slightly differently in CAD I/J 77a s.v. ilku A k).
392
However, almost all these forms can far more easily be explained in other ways, especially as long as the existence of an Nt-stem cannot be established by means of more solid evidence. No. 1 is probably an Ntn perfective, although the form is irregular: we would expect ittenkip.121 The forms under 2 are certainly t-perfects of the N-stem, since the only clear Old Babylonian instance (B 2, 62:14) occurs in a positive umma clause whose negative counterpart contains an N perfective innemid. No. 4 is a t-perfect of a verb of the naparruru group, although the details are not quite clear (see 12.3 and n. 55, p. 301). Nos. 5 and 6 are also certainly t-perfects that replace t-perfects of the Gt-stem (see 12.2.2.1, p. 295). Nos. 7 and 8 are likely to be instances of the Ntn-stem used instead of the Gtn-stem, a phenomenon that also occurs elsewhere (see GAG 3 91g and 14.7.5, pp. 429430), perhaps to provide for the lack of a pluractional to the secondary stems, as suggested by Streck (2003a: 16 n. 13). It is doubtless not accidental that both amru and zakru use the Gt-stem with the same meaning as the G-stem. The only form that one could justifiably call an Nt-stem is no. 3, the Prec littapra from napruu to fly, as also argued by Streck (2003a: 131). Since napruu is a motion verb, this Nt-stem parallels the ingressive Gt-stems of motion verbs discussed in 14.3.4 (pp. 371372). Napruu Nt is formed by analogy with these Gt-stems and thus means to start flying, fly up/ away.122 Finally, an Nt-stem is posited for the irregular verb izuzzu to stand (up) by Streck (1997/98: 32122) and Huehnergard (2002b: 166) to account for the Old Babylonian imperfective forms ittazz, Pl Fem ittazazz (e.g., 3ms it-ta-za-az YOS 10, 56: I 30; 3fp i-ta-za-az-za YOS 10, 17:60; it-[t ]a-za-az-za AbB 3, 114:13). The meaning seems to be ingressive (AHw 410a s.v. Gt er tritt hin), so it is parallel to napruu. Consequently, there are only two instances left for which we need an Nt-stem, both of them rather atypical. To what extent we ought to posit a separate derived verbal stem on this basis is debatable, but it seems to me that it is not enough to justify this drastic step.
14.5.5. ComparisonwithWestSemitic
The verbal stems in other Semitic languages that correspond to the Akkadian Dt-stem and t1-stem are rather different in form. For comparative purposes, therefore, we should discuss the Dt-stem and the t1-stem separately and combine the t1-stem with the t2-stem. I will deal with them together in 14.6.2.3 (pp. 412414) and focus here on the Dt-stem. Table 14.7 presents the relevant D and Dt forms of Akkadian, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic (represented by Syriac), and Geez in the two basic finite categories of imperfective and perfective. The table shows that the West Semitic languages are very similar among themselves but differ substantially from Akkadian.123 The first point is prefixing versus infixing of t: the Akkadian forms all have an infixed t, whereas West Semitic always has a prefixed t, except in the neighbourhood of sibilants.124 This is
121. CAD N/1 157b s.v. nakpu A 2a derives it from nakpu: if pigs butting each other advance toward a man, but there do not seem to be other E-forms of this verb. 122. Formally, littapra can be an Ntn-stem, of course, but an iterative (to fly around) is not very appropriate in the two available contexts, cf. CAD N/1 315a s.v. napruu 3 end, with the comment: possibly a separative IV/2 (i.e., an Nt-stem) and CAD I/J 211b s.v. iru 1b. 123. Ugaritic shows verb forms with a prefixed t beside verb forms with an infixed t. It seems a priori plausible that the former belong to the Dt-stem discussed here, whereas those with an infixed t are Gt forms, but this cannot be verified. The least ambiguous form that can be assigned to this Dt-stem is (w-)tkms and he buckled (J. Huehnergard, UF 17 [1986] 402; Tropper 2000: 573), which may be vocalized as /wa-t(a) kammVs(a)/ or the like. Because of the prefix, it is generally referred to as tD-stem in Ugaritic studies. 124. A general exception may be Modern South Arabian, but I will ignore this here; see n. 70 (p. 375).
14.5. The Remaining Secondary Stems D-stem Akkadian Arabic Hebrew Syriac Geez Impfv Pfv Impfv Pfv Impfv Pfv Impfv Pfv Impfv Pfv uparras uparris yuqattilu qattala yqael qiel nqael qael yqttl qattala Dt-stem uptarras uptarris yataqattalu taqattala yitqae/al hitqae/al netqaal etqaal ytqttal taqattala
393
table 14.7: the West semitic counterparts of the Akkadian Dt-stem.
due to the fact that the Akkadian Dt-stem is directly derived from the D-stem by means of infixation of t, by analogy with the derivation of the Gt-stem from the G-stem. This also explains the vowel u of the personal prefixes.125 The second point is the vowel pattern: West Semitic uniformly shows a vowel a between R2 and R3 which cannot come from the corresponding active form, which always has i (yuqattilu), with the exception of Hebrew, where the Hithpael stem shows fluctuation between e and a. The evidence from the rest of West Semitic suggests that a is the original vowel and that e arose by analogy with the Piel (Bauer and Leander 1922: 324; Kuryowicz 1972: 50).126 So we can plausibly reconstruct a Proto-West Semitic Impfv *yit(a)qattalu, where only the presence or absence of a between t and the root causes uncertainty (see the exhaustive discussion by Diem 1982: 3437). The easiest solution is to assume that the longer form *yitaqattalu is original, since shortening (in this case through vowel syncope) is more common than vowel epenthesis and because the presence of a vowel readily explains why in this stem t has not undergone metathesis, as in the Gt-stem.127 On the other hand, *yitaqattalu is only attested in Arabic, so the short form is more common, and even Arabic has some variant forms without a: yaahharu he performs an ablution, yaaddaqu he gives alms instead of regular yataahharu and yataaddaqu, and in almost all modern Arabic dialects the prefix has become it- (Wright 1890: 20910; Diem 1982: 63;
125. Akkadian shows no traces of t as a prefix in the Dt-stem forms that are comparable to the ta-prVs nouns of the Gt-stem. This is not surprising, since deverbal forms of derived stems normally denote less basic concepts and are therefore less prone to lexicalization. However, in Eblaite, there are infinitives or verbal nouns with both a prefix ta- and an infix t. it is possible that they preserve an indirect trace of a prefixed *taPaRRvS form; see the next section. 126. However, Garr (1993: 152 n. 61) assumes the opposite development. The source of e in the perfect itself is a matter of debate: it may replace earlier a under the influence of the imperfective (Moscati, ed. 1994: 147), but according to Huehnergard (1992) it is original. He reconstructs a base *qttil- for ProtoNorthwest Semitic or even earlier (1992: 228). 127. Alternatively, one might argue that the prefix testifies to the fact that infixing started in the Gt-stem, as we expect, since it is the basic t-stem and never managed to penetrate into the derived stems (the various t-stems do not contradict this, as I will argue in 14.6.2.3, pp. 412414).
394
Goldenberg 1994: 3940; Lipiski 1997: 39899). Since this problem has no direct bearing on the following account, I will write the form as *yit(a)qattalu. The Arabic Stem V yataqattalu especially shows how peculiar this form is as compared to the active yuqattilu: they differ in the vowel of the personal prefixes and in the vowel between R2 and R3 (Goldenberg 1994: 40 n. 33). This suggests thatunlike Akkadian uptarrasyataqattalu is not a simple derivation of the active form. It seems more likely that it was secondarily associated with the D-stem, as happened with so many other derived categories in Semitic. As a matter of fact, we might assume that it was originally the pluractional derivation of the Gt-stem *yiqtatilu in its earlier prefixed form *yit(a)qatilu (see 14.4.1, pp. 378380) and that it was associated with the D-stem after the decline of the Gt-stem, just like the deverbal noun pattern taPRiS(t) (see 14.6.1, pp. 401402).128 This Gt PL-stem can be reconstructed as *yiqtattalu (see 4.5.2, pp. 112115, and 18.3.2, p. 593), going back to an earlier *yit(a)qattalu, which exactly agrees with Ar yataqattalu. This scenario would explain why yataqattalu differs from yuqattilu both in its prefix vowel and in its stem vowel. If it is correct, the Arabic Stem V goes back to the same form as the Gtn-stem in Akkadian; I will come back to this in 14.7.6 below (pp. 436437). In the light of this reconstruction, it is worthwhile to have a fresh look at an old idea: Speiser (1967: 5067) suggested that some Hithpael forms in Hebrew, which cannot readily be explained as detransitive derivations of the Piel and indicate repeated and continuous action (p. 508), are in fact ancient tan-stems, in which the final n of the infix -tan- had been assimilated to the middle radical. He pointed especially to the verb hithallek to walk around, which is a remarkable parallel in both form and meaning to alku Gtn. However, he was misled by the incorrect analysis of the Akkadian Gtn paradigm that prevailed in his time.129 This compelled him to propose a contrived and unconvincing explanation of the imperfective forms, which do not agree (He yithallek versus Akk ittanallak) (p. 514). According to the analysis of the Gtn paradigm that I will propose in 14.7.6 below (pp. 431437), the geminate of the Gtn-stem does not result from assimilation, and the original imperfective had the same stem as the historical perfective ittallak. This means that we can directly equate yithallek with ittallak130 and derive both forms from PSem *yit(a) hallak(u), the pluractional counterpart of the Gt-stem *yithalVk(u).131 This suggests that He yithallek is a residue of the Proto-Semitic derived pluractional of the Gt-stem. It is not clear to me whether other West Semitic languages preserve similar semantic traces in the corresponding stems.132 An interesting fact is the strikingly parallel pattern of the Arabic madar of Stem V taqattul (and Stem VI taqtul) and the Akkadian Gtn Inf pitarrus that can be derived from the same Proto-Semitic form *t(a)qattul-.133 However, since the Dt infinitive
128. Kuryowicz (1972: 4950) proposes another solution for the contrasting vowel patterns of Stems II/III on the one hand and Stems V/VI on the other, based on apophonic processes. It is ingenious but entirely theoretical: there are no attested forms or processes in support of it. 129. It was assumed that the geminate of the Gtn-stem was the result of the assimilation of n to the adjacent consonant; see 14.7.6 (pp. 431432). 130. Apart from the irregular -ttin Akkadian, of course, which is unexplained but irrelevant in this context (see chap. 17 n. 114, p. 546). 131. Together with the Piel yhallek, which may go back to the pluractional stem *yiqattalu (see chap. 4 n. 50, p. 102), yithallek may represent a unique yiqattal-/yit(a)qattal- pair surviving from the Proto-Semitic system of pluractional derived stems (see 18.3.2, pp. 592593). 132. Arabic, by far the most archaic West Semitic language, would be the most suitable place to search. In the Arabic grammars available to me (which are often frustratingly laconic about the function of grammatical categories), I have not found any Stem V verb comparable in meaning to He yithallek. 133. Fischer (1967: 42) derives taqattul from the suffix stem taqattala by assuming vowel harmony with the case endings -un, -in, -an, and generalization of the nominative. This is an ad hoc explanation that
395
has the same pattern apart from the epenthetic vowel ( putarrusu), this does not offer further support for the association of Stem V with the derived pluractional rather than with the Dt-stem. In conclusion, we can explain the differences between Akkadian and West Semitic with regard to the Dt-stem as follows. The Akkadian Dt-stem is derived from the D-stem by means of infixation of t. In West Semitic, however, the conflation of the derived pluractional *yiqattalu with the D-stem, which must have occurred in prehistoric times to account for the loss of the former (see chap. 4), also occurred in the t-derivation of both stems and led here to the complete discarding of the t-derivation of the D-stemif it ever existedso that *yit(a)qattalu became associated with yuqattilu as its detransitive derivation.
14.5.6. Excursus:TheEblaiteverbalnounswithbothprefixedandinfixedt
A phenomenon that may be relevant to the historical background of the Dt-stem and the t-stem is the occurrence of verbal nouns that have both a prefixed and an infixed t in the language of Ebla.134 They all come from lexical lists and their meaning can only be inferred from their Sumerian glosses, which are often problematic in themselves, and from their etymology (if available). Corresponding finite forms are not attested. I will concentrate on cases for whose lexical meaning we can make an educated guess.135 They fall into three main types, each of which may show some variation in vowel pattern (Hecker 1984: 22123). The most common pattern is taPtaR(R)iS. Plausible instances include: dar-da-b-tum (Sum. eden.du.du) VE 1342, i.e. /tartappidum/ to roam constantly, cf. G Inf ra-ba-tum, i.e., /rapdum/ (Sum. also eden.du.du) VE 1342, and Akk rapdu (U/u) to roam (Krebernik 1983: 43) da--da-m-lum (= l.me.me.i) VE 1377, i.e. /tatammirum/, cf. a-ma-lum (= l. me.i) EV 0198 /amrum/ to sing, and Akk zamru (or amru to praise?) da-da-b-lu (= eme.bal), i.e. /tatappilu(m)/ to act as interpreter (or rather: to have a conversation, discuss?), cf. G Inf a-ba-lu-um // a-ba-um, the agent noun a-b-lu-um (all VE 179, equated with Sum. eme.bal), and Akk aplu to answer Slightly different, with either a different vowel (tiPtaR(R)iS and taPtaR(R)aS) or vowel syncope and therefore no gemination (taPtaRvS) are: ti-i-da-gi-lum (= l.l) VE 1184, which may be related to Akk aqlu to hang, i.e. /titaqqilum/ (although l.l might also be equated with -ba-g-um; cf. Akk epqu to embrace, clasp(?)) da-da-ga-b-um (= .du 7.du 7) VE 55354, which because of na-ga-b(-um) (= .du 7) /nakpu(m)/ to butt, gore may be interpreted as /tattakpum/ to gore each other (Krebernik 1996: 238), or perhaps /tattakkapum/, if we assume that all these forms do have a geminate R2 The second major type is tuPtaR(R)iS, possible instances of which are: du-da-li-g-um (= nam.nam.en) VE 1089, perhaps for /tumtallikum/ exertion of kingship du-u-da-gi-nu/nm (= su 6(KaRKid).d) VE 200, which must be related to Akk zaqnu
ignores the parallel with Akkadian. 134. Lists of attested forms with discussion can be found in Hecker 1984, Kienast 1984, and especially Krebernik 1984 and 1996. See also Edzard 1996: 2428. 135. The interpretations are from Krebernik 1983 and Fronzaroli 1984, unless indicated otherwise.
396
The Remaining Secondary Stems 14.5. to have a beard, so apparently /tudtaqqinum/ to get/grow a beard ? (cf. also a-ganm // a-gu-nu-um (=su 6(KaKid).d) VE 199 /daq(a)num/, /daqqunum/ bearded)136
One verb (with a weak R3) seems to have tuPtaR(R)aS as variant of tuPtaR(R)iS: du-u-da-na-um // du-u-da-ne-um // du-a-ne-u4 (= .dib.dib ) VE 574 (cf. Krebernik 1983: 2122), i.e. /tutanna/iHum/, and /tuanniHu(m)/ cf. a-na-u4/m? // -na-um (= .dab ) VE 575 /a/inHum/? and Akk zen to be(come) angry The third major type is tutaPRiS, as in: du-u-da-i-sum (= dili.ru) EV 055, i.e. /tutaium/ from azum to take? (see Fronzaroli 1984: 140) du-u-da-gi-lum (= t.t.k ) VE 164, i.e. /tutakilum/ to (cause to?) eat e.o. in the technical sense to multiply, from aklum to eat In spite of all uncertainties surrounding these forms, we may be justified in assuming the existence of at least three verbal noun patterns, taPtaR(R)iS, tuPtaR(R)iS, and tutaPRiS. The structural parallel with the Akkadian infinitives of the Gt(n)-, Dt(n)-, and t(n)-stems, respectively, can hardly be overlooked: Gtn: Dt(n): t: taPtaR(R)iS tuPtaR(R)iS tutaPRiS PitaRRuS PutaRRuS utaPRuS
Because it is possible that Eblaite did not have the vowel syncope rule that in Akkadian deletes the second of two consecutive short vowels in open syllables,137 it is not certain that the Gtn form had a geminated R2, but it is likely on the basis of the Sumerian glosses, which often show reduplication (Krebernik 1984: 197). Therefore, Gtn seems to be a more plausible equivalent than Gt, except perhaps in the arguably reciprocal da-da-ga-b-um, for which Akkadian uses a Gt-stem. The consonantal structure of the Eblaite forms can easily be fitted into the Akkadian system. They testify to a period in which the deverbal forms of the t-stems still had their original prefixed ta- (ta-PRvS, etc.; see 14.4.1, pp. 377378), whereas the finite forms had already acquired an infixed t, in the Gt-stem *yiptarVs *taprVs, in the Dt-stem *yuptarras *tuparrVs,138 and in the t-stem *yutapras *tuaprVs. The pressure of the finite inflectional stem caused the t-infix to penetrate into the verbal noun as well (Gt taptarVs, Dt tuptarrVs, t tutaprVs) without initially affecting the prefix. Subsequently, the prefix was eliminated, not only because it was superfluous but also because it made the t-stems different from all other verbal stems, including the G-stem, that employ inflectional prefixes exclusively for person-marking. This is a striking example of
136. But if we assume that these forms are to some extent parallel to the Akkadian Dt-stem, both cases are semantically very atypical for this verbal stem. For tumtallikum, one would definitely expect something like to deliberate, to take counsel, etc. 137. See 2.4 (pp. 4648) for a more complete definition of the vowel syncope rule in Akkadian and Krebernik 1984: 19596 and 2006: 8889 for the situation in Eblaite. 138. The form du-a-ne-u4 VE 574 (according to Krebernik 1983: 21) mentioned above as a variant of du-u-da-ne/na-um may be an instance of a verbal noun with the pattern tu-PaRRiS with the original prefixed t (/tuanni(H)u(m)/, cf. Akk zen to be(come) angry). Eblaite has a few other forms that may be interpreted in the same way, but they are all very uncertain; see Krebernik 1984: 208.
14.6. The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the t2dStem
397
how the finite prefix conjugations have imposed their inflectional stem on the non-finite forms in several successive stages. If this reconstruction is correct, there is no need to assume the existence of finite forms with both a prefixed and an infixed t (cf. Edzard 1996: 27). The vowel i in the final syllable, however, is totally alien to Akkadian in this category of forms and is also hard to explain in a historical perspective. The Akkadian forms cannot easily be derived from the Eblaite, and vice versa, in the relatively short period of time separating the rise of the two languages (or dialects), which are in many respects very closely related. The use of u in the infinitive of the derived stems is firmly established in Akkadian and has parallels in Arabic (taqattul, taqtul; see the preceding section). So this is a point on which Akkadian and Eblaite show a fundamental difference and is an important indication that Eblaite had a system of derived stems that cannot be derived from the system we find in historical Akkadian. Since the Eblaite verbal nouns with both prefixed and infixed t date from a much earlier period than any comparable Akkadian form we have, it is possible that Akkadian also had such forms but that they were subsequently abandoned for the historically attested forms with only an infix. There are actually a few forms in Akkadian that may be survivals of this earlier stage: tartm mutual love (Pl) from rmu Gt to love e.o. (tar/ta-ar-ta-mi MIO 12, 54b:15 and RA 22, 172:17 [OB lit.]), and taltabu, a type of clothing (CAD T 104a, SB LL), equated with litbuu from labu to wear, put on, which often occurs in the Gt-stem. Finally, Krebernik (1984: 205; 1991a: 232) and Tropper (2000: 530) report the existence in Ugaritic of two infinitives with double t: tmt and ttb KTU 1.3 II 1920, reciprocal forms of the verbs m and b to fight.139
14.6. the Pattern taPrvs(t) and the t2-stem

One of the forms that originally belonged to the Gt-stem and was re-employed for a different function is its ancient deverbal noun with the prefix ta-: in the forms ta-PRS and ta-PRiSt, it became the verbal noun of the D-stem. This had important consequences for the system of derived verbal stems, because the nouns with ta- gave rise to a productive class of denominal verbs, derived by means of in its denominal function (see 13.2.2.4, pp. 332333), the t2-stem. I will first describe the various kinds of taPRvS(t) nouns in Akkadian and the rest of Semitic in 14.6.1 and then the t2-stem in 14.6.2.
14.6.1. ThepatterntaPRvS(t)
As I argued in 14.4.1 (pp. 377378), Akkadian has a group of deverbal nouns with the prefix ta- that semantically belong to the Gt-stem. It comprises various patterns with taPRvS as their common base and the vowels a, i, and u (perhaps also , , and ) in the second syllable, and they may have the feminine (abstract) suffix -t. For the sake of convenience, I will ignore this variation and simply refer to them as taPRaS, taPRiS, and taPRuS or, in general, taPRvS. The association of these patterns with the Gt-stem is most evident in the taPRaS and taPRuS forms; taPRiS has largely been secondarily associated with the D-stem, but a few taPRiS forms have retained their original status. We can distinguish the following types:
139. This interpretation is accepted by Lipiski 1997: 404. It cannot be ruled out, however, that these forms are prefixed 3fs Gt-stems (Testen 2002: 517). Sivan (1997: 12831) does not mention them as infinitives.
398
The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the t2dStem 14.6.
1. taPRaS nouns that can be directly linked to a reciprocal Gt-stem:140 tzu battle (OB+) from azu Gt to seize e.o., fight tmartu present (given when meeting someone), tribute, observation (OB+) from amru to see, N to meet (earlier Gt [1 OA, quoted in 14.3.1.2, p. 362]); also tmurtu (see below)141 tamartu square number (NB), cf. maru Gt to correspond to e.o. tamru battle (OB+) from maru Gt to confront e.o. tamu battle (OB: [t]a-am-a- Itar p. 22:21) from mau Gt to fight tamlku counsellor (OB+) from malku Gt to deliberate tplu pair, set of two (OB+) from aplu Gt to answer e.o., discuss, correspond142 tartmu (words of) mutual love (OB lit.) from rmu Gt to love e.o., with both prefix and infix (see 14.5.6, p. 397) tem concord, harmony (OB+) from em Gt to listen to e.o.143 (< *tamaum; in the form *tamaum already in Mari Old Akkadian: ta-ma kalam RA 35, 47 no. 20:1 (= tama mtim acc. to AHw 1352b s.v. tem 1);144 also Fem tamtum, usually personified as the goddess Tamtu < *tasmatum)145 2. taPRaS nouns with a reciprocal nuance but without corresponding Gt-stem:146 tamkru merchant, creditor(OA) from makru to trade (no Gt, but cf. makru t2 in 14.6.2.2)
140. For the difficult question of the quantity of a (taPRaS or taPRS), see Streck 2003a: 102. Assyrian evidence for (no vowel assimilation) comes from tamkrum merchant and ta-a-zi-im ArAn. 3, 133:12 battle (Gen) (both OA) and from tarbu in Middle and Neo-Assyrian. If is long, we have a neat parallel with the Arabic madar pattern of most derived stems with the vowel sequence -i--, e.g., Stem VIII iqtitl (Testen 1999: 4), which points to an earlier form *ta-qtl (see 14.4.1, pp. 377378). Of course, the vowel quantity of taPRaS cannot be separated from that of its successor PitRaS, which is also problematic (see 14.2.1, p. 359). 141. See AHw 1313a s.v. 1 Besuchsgeschenk; CDA p. 396b s.v. audience gift; also Durand 1997/ 2000: I 405 n. c. The meaning observation (mainly SB) seems to be a later development. 142. For the semantics of tplu, cf. also ta/mu or tmu twins, double mentioned in 14.4.1 (p. 377). 143. See Streck 2003a: 26 no. 24, and add MDP 57, 61 no. 3:9 arr (spelled 2.30) ina kiati i-teem-mu kings(! form Sg) will listen to each other, cf. MDP 57, 61 no. 3:46 ta-mu- kal iakkan harmony will be established everywhere, and p. 91 no. 4:7 ana kiati te-e-mu harmony to the whole world (all OB Susa). 144. These words are usually interpreted as obedience or the like (AHw 1352b s.v. tem Erhrung, CDA 405a s.v. attention, listening), which ignores the specific meaning of the ta- prefix. In the attested contexts, the interpretation given here is equally possible, if not better; cf. the coordination of tem with salmu and magru (AHw l.c., e.g., bl tam u magri Ee VII 20, SB). Cf. also ARM 27, 25:7 the god of my lord has established temm for this district, which M. Birot, inspired by J.-M. Durand (see note a), translates obissance. However, harmony, peace and quiet seems to fit the context even better. 145. Already in Sargonic Akkadian, we find Da--m-tum /Tasmatum/ as a feminine proper name (MAD 3, 275). However, this may also be an abbreviation of Tama-DN. 146. An intriguing form that may belong here is the Eblaite noun da-da-mu (= Ka.ukki n) VE 222b, which may be interpreted as meeting or the like on the basis of Ka.Kin = ba-a-lumum VE 222a, i.e., /parum/ to come together. This is supported by the fact that it corresponds to a noun that appears in Old Babylonian Mari texts as ta-ta-mu-um (Nom) and ta-ta-ma-am (Acc) in texts from Tuttul, and as taA-ta-mu-um (Nom) and ta-a-ta-mi-im (Gen) in texts originating from Imar; see Durand 1989: 3237 and MARI 6 (1990) 5657 for references. Durand (1989) convincingly argues for the meaning assembly (see also Fleming 2004: 2078). We can interpret these forms as taHtammum or ttammum, a word that may be
399
tarbu pen, enclosure (passim), lit. (place of) lying together from rabu to lie down, crouch according to Goetze 1936: 324 tap/ru (1 Mari OAk tap-a-ru-um ARM 19, 252:3), meaning uncertain but perhaps the same word as OA taprum;147 also in the adverb taparam together or the like (ta-ap-a-ra-am YOS 11, 24:25, OB), from paru to come together; cf. also tapuru below 3. taPRaS nouns belonging to reflexive or lexicalized Gt-stems: talaptu a cloak (only ta-la-pa-tum MSL 9, 201:263 var. (SB LL), usually nalaptu, from alpu Gt to put on; cf. also taluptu below tallaktu way, behaviour, procedure (OB+), cf. alku Gt to start going ttu sortie, offspring < *tawatum,148 cf. wa Gt = G to go /come out (tu-a-tam MARI 5, 622:9 (OB Mari); tu-a-tum = ze-rum JAOS 83, 439:324 offspring (SB LL)149 4. taPRuS nouns (almost always Fem) parallel to a reciprocal Gt-stem:150 tamuu fight (SB) from mau Gt to fight tamgurtu agreement (OB, Nuzi) from magru Gt to agree with e.o. (also tamgirtu, see below) taqrubtu battle, fight (SB) from qerbu Gt to approach e.o. tkultu meal, banquet (SB), lit., eating together from aklu Gt; its normal meaning, however, is to eat each other; see Streck 2003a: 26 no. 26 tanuntu rivalry, battle (SB), from annu Gt to compete, a rare variant of tanintu, see below
typical of the geographical area of Mari and Ebla and presumably of the nomadic people who lived there. J.-M. Durand (FM 7, p. 46 note b to text 18) has proposed to derive this word from atwm to speak (with each other). This would make perfect sense, if only we had sufficient evidence for w > m in Akkadian or Amorite in this early period, which is not the case; cf. Streck 2000: 174. The most likely etymology is therefore Strecks (2000: 119) suggestion that it might be a ta-QTL form of a verb that appears in Sabaic as tm to bring together, to reconcile two parties according to Beestons translation (Beeston et al. 1982: 8) and in Arabic as atama to unite; see also Krebernik 2001: 57 ad line 5. If this is correct, it should be added to the taPRaS forms listed here. It might further be possible to connect tm with Arabic ummah people, clan as a fossilized stem with infixed t from a root that may also occur in Akk ummnu army. In that case, this Mari noun is another example of a deverbal noun with both prefixed and infixed t (see 14.5.6, pp. 395397). However, AHw 1413b s.v. derives ummnu from m (He am, Uga. m, etc.), against D. Cohen in DRS p. 23a s.v. MM. 147. This word means goods or payments collected for a temple acc. to CAD T 17980 s.v. taparu. Note that the Acc tap-i-ra-am CCT 3, 24:19 points to taprum (less probably taprum) against CADs taparu. As a taPRS form, it is likely to be associated with the D-stem puuru rather than with the Gt-stem, despite its inherent reciprocal nuance. 148. Or perhaps with short u: tutu; cf. Testen 1999: 68 and 14.4.1 above (p. 378) for a Hebrew parallel. 149. There are also some taPRaS nouns that seem clearly deverbal but do not show any relationship with the Gt-stem: tapau resting place, taru flat land from waru to be low? (both referring to a location, just like tarbu), takbaru, and tarpau, both referring to an animal and derivable from a common adjectival verb (kabru to be(come) thick and rapu to be(come)wide). 150. Uncertain is (ina) te-ku-up-ti AbB 11, 77:17 (OB) (AHw 1344b s.v.: unter Zeitdrck(?)), cf. ekpu Gt, and perhaps utkup/bu to do ones best, listed in 14.6.2.2 (p. 411). I have omitted NB talbutu (issue of) clothing, in spite of labu Gt to put on (clothes), since semantically it instead belongs to labu D to provide with clothing, which suggests that it is a variant of talbitu.
400
5. taPRuS nouns with a reciprocal nuance but no corresponding reciprocal Gt-stem: tpultu payment (OB Susa), from aplu Gt to pay e.o.? (but see tplu above) tapur(t)u collection, meeting (SAk (da-ab-u-ur-tum HSS 10, 204:11) and SB; OB tapurum meeting? (AbB 2, 118:15, 22) from paru to come together; see *taparu above and n. 147 regarding OA taprum tadduntu gift (SB LL), equated with Sum. n.sum.sum.m a: if this case of reduplication has reciprocal function, the original meaning may be mutual gift tmurtu, a rare variant of tmartu (see above), mainly in peripheral texts and in Tn-Ep. II 11 (MB lit.) 6. taPRuS nouns that can semantically be associated with other functions of the Gt-stem: taluptu armor, plating (SB) from alpu Gt (only stative) to wear (SB, NB) trubtu entry (OB+) from erbu Gt = G to enter tluku gait, course, behaviour (OB+), cf. alku Gt to start going151 7. taPRiS nouns that have preserved their semantic association with a reciprocal Gt-stem: tamgirtu agreement (OA) from magru Gt to agree with e.o. (see Veenhof 1972: 255, e.g., OAA 1, 26:7); cf. tamgurtu above tabittu quarrel (ta-a-bi-it-tam M.13095 quoted FM 2 p. 113 note f; bl ta-a-bita-tim FM 2, 112 no. 71: r.4, both OB Mari) from abtu Gt to quarrel152 tanintu rivalry, battle (OB+); cf. annu Gt to compete (also tanuntu, see above) tarkbu layer of bricks (OB); cf. rakbu Gt to ride/lie on top of e.o.153 tegrtu litigation (ta-ag-ri-a-tum RA 44, 27:38, OB) from ger Gt to litigate154 tn/tntu relief, substitution (OB+) from en Gt to exchange tw/mtu query for an oracle and the answer to it acc. to CAD T 123f s.v. tmtu, originally a deverbal noun of atw to speak, originally to speak to e.o.; in OB Mari libell, formulaire according to D. Charpin, NABU 1988/85)155 Note that the three last-mentioned forms come from III/voc verbs, for which the pattern taPRiS serves as the point of neutralization of taPRaS, taPRuS, and taPRiS (just like PaRR, PaRRtu
151. A taPRuS noun from a verb without any trace of a Gt-stem is tubu/ addition, additional payment, cf. wabu to add, i.e., < *tayubum ? (see 16.2.4 end, pp. 461462). Perhaps also taputu rest (cf. tapau resting place). 152. Old Babylonian also has a deverbal noun tibuttu that seems to have approximately the same meaning (see AHw1362a s.v.; see also AbB 10, 6:16 with F. R. Krauss translation). This is a good example of the replacement of a residual type of derivation by a productive one, based on the contemporary infinitive (or past participle) tibutu. 153. An intriguing case is tnqu (MA tnuqu) suckling from enqu to suck, which has no D-stem (to suckle is expressed by the -stem nuqu). This suggests that tnqu is derived from an unattested but semantically not unlikely Gt-stem of enqu. 154. For Sg tegrtu (cf. OB ger) versus Pl tagritu, see 17.5.1 (pp. 531533) and Kouwenberg 2001: 23335. 155. An alternative explanation for the III/voc nouns is that they are taPRuS(t) forms in which -uy- has become (*tagruytum > tagrtum). This does not work for tw/mtu, however, which comes from the III/ verb atw to speak. For the difficult Old Babylonian expression tw/ tam uww, see Kraus 1979 with an in-depth discussion. Pace Kraus (1979: 13839), twtum can also be derived from ew to become, because the E-colouring in this verb is secondary and specifically Babylonian (see 17.5.1 sub 3, p. 528). It is possible, therefore, that there were two or even more homonymous nouns with this form; see also CAD T 3012 s.v. twtu.
401
for the patterns PaRRa/i/S; and cf. kustu cloak from the pattern PuRS; see GAG 55l and Kuryowicz 1972: 48). This also applies to the taPRiSt form t/tu conflict, rivalry from an unattested doubly weak verb (see 14.6.2.2, p. 407). Chronologically, taPRaS seems to represent an older stratum than taPRuS. Nouns of the taPRaS form typically occur in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian and a few of them even in third-millennium Akkadian.156 Many of the taPRuS nouns, on the other hand, appear for the first time in Standard Babylonian or later. This suggests that taPRaS goes back to an earlier infinitive or past participle that was replaced by forms with the stem vowel u, first taPRuS, later Pit(a)RuS. The taPRvS nouns enumerated so far clearly belong to the Gt-stem on the basis of their form and function. However, the great majority of taPRiS forms are just as clearly associated with the corresponding D-stem. In Akkadian, they can be both masculine (taPRS) and feminine (taPRiSt) (GAG 56l).157 The feminine form is generally more productive and more regular in its use for abstract concepts; the masculine form usually refers to concrete objects, but there is a considerable fluctuation. A small selection of common examples must suffice here. We will encounter some more instances in the discussion of the t2-stem in 14.6.2.2 (pp. 404411).158 TaPRiSt: tasistu reminder, note, protocol from ussusu to remind (OA, MB, SB) takittu confirmation from kunnu to establish, confirm (OA, OB) tamltu full payment, landfill, decoration from mull to fill (OA, OB, and later) terdtu addition, reinforcement from rudd to add (OB and later)
TaPRS: tbl dried vegetables (OB and later) from ablu D to make dry taklmu show, demonstration (a kind of food-offering) from kullumu to show (OB, SB) taml filled-in platform, decoration, from mull to fill (OA, OB, and later) The association between taPRiS and the D-stem is also found in West Semitic, especially in Arabic, where the pattern taqtl (or taqtilah) serves as madar of Stem II, the Arabic equivalent of the D-stem.159 This is remarkable, because it is not only completely different from all other forms of Stem II but also from most other madar patterns of the derived stems, which normally show the vowel sequence -i--, e.g., qitl in Stem III (qtala), iqtl in Stem IV (aqtala) and istiqtl in Stem X (istaqtala).160 Since taPRvS originally belonged to the Gt-stem in West Semitic as well,
156. A possible instance from Ebla is ti--ma-tum (= n.lu.l u) VE 64, which because of la/a-i-mu = n . lu VE 63 may be interpreted as /tilam(a)tum/, derived from a root lm; cf. Ar laama and Syr laem to join and He lm N to fight (Krebernik 1984: 207). 157. It is possible that remains long in spite of the closed syllable; see GAG 56l and Kouwenberg 20034a: 88. I will write taPRiSt for the sake of convenience. 158. A possible instance of a taPRiSt noun associated with a D-stem in Ebla is da--ba-tum and /au-b(-um) VE 228, both equated with Ka.Ru, which may be interpreted as /taHiBtum/ and /HauBum/, respectively; unfortunately, its meaning is unknown (Krebernik 1984: 206). Other Eblaite taPRiSt nouns are da-na-i-si-du/tum (= n . z i . p a . z i . pa) VE 120, i.e., /tanHitum/, which occurs in Babylonian as tnetum (more often Pl tni/etum) mankind and in Old Assyrian as tantum (ta-ni-i-tum TC 3, 14:18), of uncertain background, and da-ir-i-du-um VE 790 (variants te-r-i-du and ti-ir-i-du-um) (= an.eden.aK), i.e., /ta/erHitum/ or the like, of unknown meaning (Krebernik 1984: 209). 159. Geez uses taqtl in the same function; see Barth 1894a: 293. 160. There is a rare alternative Stem II madar qittl (Wright 1967: I 115 sub 6). Two other stems that do not have -i-- are Stem V (taqattala) and Stem VI (taqtala), which have taqattul and taqtul instead, the
402
as we saw in 14.4.1 (pp. 377378), the same process took place as in Akkadian, which suggests that it already started before the breaking up of the proto-language. The question is: how and why did the shift of taPRiS from Gt to D happen? From a semantic point of view, it may seem to be a rather unlikely development, because these verbal stems have opposite functions. The use of Gt as a detransitive voice marker implies a change from transitive to intransitive or from high to low transitivity, whereas the D-stem is strongly associated with high transitivity, as we saw in chap. 11, and many D-stems do exactly the opposite of the Gt-stem: they make intransitive verbs transitive. This does not seem to be a serious objection, however. Deverbal nouns are a typical point of neutralization between different valencies (Hopper and Thompson 1984: 73738). English deverbal nouns such as sight and construction can be both active and passive according to their intended meaning: they can refer to the action of seeing and constructing, but they can also indicate the result of the action on the direct object: sight when it means that which has been seen, and construction when it refers to the concrete object that has been built. A related phenomenon is the fact that the Akkadian infinitive, also a kind of deverbal noun, is neutral with regard to the active/passive distinction. For instance, a genitive dependent on the Inf dku to kill can refer to both the person who kills someone and the person who is killed. The reason why the pattern taPRiS came to be associated with the D-stem must be sought in a significant difference in frequency and productivity between the source and the target of the shift. It seems plausible, therefore, that the overall decline in productivity that I have ascribed to the Gt-stem on the basis of its use in Akkadian and West Semitic provided a general condition for this process to happen. Deverbal nouns are often only loosely connected with the verbal paradigm and may easily survive as independent lexemes, especially when they are in common use. Therefore, they can also attach themselves to other verbal forms that are more frequent and therefore more prominent in the mind of the speakers. As we saw in chap. 11, the D-stem is by far the most productive of all derived stems. The fact that, already before the decline of the Gt-stem, the verbal and deverbal forms with ta- suffered competition from the new forms with infixed t (pitrVs, iqtitl, etc.) doubtless contributed to their lexicalization and the loss of their original function. A relatively small number of such taPRiS nouns associated with the D-stem is enough to trigger an analogical expansion of this model and create a direct derivation from D to taPRiS, without any association with the Gt-stem. In this way, taPRiS became productive in both Akkadian and Arabic, so that its original function was largelyin Arabic, even completelyeclipsed by its association with the D-stem. The relationship between the D-stem and taPRiS is one of the most striking instances of derivation by association, which was discussed in 2.3.2 (pp. 3940). Since the secondary association of taPRiS with the D-stem already started in Proto-Semitic, it is one of the earliest examples of the phenomenon I described at the end of 14.3.4 (pp. 374375): the reuse of forms that are being marginalized as a result of diachronic processes or are in danger of falling out of use altogether. In the older Semitic languages, then, there are two layers of taPRiS forms: one consisting of original taPRiS forms that areor once wereassociated with the Gt-stem, and a later and much more numerous one consisting of those that are productively derived from a D-stem. As we will see in the next sections, in Akkadian this corresponds to two semantically different kinds of t2-stems, since the t2-stem originates as a denominal derivation of nouns with the prefix ta- from both layers.
former of which is reminiscent of the Akkadian Gtn Inf PitaRRuS or the Dt(n) Inf PutaRRuS (see 14.5.5, pp. 394395).
403
14.6.2. Thet2-stem
The next category with infixed t to be discussed is the t2-stem. In 10.4 (p. 250), I argued that the t2-stem does not belong to the secondary stems because it is not a detransitive derivation of the corresponding primary stem. I will now propose a different analysis that fully accounts for the numerous problematical aspects of this stem.
14.6.2.1. Theparadigmofthet2-stem
In the strong verb, the paradigm of the t2-stem is identical to that of the t1-stem and the tn-stem in all forms except the imperfective. Table 14.8 presents the paradigms of the three categories side by side, with the -stem for comparison. -stem Impfv Pfv t-Pf Stat Imp Inf/PPartc PrPartc uapras uapris utapris a/uprus a/upris a/uprusu muaprisu t1-stem utapras tn-stem utanapras utapris utatapris utaprus utapris utaprusu mutaprisu t2-stem utaparras
table 14.8: the t2-stem in comparison with the other t-stems and the -stem.
The imperfective with gemination utaparras is the defining formal feature of t2.161 It is due to the rule that the imperfective has gemination of R2 wherever possible, so that in an original *utapras the cluster -pr- was broken up and r was geminated, just as in the quadriradical Impfv *ubalkat (from nabalkutu ; see 13.4.1, p. 348) is replaced by ubalakkat (see 4.5.2, pp. 113114). This tallies with the fact that the t2-stem is actually a quadriradical formation, since it is derived from nouns with the pattern taPRvS, as I will argue below. All non-imperfective forms can only be identified on the basis of the context, which leads to much ambiguity, especially for t2 and tn, both of which often have active meaning. As already noted in 14.5.2 above (p. 386), the I/w and I/voc verbs do not show any difference in imperfective form between t1 and t2: cf. t1 ute he will be brought out (quoted in 14.5.2, p. 386) from wa versus t2 utemmed he will put together (e.g., u-te-em-m-ed AbB 14, 78:9) from emdu (see 16.2.3, pp. 456457). Since the t2-stem is not a passive, all forms of the paradigm are amply attested. Even t-perfect forms with a double t-infix are not uncommon and are attested as early as Old Babylonian: tu-u-ta-ta-a-ri-is-s AbB 11, 44:15 (OB) you have deducted it from aru t2 u-ta-tam-i-ir KH 146:51 (OB) she has made herself equal from maru t2
161. However, the distinction does not always apply: especially nadnu t2 to intermingle, deliberate more often has utaddan than utanaddan (cf. CAD N/1 5758 s.v. nadnu 6). Conversely, mtum u-tala-pt MDP 57, 202 no. 9: r.31 the land will be destroyed (OB Susa) shows a t2 imperfective with the function of the t1-stem. In Old Assyrian, there is a t1 Impfv utamgar in umma iti PN l u-ta-am-ga-ar Prag I 473: r.1718 if I cannot come to an agreement with PN, which does not have the t1 meaning that is usual in Old Assyrian (to be made to agree, see CAD M/1 42b s.v. magru 9) but looks more like a denominal derivation of tamgirtum agreement (see 14.6.1, p. 400), which makes it a t2 form semantically (see below).
404
u-te-te-eb-ru- ZA 90, 204:24 (OB) it has continued from utebr ul-te-te-i-ra-[]i? JCS 6, 144:11 (MB) I have directed her(?) from eru t2 t [u]-ul-te-te-er-si WZJ 8, 569:36 (MB) you have prepared (? context broken) from uters u-te-te-()-il Lugal 182 = V 1 and 264 = V 28 (SB) he wrung (his hands) from elu t2162 The present participle mutaprisu shows a sporadic but interesting Standard Babylonian by-form mutaparrisu that has adopted the gemination of the imperfective and underlines its continuous meaning (GAG 105p):163 mutabarr from ute/abr to continue (Impfv utabarri), e.g., (a star/god) mu-ta-bar-ru- mtnu HBA 52:42 who brings persistent pestilence, alongside regular mutabr in (a star) mu-tab-ru-u zunn Racc. 138:312 which causes persistent rain. Another irregular present participle, which is more difficult to explain, is mu-u-ta-al-q-ti SAA 10, 111: r.13 (SB in a NA letter) deserters from alqu t2(?) to escape, for which we would expect mutaliqu. It is possible that this form is also based on the imperfective but with syncope of a syllable: *mutaalliqu > mutaalqu.164 Streck (2003a: 118) counts 105 verbs with a t2-stem, which means that it is fairly common, but it is most typical of the older stages of Akkadian, especially Old and Standard Babylonian.165 It is somewhat less frequent in Old Assyrian and Middle Babylonian and used only sporadically in Middle Assyrian.166 According to Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 89), there are no certain instances of any t-stems in Neo-Assyrian.167
14.6.2.2. Thefunctionofthet2-stem
The function of the t2-stem is a well-known crux in Akkadian grammar. The difficulty of establishing an overall definition of its function and of the nature of its semantic relationship with other verbal stems has earned it the designation lexical t-stem, with the connotation of unpredictability and idiosyncrasy adhering to the term lexical (cf. Aronoff 1994: 1622). The t2-stem does not have a regular functional relationship with another verbal stem, which is a major characteristic of the system of derived verbal stems as a whole. It is true that the degree of regularity varies widely between stems (see 10.5, pp. 250252), but the irregularity displayed by the t2-stem is without parallel.168
162. Another instance from this text may be u-te-te-li-i in mt nukurti kma izbi kalb u-te-te-li-i Lugal 260 = V 24 he had dogs lap up (the blood of?) the hostile land as if it were milk (tr. CAD /3 400b s.v. utelu). 163. For the same phenomenon in other verb types, see 14.7.2 (Gtn-stem, p. 418), 14.7.5 (Ntn-stem, p. 427), and 12.5 (the Ntn-stems of the nabalkutu type, p. 312). 164. There is, however, no further t2-stem of alqu with this meaning. Semantically, it instead seems to be a passive/intransitive of alqu to allow or help someone to escape (AHw 311a s.v. ), i.e., a t1-stem, which would be without parallel, since Akkadian has no passive participles (see 8.4.1, p. 206). 165. A possible very early instance is u-da-a-b-la / ustbila/ OAIC 10:8 I considered (Subj) (letter from the Diyala), if this indeed comes from wablu t2 to consider (Hasselbach 2005: 227). 166. There are only two instances I know of. The first one is the deviant form tu-a-a-ru-u-ni KAJ 120:7 (which) have been deducted from utaruu, for which one would expect tuaruuni (with metathesis of t and ; see 14.5.1, p. 383) and which may be administrative jargon borrowed from Babylonian. The other one is a t2 present participle of epu in the PN Mu-te-pi-ilu KAJ 173:3 (cf. OMA 2 p. 117), which also may come from Babylonian, as many other Middle Assyrian personal names. 167. However, we have to reckon with occasional Standard Babylonian forms (see 1.4.1.3.3, p. 19). A case in point may be the t2 Impfv u-ta-bal-u-ni SAA 10, 30: r.10 I am arguing (Subj) from (w)ablu t2. 168. This is eloquently demonstrated by Strecks (1994) enumeration of functions of the t2-stem in relation to other verbal stems. Streck distinguishes twelve classes of t2-stems and labels them as causative,
405
Formally, there are two possible candidates that could be the source of derivation of the t2-stem: the Gt-stem and the -stem. With regard to the former, there is indeed a small number of t2-stems that appear to be causatives of a reciprocal Gt-stem:169 magru t2 to cause to agree (Gt to agree with e.o.), as in: (13) RA 91, 136:38 (OB) (two officials . . .) u-tam-gi-ru-u-nu-ti haben sie zu einer Einigung veranlat (tr. M. Jursa; Old Babylonian contracts hardly ever use a t-perfect in such clauses) maru t2 to cause to face e.o., cause to correspond (Gt to correspond to e.o.), e.g.: (14) Lugal 85 = II 41 (SB) ml u mupla u-ta-ma-ar he makes high and low places level (tr. CAD M/1 52b s.v. lex. sect.) mau t2 to cause to fight (Gt to fight with e.o.), e.g.: (15) JCS 21, 258: last line (SB) (DNF) mu-tm/tam-i-a-at a mitgurti who causes enmity between brothers in good relations (tr. CAD M/1 84a s.v. 9) lu t2 to cause to quarrel (Gt to quarrel with e.o.), in: (16) SSA 92:4 (OB) ittam itti ittim tu-u-te-e-e-e-li you (Fem) incite one neighbor woman to quarrel with the other (tr. CAD 89a s.v. lu lex. sect.) abtu t2 to cause to quarrel (Gt to quarrel), in: (17) SSA 92:6 (OB) kilattina tu-u-ta-a-ab-ba-ti you (Fem) cause both of them (the neighbour women) to quarrel with each other170 In accordance with the gradual replacement of the Gt-stem by the N-stem (see 14.3.4, pp. 370371), we may perhaps include some t2-stems here that are causative to a reciprocal and even a passive N-stem (Streck 1994: 16669): amru t2 to cause to meet (N to meet),171 in: (18) ARM 5, 73: r.5 (OB) (because PN was well trained in the art of singing) itti blya u-ta-me-er-u-ma I have made him meet with my lord (OB) laptu t2 to allow to be touched (N to be touched), in:172 (19) AbB 14, 35:1819 (OB) 1 sila3 e . . . l tu-u-ta-la-pa-at you must not allow one sila of barley to be touched (tr. CAD L 93b s.v. 7, cf. Streck 1994: 167) (20) MHET 1 p. 104 no. 70:1819 (OB) ammni dibbatam tu-u-ta-la-pa-ta-ni why, then, do you allow me to be faced with this dispute? (tr. K. van Lerberghe and G. Voet)
reflexive, reciprocal, passive, and intensive, each in relation to different stems. This perplexing variety shows that the t2-stem is fundamentally different from most other verbal stems, which are derived from a single more basic stem and express some kind ofmore or less predictablemodification of its meaning. 169. For the mathematical term utkulu or utaklu to multiply, square, which is usually interpreted as literally meaning to cause to eat e.o. or to cause to hold e.o., see n. 180 below (p. 408). 170. This meaning coexists with the more common to collect, prepare; see below. 171. But cf. amru Gt, 1 in Old Assyrian (see 14.3.1.2, p. 362). 172. Perhaps also utuzu to cause to catch fire (cf. nanuzu to flare up)? See Streck 1994: 16667.
406
These instances show the existence of a causative Gt t2 derivation with a limited productivity (see 10.6, p. 254), but they cannot account for the great majority of t2-stems. I will return below to the question of how to explain the rise of this relationship. The second candidate that could be the source of the t2-stem is obviously the -stem. However, the relationship between and t2 is completely erratic. Many t2-stems do not have a corresponding -stem at all; this applies to utwm, utaknu, utamkuru, utandu, utapzuru, utalu, utamu, utan, utt, utelmunu, utmuqu, uters, uteb, utulu, and several others (see below for the meaning of these verbs). Other t2-stems have a meaning that is not derivable from that of the -stem, e.g., ut and utpuu, or belong to a different register, genre, or dialect, e.g., utaml, which is common in administrative Old Babylonian contexts (especially letters), whereas mal is a purely literary equivalent of the D-stem mull (see GAV p. 272), and utmudu, which is common in Old Babylonian, whereas emdu is only marginally attested elsewhere (see CAD E 145a s.v. 5).173 We can solve the functional problems of the t2-stem by assuming that it is essentially a formal category consisting of denominal verbs derived from taPRvS nouns. The -stem can have a denominal function, as we saw in 13.2.2.4 (pp. 332333), although this is marginal. However, the best parallel is not offered by the common triradical -stem but by the quadriradical verbs, because taPRvS is a quadriliteral element. The use of - to verbalize taPRvS nouns is parallel to the use of the prefix n- in the quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu group (see 12.5, p. 311).174 As I argued in 13.6 (pp. 353354), the prefixes n and are parallel in their use as verbalizer but semantically divergent in that the contrast between verbs with n- and verbs with - roughly correlates with the difference between processes and activities, especially when they are in opposition. This fits in quite well with the use of - in the t2-stem, as will be clear from the examples that follow: the basic meaning of many t2-stems is to perform the action indicated by the corresponding taPRvS noun. This approach explains both the functional irregularity of the t2-stem as a whole and the indisputable similarity in meaning exhibited by many individual t2-stems. The irregularity is caused by the fact that the meaning of denominal verbs is determined by the source noun and the activity for which they are created. The similarity in meaning is a consequence of the fact that they are derived from a single type of source noun that is semantically fairly homogeneous, since it is (or was) the deverbal noun of the Gt-stem.175 From this perspective, many peculiarities of the t2-stem become understandable. First of all, it explains why the t2-stem is independent of the causative -stem, as we saw above: it belongs to the denominal function of the prefix . Second, it clarifies the relationship between the Gt-stem and the t2-stem. Apart from the few instances quoted above, the t2-stem is not a regular causative of the Gt-stem but often seems to be more or less synonymous with it. For instance, utn from en to change, replace means to replace e.o. rather than to cause to replace e.o., utw (cf. atw to speak) means to
173. In the II/voc verbs, the independence of the t2-stem vis--vis the -stem is also formally marked in that the -stem shows gemination of the final radical, whereas the t2-stem does not (see 16.5.3.4, pp. 485488). 174. These verbs have a derived causative with (ubalkutu, discussed in 13.4.1, pp. 338340), but this - is not directly comparable to the - of the t2-stem, since it is the causative - rather than the - as a verbalizing prefix. 175. For the structure of the t2 forms, this implies that there is a fundamental but invisible difference between the t1-stem and the t2-stem: the former consists of a base aprVs with a t-infix, whereas the latter consists of a base taprVs with a prefixed -.
407
discuss, ponder rather than to cause to speak (to e.o.), and similarly utpulu to discuss, correspond (cf. aplu Gt to answer e.o., discuss, correspond). This shows that the t2-stem is not a causative derivation of Gt but is indirectly related to it, namely, via the taPRvS noun(s) tn and/or tntu (the act of) replacing e.o., hence replacement, also in a concrete sense. Both are deverbal nouns of en Gt to replace e.o., and the t2-stem basically means to perform a tn/ tntu or to make into a tn/tntu, depending on the context. The derivational chain G-stem Gt-stem taPRvS noun t2-stem that we find for en t2 is usually not attested in its entirety; normally, we find two or three of the four stages, and the meanings involved are almost always lexicalized to some extent. Third, it accounts for the fact that so many t2-stems have a reciprocal-like or reflexive-like nuance without being reciprocal or reflexive in the strict sense of the term (see 10.8.3.5, p. 263, and 10.8.3.3, p. 261, respectively, for definitions of both concepts).176 This nuance comes from the reciprocal and reflexive function of the Gt-stem from which the taPRvS noun is derived. This is also true of the few t2-stems quoted above as causatives of Gt: e.g., magru Gt to agree with e.o. tamgu/irtu (mutual) agreement utamguru to achieve/to bring about a tamgu/irtu (between people) to cause (them) to agree. However, instances such as these show the first stages of the rise of a derived verbal stem: once this semantic relationship has been established for a number of verbs, it may become productive without the existence of the intermediate taPRvS noun (Kuryowicz 1972: 7). This is likely to be the source of many derived stems; in this particular case, however, the process was aborted before it could really take off as a result of the decline of the Gt-stem itself. Fourth, alongside the reciprocal-like or reflexive-like t2-stems of the previous paragraph, there are also numerous t2-stems that are completely devoid of such a nuance (see below for examples). This is in keeping with the twofold background I posited in 14.6.1 (pp. 401402) for the extant taPRvS nouns: part of the t2-stems can be associated with the Gt-stem, and part with the D-stem. The non-reciprocal and non-reflexive stems belong to the latter category. Fifth, and most importantly, the denominal origin of the t2-stem is also demonstrated by the fact that many t2-stems have a close semantic relation to a taPRvS noun. Some of these are further isolated, so that there is no obvious other source available (cf. Streck 1994: 17981; 2003a: 11829): utmuqu to pray, supplicate (OB, SB) tm/qu prayer ut to compete, quarrel (OA, OB, SB) t/tu conflict, rivalry ut to team up with, join, conspire (SB) at partners utamkuru to do business, trade (OB, SB) tamkru merchant
In other cases, a denominal source seems plausible for various reasons:

176. t2-stems with reciprocal or reflexive meaning may look like derivatives of the corresponding -stem (Streck (1994: 16972), but if we consider their meaning more closely, it turns out that their relationship with the -stem presupposes a considerable degree of lexicalization. For instance, Streck classifies utamruu to concern oneself, do ones best as a reflexive of maru to make ill, annoyed, utpuu to be active, do ones best as a reflexive of epu to cause to do /make/act (1994: 170), utam to suffer reduction as a passive of ma to diminish (p. 173), and utabutu to bring together, collect, prepare (especially groups of people or animals) as a causative of a reciprocal Gt-stem to cause to seize e.o. (p. 163). In none of these cases, the presupposed literal meaning is actually attested. This is not to say that the semantic development involved is implausible, but before we can claim that, for instance, the t2-stem is a reflexive of the -stem, we should first establish this reflexive function on independent grounds by means of indisputable, i.e., non-lexicalized, instances, such as those we find for the Gt-stem in relation to the G-stem.
408
utandu to praise (OB, SB) tanittu or tanattu praise ndu (G and D) to praise, cf. in particular tandta (. . .) ana u-ta-nu-di-im BagM. 34, 150: XIV 13 (OB) in order to sing my praise uters to prepare (OA, OB, MB, SB) terstu equipment, requisite ers ready utaknu to check, confirm (OB) takittu confirmation kunnu to confirm utamu to give wisdom or understanding (OB and MB PNs) tamtu prudence, wisdom ummu to reflect, deliberate (see n. 184, p. 410) uteb to design or create in an artful way (OB, MB, SB) *teb and/or *tebtu artful design ubb to execute artfully177 uterd to continue (OB, SB) terdtu addition rudd to add utbubu to perform a tbibtu (OB) tbibtu ubbubu to purify178 uteqrubu to perform a taqribtu-ritual (OB) taqribtu qurrubu to offer, sacrifice179 utkulu or utaklu to multiply, square (OB), lit. to perform a tkiltu or takltu tkiltu/takltu multiplication180 utw to label (Mari OB) (to be distinguished from utw A to discuss, ponder) twtum label181 Several of these verbs show the feature that is typical of denominal verbs: they have a technical meaning and a close relationship with the corresponding noun. In Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian, where the t2-stem is fairly productive, there are numerous t2-stems referring to technical activities, mostly in the sphere of commerce, administration, and accounting. This reminds us of the fact that the D-stem, including its deverbal taPRiS noun, is also frequently used for technical
177. *teb is attested as an adverb teb in an artful way (te-e-bi-i-i BagM. 34, 148: XIII 9 (OB RI) and in *tebtu in the Pl tabtu (see 17.5.1, pp. 531533, and Kouwenberg 2001: 23334 for e > a) artful design, sophistication, or the like (ekal ta-a-ba-ti ZDMG 98, 30:4 and qti ta-a-ba-ti Legends p. 366:173 presents and artful things). The verbs ubb and uteb and these nouns are typically used in the context of the design and construction of royal buildings, except for the last mentioned instance, which AHw 1337b s.v. tabtu translates as Wunscherfllungen, deriving it from a/eb to wish. This sounds semantically plausible but it is perhaps too much to derive the only two attested instances of this word from two different verbs. B. Landsbergers proposal to derive it from wabu to add as a Pl of *taibtu, quoted and accepted by A. Westenholz 1997: 330 ad line 173 (supplementary presents[?]), is unlikely, since there is no other instance of such a pattern among the I/w verbs. 178. In [as]skum DN u-te-bi-ib RitDiv. 30:8 I appeal to you, ama, perform a tbibtu. It is classified by Streck (1994: 176) as reflexive, but this leaves unexplained why a t2-stem is used, since a causative of this verb is not in use in Old Babylonian. 179. In ili awlim u-te-eq-ru-ba-am rri YOS 10, 52: III 3 the mans personal god demands a taqribturitual. For taqribtu as a religious ceremony, see Seux 1976: 151 n. 19 with lit. (une intercession). 180. Cf. the use of the verb and the noun in the same context in MCT 129 Ua 6-r.2: 3,30 itti 3,30 u-taki-il-ma (. . .) 3,30 ta-ki-il-tam ina itn usu multiply 3,30 by 3,30 (and you get 12,15 . . ..), deduct 3,30, the tkiltu/takltu, from 1 (OB, similarly TMB p. 102 no. 206:1117, etc.). The Sumerian logogram for this operation, g u7, suggests that both the noun and the verb come from aklu to eat and should thus be spelled tkiltu and utkulu. It has been argued, in particular by Hyrup (1990: 4243 with n. 27 and elsewhere), that a derivation from kullu t2 to make (two line segments) hold each other (as sides of a rectangle) is semantically more satisfactory and that the spelling with g u7 is a kind of pun. Accordingly, we should write utaklu and takltum (AHw 1306b s.v. takiltum II already refers to kullu, but has the verb under aklu t 2 [p. 27b]). This may indeed be attractive semantically, but the only plene spelling known to me that allows us to distinguish the two verbs, the Impfv tu-u-ta-ak-ka-al MCT p. 45: B r.15 (OB), shows that k is the middle radical rather than the first one (kullu t2 would have had an Impfv tutakl). 181. See D. Charpin, NABU 1988/85, Heimpel (1996: 16667 and Streck 2003a: 11920. Cf. especially ta-wi-tum ina tuppim ul u-ta-wa-at? A.977: 910 quoted by Charpin: there was no label/address on the tablet, which shows the close relationship between noun and verb.
409
terms. Accordingly, we may tentatively classify yet more t2-stems as denominal, although other options cannot be excluded: utaml to supplement (missing items, shortages of workers, etc.) (OB, SB); the supplement itself is called a tamltu, see K. R. Veenhof, AbB 14 p. 219 s.v. tamltum utam to suffer reduction, be in short supply (OB, SB) tamtu reduction, scarcity182 utaqu to make a mixture (OB, MB, SB) taqtu mixture, cf. qu () to mix utan to double, do for the second time (OA, OB, SB) tana/i double or tan/tu repetition unn to repeat It is tempting to extend this explanation to other t2-stems with a technical meaning even though there is no taPRvS noun attested, such as utaruu to deduct, balance from aru to cut off, a common technical term in accounting. Anyhow, it is hard to find another reason for the fact that it is a t2-stem. Other, less common, candidates may be utat to mix, decant (wine) and utaqpu to buy on credit (qptu) (both OB Mari). For the great majority of t2-stems, it is difficult to find positive evidence that they are denominal. Most of them come from well-known roots with an extensive paradigm attested in a variety of derived verbal stems. In this case, it is difficult to argue compellingly that the t2-stem is directly derived from a taPRvS noun (attested or not) rather than from, say, the corresponding -stem or Gt-stem. The verbs utduru to worry (intr.) and utnuu to be dejected, in pain (OB, SB) offer a good illustration of this problem. They can be explained as t1-stems derived from adru to worry (trans.), frighten and anu to make tired, to make work hard, intransitively to have a hard time, which are common in Standard Babylonian.183 However, they also have a derived taPRvS noun: tnu sighing, moaning and tdirtu worry, concern, so that nothing prevents us from deriving them from tnu and tdirtu as t2-stems. Because of this uncertainty, I will not attempt to explain the background of every single t2-stem but simply list them according to semantic criteria. I will also include relevant forms of the same root (usually a taPRvS noun and/or a Gt-stem or a D-stem, if available). First, many t2-stems that go back to deverbal nouns of the Gt-stem can be recognized from the fact that they have a reciprocal or reflexive background, without being reciprocal or reflexive in the strict sense of the word. They form semantic clusters, i.e., groups of verbs with a closely related meaning. The reciprocal cluster consists of verbs of meeting and discussing, of fighting and quarreling, and of gathering and mixing: utbulu to bring together, combine, compare, consider, discuss (OB, SB), cf. wablu to bring, take (there is no Gt, but the secondary verb tablu testifies to a former Gt-stem; see 16.2.3, p. 454) utaddunu to mix, deliberate (OB, SB), cf. tadduntu, if this indeed means mutual gift, as I suggested in 14.6.1 (p. 400), from nadnu Gt to give to e.o.? (not attested) utagmulu to do e.o. a favour, to compromise (OB), cf. gamlu Gt to conspire utakuru to bring together, make ready (SB), cf. karu Gt to put together, join utamguru to cause to agree with e.o. (OA, OB, SB), cf. magru Gt to agree with e.o. from tamgi/urtu agreement, and see (13) above (p. 405) utamuru to cause to face e.o., cause to correspond (OB, MB, SB), cf. tamru battle from maru Gt to confront e.o. and see (14) above (p. 405)
182. This obviates the necessity to assume an irregular imperfective, as done by Streck (1994: 173), who classifies it as a passive t1-stem with an irregular t2 imperfective. 183. Since they are I/voc verbs, they cannot be distinguished on the basis of their imperfective forms (see 17.6.3.3, pp. 548550).
410
utamuu to cause to fight (OB, SB), cf. tamu battle from mahu Gt to fight, and see (15) above (p. 405) utamluku to give (good) advice,184 cf. malku Gt to deliberate and tamlku counselor utamulu to be equivalent to (SB), cf. tamlu likeness, image from malu Gt to resemble e.o. (1 OA; see 14.3.1.2, p. 362) utmuru to cause to meet (OB), cf. tmartu meeting gift from amru Gt to meet (1 OA; see 14.3.1.2, p. 362) and see (18) above (p. 405) utaprusu to distinguish? (OB Mari), cf. Gt (stative) to be separated from e.o.; to be ambiguous (of omens); pitrustu ambiguous omen or feature utpulu to answer e.o., discuss, correspond, cf. tplu pair from aplu Gt to answer e.o. (or do all instances belong to wablu t2?) utasupu to cover e.o., overlap (OB, SB), cf. sapu to cover, overwhelm utabutu (1) to bring together, collect, prepare (OA, OB, SB), i.e. to perform/make into a *tabittu, i.e. a mutual seizing; (2) to cause to quarrel (OB), cf. tabittu quarrel (see 14.6.1, p. 400) from abtu Gt to seize e.o. > to quarrel, and see (17) above (p. 405) utt to meet (OB, MB, SB), cf. wat G to find utw A to discuss, advice, ponder (OB, MB, SB), cf. twtu originally *discussion, *response, but actually response to an oracle query from atw to speak (originally to speak to e.o.), see also Streck 2003a: 11920 utguru to be intertwined (OB, SB), cf. egru G and Gt to be twisted utelmunu to be/make hostile to e.o. (OA, OB, SB), cf. lemnu to be(come) bad, evil, Gt = G utlupu to be entangled (SB), cf. elpu G and Gt to flourish utmudu to join, put together (OB, SB), cf. emdu to reach (with Gt replaced by N) utn to replace e.o. (OB), see above utelu to cause to quarrel with e.o., cf. /lu Gt to quarrel and see (16) above (p. 405) utem to establish harmony (OB, SB), cf. tem concord, harmony (see 14.6.1, p. 398) from em Gt to listen to e.o. uttumu to involve, mix (OA, OB), cf. etmu id.? utulu to wring (ones hands) (OB, SB), cf. elu to bind, Gt = G A second semantic cluster of t2-stems comprises verbs of exerting oneself, of doing ones best. Their connection with the original meaning of the t-infix is less obvious, but some of them at least may go back to (taPRvS nouns of) reflexive Gt-stems, even though none are attested: utalbubu sich hart einsetzen? acc. to AHw 1570a s.v. labbu t2, but Streck 1994: 180: aufmerksam sein (indirectly related to libbu heart) (OB) utamruu to concern oneself, do ones best (OA, OB, SB), cf. maru to be(come) ill, annoyed utapuqu to suffer acute distress (CAD P 236a s.v. 2c) (SB), cf. paqu to be(come) narrow
184. In the PN U-tam-lik-DN St. Dietrich p. 761:1, see Streck 2003a: 12324. Differently from Streck, I suggest: DN was (my) tamlkum, i.e., has given (good) advice or the like; cf. the PNs of the type Utam-DN and Litasm-DN (CAD /3 281a s.v. ummu v. 2), which I interpret (differently from CAD) as DN has given/may give (me) understanding.
411
utam to make a serious effort, to provide sufficient help (tr. CAD M/1 349b s.v. 9) (OB, SB), cf. ma to be(come) equal to, sufficient utb/puru to hurry (OB, SB) (no relatives?) utkub/pu to do ones best (Veenhof 1972: 11415 with n. 184; Streck 1994: 170: sich bemhen zu) (OA), see tkuBtu in n. 150 (p. 399)? utpuu to do ones best (OB, SB) (cf. etpuu/etpu active, expert?) The importance of these clusters is that they make the actual existence of a taPRvS noun superfluous for the creation of an individual t2-stem. If among semantically related verbs one has a t2-stem, the others may acquire it without the intermediate role of such a noun. For the sake of completeness, I will add a list of the attested t2-stems that have not yet been mentioned, mainly because their interpretation is uncertain and their background obscure:185 utuzu to kindle, incite (SB), cf. nanuzu to flare up (fire) and uzu to set fire to (see 13.2.2.5, p. 333, and Streck 1994: 16667, 2003a: 118) utakruku to soak, cause to immerse? (SB), cf. karku to soak utakuu to rage (SB), cf. kau to gnash the teeth, to rage utakudu to make ready or the like? (OB) (said of fields, see Streck 2003a: 122 no. 380), cf. kadu Gt, meaning unclear utaktutu to collapse, descend to the horizon (of celestial bodies) (OB, SB), cf. kattu (meaning uncertain) utaku to be delayed (SB), cf. ku id. utamr to provide abundantly (SB), cf. mar to fatten utapzuru to provide safety to (OB), cf. pazru to hide, steal through, puzru hiding place, refuge, and tapzirtu hiding utaqrunu to pile up (OB, SB), cf. qarnu to pile up and taqrintu piling up, pile utaqt to complete (OB, SB), cf. qat to end (intr.) and taqttu end, completion utasuru to surround on all sides (OB, SB), cf. tasru/tasirtu turning? utassuq/ku to put in order, make ready, prepare (OB, MB) utamudu to link together? (said of water) (OB), cf. amdu to harness utapuru to rule, govern (SB), cf. apru to send, write, rule utebr to continue, make permanent, pass all the way through (OA, OB, SB), cf. bitr to be continuous, last utl to rival in height (SB), cf. el to go /come up, be high, Gt + ina to lose, tltu, a kind of tax utemk to pacify? (OB, SB); its relation (if any) to mek to be negligent and temk Vernachlssigung acc. to AHw 1346a s.v. is not clear to me ute/apt (OB) (meaning unclear, see Hirsch 1987: 4549; Heimpel 1996: 16869), cf. pet to open, tepttu reclamation (of land) utupu to triple (OA), cf. epu id. uturu to put and keep in order, provide justice, take the road, prosper (OB, SB), cf. eru to be straight, right, go straight (ti/ertu unclear) uttunu to overwhelm, destroy (SB)186
185. I have added a taPRvS form when it is attested. This does not imply that I automatically regard it as the basis of the t2 verb. 186. See AHw 260b s.v. etm/nu t2 (add u-te-tu-nu = sa-pa-nu SpTU 3 p. 249 no. 119: VI 10 (= 260) (SB LL).
412
14.6.2.3. ComparisonwithWestSemitic
As I stated in 14.5.5 (p. 392), for a comparison with other Semitic languages we must combine the discussion of the t2-stem with that of the t1-stem, since they are not distinguished outside Akkadian. Most West Semitic languages have a derived verbal stem characterized by the combination of a sibilant prefix and an infixed t (to which I will generally refer as the t-stem), including the languages with an H-causative.187 Table 14.9 presents the relevant and t forms of Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic (represented by Syriac), and Geez in the two basic finite categories of imperfective and perfective: -stem Akkadian Arabic Hebrew Syriac Geez Impfv Pfv Impfv Pfv Impfv Pfv Impfv Pfv Impfv Pfv uapras uapris yuqtilu aqtala yaqtl hiqtl naqel aqel yqattl aqtala t-stem utap(ar)ras utapris yastaqtilu istaqtala nettaqal ettaqal ystaqattl astaqtala
table 14.9: the t-stem(s) in the older semitic languages.
At first glance, there is little uniformity among the languages. In Hebrew, the t-stem is simply lacking, apart from a single instance, hita aw to prostrate oneself (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 170), which Hebrew shares with Ugaritic, where it is also more or less the only t-stem, not counting a few uncertain cases (Sivan 1997: 171; Tropper 1990: 7275, 2000: 6069). A t-stem is also absent from Phoenician and Aramaic,188 but Aramaic derived a new detransitive stem from the causative by combining the prefix t with the regular H-causative: Perf ettaqal < *et-aqal, from which a corresponding Impfv nettaqal was created on the model of the Dt-stem (Ethpaal) etqaal netqaal (Brockelmann 1908: 532; Moscati, ed. 1964: 154, 156; Bravmann 1977: 201 n. 2). The languages that do have a t-stem have adapted its form to their own system. This is especially clear in Geez, which has introduced gemination in the imperfective: Stem IV/1 ystaqattl (see 4.6.1, pp. 120121), whereas the jussive preserves the original stem: ystaqtl. This form agrees exactly with the Arabic Juss yastaqtil and the Akkadian Pfv utapris, apart from the different vowels of the personal prefixes. Since the long in Geez is taken over from Stem II/1 yq(at)tl, where it comes from the contraction of the prefix vowel and the following a (*yVaqtil-), we can reconstruct a Proto-Semitic t-stem *yVtaqtil- in which V is either i/a or u,
187. For earlier literature, see, for instance, Brockelmann 1908: 53132; Lipiski 1997: 388, 400401; and Streck 1994: 19194. Dombrowski 1988: 34347 gives a convenient survey of t verbs in various languages. 188. Aramaic has a few fossilized t forms, however; see Brockelmann 1908: 532; Segert 1990: 259.
413
and more probably the former, like yastaqtilu in Arabic. Akkadian u may be caused by the fact that the t1-stem is modelled on the D- and the -stem and that this has influenced the t2-stem.189 The question is whether this Proto-Semitic t-stem corresponds to the t1-stem or the t2-stem in Akkadian. This can only be decided by a study of its function in West Semitic. The highly productive t-stem of Arabic, Stem X istaqtala, is usually described as a reflexive to the causative Stem IV aqtala (e.g., Wright 1967: I 44; Fleisch 1979: 319). Fischer (1972: 89) calls it Reflexiv zu dem nicht mehr existenten *safala. Actually, its function is far more complex than is suggested by this laconic formula. Keller (1996) has examined the use of Stem X in modern written Arabic on the basis of the dictionaries of Wehr and Baranov and concludes that about 60% of the Stem X verbs can be explained as denominal (1996: 309), that one-fifth at most are reflexive/passive to Stem IV and that in about one-third of them there is no corresponding Stem IV at all (pp. 299, 309). He concludes that the Stem X verbs are selbstndige lexikale Einheiten (p. 309), most of which are primarily related to a noun and only secondarily to a verb and that the relationship between Stem X and Stem IV is wesentlich lockerer than usually assumed (p. 300).190 This means that it is quite possible that the Arabic Stem X has the same denominal background as the Akkadian t2-stem.191 Among the South Semitic languages, Geez has three derived stems with an -st- infix, Stem IV/1 astaqtala, IV/2 astaqattala, and IV/3 astaqtala (Tropper 2002: 103). The last two are secondary, resulting from the total reorganization of the system of derived stems on the basis of three basic forms qatala, qattala, and qtala, so that we are only concerned here with IV/1 astaqtala. Tropper (2002: 108) describes it as causative or factitive to the simple t-stem (Stem III/1) or the basic stem (e.g., astamala to cause to draw (a sword) from mala to draw (a sword), which implies that the force of the t-infix has been weakened here); and as estimative, declarative, and desiderative (e.g., astamara to ask for mercy, from mra to have mercy). It is remarkable that Stem IV/1 is rarely used as a reflexive of the causative Stem II/1 (Tropper 2002: 108; Waltisberg 2002b: 286); there is only one common instance, astaraya to appear, become visible from araya to show. This suggests that there is no clear derivational relationship between Stems II/1 and IV/1. In Modern South Arabian, the situation is parallel to that in Geez. There are two derived verbal stems with the prefix -, which goes back to -st-: a simple stem corresponding to the Geez Stem IV/1 astaqtala, e.g., Mehri wbd to be shot, allow oneself to be shot and an extended stem with a full vowel between the first and second radical, e.g., lbd to fight, shoot back (Johnstone 1987: lix, 250), which corresponds to the Geez IV/3 Stem astaqtala. The latter usually has a reciprocal nuance; for the former, Simeone-Senelle (1998: 8485) gives the functions of passive, middle, denominal, and what I would call estimative (se faire une opinion de qch, qqn), which can be explained as originally denominal. To what extent this stem is a
189. Thus also Moscati, ed. 1964: 156. 190. This is also argued by Rets 1989: 13334. On the other hand, Eisenstein (1980: 45, 52) observes a relatively strong statistical correlation between Stem IV and Stem X, stronger than between I and X. His approach, however, is purely quantitative, without any reference to the meaning of Stem X verbs or their semantic relation to other stems. After a discussion of Eisensteins data, Streck (1994: 194) concludes that the denominal function of Stem X is eine der wichtigsten oder gar die wichtigste berhaupt among its functions. 191. The denominal function of Stem X is also mentioned by Wright 1967: I 4546 and Fleisch 1979: 328. Many cases of putative reflexive-causative, declarative, and estimative meanings may also be ultimately denominal. For instance, istasana to regard as beautiful can plausibly be derived from asan beautiful.
414
derivation of the MSA causative stem or independent of it is hard to infer from the available reference works. For Epigraphic South Arabian, Stein (2003: 15960) observes a close relationship between H-causatives and the corresponding ST-stem of Sabaic, e.g., hn to help versus stn to ask for help, which represents a semantic pattern that is also characteristic of the Arabic Stem X (Wright 1967: I 45; Keller 1996: 300301). In other verbs, these stems seem to be interchangeable, however, such as hnq and stnq to capture (booty), plunder. These facts indicate that the West Semitic t-stem is more than a simple detransitive derivation of the causative and also has an important denominal function, especially in Arabic. This associates it more closely with the Akkadian t2-stem than with the t1-stem and suggests that the West Semitic t-stem may also ultimately go back to denominal verbs derived from taPRvS nouns. It is true that taPRvS nouns with the required reciprocal and reflexive meaning are very rare in West Semitic (see 14.4.1, pp. 377378), but this can be ascribed to the fact that the West Semitic languages, especially Arabic, are attested much later. So there was a much longer period in which these nouns could be discarded, lexicalized, or, most importantly, associated with the D-stem, and in which the t-stem itself could be more thoroughly embedded in the system of derived stems. The claim that the West Semitic t-stem is parallel to its Akkadian counterpart in being denominal in origin rather than a direct derivation of the causative stem has some interesting consequences. First of all, if the West Semitic t-stem is historically related to the Akkadian t2-stem, it is likely that the detransitive t1-stem is an inner-Akkadian innovation modelled on the D Dt relationship. This is further supported by its formal dependency on the paradigm of the Dand Dt-stems, which is shown in particular by the absence of gemination in the t1 imperfective uapras (see 4.5.2, pp. 113114). Second, if the t-stem is derived from taPRvS nouns by means of the verbalizing prefix (*yV--taprVs), has always preceded t and t has never been a prefix in this verbal stem. This agrees with the fact that in the historical paradigms of the t-stem it always occurs as an infix, even in Geez, where t is prefixed in all other forms, even if it precedes a sibilant (Diem 1982: 4041). This makes the reconstruction of forms such as **taqatal and **taaqtal, posited as predecessors of the historical base *-taqtVl by Brockelmann (1908: 53132) and Diem (1982: 45, 47), superfluous. Third, and most importantly, if West Semitic employed the pre-existing t-stem to provide for a detransitive derivation of the causativeinstead of creating a new form by means of the t-infixthe connection between the causative and the t-stem is etymological rather than derivational and thus much weaker than is usually assumed. In fact, it would be parallel to the one we have posited for the D-stem versus the Dt-stem in West Semitic: in both cases, a category that already existed with a different function was secondarily associated with the active stem. This would cast a new light on the thorny problem of the relationship between the S-causative of Akkadian and the H-causative of West Semitic.192
192. For instance, it would be no longer self-evident that the S-prefix was the only or even the main causative marker in Proto-West Semitic or that it must have been used in all languages that descend from Proto-West Semitic. Already at a very early date, there may have been other means of expressing morphological causatives, such as the H-causative and/or a specific vowel pattern, as argued by Rets (1989, esp. p. 66). These forms can still have used the t-stem for detransitivization.
14.7. The tanStems
415
14.7. the tan-stems

The last category of derived verbal stems with a t-infix to be discussed are the tan-stems, i.e., the Gtn-stem, the Dtn-stem, the tn-stem, and the Ntn-stem. Since all tan-stems have essentially the same function, but each has its own formal peculiarities, I will start with a brief account of their function (14.7.1) and only then describe the formal aspects of each stem separately (14.7.2 through 14.7.5). Finally, in 14.7.6, I will offer a reconstruction of the way they emerged in the prehistoric period.
14.7.1. Thefunctionofthetan-stems
All tan-stems have the same function: they are prototypical categories for the expression of verbal plurality or pluractionality (see 10.8.1, p. 256). Concretely, this means that according to the context and the verb in question they can be iterative, frequentative, habitual, continuous, or distributive to the corresponding primary stem. In very rare cases, they may also indicate a kind of intensity or carefulness. In practice, it may be difficult to determine which of these meanings is the most appropriate, and sometimes more than one realization may be involved at the same time.193 Since the use of the tan-stems has been documented extensively in several other works,194 I will restrict myself to a short enumeration of the different kinds of verbal plurality and concentrate on some interesting aspects. The following uses are prominent: 1. The iterative realization of the tan-stems includes iterative in the strict sense of the word: frequentative and habitual. The iterative in the strict sense indicates that the subject performs a series of actions that together can be seen as comprising a single occasion (Bybee et al. 1994: 16064). It is especially common in motion verbs, such as alku and nagu Gtn to walk about (G to go /come), rapdu and lasmu Gtn to run around, du Gtn to turn about, prowl, whirl, and ahu Gtn to leap up and down, move back and forth (see also Streck 1995b: 4849). A transitive verb with this kind of Gtn-stem is maru Gtn to drag around. The frequentative refers to an action or process that is repeated by the same subject on different occasions, usually in punctual and telic verbs, as in (21); the habitual is used for a habit, only with animate beings as subject, as in (22): (21) AAA 1, 53 no. 1: r.1819 (OA) ana bt aba muitim ta-ta-na-l-ak she keeps going to her fathers house at night (tr. CAD A/1 326b s.v. alku 6d, referred to as frequentative) (22) FM 2, 210 no. 117:3538 (OB) kma PN1 attam ana PN2 i-ta-ap-pa-ru atta ana PN3 attam i-ta-ap-pa-ar just as PN1 used to write to PN2 in a brotherly way, you should always write to PN3 in a brotherly way 2. The durative or continuous aspect of verbal plurality refers to an activity or process which is prolonged beyond its normal duration, usually in durative, atelic verbs, as in (23). The borderline between frequentative and continuous is often fuzzy, as in (24): (23) KAR 379:4 (SB) umma ina bt amli kalbu ib-ta-nak-ki if in a mans house a dog keeps howling
193. This is quite in keeping with Dresslers claim that it is typical of verbal plurality to be polysemous (1968: 58) and to have a global meaning extending over the whole sentence or even further (1968: 9294). 194. For instance, GAG 91ef; GKT 86; Steiner 1981: 2425; GAV pp. 7984.
416 (24) ACh. Ad. 9:4 (SB) umma Adad i-ta-na-as-si if Adad thunders constantly (or repeatedly)
The tanStems 14.7.
3. The distributive nuance may refer to an action that is spread over a number of different participants and/or occasions or locations, as in (25)(28): (25) RA 65, 74:68 (OB) eertu ina nrim im-ta-nu-ut-tu children will die one after the other in the river (tr. CAD M/1 425a s.v. mtu 1ao with more examples) (26) Slm.Mon. II 73 (SB) madtu ana kpi a ad i-ta-na-qu-tu-ni many of them hurled themselves off the cliff of the mountain (tr. CAD M/1 23b s.v. mdu d 3 a) (27) BE 15, 48:23 (MB) (barley . . .) a PN mi-ta-u-ru which PN received (on various occasions); cf. also the Inf mitauru quoted in chap. 8 n. 10 (p. 197) and the parallel li-te-eq-qu- in BE 15, 7:2) (28) MVAeG 41/3, 14:45 (MA) ulmnte [ana] arri uq-a-na-ru-bu (the officials) offer presents to the king (i.e., on a single occasion, but, presumably, one by one, each one individually) Elsewhere the distributive use refers to plurality of direct and indirect object, especially in lowtransitivity verbs that have no D-stem (see also 11.5, pp. 278279): (29) RIMA 1, 6465: III 713 (OB) lni dannti a mt GN kalunu ina Magrnim uabbitma brta l a-ta-ak-ka-an in the month of Magrnum I captured all the fortified cities of the land of GN. I established my garrisons everywhere (tr. A. K. Grayson) (with aknu Gtn alongside abtu D for a plural object) (30) AbB 13, 8:57 (as soon as you have read this letter of mine) ana pir mtim a ltim apiltim a qtka [ ]i-ta-ap-pa-ar (OB) issue a written order to all the governors of the lower district, who are under your authority (tr. W. van Soldt); cf. also AbB 13, 9:11 4. Some Gtn-stems seem to have developed a kind of intensive meaning: the stative of amru Gtn is used in Mari Old Babylonian in the meaning of to know well (genau kennen AHw 41b s.v. Gtn 2), from a literal meaning to have frequently seen, and the Gtn-stems of as to call and em to hear are used with written documents as object of to read or to recite (CAD /2 16566 s.v. 10) and of to hear their contents, respectively, the latter verb mainly in Old Assyrian (AHw 1212b s.v. Gtn 1d and CAD /2 28081 s.v. 1d1). Although intensity is generally a common aspect of verbal plurality, these cases seem to be a secondary development dependent on the specific meaning of these verbs rather than an original trait of the tan-stems. Most examples quoted above concern the Gtn-stem, which is by far the most frequent tan-stem, but the other tan-stems have the same function vis--vis the corresponding primary stem. In comparison to other derived verbal stems, the tan-stems are fairly regular in function (and also in form) and show few signs of lexicalization. This is partly related to their iterative function (which entails a transparent semantic relationship with the basic stem; see 10.5, pp. 250252) and partly to their relatively recent origin. However, the Ntn-stem exhibits a somewhat more divergent and idiosyncratic behaviour (see 14.7.5 below, pp. 427430).
14.7. The tanStems
417
A noteworthy feature of the tan-stems is that the imperfective is far more frequent than we would expect on the basis of the normal frequency rates among the tenses. Even in contexts referring to past tense, the tan-stems often occur in the imperfective.195 As a result, the great majority of tan forms are imperfective forms (Edzard 1996: 13). A striking example is (31), where the imperfective and perfective are used side by side to refer to the same (past and completed) event: (31) ARM 28, 18:89, 1213 (OB Mari) attma ina bulu abya ana abya kam ta--tana-pa-ra-am (. . .) anntam ana abya ta--ta-ap-pa-ra-am-ma anku e-te-em-me during my fathers lifetime you used to write (Impfv) to my father as follows (. . .). This is what you used to write (Pfv) to my father, as I have often heard The reason is that the perfective has a strong association with one-off, real, and completed events in the past (see 5.3, p. 127), which poorly matches the pluractional function of the tan-stems and causes a tendency to switch to the imperfective, which, after all, can be used in past contexts to underline the non-completed or repetitive nature of the event (see 4.3, pp. 9294).
14.7.2. TheGtn-stem
Table 14.10 gives the forms of the Gtn-stem of the main vowel classes and those of the Gt-stem for comparison. Gtn A-verbs Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc iptanarras iptarras iptatarras pitarras pitarrus pitarrusu muptarrisu Gtn I-verbs iptanaqqid iptaqqid iptataqqid pitaqqid pitaqqud pitaqqudu muptaqqidu Gtn U-verbs irtanappud irtappud irtatappud ritappud (*ritappud) ritappudu murtappidu Gt iptarrVs iptarVs iptatrVs pitrVs pitrus pitrusu (Bab) muptarsu
table 14.10: the paradigm of the gtn-stem.
The Gtn-stem has two basic characteristics that appear in all formsgemination of R2 and an infixed tand a third characteristic that only occurs in the imperfectivethe nasal infix n. The infixes t and n together form the imperfective marker -tan-, which is infixed after the first radical: iptanarrVs. Because the Gtn imperfective is far more frequent than all other forms, -tan- is the defining feature of the Gtn-stem (and of the tan-stems in general) from a synchronic point of view. The other forms have an infixed t after the first radical and gemination of R2: Pfv iptarrVs, Imp pitarrVs, etc.196 The Gtn-stem adopts the imperfective vowel from the G imperfective (see 4.2, pp. 8890) in the finite prefix forms and the imperative. The remaining forms have the fixed vowel pattern of the derived stems: u in stative, past participle, and infinitive; i in the present participle (which is identical to the Dt(n) present participle; see below). However, a few verbs of the U/u class sometimes have an irregular a vowel in the Gtn imperfective (GAG 3 91c*), e.g.:
195. GKT 86e, 152d; W. Mayer 1971: 64, 117 sub c; Steiner 1981: 25. 196. In this way, all forms are different from the corresponding Gt form, which only has gemination in the imperfective, but the Gt imperfective is always identical to the Gtn perfective.
418
The tanStems 14.7.
i-da-na-ba-ab AbB 7, 20:11 (OB) from dabbu to speak (beside regular iddanabbub)197 id-da-nam-ma-am CT 40, 33:14 (SB) from dammu to wail, moan (regular iddanammum) it-ta-na-az-za-am UM 2/2, 104:7 (MB) from nazmu to complain Such cases are due to the pressure of the predominant imperfective vowel a (see 4.2, pp. 8990). The same phenomenon occurs in the Ntn imperfective and much more frequently (see 14.7.5, p. 426).198 A second peculiarity in the Gtn imperfective is the occurrence of forms of I/voc and I/n verbs in which the sequence -ttana- is shortened to -tna- (Groneberg 1972: 14748),199 e.g.: it-na-al-la-ak Legends p. 196:36 and at-na-la-ak Itar p. 112:49 from alku to go /come ta-at-na-da-an-i Itar p. 75: II 9 from nadnu to give it-na(-az)-za-az Itar p. 85: II 14, 18 from izuzzu to stand (up) it-na-aq-q-u-nu-ut RA 22, 173:42 from naq to sacrifice200
All these instances come from Old Babylonian literary texts written in the highly artificial Aguaya style, which is characterized by unusual forms, words, and phrases (see 1.4.1.2.2, pp. 1415). In later periods, a few of these forms survive in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic (MB), which stylistically belongs to the same tradition, and in another Middle Babylonian literary text: it-na-a-la they (nya my eyes) keep looking Tn-Ep. IIIa 18 from nalu it-na-ab-bal-u Tn-Ep. I 5 from wablu (uncertain, c. br.) it-n-em-bu-u AfO 32, 1:3 they keep calling him from nab (with nasalization of -bband unexpected E-colouring) This kind of shortening is apparently a literary phenomenon mainly associated with such texts. Of course, some instances may simply be scribal errors.201 Moreover, in late texts the predominance of the imperfective forms of the tan-stems has led to the occasional replacement of -ta- in non-imperfective forms by -tana- (GAG 91b and M. P. Streck apud Edzard 1996: 17 n. 30).202 This is found in precatives and in present participles: li-ta-na-qu-ta SAA 3, 48:14 may it keep falling from maqtu li-sa-na-me-a SAA 3, 14: r.31 may they (Fem) constantly listen from em mutene constantly searching for regular mute from e (e.g., UM 15, 80: I 3 (SB) mu-u-te-n-u- art il rabti assiduously caring for the shrines of the great gods (for regular mute art il, see CAD /2 362a s.v. e 5a2 a).203
197. Cf. also ad-da-ba-ab-ba-ak-kum ARM 26/2, 36566 no. 449:40 and ad-da-ab-ba-ab-ba-ak-kum ARM 26/2, 36566 no. 449:45 with gemination of R3 (see 16.6.1, pp. 493494). 198. One U/u verb appears to have a Gtn-stem with i: nagu to go, leave, Gtn ittanaggi. The rarity of nagu G makes it somewhat uncertain whether it is the same verb. If it is, ittanaggi may be explained from the general drift of U/u verbs to I/i (see 3.5.3, pp. 7879). As a matter of fact, ittanaggi might also be Ntn (GAG 3 91c*), but this does not solve the problem. 199. Similar forms are occasionally attested in the Ntn-stem as well (it-na-ak-ki-s and it-nab--a); see 14.7.5 (p. 427). 200. Different but perhaps comparable is (l) ta-at-pa-li-i-i Itar p. 80: VI 45 do (Fem) not answer her! from aplu Gt, i.e., for ttappali. 201. An instance from a non-literary text is it-na-ar-ra-a[d] AfO 18, 65:4 (OB omen text) from wardu to descend (for ittanarrad): a scribal error? 202. Early instances (OB Mari) are li-i-ta-na-a-i- ARM 26, 78: LE 3 may they keep attacking and li-ta-na-al-la-a-ak ARM 10, 54:15 (unless this is a mistake caused by attanallak in line 12). 203. For the same phenomenon in other verb types, see 12.5, p. 312 (the Ntn-stems of the nabalkutu group), 14.6.2.1, p. 404 (the t2-stem), and 14.7.5, p. 427 (the Ntn-stem).
14.7. The tanStems
419
Among the non-imperfective forms of the Gtn-stem, the t-perfect, the stative, and the present participle give reason for comment. The t-perfect of the Gtn-stem is very rare and has a peculiar distribution that can easily be deduced from Edzards catalogue of tan forms (1996: 3176; cf. also von Soden 1950a: 38889). It is not attested in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian but exhibits its highest frequency by far in Middle Babylonian, not so much in the published Middle Babylonian letters from Babylonia itself (4 instances)204 as in texts from the peripheral areas of Boghazky (6), Nuzi (2), and Amarna (2).205 For Standard Babylonian, Edzards list gives eight instances, and for Neo-Babylonian just one example.206 In Assyrian, instances of the Gtn t-perfect are exceptional.207 Since the amount of published text material from Middle Babylonian is only a fraction of that of Standard Babylonian, this clearly indicates that its heyday was in Middle Babylonian, especially the kind of Middle Babylonian employed outside Babylonia proper. This is confirmed by the distribution of t-perfect forms of the other tan-stems, which will be discussed in the next sections. It is also similar to the distribution of Gt forms with a double t-infix (see 14.2.1, pp. 357358) and can be understood from the general development of the t-infix: since in this period the t-perfect had become the normal past tense category, t underwent an ever stronger association with its temporal function, but the decline of its other functions, which becomes conspicuous in the first millennium, had not yet fully set in. The prominence of Gtn t-perfects in peripheral texts is doubtless also due to the fact that these texts are generally more artificial, because they were written by non-native scribes who tended to apply the rules of grammar more consistently than a native speaker would do. Because of the pluractional function, the Gtn stative is also relatively rare, and the past participle does not seem to be attested at all (GAG 77g).208 A special problem concerns the Gtn present participle muptarrisu, which can only be distinguished from the corresponding Dt and Dtn forms on the basis of other forms of the same verb: if the verb has a non-passive Dt-stem, the form may be Dt; if it has a Dtn-stem, the form may be Dtn; otherwise it should be interpreted as Gtn, since this is the least marked and by far the most frequent category. A well-known problem in this context is a specific group of Standard Babylonian muptarrisu participles that interchange with Gt forms of the pattern muptarsu without a noticeable difference in meaning:
204. They come from amru to see (UM 1/2, 57:15), eru to cultivate (BE 14, 39:10), and aknu to place (UM 1/2, 50:15). The fourth instance, ip-ta-ta-ar BE 17, 23: 10 interpreted by AHw 836b s.v. pru as a Gtn form of this verb (suchen) instead belongs to paru to release; cf. CAD P 295b s.v. paru 7a. 205. In texts from Boghazky occur abtu to plunder (KUB 3, 73:67), nadnu to give (BoSt. 8, 82:24; KUB 3, 49:6; KUB 4, 33:3) and na to carry (BoSt. 8, 78:10); from Nuzi: leq to receive (HSS 19, 74:13) and as to call (HSS 13, 325:17b); from Amarna: nadnu (VAB 2, 21:27) and as (VAB 2, 20:10). 206. The Standard Babylonian examples come from alku to go /come (KAR 45:20; urpu II 94 and SAA 3, 51:4), anu to sigh, moan (CT 23, 46:28), ebru to cross (Gilg. p. 692:253), el to go /come up (LKA 64:20), apru to write (CT 13, 48:14) and wabu to sit down (SAA 3, 51: r.2 ). The NeoBabylonian instance is from nazru to insult (CT 22, 247:20). 207. In Middle Assyrian, we find al-ta-ta-pa-ra-u-nu MATSH p. 130 no. 8:40 I have written to them repeatedly; for Neo-Assyrian, I only know a-sa-ta-par SAA 1, 241: r.8 and ni-sa-ta-pa-ar SAA 15, 351:5, both from apru. For i-te-te-li SAA 16, 201:4 (in a difficult context), see n. 116 (p. 389). 208. According to Edzard (1996: 16 n. 29), AHw lists Gtn statives of 18 verbs. Examples are (27) above, itadd from nad to put down, leave (passim in omen texts; see AHw 708a s.v. nad III Gtn 13); i-ta-ku-na-[a]t Sumer 14, 23 no. 5:16 (OB) it is located (in several places) from aknu; bi-te-ru- ARM 4, 24:25 (OB) they are constantly hungry from ber to be(come) hungry; i-a-u-a-ku VAB 7, 256:20 (SB) I always ride (on horses) from au to jump; gi-tar-ra-t RA 18, 167:21 (SB) you (Fem) are quarrelsome all the time, i.e., /gitarrt(i)/, 2fs stative of ger; i-tem-me-ku BA 10/1, 99 no. 20:7 (SB) I constantly hear from em.
420 mundau and mundaiu fighter mtaplu and mtappilu requiter muttakpu and muttakkipu goring murtapdu and murtappidu roving mutaptu and mutappitu treacherous mutaru and mutarriu vainglorious mutarqu and mutarriqu secret lover
The tanStems 14.7.
These participles were collected and discussed by Reiner and Renger (1974/77: 185), from whom the translations have been taken. Reiner and Renger opt for Dt, since they see no functional opposition between Gt and either Gtn or Dtn that could account for the coexistence of such pairs. They claim that it is a Gt : Dt opposition, with Dt marking plurality, such as exists between G and D (pp. 18485). This is theoretically sound, since the tan-stems are pluractionals to the primary and not normally to the secondary stems, and it is semantically plausible for the first three, mundaiu, mtappilu, and muttakkipu, which ultimately go back to common reciprocal Gt-stems, and for mutarriu, since aru is used both in the Gt- and the Dt-stem in the meaning to glory in, boast.209 Resolution of this question for the remaining four is more difficult. Mutar(ri)qu comes from arqu to steal, which may have a Gt-stem with the meaning to sneak, go surreptitiously (see n. 24, p. 362) but has no D- or Dt-stem. If it is a Gtn form, it can only mean stealing constantly, which is inappropriate. Murtappidu, on the other hand, can hardly be anything but the present participle of the common Gtn-stem of rapdu to roam around, but this verb has no Gt-stem. So perhaps the hapax murtapdu (mur-tap-di Tn-Ep. II F 14 = AfO 18, 50b:14 [MB lit.] in broken context) is a back-formation from murtappidu or a scribal error. The verb from which mutap(pi)tu is derived is only lexically attested (G and D; see CAD /1 450b s.v. aptu)), so that the relation to the basic verb is unclear.210 Since these present participles are clearly literary creations, it is questionable whether we should apply the strict functional criteria for derivation that are valid for non-literary texts. They may have been created by inserting gemination in a mechanical way. For instance, mutarriqu may have been derived directly from mutarqu by analogy with a regular pair such as mundau mundaiu, without regard for the usual rules for the derivation of secondary stems, which does not normally tolerate a Gt Gtn derivation. A phenomenon that is doubtless also relevant here is the general decline of the Gt-stem, which in later Standard Babylonian led to confusion between Gt and Gtn forms and reanalysis of some of them (Streck 2003a: 1013). Peculiarities of the Gtn-stems of weak verbs are discussed in the chapters on the weak verbs. These mainly concern II/voc and II/H verbs, which show different solutions to make up for the weak middle radical (see 16.5.3.2, pp. 480482, and 17.7, pp. 554572); the II/gem verbs, which occasionally have gemination of R3 in addition to that of R2 (see 16.6.1, pp. 493494); and the I/voc and I/n verbs, for which it may be difficult to distinguish between Gtn and Ntn (see 17.6.3.4, p. 554). For a possible unique Old Assyrian Gtn form of a quadriradical verb (ta-pta-na-ra-a-ad KTK 66: x+9 (= 11), derivable from *(na)parudu), see chap. 12 n. 87 (p. 311). The Gtn-stem is very productive during most of the history of Akkadian.211 Sargonic Akkadian shows an Impfv i-ta-na-ba-ra-am /yistanapparam/ SAB p. 178:8 (Eshnunna) he keeps
209. See GAV pp. 32931 and 14.5.1 above (p. 385) for Dt forms as pluractionals to Gt forms. 210. This replaces my earlier discussion in GAV pp. 7475. I no longer agree with the conclusion reached there, that these present participles are most likely to be Gtn forms. 211. There are no certain instances of the Gtn-stem in Eblaite; see in particular Edzard 2006: 7980. There are several forms with infixed t that might theoretically conceal Gtn forms; they are conveniently
14.7. The tanStems
421
writing to me, a Pfv i-tab-ba-ar /yistappar/ GAKI p. 360:7 he sent (to various places), a PrPartc mu-dar-r /mtarr/ AKI p. 251:10 leader (c. st.) from war (both cps RIs of NaramSin), and perhaps an imperative in the PNs Mi-da-ar /mitaar/ MAD 3, 173 from maru and Mi/M-da-lik /mitallik/ MAD 3, 176 from malku.212 In Ur III Babylonian, we find an imperfective of the Gtn-stem in a letter: a-t-na-p-ra(-ma) TCL 1, 370:7 I keep writing to you and in two PNs: I-t-na-[sa]-s-nu-ut, which apparently means he keeps thinking of them and I-ta-na-s-u he always calls him (Hilgert 2002: 287 88, 434). Moreover, there is a Gtn Pfv i-t-k-an AKI p. 292:15 (RI of an unknown king), an Imp Mi-t-ar, as in Sargonic Akkadian (Hilgert 2002: 217), and a PrPartc. mtabbil (from wablu) or mtappil (from aplu) as part of PNs, e.g., dingir-mu-tab-bl (2002: 335). In all second-millennium dialects, the Gtn-stem is fully productive.213 It is especially frequent in two kinds of verbs: intransitive action verbs, especially motion verbs such as alku to go / come, el to go /come up, erbu to enter, ebru to cross, etqu to pass, maqtu to fall, and wa to go /come out, and transitive verbs with a low degree of transitivity, e.g., amru to see, aklu to eat, aplu to answer, leq to receive, nad to drop, leave behind, lay down, na to lift, carry, aknu to place, em to hear, wablu to bring, carry, and war to bring, lead. These are exactly the same types of verbs that do not normally have a D-stem (see 11.5, p. 279). So there is a complementary distribution between Gtn and D in its function of underlining verbal plurality: Gtn takes the area of intransitive and low-transitivity verbs, D that of high-transitivity verbs. This agrees perfectly with the historical development of the Gtn-stem, as I will argue in 14.7.6 below (pp. 433434). For the first millennium, Woodington (1982: 8889) emphasizes the rarity of the Gtn-stem in Neo-Babylonian. The instances she quotes from her corpus (pp. 8990) concern the verbs apru to write (6), alku to go /come (3), aknu to place (2), karbu to bless (2), and abtu (1).214 This suggests a decline in the use of the form and makes it uncertain whether
listed by Edzard (ibid. 79) in the column Gt(n). Because Eblaite does not indicate geminate consonants, they can also be Gt forms or even t-perfects, and their meaning is far too obscure to decide the matter. However, the fact that Eblaite does not show any forms with infixed -tan-, whereas in Akkadian the great majority of TAN forms are imperfectives, is a strong indication that Eblaite did not have such forms and therefore did not have a Gtn-stem as we find it in Akkadian. The verbal nouns with a double t-infix discussed in 14.5.6 (pp. 395397) are likely to express the same kind of pluractional meanings as the Akkadian tan-stems, but formally they obviously belong to a different category. 212. These forms are remarkable: they are the only forms with this pattern attested in third-millennium Akkadian and come from two verbs that are about the most common Gt-stems of Akkadian in general, whereas they are not particularly common as Gtn-stems. Therefore, it is far more likely that they are indeed Gt-stems. However, the correct Gt forms should be mitar and mitlik. There are two possible solutions: either they are Gt forms that have escaped the impact of vowel syncope (but it is hard to think of a reason why they should have done so) or they are to be interpreted as /mitaar/ and /mitallik/, in other words, as Gtn-stems in form. This causes one to wonder whether these (perhaps very ancient) proper names are a remnant of the original function of the Gtn-stem as iterative to the Gt-stem, as I will argue in 14.7.6 below (pp. 431437). Other forms of malku with infixed t used as proper names (Imx-da-li-ik and Dam-da-lik; see 14.3.1.1, p. 362) can be both Gt (imtalik) and Gtn (imtallik). 213. W. Mayers claim (1971: 64) that in Middle Assyrian the tan-stems are beraus selten is exaggerated as far as the Gtn-stem is concerned. Apart from his own examples (see also under the various categories of weak verbs), cf. e-ta-na-ra-a Assur 3/1, 5:12 from eru to cultivate, im-ta-u-ru-ni MARV 2, 19: r.12 from maru to receive, ir-ta-na-i Iraq 31, 31:54 from *reu to tend (sheep), and (ana) ti-ap-pu-r [e] MARV 2, 17 fr.8: 3 from apru. 214. Also in the Neo-Babylonian letters published in NBNippur, apru Gtn is about the only Gtn-stem attested beyond doubt (3; cf. Glossary p. 383 s.v.). Other alleged Gtn-stems can be better explained as poor
422
The tanStems 14.7.
other verbs are not attested accidentally, or whether it had become less productive and these verbs are more or less lexicalized remnants.215 Parpola (1984: 187, 203 n. 13) claims that the Gtn-stem is fully alive in Neo-Assyrian. The glossaries of the SAA volumes with Neo-Assyrian letters and those published in CTN 5 suggest that only five verbs occur more than incidentally in the Gtn-stem (apru to write, alu to ask, amu to hear, alu to cheat, lie to, and garru to be scared.216 From these, only apru has non-imperfective forms (the two perfects quoted in p. 419 n. 207 and the Imp i-tappar CTN 5 p. 239:10). A provisional conclusion might be that the Gtn-stem mainly survives in the imperfective of a few verbs in which it was very frequent in earlier periods.217
14.7.3. TheDtn-stem
The remaining tan-stems are characterized by -tan- in the imperfective and t in the rest of the paradigm, just like the Gtn-stem. Since t is the only marker outside the imperfective, the forms in question are identical with the corresponding secondary stems. This is illustrated in Table 14.11.218 Dtn Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc uptanarras Dt uptarras uptarris uptatarris putarris putarrus putarrusu muptarrisu tn utanapras t1 utapras utapris utatapris utapris utaprus utaprusu mutaprisu Ntn ittanaprVs Nt ittaprVs? ittaprVs ittataprVs itaprVs itaprus itaprusu muttaprisu
table 14.11: the Dtn-, tn-, and ntn-stems.
This leads to the peculiar situation that the t-infix of the non-imperfective forms has two quite different functions, depending on the context: as a secondary stem it is detransitive, and as a tertiary stem it is pluractional. In practice, the ambiguity is mitigated by the fact that usually the secondary and the tertiary stems contrast sharply in valency (non-active versus active). For the
spellings for the t-perfect (see NBNippur: Glossary p. 383 s.v. kabu and aknu; see Jursa 1997/8: 423a) or are spelled ideographically (Glossary p. 384 s.v. as). 215. The form it-ta-ta-ra-u SAA 17, 82: r.16, which she also mentions, is difficult but not a Gtn form: it looks more like an N imperfective with a double t-infix, like the occasional Neo-Babylonian Dtt forms discussed in 14.5.3 (pp. 390391); or should we read it-ta-ta-ra-u? Cf. perhaps also chap. 12 n. 33 (p. 295). 216. The incidental Gtn forms come from aru to cultivate (CTN 5 p. 314: r.7), ebru to cross (SAA 15, 186:9), alqu to escape (SAA 1, 183:15), kalu to detain (SAA 5, 234:7) and aknu to place (SAA 1, 12:12). The otherwise unusual verb garru to be scared occurs in the Gtn-stem in SAA 5, 95:78 and CTN 5 p. 13:18. The absence of alku Gtn is particularly striking (SAA 10, 42: r.8 is an omen quotation). Cf. in this context Dellers (1965: 271) observation that [d]er Gtn-Stamm von alku is defektiv (nur Prsens, Imperativ [und Partizip nA lit.] bezeugt). Diese Charakteristik teilt er mit dem nA gut bezeugten Gtn-Stamm von amu hren. 217. This is confirmed by the fact that two of them are clearly lexicalized: amu Gtn mainly occurs in the form assanamme, used as a polite phrase of submission (Parpola 1983: 145), and salu Gtn is interpreted by Parpola (pp. 7071) as to talk nonsense, rubbish. 218. An exception should be made for the tn-stem of I/voc and I/w verbs; see 17.6.3.3 (pp. 548550).
14.7. The tanStems
423
Dt- and Dtn-stems, this means that it is only difficult to distinguish between Dt and Dtn when the D-stem itself is intransitive (and so the Dtn-stem as well). Such cases are exceptional, however; an example is tu-ut-ta-az-zi-im ARM 4, 70:8, 10 you complained (OB) from nazmu Dt(n) to complain.219 Additional difficulties may arise from the fact that the Dtn perfective is not only identical to the Dt perfective but also to the t-perfect of the D-stem220 and that Dtn and Gtn are identical in form, if the prefix vowel is invisible: in the precative (e.g., 3ms liptarris) and the present participle (muptarrisu).221 With regard to individual forms of the Dtn paradigm, t-perfect forms seem to occur only in peripheral Middle Babylonian and Standard Babylonian (see von Soden 1950a: 38993), which tallies with our findings on the t-perfect of the Gtn-stem (see 14.7.2 above, p. 419): uk-te-te-eb-bi-it/is-s-nu-[ti] VAB 2, 29:32, 37 he always honoured them from kubbutu to honour (MB Amarna letter from Mitanni) -te-te-et-ti-ir VAB 2, 29:40 he always augmented from watru D ur-te-te-di Iraq 38, 90:8 I added (SB) from red D222 Apart from the exceptional Dtn (? or Dt?) Stat utattuk in (dma) -ta-tu-u[k!] TuL 43:1112 acc. to AHw 766a s.v. natku Dtn and GAG 3 102e* it has been sprinkled (with blood), for which see 16.4.2 (p. 470), the Dtn-stem does not seem to have a stative or past participle, so that the forms putarrus and putarrusu of Table 14.11 are only used as Dt forms. The function of the Dtn-stem is straightforward: it is the pluractional counterpart of the D-stem.223 Most of the attested Dtn forms belong to D tantum verbs (e.g., bu to look for, search, kullu to hold, offer, kullumu to show, s/ull and supp to pray, urru to lean, bend down, and wuuru to instruct) and to factitive D-stems of intransitive verbs (e.g., baru D to make hot, boil, galtu D to frighten, knu D to make firm, stable, nakru D to change, remove, palu D and pardu D to frighten, du D to make dizzy, and tru D to bring back). These are precisely the two kinds of verbs for which there is no alternative to the Dtn-stem, since the G-stem, and hence also the Gtn-stem, does not exist or has a different meaning. Dtn-stems of transitive verbs, on the other hand, are very rare, because the D-stem itself can usually be used to express verbal plurality (see 11.3.4, pp. 274277), so that the Dtn-stem is at least partly superfluous. Most instances come from D-stems with a lexicalized meaning, such as kadu D in (32): (32) CTMMA 1, 104 no. 76:2122 (OA) arrn libbu uk-ta-na-a-ad he keeps following roads of his own wish! (tr. M. T. Larsen) The Dtn-stem is already found in third-millennium texts (SAk tu--da-na-ma /tutannam/ Or. 46, 201:7 (incant. from Kish) you (Pl) are blooming. In the later dialects, it occurs from time to time in a sufficient variety of contexts to show that it was productive, but it is never used
219. Since a Dtn Impfv *uttanazzam does not seem to be attested, whereas Dt uttazzam is fairly frequent, there are good reasons to assume that this form is Dt rather than Dtn. 220. Part of the ambiguity is reduced by the overwhelming frequency of the t-perfect versus all other uses of the t-infix, especially in later periods. So when confronted with an uptarris form, we can safely opt for a t-perfect of the D-stem, unless the context precludes this, which happens only sporadically. 221. It is difficult to identify Dtn forms on the basis of their pluractional meaning, since the expression of verbal plurality by means of a tan-stem is optionalwe find countless instances of primary stems referring to repeated eventsbut sometimes this may offer an additional clue. 222. Uncertain cases are ul-ta-ta-ni-i BAM 6, 514: II 27 from anu to suffuse (perhaps Dt t-perfect; see p. 384 n. 94); and tul-ta-tal-li-mu LBAT 1602:6 (SB) from almu D to keep well, compensate, complete (or -tatal-?, c. br.). 223. See GAV pp. 33436 for a more extensive description.
424
The tanStems 14.7.
very frequently. AHw contains 86 Dtn-stems, but some of these are more likely to be Dt or Gtn forms, and more than half of them are attested only once. In Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, it seems to be more or less extinct.224
14.7.4. Thetn-stem
For the paradigm of the tn-stem, see Table 14.11 in the preceding section (p. 422). It only differs from the t1- and the t2-stems in the imperfective, except for the I/voc and the I/w verbs, where the tn-stem differs from the other two in that it has introduced gemination in all forms on the model of the Gtn-stem: Pfv utakkil, PrPartc mutakkilum, etc., versus t1/t2 utkil, mutkilum, etc. (see 17.6.3.3, pp. 548550). The ambiguity we have observed in the Dtn paradigm also exists in the tn-stem and is even more troublesome, since it involves two other stems, one of which, the t2-stem, is usually active, just like tn itself. As a result, a form such as utabit from abtu to seize has four possible interpretations (at least theoretically): a t-perfect of the -stem I have caused to seize, a t1 perfective I was caused to seize, a tn perfective I caused to seize repeatedly, and a t2 perfective I brought together, I prepared (see 14.6.2.2, p. 410). With regard to individual forms, tn t-perfect forms with double t-infix are exceptional (see von Soden 1950a: 39394): I can only quote two obscure forms, perhaps from the same verb, namely uuddu to notify: ul-ta-ta-i-id AfO 12, 51b:7 (MA) (in broken context), and us-sa-tai-da-ni SAA 16, 78:19 (NA), for which see below.225 Stative and past participle do not seem to be attested. All remaining forms are about equally represented. Noteworthy is the present participle, which is used in literary texts as a variant of the present participle in epithets, e.g.: mu-u-ta-ar-kib me RA 86, 79:4 (DN) who causes the storms to ride from rakbu mu-u-ta-a-mi-da-at 7 imull RA 46, 92:75, 77 (DNF) who harnesses the seven storms from amdu (both OB lit.) mu-ul-ta-a-gi-mu qabal gru RIMA 1, 182:11 (SB) (RN) who makes resound the noise of battle with his enemies (tr. A. K. Grayson) from agmu to shout mu-tak-li-la-at par ASKT p. 116 no. 15:12, 56 (SB) who performs the rites properly from the tantum verb uklulu Another remarkable present participle is mutaizu contagious from azu to take, which will be discussed in 17.6.3.3 (p. 549). The function of the tn-stem as the pluractional of the -stem needs little comment. Not unexpectedly, the most common tn-stems come from verbs with a frequent -stem, such as wablu to bring, take, wa to go /come out, etqu to pass, and erbu to enter. A further point worth mentioning is that several literary -stems (see 13.2.2.2, pp. 328331) also have a tn-stem, such as kullumu tn to show repeatedly, and rab tn to extol repeatedly(Imp u-tar-bi RA 46, 88:10, OB), and the present participles just quoted. There is an intriguing Middle Assyrian tn form with an irregular meaning:
224. For Neo-Babylonian, Woodington (1982: 90) only mentions a Dtn Impfv un-da-na--ar ABL 1240: r.11 with an ambiguous un-da--er < umtaer ABL 1240:10 alongside, apparently from wuuru to instruct, but the interpretation is obscure; see CAD A/2 322a s.v. ru v. 3e. The absence of Dtn forms in Neo-Assyrian may be accidental, because there are tn forms; see the next section. 225. See 17.7.4.1 (p. 569) regarding uuddu. The form -sa-ta-bu-lu ABL 547: r.5 quoted by von Soden (1950a: 393 n. 2) is now read -sa-ta-pu-lu (SAA 1, 82: r.5), a Dtt imperfective of aplu to move downstream (see 14.5.3, p. 389).
14.7. The tanStems (33) MVAeG 41/3, 14: III 3 (cf. 12: II 38) (the high officials) [ina pn] arri ul-ta-na-ak-na-nu bow down repeatedly (or: one by one?) in front of the king
425
The absence of vowel assimilation shows that this form is to be interpreted as /ultanaknann/ with gemination of R3 (see 16.6.1, pp. 493494). It presupposes a verb kannu to bow down (kannu is actually attested as to twist, contort), with a -stem uknunu to cause to bow down. Either this -stem could be used intransitively like the G-stemhence the pluractional tn form of (33)or uknunu could have a detransitive t1-stem and (33) is an exceptional case of a tn-stem derived from a t1-stem. Just as the Dtn-stem, the tn-stem is rare but productive in all but the latest periods of Akkadian. The oldest instance is the SAk Imp [s]u-da-r -ib SAB p. 90:21 (Girsu) bring inside (from various places)! (see 17.6.3.3, p. 550). Although detailed information about the fate of the tn-stem in Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian is difficult to get, the tn-stem is definitely very rare. Woodington (1982: 90) reports no tn forms in her corpus of letters, nor are there any in the glossary of NBNippur and the glossary to the Neo-Babylonian letters published by Ebeling (Ebeling 1953). In Neo-Assyrian, there is at least a tn-stem of etqu to pass: Impfv -sa-ntaq-a-ni SAA 1, 106: r.8 he will keep ignoring me (tr. S. Parpola), and Inf (ana) u-te-tu-qe-e SAA 16, 62:10 in order to avert (lit., to let pass). These are precisely the forms mentioned by Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 150), but it is not clear to me whether they are the only ones. Another tn-stem may be the difficult t-perfect us-sa-ta-i-da-ni SAA 16, 78:19, which was already mentioned above. It is apparently from uuddu to notify (< *utataiddanni ), for which see 17.7.4.1 (p. 569); the editors translate he has been spreading tales about me.
14.7.5. TheNtn-stem
The Ntn-stem is more complex in function than the Dtn- and tn-stems, particularly because it is not only the pluractional counterpart of the N-stem but also comprises a group of expressive verbs without N-stem. As such, it is also related to the quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu and naparruru types. Table 14.12 shows the paradigm of the Ntn-stem of the strong verb, with naplusu to watch for the A-verbs and barqu to flash (of lightning) for the I-verbs. For the few attested Ntn forms of U verbs, see below. A-verbs Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc ittanaplas ittaplas *ittataplas itaplas itaplus itaplusu muttaplisu I-verbs ittanabriq *ittabriq ittatabriq *itabriq *itabruq *itabruqu muttabriqu itanpu U-verbs ittanablu
table 14.12: the ntn-stem of the strong verb.
The Ntn-stem is characterized by the infix -tan- in the imperfective and -t- in all other forms. Since there is no corresponding secondary stem (see 14.5.4, pp. 391392, regarding the Nt-stem), this does not cause ambiguity. Problematic, however, is the identity between the Ntn perfective and the t-perfect of the N-stem (ittaprVs). Because the meanings of N and Ntn mainly differ in verbal
426
The tanStems 14.7.
plurality, and because the t-perfect and the perfective tend to be used indiscriminately in Standard Babylonian, where most Ntn forms are found, there are often no reliable criteria to distinguish them. Since the Ntn-stem is a marked category versus the N-stem, I opt for a t-perfect of the N-stem unless there is a specific reason to assume the contrary.226 AHw, in particular, classifies many forms as Ntn that on the basis of this criterion should instead be regarded as t-perfects. Consequently, many alleged Ntn forms mentioned in AHw are not considered here. The entire paradigm is based on a single inflectional stem with the form naPRvS, which also appears in the non-prefix forms and the t-perfect of the N-stem (see 12.2.1, p. 289). In this form, the markers -tan- and -t- are infixed after the nasal prefix: Impfv *intanaplVs, Pfv *intaplVs, PrPartc *muntaplisum, in which -nt- regularly becomes -tt-. For the absence of initial n- in the non-prefix forms (itaplVs instead of expected **nitaplVs, see 16.4.2 (pp. 470471).227 The vowel pattern of the Ntn-stem is based on that of the Gtn-stem (see 14.7.6 below, pp. 434435), with the imperfective vowel as defined in 4.2 (pp. 8890) in the finite prefix forms and the imperative and the fixed vowel pattern of the derived stems in the rest. Usually, the imperfective vowel also appears in the corresponding forms of the N-stem (except in the perfective; see 12.2.1, pp. 289290), so that a regular and predictable relationship emerges: for the A/u verbs, G Impfv iparras N Impfv ipparras Ntn Impfv ittanapras, and for the I/i verbs G Impfv iba N Impfv ibba Ntn Impfv ittanab (from ba I/i to be present, available). In the rare cases where the vowels of G and N differ (see 12.2.1, pp. 292293), Ntn follows the N-stem: G Impfv isaur N Impfv issaar Ntn Impfv ittanasar (from saru U/u to turn). This pattern is also shown by a few U/u verbs without an N-stem: au U/u to worry, Ntn Impfv ittanaa (OB/SB), and arru U/u to tremble, Ntn Impfv ittanarrar (SB).228 The verb nabu U/u to shine brightly, on the other hand, has Ntn forms with i: Impfv ittananbi, etc.229 An important corollary of this pattern of relationships is that there is no direct association between the N perfective (always ipparis) and the Ntn perfective (ittaprVs with a variable vowel). As I will argue in 14.7.6 (pp. 434435), this can be understood from the fact that the Dtn-, tn-, and Ntn-stem were created on the model of the Gtn-stem, rather than directly derived from the corresponding primary stem. Since most Ntn-stems attested come from A/u verbs and follow the pattern of naplusu,230 it is difficult to document the complete paradigm for I/i and U/u verbs. Those of I/i verbs almost
226. Reiner (1966: 81), on the other hand, treats them all as Ntn perfectives. This is often contradicted by the context, especially by cases where such a form is in opposition to an N perfective, as in umma GN it-ta-a-ba-at (. . .) umma GN l i-a-bi-it ShA 1, 84 no. 12:69 (OB) if GN has been taken (. . .), (but) if GN has not been taken (. . .); umma (. . .) it-ta-ab-u- AbB 4, 80:45 (OB) versus umma (. . .) l ib-u- AbB 4, 80:911 (replacing the t-perfect *ibta; see chap. 3. n. 16, p. 56), and it-te-en-mi-i-du versus in-neem-du B 2, 62:14 (OB). 227. In Mari Old Babylonian, an exceptional Inf a-ta-ap-lu-sa-am ARM 26/1, 582 no. 282:13 is attested instead of itaplusam. This points to some fluctuation between I/n and I/voc verbs, where this a- is regular. 228. As a I/voc verb, the prefix forms of arru are often ambiguous: either Ntn or Gtn. The infinitives attested show that the Old Babylonian forms belong to the Gtn-stem (Impfv i-ta-na-ra-ar YOS 10, 17:12 (with a in spite of the vowel class U/u; see 14.7.2, pp. 417418), Inf a-ta-ar-ru-rum ZA 65, 194:161), but the Standard Babylonian forms belong to the Ntn-stem (Impfv it-ta-na-ar-ra-ru CT 41, 11:18, Inf i-tar-ruru MAOG 3/3, 5: 31). 229. However, nabu Ntn also has a few imperfective forms with a, e.g., it-ta-na-an-ba-u4 LKU 104:6 (SB), which may be influenced by the quadriradical A/i class; see 12.5 (p. 309). 230. A very rare deviation is i instead of a in two forms of aknu to place: Impfv it-ta-na--ki-nuni-[] IM 67692:277 qu. CAD /1 156a s.v. 11l1, and a Pfv it-ta-kin in Glass texts; see CAD /1 156b s.v. 11p, both SB.
14.7. The tanStems
427
exclusively belong to III/voc verbs or E-verbs.231 Since there are very few N-stems of U/u verbs (see 12.2.1, pp. 290293), there are even fewer Ntn-stems of this type. The following instances are known to me: it-ta-na-ab-lu-u AfO 48/49, 73:9 (OB), Ntn Impfv of balu (U/u) to live it-ta-na-a-qu A p. 28:26 (SB), Ntn Impfv of aq (U/u) to be(come) high (context difficult) a[t ]-ta-na-ap-U-u OBTA p. 85 no. 30:9 (ArBab), Ntn Impfv of pau (normally A/u) to beat in a metaphorical meaning I am constantly being disappointed(?) (tr. R. M. Whiting)232 i-ta-an-pu-a-am ZA 75, 198:26 (OB lit.), Ntn Imp of napu (normally A/u) to light, become visible, rise (of the sun) It is remarkable that the two last-mentioned forms come from A/u verbs233 and, indeed, the expected forms with a also occur: (libb) it-ta-na-ap-A-a MSL 9, 80:181 (OB) from pau, and Impfv ittananpa, Pfv ittanpa, etc. from napu, see CAD N/1 26970 s.v. 11. Even in comparison to the other tan-stems, the Ntn-stem is far more frequent in the imperfective than in all other forms. Especially rare are the t-perfect and the stative: there is only one t-perfect form of a triradical verb known to me: [it]-ta-ta-ab-ri-iq CT 42, 40b:4 (LL) from barqu to flash (of lightning). Just as rare is the Ntn stative: itamgur from magru to comply, favour is used as a literary variant of the G Stat magir and the Gt Stat mitgur in i-tam-gur/gu5-ra annti BWL 40:33 (SB) these things are pleasing234 and occurs once in Neo-Assyrian (see below). A few forms are found that deviate from those shown in table 14.12. There is an Old Babylonian Impfv it-na-ak-ki-s FM 2, 164 no. 88:18 it (the wood) is usually cut, which stands for normal ittanakkis andif it is not a mistake for it-ta-na-ak-ki-sis reminiscent of the shortened Gtn forms of the itnallak type discussed in 14.7.2 (p. 418). The Ntn-stem of nabu to shine has a present participle which has adopted gemination from the imperfective, like the Gtn present participles mentioned in 14.7.2: muttananbiu always shining instead of muttanbiu, e.g., SBH p. 22 no. 10:67 nru mut-ta-na-an-bi-u the ever-shining light (// SBH p. 19 no. 9: r.9 mut-ta-an-bi-u). Ntn-stems of weak verbs show numerous peculiarities, which will be discussed in the context of the weak verbs; see 17.6.3.4 (p. 554) for the I/voc verbs, 16.6.1 (pp. 493494) for the II/gem verbs. There are no Ntn forms of II/voc verbs (cf. GAG3 Verbalpar. 28), doubtless because N-stems of these verbs are very rare and do not seem to have a complete paradigm (see 16.5.3.5, p. 488). The function of the Ntn-stem is more complex than that of the other tan-stems. We can roughly distinguish three kinds.
231. Strong I/i verbs with an Ntn-stem are barqu to flash, kabru to be(come) thick, kadru to be overbearing, kamsu to kneel down, naksu to cut (if it-ta-na-ak-ki-s FM 2, 164 no. 88:18 [see below] is interpreted correctly); parku to block; rau to destroy, and almu to be(come) black. Most of these are attested only once; see the dictionaries. 232. Perhaps the form i-tap-U- MSL 9, 92:15 (SB LL) is an Ntn infinitive of this verb. Whiting (1987: 87) claims that it is a perfective, but this leaves final -u unexplained. 233. Although napu may also be U/u in the meaning to blow; see CAD N/1 264b s.v. 1c. 234. See 14.3.4 (p. 373) regarding mitgur, and cf. also mit-gu-rat amatsi JAOS 88, 127: IIb 13, 20 her word is pleasing, beside amat aqabb (. . .) l ma-ag-rat AGH 62:34 may the word I say (. . .) be pleasing (both SB).
428
The tanStems 14.7.
The first kind consists of Ntn-stems of transitive verbs. They are in principle regular pluractionals of the corresponding N-stem in its (medio)passive function: (34) is passive and (35) mediopassive:235 (34) AKT 3, 63:1214 (OA) mium ikribum ina pka i-ta-na-d-am why is a curse constantly placed in your mouth for me? (from nad to throw down) (35) BagF. 18, 374:2 (SB) [umma ina] bt amli gur it-te-ne-bi-ru if in a mans house the beams keep breaking (from ebru to break) Ntn-stems of transitive verbs are often used metaphorically, as in the example of pau to hit quoted above and in the following instances of ep to break, anqu to strangle, constrict, and abtu to destroy: (36) AbB 3, 80:11 (OB) libb l it-te-n-e-p let my heart not be broken continuously236 (38) HG 105:2627 (SB) at-ta-na-a-ba-t I am annihilated completely (37) SAA 15, 37: r.6 (NA) [kma ta]maru it-ta-na-a-na-qa [when] PN saw him, he became furious (see below for other instances) This metaphorical use associates the (medio)passive Ntn-stems with the much larger group of Ntn-stems of intransitive verbs, in which similar meanings predominate. The second kind consists of Ntn-stems from intransitive verbs with an N-stem. As we saw in 12.2.2.2 (pp. 297298), only a few intransitive verbs have an N-stem that occurs more than sporadically, and broadly speaking these are also the ones for which an Ntn-stem is attested: adru N to be(come) worried (Ntn in OA, OB, and SB) ba N to become available, arise (Ntn in SB) nadru N to become rabid (Ntn in SB) napu to rise (of celestial bodies), become enflamed (Ntn in OB, SB, lexicalized intransitive use of to blow (into), light, kindle) saru N to turn (Ntn in OB and SB) salu N to become ill (Ntn in OB and SB) eg N to become rabid (Ntn in OB (Inf i-te-e-[g]u ananti Itar p. 76: III 15 the raging of battle) and SB) A specific group among these Ntn-stems is formed by a number of Standard Babylonian medical terms, the meaning of which is not always quite clear: ebu N and Ntn to swell(?) egru N and Ntn to stumble(?), cross, lie crosswise, twist(?) emru N and Ntn to have intestinal trouble eslu N and Ntn to be constipated
235. A possible example of a reciprocal Ntn-stem is TC 1, 41:7 (OA): (if I had been here) l a-ta-na-aba-at would I not have quarreled all the time (with him)? (tr. CAD 41b s.v. 13b1); however, a passive translation (if) I were not seized (by him) all the time (as chosen by K. Hecker, GKT 139b) is also possible and more in line with the normal use of the Ntn-stem. I do not know any certain instances of an Ntn-stem derived from a reflexive N-stem, but perhaps ta-ta-na-a-ar KAV 1: II 12:17 is one; see n. 249 (p. 434). 236. This was an idiomatic expression in Old Babylonian: cf. also AbB 1, 124:19 (read it-te-n-e-pi ); AbB 10, 28: 9 (i-te-e-[ p ]); AbB 11, 168:17; IM 30976:10 (qu. AHw 341a s.v. N 5).
14.7. The tanStems elu N and Ntn to be paralyzed
429
A subtype consists of pluractionals of N tantum verbs: naplusu Ntn to gaze at, examine, and napruu Ntn to fly around (both OB and later), and occasional instances of nbutu to flee and nent, an astronomical term, for which see 12.2.1 (p. 292). The third and last kind consists of Ntn-stems derived from intransitive verbs which do not have a corresponding N-stem. A small number is already found in Old Babylonian: au to be(come) worried (common) balu to live, recover (Impfv it-ta-na-ab-lu-u AfO 48/49, 73:9, already quoted above) kau to grind the teeth (Prec li-it-ta-ak-a-a St. Garelli p. 144:9) nabu to shine (Inf LL i-ta-an-bu--um Proto-Izi qu. CAD N/1 22b s.v. lex. sect.) rab to be(come) big (Impfv it-ta-na-ar-b[i] AbB 11, 190:10) sakku to be clogged up (Impfv ta-ta-na-s-ka-ka AbB 6, 93:6 in some metaphorical meaning; or is sakku transitive?) aru to be(come) proud, arrogant (Impfv it-ta-na--ra-u ARM 4, 86:40) Standard Babylonian shows a strong increase in the use of Ntn-stems without corresponding N-stem. Apart from the examples already attested earlier, the following intransitive verbs appear in the Ntn-stem for the first time in Standard Babylonian: arru to tremble (passim; the Old Babylonian forms are rather Gtn-stems) barqu to flash (of lightning) (common) kabru to be(come) thick (Impfv it-ta-nak-bir BKBM 6:24) kadru to be(come) overbearing (Impfv it-te-n-ek-dr TDP 54:67) kamsu to kneel down (Impfv it-ta-nak-m-su IAsb. 80: r.4) k/qannu to twist, coil (common) pau to calm down (Imp i-tap-a AfO 19, 55:2 and 4) abbu to spread (wings) (Impfv it-ta-na-a-ba-bu Izbu p. 198: c 10) almu to be(come) black (Impfv ta-at-ta-na-a-li-ma AfO 17, 314: D 4) adu to march (it-ta-na--d [i-u] ZA 28, 77:52) aggu to become stiff (common) au to waste away (Impfv it-tan--a-a DA 96:18) amu to thrive, flourish (Impfv it-ta-na--ma-a RA 17, 175: II 19) teb to rise (common) zaqru to be protuberant (Impfv it-ta-na-az-qar LKA 85:3)
Ntn-stems with or without corresponding N-stem are relatively common among II/gem verbs, as is clear from the lists above: cf. arru, au, k/qannu, kau, sakku, abbu, aggu, and au, and the transitive verbs addu to pull and ammu to paralyze.237 Finally, a few Standard Babylonian Ntn-stems of transitive verbs do not have the expected passive/intransitive meaning but are active instead and are therefore used as if they were Gtn forms (GAG3 91g*): (39) SAA 3, 13:2 l it-ta-nak--du zi.me-ia may they (my enemies) not take possession of my life from kadu to obtain, reach (40) AfO 17, 314: D 5 (you, demons) a kma al ta-at-ta-nak-ta-ma who like a bull always overwhelm (tr. W. G. Lambert) from katmu to cover
237. This list does not include the Ntn-stems of the naparruru group, for which see 12.3 (pp. 303304).
430
The tanStems 14.7.
(41) ACh. Sin 34:51 kur.gi.me Adad i-ta-na-ar-i-i Adad will keep destroying the country of the trees(?) from rau to destroy To this group we may also assign the alleged Nt-stems (see 14.5.4, pp. 391392) of amru to praise (ila i-ta-mar BWL 252: III 16 (SB) praise a god!,238 and of zakru (saqru) to speak, e.g., at-tas-qa-ra umin Sn. 113:5 I spoke their names (cf. KAR 4: r.12 umunu ta-za-naq [ar]). A unique NB or LB instance with active meaning is at-ta-na-aq-bi YOS 6, 183:17 I said repeatedly. These active Ntn forms are modelled on Ntn-stems of intransitive verbs, where Gtn and Ntn do not differ in meaning, if they both exist. This may be compared to the extension of literary -stems from intransitive to transitive verbs discussed in 13.2.2.2 (pp. 329331). Perhaps the confusion (or conscious variation?) was promoted by the fact that in I/voc verbs Gtn and Ntn forms are very similar to each other (see 17.6.3.4, p. 554). The Ntn-stem is most common in literary texts. Accordingly, the vast majority comes from Standard Babylonian, and in all other dialects it is infrequent. No third-millennium instances seem to be attested. It is rare in Old Assyrian, and all forms known to me are imperfectives: a-tana-a-ba-at TC 1, 41:7 (see n. 235, p. 428), i-ta-na--ku-nu-ni BIN 4, 205:18 they are always placed (Subj), i-ta-na-d-am AKT 3, 63:14 (= (34)), and ta-ta-na-am-ga-ar AKT 3, 98:14 you constantly agree. It is slightly more common in (non-literary) Old Babylonian, as may be clear from the instances already quoted in this section. The Ntn-stems occurring more than sporadically are those of naplusu to look at, ep to break (see (36) with n. 236, p. 428), aknu to place, napu to become enflamed, adru to be(come) worried, arru to tremble and au to worry. I am not aware of any Ntn forms in Middle Assyrian. In Middle Babylonian, there are a few Ntn forms of anqu to strangle in the lexicalized meaning to be furious or the like, literally, to choke, be constricted: Impfv it-ta-na-a-na-aq? BE 17, 14:12 acc. to AHw 320a s.v. Ntn, and a Pfv [i]t-ta-a-na-q UM 1/2, 16:12 in broken context. Remarkably, this verb also provides one of the very few Ntn forms in Neo-Assyrian, quoted above as (37). Other examples of this verb are represented by an instance of g/qarru Ntn to be frightened (it-at(sic)-ta-na-ag-ra-ra SAA 16, 20: r.5), which interchanges with the Gtn-stem, and a very remarkable Ntn Stat i-tam-gu-ru CTN 5 p. 23:51 they were willing. For all these forms, we have to reckon with interference from Standard Babylonian. Finally, in Neo- and Late Babylonian, Ntn-stems are extremely rare. The Impfv it-te-ne-ir TCL 13, 141:11 (LB) from eru to pay is about the only regular one I am aware of. In addition, there are a few irregular forms: an Impfv it-tab-ba-u- BRM 2, 48:17, which looks as if it is built on the perfective ittabi by inserting gemination instead of -na-, and the above-mentioned at-ta-na-aq-bi YOS 6, 183:17. Perhaps such forms are indications that the scribes who used them had difficulty in coming up with the correct form and that therefore the use of Ntn was artificial to some extent. Especially in Standard Babylonian, the Ntn-stem is more than simply the pluractional counterpart of the N-stem: it is (also) an expressive derivation of intransitive verbs in general (which often do not have an N-stem; see 12.2.2.2, pp. 297298), suitable for the expression of salient natural phenomena and emotions.239
238. I follow the interpretation of W. von Soden (1962: 48485 and AHw 902a s.v. qardu I Gt am Bart zupfen); see Streck 2003a: 44 no. 81 for other interpretations. 239. An intriguing possibility is that (part of) the Ntn-stems that do not have a corresponding N-stem are not derived from N at all but arose from a combination of a taPRvS noun with the verbalizing prefix n discussed in chap. 12, just as the t2-stem arose from a combination of a taPRvS noun with the verbalizing
14.7. The tanStems
431
14.7.6. Thehistoricalbackgroundofthetan-stems
The tan-stems do not have a direct counterpart in the rest of Semitic and are generally believed to represent an inner-Akkadian development. This is basically correct, but they are not a completely new category: they do go back to a Proto-Semitic verb form, namely *yit(a)qattalu, the detransitive derivation of the pluractional derived stem *yiqattalu, as I already argued in 4.4.3.1 (pp. 103104). In this section, I will describe how this form came to be associated with the basic stem and subsequently acquired different forms as a pluractional marker for each of the existing primary stems. For a correct analysis of the complex forms of the tan-stems, we must separate the Gtn-stem from the other tan-stems. There are several reasons for this (cf. also Steiner 1981: 1819). First of all, the Gtn-stem is the pluractional of the basic stem and therefore relatively basic to the other tan-stems. Second, it is also vastly more frequent than the latter, not only in type frequency, i.e., the number of verbs that is attested for each stem, but also in token frequency, i.e., the number of occurrences of individual forms.240 Third, the Gtn-stem is the only tan-stem that has a complete paradigm distinct from the corresponding secondary stem, the Gt-stem. The other tan-stems only differ from the corresponding secondary stem in the imperfective. The combination of these three facts gives the Gtn-stem a strongly dominant position in relation to the other tan-stems. Many formal (and functional) aspects of the latter can only be understood in terms of their dependence on the Gtn-stem. The iconic relationship between gemination and plurality in Akkadian (see GAV pp. 23 26, and 4.4 above, pp. 9597) suggests that it is the gemination of R2 rather than the t-infix and/or the n-infix that should be regarded as the determinant of the pluractional function of the Gtn-stem.241 This may seem obvious, but it runs counter to the analysis of the tan-stems found in most handbooks on Akkadian grammar and Semitic linguistics. This analysis ultimately comes from A. Poebel and was extended and canonized by W. von Soden in GAG 91. Poebel (1939: 4149) was the first to realize that the imperfective forms with -tan- and the non-imperfective forms with -t- actually constitute a single paradigm. He inferred from this that the non-imperfective forms also contained -tan- and that the geminate results from the assimilation of n to the following consonant, e.g., Pfv iptarras < *iptanras, Inf pitarrusum < *pitanrusum. This view was adopted by von Soden in GAG (91a) and subsequently by other grammars. Von Soden even extended Poebels analysis to the other tan-stems and also derived the Dtn Pfv uptarris from *up-tan(a)-rris, the tn Pfv utapris from *u-tan(a)-pris, etc.; in these forms, a is dropped by analogy with the Gtn-stem, and n is syncopated (ausgestossen) before a geminate consonant or a cluster.
prefix according to 14.6.2.2. In other words, they would go back to a basic form *yi-n-taPRvS (> ittaprVs) parallel to *yV--taPRvS. To this form a new imperfective ittanaprVs would later be created, just as in the Gtn-stem iptanarrVs emerged as new imperfective alongside the original form iptarrVs, see the next section. In accordance with the overall character of versus n, the descendants of *yV--taPRvS generally have a more active/transitive meaning than the Ntn-stems deriving from *yi-n-taPRvS, which would be typically intransitive. However, for the time being, this remains a purely theoretical possibility, since it is hard to find any factual evidence in support of it, such as an actual taPRvS noun with a matching Ntn-stem that cannot be explained in another way. 240. According to the statistics in GAV pp. 11011 n. 1, AHw contains 312 instances of Gtn, 88 of Dtn, 53 of tn, and 98 of Ntn). Whereas many Gtn-stems are quite common, a large part of the Dtn, tn, and Ntn forms occur only incidentally. It is especially this much higher token frequency that is relevant to the relationship between Gtn and the other tan-stems. 241. Cf. already Renger 1972: 23031. For the obvious counter-argument that the tn- and the Ntn-stems do not have gemination, see below.
432
The tanStems 14.7.
This analysis should be rejected on several grounds. First of all, whereas Poebels reconstruction of the Gtn forms is phonologically impeccable (but historically unjustified, as I will argue presently), von Sodens extension of it to the other tan-stems is not: a process whereby a triple consonant cluster -nCC- is reduced to a geminate runs counter to the basic principles of Akkadian phonology. As Reiner (1966: 52) states, a triple consonant cluster is dissolved by insertion of a vowelinsofar as we can tell, because triple clusters are not supposed to arise in the first place.242 Second, von Sodens analysis exhibits numerous other deficiencies, as was first pointed out by Steiner (1981). Steiner shows that it does not work for several verb types outside the strong triradical verb. For instance, in the tan-stems of quadriradical verbs, we would expect an Ntn Pfv *intan-balkat (cf. N Pfv in-balkit > ibbalkit), which would become **ittabbalkat. The actual form, however, is ittabalakkat, with the t-infix after the prefix n- and gemination of R3. This would force us to assume that -tan- was split up into two morphemes, -ta- and -n-, separated by the first two radicals of the root (Steiner 1981: 1314; cf. also L. B. Anderson 1982: 261 n. 21). The fact that not all of Steiners arguments can stand up to criticism, as pointed out by Voigt (1987a), does not substantially impair his overall conclusion that we need a different analysis of the tan-stems.243 The strongest objection to von Sodens view is that it implies a very unlikely development, namely, the loss of the very marker that distinguishes the pluractional from the corresponding non-pluractional forms. In his analysis, only the presence of n distinguishes the Dtn-, tn-, and Ntn-stems from the Dt-, t-, and Nt-stems outside the imperfective (Steiner 1981: 1112). In this situation, we would rather expect n to be preserved, even if that would violate a phonological rule.244 This is precisely what we observe in other categories of the Akkadian verb. For instance, against the general phonological rule that n assimilates to a following consonant, it is preserved in many forms of the N-stem and the -stem of I/n verbs (GAG 33f, 102c), e.g., in the forms attansak and utanir discussed in 16.4.1 (pp. 469470). The preservation of n keeps these forms transparent. This is what we would expect to happen also in the non-imperfective forms of the Dtn-, tn-, and Ntn-stems. The fact that n is not present in these forms can only mean that it has never been there (Steiner 1981: 12). This means that Poebels and von Sodens analysis of the form of the Gtn-stem cannot be upheld. Having established that gemination is the actual marker of the Gtn-stem, we have to determine the role of the infixes t and n. The function of -n- seems to be rather straightforward: it does not occur outside the imperfective and is therefore to be regarded as the imperfective marker of the tan-stems.245 If non-imperfective forms contain a geminate, such as the Gtn Pfv iptarrVs and the tn forms of I/voc verbs (mutaiz, etc.; see 17.6.3.3, p. 549), it is a real geminate, not the product of assimilation of n (see below on iptarrVs). Even in non-imperfective forms where n
242. The only example of such a process adduced by GAG (20i, 33j) is precisely the one discussed here. Another possible example could be the addition of a consonantal suffix pronoun to a nominal stem ending in a cluster or a geminate, such as kalbu dog and libbu heart. In this case, an epenthetic vowel dissolves the cluster: kalb+u is realized as kalabu his dog, libb+u as libbau his heart. 243. Several other objections by Steiner are less convincing and have been criticized in particular by Voigt (1987a). Voigts attempt to save von Sodens analysis is unsuccessful since it depends on ad hoc phonological processes that have no parallels (see GAV pp. 7071). 244. A well-known example of the preservation of a morpheme that carries an important grammatical contrast against the workings of sound change is the s that characterizes the future tense in Classical Greek. Normally, s is lost between vowels, but in the future it was preserved to prevent it from becoming indistinguishable from the present; see Anttila 1989: 9899. 245. This does not apply to the clearly secondary extensions of -tan-, mainly to present participles of the Gtn-stem and the Ntn-stem; see 14.7.2 (p. 418) and 14.7.5 (p. 427).
14.7. The tanStems
433
would be phonologically possible it is absent: in verbs with a hollow root (type knu to be(come) stable, firm), we would expect n to be visible in all forms, since there is no following consonant to which it could be assimilated, e.g., Pfv **iktann < ik-tan-n corresponding to the Impfv iktann (< ik-tan-n) (cf. G Pfv ikn), but the actual form is iktn; likewise, the Dtn perfective is uktn, rather than **uktann (Steiner 1981: 14; Renger 1972: 230).246 The use of -n- as an imperfective marker is specific to Akkadian, just as all its other imperfective markers (see 4.5.2, pp. 112115), and can only be understood in the wider context of the renewal of the Akkadian imperfective by means of gemination. I will come back to it below. The function of t in the tan-stems is problematic, because it obviously does not have its usual detransitive function. Actually, this fact is the clue to a straightforward reconstruction of the rise of the tan-stems. As I already intimated in 4.4.3.1 (p. 104), this t is nothing but the t-infix of the Gt-stem used in a new function after the decline of the Gt-stem itself. The development of this infix from detransitive towards the pluractional marker of the Akkadian tan-stems was triggered by the replacement of *yiqtVlu by *yiqattalu described in chap. 4 and took place in four stages. The first stage was the concomitant replacement of *yiqattalu in its pluractional function by the pluractional with infixed t *yiqtattalu, which originally belonged to the Gt-stem. It is remarkable that the replacement of *yiqtVlu by *yiqattalu did not lead to a loss in morphosyntactic distinctions in Akkadian: just as Proto-Semitic had a basic Impfv *yiqtVlu and a pluractional verbal stem with a Impfv *yiqattalu, Akkadian has a basic Impfv iparrVs and a derived pluractional Impfv iptanarrVs; see table 14.13a: basic Impfv PSem Akk *yiqtVlu, -nV iparrVs plur. Impfv *yiqattalu iptanarrVs
table 14.13a: Basic and pluractional imperfectives in Proto-semitic and Akkadian.
This shows that the renewal of the basic imperfective triggered a subsequent renewal of the derived pluractional by means of the form that later would become the Gtn-stem. The t-infix reveals that this form is related to the Gt-stem. If the Proto-Semitic G-stem had a pluractional derivation with a geminate R2, we may plausibly assume that the Gt-stem had one as well, with a form such as *yi-t(a)-qattalu, which at some prehistoric stage of Akkadian became *yitqattalu and later *yiqtattal (iptarrVs).247 In historical Akkadian, however, the Gt-stem no longer has a derived pluractional. What happened to *yiqtattalu, then? The answer is that in historical Akkadian it serves as the perfective of the Gtn-stem, which I will argue below to be the oldest form of the Gtn paradigm; the historical Impfv iptanarrVs is a later innovation. So the old Gt pluractional *yiqtattalu was re-employed as a pluractional to the basic stem, after *yiqattal- had replaced the old Impfv *yiqtVlu. Presumably, both shifts occurred together as a kind of morphosyntactic drag chain: when *yiqattal- occupied the slot of *yiqtVlu, it dragged *yiqtattal- along into its old slot; see table 14.13b with the original arrangement and 14.13c with the situation in Akkadian.248
246. Voigts (1987a: 25960) counterargument that the absence of **iktann follows from the fact that the strong perfective does not have -na- either is contradicted by his other claim that iptarrVs is underlyingly *iptanrVs: this implies that the corresponding II/voc form is also underlyingly **iktann, a form that has no reason for further change. 247. The vowel alternation in iptarrVs is secondary; see 14.2.1 (pp. 356357). 248. The initial replacement of *yiqtVlu by *yiqattVl- may have been caused by the inadequacy of the formal contrast with the corresponding perfective *yiqtVl; see 18.3.1 (p. 591). In West Semitic, this
434 PSem G Gt core Impfv derived Impfv *yiqtatVlu *yiqtattalu

table 14.13b.
The tanStems 14.7. Akk G Gt core Impfv *yiparrVs *yiptarrVs

table 14.13c.
*yiqtVlu *yiqattalu
derived Impfv *yiptarrVs
In surviving Gt-stems, the older Gt Impfv *yiqtatVlu was replaced by *yiptarras- at the same time that the G Impfv *yiqtVlu was replaced by *yiparras. In all other verbs, *yiptarras took over the pluractional function of earlier yiparras and thus associated itself with the basic stem instead of the Gt-stem, in the same way that the t-Pf iptarVs did later. This accounts for the fact that the Gt imperfective and the (later) Gtn perfective are identical in form. Just as the t-Pf iptarVs adopted the imperfective vowel (see 6.2, pp. 138139), the new G imperfective did the same (see 4.5.1, pp. 109112), and its pluractional iptarras did so, too (> iptarrVs). This presupposes that *yi-t(a)-qattal- had lost its original detransitive value. This is a natural consequence of the decline of the Gt-stem in Proto-Semitic and the concomitant loss of a clear differentiation from the G-stem, which must have instigated the same process in the pluractional verbs derived from it. It is not surprising, therefore, that once they were associated with the basic verb, very little of their original detransitive nature remained detectable. However, as we saw in 14.7.2 (pp. 421422), the Gtn-stem is particularly productive in the domain of intransitive and low transitivity verbs and less productive in the domain of high-transitivity verbs, where it competes with the D-stem as a marker of verbal plurality. The lexicalized Gt-stems discussed in 14.3.4 (pp. 369374) are also without exception low-transitivity verbs. This suggests that this verb class played an important role in both the functional decline of the Gt-stem and the reassignment of its pluractional derivation to the new imperfective iparrVs. This process left the Gt-stem itself without a corresponding pluractional, a situation that remained throughout the history of Akkadian. As stated in 10.4 (pp. 248249), the Gtn-stem is exclusively the pluractional of the G-stem and the other tan-stems are only the pluractionals of the corresponding primary stem.249 Once the model iparrVs iptarrVs was established for the opposition neutral versus pluractional in the basic stem, the t-infix had a new function: since the basic form now also had gemination, the marking of pluractionality came to be associated with the t-infix, which thus became a pluractional marker instead of a voice marker. This gave rise to the second stage, the introduction of t with pluractional function in the other primary stems: iparrVs iptarrVs gave rise to uparrVs uptarrVs in the D-stem and uaprVs utaprVs in the -stem.250 In the N-stem this development was not possible because its first consonant is a geminate, which cannot accommodate an infixed t. Therefore, the same procedure was used as in the t-perfect: instead of creating the required forms on the basis of the prefix base,
problem was solved by replacing *yiqtVl with qatVla. About the replacement of an old imperfective in Cushitic as a push chain process; see Hetzron 1980: 82 with earlier literature. 249. Possible exceptions are ta-ta-na-a-ar KAV 1: II 12:17 (MA) she keeps resisting, cf. naru Gt to guard oneself (see 14.3.1.3, p. 364) (or is this Ntn?); li-ta-an-na-nu Gilg. p. 544:98 (SB) let them contend (reciprocal and therefore Gt, but the Gt precative should be litann); uq-ta-na-la-al ZA 43, 94:44 (SB) he will be discredited according to CAD Q 58a s.v. qallu 5. This implies a passive Dtn-stem, for which there is no parallel at all. 250. I use the symbol V also in the latter stems since the inflectional stem of these forms was still undifferentiated between imperfective and perfective, i.e., both had PSem i.
14.7. The tanStems
435
they were built on the suffix base naPRvS (see 12.2.1, p. 289, for the N perfect): *yintaprVs (> ittaprVs). This spread of t with its new pluractional function led to a uniform system, based on a quadriliteral base CvCCvC with t infixed after the first consonant (cf. also Edzard 1996: 1719); see table 14.14.251 Gt(n) base TAN base *Impfv/Pfv PaRRvS PtaRRvS iptarrVs Nt(n) naPRvS ntaPRvS ittaprVs Dt(n) PaRRvS PtaRRvS uptarrVs t(n) aPRvS taPRvS utaPRVS
table 14.14: the basic forms of the tan-stems.
The later imperfective with -tan- did not yet exist at this stage. We may assume that the differentiation between imperfective and perfective, if present at all, was still made by means of different endings, as it was in Proto-Semitic (Impfv *yiqtVlu versus Pfv *yiqtVl; see 18.3.1, pp. 587591). This system is the direct precursor to the historical system. The third stage is the differentiation of imperfective and perfective on the basis of a different stem rather than a different ending. The formal relationship between the new Impfv iparrVs and the Pfv iprVs in the G-stem triggered an avalanche of restructurings or replacements of the ancient imperfective forms, as we have seen in 4.5.2 (pp. 112115): wherever possible, forms were introduced in derived categories that mirrored the formal characteristics of the G imperfective, in particular gemination of R2: In the II/voc verbs *imtu > *imuwwat (imat) In the I/voc verbs: *kulu > kkal and *ukal > uakkal In the I/w verbs: *uibu > uab and *ubal replaced by ue/abbal In the Gt-stem: *iptarVsu > iptarrVs In the N-stem: *ipparisu > ipparras In the t2-stem: *utapras > utaparras In the quadriradical verbs: *ibbalkat > ibbalakkat and *ubalkat > ubalakkat
The rise of the historical form iptanarrVs and the subsequent introduction of -tan- in the other tan-stems should be seen in the context of this process. When in the original prefix form R2 was part of a cluster (as in iprVs and utapras), the new imperfective form had an additional syllable (iparrVs, utaparras) (Reiner 1966: 7576). This contrast was introduced into the Gtn-stem, too: in opposition to iptarrVs, a form with an extra syllable came into use, which was based on an alternativehistorically incorrect, but structurally possibleanalysis of iptarrVs as *iptanrVs (Kuryowicz 1972: 2526 and 63).252 In accordance with the normal rules for imperfective forma251. According to Steiner (1981: 19), there is a gradual extension of the tan-stems during the recorded history of Akkadian, with only Gtn-stems in third-millennium texts and many Dtn- and tn-stems only occasionally occurring in late texts. This is not quite in keeping with the actual attestations of the tan-stems. Dtn-, tn-, and Ntn-stems are indeed very rare in the third millennium but not rarer than we would expect on the basis of the available material. Their use in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian is productive but uncommon, since they are highly marked forms. Their flourishing in late texts reveals more about the popularity of artificial forms in this period than about any late productivity: in late non-literary texts, they have practically disappeared; see the above-mentioned sections. 252. Voigt (1987a: 24950) assumes the same derivation to account for the paradigm of the Gtn-stem, but he regards *iptanrVs as the real underlying form with an infix -tan-.
436
The tanStems 14.7.
tion the second element of this cluster was geminated in the imperfective: iptanarrVs, just like ibbalakkat from *ibbalkat and utaparras from utapras.253 A similar reanalysis of a geminate as if it had developed from an assimilated nasal is attested elsewhere, too. In Old Babylonian, we find a plural erbentum from erbettum group or team of four, in Neo-Assyrian a noun peettu burning coal with a plural pe-e-na-a-ti (SAA 2 p. 51:533), although the original form is peemtu (see Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 24), and in Late Babylonian the noun piqittu appointment, function shows a plural piqinti or piqnti from a virtual singular *piqintu (see CAD P 393a s.v. piqittu e).254 The introduction of a nasal into the paradigm of the strong verb entails its introduction into weak verbs, especially the II/voc verbs, where it could not arise directly through this process: iparrVs : iptanarrVs ikan : iktanan, Pl iknn : iktanunn, the singular of which ultimately became ikn : iktann in Babylonian. The rise of the historical Gtn imperfective depended on two conditions: the regular assimilation of n to a following consonant in order to make the reanalysis of iptarrVs possible and the prosodic difference in syllable number between imperfective and perfective. This process further implies that the t-infix of the non-imperfective forms, and especially the Gtn Pfv iptarrVs, is older than the -tan- infix of the imperfective. This is not only in keeping with the fact that in general the Akkadian perfective is the category with the most accurate correspondences in other Semitic languages and therefore arguably older than the imperfective, but it is also suggested by comparative evidence to be discussed presently. The fourth and final stage is actually a repetition of the second one: as soon as -tan- had become the marker of the Gtn imperfective, the other tan-stems followed suit and introduced -tan- in their own imperfective: *uptarras was replaced by uptanarras, *utapras by utanapras, and *ittaprVs by ittanaprVs. The non-imperfective forms were not affected by this change and held on to t as their only marker. Moreover, the fact that the Gtn-stem is characterized by gemination of R2 caused gemination to be introduced in the other tan-stems where it is structurally possible, namely in the tn forms of the I/w and I/voc verbs (Pfv utabbil [Bab] and utakkil; see 16.2.3, p. 457, and 17.6.3.3, pp. 549550), and in the quadriradical verbs (Pfv ittablakkat and utablakkit; see 12.5, p. 312, and 13.4.1, pp. 338340). The ultimate outcome of this series of changes is a finely balanced and highly isomorphic system of tertiary stems, in which both form and meaning of all forms are determined by their relation to the other forms of the same stem as well as to the corresponding Gtn form according to the diagram in table 14.15. Finally, West Semitic offers additional support for the development of the tan-stems as described here. In 14.5.5 (pp. 393395), I argued that there are reasons to assume that the Arabic Stem V yataqattalu and the Hithpael forms in Hebrew discussed by Speiser (1967: 50614), especially yithallek, are not direct derivations of the D-stem but go back to the form *yit(a)qattalu, the detransitive derivation of the pluractional *yiqattalu. Since these forms correspond directly
253. Renger (1972: 23031) also derives iptanarrVs from ipta+arrVs with n as a glide but without explaining why it is precisely n that is employed. Reiner (1966: 95) starts from a basic form with two successive length phonemes (written :) ipta:ar:as, of which the first becomes n through dissimilation: iptanar:as, i.e., iptanarras. 254. Cf. also GAG 3 61m and Hirsch 1975: 307. For erbettu, derived from erbe four, it is unlikely that -tt- conceals an assimilated nasal, although the background of -tt- is unclear; cf. also sebettu group of seven. For piqittu, from paqdu to provide, muster, it is certain that it does not. For alluntu (CCT 4, 20a:4, OA), plural of alluttu crab, the situation is unclear because it has no obvious etymology, so -tt- may come from -nt-, as in antu, plural of attu year. GAG 3 61m* suggests that the form is dissimilated from an original *allultum.
14.7. The tanStems G (iparrVs) Impfv Pfv Imp Stat/PPartc PrPartc iptanarrVs iptarrVs pitarrVs pitarrus Gtn D (uparras) Dtn uptanarras uptarris putarris putarrus muptarrisu (uapras) tn utanapras utapris utapris utaprus mutaprisu N (ittaprVs) Ntn ittanaprVs ittaprVs itaprVs itaprus muttaprisu
437
muptarrisu
table 14.15: the development of the paradigm of the tan-stems.
to the Akkadian Gtn perfective iptarrVs (apart from the variable stem vowel), rather than the imperfective iptanarrVs, they confirm that the perfective is an older form than the imperfective that has no exact parallels elsewhere in Semitic and is thus likely to be an inner-Akkadian innovation, like almost all other imperfective categories of Akkadian.255 Parallels in Berber suggest that the form *yit(a)qattal- and its association with the basic stem is even older than Proto-Semitic. As stated in 4.4.3.2 (pp. 104106), the Berber imperfective, which is generally assumed by Berberologists to originate as a derived verbal stem, consists of two kinds of forms: forms characterized by gemination and forms with a prefix t(t)-. If we equate the former with the Akkadian imperfective iparrVs and derive both from a derived pluractional imperfective stem *yiqattalu, it becomes attractive to derive the latter from the corresponding t-stem *yi-t(a)qattalu and to assume that in part of the verbs the pluractional without t was chosen as imperfective and in other verbs the pluractional with t (in low transitivity verbs?) or perhaps even the simple stem with infixed t (in particular in short verbs, in order to boost their form?). In conclusion, the development of the tan-stems with their extraordinary pullulement de formes (Kuryowicz 1962: 64) is an inner-Akkadian development, but it has not come ex nihilo: it is based on a form inherited from Proto-Semitic, the pluractional of the Proto-Semitic Gt-stem *yi-t(a)-qattalu. Moreover, Proto-Semitic, as it is reconstructed here, had basically the same system, with a derived pluractional to every verbal stem, only with different forms (see 18.3.2, pp. 591593, for details). The development from Proto-Semitic to Akkadian can be seen as a single process: all changes ultimately go back to the renewal of the original imperfective *yiqtVlu by means of *yiqattalu, which in its wake caused a reshuffling of functions and a renewal of those distinctions that threatened to be lost.
255. Therefore, I agree with Lipiskis (1997: 403) claim that the Gtn-stem is Proto-Semitic because of Lybico-Berber t (which is rejected by Testen 2002: 513), but only insofar as the non-imperfective forms are concerned.
verbfOrmsWithreduPlicatiOn
Chapter 15
15.1. introduction
In marked contrast to gemination, reduplication hardly plays a role in the Akkadian verbal system. In fact, Akkadian has only onemarginaltype of derived verbs with reduplication that is attested beyond doubt and has a certain productivity and a more-or-less consistent function. It concerns a small group of Dt-stems, mainly in Old Babylonian, that can optionally be extended with reduplication of R2 to underline reciprocity or pluractionality. Following Huehnergard (2005a: 465), I will refer to them as Dtr-stems. This statement runs counter to a widespread view that Akkadian has a whole set of derived stems with reduplication of R2 or R3, although there is no unanimity about their number, their function, and their paradigm(s).1 They are usually referred to as R-stems or, if reduplication is combined with another marker, as DR-stems, R-stems, etc. (e.g., Whiting 1981: 1819). However, most of the claims about the existence of verbal stems with reduplication apart from the Dtr-stem do not stand up to closer scrutiny. First of all, in the alleged R-stems, we find very little of the relative regularity in form, function, and productivity that generally characterizes the derived verbal stems. For instance, Whiting (1981: 1819) posits no less than five, and possibly seven, different R-stems, each comprising hardly more than a single form. Second, the role that reduplication generally plays in language is largely disregarded: reduplication is one of the most consistently iconic phenomena in language (see, for instance, Mayerthaler 1988: 8586): the repetition of a sequence of phonemes usually corresponds to an element of repetition in the meaning (see below for examples from Semitic). In many of the alleged R-stems, there is no such semantic element discernible. Third, and most importantly, many of the forms in question are unique and more easily explained as scribal errors. This applies especially to a large part of the alleged R-stems with reduplication of R2 from Mari Old Babylonian collected by Durand and Charpin (1988), as suggested by Groneberg (1989: 2831) and Huehnergard (2005a: 464), and to several forms discussed by Whiting, such as te-p-p-u AbB 9, 264:26 (OB letter) and e-p-pu?-u ? Itar p. 86: V 8 (OB lit.) from epu to make, do (Whiting 1981: 4, 1819).2 The discussion about the R-stems with reduplication of R3 is greatly obfuscated by a failure to make two fundamental distinctions: first, between gemination and reduplication, and second, between reduplication in the root and reduplication in the stem.
1. The main contributors to the debate are Kienast 1957b and 1961; Whiting 1981; Durand and Charpin 1988; and Groneberg 1989. For an evaluation, see GAG 3 95e* and Huehnergard 2005a: 46365. 2. If this reading is correct, one could speculate about the possibility that this form is an attempt to register the fact that epu has two imperfective forms in Old Babylonian, ppe and ppu (see 12.2.1, p. 291). For a possible parallel in a different area of the grammar, see Kouwenberg 2001: 24041 n. 41. See also I. J. Gelbs remark (1955b: 110b ad 94e) on e-p-pu?-u ?.
438
15.2. The DtrStem
439
The term gemination refers to doubling (or lengthening) of a single consonant and reduplication to the repetition of a whole syllable, which in the Akkadian verb always consists of a consonant plus vowel.3 A case in which these terms are not properly distinguished concerns the curious verb forms that show gemination of R3 and addition of -i (and perhaps also lengthening of the preceding vowel), which Kraus (1973a) has called the i-Modus, such as im-tu-ut-ti ARM 10, 39:17 she has died. Durand and Charpin (1988) include this form in their list of alleged R-stems attested in Old Babylonian Mari texts, and Groneberg (1989: 3234) lists it under reduplications of the third radical. Whether these forms represent a mood or not is not at issue here (see chap. 9 n. 3, p. 211); the important thing is that they do not have reduplication but gemination and should therefore not be included in the debate concerning the R-stem(s).4 The distinction between between reduplication in the root and reduplication in the stem is relevant to the II/gem verbs (e.g., dabbu to speak; see 16.6, pp. 491496) and the quadriradical verbs of the naparruru group (see 12.3, pp. 301305) and the uarruru group (see 13.4.3, pp. 341346). The conjugation of these verbs contains numerous forms with a reduplicated syllable (e.g., the infinitives just quoted), but this reduplication plays no grammatical role whatsoever, since it is an inherent feature of the root (and therefore also of the stem): dabbu is an ordinary G infinitive, and naparruru and uarruru are ordinary quadriradical infinitives like nabalkutu and ubalkutu, rather than R-stems.5 A form of such a verb needs at least three successive syllables starting with the same consonant to qualify as a stem with (grammatical) reduplication, as is indeed attested in the Dtr forms of dannu discussed in 15.2 below (pp. 442443) and in a deverbal noun such as dababbu twaddle (from dabbu to speak) to be quoted in 15.3 (p. 444). Prominent examples of forms that have been presented as R-stems but actually have reduplication in the root are the present participles muktaau and mutabbabbu from the II/gem verbs kau and abbu (Kienast 1957b), which are actually Gtn forms with additional gemination of R3, a fairly common phenomenon in II/gem verbs (see 16.6.1, pp. 493494, for details).
15.2. the Dtr-stem

If we apply the usual criteria for derived stems to the attested verb forms with reduplicationa consistent form, an identifiable function, and a certain productivityonly the Dtr-stem mentioned above remains. It mainly occurs in Old Babylonian and comprises a small group of
3. The repetition of a CVC syllable, which is common in verbs of other Semitic languages such as Arabic and Ethiopic (see 15.4, pp. 445446), is conspicuously absent from the Akkadian verb, though it occurs in Akkadian nouns (see 15.3 below, pp. 444445). In 12.6.1 (p. 320) and 13.4.23 (pp. 345346), I have argued that the verbs of the naparruru and the uarruru groups are the Akkadian counterparts of these verbs. 4. I have not included verb forms with reduplication of the t-infix, such as the Neo-Assyrian Dtt-stem. Their background is quite different from that of forms with a reduplicated radical. Two noteworthy instances are the following. First, ut-ta-ta--qu Gilg. p. 732:88 (SB) they kissed (each other), which is semantically parallel to the Dtr-stem but reduplicates the t-infix rather than R2. It is easy to dispose of this form by transliterating ut-tata--qu, as A. R. George does in his edition, but in view of the Dtr-stem it is conceivable that this form originates from the same tendency to underline reciprocity by means of reduplication. Second, doubling of the t-infix to express repetition may also be attested in the participle muttatku from nku () to have sexual intercourse (in LL: CAD M/2 310b s.v. [g]a.an.za.z a = mu-ut-ti-k[um], mu-ut-ta-ti-k[um], u- habitual fornicator), apparently an extension of the Gtn participle muttikku. Note, however, that AHw 689b s.v. muttattiku interprets it as a Gtn present participle of natku to drip. 5. See further 16.6.1 (pp. 491496) for the II/gem verbs, and for uarruru and its congener uqallulu, chap. 13 n. 52 and n. 54 (p. 345).
440
The DtrStem 15.2.
Dt-stems that can optionally be extended with reduplication of R2 to underline reciprocity or iterativity. It concerns the following verbs: 1. tam Dtr to swear to e.o.: Impfv [n]u-ta-ma-am-ma OBTA p. 73 no. 23:23 (ArBab); Pfv ut-ta-ma-am-mu- Bab. 12, 16:4 (OB lit.); for more instances in ArBab and OB, see Whiting 1981: 24 6 2. zakru Dtr to swear to e.o.: Pfv -za-ka-ak-ki-ir MARI 6, 338:54; uz-za-ka-ki-ir MARI 6, 338:25; uz-za-ka-ak-ki-ru ARM 26/2, 176 no. 370:45, 1 (all OB Mari) 3. karu Dtr to assemble (intr., especially of troops): Impfv uk-ta-a-a-ra-am ARM 26/1, 287 no. 121:12; uk-ta-a-a-ru ARM 3, 16:12; but cf. uk-t[a]-a[]--ra-am ARM 6, 58:17 without reduplication (all OB Mari) 4. paru Dtr to assemble (intr., especially of troops): Pfv up-ta-a-a-i-ru ARM 1, 69:15 acc. to Durand 1997/2000: II 25 n. 37; up-ta-a-i-ir A.396:4 (quoted in Groneberg 1989: 30 n. 21, subject bum) (all OB Mari) 5. kullumu Dtr to show e.o.: Pfv nu-uk-ta-la-al-li-mu AbB 9, 204:7 (OB) (the canal that you and I) showed each other (but note Gronebergs (1989: 31) reservations) 6. dannu Dtr to contend for superiority (? see below): Impfv 2p tu(-ud)-da-na-an-na-na YOS 10, 47:80 // 48:18; 2ms tu-ud-da-na-an-na-an YOS 10, 47:74; 3s ud-da-na-an-na-naak-kum YOS 10, 25:21; Prec li-da-na-an-ni-in RitDiv. 31:29, 34:86 (all OB) 7. el Dtr to become higher step by step, be raised more and more: a selection of Old Babylonian forms: Impfv -te-le-el-le MCT p. 50a: r.16; -te-le-le MKT 1 p. 239:2; Prec li-te-leel-li MKT 1 p. 368: II 6; Imp ut-le-li RA 86, 4: II 8;7 of Standard Babylonian forms: Prec li-te-et-li ArOr. 37, 483:20; Imp ut-le-li ibid. 484:38; Stat ut-l (iGi)-lu-ki KAR 98: r.10; Inf ut-lel-lu- MSL 17, 71:89 and elsewhere; PrPartc mut-lel-lu-u Lugal 31 and elsewhere 8. and 9. zaqru and aq Dtr in two infinitives in lexical lists: [t]u?-za-qa!-qu-ru MSL 17, 71:90 var. B from zaqru to be high, tower above sth. (var. of l.l.l a = tu-za-qu-ri ), and u-[t]a!-qaq-q-u MSL 17, 71:91 var. B from aq to be(come) high, go up (var. of n.l.l.la = u-taq-qu- ). The Sumerian equivalents point to a meaning such as to raise the head/oneself, elevate oneself; they were obviously semantically associated with the preceding item sag.sukud.sukud. e = ut-lel-lu- (MSL 17, 71:89). The Dtr forms appear as variants of ordinary Dt forms and can be analyzed as Dt forms with additional reduplication.8 Unfortunately, the text of variant B does not seem to be very clear, and the actual forms with reduplication violate the vowel syncope rule: we expect tuzqaqquru and utqaqq.9
6. Whiting (1981: 2) also mentions a Gt form with reduplication (his no. 6): it-ta-ma-mu- in an unpublished Old Babylonian text from the Diyala region. He suggests (p. 5 n. 15; p. 35 n. 124) that it may be an error for a Dt form (ut- instead of it-). This is possible, but since the Gt-stem often has reciprocal meaning, it cannot be excluded that the form is a genuine Gt-stem with reduplication (interchange of reciprocal Dt and Gt is also known from rmu to love and annu to compete in Old Babylonian; see GAV p. 327. 7. Cf. also Imp Fem utlal in a PN from OB Mari: Itar-ut-la-li ARM 7, 31:3, 71:3. The alternative Imp utelli, listed in AHw 1444a s.v. utlell as utelle (TIM 9, 41:35; MDP 57, 16: IV 1920) does not belong here, since it is the non-reduplicated counterpart of utlelli and therefore an ordinary Dt imperative. 8. In tuza(qa)qquru with the metathesis required by the sibilant; cf. 14.5.1 (p. 383). 9. One wonders whether the tablet actually has ut where the MSL edition reads [t]a!, but there is no published copy to verify this. On the other hand, this type of violation of the vowel assimilation rule also occurs in other forms, especially in the t2-stem of II/voc verbs: utaknu, etc.; see 2.4 (p. 47) and 16.5.3.4 (p. 487).
15.2. The DtrStem
441
Insofar as the form and meaning of these instances can be established beyond doubt, they can be interpreted as Dt forms with reduplication of R2, and their meaning is in full conformance with the usual functions of the Dt-stem: the first six are reciprocal, either in the strict sense of doing things to one another or in the wider sense of coming together, and no. 7 is iterative, a form of verbal plurality. For nos. 8 and 9, the Sumerian equivalents point to some kind of repetition as well, but the exact nuance cannot established Not all forms listed above are straightforward in their interpretation; in particular, those of el and dannu are controversial. Most Old Babylonian forms of el Dtr come from mathematical texts, where the context reveals their exact meaning, see (01): (01) MKT 1 p. 239:2 (among ten brothers, an inheritance of 1 2/3 minas of silver must be divided in such a way that) aum eli aim -te-le-le (each) brother has an equally higher share than (his next younger) brother10 A Dt form of el (normally tell) fits the context perfectly (to be made or become high(er), rise). Therefore, following GAG 107t we can interpret -te-le-le as telell, a Dt imperfective with additional reduplication of R2, which serves here to underline the step-by-step increase in the share of each (older) brother (cf. O. Neugebauers commentary in MKT 1 p. 242). This means that telell and its Pfv telell are related to the usual Dt forms of el to be(come) high, go up in the same way that the Impfv uktaaar to uktaar and the Pfv uzzakakkir to uzzakkir, etc. In literary texts, el Dtr has acquired a different meaning, something like to become higher and higher, be elevated or praised ever higher (with gods, etc., as subject) and also occurs in other forms, which allows us to reconstruct its conjugation and hence that of the Dtr-stem in general, which is confirmed by the other verbs; see table 15.1: regular Dt Impfv Pfv Imp Inf PrPartc uptarras uptarris putarris putarrusu muptarrisu Dtr strong verb uptararras uptararris putrarris putrarrusu *muptararrisu Dtr el telell telell utlell utlell mutlell(!) from original ly: *yutalallay11 *yutalalliy *ut(a)lalliy *ut(a)lalluyum *mutalalliyum
table 15.1: the paradigm of the Dtr-stem.
There arenot surprisinglyno t-perfect or stative forms of this stem. In the non-prefix forms, the vowel syncope rule regularly eliminates the vowel after the t-infix: Inf *ptrarrusu > putrarrusu. The attested present participle, however, (only SB) is irregular, since it should not undergo vowel syncope: the expected form is *mtelell (Kienast 1957b: 44). This suggests that mutlell
10. A possible additional instance is ur-ta-ba-bu- Sumer 7, 152:54, apparently based on the Dt-stem of rab to be(come) big. The context is too broken for an interpretation, cf. CAD R 48b s.v. rab A 8, but the parallel with the use of el Dt in (01) suggests that it might well have the same meaning of to increase step by step. 11. Phonologically, the imperfective *yutalallay should become telell in Babylonian (GAG 11a) and thus coincide with the perfective. I assume, however, that the contrast was maintained or restored by introducing e in the imperfective by analogy with the strong paradigm and forms such as ueppe upi from epu (see chap. 17 n. 123, p. 549). This is the regular procedure, as argued in 17.6.3.3 (pp. 548550), but there is no orthographic or other evidence to verify this particular instance.
442
The DtrStem 15.2.
is an artificial literary creation.12 In conclusion, the putative verb utlell is a Dt-stem of el with additional reduplication of R2 and it is parallel to the other verbs listed above.13 The most problematic Dtr-stem is that of dannu. All forms can be explained as Dtr-stems, although some of them are ambiguous, namely, those in which the t-infix, assimilated to d, is not written explicitly, such as the Prec li-da-na-an-ni-in.14 The question is what it means. On the assumption that it comes from the verb dannu to be(come) strong15 and because it occurs in Old Babylonian omen apodoses in a reciprocal (02) and pseudo-reciprocal construction (03), the translation in CAD D 86b s.v. dannu 4 to contend for superiority may be plausible but remains a matter of speculation:16 (02) YOS 10, 47:80 // 48:18 atta u nakirka tu(-ud)-da-na-an-na-na you and your enemy will contend for superiority (03) YOS 10, 47: 7475 ana nakrka tu-ud-da-na-an-na-an / nakirka -da-na-an-na-kum17 you will contend for superiority with your enemy / your enemy will contend for superiority with you (also YOS 10, 25:21 with ud-da-na-an-na-na-ak-kum and partly restored in YOS 10, 42: III 7 tu-da-n[a-an-na]-an) A duplicate of YOS 10, 47 has the corresponding forms without reduplication (04), which are again attested in Standard Babylonian (05): (04) YOS 10, 48:1213 ana nakrka tu-da-na-an (. . .) nakirka -da-na-na-ku (05) KAR 423: I 6162 nakirka a -da-na-nak-ka [ul i]mangurka imangurka your enemy, who contends with you for superiority, will or will not submit to you18 Finally, there is a reduplicated form of the same root in a different context: (06) RitDiv. 31:29 (OB) kaskasum imittam ana qerbnum likpi li-da-na-an-ni-in umlam lipparqid on the right side, let the breastbone be bent inward, let it . . . ; on the left side, let it be bent backward (also RitDiv. 34:86 with left/right interchanged, and restored in 89)
12. A difficult form is the Prec li-te-et-li (SB, contrasting with OB ltelelli). It looks like a Gt precative of *tel, but it occurs in the same text as the Imp utlelli and has the same Sumerian equivalent; is it perhaps an error for li-te-le-li? See also von Soden 1950a: 396 for further speculations. 13. This makes Rundgrens (1959b) speculations about utlell superfluous. He claims that it contains a trace of the West Semitic causative with the prefix /h-, that it is directly related to the Geez formations based on the secondary root ll (laala, ylal to be high, superior and its derivations; see CDG 303304 s.v. laala), and that it represents a secondary quadriradical or even longer root. 14. On closer inspection, however, this form must contain a geminate -dd-, since otherwise the vowel syncope rule would apply, because the precative prefix li- has a short vowel (see 9.2.1.2, p. 214). 15. However, AHw 160a s.v. dannu III translates Vertretung bernehmen, assuming a relationship with dinnu and andunnu replacement, representation. This does not seem very appropriate in the available contexts. 16. I.e., with one of the actors introduced by itti or a dative; see 10.8.3.5 (p. 265) and Streck 2003a: 8384. 17. It seems that the form -da-na-an-na-kum is a case of haplography for -da-na-an-na- na-kum. Otherwise, the gemination of the final n is unusual (in spite of 16.6.1, pp. 493494), unless we read udanannakkum < udanannankum. However, all other forms have -akkum rather than -kum. 18. Cf. also KAR 428:24 arru elltu -dan-na-na-u-ma k[r . . .] the military forces of the king will contend for superiority with him and [. . .] the enemy.
15.2. The DtrStem
443
This passage is also problematic. The editor, I. Starr, translates let it be of even thickness, following CAD D 86b s.v. dannu 4 to become of even thickness; this introduces a reciprocal nuance. On the basis of other Dtr forms quoted above, one could also consider let it gradually become thicker or the like. Whatever the exact meaning of dannu Dtr may eventually prove to be, what we can infer from the available evidence does not contradict the claim made above concerning its appurtenance to the Dtr-stem, with the form and function as defined above. This leads to the conclusion that in Old Babylonian the Dt-stem could be extended through reduplication of R2 to underline two manifestations of verbal plurality: plurality of the subject in reciprocal verbs and iterativity in el Dtr. This extension was optional, as is clear from parallel forms without reduplication. It is attested in a few verbs only, but it is sufficiently consistent in form and function to grant it the status of a derived verbal stem, albeit dependent on the Dt-stem.19 It still has a faint echo in Standard Babylonian in the reuse of el Dtr in a slightly different meaning. I am not aware of comparable forms in Assyrian. All other forms that have been claimed to be R-stems are to be explained differently or remain of obscure interpretation.20 However, a difficult case that seems to defy analysis for the time being is the verb utnnu or utnennu to pray, supplicate (+ Dat or Acc).21 In Old Babylonian, it has two imperfective forms, a short form tennen (-te-en-n-en KUB 37, 72: r.8) and a long form tenenne/in (-te-ne-en-ne-en St. Reiner p. 188:2, -te-ne-en-ne-[en] YOS 9, 54c:1, and -lu-tene-ni-in AbB 10, 111: r.3 [for /ul tenennin/]). It also has a perfective that is parallel to the long imperfective: *tenennin, reconstructible from the precative ltenennin (lu-te-ne-ni-in AbB 10, 111: r.5; cf. F. R. Krauss n. 111c on p. 103).22 We might interpret the long forms as Dtr forms parallel to the ones mentioned above with an imperfective/perfective opposition tenennen tenennin, like telell telell and the short imperfective form tennen accordingly as an ordinary Dt imperfective, but there is no obvious semantic motivation for using reduplication, in marked contrast to the other cases. Alternatively, we might be tempted to take the long forms as a kind of tan-stems, but this is invalidated by the fact that the nasal part of the tan-infix is nowhere else attested outside the imperfective (see 14.7.6, pp. 432433). In Standard Babylonian, we find an imperfective and a perfective utnen, pl. utnenn/ (only 1st and 3rd p.) with a precative lit-nen BAM 3, 316: VI 10 // STT 95:90. This is parallel to the conjugation of the II/H verbs (e.g., Impfv ibl, ibell, Pfv ibl, ibl), so it is presumably utnn. But there is also another precative li-te-nin Hm. 94:41, which fits the Old Babylonian
19. Cf. Hirsch (1967: 326; 1975: 319), who considers the R-stems Modifizierungen gesicherter Stmme. 20. Kienasts (1957b) i-a-na-na--u BKBM 34:65 from anu to obstruct is read i-a-an-na--u by the dictionaries (AHw 1162b s.v. anu I G 1; CAD /1 371a s.v. 1). The form [tu-u]-ta-a-lal-lal BVW p. 9:12 (MA), for which Kienast (1961: 60) questioningly considers a TR-stem of allu, is too obscure to justify positing a special R-stem. If the enigmatic form namai/uu (CAD N 220b s.v. namu lex. sect. and 223a comm. sect. and Whiting 1981: 1113) is related to namu to go, it is a case of reduplication of R3, but it may rather be from a verb *mau, whatever its meaning (it is mentioned alongside a Prec li-im-ma-i-i-ku, an Impfv ta-ma-a-a and a t-Pf it-ta-am-a-a [cf. CAD N 223a], all pointing to mau N). This is strongly reminiscent of the verbs of the naparruru group discussed in 12.3 (pp. 301305), with namauu alongside *mau just as naparruru beside parru (in this case, namausu is the original form and namaiu secondary). Moreover, namai/uu is a noun and therefore inadequate as evidence for the existence of an R-stem. 21. See AHw 1444b; GAG 107v; von Soden 1952b: 17981. 22. The Pfv ut-ni-in UM 1/1, 2:37 = St. Sjberg p. 326:79, reported by AHw 1347a s.v. t/nnu(m) and 1444b s.v. utnnu(m) II 1, is uncertain: W. G. Lambert (St. Sjberg p. 326:79) reads the signs pa-ni e-er-t [iu] when confronted with [his] guilt.
444
Deverbal Nouns with Reduplication 15.3.
imperfective tenennen (formally: a Dtn imperfective versus perfective). The infinitive utnnu or utnennu is only attested as a noun prayer (AHw 1444 s.v. u. I). It does not seem possible to derive it from another form by any existing rules, like utlell from telell/. Even more erratic is the present participle mutnenn pious, prayerful (CAD M/2 301 s.v. and AHw 688b s.v.), since it seems to have a weak final radical. According to GAG 107v, it is a Reimwortbildung zu mutlell), which is questionable because of their radically different meanings. The verb utnnu/ utnennu is doubtless related to the noun unn/nu prayer, but this does not account for the infixed t and unn/nu has a problematical form itself.23
15.3. Deverbal nouns with reduplication

The role of reduplication in Akkadian nouns is not very prominent either, yet more varied than in the verb. There is a fairly large group of unmotivated nouns with reduplication, for the most part consisting of the repetition of a CVC element and predominantly referring to animate beings and concrete objects. Since they bear no relation to the verbal paradigm, they will not concern us here.24 Reduplication in motivated words, on the other hand, i.e., those that are derivable from ausually verbalroot, is marginal. With inflectional function, it seems to be restricted to the plural formation of a single noun: the pl. alkaktu from alaktu gait, course, behaviour. In addition, there are several sporadic patterns of deverbal (rarely denominal) nouns with different types of reduplication: (1) reduplication of a complete triradical root may occur in gurugara vulva (SB LL); cf. garu in the meaning to have sexual intercourse. (2) reduplication of a CvC syllablewhich does not occur in the verbal paradigm itself (see 12.6.1, pp. 319320)characterizes a small number of deverbal nouns (see GAG 57a/b): lillidu offspring (< *lidlid-) from waldu to give birth, mmtu oath (< *mamit-) from wam to swear (where reduplication is a means of boosting a biradical noun; see 16.2.4, p. 460), birbirr luminosity from barru to glow, ziqziqqu storm from zqu to blow (of the wind), alallatu (a musical instrument) from allu to whistle, apappu lower part of a door from appu to batter, knock (A. Livingstone, NABU 1988/65), and perhaps pupu/u, if AHws (876 s.v.) interpretation Kampfschnauben, Streit and etymology (from napu to blow) are correct. Derived from an adjective are dandannu strong, babban beautiful, kakau overpowering, sarsarru treacherous and lalau worthless (AHw 1571a s.v.), which are strengthened forms of dannu, ban, kau, sarru, and lau, respectively.25 Denominal is ererru chain and ererratu chain, fetters from ertu ring (A. Livingstone, NABU 1988/65) (3) Reduplication of R2 also occurs in a small number of deverbal nouns (see GAG 55r): dababbu twaddle from dabbu to talk, ananbu a sweet fruit from anbu to grow abundantly,26 and zuqqpu (with variants) scorpion, from zaqpu to rear up. This type also comprises some abstract nouns: tum(m)/mtu or tam(m)/mtu oath from tam to swear
23. Utnnum and Unnnum (in various spellings) occur already in Ur III Babylonian as proper names: Ut5(= z)-ne-nu-um, Ut5-ne-nu-u, Ut5-nen-nu-u, and Ut5-nen9-nu-u are attested, alongside -ne-nu-um, Un-ne-nu, Un-ne:nu-u, and Un-ni-nm (Hilgert 2002: 498). 24. A brief discussion, classification and enumeration can be found in GAV pp. 3942. A recent discussion is Unseth 2003. 25. For sarsarru, cf. lsar-sar-a-ni SAA 9, 3: II 10 (NA lit.) with S. Parpolas note. 26. I have listed these words in the form given by the dictionaries, but the vowel syncope rule (see 2.4, pp. 4648) requires that the first and/or second syllable of these words be long, presumably dababbbu or dabbbu, etc.
15.4. Derived Verbal Stems with Reduplication in Other Semitic Languages
445
and um(m)/m or um(m)/mtu thirst from am to be(come) thirsty.27 An intriguing instance is the couple pi-in-na-ru and pi-in-na-na-ru MSL 17, 38:22021, equated with Sum. ellagx(biR).gn and ellagx.gn.gn respectively, the first of which seems to indicate a kind of cheese (see CAD P 38384 ss.vv.). The Sumerian equivalent suggests a plural or intensive meaning for pi-in-na-na-ru; this is very remarkable for a noun that is not deverbal. (4) Reduplication of R3 is also sporadically used in deverbal nouns: ibabtu (a kind of grass or weed) from ebu to grow luxuriantly, za/iqqu (or z/qqu) phantom, ghost, soul, dream god, from zqu to blow (of the wind), and naw/mrirr or naw/mrr awe-inspiring luminosity from nawru to shine brightly.28 GAG3 56o* posits a pattern PuRSS with diminutive/ pejorative meaning on the basis of bun(n)ann appearance, features, ub (a type of cup), sqq alley (cf. squ street), and up witchcraft from epu in the technical sense to practise witchcraft (CAD E 22829 s.v. 2f1). If this is correct, kulbbu ant (denominal from kalbu dog?) and burmmu porcupine from the adjective barmu multicoloured may represent the related shorter form PuRSS. Finally, the noun prrtu (LL and as PN), which seems to mean little mouse or the like, presupposes a diminutive noun prrum < *parrum, cognate to Ar far rat (see CAD P 420 s.v. pirurtu and SED II pp. 22425).
15.4. Derived Verbal stems with reduplication in other semitic Languages

In other Semitic languages, the use of reduplication as a verbal marker is also marginal but more common and more varied than in Akkadian. These languages show the following major types: 1. There are numerous quadriradical verbs of the C1C2C1C2 type;29 many of them are typically onomatopoeic and/or denote repetitive actions, e.g., Ar waswasa to whisper, suggest (evil), baqbaqa to gurgle, prattle, and sasaa to call a donkey by shouting sasa (Fleisch 1968: 130). Others are expressive or intensive derivations of a simple verb, such as Ar arara to shout from arra (idem) and faxfaxa to be a braggart from faxara to boast. Hebrew has some corresponding verbs that are usually described as belonging to a derived stem Pilpel, a variant of Piel, e.g., gilgel to roll (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 169), and among the vast number of Geez quadriradical verbs, there are many of this type, e.g., walwala to hesitate, fadfada to be numerous (Tropper 2002: 130). Generally speaking, these reduplicated verbs are not recognized as a separate derived verbal stem, since they follow the conjugation of the D-stem (see 4.6.2, pp. 123125).
27. Testen (2006: 14649) plausibly argues that the nouns of the vowel pattern u--i are originally diminutive derivatives of nouns with a geminated middle radical, e.g., zuqqpu from an agent noun *zaqqpor a PuRRuS noun *zuqqup-. An alternative explanation by J. Halvy apud Brockelmann (1908: 247): < *zuqapqpu (implying that the basic form is zuqaqqpu) leaves the vowel pattern unexplained. In the case of tummtu and um(m)mtu, we may start from a deverbal derivation of the D-stems *tVmmV - and *VmmV - or the like and explain the form not so much as diminutive but as affective (Testen 2006: 147). If this is correct, we may perhaps explain tamm/m der oft schwrt (AHw 1316a s.v.) as an adaptation of such a diminutive to the agent noun pattern PaRR/S, and tamm/mtu (ta-ma-mi-tum ARM 10, 141:17) assurance (Durand 1997/2000: III 48687) as an abstract noun derived from it. My earlier view in GAV p. 42 that these words are to be derived from the root variants t-m-m and -m-m is less likely as long as there is no other evidence for such variants. 28. An instance with w is na-aw-ri-ir (qablim) BagM. 34, 148: XII 4 (OB). 29. Verbs of this kind have been listed and discussed by, e.g., Fleisch 1968: 13031; Conti 1980; Fischer 1993; Prochzka 1995.
446
Derived Verbal Stems with Reduplication in Other Semitic Languages 15.4.
2. A small number of verbs show reduplication of the two final radicals of a triradical root (Unseth 2003), e.g., He sarar to palpitate (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 169). Two of the rare stems in Arabic (Stems XIXV) also go back to a form with this kind of reduplication: Stem XII (iqtawtala) and Stem XIII (iqtawwala) are presumably derived from *iqtaltala (Fleisch 1979: 33135), e.g., idawdaba to be hunch-backed (adabu), and ilawwaa to ride a camel without saddle. This kind of reduplication is more common in adjectives for colours and physical defects, such as Geez amalml green and He adamdam reddish (Brockelmann 1908: 36768; Nyberg 1954: 132; Bauer-Leander 1922: 48283). 3. Reduplication of R3 also occurs sporadically in Hebrew, e.g., ra anan to be green from the adjective ra ann green (Joon and Muraoka 1991: 169), and in Arabic, e.g., amlala to be agile, nimble from imll agile, nimble), and much more frequently in Geez, e.g., anqaqa to worry (Tropper 2002: 130). 4. In the modern Semitic languages of Ethiopia, reduplication of R2 is used to renew and reinforce the intensive function of the D-stem, which has completely lost its original value in these languages and has become a lexical variant of the basic stem: Tigre sbabr to smash, corresponding to Amharic sbabr, cf. Geez sabara to break (Rundgren 1959a: 174; 1959b: 36465; Lipiski 1997: 404405). Unless the naparruru group goes back to one of these types of verbs (see 12.6.1, pp. 319320), not a single one of them occurs in Akkadian, a fact that is in need of an explanation. It is possible (but purely speculative) that Akkadian has discarded them in the course of the restructuring of the verbal paradigm that followed the introduction of iparrVs as the new imperfective. As we saw in several preceding chapters, this had drastic consequences for many verbal categories, and we might speculate that the difficulty of forming a new and longer imperfective of reduplicated verbs proved to be an obstacle to the adaptation of these verbs to the new system. The other option, of course, is to assume that the verb types enumerated here are a West Semitic innovation. This seems to be contradicted, however, by the widespread occurrence of reduplicated verbs in the languages of the world in general and in Afroasiatic in particular.
theminOrParadigms
theWeakverbs
Partfour
Chapter 16
16.1. introduction
A large number of Akkadian verbs have one or two weak radicals that cause deviations from the standard paradigm of the strong triradical verb. The paradigms result from a tug-of-war between a tendency to preserve their own specific forms, which are determined by the nature and the properties of the weak radical(s), and a tendency to adapt to the forms of the strong paradigm. Generally speaking, the former tendency prevails in the more basic forms, especially the finite prefix conjugations and the imperative of the G-stem, whereas the latter is strongest in the more derived forms, i.e., the deverbal forms based on the suffix base in the G-stem, and most forms of the derived stems. Therefore, the latter forms often replace the weak radical according to the demands of the strong paradigm. The II/voc verbs, for instance, have their own specific type of form (based on the long vowel of their root) in the imperfective, perfective, t-perfect and imperative, e.g., idak (Ass), idk, iddk, and dk, respectively, from the root dk to kill, but all deverbal forms follow the strong verbs as much as possible: the past participle (dk < *day(i)k like paris), the infinitive (Ass duku like parsu), and the present participle (diku like prisu). The two participles even give up their own R2 and replace it with a glide. Likewise, in the III/voc verbs, the vocalic R3 surfaces in iqabb, iqb, iqtab, and qib (from qab () to speak) but gives way to the vowel of the required pattern in the infinitive (Ass qabu, Bab qab) and in most forms of the derived stems. In the I/w verbs, the imperfective, perfective, and imperative (e.g., uab, uib, and ib, respectively, from wabu to sit down) have a specific form based on their R1, whereas the infinitive and both participles are neatly triradical and in accordance with the strong paradigm (wabu, wabu, and wibu). The paradigm of the weak verbs is also relevant because the nature of the adaptations may give us information about the dependency relationships between forms and categories that is not revealed by the strong paradigm itself. Examples (which will be discussed more fully in the course of this chapter) are the stative of II/gem verbs (see 16.6.1, pp. 492493) and the relationship between the -stem and the t2-stem (see 16.5.3.4, pp. 485486). There are two kinds of weak verbs in Akkadian. The first consists of verbs that in ProtoSemitic had a vowel or a semi-vowel among their radicals or n as R1 (see 2.3.3, pp. 4042). I will refer to them as the old weak verbs or the weak verbs tout court. They comprise the I/w 447
448
The I/w Verbs 16.2.
verbs, the I/n verbs, the II/ and II/ verbs (and perhaps part of the II/ verbs), and the III/ and III/ verbs. In general, their paradigm is essentially identical in all Akkadian dialects and may therefore be dated to Proto-Akkadian. The second class comprises verbs that originally had one or two gutturals (i.e., the laryngeals and h and the pharyngeals and ; see further 17.3, pp. 515520) among their radicals or the palatal glide y as R1. These consonants are reconstructed for Proto-Semitic but were mostly weakened and lost in a very gradual process that was already on its way in the oldest recorded period of Akkadian. They comprise the I/voc verbs, the II/ and II/ verbs, and the III/ and III/ verbs. The original I/*y verbs have largely merged with the I/voc verbs. I will refer to all these verb classes as the new weak verbs or the verbs with gutturals (which in the case of the I/*y verbs is inaccurate but convenient). The paradigm of the new weak verbs shows a large amount of dialectal variation, which means that the process of weakening and adaptation mainly took place in the individual dialects. It has affected Babylonian and Assyrian in quite different ways: generally speaking, Assyrian is conservative and Babylonian innovative. As a result, the development of the new weak verbs is one of the most salient differences between the two dialects. There is, however, no clear-cut dividing line between old and new weak verbs, since one of the strategies for repairing the loss of a weak radical is to reassign the verb in question to a preexisting class of old weak verbs. As a result, several classes of old weak verbs had an influx of new members coming from the verbs with gutturals. Moreover, for some weak verbs it is far from clear whether they originally had a guttural or whether they always had the long vowel they show in Akkadian; this applies especially to the II/ verbs (see below, 16.5.1, pp. 474476). This chapter deals with those weak verb types that are predominantly old: the I/w verbs in 16.2, the I/y verbs (which cannot be separated from the I/w verbs) in 16.3, the I/n verbs in 16.4, the II/voc verbs in 16.5, the II/gem verbs in 16.6, and finally the III/voc verbs in 16.7.
16.2. the i/w Verbs 16.2.1. Thecorpus

The I/w verbs (GAG 103) can be divided into four subgroups on the basis of their form and meaning: 1. A group of fientive verbs with both R2 and R3 strong. It comprises, first of all, the common verbs wablu to carry, bring, take, waldu to give birth, wabu to sit down, settle, wardu to descend, and wabu to add. In addition, it contains a few very rare verbs:1 wapu to exorcise,2 wapu to abuse,3 wakpu to saddle,4 wamu to mark,5 and
1. Too uncertain to include here are: *(w)asqu to strengthen, raise (AHw 1474a s.v.), *walu to lap up (AHw 1458a s.v.), and waru to take care of, a by-form of aru; see Sallaberger 2005: 23436 for references. 2. G Impfv u-a-ap MesMagic p. 258:2, 6; u-a-pu MesMagic p. 258:8 (Subj); Pfv (Prec) lu-i-ip MesMagic p. 258:3; (a) u-pu St. Reiner 192:64 he who has cast sorceries (all OB); PrPartc (w)ip(t)u exorcist (passim). 3. Only Pfv attested: *upi, in tu-up-i-i TIM 9, 6:28 (OB) you (Fem) heaped abuse ( pitam, see 16.2.4, p. 460) on her (/tup/ < tup-i(m)). 4. Only Inf attested: ana (. . .) wa-ka-p-im FM 6, 121 no. 5:17 (OB Mari), cf. ukpu saddle < *wukpum, a PuRS form like ubtu garment. 5. Only Inf attested: wa-a-mu-[um] MSL 14, 449b:7 (OB LL), but also in imtu mark; see p. 460 n. 48 below.
16.2. The I/w Verbs
449
waddu to love.6 Since the common verbs all belong to the vowel class A/i (see 3.5.2.5, p. 75), it is a reasonable assumption that the rest are also A/i, although this cannot be verified in all cases (see the footnotes for more detailed information). 2. A group of fientive verbs with w or as R3,7 belonging to different vowel classes: war to bring, take, lead (U/u), wa to go /come out (I/i, originally III/ ),8 wat to find (A/a, later U/u, originally III/ ?), wamum to swear (A/a, originally III/ ),9 and waq to wait (A/i).10 3. A few adjectival verbs (vowel class I/i) derived from I/w adjectives:11 watru to exceed, surpass, waqru to be(come) precious, rare, expensive, warqu to be(come) green, yellow, pale, and perhaps *wap to appear, become visible.12
6. Only Impfv uddad attested: -da-ad RIME 4, 605:32 he loves (OB) and in the Ur III Babylonian PNF -da-ad-Z-na-at BIN 3, 134:2 (one of king Amar-Sins wives); see Kouwenberg 20034b: 36566. 7. I have not included the Old Assyrian I/w verb *wanum to deceive, cheat. It is problematic, since it is unclear to what extent the prefix forms represent a G-stem or a D-stem (see GKT 97e): the attested imperfective forms can be interpreted as both unn (G) and nn (D), and all perfective forms except one as both un (G) and nn (D) (see 17.6.2, pp. 543544, regarding the long prefix vowel in the D-stem). The exceptional form is () -nu-k TC 2, 27:12 (cf. Innya pp. 3738 no. 21), which I assume to be an error for -ni-k, since the subject is presumably singular. [A second form -nu-k mentioned in AHw 1459a s.v. (BIN 4, 64:10 = OAA 1, 114:10) is to be read -k-nu]. Of course, it is possible that both stems were used, in accordance with 11.3.4 (pp. 276277). In the non-prefix categories, there are both G and D forms. G occurs in the present participle wnium, in a wa-ni--tim CCT 4, 22a:18, which is either a substantivized masculine plural (this is behaviour) of cheaters! or an abstract derivation wniuttum (this is an instance) of fraudulent behaviour! D is attested in the stative wa-nu-a-ni kt c/k 262:49 we have been cheated! (quoted by courtesy of J. G. Dercksen). There is also a deverbal noun tawntum deceit, deceitful words (ta-aw-ni-tm AKT 4, 51:21), suggesting that the verbal forms belong to the D-stem, but this is not decisive; cf. 14.6.1 (p. 400), where taPRiS(t) forms belonging to the G-stem were mentioned. Whether the G-stem adjective wanium said of donkeys (etwa strrisch?? AHw 1459a s.v.) belongs to this verb is hard to say, but there is little if any semantic similarity to the assumed meaning of wanum. 8. In Middle and Neo-Assyrian secondarily A/i: u u; see p. 498 n. 176. 9. Attested in Sargonic Akkadian and Old Assyrian (lu-ma kt 92/k 94:30, quoted by courtesy of K. R. Veenhof); see 17.8.1 (p. 573). It is the basis of later tam; see 16.2.3 (p. 454). 10. The paradigm of waq is obscured by interference from qu (Ass qauu), which has the same meaning. Unambiguous forms of waq are the Impfv uqq (based on [l ] t [u]-uq-q-a AbB 6, 155:15 do (Sg) not wait) and the Imp q (based on q-ja-an-ni AbB 14, 193:12; Fem q-ji-i AbB 3, 71:23 (all OB). These forms point to A/i: uqq uq, which is highly irregular for a III/voc verb. Qu has forms such as Impfv uqa or uqayy, Pfv uqa, but perhaps also uq(), uq() with contraction, so that forms such as -q might also belong to qu. Waq is also often used in the Dt-stem with the same meaning: Bab uteqq, OA utaqquum; see 14.5.1 (p. 385). 11. Obscure adjectival I/w verbs include wakmu to be hazy(?), wamlu to be misty, and wabu to be full of weeds. There are also I/w adjectives for which a corresponding verb is not attested: waru (u) dirty and waru low, humble) or is uncertain: wau (a) stiff, hard, stubborn (perhaps Impfv i-i- [a] Erra IIIc: 49, if correctly restored) and wasmu (u or i) proper, suitable (perhaps i-si-mu SEM 117: III 17 (MB lit.), which is either from this verb or from smu () to become red; see AHw 1474a s.v. wasmu G II). 12. This verb is not actually attested as a I/w verb, but it is traditionally included here on the basis of its supposed etymological connection with He ypeh beautiful and Ar wafy complete, integral. Its G-stem is very rare: a G Pfv i-pa-a-am BagM. 21, 176 no. 122:14 (OB) it appeared (the reading i-pa-a-am is accepted by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, MARI 7, 373; one would instead expect piam in this Old Babylonian text), and i-pa--im/um Gilg. p. 712:150 (SB) it appeared to her/him, and a G Inf a-pi-i in: a l ap KAR 128:31 (SB) (a dark day) that does not become light or the like. The verb mainly occurs in the -stem (Pfv u/p; see GAG 103v).
450
The I/w Verbs 16.2.
4. Two I/w verbs that are also II/ verbs and therefore treat w as a strong radical (see 2.3.3, p. 42): a fientive one: wru () to go, and an adjectival one: wu () to be few. Apart from the regular changes of word-initial w, which may appear as , m, or a strong in later dialects, these verbs behave like other II/ verbs (see 16.5, pp. 474490) and will not be further discussed here. The I/w verbs do not form a natural class on the basis of some specific semantic feature. W. von Sodens characterization of the fientive I/w verbs as denoting nicht freiwillige Handlungen and Verben der Bewegung mit bestimmtem Ausgangs- oder Zielpunkt (GAG 103b) is too vague to be useful and patently ignores the less frequent I/w verbs.
16.2.2. TheformsoftheG-stem
I will start with the fientive I/w verbs. Table 16.1 shows their paradigm in its original form, i.e., without the superficial changes resulting from vowel assimilation in Assyrian, loss of the gutturals and vowel contraction in Babylonian, and the loss of mimation. Wablu is the model for the A/i verbs and wa for the I/w verbs that are also III/voc verbs. The right column shows the rather different forms of the adjectival I/w verbs, which will be discussed in 16.3.1 (pp. 462464), with watru as sample verb. fientive I/w Impfv Pfv finite t-Pf Imp Stat Inf non-finite PPartc PrPartc ubbal, ubbal ubil, ubl ittabal, ittabl bil, bil wabil, wabl wablum *wablum wbilum fient. I/w+III/inf. u, ui u, u itta, itta , i wa, wa waum *waum wium adject. I/w ttir, ttir tir, tir tatir, tatr watar, watr watrum watrum
table 16.1: the paradigm of the fientive and adjectival i/w verbs.
The individual forms of the fientive paradigm give rise to the following comments. (Note that comparative issues will be discussed in 16.2.4, pp. 457462) 1. The imperfective ubbal: The imperfective of the I/w verbs in Old Babylonian shows a spelling alternation that raises the historically important question of the quantity of the prefix vowel (see 16.2.4, pp. 457459). Three different spellings are found: with wablu as example, these are -ub-ba-al, ub-ba-al, and -ba-al. This associates the I/w verbs with the I/voc verbs, which also show this kind of spelling alternation but with one crucial difference: the spelling corresponding to ub-ba-al is hardly ever used. Thus the third-person singular imperfective of alku to go /come, for instance, is spelled i-il-la-ak and i-la-ak, but il-la-ak is extremely rare. The same applies to the other I/voc verbs (see 17.6.2, pp. 543544, and Kouwenberg 2003/4a: 8385). A similar phenomenon applies to the D-stem of the I/voc verbs: the third-person singular imperfective and perfective of ebbu D to purify, for instance, are either spelled -ub-ba-ab/-ub-bi-ib or -ba-ab/-bi-ib but hardly ever
16.2. The I/w Verbs
451
ub-ba-ab/ub-bi-ib, whereas the non-prefix forms are spelled either ub-bi-ib or -bi-ib, if we take the imperative as example (p. 85). I have argued (Kouwenberg 2003/4a: 87) that spellings such as i-il-la-ak and -ub-ba-ab, with an additional V sign at the beginning of the word (initial plene writing or IPW), serve to indicate a long initial vowel before the geminate second radical, so that i-il-la-ak and -ub-ba-ab are to be read /llak/ and /bbab/, respectively, and that the rarity of spellings of the il-la-ak type are due to the reluctance of Old Babylonian scribes to use a VC sign for a long vowel (pp. 8788). In the I/w verbs, on the other hand, ub-ba-al occurs far more frequently than both -ub-ba-al and -ba-al (see Kouwenberg 2003/4a: 100 for some statistical data). This means that ubbal has a short prefix vowel; if ub-ba-al could represent /bbal/, it would be inexplicable why in the I/voc verbs the corresponding spelling il-la-ak is so patently disfavoured.13 However, this makes the spelling -ub-ba-al problematic. It seems that the most straightforward solution is to assume that the plene writing in -ub-ba-al is purely orthographic and influenced by the corresponding forms of the I/voc verbs, especially by D forms such as -ub-ba-ab. The relative rarity of -ub-ba-al as against ub-ba-al points in the same direction.14 2. The perfective ubil: In the G perfective of the fientive I/w verbs, the quantity of the prefix vowel u is also short, because the root vowel is subject to vowel syncope in forms with an ending (Kienast 1963: 145; Huehnergard 1987b: 19193; Izre'el 1991: 41; Rubio 2003b: 36769; pace GAG 21f). Instances are ubl they brought and ublam I/he brought here versus ubil he brought from wablu, ub they sat down and tu-u-bi ZA 75, 200:40 (OB) do (Fem) not sit down! from wabu, etc. Interestingly, even the addition of the precative prefix l- (see 9.2.1.2, p. 214) does not cause a long vowel: li-i-bu SAB p. 187:11 (Gasur, SAk) let them sit, li-ib-lam AbB 6, 141:15 let him bring here (OB), lu--ba-am ATHE 66:37 let him add for me (OA). However, in third-millennium texts the verb wablu also shows forms in which i is retained (GAG 3 103f*), such as u9-b-la TB 1, 6 iii 2 they (Du) brought (PSAk), u-b-lam AKI p. 90:43 (RI of Naram-Sin) and OAIC 33: III 52 (Diyla) he brought here, and tu?--bi-lu-si /tbilsi/ JCS 28, 230: r.II 6 you brought it (Subj) (prov. unknown). Forms with syncope are also common, e.g., ub-lam MAD 5, 71:4 (Pugdan) and u-ub-lam SAB p. 40:8 (Adab). The few relevant forms of other I/w verbs attested in Sargonic Akkadian all show vowel syncope: u-ur-da-ni BIN 8, 134:9 he came down (Subj) (prov. unknown), tu-ur4-da Or. 46, 201:89 you (Pl) went down (incant. from Kish),15 and li-i-bu already quoted above.16 In Old Babylonian, forms without syncope are extremely rare (li-bi-lu-ki-im ZA 44, 34:31 may they bring to you (Fem) (OB lit.), and -ri-da(-ma) AbB 6, 146:21 he went down), but in Middle and Neo-Babylonian letters, they have become regular according to Aro 1957: 13 s.v. (w)
13. It is also significant that Hammurapis Law Code, with its unusually sophisticated spelling, consistently uses IPW in I/voc verbs (e.g., i-ir-ru-ub KH 177:30 he will enter) but never in I/w verbs: ub-ba-lu KH 169:31, u-a-ab KH 141:59 and elsewhere. 14. It is theoretically possible that there was an alternative imperfective bbal with long alongside ubbal, but this seems to be a superfluous assumption, pace Kouwenberg 2003/4a: 101. 15. Or perhaps 3du? (so Lambert 1992: 5354). 16. The early date of the forms that retain i might suggest that long is the original vowel and that short is secondary. This is attractive insofar as bil can be explained in a straightforward way from a regular perfective *yawbil (cf. GAG 21f), whereas the historical background of ubil is obscure (see 16.2.4, pp. 458459). However, there is no rule that accounts for the shortening of bil to ubil. Kienast (1963: 145) explains bil as a strong, triradical form < *yawbil, alongisdie biradical bil. As I will argue in 16.2.4 below, there is very little reason to attribute an original biradical nature to the I/w verbs.
452
The I/w Verbs 16.2.
ardu and 15 s.v. (w)abu, and Woodington 1982: 128. They are also fairly common in Standard Babylonian (GAG 103f). In Old and Middle Assyrian, all reliable forms show syncope, according to GKT 93c and W. Mayer 1971: 75, but Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 96) states that NeoAssyrian normally uses non-syncopated forms. There can be no doubt that the short forms ubil, ubl, etc., are original, both because of their wider distribution and because they are difficult to explain as secondary formations. Since the retention of i in the third-millennium forms is specific to the verb wablu, it is likely to be caused by the fact that l, just like r, may prevent application of the vowel syncope rule (see 2.4, p. 47), as argued by Huehnergard (1987b: 192). The increase in popularity of the long form in all fientive I/w verbs in later Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian may be a consequence of a gradual replacement of ubil with bil by analogy with the perfective of the I/voc verbs (mur, pu, etc.).17 This also led to ubl being replaced by bil. Note also that through the loss of word-initial w the non-prefixed forms of the I/w paradigm became identical to those of the I/voc verbs. 3. The t-perfect ittabal: In the t-perfect, the combination of R1 and the t-infix appears as -tt-: ittabal, ittaab, etc. This is problematic, since in Akkadian all evidence points to w forming a diphthong with the preceding vowel: -aw- > --, -iw- > --, and -uw- > --, so that *yiwtabal should give **tabal rather than ittabal; cf. tatir < *yiwtatir and tir < *yiwtir, t-perfect and perfective, respectively, of watru, which will be discussed in 16.3.1 (pp. 462464), and Dt forms such as taar he will be released < *yuwtaar. On the other hand, the Arabic I/w verbs show the same feature in the forms of Stem VIII (iqtatala), e.g., ittakala to trust, Stem VIII of wakila to entrust (Wright 1967: I 80; Brockelmann 1908: 177). This suggests that I/w forms with infixed t had -tt- already in Proto-Semitic, either because Proto-Semitic treated the cluster -wt- differently from Akkadian (Huehnergard 2005c: 464) or for some other reason. It is conceivable, for instance, that the forms with -tt- are built on an alternative root with t instead of w as R1 or that -tt- comes from -tw- and thus dates from the period when t was still a prefix (cf. 14.2.2, pp. 359360).18 The geminate -tt- appears in all forms with infixed -t-, especially in the Gtn-stem: ittanabbal, etc., as we would expect, since it is derived from the Gt-stem (see 14.7.6, pp. 431437). For verbs that have a parallel verb starting with t (tablu, tar), the t-perfect is indistinguishable from the t-perfect of the verb with t (see the next section). Finally, in the case of wablu, we find an alternative shorter t-perfect itbal in Old Babylonian, which is identical to the perfective of the secondary verb tablu to bring along, in at least four instances (KH 45:44; 48:6, and 169:29, 33) but perhaps also elsewhere.19
17. Such a replacement, if it took place, is not directly observable to us, because cuneiform writing cannot distinguish between a short and a long initial vowel in an open syllable, i.e., between ubil and bil. 18. This was suggested by Diem (1982: 38) in addition to an alternative explanation that the forms with -tt- are derived from a biradical base (*yi-ta-bal, etc.) and analogically adapted to the triradical *yitqatal. I am not aware of any parallels for a change -tt- > -tw-, but it fits in well with the historical development of the Gt-stem as described in chap. 14. Another explanation was suggested by Kienast (1963: 146 = 2001: 356) and D. O. Edzard, WdO 31 (2000/2001) 228, namely that -tt- arose by analogy with the I/n verbs. 19. In KH 45:44 and 48:6, this is because of its co-ordination with the t-Pf irtai, and in 169:29, 33, because it contrasts with l ubil, an instance of the regular interchange of an affirmative t-perfect with a negative perfective (see 6.3.1, p. 144, and Kouwenberg 2005: 8990). In Old Assyrian, itbal belongs to tablu according to GKT 93d n. 2, but this is contradicted by the use of the Impfv ubbal parallel to itbal for the indication of prices and the value of goods (see Veenhof 1972: 43842). I am not aware of any instance of itr as an unambiguous t-perfect of war.
16.2. The I/w Verbs
453
A major diachronic development in the form of the t-perfect occurs in Neo-Assyrian, where it regularly has a form ittuib, Pl ittub instead of ittaab (GAG 103g; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 90, 96; Luukko 2004: 84). This u presumably arose by analogy with the initial u- of the imperfective and the perfective.20 The same change took place in the t-perfects of the D-stem of I/voc verbs (utuir, utulli, etc.) (see 17.6.3.2, p. 547). 4. The imperative bil: In all fientive verbs for which it is attested, the G imperative is monosyllabic: bil, ib, rid, ib, , r/, q.21 It is derived from the perfective according to the regular subtraction rule: tubil bil, etc., just as p(u)rus comes from taprus, dk kill! from tadk andin the D-stemparris (Ass) from tuparris (see 5.5, pp. 133134). There is a tendency, however, to create longer byforms by adding the prefix ta- and introducing the imperfective vowel (see 4.2, pp. 8889): alongside ib, Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian have taab, which in later Babylonian becomes tiab (see 5.5, p. 136), alongside Old Babylonian also uses ta,22 and already in older texts r/ is largely replaced by tar (for tur, see n. 26, p. 454).23 To my knowledge, no parallel forms with ta- are attested for ib add!, rid descend! and q wait!. To what extent the common Imp tabal can belong to wablu rather than tablu is difficult to determine because of the large semantic overlap between the two verbs (see 16.2.3, p. 454). The prefix ta- was either borrowed from the second-person indicative forms or it was introduced by analogy with the original Gt imperatives tabal and tar (see the next section sub no. 1). 5. The suffix forms: The suffix base of all I/w verbs is a strong form with w as R1; for the background of w, see further 16.2.4 (pp. 459461). In the adjectival I/w verbs of group 3, the adjective is basic and the dependency relationship is reversed (see 3.3.2, pp. 5860): watru ttir (see further 16.3.1, pp. 462464). Since word-initial w is subject to weakening in all dialects, wa- often becomes u- in Old Assyrian (GKT 26a) and regularly does so in later Assyrian (e.g., ublu for wablu). However, w- generally remains. In Babylonian, w is dropped without a change in the vowel (ablu, bilu), mainly after the Old Babylonian period (GAG 21c). In wablu, Babylonian often writes w- as b-: bablu, babil, bbilu; this always happens in the N-stem: ibbabbal, ibbabil, etc., and in the deverbal pirs noun biblu (see von Soden 1968b: 21617).24
20. It cannot come from *it-ta-w-ib as GAG 103g claims, because u is short; cf. the plural form ittub. 21. See the dictionaries and grammars for references; additional and/or noteworthy instances are -biu-um Prag I 714:14 (Fem); -ba VS 26, 74:24 (both OA) from wabu; q-ja-an-ni AbB 14, 193:12; q-iu-nu-ti AbB 10, 81: r.18; q-ji-i AbB 3, 71:23 (Fem) (all OB) from waq; ru-a-u-nu-ti Kisurra 169:10; ri!-a-am TIM 9, 6:22 acc. to AHw 1473a s.v. war II G 2a (both OB); ru-a(-ma) KTH 14: 30; ru-a-nim St. Larsen p. 287:54, and ri-a- BIN 6, 69:22 (all OA) from war. It is possible that the two irregular forms with the vowel are scribal errors for the very common Imp r: e-ri!-a-am and -ri-a-. 22. For references, see AHw 133738 ss. vv. ta and *tabu. The form ta also occurs in Mari Old Babylonian: ta- MARI 7, 45:15. 23. In Standard Babylonian, an Imp ur also occurs: -ru Gilg. p. 546:162; -ru- BID p. 135:132, perhaps by analogy with the I/n verbs? 24. Word-initial w written as b also occurs in other words in Old Assyrian (GKT 26e), Ur III Babylonian (only baqar for waqar from waqru to be(come) precious in PNs, see Hilgert 2002: 32834), and Archaic Babylonian (ba--bu OBTA p. 67 no. 19: r.12 he is present (Subj); according to Reiner (1966: 36), the phonetic interpretation of this phenomenon is ambiguous.
454
The I/w Verbs 16.2.
16.2.3. Thederivedstems
In the derived verbal stems (see GAG 103o z and Verbalpar. 25), there are no significant differences in paradigm between the fientive and the adjectival I/w verbs, with the possible exception of the Gtn-stem (see 16.3.1, p. 464). 1. The Gt- and the Gtn-stem: A Gt-stem is only attested for wa to go /come out (see 14.3.4, p. 371); cf. the Impfv itta (AHw 147778 s.v. Gt); note that the Imp ta mentioned in the previous section does not belong to the Gt-stem. From a historical perspective, however, we may classify the secondary verbs tablu to take/bring along and tar to take/bring along, lead as indirect reflexive (see 10.8.3.4, p. 263) Gt-stems of wablu and war. They are back-formations from the original Gt perfectives ittabal and ittar. This process may also have created other verbs in which t replaced w as R1 but in which no semantic difference is discernible, especially wamum/tam to swear (see n. 9, p. 449) and *waklum/taklu to trust.25 For Arabic parallels, see the next section. It is also possible that these secondary verbs are built on a biradical stem without w and with t as a prefix: itbal < *yi-t-bal, itr < *yi-t-r (GAG 103g; Kienast 1963: 146). Since these forms have the same structure as the G perfective of strong verbs, they could be reinterpreted as such: *yi-tbal and yi-tr. Likewise, the imperatives tabal and tar may originally have been biliteral Gt imperatives with prefixed ta-: ta-bal, ta-r.26 However, this is rather speculative, since there is no (other) solid evidence for biradical forms in the paradigm of the I/w verbs, as I will argue in 16.2.4. The tan-stems only offer two minor peculiarities. First, the fientive I/w verbs have -tt- just as do the t-perfect of the G-stem, e.g., Gtn Impfv ittanabbal like ittabal. Second, in the non-prefix forms, initial w- is replaced by , e.g., Imp itabbal (i-ta-ab-ba-al AbB 7, 80:15 (OB)) and Inf itabbulu (kma i-ta-bu-lim Prag I 543:12 (OA)) instead of **witabbal, **witabbulum, from wablu Gtn, and Inf itarr (i-tar-ra-am (Acc) RIME 4, 381:23 (OB)) rather than **witarrm from war Gtn. This feature associates the I/w verbs with the I/n verbs and contrasts it with the I/voc verbs, which have a- in these forms (atallukum, etc.; see 17.6.3.1, pp. 546547). A (tentative) explanation will be suggested in 16.4.2 (p. 471). 2. The D-stem: In the D-stem, the number of I/w verbs is significantly increased by several D tantum verbs (see 11.4, pp. 277278), such as wurr to cut off, interrupt, wuss to identify, distinguish, wuuu to interrogate, wu to spread out, open wide, wuuru to release, and the Old Assyrian denominal verb wazzunum to listen carefully (derived from uznu ear). There are also a few common I/w D-stems that are only loosely connected with a corresponding G-stem: wuuru to instruct (from wru () to go?), and wudd to mark, inform, identify, assign (with a -stem d to inform), related to id/wad to know. A noteworthy point concerning the D-stem paradigm of I/w verbs is the interchange of strong and weak forms in the imperfective and the perfective: strong forms preserve -wa- (Impfv uwaar, Pfv uwair, etc.), weak forms contract -uwa- to, or replace it by, u (perhaps more
25. *waklum survives in the title waklu overseer, the denominal D-stem wukkulu to appoint as waklu (AHw 1546a s.v. D), and perhaps in the Old Babylonian PN Wa-ki-il-il (see AHw 1456a s.v.). It is cognate to Ar wakala to entrust and Geez tawakkala to trust (CDG 612 s.v. wkl ). 26. If tar were an ordinary strong verb, its imperative should be tur, like ud rejoice! from ad (U/u). Actually, tur is used alongside tar, which shows that tar is gradually being adapted to the regular paradigm (e.g., amtam ittka tu-ru AbB 1, 30:10 take the slave girl with you, but awlam ta-ru AbB 1, 50:15 take the man along! (both OB).
16.2. The I/w Verbs
455
accurately ). In Old Assyrian, strong and weak forms coexist (GKT 93f). Middle Assyrian only has weak forms (W. Mayer 1971: 76), and this seems to apply to Neo-Assyrian as well. Old Babylonian mostly uses strong forms (GAG 103o), but a few weak ones are also found, such as -u-i--u AbB 14, 144:11 they questioned him from wuuu, li-i-i-pu-ka MLVS 2, 3:9 may they heal you from wapu D, and mu-u--ba-at wildim JRAS Cspl. 71:1314 (rain,) increaser of offspring from wabu D. In later Babylonian, weak and strong forms occur side by side. The non-prefix forms are influenced by the general instability of word-initial w, especially before u. Accordingly, they start with wa- or with u- < wa- in Old Assyrian (GKT 93e), with u< wa- in later Assyrian (W. Mayer 1971: 76), and with wu-, u- < wu- or mu < wu- in Babylonian (GAG 21c). 3. The -stem and its derivatives The -stem of the I/w verbs is known for the erratic fluctuation of the vowel after between , , and (GAG 103s/v).27 It is a plausible assumption that in the I/w verbs (< aw) is original, e.g., Pfv u he caused to go out (see below) < *yuawi. Accordingly, it is fairly common in third-millennium Akkadian (see Hasselbach 2005: 22426), e.g., SAk li-su-r-am /lisriam/ SAB p. 114:8 (Girsu) let him have (something) brought here, and Mari OAk -u-r-id /y?urid/ AKI p. 361 M 4:4 he brought down.28 On the other hand, forms with also appear in wablu, war, and wa alongside forms with , e.g., li-se11-b-lam /lisbilam/ SAB p. 169:12 (Diyala), li-se11-r-m /lisriam/ SAB p. 193:28 (Susa) and u-se11-zi /yusi/ BIN 8, 144:59 (Umm el-Jir). There is also an exceptional instance with : lu-sa-b-l [a]-kum /lusbilakkum/ SAB p. 141:12 (Kish).29 It is likely that was introduced by analogy with the non-E-colouring I/H verbs (e.g., ukil < *yuakil he caused to eat (kl) and ulik < *yuahlik he caused to go (hlk)), and by analogy with the E-colouring I/H verbs and the I/y verbs (e.g., urib < *yuarib he caused to enter [rb] and tuniq she suckled < *tuayniq [ynq]), but it cannot be excluded that the forms go back to an alternative root with initial y (see below).30 In the second millennium, mainly survives in literary Old Babylonian, e.g., tu-u-bi-li Itar p. 34: V 32 you (Fem) caused to carry from wablu, -u-p- KH IV 62 he proclaimed (Subj) from wap, mu-u--it AfO 50, 16: r.I 17 who brings out from wa and mu-u-li-idAfO 50, 16: r.I 20 who causes to be born from waldu (both PrPartc c. st. Fem). It was apparently regarded as a literary alternative to the normal form and is therefore not restricted to I/w verbs (see 17.6.3.3, pp. 548549). Exceptional is the occurrence of war with in some legal
27. W. von Soden (GAG 103s) and Kienast (1963: 14546, 2001: 35354) claim that the forms with in Babylonian are directly based on an ancient biradical base of the type ib. This is not very likely, however. First, there is very little solid evidence for a biradical background of the I/w verbs; see the next section. Second, it is much simpler to assume a secondary fluctuation between different vowels, since this is a kind of process that occurs time and again in the history of languages. In this particular case, it doubtless concerns analogical expansion from the I/ verbs (so also Streck 1997/98: 313a). 28. For the spread of the vowel to the I/y verb eru to be(come) straight, see 17.6.3.3 (p. 548). 29. Perhaps also u-da-a-b-la OAIC 10:8 (Diyala) I considered (Subj), if interpreted correctly; see chap. 14 n. 165 (p. 404). 30. For the possibility that the I/H verbs with E-colouring have influenced the I/w verbs, note in particular the fact that -stems with are predominantly found in the area that also shows a relatively advanced stage of E-colouring through a neighbouring guttural, namely, the Diyala region, the most innovative area of Sargonic Akkadian; see Hasselbach 2005: 23133, 2007: 39. In 17.6.1 (pp. 539541), I will argue mainly on the basis of morphosyntactic evidencethat in the position at issue herei.e., syllable-final before a consonantthe gutturals had dropped in an earlier stage than in word-initial and intervocalic position.
456
The I/w Verbs 16.2.
documents of the Old Babylonian Rm-Anum archive: -u-ri-a-am Rm-Anum II 26: r.3, also II 29:4, interchanging with in other texts, e.g., -a-ri-a-am II 32:3. Non-literary Babylonian uses both and in a very complicated distribution, which I will not further discuss (see GAG 103sv). It is noteworthy that, except for wap, the adjectival I/w verbs always seem to have . In Assyrian, has been generalized as the regular vowel in the -stems of I/w verbs: perfective ubil, uib, ui, etc. (GKT 93gh; GAG 103w).31 An instance from an adjectival I/w verb is OA *uqir from waqru.32 Middle and Neo-Assyrian, too, have (W. Mayer 1971: 7677; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 151). The corresponding imperfective forms owe their existence to the introduction of the new imperfective iparrVs in the G-stem. After the original diphthong in *yuawbil, etc., had become or had been replaced by or , R2 was a single consonant and therefore acquired gemination in addition to the existing a/i apophony (see 4.5.2, pp. 112115, and 17.6.3.3, pp. 548549, for the same development in the I/voc verbs): *yuubbal, *yuebbal, and/or *yuabbal.33 There are no imperfective forms attested in third millennium texts and therefore no forms with u parallel to ubil (GAG 103s), so that the existence of *yuubbal remains hypothetical. In addition, *yuebbal survives in Ass uebbal contrasting with Pfv ubil,34 *yuabbal in Bab uabbal contrasting with Pfv ubil. The oldest attestation is Ur III Bab t-a-ba-lam TCS 1, 90 no. 370:8 you cause to bring to me. However, where Babylonian has , a is subject to vowel harmony (see 17.5.1, pp. 525534): instead of ueab, we find ueeb alongside uib, a contrast that is often obscured by the spelling.35 In the non-prefix forms of the I/w -stems, Babylonian always has : e.g., Imp bil alongside ubil. bil may be a direct reflex of an original *awbil, but since Babylonian regularly has u in the non-prefix forms of D and (e.g., Stat purrus, uprus, etc.), and since this u is arguably secondary (see 11.2, pp. 269271, and 13.2.1, pp. 325326), bil may also result from the secondary spread of u. It is even possible that the very existence of u in purrVs and uprVs in Babylonian is caused or at least influenced by the relatively high frequency of the -stems of several I/w verbs, as I suggested in 11.2 (p. 271). Assyrian regularly has in the non-prefix forms: Imp bil, etc. If this is not from *aybil (see the end of 16.2.4, p. 462), it must have introduced from the prefix forms as a replacement of *awbil. The t1- and t2-stems of the I/w verbs are identical in form (as in the I/voc verbs; see 17.6.3.3, pp. 548549) and can predictably be derived from the -stem. The forms with personal prefixes
31. GKT 93h also notes a few exceptions: [ ]-a-bi-l-ku kt b/k 21:18 with for , and u-bi-lam CCT 4, 6e:8 for bilam. The form nu-a-BI-l-am TTC 6:11 = RA 80, 110 no. 6:11 is to be read nuappilam from aplu D (Veenhof 1972: 454 n. 564), and a-ri-a TC 1, 24:36 is Imp Pl of urr to begin (K. R. Veenhof, p.c.). 32. Inferred from the Proh l tueqqar do not let (it) become (too) expensive; see CAD A/2 207a s.v. aqru 4. 33. Whether this implied shortening of the preceding long vowel is a difficult point. Unlike Reiner (1966: 44), Greenstein (1984: 4243), and others, I do not think that this is a necessary consequence (Kouwenberg 20034a: 88), and I leave the possibility open that the actual form is ubbal, etc., but I will not write it with a macron (see also n. 102, p. 477 below). 34. It should be added, however, that the earliest explicit spellings of the geminate only date from Middle Assyrian: -e-e15-u-b[u] ZA 50, 194:1112 they cause to sit down, and -e-e-a-a KAV 217:8 they (Fem) cause to go out (3fp, so probably /uea/). 35. Cf., however, cases such as Impfv tu-e-e-e-eb MARI 4, 406:19 versus Pfv -e-i-bu MARI 4, 406:12 and -e-i-ib MARI 4, 406:16 (OB Mari); Impfv [-]e20-e-e YOS 10, 46: II 53 versus Pfv -e-i-i AbB 13, 124:14.
16.2. The I/w Verbs
457
are derived by simply inserting t after (see GAG Verbalpar. 25).36 For instance, Old Assyrian has a t2-stem of wablu to bring/take with the meaning to trade (according to K. R. Veenhof, p.c.) with an Impfv utebbal and a Pfv utbil, based on uebbal ubil, and another t2-stem seemingly derived from wa to go /come out but actually derived from ttu conflict, rivalry (see 14.6.2.2, p. 407) with an Impfv ute and a Pfv ut like ue u. Both verbs also have a tn-stem, presumably utenebbal utebbil and utene ute, but there is of course no proof of the gemination. Old and Standard Babylonian show the corresponding forms of exactly the same two verbs: the t2 forms utabbal utbil, based on uabbal ubil from wablu t2 to bring together, mix, consider, discuss, and ute ut from ttu quarrel, and the tn-stems utanabbal utabbil and utene ute. Here, too, however, explicit spellings of the geminate of the perfectives seem to be lacking.37 Other forms than imperfective and perfective are very rare and offer no additional information. 4. The N-stem N-stems of I/w verbs are rare. Old Babylonian has a few regular forms with -nw- becoming -ww-, although the geminate is never written explicitly: Impfv i-wa-a-bu /iwwaabu/ SLB 1, 55:4 it will be added (Subj) from wabu, i-wa-la-du /iwwalladu/ CT 8, 25a:18 he will be born (Subj), and Pfv i-wa-al-du /iwwaldu/ UM 5, 100: II 23 he was born (Subj) from waldu.38 Wablu, however, forms regular passive N forms from the secondary suffix base babVl: Impfv ibbabbal, Pfv ibbabil, etc. Relevant Old Assyrian forms are not known to me. In Standard Babylonian, the loss of word-initial w has led to various procedures to create a new N-stem: it was replaced by m, e.g., Pfv im-ma-al-du Ash. p. 83:35 they were born and t-Pf it-tam-la-du Nbn. 380:7, 9, or by a strong (see 17.4, pp. 520525), e.g., Impfv i-al-lad CT 30, 41b:16, t-Pf it-ta-lad JCS 31, 78:27, and Inf (construct state) na--lu-ud Izbu 133:2223. This may also be left unwritten, as in i-al-lad BWL 86:262 and ia-a-ab MSL 1, 19:45 from wabu. Among the adjectival I/w verbs, only warqu has a few Standard Babylonian N forms based on arqu with a strong : i-er-qu /ierqu/ AnSt. 10, 116:21 it ( pn face) became pale; li-r-qu /liarq/ IV R Add. 4a, 18 no. 5:5 may they become green (c. br.). It is remarkable that in spite of the loss of word-initial w the N-stem of the I/w verbs was never modelled on that of the I/voc verbs, i.e., with -nn- prefixed to the stem like Impfv innammar, Pfv innamir from amru to see: there is no **innallad, **innaab, or **innariq. This may be attributed to the marked difference between their imperfective forms: ubbal versus mmar (see 17.6.2, pp. 542546).
16.2.4. ThehistoricalbackgroundoftheI/wverbs
With regard to the historical background of the I/w paradigm, I will focus on two issues: the difference between Akkadian and West Semitic in the prefix vowel of the G-stem (u versus non-u) and the possible biradical background of the I/w verbs.39
36. It is unclear to me why GAG 103v and 106m and Verbalpar. 25 writes the tn imperfective with a long vowel after the t-infix: utnaa, utnebbe/al, etc., whereas the corresponding form of the I/voc verbs is correctly given as utanakkal and uteneppe (Verbalpar. 15 and 17). 37. A unique form worth considering is u-ta-na-ab-la-ak-ku-um AbB 13, 124: r.29 I will constantly send you instead of utanabbalakkum: is this a scribal error or simplification of the geminate in this long form? 38. An eccentric spelling is I-a-al-la-ad OBE 14: r.6 (OB) he will be born, apparently an early instance of later / iallad/. 39. Important diachronic literature on the I/w verbs includes Voigt 1988a: 16483; Testen 1994a; and Kienast 2001: 35257.
458
The I/w Verbs 16.2.
The paradigm of the fientive I/w verbs is firmly grounded in Proto-Semitic. First, many individual I/w verbs go back to Proto-Semitic, as is shown by numerous straightforward etymologies, e.g., for wablu to carry, bring, take (wbl), wa to go /come out (w ), waldu to give birth (wld ), wabu to sit down, settle (wb), wardu to descend (wrd ), war to lead (wr), waddu to love (wdd ), waq to wait (wq to guard, keep), and wamu to mark (cf. Ar wasama to brand and simah brand, mark). Second, most of the I/w paradigm is also inherited from Proto-Semitic. Table 16.2 shows the relevant forms of the G-stem in Akkadian and West Semitic, exemplified by Arabic (wajada to find), Hebrew (yab to sit down), and Geez (warada to descend. Akk Impfv Pfv/Juss Imp Stat/Perf ubbal ubil bil wabil Arabic yajidu yajid jid wajada Hebrew yeeb (way)yeeb eb yab Geez ywarrd yrad rad warada
table 16.2: selected forms of i/w verbs in Akkadian, Arabic, Hebrew, and geez.
Evidence from Eblaite shows that the Akkadian forms go back to the common East Semitic stage. Eblaite has a I/w verb waznum to weigh (wa-za-nu-um/nm [gi.ma ] (Krebernik 1983: 16; Fronzaroli 1984: 152), cognate with Ar wazana, yazinu, of which a few conjugated forms are attested that perfectly agree with the corresponding Akkadian forms:40 Impfv u9-za-an /yuzzan/ ARET 13, 15: r.IV 8 he weighs and du-za-an /tuzzan/ ARET 13, 15: r.IV 18 you weigh t-Pf (or Gt Pfv?) ni-da-za-an /nittazan/ ARET 13, 9: r.VI 19 we have weighed Imp zi-in /zin/ ARET 13, 15: r.V 4 weigh! Stat wa-zi-in /wazin/ ARET 13, 15: r.III 1 he has weighed (?) Ignoring the prefix vowel for the moment, we may reconstruct for Proto-Semitic an imperfective *yVbilu, a perfective *yVbil, an imperative *bil and a suffix base *wabVl- (see also Aro 1964: 17374; Testen 1994a), which are preserved as such in Arabic. The other languages have introduced one or more innovations. Akkadian has replaced *yVbilu with the originally pluractional form *yubbal parallel to *iparrVs in the strong verb (see chap. 4); yubbal is derived from the original Impfv *yubil(u) by inserting gemination and copying the fixed stem vowel a of *yiqattalu.41 Parallel tobut independent ofAkkadian, Geez has renewed its original imperfective by means of the former D-stem (*yuwarridu), also adopting the model of the strong
40. The situation in Eblaite is complicated, however, by the occurrence of the verb forms da-bl alongside du-bl and da-zi beside du-zi in proper names, which are generally interpreted as coming form wablu and wa (Krebernik 1988b: 3839, 5960; Pagan 1998: 18687). There is also a verb form da-za-a, allegedly standing for /taa/ (2p Impfv of wa) the two of them will go out(?) (Fronzaroli 1984: 139), but this is very uncertain. 41. The form *yubbal cannot be explained from a strong form *yVwabbal, because there is no evidence that -Vwa- is ever contracted in early Akkadian and because, if it were contracted, it would have a long prefix vowel, just as the I/voc verbs (see 17.6.2, pp. 542546), which is very implausible, as I argued in 16.2.2 (pp. 450451).
16.2. The I/w Verbs
459
verb (see 4.6.1, pp. 118121).42 In the suffix forms, Hebrew has a perfect yab as a result of the North West Semitic sound change w > y in word-initial position (Faber 1997: 910). The main problem concerns the nature of the prefix vowel in East Semitic versus Central Semiticu versus a/i, which is best preserved in Arabic yajid(u).43 The Hebrew prefix forms have undergone the regular development *yaib > *yiib > yeeb (Bauer and Leander 1922: 37879; Huehnergard 2005c: 470). Which of the two options, u or a/i, should be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic is a matter of speculation, but there are two reasons why u might be more original than a/i. First, on the basis of the hierarchy in the paradigm of the fientive verbs, it is plausible that w(a)- of the suffix base is determined by the presence of u in the prefixes. Second, since the basic stem does not normally have a prefix vowel u, it is more likely that Arabic has discarded it through a process of leveling than that Akkadian should have introduced it instead of the regular a/i.44 Consequently, I posit for Proto-Semitic the existence of a weak conjugation of verbs with an Impfv *yubilu, a Pfv *yubil, an Imp *bil, and a suffix base *wabVl, alongside the strong verb *yiprVs(u) and perhaps other types. The form of this conjugation brings us to the second issue, the biradical background of the I/w verbs. The I/w verbs are often portrayed as a prime example of a verb class going back to biradical roots that have adopted w as a secondary accretion to adapt to the standard triradical pattern.45 However, the evidence for this view is equivocal. The dependency relationships in the strong paradigm suggest that the suffix base is derived from the prefix base: *yubil(u) wabVl just as *yiprVs(u) parVs. This raises the question of the status of u in *yubil(u) versus that of w in wabVl. On the one hand, it is possible that w is not an independent radical but the consonantal realization of u before a (ua- > wa-), generated by u on the model of the strong verb. The Old Assyrian denominal verb wazzunum to listen carefully (see 11.4, p. 278) derived from uznu ear shows that u- can serve as the basis of a secondary radical w. If this is correct, we must assume a weak triradical root ubl, if we accept u as a vocalic radical (see 2.3.3, pp. 4042), or a biradical root, if we do not do so. An advantage of this explanation is that if w is not an original part of the root, the I/w verbs with a labial as R2 (such as wablu and wapu) or R3 (such as wabu and wapu) no longer violate the incompatibility rules that apply to R1 and R2 and to R1 and R3 (see 2.3.3, pp. 4344). We might also start from a real biradical root bl and regard u as part of the prefix, but this raises the question why these particular verbs have personal prefixes with u. Moreover, there is no solid evidence for biradicality in the verbal paradigm of the I/w verbs. As I argued in 16.2.2 (p. 453), the monosyllabic imperative does not provide such evidence: the forms without w can
42. In the Geez jussive and imperative we would expect **yrd and **rd, and some verbs do indeed show such forms. It is not clear where a comes from (see Testen 1994a: 42728). Many I/w verbs (also) have strong jussive and imperative forms, e.g., ywgr and wgr from wagara to throw (alongside ygar and gar/gr) (Tropper 2002: 11415). 43. First-person singular forms with a, such as abl KTU 2 1.82:33 I carried/will carry and ard KTU 2 1.5: VI 25 I will descend suggest that the Ugaritic forms correspond to the Arabic forms; see Tropper 2000: 63235. 44. This is also Testens conclusion (1994a: 43334), but on the basis of a different argument. Huehnergard (1987b: 193) takes the Arabic forms as original and explains u in yubil by analogy with the imperfective, which he reconstructs as *yawabbal, on which see n. 41 above. Kienast (1963: 14546, 2001: 35455) derives the u prefixes from those in the -stem, which was refuted by Aro (1964: 173 n. 2) with good reason. Sasse (1980: 17071) adduces the biradical Arabic form yazinu as a parallel to Cushitic prefix-conjugated verbs of the structure CvC, with two different forms: a present *y-a-qal and a preterite *y-u/i-qu/il. 45. Such a process is indeed attested in the historical period for Arabic verbs derived from biconsonantal nouns, but only incidentally (see Fischer 1993: 4041).
460
The I/w Verbs 16.2.
be explained according to the regular rule of imperative formation (tubil bil). Therefore, although seemingly biradical, they do not necessarily point to a biradical origin (Voigt 1988a: 16667).46 More plausible testimony is found outside the verbal paradigm, namely in the deverbal nouns of I/w verbs without initial w, which are the equivalent of PiRS and PuRS nouns in the strong verb: littu offspring from waldu, tu exit, going away from wa (see n. 49), ibtu interest from waabu, iptu incantation from wapu, pitu insult from wapu, simtu what is fitting, ornament from wasmu,47 and ubtu domicile from wabu.48 The fact that they are all feminine testifies to a tendency to boost their form and perhaps to adapt them to the triradical standard.49 Another way this is accomplished is by adding the suffix -n-, as in lidnu young (of an animal) from waldu and simnu proper time, season from wasmu, or to reduplicate the root, hence lillidu offspring (< *lid-lid-um) from waldu and mmtu oath (< *mamitum) from wamum. Regular deverbal nouns also occur, such as biblu that which is brought (for *wiblum) from wablu, wildu offspring from waldu, and wusmu attribute, ornament from wasmu. They represent a later layer of forms. The nouns without w cannot easily be explained as secondary developments from regular deverbal patterns such as PiRiSt or PuRuSt:50 there is no rule that would account for the loss of the first syllable in forms such as *wuubtum or *witim (cf. the PiRiSt form ilittu offspring, birth < *wilidtum) and the Neo-Babylonian PuRuSt form uubtu ambush < *wuubtum (ABL 520: 18 acc. to CAD Q 149b s.v. qatu 1d2). Cognate forms in other Semitic languages show that the deverbal nouns without w- go back to Proto-Semitic. It is likely that they form a closed set and thus represent a type of derivation that is no longer productive in the historical languages. It is not easy to establish their background, but they are clearly easier to explain on the basis of a root without w than from a triradical I/w root.51 Another point is that w interchanges with other radicals that are also under suspicion of being secondary: n, y, and t. Interchange of w and n as R1 is found in West Semitic (Nldeke 1910; Kuryowicz 1972: 8), e.g., Ar naara and waara to saw (cf. Akk aru saw < *arru)
46. Voigt (1988a: 16667) assumes a phonological reduction of w in the imperative: uulid > lid, which seems less likely, since it is not backed by parallels from other kinds of words (see Testen 1994a: 428). 47. Note that simtu is the only noun of this type that is derived from an adjectival I/w verb, although the lack of reliable prefix forms makes it somewhat uncertain whether wasmu belongs to the group of watru. 48. Some additional instances are derived from verbs that have become obsolete. (1) ittu sleep and perhaps uttu dream come from a verb *wanum to sleep attested in West Semitic (Arabic wasina, etc.); see Kuryowicz 1972: 99 (although Krebernik (2006: 9394) proposes a different etymology for uttu). (2) imtu mark, paint comes from wamum to mark(?) (according to Ratcliffe 2001: 160 n. 7, this verb is ultimately derived from umu name). (3) ztu/zutu sweat < *utum is related to Ar waaa to flow; cf. Syriac dut sweat (but He z , yeza presupposes *itum), etc.; see DRS I 507a, all from a root w. (4) Perhaps the difficult word datu, di(a)tu knowledge(?) is related to the root wd to know in spite of the inexplicable . (5) Ddu love may be related to waddu to love, but this is not a PiRS or PuRS form, of course. 49. Forms without -t survive in lidu or ldu instead of littu and in the construct state in ami the rise of the sun, the East (AHw 1096a s.v.), a rare (mainly OB) variant of t ami (AHw 1106b s.v. tu B). It remains to be ascertained whether the form *ium is also preserved in the Eblaite phrase z Ka, which Gelb (1981: 17, 42) argues stands for i p(ka) the utterance of (your) mouth. The evidence for a putative daum knowledge in Ebla PNs (Gelb 1981: 42; 1987: 69) is too shaky to be included here. 50. Pace Voigt 1988a: 168. 51. Ratcliffe (2001: 15355) points to the development of new I/w verbs in Moroccan Arabic from original I/ verbs: these verbs have lost their but have supplemented the root with an initial w; can the original I/w verbs have arisen in a similar way?
16.2. The I/w Verbs
461
and others quoted in chap. 12 n. 114 (p. 318). I am not aware of any w/n alternation of this kind in Akkadian.52 (For [inner-Akkadian] interchange of w and y, see the end of this section; for w and t, mainly in Arabic and Akkadian, see Wright 1967: I 81; Kuryowicz 1972: 8 n. 5 and the previous section.) In this respect, there is a difference between the I/w verbs and the I/n verbs. As argued in 12.6.1 (pp. 317319), in at least part of the I/n verbs, n originates as a verbalizing prefix ultimately deriving from an auxiliary that is used to adapt biconsonantal elements to the triradical paradigm. There is no serious evidence that w of the I/w verbs might have the same background.53 Interchange of w and n as R1 can more plausibly be attributed to a shift from one type of verb to another via a form that is common to both types, for instance, via the imperative (Voigt 1988a: 16668), which is biradical both in I/w verbs and at least in some I/n verbs (Ass din, He ten, etc.). Huehnergard (2005c) has suggested that in Hebrew w may assimilate to R2 if R2 is a dental, which creates a bridge between I/w and I/n verbs. It is this kind of process that also lies at the basis of the interchange of w with t referred to above. On the other hand, it is also possible that u in *yubil(u) is a realization of the radical w in this specific environment and that in wabVl this w resurfaces in its primary shape (see Testen 1994a: 43334). This implies a triradical root wbl and explains why these particular verbs have u in the personal prefixes. It remains unclear, however, why these prefixes lack the vowel that they have elsewhere, in other words, why we find *y-ubil(u) rather than **ya-wbil(u).54 It also becomes more difficult to find a satisfactory explanation for the deverbal nouns of the biltu type. All in all, the evidence for the view that the I/w verbs are originally biradical is indecisive. The most we can say is that a biradical stage preceding the historical situation cannot be ruled out but that it can only apply to an earlier period than Proto-Semitic (cf. Ehret 1989). This makes it more likely that the alleged biradical forms attested in the historical Semitic languages are secondary forms that owe their existence to some special process of derivation. With regard to the adjectival I/w verbs, they are solidly triradical, not only in Akkadian but also in Semitic at large. The three most common verbs among them go back to Proto-Semitic roots: waqru (wqr), warqu (wrq), and watru (wtr). A final issue regarding the root of the I/w verbs, which concerns Old Assyrian in particular, is the occurrence of occasional deverbal forms that presuppose y instead of w (GKT 26d). First of all, the PaRaSt form iabtum addition (cf. wabu to add) may go back to *yaabtum, and itartum, a by-form of itertum extra amount (cf. watru to exceed, surpass) to *yatartum,55 just as the PaRuSt form iurtum (a kind of document; see Veenhof 1995) may come from *yaurtum,
52. However, there are at least two West Semitic I/w verbs that occur in Akkadian as II/ verbs. Zaborski (1991: 1677) mentions ESA wkn to make solid, which corresponds to knu () to be(come) firm, true in Akkadian (and elsewhere), and Akk qdu () to put fire to versus Ar wqd and He yqd. Kuryowicz (1972: 8 n. 6) mentions similar alternations of I/w with II/voc roots in Hebrew, such as yb and yb to be good, ygr and gwr to be afraid. 53. Although some have posited a w-containing auxiliary to account for the personal prefixes with u in categories such as the apophonic passive (e.g., Ar yufalu - fuila) and the Arabic verbal stems with uprefixes, i.e., Stems II, III, and IV, see Hetzron 1973/74: 4447 and Zaborski 2007: 39. 54. A parallel of this phenomenon may perhaps be found in the residual Arabic verbal nouns of Stem VIII mentioned in 14.4.1 (p. 377), such as tujha facing, opposite. They have a short , although the corresponding strong nouns have ta-. In the Akkadian verbal nouns of this type (see chap. 14 nn. 148, 149, p. 399), the quantity of u cannot be established. See also chap. 2 n. 71 (p. 52) about Testens reconstruction of purely consonantal personal prefixes. 55. Itertum itself may either be an instance of a > e in the vicinity of r (GKT 13), but it may also come from a PiRiSt form *witirtum.
462
The I/*y Verbs 16.3.
from the original I/y verb eru to draw, inscribe (see 16.3.2, pp. 464465).56 Second, wabu also has a deverbal noun tub additional payment, which can hardly come from anything but *tayubum. Very similar is the common taPRiSt noun of wuuru, which is trtu in Babylonian but tirtum in Old Assyrian and must come from *tayirtum, since *tawirtum would become **tirtum in Old Assyrian; the contracted form of Babylonian is ambiguous.57 It is possible that the consistent use of in the -stem of fientive I/w verbs in Assyrian (see the previous section) is to be explained from a root variant with y instead of w (GAG 103s).58 Instances of the opposite variation (sporadic w-forms in I/y verbs) are also found, but only exceptionally: wad as by-form of id in Middle and Neo-Assyrian (see 16.3.3, p. 466) and perhaps the noun wniqum suckling, ass foal alongside the I/y verb enqu to suck (Veenhof 1972: 186).59 It seems likely that this alternation has a phonological backgroundfor instance, the fact that both iy and iw become and it may be typical of some more northern dialects; cf. the Northwest Semitic change of word-initial w to y.
16.3. the i/*y Verbs

Under the heading I/*y verbs I will discuss two different types of verbs which have the same background and/or share the same paradigm: the prefix forms of the adjectival I/w verbs (16.3.1) and the original I/*y verbs (16.3.2). Furthermore, it is convenient to include here the defective verbs id to know and i to have, although it is uncertain whether they are original I/*y verbs (16.3.3).
16.3.1. TheprefixformsoftheadjectivalI/wverbs
A small group of secondary I/y verbs consists of the prefix forms of the adjectival I/w verbs enumerated in 16.2.1 sub 3 (p. 449): waqru, warqu, watru, and wap. They follow the paradigm of the original I/y verbs as a consequence of the rule that -iw- before consonant becomes -- (Testen 1992), for instance, 3ms perfective yiwtir > ytir. Thus, they are conjugated as if their first radical is y and differ significantly from the fientive I/w verbs, not only in the vowel class (I/i versus I/a in the strong verbs of the latter) and the prefix vowel (i/a versus u) but also in the t-perfect (tatir in accordance with the I/voc verbs versus ittabal of the I/w verbs).60 Almost
56. For itertum, see Veenhof 1972: 1617; for iurtum, see GKT 11a and Veenhof 1995. The pattern PaRaSt is very unusual in Babylonian but somewhat more productive (though still rare) in Assyrian, e.g., Ass napatu life for Bab napitu, aatu requirement for Bab ietu, and abartu block (< broken piece) (MA) for ibirtu. The variants erqum for warqum/urqum green and erdum for wardum/urdum slave can best be explained from the influence of r on a: warqum > werqum > erqum; see GKT 13d and 26a. 57. An isolated case in Babylonian (Susa) is ttu rent (AHw 1352a s.v. ttum II), cf. wa to rent (AHw 1479b s.v. 11). Note also Mari Old Akkadian da-ir-timx ARM 19, 103:4: also from this word? 58. A Babylonian trace of this may be preserved in bultu consignment, shipment, if it is from *aybultum (Whiting 1987: 11617), a deverbal noun of the -stem of wablu to bring, carry; see 13.2.1 (p. 325) 59. A parallel from Ebla is *warum instead of eru (I/y), if the Eblaite gloss wa-zi-lu-um (= baa r, b a ar2) VE 1012 indeed stands for /wirum/ potter, as argued by Krebernik 1983: 36 and Fronzaroli 1984: 15253. 60. This claim is based on the parallel with the I/voc verbs. None of the attested t-perfect forms nor any relevant Gt or Gtn form show a geminate t, as far as I am aware, but because of the small number of forms, this is not decisive.
16.3. The I/*y Verbs
463
all attested forms are third persons, and there are no imperatives. See Table 16.1 right column (p. 450) for their conjugation; a selection of noteworthy instances is:61 Old Babylonian: Impfv i-iq-q-ir AbB 1, 96:14, i-te-ra-am Kisurra 159:26 (+ Vent), i-ti-ru ARM 26/1, 205 no. 62:35 (Subj);62 Pfv tir (ter) passim, i-ri-q Gilg. p. 178:165 (3mp) Middle Babylonian: t-Pf i-ta-ti-ir VAB 2, 11: r.20; note also the Gtn Impfv i-ta-nar-ri-q/qu Syria 33, 124:13 (MB) and TDP 158:12 (SB) Standard Babylonian: Impfv iq-qir SAA 8, 82:4, ir-ri-iq Glass p. 47:46; 2fs ta-at-ti-ri UFBG 538:11; Pfv i-qir Sg. 8:84; Prec 1s lu-qir LKA 29k: r.15, 3mp li-ri-qu Maql III 103; t-Pf i-te-q-ru SAA 8, 461: r.5 it has/they have become scarce (Subj: for /teq(i)r/ acc. to GAG 12b Anm., or Gtn Pfv?), i-te-er-qu Glass p. 47:47 (Subj); i-ta-at-ra Atr. p. 108:39 (3fp). The 3fs Pfv te-qir-u Asb. A IV 57 it became precious (Subj) from a Neo-Assyrian royal inscription is an Assyrianism in a Standard Babylonian text Old Assyrian: Impfv i-t-ir TC 2, 11:12; Pfv i-t-ir CCT 4, 23a:7; t-Pf i-t-t-ir TC 2, 9:16 it (has) exceeded (/titir/ < tatir) Neo-Assyrian: t-Pf e-ta-at-ra SAA 10, 41:17 (3ms + Vent) The Babylonian forms do not differ from those of the I/voc verbs, which will be discussed in 17.6.2 (pp. 542546), including the use of IPW (cf. i-iq-q-ir ) in the imperfective, suggesting that at least in Old Babylonian it has a long prefix vowel, unlike the fientive I/w verbs, as I argued in 16.2.2 (pp. 450451). If the I/*y conjugation of these verbs is indeed based on the fact that in the third person *yiwbecame y- (and later -), we expect in the second person *taw- > t-, but we only have the 2fs Impfv tattir and the assyrianized 3fs Pfv tqiru. The former shows that, if the second person prefix was indeed tu-, it has adopted ta- from the regular i/a pattern by analogy with the third person, which is not surprising in the light of the rare occurrence of non-third person forms of these verbs (Kogan 2004: 34445).63 If the late form tqiru is genuine, it may reflect an original *tayqir parallel to qir (i.e., iyqir), but it may also have a different background. The change w > y in the adjectival I/w verbs would be even more plausible if we could prove that these verbs originally had a yiqtal conjugation with the prefix vowel i in all persons and a in the stem in accordance with the Barth-Ginsberg Law: *yiwtar, etc. > *ytar (cf. Testen 1992 with Kogans [2004] comments). This law stipulates that in the prefix conjugation(s) of the basic stem the vowel of the prefix varies with the stem vowel: yaqtul and yaqtil versus yiqtal. It is operative in Hebrew and Ugaritic, and vestigial remains of it are preserved in Arabic.64 It is a matter of debate whether it applies to Akkadian or even Proto-Semitic as well.65 However, the
61. All forms are third-person (masculine) unless indicated otherwise. I have omitted the few attested forms of wap, already quoted in n. 12 (p. 449); they do not add anything noteworthy. 62. An exceptional strong imperfective is attested in Susa Old Babylonian: i-wa-ti-ir MDP 24, 355:24. 63. I have not included the problematic form ta--p-a AKI p. 370:7 in a royal inscription of Ibbi-Lim of Ebla, dated by Gelb (1984a: 215) to the end of the dark period between the time of Ibb-Sin of Ur and the Lm Dynasty at Mari; it is alleged to be a 3fs perfective + ventive of wap: she became visible. The preservation of the diphthong aw in /tawpia(m)/ would be totally un-Akkadian. 64. See for Hebrew, Joon and Muraoka 1991: 12829; for Ugaritic, Tropper 2000: 44754; and for a general account, Kuryowicz 1972: 4748; Knudsen 1986: 72526; Testen 1992, 1994a: 43031; Hasselbach 2004: 2627; and Huehnergard 2005b: 180181. 65. This is claimed by Barth himself (1894b: 5) and Testen (1992, 1994a: 43031). On the other hand, Lipiski (1997: 368), Hasselbach (2004: 29), and Huehnergard (2005b: 18081) regard it as a Central Semitic innovation.
464
Akkadian defective verb id has the stem vowel a (or had it originally) and the prefix vowel i in all persons (see 16.3.3, pp. 465467). This looks like a canonical instance of the Barth-Ginsberg Law. In any case, the important thing is that at least one yiqtal form existed in Akkadian, which means that other verbs may have had the same pattern. Since in adjectival verbs the root vowel i is strongly predominant (see 3.3.2, pp. 5860), it is possible that the I/w verbs originally had yiqtal but became yiqtil through the pressure of the majority of adjectival verbs, but this is a matter of speculation.66 A noteworthy peculiarity of the prefix conjugations of the adjectival I/w verbs is that in Old and Middle Babylonian they only rarely show E-colouring, although other verbs of the I/i class with r in the root normally switch to the E-paradigm. In these verbs, this process seems to be blocked by the presence of a in the corresponding adjective (see 17.5.1, p. 529). In Standard Babylonian, however, E-forms start to appear as well; cf. terqu and teqir mentioned above. In Old Assyrian, the adjectival I/w verbs share the peculiarity of the original I/*y verbs that they have i- as the third-person prefix (see also below), whereas the I/voc verbs normally show e-. Later on, the prefix i- was replaced by e-, as in the Neo-Assyrian t-perfect quoted above. In the derived verbal stemsinsofar as they are attestedthe adjectival I/w verbs do not differ from the fientive I/w verbs and thus fall under the discussion of 16.2.3 (pp. 454457). However, since they seem to have a single t in the t-perfect (tatir, etc.; see above, versus ittabal), they presumably also have a single t in the t- and tan-stems. The only relevant form attested, thoughthe Gtn Impfv i-ta-nar-ri-q/qu quoted aboveis ambiguous.
16.3.2. TheoriginalI/*yverbs
A small group of weak verbs go back to roots with y as R1: enqu to suck (ynq, see SED 1, 336), esku to assign (ysk), eru to be(come) straight (yr), eru to draw (Ug/He yr), and perhaps eg to be negligent (cf. the Hebrew Impfv yga, but wagia in Arabic, pointing to wg; see CDG 611 s.v. waka).67 In Babylonian, these verbs have almost completely adopted the paradigm of the I/e verbs (GAG 103e; see 17.5.1, pp. 525529). This is particularly clear in the non-prefix forms, such as the infinitive and the stative, which normally start with e-, although we would expect i- < *ya-. Only one form has survived this restructuringthe stative/adjective iar (um), for which see below. In Old Assyrian, only eru and eru are attested, and they behave differently. The former consistently shows i- as third-person prefix (GKT 93a); cf. Impfv 3fp i--ra / ir/ BIN 4, 36:17 things will become all right and t-Pf 3ms i-ta--ra-am / taram/ OAA 1, 107:16 it has become normal for me. This is parallel to the prefix forms of watru mentioned in the previous section. The form eru, on the other hand, follows the conjugation of the I/e verbs, as can be inferred from the third-person prefix e-, e.g., Impfv 3mp e--ru Prag I 439:22 they will fix and Pfv 3ms e--ra-ni CCT 1, 37b:3 he established for me (Subj).68 The only trace of its original
66. This is actually attested for salmu to be(come) friendly and almu to be(come) well, sound, which show early instances of Pfv islam and ilam instead of normal islim and ilim; see chap. 3 nn. 31, 34 (p. 60). 67. Cf. also Aro 1964: 17475; Kogan 2004: esp. p. 346 n. 8; Huehnergard 2005c: 459 n. 8; GAG 3 103ee*; and AHw p. 411, where additional instances are listed that are too uncertain to include. For id to know and i to have, see the next section. 68. For the meaning(s) of eru in Old Assyrian and the translations chosen here, see Veenhof 1995: 33031; for the vowel class (I/i and A?/u), see chap. 3 n. 119 (p. 80).
465
y is the deverbal noun iurtum < *yaurtum (see 16.2.4, pp. 461462).69 The fact that eru preserves its original conjugation better than eru can be ascribed to its more adjectival character, which causes a closer association with the adjectival I/w verbs, such as watru, whereas eru is more closely associated with the fientive I/e verbs. In later Assyrian, prefixes with i- are no longer attested, so there is no difference between the I/*y verbs and the I/voc verbs (W. Mayer 1971: 67 n. 2). However, in all dialects, the common stative/adjective iar(um) just, normal, prosperous from eru preserves its original idiosyncratic shape.70 It occurs already as 3ms Stat (y)iar in third-millennium proper names such as A-b-i-sar My father is just and I-sar-be-l My lord is just, with the abbreviated form i-sa/ sar-rum (see MAD 3, 7879). The consistent use of i rather than (ni) points to a word-initial y: yaar > yiar, later iar (see GAG3 22cc*). The derived stems of the I/*y verbs have completely adopted the paradigm of the I/voc verbs (see 17.6.3, pp. 546554).71
16.3.3. Theverbsidtoknowanditohave
The verbs id to know (Bab usually ed, OA idum) and i to have take a special position, since they have only one prefix conjugation and a stative meaning. However, whereas the formal background of id is fairly transparent, that of i remains obscure. I will first discuss id. Its conjugation is shown in Table 16.3 (p. 466; see also GAG 106q).72 Formally, the prefix conjugation is a perfective like iprVs, but the prefix vowel is always : Proto-Akkadian *da, *tda, etc. This form appears in Sargonic Akkadian forms such as 3ms i-da SAB p. 132:25 (Umma) and 2ms (l) ti-da SAB p. 91:41 (Girsu), in which there is no E-colouring and (or a reflex of it) may still be present (see 17.8.2, pp. 573576). It is also the direct source of the Old Assyrian finite forms (see GKT 97d) and the Babylonian forms, but the latter follow the regular vowel contraction rules of Babylonian (GAG 16): 2fs td < tde, 3mp td < *tde. The length of the prefix vowel can be established from numerous plene spellings and from the fact that in Old Assyrian a short prefix vowel would lead to vowel syncope, e.g., 2p **tid instead of tde(). Two non-finite forms of id are attested. There is an Inf idum < *yadum in Old Assyrian (see GKT 97d; also i-da--ma / idum(ma)/ CCT 6, 14: LE 4), in which the infinitive marker is insensible to E-colouring, as it always is in III/voc verbs (see 17.8.3, p. 579). Babylonian has
69. However, there is also a third-person form with i-: i--ra-ku-ni OAA 1, 13:8 he has destined for you (Subj). It may be a more archaic form, but it can also be an instance of the occasional replacement of with that is also found in I/voc verbs with an original guttural as R1 (see GKT 17d, 89a). 70. It is possible that Old Assyrian also preserves the corresponding infinitive in the paronomastic construction i-a-ru-um T--ir BIN 4, 126:1920 she goes straight at (incantation), see GKT 93a. It cannot be ruled out, however, that this form represents the adjective irum. For the use of the adjective instead of the infinitive of an adjectival verb in the paronomastic infinitive construction, see chap. 8 n. 8 (p. 195). 71. This requires little further comment. However, eru is noteworthy for its Pfv and PrPartc with in Sargonic Akkadian and literary Old Babylonian: uir and muir (c. st.) quoted in 17.6.3.3 (p. 548). This may simply be analogy with the I/w verbs, but it is also possible that it reflects a root variant wr alongside yr, like I/w verbs may have a root variant with y (see the end of 16.2.4, pp. 461462). Moreover, in Ebla a form u-a-na-ga ARET 13, 14: VII 1 occurs, which Fronzaroli (comment on line cited) interprets as a Impfv /yuyannaq/ from (Akk) enqu to suckle, with y still intact. This form would be equivalent to a D-stem (uparras) in Akkadian, where the corresponding form appears as uenneq (Bab), uennaq (Ass). 72. The term prefixed stative for the conjugation of this verb and its congener i to have, e.g., in GAG 78b, may be semantically (and synchronically) justified (see presently), but is generally rather confusing and can better be avoided.
466 PAkk 3ms 3fs 2ms 2fs 1s 3mp 3fp 2p 1p Inf Partc mdaum?? *yda *tda *tda *tda *()da *yda *yda *tda *nda tde() nd idum ti-da /tda()/ SAk i-da /yda()/ OA d td td *tde() d de() OB d
td td d d tde nd e/idm
mde()um mdm
table 16.3: the conjugation of id to know.
the contracted form id, which is usually replaced by ed by analogy with the I/e verbs. There is also a participle, Ass mde()um (e.g., l mu-de8--tim AKT 2, 26:8) ignorant people and Bab md, with the pattern muPRaS (GAG 106q).73 However, in Sargonic Akkadian, we find the phrase me-da-a -wa-tim SAB p. 167:12 (Diyala), which is interpreted by the editors and by Hasselbach (2005: 223) as a Nom Du participle /mda hawtim/ two people who know the case, with mda < *mayda. This should await further confirmation, because the pattern maPRvS seems to be exclusively used for deverbal nouns, not for participles (cf. GAG 56bd). It is not impossible that me.da is an ideogram (cf. Krebernik 1991b: 13940). Finally, the (secondary?) Middle and Neo-Assyrian verb *udu to know, apparently from *wadum, a form that has left no traces in Old Assyrian, should be mentioned. It has an Impfv udd, corresponding to d in other dialects, including Old Assyrian (see W. Mayer 1971: 90).74 The forms attested in Akkadian provide conflicting evidence with regard to the original first radical. The finite forms *da, *tda can come from both *iwda, *tiwda and *iyda, *tiyda.75 The Inf idum and the PrPartc mdaum (if interpreted correctly) point to yd, but the PrPartc mde()um/md can best be derived from *muwdaum. Perhaps we may assume that the original root is wd and that R1 was reinterpreted as y on the basis of the prefix forms *da, tda, etc., which gave rise to the apparent I/*y forms idum and mdaum (Testen 2000: 8485; Kogan 2004: 347).
73. Troppers claim that this form is originally a Gt present participle (1997a: 199200) is implausible and unnecessary. Id and i do not have such a participle, since they are not action verbs (see 8.4.1, p. 206). 74. W. Mayers presentation suggests that he assumes an Impfv udd alongside a Pfv d. However, the two forms occur in different kinds of texts: udd in administrative texts and letters, d in the Middle Assyrian laws. This makes it plausible that udd is the contemporary Middle Assyrian form and that d is either archaic or borrowed from Babylonian. This is confirmed by the use of d (but not udd) in Middle Assyrian proper names (Saporetti 1970: II 124): this may also be archaizing or Babylonian influence (which is common in Middle Assyrian names in general). 75. For this process, cf. iw > in Arabic; cf. Fleisch 1961: 12223; Fischer 1972: 20; Kuryowicz 1972: 38; Tropper (2000: 632) assumes the same development for Ugaritic.
467
From a historical point of view, the most remarkable feature of id is that its conjugation, with the prefix vowel i in all persons and the root vowel a, offers strong evidence for the existence of the Barth-Ginsberg Law in Akkadian (see also 16.3.1, pp. 463464), as argued by Testen (2000). Both features are difficult to explain as secondary developments. This suggests that prehistoric Akkadian had a class of verbs with i as prefix vowel in all personsperhaps typically those verbs that also had the root vowel a, i.e., yiqtal verbsalongside verbs that had the regular set of prefixes with interchange of a and i but that in a later stage the yiqtal verbs adopted the regular set, except for id andperhapsi. The verb i to have (GAG 106r) is parallel to id but far more problematic, since we have no reliable etymology to start from.76 The fact that it has i in all personal prefixes suggests that it is a yiqtal form as well, which is in line with its stative meaning. If so, it must go back to a prefix form *yaw, *taw, etc., from a III/ root Y or W, which regularly becomes , t, etc.77 However, the contracted forms of Babylonian give us no information whatsoever about the background of its conjugation. The Old Assyrian forms, though presumably not contracted as a rule, are spelled in an ambiguous way. Table 16.4 (p. 468) gives my reconstruction of i as based on a root y/w, but with many reservations.78 Note that only finite indicative forms are attested; all remaining forms are apparently suppleted by ra to acquire, when needed.79 For the Old Assyrian forms with an ending starting with -u, a typical spelling is, for instance, the 3mp Subj (a) i-u--ni Prag I 679:14 which they have. It may represent uwni, uni, or ni, apart from several other theoretical possibilities which can be ruled out for structural reasons.80 In this kind of verb, the contracted form ni is likely to be the regular form (see 16.7.2.3 below, p. 502). However, the corresponding simple spelling (a) i-u-ni does not seem to be attested, which points to either uwni or uni. So the evidence concerning the precise interpretation of this form is conflicting. If the ending starts with a, we find spellings with both a and wa (e.g., 2p t-u-a CCT 5,
76. Testens proposal (2000: 8588) to derive i from the same root as na to lift, carry cannot be right for three reasons. First, na is an original III/ verb of the I/i class; the original form of i is unclear, but it is certainly not I/i and the third radical is unlikely to be . Second, i has a long prefix vowel, which Testen ignores. Third, the form ii used by Testen (rather ) is late and doubtless secondary (see n. 77 below). I will not attempt to solve the intricate problem of the existential adjective la (OA lauum or lauwum) not present, not available (CAD L 10810 s.v. lau), which may in some way be related to iif this originally meant to be (see n. 78 below)and has a possible cognate in Arabic laysa not to be; see Fleisch 1979: 4079; Testen 2000: 86 n. 14; Gensler 2000: 235, 25152; Rubin 2005: 46. Any relationship between i and the existential particle y in Hebrew, corresponding to tay in Aramaic, is problematic, since i is spelled with su in Sargonic Akkadian, pointing to PSem * rather than *, pace AHw 402b s.v. i IV and Rubin 2005: 4546, 61, see especially Gensler 2000: 23436. 77. In Standard Babylonian, a secondary form with -i appears: , t, etc., as in so many III/ verbs (see 3.5.3, pp. 7879). 78. The fact that R3 is w is confirmed by the Eblaite Inf i-a-wu /yiwu(m)/ (see Krebernik 1983: 24), although its glosses (a . g l and a n . g l) suggest a meaning to be rather than to have, and although it shows the wrong sibilant: a is normally used for // in Ebla, but the numerous Sargonic Akkadian forms of this verb write i-su, etc., which excludes //. However, the two lexical attestations come from the lexical source D (VE 624 and 789), which according to Conti (1990: 1014) shows many deviant spellings of the sibilants. 79. So CAD I/J 29293 s.v. i comm. section. Cf., however, l ti-i-i BWL 104:137 (SB) keep (it) ready! The association between i to have and ra to get is purely functional: they are not wurzelverwandt (pace GAG 106r), since ra is a III/ or perhaps a III/ verb. 80. For instance, forms that imply that the first of the two u vowels is long.
468 PAkk 3ms 3fs 2ms 2fs 1s 3du 3mp 3fp 2p 1p Inf *ysaw *tsaw *tsaw *tsaw *()saw *ysaw *ysaw *ysaw *tsaw *nsaw *yaswum ni-su ti-su /ts/ SAk 81 i-su /ys/ OA t t *tu( ) (-u?)
w
The I/*y Verbs 16.3. OB 82 t t t n im

w
u(w) (-u ?) u, u , i? u( ) (-u ?)

w
tu( ) (-u ?)
w
n -
table 16.4: the conjugation of i to have.
8a:7 you (Pl) have; 3ms i-u-wa-kum CCT 6, 10b:20 he has for you), presumably / tuw/ and / uwakkum/ with the regular labial glide after u. The verbs id and i are formally perfectives but indicate a state. This suggests that they are remnants of an earlier stage in which iprVs had the meaning of a resultative or a perfect. When this evolved into a past tense, these two verbs survived because of their high frequency and became stative verbs because of their prototypical resultative meaning: *da I have/had become acquainted with > I know/knew, *aw I have/had acquired > I have/had (Testen 2000: 8485).83 Their functional association with the stative is demonstrated by the fact that instead of a regular precative of the liprVs type they form their precative in the same way as the stative, i.e., by means of the particle l separate from the verb: l d may I/he know, l tde you should know, etc. (cf. GAG 81b)84 and also by the occasional occurrence of forms with a stative personal ending, e.g., i-da-ta AbB 6, 195:15 (OB) you know, and i-a-a-ku RIMA 2/I, 13:58 (SB) I have.85
81. See MAD 3, 72 and Hasselbach 2005: 223 for references. The 1p ns only occurs in proper names. In Pre-Sargonic texts from Mari, the form i-s MARI 5, 87 no. 31: III 4 he has is found. 82. Selected attestations are: 2fs ti-i-i AbB 1, 134:6; 3fp i-a-a AbB 1, 51:9; 3du i-a CT 8, 22a:4; 2p ti-a-a AbB 6, 118:14. 83. In many languages, the verbs for to have and to know (along with to be, to want, and a few othes) preserve an older type of conjugation which has been renewed in most other verbs (Haspelmath 1998: 46). The semantic development of id shows a striking similarity with that of the root *wid- in IndoEuropean, as pointed out by Testen (2000: 85 n. 11). The two main factors that contribute to this are a high frequency, which makes them resistant to replacement, and an atypical meaning (stative). 84. However, in Archaic Babylonian a 1s ld occurs: lu-de4-e Or. 40, 398:10 may I know. [The Old Assyrian form li-DU- KTH 16:19 quoted by Testen (2000: 82) as coming from id stands for /ltuw/ let them talk from atawwum]. 85. Other instances are 1s i-da-ku SAA 10, 109: r.5; 2ms (l) i-da-tu4 CT 22, 98:18; (l) i-da-a-t BIN 1, 9:19 (all NB); 3fs i-da-at OEC 6 pl. 36b:2 (SB) from id; 3fs i-a-at Sg. 8:20 (SB) it (Fem) has from i.
16.4. The I/n Verbs
469
16.4. the i/n Verbs

The paradigm of the I/n verbs (GAG 102 and Verbalpar. 2122) shows some noteworthy peculiarities. I will discuss the assimilation or non-assimilation of n to the following consonant (16.4.1), the absence of initial n- in the G imperative and in all derived forms starting with it(16.4.2), and the complex paradigm of n/tadnu to give (16.4.3). The biliteral background of many I/n verbs was already discussed in 12.6.1 (pp. 317319) and will not concern us here.
16.4.1. Theassimilationornon-assimilationofntothefollowingconsonant
The main cause of irregularity of the I/n verbs is the fact that n regularly assimilates to a following consonant, which is a pervasive phonological rule in Akkadian. This is a superficial rule, easily undone, especially in the verbal paradigm, where forms with n coexist with forms in which it is assimilated. This makes speakers aware that a geminate may actually stand for n plus consonant. In the core forms of the verbal paradigm, assimilation occurs in the perfective and the t-perfect of the G-stem, where n is immediately followed by R2 and the infix -t-, respectively: iur < *inur and ittaar < *intaar he (has) guarded (naru).86 The other G forms are not affected. In the derived stems, a sequence of n plus consonant occurs in the - and t-stems (except in the t2 imperfective) and in the N- and Ntn-stems, but here assimilation is often omitted for reasons of transparency (GAG 33f, 102c), e.g.:87 t-Pf N at-ta-an-sa-ak AbB 14, 205:12 (OB) I have been thrown out from nasku Imp N na-an--am OAA 1, 20:12 (OA) bring along!, and na-an-i AbB 1, 43:18 (OB) take along from na Ntn Impfv it-ta-na-an-pa-a YOS 10, 31: IX 53 (OB) it (the fire) will flare up continuously from napu to blow, kindle t2 Pfv u-ta-an--ir ARM 14, 84: r.9 (OB) it (the country) was on the alert from naru This also applies to the N forms of I/voc verbs with a secondarily inserted n, such as ittenpu from epu and ittanmar and nanmuru from amru, for which see 17.6.3.4 (pp. 552553). The preservation of n also illustrates the contrast between derived (motivated) categories, in which deviations from the norm are counterbalanced by the tendency to keep the forms regular and predictable, and basic categories, where phonological changes can occur more freely. The situation is complicated by a second tendency that operates the other way around, namely to dissimilate geminate consonants, especially when they are voiced (GAG3 32b with lit., especially Aro 1955: 3537). This often happens with the geminate of the imperfective: inandin beside inaddin he gives, inand beside inadd he puts down, etc. (passim) i-na-an-gu Gilg. p. 176:103 (OB) he was singing instead of inagg from nag in-na-am-bi-it YOS 8, 105:9 (OB) he will flee instead of innabbit from nbutu From a different category comes the imperative Sg Masc mu-un-da-u-nu-i-im AbB 10, 74:9 (OB) measure out to them! from maddu (normally mudda-). This kind of dissimilation is very
86. Non-assimilation (or dissimilation?) in the G perfective and t-perfect is extremely rare: li-in-di-nu[nim] ShA 1, 129 no. 59:21 (OB letter from Shemshara) let them give to me, and perhaps in-TI-NI RA 35, 42 no. 5:4 (OAk Mari), if it represents /indi/ he put down from nad. 87. Note that the two lexicalized -stems ussuku to remove, annul and ussuu to remove, transfer, the former presumably derived from nasku to throw (away), the latter from nasu to tear out, usually do show assimilation of n.
470
The I/n Verbs 16.4.
rare for voiceless geminates (GAG 32c); an example is gu-um-pu-u Or. 56, 247:36 (OB) it is massive (normally guppu). These two conflicting tendencies cause a great deal of fluctuation between assimilated and non-assimilated forms. They are of a different nature: the (re)appearance of the nasal in the and N forms mentioned above is a morphosyntactic process affecting both voiced and voiceless consonants that is aimed at maintaining transparency and therefore restricted to specific forms. The nasalization of the imperfective forms is basically a phonological process mainly affecting voiced consonants, which also occurs in unmotivated words with a voiced geminate, such as zubbu and zumbu fly and ubbu and umbu wheel (GAG 3 32b*).
16.4.2. Theelisionofword-initialn
The second peculiarity of the I/n verbs is the absence of initial n- in the G imperative and in all derived forms without prefixes of the Gt-stem and the Gtn-stem (Poebel 1939: 99101 n. 1; GAG 33b, 91c, and 102f; Diem 1982: 4849; Testen 1993b: 910). It is parallel to the absence of n- in the non-prefix forms of all Ntn-stems (see 14.7.5, pp. 425426). For the G imperative, cf. forms such as uur watch! from naru, ikis cut! from naksu, and idin give! (only Bab) from nadnu, where we might expect **nuur, **nikis, and **nidin. For the derived stems, see Table 16.5 with napu to kick, thrust as sample verb alongside the usual parsu: Gt strong Inf/ PPartc Stat Imp pitrusu (Ass pitarsu) pitrus pitrVs Gt I/n itpuu (Ass italu) itpu *itpa Gtn strong pitarrusu pitarrus pitarrVs Gtn I/n itappuu *itappu *itappa Ntn (all verbs) itaprusu itaprus itaprVs
table 16.5: elision of word-initial n- in the derived stems
A selection of examples is: Gt Imp i-a-ar RA 53, 35a:11 and AbB 6, 107:4 (OB) beware! (< *itar) from naru to guard (see 14.3.1.3, p. 364, for the meaning) Gt Imp it-i-id Bab. 4, 112:70 (SB) be attentive! from nadu Gt Inf i-it-ku-pu-um MSL 4, 121:18 // it-ku8-pu-um MSL 4, 117:6 (OB LL) to gore each other from nakpu Gt Inf ana i-ta-a-lim CCT 2, 34:20 (OA) for cash from nalu Gt to look at each other Gtn Stat i-ta-ad-du- YOS 10, 51: IV 16 (OB) they are situated (in various places) from nad Gtn Imp i-ta-as-suk CT 17, 6:9 (SB) scatter! from nasku Gtn Inf i-tap-pu-u CT 19, 19: III 44 (SB LL) to kick repeatedly from napu Not included in Table 16.56.5 are the very rare Dt(n) forms of I/n verbs, which also lack initial n-: Dt(n) Stat (dma) -ta-tu-u[k!] TuL 43: 1112 (OB) acc. to AHw 766a s.v. natku Dtn and GAG 3 102e* it has been sprinkled (with blood), i.e., /utattuk/ from natku to drop Dt(n) Inf (ana) -ta-az-zu-mi- AGH p. 94 K.3351:9 (SB) at his roaring, i.e., /utazzumu/ from nazmu to complain, roar (see GAG 102e)
16.4. The I/n Verbs
471
It is difficult to find a satisfactory explanation for these forms. In the G imperative, initial n may be absent, since it is also absent in the perfective, from which the imperative is (synchronically) derived (see 5.5, pp. 133134): just as taprus purus, we get taur uur, i.e., **ur (because **ur is impossible) and similarly takkis **kis, to which u or i is prefixed in order to adapt it to the strong paradigm ( purus, piqid ).88 The common explanation for these imperatives, that they are based on a vocalic sonant (uur < *ur ; see Testen 1993b: 910; Tropper 1998a: 13; and others), is unconvincing as long as there is no independent and conclusive evidence for the existence of such a phoneme. For the explanation of the derived forms, it is of crucial importance that this i- also appears in the corresponding forms of the I/w verbs (see 16.2.3 above, p. 454). Therefore, Kienast (2001: 356) claims that the I/w verbs have been influenced by the I/n verbs on this point. This does not solve the problem, since the absence of initial n- in the I/n forms is just as problematic as it is in the I/w verbs. However, the significance of this is that it demonstrates that i- does not result from a phonological change of an initial cluster *t-, based on a putative original form -ptarVs in the strong verb, as has been argued by Poebel (1939: 100 n. 1) and Testen (1993b: 910), because it is hardly conceivable that *wt- would give anything but ut-. So it seems more likely that it- should be regarded as the outcome of some morphophonemic replacement process along the lines proposed by Diem (1982: 4849).89 What the I/n and the I/w verbs have in common is that they both have a geminate -tt- instead of -nt- or -wt-. This suggests that the use of it- instead of *nit- is related to this geminate. Since it occurs in the same position as the geminate in the G perfective of the I/n verbs (ikkis, iur) and since this form loses its gemination in the imperative (ikis, uur), the same mechanism may have led to deletion of the geminate in the derived forms, according to the following model:
G Gt Gtn Ntn Dt(n) Imp: (ta-)ur uur and (ta-)kkis ikis (ta-)ttapa *itapa > itpa (ta-)ttappa itappa (ta-)ttaprVs itaprVs other non-prefix forms: (i-)ttapu *itapu > itpu (i-)ttappu(u) itappu(u) (i-)ttaprVs itaprVs (u-)ttazzam utazzumu
In sum, n- is lacking because it is also lacking in the perfective or, rather, in the original imperfective (cf. PSem *yiqtVlu) on which these forms are based, and the gemination is lacking because it is lacking in the corresponding strong form. A further parallel is offered by the irregular verb izuzzu to stand (up): Pfv (ta-)zzz Imp izz (see 16.5.3.5, p. 489, for details). The operation could be formulated as: take away the prefix, simplify the resulting initial geminate, and prepose i- by analogy with i in the first syllable of the corresponding strong form ( pitrVs, pitarrVs) (so also Diem 1982: 49). The fact that i- is ultimately based on the occurrence of i in the strong forms is confirmed by the use of u in the sporadic Dt(n) forms utattuk and utazzumu quoted above (cf. putarrus).
88. For this adaptation, cf. the Bab Imp idin of nadnu as compared to Ass din of tadnu, which suggests that the form idin is specifically motivated by the fact that nadnu is a I/n verb. In Hebrew, the same process may have taken place (see 12.6.1, p. 319) but without adaptation to the strong paradigm. 89. It cannot be ruled out that the tendency to dissimilate successive dental consonants, which is fairly prominent in Middle and Neo-Assyrian (GAG 33c), has also played a role. The fact that the personal prefix ni- we remains intact is not a sufficient argument against a phonological explanation, because this ni- has the identifiable function of expressing the first-person plural in contrast to other persons, whereas ni- of the non-prefix forms does not carry a clear function in itself, independent of the rest of the form.
472
The I/n Verbs 16.4.
16.4.3. Theparadigm(s)ofn/tadnutogive
The paradigm of n/tadnu to give (GAG 102hl) raises a number of questions about its historical development. Table 16.6 shows the forms in the older dialects. SAk Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PPartc PrPartc nadin yinaddan yiddin Bab iddin ittadin idin nadin nadnu *nadnu ndin(n)u tdin(n)u
table 16.6: the paradigm of n/tadnu to give.
Ass iddin ittidin din tadin tadnu (1 nadnu)
inaddin (inaddan) iddan (inaddan?)
For references to rare and deviating forms, see CAD N/1 4345 s.v. 1a, and for Sargonic Akkadian, Hasselbach 2005: 278 s.v. The Babylonian forms are already attested in Ur III Babylonian (Hilgert 2002: 294312) and later occur passim, except for the PPartc *nadnum, which is only attested as a feminine noun nadintu/nadittu gift, see CAD N/1 62b s.v.90 The deviating Impfv inaddan occurs in i-na-da-an-i Itar p. 81: VII 13 he gives to her, in l ta-na-da-na ARM 26/2, 62 no. 306:42 (error?), and indirectly in the irregular (see 14.7.2, p. 418) Gtn Impfv ta-at-na-daan-i Itar p. 75: II 9 she gives it (whenever she likes). A Stat tadin occurs a few times in Old Babylonian texts from Elam (MDP 23, 325:8, 33; MDP 28, 404:20).91 The Old Assyrian paradigm (see GKT 100b; Veenhof 1972: 441; AHw 1300a s.v.) basically seems to have tadnu in the G-stem and nadnu in the derived stems. G-stem forms based on nadnu are extremely rare and therefore of doubtful authenticity: Impfv 3ms inaddan in a-na-da-na-ku-um TC 1, 87:44 (perhaps an error for a-na-da-naku-um, but note that similar forms occur in Middle Assyrian) Inf nadnu in (ana) na-d-ni KTS 1, 25b:16 In the derived stems, on the other hand, whenever we can distinguish between tadnu and nadnu, we find forms that presuppose nadnu: Gtn Inf (Acc) i-ta-du-nam TPAK 1, 47:16, i.e., /itaddunam/ rather than **titaddunam
90. Some forms of n/tadnu show assimilation of -dn- to -nn-, no doubt a consequence of its frequency: Imp in-na-u-nu-i(-ma) JCS 24, 68 nr. 74:15 (OB) give (Pl) to them < idna-, and N Pfv in-na-an-nu BE 15, 112:2 (MB) it was given (Subj) < innadnu. Similarly, Middle and Neo-Assyrian regularly have a t-Pf 3mp ittann < ittadn; see GAG 102l and W. Mayer 1971: 94. 91. The Stat tadin in ta-ad-nu-u-nu-i-im OECT 3, 35:8 mentioned in CAD N/1 43b s.v. 1a3 is corrected to ta-ad-di -nu-u-nu-i-im by F. R. Kraus in AbB 4, 113:8; the Stat ta?-ad-na-at in YOS 2, 104:26 reported by AHw 1300a s.v. tadnu G 4 is read na-ad-na-at by M. Stol, AbB 9, 104:26; cf. n. 104c on p. 66. This leaves us only with NB ta-ad-na---nu-tu4 TCL 9, 105:8 as evidence for tadin in Babylonian, which is negligible.
16.4. The I/n Verbs
473
N Impfv i-na-d-nu AKT 3, 45:30; BIN 4, 50: 29 and VS 26, 12:10 it will/can be sold (Subj), perhaps also in i-na-d-in BIN 6, 181: r.7 (c. br.)92 N Pfv i-ni-d-in BIN 6, 72:6 it was sold; i-ni-id-nu Prag I 442:14 (idem, Subj) Middle and Neo-Assyrian mostly continue the regular Old Assyrian forms (see also W. Mayer 1971: 9394), but not infrequently they have an Impfv inaddin and occasionally inaddan (see CAD N/1 44b s.v. nadnu v. 1a12). The earliest instance of a PrPartc tdinu is MA tdinnu (e.g., ina mui ta-di-na-a-n KAV 1: V 39:30); cf. also NA ana ta-di-ni a tkulti Tkultu p. 26: IV 24 to the one who provides the ceremonial meal.93 In sum, forms with initial t- are only found in the suffix base of the G-stem: Stat tadin (which presupposes a PPartc *tadnum), Inf tadnu, and PrPartc tdinu. All other forms of the G-stem are non-committal. Note that Sargonic Akkadian also has a Stat nadin, which is in keeping with the fact that this dialect usually sides with Babylonian against Assyrian (see 1.5, pp. 2426). Since tadnu has no parallels elsewhere in Semitic either, it is plausible that the Assyrian suffix base with t is an innovation, whatever its origin.94 A further issue is the fluctuation between different imperfective forms: inaddin, inaddan, and iddan, in sharp contrast to the stable form iddin of the perfective. Since inaddan occurs in Sargonic Akkadian and literary Old Babylonian and is difficult to explain as secondary, it may well be the oldest form (Hasselbach 2005: 215). If this is correct, it represents a rare instance of an iparras imperfective of an I/i verb (see 4.5.1, pp. 109111). Babylonian inaddin can easily be explained from the general process of replacing iparras imperfectives corresponding to ipris perfectives by iparris. It is again the Assyrian form iddan that is problematic. The formal relationship between iddan and the t-Pf ittidin and that between iddan and the Gtn Impfv ittanaddin is highly irregular: we would expect **ittadan and **ittanaddan, respectively. The actual form presupposes a G Impfv with i, i.e., inaddin. This suggests that iddan itself is an innovation, perhaps on the basis of a/i apophony parallel to the I/w verbs or even by analogy with them.95 Speculating on the prehistory of nadnu, I would tentatively suggest the following development. In West Semitic, the corresponding verb occurs in two shapes: as a I/n verb in Hebrew ( yitten), Aramaic ( yinten), Amorite ( yantin or yattin, see Knudsen 1991: 880), and perhaps also in Arabic, if Ar yanti/a/unu (Pfv nata/i/una) to give off a bad smell comes from the same verb (Aro 1964: 63), and as a I/y verb ( ytn) in Ugaritic and Phoenician (see Tropper 2000: 635 and Segert 1976: 146). The correspondence between Hebrew, Aramaic, Amorite, and Akkadian suggests that the I/n form is original and that Proto-Semitic had an Impfv *yintinu, Pfv *yintin, perhaps alongside an assimilated form *yittinu, Pfv *yittin. Because of the ban on roots with R1
92. Some of these instances are interpreted as G forms in GKT 100b and CAD N/1 43b s.v. nadnu 1a2, but there can be little doubt that they are N-stems (K. R. Veenhof, p.c.). In AKT 3, 45:2930, read perhaps ki!-ma instead of u-ma because of the subjunctive; cf. the parallel expression in VS 26, 12:10. 93. The Imp idin in Middle Assyrian proper names such as Aur-id-na-ni (cf. CAD N/1 49a s.v. 1f2) is doubtless one of the many Babylonian forms in these names. 94. It may result from the ambiguity of -ddin the perfective iddin, which may come from both -nd- and -td-, as suggested by Huehnergard 2002b: 163 n. 8, or it may be a back-formation from the Gt perfective (> G t-perfect) ittadin, like the secondary verbs tablu and tar (see 16.2.3, p. 454). 95. It is common practice to associate iddan iddin with illak illik to go /come and izzaz-izziz to stand (up), e.g., Knudsen 1984/86: 23637 and Huehnergard 2002b: 163 n. 8. Note, however, that illak is actually llak (see 17.6.2, pp. 543544), whereas there is no reason to assume a long prefix vowel in iddanalthough it is difficult to rule out because of Old Assyrian orthography and that izzz izzz is in all likelihood a fossilized N-stem (Huehnergard 2002b and 16.5.3.5, pp. 488490). Moreover, Old Babylonian spelling practice virtually excludes the possibility that izzz has a long prefix vowel like llak: there are hardly any spellings with i-iz-. . . .
474
The II/voc Verbs 16.5.
= R3, *yintin(u) itself is likely to be secondary, perhaps an adaptation to the triradical pattern of a shorter form such as *yitin (Voigt 1988a: 8788; see also 12.6.1, pp. 318319), but this must be situated before the Proto-Semitic period. Accordingly, the Ugaritic and Phoenician form ytn of this verb, in which y may either be original or go back to w, since word-initial w becomes y in these languages, is likely to result from a secondary reanalysis of an ambiguous form that is part of both paradigms. In this case, the imperative (PSem *tin) is a good candidate, since it occurs both in the I/n and in the I/w verbs (Voigt 1988a: 8788.).96 In addition, Proto-Semitic must have had a pluractional derived stem *yinattanu based on *yintinu, which does not survive in West Semitic. Akkadian inherited yintinu/*yittinu as *yiddinu. The change t > d is problematic but perhaps due to a weakening of t in the cluster -nt-, from which it was transferred to other forms by analogy.97 Along with all other imperfectives, this form was replaced by the pluractional imperfective in the form yinaddan, beside the Pfv *yindin. From this form, a suffix base nadVn(-) can be regularly derived as the basis for the PPartc *nad(i)num, the Inf nadnum and the PrPartc ndinum. We still have to consider the imperative: Bab idin versus Ass din. In line with the previous section, we can explain din from the usual imperative formation rule (ta-)ddin ddin, realized as din and in Babylonian adapted to the strong paradigm as idin along with other I/n imperatives, whereas Assyrian has preserved din in its pristine form because of its frequency. On the other hand, it seems attractive to regard din as a trace of an ancient biradical root (GAG 102fj), which the Hebrew parallel ten seems to confirm. However, if t is the original radical of this root, din must have been remade after the change t > d in Akkadian and is therefore likely to be secondary anyway. Thus, the status of din remains uncertain: it may be a more-or-less regularly derived imperative of a triradical I/n verb, but it may also go back to a biradical form that was already residual in Proto-Semitic.
16.5. the ii/voc Verbs 16.5.1. Thesources

The II/voc verbs (GAG 104 and Verbalpar. 2628) comprise three formal subclasses on the basis of their middle radical: II/, II/, and II/ verbs. The background of the members of these subclasses is twofold: most of the II/ and the II/ verbs go back to a root with and as R2 (see 2.3.3, p. 41).98 On the other hand, a small number of II/ and II/ verbs and most, if not all, II/ verbs come from roots with a guttural consonant as R2. The loss of the gutturals, which will be discussed in detail in chap. 17, caused a reinterpretation of the root vowel as a vocalic radical and a subsequent adaptation of the paradigm to that of the II/voc verbs (Huehnergard 2002b: 176 n. 45). In prehistoric Assyrian, for instance, the well-known Semitic root rq to be/go far away had a perfective *yiruq (versus PSem and Bab *yiraq), which became irq. From
96. Troppers (1998a: 14) claim that Akk nadnu was originally a I/w verb because of Ugaritic/Phoenician ytn and the Assyrian forms din and tadnu (cf. bil and tablu from wablu) is unlikely, first, because tadnu is demonstrably secondary to nadnu (see above), and, second, because there is no trace of the expected prefix forms with u- (**uddan, **udin). 97. This change is not unknown in Akkadian, but all instances come from later dialects; cf. forms such as pndu < pntu (< *peemtu) charcoal and sndu < sntu (< smtu) redness (GAG 33c). 98. There are also verbs with the semi-vowel w as a strong R2, but only if R1 and/or R3 are weak (see 2.3.3, p. 42, and GAG 3 104b*): nawru to shine, *aw to speak, ew to become, daw to reel, be giddy, kaw to roast, law to surround, naw to become waste, aw to burn, and aw to twine, twist. After Old Babylonian, this w appears as m (kam, lam, etc.).
16.5. The II/voc Verbs
475
irq a secondary G imperfective iraq was built, making the verb into a II/ verb, at least in the G-stem (Huehnergard 1991: 700; see 17.7.3.2, p. 565, on the different root vowels of this verb). Similarly, the loss of post-consonantal in Babylonian caused II/ verbs of the I/i class to become II/ verbs, e.g., the Pfv *yimid it became much from madu (thus in Assyrian), was replaced by imd, which created a new II/ paradigm with an Impfv imad, imidd, etc. instead of original imaid, which is preserved in Assyrian. A similar process took place in the III/voc verbs (see 16.7.1, pp. 496498). In this way, the following II/ and II/ verbs may have come from original II/H verbs: bru () to appear (AHw 108b s.v. bru III compares He br to make clear; see also DRS 41 s.v. BR 2) nqu () to moan, cry (WSem nhq, nhk and nq, cf. CDG 39394 s.v. nhka to groan and nhqa to bray, and SED 1, 305 no. 44)99 rdu () to tremble, Pfv ird < *yirud (WSem rd, cf. Huehnergard 1991: 697) (but cf. Impfv i-ra-ad /yiraad/ in Ebla according to Krebernik 1992: 120) sku () to pulverize, Assyrian Impfv isak (Geez saaka to crush, grind, pulverize CDG 480 s.v., and Huehnergard 1991: 701) bu () to smell bad, be of bad quality (earlier b, cf. OA *baum I/i) u () to guard, check (earlier , cf. OA aum I/i) mdu () to be(come) numerous (earlier md, cf. OA madum I/i) rbu () to replace, compensate (earlier rb, cf. (P)SAk rabum I/i and Ar raaba to repair, rectify (Huehnergard 1991: 700)) nlu () to lie down (earlier nl?)100 wru () to go, Pfv iwr (OB), but if wuuru to instruct is a D-stem of this verb, it presupposes an (earlier?) root wr The question is whether there are original II/ verbs, which do not go back to II/H verbs. Most of the II/ verbs with a reliable etymology come from roots with a guttural as R2, such as blu to pray (cf. Ar and Geez bhl ), ndu to praise (Sem nd ), and many Babylonian II/ verbs which are II/ verbs in Assyrian, such as lu to ask (Sem l, Ass alu). GAG 3 104a/a* mentions bu to come to shame, bu to pass along, u to be worried and mu to vomit as original II/ verbs. This seems doubtful: bu and bu have West Semitic cognates with h as R2,101 and u and mu do not have any reliable etymology at all. In Old Assyrian, bu and
99. The West Semitic verbs have a as root vowel (Ar yanhaqu, Mehri ynhq < *yVnhaq, He yinhaq), whereas inq presupposes *yinhuq. The former is phonetically determined (by the adjacent laryngeal h), the latter semantically: u is the usual root vowel for atelic activity verbs (see 3.5.2.3, pp. 7374). 100. For as R2, cf. Eblaite da-da--lum (= . d i . di) to lie down repeatedly or the like, corresponding to na-a-um // si-tum (= . di) to lie down (Krebernik 1983: 40). The spelling with points to /tattailum/ rather than Kreberniks /tattahhilum/. This is also suggested by the Old Assyrian statives 3ms na-al KTH 6:28, i.e., /naal/?, and 3mp na-lu kt a/k 264:15 quoted in Dercksen 1996: 105 n. 326, i.e., /nl/. If /naal/ is the correct interpretation, it is to be added to the Assyrian PaRaS statives discussed in 7.2 (pp. 162). See also Streck 1997/98: 321. 101. AHw 112b s.v. bu mentions Aram bhe sich schmen and Ar buhah Hurensohn (cf. also DRS 91a s.v. B), and Epigraphic South Arabian uses a root bh for bw elsewhere; see DRS 50 s.v. BW, although the form bw is much more widespread (cf. He b, Ar ba (), and Geez boa, not to speak of ib in Mari Old Babylonian; see AHw 117b s.v. bum II). The Old Assyrian paradigm of these verbs (insofar as it is attested) shows that their R2 is not (or w); see Kouwenberg 2006: 17375. The interchange of w and h as R2 is not restricted to these two verbs: cf. also nwm and nhm to sleep (SED 1, 312 no. 52), nwr and nhr to shine (Huehnergard 1991: 691), and rw and rh to run (rw in He r, Geez ra, Akk ru
476
bu are II/ verbs (the only ones attested), whereas the original II/ verbs still preserve their strong paradigm (see 17.7.3.1, pp. 560562). If they are original II/*h verbs (which is controversial; however, see n. 101), this may imply that h was dropped earlier than other gutturals in the prehistory of Akkadian and that therefore the II/*h verbs bu and bu were the first II/H verbs to model their paradigm on the II/voc verbs. Therefore, I will assume that the II/ verbs belong to the verbs with a guttural and discuss them together with the II/ verbs in chap. 17, even though their paradigm is largely parallel to that of the II/ and II/ verbs. An exception will be made for the irregular verb izuzzu to stand (up), which will be discussed in 16.5.3.5 (pp. 488490). It can best be explained as an idiosyncratic N-stem of a II/ verb. The II/voc verbs do not constitute a well-defined semantic class. The four classes distinguished in GAG 104ce are so vague that almost any verb could be assigned to one of them. There is, however, a significant difference between II/ and II/ verbs as regards transitivity. The II/ verbs range from purely adjectival verbs, such as bu () to be(come) good, pleasant, to transitive verbs such as ru () to select and qu () to give (as a present) but do not contain high transitivity verbs. The II/ verbs, on the other hand, do not contain adjectival verbs but include all other semantic classes, from change-of-state verbs such as knu to be(come) firm, stable, true and mtu to die, via atelic activity verbs, such as sru to dance, to high transitivity verbs, such as dku to kill and ku to flay, skin.
16.5.2. TheparadigmoftheG-stem
Table 16.7 presents the paradigm of the II/ and the II/ verbs in its oldest Akkadian form, with mtu () to die and qpu () to entrust, believe as sample verbs. II/ verbs Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PPartc PrPartc imat, imutt imt, imt imtt, imtt mt, mt m/t mutum m/tum mitum II/ verbs iqap, iqipp iqp, iqp iqtp, iqtp qp, qp q/p qipum q/pum qipum
table 16.7: the ii/ and ii/ verbs in their oldest Akkadian form.
The perfective and the imperative agree perfectly with their respective counterparts in West Semitic, for instance, the Pfv imt with the Arabic Pfv (usually jussive) yamt, -, and the Imp mt with mt in Arabic. Therefore, they are directly inherited from Proto-Semitic, as is usual for these categories. All other categories require additional comments. 1. The imperfective The imperfective isas alwaysspecifically Akkadian (cf. Ar yamtu, -na, etc.). On the model of the strong verbs, the forms with an ending geminate the final (i.e., second) radical:
(); rh in Aram rh and Akk ru; see CDG 477b s.v. rw), so that the two roots even coexist in Akkadian. This suggests that already in Proto-Semitic a form such as *yibha coexisted with *yib and perhaps also with *yibhu (> Mari OB ib()).
477
3mp imutt they will die, iqipp they will entrust, etc.102 This is an instance of the general rule that the imperfective has gemination wherever this is phonologically possible (see 4.5.2, pp. 112115). For the endingless forms, this option was not available; the alternative was to insert a after the long root vowel, doubtless preceded by a glide: 3ms im( w)at, iq( y)ap. The first two forms are attested as such in Old Assyrian, spelled i-mu-at, i-mu-a-at or i-mu-wa-at, and i-q-p or i-q-a-p, respectively (GKT 94b).103 In order to bring them into line with the strong imperfective, we should perhaps write them as imuwwat and iqiyyap, but phonologically this does not seem to make a great difference.104 The inserted a associates these verbs with the verbs of the A/u and A/i classes: imat imt is parallel to iparras iprus, and iqap iqp to the reconstructed prehistoric iparras ipris (see 4.5.1, pp. 109112). However, whereas the A/u class is predominantly transitive, a-insertion also takes place in intransitive II/ verbs. This suggests that its function is formally to distinguish the imperfective from the perfective: in the verb maqtu to fall, gemination was sufficient to create a distinct present form imaqqut alongside imqut. For mtu this was not possible, and insertion of a was borrowed from the transitive verbs for this purpose (cf. Kienast 1963: 15152; 2001: 368).105 In Assyrian, the clusters -a- and -a- remained intact during the entire history of the dialect.106 In Babylonian, on the other hand, they contracted to -- (idk, iqp), but in different periods: -a- during the Archaic Babylonian period107 and -a- in the later stages of Old Babylonian, so that only in Middle Babylonian does the form iqp become regular (GAG 16k; Aro 1955: 40). In Mari Old Babylonian, -a- regularly becomes (GAG 3 16k*), e.g., it-te-e-el ARM 10, 129:16 he will lie down, i.e., /ittl/ < *intal, Gt imperfective of itlu (see 16.5.3.1, p. 480 below).108
102. It is possible that the root vowel of these forms actually remains long (imtt, iqpp) (see Gai 2001: 34), but it is hard to underpin this with concrete evidence, since plene writings in closed syllables are very unusual. For the corresponding D forms, cf. perhaps spellings like te-e-er-ra AbB 4, 93:20 (OB) give (Pl) back! from tru, which occur from time to time, e.g., also AbB 6, 157:12, 24; AbB 8, 101:16; and AbB 9, 174:18 (sic! according to the copy in YOS 13, 161:18). According to Kienast (1963: 15152) the vowel was originally long but shortened by a sound law. Such a sound law does not seem to exist, however; see Diakonoff 1991/92: 111 and Kouwenberg 20034a: 88. For the time being, I will not write these forms with a macron. 103. There is no reason to assume that a secondary was inserted as a Hiatustilger between the two vowels, as claimed by K. Hecker (GKT 28b, 94a). 104. An alternative explanation is to assume a sound change *imawwat > imuwwat and *iqayyap > iqiyyap (e.g., Tropper 1998a: 2122; Hasselbach 2005: 91 regarding SAk da-ni-al /taniyyal/ < *tanayyal). This would be very straightforward, but it is contradicted by other evidence, such as the imperfective forms of II/w verbs: inawwar it shines and ilaww he surrounds, the adjectives kayynu and tayyru (to be discussed below) and agent nouns such as dayynu judge. One could argue, however, that in these nouns ayya is protected from contraction by their appurtenance to the pattern PaRRS. See also n. 114 (p. 479). 105. It is possible that the Akkadian imperfective of the II/voc verbs dates back to Proto-Semitic times or even earlier, with the function of a derived pluractional imperfective: this is suggested by parallels as far as Cushitic (Voigt 1985) and by the West Semitic alternation of II/gem and II/voc roots of the same verb discussed in 16.6.2 below (pp. 495496). 106. See GKT 94b for Old Assyrian; W. Mayer 1971: 7778 for Middle Assyrian; Deller 1959: 138 39, 141 and Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 9697 for Neo-Assyrian. 107. The Archaic Babylonian letters published by Whiting (1987) still show uncontracted forms, such as (ana) zu-a-zi-im OBTA p. 78 no. 25:6 in order to divide. Also in Old Babylonian, such forms crop up by way of exception: i-tu-ar CT 48, 14:15 he will return (intr.), and i-mu-[a]t JCS 9, 60 no. 3:7 he will die. 108. The fact that contraction of -a- and -a- to and also occurs in other environments shows that it is a purely phonological process rather than a morphophonemic one, as claimed by Voigt 1988a: 14850.
478
The alternation of in endingless forms with or elsewhere leads to occasional incorrect forms such as i-ta-ar-ru AbB 4, 49:9 and i-ta-ru VAB 5, 283:23 instead of iturr they will return and a-ta-ar-ra-am ARM 6, 60: r.11 I will come back for aturram, where the vowel has been generalized.109 A different case is i-ri-a-ab-bu-um KH 23:45, a hypercorrect form which combines inserted a with gemination of R3.110 2. The t-perfect The forms of Table 16.7 are Babylonian; the Assyrian t-perfect has an additional a in the endingless forms: im-t-at BIN 6, 28:40 he has died from mtu (), -t-a-b ArAn. 1, 58:16 I have grown old from bu () (both OA, see GKT 94b), ip-tu-ag-u-nu MATSH p. 118 no. 6:31 (MA) he took away from them from pugu, and it-tu-ar SAA 1, 1:10 he returned from tru (NA, see Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 9697). As already stated in 6.2 (p. 139), the Assyrian form is an innovation, since otherwise Babylonian would have had **imtt instead of imtt and iqtap instead of iqtp. The source of a is the imperfective: the model iparras iptaras resulted in imat imtuat and iqap iqtiap (Kienast 1963: 152; 2001: 368). The prosodic relationship between iparras and iptras suggests that u and i in imtuat and iqtiap are short, against long and (or a geminate w or y; see above) in the imperfective. 3. The stative and the past participle The stative and the past participle of both II/ and II/ verbs have in Babylonian, e.g., mt he is dead, dk he has been killed (see GAG 11a) versus in Sargonic Akkadian, Mari Old Akkadian, and Assyrian. Both come from the diphthong ay. For Sargonic Akkadian, cf. gi-ni-i /knis/ AKI p. 77:52 (RI of Manituu) truly, adverb of knu, the past participle of knu to be(come) firm, stable, true (Hasselbach 2005: 44), and the proper names (L-)gi-pum /(l) qpum/ from qpu () to entrust, believe and Gi-um /qsum/ from qu () to give, where gi stands for velar plus e (Sommerfeld 1999: 20). Mari Old Akkadian has l-bum AKI p. 8 MP 5:2 elder and -bu-u /bu/ MARI 1, 81:20 his witnesses, both from bum (versus si-me-u /mu/ MARI 1, 81:7 its price in the same text).111 Unambiguous examples from Assyrian are ke-enu-um TC 3, 70:11 true, honest, e-e CCT 4, 4a:46 it is little/few from *wium (both OA),112 me-e-tu MATSH p. 131 no. 8: 49 dead, and ze-e-zi KAV 2: II 4: 27 divided from zzu (both MA; see W. Mayer 1971: 79). Note also that bu witness is always spelled with e in Middle Assyrian (see CAD /2 39798 s.v. bu A 3i). Forms with also predominate in Neo-Assyrian. The fact that II/ verbs also originally have -ay- rather than -aw- is based on the exclusive use of PaRiS in the fientive verb: *day(i)k is the II/voc realization of PaRiS.113 The endingless form of the third-person singular masculine stative such as Bab dk and the feminine forms of the adjective (dktu, etc.) are likely to be back-formations from the full form *daykum (> dkum), which gives a Stat dk, rather than coming directly from *dayik. It is not clear to me whether ayi has the same outcome as ay (cf. ukayyin > ukn in 13.4.4, pp. 346348). This kind of back-formation
109. These forms do not constitute evidence for a gesprochenes itorr, pace GAG 104g. 110. According to Gelb (1955b: 111a), and GAG 3 104j*, it is a scribal error. However, it also occurs in a late Old Babylonian copy of the laws: i-ri-a[b-b]u-u JCS 21, 45: IX 45. Cf. also the D imperfective ukal for ukl discussed below on p. 485. 111. For this interpretation of MARI 1, 81:20, see Lambert 1992: 50 n. 12. For = /e// versus // = /i//, see Sommerfeld 1999: 1819 and Hasselbach 2005: 5254. 112. Cf., however, the form d-i-ik TC 3, 264a:11 it (the tablet) has been killed) for the expected dk, a striking instance of the sometimes erratic interchange of and in Old Assyrian. 113. So also Diakonoff 1991/92: 104. We cannot start from a basic form *kain, pace Kienast 2001: 367, because in Old Assyrian this form would appear as **k-in, Pl **k(-a)-nu (like ail, Pl l of the II/ verbs; see 17.7.3.1, pp. 560562).
479
is certainly responsible for the Babylonian 3ms Stat m it has been bought, which replaces **m, the regular phonological outcome of earlier *aim (see 17.7.4.1, p. 567). In the adjectival verbs of the II/voc class (see 3.3.3 under A2, p. 61, and C2, p. 63), we find (in C2) other patterns than PaRiS, in particular bu, good, pleasant, doubtless a PaRaS pattern adjective of a root b or yb, although *ayabum > bum (rather than **bum via *aybum) does not seem to be a regular phonological development. Perhaps it is better to regard as original, not only in bu but also in the Assyrian adjectives rqu empty, pqu narrow, and squ narrow corresponding to Babylonian rqu, pqu, and squ, which were discussed in 3.3.4 (pp. 6566). The II/ verbs knu to be(come) firm, stable, true and tru to return have an additional participle-like derived form with -yy- as R2: kayynu constant and tayyru returning, relenting, where -yy- shows that they are built on the simple forms *kaynum and an unattested *tayrum. It is remarkable that these two adjectives have the pattern PaRRS, which is normally reserved for agent nouns derived from action verbs (see GAV p. 64). 4. The infinitive In its oldest form mutum/qipum, the infinitive is based on the strong infinitive parsu, with -u- and -i- modelled on the G imperfective: imat mutum, iqap qipum. An alternative explanation is to regard them as regular phonological developments of *mawtum and *qaypum (e.g., Tropper 1998a: 24). It is questionable, however, to what extent we are justified in positing a rule -awa- > -uwa- or -aya- > -iya-.114 It is clearly contradicted by the noun awtu word, matter and by infinitives of verbs with a strong w as R2: nawru to be(come) bright, shine, law to surround, etc. 5. The present participle The present participle of the II/voc verbs (dikum, qipum) also has a single, predictable form, with a glide as R2, regardless of the original radical. This glide is usually expressed by broken spellings (da-i-ku-um killer, passim), which do not reveal how it was realized. Occasional spellings with -signs suggest that it could be a strong (see 17.4, pp. 520525): a-I-la-tum /iltum/ Legends p. 64:20 women in labour from lu () to be in travail, and a-I-di / id/ hunters Legends p. 166:170 from du () (both OB).115 Elsewhere ia is used, which points to /y/: q-IA-pa-nu-um RA 63, 49:55; q-IA-pa-nu-tam AfO 18, 63:8 (both OB); qa-IApa-nu AfO 12, 51: K 7 (MA), all presumably standing for /qyip . . ./ from qpu () to entrust, believe. Apparently, there was some variation in the realization of the glide. A difficult case is (ana) a-PI-ri-a KH 135:52 and 174:55 from ru () to select, which could be interpreted in the same way (/yirum/ with PI = /yi/), but Standard Babylonian spellings with m (a-mi-ri TuL 14:17) or (a--i-ri- SAA 3, 32:38), and Neo-Assyrian spellings with b (a-bi-ri-ja BA 2, 634:18) suggest that we should interpret the Old Babylonian form with PI as /wirum/. Because of its highly specialized meaning husband, lover, it may be a deviating, lexicalized form.116
114. Gelb (1955b: 102a sub 22c; 1970: 53738) posits a rule ay(y)a > iy(y)a, based on a few occurrences of diy(y)ntu for dayyntu (female) judge in Middle Babylonian proper names, and of the form -ki-a-al for ukl to be discussed below. It seems that the evidence is far too scant to justify this rule. 115. Cf. perhaps also the Old Babylonian PN a-I-du-um BIN 7, 186:3, 9. 116. For the alleged alternative present participles mudku from dku () and mumu from mu () to allot, decree, see n. 132 below (p. 485).
480
16.5.3. Thederivedstems 16.5.3.1. TheGt-stem

Gt-stems of II/voc verbs are uncommon, with the exception of itlu to lie and dku Gt to fight, quarrel, lit., to hit each other. Itlu is a lexicalized Gt of nlu based on a root NL (Huehnergard 2002b: 17884) but perhaps ultimately on nl (see 16.5.1, p. 475). It has an Impfv *ittal < *intal (OB), ittl (SB), Pl ittill, a Pfv ittl, Pl ittl, a t-Pf ittatl, an Imp itl, and an Inf itlu (instead of *nitlu; see 16.4.2, pp. 470471) or utlu (see Huehnergard 2002b: 17884 for references, and chap. 5 n. 33, p. 135, for the alternation of i and u).117 Dku has a Gt Impfv adda-ak /addk/ OBTR 121:13 (OB) I am quarreling, earlier doubtless *addak, Pl *iddukk, a Gt Stat tidk (3mp ti-du-ku AbB 7, 55:5 they are quarreling) and an Inf tidku (ti-du-ku-um AbB 7, 55:12). One of the very few Standard Babylonian forms available is i-tan /itn/ (< *itan) BAM 4, 396: IV 23 he urinates from nu (). In general, then, the finite prefix forms are those of the G-stem plus infixed t(a): Impfv idk iddk, inal ittal, Pfv idk *iddk, t-Pf ittl ittatl. Elsewhere, the II/voc form adopts the long version of the root or stem vowel: Imp PitRiS (see 14.2.1, pp. 356357) itl (and PitRaS *tidk?), Stat/Inf PitRuS(u) itlu, tidku. Such forms are more amply attested for the II/H verbs (see 17.7, pp. 554572).
16.5.3.2. TheGtn-stem
The Gtn-stem requires gemination of R2 and is therefore problematic for II/voc verbs.118 It has adopted two strategies. There is a weak conjugation, in which -tan- (in the imperfective) or -t- (elsewhere) is inserted in the corresponding G form, and a strong conjugation, in which the vocalic middle radical is treated as a strong consonant (actually only y, never w) and thus geminated. See Table 16.8 for the most important Babylonian forms, with u () to guard and tru () to come back in the third-person singular and plural. Gtn II/ Impfv Pfv Imp Inf ittanr, ittanurr *ittr, itturr (not attested) (not attested) Gtn II/ weak itan, itani it, iti (not attested) (not attested) Gtn II/ strong itanayya, itanayya itayya, itayya itayya, itayya itayyuum
table 16.8: the weak and strong conjugations of the ii/voc gtn-stem.
The II/ verbs only have weak forms (GAG 104h): Impfv (G itr ) ittanr, Pl (iturr ) ittanurr, e.g.: 3s it-ta-na-ar OBTR 308:16; 3mp it-ta-nu-r-ru B 2, 66:58 he/they will return (both OB) 3p im-ta-nu-ut-tu RA 65, 74:68 (OB) they will die one after the other from mtu
117. A form that does not fit into the Gt paradigm is the Impfv at-ta-ti-al AbB 14, 110:21 I will lie down: it looks like a back-formation from the t-perfect ittatl on the model of Gt Pfv ittl versus Impfv ittal. It may have a late echo in the Prec li-ta-til /littatl/ AnSt.10, 122:5, 21 (SB) may he lie down. A Gt present participle may lie hidden in the word muttlu, Fem muttltu, the name of a demon (who lies in wait); see CAD M/2 313a s.v. muttilu. 118. For the Gtn-stem of II/voc verbs, see also Renger 1972: 23032 and Edzard 1996: 7279.
481
2p (l) ta-at-ta-nu-ra STT 187: IV 9 (SB) do not keep returning 3mp i-a-nun-du Izbu 228:549 (SB) they spin constantly from du (for ianudd) Non-imperfective forms are very difficult to find: I can only mention a precative li-ik/lik-tu-nu Ee IV 22 and VI 16 (SB) let them remain, if we may interpret it as /liktunn/.119 For the II/ verbs, weak forms are rare in Old Babylonian (GAG 104l) and slightly deviant, since they do not show insertion of a in the endingless forms: e.g.:120 3s iq-ta-ni-i SLT 243: III 5 he will give constantly from qu () 3s i--ni-i FM 7, 130 no. 36:64 he will keep laughing from u () (see n. 121 below) They become more common in Standard Babylonian, e.g.: 3s i/i-e-ni-i BAM 1, 30:54, 3mp i-e-ni-i-u Adapa p. 18:26, 46 he/they keep laughing, also from u121 3s i-ta-ni-a-- TDP 80:6 he is constantly watching him (the patient) from u () 2fs tan-da-ni-ri UnDiv. 118:26 you (Fem) go all the time (/tamtanirr/) from (w/m)ru (OB wirum) to go 2p ta-ta-nir/ni-ir-ra AfO 17, 314: D 6 // 19, 118: App. 4 you (Pl) select each time from ru () Again, non-imperfective forms are very rare: perfectives are iq-ti-i SLT 243: III 6, ir-te-e-u Tn-Ep. IIIb 6 (MB lit.) they rejoiced continuously, and the precative li-ir-te AGH 86:10, li-irti-i [ ] AGH 112a: r.5 (SB) let him rejoice constantly, both from the literary verb ru (). Assyrian also uses weak forms, but usually the vowel of -tan- assimilates to the next vowel (GKT 94c). In Old Assyrian, we find, e.g.: 2ms ta-t-nu-ar /tattunar/ OAA 1, 16:7 you will keep returning from tru 3ms iq-t-ni-a-p /iqtinap/ CCT 4, 22b:48 he will entrust (on various occasions) 2fs ta-t-ni-li-ni /tattinillni/ BIN 6, 1:7 you lie down (every night) (Subj) from nlu (). However, there is also a form ta-ta-nu-a-ar CCT 3, 1:29, 41 without assimilation. The only Middle Assyrian form attested (W. Mayer 1971: 85) is it-ti-ni-ik-ku /ittinikk/ KAV 1: II 17: 68 they have intercourse (on different occasions) from nku (). More frequently, the II/ verbs use the strong conjugation; in Old Babylonian, it is the regular one, in particular attested for btu to spend the night and u to guard, e.g.: 3s Impfv ib-ta-na-ja-at PRAK 2, C 35:12 he often spends the night 1p Pfv ni-ib-ta-ja-at AbB 8, 107: r.8 we spent the night repeatedly 3s Prec li-i-ta-a-ja-as-s-na-ti ARM 10, 138: r.10 let him keep them (Fem) under constant surveillance Imp Sg Fem i-ta-ja-a-i-u AbB 1, 39:22 guard him constantly Inf Gen (ana) i-ta-ju--i-im AbB 2, 92:12 in order to keep a constant watch
119. The dictionaries list it as Gt-stem for no good reason at all; see AHw 439a s.v. Gt; CAD K 162b s.v. knu A 2. The form ik-tu-un in astronomical texts, on the other hand, which always occurs in the same context with a planet as subject, and which AHw 439a s.v. Gtn registers as Gtn, should rather be interpreted as a t-perfect; see CAD K 160b s.v. knu A 1b. 120. Here may also belong the enigmatic (ina eri ) id-di-i-ni-lu CT 15, 5: II 1, if it really is a Gtn form of itlu (thus in AHw 407b s.v. Gtn). The form we would expect is ittinill. 121. The expected forms are ian and iani: a > e is caused by the preceding (cf. GAG 9b).
482
In Middle Babylonian, there is also a precative of btu, which replaces y by a strong : li-ib-ta-i-ta BBS 7: II 24 may he always pass the night, one more instance of the tendency to restore in this dialect (Aro 1955: 3435). No doubt it is also influenced by the paradigm of the original II/ verbs, which even in Old Babylonian preserve in the Gtn-stem, see 17.7.4.1 (p. 568).122 Standard Babylonian also has strong forms, such as: 3mp Impfv it-ta-na-a-a-ku CT 38, 50:4748 they constantly have intercourse from nku ()123 3s Impfv it-ta-na-a-a-al TDP 64:57 he lies in sleep all the time from nlu () 3s Impfv iq-ta-na-ja-al KUB 37, 210:6 and 1s aq-ta-na-a-a-al PSBA 17, 139: 6 he/I am heeding constantly from qlu () Inf Nom q-ta-a-a-u-lu /qitayyulu/ BWL 36:106, also from qlu ()
16.5.3.3. TheD-stem
The D-stem shows a different solution than the Gtn-stem for the geminate middle radical. Here, too, we find a weak and a strong paradigm but differentiated according to dialect: weak forms in Babylonian, (mainly) strong forms in Assyrian. Table 16.9 gives the regular paradigm of Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian, with a singular and a plural form of each category (if relevant), with knu () D to make firm, establish as example and the strong verb for comparison (see also GAG Verbalpar. 26 and 28). strong verb Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc uparras uparris uptarris pu/arris pu/arrus pu/arrusu muparrisu OB ukn, ukann ukn, ukinn uktn, uktinn kn, kinn kn, kunn kunnu mukinnu OA ukn? and/or ukayyan?, ukann ukayyin, ukayyin uktayyin, uktayyin kayyin, kayyin kayyun, kayyun kayyunu mukayyinu and mukinnu ??
table 16.9: the paradigm of the D-stem of the ii/voc verbs.
As is usual in the D-stem, all verbs have the same paradigm: the difference between the II/ and the II/ verbs has been neutralized in favour of the latter. Just as in the stative and past participle of the G-stem (*kay(i)n, etc.; see 16.5.2 above, p. 478), the fact that in the basic categories of the D-stem (especially in their prehistoric form) the weak radical is followed by the vowel i (Impfv *yukayyinu, Pfv *yukayyin, Imp. kayyin like *yuqattilu, etc.; see 11.6.1, p. 280) has led to the generalization of a palatal glide, which originally behaved as a strong consonant. Assyrian preserves this paradigm in all forms except the imperfective (GAG 104np; GKT 94d).124 The rendering of the vocalic radical by means of yy in Table 16.9 is hypothetical, how122. The singular Neo-Babylonian form at-te-ni-i-la SAA 13, 182: r.56 I used to lie down from nlu can be interpreted in various ways, but it is most likely that it also contains : /atteneila/, with E-colouring, which is widespread in Neo-Babylonian. 123. The form it-ta-na-ku- KAR 152: r.11 looks like a contamination of the two ways to form a Gtn-stem of the II/voc verbs. It is most probably an error for either ittanikk or ittanayyak. 124. However, there seem to be weak forms of the PrPartc: mu-ki-il5 (tuppim) kt 91/k 195:27 (by courtesy of K. R. Veenhof), beside mu-k-il5 (tuppim) TPAK 1, 120a:6 the bearer (of the tablet).
483
ever: is also possible (ukain, etc.). The Old Assyrian orthography is ambiguous here, and although Middle Assyrian can theoretically distinguish y from by using the special -sign, I have found no relevant spellings with . They only seem to occur in Neo-Assyrian, e.g., lu-ke--il SAA 10, 235:9, 12 I/he must hold and lu-ke--in SAA 10, 185:22 may he make stable, but their relevance to the older periods is questionable.125 The main problem of Assyrian is the form of the imperfective, to which I will return after dealing with the Babylonian paradigm. The Babylonian paradigm is attested from Ur III Babylonian onward (Whiting 1987: 59; Hilgert 2002: 4068) and is very similar to the one we can reconstruct for Sargonic Akkadian (Hasselbach 2005: 228).126 Some early forms throw light on the way it developed. Forms of kunnu, kullu and qpu D are consistently spelled with gi in Sargonic Akkadian, e.g.: Pfv u-gi-nu AKI p. 81:23 (RI of Naram-Sin) he established (Subj) Vet a u-gi-il AKI p. 259:165 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) he must not hold Pfv u-gi-ib MVN 3, 102:9 he acted as guarantor (prov. unknown) Imp in the PN Gi-n(u-u-sa-am) MAD 3, 140 make (the foundation) firm!
Since gi stands for velar + e (Sommerfeld 1999: 20), these forms represent /yukn(n)u/, /yukl/, /yuqp/, and /kn/ (in /kn-ussam/), respectively, which may be derived from *yukayyin(u), *yukayyin(u), *yuqayyip, and *kayyin, with the regular phonological change of ayyi to (Hasselbach 2005: 91). We cannot determine whether the final radical was already geminated before a vocalic ending, as it is in Babylonian, i.e., whether we have to read u-gi-nu as /yuknu/ or /yuknnu/. Nevertheless, we can glimpse a gradual development from Proto-Semitic to Babylonian: first the sound changes ayyi > and ayya > (? see below), then the introduction of gemination of the final radical in forms with an ending by analogy with the G-stem of the II/voc verbs and the D-stem of the strong verb (yuknu > yuknnu, etc.), and finally adaptation of the stem vowels to the pattern of the strong verb: Impfv ukn uparras, Pfv ukn uparris, Imp kn purrus.127 The only attested imperfective form, u-ga-al SAB p. 116:5 (Girsu) from kullu, is ambiguous: it may represent /yukn/, but also /yukayyan/ or /yukaan/, just as the Assyrian imperfective, which we still have to discuss. The Assyrian imperfective is completely different from the other forms (but perhaps identical to the Babylonian imperfective). If an imperfective has a vocalic ending, all evidence unanimously points to a weak form with gemination of the final radical (as in Babylonian), even though in Old Assyrian this geminate is not written out: e.g., 3mp ukann, 2p tukann, 3s + Vent ukannam, etc.128 A few random examples are: OA: -ta-ru /utarr/ AKT 1, 78:28 they will give back from tru D and t-k-l St. Larsen p. 287:53 you (Pl) are holding from kullu
125. These forms are exceptional in Neo-Assyrian, which normally uses the same forms as Babylonian (cf. Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 155): are they Babylonianisms, or has Assyrian undergone the same development as Babylonian, but in a later period? 126. The apparently uncontracted imperative ku-i [l ] OBTA p. 58 no. 14: r.8 (ArBab) in broken context is hard to explain; cf. Whiting 1987: 59. 127. There are, however, a few snags in this reconstruction. First, the sequence ayya (in the imperfective) does not normally contract to (see n. 104, p. 477), so that we have to assume some special development for the D imperfective (which is problematic anyhow; see below). Second, in the quadriradical verbs ukennu and upellu (see 13.4.4, pp. 346350) the same sound change resulted in forms with (Impfv ukn, Pfv ukn or ukn), apparently by analogy with the II/ verbs (Impfv ibl, Pfv ibl ). Perhaps we may explain this difference by the difference in status between the D-stem, which is based on, and to some extent dominated by, the G-stem, and the two quadriradical verbs, which do not have a corresponding G-stem. 128. Perhaps uknn, tuknn, uknnam, etc.; see n. 102 (p. 477).
484
MA: -kal-lu-ni MARV 2, 20:27 they hold (Subj) from kullu and -ba-ar-ru KAV 1: III 25:91 they will provide proof from bru () D NA: -kal-lu SAA 15, 116:5 they hold from kullu and -kan-nu-u-ni SAA 15, 270:9 he will settle (Subj) from kunnu However, the evidence concerning the endingless forms is contradictory: in Old Assyrian, numerous plene spellings point to *ukayyan or *ukaan, e.g., -k-a-al TC 3, 86:8 I hold from kullu, -k-a-u /ukayyau/ < ukayyan-u ICK 2, 145:9 he will confirm him from kunnu (see GKT 94d). On the other hand, there are also spellings that point to a form ukl or even ukal: t-kl TC 3, 265:15 you hold -k-um TC 3, 263:20 he will confirm to him, i.e., /ukum/ < ukn-um -k-ku-nu TMH 1, 19c:13 I will confirm you (Pl), i.e., /ukkkunu/ < ukn-kunu A similar Middle Assyrian instance is -kal JCS 7, 135 no. 61:15 he holds; however, it is in broken context and unique in the company of numerous ambiguous cases. In Neo-Assyrian, such spellings are a matter of course, but they may be under Babylonian influence. No easy explanation is at hand for the Assyrian D imperfective. There is no regular vowel contraction in Assyrian, but the incidental cases that are attested mostly concern identical vowels, whereas contraction of heterogeneous vowels is far more unusual. This may suggest that an original ukayy/ an contracted to ukn, whereas ukayyin did not change, and that ukn served as the basis for creating new forms with an ending (see 2.2.1 with n. 8, p. 33). A 3mp *ukn, for instance, may have replaced ukayy/ an and may have adopted gemination by analogy with both the strong verb and the G-stem of the II/voc verbs. In other environments, however, -ayya- and -aa- did not contract: cf. dayynum judge, kayynum regular, and the imperfective of II/ verbs, such as iaal he asks (see 17.7.3.1, pp. 560561). This makes this explanation purely ad hoc. Among the other forms of the D paradigm, the Babylonian present participle is noteworthy:129 with kullu to hold as example, its forms are: Masc: Sg mukillu, e.g., mu-ki-in-nam BagM. 2, 59: IV 32 witness, lit., one who confirms from kunnu, ilam mu-te-er-ra-am AbB 6, 140:24 a god who brings back from tru D (both OB); Pl mukill, e.g., lmu-kin-nu- BRM 1, 22:11 (NB) Masc c. st. Sg mukl, e.g., in common idioms such as mukl ri companion, lit., holder of the head, and mum mti; note, however, the sandhi spelling mu-ki-in-ni-Itar KH IV 48, with the geminate restored before a following vowel; c. st. Pl mu-kil-lu dalti Sg. 8:376 holders of the door and mu-im-mu mti KAR 58: r.30 who decree the destinies from mu D to allot, decree (both SB) Fem: Sg mukltu,130 e.g., mu-ki-il-tu /mukltu/ BAL 88: 27 holder (Fem), mu-im-tum JNES 19, 34:78, and mutrtu double door, lit., closer (cf. tru D in the meaning to close) with the Pl mu-ter-re-e-tum; see CAD M/2 300 s.v. mutrtu lex. sect. Fem c. st. Sg muklti or mukillat, e.g., mu-di-ik-ti (ad) SBH p. 101 no. 54: r.8, 11 slayer of the mountain(s) from dku D, versus mu-te-ra-at [nim] RA 60, 6:5 she who turns the eye (OB), i.e., /muterrat/.131
129. The Assyrian present participle is supposed to be regularly strong (mukayyinum), but see n. 124 (p. 482). 130. Like btu from bu good, pleasant, rqtu from rqu empty, etc., rather than dannatu from dannu strong, etc. The reason is presumably that the geminate of mukillu is determined by the grammar, whereas that of dannatu is intrinsic to the word itself and therefore indispensable. 131. It is hard to find instances where the geminate is explicit: perhaps mu-si-im-mat imkti STT 257: r.3, if this is from smu to be(come) red, but the meaning of the expression is obscure; see AHw 1039a s.v. D and CAD S 132a s.v. smu 2). Cf. also the Pl mu-ter-re-e-tum already quoted.
485
Mukinnu and mukillu belong to the D-stem in both meaning and form. There is, therefore, no reason to classify similar forms such as mudikku from dku and muimmu from mu as G forms, as W. von Soden (GAG 104k) and Kienast (2001: 368) do, solely because no other D forms of these verbs are attested.132 Since in transitive verbs G and D are often more or less interchangeable, it is simpler to assume that they are D-stems than to posit a specific pattern just for these few forms. In addition to the regular forms of Table 16.9, there are sporadic instances of another imperfective form in Old and Middle Babylonian literary texts of the Aguaya style (see 1.4.1.2.2, p. 14), namely ukal (GAG 3 104o o*): -ki-a-al Itar p. 75: II 11, -ki-al-lu Itar p. 26: II 18, tu-i-a-al Legends p. 198:60 she writhes(?) from lu () (all OB lit.), and tu-ki-ja-al Tn-Ep. IIIa 29 (MB lit.).133 Possibly, these are analogical (perhaps hypercorrect) formations based on the II/ G imperfective iqa (Groneberg 1980: 163). Finally, in Standard Babylonian, there is a considerable influx of strong D forms with as R2, e.g., Pfv -qa-i-u-u Ee V 80 they gave her (gifts) from qu (), and -da(-)-i-u Sn. 47:29 they trampled from du (), Stat zu---ra SAA 8, 547:1 from zru () to twist, PrPartc mu-da--i ziru Or. 36, 116:10 trampler of enemies (beside mu-di-i targg RIMA 2/I, 147:12 trampler of criminals). This is in accordance with a general tendency in Standard Babylonian to replace weak forms of Classical Old Babylonian with strong forms, doubtless also under Assyrian influence. The Dt- and Dtn-stems follow the D-stem paradigm in all details (see GAG Verbalpar. 28); attested are mainly imperfective and perfective forms. With kullu to hold as example, Babylonian has Dt Impfv uktl, uktall; Pfv uktl, uktill; Dtn Impfv uktanl, uktanall; Pfv uktl, uktill.134 (Old) Assyrian has Dt Impfv uktl (? or uktayyal?), Pl uktall, Pfv uktayyil, Pl uktayyil, Dtn Impfv uktanl (? or uktanayyal?), Pl uktanall.135
16.5.3.4. The-stemandthet2-stem
The -stem of the II/voc verbs has a different structure from that of the strong verb. Moreover, insofar as the limited Assyrian evidence allows us to judge, the Assyrian forms are different from the Babylonian forms. Table 16.10 shows the Babylonian paradigm by means of bu to make pleasant, and the few forms we know from the Assyrian paradigm by means of btu to allow to spend the night,136 and the paradigm of the t2-stem (to be discussed later) with utaknu to confirm as example.
132. W. von Soden and Kienast apparently assume that there existed G forms without gemination, such as mudku and mumu, contrasting with the D forms mukinnu and mukillu. Although this is hard to disprove because of the ambiguity of the spelling (but note the Pl mu-im-mu), it is far simpler to assume that all these forms belong to the D-stem, even though dku and mu do not have other D forms, than to assign them to two different patterns without any positive evidence. Kienast (2001: 368) also calls muknum eine alte biliterale Form and explains kinum (sic!) by analogy with the II/ verbs. However, since knu is not an action verb, it does not have a PRiS participle. 133. Perhaps also tu-ul-ti-ja-al-kum JAOS 103, 30:4 she rejoices over you, 3fs imperfective Dt of ullu (CAD /1 283a s.v. lu C and Lambert 1983). 134. Noteworthy forms include Dtn Impfv tu-ut-ta-na-ar-ra-[a]m ARM 4, 11:11 you constantly send back to me; Dt Stat pu-tu-u-a OBRED 2, 112 no. 216:19 they (Fem) have exchanged with each other (/putu/ from puu to exchange, OB); Dt(n) Stat pu/itq, usually as subjunctive (a) pu/ituqqu who is constantly attentive to. . ., which comes from puqqu (same meaning); see CAD P 51314 s.v. puqqu 2. The form pituqqu may be explained as interference from the Gt paradigm. 135. References for unusual forms: Dt Impfv uk-ta-al KTH 22:6 or uk-ta-a-al TPAK 1, 156a:7, Pl uk-ta-lu BIN 4, 103:24; Dtn Impfv uk-ta-na-al TC 3, 74:13; Pl uk-ta-[n]a-lu-ni TC 1, 103:21 acc. to Veenhof 2001: 110 n. 41. See further GKT 94d. 136. I have ignored the fact that the Assyrian form of this verb may rather have d as final radical (bidu).
486 Babylonian Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf/PPartc PrPartc ub, uabb ub, uibb utab, utaibb ub, uibb ub, uubb uubbu muibbu Assyrian ubat, ubitt ubt, ubt utibt, *utibt t2
utakn, utakann utakn, utakn utakn, utakn utakn, utakn utaknu
table 16.10: the -stem and the t2-stem of the ii/voc verbs.
The Babylonian paradigm of the -stem is identical to that of the D-stem (see Table 16.9) apart from -- before R1. This -- comes from -a-, as in uaprVs, through vowel syncope: *ua/b > u/b. The fact that forms with an ending have gemination of the final radicalunlike the strong verbshows that the -stem is modelled on the D-stem paradigm, in accordance with the fact that in the strong verb the D-stem dominates the -stem as well (see especially 4.5.2, pp. 113114). It is, however, difficult to document the final geminate from Old Babylonian texts. The only direct witness I am aware of is the Impfv [t]u-u-ma-at-ti-in-ni AbB 8, 20:4 you (Fem) are causing my death from mtu to die. An indirect witness is the Inf u---ba-i-na BagM 2, 59:25 to make them good, from bu , where the epenthetic a between stem and suffix pronoun suggests that b is geminated: /uubbaina/).137 For additional documentation, we have to resort to the -stem of the irregular II/ verb izuzzu to stand (up), which will be discussed at the end of the next section, and the original II/* verb nu to grind, which has regularly become a II/voc verb in Babylonian and has a Pfv u-i4-in-nu AbB 11, 123:17 they had (the barley) ground (see further 17.7.4.2, p. 572). This seems sufficient, however, to show that already in Old Babylonian gemination of the final radical was a fixed part of the -stem of the II/voc verbs. Standard Babylonian offers abundant evidence for the presence of gemination in the final radical. Here is a selection of instances apart from those quoted in 13.2.1 (p. 325): Impfv 3mp u-dak-ku- TBP 50: r.9 they will have him killed from dku () Pfv 2p tu-ni-il-la Maql IV 29 you laid down from nlu () Prec 3fp li-ri- Ee VI 111 let them make glad from ru () Imp Fem u-u-ub-bi IV R 12:22 make pleasant! from bu () Stat 3mp u-nu-ul-lu JAOS 103, 212:7 they have been laid down from nlu () Inf Gen (ana) u-mut-ti Erra I 43 in order to cause to die from mtu ()
II/voc verbs starting with a sibilant do not seem to form a -stem, doubtless because the cluster of R1 and caused assimilations that reduced the transparency of the form. This is particularly clear from the absence of a -stem of frequent verbs such as u to laugh, lu to ask, mu to buy, and zzu to divide (for more details, see GAV pp. 24849). In the case of u () to laugh, the D-stem seems to be used instead (e.g., muiu clown). In most other relevant verbs, the -stem could apparently be dispensed with without any problems. However, the irregular verb izuzzu to stand (up) has a -stem uzz, uzz in Old Babylonian, in flagrant violation of this tendency (see the end of the next section, p. 490).
137. However, the suffix may also be added without a: u-mu-us-s ShA 1, 89 no. 16:17 (OB) his being killed, doubtless representing /umssu/.
487
The very scarce Assyrian evidence (cf. GKT 94e) shows a remarkable difference from Babylonian, at least in the imperfective: from btu to spend the night, we have two imperfective forms: (l) t-u-bi4-at CCT 2, 50:29 do not allow to spend the night and u-bi-a-s-nu BIN 4, 1:13 I will let them spend the night. They show an Impfv ubat, whereas Babylonian would have *ubt, cf. u-ra-aq VAB 5, 161:8 he allows to be idle from rqu () and tu-u-da-a-al ARM 1, 61:38 you cause to wander aimlessly from dlu ().138 It looks as if ubat is directly derived from the G-stem: ibat, Pl ibitt ubat, Pl ubitt, as suggested by Kienast (1963: 151 n. 31). However, the presence of gemination in the forms with an ending is hypothetical: cf. (l) t-u-ri-a BIN 6, 182: r.4 do (Pl) not leave behind!, which I interpret as /turi/ (see below). I am not aware of any imperfective form of a II/ verb, but presumably we should posit *umat, Pl umitt from mtu () to die, like ubat, ubitt. This is suggested by the extant perfective forms of this verb, which also have i or in accordance with uapris in the strong verb, e.g., 3mp u-m-t Or. 19, 3 n. 1: a 8 they caused to die and u-m-t-u VS 26, 2:8 he caused him to die (Subj). This makes it plausible that imperfective and perfective forms with an ending differ in that only the former show gemination of the final radical, as I have indicated tentatively in Table 16.10. The t-perfect is represented by u-t-m-it KTS 1, 30:31, also from mtu (). I am not aware of any relevant forms from Middle Assyrian. Neo-Assyrian has introduced a different formation that is identical to the Babylonian system, apart from the fact that -a- takes the place of Babylonian --: Impfv uarq, Pfv uarq, t-Pf ussarq, Imp arq, Inf arqu from rqu to empty, free of obligations (Parpola 1983: 202; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 97, 155; Luukko 2004: 149). For gemination of the final radical, cf. Prec lu--di-il-lu SAA 2 p. 53:575 var. Q may they cause to wander aimlessly from dlu, and lu--id-du SAA 10, 259: r.11 let them indicate from the tantum verb uuddu (NA *auddu), which will be discussed in 17.7.4.1 (p. 569). As far as I know, there are no t1 or tn forms of II/voc verbs.139 There are, however, a number of t2 verbs, in particular, utaqu to make a mixture, utaknu to establish, confirm and utaqpu to buy on credit. The attested forms show that the imperfective has gemination of the final radical before a vocalic ending (e.g., utakn, utakann), but the rest of the paradigm does not (see Table 16.10 above). Imperfective forms with explicit gemination are u-ta-qa-ap-pa-am FM 1 p. 128:33; u-ta-ka-an-na-an-ni OBTR 141:13; u-ta-ka-a[n]-nu ARM 28, 105: r.26 (all OB), and u-ta-a-aq-qa Izbu 167:19 (SB). Non-imperfective forms of these verbs never show gemination. Relevant instances are 3mp Pfv u-ta-ki-nu ARM 5, 73:14; 3mp Prec li-i-ta-ki-n[u?-u] FM 3, 169 no. 15:8; Inf u-ta-ku-nu-um ARM 28, 155:11 and u-ta-u-q MSL 13, 78:414 acc. to CAD /3 400a s.v. **utaumum (all OB); and 3fp Stat u-ta-u-qa BE 14, 4:6 (MB) they are intermixed. This is of course no proof of its absence, but it is in keeping with the fact that in the strong verb the t2-stem only has gemination in the imperfective (see Table 14.8, p. 403), and we may at least provisionally conclude that in the II/voc verbs the situation was the same. An important consequence of this is that in the II/voc verbs the paradigm of the t2-stem differs substantially from that of the -stem, which has gemination in all its forms, as we have seen above. This offers a formal confirmation
138. The forms urq cannot have developed from **uraq, because a > only occurs in later Old Babylonian, and tu-u-da-a-al is from Mari Old Babylonian, where **tudal would have become **tudl. 139. A possible exception is auddu tn to inform repeatedly, to spread tales in Assyrian, if this is the verb underlying the difficult t(n?) forms mentioned in 14.7.4 (p. 424). It is possible that the OA t(n?)-stem u-ta-na-ad, Pl u-ta-na--du, which occurs in a fixed expression with a god or gods as subject and typically the addressee as direct object, also belongs to this verb, but its meaning is obscure (see CAD N/1 6b s.v. nadu 7).
488
of the conclusion drawn in 14.6.2.2 (p. 406), on the basis of its function, that the t2-stem is not derived from the -stem.
16.5.3.5. TheN-stem
The N-stem of the II/voc verbs has an incomplete paradigm: only the imperfective occurs more than sporadically, the perfective is extremely rare, and the rest of the paradigm is not attested and was apparently not used.140 The N imperfective is derived from the G imperfective by geminating the first radical, just as in the strong verb: iddk he will be killed from dku (), earlier iddak, e.g., i-du-wa-ak TC 3, 253:16 (OA), which is also found in Old Babylonian by way of exception: i-du-ak YOS 10, 31:V 12). Other instances are (all OB): 3s iq-q-a-ap LE p. 52 16 B: I 12 he will be given credit from qpu () 3s iq-q-ip-pu BagM 2, 59: IV 18 it will be trusted (Subj) from qpu () 3s i-ni-a-ak YOS 10, 14:6 she will be made love to from nku () 3fp i-i-im-ma ABIM 8:52 they (Fem Pl) will be decreed from mu () 3fp/m iz-zu-uz-za AbB 4, 26:7 and iz-zu-uz4-zu YOS 10, 41:34 they will be divided from zzu () i-dak CT 20, 8:5 he will be killed from dku () ik-ka-a TBP 12c: III 10 he will be flayed from ku () in-nak CT 31, 33:4 she will be made love to from nku () i-im-mu Dreams 342:4 it will be decreed (Subj)
Standard Babylonian offers the same forms, but with vowel contraction, e.g.:
I am not aware of any relevant forms in other dialects. The few attested perfective forms have in accordance with the form ipparis in the strong verb:141 i-i-q /iqu/ ARM 9, 15:5 (OB) it was mixed (Subj) from qu (), i-i-u TMH 2, 15:9 (LB) it was weighed (Subj) from u (). Since most passive categories are predominantly used in past contexts, the rarity of the N perfective is remarkable. This applies especially to the absence of *iddk he was killed. According to 7.3.3 (p. 175), the stative dk was used in its place, even in order to refer to a past event rather than a resultative state. The irregular and in many respects problematic verb izuzzu to stand (up) may be included here, since it is basically an N-stem of a II/voc verb. Table 16.11 presents what may be considered the standard paradigm of izuzzu in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. The analysis of izuzzu as an N-stem of a II/voc verb goes back to Poebel (1939) and was recently reiterated by Huehnergard (2002b). For a survey of attested forms, see Huehnergard 2002b: 16568 and Streck 1997/98: 32122. The imperfective and perfective of izuzzu can be explained as N forms of a II/ verb.142 The long in the Assyrian imperfective points to a prefix base zz.143 Accordingly, the imperfective
140. See also GAG 3 104vv* and Verbalpar. 28. For Neo-Assyrian, Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 155) quotes a t-perfect of the N-stem ittaqp (in broken context): it-ta-qip SAA 10, 37:5, which S. Parpola translates he believed. 141. For formal reasons, it does not seem possible to interpret UET 5, 819:18 iz-zu-zu as a perfective, as CAD Z 83b s.v. zzu 7 does. 142. Huehnergard (2002b: 177b) derives the verb from a root w. However, this would give u in the imperfective; cf. iddak he will be killed in Old Assyrian (GKT 94e), Pl *iddukk (not attested, but cf. G idak, Pl idukk) from dku () to kill). 143. See 16.5.1 (pp. 475476) on the (non-)existence of II/ roots in Akkadian. Zz may come from PSem *zz, or * (like Huehnergards *w, inspired by possible cognates in Ugaritic (2002b: 17778)
16.5. The II/voc Verbs basic forms Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PrPartc izzz, izzazz izzz, izzizz ittazz, ittazizz izz, izizz nazz, nazuzz Bab i/uzuzzu, Ass izizzu muzzazzu or muzzizzu -stem Bab uzz, uzazz uzz, uzizz utazz, utazizz uzz, uzizz uzz, uzuzz uzuzzu muzizzu -stem Ass uazzaz() uazziz() utazziz() uzziz() azzuz() azzuzu muazzizu
489
table 16.11: the n-stem and the -stem of izuzzu.
is izzz, izzazz and the perfective should be izzz, **izzz; cf. the N forms iabbat, iabit from the A/a verb abtu to seize. However, when the perfective has an ending, it geminates its final consonant: izzizz, and this also applies to the rest of the paradigm.144 Although we do not have corresponding N forms of other II/voc verbs for comparison, there can be little doubt that this is highly irregular. Huehnergard (2002b: 168) explains it by analogy with the -stem, where gemination of the final radical is regular in all forms, as we saw in the previous section. This is not entirely satisfactory because of the derived nature of the -stem and its far lower frequency, but it is difficult to find a better explanation. The t-perfect should be **ittazz, **ittazazz, cf. ittabat in the strong A/a verbs, but in reality it is ittazz, ittazizz. This suggests that the imperfective and the perfective were (re)analyzed as G-stems rather than N-stems, because in the G-stem the t-perfect adopts the stem vowel of the perfective (see 6.2, pp. 138139). For the imperative, we would expect **nazz, Pl **nazizz; the actual form izz, Pl. izizz is based on the same principle as the G-stem imperative of the I/n verbs (see 16.4.2, pp. 470471): Pfv ikkis : Imp ikis Pfv izzz : Imp izz. Apart from the geminate final radical, the very rare and literary stative nazz (na-zu-uz AfO 50, 15: II 6), Fem nazuzzat (na-zux(su)-uz-za-at Itar p. 80: VI 12) is regular: izzz nazz just like ipparras naprVs (see 12.2.1, pp. 288290). The most difficult forms are the infinitive and the present participle. For the infinitive, we would expect *nazzu; the actual form izuzzu, which replaced *izzu, may have been influenced by the imperative (cf. 12.6.1, pp. 318319, for a parallel from Hebrew) and/or by its antonym itlu to lie (down). Its by-form uzuzzu arose from the assimilation of i to u (Huehnergard 2002b: 173), just as utlu beside itlu (see 16.5.3.1, p. 480). Both forms are due to the tendency to avoid i and u in the same word (see chap. 5 n. 33, p. 135). Old Assyrian izizzum shows an even stronger adaptation to the imperative. Of the two alternative participles, muzzazzu is found in Sargonic Akkadian and Old Babylonian, muzzizzu in Old and later Babylonian and in Old and Middle Assyrian. Its i may be an adaptation to the fixed vowel i in all derived present participles, but the oldest form muzzazzu defies explanation (see Huehnergard 2002b: 172).
or *z. In this respect, two strange Sargonic Akkadian forms may be relevant: Impfv i-za-ad AKI p. 280:17 (cp RI of arkaliarri) and Prec li-zi-id AKI p. 258:109 (cp RI of Naram-Sin). If they are genuine, it is possible that they go back to a form in which a final had become d through dissimilation: * > *d. Another intriguing Sargonic Akkadian form is the Prec li-za-zu SAB p. 163:12 (Diyala), instead of the regular form lizzizz. If izuzzu belongs to the II/ class, it might testify to a G perfective *izz, but a single form is obviously insufficient to base a conclusion on. The alleged Middle Assyrian parallel la-za-az MCS 2, 16:23 should rather be interpreted as a case of Krasis (GAG 17) of l azzz I will not stand up. 144. It is possible that the long vowel remains long in spite of the following geminate; see n. 102 (p. 477).
490
In the derived stems, noteworthy features of izuzzu are the Old Babylonian present forms with a t-infix (ittazz, etc.) and ingressive meaning mentioned in 14.5.4 (p. 392), which are formally an Nt-stem. Just as in the strong verb, these forms are built from the suffix base: izzz nazz (Stat) i-n-t-azVz (> ittazVz). From this form, a pluractional stem with the imperfective ittanazzaz, Pl. ittanazzazz (3fp it-ta-na-za-az-za AfO 18, 65:18) is derived, formally an Ntn-stem. Attested forms include an Imp Pl itazzazz (i-ta-az-za-az-za-a AbB 11, 152:18), an Inf itazzuzzu (Gen i-ta-az-zu-uz-zi AbB 9, 1:12), and a present participle muttazzizzu (Stat 3fs mu-ta-zi-za-at SSA 91: r.1) (all OB). All these forms are regular derivations of the imperfective on the model of the strong verb (Imp itapras, Inf itaprusu, PrPartc muttaprisu). The -stem shows an interesting difference between Babylonian and Assyrian.145 Babylonian conjugates the -stem in the same way as other -stems of II/voc verbs, i.e., with a long vowel when there is no ending, and gemination of the final radical when there is one. Examples in which gemination is graphically indicated are: (l) tu-u-za-az-zi-ni-[a-t]i AbB 3, 2:17 (OB) do (Fem) not make us stand tu-uz-za-az-zu FI p. 44: IV 3, 15 (OB) you set up (Subj), see n. 145 u-zu-uz-zu BER 4, 146:19 (MB) it has been set up (Subj); also St. von Soden (AOAT 1), p. 3: I 6 u-za-az-zu BHT pl. 9: V 25 (SB) they cause to stand u-ziz-zu (var. -za) Ee I 74 (SB) he established u-zu-uz-za Sg. 8:249 (SB) (towers) which had been erected u-ziz-zu Nbn. 13:6 and 356:35 (NB) they caused to stand The Babylonian relationship N *inzz versus uzz is parallel to ipparrar uparrar (see 13.4.2, pp. 340341) and ibbalakkat ubalakkat (see 13.4.1, pp. 338339) and thus indirectly confirms the analysis of izzz as an original N-stem (see also 13.2.2.5, p. 333). After the Old Babylonian period, Assyrian-type forms based on an imperfective uazzaz appear and become by far the most common ones (see GAG 107g). From the oldest texts onward, Assyrian has uazzaz in the imperfective. The geminate is never spelled out, but we may safely assume that it was present, just as in other imperfectives of the derived stems, such as uakkal and uebbal.146 I am not aware of any non-imperfective forms in which gemination is graphically indicated. This means that we cannot be certain whether there was gemination in all forms or only in the imperfectivein other words, whether uazzaz followed the conjugation of uaddan uaddin or that of uakkal ukil. The fact that the corresponding Babylonian forms are sometimes spelled with a geminate and that some forms of the G-stem look like I/n forms (Huehnergard 2002b: 17074) makes the former option the most likely.
145. Apparent D forms of this word in Old Babylonian (Impfv uzzz, Pfv uzzz, etc.) are actually forms with assimilation of to z (Huehnergard 2002b: 167 n. 18). This is eloquently demonstrated by the following passage, where tu-uz-za-az-zu is resumed by u-zi-iz: (when you are going to move up the barley [to the threshing floor]), a ina ereqqi tu-uz-za-az-zu ri emqi u-zi-iz (as to the person) whom you put upon the wagon, put a strong person (upon it) FI p. 44: IV 3, and similarly in line 15 (OB). Cf. also MARI 3, 282 M.13259 uz-zi-zu // M.13233 u-zi-zu (OB). 146. The only form I am aware of in which gemination is graphically indicated is Neo-Assyrian []-az-za-zu--nu-u-ni SAA 15, 183:4 he/they cause(s) them to stand (Subj), which may be a Babylonianism. Other forms are quoted by Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 99100.
16.6. The II/gem Verbs
491
16.6. the ii/gem Verbs

In the II/gem verbs, the verba secundae (or mediae) geminatae,147 the two final radicals R2 and R3 are identical. The Akkadian II/gem verbs are largely conjugated like strong verbs, so we can deal with them fairly briefly. I will first address some formal issues (16.6.1) and subsequently comment on the semantic nature of some II/gem verbs and their parallels in Semitic (16.6.2).
16.6.1. FormalaspectsoftheII/gemverbs
Three formal aspects concerning the II/gem verbs merit discussion: the root vowel, the contrast between fientive and adjectival II/gem verbs in the stative and the feminine singular of the past participle, and the frequent occurrence of gemination of R3 in II/gem forms with a vocalic ending.148 We have to distinguish between fientive and adjectival II/gem verbs.149 The fientive II/gem verbs are remarkably uniform in that almost all of them have the root vowel u: transitive II/gem verbs normally belong to the vowel class A/u and intransitive ones to U/u, where they fit in very well since most of them are atelic activity verbs (see 3.5.2.3, pp. 7374). The only exceptions are aggu to be(come) angry and naggu to bray, which are A/u but intransitive (and therefore very atypical; see 3.5.2.2, pp. 7273), lazzu to continue and allu to sleep, which are A/a, and ekku to scratch, ennu to punish, sallu to flutter, flap (wings), and pallu (meaning uncertain, OA), which are I/i. For ekku and ennu, this is doubtless a secondary consequence of their adoption of the E-paradigm (see 17.5.1, pp. 525530). Therefore, only the very rare verbs sallu and pallu contradict W. von Sodens claim (GAG 101b) that no fientive II/gem verbs have the vowel class I/i, because their repetitive and durative nature (see 16.6.2, pp. 494495) is incompatible with the momentary nature of the root vowel i. However, root vowels are unmotivated and thus do not have a meaning or function in themselves (Kuryowicz 1972: 43), although they may be secondarily associated with a certain range of meanings as a result of the general meaning of the verbs in which they occur. The predominance of u as root vowel instead has a historical (non-semantic) reason, which does not seem retrievable for the moment. It is significant that among the verbs that are reconstructible to Proto-Semitic, including their root vowel, there is a relatively large number of II/gem verbs with the root vowel u (see 18.3.1, pp. 587588).150
147. As I argued in 15.1 (pp. 438439), the term geminatae for these verbs is misleading, since the radical(s) in question are reduplicated rather than geminated: in all basic forms, they are separated by a vowel and only occur as a cluster (i.e., geminated) in forms in which the vowel syncope rule has removed the intervening vowel, as in the Imp Pl mudd measure!, the Stat Pl madd they have been measured, and the t-Pf imtadd they have measured. Reiner (1966: 43) claims that the difference between this cluster of identical consonants and a geminate consonant is reflected in the fact that the former is always explicitly indicated in the spelling, whereas a geminate consonant is often left unexpressed. This is borne out by most forms, but there are exceptions, such as mu-da-am /muddam/ AbB 13, 118:21 measure for me! from maddu, and a-da-ku / addku/ UET 5, 34:27 I have transported from addu (both OB). 148. Earlier literature includes GAG 101 and Kienast 2001: 34446. 149. For a list of Akkadian II/gem verbs, see Aro 1964: 3133. 150. In this respect, the II/gem verbs are similar to the II/voc verbs; see the enumeration in 18.3.1 (p. 588). No doubt, the relative stability of their root vowel as compared to that of strong verbs is due to the fact that it is either long or followed by a geminate consonant and therefore more prominent. In a historical perspective, this is an argument in favour of reconstructing the Proto-Semitic imperfective and perfective of the II/gem verbs as *yibullu and *yibull, respectively, rather than *yiblulu and *yiblul from the root bll to mix (how the perfective *yibull was realized in practice is of secondary importance here). Since the *yiblulu type is typical of languages with a geminate imperfective (Akkadian and South Semitic; see
492
The II/gem Verbs 16.6.
The adjectival II/gem verbs exhibit an apparent exception to the strong conjugation of the II/gem verbs. Primary adjectives of this type (dannu strong, etc.) show a weak (monosyllabic) form in the 3ms stative (dn he is strong) (GAG 101d; Kienast 2001: 345). It is not a real exception, becauseas I argued in 3.3.2 (pp. 5860)primary adjectives and their predicative forms are not strictly speaking part of the verbal paradigm. The 3ms stative is derived from the adjective itself by means of subtraction of the case ending (see 7.4.1, p. 178): dannu *dann, like *damiqu damiq). The word-final geminate of *dann could not stand and is presumably replaced by lengthening of the preceding vowel (/dn/),151 as may be inferred from occasional plene spellings: dannu strong: da-a-an YOS 10, 7:20; 22:21 and elsewhere (OB), da-an passim qallu light: qa-al (passim, no plene spellings known to me) raqqu thin: ra-a-aq CT 39, 18:99 (SB), ra-aq passim sarru false: s-a-ar ShA 1, 76 no. 5:8 (OB), sa-ar passim ebbu pure: *b ? (see below) eddu sharp: e-ed YOS 10, 31: II 19; OBE 1: r.19 (OB). ellu pure: e-el JCS 9, 96 no. 82:17 (OB); e-el kt k/k 3:40 (OA); CT 39, 38: r.1415 (SB, but 45, 2728:36 (l) el) emmu hot: e-em AfO 48/49, 74:20; BAM 4, 393: r.25 (OB); TDP 146:62 (SB), but em(-ma) TDP 180:29; 220:31) ezzu angry: e-ez in the PN E-ez--pair-ana-ardi-dMarduk BE 14, 151:17 (MB) Marduk is angry (but) forgiving towards (his) servant In the first four verbs, with a strong R1, plene spellings are sporadic, but the statives of the I/voc verbs are regularly spelled with an extra e sign in Old Babylonian, an initial plene writing (see Kouwenberg 2003/4a: 8990 and 17.6.2 below, pp. 543544). One of its functions is to indicate a long initial vowel, but it is not certain that this is also the case here. It may also serve to avoid writing a full word with a single cuneiform sign, as perhaps in the negation -ul /ul/. On balance, these facts seem to favour the view that *dann was realized as dn rather than **dan.152 Some deviating forms are also found. First, in some instances of I/voc verbs, the long vowel in a closed syllable (or the final geminate) seems to have been avoided by adding -i (GAG 3 101d*): e-bi BiOr. 30, 164:14 (SB) instead of *b (which is itself not attested) and e-zi BA 5, 391:10; urpu VIII 3 var. B (SB) instead of z. These forms may stand for /bi/, /zi/ or /ebbi/, /ezzi/. Second, in Standard Babylonian, the fientive form starts encroaching upon the adjectival statives, replacing some of the latter: qalil (qa-lil Erra I 53; BWL 100: 30), elil (e-lil KAR 107: 38+D), and eziz (e-zi-i [z] Racc. 145:451; e-zi-is-su BWL 100:59; e-zi-iz Ee VI 137 [with var. ez-zi-iz with spurious gemination? or is this a PaRRiS form?]). The corresponding form of the fientive II/gem verbs, the stative, is bisyllabic, because it follows the pattern of the strong verb: iparrVs paris (see 2.2.1, p. 30). Maddu, for instance, has madid it has been measured (e.g., ma-di-id AbB 10, 145:32, OB), and similar forms are akik
Huehnergard 2005b: 17273), it is plausible that *yiblulu is an analogical innovation on the basis of the imperfective, e.g., Akk iparras iprus giving iballal iblul instead of *ibull (or the like), a form that in any case causes phonological difficulties. This was also suggested as a possibility by Huehnergard (2005b: 17576 with n. 69). Note also that *yibullu is preserved in precisely those languages that preserve the *yiqtVlu imperfective in general (2005b: 17273). 151. However, /dan/ is posited by Huehnergard (1997b: 443). 152. For dann- reappearing as soon as a vowel of whatever source is attached, cf. the Old Assyrian proper name Dan-na-a-r CCT 3, 20:5 pointing to /Dannaur/, with -nn- restored in sandhi.
493
it has been harrowed from akku (e.g., a-ki-ik UET 6, 397: I 16, OB),153 and pasis it has been erased from passu (e.g., pa-si-is RA 49, 142a:17, SB). The distinction between the stative of primary adjectives and that of fientive verbs is carried over to the past participle: the II/gem adjectives derive the feminine by adding -atu to the stem of the masculine form: dannatu, elletu, qallatu, etc. (GAG 60b), but the past participles of the fientive II/gem verbs show the form paristu in accordance with the strong verb. However, reliable examples are extremely rare: la-zi-iz-tum Sn. 88:43 (SB) from lazzu continuous, ba-lil-tum Fauna 4:37 mixed (only substantivized, SB) from ballu to mix, and -di-it-tum SpTU 3, 119: IV 184 (SB) sedan chair acc. to CAD /1 48b s.v., lit., stretched, a substantivized past participle of addu to pull.154 The third phenomenon characteristic of the II/gem verbs to be discussed is the frequent occurrence of gemination of R3 before a vocalic ending (GAG 3 101g*).155 It mostly occurs in the forms that are otherwise characterized as pluractional, such as the tan-stems (mostly Ntn; see 14.7.5, pp. 425427), the naparruru verbs of 12.3 (pp. 302304), and the uarruru verbs of 13.4.3 (pp. 341344), but less often in other stems. I have found only one instance of a G-stem with gemination of R3 (ammu). Gemination of R3 is attested in the following triradical verbs:156 ()arru to tremble: Gtn Impfv i-[t ]a-[n]a-r-ra-r-ru Lugal 39 var.; cf. also Ntn Impfv it-ta-na-a-ra-ar-ru CT 39, 25:13 (of birds) from arru, same verb? (both SB) au to be(come) worried: Ntn157 Impfv [l ta-t]a-na-a-a-a-a ARM 1, 5:21; it-ta-na-a-a-a-u M.5750 quoted by Durand and Charpin (1988: 12 no. 14); (l) ta-tana-a-a-a-i OBTR 147:28; i-ta-a-u--a-a[m] ARM 10, 106:25 (all OB) dabbu to speak: Gtn Pfv ad-da(-ab)-ba-ab-ba-ak-kum ARM 26/2, 36566 no. 449:40, 45 (OB, note the irregular root vowel; see 14.7.2, pp. 417418) arru to dry out, become parched: N Impfv (l) i-a-ra-ar-ru FM 6, 188 no. 16:14 (of oxen) (OB)158 assu to think, mention: Gtn Impfv [i-t ]a-na-as-s-as-s MARI 7 p. 199:35; ta-a-ta-na-as-s-as-s MARI 7 p. 199:39 (OB); Prec li-i-ta-sa-as-su-u /litassassu/ BBS 6: II 52 may they mention him (SB) k/qannu to twist, coil: Ntn Impfv it-ta-nak-na-an-na TDP 21618:4, 18; SpTU 1, 34:17 (SB); tn Impfv ul-ta-na-ak-na-nu (MA), discussed in 14.7.4 (p. 425) kau to overpower, master: Gtn PrPartc muktaau, epithet of gods and demons, see CAD M/2 188a s.v. (see further below under abbu) sau to tremble: N Impfv is-s-a-i-i-u RA 46, 88:23 (OB)159
153. Used in some metaphorical meaning: he is exhausted or the like. 154. But a variant reading has ad-da-[tum] (MSL 5, 174:271). Cf. also allatu booty from allu to plunder. A past participle *aliltu is not attested, as far as I know. 155. See also the discussion of reduplicated stems in chap. 15 and Groneberg 1989: 34. 156. For the alleged -ttin nbutu to flee (GAG 3 97l), see Kouwenberg 2004: 33639. Other cases, such as the forms du-um-mu-uq-qum (ARM 26/2, 365 no. 449:28 [cf. du-um-mu-qum ARM 26/2, 365 no. 449:22] and ta-at-ta-ap-la-su-us4-s[i-na-ti] ARM 4, 32:26 acc. to Durand 1997/2000: II 96 n. 206 are probably instances of poor spelling. 157. Ntn rather than Gtn because of it-ta in M.5750 and the Inf i-ta-a-u--a-a[m]; see 17.6.3.4 (p. 554). Spellings of finite forms without -tt- may also be Gtn, but the infinitive with i- and M.5750 prove the existence of Ntn, so it is more economical to regard the ambiguous forms as Ntn, too. 158. arru is apparently the Old Babylonian Mari form of erru to be(come) dry, parched. 159. Elsewhere, the vowel class of this verb is U/u.
494
The II/gem Verbs 16.6.
abbu to scorch, burn(?) or to flash(?):160 Gtn PrPartc mutabbabbu, epithet of a demon; see CAD M/2 282b s.v.161 aggu to be(come) stiff: Ntn Impfv it-ta-na-a-gag-gu TDP 42:31 (SB) allu to plunder, kidnap: Ntn Pfv it-ta-a-lal-la SBH p. 110 no. 57:36 (SB) they (the people: ni) were taken away ammu to lame, paralyze: G Impfv i-am-ma-am-ma-u TDP 70:13 (SB); Ntn Inf i-ta-a-mu-um-mu MSL 14, 506:7 (SB) annu to rival: Gt Impfv ta-a-ta-an-na-an-na KUB 37, 168:8; i-ta-an-na-an-nu BRM 4, 16:16; N Impfv (l) i--an-na-an-nu BA 5, 646 no. 12:10 (all SB). The association of gemination of the final radical with the pluractional categories confirms the general function of gemination in Akkadian, that of underlining plurality, but its restriction to II/gem roots is likely to have some formal backgroundfor instance, a shift of the stress one syllable to the right.
16.6.2. SemanticaspectsoftheII/gemverbs
Many fientive II/gem verbs show a specific semantic nature: W. von Soden (GAG 101b) calls them Kettendurative, i.e., they denote durative activities consisting of a repetition of short homogeneous movements (which is generally termed iterative). Thus their reduplication (sic!) iconically reflects the repetitive nature of the activity they denote. For instance, transitive II/gem verbs for repetitive movements are arru to dig, kassu to gnaw, kau to grind (ones teeth), lammu to chew, akku to harrow, string (beads, etc.), mau to wipe, pau to anoint, and abbu to spread (wings). Intransitive verbs of the same nature are barru to glow, shine, bau to drip, arru, tarru, rattu, and sau to tremble, dakku to gambol, ekku to scratch, lazzu to continue, rau to glow, arru to flow, sparkle, and zannu to rain. In addition, many II/gem verbs denote sounds (that are often inherently repetitive), such as *awm and dabbu to speak,162 dammu to lament, abbu to murmur, chirp, addu to rumble, rustle, allu to pipe, wheeze, naggu to bray, nazzu to grunt, rustle, and rammu to roar. In many other cases, however, this repetitive nature is dubious or outright lacking, for instance in the transitive verbs allu to hang (trans.), arru to curse, dallu to glorify, ennu to punish, kappu to bend, karru to put, place, kau (B) to trim, mutilate, maddu to measure, mau to soak, soften, ammu to paralyze, and zannu to provide (food), and in the intransitive verbs aggu to be(come) angry,163 qaddu to bow, parru to dissolve, qannu
160. AHw 1118a s.v. abbu I etwa glhen, verdorren; CAD /1 23 s.v. . A to roast, burn (but CAD M/2 282b s.v. mutabbabbu refers to abbu but translates flasher. 161. The participles muktaau and mutabbabbu were taken as R-stems by Kienast (1957b), which is incorrect, because the reduplication is inherent in the stem (see 15.1, pp. 438439). They are best regarded as Gtn participles (muptarrisu) with extra gemination of R3 and a change in the stem vowel of i to a, cf. ik-ta-na---- urpu V 16 it continually overpowers him, Gtn Impfv of kau. This had already been claimed by von Soden (1956: 242 n. 1) before Kienasts publication. Unfortunately, von Soden changed his mind later, since in AHw 462a s.v. kau I he lists this form as Rtn? and in AHw 685a s.v. mutabbabbu he refers to abbu Rt, both with a reference to Kienast 1957b. 162. For *awm to speak (w < *hww, only attested in the Gt-stem), see chap. 17 n. 87 (p. 538). 163. In spite of its meaning, I have not classified aggu as an adjectival verb because of its exceptional vowel class A/u (see 3.5.2.2, pp. 7273) and its Stat agig (see 16.6.1 above, pp. 492493). In general, verbs denoting this kind of transitory emotions are at best marginal members of the class of adjectival verbs: cf. ezzu to be(come) angry, which has both z and eziz (see above).
495
to nest (perhaps denominal from qinnu nest), allu to sleep, and au to crumble, dissolve. The adjectival verbs of this class (GAG 101c) do not show any particular semantic nature, either; they are listed under the corresponding adjectives in 3.3.3 sub D1, D2, and D3 (pp. 6364). The II/gem verbs are well represented in all older Semitic languages, where they also comprise a mix of verbs that are iconically motivated and verbs which are not. A striking confirmation of their Proto-Semitic origin is the fact that, among the verbs that are reconstructible to Proto-Semitic with a specific root vowel, there is a relatively large number of II/gem verbs with the root vowel u (see 18.3.1, p. 588). In the II/gem verbs that refer to iterative events, reduplication is iconic and therefore an inherent feature of their form. In other words, they come from genuine triradical roots with identical R2 and R3, not from biradical roots that were secondarily adapted to the triradical paradigm, as is often claimed. There is no ban on this type of root in Semitic, even though roots with homorganic but non-identical R2 and R3 do not occur (see 2.3.3, p. 43).164 Ultimately, however, they may have come from biconsonantal (doubtless often onomatopoeic) elements that themselves could not be directly conjugated as verbs and are therefore not verbal roots. In this respect, they are comparable to the I/n verbs discussed in 12.6.1 (nabu to bark, etc.), which also go back to biconsonantal onomatopoeic elements. This is confirmed by the fact that outside Akkadian II/gem verbs often coexist with quadriradical verbs of the C1C2C1C2 type (Fischer 1993: 41 43)e.g., He glal and gilgel to roll, Ar daffa and dafdafa to beat with the wings, Geez fat(a) ta to break off, fatfata to crumbleor they alternate with them across languages. In these quadriradical verbs, reduplication is more prominent, which confirms the iconic background of both types. The historical relationship between the quadriradical and the triradical variant usually escapes us: the former may be an extension of the latter, or the triradical verb may be a simplification of the quadriradical form (Voigt 1981: 162; Fischer 1993: 51). The non-iconic II/gem verbs of West Semitic often have alternative forms as well, but mainly in other weak verb types, especially II/voc verbs and III/voc verbs, e.g., He zrr to squeeze out and zwr to press, wring, mll and mwl to circumcise (Kuryowicz 1972: 1011; Zaborski 1991: 1680).165 This testifies to a tendency to shift from one type to another. It is difficult to retrieve the details of such shifts, but an important factor may have been the existence of the derived pluractional *yiqattalu. It is possible that the coexistence of II/voc verbs and II/gem verbs of the same root goes back to simple versus pluractional forms of the same verb (cf. Frajzyngier 1979). With Ar dka and dakka to grind as example, it is conceivable that yadukku, the imperfective of dakka, was originally a pluractional counterpart of yadku, which became independent after the decline of *yiqattalu as a derived verbal stem. Especially in verbs with an inherent repetitive meaning, a pluractional form is likely to be relatively frequent and may thus have survived at the cost of the basic form.166 Further study is required to investigate this possibility.
164. Frajzyngier (1979: 34) argues that the occurrence of roots with identical R1 and R2 whereas homorganic R1 and R2 are prohibited is an unnatural exception and that this points to C1C2C2 roots being derived forms on a par with the D-stem. However, it does not seem too unnatural, since it can be explained from ease of articulation (see 2.3.3, p. 43), and it is contradicted by the meaning of the verbs in question, unless we assume that derived in this context means iconically motivated. 165. See especially Kienast 2001: 34650 for the II/gem verbs in West Semitic. 166. Frajzyngier (1979: 58) mentions parallels from Chadic with verbs of the structure CVVCV, with a derived pluralic (sometimes also factitive) CVVCCV > CVCCV, e.g., look lokk to hang (Pero), bupi buppe to shoot (Kanakuri). In this situation, one language may generalize the singular form and another the plural form, which from our perspective looks like a II/voc verb versus a II/gem verb. Frajzyngier (1979: 35) also argues that II/gem verbs are originally derived forms with gemination, on a par with the
496
The III/voc Verbs 16.7.
Root alternation of II/gem verbs with other types of weak verbs is hardly attested in Akkadian. A possible example is dku () to hit, kill and dakku to crush, pound, i.e., to hit repeatedly (von Soden 1959: 5455). In other alleged instances, such as arru and er to dig, kappu and kep to bend, lazzu and lez to continue, persist (CAD L 163a s.v. and AHw 1571a s.v. lez II), and raddu to pursue versus red to follow, accompany (cf. GAG 105a), the III/voc verbs show E-colouring (see 17.5.1, pp. 525530), suggesting that they once had an E-colouring guttural (e.g., rd in the case of red, see chap. 17 n. 207, p. 573) and therefore come from a different root.167
16.7. the iii/voc Verbs 16.7.1. Thesources

The Akkadian III/voc verbs have , , or as R3 and form a regular subsystem of the strong verb. This chapter only deals with the III/ and III/ verbs, since the III/ verbs are likely to go back to verbs with a guttural as R3 and thus belong to chap. 17.168 It is a matter of debate whether the Proto-Semitic predecessors of the III/ and III/ verbs were basically conjugated as strong verbs (Moscati, ed. 1964: 166; Lipiski 1997: 430) and thus had y and w, respectively, as R3, which could be preceded by any of the possible root vowels a, u, and i (at least in theory), or whether already at this stage the verbs in question ended in a (long) vowel (Diem 1977; Diakonoff 1991/92: 102). I will assume that Proto-Semitic had III/ and III/ verbs with a long vowel as R3, just as in several of the daughter languages, such as *yibk he dried and *yir he scattered, in addition to verbs ending in a diphthong, certainly -ay and -aw and perhaps also -uy and -iw. The latter group has not survived in Akkadian because of the general loss of diphthongs, but there are some traces of verbs ending in -ay.169 The most remarkable trace is the Mari Old Akkadian form ti-i-da-u /titay/ MARI 1, 81:23 they drank from at (I/i). It shows that this original III/*y verb had the root vowel a.170 The singular form *yitay later appears as it in Babylonian and Assyrian, assimilated to the large I/i class. A similar trace consists of a few III/*y verbs that have become III/ verbs in Sargonic Akkadian and Assyrian, because they had the root vowel a, namely re to tend (sheep), e to look for, and le to be able (see Aro 1964: 180): yir < PSem *yiray he shepherded (ry) yi < PSem *yi ay he sought from e ( y) perhaps yil < PAkk *yilay he was able (from le, etymology uncertain)
D-stem, which represents a formally very similar process. In his view, this has the advantage of obviating the alleged violation of the incompatibility rules, since these only concern the root morpheme itself and not inflectional or derivational affixes nor gemination or reduplication. However, the claim that there are no original roots with geminates as basic forms seems to take things too far. 167. Which does not exclude the possibility that they are ultimately related, like the numerous roots starting with PR and conveying the general idea of separation; see GAG 73b and Zaborski 1991: 169091. 168. Because is not a possible outcome of short vowel plus y or w in Akkadian; see below (cf. also GAG 105c). 169. The form *yikassaw posited in 4.5.1 (p. 111) as the original imperfective of (some) transitive U/u verbs does not offer evidence for verbs ending in -aw, since it is a derived form adopting the pattern prescribed by its function. 170. Cf. Geez ystay (CDG 518) and perhaps He yit, i.e., PSem *yitay. However, the Hebrew form may also be from yit; see Diem 1977: 24).
16.7. The III/voc Verbs
497
The reconstruction of -ay is primarily based on Sargonic Akkadian and Old Assyrian evidence. The former consists of the Impfv a-la-e SAB p. 167:17 (Diyala) I will be able and proper names containing the perfective forms r-e (MAD 3, 228), i11-e or i-i-e (MAD 3, 256), and l-e (MAD 3, 158), in which final can hardly be explained otherwise.171 The Old Assyrian forms of these verbs have final - rather than - according to the attested plene writings, which are unusually consistent (GKT 98a).172 Moreover, the root vowel a suits these transitive but durative (i.e., low transitivity) verbs quite well semantically (see 3.5.2.4, pp. 7475). In order to explain the state of affairs that we find in Akkadian, it is convenient to start from the assumption that at some stage of their development the Proto-Semitic ancestors of the III/ and III/ verbs had finite basic categories ending in y or w, preceded by any root vowel: -ay, -iy, -uy and -aw, -iw, -uw. The phonological changes affecting diphthongs in Akkadian reduced this system to the two types of III/ and III/ verbs that are attested in the historical period, apart from the few residual III/ verbs discussed above. If we render the Proto-Semitic III/y and III/w verbs with QTy/w and the Akkadian ones with PR/, the following changes took place: III/*w roots *yi-QTaw *yi-QTuw *yi-QTiw > > > yi-PR yi-PR yi-PR 174 *yi-QTay *yi-QTuy *yi-QTiy III/*y roots > > > yi-PR/ yi-PR 173 yi-PR
table 16.11: the possible background of the Akkadian iii/ and iii/ verbs.
Essentially, then, original III/*y verbs appear in Akkadian as III/ verbs and original III/*w verbs as III/ verbs (Tropper 1998a: 29). In dialects where ay becomes (Sargonic Akkadian, Mari Old Akkadian and Assyrian), the original III/y verbs with a should appear as III/ verbs, as in the cases just mentioned, but the great majority seem to have joined the III/ class instead, at least in Assyrian.175 The scarcity of sources for third-millennium Akkadian makes it difficult to establish what happened in Sargonic Akkadian and Mari Old Akkadian. However, the class of III/ and III/ verbs has been enriched with verbs with a guttural as R3 and i or u as root vowel: the loss of the guttural elevated the root vowel to the status of radical, as I argued in 2.3.4 (p. 45); e.g., PSem *yinbi he called > Akk ibb and *yibu he sank > Akk ib, after which the verbs adopted the conjugation of the III/ and the III/ verbs, respectively. Since most of the III/H verbs have the root vowel a (and therefore ended up as III/ or III/ verbs;
171. Sargonic Akkadian does not normally have E-colouring caused by gutturals (Hasselbach 2005: 106). Proper names from Tell Beydar and Mari Old Akkadian (where E-colouring is non-existent) include r-e(-ud) TB 1, 2: I 4 and passim in Tell Beydar, l-e(-da-bi-bu) ARM 19, 338:3 and 3fs (E4-dar-)tal-e ARM 19, 393:4 according to A. Westenholz (1978: 167b) in Mari. 172. The occurrence of -ay is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the corresponding names in Eblaite end in -a: r-a, l-a, and i11-a, interpretable as yir , yil, and yi , respectively, since ay > in Eblaite; see Gelb 1981: 3738 and Krebernik 1988b: 47, 61. 173. For uy > , see Fleisch 1961: 123 and Fischer 1972: 20 for Arabic, but uy > also occurs, depending on morphosyntactic criteria, basically the recognizability of the pattern. 174. For iw > , see n. 75 (p. 466). 175. Plene spellings with e in Old Assyrian finite verb forms are almost exclusively found in III/H verbs with E-colouring (see 17.8.3, p. 576); in III/ verbs, they are extremely rare. Examples are e-e Bell. 14, 226:26, Imp Sg Masc of wa (I/i) to go /come out, and bi-re-e(-ma) Prag I 655:12, Imp Sg Masc of bar to look at, check.
498
see 17.8.1, pp. 572573), the number of original III/H verbs among the III/ and III/ verbs is fairly small. The most obvious ones are: a () to err, sin ( (i)) ma () to be(come) sufficient, able (m (i); see Kouwenberg 2003: 83) nab () to call (nb (i); see Huehnergard 1999: 9192) nad () to put down, leave (nd (i); see Kouwenberg 2003: 83 with n. 51) na () to carry (n (i)) wa () to go /come out (w (i); see AHw 1475b s.v. and CDG 6056 s.v. wada) am () to be(come) thirsty (m (u)) eb () to sink (b (u)) eg ( in OB, later ) to become negligent (w/yg (u); see 16.3.2, p. 464) eg () to become rabid (only N ieggu; He g; see SED 1, 32223)
These developments led to the rise of the two large classes of III/ and III/ verbs, of which the III/ verbs are numerically dominant and in the historical period tend to encroach on the domain of the III/ verbs, as we saw in 3.5.3 (pp. 7879). The III/ and the III/ verbs end in a long vowel that is root vowel and final radical at the same time (see 2.3.4, p. 45). Variation according to vowel class is, therefore, not possible,176 and when in specific forms of their conjugation y and w seem to appear as consonants before an ending starting with a different vowel, as in iqbiy they said and tamnuw you (Pl) counted, they are not the original radicals but glides, secondarily inserted for phonological reasons. Theoretically, the opposite analysis might seem possible as well: one could argue that y in iqbiy and w in tamnuw are the original radicals and that the long vowel in iqb and tamn is actually a surface realization of -iy and -uw, respectively. This line of reasoning may be historically correct, but it does no justice to the situation in Akkadian, first, because it does not take account of the fact that we only find i before y and u before w, and, second, because in Akkadian the forms with an ending are regularly based on the forms without ending (see 2.2.1 with n. 8, pp. 3233). Consequently, the long final vowel of the forms without ending is basic. The principles on which the rest of the conjugation is based and that will be illustrated in the next sections for the individual dialects are as follows. When a vocalic ending with a different vowel is added, the long vowel is replaced by the corresponding short vowel plus a glide in accordance with the fact that the strong verb also has a short vowel in the same position, e.g., iqbi y they said, iqbi yam he said to me, tamnuw you (Pl) counted, and tamnuw you (Fem) counted.177 When a vocalic ending with the same vowel is added, final vowel and ending may appear as one long vowel, even in dialects that do not regularly show vowel contraction: taqb you (Fem) said, imn they counted. In Old Assyrian, the glide may become consonantal when as a result of the vowel syncope rule it lands between a consonant and a vowel, in forms such as iqtabyam < *iqtab(i) yam he has said to me and ittarwam < ittar(u)wam he has brought here (see further 16.7.2.3, pp. 504505).
176. However, in Middle Assyrian the verb wa to go /come out developed a new Impfv u (instead of earlier u ) alongside the Pfv u (W. Mayer 1971: 8889). The reason was doubtless to restore a clear distinction between imperfective and perfective, because the perfective (u < (y)ui ) loses its i through vowel syncope, when it has an ending, and the resulting cluster -- is equivalent to a geminate (see Kouwenberg 2003: 8485), e.g., 3mp u = u. This obscured the contrast with the imperfective (although no forms are exactly identical). 177. I will render the glides here with a superscript y and w for the sake of clarity, but a superscript is too unpractical. Normally, I omit glides from my transcriptions since they are phonologically predictable.
499
16.7.2. TheparadigmoftheIII/vocverbs 16.7.2.1. Theoriginalparadigm

Table 16.12 contains the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian forms of the paradigm of the III/ verbs and the III/ verbs with qab () to speak and man () to count as sample verbs (see also GAG 105 and Verbalpar. 29, 30b, and 3233).
qab (III/) OA Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat PPartc Inf PrPartc iqabb iqb iqtib qib qab qab( )yum
i
man (III/) OA imann imn imtun mun man man( )yum

i
OB iqabb iqb iqtab qib qab qabm qabm qbm
OB imann imn imtan mun man manm manm mnm
qabum qbiyum
manum mniyum
table 16.12: the original paradigm of the iii/ and iii/ verbs
I will write the final vowels of all forms without ending as long for historical reasons, since they are long both structurally and historically (GAG 105a; Diem 1977: 2728; Buccellati 1996: 261, 314): structurally, because they correspond to short vowel + consonant in the strong verb (iqabb ~ ipaqqid), and historically, because the loss of a post-vocalic weak consonant is regularly compensated for by vowel lengthening. Undoubtedly, they were long when an additional ending or an enclitic element followed, such as a suffix pronoun or -ma, but in all likelihood they were shortened in final position (GAG 105d; Reiner 1966: 8889) or at least became anceps (Edzard 2001: 134 n. 7), if only to create a contrast with vowels that are long through vowel contraction, e.g., Imp Masc qib versus Fem qib speak!, Pfv 3ms imn versus 3mp imn he/they counted. The forms of the perfective and the imperative go back directly to Proto-Semitic and are identical to the corresponding forms elsewhere, apart from the usual language-specific changes in the final vowels, which I will not further discuss. The imperfective replaces the original Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu and is based on *yiqattalu. A valuable trace of *yiqattalu is preserved in the Sargonic Akkadian imperfectives yiqabb and yiba from qab and ba, which were already mentioned in 4.5.1 (pp. 110111). They go back to *yiqabbay and *yibaay and contrast with the perfectives yiqb and yib (Hasselbach 2005: 4142). The interpretation of final - versus - in these forms is based on the use of the signs or se11 and bi in the imperfective, which stand for consonant plus e in Sargonic Akkadian, and the signs and b in the perfective, which stand for consonant plus i (see Sommerfeld 1999: 1821 and Hasselbach 2005: 4142, 5052). Examples of qab are Impfv -ga-bi /yiqabb/ SAB p. 151:8 (Sippar) and a-ga-bi / aqabb/ SAB p. 90:25 (Girsu) versus Pfv dag-b /taqb/ DPA 47:10 (Girsu) you said and ki-b /qib/ speak! in the introductory formula of Sargonic Akkadian (and later) letters. Examples of ba are Impfv i-ba- /yiba/ DPA 12:6
500
(Girsu) and i-ba-se11 /yibass/ OAIC 9:29 (Diyala) versus Pfv ib-i /yib/ MAD 1, 167:3, 5 (Eshnunna) and ib-si /yibs/ CT 50, 73: II 10 (Gasur).178 The forms yiqabb and yiba testify to an original -ay in the imperfective of at least some III/ verbs. There are no comparable forms for the III/ verbs, since already in Proto-Akkadian aw merges with (see 16.7.2.4, pp. 508509, for a possible aw > ). However, as I argued in 3.5.2.3 (p. 74) and 4.5.1 (p. 111), we may posit the existence of an early imperfective *yimannaw on the basis of the fact that the basically intransitive vowel class U/u contains a fairly large number of transitive III/ verbs that may originally have belonged to the large transitive A/u class. It cannot be established, however, to what extent the III/voc verbs originally had an iparras imperfective. In Babylonian, ay becomes , so that *yiqabbay became iqabb and is no longer distinguishable from forms with an original -. In Assyrian, where ay becomes , imperfectives with - have not been preserved: all available plene writings of III/ imperfectives point to . This means that if forms with - ever existed, they were replaced by forms with - by analogy with - of the perfective, imperative, and usually also the stative. In the deverbal forms derived from the suffix base, the final radical of all fientive III/voc is replaced with a glide whose nature is determined by the preceding vowel. The difference in vowel class between qab and man is therefore neutralized, just as all vowel alternations in the suffix base of the strong verb. The past participle originally had the form *qabi yum/*mani yum (~ *parisum). The application of the vowel-syncope rule deleted i and thus made the glide consonantal: qabyum/manyum (~ parsum) or qab iyum/man iyum. The further development of these forms differs according to dialect and will be discussed in the next sections. In the infinitive, the original R3 has been replaced by the glide after . There are no traces in Akkadian of infinitives with y or w as R3, even though the defective writing (or rather nonwriting) of the sounds involved makes it difficult to adduce positive evidence.179 No relevant forms are known from third-millennium Akkadian (see Hasselbach 2005: 22829). For Old and Middle Assyrian, we only have negative evidence: no spellings are found which point to the presence of other glides than , such as **q-ba-i-um/am or **ma-na-wa-am (see also Kouwenberg 2006: 155 with n. 19). This suggest that the pattern qabum applies to all III/voc verbs, in accordance with the fact that in all deverbal forms of the G paradigm differences between individual form classes (i.e., vowel classes and different weak radicals) are neutralized. The present participle qbiyum/mniyum (~ prisum) requires no further comment. In this section, I have only described the background of the forms of Table 16.11 insofar as this is relevant. Their further development in the historical dialects, and the complications caused by the addition of endings and the application of the vowel syncope rule will be discussed in the next sections: third-millennium Akkadian in 16.7.2.2, Assyrian in 16.7.2.3, and Babylonian in 16.7.2.4.
178. For the interchange of // and /s/ as a result of the gradual merger of // with original /s/ and //, see Hasselbach 2005: 13543. 179. Such infinitives seem to occur in Eblaite, however, if i-a-wu is correctly interpreted as /yiwu(m)/ and corresponds to Akk i to have; see 16.3.3 above (pp. 467468). Most Eblaite instances corresponding to Akk III/ verbs are non-committal, e.g., ba-ga-um (= r ) VE 717 to cry, which may stand for / bakum/ or /bakyum/, and likewise ba-a-um (= a l . gl) VE 991 to be available; cf. Krebernik 1983: 27 and Fronzaroli 1984: 138. However, a form ga-na-u9-um VE 1217 is attested as variant of ga-na-um VE 257: since u9 is normally /yu/, this may point to /qanyum/ from a III/ verb; however, its meaning is unclear (it is equated with s a g.d u7). On the other hand, there is another verb ba-ga-um (= Ka.ba) VE 198 with a variant ba-ga--um of unknown meaning, where suggests /BaGum/.
501
16.7.2.2. Furtherdevelopmentsinthird-millenniumAkkadian
The scarce data we have on Sargonic Akkadian are compatible with the general principles outlined in 16.7.1 (p. 498). They show that this dialect did not normally have contraction of heterogeneous vowels (Hasselbach 2005: 228), but contradictory evidence makes it difficult to reconstruct the nature of the glides that are used. First, if an ending starting with -a is attached to a III/ or III/ verb, the most straightforward option is to assume a glide y after i and w after u, as in: li-li-am /lliyam/ SAB p. 182a:6 (Gasur) may he come up from el i-ni-a /yiniy/ AKI p. 168:24 (cp RI of Sargon) they (du) did for the second time from an nu-ru-am /nuruwam/ MAD 1, 159:3 (Eshnunna) we brought here180 Second, if an ending starting with -u is attached to a III/ verb, the sign <> seems to be used invariably, e.g.: ik-mi- /yikmiu/ AKI p. 51 D12:7 (date formula of Naram-Sin he captured (Subj) from kam () li-i-ki- /lisqi/ SAB p. 150:8 (Pugdan) let them irrigate from aq () i-ga-bi/bi5/b- /yiqabbiu/ AKI p. 258:133 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) he says (Subj) In word-initial position is specifically used for / u/, whereas the normal sign for /yu/ is u (Hasselbach 2005: 8990). This shows either that the glide between i and u is / / (/yiqabbiu/, etc.), or that can represent /yu/ in the middle of a word (/yiqabbi yu/). I prefer the latter option.181 Third, it is problematic what happens when -u is attached to a III/ verb. There are several third-person plural masculine forms of the III/ verbs war to bring/take, lead and tar to take/bring along: war has a 3mp precative li-ru-nim SAB p. 104:7 and li-ru--nim SAB p. 113:14 (both Girsu) let them bring here. The former can only represent /lirnim/, and the latter is ambiguous: /lirnim/ or /lir (u)wnim/.182 Tar only shows plene spellings (which may be accidental): it-ru- SAB p. 90:23, 31 (Girsu) they took along, and [l ]i-it-ru--nim SAB p. 172: r.2 (Eshnunna) let them bring along. These forms can be interpreted as coming form /yitru/ or /yitr/, or perhaps even /yitruw/. However, the forms with contraction are the only ones that fit all attested spellings and agree with the principles of 16.7.1 (pp. 496498). Moreover, also in Old Assyrian the sequence uw usually contracts to , whereas u normally remains uncontracted, see the next section. We have no further information about other aspects of the III/ and III/ verbs in Sargonic Akkadian, such as the impact of vowel syncope. With regard to Mari Old Akkadian, the only relevant forms are ti-i-da-u /titay/ they drank and yil/tal in proper names, which I already discussed in 16.7.1 (pp. 496497).
16.7.2.3. FurtherdevelopmentsinAssyrian
For Old Assyrian, we have a wealth of information about the development of the III/voc verbs, although its defective orthography, especially in the domain of gutturals and glides, is a
180. Or rather /nuruwam/ because of the vowel syncope rule? 181. See also 17.8.2 (p. 574) for parallel forms in III/H verbs, and the next note (n. 182) on the multiple value of <>. 182. The interpretation /lirunim/ proposed by Hasselbach (2005: 92) violates the vowel-syncope rule. For <> to indicate a plene spelling, cf. also u--i-ru-un /yirn(i)/ SAB p. 69:8 (Girsu) they were delayed (Subj) and tu--bi-lu-si /tbilsi/ JCS 28, 230: r.II 6 (Diyala) she brought it (Fem).
502
serious obstacle for determining the exact shape of many words. The finer details of verb forms containing these phonemes often depend on indirect evidence for their reconstruction. As a rule, Old Assyrian follows the principles of 16.7.1 (p. 498). We can only speculate about the nature of the glides, but we may plausibly posit y after i, w after u and after a, which are phonologically the most natural possibilities: cf. iqbi y they said, tamnu w you (Pl) counted and qabum to say. Very rarely, y is indicated explicitly by means of i: i-a-s-i- ICK 1, 52:16 he will call (Subj); w, on the other hand, is expressed rather frequently by means of the wa sign, e.g., i-za-ku-wa /izakkuw/ BIN 6, 59: r.17 they will become clear, which interchanges with (l) ta-za-ku-a RA 80, 131: r.6 do not clear accounts, which is doubtless also /tazakkuw/. When the final vowel of the stem and the vowel of the ending are identical, the corresponding long vowel ( or ) seems to appear. Examples for are: 3mp Impfv e-ta-wu VS 26, 114:10 or e-ta- Prag I 445:10 they will speak from atawwum (w), i.e. /taww/ or /ta/ 3mp Impfv i-ta-ru- Sadberk p. 107 no. 28:9 they will lead her away from tar 3mp Impfv i-ma-nu ICK 1, 193:15 they count, i.e., /imann/ < *imannuw 3mp Pfv Subj (kutna mala) iz-ku-ni-ni Prag I 574:26 (all my textiles which) became available to me, i.e., /izkninni/ < *izkuwu-nim-ni 183 Similar forms occur in Middle Assyrian (see below). Examples with only occur in secondperson singular feminine forms, which are very poorly represented in our sources: s-p(-ma) OAA 1, 54:24 moisten (Fem)! from ap/b, i.e., /ip/ or /ib/184 e-lim OAA 1, 134:39 (OA) come (Fem) up! with a ventive, which seems to stand for / elm/ or even /elim/ < *el iyim (GKT 7d)185 However, forms of this kind are usually written with a plene spelling, which makes them ambiguous, e.g., e-ta-wu- TC 2, 3:45, iz-ku--nim CCT 3, 26b:12, and (l) ta-ra--i BIN 6, 6:4 do (Fem) not get! These forms can be interpreted as /taww/, /izknum/, and /tara/ without any problem, but it cannot be ruled out that the plene spelling conceals a syllable boundary, e.g., /tawwuw/ /, /izkuwnim/, and /tarai y / or the like. This would imply that both contracted and uncontracted forms were possible. Contraction of different vowels is very rare in the Old Assyrian paradigm of the III/voc verbs. G-stem instances are i-lu-ni TPAK 1, 68:28 in aar a-WA-tum i-lu-ni where the matter
183. Such forms are particularly common in the imperfective of atawwum to speak; see Kouwenberg 2008: the 3ms imperfective of this verb (from a root w, earlier hww) is originally *yitawwuw (~ iptarras) > taww (e.g., e-ta-wu- CTMMA 1, 106 no. 78a:17 he speaks). The 3mp *yitawwu w is realized as taww: e-ta-wu VS 26, 114:10 they discuss, and e-ta-wu-ni-ku-ni JCS 14, 8 no. 4:32 they speak to you (Subj), i.e., tawwnikkunni < tawwu--nim-kum-ni, in addition to numerous ambiguous forms. Even heterogeneous vowels are contracted in this verb: cf. the 2p imperfective: ta-ta-wa VS 26, 112:10 // ta-tawa-a BIN 4, 114:9 you (Pl) speak, i.e., ttaww rather than regular ttawwuw, no doubt as a result of the succession of labial phonemes. 184. This is apparently an I/i verb in Old Assyrian (more commonly U/u); no other instances are known to me. 185. Further examples come from the declension of III/ adjectives and nouns, in which stem-final i seems to contract with a following i/e, as in: ina a-nim mim /anm/ TC 3, 3: 3 on the second day < *an(i) yim; ana ni-q-u /niqu/ AKT 2, 15:2122 for his sacrifice < *niq(i)u (Gen Sg?). These forms contrast with an Acc Sg ni-q-a-am TC 3, 86:22 or ni-iq-am Prag I 564:13, i.e., /niq(i)yam/. A comparable example of coming from an adjective (zak) is (ina ubt) za-ku-tim BIN 4, 158:17 among the cleared textiles, i.e., /zaktim/ < *zak(u)wtim.
503
comes up, apparently /llni/ for regular /lliyni/ from el, and (ina) wa-/-a CCT 4, 47a:18, lit., in my going out, i.e., /wa/ya/ for regular /waya/ from wa. In the derived stems, there are more instances of contraction, but they are still exceptions, e.g., u-t-er-s--ni kt n/k 520:40 (quoted in Dercksen 1996: 126 n. 399) they prepared (Subj), i.e., /utersni/ for regular /utersiyni/ from uters. There is, however, one type of contraction of different vowels that is less infrequent and under certain conditions even more or less regular. It particularly occurs in the small group of III/voc verbs with as R2: le to be able, powerful, re to tend (sheep), and e to look for. They are usually classified as doubly weak verbs, but in their normal conjugation behaves as a strong radical. This conjugation looks as follows (see also GKT 98a and Veenhof 1986: 23639): Impfv ile, Pl ilee y, spelled i-le-e, i-le-e- passim (exceptionally with -i: a-le-i CCT 4, 7b: 25 [Veenhof 1986: 236])186 Pfv il, pl. iley, spelled il5-e, il5-e- passim t-Pf (or Gt Pfv) ilte, usually in 1s al-t-e KTH 5:5 and elsewhere Imp le in le-e Prag I 545:23 (rather uncertain, but cf. -e CCT 2, 50:20) Inf *leum (not attested, but cf. (ana . . .) -a-e-em (Gen) St. Larsen p. 186: r.4) PrPartc Nom re-i-um ICK 1, 13:6, Gen re-i-e-em Anatolia 8, 150:12, Acc [r]-e-i-am CCT 6, 28c:17, i.e., /riyum/, etc.?187 These verbs occasionally show vowel contraction under very specific conditions, mostly in forms with both an ending and a suffix (usually the ni-subjunctive and/or a suffixed pronoun). Examples are: ta-le-a-ni BIN 4, 220:9 you (Pl) are able (Subj) i--a-ni St. Larsen p. 287:71 he is looking for me i---u-ni AKT 3, 30:26 he is looking for him (Subj) li-i-a-ni CCT 5, 9a:30 let him sue me
The regular formswhich also occurshould contain an additional e: ta-le-e-a-ni, etc. Veenhof (1986: 237) observes that the omission of e never occurs in the frequent singular subjunctive forms a-le-e-, ta-le-e-, i-le-e- but that it does occur in the second-person plural subjunctive, which is attested both as ta-le-e-a-ni and ta-le-a-ni. This suggests that the addition of a suffix to the ending caused lengthening of the preceding vowel and a stress shift to the next syllable: talee y but talee yni.188 In this environment, there was apparently a tendency to syncopate the pretonal syllable or to contract -eyV- to --, especially after .189
186. The vowel e in the stem of ile is unexpected and hard to explain, at least if le is indeed cognate with Ugar ly to defeat, be victorious, as claimed by AHw 547a s.v. le, the more so since Middle Assyrian has ila (i-la--e KAV 1: II 18:76 he is able (Subj)). The corresponding vowel of the two other verbs comes from an original *. 187. Because of defective spellings such as the Gen Pl (a-)re-e KTS 1, 51a:4, the Gen Du re-en KTS 1, 51a:11, and the Gen Pl (rabi ) re-i CCT 1, 41b:5, which apparently represent /(ar)ry/, /ryn/, and /ry/, respectively, it seems more likely that these spellings are to be interpreted in the same way, i.e., as /ryum/ and /ryem/. Alternatively, we could assume instead of the glide y. 188. A few forms remain unaccounted for, such as ta-le-a KTH 13:6, 8 you (Pl) are able and i- Prag I 428: 43 (an error for i-e-?). 189. The same tendency may be responsible for the syncopated forms of the word for shepherd mentioned in n. 187.
504
Most exceptions to the rule that heterogeneous vowels remain uncontracted in Old Assyrian in the domain of the III/ verbs concern forms with an ending and a suffix: cf. i-lu-ni and u-ter-s--ni discussed above. Moreover, as we will see presently, in the later Assyrian paradigm of the III/ verbs, does not contract with a following u or a, unless a additional suffix follows: NA iqibi they said but a iqibni what they said (Deller 1959: 12730; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 3637). This is essentially the same rule as that for le and e. This suggests that the short forms of le and e represent a very early stage in a gradual and long-term process of reduction of weak forms that may have started in words from doubly weak roots. In addition to vowel contraction, an important issue concerning the III/voc verbs is the impact of the vowel syncope rule. The past participle, for instance, originally had the form *qabi yum/ *mani yum (~ *parisum). Vowel syncope deleted i and thus made the glide consonantal: qabyum/ manyum (~ parsum) or qab iyum/man iyum (see further below). This also occurred in other forms that are subject to vowel syncope: primary adjectives, the stative, t-perfect and imperative of the G-stem, and the perfective of the N-stem, whenever they have an ending. The form qabyum/kasyum is preserved as such in Old Assyrian, where the alternation of broken spellings and what I will call glide spellingsbecause they have a Ci sign where the broken spellings have a VC signcan be interpreted as representing a cluster of consonant plus y (Kouwenberg 2006: 17173). For instance, if we find spellings such as ra-b-am KTS 2, 63:2 alongside ra-bi-a-am TC 3, 73:15 from rab big (Acc Sg Masc), and p-a--tim ICK 1, 92:2 alongside p---tim TC 3, 26:10 from pe white (Obl Pl Masc), we may conclude that the intended forms are /rabyam/ and /paytim/, respectively, since the alternative forms **rabam and **patim are unlikely to be spelled with Ci signs.190 This also applies to other forms that are subject to vowel syncope: the imperative, e.g., q-ib-a-u-um OAA 1, 101:15 say (Pl) to him! beside q-bi-a-am AKT 3, 49:15 say to me!, i.e., /qibyum/, /qibyam/ the stative, e.g., 2ms q-b-a-t BIN 6, 205:9 beside q-bi4-a-t RA 60, 144:26 you have been told, i.e., /qabyti/ the t-perfect, e.g., i-ir-ta-bi--ni CCT 3, 20:18 she has grown up (Subj), i.e., /irtabyni/191 the perfective of the N-stem, e.g., i--s- Prag I 707:4 they have been called, i.e., /iisy/ This interpretation is confirmed by sporadic spellings that combine the syllabification of a broken spelling with an explicit rendering of post-consonantal y by means of i: q-b-i- Innya no. 242:19 they have been told (/qaby/) and a-as-i- KTS 2, 43:8 they have been called (/asy/), and also by occasional III/ forms such as ta-ar-wa-am kt c/k 113:30 bring here!,192 i-ta-ar-wa-am Prag I 686:9 he brought here (t-perfect G) and ta--tap--am ATHE 43:7 you
190. Note that Old Assyrian usually leaves the glide /y/ in front of a vowel unexpressed. This means that a can also stand for /ya/, for /yu/, and i for /yi/. See, for instance, alternating spellings such as a-a-am /ayyam/ RA 51, 7:18 versus a-i-a-tum /ayytum/ OAA 1, 1:16 and a-a-um /ayyum/ ATHE 60:33 versus ai--tim /ayytim/ CCT 3, 24: 9 from ayyum which?, the nisbe adjective Ta-i-a-ma--um TTKY VII/31a, 6:5 versus Ta-i-a-ma-i-um TTKY VII/31a, 6:19 from Taiama, and forms such as da-a-nu judges OAA 1, 136:33 and (l) k-a-na-t AKT 3, 67:34 be constant!, which doubtless represent /dayyn/ and / kayynti/, like dayynu and kayynu in Babylonian. 191. The corresponding indicative form ir-t-bi in line 39 shows that this is not a Gtn form irtabbini, an interpretation that the spelling allows. I am not aware of t-perfect forms of III/ verbs with broken spellings, but they are attested in III/H verbs (see 17.8.3, p. 577); this also applies to the perfective of the N-stem. 192. Unpublished, quoted by courtesy of J. G. Dercksen.
505
were silent to me (Gt perfective). These unambiguously stand for /tarwam/, /ittarwam/ and /tatapwam/, respectively, with the same syllabification as in irtabyni.193 However, it is also possible that the glide spellings by means of Ci signs (ra-bi-a-am, q-bia-am, etc.) indicate forms with an epenthetic (ultra-)short vowel i to dissolve the cluster: qib iy, qab iyti, irtab iyam, iis iy, etc., so that there would be variation between allegro forms represented by the broken spelling and lento forms represented by the glide spelling, both forms being phonologically identical but phonetically different. This would explain the difference between Old and later Assyrian, where the broken spellings are no longer attested in these forms and a vowel has definitively installed itself between the consonants of the cluster, e.g., iq-ti-bi- MATSH p. 96 no. 2:58 they said and iq-ti-bi-a MATSH p. 183 no. 19:6 he said to me in Middle Assyrian and passim in Neo-Assyrian (see Deller 1959: 11921 for numerous t-perfect forms). This means that the lento forms were generalized after the Old Assyrian period. We do not have much information on the III/ and III/ verbs in Middle Assyrian (see W. Mayer 1971: 8084, where they are combined with the III/H verbs), but what we can infer from the attested forms suggests that the situation is comparable to that in Old Assyrian. This means that in principle non-identical vowels remain uncontracted (W. Mayer 1971: 18),194 e.g.: Impfv 3mp i-qa-bi--ni-u-ni KAJ 50:12 they say to him (Subj) Stat 3fs za-ku(-a)-at KAV 1: III 23:34 and elsewhere Inf Gen (a) za-ka-i-a KAJ 7:32 PrPartc Gen la-pi-e /pi/ MATSH p. 158 no. 12:33 bakers
The behaviour of identical vowels is difficult to establish because of the ambiguity of plene spellings, but normally the sequence -u wu- seems to be represented by a long vowel, just as in Old Assyrian: Impfv 3mp i-na-a-u KAV 1: VI 44:44 they beat from na (), i.e., /ina/ < *inau w t-Pf 3mp i-zu-ku KAJ 162:19 they have become available, i.e., /izzuk/ < *izzuk uw (see below for the vowel assimilation) Impfv D 3mp -zak-ku KAJ 12:17 they will clear, i.e., /uzakk/ < *uzakkuw < uzakka There are sporadic instances of contraction of different vowels, but all instances I know come from III/H verbs and therefore belong to chap. 17 (see 17.8.3, pp. 578579). An important new development in Middle Assyrian is the extension of vowel assimilation in the t-perfect of the G-stem of III/voc verbs (see 6.2, p. 140). Instead of the Old Assyrian pattern iqtib iqtab( i)y, the assimilated vowel also penetrates into the rest of the conjugation in Middle Assyrian, e.g., iq-ti-bi-a MATSH p. 183 no.19:6 he said to me from qab (), ir-tii-u-n[-e]-u KAV 1: V 39:39 they have acquired concerning him from ra (), and the abovementioned iz-zu-ku from zak (). The same forms are also found in Neo-Assyrian (Deller 1959: 11920; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 31, 98), e.g., iq--bi-a SAA 15, 91: r.3 he said to me,
193. For u and w as allophones, see Reiner 1964: 17475 and Izre'el 1991: 4344. 194. The exception W. Mayer argues to exist for short a plus a 3mp ending - or -ni is only justified if there is no plene writing, as in the forms -zak-ku and -e-lu-ni mentioned below. In most forms, there is a plene writing, however: cf. the instances he quotes on p. 83; this makes the form ambiguous. Another instance is i-ka-u- MATSH p. 117 no. 6:11 they (the days) will become cold, which may stand for /ikau/ or for /ika/. In Old Assyrian, such forms regularly show a plene spelling, which makes it virtually certain that there was usually no contraction. I am not so certain about Middle Assyrian, but it is difficult to find reliable evidence for one interpretation or the other.
506
[i]l-ti-bi--u SAA 5, 93:4 they surrounded him from law (NA labu), and in!-t-nu-u SAA 1, 100: r.8 they counted from man (sg. im-tu-nu SAA 12, 85:5). Another Neo-Assyrian development, which I already alluded to earlier in this section, is that vowel contraction of i and u or a is more or less regular in forms with a suffix (Deller 1959: 12730; Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 3637; see Luukko 2004: 88 for exceptions). In contrast to uncontracted forms such as iq--bi- they said and iq--bi-a he said to me, we usually find iq-bu-u-ni SAA 1, 33:20 they said (Subj) < iqibini (which also occurs, as a morphophonemic spelling?), and aq-i-ba--u SAA 1, 250:3 I said to him. The criterion for the occurrence of contraction is apparently the position of the stressed syllable after the unstressed vowel, which is eventually dropped: iqibini > iqibni but iqbi remains. As I stated above, some of the exceptional cases of vowel contraction in Old Assyrian are of the same nature as these Neo-Assyrian forms, and this also applies to Middle Assyrian exceptions such as -u-n KAR 154:6 they will come out from wa (for uun < uanim) and -e-lu-ni KAV 98:22 they brought out (Subj) from el (instead of uli yni). This means that the Neo-Assyrian contraction rule operated occasionally many centuries before it became a fully-fledged rule.195 The conclusion about vowel contraction in Middle and Neo-Assyrian is that the former fairly closely resembles Old Assyrian in that there is no regular occurrence of contraction, but that in Neo-Assyrian the number of contracted forms greatly increases. The details of the situation in Neo-Assyrian still have to be worked out.
16.7.2.4. FurtherdevelopmentsinBabylonian
In Babylonian, the original forms have undergone rather drastic changes as a result of contraction of the final vowel with the ending. Ur III Babylonian and Archaic Babylonian regularly show uncontracted vowels (A. Westenholz 1978: 164a; Hilgert 2002: 167, 462 n. 77; Whiting 1987: 17). Contraction starts between the Archaic and the Early Old Babylonian stages (see 1.4.1.2.2, p. 13), and in Classical Old Babylonian all adjacent vowels regularly contract, except i + a, which is preserved until the end of the Old Babylonian period. The general rule is that the outcome of the contraction is a long voweltraditionally indicated by a circumflex accentof the same quality as the final vowel, except for a/e + i, which becomes (GAG 16):196 i + a > (in late Old Babylonian), e.g., tmtu sea < timtum, iq he gives < iqa (see 16.5.2, p. 477), iqabb he said to me < iqabbiam u + a > , e.g., mullm to fill < mulluam (D Inf Acc of mal), imt he dies < imat, itrm he brought here < itruam i + u > , e.g., rab big < rabium, iqabb they say < iqabbi u + i > , e.g., mullm to fill < mulluim (D Inf Gen of mal), hud rejoice! (Fem) < udu
195. Another example of this phenomenon is the rule that u > a before a stressed , which is regular in Neo-Assyrian and is attested from time to time in Middle Assyrian, and sporadically even in Old Assyrian; see 2.4 with n. 58 there (p. 49). 196. Occasionally, uncontracted forms appear as residual forms (cf. n. 107, p. 477, concerning the II/voc verbs), e.g., ni-pu-a-at AbB 9, 238:4, 7 distrainees (with i-ne-ep-pi- and li-ip-pi- from nep to take as pledge in lines 6 and 9), and the PN Mu-a-di-um JCS 9, 92 no. 58:2 beside Mu-a-du-um JCS 9, 65 no. 19:13, a D-stem present participle of ad to rejoice. In literary texts, they are not uncommon as archaisms; in Old Babylonian, for instance, we find (l) mu-pa-ar-ki-um RIME 4, 51:8 (RI) unceasing from napark, ra-bi-um KH r.XXVI 98 great (beside ra-bu-um KH r.XXVI 45), ba-ka-i-i /baki/ St. Reiner 190:5 in order to cry from bak, a-ma-a-i CT 15, 4: II 3 heaven (Gen) from am, la-lu--am ZA 44, 34: 32 desire (Acc) from lal, and a-i--um pig ZA 75, 198:21, 200:58 instead of a.
507
a + u > , e.g., qab to say (Inf Nom) < qabum, it-mu- they swore < itma (but see below for a + u > ) a + i > , e.g., a-ma-al-le-e AbB 2, 87:7 my assistant (< *amall), qab my words (lit. my speaking, Inf Nom/Acc) < qab, qabya my words (idem, Gen) < qabya The fact that these vowel contractions also occur in other parts of the language in the same period shows that they are a phonological process rather than a morphophonemic one.197 Four additional issues regarding Babylonian merit a brief mention: the impact of vowel syncope, developments in the form of the infinitive and the past participle, the spread of final - where we expect final -, and the contraction of a and u to , attested in a few Old Babylonian texts. First, vowel syncope has led to a different outcome in Babylonian than it did in Assyrian: there is no difference between forms that have undergone vowel syncope and forms that have not, e.g., the 3mp t-Pf iqtab and the 3mp Stat qab do not differ from the corresponding Impfv iqabb and the Pfv iqb. The easiest way to account for this is to assume that vowel syncope in Babylonian always led to lento forms. Thus, it did not cause a total syncope of the original full vowel but replaced it with an ultra-short vowel (qab i, qib i, iqtab i, etc.), which was written as an ordinary short vowel, or was counted as one where contraction was concerned, or which developed back to an ordinary short vowel later on.198 The presence of such a secondary (ultra-)short vowel is indirectly confirmed by the development of deverbal PiRS forms of III/voc verbs. These nouns never had a vowel between the two final radicals, and the cluster of R2 and y or w developed according to the pertinent phonological rule (GAG 15b): loss of the semi-vowel and compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, e.g., su < *isyum call from as () to call, mnu < *minwum number, amount from man () to count, and nu raising < *nium from na (, originally III/ ) to lift, carry. The fact that the clusters that originally did have a vowel in between developed in a different way suggests that this vowel did not become lost completely. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that rigorous application of the rule concerning clusters of consonant plus semi-vowel would result in forms so deviating from those of the strong verb and so different from the corresponding forms without ending (e.g., **qb, **qb, **iqtb; cf. Krebernik 2006: 8889) that they were bound to be brought into line by means of analogical restructuring. Second, a consequence of vowel contraction in Babylonian is that the infinitive and the past participle coincided in the Nom but not in the other two cases, see Table 16.13:199
197. Diem (1977: 2728) argues against this, claiming that in Babylonian only identical vowels were contracted (2fs tabann < *tabann+ from ban (I/i) to build and imann < imann+ from man U/u to count) and that forms with non-identical vowels, such as 3mp ibann (< ibanni) and 3fp ibann (< ibanni) they build are analogical formations caused by a segmentation tabann- and imann-, based on the strong forms taparras- and iparras-. Tabann- and imann- were interpreted as the stem, to which the regular plural endings were affixed. This is theoretically possible, but it fails on the grounds that the contracted forms emerge exactly in the period in which the vowels involved are also contracted in other contexts, e.g., in nouns, where an analogical background is unlikely. Moreover, as Diem himself remarks (p. 34), this kind of analogy does not account for the contractions in the personal endings of the stative (baniku > banku). He needs to resort to analogy with the personal prefixes, which is unconvincing. 198. Or, alternatively, that vowel syncope did not work in III/voc verbs, but this is unlikely in the light of its general pervasiveness in Akkadian. 199. See also Poebel 1939: 11617; Huehnergard 1987b: 18891; and A. Westenholz 1991: 1011.
508 Infinitive Nom Gen Acc qab qab qab < *qabum < *qabim < *qabam qab qab qabia
The III/voc Verbs 16.7. Past Participle < *qabiyum < *qabiyim < *qabiyam
table 16.13: Vowel contraction in the Babylonian infinitive and past participle.
The original pattern of the infinitive still occurs in Old and Standard Babylonian in forms such as qabu his words200 and qab my words < qab (GAG 16g). Interestingly, the identity of infinitive and past participle in the nominative has led to the use of the accusative of the latter as accusative of the infinitive: cf. forms such as ka-li-a AbB 14, 155:15 to keep from kal, ali-a-am AbB 14, 123:4 to go /come up from el, and qa-bi-am OBHorn 2, 61:7 promise, lit., speaking, from qab.201 Third, the categories that in the strong verb have the stem vowel u (the stative, infinitive, and past participlee.g., purrus(u) for the D-stem), sometimes show i instead of u in the III/voc verbs of Babylonian, e.g., i-[t]a-ri-a-am AbB 10, 177:28 (OB) Inf Gtn of er to dig, na-qal-p-a-am AbB 12, 11:22 (OB), Inf of the quadriradical verb neqelp to sail downstream, it-ni BWL 40:43 (SB) it is different, 3ms Gt stative of an, and ku-pi ACh. Spl. 7:22 (SB) it is blunt, 3ms stative D of kep. These forms may be a side-effect of the overall tendency to replace final - by - in the verbal system, which was discussed in 3.5.3 (pp. 7879).202 Fourth, in some varieties of Old Babylonian, the contraction of + u must have had a different outcome from u or i + u (A. Westenholz 1991, following Poebel 1939: 11617), because it is fairly consistently distinguished in the spelling. In lexical texts from Nippur, the outcome of + u is expressed by means of plene writings with u4 or u, that of i + u and u + u by means of plene writings with . Examples of the former (all taken from A. Westenholz 1991) include infinitives such as q-bu-u-um to speak < qabum, nouns such as a-mu-u4 heaven < am, ru-bu-u4 prince < rubum, and mu-u4 water < m, the possessive pronoun ku-u4-um yours < kuum, and Sumerian loan words such as la-lu-u4-um desire < lalum and tap-pu-u companion < tappum. The uncontracted forms are attested in Assyrian. These spellings contrast with others in the same lists that use , such as ra-bu- big < rabium, a-nu--um different < anium, du-u-u- to make abundant < *duuHum, and du-lu--tum hoisting device from the III/ verb dal to hoist. A. Westenholz argues convincingly that the use of u and u4 in these particular texts represents the vowel //, not only long in the instances quoted above, but also short /o / in the vicinity of /r/ and //, in u4-ru-u hair (1991: 15 no. 44) and (m) u4-u-li suds (1991: 16 no. 81).203
200. This form is in principle both nominative and accusative, but was reinterpreted as accusative ending, which gave rise to a new nominative qabu, etc.; see CAD Q 1921 s.v. qab A s. for references. Likewise, in the construct state of the genitive, original qab() was replaced by qab by analogy with the nominative qabm < qabim (Huehnergard 1987b: 18891); see also CAD Q 2021 s.v. qab A s. 5. 201. See also Aro 1971: 24748. This phenomenon is particularly common in III/H verbs (see 17.8.4, p. 583). 202. GAG 3 105l* also mentions the D stative kurr it is short in this context (ku-ur-ri-a AfO 18, 63:16 (OB) and elsewhere), but it is conceivable that this adjective actually has the diminutive pattern PuR(R)ayS > PuR(R)S in Babylonian (GAG3 55kk*). 203. A recurrent exception to the distribution of u4 and u versus is represented by several infinitives of derived stems of III/voc verbs. They show u or u4, although their contracted vowel is from u + u: mu-u--u4 to diminish (A. Westenholz 1991: 14 no. 13), ru-ud-du-u to add (no. 38) and [ub]-bu-u
509
The change of a + u > is parallel to that of a + i > . In other texts, traces of this kind of contraction are exceptional: they have been found in two Old Babylonian legal texts from Nippur: BE 6/2, 30 distinguishes between it-mu-u4 they swore < itma in 26 and iq-bu- they said < iqbi in 18, and UM 8/1, 82 has (l) e-el-q-u-ma I did not take (Subj in oath) in line 11 versus u-ma he with an original in line 3. Apart from these instances, the extent of this phenomenon in terms of both chronology and geography is therefore hard to determine.204 The derived stems of the III/ and III/ verbs offer few further points of interest. As is usual, the final radical, which is also the root vowel, adapts to the pattern of the form in question and is thus replaced by , , or according to whether the strong verb has a, i, or u. For instance, the common -stem of ra () to get, acquire has an Impfv uar (~ uapras), a Pfv uar (~ uapris) and a stative (Bab) ur (~ uprus). When a vocalic ending is attached, the normal rules for vowel contraction apply.
to immerse (no. 19); these occur side by side with correct forms. A. Westenholz (1981: 18) is probably right in regarding them as analogical influence of the G infinitive. 204. Other attempts to find a vowel o/ in Akkadian are unconvincing and/or based on incorrect premises or methodological errors, especially the attempts of W. von Soden 1948; GAG 3 8cc*, 9ef; and von Soden and Rllig 1991: xxiv); cf. Gelb 1955b: 9798 and Reiner 1973: 4748.
theverbsWithgutturals
Chapter 17
17.1. introduction
A striking characteristic of the Semitic language family is the presence of a number of pharyngeal and laryngeal consonants, to which I will refer collectively as gutturals. From the earliest documented stages of Akkadian onward, they are involved in a process of weakening and loss, which often led to drastic changes in individual verb forms and subsequent analogical restructurings. As a result, there are hardly any areas of Akkadian grammar where more changes can be observed over time and where the differences between the dialects are more profound than in the verbs with gutturals. The gradual loss of the gutturals was initially remedied by replacing the lost guttural with a glide or hiatus, which leaves the structure of the forms intact. This is the usual procedure in Sargonic Akkadian and Assyrian. In Babylonian, however, the glide or hiatus was lost in a very early stage and the adjacent vowels were contracted (see 16.7.2.4, pp. 506507). This disrupted the structure of the form itself and of its paradigm. The usual repair mechanism was to adapt them to the already existing paradigms of the old weak verbs. This represents one of the most profound differences between Babylonian and the other dialects of Akkadian. This chapter starts with an account of how to identify the gutturals in cuneiform spelling (17.2) and a brief description of their phonological development (17.3). Next, it deals with the specifically Babylonian phenomena of the strong aleph (17.4) and the E-paradigm (17.5). Finally, it describes the main aspects of the paradigm of the verbs that originally contained a guttural: the I/voc verbs in 17.6, the II/H verbs in 17.7, and the III/H verbs in 17.8.
17.2. the rendering of guttural Consonants in Cuneiform

First, we have to discuss the general problem of how to identify the guttural consonants in a writing system that expresses them very imperfectly or not at all. Cuneiform writing was devised for Sumerian, which did not have equivalents for (most of) the Semitic gutturals and therefore had no signs for them. In third-millennium Akkadian, a small number of special signs were created for gutturals, but they are used inconsistently and do not recur in later periods. As a result, it is often hard to establish whether a guttural that we expect in a specific position on grounds of etymology is weakened or lost or whether it is present but simply not written. And even where it is written with one of the special signs, it may be uncertain whether the spelling is an accurate reflex of the pronunciation or a historical spelling. The problem is aggravated by the imperfect rendering of the other weak consonants, the semi-vowels or glides y and w, which often makes it difficult to decide in a given case whether we should posit the guttural that is etymologically justified or the glide into which we suspect it may have changed. Thus, in order to reconstruct the actual form of words containing a guttural, we have to rely largely on circumstantial evidence. We can distinguish five kinds: 510
17.2. The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform
511
1. A broken spelling, i.e., the use of a V-sign or a VC-sign in the middle of a word, points to a missing consonant that will normally be a (former) guttural (Reiner 1964: 16970; 1966: 4749). However, broken spellings have three obvious shortcomings. First, they only give information about gutturals in intervocalic and post-consonantal position. Second, they do not tell us which consonant is missing. Third, between identical vowels, they are ambiguous. In Old Assyrian, for instance, a spelling such as i-ta-al from lu to ask (originally II/ ) may stand for /itl/, /itaal/ or /itaal/, whereas (-a)-al I asked and a-a--lu they ask unambiguously stand for /aal/ and /aaul/. 2. A reliable Semitic etymology enables us to identify the (former) presence of a specific guttural and to investigate its development in Akkadian. This makes it possible to reconstruct the general development of the individual gutturals, and the results thereof can be applied to other words that do not have an obvious etymology. 3. E-colouring, i.e., the raising of a to e in the vicinity of the two pharyngeal consonants * and *, is an important heuristic tool to establish their (former) presence and to distinguish them from the laryngeals and *h, which do not cause E-colouring.1 Usually, the occurrence of E-colouring accords with the Semitic etymology of a word. For instance, Akk emmu hot and eru bed come from Proto-Semitic words that on the basis of West Semitic evidence started with the E-colouring pharyngeals and (*amm- and ar-), whereas aatu wife and alku to go / come, which do not show E-colouring, started with the laryngeals and h: *an- and *halk-. There are also cases, however, where E-colouring is in conflict with the established etymology of a word. First, some Akkadian words do not have E-colouring, although their West Semitic cognates contain or (Kogan 2001: 26364; Militarev and Kogan 2000: lxxvlxxvi). Examples include the nouns rtu hair ( r; see SED 1, 23132) and rdu downpour (cf. Ar rad thunder, storm) and the verbs salu to cough (/sl; see SED 1, 318) and naru to roar (nr ). Conversely, some Akkadian words show E-colouring, although their West Semitic cognate points to an original or h. Most of these cases are due to the fact that E-colouring can also be caused by other phonemes, such as , ,and r, in particular in Babylonian (GAG 9b), e.g., in eru small, young (Sem gr) and eretu earth (Sem ar-).2 Some other cases cannot be explained so easily, however. A case in point are the two related words for (different kinds of?) shoe(s), which occur in Old Assyrian as num and maenum, in Babylonian as nu and menu (see n. 31, pp. 519520 below). The only way to account for these forms, especially for Ass maenum,3 is to posit a root n, although the corresponding words in West Semitic point to n (He s e n, Geez n). I assume, therefore, that Proto-Semitic indeed had a root n (perhaps alongside n), from which the Akkadian forms regularly derive: num from *an-, the other form from *ma an-.
1. See the next section for the reflexes of the gutturals in Akkadian and 17.5 (pp. 525537) for the details of E-colouring. 2. In roots containing a guttural and r, it is often difficult to determine which of the two is responsible for E-colouring. A case in point is eru to ask: according to AHw 239a s.v. eru II, it is related to Ugar/ He r, which points to * as R1. However, it shows E-forms already in Sargonic Akkadian (e.g., te-er-r-i /trris/ SAB p. 162:8 (Diyala) you ask) and also consistently in Old Assyrian (GKT 90a). This makes it unlikely that e is solely due to the presence of r. Eru may instead come from r; cf. Ar ars fiance. 3. Because only * becomes with E-colouring in Old Assyrian, whereas * in this position is presumably dropped. I am not aware of convincing parallels from nouns, but post-consonantal * in the verb does not become but either becomes y or is dropped; see 17.7.3.2 (pp. 563565) and 17.8.3 (pp. 576581).
512
The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform 17.2.
Such cases are not common enough to invalidate the general phonological rule concerning the development of the gutturals, but they may complicate the reconstruction of individual forms. Where etymology and E-colouring are in conflict, I will generally assume that Proto-Akkadian had the guttural we can reconstruct on the basis of internal Akkadian evidence and that the irregularity is due to developments that occurred between Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian or between Proto-Semitic and (Proto-)West Semitic. This substitutes one problem for another but is at least supported by the fact that gutturals are generally rather unstable consonants that do not only show a widespread tendency to be dropped in the course of time but also change fairly easily from one to the other.4 This can amply be illustrated from internal West Semitic variation5 and from fluctuations between gutturals within a single language,6 as well as in Akkadian itself. A prominent instance of this phenomenon is eru to cultivate from the well-attested Proto-Semitic root r, which accounts for the Babylonian verb eru and for the attested Sargonic Akkadian forms.7 However, Assyrian has aru (Impfv rra, Pfv ru) (GKT 13b; Deller 1965: 37), which suggests that for some reason the original * changed to *h or * before the earliest Assyrian texts (but cf. Gelb 1992: 138).8 In addition, Akkadian has a number of duplicate verbs, one of which is weak and has Ecolouring, whereas the other one has or a strong (see below) without E-colouring: 1. eblu (bl ) ablu to bind, catch (with a snare) (e-b-lum MSL 15, 123 Diri II 2627; gu.l = a-bi-lu, .l = e-b-lu MSL 12, 139:35455, nabalum net, snare and bilu hunter, trapper) 2. eru (r ) to cultivate aru (see Civil 1994: 174, who points to a-ra-um ab.sn MSL 14, 501:178; cf. also aru D to plant (trees) in CAD 95b s.v. . A) 3. lmu (lm) to consume lamu 4. nu (n, based on SAk spellings with , see below) to live, be(come) healthy nau to thrive, be in good health 5. *enbu (only D and Gtn) (nb) anbu to bloom, in the PNs ()unnubu and unbu 6. elu (l) to rejoice alu (or alu?) to make love in YOS 11, 24:22 lu-u-taal-a let us (sic! make love9 7. blu (bl ) to possess, rule balu to be(come) abnormally large 8. pu (p or ph, see below) to break into pieces pau 9. ru to come to aid rau or rau to go /come in a hurry (see 17.7.1, p. 556; chap. 5, p. 134 n. 27; and chap. 16, pp. 475476 n. 101). For rau, cf. ra-a-a-am
4. Fluctuation between different but related phonemes is a common phenomenon, which we can also observe between different sibilants, different dentals, etc.; cf. Militarev and Kogan 2000: lxxilxxvii. 5. See, for instance, Blake 1915 regarding and h (e.g., Ar sahafa to thirst He ap to gasp and Ar afa/ika He hpak) and Tropper 2000: 122 regarding irregular correspondences of Ugaritic with other languages. 6. For Arabic, see Fleisch 1961: 7678; for Geez, see Ullendorff 1955: 3545; Leslau 1987: xixxx; for Ugaritic, see Tropper 2000: 12527 concerning fluctuations between g and . Individual instances include Ar lahima = laama to consume, lahasa = laisa to lick, fahada = faada to crush, and nabaa to well, gush out alongside nabaga to emerge. 7. Enumerated in Hasselbach 2005: 26970 s.v. erum I. 8. The deverbal noun mratum time of planting acc. to CAD M/224a s.v. mretu B 3 (ina me-ra-tim ATHE 75:15) is to be explained as the result of the occasional a > e change in the vicinity of r (GKT 13d) rather than as a derivation of erum to ask, pace GKT 13b. 9. For the translation as first-person dual, see chap. 14 n. 32 (p. 364); for the meaning, cf. ulu epu to make love (CAD E 224a s.v. epu 2c ulu).
17.2. The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform
513
ShA1, 110 no. 40:8 and 114 no. 43:12 (OB, presupposing A/a), and li-ir-i-a-am AbB 11, 1:15 (ArBab), presupposing I/i) 10. en to have diarrhoea (i-n-e AbB 13, 66:9, see W. van Soldts n. 66b on p. 63) anu (no etym.) No doubt, some of these doublets originate from inter-dialectal mixing (Huehnergard 2003: 11011). For instance, some of the variants with may be loans from West Semitic, as L. Kogan (JSS 47 [2002] 192) argues for ablu, or they may come from a northern dialect in which ProtoSemitic gutturals were preserved and spelled with -signs. This is supported by words quoted in Mari letters, where we find dialect forms such as azzum goat (< *anzum) instead of regular Akk enzum and arru to be(come) parched instead of erru to be(come) dry (see chap. 16, p. 493 n. 158). Others, however, may go back to coexisting root variants with a different guttural: * versus in nos. 1 to 4, * versus or strong in nos. 5 to 7 (for nos. 8 and 9, see below). Such variants may have arisen, for instance, from assimilation in contact positions (see 2.3.3, p. 43). 4. Specialized signs for gutturals are mostly restricted to third-millennium Akkadian (PreSargonic and Sargonic Akkadian and Eblaite), the period in which the gutturals themselves were more conspicuously present than in later periods. Most of them concern syllable-initial gutturals and semi-vowels. Those bearing directly on the status of these consonants in syllable-initial position are the following:10
(often transliterated , but since this is inaccurate, I will use the name of the sign) renders /a/ and more rarely /ha/ in SAk and Mari OAk, e.g., -ra- /arr/ SAB p. 167:14 (Diyala) farmers (Gen) and -wa-a-ti /hawt/ SAB p. 40:18 (Adab) my word. This is already found in Ebla (Krebernik 1985: 57). The values /a/ and /ha/ can be distinguished on the basis of the occurrence of E-colouring in later dialects: e.g., Old Babylonian has err versus awt. (i.e., id) may be used for /ha/ alongside the normal sign a in SAk, e.g., -lik (marsu) /hlik/ AKI p. 195 BS g (cp RI of Rimu) his forerunner, and -ni--ud /hannit/ AKI p. 83:69 (RI of Naram-Sin) these (Gen Pl Masc).11 (i.e., ni) is specifically used for / i/ and presumably for /i/ in contrast to i, which renders /i/ and especially /yi/, e.g., -l / il/ my god in PNs (passim) versus i- /yi-/ in third-person verb forms such as i-u-uz /yuz/ SAB p. 143:8 (Kish) he took, and in the PN I-ma-ru-um MAD 3, 47, lit., donkey < *imrum. This distinction also occurs in Ebla (Krebernik 1985: 57). and are used for / u/ in contrast to u, which stands for /yu/ and /u/, distinguishing especially the third-person of verb forms from the 1s, e.g., u-ru /yur/ HSS 10, 171:9 (Gasur) he led versus -dam-me-ki / utammki/ or /-meki/ Or. 46, 201:34 I conjured you (incant. from Kish), and more rarely in nouns, e.g., u for /u/ in the PN U-ba/bar-ru-um, lit., friend (MAD 3, 1415) < *ubrum (cf. ibrum partner,
10. For the values of the specialized signs, see especially Gelb 1961: 2428, 16465 and Hasselbach 2005: 7395 (for Sargonic Akkadian); A. Westenholz 1978: 161b, 16768 (for Mari Old Akkadian); Krebernik 1985: 5657 (for Eblaite). 11. In other cases, however, seems simply to represent /()a/, e.g., in -dum (mnim) SAB p. 172: r.10 (Eshnunna) why? and -mu-ut I die GAKI p. 361:33 (cp RI of Naram-Sin). This makes it a dubious source for the preservation of initial h in Sargonic Akkadian.
514
The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform 17.2. br), versus for / u/ in -gul-la--su / ukullsu/ SAB p. 143: 10 (Kish) his ration (Gen) from aklu to eat.12 m indicates / am/ in forms such as m-ur / amur/ SAB p. 51:7 (Adab) I received, r-m /yiram/ he conceived love in PNs (MAD 3, 230), and perhaps in u-a(-ab)-bi-m AKI p. 227:24 and p. 285:24 (cps RIs) he waged war against me from the specifically Sargonic Akkadian D-stem *ubbuum to wage war (b ), and thus perhaps /yuabbiam/. However, because of li-se11-r-m SAB p. 193:28 (Susa) let him cause to bring here, Prec of war (), and ti-m-tim AfO 25, 102 MAD 1, 192:2 sea (Gen) < PSem *tihm-, it is more likely that m had a wider use, e.g., for /am/ preceded by a syllable boundary. b stands for / ib/, mainly in forms of rabum to replace (later rbu (); see 16.5.1, p. 475), such as r-b-a-u /yirib/ TB 1, 5: iii 7 (PSAk PN). On the other hand, ib/ip- in third-person verb forms is always written with ib; cf. MAD 3 under verbs starting with b and p. is mostly used in third-person forms of I/voc verbs, e.g., -ru-ub MAD 5, 109:6 (prov. unknown) he entered from erbu (see MAD 3, 61 sub 5RB), suggesting a value /y/ or /y/ (cf. Babylonian rub < *yrub and Assyrian rub < *yrub, both from *yirub), and in imperfective forms of alku, e.g., -la-kam SAB p. 180:6 (Gasur) he will come, i.e., presumably /yllakam/ (see p. 546 n. 116 below; Kouwenberg 20034a: 95).13 However, it is also occasionally used in strong verbs with a short prefix vowel: -ga-bi /yiqabb/ SAB p. 151:8 (Sippar) he says and -ra-[?]-am /yiraam/ Or. 46, 201:2 he loves (incant. from Kish). Remarkable is the interchange of i and in SAB p. 172:r.11 l -e-sa-ru-ni and 13 l i-e-sa-ru (quoted in n. 111 below, p. 545). On balance, /yi/ and /y/ seem to be more likely than /ye/ and /y/.14 r regularly stands for /yir/, as in the above-mentioned r-b and other third-person verb forms. l is used for /yil/ in third-person verb forms, e.g., l-gi-am /yilqeam/ OAIC 7:23 he took (Diyala); il is not used in this context in genuine Sargonic Akkadian texts (Hasselbach 2005: 64). en is used for /yin/ in third-person verb forms such as en-ar /yinar?/ AKI p. 256:39 he defeated in RIs, and in u-ga-en /uskayyin/ AKI p. 164:22 (cp RI of Sargon) he prostrated himself from ukennu; see 13.4.4 (pp. 346348). im4 (i.e., du) is sporadically used for /yim/, especially in /yimur/ he has received, e.g., im4-ur MAD 5, 6:3 (Kish) and elsewhere (much more often spelled im-ur; see MAD 3, 17173), and occasionally in other third-person verb forms.
There are also a few specialized signs that may render syllable-final gutturals: m, s, and be, but here the evidence is flimsier and more controversial:
12. Several problematic verb forms suggest that may also be used to indicate a palatal glide in III/voc verbs (see 16.7.2.2, p. 501) and a long in plene spellings (see chap. 16 n. 182, p. 501, and Kouwenberg 20034a: 96). 13. Hilgert 2002: 121 n. 46 gives a list of attestations. 14. Cf. also -da-su ELTS pp. 1067 no. 35: II 5, 8 (Pre-Sargonic kudurru from northern Babylonia) its border, i.e., /yitsu/ from /yitum/ border, which appears as it in Babylonian, with the absolute state it.
17.3. The Refexes of the Gutturals in Akkadian
515
m is mainly used in forms of em to hear (m) and w/tam (tm) to swear and is therefore usually interpreted as /ma/ or /ma/ (Gelb 1961: 27; Hasselbach 2005: 64).15 However, the fact that it is also used in plural forms such as [id ]-m- /yitma/ OAIC 51: r.3 (Diyala) they swore, where the guttural belongs to the next syllable, suggests that the use of m is a conventional, perhaps historical, spelling, perhaps borrowed from Eblaite,16 and provides no evidence for the actual presence of a syllable-final guttural.17 s (i.e., di) is thought to render the values /sa/ and /sa/ in forms such as u-s-r-ib /yusarib?/ AKI p. 86:33 (RI of Naram-Sin) he brought in, u-s-i-su-ni /yusaissun?/ AKI p. 159:102 (cp RI of Sargon) he settled them (Du) from azu , and similar forms of I/voc verbs. However, there are many exceptions and counter-examples, see also Kogan and Markina 2006: 56667. Hasselbach (2005: 70) argues that the difference between s and the normal sign sa rather seems to be one of provenance. be is almost exclusively used in relation to the root bl and especially the noun blu lord; it is therefore often considered to be a logogram (Krebernik 1985: 5455; Hasselbach 2005: 39). However, J. Keetman (NABU 2007/25) plausibly argues that it originally rendered /ba/ and only acquired the value /be/ as a result of the change of /ba/ to /b/. 5. Morphosyntactic phenomena such as changes in paradigm are an important indication for the status of gutturals: if we observe that a specific verb has adopted a weak conjugation, e.g., a II/H verb that of the II/voc verbs, we can be certain that the guttural is no longer there. In Old Assyrian, for instance, where the gutturals are largely invisible in writing, we can nevertheless conclude that and are still present intervocalically but that h and have been dropped because original II/*h and II/* verbs have adopted the conjugation of the II/voc verbs, whereas II/ and II/* verbs have not done so (Kouwenberg 2006).
17.3. the reflexes of the gutturals in Akkadian

It is established practice to reconstruct five different guttural phonemes for Proto-Semitic the laryngeals * and *h, the pharyngeals * and *, and the voiced uvular *g18and to state
15. The former is attested in proper names from Pre-Sargonic times onward (e.g., i-m--lum BIN 8, 11: r.II 5 and i-m-d i n g ir TB 1, 5: i 7 (both PSAk), i-m-dingi r SAB p. 206 s.v., and in context, e.g., i-m-su4 AKI p. 233:265 (cp RI Naram-Sin) he heard about him; -m SAB p. 116:3 (Girsu) I heard. It also occurs in the DN Da--m-tum MAD 3, 275 (Diyala), a deverbal taPRaSt noun of this verb. In w/tam, it occurs in the perfective -m SAB p. 40:9 (Adab) and -m AKI p. 77:50 (RI of Manituu) I swear (performative perfective). 16. In Eblaite, m is used in the same environments; see Krebernik 1982: 209. He states that m can express /maH/, e.g., in i-m and da-m, just as in Akkadian, and in m-ba-u girdle, i.e., /maHbau(m)/ (Akk ebu) but is also used in circumstances where only /ma/ is applicable, e.g., in m-ba-la-zu-um, presumably the same word as ma-ba-ra-zu-um, i.e., /maplaZum/ (a copper tool). 17. Sommerfeld (1999: 11) observes that the use of m is also connected with the specific ductus of a text. 18. For Akkadian, see GAG 23; for Proto-Semitic, see, e.g., Moscati, ed. 1964: 3843; Lipiski 1997: 3 14150; Stempel 1999: 6063. I follow W. Sommerfeld apud W. von Soden in GAG 25d* in assuming that the phoneme , often described as a voiceless uvular, was actually a velar fricative, opposed to the velar stop k; see 17.4 (pp. 520525). This explains the fact that behaves quite differently from the gutturals and alternates with k in some words (such as aum and kaum in Old Assyrian [dissimilation]; cf. von Soden 1968b: 21718). For the correspondences between West Semitic and Akkadian (Tropper 1995b), see n. 49 below (p. 525).
516
The Refexes of the Gutturals in Akkadian 17.3.
that in Akkadian all five of them have become a glottal stop, or aleph ( ).19 Therefore, they are traditionally referred to as 1 to 5, in which the original * is 1, *h = 2, * = 3, * = 4 and *g = 5. Of these gutturals, 35 differ from 12 in that they caused E-colouring (the change a > e; see GAG 9a) before being dropped. This account is too simplistic for a variety of reasons (see also Kouwenberg 2006: 15051). First of all, there is hardly any evidence for a change of Proto-Semitic *g to Akkadian with E-colouring. As Kogan (2001) has demonstrated, only a small number of fairly rare Akkadian words can reliably be derived from Proto-Semitic words containing *g, and in these *g mostly corresponds to Akkadian or .20 Therefore, the traditional view represented by GAG 23b is untenable. However, g or a very similar phoneme plays an important role in Babylonian phonology, as I will argue in the next section. Second, as stated in the previous section, Eblaite, Sargonic Akkadian, and Mari Old Akkadian exhibit a fairly consistent distinction between a set of signs that are specifically used for the reflexes of Proto-Semitic * and * and another set used for the reflexes of Proto-Semitic *h, *, and *y. This shows that the development of etymological * and * was different from that of *h and * and suggests a contrast between a hard onset expressed by the former, presumably realized as a glottal stop, and a soft onset expressed by the latter, perhaps realized as palatal (/y/), laryngeal (/h/) or . This contrast is especially prominent in Sargonic Akkadian, Mari Old Akkadian, and Assyrian, as I will argue later on in this section. The contrast between Proto-Semitic * and * on the one hand and *h and * on the other in their (Proto-)Akkadian reflexes, and the contrast between E-colouring * and * versus non-E-colouring * and *h confirm the reconstruction of these four different gutturals to Proto-Akkadian. On the basis of the five types of evidence mentioned above, we may posit the following development in the individual historical dialects. With regard to Sargonic Akkadian, it is a plausible assumption thatat least in the more conservative genres, especially the royal inscriptionsthe four gutturals were still present as distinct phonemes. This can be inferred from the spelling practices described above, on the one hand, and from the absence of E-colouring, on the other. The fact that in some areas of Sargonic Akkadian (the Diyala and Gasur, sometimes also Kish) instances of E-colouring occur in places where we can reconstruct * or * (Hasselbach 2005: 13435) but not in the neighbourhood of * and *h means that, in the more conservative types of Sargonic Akkadian, the gutturals were still present to provide a conditioning factor for this contrast, e.g., between li-i-me /lism/ SAB p. 142:17 let him hear from m versus id-ma /yitm(?)/ MAD 5, 21:7 he swore from tm, both from the Kish area. These conclusions about the preservation of the gutturals in Sargonic Akkadian are, however, contradicted by morphosyntactic evidence concerning the paradigm of the I/voc verbs that can only be understood if we assume that their first radical is the vowel a or e and that the original guttural had already been dropped in Proto-Akkadian. I will discuss this problem in detail in 17.6.1 (pp. 539542). The dialect of Mari Old Akkadian shows the same spelling practices as Sargonic Akkadian regarding the expression of prevocalic gutturals and y (A. Westenholz 1978: esp. 16162, 16768; Gelb 1992: 17275), e.g., for / i/ in -l my god (passim in PNs) versus i for /yi/ in thirdperson verb forms, and for / u/ in and < *aw, versus u for /yu/ in i-da-u-um a-li-u-um
19. See GAG 23b; Buccellati 1996: 34; Huehnergard 2005a: 38. 20. After an exhaustive discussion, Kogan (2001: 284) accepts only one instance of PSem *g > Akk with E-colouring, ebu to gird ( Arabic gb), but even this one is not undisputed: on the basis of Eblaite spellings, Conti (1990: 8182) concludes that the root is more likely to be b.
517
/yityum ali/yum/ MARI 1, 81:2 the upper neighbour and ti-i-da-u /titay/ MARI 1, 81:23 they drank, which was already quoted in 16.7.1 (p. 496). Likewise, stands for /a/ and /ha/, e.g., -p- /ap/ ARM 19, 96:1 to make (Inf c. st.), (i) l--me-u-ni /lamun/ ARM 19, 248:4 for them (Du) to eat (Inf Gen),21 versus -wa-tum /hawtum/ RA 35, 49 no. 30a:3 the word (but also a-wa-s RA 35, 47 no. 19:4 his word). Evidence on post-vocalic gutturals is uncertain. The specialized sign m is used in Mari Old Akkadian as well and raises the same problems.22 An interesting feature of this dialect is that according to A. Westenholz (1978: 162b) several of the specialized signs with a CV value (in which C is a guttural) can also be used with the reversed VC value, similar to Pi = wa and aw; the sign , for instance, would also be /a/ in addition to its normal value /a/. I will come back to this phenomenon in 17.8.2 (p. 575). An important difference between Mari Old Akkadian and Sargonic Akkadian is that the former has no E-colouring, e.g., a-li-u-um upper < *alium or *alyum (~ Bab el), ma-a-na-an ARM 19, 292:3 (Nom Du) and s-n-en ARM 19, 300:2 (Gen Du) shoes (~ Bab menu and nu),23 ti-da she knows in the PN [E4]-dar-ti-da ARM 19, 397:2, and the above-mentioned verb forms.24 We do not know how the Old Akkadian dialect of Mari developed after the end of the third millennium, since it is no longer attested: the language of the archives of 18th-century Mari kings is more or less pure Old Babylonian.25 In the second-millennium dialects of Babylonian and Assyrian, special signs for the expression of gutturals are no longer in use26 or are used interchangeably with other signs, and there are no longer any systematic distinctions between different onsets. The Old Assyrian syllabary has no signs for any of the (former) gutturals. The only indications we have of their (former) presence is the occurrence of broken spellings, E-colouring, and changes in the paradigm (Kouwenberg 2006: 15356). With these reservations, we can describe the situation in Old Assyrian as follows.
21. Interpretation according to A. Westenholz 1978: 167a. 22. It may be relevant to the interpretation of m that the RN I-m-dDa-gan AKI pp. 36162 M 5:4 and 6:1 is spelled I-ma-A-dDa-gan in a later (Old Babylonian) version (AKI p. 358 right column: 3 and MARI 4, 152:3). However, in Mari Old Babylonian, the -signs are (also) used to render guttural phonemes occurring in other languages than Akkadian, such as Amorite (Streck 2000: 23133), some of which we find as loan-words in Mari texts. Apparently, this name was regarded by the Mari scribes as Amorite, too, or at least as not part of the language they normally used for writing. 23. It is not clear to me whether we should interpret these forms as /ann/ and /maann/ with the guttural intact, or as /nn/ and /maann/ with loss of postvocalic * and * > between consonant and vowel. 24. If e occurs in this dialect, it may result from i in the vicinity of a guttural (as in the month-name (Gen) E-bir5-timx < ibirtim (A. Westenholz 1978: 164a) and from ay, especially in proper names with le to be able, powerful quoted in 16.7.1 (p. 497) (/yil/ and /tal/). A difficult form, however, is the Gen Du (in) -er-te-en ARM 19, 331:7 in the morning: does it come from *aar(t)- with E-colouring? or is it from a PiRiSt form *iirtum? 25. One of the most conspicuous (but still rather superficial) deviations from southern Old Babylonian is precisely that Mari Old Babylonian makes a more widespread use of a where the latter has e, in a totally unpredictable way. This suggests that in Mari and its surroundings E-colouring was less pervasive than in Classical Babylonian and even in Assyrian, which may be an echo of its complete absence in the third-millennium texts. 26. Not counting, of course, the special -sign that appears from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward and the ambiguous use of the -signs for another phoneme than // in Old Babylonian; see 17.4 (pp. 520525).
518
The Refexes of the Gutturals in Akkadian 17.3.
In word-initial position, the gutturals have been dropped, leaving a non-phonemic as syllable-onset for the initial vowel,27 e.g., abum < *abum father, alkum < *halkum to go / come. Original * and * have caused E-colouring: ear ten < *aar, eqlum field < *aqlum (e.g., e-qal-u-nu Bell. 213, 3034: 10, 15 their field). After a guttural, i tends to become e, e.g., emrum donkey < *imrum, eum tree < *ium. In the verbal paradigm, the N-stem of the I/voc verbs offers morphological evidence for the absence of an initial (phonemic) guttural (see 17.6.3.4, pp. 550552). In syllable-final and word-final position, the gutturals have been dropped, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, e.g., mdum much < *madum, lum city < *ahlum, blum lord < *balum, arb four < *arba. This can be inferred from forms in which the loss of the guttural has caused an observable change in the word, such as the noun luqtum merchandise (< *luqtum from lq). The construct state luqt- (e.g., lu-q-ut x mana OAA 1, 9:9 merchandise x minas worth, and lu-q-s OAA 1, 80:20 his merchandise) shows that is no longer present; otherwise the construct state would have been **luquti/a, spelled lu-q-t/ta. Similarly, the construct state of wtum export duty (lit., what goes out) < *witum (root w ) is wt-, e.g., wa--s BIN 4, 127:2 his w., rather than *witi/a- (see Kouwenberg 2006: 15961). In intervocalic position, * and * have merged to , but original * is still distinguishable from through E-colouring, e.g., in G-stem infinitives: ramum to love (rm) versus belum to possess, have at ones disposal (bl ). The reflex of intervocalic *h and * is difficult to reconstruct by the lack of pertinent instances. The weak conjugation of original II/*h and II/* verbs suggests that both *h and have been dropped (see 17.7.3.2 below, pp. 563565). With regard to nouns, *h occurs intervocalically in t-a-am-tim TC 1, 104:8 sea (Gen) < PSem *tihm(a)tum, presumably with a glide instead of *h. A noun with intervocalic * is PSem *paam/ntu charcoal, embers, which we find in Middle and Neo-Assyrian as peettu (CAD P 324ff. s.v. pntu: MA pe--et-ta, pe-e-ta/te; NA pe--et-tu, Pl pe--na-a-ti ), suggesting that * could become . It is possible, however, that is secondary, as often in these late dialects. Finally, between consonant and vowel the state of the gutturals is the same as in intervocalic position: * and * have merged to , with * causing E-colouring, e.g., maenum shoe ( n; see 17.2, p. 511), versus namudum large quantity (md ),28 and in the verb ial (l ) he asked versus ibel he possessed (bl ); see further 17.7.3.1 (pp. 561562). In primary nouns, however, is dropped occasionally, especially in forms of ma/erum son and merutum daughter (GKT 28d), which are prone to shortening because of their frequency and their meaning.29 The fricative gutturals *h and *, on the other hand, seem to behave in the same way as in intervocalic position: the weak perfective forms of original II/*h and II/* verbs, such as ibr or ibr he chose < *yibar and ib he became ashamed < *yibha (? see 17.7.3.2, pp. 563565) suggest that they had been dropped. Unproblematic evidence from nouns does not seem to be available.
27. There are no indications of different syllable onsets: Old Assyrian only uses a, i, and (rarely ) for word-initial vowels, without regard for the initial consonant that may once have been there. The third-millennium signs and u are no longer used. For the problem of word-initial in Old Assyrian, see Kouwenberg 2006: 15659. 28. Namudum is subject to vowel assimilation but maenum is not because of the relative order of E-colouring and vowel assimilation; see 2.4 (p. 49). Note also that nouns such as zarum seed < *zarum (zr ) and rabum fourth < *rabum (rb ) do not have E-colouring, because a is not adjacent to the guttural. 29. Presumably, may be assimilated to the preceding consonant (merrum, merrutum), as also happens in later Assyrian; see Kouwenberg 2006: 16465.
519
Middle and Neo-Assyrian broadly follow the pattern of Old Assyrian. The main importance of Middle Assyrian lies in the use of a much more accurate syllabary, which allows us to observe phenomena that we can only hypothesize for Old Assyrian, e.g., gemination, the distinction between e and i, and the explicit -sign. The use of this -sign shows that Middle Assyrian shares with Middle Babylonian a tendency to restore in places where it is likely to have been lost in Old Assyrian, e.g., in the paradigm of lu to ask (see 17.7.3.1, pp. 560561). As compared to third-millennium Akkadian and Assyrian, Babylonian represents a more advanced stage of development with regard to the loss of the gutturals. All available evidence suggests that the four gutturals we have been discussing so farbut perhaps not *g; see 17.4 below (pp. 520525)were lost. Certainty can only be obtained for Classical Old Babylonian (see 1.4.1.2.2, pp. 1314), where the pervasive occurrence of vowel contraction shows beyond doubt that the gutturals have been dropped in all positions. In Ur III Babylonian and Archaic Babylonian, we still find broken spellings, at least for (former) intervocalic gutturals, which could theoretically conceal a guttural. In actual fact, this possibility can safely be excluded because of changes in the shape of some nouns with gutturals and in the paradigm of verbs with gutturals. The former concern the loss of post-consonantal gutturals with lengthening of the preceding vowel, as in mru son < marum, menu shoe < *maanum, and other cases to be discussed below. In addition, numerous forms of verbs with gutturals can only be understood from the loss of the guttural: the imperfective of the I/voc verbs (see 17.6.2, pp. 543545) and the II/H verbs (see 17.7.4, pp. 566572), the perfective of the II/H verbs (see also 17.7.4), the N-stem of the I/voc verbs (see 17.6.3.4, pp. 550554), and the and N imperfective of the I/voc verbs (see 17.6.3.3, pp. 548550, and 17.6.3.4, p. 552, respectively). Specified according to position, the loss of the gutturals caused the following changes. In word-initial position, all gutturals have been dropped and the vowel after the guttural has become word-initial. It is possible that word-initial vowels are preceded by a non-phonemic , but clearly less prominently so than in Assyrian (see Kouwenberg 20034a: 9093). Intervocalically, contiguous vowels are contracted but at different moments (see GAG 16 and 16.7.2.4, pp. 506507, for details). Apart from occasional exceptions and archaisms, absence of contraction (and insertion of or a glide) occurs in doubly-weak verbs for reasons of transparency (see 17.4 below, p. 521), in derived categories where is geminated (e.g., the Gtn-stem of the II/voc verbs; see 17.7.4.1, p. 568) and in the present participle of the G-stem, where it is (re)introduced in order to conform to the PRiS pattern of the strong verb (as in II/voc verbs; see 16.5.2, p. 479). In syllable-final and word-final position, the gutturals have been dropped, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (GAG 15a, 24e), e.g., zbu vulture, jackal < ibum, nru river, canal < *nahrum, wdu alone < *wadum, blu lord < *balum. Some words with original or *h show E-colouring, which is usually due to the presence of r, , or both, e.g., ru head < *raum, ru back < *ahrum, and nu small cattle < *anum. Between consonant and vowel, they have also been dropped, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (GAG 15b),30 e.g., lu rib < *alum, menu shoe < *ma anum,31
30. According to Gelb (1955b: 100b), the primary change is actually metathesis followed by loss of the guttural and compensatory lengthening: milum > *milum > mlu. This is supported by other instances of metathesis involving clusters with a guttural, such as prtu hair < *paartum versus WSem pr, bu hyena as compared to He aba and Ar dab(u) (SED II 28587), tltu worm < *tawultum versus WSem twl, and OA qmum flour, which can only come from *qamum although the root is qm; cf. the verb qem to grind. 31. The dictionaries write this word as menu and generally assign a short first vowel and a long second vowel to maPRaS nouns derived from II/H roots (meltu flint, blade from lu to sharpen, mequ
520
The Strong in Babylonian 17.4.
mru son < marum, and ptu opening < *pitum (PiRS form of pet). The fact that the reflex of the gutturals between consonant and vowel is the same as that between vowel and consonant may lead to homonymy, e.g., the PiRS nouns nu raising from na (n ) and nu oath (lit., life) from nu (n ), bu satiety from eb (/b) and bu grey, old from bu ( b). However, the claim that in Babylonian all gutturals have been dropped seems to be patently contradicted by the fairly widespread occurrence of a strong . This problem will be discussed in the next section.
17.4. the strong in Babylonian

There is a group of words in Old Babylonian in which the signs that are normally used for (the -signs) interchange with broken spellings. It occurs, for instance, in nouns such as piru and piru shoot, leaf (see below) and verb forms such as -na-A-i-du-ka AbB 2, 141:8 versus -na-i-du-ka AbB 12, 52:24 I informed you (Subj) from nadu D, and ma-a-i-im AbB 1, 129:20 versus ma-a-A-im AbB 6, 220:15 to plunder (Inf Gen) from mau.32 The interchange of -signs and broken spellings does not represent phonological or dialectal variation but is a purely orthographic phenomenon.33 This follows from the fact that the two spellings may alternate in the same text, e.g., na-a-du-um-ma i-na-A-i-du-u-nu-i-im AbB 3, 94:12 people are very concerned about them from nadu, tu-ub-ta-na-A-li AbB 3, 15:23 you (Fem) are steadily increasing, versus tu-ub-ta-i-li AbB 3, 15:13 you (Fem) increased all the time) from balu Gtn, and (a) u-ta-i-im AbB 4, 53:16 to act indifferently (Gen) versus in (l) tu-u-ta-A-um AbB 4, 53:18 do not act indifferently towards him! from the Dt-stem uta. It is confirmed by the fact that in Standard Babylonian and later, the special -sign, which was secondarily differentiated from the sign a (von Soden and Rllig 1991: 4546 nr. 233), is used in places where Old Babylonian uses -signs interchangeably with broken spellings. Broken spellings remain in use as well, however (GAG 23eg). The fact that the -signs are stable in some words but alternate with broken spellings in others without any obvious conditioning factors shows that they have a double value (Kogan 2001: 287): they do not only indicate a velar fricative but also a glottal stop,34 which I will call a strong , since it behaves like a strong consonant in all respects. It can, for instance, occur word-initially (e.g., abtu to destroy; see below), it can be geminated (e.g., -na-A-I-du-ka quoted above), and a preceding n assimilates to it (e.g., ta-A-I-it-tam AbB 4, 111:17 information (Acc), i.e., /taittam/ < *tanidtam, a deverbal noun of the same verb). On the other hand, when it comes in syllable-final position before another consonant, it may be omitted in writing,
measuring vessel from qu to level off, and menu grinding (or the like) from nu to grind), although the regular phonological development requires a long vowel in the first syllable and a short vowel in the second. It may be significant that the only relevant plene spelling in Old Babylonian listed in CAD M/2 3839 ss.vv. menu and mequ concerns the first syllable: m-e-e-q AbB 5, 222:8. Of course, it is possible that menu and its congeners have become menu, etc., secondarily by analogy with the long root vowel in other forms, but there is no concrete evidence for this. 32. For a survey and discussion of previous literature on this aspect of , see Kogan 2001: 29094. 33. Pace GAG 25c (with regard to piru and piru) and Gelb 1955b: 102a. According to GAG 23e and von Soden and Rllig 1991: xxxi, the use of -signs in these forms is typical of Northern Babylonia. 34. Note also the sporadic use of -signs to indicate a hiatus between vowels of successive words, as in mu-i U-ri AbB 5, 219: r.8 day and night, i.e., /m u ( )urr/, and (a tablet) a I-li-a-am OBAH p. 56 no. 26:14 which will come up, i.e., /a ()lliam/ (normally i(-il)-li-a-am). In a few cases, however, seems to represent a palatal glide y rather than : il-ta-q-A-ku AbB 1, 74: 10 for normal /iltaqeakku(m)/ he has brought along for you, nu-e20-el-le-[A]-am AbB 4, 148:18 we will cause to come up. An early instance from the Mari Liver omens is da-ri-A-timx RA 35, 47 no. 17:3 eternity (for /dri () tim/).
17.4. The Strong in Babylonian
521
e.g., u-ta-la-al St. Walker p. 137:4 beside -ta-la-al St. Walker p. 139:4 it is suspended from allu Dt. I assume that both spellings represent /utallal/ but this cannot be proved. It does not normally occur, however, in places where we expect the that is inherited from Proto-Semitic. In particular, it is hardly ever used in the paradigm of the well-known verbs that originally had , such as amru to see, lu to ask, mdu to be(come) numerous, mal to be(come) full, tam to swear, etc., nor in nouns with an etymological , such as zbu jackal, vulture (Sem *ibum), ksu cup (cf. Ar kas), and mlu flood < *milum. What, then, is this strong and where does it come from? In a number of cases, it clearly serves to prevent vowel contraction for reasons of transparency or the preservation of grammatically relevant contrasts. First of all, this applies to the conjugation of doubly-weak verbs, where contiguous vowels often do not contract to prevent forms from becoming difficult to recognize, e.g., ilee he can from le, ib they passed from bu, and eil bind! from elu. Short words belonging to other word classes show the same phenomenon, e.g., nouns such as ru friend, companion and la child and the possessive adjectives y mine, k yours, etc., e.g., ia-A-a-tum /ytum/ AbB 6, 218:18 mine (Pl Fem), nu-U- /n/ AbB 13, 179:13 our (people). Second, it occurs in forms in which etymological has been preserved, i.e., mostly in derived categories with gemination, such as the D-stem, e.g., Pfv uwaer I/he instructed from wuuru, and the Gtn-stem, e.g., Inf itaulu to keep asking from lu. Finally, it is found in all kinds of weak roots when a strong radical is required for reasons of inflection or derivation, e.g., in the present participle (see 16.5.2, p. 479), and in agent nouns with the pattern PaRRS, e.g., bakku wailer and qabbu speaker from the III/ verbs bak and qab. In addition, there is a large number of words, both verbs and nouns, where no such motive is discernible and where strong is just a consonant like all the others. I will give a selection of typical examples, omitting rare and uncertain cases and adding an etymology when a reliable one is available. The following verbs have a strong as one of their radicals: 1. Verbs with a strong as R1: abtu to destroy,35 adru to be(come) dark or worried (Ar gadira? see Kogan 2001: 27980), allu to hang, altu to swallow (cf. latu below), apru to put on the head (Ar gafara; see Kogan 2001: 279; CDG 58b s.v. afara), and armu to cover (attested in OB naramum; later nramu, a kind of garment; cf. OA armum) (rm). 2. With a strong as R2: balu to be(come) abnormally large (doubtless related to blu), bu to look for (Ar bag ), damu to be(come) dark (Ar idhamma), latu to swallow (WSem lh ? see Kogan 2001: 29192), lu to defile, make dirty, nadu to pay attention, nasu to chew (Ar naha/sa to bite, tear off), naarruru to come to aid (see also narru below), pau to hit (Ar faada to break open (a melon) and fahada to break), rabu to tremble (He/Aram/Ar rhb or rb, see Kogan 2001: 291); sau to catch in a net, aru to defeat (Sem gr, see Kogan 2002: 31516), uta to show indifference (Syriac et e ; see Landsberger 1960: 120 n. 30). 3. With a strong as R3 (cf. GAG 99c): buzzuu to maltreat (Ar baz, He bz), mu to vomit, mau to rob, mazu to squeeze, D to rape, muuu to rub (m), paru to cut off (Ar far), paru to sprout (see piru below), salu to infect, make ill, anu to block.
35. Pace AHw 5a s.v. abtu, Ugar/He/Aram bd is cognate with Akk nbutu (Ass nbudu, OA abDu (A/u)) to flee rather than with this verb.
522
Strong also occurs in nouns, the most important of which are:36 ad(i)nu period (wd acc. to AHw 10b s.v.) apparr with coarse hair (OB also A-ap-pa-ar-ri-tum Tall Bia p. 154 no. 373:5; Ar gafr-, etc. acc. to Kogan 2001: 28081) aru branch and artu foliage (OB also A-ar-ti BAM 4, 393:21; Ar gr- acc. to Kogan 2001: 282) azannu bitter garlic (see AHw 338b s.v. azannum I) burbutu bubbles(?) daummu dark (with daummi and daummatu, see damu above) de/aatu, detu notice (from wd to know?) diu (an illness: headache?) diu or duu platform (Sumerian loanword) erebu crow, raven (Ar gurb, He rb; see Kogan 2001: 27879 and SED 2, 12931) i (a kind of document) (from Sum .sa 10 may he buy? thus AHw 349b s.v.) kam and kamtum truffles (OB also kam!-A-tim ABIM 5:18 acc. to CAD K 120b s.v. kamatu, and ka-am-/-i ARM 27, 54:8, 13; SB ka--ma-t CT 14, 27: I 8 with metathesis; Ar kam ). luu throat (Kogan 2001: 27678 compares He l a gullet and Ar lugah word, language, but cf. D. Testen, NABU 2001/95) naramtu mace (SB), related to ruumu to scatter(?) (CAD R 441 s.v.), connected with WSem rgm to thunder, flash by Mazzini (2002) narrum/nirrum (rather ne-?) help (from naarruru; see 12.3 (pp. 304305): always with in Old Babylonian, later apparently with long vowel: nrrum, n/rrum, but 1 na--ra-ru, quoted in CAD N/1 346a s.v. nrru lex sect.; also n/rrtu from Standard Babylonian onward) pirau flea (see CAD P 414b s.v. pirau; in early texts Pir aum with metathesis as PN; Sem *p/brg with variants, see SED 2, 24647) pir u shoot, offspring ( prg/; see Kogan 2006b: 272 n. 8) rutu spittle (see below for older forms; Ar ri/ugwah) epu (a kind of tablet) (see Kraus 1967; Huehnergard 2003: 110 with n. 16, and AHw 1091b s.v.; also -E-ep-u AbB 13, 89:41 and -e-ep-ka AoF 10, 49 no. 83:9, i.e., c. st. /eep-/; cf. Geez aafa?)37 ernu sinew, muscle (Ar i/arah, etc., acc. to SED 1, 23940) eru furrow u (a disease) tarbu(t)u dust storm urnqu crane (Ar gu/irnq in various forms; see Kogan 2001: 281) urn (a plant: mint?) (also qurn? (or different plant?), see also AHw 929b s.v. qurn and n. 43 (p. 524)
36. The main heuristic to identify such nouns is the interchange of broken spellings and -signs in Old Babylonian and the use of broken spellings and the -sign in Standard Babylonian and later. I have focused on instances that are common and/or are relevant to an explanation of the strong , especially because they have a reliable etymology. If no references are given, see the dictionaries. 37. AHw 1091b s.v. pum to write associates epu with the verb pu and both with Geez aafa to write. However, J.-M. Durand (ARM 26/1, 15657 note f) shows that this verb instead means to arrive (of letters) and that it is a I/voc verb epu. This precludes any connection between epu and epu, but the formal similarity is remarkable.
17.4. The Strong in Babylonian
523
uzlu gazelle (Ar gazl(ah), see Kogan 2001: 282 and SED 2, 13234) ullu ring (Sum loanword acc. to AHw 354a s.v. ullu; Kogan 2001: 28182: Ar gull) urudu windpipe (vs. WSem ward, etc.; see SED 1, 258) zutu sweat (w; see chap. 16 n. 48 (p. 460)
These words have a very diverse background. No doubt some of them are loanwords and may have brought along their from the source language. The -signs are used to express various gutturals in surrounding languages such as Amorite (Streck 2000: 23133). Mari Old Babylonian has several words that are doubtless loans from an Akkadian dialect or from a West Semitic language, where may reflect , such as amqum valley (amq), and rum wild donkey (air), and the already quoted azzum goat (Akk enzu). This may have reintroduced as a phoneme in the Akkadian of this area. However, this has no direct bearing on Akkadian in general and does not imply that was still a phoneme in Akkadian itself. Moreover, the majority of the words listed above do not have an etymology with .38 If we concentrate on cases that have a plausible etymology, two things catch the eye. First, they confirm that strong has nothing to do with the original inherited from Proto-Semitic. Second, there is no regular correspondence between strong and any Proto-Semitic guttural, but its most common source is PSem *g: PSem *: kam PSem *h: nasu, latu (?), damu/daummu and perhaps pau PSem *: armu, muuu, epu and perhaps pau (unless it had *h) PSem *: balu, uta, ad(i)nu, de/aatu/ditu, ernu, zutu PSem *g: adru, apru, aru (but see n. 41, p. 524), bu, apparr, r(t)u, erebu, luu, naramtu, pirau/pirau, rutu, ullu, uzlu This brings us back to the problem of *g, which we separated in 17.3 (p. 516) from the other gutturals traditionally distinguished in Akkadian grammar. Kogan (2001) has shown that the most common reflexes of PSem *g in Akkadian are and without E-colouring. Many of the words in question show alternating with and therefore appear in the lists presented above. Other words with *g have not been included because we have no spellings with -signs: urinnu eagle and urullu foreskin. Since they are not attested in Old Babylonian and the -sign is not used word-initially, they may belong to the words listed above, i.e., their exact form may be urinnu and urullu. There are also words with *g that show a stable in Babylonian, especially eru small, young, whose E-colouring is not caused by a guttural but by plus r (cf. Ass aru and see 17.2, p. 511),39 and the very rare nouns lau/lau jaw, and zaal a silver alloy, which are not attested in Old Babylonian. The association of PSem *g with Akkadian words with a strong suggests an explanation of the rise of strong (which must remain hypothetical for the time being). We may assume that PSem *g did not belong to the class of pharyngeals and laryngeals and did not share their decline but was closely associated with the (post)velar , perhaps as its voiced counterpart; therefore, it was expressed by the same sign and preserved until far into the historical period, concealed under its guise of the -signs. Somewhere in the early stages of Babylonian, it gradually started to change to . Originally, this did not change the way it was written, but once it had become ,
38. This makes the claim of, for instance, von Soden (GAG 23c) and Edzard (1959: 29899) that spellings with -signs point to an occasional pronunciation as ayn very unlikely. 39. The stable in Akk eru may be due to devoicing in contact with in the prefix conjugations: PSem *yigir(u) > *yiir(u); see 2.3.3 (p. 43).
524
the -signs were associated with apart from their other function and became an alternative to broken spellings that had arisen as a result of the loss of gutturals, just as broken spellings could take over the function of the -signs. This emerged when the loss of PSem * had been completed and therefore did not undergo the same development.40 It is obvious that the words with a strong that show a different guttural in West Semitic are not accounted for in this way. They must be explained as irregular phonological developments resulting from the general instability of gutturals. Examples of this phenomenon were presented in the previous section. With regard to the other early dialects, the scenario proposed here for the reconstruction of a voiced velar fricative alongside the long-established voiceless is in keeping with the fact that Sargonic Akkadian normally uses -signs in places where Old Babylonian alternates between -signs and broken spellings.41 This applies to the nouns naparum (tgna-A-p-ar kitm MAD 1, 169: II 3), a kind of garment, which may be derived from apru to cover, piraum flea (as a PN: Pir6/P-ir-A-um see MAD 3, 217), and tgna-wa/ba-u-U-um, a kind of garment (MAD 3, 196), which also occurs in Old Assyrian (tgna-ma-u-A-am, na-ma-u-U ), but has a broken spelling in Old Babylonian (tgna-ma-an-u--um TCL 10, 100:34), which implies that it belongs to the nouns listed above.42 Since Sargonic Akkadian uses broken spellings elsewhere, this may be an indication that does not (yet) represent here.43 The earliest instances known to me of -signs expressing a glottal stop come from Ur III Babylonian: the proper names Dan-I-lum (i.e., Dan-()ilum the god is strong), and I-d-Abu-um (i.e., Iddi(n)-()abum the father has given, with assimilation of n; see Hilgert 2002: 281 with n. 58 and pp. 29798 with n. 11.44 A -sign in Ur III Babylonian in a word that later has a strong is the PN Piraum, spelled P-ir-A-um, etc. (see Hilgert 2002: 59). Interestingly, another Ur III name contains the noun pirum shoot, offspring with a syllable-final strong unexpressed: I-ku-p-ra-a Her offspring has become lasting, quoted by CAD P 418a s.v. piru 2d < Ikn-paraa.45
40. A parallel to this development is provided by the voiceless uvular stop q in several varieties of spoken Arabic. In Egyptian Arabic, q has become a glottal stop, whichin contrast to the inherited glottal stopis a strong consonant that is never dropped (Mitchell 1993: 15, 122). 41. A vexing exception is aru to defeat, which is normally spelled with a broken spelling in Sargonic Akkadian royal inscriptions; see GAKI pp. 27678 s.v. Perhaps W. von Sodens derivation from PSem *gr to break (AHw 1118a s.v. . II), which was hesitantly accepted by Kogan (2002: 316), should be abandoned after all. Another possibility is that aru is derived from a root variant with instead of *g: as we saw above, it is not uncommon for gutturals and similar phonemes to vary in semantically related roots. 42. If the reading u-ul?-lum TAZ 1, 47: I 2 is correct, this word is an additional instance (OB ()ullum ring) according to Kogan 2002: 316. For rutu in Sargonic Akkadian, spelled ru-GA-tim, see the next note. 43. In at least two very early instances PSem *g is expressed by the sign ga: in SAk ru-GA-tim Or. 46, 201:12 (incant. from Kish) spittle (Gen), interchanging with ru--ti in 201:5 and 201:10, possibly plural versus singular, and in Eblaite g[a-r]-bu raven (Krebernik 1983: 13), corresponding to OB E-re(-e)-bu, E-re-ba-am, quoted in CAD A/2 265a s.v. ribu lex. sect. and SB ribu/ribu. Both instances have cognates with g in Arabic (see above). Kogan (2001: 28586) argues that ga stands for /a/ (i.e., /qa/) here and points to other parallels between // and g in Ethio-Semitic and in Egyptian loans from West Semitic. 44. Hilgerts scepticism about the interpretation of these names, and especially his qualification of DanI-lum as vollkommen unklar (281 n. 58) seems exaggerated. 45. Mari Old Babylonian normally uses -signs for the words under discussion and hardly ever broken spellings; an instance of the latter is the noun ka-am-/-i in the list above. A particularly interesting case is the Gt Imp that in Mari Old Akkadian proper names appears as It-ll (e.g., It-ll-dDa-gan ARM 19, 212 and passim Jubilate, Dagan!). Since the non-prefix forms of I/a verbs start with a- (see 17.6.2, pp. 546547),
17.5. The Edparadigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony
525
Very few of the Proto-Semitic words with *g discussed in Kogan 2001 are attested in Old Assyrian, and all of them show without E-colouring: adrum to become worried, allum to hang (trans.),46 alpum to cover (in Old Assyrian only in the derived nouns ulpum rag(?) and nalaptum garment),47 ernum muscle, sinew, and the common adjective arum small, young.48 This behaves completely like an ordinary , so Old Assyrian does not offer any positive (or any negative) evidence for the assumption that it conceals a phoneme different from . The use of -signs for is exceptional and perhaps spurious (see Kouwenberg 2006: 15253 with n. 14). The most likely conclusion is that in Assyrian *g has merged with . This means that only Old Babylonian offers evidence for the claim that what is usually referred to as a uvular fricative *g is actually a velar fricative and the voiced counterpart of the voiceless velar fricative .49
17.5. the e-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony 17.5.1. E-colouringintheolderdialects

The loss of the Proto-Semitic pharyngeals * and * was preceded or accompanied by the raising of a to e, i.e., E-colouring, in most dialects of Akkadian. There are two kinds of E-colouring, local and global. Local E-colouring, which applies to Sargonic Akkadian and Assyrian, only affects a if it is directly adjacent to the guttural, e.g., Ass alaqq I will receive < *alaqqa. Global E-colouring is typical of Babylonian; it affects all a-vowels in the core of the word, e.g., eleqq (see below for a definition of core in this context). It is, therefore, also called (Babylonian) vowel harmony.50 It led to the rise of a different paradigm, the E-paradigm, into which verbs were incorporated that did not originally contain a guttural. As an illustration of the impact of E-colouring, Table 17.1 presents a selection of relevant forms of the sample verb parsu, the verb leq to receive with local E-colouring as in Old Assyrian and global E-colouring as in Old Babylonian, and the strong E-verb ebru to break in Old Babylonian, anticipating the discussion later in this section.51
there must be an initial consonant, which may be this elusive g. In Old Babylonian Mari texts, this name is also spelled with : i-it-ll-r-ra MARI 4, 153:5, but It-ll-r-ra MARI 4, 177 no. 4 and 181 no. 11. In Babylonian, the verb allu does not show signs of a strong . West Semitic cognates suggest a root hll. Perhaps the name is Amorite; see Streck 2000: 240. 46. In CCT 4, 45b:3132 ulp kma -ub-ri a-lu-l-ku I am hung with rags like a(?) slave (interpretation by K. R. Veenhof, p.c.). 47. It is not quite certain that this verb originally had *g as first radical; see Kogan 2001: 27071. 48. GKT 30a also ascribes an original *g to allum and amdum. For allum, Kogan (2001: 282) rightly observes that its meaning to keep waiting, detain does not fit Arabic gll eintreten, so there is no basis for deriving from *g; the same applies to amdum to hide (or the like), for which there is indeed an Arabic parallel gmd but also md (2001: 283). 49. Huehnergard (2003) has proposed to account for the numerous irregular correspondences between WSem and Akk (Tropper 1995b), such as nb versus nabu to bark quoted in 12.6.1 (p. 317), by assuming the existence of a phoneme x, an emphatic (i.e., glottalized) counterpart of , which in Akkadian merged with but in West Semitic with . If this is correct, we have a complete triad of a voiceless, voiced, and glottalized velar fricative, parallel to other triads of this kind, see Huehnergard 2003: 115. 50. Cf. GAG 10: Vokalangleichung; Huehnergard 2005a: 45: vowel harmony. The addition Babylonian is to distinguish it from the Assyrian vowel harmony rule (GKT 10), which is called vowel assimilation here; see 2.4 (pp. 4849). 51. Cf. Reiner 1966: 84 for a similar table but without Old Assyrian; see also GAG Verbalpar. 6 and 17.
526 parsum Impfv 1s t-Pf 1s Pfv 1s Pfv 2p Imp sg. Stat 3ms Stat 1s Stat 3fs Inf PrPartc aparras aptaras aprus taprus purus paris parsku parsat parsum prisum
The Edparadigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony 17.5. laqum (OA) alaqq alteq alq talqe liq laq laqiku laqiat laqum lqium
52
leqm (OB) eleqq elteq elq te/alqe liq leq le/aqiku le/aqiat leqm lqm
54
ebrum (OB) eebber eteber eber teber *iber 53 ebi/er ebrku ebret ebrum birum
table 17.1: the impact of e-colouring.
The emergence of E-colouring can be dated to the period just before the appearance of the earliest texts. It is absent in Eblaite and Mari Old Akkadian. In Sargonic Akkadian, it is incipient: it is not attested in the relatively conservative corpus of royal inscriptions (Hasselbach 2005: 109) and exceptional in texts from Southern Babylonia.55 It becomes more common in texts from the Diyala region, in general the most innovative variety of Sargonic Akkadian (2005: 23233), with forms such as l-gi /yilq/ SAB p. 170:6 he took < *yilqa and li-ib-te-u /lipte/ SAB p. 163:13 let them open < *l yipta, and in Gasur, e.g., e-ra-si-i / ersis/ SAB p. 183:23 in order to cultivate < aris. It is normally local E-colouring (Hasselbach 2005: 121): cf. e-ra-si-i just quoted and z-ra-at ni-se11 /errat nis/ GAKI p. 380:42 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) the lead-rope of the people, with e caused by and/or r. A possible exception, however, may be the 1s Impfv e-b-i SAB p. 157:15 (Diyala) I will do from epu, a difficult form that I read ppes < ppas) with global E-colouring for lack of a plausible alternative.56
52. The vowel e in the penultimate syllable of the t-Pf alteq is caused by vowel assimilation, not (directly) by E-colouring, as is the corresponding vowel in Bab elteq. 53. Not attested as far as I know, but cf. [t]i-me-er AbB 7, 182:20 bury! (versus Stat te-me-er CT 44, 37:2 (both OB)). 54. Exceptional is a contracted form leqku (e.g., b-re-ku AbB 14, 23:20 I am hungry from ber). In Mari Old Babylonian, on the other hand, this is the regular form, since ia > . 55. In this area, only [l ]i-i-me SAB p. 40:19 (Adab) let him hear < *lisma and e-r SAB p. 141: 8 (Kish) he is destitute < *ar are attested. Note that e-dam-da Or. 46, 201: 37 (incant. from Kish) they (Du) touch each other, Gt stative of emdu, is not a case of a > e, since it is from *itamd ( pace Hasselbach 2005: 113). 56. This is problematic because b normally stands for /bi/ and /pi/ versus bi for /be/ and /pe/ (Hasselbach 2005: 4144). There are some exceptions, however, and the distinction may have been less strictly observed in closed syllables. The alternative is to assume that epu was an I/i verb in Sargonic Akkadian or at least in the Diyala, and thus to read / ppis/. There is no further evidence in favour of this (Whiting 1987: 45). Hasselbachs interpretation / e()pis/ is not a possible imperfective form in Akkadian, since it lacks gemination. A second instance of global E-colouring adduced by Hasselbach (2005: 121) is e-ri-sunu SAB p. 183:18 (Gasur) their plot of land, which she interprets as /()eressunu/ < *ara-; it seems more likely to read /()erissunu/ < *ari-, a substantivized past participle with the regular pattern PaRiS cultivated, like eru in later dialects (AHw 246a s.v. erum II 1b). The use of ri rather than r does not militate against this; see Hasselbach 2005: 4950.
527
In Assyrian, which is attested several centuries later, it is fully established from the earliest texts onward. As I concluded in 2.4 (p. 49), it emerged earlier than vowel assimilation but later than vowel syncope. The earliest actual instances of E-colouring come from the Pre-Sargonic proper names from southern Babylonia quoted in 1.5 (p. 26): I-me--lum, I-me-lum, -me-lum and -l-be6(PI)-l. They contain the words i-me /yism/ and PI-l /bl/ from *yisma he heard and *bal my lord and show not only E-colouring but also the loss of the two gutturals (in *yisma) and (in ()ilum), which is a typical Babylonian feature. Therefore, they may represent the earliest testimony of the Babylonian dialect; but this is controversial (see 1.5 end, p. 26). Babylonian has global E-colouring, and this is one of its most characteristic features. It is attested from the earliest texts onward. In Ur III Babylonian, the spread of e to other syllables is demonstrated by forms such as: ne-re-bu-um /nrebum/ UET 3, 817:6 entrance building < *narabum (cf. Ass *nrabu) ne-k-pu-um (a metal object), an Akkadian loanword in Sumerian, doubtless from *na/kapum; see AHw 776a s.v. and MAD 3, 200 s.v. negibum me-e4-nm /menum/ < *maanum, an instrument noun derived from nu to grind; see AHw 64950 s.v. menu, MAD 3, 187 s.v. metnum, and n. 31 (pp. 519520) for long and short e -e-re-bu- AKI p. 344:11 he causes to enter (Subj), i.e., /uerreb/, Impfv of erbu.57
gi
I am not aware of any instances of local E-colouring in Ur III Babylonian apart from the PNF Ta-me-tum < *tamatum (see 14.6.1, p. 398, for the meaning), which may be a traditional and/ or archaic form or an archaic spelling.58 Also in Archaic Babylonian, we find global E-colouring, e.g., te-e-me OBTA p. 56 no. 13:5 you hear, te-p-e p. 44 no. 7:11 you do (see the discussion on p. 45), te-el-q- TIM 7, 115:8 you received (Subj), and er-b-e RIME 4, 655:34. There are, however, some exceptions, the most interesting of which is the G Inf e-ba-bi OBTA p. 71 no. 21:8 from ebbu, lit., my being pure. This form reflects the competing tendencies of vowel harmony versus as the defining marker of the G infinitive, which is maintained even if it is adjacent to an E-colouring guttural: cf. Ass laqu to receive (lq) and belu to possess (bl ). In this instance, the latter tendency has proved stronger; later on, vowel harmony prevails and we regularly find ebbu in verbs of this type.59 In Classical Old Babylonian, global E-colouring is the rule and forms that show local Ecolouring are exceptional.60 It also affects the derivational prefixes ta- and ma-; cf. the taPRiSt
57. I omit the problematic verb form e-p-u AKI p. 330:16; see I. J. Gelb and B. Kienasts comment on p. 331. 58. See Hilgert 2002: 264 n. 20 for a discussion of this name; he argues that it is not the well-known taPRaSt form of em but a Kurzname of Tam-DN(F) or the like. This makes no difference for the argument. 59. Other noteworthy exceptions include be-al (mtu) RIME 4, 8:3 and 9:3, no doubt a historical spelling, and i-bex(ne)-al Land Tenure p. 451:17 (= copy; the transliteration on p. 397 is incorrect). I cannot explain the form i-a(-ma) OBTA p. 67 no. 19:4; cf. R. M. Whitings discussion on p. 68; he considers it an archaism. If it is really from e, it is highly irregular. 60. Instances include (ana) a-re-e VS 7, 187: XI 16 in order to dig from er (a lexical text); il-ta-q AbB 7, 126:6, 17 he has taken (cf. F. R. Krauss note to this letter); pa-ti-je-et-ku St. Reiner 192:66 it is open to you (OB lit.); and ep-a-tu-u RIME 4, 348:7, 27 his deeds (RI). The form a-la-q-ku(-ma) AbB 12, 99:7 I used to bring to you is not a real exception, because it represents an irregular contraction
528
The Edparadigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony 17.5.
form terdtu addition, reinforcement from red D to add, and abstract or instrument nouns with the pattern maPRaS such as meertu youth from eru small, young and meltu flint, blade from lu to sharpen. Suffixes, on the other hand, are not affected by E-colouring, with the exception of the long between the stem and the personal endings of the first and second person of the stative, the 3fs ending -at of the stative, and the feminine plural ending of nouns and adjectives. Thus, we find, for instance, erku I am young, erta you (Masc) are young, eret she is young, and ertu young (women) from eru). However, the third-person plural feminine of the stative has - (er) by analogy with the prefix conjugations (iparras, etc.; see 7.4.1, p. 179). For the sake of convenience, I will call the syllables affected by E-colouring the word core, even though this is difficult to define in a nonad hoc way. A consequence of global E-colouring was that the vowel e became dominant in the entire paradigm of verbs with E-colouring gutturals. This gave rise to a separate paradigm, the E-paradigmin contrast to the regular A-paradigmthat also had a certain productivity outside the narrow confines of these verbs. The verbs belonging to the E-paradigm fall into four different categories: 1. The original and most numerous group comprises verbs with * or * in their root, e.g., el to go /come up (l), blu to possess, rule (bl), leq to take, receive (lq). 2. The second group is that of the original I/y verbs (see 16.3.2, pp. 464465). They owe their inclusion to the fact that y as R1 had the same effect as * and *: it caused or in all prefixes, e.g., 3ms niq he sucked < *yiyniq, parallel to, for instance, *yzib < *yizib he left. As a result, the tiny group of I/y verbs was absorbed by the mass of I/e verbs. 3. The third group are the doubly-weak verbs with a weak R1 and R3, insofar as they are not I/w or I/n verbs: ep to bake (p ), er to be pregnant (hr ), ew to become (hw ). They adopted the E-paradigm because many forms of their conjugation, especially the basic third-person forms, are identical to those of the E-paradigm: the Impfv pp he bakes, Pl *ppi > pp they bake and Pfv p, Pl p he/they baked from ep are exactly parallel to the corresponding forms of el to go /come up (l ): ll, Pl *lli > ll and l, Pl l. This made it easy to switch. The transfer to the E-paradigm was favoured by its general association with weak verbs and perhaps also by the high frequency of el, which may have served as a model. This led to an analogical replacement process of the type 3ms ll : 2ms tll pp : tpp (instead of *tpp ) and from there to the more peripheral forms of the paradigm. 4. The fourth group comprises the I/i verbs with r as R2 or R3 (GAG 96b). In Old Babylonian, this concerns esru to confine, eru to ask, qebru to bury, qerbu to come near, sekru to dam, eru to be(come) small, young, ebru to break, and temru to bury. Their E-paradigm is due to the E-colouring influence of r both on a and on a preceding i (GAG 9b, 9h): e.g., in the case of ebru to break: iabbir > iabber > iebber through vowel harmony. From the Impfv iebber, e was analogically extended to the entire paradigm. This explains the close association between the E-paradigm and the vowel class I/i. With a few exceptions (see 3.5.3, pp. 7980), all Babylonian verbs with an original E-colouring guttural have I/i, even when they originally had a different root vowel. Interestingly, the reverse is also true: all fientive verbs of the vowel class I/i with r as R2 or R3 already belong to the
of alaqqeakkum. A few other remarkable cases include the word nbeu, a kind of payment (see CAD N/2 14445 s.v. nbeu B), which often appears as nbau for unknown reasons (see CAD loc. cit.). Less exceptional is the occurrence of a in the prefixes of E-verbs; see the end of 17.5.2 (p. 537).
529
E-paradigm in Old Babylonian or adopt it at a later moment.61 The Old Babylonian cases were mentioned above. Verbs that later join this group are epru to dig out, scrape (not attested in OB), kasru (I/i) to dam, karu to repair (earlier A/u), makru to irrigate (earlier A/u), sadru to do regularly, to set in a row (OB Impfv isaddar, thus probably originally A/u), asru to break off (only Stat and N Pfv i-a-s-ir BagM. 2, 58: III 14 attested; thus, I/i or A/u), and kadru to behave overbearingly (only Stat attested in OB). Also ganu to cough (I/i, Impfv igenni) (not attested in OB) belongs here. In Neo-Babylonian, some other verbs that do not have r as a radical join the E-paradigm, such as melu to equal, semu to mix, join, and lebnu to prostrate and to make bricks. A systematic exception is formed by I/i verbs derived from adjectives that contain a: arku to be(come) long (cf. arku long), garu to be(come) powerful (garu), kabru to be(come) thick (kabru), labru to be(come) old (labiru), marru to be(come) bitter (marru), nakru to be(come) hostile (nak(a)ru), naw/mru to be(come) bright (naw/mru), akru to be(come) drunk (akru), (w)aqru to be(come) rare, precious (waqru), and (w)atru to exceed, surpass (watru). The strong association with the adjective, which is generally more frequent than the verb, prevented the verb from switching to the E-paradigm. Accordingly, adjectives with e also have derived verbs with E-colouring, e.g., edu to be(come) new (eu), emmu to be(come) hot (emmu), el to be high (el), enu to be(come) weak (enu), eru to be(come) small, young (eru), qerbu to come near (qerbu), and lemnu to be(come) bad (lemnu).62 5. A very small number of other verbs are E-verbs for unknown reasons: espu to collect, harvest, ekpu to draw near (see n. 91, p. 538), and the already mentioned adjectival verbs enu and lemnu. The third, fourth, and fifth group of E-verbs are specifically Babylonian. There are occasional instances of E-colouring in the vicinity of r in Old Assyrian (GKT 13), but not to the extent that they can be regarded as a specific paradigm. Insofar as these verbs occur in Assyrian, they normally have A-forms, e.g., Old Assyrian has arum, qarbum, and lamnum instead of Bab eru, qerbu, and lemnu, and in Middle Assyrian we find, for instance, piu baker (la-pi-e MATSH p. 158 no. 12:33), instead of Bab p.63 In Classical Old Babylonian, there are two systematic exceptions to E-colouring. The first concerns derived stems that distinguish the imperfective and the perfective only by means of a/i apophony, i.e., the D- and Dt-stems and the - and t1-stems. Verbs belonging to the E-paradigm often show a in the imperfective of these stems rather than e as we would expect. Thus, alongside bbeb he will purify, imperfective of ebbu to be(come) pure, it is much more common to find bbab.64 Comparable forms of I/voc verbs include llal (passim) from ellu to be(come)
61. Only one I/i verb is found in AHw under the letter A: armu to cover, which actually has a strong (see n. 93, p. 539). This leaves us with only a very small number of extremely rare verbs that meet the conditions for having E-forms but do not actually have them: pakru to tie up, aqru to pierce, and apru to throng(?). The verb apru (originally A/u if we may go by I-pu-ur Atr. p. 62:284, OB) does not have E-forms as long as it has a strong , but in Standard Babylonian it also develops weak formssuch as an N-stem innapir (see 17.6.1, p. 539)and accordingly also sporadic E-forms, e.g., e-pi-ir AfO 19, 58:141 he wears (as head-covering). 62. Insofar as the adjectives with e have a reliable etymology, they owe their e to an E-colouring radical, such as eu from d, emmu from mm, el from l, etc. In eru and qerbu, e is caused by r and/or , and in enu and lemnu the cause of e is unknown (for enu, cf. He n). 63. But eru to ask also has E-forms in Assyrian (see n. 2, p. 511). For OA eriat she is pregnant, see n. 89 (p. 538). 64. The E-form bbeb occurs passim in OBRED 2 and 5; see Kouwenberg 2001: 23031 n. 17. For the long , see 17.6.2 below (pp. 543545).
530
pure, mmad (passim) from emdu to lean against, impose, ssar from esru to press for payment (see Kouwenberg 2001: 23031 for more instances and references). The III/H verbs show the same phenomenon: upatt from pet to open, uradd from red D to add, ubarr from ber to be(come) hungry, etc. (2001: 22728). Dt, , and t1 imperfective forms of the verbs in question are fairly rare, but cf. -tam-ma-ad AbB 6, 191:21 it will be imposed from emdu Dt, -ta-as-sa-ar RA 65, 71:22 he will be confined from esru Dt, u-ta-ab-ba-ar RA 65, 73:40 it will be broken, from ebru Dt (a strong E-verb), and -a-ap-ta Atr. p. 100:15 I will reveal from pet . These A-forms compete with the corresponding E-forms upett, uredd, temmed (-te-meed FM 3, 66 no. 4:13), tesser, etc. (see further Kouwenberg 2001: 22931). Other forms than the imperfective normally show the expected e vowel: Pfv uepp from ep to break, upett from pet, t-Pf uebb from eb to sink, PrPartc mubelli (c. st.) from bel to be(come) extinguished, etc. (2001: 22829).65 The use of A-forms in the imperfective is determined by the need to restore or maintain a clear formal distinction between imperfective and perfective.66 This is confirmed by the fact that the imperfective normally has e rather than a in derived stems in which it is also distinguished from the perfective by gemination. First, in the -stem of the I/ voc verbs, where the imperfective has a/i apophony and gemination of R2 (uakkal vs. ukil ), Old Babylonian only shows e in the imperfective: ueppe (vs. Pfv upi ) from epu, uerreb (vs. Pfv urib) from erbu, uell (vs. Pfv ul) from el, etc. (see GAG Verbalpar. 17 and 17.6.3.3 below, p. 549). Second, in the few attested imperfective forms of the Dtn-, tn-, and t2-stems (uptanarras uptarris, utanapras utapris, and utaparras utapris, respectively), we normally find e rather than a, e.g., us-s-ne-el-le JCS 15, 6: I 24 I pray constantly from sull Dtn, u-te-b-er-re ZA 90, 196:11 he continues from utebr (t2), and u-te-p-et-te TJAUB p. 154:5 he will distribute(?) from pet t2. The fluctuation between a and e shows the conflicting pressures of paradigm consistency in verbs that have e as their basic vowel and the tendency to preserve a consistent and unambiguous marking of the imperfective by means of a.67 Most of the E-imperfectives occur in texts that are either from a relatively early stage of Old Babylonian or from genres that tend to be conservative or traditional in style, such as literary and scientific texts (Kouwenberg 2001: 228). This suggests that the E-verbs originally had the phonologically correct imperfective forms with e and
65. A-forms are unusual outside the imperfective; see Kouwenberg 2001: 229 for some instances. They may be explained from the pressure the imperfective exerts on the rest of the paradigm. An exception is red in the D-stem to add and in the -stem to have sth. sent, make (a fluid) flow, proceed, continue, intervene, which show many A-forms in their entire paradigm (see CAD R 239ff. s.v. 918), presumably because they are lexicalized and therefore no longer under the influence of the G-stem red to follow, accompany, with its host of E-forms. Note that many non-imperfective A-forms of III/H verbs are instances of the phenomenon to be discussed presently, the replacement of e with a in the presence of an a-holding suffix, e.g., the t-Pf tu-ub-ta-ar-ri-a-an-ni AbB 2, 116:26 you have made me hungry from ber and the Prec li-ba-li-a JCS 9, 9b:18 may they (Fem) extinguish from bel. 66. In Akkadian, e more often serves as an allophone of a or i than as a separate phoneme, and the phonological contrast between imperfectives such as upett and bbeb and the corresponding perfectives upett and bbib must have been minimal in the light of the numerous cases where e and i interchange, not only in the orthography but no doubt also in actual pronunciation. According to W. von Soden (GAG 8b), the frequent use of i where we would expect e (as in the use of i for /e/), especially in the South of Babylonia, suggests that there was little difference in pronunciation between e and i. 67. Old Assyrian has also replaced the D and imperfective forms that we would theoretically expect, such as *uabb < *uabba I satisfy and *uam < *uama I cause to hear, with uabb and uam, on the model of the a/i contrast in the strong verbs; cf. GKT 95g.
531
only subsequently replaced them with A-forms by analogy with the A-paradigm: bbeb bbab just as, e.g., rrak from arku to be(come) long, and upett upatt just as urabb from rab to be(come) big.68 Since this replacement affects the basic form of the paradigm, it was bound to have consequences for the other members. Accordingly, we observe a gradual expansion of A-forms to other forms in derived stems that restored a in the imperfective. This is one of the reasons for the fact that incidental A-forms outside the imperfective already occur in Old Babylonian and for the massive appearance of A-forms in the D- and the -stems of E-verbs in Standard Babylonian, to which I will return in the next section. The second systematic exception to E-colouring in Old Babylonian is that forms with a weak R3 that have E-colouring in their basic forms show a strong tendency to have A-forms when they have an ending starting with a. These endings are: the ventive -am and all suffix pronouns based on it, e.g., Impfv a-la-q-a-am AbB 6, 195:7 and passim I will take along from leq; Gtn Imp i-ta-am-m-a-an-ni Atr. p. 88:20 listen to me carefully! from em; N Impfv i-pa-at-ti-a-ku-um JCS 24, 67 no. 68:6 it will be opened for you from pet the personal ending - in the prefix forms and the imperative, e.g., Pfv 2p ta-a-p-a AbB 2, 162:7 you (Pl) broke from ep; Impfv 2p (l) ta-ag-gi-a AbB 6, 118:29; Impfv 3fp i-ta-ab-bi-a-ni-i-u OBE 14: r.26 they (tilltu his auxiliary troops) will rise against him from teb; Imp Pl a-li-a-nim AbB 9, 92:25 come (Pl) up here! from el the stative endings -ku, etc. and the 3fs -at, e.g., ba-ri-a-nu AbB 7, 59:12 we are hungry from ber; la-q-at VAB 5, 78:17 from leq the Acc Sg ending -am, e.g., Inf la-q-a-am AbB 14, 182:17 (see 17.8.4, p. 583); PrPartc ra-a-am UVB 18 pl. 28c:10 loyal shepherd from r shepherd (i.e., /rm/ < riam, see below); Adj (eqlam) pa-i-a-am JCS 7, 96a:8 a white (i.e., cleared) plot of land the feminine singular construct state of the present and past participles, e.g., (DNF) pa-tia-at (kakka) KH r.XXVII 94 who opens my weapons from pet the feminine plural ending -tu/im, e.g., a-ri-a-tim AbB 7, 86:20 pregnant (sheep) from er, a-li-a-tim AbB 6, 64:18 upcoming (caravans) from el, and deverbal nouns such as taitu, Pl of ttu quarrel (e.g., ta-i-a-tum AbB 6, 189:32) and taptitu, Pl of tepttu reclamation (of land) (e.g., tap-ti-a-tum CT 6, 20a:1) The contraction of ia to in late Old Babylonian does not further affect these A-forms: cf. instances such as ta-al-la-am /tllm/ AbB 7, 148: r.7 you will come up < tlliam from el; a-ma-ku /amku/ AbB 14, 150:11 I have heard < amiku from em, and i-ta-a-am /itam/ AbB 7, 115:23 search for me < itaeam, Imp Gtn of e. The phenomenon is not restricted to verbs and deverbal nouns but also applies to purely nominal and adjectival forms of III/voc roots, which originally ended in -ium, such as the ordinals reb fourth (e.g., ra-bi-at (mitartim) a quarter of the side (of the square) TMB 13:2), seb seventh (sa-ba-at (iddim) one-seventh of the side Sumer 7, 148:20 < sabiat ) and iner twelfth (i-in-a-ri-am AbB 14, 77:11 one-twelfth part), and the nisbe adjectives el upper,
68. Instead of upatt, a form upett is theoretically conceivable but was clearly disfavoured, because only upatt is in accordance with the Babylonian vowel harmony rule and with the forms of the A-paradigm (urabb, etc.). Very few instances of the upett type seem to occur: tu--e-ep-pa YOS 11, 26: III 40 (OB) you must break, which may, however, be an error because of te-e-ep-PA-e-ma YOS 11, 26: I 4 where Pa is certainly an error for -pe-. A comparable form for the -stem is -e-e-da AbB 2, 157:19 (OB) he may/ will inform from id .
532
outer and qerb inner in the set phrase tupp/ep qa/erbiam u a-li-a-am my inner and outer tablet (i.e., tablet and case, see Kraus 1967: 1314), e.g., tupp q-ar-bi-a-am u a-li-a-am AbB 7, 97:21, and see Kouwenberg 2001: 243 for more references. The use of this type of A-forms is geographically and chronologically confined to texts written in the core area of Babylonia (especially excluding Northern Mesopotamia; see below) during the First Dynasty of Babylon (ca. 19001600 b.C.). The earliest instances occur in the Archaic Babylonian letters published in OBTA, such as the forms te-e-me and te-p-e, quoted in 17.5 (p. 527). The end of the phenomenon is demarcated by the Middle Babylonian period: relevant instances no longer seem to occur in Middle Babylonian, where the verbs in question consistently show E-forms (see the next section). In order to understand the background of these A-forms, we have to investigate more closely the conditions under which they occur. First of all, when the words in question do not have an a-holding suffix, A-forms are relatively rare in Classical Old Babylonian; for examples, see Kouwenberg 2001: 24246 under the verbs ber, el, ger, er, leq, nep, pet, red, and em.69 Second, the use of A-forms seems to be optional: in most cases, the corresponding E-form is also in use: thus we also find l tggi alongside l tggi do (Pl) not be remiss!, eleqqeam alongside alaqqeam I will bring along, teliam alongisde taliam it has come up from el, berku alongside bariku I am hungry from ber, petiat alongside patiat it (Fem) is open from pet, qerbiam alongside qarbiam inner from qerb, and rebiat (re-bi-a-at amnim B 2, 22:59 one-fourth of the oil) alongside rabiat from reb, etc. (see Kouwenberg 2001: 24246 for more examples and references). The relative frequency of A- and E-forms varies widely from word to word. Third, the alternation of A- and E-forms is not a question of dialect variation within Old Babylonian, because in some texts we find E- and A-forms side by side: e.g., AbB 5, 160 has le-q-a-at it has been taken in r.10 beside ba-ri-a-ku I am hungry in r.17 and -sa-li-a-ki I begged you in r.5, and AbB 7, 89:1314 uses a-li-a-am alongside q-er-bi-a-am. Thus, the same speaker could use A-forms of one word and E-forms of another in the same (con)text. This demonstrates that the preference for E- or A-forms varied per word rather than per speaker. Fourth, the presence of e need not be caused by a former guttural: the same interchange of A- and E-forms is found in the nisbe adjective qerb inner from qerbu inner part and in the -stem of wa (u, etc.), where has a different source (see 16.2.3, pp. 455456): cf. the Pfv u alongside uiam and the tn Impfv utene alongside u-ta-na--a-am, both with a ventive (Kouwenberg 2001: 247 s.v.).
69. This is in marked contrast to the situation in the northern dialects of Old Babylonian, for some of which we have abundant information, such as those of Mari and Shemshara. Here we find many forms that do not have E-colouring at all and simply show a in forms where Classical Old Babylonian has e, without any obvious criterion. There are numerous instances of the same forms occurring both with a and with e, e.g., Gtn Impfv il-te-ne-eq-q ARM 1, 132:12 vs. il-ta-na-aq-q- A.2279:11 (quoted in NABU 93/55) from leq to take, receive; D Pfv nu--a-i ARM 26/1, 98 no. 9:5 vs. nu-e4-e-i ARM 26/1, p. 266 no. 101:6 from e to come near; Dt Pfv -ta-ab-bi-ib ARM 4, 57:10 vs. -te-eb-bi-ib ARM 2, 18:6 from ebbu to be(come) pure; Prec li-i-q-el-pu ARM 4, 81:27 vs. Pfv -qa-al-pu- ARM 2, 24: r.10 from neqelp to float downstream, and, in the same letter, li-q-ri-bu-u (ARM 10, 5:29) alongside -qaar-ri-bu-[. . .] (ARM 10, 5:31) from qerbu D to bring near. One reason of this variation is the fact that the Mari documents come from a wide geographical area, with some of them clearly showing their own orthographic and dialectal peculiarities (see 1.4.1.2.2, pp. 1314, for further literature). A comprehensive study of them might reveal certain patterns. However, this first requires a more complete publication and study of the Mari archives.
533
Finally, an absolute condition is that the form contains the sequence -i/e ya-, with a palatal glide before a. This glide may go back to an E-colouring guttural, as in the relevant forms of pet and em, or originate as a glide between i and a following vowel, as in those of el (l ), wa , and qerb. A-forms of this type do not occur in E-verbs of other types, such as the I/voc verbs of the type ebbu, II/voc verbs such as blu to possess, rule, and strong E-verbs such as ebru. Thus, it is this glide that blocks global E-colouring. The question is how we should envisage this process in a historical perspective. From a theoretical point of view, two scenarios are conceivable. The first is that global E-colouring is an extension of local E-colouring. With the imperfective of leq as example, we would first have *alaqqa > alaqq and *alaqqaam > alaqqeam, after which alaqq further becomes eleqq. Alaqqeam, on the other hand, persists until well into the Old Babylonian period, during which it is gradually replaced by eleqqeam; see Table 17.2: Impfv 1s. 3mp. 1s.+vent. Stage I *alaqqa *yilaqqa *alaqqaam Stage II alaqq ilaqqe( )
y
Stage III eleqq ileqq alaqqe( )am

y
Stage IV eleqq ileqq eleqqe(y)am
alaqqe( )am
y
table 17.2: the historical development of the imperfective of leq.
Stage I represents the Proto-Akkadian (and possibly Sargonic Old Akkadian) stage, before the loss of the gutturals. In stage II, the guttural was lost after changing a to e, as we find in Old Assyrian. In stage III, which represents Old Babylonian in general, we observe the specifically Babylonian spread of e over the whole word as a result of vowel harmony except before a palatal glide plus a. In Stage IV, attained before the Middle Babylonian period, the exception was eliminated and the change a > e penetrated the entire paradigm of the E-verbs. A major problem with this scenario is that the third stage, alaqq > eleqq, does not cover forms that have not yet developed a vowel e, such as the 3ms Stat *laqi > laq and the participles *laq(i)um > laqium and *lqium > lqium (which are the actual Old Assyrian forms). Thus we have to assume that they represent an additional stage in which e was extended analogically to such forms from the imperfective eleqq.70 Forms such as laq and laqium do sporadically occur in Old Babylonian, e.g., [b]a-ri-u4 AbB 5, 141:16 they are hungry from ber, na-p AbB 5, 141:17 he has been taken as a pledge from nep,71 and pa-tu-(-um) MSL 12, 162:152 // 184:44 (= l.si.s), apparently from pet to open, but it is hard to tell whether they are meaningful in this context or belong to the numerous erratic variants. The second scenario is to assume that all a vowels were simultaneously affected under the influence of the E-colouring guttural (*alaqqa > eleqq ) but that only local E-colouring occurred if there was a palatal glide followed by a- (*alaqqaam > alaqqeam). In this case, the raising of a may have been a suprasegmental phenomenon, comparable to pharyngealization in Arabic, which may also affect the entire word (Laver 1994: 32728). This accounts for forms such as *laqi > leq directly, without the need to assume an analogical change, but the sporadic laq type forms can only be explained as irregular oddities.
70. This implies that this scenario could be falsified by unmotivated words with E-colouring of a vowel a that is not adjacent to a guttural. Such words are imru donkey < *imrum and uetu grain, barley (alongside uatu) < *unatum, but in both cases e may also have been caused by r and , respectively (GAG 9b). 71. Both forms are from the same letter, characterized as early OB by CAD N/2 172a s.v. nep v. b-2.
534
Both scenarios lead to the same result for Classical Old Babylonian, and in both scenarios the A-forms in the -stem of wa and in qerbwhere e/ is the original vowelhave to be explained as a secondary development by analogy with the e/a interchange in the reflexes of the III/H verbs: u uiam and qerb qarbiam by analogy with, say, uredd uraddiam or a similar form. The choice between the two scenarios is hampered by the lack of pertinent evidence from Ur III Babylonian. I remarked above that in Ur III Babylonian only global E-colouring is attested, but this is not decisive because none of the actual cases concern a root with a weak R3. It might also seem of little consequence which scenario we prefer, since they have the same outcome, but this is not the case: it bears on the dialect classification of third-millennium Akkadian: if E-colouring in Babylonian was first local and only later became global, this is an additional argument for classifying Babylonian as a descendant of Sargonic Akkadian. If, on the other hand, E-colouring was global from the outset, it must have developed independently in both dialects, so that Babylonian cannot be a continuation of Sargonic Akkadian. This does not exclude the possibility, however, that it was triggered by a common stimulus and/or results from areal influence; see further 1.5 (pp. 2526). In the course of the Old Babylonian period, the A-forms with a weak R3 were gradually replaced by E-forms. Their decline can be observed throughout this period from the coexistence of A- and E-forms. It was only completed in Middle Babylonian, where we do not find A-forms any longer (see the next section). The driving force behind this process was the tendency to eliminate stem alternation, which is particularly strong in Akkadian.72 In this case, the E-forms prevailed, since they are in the majority and because they occupy the basic positions of the paradigm. The vacillation of A-forms and E-forms is a good example of a typical development in the history of language: a purely phonological process, in this case E-colouring, introduces irregularity in the paradigm, which is subsequently undone by analogy (see, for instance, Anttila 1989: 94108).
17.5.2. E-colouringinlaterBabylonian
For the relationship between E-forms and A-forms in later Babylonian, I will restrict myself to a general characterization. Middle Babylonian shows a continuation of the tendencies observable in Old Babylonian. As we saw in the previous section, there is an increase in the number of E-verbs, and the E-verbs with a weak R3 such as leq and el no longer show any A-forms according to Aros glossary of Middle Babylonian letters (Aro 1957). We only find E-forms, e.g., i-le-eq-qa-a /ileqq/ BE 17, 26:14 he will bring along and e-la-a /l/ BE 18, 10:12 I came up. Among the derived stems of E-verbs, the Gtn-stem, the t2-stem, and the N-stem have almost exclusively E-forms. This is undoubtedly related to the fact that their imperfective did not adopt A-forms in Old Babylonian to enhance the contrast with the perfective. In the D-stem and the -stem and their derivatives, on the other hand, the fluctuation between E- and A-forms in the imperfective seems to have been resolved in favour of the A-forms, although the number of extant forms is very small: -pa-at-ta-u-nu-t UM 1/2, 53:10 I will open them, -ra-ad-da BE 17, 23:6 I will add, -a-at-ma-ru he will cause to bury (Subj) BBS 3: V 47 from temru, and perhaps -a-as-su- BE 17, 61:2 from es to hide (? c. br.). E-forms such as bbeb, upett, and uredd are no longer found. In the rest of the relevant forms of the D- and the -stems, the distribution of A- and E-forms is complex. One of the defining characteristics of Middle Babylonian is the fact that even pure
72. Cf. the cases mentioned in chap. 2 n. 8 (p. 33). For the stative, in which the feminine and plural stems of the adjective were discarded in favour of one stem, that of the masculine singular, see 7.4.1 (p. 177).
535
A-verbs may have e in the perfective, t-perfect, and present participle of these stems alongside the regular A-forms, as already noted in 11.2 (p. 269) and 13.2.1 (p. 325). Thus, we find umell and umtell alongside umall and umtall from mal D to fill, ulebbi and ulabbi from labu D to clothe, etc. Original E-verbs may have both forms as well, e.g., uraddi and ureddi from red D to add and uqarrib and uqerrib from qerbu D to bring near.73 The background of this e in otherwise pure A-verbs and the apparently indiscriminate use of E- and A-forms pose a difficult problem. A possible explanation for e is that it results from a phonological rule that in a closed syllable a may become e if the next syllable contains i (Umlaut). In this case, the A-forms must represent historical spellings orwhen they occur in royal inscriptionsAssyrianisms. In a similar vein, Aro (1955: 49) concludes that the a > e Umlaut is ein fakultatives phonetisches Phnomen that has gradually spread in the course of time. There are, however, two major objections to a phonological explanation. First, in Neo-Babylonian there are hardly any traces of this Umlaut. Second, it does not apply, for instance, to the G-stem of I/i verbs, which have the same environment but no vowel change; cf. forms such as inadd he puts down (e.g., i-na-an-di UM 1/2, 41:26), inakkis he cuts (e.g., i-na-ak-ki-is UM 1/2, 28:11), and iatt he drinks (e.g., i-a-at-ti UM 1/2, 19:18).74 These facts suggest that the a > e Umlaut is not a phonological but a morphosyntactic process, namely, an analogical extension of the relevant part of the E-paradigm to the corresponding A-forms, as schematically rendered in Table 17.3: E-verbs Impfv Pfv t-Pf uradd uredd urtedd A-verbs umall umall umtall A-verbs umall umell umtell
table 17.3: the rise of Umlaut in Middle Babylonian.
The trigger for this replacement was the fact that the E-verbs have an extra marker distinguishing the imperfective from the rest: they show both a/i apophony in the ending and a versus e in the stem. Although they are numerically a minority, the extra morpheme may have led to a tendency to introduce E-forms in A-verbs also and thus to the paradigm in the rightmost column of Table 17.3.75 This tendency was not carried through consistently, so that A- and E-forms of A-verbs came to be used side by side, and in the end it was not strong enough to prevail. The original Everbs tend to keep their vowel e, except in a few instancesespecially uradd and uqarrib, which already showed a strong predilection for A-forms in Old Babylonian.76
73. See also GAG 10c, 88b, and 89b; Aro 1955: 4049; and van Soldt 1991: 39091. 74. It is true that several A-verbs of the I/i class appear as E-verbs in Middle Babylonian: examples include makru and ganu, mentioned above under no. 4 (p. 529). However, it seems that the final radicals r and are mainly responsible for this process. A counter-argument is the noun kisallu courtyard, which is attested in the Gen as kiselli (ki-se-el-li UM 1/2, 44:8); see Aro 1955: 40. 75. Cf. Kuryowiczs (194549: 2023) first law of analogy, which stipulates that when a simple and a compound morpheme have the same function, the compound morpheme will gradually replace the simple one. For another instance, see the end of 9.3.1 (p. 224). 76. This explanation should be seen as tentative and provisional. A definitive solution cannot be attained without a detailed study of all extant Middle Babylonian texts, classified according to genre, provenance, and chronology, which still remains to be done.
536
The Neo-Babylonian material presented in Woodingtons grammar of the Kuyunjik texts (Woodington 1982: 8587) suggests that a further spread of A-forms has taken place: E-forms are exceptional in all derived stems, and even the Middle Babylonian Umlaut in D- and -stems has hardly left any traces. A glaring exception is the imperfective (l) -e-ep-pe SAA 17, 102: s.4 let him not destroy, in a context that suggests that it may have been borrowed from Standard Babylonian. In Standard Babylonian, the situation with regard to E- and A-forms is chaotic and impossible to portray in detail here. The following general tendencies can be observed. Original A-verbs normally stick to the A-paradigm and only incidentally show E-forms. The E-verbs inherited from Old Babylonian show a different behaviour according to type of verb and derived stem. With regard to the G-stem, the I/voc and II/voc verbs with E-colouring broadly preserve their traditional conjugation, with E-forms being strongly predominant. The E-verbs with a weak R3, which showed the fluctuation between A-forms and E-forms in Old Babylonian as described in the previous section, mostly use E-forms as well, but there are large differences between individual verbs: some of them do not show A-forms at all,77 and others have them rather often.78 The strict criteria that originally determined the use of the A-forms have disappeared.79 In addition, part of the A-forms are undoubtedly to be explained as Assyrianisms, especially when they occur in royal inscriptions of Assyrian kings or in texts coming from an Assyrian environment. In the derived stems of E-verbs, there is again a distinction between the Gtn-, t2-, and N-stems on the one hand, and the D-, Dt-, -, and t1-stems of E-verbs on the other. The former group, which earlier had a strong preference for E-forms, in Standard Babylonian have suffered a considerable influx of A-forms that are used indiscriminately alongside the E-forms. It seems plausible that this development is at least partly due to Assyrian influence.80 In the D-, Dt-, -, and t1-stems of E-verbs, which already showed a relatively large number of A-forms in Old Babylonian, the predominance of A-forms has increased to such an extent that E-forms have been marginalized. Just as in Middle Babylonian, the imperfective, which in Old Babylonian tended to have a instead of e, has generalized a, so that there are hardly any imperfectives with e left in Standard Babylonian.81 For the other forms, the Middle Babylonian Umlaut of a > e in the perfective, t-perfect, and present participle of D and is not carried through, although pertinent forms are occasionally attested. In fact, the main development is in the opposite
77. Such as bel to be(come) extinguished, ber to be(come) hungry, eg to be(come) negligent, en to change, ep to bake, re to tend (sheep), ret to fix, and zen to be(come) angry. 78. This applies, for instance, to dek to summon, pet to open, re to pour out, beget, and em to hear. 79. There are, however, traces of the original rulethat A-forms correlate with the presence of a in the endingpreserved in fossilized forms and expressions. It can hardly be accidental, for instance, that the adjective neb bright predominantly has e in the masculine forms but a in the 3fs Stat nabt (see CAD N/1 39b s.v. nab C v. and N/2 148f. s.v. neb adj.). Likewise, the obscure adjective which only occurs as an epithet of ni people in the form epitum or apitum in Old Babylonian appears as aptu in Standard Babylonian (see CAD A/2 168f. s.v. aptu). Thus, the A-form has been generalized because of the ending -tu. Another instance may be the Pl tabtu alongside the Sg *tebtu, forms that were discussed in chap. 14 n. 177 (p. 408). 80. See the dictionaries, for instance, under the Gtn-stems of pet to open, red to follow, accompany, ret to fix, eg to become rabid, e to look for, teb to rise, and em to hear; the N-stems of ep to break, er to dig, en to change, e to confuse, pet to open, se to be(come) disturbed, em to hear, and the t2-stems of red to follow, accompany and utebr to continue, persist. 81. Instances of Standard Babylonian E-imperfectives include tu-ep-pe BAM 2, 159: IV 21 (alongside more common tuapp) and -eb-be SpTU 1, 34:27.
17.6. The I/voc Verbs
537
direction: on the model of the A-verbs such as umall umall umtall, a paradigm such as uradd uredd urtedd was replaced by uradd uradd urtadd ; in other words, a was generalized across the whole paradigm of D and . This process was reinforced by two structural conditions: (1) the basic status of the imperfective and (2) the pressure exerted by the standard A-paradigm on all other (sub)-paradigms. In addition, Assyrian influence no doubt played an important role. Accordingly, if we consider the E-verbs with a common D- and/or -stem as they are presented in the dictionaries, it turns out that most of them have exclusively or predominantly A-forms,82 whereas a small number either show A- and E-forms in roughly equal proportions83 or predominantly E-forms.84 Finally, a remarkable feature of Standard Babylonian E-verbs is that the prefixes usually have a, even if the other vowels of the form are e. Occasionally, such forms are already found in Old Babylonian, e.g., ta-at-b ZA 44, 32:16 you stood up from teb, (l) ta-p-et-te-e OBTR 147:25 do (Fem) not open from pet, and a-p AbB 3, 20:13, 16 I distrained from nep, but they become the norm in Standard Babylonian.85 This is especially striking in the first-person singular, which almost invariably has a-, just as in the strong verb (GAG 75g),86 e.g., a-de-ki Erra I 123 I will summon and a-leq-qa-kim Maql III 116 I will take for you (fem.). The prefixes with a have the double advantage that they are also used in the strong paradigm and that they are more distinctive than the ones with e. In royal inscriptions, prefixes with a in E-verbs are standard, but this is doubtless one of the Assyrian features of these texts: e.g., ap-te-e Sg. Cyl. 66 I opened, -me (. . .) al-q Ash. p. 104:33 I heard . . . I took, and ad-ke RIMA I/2, 143:10 I summoned from dek.
17.6. the i/voc Verbs 17.6.1. Introductoryremarks

The I/voc verbs consist of two subclasses: the I/a verbs and the I/e verbs. In principle, the I/a verbs come from roots with a non-E-colouring guttural (i.e., * or *h) as R1. I/a verbs with a Proto-Semitic root with * include several well-known verbs that have exact cognates in various Semitic languages, such as azu to take ( ), aklu to eat (kl ), amru to see (mr ), agru to hire (gr ) and arku to be(come) long (rk ). In contrast, I/a verbs with
82. Common verbs with exclusively A-forms include all III/R verbs: qebru to bury D, sekru to dam D, eru to be(come) small, young D, ebru to break D, temru to bury D, and the III/H verbs dek to summon D and , er to dig D and , leq to receive , let to split D, se to be(come) disturbed D, s/ull D to pray, supp D to pray, and wad D to make known. Predominantly A-forms are listed for bel to be(come) extinguished D, ger to quarrel D, ep to break D, pet to open D, red to follow, accompany D and , ret to fix D, eb to be(come) satisfied D, teb to rise , eb to sink D, e to come near D, and ep to apply D. 83. E.g., pe to close up D, re to pour out, beget D, em to hear , zen to be(come) angry D. 84. This is, for instance, found in mes to clean D, nes to be/go far away D and , d to cause to know , and in the doubly-weak verbs el to go /come up and en to change. 85. According to Aro (1955: 72), Middle Babylonian only shows e in the prefixes, in accordance with the fact that it is a typical southern dialect with generally a strict application of E-colouring. 86. Examples of the rare first-person singular forms with e- include el-q RA 33, 105:14, e-le--i-a Gilg. p. 552:250, and e-le-e BWL 48:1 (var. of a-le-i(-i)). Interestingly, first-person forms with e- become frequent again in Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions, as archaizing forms, e.g., e-er-te VAB 4, 128:13 I erected from ret versus earlier ar-ti Ash. p. 4: V 13, and e-es-ki-ir VAB 4, 136: VIII 39 I dammed from sekru to dam versus earlier askir (passim).
538
The I/voc Verbs 17.6.
h in Proto-Semitic are less common, but reliable instances are alku to go /come (hlk ), and *awum to speak (hw).87 The I/e verbs primarily come from roots with an E-colouring guttural (i.e., * or *) as R1. Well-known instances with original * are ebru to cross (br ), ekmu to take away (km), elu to swell, distend (l), el to go /come up (l ), emdu to lean on, reach (md ), *enbu to sprout (nb), erbu to enter (rb), etqu to pass (tq), ezbu to leave (zb), and ezzu to become angry (zz to be huge). With original *, we may single out eddu to be(come) sharp (dd ), edu to be(come) new (d ), eklu to be(come) dark (kl ), ellu to be(come) pure (ll ), emmu to be(come) hot (mm), ennu to grant a favour (nn), erru to be(come) dry (rr ) and e to slit ( ). The common verb epu to make, do can also be assigned to this group on the basis of third-millennium spellings with the sign in combination with E-colouring, although it does not have an obvious etymology.88 However, the distinction between I/a and I/e verbs does not always correspond neatly to the nature of the reconstructed gutturals. In Babylonian, the number of I/e verbs is enlarged by numerous verbs with * or *h as original R1: first, the doubly-weak verbs ep to bake from p, er to be(come) pregnant from hr,89 and ew to become from hw (see 17.5.1 group 3, p. 528); second, some E-verbs with r among their radicals, such as esru to confine (sr) (see 17.5.1 group 4, pp. 528529);90 and third, some other verbs that are E-verbs for unknown reasons: enu to be(come) weak (n), espu to collect, harvest, and ekpu to draw near (see 17.5.1 group 5, p. 529).91 In Assyrian, the opposite is found in aru to cultivate, which is an I/a verb in spite of its root r . In addition, the I/e verbs also include a few verbs that go back to PSem I/*y verbs (see 16.3.2, pp. 464465, and 17.5.1 group 2, p. 528). With regard to Babylonian, we have to make a strict distinction between the I/voc verbs and verbs with a strong as R1 (see 17.4 above, pp. 520525), such as abtu to destroy, adru to be(come) dark, worried, allu to hang (trans.), altu to swallow, and apru to wear on the head. These verbs are conjugated as strong verbs, as is clear from uncontracted forms such as lu-a-p-ir-i AbB 1, 30:24 let me cover her with a headdress, i.e., /luappiri/, and mu-A-abbi-it RA 86, 5: IV 12 destroying (c. st.), i.e., /muabbit/. Even more significant is the fact that,
87. *awum (III/) is only attested in the Gt-stem (OB atwm, OA atawwum), apart from awtu (Bab) word, matter, a substantivized G-stem infinitive (< *hawtum). Initial *h may be posited on the basis of third-millennium spellings with = /ha/ (see 17.2 above, p. 513) and perhaps also because of Ugar hwt word. The Old Assyrian G forms of *awum mentioned in the dictionaries come from another awum (III/ ), which means to perform an awtum (Dercksen 2004: 14851); see Kouwenberg 2008. 88. Cf. Mari OAk -p- ARM 19, 96:1, 5, i.e., /ap/, Inf c. st. It may be connected with Geez afaa to rake up and Ar afaa to gather (see CDG 227 s.v.), but the semantic difference makes this problematic. 89. Cf. Heb/Ugar hr, SED 1, 286 s.v. *hry; cf. also -r-tum /hartum/ VE 594 in Ebla (Krebernik 1983: 23); Old Assyrian e-ri-a-at KTS 1, 42a:18 she is pregnant has secondary E-colouring under the influence of r. 90. Here should also be mentioned the N tantum verb nrubu to flee (see 12.2.1, p. 292, and 12.2.2.3, p. 299), which is cognate with Ar haraba to flee; its e vowel must be due to the influence of r (GAG 9b). 91. The verbs espu and ekpu may plausibly be connected with Ugar/He/Aram sp and He/Aram kp, respectively, but since they do not contain r and also occur in Assyrian as I/e verbs (e.g., te-s-si-ip Or. 18, 405:24 (MA) you collect and ek-p-at CCT 4, 10b:15 (OA) it (Fem) is close by), they must go back to an E-colouring guttural. Apparently, these verbs should be added to the words with variation in their gutturals discussed in 17.2 (pp. 511513). However, for ekpu a possible alternative explanation is that it is actually eqbu, a denominal verb derived from the root qb heel (Akk eqbu). A difficult case is also eru (Ass eru) to ask (see n. 2 above, p. 511).
539
where the strong paradigm differs from that of the I/voc verbs, these verbs follow the former; cf. the G Imp ubut destroy! (-bu-ut Atr. p. 88:22),92 where the I/voc verbs have a- or e- (see below), and the paradigm of the N-stem, where the I/voc verbs have -nn- as marker, but the verbs with a strong assimilate n to (GAG 97j), e.g.: (l) ta-A-A-ad-da-ra /taaddar/ UET 5, 44:10 do (Pl) not worry! (OB) I-a-pi-ir /iapir/ Gilg. p. 234:35 it got covered (OB) i/IH-A-ab-tu4 /iabtu/ V R 42 no. 2: r.49 // KAR 375: III 26 (SB) it was destroyed (Subj) (see CAD A/1 42a s.v. abtu A lex. sect.) These N forms are especially important, because the fact that they are different from the N-stems of the I/voc verbs is conclusive proof that, from a phonological point of view, the verbs that do not start with a strong do not start with at all but with a vowel. In Middle and Standard Babylonian, the distinction between verbs with a strong and the I/voc verbs becomes blurred and most of the former also develop weak forms according to the I/voc paradigm. Instead of iapir and iabit, for instance, we find innapir (in-na-pir TBP 12a: I 18) and innabit (in-nab-tu VAB 7, 230:17). Similar cases are the G Impfv il-la-lu- Sn. 153:27 they hang (trans.) for iallal and the D Impfv ub-ba-tu BBS 7: II 11 he destroys (Subj) instead of uabbatu.93 Insofar as these verbs are attested in other dialects, they are spelled with -signs and behave as ordinary strong verbs, as we saw in 17.4 (pp. 524525), e.g., OA allum to hang (trans.), altum to swallow, and especially the N-stem nadurum with its strong perfective iidir (e.g., a-i-d-ir BIN 4, 35:32 I became worried; see GKT 30b), whereas the I/voc verbs have an N perfective of the innmer type (see 17.6.3.4, pp. 550551). The most remarkable feature of the I/voc verbs is that, apart from demonstrably secondary developments, there are hardly any dialectal differences in their paradigm. Already in the earliest texts, the paradigm is established in the form it will have for the rest of the recorded history of Akkadian in all important respects. This proves that the loss of the guttural and the subsequent morphophonemic adaptations took place already before Akkadian split up into dialects, although it is virtually certain that in all other environments, and especially in the II/H and III/H verbs, the loss of the gutturals only occurred after the formation of the separate dialects. This can be inferred from the fundamental differences between the paradigms of these verbs in Babylonian and in Assyrian, differences that will be discussed later on in this chapter. We can only speculate about how to explain this situation, but the most plausible way seems to assume that already in Proto-Akkadian, perhaps even in Proto-Semitic, there was a group of verbs that actually had a long prefix vowel where the strong verb had a short (prefix) vowel plus R1. Whether it was the reflex of a lost consonantguttural or otherwiseor whether it was originally long is hard to say but not of prime importance. For the sake of argument, I will assume that it is the reflex of a lost guttural that for some reason or other was dropped far earlier than gutturals in other positions.
92. This form is not fehlerhaft, as suggested (with a question mark) by GAG3 97d*, nor is it caused by the following labial b, as Tropper (1998: 13 n. 17) claims, but it is a perfectly regular strong imperative like purus. 93. A verb that seems to have lost its strong in later Babylonian is OB armu to cover (cf. OB naramum, a garment; see CAD N/1 346a s.v. nramu and OA armum), which corresponds to SB armu, ermu (see AHw 64b s.v. and CAD A/2 22829 s.v.). A difficult case that still needs to be sorted out is arru/ arru; cf. CAD A/2 23638 s.v. arru B/C and AHw 6566 s.v. arru II.
540
If such a group of verbs indeed existed, we may assume by way of hypothesis that it included the verbs azu to take, amru to see, and aklu to eat, because, if they had a guttural as R1, it was , which is generally a weak consonant and prone to being dropped, and also because these verbs are very frequent.94 It is well known that frequent forms often undergo reductions in form and tend to be affected by sound change first (Bybee 2001: 5762).95 Moreover, these verbs were frequent enough to be a plausible starting point for the spread of this long vowel to other verbs with a guttural as R1.96 With amru to see as example, this gives an original imperfective *ymuru and a perfective *ymur ) alongside a suffix base *()amVr.97 From the prefix categories of the basic stem, this long vowel was introduced into other places in the verbal paradigm where the strong verb has a short vowel plus R1, such as the Gt-stem (Pfv iptaras tamar), the -stem (Impfv uapras *umar, Pfv uapris umir, etc.), and the suffix base of the N-stem (naprVs nmVr; see 17.6.3.4, pp. 550552). However, the long vowel also spread to prefix forms where in the strong verb R1 is intervocalic rather than syllable-final: in the (originally pluractional) imperfective with gemination iparrVs and in the prefix forms of the D-stem uparras and uparris, e.g., G Impfv mmar, D Impfv az, and D Pfv iz.98 This is an analogical extension due to the fact that these two categories are subordinate to the original G-stem imperfective: the original dependency relationship in the strong verb *yiqtVlu *yiqattalu, which in Akkadian became *yiprVsu *yiparras (see 4.5.1, pp. 109112) entailed *ymuru ymmar, and in the D-stem yiparrVs yuparras entailed yaz yaz. For the long vowel in these forms, see 17.6.2. below (pp. 543545).99
94. Also in West Semitic, these verbs show various reductions in form, e.g., loss of the initial vowel of the imperative in Arabic (u take!, kul eat!) and loss of in the imperfective in Post-Classical Arabic (yuu instead of yauu); see Wright 1967: I 74. In Hebrew, some frequent I/ verbs show a long o < < a, e.g., ymar he says and ykal he eats while other I/ verbs preserve (Aro 1964: 120, 131). 95. In the G-stem paradigm of Proto-Semitic, the guttural is syllable-final in both the imperfective and the perfective of the I/voc verbs (*yimuru and *yimur, respectively). It is inherently more likely for a syllable-final guttural to be dropped than one between vowels (and therefore syllable-initial), since a syllable coda is much more vulnerable to attrition than the onset, especially in fast speech (Bybee 2001: 8687, 2046). Therefore, it is easier to account for the loss of a guttural in forms of the *yiqtVlu type than in forms of the new imperfective *yiqattalu. Hence, the rise of the long vowel is likely to predate the replacement of *yiqtVlu by *yiqattalu. 96. Knudsen (1984/86: 234) also assumes that the loss of the guttural in forms such as *yimur(u) either occurred in Old Akkadian or in the late Pre-Akkadian period. 97. The choice between *amVr and *amVr depends on various criteria, e.g., whether or not a word could begin with a vowel in this stage of Akkadian and whether word-initial was more stable than syllablefinal (which is very likely for Akkadian; see 17.3, pp. 515520). However, as I will argue in 17.6.3.4 (p. 552), the innovative N-stem of the I/voc verbs suggests *amVr rather than *amVr. 98. From uuzu to mount in precious materials, a denominal verb of iz mountings. 99. A similar explanation for the long vowel in the imperfective of the I/voc verbs has been proposed by Knudsen (1980: 11, 1984/86: 23536), but with the perfective as starting point of the analogy. Typologically, this is less satisfactory. It is conceivable, however, that the I/voc verbs originally had a pluractional imperfective that showed no gemination but was only characterized by a: yikalu or even ykalu, because there are reasons to assume that in Afroasiatic a could be a plural marker in itself both in nouns (Greenberg 1955) and in verbs (Wolff 2001). This form may have been adapted to the new imperfective iparras by simply inserting gemination: ykkal, parallel to yubbal in the I/w verbs (cf. Knudsen 1984/86: 237). This has a number of implications that are difficult to assess, especially in relation to the possible Proto-Semitic *yiqtalu conjugation with detransitive function (see 18.3.1, pp. 588589). Note that a prefixed imperfective with a but no gemination (*yiqtal ) is reconstructed for the Cushitic languages, in opposition to nonimperfective prefix categories with another vowel than a, often i (Zaborski 1975: 164; Sasse 1980: 16971).
541
This spread of the long vowel throughout the entire paradigm must date back to the ProtoAkkadian period, since these categories occur in all varieties of Akkadian in the same form. Moreover, the imperfectives of the -stem uammar, the t1/2-stem utammar, the tn-stem utanammar, and the N-stem innammar, whichas far as we can tellalso have the same form in Babylonian and Assyrian, can only be understood on the basis of forms with a long vowel, i.e., *umar and *innmar, etc., and not on the basis of alleged original forms such as **uamar and **innamar (see 17.6.3.34 below, pp. 548554). These developments created a fully-fledged weak paradigm of I/voc verbs built on a prefix base with a long vowel and a suffix base starting with short vowel at a time when the mass of verbs with a guttural as R1 were still conjugated as strong verbs. Gradually, this weak paradigm was adopted by (other) I/H verbs, as their guttural R1 started to weaken in the beginning of the historical period along with the general weakening and loss of all gutturals. This may have started in the prefix forms of the G-stem where the guttural was syllable-final, e.g., with the verb erbu to enter (rb) as example, *yirub he entered > yrub, which gave rise to the subclass of I/e verbs. It is quite possible that during a long period I/H verbs coexisted with the I/voc verbs, until finally all original I/H verbs had adopted the new paradigm. There are reasons to assume, for instance, that the gutturals * and * held out longer than *h and * and that therefore in Sargonic Akkadian a form yusarab from erbu to enter (rb) coexisted with yusiz from azu () (see below). Since syllable-final gutturals are normally left unexpressed in cuneiform writing, this scenario remains a matter of speculation. What we can observe is that the I/voc verbs have a long prefix vowel in the imperfective of the G-stem (mmar ) and the imperfective and perfective of the D-stem (bbab and bbib), as I will argue in the next section. Since this occurs in dialects that normally preserve intervocalic gutturals, it demonstrates that something irregular is going on with the guttural of the I/voc verbs. However, in syllable-final position, which is crucial to the argument, the gutturals are virtually invisible. The only possible trace consists of the thirdmillennium signs m and s, discussed in 17.2 (p. 515), which are believed to render the syllables /maH/ and /saH/, respectively, where H stands for or . Relevant forms concerning I/voc verbs are only found for s (see Hasselbach 2005: 69):100 u-s-r-ib AKI p. 86:33 (RI of Naram-Sin) he brought inside, Pfv of erbu to enter (rb) u-s-i-s-ni AKI p. 159:102 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) he settled them (Du), Pfv of azu u-s-l[i]-[im] AKI p. 365 M 11:6 (Mari OAk) he caused to go up to her However, s is also used where the value /saH/ is inappropriate, as noted in 17.2 (p. 515), which makes these forms equivocal: they may represent the original forms /yusarib/ and /yusaiz/, but nothing prevents us from interpreting them as /yusrib/ and /yusiz/.101 The fact that the first form later appears as urib with E-colouring does not militate against this, because urib is the regular -stem of an I/e verb and may therefore be the result of a secondary remodelling. The only actual trace of the former guttural in the I/voc verbs is the contrast between the I/a and I/e verbs, which reflects their etymological background, as we saw in the beginning of this section.
100. Hasselbach (2005: 69) also mentions the Prec li-s-ki-id /lisakid/ SAB p. 66: r.3 (Girsu) let him hurry. Both this interpretation and the association of this form with the unattested verb *ekdu, which is inferred from the adjective ekdu fierce and which according to AHw 193b s.v. may be related to Ar kd dick, energisch sein, are too uncertain for this form to qualify as evidence in this context. 101. Hasselbach (2005: 69) interprets the first one as /yusarib/ but the second one as /yusissun/ with a long vowel instead of -a-, but she does not explain why.
542
In the next sections, I will discuss the I/voc paradigm on the basis of the developments outlined above. In spite of their speculative nature, they enable us to give a consistent description without having recourse to ad hoc explanations.
17.6.2. TheparadigmoftheG-stem
Table 17.4 shows the paradigm of the I/voc verbs in its Babylonian form, with amru to see for the I/a verbs, ezbu to leave for the I/e verbs, and the irregular alku to go /come, with deviating Assyrian forms in smaller print (see also GAG 97 and Verbalpar. 1418). Strong verb Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PPartc PrPartc iparrVs iprVs iptarVs pVrVs paris parsu parsu prisu I/a mmar mur
Ass mmar Ass mur
I/e zzib zib

Ass zzib Ass zib
alku llak illik ittalak alik alik alku liku
tamar amur amir amru amru miru
Ass tamar
tezib ezib ezib
Ass tizib
ezbu ezbu zibu
Ass ezbu
table 17.4: the paradigm of the i/voc verbs.
Broadly speaking, these forms are valid for all dialects, except for some differences in E-colouring that are independent of specific verb classes. A noteworthy fact that still needs to be explained is that none of the fientive I/a verbs belong to the otherwise very productive I/i class, although all other classes are represented.102 To start with the most straightforward categories, the non-prefix forms of infinitive, past participle, and present participle can directly be derived from their historical ancestors: in the I/a verbs Inf amrum < *amr-, PPartc amrum < *amir-, and PrPartc mirum < *mir-, in the I/e verbs Inf ezbum < *azb-, PPartc ezbum < *azib-, and PrPartc zibum < *zib-, of which ezbum (SAk and Ass) becomes ezbu in Babylonian through vowel harmony (see 17.5.1, pp. 525528).103
102. Most fientive I/a verbs are A/u; other vowel classes are represented by alku (A/i), arru U/u to tremble, anu (A/a) to sigh, be exhausted, aru (A/a) to hurry, be quick, etc. The apparent exceptions armu I/i to cover and apru I/i to put or wear on the head are (originally) strong verbs with as R1; see above. Non-fientive I/a verbs may have all isovocalic vowel classes, e.g., arku I/i to be(come) long), ablu (A/a) to be(come) dry, au (U/u) to be(come) worried, etc. The absence of the root vowel i in the fientive verbs contrasts with its presence in all I/w verbs with two strong radicals (wablu to bring/carry, etc.; see 16.2.1, pp. 448449). However, the I/e verb esru to confine goes back to sir according to Kogan (2005: 152). For a comparable phenomenon in Arabic, Schramm (1991: 14067) suggests that the nature of the weak R1 is conditioned by the root vowel: goes with u, w goes with i, and y goes with a. If this is correct, it casts an intriguing light on the prehistory of the paradigm of the I/voc and I/w verbs, which requires further study. 103. In Sargonic Akkadian, this type of infinitive is attested in e-ra-si-i / ersis/ SAB p. 183:23 (Gasur) from eru to cultivate; see Hasselbach 2005: 210. I interpret e-re-su-nu in line 18 of the same letter
543
This development gave rise to the suffix base with an initial short a or e, which is the basis for all non-prefix forms in the derived stems. The imperative can also be derived from it: amur see!, alik go!, ezib leave!. It originally had a in the first syllable because of the guttural (against GAG 97d): *amur, *azib, etc., which may be preserved in SAk -ru-u /aru/ SAB p. 90:15 (Girsu) cultivate! The problems concerning the paradigm of the I/voc verbs reside in the prefix conjugations. The perfective mayas alwaysbe traced back to Proto-Semitic 3ms *yimur, 2ms *tamur, 1s amur, etc., butas I argued in the previous sectionit is likely that these forms had already replaced their guttural with a long vowel in Proto-Akkadian or earlier. The spelling does not show this, but the rest of the paradigm, especially the form of the I/voc imperfective (to be treated below), makes it virtually certain that the guttural had already been dropped. The Assyrian third-person prefix vowel - is not easy to explain. Since in Assyrian there is a tendency for i to change to e in contact with a guttural (GKT 16), - may have generalized on the basis of instances where the gutturals were still present after Assyrian had split from the other dialects. The I/e verbs developed in the same way, apart from the fact that they have where the I/a verbs have , e.g., 1s rub versus mur, etc. This makes the Assyrian 1s and the 3ms of the I/e verbs indistinguishable: rub I/he entered.104 The forms of the t-perfect are exactly parallel: Bab tamar, Ass tamar < *yitamar, Bab tezib, Ass tizib < *yitazib. The imperfective has no obvious counterpart in other Semitic languages. Table 17.4 shows the pertinent forms with the same long prefix vowel as the perfective: mmar, ppe, llak, against, for instance, GAG 97cd and Verbalpar. 1418. Taking up a line of thought first developed by Knudsen 1984/86, I argued elsewhere (Kouwenberg 20034a) that the imperfective of the I/voc verbs does indeed have a long vowel, at least in the older stages of Akkadian. This is based on the fact that in Old Babylonian imperfective forms that start with a vowel (the first-person singular and all third-person forms) are spelled either defectively (i.e., without expressing the imperfective gemination), e.g., i-ma-ar he sees, i-la-ak he goes, or with the geminate expressed and an additional vowel sign at the beginning, e.g., i-im-ma-ar, i-il-la-ak (initial plene writing or IPW). The intermediate spelling, i.e., with the geminate expressed but without initial vowel sign, e.g., im-ma-ar, il-la-ak, is exceptional in Old Babylonian. In the verb alku, which has a geminate R2 both in the imperfective and the perfective, this leads to a remarkable contrast in spelling: whereas the imperfective is written i-il-la-ak or i-la-ak, but hardly ever il-la-ak, the perfective is usually written il-li-ik, very rarely i-li-ik, and never i-il-li-ik. The very spelling, therefore, that is hardly ever used in the imperfective is the normal one in the perfective, and vice versa. A comparable distribution of contrasting spellings is observable in the D-stem of the I/voc verbs. Here the imperfective and the perfective forms are either spelled defectively or with an additional vowel sign, e.g., those of ebbu D to purify are written -ba-ab, -bi-ib, or -ubba-ab, -ub-bi-ib, but hardly ever with the intermediate spelling ub-ba-ab, ub-bi-ib. The nonprefix forms of ebbu D, howeveri.e., the stative, the imperative, the infinitive, and the verbal adjective, only use the defective or the intermediate spelling, e.g., Imp ub-bi-ib or -bi-ib, Stat ub-bu-ub or -bu-ub, but hardly ever IPW.105
their plot of land (Acc + suffix) as a substantivized verbal adjective erum (see n. 56, p. 526), and Hasselbachs other example, (a-na) -ra- SAB p. 167:14 (Diyala), as the agent noun *arrum farmer. 104. In principle, Babylonian has - in the first-person singular but - in the third person; but exceptions occur both ways (GAG3 97o*). 105. See Kouwenberg 20034a: 8485 for some statistical underpinning on the basis of a corpus of Old Babylonian letters.
544
Accordingly, IPW only occurs in places where in the strong verb the first radical is intervocalic. This suggests that the use of IPW must somehow be related to the original presence of a guttural. In fact, it is often claimed that IPW is a way of indicating the presence of a word-initial aleph.106 This, however, does not account for the specific distribution of IPW over the paradigm of the I/voc verbs, as already observed by Knudsen (1984/86: 235). In particular, it leaves unexplained why we find IPW in the imperfective of alku but not in the perfective, and in the imperfective and perfective of ebbu D but not in the non-prefix forms. We can readily explain all peculiarities of these forms if we assume that IPW serves to indicate a long vowel, as suggested by Knudsen (1980: 11, 1984/86: 235) and Gai (1997: 7374). It explains in particular why IPW forms are only found in places where in the strong verb R1 is intervocalic: it is only there that a long vowel is justified as compensation for the missing radical. The virtual absence of intermediate spellings such as il-la-ak, ub-ba-ab, and ub-bi-ib (Pfv) in Old Babylonian can be ascribed to the fact that the Old Babylonian scribes avoided a simple IL or UB for the syllables /l/ and /b/, because they felt that these VC signs were unsuitable for the expression of a long vowel. They solved the resulting problem by inserting a vowel sign before the VC sign, just as they inserted an extra vowel sign after a CV sign in order explicitly to indicate a long vowel after a consonant. This situation only occurs at the beginning of a word, but it is parallel to the apparent reluctance to use CVC signs in syllables with a long vowel, especially syllables resulting from contraction.107 We can reconstruct, then, the pertinent forms of the I/voc verbs in Old Babylonian according to Table 17.5, with alku, ezbu, and ebbu D.108 G Impfv 3s 2ms 2fs 1s 3mp 3fp 2p 1p llak tllak tllak llak llak llak tllak nllak G Impfv zzib tzzib tzzib zzib zzib zzib tzzib nzzib D Impfv bbab tbbab tbbab bbab bbab bbab tbbab nbbab D Pfv bbib tbbib tbbib bbib bbib bbib tbbib nbbib mbbibum (nom.) D PrPartc
table 17.5: the forms of the i/voc verbs with gemination of r2.
106. Cf. W. von Soden, GAG 23d; K. Hecker, GKT 27ac; Buccellati 1996: 2425; Greenstein 1984: 9 n. 4; Aro 1955: 2122; Lieberman 1977: 84 n. 231, and various others. 107. I do not claim that IPW always indicates a long initial vowel. It is also used in other categories, both nominal and verbal, but there it typically lacks the systematic nature it has in the paradigm of the Old Babylonian I/voc verbs. It is not easy therefore to determine its function in each individual case, but it seems likely that it can have various functions depending on the word in which it occurs. A survey of possibilities is given in Kouwenberg 20034a: 8990. 108. The same Table is included in Kouwenberg 20034a: 93, but with spelling llak, ppe, and bbab, etc. I am using a macron instead of a circumflex here, because I no longer think that these forms result from a purely phonological process of vowel contraction, as I explained in the previous section.
545
IPW, which provides tangible evidence for the long prefix vowels of the imperfective in Old Babylonian, is not systematically used in the remaining older dialects.109 They normally use defective spellings: Sargonic Akkadian shows forms such as a-la-kam SAB p. 90:34 (Girsu) I will come, i-la-gu HSS 10, 200:13 (Gasur) they will go, and e-b-i SAB p. 157:15 (Diyala) I will do, perhaps to be read / ppes/ (see 17.5.1, p. 526). In Ur III Babylonian we find forms such as -la-ak NATN no. 365: r.4 he goes, i--ru AKI p. 326:66 he takes away (Subj) from eru, and [l t]u-ma-s TCS 1, 371:7 do not let him starve from emu D (see Hilgert 2002: 23334). The number of instances in these two dialects is very small, but Old Assyrian provides a wealth of forms that all show the same defective spelling. Examples are quoted in GKT 89a and 90a for the G imperfective (e.g., e-ma-ar-u he sees him and e-p- I/he do(es)), in 89b and 90b for the D imperfective and perfective (e.g., -ba-b-u he will purify him),110 and in 100a for the imperfective of alku (i-l-ak he goes). Defective spellings are ambiguous as regards the quantity of the prefix vowel, but they rule out the possibility that the I/voc verbs had strong forms of the type **aammar I see, **iammar he sees, **uabbab I purify/he purifies and **uabbib I/he purified. Hardly any form of this type is attested with certainty.111 This means that even in dialects that regularly preserve a reflex of the gutturals in intervocalic position the imperfective of the I/voc verbs did not do so but had weak forms, just as in Old Babylonian.112 Since this imperfective has the same form (at least in the spelling) in all dialects, it is to be dated back to Proto-Akkadian.113 A vexing problem is the irregular Pfv illik of the very common I/voc verb alku to go /come, apparently from hlk. The geminate consonant of illik recurs in all forms with the t-infix: t-Pf ittalak, Gtn Impfv ittanallak, etc., and in the deverbal noun tallaktu path, way of life (but not
109. The oldest case of IPW I know is from Archaic Babylonian: a-ap-p-al-u OBTA p. 85 no. 30:23 I answer him from aplu. Slightly later is e-ep-pe-e OBTA p. 106 no. 51:6 I will do (early OB). 110. The apparent counter-example -a-e-er-u BIN 4, 10:16 quoted in GKT 89b must be corrected to -a!-e-er-u according to Veenhof 1972: 112 n. 182. The text KUG 40 mentioned there as well is a falsification. 111. It is possible that a few ambiguous spellings of rather difficult verb forms in Sargonic Akkadian reflect forms in which a guttural as first radical is preserved: G-stem forms are -e-sa-ru-ni and i-e-sa-ru SAB p. 172: r.11, 13 they will take care of (me) (cf. aru in later dialects), and n-e-ra-[ab] SAB p. 178:10 we will enter, both letters from Eshnunna. D-stem forms are (a) u-a-a-ru who(ever) will remove and li-a-irx AKI p. 173:123, 126 and p. 176:42, 45 let him remove (cps RIs of Sargon), and u--i-ru-un SAB p. 69:8 (Girsu), a 3mp Subj, possibly from uuru to be delayed. See Kouwenberg 20034a: 9598 for a discussion of these forms. For the time being, I assume that u-a-a-ru and li-a-irx are indeed strong D forms without contraction (/yuaaru/ and /liair/) but that in the rest the additional vowel is a plene writing representing a long vowel: /yssar(ni)/, /nrra[b]/, and /yirn(i)/. A contrasting weak form is u-li-il AKI p. 175:27 (cp RI of Sargon) he purified from ellu, which looks genuine because Old Babylonian does not use u: /yllil/. 112. I will not discuss the later dialects, since they are of secondary importance here. Let it suffice here to repeat my conclusion (Kouwenberg 20034a: 98100) that in the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian periodand perhaps already in late Old Babylonianthe long vowels in the paradigm of the I/voc verbs had been shortened, although IPW was still in use, presumably as an archaic or conventional spelling. 113. In Kouwenberg 20034a: 9798, I have argued that the succession of two weak consonants in the first-person singular and most third-person forms (e.g., 1s *aammar I will see, *yiammar he will see) in combination with the high frequency of these forms may have led to loss of the guttural and subsequent vowel contraction in this specific environment. There is some support for this kind of development from historical phonology and language processing (Bybee 2001: 5762), but it remains ad hoc and not very satisfactory as an overall explanation. It is more in keeping with the overall morphosyntactic nature of most changes in the Akkadian verbal paradigm to assume that the long vowel is the result of a morphosyntactic process, as I argued in 17.6.1 (pp. 539541).
546
in tluku course, procession, which may be a regular development of *tahluk-; see 14.4.1, p. 377). There does not seem to be a plausible explanation for this phenomenon; for some speculations, see Huehnergard 2002b: 17071 n. 26.114 Another remarkable feature of alku is that in Assyrian it is the only I/voc verb that exclusively has the prefix i- in the perfective and - in the imperfective, whereas all other I/H verbs have -,115 e.g., Impfv i-l-ak, i-lu-ku, Pfv i-li-ik, i-li-ku and t-Pf i-ta-l-ak, i-ta-al-ku (GKT 100a), and similarly in Middle Assyrian (W. Mayer 1971: 92) and Neo-Assyrian (HmeenAnttila 2000: 14849). This points to a correlation between the prefix vowels of perfective and imperfective and suggests that the old imperfective *yilliku (if that is the correct reconstruction) determined the prefix vowel of the new Impfv llak.116 This indirectly confirms the claim made in the previous section that the long prefix vowel in the imperfective of the I/voc verbs is a copy of the long prefix vowel of the earlier imperfective *ymuru.
Rather than attempting a comprehensive account of the derived stems of the I/voc verbs, I will restrict myself to a few points of particular interest: the non-prefix forms of the Gt- and Gtn-stems (17.6.3.1), the prefix forms of the D-stem (17.6.3.2), several forms of the -stem and its secondary derivatives tn and t2 (17.6.3.3), and the conjugation of the N-stem (17.6.3.4).
17.6.3.1. TheGt-stemandtheGtn-stem
In the older stages of Akkadian, the non-prefix forms of the Gt- and Gtn-stems of I/voc verbs start with at- in the I/a verbs and et- in the I/e verbs (GAG 97d and Verbalpar. 1517; Streck 2003a: 810). For Old Babylonian, cf.: Gt Imp atlak go!, + Vent atlakam come here! (passim) Gt Imp etrub from erbu (e.g., et-ru-ba-am Iraq 25, 184:36 come in) Gtn Stat atammur (a-ta-am-mu-ru ARM 2, 67: r.8 they are well acquainted with, lit., they have seen often Gtn Inf eteppuum to do repeatedly (e.g., Acc e-te-pu-a-am AbB 12, 52:22) Corresponding Assyrian forms are, for instance: Gt Imp atlak go!, + Vent atalkam come! (passim) Gt Imp Pl ataww speak! (a-ta-wa ATHE 23:8); Gtn Inf atalkum (Gen (ina) a-ta-al-ki-k AKT 3, 71:26) Gt PPartc etamdum from emdu (e.g., Acc Sg Masc e-ta-am-dam TMH 1, 2c:22 put together)
114. Rather than assumingas Huehnergard doesthat -tt- of ittalak represents an unusual outcome of -ht-, parallel to -wt- > -ttin the I/w verbs, one could argue that -tt- is actually the outcome of -th-, with t in its original prefixed position (see 14.2.2, pp. 359360). This remains pure speculation, however, since there do not seem to be parallels showing what the regular outcome of -this in Akkadian. 115. However, forms with - are occasionally found in other I/voc verbs in Old Assyrian (GKT 17d and 89a), and are more or less regular in the original I/*y verbs (see 16.3, pp. 462463). 116. The consistency of - in Assyrian stands in marked contrast to the variety of spellings attested for this form in Sargonic Akkadian: i in i-la-ak SAB p. 66: r.2 (Girsu), in -la-kam SAB p. 180:6 (Gasur) and AKI p. 280:15 (cp RI of arkaliarri) and -la-ku MAD 5, 60:10 (Kish), and e in e-la-kLAMKUR SAB p. 145:8 (Kish). Note that the transliteration -la-kam in AKI p. 280:15 is a misprint for -la-kam; see A. Goetzes copy in JAOS 88 (1968) 57. In contrast, the perfective is always spelled with i; see MAD 3, 3839. No doubt, this difference reflects the long vowel of the imperfective versus the short one of the perfective, but leaves the exact nature of the prefix vowel in doubt, since the phonological interpretation of is problematic; see 17.2 (p. 514).
547
These forms consist of the suffix base (amVr, epV ) with ta infixed after the vocalic radical: (*a-t-lak >) a-t-lak, a-ta-mmar, etc. An epenthetic vowel corresponding to i in the strong verbs ( pitrVs, pitarrVs) is superfluous here.117 In Standard Babylonian, at- is often replaced by it- by analogy with the I/n verbs (see 16.4.2, pp. 470471) and no doubt also under the influence of initial Cit- in the strong verb (Streck 2003a: 910).118
17.6.3.2. TheD-stem
The imperfective and the perfective of the D-stem of the I/voc verbs have already been discussed in the previous sections. At least in the older dialects, the prefix forms have a long vowel in the prefix, based on the long prefix vowel of the G imperfective: bbib/bbib he/I will become pure bbab he/I will purify from ebbu on the model of iparrVs uparras, and similarly bbab bbib on the model of uparras uparris. Since in the D present participle the first radical is intervocalic as well, it also has a long vowel: mbbibu, etc. It is possible that Sargonic Akkadian has preserved a few strong forms of the D tantum verb uuru to remove (or the like) (see n. 111, p. 545, and Kouwenberg 20034a: 96). If we find strong forms in later dialects, they normally belong to verbs with a strong (such as muabbit, quoted in 17.6.1, p. 538), or to an analogical extension of their conjugation to I/voc verbs. In accordance with the contrast between Babylonian PuRRvS and Assyrian PaRRvS (see 11.2, p. 269), the non-prefix forms start with u- in Babylonian but with a-/e-in Assyrian, e.g., Stat uur vs. aur, Inf ubbubu versus ebbubu (see GKT 89b and 90b for Old Assyrian). There is, however, some fluctuation in Assyrian. Old Assyrian has also forms with u-: an Inf (Gen) -ku--im CCT 4, 38a:5 from akkuum to remove and a PPartc (Fem Acc) -u-z-tam KTK 19:28 from auzum to inlay. In Middle Assyrian, there seems to be only one relevant form, which also has u-: ul-lu-lu--ni KAV 1: VII 47:23 he has been cleared (Subj) from ellu D. In Neo-Assyrian, forms with u- seem to have become regular (Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 95), e.g., up-pu-at SAA 14, 29:9 she has been contracted from epu D, (ana) ul-lu-e CTN 5 p. 156:35 in order to remove from el D, and u-u-zu SAA 10, 349:14 it is overlaid from auzu.119 Whether the later Assyrian forms are due to Babylonian influence or whether they represent a parallel but independent development is hard to tell. It is true that this change is only one aspect of a more pervasive expansion of u in the D-stem of the I/voc verbs in Neo-Assyrian: u also replaces a in the t-perfect, which has -tu- instead of -ta- (Hmeen-Anttila 2000: 95), for instance: -tu-s-si-ku SAA 10, 348: r.8 they assigned from esku D, -tu-uk-ki SAA 10, 104: r.3 it moved on from ukkuu, and nu-tu-me-di SAA 1, 210:12 we undertook from emdu D. Babylonian would have ta/essik, takki, and nta/emmid instead. The same process occurs in the t-perfect of the I/w verbs, where Neo-Assyrian uses ubil ittubil instead of earlier ubil ittabal (see 16.2.2, p. 453). These processes seem to result from an analogical extension of u- from one type of form to another.
117. Just as in the case of the G imperative, there is no basis for phonological rules to explain a- and e- such as it- > at-, as claimed by GAG 97d, or atlak < *talak, as Tropper (1997a: 198) proposes. 118. Streck (2003a: 9) also reports an exceptional Old Babylonian instance of it-: Gtn Inf (Gen) i-ta-luki-im ARM 28, 63:14 instead of atallukum. 119. J. N. Postgate (BSOAS 34 [1971] 503 n. 26) claims that uppuu is the regular Assyrian form for I/* verbs. However, this is contradicted by uppuat itself, which is not from a I/* verb (its original guttural is either or unknown; see 17.6.1, p. 538), and by the fact that already in Old Assyrian * had become (see 17.3, p. 518, and Kouwenberg 2006: 167). So Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 95) is doubtless correct in positing this change for all I/voc verbs.
548
17.6.3.3. The-stemanditsderivatives
In all forms of the -stem except for the imperfective, the sibilant prefix is followed by a long vowel: in the I/a verbs and in the I/e verbs. This may simply be the reflex of a- plus the guttural, e.g., Pfv uhiz < *yuai, Imp iz < *ui, etc., from azu to cause to take, instruct, and Pfv urib < *yuarib, Imp rib < *urib, etc., from erbu to cause to enter, bring inside. However, the imperfective, to be discussed presently, shows that this long vowel was already present in Proto-Akkadian, as I argued in 17.6.1 (pp. 539541), so that it is also possible that at least in some verbs the long vowel was introduced by analogy with the long vowel in the prefix forms of the G-stem. In Sargonic Akkadian, some alternative forms are found with the vowel in the -stem of eru to be(come) straight: e u-su-si-ra / yussir/ GAKI p. 382:120 (cp RI of NaramSin) may they (Du) not cause to prosper, and the PN u-su-si-ir-ti-ni /yussir-dn/ MAD 3, 77 he gave the right verdict about me, both from eru , an original I/y verb (see 16.3.2, pp. 464465).120 They survive into literary Old Babylonian, where we find a PrPartc muer in (RN) mu-u-e-er ammi KH IV 54 (the king) who provides justice for the people from the same verb, and the perfectives tu-u-mi-da St. Reiner p. 192:32 you caused to lean on from emdu , -u-li-ja8-u St. Reiner p. 192:43 he raised him from el , and i tu-u-li-il Legends p. 196:30 rejoice! from allu to rejoice. This comes from the I/w verbs (aw > ) but was analogically extended to include some original I/voc verbs. Conversely, the vowels and of the I/voc verbs penetrated the domain of the I/w verbs and completely ousted the vowel in all dialects except Sargonic Akkadian and (marginally) Old Babylonian; these fluctuations in the vowel after the prefix are a major characteristic of all types of I/voc and I/w verbs (GAG 103v) (see 16.2.3, pp. 455457). The imperfective of the -stem calls for comment as well; see Table 17.6, where Stat+ is shorthand for Stat, PPartc and Inf (I have omitted the I/e verbs which are completely parallel); the sample verb is azu to inform, instruct. 3ms Impfv strong I/a t1 + t2 uapras uaaz utaaz 3ms Pfv uapris uiz utiz 2ms Imp upris (Bab) iz (Bab) utiz Stat+ uprus(-) (Bab) uz(-) (Bab) utuz(-) PrPartc muaprisu muizu mutizu
table 17.6: and t forms of the i/voc verbs (see also gAg Verbalpar. 15 and 17).
The form we would expected on the basis of the strong form uapras is *uaz < *yuaa-. The actual form is uaaz (e.g., OB -a-a-a-zu-u KH 166:73 and tu-a-a-a-as-s AbB 6, 138:15), because the gemination of the G imperfective has caused gemination of the single consonant of *uazincidentally proving that the syllable-final guttural had been droppedand perhaps subsequent shortening of the long vowel.121 Note that in this form (in contrast to uapras) the introduction of gemination does not disrupt the parallel with the D-stem but strengthens it:
120. It is possible, however, that the forms with are not created by analogy with the I/w verbs, but that eru had a I/w root variant, of which uir is the regular -stem; see 16.2.3 (p. 455), and see the end of 16.2.4 (p. 461) for the alternation of w and y as first radical. 121. This is a difficult point. Unlike Reiner (1966: 44), Greenstein (1984: 4243), and others, I do not think that shortening is a necessary consequence (Kouwenberg 20034a: 88). I leave the possibility open that the actual form is uaz, but I will not write it with a macron (see also chap. 16 n. 102, p. 477, on the imperfective of the II/voc verbs).
549
uaaz is completely parallel to uparras.122 Thus, the contrast between imperfective and perfective is based on both a/i apophony and gemination. Parallel to uaaz uiz, the I/e verbs have ueppe upi in Babylonian123 and uerrab urib in Assyrian.124 The same rule accounts for the t1/t2 Impfv utaaz. The differentiation between t1 utapras and t2 utaparras is neutralized in the I/voc verbs. Since a geminate cannot be geminated, the rise of utaparras in the t2-stem of the strong verb did not affect the I/voc verbs: cf. tu-u-ta-ak-ka-al MCT p. 45: B 12 and r.15 you multiply from aklu t2,125 u-te-em-m-ed AbB 14, 78:9 he will put together from emdu t2 (both OB), and (it) u-ta-a-zu Balag Komp. p. 137:19 (the fire which) I am lighting from azu t2 (SB). The tn-stem of the I/voc verbs shows gemination in all its forms, although the corresponding strong verb has no gemination at all; see Table 17.7: Impfv 3ms tn strong tn I/a tn I/e utanapras utanaaz uteneppe Pfv 3ms utapris utaiz uteppi Imp 2ms utapris utaiz uteppi Stat+ utaprus(-) utauz(-) uteppu(-) PrPartc mutaprisu mutaizu muteppiu
table 17.7: tn forms of i/voc verbs (see also gAg Verbalpar. 15 and 17).
This geminate is based on the gemination in the paradigm of the Gtn-stem, which leads to gemination in other tan-stems wherever possible, i.e., where the second radical is not part of a cluster. However, non-imperfective forms of the tn-stem are extremely rare, so textual evidence for the forms in Table 17.7 is scarce. From Old Babylonian, we have a 3ms Stat of a PrPartc muu-ta-a-i-iz ARM 10, 129:20 it (the disease) is infectious from azu,126 and from Standard Babylonian two finite forms: li-tal-li-lu Ee VII 46 may they exult all the time from allu127 and tu-u-te-ep-p-ru VAB 4, 124:67 you constantly provided food from epru. The oldest instance
122. Edzard (1996: 24 with n. 43) assumes influence of the I/n verbs on uakkal and on similar forms in the I/w verbs, such as uabbal. However, the -stem of I/n verbs has gemination in all forms, which is caused by the assimilation of n, e.g., Impfv uaddan, Pfv uaddin, Inf uddunu, etc., from nadnu to cause to give. Accordingly, we would not only expect uaaz but also Pfv **uaiz, Inf **uuzu, etc., but there is no evidence for such forms. The derivation of uakkal from *uaakkal > *ukkal > uakkal, proposed by Tropper (1997a: 191) and Huehnergard (2006: 5), starts from an impossible form (*uaakkal is subject to vowel syncope and should become **uakkal ) and is contradicted by the fact that in Assyrian is dropped in neither of these positions. For the same reason, Assyrian uebbal cannot be derived from **uawabbal or the like and must be based on ubil (see 16.2.3, p. 456). 123. In the Babylonian I/e verbs, the apophony is often obscured by an inadequate distinction between e and i in the spelling, but cf. Impfv -e-ep-p-e ShA 1, 142 no. 68:10 versus Prec li-e-p-i ShA 1, 142 no. 68:24; Impfv -e-te-eq OBAH p. 122 no. 115:15 versus Pfv -e-ti-q OBAH p. 111 no. 106:11. 124. However, since Old Assyrian does not express geminates, the earliest evidence for the actual presence of a geminate in these imperfective forms dates from Middle Assyrian: -a-a-a-s (/-assu/) MARV 1, 37:6 he will make him take (a wife); -e-et-tu-qu KAV 1: III 25:91 they will let pass; -e-el-la MVAeG 41/3, 48:8 he will cause to go up. See 16.2.3 (p. 456) for the same problem in the imperfective of I/w verbs. 125. See chap. 14 n. 180 (p. 408). 126. Does it literally mean something like habitually causing (someone) to take (viz. an illness), or is it perhaps related to the idiomatic meaning of azu to kindle (a fire)? Moreover, present participles used as stative are very unusual (see 8.4.1, pp. 206207). 127. The variant li-ta-li-lu makes it unlikely that this form is to be read li-dal-li-lu and interpreted as a D-stem of dallu to praise, as P. Talon (SAACT 4 p. 72, 113 s.v.) does, apart from the fact that dallu is a very poor candidate for having a D-stem, since it has neither a D-stem nor a -stem (cf. 13.3, p. 334).
550
is from Sargonic Akkadian: Imp [s]u-da-r-ib SAB p. 90:21 (Girsu) bring inside (from various places)! from erbu t(n). Unfortunately, we cannot see whether this spelling represents the original form /sutarib/ or the later form /sutarrib/.
17.6.3.4. TheN-stemandtheNtn-stem
The N-stem of the I/voc verbs shows a number of peculiarities that cast a particular light on the historical background of the N-stem in general (cf. Kouwenberg 2004). In Assyrian and in a few residual verbs in Babylonian, the N perfective of the I/voc verbs is built on a different inflectional stem from that of the strong verb. Table 17.8 lays out the paradigm of the N-stem of these verbs in both Babylonian and Assyrian with amru N to be seen, appear, meet for the I/a verbs and emdu N to come together and epu N to be done/made for the I/e verbs of Babylonian and Assyrian, respectively.128 Babylonian strong vb. Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat PrPartc ipparrVs ipparis ittaprVs napris naprus mupparsu I/a verbs innammar innmir ittanmar nanmir nanmur nanmuru munnamru I/e verbs innemmid innmid ittenmid nenmid nenmud nenmudu munnemdu I/a verbs innammar innmir ittmar nmir *nmur *nmuru munnmiru? Assyrian I/e verbs inneppa innpi ittpa *npi *npu *npuu *munnpiu?
Inf/PPartc naprusu
table 17.8: the n-stem of the i/voc verbs.
The most peculiar feature of the N-stem of the I/voc verbs is the sequence nn in the imperfective and the perfective, where the strong verb has a geminate R1 resulting from the assimilation of the prefix n to R1. It occurs in Babylonian and Assyrian, but we have no relevant information about third-millennium Akkadian. Nevertheless, Babylonian and Assyrian show some fundamental differences: in the perfective, there is a contrast in vowel length (innmir versus innmir), and in the t-perfect and the non-prefix forms there is a contrast between the short vowel plus n in Babylonian and the long vowel without n in Assyrian (nanmir versus nmir). The long vowel in Assyrian innmir can be established from the fact that innmir undergoes neither vowel assimilation (**innimir ; cf. GKT p. 148 n. 2) nor vowel syncope, when it has a vocalic ending (innmir, not **innamr); cf. Old Assyrian forms such as i-na-m-ir ArAn. 5, 68:27 he appeared, met (cf. GKT 89d), (al) i-na-m-ru- Prag I 605:19 where he has appeared, and i-n-p-u ArAn. 5, 67:16 they were made, where the absence of vowel syncope shows that must be long: /innpi/; cf. Bab innamr, innep, etc.129 The Middle Assyrian evidence includes ta-na-i-zu!--ni KAV 1: V 36:13 she was taken in marriage (Subj) from
128. For the N-stem of the I/voc verbs, see also GAG 97c, f and Verbalpar. 15, 17 (with Assyrian forms in the footnotes). For the Assyrian forms, see also GKT 89d and 90d (especially n. 2 on p. 148). For the problems concerning the Babylonian forms of U/u verbs, see 12.2.1 (pp. 290293). 129. If we only had forms of amru, it could be objected that the retention of i represents the wellknown exception to the vowel syncope rule before r (see 2.4, pp. 4647). The perfective form of epu N, however, shows that this objection cannot be upheld.
551
azu, in-na-ki-lu(-)-ni MARV 3, 43:12 and 34:8 it was consumed (Subj) from aklu, and m[u-na]b-du a i-na-bi-da-an-ni MATSH p. 157 no. 12:8 a person who fled hither (see below on the PrPartc munnabdu).130 In Neo-Assyrian, we find forms such as ta-n-pi-u-u-ni SAA 16, 63:18 it (Fem) was made (Subj), and in-na-m-ru-u-ni SAA 10, 238: r.15 they were seen (Subj). Interestingly, the Assyrian type perfectives also occur in Old and Middle Babylonian, but only in two verbs that are very similar in meaning and structure: nbutu (corresponding to Assyrian nbudu) and nrubu, both meaning to flee and both occurring more or less exclusively in the N-stem (see 12.2.2.3, pp. 298299). If the perfective of nbutu is followed by a vocalic ending, its stem vowel i is not syncopated, unlike that of ipparis ippars (Goetze 1947: 56 n. 61), e.g., in-na-bi-tam Tall Bia p. 93 no. 144:9 he fled hither, in-na-bi-tu AbB 13, 60:45 they fled (both OB), and in-na-bi-tu-nim BBS 24:6 (MB) they fled hither.131 In Standard Babylonian, the situation is rather more complex. If we may rely on the dictionaries,132 the forms of the innbit type have been replaced by a new form innabt, which conforms to the regular Babylonian form innamr, e.g., in-nab-tu Sg. 8:193 and passim. In the texts that are the main source of this verb, the royal inscriptions of Neo-Assyrian kings, we find both the innovative Babylonian form innabt and the Assyrian form innbid, even side by side in the same text: in-nab-t Ash. Nin. p. 106:23, 28 but in-na-bi-du Ash. Nin. p. 106:25.133 The second verb, nrubu, which is only rarely used, shows the same absence of vowel syncope as nbutu: in-n-ru-b[u] ARM 10, 60:13 and in-ne-ru-bu ARM 26/1, 152 no. 24:9 (both OB).134 According to the regular Babylonian N paradigm, we would expect **innerb. This form (but with a) appears in in-na-ar-bi LKU 14: II 10 and in the PrPartc munna/erbu fugitive; see CAD M/2 205f s.v. munnarbu (both SB). The fact that the Assyrian paradigm of the N-stem also occurs in the Babylonian N tantum verbs nbutu and nrubu is strong evidence that it is more original, that the Babylonian form is therefore an innovation, and that these two verbs are a residue of the older paradigm.135 Before we can address the question of why Babylonian introduced this new paradigm, we first need to know how the Assyrian perfective innmir is to be analyzed.
130. This is an example of the paronomastic present participle construction discussed in 8.4.1 (pp. 204205). 131. W. von Soden (GAG 97l) claims that the retention of i is caused by gemination of the final radical t and writes the forms quoted above as innabitt, for Neo-Assyrian as innbidd. This is doubtless based on the proper name Munnabittu (see below). However, none of the finite forms of nbutu known to me are ever spelled with a geminate -tt- (or -ddin Assyrian). Therefore, seems more likely than -tt- as the cause of the retention of i, also because it fits into the scheme of the Assyrian forms. For Munnabittu, see n. 144 (p. 553). 132. CAD A/1 46f s.v. abtu B 2g and AHw 700b s.v. nbutu II N 3. 133. The glossaries of SAA 8 and SAA 10, which contain Neo-Assyrian letters, mention far more instances of the Babylonian form innamr than of the Assyrian form innmer, but the former typically occur in astronomical contexts, where they can be explained either as verbatim quotations from omen compendia written in Standard Babylonian or as based on such quotations. 134. The editor, J.-M. Durand, translates this form . . . sont entres, apparently deriving it from erbu to enter. However, this verb does not have an N-stem, although it is remarkable that erbu occurs two lines earlier (7: i-te-er-bu). Even if we allow for an exceptional N-stem of erbu here, it does not affect the argument: the regular Babylonian form would still be *innerb. 135. It is difficult to establish when this innovation took place because of the absence of innovative N forms of I/voc verbs earlier than Old Babylonian. As far as I am aware, not a single N perfective of a I/ voc verb is attested in Sargonic Akkadian, Ur III Babylonian, or Archaic Babylonian. The earliest instance seems to be i-na-bi-ta-kum OBTA p. 105 no. 49:5 (Early OB), but this is an old form.
552
In the strong verb, the inflection of the N-stem is built on two different inflectional stems, as we saw in 12.2.1 (pp. 288289): a prefix base -nPaRvS and a suffix base naPRvS, which mirrors a similar distinction in the G-stem, -PRvS versus PaRvS (see 2.2.1, p. 29). The long vowel of innmir can plausibly be explained as the reflex of a plus the guttural R1, parallel to that of the -stem Pfv ukil. This suggests that the I/voc verbs did not use the prefix base (e.g., **-naMvR) but attached the prefixes to a suffix base nMvR instead. However, this stem was not treated as a derivation of a triradical root but as if it was the stem of a quadriradical verb of the nabalkutu type, which is conjugated by means of the verbalizing prefix n discussed in 12.6.1 (pp. 314321). Thus, the existing quadriradical paradigm of the nabalkutu group was used as model for creating the finite prefix forms on the basis of the suffix base nMvR: Impfv innammar like *ibbalkat, Pfv innmir like ibbalkit, etc. An important advantage of this analysis is that we no longer need to assume an exceptional and ad hoc assimilation of to a preceding n (innamer < *inamir), as in GAG 97c, 24c, and 33e), which would go against the normal rule that n assimilates to the next consonant (GAG 33d)136 and would leave the long of innmir unexplained. The absence of forms derived from the prefix base **-naMvR can hardly be explained otherwise than from the previous weakening of the guttural and is therefore a strong indication that at least in some I/voc verbs it was dropped at a very early stage, as I argued in 17.6.1 (pp. 539541). For the N-stem, this meant that these verbs could no longer use the prefix base -nPaRiS to derive N forms from and therefore created a new form on the basis of the suffix base nMvR.137 This provided a model that the I/H verbs could adopt as they gradually lost their guttural R1 in the beginning of the historical period. The subsequent history of the N paradigm of the I/voc verbs followed the by now familiar pathways of the Akkadian verbal paradigm. When the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu was replaced by iparrVs and the derived stems followed suit by promoting their old pluractional imperfective characterized by a to the status of primary imperfective (see 4.5.2, pp. 112115), the N-stem developed an imperfective *yinnmar parallel to the perfective *yinnmir. Subsequently, *yinnmar adopted gemination along with other derived imperfectives such as *ukal uakkal and ended up as the historical imperfective innammar presumably with a shortened vowel before the geminate.138 This development triggered a further innovation in Babylonian. Since innammar is prosodically equivalent to the strong form ipparrVs, the corresponding perfective innmir was analogically replaced by innmir: ipparrVs : ippris innammar : x, where x is innmir. This caused the subsequent introduction of innamr, etc., instead of innmer by a similar analogy: ippris : ippars innmir : x, where x is innamr. This innovation brings the I/voc verbs more into line with the strong verb and thus represents a kind of regularization that is especially common in forms with a low frequency (Bybee 2001: 11329), to which the N-stem of I/voc verbs definitely belongs.139
136. As it actually does in verbs starting with a strong ; see 17.6.1 (p. 539). Another putative instance of -n- > -- is mentioned by GAG 98h, where Gtn forms such as the Imp itaal keep asking! are derived from *itanal, like the strong form pitarras from *pitanras. However, as I have argued in 14.7.6 (pp. 431437) (see also GAV pp. 7779), this is an original geminate. 137. It is possible that the Ebla PNs En-a-mar and En-a-mi-ir (see Krebernik 1988a: 59), if they are correctly interpreted as coming from amru N, represent the original strong conjugation of the N-stem of amru. 138. Note, however, that in Assyrian the earliest explicit spellings of imperfective gemination only date from Neo-Assyrian, e.g., in-n-ep-pa- SAA 10, 339: r.4 it is (always) performed. 139. The fact that innmir nevertheless survived in Assyrian is striking proof of the unpredictability of potential changes in the history of a language, but it is undoubtedly related to the fact that the relationship
553
We still have to discuss the rest of the paradigm of the I/voc verbs: the non-prefix forms, the t-perfect, and the present participle. In Assyrian, the non-prefix forms and the t-perfect have the expected forms with a long vowel, but Babylonian has introduced a consonant n between this vowel and the next radical and (presumably) shortened the preceding vowel: nanmir, nenmud, ittanmar, etc. This n is caused by the fact that the geminate nn of the imperfective and the perfective makes them identical in structure to the corresponding forms of the I/n verbs. The I/n verb nasu to tear out, for instance, has an N Impfv innassa and an N Pfv innasi, just as innammar and innamir. This provides a starting point for the insertion of a secondary n, e.g., in the t-perfect: innassa : ittansa innammar : x, where x is ittanmar, replacing ittmar ), in the infinitive innassa : nansuu innammar : x, where x is nanmuru, replacing nmuru, etc.140 Note that in the N-stem of I/n verbs the first radical n does not normally assimilate to the next consonant for reasons of transparency (GAG 102c) (see 16.4.1, pp. 469470). Very rarely do we find the older forms without the secondary -n- in Babylonian: in Old Babylonian n-mu-da OBE 1: r.18 they are in contact with each other (3du Stat) from emdu N (beside ne-en-mu-da OBE 16:11), and n-SU-a-at Itar p. 80:7 she is girded from ezu.141 Such forms even appear in Standard Babylonian occasionally, although they may be scribal errors or Assyrianisms: na-mur(-) Or. 16, 200:4 // ZA 43, 96: II 4 it is visible (to him), and ne-ru-ra TU 11:8 and n-ru-ur Dilbat ACh. It. 22:6 (said of stars), a stative and an infinitive N, respectively, of a verb *erru or *nruru that is not further attested. The verb nbutu, however, does not have this secondary n: its t-perfect is ittbit, its past participle and infinitive are nbutu, never **ittanbit or **nanbutu.142 This is another point in which this verb has escaped developments that took place in the passive/intransitive N-stem of Babylonian. Finally, we get to the present participle, which is problematic for several reasons. The only present participles of I/voc verbs known to me are those of nbutu and nrubu to flee. The former occurs in a long form munnbitu and a short form munnabtu. We would expect the long form to go with the use of the long perfective innbit and the short form with that of the short perfective innbit, but the actual situation is that munnabtu is the usual form even in dialects that consistently use innbit, such as Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian; cf. especially the paronomastic expression mu-un-na-ab-tu/[ti ] a (. . .) in-na-bi-tu-nim ARM 4, 76:41 and 63:57 the persons who fled hither (OB) and m[u-na]b-du a i-na-bi-da-an-ni MATSH p. 157 no. 12:8 a person who fled hither (MA).143 The long form munnbitu is restricted to a single occurrence in Old Babylonian (mu-na-bi-tu FM 6, 178 no. 12:4) and one in Neo-Babylonian (lmun-na-bitu ABL 839:16) and is otherwise only attested in peripheral Akkadian (Elam, Boghazky, and Ugarit; see CAD M/2 2045 s.v. munnabtu c).144
innammar innmir is not isolated but similar to the imperfectiveperfective relationship of the -stem of I/ and I/w verbs: uakkal ukil, ueppa upi, uebbal ubil, etc. (all Assyrian forms; see GKT 89c, 90c, and 93g), a much more frequent category than the N-stem of the I/voc verbs. As part of this wider pattern, innmer managed to resist restructuring. 140. Such forms should be distinguished from imperfective forms in which -n- results from secondary dissimilation of a voiced geminate (GAG3 32bb*): e.g., in-n-en-di-il it will be closed YOS 10, 24:28 < inneddil (cf. in-n-di-il YOS 10, 25:15) from edlu, and in-na-am-bi-tu BagM. 2, 78:10 they will flee (both OB) from nbutu. 141. An uncertain case is nmur in Ur III Babylonian proper names; see Hilgert 2002: 245: they may also belong to the adjective namurru. 142. For the imperfective innambit, see n. 140 above. 143. See CAD M/2 2035 s.v. munnabtu for detailed references. 144. However, the situation is seriously complicated by the existence of a proper name Munnabittu, which can hardly mean anything but fugitive; cf. the past participle of this verb, nbutu/nbudu, which also means fugitive and is also used as a proper name in Old and Neo-Babylonian and Middle Assyrian;
554
The II/H Verbs 17.7.
The use of the short form munnabtu already in Old Babylonian suggests that the present participle was the first form to be adapted to the paradigm of the strong verb (mupparsu) via the same analogical process that I invoked above to account for the perfective innmir, that is, ipparras : mupparsu innabbit : x, where x is munnabtu. This implies that all forms of nbutu have been regularized in accordance with the strong verb and that the perfective innbit with its long is the last survivor in Babylonian of the earlier system based on the suffix base nMvR. The present participle of nrubu is only attested in the short form munnarbu in Standard Babylonian and can easily be explained as a secondary formation that only emerged after the perfective innrub had been replaced by innrub. The Ntn-stem of the I/voc verbs has the same peculiarity as the tn-stem: unlike the Ntn-stem of the strong verb (ittanaprVs, etc.), it shows gemination on the model of the Gtn-stem: cf. forms such as it-ta-na-a-a-a-u M.5750 quoted in NABU 88/17 sub [14] it (the army) is worried constantly (Subj), (l) ta-ta-na-a-a-a-i OBTR 147:28 do (Fem) not worry all the time!145 and the Inf i-ta-a-u--a-a[m] ARM 10, 106:25.146 In the case of intransitive I/voc verbs, it may be difficult to establish on the basis of the prefix forms whether a form is Gtn or Ntn.147 For instance, a form such as l ta-ta-na-a-a ARM 2, 69:9, 15 do not worry all the time may be interpreted as tattanaa (Ntn) or ttanaa (Gtn). Only an unambiguous spelling of -tt- or a non-prefix form (in which Gtn has a- and Ntn i-) can decide the matter. In this case, both are available; see the three forms quoted above, showing that these forms are Ntn-stems rather than Gtn-stems. Note that the vowel a of ittanaa is not a reliable criterion: several Gtn-stems of U/u verbs exhibit a instead of u (see 14.7.2, pp. 417418).
17.7. the ii/H Verbs 17.7.1. Introductionandsources

Unlike the essentially uniform pan-Akkadian paradigm of the I/voc verbs, the II/H verbs show strikingly different forms in Babylonian and Assyrian, which shows that they lost their guttural at a later stage. This is undoubtedly related to its position in the basic members of the paradigm: not syllable-final, where they are most vulnerable (see n. 95 above, p. 540), as in the I/voc verbs (Impfv/Pfv *yimur(u) in Proto-Semitic), but syllable-initial (Impfv/Pfv *yial(u) in Proto-Semitic). The II/H verbs show two different paradigms, a strong and a weak. In the strong paradigm, the presence of the (former) guttural is indicated by broken spellingsin third-millennium texts also by the special signs discussed in 17.2 (pp. 513515)and the forms do not show structural adaptations to compensate for a lost radical. The weak paradigm, on the other had, is characterized by adaptations to the paradigm of the II/voc verbs. In Babylonian, all original II/H verbs have a weak paradigm and are conjugated like the II/voc verbs. The only feature reminiscent
see CAD N/1 4041 s.v. nbutu adj. b. Munnabittu is common from the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian period onward, apart from an ambiguous instance in Old Assyrian (Mu-na-bi-tim (Gen) BIN 6, 250:7). Formally, it looks like the feminine of munnbitu, but insofar as the sex of the bearers of the name can be ascertained, all of them are male. I have no explanation for this form, but see Kouwenberg 2004: 33839 for some speculations. 145. Interestingly, exactly the same form is addressed to a man in AbB 14, 219:7. This must be an instance of the i-Modus as described by Kraus 1973a; see chap. 9 n. 3 (p. 211). 146. These forms were already quoted in 16.6.1 (p. 493) because they also show gemination of R3. 147. The problem is aggravated by the occasional use of Ntn forms with the meaning of Gtn; see 14.7.5 end (p. 429).
17.7. The II/H Verbs
555
of the gutturals is the difference between forms with and without E-colouring. In Assyrian, the original II/* and II/* verbs have a strong paradigm, the II/*h and II/* verbs a weak paradigm. For third-millennium Akkadian, the evidence is scarce and sometimes contradictory, but it generally follows the strong paradigm, as one might expect in this early period. Even if we do not have full documentation of the paradigm of a specific verb, there are a few rules of thumb that allow us to establish with a reasonable degree of confidence which paradigm it has. Typical features of the strong paradigm are a broken spelling in the perfective after R1 (e.g., Ass i-am /iam/ he bought) and a four-syllable imperfective form with an ending (e.g., Ass ta-a-a-ma /taaam/ you (Pl) buy). The absence of these features, as in the corresponding Babylonian forms i-a-am /im/ and ta-a-ma /taamm/, are reliable indications that the verb in question has a weak paradigm. Even if the geminate of the weak paradigm is not spelled out, as in the last-mentioned form, we have to assume its presence. These rules do not give full certainty, but especially for third-millennium Akkadian, where we often have hardly more than a single form of a given verb, they are indispensable. Arranged according to their original guttural, the following verbs can be used as evidence for the paradigm of the II/H verbs. 1. Original II/ verbs can be identified relatively easily in third-millennium Akkadian and Old Assyrian, where they largely preserve their original conjugation. Reliable instances are: ramu (A/a) to love (rm) in (P)SAk and Ass (versus Bab rmu ()) alu (A/a) to ask (l ) in SAk and Ass (versus Bab lu ()) amu (A/a) to buy (MSA m) in SAk and Ass (versus Bab mu ()) nadu (A/a?)148 to praise (Geez ynad nda CDG 381a) (versus Bab ndu ()) bau (I/i) to smell (b) in OA (versus Bab *bu ()) au (I/i) to watch over, check (no etym.) in OA alongside ium (versus MA, NA, and Bab u ()) madu (I/i to be(come) numerous (md) in OA (versus SAk(?) and Bab mdu ()) rabu (I/i) to replace, compensate (Ar. raaba to repair, rectify, see Huehnergard 1991: 700) in PSAk and SAk beside ribum(?) (versus Bab rbu ()) As we saw in 16.5.1 (pp. 474475), the II/ verbs of the I/i class occur in Babylonian as II/ verbs. This phenomenon is already found in Old Assyrian with u () (see n. 166, pp. 560561). If we may rely on evidence from proper names, it might even occur as early as Sargonic Akkadian (see n. 159, p. 558). 2. Original II/* verbs can be identifiedapart from their etymologyfrom the fact that they show E-colouring and, in Assyrian, a strong paradigm: blu to possess, rule (bl ) msu to crush, trample (cf. Syr ms zerbrechen? acc. to AHw 647b s.v.) (SB) nu to load ( n) re to tend (sheep) (r ) e to look for (; cf. Ugar y, He acc. to AHw 1222b s.v.)149
148. The vowel class A/a is suggested by the Geez parallel and the weak Pfv ind, e.g., in the PN lu-naad(-DN) VS 7, 154:19 (OB). When strong forms appear in Standard Babylonian, however, the vowel class is A/u, with a Pfv iud, e.g., i-ud Tn-Ep. I 19; li-u-du KAH 2, 26:14. 149. One could add the rare denominal verbs (OB and SB) nu to wear shoes from nu shoe (see 17.2, p. 511) and mu to report from mu report.
556
3. The sources for the paradigm of the original II/* verbs are unusually plentiful. We can identify them through their etymology, through third-millennium spellings with in combination with E-colouring, and through their weak paradigm in Assyrian. On this basis, the following verbs belong here: bru to select (br ; cf. also Ebl ba--lu-um/lum VE 701; see Fronzaroli 1984: 137) lku to lick (lk) lmu to consume (lm, cf. also SAk spellings with quoted below) nru to kill (nr) nu to live, recover (no etym. cf. also SAk spellings with quoted below, and Ebl i-na-- ARET 5, 1: VI 8) rmu to have pity (Ar raima) rqu to be/go far away (rq) lu to sharpen (Geez saala; see CDG 493b; cf. also Ebl sa--lum EV 0440; see Civil 1984: 284) qu to level off, smooth (q) ru to rise early (r) u to disdain (Geez saaa to wound, harm CDG 494b) nu to grind (n; cf. also Ebl da--nu-um/nm VE 656)
Purely on the basis of its weak conjugation in Old Assyrian, zru to hate can also be identified as an original II/* verb. This is neither confirmed nor refuted by Eblaite za-a-rm (= .ul) EV 0366, which leaves the guttural unspecified (Krebernik 1983: 23). Also without etymology and therefore either II/* or II/* are the verbs sru to plaster, tu to remain, leave, and bu to move away. Irregular is mu to despise as compared to ms (see SED 1 p. LXXVI).150 4. Very few Akkadian II/H verbs can be derived from original II/*h verbs. The most likely instances are blu (A/a) to pray, beseech (bhl; cf. Geez bhla CDG 89b and DRS 48a s.v.) and ru to come to aid (rh interchanging with rw; see chap. 16, n. 101, p. 475, with E-colouring because of r and ). Another possible instance is nqu () to scream, for which see 16.5.1 (p. 475). Undoubtedly, there are more, hidden among the fairly numerous II/ verbs of Babylonian and indistinguishable from the original II/ verbs. However, since some of the Babylonian II/ verbs have a strong paradigm in Assyrian, whereas others have a weak paradigm, and since the former are clearly original II/ verbs, it is attractive to assume that the latter are original II/h verbs. They include bu to become ashamed and bu to go along (Ass to come). Although the best-known cognates of these verbs in West Semitic, such as He b and b and Geez ba, point to w or as R2, there is some etymological support for the view that these are II/h verbs (see chap. 16 n. 101, p. 475).151 Moreover, the paradigm of these two verbs in Old Assyrian militates against a II/w or II/ root but strongly favours a II/H root without E-colouring, although not a II/ root (see 17.7.3.2, pp. 563564, below for details).152
150. A further instance restricted to Ebla is za--g-um (= s u11.l i9.l i9) VE 217 to laugh (cf. Sum su11. li = -u-um and Sjberg 1999: 524). It represents /aq/kum/, akin to Ar daaka, He aq, etc. Akkadian uses u () for to laugh, which is from a different root . 151. See also Kouwenberg 2006: 17374. The derived noun btu shame, dignity is not an argument for an original II/ root, since it can be a PuRSt form, like btu happiness (usually Pl btu) from bu good, pleasant. Troppers (1998a: 21) derivation of ib from *yibwa goes against the usual phonological development of the cluster Cw, which is either preserved as such or dissolved to Cuw; see 16.7.2.3 (pp. 504505) regarding tatapwam. 152. A third original II/*h verb in Old Assyrian may be lu to protest, for which see also K. R. Veenhof, JEOL 24 (1975) 107 and Huehnergard 1991: 706. Since as R2 seems to be incompatible with a
557
17.7.2. (Pre-)SargonicAkkadianandMariOldAkkadian
Because of the scarcity of data, it is of little use to present a table with a full paradigm of the original II/H verbs in (Pre-)Sargonic Akkadian, but we may safely assume that it would be very similar to the Old Assyrian paradigm shown in Table 17.9, apart from E-colouring and vowel assimilation. A number of imperfective and perfective forms shows that the II/H verbs mostly preserve their strong paradigm:153 Impfv da-la--mu /talaamu/ SAB p. 53:13 (Adab) you shall eat (Subj) from lmu Impfv da-za-a-la /taaHHal/ SAB p. 153:9 (Diyala) you (Pl) are quarreling from lu Pfv dar-a-mu-su4 /taramsu/ AKI p. 81:12 (RI of Naram-Sin) she came to love him from rmu Pfv i11-ar /yiar/ AKI p. 76:19 (RI of Manituu) he was victorious from aru (II/ ?, see n. 41, p. 524) Pfv en-ar /yinar?/ AKI p. 256:39 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) he conquered and en-a-ra HSS 10, 206:4 (Gasur) from nru There are no unambiguous weak imperfectives,154 but some are ambiguous: -ra-[?]-am Or. 46, 201:2 (incant. from Kish) he loves from rmu, presumably /yiraam/ da-sa-am /tasaam/ SAB p. 151:10 (Sippar) you will buy from mu155 i-be-al /yibaal?/ AKI p. 208:72 (cp RI of Rimu) he rules from blu156 The number of strong perfectives can be extended substantially if we include perfectives from proper names: yiram and taram (3fs) from rmu: Dar-m-A-ga-d KI MDOG 132, 140 fig. 3 She came to love Akkad (name of a daughter of Naram-Sin),157 r-am-DN MAD 3, 230 DN came
glottalized R1 (see chap. 2 n. 40, p. 44) and the verb has no E-colouring, *h is the only remaining option for R2. The only verb form attested (a-a-al CCT 3, 20:29 I protested or the like) is ambiguous: if it is a Pfv /al/, it confirms that this verb has a weak paradigm and may therefore be a II/h verb like bu and bu. It can also be read, however, as a t-perfect /aaal/ or /al/. There is also a deverbal noun a-al-tum quarrel (passim), Pl a-l-tum kt a/k 478b:32, which may be /aaltu/ or /ltu/ and thus poses the same problem as baatu/btu discussed in n. 181 (p. 564). A possible cognate is Geez aala ( yal) to rebuke, scorn (CDG 543), but the Assyrian forms do not show E-colouring and Babylonian has lu alongside lu, which makes it more likely that is the cause of e. A final possibility is that a-a-al renders /assal/ with the cluster -- equivalent to a geminate , just as u-a-am I/he came out may also be spelled -a-am, i.e., /ussam/; see Kouwenberg 2003. I do not understand the form da-zi-l-u RA 35, 43 no. 9:4 assigned to this verb in AHw 1080a s.v. lu G 1. 153. Although we have no information about the original II/*h verbs, which presumably were the first to give up the guttural, apart from a doubtful proper name La-ba-A-um/sum6 AKI p. 122 B1 8, which I. J. Gelb (MAD 3, 92) interprets as L-baum, a past participle of bu to come to shame. This would point to a preservation of post-vocalic h, for which there are no other indications. 154. The only other imperfective of Sargonic Akkadian is a-la-e /ala/ SAB p. 167:17 (Diyala) I am able from the doubly weak verb le, which is non-committal, since even in Babylonian doubly-weak verbs tend to preserve ; see 17.4 (p. 521). 155. Hasselbach (2005: 217) interprets this form as a perfective. The context is fragmentary, but it may well be a virtual conditional clause, which points to an imperfective (GAG 160). This perfectly fits in with the form. 156. For i-be-il RA 38, 48 no. 25:3, see n. 171 (p. 561). 157. The Sargonic PNF Dar-m-Agade contrasts directly with the Ur III Bab PNF t-ra-am-uri KI-am RA 56, 213:3 She loves Ur (daughter of Apil-kn, king of Mari, a contemporary of Ur-nammu, early
558
The II/H Verbs 17.7. to love, with the Kurzname r-a-mu-um. These forms already occur in Pre-Sargonic names, e.g., r-am6-en TB 1, 1: i 3, Dar-am6-en TB 2, 150: V 1 from Tell Beydar. yial he asked in the Kurzname I-a-lum MAD 3, 258 from lu yirib he compensated in the Kurzname r-e-bum and other names; see MAD 3, 229, already in Pre-Sargonic texts from Tell Beydar, e.g., r-b-s-lim TB 1, 1: iii 2 from rbu yil he was able in l-e-DN and the Kurzname l-e-um; see MAD 3, 158 from le to be able, powerful (ly?) yir he tended, cared for in r-e-DN and the Kurzname r-e-um; see MAD 3, 228 from re to tend (sheep) (ry) yi and yis he looked for in the PNs I-i-e(-si-na-at) and I11-e(-si-na-at) he has looked for them; see MAD 3, 256 from e (y)158
In sum, there is plenty of evidence for the strong paradigm in (Pre-)Sargonic Akkadian. There is, however, also some counter-evidence consisting of weak or at least weakened perfectives. To start with the latter, there are a few perfectives in proper names with assimilation of to a preceding r. Instead of yiram and yirib, we also find yirram and yirrib: r-r-bum HSS 10, 187: I 7 (Gasur), and r-ra-am-DN MAD 3, 230. This shows weakening of but not (yet) adaptation to the weak paradigm (which would give (y)irm and (y)irb).159 This may be a specific development of the cluster r and/or restricted to proper names. Yirrib also occurs in Ur III Babylonian names; Hilgert (2002: 36268) lists r-r-ib and r-r-bum alongside (DN-)r(-e)-eb and I-ri-ib/b, etc.), perhaps as a survival from Sargonic Akkadian, since Babylonian shows no other traces of this change. However, the assimilation of to a preceding consonant may also occur in some Old Assyrian nouns (see Kouwenberg 2006: 16465) and it is definitely found in original III/ and III/ verbs in Middle and Neo-Assyrian (see 2006: 17273 and 17.8.3 below, p. 578).160
Ur III), nicely reflecting one of the main differences between these dialects, namely, the preservation versus the loss of post-consonantal (see 17.3, pp. 516520). This presupposes that she got this name only when she came to Babylonia (which is ascertained by the mention of Ur in it (see Civil 1962), because in her native dialect the verb-form would doubtless have been taram, as in Sargonic Akkadian. Since it is unlikely that two different tenses are used in the same type of name, the SAk Pfv dar-m shows that t-ra-am in the Ur III Babylonian name is a perfective as well, pace Hilgert 2002: 24950. Hilgerts argument that the meaning Sie liebte Ur makes little sense ignores the fact that the perfective of stative-like verbs is often ingressive, so that taram may also mean she came to love (sie hat liebgewonnen). The form ta-ar-tau(-ma) AKI p. 370:14 (RI of Ibbi-Lim of Ebla; see chap. 16 n. 63, p. 463), allegedly coming from rmu and meaning she has come to love him (i.e., /tartu/ < tartmu?) is extremely problematic. 158. For the interpretation of these names, see A. Westenholz 1987: 34. 159. It is possible that there are real weak forms of rabum (I/i) in Sargonic Akkadian that show the Babylonian development discussed in 16.5.1 (pp. 474475): the shift of II/ verbs of the I/i class to the class of II/ verbs: a t-Pf ir11-ti-ab /yirtab/ in a difficult context (Lagash), and a PN Dar-ti-bu (Gasur), both quoted in MAD 3, 229. The latter may be a Kurzname for Tartb-DN, either a t-perfectwhich is unusual in a proper nameor a Gt perfective (but a Gt-stem is not attested elsewhere, although it is semantically not unlikely, since it may be a (pseudo)reciprocal; see 10.8.3.5, p. 265). These forms can only come from a II/ verb ribum, which is the usual form in Sargonic Akkadian proper names. Note that if ir11-ti-ab is a t-perfect, it is an Assyrian-style perfect with a secondarily inserted a; see 16.5.2 (p. 478). 160. A baffling problem in this context is posed by the name Narm-Sin, which contains the deverbal instrument noun that the dictionaries list as narmu love. In the dialects that preserve post-consonantal , the regular mapras form would be naramum, and this form is indeed attested in the Old Assyrian feminine proper name Naramtum (Na-ar-am-tum Prag I 467:3, alongside Naramtum [Na-ra-am-tum ICK 1, 17b:3]). The fact that Sargonic Akkadian consistently shows a form without , both as a noun in (PNF) [na]-ra-ma-at lu g a l AKI p. 44 S-24:4 PNF, favourite of the king and as a part of proper names (passim, e.g., NarmSin) is hard to explain, apart from the circular statement that in proper names is more prone to being
559
There are also a few real weak perfectives in Sargonic Akkadian, where the post-consonantal guttural has been dropped: i-a-ru AKI p. 52 D 13:4 (date formula of Naram-Sin) he was victorious (Subj), i.e., /yiru/ instead of /yiaru/ from aru, and i-bi-ru /yibru/ HSS 10, 184:9 (Gasur) he selected (Subj) from bru. Both anticipate the later Babylonian adaptation of the II/H verbs to the II/voc verbs. If aru is an original II/ verb,161 i-a-ru connects Sargonic Akkadian with Babylonian against Assyrian (see below), as in most other respects (see 1.5, pp. 2426). The weak perfective i-bi-ru from the original I/ verb bru contrasts with the strong en-ar from nru. It may be an additional indication that the language of the royal inscriptions is more conservative than that of most economic documents and that we actually witness two different stages in Sargonic Akkadian here (Hasselbach 2005: 23133). The weak form ibr recurs in both Babylonian and Assyrian. A problematic perfective is i-a-na(-ma) AKI p. 221:38 he loaded (cp RI of Manituu), a 3ms + Vent from a root n. Two explanations present themselves: it is either a weak form yin, a precursor of Bab in (which is remarkable in a royal inscription), or it is an instance of the practice attested in Old Assyrian of omitting a post-consonantal in writing when it follows a glottalized consonant (see Kouwenberg 2003 and 17.8.3 below, pp. 577578);162 this obviously presupposes that had become . The rest of the attested II/H forms add little to our knowledge of the development of their paradigm. For the G-stem, we have an infinitive and a few present participles: na-- (Acc c. st.) SAB p. 53:89, and (a-na) na--si (Gen c. st.) AKI p. 107:4 (RI of Naram-Sin) life from nu to live, recover163 na-e ([i ]r-tim) AKI p. 93 2:0405 (RI of Naram-Sin) and na-e (e-er-tim) AKI p. 236:46263 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) (both Acc c. st) from ne to turn la-e-ma-ad /l/ emat/ AfO 25, 99 no. 10:12 (Eshnunna) it is consuming (3ms Stat) from lmu164 Re--tum /r/ tum/ OAIC 30:10 (Diyala) Shepherdess (PNF with exceptional E-colouring from re to tend (sheep); also in other PNs: see MAD 3, 22829) The following forms of derived stems are known to me: i-da-al /yistaal/ BIN 8, 121:28 (Kazallu) in the PN (L)-i-da-al Did-He-NotDeliberate? acc. to CAD /1 280b s.v. lu A 3a, Gt Pfv of lu to ask
dropped than elsewhere. Or are these forms perhaps borrowed from a specifically Babylonian environment? In Babylonian, post-consonantal has already been dropped in the earliest texts we have, but obviously we do not know how early this change has started. If these names have indeed been borrowed from Babylonian and naram(t)um has undergone the Babylonian development of post-consonantal , the correct form of the noun is nramum rather than narmum. 161. This is not certain; see n. 41 (p. 524) above. It is, for instance, attested with a strong in later Babylonian, e.g., i-A-ar-u-nu-ti FM 3, 10:11 he defeated them. 162. Another example may be in ki-zi-im AKI p. 325:30 (RI from Elam) in the morning, if it stands for /kiim/, since we expect /kiim/ from the III/ verb ka to be(come) cold (in the dictionaries under ku). It may, however, simply represent the Babylonian form ku. 163. A difficult form is u-na- GAKI p. 361:35 (cp RI of Naram-Sin), apparently a D imperfective of this verb and quite normal as such (/unaas/), but it is parallel to -mu-ut I die, so that it must be intransitive I live, which is very abnormal for this kind of D-stem. Whether the PN Li-na- MAD 3, 193 comes from this verb is too uncertain to warrant a discussion. 164. If the interpretation is correct: a present participle in the stative is a very unusual phenomenon (see 8.4.1, pp. 206207).
560
-wa-e-ru-u / uwaerus/ SAB p. 189:7 (Gasur) I instructed him (Subj), D Pfv of wuuru u-ga-e /yuqa/ AKI p. 227:47 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) he waited, D Pfv of qu u-ra-i AKI p. 277:28 (cp RI of arkaliarri) he subdued, D Pfv of rs/u to strike, subdue nu-id /nuid/, a D Imp of ndu to praise in PNs such as -la-ak-nu-id MAD 3, 189 praise your god! The few relevant forms attested in Mari Old Akkadian add little of importance but confirm the conservative nature of this dialect: a Pfv i-am-u /yiamu/ MARI 1, 81:13 he bought from him from mu, and an Inf (ana) l--m-u-ni /lamun/ ARM 19, 248:4 acc. to A. Westenholz 1978: 167a (barley) for their (Du) consumption. In proper names, we have the perfectives yil and tal (3fs) discussed in chap. 16 n. 171 (p. 497).
17.7.3. TheII/HverbsinAssyrian 17.7.3.1. Thestrongparadigm

As stated above in 17.7.1 (pp. 554555), Assyrian uses the strong paradigm for the original II/* and II/* verbs and the weak paradigm for the original II/h and II/ verbs.165 The strong paradigm of the G-stem in Old Assyrian is shown in Table 17.9, with lu to ask as model for the II/ verbs and blu to possess, rule as model for the II/ verbs. For each category, a form without ending and one with ending (basically, the corresponding plural form) are included. alum (II/ ) no ending Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PPartc PrPartc iaal ial itaal aal ail + ending iaul iul itl l l alum lum ilum ibeel ibel *ibteel *beel *beil belum (II/) no ending + ending ibeel ibel *ibtl *bl *bl belum *blum *bilum
table 17.9: the strong paradigm of the ii/H verbs in old Assyrian.
The forms of alum are basically in accordance with those of the strong verb, apart from the loss of a syllable-final guttural (see 17.3, p. 518), for instance in the Imp Pl l < al (see also GKT 91). A few noteworthy points are the following. Some of the original II/* verbs belong to the I/i class, especially madu to be(come) numerous, along with the adjective mdu. Most forms are regular, e.g., in Old Assyrian Impfv imaid, Pfv imid, t-Pf imtiid (but see below on the Pl imtd), Stat 3ms maad, 3mp md, Adj mdum, Fem maattum, etc.166
165. See also Kouwenberg 2006 for a detailed discussion. 166. Another OA I/i verb of this class is aum to check, which has a by-form ium: cf. the strong Pfv ta-a-i- Adana 37b:16 (quoted GKT p. 158 n. 1) you (Pl) checked (/tai/) beside i in the Vet
561
Only very rarely do we find forms that deviate from the regular forms shown in the table. First, the infinitive shows a few instances with the loss of between identical vowels (see also 16.7.2.3, p. 503): (ana . . .) a-m-im TC 3, 210:6 and (ana . . .) a-m-u-nu OIP 27, 55:64, i.e., /mim/, /munu/ from mu to buy. Second, t-perfect forms of madum with an ending have rather than the expected : e.g., im-t-du OAA 1, 12:16 (/imtd/) instead of *imtd (< *imtad), cf. iptiqid iptaqd (GKT 82c).167 Since the generalization of the vowel pattern of the endingless forms to the entire conjugation (i.e., imtiid imtd) is a feature of later Assyrian (see 6.2, p. 140),168 imtd may be a very early instance of an emerging tendency which only becomes regular much later.169 An irregular Gtn form of alum is (l) ta--t-n-e-li /tateneel/ St. Alp p. 33:47 do not keep asking me, for which we would expect *tatanail. It looks as if vowel assimilation affects not only the penultimate syllable here but also the two previous syllables. However, it may rather be the case that in this form -tene- replaced -tana- by analogy with the tn forms of some frequent -stems such as utenebbal and utene, in which ta has adopted the vowel e of the next syllable (-tane- > -tene-; see chap. 2 n. 57, p. 48). Finally, and most importantly, the use of the -sign in Middle Assyrian shows that the sound change that deleted syllable-final could be reversed in forms of the verbal paradigm by analogy with forms in which is preserved, as I will show below. It is possible that this also occurred in Old Assyrian and that, for instance, the plural imperative l (< al) could be realized as /al/ because the singular imperative aal also has . To what extent this actually happened is impossible to tell. The wealth of data on the II/ verbs sharply contrasts with the scarcity of data on the original II/* verbs in Assyrian. In fact, apart from the doubly-weak verbs re and e, the only reliable instance is belum to possess, have at ones disposal. It has a number of highly technical uses in the jargon of the Assyrian merchants in Anatolia, which has obscured the interpretation (both semantic and formal) of several of its attested forms (see Veenhof 1972: 40712).170 Most of the attested spellings suggest that belum was a regular A/a verb before it underwent E-colouring, as one would expect on the basis of its meaning (transitive/stative; see 3.5.2.4, pp. 7475) and the presence of * as R2,171 e.g., Impfv 3ms i-be-el AKT 1, 71:8, 3mp i-be-e-lu OAA 1, 57:13, and Pfv 2ms Subj tab-e-lu TPAK 1, 48:14, which can be directly derived from *yibaal() and tabalu, respectively.172 This also applies to the common N-stem, which has
3mp () i-i- JSOR 11, 127:22 let them not check (see 16.5.1, p. 475). In Middle Assyrian and later, it only appears as a II/ verb: Impfv i-i-a Assur 3/1, 56 no. 2:16, 21 he will weigh out. 167. A similar instance in a II/H verb is ta-al-t-iq-a-nim Prag I 433:24 you (pl) have taken for me (for the spelling, see 17.8.3, pp. 576577). 168. In Old Assyrian, this only occurs in the N-stem (ippiris ippirs; see 12.2.1, p. 289). 169. See 16.7.2.3 (pp. 503504) and chap. 2 n. 58 (p. 49) for phenomena that are exceptional in Old Assyrian but regular later. Alternatively, one could simply assume that Old Assyrian had a root variant MD (Inf midum), but this does not explain why MD only occurs in the t-perfect of the G-stem. 170. The most important result of Veenhofs investigations is that several forms listed in GKT 91bc as weak perfectives are in fact N-stems, which makes it clear that belum has preserved its strong paradigm, in contrast to the II/ verbs, which have become weak. 171. Rather than I/i, as claimed by GAG3 98m* and p. 54* sub 19. For A/a, cf. also SAk i-be-al quoted in 17.7.2 (p. 557) and OB i-bex(ne)-al quoted in n. 59 (p. 527). As for Mari OAk i-be-il RA 35, 48 no. 25:3, I assume that this is an instance of Babylonian influence and stands for ibl (i-be-l ) rather than a unique instance of the vowel class I/i. 172. For additional occurrences, see Veenhof 1972: 40712 and Kouwenberg 2006: 16566. Occasional forms with i, such as Impfv 2p ta-b-i-l TC 1, 16:23, and Pfv 3ms Subj ib-i-lu kt n/k 518:20 are presumably due to the fluctuation between i and e, which is common in Old Assyrian.
562
the form Pfv 3ms ibbeil, 3mp ibbl, t-Pf 3ms ittabel, e.g., i-be-i-il5 TC 3, 32:22, li-b-l-ni TC 1, 26:28, and i-ta-ab-e-el-k TC 2, 15:13. These forms are in accordance with those of the strong A/a verbs, e.g., iibit, iibt, ittabat from abtu to seize, except that the perfective forms with an ending are not expected to show vowel assimilation, because this is blocked by E-colouring (see 2.4, p. 49). Therefore, I have given the plural form of the perfective as ibbl rather than ibbl, although all spellings known to me are ambiguous in this respect. The few forms of II/ verbs attested in Middle Assyrian (Meyer 1971: 6970) are generally in keeping with the Old Assyrian forms. In addition to broken spellings, Middle Assyrian often uses the special -sign, e.g., G 3mp Impfv i-a---lu /iaul/ KAV 1: VI 45:63 they will ask, Gtn 3ms Impfv il-ta-na--al-u /iltanaalu/ KAV 1: VII 47:21 he will ask him repeatedly, G Inf Gen (balt . . .) a--a-li AfO 17, 274:44 without asking. However, an important difference from Old Assyrian is that alu seems to have even in positions where it is presumed to have been lost in Old Assyrian,173 e.g., in the Imp Pl a--la KAV 107:19 (for which Old Assyrian is assumed to have l) and in the t-Pf il-ta-a-la-ni MATC 15:12 he asked me (OA itlanni ). This suggests that was restored on the basis of other forms of the same verb where it was not syllable-final and therefore preserved, as in the corresponding forms without ending, the Imp Sg aal (e.g., a-a-al Assur 3/1, 3 no. 1:18) and the t-Pf ataal or altaal (e.g., al-ta--al JCS 7, 135 no. 62:8 I asked). As long as such forms exist, can be restored on the model of the strong verb; e.g., abat abt may lead to aal al instead of l, and iptaras iptarsanni leads to iltaal iltalanni replacing iltlanni.174 On the other hand, the verb mu to buy shows the opposite behaviour in having weak perfective forms: i-a-mu--ni KAJ 175:25 he bought (Subj) and i-a-mu-u KAV 195:6 (c. br.) (W. Mayer 1971: 69).175 It is unclear to me whether this testifies to an incipient process of weakening, as in Babylonian, or whether it is borrowed from Babylonian as part of legal terminology. The only data on the II/ verbs of Neo-Assyrian available to me is Table IVb in HmeenAnttila 2000: 153. The forms it shows (without references) suggest an almost consistently strong paradigm that is more or less identical to the Old Assyrian paradigm. Further study is needed to confirm whether this is correct. In Middle Assyrian, no forms of blu or any other original II/* verb are attested. The evidence for Neo-Assyrian only consists of blu, now in its regular non-technical meaning to rule. The few extant forms show that by this time it has shifted to the weak paradigm, as in Babylonian: Pfv li-pi-lu SAA 10, 228: r.2; t-Pf ip-ti-ia-al SAA 10, 351:14.176 However, the contexts in which it is used bristle with Standard Babylonian forms, so it seems unlikely that it was really part of the genuine Neo-Assyrian vocabulary; note, however, that the t-perfect form ip-ti-ia-al with its inserted a is specifically Assyrian.177
173. The same peculiarity is found in Middle Babylonian, where also appears in forms that have doubtless lost it in Old Babylonian; see 17.7.4.1 (pp. 569570). 174. On the other hand, we find parallel Middle Assyrian forms without , such as the 3mp Stat a-mu KAV 103:12 they have been bought and the adjective (pte) ma-da-te KAV 106:5. It cannot be determined whether or not these forms also contained a restored . 175. There is also a Middle Assyrian PN Itu-Aur-a-am/m-u I bought him from Assur (OMA 1, 269), but this may actually be a Babylonian verb form, as in many other Middle Assyrian proper names. 176. For b > p, see Deller 1959: 23442, esp. 242. Forms with p are particularly frequent in royal inscriptions (1959: 235). 177. Other forms attested in letters can be explained as Babylonianisms, e.g., li-b-e-lu SAA 10, 185: r.2; li-b-lu SAA 10, 188: r.8 may they rule.
563
17.7.3.2. Theweakparadigm
The original II/*h verbs (or II/ verbs?) and the original II/* verbs have a weak paradigm in Assyrian. The former are very poorly represented and their paradigm is largely reconstructed on the basis of the II/ verbs. Original II/ verbs are plentiful, but the ambiguity of Old Assyrian orthography leaves many uncertainties. Table 17.10 presents the paradigm with bu to become ashamed, bru to choose, and rqu D to keep away as sample verbs. The forms that are actually attested or directly based on attested forms are printed in bold. The second form in a slot exemplifies the forms with an ending.178 *baum (II/*h) G-stem Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PPartc PrPartc ib ? iba ib ib ibtaa ? ibt ? b b b b baum ? bum bium D-stem ubayya? uba ubayyi ubayyi ubtayyi ubtayyi bayyi bayyi bayyu bayyu bayyuum bayyuum mubayyium berum (II/*) G-stem ib/ ar ibe/irr ib/ r ib/r ibte/iar ibt/r b/r b/r b/r ? b/r be/irum b/rum birum reyyuqum (II/*) D-stem ureyyaq ureqq ureyyiq ureyyiq urteyyiq urteyyiq reyyiq reyyiq reyyuq reyyuq reyyuqum reyyuqum mureyyiqum
table 17.10: the weak paradigm of the ii/H verbs in old Assyrian.
There are two significant features of the weak paradigm in Assyrian. First, it is actually weak only in a small part of its formsthe perfective and the imperative G and the imperfective D. Second, the distribution of strong and weak forms isinsofar as we can tellidentical to that of the II/voc verbs (see Table 16.7 in 16.5.2, p. 476, and Table 16.9 in 16.5.3.3, p. 482). This demonstrates that the weak paradigm essentially developed on the model of the II/voc verbs. I will first discuss the conjugation of bu and bu. The attested G imperfective forms of bu with an ending are trisyllabic and therefore weak (see 17.7.1, p. 555), e.g., a-ba-u /abau/ CCT 2, 1:33 I will come to shame (Subj) and niba-u /nibau/ ATHE 39:27 we will come to shame (Subj). This is the main difference with alum (cf. Table 17.9). The imperfective forms without ending, such as G a-ba- OAA 1, 45:16, are ambiguous, and it is hard to choose between /ibaa/, /ib/, and even /iba/. The first form is most similar to the original imperfective, which we may reconstruct as *yibahha , but makes it difficult to account for the weak forms with an ending. The second, /ib/, may be
178. The choice for -yy- as reflex of a geminate *h and * (unlike Kouwenberg 2006: 169, 174) is not based on orthographic evidence but on the parallel with the II/voc verbs (ukayyin, etc.; see Table 16.9, p. 482) and for the original II/* verbs also on the development of a single * to a palatal glide in Assyrian; see 17.3 above (p. 518).
564
explained from contraction of *yibahha after the loss of *h and readily accounts for the rest of the conjugation, e.g., 3mp *yibahha u > *yib, which adopts gemination by analogy with other imperfective categories (*yib iba (or perhaps ib; see chap. 16 n. 102, p. 477), and especially by analogy with the II/voc verbs (which have imutt and iqipp; see 16.5.2, pp. 476477). The third option, /iba/, presupposes a specific development of *yibahha under the influence of imat and iqap of the II/ and II/ verbs. The D imperfective is parallel to the G imperfective: it is weak if there is an ending, cf. (l) t-ba-a-ni /tubaanni/ TC 3, 100:20 do not shame me,179 and ambiguous without ending, e.g., nu-ba--k TC 3, 1:33 we will shame you, i.e., /nubayya/ or /nub/? We met the same dilemma in the D imperfective of the II/voc verbs (see 16.5.3.3, pp. 483484). All other D forms are undoubtedly strong. The G perfective is not attested with certainty, but on the basis of ib/r from berum we may safely assume that it was weak: ib, Pl ib.180 The original form must have been *yibha , in which h became weakened, after which the form was replaced by *yib by analogy with yimt and yiqp. The G Imp b, Pl b is not attested but posited on the basis of the Imp of bu to come, which is only attested in these two forms (see also GKT 98b and CAD B 181 s.v. 2a):181 ba(-a)-am /bam/ Prag I 499:14 and 727:7, Pl ba-a-nim /bnim/ CCT 3, 29:18. For the t-perfect and the infinitive of the G-stem, it is unclear whether we should posit strong forms (ibtaa and baum) or weak forms (ibt and bum). Middle and Neo-Assyrian do not offer much additional information, apart from the fact that the weak form of the D imperfective is confirmed by the feminine proper name L-tu-ba-i-ni AfO 10, 43 no. 100:25 do (Fem) not shame me (/tubani/) (MA) and its masculine counterpart L-tu-ba--an-ni (-DN) SAA 14, 21: r.11 (NA).182 For the original II/ verbs, we have much more evidence.183 The forms of berum in Table 17.10 show the similarity between the G-stem paradigm of the II/ verbs and the II/ verbs represented by qpu in Table 16.9 (p. 482). In the G imperfective, the original *yibaar became yibar, and the resemblance of this form to iqap caused the transfer of the entire conjugation to the II/ verbs, replacing the perfective *yibar with yibr, etc. The main uncertainty is whether all forms have introduced in accordance with qpu or whether they have preserved as the regular result of E-colouring. In other words, is the perfective ibr < *yibar, the infinitive berum < *barum, and the stative with endings br- < *bar-, or are these forms replaced by ibr,
179. Another instance, however, shows a plene spelling (t-ba-a-a-ni AKT 1, 14: 11 you shame me) and may therefore be strong: /tubaaanni/, but we cannot be certain about this. 180. It is possible that an instance of the perfective is hidden in the PN E-ni-ba- / nib/ CCT 1, 11b:13 may we not come to shame, as compared to the corresponding Babylonian name in the first-person singular Ay-ab (Stamm 1939: 17475). The occurrence of a superficially similar name E-ni/na-ba-a-at KTS 1, 47c:1 (1939: 369), which can only be a 3fs stative, makes this uncertain. 181. A deverbal noun of bu may be baatu (or btu?) dignity or something similar, which is attested in the Gen (ina) ba--t-k BIN 4, 9:16 and (a-)ba--t-k BIN 4, 10:25 and the Nom ba--t KTS 1, 15:42 my baatu. If it is derived from bu, it is an infinitive with a feminine ending, like alaktu gait, course, behaviour from alku, or a past participle with the pattern PaRaS, of which Assyrian shows a number of instances (see 7.2, p. 162). However, Kogan (2003: 258) suggests connecting btu with Ar bas bravery, courage, vigour, which is quite possible. 182. Another Middle Assyrian II/ verb (not attested earlier) may be qlu to pay attention. It has a weak perfective: cf. the Prec li-qa(-a)-al MATSH p. 117 no. 6:10 and p. 158 no. 12:31. In other dialects, it is normally a II/ verb. Is this another instance of the alternation of h and w in a root referred to in chap. 16 n. 101 (p. 475)? 183. For a selection of instances, see Kouwenberg 2006: 16769.
565
birum, and br-, respectively? For most forms, we need plene spellings with i or e to answer the question, but no such spellings are known to me. However, the participle is unambiguous: it deviates from that of qpu (qipu), as shown by ittum female grinder from nu to grind, e.g., -i-t-en6 (Acc Du) OAA 1, 40:14. There is also a Middle Assyrian perfective form ta--en JCS 7, 135 no. 62:9 you ground, where en points to /tan/ (replacing *taan) rather than /tan/. Perhaps these small clues tilt the balance in favour of , as in Babylonian, where these verbs have a separate paradigm dominated by forms (see GAG 98jk and Verbalpar. 19). However, further evidence is needed for a definitive answer. The 3ms stative is likely to be a back-formation from the forms with an ending, just as m and mt in Babylonian (see 17.7.4.1, p. 567, and 16.5.2, pp. 478479, respectively), i.e., br or br. For the imperative, I posit a PaRaS pattern, as in the II/ verbs: *aan, Fem *an. Bab n also points to *aan (see 17.7.4.1, p. 567). Presumably, *aan, *an would become n, n, although n, n would be more in accordance with the imperative of qpu. The only D-stem of an original II/* verb known to us, reyyuqum to keep away from ruqu (Ass) to be far/go away, confirms that the II/* verbs have adopted a weak paradigm. It is shown in the right column of Table 17.10. All forms outside the imperfective are strong. The only extant imperfective without ending (l t-re-a-aq OAA 1, 126:10 do not keep away!, i.e., /tureyyaq/) is also strong, but the one with an ending is weak: l t-re-q-ni St. Biggs p. 292:34 do (Fem) not keep me away, i.e., /tureqqni/. This is exactly parallel to the D conjugation of the II/voc verbs with ukayyan(?), ukann (see Table 16.9, p. 482). The G-stem corresponding to reyyuqum shows a particularly interesting development. It is a II/ verb in Assyrian (OA ruqum), although it is etymologically a II/ verb (rq). This presupposes a perfective *yiruq, which was replaced by yirq after the loss of , thus providing a starting point for the creation of a new imperfective iraq (Huehnergard 1991: 700; and see 16.5.1, pp. 474475). The form *yiruq itself is also an Assyrian innovation: all evidence shows that *yiraq is more original, not only the Babylonian Impfv irq and Pfv irq (see below), but also the Geez cognate yraq-rqa (CDG 467 s.v. and Aro 1964: 98). The same difference in root vowel between Assyrian and Babylonian is found in its antonym *qarbu (Bab qerbu) to be/ come near, with a perfective Ass iqrub but Bab iqrab. The parallel between the two verbs is demonstrated most clearly by the fact that both *qarbum and ruqum have the exceptional pattern PuRuS in the adjective/stative (see 3.3.4 sub 2, p. 64): qurbu near and rqu far < *ruqum (see Table 17.11):
root Bab Ass qrb rq qrb rq
perfective iqrab < *yiqrab irq < *yiraq iqrub < *yiqrub irq < *yiruq
stative/adjective qerub/qerbum < *qar(u)bum rq < *rauq rqum <*raqum
}see 17.7.4.2, p. 571
qurub/qurbum < *qur(u)bum rq/rqum < *ru(u)qum
table 17.11: the vowel patterns of (Bab) qerbu and rqu.
It can hardly be doubted that the source of u in the Assyrian prefix forms is the stem vowel u of the adjective/stative, originally *qarub/*rauq.
566
17.7.4. TheII/HverbsinBabylonian
The early loss of the gutturals in Babylonian has reduced the II/H verbs to two closely related classes: the II/ verbs, which go back to Proto-Semitic II/* and II/*h verbs, and the II/ verbs, which go back to II/* and II/* verbs.184 Not all verbs with a guttural as R2 in Proto-Semitic have ended up in the II/ or the II/ class. As I argued in 16.5.1 (pp. 474475), those that did not have the root vowel a have become II/ or II/ verbs after reanalyzing the root vowel i or u as their new middle radical. The II/ verbs are described in 17.7.4.1, and the II/ verbs in 17.7.4.2.
17.7.4.1. TheII/verbsinBabylonian
Apart from the verbs mentioned in 17.7.1 (p. 555), the II/ verbs also include du to know, observe (see chap. 13 n. 11, p. 328), bru to catch, du to harass, u to worry, mu to vomit, nlu to lie down (also II/), nu to scorn, pdu to imprison, rsu to slay, sbu to draw water, sdu to slay, and nu to cover, sprinkle.185 We should strictly distinguish these verbs from verbs with a strong as R2 (see 17.4, p. 521). In Old Babylonian, they are generally kept apart, but in Standard Babylonian some fluctuation sets in, which obscures the distinction. From ndu to praise, for instance, we find strong ta-na--ad BWL 229:26 you will praise alongside weak i-na(-ad)-du Erra V 49 he praises (Subj), and from du to harass, cheat, we find both ta-da-a-a-a /tadaa/ BWL 86:255 you harass and i-da-a-u Ee IV 79 they harass. The Babylonian paradigm of the II/ and II/ verbs is weak in all forms and completely parallel to that of the II/voc verbs. Table 17.12 presents the G-stem of the former with lu to ask as sample verb and that of the latterwhich will be discussed in the next sectionwith bru to choose (see also GAG 98 and Verbalpar. 19). lu no ending Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PPartc PrPartc il il itl l l + ending iall il itl l l lu lu ilu ibr ibr ibtr br br bru no ending + ending iberr ibr ibtr br bru bru bru biru
table 17.12: the paradigm of the ii/H verbs in Babylonian.
184. It is possible that in some II/ verbs is caused by other consonants such as r and/or , e.g., ru to come to aid, which is perhaps from rh. For this verb, cf. perhaps also Eblaite ra-a-zu-um // r--zu-um // r-z (= . d a): /raH()um/, /riHum/ ? to come to aid ? according to Krebernik 1983: 20. 185. Among these verbs, nu and sbu may be original II/ verbs because of Ugar/He n (AHw 758a s.v.) and Ugar/He b and Ar sb (AHw 1000a s.v.), respectively; bru and du may have cognates in MSA br to catch (fish) (Leslau 1944: 55) and Ar daaa auspressen (according to AHw 165a s.v.), respectively, but with the wrong guttural; for u, AHw 334b s.v. . I compares Aram/He with a different R2; nlu may belong to the verbs discussed in 16.5.1 (p. 475); for the rest, no plausible etymology has been proposed to my knowledge.
567
With regard to the II/ verbs, most of the forms of Table 17.12 can be derived in a straightforward way from the original forms with a guttural: the imperfective without ending (il < iaal ), the t-perfect (itl < itaal, Pl itl < ital), the imperative (l < aal, Pl l < al ), the stative forms with an ending (l < al), the infinitive (lu < alu), and finally the past participle (lu < alu). Nevertheless, the following forms call for comment. It is a matter of debate whether the imperfective without ending is always contracted; Gelb (1955b: 102b), for instance, and Reiner (1966: 92) assume a form ia()al without contraction, contra GAG 104m. The usual spellings allow both options. It is true that the imperfective forms of II/ verbs often show plene spellings such as i-a-a-al, which can be interpreted as broken spellings, and that geminate in the derived stems is often preserved (see below). However, neither point is decisive: plene spellings may also express long vowels and the preservation of geminate in derived stems is related to the fact that derived stems have a tendency to be more regular and predictable than the basic stem. A crucial argument against uncontracted G imperfective forms is that we never find spellings with an explicit , such as OB i-a(-A)-A-am and SB i-a--am from mu to buy, although such forms do occur in the Gtn- and the D-stem, where was preserved.186 On the contrary, in Standard Babylonian we find a growing number of imperfective forms spelled with CVC signs, which prove that there is contraction, e.g., i-ram ZA 43, 98:32 he loves, a-bal BWL 38:8 I pray from blu, ta-am BID 56:14 you buy from mu, ta-sab TuL 103:15 you draw water from sbu.187 The remaining forms of Table 17.12 were remodelled on the basis of other forms. The imperfective forms with an ending, e.g., the 3mp iall, arose in the same way as the weak imperfective forms of Assyrian: iaal (cf. OA iaul) became *il through loss of , and this became iall (or perhaps ill; see chap. 16, n. 102, p. 477) through insertion of gemination on the model of the imperfective of the strong verb and the II/voc verbs. The perfective il is unlikely to come directly from earlier ial (which would give **al; see GAG 15b and 17.3 above, p. 519). This form was replaced by il by analogy with the II/voc verbs (imt, iqp), a process that already occurred in Ur III Babylonian: cf. i-a-am he bought (see Hilgert 2002: 251) from mu and the PNF T-ra-am-UramKI AKI p. 366 M C1:3 She has come to love Ur, whose Sargonic Akkadian predecessor Taram-Agade quoted in n. 157 above (p. 557) shows the verb to be perfective (pace Hilgert 2002: 24950).188 The Imp l < aal, Pl l < al points to a PaRaS pattern rather than PiRaS (see 5.5, p. 134). The 3ms stative, e.g., m it has been bought from mu (l does not seem to be attested) cannot come from aim, which would give **m. Since all other forms of the stative conjugation have an ending and thus can be directly derived from the strong form (m < *am, etc.), it is plausible that m is a back-formation, just as mt in the II/voc verbs (see 16.5.2, pp. 478 479, and the 3ms stative of the Gt PrPartc mutl to be discussed presently.
186. We do find such forms in the verb lu, however, but this is caused by the general tendency of lu to adopt the paradigm of the strong verb by developing a strong already in Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian (see below and 17.7.3.1, p. 562). 187. On the other hand, there is also an opposite tendency to introduce strong in some verbs, such as lu to ask mentioned in the previous note, and ndu to praise (Impfv inaad, inaad alongside ind, inadd). 188. The name I-ra-am-dDa-gan reported in MAD 3, 230 is to be ignored according to Hilgert 2002: 248.
568
The of the present participle ilu is not so much the original of the root l as the glide that also occurs in the II/voc verbs to safeguard the PRiS pattern (see 16.5.2, p. 479). Therefore, it also replaces other gutturals, e.g., *h in ba-i-u AbB 13, 60:75, i.e., /biu/ from bu. With regard to the derived stems, the following features are noteworthy.189 In the Gt-stem, the finite prefix forms are derived from the corresponding G forms by inserting t(a): Impfv il itl, Pl iall itall, Pfv il itl, t-Pf itl itatl (see 14.2.1, p. 357), etc. In the non-prefix forms, the short stem vowel of the strong verb is replaced by the corresponding long vowel: Imp PitRaS itl, Stat PitRuS itl, etc.190 The Gt present participle shows the regular phonological development from the strong form: mutlu < *mutalum. It mostly occurs in the PN DN-mutl (see CAD M/2 284 s.v. a 2), a 3ms stative, which is a back-formation of the forms with an ending. The regular form would be *mutl < *mutail, like muptaris.191 Insofar as the II/ verbs have a Gtn-stem, it regularly shows forms that are unambiguously strong or can be interpreted as strong.192 Instances of the former are the Impfv ta-a-ta-na-A-mu A.3598:15 (quoted CAD /1 357a s.v. mu A 2b) you will buy here and there (Subj), the Inf i-ta-U-mi-im TCL 10, 60:5 of the same verb, the Imp i-ta-A-al AbB 14, 112:34 interrogate! from lu (all OB), li-il-ta--a-lu BE 17, 55:3 let them ask repeatedly (MB), also from lu, and ib-ta-na-a-r CT 17, 36c:10 he catches all the time (Subj) from bru. Ambiguous forms include li-i-ta-a-al-u ARM 13, 32:30 (OB) he should interrogate him and i-ta-naal- SBH p. 76 no. 43: r.17 (SB) he keeps asking him questions. As long as no unambiguous weak Gtn forms are attested, they should be regarded as strong, unless there are reasons to interpret them as Gt forms, of course.193 The D-stem and its derivatives also show strong forms in the II/ verbs. Most instances come from ndu to praise and lu to ask, e.g., Prec lu-na-i-id Itar p. 75:1 let me praise, Prec Dt li-it-ta-i-id RA 22, 172:23 let her be praised, Impfv -a-a-al /uaal/ AbB 14, 119:26 I will ask, and Pfv -a-[i ]l AbB 14, 140:17 I interrogated. Instances from other verbs are rare. There is a t-Pf up-ta-i-du-u-nu-ti ARM 26/2, 165 no. 363:27 they have imprisoned them from pdu,194 an Impfv Dt r-[ta-]A-mu they were making love Gilg. p. 174:46 from rmu (all OB), and an Inf bu---rum MSL 17, 224:135 to catch (SB LL). A common verb that also belongs here is wuuru to instruct, presumably a D-stem of *warum, which survives in wru () to go according to 16.5.1 (p. 475); all forms are strong, e.g., lu-wa-I-ir JNES 14, 15:19 (whom) can I instruct? (OB).195
189. For the complete paradigms, see GAG Verbalpar. 19. 190. There are also some exceptional Old Babylonian forms showing the original suffix base PitaRSbefore an ending: i-ta-la and i-ta-lam/la-am, quoted in 14.2.1 (p. 358). 191. Interestingly, mu-u-te-el once occurs in an Old Babylonian proper name: DN-mu-u-te-el TIM 4, 46:20. 192. Pace Streck 2003a: 7980; cf. Kouwenberg 2005: 100 n. 53. 193. Weak Gtn forms are reported for lu to quarrel (AHw 1080a s.v. Gtn i-e-el-la-an-ni-a-i-im AbB 7, 189:12 (OB)), but this is undoubtedly a Gt-stem, and for nu to fill (AHw 1082a s.v. Gtn i-a-an CT 16, 49:295 (SB)), which is instead a t-perfect. 194. The Middle Babylonian forms of pdu D mentioned in AHw 808b s.v. D and Aro 1957: 76 are ambiguous. 195. Including forms such as the Impfv -wa-a-ar-ka /uwaarka/ ARM 2, 69:11 and the Inf wu-ra-am /wuuram/ ARM 1, 108:12, which GAG 106f claims to stand for uwr and wram, which seems very implausible, although GAG 98q is correct in stating that the spellings are ambiguous. Among all instances of this very common verb, there is only one unambiguous weak form to my knowledge: -wa-ru AKI p. 344: Akk 8 he orders (Subj) (Ur III Bab), which we may best assume to be an error as long as no other instances appear.
569
Interestingly, however, bu to become ashamed seems to have a weak D conjugation, if we may go by the only reliable occurrence, the Pfv -bi-i IAsb. 49:14 I put to shame (SB).196 This is reminiscent of the situation in Assyrian described in 17.7.3 above (pp. 560565). It suggests that there is a chronological difference between the weakening of the II/*h verbs and that of the II/ verbs: the original II/*h verbs may already have become II/voc verbs (usually II/ verbs) before the dialect diversification of Akkadian, whereas the II/ verbs only became II/ verbs in an early stage of Babylonian. In accordance with this, the II/ verbs show far more weak D forms than the II/ verbs, as I will show presently. This confirms the association between PSem *h and * or their reflexes in Akkadian, which is also evident in Assyrian. The -stem of the II/ verbs seems to have been remade according to the pattern of the II/voc verbs (see 16.5.3.4, pp. 485486), but there is very little evidence.197 The only Old Babylonian instance I am aware of is the Impfv upd in u-pa-as-s AbB 10, 178:24 I will have him locked up from pdu. In Middle Babylonian and later, only two II/ verbs occur with a -stem: bu to go along and du to know, observe. The former shows a regular weak paradigm: Impfv ub, Pfv ub, t-Pf uteb (with irregular E-colouring, perhaps by analogy with other weak verbs), Imp ub, Inf ubuu(?), and PrPartc mubiu(?); see AHw 117 s.v. . As I argued in 16.5.3.4 (p. 486), these forms regularly have gemination of R3 when an ending is added (like ub, uabb, etc.; see Table 16.10, p. 486), but in bu this is not visible because R3 is a strong . It is therefore hard to tell whether the forms in question have a geminate (e.g., 3mp Impfv uba) or a long vowel (ub). The other -stem, that of du, is virtually a tantum verb to inform, appeal (see chap. 13 n. 11, p. 328). CAD /3 417f s.v. uudu quotes most of the extant forms. In Middle Babylonian, it shows the expected forms ud and ud, e.g., Impfv u-a-ad BE 17, 14:16 I will inform, Pfv u-id BBS 6: I 49 he appealed to, and tu-u-i-da-an-ni UM 1/2, 77:2 you informed me. I am not aware of spellings with a geminate R3. In Neo-Babylonian, these forms are replacedalong with the other forms of II/voc verbs (see 16.5.3.4, p. 487)by Impfv uad, Pfv uad (which also appears as ued ). There are two cases with gemination of R3: ---id-du SAA 10, 161:7 he informed (Subj) and lu--id-du SAA 10, 259: r.11 may they indicate, of which the latter may instead be Neo-Assyrian. In the N-stem, the imperfective im, Pl iamm is built on the G imperfective im, iamm just as ipparrVs is built on iparrVs (see 12.2.1, p. 289). An example is ib-ba-ar-ru ARM 27, 51: r.3 (OB) it will be caught (Subj), from bru, with the corresponding perfective alongside: ib-ba-ru ARM 27, 51: r.10 (Subj).198 The perfective im it was bought (e.g., i-a-am RIMA 1, 50:72) is a back-formation from the forms with an ending, where is the regular outcome of a before a consonant, e.g., i-a-mu KH 9:32 it was bought (Subj), i.e., /imu/ < *iamu. Otherwise, we would expect **im < iaim. The form im is in line with the stative m, in conformance with ipparis paris in the strong verb (see 12.2.3, p. 300). Among the developments in Middle and Neo-Babylonian, I will only mention the most striking and most problematic onethe reintroduction of apparently strong forms, indicated by the -sign or a broken spelling, in verbs where Old Babylonian is presumed to have lost the guttural.
196. A possible second example is the Impfv -ba-a ABL 295:7 (NB) I will put to shame. However, von Soden (1968c: 270) reads -ba-qar! and derives this form from a D tantum verb buqquru to investigate, a loan-word from Aramaic. 197. Note that madu/mdu () to be(come) numerous, which has a fairly common -stem, belongs to the II/voc verbs in Babylonian (see 16.5.1, pp. 474475). 198. Several other N imperfectives are ambiguous in form: i-a-al OBTI 326:14 (OB) and MBTU p. 43 no. 8: r.9 (MB) he will be questioned, Pl i-a-a-lu UM 2/2, 51:22 (MB); ir-ra-a-ma RA 18, 23:6, 14 she will be loved (again) (SB): /il/ or /iaal/, etc.
570
It occurs in both II/ and II/ verbs and is especially typical of mdu to be(come) numerous, rmu to love, lu to ask, and nu to grind.199 Examples are (all MB): Stat ma--du BE 17, 40:17 it (the water, Pl) is much Proh (l) -a-am-a-a[d ] UM 1/2, 16:16 let him not multiply (c. br.) from mdu () li-al-u JCS 19, 97:27 let him ask him from lu () i-ra--a-mu BE 17, 5:22 he loves (Subj) from rmu () PPartc (qma) e4--na /ena/ UM 1/2, 31:17 ground flour from nu (), suggesting that the Stat e4-i-in UM 1/2, 31:15 it has been ground stands for /ein/
Sometimes, is inserted in places where it is etymologically unjustified, e.g., yanu for ynu there is not, naru for nru musician, a Sumerian loan-word, and le--mu TU 52:4 (SB) unwilling for earlier lm < l ima he does not want (cf. OA l muum to refuse). This suggests that it is an artificial, purely orthographic or quasi-historical phenomenon. Lewy (1949: 114 n. 35) argues that it is an orthographical device for indicating a long vowel, like in some later Semitic languages such as Hebrew. This is supported by the use of word-final -signs in Neo-Babylonian to indicate a long vowel (GAG 7e), but it cannot be applied to all cases (not to e4-i-in, for instance). It seems that the fluctuation between strong and weak forms in verbs that originally had a strong may be related to the (re)appearance of in other environments, but only a detailed study of such spellings can clarify the background to this phenomenon.
17.7.4.2. TheII/verbsinBabylonian
The Babylonian II/ verbs comprise the original II/* verbs and II/* verbs enumerated in 17.7.1 (pp. 555556). For their paradigm, see the forms of bru in Table 17.12 (p. 566). They consistently show the vowel in all positions where the II/ verbs have . This can be documented from numerous plene spellings with the vowel e, e.g., in the G-stem (OB, unless indicated otherwise):200 Impfv: i-ne-e-e15 RA 66, 143:14 he will recover from nu, i-se-e-er-ru AbB 2, 140:17 they will plaster from sru Pfv: e-re-e-em-u AbB 4, 144:6 I pitied from rmu; lu-e-e-nam AbB 14, 55:10 I will load from nu Imp: se-e-ra AbB 12, 17:22 plaster! (pl.); b-e-er ARM 2, 67: r.9 choose! from bru Stat: se-e-ru AbB 12, 17:14 they have been plastered; l b-e-ra SAA 4, 53:4 let them (Fem Pl) be selected (SB) Inf: (ana) se-e-ri-im AbB 12, 17:7 in order to plaster; Inf. b-e-rum CAD B 212a s.v. lex. sect. to choose In comparison, plene spellings with are exceptional, e.g., Impfv i-bi-i-la-an-ni OBTA p. 105 no. 48:10 he rules me from blu, Prec li-li-i-ku YOS 11, 16:10 let them lap up from lku, Stat mi-i-a-t [i-ni ] ARM 10, 179:10 you (Fem) despise me from mu (all OB), and Imp ri-i-iq ZA 45, 204: III 12 be off! from rqu (SB).
199. Aro (1955: 7578) gives a much longer list of strong forms, but the majority come from verbs that were already strong in Old Babylonian and forms that have an ambiguous spelling and thus are uninformative. Moreover, the verb neu to become healthy, recover included by Aro as corresponding to OB nu, is actually an E-form of nau in Atemnot geraten according to GAG3 98k*. 200. The extant material of Ur III Babylonian includes the Impfv i-be-el AKI p. 292:12 he possesses, which either represents uncontracted ibeel < *yibaal or the regular Babylonian form ibl.
571
Since the paradigm of the II/ verbs is parallel to that of the II/ forms, we can be brief about the individual forms. In the G imperfective, an alternative to ibr is sporadically attested in the forms i-z-ar RA 44, 34:5 he hates from zru and i-ni-a-a BAM 4, 393 passim he will recover from nu.201 The perfective has replaced its post-consonantal guttural with a long vowel , according to the mechanism already described earlier: *yibal > ibl, *yiraq > irq, etc. The imperative with goes back to a pattern PaRaS, just as in the II/ verbs. The present participle biru is attested in agent nouns such as inu grinder from nu (--nu- MSL 12, 170:422), iqu distributor of barley from qu (le-i-qum ZAT 4 passim), and niru killer as a royal epithet, e.g., n(-e)-ir (c. st.) RIMA 1, 131:3 (var. from KAH 2, 35:3).202 An interesting development is found in the verb rqu to be/go far away, which was also mentioned in the previous section because of its Assyrian peculiarities. The Babylonian prefix forms can be derived directly from a Proto-Semitic verb with the root vowel a: Pfv *yiraq irq. The corresponding adjective goes back to a PaRuS form *rauqum (> *raqum > rqu), which as a stative has the form *rauq > rq. Subsequently, both forms have developed a full paradigm (Anttila 1989: 9495) so that rqu and rqu coexist in Babylonian without discernible difference: cf. in particular Uta-naitim ru--q-im Gilg. p. 280: IV 6 (OB) versus Uta-naitim re-q-am Gilg. p. 280: IV 13 the distant Uta-naitim. Assyrian only has rqu < *ruqum, one of the adjectives with the pattern PuRuS (see 3.3.4 sub 2, p. 64). Sources for the derived stems of II/ verbs are not very abundant. They are mostly parallel to the II/ verbs, with one important exception: in Old Babylonian, the Gtn-stem and the D-stem predominantly have weak forms. A Gtn form is Impfv te-em-te-n-e-a-an-ni AbB 5, 168: r.14 you always despise me from mu. Weak D forms include: Impfv (l) tu-re-q-an-ni /tureqqanni/ AbB 9, 214:10 do not keep me away from rqu D Pfv li-i-[t]e-l-la AbB 6, 89:7 /litell/ let them be sharpened from lu Dt Inf u-uq-qum Syr. 59:13036 passim from qu D (/uqqum/)203 and ru--uq-q[-u]m MSL 13, 123:327 /ruqqum/ from rqu D (or /rqqum/ because of the plene spelling?) However, strong forms are the D Pfv tu-me-i-a-am UET 5, 81:22 and tu-me-e-i UET 5, 81:29 you despised me from mu (cf. the weak Gtn form just quoted!). Already in Ur III Babylonian, a strong form of the present participle D of rqu is attested (see Hilgert 2002: 25556 for references). It is variously spelled mu-RI-IQ, mu-R-IQ, mu-RI--IQ-tum and mu--RI-IQ (doubtless a mistake for mu-RI--IQ), which points to /mureiqum/ or /mureyyiqum/. In the same context, a 3ms -RI-IQ occurs, which is probably an imperfective (Hilgert 2002: 25556). It may either represent a strong form /ureeq/ or /ureyyeq/ or a weak form /urq/. In the former case, it is safe to conclude that the entire conjugation was still strong. However, if there were additional evidence that -RI-IQ actually stands for /urq/, the coexistence of a strong present participle with a
201. Alternatively, we might read these forms as i-z-ar and i-n-a-a, the phonological outcome of *yizaar/*yinaa with preservation (or restoration) of the root vowel (or imperfective vowel) a. The purely phonological outcome of E-colouring would have been **izeer/**inee, however. I-bex(ne)-al Land Tenure p. 451:17 may be another example (see n. 59 above, p. 527). 202. Old Babylonian royal inscriptions often use A-forms of this verb, e.g., Impfv ni-na-a-ar RIME 4, 386:73 we will kill; Inf na-ar RIME 4, 387:87 (c. st.); Pfv i-na-ar RIME 4, 387:98, 102 he killed. This is doubtless an archaism inspired by the common form en-ar in Sargonic Akkadian royal inscriptions (see 17.7.2 above, p. 557). 203. This infinitive must mean something like to smoothen (of textiles). The editor, S. Lackenbacher, derives it from aq D to make high, which is implausible for both orthographic and semantic reasons.
572
The III/H Verbs 17.8.
weak imperfective is reminiscent of the Old Assyrian weak paradigm described in 17.7.3.2 (see Table 17.10, p. 563).204 In that case, it is not only in the G-stem that Babylonian agrees with the Assyrian weak paradigm of the II/H verbs but also in the D-stem. This opens the possibility that the verbs in question acquired this weak paradigm already before they became different dialects and that therefore the gutturals *h and * were already subject to weakening in that period. In Middle Babylonian and later, strong D forms greatly increase in frequency and interchange with weak forms. A Middle Babylonian instance is a[mi ] i nu-ra-i-i BE 17, 52:23 let us help each other from ru. In Standard Babylonian, strong and weak are used interchangeably, often accompanied by the use of A-forms instead of the older E-forms: cf. in particular the alternation of strong and weak in --a-lu Ash. p. 44: I 71 they were sharpening with a variant -al-lu, from lu (see further CAD /2 27576 s.v. lu A 2). In the older dialects, -stems of II/ verbs are attested mainly for nu to grind. Their importance lies in the fact that they provide the oldest evidence for gemination of the final radical in the -stem of II/voc verbs (see 16.5.3.4, p. 486): Pfv u-i4-in-nu AbB 11, 123:17 they had (the barley) ground (also AbB 11, 123:20 [li-i-i4-i]n-nu- ). There is also an Inf ana (. . .) [ ] u--nim AbB 11, 62:12, presumably /uunnim/, but more common is ana (. . .) [ ]u-e4-nim AbB 9, 14:6, 14, 127:15 (all OB), which is completely irregular and apparently influenced by the G Inf nu, i.e., /uennim/ or /unim/?205 An Old Babylonian imperfective is u-n-e-e HSAO 1, 186: I 5 he keeps alive from nu. In Standard Babylonian and later, there also are forms which replace -- with -e-, just as -- may be replaced with -a- in the -stems of II/voc and II/ verbs, e.g., Pfv -e-ri-qa-an-ni I removed myself(?) AnSt. 8, 58: I 23 and a t-Pf u-teri-q-an-[ni ] AASOR 16, 3:20 (Nuzi). However, rmu has an instance of a strong -stem with restored: Imp u-re--im-am VAB 4, 124: I 69 make graceful to me, doubtless a secondary, artificial form. Extant N forms of Babylonian II/ verbs are always weak in Old Babylonian: Impfv im-mee-e ARM 26/2, 526 no. 533:6also will it be ignored? from mu, and Pfv ni-ib-b-el AbB 2, 46:10 we are held prisoner from blu. Standard Babylonian, too, mostly has weak forms, e.g., Impfv im-me TuL 127:12 and [i]m-m-e Bt rimki 59:58 he will be despised; ib-ber-ru BWL 54 l it is selected (Subj). A strong form is iz-ze--er CT 41, 39:9 he will be hated. For the appearance of a strong in II/ verbs in Middle Babylonian and later, see the end of the previous section.
17.8. the iii/H Verbs 17.8.1. Introductionandsources

The III/H verbs are originally strong verbs that after the loss of their guttural promoted the root vowel to the status of vocalic radical. Verbs with the root vowels i and u ended up as III/ and III/ verbs and were discussed in chap. 16; they will be mentioned here only insofar as they show forms with the guttural preserved. The great majority of III/H verbs had the root vowel a for phonetic reasons and therefore occur in Akkadian as III/ or II/ verbs, according to whether
204. Hilgert (2002: 255) argues that all these forms are weak and have taken over the inflection of the II/voc verbs (*urq, *murq(tum)), but this seems unlikely for the present participle with its plene spelling mu-RI--IQ-tum. 205. All instances known to me occur in the expression (do not be careless) ana zd.d a u-e4-nim in having the flour ground. It would be grammatically possible to interpret -u as belonging to zd.d a in grinding his flour, but this is less satisfactory in the context.
17.8. The III/H Verbs
573
the guttural causes E-colouring or not. Thus the III/ verbs go back to roots with * or *h as R3, whereas the III/ verbs go back to roots with * or * as R3. Actually, all III/ verbs with a reliable etymology come from roots with * as R3: I am not aware of any plausible instance of an Akkadian verb going back to a III/*h root. Common instances of III/ verbs with a clear etymology are mal to be(come) full (ml ), kal to hold, detain (kl ), and w/tam to swear (Aram ym; see DRS 556 s.v. WM/Y). The verb ka to be(come) cold shows its through its conjugation in Old and Middle Assyrian (see Kouwenberg 2003: 8384). We have no information about the original R3 of wat to find. Two specifically Assyrian III/ verbs are katum to take as security and alum to wrong, both without etymology. III/ verbs with a clear etymology include the original III/* verbs leq to take, receive (lq), pe to be(come) white (p; see Huehnergard 2003: 107 n. 8), pet to open (pt), qem to grind (qm), e to spread (; see CDG 518b s.v. saa), and ep to add, apply (He/Syr p). Original III/* verbs are eb to be(come) satisfied (/b ), em to hear (m ), teb to rise (Ugar tb ), and id to know, which was discussed in 16.3.3 (pp. 465 467). Less-certain cases are mes to wash (ms),206 nes to be/go far away (ns; see CDG 41011 s.v. naza), red to follow, accompany (rd ),207 and ret to fix (rt ; see CDG 475 76 s.v. rat a). There are also verbs that are written more or less consistently with final e, which suggests that they originally had * or * as R3, e.g., ber to be(come) hungry,208 dek to summon, let to split, divide, nep to distrain, e to approach, and zen to be(come) angry. It is not always easy to distinguish III/ verbs from III/ verbs, not only because of the incomplete and inconsistent differentiation of i and e in cuneiform spelling but also because there seems to be some fluctuation between them, especially in the sense that the III/ verbs tend to shift to the class of III/ verbs: most III/ verbs also show plene spellings with i, but the reverse is exceptional.
17.8.2. TheIII/Hverbsinthird-millenniumAkkadian
Hasselbach (2005: 21718, 221) enumerates most of the forms attested in Sargonic Akkadian. The III/ verbs are represented by w/tam to swear, mal to be(come) full, na to lift, carry, and wa to go /come out. The latter two are I/i verbs and thus merge with the III/ verbs later on (see 16.7.1, p. 498). The following points merit discussion. In forms without a vocalic ending, the word-final guttural is invisible and therefore uncertain (Hasselbach 2005: 77). For instance, id-ma MAD 5, 21:7 (Kish) he swore may stand for /yitma/ or /yitm/. It is possible that the sign m, when it is used in a II/ verb, indicates that
206. E-colouring and Mari OAk spellings with such as im-za- (see below) show that the root is ms. 207. The original guttural of this verb is problematic. The combined evidence of in Sargonic Akkadian (e.g., ir-da-su4 /yirdsu/ AKI p. 230:138 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) he followed him), in Babylonian and Assyrian, and the Old Assyrian alternation of ri-[d ]am RA 58, 126:22 bring here! with ri-id-am St. Veenhof p. 139:5, which can both be explained as representing a cluster of a glottalized consonant plus (-t- > - tt-) (see Kouwenberg 2003: 8182) points to * , which became in Assyrian (see 17.3, p. 518). Huehnergard (1991: 69899) has suggested that the rather complex meaning of red reflects the falling together of two or even three Proto-Semitic roots attested in South Semitic, one of which has : Geez rada 1. to help, support, 2. to pursue, hunt down. This accounts for the Old Assyrian spellings but leaves the E-colouring unexplained, unless we are satisfied with attributing it to the presence of r, which is unlikely for Assyrian, though not impossible. 208. If SAk a ib-ra SAB p. 163:5 (Diyala) let it (the field) not be hungry (i.e., fallow) is from this verb, it also points to an E-colouring guttural, originally *yibra or *yibra.
574
was still present, as in the Pfv /-m SAB p. 40:9 (Adab) and AKI p. 77:50 (RI of Manituu) I swore, i.e., / uma/,209 but this is not certain (see 17.2, p. 515). When an ending with u is added to an original II/ verb, the sign is always used, e.g.: it-ma- /yitma/ AuOr. 9, 143: IV 7 (Eshnunna) they swore from tam (A/a) li-se11--ni-kum /lissenikkum/ SAB p. 90:19 (Girsu) let them carry from na (I/i) li-se11-zi--nim /lisinim/ SAB p. 163:15 (Diyala) let them bring out from wa (I/i) If has the same value here as word-initially,210 it indicates that intervocalic was still in place, not only after a but also after i. Before a, the nature of the glide cannot normally be established.211 Where the vowel i is adjacent to , it is often spelled with signs which stand for /Ce/: Pfv i-se11- /yisseu/ AKI p. 227:20 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) he lifted (Subj) from na, and Prec li-se11--ni-kum, quoted above Pfv -dam-me-ki / utammki/ or /-meki/ Or. 46, 201:34 (incant. from Kish) I herewith conjure you (see n. 202, p. 571) and Prec li-da-me-su4 /litammsu/ or /-mesu/ SAB p. 155:12 (Diyala) he must make him swear from tam D Pfv u-su-z /yuse/ or /-/ SAB p. 186:8 (Gasur) he brought out from wa This suggests that i may become e in the vicinity of , as it often does in Old Assyrian (GKT 1617). However, other forms of wa apparently preserve their i, e.g., Pfv u-se11-zi BIN 8, 144:59 (Umm el-Jr), i.e., /yusi/ or /-/ and the Prec li-se11-zi--nim already quoted above.212 The original III/ verbs of Sargonic Akkadian include leq to take, receive and pet to open; the III/ verbs include em to hear, id to know (discussed in 16.3.3, pp. 465467), and presumably red to follow, accompany.213 Their most important feature is the co-occurrence of forms with and without E-colouring, which suggests that E-colouring is an incipient phenomenon. In forms without E-colouring, the pharyngeals * and * must have been present to serve as a conditioning factor. In em, this may be confirmed by the use of m with the value /ma/, e.g., -m / asma/ SAB p. 116:3 (Girsu) I heard; however, the reservations mentioned in 17.2 (p. 515) with regard to this interpretation are also valid here.
209. I regard this form as a performative perfective, with GAG3 78d*, contra Hasselbach 2005: 218; see Loesov 2005: 11519; cf. the perfective -dam-me-ki quoted hereafter. 210. This is not obvious, however, since III/ verbs in Sargonic Akkadian also use (see 16.7.2.2, p. 501), and other forms also militate against / u/ as the only word-internal value of in this period (see chap. 16 n. 182, p. 501). 211. For forms such as u-a(-ab)-bi-m AKI p. 227:24 and p. 285:24 (cps RIs) he waged war against me, allegedly /yuabbiam/ with <m> for / am/, see 17.2 (p. 514). 212. A problematic form is the Pfv i-se11-nim AKI p. 81:18 (RI of Naram-Sin) in the clause arr t i-se11-nim the kings who rose against me. It is usually assumed to be an error for 3mp i-se11--nim or an abbreviated spelling (Hasselbach 2005: 36 n. 27). However, this makes i-se11-nim intransitive, which is unusual for na, although not without parallel; see CAD N/2 103 s.v. n. A 5. Moreover, there is a second form of this type: g i . l DN ilu na-se11-nim AKI p. 256:5255 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) they (the people) carry the tupikku of DN, his god, where we would expect na-se11-a-nim. This phrase contains a rather atypical use of the active stative of na, since the stative is not normally used for habitual activities. Interestingly, it also occurs later in the same context: bilassunu na-u-ni-i-um RIME 4, 606:66 they bring their tribute to him (OB RI of Jadun-Lim of Mari), and Gilg. p. 618:17 l na-u-nik-ka biltu let them bring tribute to you (SB). 213. Note also the Pfv i-bu-a(-ma) St. Oelsner p. 424: III 11 he did as seventh/for the seventh time, a denominal verb derived from seb seven (/b; note the sibilant!).
575
With regard to the III/* verbs, leq to take, receive, shows forms with both a and e, e.g., Pfv l-ga /yilqa/ MAD 5, 82:6 (Umm el-Jr) he received versus l-gi SAB p. 170:6 (Eshnunna) he received, which may represent /yilq/ or an intermediate stage between /yilqa/ and /yilq/, such as /yilq/, /yilqe/, or /yilqy/. On the other hand, pet to open only has forms with e: li-ib-te-u SAB p. 163:13 (Diyala) let them open, i.e., /liptey/ or something similar. Among the III/ verbs, em has forms with a as well as e: -m quoted above and li-i-me SAB p. 142:17 (Kish). On the other hand, id to know and red to follow, accompany only have forms with final -a in Sargonic Akkadian. For the former, see 16.3.3 (pp. 465467); for red, cf. Pfv ir-dasu4 AKI p. 230:138 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) he pursued, Prec li-ir-da SAB p. 155:18 (Diyala) let him follow. Note also the Inf [a-n]a ra-da- luga l /radi/ SAB p. 112:12 (Girsu) in order to accompany the king. As argued by Hasselbach (2005: 13435), this is likely to reflect chronological and geographical differences between conservative and innovative text genres and/or areas. Mari Old Akkadian has no E-colouring to inform us about the state of word-final gutturals in the III/H verbs. It also uses the specialized sign m, which raises the same problems as elsewhere. Relevant forms include the Impfv i-da-ba RA 35, 50 no. 31:4 he will rise from teb,214 and ti-da she knows and i-m he heard in proper names, e.g., [E4]-tr-ti-da ARM 19, 397:2 and I-m-dDa-gan AKI p. 361 M 5:4 (see n. 22, p. 517). Whether these forms represent /yitabba/, etc., or a form with weakened or lost cannot be determined from these spellings. It is possible, on the other hand, that Mari Old Akkadian offers a different kind of evidence for syllable-final gutturals. A. Westenholz (1978: 162b) has argued that it also uses some of the special signs for syllable-initial gutturals for syllable-final gutturals. The most plausible case is , which not only has the value /a/ and /ha/, as elsewhere, but perhaps also /a/ in im-za- ARM 19, 46:3, a 3ms perfective of mes to wash, clean, which contrasts with a 3dum im-za- ARM 19, 47:3 and a 3mp tim-za-u ARM 19, 38:3 (A. Westenholz 1978: 166a). This suggests that these forms are to be interpreted as /yimsa/, /yimsa/, and /timsa/, respectively. Another instance is the Pfv 3ms il-q- RA 35, 42 no. 3:3 he took from leq, which interchanges with l-q-a RA 35, 43 no. 9:5 in the same context;215 this may point to a development /yilqa/ > /yilq/. Another case may be the use of word-final and i in the Mari liver omens in the Impfv or Pfv -- RA 35, 49 no. 30:3 and 50 no. 32:1, in the Stat wa-- RA 35, 46 no. 18:5 and 48 no. 24:4 from wa to go /come out, and in the N Pfv i-l-q-i RA 35, 44 no. 11:8 from leq. Since wa is a III/* verb and leq a III/* verb, these forms show the same correlation with versus y as in word-initial position, which suggests that they might represent a word-final in /yu()i/ and /wai/ versus word-final (> y ?) in /yillaqi/ or simply a long vowel. Note, however, that another III/ stative shows i instead: ma--i RA 35, 50 no. 31:1 from ma to be(come) sufficient, able, i.e., /ma/?, and that --i-a-am RA 35, 47 no. 19:4 it will come out has a palatal glide instead of : /uiyam/.216
214. See J.-M. Durand, MARI 2 (1983) 218 for reading the final sign as ba. 215. Although il-q- occurs in a clause introduced by a (a-mu-ut RN s GN il-q- RA 35, 42 no.3 omen of RN who took GN), it need not be a subjunctive since several other instances of such phrases occurring in this text do not have a subjunctive either (e.g., RA 35, 4243 nos. 5, 6, 8, and 9; 46 no. 16), perhaps because a does not introduce a relative clause but the contents of the omen, as argued by Tchapygina 2004. 216. A different problem is raised by the 3fs Stat wa-a-at RA 35, 50 no. 31:10 and 32:3, where we would expect waiat (as in Old Babylonian) or waat (as in Old Assyrian). Actually, it looks like an instance of the Old Assyrian practice (to be discussed in the next section) of spelling a cluster of a glottalized consonant plus as a simple glottalized consonant (which was actually a geminate): wa-a-at may stand for /wassat/, which is equivalent to /wasat/.
576
Finally, another trace of the existence of different gutturals in Mari Old Akkadian may be the contrast between the past participles of mes to wash, clean (ms) and teb to rise (tb ). The formersaid of clothesis spelled ma-as-u-tum ARM 19, 309:2 acc. to A. Westenholz 1978: 167a,217 the lattersaid of shoes: high, standing upright?is spelled tab--tum ARM 19, 280:2. It is possible that this reflects the use of u for a soft onset versus for a hard onset, i.e., /mastum/ versus /tabtum/, if this dialect preserves syllable-initial gutturals, and otherwise perhaps /masytum/ versus /tabtum/. We should bear in mind, however, that our knowledge of Mari Old Akkadian is extremely limited and that these reconstructions rest on the assumption that it differs only marginally from the better-known varieties of Akkadian.
17.8.3. TheIII/HverbsinAssyrian
In Assyrian, the original III/H verbs show three different paradigms according to which guttural they have or had: the original III/* and III/* verbs have a strong paradigm, the original III/* verbs a weak one. Table 17.13 illustrates this by means of the III/ verb kal (A/a) to hold, detain, the III/* verb em (E/e) to hear, and the III/* verb leq to take, receive. See GKT 95 for a selection of attestations. strong paradigm kal (III/ ) no ending Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PPartc PrPartc ikall ikl iktal kil kal + ending ikallu iklu iktal kil kal kalum kalum kli()um em (III/* no ending iemm im item im am + ending iemme()u ime() itam im am amum amum mi()um weak paradigm leq (III/*) no ending ileqq ilq ilteq liq laq + ending ileqqey ilqey iltaq(i)y liq(i)y laq(i)y laqum laq(i)yum lqiyum
table 17.13: the strong and weak paradigms of the iii/H verbs in old Assyrian.
This paradigm raises a number of difficult questions, especially because of the fact that Old Assyrian has no proper signs for and y. Therefore, the contrast between in the strong paradigm versus a glide in the weak onewhich is the main, if not the only, differenceis almost entirely dependent on indirect evidence and reconstruction. There are three kinds of evidence for distinguishing in the strong paradigm versus y in the weak one: the spelling of clusters with or y as second element, the spelling of glottalized and dental consonants plus , and a number of specific verb forms in Middle and Neo-Assyrian. In verb forms in which the root or stem vowel is syncopated because of the vowel syncope rulei.e., in the imperative, stative, and t-perfect forms with an ending and all forms of the past participle as far as the G-stem is concerned, and also in the perfective of the Gt-stem and the N-stemR2 and R3 form a cluster consisting of a consonant and the former guttural. There are
217. A. Westenholz transliterates ma-as-[u]-tum, but the upper part of u is still visible in the copy (ARMT 19, 309).
577
basically two ways of spelling this cluster: a broken spelling and a glide spelling (see 16.7.2.3, pp. 504505). In the III/ verbs, only broken spellings occur, e.g., 3mp Stat ma-al- OAA 1, 86:20 they are full from mal and 2p t-Pf ta-ak-ta-al-a KTS 2, 36:32 you have detained from kal. This demonstrates that is still present in its pristine form. In the III/ verbs with E-colouring, i.e., those which originally had *, broken spellings are strongly predominant as well, e.g., Imp + Vent t-ib-a-am /tibam/ Prag I 638:7 rise! from teb, t-Pf ni-i-ta-am--ni / nitamni/ BIN 4, 63:7 we have heard (Subj), and i-ta-b--ni /ittabni/ JEOL 35/36, 103:7 they have stood up (Subj) from teb.218 This is a strong indication that * had merged with , at least in this cluster. In the weak III/H verbs, on the other hand, broken spellings alternate with glide spellings, just as in the III/ verbs, as described in 16.7.2.3 (pp. 504505). For instance, the plural imperative of pet is written as both p-it-a OAA 1, 99:4 open with a broken spelling and p-t-a AKT 1, 11:37 with a glide spelling. Likewise, the N Pfv 3ms Subj of leq can be spelled i-li-iq- CCT 3, 18a:7, 25 it was received or i-li-q- BIN 4, 65:9, 26.219 The conclusion seems justified, therefore, that the weak III/ verbs show consonant plus y where the other (original) III/H verbs have consonant plus . The second argument for contrasting in the strong paradigm with y in the weak one concerns the spelling of clusters of glottalized and dental consonants plus . In verbs that have such a consonant as R2,220 the cluster may be spelled as a simple or , e.g.:221 1s Stat ma-a(-a)-ku ATHE 59:18 and ma-a-a-ku OAA 1, 11:33 I am able 3ms Pfv -a-am TC 3, 84:10 and -a-am CCT 4, 36a:11 it came out (/uam/) 3ms t-Pf i-ta-a-am CCT 3, 20:32 and i-ta-a-a(-ma) Prag I 762:8 it has come out (/ittaam/) Imp Pl id-a(-a) TC 3, 31:21 and i-TA CTMMA 1, 105 no. 77:29 put down (/i/) 1s Stat na-TA-ku BIN 4, 116:5 and na-ad-a-ku CCT 1, 38b:3 I have been placed (/naku/) As I have argued elsewhere (Kouwenberg 2003), these spellings are understandable on the basis of the assumption that the so-called emphatic consonants were actually post-glottalized, i.e., pronounced with a glottal closure following their basic articulation. When the post-glottalized consonant was followed by a glottal stop, they could merge into a single articulatory gesture so that
218. In addition to the t-perfect forms item, itam included in Table 17.14, the forms i-ta-me and i-ta-me-(-ni) are sometimes adduced as alternatives. It is more likely, however, that these are Gtn forms (/itamm/, /itamme()ni/, because em Gtn is very common in Old Assyrian, especially with terms such as tuppu letter and napartum message as direct object (see CAD /2 280 s.v. 1d1). Otherwise, these forms are irregular because they lack vowel assimilation (which is unusual but not impossible; see GKT 10), and the latter must be explained as an exceptional instance of a glide spelling, which properly belongs to the weak paradigm. A similar ambiguity applies to forms such as il5-ta-Q- Prag I 746:23: it may represent a t-perfect of the G-stem /iltaq(i)y/ they have taken or a Gtn perfective /iltaqqe y/, similar to i-ta-ME-. 219. For additional examples, see Kouwenberg 2006: 16972. 220. This includes the verbs wa to go /come out, ma to be(come) sufficient, able, ka to be(come) cold, a to err, sin, nad to lay down, leave, and red to follow, accompany. Note that except for ka (A/a) and red (E/e), these verbs are of the I/i class and thus actually belong to the III/ verbs in Old Assyrian. For the behaviour of post-consonantal , this appears to make no difference. 221. For ka, this phenomenon mainly occurs in the PuRS noun kuum winter, spelled as ku-u-um CCT 4, 29a:10 and ku--um CCT 4, 45b:6. For red, cf. the Imp ri-[d ]am RA 58, 126:22 bring here!, mentioned in n. 207 above (p. 573). For a, I only know MA/NA iu for iu and the G t-Pf i-ti-i-u-nik-ka /itittnikka/ ABL 879:4 discussed in 6.2 (p. 140).
578
the acoustic effect of a cluster of or plus was identical or at least very similar to that of and by itself, and the acoustic effect of a dental plus very similar to that of the glottalized dental .222 It could be expressed both analytically (as in ma-a-a-ku and na-ad-a-ku) and synthetically (as in ma-a(-a)-ku and na-TA-ku).223 For structural reasons, we have to assume that the resulting glottalized consonants are geminates.224 Thus, whereas the underlying form of the above-mentioned examples is /maku/, /uam/, /ittaam/, /id/, and nadku/, respectively, they could actually be realized as /maku/, /uam/, /ittaam/, /i/ and /naku/, or, with the glottalized consonants in their official IPA notation, /massku/, /ussam/, /itassam/, /nattku/, and /itt/. These spellings only occur in words belonging to or derived from verbs of the strong paradigm, not in original III/* verbs, such as pet to open and the adjective paium, in which they could theoretically occur. This supports the claim that in these cases vowel syncope did not result in clusters with as second element, which leaves the glide y as the only option. The third argument for versus y is the fact that, in Middle and Neo-Assyrian, some verbs that originally had * as R3 haveat least in some respectsa different paradigm from verbs that originally had *. Since there is no doubt that these consonants themselves were dropped many centuries before the emergence of Middle Assyrian, this difference must be a reflex of a difference already existing in Old Assyrian but concealed by its defective spelling. It concerns the t-perfects of the original III/* verbs teb to rise, em to hear, and eb to be(come) sated, which in the third masculine plural are ittabb, issa, and issabb, respectively, with (< * ) assimilated to the preceding consonant, whereas the t-perfects with an ending of the original III/* verbs conform to those of the III/ verbs, e.g., 3mp iltiqi they took and 2p taptiti you opened. I will come back to the details later on in this section. In other positions than post-consonantal, there is no observable difference between the strong and the weak paradigm. The contrast between iemme() and ileqqey and similar forms in Table 17.13 is extrapolated from the forms where R2 and R3 form a cluster and is therefore hypothetical. Since there is a natural tendency to replace after i and e by a palatal glide y, it is particularly uncertain whether this also happened in these verbs. I have indicated this by putting after i and e between parentheses. Another issue is the occurrence of vowel contraction. Just as in the III/voc verbs (see 16.7.2.3, pp. 503504), there is no regular contraction of vowels that have become adjacent through the loss of a guttural. This is demonstrated by the consistent use of plene writings, such as im-lu-ni /imluni/ Prag I 537:30 they have become full (Subj), (l) ta-k-l-a /takalla/ AKT 2, 29:17 do (Pl) not detain (rather than **im-lu or **ta-k-l, etc.), although vowel assimilation makes many of the pertinent forms in principle ambiguous. Exceptions are rare; instances include u-t-n--ni OACC p. 267 n. 52 they cause to go out (Subj), apparently /uteneni/ for
222. It is clear from the literature on phonetics that it is often hard to distinguish between consonants with a double or secondary articulation and parallel consonant clusters, such as the cluster /kw/ and the labio-velar /kw/ (cf. Szemernyi 1996: 67 for Indo-European). This also applies to glottalized or ejective consonants and the corresponding cluster of plain consonant and glottal stop; see Catford 1977: 69; Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 7374, 369: there is no sharp distinction between ejectives and plosives accompanied by a glottal stop. 223. The analysis of na-TA-ku as /nattku/ is confirmed by the fact that almost always ta is used, which is the most common sign for the value /a/, whereas in other forms of nad, da is far more common; see Kouwenberg 2003: 8182 for more detailed arguments. 224. For Old Assyrian, this cannot be verified directly, but it is suggested by the fact that in a form such as i-ta--nim TPAK 1, 27:16 they have come out (i.e., ittanim/) there is no vowel assimilation, since this would give **/ittunim/). It is explicitly indicated by Middle and Neo-Assyrian forms; see below.
579
/uteneuni/ < *uteneani, and u-t-ne--ni-a-t ArAn. 5, 67:14 they constantly make us go out, also with -- for -u-, both from wa .225 Similar cases of III/voc verbs (see 16.7.2.3, p. 503) suggest that it typically occurs with identical vowels in long verb forms; see below for similar forms in Middle Assyrian. Other exceptions concern the imperative, a few instances of which occur without the postconsonantal : -ma TC 3, 30:9 hear! (Pl), i.e., /im/ for /im/); -m-i kt a/k 244:1 hear! (Fem). i.e., /im/ for /im/); t-ba(-ma) AKT 2, 30:33 and KTS 2, 65:2 rise!, i.e., /tibam/ for /tibam/). The latter form also occurs with a glide instead of : t-bi4-a(-ma) AKT 3, 66:15, i.e., / tib(i)yam/ for /tibam/). Since they are all very frequent forms, they testify to the tendency toward reduction in size that is typical of high-frequency words. Two minor general issues concerning the original III/H verbs in Old Assyrian are the quantity of the final vowel in endingless forms and the occurrence of the suffix pronoun - me. In the endingless forms, the long final vowels shown in Table 17.13 are the regular phonological outcome of the loss of the guttural, e.g., 3ms Pfv ikl < *yikla; Imp sg. liq < *liqa; 3ms Stat laq < *laqi. It is likely that they were shortened in actual practice, as I argued in 16.7.2.1 (p. 499). A feature that is unique to Old Assyrian is the suffix-pronoun - instead of -anni for the first-person singular direct object. It can only be attached to finite verb forms ending in a consonant, and this includes . Since tends to become in the neighbourhood of , the suffix usually appears as -, e.g.: l i-k-le-e OAA 1, 45:41 let him not detain me, i.e., /ikalle/ < *ikalla a--m-e /ami/ St. Alp p. 26 kt c/k 283:24 let me hear! -a-bi-e /uabbi/ Prag I 447:24 he satisfied me (see Veenhof 2002: 799a) Among the individual forms of Table 17.13, the infinitive and the present participle need to be briefly discussed. Just as in the II/H verbs, the G infinitive always has the ending -um, regardless of E-colouring: amum rather than **amum just as belum instead of **belum. The reason is that is the defining characteristic of the G infinitive, which prevents or undoes phonological changes. A similar instance is - in the D and imperfective of original III/H verbs with E-colouring (see below). Moreover, the consonant following is regardless of the original guttural. At least, there are no spellings that suggest otherwise, such as l-q-i(-a)-am for the accusative, as we would expect if the pronunciation were /laqyam/. Regarding the present participle, we cannot tell whether in the strong paradigm it has or a glide (klium or kli yum), but what is important is that by all odds it is always trisyllabic, e.g., from the substantivized present participle rdi()um derived from red to follow, accompany: Sg Gen rdi()em, Acc rdi()am, Pl Nom rdi(), Gen/Acc rdi(). The derived stems of the original III/H verbs in Old Assyrian offer few additional peculiarities; see GKT 95fh for a collection of instances. A noteworthy point is that the vowel pattern of the strong verb imposes itself on those forms in which it threatens to deviate through phonological changes. The imperfective vowel a in particular maintains itself at the cost of e in forms such as the D-stem uabb I/he will satisfy (e.g., -a-ba-a-ni /uabbaanni/ Prag I 447:9 he will satisfy me, and the -stem uam I/he will cause to hear (e.g., l tu-a--ma /tuam/ KBo 9, 40:5 do not inform), where a is the only imperfective marker. These forms replace **uabb < *yuabba and **yuam < *yuama. In the N-stem, however, this does not happen, because the stem vowel of the N imperfective has no grammatical function: it simply
225. It is, therefore, possible that these cases belong to 16.7.2.3 (p. 503).
580
copies the vowel of the G imperfective, on which it is based (see 12.2.1, p. 289): G iamm N iamm, e.g., l i-a-me BIN 4, 74:21 let it not be heard (contrasting with Pfv iim, e.g., i--m BIN 4, 58:5). In the Gtn imperative, forms with and without metathesis coexist in the verb em (GKT 41e; and cf. 14.2.2, p. 360): Pl -ta-me-a BIN 6, 34:12 listen alongside t-a-me-a TC 1, 48:14. The exposition of the developments in later Assyrian must be limited to a broad outline. Middle Assyrian basically preserves the distinction between a strong and a weak paradigm. This is particularly clear in the t-perfect forms mentioned earlier in this section. The original III/* verbs teb to rise, em to hear, and eb to be(come) sated show strong forms with postconsonantal assimilated to the preceding consonant (see K. Deller, RA 61 [1967] 189; Parpola 1974: 3 n. 10 and 1984: 207 n. 39). The fact that most of the evidence is actually Neo-Assyrian makes no difference: [i]t-ta-bu PKT 15a:13 (MA), it-ta-ab-bu SAA 1, 240:14 and it-tab-bu SAA 1, 244: r.8 (both NA), all representing /ittabb/ they rose < ittab i-sa- SAA 10, 228:12 and is-sa- SAA 10, 228:14 (NA) they heard, i.e., /issa/ < *itam 226 is-sab-bu SAA 10, 226: r.1 (NA) they became sated, i.e., /issabb/ < itab These forms contrast with the Middle Assyrian t-perfects il-te-qi- KAV 217:1112 they received and tal-ti-qi-[a] KAV 217:17 you (Pl) received of the original III/* verb leq. They are parallel to the corresponding forms of the III/ verb qab to say, such as iq-ti-bi-a he said to me MATSH p. 183 no. 19:6 and iq-ti-bi- they said MATSH p. 96 no. 2:58. The same forms are still found in Neo-Assyrian: e.g., i-si-qi-u /issiqiyu/ (< iltiq iyu) SAA 5, 21: r.7 and tap-ti-ti-a /taptit iya/ SAA 9, 3: II 13 you (Sg) opened for me. Comparison with the t-perfect forms of teb, em, and eb discussed above demonstrates that even in Neo-Assyrian the inherited contrast between III/* and III/* verbs has left its imprint on the conjugation of the III/H verbs. It is also noteworthy that, of the two possible spellings attested in Old Assyrian to indicate a cluster of R2 and the original guttural, broken spellings (such as p-at-a-at ) and glide spellings (such as p-t-a-at ), only the latter have survived. This means that the weak paradigm of the III/H verbs has now completely merged with that of the III/ verbs. The strong paradigm, on the other hand, agrees with that of Old Assyrian in all important respects; see W. Mayer 1971: 8183 for a collection of material.227 Because of its different and more accurate syllabary, Middle Assyrian offers additional evidence concerning the verbs with a glottalized consonant. Whereas Old Assyrian uses both analytic and synthetic spellings to indicate a cluster of a glottalized consonant plus , Middle Assyrian only uses synthetic spellings, sometimes with explicit gemination: ku-u-u BVW 38:17a winter, u-a-ni Giricano 4:21 he came out (Subj), and ma-a-ta MARV 1, 15:13 you are able, i.e., /massta/ from ma.228 It seems plausible that this correlates with a phonological
226. Parpola (1974: 3 n. 10) interprets is-saas [iawwu]; however, assimilation of -m- also occurs in ta-a-ku-nu /takunu/ SAA 2 p. 44:384 you (Pl) have sworn < tamkunu (earlier tamtunu), which would rather suggest /issa/ (pronounced [ia]). 227. However, Mayer does not distinguish between III/voc and III/H verbs, nor between the strong and the weak paradigm among the III/H verbs. 228. There is no vowel contraction rule in Middle Assyrian that would allow us to derive these forms from **ui()anni and **mai()ata (W. Mayer 1971: 18). All Middle Assyrian statives of III/voc verbs mentioned by Mayer (1971: 8283) either have a glide spelling (e.g., la-qi(-a)-at) or contain an -sign (e.g., a-al--at, ta-am--a-ta).
581
change G > GG, where G stands for a glottalized consonant, e.g., > (i.e., ss), > (i.e., tt), etc. The analytic spellings in Old Assyrian suggest that this natural kind of change had not yet taken place earlier on, unless we assume that the analytic spelling is morphophonemic. The tendency to integrate post-consonantal in the preceding consonant is also observable in the Middle (and Neo-)Assyrian conjugation of na to lift, carry. In this period, the phoneme that we traditionally transliterate as and whose phonetic realization in Old Assyrian is a matter of disputehad become /s/.229 If this /s/ and the of na are contiguous as a result of the vowel syncope rule, the resulting cluster /s/ is spelled as a simple or geminate , i.e., as a glottalized s.230 This occurs in the stative (e.g., na(-a)-a-ku I carry for earlier naku, na(-a)-u they carry for na), in the t-perfect (e.g., it-ta-u they have lifted, taken up for itta, it-ta-a he brought here for ittaa(m)), and in the Imp (e.g., i-a or i-a bring (Sg) here! for ia(m)).231 A development that already started in Old Assyrian (see 16.7.2.3, p. 503) is the sporadic appearance of G forms with vowel contraction. In the finite forms, we have -u-n KAR 154:6 they will come out, i.e., /une/, where we would expect uune < *uanim, and -uddu-ni MATSH p. 117 no. 6:5 they know (Subj), i.e., /uddni/ < udduni < uddani. In the infinitive, we find (ina) a-le-e KAV 1: VII 53:99 while throwing down from alu, and (ana) a-p MARV 1, 38:10 in order to break from ep (original guttural unknown). Such forms are similar to the exceptional OA Inf (ina) wa--a CCT 4, 47a:18 for normal /waa/ from wa to go /come out. However, the uncontracted forms are still the regular ones. Insofar as derived stems of the III/H verbs are attested in Middle Assyrian (see W. Mayer 1971: 8384, 8889), they do not show many new developments. Here, too, we observe a gradual increase in the extent of vowel contraction. W. Mayer (1971: 8990) mentions 2ms Impfv tu-eu-ni PKT 39:10 you (Pl) will cause to go out (Subj) < *tueani and 3mp -e-u-ni KAR 154:1 they will cause to go out (Subj) from wa ,232 and ud-du-i-i-ni KAV 1: III 24:45 they have assigned to her (Subj), i.e., /uddni/ < uddi()im-ni from wad . It is doubtless not accidental that also in Old Assyrian wa figures prominently among the verbs showing irregular vowel contraction: because of its frequency it was, more than other -stems, prone to undergo formal reduction.233 It is worth noticing that most of these instances are plural or subjunctive forms extended with a suffix pronoun or a particle: the same forms, in Old Assyrian sporadically and in Neo-Assyrian regularly, show contraction, whereas the corresponding forms without additional element remain uncontracted (see 16.7.2.3, pp. 503504). The spread of contraction was clearly a very gradual process. For Neo-Assyrian, the scarce information given by Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 9798, 157, 161) suggests that Neo-Assyrian basically agrees with Middle Assyrian with regard to the III/H verbs. It is possible that the extent of vowel contraction has increased in comparison to Middle Assyrian, but since most of the forms are given in tables in bound transcription without references, it is unclear to me to what extent the numerous forms that Hmeen-Anttila (2000: 157, 161) gives as contracted are correctly interpreted.
229. See Parpola 1974, Fales 1986: 6166, and Huehnergard 1997b: 43940, with further literature. 230. The discovery that the forms with are part of the paradigm of na is due to Parpola (1974). However, Parpolas claim that na-a stands for phonemic /nassa/ is justifiably criticized by Voigt 1986. 231. For references, see Parpola 1974: 69. 232. All other 3mp forms of the D imperfective listed by W. Mayer (1971: 83) show a plene writing -Cu- and can therefore at least theoretically be interpreted as uncontracted (pace W. Mayer 1971: 83, 18). 233. The same applies to the uncontracted forms of the -stem of the III/voc verb el to go /come up; see W. Mayer 1971: 87 top.
582
17.8.4. TheoriginalIII/HverbsinBabylonian
As a result of the early loss of the gutturals in Babylonian (see 17.3, pp. 519520), the original III/H verbs were rearranged according to the nature of their root vowel, in the same way as the III/voc verbs described in 16.7.1 (pp. 497498). Thus, all III/H verbs with the root vowels i and u joined the III/ and the III/ verbs, respectively, but the great majority of the III/H verbs have become III/ or the III/ verbs. Table 17.14 gives the paradigm of the III/ and the III/ verbs in Classical Old Babylonian by means of kal to hold, detain and leq to take, receive (see also GAG 99 and Verbalpar. 32). kal no ending Impfv Pfv t-Pf Imp Stat Inf PPartc PrPartc ikall ikl iktal kil kal + ending ikall ikl iktal kil kal kalm kalm klm no ending ileqq ilq ilteq liq leq leq + ending ileqq ilq ilteq liqe(y) leq leqm leqm lqm
table 17.14: the paradigm of the iii/H verbs in Babylonian.
The III/ verbs have joined the E-paradigm because of e in the ending (see 17.5.1, pp. 525526). Accordingly, the interchange of A- and E-forms is an important feature, one that was already discussed in 17.5.1 (pp. 531534). As in Assyrian, the endingless forms are the regular outcome of the loss of the guttural. Of the forms with an ending, some result from the contraction of the root or stem vowel with the initial vowel of the ending according to the rules stated in 16.7.2.4 (pp. 506507; see also GAG 16), e.g., Impfv 2fs takall < *takalla, 2p takall < *takalla, 3mp Impfv ikall < *yikalla, Inf kalm < kalum (but see 16.7.2.4, pp. 508509, regarding u > ), PrPartc lqm < *lqium. Other forms have been analogically restructured on the basis of the imperfective, especially those that in their original form were subject to vowel syncope. The 3mp t-Pf iktal cannot be the regular outcome of iktal (which would be something like **iktl). It instead comes from the analogy ikall : ikall iktal : iktal. In the same way, the actual forms with an ending of the imperative arose: the 2fs Imp kil comes from takall : takall kil : kil, the plural from takall : takall kil : kil. Furthermore, the 3mp Stat kal must be a replacement of an original kal (which is the Assyrian form) on the basis of the stem of the 3ms kal. Among the individual forms of Table 17.14, the second-person singular feminine of the III/ verbs and the infinitive deserve comment. The second-person singular feminine of the III/ verbs ends in -, just as in the III/ verbs: Impfv teleqq (e.g., te-le-q-e-em AbB 6, 102:12, with ventive), t-Pf telteq (e.g., te-el-te-q-e AbB 1, 135:24), Imp liq (e.g., li-q-e AbB 10, 170:25). It is, therefore, superficially identical to the masculine form (teleqq, telteq, liq ). The difference becomes visible in the subjunctive, especially in the verb id to know (see 16.3.3, pp. 465467): Masc td you know, Subj. (kma) td as you know, but Fem td, Subj (kma) td, because
583
the second-person singular feminine cannot have a subjunctive ending, e.g., kma ti-de-e AbB 1, 39:4 (OB). The accusative of the infinitive of III/ and III/ verbs may be identical to the corresponding form of the past participle, just as that of the III/voc verbs, as I argued in 16.7.2.4 (pp. 507508). Instances include la/eqiam from leq (e.g., la-q-a-am AbB 14, 182:17; le-q-a-am TIM 4, 36: r.21), gariam from ger to litigate (ga-ri-a-am AbB 10, 57:9; epiam from ep to break (ep-a-am VAB 5, 271:11), and some others, mentioned by Aro (1971: 24748).234 It is not possible to interpret spellings such as e-p-a-am and la-q-a-am as /epam/ and /laqam/, as Aro (1971: 24748) does, since such forms presuppose a Nom **epum and **laqum, which does not exist: the infinitive never has instead of , not even before or after an E-colouring guttural: cf. forms such as Ass belum (bl) and laqum (lq).235 As I argued in 16.7.2.4 (p. 508), the penetration of the past participle form into the conjugation of the infinitive is due to the fact that in Babylonian their nominatives coincided in form through vowel contraction. With regard to the development of the III/ and the III/ verbs in later Babylonian, the available grammars give little information. A survey of the most common III/H verbs in Aros (1957) glossary of Middle Babylonian shows no significant deviations from Old Babylonian, apart from the much stronger predominance of E-forms discussed in 17.5.2 (pp. 534537). For the situation of the III/H verbs in Neo-Babylonian, see the succinct remarks in Woodington 1982: 137 46, who combines the III/H verbs with the III/voc verbs.
234. For a in the stem of laqiam and gariam, see 17.5.1 (p. 531). 235. Therefore, the infinitive a-ME-am Sumer 14, 42 no. 19:13 from em to hear should be transcribed a-m-am. The pertinent forms mentioned in Kouwenberg 2001: 24247 should be corrected accordingly.
PrOtO-semiticfrOm anakkadianPersPective
theverbalParadigmOfPrOtO-semitic
Partfive
Chapter 18
18.1. introduction
In the preceding parts of this book, I have indicated for each individual member of the Akkadian verbal paradigm what its form is likely to have been in the common parent language, comparing the oldest retrievable forms in Akkadian with the corresponding forms in West Semitic and sometimes also in Afroasiatic. In this final chapter, I will summarize the main results singling out those that are most innovativeand integrate them into a description of the verbal paradigm of Proto-Semitic insofar as it is reconstructible on the basis of these data.1
18.2. the Main Developments from Proto-semitic to Akkadian

In Part Two of this study (chaps. 39), I investigated the formal categories that together make up the paradigm of the basic stem. Of the eight basic members that were distinguished, five are relatively unproblematic as far as their derivation from the parent language is concerned: the perfective, the imperative, the infinitive, and the past and present participles. The remaining threethe imperfective, the t-perfect, and the stativeare innovations of Akkadian to the extent that they did not have quite the same status or function as in Proto-Semitic, although they were already present as a formal category:2 1. The imperfective iparrVs is a replacement of the PSem imperfective *yiqtVlu. It goes back to a Proto-Semitic derived stem with pluractional function, which was characterized by gemination of R2 and the stem vowel a (*yiqattalu; see below). *yiqtVlu was restricted to subordinate clauses, and its marker, the ending -u, -nV, was reanalyzed as a marker of subordination, giving rise to the subjunctive.
1. For a discussion of earlier attempts at reconstructing Proto-Semitic (or, rather, their absence), see Huehnergard 2002a: 13031. Other accounts of the verbal system of Proto-Semitic are Huehnergard 1995: 213034; 2006; T. D. Anderson 2000: 1113; Voigt 2004; and Zaborski 2005a. 2. The imperfective is actually an innovation of East Semitic (see 4.4, pp. 95109, with n. 26, p. 95), and this may apply to the other two as well, but I will ignore this here.
584
18.2. The Main Developments from ProtodSemitic to Akkadian
585
2. The t-perfect goes back to the perfective of the derived verbal stem with infixed t through a functional reanalysis that is difficult to reconstruct in detail but that to some extent was made possible by the previous decline of this stem already in Proto-Semitic. 3. The stative, insofar as it is derived from fientive verbs, has been incorporated into the verbal paradigm as a resultative. It goes back to the combination of predicative adjectives with enclitic subject pronouns. To what extent this incorporation had already taken place in Proto-Semitic remains to be determined. In Part Three (chaps. 1015), I investigated the derived verbal stems of Akkadian. Most of them already existed in Proto-Semitic with broadly the same functions as in Akkadian and can therefore be derived from Proto-Semitic in a straightforward way. This applies especially to the D-stem, the -stem, the N-stem, and the Gt-stem. Only a small part of the derived stems can be characterized as innovations of Akkadian, and even these are not absolute innovations but elaborations of forms that wereat least in nucepresent in Proto-Semitic. By far the most important innovations are the tan-stems as a coherent subsystem of stems for the expression of verbal plurality. It is generally acknowledged that they are an Akkadian innovation. However, they are rooted in Proto-Semitic insofar as their original paradigm (Impfv *yit(a)qattalu, Pfv *yit(a)qattal, etc.) served as the pluractional counterpart of the Gt-stem. A minor derived stem that seems to be an Akkadian innovation, because it has no parallels outside Akkadian, is the Dtr-stemthe extension of the Dt-stem by means of reduplication of R2 plus the following vowel (uptararras); see 15.2 (pp. 439444). More consequential are the results of this study for the derived stems in Proto-Semitic itself. In several respects, the system of stems presented here differs from the communis opinio as it is represented in some recent handbooks on comparative Semitics.3 The next sections of this chapter will be concerned with a description of this system; here I will only give a short summary: 1. Proto-Semitic had a verbal stem with pluractional function that in its original form has not survived in any of its daughter languages. In the basic stem and in the Gt-stem, it was characterized by gemination of R2 and the stem vowel a (*yiqattalu), and in verbal stems where no gemination was possiblesuch as the D-stemby the stem vowel a alone. It has survived in the Akkadian imperfective, both in iparrVs and in the imperfectives of the derived stems and indirectly in the tan-stems. In West Semitic, it is lost as a separate grammatical category but may have left some scattered traces (see chap. 4 n. 50, p. 102; and 14.5.5, pp. 394395). 2. The Gt-stem, undoubtedly of Proto-Semitic extraction, was already in decline before the break-up of the parent language, but several individual forms of its paradigm were recycled for different uses. As early as Proto-Semitic, this happened with its deverbal noun taqtl/ taqtil(a)t, which was put to use as deverbal noun of the D-stem, especially in Akkadian and Arabic. In Akkadian, the recycling of Gt forms happened on a large scale and gave risemore or less directlyto the t-perfect, the tan-stems, and the t2-stem. 3. The t2-stem arose in Proto-Semitic as a denominal of the same deverbal nouns. In Akkadian, it mostly kept this function and did not become a regular derived stem, in the sense that it was associated with a specific (more) basic stem and had a predictable semantic relation to it. Where it was preserved in West Semitic, it was incorporated more strongly in the system of derived stems and adopted the function of detransitive of the causative stem.
3. See especially Moscati, ed. 1964: 12259, Lipiski 1997: 378415, and Kienast 2001: 20736.
586
The ProtodSemitic Verbal Paradigm 18.3.
4. It is possible that, in a similar vein, the stem that serves as detransitive of the D-stem actually originated as the pluractional of the Gt-stem. This would at least explain why the Arabic Stem V ( yataqattalu) has a quite different vowel pattern from its active counterpart, Stem II ( yuqattilu). It would also explain the close similarity between the Akkadian Gtn perfective ittallak he walked around and the atypical Hebrew Hithpael form yithallek, which has the same meaning. 5. Proto-Semitic regularly conjugated quadriradical verbs by means of a verbalizing prefix n-, which survives in Akkadian and South Semitic but was replaced in Central Semitic by a conjugation on the model of the D-stem. Finally, in Part Four (chaps. 16 and 17), I described the development of the verbs with weak radicals and with gutturals. Since this development is largely an inner-Akkadian process, the focus was on Akkadian itself and only marginally included a comparison with other Semitic or Afroasiatic languages. Accordingly, the results of Part Four will only play a minor role in this chapter.
18.3. the Proto-semitic Verbal Paradigm

The next two sections contain a description of the verbal paradigm of Proto-Semitic as it can be reconstructed on the basis of the above-mentioned results. I will not go into the theoretical issues concerning the reconstruction of proto-languages in general and the numerous problems inherent in it.4 Suffice it to say that the detailed commonalities between the Semitic languages cannot be explained from language contact alone (Stempel 1999: 35) and fully justify the hypothesis that these languages are genetically related and thus stem from a single proto-language. This makes its reconstruction a legitimate undertaking.5 It is a truism that a proto-language is necessarily schematic, incomplete, and more homogeneous than any real language is likely to be, since we can only reconstruct those features that have left matching traces in the daughter languages. Moreover, we do not know to what extent reconstructed features belong to the same chronological level.6 What we can reconstruct, however, can be quite accurate (Hock 1991: 56873), but the degree of success depends very much on the availability of sufficient data and on their amenability, especially the degree to which there is a plausible way to derive them from a common source. For Proto-Semitic, the conditions for a successful reconstruction seem favourable. Several Semitic languages are attested over a very long period and/or survive until the present day (cf. Lass 1997: 273 n. 44). The overall differences between the Semitic languages are large enough to make comparison worthwhile but not too large to preclude meaningful results (cf. Goldenberg 2002: 2426). There is indeed a broad consensus about the phonology of Proto-Semitic, although a few details remain controversial (see, for instance, Huehnergard 2004: 14243). No such consensus has been reached concerning the morphosyntax of the Semitic verb, not so much because the reconstruction of morphology and morphosyntax is generally more difficult than that of phonology but because the reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic imperfective has proved a stumbling block.
4. See especially Lass 1997: 104111, Rankin 2003, and Harrison 2003. 5. Not only as a convenient way to summarize our assumptions, views and starting points, as Huehnergard (2002a: 131) writes, but also in the conviction that we may ascribe a certain degree of historical reality to the results, even though it may be difficult to locate this reality in place and time. See, however, the critical remarks by Gzella (2004: 2231). 6. As duly emphasized by Bergstrsser (1928: 3).
18.3. The ProtodSemitic Verbal Paradigm
587
I will argue in this chapter that, on the basis of the hypothesis formulated in chap. 4 in particular, it is possible to achieve a plausible and consistent but of course entirely hypothetical description of the verb of Proto-Semitic and a reconstruction of the historical development that resulted in the verbal systems attested in the daughter languages.
18.3.1. Thebasicstem
For the Proto-Semitic verbal paradigm, seven members can be reconstructed, as presented in Table 18.1:7 category (1) Impfv finite (2) Pfv (3) Imp (4) Stat (1s) (5) Inf non-finite (6) PPartc (7) PrPartc form *yi-qtVl-u, -nV *yi-qtVl, - *q(V)tVl *qatVlku *qatl*qatVl*qtilsuffix base QaTvL prefix base -QTvL type of base
table 18.1: the verbal paradigm of Proto-semitic.
The backbone of the Proto-Semitic verbal paradigm is formed by the opposition between the finite categories of the imperfective (or present) and the perfective (or past): *yiqtVlu, Pl *yiqtVlnV and *yiqtVl, Pl *yiqtVl (henceforth simply *yiqtVlu versus *yiqtVl ).8 The opposition between *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl is still observable in Classical Arabic, where the form yaqtVl serves as a past tense in certain environments (see 5.4, pp. 129130). Both *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl have left ample traces in the daughter languages. The former is preserved in Arabic ( yaqtVlu) and Ugaritic andwith loss of the final short vowelin Hebrew and other North West Semitic languages. In Akkadian it developed into the subjunctive, as I argued in 9.3.3 (pp. 227231). For the development of the perfective *yiqtVl, see 5.4 (pp. 129130). A fairly large number of imperfective and perfective forms of individual verbs are reconstructible to Proto-Semitic because they occur in more than one Semitic languagein practice, usually Akkadian and Arabicwith the same root vowel (Kogan 2005: 14553). It mainly concerns transitive verbs, especially those with the root vowel u (*yiqtulu forms); only a few verbs with i are reconstructible. Only very rarely do intransitive verbs have a corresponding root vowel.9
7. The only missing member as compared to Akkadian is the t-perfect, which is an Akkadian innovation (see 6.4, pp. 155160). 8. This was also proposed by Fleisch (1947/48) (but with an additional contrast in stress: inaccompli *yaqtlu versus accompli *yqtul ) and by Aro (1964: 197). Fleisch (1979: 20724) also gives a succinct account of the discussion about the Semitic tenses from the beginning until the 1980s. According to Bauer (1910: 1011) and Klingenheben (1956: 25559), Proto-Semitic had only one fientive verbal form. This seems very unlikely, since all daughter languagesand presumably most, if not all, Afroasiatic languageshave a basic opposition of at least two members. Moreover, since both *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl are likely to be inherited from Afroasiatic (see below in this section) and are attested as such in Classical Arabic, it would be implausible to assume that they did not exist in the intermediate stage of Proto-Semitic. 9. In a critical review of the proposals of his predecessors, Kogan counts 41 transitive verbs with the root vowel u and 11 with i. In sharp contrast, he only finds 10 instances of intransitive verbs with a
588
Among the transitive u-verbs, there are numerous strong verbs that are well-known in Akkadian,10 such as *yikuru he speaks, *yinuqu he strangles, *yiktumu he covers, *yilquu he picks, *yiqulu he hangs, weighs and *yirudu he sends away, but also I/n verbs, such as *yinqubu he pierces and *yinuru he watches, and I/ verbs, such as *yiguru he hires, *yiuu he takes, *yikulu he eats, and *yimuru he sees(?). A remarkable fact is the relative frequency of II/gem verbs, such as *yibullu he mixes, *yiguzzu he shears, *yiummu he collects, *yiuu he incises, *yikubbu he burns, *yimuddu he stretches (or: measures), and *yiruddu he chases (Kogan 2005: 15153).11 Transitive i-verbs are much less common. Kogan (2005: 152) only accepts 11 instances: *yisiru he confines, *yiibu he leaves, *yipiru he digs, *yirimu he covers, *yiqiu he cuts off, yintipu he tears, *yipqidu he looks after, *yipidu he splits, *yiptilu he plaits, twists, *yiriqu he steals, and *yirimu he splits. According to Kogan (2005: 153), the intransitive verbs whose root vowel can be reconstructed reliably are *yiqliu he shrivels, *yiqillu he becomes small, *yirbiu he crouches, *yiriqqu he becomes thin with i, *yiuu to become quick,12 *yiulu he coughs, and *yiubbu he murmurs with u, and *yilbau he puts on, *yirkabu he rides, and *yiallu he sleeps with a. In addition, there is a large number of verbs with the root vowel a and a guttural as R2 or R3 that can be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic. This is not surprising, because a is phonetically motivated by the presence of the guttural. Well-known cases with a guttural as R2 include *yialu he asks, *yibalu he possesses, *yianu he loads, *yibaru he chooses, *yinaru he kills, pierces, *yiramu he pities, *yiraqu he is/goes far away, *yialu he sharpens, and *yianu he grinds. With a guttural as R3 we find *yiklau he holds, *yimlau it becomes full, *yimau he hears, *yibau he gets satisfied, *yilqau he takes, *yiptau he opens, and the doubly weak verb *yda(u?) he knows. This list does not include II/voc verbs, which also show a number of cognates across Semitic languages; a few examples will be cited later in this section. The verbs with the root vowel a and no guttural pose a difficult but intriguing problem. They show a close formal correspondence between Akkadian and West Semitic (especially Arabic, Hebrew, and Ethiopic), e.g., Ar yalbasu labisa to wear and Akk labu (ilabba ilba, Stat labi ); Ar yarkabu rakiba to ride and Akk rakbu (irakkab irkab, Stat rakib). On the basis of a survey of these verbs in the most important Semitic languages, M. Cohen (1935: 22936) concluded that they are typically used to express bodily functions, body care, movements and actions of the body, mental operations, postures, changes of place, and qualities. He also pointed to the semantic relationship between these verbs and derived verbs with the detransitive markers t and n (1935: 240), to the similarity with the use of the middle voice in Greek (1935: 24345) and the use of se in French (1935: 24648), and he generally characterized them as denoting procs qui sont considrs dans leur effect sur lagent (1935: 238). This foreshadows many of the insights of more recent typological studies about the middle voice: the semantic classes he distinguished in these verbs show a striking similarity with the lexical classes identified by Kemmer (1993: 1620) as characteristic of the class of middle verbs.
congruent root vowel. An important reason is doubtless the massive introduction of a as root vowel of intransitive verbs in West Semitic (Kogan 2005: 153). 10. The list is based on similar lists in Aro 1964, Frolova 2003, and Kogan 2005. 11. For the form of the Proto-Semitic imperfective of II/gem verbs, *yibullu rather than *yiblulu, etc., see chap. 16 n. 150 (p. 491). 12. From the Akkadian side, this is based on Mari OB au (A/u) to do quickly; see J.-M. Durand, ARM 26/1 p. 371 note b.
589
This lends support to the hypothesis put forward by Kuryowicz (1972: 6768), that they are a residue of ancient mediopassives. In his view, the prefix conjugation yiqtal(u) originates as a passive/intransitive derivation of the active yaqtu/il(u) and was later replaced by the t-stems and the N-stem and in West Semitic also by the new apophonic passive yuqtalu qutila (as in Arabic), which is clearly based on older yiqtalu (or yaqtalu) qatila. This would fit in with their stative nature because of the strong cross-linguistic association between stative and passive (via the resultative; see 6.4, p. 158).13 In a wider (and admittedly far more speculative) perspective, it is tempting to include the Berber perfective (Prasses parfait ), which is reconstructed by Kossmann (2001: 72) as 3ms y-vccc (versus aorist y-ccvc), where v may have been or . The use of this form (see especially Prasse 1972/74: III 38 and Heath 2005: 301) suggests that it was originally a resultative. This allows for the possibility that it has undergone the same development as the West Semitic suffix conjugation qatVla as compared to the Akkadian stative and that Proto-Berber had an active prefix conjugation *yaqtu/il- with a resultative derivation *yi/uqtal-, just as we may reconstruct for Proto-Semitic according to Kuryowicz. If this can be established more firmly, it supports Kuryowiczs proposal and implies that Akkadian has lost this kind of detransitive derivation except for the fossilized remains in the form of the A/a class, whereas Central Semitic has retained it.14 The imperfective *yiqtVlu with its n-holding suffix in the plural (*yiqtVlnV, etc.) has parallels in Cushitic (Hetzron 1974) and Chadic (Voigt 1988a: 121) and is thus likely to go back to Afroasiatic. Since it is the marked member of the opposition with the perfective *yiqtVl, which is certainly of Afroasiatic origin, occurring at least in Semitic, Berber, and Cushitic, the latter is at least as old as *yiqtVlu, so the origin of the opposition between *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl is to be sought in the Afroasiatic protolanguage. *yiqtVlu looks like a derivation from *yiqtVl, but the nature of the marker -u, -nV is a matter of speculation.15 The important conclusion to be drawn from this is that *yiqtVlu is not a Semitic innovation, as is duly emphasized by Voigt (2004: 3637). Together with the imperative q(V)tVl, *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl are the forms derived from the prefix base -QTvL. The opposition between -QTvL and the suffix base QaTvL is the most basic opposition we can reconstruct for Proto-Semitic, broadly corresponding to the contrast between verbal and nominal (including deverbal) categories. The absence of a vowel in the first syllable
13. Rets (1989:15559), on the other hand, rejects a mediopassive *yi/uqtalu in Proto-Semitic. He argues that the use of yi/uqtal as a passive marker is a secondary development in the later stages of Semitic and that a is originally a marker of iterative/cursive aspect, which develops into a marker of cursive aspect (ultimately imperfective) in Akkadian iparras but into a marker of stativity and hence intransitive/passive in West Semitic. The semantic development from stative to imperfective is not implausible, since many imperfectives originate as stative expressions, often with locative meaning (see Bybee et al. 1994: 12733), but the alleged Akkadian a-imperfects without gemination that he adduces as argument for the existence of *yi/uqtal- as a predecessor of *yiqattalu (Rets 1989: 15859) are incorrect or more easily explained otherwise. Nevertheless, the idea that *yiqattalu has replaced an earlier pluractional category without gemination but characterized by the stem vowel a deserves further consideration (cf. also chap. 17 n. 99, p. 540). 14. On the other hand, the apophonic passive of Central Semitic is often regarded as an innovation; see Petrek 1963: 59698, Knudsen 1984/86: 239 n. 20 with lit., and Huehnergard 2005b: 182. 15. On typological grounds, one might assume that it is a (short) auxiliary verb, but its similarity with the nominal endings of the plural should not be dismissed a priori. Hetzron (1972: 456) attributes a copulative origin to the suffix. He posits a copula *un/wn on the basis of the suffix itself and Outer South Ethiopic, for which he posits the same shape (1972: 455). This is supported by the Egyptian existential verb wnn and Cushitic verbs such as Saho inn/an and Bilin wnna, both existential-locative verbs there is.
590
suggests that -QTvL is syncopated from an earlier -QaTvL as a result of the attachment of prefixes. However, since -QTvL is firmly rooted in Afroasiatic, this event takes us back to an even earlier period. It seems to show, however, that in this early stage prefixation had a more profound influence on the form of the stem than suffixation. This may be related to a very ancient wordorder pattern, with subject pronouns prefixed to the verb versus oblique pronouns suffixed to the verb as direct (and indirect?) object and suffixed to nouns as genitive. It is likely that more forms than just *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl could be derived from the prefix base, especially a conjugation characterized by the endings that survive in the Akkadian ventive, say *yiqtVlam, *yiqtVlnim. As I argued in 9.4.3 (pp. 240244), it may have had the function of conveying emphasis and/or expressing a first-person benefactive. It is unclear whether *yiqtVlam was built on a separate category *yiqtVla, conceivably surviving in the Arabic subjunctive (see also 9.4.3, p. 241) and/or in the sporadic Sargonic Akkadian subjunctives with -a (see 9.3.2, p. 224). From the suffix base are derived the infinitive, for which the pattern QaTL is the most common (see 8.2.2, p. 199), the past participle QaTvL (predominantly QaTiL), and the present participle QTiL. Finally, there is the stative *qatVlku, built on the past participle and also on adjectives. It may not yet have been verbalized to the same extent as in historical Akkadian. All these forms have clear descendants in the daughter languages, for which see the appropriate chapters. The Proto-Semitic G-stem paradigm shows a far greater uniformity than that of Akkadian insofar as all members only contain the three radicals of the root, without any consonantal additions. In Akkadian, the situation has become more complex due to the incorporation of the imperfective with gemination and the t-perfect. In addition to the strong verb discussed so far, several weak verb types have their own basic paradigm, especially the II/gem verbs, the I/w verbs, the II/voc verbs, the quadriradical verbs, and the reduplicated verbs of the naparruru group; see Table 18.2, where they are exemplified by the ancestors of Akk ballu to mix, wabu to sit down, stay, mtu to die, and nagarruru to roll: II/gem verbs Impfv Pfv Imp Stat (1s) Inf PPartc PrPartc *yibullu *yibull *bull *balilku *ball*balil*blilI/w verbs *yuibu *yuib *ib *waVbku *wab*waVb*wibII/voc verbs *yimtu *yimt *mt *may(i)tku *mut- ? *mayit*myit- ? *mungargir- ? quadrirad. verbs *yingargiru *yingargir *ingargir ?
table 18.2: the g paradigm of selected weak verbs in Proto-semitic.
For the paradigm of the II/gem verbs, especially the prefix base, see chap. 16 n. 150 (p. 491). For details concerning the I/w verbs, especially why I (tentatively) opt for u as prefix vowel, see 16.2.4 (pp. 458460). The fact that many of the Akkadian I/w verbs have an exact cognate in West Semitic makes their Proto-Semitic status indisputable, in spite of the irreconcilable difference in the vowel of the prefix.
591
For the II/voc verbs, see 16.5.2 (pp. 476479). A considerable number of Akkadian II/voc verbs is reconstructible to Proto-Semitic:16 among the II/ verbs, we find dlu to walk around (~ Ar yadlu), dku to kill (~ Ar yadku to crush; see also von Soden 1959: 5455), knu to be(come) firm, true, stable (~ Ar yaknu to be), lu to knead (cf. Geez yls CDG 321b s.v. lws), mtu to die (passim in Afroasiatic), nu to rest (~ He yn a); nu to quake, shake (~ Ar yansu), and zbu to flow (~ Ar yabu to melt). For the II/ verbs, cf. btu to spend the night (~ Ar. yabtu), dnu to judge (~ Ar yadnu to lend, borrow), ru to choose, select (~ Ar yaru), nku to have intercourse (~ Ar yanku), rqu to be(come) empty (~ Ar yarqu to be poured out), u to laugh (~ Ar yau to scream), qu to be(come) narrow (~ Ar yadqu), bu to be(come) gray, old (~ Ar yabu to grow old), mu to destine, fix (~ Ar yamu to put in, He ym), and bu to be(come) good, pleasant (~ Ar yabu). The relatively high number of II/voc verbs with a congruent vowel may be due to the fact that as a long vowel it is more stable than the short root vowel of the strong verbs, as argued in chap. 16 n. 150 (p. 491). Quadriradical verbs are rarely reconstructible to Proto-Semitic individually, but their existence is guaranteed by their common paradigm in Akkadian, Geez, and Modern South Arabian (see 4.6.2, pp. 123125, and 12.6.1, pp. 314321). The exact form of the non-prefix forms, however, (which in Akkadian have na-, in Geez an-, and in MSA n-) is a matter of speculation; the forms are given exampli gratia and obviously strongly inspired by the historical Akkadian forms. It is only a small step from the Proto-Semitic verbal paradigm as shown in Table 18.1 to that of Akkadian, on the one hand, and that of Proto-West Semitic, on the other: Akkadian replaced the imperfective *yiqtVlu with *yiqattalu and introduced the new t-perfect iptarVs; Proto-West Semitic only replaced the perfective *yiqtVl with qatVla.17 Both changes were aimed at strengthening the formal contrast between imperfective and perfective (for West Semitic, see Aro 1964: 197). This was no doubt a fundamental weakness, dependent as it was on the final vowel -u in the singular of the imperfective, which in its long form - also marked the plural of the contrasting category. Any weakening of this final vowel resulted in ambiguity. Therefore, this contrast was renewed in all Semitic languages, but in different ways and at different moments.
Especially the older stages of the Semitic languages dispose of an elaborate system of derived verbal stems, the roots of which must go back to the parent language. There are striking differences, however, between Akkadian, Central Semitic and South Semitic, suggesting that the Proto-Semitic system was different from the historically attested systems, although no doubt it had the same general structure and was just as intricate. In previous chapters, I have proposed a more-or-less integral paradigm for each of the primary derived verbal stems, which I will summarize here. Needless to say, this is rather speculative, but it demonstrates the difficult points, where our knowledge is incomplete or contradictory. For the Gt-stem, see Table 18.3 (p. 592), which reproduces and extends Table 14.3 (p. 378). The imperfective, perfective, and present participle can be reconstructed with confidence on the basis of Arabic and the system of derived verbal stems in general, even though Akkadian and Arabic do not agree in the vowel pattern of the former two. As argued in 14.4.1 (pp. 375380), t may be reconstructed as an infix in Proto-Semitic, but we have to assume an earlier period in
16. For the West Semitic verbs cited here, see also Aro 1964: 7075, 1012, 135, 14950, and 17679; Kuryowicz 1972: 55. 17. It does not seem necessary to assume that the process was caused by the fact that at this early stage the short final vowels were threatened with loss, since there does not seem to be conclusive evidence for this, pace Huehnergard 2006: 67 and Hasselbach 2005: 1025.
592 Impfv Pfv Imp Inf PPartc PrPartc
The ProtodSemitic Verbal Paradigm 18.3. *yitqatilu *yiqtatilu *yitqatil *yiqtatil *taqtil ? *taqtl- ? *taqtVl- ? *mutqatil- *muqtatil-
table 18.3: the gt paradigm in Proto-semitic.
which it was a prefix. The replacement of prefixed ta- in the non-prefix forms with a new form that has the same inflectional stem as the (im)perfective (Ar Imp (i)qtatil, etc.) only occurred after the break-up of the proto-language and is therefore not included in this table (see 14.4.1, pp. 376377). For the vowel pattern of the imperative and the infinitive, also see 14.4.1. The form of the past participle is difficult to retrieve since it is only preserved in Akkadian ( pitrusu, earlier *taprusum). In West Semitic, it is supposed to survive only as the inflectional stem of the perfect, but the actual form (e.g. Ar (i)qtatala) is modelled on the predominant vowel pattern of the G-stem (qatala). This also applies to all other derived stems in Arabic and West Semitic in general. Table 18.4 presents the paradigms of the D-stem, the -stem, the N-stem, and the t-stem in Proto-Semitic. The forms of the D-stem reproduce Table 4.8 in 4.5.3 (p. 116) and Table 11.2 in 11.6.1 (p. 280). Those of the N-stem reproduce Table 12.7 in 12.6.2 (p. 322). For the -stem, see 13.5 (pp. 350351), and for the t-stem 14.6.2.3 (pp. 412414). D-stem Impfv Pfv Imp Inf PPartc PrPartc *yuqattilu *yuqattil *qattil *qattVl- (*qattul- ? *qattVl*muqattil-stem *yuaqtilu *yuaqtil *aqtil *aqtVl*aqtVl*muaqtil*munqatil*mutaqtilN-stem *yinqatilu *yinqatil *naqtil naqtVl- (naqtl- ?) t-stem *yitaqtilu *yitaqtil *Vtaqtil
table 18.4: the paradigms of the D-stem, the -stem, and the n-stem in Proto-semitic.
The main uncertainties concern the infinitive and the past participle. For the infinitive D, we might posit *qattul-, based on the agreement between Akkadian (Ass) parrusu and the Arabic Stem V and VI madars taqattul and taqtul (see 11.6.1, p. 281); if *qattul- ever existed in Arabic, it was replaced with taqtl, for which see 14.6.1 (pp. 401402). The -stem forms are based on the parallel with the D-stem and the commonalities between Akkadian and Arabic, which has replaced with a laryngeal or (see 13.5, pp. 350351). The N-stem forms are based on the commonalities between Akkadian, Arabic, and Hebrew (see 12.6.2, pp. 321323). Finally, the exact form of the Proto-Semitic t-stem, which originally comprised denominal verbs based on nouns with the prefix ta-, is difficult to reconstruct (see 14.6.2.3, pp. 412414), but it seems plausible to assume an Impfv *yitaqtilu, a Pfv *yitaqtil, a present participle *mutaqtilu, and a suffix base *VtaqtVl-, represented by, for instance, an Imp *Vtaqtil.
593
One point I would like to stress is that the D-stem *yuqattilu is independent of the G PL-stem *yiqattalu, since it is ultimately derived from adjectives with gemination of R2, whereas *yiqattalu goes back to gemination in fientive verbs. The difference in prefix vowel is somehow related to this difference in background. Together with the G-stem, these five derived stems constitute the six primary verbal stems of Proto-Semitic. They are primary insofar as theyor at least most of themhad a parallel secondary stem with pluractional function, comparable to the situation in Akkadian (see 10.3, pp. 246247). These secondary stems were characterized by a stem vowel a instead of i and gemination of R2 whenever possible. Table 18.5 shows my reconstruction on the basis of the detailed discussions in previous chapters. primary G Gt N D t taQTvL(t) *yiqtVlu *yitqatilu *yinqatilu *yuqattilu *yuaqtilu *yitaqtilu secondary G
PL
*yiqattalu *yitqattalu *yinqattalu *yuqattalu *yuaqtalu *yitaqtalu
Gt N D
PL
PL PL
PL
tPL
table 18.5: the system of derived verbal stems in Proto-semitic.
The forms included in this table represent the system that is maximally possible. The range of secondary stems included is obviously inspired by the situation in Akkadian; to what extent each of them already existed in Proto-Semitic or is a later innovation is difficult to determine. Another uncertainty concerns the extent to which these pluractionals had a complete conjugation, distinct from the corresponding primary stem; this is particularly acute in the case of the D-stem (see the discussion in 4.5.3, pp. 115117). Recall in this context that outside the Gtn-stem the Akkadian tan-stems only have their own form in the imperfective and in all other categories coincide with the corresponding secondary stems, even though the latter have a radically different function (see 10.4, pp. 248250). The weak verbs and the quadriradical verbs also had a comparable set of pluractional stems. For the verbs of Table 18.2, we might reconstruct the imperfective of these forms as *yiballalu, *yuabu, *yimuwwatu (or the like), and *yingargaru. The GPL-stem *yiqattalu is the form on which these pluractionals are based and the starting point for their creation, just as the Akkadian Gtn-stem was the starting point for the creation of the other tan-stems (see 14.7.6, pp. 436437). The agreement between Akkadian, Berber, and perhaps Beja gives *yiqattalu an Afroasiatic status. Its geminated radical is iconically motivated. The stem vowel a may also be motivated: Greenberg (1955) has reconstructed an infixed a as a common Afroasiatic plural marker in nouns, and Wolff (2001) has argued that in Chadic this a occurs in the verbal system in verb forms that he describes as denoting extensive aspect (2001: 150) and that correspond in function to the imperfective elsewhere. This suggests that the stem vowel of *yiqattalu also is a plural marker in its own right and contributes to the pluractional function of the form. Note, however, that in Cushitic a also serves as present marker without gemination (see chap. 17 n. 99, p. 540).
594
It may be useful to outline how this system developed toward the various historically attested systems. For the most part, it is fairly straightforward. In Akkadian, there are two major changes, which are interrelated. The first change is that the GPL *yiparrasu ousted *yiprVsu from its position as basic imperfective, which triggered the introduction of the pluractional form as imperfective in all non-basic categories, both in the derived stems and in the weak and quadriradical verbs. The presence of gemination in the G-stem also caused the introduction of gemination in all imperfective forms in which R2 is a single consonant or a cluster, except in the -stem and the t1-stem of the strong verb (see 4.5.2, pp. 112115). The second change resulting from the rise of *yiqattalu as the basic imperfective was that the GtPL-stem *yiptarrasu took over the pluractional function of the GPL-stem, creating a new pluractional system based on the t-infix as marker of pluractionality, which ultimately developed into the tan-stems, a reparation mechanism made possible by the previous decline in the use of the Gt-stem. This constitutes a fundamental difference between Akkadian (and presumably East Semitic as a whole) and the rest of Semitic, where the analytic expression of verbal plurality was discarded. Instead of renewing its imperfective, West Semitic adopted a different means of enhancing the formal contrast with the perfective, namely, by replacing the perfective *yiqtVl with the suffix conjugation (qatVla), which is derived from a resultative and ultimately cognate with the Akkadian stative (7.4.2, pp. 181189).18 The richest system in West Semitic is shown by Arabic. It preserves the primary stems intact and created a few additional ones, Stem III (qtala) and Stem IX ((i)qtalla), while discarding the pluractional stems. However, as I argued in 14.5.5 (pp. 394395), there are reasons to assume that it also preserved the GtPL *yit(a)qattalu and employed it as detransitive counterpart of the D-stem in Stem V (yataqattalu) and hence secondarily in Stem VI (yataqtalu), in the same way that the denominal t-stem *yitaqtilu was pressed into service as the detransitive counterpart of the causative stem. Other Central Semitic languages have simplified the primary stems in different ways. Hebrew, for instance, gave up the Gt-stem, Aramaic the N-stem, etc. In Geez, the most consequential development was the change in the status of the D-stem and the parallel Stem I/3 with lengthened vowel (qtala), the L-stem, from a derived to a basic stem on a par with the G-stem (Rundgren 1959a: 5256). This opened the possibility to renew the imperfective *yiqtVlu, which had coalesced in form with the jussive through the loss of short end vowels, by reusing the D imperfective *yuqattil(u) as imperfective of the G-stem. A second consequence of the promotion of the original D- and L-stems to the status of basic categories was the creation of the same set of derived stems as the original G-stem: on the model of the G-stem derivations Gt ytqattal taqat(a)la, yqattl aqtala and t ystaqattl astaqtala, a parallel set emerged for the D-stem and the L-stem; see the diagram in Moscati, ed. 1964: 130 and, for the complete paradigm, Tropper 2002: 1035. According to the reconstruction presented here, the verbal system of Proto-Semitic is more like that of Akkadian than that of West Semitic in many respects. This is in keeping with the fact that Akkadian is by far the oldest Semitic language attested, but it is not determined by it. The present reconstruction is based on the fact that it accounts for the attested historical developments in a more straightforward way than when we assign a more important role to West Semitic. As Diem (1997: 1112) has recently stressed, there is no necessary correlation between the antiquity of a language in chronological and in (historical) linguistic terms: the latter must be argued on the basis of linguistic facts alone. In the case of Akkadian and Proto-Semitic, there is no conflict between chronology and linguistic facts.
18. Modern South Arabian may preserve traces of pluractional forms with a in the imperfective of the causative stem and elsewhere (see 4.6.2, p. 125).
18.4. The Subdgrouping of Semitic
595
This reconstruction is also in keeping with the observation by Voigt (2004: 3536, 3839) that all Akkadian verbal categories should be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic on the basis of the principle that categories that are opaque are also ancient, whereas only categories that are transparent are likely to be innovations. However, this principle need not imply that the categories in question have also kept the same function. Finally, it demonstrates that the considerable differences between the individual Semitic languages regarding the verbal system do not form an insurmountable obstacle to the reconstruction of a relatively uniform proto-language. This confirms the hypothesis that they are genetically related and refutes the opposite claim of polygenesis and convergence as a result of areal influence. On the other hand, the impact of areal influence through language contact is beyond doubt (see especially 4.4.3.3, pp. 107109) and has played its own specific role in the formation of the individual Semitic languages and their dialects.19
18.4. the sub-grouping of semitic

The development of the verbal system from Proto-Semitic to the historical daughter languages described above is no obstacle to a straightforward subgrouping of the older Semitic languages either. In the classification that enjoys considerable popularity nowadays, that of Hetzron (especially 1976a: 1056),20 West Semitic first branches off from Proto-Semitic by its major shared innovation of the suffix conjugation qatVla and subsequently splits into Central and South Semitic. The former replaced the inherited imperfective with gemination with the allegedly new imperfective *yiqtVlu, whereas the latter retained the imperfective with gemination (Faber 1997: 812; Huehnergard 2005b: 15657). In other words, Central Semitic is the most innovating branch, renewing first the perfective and then the imperfective; East Semitic is the most conservative one; and South Semitic is in middle position, renewing only the perfective.21 Needless to say, this classification is based on other innovations as well, but I will omit them, as they are less fundamental and do not contradict the picture emerging from the two major changes in the verbal paradigm.22 The development proposed here necessarily leads to a different classification that is in many respects the mirror image of Hetzrons scheme. (Proto-)East Semitic is the first to split off from the parent language by replacing *yiqtVlu with *yiqattalu. This is a momentous change, causing numerous other developments in its wake that determine the particular shape of the East Semitic verbal paradigm in contrast to the rest of Semitic: the imperfective of the derived stems, the use of the t-infix with pluractional force, the subjunctive with -u and/or -ni, and perhaps also the perfect with the t-infix. Other major innovations in the sphere of the verb are the rise of the ventive/ dative, the precative built on the perfective with an obligatory particle, and the introduction of -- in the first and second-person of the stative. In the sphere of phonology, (Proto-)East Semitic is defined by the merger of several Proto-Semitic consonants: * and on the one hand, and *, and (> ), on the other, and perhaps by the introduction of Geerss Law. With regard to the noun, adjective, and pronoun, it is arguable that the adjectival masculine plural -tu is an East Semitic innovation, but for other points of difference it is difficult to determine which of the two
19. For Proto-Semitic as a single language, see, for instance, Ullendorff 1971: 34. Prominent representatives of the opposite view include Garbini (1984: 21024) and L. Edzard (1998), for which see in particular R. M. Voigts review in OLZ 97 (2002) 726. 20. For a detailed discussion, see Huehnergard 2002a: 12833 and 2005b: 15564, 19192. 21. As I have stated in 1.4.2 (pp. 1920), the position of Arabic is a hotly debated issue that lies beyond the scope of this study. For the reason explained there, I include Arabic in Central Semitic. 22. See Faber 1997; Stempel 1999: 1821; Huehnergard 2005b.
596
The Subdgrouping of Semitic 18.4.
main branches of Proto-Semitic has innovated (see Huehnergard 2006: 618 for a more extensive discussion). Thus, West Semitic is the part of Semitic that did not go along with the innovations of (Proto-) East Semitic. Presumably at a later stage, it developed its own defining feature as a result of a major innovation in the verbal paradigm, the replacement of the inherited perfective *yiqtVl with the suffix conjugation qatVla, ultimately related to the Akkadian stative. In the fairly long period in which it existed independently of East Semiticexcept for possible areal influence, which is difficult to detect because of the scarcity, not to say absence, of reliable historical information West Semitic developed a strong individuality of its own. Apart from qatVla, this is visible in characteristics such as the loss of the Proto-Semitic pluractional *yiqattalu, the use of the D-stem paradigm for the conjugation of quadriradical verbs, the apophonic passive and the new causative by means of a laryngeal prefix in the verb, the plural formation in the noun, and numerous lexical correspondences (Faber 1980: 23040 and 1997). This occurred in spite of the fact that, because of its geographic location in a very large area with a constantly shifting population, it is likely that West Semitic was or very soon became a dialect cluster rather than a (uniform) language (see Faber 1997 for a list of features separating the various subgroups of West Semitic). Therefore, its unity must have been under pressure for a long time, before a major split occurred through the introduction of (again) a new imperfective in the dialects that we now define as South Semitic, mainly on the basis of this very feature. This new imperfective had the same basic feature as the new imperfective of East Semitic several millennia earlier, namely, gemination of R2, and in many respects had the same consequence: a renewal of most of the ancient imperfective forms by means of the extension of gemination to all non-basic imperfective forms. Other innovations of South Semitic are the generalization of -k- in the personal suffixes of the perfect at the expense of -t- and the extension of al as a negation to indicative clauses (Faber 1997: 11). Central Semitic (including Arabic) did not take part in the innovation and clung to its ancient imperfective *yiqtVlu and, therefore, to a verbal system thatas far as the prefix categories are concernedwas still very similar to that of Proto-Semitic. The position of Arabic itself is highly controversial, since it shares important features with both South Semitic and Central Semitic (Faber 1997: 1213; Huehnergard 2005b: 15859). As explained in 1.4.2 (pp. 1920), I have included it in Central Semitic because it does not share the South Semitic innovation of the imperfective, but in many respects it more closely belongs to South Semitic (so also Stempel 1999: 19). It must have developed together with South Semitic for a fairly long period but did not join in when South Semitic developed its new geminated imperfective and subsequently rebuilt its entire system of derived verbal stems. After this split, it may have adopted more Central Semitic features through geographic proximity with Central Semitic languages. A consequence of this scenario is that it offers a better explanation for the ambivalent position of Arabic, since by far the most important commonality between Arabic and (the rest of) Central Semitic is precisely the absence of an imperfective with gemination. The fact that this is a shared retention rather than a shared innovation weakens the connection between Arabic and Central Semitic and brings it closer to South Semitic. This agrees with the fact that there are hardly any momentous shared innovations left in Central Semitic, including Arabic, if we exclude the alleged introduction of *yiqtVlu as new imperfective.23
23. Faber (1997: 89) mentions four other features defining Central Semitic: pharyngealization of the emphatic consonants instead of ejective or glottalized pronunciation, reanalysis of the prefix vowels of the G-stem according to conjugation, replacement of -k- in the first-person singular ending of the suffix conjugation with -t-, and the development of a negative marker *bal. Only the first and the third are really
18.4. The Subdgrouping of Semitic
597
The plausibility of this historical sketch is further confirmed by the nature of the relationship between the verbal paradigms of Arabic and Geez. The two systems show striking commonalities in some respects and systematic differences in others. The commonalities include the vowel patterns of the derived stems outside the imperfective, especially those discussed in 4.6.1 (pp. 117120), and of individual verbs in the G-stem, the personal endings of the perfect (apart from the generalization of k in Geeza very superficial change), and the conjugation of quadriradical verbs as D-stems. In particular, the commonalities in the vowel patterns of the nonimperfective forms of the verb are so detailed that they can only be explained from a common origin. The differences, on the other hand, concern two main points. The first is the form of the imperfective of all categories, which, as I already stated, is a consequence of the renewal of the G-stem imperfective by means of gemination. The second is the emergence of a triple system of derived stems in which the D-stem and the L-stem dispose of a set of derived stems parallel to that of the G-stem, as already mentioned in the preceding section. The Geez verbal system can be explained on the basis of the system we can reconstruct for Proto-West Semitic, of which it is a rather straightforward elaboration. The reverse is much more difficult: explaining the Central Semitic verbal system from the system in South Semitic is not possible without positing unlikely developments: the loss of the imperfective with gemination without leaving any traces in the system and the extension of *yiqtVlu from subordinate to main clauses, as discussed in chap. 4. The development proposed here, then, can be represented as a straightforward succession of splits, as shown in Table 18.6, with the main isoglosses being those concerning the expression of the imperfective and the perfective: East Sem. Stage I (PSem) Stage II (PAkkWSem) Stage III (PWSem) Stage IV (CSemSSem) yiqattalu/yiqtVl yiqtVlu/qatVla yuqattil/qatVla Central Sem. *yiqtVlu/*yiqtVl South Sem.
table 18.6: stages in the dialectal development of imperfective and perfective.
Thus, instead of Central Semitic as the most innovating branch of Semitic in Hetzrons classification, it turns out that South Semitic is the most innovating, renewing both the perfective and the imperfective at different moments in time, whereas Central Semitic is fairly conservative, with its renewal of the perfective only. This classification does not explain the facts less plausibly than Hetzrons approach, and in many respects it is even more plausible. The most difficult point may be that one has to sacrifice the genetic relationship between iparrVs and yqattl, the Hauptsche Gleichung. In my view, this is not a high price to pay, since that relationship is dubious for formal reasons as well, as I argued in chap. 4. If we separate Akkadian from South Semitic, we also understand why there are hardly any other commonalities between Akkadian and Geez in
beyond doubt, and both are superficial features that could easily be adopted from neighbouring languages or dialects. Huehnergard (2005b: 19192) accepts six features that can be said with some confidence to reflect shared innovations in a common Central Semitic ancestor. However, two of these involve the alleged introduction of *yiqtVlu as new imperfective and can therefore be left aside, and the remaining four are too uncertain or insignificant to be decisive. There is no unequivocal major innovation identifying Central Semitic, including Arabic, as a subgroup of Semitic.
598
The Subdgrouping of Semitic 18.4.
the field of morphology.24 The striking lexical commonalities between them can plausibly be explained as shared retentions from the Proto-Semitic lexicon.25
24. See von Soden 1987; Parpola 1988: 29697; and Rubio 2003a: 17689, 2006: 13236. The only other commonality von Soden mentions (1987: 564) is the parallelism in the form and the conjugation of the quadriradical verbs. It shows that the category of quadriradical verbs in itself is a shared retention from Proto-Semitic, but this does not imply that also their conjugation goes directly back to Proto-Semitic. As I argued in 4.6.2 (pp. 123125), it does not, insofar as the forms of the imperfective are concerned. The morphological and morphosyntactic commonalities mentioned by Parpola and Rubio can all be explained as shared retentions. 25. Cf. Greenberg 1952: 2: The acceptance of the thesis that the Akkadian present and the Ethiopic imperfect indicative are related does not involve the espousal of a special relationship between the South Semitic and Akkadian branches of Semitic. This proposition is otherwise so improbable that many have rejected the viewpoint presented here [i.e. the genetic relationship between iparrVs and yqattlNJCK] because it seemed to involve such an assumption. According to Cantineau (1932), such commonalities as exist between Akkadian and South Semitic are shared retentions. For a list of cognate words in Akkadian and South Semitic, see Huehnergard 1991, with references to earlier work by W. Leslau.
references
Aikhenvald, A. Y., and Dixon, R. M. W. 1998. Dependencies between Grammatical Systems. Language 74: 5680. Andersen, H. 1990. The structure of drift. Pp. 120 in Historical Linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. H. Andersen and K. Koerner. CILT 66. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anderson, L. B. 1982. The Perfect as a Universal and as a Language-Specific Category. Pp. 22764 in Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. P. J. Hopper. TSL 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anderson, T. D. 2000. The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System. ZAh 13: 166. Anttila, R. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 2nd revised ed. CILT 6. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Appleyard, D. L. 1996. Ethiopian Semitic and South Arabian. Towards a Re-examination of a Relationship. IOS 16: 20328. ____. 2001. The verb to say as a verb recycling device in Ethiopian Languages. Pp. 111 in New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron In Memoriam, ed. A. Zaborski. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2002. New Finds in the 20th Century: The South Semitic Languages. IOS 20: 401430. Aro, J. 1953. Abnormal Plene Writings in Akkadian Texts. StOr. 19/11. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1955. Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. StOr. 20. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1957. Glossar zu den mittelbabylonischen Briefen. StOr. 22. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1961. Die akkadischen Infinitivkonstruktionen. StOr. 26. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1964. Die Vokalisierung des Grundstammes im semitischen Verbum. StOr. 31. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1965. Parallels to the Akkadian Stative in the West Semitic Languages. Pp. 40711 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger, ed. H. G. Gterbock et al. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1971. Review of Briefe aus der Leidener Sammlung, by R. Frankena (AbB 3), and of Briefe aus dem Archive des ama-zir, by F. R. Kraus (AbB 4). OLZ 66: 24552. ____. 1975. Der Abfall der kurzen Auslautvokale im Sptbabylonischen und seine Einwirkung auf die Formenlehre. StOr. 46: 1120. Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aspinion, R. 1953. Apprenons le berbre: Initiation aux dialectes chleuhs. Rabat: Moncho. Balkan, K. 1955. Observations on the Chronological Problems of the Krum Kani. Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlarndan, VII. Seri - No. 28. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu. 599
600
References
Banti, G. 2001. New Perspectives on the Cushitic Verbal System. Pp. 148 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Afroasiatic Languages, ed. A. Simpson. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. ____. 2005. Comparative Notes on the Cushitic Imperative. Pp. 3970 in Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica, Festschrift fr Rainer Voigt, ed. B. Burtea et al. AOAT 317. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Bar-Am, M. 1938. The Subjunctive in the Cappadocian Texts. Or. 7: 1231. Barth, J. 1887. Das semitische Perfect im Assyrischen. ZA 2: 375386. ____. 1894a. Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen, 2. Aufl. Leipzig: Hinrichs. ____. 1894b. Zur vergleichenden semitischen Grammatik. ZDMG 48: 121. Bat-El, O. 2002. True Truncation in Colloquial Hebrew Imperatives. Language 78: 65183. Battistella, E. L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauer, H. 1910. Die Tempora im Semitischen. Beitrge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 8/1. Leipzig. ____. 1912. Mitteilungen zur semitischen Grammatik II: Die Herkunft der Reflexivformen im Gemeinsemitischen. ZDMG 66: 104105. Bauer, H., and Leander, P. 1922. Historische Grammatik der hebrischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes. Halle: Niemeyer. Beekes, R. S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Beeston, A. F. L. 1962. A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. London: Luzac. Beeston, A. F. L., et al. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic). Leuven: Peeters. Benmamoun, E. 1996. The Derivation of the Imperative in Arabic. Pp. 15164 in Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IX, ed. M. Eid and D. Parkinson. CILT 141. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1999. Arabic morphology: The central role of the imperfective. Lingua 108: 175201. Benveniste, . 1966. Problmes de linguistique gnrale. Paris: Gallimard. Bergstrsser, G. 1928. Einfhrung in die semitischen Sprachen. Munich: Max Hueber. Biggs, R. D. 1988. The Semitic Personal Names from Abu Salabikh and the Personal Names from Ebla. Pp. 8998 in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-giving, ed. A. Archi. ARES 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Binnick, R. I. 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bittner, M. 1911. Studien zur Laut- und Formenlehre der Mehri-Sprache in Sdarabien, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 168. Band, 2. Abhandlung. Vienna: Alfred Hlder. Blake, F. R. 1915. Studies in Semitic Grammar. JAOS 35: 37585. Blasberg, M. 1997. Keilschrift in aramischer Umwelt: Untersuchungen zur sptbabylonischen Orthographie. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cologne. Blau, J. 1971. Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation. HUCA 42: 13358. ____. 2003. On the preservation of ancient forms and sound shifts in frequent words resisting analogy in Hebrew and Arabic. Pp. 7074 in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bloch, S. J. 1940. Beitrge zur Grammatik des Mittelbabylonischen. Or. 9: 30547. Bolozky, S. 1979. On the new imperative in Colloquial Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 3: 1724. Bonechi, M. 1988. Sulle attestazioni archaiche del prefisso di coniugazione TI*. Miscellanea Eblaitica 1 (QuSem. 15): 12172.
References
601
Booij, G. 1998. The Demarcation of Inflection: a Synoptical Survey. Pp. 1127 in Models of Inflection, ed. R. Fabri, A. Ortmann, and T. Parodi. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Borghouts, J. F. 2001. On Certain Uses of the Stative. Lingua Aegyptiaca 9: 1135. Bravmann, M. M. 1968. The Arabic Elative: A New Approach. SSLL 2. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1977. Studies in Semitic Philology. SSLL 6. Leiden: Brill. Brinkman, J. A. 1966. Review Grammatik des Akkadischen, by A. Ungnad, vllig neubearbeiteit von Lubor Matou. BiOr. 23: 29396. Brinton, L. J., and Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brockelmann, C. 1908. Grundri der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, I. Band: Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. ____. 1913. Grundri der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, II. Band: Syntax. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. ____. 1951. Die Tempora des Semitischen. Zeitschrift fr Phonetik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 5: 133154. Brustad, K. E. 2000. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Buccellati, G. 1966. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica, Ricerche I. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli. ____. 1968. An Interpretation of the Akkadian Stative as a Nominal Sentence. JNES 27: 112. ____. 1971. Review of Phontique compare des dialectes moyen-babyloniens du nord et de louest, by G. Jucquois. OrAnt. 10: 7983. ____. 1988. The State of the Stative. Pp. 153189 in FUCUS: A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, ed. Y. L. Arbeitman. CILT 58. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1996. A Structural Grammar of Babylonian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. TSL 9. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee Hooper, J. 1980. Child morphology and morphophonemic change. Pp. 157187 in Historical Morphology, ed. J. Fisiak. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 17. The Hague: Mouton. Bybee, J. L., and Brewer, M. A. 1980. Explanation in Morphophonemics: Changes in Provenal and Spanish Preterite Forms. Lingua 52: 201242. Bybee, J. L., and Dahl, . 1989. The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World. Studies in Language 13/1: 51103. Bybee, J.; Perkins, R.; and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bynon, T. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. C. 1996. Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall amad. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall amad/Dr-Katlimmu, Band 4, Texte 1. Berlin: Reimer. Cannuyer, C. 1983. Les formes drives du verbe en ancient gyptien. Gttinger Miszellen 63: 2535. Cantineau, J. 1932. Accadien et sudarabique. Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 33: 175204. ____. 1946. Esquisse dune phonologie de larabe classique. Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 43: 93140.
602
References
____. 1950a. La notion de schme et son altration dans diverses langues smitiques. Semitica 3: 7383. ____. 1950b. Racines et schemes. Pp. 119124 in Mlanges offerts William Marais par lInstitut dtudes Islamiques de lUniversit de Paris. Paris: Maisonneuve. Castellino, G. R. 1962. The Akkadian Personal Pronouns and Verbal System in the light of Semitic and Hamitic. Leiden: Brill. Catford, J. C. 1977. Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Chaker, S. 1995. Linguistique Berbre, tudes de syntaxe et de diachronie. Leuven: Peeters. Charpin, D. 1987. Tablettes prsargoniques de Mari. MARI 5: 65127. ____. 1989. Lakkadien des lettres dIln-ur. Pp. 3140 in Reflets des Deux Fleuves, Volume de mlanges offerts Andr Finet, ed. M. Lebeau and P. Talon. Akkadica Supplementum VI. Leuven: Peeters. ____. 1990. Nouvelles tablettes prsargoniques de Mari. MARI 6: 245252. Christian, V. 1953. Untersuchungen zur Laut- und Formenlehre des Hebrischen. Sitzungsberichte der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 228. Band, 2. Abhandlung. Vienna: Rudolf M. Rohrer. Civil, M. 1962. Un nouveau synchronisme Mari-IIIe dynastie dUr. RA 56: 21314. ____. 1984. Notes on the Instructions of uruppak. JNES 43: 281298. ____. 1987. Studies on Early Dynastic Lexicography III. Or. 56: 233244. ____. 1994. The Farmers Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 5. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA. Clements, G. N. 1990. The Role of the Sonority Cycle in Core Syllabification. Pp. 283333 in Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, ed. J. Kingston and M. E. Beckman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, D. 197071. Smitique compar. Annuaire de lcole Pratique des Hautes tudes, IV e section, 1970/71: 171188. ____. 1983. gyptien, Aramen et thiopien. Pp. 8198 in Ethiopian Studies Dedicated to Wolf Leslau, ed. S. Segert and A. J. E. Bodrogligeti. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1984. La phrase nominale et lvolution du systme verbal en smitique. tudes de syntaxe historique. Collection linguistique publie par la Socit de Linguistique de Paris LXXII. Leuven: Peeters. ____. 1989. Laspect verbal. Linguistique nouvelle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. ____. 1994-. . . Dictionnaire des racines smitiques ou attestes dans les langues smitiques. Leuven: Peeters. Cohen, D.; Simeone-Senelle, M.-C.; and Vanhove, M. 2002. The grammaticalization of say and do. An areal phenomenon in East Africa. Pp. 227251 in Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains, ed. T. Gldemann and M. von Roncador. TSL 52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cohen, E. 20034. Paronomastic Infinitive in Old Babylonian. JEOL 38: 105112. ____. 2005. The Modal System of Old Babylonian. HSS 56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 2006. The Tense-Aspect System of the Old Babylonian Epic. ZA 96: 3168. Cohen, M. 1935. Verbes dponents internes (ou verbes adhrents) en smitique. Mmoires de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 23: 225248. ____. 1953. Smitique, gyptien, lybico-berbre. BiOr. 10: 8890. ____. 1955. Cinquante annes de Recherches. Paris: Klincksieck.
References
603
Cole, S. W. 1996. The Early Neo-Babylonian Governors Archive from Nippur. Nippur IV. OIP 114. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ____. 1981a. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell. ____. 1981b. Aspect and Voice: Some Reflections on Perfect and Passive. Pp. 6578 in Tense and Aspect, ed. P. J. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen. Syntax and Semantics 14. New York: Academic Press. ____. 1985a. Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ____. 1985b. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. Pp. 30948 in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conti, G. 1980. Studi sul bilitterismo in semitico e in egiziano 1: Il tema verbale N1212. QuSem. 9. Florence: Istituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali, Universit di Firenze. ____. 1990. Il syllabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. Miscellanea Eblaitica 3. QuSem. 17. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica, Universit di Firenze. ____. 1996. Thmes assyriens et thmes babyloniens Ebla. Pp. 193202 in Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures: Memorial Volume of Karel Petrek, ed. P. Zemnek. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. Cook, J. A. 2001. The Hebrew Verb: A Grammaticalization Approach. ZAh 14: 117143. Creason, S. 2004. Aramaic. Pp. 391426 in Woodard, ed. 2004. Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W.; Shyldkrot, H.; and Kemmer, S. 1987. Diachronic Semantic Processes in the Middle Voice. Pp. 17992 in Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. A. Giacalone Ramat et al. CILT 48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dahl, . 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dandamaev, M. A. 1984. Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626331 b.C.). DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press. Delitzsch, F. 1889. Assyrische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, bungsstcken, Glossar und Literatur. Porta linguarum orientalium 10. Berlin: Reuther. Deller, K. 1957a. Zur sprachlichen Einordnung der Inschriften Aurnairpals II. (883859). Or. 26: 14456. ____. 1957b. Assyrisches Sprachgut bei Tukulti-Ninurta II. (888884). Or. 26: 26872. ____. 1959. Lautlehre des Neuassyrischen. Ph.D. dissertation, Vienna. ____. 1965. Review of CAD, vol. I part 1. Or. 34: 25974. Depuydt, L. 1995. On the Stative Ending tj/t in Middle Egyptian. OLP 26: 2127. Derchain-Urtel, M. Th. 1973. Das n-Prfix im gyptischen. Gttinger Miszellen 6: 3954. Dercksen, J. G. 1996. The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia. PIHANS 75. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. ____. 2004. Old Assyrian Institutions. MOS Studies 4. PIHANS 98. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2005. Adad is King! The Sargon Text from Kltepe. JEOL 39: 107129.
604
References
Deutscher, G. 2000. Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ____. 2005. The Unfolding of Language. London: William Heinemann. Deutscher, G., and Kouwenberg, N. J. C., eds. 2006. The Akkadian Language in its Semitic Context. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Diakonoff, I. M. 1965. Semito-Hamitic Languages: An Essay in Classification. Moscow: Nauka. ____. 1970. Problems of Root Structure in Proto-Semitic. ArOr. 38: 453480. ____. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka. ____. 1991/92. Proto-Afrasian and Old Akkadian: A Study in Historical Phonetics. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 4: 1133. Diem, W. 1977. Die Verba und Nomina tertiae infirmae im Semitischen. ZDMG 127: 1560. ____. 1982. Die Entwicklung des Derivationsmorphems der t-Stmme im Semitischen. ZDMG 132: 2984. ____. 1997. Suffixkonjugation und Subjektspronomina: Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion des Ursemitischen und zur Geschichte der Semitistik. ZDMG 147: 1076. Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. revised by K. Hengeveld, 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dillmann, A., and Bezold, C. 1907. Ethiopic Grammar. 2nd ed. enlarged and improved by C. Bezold. Translated by J. A. Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate. Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? And Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Janua Linguarum Series Major 107. Berlin: Mouton. Dixon, R. M. W., and Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Adjective Classes: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Explorations in Linguistic Typology 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dombradi, E. 1996. Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozessurkunden. FAOS 20/1 and 20/2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Dombrowski, F. A. 1988. Bilin and Awngi Verbal Systems: A Critical Evaluation of the Noun in Agaw. Pp. 33554 in Cushitic Omotic: Papers from the International Symposium on Cushitic and Omotic Languages, Cologne, January 69, 1986, ed. M. Bechhaus-Gerst and F. Serzisko. Hamburg: Buske. Dressler, W. U. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralitt: Iterativum, Distributivum, Durativum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und Hethitischen. Sitzungsberichte der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Band 259, Abh. 1. Vienna: Bhlau. ____. 1986. Explanation in Natural Morphology, Illustrated with Comparative and Agent-Noun Formation. Linguistics 24/3: 519548. ____. 1989. Prototypical Differences between Inflection and Derivation. Zeitschrift fr Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 310. Durand, J.-M. 1989. Lassemble en Syrie lpoque pr-amorite. Pp. 2744 in Miscellanea Eblaitica 2, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 16. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica, Universit di Firenze. ____. 1997/2000. Documents pistolaires du palais de Mari, vols IIII. LAPO 1618. Paris: Les ditions du Cerf. Durand, J.-M., and Charpin, D. 1988. Nouveaux exemples de R Stems. NABU 1988/17. Ebeling, E. 1953. Glossar zu den neubabylonischen Briefen. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1953, Heft 1. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
References
605
Edel, E. 1955/64. Altgyptische Grammatik. AnOr. 34/39. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Edzard, D. O. 1959. Review of CAD, vols. VI (IJ) and V (G). ZA 53: 292300. ____. 1962. m Ningal-gmil, f Itar-damqat. Die Genuskongruenz im akkadischen theophoren Personennamen. ZA 55: 11330. ____. 1965. Die Stmme des altbabylonischen Verbums in ihrem Oppositionssystem. Pp. 111 20 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger, ed. H. G. Gterbock et al. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1973. Die Modi beim lteren akkadischen Verbum. Or. 42: 12141. ____. 1982. Zu den akkadischen Nominalformen parsat-, pirsat- und pursat-. ZA 72: 6888. ____. 1984. Syntax der Ebla-Texte. Pp. 101116 in Studies on the Language of Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 13. Florence: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Universit di Firenze. ____. 1985. Die 3. Person m. pl. tiprus im Altakkadischen von Mari. Pp. 8586 in Miscellanea Babylonica: Mlanges offerts Maurice Birot, ed. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. ____. 1986. Review of Greenstein 1984. JAOS 106: 35962. ____. 1991. Sargons Report on Kish. A Problem in Akkadian Philology. Pp. 25863 in Ah, Assyria. . .: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Ephal. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. Jerusalem: Magnes. ____. 1992. Der Vertrag von Ebla mit A-BAR-QA. Pp. 187217 in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 18. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Universit di Firenze. ____. 1996. Die Iterativstmme beim akkadischen Verbum. Die Frage ihrer Entstehung; ihre Funktion; ihre Verbreitung. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte Jahrgang 1996, Heft 2. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ____. 2001. Silbenschliessendes [] im Altassyrischen? Pp. 13335 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2003. Sumerian Grammar, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1, vol. 71. Leiden: Brill. ____. 2006. Das Ebla-Akkadische als Teil des altakkadischen Dialektkontinuums. Pp. 7683 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Edzard, L. 1998. Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: An Alternative Model of Linguistic Evolution Applied to Semitic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ehret, C. 1989. The Origin of Third Consonants in Semitic Roots: An Internal Reconstruction (Applied to Arabic). Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 2/2: 109202. Eilers, W. 1954/59. Akkad. kaspum Silber, Geld und Sinnverwandtes. WdO 2: 32237. ____. 1968. Der sogenannte Subjunktiv des Akkadischen. Pp. 24146 in Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde: Gedenkschrift fr Wilhelm Brandenstein (18981967), ed. M. Mayrhofer. Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Band 14. Innsbruck: AMOE. Eisenstein, H. 1980. Eine Frequenzanalyse der dreiradikaligen Verben des Arabischen unter besonderer Bercksichtigung des X. Verbalstammes. WZKM 72: 2159. Faber, A. 1980. Genetic Subgroupings of the Semitic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Texas at Austin. ____. 1981. Phonetic Reconstruction. Glossa 15: 23362.
606
References
____. 1991. The Diachronic Relationship between Negative and Interrogative Markers in Semitic. Pp. 41129 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1997. Genetic Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages. Pp. 315 in Hetzron, ed. 1997. Fabritius, K. 1995. Vowel Dissimilation as a Marker of Plurality in Neo-Assyrian. JCS 47: 5155. Fales, F. M. 1986. Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Studi Semitici, nuova serie 2. Rome: Universit Degli Studi La sapienza. Falkenstein, A. 1960. Kontakte zwischen Sumerern und Akkadern auf sprachlichem Gebiet. Pp. 30114 in Aspects du contact sumro-akkadien. CRRAI 9. Genava, N.S. 8. Faltz, L. M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland. Fassberg, S. E. 1999. The Lengthened Imperative in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 90: 713. Finet, A. 1956. LAccadien des lettres de Mari. Acadmie des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, Mmoires, deuxime srie, LI. Brussells: Palais des Acadmies. Fischer, W. 1967. Silbenstruktur und Vokalismus im Arabischen. ZDMG 117: 3077. ____. 1972. Grammatik des Klassischen Arabisch. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, N.S. 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1982. Das Neuarabische und seine Dialekte. Pp. 8395 in Grundri der arabischen Philologie, Band 1: Sprachwissenschaft, ed. W. Fischer. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. ____. 1993. Die Entstehung reduplizierter Wurzelmorpheme in Semitischen. Pp. 3961 in Serta Philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata, ed. R. Contini et al. Torino: Silvio Zamorani. Fischer, W., and Jastrow, O. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, neue Serie XVI. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fleisch, H. 1947/48. Sur le systme verbal du smitique commun et son volution dans les langues smitiques anciennes. MUSJ 27: 3960. ____. 1955. Le nom dagent faal. MUSJ 32: 16772. ____. 1961. Trait de philologie arabe, vol. I: Prliminaires, phontique, morphologie nominale. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique. ____. 1966. Phrase relative en accadien. MUSJ 42: 24784. ____, 1968. Larabe classique. Esquisse dune structure linguistique. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq. ____. 1979. Trait de philologie arabe, vol. II: Pronoms, Morphologie Verbale, Particules. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq. Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal Distance: a Basic Linguistic Metaphor. Studies in Language 13: 150. ____. 1990. Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press. Fleming, D. E. 2004. Democracys Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster, B. R. 1982a. Archives and Record-keeping in Sargonic Mesopotamia. ZA 72: 127. ____. 1982b. Ethnicity and Onomastics in Sargonic Mesopotamia. Or. 51: 297354. Fox, J. 2003. Semitic Noun Patterns. HSS 59. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Frajzyngier, Z. 1979. Notes on the R1R2R2 Stems in Semitic. JSS 24: 112. ____. 1999. Coding of the Reciprocal Function: Two Solutions. Pp. 17994 in Reciprocals, Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Frankena, R. 1978. Kommentar zu den altbabylonischen Briefen aus Lagaba und anderen Orten. SLB 4. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Friedrich, J., and Rllig, W. 1999. Phnizisch-Punische Grammatik, 3. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von M. G. Amadasi Guzzo. AnOr. 55. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
References
607
Frolova, T. 2003. The Reconstruction of the Vowel in the Proto-Semitic Verbal Base -C1C2VC3-. The Evidence of Akkadian and Arabic. Pp. 79101 in Studia Semitica, ed. L. Kogan. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. Fronzaroli, P. 1973. Problems of a Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Pp. 117 in Studies on Semitic Lexicography, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 2. Firenze: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Universit di Firenze. ____. 1982. Per una valutazione della morfologia eblaita. StEb. 5: 93120. ____. 1984. The Eblaic Lexicon: Problems and Appraisal. Pp. 117157 in Studies in the Language of Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 13. Florence: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Universit di Firenze. ____. 1991. Niveaux de langue dans les graphies blates. Pp. 46276 in Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 2003. Testi di cancelleria: i rapporti con le citt (Archivio L.2769). ARET 13. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Gai, A. 1997. Remarks on Akkadian Grammar through the Prism of West Semitic Grammars. JCS 49: 7381. ____. 2000. The Connection between Past and Optative in the Classical Semitic Languages. ZDMG 150: 1728. ____. 2001. Several Points of Semitic and Akkadian Grammar. Le Muson 114: 113. Garbini, G. 1984. Le Lingue Semitiche: Studi di Storia Linguistica, seconda edizione, riveduta e ampliata. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Gardiner, A. 1957. Egyptian Grammar, 3rd, revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garelli, P. 1963. Les Assyriens en Cappadoce. Bibliothque archologique et historique de lInstitut Franais dArchologie dIstanbul XIX. Paris: Maisonneuve. Garr, W. R. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000586 b.C.e. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ____. 1993. The Niphal Derivational Prefix. Or. 62: 14262. Gelb, I. J. 1955a. Old Akkadian Inscriptions in Chicago Natural History Museum: Texts of Legal and Business Interest. Chicago: Chicago Natural History Museum. ____. 1955b. Notes on von Sodens Grammar of Akkadian. BiOr. 12: 93111. ____. 1957. Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1960. Sumerians and Akkadians in their Ethno-linguistic Relationship. Pp. 25871 in Aspects du contact sumro-akkadien. CRRAI 9. Genava, N.S. 8. ____. 1961. Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar, 2nd ed. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1965. The origin of the West Semitic QATALA Morpheme. Pp. 7280 in Symbolae Linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryowicz, ed. W. Taszycki. Wrocaw: Ossolineum. ____. 1969. Sequential Reconstruction of Proto-Akkadian. AS 18. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1970. Comments on the Akkadian Syllabary. Or. 39: 516546. ____. 1977. Thoughts about Ibla: A Preliminary Evaluation, March 1977. Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 1/1. Malibu: Undena Publications. ____. 1981. Ebla and the Kish Civilization. Pp. 973 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 2123 aprile 1980), ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1982. Sumerian and Akkadian words for string of fruit. Pp. 6782 in Zikir umim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus, ed. G. van Driel et al. Leiden: Brill.
608
References
____. 1984a. The Inscription of Jibbi-Lm, King of Ebla. StOr. 55: 21329. ____. 1984b. BT KUSURRIM, Witnesses of the Indemnity. JNES 43: 26376. ____. 1987. The Language of Ebla in the Light of the Sources from Ebla, Mari, and Babylonia. Pp. 4974 in Ebla 19751985, dieci anni di studi linguistici e filologici, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1992. Mari and the Kish Civilization. Pp. 121202 in Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies, ed. G. D. Young. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gelb, I. J.; Steinkeller, P.; and Whiting, R. M. Jr. 1991. Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Gensler, O. 1997. Reconstructing Quadriliteral Verb Inflection: Ethiopic, Akkadian, ProtoSemitic. JSS 42: 22957. ____. 1998. Verbs with Two Object Suffixes. A Semitic Archaism in its Afroasiatic Context. Diachronica 15: 23184. ____. 2000. Why Semitic Adverbializers (Akkadian -i, Syriac -) should not be Derived from Existential *. JSS 45: 23365. Gianto, A. 1998. Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew. IOS 18: 18398. Givn, T. 1971. Historical Syntax and Synchronic Morphology: An Archeologists Field Trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394415. ____. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. Orlando: Academic Press. ____. 1984 and 1990. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction, vols I and II. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1991. The Evolution of Dependent Clause Morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. Pp. 257 310 in Approaches to Grammaticalization II, ed. E. C. Traugott and B. Heine. TSL 19. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1999. Internal Reconstruction: As method, As Theory. Pp. 10759 in Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization, ed. S. Gildea. TSL 43. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goetze, A. 1936. The t-Form of the Old Babylonian Verb. JAOS 56: 297334. ____. 1942. The So-called Intensive of the Semitic Languages. JAOS 62: 18. ____. 1945a. The Akkadian Dialects of the Old-Babylonian Mathematical Texts. Pp. 14651 in O. Neugebauer and A. Sachs, Mathematical Cuneiform Texts. AOS 29, New Haven: American Oriental Society. ____. 1945b. Review of Heidel 1940. JNES 4: 24649. ____. 1946a. The Akkadian Masculine Plural in -n/ and its Semitic Background. Language 22: 12130. ____. 1946b. Sequence of Two Short Syllables in Akkadian. Or. 15: 23338 ____. 1947. The Akkadian Passive. JCS 1: 5059. Goldenberg, G. 1977. The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia and their Classification. BSOAS 40: 461507. ____. 1979. The Modern South Arabian Prefix Conjugation: Addendum to BSOAS XL, 3, 1977. BSOAS 42: 54145. ____. 1994. Principles of Semitic Word-Structure. Pp. 2964 in Semitic and Cushitic Studies, ed. G. Goldenberg and S. Raz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2002. Semitic Linguistics and the General Study of Language. IOS 20: 2141.
References
609
____. 2005. Semitic Triradicalism and the Biradical Question. Pp. 725 in Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorff, ed. G. Khan. SSLL 47. Leiden: Brill. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 1969. The System of Verbal Stems in the Classical Semitic Languages. Pp. 7091 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies Held in Jerusalem 1923 July 1965. Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Gragg, G. 1987. Paradigm Pressure, Verbal Pathology, and Lexical Replacement: A Note on the Development of Weak Roots in Amharic. Pp. 13945 in Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton. AOS 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society. ____. 2004. Geez (Aksum). Pp. 42753 in Woodard, ed. 2004. Greenberg, J. H. 1950. The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic. Word 6: 16281. ____. 1952. The Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Present. JAOS 72: 19. ____. 1955. Internal a-Plurals in Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic). Pp. 198204 in Afrikanistische Studien, ed. J. Lukas. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ____. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. Pp. 5890 in Universals of Language, ed. J. H. Greenberg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ____. 1966. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. Ianua Linguarum Series Minor 59. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1991. The Semitic Intensive as Verbal Plurality. Pp. 57787 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1995. The Diachronic Typological Approach to Language. Pp. 14566 in Approaches to Language Typology, ed. M. Shibatani and T. Bynon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenstein, E. L. 1984. The Phonology of Akkadian Syllable Structure. Afroasiatic Linguistics 9/1. Malibu: Undena. Groneberg, B. R. M. 1972. Untersuchungen zum hymnisch-epischen Dialekt der altbabylonischen literarischen Texte. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Mnster. ____. 1980. Zu den gebrochenen Schreibungen. JCS 32: 15167. ____. 1981. Philologische Bearbeitung des Aguayahymnus. RA 75: 10734. ____. 1987. Syntax, Morphologie und Stil der jungbabylonischen hymnischen Literatur. FAOS 14. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. ____. 1989. Reduplications of Consonants and R-stems. RA 83: 2734. ____. 1996. Towards a Definition of Literariness as Applied to Akkadian Literature. Pp. 5984 in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. CM 6. Groningen: Styx. Gzella, H. 2004. Tempus, Aspekt und Modalitt im Reichsaramischen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2006. Zu den Verlaufsvormen fr die Gegenwart im Aramischen. Or. 75: 18488. Hackl, J. 2007. Der subordinierte Satz in den sptbabylonischen Briefen. AOAT 341. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hmeen-Anttila, J. 2000. A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar. SAAS 13. Helsinki: The NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project. Hamori, A. 1973. A Note on yaqtulu in East and West Semitic. ArOr. 41: 319324. Harrison, S. P. 2003. On the Limits of the Comparative Method. Pp. 213243 in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda. Oxford: Blackwell.
610
References
Haspelmath, M. 1990. The Grammaticization of Passive Morphology. Studies in Language 14/1: 2572. ____. 1993. More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations. Pp. 87111 in Causatives and Transitivity, ed. B. Comrie and M. Polinsky. Studies in Language Companion Series 23. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1994. Passive Participles across Languages. Pp. 15177 in Voice: Form and Function, ed. B. Fox and P. J. Hopper. TSL 27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1996. Word-class-changing Inflection and Morphological Theory. Pp. 4366 in Yearbook of Morphology 1995, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ____. 1998. The Semantic Development of Old Presents: New Futures and Subjunctives without Grammaticalization. Diachronica 15: 2962. Hasselbach, R. 2004. The Markers of Person, Gender, and Number in the Prefixes of G-Preformative Conjugations in Semitic. JAOS 124: 2335. ____. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2006. The Ventive-Energic in Semitic: A Morphological Study. ZDMG 156: 30928. ____. 2007. The Affiliation of Sargonic Akkadian with Babylonian and Assyrian: New Insights concerning the Internal Sub-grouping of Akkadian. JSS 52: 2143. Haupt, P. 1878. Studies on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, with special Reference to Assyrian. JRAS New Series 10: 24451. ____. 1907. The name Itar. JAOS 28/1: 11219. Hayward, R. J. 1975. Middle Voice Verb Forms in Eastern Cushitic. Transactions of the Philological Society 1975: 203224. ____. 2000. Afroasiatic. Pp. 7498 in African Languages: An Introduction, ed. B. Heine and D. Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, J. 2002. Arabic Derivational Ablaut, Processing Strategies, and Consonantal Roots. Pp. 11529 in Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-based, Morphology, ed. J. Shimron. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 2005. A Grammar of Tamashek (Tuareg of Mali). Mouton Grammar Library 35. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hecker, K. 1968. Grammatik der Kltepe-Texte. AnOr. 44. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. ____. 1984. Doppelt T-erweiterte Formen, oder: der eblaitische Infinitiv. Pp. 20523 in Il bilinguismo a Ebla, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1998. Zur Dauer des Intervalls zwischen den Schichten Krum II und Ib am Kltepe. Pp. 297308 in Acts of the III rd International Congress of Hittitology, ed. S. Alp and A. Sel. Ankara. ____. 2000. i oder im Status constructus? AoF 27: 26068. Heidel, A. 1940. The System of the Quadriliteral Verb in Akkadian. AS 13. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1945. In Reply to Goetzes Review. JNES 4: 24953. Heimpel, W. 1996. utwm und utaptm. ZA 86: 16369. Heimpel, W., and Guidi, G. 1969. Der Koinzidenzfall im Akkadischen. ZDMG Supplementa I/1: 14852.
References
611
Heine, B. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press. ____. 1994. Areal Influence on Grammaticalization. Pp. 5568 in Language Contact and Language Conflict, ed. M. Ptz. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1999. Polysemy Involving Reflexive and Reciprocal Markers in African Languages. Pp. 129 in Reciprocals: Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Heine, B., and Claudi, U. 1986. On the Rise of Grammatical Categories. Klner Beitrge zur Afrikanistik, 13. Band. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Heine, B.; Claudi, U.; and Hnnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hengeveld. K. 1992. Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Functional Grammar Series 15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hetzron, R. 1969. The Evidence for Perfect *YQTUL and Jussive *YAQTL in Proto-Semitic. JSS 14: 121. ____. 1972. The Shape of a Rule and Diachrony. BSOAS 35: 45175. ____. 1973/74. The Vocalization of Prefixes in Semitic Active and Passive Verbs. MUSJ 48: 3548. ____. 1974. An Archaism in the Cushitic Verbal Conjugation. Pp. 27581 in IV congresso internazionale di studi etiopici, Tomo II (sezione linguistica). Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Anno CCCLXXI. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. ____. 1975. Genetic Classification and Ethiopean Semitic. Pp. 10327 in Hamito-Semitica, ed. J. Bynon and T. Bynon. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 200. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1976a. Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction. Lingua 38: 89108. ____. 1976b. On the Hungarian Causative Verb and its Syntax. Pp. 37198 in The Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. M. Shibatani. Syntax and Semantics 6. New York: Academic Press. ____. 1980. The Limits of Cushitic. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 2: 7126. Hetzron, R., ed. 1997. The Semitic Languages. London: Routledge. Hilgert, M. 2002. Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit. Imgula Band 5. Mnster: Rhema. ____. 2003. New Perspectives in the Study of Third Millennium Akkadian. CDLJ 2003/4. Hirsch, H. 1967. Review of Grammatik des Akkadischen, by A. Ungnad, vllig neubearbeiteit von Lubor Matou. ZA 58: 32427. ____. 1969. Zur Frage der t-Formen in den keilschriftlichen Gesetzestexten. Pp. 11931 in Lin Mithurti: Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden, ed. W. Rllig. AOAT 1. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn. ____. 1972. Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion. AfO Beiheft 13/14. Osnabrck: Biblio. ____. 1975. Akkadische Grammatik Errterungen und Fragen. Or. 44: 245322. ____. 1987. Interpretationsversuche II. AfO 34: 4553. ____. 1998. Kommen und Gehen in Nippur. Pp. 36982 in Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient, Festschrift fr Oswald Loretz, ed. H. Schaudig. AOAT 250. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2001. Ich schrieb mir doch. Pp. 18191 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2002. Gilgamesh-Epos und Erra-Lied. Zu einem Aspekt des Verbalsystems. AfO Beiheft 29. Vienna: Selbstverlag des Instituts fr Orientalistik der Universitt Wien.
612
References
Hock, H. H. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics, 2nd ed., revised and updated. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hodge, C. T. 1970. The Linguistic Cycle. Language Sciences 13: 17. Hodge, C. T., ed. 1971. Afroasiatic: A Survey. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 163. The Hague: Mouton. Reprint from Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. VI: Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, ed. T. A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Hoftijzer, J. 1992. berlegungen zum System der Stammesmodifikationen im klassischen Hebrisch. ZAh 5: 11734. Holes, C. 1995. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions and Varieties. London: Longman. Hopper, P. J. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139157. ____. 1991. On Some Principles of Grammaticization. Pp. 1735 in Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, ed. E. C. Traugott and B. Heine. TSL 19. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hopper, P. J., and Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251299. ____. 1984. The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar. Language 60: 703752. Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyrup, J. 1990. Algebra and Naive Geometry. An Investigation of Some Basic Aspects of Old Babylonian Mathematical Thought I. AoF 17: 2769. Hudson, G. 1991. A and B-Type Verbs in Ethiopian and Proto-Semitic. Pp. 67989 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1994. A Neglected Ethiopian Contribution to Semitic and Afroasiatic Reconstruction. Pp. 4756 in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on Historical Issues in African Linguistics, ed. K. E. Moore et al. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. ____. 2005. Ethiopian Semitic Nonpast C2 Length. Pp. 195213 in Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamitosemitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics, ed. P. Fronzaroli and P. Marrassini. QuSem. 25. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Universit di Firenze. Huehnergard, J. 1983. Asseverative *la and Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic. JAOS 103: 56993. ____. 1986. On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian. ZA 76: 21849. ____. 1987a. Stative, Predicative Form, Pseudo-verb. JNES 46: 21532. ____. 1987b. Three Notes on Akkadian Morphology. Pp. 18193 in Working with no Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. D. M. Golomb and S. T. Hollis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 1987c. Northwest Semitic Vocabulary in Akkadian Texts. Review of Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th13th C. b.C. from Canaan and Syria, by D. Sivan. JAOS 107: 71325. ____. 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit. HSS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ____. 1991. Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon. Pp. 690713 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1992. Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel. Pp. 20929 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 1995. Semitic Languages. Pp. 211734 in vol. 4 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribners.
References
613
____. 1996. New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages. Pp. 25172 in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, ed. J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 1997a. A Grammar of Akkadian. HSS 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ____. 1997b. Akkadian Grammar (Review of von Soden 1995). Or. 66: 43444. ____. 1999. On the Etymology and Meaning of Hebrew nb. Eretz-Israel 26: 88*93*. ____. 2002a. Comparative Semitic Linguistics. IOS 20: 11950. ____. 2002b. izuzzum and itlum. Pp. 16185 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. Tzvi Abusch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 2003. Akkadian and West Semitic *. Pp. 10219 in Studia Semitica, ed. L. Kogan. Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute 3. Moscow. ____. 2004. Afro-Asiatic. Pp. 13859 in Woodard, ed. 2004. ____. 2005a. A Grammar of Akkadian. Second Edition. HSS 45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 2005b. Features of Central Semitic. Pp. 155203 in Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, ed. A. Gianto. Biblica et Orientalia 48. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. ____. 2005c. Hebrew Verbs I-w/y and a Proto-Semitic Sound Rule. Babel und Bibel 2: 45774. ____. 2006. Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. Pp. 118 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Ismail, F.; Sallaberger, W.; Talon, P.; and van Lerberghe, K. 1996. Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 19931995). Subartu II. Turnhout: Brepols. Izre'el, S. 1991. On the Person-Prefixes of the Akkadian Verb. JANES 20: 3556. ____. 2005. The Akkadian Verbal System: Derivational and Inflectional Strategies. Pp. 53347 in: An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Y. Sefati et al. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Izre'el, S., and Cohen, E. 2004. Literary Old Babylonian. Languages of the World/Materials 81. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Jacobsen, Th. 1960. ITTALLAK NITI. JNES 19: 10116. ____. 1988. The Sumerian Verbal Core. ZA 78: 161220. Jakobson, R. 1990. On Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1993. Das gyptische Pseudopartizip. OLA 24: 528. Janssens, G. 1972. The Present-Imperfect in Semitic. BiOr. 29: 37. Jastrow, O. 1997. The Neo-Aramaic Languages. Pp. 33477 in Hetzron, ed. 1997. Joanns, F., ed. 2001. Dictionnaire de la Civilisation Msopotamienne. Paris: Robert Lafont. Johnstone, T. M. 1967. Eastern Arabian Dialect Studies. London Oriental Series 17. London: Oxford University Press. ____. 1975. The Modern South Arabian Languages. Afroasiatic Linguistics 1/5: 93121. ____. 1981. Jibbli Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Pres. ____. 1987. Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-list. London: School of African and Oriental Studies, University of London. Jongen, R. 1985. Polysemy, Tropes and Cognition or the Non-Magrittian Art of Closing Curtains Whilst Opening Them. Pp. 12139 in The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in Language and Thought, ed. W. Paprott and R. Dirven. CILT 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Joosten, J. 1999. The Lengthened Imperative with Accusative Suffix in Biblical Hebrew. ZAW 111: 42326.
614
References
Joseph, B. D., and Janda, R. D., eds. 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Joon, P. 1935. Remarques sur les 3me et 7me formes verbales fala et infaala de larabe. MUSJ 19: 97116. Joon, P., and Muraoka, T. 1991. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd edition. Subsidia Biblica 14. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Jucquois, G. Review of Aro 1964. BiOr. 24: 31012. Jursa, M. 1997/98. Review of Cole 1996. AfO 44/45: 41924. Kammerzell, F. 1990. Funktion und Form: Zur Opposition von Perfekt und Pseudopartizip im Alt- und Mittelgyptischen. Gttinger Miszellen 117/118: 181202. Katamba, F. 1989. An Introduction to Phonology. London: Longman. Kaufman, S. A. 1974. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. AS 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kaye, A. S., ed. 1991. Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eightyfifth Birthday, November 14th, 1991, 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Keenan, E. L. 1985. Passive in the Worlds Languages. Pp. 24381 in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause Structure, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keller, K. 1996. Der X. Verbalstamm und seine Funktion im modernen Arabisch. Pp. 297309 in Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures: Memorial Volume of Karel Petrek, ed. P. Zemnek. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. TSL 23. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kerr, R. 2001. Wie lange dauert die Gegenwart? or The Future Revisited. The Verbal Formation yVqattVl in North-West Semitic. Dutch Studies published by NELL 4/2: 12974. Kienast, B. 1957a. Der Prfixvokal u im Kausativ und im D-Stamm des Semitischen. Mnchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 11: 1048. ____. 1957b. Verbalformen mit Reduplikation im Akkadischen. Or. 26: 4450. ____. 1960. Das Punktualthema *japrus und seine Modi. Or. 29: 15167. ____. 1961. Weiteres zum R-Stamm des Akkadischen. JCS 15: 5961. ____. 1963. Das System der zweiradikaligen Verben im Akkadischen. ZA 55: 13855. ____. 1967. Zu den Vokalklassen beim akkadischen Verbum. Pp. 6385 in Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient, Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966, ed. D. O. Edzard. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1981. Die Sprache von Ebla und das Altsemitische. Pp. 8398 in La lingua di Ebla, Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 2123 aprile 1980), ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1982. Zur Geschichte des semitischen Verbums. Pp. 1723 in The Chad Languages in the Hamitosemitic-Nigritic Border Area, ed. H. Jungraithmayr. Marburger Studien zur Afrikaund Asienkunde, Serie A: Afrika, Bd. 27. Berlin: Reimer. ____. 1984. Nomina mit T-Prfix und T-Infix in der Sprache von Ebla und ihre sumerischen quivalente. Pp. 22555 in Il bilinguismo a Ebla, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1989. Zur Nominalbildung im Semitischen. Pp. 277287 in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of ke W. Sjberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11, Philadelphia: The University Museum, Babylonian Section. ____. 1995. Gedanken zur Geschichte der semitischen Tempora. Pp. 11933 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden, ed. M. Dietrich
References
615
and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kienast, B., and Volk, K. 1995. Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur. FAOS 19. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Kiparsky, P. 1968. Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax. Foundations of Language 4: 3057. Klingenheben, A. 1956. Die Prfix- und die Suffixkonjugation des Hamitosemitischen. MIO 4: 21177. Knudsen, E. E. 1980. Stress in Akkadian. JCS 32: 316. ____. 1982. An Analysis of Amorite. A Review Article. JCS 34: 118. ____. 1984/86. Innovation in the Akkadian Present. Pp. 23139 in On the Dignity of Man: Oriental and Classical Studies in Honour of Frithiof Rundgren, ed. T. Kronholm and E. Riad. OrSuec. 3335. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. ____. 1986. Review of Greenstein 1984. BiOr. 43: 72332. ____. 1991. Amorite Grammar: A Comparative Statement. Pp. 86685 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1998. Central Semitic *yaqtulum reconsidered: A Rejoinder to J. Tropper. JSS 43: 19. Koch, H. 1996. Reconstruction in Morphology. Pp. 21863 in The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, ed. M. Durie and M. Ross. New York: Oxford University Press. Kcher, F. 1965. Urruru, (am Feuer) drren. Pp. 32325 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger, ed. H. G. Gterbock et al. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kogan, L. 2001. * in Akkadian. UF 33: 26398. ____. 2002. Additions and Corrections to * in Akkadian (UF 33). UF 34: 31517. ____. 2003. The Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian (Review article of Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, Vol. 2, by G. Takcs). AuOr. 21: 25762. ____. 2004. Notes on Barths Law in Akkadian. Babel und Bibel 1: 34348. ____. 2005. Observations on Proto-Semitic Vocalism. AuOr. 23:13167. ____. 2006a. Old Assyrian vs. Old Babylonian: the Lexical Dimension. Pp. 177214 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. ____. 2006b. Ethiopian Cognates to the Akkadian and Ugaritic Lexicon. Pp. 26974 in apal tibnim m illak: Studies Presented to Joaqun Sanmartn, ed. G. del Olmo Lete, L. Feliu, and A. Millet Alb. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 22. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA. Kogan, L., and Markina, K. 2006. Review of Hasselbach 2005. Babel und Bibel 3: 55588. Kossmann, M. 1999. Essai sur la phonologie du proto-berbre. Grammatische Analysen afrikanischer Sprachen 12. Kln: Rdiger Kppe. ____. 2001. The Origin of the Glottal Stop in Zenaga and its Reflexes in the other Berber Languages. Afrika und bersee 84: 61100. ____. 2002. Lorigine de laoriste intensif en berbre. Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 97: 35370. Kottsieper, I. 2000. yaqattal Phantom oder Problem? Erwgungen zum einem hebraistischen Problem und zur Geschichte der semitischen Sprachen. KUSATU 1: 27100. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 1997. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32. Assen: van Gorcum. ____. 1998. Review of Huehnergard 1997a. BiOr. 55: 81416. ____. 2000. Nouns as Verbs: the Verbal Nature of the Akkadian Stative. Or. 69: 2171.
616
References
____. 2001. The Interchange of a and e in Old Babylonian. Pp. 22549 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2002. Ventive, Dative and Allative in Old Babylonian. ZA 92: 200240. ____. 2003. Evidence for Post-glottalized Consonants in Assyrian. JCS 55: 7586. ____. 20034a. Initial Plene Writing and the Conjugation of the First Weak Verbs in Akkadian. JEOL 38, 83103. ____. 20034b. Review of Hilgert 2002. AfO 50: 36266. ____. 2004. Assyrian Light on the History of the N-stem. Pp. 33352 in Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen. PIHANS 100. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2005. Reflections on the Gt-stem in Akkadian. ZA 95: 77103. ____. 2006. The Reflexes of the Proto-Semitic Gutturals in Old Assyrian. Pp. 15076 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. ____. 2008. On the Old Assyrian Verb atawwum to speak and Related Issues. Pp. 15973 in Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, ed. C. Michel. OAAS 4; PIHANS 112. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Kozinskij, I. . 1988. Resultative: Results and Discussion. Pp. 497525 in Typology of Resultative Constructions, ed. V. P. Nedjalkov. TSL 12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kraus, F. R. 1958. Di til.la. Sumerische Prozessprotokolle und Verwandtes aus der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur. BiOr. 15: 7084. ____. 1960. Altmesopotamisches Lebensgefhl. JNES 19: 11732. ____. 1967. Altbabylonisch zepum. BiOr. 24: 1214. ____. 1973a. Ein altbabylonischer i-Modus? Pp. 25365 in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Bhl dedicatae, ed. M. A. Beek et al. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1973b. Vom mesopotamischen Menschen der altbabylonischen Zeit und seiner Welt. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 36 No. 6. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. ____. 1975. Akkadische Wrter und Ausdrcke, IX. RA 69: 3140. ____. 1979. Akkadische Wrter und Ausdrcke, XIII. RA 73: 13541. ____. 1984. Nominalstze in altbabylonischen Briefen und der Stativ. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 47 No. 2. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. ____. 1987. Sonderformen akkadischer Parataxe: die Koppelungen. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 50 No. 1. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. Krebernik, M. 1982. Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil I. ZA 72: 178236. ____. 1983. Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil 2 (Glossar). ZA 73: 147. ____. 1984. Verbalnomina mit pr- und infigiertem t in Ebla. StEb. 7: 191211. ____. 1985. Zur Entwicklung der Keilschrift im III. Jahrtausend anhand der Texte aus Ebla. AfO 32: 5359. ____. 1988a. Prefixed Verbal Forms in Personal Names from Ebla. Pp. 4563 in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving, ed. A. Archi. ARES I. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria.
References
617
____. 1988b. Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: Eine Zwischenbilanz, BBVOT 7. Berlin: Reimer. ____. 1991a. Gt- und tD-Stmme im Ugaritischen. Pp. 22670 in Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Gross, H. Irsigler, und T. Seidl. St. Ottilien: EOS. ____. 1991b. Review of Die altakkadischen Knigsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr., by I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast. ZA 81: 13343. ____. 1992. Mesopotamian Myths at Ebla: ARET 5, 6 and ARET 5, 7. Pp. 63149 in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 18. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica, Universit di Firenze. ____. 1993. Verbalformen mit suffigierten n-Morphemen im Ugaritischen. Pp. 12350 in Syntax und Text, ed. H. Irsigler. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 40. St. Ottilien: EOS. ____. 1996. Linguistic Classification of Eblaite: Methods, Problems, and Results. Pp. 23349 in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The W.F. Albright Centennial Conference, ed. J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 1998. Die Texte aus Fra und Tell Ab alb. Pp. 237427 in J. Bauer et al., Mesopotamien: Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit. Annherungen I. OBO 160/1. Freiburg Schweiz: Universittsverlag / Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ____. 2001. Tall Bia / Tuttul - II. Die altorientalischen Schriftfunde. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bia / Tuttul, Band II. WVDOG 100. Saarbrcken: Saarbrcker Druckerei und Verlag. ____. 2006. Some Questions concerning Word Formation in Akkadian. Pp. 8495 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Krecher, J. 1985. Die /m/-Prfixe des sumerischen Verbums. Or. 54: 13381. Krispijn, Th. J. H. 2001. The Sumerian lexeme *urum: a lexico-etymological approach. Pp. 251 61 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Kropp, M. 1999. Gedanken zum Verbalsystem des Ugaritischen im Rahmen des Semitischen. Pp. 97108 in Schnittpunkt Ugarit, ed. M. Kropp and A. Wagner. Nordafrikanisch-westasiatische Studien 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kupper, J.-R. 2001. Lakkadien des lettres de Shemshra. RA 95: 15573. Kuryowicz, J. 194549. La nature des procs dits analogiques. Acta Linguistica 5: 1537. ____. 1956. Lapophonie en indo-europen, Prace Jzykoznawcze 9, Wrocaw: Zakadim Ossoliskich. ____. 1962. Lapophonie en smitique. Prace Jzykoznawcze 24. Wrocaw. ____. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. ____. 1968. The Notion of Morpho(pho)neme. Pp. 6581 in Directions for Historical Linguistics, ed. W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel. Austin: University of Texas Press. ____. 1972. Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. Prace Jzykoznawcze 67. Wrocaw: Zakadim Ossoliskich. ____. 1973. Verbal Aspect in Semitic. Or. 42: 11420. ____. 1975. Esquisses linguistiques II. Internationale Bibliothek fr allgemeine Linguistik 37. Munich: W. Finck. Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I. 1996, The Sounds of the Worlds Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lakoff, R. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. Pp. 23687 in Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. A. B. Woodford et al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
618
References
Lambdin, T. O. 1978. Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Geez). HSS 24. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Lambert, W. G. 1959/60. Three Literary Prayers of the Babylonians. AfO 19: 4766. ____. 1967. The language of Mari. Pp. 2938 in La civilization de Mari, ed. J.-R. Kupper. CRRAI 15. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. ____. 1973. Studies in Nergal. BiOr. 30: 35563. ____. 1983. A New Verb: *ilum rejoice. RA 77: 19091. ____. 1992. The Language of ARET V 6 and 7. Pp. 4162 in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 18. Firenze: Dipartimento di linguistica, Universit di Firenze. Lambert, W. G., and Millard, A. R. 1969. Atra-ass: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: Clarendon. Landsberger, B. 1924. Der Ventiv des Akkadischen. ZA 35: 11323. ____. 1926a. Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt. Islamica 2: 35572. ____. 1926b. Prinzipienfragen der semitischen, speziell der hebrischen Grammatik. OLZ 1926: 96776. ____. 1934. Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie ar-ra = Hubullu, Abhandlungen der Schsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Band 42/6. Leipzig: Hirzel. ____. 1960. Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen. WZKM 56: 10929. ____. 1968. Zur vierten und siebenten Tafel des Gilgamesch-Epos. RA 62: 97135. Langacker R. 1987. Nouns and Verbs. Language 63: 5394. Langacker R., and Munro, P. 1975. Passives and their Meaning. Language 51: 789830. Larcher, P. 1999. Vues nouvelles sur la drivation lexicale en arabe classique. Pp. 10323 in Tradition and Innovation: Norm and Deviation in Arabic and Semitic Linguistics, ed. E. Lutz and M. Nekroumi. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2003. Le systme verbal de larabe classique. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de lUniversit de Provence. Lass, R. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laver, J. 1994. Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehmann, C. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Leichty, E. 1993. The Origins of Scholarship. Pp. 2129 in Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens, ed. H. D. Galter. Beitrge zum 3. Grazer Morgenlndischen Symposion (23.27. September 1991). Graz. Lentin, J. 1991. A propos de la valeur intensive de la IIme forme verbale en arabe syrien: modalit et expressivit. Vers un renouvellement du systme verbal? Pp. 891916 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. Leong, Tien Fock. 1994. Tense, Mood and Aspect in Old Babylonian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Leslau, W. 1937. Sur le prfix n- en soqotri. GLECS 7: 4546. ____. 1944. Vocabulary Common to Akkadian and South-East Semitic (Ethiopic and SouthArabic. JAOS 64: 5358. ____. 1953. The Imperfect in South-East Semitic. JAOS 73: 16466. ____. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
References
619
____. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lewy, J. 1949. Apropos of the Akkadian numerals i-ti-a-na and i-t-na. ArOr. 17/2: 11023. ____. 1957. Apropos of a Recent Study in Old Assyrian Chronology. Or. 26: 1236. Lichtenberk, F. 1994. Reflexives and Reciprocals. Pp. 35049 in vol. 7 of The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson. Oxford: Pergamon. ____. 1999. Reciprocals without Reflexives. Pp. 3162 in Reciprocals: Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lieberman, S. J. 1977. The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian, vol. 1: Prolegomena and Evidence. Missoula, MT: Scholars. ____. 1986. The Afro-Asiatic Background of the Semitic N-Stem: Towards the Origins of the Stem-Afformatives of the Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Verb. BiOr. 43: 577628. Limet, H. 1975. Observations sur la grammaire des anciennes tablettes de Mari. Syria 52: 3752. Lipiski, E. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. OLA 80. Leuven: Peeters; 2nd ed. 2001. Loesov, S. 2004a. T-Perfect in Old Babylonian: The Debate and a Thesis. Babel und Bibel 1: 83181. ____. 2004b. Review of Metzler 2002. Babel und Bibel 1: 393434. ____. 2004c. A Note on the Allative Ventive in Connection with N. J. C. Kouwenbergs Contribution. Babel und Bibel 1: 34953. ____. 2005. Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time, Part One. Babel und Bibel 2: 10148. ____. 2007. Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive. Babel und Bibel 3: 10132. Lonnet, A. 1993. Quelques rsultats en linguistique sudarabique moderne. Quaderni di Studi Arabi 11: 3782. van Loon, J. 2005. Principles of Historical Morphology. Untersuchungen zur vergleichenden Grammatik der germanischen Sprachen 5. Heidelberg: Winter. Loprieno, A. 1986. Das Verbalsystem im gyptischen und im Semitischen. Gttinger Orientforschungen, IV. Reihe, Band 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1995. Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loretz, O. 1960. Die Hebrische Nominalform qattl. Biblica 41: 41116. Lumsden, J. S. 2000. Cause, Manner and Means in Berber Change of State Verbs. Pp. 199220 in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar, ed. J. Lecarme et al. CILT 202. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Luukko, M. 2004. Grammatical Variation in Neo-Assyrian. SAAS 16. Helsinki: The NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics I-II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malbran-Labat, F. 1979/84. Lexpression du serment en akkadien. GLECS 24/8: 23338. ____. 1991. Le passif en Akkadien. Pp. 97790 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 2001. Manuel de langue akkadienne. Publications de lInstitut Orientaliste de Louvain 50. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste. Maldonado, R. 1999. Conceptual Distance and Transitivity Increase in Spanish Reflexives. Pp. 15385 in Reflexives: Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 40. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Malkiel, Y. 1968. The Inflectional Paradigm as an Occasional Determinant of Sound Change. Pp. 2164 in Directions for Historical Linguistic, ed. W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel. Austin: University of Texas Press. Maloney, J. F. 1981. The t-Perfect in the Akkadian of Old Babylonian Letters. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
620
References
Maczak, W. 1958. Tendances gnrales des changements analogiques I and II. Lingua 7: 298 325, 387420. ____. 1980. Laws of Analogy. Pp. 28388 in Historical Morphology, ed. J. Fisiak. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 17. The Hague: Mouton. Martin, W. J. 1957. Some Notes on the Imperative in the Semitic Languages. RSO 32: 31519 Maslov, I. S. 1988. Resultative, Perfect, and Aspect. Pp. 6385 in Typology of Resultative Constructions, ed. V. P. Nedjalkov. TSL 12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Matou, L., and Petrek, K. 1956. Beitrge zur akkadischen Grammatik I: Die Liquiden in ihrem Verhltnis zum Vokal im Assyrischen. ArOr. 24: 114. Mayer, W. 1971. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Mittelassyrischen. AOAT Sonderreihe 2. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn. Mayer, W. R. 1987. Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschen und des Knigs. Or. 56: 5568. ____. 1994. Akkadische Lexikographie: CAD 1. Or. 63: 11120. ____. 2003. Waffen und Stricke in einer altbabylonischen Urkunde. Or. 72: 36889. ____. 2007. Das akkadische Prsens zum Ausdruck der Nachzeitigkeit in der Vergangenheit. Or. 76: 117 44. Mayerthaler, W. 1988. Morphological Naturalness. Linguistica Extranea, Studia 17. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Mazzini, G. 2002. Akkadian RM as a West Semitic Lexical Trait. UF 34: 57784. McCawley, J. D. 1971. Tense and Time Reference in English. Pp. 96113 in Studies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Meillet, A. 1948a. Note sur une difficult gnrale de la grammaire compar. Pp. 3643 in Linguistique historique et linguistique gnrale. Paris: Champion. ____. 1948b. Lvolution des formes grammaticales. Pp. 13048 in Linguistique historique et linguistique gnrale. Paris: Champion. Original ed. in Scientia 12 (1912). Metzler, K. 2002. Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. AOAT 279. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Michel, C. 2003. Old Assyrian Bibliography. Old Assyrian Archives, Studies I. PIHANS 97. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Milano, L.; Sallaberger, W.; Talon, Ph; and van Lerberghe, K. 2004. Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Seasons 19962002). Subartu 12. Turnhout: Brepols. Militarev, A., and Kogan, L. 2000. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. AOAT 278/1. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2005. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 2: Animal Names. AOAT 278/2. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Mitchell, T. F. 1993. Pronouncing Arabic II. Oxford: Clarendon. Moscati, S., ed. 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, N.S. 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mller, H.-P. 1988. Das Bedeutungspotential der Afformativkonjugation. ZAh 1: 7498. ____. 2003. Grammatische Atavismen in semitischen Sprachen. Pp. 43045 in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mller, W. W. 1964. ber Beziehungen zwischen den neusdarabischen und den abessinischen Sprachen. JSS 9: 5055.
References
621
Muraoka, T. 1975. The Nun Energicum and the Prefix Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew. Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 1: 6371. ____. 1995. Linguistic Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 1921. Nebes, N. 1994a. Zur Form der Imperfektbasis des unvermehrten Grundstammes im Altsdarabischen. Pp. 5981 in Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Heinrichs and G. Schoeller. Beiruter Texte und Studien 45. Beirut, in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. ____. 1994b. Verwendung und Funktion der Prfixkonjugation im Sabischen. Pp. 191211 in Arabia Felix: Beitrge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien: Festschrift Walter W. Mller, ed. N. Nebes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Nedjalkov, V. P., and Jaxontov, S. J. 1988. The Typology of Resultative Constructions. Pp. 362 in Typology of Resultative Constructions, ed. V. P. Nedjalkov. TSL 12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nedyalkov, V. P., and Silnitsky, G. G. 1973. The Typology of Morphological and Lexical Causatives. Pp. 132 in Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics, ed. F. Kiefer. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series 18. Dordrecht: Reidel. Newman, P. 1990. Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Publications in African Languages and Linguistics 12. Dordrecht: Foris. Nishida, C. 1994. The Spanish Reflexive Clitic se as an Aspectual Class Marker. Linguistics 32: 42558. Nldeke, T. 1910. Neue Beitrge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Trbner. Noonan, M. 1985. Complementation. Pp. 42140 in vol. 2 of Language Typology and Linguistic Description, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nyberg, H. S. 1920. Wortbildung mit Prfixen in den semitischen Sprachen. Le Monde Oriental 14: 177291. ____. 1954. Zur Entwicklung der mehr als dreikonsonantischen Stmme in den semitischen Sprachen. Pp. 12836 in Weststliche Abhandlungen Rudolf Tschudi (. . .) berreicht, ed. F. Meier. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Olmo Lete, G. del. 2003. Questions de linguistique smitique: Racine et lexme: Histoire de la recherche (19402000). Antiquits smitiques 5. Paris: Maisonneuve. Oppenheim, A. L. 1935. Die mittels T-Infixes gebildeten Aktionsarten des Altbabylonischen. WZKM 42: 130. ____. 1964. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Orel, V. E., and Stolbova, O.V. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/18. Leiden: Brill. Osing, J. 1976. Die Nominalbildung des gyptischen. Mainz/Rhein: von Zabern. Pagan, J. M. 1998. A Morphological and Lexical Study of Personal Names in the Ebla Texts. ARES 3. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pardee, D. 1984. Three Ugaritic Tablet Joins. JNES 43: 23945. Pardee, D., and Whiting, R. M. 1987. Aspects of Epistolary Verbal Usage in Ugaritic and Akkadian. BSOAS 50: 131. Parpola, S. 1974. The alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Irregular Verb *na- and the Assyrian Sound Change > S. Assur 1/1: 110.
622
References
____. 1983. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part 2: Commentary and Appendices. AOAT 5/12. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. ____. 1984. Likalka ittatakku: Two Notes on the Morphology of the Verb alku in Neo-Assyrian. StOr. 55: 185209. ____. 1988. Proto-Assyrian. Pp. 29398 in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla, ed. H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann. HSAO 2. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Patterson, R. D. 1970. Old Babylonian Parataxis as Exhibited in the Royal Letters of the Middle Old Babylonian Period and in the Code of Hammurapi. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Payne, T. E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pedersn, O. 1989. Morphological Aspects of Sumerian and Akkadian Linguistic Areas. Pp. 429 38 in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of ke W. Sjberg, ed. H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. ____. 1998. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500300 b.C. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Petrek, K. 1960. Die innere Flexion in den semitischen Sprachen. ArOr. 28: 547606. ____. 1963. Die innere Flexion in den semitischen Sprachen IV. ArOr. 31: 577624. ____. 1964. Die Inkompatibilitt in der semitischen Wurzel in Sicht der Informationstheorie. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 27: 13339. ____. 1984. La mthodologie du chamitosmitique compar: tat, problmes, perspectives. Pp. 42362 in Current Progress in Afro-Asiatic Linguistics: Papers of the Third International Hamito-Semitic Congress, ed. J. Bynon. CILT 28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1988. Altgyptisch, Hamitosemitisch und ihre Beziehungen zu einigen Sprachfamilien in Afrika und Asien. Prague: Univerzita Karlova. Pettinato, G. 1982. Testi lessicali bilingui della bibliotheca L. 2769. MEE 4. Naples: Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli. ____. 2003. Le lingue semitiche di Ebla, Mari e Tell Beydar nel panorama linguistico del vicino oriente antico del III millennio A.C. Pp. 52031 in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Plazikowsky-Brauner, H. 1957. Die Hilfselemente der Konjugation in den kuschitischen Sprachen. ZDMG 107: 730. Poebel, A. 1939. Studies in Akkadian Grammar. AS 9. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Polotsky, H. J. 1964. Semitics. Pp. 99111 and 35758 in vol. I/1 of The World History of the Jewish People, I/1: At the Dawn of Civilization, ed. E. A. Speiser. London: Allen. Postgate, J. N. 1973. Assyrian Texts and Fragments. Iraq 35: 1336. ____. 1974. Review of W. Mayer 1971. BiOr. 31: 27374. Praetorius, F. 1889. Beitrge zur thiopischen Grammatik und Etymologie. Beitrge zur Assyriologie und vergleichenden semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 1: 2147. ____. 1894. ber die hamitischen Sprachen Ostafrikas. Beitrge zur Assyriologie und vergleichenden semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 2: 31241. Prasse, K.-G. 1972/74. Manuel de grammaire touargue (thggart), vols. IIII. Copenhagen: ditions de lUniversit de Copenhague.
References
623
Prasse, K.-G.; Alojaly, G.; and Mohamed, G. 1998. Lexique Touareg-Franais, 2me d., revue et augmente. Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 24. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum / The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies. Prochzka, S. 1995. Semantische Funktionen der reduplizierten Wurzeln im Arabischen. ArOr. 63: 3970. Pustet, R. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Radner, K. 2002. Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall amad. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall amad/Dr-Katlimmu, Band 6, Texte 2. Berlin: Reimer. Rainey, A. F. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/25. Leiden: Brill. Rankin, R. L. 2003. The Comparative Method. Pp. 183212 in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda. Oxford: Blackwell. Ratcliffe, R. R. 1998a. The Broken Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative Semitic: Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-concatenative Morphology. CILT 168. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1998b. Defining Morphological Isoglosses: The Broken Plural and Semitic Subclassification. JNES 57: 81123. ____. 2001. Analogy in Semitic Morphology: Where do New Roots and New Patterns Come from? Pp. 15362 in New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron in Memoriam, ed. A. Zaborski. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Raz, Sh. 1983. Tigre Grammar and Texts. Afroasiatic Dialects 4. Malibu: Undena. Reckendorf, H. 1967. Die syntaktischen Verhltnisse des Arabischen. Leiden: Brill (repr. of 1895). ____. 1977. Arabische Syntax, 2., unvernderte Auflage. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Reiner, E. 1964. The Phonological Interpretation of a Sub-System in the Akkadian Syllabary. Pp. 16780 in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ____. 1966. A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 21. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1970. Akkadian. Pp. 274303 in Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, ed. T. A. Sebeok. Current Trends in Linguistics 6. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1973. How We Read Cuneiform Texts. JCS 25: 358. Reiner, E., and Renger, J. 1974/77. The Case of the Secret Lover. AfO 25: 18485. Reinisch, L. 1909. Das persnliche Frwort und die Verbalflexion in den Chamito-Semitischen Sprachen. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schriften der Sprachenkommission 1. Vienna: Hlder. Reintges, C. 1994. Egyptian Root-and-Pattern Morphology. Lingua Aegyptia 4: 21344. ____. 1997. Passive Voice in Older Egyptian: A Morpho-Syntactic Study. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Renger, J. 1972. Review of Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik and Ergnzungsheft zum Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, by W. von Soden. JNES 31: 22832. Rets, J. 1983. The Finite Passive Voice in Modern Arabic Dialects. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Gteborg. ____. 1989. Diathesis in the Semitic Languages: A Comparative Morphological Study. SSLL 14. Leiden: Brill.
624
References
Rmer, W. H. P. 1971. Frauenbriefe ber Religion, Politik und Privatleben in Mari. AOAT 12. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn. Rssler, O. 1950. Verbalbau und Verbalflexion in den Semitohamitischen Sprachen. ZDMG 100: 461514. ____. 1951. Akkadisches und libysches verbum, I/II. Or. 20: 1017 and 36673. ____. 1952. Der semitische Charakter der libyschen Sprache. ZA 50: 12150. ____. 1958. Die Sprache Numidiens. Pp. 94120 in Sybaris: Festschrift fr Hans Krahe zur 60. Geburtstag, ed. W. Brandenstein. Wiesbaden. Rowton, M. B. 1962. The Use of the Permansive in Classic Babylonian. JNES 21: 233303. Rubin, A. D. 2004. An Outline of Comparative Egypto-Semitic Morphology. Pp. 45486 in Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam W. Vycichl, ed. G. Takcs. SSLL 39. Leiden: Brill. ____. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. HSS 57. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Rubio, G. 2003a. Falling Trees and Forking Tongues: On the Place of Akkadian and Eblaite within Semitic. Pp. 15289 in Studia Semitica, ed. L. Kogan. Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute 3. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. ____. 2003b. Review of Sommerfeld 1999. OLZ 98: 36269. ____. 2005. Chasing the Semitic Root: The Skeleton in the Closet. AuOr. 23: 4563. ____. 2006. Eblaite, Akkadian, and East Semitic. Pp. 11039 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. ____. 2007a. Sumerian Morphology. Pp. 132779 in vol. 2 of Morphologies of Asia and Africa, ed. A. S. Kaye. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 2007b. Writing in Another Tongue: Alloglottography in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 3366 in Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, ed. S. L. Sanders. Oriental Institute Seminars 2. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Rundgren, F. 1955. ber Bildungen mit - und n-t-Demonstrativen im Semitischen: Beitrge zur vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. ____. 1959a. Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation: Studien zur thiopischen und akkadischen Verbalstammbildung. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln / Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1959b. Akkadisch utlellm sich erheben. Or. 28: 36469. ____. 1960. Der aspektuelle Charakter des altsemitischen Injunktivs. OrSuec. 9: 75101. ____. 1963a. Das Verbalprfix yu- im Semitischen und die Entstehung der faktitiv-kausativischen Bedeutung des D-Stammes. OrSuec. 12: 99114. ____. 1963b. Erneuerung des Verbalaspekts im Semitischen. Pp. 49108 in Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, N.S. 1/3. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ____. 1964. Ablaut und Apothematismus im Semitischen. OrSuec. 13: 4883. ____. 1965/66. A propos dune hypothse nouvelle concernant la provenance du morphme qatal-a. OrSuec. 14/15: 6274. ____. 1966. Kausativ und Diathese: Ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Die Sprache 12: 13343. ____. 1974. Rflexions sur le participe actif du smitique. Pp. 195202 in Actes du premier congrs international de linguistique smitique et chamito-smitique, Paris 1619 juillet 1969, ed. A. Caquot and D. Cohen. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 159. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1980. Principia Linguistica Semitica. OrSuec. 29: 32102. Ryder, S. A. 1974. The D-Stem in Western Semitic. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 131. The Hague: Mouton.
References
625
Saad, G. N. 1982. Transitivity, Causation and Passivization: A Semantic-Syntactic Study of the Verb in Classical Arabic. Library of Arabic Linguistics, Monograph No. 4. London: Kegan Paul Interntional. Sallaberger, W. 1999. Wenn du mein Bruder bist, . . .. Interaktion und Textgestaltung in altbabylonischen Alltagsbriefen. CM 16. Groningen: Styx Publications. ____. 2005. The Sumerian Verb na de5(-g) To Clear. Pp. 22953 in An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Y. Sefati et al. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Sanmartn, J. 1995. ber Regeln und Ausnahmen: Verhalten des vorkonsonantischen /n/ im Altsemitischen. Pp. 43366 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Saporetti, C. 1970. Onomastica medio-assira. 2 vols. Studia Pohl 6. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Sasse, H.-J. 1980. Ostkuschitische und semitische Verbalklassen. Pp. 15374 in Studien aus Arabistik und Semitistik Anton Spitaler zum siebsigsten Geburtstag von seinen Schlern berreicht, ed. W. Diem and S. Wild. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1981. Afroasiatisch. Pp. 187238 in Die Sprachen Afrikas, Studienausgabe, Band 2: AfroAsiatisch, ed. B. Heine et al. Hamburg: Buske. ____. 1991. Aspect and Aktionsart: A Reconciliation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 3145. Satzinger, H. 1971. smt.f schliesslich hrte er. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57: 5869. ____. 1999. Observations in the Field of the Afroasiatic Suffix Conjugation. Pp. 2333 in: Afroasiatica Tergestina, ed. M. Lamberti and L. Tonelli. Padova: Unipress. ____. 2002. The Egyptian Connection: Egyptian and the Semitic Languages. IOS 20: 22764. Sayce, A. H. 1877. The Tenses of the Assyrian Verb. JRAS 9: 2258. Schenkel, W. 1994. m.t-Perfekt und m.t-Stativ: Die beiden Pseudopartizipien des gyp tischen nach dem Zeugnis der Sargtexte. Pp. 15782 in Quaerentes Scientiam: Festgabe fr Wolfhart Westendorf zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Behlmer. Gttingen: Seminar fr gyptologie und Koptologie. ____. 2005. Tbinger Einfhrung in die klassisch-gyptische Sprache und Schrift. Tbingen: W. Schenkel. Schladt, M. 1999. The Typology and Grammaticalization of Reflexives. Pp. 10324 in Reflexives, Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 40. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schramm, G. M. 1991. Semitic Morpheme Structure Typology. Pp. 140208 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. Sgral, P. 2000. Thorie de lapophonie et organisation des schmes en smitique. Pp. 26399 in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar, ed. J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm, and U. Shlonsky. CILT 202. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Segert, S. 1976. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Munich: C. H. Beck. ____. 1990. Altaramische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopdie. Seux, M.-J. 1976. Hymnes et prires aux dieux de Babylonie et dAssyrie. LAPO 8. Paris: Les ditions du Cerf. Shaffer, A., and Wasserman, N. 2003. Iddi(n)-Sn, King of Simurrum: A New Rock-Relief Inscription and a Reverential Seal. ZA 93: 152. Shibatani, M., ed. 1988. Passive and Voice. TSL 16. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Siewierska, A. 1984. The Passive: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm.
626
References
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. 1997. The Modern South Arabian Languages. Pp. 378423 in Hetzron, ed. 1997. ____. 1998. La drivation verbale dans les langues sudarabiques modernes. JSS 43: 7188. Sivan, D. 1997. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/28. Leiden: Brill. Sjberg, . W. 1999. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary e3-bar-kin5 (II). Pp. 51352 in Munuscula Mesopotamia: Festschrift fr Johannes Renger, ed. B. Bck et al. AOAT 267. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2004. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary -bar-kin5 (III). Pp. 25783 in Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurck: Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato, ed. H. Waetzoldt. HSAO 9. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Smith, C. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Soden, W. von 1931/33. Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen III. ZA 40: 163227; 41: 90183. ____. 1947. Zum akkadischen Wrterbuch. 1530. Or. 16: 43758. ____. 1948. Vokalfrbungen im Akkadischen. JCS 2: 291303. ____. 1950a. Verbalformen mit doppeltem t-Infix im Akkadischen. Or. 19: 38596. ____. 1950b. Review of Heidel 1940. ZA 49: 33033. ____. 1951. Zum akkadischen Wrterbuch, 4149. Or. 20: 15166. ____. 1952a. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. AnOr. 33. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. ____. 1952b. Unregelmssige Verben im Akkadischen. ZA 50: 16381. ____. 1956. Zum akkadischen Wrterbuch. 8187. Or. 25: 24150. ____. 1957. Review of Rundgren 1955. BiOr. 14: 2048. ____. 1959/81. Akkadisches Handwrterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1959. Assyriologische Miszellen. WZKM 55: 4961. ____. 1961a. Zum Akkusativ der Beziehung im Akkadischen. Or. 30: 15662. ____. 1961b. Akkadisch. Pp. 3357 in Linguistica Semitica: presente e futuro, ed. G. Levi della Vida. Studi Semitici 4. Rome: Universit di Roma, Centro di Studi Semitici. ____. 1962. Review of CAD, vol. 7 (IJ) and vol. 21 (Z). OLZ 1962: 48386. ____. 1964. Zu A. Haldar, The Akkadian Verbal System. Or. 33: 43742. ____. 1965. Das akkadische T-Perfekt in Haupt- und Nebenstzen und sumerische Verbalformen mit den Prfixen BA-, IMMA-, und U-. Pp. 10310 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger, ed. H. G. Gterbock et al. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1968a. n als Wurzelaugment im Semitischen. Pp. 17584 in Studia Orientalia in Memoriam Caroli Brockelmann. Halle (Saale). ____. 1968b. Die Spirantisierung von Verschlusslauten im Akkadischen: Ein Vorbericht. JNES 27: 21420. ____. 1968c. Aramische Wrter in neuassyrischen und neu- und sptbabylonischen Texten: Ein Vorbericht. II (n-z und Nachtrge). Or. 37: 26171. ____. 1972. Ergnzende Bemerkungen zum Liebeszauber-Text MAD 5 Nr. 8. ZA 62: 27374. ____. 1973. Der akkadische Subordinativ-Subjunktiv. ZA 63: 5658. ____. 1975. Seltene akkadische Wrter. StOr. 46: 32332. ____. 1978. Die erste Tafel des altbabylonischen Atramass-Mythus: Haupttext und Parallelversionen. ZA 68: 5094. ____. 1985. Prsensformen in frhkanaanischen Personennamen. Pp. 30710 in Miscellanea Babylonica: Mlanges offerts Maurice Birot, ed. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
References
627
____. 1987. thiopisch-akkadische Isoglossen. Pp. 559567 in Proceedings of the 4th International Hamito-Semitic Congress, ed. H. Jungraithmayr and W. W. Mller. CILT 44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1988. Sonderflle bei der regressiven Assimilation von l, m und n an stimmlose Konsonanten im Akkadischen. Pp. 26985 in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum: Festgabe fr Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987, ed. G. Mauer and U. Magen. AOAT 220. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 1989. Aus Sprache, Geschichte und Religion Babyloniens. Gesammelte Aufstze herausgegeben von L. Cagni und H.-P. Mller. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. ____. 1991a. Deminutiva nach der Form qutail > qutl und vergleichbare vierkonsonantige Bildungen im Akkadischen. Pp. 148892 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1991b. Tempus und Modus im lteren Semitischen. Pp. 46393 in Babylonien und Israel, ed. H.-P. Mller. Wege der Forschung 633. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ____. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 3., ergnzte Auflage. AnOr. 33/47. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Soden, W. von, and Rllig, W. 1991. Das akkadische Syllabar, 4., durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. AnOr. 42. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Soggin, J. A. 1965. Tracce di antichi causativi in - realizzati come radici autonome in ebraico biblico. AION 15: 1730. Soldt, W. H. van 1991. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. AOAT 40. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Sommerfeld, W. 1999. Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit 1. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub. IMGULA Band 3/1. Mnster: Rhema. ____. 2003. Bemerkungen zur Dialektgliederung Altakkadisch, Assyrisch und Babylonisch. Pp. 56986 in Festschrift fr Burkhart Kienast, ed. G. Selz. AOAT 274. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2006. Varianten in der Keilschrift-Orthographie und die historische Phonologie des Akkadischen. Pp. 35976 in apal tibnim m illak: Studies Presented to Joaqun Sanmartn, ed. G. del Olmo Lete et al. AuOr. Supplementa 22. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA. Song, J. J. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. Longman Linguistics Library. London: Longman. ____. 2001. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Longman Linguistics Library. Harlow: Longman. Sonnek, F. 1940. Die Einfhrung der direkten Rede in den epischen Texten. ZA 46: 22535. Speiser, E. A. 1967. Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, edited and with an Introduction by J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stamm, J. J. 1939. Die akkadische Namengebung. Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-gyptischen Gesellschaft 44. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. Stassen, L. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon. Stein, P. 2000. Die mittel- und neubabylonischen Knigsinschriften bis zum Ende der Assyrerherrschaft. Jenaer Beitrge zum Vorderen Orient 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2003. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabischen. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, Band 3. Rahden/Westf: Marie Leidorf.
628
References
Steiner, G. 1981. Die sog. tan-Stmme des akkadischen Verbums und ihre semitischen Grundlagen. ZDMG 131: 927. Stempel, R. 1995. Stativ, Perfekt und Medium: Eine vergleichende Analyse fr das Indogermanische und Semitische. Pp. 51728 in: Kuryowicz Memorial Volume, ed. W. Smoczyski. Krakw: Universitas. ____. 1999. Abri einer historischen Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Nordostafrikanischwestasiatische Studien 3. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Stol, M. 1988. Review of Whiting 1987. AfO 35: 17779. ____. 1991. Old Babylonian Personal Names. SEL 8: 191212. Streck, M. P. 1994. Funktionsanalyse des akkadischen t2-Stamms. ZA 84: 16197. ____. 1995a. Zahl und Zeit: Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Sptbabylonischen. CM 5. Groningen: Styx Publications. ____. 1995b. ittaab ibakki weinend setzte er sich: iparras fr die Vergangenheit in der akkadischen Epik. Or. 64: 3391. ____. 1997. Review of Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996. ZA 87: 27176. ____. 1997/98. Review of Buccellati 1996. AfO 44/45: 31425. ____. 1998a. The Tense Systems in the Sumerian-Akkadian Linguistic Area. ASJ 20: 18199. ____. 1998b. Review of Kouwenberg 1997. Or. 67: 52331. ____. 1999. Das Perfekt iptaras im Altbabylonischen der Hammurapi-Briefe. Pp. 10126 in Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen, ed. N. Nebes. Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2000. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, Band I. AOAT 271/1. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2002a. Sprachliche Innovationen und Archaismen in den akkadischen Personennamen. Pp. 10922 in Altorientalische und Semitische Onomastik, ed. M. P. Streck and S. Weninger. AOAT 296. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2002b. Die Nominalformen maPRaS(t), maPRS und maPRiS(t) im Akkadischen. Pp. 22357 in Neue Beitrge zur Semitistik, ed. N. Nebes. Jenaer Beitrge zum Vorderen Orient 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2003a. Die akkadischen Verbalstmme mit ta-Infix. AOAT 303. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2003b. Review of Hmeen-Anttila 2000. ZA 93: 12628. ____. 2005. Simply a Seller, Nothing But Gods: The Nominal Suffix -n in Old Babylonian. Babel und Bibel 2: 23343. ____. 2006. Sibilants in the Old Babylonian Texts of Hammurapi and of the Governors in Qaunn. Pp. 21551 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szemernyi, O. J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon. Taine-Cheikh, C. 2003. Ladjectif et la conjugaison suffixale en berbre. Pp. 66174 in Mlanges David Cohen, ed. J. Lentin and A. Lonnet. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose. Tchapygina, V. A. 2004. Observations on the Use of the Subjunctive in the Inscribed Liver Models from Mari. Babel und Bibel 1: 35560. Testen, D. 1992. A Trace of Barths Preradical *i in Akkadian. JNES 51: 13133. ____. 1993a. On the Development of the Energic Suffixes. Pp. 293311 in Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics V, ed. M. Eid and C. Holes. CILT 101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1993b. The East Semitic Precative Paradigm. JSS 38: 113.
References
629
____. 1994a. The I-w Verbal Class and the Reconstruction of the Early Semitic Preradical Vocalism. JAOS 114: 42634. ____. 1994b. On the Development of the Arabic Subjunctive. Pp. 15166 in Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics VI, ed. M. Eid, V. Cantarino, and K. Walters. CILT 115. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1998a. The Derivational Role of the Semitic N-Stem. ZA 88: 12745. ____. 1998b. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics. SSLL 26. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1999. Arabic Evidence for the Formation of the Verbal Noun of the Semitic Gt-stem. JSS 44: 116. ____. 2000. Conjugating the Prefixed Stative Verbs of Akkadian. JNES 59: 8192. ____. 2002. Review of Lipiski 1997. IOS 20: 51120. ____. 2006. An Akkadian-Arabic Cognate Pair and the Formation of Stem-based Diminutives in Early Semitic. Pp. 14049 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Tropper, J. 1990. Der ugaritische Kausativstamm und die Kausativbildungen des Semitischen. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas, Band 2. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 1994. Present *yaqtulum in Central Semitic. JSS 39: 16. ____. 1995a. Die semitische Suffixkonjugation im Wandel. Pp. 491516 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 1995b. Akkadisch nuutu und die Reprsentation des Phonems // im Akkadischen. ZA 85: 5866. ____. 1997a. Probleme des akkadischen Verbalparadigmas. AoF 24: 189210. ____. 1997b. Ventiv oder yaqtula-Volitiv in den Amarnabriefen aus Syrien-Palstina? Pp. 397 405 in Ana ad Labnni l allik: Beitrge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen KulturenFestschrift fr Wolfgang Rllig, ed. B. Pongratz-Leisten et al. AOAT 247. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 1997c. Subvarianten und Funktionen der sabischen Prfixkonjugation. Or. 66: 3457. ____. 1998a. Die Infirmen Verben des Akkadischen. ZDMG 148: 734. ____. 1998b. Althebrisches und semitisches Aspektsystem. ZAh 11: 15390. ____. 1999a. Die Endungen der semitischen Suffixkonjugation und der Absolutivkasus. JSS 44: 17593. ____. 1999b. Zur Etymologie von akkadisch uknu / ueunu. WdO 30: 9194. ____. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2002. Altthiopisch. Grammatik des Geez mit bungstexten und Glossar. Elementa Linguarum Orientis 2. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Ullendorff, E. 1955. The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Comparative Phonology. London: Taylors (Foreign) Press. ____. 1958. What Is a Semitic Language? Or. 27: 6675. ____. 1971. Comparative Semitics. Pp. 2739 in Hodge, ed. 1971. Ultan, R. 1975. Infixes and Their Origins. Pp. 157205 in Linguistic Workshop III, ed. H. Seiler. Arbeiten des Klner Universalienprojekts. Structura 9. Munich: Fink. Ungnad, A. 1918. Haben im Babylonisch-Assyrischen. ZA 31: 27781. Ungnad, A., and Matou, L. 1964. Grammatik des Akkadischen. Munich: C. H. Beck. Unseth, P. 2003. Surveying Bi-consonantal Reduplication in Semitic. Pp. 25773 in Selected Comparative-Historical Afrasian Linguistic Studies in Memory of Igor M. Diakonoff, ed. D. L. Appleyard et al. LINCOM Studies in Afroasiatic Linguistics 14. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
630
References
Vaan, J. M. C. T. de. 1995. Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Knigs: Die Sprache des Bl-ibni. AOAT 242. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Veenhof, K. R. 1972. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology. Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia 10. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1973. An Old Babylonian Deed of Purchase of Land in the de Liagre Bhl Collection. Pp. 35979 in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Bhl dedicatae, ed. M. A. Beek et al. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1986. Two Akkadian Auxiliary Verbs. Pp. 23550 in Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J. H. Hospers, ed. H. L. J. van Stiphout et al. Groningen: Forsten. ____. 1995. Old Assyrian iurtum, Akkadian erum and Hittite GI.UR. Pp. 31132 in Studio Historiae Ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate, ed. T. P. J. van den Hout and J. de Roos. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. ____. 2001. The Old Assyrian Period. Pp. 93159 in Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook and R. Jasnow. Culture and History of the Ancient near East, vol. 9. Leiden: Brill. ____. 2002. Notes on a New Volume of Old Assyrian Texts (Review of Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln aus den Sammlungen der Karlsuniversitt Prag, by K. Hecker, G. Kryszat, and L. Matou). JAOS 107: 797802. ____. 2003. The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications. Publications of the Turkish Historical Society, 6th series, no. 64. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu. ____. 2010. The Archive of Kuliya, son of Ali-abum (Kt. 92/k 188263). Kltepe Tabletleri V. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu. Versteegh, K. 1997. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Vincente, C. A. 1991. The 1987 Tell Leilan Tablets Dated by the Limmu of Habil-Kinu. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Voigt, R. M. 1978. Semitohamitisch und Omotisch. Africana Marburgensia 11/2: 3360. ____. 1981. Inkompatibilitten und Diskrepanzen in der Sprache und das erste phonologische Inkompatibilittsgesetz des Semitischen. WdO 12: 13672. ____. 1985. Die beiden Prfixkonjugationen des Ostkuschitischen. Afrika und bersee 68: 87104. ____. 1986. A note on the Alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Sound Change s(*) ss . JNES 45: 5357. ____. 1987a. Die tan-Stmme und das System der Verbalformen im Akkadischen. ZDMG 137: 24665. ____. 1987b. The Two Prefix-conjugations in East Cushitic, East Semitic, and Chadic. BSOAS 50: 33045. ____. 1987c. Derivatives und flektives T im Semitohamitischen. Pp. 85107 in Proceedings of the 4th International Hamito-Semitic Congress, ed. H. Jungraithmayr and W. W. Mller. CILT 44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1987d. The Classification of Central Semitic. JSS 32: 121. ____. 1987e. Die Personalpronomina der 3. Personen im Semitischen. WdO 18: 4963. ____. 1988a. Die infirmen Verbaltypen des Arabischen und das Biradikalismus-Problem. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
References
631
____. 1988b. Einige berlegungen zum Aspektsystem des Bedauye. Pp. 47181 in FUCUS, A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, ed. Y. L. Arbeitman. CILT 58. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1988c. Zur Bildung des Prsens im Bedauye. Pp. 377407 in Cushitic Omotic: Papers from the International Symposium on Cushitic and Omotic Languages, Cologne, January 69, 1986, ed. M. Bechhaus-Gerst and F. Serzisko. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. ____. 1990a. Die drei Aspekte des Semitohamitischen und des Indogermanischen. Pp. 87102 in vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress 1987, ed. H. G. Mukarovsky. Vienna: Afro-Pub. ____. 1990b. The Gemination of the Present-Imperfect Forms in Old Ethiopic. JSS 35: 118. ____. 1990c. The Tense-Aspect System of Biblical Hebrew. Pp. 18 in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division D, vol. I. Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies. ____. 1994. Neusdarabisch und thiopisch. Pp. 291307 in Arabia Felix. Beitrge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien: Festschrift Walter W. Mller, ed. N. Nebes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1995. Akkadisch umma wenn und die Konditionalpartikeln des Westsemitischen. Pp. 51728 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 1997. Zur Nominal- und Verbalnasalierung im Semitischen. WZKM 87: 20730. ____. 2002. The Hamitic Connection: Semitic and Semitohamitic. IOS 20: 26590. ____. 2004. Die Entwicklung des Aspektsystems vom Ursemitischen zum Hebrischen. ZDMG 154: 3555. Vycichl, W. 1934. Hausa und gyptisch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Hamitistik. Mitteilungen des Seminars fr Orientalische Sprachen zu Berlin, 3. Abt., Afrikanische Studien 37: 36116. ____. 1991. Nominale Bildungen der sogenannten emphatischen Konjugation des gyptischen mit Vergleichen aus dem Arabischen und Berberischen. Pp. 42735 in gypten im afroorientalischen Kontext, Gedenkschrift Peter Behrens, ed. D. Mendel and U. Claudi. Cologne: Institut fr Afrikanistik, Universitt zu Kln. Wchter, L. 1971. Reste von afel-Bildungen im Hebrischen. ZAW 83: 38089. Waerzeggers, C. 1997. Le prcatif: forme de politesse en no-babylonien. Akkadica 101: 3035. Wagner, E. 1952. Die erste Person Dualis im Semitischen. WZKM 102: 22933. ____. 1993. Gedanken zum Verb des Mehri aufgrund der neuen Materialien von Johnstone. ZAL 25: 31639. Waltereit, R. 1999. What It Means to Deceive Yourself: The Semantic Relation of French Reflexive Verbs and Their Corresponding Transitive Verbs. Pp. 25778 in Reflexives, Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 40. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Waltisberg, M. 2002a. Zur Ergativittshypothese im Semitischen. ZDMG 152: 1162. ____. 2002b. Die Funktionen der altthiopischen St-Stmme. Ein Kurzbericht. Pp. 28188 in Neue Beitrge zur Semitistik, ed. N. Nebes. Jenaer Beitrge zum Vorderen Orient 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Waltke, B. K., and OConnor, M. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Wasserman, N. 2003. Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. CM 27. Leiden: Brill/ Styx. Welmers, W. E. 1952. Notes on the Structure of Saho. Word 8: 14562 and 23651.
632
References
Westenholz, A. 1978. Some Notes on the Orthography and Grammar of the Recently Published Texts from Mari. BiOr. 35: 16069. ____. 1987. Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia, Part 2: The Akkadian Texts, the Enlilemaba Texts, and the Onion Archive. CNI Publications 3. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. ____. 1988. Personal Names in Ebla and in Pre-Sargonic Babylonia. Pp. 99117 in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-giving, ed. A. Archi. ARES 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. ____. 1991. The Phoneme /o / in Akkadian. ZA 81: 1019. ____. 1996. Review of The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, vol. 2, by D. R. Frayne. BiOr. 53: 11623. ____. 1999. The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. Pp. 17117 in W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III Zeit. OBO 160/3. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universittsverlag / Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ____. 2007. The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again. ZA 97: 262313. Westenholz, J. Goodnick 1997. Legends of the Kings of Akkade. MC 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Westenholz, J. and A. 1977. Help for Rejected Suitors: The Old Akkadian Love Incantation MAD V 8. Or. 46: 198219. Wetzer, H. 1996. The Typology of Adjectival Predication. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Whiting, R. M. 1981. The R Stem(s) in Akkadian. Or. 50: 139. ____. 1987. Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar. AS 22. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Wierzbicka, A. 1986. Whats in a Noun? (Or: How do Nouns Differ in Meaning from Adjectives?). Studies in Language 10: 35389. Wiggermann, F. A. M. 2000. Agriculture in the Northern Balikh Valley: The Case of Middle Assyrian Tell Sabi Abyad. Pp. 171231 in Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia, ed. R. M. Jas. MOS Studies 3. PIHANS 88. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. Wilcke, C. 1978. Zur Deutung der SI.BI-Klausel in den sptaltbabylonischen Kaufvertrgen aus Nordbabylonien. WO 9/2: 20612. ____. 1987. A Riding Tooth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Synecdoche, Quick and Frozen in Everyday Language. Pp. 77102 in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin et al. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Willms, A. 1972. Grammatik der sdlichen Beraberdialekte (Sdmarokko). Afrikanistische Forschungen 6. Glckstadt: Augustin. Wolff, E. 1977. Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations. Pp. 199233 in Papers in Chadic Linguistics: Papers from the Leiden Colloquium on the Chadic Language Family, ed. P. Newman & R. M. Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum. ____. 1979. Grammatical Categories of Verb Stems and the Marking of Mood, Aktionsart, and Aspect in Chadic. Afroasiatic Linguistics 6/5: 161208. ____. 2001. Verbal Plurality in Chadic: Grammaticalisation Chains and Early Chadic History. Pp. 12367 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Afroasiatic Languages, ed. A. Simpson. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
References
633
Woodard, R. D., ed. 2004. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woodington, N. R. 1982. A Grammar of the Neo-Babylonian Letters of the Kuyunjik Collection. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Woods, C. E. 2001. The Deictic Foundations of the Sumerian Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Worthington, M. 2006. Dialect Admixture of Babylonian and Assyrian in SAA VIII, X, XII, XVII and XVIII. Iraq 68: 5984. Wright, W. 1890. Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ____. 1967. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd. ed. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ylvisaker, S. 1912. Zur babylonischen und assyrischen Grammatik. Eine Untersuchung auf Grund der Briefe aus der Sargonidenzeit. Leipziger Semitistische Studien V/6. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Zaborski, A. 1975. The Verb in Cushitic. Warsaw: Pastwowe Wydawn. Naukowe. ____. 1989. Denominal Suffix Conjugations in Beja. Pp. 40918 in Studia Semitica necnon Iranica Rudolpho Macuch septuagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicata, ed. M. Macuch et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1991. Biconsonantal Roots and Triconsonantal Root Variation in Semitic: Solutions and Prospects. Pp. 16751703 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1994a. Archaic Semitic in the Light of Hamito-Semitic. ZAh 7: 23444. ____. 1994b. Exceptionless Incompatibility Rules and Verbal Root Structure in Semitic. Pp. 118 in Semitic and Cushitic Studies, ed. G. Goldenberg and S. Raz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1996a. On the Origin of Subjunctive and Energicus in Semitic. Incontri Linguistici 19: 6976. ____. 1996b. Some Alleged Exceptions to Incompatibility Rules in Arabic Verbal Roots. Pp. 63158 in Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures: Memorial Volume of Karel Petrek, ed. P. Zemnek. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. ____. 1999a. On Hamitosemitic Participles. Pp. 3539 in Afroasiatica Tergestina, ed. M. Lamberti and L. Tonelli. Padova: Unipress. ____. 1999b. Remarks on Derived Verbs in Hamitosemitic. Pp. 4451 in Tradition and Innovation: Norm and Deviation in Arabic and Semitic Linguistics, ed. L. Edzard and M. Nekroumi. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2001. Verbale Flexion und Derivation mit T und M/N: ein etymologischer Versuch. Pp. 59399 in Akten des 27. Deutschen Orientalistentages, ed. S. Wild and H. Schild. Wrzburg: Ergon. ____. 2003. Les formes verbales intensives avec lobjet direct au pluriel comme une des sources du prsent en chamitosmitique. Pp. 72327 in Mlanges David Cohen, ed. J. Lentin and A. Lonnet. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose. ____. 2004. Traces of iptaras in Arabic. Pp. 16071 in Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (AfroAsiatic) Studies in Memoriam W. Vycichl, ed. G. Takcs. SSLL 39. Leiden: Brill. ____. 2005a. Tense, Aspect and Mood Categories of Proto-Semitic. Pp. 1130 in Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon I, ed. L. Edzard and J. Rets. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
634
References
____. 2005b. The Oldest Periphrastic Conjugations of Hamitosemitic. Pp. 8594 in Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamitosemitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics, ed. P. Fronzaroli and P. Marrassini. QuSem. 25. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Universit di Firenze. ____. 2007. Non-Causative Verbs of the Causative aqtala Class in Arabic and *yuqtilu Conjugation in Proto-Semitic. Pp. 3143 in Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg, ed. T. Bar and E. Cohen. AOAT 334. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Zadok, T. 1996. The Subjunctive Morphemes Following the Subordinating Particles inm/inu/ inma when Introducing Temporal Clauses in Old Babylonian Royal Inscriptions. AION 56: 14558. Zewi, T. 1999. A Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. AOAT 260. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Zonhoven, L. 1998. Studies on the sm.t=f Verb Form in Classical Egyptian, V the Relative Future Tense sm.t=f. BiOr. 55: 600642.
subjectindex
I/a verbs 41, 53738, 54143, 546, 54850 I/e verbs 41, 46465, 53738, 54143, 546, 54850 I/H verbs 41, 455, 541, 546, 552 I/n verbs 4142, 68, 73, 31719, 321, 418, 45254, 461, 46971, 47274, 48990, 547, 549, 553 I/voc verbs 41, 45, 68, 73, 448, 53754 G-stem 45052, 46265, 492, 54246 D-stem 45051, 54344, 547 -stem 90, 45657, 54850 N-stem 338, 291, 321, 469, 55054 t-stems 454, 54647, 549 tan-stems 418, 424, 432, 54647, 54950, 554 historical background 41, 53943, 54099 I/w verbs 4142, 4439, 58, 68, 697090, 73, 75, 126, 44750 G-stem 5051, 214, 45053 D-stem 26970, 45455 -stem 11314, 271, 328, 45557, 54849 N-stem 457 t-stems 13536, 386, 403, 454 historical background 45762, 542102, 590 I/*y verbs 58, 75, 46265, 528
II/ verbs 41, 4445, 74, 1622, 300, 448, 47476, 48889, 556, 56372 II/ verbs 41, 45, 74, 448, 483127, 566, 56972 II/gem verbs/roots 35, 6364, 68, 136, 3012, 334, 429, 439, 588, 590 conjugation 58, 166, 20225, 491494 semantics 49496 alternation with other roots 102350, 477105, 49596 II/H verbs 41, 134, 256, 34649, 443, 47576, 539, 55472 II/ and II/ verbs: see II/voc verbs/roots II/voc verbs/roots 41, 45, 61, 63, 6566, 318, 448, 515, 536, 554, 559, 56369, 572 G-stem 68, 139, 2113, 47680 D-stem 347, 48285 -stem 325, 336, 48588 N-stem 25556, 488 t-stems 47, 480 tan-stems 427, 436, 48082 semantics 476 historical background 10250, 46152, 47476, 59091 III/H verbs 41, 1943, 49798, 530, 539, 57283 III/voc verbs 41, 45, 69, 7275, 7879, 400401, 448, 531, 57883 III/voc verbs (cont.) G-stem 134, 140, 1943, 20632, 499509 D-stem 33637 N-stem 29192 historical background 49698 IV/voc verbs 30910,
a > e (MB) 269, 325, 339, 53436 A/a verbs: see vowel class A/a Ablaut: see apophony Ablaut class: see vowel class abstract nouns 34, 36, 38, 70, 19799, 342, 345, 44445, 528 accusative as direct object 6667, 171 with motion verbs 67, 260 adjunct Acc 20119, 25960, 272, 274 double Acc 174, 274 as object of Inf 31, 1943, 19597 as object of PrPartc 20429 of suffix pronouns 23840 of III/weak Infs 508, 583 action verbs 253, 257, 27179, 28586, 328, 421; see also process verbs active vs. passive: see Voice actuality 91, 128, 13132, 14047 adjectival verbs 5866, 919, 198 identification 5860, 7398, 494163 vowel class 68, 7273, 464, 529 Impfv 11112 Inf 194, 1958 PrPartc 206 derived stems 27274, 285, 29798, 32829, 331 weak verbs 166, 449, 476, 479, 495, 529 in WSem 181, 28283 in Berber 10655, 17748, 192, 28341 adjectives (see also adjectival verbs and individual adjectival patterns) derivation 68 conjugation 5860, 17748, 298 with gemination 34, 28386, 593 with reduplication 44446 and adjectival verbs 5866, 529 and Stat 16468, 17879, 18593 instead of Inf 1958 substantivation 199, 2012, 359 primary Adj vs. PPartc 30, 161, 200202, 320, 493 adjectivization 20841 Afar 317
635
636
affectedness (degree of) 6667, 159, 172 affirmative main clauses 10, 12829, 14445, 15355, 22961 affix(ation) 39, 155, 17962, 258, 311, 369, 382, 496166, 507197 A-forms (vs. E-forms) 310, 53037 Afroasiatic 2, 2021, 587 prefix conj. 43, 52, 37880 suffix conj. 18993 Impfv 90, 99, 104110, 115, 58990, 593 Pfv 12930 Imp 13324 derived stems 254, 28083 t-infix/suffix 15657, 267, 375, 381 n-prefix 31417, 322125 s-prefix 35152 plural marker -a- 54099 agent (in passive clauses) 25759, 369, 384 agent nouns 3435, 49, 57, 96, 10250, 11065, 18486, 199, 203, 20510, 2681, 445, 521, 571 agentive, -ity 66, 164, 257, 27274, 27879, 284, 287, 32829, 35253 A/i verbs: see vowel class A/i Akkadian passim attestation 911 dialects 919, 2127, 46, 48, 51 peripheral Akk 10 vs. Eblaite 2223 see also the individual dialects Aktionsart 5455, 6970, 72 aleph (spelling of) 52021, 53839, 544, 570, 575; see also glottal stop allative 1624, 23340 allegro vs. lento forms 505 Amarna Akkadian 10, 51, 9937, 184, 189, 36643, 419 Amharic 4127, 22961, 28238, 317, 446 Amorite 9937, 189, 35068, 375, 38085, 473, 51722, 523 analogical change 7, 4647, 5929, 18183, 216, 256, 289, 306, 339, 347, 37980, 402, 455, 528, 533, 540, 547, 552, 582 analogy 3, 7, 2425, 11472, 139, 28543, 321, 392, 393, 420, 45253, 463, 471, 48385, 5078 anaptyctic vowel 321123 anterior 9293, 95, 12728, 1418, 147, 153 anticausative 260, 369, 38081, 38687 aorist (Beja) 156 aorist (Berber) 1045, 108, 115, 129, 17748, 192, 589 aorist (Indo-European) 127, 132, 17341 A-paradigm 531 apophony 3940, 45, 71, 105, 203, 28647 a/i apophony in Akk 111, 11214, 120, 122, 125, 315, 456, 473, 52930, 535, 549 Arabic 20, 3840, 43 Impfv 56, 95, 98, 103, 111, 22829 Pfv 12931, 587 Perfect 179, 18186 Imp 13325, 13537, 242
Subject Index
Arabic (cont.) PrPartc 184, 210 Energicus 13739, 22753, 24144 Subjunctive 241, 590 vowel classes 71, 74, 11819, 203, 28647, 588 passive 11578, 203, 46153, 589 reduplication 446 derived verbal stems 592, 594 II 39, 9732, 11577, 11920, 20945, 28082, 4012 III 21046, 283, 284 IV 119, 28236, 284, 350, 41214 V 10250, 281, 382, 39294, 436, 586 VI 382 VII 32123, 38081 VIII 156, 37576, 38081 IX 34450 X 350, 41214 XI-XV 446 quadrilit. verbs 121, 124, 307 II/gem verbs 35 noun patterns: aqtal 39, 331, 33221 maqtl 203 qatil 203 qitl 19911 taqtVl 37779 Aramaic 9, 1920 PrPartc 109 derived stems 32122, 350, 37576, 379, 38082, 39293, 412, 473 status determinatus 17960, 18890 suffix pronouns 243 qatl 203 Aramaic influence on Akkadian 15, 129, 166, 30769 Archaic Babylonian 1213, 128, 14625, 180, 22627, 477, 506, 519, 527 archaic heterogeneity 10040 archaic features: of literary Bab 14, 27110 of Mari Old Akk 22 in Impfv 76 in Stat 16824, 18788 in Vet 219 areal influence 1089, 534, 59596 argument reduction 258, 261, 37071, 381 asseverative 1288, 13031, 21316, 21934 assertory (oath) 231 assimilation of vowels 65, 80, 13533, 27112, 481, 489, 490145; see also vowel assimilation (Ass) of n 242104, 28545, 289, 304, 309, 323, 43133, 436, 46970, 520, 539, 550, 552 of t in the t-stems 35960, 379 of other consonants 233, 319, 320, 390, 47290, 513, 558, 578, 580 in Hebrew 394, 461 atelic activity verbs 5930, 70, 73, 111, 127, 1418, 169, 198, 200, 274, 328, 476, 491
Subject Index
autobenefactive 15859, 263, 265 auxiliary verb 4, 52, 106, 158, 31617, 35354, 36957, 58915 A-verbs 68, 89, 356, 417, 425, 53537 ay > 2324, 27, 111, 51724 ay > 25, 3820, 111 back-formation 345, 382, 420, 454, 478, 565, 56769 backgrounding vs. foregrounding 93, 14445, 148, 154, Barth-Ginsberg Law 5272, 135, 46364, 467 basic (vs. derived) 510, 447, 469 basic form (of a paradigm) 5, 78, 32, 58, 90, 112, 127, 250, 252, 27112, 434, 531, 534, 537 basic stem/verb (vs. derived stems) (see also G-stem): in Akk 11216, 25052, 355, 372, 434, 540, 567 in WSem 103, 12024, 129, 28283, 38081, 594 in PSem 40, 100101, 254, 437, 585, 58791 Bedeutungsklassen 68 Beja 104, 1069, 129, 156, 282, 352, 593 benefactive 15960, 243 Berber 20, 199 prefix conj. 52, 589 suffix conj. 18283, 19093 Impfv 1046, 1089, 192, 282, 437, 593 Pfv 129, 17748 verbal noun 199 derived stems 115, 28183 t-infix/prefix 156, 37569 t-suffix 37567 m-prefix 315103, 322125 s-prefix 351 biliteral elements 123, 31415, 31821, 341 binyanim 2462 biradical imperatives 4231, 31819, 453 biradical infinitives 31819 biradical roots 4142, 317110, 346, 444, 45961, 474, 495 bisyllabic vs. monosyllabic (statives) 58, 136, 166, 49293 bitransitive causatives 327 bleaching 7498, 321 bound (vs. free t-perfects) 14143, 147, 150 bounded(ness) 94, 1276 broken plural 20 broken spellings 224, 5045, 511, 52024, 55455, 567, 57780 causative (vs. factitive) 25657, 28286, 325 causative categories: in Akk 5825, 24954, 302, 307, 31516, 32734, 338, 345, 4057 in WSem 35054, 41214, 58586, 594, 596 Central Semitic 20, 326, 59597 Impfv 97103 Pfv 12930 Perfect 182 Energicus 24142, 244
637
Central Semitic (cont.) PrPartc 210 passive 11577, 32223 quadrirad. verbs 124, 319, 586 I/w verbs 459 Chadic 20, 10041, 1089, 157, 281, 284, 495166, 589, 593 change-of-state verbs 55, 5930, 169, 272, 285, 328, 476 chiasmus/chiastic 146 circumstantial clauses 93, 14520, 1969, 210, 230 citation form 4442, 5927, 194 Classical Arabic: see Arabic Classical Old Babylonian 1314, 220, 485, 506, 519, 52729, 532, 540 cliticization 52, 215, 369 coalescence 136, 180, 215, 238, 241 collective (nouns) 265 collective (use of reciprocal) 265, 36264 commands 133, 137, 21819, 242, 319 comparative method 23 comparative Semitics 4041, 97, 354 compensatory lengthening 507, 519, 544 competition between alternative forms 112, 12829, 298, 370, 402 completive 130, 159 concessive (use of the precative) 212 concomitant, -nce 9627, 107, 210 conditional clauses 9495, 128, 129, 132, 141, 148, 15355, 231 conjugation 68, 2933, 6986, 25114, 256, 31617, 515, 536 conjugational prefix 307, 316, 324, 350 consecutio temporum (CT) 1429, 14546, 148, 15253, 155 consecutive imperfect (Hebrew) 129, 131 consonant clusters 10, 113, 12122, 239, 322, 432, 452, 471, 486, 491, 5047, 57678, 58081 construct state 24, 188, 1942, 19911, 204, 518 continuous (aspect) 256, 384, 415 contraction: see vowel contraction convergence 180, 595 copula 54, 56, 130, 158, 174, 17856, 28032, 31617108, 353, 58915 coreferential, -ity 26163, 266, 36956 curse formula 5165, 188, 225 Cushitic 2021, 31617 prefix conjugation 52, 45944, 54099 suffix conjugation 190, 19293 Impfv 1068, 110, 12091, 434248, 477105, 589 Pfv 129 suffix -u/-nV 10041 t-suffix 157, 37567, 37568, 37569 m/n-prefix 316103, 322125 derived stems 281 cyclical (processes) 4, 374 D tantum verbs 27779, 282, 33324, 423, 454 damqam-nim construction 20119
638
Dasenech (Cushitic) 12091 dative 23540 dative pronouns 12, 18, 2324, 16263, 196, 233, 241103, 35276 declension 6, 14, 50, 25114 decline: of the t-stems 25556, 322, 35556, 37375, 38182, 385, 388, 402, 41920, 43334 of other categories 7, 24, 10250, 16824, 219, 495 deixis/deictic 33, 141, 14521, 316108 demonstrative pronouns 17753, 196, 198, 241, 36957 denominal verbs 3820, 4333, 44, 250, 283 in D-stem 102, 27778, 28285, 454 in -stem 33233, 35051, 353, 397, 4069, 41314, 585 in quadrirad. verbs 30155, 306, 30769 denominalization 250 dependency relations 12, 164, 200, 252, 316105, 321122, 336, 447, 453, 459, 540 derivation by association 3940, 402 derivation (vs. inflection) 67, 35, 37, 4445, 139, 25052, 293, 521 derivational forms 6, 14, 2829, 3337, 25153, 445 derivational processes 39, 41, 54, 177, 253, 285, 407 derived (verbal) stems (see also the individual stems): in general 68, 16, 28, 4228, 24546, 393125, 404, 43839, 447, 59195 relation to G-stem 5354, 24854 formal aspects 68, 7071, 75, 8990, 139, 24648, 52931, 567 diachronic 100104, 10915, 25456, 407, 413 in WSem 117123, 28647, 32223, 44345 detransitive, -ity 251, 253, 258, 261, 54099, 58889 of the N-stem 29394, 299, 32122 of t-stems 15559, 35556, 360, 36975, 38082, 384, 386, 39495, 402, 41214, 43334, 436, 594 deverbal adjectives 34, 161, 200, 20634, 27111, 377 deverbal derivations 811, 32, 3334, 37, 40, 43, 11065, 316105, 377 deverbal nouns 811, 34, 3739, 45, 11475, 198, 265, 2681, 27724, 285, 29010, 325, 37779, 397402, 439, 44445, 46062, 507, 531, 585 diachronic typology 3, 5 dialect classification 1012, 2027, 534, 59597 dialect variation 13536, 269, 448, 510 dialects of Akkadian: see Akkadian dialogue 918, 9627, 142, 237 diathesis 56, 3031, 3820, 194, 28648 diminutives 68, 38, 44, 445, 508202 direct reflexive: see reflexive direct speech 93, 237 direction, -ality 42, 24044, 318 dissimilation 2223, 35, 43, 19911, 210, 270, 36431, 436253, 436254, 46970, 489143, 51518, 553140 dittography 31291, 391 double t-infix: see t-perfect doubly weak verbs 75, 13635, 37262, 5034, 561 drag chain 433
Subject Index
D-stem 14, 5825, 102, 12021, 246, 26887 form 134, 215, 26871, 45051, 45455, 48286, 521, 53437, 54041, 547, 563, 568, 571 function 5930, 66, 96, 25658, 27179 in relation to other stems 247, 25054, 293, 306, 319, 32425, 32829, 33337, 378, 38286, 388, 39495, 4012, 4079, 421, 423, 434 comparative 1056, 124, 28082, 284, 35051, 45859; see also under the individual languages in PSem 11417, 129, 59295 Dt-stem 114, 169, 206, 246, 248, 251, 254, 262, 358, 38288, 39295, 396, 41214, 41920, 44043, 485, 52930, 536 Dtn-stem 206, 246, 419, 42224, 425, 485, 530 Dtr-stem 254, 43943, 585 Dtt-stem 255, 30769, 38485, 38891 dual 10, 13, 22, 24, 51, 179, 18892, 232, 29528, 36432 durative (Aktionsart) 4, 54, 9394, 10144, 111, 127, 209, 256, 278, 284, 320121, 337, 361, 373, 415, 491 durative verbs 69, 72, 10250, 494, 497 dynamic (nature of paradigms) 7 dynamic (vs. static) 54 Early Old Babylonian 13, 51, 180, 22526, 506 Eblaite 14, 299 relation to Akkadian 2223, 27 syllabary 51316 vowel syncope 48 E-colouring 526 Impfv 95 Inf 19911, 255, 500179 t-Pf 14934 perfect (suffix conj.) 18889 ventive 233, 24098 derived verbal stems 255, 27071, 29394, 327, 36539, 42021211 quadrirad. verbs 3067, 314, 34647 weak verbs 458, 46049, 46259, 46571, 46778, 475, 500179 prefixes 5152 noun patterns 3820 verbal nouns with t 39597, 39899146, 401156, 401158 word order 22 E-colouring 4950, 7275, 7980, 13430, 291, 310, 31190, 313, 34649, 455, 465, 51113, 51619, 52537, 538, 541, 55556, 562, 57275, 579, 583 E-forms (vs. A-forms) 310, 464, 52930, 532, 53437, 572, 583 Egyptian 2021, 15657, 19093, 20945, 281, 315, 317, 321, 351 elative (Ar) 3839, 201, 284, 331, 373 elative (Akk) 33132 emotional involvement 142, 150, 2113, 237
Subject Index
emphasis, -atic 128, 183, 195, 215, 23637, 240, 244, 369 emphatic consonants 44, 577, 59623 emphatic use of the subjunctive 22757 energicus 13739, 22753, 24143 English 68, 10, 3940, 54, 906, 10040, 13132, 159, 215, 240, 257, 261, 264, 285, 299, 316, 402 Enuma Eli 32930 E-paradigm 525, 52829, 535 epenthesis, -etic 4748, 5271, 13336, 358, 376, 393, 432242, 486, 505, 547 epic texts 14, 1429, 32930 Epigraphic South Arabian 20, 11781, 314100, 350, 414, 475101 epistolary t-perfect 141, 147, 151, 155 epithets 167, 2046, 27110, 332, 424 ergative 28032, 28339 erosion 10, 266 ethical dative 159, 23637, 240 Ethiopian Semitic 20, 108, 11725, 131, 317, 351, 382, 446; see also Geez event vs. state 5, 5357, 5930, 16365, 16875 E-verbs 80, 52831, 53338 exhortations 130, 133, 212, 218, 236, 241, 242 expressive, -ity 4, 96, 99, 107, 128, 15354, 185, 27724, 279, 31415, 332, 351, 37877, 430, 445 external agent (in causative) 257, 286 external inflection 3820 factitive (vs. causative) 25657 factitive D-stems 5825, 66, 74100, 252, 25657, 27274, 28287, 325, 423 factitive G-stems 25821, 286 factitive -stems 254, 32829, 332 feminine suffix -t 4337, 168, 198, 202, 29426, 359, 401, 55354144 fientive vs. stative 5460, 74, 919, 16268, 169, 177, 18168, 185, 260, 27273, 296300, 316, 329, 44850, 46264, 49193, 542102, 593 final vowels (loss of) 10, 14, 108, 180, 18789, 221, 587 finite (vs. non-finite) 5, 3132, 116, 127, 137, 194, 358, 374 fluctuation (in vowel class) 71, 73, 7581, 30772, 30910, fluctuation (in stem vowel) 3575 formulaic style 154, 21819, 332, 36566 fossilized categories 42, 13533, 140, 253, 34552, 351, 364, 370, 53679 French 13132, 19912, 240, 264, 266, 371 frequency, impact of 6, 36, 39, 59, 107, 126, 131, 23891, 246, 25052, 319, 348, 37374, 402, 468, 47290, 474, 518, 528, 579, 581 frequentative 93, 1089, 111, 256, 281, 37569, 415 future 4, 5657, 9192, 9626, 107, 13132, 14748, 152, 15455, 164, 23132, 242 Geez 20, 37, 4127, 4335, 4441, 11577, 11725, 446, 597
639
Geez (cont.) a/*i verbs 74 derived verbal stems 881, 11922, 125, 21046, 28083, 350, 3757670, 37982, 39293, 41214, 594 i (negation) 21718 Imp 137 Impfv 9799, 108, 12021 Perfect 182 Pfv 131 PPartc qtul 203 quadrilit. verbs 12125, 31186, 31416, 31920, 345, 351, 445 reduplicated verbs 121, 12325, 31415, 31920, 345, 351, 44546, 495 weak verbs 45859, 475 tVqtVl nouns 378, 401159 gemination (in general) 2113, 24546 gemination (vs. reduplication) 282, 43839 gemination of R2: in Akkadian: for nominal plurality 3820, 96 in agent nouns 96, 10250, 11065, 207, 2681, 44527 intensive 96, 108 pluractional 96, 100101, 108, 11215, 248, 254, 274, 278, 28182 for Impfv 69, 8890, 96106, 10815, 11718, 12024, 126, 248, 45658, 530, 594 D-stem 26869, 28387 D-stem 33637 (t)-stem 325, 386, 4034, 530 tan-stems 417, 420, 424, 427, 43137, 530 quadrirad. verbs 3024, 320, 432 I/voc verbs 540, 54344, 54849, 552 II/weak verbs 47677, 480, 48388, 564, 567, 572 in Eblaite 395 in Beja 1067 in Berber 1046, 192, 28182 in Geez 11725, 412 gemination of final radical 2113, 22757, 248, 256, 3026, 310, 312, 325, 34041, 344, 34849, 43839, 48587, 48990, 49394, 572 gender: see person generic present 91, 107 genetic relationship 10351, 107, 157, 586, 59597 genitive 24, 31, 4649, 4752, 166, 19598, 20119, 204, 402 geographical names 2705 German 54, 10040, 261, 264, 266, 299, 369 Germanic languages 19, 69, 1272, 15960 glide 41, 23167, 306, 436253, 44748, 477, 479, 482, 498, 500505, 510, 533, 568, 576 glide spellings (OA) 5045, 57780 global E-colouring 80, 52528, 53334 glottalized consonants 18, 44, 52549, 559, 57678, 58081 glottal stop 516, 52025, 57778
640
GPL-stem 100101, 11617, 254, 278, 282, 286, 59394 grammatical (vs. lexical) 3, 37, 39, 5455, 9730, 24952, 277 grammaticalization 35, 7, 9419, 137, 187, 228, 250 of geminates 97 of verbal markers 107, 10962, 31617 of participles 18486 of modal partices 13031, 21416 of voice markers 15759, 181, 264, 353 of personal pronouns 17677, 180 of directional elements 24041, 35276 of derived stems 287 Greek (Classical) 39, 1272, 132, 159, 17341, 240, 265, 284, 432244 G-stem: as basis of the verbal par. 2833, 5354, 592 semantics 5354, 298 structure of paradigm 100104, 10912, 11517, 447 vocalization 6871, 8990 relation to other stems 66, 24654, 25758, 27879, 28387, 333, 407, 540 see also the individual verbal categories Gt-stem: form 2324, 246, 35660, 397, 454, 480, 54647, 568 vocalization 89, 139, 35657 function 15556, 258, 26162, 265, 36069 relation to other stems 25354, 29496, 300, 39194 vs. Gtn 374, 417, 41920, 421212, 43334, 452 deverbal nouns 37778, 398410 hist. development 104, 267, 322, 35556, 36982, 43334, 585, 59192 Gtn-stem: form 96, 246, 454, 48082, 54647, 554, 568, 571 vocalization 8990, 41718 function 95, 279, 41522 relation to other stems 249, 252 hist. development 104, 374, 394, 43137, 593 Gtt-stem 386104, 39091 guttural consonants 2226, 39, 4142, 49, 7475, 112, 120, 18685, 256, 310, 35051, 448, 47476, 49697, 51020, 52328, 52333, 53748, 552, 55456, 56668, 57283, 588 habitual, -ity 91, 93, 96, 1079, 184, 2048, 256, 275, 37569, 415, 574212 Hammurapis laws 13, 14, 15, 148, 15348, 45113 Harssi 36432 Hebrew 20, 37, 5164, 74, 109, 210, 25922 Impfv 103, 11166, 12931, 185, 22858, 241, 319, 587 Perfect 181, 185 Imp 13325, 241, 243, 31819, 323 Inf 31819, 323 Cohortative 241, 243 Piel 10250, 124, 28082, 28646
Subject Index
Hebrew (cont.) Hiphil 331, 35053, 412 Hithpael 10250, 39294, 43637, 586 Nifal 32123, 592 t-infix 37576 quadrilit. verbs 124, 445 weak verbs 18372, 45859, 47374, 54094 reduplicated forms 446 biliteral forms 31819 adjectives 283 suffixed pronouns 243 hendiadys 14831 hierarchy in verbal paradigm 57, 2930, 11988, 177, 200, 248, 251, 27112, 281, 379, 383, 459 high-transivity verbs 66, 72, 134, 136, 17172, 200, 253, 275, 279, 28486, 37172, 421, 434, 476 historical linguistics 23, 1089 historical present 107 historical spellings 510, 515, 52759 Hittite 284 homonymous verbs 6988 homonymy 1381, 278, 325, 38391, 520 homorganic consonants 4344 hot news perfect 14142 hymnisch-epische Dialekt 14, 334 hymns 14, 16, 146, 329 hypercorrect form/spelling 227, 391, 478, 485 hypochoristic forms 18890 iconic, -icity 96, 145, 209, 28384, 28687, 302, 431, 438, 495, 593 I/i verbs: see vowel class I/i i-Modus 2113, 439 imperative form 7475, 89, 13336, 23378, 268, 27112, 289 90, 309, 356, 417, 45354, 45961, 47071, 474, 476, 489, 531, 543, 565, 579 position in the verbal paradigm 2933, 137 vs. Pret 40, 68, 12627, 137 vs. other irrealis forms 212, 21819 compared to WSem 13637, 280, 37679, imperfective: form 6871, 7576, 8890, 268, 28894, 3024, 30913, 33437, 33935, 342, 347, 386, 38991, 4034, 417, 422, 43137, 44144, 446, 447, 45051, 45457, 463, 46970, 473, 47678, 48092, 499500, 52937, 54041, 54353, 555, 557 function 5657, 9195, 148, 152 for irrealis 92, 2161721, 21920 for past tense 5657, 9294 position in the verbal paradigm 2930, 32, 13840 influence on other categories 8990, 10915, 138, 28990, 35657, 403, 417, 453 diachronically 45, 710, 1011, 20, 40, 95117, 22832, 53941, 58494 compared to WSem 11725, 45758, 495 imperfective aspect 56, 9195, 159, 164, 20910
Subject Index
imperfective vowel 68, 71, 80, 8889, 109113, 127, 13840, 18683, 247, 289, 309, 356, 41718, 426, 453, 579 incantations 12, 14, 16, 18, 52, 21721 incompatibility 4344, 13012, 239, 459 incompleted action 92, 95, 137 independent pronouns 24, 17856, 180, 183 indicative 45, 7, 2930, 92, 117, 13132, 215, 22037, 231, 374 indirect reflexive: see reflexive Indo-European 19, 3940, 5271, 9317, 132, 284, 300, 372, 46883 Indo-Iranian 132 infinitive: comparative 18586, 199200, 281, 37779, 39698, 590, 592 form 50, 194, 268, 290, 304, 309, 314, 324, 356, 358, 439, 447, 479, 489, 500, 5079, 527, 542, 553, 561, 579, 58183 function and syntax 19598, 26028, 402 position in the verbal paradigm 2932 infix(ation) 108, 15556, 24546, 28545, 289, 355, 379, 382, 593; see also t-infix inflectional (vs. derivational) 57, 3031, 3536, 41, 44, 101, 251, 293, 444 inflectional categories 2933, 5455 inflectional stem 28, 3032, 40, 46, 88, 9798, 126, 133, 137, 16162, 200, 203, 22930, 246, 383, 39697, 426, 552, 592 ingressive 5458, 66, 74100, 919, 9215, 254, 25821, 26026, 294, 296300, 31516, 321, 361, 372, 392, 558157 initial consonant clusters 13334, 289, 322, 358, 376, 383, 471 initial plene writing 451, 492, 54345 injunctions 92, 130, 13635, 147, 212, 21621 injunctive 132 innovation, -tive features/forms 2223, 90, 139, 154, 156, 184, 219, 247, 26970, 28386, 332, 355, 414, 433, 437, 448, 473, 55152, 59597 instability of gutturals 51113, 524 instability of vowels 39, 58 instrument nouns 2223, 34, 205, 29010, 311, 528 intensity 96, 108, 276, 279, 281, 28384, 28687, 41516 intensive 96, 108, 245, 256, 274, 276, 27725, 28185, 337, 373, 416, 44546 intensive adjectives 186, 27111 interjection 42, 218, 317 internal a-Plurals 18682, 593 internal inflection 3820, 40 internal passive 71 internal reconstruction 12, 8, 18, 96 interrogative clauses 144, 152 interrogative particle 218, involvement of the speaker 128, 142, 151, 153, 159, 23637 irrealis 4, 2930, 33, 9193, 12833, 21120, 22829, 24243, 374
641
isolated nouns 811 isomorphism, -ic 37, 139, 249, 250, 255, 436, isovocalic vs. anisovocalic 60, 6869, 73, 7576, 89, 110, 138, 291, 309, 542102 Italian 19912, 372 iterative 54, 9394, 108, 256, 281, 284, 41516, 44041, 443, 49495, 58913 I-verbs 68, 89, 3575, 588 jussive 11821, 12425, 13032, 230, 242, 243, 412, 45942, 594 Kettendurativ 494 Kish Civilization 11, 22 Koppelung 27374 laryngeals 51011, 51516, 596 Late Babylonian 1617, 128, 147, 154, 16721, 17443, 20942, 387, 390, 430 Latin 39, 6986, 1272, 17341, 240, 25114, 264, 284 laws of analogy 7, 224, 28543, 53575 legal texts 1118, 1719, 94, 128, 15455, 167, 17273, 201, 2079, 23173, 509 letters 1219, 32337, 918, 14151, 154, 183, 219, 226, 29325, 366, 406, 42122, 425, 477107, 499500 levelling 5164, 11988, 358, 459 lexical texts 5927, 194, 395, 508 lexical meaning 3, 6, 37, 39, 24951, 321 lexical strength 68, 251 lexicalization 67, 3536, 120, 165, 173, 19798, 201, 207, 250, 27725, 329, 382, 402, 407176, 416 light verb 31719, 321, 35254 literary texts 1419, 34, 5162, 918, 9394, 142, 146, 154, 167, 176, 204, 20636, 2138, 23637, 252, 25455, 277, 29496, 307, 329, 332, 33437, 341, 361, 36465, 37174, 418, 424, 430, 441, 485, 530 literary tradition 225 literary forms 17, 20634, 255, 455, 489 literary -stems 16, 32931, 334 liver omina 11, 226, 293, 575 loan words 38, 434439, 47, 18890, 385, 508, 517, 523 locative (case) 16, 195, 241, long prefix vowel 463, 539, 54347 long vowels (in closed syllables) 11213, 451, 45633, 477102, 492, 54347 low transitivity 66, 10250, 402 low-transitivity verbs 6667, 74, 136, 176, 203, 28586, 307, 421, 434, 437 L-reduction 22, 27 maPRaS(t) 3435, 48, 528 Mari Old Akkadian 11, 14, 2223, 27, 4544, 51, 75, 17855, 179, 21722, 219, 293, 326, 344, 398, 478, 49697, 513, 51617, 526, 557, 560, 57576
642
Mari Old Babylonian 14, 12829, 22140, 2272857, 23687, 26970, 304, 320120, 32811, 34748, 440, 477, 487138, 517, 52324 marked vs. unmarked 3032, 53, 59, 90, 104, 126, 132, 16768, 247, 371, 589 markedness 906, 230, madar 36, 39, 124108, 19911, 281, 34141, 37879, 398140, 592 mathematical texts 16, 441 mediopassive 74, 158, 258, 26061, 266, 290, 29394, 299300, 321, 36971, 38088, 428, 589 Mehri 20, 97, 11825, 18785, 31415, 36432, 3757670, 41314 metathesis 30154, 35960, 379, 383, 393, 51930, 522, 580 Middle Assyrian 12, 18 phonology 4849, 289, 455, 519, 529 spelling 561 Imp 136 PrPartc 2079 reciprocal 264, 37071 Subj 22324 Vent with suffix pronouns 240 t-Pf 128, 140, 148, 15355 t-stems 357, 36567 tan-stems 419207, 421213, 430 weak verbs 452, 455, 466, 48384, 498176, 5056, 54647, 54950, 553, 562, 57881 Middle Babylonian 12, 15 E-colouring 80, 464, 53237 phonology 269, 325, 339, 477, 562173 PrPartc 209 reflexive/reciprocal 264, 29596, 37071 Subj 221 Vent with suffix pronouns 23940 t-Pf 128, 148, 15355, 423 t-stems 255, 357, 36667, 374, 390 tan-stems 374, 419, 423, 430, 482 Vent 23583 weak verbs 477, 482, 485, 551, 569, 572 middle verbs 69, 71, 74, 17236, 361, 37172, 588 middle voice: see voice mimation 166, 178, 195, 23379, 239 Moabite 375, 380 modal, -ity 33, 14832, 211, 22037, 227, 244 Modern Arabic 109, 184, 282, 376, 37982, 393, 524 Modern South Arabian 20, 97, 115, 11718, 179, 243109, 28283, 314, 36432, 37570, 41314, 591 monosyllabic imperatives 136, 31819, 453, 474 monosyllabic statives 58, 178, 492 mood 56, 30, 132, 194, 211, 227, 234, 439 morphologization 107 morphophonemic change 7, 256, 379, 471, 507 morphophonemic spelling 4648, 47, 49, 20426, 506, 581
Subject Index
motion verbs 42, 67, 72, 74, 136, 23435, 237, 240, 244, 266, 279, 328, 37172, 415, 421 muPRaS 36, 466, 489 names: see proper names naPRS 29010, 304, 323 narrative tense 4, 9293, 12729 narrative texts 16, 337, 1429, 14546, 159, 213, 237 natural (vs. prototypical) reciprocal 26365, 363 natural (vs. prototypical) reflexive 26162, 26667, 364, 36974 negation 9293, 13324, 148, 20224, 21520, 596 negative clauses 92, 107, 128, 144, 15153 Neo-Aramaic 17743 Neo-Assyrian 1015, 17, 19, 519 phonology 47, 49, 436 G Imp 136 G Inf 1942 G Pfv 128 G participles 2012, 209 G Stat 166, 16721, 181 G t-Pf 128, 140, 155 Subj 224 Vent 233 Dtt-stem 255, 38891 N-stem 289, 29325, 29596 -stem 327, 339, 487 t-stems 366, 425 tan-stems 419, 430 quadrirad. verbs 30769, 310, 339 predicative nouns/adjectives 166, 16721, 16814 weak verbs 47, 452, 453, 455, 456, 466, 479, 483, 487, 5056, 54647, 551, 562, 578, 58081 Neo-Babylonian 12, 1517 E-colouring 529, 53537 G Participles 209 G t-Pf 154 Subj 221 Vent 233 Vent with suffix pronouns 23940 Dtt-stem 255, 39091 N-stem 29325, 295 -stem 327, 339 t-stems 3512, 13533, 36667, 385 tan-stems 42122, 424, 430 quadrirad. verbs 339 predicative nouns/adjectives 166, 16721, 16824 weak verbs 45152, 56970 neutralization 6, 3031, 919, 303, 400, 402, 482, 500 nisbe adjectives 532 ni-subjunctive 12, 2324, 27, 22024, 22831, 503 nominal clause 18168, 35253 nominal paradigm 5, 44 nominal plurality 96 nominal predicate 3, 1635, 16723 nominal roots 44 nominal statives 164, 16768 nominative 56, 710, 3132, 195, 197, 204, 257 non-directional motion 73
Subject Index
noun patterns 811, 34 N-stem: form 49, 89, 28894, 534, 536, 539, 561, 569, 579 function 66, 16970, 17546, 201, 249, 251, 25860, 294300 of quadrirad. verbs 30114, 333 of weak verbs 453, 457, 48889, 504, 55054 comparative 31421, 38081 historical development 1844, 2356, 9731, 25456, 32123, 37071, 405, 43435, 592 relation to other stems 24647, 249, 25354, 333, 42530, Nt-stem 246, 254, 39192, 430, 432, 490 Ntn-stem: form 89, 114 function 250, 392, 42530 of quadrirad. verbs 3034, 31114 of weak verbs 46970, 490, 554 historical development 320, 43132, 435251 relation to other stems 246, 24950, 253 N tantum verbs 201, 253, 292, 29899, 333, 429 number: see person numerals 7, 4442, 76106 Nuzi Akkadian 10, 29529, 316106, 36643, 419 oaths 213, 23132 objective resultative 16828 obligatory, -iness 107, 132, 165, 215, 22728, 25114, 284, 303 oblique cases 710, 2324, 274 Old Akkadian 1015, 11, 21, 27 Old Assyrian 12, 1718, 23 phonology 4649, 18581, 5089, 5113, 518, 525, 529, 55859160 spelling 5045, 511, 51718, 559 G Inf 196, 198, 5078 G participles 204, 209 G Stat 180 G t-Pf 13940, 15053, 25556 Prec 212 Vet 21719 Subj 22223, 228 Vent 23688 Vent with suffix pronouns 23839 passive 25961 reciprocal 264, 29495 D-stem 276, 27724, 459 N-stem 29192, 29495, 29845, 55054 t-stems 35758, 36263, 401, 404, 408 tan-stems 31187, 430, 481 quadrirad. verbs 339, 34649 predicative nouns/adjectives I/w verbs 4497, 453, 455, 457, 46162, 466 I/*y verbs 46468 I/voc verbs 545, 547, 55051 II/voc verbs 475100, 475101, 477, 481, 48284 II/H verbs 556, 56063 III/voc verbs 497, 498, 5016
643
Old Assyrian (cont.) III/H verbs 57273, 57681 izizzum 48890 t/nadnum 47274 Old Babylonian 1214 phonology 453, 5067, 51924 E-colouring 52534 personal prefixes 5060, 51 G Impfv 2161721, 21920, G Imp 9212, 453 G Inf 1943, 1969 G participles 204, 209 G Stat 179, 18788 G t-Pf 13848, 159 Prec 21214 Subj 22022, 22627, 23173 Vent 23236 Vent with suffix pronouns 239 passive 25961 reciprocal 264, 29596 D-stem 26970 -stem 45556, 486 D-stem 33437 Dtr-stem 438443 t-stems 25556, 358, 36365, 367, 37174, 384, 387, 4034, 408 tan-stems 312, 419, 42930, 436, 48182 quadrirad. verbs 111, 3045, 30910, 34144, 349 predicative nouns/adjectives weak verbs 45052, 45556, 463, 46571, 473, 47778, 48182, 486, 48890, 5069, 54354, 56972 omen texts 16, 337, 94, 226, 329, 44243, 575 Omotic 20 onomatopoea, -ic 4243, 73, 31719, 445, 495 onset (soft vs. hard) 516, 51827, 576 oppositions between verbal categories: in mood 130 in tense/aspect 95, 105, 110, 112, 117, 127, 145, 16364, 587, 589 in verbal stem 24748, 250, 25254, 321, 333, 373, 420, 43435 in voice 28283, 28647 ordinal numbers 7, 65 organization (of paradigms) 2835, orientation (of the speaker) 30, 211, orthography 8, 13, 1819, 21, 48, 214, 483, 501 palatal glide 448, 482, 516, 533, 575, 578 palatalization 21829 paradigm, structure of 12, 59, 2833, 250, 321122, 379, 492, 55456 paradigmatic pressure parallel developments 106, 109, 118, 122, 153, 155, 181, 191, 229, 243, 287, 317, 387, 389 PaRaS (Adj/Stat) 30, 58, 63, 10351, 13531, 16162, 185, 475100, 479, 564181 PaRaS (Imp) 7475, 13435, 565, 567, 571
644
PaRaSt 1623, 46162 parataxis, -ctic 1955, 210 PaRiS (Adj/Stat) 58, 5930, 6061, 64, 47879 PaRiS (PPartc) 30, 3233, 58, 16162, 181, 185, 199203, 320, 47879 PRiS 3234, 203, 20632, 207, 209, 479, 568 PRiSn 33, 2079 paronomastic infinitive 19495, 20221 paronomastic participle 2046, 36120 PaRR/S 34, 96, 10250, 11065, 18586, 207, 2681, 27110, 283, 359, 401, 44527, 479, 521 PaRRiS 34, 96, 10250, 11065, 207, 2681, 401 PaRRuStu 27110 PaRRvS 2223, 27, 5059, 26871, 547 PaRuS (Adj/Stat) 30, 58, 6263, 6465, 73, 161, 571 PaRS 20634 PaRuSS 345 Pa/uRRuS 96, 268, 271, 27724, 278, 283 Pa/uRRvS 162, 194, 200, 268, 271, 283 passive: see voice past participle: form 90, 1622, 200 in derived stems 26869, 324, 35859, 383 in weak verbs 47879, 493, 500, 504, 5078, 542, 553, 576, 583 function 58, 200223, 33132 position in verbal paradigm 2932, 164, 17677, 200203 substantivation 35, 2012, 52656 comparative 40, 18586, 2023, 281, 590, 592 pattern (vs. root or base) 3739, 4445 pausa forms 2113, 241 perfect (in West Semitic) 98, 119, 13015, 181, 203, 281, 382, 597; see also qatala perfect perfective: form 68, 70, 8990, 112, 12627, 13839, 213 in derived stems 268, 28993, 324, 336, 342, 357, 389, 417, 426 in weak verbs 447, 45051, 45456, 458, 488, 499, 52930, 53941, 54344, 546, 55052, 55859, 564, 567 function 12729, 15355, 171, 176, 45219 vs. Impfv 56, 92, 9495 vs. t-Pf 14446, 148, 151, 15355, 255 vs. Stat 171, 176 position in verbal paradigm 3032 comparative 40, 97102, 108, 110, 12932, 17748, 185, 229, 244, 458, 499, 587, 589, 59497 performatives 232, 574 peripheral Akkadian 10, 5164, 390, 419, 553 periphrastic categories 42, 33, 9939, 36567 permansive: see stative person (as opp. to number and gender) 57, 22, 3033, 3820, 4952, 13739, 177, 17856, 220, 23840, 273
Subject Index
personal prefixes 20, 4952, 13014, 133, 189, 192, 216, 251, 341, 351, 379, 383, 39394, 412, 459, 46567, 47189 personal suffixes (stative) 50, 180, 18183, 596 personal pronouns 23, 52, 177, 190 pharyngealization 192, 533, 59623 pharyngeals 448, 51011, 51516, 523, 525, 574 Phoenician 350, 375, 412, 47374 phonology (of Akkadian) 46, 379, 471, 483, 49798, 502, 507, 520, 524, 535, 539 phonology (of Proto-Semitic) 586 PiRaS (Imp) 13536, 567 PiRaS (c. st. Ass.) 19911 PiRS (Inf) 19911 PiRiSt 34, 46061 PiRS 34, 42, 19911, 19913, 460, 507, 520 PitR/S (Adj) 34, 29010, 359, 377, 379, 398140 PitRuS 338, 34, 46, 13533, 2893, 35960, 37677, 470 plene spellings 18891, 20632, 214, 359, 408180, 477102, 484, 492, 5012, 505, 508, 565, 567, 570 pluperfect 93, 128 pluractional 42, 544, 96, 100118, 125, 245, 249, 25153, 254, 256, 278, 28283, 285, 311, 320, 374, 392, 39495, 415, 41925, 42937, 438, 474, 49395, 552, 58586, 59394 poetry/poetic style 129, 237, 480 polysemy 158, 258, 276, 415193 possessive resultative 169 potentialis 132 precative: form 30, 5162, 12829, 16515, 21213, 390, 418, 451, 468 function 33, 14832, 1955, 21213 historical background 13032, 21319 precative vowel 2324, 21415 predicative form (of Adj) 58, 16465, 178, 181, 18890 predicative form (of PrPartc) 20636 predictable, -bility 67, 30, 36, 50, 58, 97, 12627, 194, 245, 24849, 290, 303, 340, 426, 567 prefix, -ation 32, 39, 44, 10249, 15657, 21317, 24547, 251, 37582, 39297, 590 prefix ma- 2223, 3435, 29010, 311, 52728 prefix mu- 203, 20945 prefix n(a)- 124, 246, 28889, 29426, 300, 302, 3056, 309, 311, 31422, 370, 586 prefix (a)-: in Akk 31, 246, 24954, 302, 307, 31516, 324, 32734, 33750, 345, 406 in WSem 35154, 41214 prefix ta- (nouns) 396402, 52728, 592; see also t-prefix prefix base 32, 51, 12627, 133, 137, 247, 28889, 32122, 324, 356, 358, 378, 435, 459, 541, 552, 58990
Subject Index
prefix conjugation 20, 2930, 43, 50, 5455, 5929, 68, 98, 126, 133, 136, 16465, 22022, 23233, 324, 356, 37475, 447, 464, 465, 528 in Berber 192, 589 in Proto-Semitic 17748, 24244, 463, 589 in West Semitic 11819 prefix stem 3132, 98 prefix vowel 5059, 58, 116, 21415, 247, 268, 280, 28339, 293, 394, 45051, 45859, 46265, 467, 473, 539, 54547, 590, 593 prefixed stative 46572 prepositional phrases 67, 235, 239, 274 prepositions 2225, 46, 188, 195, 197, 240, 259, 264 Pre-Sargonic Akkadian 11, 26, 51515, 558 present (tense) 45, 79, 88125, 231 present participle: form 5161, 203 in derived stems 268, 309, 312, 314, 33436, 348, 35657, 404, 439, 444 in weak verbs 479, 48485, 48990, 542, 547, 55354, 559, 568, 571, 579 function 184, 2039, 41920, 424 position in verbal paradigm 2933 comparative 40, 109, 18682, 20910, 280 as an Adj 205 as an agent noun 3436, 5758 present renewal 21, 1079 primary adjectives 5866, 161, 165, 176, 185, 192, 2023, 2681, 285, 320, 49293 primary nouns 3738, 44, 199, 518 primary derived stems 109, 114, 155, 157, 24651, 253, 256, 258, 333, 420, 434, 59394 process verbs 58, 253, 254, 257, 27174, 278, 28486, 32829; see also action verbs proclitics 30, 188, 213, 21617 productive, -ity 6, 30, 3336, 37, 3940, 72, 174, 186, 199, 21819, 230, 24956, 272, 278, 28486, 29394, 327, 386, 402, 435251, 43839, 460 professions (nouns of) 96, 2056, 209 progressive 95, 101, 107, 206 in English 90, 100, 14727 prohibitive 10, 33, 92, 132, 133, 216, 21820 promissory (oath) 92, 231 proper names 46, 14210, 20635, 21516 in Pre-Sargonic 26, 51515, 527 in Sargonic Akk 5717, 135, 150, 1623, 17855, 18789, 36162, 421, 465, 478, 497, 55758 in Mari Old Akk 17855, 23379, 51724, 5242545, 575 in Ur III Bab 270, 293, 421, 44423, 524 in OB 17855, 179, 18788, 20119, 20944, 21830 in MB 479114, 188, 366, 374 in OA 20944, 55354144 in MA 36566, 46674, 47393, 562175, 564 in Amorite 9937, 189, 38085 in Eblaite 14934, 189, 294, 36539, 45840 prophetic perfect (Hebrew) 131, 18167 prosody, -dic 18372, 18891, 2113, 23689, 478
645
protasis 9495, 128, 148, 242 Proto-Akkadian 48, 215, 255, 448, 465, 512, 539, 541, 543 Proto-Berber 21, 10554, 192101, 589 Proto-Cushitic 21, 129 Proto-East Semitic 95, 99, 255, 59596 proto-language 8, 10146, 1078, 586 Proto-Semitic 19, 40, 52, 71, 254, 58498 phonology 452, 46364, 51213, 516, 523, 525, 554, 566 Impfv 97104, 11518, 12123, 22830, 243, 58788 Pfv 42, 129, 132, 244, 58990 Imp 13537, 589 Inf 199200, 590 participles 18587, 203, 20910, 590 derived stems: GPL-stem 100101, 11617, 28283, 594 D-stem 280, 59293 N-stem 290, 32123, 592 -stem 35052, 592 t-stems 156, 37582, 394, 41213, 433, 59192 quadriradical verbs 125, 315, 586, 590 weak verbs: I/n verbs 317, 47374 I/voc verbs 53739, 552 I/w verbs 452, 45862, 590 II/gem verbs 491150, 495, 590 II/voc verbs 47677, 59091 II/H verbs 566, 571 III/voc verbs 49697, 499 noun patterns 811, 37778 roots 4144 particle *l- 216 prototype/-typical 56, 30, 38, 41, 55, 5859, 66, 919, 196, 251, 257, 272, 415, 468 prototypical reciprocal 26365, 36364 prototypical reflexive 26162, 26667, 36970 Proto-West Semitic 118, 120, 18687, 19091, 393, 414, 591, 597 pseudo-reciprocal 265, 364, 373, 442 PuRS 4484 PuRRuS names 6035, 27724 PuRS 34, 42, 70, 19913, 460, 577221 PuRSS() 445 PuRuS (Adj/Stat) 6465, 162, 565, 571 PuRS(t) 34, 556151 PuRuSS 34 push chain 434 QaTL 18586, 199200, 379, 590 QaTL (participle) 18486, 210 qatala perfect 40, 6883, 10351, 11819, 179, 18187, 18993 in Eblaite 203 qati/ula perfect 10249, 11819, 13032, 156, 181, 18687, 189, 203, 589 QaTiL 184, 18687, 203, 20910 QTiL 184, 186, 20910, 590
646
QaTTL 11065, 185 QaTvLL 34450 quadriradical verbs (Akk): conjugation 306314, 552 Impfv 11214, 310 vowel classes 71, 79, 111, 307, 30910 Ntn-stem 4647, 3024, 31112, 432 -stem 333, 33753, 406 comparative 12124, 129, 31517, 31921, 341, 495 quadriradical verbs (WSem) 12125, 31415, 320, 345, 351, 35354, 445, 59697 quinqueradical verbs (Geez) 12125, 345 realis (vs non-realis) 5, 33, 127132, 21120 reanalysis 13013, 22730, 232, 283, 420, 436, 474 recentness 128, 15143, 153 reciprocal 51, 258, 26366, 29495, 359, 36175, 38081, 38485, 387, 398400, 405, 407, 409, 420, 43943 reciprocal markers 26465 reduplication 38, 108, 136, 245, 248, 254, 256, 31415, 320, 341, 34546, 43846, 460, 49496, 585 reduplication vs. gemination 9729, 28182, 43839, 491147 remploi de lintensif 10249, 120 reflexive 15659, 258, 26163, 296, 36173, 375, 38081, 38485, 387, 399, 407410, 41314 indirect refl. 15039, 15859, 26163, 370, 380, 454 reflexive marker 261264, 26667 reinterpretation (of Gt as Gtn) 374 relative clause 9834, 144, 155, 166, 227, 575215 relative tense 95, 196, 201 religious texts 14, 16, 1840, 329 renewal (of verbal categories) 4, 7, 811, 3616, 906, 95101, 1079, 13220, 183, 266, 433, 437, 59697 residual forms/categories 51, 74, 98, 104, 124, 129, 132, 18586, 216, 218, 228, 231, 267, 269, 28647, 3252, 351, 358, 400152, 497, 55051 resultative 55, 57, 5930, 10040, 10655, 15758, 16874, 17677, 181, 184, 190, 20014, 202, 258, 321122, 468 Romance languages 19, 132, 158, 22961, 266 root (Akkadian) 4145, 251, 311, 439 root (Semitic) 37, 4041, 4344, 315, 317110, 31819; see also biradical roots root alternation 452, 455, 496 root variants 3253, 462, 46571, 51213, 52441, 548120, 561169 root vowel 28, 45, 53, 6869, 89, 11166, 112, 12627, 13336, 138, 165, 30910, 58788 in weak verbs 45, 467, 47475, 477102, 491, 49698, 509, 542102, 565, 566, 57172, 582, 591 root-and-pattern system 3639, 44, 70
Subject Index
royal inscriptions 1214, 1619, 24, 337, 5165, 146, 150, 188, 21519, 22526, 329, 33031, 334, 516, 526, 53537, 551, 559, 571202 R-stems 438443, 494161 Sabaic 4335, 24243, 350, 353, 375, 414 Saho 322, 352, 58915 sandhi 21516, 484, 492152 aPRvS (Adj in Bab) 325 Sargonic Akkadian 11, 141529, 2327 phonology 5614, 34554, 358, 52526, 53334 spelling 51316, 524 personal prefixes 5152 G Pfv 5717, 128 G t-Pf 14950 G Stat 1623, 17980, 18788 G Imp 135 G Inf 19596 Subj 22425, 230, 590 irrealis forms 214, 21720 derived stems 27071, 293, 299, 326, 358, 42021 quadriradical verbs 31186, 34647 weak verbs 11011, 451, 46566, 472, 478, 483, 48889143, 49697, 499, 501, 541, 54548, 550, 55760, 57375 Satzfragen 128, 144, 15355 D-stem 248, 255, 306, 329, 333, 33437, 34041 secondary derived stems 115, 246251, 255, 258, 262, 35556, 366, 385, 420, 422, 431, 593 semantic classes/clusters 67, 299, 40910, 476, 49495, 588 separative 1417, 15756, 267, 361 shared innovations 24, 26, 59598 shared retentions 20, 23, 26, 124, 59698 sibilant prefix 20, 35054, 41214 simplification of geminates 389, 45737 simultaneity 9192, 22930 sonorants/ sonority 5271, 122, 379 sound change 3, 7, 4025, 18372, 188, 215, 477104, 483127, 540, 561 South Semitic 20, 40, 97101, 103, 117125, 181, 182, 28283, 31415, 32122, 413, 49192150, 573207, 586, 591, 59598 Spanish 56, 159, 266, 372 spelling alternation 45051, 57678 spontaneous events 158, 266 tantum verbs 332, 487, 569 -stem: form 47, 31516, 32427 in weak verbs 45556, 462, 469, 48587, 48990, 530, 53437, 540, 548, 569, 572 in quadriradical verbs 33750 function 302, 307, 32733 in relation to other stems 11315, 24647, 249 57, 269, 27172, 293, 333, 33436, 38687, 4067, 42425
Subject Index
-stem (cont.) comparative 35054, 41213, 592; see also under the individual languages t1-stem: form 11314, 246, 348, 403, 406175, 45657, 487, 549 function 169, 206, 253, 339, 348, 383, 38688 comparative 41214, 592 t2-stem: form 47, 11314, 246, 4034, 45657, 48688, 549 function 206, 248, 250, 254, 332, 35380, 40411 comparative 41214, 592 tn-stem: form 114, 246, 337, 403, 457, 54950, 561 function 206, 249, 38687, 42425, historical background 435251, 43637 tt-stem 38890 stability, stable 4025, 119, 139, 249, 25556, 524 Standard Babylonian 1419 phonology 520, 53637 t-Pf 154 Stat 17443, 176 irrealis forms 128 derived stems: 25354 D-stem 277 N-stem 29598, 551, 553 -stem 33032, 33337 t-stems 35759, 36768, 37274, 404, 409 tan-stems 41920, 423, 426, 42830 Dtr-stem 443 quadriradical verbs 30913, 34445 weak verbs 457, 48081, 48586, 488, 492, 508, 539, 547, 551, 553, 56667, 572 voice 259, 267 noun patterns 27110, 401 state vs. event 5, 5456, 141, 158, 16365, 16877, 196, 21519, 21721, 219, 237, 488 stative 2932, 36, 68, 10249, 158, 16189, 200203, 213 form 50, 68, 13531, 16163, 17681, 528 of derived stems 26869, 28889, 324, 34244, 35657, 417 of weak verbs 58, 1622, 166, 453, 465, 478, 489, 49193, 504, 508, 565, 567, 571, 58081 function 5455, 57, 141, 158, 16376, 231, 283, 29293, 297, 299300, 330, 332, 37273, 377, 383, 386, 419, 42324, 427, 468, 574212 + Stat 21619 la + Stat 22036 lu + Stat 16515, 213, 216 of adjectives 16466, 16869, 181 of nouns 16668 of verbs 16876 active Stat 16465, 17074, 176, 186, 201 passive Stat 16970, 17475, 25860 + Subj 22124, 230 + Vent 23233 comparative 18193, 58485, 58990, 59496
647
stative conjugations of Afroasiatic 20, 18283, 18993 58990 stative verbs 5455, 57, 5825, 74, 906, 919, 92, 106, 130, 192, 206, 260, 299, 316, 352, 468 stem 5, 28, 44, 5059, 1272, 137, 224, 43839; see also inflectional stem and derived (verbal) stems stem alternation 5059, 177, 358 stem vowel (Akk) 28, 88, 90, 109, 11516, 127, 134, 138, 162, 194, 200, 300, 30910, 321, 401, 46364, 480, 508, 565, 568, 582 comparative 11925, 18286, 203, 379, 394, 458, 58485, 593 stress 46, 49, 13031, 13326, 183, 221, 2694, 36018, 494, 503, 506 strong aleph 24, 450, 457, 479, 482, 51213, 52025, 53839, 547, 567186 strong vs. weak roots 41, 43, 45 structure (of paradigms) 12, 58, 29, 250 style/stylistic 14, 1619, 146, 221, 298, 325, 32829, 332, 373, 380, 418, 485 stylistic variation 176, 237, 277 subgrouping of Semitic 9, 1920, 59598 subjective resultative 16928 subjunctive 4, 30, 3820, 98, 1034, 162, 220234, 237, 24142, 244, 503, 575215, 58283 subordinate clauses 42, 9394, 1012, 128, 14445, 148, 155, 198, 22224, 22732, 237 subordination 30, 98, 117, 145, 224, 22830 substantivization 35, 165, 18586, 194, 199, 20120, 206, 20841 subtraction 30, 4232, 13334, 13637, 166, 17879, 453, 492 suffix base 32, 161, 194, 247, 289, 317, 32021, 324, 358, 378, 435, 554, 58990 of weak verbs 447, 453, 45759, 47374, 490, 500, 54041, 547, 552 suffix conjugation 42, 40, 68, 10142, 1272, 12931, 156, 17648, 181, 189, 191 in Berber 20, 17648 in Modern South Arabian 179 in Neo-Aramaic 17753 in West Semitic 181, 241, 380, 59596 suffix pronouns 14, 2324, 46, 163, 166, 188, 22122, 235, 23840, 432242, 486, 499, 579 suffix stem 3132, 98 suffixation 32, 3839, 590 Sumerian 93, 18890, 23686, 316106, 44041, 510 Sumerian loan words 3820, 434439, 47, 508 Sumerian influence on Akk 15960, 17752, 23065, 23173, 244 suppletion 39, 121, 216, 235, 29596, 467 uPRuS: see elative (Akk) syllabary 1213, 517, 519, 580 syllable boundary 502 syllable-final gutturals 11371, 45530, 51415, 51820, 54041, 548, 56062, 575 syllable onset 51618, 54095 syncretism 90
648
syntacticization 148, 153 Syriac 20, 321124, 35272, 38182, 39293, 412, 46048 tan-stems 4857, 90, 1034, 11417, 139, 201, 246, 25556, 312, 394, 41537, 493, 549, 585, 59394 taPR/s 377, 379, 397401 taPRS/taPRiSt 374, 378, 397402, 408, 462 taPRvS(t) 320, 37778, 397414, 43031 taQTL 39, 124108, 28081, 401, 585, 592 taQTvL 37778 Tashelhit (Berber) 106, 115 telic motion verbs 72, 74, 169 telic vs. atelic 54, 57, 66, 918, 9293, 111, 127, 1418, 164, 169, 184, temporal distance 13132 tense/aspect 56, 2931, 3820, 98, 105, 108, 117, 156, 194, 210, 228, 244, 316 terminative 16, 195, 1969, 35276 tertiary derived stems 24650, 253, 255, 35557, 422, 436 theophoric proper names 606135 third-millennium Akk 1112, 2127 t-Pf 14950 Stat 17443, 465 Imp (in PNs) 135 Subj 230 Vent 233 derived stems 36262, 32627 quadriradical verbs 347 weak verbs 45152, 45556, 497, 500501 spelling 51315, 541, 554 dialect classification 1112, 2127, 534 Tigre 4335, 124, 345, 446 Tigrigna 4335, 124 time-stability 164, 207 t-infix 13839, 155159, 248, 255, 265, 35575, 38391, 396, 43134, 439, 452, 490, 59495 t-perfect: form 68, 89, 13840 in derived stems 268, 28990, 293, 35758, 384, 386, 38890, 4034, 419, 42223 in weak verbs 45253, 462, 469, 478, 489, 5045, 543, 547, 553 in quadriradical verbs 309 with double t-infix 139, 255, 295, 35758, 384, 38687, 38891, 4034, 419, 42324 function 5616, 94, 12728, 14055, 16826, 17071, 21932, 23172, 23274, 295 position in the verbal paradigm 2930, 32 historical development 10, 12, 36, 40, 101, 15355, 15760, 255, 366, 37374, 585 comparative 15557 t-prefix 360, 37679 transitivity 6670, 7274, 11065, 134, 136, 15960, 164, 17172, 25253, 27879, 28487, 296, 360, 476
Subject Index
transparency 36, 43, 99, 124, 176, 247, 249, 360, 370, 432, 46970, 519, 521 triradical(ity) 36, 42, 44, 53, 68, 111, 12224, 3012, 31720, 344 truncation 13325, 289 t-stems 10, 12, 90, 11617, 1381, 14934, 246, 249, 26465, 374, 388, 396, 589 Tuareg (Berber) 1056, 115, 19192, 199, 28182, 28341, 351, 37567, 37774 typological evidence 12, 21, 1078, 111, 130, 156, 184, 191, 228, 23065, 369 typology 25 u > a (MA/NA) 49, 7294, 22346, 31085 Ugaritic 20, 463 Impfv 9937 Pfv 129, 587 qatala perfect 184, 189 cohortative 241 energicus 22858, 242 derived stems 15653, 28031, 32123, 350, 353, 37576, 37981, 392123, 397, 412 personal prefixes 5164 weak verbs 13325, 45943, 47374 Umlaut 39, 53536 unconditional sound change 4025 unidirectional(ity) 250 univerbation 130, 17677, 180 Ur III Babylonian 1113, 2427, 5165 phonology 519, 524, 527 G t-Pf 14950 G Imp 13531 G Inf 196 Subj 22526 derived stems 270, 293, 326, 421 weak verbs 456, 483, 506, 545 Ur III Period 1112, 21, 189 U-verbs 68, 89, 35657 valency 53, 169, 251, 25658, 27879, 286, 325, 401, 422 ventive 30, 33, 3820, 133, 16263, 196, 22021, 22425, 227, 23244, 33630, 531, 590, 595 ventive anticipation 235 verbal adjective 29, 1942, 20014, 300 verbal derivation 33, 245 verbal nouns 29, 34, 199, 37778, 39597 verbal paradigm 55, 58, 70, 88, 90, 11112, 11988, 12627, 13012, 137, 157, 200, 2023, 241, 244, 250, 255, 271, 285, 29010, 31617, 321, 379, 444, 469, 492, 540, 545113, 552 verbal plurality 92, 94, 96, 108, 251, 256, 282, 337, 41516, 421, 423, 434, 443, 594 verbal stems: see derived verbal stems verbal system 45, 89, 19, 36, 3820, 44, 70 verbalization 32, 36, 40, 5614, 11065, 177, 184, 300, 317, 322, 590 verbs of sound 42, 73, 274, 317 verbs of speech 93, 26566, 372
Subject Index
vetitive 33, 132, 212, 2138, 21619 virtual subordination 145, 153 vocabulary 12, 14, 16, 18, 23, 277 vocalic radicals 4142, 269, 547 vocalic sonants 5271, 216, 471 voice (consonantal) 18, 46970, 52325 voice (diathesis) 71, 13739, 15759, 164, 169, 190, 246, 25758, 267, 299, 316 active 15758, 16974, 200202, 25758 middle 3, 13739, 15859, 25758, 26567, 371, 380, 588 passive 71, 11577, 11883, 13739, 158, 200201, 25760, 371 voice markers 13739, 15859, 258, 322, 369, 37375, 402, 434 volition 66, 164, 25924, 261 volitive 128, 131, 212 vowel alternation 3839, 71, 80, 11065, 119, 28647, 500 vowel assimilation (Ass.) 12, 17, 23, 27, 4849, 65, 140, 223, 289, 425, 5056, 51828, 550 vowel class 45, 58, 6881, 8890, 11012, 120, 126, 288, 290, 498, 542102 A/a 60, 6770, 7475, 79, 134, 136, 162 A/i 60, 6869, 71, 75, 111, 44849 A/u (Ablaut class) 6667, 6870, 7274, 7678, 80, 42627, 491 I/i 5860, 6875, 7780, 462, 491, 52829, 542 U/u 58, 60, 6871, 7374, 7680, 11012, 29093, 317, 41718, 42627, 500 of quadriradical verbs 71, 79, 111, 30710 vowel contraction 12, 2224, 2627, 95, 112, 21415, 346, 349, 49899, 5024, 5069, 519, 521 vowel epenthesis 4751, 136, 393 vowel harmony 39, 4855 vowel harmony (Bab.) 25, 46, 52528, 53133 vowel lengthening 183, 185, 199, 210, 245, 28339, 439, 499, 51819 vowel pattern 12, 23, 3738, 45 of the G-stem 53, 5859, 6871, 89, 109, 116, 133, 139
649
vowel pattern (cont.) of the derived stems 139, 268, 28890, 300, 32425, 356, 360, 417, 426 of quadriradical verbs 302, 30710, 33843 comparative 11920, 18685, 192, 376, 379, 39394, 597 vowel syncope 4649, 114, 133, 178, 214, 3034, 31113, 33637, 339, 347, 358, 393, 396, 44041, 44426, 45152, 486, 49147, 504, 507, 550 weak vs. strong forms 24, 25556, 28032, 44748, 45455, 48082, 52961, 539, 545, 554 weak radicals 4142, 45, 68, 214, 34649, 353, 444, 44748, 500 weak roots 41, 45, 521 weak verbs 48, 53, 58, 6869, 12932, 134, 18372, 44748, 496, 528, 59091, 59394 West Semitic 1011, 1920, 23 phonology 51113, 52325 G-stem 40, 97103, 107, 109, 115, 117121, 137, 156, 18189, 203, 24041, 244, 58591, 594 vowel classes 6883, 71, 74, 28647, 203 passive 589, 596 D-stem 28081 N-stem 32123 -stem 35051, 354 t-stems 37582, 39295, 4012, 41214, 43637 quadriradical verbs 12125, 306, 31820 weak verbs 45762, 47374, 47677, 495, 54094 wishes 13032, 18167, 214, 218, 236, 242 word-initial aleph 51820, 52325, 54097, 544 word order 14, 22, 27 Wortfragen 128, 153, 155 Wurzelvokalklassen 6882 Zenaga (Berber) 19192 zero derivation 199 zero transitivity 164 Zipfs law 8
650
Index of words from other languages
indexOfWOrdsfrOmOtherlanguages (inalphabeticorder)
Amarna Akkadian
da-a-k 189 na-da-an 184 a-bat 184 a-ka-an 184 ta-ra 189 Arabic (cont.) hamhama 318114 hulk 37877 afaa 53888 afiya 321124 aza/ina 71, 28647 af/afiya 28647 arra 34552 idhamma 521 idawdaba 446 ilawwaa 446 istakna 347 ittajaha 377 kam 522 kubbr 283 labisa 74 lahasa 5126 lahima 5126 laama 401156, 5126 laisa 5126 laqiya 377 liq 37877 lugah 522 mala/ia 71 maala 377 mil 37877 nabaa 5126 nabaga 5126 nabaa 317 nabiha 318114 nadima 318114 nagara 318114 nahama 318114 naha/sa 521 naaza 318114 naara 318114, 460 nata/i/una 473 naaa 318114 qamm 34552 qudds 283 raaba 475, 555 rad 511 raima 556 ri/ugwah 522 sabdi 351 sabaqa 351 sadala 351 sadima 318114 sahafa 5125 sa()ara 34552 sakana 351 sarhab 351 sasaa 445 Arabic (cont.) saaa 351 simah 458 adaqa V 393 arra 445 arara 445 amlala 446 imll 446 i/arah 522 tahlukah 377 tawam 377 tilq 377, 37877 timl 377, 37877 tuhlk 377, 37877 tujha 377 ahara V 393 a 351 aqala 34554 ummah 399146 wama 377 waaa 46048 wafiy 44912 wagala 318114 wagira 318114 waaza 318114 wakala 45425 waqafa 28647 wasama 458 wasina 46048 waswasa 445 waara 318114, 460 waaa 318114 wazana 458 Aramaic (mainly syriac) bhet 47576101 dut 46048 et 38599, 521 tay 46776 laem 401156 ms 555 nef 321124 talbt 378 ym 573 eblaite a-ba(-lu)-um 395 a-ba-ad 18994 a-b-lu-um 395 ax(NI)-b-u/a 270 A-b-na-im 189 a-ga-lu-um 19911 a-me-tum 5163, 29426
Amorite A--da-il 18993 A-aw-te-il 18993 Batarum 38085 yantin/yattin 473 Yatarum 38085 Arabic abaha 318114 abara 28647 adala 28647 afa/ika 5125 adabu 446 aaa 54094 akna 347 anq 3820 ars 5112 atama 399146 ba 475101 bag 521 baqbaqa 445 bas 564181 bayd 199 baz 521 buha 475101 daaa 566185 dafdafa 495 daffa 495 dka/dakka 10350, 495 dab(u) 51930 daaka 556150 fa/hada 5126, 521 faara 445 fafaa 445 far 3820, 445 far 521 farrq 283 gadira 521 gafara 521 galgala 318114 garr 34552 gazl(ah) 523 gull 523 gurb 522 gu/irnq 522 halaka 37877

eblaite (cont.) an-da 29426 an-da-nu 29426 /a-u-b(-um) 401158 ba/b-da-gi-i-tim 19911 ba--lu-um/lum 556 ba-ga(-)-um 500179 ba-a-lumum 398146 ba-a-um/u-um 19911 ba-a-um 500179 da-bl 45840 da-da-b-lu 395 da-da-ga-b-um 395 da-da--lum 440100 da-da-mu 39899146 da-ir-i-du-um 401158 da-na-i-si-du/tum 401158 da-ne-a-al6 5268 da-nu-nu/na 270 dar-da-b-tum 395 da--da-m-lum 395 da--ba-tum 401158 da-zi 45840 du-bl 45840 du-da-li-g-um 395 du-u-da-i-sum 396 du-u-da-gi-lum 396 du-u-da-gi-nu/nm 395-96 du-u-da-na/ne-um/u4 396 du-zi 45840 -ba-g-um 395 En-a-mar/mi-ir 294, 552137 -ra/la-b-um 299 -r-tum 53889 ga-du-ru12 270 ga-na(-u9)-um 500179 ga-r-bu 52443 i-ba-ti--AN 24098, 294 i-da-a- 5163, 9526 i-da-kam4 24098 i-me-tum 5163, 29426 i-na-- 9526, 556 i-ra-ad 475 i-a-wu 46778 i-da-al 14934 i11-da-mar 14934 la/a-i-mu 401156 la-ti-ba-t [um?] 6258 la-ti-tum 6258 li-ba/b-tum 29426 lu-sa-ti-AN 24098 m-ba-u 51516 m-ba-la/ra-zu-um 51516 ma-i-la 18994 mi-za-i 2-u 19911 mu-da-bar-si--tum 314 mu-sa/su-ga--nm/nu-um 347 mu-sa-ma-a/-lum 3067 na-a-um 475100 eblaite (cont.) na-bar-su-um 314 na-b- 270 na-ga-b(-um) 395 na-sar-du-lu-um 314 na-zi-b 18994 ne-da-la 18994 ne-sa-gu(-um) 19911 ni-da-za-an 14934, 458 nu-da-bi-AN 24098 ra-a-zu-um 566184 ra-ba-tum 395 r--zum, r-z 566184 sa-b-tum 2709 sa--lum 556 sa-u-sum 327 si-ga-p-um 19911 su-b-tum 2709 a-ga-nm 396 a-gu-nu-um 396 a-ma-lum 395 a/-na-u4/um/m? 396 u-ga-ga-b-um 3820 te-r-i-du 401158 ti-a-ba-an 5268 ti--ma-tum 401156 ti-ig-da-ra-ab 5268 ti-ir-i-du-um 401158 ti-i-da-gi-lum 395 -b-tum 2709 u9-ga-da-ra 5163, 270 -na-ba-ga-ma 270 u-a-na-ga 327, 46571 -sa-ti-an 24098, 327 u-da-a-b-la 404165, 45529 u-da-si-ir 327 u-ga-i-na 346 -wa--da-an 24098 u9-za-an 458 wa-za-nu-um/nm 19911, 458 wa-zi-lum 46259 wa-zi-in 189, 458 za-a-rum 556 za--g-um 556150 zi-in 458 epigraphic south Arabian wkn 46152 ethiopian semitic (unmarked = Geez, Amh = Amharic, Te = Tigre, Ta = Tigria) angargara (Ta) 123 anggawa 320120 anssawa (Ta) 123 asnaqnaqa (Te) 345 asqamqama (Te) 345 ethiopian semitic (cont.) asqqawa 320120, 345 asqrara 345 bhla 131, 556 boa 47576101, 556 fadfada 445 fat(a)ta 495 fatfata 495 afaa 53888 amalml 446 anqaqa 446 i 21718 laala 44213 naza 573 nda 555 nhk/qa 475 ra 47576101 saaka 475 sbabra (Amh, Te) 446 sabara 446 saala 556 saaa 556 *sargawa 31186 aala 557152 aafa 522 n 511 tamaya 378 tamy 378 tana 38290 taab(a)ba 378 tabb 378 tawakkala 45425 wagara 45942 walwala 445 yb 131 ystay 496170 zl/nma (Te) 4335 znb/m (Ta) 4335 Hebrew (unmarked = Biblical, Mod = Modern) adamdam 446 q 199 bl 318114 bz 521 br 475 b 475-76101, 556 b 556 dibber 10250 ftexi (Mod) 13325 glal 495 geet 318 gilgel 445, 495 hlak 319 Pi 10250, 394131 Hithp 394, 43637 hpak 5125 hita aw 412
651
652
Hebrew (cont.) hitpqed 37671 m 199 lqa 319 lek 319 lac 522 ml 306 ml/e 28647 ml 306 mll 495 mwl 495 nbe 318114 l nga 319 npal 4230, 318114 naq 317 n 318 ntan 318, 473 rb 522 pull 35067 poal 35067 qa 13325, 319 ra ana/n 446 riqqed 10250 r 475-76101 sbab 18372 sbal 43 sanwerm 351 sarar 446 sn 511 aq 43 aba 51930 aq 556150 et 318 555 ap 5125 kab 19911 alhebet 351 pel 318114 qarrt 351 talbet 378 tet 318 tmale (Mod) 13325 t amm 377 tt 378 yda 319 ypeh 44912 yab 319 y 46776 yeza 46048 yinhaq 47599 yit 496170 z aq 43 z 46048 zerem 4335 zimmer 10250 zrr/zwr 10350, 495 Moabite lm Gt 380 Modern south Arabian m 555 Proto-semitic *an- 511 *ar- 474 gr 537 537 kl 455, 537 mr 537 n 538 p 538 rk 537 *ar- 511 br 538 km 538 l 538 l 538 md 538 nb 538 qb 53891 rb 455, 538 tq 538 zb 538 zz 538 *bal- 519 *bayn 23 b 555 bl 512, 555 bh 47576101 bhl 556 br 556 bk 41 bll 49192150 d 4442 dp 4442 48889143 *ib 519 r 41 *halk 511 hlk 538 hr 538 hw 538 hw 538 *amm 511 dd 538 d 538 kl 538 ll 538 lp 35067 mm 538 nn 538 rr 538 r 512, 538 538 kl 573 kn 34758 kn 42 *la- 216

Proto-semitic (cont.) *l/law 216 lk 556 lm 401156, 512, 556 lq 573 *min 23 md 555 ml 573 ms 573 m 521 mt 41 *nahr- 519 nd 475 nr 511 nr 556 n 512 ns 573 nwr 475101 ph/ 512 p/brg 522 p 573 pt 573 qm 573 rm 555 r 555 rd 573 rh 47576101, 556 rm 3626326 rq 474, 556 rt 573 rw 47576101, 556 gr 511 r 511 m 41 /b 573, 574213 l to ask 475, 555 /sl to cough 511 q 556 r 556 m 573 573 *taw/m 377 t 4442 n 556 555 gr 521 l 4442 n 555, 559 wbl 458 wd 522 wdd 458 w 46048 wg 464 wld 458 wq 458 wqr 461 wrd 458 wrq 461 wr 458
Index of Akkadian words

Proto-semitic (cont.) w 458 wtr 461 wb 458 ynq 455, 464 yr 464 zz 48889143 sabaic nm 4335 sumerian BA- 159 DAM.A.RA 18890 IMMA- 159 LUGAL 17752 MA.DA 18890 NA.GADA 18890 U.BAL 35067 U.TAG.GA.AB 13635 sumerian (cont.) U- 159 Ugaritic abl 45943 ard 45943 sp Gt 380 tir 376 itm 376 b Gt 380 kms Dt? 392123 lik 18476 m Gt 38083 mla 189 na 189 q 13325 r Gt 380 sid 18476 a-ma-ta 184 il 18476 Ugaritic (cont.) al-li-ma 189 ta-ba-a 184 tb 573 ttb 397 tmt 397 West semitic bhl 475 kbd 4337 lh 521 nq 475 nb 52549 nhm 47576101 nhq/k 475 nhr 47576101 nwm 47576101 rgm 522 rh/b 521 p 573
653
indexOfakkadianWOrds
55, 542102; D 401 abtu to flee 72 abtu to destroy 521, 538; Dt 384; Ntn 428 A-b-i-sar 465 abiktu 202 Ab-b(u) 187 abu 3820, 96 Abum-blum 187 Abu-b 187 ad(i)nu 522 Adad-arrum 187 adru to fear 7294, 26026 /adru to be dark, worried 521, 525, 538; Dt 388113; t2 409; Ntn 428, 430 du 318114, 32728, 566; : see uuddu aggu 73, 491, 494 agru 206, 537 agru Nn 20120, 202 ami 264, 265, 295 atu 96 atu (reciprocal) 264
ablu
azu 149, 537; Gt 361, 398; 29637, 541, 548, 549124, 549126; t2 37364, 405172, 411, 549; tn 549; N 201, 295, 405172, 551; for D, see uuzu Vb A-ba 187 au 3820, 96, 370 au (reciprocal) 264, 370 akalu Nn 47 aklu 51, 72, 537; Gt 36226, 399; 201, 327, t2 408, 549; N 551 aku Gt 371; D 547; Dt 547 -akkum 239 alaktu 3820, 198, 444 alku 67, 75, 92, 136, 234, 260, 511, 538, 542102, 54546; Gt 14935, 35758, 36263, 371, 546; Gtn 415, 418, 419206; Gtt 38990
/allu to hang 494, 521, 525, 538 ()allu to jubilate Gt 362, 371, 5242545; 548; tn 549 altu 74, 521, 538 liknu 20942 liku 205, 206 alkaktu 3820 alluttu 436254 amru 72, 173, 537; Gt 362, 398; Gtn 416, 419204, 546; t2 405, 410; N 294, 550 ana Prep 25, 46, 240 ana maar 235 ana r 235 anu 79, 23688, 542102; Gtn 419206; t2 409; N 29842 anku 182 andurru 34141 -anni 238 -anniim 238 -anniti 238 ann this 198, 513
654
anqullu 30155 anumma 147 aplu 13635, 545109; Gt 36566, 377, 398, 400, 418200; Gtn 14625, 421; Dtt 390; t2 407, 410 apru 20223, 521, 524, 538, 542102; N 296 aptu Adj 53679 piu 505 apparr 522 ar(t)u 522 aru to be quick 5930, 273, 542102 arku 529, 537; 329 armu 521, 52961, 53993, 542102 arru to curse 494 arru to tremble 4232, 494, 542102; Gtn 493; N 293; Ntn 426, 429, 430 arru to dry out 493 aru (Ass) 538 aru Adj 5930 ribu 52443 Arnaba 18890 arraku Adj 96 astu 4856 Asqudnum 20841 a(a)ru Nn 46, 4857 aru 389115, 4481, 545111 au to be worried 7192, 493, 542102; Ntn 426, 429, 430, 554 au to catch 7192 aqullu 30155, 34141 Arilu 46, 20119 aru: see a(a)ru aatu 511 -aum 239 -aunti 239 tamar-DN 14210 tana(-il) 14210, 150 atnu 199 at 3820, 201, 359, 363 atta you 182 att you (Fem) 182 atw Vb 78, 265, 357, 364, 37262, 400, 47498, 494, 502183, 538, 546; t2 4067, 410 awtu 198, 513, 517, 53887 *awum 198; N 36327 ay (Vet) 21719 ayyum 504190 azannu 484, 485 balu 512, 520, 521 bablu 4439 babban Adj 444 babbilu 34 baru Dtn 423 ba Vb 78 bakku 520 bak Vb Gt 371 balu 27110 balu Vb 75, 162, 1943; Ntn 427, 429 balu Nn 36, 197 baliltu 493 ballutu 27110 blu Vb 475, 556, 567 ban Vb 33118 ban Adj 444 baqmu 27111 baqru 4334, 73, 7678, 202 Bqilnum 20944 baqru/ Nn 202 barmu to seal 77 barmu to be multicoloured 1941 barqu 72; Ntn 427, 429 barru 444, 494 barmu Adj 445 bar Vb to see 27725 bru to catch 566; Gtn 568; D 568; N 569 bru to appear 475 bau 544, 494 btu 564181 ba Vb 55, 56, 92, 11011, 499500; N 297; Ntn 426, 428, 430 ba Adj 20632 bu Vb to be ashamed 476, 556, 557153, 56364; D 569 bu Vb to be bad 475, 555 batqu 15039, 202; Gt(?) 52 batiqtu 202 btiqum (OA) 27726 batqu Nn 202 battuqum 27726 btu Vb 3511, 4337; Gtn 48182; 487 balu 202 balu Nn 202

bu Vb 47576, 521, 556, 564; 569 Bau-ila 17855 balu 20634 Bl-b(um) 187 bel Vb N 297 blu Vb 56, 512, 555, 56162, 570, 570200; N 572 blu Nn 26, 519, 527 ber Vb 533, 573; Gtn 419208; D 530 bru Vb 556, 559, 56465, 570 bu Vb 556 bidu 4337 biblu 460 birbirr 444 bun(n)ann 445 buqqumu Adj 27111 burbutu 522 burmmu 445 burr Vb 27725 bu 51930 btu 556151 bu Vb 15552, 278, 521; Dt 38494; Dtn 423 buzzuu Vb 521 damu 78113, 521; N 29842 dapu 26336 dababbu Nn 439, 444 dabbu Vb 73, 136, 439, 444, 493, 494; Gtn 418; D 15039, 276; t1 388108 dabbu (Nn) 198 daddaru 320 ddu 46048 daglu 72 dik(n)u 208 da-ir-timx 46257 dakku to crush 4232, 2707, 496 dakku to gambol 494 dakkukum 2707 dku Vb 4232, 175, 235, 496; Gt 480; D 48485; N 17546, 488 dalu 33118 dallu 494 dlu 47, 487 dammu 494; Gtn 418 damqu D 273 damqu (Nn) 1941 damqu Adj 17962

dannu Vb D 273; Dtr 440, 44243; D 33435 dannu Nn 36, 1941 dandannu Adj 444 Dan-ilum 524 Dann-Aur 492152 dannu Adj 34, 444, 492 darru 7294 du Vb 566 dapu 4442; D 278 dapu Adj 4442, 278 du Vb D 485 daum (Ass) 4442 datu 46048 daummatu 345 daummu Adj 345, 522 daw/m Vb 47498 dayynu 34, 484 de/a(a)tu 522 dek Vb 537, 573 de Vb 278; D 508 de Adj 4442, 20632, 278 diatu 46048 dipu 4442 du 4442 di/uu platform 522 diu (an illness) 522 diy(y)ntu 479114 DN-kaid 1623 DN-muter 20635 DN-nir 20635 dultu 508 Dumqa 18890 dunnu 34 Duumum 270 duupu Adj 270 e l (OA) 216 e/ay 21719 ebbu Adj 492 ebbu Nn 20120 ebbu 492, 527; D 15039, 529, 53269; Dt 53269; t2 408 eblu 512 ebru 140, 538; Gtn 419206 ebu 2709, 51620; N/Ntn 428 ebirtum 51724 eddu 6464, 80118, 538; D 273 edlu N 553140 edqu t2 4853 edru N 295 edu 529, 538 elu 521; t2 404, 406, 410 egru t2 410; N/Ntn 428 egirtu 202 eg Vb 78, 464, 498 ekdu Adj 541100 *ekdu 541100; 326 ekku 491, 494 eklu 538 ekmu 79, 538 ekpu 529, 538; Gt 399150; Nt 39192 ellu Vb 538; D 545111, 547 ellu Nn 306 elpu Gt 36848; t2 410 elu 512, 538 eli Prep 2559 ellu Adj 492 el Vb 234, 528, 529, 534; Gt 371; Gtn 419206; Dtr 440, 443; 329, 541, 548, 549124; t2 411; tt 389 el Adj upper 517, 53132 emdu 67, 80, 286, 538; Gt 361, 546; D 530; Dt 547; 548; t2 403, 406, 410; N 295, 553; Nt 39192 emmu 529, 538 emru N/Ntn 428 emu to become hungry 80118, 545 emmu Adj 492, 511 *enbu 512, 538 ennu to punish 491, 494 ennu to do a favour 80118, 538 enqu 400153, 464, 528; 327, 46571 enu 529 -nib(at) 564180 enna 147 en Vb 13635; Gt 362, 400; t2 406, 410 enzu 513 eperu 47 epru Gt 36120; tn 550
655
epu Vb 76, 80, 1622, 316106, 438, 445, 526, 538, 545, 545109; Gtn 546; D 275; 549123; t1 386103; t2 4853, 407176, 411; N 291, 550, 552138 epu Nn 198 epitu 53679 pinu 209 ep Vb 528, 538 eqlu 518 eq Vb 13635 erbn (Imp) 23378 erbe 436254 erbettu 436 erdum (OA) 46256 ere/ibu 522, 52443 erbu 67, 73, 76, 80, 260, 538; Gt 357, 371, 400, 546; 527, 541; tn 424, 550 ermu 53993 erpu 80118 erru 6363, 80118, 493158, 538 eru to ask 80, 5112, 528; Gt 371 eru Vb to cultivate 78, 80, 512, 526, 542103; Gtn 419204 eru Nn harvest 197 ribu PrPartc 205 erqum Adj (OA) 46256 Erra-blum 187 erru 34, 14936, 543103 eretu 511 eru bed 511 eru cultivated field 35, 54243103 er Vb to be pregnant 528, 538 er Adj pregnant 531 esku 464; Dt 547 eslu N/Ntn 428 espu 529, 538 esru to confine 528, 538, 542102; Dt 385 esru to press for payment D 530 edu Vb 80 edu Nn 198 elu N/Ntn 429 epu 52237; t2 411 eru 80, 46465 idnum 20944
656
e Vb 538 ebu 445 ee/ar, eeret ten 47, 518 eru 60, 464, 46571; 548; t 37364; tt 39192; t2 404, 411; N 295 eu Adj 36019 Etar-alia 17855, 18788 Etar-damqa 17855 e Vb 29116 etamdu Adj 359 etqu 80, 15142, 260, 538; Gt 362; 549123, 549124; tn 425 eru 545; Ntn 430 eium Adj (OA) 6469 e Vb 78; Dt 38494 e Adj 6246 ew/m Vb 47498, 528, 538 ezbu 80, 538; Gt 371; 328; t1 387; N 294 ezu N 553 ezzu 80118, 492, 494163, 538; Dt 384 ez Vb 4232, 318114 ezzu Adj 492 galbu 27111, 27724; 33324 galtu 7498, 78, 31186; Dtn 423; 329; D 337 galtu 202 gallbu 27724 gamlu 77; t2 409 gamru 273, 277; Dtt 389 ganu 72, 529 gapu N 292 g/qarru to roll 5930; Ntn 430 garru to be scared Gtn garu 444 g/qarru Adj 5930 gau 5930 gau Adj 5930 garu 529; Dt 385 ger Vb 583; Gt 400; Gtn 419208; N 294 gillatu 277 gulbtu 27724 gullubu Vb 27724 gullubu Adj 27111 gullulu Vb 277 gunnuu Vb 5930 gunnuu Adj 5930 guppuu Adj 470 gurugara 444 abbu 111, 494 ablu to owe 74, 26026, 274; N 296 ablu to wrong 77 ablu to bind, catch 512 ablu Nn wrongdoing 198 abtu to rob 77; Gtn 419205 abtu to move across 7294 abbulnum 20840 bilu 512 biru 479 addu 494 adrum (OA): see /adru ad Vb 74, 149; N 297 a Vb 4339 akmu 388109 allu to pipe, wheeze 444, 494 allu to creep, steal 7294 allu tr 44320 allum (OA): see /allu alpu 525; Gt 399, 400; N 296 alqu 72, 162; Dt 384; t1 388108; t2 404; D 33435 / alu 512; Gt 36432 alu 277 alallatu 444 lu Vb 479; D 485 amdu 52548 amu D 276; t1 388108 amu 76106 amu to be quick 5930, 273 amu to burn 77; 329 amqum 523

amu Adj 5930 anbu 444, 512 anmu Dtn 423 ananbu Nn 444 anqu 72; Ntn 428, 430 appu 444 apappatu 444 qu Vb t2 47, 409, 487; N 488 arbu 78 arru to dig 494, 496 arru to be parched N 513 aru 80; t2 403, 409 aru to plant 512 *harbum 299 arruwtum 2705 ru Vb Gtn 481 rum Nn 523 asru 529 assu 72, 17443, 274, 493; Gt 360; Gtn 421; D 401 aatu 1623, 46256 au 4439, 55, 5718, 75, 78, 26026; N 296 alu 27111; Dt 38494 altu Nn 202 u 475, 566 tu/attu 42 a Vb 44, 140, 498, 577220, 577221; t2 409 a Adj 20632 u Vb 475, 555, 56061166; Gtn 48182; N 488 w/mirum 479 azzum 513, 523 epru 529 ep Vb 583; D 530, 536; Ntn 428, 430 er Vb 496 es Vb D 534 ()i-it-ll-r-ra 52545 iu 577221 ub 445 ulpum 525 ()ullu 52442 unbu 512 ()unnubu 512 urba/u 311 uulu Adj 27111
422

uzru 3820 kabsu 111; 174, 330 kabattu 18580 kabtu 4337, 55; Dt 423 kabbaru Adj 34 kabru Adj 34 kadru 529; Ntn 427231, 429 kakkabu 320 kalbu 3820, 445 kal Vb 79, 134, 1943, 573, 576, 579, 582; N 294 kl Nn 205 kalmu 4856 kamlu 25924; Gt 373; N 290 kammu 7294 kamru 77 kamsu to gather 6988, 286 kamsu to kneel 6988, 72; D 181; Ntn 427231, 429 kamtum/kam 522 kam Vb 74, 78 kanku 4439 k/qannu 493; tn(?) 425; Ntn 429 kanu 78, 20224; D 33435 knu Vb 36, 42; Gtn 432, 481; D 35, 252, 401, 48285; Dtn 423; Dtt 389; t2 47, 406, 408, 487 kapdu 67, 74, 274 kappu 494, 496 kapru 277 karbu Vb 67, 72 karbu Nn 198 karku 4439; t2 411 karru 136, 494 karu 78, 202 karpatum 48 karu Nn 202 kar Vb 78 karbu Adj 20634 kasmu 77, 96 kaspu 111 kasru 529 kassu 494 kaspu 18580 kas Vb 74, 78; D 276
657
kapu D 18166 karu 80; Dtr 440; t2 409 kau to grind ones teeth 494; t2 411; Ntn 429 kau to trim 494 karu 34 ka Vb 44, 79, 573; N 488 kadu 67, 1623, 164, 175, 18166, 26026; D 276; Dtn 423; t2 411; Ntn 429 karu 77, 529; D 270 kau 77, 439, 493 kadu Adj 164 kakau 444 ku t2 411 katmu 173, 260, 277; Dt 388113; 33118; D 337; Ntn 429 kattu t2 411 katum 134, 573 kaw/m Vb 47498 kayyntam 1276 kayynu 36, 1635, 479, 484 Kazubtum 6359 k/nu Adj 478 kep Vb 496 kisallu 53574 ku 559162 k your 508, 521 kubbulu Vb Dt 385 Kubbutum 270 kulbbu 3820, 445 kullu Vb 55, 5721, 92, 26026, 48385; Dtn 423; t2 408180 kullumu Vb 401; Dtn 423; Dtr 440; tn 424; D 33435 kulu all 4857 kulmu 4856 kupputu Vb Dt 385 Kurbilak 46 kussimtu 96 kuum 577221, 580 kuzbum Adj 6573, 162
- (me) 23892 i (Prec) 2138, 21617 Iddi(n)-abum 524 id Vb 51, 5612, 130, 274, 46568, 573, 575, 58283 igaru 4750 iz 278 I-ku-p-ra-a 524 Iln-dann 179 Iln-rabi 179 ilittu 460 imru 513, 518, 53370 Imtda(m) 14210, 150 in(a) Prep 24, 25, 259 ina bi/ar- 264 ina qt- 25924 inanna 147, 210 Ina-am-wasum 606135 inma 14829 iabtum 461 I-sar-be-l 465 iaru Adj 46, 4750, 1958, 465 ibabtu 445 istu 4856 I-ma-A-dDa-gan 51722 I-m-dDa-gan 51722 Itar-utlal 4407 iti Prep 25, 265 itu Conj 14829 iu 96 iurtum 461, 465 i Vb 51, 5612, 130, 46768 i Nn 522 *itaGawaGGm Ntn 320120 italanu 31294 ita/ertum 461 itbru 34, 359, 363 itepu Adj 359 It-ll-dDa-gan 5242545 Ittabi-dn-Aur 14210 ittami 385 itti Prep 25, 259, 265 it border 51414 it neighbour 51617 itlu 3512, 13533, 299, 357, 371, 480; Gtn 481120 izuzzu 3512, 36, 55, 57, 75101, 92, 13533, 136, 22039, 299, 35812, 471, 47395, 48890; Gtn 418; 490; Nt 392 kabru 399149, 529; Ntn 427231, 429
658
l 14832, 21620, 220 La--ra-ab 299 latu 7395, 74, 521 labbu 326; t2 410 labnu to make bricks 140, 529 labnu to prostrate 529 labru Vb 75102, 529; 329 labru Nn 1941 labu 74, 25821, 274, 37058; Gt 3575, 363; D 535; 329; N 296 labiru Adj 46 lab Vb 79 lamu 512 lal Nn 3820, 277, 508 lamdu 74, 134, 173, 26026, 274; 329; N 296 lammu 494 lmtu 21516 lapnu 6253, 78113 laptu 111, 26437, 27725, 37058; Gt 51, 3575, 361, 363, 364, 37363; 328, 387; t 403161; t1 386104; t2 405 laqtu 76105 L-qpum 478 lasmu 5930, 73, 206; Gtn 415 lasmu Adj 5930 lau/lau 523 lalau 444 lau 444, 46776 L-tubaanni 564 law/m Vb 1289, 173, 47498; N 29495 lazzu 491, 494, 496 lazzu Adj 493 lku Vb 556, 570 lemnu 529; t2 406, 410 lemnu Adj 65 lmu to consume 512, 517, 556, 557, 559 l/mu he does not want 21516, 570 leq Vb 134, 173, 526, 53269, 534, 537, 573, 57578, 580, 58283; Gtn 419205, 577218 let Vb 573 le Vb 55, 75, 49697, 503, 521, 557154, 558; Gt 363 le Adj 20632 lez Vb 496 libbu 1957, 326 lidnu 460 lidu 46049 likalka Imp 136 lillidu 444, 460 littu 460 l 14935, 16515, 2125, 21416, 2161721, 231, 36223 lull Vb 3820, 434439, 277 lupputu Vb to be delayed 27725, 278 luqtum 518 luu Nn 522 lu Vb 521 -ma 145, 153, 195 madu: see mdu maddu 136, 491147, 492, 494 madakku 35 maddattu 436 mdu Vb 15142, 475, 555, 560, 570; N 297 maggu 77 magru 7294, 73, 76, 20224, 398144; Gt 365, 373, 399, 407; t 403161; t2 405, 409; N 29012, 294; Ntn 427 mau 494 maru 173, 17443; Gt 3575, 35810, 398; Gtn 19710, 421; t2 403, 405, 409; N 295 mau 74, 134; Gt 3575, 35810, 361, 362, 398, 399; D 276; t2 405, 410; N 295 ma 29219 miu 35, 205 ma Vb N 292, 297 maum Adj 29219 mitnu 209 makru to irrigate 80, 529 makru to trade 398; t2 406, 407 maksu N 291

maknaku 49 malku 72; Gt 3575, 362, 398; Gtn 421; t2 410; N 295 mals/u 78112 mal Vb 55, 79, 272, 573, D 401, 535; 329; D 33435; t2 406, 409; N 297 Mama-alia 17855 mmtu 444, 460 man Vb 79, 498; Dtt 390; D 33435; N 291 manzastu 35960 maqtu 74; Gtn 418 Mrn-kn 179 marqu 277 marru 529 maru D 337; t2 407176, 410 marraru Adj 27725 maru Adj 179 mru son 519 mar Vb t2 411; N 29323 masku N 297 maallu 34, 35 maru 7294 ma Vb 44, 18166, 498, 577, 580; t2 411 maaddu 35 malu 73, 80, 162, 529; Gt 362, 377; t2 410 maru Gtn 415 mau 44320, 494 mau 77, 520, 521; Gt 36120 madau 34 maenum 511 makaktu 35 maqalillu 307, 344 maiu 34 matu 136 matqu Adj 96 mtu Vb 45, 175, 265, 47677; 486 ma Vb D 33435; t2 407176 mu Vb 475, 521, 566 mazqu Dtt 389

mazu 521 me-da-a (-wa-tim) 466 mek Vb 67; t2 411 mlultu 30564 mlulu Vb 305 mlul Nn 30564 mratum 5128 mre(t)u 34 meru 48 mes Vb 51, 573, 575; D 33435 msu Vb 555 meltu 51931 menu 511, 517, 519 mequ 5192031 mu 556, 570; Gtn 571; D 571; N 572 menu 52031, 527 meltu 48 migru 34 mlu 51930 mnu Nn 507 mitgur (Stat) 373 mit/ru Adj 34, 359, 366 mitur (Stat) 36641 m 508 muu Vb 56 mdadu 20326 mde()um/md 36, 20326, 466 mudikku 48485 Muadd/-ium 506196 mu 29219 mukarris/u 205 mukillu 48485 mukinnu 35, 48485 muktaau 439, 494161 multau 367 munaqqtu 205 munda(i)u 366, 420 Munnabittu 551131 munnbitu/munnabtu 206, 55354 munna/erbu 2892, 551, 554 muntalku 367 munzru 36431 mupparkium 506196 mupparu 206, 2892 muqerribu 205 muqqu Vb 278 murabbnu 209 muribbnu 209 murruru Vb 27725 murtap(pi)du 420 muarrirtu 205 muiu 486 muizu 205 muallimnu 209 muimmu 48485 muknu 16721, 34748 mulu (Stat) 65 mumellilu 306 muuu Vb 521 mutab(ar)r 404 mutabbabbu 439, 494161 mutaalqu 404 mutaizu 424 mutap(pi)tu 420 mutar(ri)u 420 mutar(ri)qu 36224, 420 mutakinu 34861 mutene 418 mutpiu 404166 mtap(pi)lu 420 mutirru 48485 mutlell 44142 mutnenn 444 muttak(ki)pu 420 muttqu Nn 96 muttatku 4394 mutte/ill 31398 muttl(t)u 31398, 480117 mtu 45 *mutuzzu 385 mu Vb 278 muzza/izzu 36, 20326, 489 nadu to be concerned 7395, 318114, 520, 521; N 297 nadu to praise: see ndu naarruru 3045, 34245, 521 naru 317, 511 nasu 521 nabu 274, 317 nabalkutu 111; 30712; 315, 338; Ntn 312, 432 nabu D 33435; Ntn 426, 429 nabzu 317 nablau 35 nab Vb 498; Gtn 418 nbudu Vb 4337 nbutu Vb 4337, 72, 201, 298, 551, 553 nbutu Adj 201 nadnu Vb 4439, 110, 136, 149, 198, 318, 47274; Gtn 418, 419205; 327, 387, 549122; t2 403161, 409 nadnu Nn 36, 198 nadarruru 301, 320, 34141 nadru Ntn 428
659
naddudum Vb 278 nadintu/nadittu 472 nad Vb 174, 318, 498, 535, 577; Gtn 419208; Ntn 428, 430 ndu Vb 3265, 475, 555, 566, 567187; D 560, 568; t2 47, 406, 408 naggu 73, 76, 317, 491, 494 nagalmuu 30877 nag/qarruru 301, 303, 320; 340 nagu Gtn 415, 418198 ngiru 27826 naglabu 34, 27724 naallulu 301, 303 nalu 42, 318114 *naarbuu 308, 311 naarmumu 308; 338 naarmuu 308; 338 naaruu 308 naru 317 nau 512; N 297 nabalu 512 nabutu Vb 299, 333 naduru/naduru Vb 29218, 297 nalaptu 399, 525 naparu 524 nu Vb 318 nakdu 7498; N 292, 297 nakmu 77 nakru 529; Gt 362; Dtn 423 naksu 72, 535; Ntn 427 nku 318; Gtn 482; N 488 nalbbu Adj 29010 nlu Vb 1623, 475, 477, 566; Gtn 48182 namaddu 35 namanuu 524 namark 338 namru: see naw/mru namai/uu 44320 namu 74, 140 namauu 524 namudum 518 namurratu 30154, 345 namurru Adj 179, 345 nanduru Vb 297
660
nanuzu Adj 201 nanza/zu 29010 napu 76106, 1637, 23376, 23482, 317, 444; Ntn 427, 428, 430 napalsuu 308; 338 napal 308; 338 naplu 111 napard 308; 338 napark 79, 308; 338 naparqudu 308; Ntn 312 naparrurtu 30154 naparruru 301, 303, 320; 340 naparudu 308, 420; Ntn 312 napatu 1623, 46256 naplsu 29010 naplusu Vb 293, 299, 333; Ntn 42526, 429, 430 napruu Vb 201, 299, 333; D 33435; Nt 39192 napruu Adj 201 napatu 35 napurratu 30154 *naqallulu 301; Nt 39192 naq Vb 277; Gtn 418 nqu Vb 475, 556 Nar()amtum 55859160 naramtu mace 522 narmu 55859160 narru/nrru: see nerru naru D 33435 narq Vb 299 nru river 519 nru musician 570 nasu 149; 328; 46987 nasku 74, 76, 78; 328, 46987 nasq/ku t2 411 nasqu D 33435 nasarruru 301 nassu 317 nasluu Vb 297 naarruru 301 naru 72, 76105, 262, 318; Gt 360; 328; Ntn 428235 na- 581 nu Vb 566 nau 274 naku 77; D 275 naallulu 302, 303, 320 napu 111 naqu 317; Dt 384, 4394; N 295 naarbu/u 308; Ntn 312 *naarruru 302 -ni(n) 1222 na Vb 7499, 136, 173, 17443, 318, 46776, 498, 573, 574212, 581; Gtn 419205; N 296, 299300 nu Vb 318 natku 317; Dt(n) 423, 470 nalu 67, 72, 318; Gt 362; Gtn 418; N 294 ntiktu 205 na Vb to hit 74, 79; N 291 na Adj appropriate 65 naw/bauu 524 naw/mru 234, 318, 445, 47498, 529; 329; D 33435 naw/mrirr 445 naw/m Vb 47498 nazmu 274, 317; Gtn 418; D 1381; Dt 1381, 423; Dt(n) 470; Dtt 389 nazqu 72, 317; N 290, 298 nazarbubu 308, 310 nazru 77; Gtn 419206 nazzu 317, 494 nazzzu Nn 29010 nbau 52860 neb Adj 53679 neell 313 negelt 308 neel 308, 310; 338; Ntn 312 niru 571 nekelm 308, 310; Ntn 312 nkepu 527 nmequ 34

nemerk 308, 310 nent 292, 299 nepelk 308; 338 neperd 308 neperk Ntn 31190 nep Vb 506196, 533, 537, 573 neqelp 79, 308, 310; 338, 53269; Ntn 312 nerru/nrru 29010, 304, 522 nrebu 527 nrtu 16722 nru Vb 514, 556, 557 nrubu 292, 299, 53890, 551 nruru 553 nes Vb 5930, 573; 329; D 33435 nes Adj 5930 neelp 308 neg Vb 297 nu to live, recover 9526, 512, 556, 559, 570 ne Vb 559 nez Vb 318114 -ni (me) 238 nikkassu 3820, 27828 nlu/nilu 31396 nu oath 520 nu raising 507, 520 nubattu 3511 nubb Nn 198 nubbuu Vb 285 nugguru Vb 27726 nukkusu Vb 3820, 27828 nru 318 pau 512, 521; Ntn 427 pdu 566; D 568; 569 paglu 1941 pagru 261, 370 paru 55, 74, 162, 25011; Dt 385; Dtr 440; Dtt 389 pazu 27110 pauz 27110 palu 74, 134, 162, 20224; D 274; Dtn 423 palku D 337 pallu 491 palq/ku 78 palsu 7294 palu N 293 pliu 205

palk Adj 311 pnnum 9212, 1276 pan Vb 79 paqdu Gt 13533, 3575, 35812; D 275; 33118 paqru 4334 pqirnu 209 pqu Adj: see pqu pardu 75, 78; Dtn 423; D 33435 parku 77, 31186; Ntn 427231 parru 74, 494 parsu 72, 111; 33118; t2 410; N 295 paru to cut off 521 paru to sprout 521 parumu Vb 27826, 30769; Dtt 389 pa/urumu Nn 27826, 30769 paslu 72 pasmu Dt 384 passu 493 padu Dtt 389 pau 79, 135; 329; D 33435; N 298; Ntn 429 palu 72 paqu t2 410 paru 277; N 294 pau 26437, 37058, 494; Gt 360, 363; N 290, 296 pau 72; D 33435 paru Dt 384; D 33435; N 294 pazru t2 406, 411; D 33435 peettu 436 pntu (pndu) 47497, 518 prtu 51930 prrtu 3820, 445 pe Vb 573 pu Vb 512 pet Vb 134, 526, 533, 537, 573, 575, 577; D 274, 534; 530; t2 411, 530; D 33435 pinna(na)ru 445 piqittu 436 pqu (pqu) 6566, 479 piru (piru) 520, 522 pirau/Piraum 524 pirau 522 Pa-dannu 188 pitu 460 pitqudu Vb 3512 pi/utqudu Adj 367 pugu 478 puu Vb 27828; Dt 485134 pupu 444 pur (Stat) 65 pu 27828 pulum Adj 6572 puqqu Vb 278; Dt 385, 485134 purqidam 311 purumu: see pa/urumu Nn qabbu 521 qab Vb 111, 154, 27725, 499500, 504, 5089, 580; Ntn 430 qab Nn 197, 198, 508 qaddu 76, 494 qdu Vb 46152 qipu 479 qalpu 111 qallu Adj 30155, 34554, 492 qal Vb 74, 79; N 291 qlu Vb 564182; Gtn 482 qam Vb 74, 79 qannu 7294, 76, 49495 qpu Vb 164, 47677, 478, 479; D 483; t2 47, 409, 487; N 488 qaqqadnu 20841 qaqqadu 261, 370 qaqqaru 320 qarbu: see qerbu qarnu t2 411 qarru 7192 Qarnna 18890 qau Adj 36019 qu Vb 478; Gtn 481; D 485 qatpu 111 qttum 36328 Qattunn 2705 qat Vb 273; Dt 385; t2 411 qebru 528 qem Vb 573
661
qmu 51930 qpu Nn 2012 qerbu Adj 5930 qerb Adj 532 qerbu(m) Prep 1957 qerbu 5930, 76, 79, 80118, 162, 25011, 52829, 565; Gt 357, 399; D 252, 53269, 535; t2 408 Qum 478 *qidm 22 qptu 409 qpu 164 qubb Vb 27725 qurbu Adj 6470 Quttunn 2705 qu Vb 67, 278, 44910, 560 rabu to trembe 7398, 521 rabu to replace: see rbu rabbu 78, 326; D 33435 rabu 72, 399 rabb Adj 96 rbiu 206 rab Vb to be big 234; Dtr 44110; 329; tn 424; D 33435; Ntn 429 rab Adj 270, 508 rbu to replace 475, 478, 514, 558; Gt 15039 raddu 496 rdu Vb 475 rdu Nn 511 ragmu 73, 76; Gt 362 ra/u to come to aid 13427, 51213 rau to flood, destroy 7192; Ntn 427231, 430 rau to wash 7192 rau to trust 78 ru Vb 329, 487 rakbu 37, 919, 134, 173, 202; Gt 400; 327; D 337 raksu 155; D 276; Dt 385; N 29531 rkibu 205 rakkbu 34, 37 rammu 494 ram/anu 261, 263, 370
662
ram Vb D 33435 rmu Vb 56, 5717, 555, 55758, 567, 570; Gt 363, 36432, 398; Dt 568 rmu Nn 198 rapdu 73; Gtn 415, 420 rapu 399149; D 33435 raqdu Dtn 337 raqqu Adj 492 rqu Adj: see rqu rqu Vb 235; 329, 487 rs/u to kill 566; D 560 rasnu 80 ru Vb 47576101 rau 494 ra Vb 1289, 26026, 467; 327; D 33435 ru to rejoice Gtn 481 raubbatu 345 raubbu Adj 345 rattu 494 rabu Adj 6258 ramu Adj 20634 reb Vb 76106 reb Adj fourth 51828, 531 red Vb 134, 496, 53065, 573207, 57475, 577220, 577221; D 401, 530, 53435; Dt 423; t2 408; D 33435 rd 206, 579 rmu Vb 556, 570; Gt 36226; 572 rqu Vb 5930, 76, 556, 563, 565, 570; D 565, 571; 572 rqu Adj 5930, 571 ru Vb 475101, 512, 519, 556, 566184; D 572 ret Vb 573 re Vb 75, 49697, 503, 555, 558, 559 r 503187, 531 rqu (rqu) 65, 66, 479 Rigmadad 4649 riksu 34 rimku 34 ruqum (Ass) 76, 162, 565 rugbu 3820 ruggubu Vb 3820 rqu Adj 5930, 646571, 571 rutu 522, 52443 ruumu Vb 522 salu 73, 274, 511 sau 521 sabsu 4439 sbu Vb 566, 567 sadru 77, 23376, 273, 529 sdu 566 sau 493 salu 77 sapu 77; t2 410 saru 67, 73, 140, 273; 1289; t2 37364, 411; N 29293, 297; Ntn 426, 428 sakku Ntn 429 sakpu to lie down 20224 sku Vb 475 salmu Vb 6031, 79, 46466 salmu Nn 1941 saltu 78112; Dt 384 salu 521; Ntn 428 salmu 398144 Sallun 2705 samdu 74; N 291 samu 80, 529 smu Vb 44911 sndu 47497 sapdu 72 sapu 72 sapnu 111 saqru: see zakru squ: see squ sarru D 273; N 6465 sarru Adj 444, 492 sarruru Vb to pray 67, 278 sarsarru 444 se/a Vb N 29842 sekru 38, 528 sru Vb 556, 570 sikaru 46 sikkru 38 simnu 460 simtu 460 sin (Prep) 22 Sin-waqrum 188 squ/squ 6575, 66, 479 sitnuq (Stat) 37365 s/ull Vb 67, 278; Dtn 423, 530

s/ull Nn 198 supp Vb 278; Dtn 423 supp Nn 198 sqqu 445 squ 445 abbu 494; Ntn 429 abru 27110; Gt 295; Nt 39192 abtu 74, 134, 173, 17443, 273; Gt 400; t1 388108; t2 405, 407176, 410; N 1289, 294; Nt 39192; Ntn 428235, 430 abburtu 27110 abbuttu 27110 a/eb 408177 bu 265 du to melt 6988 du to spin, prowl 6988, 479; Gtn 415, 481; Dtn 423 u 556150; Gtn 481; D 486 idu/idum 479 allu 919, 134, 202, 491, 495 almu Ntn 427231, 429 almu Nn 18580 ltum 55657152 lu/lu 4440, 55657152; Gtn 568193; t2 405, 410 amdu Vb 72, 198; t2 411 amdu Nn 198 am Vb 7499, 445, 498 anu 513 nu Vb 4440, 566, 568193 apru 7294, 80 ap Vb 74, 79 aru 75102 armu 72, 274 arpu 111 arru 494 artu 78 arpu Nn 35, 202 ayydu 27110 ayyu 27110 eru 1958, 528, 529 eeru Adj 96 eru Adj 179, 523, 528

lu: see lu lu 519 en Vb 513 nu Vb 555, 559, 570 nu Nn 519 epu 522 ru back 519 (ami) 46049 ibittu 34 ibtu 460 illu 278 tu 460 ubbu/umbu 470 ubb Vb to observe 278; t2 406, 408 ubbuu Vb to wage war 514, 574211 ull: see sull ullulu Vb 278 ull(t)u 278 um(m)/mtu 445 aru 521, 52441, 559 abbu 439, 494 abartu 1623, 46256 /sabsu to be angry Dt 385 abu to collect taxes 4439, 73, 76 bu Vb 478 bulu Adj 325 addu 491147; Gt 360 adu 72; Gt 371; Ntn 429 adduttu 325 adittu Nn 493 aggu 494; Ntn 429 agalmuu 30877 agmu 73 agapru 34553 agu 4439 aggiu 34 giu 20531 au 495; Ntn 429 alu 42, 318114, 352 anu N 292 atu to fear 42, 26026, 352 au to jump, attack 6988, 72, 27110; Gtn 415, 419208 au to tear off 6988 autu 27110 aluqtu 326 arabbatu 326 arartu 326 aurratu 342 aurru Adj 342, 345 imnum 20944 akku 77, 49293, 494 aknu 42, 174, 262, 352; Gt 36364; Gtn 15037, 419204, 419208, 421; N 294, 296; Ntn 426230, 430 akru 38, 96, 529 akkru 3738, 96 aklultu 326 aknt napitim 20119 aknu Nn 35, 202 kultum 326 allu 494; N 30257 alamtu 18580 almu Vb 6034, 79, 234, 46466; D 423222; Dt 385; Dtt 389 almu Nn 1941 alpu 77 al 4442 alu 4439, 75, 76106, 273 alu 77 alu 573; Gtn 422 alb/ubu 325, 326 alimtu Nn 202 allatu 493154 almaum 46 almu Adj 179 alputtu 326 al Vb 79 lu Vb 136, 475, 555, 557, 560, 567, 570; Gt 198, 35758, 362, 365, 559, 568; Gtn 422, 561, 568; Gtt 389; D 568 alummatu 345 alummu Adj 345 amu Dt 385; Ntn 429 ammu 494 amru to praise Gt 366, 371; Nt 39192; Ntn 430 amru to rage Gt 371 ammunu 3820; Dtt 389 amnu 389 amruum 326 am Nn 506196, 508
663
mu to buy 479, 555, 557, 56062, 567; Gtn 568; N 569 mu to destine D 48485; t2 406, 408, 410184; N 488 annu 494; Gt 358, 399 anu 44320, 521; D 423222; Dt 38494 andun/ttu 325 an Vb 273, 501; D 409; 329; t2 406, 409 an Adj 508 nu Vb 480; Gt 375 andu Adj 3265, 331 *nuu Adj 325 apku Gt 360, 362, 364 aplu 4230; Dtt 389 apru 4230, 111, 136, 154, 419207; Gtn 419206, 420; t2 411 apru Nn 197 apu 5930 piru 206 apu Adj 5930 apqu 326 aptu Nn 17962 ap Vb to be loud, thick 79; Gt 371; N 29842 ap Adj loud, thick 270 ap Vb to be silent Gt 14935, 21932, 36263, 371, 5045 ap Adj silent 20632 apultu/apssu 349 aqlu 77, 276, 34554 aq Vb to give to drink 6988 aq Vb to be high 60, 6988, 79, 23482; Dtr 440; Ntn 427 aqummatu 345 aqummi 342 aqummu Adj 342, 345 aru 420; Dt 38392; Ntn 429 arku 77 armu 80 arpu 77
664
arqu 3618, 23687, 420; Gt 36224 arbbu Adj 326 aru Adj 34 arrqnu 20839, 3618 arrqu/arruqum 34, 18581, 359 rtu 511 ar Vb 79; 329 ar Adj 64 as Vb 13635, 504; Gtn 416, 419205 aru 318114, 460 Adj 325 atnu 375 aru Vb 72, 198 aru Nn 198 at Vb to drink 22, 4544, 51, 75, 496, 517 at Vb to weave 74 aw/m Vb 47498 ebru 528; D 530; Ntn 428 eb Vb to be satisfied 573, 578; D 579; N 298 eb Adj 20632, 531 eb Vb to be seventh 574213 seg Vb 79, 498, 578; Ntn 428 iqu 571 el Vb 79 lu Vb 556, 572 em Vb 26, 134, 527, 573, 574, 576, 579, 580; Gt 35810, 366, 39091, 398; Gtn 416, 418, 419208, 422, 577218; 579; t2 410 nu Vb 555149 nu Nn 511, 517 qu Vb 556 ernu 522, 525 ermu 80 erk/gm Adj 31186 ererr(at)u 444 ertu ring 444 rtu morning 51724 eru 522 ru Vb 556 eu Adj 36019 e Vb 573 u Vb 556 e Vb 75, 49697, 503, 555, 558; Gtn 418 zubtu 326 zuzu Adj 325 -bant 188 -bantum 188 -bla 17855 bu Adj gray, old 520 bu Nn satiety 520 bu (bu) Nn witness 20120, 478 bultu 325, 46258 imtu 4485, 46048 iner 531 ipru 34 iptu 460 su 507 itaru 359 itarqu (Inf) 36224 itqul (Stat) 36641 itr/uu 34, 359 ittu sleep 46048 itltu 198, 367 -bla 187 ube 34656 ubtu 460 bultu 3263, 34966 udlupu Adj 331 uduru Adj 331 uglutu Adj 331 ugurruru Adj 340 uarri 343 uarruru 34146, 34966 umuu Adj 331 ururu Vb 34347, 386104 ukennu 34650, 514 uklulu Vb 332; t1 387 uknn (Imp) 23378 uknuu Adj 331 kud (Stat) 326 kulu Adj 201 ulgi-nda 187 ulputu Vb 201 ulputu Adj 201 l Adj 331 lulu Vb 332 umma 148, 153, 23132 ummu Vb 278 *ummunu: see ammunu umruu Adj 331 umulu Vb 332 um Vb 332 nuu Adj 331 up/barzuu 338 upellu 34650, 37364 upltu 349 upuu Adj 331 upuqu Vb 332 upuqu Adj 331 p Adj 331

uqallulu 30155, 34146 uqammumu 34146 uqulllu 34141 quru Adj 331 urb Adj 181, 331 urru Vb Dtn 423 urubu Adj 331 urudu Adj 331 sumu Adj 331 uq Adj 331 uruu Adj 331 utablakkuttu 340 ut Vb 407 ut Adj 201 utarrutu 38392 utt Adj 201 uta Vb 38485, 52021 utw Vb 408 utb/puru 411 ute/abr 404, 411, 530 utkub/pu 399150, 411 utelu 404162 utmuqu 4067 uters 404, 406, 408, 503 ut 386, 407 uttunu 411 utlumu Vb 332 uttu 46048 tuqu Adj 331 turu Adj 331 u Nn 522 uuddu Vb 327, 42425, 487, 569 zuzu Adj 331 ta()tammum 398146 tabku 277, 36641 tablu 7475, 134, 14935, 263, 370, 374, 37774, 452 tbl 401 tabku Nn 202 tadnu 42, 75, 140, 47274 tadduntu 400 tdirtu 409 tzu 36121, 398 taqtu 409 talaptu 399 taluptu 400 tasistu 401 taittu 520 taklu 55, 79, 135, 164, 454; N 297 takbaru 399149 Takil-ilu 20119 takiltu 408180 takittu 401 taklmu 401 taklu Adj 164 tkultu 265, 399

talbutu 399150 tallaktu 399 taltabu 397 tluku 377, 400 tam(m)/mtu 444 tmartu 398 tamgu/irtu 399, 400, 407 tamartu 398 tamu 398 tamuu 399 tamkru 398 tamlku 398 tamltu 401, 409 taml 401 tamlu 377 tamtu 409 tam Vb 6780, 79, 135, 444, 57374; Dtr 440 tmurtu 400 tn/u 15040, 409 tplu 377, 398 taparu 399 tapiram 399147 tapur(t)u 400 tapp 508 tapau 399149 taputu 400151 tpultu 400 taqnu D 34759 Taqnabum 46 taqrubtu 399 Taram-Akkade 5717, 55758157 Tarm-Uram 567, 55758157, 567 tarru 4232, 5930, 29116, 494; N 293, 298 taru 7192, 78, 202; N 2959633 tarbu 265, 399 tarbu(t)u 522 tarkbu 400 tarpau 399149 tarru Adj 5930 taru Nn 202 tartm 397, 398 tar Vb 74, 263, 370, 374, 37774, 452, 45426, 501, 504 tru 36, 273, 478; Gtn 48081; D 175; Dtn 423, 485134 tabtu 53679 tabittu 400 ta 454 *tamaum 398 tamtu (Tamtu) 398, 51515, 527 tana/i 409 tanintu 400 tan/tantu 409 tanuntu 399 ta--p-a 46363 tw/mtu 400 twtu 408 tawntum 4497 tayyru 36, 479 teb Vb 537, 573, 575, 577, 580; Ntn 429 tegrtu 400 tkuptu 399150 temru 526, 528; 534 tnqu 400153 tn/tntu 400, 407 tepttu 531 terdtu 401 trtu 462 trubtu 400 teb 408177 *tebtu/tabitu 408177, 53679 *teb 408177 t/tu 401, 457, 46257, 531 tub 400151, 462 tem 398 tez/ Vb 4232, 318114 tiamtu 514 tku 318 tilmu 332 tnuqu 400153 tibuttu 400152 ti 4442 tu/mu 377, 398142 tmu 398142 tltu 51930 tum(m)/mtu 444 Tra-Dagan 23379 ttu 378, 399 taru 399149 abu 72 abbiu 34 bu Adj 479 bu Vb 47, 329, 486 aw/m Vb 47498 eb Vb 7499, 80, 134, 498 e Vb 9526, 134, 53269, 573 inu 571 mu Vb 555149 nu 556, 565, 570; 486, 572 ep Vb 573 Ubrum 513 -da-ad-z-na-at 4496 udu (MA) 466 uuru Vb 278, 545111, 547 uuzu Vb 278, 547; Dt 384 ulu 508 ukpu 4484 ukull 514 ul 21620, 23171 ullu Nn 523 ummnu 399146 Umm-nda 17855 Umm-ba 17855 unqu 3820 Unnnu 44423 untu 49 uplu 3820 uppulu Vb 3820 upa 445 urinnu 523 uru 3820 urnqu 522 urn 522 urudu 523 uruu 508 urullu 523 Ui-dannum 20944 uean 34657 uubtu 460 utaqq 385 utlell 44042 utnnu/utnennu 44344 uetu 53370 uzlu 523 uznu 3820, 278
665
wablu 4439, 47, 136, 37774, 448, 451, 453; Gtn 14625, 418, 421; 2526, 248, 252, 327, 387, 455; t2 404165, 409, 457; tn 4857, 424; N 457 wabu 4439, 44911 *waddu 20326, 449, 46048 wad: see wudd and id *waklu 454 wakmu 44911 wakpu 448 waklu 45425 waldu 175, 444, 448; 455; N 457 walu 4481 wlittu 20328 wamlu 4439, 44911 wamum/wam 4439, 444, 449, 573 wanum 4497 wniqum 462
666
wapu 4439, 448 wap Vb 4439, 449, 462, 46363; 455; t1 387 waqru 449, 462, 529; 329, 456 waq 67, 449, 453; Dt 385 wardu 448, 451, 453; Gtn 418201; 22 warqu 449, 462; N 457 Wardilu 46 wardu 18580 wark 31186 waru 44911 war Vb 74, 79, 136, 37774, 449, 453, 501; 328, 45556 wru (ru, mru) Vb 450, 475; Gtn 481 wasmu 460 (w)asqu 4481 wasmu 606135 wabu 400151, 448; N 457 wtum (OA) 518 wa Vb 44, 67, 6985, 7499, 136, 206, 23379, 234, 260, 449, 453, 454, 498, 503, 575, 577, 580; Gt 371, 399; 252, 455, 574; t1 403; t2 457; tn 424, 57879 wu Vb 450 wabu 67, 919, 13536, 162, 1943, 202, 448, 453; Gtn 419206 wamu 448, 46048 *wanu 46048 wapu 448 waru 399149, 4481 wau 44911 wabum 179 waru 44911 wau 44911 watru 449, 462, 529; D 269; Dt 423; 2661, 329 wat Vb 449, 573; t2 406, 410 wazzunum Vb 3820, 278, 454, 459 wdu 519 wildu 460 wudd Vb 274, 454; 581; D 33435 wurr Vb 454 wusmu 460 wuss Vb 454 Wussum(t)um 606135 wu Vb 454 wuuu Vb 454 wuuru Vb 269 wuuru Vb 454, 462, 475, 521, 560, 568; Dtn 423, 424224 ynu 570 y mine 521 zanu D 13635 zablu 43, 72, 27725 zabbilu 11065 zaal 523

zakru 4334, 72, 37262; Gt 364; Dtr 440; Nt 39192; Ntn 430 zak Vb 79, 505; Dtt 389 zak Adj 65 zamru 73, 76, 29115 zamru Nn 198 zannu to provide 494 zannu to rain 4335, 76, 494 zaqpu 3820, 7192, 444 zaqru Dtr 440; Ntn 429 zaqtu 5930, 77 zqipnu 209 za/iqpu 4856 za/iqqu 445 zaqtu 5930 zqu 44445 zarqu 77 zar Vb 79 zru D 485 zzu 200; N 488 zen Vb 573 zru Nn 51828 zru 56, 556, 571; Gt 36364; N 572 zbu 519 z/zu 179, 186, 200201 zikaru 46 ziqziqqu 444 zubbu/zumbu 470 zubbulu Vb 27725, 278 zuqqpu 3820, 444 zuqqunu Adj 179 ztu/zutu 46048, 523

Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE AKKADIAN VERB AND ITS SEMITIC BACKGROUND

LANGUAGES OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background

Winona Lake, Indiana EisenbRauns 2010

Chapter 2. Structure and Organization in the Akkadian Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . 28

the Basic stem

Chapter 4. The Impact of Gemination I: The Imperfective iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Chapter 5 The Perfective and the Imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Chapter 6. The t-Perfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Chapter 7. The Stative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Chapter 8. The Nominal Forms of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Chapter 9. The Secondary Members of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

9.4.3. The ventive in a historical perspective

the Derived Verbal stems

Chapter 11. The impact of gemination II: the D-stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Chapter 12. The Prefix n- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

12.3. 12.4. 12.5. 12.6.

Chapter 13. The Prefix - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Chapter 14. The t-Infix and Its Ramifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

Chapter 15. Verb Forms with Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438

the Minor Paradigms

Chapter 17. The Verbs with Gutturals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

Proto-semitic from an Akkadian perspective

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

List oF ABBreViAtions, syMBoLs, AnD terMinoLogy

1. Abbreviations of series, Periodicals, Dictionaries, and Manuals

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

2. Abbreviations of text Publications

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

Conventions of transcription and terminology

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

The Structure of the Present Work 1.3.

1.3. the structure of the Present Work

1.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

1.4. Akkadian, semitic, and Afroasiatic

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic 1.4.

1.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

1.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic 1.4.

1.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic 1.4.

1.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic 1.4.

1.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic 1.4.

1.5. The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian

1.5. excursus the Dialect Classification of third-millennium Akkadian

The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian 1.5.

1.5. The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian

1.5. The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian

The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian 1.5.

1.5. The Dialect Classifcation of Thirddmillennium Akkadian

2.2. The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm

2.2. the organization of the Verbal Paradigm 2.2.1. Thebasicstructure

The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm 2.2.

2.2. The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm

The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm 2.2.

iptaqqId iptaqId *pitqId