Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of the American Oriental Society
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Historical Linguistics of the Intrusive
*-n in Arabic and West Semitic
Jonathan Owens
University of Bayreuth
1. introduction
I term the -n (realized variously as -in, -an, -inn, -ann, -unn, -anna) that occurs before object
suffixes in many Semitic languages and varieties the “intrusive -n,” or simply “-n.” 1 The ori-
gin of this morpheme has been widely discussed among Semiticists in particular, and more
recently among Arabicists (Holes 2011). Among Semiticists there are two broad explanations
for its appearance. The more widespread approach, represented inter alia by Robert Hetzron
(1969), David Testen (1993), and Rebecca Hasselbach (2006), is to interpret the intrusive
-n as an inherited proto-Semitic verbal suffix with various, uninterrupted reflexes across the
different varieties. An alternative perspective is offered by Jan Retsö (1988: 92; also Barth
1907), who sees the -n as originating independently from common “deictic elements,” a
massive parallel independent development, as it were. The former approach tends to derive
the morpheme from common verbal aspect-mode values, two functions of which are the
Akkadian ventive (motion towards speaker) and the Classical Arabic so-called energicus
(nūn al-taʾkīd in the Arabic tradition, also termed energetic or energic in the Western tradi-
tion). The latter approach, on the other hand, is sceptical of shared proto-functions, instead
emphasizing the basically formal property of pronoun object marking.
In this article I will attempt to combine elements of each of the two perspectives. As in
the first position, there is a common, shared origin to all occurrences of the -Vn in West
Author’s note: I would like to thank Clive Holes for comments on and discussion of various points in this article,
and the two anonymous readers for their helpful and critical comments. Nadine Hamdan provided invaluable help
in organizing the Qurʾanic databases. Symbols used herein are standard grammatical abbreviations, e.g., N = noun,
SG = singular, PL = plural, M = masculine, F = feminine, NOM = nominative, ACC = accusative, GEN = geni-
tive, OBJ = object, NP = noun phrase, PP = prepositional phrase, etc.; in addition, EM = emphatic morpheme, T =
energic suffix (al-nūn al-thaqīla), -n = intrusive -n, V = verb (unless in phonological formulae, where v = vowel),
AP = active participle, CA = Classical Arabic. (Presumably) spoken dialect has been transcribed using a variant of
the international phonetic alphabet (IPA) for consonants (dots under emphatic consonants instead of the IPA raised
ʿayn) and two short vowels for a lengthened vowel (e.g., uu = ū).
1. Cf. Landberg’s term, “nûn paragogique” (1909: 732).
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
218 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
Semitic. However, following Retsö, the only functional unity that characterizes them is the
grammaticalized function of marking a pronoun object suffix. As will be seen, the explana-
tion advocated here basically confirms the analysis of Carlo Landberg (1909: 738). 2
Partly for strategic reasons, and partly because of the breadth of material that would have
to be treated in detail to work out a completely comprehensive development, I will concen-
trate on the West Semitic languages in general, and on Arabic in particular. To the extent that
the West Semitic languages have the intrusive -n, they are remarkably similar to one another
in grammar, while Arabic is of particular interest for two reasons. First, the -n is attested in a
number of varieties of it, and at different chronological eras; and second, a close look at the
general syntax of the -n in a major text of Classical Arabic will allow a detailed evaluation,
and refutation, of the idea that the -n derives from a proto-verbal function.
I begin in section 2 with a summary of the situation in Arabic, first the dialects, then a
corpus-based summary of the energic -n in Qurʾanic Arabic. This will form the basis in sec-
tions 2.2 and 2.3 of the first of two reconstructions developed in this paper, namely, a recon-
struction of the development of the energic as a grammatical category in Classical Arabic.
In section 3 the data from other West Semitic languages are presented, and in section 4 an
overall historical development is offered. In section 5 individual interpretive issues related to
the proposed solution are addressed.
2. One of the readers observed that Barth’s theory “. . . was conceived before the inclusion of Akkadian and
Ethiopic . . . in the reconstruction of [the] Proto-Semitic [-n]” and therefore can no longer be considered of equal
rank with the inherited verbal suffix analysis. While this paper filters Akkadian out of the main analysis (see 5.5,
below), the question of the origin of the intrusive -n as an originally independent element vs. original verbal suffix
remains a question implicated for all of West Semitic (and ultimately all of Semitic). I do not think that the solution
proposed here cannot be interpreted to have occurred at the proto-Semitic, rather than proto-West Semitic stage.
3. Carl Reinhardt’s phonetic transcription is inconsistent. For the sound MPL suffix, for instance, he writes -yn,
obviously transliterating rather than transcribing.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 219
4. Rebecca Hasselbach’s deriving the Bahraini geminate forms from analogical extension of the 1SG object
suffix (2006: 324) appears unnecessarily complicated; see (42) below.
5. Speakers of Afghanistani Arabic migrated from Uzbekistan in the nineteenth century.
6. In the third person the original AP forms marked by the number and gender suffixes are used.
7. Note, with the meaning “I have written.”
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
220 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
Lake Chad, -n is added to the MSG stem, where, as with Uzbekistani Arabic, it neutralizes
all other forms (Owens 1993: 2009).
(7) ana kaatb-in-ha “I have written it” vs. ana kaatib (M) “I have written”
inti kaatb-in-ha; inti kaatb-e “you (FSG) have written”
hum kaatb-in-ha; hum kaatb-iin “they (M) have written”
hinna kaatb-in-ha; hinna kaatb-aat “they (F) have written”
In addition, in all non-Bagirmi Nigerian Arabic dialects and in Shukriyya, in eastern
Sudan (Reichmuth 1983), -an/-ann is added to the FPL -aat, as in Oman (see (2), above).
The geminate variant occurs before a vowel, the single before a consonant.
(8) kaatb-aat-ann-u “they (F) have written it” (written-FPL-N-itM)
In these two dialects, the -an can probably be interpreted as a relic of the fuller system,
as in (1) and (2), above.
2.1.2. Complementizers
It is relevant, for reasons that emerge in sections 2.3 and 4, below, to briefly summarize
another -n, this one occurring in a class of complementizers in Arabic, which in Classical
Arabic are those ending in -nna (inna wa-akhawātuhā), namely, inna ‘that’, anna ‘that’, and
lākinna ‘but’. These have a number of formal links to the energic, discussed in the next two
sections. Like the energic they can be followed by a pronoun from the object series, 9 anna-ka
‘that you’; they are neutrally followed by an accusative complement if nominal rather than
pronominal; and anna itself marks an object complement.
(10) ʿalim-tu anna zayd-an munṭaliq-un
learn-I that Zayd-ACC leave-NOM
“I learned that Zayd is leaving”
Furthermore, there is a “light” version of this morpheme (in, an, lākin) that in most varieties
does not govern an accusative noun (Sībawayhi 1970, 1: 430).
The complementizer in continues to be used in many contemporary dialects, though not
all (see 5.6, below). It has, however, various functions, only one of which is to mark a sen-
tential verb complement (e.g., Germanos 2009, where it is a discourse marker, as well as
marking complements). Retsö (1988: 79) notes that a number of Landberg’s texts have a
particle win, often used with a suffix pronoun co-referential with the subject of the clause,
which appears to demarcate short episode segments in narratives.
8. Private communication, February 2011. See also Eades 2008: 89.
9. Hence in the 1SG -nī, as well as -ī.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 221
(11) winne-hom nezal-u min em-xalwah leθneen ʕala ṣħaab-hom . . . u qaal-u inna
ṭaʕán-na θneen u elʕalim alla inne-hom faat-u oo ʕaad-hom
“and then the two descended to their companions . . . and they said we stabbed
two and God knows if they are dead or not” (Landberg 1905: 9) 10
As can be seen here, inna occurs in the same texts marking a sentential complement after
qaal, so that there appear to be multiple *-in-origin words in this dialect.
10. Landberg’s transcription has been adjusted to conform with the transcription of dialectal speech used in
this article.
11. In the Arabic grammatical tradition, the final -n of the indicative (the inflection of indicative in these
persons) is said to be dropped before the energic forms. William Wright (1986, 1: 61) formulates the morphology
differently, saying the energic is added to the jussive stem, which in the 2FSG and MPL at least is a viable alterna-
tive. It is not added to the jussive of weak final verbs, however, which maintain their long vowel before the suffix,
e.g., armiy-anna “I shall throw” (Sībawayhi 1970, 2: 161). There are interesting issues of historical linguistic inter-
pretation behind both formulations.
12. Sībawayhi notes that in this case the light -n is not like the tanwīn, which it behaves like in pausal position.
The definite article is realized as al- post-pausally, but as l- in context (waṣl). In the Arabic grammatical tradition, it
is known inter alia as lām al-taʿrīf “the definite l.”
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
222 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
position it changes to -ā after an a. In the 2FSG and plural forms Sībawayhi notes that the -n
of the indicative (raf ʿ) returns in pausal position, i.e., instead of theoretical taktub-i-n “you
(F) write-N” > taktub-iy-ā or taktub-īn-ā, one has taktub-īn (2: 158.9).
(13) SG PL
aktub-an na-ktub-an
taktub-an ta-ktub-u-n (but not in pause)
taktub-i-n 0
yaktub-an ya-ktub-u-n (but not in pause)
taktub-an 0
The energic is a translation of the term tawkīd ‘emphasis’, a term that Sībawayhi attri-
butes to al-Khalīl (d. 175/791) (2: 152). Sībawayhi notes that the heavy -n is more emphatic
than the light, and he gives two contexts with which it is closely associated. The first is the
so-called lām al-qasam—the lām or letter l signifying an oath—a morpheme that he sees
as closely associated with the energic (see Testen 1998: chaps. 1 and 2 for summary of
la- in Arabic). Sībawayhi explains qasam ‘oath’ as “emphasizing your expression” (taʾkīd
li-kalāmika, 1: 403.15), i.e., it is a linguistic, not a legal category. Should la- be used with a
non-negative imperfect verb, Sībawayhi claims that the energic must also be used:
(14) wa-llāh-i la-a-f ʿal-anna
by God-GEN EM-I-do-T
“By God I will do [it]” (2: 403.18)
This formulation is too general, as in fact la- does occur without the energic, as Sībawayhi
himself later notes:
(15) inna zayd-an la-ya-ḍrib-u
EM Zayd-ACC EM-3-hit-IND
“Indeed Zayd will hit” (1: 405.14)
Sībawayhi simply observes that the use of the energic with la- here is more frequent.
What can be noted is that Sībawayhi often illustrates the energic in the context of a lexical
expression with the force of an oath, wa-llāh ‘by God’, ashhadu ‘I bear witness’, aqsimu ‘I
swear’, and the like (see (29), below).
A second context is in imperative and negative verbs, lā ta-f ʿal-anna ‘don’t do!’, which
Sībawayhi notes as optionally occurring with the energic (in shiʾta adkhalta fīhi l-nūn wa-in
shiʾta lam tudkhil). In addition Sībawayhi summarizes further contexts, all characterized
by occurrence with a characteristic but optional morpheme. One of particular interest is his
observation that with a question word the energic turns a question into a command, i.e., it
assumes the illocutionary force of a command:
(16) hal ta-qūl-anna
Q you-say-T
“do you really mean to say?” = “you don’t (really) mean to say; you shouldn’t
say”
In this context Sībawayhi approvingly cites the grammarian Yūnus (see Baalbaki 2008:
14) who sanctions the energic -n after hallā ‘why not?’:
(17) hallā ta-qūl-anna
why not you-say-T
“why don’t you say?” = “you should say”
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 223
A general characterization of the meaning of the energic will be given in 2.2.1, below,
after further data are introduced, though for the moment it is enough to note that the energic
is strongly associated with illocutionarily marked contexts.
Turning to the larger historical issue addressed here, ostensibly there is only a partial
overlap between the -n of the Arabic dialects and the energic of Classical Arabic, the only
similarity being that they both occur before object suffixes. A closer look at the distribution
of the energic in one important Classical Arabic text will help form a more nuanced picture
of this initial observation, however.
13. No attempt will be made to distinguish early forms of Arabic—pre-Classical, Classical, Qurʾanic Arabic,
and the like—which I believe is a precarious exercise (see Nöldeke 1893, Fischer 1961; see also Owens 2009:
39–40 for methodological problems in defining early varieties). In my view, so long as a sociolinguistic history of
early Arabic is lacking, issues of early varieties cannot be defined with complete adequacy.
14. http://corpus.quran.com/ (directed by Kais Dukes and hosted at Leeds University).
15. Viz., yakūnā, noted in Sībawayhi as yakūn-an (2: 152).
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
224 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
operators. In the Qurʾanic citations examined here these contexts can be summarized in
Table 1, with their token counts.
Examples of the less frequent morphemes are as follows (see (20) for la-):
(18) fa-immā ya-ʾtiy-anna-kum min-nī hud-an (Q 2:38)
And-when 3-come-T-you-MPL from-me guidance-ACC
“And when guidance comes to you from Me”
(19) hal yu-dhhib-anna kayd-u-hu mā ya-ghīṭu (Q 22:15)
Q 3M-go-T effort-NOM-his what 3M-enrages
“will his effort remove that which enrages” 16
Not infrequently, there is a sort of energic agreement, when the energic in one verb form
is followed by the same in the next or neighboring verb. In Q 4:119, for instance, six tokens
of the energic follow one another successively.
(20) wa-la-u-ḍill-anna-hum wa-la-u-manniy-anna-hum wa la-ʾ-āmur-anna-hum
And EM-I-mislead-T-them and EM-I-arouse-T-them and EM-I-order-T-them
fa-la-yu-battik-u-nna ādhān-a l-anʿāmi wa-la-ʾ-āmur-anna-hum
and-EM-3-slit-PL-T ears-ACC DEF-cattle-GEN and EM-I-command-T-them
fa-la-yu-ghayyir-u-nna
and-EM-3-change-PL-T
“And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful desires], and I will
command them so that they slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so
they change”
Thirty-two of the verses have more than one energic token in them.
The previous example (20) illustrates another relevant point, namely, that the la- of oath
often occurs with no explicit oath before it, so that it simply has the effect, with the energic
suffix itself, of marking a pragmatic emphasis. 17
It is also not uncommon for the same phrases to be repeated in more than one verse (see,
e.g., Zwettler 1978 on orality and repetition in Arabic literary composition). The phrase (lā/
16. Given the discussion in n. 19, below, a more appropriate translation might be “and do you really think that
his effort will remove that which enrages.”
17. Similarly in poetry. Dīwān ʿAntara turned up nine total tokens of the energic -n, all of them marked with
la- and none with the jawāb al-qasam actually “answering” an overt oath. My thanks to Smaranda Grigore for these
statistics.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 225
la-) takūn-anna min X 18 “(don’t) be of the X,” for instance, accounts for sixteen of eighteen
tokens of the energic on k-w-n, as in Q 6:114, 7:149, and 7:189 respectively:
(21) lā takūn-anna mina l-mumtar-īna / l-khāsirīna / l-shākirīna
“do not be of the doubters” / “of the losers” / “of the grateful”
In other cases, whole clauses recur. The next example, for instance, is found in both
Q 31:33 and 35:5:
(22) fa-lā ta-ghurr-anna-kumu l-ḥayāt-u l-dunyā wa-lā ya-ghurr-anna-kum bi-llāhi
l-gharūru
“so let not the worldly life deceive you and let not the Deceiver deceive you
about Allah”
Each such case is counted as an individual token in the statistics below. What applies
to phrases applies to a degree to the illocutionary operators and complements as well. The
illocutionary operators tend to collocate with individual verbs. The verb ḥasaba ‘think,
consider’, for instance, occurs in two verses—nine tokens in all with the negative lā; this
one verb therefore accounts for nearly one-quarter of all lā + -n occurrences. Also, arā
‘show’ occurs in four tokens in four verses, all in the context of immā ‘if’. The verbs may be
predisposed to occur with certain types of complements: adkhala ‘make enter’, for instance,
occurs only with a pronominal object complement in its four tokens.
As far as the meaning of the energic goes, generalizing over the examples and description
given so far, it can be said to represent an assertion on the part of the speaker that “the event
or state of affairs represented in the predicate will with a high degree of certitude occur.” It
is, as it were, a certitude operator. In the case of imperatives it expresses a strong desire on
the part of the speaker that an event should or should not occur. 19 In actual discourse, based
on the Qurʾanic material, the energic always occurs in tandem with another morpheme to
co-mark this meaning. 20
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
226 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
1. With pronoun object complement; see (18), (20), and (22), above.
2. With noun clause object complement,
(23) la-ya-qūl-anna dhahaba l-sayyiʾ-āt-u ʿann-ī (Q 11:10)
EM-3-say-T went DEF-bad-PL-NOM from-me
“He will surely say ‘Bad times have left me’”
3. With nominal direct object complement immediately following; this class is divided
according to whether the direct object bears the definite article,
(24) wa la-ya-ʿlam-anna l-munāfiq-īna (Q 29:11)
and EM-3M-know-T DEF-hypocrites-PL
“He will surely know the hypocrites”
4. or an object without definite article, as in (20) fa-la-yu-battik-u-nna ādhān-a l-anʿāmi.
5. With prepositional object immediately following,
(25) la-yu-ʾmin-anna bi-hi (Q 4:159)
EM-3-believe-T in-him
“he will surely believe in him”
In classes 1–5 the complement immediately following -anna is implied in the argument
structure of the verb; āmana ‘believe’ (25), for instance, requires that its object complement
be marked by the preposition bi-. In the following four classes the complement immediately
following -anna is not implied as a (non-subject) complement of the verb.
6. With non-argument complement (e.g., prepositional phrase) immediately followed by
nominal object.
7. With non-argument adjunct immediately following and no nominal object; see (21).
This class is problematic. The majority of its tokens are due to one verb ‘be’, k-w-n (18
tokens), where the complement introduced by min is considered to be an adjunct, not part of
the argument structure of k-w-n. This problem is alluded to briefly below.
8. With overt noun subject immediately following (19).
9. With no overt nominal or prepositional argument of the verb at all,
(26) lā ta-mūt-u-nna (Q 3:102)
not 2-die-PL-T
“do not die”
The statistics for these contexts are given in Table 2.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 227
The second point is that the largest single category, or thirty-five percent, of verb comple-
ments is composed of V + anna + pronoun object; and the third is that the energic in the vast
majority of tokens is introduced by la-, the lām al-qasam (see Table 1). I will return to the
statistics at the end of this section.
In addition to these three points, CA also has complementizers (section 2.1.2, above) that
are of the same form as the heavy -n, -nna, and are of the same parentage as the -n that was
grammaticalized in the object marking complex. As has been well studied (in particular,
Testen 1998), the complementizer inna is very frequently (anna less so) paired with the
emphasizing la-, as in the examples of (27) and (28). 21
Equally relevant to the current question, Sībawayhi (1970, 1: 421.3) explicitly notes that
the inna . . . la- construction occurs in the contexts of oaths even without the imperfect verb:
21. Example (28) is a variant reading of innahum (Saʿīd ibn Jubayr) (see Ibn Hishām, 307, for a discussion of
acceptability of anna + la). In the later Arabic tradition, e.g., the summary of Ibn Hishām (300–11), the “lām of the
oath” is distinguished from the “lām of the topic” (lām al-ibtidāʾ), which is illustrated in (15). Both have the func-
tion of emphasis, however, and both place la- on the predicate. Syntactically the Arabic tradition would be prone to
consider the two lāms distinctive, simply because of the different syntactic environments automatically generated by
the nominal vs. verbal sentence—the former, Topic + (la-) Comment, the latter (la-)-verb-anna- Agent. The assump-
tion is made here that speakers would have identified the two, both formally (both are la-) and semantically, even if
they might have distinguished them syntactically, which is an open question.
In his exposition, Ibn Hishām recognizes four lāms, homophonously la-, that do not govern and that occur on
a major predicative constituent (verb, topic, subject), i.e., they contribute to the illocutionary force of the clause
they occur in. These are the lām al-ibtidāʾ and lām (jawāb) al-qasam, as noted, as well as the “extra lām” (al-lām
al-zāʾida) and the lām that occurs on conditional particles. That the status of the four categories as distinctive
categories is not always clear is witnessed by the fact that Ibn Hishām often notes that in various citations different
grammarians differ as to the correct categorization of a given la-.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
228 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
Two key points are relevant here. First, the la- marks a predicate, either nominal or verbal;
and second, in most cases the complementizer inna/anna is followed either by an accusative
noun or a bound pronoun (in accusative form).
[inna-ka] la-qāʾim-un
la-ta-ghurr-[anna-kum]
Fig. 1. Analogical categories precursing the development of the CA energic
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 229
Step 3. It is a small analogical step to fill in a full noun after the verbal suffix -anna rather
than a pronoun, on the model of Figure 1. The analogical proportion can be stated as follows:
(32) inna-pro obj + la-Pred : la-Verb-anna-obj pro :: inna - Noun + la-Pred : la-Verb-
anna-X
X is filled in with a noun (or other non-subject complement), and so arises the Classical
Arabic energic, which originally was a structure restricted to V + -n + pronoun object gener-
alizing to V + -n + pronoun object or N.
In lockstep with the expanded formal context of V-anna was the development of the
meaning of the energic. As seen in the statistics in Table 1, the energic occurs with the great-
est frequency—by a considerable margin—with la-, which itself has a general meaning of
emphasis, and, as seen in 2.2, Sībawayhi even went so far (too far, I think) as to suggest
that imperfect verbs following la- always require the energic. Another context in which the
energic occurs is the conditional immā < in mā, and conditional clauses can also mark the
result clause with the emphasizing la-.
At some point the constant co-occurrence of the (now) energic -anna with emphasis la- as
well as with other illocutionary particles led to it acquiring the status of a certitude operator,
a meaning anchored strongly enough that by Sībawayhi’s day it allowed inferential meanings
to be derived, as discussed in (16) and (17) above.
It should be emphasized here that the CA energic in this treatment is interpreted as devel-
oping by an analogical extension of an already existing suffix, namely, the Pred + -n + pro-
noun object (see section 4, below). The energic itself does not form by grammaticalizing or
incorporating independent material. 22
Relating this reconstruction now to the Qurʾanic statistics, it should be kept in mind that
the Qurʾan represents a linguistic stage at which time the energic is fully functionalized
grammatically. It does not represent the proto-stage itself of this development.
Argued here is that overall the numbers reflect the origin of the energic in various ways.
A central point is that the single largest grammatical category occurring with the energic suf-
fix is the pronominal object, representing over one-third of all tokens. The inference drawn
from this is that this accumulation in one category reflects the historically original stage. A
second major point is that grammaticalization of -n into the function of an “energic” took
place in the context of illocutionarily marked morphemes, foremost among them la-. As
Table 1 shows, the energic -anna in the Qurʾan almost never occurs outside of an illocution-
arily marked context. This context was needed to regularize and generalize the meaning and
distribution of the inherited -n suffix.
Furthermore, the reconstruction sees the basic grammar of the energic to be that of mark-
ing a non-subject argument. This follows from the analogical workings with the comple-
mentizer inna/anna, which requires that it be followed by an accusative complement. There
are, in fact, occurrences of V-anna + subject in the sample, or simply V-anna + Ø, but
these together represent barely more than ten percent of all tokens (see (19), above). The
vast majority of cases are V-anna + (non-subject) complement. Moreover, of the comple-
ments, depending on how the complement of k-w-n is interpreted (see (21), above), anywhere
22. I.e., the morphemic material -anna is necessarily already in place before the analogical extension described
in Figure 1 and (32) takes place. A reader suggests as a possible source constructions of the type yarā anna ‘see that’
(> yarā-nna). As will be specified in Figure 2 below, anna here is seen as providing “analogical help,” but not as
providing the morphemic material itself. Still, the existence of yarā anna in discourse could further have expedited
the formation of the analogy described in (32). V + anna is indeed quite common in the Qurʾan (e.g., 2:26, 72, 106,
107, 194, 209, 223, 231, 233, 244, etc.), so this source deserves closer textual study as well.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
230 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
between 75 to 85 percent of the complements directly following -anna are integrated in the
(non-subject) argument structure of the verb. This again is interpreted as an historical relic,
as it were: the energic developed as a general category by integrating non-subject verbal
complements into the predicate argument structure, in part under the analogical working of
the complementizer inna/anna.
To be sure, as it developed into an independent verbal suffix, the energic came to allow
any complement to follow it directly, including the subject, or to allow no complement to
follow it. As noted, however, the small percentage where this does occur reflects the fact that
this is a later development.
The statistics in no way prove the correctness of the proposed historical development. It
is reasonable to claim, however, that in their present form they serve as a plausible substan-
tiation of it. Moreover, the statistical argument can be considerably strengthened, as will be
shown in the next section.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 231
Table 4. Chi-square distribution of ProObj vs. V – NP, -anna vs. general sample
general sample -anna (energic)
V – pronoun object 72 72
V – NP/S comp 176 83
p < .000 df = 1, Pearson chi-square = 12.6
The statistics in Table 3 are suggestive in another way, namely, that the complement NP
in the energic (see Table 2, category 6) is separated linearly from the verb to a far lower
degree than in the sample at large. This is the V X NP construction, which occurs only once
with the energic, thirty-three times in the overall sample. Recall that in Figure 1 it is argued
that an important part of the analogical development depended on the argument occurring
immediately post -anna in the energic.
To summarize this subsection, adding a comparative statistical sample reveals that the
analogical associations argued to be criterial in the development of the energic are indeed of
a significantly higher degree of frequency in the energic than in a sample of the Qurʾan as
a whole. Observed statistical correlations are argued to replicate the historical development
of the structure.
23. The 3MSG is shown by labialization or palatalization in the non-nna- forms. Robert Hetzron (1969: 108)
reconstructs the form as *-nn-uu.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
232 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
There are no complete paradigms for Biblical Aramaic (Rosenthal 1961: 71). 24 A vowel
occurs before the n when the object is suffixed to a C-final verb. Franz Rosenthal (1961: 54)
suggests the underlying form is (i)nn-, reduced to -Vn when the “-n is vowelless.” In Biblical
Aramaic the -n is not obligatory before an object suffix. 25
(34) SG PL
1 -nna-ni nna-ni
2M -nnā-k n-koon
2F
3M nne-h
3F nn-ah
It rather appears that in Biblical Aramaic the -n is variable, in the sense applied in Table
5 below.
For Old Aramaic, Rainer Degen (1969: 80) shows an -n only in imperfects, and only
before a suffix, e.g., yqtl-n-h “he will kill him,” and Jacob Barth (1907: 3) notes that an -n is
attested in the Elephantine (Egypt) papyri.
For Jewish Palestinian Arabic, ca. seventh century c.e., Dalman notes that in the perfect
and active participle the -n occasionally occurs as well before an object suffix (1905: 360,
380). The -n is obligatory in the imperfect before an object suffix.
(35) SG PL
1 nná-ni inná-na
2M innā-k innə-koon
2F innii-k
3M innee-h inn-uun
3F inna-h inn-iin
y-qdm-in-k “he precedes you (SG)”
Writing on Samaritan Aramaic attested between 400–1000 c.e., Rudolph Macuch (1982:
132) gives a similar paradigm, which will therefore not be given here, except that in Samari-
tan Aramaic the insertion of the -n is optional. As with Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, although
more frequent with the imperfect verb, it also occurs with the perfect and with the infinitive.
Further to older varieties of Aramaic, Barth (1907: 3), citing Theodor Nöldeke, notes that
Mandaic has -in before plural object suffixes and Babylonian Talmudic -in-hoon. He further
observes that suffixing the -n on perfect verbs is not infrequent in both Western and Eastern
Middle Aramaic (Jewish Palestinian, as noted above, Mandaic, and Babylonian Talmudic).
Barth concludes from these observations that the -n in these varieties is basic to both imper-
fect and perfect verbs (1907: 8).
In Modern Western Aramaic, spoken in three villages in Syria, the -n has been completely
regularized in the subjunctive paradigm, whereby before any object suffix, -n is inserted,
with -nn occurring before -V-initial pronouns, -n before -C-initial (Arnold 1990: 208–12).
The vowel before -n varies according to grammatical and dialectological parameters. The
subjunctive corresponds to the Arabic imperfect.
24. Ronald Williams (1972: 78) has a rather different interpretation of Aramaic (and Hebrew) morphological
structure, identifying all -n’s after 2FSG and 2/3PL forms as tokens of the energic -n, as in the -n of təqabbəl-uu-n
“you (PL) shall receive” (see discussion below).
25. Williams (1972) points out the general lack of strict correlation between the presence or absence of -n and
a grammatical category in Northwest Semitic languages, such as indicative vs. jussive. In Biblical Aramaic, for
instance, yḇahə-luu-ḵ “they disturb you” and yḇahlo-nna-ni “they disturb me,” with and without -n, have no obvious
difference in meaning.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 233
SG PL
1 y-ṭuʕn-in-ni y-ṭuʕn-en-naħ
2M y-ṭuʕn-enn-ax y-ṭuʕn-en-xun
2F y-ṭuʕn-inn-iš y-ṭuʕn-en-xen
3M y-ṭuʕn-enn-e y-ṭuʕn-en-n(un)
3F y-ṭuʕn-enn-en
For the past verb the situation is dialectally complicated, even if Modern Western Ara-
maic is only spoken in three villages. An -an (-ann-V) is inserted before plural object suffixes
in all three villages (šimʕ-an-xun “he heard you [MPL]”). Before a singular pronoun object,
no -n is inserted in the village of Jubbʿadīn, while an -n is inserted before the pronoun suffix
in Bakhʿa (raħəm-n-i “he loved him”), and in Maʿloula it is inserted only after CCiC-stem
verbs (Arnold 1990: 201–2).
Biblical Hebrew has the following (Meyer 1972: 218; Hasselbach 2006: 317, citing pre-
assimilation forms 26):
(37) SG PL
1 yiqtəl-ín-ni naqtul-án-nā
2M yiqtəl-ín-ka
2F
3M yiqtul-ín-huu
3F yiqtul-ín-hā
Ronald Williams (1972: 84) also notes four tokens of the -n suffixed to Hebrew par-
ticiples. Finally, it should be noted that Williams (1972: 84) lists a number of examples
of the -n on verbs without pronoun objects in Phoenecian, Old and Biblical Aramaic, and
Ugaritic (see n. 24, above). A number of these are on 2FSG and 2/3MPL or dual prefix verb
forms, which Williams associates with the energic -n, but which other scholars (e.g., Degen,
Rosenthal), whom this article follows, associate with the indicative. Discounting these, there
remain only a small number of tokens for V + -n in Phoenecian and Ugaritic with no object
suffix. For Ugaritic Testen (1993: 296–97) adds that -n is “frequently employed . . . before
object suffixes.” Both Williams and Testen point out that it is difficult to associate the -n with
a dedicated grammatical function.
What can be termed the “otiose -n,” that is, an -n that cannot be, or at least to date has not
been identified with a discrete grammatical function, will not be integrated into the discus-
sion, though the basis for doing so is discussed in the appendix.
26. Hetzron, and following him, Retsö (1988: 87), has a different interpretation, whereby he identifies two [n +
object] suffix morphemes in Hebrew, one related to the energic which occurs in all persons of the prefix conjugation
and is not restricted phonologically, and one with a different origin determined phonologically in the context C +
u/a + -nn + object suffix. In the 3SG the forms are contrastive, -nna/ennuu for what Hetzron (1969: 101) calls “-n
suffixes,” vs. n-hu/n-ha for the historical energic.
As Hasselbach (2006: 313) notes, postulating two different historical origins for -n’s that occur in the identi-
cal context of V + n + pronoun object is to draw a perhaps overly fine diachronic distinction. Hetzron (1969: 112)
identifies the -n of the Gurage group (see (30), above) with the -n suffix of Hebrew (i.e., not with the historical
energic -n). Whatever the merits are for making this association, Hetzron did not show comparatively with which
of his proto-Semitic -n’s the Aramaic and Arabic -n’s are to be related. Ultimately, Hetzron projects an interesting
synchronic contrast in Biblical Hebrew onto the entire fabric of proto-Semitic. While such inferences can hardly be
ruled out in principle, they require systematic integration into an explanation for all languages in which a potential
reflex of the form occurs.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
234 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
4. reconstruction
Before explaining the reconstruction developed here, the following overview of the sit-
uation in West Semitic will be helpful. Table 5 summarizes the data in sections 2 and 3
under three categories: obligatory, optional, or variable, each in those contexts that have been
defined above where the intrusive -n occurs. The -n is obligatory, for instance, before a suffix
pronoun after an AP in various Arabic dialects, whereas in the same morphological context
it is variable in Omani Arabic after weak verbs. It is variable in Samaritan Aramaic, object
suffixes with -n alternating with those without. Optional means that the choice of -n depends
on the choice of the energic (in CA) according to discourse immanent factors.
Leaving aside Ugaritic (see appendix), it is immediately striking that in all but Classical
Arabic the decisive factor governing the occurrence of -n is the presence of a suffixed pronoun
object. This observation forms the basis of the reconstruction. Given that identical or near
identical forms of wider distribution point to a common origin, the following can be recon-
structed for proto-West Semitic, -n originally occurring only before a pronoun object suffix:
(38) *V-n + pronoun object suffix
This reconstruction leaves Classical Arabic as the odd man out, where -n occurs both
before a pronoun object suffix and before a noun. However, it can be plausibly postulated
that the ancestor of Classical Arabic also had the basic distribution given in (38). The statis-
tics in Tables 2, 3, and 4, above, speak to this point. They indicate that in Qurʾanic Arabic,
V-anna, which is the context illustrated in (18) and (20), is associated with the suffixed
pronoun object. This is inferred to reflect the original situation in ancestral Classical Arabic.
The development of the energic in Classical Arabic, as described in section 2.3, above, then
falls into the following stage 4.
The historical derivation leading to (38) proceeds in five stages as follows:
Stage 1. Originally proto-West Semitic (PWS) had a construction with -n + noun or pro-
nominal complement which, following Barth (1907: 8) and Chaim Rabin (1951: 38), was a
proto-Semitic emphasis particle, deictic or perhaps presentative.
Stage 2. This developed into a complementizer, marking one of the main arguments of a
clause, the topic, subject, or object. Here a first stage of grammaticalization can be hypothe
sized in which the -n + pronoun/noun is drawn into the argument structure of the predicate.
Stage 3. Still in the PWS stage (i.e., without naming any individual languages) its func-
tions split. In Stage 3a, in its specifically object marking function, it became restricted to
pronoun objects and underwent a further stage of grammaticalization, becoming morpho-
logically bound to the verb as a predicate suffix: Pred + n + pronoun object. At the same
time, Stage 3b, the complementizer -n continued in the ancestor of some of the varieties of
Semitic. “Predicate” is used here as a term that subsumes both verb and active participle. As
a predicate suffix it loses its relation to nominal complements. This point is expanded upon
from a comparative perspective in section 5.1, below.
It is relevant to note that the grammaticalization of -n occurred in some but not all ances-
tral PWS populations, so that at this point two ways of representing the predicate + pronoun
object came into existence.
Stage 4. In this stage, when distributions in specific languages began to take shape, the
complex -n + pronoun object grammaticalized as a suffix on a predicate (stage 3) and it
undertook its journey in one complex of West Semitic (viz., Aramaic, Arabic, Ethiopian
Semitic). In addition, a further development took place in the immediate ancestor of Clas-
sical Arabic. On the one hand, along with other West Semitic languages/varieties Classical
Arabic would have participated in the grammaticalization of the -n + pronoun object suffix
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 235
on the verb. At the same time, analogy to the independent complementizer inna/anna—indi-
cated by the dotted line in Figure 2—which itself occurs not only with a pronominal suffix,
but also with a noun complement, allowed the -n verbal suffix to develop into a generalized
suffix occurring with either pronoun or nominal complement, that is, into the energic. This is
the process described in sections 2.2 and 2.3, above.
Stage 5. This stage is essentially the situation that is found today, to the extent that the
languages are still spoken.
The entire development of proto-West Semitic *-Vn can be represented with a tree dia-
gram (Figure 2).
Stage 5: present
Fig. 2. Stylized development of -n in West Semitic
To recapitulate the current solution relative to the two main approaches sketched in the
introduction, the origin of -n on verbs (and predicates) lies in a grammaticalized, originally
independent presentative/complementizer morpheme, etymologically related, inter alia, to
the Arabic complementizer inna/anna and her sisters. The original grammaticalization as a
predicate suffix occurred not in the form of verb + -n, but rather verb + -n + pronoun object.
This conclusion is consonant with Barth (1907: 8), Landberg (1909: 738), and Retsö (1988:
88), but runs counter to the more recent Testen (1993: 303) and Hasselbach (2006), who see
the -n as an original verbal suffix. In West Semitic, the only grammaticalized attestation of
a reflex of the -n as a verbal suffix operating independently of pronoun object suffixes is the
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
236 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
5. individual issues
27. The hedge in this formulation is the word “grammaticalized.” The status of -n + noun in other West Semitic
languages is discussed in the appendix.
28. Criteria for answering whether iyyā is a proper suffix or a clitic can be complex. Two points can be noted
here based on Kuwaiti Arabic (thanks to information from Talal al-Jassar). First, -iyyā + pronoun forms a phono-
logical word with the verb it is suffixed to, in that the last syllable of iyyā- carries the main lexical stress (following
the universal Arabic stress rule of stressing the first heavy syllable from end). Second, iyyā itself (no longer) occurs
self-standing, at least in Kuwaiti Arabic, but only as an affix.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 237
29. In this context it is appropriate to note that probably because of the common a element, it is not uncommon
to see the energic posited as deriving from the Arabic subjunctive (e.g., Zaborski 1996: 70). This is not a position
adopted here. The formal interpretation of -Vn is the topic of this section. Semantically it was shown (see 2.2, 2.3,
above) that the Arabic energic has a highly specific meaning defined inter alia by co-occurrence with a limited set of
illocutionary morphemes, none of which is inherently associated with the subjunctive. Andrzej Zaborski makes no
mention at all of the -n + pronoun object construction as a possible source of the energic.
30. Also cf. CA, stems II-IV with u vs. all others with a.
31. Wetzstein (1868) gives the vowel quality as a (see (4), above), and Ingham reports an a in Afghanistani
Arabic.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
238 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
Pending a comprehensive integration of these data into comparative Semitic, 32 the pos-
sibility needs to be left open that the ancestral variety of the intrusive -n had both a high and
a low vowel variant, -in ~ -an. In no language is -V suffixed to a -V-final morpheme (e.g.,
3MPL).
With regard to consonantal length, single and geminate -n are generally in complementary
distribution in West Semitic, nn- occurring before -V, -n before -C. 33 This is unequivocally
the case in most contemporary Arabic dialects that have the morpheme (see (1) through
(7), above), which contemporary observers (Reichmuth 1983; Holes 1987; Owens 1993;
Ingham 2006) have confirmed. 34 This also applies in Modern Western Aramaic, as noted
by Arnold, and it is explicitly stated as the distribution by Rosenthal for Biblical Aramaic
(see above). 35 In Gurage—and it would appear also in Jewish Palestinian Arabic—the form
nna- has become general, this also being the form of the heavy -n in Arabic, and in Yemen
Landberg’s data suggest a fixed -nn, except -n before another -n (see (1), above). In general
in West Semitic it would appear therefore necessary to posit only -*n, with two conditioned
allomorphs, -n and -nn, with perhaps -nn generalizing in some cases. 36
(42) -*n
(a) nn-V
(b) n-C
As far as the light and heavy -n of Classical Arabic is concerned, the following observa-
tions can be offered here. The heavy -n does in fact fit the expected profile of a geminate
form when it is recalled that its prototypical occurrence is in a connected, non-pausal (waṣl)
position. A connected position in Arabic requires either a systematic (e.g., case) vowel or an
epenthetic i. Assuming the final -a to be a reflex of its typical morpho-syntactic position, the
doubling of the heavy -nn adheres to (42a). Note that in the Qurʾanic sample, only six tokens
of -anna occur before no clausemate at all (Table 2).
On the other hand, it is not inversely possible simply to link the light -n to (42b), since -C
initial object suffixes occur with both heavy and light -n. In this regard it is relevant to return
to Sībawayhi’s observations of the phenomenon. The light -n, as noted above, does not occur
before CC, in this respect obeying standard syllable structure constraints in Arabic, as long as
no epenthetic vowel is insertable, or, as Sībawayhi notes, no shift to -ā is possible. The light
and heavy -n then overlap only before an object suffix and before a word beginning with -CV.
Otherwise they are complementary, with the heavy -n occurring before CC as well as in the
dual and FPL. Two developments can be imagined here.
32. The assumption that proto-Arabic had, for instance, a as preformative vowel, as in Sabatino Moscati et al.
(1980: 141) and Kees Versteegh (1997: 99), is based on stipulations and does not explain on a comparative basis
the widespread variation of the two vowels throughout grammatical morphemes. Both a and i occur in all regions
of the Arabic-speaking world, with perhaps a greater propensity for a to occur in southern areas (Sudan, Yemen)
and i in northern ones.
33. There are other -n’s in Arabic that have the same allomorphy as (42). The FPL in those dialects that main-
tain it always have -a in-C ~ -a/inn-V, and the plural -iin in AP predicates often geminates to -inn-V. Various -n-final
function words (e.g., min ‘from’) have a similar behavior.
34. It is striking that almost all contemporary observers who have had the benefit of tape recorders agree on the
allomorphy in (42).
35. Why Biblical Aramaic should have a vowel before -n (inna-n) is a separate issue, for which a number of
plausible parallels could be cited but are outside the scope of this article.
36. Thus, from the West Semitic perspective, the basic conditioning factor is the following segment rather than
the preceding one, as some have argued for in Akkadian (Testen 1993: 305).
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 239
The ancestor of Classical Arabic could originally have obeyed (42), with the light -n
occurring only before object suffixes and perhaps prepausally, and the heavy -n occurring
in waṣl position before word boundary. The distribution of the heavy -n then generalized to
prepronominal position, and the light -n to inter-word contexts. Alternatively, one can imag-
ine that the light -n was the original form, with an -nn variant arising with the development
of non-pausal morphophonology. A similar development may have occurred with the sister
particles, inna, anna, lākinna developing as non-pausal variants of in, an, and lākin. In both
cases, the non-pausal form became the statistically common one. In both scenarios, however,
the still unwritten historical linguistics of pausal forms becomes crucial. By the same token,
the drastic differences in the frequencies of the two forms (see 2.2, above) would seem to
imply an historical dynamic between the two, with the heavy -n growing at the expense of
the light.
37. I owe the summary of the development of the eastern forms entirely to Clive Holes (private communication,
February 2011).
38. This is a singular development. In other paradigms of Bagirmi Arabic SG/PL and M/F are differentiated
consistently with morphology (see (7), above).
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
240 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
to is the ability of the same form to be maintained and spread over time and space. Looking
at the social mechanism of the maintenance and spread, the summary highlights a second
point, namely, the role of small, compact groups (according to Holes, the links between -n
speakers in Oman and those in Bahrain can be traced in some cases to historical relations
between individual villages). In the Sudanic region the basic Arab demographic social unit
was, and to some extent still is today, a nomadic cattle group linked by kinship to sedentary,
agricultural villages (Braukämper 1994). Although nomadism is more pronounced in the
non-Bagirmi dialect area, this social configuration is characteristic of all Arabs in Nigeria,
Cameroon, and western Chad. Even the Arab-Islamic expansion, which brought Arabs into
central Asia in the second/eighth century, was effected by relatively small armies of never
more than 20,000 soldiers and usually far fewer.
So long as these social units remain intact, it may be assumed, so too will the dialect they
use. By definition, neighboring dialects will maintain a different form. What vagaries of
social history led one group to originally adopt one form rather than another remains one of
the great challenges to understanding language change. 39
Using the Arabic situation as a basic analogy, projecting back into the era of history when
communication was incomparably slower than it is today, it is not at all difficult to concep-
tualize the spread and maintenance of contrastive forms from a common source throughout
large language groups, like Arabic, and, by extension, Aramaic, Hebrew, and peripheral
South Ethiopic. In fact, the case of -n in the rather isolated Gurage-Gannän group can be
compared to the isolated occurrence of -n in Bagirmi Arabic in the Lake Chad region, and
to the ultimate linguistic enclave of Uzbekistani Arabic in the east. The complex distribu-
tion of the -n in the preterite in the three villages where modern western Aramaic is spoken,
described in (34), above, is further witness to the capacity for significant linguistic differ-
ences to be maintained among very closely related linguistic populations. The analogy car-
ries back into early West Semitic, reconstructing the two paradigms, V + pronoun object
and V + -n + pronoun object, into different groups that transmitted them ultimately into the
present.
A demographic perspective would also appear applicable to the issue—not addressed in
this article—why the -n became established only in the Gurage group on the perfect (suffix)
conjugation. It would, however, be speculative, lacking better comparative data, to say that
in one case the group adopting the -n on the perfect verb was large enough to maintain it
into Ethiopic.
39. Linguistic observations relevant to this point are made below in 5.4.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 241
40. Maltese appears to be the only “dialect” where its distribution is severely limited.
41. Its function as a predicate also broadly tallies with its usage in Classical Arabic (see Youssef 1990).
42. Variational data from Nigerian Arabic in Maiduguri is also interesting in this respect (Owens 1998: 289;
Owens 1999).
43. In three corpora of spoken Arabic for which tagged data is available to me, two from Emirati Arabic and
one from Nigerian Arabic, the AP as predicate has a frequency of about five percent of that of finite verbs (perfect
and imperfect combined).
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
242 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
grammarian Raḍī l-Dīn al-Astarābādhī (d. ca. 686 a.h.) ([n.d.], 2: 404), basing himself on
Sībawayhi, 44 says that the nūn can occur on the AP in cases of poetic necessity:
(43) a qāʾil-anna aḥḍar-ū al-shuhūd-ā
Q saying-N brought-they def-witnesses
“Do you indeed say they brought the witnesses”
The major argument against the possibility that in fact the situation in Classical Arabic is
the original one and that what is found in the dialects are relic cases going back to the energic
is that the dialects agree with other varieties of West Semitic, against CA, in maintaining
(on a variable basis) the -n + pronoun object (Table 5). Standard reconstruction practice thus
argues for a common proto-function among these. Assuming the CA situation as the original
one, one would have to explain the loss of the energic in all other varieties of West Semitic. If
one ignores CA completely, the situation in the Arabic dialects is entirely in conformity with
other West Semitic languages, particularly with Aramaic. Note that the loss of the intrusive
-n on verbs in most Arabic dialects is explained above in this section as a result of contact
with dialects that never had the intrusive -n, and does not rely on a direct derivation from CA.
From the reverse perspective, section 2.3, above, offers a concise account of the develop-
ment of the energic, which allows the mechanisms of its singular innovation to be specified.
Thus, the argument advanced here corresponds to standard historical linguistic methodology.
There is also a third argument, namely, that if the energic grammatical function had been
dominantly widespread throughout the Arabic-speaking community, one might expect some
residual evidence of it in most of today’s varieties, which is not the case.
5.5. Akkadian
In Akkadian it is assumed that the ventive (motion towards speaker) verbal suffix, either
-am (occurring after VC-) or -nim (occurring after VV-), is cognate with the West Semitic
-n. Wolfram von Soden (1952: 109) noted that “many verbs in ventive form occur only
with pronominal objects”—a situation that in general resembles that described in this paper,
and which specifically resembles the distribution of the energic in Qurʾanic Arabic (see
Table 2)—and that “a connotational difference between the indicative and ventive is not
easy to establish.” Furthermore, in Babylonian the 1SG pronoun object -ni is nearly always
suffixed to the ventive suffix, neutralizing the contrast between ventive and indicative alto-
gether. Again, this case resembles another situation described above, namely, the instance of
obligatory occurrence of the -n before any object suffix. On this basis it is a priori realistic
to push the -n + pronoun object origin back into proto-Semitic itself, as indeed Hasselbach,
Testen, and others, albeit with the different analytical perspective noted above, have done.
This paper leaves this important issue for further development. 45
44. The two examples cited by al-Astarābādhī are not cited by Sībawayhi in his discussion of the nūn, nor in
book one in his chapter on poetic license (1970, 1: 7–10). The citation from al-Astarābādhī, a grammarian who lived
some five centuries after Sībawayhi, is to be interpreted as applying to the early Islamic era.
45. There are a number of descriptive and theoretical issues involved here. The basic issue is well defined,
however. If the above reconstruction of the CA energic in 2.3 and the primacy of -n + pronoun object for PWS, as
argued for in section 4, are correct, then the ventive as a verbal suffix (V + -n) in Akkadian requires independent
reconstruction as well. The existence of the energic function in CA cannot be projected back into a PWS V+ -n
construction. This is an issue I leave at this point to specialists in East Semitic. More generally, as has already been
noted, stages 2 and 3 in Figure 2 may turn out to be proto-Semitic rather than specifically proto-West Semitic stages.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 243
6. conclusion
The criticisms of Retsö aside, the current article follows in his footsteps in two important
ways. First, it follows his model (1988; 1995) in defining certain structures of Classical
46. From the opposite direction, a similar problem arises with Hetzron’s (1969: 110) assumption that the -nn
object marker on the past (suffix) conjugation in Gurage is an independent development within proto-Ethiopic, for
he did not account for the fact that the marker is widespread on the perfect verb in different varieties of Middle Ara-
maic. One can equally question Hetzron’s assumption (1969: 124) that the intrusive -n on the AP in dialectal Arabic
(he cites Omani) is an independent development. The only reason he adduces for this is that it occurs on the AP, not
on the verb. However, the -n on the AP is already attested in Middle Aramaic and sound arguments for analogical
extension to the AP can be given (see 5.4, above). Hasselbach as well (2006: 324) appears to countenance parallel
independent development in the case of the geminate -nn; in her interpretation, in Omani and Bahraini Arabic (no
doubt a single development in this case) and in Biblical Aramaic the gemination derives from -n + ni (1SG), in both
cases that gemination spreading analogically to other persons. For West Semitic, a different development of the
geminate form is argued here (section 5.2, above).
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
244 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
Arabic—in this case the energic—as innovative relative to other varieties of Semitic. In this
historical, comparative perspective the contemporary reflexes of -n in Arabic are maintained
from proto-Semitic itself, and are not an accidental relic left from the Classical Arabic ener-
gic. And second, his conclusions (1988: 93) regarding the remarkable maintenance of the
basic -n + pronoun object construction across thousands of years of chronology and thou-
sands of miles of geography, across different languages and varieties, cannot be endorsed
strongly enough. Understanding Semitic language history requires giving due consideration
to all varieties, wherever they are at present spoken or were in the past. Reflecting on this
vast geo-diachronic landscape leads to the consideration of central issues in the nature of
language maintenance, spread, and change. In this context the study of the living Semitic
varieties assumes a larger importance than has traditionally been accorded them in historical
linguistic study, not only for their intrinsic linguistic value, but also for the fact that social
and demographic dynamics affecting the languages can still be observed against actual lin-
guistic usage (section 5.3, above). In the present case, the intrusive -n before pronoun objects
in varieties as disparate as the Arabic of Nigeria, Uzbekistan, and the eastern Arabian pen-
insula, as well as neo-Western Aramaic, should be seen less as a quaint relic attested in
“peripheral” varieties as evidence of its origin in an -n + pronoun object complex. What is
maintained over space can be a reflection of its original genesis.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 245
whereas step 3 is completely lost today. One way (circular but plausible) to account for
this difference is to assume that step 2 established itself earlier than step 3, and had thereby
developed a wider population spread, which ensured a more robust transmission. The sec-
ond argument is that if V + -n is indeed a stage before CA, then it is functionless, so far as
the data in PWS outside Arabic show. No specific, consistent grammatical function can be
attributed to it. This implies variable occurrence in the categories of Table 5. This is opposed
to V + -n + pronoun object, where -n is clearly an object marker. In this perspective, V +
-n can be seen as developing originally as a euphonic mimic of V + -n + pronoun object,
establishing a grammaticalized functional niche for itself in the West Semitic branch only in
Classical Arabic.
references
ʿAntara. n.d. Dīwān ʿAntara Ibn Shaddād. Ed. Yūsuf ʿĪd. Beirut: Dār al-Jīl.
Arnold, Werner. 1990. Das Neuwestaramäische, vol. 5: Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
, and Hartmut Bobzin, eds. 2002. “Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verste-
hen es!”: 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik. Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
al-Astarābādhī, Raḍī l-Dīn. n.d. Sharḥ al-Kāfiya fī l-naḥw. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
Baalbaki, Ramzi. 2008. The Legacy of the Kitāb: Sībawayhi’s Analytical Methods within the Context
of Arabic Grammatical Theory. Leiden: Brill.
Barth, Jacob. 1907–1911 (repr. 1972). Sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Semitischen.
Amsterdam: Oriental Press.
Beck, Edmund. 1945. Der ʿUthmanische Kodex in der Koranlesung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Orien-
talia n.s. 14: 355–73.
Braukämper, Ulrich. 1994. Notes on the Origin of Baggara Arab Culture with Special Reference to the
Shuwa. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 14: 13–46.
Caubet, Dominique. 1993. L’Arabe marocain, vol. 2. Paris: Peeters.
Dalman, Gustaf. 1905 (19822). Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Degen, Rainer. 1969. Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh. v. Chr. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Eades, Domenyk. 2008. The Arabic Dialect of a Šawāwī Community of Northern Oman. In Arabic
Dialectology: In Honour of Clive Holes on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. E. Al-Wer and
R. de Jong. Pp. 77–98. Leiden: Brill.
Eisele, John. 1999. Arabic Verbs in Time: Tense and Aspect in Cairene Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1961. Die Sprache der arabischen Sprachinsel in Uzbekistan. Der Islam 36:
232–63.
Garcin, Jean-Claude. 1976. Un centre musulman de la Haute-Egypte médiévale: Qūṣ. Cairo: Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Germanos, Marie. 2009. From Complementizer to Discourse Marker: The Functions of ʔənno in Leba-
nese Arabic. In Information Structure in Spoken Arabic, ed. J. Owens and A. Elgibali. Pp. 145–64.
London: Routledge.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2006. The Ventive/Energic in Semitic: A Morphological Study. Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 156: 309–28.
Hetzron, Robert. 1969. The Third Person Singular Pronoun Suffixes in Proto-Semitic. Orientalia Sue-
cana 8: 101–27.
. 1977. The Gunnän-Gurage Languages. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli.
Holes, Clive. 1987. Language Variation and Change in a Modernising Arab State. London: Kegan
Paul International.
. 2011. A Participial Construction of Eastern Arabic: An Ancient Prediasporic Feature? Jeru-
salem Studies in Arabic and Islam 37: 75–98.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
246 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.2 (2013)
Ibn Hishām, Jamāl al-Dīn. 1979. Mughnī l-labīb ʿan kutub al-aʿārīb, Ed. Māzin Mubārak and
Muḥammad Ḥamd Allāh. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr.
Ibn Mujāhid, Abū Bakr. 1972. Kitāb al-Sabʿa fī l-qirāʾāt. Ed. Shawqī Ḍayf. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif.
Ingham, Bruce. 1994. Najdi Arabic, Central Arabian. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 2006. Afghanistan Arabic. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, ed. Kees
Versteegh, 1: 28–35. Leiden: Brill.
Jastrow, Otto. 1997. The Neo-Aramaic Languages. In The Semitic Languages, ed. Robert Hetzron.
Pp. 334–77. London: Kegan Paul.
Kais, Dukes. 2011. The Quranic Arabic Corpus, version.2. http://corpus.quran.com/.
Landberg, Carlo, Comte de. 1905. Etudes sur les dialectes de l’Arabie méridionale, vol. 2,1. Leiden:
E. J. Brill.
. 1909. Etudes sur les dialectes de l’Arabie méridionale, vol. 2,2. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Macuch, Rudolph. 1982. Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramäisch. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Meyer, Rudolph. 1972. Hebräische Grammatik, vol. 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Moscati, Sabatino, et al. 19802. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Lan-
guages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Constructional Economy and Non-Finite Independent Clauses. In Finiteness,
ed. Irina Nikolaeva. Pp. 138–82. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1893. Bemerkungen zu den aramäischen Inschriften von Sendschirli. Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 47: 96–105.
Owens, Jonathan. 1993. A Reference Grammar of Nigerian Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
. 1998. Neighborhood and Ancestry: Variation in the Spoken Arabic of Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 1999. Uniformity and Discontinuity: Toward a Characterization of Speech Communities.
Linguistics 37: 663–98.
. 2003. Arabic Dialect History and Historical Linguistic Mythology. JAOS 123: 715–40.
. 20092. A Linguistic History of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Rabin, Chaim. 1951. Ancient West Arabian. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press.
Reichmuth, Stefan. 1983. Der arabische Dialekt der Šukriyya im Ostsudan. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Reinhardt, Carl. 1972 (18941). Ein arabischer Dialekt gesprochen in ʿOmān und Zanzibar. . . . Amster-
dam: Philo Press.
Retsö, Jan. 1988. Pronominal Suffixes with -n(n)- in Arabic Dialects and Other Semitic Languages.
Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 18: 77–94.
. 1995. Pronominal State in Colloquial Arabic: A Diachronic Attempt. In Dialectologia ara-
bica : A Collection of Articles in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Heikki Palva, ed.
Tapani Harviainen et al. Pp. 183–92. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.
Rosenthal, Franz. 1961. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Rössler, Otto. 1950. Verbalbau und Verbalflexion in den semito-hamitischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 100: 461–514.
Ibn al-Sarrāj, Muḥammad. 1985. Kitāb al-Uṣūl fī l-naḥw. Ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn al-Fatlī. Beirut:
Muʾassasat al-Risāla.
Seeger, Ulrich. 2002. Zwei Texte im Dialekt der Araber von Chorasan. In “Sprich doch mit deinen
Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!”: 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik. Festschrift für Otto Jastrow
zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. W. Arnold and H. Bobzin. Pp. 629–46. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sībawayhi, ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān. 1970 (1898–991). Al-Kitāb. 2 vols. Ed. H. Derenbourg. Hildesheim:
G. Olms.
Sivan, Daniel. 1997. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Leiden: Brill.
Soden, Wolfram von. 1952. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Bib-
licum.
Testen, David. 1993. On the Development of the Energic Suffixes. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguis-
tics V, ed. Mushira Eid and Clive Holes. Pp. 293–312. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Owens: The Intrusive *-n in Arabic and West Semitic 247
. 1998. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics: The Development of Arabic -la and Related Semitic
Particles. Leiden: Brill.
Tropper, Josef. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Versteegh, Kees. 1997. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.
Wetzstein, I. G. 1868. Sprachliches aus den Zeltlagern der syrischen Wüste. Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft 22: 69–194.
Williams, Ronald. 1972. Energic Verbal Forms in Hebrew. In Studies on the Ancient Palestinian
World: Presented to Professor F. V. Winnett on the Occasion of His Retirement 1 July 1971, ed.
J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford. Pp. 75–85. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
Wilmsen, David. 2010. Dialects of Written Arabic: Syntactic Differences in the Treatment of Object
Pronouns in Egyptian and Levantine Newspapers. Arabica 57: 99–128.
Wright, William. 1986 (1896–981). A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd ed. 2 vols. in one. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Youssef, Zafer. 1990. Das Partizip im Arabischen: Die Auffasungen der arabischen Grammatiker und
der Sprachgebrauch in klassisch-arabischen Texten. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Erlangen.
Zaborski, Andrzej. 1996. On the Origin of Subjunctive and Energicus in Semitic. Incontri Linguistici
19: 69–76.
Zimmermann, Gerit. 2009. Uzbekistan Arabic. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, ed.
Kees Versteegh, 4: 612–23. Leiden: Brill.
Zwettler, Michael. 1978. The Oral Tradition of Classical Arabic Poetry. Columbus: Ohio State Univ.
Press.
This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:21:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms