The Semitic Languages (Routledge Language Family Series) 2nd Edition. by John Huehnergard (Editor), Na'ama Pat-El (Editor) .

THE SEMITIC
LANGUAGES
The Semitic Languages presents a comprehensive survey of the individual languages
and language clusters within this language family, from their origins in antiquity to their
present-day forms.
This second edition has been fully revised, with new chapters and a wealth of additional
material. New features include the following:
• new introductory chapters on Proto-Semitic grammar and Semitic linguistic typology

• an additional chapter on the place of Semitic as a subgroup of Afro-Asiatic, and
several chapters on modern forms of Arabic, Aramaic and Ethiopian Semitic
• text samples of each individual language, transcribed into the International Phonetic
Alphabet, with standard linguistic word-by-word glossing as well as translation
• new maps and tables present information visually for easy reference.
This unique resource is the ideal reference for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate
students of linguistics and language. It will be of interest to researchers and anyone
with an interest in historical linguistics, linguistic typology, linguistic anthropology and
language development.
John Huehnergard is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies

at the University of Texas at Austin, and former Professor of Semitic Philology at Harvard
University.
Na‘ama Pat-El is Associate Professor of Comparative Semitic Linguistics in the

Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin.
ROUTLEDGE LANGUAGE FAMILY SERIES
Each volume in this series contains an in-depth account of the members of some of the
world’s most important language families. Written by experts in each language, these
accessible accounts provide detailed linguistic analysis and description. The contents are
carefully structured to cover the natural system of classification: phonology, morphology,
syntax, lexis, semantics, dialectology and sociolinguistics.
Every volume contains extensive bibliographies for each language, a detailed index
and tables and maps and examples from the languages to demonstrate the linguistic fea-
tures being described. The consistent format allows comparative study, not only between
the languages in each volume, but also across all the volumes in the series.
The Romance Languages The Celtic Languages, 2nd Edition

Edited by Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent Edited by Martin J. Ball & Nicole Müller
The Slavonic Languages The Sino-Tibetan Languages,

Edited by Bernard Comrie & 2nd Edition
Greville G. Corbett Edited by Graham Thurgood &
Randy J. Lapolla
The Germanic Languages
Edited by Ekkehard Konig & The Indo-European Languages,
Johan van der Auwera 2nd Edition
Edited by Mate Kapović
The Uralic Languages
Edited by Daniel Abondolo The Mayan Languages
Edited by Judith L. Aissen, Nora C.
The Turkic Languages England, & Roberto Zavala Maldonado
Edited by Éva Csató & Lars Johanson
The Languages of Japan and Korea
The Indo-Aryan Languages Edited by Nicolas Tranter
Edited by George Cardona &
Dhanesh K. Jain The Mongolic Languages
Edited by Juha Janhunan
The Austronesian Languages of Asia and
Madagascar The Oceanic Languages
Edited by Nikolaus Himmelmann & Edited by John Lynch, Malcolm Ross &
Sander Adelaar Terry Crowley
The Tai-Kadai Languages Language Isolates

Edited by Anthony Diller Edited by Lyle Campbell
The Iranian Languages The Bantu Languages, 2nd Edition

Edited by Gernot Windfuhr Edited by Mark Van de Velde,
Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse, &
The Khoesan Languages Gérard Philippson
Edited by Rainer Vossen
The Semitic Languages, 2nd Edition
The Munda Languages Edited by John Huehnergard and
Edited by Gregory D.S. Anderson Na‘ama Pat-El
Other titles in the series can be found at www.routledge.com/languages/series/SE0091

THE SEMITIC
LANGUAGES
Second Edition
Edited by John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El

Second edition published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 selection and editorial matter, John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El; individual
chapters, the contributors
The right of John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El to be identified as the authors
of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in
any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 1997
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-0-415-73195-9 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-02556-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
to
Jo Ann Hackett
and
Jon Erling Litland

CONTENTS
List of mapsix
List of figuresx
List of contributorsxi
Prefacexiii
List of glossing and other abbreviationsxv
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS
1 Introduction to the Semitic languages and their history
John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El1
2 Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Gene Gragg22
3 Proto-Semitic John Huehnergard49
4 The Semitic language family: a typological perspective Na‘ama Pat-El80
LANGUAGE CHAPTERS
5 Akkadian Rebecca Hasselbach-Andee95
6 Gǝʕǝz (Classical Ethiopic) Aaron Michael Butts117
7 Tigre of Gindaʕ David L. Elias145
8 Tigrinya Maria Bulakh174
9 Amharic Lutz Edzard202
10 Gurage (Muher) Ronny Meyer227
11 Mehri Aaron D. Rubin257
12 Soqotri Leonid Kogan and Maria Bulakh280
13 Ancient South Arabian Anne Multhoff321
14 Safaitic Ahmad Al-Jallad342
15 Classical Arabic Daniel Birnstiel367
16 Levantine Arabic Kristen Brustad and Emilie Zuniga403
17 Egyptian Arabic Thomas Leddy-Cecere and Jason Schroepfer433
18 Moroccan Arabic Mike Turner458
viii Contents
19 Ugaritic Josef Tropper and Juan-Pablo Vita482

20 The Canaanite languages Aren M. Wilson-Wright509
21 Pre-modern Hebrew: Biblical Hebrew Aaron D. Hornkohl533
22 Modern Hebrew Philip Zhakevich and Benjamin Kantor571
23 Samaritan Aramaic Christian Stadel611
24 Modern Western Aramaic Steven E. Fassberg632
25 Syriac Na‘ama Pat-El653
26 Mandaic C.G. Häberl679
27 Northeastern Neo-Aramaic: the dialect of Alqosh Eleanor Coghill711
Languages index749
Subject index752
MAPS
2.1 Approximate distribution of Afro-Asiatic language families

(other than Semitic) 23
5.1 The core Akkadian speech area during the second and first millennia bce 96
6.1 The approximate speech area of Gəʕəz (Classical Ethiopic) 117
7.1 The Tigre speech area 145
8.1 The Tigrinya speech area 174
9.1 The Amharic speech area 202
10.1 The Muher speech area 228
11.1 The distribution of the Modern South Arabian languages 257
12.1 The Soqotri speech area 281
13.1 The geographical distribution of Ancient South Arabian inscriptions 322
14.1 The geographical distribution of Safaitic inscriptions 342
15.1 The geographical distribution of varieties of Arabic in Late Antiquity 368
16.1 The speech area of Levantine Arabic 404
17.1 The speech area of Egyptian Arabic 434
18.1 The speech area of Moroccan Arabic 458
19.1 The territory of the kingdom of Ugarit 483
20.1 The geographical distribution of Canaanite inscriptions 510
21.1 The speech area of Pre-modern Hebrew 535
22.1 The Modern Hebrew speech area 571
23.1 The Samaritan Aramaic speech area 611
24.1 The Modern Western Aramaic villages 632
25.1 The Syriac speech area in antiquity 653
26.1 The Mandaic speech area in antiquity 680
27.1 The speech area of the Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects before 1914 711
FIGURES
1.1 The internal classification of the Semitic languages 3

5.1 Old Babylonian Gilgamesh, Tablet II 114
6.1 Page from ms. Ǝnda Abba Gärima 2 138
10.1 Outer South Ethiosemitic 227
13.1 The Ancient South Arabian alphabet 324
13.2 A Middle Sabaic stone inscription 326
14.1 Safaitic script chart 345
14.2 A Safaitic rock inscription 346
15.1 Pages from a manuscript of the “Thousand and One Nights” 372
19.1 A Ugaritic tablet containing part of the Epic of Kirta 505
20.1 Some of the alphabetic scripts used to write the Canaanite languages 511
20.2 A 10th-century bce Phoenician royal inscription 512
21.1 Leaf 17A (recto) of the Leningrad Codex of the Hebrew Bible (1008 ce) 563
25.1 A page of a Syriac New Testament lectionary 674
26.1 Colophon of a manuscript of the Mandæan Book of John 684
CONTRIBUTORS
Ahmad Al-Jallad
Ohio State University: Safaitic
Daniel Birnstiel
Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main: Classical Arabic
Kristen Brustad
University of Texas at Austin: Levantine Arabic
Maria Bulakh
Russian State University for the Humanities – National Research University Higher
School of Economics, Moscow: Tigrinya, Soqotri
Aaron Michael Butts
Catholic University of America, Washington: Gǝʕǝz (Classical Ethiopic)
Eleanor Coghill
Uppsala University: Northeastern Neo-Aramaic
Lutz Edzard
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen: Amharic
David L. Elias
Charlotte, NC: Tigre of Gindaʕ
Steven E. Fassberg
Hebrew University: Modern Western Aramaic
Gene Gragg
University of Chicago: Semitic and Afro-Asiatic
C.G. Häberl
Rutgers University: Mandaic
Rebecca Hasselbach-Andee
University of Chicago: Akkadian
Aaron D. Hornkohl
University of Cambridge: Pre-modern Hebrew: Biblical Hebrew
xii Contributors
John Huehnergard
University of Texas at Austin: Introduction, Proto-Semitic
Benjamin Kantor
University of Cambridge: Modern Hebrew
Leonid Kogan
Russian State University for the Humanities – National Research University Higher
School of Economics, Moscow: Soqotri
Thomas Leddy-Cecere
Bennington College: Egyptian Arabic
Ronny Meyer
INALCO, Paris: Gurage (Muher)
Anne Multhoff
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena: Ancient South Arabian
Na‘ama Pat-El
University of Texas at Austin: Introduction, Typology, Syriac
Aaron D. Rubin
Pennsylvania State University: Mehri
Jason Schroepfer
Virginia Military Institute: Egyptian Arabic
Christian Stadel
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev: Samaritan Aramaic
Josef Tropper
Humboldt-Universität, Berlin: Ugaritic
Mike Turner
University of North Carolina at Wilmington: Moroccan Arabic
Juan-Pablo Vita
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid: Ugaritic
Aren M. Wilson-Wright
Universität Zürich: The Canaanite Languages
Philip Zhakevich
Princeton University: Modern Hebrew
Emilie Zuniga
Brigham Young University: Levantine Arabic
PREFACE
The first edition of this book, edited by the late Robert Hetzron, appeared just over two
decades ago, in 1997, shortly after Hetzron’s untimely death. When Routledge asked us
to prepare a second edition, we decided to take a different approach from the original
edition, which is still valuable. We invited a new cohort of scholars, most of them from
a younger generation, to contribute not revisions of the chapters in the first edition, but
rather newly written chapters. Thus the present edition, while it bears the same title, is a
completely new work, which is not meant to replace the original volume, but to comple-
ment it.1
One of our primary aims in preparing this new edition has been to make the Semitic
languages and their features accessible to as many linguists as possible.2 Contributors
were therefore asked to provide examples with a morpheme-by-morpheme gloss, using
the Leipzig Glossing Rules, and use common linguistic terms, rather than idiosyncratic
Semitistic terminology. Contributors of the chapters on the modern Semitic languages
were also asked to represent forms in the International Phonetic Alphabet where possi-
ble, rather than traditional Semitistic transcription systems.3 The phonetic realities of the
ancient Semitic languages, however, are generally uncertain, and so we felt that it would
be misleading to use the IPA for examples in those chapters; instead, the sections on pho-
nology use the IPA to describe the most plausible phonetic interpretations of phonemes,
but elsewhere in those chapters the standard Semitistic transcription is used. A word limit
was also set, in order to keep the volume from growing too large. We are extremely grate-
ful to our contributors for adhering to these guidelines, which not infrequently differed
from the usual way of presenting the Semitic languages.
The present edition comprises 27 chapters. An introductory chapter presents a synopsis
of the Semitic languages according to our interpretation of the subgrouping of the family.
This is followed by an overview of Afro-Asiatic, the phylum to which the Semitic family
belongs; and chapters on Proto-Semitic and on the Semitic family from a typological per-
spective. Each of the other 23 chapters describes a representative dialect of an ancient or a
modern Semitic language. It has, of course, not been possible to cover every ancient lan-
guage attested, nor to cover more than a few of the many modern forms of Ethio-Semitic,
of Modern South Arabian, of Aramaic, or, especially, of the vast continuum of modern
Arabic. Thus, for the ancient languages, we opted to include those with large corpora and
well-understood grammar; for the modern languages, we aimed for diversity of cover-
age.4 The order of presentation of the individual language chapters (5 through 27) follows
the subgrouping model of the family that is advocated in the introductory chapter. In
order to enable readers to compare features across the various languages, the contributors
of these chapters were asked to prepare them according to a template:
1 Introduction
2 Writing system
3 Phonology: IPA-style consonant grid; vowel phonemes and allophones; syllable
structure; stress
xiv Preface
4 Morphology: pronouns; nouns (including adjectives); numerals; verbs; particles

5 Syntax: word order; synthetic/analytic expression; noun modification; definiteness;
agreement; negation; interrogative sentences; subordination
6 Lexicon
7 Sample text with morpheme-by-morpheme glossing and a translation
8 References: standard grammars, textbooks, dictionaries, survey articles
Each of these chapters includes a map showing the location of the language or dialect.
The chapters on the ancient languages also include a photograph of a representative text.
It is our pleasant duty to express our gratitude to a number of individuals, in addition
to our contributors, for their help in seeing this volume to completion. We want to thank
Sarah Lynn Baker, who reviewed the Leipzig glosses in each chapter to ensure that they
were both consistent and canonical; Patience Epps and Danny Law for their helpful com-
ments on Chapter 4; Wayne T. Pitard, who provided the photograph of a Ugaritic text that
accompanies Chapter 19; Jack Weinbender, who prepared the maps that accompany the
chapters; and Jo Ann Hackett, for a steady stream of good advice and good humor. We are
also very grateful to the ever-helpful, ever-patient editors and editorial assistants at Rout-
ledge and Apex CoVantage who guided the preparation of the volume with consummate
professionalism: Samantha Vale Noya, Camille Burns, Laura Sandford, Rosie McEwan
and Jennifer Bonnar.
John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El
Austin, Texas
July 2018
NOTES
1 We wrote to the contributors of the first edition to explain our decision, and we were
very gratified by the gracious and encouraging response that we received from most
of them. The first edition remains widely available in libraries, and so those scholars’
still-valuable contributions can continue to be consulted alongside the new chapters of
the present edition.
2 The goal of making the Semitic languages more accessible to general linguists was a
major impetus for us to take on this project, especially given the relatively recent pub-
lication of another work entitled The Semitic Languages, edited by Stefan Weninger
(Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011), an exemplary volume of 74 chapters by leading
scholars, which, however, employs the usual Semitistic systems of transcription and
does not systematically provide a morphemic glossing of examples.
3 Throughout the volume we have deviated from the standard IPA representations in one
respect, writing affricates as ligatures (e.g., ʦ, ʣ, ʧ, ɮ) rather than with a tie-bar (t͜s,
etc.).
4 See Chapter 1 for a full description of the attested ancient and modern Semitic
languages.
GLOSSING AND
OTHER ABBREVIATIONS
1 1st person
2 2nd person
3 3rd person
A in modern Ethio-Semitic languages (Chapters 7–10), one of three basic
(lexical) verb stems
abl ablative
acc accusative
act active
adj adjective
adv adverb(ial)
all allative
ANA Ancient North Arabian
appl applicative
art article
ASA Ancient South Arabian
aug augment
aux auxiliary
B in modern Ethio-Semitic languages (Chapters 7–10), one of three basic
(lexical) verb stems
ben benefactive, beneficiary (applied object)
bnd bound form (see Chapter 1, §4)
c common (gender)
C unspecified consonant; causative verb stem, except, in modern Ethio-Semitic
languages (Chapters 7–10), one of three basic (lexical) verb stems
caus causative
circ circumfix
cntr contrastive
col collective number
com comitative
comp complement(izer)
compar comparative
cond conditional
conj conjunction
cont continuous (verb marker)
cop copula
xvi Glossing and other abbreviations
Cp causative verb stem with passive vocalization

CS Central Semitic
cst construct noun form (see Chapter 1, §4)
Ct reflexive or passive of the causative verb stem
cvb converb
D verb stem with doubled middle root consonant
dat dative case
def definite (article)
dei deictic
dem demonstrative
det determiner, determined (noun form)
dim diminutive
dir directional
dist distal
distr distributive
dn divine name
Dp D verb stem with passive vocalization
Dt D verb stem with infix t
Dtn D verb stem with iterative ‑tan- infix
du dual
dur durative
encl enclitic (particle)
ES East Semitic
exist existential particle/copula
f feminine
fact factitive
foc focus
fut future (tense)
G basic verb stem (German Grundstamm)
gen genitive
gn geographical name
goal goal (verbal prefix)
Gp basic verb stem with passive vocalization
Gt basic verb stem with infix t
Gtn basic verb stem with iterative ‑tan- infix
H causative verb stem with prefix h
Hp H verb stem with passive vocalization
imm immediate future
imp imperative
ind indicative
indet indeterminate (noun form)
indf indefinite
inf infinitive
inf.absl infinitive absolute (verbal noun form in some Northwest Semitic languages)
ins instrumental
int interrogative
interj interjection
intr intransitive
Glossing and other abbreviations xvii
ipfv imperfective
ipp independent personal pronoun
iprf imperfect
juss jussive
loc locative
m masculine
MSA Modern South Arabian
N verb stem with prefix n
nacc nonaccusative
nbnd nonbound (see Chapter 1, §4)
ncst nonconstruct (see Chapter 1, §4)
neg negator, negated
nmlz nominalizer/nominalization
nom nominative case
npst nonpast (tense)
nsc new suffix conjugation
Ntn N verb stem with iterative ‑tan- infix
NWS Northwest Semitic
obj object (marker)
obl oblique case
opt optative
osc old suffix conjugation
pass passive
pc prefix conjugation
pcl long prefix conjugation
PCS Proto-Central Semitic
pcs short prefix conjugation
pct prefix conjugation with infix t
pfv perfective
pl plural
pn personal name
PNWS Proto-Northwest Semitic
pol polite register
poss possessive
pred predicative
prep preposition
pres presentative (particle)
pret preterite tense
prf perfect
pro pronoun
prog progressive
proh prohibitive
prox proximal, proximate
prs present (tense)
prsp prospective (aspect)
PS Proto-Semitic
pst past (tense)
ptcp participle
xviii Glossing and other abbreviations
purp purposive
PWS Proto-West Semitic
Q quadriradical verb stem
q question marker
recp reciprocal
ref referential (object marker)
refl reflexive
rel relative (marker), relativizer
restr restrictive
Š verb stem with prefix š
sbj subject
sbjv subjunctive
sbrd subordinate
sc suffix conjugation
sg singular
Šp Š verb stem with passive vocalization
Št Š verb stem with t infix
Štn Š verb stem with iterative ‑tan- infix
t, t verb stem with infix or prefix t
TAM tense–aspect–mood
tC C verb stem with prefix t
tD D verb stem with prefix t
term terminative
tG basic verb stem with prefix t
top topic
tr transitive
V unspecified vowel
vent ventive
voc vocative
vol volitive
WS West Semitic
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE
SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND
THEIR HISTORY
John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El
1 INTRODUCTION
The Semitic languages have the longest recorded history of any language family, span-
ning some 4,500 years from the first Akkadian and Eblaite texts in the mid-third millen-
nium bce; through Ugaritic in the second millennium; Hebrew, Aramaic and Sabaic in
the first millennium and continuing through the present day with Arabic, one of the most
widely spoken of the world’s languages; Amharic, Tigrinya and other related languages
in Ethiopia and Eritrea; Hebrew in Israel; Mehri and other South Arabian languages
in Yemen and Oman; and vestiges of Aramaic in Iraq, Iran, southeastern Turkey and
Europe. The family’s great time-depth, with ample documentation of several of its most
ancient members, affords a unique opportunity to explore language change and diver-
sification. Some of the individual languages, too, such as Akkadian and Aramaic, have
very long recorded histories, and those histories are also instructive: Akkadian, at least
the written version of it, underwent relatively little change in its morphology or syntax
during its 2,500-year recorded history; Aramaic, after it ceased to be a lingua franca in
the final centuries before the common era, diversified into a range of strikingly different
varieties.
It is generally acknowledged that Semitic is a member of the Afro-Asiatic language
phylum, whose other members include ancient Egyptian, the Berber languages, the
Cushitic and Omotic languages and the Chadic languages. An overview of Afro-Asiatic,
and of the relationship of Semitic to the other members, is presented in Chapter 2.
The earliest attestations of Semitic are words and proper names that appear in Sume-
rian texts of the first half of the third millennium bce (Sommerfeld 2010) and, probably,
a few short Northwest Semitic spells in Egyptian pyramid texts of the mid-third mil-
lennium (Steiner 2011). Since these early witnesses already exhibit features of the sub-
branches of the family, the latest date for a uniform common Semitic must be the fourth
millennium. Given the fact that all other branches of Afro-Asiatic are African, and given
the comparative uniformity of Semitic vis-à-vis those other branches, it is likely that
early speakers of Semitic entered southwest Asia from Africa,1 perhaps in the late fifth or
the early fourth millennium.2 By the late fourth millennium, ancestral speakers of East
Semitic (§2.1) had already moved into Mesopotamia.
Semitic, as just noted, is a relatively close-knit family, comparable to, say, Germanic.
The paradigms of certain forms, especially in the ancient languages, are remarkably sim-
ilar, as the forms presented in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 illustrate.3
TABLE 1.1 PERSONAL PRONOUNS (INDEPENDENT NOMINATIVE FORMS)
Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Arabic Hebrew Aramaic

(Old Bab.) (Gəʕəz) (Classical) (Biblical) (Syriac)
1sg *ʔana, ʔanaːku anāku ʔänä ʔana ʔănī, ʔå̄nōkī ʔenɔ

2msg *ʔanta atta ʔäntä ʔanta ʔattå̄ ʔatt
2fsg *ʔanti atti ʔänti ʔanti ʔat ʔatt(y)
3msg *suʔa šū wəʔətu huwa hū hu
3fsg *siʔa šī yəʔəti hija hī hi
1pl *niħnu nīnu nəḥnä naħnu ʔănaḥnū ḥnan/naḥnan

2mpl *ʔantum(±u:) attunu ʔäntǝmu ʔantum ʔattɛm ʔatton
2fpl *ʔantin(±aː) attina ʔäntǝn ʔantunna ʔattēnå̄ ʔatten
3mpl *sum(±uː) šunu ʔǝmuntu hum hēm(må̄) hennon
3fpl *sin(±aː) šina ʔǝmantu hunna hēnnå̄ hennen
TABLE 1.2 NOMINAL DECLENSION: ACTIVE PARTICIPLE OF THE BASIC STEM OF THE
ROOT √K’BR ‘TO BURY’
Proto-Semitic Akkadian Sabaic Arabic Ugaritic Hebrew Aramaic

(Old Akk.) (Classical) (Biblical) (Syriac)
Masculine
Sg nom *k’aːbiru-m qābir-um qbr-m qaːbiru-n qābiru qōbēr qɔbar
gen *k’aːbiri-m qābiri-m qaːbiri-n qābiri
acc *k’aːbira-m qābir-am qaːbira-n qābira
Du nom *k’aːbiraː-na qābirā-n qbr-n qaːbiraː-ni qābirā-ma/i qōbǝrayim –
obl *k’aːbiraj-na qābirē-n qaːbiraj-ni qābiray-ma/i (qōbǝrē)
Pl nom *k’aːbiruː-na qābirū qbr-n qaːbiruː-na qābirū-ma qōbǝrīm qɔbrin
obl *k’aːbiriː-na qābirī qaːbiriː-na qābirī-ma (qōbǝrē) (qɔbray)
Feminine
Sg nom *k’aːbiratu-m qābirt-um qbrt-m qaːbiratu-n qābir(a)tu qōbɛrɛt qɔbrɔ
gen *k’aːbirati-m qābirti-m qaːbirati-n qābir(a)ti (qɔbrat)
acc *k’aːbirata-m qābirt-am qaːbirata-n qābir(a)ta
Du nom *k’aːbirataː-na qābirtā-n qbrt-n qaːbirataː-ni qābir(a)tā-ma/i qōbirtayim –
obl *k’aːbirataj-na qābirtē-n qaːbirataj-ni qābir(a)tay-ma/i (qōbirtē)
Pl nom *k’aːbiraːtu-m qābirāt-um qbrt-m qaːbiraːtu-n qābirātu qōbǝrōt qɔbrɔn
obl *k’aːbiraːti-m qābirāti-m qaːbiraːti-n qābirāti (qɔbrɔt)
Notes: The forms with elements after hyphens are nonbound (free) forms; elements after hyphens are lost
in bound (construct) forms (see §4 for these terms). Akkadian mpl participles may also inflect like adjec-
tives: nom qābirūt-um, obl qābirūti-m. In Sabaic and Ugaritic, only the consonants were normally written;
the Ugaritic forms listed here are based on transcriptions into syllabic cuneiform, where the vowels are
evident. Aramaic nouns also occur in a form called the emphatic or full form, which ends in ‑ɔ (originally
the definite article): msg qɔbrɔ, fsg qɔbartɔ, mpl qɔbrayyɔ, fpl qɔbrɔtɔ.
Introduction to the Semitic languages 3
2 SUBGROUPING OF THE SEMITIC FAMILY AND

SURVEY OF THE LANGUAGES
In this section we survey the Semitic languages, both ancient and modern, according to
their genetic subgrouping. The internal classification of the Semitic languages has been
the subject of much discussion. We – the editors of the present volume – subscribe to the
model shown in Figure 1.1, which is based on shared innovations that will be described
Babylonian
Assyrian
Eblaite
Gəʕəz
Tigre
Tigrinya
Amharic, Argobba
Harari
Silt’e
Zay
Wolane
Gafat
A
Kistane, etc.
Muher
)
B Mesqan
W Chaha, etc.
Inor, etc.
W Mehri, Harsusi, Bat’hari
W
MSA Hobyot
Jibbali
MSA Soqotri
Sabaic
Minaic
Qatabanic
Had’ramitic
Dadanitic, Taymanitic, Hismaic, etc.
Safaitic
Classical, Modern Standard
modern spoken Arabic
Ugaritic
Samalian
Phoenician, Punic
Moabite
Ammonite
Edomite
Deir ʕAlla
Hebrew
Old Aramaic Inscriptions
-
Palestinian
Nabatean
Palmyrene
Hatran
Jewish Galilean
Samaritan
W Christian Palestinian
Modern Western Aramaic
Turoyo, Mlahso
Syriac
Jewish Babylonian
Mandaic
Northeastern Neo-Aramaic
FIGURE 1.1 THE INTERNAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES
This figure is available online as an e-resource at www.routledge.com/9780415731959.

4 John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El
in the following paragraphs.4 While that model in its broadest outline reflects a general
consensus among today’s Semitists, it should be noted that some scholars – including
some of the contributors to the present volume – prefer other models.5
For ease of reference, a tabular overview of the subgrouping of the Semitic languages
is presented here; the overview is then followed by a more detailed review of the sub-
branches and individual languages of the family. As both Figure 1.1 and the overview
indicate, the oldest branching is between East and West Semitic.
Overview of the Semitic languages, by subgroup. Living languages appear in italics.
Nodes are in small caps.
East Semitic
Akkadian (Chapter 5)
Old Akkadian dialects (26th–22nd c. bce)
Babylonian
Old Babylonian (22nd–16th c. bce)
Middle Babylonian (15th–11th c. bce)
Neo-/Late Babylonian (10th c. bce–1st c. ce)
Assyrian
Old Assyrian (20th–16th c. bce)
Middle Assyrian (15th–11th c. bce)
Neo-Assyrian (10th–7th c. bce)
Eblaite (24th c. bce)
West Semitic
Ethio-Semitic
Gǝʕəz (Classical Ethiopic; 4th–10th c. ce; Chapter 6)
Tigre (Chapter 7)
Tigrinya (Chapter 8)
South Ethiopic
Amharic (Chapter 9), Argobba
Harari
East Gurage
Silt’e
Zay
Wolane
Outer South Ethiopic (Gunnän Gurage)
Subgroup 1
Gafat (to 20th c. ce)
Kistane, Dobbi, Galila (to 20th c. ce)
Subgroup 2
Muher (Chapter 10)
West Gurage
Mesqan
Chaha, Ezha, Gumer, Gura
Inor, Ener, Endegagn, Gyeto, Mesmes (to 20th c. ce)
Modern South Arabian

Western
Mehri (Chapter 11), Ħarsusi, Bat’ħari
Hobyot
Eastern
Jibbali
Soqotri (Chapter 12)
Central Semitic
Ancient South Arabian (Chapter 13)
Sabaic
Early/Old Sabaic (10th–4th c. bce)
Middle Sabaic (3rd c. bce–4th c. ce)
Late Sabaic (4th–6th c. ce)
Minaic (10th–2nd c. bce)
Qatabanic (8th c. bce–2nd c. ce)
Hadramitic (7th c. bce–3rd c. ce)
North Arabian
Dadanitic (6th c. bce?)
Taymanitic (6th–5th c. bce)
Hismaic (1st c. bce?–1st c. ce?)
“Thamudic” (ANA inscriptions that are none of the above)
Arabic–Safaitic
Safaitic (1st c. bce?–4th c. ce?; Chapter 14)
Arabic
Classical Arabic (from 4th c. ce; Chapter 15); Middle Arabic; Modern
Standard Arabic; modern spoken Arabic: Iraqi, Gulf, Yemeni, Levantine
(Chapter 16), Egyptian (Chapter 17), Moroccan (Chapter 18) and others
Northwest Semitic
Ugaritic (13th–12th c. bce; Chapter 19)
Aramaeo-Canaanite
Canaanite (Chapter 20)
el-Amarna Canaanite (14th c. bce)
Phoenician (10th c. bce–2nd c. ce), Punic (8th c. bce–5th c. ce)
Moabite (9th c. bce)
Ammonite (9th–6th c. bce)
Deir ʕAllā (8th c. bce)
Edomite (7th/6th c. bce)
Hebrew
Pre-modern (including Biblical; from the 12th c. bce; Chapter 21)
Modern Israeli (Chapter 22)
Aramaic
Old Aramaic inscriptions (9th–6th c. bce)
Official/Imperial/Achaemenid Aramaic (including early Biblical;
6th–4th c. bce)
Middle Aramaic (3rd c. bce–2nd c. ce)

Palestinian (late Biblical; Qumran; early targums)
Nabataean
Palmyrene
Hatran
Late and Modern Western Aramaic
Jewish Galilean (1st–11th c. ce)
Samaritan (1st–12th c. ce; Chapter 23)
Christian Palestinian (3rd–13th c. ce)
Modern Western Aramaic: Maʕlula, Baxʕa, Jubbʕadin (Chapter 24)
Modern Central Aramaic: Tˤuroyo, Mlaħso (to 20th c. ce)
Late and Modern Eastern Aramaic
Syriac (1st–14th c. ce; Chapter 25)
Jewish Babylonian (3rd–11th c. ce)
Classical/Old Mandaic (from 3rd c. ce); (Neo-)Mandaic (Chapter 26)
Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects (Chapter 27)
2.1 East Semitic

East Semitic is an extinct branch, comprising only the ancient languages Akkadian
(Chapter 5) and Eblaite.
Akkadian, along with the extinct isolate Sumerian, was the language of the great civ-
ilizations of ancient Mesopotamia (roughly, present-day Iraq). Akkadian was usually
written in a cuneiform script, logo-syllabic in nature, that was borrowed from Sume-
rian. The first Akkadian texts begin to appear in the 24th century bce, although Akkadian
names and individual words appear in Sumerian texts already several centuries earlier.
The Akkadian texts of the third millennium, which exhibit a variety of dialectal features,
are grouped together under the term Old Akkadian. During the second and first millennia,
two major dialects are reflected in the texts: Babylonian in the south of Mesopotamia and
Assyrian in the north. See Chapter 5 for further, especially chronological, partitions of
dialects. During the first millennium, Akkadian gradually gave way to Aramaic, and the
latest-dated Akkadian texts are from the 1st century ce. But from the two and a half mil-
lennia in which it was recorded, several hundred thousand Akkadian texts in a very wide
range of genres have been discovered. Akkadian and Sumerian speakers were in contact
for centuries, and Sumerian had significant influence on Akkadian; for example, Akka-
dian became a verb-final language (Proto-Semitic was verb-initial; see Chapter 3, §4.1),
and its repertoire of consonants was considerably reduced, especially in Babylonian.
Eblaite is attested in several thousand cuneiform texts of the 24th century from the
city of Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh in Syria). Because most Eblaite texts exhibit a great
many forms written in Sumerian logograms, and because the Eblaite syllabary reflects
a different scribal tradition than those of most Akkadian texts, much of its grammar
remains somewhat uncertain. What is clear is that Eblaite is very closely related to Akka-
dian, closely enough that some scholars consider it to be a dialect of Akkadian. A recent
description of Eblaite grammar is Catagnoti (2012).
East Semitic exhibits several innovative features vis-à-vis Proto-Semitic. In phonology,
the reconstructed Proto-Semitic consonant *x’ merged with *x, whereas it merged with *ħ
TABLE 1.3 THE SHORT PREFIX CONJUGATION (pcs) OF THE BASIC (G) STEM OF THE
ROOT *K’-B-R ‘TO BURY’
Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Mehri Arabic Hebrew Aramaic

(Assyrian) (Gəʕəz) (Classical) (Biblical) (Syriac)
1sg *ʔak’bir aqbir ʔǝḳbǝr l-ək’beːr ʔaqbir ʔɛqbōr ʔeqbor

2msg *tak’bir taqbir tǝḳbǝr tək’beːr taqbir tiqbōr teqbor
2fsg *tak’biriː taqbirī tǝḳbǝri tək’beːri taqbiriː tiqbǝrī teqbrin
3msg *jak’bir iqbir yǝḳbǝr jək’beːr jaqbir yiqbōr neqbor
3fsg *tak’bir taqbir tǝḳbǝr tək’beːr taqbir tiqbōr teqbor
1pl *nak’bir niqbir nǝḳbǝr nək’beːr naqbir niqbōr neqbor

2mpl *tak’biruː taqbirā tǝḳbǝru tək’beːrəm taqbiruː tiqbǝrū teqbrun
2fpl *tak’birna taqbirā tǝḳbǝra tək’beːrən taqbirna tiqbōrnå̄ teqbrɔn
3mpl *jak’biruː iqbirū yǝḳbǝru jək’beːrəm jaqbiruː yiqbǝrū neqbrun
3fpl *jak’birna iqbirā yǝḳbǝra tək’beːrən jaqbirna tiqbōrnå̄ neqbrɔn
Note: The Arabic forms also appear as ʔaqbur, taqbur, etc., with ‑u-.
in West Semitic (Huehnergard 2003). A common Akkadian feature is the dissimilation of

two glottalic consonants within a root (it is unclear whether this also occurred in Eblaite);
e.g., the Proto-Semitic root *l-k’-t’ ‘to glean’ > Akkadian l-k’-t (laqātum). Morphological
innovations include, inter alia, the rise of (a) dative pronominal forms, as in Old Baby-
lonian a-qbī-kum (1sg-say.pcs-2msg.dat) ‘I said to you’; (b) a TAM form, called the Per-
fect, from a derivational form that marked reciprocal/reflexive: *jV-ʔ<ta>xað (3-<recp/
refl>seize.pcs) ‘he seized for himself’ > ‘he has seized’ (Old Babylonian ītaḫaz); a series
of iterative verb stems, synchronically marked by an infix ‑tan-, as in *jV-ʔ<tan>axxað
(3-<iter>seize.pcl) ‘he keeps seizing’ (Old Babylonian ītanaḫḫaz). (See Huehnergard
2006 for details on these and additional features.)
2.2 West Semitic

Proto-West Semitic is characterized by an important innovation in the TAM system. In
Proto-Semitic, the short prefix conjugation of the verb (pcs; Table 1.3), as in *ʔa-k’bir
(1sg-bury.pcs), was used both for basic past expressions and injunctively, thus ‘I bur-
ied; let me bury’. Proto-Semitic also exhibited a predicative construction consisting of a
verbal adjective and a suffixed subject pronoun, as in *k’abir-ku (buried-1sg) ‘I am/was
buried’.6 In Proto-West Semitic, the latter developed into an active, perfective suffix con-
jugation verb (sc), often with a change in the quality of the second vowel, thus *k’abar-ku
(bury.sc-1sg) ‘I (have) buried’. This form eventually replaced the inherited *ʔa-k’bir as
the basic unmarked perfective or past, the latter remaining in use as an injunctive form,
but as a past only in syntactically restricted contexts. Paradigms of the Proto-Semitic and
Akkadian predicative construction and the innovative West Semitic suffix conjugation
are given in Table 1.4.
West Semitic comprises three branches: Ethio-Semitic, Modern South Arabian and
Central Semitic.
TABLE 1.4
THE EAST SEMITIC PREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND THE WEST
SEMITIC SUFFIX CONJUGATION (sc). ROOT *K’-B-R ‘TO BURY’
Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Mehri Arabic Hebrew Aramaic

(Assyrian) (Gəʕəz) (Classical) (Biblical) (Syriac)
1sg *k’abir-(aː)ku qabrāku ḳäbärku k’əberk qabartu qå ̄ bartī qebret

2msg *k’abir-(aː)ta qabrāt(i) ḳäbärkä k’əbərk qabarta qå ̄ bartā qbart
2fsg *k’abir-(aː)ti qabrāti ḳäbärki k’əbərʃ qabarti qå ̄ bart qbart(y)
3msg *k’abir-a qabir ḳäbärä k’əbuːr qabara qå ̄ bar qbar
3fsg *k’abir-at qabrat ḳäbärät k’əb(ə)ruːt qabarat qå ̄ bərā qebrat
1pl *k’abir-(aː)nu qabrāni ḳäbärnä k’əbuːrən qabarnaː qå ̄ barnū qbarn

2mpl *k’abir-(aː)tum(uː) qabrātunu ḳäbärkəmu k’əbərkəm qabartum qəbartɛm qbarton
2fpl *k’abir-(aː)tin(aː) qabrātin ḳäbärkən k’əbərkən qabartunna qəbartɛn qbarten
3mpl *k’abir-uː qabrū ḳäbäru k’əbawr qabaruː qå ̄ bǝrū qbar(w)
3mpl *k’abir-aː qabrā ḳäbära k’əbuːr qabarna qå ̄ bǝrū qbar(y)
2.2.1 Ethio-Semitic
While the common genetic origin of the Ethiopian Semitic languages is generally
acknowledged, only a few innovative features vis-à-vis West Semitic have been noted
(Bulakh and Kogan 2010, 2013; Weninger 2011): the replacement of common Semitic
*CaːCiC by *CaCaːCiː as the active participle of the basic stem of the verb (but *CaːCiC
remains in Tigre; Chapter 7, §4.4.4); an ending *‑oːt on infinitives; and the appearance
of an existential verb with root *h-l-w. The last is in fact one of many lexical items
that, according to L. Kogan’s recent comprehensive study of Semitic lexical isoglosses,
provide “reliable support” for the traditional identification of Ethio-Semitic as a unity
(Kogan 2015: 601).
Although it has been suggested that the presence of Semitic languages in the Horn of
Africa reflects the original homeland of the family (e.g., Hudson 2002), it is more likely
that they are the result of movements back to Africa from the southern Arabian peninsula,
in the first millennium bce or earlier.
The only Ethio-Semitic language to receive written form in the ancient world was
Gəʕəz (Classical Ethiopic), originally the language of the kingdom of Axum in the north
of present-day Ethiopia (see Chapter 6). Gəʕəz was written in a modified form of the
Ancient South Arabian alphabet (Chapter 13), to which diacritics were added to indi-
cate vowels. In the modern period, other Ethiopian languages are also written with this
alphasyllabary.
Ethiopian Semitic has traditionally been divided into northern and southern branches,
the former consisting of ancient Gǝʕəz and modern Tigre (Chapter 7) and Tigrinya, an
official language of Eritrea (Chapter 8); it has recently been suggested, however, that
these northern languages do not in fact exhibit any shared innovations (Bulakh and Kogan
2010, 2013). South Ethiopic is a group of over a dozen modern languages that do share
innovations, especially in the verbal system;7 it includes Amharic, a lingua franca and
official language of Ethiopia (Chapter 9); Harari, spoken especially in the predominantly
Muslim city of Harar; and languages that are grouped together under the label Gurage,
but which in fact represent several distinct branchings, the nature of which is disputed
(see most recently Goldenberg 2013: 55–7, Hudson 2013, Meyer 2018). One such lan-
guage, Muher, is described in Chapter 10.
2.2.2 Modern South Arabian

The Modern South Arabian branch is a group of six closely related languages spoken
by rather small, and diminishing, populations in present-day Oman and Yemen: Mehri,
Ħars’usi and Bat’ħari, along with Hobyot, comprise a western subgroup, while Jibbali
and Soqotri comprise an eastern subgroup (Rubin 2015, 2018: 12). The genealogical
unity of Modern South Arabian is indicated by several morphological developments,
such as a future participle, a masculine marker ‑oːn on nominals, and, in some of the
languages, a negative circumfix, as well as by a remarkable number of lexical isoglosses
(Kogan 2015: 468–597). Modern South Arabian is the only branch of Semitic with no
ancient representative. Two Modern South Arabian languages are described in the present
volume: Mehri in Chapter 11 and Soqotri in Chapter 12.
2.2.3 Central Semitic

Like its Proto-West Semitic ancestor, Proto-Central Semitic is also characterized by an
important innovation in the TAM system, namely, the appearance of a new imperfective
form. In Proto-Semitic, the imperfective form of the verb in the basic stem was the long
prefix conjugation (pcl), whose base had a geminated middle radical, as in *jV-k’abbar
(3-bury.pcl) ‘he buries, will bury’ (> Akkadian iqabbar); this form also characterized
Proto-West Semitic, as in Gəʕəz yəḳäbbǝr and Mehri yǝk’awbǝr,8 but it was completely
lost in Proto-Central Semitic, where it was replaced by a form based on the inherited
short prefix conjugation form *ja-k’bir (Table 1.3), a form that was marked by an addi-
tional morpheme (with two allomorphs, *‑u in most singular forms and *‑na in most
plural forms; thus 3msg *ja-k’bir-u 3-bury-ipfv, 3mpl *ja-k’bir-uː-na 3-bury-mpl-ipfv).
Table 1.5 gives paradigms of the original long prefix conjugation in Proto-Semitic, Akka-
dian, (Classical) Ethiopic and Mehri, and its replacement in the Central Semitic lan-
guages, exemplified by (Classical) Arabic and (Biblical) Hebrew.
HE LONG PREFIX CONJUGATION (pcl) OF THE ROOT *K’-B-R ‘TO BURY’,

TABLE 1.5 T
AND ITS REPLACEMENT IN THE CENTRAL SEMITIC LANGUAGES
Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Mehri Arabic Hebrew

(Assyrian) (Gəʕəz) (Classical) (Biblical)
1sg *ʔVk’abbar aqabbir ʔəḳäbbər ək’awbər ʔaqbiru ʔɛqbōr

2msg *tVk’abbar taqabbir təḳäbbər tek’awbər taqbiru tiqbōr
2fsg *tVk’abbariː taqabbirī təḳäbbəri tek’eːbər taqbiriːna tiqbərī(n)
3msg *jVk’abbar iqabbir yəḳäbbər jək’awbər jaqbiru yiqbōr
3fsg *tVk’abbar taqabbir təḳäbbər tək’awbər taqbiru tiqbōr
(Continued )
TABLE 1.5 (CONTINUED)
Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Mehri Arabic Hebrew

(Assyrian) (Gəʕəz) (Classical) (Biblical)
1pl *nVk’abbar niqabbir nəḳäbbər nək’awbər naqbiru niqbōr
2mpl *tVk’abbaruː taqabbirā təḳäbbəru tək’ǝbrəm taqbiruːna tiqbərū(n)
2fpl *tVk’abbarna taqabbirā təḳäbbəra tək’ǝbrən taqbirna tiqbōrnå̄
3mpl *jVk’abbaruː iqabbirū yəḳäbbəru jək’ǝbrəm jaqbiruːna yiqbərū(n)
3fpl *jVk’abbarna iqabbirā yəḳäbbəra tək’ǝbrən jaqbirna tiqbōrnå̄
Notes: For aw in the Mehri paradigm, see n. 8. The Arabic forms also appear as ʔaqburu, taqburu, etc., with
‑u-. The Hebrew form that corresponds to the Arabic in this table is mostly the same as the original short
prefix conjugation (Table 1.3) because of the eventual loss of short final vowels (so that Proto-Hebrew
*jak’bur and *jak’buru both yielded yiqbōr). The original distinction is better illustrated for Hebrew by
some of the so-called weak roots, such as those that originally had w as their second radical: the ipfv form
yå̄qūm ‘he will stand’ derives from *ja.k’uː.mu (from still-earlier *jak’wumu), with the medial long vowel
preserved in an open syllable; this contrasts with the original short prefix conjugation form yå̄qōm ‘may
he stand’, which derives from *ja.k’um, with short u in the closed syllable.
Proto-Central Semitic also exhibits several other innovative features, including the fol-
lowing (Huehnergard 2005): metathesis in the prefix conjugation of verbs with identical
second and third radicals (e.g., *ja-mdud-uː > *ja-mudd-uː 3-measure.pcs-mpl ‘they mea-
sured’); the use of a presentative particle as an incipient definite article; and the use of the
external mpl marker for the ‘tens’ (e.g., *θalaːθ-um ‘three-nom’, *θalaːθ-uːna three-mpl.
nom = ‘thirty’).
Central Semitic has three subbranches: Ancient South Arabian, North Arabian and
Northwest Semitic.
2.2.3.1 Central Semitic: Ancient South Arabian

The Ancient South Arabian languages (Chapter 13) are Sabaic, Minaic, Qatabanic and
Hadramitic. They are attested in several thousand texts from the early first millennium
bce through the middle of the first millennium ce, written in a script that represents a
branch of the consonantal alphabet that is distinct from the more familiar one used to
write the Northwest Semitic languages (see §3). Diagnostic features of Ancient South
Arabian include a suffixed definite article *‑aːn and the use of more than one bound
form to govern a genitive (see Chapter 13, §5.4). Sabaic, but not the other languages of
the group, underwent a change of Proto-Semitic *s > h in 3rd person pronouns and the
causative verbal stem.
2.2.3.2 Central Semitic: North Arabian

The North Arabian subbranch of Central Semitic includes both Arabic and a number of
inscriptional dialects or languages from the Arabian peninsula and southern Jordan and
Syria, collectively referred to as Ancient North Arabian. The latter, written on stone in
alphabets related to that used for the Ancient South Arabian languages, are difficult to
date, but probably span a period from the early or mid-first millennium bce until the
mid-first millennium ce. Precise classification of the languages and dialects reflected in
these inscriptions has been elusive, but recent scholarship identifies the following (Mac-
donald 2000, 2008, Al-Jallad 2018; as just noted, the dates of these are often uncertain):
Dadanitic (from the oasis of Dadan, modern al-ʕUla; ca. 6th c. bce?); Taymanitic (from
the oasis of Taymaːʔ 6th–5th c. bce?); Hismaic (from the Ħismaː desert of southern Jor-
dan and northwestern Saudi Arabia; 1st c. bce–1st c. ce?); Safaitic (from the lava deserts
of northeastern Jordan, southern Syria and northern Saudi Arabia; 1st c. bce–4th c. ce?);
Thamudic (described as “a sort of ‘pending’ category” for ANA texts that are none of the
others; Macdonald 2008: 492). The most prominent of these by far is Safaitic, which is
described in Chapter 14, where it is noted that Safaitic and early Arabic probably com-
prise a dialect continuum. Innovative features of this Arabic–Safaitic subbranch include
the merger of the Proto-Semitic consonants *s and *ʦ to *s; the change of *m to n as
the marker of nonbound (free) forms of the noun (Arabic tanwiːn); generalization of the
pattern *maC1C2uːC3 as the passive participle of the basic verb stem; the use of neg *lam
plus the short prefix conjugation for past negation; the grammaticalization of the noun
*pVː ‘mouth’ as a preposition, ‘within’ (Classical Arabic fiː); and modified syntax in the
relative clauses (Pat-El 2014, Huehnergard 2017, Al-Jallad 2018). (In Arabic, in addition,
an important phonological development is the change of the “emphatic” consonants from
glottalic to pharyngealized or uvularized, as in [s’] > [sˤ]; there is insufficient evidence
to determine whether this also occurred in Safaitic or in other Ancient North Arabian
dialects.)
Arabic proper is attested in inscriptions from the last few pre-Islamic centuries in
a consonantal alphabet derived from the Nabataean Aramaic script. As described in
Chapter 15, the origins of Classical Arabic, including the Arabic of the Qurʔaːn, are com-
plex. The codified grammar of Classical Arabic serves as the model for Modern Standard
Arabic, which is used across the Arabic-speaking world in written media and in offi-
cial broadcast media. Vernacular Arabic comprises a vast continuum of dialects (some
would say, languages) spoken today by several hundred million people. While it is often
assumed that the modern forms of Arabic derive from the classical language, the fact that
they exhibit features inherited from common Semitic, but not found in Classical Arabic,
shows that they derive from other early forms of Proto-Arabic (see, e.g., Pat-El 2017).
Three representative varieties of modern spoken Arabic are described in the present vol-
ume: Levantine (Chapter 16), Egyptian (Chapter 17) and Moroccan (Chapter 18).
2.2.3.3 Central Semitic: Northwest Semitic

The earliest-attested subbranch of Central Semitic is traditionally referred to as North-
west Semitic (NWS). Among the diagnostic innovations that characterize NWS are the
change of initial *w to *j (e.g., PS *warix- ‘month’ > PNWS *jarix-) and the general-
ization of ‑a- insertion plus an external ending to mark the plurals of substantives of the
shape C1VC2C3 (e.g., sg *kalb-um ‘dog-nom’ ~ pl *kal<a>b-uːna ‘dog<pl>-mpl.nom’).
(See Huehnergard 1991, Hasselbach and Huehnergard 2007.)
It has recently been suggested that the earliest attestation of Northwest Semitic is
embedded in Egyptian pyramid texts of the mid-third millennium bce, specifically, in
spells against snakes (Steiner 2011). NWS proper names and a few NWS words also
occur in Akkadian and Egyptian texts from the late third millennium to the mid-second
millennium; these vestiges are generally referred to collectively as Amorite (Streck
2000). The earliest alphabetic inscriptions, found in the Sinai peninsula, in Egypt, and in
Syria-Palestine and dated to the first half of the second millennium, also reflect a North-
west Semitic language or languages. There is not enough of this early material, however,
to reconstruct much of the grammar.
The earliest NWS language recorded in full, as opposed to the hints and vestiges men-
tioned in the preceding paragraph, is Ugaritic (Chapter 19), an indigenous language of the
ancient Syrian coastal city-state of Ugarit. Ugaritic texts, which date to the 13th and early
12th centuries bce, were written in an indigenous cuneiform alphabet.
The two most prominent forms of NWS are Canaanite and Aramaic, which have long
been considered distinct branches. Recently, however, it has been suggested that they
share a common ancestor within Northwest Semitic, distinct from Ugaritic. Innovative
features of Aramaeo-Canaanite include an accusative marker *ʔayaːt, the development of
dative subjects with adjectival predicates, and the transfer of gemination to the first radi-
cal in the prefix conjugation of verbs with identical second and third radicals (Pat-El and
Wilson-Wright 2018). Within this Aramaeo-Canaanite node, Canaanite is distinguished
by several diagnostic features: the change of *-tu to *-ti to mark the 1sg of the suffix con-
jugation; the generalization of the suffix *‑nuː for 1pl regardless of case (vs. *-naː in Ara-
maic); vowel harmony in the suffix conjugation of the verbal stem with doubled middle
radical (the D stem; e.g., earlier *barrika > *birrika ‘he blessed’), the grammaticalization
of a substantive with the meaning ‘place, trace’, *ʔaθar-, as a new relative marker, and
the development of a systematic morphological and syntactic distinction between two
infinitive forms (Huehnergard 1991, Pat-El and Wilson-Wright 2016).
The oldest evidence of Canaanite appears in a mixed language, in 14th-century
bce letters written in cuneiform and sent to the Egyptian pharaoh by vassal rulers in
Syria-Palestine. These letters, found at the Egyptian site of el-Amarna, exhibit Akkadian
vocabulary but Canaanite grammar, especially in the TAM system (Izre'el 2012). While
Canaanite is thus obliquely attested in the el-Amarna letters, actual texts in Canaan-
ite languages first appear in the late second or early first millennium bce (Chapter 20).
The best-attested Canaanite language is Hebrew, known especially from the text of the
Hebrew Bible, parts of which may date as early as the 12th century bce (Chapter 21).
Hebrew inscriptions, exhibiting grammar very similar to that of Biblical Hebrew, are
attested throughout the first millennium. Both the biblical text and the inscriptions show
evidence of minor dialect variation. The Hebrew of the Mishna, from around the turn
of the era, also seems to reflect a different dialect strain. After its demise as a spoken
language in the 3rd century ce, Hebrew continued in use as a literary language, until its
revival as Modern Israeli Hebrew (Chapter 22). All of the other Canaanite languages
are extinct. Phoenician is known from inscriptions dating to the 10th through the 2nd
centuries bce, though its Punic descendant is attested until the 5th century ce. The other
languages – Moabite, Ammonite, Deir ʕAllā and Edomite – are all known from only a
few inscriptions dating to the first half of the first millennium bce.
Aramaic is the Semitic language with the longest continuous history, nearly three
thousand years, from the earliest inscriptions in the early first millennium bce through
the various forms still spoken today. Innovative features in Proto-Aramaic include the
suffix *‑aʔ for the definite article, the ending *-aːn to mark fpl nouns and verbs, and the
loss of the passive stem of the verb marked by a prefix *n (Huehnergard 1995; see also
Loesov 2012). The dialectal distribution of the different variants of Aramaic is debated;
several attempts have been made to divide Aramaic into well-defined dialectal groups,
but none of the divisions suggested has met with overall approval. The difficulty stems
from the uneven attestation of texts, the variation in linguistic features even in the same
period, and the wide distribution of the language. The use of Aramaic as a lingua franca
complicates the problem. We follow here the division suggested by Fitzmyer (1979); this
subgrouping is chronological, but allows for additional breakdown by geography.
The early epigraphic material is called Old Aramaic (9th–7th century bce), reflecting
dialects spoken over a wide area stretching from Syria to Mesopotamia. The earliest
inscriptions include a number of steles found in northeastern and central Syria. These
steles show some linguistic variation, which, given the dialectal variety of Aramaic in
later periods, has been taken to indicate a very early dialectal split between east and west
(Kaufman 1982, Loesov 2102, Gzella 2015: 72–3). Old Aramaic texts are conveniently
collected in Donner and Röllig (2002) and in Hug (1993), with some also in Gibson
(1975); their grammar is succinctly described in Degen (1969).
Official Aramaic (or Imperial Aramaic; 700–200 bce) was a lingua franca, serving
as a chancellary language during the late Neo-Assyrian empire and throughout the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian empires. Official Aramaic includes the biblical book of
Ezra, letters, official administrative documents and legal contracts, inscriptions, ostraca
and other genres. Within this period, the material from the Achaemenid empire (~559–330
bce), primarily found in Egypt but also from every other part of the empire, including the
Arabian peninsula and Afghanistan, represents a distinct linguistic form (Folmer 1995).
This period, therefore, provides us with ample texts, on a variety of materials in a variety
of genres. A comprehensive grammar is that of Muraoka and Porten (2003).
After the fall of the Achaemenid empire, Aramaic is primarily found in Syria-Palestine
and Mesopotamia. Middle Aramaic (200 bce–200 ce) includes diverse texts, such as the
biblical book of Daniel, biblical translations (targums) and texts and inscriptions from
Syria, such as Palmyrene and Old Syriac; from Iraq, such as Hatran; and from Palestine,
such as the Aramaic texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran.
The final pre-modern stage is Late Aramaic (1st–14th centuries ce), which is further
divided into western dialects, including various Palestinian dialects, such as Jewish Gal-
ilean (especially in the Jerusalem Talmud), Samaritan (Chapter 23) and Christian Pales-
tinian; and eastern dialects, which are Jewish Babylonian (the dialect of the Babylonian
Talmud), Syriac (Chapter 25) and Classical or Old Mandaic.
Dialects of Aramaic were spoken until recently in parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Tur-
key, and there are still sporadic pockets of speakers in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Modern Aramaic dialects are divided into four main groups: Western Neo-Aramaic, in a
mountainous area near Damascus, Syria (Chapter 24); Central Neo-Aramaic in Turkey;
modern Mandaic, located primarily in Iran (Chapter 26); and Northeastern Neo-Aramaic
(Chapter 27), which was spread mostly over Iraq and Kurdistan with some holdouts in the
Caucasus. Each of these has a number of distinct dialects.
Surveys of the history of Aramaic are Beyer (1986), Ferrer (2004) and Gzella (2015).
The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon at http://cal.huc.edu/, edited by S. Kaufman and
others, is an online dictionary of all pre-modern dialects of Aramaic. It uses transliter-
ation and incorporates material from a large number of standard reference dictionaries.
A few inscriptions in a separate Northwest Semitic language, Samalian, have been
found in Turkey, some 220 km northeast of the city of Ugarit, alongside inscriptions
in other Semitic languages. The inscriptions are dated to 900–700 bce. Scholars have
debated the classification of these inscriptions since their discovery (Pardee 2009). The
language lacks any Canaanite or Aramaic diagnostic features and it is therefore likely to
be an independent node of Northwest Semitic (Huehnergard 1991).
3 WRITING SYSTEMS AND TRANSLITERATION SYSTEMS

The Semitic languages were, for the most part, written in three types of scripts.
The East Semitic languages, Akkadian and Eblaite, were written in logo-syllabic
cuneiform system borrowed from Sumerian, for which it was originally invented (as the
world’s first writing system). The vast majority of cuneiform texts were written on moist
clay tablets, the signs impressed with a reed stylus; but many texts incised into stone and
a few on metal are also preserved. See Chapter 5 for more detail on the cuneiform system
and its signs.
Most of the Central Semitic languages have been written in a consonantal alpha-
bet, originally pictographic, that emerged early in the second millennium bce, based
on Egyptian hieroglyphic and hieratic writing (Hamilton 2006). While the latter was
a logo-phonetic system, the earliest alphabet consisted solely of signs, 27 in number,
that represented individual consonant phonemes on a one-to-one basis. The early pic-
tographs eventually evolved into more abstract shapes. There were at least two lines of
development. One led to the alphabet used to write the Ancient South Arabian languages
(Chapter 13), an alphabet that was borrowed to write the various forms of Ancient North
Arabian as well (Chapter 14). A different line of development led to the alphabet used to
write most Northwest Semitic languages; at some point, one form of alphabet lost five
of the letters, which were jettisoned as no longer needed because of consonant mergers;
it is that 22-letter form of the alphabet that was used, from the late second millennium
on, to write Phoenician, and borrowed by speakers of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic to
write their languages as well (even though those languages still had more than 22 conso-
nantal phonemes; some letters had to do double duty; see Chapters 20, 21 and 25). The
Phoenician alphabet was also borrowed by speakers of Greek to write their alphabet,
probably early in the first millennium. The order of the letters in the form of the alphabet
used to write those Northwest Semitic languages is that familiar from Hebrew (ʔalef, bet,
gimel, dalet, etc.) and Greek (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, etc.); the names of those letters
reflect the original pictographs used to write the phonemes, on the acrophonic principle
(*ʔalp- ‘ox’, *bajt- ‘house’, *gaml- ‘throwstick’, *dalt- ‘door’). The Ancient South Ara-
bian alphabet, however, exhibits a different order, namely, h l ḥ m, etc. (see Chapter 13,
§2). Both letter orders have been found in abecedaries in the cuneiform alphabetic script
that was created to write Ugaritic (Chapter 19). In several of the consonantal alphabets,
some of the letters were also eventually used to indicate vowels, especially long vowels
(in particular, <ʔ> and <h> for aː, <j> for iː and eː, <w> for uː and oː); these are referred
to as “vowel letters,” or, in Semitic language traditions, as matres lectionis, a translation
phrase for ‘mothers of reading’ in the Arabic and Hebrew grammatical traditions. Sys-
tems of diacritical marks were also devised to indicate vowels, especially in sacred texts,
in Arabic, Hebrew and Syriac (Chapters 15, 21, 25).
The Ancient South Arabian alphabet described in the preceding paragraph served as
the basis for the writing system that evolved to write first Classical Ethiopic (Gəʕəz)
and then other languages of Ethiopia, both Semitic and Cushitic. Diacritics were added
to the consonantal letters to indicate the various vowels, resulting in an alphasyllabary
(like Devanagari); for example, from the Ancient South Arabian consonant 𐩨 <b> are
derived the following letter forms: በ (without a diacritic) bä, ቡ bu, ቢ bi, ባ ba, ቤ be, ብ
b(ǝ), ቦ bo (see Chapters 6–9).
A number of Semitic languages, and many dialects, remained unwritten, most prom-
inently the entire Modern South Arabian branch. Some of these are now occasionally
written with modified forms of the Arabic script (see Chapter 12).
In the present volume, the chapters describing the modern Semitic languages use the
IPA to represent phonetic systems; but the chapters on the ancient languages use traditional
Semitistic transliteration systems, since we often have only approximations of how the
ancient languages were pronounced. Several such systems have been used during the nearly
two centuries of modern Semitic philological studies, and they often differ from one lan-
guage tradition to another in details. But a number of features are common to most of them:
• the use of ’ and ‘, or ͗ and ͑, to indicate IPA [ʔ] and [ʕ], respectively
• the use of underdots for the “emphatic” consonants, as in ṣ, ṭ; these consonants are
glottalic in some of the languages, pharyngealized or uvularized in others, so that ṣ,
for example, may represent IPA [s’] or [sˤ]; for the “emphatic” velar, both ḳ and q have
been used (this is [k’] in most of the languages, but [q] in Arabic); ḥ, conventionally
called “dotted h,” is commonly used for the voiceless pharyngeal, IPA [ħ]
• ḫ (“h” with a “rocker,” conventionally called “hooked h”) for the voiceless velar/
uvular fricative, IPA [x]/[χ], and ġ or ǵ for the voiced counterpart, IPA [ɣ]/[ʁ]
• š for the palatal fricative [ʃ], and ś for an “extra” voiceless sibilant in some of the
languages; the latter was a voiceless lateral fricative, [ɬ], in Proto-Semitic and in
some of the descendant languages, such as Biblical Hebrew; in Ancient South
Arabian studies, where one transliteration system is based on that of Arabic cognate
consonants, ś is used for the third voiceless, non-“emphatic” sibilant, which is a reflex
of Proto-Semitic *ʦ; for Ancient South Arabian, and sometimes for Proto-Semitic as
well, the three voiceless non-“emphatic” sibilants are sometimes simply transcribed
with superscript numerals: s1 for this volume’s PS *s, s2 for PS *ɬ, and s3 for PS *ʦ (see
Chapter 13 for the various ASA transcription conventions)
• underlined d and t to indicate the fricative counterpart, IPA [ð] and [θ] respectively,
to the stops d and t. In Proto-Semitic and some of the descendant languages, such
as Classical Arabic, the fricatives are distinct phonemes; in other languages, such as
Biblical Hebrew, they are post-vocalic allophones of the stops
A more comprehensive list of traditional Semitistic transliteration conventions for the

consonants can be found in Chapter 3, §2.1.
There is a distinctive tradition for transliterating the vowels in each of the ancient
Semitic languages; the reader is directed to the relevant chapters in this volume for
details. An exemplary, and more comprehensive, survey of Semitic scripts than that pre-
sented above is Daniels (1997).
4 GRAMMATICAL TERMS USED IN SEMITIC STUDIES

Throughout the present volume, readers will encounter terms for a number of grammat-
ical features that typify the Semitic languages. These terms are used by Semitists but are
usually not familiar to linguists outside the field. For ease of reference, we explain these
briefly in the following paragraphs.
Absolute: A morphosyntactic nominal state, the basic nonbound↓ (nbnd) form of nom-
inals, regardless of syntactic position. In languages with nunation/mimation↓, it
will be marked with a final nasal. In languages with a definite article, this form is
indefinite. In most languages, the opposite state is construct↓/bound↓. See further
state↓. Example:
Arabic bajt-u-n vs. bajt-u-

house-nom-nbnd house-nom-bnd
‘house, a house’ ‘house of’
Annexation: A syntactic relation between a nominal head and a nominal (or nominal-
ized) dependent. Each noun in an annexation retains its gender-number but the head
noun is marked as construct↓/bound↓. Agreement with nominal modifiers and verbs
is determined by the gender-number of the head noun. In languages with a definite
article, the definiteness of an annexation is determined by the final nominal. Example:
Biblical Hebrew bå̄tt-ē ham-mɛlɛk hag-gədōlīm

house.mpl-bnd def-king.msg.nbnd def-big.mpl.nbnd
‘the king’s large houses’
Asyndetic/syndetic: Syntactic terms referring to whether a relative clause is introduced
with an explicit relative marker (syndetic), or not (asyndetic). Example:
Biblical Hebrew kål yəm-ē hithallak-nū ʔitt-å̄m (asyndetic)

all day.m-pl.bnd walk.sc-1pl with-3mpl
‘all the days during which we walked with them’
wə-hay-yå̄m-īm ʔăšɛr hå̄lak-nū (syndetic)
and-def-day.m-pl.nbnd rel walk.sc-1pl
‘the days during which we walked’
Binyan: Literally ‘building’, this is the medieval Hebrew term for verbal derivational
classes, or verbal stems↓, which is used by Semitists in the description of Hebrew
and other Semitic languages.
Bound/nonbound: These refer to whether a nominal is a head of a nominal (or nomi-
nalized) dependent (bound [bnd], also called construct↓ [cst]), or not (nonbound
[nbnd], also called absolute↑). Example:
Old Akkadian in bēt-i sarr-i-m

in house-gen.bnd king-gen-nbnd
‘in the house of the king’
Construct: A morphosyntactic term, which refers to both the morphology of nominals
and their syntactic function as head of other nominal (or nominalized) dependents.
The morphology of construct nouns is language dependent. In Arabic, construct
nouns lack the final nasal (bajt-u- vs. bajt-u-n ‘house’), in Babylonian Akkadian,
construct nouns lack the final nasal and case (bīt- vs. bīt-u-m; in Old Akkadian, the
gen case vowel i remains: bēt-i-), in (Classical) Ethiopic, these nouns are marked
with a special suffix (bet-ä vs. bet), and in Hebrew they exhibit various phonetic
changes due to word stress shift (bēt- vs. bayit).
Emphatic state: A term used in particular in Aramaic linguistics. It refers to the form
of the noun with a historical definite article, which became defunct in Late Eastern
Aramaic. In these dialects the emphatic is the default form of substantives; for
example, Syriac ʔarʕɔ ‘earth, the earth’ < ʔarʕ-ɔ earth-def ‘the earth’.
Imperfect: A finite verbal form where prefixes mark person, and suffixes mark
gender-number (see Table 1.5). The term was borrowed from Indo-European lin-
guistics and is used in Semitic for a wide range of tense and aspect functions; the
term prefix conjugation↓ is often used instead.
Nunation/mimation: These terms refer to a morpheme that marks nonbound nominals

(nbnd). In Ancient South Arabian it is /‑m/ on singular and fpl nominals, /‑n/ on
duals and mpl; similarly in early Akkadian dialects it is /‑m/ on singular and fpl
nominals, /‑n/ on duals (lost in mpl); in Classical Arabic, /‑n/ has been leveled; in
Ugaritic and Hebrew, /‑m/ has been leveled in duals and mpl (lost in singulars and
fpl). Examples:
Classical Arabic bajt-u-n Old Akkadian bēt-u-m

house-nom-nbnd house-nom-nbnd
Pattern, nominal: This term refers to nonconcatenative formatives that are at the
basis of the Semitic lexicon. Pattern refers typically to nominals, while verbal pat-
terns are referred to as stems↓; see also binyan↑. Each pattern is a combination of
root consonants, fixed vocalic arrangements and sometimes additional affixation.
Some patterns carry a semantic meaning (e.g., CaCCaːC is used for occupation,
as in *k’abbaːr- ‘grave-digger’), but many are fairly neutral (such as CaCC, as in
*k’abr- ‘burial’).
Pause, pausal: Terms used especially in Arabic and Hebrew philology and linguis-
tics to refer to forms that occur before a pause in speech, especially clause- or
phrase-final words, which may undergo special phonetic changes only in that envi-
ronment, such as vowel lengthening or lowering.
Perfect: A finite verbal form where suffixes mark person-gender-number (see
Table 1.4). The term was borrowed from Indo-European linguistics and is used in
West Semitic studies for a form which typically expresses past tense, but can also
refer to future and present in certain contexts. The term suffix conjugation↓ is often
used instead.
Prefix conjugation: A purely morphological term, prefix conjugation (pc) replaces
imperfect↑, in order to avoid using a semantically charged term. Many Semitic lan-
guages exhibit two prefix conjugations, a short form (pcs) that is usually perfective
and a long form (pcl) that is usually imperfective.
State: This is a morphosyntactic nominal category that refers to the relationship
between two nominals. Nominals in Semitic originally had two states: bound↑
(bnd)/construct↑(cst), which marked a nominal as a head of a nominal dependent,
and nonbound↓ (nbnd)/absolute↑ (i.e., nonconstruct, ncst), which marked it as not
having a dependent. These positions pose restrictions on the morphosyntax of the
head. A head in Semitic cannot take more than one dependent (e.g., possessive
suffixes), and in some languages it cannot take a definite article. In Late Eastern
Aramaic, a third state is recognized, emphatic state↑.
Stem, verbal: A term used to identify derivational categories of the verb in most
Semitic languages; the usual abbreviations of these are: G for the basic verbal
stem (for German Grundstamm), C for the causative stem (usually marked by a
prefixed s, h or ʔ), D for a stem in which the middle radical of the verbal root is
doubled, N for a medio-passive stem marked by a prefixed n; and various forms
with prefixed or infixed t that are derived from the preceding, such as tD. See
also binyan↑.
Suffix conjugation: A term that refers to a tense – aspect form marked by a verbal base
followed by suffixes that mark person-number-gender; it replaces perfect↑.
Syndetic/asyndetic: See asyndetic↑.
Ventive: A verbal suffix marking action in the general direction of the speaker. It is
attested primarily in Akkadian and is typically attached to motion verbs; e.g., Old
Babylonian Akkadian īrub ‘he went in’ vs. īrub-am ‘he came in’.
NOTES
1 But see also Chapter 2, §4, for a discussion of a suggestion that southwest Asia was the
homeland of Afro-Asiatic.
2 It is thus assumed that Ethiopian Semitic represents a later return to Africa from the
southern Arabian peninsula; see §2.2.1.
3 Throughout this chapter, words in individual languages are given in the transcription
system used in the chapters devoted to those languages elsewhere in this volume.
4 The model is that proposed by Hetzron (1974, 1976), with subsequent modifications
suggested by other scholars, for which see Huehnergard and Rubin (2011).
5 The main crux is the position of Arabic, since Arabic exhibits a number of features in
common with the Ethio-Semitic and Modern South Arabian languages, in particular
the use of pattern replacement for nominal plurals, the presence of a derived verb stem
with a lengthened vowel after the first root consonant, and the change of Proto-Semitic
*p to f. Since the first two features may both be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic, they
do not reflect shared innovations. The change of *p to f, in our view, reflects an areal
phenomenon, as do the expansion of the use of pattern replacement for nominal plurals
and the similarities in those actual patterns in Arabic, Ethio-Semitic and Modern South
Arabian. Indeed, since the Semitic languages were historically spoken in a relatively
small geographical area – essentially, the Fertile Crescent – speakers of the various
Semitic languages were often in contact with one another, and areal and other lan-
guage contact phenomena are common, and naturally complicate attempts to establish
the genealogical subgrouping of the family. See for example the articles by Al-Jallad,
Beaulieu, and Pat-El in The Journal of Language Contact 6.2 (2013), a special issue
devoted to contact among genetically related languages; further, chapters 17 and 43 in
Weninger et al. (2011).
6 This Proto-Semitic construction is an Afro-Asiatic inheritance; it is also found in
ancient Egyptian and in some Berber languages.
7 Some of these languages, such as Gafat, and dialects of others, have recently become
extinct.
8 In Mehri and other Modern South Arabian languages, the original doubling of the mid-
dle radical in the pcl has been lost with the general simplification of geminated conso-
nants throughout those languages. In most Mehri verbs, the pcl has a medial long uː,
as in jəkuːtəb ‘he writes’; in jək’awbər, the normal uː is replaced by aw because of the
preceding glottalic consonant.
REFERENCES
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. “The Earliest Stages of Arabic and Its Linguistic Classification.” In
The Routledge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, edited by Elabbas Benmamoun and
Reem Bassiouney, 315–30. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Beyer, Klaus. The Aramaic Language. Translated by John F. Healey. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
Bulakh, Maria and Leonid Kogan. “The Genealogical Position of Tigre and the Problem of
North Ethio-Semitic Unity.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
160 (2010): 273–302.
Bulakh, Maria and Leonid Kogan. “More on Genealogical Classification of Ethiopian

Semitic.” Babel und Bibel 7 (2013): 599–608.
Catagnoti, Amalia. La grammatica della lingua di Ebla. Quaderni di Semitistica
29. Firenze: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, Medioevo e Rinascimento e
Linguistica, 2012.
Daniels, Peter T. “Scripts of Semitic Languages.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by
Robert Hetzron, 16–45. London: Routledge, 1997.
Degen, Rainer. Altaramäische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1969.
Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (3rd
ed.). 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002.
Ferrer, Joan. Esbozo de historia de la lengua aramea. Córdoba/Barcelona: Servicio de
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba, 2004.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Phases of the Aramaic Language.” In idem, A Wandering
Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, 57–84. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1979.
Folmer, Margaretha L. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in
Linguistic Variation. Leuven: Peeters, 1995.
Gibson, John C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 2: Aramaic Inscriptions.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Goldenberg, Gideon. Semitic Languages: Features, Structures, Relations, Processes.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Gzella, Holger. A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of
Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Hamilton, Gordon J. The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts.
Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 2006.
Hasselbach, Rebecca and John Huehnergard. “Northwest Semitic Languages.” In
Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, 3.408–22.
Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Hetzron, Robert. “La division des langues sémitiques.” In Actes du Premier Congrès
International de Linguistique Sémitique et Chamito-Sémitique, Paris 16–19 juillet,
1969, edited by André Caquot and David Cohen, 181–94. The Hague/Paris: Mouton,
1974.
Hetzron, Robert. “Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction.” Lingua 38 (1976): 89–108.
Hudson, Grover. “Ethiopian Semitic Archaic Heterogeneity.” In Ethiopian Studies at the
End of the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the XIVth International Conference of
Ethiopian Studies, edited by Baye Yimam et al., 3.1765–76. Addis Ababa: Institute for
Ethiopian Studies, 2002.
Hudson, Grover. Northeast African Semitic: Lexical Comparisons and Analysis. Porta
Linguarum Orientalium 26. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013.
Huehnergard, John. “Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages.”
In The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla Re-evaluated. Proceedings of the International
Symposium held at Leiden 21–24 August 1989, edited by J. Hoftijzer and G. van der
Kooij, 282–93. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
Huehnergard, John. “What Is Aramaic?” Aram 7 (1995): 261–82.
Huehnergard, John. “Akkadian ḫ and West Semitic *ḥ.” In Studia Semitica, edited by
Leonid Kogan. Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute 3 (Alexander Militarev
volume), 102–19. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities, 2003.
Huehnergard, John. “Features of Central Semitic.” In Biblical and Oriental Essays

in Memory of William L. Moran, edited by Agustinus Gianto, 155–203. Biblica et
Orientalia 48. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2005.
Huehnergard, John. “Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian.” In The Akkadian Language in
Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC,
edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, 1–18. Leiden: NINO, 2006.
Huehnergard, John. “Arabic in Its Semitic Context.” In Arabic in Context: Celebrating
400 Years of Arabic at Leiden, edited by Ahmad Al-Jallad, 3–34. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Huehnergard, John and Aaron Rubin. “Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification
of the Semitic Languages.” In The Semitic Languages: An International
Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger et al., 259–78. Handbücher zur Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2011.
Hug, Volker. Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh.s v.Chr. Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Orient, 1993.
Izre'el, Shlomo. “Canaano-Akkadian: Linguistics and Sociolinguistics.” In Language
and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th
Birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‘ama Pat-El, 171–218. Studies in
Ancient Oriental Civilization 67. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 2012.
Kaufman, Stephen A. “Reflections on the Assyrian – Aramaic Bilingual from Tell
Fakhariya.” Maarav 2 (1982): 137–75.
Kaufman, Stephen A. et al. (eds.). The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. http://cal.huc.
edu.
Kogan, Leonid. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Boston/
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015.
Muraoka, Takamitsu and Bezalel Porten. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (2nd ed.).
Loesov, Sergey. “A New Attempt at Reconstructing Proto-Aramaic, I.” Babel und Bibel
6 (2012): 421–56.
Macdonald, Michael C. A. “Reflections on the Linguistic Map of Pre-Islamic Arabia.”
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11 (2000): 28–79.
Macdonald, Michael C. A. “Ancient North Arabian.” In The Ancient Languages of
Syria-Palestine and Arabia, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 179–224. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Meyer, Ronny. “On the Internal Classification of Ethiosemitic.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 168 (2018): 93–124.
Pardee, Dennis. “A New Aramaic Inscription from Zincirli.” Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 356 (2009): 51–71.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “The Morphosyntax of Nominal Antecedants in Semitic, and an
Innovation in Arabic.” In Proceedings of the Oslo–Austin Workshop in Semitic
Linguistics, Oslo, May 23 and 24, 2013, edited by Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard,
28–47. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “Digging up Archaic Features: ‘Neo-Arabic’ and Comparative Semitic
in the Quest for Proto Arabic.” In Arabic in Context: Celebrating 400 Years of Arabic
at Leiden, edited by Ahmad Al-Jallad, 441–75. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Pat-El, Na‘ama and Aren Wilson-Wright. “Features of Canaanite: A Reevaluation.”
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 166 (2016): 41–55.
Pat-El, Na‘ama and Aren Wilson-Wright. “Features of Aramaeo-Canaanite.” Journal of

the American Oriental Society 138 (2018).
Rubin, Aaron D. “The Classification of Hobyot.” In Semitic Languages in Contact, edited
by Aaron Michael Butts, 311–32. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Rubin, Aaron D. Omani Mehri: A New Grammar with Texts. Studies in Semitic Languages
and Linguistics 93. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Sommerfeld, Walter. “Prä-Akkadisch: Die Vorläufer der ‘Sprache von Akkade’ in der
frühdynastischen Zeit.” In Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited by L. Kogan et al., vol. 1, 77–163.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Steiner, Richard C. Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the Pyramid Texts. Harvard
Semitic Studies 61. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Streck, Michael P. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, Band
1: Die Amurriter, die onomastische Forschung, Orthographie und Phonologie,
Nominalmorphologie. Münster: Ugarit, 2000.
Weninger, Stefan. “Ethio-Semitic in General.” In The Semitic Languages: An International
Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2011.
Weninger, Stefan et al. (eds.). The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook.
Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin: de Gruyter
Mouton, 2011.
CHAPTER 2
SEMITIC AND AFRO-ASIATIC GENE GRAGGSEMITIC AND AFRO-ASIATIC
Gene Gragg
1 INTRODUCTION
By the mid-19th century, a number of scholars were already convinced that certain
languages and language families of Africa, specifically Ancient Egyptian and Coptic,
the Berber languages of North Africa, and newly discovered Cushitic languages in and
around the Horn of Africa might be historically related as “sister languages” to Semitic
(Lottner 1860). These languages were sometimes grouped together under the term “Ham-
itic,” which was extended by some authors to include Hausa and a number of related lan-
guages in the Lake Chad area (as well as, by others, to some highly unlikely candidates
such as Bushman or Hottentot, included on the basis of ethnographic aprioris, or isolated
or purely typological resemblances). In 1947, in an important synthesis of previous work
and work done by himself and his colleagues through the 1930s, Marcel Cohen proposed
521 sets of what he considered to be plausible “Hamito-Semitic” lexical cognates, using
the best available Semitic, Egyptian, Berber and Cushitic sources – and now including, if
tentatively, more than 60 items from Hausa.
The scene for contemporary scholarship in this area was set by Joseph Greenberg
and I. M. Diakonoff. In a series of articles in the 1950s, published as a single mono-
graph in 1963, Greenberg, in the context of a project aimed at a “complete genetic clas-
sification of the languages of Africa” (p. 1), proposed grouping the languages of Africa
into six super-families. Although there has been criticism of his method and some of
his groupings, his position on Hamito-Semitic, which essentially confirms and continues
that of Marcel Cohen, was widely accepted. Specifically Greenberg proposed: (a) that
Hausa needs to be considered, not in isolation, but together with “the other languages
in the [Lake Chad] area to which Hausa is clearly related” (p. 45; Greenberg lists 111
Chadic languages); (b) that “the language family traditionally named Hamito-Semitic
has five coordinate branches: (1) Semitic, (2) Berber, (3) Ancient Egyptian, (4) Cushitic,
(5) Chad” (p. 48; the traditional sub-family, western Cushitic, cited by Greenberg, is now
widely, but not universally, considered to be a sixth coordinate branch, Omotic); (c) that
in view of the outdated racial and ethnic connotations of the term Hamitic, and the fact
that it “does not refer to any valid linguistic entity . . . I suggest the name Afroasiatic for
this family as the only one found both in Africa and in Asia” (p. 50). Note that Greenberg
used the term “Afroasiatic” in the first naming of the phylum, but that in the years there-
after would use alternatively “Afroasiatic” (Greenberg 1955) and “Afro-Asiatic” (Green-
berg 1952, 1960). In this collection we have preferred the hyphenated form, both because
it more closely parallels the most common usage for, e.g., “Indo-European,” and more
explicitly underscores the geographical coverage of this widely extended super-family.
Taking up, as it were, the challenge of this family, and more-or-less within the parameters
proposed by Greenberg, Diakonoff proposed (1965, extensively revised in 1988) the first,
Semitic and Afro-Asiatic 23
MAP 2.1 APPROXIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF AFRO-ASIATIC LANGUAGE FAMILIES (OTHER

THAN SEMITIC)
and to date only real attempt at, a comprehensive comparative grammar of Afro-Asiatic
(his “Afrasian”); in addition, with the help of the research group he formed in Leningrad/
St. Petersburg, Diakonoff began the ongoing systematic collection of material for a “His-
torical Comparative Vocabulary of Afrasian” (Diakonoff et al. 1993: 97; cf. Orel and
Stolbova 1995).
The remainder of the present overview will consist of the following: (a) a rapid geo-
graphic (see Map 2.1) and demographic survey of the non-Semitic families which have
been identified as belonging to the Afro-Asiatic super-phylum; and (b) a brief discussion
of what it might mean linguistically and historically to claim that Semitic is a member of
this phylum.
2 THE AFRO-ASIATIC LANGUAGE PHYLUM

Describing a rough circle through the northern half of Africa, from west to east, and back
again, the language families identified as Afro-Asiatic are Berber, Egyptian, Cushitic,
Omotic and Chadic.
2.1 Berber
Berber is a set of closely related languages (older descriptive traditions even like to speak
of one Berber language spread over many dialects) spoken in North Africa by perhaps
24 Gene Gragg
16 million persons in a kind of “discontinuous continuum” (Kossmann 2012: 18, who

compares the differences among Berber languages to those of the Romance language
family), i.e., an older continuum broken up by an overlay of now-majority Arabic since
the invasions of the 7th century ce. To the north and east (naming explicitly only a few of
the better known varieties), apart from an isolated small outlier community in southern
coastal Mauritania (Zenaga), varieties of Berber spoken for the most part in village and
small farming communities, stretch from southern Atlantic coastal Morocco (Tashelhiyt)
and up the Atlas chain (Tamazight), over the Rif mountains and the Mediterrnean coastal
regions of northern Morocco (Tarifit) and Algeria (Kabyle), to the border near Tunisia
(Tachawit) and to isolated oasis communities in Libya and Egypt. To the south, the other
major group, varieties spoken by the traditionally nomadic Tuareg (Tamasheq, etc.),
stretch across large areas of the southern Sahara from Mali to Niger, Algeria and Libya.
In addition to the living (or very recently extinct) varieties, there are two older attes-
tations of a Berber, or Berber-related, variety. One is contained in more than a thousand
short so-called Libyco-Berber inscriptions scattered across North Africa and as far as
the Canary Islands. They are written in a indigenously developed script (tifnagh, a vari-
ety of which is still in use among certain Tuareg), and the oldest seem to date to the
2nd century bce (Pichler 2007). The other variety is Guanche, a language of the Canary
Islands, poorly documented, and extinct since the 17th century. Although Libico-Berber
and Guanche seem clearly related to Berber, not enough is known about them to say
whether they are simply older representatives of the contemporary Berber continuum,
or coordinate branches of a more complex Berber language family within Afro-Asiatic.
Earlier comparative Berber scholarship either tended to think of Berber as a single
language to begin with (Basset 1952), or worked from a single, more conservative variety
(for example, Tuareg, as in Prasse’s monumental 1972–74 work), but genuinely compara-
tive studies are beginning to appear (Kossmann and Suchard 2018). Comparative lexical
work has been started in Nait-Zerrad (1998).
2.2 Egyptian
Egyptian, the longest continuously attested language known, was spoken for more than
four millennia in the Nile valley and delta from about 3000 bce to 1300 ce. On the basis of
its grammatical evolution it can be divided into two major periods (Loprieno and Müller
2012).
1 Earlier Egyptian: 3000–1300 bce, characterized by complex suffix-based mor-

phology and largely VSO word order. Subphases of this period are Old Egyptian
(3000–2000 bce – texts of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, e.g.,
“Pyramid Texts,” rock tomb “autobiographies”) and Middle Egyptian (2000–1300
bce – Middle Kingdom to the end of Dynasty XVIII; the “Classical” stage of the
language, for religious and literary purposes, Middle Egyptian, remained normative
down into the Greco-Roman period).
2 Later Egyptian: 1300 bce–1300 ce, Dynasty XIX to the Middle Ages where we
see a gradual transition from “analytic” suffixal morphology to more “synthetic”
prefixal and proclitic, with periphrastic indication of grammatical function and
largely SVO syntax. The three subphases of this period are as follows: Late Egyptian
(1300–700 bce, Dynasty XIX literary texts and extensive Ramesside bureaucratic
archive), Demotic (700 bce–400 ce, with a change of the writing system from hier-
atic to the even more cursive demotic, for writing administrative documents of phar-
aonic Late Period to Late Antiquity), Coptic (400–1300 ce, the written language of
Christian Egypt, with biblical translations and liturgical and other texts written in a
Greek-derived alphabet, using demotic characters for sounds not found in Greek).
As far as can be determined from the extant documentation, Egyptian at any given period
seems to have been relatively uniform and without major dialectal differences. This
remains true even in the Coptic period, where there are in fact recognized, but compara-
tively minor, dialect distinctions (Sahidic in Upper Egypt, Boharic in the delta, Fayyumic
and Akhmimic in more restricted locations).
Utilization of Egyptian for comparative purposes is of course handicapped by a writing
system which, until the adoption of the Coptic alphabet, had no representation for vowels,
with the paradoxical (potentially circular) result that, apart from what can be gleaned
by internal reconstruction and loan word phonology, the vocalic portions of potentially
cognate lexemes, morphemes and paradigms have to be in large part themselves already
the product of comparative reconstruction. That said, Egyptian was the first non-Semitic
branch of Afro-Asiatic to be intensively studied by European scholarship, and, given its
geographic proximity to and chronological overlaps with Semitic, as might be expected
there is an abundant literature on comparisons and contacts between the two (cf. in gen-
eral Schenkel 1990). Much less information is forthcoming from Egyptian interactions
withtheir other neighbors: Nubian (clearly not Afro-Asiatic), Meroe (probably not), the
Blemyes (most likely Cushitic Beja) and the Libyans (circumstantially Afro-Asiatic, but
little linguistic evidence in the texts). There is also finally a large recent literature on mor-
phological and syntactic developments within Egyptian (cf. the synthesis by Loprieno
1995), as well as on the internal lexical evolution leading to Coptic (Černý 1976). The
place of Egyptian within Afro-Asiatic is discussed by, among others, Satzinger (1997,
2004), and an exhaustive, if not always universally accepted compilation of already pro-
posed and new Egyptian etymologies is underway in Takács (1999–2008).
2.3 Cushitic
The 30-odd Cushitic languages are a very diverse group, which can be divided into four
groups, partially on geographic, partially on linguistic criteria.
Proceding from north to south, first come two relatively self-contained language/dia-
lect groups:
Beja (Bedawiye, “North Cushitic”) is spoken by about 3,000,000 individuals belong-

ing to various groups living in the Red Sea coastal plain and hills, between the
Egyptian-Sudanese border and northern Eritrea. More or less significant differences
have been observed in speech standards spoken by different tribes. The varieties
about which information has made its way into the literature are, from north to south:
the Bishari, south of Aswan; the Hadendiwa, Halenga, and Arteiga, in the vicinity
of Suakin and Port Sudan; in northern Eritrea, the Beni Amir. It is not clear to what
extent these varieties constitute genuinely distinct dialects.
Agaw (“Central Cushitic”) is a group of closely related languages spoken now
by perhaps 500,000 individuals in isolated pockets on the Ethiopian plateau, and
26 Gene Gragg
supposedly forming the substrate of Ethiopian Semitic, introduced from southern

Arabia, and developed in the area during the first millennium bce. The principal
Agaw languages are Bilin, western Eritrea around Keren; Xamta and Xamir, in the
Wag and Lasta areas of Ethiopia; Quara (“Falasha”), Kemant and Kunfal toward the
west; and Awnji, which represents the southern pocket of Agaw, in Agawmǝdǝr and
Demot, north of the Blue Nile.
East Cushitic, further south, refers collectively to a succession of relatively
coherent groups of languages stretching in a chain down from the Danakil depression
on the Red Sea, down the Rift Valley into Kenya, spilling over to the east over the
Horn of Africa, and in the west into southwest Ethiopia.
Saho-Afar – Two closely related languages spoken by about 2,000,000 people in

adjoining areas of Djibouti, Eritrea and Ethiopia.
Omo-Tana – A large sub-family covering most of the Horn of Africa east
of the Rift, from Djibouti, over eastern Ethiopia and Somalia and into northeast
Kenya, east of Lake Turkana. The best-known language of this family is Somali,
with perhaps 16,000,000 speakers in its several varieties.
Oromoid – A number of languages spoken originally around the Rift lakes in
mid-Ethiopia, now with extension into Kenya. From the 15th century on, in one
of the great population movements in African history, the Oromo moved out of
this region to occupy much of southern and central Ethiopia, and made of Oromo,
with more than 20,000,000 speakers, the language with one of the largest, if not
the largest populations of native speakers in Ethiopia.
Highland – A cluster of five languages spoken by perhaps 5,000,000 people
south and west of the Oromoid in the Rift lakes region.
Dullay – With Yaaku, now extinct, this is much less well-understood group
of languages spoken in southwestern Ethiopia on either side of the Weyto River.
South Cushitic is, finally, southernmost extension of Cushitic, consisting of

Dahalo, spoken in southern Kenya, plus several languages in the northern Tanza-
nia Rift Valley. The most widespread of the latter, Iraqw, is spoken by nearly half
a million people. The other half-dozen languages a spoken by smaller isolated (for
the most part actual or former hunter-gatherer) populations surviving in the midst of
more recent Nilotic and Bantu speech communities.
Collectively, these four branches (see Omotic for what was, and by some still is, con-
sidered to be a fifth “western”) are generally considered to constitute the Afro-Asiatic
“Cushitic” node. The nature of this grammatically fairly uniform, if lexically quite
diverse, node is of course subject to a fair amount of debate. Beja, in some respects the
most archaic of the Cushitic languages, has sometimes been considered to be an indepen-
dent Afro-Asiatic node in its own right, while Highland East Cushitic has been proposed
as coordinate with, rather than subordinate to, the rest of East Cushitic (which in some
accounts then becomes collectively Lowland East Cushitic); on the other hand, on the
grounds of its morphology, South Cushitic is sometimes co-opted into East Cushitic (all
of these options considered in Hetzron 1980; rejoinders in Zaborski 1997 and Appleyard
2004).
An excellent overview of Cushitic is available in Mous (2012). Lexical and grammat-
ical reconstructions are now available for some Cushitic sub-families: Agaw (Appleyard
1987, 2006), Highland East Cushitic (G Hudson 1989), East Cushitic as a whole (Sasse
1979, 1980, 1982) and South Cushitic (Kiessling 2002, Kiessling and Mous 2003). While
within Cushitic one finds grammatically the same striking similarities of pronominal
and verbal inflection (with the notable shift from prefix- to suffix-conjugation) as one
does in Afro-Asiatic as a whole, no real grammatical reconstruction has been attempted.
And on the lexical level, in spite of separate branch reconstructions, reconstruction of
Proto-Cushitic as a whole has been much more elusive. While there are clear lexical
cognates shared by the various branches of Cushitic, it has proved especially hard to
find “Proto-Cushitic” lexical items representing clear shared innovations in Cushitic, as
opposed to being equally candidates for Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Orel and Stolbova in their
Afro-Asiatic dictionary, wondering whether “Cushitic is an areal but not a genetic union,
A Sprachbund of certain Hamito-Semitic dialects” (1995: x), present “Cushitic” material
under the different branches separately; a similar view of Cushitic is suggested in Bender
(1997: 25–7). In light of this, many “Proto-Cushitic” lexical reconstructions of Dolgop-
ol’sky (1973) and Ehret (1987) have not found widespread acceptance as such.
2.4 Omotic
The term Omotic is used for some two dozen still incompletely described languages in
southwestern Ethiopia, for the most part along the Rift Valley lakes Abaya, Ch’amo,
and Chew Bahir, in the watershed of the Omo River, which empties into Lake Turkana
west of the Rift Valley. It is the branch about which we know the least, and whose status
raises the greatest problems. For a long time referred to as “West Cushitic,” a series of
studies in the 1960s convinced many investigators that Omotic is an independent branch
of Afro-Asiatic, either coordinate with the other five, or a separate branching alongside
the other five. A clear separation has been recognized between a southern branch (the
so-called Aroid: Aari, Dime, Banna, Hamar, Karo), more influenced by long contact
with neighboring Nilotic languages to the west in the same Omo watershed, and a better
explored North Omotic (with the Ometo languages just west of the Rift lakes, and the
long-known Yemsa [Janjero], Gimira, Shinasha, Mao and Kafa); it is still unclear whether
the so-called Dizoid languages farther to the west should be more associated with North
or South Omotic. Further hypotheses have split North and South Omotic into two distinct
families, with either or both being denied Afro-Asiatic status.
We now have monograph-size overviews of Omotic lexicon and phonology (Bender
2000) and morphology (Bender 2002), and most researchers are in agreement about the
unity of Omotic as a language family and its Afro-Asiatic status (cf. surveys of Hayward
2009 and Amha 2012, but note Theil 2012). In the present context, although Omotic
data will provide little of direct relevance to Semitic, it can serve as an illustration of an
extreme case for Afro-Asiatic differentiation.
2.5 Chadic
The Chadic language family, the largest and typologically most diverse of Afro-Asiatic,
consists of between 140 and 160 languages, of which “only about 40 have been described,
and most of these have been the subject of only one descriptive work” (Frajzyngier and
Shay 2012: 242). Apart from the breakout Hausa, most Chadic languages are located in
the southern part of the Chad Basin, in the sub-Sahelian so-called Sudanian Savanna.
28 Gene Gragg
They are roughly situated in a Chadic rectangle, a space which they share with a number
of other language families: from a point just south of Lake Chad, extend a line about
750 km to the west and 750 km to the east, and make a parallel line about 600 km to the
south, yielding a rectangle extending from northeastern Nigeria, through the northern-
most “panhandle” (“Far North Region”) of Cameroon, and into southwestern Chad. With
the exception of Hausa, which has more than 20 million native speakers mainly in north-
ern Nigeria and Niger, and is used as a second language by many more throughout west
and central Africa, “only about eight languages have as many as 100,000 speakers,” and
some fewer than 1,000 (Frajzyngier and Shay 2012: 237). The distribution of speakers
of Chadic languages, as given in Simons and Fennig (2017), is approximately 4,360,000
native speakers in Nigeria (again, without Hausa), just under one million in Cameroon,
and 1,434,000 in Chad.
As far as sub-classification is concerned, the three major branches of Chadic (New-
man 1977, 1990) correlate roughly with geographical distribution. These are (using
figures from Newman’s total of 146 explicitly named languages) as follows: a West
Branch in eastern Nigeria (55 languages) which includes the Hausa homeland; a Cen-
tral (“Biu-Mandara”) Branch spanning northwestern-most Nigeria and the northern
Cameroon Mandara mountains (57 languages); and an East Branch (28 languages)
in southwestern Chad. A smaller fourth branch, the Masa Branch, once classified
with the Central Branch, has six languages in a corner of southwestern Chad near
Cameroon.
Much historical work on Chadic has been accomplished; however without more
descriptive work on the ground a reliable grammatical reconstruction of Proto-Chadic as
such remains a task for the future. That said, this very large family has seemed amenable
to lexical reconstruction, more so than, for example, Cushitic. A beginning of this work
for the whole family was already sketched out in Newman and Ma (1966) and Newman
(1977); a compilation of Chadic lexical roots was made by Jungraithmayr and Ibrisz-
mow (1994), and a full-fledged etymological dictionary has been proposed by Stolbova
(2016). An interesting historical-archeological perspective on the distribution of Chadic
languages is provided by MacEachern (2017).
3 SOME AFRO-ASIATIC FEATURES IN SEMITIC

A systematic comparison of Semitic with a presumed “Proto-Afro-Asiatic” grammar
and lexicon is obviously well beyond what is possible now, or perhaps ever. However,
bracketing phonology and syntax, where areal and typological pressures abound on the
one hand and much intermediate spadework remains to be done, there are in morphol-
ogy a number of striking Semitic-Afro-Asiatic correspondences – which, moreover,
have been consistently foregrounded in virtually all characterizations of “Hamitic/
Afro-Asiatic,” going back to the time of Lottner and earlier. These are above all the
patterns of person-number-gender marking in the pronominal, nominal and verbal
morphology, coupled with evidence for a more-or-less pronounced root-and-pattern
type marking of other grammatical distinctions particularly in the verbal morphology.
There is also no lack of convincing lexical cognates, even if, for various reasons, the
clear cases are relatively more limited and differences of opinion for the moment much
greater.
3.1 Morphology
3.1.1 Pronominal sets
Although there is no real consensus on what the set of reconstructed “Proto-Afro-Asiatic”
independent and affix pronouns might look like, an idea of the range and overlap of
the relevant data can be gathered from a selection of the independent (col. 1) and affix
(col. 2; usually direct object or possessive) pronouns from the major branches of each of
the constituent families of Afro-Asiatic (Tables 2.1–2.3). Without trying to cover every
detail, even in this sample we can detect the kind of patterns of interlocking systematic
sound meaning correspondences that have always been considered to be at the core of any
reliable proof of linguistic relatedness.
Globally, reading across persons, we note correspondences in the following.
First:
In Table 2.1 in Semitic there is a base an- for the 1sg independent pronoun alternating
with suffix form consisting centrally of an -i vowel; for the 1pl there is a form involving
nV(ħ)n-. This pattern is repeated in Egyptian and Berber; note also a suffixed -k- element
in the singular in Akkadian, Egyptian and Berber (Berber proposed *ənakkw, Appleyard
2003a: 25). Essentially the same 1sg/pl pattern then carries through for Cushitic, even in
the case of Beja, which otherwise has refashioned the independent 2/3 pronouns on a base
bar- with suffix persons. Note possibly also the ni in cols. 1, 2 of Hausa and 2 of Mubi.
Second singular:
In the 2nd person, a Semitic an-t- base finds echo in Cushitic V(n)t-, and perhaps in
Egyptian nt- (but here, also as 3rd person base). The correlation of V(n)t- with a 2nd per-
son suffix -kV in Semitic, Egyptian and Cushitic is probably the most notable interlock-
ing sound meaning pattern in Afro-Asiatic. The -k- affix form is also present in Berber,
Chadic and Cushitic, and has been incorporated into the independent form in Egyptian
and Beja, and constitutes the independent form in Berber, South Cushitic and Chadic.
The -a ~ -i masc ~ fem marker is also repeated across the phylum in the pronoun (but note
the -m 2f marker in Berber, also present as general 2pl suffix in the verb subj agreement
markers), and in the Beja verb subject agreement affixes (Table 2.5).
3rd person:
This is diverse, but a -s- element (varying with -h- in Semitic) predominates across the
phylum. The -t- that appears in the feminine in Berber and Chadic reappears as -t- fem. in
verb subject agreement and in the nominal gender system.
Plural:
In the plural, 1st person has a distinctive n(Vn) across the phylum, and rather than being
distinctively plural, can almost be characterized as a fourth person. Note that Burunge
(South Cushitic) has added some additional material (Kiessling 2002: 291, reconstructs
an ancestral *ha:nti(ra)). The real plurals are 2nd and 3rd person, where the personal
marker, both independent and affix, tends to correlate with the -nt-/-k- ~ -s- of the
TABLE 2.1 INDEPENDENT AND AFFIX PRONOUNS: SEMITIC, EGYPTIAN, BERBER
PNG Akkadian Arabic Middle Egyptian Coptic Berber Berber (Ghadames)

(Tashelhiyt)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
sg 1 c ana:ku -i:~ja (-Vnni) ʔana -i:, -ni: ἰn-k -ἰ (wỉ) ano-k -i nkki -i nǎʃʃ -i
sg 2 m at-ta -ka ʔan-ta -ka nt-k -k nto-k -k- kiji -k ʃǎgg -ək
sg 2 f at-ti -ki ʔan-ti -ki nt-ṯ -ṯ ~ -t nto-Ø -Ø- kmmi -m ʃǎmm -əm
sg 3 m ʃu: -ʃu -hu nt-f -f (sw) nto-f -f- ntta -s nitto -əs
sg 3 f ʃi: -ʃa hija -ha: nt-s -s (sy) nto-s -s- ntta-t -s nittát -əs
pl 1 c ni:nu: -ni naħnu -na: ἰn-n -n ano-n -n- nkkwni -nx nǎkkǎnén -nǎʕ
pl 2 m at-tunu -kunu ʔan-tum -kum kwnni -un ʃəkwén -wən
nt-ṯn ~ nt-tn – ṯn ~ -tn nt-ôtn – tn-
pl 2 f at-tina -kina ʔan-tunna -kunna kwnnin-t -un-t ʃəkmatén -əkmǎt
pl 3 m ʃunu -ʃunu hum -hum nttni -sn əntənén -sǎn
nt-sn – sn nto-ou – ou-
pl 3 f ʃina -ʃina hunna -hunna nttn-ti -sn-t əntnatén -əsnǎt
TABLE 2.2 INDEPENDENT AND AFFIX PRONOUNS: CUSHITIC
PNG Beja Bilin Tsamakko Ala:ba Somali Burunge

(Beniamer) (Agaw) (E. Cushitic) (Highland E. (Omo-Tana E. (S. Cushitic)
Cushitic) Cushitic)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
sg 1 c aní -u: ʔan jə ʔano -a:ju ʔáni -ʔe aní-ga i ʔana -aj
sg 2 m barú:k -ú:k(a) -a:ko ʔugu ~ ʔu -o:gi
ʔənti kwə ʔato ʔáti – ki adí-ga ku
sg 2 f batú:k -ú:k(i) -a:ki ʔigi ~ ʔi -o:gu
sg 3 m barú:s ni ni ʔufo -u:su ʔísi -si isá-ga _ -osi
– ūs ʔina ~ ʔină
sg 3 f batú:s nəri nər ʔise -i:si ʔíse -se ijá-da -osi
pl 1 c hinín -ūn jən jəna ʔine -a:ni náʔu -nne anná-ga \ na \ dandiraj -o:ʔina
inná-ga ina
pl 2 m bará:kna
– ú:kna ʔəntən ʔənta ʔatunɗe – a:kunɗe ʔáʔnu – kiʔne idín-ka idin ʔunkuraj – o:guna
pl 2 f batá:kna
pl 3 m bará:sna
– ú:sna naw na ʔufunɗe – u:sunɗe ʔíssa – ssa ijá-ga _ ʔinaj – o:ri
pl 3 f batá:sna
32 Gene Gragg
TABLE 2.3 INDEPENDENT AND AFFIX PRONOUNS: OMOTIC AND CHADIC
PNG Yemsa Aari Hausa Hdi Mubi

(North Omotic) (South Omotic) (West Chadic) (Central Chadic) (East Chadic)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
sg 1 c tá -ná ~ -tà- ʔitá ʔí(m) ni: ni íí í (íju)

ndé ní
sg 2 m kai ka kám ká
né – né- a:ná áa(m) ká (ɣá) ɣá (ká)
sg 2 f ke: ki kín kí
sg 3 m bár -bá- nó(o) kí(m) ʃi: ʃi ár à
tsátsí Ø, n (tsi)
sg 3 f bàr -bà- náa kó(m) ita ta tír dì
pl 1 c innò -nì- wo(o)tá wó(m) mu: mu ámú~áŋní mú~ŋní áná~éné á
pl 2 c nittò -nitì- jetá yé(m) ku: ku káɣúní kúní kéné ká(n)
pl 3 c bassó -bessí- ketá ké(m) su: su xáxən xən kér kà
Notes: Aari (Hayward 1990: 448, 451): Independent vs. object pronoun (with -m), subject (without -m)
[underlined vowels are with breathy voice; IPA = double underdot]. Cf. Bender (2000: 163).
Hausa (Newman 2000: 476, 487): Independent non-subject vs. Strong object (p. 486, weak subject – com-
bines with TAM).
Hdi (Frajzyngier 2002: 83, 124, 135).
Mubi (Jungraithmayr 2013: 55): Preposed subject Independent (ipl = inc~ex) vs. preposed subject/object.
respective singulars, and where the plurality is marked, across the phylum, by -n (sec-
ondarily by -u, especially in Chadic).
In all of this, Omotic is the outlier. Some correlation can possibly be made in the plural
forms of North Omotic, but the singular is a classic puzzle. The anomaly of 1~2 t(a)~(ne),
instead of roughly the other way around, has been noted by researchers in this domain
for nearly a century, and constitutes one of the bases for separating Omotic from Cushitic
in the first place. Hayward (2009: 89, 91) does show a reasonable path from something
like Afro-Asiatic *(a)n- ~ *ta to the attested forms, but much more contxt would have to
be given. South Omotic is even more problematic, and it has been suggested that some
or all pronominal forms are Nilotic in origin, pushing off some more definitive judgment
on this matter into a future where both language families will be much better known and
evaluable.
3.1.2 Verbal morphology: subject-agreement affixes

Clearly related to the pronominal system are the special systems for marking subjects of
verbs in some or all tense–aspect–mood (TAM) configurations.
Some of the systems are somewhat removed from what we find in Semitic. Perhaps
the simplest system is presented by the Egyptian nonstative conjugations in which a pro-
nominal subject, required only when a nominal subject is not present, is indicated by a
suffix pronoun (the Egyptian column 2 in Table 2.1) attached to a simple, geminated or
augmented stem – the vocalism of which is of course not apparent in the Egyptian writing
system. Thus, 3ms forms with f are: sḏm-f ‘he hears’, sḏm-n-f ‘he heard’, sḏm-jn-f ‘(then)
he heard’. In Chadic, typically a promominal form, preceding or following the verb,
serves as a base for clitics and/or tone pattern indicating TAM categories. Many patterns
exist, but cf. Hausa verb forms with 2ms ka: ka: zo: ‘you came’, ka zo: ‘(that) you came’,
kà zo: ‘come!’, kàna:’ zo: ‘you are coming’. Finally, Omotic verbal inflection usually
involves affixing or cliticizing combinations of pronominal elements and TAM markers.
The basic patterns globally resemble those of the Cushitic suffix conjugations, but cannot
be reduced to them. An analysis would take us too far from Semitic, but, to get an idea,
compare the paradigms of the Yemsa suffixing perfect in Table 2.4, present progressive,
and future of the verb am ‘go’:
TABLE 2.4 TENSE/PNG INFLECTION IN YEMSA (OMOTIC)
PNG Perfect PresProgessive Future
sg 1 c am-í-n am-difán am-a-ná

2 c am-í-t am-difát am-a-tà
3 m am-í am-difé am-a-ná
f am-ì am-difà am-a-nà
pl 1 c am-nì am-difenì am-a-nì
2 c am-tí am-difetí am-a-tí ~ am-o-tí
3 c am-seté am-difé am-soné
By way of contrast, for Semitic, Berber and Cushitic, as well as (partially) Egyptian,
there are two patterns of subject agreement showing not only the kind of interlocking
form-meaning homology that implies relatedness, but also potentially some conceivable
sub-branching configuration within Afro-Asiatic.
3.1.2.1 The “stative” conjugation

A distinct “stative” conjugation has long been recognized in Akkadian, Egyptian and
Berber, and its existence of such a distinct conjugation has been more recently pointed
out in Cushitic (Banti 1987). Functionally the stative covers a lot of ground in each fam-
ily, but a common “expression of state/result” can be taken as one aspect of its semantic
core, which can branch out into expressions of completion, action in the past, etc. As
is explained in Chapter 3, §3.5.4, the suffix, mainly past-tense, conjugations of West
Semitic have been historically linked by some to a Proto-Semitic, Akkadian-like stative
conjugation.
The first two columns of Table 2.5 indicate the morphological make-up of this conju-
gation in Akkadian and Egyptian – basically some adjectival/participial form of the verb
(the details of this are obviously hidden in Egyptian by the vowel-less hieroglyphic writ-
ing system) to which is suffixed/cliticized what might be plausibly considered a reduced
form of the independent pronoun, without the -an-/-nt- base, and with suffixed -a:-, at
least in Akkadian (see Table 2.1). The other two families, however, show significant dif-
ferences in the morphology of this grammatical category.
Thus the Berber stative is quite distinctive within Berber verbal morphology. In the
first place, it involves exclusively suffixing, as opposed to the primarily prefixing nature
of finite verb morphology, outside of the imperative, in Berber. The 2/3sg morphology
lines up, to an extent, with Semitic and Egyptian, but it is difficult to link plausibly the
1sg -ăʕ(<*Vγ), which is also the 1sg affix in the “prefixing” conjugation, on the basis of
34 Gene Gragg
TABLE 2.5 STATIVE CONJUGATION PERSON MARKERS
PNG Akkadian Egyptian Berber Afar
1 c pars-a:ku sḏm-kw măttit-ăʕ miʕ-ijo-h

sg 2 m pars-a:ta
sḏm-tj măttit-ət miʕ-ito-h
f pars-a:ti
3 m paris sḏm-w măttit meʕ-e-h
f pars-at sḏm-tj măttit-ăt meʕ-e-h
1 c pars-a:nu sḏm-wjn miʕ-ino-h
pl 2 m pars-a:tunu
sḏm-tjwnj măttit-it miʕ-ito:nu-h
f pars-a:tina
3 m pars-u:
sḏm-wj moʕ-o:nu-h
f pars-a:
present knowledge, with the Akkadian and Egyptian -ku-; the 1/2/3pl suffix -it is without
parallel in Berber pronominal (or nominal) morphology. The Afar stative, which does
happen to occur only as a suffix conjugation, lines up more with Cushitic subordinate/rel-
ative clause morphology (cf. however the arguments in Banti 2004, who argues for a con-
nection). Nevertheless, this striking Akkadian-Egyptian grammatical homology, which
was noted very early in the comparative study of the two languages, has been claimed
as one of the arguments for an especially close historical relation between Semitic and
Egyptian.
3.1.2.2 The prefix conjugation

But a more remarkable morphological homology is found in the so-called prefix con-
jugation, which involves Semitic, Berber and Cushitic (Table 2.6). In this system, the
verb takes a prefix indicating primarily person, secondarily gender and a suffix mark-
ing primarily number, secondarily gender (in Berber 1sg is marked uniquely by a suffix
/-ăʕ~ăγ~ăk etc./, and 2sg usually has suffix /-Vt/ in addition to the /t-/ prefix). The prefix
and suffix material clearly reflects shapes found in some, perhaps oldest/most archaic,
independent pronoun systems.
Although clearly cognate, this way of marking subject is distributed differently, mor-
phologically and lexically, in the three families, Semitic, Berber and Cushitic, where
it is found. In Akkadian and Berber it is the subject agreement mechanism in all TAM
configurations except for a suffixing stative (see §3.1.2.1). In the rest of Semitic it is used
for non-past and modal tenses, as opposed to a primarily past tense suffixing PNG marker
system (which may or may not be derived from the stative; Chapter 3, §3.5.4). In all
branches with prefix-conjugated verbs, all non-PNG TAM distinctions are made by stems
with ablauting (root-and-pattern) vowel and syllabicity patterns.
In Cushitic, on the contrary, where the prefix conjugation is found, the distinction is
lexical – a verbal lexeme, in all its TAM configurations, is conjugated either according
to the prefix pattern or according to the suffix pattern. It is obvious that the prefix conju-
gation is an older pattern that is in the process of being replaced. It is holding its own in
Beja, perhaps the most conservative branch of Cushitic, and in the Saho-After group of
East Cushitic, with several hundred verbal lexemes conjugated according to this pattern
in each language. Small numbers (from 1 to 12) of prefix-conjugated verbs are present
TABLE 2.6 PREFIX CONJUGATION: PERSON MARKERS/STEMS
‘divide’ ‘roast’ ‘collect’ ‘eat’

Akkadian Berber Beja (Prefix Conjugation) Beja (Suffix Conjugation)
Preterite Present Aorist Imperfective “Old “Old “New “Old “Old “New
Past” Present” Present” Past” Present” Present”
(> Aorist) (> Past) (> Present) (> Aorist) (> Past) (> Present)
sg 1 c a-prus a-parras ăknəf-ăʕ əkǎnnǎf-ăʕ ʔ-i:-dbíl ʔ-a-dbíl ʔ-a-danbí:l tam-í tam-án tam-á-n-í
sg 2 m ta-prus ta-parras t-i:-dbíl-a t-i-dbíl-a danbí:l-a tam-t-í:-a tam-t-á: tam-tí-n-ij-a
t-ăknəf-ǝt t-əkǎnnǎf-ǝt
sg 2 f ta-prus-i: ta-parras-i: t-i:-dbíl-i t-i-dbíl-i danbí:l-i tam-t-í: tam-t-á:-ji tam-tí-n-i:
sg 3 m i-prus i-parras j-ăknəf j-əkǎnnǎf ʔ-i:-dbíl ʔ-i-dbíl danbí:l tám-i tam-íj-a tam-íi-n-i
sg 3 f ta-prus ta-parras t-ăknəf t-əkǎnnǎf t-i:-dbíl t-i-dbíl danbí:l tam-t-í: tam-t-á tam-tí-n-i
pl 1 c ni-prus ni-parras n-ăknəf n-əkǎnnǎf n-i:-dbíl n-i-dbíl n-e:-dbíl tám-n-i tám-n-a tám-n-aj
pl 2 m ta-prus-a: a-parras t-ăknəf-ăm t-əkǎnnǎf-ăm
t-i:-dbíl-na t-i-dbíl-na t-e:-dbíl-na tám-t-i:-na tám-t-a:-na tám-t-e:-na
pl 2 f ta-prus-a: ta-parras t-ăknəf-măt t-əkǎnnǎf-măt
pl 3 m i-prus-u: ta-parras-i: ăknəf-ăn əkǎnnǎf-ăn
ʔ-i:-dbíl ʔ-i-dbíl-na ʔ-e:-dbíl-na tám-i:-n tam-íj-a:-n tám-e:-n
pl 3 f i-prus-a: i-parras ăknəf-năt əkǎnnǎf-năt
Note: Beja stress as in Wedekind et al. (2007).

36 Gene Gragg
TABLE 2.7 SUFFIX CONJUGATION: AFAR
PNG ‘open’ Afar
Perfective Imperfective
sg 1 c fak-Ø-e fak-Ø-a
sg 2 c fak-t-e fak-t-a
sg 3 m fak-Ø-e fak-Ø-a
sg 3 f fak-t-e fak-t-a
pl 1 c fak-n-e fak-n-a
pl 2 c fak-t-e:ni fak-t-a:na
pl 3 c fak-Ø-e:ni fak-Ø-a:na
in about eight other Cushitic languages, but in all the other Cushitic languages the prefix
conjugation has been completely replaced by the suffix conjugation pattern. However,
as was realized almost from the beginning of the systematic study of Beja in the 19th
century, the Cushitic suffix conjugation, as opposed to suffix conjugation patterns that
arose in the rest of Afro-Asiatic, is almost certainly simply an encliticized/suffixed pre-
fix-conjugated verb, reduced to a single ablauting vowel (transparently in Beja, compare
the prefix and conjugation forms in Table 2.6, and nearly so in East Cushitic, Table 2.7).
Thus, on this analysis, the Cushitic suffix conjugation is a transformation of, rather than
a replacement of, the prefix conjugation.
Since this highly specific pattern is attested only in Cushitic, Semitic and Berber, we
must wonder whether it represents a preserved archaism, lost in the other branches of
Afro-Asiatic (highly unlikely for Omotic and Chadic, and there is no evidence whether or
not it ever existed in Egyptian), or is on the contrary a shared innovation – which would
be a strong indication that these three families had a common linguistic history, and thus
might constitute a sub-branch within Afro-Asiatic.
An important fact shown about Cushitic, and by extension perhaps about subdivision
in Afro-Asiatic generally, is that, as shown in Table 2.6, Beja seems to have undergone an
independent transformation of its prefix-conjugation tense system, whereby a new pres-
ent (involving prefixed/infixed -n- in the singular and -ee- in the plural) was created, and,
in what Zaborski (1975) calls a “push chain,” the old present became a past, while the old
past took on a new “Aorist” past-tense function. This seems to show that the “Cushitic”
suffix conjugation, generally recognized as being the defining shared morphological
innovation for Cushitic (Tosco 2000, Appleyard 2004) would not have existed as such
in a “Proto-Cushitic,” but might have spread as an inflectional pattern among languages
which would have already gone separate ways in the development of the inherited prefix
conjugation patterns.
3.1.3 Verbal morphology: tense–aspect–mood stem formation

A long-remarked similarity among the languages identified as Afro-Asiatic is the phe-
nomenon referred to as “root-pattern” morphology. Although it exists (and sometimes
abundantly so) in the nominal morphology, it is particularly notable as “spell-out” of
TAM categories in the verbal stems whole PNG affixes are supplied by the pronominal
material displayed in Tables 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6.
Whatever might have been the case in Ancient Egyptian is obviously obscured by the
writing system. That such stem/root-class correlations existed however may be inferred
from the fact that, even though the differences are manifested in the text only indirectly
and sporadically (presence/absence of gemination, writing of a glide, etc.), in order to
account for variations in stem formation in the Egyptian verb (infinitive, imperative, sta-
tive, perfect, etc.) recourse is had traditionally to a Semitic-like root-class system: biliteral
(C1C2), 2nd-geminate (C1C2C2), triliteral (C1C2C3), triliteral – weak (C1C2w/y), triliteral –
geminate (C1C2C3C3), quadriliteral (C1C2C3C4), quadriliteral – weak (C1C2C3w/y), quin-
queliteral (C1C2C3C2C3 / C1C2yC2y). This kind of correlation can be inferred perhaps also
from the regular ablaut pattern which surfaces in Coptic between the “infinitive,” the base
for most finite verb forms, and the so-called qualitative (kôt/kêt ‘build’, mise/mose ‘give
birth’, pôht/paht ‘bend’; and cf. Reintges 1994).
Once more, however, as was the case for subject-agreement patterns, the most intricate
cases come from Semitic, Berber and Cushitic, as displayed in Tables 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10.
Table 2.8 shows a typical distribution of stems and root-forms in Akkadian (the stems
limited here for purposes of illustration to the preterite, present and perfect). The stem
forms are correlated with a root-class schematized as a three-segment sequence. It provides
TABLE 2.8 ROOT CLASS/STEM: AKKADIAN (FORMS ARE 3msg)
Stem Suffix Root Class
‘divide’ ‘seize’ ‘descend’ ‘exist’ ‘bestow’ ‘ask’ ‘fill’ ‘build’ ‘count’

CCC aCC wCC C uC CiC CaC CCa CCi CCu
Preterite -Ø imla ibni imnu

iprus- i:xuz- urid- iku:n- iqi:ʃ- iʃa:l-
-V imlV̂ ibnV̂ imnV̂
Present -Ø ika:n iqi:aʃ iʃa:l imalla ibanni imannu
iparras- ixxaz- urrad-
-V ikunnV iqiʃʃV iʃallV imallV̂ ibannV̂ imannV̂
Perfect -Ø imtala ibtani imtanu
iptaras- i:taxaz- ittarad- iktu:n- iqti:ʃ- iʃta:l-
-V imtalV̂ ibtanV̂ imtanV̂
TABLE 2.9 ROOT CLASS/STEM: BERBER
Stem Root Class
‘roast ‘enter’ ‘throw’ ‘grill’ ‘fell’

vCCvC VCvC vCvC vC2vC vCCVC
Aorist ǎknəf atəf ǎğər ǎddəb ǎṣruw

Perfective əknǎf utǎf əğǎr əddǎb əṣraw
Imperfective əkǎnnǎf əttatǎf əğğǎr əttǎddǎb əṣǎrraw
Neg. perfective əknef utef əğer əddeb –
Neg. əkənnəf əttitəf əğğer əttəddəb –
imperfective
Notes: Ghadames, “First apophonic class”; Kossmann (2013: 64). Forms are those of the stem minus per-
son markings. The root classes are based on form of aorist: v = “central vowel” ǎ, ə; V = “plain vowel” i, e,
a, o, u. This is one of five apophonic classes, each with numerous subclasses – plus set of irregular verbs.
38 Gene Gragg
TABLE 2.10 ROOT CLASS/STEM: CUSHITIC BEJA
Stem Root Class
‘collect’ ‘bring back’ ‘bury’

CCC CCV CVC
Past -dbil- -dgi- -bis-

Aorist -i:-dbil- -di:g- -i:-bis-
Modal -i:-dbil- -da:g- -i:-bis-
Present sg -da-n-bi:l- -da-n-gi- -n-bi:s-
Present pl -e:-dbil- -de:g- -e:-bis-
Negative -dabi:l- -dagi- -bi:s-
in the “ideal” CCC case a complete consonantal skeleton for a completely vocalic “filler”
pattern; in the other root classes one (or possibly more) of the consonantal “slots” is
taken by a vowel or semi-vowel, and the pattern works itself out via some more-or-less
predictable/systematic morphophonemic processes. In Akkadian, and elsewhere, some of
the vocalic root segments are clearly cognate to laryngeal or semi-vocalic root segments
in other Semitic languages, but Semitic scholars (and speakers?) have tended to project
stems historically backwards or teleiotically forward, onto an ideal tri-consonantal root
(with four or even five consonant extensions allowed for).
As can be seen from Tables 2.9 and 2.10, the same kind of stem root-shape correlation
occurs in Berber and Beja, but less clearly tri-consonantal or even tri-segmental than in
Semitic. It remains to be determined whether Semitic represents a starting point, a culmi-
nation or just one possible “solution” in the development of root-stem correlations, but
the drive toward some kind of correlation can clearly be taken as a genetic trait these three
families hold in common (Gragg 2006).
A more restricted kind of root-pattern verbal morphology exists also in Chadic, in
the context of the so-called pluractional stems. This has been studied intensively in
Newman (1990: 118–20), who states that “the essential semantic characteristic of such
verbs is almost always plurality or multiplicity of the verb’s action,” and finds that “the
grammaticalization of the pluractional into a habitual aspect stem is a perfectly natural
development given the intrinsic durative and repetitive meaning of pluractional verbs.”
Stems of this kind are found in West, Central and East Chadic, and involve a number of
morphological processes: prefixal or suffixal reduplication, internal gemination (which is
perhaps reduced internal reduplication), suffixation and (more to our point) ablaut/apoph-
ony/vowel-infixation. Examples of the latter in West Chadic are these:
• Ron/Daffo: mot/mwaát ‘die’

• Kulere: duk/dwáak ‘beat’
• Angas: cen/can ‘cut’, wus/was ‘roast’, ghən/ghan ‘swell’
It remains very much to be determined to what extent a genetic connection can be made
between this and the V → a ablaut, which can be found in certain Berber, Cushitic and
Semitic present-tense stem patterns.
3.1.4 Nominal morphology

3.1.4.1 Gender-number-case affixes
Reflexes of possible cognates to Semitic feminine -t, plural -u/w~Vn, and perhaps also of
nominative -u, accusative -a (Chapter 3, §3.3.2.4) can be found scattered throughout the
other Afro-Asiatic languages.
Without vowels, case is difficult to detect in Egyptian, but gender-number suffixing
(Table 2.11) with *-t feminine and (presumably) *-u plural, as can be seen in the fairly
productive pattern.
Chadic does not seem to use a -t- for feminine noun derivation, and has other mech-
anisms for case-marking, but, out of a very large number of occurring plural suffixes,
Zaborski (1976) points out the Chadic -uXa class of suffixed plurals (Newman 2000:
444–8) as possibly relevant: Hausa kûnnē/kunnuwa: ‘ear/ears’ (cf. also Hayward
2000: 94).
Cushitic does have a -t(-) suffix for derived feminines, and out of the very large
inventory of possible plural suffixes in Cushitic, Zaborski (1976) has argued for the
Afro-Asiatic status of some plural suffixes containing the glide -w- as in Hadiyya kin-a/
kin-uwwa ‘stone/stones’. Cushitic languages moreover do have explicit case systems
which, as opposed to the “unmarked-nominative” type system of Semitic (and most Indo-
European), are predominantly of the “unmarked-accusative” type, with an unmarked,
absolutive, form of the noun used as citation form, direct object, predicate nominal, etc.,
and a marked nominative case used only as subject of verbs (transitive or intransitive).
The basic absolutive ~ nominative contrast in the singular is exemplified in the word-final
-V (very frequently, but not necessarily -a) and the -i/u nominal suffixes of Oromo and
Somali, and the prefixed definite article o:- ~ u:- of Beja (see Table 2.12).
Based on evidence of this kind, and following up on a suggestion of Hetzron
(1980), Sasse (1984) has proposed case endings *-u nominative and *-a accusative for
Proto-Cushitic, and by extension Proto-Afro-Asiatic (cf. Hayward 2000: 88–9, who
TABLE 2.11 EGYPTIAN GENDER-NUMBER SUFFIX
m f
sg sn ‘brother’ sn-t ‘sister’

pl sn-w ‘brothers’ sn-wt ‘sisters’
sg nṯr ‘god’ nṯr-t ‘goddess’
pl nṯr-w ‘gods’ nṯr-wt ‘goddesses’
TABLE 2.12 CUSHITIC CASE AND GENDER
Case Oromo Somali Beja (w. definite article)
‘man’ ‘girl’ ‘bone’ ‘this’ ‘camel’ ‘she-camel’
abs/acc nam-a intal-a laf-a k-a o:-ka:m t-o:-ka:m-t

nom nam-(n)i intal-t-i laf-i k-u u:-ka:m t-u:-ka:m-t
40 Gene Gragg
TABLE 2.13 BERBER GENDER-NUMBER-CASE AFFIXES
‘child’
Num Case Gender
m f
sg absolute a-frux t-a-frux-t

bound u-frux t-frux-t
pl absolute i-frx-an t-i-frx-in
bound i-frx-an t-frx-in
points to some possible traces of a nominative *-u in Omotic, a family otherwise absent
from this grammatical overview).
Finally, it is in Berber that, for large classes of nouns, we find integrated paradigms of
gender-number-case marking (Table 2.13), with (-)t- feminine and -Vn plural. A typical
pattern is from Tashelhiyt (Elmedlaoui 2012: 161).
Most Berber nouns, such as ‘child’, belong to the “affix class” (Kossmann 2012: 50),
which has an obligatory (C)V- prefix coding gender, number and case, and a suffix mark-
ing gender and number. The case, here called “absolute” (traditionally état libre) func-
tionally corresponds roughly to the Cushitic absolutive, the “bound” (traditionally état
d’annexion) however is not only for the subjects of preceding verbs, but also after prep-
ositions (including for possession) and numerals. The prefix coding case is overwhelm-
ingly (-)a- in the absolutive singular; it can vary widely from language to language in the
plural number and bound case, but tends to be in the -i range in the plural, and the -(w)ə
~ -u range in the bound.
3.1.4.2 Internal plurals

One of the earliest grammatical features proposed for Afro-Asiatic was the apophonic
or infixed “internal a-plural” (Greenberg 1955) linking a well-known Semitic pattern
(Chapter 3, §3.3.2.2) with nominal internal inflection in other branches. Plural formations
of this kind are quite well developed in virtually all varieties of Berber, with patterns
basically being the following:
(C)V(C)CV(C) ⇒ (C)[+high](C)Ca(C)
as in Figuig (Kossmann 2007: 434) (Table 2.14).

Plural patterns of this kind occur also in Cushitic (Zaborski 1986), but more sporad-
ically: Beja (usually with short -a- in the plural): ya:s/yas ‘dog’, bo:k/bak ‘he-goat(s)’,
me:k/mak ‘donkey(s)’; Afar (usually with a long vowel in the plural): galab/galo:b-a
‘body’, gulub/gulu:b-a ‘knee’, rigid/rigi:d-a ‘foot’, dik/di:k-a ‘family’, kut/kut-a ‘dog’. In
Chadic, where we have already seen a-ablaut/infixation in the “pluractional” stems, there
are abundant examples of noun plurals of the type: Hausa gulbi:/gulà:be: ‘stream(s)’,
do:kìi/dawa:ki: ‘horse(s)’; Mubi irin/aràn ‘eye’, lè:si/làásà ‘tongue(s)’. Note however
TABLE 2.14 BERBER INTERNAL A-PLURAL
sg pl Gloss
a-γənsu i-γənsa ‘face’

a-jəlzim i-jəlzam ‘hoe’
a-məzwar i-məzwar ‘first’
t-γardəm-t ti-γurdam ‘scorpion’
Newman’s suggestion for Hausa (and Mukulu) that these might be really instances of a
plural suffix -aCi “in which the C slot is being filled by the third consonant of the root”
(1990: 41). In our context we might do well to note also two conclusions that he makes
concerning plural nouns and pluractional verbs (1990: 134):
(f) Even though internal-a noun plurals are widely found in Chadic, the evidence for
reconstructing them back to the P[roto]C[hadic] level is weak.
(f’) If P[roto-]C[hadic] did not have internal-a plurals, what explains their presence
throughout the family? Can one speak sensibly of an Afroasiatic ‘drift’ that pre-
disposes individual Chadic languages to employ vocalic mutation or infixation
for grammatical or morphological purposes?
3.2 Lexical cognates

Potential Afro-Asiatic cognate sets are not hard to come by. Of the two most recent col-
lections, Ehret (1995) has 1,024, and Orel and Stolbova (1995) have 2,672. The problem
is the interpretation and evaluation of phonetic and semantic resemblances over lan-
guages, on the one hand, separated by many millennia of linguistic development, and,
on the other, with many points of both attested and possible pair-wise contact. Ratcliffe
(2012) has given a good overview of the problems involved in these undertakings. It is of
course possible to establish a certain number of interlocking sound-correspondences and
phonetic transformations of the sort familiar from other areas of historical linguistics, and
with further work on the reconstruction of the individual branches more will undoubtedly
emerge – but we still need to work out more principled explanations about the mecha-
nisms by which, after many millennia of separation, such a large proportion of the con-
vincing cognates seem to show virtually identical consonantal correspondences, along
with a nearly equal proportion of seemingly random vowel correspondences. Analogi-
cal restoration after phonetic drift under the strong morphology-driven tendency toward
fashioning vocabulary on a set of CV templates (such as those briefly illustrated above in
connection with verb stem formation in Tables 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10) is undoubtedly part of
the answer. We are far from the detailed explanation we would like, which however does
not seem unattainable.
This said, among the large number of proposed Afro-Asiatic cognates sets, it is not
hard to draw up, as Hayward (2000: 94) suggests, a short selection which “seem unlikely
to be disputed.” A portion of Hayward’s selection, with a sample of data, are found in
Table 2.15.
TABLE 2.15 SOME AFRO-ASIATIC LEXICAL COGNATES
Source *Gloss Semitic Egyptian Berber Cushitic Chadic Omotic
O&S 194 *bak- ‘strike, *buk- ‘squeeze, bk ‘kill (with a *bVk- ‘strike, *bak- *bak- ‘strike, Gamo bak-
squeeze’ tear’ sword)’ pound’ Afar bak beat’ ‘strike’ (RH)
Arabic bkk Tuareg bakkat Wandalaß bak
O&S 639, *dim-/dam- *dam ‘blood’ (cf. ydmy ‘red *dam ‘blood’ (cf. *dim ‘red’ *dam- ‘blood’ *dam- ‘blood’
Ehret 140 ‘blood’ Akkadian damu linen’) Ghadames Oromo di:ma: Bolewa dom Kaffa damo:
dəmm-ən ‘red’) ‘blood’
Aari zomʔi
‘blood’ (RH)
O&S 867, *gad-/gud- ‘be *gad- ‘be *gad- ‘age group, *gad’- ‘old’
Ehret 265 old, elder’ considerable’ generation’ Ngizim gad’e
Arabic gdd- Oromo gada:
Arabic gadd- Burji gad-uwa
‘grandfather, ‘old man’
ancestor’
O&S 911, *gaj- ‘say’ (cf. *gVʕVj- ḏwy ‘call, say’ West *ga(j)- *gaj- ‘say’
Ehret 274 ‘shout’ Hausa gaja Sheko ge
Hebrew gʕj) Aari gai-
O&S 1981, *pir ‘fly, soar’ *pVr- ‘fly, flee’ pry ‘soar, rise’ *fVr- ‘fly’ Beja fir ‘fly’ West *pir- ‘soar’ (cf. Yemsa fìll-
Ehret 51 Ugaritic pr Ahogar fərə-t Agaw *fir- ‘fly’ Hausa fi:ra ‘jump’
Arabic frr Central *pVr- Dime far-)
‘bird’s flight’
Mafa parr, perr
O&S 2304, *sum-/sim- *ʃim- ‘name’ West *sumi- ‘name’
Ehret 220 ‘name’ Akkadian ʃumu Hausa su:na:
Sura sum
East *ɬim(ja)-
‘name’
Ga’anda ɬim
O&S 2413, *-tuf- ‘spit’ *tup- ‘spit’ tf ‘spit’ (C. taf) *tuf/tif ‘spit’ *tuf- ‘spit’
Ehret 162 Aramaic tpp Beja tuf Hausa to:fa:
Arabic tff Kemant təff j- Mubi tuffa
Somali tuf
Notes: O & S = Orel and Stolbova (1995); Ehret = Ehret (1995); RH = Hayward (2000).
4 SEMITIC AS AN AFRO-ASIATIC LANGUAGE FAMILY

Given the evidence just been reviewed, plus the additional material that could easily be
added, it seems clear that an Afro-Asiatic “super-family” exists, and that the Semitic
language family is Afro-Asiatic. The question now becomes this: what exactly are we to
understand by “Afro-Asiatic”?
As far as a period of Afro-Asiatic unity is concerned, a lowest terminus ante quem of
course is given by the historically attested earliest distribution of Semitic and Egyptian
in the fourth millennium bce. Preceding this however must have been a very long period
during which the languages differentiated, peoples moved and the agricultural/animal
husbandry technology associated with them diffused. As for place, it has been common to
argue for an African center for Afro-Asiatic dispersal/diffusion, given the enormous dif-
ferentiation of Afro-Asiatic families in Africa, as opposed to the comparative uniformity
of Semitic, and the apparent relatively late arrival of Semitic in southern Mesopotamia.
A shift of the African center of Afro-Asiatic toward the eastern edge of the continent,
for example the Egyptian Eastern Desert, as Diakonoff (1998) suggests, might correlate
with the “Macro-Cushitic” scenario we are about to review. We might note also that
Militarev (2002), based on an analysis of Afro-Asiatic agricultural vocabulary, would
shift the “homeland” even more to the northeast, to the Natufian Levant. For time and
place together, note Hassan (2002), and especially the conclusions of Bar-Yosef (2002),
according to which early Neolithic agricultural economy would have dispersed from the
northern “core areas” through the Natufian Levant and into northeast Africa around 9000
bce. According to the one scenario or the other reviewed earlier, Afro-Asiatic peoples
thus could plausibly have been either the bearers of this dispersal into Africa, or its first
African recipients.
Various attempts have been made, based on various types of evidence, to detect sub-
grouping in the originally proposed five (later six) coordinate branches. On the basis
mainly of grammatical evidence, more recently, it has often been suggested that the ear-
liest groups to “leave” common Afro-Asiatic were Omotic (perhaps first?) and Chadic.
It has been noted also in a number of discussions that there is a clear primary sharing of
morphological features, especially the prefix conjugation, among Semitic, Cushitic and
Berber (a group designated by Bender 1997, in an unusually refreshing replacement of
Semitic linguistic hegemony by another, as “Macro-Cushitic”), and then of other features
with Egyptian. If the prefix conjugation is a shared innovation, and not participated in by
Egyptian, that would give a tree with the node consisting of the “Macro-Cushitic” node
plus an Egyptian node as coordinate, with independent Omotic and Chadic nodes. But
we certainly need to know a lot more about Omotic, descriptively and comparatively,
before we can decide more surely what features of Omotic might be evidence of primitive
“otherness,” and what might be evidence of more recent intensive Nilotic contact. We
also need more evidence, and better criteria, for being able to determine which putative
diagnostic features, such as the prefix conjugation, are in fact shared innovations, as
opposed to inherited archaisms, yielding classic coherent isoglosses (as required in Het-
zron 1976), and which features might be instances of dialectal variation in Afro-Asiatic
yielding cross-cutting isoglosses (as envisioned also by Hetzron 1990).
In short, much research, archeological and linguistic, stands between us and any cer-
tainty about what exactly we are to understand by “Afro-Asiatic” – what linguistic sub-
stance is to be given to the term, and how the Afro-Asiatic language situation, including
its genesis, is to be modeled.
44 Gene Gragg
REFERENCES
Amha, Azeb. “Omotic.” In The Afroasiatic languages, edited by Zygmunt Frajzyngier
and Erin Shay, 423–504. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Appleyard, David. “A Grammatical Sketch of Khamtanga.” Bulletin of the School of
African and Asian Studies 50 (1987): 241–66, 470–507.
Appleyard, David. “Berber Overview.” In Afrasian: Selected Comparative-Historical
Linguistic Studies in Memory of Igor M. Diakonoff, edited by M. Lionel Bender, David
Appleyard, and Gábor Takács, 23–26. München: Lincom Europa, 2003.
Appleyard, David. “Beja as a Cushitic Language.” In Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic
(Afroasiatic) Studies in Memoriam Werner Vycichl, edited by Gábor Takács, 454–86.
Appleyard, David. A Comparative Dictionary of the Agaw Languages. Köln: Rüdiger
Köppe Verlag, g, 2006.
Banti, Giorgio. “Evidence for a second type of suffix conjugation in Cushitic.” In
Proceedings of the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, Hamburg,
September 20–22, 1983. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Vol. 44), edited by
Herrmann Jungraithmayr and Walter W. Müller, 123–168. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, 1987.
Banti, Giorgio. “New Perspectives on the Cushitic Verbal System.” In Proceedings of
the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (March 22–25,
2001) – Special Session on Afroasiatic Languages, edited by Andrew Simpson, 1–48.
Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2004.
Bar-Yosef, Ofer. “The Natufian Culture and the Early Neolithic: Social and Economic
Trends in Southwestern Asia.” In Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal
Hypothesis, edited by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew, 113–26. Cambridge, UK:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2002.
Basset, André. La Langue Berbère. London, New York: Published for International
African Institute by Oxford University Press, 1952.
Bender, M. Lionel. “Upside-Down Afrasian.” Afrikanistisches Arbeitspapiere 50 (1997):
19–34.
Bender, M. Lionel. Comparative Morphology of the Omotic Languages. Munich: Lincom
Europa, 2000.
Bender, M. Lionel. Comparative Phonology and Lexicon of the Omotic Languages.
Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois, 2002.
Černý, Jaroslav. Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1976.
Cohen, Marcel. Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonetique du hamito-semitiqe.
Paris: Champion, 1947.
Diakonoff, Igor M. et al. “Historical Comparative Vocabulary of Afrasian.” St. Petersburg
Journal of African Studies 1 (1993): 7–16; 3 (1994), 5–26; 4 (1995), 7–38; 5 (1995),
4–32; 6 (1997), 12–36. [cf. 2006 Afrasian Database: http://starling.rinet.ru]
Diakonoff, Igor M. The Semito-Hamitic Languages. Moscow: Nauka, 1965.
Diakonoff, Igor M. The Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.
Diakonoff, Igor M. “The Earliest Semitic Society. Linguistic Data.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 43/2 (1998): 209–19.
Dolgopol’skij, Aaron. Sravnitel”no – istoricheskaja fonetika kushitskix jazykov. Moskow:
Nauka, 1973.
Ehret, Christopher. “Proto-Cushitic Reconstruction.” Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika

8 (1987): 7–180.
Ehret, Christopher. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone,
Consonants, and Vocabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
Elmedlaoui, Mohamed. “Berber.” In Semitic and Afroasiatic: Challenges and
Opportunities, edited by Lutz Edzard, 131–98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Erin Shay. “Chadic.” In The Afroasiatic Languages, edited
by Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Erin Shay, 236–341. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2012.
Gragg, Gene. “The ‘weak, verb’: Akkadian and Beja.” In The Akkadian Language in
Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC,
edited by G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, 19–29. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut
voor het Nabije Oosten, 2006.
Greenberg, Joseph H. “The Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Present.” Journal of the
American Oriental Society 72 (1952): 1–9.
Greenberg, Joseph H. “Internal a-plurals in Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic).” In
Afrikanistische Studien, edited by J. Lukas, 198–204. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1955.
Greenberg, Joseph H. “An Afro-Asiatic Pattern of Gender and Number Agreement.”
Journal of the American Oriental Society 80 (1960): 317–21.
Greenberg, Joseph H. The Languages of Africa. The Hague: Mouton, 1963.
Hassan, Fekri. “Archaeology and Linguistic Diversity in North Africa.” In Examining the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, edited by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew,
127–1343. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2002.
Hayward, Richard. “Afroasiatic.” In African Languages: An Introduction, edited by
Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse, 74–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Hayward, Richard. “What”s been Happening in Omotic?” Journal of Ethiopian Studies.
42 No. 1/2 (2009): 85–106.
Hetzron, Robert. “Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction” Lingua 38 (1976): 89–104.
Hetzron, Robert. “The Limits of Cushitic.” Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 2 (1980):
7–126.
Hetzron, Robert. “Dialectal Variation in Proto-Afroasiatic.” In Linguistic Change and
Reconstruction Methodology, edited by Ph. Baldi, 577–97. Berlin/New York: Mouton
de Gruyter, 1990.
Hudson, Grover. Highland East Cushitic Dictionary. Hamburg: H. Buske, 1989.
Jungraithmayr, Hermann and Dmitri Ibriszimow. Chadic Lexical Roots. Vol. 1: Tentative
Reconstruction, Grading, Distribution, and Comments; Vol. 2: Documentation. Berlin:
Reimer, 1994.
Kiessling, Roland, and Maarten Mous. The Lexical Reconstruction of West-Rift Southern
Cushitic. Köln: Köppe Verlag, 2003.
Kiessling, Roland. Die Rekonstruktion der Südkuschitischen Sprachen (West-Rift):
von den Systemlinguistischen Manifestationen zum Gesellschaftlichen Rahmen des
Sprachwandels; with an English Summary. Köln: Köppe Verlag, 2002.
Kossmann, Maarten G. “Berber Morphology.” In Morphologies of Asia and Africa
(2 vols), edited by Alan Kaye, vol. I 429–46. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Kossmann, Maarten G. “Berber.” In The Afroasiatic languages, edited by Zygmunt
Frajzyngier and Erin Shay, 18–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
46 Gene Gragg
Kossmann, Maarten G. and Benjamin D. Suchard. “A Reconstruction of the System of

Verb Aspects in Proto-Berbero-Semitic,” Bulletin of SOAS 81/1 (2018). doi:10.1017/
S0041977X17001355
Loprieno, Antonio, and Matthias Müller. “Ancient Egyptian and Coptic.” In The
Afroasiatic languages, edited by Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Erin Shay, 145–235.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Loprieno, Antonio. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
Lottner, Carl. “On Sister Families of Languages, Specially Those Connected with the
Semitic Family.” Transactions of the Philological Society (1860–61): 20–7, 112–32.
MacEachern, Scott. “Understanding Distributions of Chadic Languages: Archaeological
Perspectives.” In Tracing Language Movement in Africa, edited by Ericka Albaugh and
Kathryn De Luna, 67–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Militarev, Alexander. “Prehistory of a Dispersal: the Proto-Afrasian (Afroasiatic)
Farming Lexicon.” In Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, edited
by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew, 135–50. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research, 2002.
Mous, Maarten. “Cushitic.” In The Afroasiatic Languages, edited by Zygmunt Frajzyngier
and Erin Shay, 342–422. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Naït-Zerrad, Kamal. 1998–. Dictionnaire des Racines Berbères: Formes Attestées.
Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales. Centre de recherche berbère.
Jeune équipe no 334. v.1 A-bezl; v.2 C-DEN; v.3 D-Gey. Paris/Louvain: Peeters,
1998–2002.
Newman, Paul, and Roxana Ma. “Comparative Chadic: Phonology and Lexicon.” Journal
of African Languages 5/3 (1966): 218–51.
Newman, Paul. “Chadic Classifications and Reconstructions.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 5/1
(1977): 1–42.
Newman, Paul. Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris, 1990.
Orel, Vladimir E., and Olga V. Stolbova. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary:
Materials for a Reconstruction. Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1995.
Pichler, Werner. Origin and Development of the Libyco-Berber Script. Köln: Rüdiger
Köppe Verlag, 2007.
Prasse, Karl-G. Manuel de grammaire touarègue (tăhăggart [1] Phonétique. Écriture.
Pronom. [2] Nom. [3] Verb. Copenhagen: Éditions de l”Université de Copenhague,
1972–1974.
Ratcliffe, Robert R. “On Calculating the Reliability of the Comparative Method at Long
and Medium Distances: Afroasiatic Comparative Lexica as a Test Case.” Journal of
Historical Linguistics 2 (2012): 239–81.
Reintges, Chris. “Egyptian Root-and-pattern Morphology.” Lingua Aegyptia 4 (1994):
213–44.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. The Consonant Phonemes of Proto-East-Cushitic (PEC): A First
Approximation. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1979.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. “Ostkuschitische und semitische Verbalklassen.” In Studien aus
Arabistik und Semitistik (Festschrift Anton Spitaler), edited by Werner Diem & Stefan
Wild, 151–74. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. An Etymological Dictionary of Burji. Hamburg: Helmut Buske
Verlag, 1982.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. “Case in Cushitic, Semitic and Berber.” In International Hamito-

Semitic Congress (3rd : 1978 : London, England), et al. Current Progress in Afro-Asiatic
Linguistics: Papers of the Third International Hamito-Semitic Congress, edited by
James Bynon, 111–26. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1984.
Satzinger, Helmut. “Egyptian in the Afroasiatic Frame: Recent Egyptological Issues with
an Impact on Comparative Studies.” In Afroasiatica Neapolitana, edited by A. Bausi
and M. Tosco, 27–48. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1997.
Satzinger, Helmut. “Statuses and Cases of the Afroasiatic Personal Pronoun.” In Egyptian
and Semito-Hamitic (Afroasiatic) Studies in Memoriam Werner Vycichl, edited by
Gábor Takács, 487–98. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Simons, Gary, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). Ethnologue: Languages of the World,
Twentieth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2017. www.ethnologue.com.
Schenkel, Wolfgang. Einführung in Die Altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990.
Stolbova, Olga V. Etimologicheskii slovar´ chadskikh iazykov = Chadic etymological
dictionary. Moskva: Institut vostokovedeniia (Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk), 2016.
Takács, Gábor. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Boston: Brill, 1999–2008.
Theil, Rolf. “Omotic.” In Semitic and Afroasiatic: Challenges and Opportunities, edited
by Lutz Edzard, 369–84. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
Tosco, Mauro. “Cushitic Overview” Journal of Ethiopian Studies 33/2 (2000): 87–121.
Zaborski, Andrzej. The Verb in Cushitic. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, 1975.
Zaborski, Andrzej. “The Semitic External Plural in an Afroasiatic Perspective.”
Afroasiatic Linguistics 3/6 (1976): 1–9.
Zaborski, Andrzej. The Morphology of Nominal Plural in the Cushitic Languages. Wien:
AFRO-PUB, 1986.
Zaborski, Andrzej. “Problems of the Beja Present Seven Years Later.” Lingua Posnaniensis
39 (1997): 145–53.
Overviews
Bender, M. Lionel (Marvin Lionel), Gábor Takács, and David L. Appleyard. Selected
Comparative-historical Afrasian Linguistic Studies: In Memory of Igor M. Diakonoff.
München: Lincom, 2003.
Edzard, Lutz. Semitic and Afroasiatic: Challenges and Opportunities. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2012.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and Erin Shay. The Afroasiatic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
Heine, Bernd, and Derek Nurse. African Languages: An Introduction. Cambridge:
North American Conference on Afroasiatic Lingusitics (35th : 2007 : San Antonio,
Tex.), Robert Hetzron, and Charles Häberl. Afroasiatic Studies in Memory of Robert
Hetzron: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North American Conference
On Afroasiatic Lingusitics (NACAL 35). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Pub., 2009.
Takács, Gábor, et al. Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies: In Memoriam
W. Vycichl. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004.
Zaborski, Andrzej, et al. New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert
Hetzron in Memoriam. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001.
48 Gene Gragg
Language data in tables

Appleyard, David. “Bilin Morphology.” In Morphologies of Asia and Africa (2 vols),
edited by Alan Kaye, vol. I 481–504. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. A Grammar of Hdi. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Gragg, Gene. “Oromo of Wallagga.” In Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, edited by
Lionel Bender. 166–95. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1976.
Hayward, Richard. “Notes on the Aari Language” In Omotic Language Studies, edited
by Richard Hayward, 425–93. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1990.
Hayward, Richard. “Qafar (East Cushitic).” In Handbook of Morphology, edited by
Andrew Spencer and Arnold M.Zwicky, 624–47. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Hudson, Richard. “The Beja Language.” In Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, edited
by Lionel Bender. 139–54. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1976.
Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. La langue Mubi (Republique du Tchad). Berlin: Dietrich
Reimer Verlag, 2013.
Kiessling, Roland. Eine Grammatik des Burunge. Arikanistische Forschungen 13.
Hamburg: Research and Progress Verlag, 1994.
Kossmann, Maarten. A Grammatical Sketch of Ghadames Berber (Lybia). Köln: Rüdiger
Lamberti, Marcello. Materialien zum Yemsa. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag,
1993.
Newman, Paul. The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.
Reinisch, Leo. Die Beḍauye-sprache in Nordost-Afrik. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Classe volume = 128/
III, 128/VII, 130/VII, 131/III. Wien: In commission bei F. Tempsky, 1893.
Saeed, John I. Somali. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co., 1999.
Savà, Graziano. A Grammar of Ts’amakko. Cushitic Language Studies 22. Köln: Rüdiger
Schneider-Blum, Gertrud. A Grammar of Alaaba: A Highland East Cushitic Language of
Ethiopia. Cushitic Language Studies 25. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2007.
Wedekind, Klaus, Charlotte Wedekind, and Musa Abuzeinab. A Learner’s Grammar of
Beja (East Sudan). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2007.
CHAPTER 3
PROTO-SEMITIC JOHN HUEHNERGARDPROTO-SEMITIC
John Huehnergard
1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents, in cursory form, a reconstruction of Proto-Semitic (PS) phonology,
morphology and syntax. As is well known, linguistic reconstruction is often necessarily
speculative, and also something of an art form; and so, while the research of many schol-
ars is taken into account in what follows, this summary must in the end be subjective and
represent my own opinions, although I hope it portrays a consistent and coherent view of
the ancestor of the Semitic languages. A guiding principle has been that a reconstructed
PS form must normally be based on evidence from both East and West Semitic.
Proto-Semitic undoubtedly comprised dialects, like all languages, but such distinctions
and their distribution are usually not recoverable, and so our reconstruction here is more
monolithic than the language actually was. For the internal subgrouping of the Semitic
language family and a survey of the individual Semitic languages, see Chapter 1, §2.
As noted in §1 of Chapter 1, since there is evidence for the split between East and West
Semitic already in the first half of the third millennium, Proto-Semitic dates to no later
than the late fourth millennium.
Note: Throughout this chapter, a final hyphen on a form, as in *bajt- ‘house’, denotes
a noun base without a case ending (for which see §3.3.2.4).
1.1 Writing
As a reconstructed linguistic entity, of course, PS is unwritten. A brief overview of
Semitic writing systems appears in Chapter 1, §3.
2 PHONOLOGY
2.1 Consonants
Proto-Semitic is traditionally reconstructed with 29 consonants, all of which are preserved
in the inscriptional Ancient South Arabian languages such as Sabaic (see Chapter 13).
There is good evidence, however, for a 30th consonant, a glottalic velar (or uvular) fric-
ative, *x’ (or *χ’), which merged with *x in East Semitic and with *ħ in West Semitic
(Huehnergard 2003). As can be seen in Table 3.1, many of the consonants occur in triads
of a voiceless, a voiced and a third member. The reflexes of the third members of the
triads are pharyngealized or uvularized in Arabic (and the reflex of *k’ is the uvular q),
but they are glottalic/ejective in the Ethiopian Semitic languages (see Chapters 6–10) and
in Modern South Arabian languages such as Mehri (Chapter 11); there is also evidence
that their reflexes were glottalic in some of the ancient languages, such as Akkadian and
50 John Huehnergard
TABLE 3.1 THE PROTO-SEMITIC CONSONANTS; THE TRADITIONAL SEMITISTIC

REPRESENTATIONS APPEAR IN PARENTHESES AFTER THE IPA
Bilabial (Inter-)Dental Dental-Aveolar Palatal Velar/Uvular1 Pharyngeal Glottal
Plosive p (p) b (b) t (t) d (d) t’ (ṭ) k (k) g (g) k’ (ḳ/q) ʔ (’, ˀ)
Nasal m (m) n (n)
Trill r (r)
Fricative θ (t) ð (d) θ’ (θ̣/ẓ) s (š) x/χ (ḫ) ɣ/ʁ (ġ/ǵ) ħ (ḥ) ʕ (‘,ˤ) h (h)
x’/χ’ (x̣)
Affricate2 ʦ (s) ʣ (z) ʦ’ (ṣ)
Lateral ɬ (ś) l (l) (t)ɬ’ (ś ̣/ð̣)
Approximant w (w) j (y)
Hebrew (Cantineau 1951–52, Faber 1980, Steiner 1982, Kogan 2011a), and so it is likely
that they were glottalic in the proto-language as well, and underwent pharyngealization
in the history of Arabic (Zemánek 1996).
The PS triad of fricative laterals – *ɬ, *l and *(t)ɬ’ – is now well established (Steiner 1977;
see also Voigt 1992). The PS consonants reconstructed as affricates are simple fricatives in
most of the descendant languages, but, again, their affricated nature in the proto-language is
suggested by features of Akkadian and Hebrew phonology (Steiner 1982; Faber 1985). The
voiceless non-glottalic plosives were probably aspirated when syllable-initial. The fricative
*s may have had a palatalized allophone in some environments, since its reflex is a palatal
[ʃ] in several of the languages (Babylonian Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Jibbāli), rather
than [s] as in Assyrian Akkadian, Arabic and Ethiopian Semitic.3
The reflexes of the PS consonants in a representative sample of Semitic languages
appear in Table 3.2.
All of the consonants could be geminated. This is also the case in some of the descen-
dant languages, although in some, such as early Aramaic and Hebrew, the laryngeals and
pharyngeals may not be geminated.
There is marked tendency for the consonants of Semitic verbal roots (§3.2) to remain
phonologically consistent. Thus, conditioned sound changes that would affect only some
forms of a root are often blocked by paradigmatic pressure, so that the root continues to
exhibit the same consonant phonemes in all forms. Less frequent, but also well attested,
is the opposite development, where a conditioned sound change spreads analogically
to other forms of a root in which the conditioning factor is not operative (Huehnergard
2013). The following phonological processes involving the consonants may be observed
in Proto-Semitic:
*w assimilated to a following dental-alveolar stop: e.g., *ja-t-wabal (3-recp-carry.

pcs) > *jawtabal (metathesis; see §3.5.5) > *jattabal ‘he carried along’. Reanal-
ysis of the product of this change occasionally resulted in byform roots in some
languages, e.g., both wabaːlum and tabaːlum ‘to carry’ in Akkadian (Huehnergard
2006a, 2014a). For other changes involving *w and the palatal glide *j, see under
Vowels (§2.2).
Regressive assimilatory voicing and devoicing of consonants occasionally resulted in
byform roots and seemingly irregular correspondences among cognates. For exam-
ple, the pcs forms (§3.5.2) of the PS roots *b-k’-r ‘to pierce, split’ and *p-k’-r ‘to
want, need, claim’, viz., *jabk’ur and *japk’ur, could apparently be pronounced the
Proto-Semitic 51
TABLE 3.2 REFLEXES OF THE PROTO-SEMITIC CONSONANTS IN SOME OF THE MAIN

DESCENDANT LANGUAGES; THE SEMITISTIC REPRESENTATIONS ARE
GIVEN IN PARENTHESES
Proto- Akkadian Gəʕəz Mehri Sabaic Arabic Ugaritic Hebrew Aramaic

Sem. (Babylonian) (Classical (Classical) (Biblical) (Syriac)
Ethiopic)
ʔ Ø/ʔ (Ø/ˀ) ʔ (ˀ) Ø ʔ (ˀ) ʔ (ˀ) ʔ (ˀ) ʔ (ˀ) ʔ (ˀ)

ʕ Ø/ʔ (Ø/ˀ) ʕ (ˤ) ʕ/ʔ (ˤ/ˀ) ʕ (ˤ) ʕ (ˤ) ʕ (ˤ) ʕ (ˤ) ʕ (ˤ)
b b (b) b (b) b (b) b (b) b (b) b (b) b (b) b (b)
d d (d) d (d) d (d) d (d) d (d) d (d) d (d) d (d)
ð ʣ/z (z) z (z) ð (d) ð (d) ð (d) d/ð (d/d) z (z) d (d)
ʣ ʣ/z (z) z (z) z (z) z (z) z (z) z (z) z (z) z (z)
g g (g) g (g) g (g) g (g) ɟ (j,ǧ) g (g) g (g) g (g)
ɣ/ʁ Ø/ʔ/x (Ø/ˀ/ḫ) ʕ (ˤ) ɣ (ġ/ǵ) ʁ (ġ/ǵ) ʁ (ġ/ǵ) ɣ (ġ/ǵ) ʕ (ˤ) ʕ (ˤ)
h Ø/ʔ (Ø/ˀ) h (h) h (h) h (h) h (h) h (h) h (h) h (h)
ħ Ø/ʔ (Ø/ˀ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ)
j Ø/ʔ/j (Ø/ˀ/y) j (y) j (y) j (y) j (y) j (y) j (y) j (y)
k k (k) k (k) k (k) k (k) k (k) k (k) k (k) k (k)
k’ k’ (q,ḳ) k’ (q,ḳ) k’ (ḳ) q (q,ḳ) q (q) k’ (q,ḳ) k’ (q,ḳ) k’ (q,ḳ)
l l (l) l (l) l (l) l (l) l (l) l (l) l (l) l (l)
ɬ ʃ (š) ɬ>s (ś>s) ɬ (ś) ? (š,s2) ç (š) ʃ ? (š) ɬ (ś) s (s)
(t)ɬ’ ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) tɬ’> s’ (ḍ>ṣ) ɬ’ (ź,ṣ́) dˤ (ḍ) (t)ɬˤ/(d)ɮˤ (ḍ) ʦ’/s’? (ṣ) ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) ʕ (ˤ)
m m (m) m (m) m (m) m (m) m (m) m (m) m (m) m (m)
n n (n) n (n) n (n) n (n) n (n) n (n) n (n) n (n)
p p (p) f (f) f (f) f (f) f (f) p (p) p (p) p (p)
r r (r) r (r) r (r) r (r) r (r) r (r) r (r) r (r)
s ʃ (š) s (s) h (h) ʃ (s,s1) s (s) ʃ ? (š) ʃ (š) ʃ (š)
t t (t) t (t) t (t) t (t) t (t) t (t) t (t) t (t)
t’ t’ (ṭ) t’ (ṭ) t’ (ṭ) tˤ (ṭ) dˤ (ṭ) t’ (ṭ) t’ (ṭ) t’ (ṭ)
ʦ ʦ/s (s) s (s) s (s) s (ś,s3) s (s) s? (s) s (s) s (s)
ʦ’ ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) s’ (ṣ) ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) sˤ (ṣ) (t)sˤ (ṣ) ʦ’/s’? (ṣ) ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) ʦ’/s’ (ṣ)
θ ʃ (š) s (s) θ (t) θ (t) θ (t) θ? (t) ʃ (š) t (t)
θ’ ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) s’ (ṣ) ð’ (ð̣) ðˤ (ẓ) ðˤ (ẓ) θ’(ẓ)/ɣ(ġ/ǵ) ʦ’/s’ (ṣ) t’ (ṭ)
w w (w) w (w) w (w) w (w) w (w) w(w)/j(y) w(w)/j(y) w(w)/j(y)
x/χ x (ḫ) x (ḫ) x (ḫ) χ (ḫ) x (ḫ) x (ḫ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ)
x’/χ’ x (ḫ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ) ħ (ḥ)
same, [japk’ur]; reanalysis and the tendency for root integrity, noted above, yielded
byforms, one with initial *b and one with initial *p, of both original roots, reflexes
of which appear throughout the descendant languages (Huehnergard 2014b).4
After East Semitic broke away from the parent language, most of the remaining fam-
ily underwent a change of prevocalic *s > *h in forms such as the 3rd-person
pronouns, as in independent *siʔa > *hiʔa ‘she’ and suffixal *‑su > *‑hu ‘his’ (see
§3.1.1); the adverbial ending *‑isa, as in *bajt-isa > *bajt-iha (house-dir) ‘to the
house’ (§3.3.2.4, end); and the causative marker *s, as in *tu-sa-ʕlij > *tu-ha-ʕlij
(2-caus-ascend.pcs) ‘you sent up’ (§3.5.5). This may be viewed as an incipient
change affecting high-frequency, low-stress function words (and the close gram-
matical relatives of such words), which are known to undergo sound changes
before other word classes do (Phillips 1983);5 but further spread of the change was
52 John Huehnergard
blocked in most verbal and nominal roots, again because of the pressure, noted
earlier, for roots to remain consistent across paradigms.6
Assimilation of n to a following consonant is a regular feature of several of the lan-
guages, such as Akkadian, Ugaritic and Hebrew, and is also attested in later Sabaic
and in the earliest Gəʕez inscriptions (but not in later Ethiopian Semitic); it may
therefore have been an ancient dialectal feature or an areal phenomenon (Sanmartín
1995, Steiner 2012: 380–1).
In Proto-Northwest Semitic, initial *w > *j: *warix- > *jarix- ‘month’; *waθab-ti >
*jaθab-ti ‘you sat’ (sit.sc-2fsg).
2.2 Vowels
For PS a reconstruction of three short vowels, *a, *i, *u, and three corresponding long
vowels, *aː, *iː, *uː, is uncontroversial. This system is preserved unchanged in Classical
Arabic. In most of the other languages, various developments have obscured the original
system to a greater or lesser extent. In Gəʕəz, for example, the two short high vowels merged
to a central ǝ (IPA [ɨ]), as in bǝrk ‘knee’ < *birk‑, ʔǝzn ‘ear’ < *ʔuðn‑. In many dialects
of Akkadian, a fourth vowel quality, short e and long eː, achieved phonemic status, as in
Old Babylonian egrum ‘twisted’ < *ħagrum vs. igrum ‘hire’ < *ʔigrum vs. agrum ‘hired’
< *ʔagirum. In Hebrew, the short vowels were sometimes preserved, sometimes reduced,
sometimes lowered or backed, depending on syllable structure and word stress. In most
of the languages, the long vowels remained largely unchanged, although a diagnostic
feature of Canaanite languages is the change of *aː to *oː.
There are no diphthongs in the usual sense of a sequence of two vowels (see the next
section on syllable structure), but the sequences *aj and *aw are often referred to as diph-
thongs in Semitic studies, and often undergo simplification to long vowels (e.g., [eː] and
[oː], respectively) in the descendant languages. The sequences *ij and *uw are generally
equivalent phonetically to *iː and *uː, respectively, in the descendant languages and pre-
sumably so also in PS (thus, e.g., the Hebrew form rūm ‘height’ < *ruːm‑ ~ *ruwm‑ has
the same historical pattern, C1uC2C3, as ʕōmɛq ‘depth’ < *ʕumk’‑). The sequences *iw and
*uj were unstable, also tending to become *iː and *uː, respectively (e.g., *t’uːb‑ ‘good-
ness’ < *t’ujb-), unless preserved by paradigmatic pressure.
The sequences VwV and VjV were sometimes unstable, tending to reduce to a single
vowel. The following developments, for example, may be posited already for PS: ˈawa,
ˈaja > aː/_CV, but aˈwa > u and aˈja > i/_CC, as in *ˈt’ajab-uː > *ˈt’aːb-uː (good-3mpl)
‘they (m) are good’ but *t’aˈjab-ta > *ˈt’ib-ta (good-2msg) ‘you (msg) are good’ (Hueh-
nergard 2005: 176–8). It is likely that CwV1 and CjV1 > CV1ː in PS (unless preserved
by paradigmatic pressure), as in *ja-kwun-uː > *ja-kuːn-uː (3-stable.pcs-mpl) ‘they (m)
became stable’, *ja-ɬjim-uː > *ja-ɬiːm-uː (3-set.pcs-mpl) ‘they (m) set’.
2.3 Syllable structure and stress

PS has only three syllable types: short CV, and long CVː and CVC. Thus, syllable-initial
and syllable‑final consonant clusters are not permitted, nor are sequences of vowels.
Long vowels do not occur in closed syllables; when a long vowel would arise in a closed
syllable through some phonological process, it is shortened; for example, the 3msg form
corresponding to 3mpl *jaɬiːmuː (see end of preceding paragraph) is *ja-ɬim (3-set.pcs)
Proto-Semitic 53
‘he set’, with short i. The restrictions on syllable types are overridden in various ways
in most of the descendant languages, although Classical Arabic, for example, preserves
the original syllable structure to a large extent (exceptions being long vowels before
geminated consonants, as in the participial form maːd.dun ‘extending.msg.nom’ < *maː.
di.dun).
Classical Arabic and Akkadian exhibit essentially the same assignment of word stress,
which may therefore also be posited for PS, and is non-phonemic: stress falls on the
right-most long syllable other than the final syllable: *ˈwaː.θi.bum ‘sitting.msg.nom’,
*waː.ˈθib.tum ‘sitting.fsg.nom’, *waː.θi.ˈbaː.tum ‘sitting.fpl.nom’. Words with no long
syllables are stressed on the first syllable: *ˈʕa.pa.rum ‘dust.nom’.7 Bound form nominals
(“construct forms”; §3.3.2.3) were morphosyntactically proclitic to their dependents and
thus unstressed; a PS rule of vowel syncope probably affected such unstressed forms,
e.g., nonbound *ˈwa.ri.xum vs. bound *war.xu ‘month.nom’, though the effects of this
rule are frequently diminished by analogical leveling (Steiner 2012). There is probably
also a narrower PS rule of vowel syncope, a > ∅/aC1 _ C1V, as in *k’alalum > *k’allum
‘small.nom’.
3 MORPHOLOGY
3.1 Pronouns
3.1.1 Personal pronouns
In the Proto-Semitic personal pronouns, as in most of the early descendant languages,
the 2nd and 3rd persons have singular, dual and plural forms (Table 3.3); the singular
and plural have distinct masculine and feminine forms, while the dual forms are common
gender. 1st person forms are common gender (glossed as 1c); a 1st person dual occurs
in a few of the descendant languages (Ugaritic, Modern South Arabian) but cannot be
reconstructed to PS.
For 1csg, most of the descendant languages have only one of the forms shown in Table
3.3 (*ʔana in Gəʕəz, Arabic, Aramaic and others; *ʔanaːku in Akkadian, Phoenician, and
others), but Ugaritic and ancient Hebrew attest both. The apparent base *ʔan‑ in 1csg and
the 2nd person forms is of uncertain origin and meaning. The endings of most of these
forms (2msg *-ta, 1pl *‑nu, etc.) also appear on the base of verbal adjectives in a predica-
tive construction, for which see §3.5.4.
The dual forms are obviously derived from the mpl forms, with the addition of endings
that are also found on dual nominals (nom *‑aː, gen/acc *‑aj) and dual verbs (marked
with *‑aː).
TABLE 3.3 PROTO-SEMITIC INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRONOUNS8
Singular Dual Plural
1c ʔana, ʔanaːku – niħnu

2m ʔanta ʔantumaː / ʔantum(±uː)
2f ʔanti ʔantumaj ʔantin(±aː)
3m suʔa sumaː / sum(±uː)
3f siʔa sumaj sin(±aː)
54 John Huehnergard
TABLE 3.4 PROTO-SEMITIC gen/acc (obl) 3RD PERSON PRONOUNS
3m suʔaːtiː sumaːtiː / sumuːtiː

3f siʔaːtiː sumajːtiː sinaːtiː
TABLE 3.5 PROTO-SEMITIC ENCLITIC PERSONAL PRONOUNS
gen acc gen acc

1c -iː/-ja -niː – -ni -na
gen/acc gen/acc gen/acc
2m -ka -kuma: / -kum(±uː)
2f -ki -kumaj -kin(±aː)
3m -su -sumaː / -sum(±uː)
3f -sa -sumaj -sin(±aː)
In the 2/3pl forms, the optional endings *‑uː/-aː derive from predicative 3rd person
endings (see §3.5.4). In Central Semitic languages, the 2/3fpl forms alternatively have
*-na instead of *‑aː (i.e., *ʔantin(na) and *sin(na)), where *-na is borrowed from the
2/3fpl ending of the PS prefix conjugation verbs (§3.5.3).
The forms in Table 3.3 are nominative; they function as the subjects of verbless clauses,
and to topicalize or contrast the subjects of verbal clauses. For the 3rd person, there is
also a set of gen/acc (or obl) forms, characterized by an enclitic *‑tiː (Table 3.4). The 3rd
person forms probably originated as demonstratives (see §3.1.2).
Closely related to the independent personal pronouns is a set of enclitic pronouns that
functioned as genitive when suffixed to nouns and prepositions and as accusative when
suffixed to verbs (Table 3.5). Distinct genitive and accusative forms existed for the 1st
person but not for the 2nd and 3rd.
3.1.2 Demonstratives
A base *ʔvl‑ forms a remote demonstrative in Akkadian, but the plural of a proximal
demonstrative throughout West Semitic; the former probably reflects the PS situation.
The proximal demonstrative in Akkadian has a base *hanni‑, which is derived from a
presentative particle *han (see §3.10); this was replaced in West Semitic by a demon-
strative derived from the relative marker *θvː (see the following section). Throughout
Semitic (apart from Arabic), the 3rd person pronouns, both nom and gen/acc, also serve
as anaphoric-distal demonstratives, which was probably their original function:
*ʔin bajt-im suʔaːtiː

in house-gen dem.gen/acc
‘in that house’.
Thus, PS probably exhibits a three-way contrast in deixis (Huehnergard and Pat-El 2018).
Proto-Semitic 55
TABLE 3.6 THE PROTO-SEMITIC RELATIVE MARKER
msg fsg
nominative θuː θaːtu

genitive θiː θaːti
accusative θaː θaːta
mdu fdu
nominative θawaː θ(aw)aːtaː

gen/acc θawaj θ(aw)aːtaj
mpl fpl
nominative θawuː θawaːtu

gen/acc θawiː θawaːti
Source: Huehnergard (2006b).
3.1.3 Relative marker

The PS relative marker (Table 3.6) is a bound form (§3.3.2.3) that can serve as the head
of a noun phrase, a verb phrase or a prepositional phrase (Pat-El and Treiger 2006). It
is declined for gender and number, agreeing with its antecedent in all features but state.
(The initial consonant of the relative marker is voiceless *θ in Akkadian, but voiced *ð
in West Semitic; the PS form probably had voiceless *θ [Huehnergard and Pat-El 2018].)
*ʔa-nθ’ur baʕl-am θa: bajt-im

1sg-protect.pcs lord-acc rel.msg.acc.bnd house-gen
‘I protected the lord of the house.’
*ta-mut ʔimm-um θ-aːt-u ja-nθ’ur-u(-sa)
3f-die.pcs mother-nom rel-fsg-nom.bnd 3-protect.pcs-sbrd(-3fsg)
‘The mother whom he protected died.’
*ʕalaj waːθib-iːna θawiː ʔin bajt-im
against sit.ptcp-mpl.gen/acc rel.mpl.gen/acc.bnd in house-gen
‘against the residents in the house’.
3.1.4 Interrogative and indefinite pronouns

For ‘what?’, East Semitic and Ethiopian Semitic indicate a base *min‑ (Akkadian
mi(ː)n-um ‘what?-nom’; Amharic mɨn); the Central Semitic languages, however, have
instead *mah‑. For ‘who?’, most of the languages have a reflex of *mann‑ (Akkadian
mann-um ‘who?-nom’; Amharic mann-ɨn who?-acc = ‘whom?’), although Ugaritic and
Canaanite exhibit *mijj‑. These forms were probably declined like singular nominals,
as they were in Akkadian and Eblaite. Another PS base, *ʔajj‑, is adjectival, ‘which?’.9
A common Semitic interrogative adverb is *mataj ‘when?’.
Indefinite pronouns may have been formed by adding an enclitic *=ma (see §3.10)
to the interrogatives (as in East Semitic, Amharic, Ugaritic); e.g.,*min‑um=ma (what?-
nom=encl) ‘whatever, anything’.
56 John Huehnergard
3.2 Nominal and verbal roots

Most nouns and verbs in PS exhibit nonconcatenative morphology; that is, they consist of
roots comprising invariable sequences of consonants (called the radicals of a root), over
which are laid patterns – templates – that furnish the morphology of words. The patterns
may be simple vowel melodies, such as a . . . i, but they may also exhibit gemination of
the second or third radical or a prefixal or suffixal element or a combination of these.
Forms of the root *s-l-m ‘(to be) whole’ illustrate some of these possibilities:
*salim-at-um ‘whole-f-nom’ (adjective)

*salaːm-um ‘wholeness-nom’ (substantive; an infinitive pattern)
*ti-slam-iː (2-whole.pcs-fsg) ‘you became whole’
*nu-sallim (1pl-whole.fact.pcs) ‘we made whole’
The vast majority of verbs in PS are based on roots of three consonants, like *s-l-m.
Internal reconstruction on the basis of PS forms, however, indicates that roots of two con-
sonants occurred at an earlier stage. For example, some forms of certain roots with first
radical w, such as *w-r-d ‘to descend’, lack the initial w, as in *ja-rid (3-descend.pcs) ‘he
descended’ and the verbal noun *rid-at- (descend.inf-f) ‘descent’.10 Further, some roots
exist as byforms, with the third radical either a glide or a reduplication of the second
radical, as in *r-b-j ~ *r-b-b ‘(to be) great’. Finally, some of the languages exhibit roots
with two radicals reduplicated, as in Arabic z-l-z-l ‘to shake’. (Biradical roots are more
common in other Afro-Asiatic languages.)
A few roots with four discrete radicals occur in most of the descendant languages, such
as Akkadian b-l-k-t ‘to jump’, Gǝʕəz d-n-g-ś ̣ ‘to be dismayed’; as in these examples, the
second radical is frequently a sonorant. Most such roots are restricted to a single language
or subgroup, and so it is difficult to reconstruct any of them to the proto-language.
There are certain phonological constraints on the constituents of a root: while roots
with identical second and third radicals are common, such as *m-d-d ‘to measure’, roots
with identical first and second radicals cannot be reconstructed to the proto-language
(rare examples are found in some languages, but they are the result of later developments;
e.g., Gəʕəz s-s-l ‘to recede’ < *s-l-s-l), and roots with identical first and third radicals
are rare.11 Further, homorganic consonants are generally not found as adjacent radicals
(Greenberg 1950).
3.3 Nominals
Across Semitic, most adjectives, like *salim-at-um, are associated with verbal roots.
Many substantives, too, like *salaːm-um, may be said to derive from verbal roots. The
patterns of such adjectives and substantives are sometimes salient. C1aC2VC3, for exam-
ple, as in *salim‑, is a common verbal adjective that tends to be resultative: *naθ’ir‑
‘guarded’ from *n-θ’-r ‘to guard’; *waθib‑ ‘seated’ from *w-θ-b ‘to sit’. The pattern
C1aC2a:C3, as in *salaːm-, is a common verbal substantive, used as an infinitive in several
of the descendant languages. A listing of some of the reconstructible patterns is presented
in §3.3.1. In the descendant languages, the semantic ranges of many patterns shifted, and
some patterns were replaced by others, or merged; it is therefore often not possible to
reconstruct whole deverbal noun forms to the proto-language with certainty, but rather
only roots and patterns (Fox 2003: 68).
Proto-Semitic 57
There are also, however, many substantives that are primary, not associated with a ver-
bal root (although a root may be extracted from such substantives, to create a denominal
verb), and not necessarily triradical. Unlike many deverbal nouns, primary nouns can be
reconstructed to the proto-language in toto. Examples are parts of the body, such as *raʔs‑
‘head’, *ʕajn‑ ‘eye’, *ʔanp‑ ‘nose’, *jad- ‘hand’; kinship terms, such as *ʔabw‑ ‘father’,
*ʔimm‑ ‘mother’, *bin‑ ‘son’, *ʔaxw‑ ‘brother’;12 features of the physical world, such
as *ʔarɬ’‑ ‘earth’, *ʔabn‑ ‘stone’, *nahar‑ ‘river’, *tihaːm‑ ‘sea’, *ʕiɬ’‑ ‘tree’, *daθʔ‑
‘grass’, *jawm‑ ‘day’, *warix‑ ‘month’, *san-at- ‘year-fsg’; some color terms, such as
*laban‑ ‘white’, *waruk’‑ ‘yellow-green’. Extensive lists are provided in Fox (1998) and
Kogan (2011b).
3.3.1 Deverbal noun patterns

The following list is not intended to be comprehensive. As noted in the preceding section,
the semantic ranges of some patterns changed in the descendant languages, and so those
posited for the proto-language are in some cases speculative.
C1VC2C3 forms tend to be substantives. C1aC2C3 forms are extremely common, and
not generally classifiable semantically (and many C1aC2C3 forms are primary sub-
stantives), e.g., *k’abr‑ ‘burial, grave’ from *k’-b-r ‘to bury’. C1iC2C3 and C1uC2C3
forms are often substantives of action or result: *ðibħ‑ ‘sacrifice’ from *ð-b-ħ ‘to
sacrifice’; *ʔurk‑ ‘length’ from *ʔ-r-k ‘(to be) long’.
C1aC2VC3, with a short second vowel, is a productive verbal adjective, as noted above;
besides *salim‑ ‘whole’, other examples are *jasar‑ ‘straight’ from *j-s-r ‘(to
be) straight’; *maliʔ‑ ‘full’ from *m-l-ʔ ‘to fill’; *k’arub‑ ‘near’ from *k’-r-b ‘to
approach; (to be) near’ (see also §3.5.4). Other C1aC2VC3 forms are substantives,
such as Gəʕəz nägär < *nagar‑ ‘speech’.
C1aC2V:C3. The pattern C1aC2a:C3, as also noted previously, is a common verbal noun
or infinitive in languages that are separated widely enough within the family that
it can be reconstructed to PS. C1aC2i:C3 and C1aC2u:C3 forms are relatively rare
in Akkadian; in West Semitic languages, however, they are common as verbal
adjectives, forming the paradigmatic passive participle of the basic verb stem, for
example, in Aramaic (C1aC2i:C3), in Hebrew (C1aC2ūC3) and in Gəʕəz (C1ǝC2uC3
< *C1uC2uːC3 < *C1aC2uːC3).
C1iC2a(ː)C3 and C1uC2a(ː)C3 are uncommon patterns for substantives, such as Gəʕəz
ʕǝbäy < *ʕibay‑ ‘greatness’ and Hebrew nēkå̄r < *nikar‑ ‘foreignness’; *riħaːb‑
‘wide area’ from *r-ħ-b ‘(to be) wide’ is Proto-West Semitic, and *ʔunaːs‑ ‘person’
is Proto-Central Semitic (and may be a primary noun).
Patterns with two high vowels are not reconstructible, with the exception of two u
vowels, i.e., C1uC2(C2)u(ː)C3. C1uC2u(ː)C3 forms are substantival, e.g., *lubuːs‑
‘clothing’ from *l-b-s ‘to wear’; C1uC2u(ː)C3 is also a common pattern for plurals
in Arabic (§3.3.2.2).
C1aːC2iC3, the active participle of the basic verb stem in PS (§3.5.4), is the only pattern
reconstructible with a long vowel in the first syllable.
Patterns with gemination of the second radical are common. In Akkadian, e.g.,
C1aC2C2aC3 adjectives are marked for plurality or high salience, such as kabbar‑
‘thick’ (cf. kabar‑ ‘thick’; Kouwenberg 1997: 49–58). But C1aC2C2a(ː)C3 also forms
58 John Huehnergard
agent nouns throughout Semitic, such as *dajja(ː)n‑ ‘judge’ from *d-j-n ‘to judge’
and *t’abba(ː)x‑ ‘butcher’ from t’-b-x ‘to slaughter’. C1uC2C2uC3 forms are often
adjectival, as in Akkadian gubbuḫ‑ ‘bald’ and Hebrew šikkōr < *sukkur‑ ‘drunk’.
Patterns with a geminated third radical may also be reconstructed, viz., C1aC2VC3C3
(V = short a, i, or u), C1uC2uC3C3 and perhaps C1iC2aC3C3. In Hebrew, C1aC2uC3C3 is
common for color adjectives, such as ʔå̄dōm < *ʔadumm‑ ‘red’, while in Akkadian it
is used for numinous qualities, as in rašubb- ‘awe-inspiring’; these are associated with
a derived stem of the verb that also geminates the third radical (R stem; see §3.5.5).
C1uC2uC3C3 is more often substantival, especially for abstracts: Akkadian ḫubull‑
‘debt’, Hebrew ḥănukkå̄ < *ħunukk-at‑ ‘dedication-fsg’, Arabic ɟubull ‘company’.
There are also patterns with prefixes, the most common of which is *ma‑.
*maC1C2VC3 forms are generally substantives, with a wide range of meanings;
examples are *majsar‑ ‘equity’ from *j-s-r ‘(to be) straight’; *maʕrab‑ ‘entry’ from
*ʕ-r-b ‘to enter’. The prefix *mu- marks the participles of most of the derived verb
stems (see §3.5.5). Other pattern prefixes are *ta-, as in *tarbij-t- ‘increase-fsg’
from *r-b-j ‘to be(come) large’; and *ʔa-, which is common in plural forms (see
§3.3.2.2) and also, in Central Semitic, as a comparative or augmentative, as in
Arabic ʔakbar- ‘greater, very great’ from *k-b-r ‘(to be) great’.
3.3.2 Noun inflection

3.3.2.1 Gender
Nouns in all Semitic languages have two genders, masculine and feminine. In the singu-
lar, the masculine noun is generally unmarked, while most feminine nouns are specifi-
cally marked as such. The most common marker of the feminine is an ending *‑at added
to the noun base: *t’aːb- ‘good’, *t’aːb-at- ‘good-f’; *baʕl- ‘lord’, *baʕl-at- (lord-f)
‘lady’. In most of the descendant languages there is also an allomorph *‑t, as in *bin-t-
(son-f) ‘daughter’, the result of a PS vowel syncope rule that operated on unstressed
forms (§2.3); in some languages, such as Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic, the resulting dis-
tribution of *-at vs. *-t became lexical in part (e.g., Hebrew mēʔå̄ < *miʔ-at- vs. Ugaritic
/miʔ-t-/ ‘hundred’; Hebrew ṣēt < *(t)ɬ’iʔ-t- vs. Ugaritic /(t)s’iʔ-at-/ ‘exit’; see Steiner
2012: 373–5).13 Other, less common, markers of the feminine, such as *-aj and *aːʔ, are
attested in several of the languages. In Arabic and in some Ethiopian Semitic languages,
some feminines are formed by pattern replacement, a feature that is more widely associ-
ated with the formation of plurals (see §3.3.2.2): e.g., Arabic ʔatˤraçu ‘deaf.m’, tˤarçaːʔu
‘deaf.f’; Tigrinya ʦ’ǝbbib ‘narrow.m’, ʦ’ǝbbab ‘narrow.f’. Finally, some feminine sub-
stantives in all of the languages are unmarked. These include animate females, such as
*ʔimm- ‘mother’ and *ʔataːn- ‘female donkey’; most paired parts of the body,14 such as
*ʔuðn- ‘ear’ and *jad- ‘hand’; but also other substantives, such as *ʔarɬ’- ‘earth’. Some
nouns are of variable gender in some of the languages, e.g., *ʔurx- ‘road’ (either m or f
in Akkadian and Hebrew). A recent survey of gender in Semitic is Hasselbach (2014).
3.3.2.2 Number
Semitic languages exhibit three numbers, singular, dual and plural.
In some languages, such as Old Akkadian, Ugaritic and various forms of Arabic, the
dual is productive and used for ‘two’ of anything, with little or no restriction; in other
Proto-Semitic 59
languages, such as Hebrew, it is restricted to naturally occurring pairs (i.e., ‘hands’ is

hand-du rather than hand-pl) and certain time words (such as ‘two days’); and in still other
languages, such as Aramaic and Ethiopian languages, the dual is vestigial. Dual forms are
marked with specific endings added to the singular base of the noun; see §3.3.2.4.
The plural can be formed either by external endings added to the singular base, or by
pattern replacement, or by a combination of the two. The external endings originally
appeared on adjectives, and incorporated plural markers of predication; e.g., *maliʔ-u:
(full-3mpl) ‘they (m) are full’ and *maliʔ-uːna ‘full-mpl.nom’; *maliʔ-a: (full-3fpl) ‘they
(f) are full’ and *maliʔ-aː-t-um ‘full-fpl-f-nom’. Plurals formed by pattern replacement
(referred to as “broken plurals” or “internal plurals”) are especially common in (North)
Ethiopian Semitic, Modern South Arabian, Ancient South Arabian and Arabic; it is gen-
erally not possible to reconstruct pairs of singular and plural patterns to PS: e.g., while
sg ‘house’ is common Semitic *bajt‑, pl ‘houses’ is bujuːt in Qurʔanic Arabic, ʔäbjat
(< *ʔabjaːt‑) in Gəʕəz, and bɛt in Jibbāli; for other examples, see the individual lan-
guage chapters. In Akkadian, only relics of such plurals remain, e.g., ṣuḫarû ‘lads’ <
*ʦ'uɣaraːʔu, an old plural of the adjective *ʦ'aɣir- ‘small, young’; otherwise, the exter-
nal plurals have been leveled through all nouns. A shared innovation of the Northwest
Semitic languages is the generalization of doubly marked plurals for singulars of the
pattern CVCC; such plurals have the form {CVCaC + external pl}, as in *kalb-um ‘dog.
sg-nom’, plural *kalab-uːna (dog.pl-mpl.nom); *ʕigl-at-um ‘heifer’ (calf.sg-f-nom), plu-
ral *ʕigal-aː-t-um (calf.pl-fpl-f-nom). On pattern replacement, see especially Ratcliffe
(1998); on external plurals, see Hasselbach (2007).
3.3.2.3 State and definiteness

In Semitic studies, the term “state” refers to whether a noun is bound, i.e., morphosyn-
tactically proclitic (“in construct”), to a following dependent element, which may be
(a) another noun, (b) a pronominal suffix or (c) a clause. In PS (and in several of the
descendant languages), a noun not thus bound was specifically marked as such with an
ending that followed the case vowel, whereas bound nouns lacked that ending. The marker
of nonbound forms originally had two allomorphs, *‑m after short vowels and *-na oth-
erwise, as in both Akkadian and Sabaic, languages that are widely separated within the
family. Throughout this chapter, bound forms (“construct forms”) are labeled bnd.
*ʕajn-u ʔanθat-i-m *ʕajn-aː ʔanθat-i-m

eye-nom.bnd woman-gen-nbnd eye-du.nom.bnd woman-gen-nbnd
‘the woman’s eye’ ‘the woman’s eyes’
*ʕajn-u-sa *ʕajn-aː-sa
eye-nom.bnd-3fsg eye-du.nom.bnd-3fsg
‘her eye’ ‘her eyes’
*ʕajn-u ta-ʔmur-u *ʕajn-aː ja-ʔmur-aː-na
eye-nom.bnd 3f-see.pcs-sbrd eye-du.nom.bnd 3-see.pcs-du-sbrd
‘the eye that saw’ ‘the eyes that saw’
Neither definite nor indefinite articles can be reconstructed for PS. But 3rd person
pronouns, which were anaphoric demonstratives originally (§3.1.2), could function to
60 John Huehnergard
indicate definiteness: *bajt-u-su ‘his/that/the house’ (house-nom.bnd-3msg/dem; Hueh-

nergard and Pat-El 2012). Several of the descendant languages exhibit no article oth-
erwise (e.g., Akkadian, Gəʕəz, Ugaritic). In the Central Semitic languages, however, a
definite article arose through the grammaticalization of one of two presentative particles,
*han and *hal (both are reconstructible, and both were pressed into service as articles;
Pat-El 2009, 2017: 449–52). While the eventual form of this new article differs across the
languages, its syntax is the same: only the last member of a genitive chain may bear the
article; attributive adjectives must bear the article if the head noun is definite (whereas
an articled noun and an unarticled adjective constitute a predication); the article does not
appear on words with personal pronominal suffixes; and the article is used to substantiv-
ize adjectives (Huehnergard 2005: 184–6; Pat-El 2009: 25). In the Modern South Arabian
languages, too, a definite article emerged; there, however, personal pronominal suffixes
must be attached to nouns with the article (see Chapter 11). In South Ethio-Semitic lan-
guages such as Amharic, the 3sg pronominal suffixes became the normal definite article.
3.3.2.4 Case and declension

The case systems of several of the ancient languages are sufficiently similar that a
reconstruction of PS as a three-case language is straightforward: nominative, for sub-
jects and (optionally) for the predicates of verbless clauses; genitive, after bound forms,
including all prepositions; and accusative, for objects but also for a wide range of other
uses (including predicate marking). Hasselbach (2013), in a thorough review of case in
Semitic, both refutes the occasional suggestion that Semitic was at one-time ergative, and
argues persuasively “that Semitic was marked-nom before it developed its well-known
triptotic declension” (p. 327). The PS case system is illustrated in Table 3.7 with the
adjective *t’aːb‑ ‘good’.
As Table 3.7 shows, genitive and accusative constitute a single case in the dual and
external plural endings (the resulting case sometimes referred to as obl).
TABLE 3.7 THE PROTO-SEMITIC CASE SYSTEM, ON *T’AːB‑ ‘GOOD’
singular masculine feminine
nom t’aːb-u-m t’aːb-at-u-m

gen t’aːb-i-m t’aːb-at-i-m
acc t’aːb-a-m t’aːb-at-a-m
dual masculine feminine
nom t’aːb-aː-na t’aːb-at-aː-na

gen/acc t’aːb-aj-na t’aːb-at-aj-na
plural masculine feminine
nom t’aːb-uː-na t’aːb-aːt-u-m

gen/acc t’aːb-iː-na t’aːb-aːt-i-m
Note: Final ‑m and ‑na mark nonbound forms; they are absent in bound (“construct”) forms.
Proto-Semitic 61
Two other endings can be reconstructed to PS, a locative *‑u(m) and a directional *‑isa
(the latter > *‑ah(a) in West Semitic), as in *bajt-u(m) ‘in the house’ and *bajt-isa ‘to
the house’. These endings are sometimes also considered case markers, but they do not
really function as such and are better seen as adverbial endings (Hasselbach 2013: 20–2).
3.4 Numerals
3.4.1 Cardinals
The reconstruction of the PS cardinal numbers is fairly clear-cut, although analogical
changes in the descendant languages have made the precise forms of some of them less
certain.
1 *ʕast‑ 6 *sidθ‑
2 *θin(aː)‑ 7 *sabʕ‑
3 *θalaːθ‑ 8 *θamaːnij‑
4 *ʔarbaʕ‑ 9 *tisʕ‑
5 *xamis‑ 10 *ʕaɬar‑
For *ʕast‑ as the PS form of ‘one’, see Wilson-Wright (2014), who shows that the usual
West Semitic form for ‘one’, *waħad‑/ʔaħad‑, originally meant ‘lone’ (as in Akkadian).
The f of ‘one’ is *ʕast-aj; the f form of the other cardinals adds *‑at to the forms listed
previously. A feature of Proto-Semitic numeral syntax is gender polarity (also termed
“chiastic concord”): the cardinals from ‘3’ to ‘10’ exhibit the gender opposite that of their
heads:
*ʔarbaʕ-um ʔanθ-aː-t-um *sabʕ-at-um ʔaxx-uːna

four(.msg)-nom woman-fpl-f-nom seven-fsg-nom brother.pl-mpl.nom
‘four women’ ‘seven brothers’
‘Twenty’ is the dual of ‘10’; ‘30’ through ‘90’ are either duals of the corresponding
units (Akkadian, Gəʕəz) or external plurals of the units (Central Semitic).
3.4.2 Ordinals
While each Semitic language exhibits a consistent pattern for the ordinals, the patterns
vary from language to language, and so a PS pattern cannot be reconstructed (e.g.,
CaCiC in Assyrian Akkadian but CaCuC in Babylonian Akkadian; *CaːCiC in Arabic
and Gəʕəz; *CaCiːCiː in Hebrew).
3.5 Verbs
3.5.1 Root
See §3.2 on nominal and verbal roots. In §§3.5.2–3.5.4, forms of the basic stem of the verb
are illustrated by what Semitists call “sound triradical roots,” i.e., roots with three conso-
nants that are not (generally) subject to phonological change, such as *ð-k-r ‘to invoke’.
Then §3.5.5 reviews the other (derived) verb stems, and §3.5.6 surveys “weak” roots.
62 John Huehnergard
3.5.2 Tense–aspect–mood system

Three finite verb forms can be posited for PS. The simplest is the imperative, with base
C1VC2V1C3. The other two are both inflected with prefixes, and thus traditionally referred
to as prefix conjugations; the semantic distinction between the two is essentially one of
markedness (see especially Korchin 2008):15
pcs (short prefix conjugation) has the base C1C2V1C3; it is unmarked for TAM
categories.
pcl (long prefix conjugation) has a base with a geminated middle radical, C1aC2C2V2C3;
it is marked for imperfectivity or non-anteriority; this form is lost in Central
Semitic, replaced by a new form, originally the pcs with a set of endings indicating
subordination (see §4.8).
The vowel before C3 in these forms, called the theme vowel, is lexical. For any given verb
the same vowel appears in the imperative and the pcs; for some verbs the same vowel also
appears in the pcl, but for most verbs, the theme vowel of the pcl differs from that of the
imperative and pcs. Five pairs of theme vowels, or vowel classes, may be reconstructed
for PS (Aro 1964). These five vowel classes are listed immediately below, with the vowel
of the pcl base listed first, as is traditional;16 examples are 3msg, with prefix *ji‑ or *ja‑
(for which see §3.5.3):
a ~ u: a large class of mostly transitive verbs; e.g., *jiðakkar ~ *jaðkur ‘to invoke’;
a ~ i: a smaller class, also often transitive; e.g., *jisarrak’ ~ *jasrik’ ‘to steal’;
a ~ a: a small class of transitive verbs; e.g., *jilammad ~ *jilmad ‘to learn’; in some
of the languages, many verbs with “guttural” consonants (glottals, pharynge-
als, and fricative velars/uvulars) as second or third radicals also join this class,
e.g., *jipattaħ ~ *jiptaħ ‘to open’;
i ~ a: a large class, frequently intransitive and/or stative; e.g., *jisallim ~ *jislam ‘to
be(come) whole’;
u ~ u: a smaller class, also frequently intransitive and/or stative; e.g., *jisaxxun ~
*jasxun ‘to be(come) warm’.
Both the short and the long prefix conjugations signify a variety of tenses and both
indicative and injunctive moods. The pcl form may denote any tense, and nuances such
as habitual, durative, conditional, potential, and more. The pcs form may denote, inter
alia, indicative past (e.g., ‘he invoked’) or jussive (‘let him invoke’); the latter sense can
be marked explicitly with the proclitic asseverative particle *la= (i.e., *la=yaðkur; see
§3.10).
3.5.3 Inflection
Table 3.8 presents the probable PS forms of the short prefix conjugation (pcs) of the a ~
u verb *ð-k-r ‘to invoke’.
Verbs with theme vowel i in the pcs have the same prefixes, as in *ʔasrik’, *tasrik’,
*jasrik’, etc., from *s-r-k’ ‘to steal’. Verbs with theme vowel a in the pcs, however, have
i in the personal prefix, as in *ʔislam, *tislam, *jislam, etc., from *s-l-m ‘to be(come)
whole’.17 The long prefix conjugation has the same markers of person, but the vowel
Proto-Semitic 63
TABLE 3.8 CONJUGATION OF THE SHORT PREFIX CONJUGATION (pcs) IN PS; *Ð-K-R
‘TO INVOKE’
Singular Dual18 Plural
1c *ʔaðkur *naðkur
2m *taðkur *taðkuruː
2f *taðkuriː *taðkurna
2c *taðkuraː
3m *jaðkur *jaðkuruː
3f *taðkur *jaðkurna19
3c *jaðkuraː
TABLE 3.9 CONJUGATION OF THE IMPERATIVE IN PS; *Ð-K-R ‘TO INVOKE’
2m *ðukur *ðukuruː
2c *ðukuraː
2f *ðukuriː *ðukurna
of the prefixes, whether a or i or both, is uncertain: 3msg *jiðakkar or *jaðakkar, 2fsg

*tiðakkariː or *taðakkariː, etc.; for simplicity, these forms elsewhere in this chapter are
written with *ji‑, *ti‑, etc.
The imperative occurs only in 2nd person forms; the forms of *ð-k-r appear in Table 3.9.
As noted previously, it has the same theme vowel as the short prefix conjugation. A recent
study reconstructs the msg forms *ðukur, *sirik’, limad, corresponding to the pcs 3msg
forms *yaðkur, *yasrik’ and yilmad noted in §3.5.2 (Bjøru forthc.).20 The imperative may
not be negated; negative commands are expressed by the prefix conjugations (see §3.9).
The West Semitic suffix conjugation (sc), as in *ðakar-a (invoke.sc-3msg) ‘he (has)
invoked’, is an innovation based on the PS verbal adjective in a predicative construction,
for which see the following section.
3.5.4 Non-finite forms
A verbal adjective occurs for all verbs and denotes primarily the result of the verbal
action. In the basic stem it has the pattern *CaCVC (see §3.3.1). The uninflected base
of the verbal adjective can take enclitic forms of the 1st and 2nd person nominative
pronouns (§3.1.1), creating a verbless predication: *θabir-nu (broken-1cpl) ‘we are/were
broken’; *k’arub‑ti (near-2fsg) ‘you are/were near’. 3rd person forms bear an unrelated
set of endings, 3msg *‑a,21 3fsg *‑at, 3mpl *‑uː, 3fpl *‑aː, as in *maliʔ-at (full-3fsg) ‘it (f)
is/was full’, *jasar‑aː (straight-3fpl) ‘they (f) are/were straight’. In Proto-West Semitic
this construction evolved into an active, perfective verb for nonstative roots, often with
a in the second syllable, as in *θabar-nu ‘we broke (tr)’, *θabar-a ‘he broke (tr)’; to a
greater or lesser extent, this new West Semitic form eventually marginalized the earlier
short prefix conjugation (pcs) form *ja-θbir as a past tense, although the latter remained
in use as the normal jussive form.22
64 John Huehnergard
As also noted in §3.3.1, an active participle with the pattern *CaːCiC for the basic verb
stem occurs in many of the descendant languages, and may therefore be reconstructed
to PS as a productive form for fientic verbs. It is an adjective, unmarked for aspect, and
is often substantivized; e.g., from *r-k-b ‘to ride’: *raːkib‑ ‘riding, having ridden, (one)
who rides/rode, rider (msg)’.
Active participles of the derived stems (see the following section) may also be recon-
structed; they have a prefix *mu‑ before the base of the short prefix conjugation form of
the verb. Passive participles of the derived stems seem to be a Central Semitic innovation;
they also have prefix *mu‑, but the pattern of the base varies across the languages (as do
the finite forms of the passive derived stems).
A verbal substantive with the pattern *CaCaːC (in the basic stem) functions as an infini-
tive in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Hebrew, and may therefore be reconstructed as such for PS.
In West Semitic, other patterns, such as *CiCC, are also used as verbal nouns or infinitives,
with greater or lesser regularity. Across Semitic, these nouns frequently occur after certain
common prepositions, especially the loc/ins preposition for circumstantials and the dat/dir
preposition for purpose and result; e.g., *ʔin naθ’aːr-im (in protect.inf-gen) ‘while protect-
ing’, West Semitic *la=naθ’aːr-im (to=protect.inf-gen) ‘for protecting, (in order) to protect’.
3.5.5 Derived stems and voice

The basic stem of the verb, exemplified by most of the forms cited in the preceding para-
graphs, is often referred to in Semitic studies as the G stem, from German Grundstamm.
(The scholarly traditions of the individual languages refer to this basic stem by other
names.) Other stems, with broadly predictable semantic ranges, could be formed by the
addition of prefixes or the doubling or reduplication of the second or third root conso-
nant.23 The following derived stems can be reconstructed to PS:
1 C, for “causative,” characterized in PS by a prefix *s(a). In the prefix conjuga-

tion forms, the pronominal prefixes have *u rather than *a or *i as they do in the
basic stem; the short prefix conjugation form (pcs) may be reconstructed as *ju-sa-
C1C2iC3, the long (pcl) as *ju-sa-C1aC2C2aC3,24 as in *ju-sa-smiʕ (3-caus-hear.pcs)
and *ju-sa-sammaʕ (3-caus-hear.pcl) ‘he caused/causes (someone) to hear (some-
thing)’. While C forms of transitive verbs may be doubly transitive, as in these
examples, one of the objects is usually omitted, thus, e.g., ‘he caused (someone)
to obey’ or ‘he caused (something) to be heard, he proclaimed (something)’. The C
stem is especially common with verbs of motion, e.g., from *ʕ-r-b ‘to enter’,*tu-sa-
ʕrib (2-caus-enter.pcs) ‘you caused to enter, took in, sent in, brought in’. In most
West Semitic languages an areal change of prevocalic *s > *h resulted in the C stem
being characterized instead by *h, as in *tu-ha-ʕrib. (In a further development, caus-
ative *h > ʔ in Arabic, in Ethiopic, and in Aramaic after the Old Aramaic period.)
A causative stem in *s is also found in most other branches of Afro-Asiatic.
2 D, characterized by doubling of the second radical. The D stem increases the tran-
sitivity of the verbal root (Kouwenberg 1997, Beckman 2015). It is especially com-
mon as a factitive of stative roots: G *ji-slam (3-whole.pcs) ‘he became whole’, D
*ju-sallim (3-whole.fact.pcs) ‘he made whole, completed, restored’. For transitive
roots, the D may be pluralic or indicate increased effect on the object: *ju-θabbir ‘he
broke (something) up, apart; he broke (many)’. As the examples show, the pronom-
inal prefix has u in the D stem, as in the C stem.
Proto-Semitic 65
3 L, characterized by a long aː after the first radical. The function of this stem in PS
is difficult to determine. In Classical Arabic this stem (“Form III”) denotes intent,
as in qaːtala ‘he fought’, i.e., ‘he tried to kill’, vs. G qatala ‘he killed’. In Ethiopian
Semitic languages, however, it has become lexical, as in Gəʕəz baräkä < *baːraka
‘he blessed’. In the Modern South Arabian languages, the L stem has merged with the
D stem, via regular phonological processes and the resulting stem is also frequently
lexical. The L stem is vestigial in the Northwest Semitic languages, and lacking in
East Semitic. But since a similar form is attested elsewhere in Afro-Asiatic (viz., in
Cushitic), it may be reconstructed to PS.
4 N, characterized by a prefix *n. This *n was originally prefixed to the basic (G)
verbal adjective, *CaCVC (see §3.5.4), resulting in an ingressive verb. Since for
transitive verbs that adjective was normally passive or resultative, N verbs are usu-
ally passive or middle: *θabir‑ ‘broken’, *jV-n-θabir (3-n-broken) ‘it got broken, it
broke (intr)’. Cognates of the N stem are attested in other Afro-Asiatic languages
(Lieberman 1986).
5 R, characterized by reduplication of the third radical, as in the pcs form
*jV-C1aC2C3iC3. This stem is common in Arabic (“Form IX”) for roots denoting col-
ors and physical characteristics, as in jasˤfarir ‘it turned yellow, became jaundiced’.
It occurs in several other Semitic languages, and may therefore be reconstructed as
a PS stem. Finite forms are rare and vestigial, however, and so its original semantic
function is not entirely certain, although it seems generally to have been intensifying
(Hartmann 1875, Whiting 1981): e.g., Akkadian (Old Babylonian) ta-šḫarrar ‘you
(msg) become still (pcl)’ (root š-ḫ-r), Biblical Hebrew suffix conjugation šaʔănan ‘it
(m) is at peace’ (root š-ʔ-n). R stem verbal adjectives are more commonly attested,
e.g., with pattern *C1aC2uC3C3, as in Akkadian šaḫurr‑ ‘still’, Hebrew *ʔadumm‑
‘red’ (see §3.3.1).
6 t-forms. Associated with each of the G, C, D and L stems is a stem with a prefixed or
infixed t. The Ct stem is marked by s-t, with t immediately after the causative s, as
in *jV-s-t-aC1C2iC3 (since in this stem the *s was not prevocalic, it remained even in
the languages in which the C stem *s became *h). In the tG and tD stems, the t was
probably prefixed to the base, thus tG *jV-t-C1aC2VC3 and tD *jV-t-C1aC2C2VC3. In
several of the languages, however, the t came to be infixed, after the first root conso-
nant; this was especially true of the tG (*jV-C1-t-aC2VC3), which may already have
undergone the metathesis, perhaps optionally, in the proto-language. The t stems are
medio-passive, reflexive, and reciprocal in meaning. Other Afro-Asiatic languages
also attest medio-passive verbs marked with *t (Voigt 1987).
7 Internal passives. In the Central Semitic languages and the Modern South Arabian
languages, the G, C, D and L stems exhibit passive verbs that are characterized by
a change of vowel melodies vis-à-vis the active form (termed “internal passives”
or “ablaut passives”).25 The short prefix conjugation (pcs) form of the G passive
may be reconstructed as *ju-C1C2aC3 (with *u in the prefix), as in *ju-ðkar ‘he was
invoked’, vs. *ja-ðkur ‘he invoked’; but the other stems show varying melodies, e.g.,
Hebrew D passive *ju-C1uC2C2aC3 vs. Arabic *ju-C1aC2C2aC3. Ethiopian Semitic
does not have such forms, while in Akkadian, passives with distinctive vowel melo-
dies are simply the verbal adjectives of the relevant stems, as in the Assyrian D stem
adjective šallum‑ ‘made whole’, and prefix conjugation forms do not occur. Thus it is
likely that these internal passives are the result either of an innovation in a common
ancestor of Central Semitic and the Modern South Arabian languages or of an areal
diffusion.
66 John Huehnergard
3.5.6 “Weak” roots
Verbal roots with the glides w or j as their first or second radical underwent developments
already in PS. As noted in §3.2, in some roots with w as first radical, the w is lacking in
the short prefix conjugation base and related forms, such as the imperative; e.g., from
the root *w-θ-b, *ja-θib (3-sit.pcs) ‘he sat’, *θib ‘sit.imp!’. Other verbs I–w were regular,
however; e.g., from the root *w-ʦ-p, *ja-wʦup (3-add.pcs) ‘he added’ (see Huehnergard
2006a). Verbs I–j, such as *j-b-s ‘(to be) dry’, were also regular, as in *ji-jbas (3-dry.pcs)
‘it became dry’.
In roots with w or j as the second radical, a number of forms underwent phono-
logical changes in PS. Expected pcs forms such as *ja-kwun-uː (3-stable.pcs-mpl)
‘they (m) became stable’ and *ja-ɬjim-uː (3-set.pcs-mpl) ‘they (m) set’ are not usually
attested; instead, as noted in §2.2, the glide and the following vowel yielded a long
vowel: *ja-kuːn-uː, *ja-ɬiːm-uː; in closed syllables, the new long vowel was shortened:
*ja-kun ‘it became stable’, *ja-ɬim ‘he set’. See §2.2 as well for developments in the
verbal adjectives of these roots. The pcl forms of these roots were regular: *ji-kawwan,
*ji-ɬajjam.
Verbs with w and j as the third radical are essentially regular in Gəʕəz and in the ear-
liest Akkadian dialects, and thus were probably inflected normally in PS as well, e.g.,
*ji-xdaw-uː (3-rejoice.pcs-mpl) ‘they (m) rejoiced’, *ta-bnij-uː (2-build.pcs-mpl) ‘you
(mpl) built’.
In stative roots with identical second and third radicals (traditionally called “geminate
roots”), the verbal adjective has the form *C1aC2C2, e.g., *ħamm‑um ‘hot-nom’; since
adjectives with the pattern *C1aC2C3 cannot be reconstructed in PS, it is likely that the
former are the result of a PS syncope rule (viz., *ħamm‑um < *ħamam‑um; see §2.3, end).
In Central Semitic, pcs forms of these roots show metathesis of the theme-vowel and the
second radical: *ja-mudd-uː < *ja-mdud-uː (3-measure.pcs-mpl) ‘they (m) measured’; it
is uncertain whether this is a Central Semitic innovation or, less likely, a PS feature that
was independently leveled out of the various non-Central Semitic languages.
3.6 Prepositions
A number of words that function as prepositions can be reconstructed to PS. Some of
these are originally substantives, used adverbially as bound forms, as in *wist’-a bajt-im
interior-acc.bnd house-gen ‘within the house’. A substantival origin of other preposi-
tions, however, is not evident; some of these are simple CV forms, which were probably
proclitic, such as *ka= ‘like’, while others are CVC forms, such as *ʔin ‘in’ (Voigt 1999).
These invariably govern the gen as well: *ka=kalb-im (like=dog-gen) ‘like a dog’, *ʔin
libb-i-ja (in heart-gen.bnd-1csg) ‘in my heart’. Several forms have an optional ending
*‑aj, e.g., *wist’aj ‘in, with’. The prepositions *ʕal(aj) ‘on, against’ and *ʕad(aj) ‘up to,
until’ are associated with verbal roots, respectively *ʕ-l-j ‘to go up’ and (West Semitic)
*ʕ-d-w ‘to cross, traverse’; but whether the prepositions or the verbal roots are primary
is uncertain.
Since prepositions are bound forms, and since bound forms can govern clauses (see
§3.3.2.3), some prepositions are also common as subordinating conjunctions (with
or without a relative marker): *ʕad(aj) ʔi-smaʕ-u (until 1csg-hear.pcs-sbrd) ‘until
I heard’.
Proto-Semitic 67
A list of probable PS prepositions follows; forms ending with =, such as *bi=, are
usually proclitic.
• *ʔin ‘in’ in East Semitic, but in West Semitic of restricted occurrence, e.g., Gəʕəz
ʔǝn-bälä ‘without’ (= Akkadian in(a) balu), and in a form extended with (f) *‑t, *ʔin-tV
(also *ʔin-t-aj), meaning ‘at, via’ (Gəʕəz ʔǝntä) and ‘with’ (Babylonian Akkadian itti,
Hebrew ʔɛt); note also Gəʕəz ʔǝn-zä (in-rel) ‘while’
• *ʕad(aj) ‘up to, until’; cf. the West Semitic verbal root *ʕ-d-w ‘to cross, traverse’
• *ʕal(aj) ‘on, against’; cf. the PS verbal root *ʕ-l-j ‘to go up’
• *bajn(-aj) between’ (lost in Akkadian, but present in Eblaite)
• *bal ‘without, non-’ (Pat-El 2013)
• *bi= West Semitic, ‘in, with’ (loc/ins)
• *ha= ‘to, for’; in West Semitic, found only in Modern South Arabian languages (e.g.,
Jibbāli he=ʃ ‘to him’) and in the Ancient South Arabian language Ḥaḍramitic; in East
Semitic, it is extended with enclitic *=na, as *ha=na > Akkadian ana, Eblaite ʔa5-na
/hana/ (Tonietti 2013: 51)
• *ka= also *kiː (and *kaj ?) ‘like, as’
• *la= West Semitic ‘to, for’ (dat/dir); apparently lost in East Semitic, unless the
preposition is the same as the asseverative particle *la=, for which see §3.10
• *min(V) ‘from’; in Ethiopian, Tigre has mɨn, but in Gəʕəz the form has become ʔǝm
and ʔǝmǝnnä via an obscure set of developments; lost in Akkadian, but Eblaite has two
distinct prepositions, min ‘in’ and minu ‘from’ (Tonietti 2013: 82–8)
• *sin or *ʦin ‘toward, at’? Only in Eblaite (and one early Akkadian text), where the
spelling si-in indicates initial *s or *ɬ (Tonietti 2013: 90–3), and in Ancient South
Arabian, where the usual writing s3n indicates initial *ʦ (in Minaic, Qatabanic, and
early Sabaic; but later Sabaic texts have s1n, with *s)
• *wist’(aj) or *wast’(aj) ‘in, at’; as noted above, derived from a substantive
*wi/ast’‑ ‘interior’
As in many other languages, prepositional phrases, comprising a preposition and a

bound-form substantive, are common; examples found across Semitic (albeit with vary-
ing lexemes) are {to face.bnd} = ‘toward’, {in hand.bnd} = ‘through the agency of’, {in
middle.bnd} = ‘within’, {like mouth.bnd} ‘according to’.
3.7 Conjunctions
PS coordinating conjunctions are *wa ‘and’, *pa/ʔap ‘and then, and so’ (these two are
proclitic in some languages) and *ʔaw ‘or’. For subordinating conjunctions, see §4.8.
3.8 Adverbs
Only a few true adverbs may be reconstructed, e.g., interrogative *mataj ‘when?’. Most
words used as adverbs are demonstratives, substantives, and adjectives, often in the accu-
sative case, e.g., *jawm-am(=ma) (day-acc(=top) ‘today’ or ‘daily’). For the adverbial
endings *‑u(m) and *‑isa, see §3.3.2.4, end.
68 John Huehnergard
3.9 Negation markers

Pat-El (2012) and Sjörs (2018) plausibly reconstruct two PS negators, both of which are
attested in East and West Semitic: *laː is the standard negator, while *ʔal is a marked
form (both [+neg] and [+vol]) restricted originally to negating the short prefix con-
jugation *jV-C1C2VC3 when used with injunctive modal force, as in *ʔal ja-ðkur (neg
3-invoke.pcs) ‘may he not invoke’. This original system is preserved intact only in the
Northwest Semitic languages.
3.10 Other particles

Two presentative particles, *han and *hal ‘here is . . .’, may be reconstructed to PS
( Hasselbach 2007, Pat-El 2009).
An existential particle in Central Semitic is *jiθ‑ ‘there is/are’; the cognate in East
Semitic, however, is a finite verb, *j-θ-w, which in Akkadian came to signify ‘to have’
(Bar-Asher Siegal 2011). A negative counterpart, *ʔajn‑ ‘there is/are not’, appears in
Northwest Semitic, perhaps related to a negative ʔin in Arabic and Ethiopic.26
Proclitic *la= marks asseveration or affirmation, and could be prefixed to virtually any
form, with the exception of imperatives (Huehnergard 1983); e.g., Ugaritic:
<lbʕl. npl>, i.e., /la=baʕl-u napal-a/

la=Baal-nom fall.sc-3msg
‘Baal has indeed fallen.’
Asseverative *la= marks the short prefix conjugation verb specifically as injunctive:
*la=jaðkur (la=3.invoke.pcs) ‘may he invoke’.
The particle *law introduces hypotheticals: *law jaðkur ‘would that he had invoked’.
Enclitic *=ma is a topicalizing particle:
*ja-mut dajja(ː)n-um=ma
3-die.pcs judge-nom=top
‘It was the judge who died.’
In Akkadian, =ma also topicalized whole clauses, and became the most common clause
connector:
Old Babylonian ileqqû=ma izuzzū

receive.pcl.3mpl=top divide.pcl.3mpl
‘They will receive and then divide.’
4 SYNTAX
4.1 Word order
The ancient West Semitic languages such as Biblical Hebrew, Old Aramaic, Classical
Arabic and Gəʕəz are predominantly VSO. Akkadian prose, conversely, is SOV. But there
are exceptions in Akkadian; for example, Old Assyrian has a few examples of SVO and
even VSO (Kouwenberg 2017: 698–703); further, Akkadian names with verbal elements
Proto-Semitic 69
are often VS (e.g., i-šme – il-um 3-hear.pcs – god-nom ‘the god has heard’), and Akkadian
poetry shows relatively free word order. Moreover, in Eblaite, which is also East Semitic,
there are numerous instances of VSO clauses (along with other orders). Thus it is likely
that Proto-Semitic was VSO; as is usually suggested, the change to SOV in Akkadian is
undoubtedly due to prolonged contact with Sumerian, which is also SOV.
In most Semitic languages (including Akkadian), heads precede modifiers (adjectives,
genitives, relative clauses).27
4.2 Verbless clauses

Verbless clauses are a common feature of most Semitic languages. Predicate nouns were
probably marked with *‑a in Proto-Semitic (see n. 21); whether such clauses were S–P or
P–S or both is uncertain:28
*ʔab-uː-ki baʕl-a
father-nom.bnd-2fsg lord‑acc/pred
‘Your (fsg) father is lord.’
*ʦ’aɣir-a ħak’l-u-ka
small‑acc/pred field-nom.bnd-2msg
‘Your (msg) field is small.’
Also reconstructible to PS is the use of anaphoric (=3rd person) pronouns as copulas; the
noun subject is then essentially extraposed:
*ʔab-uː-ki suʔa baʕl-a

father-nom.bnd-2fsg dem.msg.nom lord‑acc/pred
‘Your (fsg) father (he) is lord.’
Predicates may also be adverbial adjuncts:
*ʔimm-u-sa ʔin bajt-i-ka

mother-nom.bnd-3fsg in house-gen.bnd-2msg
‘Her mother is in your (msg) house.’
See §3.10 for an existential particle *jiθ‑.
4.3 Noun modification

Two types of genitive phrases may be reconstructed, in both of which the genitive
follows its head noun. In the type called a “construct chain,” the head and its genitive
are simply juxtaposed, but the head noun lacks the ending that marks nouns as non-
bound, as in
*ʔanθ-at-u bajt-i-m
woman-f-nom.bnd house‑gen-nbnd
‘woman of the house’.
70 John Huehnergard
The other construction employs the relative marker, itself a bound form in apposition to
the (nonbound) head noun (see §3.1.3):
*ʔanθ-at-u-m θaːt-u bajt-i-m

woman-f-nom-nbnd rel.f-nom.bnd house‑gen-nbnd
‘woman of the house’.
This second type became rare in some West Semitic languages, such as ancient Hebrew
and Arabic (Pat-El 2010).
In both types of construction, a clause could stand in the position of the genitive noun.
For example, either of the following was possible. The first type became less common in
West Semitic.
*ʔanθ-at-u ta-ðkur-u
woman‑f-nom.bnd 2-invoke.pcs-sbrd
‘the woman you (msg) invoked’.
or
*ʔanθ-at-u-m θaːt-u ta-ðkur-u

woman‑f-nom-nbnd rel.f-nom.bnd 2-invoke.pcs-sbrd
‘the woman whom you (msg) invoked’.
Only the first type of construction was used for pronominal possession in PS:
*ʔanθ-at-u-su
woman-f-nom.bnd-3msg
‘his wife’.
4.4 Definite article

See §3.3.2.3.
4.5 Agreement
Rules of agreement in PS are difficult to reconstruct with confidence. In most Semitic
languages, attributive adjectives agree with their head nouns in gender and number
(and case, if applicable), though not necessarily in boundness. In some Ethiopian
Semitic languages such as Gǝʕəz, however, the concord is less strict for inanimates
(see Chapter 6). In Arabic, broken plurals (§3.3.2.2) of inanimates are construed with
fsg adjectives and verbs. In Akkadian, agreement in the plural depends on the morphol-
ogy of the head noun; e.g., Old Babylonian bīt-um labir-um (house-nom old.msg-nom)
‘old house’, but plural bīt-āt-um labir-āt-um ‘old houses’ (house-fpl-nom old-fpl-nom).
This contrasts with a West Semitic agreement pattern such as that of Biblical Hebrew,
where the gender of the noun in the singular determines the gender of the adjective in
the plural: ʔărå̄ y-ōt šōʔăḡ-īm ‘roaring lions’ (lion.m-fpl roaring-mpl) (see Huehnergard
2006c: 17).
Proto-Semitic 71
Verbs agree strictly with their subjects in Akkadian. In Classical Arabic, verbs are
singular when they precede plural subjects; sporadic instances of this are also found in
Biblical Hebrew. In Gəʕəz, again, agreement of the verb with a f or pl inanimate subject
is optional.
4.6 Negation
See §3.9.
4.7 Interrogative sentences

Interrogative sentences are marked variously in the descendant languages – e.g., intona-
tion or stress in Akkadian, proclitic particles in Arabic and Hebrew, enclitic particles in
Ethiopic – and so it is difficult to reconstruct the PS situation.
4.8 Subordination
A common Semitic subordinating conjunction is *kiː, with a wide semantic range, intro-
ducing temporal, causal, comparative and object clauses (‘when, because, as, that’). As
noted in §3.6, certain prepositions also function as subordinating conjunctions, as do
bound form nouns, such as *jawm-a (day-acc.bnd) ‘when’. Relative clauses occupy the
slot of attributives, and are introduced either by the relative marker or by a bound form;
see §4.3 for examples. The syntactic role of the head noun in the relative sentence may be
filled by a resumptive pronoun:
*ʔanθ-at-um θaːt-u ta-ʔmur-u bajt-a-sa

woman-f-nom rel.f-nom.bnd 2-see.pcs-sbrd house-acc.bnd-3fsg
‘the woman rel you saw her house’, i.e., ‘the woman whose house you saw’.
In East Semitic, finite verbs in subordinate clauses, both relative and other types, are
obligatorily marked with a final *‑u if the verb has no other ending,29 as in the following
Old Assyrian examples:
kutān-um ša ekall-um i-lqe-u

textile-nom rel palace‑nom 3-take.pcs-sbrd
‘the textile that the palace took’.
kīma aḫ-um ana aḫ-em i-ddun-u
as brother-nom to brother-gen 3-give.pcl-sbrd
‘as brother gives to brother’.
Other subordination markers, ‑na and ‑ni, are also attested in Akkadian, both probably
deriving from *‑na (with dissimilation to ‑ni after aː). It is likely that this feature, in which
finite verbs are marked as nominalized, was inherited from PS (Hasselbach 2012), with
allomorphs *‑u after consonants and *‑na after vowels. The feature is lost in Ethiopian
Semitic and in Modern South Arabian. But in a diagnostic development that character-
izes Central Semitic, the PS short prefix conjugation form with the subordination marker
72 John Huehnergard
*‑u/*‑na, e.g., 3msg *jaðkur-u, 3mpl *jaðkuruː-na, was reanalyzed as a new marked
imperfective form, a form that completely replaced the inherited PS form *jiðakkar (see
Chapter 1, §2.2.3).30
For ‘if’, we may posit PS *sin(=ma) (> Akkadian šumma, Aramaic hin, Gəʕəz ʔǝmmä,
Arabic ʔin). The apodosis of a conditional sentence could be introduced by the coordinat-
ing conjunction *wa ‘and’. Both protases and apodoses of conditional sentences exhibit a
rather perplexing range of verb forms across the Semitic languages.
5 LEXICON
An extensive set of pronouns, primary nouns, numerals, verbal roots and particles can be
reconstructed to PS. A complete dictionary of common Semitic vocabulary is not yet avail-
able. The Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques (Cohen et al. 1970–) runs to nearly 1,300 pages
as of the most recent fascicle (2012), but is still only 40% complete; it is in the order of the
Hebrew alphabet. The Semitic Etymological Dictionary, by Militarev and Kogan, is arranged
by semantic field; two volumes have appeared, “Anatomy of Man and Animals” (2000) and
“Animal Names” (2005). Fronzaroli (1964–71) and Kogan (2011b) are monograph-length
overviews of the PS lexicon; in a much larger work, Kogan 2015 uses a comprehensive
survey of Semitic vocabulary to examine issues of subgrouping. A Leipzig-Jakarta list of
Proto-Semitic words is presented by Wilson-Wright (forthc.). Lists of common Semitic
vocabulary and roots may also be found in Bennett (1998) and Huehnergard (2011).
Beyond Semitic itself, a few PS words and roots have cognates in other Afro-Asiatic
languages; examples are (PS) *sim‑ ‘name’, *lis(aːn)‑ ‘tongue’, and the roots *m-w-t ‘to
die’ and *p-r-r ‘to flee, fly’. But it has been notoriously difficult to compile extensive
Afro-Asiatic cognate sets.
Common Semitic words that are, or may be, loans include *hajkal‑ ‘temple, palace’,
from Sumerian é-gal ‘house-big’, and probably *θawr‑ ‘bull’ and *k’arn‑ ‘horn’ from
Indo-European *tauro‑ and *kr̥ ‑n-, and the deity name *ʕaθtar‑ ‘morning/evening star’
from I-E *h2steːr‑ ‘star’.31 Other words are of uncertain origin, e.g., *marr‑ ‘spade,
shovel’, also in Sumerian mar, Egyptian mr and perhaps elsewhere in Afro-Asiatic, as
well as, e.g., Latin (Salonen 1952: 9).
NOTES
1 The velar/uvular fricatives will be represented simply as velars (x, ɣ, x’) elsewhere in
this chapter.
2 Throughout this chapter, affricates are transcribed as ligatures (ʦ, ʣ) rather than with
a tie-bar (t͜ s, d͜ z).
3 Further, a conditioned change *s > *h occurred in early West Semitic, for which
see the third of the set of phonological processes presented following Table 3.2;
cross-linguistically, [s] > [h] is much more common than [ʃ] > [h].
4 In some instances the two byforms of a single original root have reflexes in an indi-
vidual language; e.g., Arabic has both b-q-r ‘to split, slit’ and f-q-r ‘to pierce, slit’
(with some semantic disambiguation) from the PS root *b-k’-r, in addition to f-q-r ‘to
be needy, poor’ from the PS root *p-k’-r.
5 The change *s > *h was not a Proto-West Semitic phenomenon, but occurred after
the appearance of subbranches of West Semitic and then spread to most albeit not
Proto-Semitic 73
all of the languages; the change is not found in several of the Ancient South Arabian
languages, at the geographical periphery.
6 Thus, e.g., for the root *s-l-m ‘(to be) whole’, while *salim-at ‘she is whole’
(whole-3fsg) would have become **halim-at, the form *ti-slam ‘she became whole’
(3f-whole.pcs) would have remained unaffected by the rule, and so all forms of the
root retained the original *s.
7 In some of the descendant languages, sound changes and movement of stress resulted in
occasional minimal pairs distinguished by stress: e.g., Gǝʕəz ˈsǝḥ.tät ‘error’ vs. sǝḥ.ˈtät
(err.sc.3fsg) ‘she erred’; Biblical Hebrew ˈbå̄.nū (in.1cpl) ‘among us’ vs. bå̄.ˈnū
(build.sc.3mpl) ‘they (m) built’.
8 The final vowels of many of these forms, and also of the pronominal suffixes pre-
sented in Table 3.5 are often reconstructed with variable length, e.g., 1csg *ʔana or
*ʔanaː (in Semitic scholarship, called “anceps vowels,” and written, e.g., ā̆). See
Hasselbach (2004a) for arguments that these vowels are originally short.
9 The element *ʔajj- is also a component in a wide variety of forms in the descendant lan-
guages, and so a recent study analyzes it as “an abstract general constituent-question
marker” (Cohen forthc.).
10 Egyptian exhibits similar alternations in forms of roots with first radical w, as in wsḫ
‘(to be) broad’ and sḫw ‘breadth’.
11 There are exceptions, such as common Semitic *n-t-n ‘to give’, Akkadian ḫ-š-ḫ
‘to need’; roots of the form C1-w-C1 and C1-j-C1 are also found, e.g., *ð-w-ð ‘to
stand’.
12 For the proto-forms of ‘father’ and ‘brother’, see Wilson-Wright (2016b).
13 Hebrew in fact exhibits byforms of some words, one showing the reflex of *-t and
the other the reflex of *-at; e.g., lɛdɛt < *lid-t- and lēdå̄ < *lid-at-, both attested as inf
of the root y-l-d ‘to give birth’; maṣṣɛbɛt < *manʦ’ib-t- and maṣṣēbå̄ < *manʦ’ib-at-
‘memorial stone’.
14 Paired parts of the body are presumably f because the marker of the nom dual, *-aː,
was also a marker of fpl; see §3.3.2.2.
15 Essentially the same system of forms and functions has recently been reconstructed
for an ancestral Proto-Berbero-Semitic (Kossmann and Suchard 2018).
16 The vowel of the pcl eventually also appears in the West Semitic suffix conjugation,
for which see §3.5.4.
17 Hasselbach (2004b) proposes instead that the distribution *jaðkur, *jantin vs. *jislam
is a Central Semitic innovation, and that in PS, for all verb classes, the vowels of the
person prefixes were partly homorganic with the consonants (as, for the most part,
in Akkadian), viz.: 1sg *ʔa‑, 2sg/2pl/3fsg *ta‑, 3msg/3pl *ji‑, 1cpl *ni‑. Bar-Asher
(2008) offers counter-arguments; see also Testen (1992). Kossmann and Suchard
(2018) posit a Proto-Berbero-Semitic distinction between perfective *ja-C1C2uC3,
*ja-C1C2iC3 and stative *ji-C1C2aC3.
18 The Modern South Arabian languages and (rarely) Akkadian exhibit a first-person
dual form, *ʔaðkuraː, i.e., the 1csg with the dual ending *‑aː. It is more likely that
these are independent innovations on the ready analogy of the more widely attested
2nd- and 3rd-person duals than that they reflect inheritance from PS. For Akkadian,
see Kouwenberg (2005: 100–1, 2017: 485); for Modern South Arabian, see Rubin
(2014: 141, 2018: 165).
19 The 3fpl may instead have had t‑, like the 3fsg.
20 See also Bar-Asher (2008), who reconstructs *ðakur, *sarik’ and *limad.
74 John Huehnergard
21 It is likely that 3msg *‑a is originally the same as the acc case, which inter alia
marked nominal predicates; see Hasselbach (2012).
22 Another West Semitic development is the frequent lengthening of the second vowel
in *CaCVC adjectives, especially as *CaCiːC and *CaCuːC, which then serve as par-
adigmatic passive participles of the basic verb stem (see again §3.3.1; Huehnergard
2006c: 10).
23 On the relationships of the stems to valency and transitivity, and the interrelationships
among the stems, see Bjøru (2014).
24 This form is found in Akkadian, though only marginally, for example, in verbs in
which the first radical was originally a laryngeal, pharyngeal, or glide, such as Old
Babylonian ušaḫḫaz < *ju-sa-ʔaxxað (3-caus-seize.pcl) ‘he incites’, and in the
stem called the ŠD, which is restricted to poetry, as in Old Babylonian ušnarraṭ
< *ju-sa-narrat’ (3-caus-tremble.pcl) ‘she makes (people) tremble’. Otherwise in
Akkadian, *ju-sa-C1aC2C2aC3 has been replaced by *ju-sa-C1C2aC3, via an anal-
ogy with the D stem (Tropper 1997: 189–93). In Gəʕəz, PS *ju-sa-C1aC2C2aC3 >
*ju-ha-C1aC2C2aC3 > *ju-ʔa-C1aC2C2aC3 > *jaː-C1aC2C2aC3 → jaC1äC2C2ǝC3 (e.g.,
jawärrǝd ‘he brings down’, from w-r-d ‘to descend’), with the theme vowel leveled
to ǝ as in other Gəʕəz pcl forms.
25 The N stem and t stems also have internal passives in Classical Arabic; such forms
also occur rarely in Hebrew.
26 Middle Babylonian Akkadian yānu ‘there is/are not’ derives from the interrogative
adverb ayyānu ‘where?’.
27 In most modern Ethiopian Semitic languages, which are SOV as a result of Cushitic
influence, heads follow modifiers; see Leslau (1945), Gensler (1997).
28 But the construction that predicates a verbal adjective with an enclitic subject pronoun
is fixed as P – S, e.g., *k’arub‑ti (near-2fsg) ‘you (fsg) are/were near’; see §3.5.4.
29 For the subordination marker ‑u in Eblaite, see Catagnoti (2012: 136–7).
30 For a plausible analysis of the process, see Hamori (1973).
31 On the last, see Wilson-Wright (2016a: 23–5).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General bibliography on the Semitic language family
Further reading: overviews, comparative grammars, and textbooks
Bennett, Patrick R. Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1998.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen: Sprachproben und
grammatische Skizzen. München: Max Hueber, 1928. Translated with Notes and
Bibliography and an Appendix on the Scripts by Peter T. Daniels, as Introduction to
the Semitic Languages. Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Brockelmann, Carl. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.
2 vol. Berlin: von Reuther, 1908–13.
Goldenberg, Gideon. Studies in Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998.
Hetzron, Robert (ed.). The Semitic Languages. London/New York: Routledge, 1997.
Proto-Semitic 75
Huehnergard, John. “Semitic Languages.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East,

edited by Jack M. Sasson, 4.2117–34. New York: Scribners, 1995.
Huehnergard, John. “Afro-Asiatic.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s
Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 138–59. Cambridge: Cambridge
Huehnergard, John. “Proto-Semitic Language and Culture.” In The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition, 2066–78. Boston/New York:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.
Izre’el, Shlomo (ed.). Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st
Century. Israel Oriental Studies 20. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Kienast, Burkhart. Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2001.
Lipiński, Edward. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 80. Leuven: Peeters/Departement Oosterse Studies, 1997.
Moscati, Sabatino (ed.). An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic
Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964.
Rubin, Aaron D. A Brief Introduction to the Semitic Languages. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias, 2010.
Weninger, Stefan (ed.). The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Handbücher
zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2011.
Dictionaries
Cohen, David, et al. Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues
sémitiques. Paris/The Hague: Mouton/Leuven: Peeters, 1970–.
Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1:
Anatomy of Man and Animals. Münster: Ugarit, 2000.
Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 2: Animal
Names. Münster: Ugarit, 2005.
Additional references
Aro, Jussi. Die Vokalisierung des Grundstammes im semitischen Verbum. Studia
Orientalia 31. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1964.
Bar-Asher, Elitzur A. “The Imperative Forms of Proto-Semitic and a New Perspective on
Barth’s Law.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128 (2008): 233–55.
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. “From Typology to Diachrony: Synchronic and Diachronic
Aspects of Predicative Possessive Constructions in Akkadian.” Folia Linguistica
Historica 32 (2011): 43–88.
Beckman, John Charles. Toward the Meaning of the Biblical Hebrew Piel Stem. Ph.D.
dissertation, Harvard University, 2015.
Bjøru, Øyvind. “Transitivity and the Binyanim.” In Proceedings of the Oslo – Austin
Workshop in Semitic Linguistics, Oslo, May 23 and 24, 2013, edited by Lutz Edzard
and John Huehnergard, 48–63. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 88.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014.
Bjøru, Øyvind. “The Morphology of the G-Stem Imperative in Semitic.” Forthcoming in
Journal of the American Oriental Society.
76 John Huehnergard
Cantineau, Jean. “Le consonantisme du sémitique.” Semitica 4 (1951–52): 79–94.

Catagnoti, Amalia. La grammatica della lingua di Ebla. Quaderni di Semitistica
29. Firenze: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, Medioevo e Rinascimento e
Linguistica, 2012.
Cohen, Eran. “The Interrogative Element *’ayy- in Semitic.” Forthcoming in Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.
Faber, Alice. Genetic Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, 1980.
Faber, Alice. “Semitic Sibilants in an Afro-Asiatic Context.” Journal of Semitic Studies
29 (1984): 189–224.
Faber, Alice. “Akkadian Evidence for Proto-Semitic Affricates.” Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 37 (1985): 101–7.
Fox, Joshua. “Isolated Nouns in the Semitic Languages.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 11
(1998): 1–31.
Fox, Joshua. Semitic Noun Patterns. Harvard Semitic Studies 52. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2003.
Fronzaroli, Pelio. “Studie sul lessico commune semitico.” Rendiconti della Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei 19 (1964): 155–72 (I), 243–80 (II); 20 (1965): 135–50 (III),
246–69 (IV); 23 (1968): 267–303 (V); 24 (1969): 285–320 (VI); 26 (1971): 603–42
(VII).
Gensler, Orin D. “Mari Akkadian iš ‘to, for’ and Preposition-Hopping in the Light of
Comparative Semitic Syntax.” Orientalia 66 (1997): 129–56.
Greenberg, Joseph H. “The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic.” Word 6 (1950):
162–81.
Hamori, Andras. “A Note on Yaqtulu in East and West Semitic.” Archiv Orientální 41
(1973): 319–24.
Hartmann, Martin. Die Pluriliteralbildungen in den semitischen Sprachen. Mit
besonderer Berücksichtigung des Hebräischen, Chaldäischen und Neusyrischen. Part
1: Bildung durch Wiederholung des letzten Radicales am Schluss und des Ersten nach
des Zweiten. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1875.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “Final Vowels on Pronominal Suffixes and Independent Personal
Pronouns in Semitic.” Journal of Semitic Studies 49 (2004a): 1–20.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “The Markers of Person, Gender, and Number in the Prefixes of
G-Preformative Conjugations in Semitic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society
124 (2004b): 23–35.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “Demonstratives in Semitic.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 127 (2007): 1–27.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “External Plural Markers in Semitic: A New Assessment.” In
Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Languages Presented to Gene B. Gragg, edited by
Cynthia Miller, 123–38. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 60. Chicago: Oriental
Institute, 2009.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “The Verbal Endings -u and -a: A Note on Their Functional
Derivation.” In Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the
Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‘ama Pat-El,
119–36. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 67. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2012.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. Case in Semitic: Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction. Oxford
Studies in Diachronic & Historical Linguistics 3. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2013.
Proto-Semitic 77
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “Agreement and the Development of Gender in Semitic.”

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 164 (2014): 33–64, 319–44.
Huehnergard, John. “Asseverative *la‑ and Hypothetical *lū/law in Semitic.” Journal of
the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 569–93.
Huehnergard, John. “Akkadian ḫ and West Semitic *ḥ.” In Studia Semitica, edited by
Leonid Kogan, 102–19. Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute, 3 (Alexander
Militarev volume). Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities, 2003.
Huehnergard, John. “Features of Central Semitic.” In Biblical and Oriental Essays
in Memory of William L. Moran, edited by Agustinus Gianto, 155–203. Biblica et
Orientalia 48. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2005.
Huehnergard, John. “Hebrew Verbs I–w/y and a Proto-Semitic Sound Rule.” In
Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff, edited by L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S.
Tishchenko = Babel und Bibel 2 (2006a): 459–74.
Huehnergard, John. “On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative šɛ‑.” In Biblical Hebrew
in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by
Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, 103–25. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006b.
its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC,
edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, 1–18. Leiden: NINO, 2006c.
Huehnergard, John. “Akkadian e and Semitic Root Integrity.” Babel und Bibel 7 (2013):
445–75.
Huehnergard, John. “Reanalysis and New Roots: An Akkadian Perspective.” In
Proceedings of the Oslo–Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics, Oslo, May 23 and
24, 2013, edited by Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard, 9–27. Abhandlungen für die
Kunde des Morgenlandes 88. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014a.
Huehnergard, John. “The Semitic Background of Arabic faqīr ‘poor’.” In No Tapping
around Philology: Festschrift in Honor of Wheeler McIntosh Thacskton’s 70th
Birthday, edited by Alireza Korangy and Daniel Sheffield, 243–54. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2014b.
Huehnergard, John and Na‘ama Pat-El. “Third Person Possessive Suffixes as Definite
Articles in Semitic.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 2 (2012): 25–51.
Huehnergard, John and Na‘ama Pat-El. “The Origin of the Semitic Relative Marker.”
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 81 (2018): 191–204.
Khan, Geoffrey A. Studies in Semitic Syntax. London Oriental Studies 38. Oxford:
Oxford University, 1988.
Kogan, Leonid. “Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology.” In Semitic Languages: An
International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger et al., pp. 54–151. Handbücher
zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2011a.
Kogan, Leonid. “Proto-Semitic Lexicon.” In The Semitic Languages: An International
Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2011b.
Korchin, Paul D. Markedness in Canaanite and Hebrew Verbs. Harvard Semitic Studies
58. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Kossmann, Maarten, and Benjamin D. Suchard. “A Reconstruction of the System of Verb
Aspects in Proto-Berbero-Semitic.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 81 (2018): 41–56.
Kouwenberg, N. J. C. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica.
Leiden: Van Gorcum, 1997.
78 John Huehnergard
Kouwenberg, N. J. C. “Reflections on the Gt-stem in Akkadian.” Zeitschrift für

Assyriologie 95 (2005): 77–103.
Kouwenberg, N. J. C. A Grammar of Old Assyrian. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Leslau, Wolf. “The Influence of Cushitic on the Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Problem
of Substratum.” Word 1 (1945): 59–82.
Lieberman, Stephen J. “The Afro-Asiatic Background of the Semitic N-Stem: Toward
the Origins of the Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Verb.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 43 (1986):
577–628.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A Syntactic
Approach.” Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (2009): 19–50.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “On Periphrastic Genitive Constructions in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew
Studies 51 (2010): 43–8.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “On Verbal Negation in Semitic.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen
ländischen Gesellschaft 162 (2012): 17–45.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “On Negation in Phoenician.” In Linguistic Studies in Phoenician in
Memory of Brian J. Peckham, edited by Robert D. Holmstedt and Aaron Schade,
47–67. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “Digging Up Archaic Features: ‘Neo-Arabic’ and Comparative Semitic
in the Quest for Proto Arabic.” In Arabic in Context: Celebrating 400 Years of Arabic at
Leiden University, edited by Ahmad Al-Jallad, 441–75. Studies in Semitic Languages
Pat-El, Na‘ama and Alexander Treiger. “On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases
and Adverbs in Semitic.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
158 (2006): 265–82.
Phillips, Betty S. “Lexical Diffusion and Function Words.” Linguistics 21 (1983): 487–99.
Ratcliffe, Robert R. The ‘Broken’ Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative Semitic:
Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-concatenative Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1998.
Rubin, Aaron D. The Jibbali (Shaḥri) Language of Oman: Grammar and Texts. Studies
in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 72. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Rubin, Aaron D. Omani Mehri: A New Grammar with Texts. Studies in Semitic Languages
Salonen, Armas. “Alte Substrat- und Kulturwörter im Arabischen.” Studia Orientalia
17/2 (1952): 1–12.
Sanmartín, Joaquín. “Über Regeln und Ausnahmen: Verhalten des vorkonsonantischen
/n/ im ‘Altsemitischen.’ ” In Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für
Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden, edited by Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz,
433–66. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 240. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995.
Sjörs, Ambjörn. Historical Aspects of Standard Negation in Semitic. Studies in Semitic
Languages and Linguistics 91. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Steiner, Richard C. The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. American Oriental
Series 59. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1977.
Steiner, Richard C. Affricated Ṣade in the Semitic Languages. New York: American
Academy for Jewish Research, 1982.
Steiner, Richard C. Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the Pyramid Texts. Harvard
Semitic Studies 61. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Proto-Semitic 79
Steiner, Richard C. “Vowel Syncope and Syllable Repair Processes in Proto-Semitic

Construct Forms.” In Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard
on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‘ama
Pat-El, 365–90. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 67. Chicago: Oriental
Institute, 2012.
Testen, David. “A Trace of Barth’s Preradical *i in Akkadian.” Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 51 (1992): 131–3.
Tonietti, Maria Vittoria. Aspetti del sistema preposizionale dell’Eblaita. Antichistica 2,
Studi orientali 1. Venezia: Ca’ Foscari, 2013.
Tropper, Josef. “Probleme des akkadischen Verbalparadigmas.” Altorientalische
Forschungen 24 (1997): 189–210.
Voigt, Rainer. “Derivatives und flektives t im Semitohamitischen.” In Proceedings of
the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, Marburg, 20–22 September,
1983, edited by Herrmann Jungraithmayr and Walter W. Müller, 85–107. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1987.
Voigt, Rainer. “Die Lateralreihe /ś ś ̣ ź/ im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Voigt, Rainer. “Die Präpositionen im Semitischen – Über Morphologisierungsprozesse im
Semitischen.” In Tradition and Innovation: Norm and Deviation in Arabic and Semitic
Languages, edited by Lutz Edzard and Mohammed Nekroumi, 22–43. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1999.
Whiting, Robert M. “The R Stem(s) in Akkadian.” Orientalia 50 (1981): 1–39.
Wilson-Wright, Aren. “The Word for ‘One’ in Proto-Semitic.” Journal of Semitic Studies
59 (2014): 1–13.
Wilson-Wright, Aren. Athtart: The Transmission and Transformation of a Goddess in the
Late Bronze Age. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016a.
Wilson-Wright, Aren. “Father, Brother, and Father-in-Law as III-w Nouns in Semitic.”
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 79 (2016b): 23–32.
Wilson-Wright, Aren. “Rethinking the Relationship between Egyptian and Semitic:
The Phonological and Morphological Evidence.” In Rethinking the Origins: The
Departure of Ancient Egyptian as a Branch from the Afroasiatic Family?, edited by
Victoria Almansa-Villatoro and Silvia Štubňová. Wilbour Studies in Egyptology and
Assyriology. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, forthcoming.
Zemánek, Petr. The Origins of Pharyngealization in Semitic. Praha: Enigma, 1996.
CHAPTER 4
THE SEMITIC LANGUAGE

FAMILY NA‘AMA PAT-ELTHE SEMITIC LANGUAGE FAMILY
A typological perspective
Na‘ama Pat-El
1 INTRODUCTION
The Semitic languages exhibit a number of typologically unique features, especially mor-
phological features, some of which are well known and regularly quoted in typological
literature. Three recent articles have collected a large number of typologically uncommon
or interesting morphological and syntactic features in the attested Semitic languages, both
ancient and modern (Gensler 2011, Waltisberg 2011, Rubin 2017). The current chapter,
instead, will review the typology of some of the features reconstructed for Proto-Semitic
(see Chapter 3). I will not discuss the reconstruction of these features, as these are thor-
oughly treated in the previous chapter. By its nature, this chapter is not exhaustive and
includes primarily features that are less known to non-specialists and should, perhaps,
gain more recognition. Several of these features show remarkable resilience and stability,
and are still attested in some modern languages. Stability and distribution will be noted
where relevant.
2 PHONOLOGY
Proto-Semitic reflects a number of typologically interesting and unusual phonological
features. It has a fairly large consonantal inventory of 30 consonants (Table 4.1; see
Chapter 3, §2.1), which is on the high end compared to other world languages, as the
typical number of consonants in a single language is in the low 20s (Maddieson 2013a).
Other languages with large consonantal inventories are attested in Africa (Niger-Congo
and Khoisan), though not typically languages belonging to the Afro-Asiatic phylum.
Large consonantal systems are common in languages with clicks, which Proto-Semitic
(and its descendants) lacks. While none of the attested Semitic languages preserved all of
the consonants of the proto-language, several of them maintain almost a complete inven-
tory; Old and Classical Arabic preserved 28 consonants and Ancient South Arabian has
29 of the original inventory. In general, the large inventory of Proto-Semitic has changed
fairly little in the daughter languages, including some modern languages. The Semitic
language with the most reduced consonantal system is the Old Babylonian dialect of
Akkadian with 20 consonants (see Chapter 5), where the loss of the pharyngeals and
glottals left distinctive traces in the vocalic system, which is in turn slightly larger than
the vocalic system of Proto-Semitic.
The Semitic language family 81
TABLE 4.1 PROTO-SEMITIC CONSONANTS
Bilabial (Inter-)Dental Dental-Aveolar Palatal Velar/Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Plosive pb t d t’ k g k’ ʔ
Nasal m n
Trill r
Fricative θ ð θ’ s x/χ ɣ/ʁ x’/χ’ ħʕ h
Affricate ʦ ʣ ʦ’
Lateral ɬ l (t)ɬ’
Approximant w j
TABLE 4.2 PROTO-SEMITIC CONSONANTAL TRIADS
Place Manner Voiceless Voiced Glottalized

Plosive t d t’
Fricative θ ð θ’
Dental
Affricate ʦ ʣ ʦ’
Lateral ɬ l (t)ɬ’
Plosive k g k’
Velar
Fricative x/χ ɣ/ʁ x’/χ’
One of the most interesting aspects of the consonantal system is the arrangement of its
phonation types in triads of voiced-voiceless-glottalic1 (see Table 4.2). While all human
languages use voicing in their consonantal systems and doublets of voiced/voiceless con-
sonants are widespread, triads, where glottalic consonants are contrasted with voiced
and voiceless obstruents, are not attested in other language families, to the best of my
knowledge.2 Interestingly, this triad arrangement is still attested in a number of modern
Semitic languages (Ethio-Semitic, Modern South Arabian, Neo-Aramaic and Arabic),
although with some modifications. In most languages the affricates are realized as sibi-
lants (the affricates in Amharic are a secondary development). The glottalic consonants
have shifted to pharyngealized consonants in Arabic (Zemánek 1996) and to velarized
or pharyngealized consonants in Eastern Neo-Aramaic (Hoberman 1985). Ethiopian and
Modern South Arabian maintain an ejective realization (Lonnet and Simeone-Senelle
1997),3 which is likely to be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic (Kogan 2011: 61). Some
Ethio-Semitic languages have even developed a labial triad with a glottalic bilabial stop
(Table 4.3).
The Semitic languages have additionally a number of fairly complex and cross-
linguistically rare consonants. For example, the proto-language has two pharyngeal
consonants (ħ, ʕ), which makes it one of very few languages with any pharyngeal
consonants at all. Incidentally, pharyngeals are more common in Africa, especially in
branches of the Afro-Asiatic phylum, than in other regions. Another rare feature of the
Proto-Semitic consonantal system is a set of three fricative dentals (θ, ð, θ’). The com-
bination of these two complex consonants, pharyngeal and fricative dentals, in the same
language is highly uncommon. While most Semitic languages lost their fricative dentals,
and a few lost their pharyngeals as well (e.g., Akkadian, see Chapter 5; Modern Hebrew,
82 Na‘ama Pat-El
TABLE 4.3 CONSONANTAL TRIADS IN CLASSICAL AND MODERN SEMITIC LANGUAGES
Place Manner Classical Egyptian Classical Amharic Old Neo West

Arabic Arabic Ethiopic Aramaic Aramaic
Plosive t d dˤ t d dˤ/tˤ t d t’ t d t’ t d t’ t d tˤ
Fricative θ ð ðˤ θ ð θ’ θ ð ðˤ
s z sˤ s z sˤ/zˤ s z s’ s z s’ s z s’ s z sˤ/zˤ
Dental
Affricate tʃ ʤ tʃ’
Lateral – l (t)ɬˤ ɫl– ɬ l (t)ɬ’
Labial p b p’ p b p’
Plosive k – q k – q/ʔ k g k’ k g k’ k g k’
Velar
Fricative χɣ– χɣ–

Labial kw gw k’w kw gw k’w
see Chapter 22), there are still some languages which retain both (e.g., Levantine Arabic,
see Chapter 17).
In comparison to its large number of consonants, Proto-Semitic has an unusually small
vocalic inventory, with three vowels {a, u, i}, all with a two-way length distinction.
Cross-linguistically, this is very low; the lowest number of vocalic phonemes recorded is
two, while the average is five to six (Schwartz et al. 1997). Except for Classical Arabic,
no attested Semitic language reflects this system (although Moroccan Arabic and Akka-
dian come close with four vowels each). Most languages show a significant increase
in their vocalic inventory, frequently as a result of loss of consonants or contraction of
diphthongs and triphthongs. Semitic thus has a very high ratio of consonants to vowels, a
rarity cross-linguistically (Maddieson 2013b).4
In addition, Proto-Semitic allows for a fairly small set of permissible syllable types:
CV with length variation and CVC without length variation; null onset and consonant
nuclei are not permissible.5 Proto-Semitic does not allow consonantal clusters of any kind
in a single syllable in any position, and no long vowels in closed syllables. Almost all
Semitic languages for which we have vocalic evidence have strayed from this restriction
in some way; Classical Arabic retains these syllable types, but allows CVːC in restricted
contexts. Akkadian additionally allows for null onset, a consequence of extensive conso-
nant loss in the language.
3 MORPHOLOGY
The morphology of Semitic is widely recognized for its complexity. Some of its fea-
tures are well known and will be treated here only briefly. The Proto-Semitic root is
a discontinuous morpheme, which in the proto-language can include only consonants.
The arrangement and co-occurrence of these consonants are phonemically regulated in a
number of Semitic languages (Greenberg 1960, Bachra 2001, Berent and Shimron 2003,
Rose and King 2007, a.o.), and some scholars have claimed that the set of combinatory
rules attested there can be extended to Proto-Semitic (Zaborski 1994), Proto-Afroasiatic
(Bender 1978) or that it reflects cross-linguistic co-occurrence principles (Pozdniakov
and Segerer 2007, Vernet 2011).
The root is an active morpheme not only in the verbal system, but also in most of the
nominal system, with the exception of a closed category of “isolated nouns” (Fox 2003)
and pronouns. The reality of an abstract morpheme with no obvious surface forms has
always been accepted among Semitists. Consequently, most Semitists hold that surface
forms, especially verbs, are derived from roots; however, a number of competing hypoth-
eses suggest rather that Semitic surface forms are derived from other surface forms
(“Surface-to-Surface”; Bat-El 1994, Ussishkin 2006, a.o.).6 Such hypotheses are more
in line with the morphological behavior of most languages, yet they have been rejected
by most Semitists on the basis of internal (Faust and Hever 2010) and external evidence
(Prunet et al. 2000, Prunet 2006). As several scholars have noted, there is no single source
form that can explain efficiently all forms in a given paradigm, as the alternative hypoth-
esis would predict, and therefore a more abstract form needs to be postulated. In addition,
it can be convincingly shown that morphophonological processes are sensitive to roots
rather than to surface forms (Faust and Hever 2010). Such sensitivity must also be at the
heart of the consonantal combinatory constraints, which are not affected by intervening
segments, like vowels (Rose and Walker 2004). The root remains the most basic mor-
phological unit for both verbs and nouns in the modern Semitic languages, with some
modifications. In some modern languages, the root can include a vowel in one root slot
(Rose 2007: 408–9), but otherwise this feature is highly stable.
Most nouns and all verbs are formed by a combination of ablaut and concatenative
morphology (“root-and-pattern”). This type of morphology is cross-linguistically almost
completely restricted to the Afro-Asiatic family, and in particular Semitic (Bickel and
Nichols 2007). The centrality of this feature in Semitic morphology has changed very
little in modern Semitic languages, and even borrowed lexemes are converted into roots,
which are then fitted into existing patterns (e.g., Versteegh 2009). A noted exception is
Maltese, where the verbal morphology is affixal rather than concatenative, due to contact
with Indo-European languages (Hoberman and Aronoff 2003).
Gender assignment on nominals is semantic-morphological. Many nouns denoting
animate females are lexical and not morphologically marked, e.g., *ʔimm- ‘mother’,
*ʕinð- ‘female goat’. Other unmarked feminine nouns are some paired body parts, e.g.,
*ʔuðn- ‘ear’, *ʕajn‑ ‘eye’ (but not *θad- ‘breast’), and a large number of seemingly
random inanimate nouns, like *ʔabn‑ ‘stone’, *ʔarɬ’ ‘earth’, most of which are primary
nouns (Chapter 3, §3.3.2.1). Morphological gender is more typical, however, with femi-
nine nouns carrying a suffix ‑t-/-at- before case morphemes, while masculine nouns are
unmarked. This system is attested in most Semitic languages, although gender may vary
for specific lexical items, in some cases through a secondary derivation with the feminine
suffix; for example, in the Neo-Assyrian dialect of Akkadian, abattu ‘stone’ is a second-
ary derivation from abnu (<*ʔabn-), reflecting more transparently its gender (*ʔabn- >
*ʔaban-t- > abatt-). An exception is some modern Ethio-Semitic languages, where nom-
inal gender is only lexical. Gender assignment in this branch is fairly complex and differs
significantly from other Semitic languages (see especially Gurage, Chapter 10, as well
as Kapliuk 1994).
Gender distinction in the pronominal and verbal systems can be reconstructed not only
for the 3rd person, but also for the 2nd (Table 4.4). This distinction holds for the singular
and plural, but not for the dual. In the pronominal plural, the gender distinction is based
on a combination of two features: the vowel (mpl – u- ~ fpl – i-), and the nasal consonant
(mpl – m- ~ fpl – n-).
84 Na‘ama Pat-El
TABLE 4.4 PROTO-SEMITIC GENDER DISTINCTION IN PERSONAL PRONOUNS (2ND

AND 3RD PERSON)
Independent Pronouns Suffixed Pronouns Verbs (pcs)
sg pl sg pl sg pl
2m ʔanta ʔantum(±uː) -ka -kum(±uː) ta-CCVC ta-CCVC-uː

2f ʔanti ʔantin(±aː) -ki -kin(±aː) ta-CCVC-iː ta-CCVC-na
3m suʔa sum(±uː) -su -sum(±uː) ja-CCVC ja-CCVC-uː
3f siʔa sin(±aː) -sa -sin(±aː) ta-CCVC ja-CCVC-na
Despite some erosion (e.g., Mandaic, Chapter 26), gender distinction in the singular
pronominal system for both 3rd and 2nd person is strictly kept in almost all modern lan-
guages. Even the Ethio-Semitic languages, which no longer maintain systematic nominal
gender, exhibit a fairly conservative pronominal system. Plural distinction is maintained
in most, though not all, Semitic languages. While Amharic (Chapter 9) has lost gender
distinction in the pronominal plural, some closely related languages, Gurage (Chapter 10)
and Tigre (Chapter 7), retain gender in both singular and plural. Most languages have
kept either the vowel or consonant as a plural gender marker in the pronominal system:
Hebrew kept the consonantal distinction and generalized the vowel (2mpl ʔattɛm, 2fpl
ʔatten; see Chapter 21), Aramaic generalized the consonant and kept the vowel distinc-
tion (Syriac 2mpl ʔatton, 2fpl ʔatten; see Chapter 25), while some Arabic dialects kept
both vowel and consonant distinction (Levantine Arabic 2mpl Ɂǝntum, 2fpl Ɂǝntin; see
Chapter 16).
A fairly well-known feature is nominal pluralization by pattern replacement (Chap-
ter 3, §3.3.2.2). One pattern, the so-called a-insertion, was described by Greenberg as a
feature of Afro-Asiatic (1955).7 Some Semitic languages show a fairly regular correspon-
dence of a singular pattern to a plural pattern; for example, QvTL- ~ QvTaL- is a common
pattern replacement in Northwest Semitic (e.g., sg *kalb- ~ pl *kalab- ‘dog’, sg *gurn- ~
pl *guran- ‘threshing floor’). These sg ~ pl correspondences cannot, however, be recon-
structed to Proto-Semitic; for example, the noun *kalb ‘dog’ will take the plural kilaːb in
Arabic and Mehri,8 *kalab- in Aramaic and Hebrew, and ʔäklab (< *ʔaklaːb) in Classical
Ethiopic. Languages may exhibit multiple possible plurals for a single noun. For ‘dogs’,
Classical Ethiopic may use käläb-at (< *kalab-aːt; like Aramaic) and ʔäkləbt (< *ʔaklibt)
alongside ʔäklab, while Arabic may also use ʔaklaːb (like Ethiopic) alongside kilaːb.
The use of pluralization via pattern replacement as well as suffixation is attested in
all subsequent nodes; some languages (e.g., Modern South Arabian) make extensive use
of pattern replacement, while in others it is peripheral and restricted to a small subset of
patterns (Aramaic) or residual (Akkadian). In Modern South Arabian and most collo-
quial dialects of Arabic, it is still the most common form of nominal pluralization. The
Proto-Semitic system of plural coding with its unpredictable pattern replacement and
suffixation is one of the most complex morphological number systems known (Corbett
2000: 150).
There are a number of lesser-known morphological features that should be noted
for their typological significance. In the nominal system, pluralization by suffixation is
common in most nodes, and both the morphemes and the strategy are easily reconstruct-
ible to Proto-Semitic. The plural suffixes are typically described in correspondence to
gender: *‑uː-na (mpl.nom-nbnd)/*‑aːt-u-m (fpl-nom-nbnd) (Hasselbach 2007). These suf-

fixes, however, are largely gender-neutral when attached to substantives, and only follow
gender assignment when attached to adjectives (including participles). In other words,
plural suffixes on substantives do not always map onto gender, regardless of animacy,
while the same suffixes on adjectives do. For example, it is possible to reconstruct a
noun phrase such as the following to Proto-Central Semitic:9 *ʔabaw-aːt-u-m t’aːb-uː-na
(father-pl-nom-nbnd good-mpl.nom-nbnd) ‘good fathers’, where the mpl substantive is
marked with *-aːt-, while the mpl adjective is marked with *‑uː-. This mismatch is attested
in all Semitic languages to various degrees. In a number of languages some substantives
can take reflexes of either of these suffixes, sometimes in complementary distribution, e.g.,
Hebrew kikkå̄r ‘loaf.fsg’ ~ kikkå̄rīm10 fpl.nbnd/ kikkərōt fpl.bnd.11 In general, the plural
suffix does not change the gender of the noun; thus, the Hebrew noun kikkå̄r is feminine,
whether its plural is a reflex of *-uː- or *-aːt-. In Akkadian, however, the gender of the
plural is determined by the suffix, and frequently ends up being different than the gender
of the singular, e.g., bīt- ‘house.msg’ ~ bīt-āt- ‘houses-fpl’; some nouns have two plurals
with morphologically conditioned gender, e.g., bāb- ‘gate.msg’ ~ bāb-ū mpl/bāb-āt- fpl
‘gates’. In some modern languages which use suffixes for pluralization, the mismatch
between number and gender persists. In Modern Hebrew, the plural of substantives con-
tinues to be morphologically gender-neutral; e.g., tinok ‘baby.msg’ ~ tinokot ‘baby.mpl’
and beʦa ‘egg.fsg’ ~ beʦim ‘eggs.fpl.’ (Schwarzwald 1991). Other languages shifted to a
single plural marker for all genders; for example, Amharic uses only -oʧʧ (likely < *-āt),
whereas some Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects use only a reflex of *-ū/-ī.
Another interesting aspect of number and gender is found in the numeral system. The
cardinal numerals show gender polarity (or “chiastic concord”), in which numerals higher
than two, which are marked morphologically as feminine (with the suffix *-(a)t), mod-
ify masculine nouns, while unmarked numerals modify feminine nouns: *θalaːθ-at-u-m
marʔ-uː-na (three-fsg-nom-nbnd man-pl.nom-nbnd) ~ *θalaːθ-u-m marʔ-aːt-u-m (three-
nom-nbnd woman-pl-nom-nbnd). This gender-inversion has never been adequately
explained (Hetzron 1967: 180–4, Hasselbach 2014: 58). The system shows signs of col-
lapse in most modern languages, where typically one of the forms is used for both gen-
ders (for Hebrew, see Ravid 1995; for Arabic, see Bloch 1971) or the masculine is used
when the numeral is bound and the feminine is used when the numeral is unbound (Bloch
1971, Bolozky and Haydar 1986). Even one ancient language, Ugaritic (see Chapter 19),
does not maintain the original chiastic concord. At least some Modern South Arabian
languages, on the other hand, preserve gender polarity (Rubin 2010ː 209–11).
Cardinal numbers that are multiples of 10 (decades) in Semitic are marked with suffixes
on the singular base digit (except for 20, whose base form is 10, not 2; see Table 4.5). These
suffixes are plural suffixes in most Semitic languages, and dual suffixes in others (Geez and
Akkadian). Thus, the numeral 30, Arabic θalaːθ-uːna or Akkadian ʃalaːʃ-aː, is ‘three-pl’.
See Table 4.5 for some examples. This system does not extend to numbers higher than 90.
To the best of my knowledge, this system has no documented parallel elsewhere.12 In
many languages, decades are multiplication of 10 or 20 (e.g., Danish tresindstyvende ‘60,
lit. 3 times 20’) or additions of a number and 10 or 20 (e.g., French soixante-dix ‘70, lit.
60–10’). In Semitic, however, with the exception of 20, decades have no relation to 10,
even though the system is essentially decimal. This is the only language family with this
feature (Comrie 2013). Modern Semitic languages continue to use this feature, with the
exception of some Ethio-Semitic languages which shifted to overt multiplications of 10,
possibly under the influence of neighboring Cushitic languages (Leslau 1952).
86 Na‘ama Pat-El
TABLE 4.5 DECADES 20–50
Arabic Akkadian
20 ʕiçr-uːna (< ʕiʃr- ‘10’) ešr-ā (< ešer- ‘10’)

30 θalaːθ-uːna (< θalaːθ- ‘3’) šalāš-ā (< šalāš- ‘3’)
40 ʔarbaʕ-uːna (< ʔarbaʕ- ‘4’) erbe-ā (< erbe- ‘4’)
50 χams-uːna (< xams- ‘5’) ḫamš-ā (< ḫamiš- ‘5’)
TABLE 4.6 2msg AND 3fsg FORMS OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION
PS Old Assyrian Cl. Ethiopic Jibbali Arabic Hebrew

√ðkr ‘invoke’ √pqd ‘assign’ √gbr ‘do’ √sfr ‘travel’ √smʕ ‘hear’ √qsm ‘divine’
2msg *taðkur tapqid tǝgbär tɔsfər tasmaʕu tiqsōm

3fsg *taðkur tapqid tǝgbär tɔsfər tasmaʕu tiqsōm
There are two interesting cases of multiple values marked with a single morpheme
(syncretism), which must be reconstructed to the proto-language as such. In the verbal
system, gemination of the second root radical serves as an inflectional morpheme, mark-
ing the long prefix conjugation (pcl), e.g., *ji-ðakkar 3msg-invoke.pcl ‘he invokes’ (vs.
short prefix conjugation, pcs, *ja-ðkur 3msg-invoke.pcs ‘he invoked’), and a derivational
morpheme, marking the D stem, e.g., *ju-θabbir 3msg-break.D.pcs ‘he broke (something)
up’ (vs. G stem *ja-θbir 3msg-break.G.pcs ‘he broke’).13 In D pcl forms, gemination func-
tions in both inflectional and derivational functions. This feature is attested in Akkadian
(u-nakkar 3sg-remove.D.pcl ‘he removes’) and Ethiopic (jə-feṣṣəm 3msg-complete.D.
pcl ‘he completes’).14 In Modern South Arabian languages, which also show a reflex of
gemination as an inflectional morpheme, a couple of sound changes (-vCC > vːC, and
*aː > o) obscured the morphology of the original form, jə-godələn 3sg-tie.D.pcl ‘he ties’.
The forms with gemination, D and pcl, remain distinct because the categories ‘stem’ and
‘tense’ have different vocalic templates.
The prefix *t- also reflects two morphological values in the verbal system: gen-
der (f) and person (2). Most persons with one of these features are also marked with
a gender-number suffix, and therefore have distinct realizations, except 2msg and 3fsg
forms of the prefix conjugations. As a result both these forms are identical in almost all
daughter languages (see Table 4.6);15 this accidental syncretism is reconstructible to the
proto-language.
4 SYNTAX
One of the best-known features of Semitic syntax is its unmarked declarative V(S)(O) word
order, which is observable in Classical Arabic, Classical Hebrew and other languages. The
order of sentential constituents has changed in all the Semitic languages, mostly to SV(O),
but at least in two cases, Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic, to S(O)V. In both cases the change
was motivated by contact with neighboring non-Semitic languages: Akkadian, under
the influence of Sumerian, a language isolate, and Amharic (and other Ethio-Semitic
TABLE 4.7 GENITIVE AND RELATIVE MARKING IN PROTO-SEMITIC (FOR ‘HOUSE OF

THE KING’ AND ‘HOUSE THAT HE BUILT’)
Apposition Head Modifier
Construct bajt-u-ø malk-i-m

house.msg-nom-bnd king-gen-nbnd
Genitive
Marker bajt-u-m θuː

house.msg-nom-nbnd rel.msg.nom.bnd
Construct bajt-u-ø ja-bniː-u(-su)

Relative
house.msg-nom-bnd 3msg-build.pcs-
Marker bajt-u-m θuː subord(-3msg)
house.msg-nom-nbnd rel.msg-nom-bnd
languages), under the influence of Cushitic languages (Leslau 1945, Deutscher 2000). In
Akkadian, despite the change in sentential word order, the order of other constituents has
not changed, and remained overwhelmingly head-initial for the entire time the language is
attested, over 2,000 years. In modern Ethio-Semitic, a dependent-initial order is attested in
a number of the modern languages, and evidence indicates that the change took centuries
to be completed (Little 1974, Gensler 1997: 139–42).
In many Semitic nodes, strategies to mark relative clauses and genitives are identi-
cal. Semitic is thus one of a handful of languages where the genitive and relative share
syntactic encoding (Gil 2013). Two strategies are reconstructible to the proto-language
(see Table 4.7 and Chapter 3, §4.3): the “construct” and the marker strategy (Golden-
berg 1995). The construct involves no overt marking, except the lack of the bound mor-
pheme (nasalization) on the head noun, e.g., *malk-u-ø king-nom-bnd (vs. *malk-u-m
king-nom-nbnd). The marker strategy involves a so-called relative-determinative marker,
which is inflected for gender-number-case in strict agreement with the head noun (Chap-
ter 3, §3.1.3; Huehnergard 2006).16 The relative marker agrees with the head noun in
gender-number-case, but not in “state,” since the head noun is marked as nbnd, while the
relative marker is marked as bnd.
There is no semantic difference between these strategies, although some languages
developed a secondary distributional distinction. There is no consistent evidence for con-
straints on, or licensing of, each of these strategies, so it is currently impossible to recon-
struct the distribution of each strategy, if one existed. The individual Semitic languages
typically show preference for one of these strategies governed by language-specific crite-
ria, but not necessarily consistently for the relative and genitive. For example, in Arabic,
the preference is for a marker for the relative but construct for the genitive, while Aramaic
prefers the marker for both and Classical Ethiopic alternates between the two, as the fol-
lowing examples from Classical Ethiopic show:
Construct strategy:
Genitive: wängel-ä mängəśt-ä ʔəgziʔäbḥer
gospel-bnd kingdom-bnd god
‘The gospel of the kingdom of God’ (apud Bulakh 2009).
Relative: gize yə-ʕräb ś ̣äḥay
time.bnd 3msg-set.pcs sun
‘A time the sun must go down’ (Genesis 15:17).
88 Na‘ama Pat-El
Marker strategy:
Genitive: ḳənatu zä ʔädim
belt rel leather
‘A leather belt’ (Matt. 3:4).
Relative: nəguś mäkwännǝn za-yə-reʕʕəj-omu lä-ḥəzb-əyä ʔəsraʔel
king judge rel-3msg-lead.pcl-3mpl obj-people-1sg Israel
‘A king-judge who will lead my people Israel’ (Matt. 2:6).
Despite some phonological and formal changes that affected the inflection of the rel-
ative marker (Huehnergard and Pat-El 2018), the coding of the relative/genitive is sur-
prisingly stable in the Semitic languages.17 For example, the Canaanite branch largely
replaced the Semitic relative marker with another particle, grammaticalized from a noun
(*ʔaθar ‘place.ms.bnd’; Huehnergard 2006), which shows no agreement with its head
noun; nevertheless, the syntax of the relative and genitive remained unchanged (Pat-El
2010a). See the following examples from Biblical Hebrew.
Construct strategy:
Genitive: rå̄ʕ-at Nå̄bå̄l
evil-fsg.bnd PN
‘Nabal’s mischief’ (1 Samuel 25:39).
Relative: bə-ʔereṣ lō ʕå̄bar b-ɔh ʔīš
in-land.fsg.bnd neg pass.3msg.sc in-3fsg man.m
‘In a land none has passed through’ (Jeremiah 2:6).
Marker strategy:
Genitive: hå̄-rå̄ʕå̄ ʔăšer Hădå̄d
def-evil.fsg.nbnd rel PN
‘Hadad’s mischief’ (1 Kings 11:25).
Relative: hå̄-ʔereṣ ʔăšer gar-tå̄ b-ɔh
def-land.fsg.nbnd rel reside.sc-2msg in-3fsg
‘the land in which you resided’ (Genesis 21:23).
The Semitic relative clause introduced via relative marker shows unique syntactic
features, and does not fall neatly under any attested typological category (Comrie
1998b, 2006; Deutscher 2001). The relative marker has bound (bnd) morphology,
which marks it as the head of its clause, but shows gender-number-case agreement
with the antecedent, and crucially is not affected by the syntax of the relative clause.18
In addition, the role of the head is obligatorily indicated in the relative clause, typi-
cally through agreement markers,19 either in the verbal morphology, or through pro-
nouns. See for example the following representative examples from Arabic. In the
first example, the relative marker, (a)lːatiː (rel.fsg), agrees in gender-number with the
head noun, ʕiːr (caravan.fs); the relative clause contains pronominal reference to it,
fiː-haː (in-3fsg). In the second example, the relative pronoun, (a)lːaðajni (rel.du.obl)
agrees in gender-number-case with the head noun, çajtˤaːn-ajni (devil-du.obl);
the relative clause contains agreement reference encoded as number suffix on the
verb, -aː (sc.du):
wa-sʔal . . . l-ʕiːr-a llatiː ʔaqbal-naː fiː-haː

and-ask.imp.msg def-caravan.fsg-acc rel.fsg arrive.sc-1pl in-3fsg
‘And ask (about) the caravan with which we came’ (Classical Arabic, Qurʔaːn 12:82)
ʔari-naː aç-çajtˤaːn-ajni llaðajni ʔadˤallaː-naː
show.imp.msg-1pl def-demon.m-du.obl rel.du.obl confuse.sc.mdu-1pl
‘Show us the two demons who led us astray’ (Classical Arabic, Wright 1896–98: 2.320).
The inflection of the relative pronoun was simplified in most languages due to regular
phonological processes (Huehnergard and Pat-El 2018). In all languages that preserved
some inflection (Classical Ethiopic, Ugaritic, Arabic, Old South Arabian), the agreement
pattern of the relative pronoun is identical, and easily reconstructible for Proto-Semitic.
Crucially, the internal syntax of the relative has not changed in the daughter languages.20
Thus, despite the typological rarity and complexity of the Semitic relative, it is neverthe-
less a highly stable feature.
Beyond the relative marker, no other subordination marker can be confidently recon-
structed to the proto-language. Almost all adverbial markers of subordination developed
from heads of relative clauses fairly straightforwardly, and are branch- or language-
specific innovations (Pat-El 2008). See Table 4.8 for a sample of the most common sub-
ordinators in a number of branches.
The vast majority of these subordinators have nominal origins and show residual con-
struct morphology, such as lack of nasalization (Arabic qabla, Akkadian ūm) or other
construct markers (Ethiopic ‑ä). Word classes reported to be cross-linguistically common
sources for subordinators, namely adverbs, adpositions, complementizers, interrogatives
and relativizers (Kortmann 1998), are not typically used as sources for subordinators in
Semitic.
The Semitic languages typically allow at least two types of predicates: verbal, where
the predicate shows agreement with the subject in gender-number-person, and nomi-
nal (or non-verbal), where the predicate either shows no agreement with the subject,
or shows only gender-number agreement, but not person. Non-verbal predication in
Semitic exhibits a number of typologically uncommon features. A predicate in this pred-
ication type may be an adjective (including participles), prepositional phrase, adverb,
TABLE 4.8 SAMPLE ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATORS
‘before’ ‘because’ ‘so that’ ‘when’
Akkadian adi . . . lā (adi=until) kīma, aššum kīma, aššum kīma, inūma, ūm

Arabic qabla, aʔmaːma liʔanna, bi-sabab likaj, ħattaː, biħajθu ħiːna
Hebrew ṭɛrɛm ʕeqɛb, kī, yaʕan ləmaʕan neg. pen kī
Ethiopic ʔəmḳədmä, ʔənbälä ʔəsmä kämä sobä
neg. ʔənbälä
Ancient South Arabia k, ywm brt, k lhm, ln, ywm, brt
90 Na‘ama Pat-El
substantive or subordinated clause. All non-verbal predicates share syntactic encoding,

which is different than the encoding used for verbal predication. There is some debate
whether adjectives and substantives were morphologically marked as predicates in the
proto-language, while other non-verbal predicates were not; in this chapter, I take the
position that all non-verbal predicates share the same syntax. If this is correct, Semitic
belongs to a minority of world languages, where nominal and locational predicates share
coding (Stassen 1997).21
While some Semitic languages developed verbal copulas to be used with non-verbal
predicates,22 it is impossible to reconstruct a verbal copula to the proto-language; instead,
the 3rd person pronoun can be used in some contexts as a (nonobligatory) copula (Gold-
enberg 2003). Nominal predication without a copula (“bipartite nominal sentences”) and
with a copula (“tripartite nominal sentences”) are still used in Modern Hebrew, Western
Neo-Aramaic and modern Arabic dialects, showing the syntax of non-verbal predication
to be a very stable cluster of features (Khan 2006).
The discussion in this chapter, while by no means exhaustive, is meant to introduce
some of the typologically unique and important features of Proto-Semitic. That some of
these rare features are also stable is noteworthy.
NOTES
1 The glottalic consonants are termed “emphatics” in Semitic linguistics. This practice
avoids referring to their specific phonetic realization in individual languages, which
is sometimes unclear in languages with no reliable modern records.
2 Several languages in Central and South America show limited systems with a glottal-
ized component. Some Mayan languages distinguish only /b/ /p/ and /p’/, but no other
contrastive sets are common (Danny Law, p.c.). The same contrastive set is found in
Hup (Nadahup), but otherwise glottalic consonants are neutralized in terms of voicing
(Epps 2008: 63).
3 Watson and Bellem (2010) argue that among the Modern South Arabian languages, at
least in Mehri and Jibbāli, only k’ is glottalic in all positions, while other consonants
may have a glottalic allophone but are otherwise pharyngealized.
4 This feature of Proto-Semitic has been used as an indirect support for the reconstruc-
tion of a single phonemic vowel (*e) for Proto-Indo-European as part of the Laryn-
geal Theory (Comrie 1998a: 77). It is worth noting, however, that Semitic does not
exhibit the type of ablaut hypothesized for Proto-Indo-European.
5 Although see Testen (1985) for an attempt to reconstruct /n/ as a consonant nucleus in
Proto-Semitic.
6 The debate has thus far only engaged with modern Semitic languages, primarily mod-
ern Arabic dialects, Modern Hebrew and modern Ethio-Semitic dialects; however,
the implication of a “stem-hypothesis” has obvious consequences for our understand-
ing of the Semitic linguistic system and, of course, will significantly affect the recon-
struction of Proto-Semitic morphology.
7 The description in Greenberg is problematic both synchronically and diachronically.
Ratcliffe (1998) offers a better description and analysis of this feature in the Semitic
languages.
8 Mehri shows additional sound changes, thus surface forms are kawb ~ kəlo:b.
9 Because plural strategies diverge, it is not feasible to reconstruct a specific lexical
item with a specific plural morpheme to the proto-language.
10 The Hebrew plural suffix – īm- is a reflex of the oblique plural suffix followed by the
nbnd morpheme (< *-i:-na).
11 The distribution in Hebrew is unpredictable and tends to vary; thus, for example, one
can find kikkərōt fpl.bnd as well as kikkərē fpl.bnd.
12 Greenberg (1978: 279) mentions Sidamo, a Cushitic language, where 50–90 are the
plurals of 5–9, as an example of such a system, and suggests it explains the decades
in Ethio-Semitic. This is incorrect as the decades in Sidamo are constructed as the
multiplication of the singular by 10 (Leslau 1952: 72). E.g., ‘10’ tonne, ‘5’ onte > ‘50’
ontetennetet.
13 For the function of the different stems in Semitic, see Chapter 3, §3.5.5.
14 The Ethiopic form shows an unexpected ‑e- (< *aj) before the gemination. The origin
of this vowel is unclear.
15 In Old Babylonian Akkadian 3sg is common gender; since it is based on the mascu-
line (iprus) it is distinct from 2msg (taprus).
16 Traditionally, the marker is referred to as a ‘pronoun’ (e.g., Pennachietti 1968,
Deutscher 2001). For arguments in favor of an adjectival analysis, see Huehnergard
and Pat-El (2018).
17 Among modern Semitic languages the identity of the relative and genitive is still
attested in Ethio-Semitic, Neo-Aramaic, Modern South Arabian and the Maghribi
dialects of Arabic, but is missing from Modern Hebrew and most dialects of Arabic,
due to later syntactic and formal innovations.
18 In most attested languages, the relative marker has lost most of its morphology. The
Proto-Semitic inflection is reconstructible on the basis of languages which preserved
most of the original morphology, namely Old Akkadian, Classical Arabic and to some
degree Ugaritic (Huehnergard 2006).
19 With the possible exception of direct objects.
20 Furthermore, some secondary developments, for example, in Syriac, reflect a pattern
of agreement that is identical to the original relative, namely the relative marker is in
agreement with the antecedent, but does not participate in the syntax of the relative
clause (Pat-El 2010b).
21 See Chapter 3, §4.2, where it is suggested that predicative substantives and adjectives
were marked with a final -a. The evidence, however, is open to differing interpreta-
tions. If the position taken in Chapter 3 is correct, nominal predicates in Proto-Semitic
were differentiated from locational predicates.
22 Some languages, like Aramaic and Hebrew, use √hwy which originally meant ‘to
fall’, while others, like Arabic, use √kwn, which originally meant ‘to be stationed’.
Several languages use the existential as a copula.
REFERENCES
Bachra, Bernard B. The Phonological Structure of the Verbal Roots in Arabic and
Hebrew. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Bat-El, Outi. “Stem Modification and Cluster Transfer in Modern Hebrew.” Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 12.4 (1994): 571–96.
Bender, M. Lionel. “Consonant Co-occurrence Restrictions in Afroasiatic Verb Roots.” In
Atti del secondo congresso internazionale di linguistica camito-semitica, edited by
P. Fronzaroli, 9–19. Firenze: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, 1978.
Berent, Iris and Joseph Shimron. “Co-occurrence Restrictions on Identical Consonants in the
Hebrew Lexicon: Are they Due to Similarity?” Journal of Linguistics 39.1 (2003): 31–55.
Bickel, Balthasar and Nichols, Johanna. “Inflectional Morphology.” In Language
Typology and Syntactic Description, edited by Timothy Shopen, 169–240. Cambridge:
92 Na‘ama Pat-El
Bloch, Ariel A. “Morphological Doublets in Arabic Dialects.” Journal of Semitic

Studies 16.1 (1971): 53–73.
Bolozky, Shmuel and Adnan F. Haydar. “Colloquial Gender Neutralization in the
Numeral Systems of Modern Hebrew and Lebanese Arabic.” al-’Arabiyya 19.1–2
(1986): 19–28.
Bulakh, Maria. “Nota Genitivi za-in Epigraphic Geez.” Journal of Semitic Studies 54.2
(2009): 393–419.
Comrie, Bernard. “The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological
Perspectives.” In The Indo-European Languages, 74–97, edited by Anna Giacalone
Ramat and Paolo Ramat. New York: Routledge, 1998a.
Comrie, Bernard. “Rethinking the Typology of Relative Clauses.” Language Design 1:
59–86, 1998b.
Comrie, Bernard. “Syntactic Typology: Just How Exotic ARE European-type Relative
Clauses?” In Linguistic Universals, edited by Ricardo Mairal and Juana Gil, 130–54.
Comrie, Bernard. “Numeral Bases.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,
edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/131 (accessed January 04, 2018).
Corbett, Greville G. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Deutscher, Guy. “Stability against the Odds? The Survival of Verb Final Order in
Akkadian.” In Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order Patterns over Time, edited
by Rosanna Sornicola, Erich Poppe, and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, 55–69. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000.
Deutscher, Guy. “The Rise and Fall of Rogue Relative Constructions.” Studies in
Language 25.3 (2001): 405–22.
Epps, Patience. A Grammar of Hup. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2008.
Faust, Noam and Ya’ar Hever. “Empirical and Theoretical Arguments in Favor of the
Discontinuous Root in Semitic Languages” Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages
and Linguistics 2 (2010): 80–118.
Fox, Joshua.Semitic Noun Patterns. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003.
Gensler, Orin. “Mari Akkadian IŠ “to, for” and Preposition-Hopping in the Light of
Comparative Semitic Syntax.” Orientalia 66 (1997): 129–56.
Gensler, Orin. Morphological Typology of Semitic. In The Semitic Languages: An International
Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 279–302. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011.
Gil, David. Genitives, Adjectives and Relative Clauses. In The World Atlas of Language
Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/60,
(accessed January 04, 2018).
Goldenberg, Gideon. “Attribution in the Semitic Languages.” Langues Orientales
Anciennes: Philologie et Linguistique 5.6 (1995): 1–20.
Goldenberg, Gideon. “Pronouns, Copulas, and a Syntactic Revolution in Neo-Semitic.” In
Studi Afroasiatici, edited by Alessandro Mengozzi, 243–57. Milano: Franco Angeli, 2003.
Greenberg, Joseph H. “Internal a-plurals in Afroasiatic.” In Afrikanistische Studien
Diedrich Westermann zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, edited by Johannes Lukas,
198–204. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1955.
Greenberg, Joseph H. “The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic.” Word 6 (1960):
162–81.
Greenberg, Joseph H. “Generalizations about Numeral Systems.” In Universals of
Human Language, vol. 3, edited by Joseph H. Greeberg, 249–95. Stanford: Stanford
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “External Plural Markers in Semitic: a new assessment.” In Studies

in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg, edited by Cynthia
L. Miller, 123–38. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2007.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “Agreement and the Development of Gender in Semitic (Part
I).” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 164.1 (2014): 33–64.
Hetzron, Robert. “Agaw Numerals and Incongruence in Semitic.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 12 (1967): 169–97.
Hoberman, Robert D. “The Phonology of Pharyngeals and Pharingealization in
Pre-Modern Aramaic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (1985): 221–31.
Hoberman, Robert D. and Mark Aronoff. The Verbal Morphology of Maltese. In Language
Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-Based, Morphology, edited
by Joseph Shimron, 61–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003.
Huehnergard, John. “On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative še-” In Biblical Hebrew
Avi Hurvitz and Steven Fassberg, 103–26. Jerusalem: Eisenbrauns/Magness, 2006.
Huehnergard, John and Na‘ama Pat-El. “The Origin of the Semitic Relative Marker.”
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 81.2 (2018): 191–204.
Kapeliuk, Olga. Syntax of the Noun in Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994.
Khan, Geoffrey. “Some Aspects of the Copula in North West Semitic.” In Biblical Hebrew
Avi Hurvitz and Steven Fassberg, 155–76. Jerusalem: Eisenbrauns/Magness, 2006.
Kogan, Leonid. “Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology.” In The Semitic Languages:
An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 54–151. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 2011.
Kortmann, Bernd. “The Evolution of Adverbial Subordinators in Europe.” In Historical
Linguistics 1997, edited by Monica S. Schmidt, Jennifer R. Austin, and Dieter Stein,
213–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.
Leslau, Wolf. “The Influence of Cushitic on the Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Problem
of Substratum.” Word 1 (1945): 59–82.
Leslau, Wolf. “The influence of Sidamo on the Ethiopic Languages of Gurage.”
Language 28.1 (1952): 63–81.
Little, Greta D. “Syntactic Evidence of Language Contact: Cushitic Influence in Amharic.”
In Towards Tomorrow’s Linguistics, edited by Roger W. Shuy and Charles-James N.
Bailey, 267–75. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1974.
Lonnet, Antoine and Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle. “La phonologie des langues sudara-
biques modernes.” In Phonologies of Asia and Africa, edited by Alan S. Kaye, 337–72.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Maddieson, Ian. “Consonant Inventories.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures
Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck
Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013a. http://wals.info/chapter/1 (accessed
December 29, 2017).
Maddieson, Ian. “Consonant-Vowel Ratio.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures
Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck
Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013b. http://wals.info/chapter/3 (accessed
March 12, 2018).
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination.” In Aramaic in
its Historical and Linguistic Setting, edited by Holger Gzella and M. L. Folmer, 55–76.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “On Periphrastic Genitive Constructions in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew
Studies 51 (2010a): 43–8.
94 Na‘ama Pat-El
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “The Origin and Function of the So-Called ‘Correlative’ in Classical
Syriac.” Folia Orientalia 45–46 (2010b): 125–33.
Pennacchietti, Fabrizio A. Studi sui Pronomi Determinativi Semitici. Napoli: Istituto
Orientale di Napoli, 1968.
Pozdniakov, Konstantin and Guillaume Segerer. “Similar Place Avoidance: A Statistical
Universal.” Linguistic Typology 11.2 (2007): 307–48.
Prunet, Jean-François, Renée Béland, and Ali Idrissi. “The Mental Representation of
Semitic Words.” Linguistic Inquiry 31.4 (2000): 609–48.
Prunet, Jean-François. “External Evidence and the Semitic Root.” Morphology 16.1
(2006): 41–67.
Ratcliffe, Robert R. The “Broken” Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative Semitic.
Ravid, Dorit. “Neutralization of Gender Distinctions in Modern Hebrew
Numerals.” Language Variation and Change 7.1 (1995): 79–100.
Rose, Sharon and Rachel Walker. “A Typology of Consonant Agreement as
Correspondence.” Language 80.3 (2004): 475–531.
Rose, Sharon and Lisa King. “Speech Error Elicitation and Co-occurrence Restrictions
in two Ethiopian Semitic Languages.” Language and Speech 50.4 (2007): 451–504.
Rose, Sharon. “Chaha (Gurage) Morphology.” In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, Vol 2.
edited by Alan Kaye, 403–27. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Rubin, Aaron D. The Mehri Language of Oman. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Rubin, Aaron D. “The Semitic Language Family.” In The Cambridge Handbook of
Linguistic Typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 854–886.
Schwartz, Jean-Lu, Louis-Jean Boë, Nathalie Vallée, and Christian Abry. “Major Trends
in Vowel System Inventories.” Journal of Phonetics 25.3 (1997): 233–53.
Schwarzwald, Ora. “Grammatical vs. Lexical Plural Formation in Hebrew.” Folia
Linguistica 25.1–2 (1991): 577–608.
Stassen, Leon. Intransitive predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Testen, David. “The Significance of Aramaic r < *n.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies
44.2 (1985): 143–6.
Ussishkin, Adam. “Semitic Morphology: Root-based or Word-based?” Morphology 16.1
(2006): 37–40.
Vernet, Eulàila. “Semitic Root Incompatibilities and Historical Linguistics.” Journal of
Semitic Studies 56.1 (2011): 1–18.
Versteegh, Kees. “Loan Verbs in Arabic and the DO-construction.” In Arabic Dialectology:
In Honor of Clive Holes on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Enam al-
Wer, Rudolf Erik de Jong, 187–200. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Waltisberg, Michael. “Syntactic Typology of Semitic.” In The Semitic Languages:
An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 303–29. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 2011.
Watson, Janet C. E. and Alex Bellem. “A Detective Story: Emphatics in Mehri.”
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40 (2010): 345–55.
Wright, W. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Translated from the German of Caspari
(3rd. ed.). Revised by W. Robertson Smith and M. J. de Goeje. 2 vol. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1896–8.
Zaborski, Andrzej. “Exceptionless Incompatibility Rules and Verbal Root Structure
in Semitic.” In Semitic and Cushitic Studies, edited by Shlomo Raz and Gideon
Goldenberg, 1–18. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994.
Zemánek, Petr. The Origins of Pharyngealization in Semitic. Praha: Enigma, 1996.
CHAPTER 5
AKKADIAN REBECCA HASSELBACH-ANDEEAKKADIAN
Rebecca Hasselbach-Andee
1 INTRODUCTION
Semitic contains two major branches, East and West Semitic. Akkadian and Eblaite –
whose exact relationship to Akkadian is still a matter of debate – are the sole members of
the East Semitic branch, while all other Semitic languages are members of West Semitic.
Linguistic features that distinguish Akkadian from West Semitic languages include the
use of a prefix conjugation with infixed /t/ for expressing the perfect (iptaras), the form
of marking masculine attributive adjectives in the plural – ūtum (as in šarr-ū dann-ūtum
king-mpl.nom strong-mpl.nom ‘strong kings’), and the existence of verbal stems with
infixed /tan/ that express iterative and habitual notions, as in aštanappar ‘I am writing
continuously/I keep writing’.1
Akkadian is the oldest attested Semitic language known so far. Its earliest attestations
come from personal names that appear in Sumerian texts that were written around 2600
bce. Actual texts written in Akkadian start to appear around 2350 bce. Akkadian contin-
ued to be written until the first century ce, that is, for a period of roughly 2400 years,
although it likely died out as a spoken language much earlier than when it ceased to
appear in writing. The exact time when Akkadian stopped being spoken as a native lan-
guage is disputed, although scholars agree that it happened sometime around the middle
or early second half of the first millennium bce.
The main area of attestation for Akkadian is Mesopotamia, that is, the area of today’s
Iraq and parts of northern Syria. Peripheral dialects of Akkadian are also attested outside
this area, for example from the Syrian sites of Emar, from Ugarit, and Alalaḫ, and even
from Egypt. Most of these peripheral attestations come from the time when Akkadian was
used as the lingua franca of the Ancient Near East during the second half of the second
millennium bce (van Soldt 2011). During this time, Akkadian served as the language of
international correspondence and spread far beyond its original area of attestation.
In the core area, that is, in Mesopotamia proper, it is possible to distinguish two geo-
graphically determined dialects from the late third/beginning of the second millennium
bce on, namely Babylonian in southern Mesopotamia and Assyrian in northern Mesopo-
tamia (see Map 5.1). These dialects are distinguished by certain features in their phonol-
ogy and morphology, such as the reflex of the contraction of the diphthong *ay, which
contracted to /ē/ in Assyrian but to /ī/ in Babylonian; and certain features of the pronom-
inal and nominal morphology, such as the different forms of pronominal suffixes in the
dative, for which Babylonian uses forms with inserted /š/ in the dative plural (-šunūšim)
while Assyrian uses forms with /t/ (-šunūti); and the different forms of nouns with the
base *qVtl in the bound form, for which Babylonian inserts an anaptyctic vowel whose
quality is in harmony with the base vowel, as in kalb-um (nonbound) ‘dog-sg.nom’ vs.
kalab (bound) ‘dog-of’, šipr-um (nonbound) ‘message-sg.nom’ vs. šipir (bound) ‘mes-
sage-of’, while Assyrian tends to insert an /a/-vowel. There are various other features
96 Rebecca Hasselbach-Andee
TURKEY
SYRIA
IRAN
IRAQ
K U WA I T
LEGEND
Akkadian
MAP 5.1
THE CORE AKKADIAN SPEECH AREA DURING THE SECOND AND FIRST
MILLENNIA bce
TABLE 5.1 AKKADIAN DIALECTS
Old Akkadian (ca. 2600–2112 bce)

Early Babylonian (2112–ca. 2000 bce)
Old Babylonian (ca. 2000–1500 bce) Old Assyrian (ca. 2000–1500 bce)
Middle Babylonian (ca. 1500–1000 bce) Middle Assyrian (ca. 1500–1000 bce)
Neo-Babylonian (ca. 1000–600 bce) Neo-Assyrian (ca. 1000–600 bce)
Late Babylonian (ca. 600 bce–100 ce)
that distinguish the two dialects. For a more detailed list see, for example, von Soden
(1995: 301–2) and Huehnergard (1998: 599–603). In general, Assyrian represents the
linguistically more archaic dialect compared to Babylonian and is geographically more
restricted than Babylonian. It is Babylonian that underlies the Akkadian variant that
spread as lingua franca during the second millennium bce, while Assyrian was primarily
used in Assyria proper, except during the Old Assyrian period, for which see further in
this chapter.
Because of its long time of attestation, Akkadian is divided into several chronolog-
ically distinguished dialects. It is important to note that these dialect divisions are not
based on linguistic criteria but follow major events and political shifts in the history of
Mesopotamia. The main dialects are shown in Table 5.1.
The number of attested texts and text genres differ significantly among the various
dialects. Old Akkadian is the least attested of these dialects and primarily known from
Akkadian 97
a number of royal inscriptions, letters and administrative documents. Only one literary
text in the form of a love incantation is attested from this early period. Old Assyrian,
which is primarily found in texts from the Anatolian town of Kültepe (ancient Kaneš)
where the Old Assyrians had established an important trade post, is primarily known from
letters, administrative documents and a few royal inscriptions. The range of attestations
rises drastically with Old Babylonian. The Old Babylonian corpus contains almost every
text genre known from the Akkadian textual material, that is, literary texts such as epics
and myths, letters, administrative documents, royal inscriptions, etc. The Old Babylonian
period is often considered the “classical” stage of Akkadian both in modern treatments of
Akkadian as well as by subsequent generations of people writing in Akkadian. From the
Middle Babylonian period on, we have evidence for a literary dialect, commonly called
“Standard Babylonian,” whose users attempt to emulate Old Babylonian. Most literary
texts after the Old Babylonian period are written in this literary dialect, which explains
why only few literary works are known in the Middle to Late Babylonian and Middle to
Neo-Assyrian dialects. Most of the attested material in these dialects is nonliterary and
consists of letters and administrative documents, while literary texts from these periods
are most commonly composed in Standard Babylonian. In addition to literary works and
administrative documents, there are numerous texts that deal with scientific matters that
were written in Akkadian, including mathematical and astronomical texts, medical texts,
in addition to collections of omina, divination texts and so on. The Akkadian textual
material thus provides a very diverse corpus, in terms of both text genres and geograph-
ical and chronological depth.
Up to today, almost 1,000,000 Akkadian texts have been excavated, although the
majority of these remain unpublished (Huehnergard and Woods 2004: 218).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Akkadian is written in cuneiform, a script originally developed for the unrelated Sume-
rian language and named after its wedge-shaped signs. It is a logo-syllabic script, that
is, it makes use of logograms – signs representing whole words, as in UDU = immerum
‘sheep’ – and signs that represent syllables. The syllables that can be written in cuneiform
include V (V = vowel), CV (C = consonant), VC and CVC. The syllabic writing system
does not express a distinction of vowel length, that is, a CV-sign can stand for both CV
and CV: (V: = long vowel), although long vowels can be indicated by inserting an extra
V-sign. The word rabîm2 ‘great (msg.gen)’, for example, can be written as ra-bi-im or,
in order to specifically express the long vowel in the second syllable, as ra-bi-i-im (von
Soden 1995: 10–11, Huehnergard 1998: 72). The gemination or doubling of consonants
can be indicated in writing, but is not obligatory. The aforementioned word immerum
‘sheep’ can thus be written as i-me-rum or im-me-rum, as well as i(m)-me-ru-um.
Akkadian writing has many signs that have the same phonological value. In these
cases, Assyriologists have assigned numbers to the respective signs. For example, there
are several signs that can represent the value /sa/, which are transliterated as sa (read:
sa1), sá (= sa2), sà (= sa3). If there are more than three signs that can indicate the same
syllabic value, the transliterations receive numbers, such as u4, u5, u6, etc. Some of these
seemingly homophonous signs probably reflected different phonetic values, but those
nuances can no longer be recovered.
In addition to representing logograms and syllables, certain signs can also be used
as determinatives. Determinatives indicate classes of entities, such as materials, deities,
types of people, animals, etc. These determinatives are purely orthographic devices that
precede or follow the noun they refer to and were not read aloud. Some of them include
𒄑 giš for indicating ‘wood, trees’

𒀭 dingir ‘god(s)’
𒌷 uru ‘city’
𒄷 mušen ‘bird’
𒉌𒌓 na4 ‘stone’
𒄞 gu4 ‘cattle’, etc.
Since cuneiform was not developed for Akkadian but for an unrelated and morphologi-
cally very different language – Sumerian is agglutinating while Akkadian is inflecting – it
took several centuries to adapt the writing system to Akkadian. The earliest texts from
the Old Akkadian period are primarily written logographically with only very few words
being written syllabically. The use of syllabograms increased over the centuries until
the script was able to render most types of phonological and morphological structures
of Akkadian. Certain distinctions, however, were never fully expressed, such as the dif-
ference between syllable-closing voiced, voiceless, and emphatic consonants. The con-
sonants /b/ and /p/ and triads such as /d/, /t/ and /ṭ/ are thus not distinguished in writing
when they occur in syllable-closing position (von Soden 1995: 23).
The common sign lists that have been compiled by modern scholars list just under
1000 signs (Labat and Malbran-Labat 1994, Borger 2010). This number, however, is the
sum of all attested signs. No period of Akkadian makes use of this full inventory. The
sign inventory of individual areas and periods varies and is usually less than 1,000 signs.
Table 5.2 provides some examples of cuneiform signs and their most common Akka-
dian values.
TABLE 5.2 SAMPLE OF AKKADIAN CUNEIFORM SIGNS
𒀀 a
𒀊 ab
𒀖 áb; as logogram (gu4)áb = lītu/littu ‘cow’
𒀭 an, as logogram dingir = ilu ‘god’; also as determinative for ‘god(s)’
𒁀 ba
𒁳 dib, dip, ṭib, ṭip, dab, dap
𒉌 ni, né, lí, zal
𒄑 iz, ez, is, iṣ; as logogram giš = iṣu ‘wood, tree’; also as determinative for ‘wood, trees’
𒆹 suk, suq, zuk, zuq; as logogram ambar, sug = appāru ‘swamp’
𒈨 me, mì, šib, šip, méš; as logogram išib = išippu ‘a priest’; also used to mark nominal plurals
𒌑 ú, šam, sam, bu11, pu11; as logogram kùš = ammatu ‘cubit’
Akkadian 99
3 PHONOLOGY
With regard to its consonantal inventory, Akkadian underwent a number of mergers com-
pared to the inventory commonly reconstructed for Proto-Semitic. The Old Babylonian
dialect has 20 consonantal phonemes and 4 vowels. The Old Babylonian consonants are
listed in Table 5.3.
The following consonantal mergers and sound changes have occurred in Old
Babylonian:
• The Proto-Semitic guttural phonemes /ʔ/, /h/, /ḥ/ [ħ], /ˁ/ [ʕ] and /ġ/ [ɣ] merged to
/ˀ/, which was subsequently lost at the beginning of the word and, in most cases, in
between vowels
• Proto-Semitic *s was palatalized to /š/ [ʃ]
• The Proto-Semitic affricates *dz and *ts were deaffricated to /z/ and /s/, respectively
• Proto-Semitic *ð merged with /z/
• Proto-Semitic *θ merged with /š/
• The Proto-Semitic fricative lateral *ɬ merged with /š/
• Proto-Semitic *θ’ (glottalic voiceless interdental), *ɬ’ (glottalic voiceless lateral) and
*ts’ (glottalic voiceless dental/alveolar affricate) merged to /ṣ/ [s’]
There are differences in the consonantal inventory between Old Babylonian and the other
main dialects, especially Old Akkadian. The latter is much more archaic on a phonological
level and preserves the guttural morphemes /ʔ/, /h/, /ḥ/ [ħ], /ˁ/ [ʕ] and /ġ/ [ɣ] in some areas and
also still has traces of the interdental *θ. The affricates /dz/ and /ts/ were still preserved as well
(for a more detailed description of Old Akkadian phonology see Hasselbach 2005: 99–146).
In Assyrian and Old Akkadian, Proto-Semitic *s was pronounced /s/ [s] rather than /š/ [ʃ] as
in Babylonian, which reflects the original realization of this phoneme in Akkadian. The orig-
inal pronunciation of *s as [s] in Akkadian is, for example, also still reflected in Babylonian
nouns ending in dentals with pronominal suffixes of the 3rd person, as in *bīt-su ‘his house’,
where the dental is assimilated to the sibilant, resulting in bīssu also in Babylonian.
In addition, /n/ is assimilated to a following consonant in all dialects of Akkadian, as
in *ʔanta > atta ‘you (2msg)’ and *yindin > iddin ‘he gave’.
OB has four vowel qualities. These four vowels can appear in three lengths, short,
long and ultra-long. Long vowels represent inherited long vowels and are marked by a
macron (/ā/, ē/, /ī/, /ū/), as in šarr-ū ‘king-mpl.nom’ and dann-āt-um ‘strong-fpl-nom’,
while ultra-long vowels are the result of vowel contraction and are marked by a circum-
flex (/â/, /ê/, /î/, /û/). Examples of ultra-long vowels include petûm < *petēum ‘to open’,
zakâm < *zakuam ‘pure.msg.acc’ and rabûm < *rabium ‘great.msg.nom’.
The four vowel qualities of Akkadian are presented in Table 5.4.
TABLE 5.3 OLD BABYLONIAN CONSONANTAL PHONEMES
Bilabial Dental Alveolar Alv.-Pal. Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal
Plosives pb t d ṭ [t’] k g q [[k’] ˀ [ʔ]

Nasals m n
Fricatives s z ṣ [s’] š [ʃ] ḫ [x]
Lateral l
Approx. w r j
TABLE 5.4 OB VOWELS
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e
Low a
There are several rules pertaining to vowels in Old Babylonian:
• When an a-vowel occurs in a word that also contains an e-vowel, /a/ assimilates to
/e/ (Babylonian Vowel Harmony), as in bēlātum > bēlētum ‘lady.fpl.nom’. This vowel
harmony rule does not operate in Assyrian
• The last short vowel in an open syllable in a sequence of two or more short vowels
in open syllables is syncopated, as in *parisum > parsum. This rule can be blocked
around sonorants, as in aklum ~ akalum ‘food’
For a more detailed list of sound changes regarding vowels in Akkadian, see Huehnergard
and Woods (2004: 240–1).
The two Proto-Semitic diphthongs *ay and *aw contracted in all dialects of Akkadian:
*ay contracted to /ē/ in Old Akkadian and Assyrian and to /ī/ in Babylonian, while *aw
contracted to /ū/ in all dialects.
Stress can only be reconstructed for Akkadian as the script itself does not indi-
cate stress or any other supra-segmental features, except in some cases in which
question-intonation is marked by an extra vowel, as in i-li-ku-ú ‘did they go?’. It is com-
monly assumed that stress in Akkadian was dependent on syllable structure. When the
word ends in an ultra-long syllable (Câ, CâC, CāC) it bears the stress, as in ib.ʹnû ‘they
(m) built’. Otherwise stress falls on the last non-final heavy (Cā, CaC) or ultra-heavy
syllable, as in i.ʹpar.ras ‘he will decide’ and ʹmā.rum ‘son (nom.sg)’. When a word has
no heavy or ultra-heavy syllable, stress falls on the first syllable, as in ʹzi.ka.rum ‘male
(nom.sg)’.
4 MORPHOLOGY
The following description of Akkadian morphology is based on Old Babylonian (OB),
which is, as mentioned in the Introduction, commonly considered the “classical” stage
of Akkadian.
4.1 Pronouns
OB has independent and suffixed pronouns. Independent pronouns occur in three cases:
the nominative, genitive/accusative and dative (Table 5.5).
The nominative pronouns are used for the pronominal subject in verbless clauses and,
less often, for the subject in verbal clauses when it is in focus (as in šarr-um dann-um šū
king-sg.nom strong-sg.nom he.nom ‘he is a great king’ and anāku ward-am amḫur I.nom
male.servant-acc.sg 1sg.receive.pcs ‘as for me, I received a male servant’). The gen/acc
pronouns are used after prepositions (except ana ‘to, for’; as in kīma niāti ‘like us’) and
Akkadian 101
TABLE 5.5 OLD BABYLONIAN INDEPENDENT PRONOUNS
nom gen/acc dat
1sg anāku yâti yâšim

2msg atta kâti/kâta kâšim
2fsg atti kâti kâšim
3msg šū šuāti šuāšim
3fsg šī šiāti šiāšim
1pl nīnu niāti niāšim

2mpl attunu kunūti kunūšim
2fpl attina kināti kināšim
3mpl šunu šunūti šunūšim
3fpl šina šināti šināšim
for the direct object (kâti ašappar-ki you.sg.gen/acc 1sg.send.pcl-2fsg.acc ‘I will send
you’), while the dative pronouns most commonly follow the preposition ana ‘to, for’ (ana
kâšim takl-āku prep you.sg.dat trust.sc-1sg ‘I trust you’. The dative pronouns are only
rarely used to indicate indirect objects without a preceding ana (Huehnergard 1998: 273).
Pronominal suffixes can be attached to nouns, prepositions and verbs. On nouns they
mark the genitive, usually the possessor (bīssu ‘his house’), on prepositions the object of
the prepositional phrase (elīšu ‘on/against him’), while on verbs, they indicate the direct
(nīmur-šunūti 1pl.see.pcs–3mpl.acc ‘we saw them’) and indirect object (allak-ak-kum
1sg.come.pcl-vent-2msg.dat ‘I will come to you’). The suffixes attached to nouns and
prepositions have the same forms and are usually designated as “genitive” suffixes. The
suffixes attached to verbs distinguish accusative and dative forms (see Table 5.6).
The 1cs genitive suffix -ī is attached to nouns in the nominative and accusative singu-
lar (bīt-ī ‘my house’ nom/acc), while -ya is attached after nouns ending in a long vowel,
which includes the gen.sg (ana bīt-ī-ya prep house-gen-1sg.gen ‘for my house’ and
kalb-ū-ya dog-pl.nom-1sg.gen ‘my dogs (nom)’). The 1sg dat suffixes reflect the ventive
(see §4.6.3) and are attached accordingly: -am is attached to verbal roots ending in an
original consonant, ‑nim to verbal forms ending in a long vowel (except the 2fsg) and
-m to the 2fsg. The 1sg acc suffixes consist of the ventive + the 1sg acc suffix ‑ni (with
assimilation of ventive -m to following /n/) and are attached according to the rules for the
ventive just given.
4.2 Demonstrative pronouns

OB has two main sets of demonstrative pronouns/adjectives. Near deixis is expressed by
the base anni-, which is declined and used like an adjective (annûm sg.nom, annîm sg.gen,
anniam sg.acc, etc.), as in kasp-am anni-am āmur silver-sg.acc this-sg.acc 1sg.see.pcs
‘I saw this silver’. As a remote demonstrative, OB most commonly uses the anaphoric
pronoun, that is, the independent pronouns also used for 3rd persons (see Table 5.5), as in
alp-am šuātu āmur ox-sg.acc that.gen/acc 1sg.see.pcs ‘I saw that ox’.
OB has another set of far demonstratives that uses the base ulli- and that is likewise
declined like adjectives (ullûm sg.nom, ullîm sg.gen, ulliam sg.acc, etc.), although the
use of this remote demonstrative is significantly less frequent than that of the anaphoric
pronoun (Huehnergard 1998: 42, von Soden 1995: 57–8).
TABLE 5.6 OLD BABYLONIAN PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES
genitive accusative dative
1sg -ī/ -ya -anni/ -nni /-ninni -am/ -m/ -nim

2msg -ka -ka -kum
2fsg -ki -ki -kim
3msg -šu -šu -šum
3fsg -ša -ši -šim
1pl -ni -niāti -niāšim

2mpl -kunu -kunūti -kunūšim
2fpl -kina -kināti -kināšim
3mpl -šunu -šunūti -šunūšim
3fpl -šina -šināti -šināšim
TABLE 5.7 OB DEMONSTRATIVE ADJECTIVES
masculine singular feminine singular
nominative annûm annītum

genitive annîm annītim
accusative anniam annītam
masculine plural feminine plural
nominative annûtum anniātum

oblique annûtim anniātim
nominative ullûm ullītum

genitive ullîm ullītim
accusative ulliam ullītam
nominative ullûtum ulliātum

oblique ullûtim ulliātim
The full declension of the demonstrative adjectives in OB is as shown in Table 5.7.

For the forms of the anaphoric pronouns, see Table 5.5.
4.3 Interrogatives
OB has several interrogatives. These interrogatives, except for kī, inflect for case (see
§4.5.1) but not for person and number. Kī does not inflect:
mannum ‘who?’
mīnum ‘what?’
ayyum ‘which?’
kī ‘how?’
Akkadian 103
4.4 Relatives
OB has a single uninflected relative pronoun of the form ša. This pronoun, which literally
means ‘the one who’ and thus also functions as a determinative pronoun, introduces most
relative clauses (see §5.5.1).
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
Nouns in OB are inflected for gender, number, case and state.
In terms of gender, OB distinguishes masculine and feminine nouns. Feminine nouns
are marked by a suffixed morpheme -(a)t. The suffix -t is used when the base ends
in a vowel or a single consonant, as in bēl-t-um ‘lady (fsg.nom)’ and annī-t-um ‘this
(fsg.nom)’, while the suffix -at is used when the nominal base ends in two consonants,
as in šarr-at-um ‘queen (fsg.nom)’. Masculine nouns are usually unmarked, as in bēl-um
‘lord’ (msg.nom) and šarr-um ‘king’ (msg.nom). OB also has a few feminine nouns that
are morphologically unmarked, such as ummum ‘mother’, enzum ‘goat’, nārum ‘river’.
Some of these unmarked feminine nouns represent naturally female entities, such as
‘mother’, ‘female goat’, but others such as ‘river’ cannot be explained in this way. Paired
body parts are also mostly treated as feminine despite the fact that they are not morpho-
logically marked as such, as in īn-ān rapš-ātum eyes-mdu.nom wide-fpl.nom ‘wide eyes’.
Yet another small set of nouns has variable gender, that is, these nouns can be construed
as either masculine or feminine. Words of this type include abnum ‘stone (m/f)’, gerrum
‘way’, and ṭuppum ‘tablet’.
OB has three numbers: singular, dual and plural. The dual, however, which designates
two entities, is not fully productive any longer. It only occurs on substantives. Adjec-
tives, pronouns, and verbs do not have forms for the dual, which affects agreement. Dual
nouns are most commonly construed as feminine plural, even when the noun in question
is a masculine human being, as in šarr-ān dann-ātum king-du.nom strong-fpl.nom ‘two
strong kings’. The singular is morphologically unmarked, while the dual and plural are
marked by suffixes: the nom dual is marked by ‑ān and the obl dual by ‑īn. In m nouns, the
dual marker is suffixed directly to the nominal base (šarr-ān king-du.nom ‘two kings’),
while in the f, the dual marker is suffixed after the feminine marker (šarr-at-ān king-fsg-
du.nom ‘two queens’). The mpl.nom is marked by ‑ū, the mpl.obl by ‑ī, the fpl.nom by
‑ātum and the fpl.obl by ‑ātim. OB only has very few traces of plurals that were orig-
inally formed through pattern replacement, such as aḫum ‘brother’ > aḫḫū ‘brothers’,
where the gemination of /ḫ/ most likely goes back to a former plural pattern that replaced
the singular base.
OB further has three cases in the singular, and, as already indicated in the previous
paragraph, two in the dual and plural. The cases in the singular are nom, gen and acc,
which are marked by short vowels that are suffixed to the nominal base (to the feminine
ending in case of feminine nouns), while the dual and plural have a nom and an oblique
(obl) case. The latter functions as both gen and acc. The basic paradigm of OB nouns is
given in Table 5.8.
Lastly, OB distinguishes three states: a nonbound state, a bound or construct state
and an absolute state. The nonbound state is the unmarked form of the noun and ends in
mimation (final ‑m) in the singular, nunation (final -n) in the dual. It has no special mark-
ing in the plural, as indicated in Table 5.8. The bound state (also called “construct state”
or short “construct” = cst) is the form of the noun that marks it as having a nominal or
TABLE 5.8 OLD BABYLONIAN NOMINAL INFLECTION
nominative šarr-u-m šarrat-u-m

genitive šarr-i-m šarrat-i-m
accusative šarr-a-m šarrat-a-m
masculine dual feminine dual
nominative šarr-ā-n šarrat-ā-n

oblique šarr-ī-n šarrat-ī-n
nominative šarr-ū šarrāt-u-m

oblique šarr-ī šarrāt-i-m
pronominal dependent. The bound form most commonly occurs when two nouns stand in
a genitival relationship, as in bīt šarr-im house.cst king-sg.gen ‘the house of the king’ and
šarrat māt-im queen.cst land- sg.gen ‘the queen of the land’. The noun in the construct
does not exhibit mimation or case endings in the sg. The dual drops its final ‑n, as in īn-ā
eṭl-im eye-du.nom young.man-sg.gen ‘the eyes of the young man’. The noun following
a bound form is always in the gen. When the nominal base of a bound noun ends in a
consonant cluster, the cluster can be simplified (šarrum > šar), a final ‑i can be added
(libbum ‘heart’ > libbi), or, if the consonant cluster consists of two different consonants,
an anatyptic vowel is inserted that has the same quality as the base vowel (kalbum ‘dog’
> kalab, šiprum ‘message’ > šipir). Pronominal suffixes are attached to the noun in the
bound form, as in kalab-šu ‘his dog (nom/acc)’. The only exception are nouns in the sg.
gen, which preserve the case vowel before pronominal suffixes, although the case vowel
is lengthened, as in ana kalb-ī-šu prep dog-gen-3msg.gen ‘for his dog’.
The last state, the absolute state, is no longer productive in OB but only occurs with a
few sets of nouns and fixed adverbial expressions. Like the bound form, the absolute does
not have case endings or mimation. In the fpl, it can end in both ‑ā and ‑āt. The absolute
state functions like the accusative in other Semitic languages in many of its attestations,
including frozen adverbial expressions (zikar sinniš ‘male female’), the expression of the
vocative (bēlet ‘O lady!’), and its use for cardinal numbers (šinā ‘two’) (see Hasselbach
2013: 313–15, 318–22).
4.5.2 Attributive adjectives

Attributive adjectives follow the same declension as substantives, except in the mpl,
where attributive adjectives have the ending -ūtum (nom)/-ūtim (obl) instead of -ū/-ī, as
in šarr-ū dann-ūtum king-pl.nom strong-pl.nom ‘strong kings (nom)’.
4.5.3 Predicative verbal adjective (= stative)

Akkadian has a special form for predicative verbal adjectives that differs from the attrib-
utive adjectives just mentioned. This form is commonly referred to as the “stative” in
Akkadian 105
TABLE 5.9 THE CONJUGATED PREDICATIVE VERBAL ADJECTIVE (= STATIVE)
With Verbal Adjective With Substantive
1csg marṣāku šarrāku

2msg marṣāta šarrāta
2fsg marṣāti šarrāti
3msg maruṣ šar
3fsg marṣat šarrat
1cpl marṣānu šarrānu
2mpl marṣātunu šarrātunu
2fpl marṣātina šarrātina
3mpl marṣū šarrū
3fpl marṣā šarrā
Assyriological literature. The stative is declined for gender and number like verbs but has
not yet fully achieved verbal status and still reflects many characteristics of the nominal
clause (verbal adjective + pronoun) from which it is derived. For example, it has no tense
or aspectual value and can only take certain verbal affixes, such as the ventive and sub-
ordinate marker, in restricted cases. The stative expresses the state or result of the action
denoted by the verbal root, as in marṣ-āku sick-1sg.nom ‘I am sick’ (literally ‘I am/was/
will be in the state of being sick’), from the verbal root marāṣum ‘to be(come) sick’.
Since the stative originated in verbal adjectives, it is also sometimes called a “conjugated
predicative verbal adjective,” although its use has been extended to include substantives
as well (as in šarr-ānu king-1pl.sc ‘we are kings’). The basic paradigm of the stative is
given in the Table 5.9.
In West Semitic languages, the stative has grammaticalized into a finite verbal form
indicating past tense and perfective aspect. Because person and number are marked by
suffixes, this form is also called “suffix conjugation (= sc)” for West Semitic languages
(see Chapter 4). Despite the fact that the Akkadian stative does not represent a finite
verbal form, the abbreviation “sc” has been taken over in the glosses in order to ease
comparison with West Semitic languages.
4.5.4 Numerals
The cardinal numbers 1–10 have the forms in OB (Huehnergard 1998: 235), shown in
Table 5.10.
Of the two forms given, the absolute is more commonly used for counting. It most
frequently precedes the counted item, which stands in the nonbound form and takes its
case from the syntactic context, as in
šalāš-at eṭl-ūtum illik-ū

three-fsg.ncst young.man-pl.nom 3m.go.pcs-mpl
‘three young men went’
ana ešret ūm-ī
prep ten.ncst day-pl.obl
‘for ten days’
TABLE 5.10 OLD BABYLONIAN CARDINAL NUMBERS 1–10
With masc Noun With fem Noun
Absolute Nonbound Absolute Nonbound
1 ištēn (ištēnum) išteat, ištēt (ištētum)

2 šinā — šittā —
3 šalāšat šalāštum šalāš šalāšum
4 erbet(ti) erbettum erbe/erba erbûm
5 ḫamšat ḫamištum ḫamiš ḫamšum
6 šeššet šedištum šediš šeššum
7 sebet(ti) sebettum sebe sebûm
8 samānat samāntum samāne samānûm
9 tišīt tišītum tiše tišûm
10 eš(e)ret ešertum ešer eš(e)rum
The use of the absolute that shows no agreement with the counted entity means that the
numeral reflects a substantive, not an adjective (Hasselbach 2014: 59).
When the cardinal number follows the counted noun – a construction that is most
likely used in order to place focus on the numeral – it more commonly appears in
the nonbound form and exhibits agreement with the counted noun (Huehnergard
1998: 239):
šadî sebett-am nīmur

mountain.pl.obl seven-sg.acc 1pl.see.pcs
‘We saw seven mountains.’
The latter most likely reflects an appositional construction in which the numeral
equally is substantival (Hasselbach 2014: 59).
Ordinal numbers, on the other hand, are adjectives in OB and show strict agreement
with the noun they modify. The OB ordinals from 1 to 10 are found in Table 5.11 (von
Soden 1995: 115, Huehnergard 1998: 240).
Ordinal numbers usually precede the noun they modify, as in rebûm ṭuppum ‘the fourth
tablet’ (four.msg.nom tablet.msg.nom).
4.6 Verbs
4.6.1 Tense/aspect
OB verbal forms express both tense and certain aspectual notions. All OB finite verbs are
marked by sets of prefixes that indicate person and, in some cases, suffixes that indicate
gender and number. The prefixes and suffixes are the same for each conjugation. OB
has three basic conjugations: the “durative” iparras (= long prefix conjugation = pcl),
the “preterite” iprus (= short prefix conjugation = pcs), and the “perfect” iptaras (prefix
conjugation with t = pct).3
The preterite (pcs), which has the base PREFIX-prus-(SUFFIX), primarily indicates
past tense and is used as narrative tense. It is also used to indicate perfective aspect in
the sense that it represents an event as a whole (often perceived as “completed”), and
Akkadian 107
TABLE 5.11 OLD BABYLONIAN ORDINAL NUMBERS
Masculine Feminine
‘first’ pānûm pānītum

maḫrûm maḫrītum
ištēn išteat
‘second’ šanûm šanītum
‘third’ šalšum šaluštum
‘fourth’ rebûm rebūtum
‘fifth’ ḫamšum ḫamuštum
‘sixth’ šeššum šeduštum
‘seventh’ sebûm sebūtum
‘eighth’ samnum samuntum
‘ninth’ tešûm tešūtum
‘tenth’ ešrum ešurtum
realis mood, although its use as simple past tense is the one most frequently encountered
(Kouwenberg 2010: 127):
šarrāq-um ḫurāṣ-am ša šarr-im išriq

thief-sg.nom gold-sg.acc rel king-sg.gen 3msg.steal.pcs
‘the thief stole the king’s gold’.
The “durative” (pcl), which has the form prefix-parras-(suffix), has temporal, aspec-
tual and modal functions (Kouwenberg 2010: 91). In terms of tense function, it designates
the future and present. In terms of modal use, it can denote irrealis functions such as
intention, obligation, injunction, etc. (Kouwenberg 2010: 92). The distinction between
indicative and irrealis use depends on context in positive clauses (iddâk can, depending
on context, mean ‘he will be killed’ or ‘he must be killed’). The distinction of the two
usages is more evident in negated clauses. The indicative use is negated by the nega-
tive particle ul(a), while the modal use is negated by lā (see §5.6). Lastly, the durative
expresses habitual and circumstantial events, including in the past, which is part of its
aspectual function. Given these functions of the durative, it would be more appropriate
to call the form “imperfect(ive),” but “durative” is the term commonly found in assyrio-
logical literature.
The “perfect” (pct) has the base prefix-ptaras-(suffix). The perfect is an Akkadian
innovation and is not found in West Semitic languages. Like the preterite, it refers to
events in the past. In OB, however, it has a different nuance than the preterite, namely
that of actuality. Actuality means that the past event is represented as still considered
relevant to or present at the moment of speech (Kouwenberg 2010: 140). In other words,
when using iptaras, the speaker relates the past event to the present. In OB, iptaras is
restricted to certain syntactic environments: (a) a sequence of preterite + -ma + iptaras;
(b) temporal and conditional clauses dependent on a main clause with future reference
and (c) letters, where it is used as “epistolary perfect” (Kouwenberg 2010: 141). The
function of the perfect changes throughout the history of Akkadian and it gradually takes
over the original functions of the preterite. For a detailed description of the perfect, see
Kouwenberg (2010: 140–55).
The full paradigms of the preterite, durative, and perfect are found in Table 5.12.
In addition, OB has an imperative that is based on the form of the preterite (pcs) (see
Table 5.13).
The imperative cannot be negated. Negative commands are expressed by the negative
particle lā + durative (pcl) instead, as in lā tabanni neg 2msg.build.pcl ‘do not build!’.
OB further has a “precative,” which is essentially a jussive, and is marked by prefixed
lV‑, except in the 1pl, where the precative marker is i. The precative expresses wishes
and indirect commands, as in libni ‘may he build’. The forms of the precative in OB are
found in Table 5.14.
The negative counterpart of the precative is formed by prefixing the negative particle
ayy- to the preterite (pcs), as in ayy-ibni ‘may he not build’. Forms that start with a con-
sonant are negated by ē, as in ē tabni ‘you may not build’.
OB has two non-finite verbal forms, the infinitive and active participle, both of which are
declined like nouns. The infinitive has the form parāsum, while the active participle has
the form pārisum. In addition, it makes use of a verbal adjective, which most commonly
has the form paris-. In fewer cases, parus- and paras- are attested for the verbal adjective
as well.
TABLE 5.12 OLD BABYLONIAN PREFIX CONJUGATIONS
Preterite (pcs) Durative (pcl) Perfect (pct)
1sg aprus aparras aptaras

2msg taprus taparras taptaras
2fsg taprusī taparrasī taptarsī
3msg iprus iparras iptaras
3fsg iprus iparras iptaras
1pl niprus niparras niptaras
2mpl taprusā taparrasā taptarsā
2fpl taprusā taparrasā taptarsā
3mpl iprusū iparrasū iptarsū
3fpl iprusā iparrasā iptarsā
TABLE 5.13 OLD BABYLONIAN IMPERATIVE
msg purus mpl pursā

fsg pursī fpl pursā
TABLE 5.14 OLD BABYLONIAN PRECATIVE
1sg luprus 1pl i niprus

3msg liprus 3mpl liprusū
3fsg liprus 3fpl liprusā
Akkadian 109
4.6.3 The ventive and subordinate marker

There are two main morphemes that can be attached to finite verbal forms in OB, the ven-
tive (= vent) and the subordinate marker (= sbrd). The ventive is a directional morpheme
indicating direction toward the speaker (for a more detailed description of its function,
see Kouwenberg 2002) and frequently occurs on motion verbs such as illik ‘he went’
versus illik-am ‘he came (to me)’. The forms of the ventive are -am after verbal forms
ending in an original consonant, -nim on the plural forms ending in a long vowel (3mpl,
3fpl, 2cpl), and -m on the 2fsg.
The subordinate marker in OB has the form -u and is attached to all finite verbs in
subordinate clauses that end in an original consonant, as in awīl-am ša imqut-u āmur
man- sg.acc rel 3m.fall.pcs-sbrd 1sg.see.pcs ‘I saw the man who had fallen’.
4.6.4 Derived stems
The paradigmatic forms given so far all belong to a single verbal stem, the basic or
G stem (from German Grundstamm). The G stem expresses the most basic meaning of
a verbal root. In addition, Akkadian has various other stems, commonly referred to as
“derived stems,” which express semantic variations of a verbal root’s basic meaning,
including causative, factitive, passive-reflexive and iterative functions. All of these are
expressed by specific alterations that are made to the verbal stem.
The three main derived stems are the D, Š and N stem. All three of these denote seman-
tic values derived from the G stem.
The D stem (= Doppelungsstamm “reduplicated stem”) is marked by the gemination of
the second root radical and expresses factitive function (dummuqum ‘to make good’ from
G damāqum ‘to be good’) and verbal plurality (D purrusum ‘to divide up’ from G ‘to cut
off’) (Kouwenberg 2010: 272–9).
The Š stem is marked by prefixed /š/ and reflects the causative of the G, as in ušešmi ‘I
caused X to hear’ from šemûm ‘to hear’.
The N stem is marked by prefixed /n/, which assimilates to a following consonant,
and primarily expresses the passive of the G (iššebir ‘it was broken’ from G šebērum ‘to
break’).
The basic forms of these three stems are given in Table 5.15.
The G, D and Š stems further have derived stems marked by infixed /t/. The Gt
expresses reciprocal and reflexive function related to the G (mitḫuṣum ‘to strike each
other’; piššušum ‘to anoint oneself’), while the Dt and Št primarily function as passives
of the D and Š, respectively. The basic forms of these stems are found in Table 5.16.
TABLE 5.15 D, Š AND N STEMS
D Š N
Preterite uparris ušapris ipparis

Durative uparras ušapras ipparras
Perfect uptarris uštapris ittapras
Imperative purris šupris napris
Infinitive purrusum šuprusum naprusum
Participle muparrisum mušaprisum mupparsum
TABLE 5.16 t STEMS
Gt Dt Št1 Št2
Preterite iptaras uptarris uštapris uštapris

Durative iptarras uptarras uštapras uštaparras
Perfect iptatras uptatarris uštatapris uštatapris
Imperative pitras putarris šutapris šutapris
Infinitive pitrusum putarrusum šutaprusum šutaprusum
Participle muptarsum muptarrisum muštaprisum muštaprisum
TABLE 5.17 THE tan STEMS
Gtn Dtn Štn Ntn
Preterite iptarras uptarris uštapris ittapras

Durative iptanarras uptanarras uštanapras ittanapras
Perfect iptatarras uptatarris uštatapris ittatapras
Imperative pitarras putarris šutapris itapras
Infinitive pitarrusum putarrusum šutaprusum itaprusum
Participle muptarrisum muptarrisum muštaprisum muttaprisum
The Št2 expresses the reflexive and passive of the Š and can serve as causative for the
Gt and N.
The last set of verbal stems are marked by infixed /tan/. These stems, which can be
formed from the G, D, Š and N, express iterative and habitual actions (ištanappar ‘he is
sending continuously’). The forms of the tan stems are found in Table 5.17.
4.7 Prepositions and adverbs

Prepositions precede their nominal dependent, as in ana šarrim ‘to/for the king’.
Most prepositions in Akkadian are derived from nouns, even though it is not always
possible to reconstruct their original nominal pattern (e.g., itti ‘with’ from ittum ‘side’).
In some cases, as with the basic prepositions ana ‘to, for’ and ina ‘in, by, at’, it is not
possible to posit a clear etymology.
Simple prepositions reflect forms in the bound form and nouns that follow prepositions
thus obligatorily appear in the gen (itti šarr-im prep king-sg.gen ‘with the king’). Akka-
dian further makes extensive use of compound prepositions, such as ina libbi āl-im prep
heart.cst city-sg.gen ‘in the city’ (originally ‘in the heart of the city’) an ina qerb-ī-šu
prep midst-gen-3m.gen ‘in its midst’ = ‘in it’.
Adverbs are formed in various ways in OB. Most commonly, they reflect a nominal
form in the acc (‑am), as in imittam ‘on the right’, šattam ‘yearly’, ūmam ‘today’, etc.
Adverbs can further be created by suffixing the adverbial endings ‑um or ‑iš, as in mādiš
‘greatly’ and warkānum ‘afterward, later’ (for a more comprehensive list, see von Soden
1995: 213–18).
Akkadian 111
5 SYNTAX
5.1 Sentential and phrasal word order
As in other Semitic languages, the subject of a verbal predicate is encoded in the verbal
form itself (iddinū ‘they gave’, where final -ū marks the mpl). When the subject is nom-
inal, the unmarked word order of declarative clauses is Subject-Direct Object-Adjunct
(PPs, Indirect Object etc.)-Verb. This word order differs from other classical Semitic
languages, which mostly have VSO order, and is the result of borrowing from Sumerian.
Akkadian only changed its basic word order and never underwent any further changes
that would have led to it becoming a full SOV language. This also means that Akkadian
tends to have Head-Dependent order on the phrasal level.
Basic word order
ṭuppa-šu iknuk-am-ma ina qāt ṣuḫār-ī-šu
tablet-3msg.gen 3m.seal.pcs-vent-and prep hand.cst servant-gen-3msg.gen
išpur-am
3m.send.pcs-vent
‘He sealed his tablet and sent (it) here with his servant.’
PP ištu āl-im
prep city-sg.gen
‘from the city’
N-N bīt šarr-im
house.cst king-sg.gen
‘the house of the king’
N-Adj. ward-um ḫalq-um
slave-sg.nom escaped-sg.nom
‘the escaped slave’
N-Rel. šarrāq-am ša ina bīt-ī-ni niṣbat-u nidūk
thief-sg.acc rel prep house-gen-1pl.gen 1pl.seize.pcs-sbrd 1pl.kill.pcs
‘we killed the thief that we caught in our house’
Demonstratives commonly follow the noun they modify, as in:
kasp-um annûm
silver-sg.nom this.sg.nom
‘this silver’
5.2 Agreement
Akkadian exhibits strict agreement between agreement controllers and targets, that is, m
nouns are construed as m, f nouns as f and pl nouns as pl. The only exception is found
with substantives in the dual. Since adjectives, verbs and pronouns do not have dual
forms in OB, they are commonly construed as fpl (see §4.5.1).
5.3 Types of predication

Akkadian has two types of predication, verbal and nominal. When the predicate is nominal
and consists of a substantive or adjective, it commonly appears in the form of the conjugated
predicative adjective (= stative). When a predicative substantive is modified by an attribu-
tive adjective or other complement, it appears in the nonbound form instead (for a more
detailed description of the use of the stative versus nonbound form, see Huehnergard 1986).
Verbal predicate:
amt-am ṭāb-t-am ina bīt-ī-ka ā-mur
maid-sg.acc beautiful-fsg-sg.acc prep house-gen-2msg.gen 1sg-see.pcs
‘I saw a beautiful maid in your (msg) house’
Nominal predicate in the stative:
ilat-ni ina māt-ī-šunu palḫ-at
goddess.cst-1pl.gen prep land-gen-3mpl.gen fear.sc-fsg
‘our goddess is/was feared in their land’
Nominal predicate in nonbound form:
Ḫammurapi šarr-um dann-um šū
pn king-sg.nom strong-sg.nom he.nom
‘Ḫammurapi is a mighty king’
Predicative adjectives always appear in the stative:
marṣ-āku
sick.sc-1sg
‘I am/was/will be sick’
Clefts involving the relative pronoun are rare, but a few examples exist, such as OB
(Huehnergard and Pat-El 2007: 330):
annûm ša unaˀˀid-u-ka umma anāku-ma

this.sg.nom rel 1sg.instruct.pcs-sbrd-2msg.gen saying I.nom-and
‘(It is) this that I instructed you (to do), saying . . .’
In these cases, the cleft is expressed by subordination. The same pattern also occurs in
interrogative clauses, where it is in fact more frequent:
mīnum ša libba-ki imraṣu-ma tašpurī-m

int rel heart-2fsg.gen 3msg.become.sick.pcs-and 2fsg.send.pcs-vent
‘Why (is it) that you have become upset and have written to me?’
5.4 Definiteness
Akkadian does not have an indefinite or definite article at any time of its attestation.
Definiteness can be expressed by demonstrative pronouns (‘this man’, ‘that house’), but
OB did not develop productive syntactic means that mark definiteness as did Classical
Ethiopic or Syriac.
Akkadian 113
5.5 Subordination
5.5.1 Relative clauses
In OB, most relative clauses are introduced by the relative pronoun ša. The head noun
is resumed by a pronoun in the relative clause unless it reflects the subject or DO. In the
latter case, resumption is optional. All verbs in subordinate clauses are marked by the
subordinate marker -u when the verbal base ends in an original consonant (Huehnergard
1998: 183–6).
kasp-am ana mār-im ša uld-u inaddin

silver-sg.acc prep son-sg.gen rel 3fsg.bear.pcs-sbrd 3fsg.give.pcl
‘She may give the silver to the son she bore.’ (no resumption)
mannum awīl-um ša ṭuppa-ka ana maḫr-ī-šu tašpur-u
int man-sg.nom rel tablet-2msg.gen prep front-gen-3msg.gen 2msg.send.pcs-sbrd
‘Who is the man to whom you sent your tablet?’ (with resumption)
Less frequently, a relative clause can follow a noun in the construct. In these cases, the
noun following the construct is not in the genitive but in the case required by its syntactic
context within the relative clause:
awāt šarr-um iqbû ul ešme

word.cst king-sg.nom 3msg.speak.pcs.subrd neg 1sg.hear.pcs
‘I did not hear the word the king spoke.’
5.6 Negation
OB employs two negative particles, ul and lā, whose use is syntactically deter-
mined. The particle ul negates main clauses in which the negated predicate can be
either verbal or non-verbal. It further negates interrogative clauses without interrog-
ative pronouns (Huehnergard 1998: 199). The particle lā on the other hand is used to
negate subordinate clauses, the protasis of conditional clauses, negative injunctions
such as the prohibitive, interrogative clauses containing interrogative pronouns
and adverbs, and it is used to negate individual nouns and adjectives (Huehnergard
1998: 199).
6 LEXICON
Much of the lexicon of OB and Akkadian in general is inherited from Proto-Semitic
(Huehnergard and Woods 2004: 276). In addition to the inherited items, there has been
significant influence from Sumerian on the lexical inventory of Akkadian. A recent
estimate suggests that about 7% of its vocabulary constitutes Sumerian loan words
(Zólyomi 2011: 402). The majority of these loan words are nouns. In the first mil-
lennium bce, Akkadian starts to exhibit loans from Aramaic as well, although the
exact impact of Aramaic on Akkadian and the number of loans are disputed (Streck
2011: 419).
FIGURE 5.1 OLD BABYLONIAN GILGAMESH, TABLET II, OBVERSE. THE BEGINNING OF

THIS TABLET IS PRESENTED IN §7 AS THE SAMPLE TEXT
Source: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, object B7771 (www.
penn.museum/collections).
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The following lines are an excerpt of the Old Babylonian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh
according to the Pennsylvania tablet as published in George (2003). The lines cited repre-
sent the beginning of the text. The obverse of the Pennsylvania tablet is shown in Figure 5.1.
itbē=ma Gilgameš šunat-am ipaššar

rise.pcs.3msg=and pn dream-acc reveal.pcl.3msg
issaqqar=am ana umm-ī-šu
speak.pcl.3msg=vent to mother-gen-3msg
umm-ī ina šāt mūšīt-ī-ya
mother-1csg in rel night-gen-1csg
Akkadian 115
šamḫ-āku=ma attanallak
luxuriant.sc-1csg=and wander.about.pcl.1csg
ina birīt eṭl-ūt-im
in among youth-mpl-gen
ibbašš-ū=nim=ma kakkab-ū šamāˀ-i
appear.pcl-mpl=vent=top star-mpl.cst sky-gen
kiṣr-um ša An-im imqut ana ṣēr-ī-ya
lump-nom rel dn(sky)-gen fall.pcs.3msg to before-gen-1csg
aššī-šu=ma iktabbit elī-ya
lift.pcl.1csg-3msg=and be.heavy.pct.3msg on-1csg
unīs-su=ma nuššā-šu ul elteˀi
shift.pcs.1csg-3msg=and moving-3msg neg be.able.pct.1csg
Uruk māt-um paḫer elī-šu
gn land-nom gathered.sc.3msg on-3msg
eṭl-ūt-um unaššaq-ū šēp-ī-šu

youth-mpl-nom kiss.pcl-mpl foot-mpl.obl-3msg
ummid=ma pūt-ī
put.pcs.1csg=and forehead-1csg
immid-ū yâti
lean.on.pcl-mpl pro.acc.1csg
ašši=aš-šu=ma atbal=aš-šu ana ṣēr-ī-ki

lift.pcl.1cs=vent-3msg=and bring.pct.1csg=vent-3msg to towards-gen-2fsg
‘Gilgamesh arose revealing a dream,

Speaking to his mother:
O mother, in my dream (lit., “in that of my night”)
I wandered around leisurely
In the company of young men,
The stars of the sky appearing to me,
(when) a piece of Anu (= the sky) fell down before me.
I lifted it, but it was too heavy for me,
I shifted it, but I was unable to move it.
The land of Uruk was gathered around it,
The young men kissing its feet.
I braced my forehead,
While they were leaning on me (= they supported me)
I lifted it up and brought it to you.’
NOTES
1 For a more extensive list of Akkadian and East Semitic innovations, see Huehnergard
(2006) and Hasselbach-Andee (forthcoming).
2 According to the conventions used in Assyriological literature, Akkadian transliter-
ations distinguish between two types of long vowels: long vowels that are inherited
from the ancestor language that are marked with a macron (ā, ē, ī, ū), and those that are
the result of secondary vowel contractions and that are considered “ultra-long,” which
are marked with a circumflex (â, ê, î, û); see also §3.
3 Scholars of Akkadian commonly use the root p-r-s (basic infinitive parāsum) for indi-
cating both nominal and verbal paradigms.
REFERENCES
Borger, Rykle. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (2nd ed.) Münster: Ugarit, 2010.
George, Andrew. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and
Cuneiform Text. 2 vol. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the
Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. Case in Semitic: Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2013.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “Agreement and the Development of Gender in Semitic.” ZDMG
164 (2014): 33–64; 319–44.
Hasselbach-Andee, Rebecca. “Archaism versus Innovation: The Hybrid Nature of
Akkadian.” LANE. Forthcoming.
Huehnergard, John. “On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 76
(1986): 218–49.
Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998.
its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC,
edited by G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, 1–18. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut
voor het Nabije oosten, 2006.
Huehnergard, John and Na‘ama Pat-El. “Some Aspects of the Cleft in Semitic Languages.”
In Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg, edited
by Tali Bar and Eran Cohen, 325–42. Münster: Ugarit, 2007.
Huehnergard, John, and Christopher Woods. “Akkadian and Eblaite.” In The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 218–80.
Kouwenberg, N. J. C. “Ventive, Dative and Allative in Old Babylonian.” ZA 92 (2002):
200–40.
Kouwenberg, N. J. C. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2010.
Labat, René and Malbran-Labat, Florence. Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne. Paris: Paul
Geuthner, 1994.
Soden, Wolfram von. Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik (3rd ed.). Rome: Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 1995.Streck, Michael P. “Akkadian and Aramaic Language Contact.”
In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger,
416–24. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
Van Soldt, Wilfred H. “Akkadian as a Diplomatic Language.” In The Semitic Languages:
An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 405–15. Berlin: de Gruyter,
2011.
Zólyomi, Gábor. “Akkadian and Sumerian Language Contact.” In The Semitic
Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 396–404. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2011.
CHAPTER 6
GƎʕƎZ (CLASSICAL
ETHIOPIC) AARON MICHAEL BUTTSGƎʕƎZ (CLASSICAL ETHIOPIC)
Aaron Michael Butts
1 INTRODUCTION
Gǝʕǝz – also called “Classical Ethiopic” or simply “Ethiopic” – was the language of
the kingdom of Axum during Late Antiquity. Geographically, Gǝʕǝz had its homeland
in what is today Eritrea and northern Ethiopia. It is, however, attested across a larger
expanse covering all of Ethiopia (Map 6.1) and reaching east into the Arabian peninsula
(especially modern Yemen) and north all the way up to Egypt. After the fall of the Axu-
mite kingdom, toward the beginning of the 9th century, Gǝʕǝz continued to be used as a
religious and literary language by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, and this
remains the case up until the present day.
ER
IT
RE
A
DJIBOUTI
ETHIOPIA
LEGEND
Gəʕəz
MAP 6.1 THE APPROXIMATE SPEECH AREA OF GƎʕƎZ (CLASSICAL ETHIOPIC)

118 Aaron Michael Butts
Gǝʕǝz belongs to the Ethiopian Semitic language group, a discrete branch of West
Semitic (see Introduction). Ethiopian Semitic includes a variety of languages, such as
Gǝʕǝz (described in this chapter), Tigre (Chapter 7), Tigrinya (Chapter 8), Amharic
(Chapter 9) and Gurage (Chapter 10). Traditionally, Ethiopian Semitic was divided into
two nodes: Northern Ethiopian Semitic, which consisted of Gǝʕǝz, Tigre and Tigrinya,
vs. Southern Ethiopian Semitic, which included the remainder of the languages of Ethi-
opian Semitic (see, e.g., Cohen 1931, Hetzron 1972). Recently, however, Bulakh and
Kogan (2010, 2013, see also Voigt 2010) have called the node of Northern Ethiopian
Semitic into question noting that Gǝʕǝz, Tigre and Tigrinya do not share any (morpholog-
ical) innovations. Rather, the features that they have in common are either retentions from
an earlier stage or areal features due to geographic proximity. Thus, the traditional node
of Northern Ethiopian Semitic can no longer be maintained. It further remains unclear
whether any combination of Gǝʕǝz, Tigre and Tigrinya are more closely related to one
another or to Southern Ethiopian Semitic. Thus, in the current state of research, it seems
best to consider Gǝʕǝz, Tigre, Tigrinya and Southern Ethiopian Semitic as coordinated
branches of Ethiopian Semitic.
The sources for Gǝʕǝz can be divided into four broad categories (in roughly chrono-
logical order): (a) Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz, (b) Axumite Gǝʕǝz, (c) Solomonic Gǝʕǝz and (d)
the modern pronunciation tradition.
Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz consists of the varieties of Gǝʕǝz that are attested in inscriptions
dating from the first millennium CE. There are more than 200 such inscriptions, though
the vast majority of them are short. The varieties of Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz display some minor
differences from Classical Gǝʕǝz as attested in the later manuscripts. In general, however,
Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz is closely similar to the literary form of the language that is attested
in later manuscripts. In contrast to literary Gǝʕǝz (whether Axumite or Solomonic), Epi-
graphic Gǝʕǝz constitutes the only direct evidence for original, non-translated texts pro-
duced by native speakers of Gǝʕǝz. Thus, it is of great importance for our knowledge of
Gǝʕǝz generally, even though the corpus is limited and remains understudied.
The next two sources, i.e., Axumite and Solmonic Gǝʕǝz, comprise the literary form(s)
of the language as attested in manuscripts. The Axumite period of Gǝʕǝz spans from
approximately the 4th century to the beginning of the 9th. It consists (almost?) exclusively
of translations from Greek, such as the Bible, the Rules of Pachomius, a body of theolog-
ical texts known as Qerǝllos (i.e., Cyril of Alexandria), and the more recently discovered
group of texts now referred to as the Axumite Collection. With a few possible exceptions,
such as the gospel manuscripts from Ǝnda Abba Gärima, the dating of which is disputed
(as early as the 4th century to as late as the 13th), most, if not all, texts from the Axumite
period are transmitted in manuscripts that were copied in the later Solomonic period,
i.e., beginning in the 13th century (see the next paragraph). In addition, at least some – if
not many – of the texts from the Axumite period were revised against Arabic versions
or retranslated in the Solomonic period. This means that, setting aside the inscriptions
discussed previously (i.e., Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz), there is little to no direct access to Gǝʕǝz
in the Axumite period: Literary texts from the Axumite period are with a few possible
exceptions always mediated by the later Solomonic period. Research on the most ancient
Ethiopic manuscripts, especially those that contain Axumite period texts, has shown that
these preserve certain archaic linguistic features, some of which are also attested in Epi-
graphic Gǝʕǝz (see especially Bausi 2005, with many references therein). These archaic
features probably represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg of an earlier variety (better:
varieties) of Gǝʕǝz that has been mostly standardized in the Solomonic period.
Gǝʕǝz (Classical Ethiopic) 119
The Solomonic period of Gǝʕǝz traditionally begins with the (re-)institution of the
Solomonic dynasty in 1270 and extends basically to the present.1 In this period, Gǝʕǝz
functioned as a literary and religious language, but it was probably never a first lan-
guage: The use of Gǝʕǝz in the Solomonic period is often compared to that of Latin in
Medieval Europe. It is thus not surprising that some Ethiopic texts from the Solomonic
period betray significant influence from Amharic, the first language of many Gǝʕǝz
users. In addition, though there are some native compositions from the Solomonic
period, most texts are translations from Arabic, and some of these show considerable
influence from their Vorlagen. The Gǝʕǝz texts from the Solomonic period are pri-
marily Christian, falling into various genres, including hagiography, liturgy, homilies
and chronicles. There are also a large number of prayer amulets. In addition to the
Christian literature, Gǝʕǝz was used by the Betä Ǝsraʔel, or ‘Ethiopian Jews’ (also
called Fälaša).
In addition to the written attestations of Gǝʕǝz, there is also a later oral witness: the
so-called pronunciation tradition. This refers to the pronunciation of Gǝʕǝz as practiced
by Ethiopian church scholars in the modern period. Though the pronunciation tradition of
Gǝʕǝz often reflects the informants’ first language, usually Amharic, it does reveal useful
information, and for some features (e.g., stress) it remains the primary, if not only, source
of information.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Gǝʕǝz is written in a script known as the fidäl, which has signs for 26 different consonants
that are marked for 7 different vowels for a total of 182 signs. These are summarized
in Table 6.1. The Gǝʕǝz fidäl is an alphasyllabary in which a single symbol represents
onset (consonant) and nucleus (vowel). The Gǝʕǝz fidäl is one of the rare writing systems
among the Semitic languages in which vowels are indicated.
Alternative transcriptions are found for several signs in this chart. The sign ś is often
transcribed as š, and its ‘emphatic’ (glottalic or ejective; see §3) counterpart ś ̣ is often
transcribed as ḍ. In addition, one will find the sign ḫ transcribed as x and ḳ transcribed
as q. The phonemic realization of these signs is discussed later. Each of the columns of
the chart refers to a different ‘order’ of vowel, which are numbered first through seventh.
The Gǝʕǝz fidäl derives from the writing system of Old South Arabian (see Chap-
ter 13). The earliest inscriptions in Gǝʕǝz are written in an unvocalized iteration of the
fidäl similar to that of Old South Arabian, which is also unvocalized. By the 4th century,
the originally consonantal fidäl had developed vowel marking, as illustrated in Table 6.1.
At that time, special signs for the labiovelar consonants were also introduced (illustrated
in Table 6.2). Unlike its Old South Arabian predecessor, which was generally sinistro-
grade (right-to-left) at this time, the Gǝʕǝz fidäl is firmly dextrograde (left-to-right),
perhaps due to the influence of Greek. Like Old South Arabian, the Gǝʕǝz fidäl makes
regular use of a word divider (፡). The order of the letters in the Gǝʕǝz fidäl is similar to
that of Old South Arabian.
The Gǝʕǝz fidäl is under-differentiated in several ways: (a) It does not mark consonan-
tal gemination; (b) It does not mark the distinction between the vowel ǝ and no vowel
(i.e., the sign ህ can represent either hǝ or h); (c) It does not mark stress. These features
can only be determined by recourse to comparative Semitic linguistics and/or to the pro-
nunciation tradition.
TABLE 6.1 GƎʕƎZ FIDÄL
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

ä u i a e ǝ/ø o
h ሀ ሁ ሂ ሃ ሄ ህ ሆ
l ለ ሉ ሊ ላ ሌ ል ሎ
ḥ ሐ ሑ ሒ ሓ ሔ ሕ ሖ
m መ ሙ ሚ ማ ሜ ም ሞ
ś ሠ ሡ ሢ ሣ ሤ ሥ ሦ
r ረ ሩ ሪ ራ ሬ ር ሮ
s ሰ ሱ ሲ ሳ ሴ ስ ሶ
ḳ ቀ ቁ ቂ ቃ ቄ ቅ ቆ
b በ ቡ ቢ ባ ቤ ብ ቦ
t ተ ቱ ቲ ታ ቴ ት ቶ
ḫ ኀ ኁ ኂ ኃ ኄ ኅ ኆ
n ነ ኑ ኒ ና ኔ ን ኖ
ʔ አ ኡ ኢ ኣ ኤ እ ኦ
k ከ ኩ ኪ ካ ኬ ክ ኮ
w ወ ዉ ዊ ዋ ዌ ው ዎ
ʕ ዐ ዑ ዒ ዓ ዔ ዕ ዖ
z ዘ ዙ ዚ ዛ ዜ ዝ ዞ
y የ ዩ ዪ ያ ዬ ይ ዮ
d ደ ዱ ዲ ዳ ዴ ድ ዶ
g ገ ጉ ጊ ጋ ጌ ግ ጎ
ṭ ጠ ጡ ጢ ጣ ጤ ጥ ጦ
ṗ ጰ ጱ ጲ ጳ ጴ ጵ ጶ
ṣ ጸ ጹ ጺ ጻ ጼ ጽ ጾ
ṣ́ ፀ ፁ ፂ ፃ ፄ ፅ ፆ
f ፈ ፉ ፊ ፋ ፌ ፍ ፎ
p ፐ ፑ ፒ ፓ ፔ ፕ ፖ
TABLE 6.2 LABIOVELAR CONSONANTS
ä i a e ǝ
ḳ
w
ቈ ቊ ቋ ቌ ቍ
ḫw ኈ ኊ ኋ ኌ ኍ
kw ኰ ኲ ኳ ኴ ኵ
gw ጐ ጕ ጓ ጔ ግ
3 PHONOLOGY
The description of Gǝʕǝz phonology is of necessity a matter of reconstruction since there
have not been native speakers of the language for probably over a millennium. Thus,
the researcher is especially dependent here on comparative Semitic evidence and the
pronunciation tradition in addition to written records (both manuscripts and inscriptions).
A description of the phonology of Gǝʕǝz is further complicated by the fact that there have
been developments throughout the language’s long history. Thus, there are legitimate
questions about which stage of the language one should attempt to describe. Consider,
for instance, the consonantal phonemes: a reconstructed pronunciation of Gǝʕǝz in early
Axumite times might include 30 consonants as represented in the fidäl, whereas the pro-
nunciation tradition preserves only 25 (this difference is the result of a number of mergers
that will be discussed below). The presentation here has adopted a position closer to the
latter, though not identical to it. Throughout this chapter, this stage will be termed ‘later
Gǝʕǝz’ (in contrast to ‘earlier Gǝʕǝz’). Chronologically later Gǝʕǝz has a terminus ante
quem of at least the beginning of the Solomonic period (say 1300). Describing this stage
of the language has the advantage of aligning with the majority of the autochthonous evi-
dence: not only the pronunciation tradition but also the written evidence of manuscripts,
since it will be recalled that almost all manuscripts stem from the Solomonic period. An
effort has, however, been made to point out differences with a reconstructed pronuncia-
tion of earlier Gǝʕǝz.2
The consonantal inventory of later Gǝʕǝz consists of 25 phonemes, which are sum-
marized in Table 6.3. Like many Semitic languages, Gǝʕǝz is characterized by several
sets of consonantal triads consisting of a voiceless, voiced and ‘emphatic’ member. The
emphatic member, which is traditionally represented with an under-dot in Semitic lin-
guistics, was likely glottalic/ejective in Gǝʕǝz, as it is in the modern Ethiopian languages.
As already noted, the consonantal inventory given in Table 6.3 represents a reduction
of an earlier consonantal inventory due to several mergers:
Five of these mergers involve what are traditionally called “gutturals”: ʔ, ʕ, h, h ̣ and ḫ.
The gutturals h, h ̣ and ḫ are all realized as a voiceless glottal fricative [h] in later Gǝʕǝz.
This is the original pronunciation of h. Based on comparative evidence, however, ḥ was
probably realized as a voiceless pharyngeal fricative [ħ] in the earlier history of Gǝʕǝz.
Similarly, ḫ was probably realized as a voiceless velar fricative [x]. Both ḥ and ḫ even-
tually merged to [h]. All three of these signs are frequently interchanged in manuscripts,
including some early ones.
The gutturals ʔ and ʕ are both realized as a voiceless glottal stop [ʔ] in later Gǝʕǝz. This
is the original pronunciation of ʔ. The sign ʕ, however, was probably realized as a voice-
less pharyngeal stop [ʕ] in the earlier history of Gǝʕǝz. This, however, eventually merged
to [ʔ]. The signs for ʔ and ʕ can thus be interchanged in manuscripts, especially later ones.
Another merger involves s and ś, both of which are realized as a voiceless alveolar
fricative [s] in later Gǝʕǝz. The sign ś, however, is reconstructed as a voiceless alveolar
lateral fricative [ɬ] in Proto-Semitic (PS) (Steiner 1977), and it may have had a similar
TABLE 6.3 CONSONANTAL PHONEMES OF LATER GƎʕƎZ
Labial/ Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Labiovelar Glottal

labio-dental
Stop p b ṗ [p’] t d ṭ [t’] k g ḳ [k’] kw gw ḳw [kw’] ʔ

Fricative f s z ṣ [s’] hw h
Trill r
Lateral approximant l
Nasal m n
Glide w y [j]
pronunciation in the earlier history of Gǝʕǝz, as it still does in Modern South Arabian.
Eventually, however, the sound represented by the sign ś merged to [s]. The earliest
manuscripts already interchange the signs for s and ś, and this merger is in fact already
attested in an inscription from the 6th century (Drewes 1991: 385–6).
A final merger involves ṣ and ś ̣, both of which are realized as a glottalic alveolar fric-
ative [s’] in later Gǝʕǝz – often with affrication, i.e., [ts’], in the pronunciation tradition.
Etymologically, the sign transcribed ś ̣ is the glottalic/ejective counterpart of the sign tran-
scribed ś. Thus, the sign transcribed ś ̣ is the reflex of the PS glottalic voiceless alveolar
lateral fricative *ɬ’. This pronunciation seems to have been preserved in early Gǝʕǝz,
where it may have also been affricated (Weninger 1999, 2010: 79).
The consonantal phonemes of Gǝʕǝz are in general very stable. Minor changes include
the following three consonantal assimilations:
• The feminine ending t assimilates to a preceding dental stop {d, ṭ}, e.g., kǝbǝdd
‘heavy’ (f) (for **kǝbǝdt)
• The t in certain derived stems (see below for these) is assimilated to a following
dental stop {d, ṭ} or sibilant {z, s, ś, ṣ, ś ̣}, e.g., yǝssämmäy ‘he will be named’ (for
**yǝtsämmäy)
• The k of the 1st and 2nd person pronominal suffixes of the perfect assimilates to a
preceding velar stop {g, ḳ}, e.g., ḫädäggu ‘I left’ (for **ḫädägku)
These assimilations only affect affixed morphemes, not root consonants. In addition,
the glottal stop ʔ of the causative prefix and of the first-person pronominal prefix
assimilates to y before the proclitic negative ʔi-, e.g., ʔi-yafḳärä ‘he did not love’ (for
**ʔi-ʔäfḳärä).
Though it is not indicated in the writing system, gemination is phonemic in Gǝʕǝz.
Consider, for instance, the following minimal pair: ḫädägu ‘they left’ vs. ḫädäggu ‘I left’.
Gemination is at times still realized in the pronunciation tradition, but it is at other times
lost – not to mention found when not expected. The “gutturals” ʔ, ʕ, h, ḥ and ḫ cannot be
geminated in the pronunciation tradition, though this is not necessarily the case for earlier
stages of the language.
The vocalic inventory of later Gǝʕǝz consists of seven phonemes, which are sum-
marized in Table 6.4. This reconstruction of later Gǝʕǝz differs from the pronunciation
tradition, in which the vowels transcribed here as e and o are often realized as [ye] and
[wo], respectively, i.e., with palatalization/labialization of the preceding consonant. In
addition, this reconstruction differs from that of earlier forms of Gǝʕǝz, in which vowel
length may still have been phonemic.
TABLE 6.4 VOCALIC PHONEMES OF LATER GƎʕƎZ
Front Central Back
High i ǝ u
Mid e ä o
Low a
The vowel transcribed here as ǝ is realized phonetically as [ɨ], as it is also sometimes

transcribed. Alternative transcriptions are found in the secondary literature for several of
the signs in this chart. The most common are a and ā for what are transcribed here as ä
and a, respectively, as well as e and ē for what are transcribed here as ǝ and e, respec-
tively. This chapter does not use the vowel signs with macrons because it is not synchron-
ically accurate, at least for the stage of the language being described here: in later Gǝʕǝz,
vowels do not have phonemic length.
There is little information for stress in Gǝʕǝz. According to one version of the pro-
nunciation tradition (see Mittwoch 1926: 32–44), finite verbs without object suffixes are
stressed on the penultimate, e.g., näˈbärä ‘he remained’, yǝˈqättǝl ‘he is killing’, etc.3
The same stress pattern is found for words that end in -ä, e.g., nǝˈguśä ‘king’ (acc). Most
other words are stressed on their ultimate, e.g., nǝˈguś ‘king’ (nacc). There are, however,
exceptions to these rules, especially in the pronominal system.
4 MORPHOLOGY
The morphology of Gǝʕǝz is relatively conservative among the Semitic languages,
preserving many features and forms of PS, especially compared to the other Ethiopian
Semitic languages, which are attested primarily in the modern period and which tend to
be far more innovative.
4.1 Pronouns
There are two sets of personal pronouns: independent (§4.1.1) and suffixal (§4.1.2). The
suffixal pronouns are used as possessive pronouns on nouns and as objective pronouns on
verbs. They also occur with prepositions and some particles and are employed to derive
the independent possessive pronouns (§4.1.3). In addition to personal pronouns, Gǝʕǝz
has demonstrative pronouns (§4.1.4), relative pronouns (§4.1.5), and interrogative and
indefinite pronouns (§4.1.6).
4.1.1 Independent
The independent personal pronouns in Gǝʕǝz are summarized in Table 6.5. Case distinc-
tion is only found in the 3rd-person singular forms. In addition to the forms in the chart,
wǝʔǝtomu is used for 3cp. The pronoun wǝʔǝton is also occasionally found for 3fpl.
TABLE 6.5 INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRONOUNS
sg pl
1 ʔänä nǝḥnä
2m ʔäntä ʔäntǝmu
2f ʔänti ʔäntǝn
3m.nacc wǝʔǝtu
ʔǝm(m)untu
3m.acc wǝʔǝtä
3f.nacc yǝʔǝti
ʔǝm(m)antu
3f.acc yǝʔǝtä
4.1.2 Suffixal
Pronominal suffixes can be attached to nouns to indicate possession. The realization of
the pronominal suffixes varies slightly according to the type of noun. Table 6.6 illus-
trates the form of the suffixes when attached to a singular noun ending in a consonant.
These suffixes are realized in slightly different forms with (a) singular nouns ending in -i;
(b) singular nouns ending in -e, -a and -o; (c) the singular forms of the so-called four
nouns, i.e., ʔäb ‘father’, ʔǝḫw ‘brother’, ḥäm ‘father-in-law’ and ʔäf ‘mouth’ and (d) the
“singular” form of the noun ʔǝd ‘hand’.4
Table 6.7 illustrates the form of the pronominal suffixes on plural nouns. Note that
there is no distinction between non-accusative and accusative with the pronominal suf-
fixes on plural nouns.
A slightly different set of pronominal suffixes occurs with verbs. The forms of these
suffixes on the 3msg perfect verb are given in Table 6.8. Note especially the different
form of the 1sg suffix on verbs (-ni) as compared with that on nouns (-yä). The form of
these suffixes varies, especially with the 3rd person pronouns, depending on the ending
of the verb.
TABLE 6.6 PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES ON CONSONANT-FINAL NOUN (HÄGÄR ‘CITY’)
Non-Accusative Accusative
1sg hägär-ǝyä hägär-ǝyä

2msg hägär-ǝkä hägär-äkä
2fsg hägär-ǝki hägär-äki
3msg hägär-u hägär-o
3fsg hägär-a hägär-a
1pl hägär-ǝnä hägär-änä
2mpl hägär-ǝkǝmu hägär-äkǝmu
2fpl hägär-ǝkǝn hägär-äkǝn
3mpl hägär-omu hägär-omu
3fpl hägär-on hägär-on
TABLE 6.7 PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES ON PLURAL NOUNS (ʔÄHGUR ‘CITIES’)
Non-Accusative/Accusative Noun
1sg ʔähgur-iyä (also ʔähgur-ǝyä)

2msg ʔähgur-ikä
2fsg ʔähgur-iki (also ʔähgur-ǝki)
3msg ʔähgur-ihu
3fsg ʔähgur-iha
2pl ʔähgur-inä
2mpl ʔähgur-ikǝmu
2fpl ʔähgur-ikǝn
3mpl ʔähgur-ihomu
3fpl ʔähgur-ihon
TABLE 6.8 OBJECT PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES ON 3msg PERFECT VERB
sg pl
1 -äni -änä
2m -äkä -äkǝmu
2f -äki -äkǝn
3m -o -omu
3f -a -on
4.1.3 Independent possessive pronouns

Independent possessive pronouns are formed through the combination of the suffixal
personal pronouns (§4.1.2) and ziʔä- (msg), ʔǝntiʔä- (fsg) or ʔǝlliʔä- (pl) in agree-
ment with the possessed noun. So, ziʔä-yä is ‘my’ modifying a masculine singular
antecedent.
4.1.4 Demonstrative
There are four sets of demonstrative pronouns in Gǝʕǝz, two of which are used for prox-
imal deixis (Tables 6.9 and 6.10) and two for distal (Tables 6.11 and 6.12).
In the first series of proximal demonstratives (Table 6.9), case distinction is only found
in the masculine singular. The singular forms are usually proclitic, e.g., zǝ-bǝʔsi ‘this
man’. When another proclitic element is found (such as a preposition), the two proclitic
elements attract to one another, e.g., bä-zǝ bet ‘in this house’.
In addition to the forms given in Table 6.11 for the first series of distal demonstratives,
the feminine singular ʔǝntǝ(k)ku is also found for the accusative.
In the second series of distal demonstratives (Table 6.12), the masculine plural forms
are also used with the feminine plural. There is case distinction throughout the series, and
there are by-forms, with kw for k, in all the masculine forms.
In addition to the four sets of demonstrative pronouns (two proximal and two distal)
given in Tables 6.9–6.12, the 3rd person independent personal pronouns (see Table 6.5)
can function as demonstrative pronouns (especially for distal deixis).
4.1.5 Relative
The forms of the relative pronouns are given in Table 6.13. Note that msg zä- is proclitic,
e.g., bǝʔsi zä-mot-ä ‘the man who died’ (man-ncst rel-die-prf.3msg). When not used
in a headless construction, fsg ʔǝntä and pl ʔǝllä can optionally be replaced by msg zä-.
The relative pronouns in Table 6.13 form part of the base for the independent possessive
pronouns (§4.1.3).
4.1.6 Interrogative pronouns

The interrogative pronouns and adjectives are summarized in Table 6.14. In addition to
männu / männä, a marked plural form ʔǝllä mannu ‘who?’ occurs rarely.
TABLE 6.9 FIRST SERIES OF PROXIMAL DEMONSTRATIVES
sg pl
m.nacc zǝ-
ʔǝllu
m.acc zä-
ʔǝlla
f za-
ʔǝllon
TABLE 6.10 SECOND SERIES OF PROXIMAL DEMONSTRATIVES
sg pl
ʔǝllontu
m.nacc zǝntu
ʔǝlluntu
ʔǝllontä
m.acc zäntä
ʔǝlluntä
ʔǝllantu
f.nacc zat(t)i
ʔǝllanti
f.acc zat(t)ä ʔǝllantä
TABLE 6.11 FIRST SERIES OF DISTAL DEMONSTRATIVES
sg pl
m.nacc zǝ(k)ku
m.acc zǝ(k)kwä ʔǝllǝ(k)ku
f.nacc ʔǝntǝ(k)ku
f.acc ʔǝntǝ(k)kwä
TABLE 6.12 SECOND SERIES OF DISTAL DEMONSTRATIVES
sg pl
zǝktu ʔǝllǝktu
m.nacc
zǝkwtu ʔǝllǝkwtu
zǝktä ʔǝllǝktä
m.acc
zǝkwtä ʔǝllǝkwtä
f.nacc ʔǝntakti ʔǝllaktu
f.acc ʔǝntaktä ʔǝllakta
TABLE 6.13 RELATIVE PRONOUN
sg pl
m zä-
f ʔǝntä ʔǝllä
TABLE 6.14 INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS AND ADJECTIVES
who? männu männä

what? mǝnt mǝntä
which? (sg) ʔäyy ʔäyyä
which? (pl) ʔäyyat ʔäyyatä
4.2 Nouns
4.2.1 General
Nouns in Gǝʕǝz include substantives and adjectives. The primary morphosyntactic cate-
gories for nouns are gender (masculine and feminine), number (singular and plural), case
(non-accusative and accusative) and state (nonconstruct and construct).
4.2.2 Pattern
Nouns can be derived by pattern as well as by affixes.
4.2.3 Gender
There are two genders in Gǝʕǝz: masculine and feminine. Masculine nouns are unmarked,
e.g., bǝʔsi ‘man’ and nǝguś ‘king’. Many feminine nouns are marked with -(ä)t, e.g., f
bǝʔsit ‘woman’ (compare m bǝʔsi ‘man’) and f nǝgǝśt ‘queen’ (compare m nǝguś ‘king’).
Only rarely are feminine human nouns unmarked, e.g., ʔǝmm ‘mother’. With human
nouns, gender is a relevant category since these nouns must take appropriate agreement,
as is illustrated in the following examples:
wǝʔǝtu bǝʔsi ‘that man’ (dem.msg man)

yǝʔǝti bǝʔsit ‘that woman’ (dem.fsg woman)
This can be contrasted with non-human nouns, which can take either masculine or fem-
inine agreement:
wǝʔǝtu fǝnot ‘that road’ (dem.msg road) / yǝʔǝti fǝnot ‘that road’ (dem.fsg road)
It should, however, be noted that many substantives do have a preference in gender agree-
ment; for instance, hägär ‘city’ usually takes feminine agreement.
4.2.4 Number
There are two productive numbers in Gǝʕǝz: singular and plural.5 The singular is
unmarked. The plural can be marked in two ways: suffixes (external plurals) and patterns
(internal plurals). The most common method of forming plurals is that of internal plurals
(also called “broken plurals”). Internal plurals involve pattern replacement, several of
which are illustrated in Table 6.15. An individual noun may have multiple internal plural
forms, e.g., ḥǝzb ‘people, nation’, the plurals of which are ḥǝzäb and ʔäḥzab. There is a
TABLE 6.15 EXAMPLES OF INTERNAL PLURALS
sg pl
‘mountain’ däbr ʔädbar

‘son’ wäld wǝlud
‘king’ nǝguś nägäśt
‘book’ mäṣḥäf mäṣaḥǝft
TABLE 6.16 EXAMPLES OF PLURAL SUFFIX -AT
sg pl
‘prophet’ näbiy näbiyat

‘queen’ nǝgǝśt nǝgǝśtat
‘heaven’ sämay sämayat
relatively small set of internal plural patterns. It is not, however, possible to predict which
plural pattern occurs with a given noun.
External plurals do not involve pattern replacement but rather the affixation of the
suffixes ‑an and/or ‑at. The suffix -an is basically restricted to masculine human plurals
that are either adjectives or de-adjectival substantives, e.g., pl ṣadǝḳan ‘just’ (compare sg
ṣadǝḳ ‘just’) and pl liḳan ‘elders’ (compare sg liḳ ‘elder’). In contrast to -an, the suffix
-at occurs with masculine human plurals, feminine human plurals, as well as non-human
plurals, as is illustrated in Table 6.16. In addition, internal plurals can take the suffix
-at, e.g., pl ʔähgurat ‘cities’ alongside the more common ʔähgur ‘cities’, both plurals of
hägär ‘city’. Nouns such as ʔähgurat are doubly marked for plurality: both as internal
plurals and external plurals with -at. Similarly, external masculine plurals with -an can
take the suffix -at, e.g., pl liḳanat ‘elders’ alongside liḳan and liḳawǝnt, all plurals of liḳ
‘elder’.
Similar to the situation with gender agreement, human plurals take appropriate number
agreement, as is illustrated in the following examples:
wǝʔǝtu nǝguś ‘that king’ (dem.msg king)

ʔǝm(m)untu nägäśt ‘those kings’ (dem.mpl king.mpl)
In contrast, non-human plurals can take either singular or plural agreement:
wǝʔǝtu ʔädbar ‘those mountains’ (dem.msg mountain.mpl)

ʔǝm(m)untu ʔädbar ‘those mountains’ (dem.mpl mountain.mpl)
Thus, a non-human plural such as ʔädbar ‘mountains’ can take either masculine or femi-
nine agreement (§4.2.3) as well as either singular or plural agreement.
4.2.5 Case
There are two cases in Gǝʕǝz: non-accusative and accusative. The non-accusative is
unmarked. The ending of the accusative varies depending on the ending of the noun, as
summarized in Table 6.17.6
TABLE 6.17 SUMMARY OF ACCUSATIVE MARKING
ending in consonant nǝguś nǝguśä

ending in -i ṣäḥafi ṣäḥafe
ending in -e, -a, -o ʔärwe ʔärwe
The accusative case usually functions as the direct object of a verb, as in the following
example:
räkäb-ä säbʔ-ä bǝzuḫ-ä

find-prf.3msg people-acc many-acc
‘He found many people.’ (Matthew 14:14 [A-text])
The accusative also has a number of other uses in Gǝʕǝz, especially various adverbial
functions, e.g., lelitä ‘at night’, with the same meaning as the prepositional phrase bälelit
‘at night’.
4.2.6 State
There are two states for nouns in Gǝʕǝz: nonconstruct and construct. The nonconstruct
is the state in which a noun is not bound to a following noun, e.g., bet ‘a/the house’. The
nonconstruct state is unmarked. The construct is the state in which a noun is bound to a
following noun, as is the case with betä in the following example:
bet-ä nǝguś-ø ‘a/the house of a/the king’ (house-cst king-ncst)
The endings of the construct state are the same as those for the accusative case, as given
in Table 6.17.
4.2.7 Definiteness
Gǝʕǝz does not (regularly) mark definiteness. Thus, bet is either ‘a house’ or ‘the house’.
Occasionally, however, 3rd person possessive suffixes mark the incipient stage of a defi-
nite article, as in the following example:
wä-mäṣaʔ-kǝmu wä-qom-kǝmu taḥtä däbr wä-yǝ-näddǝd däbr-u

and-come-prf.2mpl and-stand-prf.2mpl under mountain and-3msg-burn.iprf mountain-his
‘You came and stood under a/the mountain, and the mountain was burning’ (Deuteronomy 4:11)
In this example, there is no antecedent for the 3msg pronominal suffix -u on

däbr-u, literally ‘his mountain’; this suffix instead marks definiteness. This use of
the possessive pronominal suffixes is rare in Gǝʕǝz. In addition to this incipient defi-
nite article, several analytic constructions are only used when nouns are contextually
definite (see §5.2).
4.3 Numerals
There are two types of numerals: cardinal (§4.3.1) and ordinal (§4.3.2).
4.3.1 Cardinal
The Gǝʕǝz cardinal numbers are summarized in Table 6.18. In addition to the forms
given in the table, note that kǝlʔe ‘2’ is also used with both masculine and feminine nouns
regardless of case.
The Gǝʕǝz cardinal numbers for 3–10 exhibit so-called gender polarity whereby
numbers marked with the feminine ending *-(a)t are used with masculine nouns, and
unmarked numbers (i.e., “masculine-looking”) are used with feminine nouns.
The numbers 11–19 are constructed by coordinating the numbers given in Table 6.18
with the conjunction wä- ‘and’, e.g., ʕäśärtu wä-ʔäḥädu is 11 for a masculine noun, and
ʕäśru wä-ʔaḥatti is 11 for a feminine noun.
The numbers 30–90 are derived from the base form of the number with the ending -a,
e.g., śälasa ‘30’, ʔärbǝʕa ‘40’, etc. Cardinal number 20 is formed in the same way, except
based on 10, e.g., ʕǝśra ‘20’. These cardinal numbers that end in -a are unmodified for
gender or case.
4.3.2 Ordinal
The ordinal number for ‘first’ is qädami (f qädamit). Several different words can be used
for ‘second’ including kalǝʔ (f kalǝʔt), dagǝm (f dagǝmt), kaʕǝb (f kaʕǝbt) and baʕǝd (f
baʕǝdd). The ordinals for 3–10 are based on the same roots as the cardinal numbers given
in Table 6.18 with the nominal pattern C1aC2ǝC3 (f C1aC2ǝC3t), e.g., śalǝs ‘third’ (m) and
śalǝst ‘third’ (f). With the exception of kalǝʔ ‘second’, these ordinal numbers can option-
ally occur with the adjectival suffixes -awi (f -awit) and -ay (f -it), e.g., śalǝsawi ‘third’
(m). A different set of ordinal numbers, based on the nominal pattern C1äC2uC3, is used
with measures of time (day, week, month, year, etc.), e.g., śälus lelit ‘the third night’.
TABLE 6.18 CARDINAL NUMBERS 1–10
Used With Masculine Nouns Used With Feminine Nouns
Non-Accusative Accusative Non-Accusative Accusative
1 ʔäḥädu ʔäḥädä ʔaḥatti ʔaḥattä

2 kǝlʔetu kǝlʔetä kǝlʔeti kǝlʔetä
3 śälästu śälästä śälas śälasä
4 ʔärbaʕtu ʔärbaʕtä ʔärbaʕ ʔärbaʕä
5 ḫämǝstu ḫämǝstä ḫäms ḫämsä
6 sǝdǝstu sǝdǝstä sǝssu sǝssu
7 säbʕätu säbʕätä säbʕu säbʕu
säbaʕtu säbaʕtä sä/ǝbʕ
8 sämä/antu sämä/antä sämani sämani
sämanitu sämanitä
9 tǝ/äsʕätu tǝ/äsʕätä tǝ/äsʕu tǝ/äsʕu
täsaʕtu täsaʕtä
10 ʕäśärtu ʕäśärtä ʕäśru ʕäśru
ʕäśr ʕäśrä
TABLE 6.19 FORMS OF THE VERB (√GBR ‘TO MAKE, DO’)
perfect gäbrä ‘He made.’

imperfect yǝgäbbǝr ‘He was making / is making / will make.’
subjunctive yǝgbär ‘Let him make! / . . . so that he might make’
imperative gǝbär ‘Make!’
infinitive gäbir ‘ . . . to make. . . ’
converb gäbiro ‘He having made. . . ’
4.4 Verbs
4.4.1 General
The primary morphological categories for verbs are form (§4.4.2), stem (§4.4.3), and
inflection (§4.4.4). In general, verbal morphology is highly regular in Gǝʕǝz. Only a few
developments affect weak roots, and almost all these developments can be explained by
regular sound rules.
4.4.2 Form: tense, aspect, and mood

Verbs occur in one of six forms: perfect, imperfect, subjunctive, imperative, infinitive and
converb; the first four of these are finite, the last two non-finite.
The perfect marks perfective aspect and functions most often as a simple past tense
(Weninger 2001: 54–102). It also occurs in the protasis and apodosis of conditional
clauses with the sense of a future tense
The imperfect marks imperfective aspect and occurs in future, present and past times
(Weninger 2001: 103–56). It is common in circumstantial clauses, whether syndetic with
ʔǝnzä ‘while’ or asyndetic.
The subjunctive – as it is usually but somewhat misleadingly called – is a general
non-indicative (irrealis) form with several different uses (Weninger 2001: 157–208).
When independent, it functions as a jussive and can optionally be augmented with the
asseverative particle lä-. The subjunctive is also used with the negation ʔi- to form the
negative imperative. Most commonly, however, the subjunctive is used in subordinate
clauses to complement verbs or to express purpose or result, whether syndetic with kämä
‘that’ or asyndetic.
The converb is a non-finite, dependent form that expresses perfective aspect (Weninger
2001: 217–52, 2014).
4.4.3 Stem
There are two different types of stems in Gǝʕǝz: lexical and derived. The lexical stems
are G, D, L and Q. These stems are lexical in that there is no derivational relationship
between them, at least not synchronically. Table 6.20 provides an overview of the
perfect form for the four lexical stems. The G stem is the basic stem (G for German
Grundstamm). The G stem is further divided into two types, which in Ethiopic studies
are often called a and b. The a type has ä after the second root consonant whereas
the b type does not. This distinction only surfaces in the 3rd person forms of the
paradigm. There are no predictable semantic differences between the a and b types.
The D stem is characterized by the doubling of the middle root consonant. The L stem
is characterized by the ‘lengthening’ of the vowel after the first root consonant. The Q
stem is characterized by having four root consonants.
In addition to the four lexical stems, there are also three derived stems. The
derived stems are C, t and Ct. Table 6.21 provides an overview of the perfect form
for the derived stems of each of the four lexical stems (the root √ḳtl is only used
for illustration; it does not occur in all forms). Unlike the lexical stems, the derived
stems mark particular semantic derivations. The C stem usually derives causatives.
The t stem usually derives reflexives or passives. The Ct stem attests more variety in
its derivational semantics, including causatives, factatives and estimatives (Waltis-
berg 2001).
4.4.4 Inflection
The perfect, imperfect, subjunctive and converb are inflected for person, gender and num-
ber. There are three persons (1, 2 and 3), two genders (masculine and feminine) and two
numbers (singular and plural). The imperative has similar inflection but only occurs in the
2nd person. The infinitive is not inflected for person, gender and number.
TABLE 6.20 OVERVIEW OF LEXICAL STEMS
G stem (a type) näbärä ‘He remained.’

G stem (b type) gäbrä ‘He made.’
D stem näṣṣärä ‘He looked.’
L stem baräkä ‘He blessed.’
Q stem tärgwämä ‘He translated.’
TABLE 6.21 OVERVIEW OF DERIVED STEMS
G Stem D Stem L Stem Q Stem
Underived ḳätälä (a) ḳätlä (b) ḳättälä ḳatälä tärgwämä

C Stem ʔäḳtälä ʔäḳättälä ʔäḳatälä ʔätärgwämä
t Stem täḳät(ä)lä täḳättälä täḳatälä tätärgwämä
Ct Stem ʔästäḳ(ä)tälä ʔästäḳättälä ʔästäḳatälä ʔästätärgwämä
TABLE 6.22 INFLECTION OF PERFECT (B TYPE; √GBR ‘TO DO’)
sg pl
1 gäbär-ku gäbär-nä
2m gäbär-kä gäbär-kǝmu
2f gäbär-ki gäbär-kǝn
3m gäbr-ä gäbr-u
3f gäbr-ät gäbr-a
TABLE 6.23 INFLECTION OF IMPERFECT (√GBR ‘TO DO’)
sg pl
1 ʔǝ-gäbbǝr nǝ-gäbbǝr
2m tǝ-gäbbǝr tǝ-gäbbǝr-u
2f tǝ-gäbbǝr-i tǝ-gäbbǝr-a
3m yǝ-gäbbǝr yǝ-gäbbǝr-u
3f tǝ-gäbbǝr yǝ-gäbbǝr-a
TABLE 6.24 INFLECTION OF IMPERATIVE
sg pl
2m gǝbär gǝbär-u
2f gǝbär-i gǝbär-a
TABLE 6.25 INFLECTION OF CONVERB
sg pl
1 gäbir-ǝyä gäbir-änä
2m gäbir-äkä gäbir-äkǝmu
2f gäbir-äki gäbir-äkǝn
3m gäbir-o gäbir-omu
3f gäbir-a gäbir-on
The perfect is inflected through a set of suffixes (Table 6.22). The a type perfect only
differs from this paradigm in the 3rd person forms, where ä occurs between C2 and C3,
e.g., näbär-ä, näbär-ät, näbär-u and näbär-a.
The two prefix conjugations, i.e., the imperfect and subjunctive, are inflected through a set
of prefixes and suffixes (Table 6.23). The inflection of the subjunctive is the same, only replac-
ing the bi-syllabic base -gäbbǝr- with the monosyllabic -gbär-, e.g., ʔǝ-gbär, tǝ-gbär, etc.
The imperative is inflected with the same suffixes as those of the 2nd person forms of
the subjunctive but without prefixes. An epenthetic vowel, at least in the pronunciation
tradition, breaks up the initial consonant cluster (Table 6.24).
The converb is inflected through a set of suffixes (Table 6.25). These are the same
suffixes as the possessive pronominal suffixes used with an accusative noun that ends in
a consonant (see Table 6.6).
4.5 Prepositions, conjunctions and adverbs

Prepositions are always positioned before their nominal dependent. The monosyllabic
prepositions are enclitic. Interestingly, bä- ‘in’ and lä- ‘to’ can be repeated to express a
distributive notion, e.g., sisay-ä-nä zä-lä-llä ʕǝlät-ǝnä häb-änä yom ‘Give us today our
sustenance for each of our days’ (Matthew 6:11 [B-Text]) (sustenance-acc-our rel-for-
for day-our give.imp-us today).
Gǝʕǝz has a limited number of conjunctions. Some, such as ʔǝm(mä) ‘if’, ʔäw ‘or’, and
the ubiquitous wä- ‘and’, are widespread throughout the Semitic languages. Others, such
as ʔǝsmä ‘because, since’, ʔǝnzä ‘while, when’, and baḥǝttu ‘but, nevertheless’, have a
more restricted distribution, often limited to Ethiopian Semitic.
Gǝʕǝz makes use of a handful of discourse particles. Some occur in clause-initial posi-
tion, e.g., ʔǝnga ‘indeed’ and ʔǝnkä ‘therefore’, whereas others are enclitic, e.g., -ssä ‘but,
however’, ‑hi ‘also’, -ni ‘too’, -ke ‘therefore’, -mmä ‘precisely’. The meaning/function of
most of these sentence particles remains unclear in the current state of research (though
see recently Weninger 2015).
The only productive negation marker is ʔi-.
5 SYNTAX
5.1 General
The study of Gǝʕǝz syntax is significantly hindered by the source material. As outlined
previously (§1), most Gǝʕǝz literary texts are translations, whether from Greek in the
Axumite period or from Arabic in the Solomonic period. Thus, Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz con-
stitutes the only direct evidence for original, non-translated texts produced by native
speakers of Gǝʕǝz, and so it is an invaluable source for the study of Gǝʕǝz syntax. Never-
theless, even with Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz language contact cannot be ruled out, since several
inscriptions have parallel texts in Greek, and even when there are no parallel texts, Greek
was clearly part of the linguistic milieu. In addition, and more importantly, many of the
Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz texts are short, and even the long ones are not as conducive to syntactic
research as one would hope.
These difficulties in the study of Gǝʕǝz syntax can be illustrated with a simple exam-
ple: word order in verbal clauses. It is usually stated that word order in verbal clauses is
loosely V-S-O in literary Gǝʕǝz, though with numerous alternative orders also attested.
In a recent study, Bulakh (2012) has turned to Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz to clarify this. V-S-O is
attested in Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz, as in the following example:
w-ʔrʔy-n ʔgzʔ bḥr ḳds-h

and-show.prf.3msg-me God holiness-his
‘God showed me his holiness.’ (RIÉ 191: 37–38)
But, a variety of other word orders are found as well, including S-V-O, as in the fol-
lowing example:
ʔǝgziʔ-ä sämay yä-ṣnǝʕ mängǝśt-ǝyä

lord-cst heaven 3msg-strengthen.sbjv kingdom-my
‘May the Lord of Heaven strengthen my kingdom.’ (RIÉ 189: 45–6)
In fact, as it turns out, S-V-O is several times more common than V-S-O in Epigraphic
Gǝʕǝz – contradicting the traditional pronouncement in favor of V-S-O. Nevertheless,
there are only a dozen or so examples in total. In addition, in some cases in Epigraphic
Gǝʕǝz, word order is clearly determined by focus-marking, as in the following example:
znt whb-n ʔgz bḥr

this.acc give.prf.3msg-me God
‘This, God gave me.’ (RIÉ 191: 33)
Examples such as this raise questions about whether focus-marking also plays a role in
the other examples cited previously, especially the one with S-V-O. So, in the end, little
can be definitively said about word order in Epigraphic Gǝʕǝz, much less in Gǝʕǝz more
broadly, other than that it had a variable word order probably at least partly determined
by focus-marking (for which, see §5.3). Such a vague statement is largely due to the state
of the extant corpus of Gǝʕǝz. This is further complicated by the fact that very few spe-
cialized studies on Gǝʕǝz syntax, such as Bulakh’s referenced here, have been conducted,
leaving the current state of knowledge of Gǝʕǝz syntax on even shakier ground.
Several (morpho-)syntactic topics have been treated previously in the sections on mor-
phology, including agreement (§4.2.3 and §4.2.4), definiteness (§4.2.7) and tense/aspect/
mood (§4.4.2). The following sections deal with several other topics, especially those that
may be of wider linguistic interest.
5.2 Synthetic vs. analytic

In addition to preserving synthetic constructions from PS, Gǝʕǝz has innovated several
analytic ones. This can be illustrated with object marking. Gǝʕǝz preserves the earlier
PS synthetic construction in which the direct object is marked with the accusative case:
wä-mätär-u rǝʔs-o
and-cut.off-prf.3mpl head.acc-his
‘They cut off his head.’ (Matthew 14:10 [A-text])
Gǝʕǝz also makes use of an analytic construction in which an object pronominal suffix
occurs on the verb (agreeing in gender and number with the logical direct object) and the
logical direct object carries the preposition lä and so is non-accusative:
ʔäḫäz-o lä-yoḥännǝs
take.prf.3msg-him for-pn
‘He seized John.’ (Matthew 14:3 [A-text])
In this example, the pronominal suffix ‘him’ (-o) is proleptic for ‘John’. The synthetic and
analytic constructions have similar distribution, though the analytic one is only employed
when the direct object is contextually definite.
Similar synthetic and analytic constructions are used to express the genitive relation-
ship in Gǝʕǝz. Gǝʕǝz preserves the earlier PS synthetic genitive construction (tradition-
ally called ‘construct chain’):
bǝʔsit-ä filǝṗṗos
woman-cst pn
‘wife of Philip’ (Matthew 14:3 [A-text])
Gǝʕǝz also uses an analytic construction with a possessive pronominal suffix on the head
noun (agreeing in gender and number with the dependent noun) and the preposition lä- on
the dependent noun:
rǝʔs-o lä-yoḥännǝs
head.acc-his for-pn
‘the head of John’ (Matthew 14:10 [A-text])
Again, these two construction have similar distribution, though the analytic one is only
used when the genitive phrase is contextually definite.
Gǝʕǝz has a second analytic construction for the genitive. This employs zä-, which is
historically the msg relative pronoun (§4.1.5), on the dependent noun:
betä lǝḥem zä-yǝhuda

gn rel-gn
‘Bethlehem of Judah’ (Matthew 2:5 [A-text])
ʔäklil zä-wärḳ
crown rel-gold
‘crown of gold’ (Revelation 14:14 [ms. H])
Unlike the two previous constructions, the genitive construction with zä- is generally
found only in certain contexts, including when the synthetic construction is undesirable
or impossible, as in the first example, or when a genitive of material is involved, as in the
second example.
Analytic constructions are also found in verbal morphology. Both the perfect and
imperfect can be combined with perfect and imperfect forms of the verbal auxiliaries
konä ‘to be[come]’ and hälläwä ‘to exist, be’ to form various compound verbal forms (for
a full inventory, see Weninger 2001: 256–301). The most frequently occurring of these
involves the perfect of konä plus an imperfect to create a durative or habitual marked
for past time, e.g., kon-ä yǝ-gäbbǝr ‘he was making, he used to make’ (be-prf.3msg
3msg-make.iprf).
5.3 Focus-marking
Gǝʕǝz employs a variety of focus-marking strategies. One of the most frequent is
left-dislocation, which occurs in two types. One, which can simply be called fronting,
involves the movement of the focused item to clause-initial position, as the following
example illustrates:
wä-zäntä ʔäzzäz-u mäfḳäriy-an-ä krǝstos nägäśt

and-this.acc command-prf.3mpl loving-pl-cst Christ king.pl
‘This, the Christ-loving king commanded.’ (Qerǝllos)
Note that zäntä (acc) retains its case marking; it has just been moved to first position in
the sentence. A different type of left-dislocation found in Gǝʕǝz is traditionally called
casus pendens (literally ‘hanging case’). In this construction, the fronted item is found in
the unmarked case, i.e., non-accusative, and it is resumed by a pronominal suffix in the
main clause, as in the following examples:
wä-zǝ-ni mänafǝst ʔǝllä hälläw-u

and-this.nacc-indeed spirit.pl.nacc rel.pl be-prf.3mpl
bä-ḥǝywät ʕǝṣǝw-omu
in-life imprison.imp.2msg-them
‘As for those spirits who are alive, imprison them.’ (Jubilees 10:5)
wä-zǝntu ḳǝddus kon-ä sǝm-u

and-this.nacc holy.nacc be-prf.3msg name.nacc-his
lä-ʔäb-u-hu ʔärsǝw pawlos
for-father-nacc-his pn
‘As for this saint, the name of his father was Aristobulos.’ (Synaxarion)
In the first example, the focused item is the logical direct object of the sentence; in the
second, it is the second term in a genitive relationship.
In addition to left-dislocation, Gǝʕǝz also makes use of cleft sentences for focus-marking.
Cleft sentences are most common in the negative, where the particle ʔäkko ‘it is not’ is
employed with a relative pronoun:
ʔäkko ʔäntǝmu zä-fännäw-kǝmu-ni daʔǝmu ʔǝgziʔäbḥer

it.is.not you rel-send-prf.2mpl-me but God
‘It is not you who sent me but God.’ (Genesis 45:8)
Negative cleft sentences are relatively common in Gǝʕǝz, and they can be used to focus
any element of a sentence apart from the verb. Positive cleft sentences are much rarer in
Gǝʕǝz. These are constructed without a positive element corresponding to ʔäkko, and thus
they are only distinguished from a non-cleft sentence by what prima facie seems to be a
superfluous relative pronoun as well as possibly marked word order:
wä-ʔǝgziʔäbḥer zä-ʔärʔäy-o zäntä

and-God rel-show.prf.3msg-him this.acc
‘It is God who showed him this.’ (History of Joseph)
Cleft sentences are not as common in Gǝʕǝz as they are in other Ethiopian Semitic
languages.
6 LEXICON
Gǝʕǝz attests a relatively large lexicon. In addition to inherited words, Gǝʕǝz contains
loan words from several different sources. The most significant source of loan words in
Gǝʕǝz is Cushitic. Cushitic loan words include śǝga ‘flesh, meat’, śǝrnay ‘wheat’ and
dorho ‘chicken’. In addition, a number of Greek – and Latin via Greek – loan words
entered Gǝʕǝz during the Axumite period (Weninger 2005: 469–71). Most of these are
related to Christianity, e.g., mänäkos ‘monk’ (< Greek monakhos) and ṗaṗṗas ‘bishop’
(< Greek pappas), but other semantic categories are found as well, e.g., bisos ‘linen’
(< Greek byssos). There are also a handful of Aramaic loan words in Gǝʕǝz, e.g.,
haymanot ‘faith’ and √trgwm ‘to translate’. In the Solomonic period, Arabic loan words
become more common (Weninger 2004). In the later period, Amharic loan words are also
found.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
This selection consists of Matthew 14:1–12. Though a translation of a Greek text, this
selection is preserved in two of the earliest extant Gǝʕǝz literary manuscripts, mss. Ǝnda
FIGURE 6.1 PAGE FROM MS. ƎNDA ABBA GÄRIMA 2, WHICH IS ONE OF THE OLDEST
SURVIVING ETHIOPIC MANUSCRIPTS (DATABLE TO AT LEAST BEFORE THE
12TH CENTURY AND POSSIBLY GOING BACK CENTURIES EARLIER). THE
TEXT IS THE GƎʕƎZ TRANSLATION OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, A PORTION
OF WHICH IS PROVIDED IN THE TEXT SAMPLE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
Image courtesy of Ǝnda Abba Gärima and Hill Museum & Manuscript Library (HMML).
Abba Gärima 1 and 2 (see Figure 6.1). These have a terminus ante quem of around the
12th century ce and could go back to a much earlier date.7 The text is cited according to
the edition of Zuurmond (2001), but it has been checked against images of both manu-
scripts, which are available online thanks to the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library.8
1 wä-yǝʔǝt-ä ʔämir-ä sämiʕ-o herodǝs nǝguś-ø

and-that-acc day-acc.ncst hear-cvb.3msg pn king-nacc.ncst
nägär-o lä-ʔiyäsus 2 wä-yǝ-bel-omu lä-säbʔ-u yoḥännǝs

word.acc.cst-his for-pn and-3msg-say.prf-them for-people.nacc.cst-his pn
wǝʔǝt-u zǝntu mäṭmǝḳ-ø wǝʔǝt-u tänśǝʔ-ä ʔǝmǝnnä

he-nacc this.nacc baptist-nacc.ncst he-nacc rise-prf.3msg from
mǝwut-an-ø wä-bäʔǝntä zǝntu yǝ-raddǝʔ-o ḫayl-ø 3
dead-pl-nacc.ncst and-because.of this.nacc 3msg-help.iprf-him power-nacc.ncst
ʔǝsmä wǝʔǝt-u herodǝs ʔäḫäz-o lä-yoḥännǝs wä-moḳǝḥ-o
because he-nacc pn seize.prf.3msg-him for-pn and-imprison.prf.3msg-him
bäʔǝntä herodǝyada bǝʔsit-ä filǝṗṗos ʔǝḫ-u-hu 4 ʔǝsmä
because.of pn wife-nacc.cst pn brother-nacc.cst-his because
yǝ-bel-o yoḥännǝs ʔi-yǝ-käwwǝn-äkä ta-wsǝb-a 5 wä-fäḳäd-ä
3msg-say.prf-him pn neg-3msg-be.iprf-you 2msg-marry.sbjv-her and-want-prf.3msg
yǝ-ḳtǝl-o wä-färǝh-omu lä-ḥǝzb-ø ʔǝsmä kämä
3msg-kill.sbjv-him and-fear.prf.3msg-them for-people-nacc.ncst because like
näbiy-ø wǝʔǝt-u bä-ḫäbe-homu 6 wä-ʔämmä kon-ä ʕǝlät-ä
prophet-nacc.ncst he-nacc in-among-them and-when be-prf.3msg day-( n)acc.( n)cst
täwäld-ä herodǝs zäfän-ät wälätt-ä herodǝyada bä-maʔkäl-omu
be.born-prf.3msg pn dance-prf.3fsg daughter-nacc.cst pn in-midst.nacc.cst-their
wä-ʔäddäm-ät-o lä-herodǝs 7 wä-mäḥäl-ä l-ati yä-häb-a
and-please-prf.3fsg-him for-pn and-swear-prf.3msg for-her 3msg-give.sbjv-her
zä-säʔäl-ät-o 8 wä-bä-kämä tǝ-bǝl-a ʔǝmm-a tǝ-bel-o
rel-ask-prf.3fsg-him and-in-as 3fsg-say.prf-her mother.nacc.cst-her 3fsg-say.prf-him
häb-äni yǝʔǝze bä-ṣaḥl-ø rǝʔs-o lä-yoḥännǝs mäṭmǝḳ-ø
give.imp.2msg-me now on-plate-nacc.ncst head.acc.cst-his for-pn baptist-nacc.ncst
9 wä-täkkäz-ä nǝguś-ø ʔǝsmä wäddǝʔ-ä mähäl-ä wä-bäʔǝntä-hi
and-sad-prf.3msg king-nacc.ncst because finish-prf.3msg swear-prf.3msg and-because-indeed
ʔǝllä yǝ-räffǝḳ-u ʔäzzäz-ä yä-häb-ǝww-a 10 wä-fännäw-ä wä-mätär-u
rel.pl 3-recline.iprf-mpl command-prf.3msg 3-give.sbjv-mpl-her and-send-prf.3msg and-cut-prf.3mpl
rǝʔs-o lä-yoḥännǝs bä-wǝstä moḳǝḥ-ø 11 wä-ʔämṣǝʔ-u rǝʔs-o
head.acc.cst-his for-pn in-toward prison-nacc.ncst and-bring-prf.3mpl head.acc.cst-his
bä-ṣaḥl-ø wä-wähäb-ǝww-a lä-yǝʔǝt-i wälätt-ø
on-plate-nacc.ncst and-give-prf.3mpl-her for-that-nacc daughter-nacc.ncst
wä-wälätt-ø wähäb-ät lä-ʔǝmm-a
and-daughter-nacc.ncst give-prf.3fsg for-mother.nacc.cst-her
‘(1) On that day, after king Herod heard the news of Jesus, (2) he said to his people, “This
is John the Baptist. He has arisen from the dead. Because of this, power is helping him.”
(3) For, Herod had seized John and imprisoned him on account of Herodias, the wife of
Phillip, his brother (4) because John had told him, “It is not for you to marry her.” (5) He
wanted to kill him, but he feared the people because he was like a prophet among them.
(6) When it was the day on which Herod was born, the daughter of Herodias danced
among them, and she pleased Herod. (7) (Herod) swore to her to give her whatever she
asked him. (8) Just as her mother told her, she told him, “Give me, now, on a plate the
head of John the Baptist.” (9) The king was saddened because he had already sworn (it)
and because of those who were reclining (there) (but) he commanded that they give (it) to
her. (10) He sent, and they cut off the head of John in prison. (11) They brought his head
on a plate, and they gave (it) to that daughter, and the daughter gave (it) to her mother.’
Notes for the sample

1 The accusative yǝʔǝtä ʔämirä is used as an adverb (§4.2.5).
1 nägäro läʔiyäsus, literally ‘his word, for Jesus’ is an analytic genitive construction (§5.2).
2 yǝbelomu läsäbʔu, literally ‘he said to them, for his people’ is an analytic direct
object construction (§5.2).
4 The subjunctive tawsǝb complements the preceding verb ʔi-yǝkawwǝnäkä ‘it is not
for you’, or more idiomatically ‘it is not allowed for you’ (§4.4.2).
6 ʕǝlätä täwäldä herodǝs ‘the day on which Herod was born’ is an asyndetic relative
clause.
7 zä‑säʔäläto ‘whatever she asked him’ is a headless relative clause.
9 wäddǝʔä mähälä is a serial verb construction, meaning ‘he had already sworn’.
9 ʔǝllä yǝräffǝḳu ‘those who were reclining’ is a headless relative clause, translating
a participle in the Greek Vorlage (συνανακειμένους). Gǝʕǝz makes limited use of
participles, often employing such headless relative clauses instead.
11 ʔämṣǝʔu ‘they brought’ is a CG stem of √mṣʔ ‘to come’.
NOTES
1 Note, however, that the political Solomonic dynasty officially came to an end in 1974
with the rise of the Marxist Derg.
2 Throughout this chapter, the transcription (almost transliteration) of Gǝʕǝz stays
close to the orthography of the language as it is written in the source with the
exception that I have indicated gemination and distinguished ǝ and ø. Phonetic tran-
scriptions, when necessary, are placed in square brackets, i.e., [. . .], and phonemic
transcriptions in angled brackets, i.e., /. . ./. Thus, ኀደጎ is transcribed here as ḫädägo
‘He left him’, though phonemically /hadägo/ and phonetically [hadägwo], at least in
the pronunciation tradition.
3 The only exception is the 2fpl perfect, where stress is on the ultimate, e.g., näbärˈkǝn
‘you sat’.
4 Singular is in quotation marks because the form of ʔǝd ‘hand’ with pronominal suffixes
includes a connecting vowel -e- (< *ay), e.g., ʔǝdekä ‘your hand’, which is a relic of
the PS oblique dual ending (see Heide 2006).
5 Rare relics of a dual also exist; see Heide (2006) and note 4.
6 Proper nouns, whether personal names or geographic names, can optionally mark the
accusative with the suffix -ha.
7 Mercier (2000), for instance, proposes a range of 330–650 ce based on radiocarbon
dating.
8 See www.hmml.org/.
REFERENCES
Bausi, A. “Ancient Features of Ancient Ethiopic.” Aethiopica 8 (2005): 149–69.
Bulakh, M. “Word Order in Epigraphic Gǝʿǝz.” Aethiopica 15 (2012): 136–75.
Bulakh, M. and L. Kogan. “The Genealogical Position of Tigre and the Problem of North
Ethio-Semitic Unity.” ZDMG 160 (2010): 273–302.
Bulakh, M. and L. Kogan. “More on Genealogical Classification of Ethiopian Semitic.”
Babel und Bibel 7 (2013): 600–8.
Cohen, M. Études d’éthiopien méridional. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1931.
Drewes, A. J. “Some Features of Epigraphical Ethiopic.” In Kaye 1991: 1.382–91.
Heide, M. “Some Possible Traces of the Dual in Gǝʿǝz.” In Proceedings of the XVth
International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg, July 20–25, 2003, edited by
S. Uhlig, 769–76. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006.
Hetzron, R. Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in Classification. Manchester: Manchester
Kaye, A. S. Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Eighty-Fifth
Birthday November 14th, 1991. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991.
Mercier, J. “La peinture éthiopienne à l’époque axoumite et au XVIIIe siècle.” CRAIBL
(2000): 35–71.
Mittwoch, E. Die traditionelle Aussprache des Äthiopischen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1926.
Steiner, R. C. The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1977.
Voigt, R. “North vs. South Ethiopian Semitic.” In Research in Ethiopian Studies.
Selected Papers of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Trondheim,
July 2007, edited by H. Aspen et al., 578–89. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010.
Waltisberg, M. Die St-Stämme des Altäthiopischen. Munich: Lincom, 2001.
Weninger, S. “Zur Realisation des ḍ (< *ḏ )̣ im Altäthiopischen.” WO 29 (1999): 147–8.
Weninger, S. Das Verbalsystem des Altäthiopischen: Eine Untersuchung seiner Verwendung
und Funktion unter Berücksichtigung des Interferenzproblems. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2001.
Weninger, S. “Anmerkungen zu den arabischen Fremdwörtern im Äthiopischen.” In
Studia Aethiopica: In Honor of Siegbert Uhlig on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday,
edited by V. Böll, 361–9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004.
Weninger, S. “Der Wortschatz des klassischen Äthiopisch.” In Studia Semitica et
Semitohamitica: Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anlässlich seines 60. Geburtstages am
17. Januar 2004, edited by B. Burtea, J. Tropper, and H. Younansardaroud, 465–88.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005.
Weninger, S. “Sounds of Ge’ez – How to Study the Phonetics and Phonology of an
Ancient Language,” Aethiopica 13 (2010): 75–88.
Weninger, S. The Semitic Languages. An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter,
2011.
Weninger, S. “Wandering along the Border of Finiteness: The Gǝʿǝz and Tigrinya
Converb(s) in a Diachronic Perspective.” In Explorations in Ethiopian Linguistics
Complex Predicates, Finiteness and Interrogativity, edited by R. Meyer, Y. Treis, and
Azeb Amha, 283–95. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014.
Weninger, S. “Zur Funktion altäthiopischer Diskurspartikeln: -ke und -(ə)ssä.” In
Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik: Fünftes Treffen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semitistik in
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft vom 15. – 17. Februar 2012 an der
Universität Basel, edited by V. Golinets, 323–34. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015.
Zuurmond, R. Novum Testamentum Aethiopice, Part III. The Gospel of Matthew.
GENERAL GƎʕƎZ BIBLIOGRAPHY

Further reading
Uhlig, S. Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, I: A – C; II: D – Ha; III: He – N; in cooperation with
A. Bausi, IV: O – X; A. Bausi in cooperation with S. Uhlig, V: Y – Z. Supplementa.
Addenda et Corrigenda. Maps. Index. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003, 2005, 2007,
2010, 2014.
Grammars
Dillmann, A. (ed. C. Bezold; trans. J. A. Crichton), Ethiopic Grammar (2nd ed.). London:
Williams & Norgate, 1907. [out-dated and in need of replacement]
Textbooks
Chaine, M. Grammaire éthiopienne (new ed.). Beirut: Imprimerie catholique, 1938.
Lambdin, T. O. Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Geʿez). HSS 25. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1978.
Praetorius, F. Grammatica aethiopica. Karlsruhe and Leipzig: H. Reuther, 1886.
Tropper, J. Altäthiopisch. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002.
Dictionaries
Dillmann, A. Lexicon linguae aethiopicae. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1865.
Grebaut, S. Supplément au Lexicon linguae aethiopicae de August Dillmann (1865) et
édition du lexique de Juste d’Urbin (1850–1855). Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1952.
Leslau, W. Comparative Dictionary of Geʕez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1987.
Leslau, W. Concise Dictionary of Geʕez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1989.
Overview articles
Gragg, G. “Geʿez (Ethiopic).” In The Semitic Languages, edited by R. Hetzron, 242–60.
New York: Routledge, 1997.
Gragg, G. “Geʿez Phonology.” In Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including the
Causcasus), edited by A. S. Kaye, 1.169–86. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Gragg, G. “Ge’ez (Aksum).” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient

Languages, edited by R. D. Woodard, 427–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004.
Weninger, S. Gǝʿǝz. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1999.
Weninger, S. “Old Ethiopic.” In Weninger 2011: 1124–51.
Voigt, R. “Classical Ethiopic (Geʿez).” In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, edited by A.
S. Kaye, 193–210. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Additional bibliography
Appleyard, D. “Ethiopian Semitic and Cushitic. Ancient Contact Features in Geʿez and
Amharic.” In Semitic Languages in Contact, edited by A. M. Butts, 16–32. Studies in
Semitic Languages and Linguistics 82. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Bernand, E. A., A. J. Drewes, and R. Schneider. Recueil des inscriptions de l’Ethiopie des
périodes pré-axoumite et axoumite. Paris: Boccard, 1991–2000.
Brockelmann, C. “Zur Kritik der traditionellen Aussprache des Äthiopischen.” ZS 7
(1929): 205–13.
Bulakh, M. “Nota genitivi za- in Epigraphic Geez.” JSS 54 (2009): 393–419.
Cohen, M. “La prononciation traditionnelle du Guèze (éthiopien classique).” JA 11.17
(1921): 19–57.
Cohen, M. “Consonnes laryngales et voyelles en éthiopien: Conjugaison des verbes à
laryngale médiane ou finale.” JA 210 (1927): 19–27.
Correll, C. “Noch einmal zur Rekonstruktion des altäthiopischen Vokalsystems.”
Linguistische Berichte 93 (1984): 51–65.
Correll, C. “Gedanken zur nichtpossessivischen Determination mit Hilfe von Posses
sivsuffixen im Altäthiopischen und Amharischen.” In Kaye 1991: 1.252–66.
Devens, M. S. “On the Laryngeal Rules in Geʿez.” In Kaye 1991: 1.289–94.
Diem, W. “Laryngalgesetze und Vokalismus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
Altäthiopischen.” ZDMG 138 (1988): 236–62.
Gragg, G. “ ‘Also in Cushitic’: How to Account for the Complexity of Geʿez-Cushitic
Lexical Interactions?” In Kaye 1991: 1.570–6.
Khan, G. Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorff. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Kogan, L. “*ɣ in Ethiopian.” In Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica: Festschrift
für Rainer Voigt anlässlich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004,
edited by B. Burtea, J. Tropper, and H. Younansardaroud, 183–216. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2005.
Kogan, L. Genealogical Classification of Semitic. The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2015.
Kuryłowicz, J. “Les labiovélaires éthiopiens.” Rocznik orjentalistyczny 9 (1933): 37–42.
Leslau, W. “Analysis of Geʿez Vocabulary: Geʿez and Cushitic.” Rassegna di Studi
Etiopici 32 (1988): 60–109.
Littmann, E. “Geʿez-Studien I – III.” Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse 1917: 627–702; 1918:
318–39.
Makonnen Argaw. Matériaux pour l’étude de la prononciation traditionnelle du Guèze.
Paris: Editions recherché sur les civilisations, 1984.
Sima, A. “Amharische Syntax in späten Originalwerken des Gǝʿǝz.” Aethiopica 13
(2010): 89–103.
Strelcyn, S. “Recherches sur l’histoire du guèze postclassique et de l’amharique.” In

Congrès international des africanistes, 2. session, Dakar, 11–20 décembre 1967,
199–214. Paris: Présence africaine, 1967.
Tropper, J. “Der altäthiopische Status constructus auf -a aus sprachvergleichender Sicht.”
WZKM 90 (2000): 201–18.
Uhlig, S. Äthiopische Paläographie. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1988.
Ullendorff, E. The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia. A Comparative Phonology. London:
Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1955.
Voigt, R. “The Development of the Old Ethiopic Consonantal System.” In Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies: University of Addis
Ababa, 1984, edited by T. Beyene, 2.633–47. Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian
Studies, 1989.
Voigt, R. “The Gemination of the Present-Imperfect Forms in Old Ethiopic.” JSS 35
(1990): 1–18.
Weninger, S. “kona qatala zum Ausdruck der Vorvergangenheit im Gǝʿǝz?” In Tempus
und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen. Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen
Sprachwissenschaft, edited by N. Nebes, 171–83. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999b.
Weninger, S. “Lateinische Fremdwörter im Äthiopischen.” BN 102 (2000): 141–5.
Weninger, S. “Vom Altäthiopischen zu den neuäthiopischen Sprachen.” In Language
Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2, edited by M. Haspelmath et al., 1762–74.
Berlin: Mouton, 2001.
Weninger, S. “Was wurde aus *ġ im Altäthiopischen?” In Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik:
Erstes Arbeitstreffen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semitistik in der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft vom 11. bis 13. September 2000 an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena,
edited by N. Nebes, 289–98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002.
Zaborski, A. “The Decay of qattala/qātala in Gǝʿǝz.” In Khan 2005: 26–50.
Zuurmond, R. Novum Testamentum Aethiopice, Part I. General Introduction. Stuttgart:
F. Steiner, 1989.
CHAPTER 7
TIGRE OF GINDAʕ DAVID L. ELIASTIGRE OF GINDAʕ
David L. Elias
1 INTRODUCTION
Tigre is spoken in Eritrea and Eastern Sudan and is the fifth largest Semitic language
by number of speakers (1.4 million speakers, www.ethnologue.com/language/tig) after
Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya and Hebrew. It has the largest geographic footprint of the
eight languages in Eritrea and is the first language for the majority of the northern half
of the country: from the northern border southward to Massawa and environs on the Red
Sea coast, westward to areas south of Aqurdat (except for the Bilin-speaking areas sur-
rounding Keren) and northward throughout most of the Anseba region. Bordering these
first-language areas, Tigre is a second (or other) language spoken with most of the other
languages in Eritrea (see Map 7.1).
ER YEMEN
IT
RE
A
DJIBOUTI
ETHIOPIA
LEGEND
Tigre
MAP 7.1 THE TIGRE SPEECH AREA

Source: Adapted from Meyer (2016).
146 David L. Elias
Tigre is part of the Ethiopian Semitic (ES) family. Scholars have long asserted or
assumed the genetic unity of ES based on geography and shared grammatical features. It
is clear that the suffixed conjugation (sc) *k’atvl- alongside the two prefixed conjugations
*yv-k’attvl (pcl) and *yv-k’tvl (pcs) distinguishes ES and Modern South Arabian (MSA)
from other Semitic. (For convenience we use the Semitic root consonants k’-t-l ‘kill’.)
However, Hetzron (1972: 17–19, 122) and Faber (1997: 12) posit that there is question-
able linguistic evidence that ES differentiated from Modern South Arabian. Weninger
(2011: 1115) argues for three innovations shared by ES: (a) the agent noun *k’a:tali(j)
replacing ptcp *k’ātil-, (b) the verb of existence *h-l-w and (c) the infinitive in *‑ot.
Although the genetic unity of ES may not be demonstrated conclusively, it is possible
that shared morphological retentions and losses (rather than innovations) also reflect a
common ES parent. Regarding retentions, ES shares with Modern South Arabian pcl
*yv-k’attvl and the “external” noun pl suffix *-āt. Among ES losses are dual pronouns
such as are found in Mehri (see Chapter 11).
Phonological characteristics of ES include the merger of *i and *u to *ə; the merger of
interdentals *θ and *ð with alveolars *s and *z; the realization of ‘emphatics’ as ejectives
and the development of labiovelar consonants such as *kw and *gw (see Chapter 6, §3).
Grammatical differences among the ES languages are most clearly demonstrated along
geographic lines, namely southern languages (SES: Amharic, Argobba, Harari, Gafat
and the approximately six languages associated with the Gurage peoples and region; see
Chapter 10) vs. northern languages (NES: Gǝʕǝz, Tigre and Tigrinya).
The primary morphological difference between SES and NES concerns gemination
of the second root consonant (C2) in the basic verb stem and its causative, as shown in
Table 7.1. Almost all SES languages exhibit gemination in the affirmative of sc while
NES languages do not. On the other hand, NES languages exhibit gemination in pcl while
SES languages do not. Goldenberg (1977: 484–7) most clearly elucidates this point, but
gemination in sc and pcl has been the subject of considerable discussion by others (Cohen
1931, Hetzron 1972: 22–9, Voigt 2009, Weninger 2011: 1117–18).
Additional differences include the presence in NES and absence from SES of the f
noun marker *-(a)t and “internal” noun pls, as well as differing forms of quadriconso-
nantal verbs (e.g., sc 3msg SES *k’arattal-a vs. NES *k’artal-a). Palatalized consonants
ʃ,ʒ, ʧ, ʧ’, ʤ, and ɲ are found throughout SES and ‘nine’ is z-t’-n/z-t’-r (cf. NES t-ʃ-ʕ,
consistent with common Semitic). “Laryngeals” ʕ, ħ, ʔ and h (see §3.1.4) are present in
NES but largely absent from SES.
Tigre differs from other NES by its use of the subject prefix lɨ- for 3msg and 3pl in
prefixed conjugations (cf. elsewhere *yǝ-) and optional use of the prefix for 1, 2msg and
3 forms of pcl (e.g., (lɨ-)k’attɨl; see Table 7.16). Tigre subject mpl suffixes are in -o for
prefixed conjugations (e.g., 3mpl pcs lɨ-k’tal-o) ‘they kill’ (cf. NES *-u). The future is
expressed in Tigre using pcs (ʔɨɡɨl + pcs + some form of cop), while elsewhere in NES
TABLE 7.1 VERBAL MORPHOLOGY IN ETHIO-SEMITIC
SES: Soddo (Gurage) NES: Gǝʕǝz
Conjugation sc 3msg pcl 3msg sc 3msg pcl 3msg

Basic Stem k’attal-a yǝ-k’atǝl k’atal-a yǝ-k’attǝl
Causative Stem ʔaː-k’attal-a yaː-k’atǝl ʔaː-k’tal-a yaː-k’attǝl
Tigre of Gindaʕ 147
pcl is used. Lastly, while Gǝʕǝz 3msg forms of sc in the basic stem are *k’atal-a for some
verbs and *k’atl-a for others (sabar-a ‘he broke’, gabr-a ‘he worked’), Tigre exhibits
only *k’atl-a for all such verbs (sæbr-æ, gæbr-æ) and Tigrinya exhibits only *k’atal-a
(sabar-a, gabar-a).
1.1 Dialects
Saleh has undertaken the most comprehensive analysis of Tigre dialects to date (2015).
He identifies 14 primary localities where Tigre is spoken in Eritrea and suggests three
“major dialect blocks” based on lexical, phonological and morphological commonalities.
The three groups correspond to geographic areas: northwest, centre and southeast. Tigre
of Gindaʕ is in the Southeast group along with the dialects of Zǝla/Zula, Massawa and
Masḥalit (ibid.: 6–13, 213–15). This group is characterized by lexemes such as kǝlʔe
‘two’, ʔæze ‘now’, and bǝrǝk ʔǝde ‘elbow’ (ibid.: 54–81); the distinction of ʦ’ vs. t’ and z
vs d (ibid.: 94–6); and morphemes such as f diminutive nouns in -it, 3msg object suffixes
in -u and -o, and budibu ‘to have’ (ibid.: 109–12, 123–6, 128–9).
1.2 Types/genres of texts attested

The development of Tigre literature presented here is largely based on Voigt’s very use-
ful account (2015). Tigre texts were first collected and published in the mid-19th cen-
tury (Littmann 1897: 188–9, 1899: 133–40). The Swedish Evangelical Mission oversaw
publication of the Gospel of St. Mark, the first book published in Tigre, in 1889. These
materials were primarily based on the Tigre of Mansaʕ dialect. The most extensive con-
tributions to Tigre literature were made by Enno Littmann, whose Publication of the
Princeton Exhibition to Abyssinia (1910–1915) includes Tigre tales, customs, songs and
stories.
Late 20th century literary productivity was reignited when the Eritrean People’s Lib-
eration Front gained control of Tigre-speaking regions, leading up to Eritrea’s indepen-
dence in 1991. Tigre became the language of instruction in these areas, and schoolbooks
and pamphlets were published in Tigre. After independence Tigre and eight other lan-
guages were recognized as national languages. Tigre literature has since flourished, with
particular milestones being the 1997 (but yet to be implemented) Constitution of Eritrea
and publication of the Galad newspaper (1995–2001), Musā ʔĀron’s Tigre–Tigre Dictio-
nary (2005) and Mahammad ʕĀli ʔIbrāhim’s novel, ʔƎmanini (Trust Me) (2007). Along-
side these are works in a number of genres, including poetry, reading books and military/
political accounts.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Tigre is written in the Gǝʕǝz script, or fidäl, an alphabetic syllabary originally borrowed
from Old South Arabian monumental writings and attested in the Aksumite kingdom
(Northern Ethiopia) ca. 4th century ce (see Chapter 6, §2). Each character represents a
consonant-vowel (or consonant-Ø) pair, and characters are written left to right. Diacritics
have been added to some letters to reflect Tigre consonants not attested in Gǝʕǝz, and
with 25 consonants and 7 vowels, there are 175 characters, as shown in Table 7.2.
148 David L. Elias
TABLE 7.2 THE TIGRE WRITING SYSTEM
Consonant With Vowel
with æ with u with i with æː with e with ɨ/Ø with o
h ሀ ሁ ሂ ሃ ሄ ህ ሆ
ħ ሐ ሑ ሒ ሓ ሔ ሕ ሖ
ɾ ረ ሩ ሪ ራ ሬ ር ሮ
ʃ ሸ ሹ ሺ ሻ ሼ ሽ ሾ
k’ ቀ ቁ ቂ ቃ ቄ ቅ ቆ
ʧ ቸ ቹ ቺ ቻ ቼ ች ቾ
ʔ አ ኡ ኢ ኣ ኤ እ ኦ
ʕ ዐ ዑ ዒ ዓ ዔ ዕ ዖ
j የ ዩ ዪ ያ ዬ ይ ዮ
ʤ ጀ ጁ ጂ ጃ ጄ ጅ ጆ
ɡ ገ ጉ ጊ ጋ ጌ ግ ጎ
t’ ጠ ጡ ጢ ጣ ጤ ጥ ጦ
ʧ’ ጨ ጩ ጪ ጫ ጬ ጭ ጮ
s’ ጸ ጹ ጺ ጻ ጼ ጽ ጾ
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonants
The consonant phonemes of Tigre of Gindaʕ are shown in Table 7.3.
‘Emphatics’ are realized as ejectives. Historical developments from Proto-Semitic
(PS) are as follows:
• The PS voiceless bilabial stop spirantized:

*p > f
• The PS interdentals merged with the alveolars:
*θ, *ʃ, *s, *ɬ > s; *d, *z > z; *θ’, *s’, *ɬ’ > s’
• The PS velars merged with the pharyngeals:
*χ, *ħ > ħ; *ɣ, *ʕ > ʕ
TABLE 7.3 CONSONANT PHONEMES
Bilabial Labio-dental Dento-alveolar Alveo-palatal Palatal Velar Pharyngeal Glottal
Stops b t d t’ k ɡ k’ ʔ
Fricatives f s z s’ ʃ ħʕ h
Affricates ʤ ʧ’
Nasals m n
Approximants w ɾ, l j
Raz (1997: 446–7) also lists ʃ, ʤ, ʧ, and ʧ’ as phonemes. The present author is in agree-
ment except for ʧ. Historical developments for these phonemes are not included here.
The following general statements can be made about allophones in Tigre of Gindaʕ.
Note that the limited corpus does not allow for definitive statements.
3.1.1 Stops
k’ has allophones [k] and [k˺], which occur almost exclusively in unstressed syllables:
ʔækfæːl ‘segments’; ħak˺olæ ‘after’. ʔ is lost in three unstressed environments at a word
boundary or word-internally.
1 ʔ is lost in the unstressed sequence æʔæ, and the sequence is realized as [æ] or [a]:
ɡæː (< *ɡæʔ-æ) dib-æ
go.sc-3msg into-poss.3fsg
‘it [water] has gone into it [the bottle]’.
2 Immediately after w, unstressed æʔæ is usually realized as [ɞ]:
wɞ=ɾɨˈʃoni (< *wæ=ʔæɾɨʃoni)
‘or orange’.
3 ʔ is lost in the unstressed sequence æʔɨ, and the sequence is realized as [æ] or [a]:
nɨ-tfæˈnatæ n-ɡæbˈbiʔ (< *nɨ-tfænæːtæː ʔɨn-ɡæbbiʔ)
1pl-separate.pass.pcl 1pl-go.pcl
‘we are being separated’
3.1.2 Fricatives
Almost every occurrence of word-final ʕ is realized as ʔ: [ɡɨnˈdaʔ] ‘Gindaʕ’. [x] is not a
phoneme in Tigre of Gindaʕ. It is attested in some Arabic loans in which [x] is present:
xet ‘nylon thread’ (Arabic xetˤ).
3.1.3 Approximants
In most instances where w, j or ɾ is expected to geminate, a single consonant is attested:
ɾæjɨm be.far.pcl.3fsg ‘it is far’ (< *ɾæjjɨm, see §4.4.2); ʔɨn-dæɾɨs 1pl-study.pcl ‘we study’
(< *ʔɨn-dæɾɾɨs). There are a few occurrences of ʕ in a position where doubling is expected.
150 David L. Elias
A single consonant is attested: lɨ-tfæʕal 3msg-stitch.pass.pcl ‘it is stitched’ (< *lɨ-tfæʕʕæl,

see §4.4.4).
When *ɾɾ straddles a syllable boundary and the latter syllable is stressed, it is almost
always realized as the trill r.
lɨ-ˈrækkæb ˈdib-a (< *lɨ-ɾɾækkæb dib-æː)

3msg-find.pass.pcl in-poss.3fsg
‘it [a mountain] is found in it [the west]’
3.2 Vowels
The vowel phonemes of Tigre of Gindaʕ are found in Table 7.4.
3.2.1 Close vowel ɨ

Minimal pairs such as the following establish the phoneme ɨ.
zæbbɨt’ ~ zæbbæt’
beat.pcl.3msg beat.pass.pcl.3msg
‘he beats’ ‘he receives a beating’
The word-internal sequence stop + ɾ is almost always broken by ɨ, as in mædɨɾæˈsæt

(< *mædɾæsæt) ‘school’.
3.2.2 Open vowels æ and æ

Minimal pairs such as the following establish the phonemes æ and æ: ħæl ‘maternal aunt’
~ ħæːl ‘maternal uncle’. However, vowel length is not easily discernible in connected
speech. æ is realized as a after ʕ and frequently realized as a after ħ, ʔ and h:
ʕalæ ħæsæb (< *ʕælæ ħæsæb) ʔasɨk=ma (< *ʔæsɨk-mæː)

according.to quantity up.to=or
‘according to the number’ ‘up to [ninth] or [tenth grade]’
æ is realized as rounded backed [o] or [ɞ] after w, as in
wo=dib ɡɨnˈdaʔ (< *wæ=dib ɡɨndæʕ)

now=in Gindaʕ
‘now, in Gindaʕ’
wɞlæd ‘son’ (< *wælæd)

TABLE 7.4 VOWEL PHONEMES
Front Central Back
Close i ɨ u
Close-mid e o
Open-mid æ, æː
3.3 Diphthongs
Occurrences of æː in word-final -æːj do not appear to be lengthened: ʕasɾæj ‘tenth’,
ʕabbæj ‘big.fsg’. However, as mentioned previously, vowel length is not easily
discernible.
3.4 Stress
Stress is not phonemic in Tigre of Gindaʕ. More text analysis is necessary, but there are
two preliminary observations.
Closed syllables (CVC) are stressed considerably more frequently than open syllables
(CV).
mɨˈsɨl ˈħattæ t’æbˈʕan

‘together’ ‘one’ ‘naturally’
Open syllables that contain *æː are more frequently stressed than other open syllables.
wo=hakoˈha ʔæzæ ˈlæːkin

and=then now but
‘and then’ ‘but now’
3.5 Morphophonemic alternations

In connected speech, *mɨn- ‘from, if, when’ > m- following a vowel:
ħæz-o m=ɡæbbiʔ (< *ħæzæ-w mɨn=ɡæbbiʔ)

want.sc-3mpl from=happen.pcl.3msg
‘if they want’
The 1s poss suffix -je causes palatalization in some contexts: suffixed to prepositions
ending with -l, e.g. ʔɨj-je ‘to me’ (< *ʔɨl-ye), and to nouns ending in -t, e.g., ʕɨntæːʧ-e
eyes-poss.1s ‘my eyes’ (< *ʕɨntæːt-ye).
The 3mpl suffix æw in k’ætl-æw (see sc §4.4.2) is almost always realized as o, e.g.
ʕal-o exist.sc-3mpl ‘they were’/ ‘they used to’ (< *ʕæl-æw).
*-æjjɨ- in *ɡæjjɨs go.pcl.3fsg is usually rendered e. Note also *jj > j (§3.1.3).
ɡes hælle-t
go.pcl.3fsg exist.sc-3fsg
‘it is increasingly becoming’
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
The independent personal pronouns (ipp) are found in Table 7.5.
152 David L. Elias
TABLE 7.5 INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRONOUNS (ipp)
sg pl
1 ʔænæ ħɨnæ
2m ʔɨntæ ʔɨntum
2f ʔɨnti ʔɨntɨn
3m hɨtu hɨtom
3f hɨtæ hɨtæn
ipp are used as the subject of a copular clause or as the optional subject of a verbal clause.
They are also used to emphasize an antecedent, change the subject or resume the discus-
sion of an antecedent.
4.1.2 Suffixed pronouns

The suffixed possessive and object pronouns are very similar (and in some cases identi-
cal) except for 1s. Note that few pl object suffixes occur in the present corpus.
Suffixed poss pronouns (Table 7.6) represent the possessor of their head noun or the
object of a preposition: kælɨb-kæ dog-poss.2msg ‘your dog’; kɨll-æn all-poss.3fpl ‘all of
them’; dib-æː into-poss.3fsg ‘into it’. The 1s pronoun is -je, unless the modified noun
ends in a vowel, in which case the pronoun is -j: kɨtæːb ‘book’ ~ kɨtæːb-je ‘my book’;
ħæmde ‘praise’ ~ ħæmde-j ‘my praise’.
For a few nouns, the base form is unmarked but the suffixed form incorporates final
t. This “t-juncture feature” (Raz 1983: 37–8, Palmer 1962: 67–8) is likely related to the
f marker -(æ)t on nouns: ħæl ‘maternal aunt’ ~ ħælt-u ‘his maternal aunt’ ~ ħælʧ-e ‘my
maternal aunt’. For three nouns with the 1s poss suffix, the base form incorporating final
t is used for 1cs and the unmarked base form is used for 1msg.
ʕɨn ʕɨnʧ-e ʕɨn-je

eye eye-poss.1cs eye-poss.1msg
‘eye’ ‘my-c eye’ ‘my-m eye’
moɾæt moɾæʧ-e moɾæː-j
stick stick-poss.1cs stick-poss.1msg
‘stick’ ‘my-c stick’ ‘my-m stick’
ʔɨd-e ʔɨdæːtɨʧ-e ʔɨd-e-je
hand-pl hand.pl-poss.1cs hand.pl-poss.1msg
‘hands’ ‘my-c hands’ ‘my-m hands’
The suffixed obj pronoun is used as a direct or indirect object of the verb: mæs’ʔ-æ-kkæ
come.sc-3msg-obj.2msg ‘he came to you’; lækæf-ko-jæː throw.sc-1s-obj.3fsg ‘I threw it’.
The specific suffix form depends on the morphology of the verb base. Attested Gindaʕ
suffixes are consistent with those in the Mansaʕ dialect. For Gindaʕ forms that are not yet
available, Mansaʕ dialect forms are presented.
1st and 2nd person suffixes -ni, -kæ, -ki, -næ, -kum and -kɨn occur on verb bases that
end in -o, -æw and -æ, as in zæbt’-o-ni beat.sc-3mpl-obj.1s ‘they beat me’. This excludes
the sc-3msg verb base k’ætl-æ ‘he killed’. -nni, -kkæ, -kki, -nnæ, -kkum and -kkɨn occur on
TABLE 7.6 SUFFIXED PRONOUNS
sg pl
poss obj poss obj
1 -je, -j -(n)ni -næ -(n)næ

2m -kæ -(k)kæ -kum -(k)kum
2f -ki -(k)ki -kɨn -(k)kɨn
3m -u -o, -jo, -wo, -hu, -ju -om -om, -jom, ‑wom, -hom
3f -æː -æː, -jæː, ‑wæː, -hæː -æn -æn, -jæn, ‑wæn, -hæn
all other verb bases, as in læʔæk-æ-nnæ send.sc-3msg-obj.1p ‘he sent us’. For sc-3fsg the
final t geminates and the object suffix takes initial æ, as in læʔæk-ætt-ænnæ send.sc-3fsg-
obj.1p ‘she sent us’ (cf. læʔæk-æt send.sc-3fsg ‘she sent’).
3rd person suffixes -o, -æ:, -om and -æn occur on verb bases that end in a consonant,
which geminates in pcl, pcs, imp and sc.3fsg forms, as in lɨʔækk-om send.imp.msg-obj.3mpl
‘send them’ (cf. lɨʔæk send.imp.msg ‘send’). -jo, -jæ:, -jom and -jæn occur on the sc-3msg
and sc-2fsg verb bases, as in lækf-æ-jæ: throw.sc-3msg-obj.3fsg ‘he threw it’. Final -i
in sc-2fsg becomes -ɨ, as in k’atal-kɨ-jom kill.sc-2fsg-obj.3mpl ‘you killed them’ (cf.
k’atal-ki kill.sc-2fsg ‘you killed’). -wo, -wæ:, -wom, and -wæn occur on the sc-1s verb
base, where the subject suffix -o becomes -ɨ, as in ħarsæ-kɨ-wo plow.sc-1s-obj.3msg ‘I
plowed it’ (cf. ħarsæ-ko plow.sc-1s ‘I plowed’). -hu, -hæ:, -hom and -hæn occur on verb
bases that end in -æ (other than sc-3msg), as in lækf-æ-jæ: throw.sc-3msg-obj.3fsg ‘he
threw it’.
Demonstrative pronouns/pro-adjectives are found in Table 7.7.
ʔɨllæ ʕɨnʧ-e tæ lohi ʔɨnæːs

this.f eye-poss.1s cop.3fsg that.m man
‘this is my eye’ ‘that man’
dems for objects that are not in sight (“absent”) are attested in other dialects (Saleh 2015:
117–18) but not in Gindaʕ. The dem is sometimes used before and after the noun: lohæ
ʔæssit lohæ ‘that woman’.
4.1.4 The relative particle

The relative particle is uninflected læ- ‘that, which, who’, which is prefixed, usually to
a verb.
læ=bæzħ-æt k˺æwmɨjæt
rel=be.numerous.sc-3fsg ethnic.group
‘the most common ethnic group’
154 David L. Elias
TABLE 7.7 DEMONSTRATIVES (dem)
msg fsg mpl fpl
near ʔɨlli ʔɨllæ ʔɨllom ʔɨllæn

dist lohi, lohæj, læhæj, lehi lohæ lohom lohæn
absent læhæj læhæ læhom læhæn
TABLE 7.8 INTERROGATIVES
mæn ‘who?’ kæm ‘how many? how much?’

mi ‘what?’ ʃowæː ‘which (place)?’

Interrogative pronouns and pro-adjectives take the forms found in Table 7.8.
In other Tigre dialects, ‘which (person/thing)?’ is documented as ʔæj- (Littmann and
Höfner 1962), and ‘which (place)?’ is documented as ʔɨʃ- (ibid.; Raz 1983: 87; Leslau
1945b: 197).
4.2 Nouns and adjectives

Tigre words – as in all Semitic languages – are in general comprised of a sequence of con-
sonants, sometimes called “root consonants,” attested with vocalic patterns and affixes in
a finite number of combinations.
4.2.1 Adjectives
Almost all adjectives are inflected for gender and number. The following two primary
patterns are attested in Tigre of Gindaʕ. The root pattern k’-t-l (‘kill’) is employed for
convenience (Table 7.9).
For single r in ɡurum, note *ɾɾ > r in §3.1.4. Additional adjective patterns are not yet
available in Tigre of Gindaʕ, but in Tigre of Mansaʕ the active participle (see §4.4.4) also
functions as an adjective.
4.2.2 Singular nouns and gender markers

For animate beings msg nouns are generally unmarked while fsg nouns are generally
marked by -t or -æt (Table 7.10).
Note that the base form of many k’vtvl nouns is *k’vtl- with vowel insertion in msg:
*kælb > kælɨb msg, kælb-æt fsg.
Some fsg nouns (whether animate or inanimate) are not marked: ʔɨm ‘mother’; ʕɨn
‘eye’.
Additional sg noun patterns include those found in Table 7.11.
TABLE 7.9 ADJECTIVE (adj) PATTERNS
(1) ‘little’ ‘red’ (2) ‘handsome, beautiful’
msg k’vtvl nɨʔuʃ k’æjɨħ k’uttul ɡurum

fsg k’vt(t)vl nɨʔiʃ k’æjæːħ k’ɨttɨl ɡɨrɨm
pl k’vtæːjɨl, k’ætɨlt and næ’æ:jɨʃ k’æjɨħt msg + -æːm (m), ɡurum-æːm (m),
k’ætæːli (all cpl) msg + -æːt (f) ɡurum-æːt (f)
TABLE 7.10 sg NOUNS AND GENDER MARKERS – ANIMATE NOUNS
Pattern Noun-msg Noun-fsg
k’v ħu ‘brother’ ħɨ-t ‘sister’

k’vl ħæːl ‘maternal uncle’
k’vtvl kælɨb ‘dog-m’ kælb-æt ‘dog-f’
ʔɨnæːs ‘man’ ʔɨss-it ‘woman’
(*ns > ss)
ʃæjɨb ‘gray-haired man’ ʃæjb-æt ‘gray-haired woman’
TABLE 7.11 ADDITIONAL sg NOUN PATTERNS
Pattern Noun Pattern Noun
k’vlv ɡælæ ‘something’ k’vɾtvl ʕɨnkɨɾ ‘puppy’

k’vtlv dɨmmu ‘cat’ k’vɾtvlv ʔɨnʤæɾæː ‘injera’
k’vttvl(v) ħæbbæːɾ ‘coloring’ k’vtlvlv ʕɨmboba ‘popcorn’
mvk’tvl mɨfɡaɾ ‘rising’ mvk’vlk’vl mædæɡdæɡ ‘mortar’
4.2.3 Plural nouns
pl noun forms are attested in two general varieties: plural suffix (“external” pl) and pat-
tern replacement (“internal” pl).
Plural suffixes are -æːt and -otæːt: suk˺ ‘market’ ~ suk˺-æːt ‘markets’; ħæːl ‘maternal
uncle’ ~ ħæːl-otæːt ‘maternal uncles’. In some instances the base form is different for a
suffixed noun: ʔɨm ‘mother’ ~ ʔɨmm-æːt ‘mothers’. The fsg -æt suffix is replaced by an
external pl suffix: ʕæmm-æt ‘paternal aunt’ ~ ʕæmm-otæːt ‘paternal aunts’. The pl forms
of ʔæb ‘father’ and ʔæf ‘mouth’ exhibit the endings -æːʧ /-æːjt:
ʔæb ~ ʔæb-æːʧ / ʔæb-æːjt

ʔæf ~ ʔæf-æːʧ / ʔæf-æːjt.
For non-human nouns, the external pl is grammatically sg. The gender of a pl noun is
not necessarily the same as the gender of its sg counterpart.
156 David L. Elias
ʔɨllæ ʕɨn-je tæ ʔɨlli ʕɨnt-æːt-kæ tu

this.f eye-poss.1s cop.3fsg this.m eye-pl-poss.2msg cop.3msg
‘this is my eye’ ‘these are your eyes’
Examples of pattern replacement are the following:
• vowel change and/or vowel loss in the noun base, as in ʔɨbɨn ‘stone’ ~ ʔɨbæn ‘stones’,
ʕæskɨɾ ‘soldier’ ~ ʕæsæːkɨɾ ‘soldiers’, kælɨb ‘dog’ ~ kɨlæːb ‘dogs’, and kɨtæːb ‘book’ ~
kɨtɨb ‘books’
• vowel change accompanied by consonantal gemination, as in ħæɾmæːz ‘elephant’ ~
ħæɾæmmɨz ‘elephants’
• vowel changes accompanied by the prefix ʔæ-, as in ɡɨɾɨz ‘infant’ ~ ʔæɡɨɾuz ‘infants’,
by the loss of the suffix ‑(æ)t, as in ʔælɡ-æt ‘baby’ ~ ʔæːluɡ ‘babies’, or by addition of
a suffix such as -vt, as in dɨmmu ‘cat’ ~ dæmæmmit ‘cats’
For nouns not referring to human beings, the internal pl is grammatically msg.
læ=ʔæjæːm læhæj
def=day.pl that.m
‘those days’
One suppletive pl is attested: ʔɨnæːs ‘man’ ~ sæb ‘men’.
4.2.4 Collective nouns
Collectives are unmarked, with a corresponding countable sg in -æt and an internal pl:
Unmarked Collective ~ Countable sg in -æt ~ Internal pl

ʧ’ɨɡæɾ ‘hair’ ~ ʧ’ɨɡɡæɾ-æt ‘strand of hair’ ~ ʔæʧ’æɡɡɨɾ ‘many kinds of hair’
k’æt’æf ‘leaves’ ~ k’æt’f-æt ‘leaf’ ~ ʔæk’æt’t’ɨf ‘pile of leaves’
4.2.5 Diminutives
Diminutive (dim) nouns do not appear to be used in Tigre of Gindaʕ. This may be related
to the apparent absence of the derived D verbal stem; see §4.4.4. Note, however, that
Saleh (2015: 109–12) records dim nouns in -æːj (m)/-it (f).
4.3 Numerals
The cardinal numbers are found in Table 7.12.
The numbers 11–19 are formed as ʕæsɨɾ wɞ- + numeral and use both genders of ‘one’
and ‘two’: ʕæsɨɾ wɞ=ʔoɾo ‘eleven-m’, ʕæsɨɾ wɞ=ħættæ ‘eleven-f’, . . ., ʕæsɨɾ wɞ=sɨʕ
‘nineteen’. The numbers 21+ generally use the f of ‘one’ and ‘two’: ʕɨʃɾin wɞ=ħættæ
‘twenty-one’, ʕɨʃɾin wɞ=kɨlʔe ‘twenty-two’, etc. A numeral precedes a modified noun:
sæman fɨʤan ‘eight cups’.
Ordinal numbers in -æːj(t) were produced in connected texts: ʔawɞlæːjt ‘first’, kæːlʔæːjt
‘second’, tæːsʕaj ‘ninth’, ʕasɾaj ‘tenth’. ʔawɞl is an Arabic borrowing (ʔawwal ‘first’). It
is possible that -æ:jt is f and -aj is m, consistent with the fsg noun marker t (see §4.2.2).
In isolated elicitations the following forms in k’æːtɨl were also given (see Table 7.13).
TABLE 7.12 CARDINAL NUMBERS
ʔoɾo/ħættæ ‘one-m’/‘one-f’ tælætin ‘thirty’

kɨlʔot/kɨlʔe ‘two-m’/‘two-f’ ʔæɾbɨʕin ‘forty’
sælæs ‘three’ ħæmsin ‘fifty’
ʔæɾbæʕ ‘four’ sɨttin ‘sixty’
ħæmɨs ‘five’ sæbʕin ‘seventy’
sɨs ‘six’ tæmæːnin ‘eighty’
sæbɨʕ ‘seven’ tɨsʕin ‘ninety’
sæmæːn ‘eight’ mɨʔɨt ‘hundred’
sɨʕ ‘nine’ kɨlʔe mɨʔɨt ‘two hundred’
ʕæsɨɾ ‘ten’ ʔælɨf ‘thousand’
ʕɨʃɾin ‘twenty’
TABLE 7.13 ORDINAL NUMBERS
ʔawɞl ‘first’ sæːdɨs ‘sixth’

kæːlɨʔ ‘second’ sæːbɨʕ ‘seventh’
sæːlɨs ‘third’ sæːmɨn ‘eighth’
ɾæːbɨʕ ‘fourth’ tæːsɨʕ ‘ninth’
ħæːmɨs ‘fifth’ ʕæːsɨɾ ‘tenth’
4.4 Verbs
4.4.1 Tense/aspect/mood system
There are three verb conjugations in Tigre of Gindaʕ, presented here in 3msg forms. The
suffix conjugation (sc) k’ætl-æ is used primarily for perfective aspect in the past tense.
One of the two prefixed conjugations (pcl) (lɨ-)k’ættɨl is used for imperfective aspect. The
other (pcs) lɨ-k’tæl expresses mood and in a compound construction indicates future tense.
Alongside these conjugations are an inflected cop tu and two verbs of existence, hæll-æ
(present) and ʕal-æ (past) The verbs of existence only occur in sc. Compound construc-
tions using cop, hæll-æ, ʕal-æ and complimentary verbs express tense, aspect and mood
and are discussed later.
The three conjugations’ 3msg forms are found in Table 7.14. As with the noun patterns,
we use the root k’-t-l ‘kill’ for convenience.
sc is used for competed action in the past for transitive verbs:
næsʔ-æ take.sc-3msg ‘he took’
For intr and stative verbs, sc can also express the present:
ʔæːmɨɾ-o know.sc-3mpl ‘they know’; tæmm-æ be.complete.sc-3msg ‘it is complete’.
pcl is used to express the present as well as customary or habitual action:
s’æbbɨt serve.pcl.3msg ‘he serves’; lɨ-fællɨħ 3msg-boil.pcl ‘it boils’.

158 David L. Elias
TABLE 7.14 THE THREE VERBAL CONJUGATIONS – BASIC FORMS AND USES
Aspect
Tense Perfective Imperfective
Past k’ætl-æ ‘he killed’ (sc)

Present (lɨ-)k’ættɨl ‘he kills’ (pcl)
Mood
Possibility lɨ-k’tæl ‘he might kill’ (pcs)
pcl+hæll-æ expresses present continuous, and pcl+ʕal-æ expresses past continuous or

past customary or habitual action:
ʔɨn-fæɡɡɨɾ hælle-næ
1pl-leave.pcl exist.sc-1pl
‘we are leaving’
sæmmɨʕ ʕal-æ
listen.pcl.3msg exist.sc-3msg
‘he was listening’
lɨ-ħæɾɨs-o ʕal-o
3mpl-plow.pcl-3mpl exist.sc-3mpl
‘they used to plow’.
pcl is frequently rendered without the prefix, as in s’æbbɨt and sæmmɨʕ from earlier.
ʔɨɡɨl + pcl + k’ædɨɾ-æ is used to express ability:
ʔɨɡɨl læ-ħællɨf-o kædɨɾ-æw

with.respect.to 3mpl-pass.pcl-3mpl be.able.sc-3mpl
‘they were able to pass [their examination]’.
ʔɨɡɨl + pcs + tu is used to express the future:
ʔɨɡɨl lɨ-nsæʔ tu
with.respect.to 3msg-take.pcs cop.3msg
‘he will take’.
Note that 3fsg and 3m forms use inflected cop. Invariable tu is documented elsewhere in
Tigre.
ʔɨɡɨl tɨ-ms’æʔ tæ
with.respect.to 3fsg-come.pcs cop.3fsg
‘she will come’.
pcs is also used to express possibility: lɨ-ɡbæʔ 3msg-happen.pcs ‘it might be’.

The full complement of verbal constructions with respect to tense, aspect and mood is
presented in Table 7.15. The finite present and mood of permission are not yet available
in Tigre of Gindaʕ. The forms presented are from other dialects (Saleh 2015: 133).
TABLE 7.15 VERBAL CONSTRUCTIONS – TENSE, ASPECT AND MOOD
Aspect
Tense Finite Non-Finite
Past k’ætl-æ ‘he killed’ (sc) (lɨ-)k’ættɨl ʕal-æ ‘he used to kill, he was killing’
Present hɨtæ kæ:tlæ hæll-æ ‘he has killed’ (ptcp) (lɨ-)k’ættɨl ‘he kills’ (pcl)
tæmm-æ ‘it is complete’ (sc)
(lɨ-)k’ættɨl hæll-æ ‘he is killing’
Future <Not attested> ʔɨɡɨl lɨ-k’tæl tu ‘he will kill’
Mood
Possibility lɨ-k’tæl ‘he might kill’ (pcs)

Ability ʔɨɡɨl k’ætl-æ k’ædɨɾ-æ ‘he can kill’
4.4.2 Gender/number/person inflection

Gender, number and person are expressed by subject morphemes affixed to the conju-
gations. Prefixed conjugations utilize suffixes to distinguish gender in 2fsg, 2pl and 3pl.
The pcl prefix is optional for 1, 2msg and 3 and is least attested for 3msg (Table 7.16).
The sc base is k’ætæl- for consonant-initial subject suffixes, with vowel contraction to
k’ætl- when the gender/number suffix is a vowel or vowel-initial.
The pcl base without a gender suffix is -k’ættɨl; with a gender suffix it is -k’ætl-.
The pcs base is -k’tæl- for all forms. The affixes are identical to those for pcl, except
that the 1pl suffix is nɨ- rather than ʔɨn-. Prefixes are not optional in pcs.
The cop in Tigre of Gindaʕ expresses identity and is identical in form to the ipp (see
Table 7.5), except for the initial segment hɨ- in 3 (Table 7.17).
Example:
bun ʕabbaj tæ
coffee important.fsg cop.3fsg
‘coffee is important’
The verbs of existence (Table 7.18) and locality hæll-æ and ʕal-æ are only conjugated
in sc. However, hæll-æ is a “B” stem verb with a III-w/j/Ø root, and as such, its base for
1, 2 and 3fsg is hælle- and the 3fsg suffix is -t not -æt. (For “B” stem verbs, see §4.4.4;
for “weak” roots such as III–w/j/Ø, see §4.4.5) ʕal-æ, on the other hand, is an “A” verb
(the general type presented in §4.4.1 and §4.4.2, k’ætæl-ko, etc.) with a I-w/j/Ø root, and
its base is ʕal- for all forms.
Examples:
ʕabi mɨnn-om hæll-æ

big.msg from-poss.3mpl exist.sc-3msg
‘there is an elder among them’
ʕal-æt dib ɡɨndæʔ

exist.sc-3fsg in Gindaʕ
‘it [the school] was in Gindaʕ’
The imperative (Table 7.19) is k’ɨtæl- with the subject suffixes of pcl and pcs.
160 David L. Elias
TABLE 7.16 GENDER, NUMBER AND PERSON MARKERS
sc pcl pcs
sg
1 k’ætæl-ko (ʔɨ-)k’ættɨl ʔɨ-k’tæl
2m k’ætæl-kæ (tɨ-)k’ættɨl tɨ-k’tæl
2f k’ætæl-ki tɨ-k’ætl-i tɨ-k’tæl-i
3m k’ætl-æ (lɨ-)k’ættɨl lɨ-k’tæl
3f k’ætl-æt (tɨ-)k’ættɨl tɨ-k’tæl
pl
1 k’ætæl-næ ʔɨn-k’ættɨl nɨ-k’tæl
2m k’ætæl-kum tɨ-k’ætl-o tɨ-k’tæl-o
2f k’ætæl-kɨn tɨ-k’ætl-æː tɨ-k’tæl-æː
3m k’ætl-æw/-o (lɨ-)k’ætl-o lɨ-k’tæl-o
3f k’ætl-æjæː (lɨ-)k’ætl-æː lɨ-k’tæl-æː
TABLE 7.17 THE COPULA
sg pl
1 ʔænæ ħɨnæ
2m ʔɨntæ ʔɨntum
2f ʔɨnti ʔɨntɨn
3m tu tom
3f tæ tæn
TABLE 7.18 THE VERBS OF EXISTENCE
sg pl
1 hælle-ko ʕal-ko hælle-næ ʕal-næ

2m hælle-kæ ʕal-kæ hælle-kum ʕal-kum
2f hælle-ki ʕal-ki hælle-kɨn ʕal-kɨn
3m hæll-æ ʕal-æ hæll-æw/-o ʕal-æw/-o
3f hælle-t ʕal-æt hæll-æjæː ʕal-æjæː
TABLE 7.19 THE IMPERATIVE (imp)
sg pl
m k’ɨtæl ‘kill!’ k’ɨtæl-o

f k’ɨtæl-i k’ɨtæl-æː
Example: nɨsæʔ take.imp.msg ‘take!’
4.4.3 Derived stems
Using Leslau and Raz’s terminology, the verbal stem described so far (k’ætl-æ/(lɨ‑)
k’ættɨl/lɨ-k’tæl) is the A stem. Two additional stems are lexical – B and C – and as such
TABLE 7.20 DERIVED VERBAL STEMS
Stem Type sc pcl pcs
A Lexical k’ætl-æ (lɨ-)k’ættɨl lɨ-k’tæl

B Lexical k’ættæl-æ (lɨ-)k’ættɨl lɨ-k’ættɨl
C Lexical k’æːtæl-æ (lɨ-)k’æːtɨl lɨ-k’æːtɨl
Apass Derived: pass of A k’ættæl-æ (lɨ-)k’ættæl lɨ-k’ættæl
tǝ-A/B Derived: pass of A, B tɨk’ættæl-æ lɨ-tk’ættæl = pcl
ʔa-A Derived: caus of A ʔæ-k’tæl-æ læ-ʔæ-k’ætɨl = pcl
TABLE 7.21 pass OF A AND B STEMS IN TIGRE OF GINDAʕ AND TIGRE OF MANSAʕ
Dialect Type sc pcl pcs
Tigre of Gindaʕ pass of A k’ættæl-æ (lɨ-)k’ættæl lɨ-k’ættæl

pass of A, B tɨk’ættæl-æ lɨ-tk’ættæl = pcl
Tigre of Mansaʕ pass of A k’ættæl-æ
lɨ-tk’ættæl = pcl
pass of A, B tɨk’ættæl-æ
are derived in form but not in meaning. Elsewhere in Tigre only A and B are lexical
(Littmann 1899: 159–63). Two derived stems express pass: Apass and tǝ-A/B. Lastly, a
derived stem expresses the caus of A – ʔa-A. Table 7.20 summarizes 3msg derived forms
of the major verbal stems.
The C stem in Tigre of Mansaʕ is documented as caus or recp (Littmann 1899: 163),
as “sociative” or “frequentative” of A or B (Leslau 1945a: 4–5, 1948: 132), and as an
increase of force or intensity of A (Raz 1983: 52–3).
pass stems are marked by -æ- (rather than -ɨ-) as the second vowel of the pcl base:
Apass (lɨ-)k’ættæl. tǝ-A/B base forms also incorporate initial tɨ-(sc) or t- (pcl, pcs): sc
tɨk’ættæl-æ, pcl lɨ-tk’ættæl. Expressions of the pass of A differ from Tigre of Mansaʕ. In
the latter, pcl-2 exhibit t. This is not the case in Tigre of Gindaʕ, where the pass of A is a
separate derived stem (Table 7.21).
caus stem base forms exhibit initial ʔæ-, and consonant gemination does not occur in
the pcl base: sc ʔæk’tæl-æ; pcl læ-ʔæk’ætɨl.
Examples of Lexical ~ Derived correspondences using sc 3msg:
Active A ħæɾs-æ ‘he plowed’ ~ pass tǝ-A/B tɨħæɾæs-æ ‘it was plowed’
Active B ʕallæb-æ ‘he counted’ ~ pass tǝ-A/B tæʕallæb-æ ‘it was counted’
Active A zæbt’-æ ‘he beat’ ~ pass Apass zæbbæt’-æ ‘he/it was beaten’
Stative/intr A fæɾh-æ ‘he was afraid’ ~ caus ʔa-A ʔæfɾæh-ætt-ænni ‘it frightened me’
(frighten.sc-3fsg-obj.1sg)
There also appears to be a Cpass stem k’æːtæl-æ whose forms are almost identical to
C. It expresses the pass/intensive of C, as in kæ:fæl-æ ‘he divided, it was divided into
many pieces’ and the recp of A, as in rækb-æ ‘he found’ ~ ræ:kæb-næ ‘we met (found
each other)’.
162 David L. Elias
The lexical form of the A stem is k’ættɨl, which is the prefix-less form of pcl. Where the
lexical form is attested in derived stems (see §4.4.3), it is also the prefix-less form of pcl.
A few instances of msg and mpl ptcp are available in Tigre of Gindaʕ. The act base is
k’æːtɨl-, and the pass base is k’ət(t)ul-: dæːɾɨs-æːm study.act.ptcp-mpl ‘studying’; ħɨbuɾ
mix.pass.ptcp-msg ‘mixed’. Participles in the Tigre of Mansaʕ A, B, C, tǝ-A/B and ʔa-A
stems are provided in Table 7.22 (Raz 1983: 27–8).
The gerund is not yet available in Tigre of Gindaʕ. In Tigre of Mansaʕ A stem gerunds
take many forms, primarily k’ætil, k’ɨtlæt, k’ɨtlo, k’ɨtle and k’ætɨl: k’ɨrbe ‘being near’
(k’ærb-æ ‘he is near’), ħærɨs ‘plowing’ (ħærs-æ ‘he plows’). For stems other than A, the
gerund is formed as the sc base with the suffix -ot, as in B stem ʕællæb-ot (ʕællæb-æ ‘he
counted’).
“Weak” verbs in the present corpus are verbs whose root consonants include (a) a laryn-
geal and/or (b) a glide (w, j) or Ø. “Weak” verbs exhibit the following particularities.
I–Laryngeal – Ex: ħ-l-f ‘pass’

*ɨ > æ in pcl and pcs subject prefixes: læ-ħællɨf-o 3mpl-pass.pcl-3mpl ‘they pass’. The
1pl prefix is næ- rather than ʔɨn-: næ-ħællɨf 1pl-pass.pcl ‘we pass’.
II–Laryngeal – Ex: l-ʔ-k ‘send’
The sc base is k’ætæl- rather than k’ætl- for vowel-initial suffixes: læʔæk-æ send.sc-3msg
‘he sent’, læʔæk-æjæː send.sc-3fpl ‘they sent’. The imp is k’ætæl rather than k’ɨtæl:
læʔæk send.imp.msg ‘send!’.
II–w/j/Ø – Ex: ɡ-j-s ‘go’
The sc 1pl base is k’æle- rather than k’ætæl-: ɡæse-næ go.sc-1pl ‘we went’. j is not
doubled in pcl: ɡæjɨs go.pcl.3sg ‘it-m/f goes’. The pcs prefix and base are in -i-: li-ɡis
3msg-go.pcs ‘he might go’.
TABLE 7.22 PARTICIPLES IN TIGRE OF MANSAʕ
msg fsg mpl fpl
Active
A k’æ:tɨl k’æ:tlæt k’æ:tlæ:m k’æ:tlæ:t
B mæk’ætlæ:j mæk’ætlæ:jt mæk’ætlæt
C mæk’æ:tlæ:j mæk’æ:tlæ:jt mæk’æ:tlæt
tǝ-A/B mætk’ættɨlæ:j mætk’ættɨlæ:jt mætk’ættɨlæt
ʔa-A mæk’tɨlæ:j mæk’tɨlæ:jt mæk’tɨlæt
Passive
A k’ɨtul k’ɨtɨl/k’ɨtlɨt k’ɨtulæ:m k’ɨtulæ:t
B k’ɨttul k’ɨttɨl/k’ɨttɨlɨt k’ɨttulæ:m k’ɨttulæ:t
C k’uttul k’utlɨt k’utulæ:m k’utulæ:t
III–Laryngeal – Ex: f-ɾ-h ‘fear’

The sc base is k’ætlæ- rather than k’ætæl- for consonant-initial suffixes: fæɾhæ-ko
fear.sc-1sg ‘I was afraid’, bæs’ħæ-næ reach.sc-1pl ‘we reached’. pcl of ɡ-b-ʔ ‘happen’
exhibits -i- rather than -e-: ɡæbbiʔ happen.pcl.3sg ‘it happens’.
III–w/j/Ø – Ex: ħ-z-Ø ‘want’
The sc base is k’æteØ- rather than k’ætæl- for consonant-initial suffixes: ħæzeØ-ko
want.sc-1sg ‘I want’. Note that the verb of existence hæll-æ is a B verb of this type:
mɨsɨl hælleØ-næ together exist.sc-1pl ‘we are together’. The pcl base exhibits ‑æ- as
in k’ættæØ rather than -ɨ-: ħæzzæØ want.pcl.3sg ‘he/she wants’. As such lɨ-k’ættæØ
can be either an active or passive of A: lɨ-ʃæk’k’æ ‘he makes, it is made’. The pcl base
with a nom suffix exhibits doubling of the second consonant: tɨ-wɞddiØ 2fsg-make.pcl
‘you make’ vs. tɨ-k’ætli ‘you kill’.
4.5 Prepositions/conjunctions/adverbs
4.5.1 Prepositions
Prepositions occur before the noun or pronoun they govern. They take the suffixed pos-
sessive pronoun (Table 7.6). For 1sg the suffix is ‑je, not -j. The main prepositions are
listed here. Forms that reflect vowel contraction with a vowel-initial suffix are indicated
in parentheses. Note that not all changes in form are necessarily described here.
ʔæb /ʔɨb (ʔæbb- /ʔɨbb-) ‘in, with, by, as, among, about, concerning, to, because of’.
The form ʔæb is not documented elsewhere in Tigre and is likely borrowed from
Tigrinya.
ʔɨɡɨl (ʔɨɡl-) ‘for, to, during, in, with respect to’. Note also ʔɨɡɨj-je ‘for me’
(< *’ǝgǝl-ye) and ʔɨɡɨl-læ ‘for us’ (< *’ǝgǝl-na); see §3.5.
ʔɨt (ʔɨtt-) ‘with, in, with respect to, among, within’.
dib ‘in’, but with a broad semantic range, including ‘inside of, to, into, at, on, toward,
during, at the time of, as a part of’.
kɨm ‘like, as’.
mɨn (mɨnn-) ‘from’, with a broad semantic range, including ‘derived from, as a result
of, made from, from within, from among, away from, from the time of, different
from’.
mɨsɨl (mɨsl-) ‘with, along with’.
t’æbʕan ‘about, concerning’; a borrowing from Arabic. t’æbʕan is not documented in
other dialects of Tigre.
4.5.2 Conjunctions
There are two types of conjunction in Tigre of Gindaʕ: coordinating and subordinating.
The main coordinating conjunctions are these:
wo- ‘and, or, now, so, so then’.

t’æbʕan ‘now, so, so then’; a borrowing from Arabic.
ʔæw ‘or’.
læːkin ‘but, however’; a borrowing from Arabic.
164 David L. Elias
See §5.8 for subordinating conjunctions.
4.5.3 Adverbs
The main adverbs are these:
ʔɨɡɨl-mi ‘why?’
ʔæzæ ‘now’.
hako ‘afterwards’.
hakohæː ‘afterwards’.
ʔæjæ, bæjæ ‘where?’.
ʔæjwɞ ‘yes’; an Arabic borrowing.
ʔikon(i), ʔikonini ‘not, it is not’.
bæs ‘only’; a borrowing from Arabic.
dib ħɨd ‘together’.
kɨfo ‘how?’.
læ=ɡæbbiʔ ‘perhaps’.
lɨɡbæʔ ‘possibly’.
mɨsɨl ‘together’.
t’æbʕan ‘naturally’; a borrowing from Arabic.
4.6 Negation
The neg of the verb is ʔi- or jɨ- . . . -n(ni). These forms appear to occur in free variation:
ʔi-ɾæʔ-æ neg-see.sc-3msg ‘he did not see’

ʔi-tɨ-wɞddæ neg-2msg-make.pcl ‘you do not make’
jɨ-wæːsæl-ko-n neg-continue.sc-1sg-neg ‘I did not continue’
Saleh (2015: 122–3) finds that ʔi- and jɨ- are used in nearly all dialects and are in comple-
mentary distribution, with jɨ- preceding laryngeals and ʔi- preceding all other consonants.
The neg of the verb of existence hæll-æ is jæ-hæll-æ-nni neg-exist.sc-3msg-neg ‘there
is not’, probably by analogy to Tigrinya j-æll-æ-n neg-exist.sc-3msg-neg ‘there is not’
(Elias 2014: 249). The neg of 1 and 2 cop are formed with initial j- rather than initial ʔ-:
ʔænæ m=bæs’ɨʕ j-ænæ

ipp.1sg from=Massawa neg-cop.1sg
‘I am not from Massawa’
Variants in j(ɨ)-, particularly jɨ- . . . -n(ni), are at least partially influenced by jæ-hæll-æ-nni.

The neg of non-verbal forms and of 3 cop is ʔikon(i(ni)): lɨmud ʔikon ‘it is not usual’;
sænniy-æ:m ʔikonini ‘they-m are not nice’. A neg command is expressed as ʔi- + 2 of pcs,
as in ʔi-ti-ɡis neg-2msg-go.pcs ‘do not go!’.
5 SYNTAX
Word order in a verbal clause is verb final: sbj + obj + verb.
kuɾsi bun mɨsl-æː lɨ-tk’æræb

cake with-poss.3fsg 3msg-serve.pass.pcl
‘cake is served with it’
There are nominal, adverbial and existential predications in Tigre of Gindaʕ. Word
order in nominal and adverbial predications is sbj + pred + cop/verb.
ɡɨndæʔ mɨn kælimæt tæ

Gindaʕ from bush cop.3fsg
‘ “Gindaʕ” is from a bush’
kɨtæːb-u dib boɾsæʧ-e hæll-æ
book-poss.3msg in bag-poss.1sg exist.sc-3msg
‘his book is in my bag’
Word order in existential predications is pred + verb:
ʔɨɡɨl bɨʕɨd-mæː mænæffɨʔ hæll-æ

for other.msg-or thing.pl exist.sc-3msg
‘it is also used for other things’
Noun phrases are generally head-dependent: mæːj bɨɾud ‘cold water’. However,
numerals precede the noun, and certain very common adjectives appear to do the same:
sɨs sænæt ‘six years’; bɨʕɨd ɡæːɾitæːt ‘other events’. Saleh notes adj + noun examples in
Mansaʕ (2015: 130–1). Prepositions precede their objects: dib ʔɨsæːt ‘on the fire’.
5.2 Synthetic/analytic
Tigre is both synthetic and analytic in nature. Examples of synthetic characteristics are
provided in Table 7.23.
Analytic characteristics are found in a number of features.
The independent poss particle is næj, which takes the poss suffixes in Table 7.6. næj is
used for possession or qualification.
TABLE 7.23 SYNTHETIC EXAMPLES
Inflectional Examples Agglutinative Examples
msg adj ~ fsg adj ɡæzif ~ ɡæzzæːf sg noun ~ external pl suk˺ ~ suk˺-æːt
‘huge’ (Table 7.9) ‘market’ (§4.2.3)
sg noun ~ internal pl kælɨb ~ kɨlæːb Gender/number suffixes on k’ætl-æ
‘dog’ (§4.2.3) sc (Table 7.16) ‘he killed’ kill.sc-3msg
pcl prefix/suffix poss suffixes kɨtæːb-u
combinations (Table 7.16): (Table 7.6) ‘his book’ book-poss.3msg
Number – 2msg ~ 2mpl tɨ- . . . -Ø ~ tɨ- . . . -o obj suffixes lækæf-ko-jæː
(suffix) (Table 7.5) ‘I threw it’ throw.sc-1sg-obj.3fsg
Gender – 2mpl ~ 2fpl tɨ- . . . -o ~ tɨ- . . . -æː
(suffix)
Person – 2fpl ~ 3fpl tɨ- . . . -æː ~ lɨ- . . . -æː
(prefix)
166 David L. Elias
næj-kæ habb-o
poss.pro-poss.2msg give.imp.msg-obj.3msg
‘give him yours [your property]’
ʃaʕab næj tɨɡɨɾe
people poss.pro Tigre
‘the Tigre people’
Possession and qualification are also expressed by a sequence of two nouns, here called
a “construct sequence”: ʔækæɾæ sælæmunæː ‘farmers of Selemuna’.
The relative particle læ is indeclinable (see §4.1.4), and pcl + hæll-æ and pcl + ʕal-æ
express the present continuous and past continuous, respectively (see §4.4.1).

Two types of relative clause occur in the corpus. The more common type is a substantive,
a relative clause without an antecedent. The relative particle læ- (see §4.1.4) can mark
the verb, the verb and its object, or the predicate in a relative clause. In the following
examples the relative clauses will be underlined.
læ=ħættæ sænæt læ=ʕalæ-t ʔɨɡl-æ: ʾætmæm-næ

rel=one.f year rel=exist.sc-3fsg in-poss.3fsg finish.sc-1pl
‘in one year we finished’
Note that word order within the relative clause and its position in the main clause are
obj + verb, consistent with §5.1. Relative clause elements agree with each other and with
their referent ʔɨɡl-æ: ‘in it-f’ in gender.
In a sequence of verbs or adjectival clauses, only one element might be marked.
kæm fɨʤan sætt-u ʔɨɡɨl lɨ-stæ-w læ=ɡɨssuy-am

how.many cups drink.pcl-3pl in.order.to 3mpl-drink.pcs-3mpl rel=sitting-mpl
hæll-æw ʔɨɡɨl lɨ-stæ-w Ø-k’ɨrub-am hæll-æw
exist.sc-3mpl in.order.to 3mpl-drink.pcs-3mpl Ø-gathered-mpl exist.sc-3mpl
‘how may cups do those who are sitting in order to drink – those who are gathered in
order to drink – drink?’
Word order within the relative clauses is consistent with §5.1, but the relative clauses,
which are the subject in this sentence, follow the main verb sætt-u ‘they drink’, contrary
to §5.1. Relative clause elements agree with each other and with the main verb in gender
and number.
The substantive is frequently used in cleft sentences.
sælæs dolæt tæ Ø-tɨ-sættæ

three time cop.3fsg Ø-3fsg-drink.pass.pcl
‘it is drunk three times’ (lit., ‘it is three times that it is drunk’)
ɡɨndæʔ ʔæb ʔædbɨɾ læ=tɨkællæl-æt tæ
Gindaʕ by mountain.pl rel=surround.pass.sc-3fsg cop-3fsg
‘Gindaʕ is (a place that is) surrounded by mountains’
The second type of relative clause modifies a noun. The modifier can precede or follow
the noun.
kælɨʔ xet’ kɨɾænɨkɨs læ=lɨ-tbæhæl hæll-æ kɨɾænɨkɨs

in.addition thread kirenikis rel=3msg-call.pass.pcl exist.sc-3msg kirenikis
mɨn ʃæbæk-æ:t lɨ-ʃæk’k’æ
from lattice-fpl 3msg-make.pass.pcl
‘in addition there is (an item of) thread that is called “kirenikis.” Kirenikis is made
from lattices.’
Note that the modifier, kɨɾænɨkɨs læ=lɨ-tbæhæl ‘called “kirenikis” ’, follows the noun
xet’ ‘thread’, consistent with the general noun phrase pattern of head-dependency in §5.1,
and that there is gender agreement between the verb of the relative clause, lɨ-tbæhæl ‘it-m
is called’, and the main verb, hæll-æ ‘there is-m’.
wɞ=dib mɨwdaʔ s’æħay kɨbɨt ʤɨmʕa lɨ-tbæhæl dæbɨɾ

in setting sun Kibit Gimʕa 3msg-call.pass.pcl mountain
lɨ-rækkæb dib-a
3msg-find.pass.pcl in-poss.3fsg
‘and the mountain called “Kibit Gimʕa” is found in the west’
Note that the modifier kɨbɨt ʤɨmʕa lɨ-tbæhæl ‘called Kibit Gimʕa’ precedes the noun
dæbɨɾ ‘mountain’, which is exhibited with numerals and certain very common adjectives
(see §5.1).
5.4 The definite article

The definite article læ= is prefixed to a noun (see §4.2.6).
lohæj tu læ=suk˺
dem.dist.msg cop.3msg def=market
‘that is the market’
It is frequently used with a noun that is modified by a poss suffix or dem: læ=kælɨb-kæ
def=dog-poss.2msg ‘your dog’. It is identical in form to the relative particle, but because
def can only be affixed to a noun, it is generally clear whether læ= is def or rel.
In other dialects of Tigre, a modifying adjective precedes its noun and is marked by
def, as in: læ=ɡɨndæ:b ʔɨnæ:s ‘the old man’ (Raz 1983: 35).
5.5 Agreement
The following observations can be made on the basis of the Gindaʕ corpus. A verb
agrees in gender, number and person with its subject: ħu-je mæs’ʔ-æ brother-poss.1sg
come.sc-3msg ‘my brother came’. The “internal” pl is grammatically sg (see §4.2.3). An
adjective usually agrees in gender and number with a noun: wɞlæt ɡɨrɨm girl beautiful.fsg
‘a beautiful girl’, sæb kɨbud-æːm man.pl heavy-mpl ‘heavy men’. See §5.4 for adjective
markedness when modifying a definite noun.
168 David L. Elias
5.6 Interrogatives
Interrogatives in Tigre of Gindaʕ are WH-in-situ. Pronouns and adverbs always occur
immediately before the verb, copula or verb of existence:
kɨfo hælle-kæ
how exist.sc-2msg
‘how are you doing?’
mæn tu læ=bæʕal læ=mæħzæn
who cop.3msg def=owner def=store
‘who is the store-owner?’
læ=ʃɨk˺æːk˺ ʔæjæ hæll-æ
def=bathroom where exist.sc-3msg
‘where is the bathroom?’
Interrogative pro-adjectives usually occur immediately before the nouns that they modify.
kæm fɨʤæːn s’æbbɨṭ

how.many cup serve.pcl.3msg
‘how many cups does one serve?’
Intonation alone can also indicate polar questions.
5.7 Subordination
Subordination is expressed by a subordinating conjunction, which precedes the verb, subj
or obj in the subordinate clause. Note, however, that the conjunction follows the verb in
a conditional clause. The subordinate clause itself can precede or follow the main clause.
The most frequent conjunctions are presented here, with attested constructions and gram-
matical functions. Tense and aspect appear to conform to §4.4.1.
Temporal
ʔɨndæ + sc, ‘after’; + pcl, ‘while’; a borrowing from Tigrinya
zænʤæbil ʔɨndæ ɡæbʔ-æt dib ʤæbænæt tɨ-tbællæs
ginger after go.sc-3fsg in coffee.bottle 3fsg-turn.pass.pcl
‘after ginger has gone in, it is stirred in the coffee bottle’
hæk˺olæː + sc, ‘after’
ʔæsɨk + pcl, ‘until’
Purpose
ʔɨɡɨl + pcs, ‘so that’; + neg pcs, ‘lest’
Cause and effect
sæbbæt + sc, ‘because’
ʔænæ fæsɨl jɨ-ɡis-ko-nni ħɨmum sæbbæt ʕal-ko
I class neg-go.sc-1sg-neg sick because exist.sc-1sg
‘I did not go to class because I was sick’
Conditional
sc + mɨn=ɡæbbiʔ, ‘if’
ʔɨɡɨl lɨ-wæːsl-o ħæz-o m=ɡæbbiʔ
that 3mpl-continue.pcl-3mpl want.sc-3mpl from=happen.pcl.3msg
wæːsl-o
continue.pcl-3mpl
‘if they want to continue, they continue’
imp + (wo=) neg imp, ‘whether or not’
ʔæsɨk læ=mæħzæn ɡis w=i=ti-ɡis læ=bet ʔɨɡɨl
to def=store go.imp.msg or=neg=2msg-go.pcs def=house that
tɨ-nħæyy-æ: bɨ-kæ
2msg-clean.pcs-obj.2fsg in-poss.2msg
‘whether you go to the store or not, you must clean the house’ (w=i < *wæ=ʔi)
Manner
kɨm, kɨmsæl + sc, ‘like, as’
kɨmsæl ħaze-kæ-hu ʔaʃkal tæ-ʔæfæɡɡɨr-o
like want.sc-2msg-obj.3msg pattern.pl 2msg-stretch.pcl-obj.3msg
‘you shape the patterns like you want them’
6 LEXICON
There is a preponderance of Arabic borrowings into the Tigre language. More than
80 additional borrowings have been found in the Tigre of Gindaʕ corpus. These are
not documented in other dialects to the author’s knowledge. These additional loans
are predominantly nouns and verbs but are found in all parts of speech and in several
semantic fields. The Gindaʕ informants are Muslim, attended Arabic schools and are
fluent in Arabic.
Perhaps most notable is t’æbʕan ‘naturally (adv); concerning (prep); now, so, so then
(conj)’, which is borrowed from Arabic tˤabʕan ‘naturally, of course (adv)’ and reana-
lyzed as a conj ‘now, so, so then’ (Elias 2014: 244–5). The prep may have been borrowed
from Arabic tˤabʕan li- ‘in consequence of’.
There is some influence of Tigrinya, as evidenced by jæ-hæll-æ-nni ‘there is not’
(see §4.6) and by a few borrowings such as ʔæb ‘in, with, etc.’ and ʔɨndæ ‘while, after’.
There are also a handful of English and Italian noun borrowings, a result of English
being the language of instruction in many secondary schools and at the University
of Asmara and the Italian military presence in Eritrea from the late 19th through the
mid-20th centuries.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The following is an excerpt from a narrative about coffee in Elias (2014: 262–7).
mɨn=mi wɞ=m=ɡæbbiʔ t’æbʕan læ=bun dib

from=what? and=from=happen.pcl.3msg concerning def=coffee while
170 David L. Elias
tɨ-k’ællæ koskos næsʔɨlo ʔɨbb-u

3fsg-roast.pass. pcl roasting.equipment question about-poss.3msg
koskos. ʔazæ tɨ-k’ællæ hak’olæ k’æll-et
roasting.equipment now 3fsg-roast.pass. pcl after roast.pass.sc-3fsg
dib mædæɡdæɡ ɡæbbiʔ wo=tɨ-dæɡdæɡ. hak’olæ
into mortar go.pcl.3msg and=3fsg-crush.pass.pcl after
dæɡdæɡ-æt zænʤæbil ʔɨndæ ɡæbʔ-æt dib ʤæbænæt
crush.pass.sc-3fsg ginger after go.sc-3fsg in coffee.bottle
tɨ-tbællæs. wo=m=ʤæbænæt maj ɡæbbiʔ dib-a.
3fsg-turn.pass.pcl and=from=coffee.bottle water go.pcl.3msg into-poss.3fsg
hak’olæ maj ɡæ: dib-a dib ʔɨsæt ɡæbbiʔ.
after.this water go.sc.3msg into-poss.3fsg on fire go.pcl.3msg
hak’o ʔɨsæt kɨm fælħ-æt tɨ-tkæræ.
after fire after overflow.sc-3fsg 3fsg-repeat.pass.pcl
hak’oha ʔɨɡɨl sito tɨ-tkæræb.
after as drink 3fsg-serve.pass.pcl
læ=suʔæ:l mɨn=lɨ-bɨl t’æbʕan læ=ʤæbænæt ʔɨndæ
def=question from=3msg-say.pcl concerning def=coffee.bottle while
tɨ-tkæræb mɨsl-æ: læ=ɡæbbiʔ næfæ:t’æ:t
3fsg-serve.pass.pcl with-poss.3fsg rel=happen.pcl.3msg activity.pl
mɨn=hæll-æ mɨsl-æ: læ=lɨ-tbællæʕ lɨ-sættæ
whether=exist.sc-3msg with-poss.3fsg rel=3msg-eat.pass.pcl 3msg-drink.pass.pcl
wɞ=læ=lɨ-tk’æræb mɨsl-æ: læ=ɡæjɨs mɨn=hæll-æ
and=rel=3msg-serve.pass.pcl with-poss.3fsg rel=happen.pcl.3msg whether=exist.sc-3msg
læ=lɨ-bɨl tu læ=suʔæ:l.
rel=3msg-say.pcl cop.3msg def=question
t’æbʕan hɨtæ læʔɨwan ʔɨl-a tɨ-k’æræb mɨsl-æ:

concerning it.f now with-poss.3fsg 2fsg-serve.pass.pcl with-poss.3fsg
læ=k’ærɨb ʔɨnbɨl-o hæll-æ k’uɾsi bun ʔɨnbɨl-o
rel=serve.pcl.3msg only-poss.3msg exist.sc-3msg cake coffee only-poss.3msg
kɨm bani lɨ-ɡbæʔ ʔæw kɨʧ’a k’uɾsi
like bread 3msg-happen.pcs or kicha cake
bun mɨsl-æ: lɨ-tkæræb. wo=hak˺oha ʕabi
coffee with-poss.3fsg 3msg-serve.pass.pcl and=afterwards important.msg
mɨnn-om hæll-æ mɨn=ɡæbbiʔ ʕabi mɨsl-u
among-poss.3mpl exist.sc-3msg if=happen.pcl.3msg important.msg with-poss.3msg
ʕɨmbobæ: ɡæbbiʔ hak˺ola ʕɨmboba lɨbæ:n k’uɾsi bun.

popcorn happen.pcl.3msg after popcorn incense cake coffee
hak˺oha ʔoɾo ʕabi mɨnn-om hæll-æ mɨn=
after.this one.msg important.msg among-poss.3mpl exist.sc-3msg if=
ɡæbbiʔ ʔæb dɨʕa fættɨħ-a ʔæb dɨʕa
happen.pcl.3msg by prayer open.pcl.3msg-obj.3msg by prayer
fættɨħ-a wo=ʔabb-u tɨ-ʕallæ bælæt tu.
open.pcl.3msg-obj.3msg and=by-poss.3msg 3fsg-consecrate.pass.pcl to.say cop.3msg
‘How and from what is coffee roasted? The question is about roasting equipment. First it
is roasted. After it has been roasted it goes into a mortar and is crushed. After it has been
crushed and after ginger has gone into the coffee bottle, it is stirred. Then water goes into
the coffee bottle. After the water has gone into it, it goes on the fire. After the fire – after
it overflows – it is repeated. Then it is served as a drink.
The question he asks about the coffee bottle is whether there are activities that occur
with it when coffee is served. Whether there are things that occur with it – that are eaten,
drunk or served with it – is the question he asks. Concerning this, there is only one thing
that one serves with it, that is served with it at the same time – only coffee cake, such as
bread, perhaps, or kicha. Coffee cake is served with it. Then, if there is an elder among
them – an elder – then popcorn might go with it, and after popcorn, incense. Coffee cake
(goes with it). Also, if there is an elder among them, he opens it by prayer. He opens it by
prayer; that is, it is consecrated by him.’
REFERENCES
Cohen, Marcel. Études d’éthiopien méridional. Paris:Paul Geuthner, 1931.
Elias, David. The Tigre Language of Gindaʕ, Eritrea. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
www.ethnologue.com/language/tig (accessed June 23, 2017).
Faber, Alice. “Genetic Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages.” In The Semitic Languages,
edited by Robert Hetzron, 3–15. London: Routledge, 1997.
Getatchew Haile. “Ethiopic Writing.” In The World’s Writing Systems, edited by Peter
Daniels and William Bright, 569–76. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Goldenberg, Gideon. “The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia and Their Classification,”
Hetzron, Robert. Ethiopian Semitic. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972.
Leslau, Wolf. “The Verb in Tigré (North Ethiopic).” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 65 (1945a): 1–26.
Leslau, Wolf. “Grammatical Sketches in Tigré (North Ethiopic). Dialect of Mensa.”
Journal of the American Oriental Society 65 (1945b): 164–203.
Littmann, Enno. “Die Pronomina im Tigre.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 12 (1897):
188–230, 291–316.
Littmann, Enno. “Das Verbum der Tigré-Sprache.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 13 (1898):
133–78; ibid., 14 (1899): 1–102.
172 David L. Elias
Littmann, Enno. Publications of the Princeton Expedition to Abyssinia. 4 vols. Leyden:

Brill, 1910–1915.
Littmann, Enno and Maria Höfner. Wörterbuch der Tigre-Sprache. Mainz: Franz
Steiner, 1962.
Meyer, Ronny. “Aspect and Tense in Ethiosemitic Languages.” In The Morpho-syntactic
Encoding of Tense and Aspect in Semitic, edited by Lutz Edzard, 159–239. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2016.
Raz, Shlomo. Tigre Grammar and Texts. Malibu: Undena, 1983.
Saleh Mahmud Idris. A Comparative Study of the Tigre Dialects. Aachen: Shaker, 2015.
Voigt, Rainer. “North vs. South Ethiopian Semitic.” Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference of Ethiopian Studies, edited by Svein Ege et al., Volume 4, 1375–87.
Trondheim, 2009.
Voigt, Rainer. “The Development of Tigre Literature.” Tigre Studies in the 21st Century,
edited by Rainer Voigt, 115–35. Cologne: Köppe, 2015.
Weninger, Stefan. “Ethio-Semitic in General.” The Semitic Languages: An International
Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger et al., 1114–23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
Grammars
Elias (2014). See “References.”
Leslau (1945a, 1945b). See “References.”
Leslau, Wolf. “Supplementary Observations on Tigré Grammar.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 68 (1948), pp. 127–39.
Leslau, Wolf. “Arabic Loanwords in Tigre.” Word 12 (1956), pp. 125–41.
Leslau, Wolf. “The Phonetic Treatment of the Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopic,” Word 13
(1957), 100–23.
Leslau, Wolf. “Additional Arabic Loanwords in Tigre.” Al-Hudhud, edited by Roswitha
Stiegner, 171–98. Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universität, 1981.
Littmann (1897, 1898, 1899). See “References.”
Littmann, Enno. “Preliminary Report of Princeton University Expedition to Abyssinia. I.
The Tigré Language.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 20 (1907), 151–82.
Raz (1983). See “References.”
Raz, Shlomo. “Source Materials for the Study of the Tigre Language.” Ethiopian Studies
Dedicated to Wolf Leslau, edited by Stanislav Segert and András J. E. Bodrogligeti,
Palmer, F. R. Morphology of The Tigre Noun. London: Oxford, 1962.
Dialects
Beaton, A. C. and A. Paul. Grammar and Vocabulary of the Tigre Language (as Spoken
by the Beni Amer). Khartum: Publications of the Bureau in Khartoum, 1954.
Elias (2014). See “References.”
Saleh (2015). See “References.”
Dictionaries
Littmann and Hofner (1961). See “References.”
Musā ʔĀron. Kǝbǝt-ḳālāt hǝgyā Tǝgre. Asmara: Ḥǝdri, 2005.
Texts
Conti Rossini, Carlo. “Tradizioni storiche dei Mensa.” Giornale della Società Asiatica
Italiana 14 (1901), 41–99.
Conti Rossini, Carlo. “Documenti per lo studio della lingua tigré.” Giornale della Società
Asiatica Italiana 16 (1903), 1–32.
Littmann (1910–1915). See “References.”
Mahammad (2007). See “References.”
Nöldeke, Theodor. “Tigre-Texte.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 4
(1890), 289–300.
Nöldeke, Theodor. “Ein neuer Tigre-Text.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 16 (1902), 65–78.
Nöldeke, Theodor. “Tigre-Texte.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 24 (1910), 286–300.
Nöldeke, Theodor. “Tigré-Lieder.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 31 (1918), 1–25.
Rodén, Karl G. Le Tribù dei Mensa. Asmara: Evangeliska Fosterlands-Stiftelsens
Förlags-expedition, 1913.
Sundström, G. R. “Some Tigré Texts with Transliteration and Translation.” Le Monde
Orientale 8 (1914), 1–15.
Overview articles
Bulakh, Maria. “Təgre.” Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, Vol. 4, edtied by Siegbert Uhlig,
Morin, Didier. “Tigre.” The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by
Stefan Weninger et al., 1142–52. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
Raz, Shlomo. “Tigre.” The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 446–56.
London: Routledge, 1997.
Saleh Mahmud Idris and Rainer Voigt. “Remarks on an Encyclopaedic Article on Tǝgre.”
Aethiopica 18 (2015), 231–42.
CHAPTER 8
TIGRINYA 1 MARIA BULAKHTIGRINYA
Maria Bulakh
1 INTRODUCTION
Tigrinya (self-name tɨgrɨɲɲa or k’ʷank’ʷa ħabəʃa) is an Ethio- Semitic language,
classified in Hetzron (1972: 7) as belonging, together with Geez and Tigre, to the
North Ethio-Semitic group. As argued in Bulakh and Kogan (2010), however, North
Ethio-Semitic is not a genetic group: its main features (preservation of bare pcl in
the main clause, productive “broken” plural, etc.) are retentions from the common
Ethio-Semitic stock (but cf. §7 on some lexical innovations), and the three languages,
left after splitting-off of Proto-South-Ethio-Semitic from Ethio-Semitic, must have
developed independently, although in close contact. For a map of the area of speakers,
see Map 8.1.
ERITREA
YEMEN
DJIBOUTI
ETHIOPIA
LEGEND
Tigrinya
MAP 8.1 THE TIGRINYA SPEECH AREA

Source: Adapted from Meyer (2016).
Tigrinya 175
The number of Tigrinya speakers was estimated at 10,000,000 in Voigt (2011b: 1172).
There are more than 4,300,000 native speakers in Ethiopia, most in Tigray region (2007
Census of Ethiopia, see Central Statistical Agency 2009) and more than 2,500,000 native
speakers in Eritrea. Tigrinya is the working language of Tigray government in Ethiopia
and one of the three working languages of the Eritrean government. Tigrinya is to some
extent preserved in Ethiopian and Eritrean diasporas in Israel, Europe and the USA. Most
Tigrinya speakers are Christians.
Tigrinya dialectology is in a rudimentary state. Northern (Eritrean) and southern dia-
lects are distinguished. The latter are marked by a considerable number of innovative fea-
tures likely developed under the influence of Amharic and/or neighboring Oromo (Voigt
2006, 2009, Fitzgerald 2006, Tsehaye Kiros Mengesha 2009).
There are also two varieties of standard language: the Eritrean (based on the Tigrinya
variety of Hamasen) and the Ethiopian (Tigray) Tigrinya. The most conspicuous differ-
ences lie in the domain of orthography and lexicon (Voigt 2011b).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Tigrinya employs the Ethiopian syllabary (see Chapter 6, §2), with some additional
graphemes to denote the sounds absent from Geez (see Table 8.1).
Modern written Tigrinya has developed rigid orthographic rules which strive for
one-to-one correspondence between the sounds and their graphic representations. Unlike
in Amharic and medieval Geez, the first order graphemes are consistently used to denote
Cə sequence, even with guttural consonants (ሐ ħə, አ ʔə, etc.). The historical phonetic
processes have made redundant in modern languages some graphemes of the Ethiopic
syllabary, such as ሠ, ፀ, ኀ, ኈ, since the respective consonants have merged with other
phonemes. In an earlier stage of written Tigrinya, the redundant graphemes were to some
extent employed as variants of other graphemes (ሠ/ሰ s, ኀ/ሐ ħ, ኀ/ኸ x and ኈ/ዀ xʷ), espe-
cially in Geezisms: ብዙኃን/ብዙሓን bɨzuħan ‘majority’. In modern Tigrinya orthography,
the redundant graphemes are usually avoided. The sound ʦ’ is normally written as ጸ in
modern Eritrean Tigrinya, and as ፀ in modern Ethiopian Tigrinya.
TABLE 8.1 TIGRINYA SYMBOLS ABSENT FROM GEEZ
ə u i a e ɨ o
ʃ ሸ ሹ ሺ ሻ ሼ ሽ ሾ
x’ ቐ ቑ ቒ ቓ ቔ ቕ ቖ
v ቨ ቩ ቪ ቫ ቬ ቭ ቮ
ʧ ቸ ቹ ቺ ቻ ቼ ች ቾ
ɲ ኘ ኙ ኚ ኛ ኜ ኝ ኞ
x ኸ ኹ ኺ ኻ ኼ ኽ ኾ
ʒ ዠ ዡ ዢ ዣ ዤ ዥ ዦ
ʤ ጀ ጁ ጂ ጃ ጄ ጅ ጆ
ʧ’ ጨ ጩ ጪ ጫ ጬ ጭ ጮ
xʷ’ ቘ – ቚ ቛ ቜ ቝ –
xʷ ዀ – ዂ ዃ ዄ ዅ –
176 Maria Bulakh
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonants
The consonantal system of Tigrinya is given in Table 8.2 (consonants with limited
distribution appear in parentheses). Tigrinya is one of the few modern Ethio-Semitic
languages (together with Tigre and Argobba of T’ollaha) which have preserved most
of the proto-Ethio-Semitic guttural consonants (only *x has merged with *ħ into ħ).
As elsewhere in Ethio-Semitic, the triad “voiced-voiceless-glottalized” is prominent
in Tigrinya.
The consonants p and v occur in loan words mostly from European languages, while ṗ
is restricted to Geezisms, ultimately going back to Greek borrowings: program ‘program’
(< Eng. program), junivərsiti ‘university’ (< Eng. university), p’ərak’lit’os ‘Paraclete,
Feast of the Paraclete’ (< Geez p’ara:k’lit’os). According to Tsehaye Teferra (1979: 13,
22), some speakers replace p and v by b.
Innovative phonemes mostly result from palatalization of sibilants (*s > ʃ, *z > ʒ/ǧ,
*ʦ’ > ʧ’). Although the phonemic status of the palatal consonants is confirmed by min-
imal pairs (such as ʦ’ɨwa ‘speech’ vs. ʧ’ɨwa ‘freeborn, noble’), free variation between
palatalized and non-palatalized consonants (most frequently between s and ʃ) is often
observed. Palatalization can be triggered by adjacent back vowels or the presence of labi-
als, labiovelars or the lateral approximant l (Voigt 1988), or by front vowels or the pala-
tal approximant j: sɨm/ʃɨm ‘name’, ħaddis/ ħaddɨʃ ‘new’, ħɨnʤɨʤ, hɨnʒiʒ, ħɨnziz ‘scarab
beetle’, ʃət’ə (root ʃjt’) ‘to sell’. Palatalization of s results in fricative ʃ, while the parallel
process of palatalization of z into ʒ is blurred by a synchronic merger between ʒ and ʤ. In
the modern language, ʒ usually appears as a free variant of ʤ (ʤəgna ‘hero’, alongside
less common ʒəgna); rarer are cases where ʒ is the default realization (mənʒərbəb ‘gut-
ter’, alongside less acceptable mənʤərbəb).
The unvoiced affricate ʧ, on the contrary, is perceived by the informants as dis-
tinct from ʃ. It is restricted to unadapted loans from Amharic, Italian, or English: luʧi
‘light’ < Ital. luce (in many other borrowings, original ʧ has been replaced by ʃ: cf. ʔoranʃi
‘orange’ < Ital. oranci, kəʃʃənə ‘to cook’ < Ital. cucina, marʃa ‘march’ < Ital. marcia, dolʃi
‘cake’ < Ital. dolce, etc.). In Th. Kane’s dictionary, free variation between ʧ and ʃ is often
TABLE 8.2 TIGRINYA CONSONANTS
Labials Alveolars Palatals Velars/ Labiovelars Gutturals

Uvulars
Pharyngeals Laryngeals
Plosives (p) b (p’) t dt’ k gk’ kʷ gʷ k’ʷ ʔ

Nasals m n (ɲ)
Trill r
Fricatives f (v) s z ʃ (ʒ) ħ ʕ h
Affricates ʦ’ (ʧ) ʤ ʧ’
Approximants w j
Lateral l
Approximant
Tigrinya 177
recorded for the loan words with original ʧ (as in məʃəm/məʧəm ‘moreover, however’ <
Amharic məʧəm). However, in the speech of my informant Təsfaldət Ħadgəmbəs, ʧ is
always distinct from ʃ: some of Kane’s examples are rejected by him (mɨʧuʔ ‘comfort-
able’ rather than mɨʧuʔ/mɨʃuʔ adduced in Kane 2000: 408, 425), while in other cases
variants with ʧ are discarded as Amharisms opposed to indigenous Tigrinya lexemes with
ʃ: dɨnnɨʃ ‘potato’ (vs. Amharic dɨnnɨʧ), ʃɨggɨr ‘problem’ (vs. Amharic ʧɨggɨr). It is difficult
to say whether ʃ in the latter group results from palatalization in autochtonous lexemes or
from a shift ʧ > ʃ in adapted borrowings.
The examples for palatalization of alveolar plosives and velars are not numerous:
ginʧɨr/gintir ‘a kind of pneumonia’, ʕamt’ək’o/ʕamʧ’ək’o ‘to crush’, k’ək’ɨħə/ʧ’əʧ’ħə ‘to
shell, husk corn’, k’ədədə/ʧ’ədədə ‘to tear, rip’.
There is no indigenous palatalization of n in Tigrinya. The consonant ɲ is restricted
to Amharic and Italian loans (including the suffix -əɲɲa borrowed from Amharic):
fələɲamo ‘carpenter’ < Ital. falegnamo; ħarbəɲɲa ‘patriot’ < Amharic arbəɲɲa, k’ɨɲ
gɨzat ‘colony’ < Amharic k’ɨɲ gɨzat (according to Tesfay Tewolde Yohannes 2002: 28,
ɲ is unpronounceable for many native speakers; in some texts, ɲ is rendered with the
combination jn).
Palatalization of l is unknown in Tigrinya.
Labiovelars occur mostly before a, i (kʷinat ‘war’, ʔakk’ʷariʦ’u ‘he made a shortcut’),
while in other positions they usually shift to velars, triggering labialization of the vowels
ə and ɨ (see §3.3): k’oriʦ’u {k’ʷəriʦ’u} ‘he cut’.
The consonants k, k’, kʷ, k’ʷ, b are subject to spirantization in post-vocalic position,
when non-geminated: zɨkrət [zɨxrǝt] ‘memory’, zəkakirom [zǝxaxirom] ‘they remem-
bered one another’ vs. zəkkiru [zǝkkiru] ‘he remembered’ (only spirantization of
velars is reflected in the standard orthography). The conditions for spirantization vary
across Tigrinya dialects, and there is a tendency to phonologization of the originally
allophonic opposition between spirantized and non-spirantized velars (Fitzgerald
2006).
3.2 Vowels
The proto-Ethio-Semitic seven-vowel system is well preserved in Tigrinya (see Table 8.3).
The only significant change is loss of length opposition: the Proto-Ethio-Semitic *a and
*a: have shifted to ə and a, respectively (in Ethiopian studies, half open central ə is
usually transcribed as ä). While ə and ɨ continue Semitic short vowels (*a and *i/*u,
respectively), the rest of the vowels go back to long vowels or diphthongs (i < *i:, u <
*u:, e < *aj, o < *aw, a < *a:). The opposition between historically short and long vowels
is significant for some morphological phenomena, such as the choice between patterns of
internal plural (§4.2.2.1).
TABLE 8.3 TIGRINYA VOWELS
i ɨ u
e ə o
a
178 Maria Bulakh
The opposition between i and ɨ, e and ə is neutralized in word-final position (Buck-

ley 1994: 5). Word-internally, these sounds are perceived as distinct from each other.
Some minimal pairs – admittedly, extremely rare – exist: kidan ‘testament’ vs. kɨdan
‘dress’, zema ‘church chant’ vs. zəma ‘brother-in-law’. Kane’s dictionary contains many
lexemes in which i and ɨ, e and ə are presented as free variants: bəggɨʕ/bəggiʕ ‘sheep’,
mes/məs ‘hydromel’. In the speech of my informants, usually one variant – bəggiʕ, mes –
was preferred, while the other was rejected (or acknowledged as rarer). Furthermore,
word-internal ɨ and ə are often assimilated to round vowels or to labiovelars (§3.3),
whereas i and e are not. Thus, i and ɨ, e and ə are to be treated as distinct phonemes, despite
the conspicuous weakening of opposition between them (at least in one Tigrinya dialect,
spoken in the region of Wajerat, total merger between these phonemes has occurred, with
the resulting five-vowel phonemic system; see Tsehaye Kiros Mengesha 2009).
The central vowels ɨ and ə are rounded in contact with w: wɨsəd [wʉsǝt] ‘take!’,
ʔaj-wəsədə-n [ʔajwɔsǝdǝn] ‘he did not take’.
As elsewhere in Ethio-Semitic, the vowel ɨ often alternates with zero if this does not
violate the rules of syllabic structure (§3.4): k’olʕu/k’olɨʕu {k’olaʕu} ‘children’. Minimal
pairs for opposition between ɨ and zero are extremely rare: (zɨ-)ʦ’əħafna ‘(that) we wrote’
vs. ʦ’əħafɨna ‘our writer’.
3.3 Phonemic alternations

The voiced consonants shift to unvoiced word-finally: zəməd [zǝmǝt] ‘relative’.
Word-internally, both regressive assimilation of voiced consonants to the following
unvoiced ones and progressive assimilation of unvoiced consonants to the preceding
voiced or glottalized consonants can be observed: {təzkar} tǝskar ‘commemorative ban-
quet’, but {fərədti} fǝrǝddi ‘judges’, {mələwət’ta} mǝlǝwǝtt’a ‘replacement’.
Labiovelars shift to velars if not before i or a. Their loss of the labial element triggers
the vocalic changes ə > o, ɨ > u. These changes are obligatory within the verbal base
if the relevant vowels are adjacent to the labiovelars: {kʷəlifu} kolifu ‘he interrupted’,
{mɨkʷlaf} muklaf ‘to interrupt’, {jɨsɨggʷɨm} jɨsuggum ‘he goes ahead’, {səggʷɨm} sog-
gum ‘go ahead!’. The same shifts are also possible in the vicinity of a surfacing labiove-
lar: {təsək’ʷira} təsok’ʷira ‘she was pierced’. Distant assimilation is also often observed
in roots containing underlying labiovelars: zorik’u/zərik’u ‘it leaked’, {ʔak’ʷʦ’ɨlti}
ʔak’ʦ’ulti ‘leaves’. The shift from labiovelar to velar within the verbal stem is also some-
times observed before i or a: {səggʷimu} soggimu ‘he went ahead’ (cf. {mɨsɨggʷam}
mɨsuggʷam ‘to go ahead’), ʦ’omik’a ‘she squeezed’. Labiovelars are sometimes pre-
served before a consonant: ʔagʷdilə ‘I subtracted’, {jɨdək’ʷso} jɨdok’ʷso ‘he grinds it’ (cf.
{jɨdəkk’ʷɨs} jɨdokk’us ‘he grinds’).
While in some roots the underlying labiovelar surfaces in certain verb forms or deriva-
tives (k’orəʦ’ə ‘to cut’ vs. ʔakk’ʷarəʦ’ə ‘to cause to cut to pieces; to break off’), in other
cases its presence is only shown by the interaction of the labialization and the morpho-
logical pattern: ʦ’omik’ə ‘I squeezed’, ʔajʦ’omok’ən ‘he did not squeeze’, muʦ’mak’
‘to squeeze’ (root {ʦ’mk’ʷ}). In fact, the above-mentioned alternations between
rounded/non-rounded vowels and velar/labiovelar consonants can be described as expo-
nents of the suprasegmental feature {labialization +} attributed to some roots.
Distant vocalic regressive assimilation of ə or ɨ to the rounded vowels o, u is also
observed: {səlus} solus ‘Tuesday’, {ʦ’əlot} ʦ’olot ‘prayer’ (cf. Tsehaye Teferra 1979:
Tigrinya 179
39). In speech of my informant Təsfaldət Ħadgəmbəs, regressive vocalic assimilation is

consistently applied to the verbal paradigm: jɨgəbra ‘they (f) do’ vs. jɨgobru ‘they (m) do’,
sɨtərani ‘protect (fpl) me!’ vs. sɨtoruni ‘protect (mpl) me!’.
The rules for vocalic changes in the vicinity of gutturals, historically phonemically
conditioned, have become morphophonemic rules in Tigrinya. Thus, the shift ə > a |
H_ is observed in the verbs with initial and second root guttural ({ħəlifu} ħalifu ‘he
passed’), but in the verbs with final root guttural it occurs only in some morphological
positions word-internally (səmiʕə ‘I heard’, səmiʕəjj-o ‘I heard him’, ʔaj-səmʕə-n ‘he
did not hear’, but ʔaj-səmʕa-nnɨ-n ‘he did not hear me’). The similar shift ə > a | _HC/#
is observed in all verbs containing gutturals ({nɨgzəʔ} nɨgzaʔ ‘let us buy!’). The rule of
vocalic assimilation across gutturals (ə > ɨ | _HV (V ≠ a, ə), ɨ > ə | _Ha/ə) is observed
in the verbs with medial guttural ({jɨsəʕʕɨl} jɨsɨʕɨl ‘he draws’, {sɨʕəl} saʕal ‘draw!’.
In the prefix of pcl, this rule results in free alternation between ɨ, ə, or a: {jɨħarrɨs}
jɨħarrɨs/jəħarrɨs/jaħarrɨs ‘he ploughs’. The shift from ə to ɨ in a penultimate syllable
before final Ha/ə (ə > ɨ | _Ha/ə#), with subsequent syncope of ɨ in open syllable (§3.2),
leads to a specific conjugation of verbs with final guttural: {ʔaj-bələʕə-n} ʔajbəlʕən ‘he
did not eat’.
On free alternation between palatal consonants and their non-palatal fricative cor-
relates in some roots cf. §3.1.
3.4 Syllabic structure and stress

According to Tsehaye Teferra (1979: 40–1), primary stress usually falls on the final syl-
lable in bisyllabic words, and on the penultimate syllabe in multisyllabic words: zəməd
[zǝ'mǝt] ‘relative’, ʔakeba [ʔa'xeßa] ‘meeting’. However, this rule is not consistently
observed in the speech of my informants (cf. kətəma [kǝtǝ'ma] ‘city’, məngɨsti [mǝngɨs'ti]
‘government’).
Tigrinya allows the following syllable structures: CVC, CV, sometimes also CCV(C).
Word-final clusters are not allowed and in the nominal domain are regularly avoided by
adding a final i: {mɨdr} mɨdri ‘earth’, {wərḥ} wərħi ‘moon’. Word-initial clusters are
restricted to biconsonantal combinations with second sonant: {bɨlǝʕ} blaʕ ‘eat!’. Other
word-initial and word-final clusters are limited to a few borrowings: sport ‘sport’ (< Eng.
sport). Open syllables with the vowel ɨ often lose the vowel if this does not create disal-
lowed clusters: {gəzaʔom} gəzɨʔom/gəzʔom ‘their house’.
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns and related entities
4.1.1 Independent pronouns
Independent pronouns of the 1st person preserve their Proto-Ethio-Semitic forms, whereas
the rest are formed by the base nɨss-(< *nafs-‘soul’) with argument indexes (as shown in
Table 8.4). The polite forms (usually used to address or refer to elderly people) are histor-
ically plural forms. The direct reflexes of Proto-Ethio-Semitic 2nd person pronouns (msg
ʔanta/ʔatta, fsg ʔanti/ʔatti, mpl ʔantum/ʔattum, fpl ʔantɨn/ʔattɨn) are used only as forms
of marked address: ʔanti nɨssɨki-mmo ħaggɨzɨ-nni 2fsg 2fsg-indeed help.imp:2fsg-obj.1sg
‘oh, will you (fsg) please help me’.
180 Maria Bulakh
TABLE 8.4 INDEPENDENT PRONOUNS
Singular Plural Polite
1 ʔanə nɨħna
2masc nɨssɨka nɨssɨkatkum (nɨssatkum) nɨssɨkum
2fem nɨssɨki nɨssɨkatkɨn (nɨssatkɨn) nɨssɨkɨn
3masc nɨssu nɨssatom nɨssom
3fem nɨssa nɨssatən nɨssən
TABLE 8.5 ARGUMENT INDEXES AND OBJECT INDEXES2
Argument (Possessive) Indexes Object Indexes

(Attached to Nouns or Prepositions) (Attached to Verbs)
singular plural singular plural
1 -əj -na -ni -na

2masc -ka -kum (-atkum/-katkum) -ka -kum (-katkum)
2fem -ki -kɨn (-atkɨn/-katkɨn) -ki -kɨn (-katkɨn)
3masc -u -om (-atom) -o -om (-atom)
3fem -a -ən (-atən) -a -ən (-atən)
4.1.2 Argument indexes and object indexes

Argument indexes and object indexes (see Table 8.5) are attached to nouns and verbs,
respectively, to encode pronominal possessor and object, respectively. Argument indexes
are also used with prepositions. Plural forms are often combined with a special plural suffix
-at-(or, in the 2nd person, ‑kat-), probably related to the nominal plural suffix -at (< *-a:t),
discussed in §4.2.2.2, as well as to the element -aʧ(ʧ)-in the Amharic plural argument and
object indexes -aʧʧɨhu (2pl), -aʧʧəw (3pl), on which see Chapter 9, Table 9.7.
Combinations of the possessive marker nat-and of the allative preposition nɨ-(before
indexes nɨʔa- or nɨʕa-) with argument indexes function as independent possessive pro-
nouns and object pronouns, respectively: nat-əj poss-1sg ‘mine’, nɨʔa-j obj-1sg ‘me’.
Argument indexes preceded by applicative marker -l- (-əll-) are attached to verbs, in
which case they refer to benefactive, recipient, malefactive, locative, ablative, instrumen-
tal or temporal arguments/adjuncts (which, if overtly present in the clause, are marked in
such cases as direct objects. See further Nazareth Amlesom Kifle 2011).
Attachment of object or applicative indexes to a verbal base is accompanied by morpho
phonological changes both in the base of the verb and in the index itself. On the changes
in the verbal base, see §4.4.3. Here, the changes in the object indexes and some insertions
between the verbal base and the object indexes are discussed.
Object indexes with initial consonants are attached to verbal bases with consonantal
Auslaut by means of a binding vowel -ə-(with pcl and pcs: tɨnəgr-ə-nni tell.pcl:2msg-ə-
obj.1sg ‘you (msg) tell me’; the binding vowel is optional before 2nd person indexes
attached to pcs) or -ɨ-(with 3fsg osc). The initial consonant of the object index is geminated
(nəgirka-nni tell.nsc:2msg-obj.1sg ‘you (msg) told me’, nəgiru-nni tell.nsc:3msg-obj.1sg
Tigrinya 181
‘he told me’) unless it follows a vowel -u or -a belonging to a plural 2/3 subject index
or to the singular 1 subject index (tɨnəgru-ni tell.pcl:2mpl-obj.1sg ‘you (mpl) tell me’,
jɨnəgra-ni tell.pcl:3fpl-obj.1sg ‘they (f) tell me’, nəgirkumu-ni tell.nsc:2mpl-obj.1sg ‘you
(mpl) told me’, zɨ-nəgərku-ka rel-tell.osc:1sg-obj.2msg ‘what I told you (msg)’).
Object indexes with initial vowels are attached to verbal forms with vocalic Auslaut by
means of a consonantal insertion (unless the final vowel of the verb is dropped or changed
to a semivowel; §4.4.3). Thus, indexes with initial vowel are attached to the 3fsg nsc
form by means of insertion of -tt-(nəgira-tt-o tell.nsc:3fsg-tt-obj.3msg ‘she told him’), to
the plural feminine subject indexes ending in -a-by means of insertion of -ʔ-(nɨgəra-ʔ-o
tell.imp:2fpl-ʔ-obj.3msg ‘tell (fpl) him!’, nəgirkɨna-ʔ-o tell.nsc:2fpl-ʔ-obj.3msg ‘you
(fpl) told him’),3 and to the subject indexes -ka, -na and the nsc 1sg index ‑ə, by means
of insertion of -jj- (nəgirə-jj-o tell.nsc:1sg-jj-obj.3msg ‘I told him’, ʔaj-nəgərka-jj-o-n
neg-tell.osc:2msg-jj-obj.3msg-circ ‘you (msg) did not tell him’).
The applicative marker -l-, when followed by a vowel, is geminated in the same posi-
tions as the initial consonant of object indexes4 (nəgirka-ll-u tell.nsc:2msg-appl-3msg
‘you (msg) told about him’, kɨ-tnəgr-əll-u ʔɨyy-a goal-tell.pcl:3fsg-appl-3msg cop-3fsg
‘she will tell about him’, but nəgirkumu-l-u tell.nsc:2mpl-appl-3msg ‘you (mpl) told about
him’, nəgirkɨna-l-u tell.nsc:2fpl-appl-3msg ‘you (fpl) told about him’).
The choice of plural object/argument indexes can be used to express respect, usually in
mentioning or addressing a person advanced in years:
ʕɨdmiʔ-ən səbʕa ʕamət ʔɨjj-u

age-poss.3pol.f seventy year cop-3msg
‘She (polite) is seventy years old’.
Tigrinya has two sets of demonstratives: proximal and distant (Table 8.6). For each set,
the basic (“short”) form can be expanded into “long” form by means of the corresponding
3rd person argument indexes. In some dialects, the msg long forms are subject to some
further modifications: ʔɨzi-ʔ-u/ʔɨti-ʔ-u can be contracted to ʔɨz-u/ʔɨt-u or ʔɨz-uj/ʔɨt-uj (the
latter probably a result of metathesis from ʔɨzi-j-u/ʔɨti-j-u < ʔɨzi-ʔ-u/ʔɨti-ʔ-u).
TABLE 8.6 DEMONSTRATIVES
Proximal singular plural
Short Long Short Long
masc ʔɨzi ʔɨziʔu ʔɨzom ʔɨziʔom/ʔɨziʔatom

fem ʔɨza ʔɨziʔa ʔɨzən ʔɨziʔən/ʔɨziʔatən
Distal singular plural
Short Long Short Long
masc ʔɨti ʔɨtiʔu ʔɨtom ʔɨtiʔom/ʔɨtiʔatom

fem ʔɨta ʔɨtiʔa ʔɨtən ʔɨtiʔən/ʔɨtiʔatən
182 Maria Bulakh
If a demonstrative follows another word, the initial syllable ʔɨ-is usually omitted: ʔɨzi
gəza dem.msg house ‘this house’ vs. ʔab-zi gəza loc-dem.msg house ‘in this house’.
Plural forms of demonstratives can be used as polite forms. The short forms of the
distal demonstrative can also be used as the definite article (§5.3).
4.1.4 Interrogatives
Interrogative pronouns include mən ‘who’, ʔɨntaj ‘what; what kind of’, ʔɨntawaj ‘which,
what kind of’, ʔajjənaj/ʔajjən ‘which’. The element -əj (< *ʔaj ‘which’) is combined with
various prepositions to form question words of location, direction, etc.: ʔabəj ‘where
(locative)’, nabəj ‘where (allative)’, kɨndəj ‘how much’, etc. The interrogative of time is
məʔaz ‘when’.
4.2 Nominals
Due to the process of substantivization, the distinction between nouns and adjectives is
blurred. Prototypical adjectives are inflected for gender and number (opposition in gender
usually exists only in singular forms); prototypical nouns are inflected for number only.
4.2.1 Gender
Tigrinya has two genders: masculine and feminine. Masculine is unmarked. Feminine is
often unmarked on primary nouns, but is regularly expressed by the reflex of the common
Semitic feminine marker -t (-ti after consonants) in agent nouns and some adjectives. In
adjectives with the pattern C1əC2(C2)iC3, the feminine is usually formed by means of
apophony (the pattern C1əC2(C2)aC3): bərrik ‘high’ (msg) – bərrak (fsg).
With some animate nouns, gender is determined by the biological sex: ʔabbo ‘father’
(m), ʔaddə ‘mother’ (f). Other animate nouns can refer to either male or female objects
and condition gender agreement, respectively: ʔɨti k’olʕa art:msg child ‘the child, the
little boy’ ~ ʔɨta k’olʕa art:fsg child ‘the little girl’. Some inanimate nouns have perma-
nent gender: məret ‘earth’ (m), baħri ‘sea’ (m), ʦ’əħaj ‘sun’ (f), məkkina ‘car’ (f). Many
inanimate nouns allow both masculine and feminine agreement (the latter usually adds
the semantics of diminutive): ʔɨzi t’awla ‘this table’ ~ ʔɨza t’awla ‘this (small) table’, ʔɨzi
ʔɨmni ‘this stone’ ~ ʔɨza ʔɨmni ‘this (small) stone’.
4.2.2 Number
4.2.2.1 Internal (“broken”) plural
One of the peculiar features shared by Tigrinya with Geez and Tigre within Ethio-Semitic
is the employment of the so-called internal or “broken” plural: marking of the plural by
a special pattern combined with the consonants of the singular form. The most widely
used plural patterns applied to nouns with tri-and quadriconsonantal singular forms
are shown in Table 8.7. Some of the Tigrinya plural patterns have parallels in other
North Ethio-Semitic languages and elsewhere in Semitic (ʔaC1C2aC3 < *ʔaC1C2a:C3,
C1əC2aC3ɨC4 < *C1aC2a:C3iC4), while others must belong to Ethio-Semitic innovations
(ʔaC1C2ɨC3ti, with a parallel in Geez; C1əC2əC3C3ɨC4, often a variant of C1əC2aC3ɨC4,
Tigrinya 183
TABLE 8.7 NOUN PLURAL PATTERNS
Plural Patterns Associated Singular Patterns Examples
ʔaC1C2aC3 C1ɨC2C3i, C1əC2əC3 ʔɨmni ‘stone’ ~ pl ʔaʔman, gərəb ‘tree’ ~ pl ʔagrab

ʔaC1C2ɨC3ti C1əC2C3i bək’li ‘mule’ ~ pl ʔabk’ɨlti
ʔaC1aC2ɨC3 C1əC2C3i, C1ɨC2C3i bək’li ‘mule’ ~ pl ʔabak’ɨl, nɨhbi ‘bee’ ~ pl ʔanahɨb
ʔaC1aC2ɨC3ti C1əC2C3i bək’li ‘mule’ ~ pl ʔabak’ɨlti
C1əC2aC3ɨC4 various types of bisyllabic kənfər ‘lip’ ~ pl kənafɨr, fɨnʤal ‘cup’ ~ pl fənaʤɨl
C1əC2əC3C3ɨC4 quadriradicals kənfər ‘lip’ ~ pl kənəffɨr
with a parallel in Tigre; a minor pattern ʔaC1C2uC3 with parallels in Geez and Tigre; see
Ratcliffe 1998: 186–8).
Among the rare patterns one should mention ʔaC1C2uC3 (as in ʕarki {ʕərk} ‘friend’ ~
pl ʔaʕruk, ħalək’a ‘commander’ ~ pl ʔaħluk’).
When the plural quadriradical patterns are applied to singular patterns with historically
long vowels (i, e, a, u, o), the vowels of the plural are usually modified (Palmer 1955):
t’ərmuz ‘bottle’ ~ pl t’əramuz, zənbil ‘palm-leaf basket’ ~ pl zənabil, wəngel ‘Gospel’
~ pl wənagil (modifications of the pattern C1əC2aC3ɨC4), wanʧ’ɨl ‘young baboon’ ~ pl
wanəʧʧ’ɨl (modification of the pattern C1əC2əC3C3ɨC4). This does not include singular
patterns with a in the second syllable: zəktam ‘orphan’ ~ pl zəkatɨm.
The labialization rules of alternation between velars/labiovelars, ɨ/u and ə/o (§3.3)
are operative in the application of plural patterns: mənkub {mənkʷɨb} ‘shoulder’ ~ pl
mənakub (C1əC2aC3ɨC4), dənk’oro ‘stupid; deaf’ ~ pl dənak’ur(ti) {dənak’ʷɨr(ti)}.
The internal plural of biconsonantal nouns is formed by expanding the consonantal
structure to triconsonantal by means of additional consonants w, t, or j: ʔid ‘hand, arm’ ~
pl ʔaʔdaw, ʦ’or ‘arms (military)’ ~ pl ʔaʦ’war, t’ub ‘breast’ ~ pl ʔat’bat, bet ‘house’ ~ pl
ʔabjat (all in the pattern ʔaC1C2aC3).
If the pattern of a triconsonantal noun contains a historically long vowel (i, e, a, u, o),
a quadriconsonantal plural pattern is usually chosen, with an additional consonant emerg-
ing instead of the vowel in question (j can be used instead of a front vowel, and w instead
of any vowel). The vowel of the first syllable in the plural either follows the vowel of
the pattern or repeats the vowel of the singular form: zɨban ‘back’ ~ pl zɨbawɨnti, bɨrur
‘silver’ ~ pl bərawɨr/bɨrawɨr (pattern C1əC2aC3ɨC4(ti)).
If the singular form has a, u or o in the Auslaut, the plural pattern C1əC2aC3ɨC4 is
realized as C1əC2aC3u (presumably < *C1əC2aC3ɨw), with variant form C1əC2aC3C3u:
wət’ot’o ‘goat more than a year old’ ~ pl wət’at’u, gawna ‘male baboon’ ~ pl gəwannu.
The vowel in the first syllable of the singular pattern is often copied into the plural pat-
tern: ʃant’a ‘bag’ ~ pl ʃanat’u, t’awla ‘table’ ~ pl t’əwalu/t’awalu, dibəla ‘billy goat’ ~
pl dibalu.
If the singular form ends in a non-epenthetic front vowel, the plural pattern C1əC2aC3ɨC4
is realized as C1əC2aC3i (presumably < *C1əC2aC3ɨj), with a variant form C1əC2əC3C3i:
sərre ‘trousers’ ~ pl sərari/sərərri.
If the singular form contains a geminated consonant, it can function as a sequence of
two root consonants, triggering the choice of a quadriradical plural pattern: dɨnnɨʃ ‘potato’
~ pl dənanɨʃ, t’əbbək’ ‘lizard’ ~ pl t’əbabɨk’. Sometimes the middle non-geminated con-
sonant is reduplicated in the plural pattern: təmən ‘snake’ ~ pl təmamɨn.
184 Maria Bulakh
4.2.2.2 External plural

The external plural marker is usually -at (-tat after vowels), historically derivable from
the Semitic plural feminine marker *-aːt, but synchronically employed both with mascu-
line and feminine nouns: k’ʷank’ʷa ‘language’ ~ pl k’ʷank’ʷa-tat, səb ‘man’ ~ pl səb-at.
The epenthetic ending -i appearing word-finally after a consonantal cluster (§3.4) can be
dropped or preserved (usually as ɨ) before the plural ending: wədd-i ‘boy’ ~ pl wədd-at,
ʦ’ɨfr-i ‘finger-nail’ ~ pl ʦ’ɨfr-ɨ-tat.
Tigrinya possesses several other external plural markers: -an, -o, -ot. The suffix -an is
restricted to Geezisms with certain patterns (mostly C1ɨC2(C2)uC3, C1aC2ɨC3, and adjec-
tives in -awi) and neologisms of the same structure: mɨhur ‘scholar’ ~ pl mɨhuran (< Geez
mɨhur), ʦ’adɨk’ ‘righteous’ ~ pl ʦ’adk’-an (< Geez ʦ’a:dɨk’), ʔadħari ‘one who delays
s.th.’ ~ pl ʔadħarj-an, ʕɨʃəlawi ‘infantile’ ~ pl ʕɨʃəlawj-an (the final i shift to j before
the plural ending). The suffix -o appears with some nominals formed after the pattern
C1əC2(C2)aC3i/ C1əC2(C2)aC3aj (ousting the final -i/-aj): fəradi ‘judge’ ~ pl fərado, dəra-
faj ‘singer’ ~ pl dərafo. The suffix -ot is limited to some nouns ending in -a, -aj, or -awaj,
ousting these elements: gojt-a ‘lord’ ~ pl gojt-ot, wat’-a ‘minstrel’ ~ pl wat’-ot, ʕakel-aj
‘left-handed’ ~ pl ʕakel-ot, daħr-awaj/daħrəw-aj ‘subsequent’ ~ pl daħr-ot/daħrəw-ot.
A productive plural suffix -ti, used with agent nouns ending in -aC3i (§4.2.3), trig-
gers the change a > ə in the penultimate syllable: ħalafi ‘responsible official, chief’ ~ pl
ħaləfti, tət’əkk’ami ‘user’ ~ pl tət’əkk’əmti. Historically this morpheme goes back to the
suffix of the plural pattern *C1aC2aC3t associated with the singular pattern of agent noun
*C1aC2a:C3i (cf. Ratcliffe 1998: 170–1 on this correlation in Geez).
4.2.3 Nominal derivative patterns

Deverbal derivation is mostly realized by consonantal-vocalic patterns. Monosyllable
Semitic patterns yield bisyllabic C1əC2C3i (< *C1aC2C3-) and C1ɨC2C3i (< *C1uC2C3-,
*C1iC2C3-) due to the prohibition of word-final clusters (see §3.4): dərfi ‘song’ < dərəfə
‘to sing secular songs’, tɨrfi ‘remainder’ < tərəfə ‘to remain’. The most common bisyllabic
patterns without external affixes, derived from the basic stem, are C1əC2əC3, C1ɨC2əC3,
C1əC2aC3, C1ɨC2aC3: kəsət ‘diligence’ < kəsətə ‘to be diligent’, kɨbəd ‘weight’ < kəbədə
‘to be heavy’, dənab ‘penalty’ < dənəbə ‘to penalize’, ʦ’ɨgab ‘satiety’ < ʦ’əgəbə ‘to be
satiated’. Some patterns with gemination of the second root consonant are used for der-
ivations from the basic stem: C1ɨC2C2aC3 (ʦ’ɨrrab ‘chip, splinter’ < ʦ’ərəbə ‘to hack, to
work with wood’), C1ɨC2C2ɨC3 (dɨffɨʔ ‘push, shove’ < dəfʔə ‘to shove’).
The most commonly used patterns with suffixes are C1ɨC2C3o (wɨsdo ‘amount taken’
< wəsədə ‘to take’), C1ɨC2C3a (ʕɨlba ‘landing’ < ʕaləbə ‘to alight (bird), to land (plane)),
C1əC2əC3a (wək’əsa ‘reproach’ < wək’əsə ‘to reproach’), C1ɨC2C3ət (wɨrsət ‘confisca-
tion’ < wərəsə ‘to confiscate’), C1əC2əC3o (mək’əlo ‘part, portion’ < mək’ələ ‘to divide’),
C1ɨC2C3an (t’ɨlman ‘betrayal’ < t’ələmə ‘to fail to keep one’s word’), C1əC2C3ənna
(dɨrk’ɨnna ‘dryness’ < dərək’ə ‘to be dry’), C1əC2aC3ito (dənanito ‘one who goes about
with bowed head’ < dənənə ‘to bow, incline the head’), C1ɨC2C2ɨC3at (fɨrrɨyat ‘product’
< fərəyə ‘to bear fruit’), C1ɨC2C2ɨC3it (wɨʦʦ’ɨʔit ‘result’ < wəʦ’ʔə ‘to go out’).
Several derivative patterns employ prefix mə- (agent nouns with the same prefix are
treated further in this section): məC1C2əC3, məC1C2əC3ti (mədfən ‘kind of trap or noose, pit,
pitfall’ < dəfənə ‘to cover up’, məgrəfti ‘whip’ < gərəfə ‘to whip’). Another productive pat-
tern with prefix is tɨC1C2ɨC3ti (tɨʕzɨrti ‘disappearance’ < təʕazrə ‘to disappear from view’).
Tigrinya 185
Most of the aforementioned patterns are used to derive abstract nouns, sometimes with
further lexically determined semantic shifts. Only some of them are regularly used with
specific meanings. Thus, words with patterns C1ɨC2C2aC3 and C1ɨC2C2ɨC3it usually designate
result, product of action, whereas məC1C2əC3 is often used to form names of instrument.
There are also two special patterns – ʔaC1C1aC2ɨC3a and ʔaC1C1əC2aC2ɨC3a – which are used
exclusively with the meaning ‘manner of action’ (ʔaggabɨra ‘manner of doing’ < gəbərə ‘to
do’). The pattern məC1C2əC3i is used to form nouns of place, instrument, cause, etc. (məksəsi
‘reason for accusing; court’ < kəsəsə ‘to accuse’). Finally, the pattern C1əC2aC3i is used to
form nomina agentis from the basic stem (kəsari ‘bankrupt’ < kəsərə ‘to go bankrupt’).
Derivatives from non-basic stems as well as from quadriradical verbs employ some of
the above-mentioned patterns with corresponding adjustments. Thus, the pattern of agent
noun C1əC2aC3i is regularly applied to any derived stem: the agent noun is derived from
the base of osc by means of changing the penultimate vowel to -a- and adding a final -i
(məwwasi ‘beginner’ < məwwəsə ‘to begin’, təfəttani ‘one who is tested or examined’ <
təfəttənə ‘to be tested’, ʔaʦʦ’əbabak’i ‘decorator’ < ʔaʦʦ’əbabək’ə ‘to embellish’). In the
same way the pattern məC1C2əC3i, when applied to derived stems, can be reinterpreted as
the circumfix mə- . . . -i (məfəttəʃi ‘means or reason for searching; instrument for search-
ing’ < fəttəʃə ‘to search’, məggadəmi ‘place for lying down’ < təgadəmə ‘to lie down)’.
The most common patterns used for derivation of adjectives from the basic stem are
shown in Table 8.8.
Suffixes are widely used in denominal derivation. The most commonly used suffixes
with abstract meaning are -(ɨ)nnət and -ta, the latter mostly used with lexical elements
of compound verbs (ʕalet-ɨnnət ‘racism’ < ʕalet ‘race, kind’, suk’-ta ‘silence’ < suk’ bələ
‘to be silent’). Denominal adjectives can be formed with the suffixes -(ə)ɲɲa/-(ə)jna
(< Amharic; t’ənk’əɲɲa ‘quarrelsome’ < t’ənk’i ‘source of enmity’), -awi (< Geez;
k’ɨrʦ’awi ‘formal, structural’ < k’ɨrʦ’i ‘shape, form, structure’), -aj (ħamədaj ‘ashen,
ash-colored, earth-colored’ < ħaməd ‘earth’), -am (saʕram ‘grassy’ < saʕri ‘grass’).
The prefix zəj-(going back to relativizer zɨ-preceding the negative marker ʔaj-) is used
to form antonyms: zəj-ħɨggus ‘unhappy’ < ħɨggus ‘happy’.
Other morphological derivative means in the nominal domain include compounding
and a number of affixes borrowed from Geez.
4.3 Numerals
With the exception of ‘one’ (m ħadə vs. f ħanti), cardinal numerals in Tigrinya are
not inflected for gender: kɨlɨttə ‘two’, sələstə ‘three’, ʔarbaʕtə ‘four’, ħammuʃtə ‘five’,
TABLE 8.8 DERIVATION OF ADJECTIVES
Masculine Feminine Example Source
C1ɨC2uC3 C1ɨC2ɨC3ti ʦ’ɨruy ‘clean’ ʦ’ərəyə ‘to be clean’

C1əC2iC3 C1əC2C2aC3 kərir ‘hard and round’ kərərə ‘to be hard and round (stone)’
C1əC2C2iC3 C1əC2C2aC3 ʦ’əbbib ‘narrow’ ʦ’əbəbə ‘to be narrow’
C1ɨC2C2aC3 ħɨmmak’ ‘ugly’ ħamək’ə ‘to be bad, ugly’
C1əC2aC3 kənad ‘short (person)’ kənədə ‘to be short, not to grow’
C1əC2C2aC3 dəffar ‘bold, daring’ dəfərə ‘to be bold, daring’
C1əC2əC3 sənəf ‘lazy’ sənəfə ‘to be lazy’
186 Maria Bulakh
ʃɨdɨʃtə/ʃudduʃtə ‘six’, ʃobʕattə/ʃoʕattə ‘seven’, ʃommontə/ʃomməntə ‘eight’, tɨʃʕattə ‘nine’,

ʕassərtə ‘ten’. The second decade is formed by the numeral ʕassərtə ‘ten’ (optionally
attaching a final ‑w) followed by the single number: ʕassərtə(w) ħadə ‘eleven’, ʕassərtə(w)
kɨlɨttə ‘twelve’, etc.
The tens are ʕɨsra ‘twenty’, səlasa ‘thirty’, ʔarbaʕa ‘forty’, ħamsa ‘fifty’, sɨssa ‘sixty’,
səbʕa ‘seventy’, səmanja ‘eighty’, təsʕa ‘ninety’. Complex numerals after 20 are names
of tens and single numbers connected with the conjunction -(ɨ)n. . . -(ɨ)n ‘and’: ʕɨsra-n
ħadə-n ‘twenty-one’, etc.
The ordinal numeral for ‘first’ is either məʤəmmərɨja (< Amharic məʤəmmərɨja
‘beginning; first’) or fələmaj/falmaj (f fələməjti/falməjti). The ordinal numeral for ‘sec-
ond’ is either kalʔaj (f kalʔajti) or kɨlɨttəjna (undoubtedly under the influence of the
Amharic suffix ‑əɲɲa used inter alia to form ordinal numerals). For the rest of ordinal
numerals of the first decade the pattern C1aC2C3aj (f C1aC2C3əjti) is used: salsaj ‘third’,
f salsəjti, etc. The ordinal numerals above ten are formed with the element məbbəl: məb-
bəl ʕassərtə kɨlɨttə ‘twelfth’ (for the second decade, the suffix -əjna can alternatively be
employed to form ordinal numerals).
4.4 Verbs
The classical Semitic triconsonantal verbal roots preserve their prominence in Tigrinya,
despite the growing importance of quadriradical and quinqueradical verbs as well as of
compound verbs (consisting of an indeclinable lexical part and of the auxiliary, typi-
cally the verb bələ ‘to say’). The number of biconsonantal verbs is insignificant, but they
belong to the core vocabulary (ħazə ‘to take’, habə ‘to give’, bələ ‘to say’).
4.4.1 TAM categories and their exponents

Like all Ethio-Semitic languages, Tigrinya distinguishes between the three basic conjuga-
tional paradigms which employ three distinct bases and two sets of subject indexes: (old)
suffix conjugation (osc), long prefix conjugation (pcl), and short prefix conjugation (pcs).
pcl is the exponent of the imperfective, pcs of the jussive, whereas osc is used with the
meaning of perfective, but limited to the morphosyntactic contexts of negation and subor-
dinate forms. A fourth base (with a special set of subject indexes) was originally used to
form converbs only (subordinate verbal forms used in adverbial function; cf. Haspelmath
1995), but innovative employment of converbs as sentence heads has led to the emergence
of a new verbal category. Originally this category was in opposition to osc as the exponent
of resultative (Voigt 1977: 143), but in the modern spoken language it has ousted osc
from the non-negated main sentences, taking over its perfective meaning.5 The present
chapter will distinguish between the converb proper and the innovative category with per-
fective meaning which formally coincides with the paradigm of a converb; the latter will
be referred to as new suffix conjugation (nsc, in opposition to old suffix conjugation, osc).
As in Proto-Ethio-Semitic, the non-negated imperative employs the base of pcs but
lacks the personal prefixes, whereas prohibition is expressed by negated forms of pcs.
4.4.2 Subject indexes

In Tables 8.9–8.13, the paradigms of osc, nsc/converb, pcl, pcs and imperative are given
for the basic stem (sample verb nəgərə ‘to say’).6
TABLE 8.9 OLD SUFFIX CONJUGATION (osc)
Singular Plural
1 nəgərku nəgərna
2masc nəgərka nəgərkum
2fem nəgərki nəgərkɨn
3masc nəgərə nəgəru
3fem nəgərət nəgəra
TABLE 8.10 NEW SUFFIX CONJUGATION (nsc)/CONVERB
Singular Plural
1 nəgirə nəgirna
2masc nəgirka nəgirkum
2fem nəgirki nəgirkɨn
3masc nəgiru nəgirom
3fem nəgira nəgirən
TABLE 8.11 LONG PREFIX CONJUGATION (pcl)
Singular Plural
1 ʔɨnəggɨr7 nɨnəggɨr
2masc tɨnəggɨr tɨnəgru
2fem tɨnəgri tɨnəgra
3masc jɨnəggɨr jɨnəgru
3fem tɨnəggɨr jɨnəgra
TABLE 8.12 SHORT PREFIX CONJUGATION (pcs)8
Singular Plural
1 ʔɨngər nɨngər
2masc tɨngər tɨngəru
2fem tɨngəri tɨngəra
3masc jɨngər jɨngəru
3fem tɨngər jɨngəra
TABLE 8.13 IMPERATIVE
Singular Plural
masc nɨgər nɨgəru

fem nɨgəri nɨgəra
188 Maria Bulakh
TABLE 8.14 COPULA ʔƗJJU
Singular Plural
1 ʔɨjjə ʔina
2masc ʔika ʔikum
2fem ʔiki ʔikɨn
3masc ʔɨjju ʔɨjjom
3fem ʔɨjja ʔɨjjən
Plural subject indexes are also used to express respect (see also §§4.1.2, 4.1.3):
ʔabbo-ka ʔabəj jɨnəbru

father-poss.2msg where live.pcl:3pol.m
‘Where does your father live?’
The equative copula ʔɨjju (Table 8.14) takes the same set of subject indexes as the nsc
(the base is ʔɨjj-before consonants and ʔi-before vowels).
The copula can be merged with the preceding word by means of the omission of the
initial ʔ- or ʔɨ(j)-/ʔi-: dəħan d-ika well q-cop.2msg ‘How are you?’ (Lit. ‘Are you well?’),
roma ʦ’ɨbbɨk’ti kətəma-jja Rome good-fsg city-cop.3fsg ‘Rome is a beautiful city’.
4.4.3 Verbal bases and subject indexes before object and applicative indexes
Before object and applicative indexes, the base of the pcl of the basic stem has the shape
C1əC2C3-: jɨnəgr-o ‘he tells him’.
Before an object/applicative index with initial vowel, the osc 3msg subject index -ə
is dropped, and the vowels -i, -u belonging to the subject indexes are changed to -ɨj, -ɨw
({ʔaj-nəgərə-o-n} ʔajnəgəron ‘he did not tell him’, {ʔaj-nəgərku-o-n} ʔajnəgərkɨwon ‘I
did not tell him’).
The final consonant of the verbal bases of pcs and 3fsg osc is geminated before an
object index with initial vowel: jɨngərr-a ‘let him tell her!’, ʔaj-nəgərətt-o-n ‘she did not
tell him’. The base of pcs of verbs with final gutturals attaches object indexes with initial
vowels by means of the insertion -ajj-: ʔaj-tɨfrɨh-ajj-o neg-fear.pcs:2msg-ajj-obj.3msg ‘do
not be afraid of him!’.
Subject indexes - om, - kum, -ən, - kɨn before object/ applicative indexes have the
forms -omu- (nəgiromu-ni ‘they (m) told me’), -kumu- (ʔajnəgərkumu-nɨ-n ‘you (mpl)
did not tell me’), -əna- (nəgirəna-ni ‘they (f) told me’), -kɨna- (nəgirkɨna-ni ‘you (fpl)
told me’). The object/applicative indexes with initial vowels are attached to these forms
according to the same rules as outlined above and in §4.1.2 (-kɨna-, -əna-may be fur-
ther reduced to -kɨn(ɨ)-, -ən(ɨ)-): nəgirom ‘they (m) told’ vs. nəgiromɨw-o ‘they (m) told
him’, zɨ-rəkəbkum ‘what you (mpl) have found’ vs. zɨ-rəkəbkumɨw-o ‘what you (mpl)
have found’9, nəgirən ‘they (f) told’ vs. nəgirəna-ʔ-o/nəgirənɨ-ʔ-o/nəgirən-ʔ-o ‘they (f)
told him’. The word-internal forms of the subject indexes -omu-, -kumu-, -kɨna-are more
archaic than the word-final forms: the presence of the vowels -u (< *uː), -a (< *aː) is
confirmed by comparative evidence from other Semitic languages (see, e.g., Goldenberg
2012: 88–9), including Geez (cf. Geez subject indexes of 2mpl ‑kɨmu, 2fpl -kɨnaː-, the
latter found before object indexes only).
Tigrinya 189
4.4.4 Verbal stems
As in most Ethio-Semitic languages, verbal stems of triradical verbs are formed by four sets
of bases, labeled A (osc base C1əC2əC3), B (osc base C1əC2C2əC3), C (osc base C1aC2əC3),
D (osc base C1əC2aC2əC3ə), which can be expanded with a number of derivative prefixes
(ʔa-, tə-, ʔaC-, where C indicates gemination of the first consonant of the root), hence the
stems can be conveniently labeled as 0A, ʔa-A, tə-A, etc. The stems 0B and 0C (compara-
ble to “intensive” and “conative” stems elsewhere in Semitic) have lost their original deriv-
ative functions, and synchronically non-derived triradical verbs are distributed between 0A,
0B and 0C.10 The principal derivative functions of other stems are summed up in Table 8.15,
where for each stem 3msg forms of sample verbs are adduced.
4.4.5 Non-finite verbal forms

The only non-finite verbal form in Tigrinya is infinitive, with the pattern mɨC1C2aC3
for the basic stem (on the infinitival patterns used with various stems, see Table 8.15).
The function of participles is taken over by the relativized verbal forms, marked by the
relativizer z(ɨ)-: z-ɨməʦʦ’ɨʔ rel-come.pcl:3msg ‘who comes (m)’. The allomorph ʔɨ-
appears before t-prefixes of derived stems and before the subject indexes starting with
t- and n- and triggers the gemination of the first consonant of the prefix: ʔɨ-ttɨməʦʦ’ɨʔ
rel-come.pcl:3fsg ‘who comes (f)’.
4.5 Adpositions/adverbs
4.5.1 Adpositions
Adpositions are mostly prepositions and precede the first constituent of the noun phrase:
ʔab naj ʔabboʔ-u dukkʷan loc gen father-poss.3msg shop ‘in his father’s shop’.
Prepositions can attach argument indexes (see Table 8.5), before which the base of the
preposition is often changed: mɨs ‘with’ ~ mɨsʔ-u com-3msg ‘with him’, mɨsa-j com-1sg
‘with me’.
Examples of compound prepositions include nab ‘towards’ (< nɨ- ‘towards’ + ʔab-
‘in’), kab ‘from’ (< *kɨ-‘from’, ʔab-‘in’). Prepositions are sometimes derived from fos-
silized prepositional phrases: bɨ-z-əj ins-rel-neg ‘without’, bɨ-zaʕba ins-issue ‘about’.
Some prepositions are derived from verbal roots by means of nominal patterns: k’ɨdmi
‘in front of’, tɨħti ‘below’. Some of them can be used as adverbs as well: wɨʃt’i ‘in, inside
of; inside’, wəʦ’aʔi ‘out of; outside, abroad’.
Circumpositions are rare: bɨ- . . . -gize ‘during the time of’, bɨ-. . . -mɨknɨyat ‘because of’.
4.5.2 Adverbs
Non-derived adverbs are rare: ħɨʤi ‘now’, tɨmali ‘yesterday’. Adverbs derived from ver-
bal roots can take nominal patterns (see also §4.5.1): k’ɨdmit ‘in front’, taħtay ‘down-
stairs’. Some adverbs go back to prepositional phrases: ʔab-zi loc-dem.3msg ‘here’,
dɨħriʔ-u after-3msg ‘afterwards’, bɨ-t’aʕmi ins-taste ‘very’.
Nominals indicating time can be used as adverbial phrases: mɨʃət ‘evening; in the eve-
ning’, ʕarbi ‘Friday; on Friday’. Adverbials of time indicating periodicity can be formed
TABLE 8.15 VERB STEM FORMS AND FUNCTIONS
osc pcl pcs Converb/nsc Infinitive Typical Semantics
0A C1əC2əC3ə jɨC1əC2C2ɨC3 jɨC1C2əC3 C1əC2iC3u mɨC1C2aC3 non-derived

Ex.: ‘to declare’ gələʦ’ə jɨgəllɨʦ’ jɨgləʦ’ gəliʦ’u mɨglaʦ’
0B C1əC2C2əC3ə jɨC1ɨC2C2ɨC3 jɨC1əC2C2ɨC3 C1əC2C2ɨC3u mɨC1ɨC2C2aC3 non-derived
Ex.: ‘to try’ fəttənə jɨfɨttɨn jɨfəttɨn fəttinu mɨfɨttan
0C C1aC2əC3ə jɨC1aC2ɨC3 jɨC1aC2ɨC3 C1aC2iC3u mɨC1(ɨ)C2aC3 non-derived
Ex.: ‘to miss, be nafək’ə jɨnafɨk’ jɨnafɨk’ nafik’u mɨnfak’
nostalgic’
0D C1əC2aC2əC3ə jɨC1əC2aC2ɨC3 jɨC1əC2aC2ɨC3 C1əC2aC2iC3u mɨC1ɨC2ɨC2aC3 iterative, attenuative
and related meanings
Ex.: ‘to carve a little’ k’ərarəʦ’ə jɨk’ərarɨʦ’ jɨk’ərarɨʦ’ k’ərariʦ’u mɨk’ɨrɨraʦ’
ʔa-A ʔaC1C2əC3ə yəC1ɨC2C2ɨC3 jəC1C2ɨC3 ʔaC1C2iC3u mɨC1C2aC3 causative to 0A
Ex.: ‘to tire’ ʔadkəmə jədɨkkɨm jədkɨm ʔadkimu mɨdkam
ʔa-B ʔaC1əC2C2əC3ə jəC1əC2C2ɨC3 jəC1əC2C2ɨC3 ʔaC1əC2C2iC3u mɨC1ɨC2C2aC3 causative to 0B
Ex.: ‘to cause distress’ ʔaʃəggərə jəʃəggɨr jəʃəggɨr ʔaʃəggiru mɨʃɨggar
ʔa-C ʔaC1aC2əC3ə jəC1aC2ɨC3 jəC1aC2ɨC3 ʔaC1aC2iC3u mɨC1C2aC3 causative to 0C
Ex.: ‘to bring together, ʔadarəgə jədarɨg jədarɨg ʔadarigu mɨdrag
to confront with each
other’
ʔa-D ʔaC1əC2aC2əC3ə11 jəC1əC2aC2ɨC3 jəC1əC2aC2ɨC3 ʔaC1əC2aC2iC3u mɨC1ɨC2ɨC2aC3 causative to 0D/iterative
or attenuative to ʔa-C
Ex.: ‘to make crumble ʔafərarəsə jəfərarɨs jəfərarɨs ʔafərarisu mɨfɨrɨras
here and there’
tə-A təC1əC2C3ə/tə C1əC2əC3ə jɨC1ɨC2C2əC3 jɨC1C1əC2əC3 təC1əC2iC3u mɨC1C2aC3 passive/reflexive,
usually to 0A or to ʔa-A
Ex.: ‘to be stolen’ təsərk’ə/təsərək’ə jɨsɨrrək’ jɨssərək’ təsərik’u mɨsrak’
tə-B təC1əC2C2əC3ə jɨC1ɨC2C2əC3 jɨC1C1əC2C2əC3 təC1əC2C2iC3u mɨC1ɨC2C2aC3 passive/reflexive,
usually to 0B or ʔa-B
Ex.: ‘to be frightened’ təʃəbbərə jɨʃɨbbər jɨʃʃəbbər təʃəbbiru mɨʃɨbbar
tə-C təC1aC2əC3ə jɨC1C1aC2əC3 yɨC1C1aC2əC3 təC1aC2iC3u mɨC1C1ɨC2aC3 reciprocal; passive/
reflexive to 0C
Ex.: ‘to meet each tərakəbə jɨrrakəb jɨrrakəb tərakibu mɨrrɨkab
other’
tə-D təC1əC2aC2əC3ə jɨC1C1əC2aC2əC3 jɨC1C1əC2aC2əC3 təC1əC2aC2iC3u mɨC1C1ɨC2ɨC2aC3 passive/reflexive to 0D;
reciprocal; iterative to
tə-A, tə-B, tə-C
Ex.: ‘to go to and fro’ təməlaləsə jɨmməlaləs jɨmməlaləs təməlalisu mɨmmɨlɨlas
ʔaC-C ʔaC1C1aC2əC3ə jəC1C1aC2ɨC3 jəC1C1aC2ɨC3 ʔaC1C1aC2iC3u mɨC1C1ɨC2aC3 adjutative; causative
to tə-C
Ex.: ‘to cause, allow ʔazzarəbə jəzzarɨb jəzzarɨb ʔazzaribu mɨzzɨrab
to speak’
ʔaС-D ʔaC1C1əC2aC2əC3ə jəC1C1əC2aC2ɨC3 jəC1C1əC2aC2ɨC3 ʔaC1C1əC2aC2iC3u mɨC1C1ɨC2ɨC2aC3 adjutative; causative
to tə-D
Ex.: ‘to cause to ʔakk’ədadəmə jəkk’ədadɨm jəkk’ədadɨm ʔakk’ədadimu mɨkk’ɨdɨdam
compete’
192 Maria Bulakh
by reduplication or by the adjectival suffix -awi: ʕarbi ‘every Friday’, mɨʃətawi ‘every
evening’.
5 SYNTAX
In the domain of syntax Tigrinya is characterized by two major innovations shared by
other modern Ethio-Semitic languages: shift from right-branching to left-branching syn-
tax, and wide use of cleft sentences. There is no formal opposition between verbal and
non-verbal predication: the inflected copula ʔɨjju (§4.4.2) takes over the syntactic proper-
ties of a verbal head in clauses with non-verbal predication.

Tigrinya, like other Semitic languages, is a pro-drop language:
ʦ’ɨbaħ nab gəza-ka kəm-gaʃa k-ɨməʦʦ’ɨʔ ʔɨjjə

tomorrow all house- poss.2msg like-
guest
goal-come.pcl:1sg
cop:1sg
‘Tomorrow I will come to you as a guest.’
The left-branching syntax is displayed, at the sentential level, by the SOV word order:
jonas hijab nɨ-gʷal ʕark-u gəziʔu-ll-a

Yonas present all-daughter friend-poss.3msg buy.nsc:3msg-appl-3fsg
‘Yonas bought a present for his friend’s daughter.’
At the phrasal level, the dependent constituent usually precedes the head:
sənəf səb
lazy man
‘A lazy man’.
ʔɨziʔən ʕabbaj səbəjti

dem.pol.f old.fsg woman
‘This old woman’.
ʔab wəʦ’aʔi z-ɨrɨkkəba ʧ’ənafɨr-u

loc abroad rel-be.situated.pcl:3fpl branch.pl-poss.3msg
‘Its branches (filials) which are situated abroad.’
Demonstratives precede the head noun, but can optionally be repeated after it (a fea-
ture shared with the neighboring Tigre).
ʔɨza tɨkal
dem.fsg factory
‘This factory’.
ʔɨzi səbʔay-zi
dem.msg man- dem.msg
‘This man’.
Tigrinya 193
Attributive possession is expressed by several syntactic constructions (see Voigt 2003).

The asyndetic construction (with an exact parallel in Tigre, both corresponding to the
synthetic construction in Geez, on which see Chapter 6, §5.2) is formed by the mere jux-
taposition of the possessor and possessee, with the rigid word order “head-dependent”:
ħalafi maʔkəl t’ɨʕna barəntu

head center health Barentu
‘The head of the health center of Barentu’.
The construction with genitive marker nay allows both “head-

dependent” and
“dependent-head” word order:
naj bet maʔsərti ħaləfti

gen house imprisonment head.pl
‘The heads of the prison’.
tarik naj bahlɨ-n lɨmdɨ-n

history gen culture-and custom-and
‘The history of culture and custom’.
In modern spoken Tigrinya, the head of the genitive marker nay can be additionally
marked by the possessive marker agreeing with the dependent constituent:
naj jowhannɨs ʕabbaj-u

gen Yohannes grandmother-poss.3msg
‘Yohannes’s grandmother’.

The clauses with equative or attributive predication are formed with the copula ʔɨjju (cf.
§4.4.2). The negative osc forms of the verb konə ‘to be’ serve as its negative counterpart.
ʔɨziʔom ʕabi səbʔay ʔabbəħago-j ʔɨjj-om

dem.pol.m old.msg man grandfather-poss.1sg cop-3pol.m
‘This old man is my grandfather.’
naj jowhannɨs məmhɨr nɨfuʕ ʔɨjju

gen Yohannes teacher clever.msg cop:3msg
‘Yohannes’s teacher is clever.’
ʔɨziʔa gʷal ʦ’ɨbbɨk’ti ʔaj-konət-ɨn

dem.fsg girl good.fsg neg-be.osc:3fsg-circ
‘This girl is not pretty.’
Existence is expressed by the locative copular verb ʔallo (negative yəllən), which takes
the osc subject indexes:
ʔab mongo-na sərək’ti ʔalləwu

loc among-1pl thief.pl loc.osc:3mpl
‘There are thieves among us.’
194 Maria Bulakh
ʔab ʕaləm z-əygagə səb yəllən

loc world rel-neg:err.pcl:3msg man loc:neg
‘There is no man without fault in the world.’
Predicative possession is expressed by the locative copular verb whose subject index
is co-referent with the possessee, and object index with the possessor:
ʔanə ħafti ʔallatɨ-nni

1sg sister be.osc:3fsg-obj.1sg
‘I have a sister.’
For the negation of predicative possession, a special negative possessive copula

yəbɨllun is employed:
ʔanə səbəjti yəbɨlləjɨn

1sg wife neg.poss:1sg
‘I have no wife.’
Cleft sentences are widely used, with the equative copula, which agrees in gender,
person and number with the subject of the sentence, placed after the focused constituent
or at the end of the sentence. The verbal predicate is relativized unless it is marked for nsc
(nsc is incompatible with the relativizer; see §5.5):
bəʕalbet-əj ʦ’ɨbaħ ʔɨjj-u z-ɨkəjjɨd

husband-poss.1sg tomorrow cop-3msg rel-go.pcl:3msg
‘It is tomorrow that my husband is going away.’
ʔɨzi bahli ʔɨzi kab k’ədəm zɨ-ʦ’ənħə-ju

dem.msg tradition dem.msg abl formerly rel-remain-cop:3msg
‘It is since earlier times that this tradition has lasted.’
habtom wəddɨ-na kəʔa lɨkkɨʕ naj ʔabbo-j

Habtom son- poss.1pl also exactly gen father-poss.1sg
bahrɨ-n t’əbaj-ɨn ʔɨjju wəsidu
nature-and temperament-and cop:3msg take.nsc:3msg
‘It is exactly the nature and temperament of my father that our son Habtom has taken.’
5.3 Definiteness
The short forms of the distal demonstratives are used as definite article: hagər ‘country’ –
ʔɨta hagər ‘the country’. Indefiniteness is usually unmarked, but the numeral ħadə ‘one’
can be used to express this meaning: ħadə zanta ‘a story’.
As many other Ethio-Semitic languages, Tigrinya is characterized by differential object
marking, sensitive to the definiteness of the object. While indefinite object is unmarked,
the definite object is usually preceded by the allative preposition nɨ-(which also serves to
mark indirect objects) and coindexed on the verb:
məkkina yɨmərrɨħ ʔallo

car lead.pcl:3msg be.osc:3msg
‘He is driving a car.’
Tigrinya 195
nəzi borsa kɨ-tʦ’or-o ʔallo-kka

all:dem.msg bag goal-carry.pcl:3msg-obj.3msg be.osc:3msg-obj.2msg
‘You (msg) have to carry this bag.’
In the verbal domain, synthetic morphological means are reserved to express basic
aspectual opposition (perfective vs. imperfective) and jussive/imperative mood. Subject
and object indexes are also attached synthetically (see §§4.4.2, 4.1.2). Analytical con-
structions serve to express future tense, combinations of tense and Aktionsart, as well as
modality. Thus, pcl with the locative copular verb ʔallo serves to express durative in the
present tense, and pcl with the nsc of nəbərə in the past tense:
ʔanə bun ʔɨsətti ʔalloku

1sg coffee drink.pcl:1sg be.osc:1sg
‘I am drinking coffee.’
k’əs ʔilom yɨsɨħɨk’u nerom

be.quiet say.cvb:3mpl laugh.pcl:3mpl be.nsc:3mpl
‘They were quietly laughing.’
The construction “kɨ-+ pcl + copula ʔɨjju” is used to express future tense:
koləl ʔilə k-ɨmɨlləs ʔɨjjə

walk.around say.cvb:1sg goal-return.pcl:1sg cop:1sg
‘After going for a walk I will come back.’
In the nominal morphology, synthetic forms are reserved for the expression of num-
ber and gender, as well as for argument indexes which are used to indicate pronominal
possessors (§4.1.2). Possessive relations between nominals are expressed analytically or
asyndetically (§5.1).
Competition between synthetic and analytical forms is observed in the formation
of the ordinal numerals: the synthetic forms are reserved for the first decade, the ana-
lytic forms employing the element məbbəl are used with the ordinal numerals above
20, whereas in the second decade, both analytic and synthetic forms are acceptable
(§4.3).
5.5 Subordination
Unlike Geez and Tigre, modern Tigrinya does not employ pcs to express the goal
and complement of volition verbs (these functions are fulfilled by the goal conjunc-
tion kɨ- followed by pcl). Subordinate pcs is therefore rare (Meyer 2016: 174–5). It
can be used in concessive clauses or other types of subordinated clauses to express
uncertainty:
ʃɨħ ʔɨkkʷa jɨkfəl k-ɨk’ɨʦʦ’aʕ ʔɨjju

thousand even pay.pcs:3msg goal-be.punished.pcl:3msg cop:3msg
‘Even if he pays one thousand, he will be punished.’
196 Maria Bulakh
maj jɨznəb ʔaj-jɨznəb ʔajfəllɨt’-ɨn

water rain.pcs:3msg neg-rain.pcs:3msg neg:know.pcl:1sg-circ
‘I do not know whether it is going to rain or not.’
nsc is consistently replaced by osc in many types of subordinate clauses. The incom-
patibility of nsc with most subordinated conjunctions as well as with the relativizer
zɨ-is obviously a retention of the original converbial properties of nsc. Among the few
subordinating conjunctions allowing nsc one should mention ʔɨntə ‘if’:
ʦ’ɨbaħ maj ʔɨntə harimu ʔajməʦ’ʔ-ɨn ʔɨjjə

tomorrow water if strike.nsc:3msg
neg:come.pcl:1sg-circ
cop:1sg
‘If it rains tomorrow, I won’t come.’
Relative clauses are introduced by relativizer zɨ- (see §4.4.5). Simple nsc forms are
replaced with osc in relative clauses:
ʔɨta kərtət ʔila z-əʕbəjət-ɨnni ʔaddə-j

art:fsg wander say.cvb:3fsg rel-bring.up.osc:3fsg-obj.1sg mother- poss.1sg
‘My mother, who brought me up wandering here and there’.
Analytic constructions are admitted in relative clauses. Relativizer is attached to both

auxiliary and main verb (except the involved nsc forms, which remain unmarked):
ʔɨti bɨ-təməharo z-ɨkkajəd z-əllo nɨt’fət-at

art:msg ins-student.pl rel-be.conducted.pcl:3msg
rel-be.osc:3msg activity-pl
‘The activities carried out by students’.
Some other subordinate conjunctions (such as the complementizer kəm-) demand rel-
ativized verbal forms:
ʔab kɨtabət hɨʦ’an-at ʔɨwɨn ʕabi gəsgas

loc vaccination baby- pl and big.msg progress
kəm ʔɨttəməzgəbə ʔɨti ħabəreta jərɨddɨʔ
comp rel:be.registered.osc:3msg art:msg information announce.pcl:3msg
‘The information also announces that big progress is registered in the sphere of infant
vaccination.’
Complementation is often realized by means of infinitives (Shimelis Mazengia 2015:

235–59):
ʔab baħti məskərəm z-ɨrɨkkəb bank ʔabajt-ɨn nɨgd-ɨn

loc first.day Məskərəm rel-be.situated.pcl:3msg bank house.pl-and trade-and
nɨ-ʔagəlgəlti z-ɨkəwwɨn k’ɨdmi ħidət ʔawarɨħ ʔastat
all-customer.pl rel-be.pcl:3msg before a.few month.pl approximately
Tigrinya 197
mɨʔt-ɨn ħamsa-n zɨ-konu sədja-tat mɨk’rab-u yɨfɨllət’

hundred-and fifty-and rel-be.osc:3mpl chair-
pl offer.inf-poss.3msg be.known.pcl:3msg
‘It is known that a few months ago the Bank of Houses and Trade, located at
1 Məskərəm (street), provided its customers with ca. 150 chairs.’
Converbs are widely used to form adverbial subordinate clauses:
ʔanə nab dukkʷan kəjdə bani ʕaddigə

1sg all shop go.cvb:1sg bread buy.nsc:1sg
‘Having gone to a shop, I bought some bread.’
6 LEXICON
In the 100-word Swadesh list, 33 terms are retentions from Proto-Semitic, such as
kullu ‘every, all’ (< PS *kull-), sətəjə ‘to drink’ (< PS *ʃtj); 28 terms belong to common
Ethio-Semitic innovations, such as bəlʕə ‘to eat’, k’əjɨħ ‘red’, among which five terms are
early Cushitic borrowings, such as ʕasa ‘fish’, dəməna ‘cloud’ (see further Kogan 2015:
433–53). Of the remaining terms, some have parallels both in Ethio-Semitic and else-
where in Semitic (ʕabi ‘big’, t’ub ‘breast’, kɨsad ‘neck’, negative circumfix ʔaj- . . . -n),
some are shared by neighboring Ethio-Semitic languages (such as nəwiħ ‘long’, cf. Geez
nawix id.; k’orbət ‘skin’, cf. Amharic k’ʷərbət id.; mɨlħas ‘tongue’, cf. Amharic mɨlas id.).
Of special interest are the few candidates for common North Ethio-Semitic innovations,
that is, Tigrinya lexemes whose basic status is shared with Tigre and Geez cognates only:
ʦ’aʕda ‘white’ (cf. Geez ʦ’aʕada:, Tigre ʦ’aʕada: id.), ʕabi ‘big’ (cf. Geez ʕabij, Tigre
ʕabi, whose parallels elsewhere in Semitic have the meaning ‘thick’). There are also
some specific Tigrinya innovations (such as gərəb ‘tree’, fələt’ə ‘to know’, dəkk’əsə ‘to
sleep’). Three terms from the 100-word list are likely Amharisms: səb ‘person’, ʔafɨnʧ’a
‘nose’, k’ət’əlja ‘green’.
Vocabulary pertaining to culture and technology contains some borrowings from
Amharic: mɨrrɨʧʧ’a ‘elections’ (< Amharic mɨrʧ’a), ʔaggəbab ‘propriety’ (< Amharic
aggəbab). As in Amharic, Geezisms are widely used in neologisms, often calques of
European terms: rɨʔs-ə ʦ’ɨħuf self-cst written ‘autograph’ (the element -ə as the marker
of the head in these constructions is also borrowed from Geez), nɨwam ‘hibernation’
(< Geez nɨwa:m ‘sleep’).
As other Ethio-Semitic languages, Tigrinya contains a considerable number of Ara-
bisms (Leslau 1956). The influx of Arabisms must have increased since Arabic was pro-
moted to one of the working languages of the Eritrean government. Some examples of
Arabisms: ħalal ‘licit, legitimate’ (Arb. ħala:l-), taʕlim ‘training’ (< Arb. taʕli:m-), fəʃələ
‘to fail’ (< Arb. faʃila).
Among the European languages, the influence of Italian is most conspicuous: ʤəlato
‘ice cream’ (Ital. gelato), gʷanti ‘glove’ (Ital. guanti).
The modern language employs numerous Anglicisms (English functions today as a
working language of the Eritrean government, alongside Tigrinya and Arabic): strateʤi
‘strategy’ (Eng. strategy), dajrəktər ‘director’ (Eng. director), farmasi ‘pharmacy’ (Eng.
pharmacy).
198 Maria Bulakh
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The following is a passage from nɨzɨtəʕaskərə nɨħadə mənʔɨsəy zirɨʔi ħadə zanta (A Story
of a Conscript) by Gəbrəjəsus Ħaylu (reproduced after Ghirmay Negash 1999: 215), a
novel depicting the fate of a group of Eritrean conscript soldiers sent by the Italian colo-
nial government to fight Libyan insurgents.
ʔo ʦ’əllim ʕaskər ʔerɨtra ʔɨz-om kɨ-twagʔ-om

voc black.msg soldier Eritrea
dem-mpl
goal-fight.pcl:2msg-obj.3mpl
ʔɨ-ttɨdəlli z-əllo-ka gʷas-ot ʔɨjjom

rel-want.pcl:2msg rel-be.osc-2msg herdsman-pl cop:3mpl
ʔɨmbər kalɨʔ ʔaj-kon-u-n

but other.msg neg-be.osc-3mpl-circ
‘Oh, black soldier of Eritrea! Those whom you are going to fight are nothing else but
herdsmen.’
ʦ’əʕadu mɨkʷan-om gɨddi

white.pl be.inf-poss.3mpl perhaps
jəfɨrrɨha-kka jɨkəwwɨn ʔɨntəkonə kəma-na
frighten.pcl:3msg-obj.2msg be.pcl:3msg if like-
poss.1pl
ʔaj-kon-u-n mədfɨʕ jəbill-om

neg-be.osc-3mpl-circ canon poss.neg-3mpl
‘Even if it may scare you that they are white, they are not like us. They have no cannons,’
bɨzuħ t’ɨjjɨt jəbill-om kəma-na mənəʦʦ’ɨr jəbill-om

much.msg bullet poss.neg-3mpl like-poss.1pl binocular poss.neg-3mpl
kəma-na rɨkit jəbill-om
like-poss.1pl rocket poss.neg-3mpl
‘they do not have enough bullets, they do not have binoculars and rockets such as we
have.’
nɨħna t’ɨraj ʔina nɨfuʕ-at ʦ’əʕadu nɨħna t’aljan gojt-ot-ka

1pl only cop:1pl clever- pl white.pl 1pl Italians lord-pl-poss.2msg
‘It is only us who are clever white people – we, the Italians, your lords.’
ħɨʒʒi kəʕa bəl-o ʔaj-tɨfrɨhajj-o

now also say.imp:2msg-obj.3msg neg-fear.pcs:2msg-obj.3msg
‘Now, too, do not be afraid of him.’
ʔat’al ʔagmal ʔaħa ʔaʔdug ʔabagiʕ ʔɨntə rəkəb-na kabʔ-ən

goat.pl camel.pl cow.pl donkey.pl sheep.pl if find.osc-1pl from-3fpl
ħarid-ka kɨ-tbəllɨʕ kɨ-nhɨbə-kka ʔina

slaughter.cvb-2msg goal-eat.pcl:2msg goal-give.pcl:1pl-obj.2msg cop:1pl
‘If we find goats, camels, cows, donkeys, or sheep, we shall give you so that you can
slaughter and eat from their number.’
Tigrinya 199
gɨn wərk’i ʔɨmmo bɨrur wəj kalɨʔ nɨʔ-u z-ɨməssɨl ʔak’ħa

but gold indeed silver or other.msg all-3msg rel-resemble.pcl:3msg thing
zɨ-ħaz-o wəjluʔ-u
rel-take.osc:3msg-obj.3msg interj-3msg
‘But woe to him who takes gold, silver, or similar things!’
ħamsa-n ħammuʃtə-n kurbaʒ ʔab

fifty-and five-and whip loc
k’ɨdmi kull-om bɨ-t’ɨray mək’əmməʧʧ’iʔ-u k-ɨlɨmt’ɨt’-o ʔɨjjə

before every- 3mpl loc-naked bottom-poss.3msg goal-lash.pcl:1sg-obj.3msg cop:1sg
‘I will give him fifty-five strokes of whip in front of everybody on his naked
bottom.’
ħɨʒʒi kəʕa səmiʕ-kumu-ni-do kull-u ʔak’ħa ʔanə ʔɨjjə wannaʔ-u

now also hear.nsc-2mpl-obj.1sg-q every-3msg thing 1sg cop:1sg chief-poss.3msg
‘Now, too, have you heard me? I am the head of everything.’
NOTES
1 The work on this chapter has been supported by Russian Foundation for Basic
Research (RFBR), grant #17–06–00391. I am deeply grateful to my informants
Təsfaldət Ħadgəmbəs (my main informant for the present chapter, native speaker
of Tigrinya, 32 years old, born in ʕAddigrat, resident of Asmara), Səmərə Bɨʦ’uʕ
ʔAmlak (native speaker of Tigrinya, 31 years old, born in Addis Ababa, later moved
to Asmara where he lived from 1999 to 2007, at present lives in Russian Federation),
and Nəʦʦ’ərə ʔAb Gəbrə Kidan (native speaker of Tigrinya, 28 years old, born in
vicinity of Asmara, at present resident of Germany). Warm thanks go to Ms. Magda-
lena Krzyżanowska, who provided me with some important materials on Tigrinya.
2 The plural object forms in parentheses, adduced in Leslau (1941: 49, 52; Tsehaye
Teferra 1979: 228, 233), are not used by Təsfaldət Ħadgəmbəs, who perceives most
of them as expressions of respect.
3 In speech of Təsfaldət Ħadgəmbəs, the insertion of ʔ is accompanied with regres-
sive vocalic assimilation across the guttural and further distant vocalic assimilation:
{sɨk’əla-ʔ-o} sɨk’olo-ʔ-o put.up.imp:2fpl-ʔ-obj.3msg ‘put (fpl) it up!’
4 Leslau (1941: 57, mostly confirmed in the course of work with Təsfaldət Ħadgəm-
bəs). According to Tsehaye Teferra (1979: 228–32, 274), the applicative marker is
always geminated intervocalically.
5 In written Tigrinya, osc forms are still employed with main non-negated verbs, mostly
in narrative texts.
6 Although the osc has lost its prominence as the main exponent of perfective in mod-
ern Tigrinya, we preserve here the use of 3msg osc as citation form, with its roots in a
well-established Semitic tradition.
7 In speech of Nəʦʦ’ərə ʔAb Gəbrə Kidan, this form is jɨnəggɨr (fully coinciding with
3msg). The same form sporadically occurs in the speech of Səmərə Bɨʦ’uʕ ʔAmlak
and Təsfaldət Ħadgəmbəs, usually in analytic forms.
200 Maria Bulakh
8 The 2nd person forms are used only with a negative marker.
9 Side by side with the innovative form zɨ-rəkəbkumm-o.
10 However, one still finds 0A and 0B pairs which demonstrate the original function of
0B as transitivity-raising morpheme: məlʔə ‘to fill (intransitive, transitive)’ – məllɨʔə
‘to supplement, to append, to augment; to fill up’.
11 In the stems of D type with prefixes, the vowel after the first consonant can be a:
ʔaC1əC2aC2əC3ə/ʔaC1aC2aC2əC3ə.
REFERENCES
Buckley, Eugene. “Tigrinya Vowel Features and Vowel Coalescence.” Penn Working
Papers in Linguistics 1 (1994): 1–28.
Bulakh, Maria and Kogan, Leonid. “The Genealogical Position of Tigre and the
Problem of North Ethio-Semitic Unity.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 160 (2010): 273–302.
Central Statistical Agency, Population Census Commission. The 2007 Population Census
and Housing Census of Ethiopia. Vol. 1: Statistical Report at National Level. Addis
Ababa: Central Statistical Agency, 2009.
Conti Rossini, Carlo. Ricordi di un soggiorno in Eritrea. Asmara: Tipografia della
Missione Svedese, 1903.
Fitzgerald, Colleen M. “More on Phonological Variation in Tigrinya.” In Proceedings of
the XVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg, July 20-25, 2003,
edited by Siegbert Uhlig, 763–68. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006.
Ghirmay Negash. A History of Tigrinya Literature in Eritrea: The Oral and the Written,
1890–1991. Leiden: Research School CNWS 1999.
Haspelmath, Martin. “The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category.” In Converbs
in cross-linguistic perspective: structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms –
adverbial participles, gerunds, edited by Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König,
1–55. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.
Hetzron, Robert. Ethiopian Semitic. Studies in Classification. Manchester: Manchester
Leslau, Wolf. “Arabic Loanwords in Tigrinya.” Journal of the American Oriental Society
76 (1956): 204–13.
Meyer, Ronny. “Aspect and Tense in Ethiosemitic Languages.” In The Morpho-Syntactic and
Lexical Encoding of Tense and Aspect in Semitic: Proceedings of the Erlangen workshop
on April 26, 2014, edited by Lutz Edzard, 159–239. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 2016.
Nazareth Amlesom Kifle. Tigrinya Applicatives in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Ph.D.
thesis. University of Bergen, 2011.
Palmer, Frank R. “The ‘Broken Plurals’ of Tigrinya.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 17 (1955): 548–66.
Ratcliffe, Robert R. The “Broken” Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative Semitic.
Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-Concatenative Morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Shimelis Mazengia. Nominalization via Verbal Derivation. Amharic, Tigrinya and
Oromo. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015.
Tsehaye Kiros Mengesha. A Comparison of Wajerat Tigrigna vs. Standard Tigrigna. MA
Thesis. Addis Ababa, 2009.
Tigrinya 201
Voigt, Rainer Maria. Das tigrinische Verbalsystem. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1977.

Voigt, Rainer Maria. “Labialization and the So-Called Sibilant Anomaly in Tigrinya.”
Voigt, Rainer Maria. “Wortfolge und Genitivkonstruktionen im Tigrinischen.” Rassegna
di Studi Etiopici 2, Nuova serie (2003): 77–106.
Voigt, Rainer Maria. “Südtigrinische Dialekte: das einfache und zusammengesetzte
Präsens im Dialekt von May-Č’äw (Tigray).” In Proceedings of the XVth International
Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg, July 20–25, 2003, edited by Siegbert
Uhlig, 893–98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006.
Voigt, Rainer Maria. “Südtigrinische Dialekte: Phonologie und Personalpronomina im
Dialekt von May-Č’äw (Təgray).” In Egyptian, Semitic and General Grammar. Studies
in Memory of H. J. Polotsky, edited by Gideon Goldenberg and Ariel Shisha-Halevy,
169–83. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2009.
GENERAL TIGRINYA BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grammars
Leslau, Wolf. Documents tigrigna (éthiopien septentrional). Paris: Librairie C.
Klincksieck, 1941.
Praetorius, Franz. Grammatik der Tigriňasprache in Abessinien hauptsächlich in der
Gegend von Aksum und Adoa. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1871.
Tesfay Tewolde Yohannes. A Modern Grammar of Tigrinya. Rome: Tipografia U.
Detti, 2002.
Tsehaye Teferra. Reference Grammar of Tigrinya. Washington, DC: School of Languages
and Linguistics, Georgetown University, 1979.
Overview articles
Bulakh, Maria and Kogan, Leonid. “Tigrinya Yazyk.” In Yazyki Mira. Semitskie yazyki.
Efiosemitskie yazyki, edited by Maria S. Bulakh, Leonid E. Kogan, and Olga I.
Romanova, 260–311. Moscow: Academia, 2013.
Kogan, Leonid. “Tigrinya.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 424–45.
London/New York: Routledge, 1997.
Voigt, Rainer Maria. “Tigrinya.” In Semitic Languages: An International Handbook
(Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36), edited by Stefan
Weninger, 1153–69. Berlin: De Gruyer Mouton, 2011a.
Voigt, Rainer Maria. “Tigrinya as a National Language of Eritrea and Tigray.” In
Semitic Languages: An International Handbook (Handbücher zur Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft 36), edited by Stefan Weninger, 1170–7. Berlin: De
Gruyer Mouton, 2011b.
Dictionaries
da Bassano, Francesco. Vocabolario tigray-italiano e repertorio italiano-tigray. Roma:
Casa Editrice Italiana di C. De Luigi, 1918.
ʔabba Joħannɨs Gəbrə-ʔɨgziʔabħer. Məzgəbə-k’alat tɨgrɨɲɲa-ʔamħarɨɲɲa: Ethiopian
Dictionary. Tigrigna-Amharic. ʔAsməra: Bet maxtəm ʔarti grafik ʔeritrəja, 1948/49
A.M. (= 1955–57 A.D.)
Təkkɨʔə Təsfay. Zəmənawi məzgəbə k’alat tɨgrɨɲɲa. Asməra: ʔAħtəmti ħɨdri, 1999.
Kane, Thomas Leiper. Tigrinya-English Dictionary. Springfield: Dunwoody Press, 2000.
CHAPTER 9
AMHARIC LUTZ EDZARDAMHARIC
Lutz Edzard
1 INTRODUCTION
Amharic (ʔamarɨɲɲa) is the main modern exponent of the Southern Ethio-Semitic branch
and is to be associated with Argobba, Eastern Gurage and Harari. The term most probably
derives from the region Amhara (ʔamara) in the northern and central highlands of Ethi-
opia (Map 9.1). Following a widely accepted study by Hetzron (1972), Amharic should
not be considered a direct offspring of Gɨʕɨz but rather a descendent of an early common
Ethio-Semitic language.
According to the census from 2007, Amharic is spoken by approximately 20 million
native speakers and additionally by a few million speakers as a second language. It serves
ERITREA
YEMEN
DJIBOUTI
ETHIOPIA
LEGEND
Amharic
MAP 9.1 THE AMHARIC SPEECH AREA

Source: Adapted from Meyer (2016a).
Amharic 203
as one of the official languages of Ethiopia and as lingua franca, and is also partially
understood in the neighboring countries Eritrea and Djibouti, not to mention significant
expatriate communities, such as in Washington, DC.
It is not easy to define a terminus post quem for the emergence of Amharic. Among the
first written documents in Amharic are the “royal songs” (14th century or later). Amharic
ʔandɨmta commentaries to liturgical literature in Gɨʕɨz are attested from the 18th cen-
tury onwards (cf. Meyer 2011a: 1179). Today there exists a large amount of literature
in Amharic, including journalism and texts, in which Amharic is used as a scholarly
meta-language.
Diachronically speaking, Old Amharic has specific features such as the retention of
gutturals. Synchronically speaking, Amharic has dialectal varieties in at least the regions
of Gondär, Goʤʤam, Wällo and Mänz. As always, sociolects and ideolects exist as well.
(For an in-depth description of two varieties of the linguistically close Argobba, cf. Wet-
ter 2010.)
On both the syntactic and the lexical level, Amharic is subject to a strong Cushitic
substratum. Syntactically, the strict SOV order is striking. Many core elements of the
Amharic vocabulary are of Cushitic origin, e.g., the word for “language,” k’wank’wa.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Amharic is written in an (alpha-)syllabary, also called “Abugida” (cf. Daniels 1997),
based on the writing system of Classical Ethiopic (Gɨʕɨz; see Chapter 6), which in turn
may have been influenced by the equally syllable-based Indian Devanāgarī system. In
Amharic terminology, the syllable signs are referred to as fidäl. The consonants, listed
here in their traditional order, are either followed by a vowel or schwa (unspecified short
vowel or zero, depending on phonotactics), in seven different “orders.” As compared
to Gɨʕɨz, Amharic features a number of phonemic palatalized consonants. Moreover,
most consonants can be labialized, for which purpose there exist further graphemes
(diacritically marked syllabic signs). Table 9.1 provides an overview, with both IPA and
traditional Semiti(ci)st transcription. Some scholars nowadays choose to transcribe the
vowel of the first order as ǝ, a method not adopted here. The latter vowel also occurs
as an allophone of ɨ when preceded by j and is transcribed as such in Meyer (2011) in
forms such as jǝhid ‘let him go’ (instead of jɨhid). After w, ʊ appears as an allophone of
ɨ, as in [wʊha] ‘water’. We will follow the tradition to transcribe the vowel of the first
order as ä.
An unspecified short vowel in the word coda is generally disallowed (except in poetic
recitation). The Amharic script does not mark gemination of consonants (even though
consonantal length is phonemic), thus allowing for a certain number of written doublets
(e.g., ʔalä ‘he said’ vs. ʔallä ‘he/it exists’). Here is a brief example, first transliterated,
then transcribed:
ስለዚህ ነው ወደ ኢትዮጵያ የመጣሁት

sә-lä-zi-h nä-w wä-dä ʔi-t(ә)-jo-p’ә-ja jä-mä-t’a-hu-t
sәlä-zzih n-äw wädä ʔit(ә)jopp’әja jä-mätt’ahu-t
because.of-this cop-3msg.obj towards Ethiopia rel-come.sc.1sg-def
‘It is therefore (that) I came to Ethiopia.’ ≈ ‘Therefore I came to Ethiopia.’
204 Lutz Edzard
TABLE 9.1 AMHARIC ALPHASYLLABARY/CHART OF AMHARIC FIDÄLS
IPA (& Semitic Transliteration) Seven Orders Labialized Consonsants
ä u i a e ɨ/Ø o ʷä/uä ʷi/ui ʷa/ua ʷe/ue ʷɨ/u

h (h) ሀ ሁ ሂ ሃ ሄ ህ ሆ
l (l) ለ ሉ ሊ ላ ሌ ል ሎ ሏ
h (ḥ) ሐ ሑ ሒ ሓ ሔ ሕ ሖ ሗ
m (m) መ ሙ ሚ ማ ሜ ም ሞ ሟ
s (ś) ሠ ሡ ሢ ሣ ሤ ሥ ሦ ሧ
r (r) ረ ሩ ሪ ራ ሬ ር ሮ ሯ
s (s) ሰ ሱ ሲ ሳ ሴ ስ ሶ ሷ
ʃ (š) ሸ ሹ ሺ ሻ ሼ ሽ ሾ ሿ
k’ (q or ḳ) ቀ ቁ ቂ ቃ ቄ ቅ ቆ ቈ ቊ ቋ ቌ ቍ
b (b) በ ቡ ቢ ባ ቤ ብ ቦ ቧ
v (v) ቨ ቩ ቪ ቫ ቬ ቭ ቮ ቯ
t (t) ተ ቱ ቲ ታ ቴ ት ቶ ቷ
ʧ (č) ቸ ቹ ቺ ቻ ቼ ች ቾ ቿ
h (ḫ) ኀ ኁ ኂ ኃ ኄ ኅ ኆ ኈ ኊ ኋ ኌ ኍ
n (n) ነ ኑ ኒ ና ኔ ን ኖ ኗ
ɲ (ň) ኘ ኙ ኚ ኛ ኜ ኝ ኞ ኟ
Ø (Ø or ʔ) አ ኡ ኢ ኣ ኤ እ ኦ ኧ
k (k) ከ ኩ ኪ ካ ኬ ክ ኮ ኰ ኲ ኳ ኴ ኵ
x (ḫ) ኸ ኹ ኺ ኻ ኼ ኽ ኾ ዀ ዂ ዃ ዄ ዅ
w (w) ወ ዉ ዊ ዋ ዌ ው ዎ
Ø (*ʕ) ዐ ዑ ዒ ዓ ዔ ዕ ዖ
z (z) ዘ ዙ ዚ ዛ ዜ ዝ ዞ ዟ
ʒ (ž) ዠ ዡ ዢ ዣ ዤ ዥ ዦ ዧ
j (y) የ ዩ ዪ ያ ዬ ይ ዮ
d (d) ደ ዱ ዲ ዳ ዴ ድ ዶ ዷ
ʤ (ǧ) ጀ ጁ ጂ ጃ ጄ ጅ ጆ ጇ
g (g) ገ ጉ ጊ ጋ ጌ ግ ጎ ጐ ጒ ጓ ጔ ጕ
t’ (ṭ) ጠ ጡ ጢ ጣ ጤ ጥ ጦ ጧ
ʧ’ (č ̣) ጨ ጩ ጪ ጫ ጬ ጭ ጮ ጯ
p’ (ṗ) ጰ ጱ ጲ ጳ ጴ ጵ ጶ ጷ
s’ (ṣ) ጸ ጹ ጺ ጻ ጼ ጽ ጾ ጿ
s’ (*tɬ’; ḍ or ś ̣) ፀ ፁ ፂ ፃ ፄ ፅ ፆ
f (f) ፈ ፉ ፊ ፋ ፌ ፍ ፎ ፏ
p (p) ፐ ፑ ፒ ፓ ፔ ፕ ፖ ፗ
ä u i a e ɨ/Ø o ʷ/uä ʷi/ui ʷa/ua ʷe/ue ʷɨ
Amharic orthography also features an elaborate punctuation system (which is no longer

fully applied), including the following markers: ፡ word separator; ። full stop (period);
፣ comma, ፤ semicolon, ፥ colon (the latter three used interchangeably); and ፦ preface
colon.
Amharic 205
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonant phonemes
Amharic has 27 consonant phonemes (plus 4 marignal ones). Its phonological system
reflects a number of consonantal mergers compared with Gɨʕɨz, as well as a number of
additions listed in Table 9.2.
Gɨʕɨz s (ሰ) and ś [ł’] (ሠ) phonemically merged in Amharic s

Gɨʕɨz ṣ [s’] (ጸ) and ś’ [tł’] (ፀ) phonemically merged in Amharic s’
Gɨʕɨz ḥ [ħ] (ሐ), ḫ [x] (ኀ), and h [h] (ሀ) phonemically merged in Amharic h or Ø
Gɨʕɨz ʕ (ዐ) and ʔ (አ) phonemically merged in Amharic ʔ/Ø
an additional bilabial voiced fricative is Amharic v (ቨ)
an additional velar voiceless fricative is Amharic x (ኸ)
additional palatalized consonants are Amharic ʒ (ዠ), ʃ (ሸ), ʧ (ቸ), ʧ’ (ጨ) and ɲ (ኘ)
the main additional labialized consonants in Amharic are the velars kw (ኳ), gw (ጐ) and
k’w (ቋ)
The phonemic mergers have engendered a certain degree of orthographic variation and
variability in modern Amharic (cf. Meyer 2016c). Still, historical orthography continues
to be typically observed in words like ንጉሥ nɨgus (< Gɨʕɨz nɨguś) ‘king’ or ኀይል hajl
(< Gɨʕɨz xajl) ‘power’.
3.2 Vowel phonemes

The Amharic vowel phonemes can be represented as follows in a triangle (cf. Meyer
2011: 1185 with further references; Table 9.3).
TABLE 9.2 AMHARIC CONSONANT PHONEMES
Bilabial Labio-dental Alveolar Palatal(-alveolar) Velar Labiovelar Glottal
Plosive p b p’ t d t’ k g k’ k g k ’

w w w
ʔ
Nasal m n ɲ
Trill r
Fricative f v s z s’ ʃ ʒ x h
Affricate ʧ ʤ ʧ’
Approx. w J
Lateral
TABLE 9.3 AMHARIC VOWEL PHONEMES
Front Central Back
High i u
High Central e ɨ o
Low Central ä (ə) (see above)
Low a
206 Lutz Edzard
Allophones of central vowels occur, e.g., as a result of homorganic assimilation (cf.

Meyer 2011: 1186 for details). Vowel length is not phonemic.
3.3 Syllable structure

Assuming that a glottal stop is phonetically present in the onset of syllables and words
starting with ʔ (አ, ዐ), Amharic syllables, just as in other Semitic languages, can be clas-
sified in light/open (CV), heavy/closed (CVC) and superheavy/doubly closed syllables
(CVCC). The word ʔit(ә)jopp’әja ‘Ethiopia’ (etymologically deriving from Greek “burnt
in the face”), for instance, would be syllabified ʔi.tә.jop.p’ә.ja or ʔit.jop.p’ә.ja. A super-
heavy syllable occurs, for instance, in the word därg ‘council, committee’ (name of
the Ethiopian military junta from 1974 until 1987). Phonetically, but not structurally,
word-initial CCVC syllables may be identified in imperative forms of the structure C1(ɨ)
C2äC3, e.g., d(ɨ)räs ‘arrive’ (msg), or in loan words such as krɨstijan ‘Christian’, in case
the sonority of C2 is high (approximant: w, j; or liquid: l, r).
Unlike for instance in Chaha (another south Ethiopian Semitic language), the sonority
of the involved root consonants does not affect syllable structure in Amharic. In the jus-
sive of Chaha, the following scenario can be observed in Table 9.4 (cf. Leslau 1964).
3.4 Palatalization
Palatalization of alveolar consonants (except r) tends to occur before the high vowel i
(and e of the converb conjugation), e.g., in the 2nd person feminine singular. Here is
the pattern, juxtaposing the 2nd person masculine singular and feminine singular prefix
conjugation (non-past) in Table 9.5.
TABLE 9.4 SYLLABLE STRUCTURE IN THE JUSSIVE OF CHAHA DEPENDING ON

SONORITY
Root Rising Sonority (C2 → C3) Root Falling Sonority (C2 → C3)
√g-f-r jägfɨr ’let him release’ √s-r-t jäsɨrt ’let him cauterise’
√k’-ß-r jäk’ßɨr ’let him plant’ √t-r-x jätɨrx ’let him make an incision’
√f-t’-m jäft’ɨm ’let him block’ √g-m-t’ jägɨmt’ ’let him chew off’
TABLE 9.5 PALATALIZATION OF ALVEOLAR CONSONANTS BEFORE I (2fsg)
Root pc.2msg pc.2fsg Gloss
√s-b-r tɨsäbr-alläh tɨsäbrijalläʃ ‘destroy’

but
√w-s-d tɨwäsd-alläh tɨwäsʤ(ij)alläʃ ‘take’
√k-f-t tɨkäft-alläh tɨkäfʧ(ij)alläʃ ‘open’
√b-l-t’ tɨbält’-alläh tɨbälʧ’(ij)alläʃ ‘exceed’
√m-l-s tɨmällɨs-alläh tɨmällɨʃ(ij)alläʃ ‘bring back’
√g-l-s’ tɨgäls’-alläh tɨgälʧ’(ij)alläʃ ‘explain’
√m-r-z tɨmärrɨz-alläh tɨmärrɨʒ(ij)alläʃ ‘poison’
√l-m-n tɨlämmɨn-alläh tɨlämmɨɲ(ij)alläʃ ‘beg’
√k-f-l tɨkäfl-alläh tɨkäfjalläʃ ‘pay’
Amharic 207
3.5 Assimilatory and dissimilatory processes

All consonants except the glottal stop can be geminated. Total assimilation occurs with
the t-prefix in the passive, reflexive or reciprocal diatheses (binyanim) in the prefix con-
jugation of the verb, e.g., täsäbbärä ‘it broke/was broken’ vs. jɨssäbbärall (< *jɨtsäb-
bärall) ‘it will be broken’ or täsäbabbära ‘it was smashed to pieces’ vs. jɨssäbabbärall
(< *jɨtsäbabbärall) ‘it is/will be smashed to pieces’. Phonetically, partial and total assimi-
lation of consonants and vowels occur also in other environments (cf. Meyer 2011: 1186).
Comparable to a similar process in Akkadian place or instrument nouns, where an
m-prefix dissimilates to n- when the following stem contains a labial (e.g., ma-ʃkan-um
‘deposit’ vs. na-rkab-tum ‘chariot’), Amharic place or instrument nouns, whose stems
contain a labial root consonant, dissimilate the mä-prefix to wä-(Table 9.6).
This phenomenon is comparable to a similar process in Akkadian place or instrument
nouns, where an m-prefix dissimilates to n- when the following stem contains a labial
(e.g., ma-ʃkan-um ‘deposit’ vs. na-rkab-tum ‘chariot’, cf., e.g., Edzard 1992).
3.6 Loss of gutturals

Intervocalically, historical gutturals tend to vanish in finite Amharic verb forms, but are
retained in nominal forms as h or ʔ, e.g., tɨmhɨrt ‘lesson’ vs. tämarä ‘he learnt’, mäs’haf
(< *mäs’ħaf) ‘book’ vs. s’afä ‘he wrote’, dähna (< *däxna) ‘good, well’ vs. danä ‘he
recovered’ and sɨʔɨl (< *sɨʕɨl) ‘picture’ vs. salä ‘he painted’.
3.7 Vowel coalescence

In direct contact of ä + ɨ, the vowel ä prevails, e.g., *jä-ɨssu gen-3msg > jässu ‘of him’.
In direct contact of ä + a, however, the vowel a prevails, e.g., jä-antä gen-2msg > jantä
‘of you’.
4 MORPHOLOGY
As in other Semitic languages, the Amharic nominal and (even more so) verbal system
is a prototypical representative of nonconcatenative morphology, i.e., a system of inter-
digitation of (proto-typically triradical) roots with vowels and affixes, through which
the exact meaning of a noun or verb is determined. Exempt from this system are some
elementary monosyllabic prepositions and postpositions, pronominal suffixes, demon-
strative and interrogative elements, definiteness and relative markers, conjunctions, dis-
course markers, as well as a number of ideophones (used in connection with phrasal or
quotative verbs, see §4.6.5).
TABLE 9.6 SUPRASEMENTAL DISSIMILATION BEFORE STEMS CONTAINING A LABIAL
Root Non-Dissimilated Prefix Root Dissimilated Prefix
√k’-d-s mä-k’däs ‘holy place’ √n-f-t wä-nfät ‘sieve’

√l-h-k’ mä-lhɨk’ ‘anchor’ √t’-m-d wä-t’mäd ‘trap’
√ʕ-ʧ’-d ma-ʧ’ed ‘sickle’ √n-b-r wä-nbär ‘chair’
208 Lutz Edzard
4.1 Pronouns, copula and existential verb

As in other Semitic languages, one finds one set of independent pronouns and two
nearly identical sets of dependent pronouns, suffixes on nouns (possessive) and verbs
(object), respectively. First, here are the independent and suffixed possessive pronouns
(Table 9.7).
While reflexivity and reciprocity are encoded in the verbal system (see §4.6.3), the ele-
ment ras (plus possessive suffixes), literally ‘head’, which also etymologically underlies
the independent pronouns of the 3rd person, is optionally used in this context.
Unlike in many other Semitic languages, the independent pronoun of the 3rd person
does not serve as a copula. Instead, an element n(ä)- is used, with the set of the clitic
object pronouns attached, e.g., nä-ɲɲ ‘I am’. Likewise, possession (of a possessed msg) is
expressed by allä ‘he/it exists’ + clitic object suffix, e.g., allä-ɲɲ ‘I have’ (exist.3msg-1sg.
dat “it exists to me”) (see Table 9.8).
On, verbs, the clitic object pronouns can also be preceded by the applicative preposi-
tions ll- (benefactive) and bb- (malefactive – and also locative, and instrumental), e.g.,
färrädä-ll-äɲɲ ‘he judged in my favor’ vs. färradä-bb-äɲɲ ‘he judged to my detriment’.
4.2 Demonstratives
Amharic features a proximal and a distal set of demonstrative pronouns (Table 9.9), in a
free form and in a bound form (typically after prepositions).
TABLE 9.7 INDEPENDENT AND SUFFIXED POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS
Singular Plural
Independent Possessive Independent Possessive
1sg ʔәne -e/-je (after vowel) ʔәɲɲa -aʧʧɨn

2m ʔanta -(ɨ)h ʔәnnantä -aʧʧuh (< -aʧʧɨhu)
2f ʔanʧi -(ɨ)ʃ “ “
2pol ʔәsswo/ʔәrswo -wo “ “
3m ʔәssu/ʔәrsu -u/-w (after vowel) ʔәnnässu -aʧʧäw
3f ʔәsswa/ʔәrswa -wa “ “
3pol ʔәssaʧʧäw -aʧʧäw “ “
TABLE 9.8 CLITIC OBJECT PRONOUNS ON N(Ä)-‘TO BE’ (COPULA) AND ʔALLÄ ‘EXIST’
Singular Plural Singular Plural
1sg nä-ɲɲ nä-n ʔallä-ɲɲ ʔallä-n

2m nä-h n-aʧʧuh (< n-aʧʧɨhu) ʔallä-h ʔall-aʧʧuh (< -aʧʧɨhu)
2f nä-ʃ “ ʔallä-ʃ “
2pol nä-wot “ ʔallä-wot “
3m n-äw n-aʧʧäw ʔallä-w ʔall-aʧʧäw
3f nä-ʧʧ/n-at “ ʔallat “
3pol n-aʧʧäw “ ʔall-aʧʧäw “
Amharic 209
TABLE 9.9 AMHARIC DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS
Proximal Distal
Free Bound Free Bound
msg jәh -zzih ja -zzija

fsg jәʧʧ(i) -zziʧʧ jaʧʧ(i) -zzijaʧʧ
pl ʔәnnäzzih -nnäzzi ʔәnnäzzija -nnäzzija
4.3 Interrogatives
The most frequent Amharic interrogative pronouns are these:
man ‘who?’
mɨn ‘what?’
jät ‘where, to which place?’
mäʧʧe ‘when?’
ʔɨndämɨn ‘how?’
sɨnt ‘how much?’
With gemination of the last consonant and with the suffix -mm, the idea of indefinite-
ness is expressed, e.g., mannɨmm ‘whoever’, mɨnnɨmm ‘whatever’.
4.4 Relatives
Just as in other Semitic languages, there are no relative pronouns in Amharic. Relativ-
ization is rather expressed by an element jä- before verbs in the suffix conjugation and
its allomorph jämm- before verbs in the prefix conjugation, e.g., jä-säbbärä ‘(he) who
broke’ or jämm-isäbɨr ‘(he) who breaks’. Many such verb phrases function as nominal-
ized constructions. The same element jä-also serves as the genitive exponent, prefixed to
the possessor, e.g., jä-ʔalmaz bet ‘Almaz’s house’ (gen-Almaz house).
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
Nouns in Amharic can be marked for two genders in the singular (masculine and femi-
nine) as well as for two numbers (singular and plural). While number is usually morpho-
logically marked by the plural suffix -oʧʧ, gender is often inherent, mainly in animate
nouns. There are no “states” as in other branches of Semitic (except for historical vocab-
ulary borrowed from Gɨʕɨz), but definiteness is marked by suffixes, -u (after vowel -w)
with masculine nouns and -wa with feminine nouns. Some kinship terms have special
(singulative) definite forms in the singular. The standard forms are found in Table 9.10.
Gender also surfaces in the form of agreement between subject and verbal predicate,
e.g., wäf-wa k’äjj n-at (bird-def.f red cop-3fsg.obj) ‘the bird is red’ (see §5.1).
Adjectives, as well as some nouns borrowed from Gɨʕɨz, may exhibit an internal (“bro-
ken”) plural (ablaut, intraflexion), e.g., tәllәk’ > tәlәllәk’ ‘big’ or nɨgus > nägäst ‘king’ in
210 Lutz Edzard
TABLE 9.10 GENDER, NUMBER AND DEFINITENESS IN AMHARIC
Gender sg indf sg def pl indf pl def Gloss
m bet bet-u bet-oʧʧ bet-oʧʧ-u ‘house’

f wäf wäf-wa wäf-oʧʧ wäf-oʧʧ-u ‘bird’
m säw säwɨjje-w säw-oʧʧ säw-oʧʧ-u ‘man’
f set setɨjjo-wa set-oʧʧ set-oʧʧ-u ‘woman’
the expression jä-ʔitjopp’әja nәgusä nägäst ‘the King of Kings of Ethiopia’ (gen-Ethiopia
king.cst king.pl), the title of Emperor Mɨnilɨk II. Some nouns also feature an old plural
ending -an, e.g., kɨbur > kɨbur-an ‘honored person(s)’. Adjectives agree in gender with
their head noun (by default masculine), but not necessarily in number, i.e., a noun in the
plural can be preceded by an adjective in the plural (marked by -oʧʧ) or in the singular.
Case is morphologically and syntactically marked. While there is a genitive expo-
nent jä- prefixed to the possessor in a noun phrase, Amharic also features the nomina-
tive (unmarked) and the accusative, the latter marked on definite and sometimes generic
nouns by the suffix -n. Typically, the accusative applies to the direct object, but it also
occurs in the context of predicative, adverbial and focus constructions:
accusative: mäskot-u-n zɨga

window- def-acc close.imp.msg
‘Close the window!’
predicative: ʔɨssu-n b-ɨhon ʔal-adärg-äw näbbär

he-acc if-be.pc.1sg neg-do.pc.1sg-3msg.obj aux.pst
‘If I were him, I wouldn’t have done it.’
adverbial: lɨʤ-u ʔɨʤʤ-e-n jazä-ɲɲ

child-def hand- 1sg.poss-acc take.sc.3msg-1sg.obj
‘The child took me by the hand.’
focus: ʔawnät-wa-n n-äw

truth- 3fsg.poss-acc cop-3msg.obj
‘She is right.’
4.5.2 Nominal patterns

The most productive nominal forms are the participle, the verbal noun (or infinitive), and
the instrumental. Table 9.11 shows an illustration with the roots √s-b-r ‘to break’ (type
A; see §4.6.1 for root types) and √ʤ-m-r ‘to begin’ (type B) (consonants and vowels in
parentheses apply to “type B” roots, in which gemination of the second radical is main-
tained throughout).
There is no clear-cut morphological boundary between substantives and adjectives,
and not even between adjectives and adverbs (cf. Meyer 2011: 1189–90). Still, a number
of further nominal patterns can be identified (in Table 9.12, the meaning of the root or
base in indicated in parentheses after the gloss).
Amharic 211
TABLE 9.11 AMHARIC BASIC NOMINAL PATTERNS
Participle Verbal Noun/Infinitive Instrumental
Type A Type B Type A Type B Type A Type B

/C1äC2(C2)aC3-i/ /mä-C1(ä)C2(C2)äC3/ /mäC1(ä)C2(C2)äC3-iya/
säbari ʤämmari mäsbär mäʤämmär mäsbärija mäʤämmärija
TABLE 9.12 AMHARIC NOMINAL PATTERNS (SAMPLE)
Semantics Pattern Example Gloss
Abstract /C1ɨC2äC3/ t’ɨbab ‘wisdom’ (‘be wise’)

Abstract /C1ɨC2C2aC3-e/ wɨffare ‘corpulence’ (‘become fat’)
Abstract /C1ɨC2C3-ät/ ʔɨwnät ‘knowledge’ (‘be factual’)
Participation /C1ɨC2ɨC2C2ɨC3/ lɨwɨwwɨt’ ‘exchange’ (‘exchange’)
Performance /C1äC2äC3-a/ säbäka ‘sermon’ (‘preach’)
Performance /C1ɨC2aC3/ nɨbab ‘lecture’ (‘read’)
Performance /C1ɨC2C2äC3-a/ fɨlläga ‘search’ (‘want’)
Various suffix -(v)t mɨɲɲot ‘wish’ (‘wish’)
Derivation suffix -ɨnna krɨstɨnna ‘Christianity’ (‘Christ’)
Derivation suffix -ɨnnät lɨʤɨnnät ‘childhood’ (‘child’)
Derivation suffix -(ɨ)ta dässɨta ‘joy’ (‘be glad’)
Provenance suffix -e goʤʤame ‘somebody from Goʤʤam’
Occupation suffix -(t)äɲɲa färäsäɲɲa ‘knight’ (‘ride’)
Instrument prefix mv- mäkfäʧa ‘key’ (‘open’)
Instrument prefix wv- wänfät ‘sieve’ (‘sift’)
(roots containing a labial, cf. §3.5)
Place prefix mv- mäk’abɨr ‘grave’ (‘bury’)
Quality suffix ‑äɲɲa hajläɲɲa ‘strong’ (‘force’)
Quality suffix ‑täɲɲa alämtäɲɲa ‘secular’ (‘world’)
Quality/agent suffix -awi hajmanotawi ‘religious’ (belief’)
Quality suffix -am häbtam ‘rich’ (‘wealth’)
Amharic also makes use of a large number of compound formations (Table 9.13) (not
necessarily written together), some of which are morphosyntactically Gɨʕɨz-based (the -ä
suffix marking head = the construct state) and some of which are modern. In all cases,
definiteness and the plural must be marked at the right edge of the compound (cf. also
Kapeliuk 1994; Edzard 2009).
A morphosyntactically complex example of compounding is the following (gerund +
finite verb in suffix conjugation): wärro ‘having raided’ + bälla ‘he consumed’ >
wärrobälla ‘gangster’.
4.5.3 Numerals
Amharic uses a decimal system. Cardinal numbers function syntactically like adjectives.
There is just one set of forms with no gender distinction. Ordinal numbers are formed by
adding the -äɲɲa suffix to the cardinals, e.g., ʔand ‘one’ > ʔandäɲɲa ‘first’. Here are the
essential Amharic numbers in Table 9.14.
TABLE 9.13 AMHARIC COMPOUND FORMATIONS
Gɨʕɨz-style balä x (master.cst x) baläbet ‘landlord’

master.cst.house
Gɨʕɨz-style betä x (house.cst x) betä krɨstijan ‘church’
house.cst Christian
modern-Amharic-style (gen-)x y (jä-)bunna bet ‘bar, café’
(of-)coffee house
modern-Amharic-style (gen-)x y (jä-)mäkina näʤi ‘driver’
(of-)car driver
[balä bet] ‘landlord’
[balä bet]-u ‘the landlord’
[balä bet]-oʧʧ ‘landlords’
[balä bet]-oʧʧ-u ‘the landlords’
[bunna bet] ‘bar/café’
[bunna bet]-u ‘the bar/café’
[bunna bet]-oʧʧ ‘bars/cafés’
[bunna bet]-oʧʧ-u ‘the bars/cafés’
TABLE 9.14 AMHARIC NUMBERS
0 Zero
1 ፩ ʔand
2 ፪ hulätt
3 ፫ sost
4 ፬ ʔaratt
5 ፭ ʔammɨst
6 ፮ sɨddɨst
7 ፯ säbatt
8 ፰ sɨmmɨnt
9 ፱ zät’äɲɲ
10 ፲ ʔassɨr
11 ፲፩ ʔasra and
12 ፲፪ ʔasra hulätt
13 ፲፫ ʔasra sost
14 ፲፬ ʔasra aratt
15 ፲፭ ʔasra ammɨst
16 ፲፮ ʔasra sɨddɨst
17 ፲፯ ʔasra säbatt
18 ፲፰ ʔasra sɨmmɨnt
19 ፲፱ ʔasra zät’äɲɲ
20 ፳ haja
30 ፴ sälasa
40 ፵ ʔarba
50 ፶ hamsa
60 ፷ sɨlsa
70 ፸ säba
80 ፹ sämanja
90 ፺ zät’äna
100 ፻ mäto
1,000 ፼ ʃi
Amharic 213
4.6 Verbs
4.6.1 Root types
As in other Semitic languages, verbal roots are mostly triradical (e.g., √s-b-r: säbbärä ‘to
break’), but quadri-(e.g., √m-s-k-r mäsäkkärä ‘to testify’) and even quinquiradical roots
(e.g., √w-š-n-g-r wäʃänäggärä ‘to interlace’) exist as well. Some biradical roots histori-
cally had medial w or j, e.g., √h-d: hedä ‘to go’ (< *√k-j-d) or √k’-m; k’omä ‘so stand up’
(< *√k’-w-m). Alternatively, a guttural C2 may have dropped, as in √s’-f: s’afä ‘to write’
(< *√s’-ħ-f), or a weak or guttural C3 may have dropped, as in √k’-r: k’ärrä ‘to be absent’
(< *√k’-r-j) or √s-m: sämma ‘to hear’ (< *√s-m-ʕ).
Roots that are not of the middle-weak type can be classified into types, A, B and C.
While the gemination of C2 in the basic diathesis is common to all roots, roots of type
B keep the gemination also in the prefix conjugation (e.g., ʤämmärä > jɨʤämmɨr ‘to
begin’) as opposed to type A, where this is not the case (e.g., säbbärä > jɨsäbr ‘to begin’).
Roots of type C feature an a vowel and also keep the gemination in the prefix conjugation
(e.g., galläbä > jɨgallɨb ‘to gallop’). The difference between types A and B is entirely
lexical (type C has a different vocalic pattern). Attempts to find phonological (as in the
case of the Chaha jussive) or other criteria have not been successful (cf. Hudson 1991).
4.6.2 Conjugations and TAM features

The Amharic verb appears in the following variants (also shown in Table 9.15):
1 A suffix conjugation, denoting the completed past.

2 A long prefix conjugation, denoting the incompleted non-past.
3 A jussive (short prefix conjugation, mostly 1st and 3rd person), which stands in com-
plementary distribution with the imperative (2nd person); in Table 9.15, the impera-
tive forms appear after the obsolete jussive forms of the 2nd person (in parentheses).
4 A conjugated converb/gerund (another suffix conjugation), denoting subordinate
events.
Both the prefix conjugation (2) and the converb/gerund (4) surface in two variants. The
simple converb can express a sequence of events before the event expressed by the main
verb, or modify the main verb. While the simple long prefix conjugation (2) is restricted
to subordinate clauses, the compound long prefix conjugation and the compound gerund,
both suffixed with the auxiliary ʔallä ‘to exist’, appear in main clauses. The compound
TABLE 9.15 BASIC AMHARIC CONJUGATION PATTERNS
Suffix Conj. Prefix Conj. Jussive/Imperative Converb/Gerund
1sg säbbär-kw ә-säbr-(-l-säbr) lә-sbär säbәrre (<*säbrä-e)

2msg säbbär-k tә-säbr (tәsbär)/sәbär säbrä-h
2fsg säbbär-ʃ tә-säbr-i- (tәsbär-i)/sәbär-i säbrä-ʃ
3msg säbbär-ä jә-säbr- jә-sbär säbro (<*säbrä-u)
3fsg säbbär-äʧʧ tә-säbr- tә-sbär säbr-a (<*säbrä-a)
1pl säbbär-әn әnnә-säbr- ʔәnnә-sbär säbrä-n
2pl säbbär-aʧʧuh tә-säbr-u- (tә-sbär-u)/sәbär-u säbraʧʧuh (<*säbrä-aʧʧɨhu)
3pl/pol säbbär-u jә-säbr-u- jә-sbär-u säbrä-w
214 Lutz Edzard
prefix conjugation expresses the indicative (imperfective) and the compound converb/
gerund the resultative perfect. The paradigms are listed in Table 9.16.
As copulas, Amharic makes use of verbs and other elements to expand its TAM pos-
sibilities: näbbär- for the past, n(ä)- with object suffixes for the present (see §4.1.), and
ʔallä as an existential copula (also denoting the present, but conjugated in the suffix con-
jugation). For the future, the verb honä in the prefix conjugation is used.
4.6.3 Diatheses (stems)

Like other Semitic languages, Amharic disposes of a system of verbal prefixes to form
various diatheses (stems) that express the concepts of passivity, reflexivity, reciprocity,
intensity and causativity. Here are the relevant forms of the prefix and suffix conjuga-
tions, the jussive and the converb. As in other Semitic languages, it is practical to use a
system of sigla to refer to the individual diatheses (Table 9.17).
TABLE 9.16 AMHARIC COMPOUND PREFIX CONJUGATION AND COMPOUND CONVERB/

GERUND
Compound Prefix Conj. Compound Converb/Gerund
1sg ʔә-säbr-alläh
w
säbәrre-j-allähw
2msg tә-säbr-alläh säbrä-h-all
2fsg tә-säbr-ij-alläʃ säbrä-ʃ-all
3msg jә-säbr-all säbrow-all
3fsg tә-säbr-alläʧʧ säbra-alläʧʧ
1pl ʔәnnә-säbr-allän säbrä-n-all
2pl tә-säbr-allaʧʧuh säbraʧʧähw-all
3pl/pol jә-säbr-allu säbrä-w-all
TABLE 9.17 T-, (ʔA)-, AND S-PREFIXES IN THE AMHARIC DIATHESES
Siglum Suffix Conj. Prefix Conj. Jussive Converb
G (A) C1äC2C2äC3ä jɨC1äC2C3 jɨC1C2äC3 C1äC2C3o

G (B) C1äC2C2äC3ä jɨC1äC2C2ɨC3 jɨC1äC2C2ɨC3 C1äC2C2ɨC3o
G (C) C1aC2C2äC3ä jɨC1aC2C2ɨC3 jɨC1aC2C3 C1aC2C3o
tä-(A) tä-C1äC2C2äC3ä jɨ-C1-C1äC2C2äC3 jɨ-C1-C1äC2äC3 tä-C1äC2C3o

tä-(B) tä-C1äC2C2äC3ä jɨ-C1-C1äC2C2äC3 jɨ-C1-C1äC2äC3 tä-C1äC2C2ɨC3o
tä-(C) tä-C1aC2C2äC3ä jɨ-C1-C1aC2C2äC3 jɨ-C1-C1aC2äC3 tä-C1aC2C3o
ʔa-(A) a-C1äC2C2äC3ä jaC1äC2C3 jaC1C2ɨC3 ʔa-C1C2ɨC3o

ʔa-(B) a-C1äC2C2äC3ä jaC1äC2C2ɨC3 jaC1äC2C2ɨC3 ʔa-C1äC2C2ɨC3o
ʔa-(C) a-C1aC2C2äC3ä jaC1aC2C2ɨC3 jaC1aC2C3 ʔa-C1aC2C3o
ʔa-s-(A) ʔa-s-C1äC2C2äC3ä ja-s-C1äC2C2ɨC3 ja-s-C1äC2C2ɨC3 ʔa-s-C1äC2C2ɨC3o

ʔa-s-(B) ʔa-s-C1äC2C2äC3ä ja-s-C1äC2C2ɨC3 ja-s-C1äC2C2ɨC3 ʔa-s-C1äC2C2ɨC3o
ʔa-s-(C) ʔa-s-C1aC2C2äC3ä ja-s-C1aC2C2ɨC3 ja-s-C1aC2C3 ʔa-s-C1aC2C3o
Amharic 215
Siglum Suffix Conj. Prefix Conj. Jussive Converb
*ʔa-t- ʔa-C1-C1aC2C2äC3ä ja-C1-C1aC2C2ɨC3 ja-C1-C1aC2C3 a-C1-C1aC2C3o

G-red. C1äC2aC2C2äC3ä jɨC1äC2aC2C2ɨC3 jɨC1äC2aC2C3 C1äC2aC2C3o
tä-red. tä-C1äC2aC2C2äC3ä jɨ-C1-C1äC2aC2C2äC3 jɨ-C1-C1äC2aC2äC3 tä-C1äC2aC2C3o
ʔa-red. ʔa-C1äC2aC2C2äC3ä jaC1äC2aC2C2ɨC3 jaC1äC2aC2C3 ʔa-C1äC2aC2C3o
ʔa-s-red. ʔa-s-C1äC2aC2C2äC3ä ja-s-C1äC2aC2C2ɨC3 ja-s-C1äC2aC2C3 ʔa-s-C1äC2aC2C3o
*ʔa-t-red. ʔa-C1-C1äC2aC2C2äC3ä ja-C1-C1äC2aC2C2ɨC3 ja-C1-C1äC2aC2C ʔa-C1-C1äC2aC2C3o
Note: red. = reduplicated.
The internal opposition system of the various Amharic diatheses, i.e., the way in which
the various diatheses affect the semantics of the resulting verb forms, can be illustrated
as follows:
G vs. tä-(passive, reflexive, reciprocal)

säbbärä ‘he/it broke’ vs. täsäbbärä ‘he/it was broken’
marräkä ‘he captured’ vs. tämarräkä ‘he was captured’
G vs. G-reduplicated (intensifying)

säbbärä ‘he broke’ vs. säbabbärä ‘he smashed to pieces’
näggärä ‘he talked’ vs. nägaggärä ‘he conversed’
G-reduplicated vs. tä-reduplicated (passive, intensifying)

säbabbärä ‘he smashed to pieces’ vs. täsäbabbärä ‘it was smashed to pieces’
G vs. a-/a-s- (causative)
bälla ‘he ate’ vs. ʔabälla ‘he fed’ (“gave to eat”)
t’ätt’a ‘he drank’ vs. ʔat’ätt’a ‘he gave to drink’;
ʔajjä ‘he saw’ vs. ʔasajjä ‘he showed’;
mälläsä ‘he returned (trans.)’ vs. ʔasmälläsä ‘he caused to return (trans.)’
tä-reduplicated vs. *a-t-reduplicated (causative, reciprocal)

täkassäsu ‘they accused each other’ vs. ʔakkassäsu ‘they sued each other’
4.6.4 Impersonal verbs
Impersonal verbs, or rather verbs with demoted subject, are quite widespread in Amharic
(cf., e.g., Edzard 2016). Mostly, such experiencer constructions occur in the semantic
realms of sensation, emotion, cognition, volition and perception. Examples include the
following:
rabä-w ‘he is hungry’ (“it hungered him”)’

t’ämma-w ‘he is thirsty’ (“it thirsted him”)
bärrädä-w ‘he feels cold/freezes’ (“it froze him”)
mok’ä-w ‘he feels hot’ (“it heated him”)
däkkämä-w ‘he is tired’ (“it tired him”)
ammämä-w ‘he got sick’ (“it made him sick”)
216 Lutz Edzard
4.6.5 Phrasal verbs
Similar to conflated complements as in verb phrases like to make love, phrasal verbs
express verbal ideas by juxtaposing an invariable element (ideophone, onomatopoetic,
noun or other; cf. Meyer 2011: 1197) and one of the verbs ʔalä ‘to say’ and ʔadärrägä ‘to
make’, often semantically bleached, which contains the grammatical information. Exam-
ples include k’uʧʧ’ alä ‘to sit’, zɨmm alä ‘to be quiet’, k’uʧʧ’ ʔadärrägä ‘to put down’ and
täsfa ʔadärrägä ‘to hope’.
Appleyard (2012) demonstrates that constructions linking an invariable element with
the conjugated verb ‘to say’, e.g., Bilin (Cushitic) fuf j-ɨxw ‘he blew’ (“fuf he said”) con-
stitute an areal feature in Ethiopia.
4.6.6 Negation
Verbal negation is expressed by the prefix ʔal- combined with the suffix -(ɨ)mm in the
suffix conjugation and the prefix ʔa-with the same suffix in the different prefix conjuga-
tions. In the simple prefix conjugation and in subordinate clauses, the prefix ʔa-alone is
used (Table 9.18).
The existential verb ʔallä (morphologically suffix conjugation, but semantically denot-
ing non-past) appears negated in the form jällä-mm ‘he/it does not exist’. The copula
n-äw is negated as ʔajdällä-mm ‘he is not’.
4.6.7 Discourse markers

The suffixes -mm and -ss (the latter mostly in questions) serve to mark contrastive
focus, e.g., ʔɨne-mm dähna nä-ɲɲ “me too, I am fine’ (1sg-foc good/well cop-1msg.
obj), ʔɨrswo-ss ʔɨndämɨn nä-wot ‘and you (pol), how are you?’ (2sg.pol-foc how
cop-2sg.pol).
4.7 Prepositions
Prepositions (relational prefixes) can be prefixed to both nouns and verbs, in the latter
case also to an additional relative marker. Many prepositions are used together with
postpositions (often grammaticalized nouns; cf. Yri 2005), thus forming circumposi-
tions, a typical feature of SOV languages (see §5.1). Table 9.19 follows Meyer (2011:
1199).
In combination with the relative prefix, portmanteau morphemes emerge (§3.7), e.g.,
bä- + jä- > bä, as in b-alläfä-w samɨnt (< *bä-jä-alläfä-w samɨnt) ‘last week’ (in-[rel]-
pass.sc.3msg-def week).
TABLE 9.18 VERBAL NEGATION IN AMHARIC
ʔal-säbbärä-mm ‘he did not break’ (neg-break.sc.3msg-neg)

ʔa-jsäbr-ɨmm ‘he does not break’ (neg-break.pc.3msg-neg)
s-a-jsäb ‘when he does not break’ (if-neg-break.pc.3msg)
ʔa-jɨsbär ‘let him not break’ (neg-break.juss.3msg)
Amharic 217
TABLE 9.19 AMHARIC PREPOSITIONS
Prep. Before Noun Before (Relative) Verb
jä- of (gen) which, who (rel)

l(ä)- for (addressee, beneficiary) in order to
kä from, with (comitative) if (real condition)
b(ä)- in, at, on, with, through, by, if (unreal condition), when (temporal)
against (locative,
instrumental, malefactive)
ʔәnd(ä)- like that (complementizer), just as
sәlä- because of because
ʔәsk(ä)- until, to until
bästä- towards (restricted use) –
s- – while, when
wädä(-) towards –
(j)alä(-) without –
5 SYNTAX
5.1 Word order
In terms of the criteria established by Greenberg (1966), Amharic is a model SOV lan-
guage. Strict SOV languages, like Amharic, typically have the following morphosyntac-
tic traits:
• Postpositions (or circumpositions) are used instead of prepositions.

• A suffixed (post-specifying) definite article and object marker.
• Adjectives, genitives and relative clauses precede their head noun.
• The standard of comparison precedes the adjective.
• The auxiliary is positioned after the main verb.
• The position of the verb (including the copula) is sentence-final.
Already Leslau (1945) had demonstrated that these features in Amharic can clearly be
attributed to a Cushitic substratum (cf. also Ferguson 1976: 75, Appleyard 1978, 2011).
Kapeliuk (2009) adduces further evidence confirming that a Cushitic substratum in
Ethio-Semitic syntax is also discernible in the use of the gerund, the frequent replacement
of adjectives by relative verbal clauses (cf. also Edzard 2001) and the use of synthetic
verbal forms.
Here are some illustrative examples:
ad (i) ʔɨ-bet wɨst’ bä-mɨdɨr laj

kä-mɨsa bäfit
in-house within at-earth on from-lunch before
‘in the house’ ‘on earth’ ‘before lunch’
ad (ii) bet bet-u bet-u-n

house house-def house- def-acc
‘a house’ ‘the house’ (subject) ‘the house’ (object)
218 Lutz Edzard
ad (iii) tɨllɨk’ bet tɨllɨk’-u bet tɨllɨk’-u-n bet

big house big-def house big-def-acc house
‘a big house’ ‘the big house’ (subject) ‘the big house’ (object)
jä-lɨʤ bet jä-lɨʤ-u bet

gen- child house
gen-child-def house
‘a child’s house’ ‘the house of the child’
jä-mätt’a lɨʤ jä-mätt’a-w lɨʤ

rel-come.sc.3msg child rel-come.sc.3msg-def child
‘a child that came’ ‘the child that came’
A possessive suffix to a noun-adjective phrase appears at the right edge, e.g., tɨllɨk’-u
bet-u ‘his big house’ (big-def house-3msg.poss).
ad (iv) kä-Täsfaje räʒʒim kä-sswa k’onʤo

from-Täsfaye tall from-her beautiful
‘taller than Täsfaye’ ‘more beautiful than she’
ad (v) jǝsäbr jǝsäbr-all

break.pc.3msg break.pc.3msg-aux.3msg
‘he breaks’ (dependent) ‘he breaks’ (independent)
säbro (dependent gerund) säbrw-all (independent “compound” gerund)

break.cvb.3msg break.cvb.3msg-aux.3msg
‘breaking, having broken’ ‘he has broken’ (resultative)
ad (vi) wɨʃʃa-w lɨʤ-u-n näkkäsä

dog-def child-def-acc bite.sc.3msg
‘the dog bit the child’
lɨʤ-u ʔitjopp’әjawi n-äw

child- def Ethiopian cop-3msg.obj
‘the child/boy is (an) Ethiopian’
5.2 Relative clauses and cleft sentences

Relative clauses, which in Amharic often take the role of adjectives and participles, also
play a major role in Amharic. Instead of simple predication, e.g., ʔabat-e mätt’a ‘my father
came’ (father-1sg.poss come.sc.3msg) it is often more idiomatic to use a cleft sentence
(cf., e.g., Yri 2006): jä-mätt’a-w ʔabat-e n-äw ‘it is my father who came.’ ≈ ‘my father
came’ (REL-come.sc.3msg-def father-1sg.poss cop-3msg.obj) or (with the same meaning)
ʔabat-e n-äw jä-mätt’a-w (father-1sg.poss cop-3msg.obj REL-come.sc.3msg-def). The
latter construction does not automatically imply increased focus. Adverbial phrases can
be embedded in the same manner:
jämmɨ-tɨnor-äw ʔaddis ʔabäba n-äw

rel-live.pc.2msg-def Addis Ababa cop-3msg.obj
‘It is in Addis Ababa that you live.’ ≈ ‘You live in Addis Ababa.’
(or: ʔaddis ʔabäba näw jä-mmɨ-tɨnor-äw)
Amharic 219
tɨnantɨnna n-äw j-ajjähuw-aʧʧäw

yesterday cop-3msg.obj rel-see.sc.1sg-3pl.obj/3sg.pol.obj
‘It is yesterday that I saw them/Him.’ ≈ ‘I saw them/Him yesterday.’
sɨläzzih n-äw wädä ʔitɨjopp’ɨja jä-mätt’ahu-t

therefore cop-3msg.obj towards Ethiopia rel -come.sc.1sg-def
‘It is therefore I came to Ethiopia.’ ≈ ‘Therefore I came to Ethiopia.
Negated relative phrases function as follows:
j-al-säbbärä ‘(he) who did not break’ (rel-neg-break.sc.3msg)

jämm-a-jsäbɨr ‘(he) who does not break’ (rel-neg-break.pc.3msg)
5.3 Converb constructions

Amharic converbs cover a wide range of usages, from marking a sequence of events and
coincidence to adverbial use. While they usually agree with the sentence-final finite verb
(though different-subject constructions exist as well), they can also be frozen in the 3rd
person singular when used adverbially (cf., e.g., Edzard 2014). Here are a few examples:
1 sequence of events
taksi t’ärtäw täsaffɨräw kä-t’ɨk’it gize bä-hwala mɨgɨb bet
taxi call.cvb.3pl get_in.cvb.3pl from- little time after food house
jɨdärsallu
arrive.pc.3pl
‘they call a taxi, get in, and after a while they arrive at the restaurant’
(‘having called, a taxi, having gotten in, . . .’)
2 coincidence
lɨʤ-u rot’o gäbba
child-def run.cvb.3msg come_in.sc.3msg
‘the boy came running’ (‘the boy [he] running he came’)
3 adverbial use (manner)
däkmo wäddäk’ä
be_exhausted.cvb.3msg fall.sc.3msg
‘he fell exhausted’ (‘[he] being exhausted he fell’)
4 lexicalized converb with agreement
ʔabrän ʔɨnnɨmät’allän
be_together.cvb.1pl come.pc.1pl
‘we will come together’ (‘[we] being together we will come’)
5 lexicalized converb without agreement (frozen in 3msg)
fäss’ɨmo ʔat’äffu-t
complete.cvb.3msg destroy.sc.3pl-3msg.obj
‘they completely destroyed it’ (‘[he] having completed they destroyed it’)
5.4 Coordination and subordination

Nouns are coordinated by the suffix -(ɨ)nna, e.g., bal-ɨnna mist ‘married couple’ (husband
and wife); they can also appear asyndetically, e.g., ʔɨnnat ʔabbat ‘[one pair of] parents’
220 Lutz Edzard
(mother father). The disjunctive conjunctions are wäjɨm and wäjɨss ‘or’, the latter one
being used exclusively in questions.
Finite verbs are likewise coordinated by -(ɨ)nna, e.g., jɨbäla-nna jɨt’ätt’a-ll ‘he eats and
(then he) drinks’ (eat.pc.3msg-and drink.pc.3msg-aux.3msg). An asyndetic construction
jɨbäla-ll jɨt’ätt’a-ll (eat.pc.3msg-aux.3msg drink.pc.3msg-aux.3msg) with the same mean-
ing is also attested. The particles (nägär) gɨn and ɨnʤi ‘but, yet’ both serve to express
adversative coordination.
Subordinated events appear in the gerund (§5.3) or in the simple prefix conjugation
with a preposition:
zɨnab s-inor ʔajär-u jɨk’äzäkk’ɨz-all

rain when-live.pc.3msg air-def be(come)_cold.pc.3msg-aux.3msg
‘when it rains the air becomes cold’ (cf. Meyer 2016: 197).
The majority of prepositions, except s-(when, while), bä-(unreal condition), and kä-
(real condition + perfective) (cf. Meyer 2011: 1201–2), in the function of conjunctions
require the relative prefix jä(mm)-:
t’änkɨro sɨlä-mm-isära bɨzu jɨkkäffäl-äw-all

hard because-rel-work.pc.3msg much be_paid.pc.3msg-3msg.obj-aux.3msg
‘because he works hard he gets paid a lot’ (cf. Leslau 1995: 307).
6 LEXICON
6.1 The Semitic stock
Amharic shares a considerable number of triradical verbs and nouns, as well as pro-
nouns, prepositions and particles found across Semitic (for a statistical survey, cf. Apple-
yard 1979). As Leslau’s (1987: 765–813) index of Semitic roots clearly demonstrates,
many common Semitic roots are also found in Gɨʕɨz and hence have made their way
into Amharic (without claiming that Amharic is a direct successor of Gɨʕɨz). Akkadian
eblu, Hebrew ħeḇel, Arabic and Gɨʕɨz ħabl etc. all correspond to Amharic habl ‘rope’
(with a weakened guttural). Some of these lemmata are loan words in South Semitic (as
opposed to common Semitic roots). Often, other roots are used in Amharic (and other
South Semitic languages) as compared with common Semitic, e.g., bälla ‘to eat’ (< com-
mon Semitic balaʕ ‘to swallow’), as opposed to common Semitic ʔakala ‘to eat’.
6.2 Cushitic loan words

There are ubiquitous traces of Cushitic lexical substratum in Ethio-Semitic (cf. Leslau
1945, 1952, Appleyard 1977). Appleyard (1977) identifies Cushitic loans in the following
semantic fields:
1 “Man,” comprising general terms, kinship terms and parts of the body, e.g., Amharic
ʔaggot ‘uncle’ < Bilin (Central Cushitic) ʔäg.
2 “The domestic environment,” comprising agricultural activities and implements,
crops, domestic animals, food and its preparation and the [realm of the] house, e.g.,
Amharic doro ‘chicken’ < Saho-Afar (East-Cushitic) dorho.
Amharic 221
3 “The natural environment,” comprising natural phenomena, flora, and fauna, e.g.,
däga ‘highlands’ < Bilin (Central Cushitic) dag ‘summit, above’.
4 “Social organization,” comprising law and government, economy, warfare and reli-
gion, e.g., ʔat’e ‘emperor’ < Kemant (Central Cushitic) aʃena.
5 “Grammatical items,” comprising pronouns, numerals, and particles, e.g., ʃi(h)
‘thousand’ < Bilin (Central Cushitic) ʃix.
6.3 Arabic loan words

Disregarding specifically Islamic vocabulary used by Muslims in Ethiopia, examples of
Arabic loanwords generally used in Amharic are hakim ‘(medical) doctor’ (< ħakiːm),
tarik ‘history’ (< taʔriːx), hɨsab ‘bill’ (< ħisaːb), mäk’äs ‘scissors’ (< miqassˤ) and many
other terms (cf. Leslau 1990, Zaborski 2003).
Some words reflect Arabic pronunciation, notably [jä-]ʔingliz agär ‘England’ ([gen‑]
English land).
6.4 European (Italian and English) loan words

The lexical influence of European languages, mainly Italian and English – as well as
lexical code-switching in general – is prominent in the whole Ethio-Semitic area (cf.,
e.g., Abraham Demoz 1963). Italian loan words in Amharic, which often carry a special
semantic shade, can be tentatively subcategorized as follows (cf. Edzard 2003):
1 Persons, professions: ʔɨmamma ‘mom’, mammo ‘male baby’, gutto ‘little stout per-
son’ (Ital. gatto ‘tomcat’), listro ‘shoe shine boy’ (Ital. lustro ‘shoe crème’).
2 Vehicles, technique, building material: fabrika ‘factory’, mäkina ‘car’ (Ital. mac-
china), gomma ‘rubber, tyre’, bukko ‘hole in tyre’ (Ital. buco), bonda ‘iron fixation’,
targa ‘name tag’ (Ital. targa ‘tag’), tubbo ‘[lead] pipe’ (Ital. tubo), ʔantena ‘antenna’,
siminto ‘concrete’ (Ital. cemento).
3 Appliances, furniture, tools, instruments, further items: banko ‘bar table’, baɲɲo
‘bathtub’, t’rumba ‘trumpet’, pakko ‘packet [of cigarettes]’, pippa ‘pipe’, kandella
‘cigarette lighter’, samuna ‘soap’ (Ital. sapone), karta ‘map’, gazet’a ‘newspaper’.
4 Clothing, fabrics: proba ‘fitting-on [at the tailor]’ (Ital. prova), kabba ‘coat’ (Ital.
cabba), kolleta ‘collar’ (Ital. colletto), lino ‘linen’.
5 Fruits, groceries, dishes, beverages, luxuries (“Genußmittel”): marmälata ‘jam’, furno
‘bread [of European style]’ (Ital. forno ‘furnace’), formaʤo ‘cheese’, sälat’a ‘salad’,
bira ‘beer’, sigara ‘cigar’, ʃäkolata ‘chocolate’, mastika ‘chewing gum’ (Ital. mastice).
6 Measures, abstract terms, institutions, other terms: litro ‘liter’, muzik’a ‘music’, nota
‘note’, ʔarma ‘sign’ (Ital. arma ‘weapon’), formula ‘formula’, firma ‘signature’ (from
which noun the root √f-r-m färrämä ‘to sign’ is extrapolated), fina ‘direction’ (Ital. fine
‘purpose’), polätika ‘politics’, posta ‘post’, ʔinfluwenza ‘influenza’ (Ital. influenza).
Place names at the Horn of Africa have often been transmitted in Italian orthography,
for instance Uccialli (Amharic Wɨʧ’ale) and Mogadiscio (Somali Muk’dishu). Also, some
Italian terms have gained the status of Amharic proper names, notably märkato, the big
market in Addis Ababa (mercato) and pijassa, the inner city of Addis Ababa (piazza).
Some country names in Ethio-Semitic equally reflect Italian pronunciation, e.g., rusija
‘Russia’ and, of course, it’alja ‘Italy’ itself.
222 Lutz Edzard
The numerous English loan words in Amharic official vocabulary include terms such
as ripablik ‘republic’, juniversiti ‘university’, ʔembasi ‘embassy’, administreʃɨn ‘admin-
istration’ and others. English pronunciation appears also in the word for “German” and
“Germany” [jä-]ʤärmän ʔagär ‘Germany’ ([gen-]German land).
7 SAMPLE TEXTS
1 Treaty of Wɨč ̣ale (“Uccialli”) between Italy and Ethiopia, §17.
የኢትዮጵያ ንጉሠ ነገሣት ከኤውሮጳ ነገሥታት
jä-ʔitjopp’ɨja nɨgusä nägäst kä-ʔewropp’a nägästat
gen-Ethiopia king.cst king.pl with.gen-Europe government.pl
ለሚፈልጉት ጉዳይ ሁሉ በኢጣልያ መንግሥት
lä-mm-ifällɨgu-t guddaj hullu bä-ʔit’alja mängɨst
for-rel-want.3pol-3msg.obj thing all in.gen-Italy government
አጋዥነት መላላክ ይቻላቸዋል ።
ʔaggaʒɨnnät mällalak jɨʧʧal-aʧʧäw-all.
help communicate.inf be_possible.3msg-3pol.obj-aux.3msg
‘The King of Kings of Ethiopia has the option to communicate with the help of the
Government of Italy for all [international] affairs that he wants with Governments
of Europe.’
2 Haile Selassie (cf. Kapeliuk 1999: 15–16).

ዚህ ባለፈውና ባሁኑ ዘመን የኢትዮጵያ
bä-zzih b-alläfä-w-ɨnna b-ahun-u zämän jä-ʔitjopp’ɨja
in-dem.msg in.rel-pass.sc.3msg-def-and in-now-def time gen-Ethiopia
ሕዝብ ከተራው ሰው አንስቶ እስከ ንጉሠ
hɨzb kä-tära-w säw ʔansɨto ʔɨskä nɨgusä
people from-ordinary-def man start.cvb.msg until king.cst
ነገሥቱ፤ ለጊዜው በኀዘን ባሕር እንዲሰጥም
nägäst-u, lä-gize-w bä-hazän bahr ɨnd-isät’m
king.pl-3msg.poss for-time-def in.gen-sadness sea comp-sink.pc.3msg
የኢጣልያ ሕዝብ እስከ ንጉሡ ለጊዜው በደስታ ባሕር

jä-it’alja hɨzb ɨskä nɨgus-u lä-gize-w bä-dässɨta bahr
gen- Italy people until king-
3msg.poss for-time-def in.gen-joy sea
እንዲዋኝ ያደረግህበት ምክንያት
ɨnd-iwaɲ j-adärräghɨ-bbä-t-ɨn mɨknäjat
comp-swim.pc.3msg rel-do.sc.2msg-appl-3msg.obj-acc reason
አንተ ብቻ ታውቀዋለህ እንጂ ፍጡር

ʔantä bɨʧʧa tawk’-äw-alläh ʔɨnʤi fɨt’ur
you.2msg only know.pc.2msg-3msg.obj-aux.2msg but creature
ተመራምሮ ለማወቅ የማይችለው
tämäramro lä-mawäk’ jämm-a-jɨʧɨl-äw
investigate.cvb.3msg for-know.inf rel-neg-can.pc.3msg-3msg.obj
Amharic 223
ረቂቅ ምስጢር ነው ።
räk’ik’ mɨst’ir n-äw.
subtle secret cop-3msg.obj
‘It is a subtle secret which a creature, even after much exploring, cannot know but
which You alone do know: why in the immediate past as well as now You have made
the Ethiopian people, from the ordinary man to the Emperor, sink in a sea of distress
for a time, and why You have made the Italian people up to its king swim in a sea of
joy for a time.’
3 Bǝrhanu Zärihun, Maʔǝbäl (‘The Wave’), p. 11, l. 7–21 (adapted from Krzyżanowska

2016: 83f).
ለሥጋቱ ብዙ ምክንያቶች ነበሩት።
lä-sɨgat-u bɨzu mɨknjatoʧʧ näbbär-u-t.
for-anxiety-poss.3msg many reason.pl aux.pst-3pl-3msg.obj
ሥራ የለውም። እንዴት ይኖራል? [. . .]

sɨra jällä-wɨ-mm. ɨndet jɨnor-all?
job cop.not_exist.3msg-3msg.obj-neg how live.3msg.pc-aux.npst.3msg
ይኖርበት የነበረው ቤት ሌላ ሰው
jɨnorɨ-bb-ät jä-näbbärä-w bet lela säw
live.3msg.pc-apl-3msg.obj rel-aux.sc.3msg-def house other man
እንደተከራየው ጓደኞቹ አይተው
ɨndä-täkärajjä-w gwaddäɲɲoʧʧ-u ajtäw
comp-rent.sc.3msg-3msg.obj friend.pl-poss.3msg see.cvb.3pl
ነግረውታል። [. . .] ጓደኞቹ

nägräw-ɨt-all. gwaddäɲɲoʧʧ-u
tell.cvb.3pl-3msg.obj-aux.npst.3msg friend.pl-poss.3msg
ካላስጠጉት በስተቀር ሌላ መግቢያ
kal-ast’äggu-t bästäk’är lela mägbija
if.neg-approach.sc.3pl-3msg.obj unless other entrance
የለውም። እርግጥ አፍ አውጥተው
jällä-wɨ-mm. ɨrgǝṭ af awt’ɨtäw
cop.not_exist.3msg-3msg.obj-neg of_course mouth bring_out.cvb.3pl
እምቢ አይሉት ይሆናል። ከልብ

ɨmbi a-jlu-t jɨhon-all. kä-lɨbb
no neg-say.3pl.ipfv-3msg.obj be.pc.3sg-aux.npst.3msg from-heart
ፈቃደኞች ስለ መሆናቸው እርግጠኛ አይደለም

fäk’adäɲɲoʧʧ sɨlä mähon-aʧʧäw ɨrgɨt’äɲɲa ajdällä-mm
volunteer.pl about be.vn-poss.3pl sure cop.not_be.3msg-neg
‘He had lots of reasons for his concern. He doesn’t have work. How is he going to
live? [. . .] His friends have seen that somebody else rented the house where he used
to live and told him so [. . .]. Unless his friends take him in, he has no place to stay.
Of course, they may not openly refuse him. He is not sure whether their offer will
be sincere.’
224 Lutz Edzard
REFERENCES
Abraham Demoz. “European Loanwords in an Amharic Newspaper.” In Language in
Africa, edited by John Spencer, 116–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Appleyard, David. “A Comparative Approach to the Amharic Lexicon.” Afroasiatic
Linguistics 5 (1977): 1–67.
Appleyard, David L. “Linguistic Evidence of Non-Semitic Influence in the History of
Ethiopian Semitic.” Abbay 9 (1978): 49–56.
Appleyard, David L. “A Statistical Survey of the Amharic Lexicon.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 24.1 (1979): 71–97.
Appleyard, David L. “Semitic-Cushitic/Omotic Relations.” In The Semitic Languages.
An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 38–53. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2011.
Appleyard, David L. “Cushitic.” In Semitic and Afroasiatic: Challenges and Opportunities,
edited by Lutz Edzard, 199–295. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
Daniels, Peter. “Scripts of Semitic Languages.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by
Robert Hetzron, 16–45. London: Routledge, 1997.
Edzard, Lutz. “The Obligatory Contour Principle and Dissimilation in Afroasiatic.”
Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 3.2 (1992): 152–71.
Edzard, Lutz. “Adjektive und nominalisierte Relativsätze im Semitischen. Versuch einer
Typologie.” In New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics. Robert Hetzron
In Memoriam, edited by Andrzej Zaborski, 39–52. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001.
Edzard, Lutz. “Externe Sprachgeschichte des Italienischen in Libyen und Ostafrika.” In
Romanische Sprachgeschichte, edited by Gerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleßgen,
Christian Schmitt, and Wolfgang Schweickard, vol. 1, 966–72. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.
Edzard, Lutz. “Complex Annexations in Semitic.” In Relative Clauses and Genitive
Constructions in Semitic, edited by Jan Retsö and Janet Watson, 51–64. Manchester:
The University of Manchester/Oxford University Press (Journal of Semitic Studies
Supplement 25), 2009.
Edzard, Lutz. “The Finite – Infinite Dichotomy in a Comparative Semitic Perspective.”
In Explorations in Ethiopian Linguistics: Complex Predicates, Finiteness and
Interrogativity, edited by Azeb Amha, Ronny Meyer, and Yvonne Treis, 205–23.
Edzard, Lutz. “Experiencer Constructions and the Resultative Function of Impersonal
Verbs in Ethio-Semitic.” In Time in Languages of the Horn of Africa, edited by Ronny
Meyer and Lutz Edzard, 138–56. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016.
Ferguson, Charles A. “The Ethiopian Language Area.” In Language in Ethiopia, edited
by M. Lionel Bender et al., 63–76. London: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Greenberg, Joseph. “Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order
of Meaningful Elements.” In Universals of Language (2nd ed.), edited by Joseph
Greenberg, 73–113. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966.
Hetzron, Robert. Ethiopian Semitic. Studies in Classification. Manchester: Manchester
Hudson, Grover. “A and B-type Verbs in Ethiopian and Proto-Semitic.” In Semitic
Studies. In Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, edited
by Alan S. Kaye, 679–89. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991.
Kapeliuk, Olga. Syntax of the Noun in Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994.
Amharic 225
Kapeliuk, Olga. “Regularity and Deviation in Peripheral Neo-Semitic.” In Tradition and

Innovation. Norm and Deviation in Arabic and Semitic Linguistics, edited by Lutz
Edzard and Mohammed Nekroumi, 11–21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999.
Kapeliuk, Olga. “The Persistence of Cushitic Influence on the Syntax of Ethio-Semitic.”
In Selected Papers in Ethio-Semitic and Neo-Aramaic Linguistics, edited by Olga
Kapeliuk, 154–60. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2009.
Krzyżanowska, Magdalena. “Interaction of Time and Epistemic Modality in Amharic.”
In Time in Languages of the Horn of Africa, edited by Ronny Meyer and Lutz Edzard,
Leslau, Wolf. “The Influence of Cushitic on the Semitic Languages of Ethiopia. A Problem
of Substratum.” Word 1.1 (1945): 59–82.
Leslau, Wolf. “The Influence of Sidamo on the Ethiopic Languages of Gurage.” Language
28.1 (1952): 63–81.
Leslau, Wolf. “The Jussive in Chaha.” Language 40.1 (1964): 53–7.
Leslau, Wolf. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987.
Leslau, Wolf. Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopian Semitic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990.
Wetter, Andreas. Das Argobba. Eine deskriptive Grammatik der Varietät von Shonke und
T’ollaha. Köln: Köppe, 2010.
Yri, Kjell Magne. “Decategorialization of Nouns as Postpositions in Sidaamú ʔafó and
Amharic.” In Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon I, edited
by Lutz Edzard and Jan Retsö, 116–31. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005.
Yri, Kjell Magne. “Cleft Sentences in Amharic, with Special Reference to Reference.”
In Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon II, edited by Lutz
Edzard and Jan Retsö, 41–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006.
Zaborski, Andrzej. “Arabic Loan-words.” In Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, edited by
Siegbert Uhlig et al., vol. 1. A – C, 308–9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.
GENERAL AMHARIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Further readings
Bender, Marvin Lionel et al. (eds.). Language in Ethiopia. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1976.
Meyer, Ronny. “Aspect and Tense in Ethiosemitic Languages.” In The Morpho-syntactic
Encoding of Tense and Aspect in Semitic, edited by Lutz Edzard, 159–239. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2016a.
Meyer, Ronny. “Emergence of Tense in Ethio-Semitic.” In Time in Languages of the Horn
of Africa, edited by Ronny Meyer and Lutz Edzard, 179–236. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,
2016b.
Meyer, Ronny. “The Ethiopic Script: Linguistic Features and Socio- Cultural
Connotations.” In Multilingual Ethiopia: Linguistic Challenges and Capacity Building
Efforts, edited by Binyam Sisay Mendisu and Janne Bondi Johannessen, 137–72. Oslo:
Oslo Studies in Language, 8/1, 2016c.
Meyer, Ronny. “The Role of Amharic as a National Language and an African Lingua
Franca.” In The Semitic Languages. An International Handbook, edited by Stefan
Weninger, 1212–20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011b.
226 Lutz Edzard
Grammars
Anbessa, Teferra and Grover Hudson. Essentials of Amharic. Cologne: Köppe, 2007.
Hartmann, Josef. Amharische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1980.
Leslau, Wolf. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995.
Dictionaries
Kane, Thomas Leiper. Amharic-English Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990.
Leslau, Wolf. Concise Amharic Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976.
Textbooks
Appleyard, David. Colloquial Amharic. A Complete Language Course. London:
Routledge, 1995.
Leslau, Wolf. Amharic Textbook. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967.
Overview articles
Hudson, Grover. “Amharic and Argobba.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert
Hetzron, 457–85. London: Routledge, 1997.
Meyer, Ronny. “Amharic.” In The Semitic Languages. An International Handbook,
edited by Stefan Weninger, 1178–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011a.
CHAPTER 10
GURAGE (MUHER) 1 RONNY MEYERGURAGE (MUHER)
Ronny Meyer
1 INTRODUCTION
Surrounded by speakers of Cushitic and Omotic languages, Gurage is the southernmost
extension of Ethiosemitic. Historically, Gurage is a toponym, but does not refer to a
uniform ethnolinguistic group (cf. Meyer 2011: 1220–4). Geo-politically, Gurage refers
to the inhabitants of the Gurage Zone in southern Ethiopia, viz., the Wolane and Gunnän
Gurage (Map 10.1). Formerly, the Silt’e were also part of the Gurage Zone, but estab-
lished their own zone in 2001, whereas the Zay live among the Oromo. Estimates of
the Gurage population range from three to five million. Bilingualism with Amharic, the
official language in the Gurage Zone, is widespread.
Linguistically, Gurage comprises two distinct genetic branches: East Gurage (with
Silt’e, Wolane, Zay) as part of Transversal South Ethiosemitic, and Gunnän Gurage (i.e.,
all languages in Figure 10.1 except Gafat) belonging to Outer South Ethiosemitic. Within
Gunnän Gurage, Muher, Kistane, Dobbi (and Galila) form the Northern Gurage group
(cf. Hetzron 1972: 119):
Subgroup 1 (with mvm *-n)

†Gafat
Kistane, Dobbi and †Galila
Subgroup 2 (with mvm *-tt)
Muher (ädi bet and anä bet dialects)
western gurage (wg)
Mesqan
central and peripheral wg
central wg dialect continuum: Chaha, Ezha, Gumer, Gura
peripheral wg dialect continuum: Inor, Ener, Endegagn, Gyeta, †Mesmes
FIGURE 10.1 OUTER SOUTH ETHIOSEMITIC
The subgrouping and classification of the Gurage varieties in distinct languages and
related dialects is still under discussion (cf. Hudson 2013: 11–34). This chapter focuses
only on the little known ädi-bet variety of Muher.2
228 Ronny Meyer
ER
IT
RE
A
YEMEN
TI
U
O
B
JI
D
ETHIOPIA
LEGEND
Muher
MAP 10.1 THE MUHER SPEECH AREA
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Apart from Silt’e, which has been written since 1982 and used as medium of instruction
in primary schools since 1995, Gurage varieties are limited to oral communication. There
is no written literary tradition, except for a few recent works, written in a modified Ethi-
opic script.3 The earliest known Gurage text, from the mid-19th century, is the translation
of the Gospels of Matthew and John into Kistane.4 Later, other Kistane and Chaha texts
followed (Goldenberg 2009: 186–8), which all are written in a modified fidel, with addi-
tional graphemes for labialized and palatalized consonants (Meyer 2016a: 154). In 2013,
the Gurage Zone established a Language Board to promote and standardize Gurage, and
ratified an official Gurage script, similar to the previous modified Ethiopic script (see
Fekede 2015: 275 for the script table), which is shown in Table 10.1.5
Like the original Ethiopic script, the current Gurage script is an alphasyllabary (or
abugida) with symbols that mainly represent consonant-vowel sequences, but do not
indicate vowel length, diphthongs, gemination or stress. The column Cä shows the basic
graphemes, which – in contrast to the original Ethiopic script – are regularly pronounced
with the vowel ä, even with gutturals. Thus, ዐ ሐ <ʔä hä> are uttered [ʔä hä], not [ʔa ha]
found in other Ethiosemitic languages. The Gurage script has additional graphemes for
palatal (Cʲ) and labial (Cʷ) coarticulated consonants.
Among Muslim Gurage, particularly those who are literate in Arabic, a modified Ara-
bic script (Ajäm) is used for writing. So far only a few Ajäm texts have been published
for Silt’e (see Hussein 2010: 49, Wagner 1983).
TABLE 10.1 CURRENT PAN-GUNNÄN GURAGE SCRIPT
Consonant (C) Cä Cu Ci Ca Ce C(ɨ) Co
h ሐ ሑ ሒ ሓ ሔ ሕ ሖ
ç/hʲ ⷇ ⶟ ⶧ ⶯ ⶷ ⶿ ⷇
hʷ ᎚ ᎛ ᎜ ᎝ ᎞
mʷ ᎀ ᎁ ሟ ᎂ ᎃ
r ረ ሩ ሪ ራ ሬ ር ሮ
ʃ/sʲ ሸ ሹ ሺ ሻ ሼ ሽ ሾ
k’ ቀ ቁ ቂ ቃ ቄ ቅ ቆ
c’/k’ʲ ቐ ቑ ቒ ቓ ቔ ቕ ቖ
k’ʷ ቈ ቊ ቎ ቌ ቍ
bʷ ᎄ ᎅ ቧ ᎆ ᎇ
v ቨ ቩ ቪ ቫ ቬ ቭ ቮ
ʧ/tʲ ቸ ቹ ቺ ቻ ቼ ች ቾ
ɲ/nʲ ኘ ኙ ኚ ኛ ኜ ኝ ኞ
(ø or vowel) አ ኡ ኢ ኣ ኤ እ ኦ
c/kʲ ኸ ኹ ኺ ኻ ኼ ኽ ኾ
kʷ ኰ ኲ ኳ ኴ ኵ
ʔ ዐ ዑ ዒ ዓ ዔ ዕ ዖ
ʒ/zʲ ዠ ዡ ዢ ዣ ዤ ዥ ዦ
j የ ዩ ዪ ያ ዬ ይ ዮ
ʤ/dʲ ጀ ጁ ጂ ጃ ጄ ጅ ጆ
g ገ ጉ ጊ ጋ ጌ ግ ጎ
ɟ/gʲ ጘ ጙ ጚ ጛ ጜ ጝ ጞ
gʷ ጐ ጒ ጓ ጔ ጕ
t’ ጠ ጡ ጢ ጣ ጤ ጥ ጦ
ʧ’/t’ʲ ጨ ጩ ጪ ጫ ጬ ጭ ጮ
p’ ጰ ጱ ጲ ጳ ጴ ጵ ጶ
s’ ጸ ጹ ጺ ጻ ጼ ጽ ጾ
fʷ ᎈ ᎉ ፏ ᎊ ᎋ
p ፐ ፑ ፒ ፓ ፔ ፕ ፖ
pʷ ᎌ ᎍ ፗ ᎎ ᎏ
230 Ronny Meyer
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Segmental phonemes
Besides the Muher consonant phonemes shown in Table 10.2, p p’ v s’ occur in loan
words. Coarticulated consonants (Cʷ Cʲ) are phonemic and result from morphophonolog-
ical processes (Rose 1997: 8, Leslau 1981: 9).6 Singleton /b bʷ/ have the allophones [β w]
postvocalically, and [b bʷ] elsewhere. In the coda, /h/ is optionally pronounced [h/χ];7 /hʷ/
is realized as [χʷ] or [h] plus back vowel: [χʷɔnä-m/hɔnä-m] ‘become’.8
Although there is no systematic study of the development from Proto-Semitic to indi-
vidual Gurage languages, the following general changes can be observed for Muher (cf.
Kogan 2011, Hetzron 1969, 1977: 33–41):
• interdental and lateral fricatives change to (post-)alveolars: *ʕθ’m > at’ɨm ‘bone’,
*ʔðun > ɨnzɨn ‘ear’, *θ’ipr > t’ɨfɨr ‘nail’, *ś ̣ħk’> sak’- ‘to laugh’
• weakening of *k>h(>ø)
• gutturals are lost (*Vs’bVʕ > at’ebät ‘finger’, *ʔxz > (ʔ)ɛ͡äz-/ez- ‘to seize’, *warx >
wärä ‘month’), or merge to ʔ, which may yield the vocalic radical A9 in roots (*ʕwd >
(ʔ)od- ‘to tell’, *ħlb > (ʔ)ajb ‘milk (n.)’, *ħs’r > √ A-t’-r ‘make a fence’, *xs’r >
√ A-t’-r ‘be short’, *ʃʕl > √ s-A-l ‘to ask’)
• additional palatal consonants c ɟ c’ ç beside common Ethiosemitic ʧ ʤ ʧ’ ʃ ʒ
• additional labialized consonants bʷ fʷ mʷ beside common Ethiosemitic kʷ gʷ k’ʷ hʷ
• alternation and partial merger of *r *l *n (see Fekede and Meyer 2015)
The phonemic status of the glottal stop is uncertain (Meyer 2011: 1226). Postvocalically,
singleton /k’ k’ʷ/ and less regularly /k’ʲ/ debuccalize to [ʔ ʔʷ (ʔʲ)], e.g., (1b). Elsewhere,
the glottal stop is limited to the word onset, where it is deleted or changes to the vocalic
radical A if a prefix is attached. It is grouped with the unstable glides j and w, which tend
to be weakened to vocoids (see below). Root-initial /w ʔ/ are deleted in the jussive base
(for the inflection of the sound root, see Table 10.13 later).
(1) a √ ʔ/A-r-t’ b √ w-t’-k’

j-art’-u. / jä-(ø)rt’! jɨ-wɔt’k’-u. / jä-(ø)t’äʔᶤ!
3-cut.pcl.msg-npst:mvm 3-cut.pcs.msg.tr 3-fall.pcl.msg-npst:mvm 3-fall.pcs.msg.intr
‘He cuts/will cut.’ ‘Let him cut!’ ‘He falls/is falling/will fall.’ ‘Let him fall!’
TABLE 10.2 CONSONANTS
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar/

Glottal
Postalveolar Prevelar
Stop/ vl t (tʲ>) tʃ (kʲ>) c k kʷ

Affricate vd b bʷ d (dʲ>) ʤ (gʲ>) ɟ g gʷ
ej t’ (t’ʲ>) tʃ’ (k’ʲ>) c’ k’ k’ʷ
Fricative vl f fʷ s (sʲ>) ʃ (hʲ>) ç h hʷ
vd z (zʲ>) ʒ
Nasal m mʷ n ɲɲ
Liquid rl
Glide j wʔ
Gurage (Muher) 231
TABLE 10.3 VOWELS
Front Central Back
Close i u
Mid e ɨ (ɘ) o
ä (ɜ)
Open a
Consonant mutation results from the partial changes *k>h, *l>*j>ʲ, and *ll>nn. If the
penultimate consonant of a root is affected, its realization in verb inflection may yield
the singleton/geminate pairs h/kk, ʲ/nn or palatalized ç/cc, ʲ/ɲɲ, which are represented by
the archiphonemes K, L and Kʲ, Lʲ (see Fekede and Meyer 2015).
Muher has seven vowel phonemes without phonemic length distinction (see Table 10.3).
The pronunciation of the central vowels is affected by vocoids and glides (2), and they
may merge with adjacent vowels (2b). Mid ä ɨ (for IPA ɜ ɘ) also function as epenthetic
vowels (§3.3).
Enclosed by the central vowels ä/a, w j tend to weaken to the vocoids ʷ ʲ, which merge
with the vowels to the diphthongs ɔ͡a and ɛ͡ä:
(2) a /bä-wälk’it’e/>[bɔ͡alk’it’e] b /bä-jännä-ä/>[bɛ͡ännä]

loc-Welkite cond-exist.neg-3msg
‘in Wolkite’ ‘if there is no’
Diachronic *j also weakens to ʲ, which is realized as coarticulation on root con-
sonants, e.g., bäccä-m ‘cry (v)’ (<*bäkkʲä; Geez bäkäjä). Another weakened *j,
originating from diachronic *r/*l, remains in situ, but assimilates with preceding
ä/a to *äʲ>ɛ/e, often realized with following ä/a as diphthong ɛ͡ä, as in k’ätt’ ɛ͡ä-m
(<*k’ätt’äʲä-m; Geez k’ätälä) ‘kill’, mɛ͡ä (<*mäʲa; Geez märʔa ‘carry’) ‘rib, waist’.
The vowel ɛ and diphthongs based on it tend to monophthongize to e, and ɔ͡a to o (or
rarely a).
3.2 Suprasegmentals
Non-segmental phonemic features are the vocoids ʷ ʲ, and gemination. The vocoids are
realized as coarticulation on other stem consonants (§3.4). Gemination, i.e., longer dura-
tion, conveys grammatical (§4.3.1) and lexical functions, e.g., waga ‘property’ vs. wagga
‘support (of a roof)’.10
Stress, which frequently falls on the penultimate, is not phonemic in Muher, but further
research is needed (cf. also Hetzron 1977: 42–3).
3.3 Syllable structure

The basic syllable in Muher is (Ci(Cii))V(Ciii)(Civ), with V being a vowel or diphthong.
Onset and coda may contain consonant clusters: [srä-m] ‘buy’, [ble] ‘bug’. Unpermitted
consonant sequences are dissolved by the epenthetic vowel ɨ. Word-initial r is usually
preceded by prosthetic ä.
232 Ronny Meyer
3.4 Morphophonological processes

Muher and Gunnän Gurage have a complex morphophonology, of which only palatal-
ization and labialization are mentioned here. For further details see, e.g., Leslau (1997),
Rose (2007b, 1996, 1994), and Degif (2000).
3.4.1 Palatalization
Suffixed ʲ palatalizes alveolar and velar/glottal obstruents, mainly stem-finally (see (3)).
The vocalic radical A palatalizes to ä or ɛ word-finally (alone or with a preceding palatal-
ized consonant), and e word-medially:
(3) a /gda-ʲ/>[gɨʤä/ɛ] ‘Pour (fsg)!’ b /ʃab-ʲ/>[ʃeβ] ‘Pull (fsg)!’

The vocoid ʲ is not realized in roots that lack a palatalizable radical, or end in a pal-
atal or (in some instances) a liquid or n, which block the spread of ʲ. In a few verbs, a
root-initial palatal in sc/pcl depalatalizes in pcs.
3.4.2 Labialization
Suffixed ʷ typically diffuses into a base, in which it is realized as labial coarticulation on
the first plain non-coronal obstruent or /m/ (see Table 10.2):
(4) a /ʒarräg-ʷʲ-i-m/ [ʒarrägɥ͡im] ‘one went away’

move.sc-ips-oi:3msg-prf
b /säbbär-ʷʲ-i-m/ [säbbʷɔrim] ‘one broke’
break.sc-ips-oi:3msg-prf
c /gärra-ʷʲ-i-m/ [gʷɔrrem] ‘one is satisfied’
be_satisfied.sc-ips-oi:3msg-prf
Root-final weakened *j>ʲ is replaced by ʷ, resulting in [o] if preceded by ä/a, or [u]
otherwise:
(5) a /säkk’äʲ-ʷʲ-i-m/>[säkk’ojm] b /jä-sk’ʲ-ʷʲ-i/>[jäsk’uj]

hang.sc-ips-oi:3msg-prf 3-hang.pcs-ips-oi:3msg
‘One has hung.’ ‘May one hang!’
4 MORPHOLOGY
Nonconcatenative morphology predominates in the formation of verbs, while many nom-
inals are vocalized stems.
4.1 Pronouns
4.1.1 Personal pronouns and possessive suffixes
The personal pronouns in Table 10.4 substitute for subjects, but function as possessive
suffixes on nominals. The possessive suffixes do not combine with flags (see §4.4).
Gurage (Muher) 233
The pronouns in Table 10.4 and the person indexes on verbs (see §4.3.1) distinguish
between 1st/2nd/3rd person, singular/transnumeral vs. plural number, and male/com-
mon vs. female (biological) gender. The 2/3pl markers express honorificity with singular
referents.
Muher demonstratives mark a tripartite spatial contrast with the speaker as center: proxi-
mal zi, distal hi and remote zah. In addition, the 3msg pronoun functions as demonstrative
referring to an entity far from the speaker, but near to the addressee (Meyer 2010).
Demonstrative modifiers do not agree in number and gender with the head. Only plural is
optionally marked by the associative plural prefix nä-. Proximal zi is part of the presentatives
zɨ ‘here you go!’ and zɨmmɨn(zɨ) ‘here it is’. Manner deixis is indicated by ɨkki ‘like this’.
Basic and selected derived interrogatives are shown in Table 10.5.
Rarely, interrogatives express plurality by reduplication, but are then indexed as 3msg:
(6) ma~ma bässa-m?

who~distr come.sc.3msg-prf
‘Who (and who) did come?’
TABLE 10.4 PERSONAL PRONOUNS AND POSSESSIVE SUFFIXES
Gender Singular Plural
Pronoun Possessive Pronoun Possessive
1 common ädi -ddi ɨɲɲa -nna

2 male (-)dä-hä (-)dä-hɨmʷ
female (-)dä-ç <*dähʲ (-)dä-hma
3 male hʷa -hʷt(a) (-)hɨnnämʷ
female (-)ça/(-)hɨja (-)hɨnnäma
Basic Derived
ma ‘who’ jä-ma (gad-who) ‘whose, (for) whom’

*m(ɨn) ‘what’ mɨʔe /m-k’e/ (what-nspec) ‘what’
jä-n-k’e (gad-what- nspec) ‘why’
bä-n-k’e (mil-what- nspec) ‘by what’
että ‘where’ t-että (abl-where) ‘from where’
b-että (loc-where) ‘at which place’
ett-ät-ɨnnɨjä (where-ade-dir) ‘towards which place’
mätʧä ‘when (npst)’ mätʧä‑na (when-pst) ‘when (pst)’
ɨnʧ’ä-we (which-def) ‘which’
234 Ronny Meyer
4.1.4 Indefinites
Referents whose name the speaker does not want to mention or does not remember are
replaced by ɨnʧät/ɨnʧä (hum/nhum) ‘so-and-so’, while att-ɨm (one-foc) and ma-nn‑ɨm
(who-aug-foc) function as indefinites – either alone, or in combination with generic k’e
‘thing’ (§4.2.2) or säb ‘person’, with which also aʃ(ʃ)- ‘some’ combines:
(7) a attɨm säb ‘nobody’ attɨn-k’e ‘nothing’

b mannɨm säb ‘whoever’ mannɨn-k’e ‘whatever, of any kind’
c aʃʃɨ-säb ‘somebody’ aʃ-k’e ‘something’
4.2 Nominals
Nominals encompass nouns, numerals and adjectives. Some nominals may also function
as adverbials (8), (30):
(8) mamʷä bora / mamʷä addär-hä-m?

good ox good spend_night.sc-2msg-prf
‘a good ox’ ‘Did you spend the night well?’
Lexical adverbs, as in (31, 33), are extremely rare; adverbial functions are also expressed
by subordinate clauses and converbs, and nominals marked by a flag (examples in §7).
4.2.1 Nominal inflection

Nominal inflection encompasses number (transnumeral/singular vs. plural), gender
(male/common vs. female), and definiteness (indefinite, specific, definite). Number and
gender are usually marked through cross-referencing on verbs, but not on nominals.
Inanimate and most animate nouns are in transnumeral and common gender, and
indexed as 3msg Table 10.6 (a–d), like male singular (or transnumeral) human nouns (f/i),
or animal nouns (g/j), which are always indexed in common gender (10b).
TABLE 10.6 NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOMINALS
Animacy Gender Index Number
sg pl Transnumeral
a inanimate common 3msg bet ‘house’

b animal common 3msg bulle ‘pigeon’
c human common 3msg merräɲɲä ‘worker’
d common 3msg amara ‘Amhara’
e human female 3fsg annaʧuwät ‘female relative
(of father)’
f male 3msg akkäbäja ‘male relative
(of father)’
g animal male 3msg bora ‘ox’
h human female 3fsg/fpl gäräd gred ‘girl’
i male 3msg/mpl jiʤ denɟa ‘boy’
j animal female 3msg/mpl ɨnnam gɨzz ‘cow’
Gurage (Muher) 235
A few animate nouns (mainly kinship terms) have suppletive singular/plural and/or
male/female forms (Table 10.6 h–j; e–g; cf. Meyer 2012). Attributive modifiers and the
definite suffix do not normally inflect for number/gender. Proper nouns mark the associa-
tive plural by nä-.
Transnumeral human nouns are indefinite, and formally identical to their definite num-
bered/gendered counterparts:
(9) a merräɲɲä märrär-ä-m.

worker be_bitter.sc-3msg-prf
‘A worker (m/f) was/Workers (m/f) were angry.’
b addis-we merräɲɲä tamɨɲɲa {am-märär}-ä/-ätt/-mʷ/-ma.
new-def worker yesterday {neg-be_bitter.sc.neg}-3msg/-3fsg/-3mpl/-3fpl
‘The new worker(s) (m/f) was/were not angry yesterday.’
Definiteness is marked by the definite suffix -we (9b), definite modifiers (10a), or pos-
sessive suffixes (10b). The person index on the verb distinguishes between singular and
plural; cf. also (9b):
(10) a jä-kubra bulle aʒʒä-hu-{nnɨ/nnɨmu}-m

lnk-Kubra.f pigeon see.sc-si:1sg-{oi:3msg/3mpl}-prf
‘I saw Kubra’s dove/s.’
b ɨnnam-hut fäkk’är-ä-m.
cow.fsg-poss.3msg be(come)_fat.sc-3msg-prf
‘His cow is fat.’
Specific reference is marked by att ‘one’ > ‘a (certain)’, or reduplicated att~att ‘some’,

both with 3msg index:
(11) att / att~att merräɲɲä jino.

a some worker exist.3msg.mvm
‘There is a (certain) worker/are some workers.’
4.2.2 Nonspecific -k’e

Generic k’e (with the post-vocalic allomorph ʔe) ‘thing’ grammaticalized into a very
frequent nonspecificity marker, which typically attaches as dummy to headless nominal
modifiers and relative clauses (12), but may also modify the semantics of the attributive
modifier (§4.2.5).
(12) a jä-gäbäja-ʔe j-aʔet’ɨm-mu-tt.

lnk-market-nspec 3-trade.pcl-mpl-mvm
‘They trade the (common) market items.’
b tɨkä-ddi bä-hon-ä-ʔe n-ɨʒʒ-ɨnn.
child-poss.1sg loc-[be(come).sc-3msg]-nspec si:1sg-see.pcs-oi:3msg
‘Let me see about the whereabouts of my child (lit. the state in which he is)!’
236 Ronny Meyer
Furthermore, -k’e often attaches to nominals in adverbial function:
(13) ʃaʃʃ-hija mamʷä-ʔe aggäd-ätt-u-m

scarf-poss.3fsg good-nspec[>well/correctly] tie.sc-si:3fsg-oi:3msg-prf
‘She tied her scarf well.’

Many simplex nominals are fully vocalized stems; others have a cognate root, but the under-
lying nominal patterns are often unproductive. Frequent patterns are shown in Table 10.7:11
Some patterns have a specific semantics: result nominal C1C2aC3, unproductive agent
nominal C1äC2aC3ʲ (< Ethiosemitic *C1äC2aC3i). Other patterns formally resemble parti-
ciples, but have various readings.
Abstract nouns are derived from nominal stems by -nnät or ‑nna, e.g., denɟa ‘boys’ >
denɟɨ-nnät ‘youth’. Agent nouns are often denoted by nominalized relative clauses
(§4.2.4), or derived by ‑(t/m/l)äɲɲä: merr-äɲɲä ‘worker’ (merra ‘work’), aʔɨl-täɲɲä
‘wise’ (aʔɨl ‘knowledge’). The suffix -äɲɲä also derives adjectives from ideophones: ʃɨrr
(ideophone for craziness) > ʃɨrr-äɲɲä ‘crazy person’, and is inherent part of other adjec-
tives, e.g., dängäɲɲä ‘wealthy’. The suffix -jä conveys various meanings (Table 10.8).
TABLE 10.7 FREQUENT NOMINAL PATTERNS
Basic Pattern Sub Pattern Example Root Gloss
C1C2C3 kɨft √ k-f-t ‘open’

C1C2C3-ät nɨbr-ät √ n-b-r ‘life, wealth’
C1C2C3-a/-ä gɨdɨj-ä √ g-d-ʲ ‘sleeping (state)’
C1C2C3ʷ gurz √ g-r-z ‘old’
C1C2C3ʷä kɨtfʷä √ k-t-f ‘minced beef/food’
C1äC2C3 äʧ’ɨr √ A-ʧ’-r ‘fence’
C1äC2äC3 t’äräʔɨ √ t’-r-k’ ‘dry’
C1äC2äC3-a bazän-a √C b-z-n ‘guest’
C1C2aC3 zɨnab √ z-n-b ‘rain’
C1C2aC3ʲ-ä ʧɨkk’ʷaʃä √B ʧ’-kʷ-s ‘begging’
C1äC2aC3ʲ ʧ’äʔʷaʃ √B ʧ’-kʷ-s ‘beggar’
C1äC2ʲ häʤi √ h-d-A ‘traitor’
C1aC3ʲ wabi √ ø-A-b (*w-h-b) ‘charitable person’
mʷaʧ √ mʷ-ø-t (*m-w-t) ‘dead person’
C1äC2aC3ʲ-ä däraɟ-ä √ d-r-g ‘hit’ ‘swimming’
TABLE 10.8 NOMINALS DERIVED BY -jä
Base Derived Nominal
a mult’ ‘(being) bold’ mult’-jä ‘(getting) bold’

b t’ɨʔur ‘black’ t’ɨʔur-jä ‘black; (blackish) low-quality
ensete pith’
c furt’ ‘blind’ furt’-jä ‘blind; not flourishing ensete’
d jä-mʷɔt ‘of death’ jä-mʷɔt-jä ‘carrion’
e j-ank’ʷä ‘of egg’ j-ank’u-jä ‘laying hen’
f jä-baʃä ‘of illness’ jä-baʃ-jä ‘ill person/animal’
g jɨrot’ ‘he who runs’ jɨ-rot’-jä ‘runner’
Gurage (Muher) 237
On adjectives (a–c), -jä indicates that a specific referent is acquiring the denoted qual-
ity. Some of these adjectives lexicalized as nouns with a second meaning (b–c), which is
common for genitive modifiers and relative verbs marked by -jä (d–g).
4.2.4 Nominalized relative clauses

Agent and instrument/place nouns are productively denoted through relative verbs.
Instrument/place nouns are based on an impersonal imperfective verb (pcl) with the 3msg
mil applicative suffix -bbʷä followed by nonspecific -k’e (15a–b), while relative verbs
with a 3msg subject followed by säb ‘person’ function as agent nouns (15c):
(14) a jɨχʷɔrɨ-bbʷɔ-ʔe ‘instrument for digging’

j-hʷär-ʷʲ-bb-ʷä-k’e
si :3-dig. pcl - ips - mil - oi .
3msg-nspec
b jɨdgʷɔddo-bbʷɔ-ʔe ‘place for sleeping’
j-tägäddäʲ-ʷʲ-bb-ʷä-k’e
si :3-sleep. pcl - ips - mil - oi .
3msg-nspec
c jɨχʷɔr säb ‘he who digs > digger’
j-hʷär
si:3-dig.pcl:msg person
Lexicalized instrument nominalizations may lack -k’e, e.g., jɨʔɔrʃɨ-bbʷä ‘beginning’.
4.2.5 Adjectives
Adjectives (Table 10.9) may overtly express plural by reduplication, e.g., addis~addis
‘new (pl)’, and are often nominalizations from cognate verbs.
In addition to the free adjectives in Table 10.9, Muher has a few bound adjec-
tives, which obligatorily co-occur with a head, or nonspecific -k’e (e.g., ɨʃʃi=‘other’ >
ɨʃʃɨ=säb ‘another person’, ɨʃʃɨ=ʔe ‘another thing’) or, with locative terms, adessive -ät:
k’urb= > k’urb=ät ‘near’.
Semantically, adjectives (and other attributes) denote a permanent property. If marked
by nonspecific ‑ke, however, the property is limited to a subclass of referents, still not
fully developed, or the speaker is uncertain:
(15) jä-ʤɨlalu (i) zärma jɨdʤ jinä-nnɨ-tt.

(ii) zärma-ʔe
dat-Jilalu.m marriagable-nspec boy exist.si:3msg-oi:3msg-mvm
i. ‘Jilalu has a boy of marriageable age.’ (speaker is certain)
ii. ‘Jilalu has a boy who is (probably) about to be of marriageable age.’
4.2.6 Numerals
Muher has a decimal number system (Table 10.10).
The teens are formed from asrä- plus the digits, usually preceded by ‑m, e.g.,
asrä(‑m)-arbätt ‘fourteen’. The hundreds and thousands are specified by a preposed digit:
hʷett mäto (huja‑m‑hʷett) ‘two-hundred (twenty-two)’.
238 Ronny Meyer
TABLE 10.9 ADJECTIVES
Nominal Property Concept Verb
Dimension
a ɨnɨssɨjä ‘small, little’ annäsä-m ‘be(come) small’
b lɨʔɨjä ‘big’ laʔä-m ‘surpass, grow’
Age
c ɨnɨss ‘younger sibling’ cf. (a)
d lɨʔɨ ‘older sibling’ cf. (b)
Value
e mamʷä ‘good, healthy’
f t’ɨfʷä ‘bad’
Color
g t’ɨʔur ‘black’ t’äkk’ʷärä-m ‘be(come) black’
h gʷad ‘white (inanimate item)’
Physical property
i bɨsu ‘ripe’ bässɛ͡ä-m ‘be(come) ripe’
j ziza ‘raw, wet’
Corporeal property
k fɨʔur ‘fat’ fäkk’ärä-m ‘be(come) fat’
l sɨssä ‘thin’ sassa-m ‘be(come) thin’
TABLE 10.10 BASIC NUMERALS
Digits Decimals Other
i. att/ii. k’una ‘one’ assɨr/asrä- ‘ten’ mäto/(bäʔi) ‘hundred’

hʷett ‘two’ huja ‘twenty’ ʃi ‘thousand’
sɔ͡ast/sost ‘three’ sälasa ‘thirty’
arbätt ‘four’ arba ‘forty’
ammɨst ‘five’ amsa ‘fifty’
sɨddɨst ‘six’ sɨlsa ‘sixty’
säbätt/säbatt ‘seven’ säba ‘seventy’
sɨmmutt ‘eight’ sämana ‘eighty’
ʒät’ä ‘nine’ zätt’äna ‘ninety’
Regarding the two terms for ‘one’, att is restricted to enumeration and compound
numbers, but functions as specific article elsewhere (§4.2.1); as numeral modifier k’una
‘single’ > ‘one’ is used:
(16) k’una/*att bɨrr jine-tt

one/a birr exist.si:3msg.oi:1sg-mvm
‘I have one birr.’
Lower digits form ordinal numbers by -äläɲɲä: sɔ͡ast-äläɲɲä ‘third’; for higher digits
Amharic loans are used.
Gurage (Muher) 239
4.3 Verbs
4.3.1 Verb inflection and derivation
Canonical roots in Muher have three or four consonants (√ C1‑C2‑C3 or √ C1‑C2‑C3‑C4),
and are marked for the gemination type of the penultimate consonant C2/C3, which gem-
inates only in the affirmative sc in Type A, in all conjugations in Type B, and in sc and
pcl (plus obligatory vowel a insertion following C1 in the simplex of triliteral roots) in
Type C (Hetzron 1972: 10, 1977: 70–1; see also Meyer 2011: §5.3.2, 2016b: 169). The
diachronic loss of gutturals and glides results in many reduced bi- and triliteral roots (cf.,
e.g., Lowenstamm 1996).
Quadriliteral roots rarely have four distinct consonants (an example is √ k’‑n‑t’‑s
‘pinch off’), but usually reduplicate consonants (cf. Table 10.13). Reduplicated triliteral
roots are less frequent: √ b‑t~t ‘be(come) wide’, √ kʷ~kʷ-r ‘wring, squeeze’.
Verb inflection distinguishes between three primary conjugations, marked by com-
bining a template with a specific subject index (Meyer 2016b: §4.3, 2014: §3.3). The
templates are as follows:
1 Jussive conjugation (pcs): si-C1C2C3-si / si-C1äC2C3C4-si

Subtypes: si-C1C2äC3-si for a few intransitive Type A roots, and
si-C1äCC2C3-si for Type B
2 Imperfective conjugation (pcl): si-C1ä(C)C2C3-si / si-C1C2äCC3C4-si
3 Perfective conjugation (sc): C1äCC2äC3-si / C1C2äCC3äC4-si
Subtype: C1äC2äC3-si for negated Type A verbs
The obligatory subject index (si) (Table 10.11) consists of two distinct sets for sc and
pc. It has a separate affix for generic human referents, the impersonal passive (ips), co-
occurring with an object index (by default 3msg; (4)), except on converbs (for examples,
see §7).
1sg ä- occurs in affirmative declarative clauses but n- elsewhere; 3msg/pl jä- is limited
to affirmative commands. The imperative, as a sub-category of the affirmative jussive
(pcs), lacks the prefix t-. The verbs ‘come’ and ‘take’ have suppletive imperatives based
on nä- and jä- with sc subject index (20a).
TABLE 10.11 SUBJECT INDEX
Suffix Conjugation (sc) Prefix Conjugations (pc)
1 ‑hʷ -nä ä-/n- n‑ . . . ‑nä

2 m ‑hä -hmʷ t- . . . ø t‑ . . . ‑mʷ
f -ç (-hʲ) -hma t- . . . -ʲ t‑ . . . ‑ma
3 m -ä -mʷ j(ä)- . . . ø j(ä)‑ . . . ‑mʷ
f -ätt -ma t- j(ä)‑ . . . ‑ma
ips -ʷʲ j(ä)- . . . -ʷʲ
240 Ronny Meyer
TABLE 10.12 OBJECT INDEX
Base Primary Object Applied Object
ben mil
1 sg light *-Lʲ -e (*-ä-ʲ) -nn-i ‑b-i

heavy ‑ɲɲ ‑bb-i
pl light *-nä -ä-nä -nɨ-nä ‑b-nä
heavy ‑nnä -nnɨ-nä ‑bbɨ-nä
2 sg m light *-hä -(nn-)hä -n-kä ‑b-hä
heavy ‑kkä -nnɨ-kkä ‑bbɨ-kkä
f light *-hʲ ‑(nn-)ç -n-c ‑b-ç
heavy ‑cc -nnɨ-cc ‑bbɨ-cc
pl m light *-hmʷ ‑(nn-)hmʷ -n-kɨmʷ ‑b-hɨmʷ
heavy ‑kkɨmʷ -nnɨ-kkɨmʷ ‑bbɨ-kkɨmʷ
f light *-hma ‑(nn-)hma -n-kɨma ‑b-hɨma
heavy ‑kkɨma -nnɨ-kkɨma ‑bbɨ-kkɨma
3 sg m light *-ː/*-Uä ‑nn/-w -no ‑wä (*-b-ʷä)
heavy -ː/-U -nn-o ‑bb-ʷä
f light *-ːa/*-Ua ‑nn-a/‑w-a -n-a -b-a
heavy -ːa/-Ua -nn-a -bb-a
pl m light *-ːämʷ/ ‑nn-ämʷ/‑w-ämʷ -n-ämʷ ‑b-ämʷ
heavy *-Uämʷ -ːämʷ/-Uämʷ -nn-ämʷ ‑bb-ämʷ
f light *-ːäma/ ‑nn-äma/‑w-äma -n-äma -b-äma
heavy *-Uäma -ːäma/-Uäma -nn-äma -bb-äma
Notes: U = glide w or j; ː = gemination of root-final and penultimate consonants.
In addition to the subject index, Muher makes use of an optional object index (oi)
(Table 10.12) to cross-reference either the primary object, or an applied object (usually
beneficiary or maleficiary, see example (29)), if preceded by -n (ben) or -b (mil).
Gemination as 3rd person object index is limited to pc verbs (17); -w is restricted to
female subjects (17c):
(17) a abba (or abɨnna)! b jɨläggɨddɨtt (or jɨlägdɨnnɨtt). c orrɨdʤ (or orʤ-u)!
ab-ːa (ab-nna) j-lägd-ː-tt (j-lägd-nn-tt) awrd-ʲ-ː (awrd-ʲ-w)
give.pcs.si:2msg-oi:3fsg si:3-touch.pcl.msg-oi:3msg-mvm take_down.pcs-si:2fsg-oi:3msg
‘Give [it] to her!’ ‘He touches it.’ ‘Take it/him down!’
The object index formally distinguishes between what Hetzron (1977: 60) calls heavy
(geminated consonant or w/j) and light (singleton or augmented by -nn) allomorphs.
In ädi bet Muher and across other Muher varieties, their distribution varies (cf. Meyer
2011: 1239–40).
Table 10.13 shows examples of the primary conjugations for a 3msg subject; the verbs
in sc and pcl are dependent forms.
The pcs template preceded by wä- forms the verbal noun (e.g., wä-lgɨd ‘touching’,
wä-ʒarg ‘going’, wä-cäfcɨf ‘sprinkling’), which can optionally index the subject with
possessive suffixes (see §4.1.1), as in example (33).
Gurage (Muher) 241
TABLE 10.13 PRIMARY CONJUGATIONS IN THE SIMPLEX (BASIC FORMS)
Type Root Suffix Conjugation Prefix Conjugation
Long (pcl) Short (pcs)
Triliteral roots
A √ l-g-d ‘touch’ läggäd-ä/lägäd-ä (aff/neg) jɨ-lägd jä-lgɨd
√ b-t-t ‘be wide’ bättät-ä/bätät-ä (aff/neg) jɨ-bätt jä-btät (intr)
B √ ʃ-k-t ‘do’ ʃäkkät-ä jɨ-ʃäkkɨt jä-säkkɨt
C √ ʒ-r-g ‘go’ ʒarräg-ä jɨ-ʒarrɨg jä-ʒarg
Quadriliteral roots
C √ c-f~c-f ‘sprinkle’ cɨfäccäf-ä jɨ-cɨfäccɨf jä-cäfcɨf
√ t’-b-l~l ‘wrap’ t’ɨballäl-ä jɨ-t’ballɨl jä-t’balɨl
The three primary conjugations constitute a verbal stem, for which Table 10.13
shows the simplex. The templates of derived stems may differ, and exhibit additional
modifications:
1 Prefixation:
• prefixes a- and at- for the direct and indirect causative, which regularly occur in
the gemination Type A and Type B, respectively
• prefix tä- in gemination Type C (without vowel a insertion) for the mediopas-
sive
2 Internal stem modifications for various pluractional stems:
• reduplicated root consonant (C1 or C2) or entire root/stem
• insertion of vowel a (following C1 with bi- and triliteral roots, but C2 with
quadriliteral roots)
• reduplicated root consonant and vowel a insertion
3 Combinations of 1 and 2
Examples for 1 and 2 are shown in Table 10.14.

In the direct causative, the subject is typically physically involved in the verbal action,
but only initiates it in the indirect causative (see Table 10.14 a–f). Note, however, that the
direct causative may also convey the meaning of facilitating or initiating an action (see
Table 10.14 e, g). The mediopassive often has a reflexive connotation (see Table 10.14 j).
The pluractional is typically co-marked for mediopassive and causative, as in Table 10.15.
The pluractional expresses that an action is carried out several times (see Table 10.14
l–p), which in combination with the mediopassive prefix tä- can convey the connotation
that the action is done properly (see Table 10.15 k, l, n), but more commonly has a recip-
rocal reading (most examples in Table 10.15).
Semantically, pcs encodes the jussive, a modal category expressing a command,
while the indicative conjugations sc and pcl mark perfective and imperfective viewpoint
aspect (Meyer 2016b). Indicative verbs are accompanied by further grammatical markers
TABLE 10.14 EXAMPLES OF DERIVED STEMS
Simplex (sc) Derived Stem (sc)
Causative
a bässa- ‘come’ a-bässa- ‘bring’
b at-bässa- ‘import, help to bring’
c k’ärräb- ‘be(come) present’ a-ʔärräb- ‘bring close, deliver’
d at-k’ärräb- ‘help to come close’
e bänna- ‘eat’ a-bänna- ‘feed, help to eat’
f at-bänna- ‘make to be eaten’
g srä- ‘buy’ a-srä- ‘sell’
Mediopassive
h gäddäʲ- ‘put to sleep’ tä-gäddäʲ- ‘sleep’
i kättäf- ‘chop’ tä-kättäf- ‘be chopped well’
j k’ärräb- ‘be(come) present’ *tä-k’ärräb- [täʔärräb-] ‘present oneself’
k k’ʷämmä- ‘win’ *tä-k’ʷämmä- [täʔɔmmä-] ‘lose’
Pluractionals
Only reduplication
l arrät’- ‘cut’ ärärrät’ ‘cut into many pieces’
m näbba- ‘crack’ nɨbäbba- ‘crack (at various places)’
Only insertion of vowel a
n k’ɨmätt’äʲ- ‘cut in two parts, k’ɨmatt’äʲ- ‘separate several parts’
separate by cutting’
Reduplication and insertion of vowel a
o ʃäkkät- ‘prepare’ ʃɨkakkät- ‘finish to prepare, prepare well’
p läggäd- ‘touch’ lɨgaggäd- ‘touch repeatedly’
TABLE 10.15 COMPLEX PLURACTIONAL STEMS
Simplex (sc) Derived stem (sc)
Prefix tä-/a(t)- plus vowel a insertion

a näkkäs- ‘bite’ tä-nakkäs- ‘quarrel (with each other), bite each other’
b at-nakkäs- ‘make quarrel with each other’
c ʃäkkät- ‘prepare’ tä-ʃakkät ‘be reconciled (with each other)’
d aʃ-ʃakkät- ‘reconcile’
e zɨnäɟɟ tä-znaɟɟ- ‘discuss, fix a price’
f a-znaɟɟ- ‘address, appeal’
g nätʧ’ä- ‘tear, root out’ tä-natʧ’ä- ‘tear each other’s hair’
Prefix tä-/at- with consonant reduplication
h häʲ ‘know’ tä-çäçäʲ- ‘get to know each other’
i at-çäçäʲ- ‘introduce a person to another’
j lah- ‘send’ tä-läläh- ‘agree to be sent several times’
k aggäd- ‘tie’ tä-gäggäd- ‘be tied well, be handicapped (in moving)’
l arrät’- ‘cut’ tä-rärrät’- ‘be cut well, be cut in many pieces’
m ammän- ‘believe’ tä‑mämmän- ‘believe each other’
Prefix tä- with consonant reduplication and vowel a insertion
n ʃäkkät- ‘prepare’ tä-ʃkakkät- ‘be prepared well, be in order, be ready’
o läggäd- ‘touch’ tä-lgaggäd- ‘wrestle, grapple with each other’
Gurage (Muher) 243
(see §5.3); jussive verbs are limited to main clauses. The imperative is identical to the
jussive without the 2nd person prefix t-. The jussive functions as the negation of the
imperative:
(18) lɨgɨd / a-tɨ-lgɨd

touch.pcs.2msg neg-2-touch.pcs.msg
‘Touch!’ ‘Don’t touch!’’
Further modal and aspecto-temporal distinctions are expressed through complex con-
structions, typically limited to affirmative main clauses. The ingressive, as in (20c), is
based on pcl, additionally marked by -ät (ade) and followed by the equative (or past
copula) as tense marker. Muher has a distinct indefinite future for uncertain future events,
marked through the pcs template with a pcl subject index (1sg ä- and 3rd person j-; see
Table 10.11), followed by invariable -ʃä (< ‘want’):
(19) a ä-bsa-ʃä b jɨ-bsa-ʃä

1sg-come.pcs-fut 3msg-come.pcs-fut
‘I intend to come.’ ‘He is expected to come.’
Furthermore, Muher has a number of phrasal verbs, consisting of an invariable co-verb

(usually an ideophone) encoding the verb semantics followed by inflected bɛ͡ä-m ‘say’ or
amäɲɲä-m ‘cause’ as supporting/light verb: täkk~täkk bɛ͡ä-m/amäɲɲä-m ‘dribble/cause
to dribble’ (Meyer 2009).
4.3.2 Converbs
Non-final affirmative verbs in the primary conjugations marked by the suffix -m are
pseudo-converbs, i.e., subordinate predicates, which usually are in the same primary con-
jugation as their reference verb (cf. Meyer 2014: 248–50):
(20) a gäg-χut tannäʔ-ä-m mʷɔt-ä-m.

self-poss.3msg be_strangled.sc-3msg-cvb die.sc-3msg-prf
‘He strangled himself and died/He killed himself by strangulation.’
b ädarä bija-m nä-hä!
lunch eat.pcs.2msg-cvb come.imp-2msg
‘Eat lunch and come!’
c bet j-aräʃɨ-m / aräʃʃä-m muʃra j-agäba-ät-n [jagäβatɨn].
house 3-build.pcl.msg-cvb build.sc.3msg-cvb bride 3-marry.pcl.msg-ade-cop.3msg
‘He will build (pcl) a house, and then marry a woman.’/
‘He has built (sc) a house, and is (now) going to marry a woman.’
A perfective converb (sc) may combine with an imperfective reference verb (pcl) to
express that the converb event is completed at the moment of speech, as in (20c).
244 Ronny Meyer
Converb clauses have a sequential-narrative or adverbial manner reading, as in (20a).

In order to emphasize the sequential reading, the converb is augmented by tannä, or
shortened -nta (< ‑m ta):
(21) ʤɨlalu bäsär kättäf-ä-m ab-ä-nna-nta ʃukrija t-asäle.

Jilalu.m meat chop.sc-3msg-cvb give.sc-si:3msg-oi:3fsg-cvb.aug Shukriya.f 3fsg-bring.pcl.mvm
‘Jilalu chops the meat and gives it to Shukriya; and then she brings (it to the customers).’
In discourse, sentence-initial augmented converbs, repeating the final part of a preced-

ing sentence, signal the start of a new paragraph; see (46–7), (52–3).
4.3.3 Main verb marker

A main verb marker (mvm) is a clausal status suffix12 that obligatorily attaches to certain
main clause predicates: affirmative imperfective (pcl), affirmative copulas jinä- (exist)
and bannä- (pst) (§4.3.4), but also the negated past imperfective and the prohibitive
(§5.5). The mvm has the allomorphs -tt/-u/-i (cf. also Hetzron 1968), as shown in
Table 10.16.
The 3fsg mvm -u replaces -i on verbs ending in a front vowel (see also Table 10.17):
(22) tɨ-säbr-i vs. tɨ-dgädi-u

3fsg-break.pcl.npst-mvm 3fsg-sleep.pcl.npst-mvm
‘she breaks’ ‘she sleeps’
TABLE 10.16 ALLOMORPHS OF THE MAIN VERB MARKER
mvm Without Object Index With Object Index
pc sc
-u 1sg/pl, 2/3msg, (3fsg) 1pl, 2/3msg Indexes ending in -ä, plain light indexes
-i 3fsg 1sg, 3fsg —
-tt 2fsg, 2/3pl 2fsg, 2/3pl Remaining indexes
TABLE 10.17 INFLECTION OF COPULAS
Equation Existence
1sg -n-χʷ ‘I am’ jinä-χʷ-i ‘There I am; I exist’

2msg -n-χä . . . jinä-hä-u [jinäho] . . .
2fsg -n-ç jinä-çɨ-tt
3msg -n jinä-ä-u [jino]
3fsg -ja jinä-ätt-i
1pl -n-nä jinä-nä-u [jinäno]
2mpl -n-χɨmʷ jinä-χmʷ-tt
2fpl -n-χɨma jinä-χma-tt
3mpl -n-ämʷ jinä-mʷ-tt
3fpl -n-äma jinä-ma-tt
Gurage (Muher) 245
TABLE 10.18 COPULA PREDICATES
Clause Polarity Non-Past Past
Equative Existential
Main indicative aff -n+si jinä-si-mvm bannä-si-mvm

neg jännä-si (√ n-b-r)
Main jussive aff/neg (√ n-b-r)
Converb aff
(√ hʷ-ø-n)
Relative aff jannä-si jännä-si (√ n-b-r)
neg
Other dependent aff/neg (√ n-b-r)
Notes: √ hʷ-ø-n ‘be(come)’, √ n-b-r ‘live, exist’.
4.3.4 Copulas
The non-verbal copulas -n (equation, non-past), jinä- (exist, non-past), and bannä- (pst)
are inherently marked for tense and index the subject; jinä- and bannä- (which inflect
alike) are followed by a mvm (Meyer 2016c: §7).
Non-verbal copulas predominately occur in affirmative main clauses, but are replaced
by supplementary verbs in other clause types (Table 10.18).
4.4 Flags and relational nouns

Flag affixes indicate the syntactic/semantic function of a nominal in a phrase/clause, or
a clause in a sentence (Table 10.19). Flags differ from case markers: they do not form a
uniform morphologcal class but can be pre- or suffixes; their occurrence on core argu-
ments also depends on pragmatic constrains, and the status of certain arguments is (also)
marked by word order or on the verb.
The linker jä-, as marker of an attributive modifier or possessor, operates at phrasal
level, where its position may vary depending on the context (23); it is omitted if preceded
by another flag (24):
(23) a mamʷä [jä-bet mäzɟa] b [jä-mämʷä bet] mäzɟa

good lnk-house door lnk-good house door
‘a good house door’ ‘a door of a good house’
(24) bä-[ʤilalu (*bä-jä-ʤilalu)
bet] χʷett denɟa jin-mu-tt.
loc-Jilalu house two boy.pl exist-3mpl-mvm
‘There are two boys in Jilalu’s house.’
Dative jä- is easily detected on single nouns, as headless genitive modifiers are fol-
lowed by nonspecific -k’e (25), but dative/accusative coincides with the linker in complex
phrases, e.g., (10a), (15).
(25) jä-ʤilalu (vs. jä-ʤilalu-ʔe) jä-hun!

dat-Jilalu.m lnk-Jilalu-nspec 3-be(come).pcs.msg
‘It shall be for Jilalu (vs. It shall be Jilalu’s)!’
246 Ronny Meyer
TABLE 10.19 FLAGS
Affix On Nominals On Clauses
a j(ä)- Dative (beneficiary, recipient, addressee)

Accusative (primary object)
Linker (genitive) Relative clause (affirmative sc)
b b(ä)- Location ‘in, on, at’ sc:Real protasis, Irreal apodosis,
Motion (within a border) pcl: Temporal
Instrumental
Malefactive
c t(ä)- Lative (ablative, motion to/via) pcl: Irreal protasis, Simultaneous
Comitative co-event, sc: Temporal
Comparative
d -häma Similative Relative verbs: Temporal (incidence),
Complement, Purpose
e -ät Adessive (in the vicinity of) Relative verbs: Cause, Purpose
f -nnɨjä Directional ‘towards’ —
Accusative jä- attaches to primary objects, i.e., the theme in ditransitive constructions
(26a), and the patient (usually only human nouns) in monotransitive constructions (26b)
(see §5.1):
(26) a abdo jä-ʤämal hanan ab-ä-nnɨ-m.

Abdo.m acc-Jamal.m Hanan.f give.sc-si:3msg-oi:3msg-prf
‘Abdo gave Hanan to Jamal.’
b asfa jä-rawda jɨ-wɔddɨ-nna-tt.
Asfa.m acc-Rawda.f si:3-like.pcl.msg-oi:3fsg-npst:mvm
‘Asfa likes Rawda.’
If the function of the prefix jä- as marker of dative or accusative objects (or of the
linker) is ambiguous, it is glossed gad for genitive-accusative-dative.
The semantics of the flags bä- and tä- can be specified through postposed grammati-
calized relational nouns, e.g., ge ‘time>together’ (<gɨzjä ‘time’), dar ‘fringe>until, up to’,
jift~ift ‘face>in front of’, etc.
5 SYNTAX
5.1 Word order
Muher is a verb-final language with strict Topic-Comment order, yielding unmarked
Subject-Object order, but a definite (known) argument has to precede an indefinite (new)
argument, regardless of their syntactic function:
(27) Topic Comment

a bora subject gäʧäobject aʒʒä-m.
ox hyena see.sc.si:3msg-prf
‘An ox saw a hyena.’
Gurage (Muher) 247
b (jä-)gäʧä-weobject borasubject aʒʒä-nnɨ-m.

(acc-)hyena-def ox see.sc.si:3msg-oi:3msg-prf
‘(As to) the hyena, an ox saw it.’
In noun phrases, nominal modifiers, demonstratives, and specific att precede the head;
definite ‑we and the possessive suffixes follow it (28a). In complex noun phrases, -we
attaches to the leftmost modifier, but the possessive suffixes to the head (28b–c):
(28) a addis bet ‘new house(s)’ bet-we ‘the house(s)’

vs.
bet-hut ‘his house(s)’
b addis-we bet ‘the new house(s)’ vs. addis bet-hut ‘his new house(s)’
c addis-we bet-hut ‘his new house (from all his houses)’
5.2 Core arguments

Muher is a nominative-accusative language with differential object marking. The syntac-
tic function of arguments is indicated through word order, person index and flag. Subjects
lack a specific flag, but are obligatorily indexed on verbs, and usually precede the object
(27a). Indefinite objects are also unmarked, but are never indexed (and follow the sub-
ject). By contrast, definite objects, as in (27b), are obligatorily indexed as primary object.
In monotransitive clauses, a definite human object is additionally marked by jä- (acc)
(26b), which is pragmatically conditioned on other definite objects (27b), (13) (Meyer
2005a). In ditransitive clauses, definite patient objects are secondary. Instead, the definite
theme object is flagged by jä- and indexed on the verb, regardless of whether its refer-
ent is human (26a). Non-core arguments become applied objects if marked by jä- and
indexed as applied object (§4.3.1):
(29) ʤämilat jä-ʤilalu mɨsäkkär-ättɨ{-wä/-no}-m.

Jamilat.f acc-Jilalu testify.sc-si:3fsg-mil/ben:oi:3msg-prf
‘Jamilat testified against/for Jilalu.’
Non-canonical person marking occurs in the impersonal (see §4.3.1), and on expe-
riencer verbs, on which the subject index (usually pleonastic 3msg for the cause of the
experience) is obligatorily followed by an object index cross-referencing the experiencer:
(30) (jä-ʤämilat äga) t’ämma-nna-m.

acc-Jamilat.fexperiencer wateradverbial be_thirsty.sc.si:3msg-oi:3fsg-prf
‘She (Jamilat) is thirsty (for water).’
With overt arguments, the cause is unmarked (like certain adverbials, e.g., ‘water’ in
(30)), whereas jä- (acc) is prefixed to the experiencer.
5.3 Basic predications

The primary conjugations (§4.3.1) distinguish between jussive and indicative viewpoint
aspect (perfective vs. imperfective), which can be further marked for negative polarity
(§5.5), and main vs. various subordinate clause predicates (Table 10.20).
248 Ronny Meyer
TABLE 10.20 VERBAL PREDICATION TYPES
Clause Polarity Tense Perfective Imperfective Jussive
Main aff npst sc-m-ø pcl-ø-mvm

pcs
pst sc-m bannä-mvm pcl bannä-mvm
neg npst a-pcl-ø
an-sc(.neg) a-pcs
pst b-a-pcl(-mvm)
Converb sc-m (tannä) pcl-m (tannä) pcs-m (tannä)
Relative aff/neg jä-sc/an-sc(.neg) pcl/a-pcl
Other dependent aff/neg {Flag+sc} {Flag+pcl}
A compulsory mvm (§4.3.3) predominates in declarative (i.e., indicative main)

clauses, particularly with an affirmative imperfective verb, but less so with perfective
verbs and in negation. Except for the negated perfective, verbs in declarative clauses are
set apart from other predicates by a compulsory tense distinction (Meyer 2016c: 200–2):
zero-marked non-past vs. overtly marked past, e.g., by bannä-, as with the imperfective
(pcl) in (31b):
(31) a ahuɲɲa/ nägä/ *tamɨɲɲa jɨ-bäsa-ø-u [jɨbäso].

now tomorrow yesterday 3-come.pcl.msg-npst-mvm
‘He comes now/will come tomorrow/*came yesterday.’
b tamɨɲɲa jɨ-bäsa banno.
yesterday 3-come.pcl.msg pst.3msg.mvm
‘He had been coming yesterday.’
The simple perfective (sc) is limited to negation. In affirmative declarative clauses, it
is completely replaced by the perfect (Meyer 2016c: 204–6), i.e., a perfective converb
ending in ‑m marked for tense, commonly by non-past -ø yielding a present perfect (32);
or by bannä- for the past perfect (36a). Eventually, the semantics of present perfect and
perfective merged:13
(32) tamɨɲɲa bässa-ä-m-ø [bässam].

yesterday come.sc-3msg-{cvb-npst}:prf
‘He came/has come yesterday.’
In subordination, predicates lack obligatory tense and mvm markers, but still inflect for
person and aspect/mood. Relative-clause predicates typically are simple indicative verbs
(§5.4); a specific subordinator is attached to the predicate in other subordinate clauses:
-m (tannä) on converbs (§4.3.2), or a flag on verbs in adverbial clauses (see §4.4 and
examples (51–3)). Only the verbal noun does not inflect for aspect/mood, and optionally
indexes the subject by possessive suffixes:
(33) mango tä-wä-bja-dähä [tobjadähä] jift-ät

mango abl-vn-eat.pcs-poss.2msg [lnk.face-ade]>before
täʧ’äna wɔ-mätʧ’ jinä-ä-b-hä-u [jinäɸχo].
properly vn-wash.pcs exist-si:3msg-mil-oi:2msg-mvm
‘Before you eat a mango, you must properly wash it.’
Gurage (Muher) 249
In the non-past, two supplementary copulas distinguish between equation, in which a

subject is linked with a copula complement (34a), and existence asserting the reality of
a subject (35a). This distinction is lost in past contexts (34b)/(35b), where only a single
past copula is used (Meyer 2016c: §3.2):14
(34) a asfa näggade-n. b asfa näggade banno.

Asfa.m merchant-cop.3msg Asfa merchant pst.3msg.mvm
‘Asfa is a merchant.’ ‘Asfa was a merchant.’
(35) a (nägä) merra jino. b merra banno.
tomorrow work exist.3msg.mvm work pst.3msg.mvm
‘There is work (tomorrow).’ ‘There was work.’
In equative clauses, predicative nominals are unmarked (34a), except for the inter-
rogatives ma and m(ɨn), which merge with the copula to manni/mɨnni ‘who/what is it?’;
predicative demonstratives and personal pronouns are augmented by ‑tt, e.g., χʷa-tt-ɨn ‘it
is him.’
Existential predicates followed by an object index express possession or obligation.
In predicative possession, the possessed entity is indexed as subject, and the possessor
as primary object (15). With the applied object index -b (mil), the construction expresses
obligation (33).
Questions are formally identical to declarative clauses and commands, but have a dis-
tinct rising intonation sentence-finally:
(36) a asfa tamɨɲɲa bässa-m bànnó(-wé)?

Asfa.m yesterday come.sc.3msg-cvb pst.3msg.mvm(-q)
‘Had Asfa come yesterday?’
b äkkʷa k’awa ma srä́ -m?
today coffee who buy.sc.3msg-prf
‘Who did buy coffee today?’
Polar questions optionally end with the suffix -we (36a), while content questions con-
tain an interrogative, typically in the preverbal slot (36b).
5.4 Relative clauses and cleft sentences

Relative clauses lack a subordinating conjunction. Their predicate consists of a simple
indicative verb; only affirmative perfective verbs begin with the linker jä-:
(37) a jä-bässa-çɨ-bbʷä zänga b tɨ-bäsä-mʷ näɟä

lnk-come.sc-si:2fsg-mil.3msg matter 2mpl-come.pcl-mpl day
‘the matter for which you came’ ‘the day you will come’
Relativized nouns are marked by the resumptive pronoun strategy on a perfective (sc)
relative verb: subject and object by the primary person indexes (53) and adjuncts by the
applied object index (37a). On imperfective (pcl) relative verbs, the gap strategy prevails
(37b). A flag prefix on perfective relative verbs (on which it replaces the linker jä-) spec-
ifies the function of the relativized noun in the matrix clause (12b), but such a prefix is
seemingly lacking with imperfective relative verbs.
250 Ronny Meyer
Relative clauses frequently occur in cleft sentences, predominantly pseudo-clefts like

(38b), in which the constituent preceding the equative copula is focused or constitutes
new information:
(38) a jä-merra-n jä-bässa-χʷ b rawda jä-bässatt tamɨɲɲa-n.

dat-work-cop.3msg lnk-come.sc-2sg Rawda.f lnk-come.sc.3fsg yesterday-cop.3msg
‘It is for work that I came.’ ‘It is yesterday that Rawda has come.’
5.5 Negation
The primary conjugations are negated by an-/a- (sc/pc), whereby a- merges with j- to e-
(39a). Negated Type A sc verbs do not geminate C2 (39b):
(39) a a-j-lägd [elägd] b läggäd-ä-m vs. an-lägäd-ä [allägädä]

neg-3-touch.pcl.msg.npst touch.sc-3msg-prf neg-touch.sc.neg-3msg
‘he does not touch’ ‘he touched’ ‘he did not touch’
The past imperfective (pcl plus past copula) is negated by prefixing b- to the negated
pcl,
usually followed by an mvm; cf. (40) vs. (39a):
(40) b-a-j-lägd(-u) [belägd(u)]

pst.neg-neg-3-touch.pcl.msg(-mvm)
‘he did not touch’
The prohibitive, which usually replaces the negated jussive (pcs), consists of the (neg-
ative) sc enclosed by ɨn- and a mvm:
(41) ä-bäsa dar ɨn-fäka-hä-u [ɨmfäkaho]!

1sg-come.pcl until proh-go.sc.neg-2msg-mvm
‘Don’t go until I come!’
Verbal nouns are negated by alä-, e.g., alä-wɔ-he (neg-vn-know.pcs) ‘without
knowing’.
5.6 Focus markers

Frequently used focus markers are contrastive -m, and assertive -ʃ:
(42) mʷɔhɨr jä-mäʔɔrk’ʷɔr-ɨm-häma jɨ-znäɟɟ-u-ʃ.

Muher lnk-Maqorqor-foc-sim 3-speak.pcl.msg-npst:mvm-ass
‘Indeed, the Muher also speak like the Maqorqor.’
The scope of -ʃ is the whole utterance; -m focuses individual constituents. Moreover,
‑m occurs on indefinites (§4.1.4), marks converbs (§4.3.2), and coordinates nominals (see
also §4.2.6): ʤilalu‑m ʤämil-ɨm ‘Jilalu and Jamil’.
6 LEXICON
The Gurage lexicon is basically of Semitic stock influenced by early Cushitic contact
(Hudson 2013: §4.6, Kogan 2005). Language internal changes and culture-specific
Gurage (Muher) 251
vocabulary (Hetzron 1977: §B.4) partly result from more recent contact with Amharic,
Oromo and Highland East Cushitic (Meyer 2011: §5.4). European loan words entered
Gurage via Amharic, while Arabic terms are borrowed through Muslim Gurage who
speak it as L2 (Leslau 1956). Gurage terms occur in the Kambaata avoidance register of
married women (Treis 2005).
7 SAMPLE TEXT
k’awa ‘coffee’
(43) bä-mäʤämmära k’awa bä-gʷarra läkk’äm-ʷʲ-m [läkk’ämum]
loc-begin coffee loc-garden pick.sc-ips-cvb
j-abäsa-ʷʲ-i-tt [jawɔʃett].
3-bring.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘First, one picks the coffee from the garden and brings it (to the house).’
(44) tähaɲc’ä-ta att’äb-ʷʲ-m [att’ɔwɨm] bä-mdad j-k’ʷäLʲ-ʷʲ-i-tt [jʊʔojtt].

then-aug wash.sc-ips-cvb loc-frying_plate 3-roast.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘Then, it is washed and roasted on a frying plate.’
(45) ɨsat atäʲäzäz-ʷʲ-m [atɛ͡äʒäʒɨm] bä-mʤadʤa mɨdad awänna-ʷʲ-m [ɔ͡annäm]

fire let_hold_each_other.sc-ips-cvb loc-fireplace frying_plate put.sc-ips-cvb
jä-mäʤämmära-we k’awa j-k’ʷäLʲ-ʷʲ-i-tt [jʊʔojtt].
lnk-begin-def coffee 3-roast.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘After kindling a fire and putting a frying plate on the fireplace, the first coffee is roasted.’
(46) tähaɲc’ä bä-mɨʔät’k’ät’ j-wäga-ʷʲ-i-tt [jʊwɔgʷett].

then loc-mortar 3-stab.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘Then it is crushed in a mortar.’
(47) j-wäga-ʷʲ-i-m=ta [jʊwɔgʷenta] aʃära-we j-anäfs-ʷʲ-m [janäfʷʃɨm]

3-stab.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-cvb=aug coffee_husk-def 3-winnow.pcl-ips-cvb
c’ɨʃɨr-we jämʷanät j-awät’a-ʷʲ-i-tt [jɔ͡aʧ’ett].
coffee_bean-def aside 3-bring_out.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘Having crushed it, the coffee beans are brought out separately by winnowing the husk.’
(48) tähaɲc’ä c’ɨʃɨr-we jämʷanät aʃära-we jämʷanät

then coffee_bean-def aside coffee_husk-def aside
j-k’ʷäLʲ-ʷʲ-i-tt [jʊʔojtt].
3-roast.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘Then the coffee beans and the coffee husk are roasted separately.’
(49) tähaɲc’ä ʤäβäna bä-mʤadʤa j-awäna-ʷʲ-i-tt [jɔ͡anett].

then kettle loc-fireplace 3-put.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘Then a kettle is put on the fireplace.’
(50) ʤäβäna bä-awänna-ʷʲ-i=ge [bɔ͡annege] jä-k’ʷäLLʲä-ʷʲ-i-we [jäʔɔɲɲiwe] k’awa

kettle loc-put.sc-ips-oi:3msg=time lnk-roast.sc-ips-oi:3msg-def coffee
j-wäga-ʷʲ-i-tt [jʊwɔgʷett].
3-stab.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘After the kettle is put (on fire), the coffee that was roasted is crushed.’
252 Ronny Meyer
(51) bä-wägga-ʷʲ-i=ge [bɔ͡aggʷege] jä-awänna-ʷʲ-i-we [jɔ͡annewe] ʤäβäna

loc-stab.sc-ips-oi:3msg=time lnk-put.sc-ips-oi:3msg-def kettle
t-i-nsɨrässɨr k’awa-we j-gäfa-ʷʲ-i-tt [jɨgäfʷett].
while-3-bubble.pcl.msg coffee-def 3-push.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘After being crushed, and when the kettle that was put (on fire) is bubbling, the coffee
powder is added.’
(52) k’awa-we jɨ-wɔt’a=dar sin att’äb-ʷʲ-m [att’ɔwɨm]

coffee-def 3-exit.pcl.msg=until demitasse wash.sc-ips-cvb
bä-sin_ätʧ’ä j-atc’ärrb-ʷʲ-i-tt [jat’c’ärrwitt].
loc-coffee_tray 3-let_be_near.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘Until the coffee is ready, demitasses are washed and presented on a coffee tray.’
(53) j-atc’ärrb-ʷʲ-m=tannä [jat’c’ärrɨwɨm tannä] k’awa-we t-i-wɔt’a=ge

3-let_be_near.pcl-ips-cvb=aug coffee-def while-3-exit.pcl.msg=time
jɨ-gäda-we säb j-täwänna-wä-k’e [jɨtɔ͡annawäʔe] sorär
3-pour.pcl.msg-def person si:3-sit.pcl.msg-mil.3msg-nspec seat
ʃä-m k’awa-we bä-ʧeffat awänna-m=tannä [ɔ͡annam tannä]
want.sc.3msg-cvb coffee-def loc-stand put.sc.3msg-cvb=aug
j-atc’ärrb-u [jat’c’ärrɨβu].
3-let_be_near.pcl.msg-mvm
‘When (the demitasses) are put (on the tray) and the coffee is ready, the person who will
serve (the coffee) looks for a seat on which he will sit, puts the coffee (kettle) on a stand,
and serves it.’
(54) tähaɲc’ä j-tk’äw-ʷʲ-i-tt [jɨt’k’äwitt].

then 3-drink.pcl-ips-oi:3msg-mvm
‘Then one drinks (the coffee).’
NOTES
1 Additional glossing abbreviations in this chapter: a vocalic radical; ade adessive; aff
affirmative; ass assertive focus; gad genitive/linker-accusative-dative; hum human;
ips impersonal; lnk linker (genitive, relative marker); mil malefactive-instrumental-
locative (applied object); mvm main verb/clause marker; nhum nonhuman; nspec non-
specific; oi object index; si subject index; sim similative; vn verbal noun. Note also
e.c. Ethiopian calendar.
2 The description is based on data gathered during several field stays since 1998, partly
supported by the SFB 295 (Mainz University), and the Norhed project Linguistic
Capacity Building. I am grateful to Abubakr Sherifo and Sitti Gragn for teaching me
Muher, and Seid Ahmed for his assistance.
3 The Ethiopic script or fidel is an alphasyllabary, in which a basic grapheme (repre-
senting Cä, whereby C stands for a consonant) is modified by diacritic signs to alter
the vowel (cf. Meyer 2016a).
4 The first linguistic attestation of Gurage is found in grammatical tracts of Arabic
scholars from the 13th century ce (Muth 2009, Bulakh and Kogan 2011, 2017).
5 The currently adopted script for all Gunnän Gurage languages and Wolane was offi-
cially introduced in the journal of the Gurage Zone administration, i.e., at the verso of
the cover page in እልፍኝ [Ǝlfɨɲ] 11, 2006 e.c. [= 2013/14].
Gurage (Muher) 253
6 For another analysis, see Degif (2000: 22).

7 In anä bet Muher, h is an allophone of x (Rose 2007a: 1063).
8 Verbs are usually cited in the 3msg sc, ending with -m in affirmative main clauses.
9 Cf. Hetzron (1977: 74–5) and Prunet (1996); but also Podolsky (1991: 26–7).
10 In Chaha and Inor Gurage varieties gemination triggers devoicing, sometimes fol-
lowed by degemination (Rose 2006).
11 The symbols √B and √C refer to the respective gemination types B or C (see §4.3.1).
12 Such markers occur in Zay and Gunnän Gurage, but in varying forms and functions
(Meyer 2014: §3.5.2).
13 But they are still two separate categories in Kistane and Mesqan (Meyer 2016b: 222).
14 Generally, all predicates containing the past copula also indicate that the event is no
longer actual or relevant at the moment of speech (Meyer 2016c: 212–15).
REFERENCES
Ahland, Michael B. Language Death in Mesmes: A Sociolinguistic and Historical-
Comparative Examination of a Disappearing Language. Dallas, TX: SIL International,
2010.
Bedilu Wakjira Debela. Morphology and Verb Construction Types of Kistaniniya.
Trondheim: NTNU, 2010.
Berhanu Chamora, and Robert Hetzron. Inor. München: Lincom Europa, 2000.
Bulakh, Maria, and Leonid Kogan. “South Ethiopian Pronouns and Verbs in an Arab
Grammatical Text Revisited after Seventy Years.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 131.4 (2011): 617–21.
Bulakh, Maria and Leonid Kogan. The Arabic-Ethiopic Glossary by al-Malik al-Afḍal:
An Annotated Edition with a Linguistic Introduction and a Lexical Index. Leiden:
Brill, 2017.
Degif Petros Banksira. Sound Mutations: The Morphophonology of Chaha. Philadelphia:
Endalew Assefa. “Descriptive Grammar of Ezha, a Central West Gurage Language.”
Ph.D. dissertation, Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University, 2014.
Fekede Menuta. Intergroup Communication among Gurage: A Study on Intelligibility,
Inter-Lingual Comprehension and Accommodation. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic
Publishing, 2015.
Fekede Menuta, and Ronny Meyer. “Sonorant Alternations in Muher.” In Festschrift
for Jan Retsö: Arabic and Semitic Linguistics Contextualized, edited by Lutz Edzard,
Goldenberg, Gideon. “Kəstanəñña: Studies in a Northern Gurage Language of Christians.”
Orientalia Suecana 17: 61–102, 1968.
Goldenberg, Gideon. “From Speech to Writing in Gurage-Land: First Attempts to Write
in the Vernacular.” In Egyption, Semitic and General Grammar, edited by Gideon
Goldenberg and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, 184–96. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanties, 2009.
Gutt, Eeva H. M., and Hussein Mohammed Musa. Silt’e – Amharic – English Dictionary
(with a Concise Grammar of Silt’e). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press, 1997.
Gutt, Ernst-August. “Concise Grammar of Silt’e.” In Silt’e-Amharic-English Dictionary
(with Concise Grammar by Ernst-August Gutt), edited by Eeva H. M. Gutt and Hussein
Mohammed Mussa, 896–957. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press, 1997.
254 Ronny Meyer
Hetzron, Robert. “Main Verb Markers in Northern Gurage.” Africa 38.2 (1968): 156–72.
Hetzron, Robert. “Two Notes on Semitic Laryngeals in East Gurage.” Phonetica 19
(1969): 69–81.
Hetzron, Robert. Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in Classification. Manchester: Manchester
Hetzron, Robert. The Gunnän-Gurage Languages. Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli,
1977.
Hudson, Grover. Northeast African Semitic: Lexical Comparisons and Analysis.
Hussein Mohammed Musa. “Silt’e as a Medium of Instruction.” (MA Thesis), Addis
Ababa: Addis Ababa University, 2010.
Kogan, Leonid. “Common Origin of Ethiopian Semitic: The Lexical Dimension.”
Scrinium 1 (2005): 367–96.
Kogan, Leonid. “Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology.” In The Semitic Languages:
An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 54–151. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton, 2011.
Leslau, Wolf. “Arabic Loanwords in Gurage.” Arabica 3 (1956): 266–84.
Leslau, Wolf. Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic). 3 Vol. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1979.
Leslau, Wolf. Ethiopians Speak: Studies in Cultural Background. Part IV: Muher.
Leslau, Wolf. Ethiopians Speak: Studies in Cultural Background. Part V: Chaha
Ennemor. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983.
Leslau, Wolf. Chaha (Gurage) Phonology.” In Phonologies of Asia and Africa, edited by
Alan S. Kaye, 1: 373–98. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Leslau, Wolf. Zway — Ethiopic Documents: Grammar and Dictionary. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1999.
Lowenstamm, Jean. “Five Puzzling Chaha Verbs: An Exercise in Practical
Morphophonemics.” In Essays on Gurage Language and Culture, Dedicated to Wolf
Leslau on the Occasion of His 90th Birthday, edited by Grover Hudson, 123–32.
Meheretu Adnew. “Descriptive Grammar of Gyeta.” (Ph.D. dissertation), Addis Ababa:
Addis Ababa University, 2016.
Meyer, Ronny. “The Morpheme yä- in Muher.” Lissan: Journal of African Languages
and Linguistics 19.1 (2005a): 40–63.
Meyer, Ronny. Das Zay: Deskriptive Grammatik einer Ostguragesprache (Äthiosemitisch).
Köln: Köppe, 2005b.
Meyer, Ronny. Wolane: Descriptive Grammar of an East Gurage Language (Ethiosemitic).
Köln: Köppe, 2006.
Meyer, Ronny. “The Quotative Verb in Ethiosemitic Languages and Oromo.” In
Language Contact and Language Change in Ethiopia, edited by Joachim Crass and
Ronny Meyer, 17–42. Köln: Köppe, 2009.
Meyer, Ronny. “The Use of Muher Demonstratives for References in Space and
Discourse.” Afrika und Übersee 91 (2010): 161–202.
Meyer, Ronny. “Gurage.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited
by Stefan Weninger, 1220–57. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011.
Meyer, Ronny. “Number in Muher: On the Interaction between Nominal and Verbal
Morphology.” Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 5.1 (2012): 1–42.
Gurage (Muher) 255
Meyer, Ronny. “Finiteness in Gurage Languages.” In Explorations in Ethiopian

Linguistics: Complex Predicates, Finiteness and Interrogativity, edited by Ronny
Meyer, Yvonne Treis, and Azeb Amha, 225–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014.
Meyer, Ronny. “The Ethiopic Script: Linguistic Features and Socio-Cultural
Connotations.” Oslo Studies in Language 8.1 (2016a): 137–72.
Meyer, Ronny. “Aspect and Tense in Ethiosemitic Languages.” In The Morpho-Syntactic
and Lexical Encoding of Tense and Aspect in Semitic, edited by Lutz Edzard, 159–239.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016b.
Meyer, Ronny. “Emergence of Tense in Ethio-Semitic.” In Time in Languages of the
Horn of Africa, edited by Ronny Meyer and Lutz Edzard, 179–236. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2016c.
Muth, Franz-Christoph. “Frühe Zeugnisse des Amharischen und der Gurage-Sprachen in
einer polyglotten Wortliste von Al-Malik Al-Afḍal (gest. 778/1377).” Folia Orientalia
45–6 (2009): 87–109.
Ousman Shafi Awol. “Descriptive Grammar of Mesqan.” (Ph.D. dissertation), Addis
Podolsky, Baruch. Historical Phonetics of Amharic. Tel-Aviv: Baruch Podolsky, 1991.
Polotsky, Hans Jacob. Notes on Gurage Grammar. Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society, 1951.
Prunet, Jean-François. “Guttural Vowels.” In Essays on Gurage Language and Culture,
Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His 90th Birthday, edited by Grover
Hudson, 175–203. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996.
Rose, Sharon. “The Historical Development of Secondary Articulation in Gurage.” In
Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
February 18–21, 1994 – Special Session on Historical Issues in African Linguistics,
edited by Kevin E. Moore, David A. Peterson, and Comfort Wentum, 112–24. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistic Society, 1994.
Rose, Sharon. “Allomorphy and Morphological Categories in Muher.” In Essays on
Gurage Language and Culture, Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His 90th
Birthday, edited by Grover Hudson, 205–27. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996.
Rose, Sharon. “Theoretical Issues in Comparative Ethio-Semitic Phonology and
Morphology.” Ph.D. dissertation, Montréal: McGill University, 1997.
Rose, Sharon. “Durational Conditions on Endegeň Gemination.” In Proceedings of the
15th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg July 20–25, 2003, edited
by Siegbert Uhlig, 843–50. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006.
Rose, Sharon. “Muḫǝr Language.” In Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. Vol. 3 He – N, edited by
Siegbert Uhlig, 1063–4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007a.
Rose, Sharon. “Chaha (Gurage) Morphology.” In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, edited
by Alan S. Kaye, 1: 403–27. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007b.
Treis, Yvonne. “Avoiding Their Names, Avoiding Their Eyes: How Kambaata Women
Respect Their In-Laws.” Anthropological Linguistics 47.3 (2005): 292–320.
Völlmin, Sascha. “Towards a Grammar of Gumer. Phonology and Morphology of a
Western Gurage Variety.” (Ph.D. dissertation), Zürich: University of Zürich, 2017.
Wagner, Ewald. “Selt’i-Verse in Arabischer Schrift aus dem Schlobies-Nachlass.” In
Ethiopian Studies Dedicated to Wolf Leslaue Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday
November 14th, 1981 by Friends and Colleagues, edited by Segert Stanislav and
András J. E. Bodrogligeti, 363–74. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983.
Yohannes Adigeh. “Descriptive Grammar of Endegagn.” (Ph.D. dissertation), Addis
256 Ronny Meyer
FURTHER READING
• Comparative grammar sketches of Gurage (with references to previous publications)
are Hetzron (1977) and Meyer (2011).
• Comprehensive grammars exist for Mesqan (Ousman 2015), Ezha (Endalew 2014;
see also Polotsky 1951), Endegagn (Yohannes 2015), Gyeta (Meheretu 2016), Wolane
(Meyer 2006) and Zay (Meyer 2005b; see also Leslau 1999), and in-depth morphoph-
onological studies for Kistane (Goldenberg 1968; Bedilu 2010), Chaha (Degif 2000;
see also Leslau 1983) and Gumer (Völlmin 2017). Grammatical sketches are available
for Muher (Leslau 1981), Inor (Berhanu and Hetzron 2000; Leslau 1983), Silt’e (Gutt
1997) and Mesmes (Ahland 2010).
• Texts samples are included in Hetzron (1977). For book publications in Gurage, see
Goldenberg (2009).
• The basic Gurage dictionaries are Leslau (1979) and Gutt and Hussein (1997).
CHAPTER 11
MEHRI AARON D. RUBINMEHRI
Aaron D. Rubin
1 INTRODUCTION
Mehri is spoken by approximately 130,000 people (±30,000) in the eastern part of Yemen
(al-Mahra province) and southwestern part of Oman (primarily in the Dhofar province),
as well as by a small number of speakers in adjacent areas of Saudi Arabia (see Map 11.1).
Mehri has no written tradition, and has been known to scholars only since the 1840s. The
language has a number of regional dialects, which can be roughly divided into Yemeni
and Omani varieties; all dialects are mutually intelligible.
Mehri is one of the six so-called Modern South Arabian (MSA) languages, along with
Jibbali (also called Shaḥri, Śḥeri or Śḥerɛ̄t), Ḥarsusi, Soqoṭri, Hobyot and Baṭḥari. The
linguistic domain of the other five MSA languages is restricted to eastern Yemen, western
Oman and the island groups of Soqoṭra and Al-Ḥallaniyāt (formerly Khuriya Muriya). Of
all the MSA languages, Mehri is spoken by the greatest number of speakers and is spoken
over the widest geographical area.
SAUDI ARABIA
OMAN
YEMEN
LEGEND
Mehri
Ḥarsusi
Hobyot
Soqoṭri
Jibbali
Baṭḥari
MAP 11.1 THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MODERN SOUTH ARABIAN LANGUAGES

Source: Adapted from Rubin (2018).
258 Aaron D. Rubin
1.1 History of scholarship

The first published information on Mehri was a short word-list given by Wellsted (1840:
26–7). Other early evidence, including word-lists, short translated texts, and some gram-
matical details, comes from Krapf (1846), Carter (1847) and von Maltzan (1871, 1873a,
1873b). Unfortunately, none of the 19th-century data on Mehri or any other Modern
South Arabian language were collected by a linguist, and so the value of these publica-
tions is often limited.
The first serious work on Mehri (and other MSA languages) comes from around 1900,
when fieldwork was carried out by the Austrian scholars David Heinrich Müller, Alfred
Jahn and Wilhelm Hein. The result of this team’s efforts was a great wealth of textual
material in Yemeni Mehri, Jibbali and Soqoṭri, published between 1902 and 1909, which
greatly advanced the field of MSA. For Mehri texts, the most relevant publications are
Jahn (1902), which also includes a substantial glossary, Müller (1902, 1907) and Hein
(1909). From this material also came the grammar of Jahn (1905), the important five-part
(published in seven) grammatical study of Bittner (1909–15) and the short linguistic
study of Rhodokanakis (1910). These remained the most comprehensive grammatical
studies of Mehri until 2010.
Thomas (1937), who was not a trained linguist, published a sketch of four MSA lan-
guages, one of which was Mehri. Nevertheless, his original data, which were analyzed
later by Leslau (1947), can still be useful. Wagner (1953) is a study of Mehri syntax,
though based entirely on the publications of the Austrians (Müller, Jahn and Hein) and
on Thomas’s sketch.
Fieldwork carried out by T.M. Johnstone in the late 1960s and 1970s resulted in the
publication of dictionaries of three MSA languages (Ḥarsusi, Jibbali and Mehri), a num-
ber of important articles, and three posthumously published text collections of Mehri,
Ḥarsusi and Jibbali. With nearly 500 pages of Mehri–English entries (often including
comparative MSA material), a 140-page English–Mehri word-list, 50 pages of verbal par-
adigms and an additional 10 pages of grammatical discussion, Johnstone’s posthumously
published Mehri Lexicon (1987) was a massively important contribution to the field.
Unfortunately, as Johnstone was not able to oversee the publication of his incomplete
manuscript, the lexicon is filled with an enormous number of typographical and other
errors. The Mehri texts collected by Johnstone were edited and published by Stroomer
(1999); based only on Johnstone’s preliminary transcriptions, these also contain numer-
ous errors (see Rubin 2017). A completely new edition of his texts, including some pre-
viously unpublished ones, was published by Rubin (2018).
In the 1970s, a Japanese researcher named Aki’o Nakano was also pursuing field
research in Yemen and Oman, out of which came a comparative lexicon of Yemeni Mehri,
Jibbali and Soqoṭri, published in 1986. The lexicon has value, but must still be used with
some caution.
Fieldwork on Yemeni Mehri (as well as Soqoṭri and Hobyot) was carried out by
Antoine Lonnet and Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle in the 1980s. The result has been
a number of important investigative articles and surveys, published both as a team and
individually, which have added much to the field of MSA studies (e.g., Lonnet 1994a,
1994b, 2005). Alexander Sima conducted fieldwork on Yemeni Mehri in the early 2000s,
and he collected a large corpus of Mehri texts. Sadly, Sima was killed in a car accident in
Yemen in 2004, only a few months before completing his work. His text corpus, edited
by Janet Watson and Werner Arnold, was published in 2009. Sima also wrote a grammar
and compiled a glossary, but it is unlikely that these will ever appear.
Mehri 259
In the last decade, there have been enormous advances in Mehri scholarship. Besides
the aforementioned publication of Sima’s texts in 2009 and re-edition of Johnstone’s texts
by Rubin in 2018, Liebhaber published an edition of some Yemeni poetic texts in 2011.
Rubin (2018), which replaces Rubin (2010), is a comprehensive grammar of Omani
Mehri, based on the texts collected by Johnstone. Janet Watson, who has done extensive
fieldwork in Yemen and Oman, published a grammatical study of Mehri – including both
eastern Yemeni and Omani dialects – in 2012. Her book also includes a few original texts.
There have also been a number of other studies of Mehri based on both previous scholar-
ship and original fieldwork. Especially noteworthy are the phonological and morpholog-
ical studies of Bendjaballah and Ségéral (2013, 2014, 2017a, 2017b) and Dufour (2016).
See Rubin (2018) for a more extensive history of Mehri scholarship.
1.2 Classification of Modern South Arabian

Within West Semitic, MSA appears to constitute an independent branch, distinct
from both Ethiopian Semitic and Central Semitic. MSA itself can be divided into two
branches, for convenience called western and eastern, the latter including only Jib-
bali and Soqoṭri. Within the western branch, Mehri, Ḥarsusi and Baṭḥari form a sub-
group separate from Hobyot. Because of language contact, we also find areal features
that cross historical (genealogical) boundaries. So, for example, in the Dhofar region,
there are features that Jibbali shares with Omani Mehri, which are absent from Yemeni
Mehri, for example, a prefixed definite article. See Rubin (2015b) for further discussion
of MSA classification.
Proto-MSA
Western MSA Eastern MSA
Mehri, Ḥarsusi, Baṭḥari Hobyot Jibbali Soqoṭri
1.3 Dialects
Mehri can be divided into two basic dialect groups. There is a western group spoken in
Yemen, which has been called Yemeni Mehri or Southern Mehri, and there is an eastern
group, which has been variously called Omani Mehri, Dhofari Mehri or Northern Mehri.
The political boundary between Yemen and Oman may not perfectly correspond to the
dialect boundary, but the division is accurate enough. Within Yemeni Mehri, we can
also distinguish western, central and eastern (or ʃarqijːa) dialects. The dialects in the
towns in Yemen (like Qishn and al-Ghaydah) also differ from the dialects of the more
rural (bedouin) areas. No one has yet devoted special consideration to dialectal variation
within Omani Mehri, but based on available data, the differences seem to be smaller
than we find among the Yemeni Mehri varieties. In Oman, the language is natively called
mǝhrajːǝt, while in Yemen Mahra territory it is mahrijːoːt in the east or mǝhrijːǝt in
the western and central areas. Based on these native designations, a few scholars (e.g.,
Watson 2012) have adopted the names Mehreyyet for Omani Mehri and Mahriyōt for
Eastern Yemeni Mehri.
260 Aaron D. Rubin
Differences between the various Mehri dialects exist at the phonological, morpholog-
ical and lexical levels. Some of the differences are described in Rubin (2011, 2018) and
many more in Watson (2012). The data in this chapter come primarily from Omani Mehri.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Mehri has no tradition of writing, though native speakers may write their language using Ara-
bic characters. With the advent of the internet and, especially, SMS and other forms of mobile
messaging, this has become much more prevalent over the last decade or two. There is no
standardized system of transcription, however, and so speakers may differ as to how they rep-
resent the Mehri vowels, as well as certain sounds not present in Arabic. For example, some
choose to represent the lateral fricative ɬ with Arabic <ʃ> (‫)ش‬, others with Arabic <θ> (‫)ث‬.
A few scholars have also made attempts to represent Mehri in Arabic characters, including
Carter (1847) Simeone-Senelle, Lonnet, and Bakheith (1984) and Liebhaber (2011).
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonants
From a Semitic perspective, the MSA languages are noteworthy in that they retain nearly
all of the Proto-Semitic consonants, including the lateral fricatives. The “emphatic” con-
sonants are glottalic (ejective), as was likely the case in Proto-Semitic. In Mehri, the most
important sound change from the proto-MSA stage is the shift of Proto-Semitic *s (per-
haps *ʃ in Proto-MSA) to h (e.g., ham ‘name’ < PS *sm̩ ; hiːma ‘he heard’ < PS *samiʕa;
and hǝbhuːl ‘he cooked’ < PS *sabsala). Where Mehri has ʃ, it usually reflects a borrow-
ing or, especially in grammatical morphemes, an earlier *k or *st. Table 11.1 illustrates
the phonemic consonant inventory of Mehri.
TABLE 11.1 MEHRI CONSONANTS
Labial Labio- Interdental Dental/ Lateral Palato- Velar Pharyngeal Glottal

dental Alveolar Alveolar
Stops b t d t’ k g k’ ʔ
Fricatives f θ ð θ’ s z s’ ɬ l ɬ’ ʃ (ʒ) ʃ’ xɣ ħʕ h
Nasal m n
Trill r
Approx. w j
Notes:
• The consonant ʕ is lost is most environments in Omani Mehri, while ʔ (not from
etymological ʔ) is phonemic only in word-final position. Etymological ʔ is lost.
• In Yemeni dialects, g is realized as a palatal [ɟ] or [dʒ].
• In Omani Mehri, the consonant l is subject to phonetic change (with some exceptions)
when it occurs in the environment CV__C, whether or not the final C is part of the same
syllable. When the preceding vowel is stressed, the sequence Vl becomes ɛː (aː after a
guttural or glottalic), e.g., kɛːθ ‘speech’ (< *kalθ); when unstressed, the l is realized as
w, e.g., kǝwθeːt ‘story’ (< *kǝlθeːt).
Mehri 261
• The phoneme ʃ’ is found only in a very small number of words. In some Yemeni
dialects this phoneme is an affricate [tʃ’].
• The phoneme ʒ (also pronounced as an affricate [dʒ]) occurs only in loan words
(mainly from Arabic or English).
• The pronunciation of the fricative ġ can be velar (IPA [ɣ]) or uvular (IPA [ʁ]). It can
also be pronounced as a glottalic fricative [x’] (Dufour 2016: 23).
Transcription of Mehri varies among scholars. The glottalic consonants are most often
written with dots below, e.g., ḳ, ṣ and ṭ. The interdental fricatives are sometimes transcribed
ṯ and ḏ. The voiceless lateral ɬ is usually transcribed ś (or ŝ by Russian scholars), while the
glottalic lateral is usually transcribed ś ̣, ŝ ̣ or ź ̣. The palatal fricative ʃ is normally transcribed
š, and the glottalic version as š ̣ (or č ̣ for the affricated variant). Velar ɣ is normally tran-
scribed ġ, and pharyngeal ħ as ḥ. ʕ and ʔ are usually transcribed as ʿ and ʾ, respectively.
For further details on Mehri consonants, see Watson (2012), Watson and Heselwood
(2016) and Rubin (2018).
3.2 Vowels
Omani Mehri has six long vowels, four short vowels and four diphthongs, though not all
are phonemic.
Long vowels: aː ɛː eː iː oː uː

Short vowels: a ɛ ǝ i u
Diphthongs: aj aw ǝj ǝw
Long vowels appear only in the following three environments at the surface level: (a) in
open, stressed syllables; (b) in word-final, stressed syllables that are closed by only one
consonant (‑CVC#); (c) From compensatory lengthening as a result of a lost ʔ, ʕ or con-
traction of non-final ǝw or ǝj. When an underlying long vowel should be in a closed
syllable (or is doubly closed word-finally, i.e., CVCC#), the vowel is reduced. We see the
correspondences of long and reduced vowels in Table 11.2.
Examples of vowel reduction are abǝts ‘your house’ < *abajt-k and ktǝbk ‘I wrote’
< ktuːb-k. When we find a long vowel in an unstressed syllable, it is the result of compen-
satory lengthening or contraction, e.g., jaːˈgoːb ‘he loves’ < *jǝʕˈgoːb. When we find a
short vowel in an open, stressed syllable, the syllable is actually closed in the underlying
(phonemic) form. The most common examples of this are forms like ˈnakak ‘I came’,
TABLE 11.2 MEHRI VOWEL REDUCTION
Long Reduced
uː
iː
ǝ
aw
aj
oː
aː (ɛː) a (ɛ)
eː
262 Aaron D. Rubin
which has the underlying form /ˈnakʕǝk/. Word-finally, unstressed long vowels are short-
ened, with no change in quality, e.g., ɬiːni ‘he saw’ < *ɬiːniː < *ɬiːnǝj.
Nasalized long vowels occur in Mehri in a very few words, and are of dubious pho-
nemic status. The vowel õ occurs only in the word ħõ ‘where?’, which plainly derives
from *ħoːn (cf. Ḥarsusi ħoːnǝh, Jibbali hun), and in turn from Semitic *ʔaːn (cf. Biblical
Hebrew ʔaːn ‘where?’). A nasalized ɛ̃ is heard in the particle ɛ̃hɛ̃ ‘yes’.
For further details on Mehri vowels, see Watson (2012), Rubin (2018) and, especially,
Bendjaballah and Ségéral (2017b).
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Personal pronouns
Below (Table 11.3) are the forms of the independent personal pronouns in Omani
Mehri.
The 2nd person singular feminine has a distinct form hiːt in Eastern Yemeni Mehri.
Also in Eastern Yemeni Mehri, the dual forms, which are often replaced by the plurals in
all the dialects, have iː in place of the diphthong (i.e., kiː, tiː, and hiː), and the 2nd and 3rd
person plural forms have aː in place of eː.
As in other Semitic languages, the independent pronouns are mainly used as the sub-
jects or predicates of non-verbal clauses, or for emphasizing the subject of a verb. An
unusual use of the independent pronouns – but one known across the MSA languages, as
well as in Ethiopian Semitic – is in conjunction with the genitive exponent ð- as possessive
pronouns (‘mine, yours, ours, etc.’), e.g., ðoːmǝh ðǝ-hoːh ‘this is mine’ (lit. ‘this of-I’).
For pronominal possession of nouns, there are two sets of pronominal suffixes, one for
singular nouns and one for plural nouns (dual nouns cannot take possessive suffixes). In
Table 11.4 are the forms found in Omani Mehri.
TABLE 11.3 PERSONAL PRONOUNS
sing dual plural
1c hoːh (ǝ)kaj nǝħaːh

2m ǝteːm
heːt (ǝ)taj
2f ǝteːn
3m heː heːm
haj
3f seː seːn
TABLE 11.4 SUFFIXED PRONOUNS
On Singular Nouns On Plural Nouns
sing dual plural sing dual plural
1c -i -ǝki -ǝn -jɛ -iki -jǝn

2m -ǝk -ǝkǝm -kɛ -ikǝm
-ǝki -iki
2f -ǝʃ -ǝkǝn -ʃɛ -ikǝn
3m -ǝh -ǝhǝm -hɛ -ihǝm
-ǝhi -ihi
3f -ǝs -ǝsǝn -sɛ -isǝn
Mehri 263
Examples are ħajbi ‘my father’, ħajbǝn ‘our fathers’, ħǝbjɛ ‘my fathers’ (< *ħawbjɛ)
and ħǝbihǝm ‘their fathers’ (< *ħawb-jhǝm). The forms used with plural nouns differ
somewhat in Eastern Yemeni Mehri; see Watson (2012: 75).
The suffixes used for marking the objects of verbs and prepositions are more or less
the same as those used with nouns, only with some differences in the vowels preceding
some of the suffixes. Only for one preposition (h- ‘to, for’) do we find a suffix -ni for the
1st person singular (hajni ‘to/for me’).
Direct object pronouns are indicated either by pronominal suffixes attached to the verb,
or with a preposition t- plus a pronominal suffix. In Omani Mehri, the forms based on
t- are not used interchangeably with the verbal object suffixes; rather, the two options
are used in complementary distribution. A pronominal object suffix cannot be used if the
verb form ends in a consonant other than a root consonant, with the exception of the 3fsg
perfect suffix -t. In those cases, as well as with all future-tense forms, the forms based
on t- are used to indicate the direct object. And the forms based on t- cannot be used if a
pronominal suffix is allowed. So, for example, from the verb wǝzuːm ‘give’ (root wzm),
we find wǝzmi:h ‘he gave him’, wǝzmǝtǝh ‘she gave him’ (< *wǝzmuːt-h), and jǝwǝzmǝh
‘he gives him’ (< *jǝwuːzǝm-h), but wǝzǝmk tǝh ‘I gave him’ and jǝwǝzmǝm tǝh ‘they
give him’. In Yemeni Mehri dialects there is more free variation between the two means
of indicating a pronominal object (see Rubin 2011: 73–4, Watson 2012: 201–2). A con-
nection of the preposition t- with Hebrew ʾeːṯ, Aramaic jaːṯ, and Arabic ʾijːat-, etc., seems
very likely, but has not been proven.
4.2 Demonstratives
Mehri distinguishes near and far demonstratives (Tables 11.5 and 11.6). For each type
there is a set of longer forms and a set of shorter forms. Only the singular forms exhibit
gender marking. The forms vary a bit by dialect.
The short form of the plural near demonstrative (ǝljeːh) is found only in Yemeni Mehri.
The short forms of the singular far demonstrative show some free variation, as shown in
Table 11.6. In some Yemeni Mehri dialects, the long forms of the far demonstrative are
also found with h in place of k.
When used attributively, the demonstrative can either precede or follow its head noun
(i.e., ðoːmǝh aɣajg or aɣajg ðoːmǝh ‘this man’). The former construction is likely the
TABLE 11.5 NEAR DEMONSTRATIVES
masc sg fem sg plural
Short ðɛh ðiːh ǝljeːh

Long ðoːmǝh ðiːmǝh ǝljoːmǝh
TABLE 11.6 FAR DEMONSTRATIVES
masc sg fem sg plural
Short ðeːk / ðǝk ðajk / ðiːk ǝljeːk

Long ðɛkǝmǝh ðǝkǝmǝh ǝljakǝmǝh
264 Aaron D. Rubin
result of Arabic influence. In either case, the noun will have the definite article, at least in
those dialects which possess the article (see §4.4).
Watson (2012: 80) has recorded diminutive forms of the demonstratives, formed with
infixation of iːj following the initial consonant, e.g., ðiːjoːmǝh < ðoːmǝh.
4.3 Interrogatives
The interrogatives of Mehri are as follows:
moːn who?
hɛːɬǝn what? why? what for?
hɛːɬǝn mǝn which? what kind of?
ħõ where?
wǝ-koːh (koː) why?
hiːboːh how? what?
majt when?
kǝm how many? how much?
Detailed discussion of their usage can be found in Rubin (2018). Dialectal variants of
some of these forms can be found in Watson (2012: 80–1, 124).
4.4 Nominal morphology

Mehri has two genders (masculine and feminine) and three numbers (singular, dual and
plural). Feminine nouns often have a suffix -Vt (iːt, -eːt, -aːt or -oːt, or unstressed -ǝt),
but many feminine nouns lack any overt marker. Singular nouns ending in -t are nearly
always feminine, but plural nouns ending in -t are most often masculine (e.g., heːrǝk’
‘thief’, pl hǝrawk’ǝt).
The dual suffix -i is used almost exclusively in conjunction with a following numeral
‘two’, e.g., teːθi θrajt ‘two women’ (‘woman.du two.f). Native speakers analyze the dual
suffix -i as part of the numeral (i.e., teːθ iθrajt ‘two women’), but they do not use the form
iθroːh/iθrajt for the numeral when used alone or when preceding a noun (see §4.5). Only
with a very few nouns can a dual be used alone, namely, ɣawgi ‘two men’ (sg ɣajg), fak’ħi
‘halves’ (sg fak’ħ), and perhaps one or two others. When it comes to agreement between
nouns and verbs, we usually find a dual noun used with a plural verb (e.g., gǝheːm teːθi
θrajt ‘two women went’, go.pst.3fpl woman.du two.f), or a plural noun used with a dual
verb (e.g., gǝhǝmtoːh jǝniːθ ‘two women went’, go.pst.3fdu woman.pl); marking the dual
twice appears to be considered redundant. Adjectives are not marked for the dual at all,
and so a dual noun agrees with a plural adjective, as in teːθi θrajt rǝħamtǝn ‘two beautiful
women’ (woman.du two.f beautiful.fpl). As noted in §4.1, dual nouns cannot take pro-
nominal possessive suffixes, and in such cases are replaced by plural nouns.
With nouns and adjectives, we find both external plurals, meaning that an explicit
plural-marking suffix is used, and internal plurals, meaning that plurality is indicated by
means of internal vowel changes, with or without the addition of an infix or suffix. Internal
plurals are far more common in Mehri than external plurals; for masculine nouns they are
used almost exclusively. A few nouns have a suppletive plural, meaning that they form their
plural from a different base, e.g., ɣiːgeːn ‘boy’ (pl ǝmbǝrawtǝn) and nǝhoːr ‘day’ (pl juːm).
Mehri 265
The masculine external plural morpheme -iːn is actually very rare, and those few nouns
that have it nearly all have the pattern C(ǝ)CoːC in the singular; an example is ktoːb
‘book’ (pl ktǝbiːn). Even rarer is the masculine external plural morpheme -oːn, as in gūr
‘slave’ (pl gǝrōn). The feminine external plural marker -tǝn/-uːtǝn/-oːtǝn/-awtǝn (which
may derive from Semitic *‑aːt(i) plus nunation) is more common, but still not as common
as internal plurals for nouns. With many adjectives and with participles (including the
future tense; see §4.6), the feminine external plural is regularly used. Examples of nouns
with an external feminine plural are gǝriːt ‘slave-girl’ (pl geːrtǝn) and ħajd ‘hand’ (pl
ħaːduːtǝn). A few masculine nouns use the feminine external plural -(V)tǝn, including the
aforementioned ɣiːgeːn ‘boy’ (pl ǝmbǝrawtǝn).
Internal plurals are by far the most common method of indicating the plurality of a
noun, but the choice of pattern is usually unpredictable. An endeavor to group together
nouns whose singular and plural patterns were the same (e.g., heːxǝr ‘old man’, pl hiːxaːr;
neːħǝr ‘wadi’, pl niːħaːr) would result in dozens of such groups. See Jahn (1905: 35–63)
for one attempt to do so.
Some internal plurals consist only of a single vowel change, e.g., diːd ‘paternal uncle’
(pl duːd) and riːkeːb ‘riding-camel’ (pl riːkoːb). More often we find total pattern replace-
ment, as with ɣajg ‘man’ (pl ɣǝjuːg) and warx ‘month’ (pl woːrǝx). Feminine nouns with
a suffix -t or ‑Vt in the singular usually have no feminine morpheme in the plural, as in
bǝhliːt ‘word’ (pl bǝheːl) and dǝgǝriːt ‘bean’ (pl deːgǝr). Sometimes an internal plural
includes an infixed w or j, as in neːðǝr ‘vow’ (pl nǝðoːwǝr) and rǝħbeːt ‘town’ (pl rǝħoː-
jǝb). Some (most often masculine nouns) can have a suffixed -t, with or without an infix
w or j, as in dǝlːoːl ‘guide’ (pl dǝlːoːlǝt) and heːrǝk’ ‘thief’ (pl hǝrawk’ǝt).
Omani Mehri has a productive definite article a- (sometimes pronounced ɛ-, always
unstressed), the use of which is phonologically conditioned. That is, before certain con-
sonants it does not appear. The article is found before the voiced or glottalic consonants
ʕ, b, d, ð, ð’, g, ɣ, k’, l, ɬ’, m, n, r, s’, ʃ’, t’, w, j, z and ʒ (e.g. bajt ‘house’, def abajt), and
before a cluster of voiceless, non-glottalic consonants (e.g., ktoːb ‘book’, def aktoːb).
The consonant ʕ is lost in initial position in most words, in which case the definite article
may appear (pronounced with a hiatus) or may be assimilated to the initial vowel of the
word. So from aːs’ǝr ‘night’ (< *ʕaːs’ǝr), we may hear definite aːs’ǝr or aaːs’ǝr ‘the
night’.
The definite article a- does not occur before the voiceless, non-glottalic consonants f,
h, ħ, k, ɬ, s, ʃ, t, θ and x (except when there is a cluster of two or more, as in ktoːb ‘book’).
Instead there is gemination of the initial consonant. However, the gemination is very
often not realized, in which case the article is then not present at all (or, one could say
that it has the surface form Ø). For example, the definite form of teːθ ‘woman’ can be
simply teːθ, or it can be (ǝ)tːeːθ. An initial geminate is heard more often with a prefixed
preposition or the conjunction wǝ- ‘and’, e.g., wǝ-tːeːθ ‘and the woman’.
Some words have a definite article ħ- or h-. These are lexically determined, and so such
forms must be learned individually. Many of these words have an etymological initial ʔ,
e.g., guːr ‘slave’ (def ħaːguːr; cf. Arabic ʔajiːr and Akkadian agru ‘laborer’ < *ʔagr-),
but the full explanation is rather complex (see Sima 2002 and Rubin 2018 for details).
As discussed in §4.1, pronominal possession of nouns is expressed by means of a pro-
nominal suffix. In such cases, the noun takes the definite article as well as the suffix, e.g.,
a-bajt-i ‘my house’ (def-house-1cs), from bajt ‘house’. Nominal possession is almost
always expressed by means of the genitive exponent ð-, e.g., a-ɣajg ð-a-ɣǝgǝnoːt ‘the
girl’s husband’ (def-man gen-def-girl).
266 Aaron D. Rubin
The Semitic construct state survives in Mehri only with a handful of words. These
include bǝr ‘son of’ (pl bǝni), used only in names and compound kinship terms like bǝr
diːd ‘cousin’ (lit. ‘son of uncle’); bǝt ‘house of’, restricted to the sense of ‘clan, familial
line’; and baːl ‘owner of’ (pl bǝʕajli), used also in a variety of idioms, including for pro-
fessions, e.g., baːl rawn ‘goat-herder’. The construct is also sometimes used in phrases
involving quantities (partitives), most commonly with ʕajnǝt ‘a little (bit)’, e.g., ʕajnǝt
tǝmboːku ‘a little tobacco’.
Diminutive nouns and adjectives are formed in several different ways, but typically
either with a suffix (-oːt, -ɛːnoːt, or -ɛːCeːn) or infixation of w between the first and second
root consonants, along with changes to the internal vowel pattern. Examples are ktɛːbeːn
‘little book’ (diminutive of ktoːb ‘book’) and nǝwaːħaːr ‘little wadis’ (diminutive of
neːħǝr ‘wadi’). Plural diminutives sometimes show partial reduplication, as in nǝħraːħoːr
‘little wadis’. See further in Johnstone (1973), as well as the grammars of Watson (2012)
and Rubin (2018).
4.5 Numerals
Table 11.7 shows the numerals 1–10 in Omani Mehri.
For variant Yemeni Mehri forms, see Watson (2012: 110). Most subject to variation
is the masculine form of ‘three’, which is ɬaʕθajt in Eastern Yemeni Mehri and ɬaːfajt
or ɬaɣ(a)tiːt in Western Yemeni Mehri. The numeral t’aːt’ (f t’ajt), which can also have
the sense of ‘a certain’, normally follows the noun, e.g. teːθ t’ajt ‘one woman’. The
more historically correct masculine form is t’aːd, but t’aːt’ is more frequent. Interest-
ingly, the numeral t’aːt’ (f t’ajt) comes between a noun and its attributive adjective, as in
teːθ t’ajt rǝħajmǝt ‘a certain beautiful woman’ (woman one.f beautiful.fsg). The numeral
θroːh (f θrajt) usually follows a dual form of the noun (see §4.4); if it precedes, then the
accompanying noun appears in the plural (cf. teːθi θrajt ‘two women’, but θrajt jǝniːθ
‘two women’). On diminutive forms of the numerals in Omani Mehri, see Watson (2012:
111–12).
Numerals from three to ten most often precede the noun (e.g., hoːba jǝniːθ ‘seven
women’), though occasionally they can follow. They always follow when the noun has a
possessive suffix (e.g., ħǝbǝn-hɛ ɬaːθajt ‘his three sons’, son.pl-3msg three.m).
TABLE 11.7 NUMERALS 1–10
Masculine Feminine
1 t’aːt’ / t’aːd t’ajt

2 θroːh θrajt
3 ɬaːθajt ɬhǝliːθ
4 ǝrboːt arba
5 xǝmːoːh xajmǝh
6 jǝtiːt hǝtː
7 jǝbajt hoːba
8 θǝmǝniːt θǝmoːni
9 sajt / sǝʕajt sɛː
10 aːɬǝriːt oːɬǝr
Mehri 267
TABLE 11.8 CARDINAL NUMERALS WITH THE WORD ‘DAY’
nǝhoːr t’ajt ‘one day’ ʃiːdǝθ juːm ‘six days’

nǝhoːri θrajt ‘two days’ ʃiːba juːm ‘seven days’
ɬiːlǝθ juːm ‘three days’ θiːmǝn juːm ‘eight days’
riːba juːm ‘four days’ tiːsa juːm ‘nine days’
xajmǝh juːm ‘five days’ ajɬǝr juːm ‘ten days’
TABLE 11.9 ORDINAL NUMERALS
Masculine Feminine ‘days’
1 ħaːwǝlaj ħaːwǝliːt (no special form)

2 mǝʃeːɣǝr mǝʃǝɣǝriːt (no special form)
3 ɬoːlǝθ ɬɛːθǝt ɬǝwθiːt
4 roːbǝʔ rabat ǝrbajt
5 xoːmǝs xamst xǝmhiːt
6 soːdǝs sad(ǝ)st ʃǝdθiːt
7 soːbǝʔ sabat ʃǝbajt
8 θoːmǝn θamnǝt θǝmniːt
9 toːsǝʔ tasat tǝsajt
10 oːɬǝr aːɬrǝt aːɬriːt
The teens are made by combining ‘ten’ and the digit (e.g., oːɬǝr wǝ-xajmǝh ‘fifteen’),
though these are often replaced by Arabic forms (e.g., xamstaːʃǝr). The tens all come
from Arabic (e.g. aʃrajn ‘twenty’ and xǝmsajn ‘fifty’), though there has been some pho-
nological adaptation, as in ɬǝlaːθajn ‘thirty’, which is an Arabic form that has the initial
lateral fricative of Mehri ɬaːθajt ‘three’. For larger numbers, Mehri has mjeːt ‘hundred’
(pl miː) and ɛːf ‘thousand’ (pl jǝleːf).
An interesting feature of the MSA languages is that there is a special form of the
numerals three to ten that is used with the word juːm ‘days’, all formed on the pattern
CiːCǝC. The Omani Mehri forms are found in Table 11.8.
Ordinals are built on the patterns CoːCǝC for masculine and CaCCǝt for feminine.
There are also a special ordinal forms used with ‘days’, whose pattern (CǝCCiːt) is essen-
tially the feminine of the pattern CiːCǝC used as the cardinal with ‘days’. The Omani
Mehri forms are found in Table 11.9.
4.6 Verb stems
Like other Semitic languages, Mehri verbal roots are mainly triliteral (that is, they have
three root consonants) and appear in a variety of derived verbal stems, each character-
ized by particular vowel patterns and, in some cases, the addition of certain prefixed or
infixed elements. The basic stem is designated the G Stem (for German Grundstamm
‘basic stem’), which is subdivided into two subtypes: the Ga Stem (corresponding to
the Arabic faʕala type) and the Gb Stem (corresponding to the Arabic faʕila or Hebrew
paːʕeːl stative type). There are six derived verbal stems: the D/L Stem, the H Stem, two
Š Stems (Š1 and Š2) and two T Stems (T1 and T2). Remnants of other types, almost
268 Aaron D. Rubin
exclusively attested with weak roots, are subsumed under the D/L Stem (not unlike the
Hebrew polel). In addition, there are also quadriliteral and quinqueliteral verbs, though
these – especially the latter – are very few in number. Of the triliteral derived verbal
stems, the H Stem is the most common, while the Š2 Stem is the least.
The Gb Stem is often stative or intransitive, but there are many active/transitive verbs
in this stem as well, including the common verbs ajmǝl ‘do, make’ (root ʕml) and ɬiːni
‘see’ (root ɬnj). There are also Ga Stem verbs that are stative or intransitive, e.g., wǝk’awf
‘be(come) silent’.
The D/L Stem derives from a collapse of the Semitic D and L Stems, though the most
common shape of this stem in Omani Mehri comes from the inherited L Stem. Both
the D/L and H Stems are characterized by a prefix (a- and h-, respectively), both likely
deriving from a West Semitic *h-. That the D/L Stem should have a prefix is most likely
based on an analogy with the H Stem (Dufour 2016, Rubin 2018). In both stems, the
prefix appears only in certain environments. When the first root consonant is voiceless
and non-glottalic, then the prefix is lost when it is adjacent to that consonant, and the first
root consonant is geminated. The gemination is often simplified when that consonant is in
initial position. Compare H Stem hǝrkuːb ‘he mounted’ with H Stem xǝduːm (or xːǝduːm)
‘he employed’, and D/L Stem awoːs’ǝl ‘he brought’ with soːlǝm (or sːoːlǝm) ‘he saved’.
The D/L Stem has a variety of functions, including as a causative of intransitive or
stative verbs and as a denominative. Its description by some scholars as an intensive or
conative is misleading. The H Stem, which is the reflex of the Semitic C Stem (Akka-
dian šaprus, Hebrew hiphʕil, Arabic ʔafʕala), is normally a causative. As in most other
Semitic languages, both the D/L and H Stems are often simply lexical, with no clear
derived meaning.
The two T Stems, both characterized by an infixed morpheme t, often have a reflexive,
reciprocal or passive function, though again some verbs are simply lexical. The Š Stems
are characterized by a prefixed ʃ-, which derives from an earlier *st. The Š1 Stem is
sometimes a passive or reflexive of a corresponding H Stem causative verb, but this use is
relatively uncommon. It can also occasionally have a meaning ‘believe s.o./s.t. is X’, but
frequently it is difficult to pinpoint any clear derived value of the Š1 Stem. The relatively
rare Š2 Stem most often gives a verb a sense of reciprocity, but a few are also just lexical.
There is also an internal passive of the Ga Stem, and a very rare internal passive of the
H Stem. An internal passive of the D/L Stem, found (though rarely) in some other MSA
languages, may also exist, but Mehri evidence is meager.
Tables 11.10 and 11.11 show some sample forms of the various triliteral verb stems.
TABLE 11.10 BASIC SUFFIX-CONJUGATION FORMS OF THE TRILITERAL STEMS
3msg prf 3mpl prf 3fsg prf 1csg prf
Ga Stem (faʕala) bǝguːd bǝgawd bǝgǝduːt bǝgǝdk ‘chase’

Gb Stem (faʕila) riːkǝb rǝkbǝm rǝkboːt rǝkǝbk ‘ride’
G Passive bǝgeːd bǝgeːdǝm bǝgǝdeːt bǝgadk ‘be chased’
D/L Stem awoːs’ǝl awas’lǝm aws’ǝleːt awas’lǝk ‘bring’
H Stem (C Stem) hǝrkuːb hǝrkiːb hǝrkǝbuːt hǝrkǝbk ‘mount (s.o.)’
Š1 Stem ʃǝnðuːr ʃǝnðiːr ʃǝnðǝruːt ʃǝnðǝrk ‘vow’
Š2 Stem ʃǝneːsǝm ʃǝnasmǝm ʃǝnsǝmeːt ʃǝnasmǝk ‘sigh’
T1 Stem ɣatbǝr ɣatbǝrǝm ɣǝtbǝroːt ɣatbǝrǝk ‘meet o.a.’
T2 Stem ǝxtǝluːf ǝxtǝliːf ǝxtǝwfuːt ǝxtǝlǝfk ‘be different’
Mehri 269
TABLE 11.11 BASIC PREFIX-CONJUGATION AND FUTURE FORMS OF THE TRILITERAL

STEMS
3msg iprf 3mpl iprf 3msg sbjv msg future
Ga Stem (faʕala) jǝbuːgǝd jǝbǝgdǝm jǝbgeːd bǝgdoːna

Gb Stem (faʕila) jǝrkoːb jǝrkiːb jǝrkoːb rǝkboːna
G Passive jǝktoːb jǝktiːb jǝktoːb (none)
D/L Stem jawas’lǝn jawas’lǝn jawoːs’ǝl mawoːs’ǝl
H Stem (C Stem) jǝhǝrkuːb jǝhǝrkiːb jǝharkǝb mǝharkǝb
Š1 Stem jǝʃǝnðuːr jǝʃǝnðiːr jǝʃanðǝr mǝʃanðǝr
Š2 Stem jǝʃnasmǝn jǝʃnasmǝn jǝʃneːsǝm mǝʃneːsǝm
T1 Stem jǝɣtǝbuːr jǝɣtǝbiːr jǝɣtiːbǝr mǝɣtiːbǝr
T2 Stem jǝxtǝliːfǝn jǝxtǝliːfǝn jǝxtǝloːf mǝxtǝliːf
TABLE 11.12 BASIC FORMS OF THE Q STEMS
3msg prf 3mpl prf 3msg iprf 3msg sbjv
Q Stem amarħǝb amarħǝbǝm jamǝrħawb jamarħǝb ‘greet’

(< *jamǝrħuːb)
Q Stem adamdǝm adamdǝmǝm jadǝmduːm jadamdǝm ‘grope’
Qw Stem ɬxǝwluːl ɬxǝwliːl jǝɬxǝwluːl jǝɬxawːǝl ‘sit, stay’
In addition to verbs from triliteral roots, we also find quadriliteral and quinquelit-
eral verbs. These are overall quite rare, though they include a couple of common verbs.
Quadriliteral verbs (Q Stems) can be divided into two types. There are true quadriliter-
als, with four different root consonants (C1C2C3C4), though the second root consonant
is nearly always a liquid or glide (r, l, w or j). There are also reduplicated quadriliterals,
which have just two different consonants (C1C2C1C2). The Q Stems have the same prefix
a- that is found on the D/L Stem.
All quinqueliteral verbs can be considered triliteral roots with an infixed w or j after
the second root consonant, and a reduplicated final root consonant. We can call these
Qw and Qy Stems. Such verbs are very few in number, but one is the very common verb
ɬxǝwluːl ‘sit, stay’.
Some sample quadriliteral and quinqueliteral verb forms are found in Table 11.12.
There are also two derived quadriliteral patterns. The rare NQ Stem, characterized by
a prefixed n-, is often a passive or intransitive of a Q Stem, e.g., ǝnʃǝrxawf ‘slip away,
sneak away (intrans.)’ (cf. Q ʃǝrxawf ‘sneak s.t. to s.o.’). The derivational function of the
exceedingly rare ŠQ Stem, characterized by a prefix ʃ-, if any, is unclear. An example is
ʃǝdarbǝʃ ‘call a camel by flapping one’s lips’.
4.7 Verb tenses and moods

As in all the MSA languages, the Semitic suffix-conjugation (Chapter 3, §3.5.4) is con-
tinued in the perfect, the primary function of which is as a past tense. There are also three
prefix conjugations. The first of these, the imperfect, has a variety of functions, including
a general present and past habitual, among others. It has not yet been satisfactorily proven
270 Aaron D. Rubin
whether the imperfect derives from the Semitic *yaqattal or the Central Semitic *yaqtulu,
though most scholars assume the former.
The subjunctive derives from the West Semitic jussive, and can be used both
dependently and independently. The imperative is derived from the subjunctive, as else-
where in Semitic, while the subjunctive is used for a negative command. Dual impera-
tives are unattested.
The third prefix-conjugation, the conditional, is quite restricted in use, occurring
almost exclusively in the apodosis of unreal conditional sentences. The conditional,
which is characterized by the presence of the suffix -ǝn on all forms, would seem to have
some etymological connection with the Arabic energic moods, but this has not yet been
conclusively demonstrated. Both the subjunctive and conditional tenses have the prefix
l- in the 1st person singular and dual.
Below (Table 11.13) is the complete conjugation of the Ga Stem verb bǝguːd ‘chase’
in Omani Mehri.
In the perfect, the 3msg and 3fpl forms are always identical. The 3mpl form of the
perfect, imperfect, and subjunctive is formed either by ablaut (as with bǝguːd ~ bǝgawd
‘he/they chased’) or with the suffix -ǝm (e.g., riːkǝb ~ rǝkbǝm ‘he/they rode’), depend-
ing on the verbal stem and/or root type. In Yemeni Mehri, the suffix -ǝm is used more
frequently than in Omani Mehri. Similarly, the 2fsg of the imperfect and subjunctive
can have the suffix -i, ablaut, or both, and dialects also exhibit differences in this regard.
The 3fsg perfect has the suffix -uːt, -oːt, or (least often) -eːt, again depending on verb
stem and/or root type. For additional examples, see the 3mpl and 3fsg forms listed in
§4.6, Table 11.10.
There is also a future tense in Mehri, which has its origins in the Semitic active par-
ticiple *CVCC-aːn. Because of its nominal origins, it conjugates only for gender and
number, but pronoun subjects remain optional. In the derived stems (that is, in all but the
G Stems), the future is characterized by a prefixed m-, and the plural has common gender
(with the feminine plural suffix). For nearly all verb types, the base of the future is the
same as that of the subjunctive and imperative. Below (Table 11.14) are sample future
forms of the G, D/L, H and Qw Stems (see also §4.6, Table 11.11).
TABLE 11.13 CONJUGATION OF A GA STEM VERB
Perfect Imperfect Subjunctive Conditional Imperative
1csg bǝgǝdk ǝbuːgǝd lǝbgeːd lǝbgeːdǝn

2msg bǝgǝdk tǝbuːgǝd tǝbgeːd tǝbgeːdǝn bǝgeːd
2fsg bǝgǝdʃ tǝbeːgǝd tǝbgeːdi tǝbgeːdǝn bǝgeːdi
3msg bǝguːd jǝbuːgǝd jǝbgeːd jǝbgeːdǝn
3fsg bǝg(ǝ)duːt tǝbuːgǝd tǝbgeːd tǝbgeːdǝn
1cdu bǝgǝdki ǝbǝgdoːh lǝbgǝdoːh lǝbgǝdajːǝn
2cdu bǝgǝdki tǝbǝgdoːh tǝbgǝdoːh tǝbgǝdajːǝn
3mdu bǝg(ǝ)doːh jǝbǝgdoːh jǝbgǝdoːh jǝbgǝdajːǝn
3fdu bǝgǝdtoːh tǝbǝgdoːh tǝbgǝdoːh tǝbgǝdajːǝn
1cpl bǝguːdǝn nǝbuːgǝd nǝbgeːd nǝbgeːdǝn
2mpl bǝgǝdkǝm tǝbǝgdǝm tǝbgeːdǝm tǝbgeːdǝn bǝgeːdǝm
2fpl bǝgǝdkǝn tǝbǝgdǝn tǝbgeːdǝn tǝbgeːdǝn bǝgeːdǝn
3mpl bǝgawd jǝbǝgdǝm jǝbgeːdǝm jǝbgeːdǝn
3fpl bǝguːd tǝbǝgdǝn tǝbgeːdǝn tǝbgeːdǝn
Mehri 271
TABLE 11.14 FORMS OF THE FUTURE TENSE
Ga Stem ‘chase’ D/L Stem ‘bring’ H Stem ‘mount (s.o.)’ Qw Stem ‘sit’
msg bǝgdoːna mawoːs’ǝl mǝharkǝb mǝɬxawːǝl

fsg bǝgdiːta maws’ǝleːta mǝhǝrkǝbeːta mǝɬxǝwleːta
mdu bǝgdoːni mawas’li mǝharkǝbi mǝɬxawːǝli
fdu bǝgdawti maws’ǝleːti mǝhǝrkǝbeːti mǝɬxǝwleːti
mpl bǝgjeːda
maws’ǝluːtǝn mǝhǝrkǝbuːtǝn mǝɬxǝwluːtǝn
fpl bǝgduːtǝn
There is also a passive participle that has the pattern mǝCCiːC for the masculine singular.
This pattern is used not only for G Stem verbs, but also for H and T Stems. There is no infin-
itive in Mehri or any of the other MSA languages, nor is there a predictable verbal noun.
4.8 Prepositions
The prepositions of Omani Mehri are as follows:
b- ‘in, at; with; for; on’ mǝn ‘from’

baːd ‘after’ ǝm-mǝn ‘between’
bǝrk ‘in(to), inside’ mǝn ð’aːr ‘after’
ð’aːr ‘on; about’ mǝn ɣajr ‘without’
fǝnoːhǝn ‘before; in front of’ mǝn k’ǝdeː ‘about’
ɣajr ‘except’ nǝxaːli ‘under’
h- ‘to; for’ sǝbeːb ‘because of’
haːl ‘at, by, beside’ saːr ‘behind’
(ǝl-)hiːs ‘like, as’ tɛ ‘until, up to’
k- ‘with’ tǝwoːli ‘to, towards’
l- ‘to; for’
Some of these can have slightly different forms in other dialects, e.g., brǝk or bǝk
‘in(to), inside’, bejn, biːn or baːn ‘between’, nǝxaːl or lxaːn ‘under’ (Rubin 2012), and
tweːl ‘towards’. Watson (2012) includes most of these variants.
As in most other Semitic languages, pronominal objects of prepositions are indicated
by means of suffixes (very similar to those in Table 11.4), e.g., laj ‘to me’, luːk ‘to you’,
liːs ‘to her’. At least one preposition (tɛ) cannot take suffixes, and a few use a base slightly
different from the independent form, e.g., ʃaj ‘with me’ (based on k- ‘with’) and hǝnuːk
‘by you’ (based on haːl ‘by’).
5 SYNTAX
Only a few details of syntax can be treated here. Much fuller treatments can be found in
Wagner (1953), Watson (2012) and Rubin (2018).
5.1 Word order and constituent order

Mehri verbal sentences can have the order Subject–Verb or Verb–Subject. There is quite
a bit of free variation, though in certain contexts one or another type dominates. For
272 Aaron D. Rubin
example, Subject–Verb order is usual at the beginning of a narrative. See Watson (2012:
256–61) for details.
Within a noun phrase, attributive adjectives always follow their head nouns, as do
relative clauses. There is some variation in the placement of demonstratives (§4.2) and
numerals (§4.5).
5.2 Negation
Verbal and non-verbal sentences are normally negated by the elements ǝl . . . laː. Most
often, both elements are used in tandem (cf. French ne . . . pas), though there is some
variation with the exact placement of these elements within the sentence, with some dif-
ferences in usage between verbal and non-verbal sentences. Compare ǝl hoːh heːrǝk’ laː
‘I am not a thief’ (neg I thief neg) and hoːh ǝl kǝsk ǝħaːd laː ‘I didn’t find anyone’ (I neg
find.pst.1csg anyone neg). It is not rare to find the element laː used without ǝl (cf. French
pas), in both verbal and non-verbal sentences. The sentences ǝl kǝsk ǝħaːd laː (neg find.
pst.1csg anyone neg) and kǝsk ǝħaːd laː (find.pst.1csg anyone neg) ‘I didn’t find anyone’
are both synonymous variants of the earlier sentence.
In certain environments, ǝl is used without a following laː, namely, in conjunction with
a couple of particles and before certain verbs of swearing or promising. Examples are ǝl
ʃ-aj ar θroh ‘I only have two’ (neg with-1csg only two.m) (cf. French ne . . . que) and
gǝzǝmuːt ǝl tǝʃfuːk’ ‘she swore she wouldn’t marry’ (swear.pst.3fsg neg marry.iprf.3fsg).
5.3 Have-possession
As in most other Semitic languages, there is no verb ‘have’ in Mehri. Instead, the con-
cept is expressed with a periphrastic construction using a preposition. Most often the
preposition k- ‘with’ (which has the base ʃ- with pronominal suffixes) is used, for both
alienable and inalienable possession. If the possessor is a noun, a resumptive pronominal
suffix must be used with the preposition. Examples are ʃ-aj bajt ‘I have a house’ (with-1cs
house) and a-ɣajg ʃ-ǝh k’ǝrawʃ ‘the man has money’ (def-man with-3msg money). Tense
is most often left unexpressed, and so these examples could also mean ‘I had a house’ and
‘the man had money’, depending on the context.
The preposition b- ‘in; at; on’ is used (with the same syntax as k-) to express certain
kinds of inalienable possession, in particular those involving parts of the body or bodily
conditions (e.g., ‘have hair’, ‘have milk’), states of mind (e.g., ‘have patience’) or parts
of plants (e.g., ‘have leaves’).
5.4 Conditionals
There are three conditional particles in Mehri: haːm, ǝð and luː, of which haːm is by far
the most common. When any of these is followed by a verbal clause, the verb of the pro-
tasis is normally in the perfect tense.
The particle haːm indicates a real condition, and is normally followed by a verb in the
perfect tense. An example is:
haːm fǝlǝtk, jǝmiːt

if run.away.pst.1csg die.iprf.3mpl
‘If I run away, they will die.’
Mehri 273
The particle ǝð is used for contrasting conditionals, as in
ǝð heː ʃɛːmuːn hoːh nǝkoːna w-ǝð heː xǝzoːh

if he agree.pst.3msg I come.fut.msg and-if he refuse.pst.3msg
sǝbeːt’ tǝh
hit.imp.msg obj.3msg
‘If he agrees, I will come, and if he refuses, hit him.’
Finally, the particle luː is used for unreal conditionals. As noted in §4.6, the apodosis of
unreal conditionals in the one context in which the conditional tense is regularly found.
An example is:
luː ǝl heː ħajwǝl laː ǝl jǝsħajt’ǝn ħajbiːt laː

if neg he crazy neg neg kill.cond.3msg def.camel neg
‘If he wasn’t crazy, he wouldn’t have killed the camel.’
6 LEXICON
The lexicon of Mehri (and MSA in general) is noteworthy both for the number of com-
mon Semitic roots/words that are missing, and for the many roots/words not found else-
where in Semitic. We also find some interesting semantic shifts of inherited Semitic
vocabulary, e.g. ħǝjawm ‘sun’ (< PS *jawm- ‘day’). Kogan (2015: 467–597) is by far
the most comprehensive survey of the MSA lexicon to date. Some common Mehri words
with unknown etymologies (outside of MSA) include ɣajg ‘man’, heːxǝr ‘old man’, nuːka
‘come’ (root nkʕ), ɬiːni ‘see’ (root ɬnj), and k’awħǝl ‘egg’. Many more common words
have only obscure or very uncertain Semitic etymologies, e.g., ɣǝruːb ‘know’ (Bulakh
2013), kuːsa ‘find’, ɬxoːf ‘milk’, and wǝzuːm ‘give’.
The lexicon of Mehri, like that of all MSA languages, has been influenced heavily by
Arabic. No thorough study of the Arabic component has yet been attempted, but there is
some discussion in Lonnet (2009). Besides many nouns and verbs, which are normally
assimilated into the Mehri morpho-phonological system, many of the numerals come
from Arabic (see §4.5), as do the names for the days of the week, and a variety of par-
ticles, like amːa ‘as for’ and lɛːzǝm ‘must’. As one might expect, younger speakers of
Mehri very frequently insert Arabic words into their Mehri speech (and in informal writ-
ing, especially via the internet and SMS). Moreover, specialized vocabulary pertaining to
the traditional Mehri lifestyle(s) is being lost following the significant cultural changes
that have taken place in the last 40 years (Eades, Watson, and al-Mahri 2013).
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The Slave and His Mistress
The following is an abridged version of a story recounted by Ali Musallam al-Mahri
to T.M. Johnstone in the late 1960s. The full version was first published as Text 5 in
Stroomer (1999). A corrected full version, based on better manuscripts and an audio
recording, appears as Text 5 in Rubin (2018).
xǝt’ǝraːt t’ajt teːθ wǝ-ħaː-gawr-ǝs ðǝ-jǝsiːroːh. wǝ-ħaː-guːr

time one.f woman conj-def-slave-3fsg rel-go.iprf.3mdu conj-def-slave
274 Aaron D. Rubin
bɛr k’ǝroːh moːh mǝkoːn t’aːt’. tɛ k’ǝrbǝm, hamam

already hide.pst.3msg water place one.m when approach.pst.3mpl hear.pst.3mpl
jǝɣrajb. toːli ɬ’ǝħaːk ħaː-guːr. aːmǝruːt h-ǝh a-baːlǝt-ǝh, “mǝn
crow then laugh.pst.3msg def-slave say.pst.3fsg to-3msg def-mistress-3msg from
hɛːɬǝn tǝɬ’ħoːk?” aːmuːr, “hamaʃ a-jǝɣrajb hɛːɬǝn ðǝ-joːmǝr?”
what laugh.iprf.2msg say.pst.3msg hear.pst.2fsg def-crow what rel-say.iprf.3msg
aːmǝruːt, “hiːboːh ðǝ-joːmǝr?” aːmuːr, “bǝrk a-mkoːn ðǝ-fǝlaːni moːh.”
say.pst.3fsg how rel-say.iprf.3msg say.pst.3msg in def-place gen-such water
ɬ’ǝħkoːt a-baːlǝt-ǝh. tɛ wǝs’ǝlǝm, kuːsǝm ħǝ-moːh.

laugh.pst.3fsg def-mistress-3msg when arrive.pst.3mpl find.pst.3mpl def-water
wǝ-siːroːh tɛ mǝkoːn t’aːt’, hamam a-jǝɣrajb. bǝkoːh ħaː-guːr.
conj-go.pst.3mdu until place one.m hear.pst.3mpl def-crow cry.pst.3msg def-slave
aːmǝruːt a-baːlǝt-ǝh, “koː heːt tǝbajk?” aːmuːr ħaː-guːr,
say.pst.3fsg def-mistress-3msg why you.msg cry.iprf.2msg say.pst.3msg def-slave
“k’ǝlɛː-j lǝbkɛh!” aːmǝruːt h-ǝh, “kǝleːθ l-aj!” toːli
leave.imp.fsg-1csg cry.sbjv.1csg say.pst.3fsg to-3msg tell.imp.msg to-1csg then
aːmuːr ħaː-guːr, “aːmuːr h-ajni a-jǝɣrajb, ‘haːm ǝl sǝjǝrk
say.pst.3msg def-slave say.pst.3msg to-1csg def-crow if neg go.pst.1csg
k-a-baːlǝt-k laː, tǝmuːt’.” toːli aːmǝruːt h-ǝh, “nǝkɛ
with-def-mistress-2msg neg die.iprf.2msg then say.pst.3fsg to-3msg come.imp.msg
ǝw-boːh, sjeːr ʃ-aj.” tɛ geːhǝmǝh a-ɣajg ðǝ-t-teːθ ɬxǝwluːl.
to-here go.imp.msg with-1csg then tomorrow def-man gen-def-woman sit.pst.3msg
aːmuːr ħaː-guːr, “a-baːlajt-i, ħoːm ǝl-hiːs jǝmʃiːh. ħoːm
say.pst.3msg def-slave def-mistress-3msg want.1csg like yesterday want.1csg
ǝlsjeːr ʃ-ajʃ.” jaːɬuːɬ a-ɣajg ðǝ-t-teːθ, jǝɬluːl
go.sbjv.1csg with-2fsg arise.iprf.3msg def-man gen-def-woman draw.iprf.3msg
ʃkaj, wǝ-jǝluːtǝɣ ħaː-guːr wǝ-t-teːθ.
sword conj-kill.iprf.3msg def-slave conj-def-woman
‘Once a woman and her slave were traveling. And the slave had already hidden water in
one place. When they got close, they heard a crow. Then the slave laughed. His mistress
said to him, “What are you laughing at?” He said, “Did you hear what the crow was say-
ing?” She said, “What was it saying?” He said, “In such-and-such a place is water.” The
mistress laughed. Then when they arrived, they found the water. His mistress said, “Why
are you crying?” The slave said, “Let me cry!” She said to him, “Tell me!” Then the slave
said, “The crow said to me, ‘If you don’t sleep [lit. go] with your mistress, you will die’.”
Then she said to him, “Come here, sleep with me.” Then the next day the woman’s hus-
band was sitting. The slave said, “My mistress, I want like yesterday. I want to sleep with
you.” The woman’s husband got up, drew a sword, and killed the slave and the woman.’
8 FURTHER STUDY
The standard dictionary of Mehri is that of Johnstone (1987), though, as noted earlier, it
is replete with typographical errors. Other dictionaries include Jahn (1902) and Nakano
Mehri 275
(1986). The most complete grammatical studies are Watson (2012) and Rubin (2018,
replacing Rubin 2010), each of which takes a different approach to language description
and has its own strengths. The older grammatical studies of Jahn (1905), Rhodokanakis
(1910), Bittner (1909–15) and Wagner (1953) can still be useful. The major text collec-
tions are Jahn (1902), Müller (1902, 1907), Hein (1909), Stroomer (1999), Sima (2009),
Liebhaber (2011) and Rubin (2018). Rubin (2018) also provides a comprehensive bib-
liography and history of scholarship. Mehri recordings can be heard on the websites of
the Endangered Languages Archive at SOAS University of London and the Semitisches
Tonarchiv (SemArch).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnold, Werner, and Alexander Sima. “Das Maysir-Spiel im Mahra-Land. Ein Text im
Mehri-Dialekt von Ḥawf erzählt von ʕAskari Saʕd.” In Im Dialog bleiben. Sprache und
Denken in den Kulturen des Vorderen Orients. Festschrift für Raif Georges Khoury,
edited by Frederek von Musall and Abdulbary Al-Mudarris, 421–27. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2011.
Bendjaballah, Sabrina. “Gutturals and Glides and their Effect on the Mehri Verb.” In
Linguistic Studies in the Arabian Gulf (Special issue of QuadRi – Quaderni di
Ricognizioni), edited by Simone Bettega and Fabio Gasparini, 13–36. Turin: Università
di Torino, 2017.
Bendjaballah, Sabrina and Philippe Ségéral. “Remarques sur la gémination dans le
système verbal du mehri (sudarabique moderne).” In Phonologie, morphologie,
syntaxe: Mélanges offerts à Jean-Pierre Angoujard, edited by Ali Tifrit, 31–59.
Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2013.
Bendjaballah, Sabrina and Philippe Ségéral. “The Phonology of “Idle Glottis” Consonants
in the Mehri of Oman (Modern South Arabian).” Journal of Semitic Studies 59 (2014):
161–204.
Bendjaballah, Sabrina and Philippe Ségéral. “On the Verb Forms Derived from Four
H-Initial Roots in the Mehri Language of Oman.” Journal of Semitic Studies 62
(2017a): 199–215.
Bendjaballah, Sabrina and Philippe Ségéral. “The Vocalic System of the Mehri of Oman:
Stress, Length and Syllabic Structure.” Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and
Linguistics 9 (2017b): 160–90.
Bittner, Maximilian. “Studien zur Laut- und Formenlehre der Mehri-Sprache in
Südarabien. I. Zum Nomen im engeren Sinne.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 162.5 (1909).
Südarabien. II. Zum Verbum.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 168.2 (1911).
Südarabien. III. Zum Pronomen und zum Numerale.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen
Südarabien. IV. Zu den Partikeln (Mit nachträgen und Indices).” Sitzungsberichte der
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse
174.4 (1914a).
Südarabien. V. (Anhang.) Zu ausgewählten Texten. 1. Nach den Aufnahmen von D.H.
276 Aaron D. Rubin
v. Müller.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien,

Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 176.1 (1914b).
Südarabien. V. (Anhang.) Zu ausgewählten Texten. 2. Nach den Aufnahmen von A.
Jahn und W. Hein.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 178.2 (1915a).
Bittner, Maximilian. “Studien zur Laut- und Formenlehre der Mehri-Sprache in Südarabien.
V. (Anhang.) Zu ausgewählten Texten. 3. Kommentar und Indices.” Sitzungsberichte
der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische
Klasse 178.3 (1915b).
Bittner, Maximilian. “Vorstudien zur Grammatik und zum Wörterbuch der Soqoṭri-Sprache.
II. Das Marchen vom Aschenputtel in den drei Mahra-Sprachen (Soqoṭri, Mehri
und Šḫauri). Eine sprachvergleichende Studie.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 186.4
(1918).
Bulakh, Maria. The Diachronic Background of the Verbs wīda and ġerōb ‘to know’
in Mehri. In Archaism and Innovation in the Semitic Languages: Selected Papers,
edited by Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala and Wilfred G. E. Watson, 1–32. Córdoba:
CNERU, 2013.
Bulakh, Maria, and Leonid Kogan. “ ‘To know’ in Mehri.” Babel und Bibel 7 (2014):
389–443.
Carter, H. J. “Notes on the Mahrah Tribe of Southern Arabia, with a Vocabulary of their
Language, to Which Are Appended Additional Observations on the Gara Tribe.”
Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 2 (1847): 339–70.
Dufour, Julien. Recherches sur le verbe sudarabique moderne. Mémoire d’habilitation,
École pratique des hautes études, 2016.
Dufour, Julien. “La morphologie des formes verbales simples en sudarabique moderne:
Hypothèse diachronique.” In Linguistic Studies in the Arabian Gulf (Special issue of
QuadRi – Quaderni di Ricognizioni), edited by Simone Bettega and Fabio Gasparini,
37–67. Turin: Università di Torino, 2017.
Eades, Domenyk, Janet C. E. Watson, and Mohammad Ahmad al-Mahri. “Camel Culture
and Camel Terminology Among the Omani Bedouin.” Journal of Semitic Studies 58
(2013): 169–86.
Fathi, Radwa. “To Probe or Not to Probe in Omani Mehri: The Difference between a
Noun and an Adjective.” Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 9
(2017): 218–46.
Hein, Wilhelm. Mehri- und Ḥaḍrami-Texte Gesammelt im Jahre 1902 in Gischin.
Compiled and edited by D. H. Müller. Südarabische Expedition IX. Vienna: Alfred
Hölder, 1909.
Jahn, Alfred. Die Mehri-Sprache in Südarabien: Texte und Wörterbuch. Südarabische
Expedition III. Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1902.
Jahn, Alfred. “Grammatik der Mehri-Sprache in Südarabien.” Sitzungsberichte der
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse
150.6 (1905).
Johnstone, T. M. “A Definite Article in the Modern South Arabian Languages.” Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 33 (1970a): 295–307.
Johnstone, T. M. “Dual Forms in Mehri and Ḥarsūsi.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 33 (1970b): 501–12.
Mehri 277
Johnstone, T. M. “Diminutive Patterns in the Modern South Arabian Languages.” Journal

of Semitic Studies 18 (1973): 98–107.
Johnstone, T. M. “The Modern South Arabian Languages.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 1.5
(1975): 93–121 [1–29], 1975.
Johnstone, T. M. Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-List. London: School of
Oriental and African Studies, 1987.
Krapf, L. “Sammlung von Wörtern in den Sprachen von Murbat dafar und Mahăra im
Südlichen Arabien.” Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft der Sprache 1 (1846): 311–15.
Leslau, Wolf. “Bibliography of the Modern South Arabic Languages.” Bulletin of the
New York Public Library 50 (1946): 607–33.
Leslau, Wolf. “Four Modern South Arabic Languages.” Word 3 (1947): 180–203.
Liebhaber, Samuel J. The Dīwān of Ḥājj Dākōn. Ardmore, PA: The American Institute
for Yemeni Studies, 2011.
Lonnet, Antoine. “The Modern South Arabian Languages in the P.D.R. of Yemen.”
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 15 (1985): 49–55.
Lonnet, Antoine. “Quelques résultats en linguistique sudarabique moderne. Quaderni di
Studi Arabi 11 (1994a): 37–82.
Lonnet, Antoine. “Le verbe sudarabique moderne: hypothèses sur des tendances.”
Matériaux arabes et sudarabiques, nouvelle série 6 (1994b): 213–55.
Lonnet, Antoine. “Le corpus mehri de T.M. Johnstone: Le difficile accès à une œuvre
posthume.” Matériaux arabes et sudarabiques, nouvelle série 11 (2003–2005): 147–62.
Lonnet, Antoine. “Quelques réflexions sur le verbe sudarabique moderne.” In Studi
Afroasiatici: XI Incontro Italiano di Linguistica Camitosemitica, edited by Alessandro
Mengozzi, 187–201. Milan: FrancoAngeli, 2005.
Lonnet, Antoine. “Les langues sudarabiques modernes.” Faits de Langues 2 (2006):
27–44.
Lonnet, Antoine. “South Arabian, Modern.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language
and Linguistics, Volume IV: Q-Z, edited by Kees Versteegh et al., 296–300. Leiden:
Brill, 2009.
Lonnet, Antoine and Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle. “Observation phonétiques et
phonologiques sur les consonnes d’un dialecte mehri.” Matériaux arabes et sudara-
biques 1 (1983): 187–218.
Lonnet, Antoine and Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle. “Rābūt: Trance and Incantations
in Mehri Folk Medicine.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 17 (1987):
107–15.
Lonnet, Antoine and Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle. “La phonologie des langues
sudarabiques modernes.” In Phonologies of Asia and Africa, Volume 1, edited by Alan
S. Kaye, 337–72. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Maltzan, Heinrich Freiherr von. “Ueber den Dialect von Mahra, gennant Méhri in
Südarabien.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 25 (1871):
196–214.
Maltzan, Heinrich Freiherr von. “Dialectische Studien über das Mehri im Vergleich mit
verwandten Mundarten.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 27
(1873a): 225–31.
Maltzan, Heinrich Freiherr von. “Arabische Vulgärdialecte. 6. Dialect von Mahra.”
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 27 (1873b): 252–94.
278 Aaron D. Rubin
Müller, David Heinrich. Die Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Sprache. I. Texte. Südarabische

Expedition IV. Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1902.
Müller, David Heinrich. Die Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Sprache. III. Šḫauri-Texte. Südarabische
Expedition VII. Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1907.
Nakano, Aki’o. Comparative Vocabulary of Southern Arabic: Mahri, Gibbali, and Soqotri.
Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1986.
Rhodokanakis, N. “Zur Formenlehre des Mehri.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen
Ridouane, Rachid, and Cédric Gendrot. “On Ejective Fricatives in Omani Mehri.” Brill’s
Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 9 (2017): 139–59.
Rubin, Aaron D. “The Mehri Participle: Form, Function, and Evolution.” Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society (Series 3) 17 (2007): 381–8.
Rubin, Aaron D. “Interrogatives in Mehri: Their Use and Etymologies.” Zeitschrift für
Arabische Linguistik 48 (2008): 75–90.
Rubin, Aaron D. “The Functions of the Preposition k- in Mehri.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 54 (2009a): 221–6.
Rubin, Aaron D. “Ḥōm Sweet Ḥōm: The Unusual Mehri Verb ‘To Want’.” Zeitschrift für
Arabische Linguistik 51 (2009b): 76–84.
Rubin, Aaron D. The Mehri Language of Oman. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Rubin, Aaron D. “Mehri Dialect Studies: Omani and Šarqīyah Mehri.” Zeitschrift für
Arabische Linguistik 54 (2011): 67–83.
Rubin, Aaron D. “Two Modern South Arabian Etymologies.” In Language and Nature:
Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, edited
by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‘ama Pat-El, 345–52. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2012.
Rubin, Aaron D. The Jibbali (Shaḥri) Language of Oman: Grammar and Texts. Leiden:
Brill, 2014a.
Rubin, Aaron D. “A Brief Comparison of Mehri and Jibbali.” In Languages of South
Arabia (Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 44), edited
by Orhan Elmaz and Janet Watson, 125–36. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2014b.
Rubin, Aaron D. “Recent Developments in Jibbali.” Journal of Semitic Studies 60
(2015a): 431–41.
Rubin, Aaron D. “The Classification of Hobyot.” In Semitic Languages in Contact, edited
by Aaron Michael Butts, 311–32. Leiden: Brill, 2015b.
Rubin, Aaron D. “The Reliability of Published Mehri Texts.” Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic
Languages and Linguistics 9 (2017): 33–48.
Rubin, Aaron D. Omani Mehri: A New Grammar with Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Sima, Alexander. “Der bestimmte Artikel im Mehri.” In “Sprich doch mit deinen
Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!”. 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik: Festschrift für
Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Werner Arnold and Hartmut Bobzin,
Sima, Alexander. “101 Sprichwörter und Redensarten im Mehri-Dialekt von Ḥawf.”
Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 44 (2005): 71–93.
Sima, Alexander. Mehri-Texte aus der jemenitischen Šarqīyah. Annotated and edited by
Janet C. E. Watson and Werner Arnold, and in collaboration with ‘Askari Ḥugayrān
Sa‘d. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. “Les langues sudarabiques modernes à l’aube de
l’an 2000: Evaluation des connaissances.” In Israel Oriental Studies XX. Semitic
Mehri 279
Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st Century, edited by Shlomo
Izre’el, 379–400. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. “La situation linguistique dans la partie orientale du
Mahra, fin novembre 2006.” In Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien
und Sokotra: Analecta Semitica in Memoriam Alexander Sima, edited by Werner
Arnold et al., 319–38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. “Modern South Arabian.” In The Semitic Languages:
An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger et al., 1073–113. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2011.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude, and Antoine Lonnet. “Lexique des noms des parties du
corps dans les langues sudarabiques modernes. Première partie: la tête.” Matériaux
arabes et sudarabiques 3 (1985–1986): 259–304.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. “Lexique des noms des parties du corps dans les langues
sudarabiques modernes. Deuxième partie: les membres.” Matériaux arabes et sudara-
biques, nouvelle série 2 (1988–1989): 191–255.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude, Antoine Lonnet, and Sabri Mohamed Bakheith.
“Histoire de Said, Saida, la méchante femme et l’ange: Un conte mehri suivi de
remarques linguistiques.” Matériaux arabes et sudarabiques 2 (1984): 237–70.
Stroomer, Harry, ed. Mehri Texts from Oman. Based on the Field Materials of T.M.
Johnstone. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999.
Thomas, Bertram. “Four Strange Tongues from Central South Arabia.” Proceedings of
the British Academy 23 (1937): 231–331.
Wagner, Ewald. Syntax der Mehri-Sprache unter Berücksichtigung auch der anderen
neusüdarabischen Sprachen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1953.
Watson, Janet C. E. “Annexion, Attribution and Genitives in Mahriyyōt.” In Relative
Clauses and Genitive Constructions in Semitic, edited by Janet C. E. Watson and Jan
Retsö, 229–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Watson, Janet C. E. The Structure of Mehri. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
Watson, Janet C. E., and Alex Bellem. “Glottalisation and Neutralisation in Yemeni Arabic
and Mehri: An Acoustic Study.” In Instrumental Studies in Arabic Phonetics, edited
by Zeki Majeed Hassan and Barry Heselwood, 235–56. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Watson, Janet C. E., and Barry Heselwood. “Phonation and Glottal States in Modern
South Arabian and San’ani Arabic.” In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXVIII:
Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Gainesville, Florida, 2014,
edited by Youssef A. Haddad and Eric Potsdam, 3–36. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Watson, Janet C. E., and Paul Rowlett. “Negation in Mehri, Stages of Jespersen’s Cycle.”
In Grammaticalization in Semitic, edited by Domenyk Eades, 205–25. Oxford: Oxford
Wellsted, J. R. Travels to the City of the Caliphs. London: Henry Colburn, 1840.
CHAPTER 12
SOQOTRI LEONID KOGAN AND MARIA BULAKHSOQOTRI
Leonid Kogan and Maria Bulakh1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Generalities
Soqotri (self-designated as di-sok’otríjje or mɛ́talˠ di-sak’ɔ́tʕri)2 is spoken by the inhabi-
tants of the island of Soqotra (Gulf of Aden, Yemen), roughly estimated as 100,000 peo-
ple (see Map 12.1). Soqotri is the mother tongue of all native Soqotrans (Simeone-Senelle
1997b: 809). Since the number of immigrants (mostly Hadrami Arabs) is quite insignif-
icant, one can safely conclude that the number of Soqotri speakers practically coincides
with that of the island’s inhabitants. The number of Soqotri speakers inhabiting the neigh-
boring islets of ʕAbd al-Kūrī and Samḥa is insignificant.
Due to the spread of schooling, religious institutions and media, almost all male speak-
ers of young and middle generations are to some extent bilingual with Arabic, which is
widely used for external communication. The same is true of many younger women,
whereas preschool children, elderly persons and female population in general are still
often monolingual (Simeone-Senelle 1997b: 809).
Within MSA, Soqotri appears close to Jibbali as opposed to Mehri, which has led
scholars to divide the MSA group into two branches: the Eastern branch, comprising Jib-
bali and Soqotri, and the Western branch, consisting of Mehri and several minor idioms
closely related to it (Lonnet 2008, Rubin 2018: 12, 2014: 13–14).
The present description is based on the fieldwork materials collected and analyzed
during the past eight years by the Russian-Yemeni research team headed by Vitaly Naum-
kin. The examples mostly come from the two volumes of Corpus of Soqotri Oral Literature
(CSOL I and CSOL II), but also from the team’s unpublished field notes (such examples
are given without reference). The description is thus limited to the variety spoken by the
members of the Da‘rho tribe of Central-Eastern inland part of the island.
1.2 Dialects
The Soqotri dialectology is still in its infancy: there is practically no published informa-
tion on the subject.3
According to a broad consensus, the Soqotri varieties spoken in the eastern and central
parts of the island do not differ significantly from each other. According to our informants,
about two thirds of the population of Soqotra speak this rather uniform central-eastern
variety.
The western dialect is spoken in the administrative center of the western province, the
town of Qalansiyya, and the areas adjacent to it. By far the best-known feature of this dia-
lect is the preservation of the velars x and ɣ, which have merged with the corresponding
Soqotri 281
SAUDI ARABIA
OMAN
YEMEN
LEGEND
Soqoṭri
MAP 12.1 THE SOQOTRI SPEECH AREA
pharyngeals ħ and ʕ elsewhere on the island (Naumkin and Porkhomovsky 1981: 7,

Simeone-Senelle 1998: 312, 1997a: 382, 1997b: 809, 2002a: 384–5, 2003: 7, 2011: 1076,
Lonnet 1998: 71, Lonnet and Simeone-Senelle 1997: 348, 366). In the pronominal sys-
tem, noteworthy are the clearly archaic 2sg personal pronouns hɛt and hit (Bittner 1913:
12, Naumkin and Porkhomovsky 1981: 7, Simeone-Senelle 2003: 8, 2011: 1083), as
opposed to ʔɛ and ʔi elsewhere. A few archaic lexical features have been reported for
the western dialect, such as gender suppletivism ʔeb (msg) vs. ʔam (fsg) for the meaning
‘big’ (Müller 1909b: 347–51; in the speech of our informants ʔeb and ʔam are relegated to
the comparative meaning ‘bigger’, being ousted elsewhere by the root ʕk’r, cf. Miranda
Morris apud Kogan 2015: 488).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
As other MSA languages, Soqotri has no generally established writing system. The first
attempt to write Soqotri words with Arabic letters can be found as early as in Welst-
edt’s Memoir (Simeone-Senelle 1991, 1992), and the first volume of the “Vienna corpus”
(Müller 1902), where quite a number of archaic poems are written both in transcription
and in an improvised Arabic script.
A regular and consistent system of Arabic-based writing for Soqotri is been imple-
mented in numerous recent publications by the Russian–Yemeni research team (v. CSOL
I 25–9 for a detailed exposition).
282 Leonid Kogan and Maria Bulakh
TABLE 12.1 ARABIC LETTERS FOR SOQOTRI PHONEMES
IPA Transcription Roman Notation in Notation in the Phonological Example

CSOL I-II Arabic-Based Description
Soqotri Script
ɬ ŝ ‫ڛ‬ Voiceless Lateral ʕáɬer ‘ten’ ‫ر‬ٞ‫عَاڛ‬

Fricative
ʃʕ ṣ̌ ‫ڞ‬ Emphatic ʃʕóʕom ‘he pinched’ ‫ڞُاعُم‬
(Pharyngalized)
Postalveolar
Fricative
ʒ ž ‫چ‬ Voiced Postalveolar ʕáʒe ‘woman’ ‫ه‬ٞ‫عَاچ‬
Fricative
jh yh ‫يه‬ Aspirated Palatal ʔéjhor ‘he followed’ ‫أ ْیھُر‬ٞ
Approximant
lˠ ḷ ‫ڸ‬ Velarized Lateral ʔálˠaħ ‘he called’ ‫آڸَح‬
Approximant
In the consonantal domain, the additional symbols for phonemes missing from Arabic
but present in Soqotri are only five (one of them a digraph), as illustrated by Table 12.1.
As far as the vowels are concerned, the only addition to the standard Arabic inventory
of diacritics is ٞ, rendering the phoneme e (missing from the vocalic system of literary
Arabic).
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonants
3.1.1 General description
Synchronically, the Soqotri consonants can be represented by Table 12.2.
• Fricative velars x and ɣ are limited to (mostly) recent Arabisms: xálfe ‘window’, ɣáli
‘expensive’. For the preservation of etymological velar fricatives in western dialects
see §1.2.
• The bilabial glide ʋ appears systematically in the passive form of the suffix conjugation
of weak verbs: benǿʋe ‘it was built’. Outside this position, it is very rare in the inherited
lexicon: ʋa- ‘and’, ʋhóde ‘let’s go’.
• For the phonetic realization of the specifically Soqotri phoneme jh, see Lonnet 1993:
45–6, 1998: 74, Lonnet and Simeone-Senelle 1997: 347.
• The “parasitic h” is thought to have emerged when etymological long vowels of the
second syllable of nominal bases lost their accent due to the general shift of the stress to
the penultimate syllable (Bittner 1918: 49–50, Lonnet 1993: 50–1, 55–6, 1998: 72–3,
Simeone-Senelle 1998: 312, 1997a: 384, 2011: 1079, Lonnet and Simeone-Senelle
1997: 366). Cf. ʃérhom ‘tree’ < *hVrām-, fédhon ‘mountain’ < *pVdān-. See further
LS 22–3, Bittner 1913: 4–6, Rhodokanakis 1915: 13–30.
Soqotri 283
TABLE 12.2 SOQOTRI CONSONANTAL PHONEMES
Labials Alveolar Postalveolars Palatals Velars/Uvulars Gutturals
Pharyngeals Laryngeals
Plosives b t d tʕ k g k’ ʔ

Nasals m n
Trill r
Fricatives f s z sʕ ʃ ʒ ʃʕ (x) (ɣ) ħ ʕ h
Lateral ɬ ɮʕ
Fricatives
Approximant ʋ j jh
Lateral l lˠ
Approximant
3.1.2 Phonetic realization

3.1.2.1 Emphatics
“Emphasis” is used here as a cover term for several types of secondary articulation
(pharyngalization, velarization and glottalization). With the velar emphatic, emphasis is
realized as glottalization (k’), the emphatic lateral is velarized (lˠ), whereas the rest of the
emphatic consonants are pharyngalized. Deeper experimental inquiry into the phonetic
nature of the Soqotri emphatics is clearly a desideratum.
The emphatic alveolar fricative sʕ is pronounced with partial voicing (Johnstone 1968:
517). In the corpus of CSOL, there is one example of true loss of emphasis in direct
contact with d, resulting in the shift sʕ > z: mezdɛ́re ‘woolen mantle’ (cf. pl mesʕódhir).
3.1.2.2 Palatalization as secondary articulation

The velars k and g have a default palatalized realization ([kj], [gj]). Unmotivated palatal-
ized realization is not infrequent with r: rábaħ ['rjabaħ] ‘he bathed’.
For many consonants (except for postalveolars, palatals, gutturals, and ʋ) palatal-
ized allophones feature in the vicinity of front vowels (obligatory with i, and often with
stressed e): fézaʕ ['fjezaʔħ] ‘he was afraid’, difíno [dji'fjino] ‘she was buried’. Velarized lˠ
shifts to l under the same conditions: lítaʕ ‘he was killed’ (contrast lˠátaʕ ‘he killed’). In
a few morphological positions, the palatalized realization is triggered by an underlying
(rather than overt) i, and acquires distinctive value (see e.g. Naumkin et al. 2014: 36,
n. 21).
3.1.2.3 Pharyngeals
In word-final position, the pharyngeal ʕ is regularly devoiced. The output of this process
is not a straightforward voiceless fricative pharyngeal ħ, but rather a combination of two
sounds transcribed here as [ʔħ]:4 k’álˠaʕ ['k’alˠaʔħ] ‘he threw’, contrast k’álˠaħ ['k’alˠaħ]
‘he vomited’.
The same alternation is sporadically attested in the word-middle position in nouns and
adjectives: míʔħo ‘small intestine’ vs. du míʕi. It seems that in most cases a combination
of ʕ + “parasitic h” is underlying (with devoicing of ʕ) (cf. further Bittner 1918: 52 and
Lonnet 1999: 194).
3.1.3 Phonemic oppositions and phonemic alternations

3.1.3.1 Positional alternations between phonemes
Word-final d shifts to the emphatic tˤ: sɛ́rɛd ['sɛrɛtʕ] ‘a grown-up kid’ (cf. Simeone-Senelle
2011: 1080).
Regressive assimilation in voicing/voicelessness can be observed between neighboring
obstruents: ʔék’dem ['ʔegdɨm] ‘he saw’, ʃérogk ['ʃerokk] ‘I continued’ (Lonnet 1999: 201).
Assimilation/dissimilation in emphasis is uncommon in Soqotri, but cf. yesʕtʕéred
‘they race with each other’, sʕotʕéred ‘they raced with each other’, with infix -t- shifting
to tʕ under the influence of the preceding emphatic.
Dissimilation tt > st (Bittner 1918: 53, LS 27) is frequently observed: stóref ‘she will
recover’ < *t(e)toref, móstelˠ ‘they talked to each other’ < *mo-t-telˠ.
Assimilation *-dlˠ- > -lˠlˠ- (or ‑ll-) is attested in forms derived from dlˠk’ ‘to be much,
numerous’: lillák’ ‘may it be numerous’, ʔélˠlˠek’ ‘he multiplied’.
Assimilation *ɮʕlˠ > *ɮʕɮʕ is attested in some forms of the verb ɮʕálˠaʕ ‘to tell’: ʔeɮʕɮʕáʕ
‘tell!’ (LS 39).
The lateral fricatives can shift to lˠ before consonants (cf. LS 30): ħfoɬ ‘he was
dexterous’ – ħfolˠʃ ‘you (fsg) were dexterous’, ʕǿraɮʕ ‘he stopped watering (a plant)’ –
ʕǿraɮʕk/ʕǿralˠk ‘you (msg) stopped watering (a plant)’.
3.1.3.2 lˠ and l (CSOL I 12–13)

With few exceptions (notably, Lonnet 1999: 188), previous scholars have not recognized
the opposition between two lateral approximant phonemes in Soqotri: velarized lˠ and
plain l. The phonetic effects of the Soqotri lˠ are partly similar to those of other emphatics:
the occasional shift e > ɛ before syllable-closing lˠ (ʕédɛlˠ {ʕédelˠ} ‘he carried’) and the
diphthongization [i] > [ɨj] after lˠ (ʕalˠíti [ʕa'lˠɨjti] ‘two teeth’).
While lˠ is found in phonologically neutral environments, l is typically (but not exclu-
sively) attested after or before i: tedɛ́lˠob ‘it becomes high (sun)’ vs. dilɛ́bo ‘it was high (sun)’.
In the short prefix conjugation of the causative stem lˠ and l are clearly opposed as inde-
pendent phonemes: 3msg lágdaħ ‘may he bring’ vs. 1sg lˠágdaħ ‘may I bring’. Elsewhere,
minimal pairs are rare (cf. ħelˠ ‘it passed, elapsed’ vs. ħel ‘he toured, went around’).
3.1.3.3 ʃ and jh (LS 32–35, CSOL I 13–16)

The phoneme jh is best described as aspirated palatal approximant.5 Word-finally it shifts
to j: tɛʔɛ́boj ‘(a goat) will be pregnant’. In the vicinity of i and word-medially before a
consonant, as well as intervocalically between open or back vowels, the shift jh > h is usu-
ally observed: hímaɮʕ ‘(milk) was shaken for butter’ (contrast jhǿmaɮʕ ‘he shook milk for
butter’),6 móhdid ‘a piece of cloth blocking the doorway’ (contrast yhed ‘he shut’), ʔibóho
‘(a goat) was pregnant’ (contrast tɛʔɛbójhen ‘they (goats) become pregnant’).
The phoneme jh (surfacing or underlying) furthermore alternates with ʃ. The shift jh >
ʃ is obligatory at the direct juncture with the preceding (rarely the following) t, and often
Soqotri 285
occurs at the juncture with other consonants: ʔɛzijótʃi ‘she separated the two of them’,
ʃténjo ‘it (a goat) gave birth for the second time’ (vs. jhoténe ‘they (goats) gave birth for
the second time’), jelˠátʕamʃ ‘he slaps him in the face’.
The sibilant variant is also common word-initially before ɛ, as in ʃɛb ‘warmth’ or ʃɛm
‘name’ (but cf. jhɛ́ħar ‘man’). Word-initial clusters normally display ʃ: ʃħer ‘men’ (vs.
jhɛ́ħar ‘man’). The variant ʃ also appears in some positions where the preceding consonant
does not surface. Thus, the causative (C) stem verbs derived from roots with initial jh drop
the prefix ʔe- and normally display ʃ throughout the paradigm (thus sharing the pattern of
verbs with initial voiceless consonants, §4.6.3.2.1): jheb ‘it was warm’ – ʃeb ‘he warmed’.
Not uncommon is the free variation between ʃ and jh: ʃóudod/jhóudod ‘he will be shut
in’, ʃóuħar/jhóuħar ‘man’.
While some roots display alternation between ʃ and jh, in a few others the consonant
ʃ is stable or alternates with k: ʔímʃin ‘yesterday’, béʃe ‘he wept’, míʔʃer ‘billy-goat’, pl
médkor. One has thus to distinguish between two morphonemes with different origin. The
alternating ʃ/jh goes back to PS *ʃ ([s] within the affricate theory) and corresponds to ʃ in
the Central dialect of Jibbali: Jib. ʃérɔ́k’ ‘he stole’ – Soq. jhérak’ ‘he stole’/tʃárak’ ‘she
steals’. The stable ʃ corresponds to s̃ in the Central dialect of Jibbali (Johnstone 1981:
xiv, Johnstone 1984, cf. Rubin 2014: 26) and goes back to *k or *ʃ ([s]) in palatalizing
positions. (Cf. further Leslau 1937, LS 32–5, Kogan 2011: 105–7.)
3.1.3.4 Alternation between velars and palatals (CSOL I 16–17)

The velars k, g and k’ can be palatalized into ʃ, ʒ and ʃˤ, respectively (Johnstone 1975: 8–9).
Morphophonemic alternations between velars and palatals are attested in derivational
and inflectional forms of nouns, pronouns, and prepositions: míʔʃer ‘he-goat’ – médkor
‘he-goats’, ʕag ‘man’ – ʕáʒe ‘woman’ – ʕeghéten ‘women’, míʃˤher ‘goat pen’ – mák’hor
‘goat pens’. In the verbal domain, the palatal consonant is a stable feature of a verbal root
throughout its paradigm (béʃe ‘to weep’, ʒer ‘to precipitate’, méʃˤar ‘to sip’).
3.1.3.5 Loss of consonants

Unlike Mehri (Watson 2012: 35–8), the loss of *l is rare in Soqotri, cf. gad (pl ʔegɛ́lˠed)
‘skin; body’, tɛ́sɛ ‘may it rain’ and mɛ́sɛ ‘rain’ < lˠsj, k’at (pl ʔek’álˠet) ‘natural water res-
ervoir’. Note the sporadic loss of other consonants, which may reappear in certain inflec-
tional forms: k’ar (pl k’írod) ‘throat, oesophagus’, k’ɔn (pl k’érhon) ‘horn’, máɬen (pl
merɛ́ɬi) ‘house, family’, ʕámok ‘I said’ (ʕǿmor ‘he said’). (Cf. Bittner 1918: 53, LS 38–40.)
3.2 Vowels
3.2.1 General overview
In Table 12.3, the vowels of Soqotri are presented (cf. further Naumkin and Kogan 2014).
TABLE 12.3 SOQOTRI VOCALIC PHONEMES
i u
e (ø) o
ɛ (ɔ)
(a)
While the core of the Soqotri vocalic system consists of five phonemes (ɛ, e, i, o, u; cf.
LS 43), the status of the sounds given in the brackets in Table 12.3 remains to be clarified.
• The phoneme u (with its allophone ou) is mostly restricted to a few morphological
environments. Nevertheless, minimal pairs contrasting o and u can be found: jóuʕod
‘it is brought’ vs. jóʕod ‘he walks’. The examples of u in a closed syllable are rare:
ʔifúlˠ ‘how’.
• In the verbal domain, a is always attested as a positional allophone of ɛ in the
neighborhood of pharyngeals and emphatics. If nominal forms are brought into
discussion, a limited number of contrasting pairs involving ɛ and a does emerge (e.g.
bar ‘strength’ vs. bɛr ‘open place’).7
• The phone ø is usually a labialized allophone of e, typically occurring under stress
before a labial or emphatic consonant, if o is present in the following syllable: fǿlˠho
‘calves’, tǿbod ‘she lies’. Apparently the same sound can feature as an allophone of o
after lateral fricatives, palatal and palatalized consonants: gobk [gjøbk] ‘I suspected’,
ɬóʔom ['ɬøʔom] ‘he sold’. The phone ø regularly occurs in the passive form of suffix
conjugation from roots IIIʋ/j: benǿʋe ‘it was built’. (Cf. further Naumkin et al. 2014:
31–3.)
• The phone ɔ is likely to be evaluated as a positional variant of o, usually (but not
exclusively) in the neighborhood of the nasals: fɔnɬ ‘breath’, gemɔ́hɔlˠ ‘she-camels’. One
minimal pair involving o and ɔ seems to be in evidence: hɔ as form of address vs. ho ‘I’.
3.2.2 Nasalized vowels

There are two instances of combination of a vowel with n realized as a nazalized diph-
thong: ʕãj < ʕan and kẽj < ken, both meaning ‘from him’ (cf. Morris 2005: 365). This
feature is unmistakably recognized by native speakers who call it a “hidden nūn” and
mark it with the superscript ‫ ن‬in their Arabic-based transcriptions.
3.2.3 Phonetic realization and positions of neutralization

• In the speech of our informants, the default realization of the phoneme u is the
diphthong [ou], the allophone [u] being preferred in certain positions, notably in
the vicinity of ʔ or ʕ, and after n: jeʕúmor ‘it is said’, jeʔúgaħ ‘it is being climbed’,
jenúdak’ ‘it is given’.
• After pharyngalized consonants, the phoneme i is realized as the diphthong [ɨj] in
an open syllable (sʕitʕóʕo [sʕɨj'tʕoʕo] ‘she was hungry’) and as [ɨ] in a closed syllable
(másʕil ['masʕɨl] ‘he collected the gum of the dragon-blood tree’).
• The phoneme e is mostly realized as [ɨ] when unstressed and sometimes when stressed:
ʔek’ánem [ʔɨ'k’anɨm] ‘I feed’, séjjod ['sɨjjotʕ] ‘he was rich’.
• The opposition between e and i is neutralized after lateral fricatives, palatal and
palatalized consonants, where [ɨ] (the allophone of e) is usually replaced with [i]:
déker ['dekjir] ‘he remembered’ (cf. dɛ́kir ['dɛkjir] ‘he reminded’). The vowel of the
verbal prefix je- under stress is usually realized as i: jéfoɬ ['jifoɬ] ‘he has lunch’. The
opposition between e and i is also neutralized after pharyngalized consonants, ʃ, and
ʒ in closed syllables, where i is pronounced as [ɨ]: lˠósʕim ['lˠosʕɨm] ‘let me die for
someone’ (cf. jek’ósʕem [ji'k’osʕɨm] ‘they (mpl) are cold’).
Soqotri 287
3.2.4 “Intrusive” j and i

When passive forms of the suffix conjugation in the basic and causative stems are pro-
duced from roots whose first two consonants form a cluster in the corresponding active
forms, a very short i is inserted between the first two radicals, as in ħitɛn ‘he was cir-
cumcised’ (active ħton), kinɛn ‘(an animal) was protected from rain’ (active k(e)nen). The
distinctive value of this vowel is clear from such minimal pairs as ɬikɛf ‘(a goat kid) was
blocked in its mouth to prevent it from suckling’ vs. ɬkɛf ‘a stick with which one blocks
the mouth of a goat kid’, ʃibaħ ‘(a limb) was stretched’ vs. ʃ(e)baħ ‘he stretched’.
3.2.5 Vocalic alternations

Vowel e often shifts to a in a closed syllable before a pharyngeal: laʕtʕóm {leʕtʕóm} ‘let
him be fat’, laħfɛ́r {leħfɛ́r} ‘let him dig’ (Johnstone 1968: 517–18). While the shift in the
prefix vowel is not obligatory, and pronunciation with e, albeit less frequent, is accepted
by the informants, in the verbal bases of III–H roots the same underlying shift has resulted
in a special conjugation type (Naumkin et al. 2014: 29–30).
The epenthetic vowel after a pharyngeal is usually a (while e is the default epenthetic
vowel): tħalˠɛf {teħlˠɛ́f} ‘may she replace’ (on the syncope of e between t and ħ cf. later
in this section).
Vowels e and ɛ(/a) in an open syllable before a guttural are often subject to regres-
sive vocalic assimilation (Bittner 1918: 54, Johnstone 1968: 517); in some positions it
is optional (jaʕábor/jeʕábor {jeʕɛbor} ‘he sees’), in others regular (jóʕod {jeʕod} ‘he
walks’, rebóħo {rebɛħo} ‘she bathed’).
The vowel e is often syncopated between two voiceless consonants (t, k, f, s, ɬ, ʃ, ħ)
in non-final syllables:8 tɬátʕar {teɬɛtʕɛr} ‘she cuts’, laʕaféto/laʕáfto {lɛʕɛfeto} ‘they (fdu)
were accustomed’. Both e and ɛ(/a) are often syncopated in the paradigms of verbs with
adjacent voiceless radicals: kéʃof/kʃof {keʃof} ‘he unclosed’, jekɛ́fod/jékfod {jekɛfod} ‘it
is narrow’, lisɛ́ko/lísko {lisɛko} ‘she stuck’.
If the syncope of the prefix vowel leads to a word-initial triconsonantal cluster, it
is usually broken by an epenthetic vowel after the second consonant: tferɛd {tefrɛ́ d}
‘may she flee’.
The vowel i in the same environment is not fully syncopated but rather turns to “intru-
sive” unstressed i (§3.2.4): kitɛf ‘he was bound’. Word-medially cf., however, díħʃo ‘it
was flayed’ < diħíʃo.
3.3 Accent and syllable structure

Practically all autochthonous Soqotri words and forms are stressed on the penultimate
syllable. The only systematic exception is the short prefix conjugation of the basic stem,
stressed on the last syllable of the base: lˠaʕdɛ́g ‘may I suckle (intrans.)’. Since such
forms can be opposed to the short prefix conjugation of the causative stem (lˠáʕdɛg ‘may
I/she suckle (trans.)’), one has to acknowledge that the position of the accent has some
phonemic load.
Soqotri allows triconsonantal and even quadriconsonantal initial clusters (the first two
consonants in such clusters are obligatorily voiceless): ħtmi ‘plaited palm fiber’, ʃftħo
‘(a goat) was mounted’.
The initial cluster can be broken with an epenthetic e (or a if the preceding consonant
is ħ). The resulting forms may give the impression of being abnormally stressed on the
second syllable. However, this incongruency can be avoided if one treats the first vowel
as a phonetic epenthesis (transcribed here as superscript e or a): fezaʕ ‘he frightened some-
body’, ħaber ‘he informed someone about the death of his parent’.
Geminated consonants are rare in autochthonous Soqotri words: ʕíggo ‘(an animal)
gave birth (3fsg)’ < *ʕjg, bíʃʃolˠ ‘things’, pl of bíle < *bhl. Cf. Lonnet and Simeone-Senelle
1997: 361, Lonnet 1993: 52. Gemination mostly occurs as result of assimilation (cf. some
examples in §3.1.3.1).
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
It remains to be established whether the h-extended forms are optional variants of the
simple ones or have any special pragmatic function (see Table 12.4).
4.1.2 Other pronouns

The meaning ‘another one’, ‘the other’ is expressed by dɛg (f deʒ, du dɛ́gi, pl lhɛg) or the
n-extended set dɛ́gen (f déʒen, du dégni, pl lhɛ́gen).
The meaning ‘different’ is expressed by dijáħɬ- with pronominal suffixes: msg dijáħɬ-ej,
fsg dijáħɬ-es.
The collective meaning ‘all’ is expressed by fáħre. For ‘each’, ‘every’ the autochtho-
nous kalˠ, still ubiquitous in the texts of the “Vienna corpus,” in the speech of our infor-
mants is fully replaced by the Arabism kúlle.
The meaning ‘self’ is expressed by n(h)ɔf- with pronominal suffixes (in dual and plu-
ral, alternatively by the bare plural base nǿfoj/nǿfoʃ) (Table 12.5).
sg du pl
1 ho (hóhon) ki (kíhin) ħan (ħánhen)

2m ʔɛ (ʔɛ́hɛn)
ti (tíhin) ten (ténhen)
2f ʔi (ʔíhin)
3m jhe (jhéhen) jhen (jhénhen)
jhi (jhíhin)
3f se (séhen) sen (sénhen)
TABLE 12.5 ‘SELF’
sg du pl
1 nɔ́fin nǿfoj (nhɔ́fki) nǿfoj (nǿfoʃ)

2m nhɔfk
nǿfoj (nhɔ́fki) nǿfoj (nǿfoʃ, nhɔ́fken)
2f nhɔfʃ
3m nhɔfʃ nǿfoj (nǿfoʃ)
3f nhɔfs nǿfoj nhɔ́fsen
Soqotri 289
TABLE 12.6 DEMONSTRATIVES OF NEAR AND MIDDLE DEIXIS
sg du pl
near middle near middle near middle

m de dɛ́nʕa
díki dikénʕa lhe lhénʕa
f deʃ dʃénʕa
4.2 Demonstratives
Soqotri distinguishes between two sets of simplex demonstratives, for near and mid-
dle (close to the addressee) deixis (Table 12.6). The basic form of near deixis is often
expanded with various adverbial elements: de di-ħa, de di-ħatóʔo, de di-ʔɛ́hɛ(n). Some
adverbial extensions are used to form demonstratives of far deixis: de di-bok’, de di-ʔɛ́hɛ-
bok’, de di-lˠe-ħa.
Among the deictic adverbs, one can mention ħa, ħatóʔo and ʔɛ́hɛ ‘here’, ħánʔe ‘there
(close to the addressee)’, lˠe-ħa ‘there’, as well as the combinations ʔɛ́hɛ ħa ‘here’ and
ʔɛ́hɛ bok’ ‘there’. The deictic adverb ʔɛ́hɛ can attach pronominal suffixes, acquiring a
predicative meaning: ʔɛ́hɛʔ-ʃ ‘here he is’, ʔɛ́hɛʔ-s ‘here she is’.
4.3 Interrogatives
Interrogative pronouns: mɔn ‘who?’, ʔinɛ́m ‘what?’.
Interrogative adverbs: ʔóʔo ‘where?’, mítʕa ‘when?’, ʔífulˠ (also ʔifúlˠ) ‘how?’, dífulˠ
‘how much?’, línhɛm and lˠóʔo ‘why?’.
4.4 Relative
The relative marker is di- (pl ʔil-). Not infrequently the singular is used instead of the
plural.
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
4.5.1.1 Gender
In nouns and some adjectives the feminine marker in the singular appears as -e, -ɛ (-a
after gutturals and emphatics), -o, rarely -i.
A systematic perusal of the glossaries for CSOL I and II has yielded a practically equal
amount of lexemes displaying the -e (more rarely, -ɛ(/-a)) and -o allomorphs of the femi-
nine marker – about 150 examples each. While no strict distributional rules between them
could be established, certain conditional factors are prominent:
• syllabic structure
• the vowel of the preceding syllable
• part of speech and morphological pattern
Nouns of the *CVCC-at- structure constitute an important segment of the ‑e/-ɛ group9
(ca. 25%): ʔék’re ‘sprig of male inflorescence’, béʃrɛ ‘a ripe date’. Сonversely, in the -o
group such structures are very rare (sʕǿħlˠo ‘bone’).
The most important constitutive segment of the -o group is composed by lexemes of
the *(C)VCCVC-at- structure (45%), cf. Bittner (1918: 60–1): ʔaʕlílo ‘white clouds’,
gemgémo ‘skull’. With very few exceptions, the vowel in the syllable preceding the fem-
inine ending is either e or i (while ɛ(/a) is extremely rare: ʔaʕgɛ́mo, toutɛ́jo). In the ‑e/-ɛ
group, *(C)VCCVC-at- structures are much less common (ca. 10%): belˠbɛ́lˠe ‘shout of
a billy goat in rut’, mesʕrɛ́re ‘carrying pole’. Now, in each and every case the vowel pre-
ceding the feminine ending is ɛ(/a).
No clear-cut picture could be obtained for biconsonantal forms *CVC-at-. In the ‑e/-ɛ
group, there are 25 examples representing this structure (ʔére ‘moon’, bíle ‘thing’) as
against 17 in the -o group (ʕéno ‘year’, fíʔo ‘forehead’). The lexemes with ɛ(/a) in the root
always belong to the -e/-ɛ group; otherwise, the vowel of the base does not seem to play
any decisive role in the distribution.
The *CVCVC-at- structure is prominently represented by 28% in the ‑e/-ɛ group:
ħalˠólˠe ‘half-ripe date’, sedák’e ‘inaccessible rock’. Conversely, nouns with this struc-
ture constitute only 12% of the -o group: meʃʕífo ‘lintel’, taɮʕímo ‘dinner’. The discrep-
ancy is largely due to the vowel of the last syllable of the base: while in the -o group it is
almost always e or i, the ‑e/-ɛ group displays numerous examples with ɛ(/a).
In more general terms, feminine forms of adjectives almost entirely belong to the ‑e/-ɛ
group (exceptions: k’íno ‘small (fsg)’, ʕaféro ‘red (fsg)’ and ħóuro ‘black (fsg)’). Con-
versely, feminine “old participles” of the derived stems (4.6.8.1), verbal nouns of the
derived stems (§4.6.8.2), and the diminutives (§4.5.1.3) always display -o.
Substantives denoting female beings can be masculine in agreement: ʔalˠf ‘young
female calf (msg)’, kéle ‘heifer of intermediate age (msg)’, ʔéɮʕjaʕ ‘a goat two years old
(msg)’.
Many nouns with no explicit marker of the feminine are feminine in agreement (mostly,
but not exclusively, designations of female persons and animals, body parts and plant
names): férhim ‘girl’, ʔóʔoz ‘goat’, ʕajn ‘eye’, ɮʕáʔed ‘lotus tree (ziziphus spina-christi)’.
4.5.1.2 Number
4.5.1.2.1 Dual
The dual marker -i can be attached directly to the base without any structural change:
ʔalˠf, du ʔálˠf-i ‘female calf’, sɛ́rɛd, du sɛrɛ́di ‘a grown-up kid’. Nouns with feminine
vocalic endings restore *-t before the dual marker (the suffix -e usually shifting to -i):
dɛ́f-ɛ, du dɛf-ɛ́t-i ‘side’, bekél-e, du bekel-ít-i ‘snake’, ʕán-i, du ʕan-ít-i ‘leather vessel’.
More often, minor structural changes in the base are observed, such as vocalic syn-
cope, the shift e > i in the last syllable, loss of the “parasitic h,” etc.
4.5.1.2.2 Sound feminine plural

In comparison to most other Semitic languages, the use of the sound feminine plural
‑(he)ten (rarely ‑(h)iten, -(h)ɛten) is relatively restricted in Soqotri. Direct attachment of
the plural marker rarely takes place; in most cases, certain changes in the structure of the
base are in evidence: ʔed ‘hand’, pl ʔed-héten, líʃin ‘tongue’, pl lˠeʃɔ́n-ten, tʕádaʕ ‘back’,
Soqotri 291
pl tʕideʔħ-éten. As
in many other Semitic languages, its association with feminine gender
is conspicuous in adjectives (cf. 4.5.2), but it can often be attached to nouns with mascu-
line agreement, as in tʕádaʕ ‘back’ (cf. Johnstone 1975: 20–1).
4.5.1.2.3 Broken plural
The “broken” plural, that is, the formation of plural by means of special plural patterns
(sometimes in combination with external affixes) applied to the consonants of the singu-
lar form, is widespread in Soqotri. Here the most common broken plural types are listed.
1 Nouns with e or i in the last syllable typically produce plurals with *a-replacement
(o < stressed *ā̆), cf. Bittner (1918: 66), Johnstone (1975: 21), Ratcliffe (1998: 193,
200), Kogan (2015: 476–7). Examples: ʕífef ‘goat kid’, pl ʕífof, k’áɬʕer ‘skin vessel’,
pl k’áɬʕor.
2 Plurals of quadriconsonantal nouns with *ā-insertion (corresponding to the maktab-
> makātib- type in Arabic), cf. Bittner (1918: 65), Ratcliffe (1998: 193, 199), Kogan
(2015: 476). Examples: ʕánk’eher ‘anus’, pl ʕanók’hir, gírbag ‘cat’, pl gerébeg.
3 Plurals of the nomen collectivum/nomen unitatis type, cf. Ratcliffe (1998: 193, 199),
Bulakh and Kogan (2011: 8–9). Examples: ʔedmíʕ-o ‘tear’, pl ʔédmaʕ, tfɛ́r-e ‘excre-
ment of ruminants’, pl tfɛr.
4 Patterns with prefixed *ʔV-, cf. Bittner (1918: 63–4), Ratcliffe (1998: 201), Kogan
(2015: 166–7). Examples: k’óme ‘clay vessel’, pl ʔék’mehom, nójher ‘bird’, pl
ʔenjhɛ́ro.
5 Plurals in -ihin, cf. Kogan (2015: 474–5). Examples: ʔéghon ‘stone wall’, pl ʔégnihin,
fédhon ‘mountain’, pl fédnhin.
6 The С1éС2(h)oC3 pattern, cf. Bittner (1918: 63–4). Examples: ʔóben ‘stone’, pl ʔǿbhon,
kobɬ, pl kéboɬ ‘ram’.
7 The С1íС2(h)oC3 pattern, cf. Bittner (1918: 63). Examples: bɛrk ‘knee’, pl bírok,
násʕar ‘cheek’, pl nísʕhor.
8 The С1áС2ojC3 pattern. Examples: ħadíbo ‘fairy’, pl ħádojb, sʕafɛ́k’a ‘nettle’, pl
sʕáfojk’.
9 The С1éС2eC3 pattern. Examples: kaʃħ ‘cut-off part of a skin vessel’, pl kéʃeħ, ɬars
‘scratch’, pl ɬéres.
10 The С1íС2ɛC3 pattern. Examples: kérbe ‘lower part of a palm branch’, pl kírɛb, sʕárfe
‘waterfall’, pl sʕírɛf.
4.5.1.3 Diminutive
Soqotri is rich in diminutives, which can be produced from nearly every noun or adjec-
tive. Soqotri makes use of several different strategies of diminutive formation, of which
two or more are typically combined in one form (for some preliminary observations, see
Bittner 1918: 59–60 and Johnstone 1973).
1 The C1(o)uC2(h)ɛC3 pattern or just the presence of -(o)u- in the base (Johnstone
1973: 100–3, LS 10).
2 Various types of n-suffixation (Johnstone 1973: 104–7, LS 10).
3 Shift to e-vocalism in the base (Johnstone 1973: 101).
4 Shift to i-vocalism in the base.

5 Shift to a/ɛ-vocalism in the base.
6 Breaking a word-middle consonantal cluster (Johnstone 1973: 101).
7 The feminine ending -o (LS 10).
8 Partial reduplication (Johnstone 1973: 101, LS 10).
Table 12.7 gives examples of various strategies of diminutive formation and their

combinations.
4.5.1.4 Patterns
4.5.1.4.1 Primary nouns
Primary nouns reliably traceable to PS prototypes are not many in Soqotri: dem ‘pus’ <
*dam- ‘blood’, kobɬ ‘ram’ < *kabɬ-, ħámʔ-i ‘сlarified butter’ < *ximʔ-at-, ʃéreɬ ‘stomach’
< *kariɬ-, ʃébd-e ‘liver’ < *kabid-at-, líʃin ‘tongue’ < *liʃān-.
4.5.1.4.2 Derived nouns
Numerous examples of non-augmented verbal nouns can be found in §4.6.8.2.
TABLE 12.7 DIMINUTIVES (SAMPLE)
Source Noun/Adjective Diminutive Means of Formation10 Translation
ʔátʕab ʔóutʕab (1) ‘teat’

ʔak’s ʔouk’ásɛn (1), (2) ‘wind’
ʔóti ʔetóujhɛn (1), (2), (3) ‘weak’
kóte ketoutéjhin (1), (2), (3), (8) ‘inflammation’
tɛ́ʔɛ touʔéno (1), (2), (7) ‘sheep’
matétʕa metóutʕaha (1), (3) ‘lad’
k’ɔn k’ourínhin (1), (4), (6) ‘horn’
ʔóʔoz ʔouzɛ́jo (1), (7) ‘she-goat’
maʕrízo maʕarízhin (2) ‘fold of garment’
ħǿbhor ħabérɛn (2), (3) ‘cold’
sɛ́rɛd seredídhin (2), (3), (4), (8) ‘a grown-up goat kid’
ʔesʕlíʕo sʕelˠeʕáno (2), (3), (7) ‘aloe leaf’
ʕífef ʕafífjhin (2), (4), (5) ‘goat kid’
ʕáfer ʕafirírhin (2), (4), (8) ‘red’
sʕélhel sʕalˠɛ́lˠhɛn (2), (5) ‘a little wadi’
ʕádho ʕadɛ́jhɛn (2), (5), (6) ‘mountain pass’
sʕǿħlˠo sʕaħalˠéno (2), (5), (6), (7) ‘bone’
riʔíme rɛʔɛméno (2), (5), (7) ‘female goat attached to its
master’
ʔímtɛ ʔimitíjhin (2), (6) ‘a plant’
gírbag gerɛbɛ́go (3), (5), (6), (7) ‘cat’
ʕábre ʕebéro (3), (6), (7) ‘generation’
ħámer ħeméro (3), (7) ‘hill’
míʔʃer medɛ́kɛr (5), (6) ‘he-goat’
Soqotri 293
There are several clearly definable patterns with mV-prefixation.
me-C1C2eC3: mésrek ‘tethering rope’ < sérok ‘to tether’

mo-C1C2iC3: móghim ‘milking place’ < ʔéghem ‘to gather livestock in the pen’
me-C1C2eC3-o: mergémo ‘a small roofed shelter’ < régom ‘to cover’
me-C1C2iC3-o: mesʕħíro ‘cauterization’ < sʕóħor ‘to cauterize’
me-C1C2ɛC3-e: mek’dɛ́re ‘food’ < k’édor ‘to cook’
Nouns with t-prefixation are rare in Soqotri: temtílo ‘story’ < mótil ‘to tell’.
4.5.2 Adjectives
“Simple” triconsonantal adjectival lexemes are not numerous in Soqotri (Simeone-Senelle
2011: 1086). The relative paucity of examples and the highly varied declinational patterns
make difficult a systematic description of the adjectival inflection, the key parameters of
interest being the feminine singular and the masculine plural (see Table 12.8).
The most common pattern of masculine plural is C1eC2jɛC3 (with a variant C1ɛC2jɛC3
when the first radical is a guttural or an emphatic), illustrated by the examples [2], [3].
Another common pattern is C1eC2ɛC3e (examples [4], [5]). Less frequently, the masculine
plural coincides with the (sound) feminine plural (example [1]).
The best attested pattern of feminine singular can be posited as C1eC2eC3e, with e >
a in the vicinity of gutturals and emphatics (examples [3], [4]). The feminine ending is
mostly ‑e, while -o is only rarely observed (example [1]).
Conversely, there is plenty of adjectival lexemes with reduplicated third radical
which display a highly regular declinational shape, notably the ɛ – e (> i) ablaut oppos-
ing masculine and feminine in the singular, as well as the patterns C1eC2C3eC3hon and
C1ɛC2oC3iC3 for the masculine and feminine plural, respectively (Müller 1909a, John-
stone 1975: 22, Lonnet 2008: 125–33) (see Table 12.9).
TABLE 12.8 INFLECTION OF ADJECTIVES
Masculine Feminine Meaning
sg du pl sg du pl
[1] ʕáfer ʕáfri ʕaferéten ʕaféro ʕaferóti ʕaferéten ‘red’

[2] féɮʕaħ feɮʕáħi féɮʕjaħ fiɮʕéħe fiɮʕeħíti feɮʕaħéten ‘ripe’
[3] gáʕħɛr gaʕári gáʕjhɛr gaʕáre gaʕaríti gaʔħaréten ‘sick, ill’
[4] k’étʕhon k’etʕáni k’etʕáne k’etʕáne k’etʕaníti k’etʕhanéten ‘thin’
[5] lˠébhon lˠebáni lˠebɛ́ne lˠebíne lˠebiníti lˠebhinítin ‘white’
TABLE 12.9 INFLECTION OF REDUPLICATED ADJECTIVES
Masculine Feminine Meaning
Singular Dual Plural Singular Dual Plural
défdɛf defdɛ́fi defdéfhon défdef defdífi dɛfódif ‘thick’

ħábdɛd ħabdɛ́di ħabdédhon ħábded ħabdídi ħabódid ‘grey (sheep)’
ɬíbɛb ɬibɛ́bi ɬejbóbhon ɬíbib ɬibíbi ɬɛjóbib ‘old’
Adjectival meanings can be expressed by verbal periphrases with the relative marker
di- (usually with the suffix conjugation): di-délˠak’ ‘numerous’, di-ʕǿk’ar ‘big’ (John-
stone 1975: 22, Simeone-Senelle 1997a: 393, 2011: 1086, 1106).
4.5.3 Numerals
In the colloquial speech of today’s islanders, autochthonous Soqotri numerals from
“three” upwards have been completely ousted by Arabic loan words. Nevertheless, at
least among the inland bedouins the old numerals are well known and are still regularly
used when livestock is counted. The following forms (Table 12.10) have been elicited
from a ca. 25-year-old bedouin informant.
For the round tens, only two non-composite forms are known: ʕáɬeri ‘twenty’ and ɬelˠa
‘thirty’. The composite forms employ the plural ʕiɬárhen preceded by the corresponding
numeral of the first decade (Simeone-Senelle 2011: 1089). The designation of “hundred”
is máħber (at least in today’s language, only about livestock).
The meaning “both” is expressed by káʔlˠa (masculine) and kɛ́ʔli (feminine).
The ordinals are formed by the addition of the nota genitivi di-: di-saʕ ‘ninth’.
4.6 Verbs
4.6.1 Tense/aspect
As most other West Semitic languages, Soqotri displays a formal difference between two
morphological types, conventionally labeled as active and nonactive verbs. Synchronic-
ally, the verbs conjugated after the nonactive type display low transitivity semantics (in
terms of Hopper and Thompson 1980), whereas the active type has no semantic restric-
tions. Each of the two types is represented by three sets of inflectional forms: the Perfect
(the suffix conjugation, hereafter sc), the Imperfect (the long form of the prefix conjuga-
tion, pcl) and the Jussive (the short form of the prefix conjugation, pcs).

4.6.2.1 Affixes
In sc, the gender, number and person are mostly expressed by suffixes, and in pcl and pcs,
mostly by prefixes or circumfixes. The paradigms of pcl and pcs employ similar, but not
TABLE 12.10 NUMERALS
With Masculine Noun Counted With Feminine Noun Counted
‘1’ tʕad tʕej

‘2’ trɔ tri
‘3’ ɮʕáʔte ɬelɛ
‘4’ ʔerbáʕa ʔórbiʕ
‘5’ ħámoj ħímiʃ
‘6’ jhéʔte jhaʕt
‘7’ jhébʕe jhóbiʕ
‘8’ teméne tɛmóni
‘9’ séʕe saʕ
‘10’ ʕiɬére ʕáɬer
Soqotri 295
identical sets of prefixes: the pcl prefixes with initial ʔ and j correspond to pcs prefixes
with initial lˠ- and l-, respectively (cf. Tables 12.12 and 12.13). Furthermore, the personal
prefixes with initial t- are consistently employed in the active voice of pcl of the basic
stem, but dropped in pcl of the passive voice, the D and C stems and the quadriradical
verb. In the corresponding forms of the pcs, they are replaced by lˠV-.
4.6.2.2 Apophony
A specific feature of Soqotri, rarely attested elsewhere in Semitic, is that not only deriva-
tional, but also inflectional meanings in the verbal domain can be expressed by apophonic
changes. The most remarkable apophony, permeating the entire verbal system of Soqotri,
is the shift of o, ɛ(/a) and i into e (Bittner 1917–1918: 353–5, Kogan and Naumkin 2014:
72–6) to express 3mpl: zégod ‘he lifted’ ~ zéged ‘they (mpl) lifted’, ligzɛ́m ‘may he swear’
~ ligzém ‘may they (mpl) swear’, ħósib ‘he counted’ ~ ħóseb ‘they (mpl) counted’.
The 2fsg form in pcl and pcs is likewise expressed by vocalic apophony (e > i, o >
i, ɛ(/a) > i): tedófen ‘you (msg) bury’ ~ tedófin ‘you (fsg) bury’, terbɛ́n ‘may you (msg)
advise’ ~ terbín ‘may you (fsg) advise’.
In the subsequent subsections (Tables 12.11 to 12.15), the full paradigms for the basic
stem of active/nonactive types are given, exemplified by férod ‘to flee’ (active type) and
déker ‘to remember’ (nonactive type).
4.6.2.3 sc
TABLE 12.11 THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION OF ACTIVE AND NONACTIVE VERBS
sg du pl
m f m f m f
1 férodk feródki feróden

dékerk dekérki dekéren
2 férodk férodʃ feródki feródken
dékerk dékerʃ dekérki dekérken
3 férod ferɛ́do ferɛ́do ferɛdéto féred férod
déker dikɛ́ro dikɛ́ro dikɛréto déker déker
4.6.2.4 pcl
TABLE 12.12 THE LONG PREFIX CONJUGATION OF ACTIVE AND NONACTIVE VERBS
sg du pl
m f m f m f
1 ʔefóred ʔefɛrɛ́do nefóred

ʔedɛ́kor ʔedɛkɛ́ro nedɛ́kor
2 tefóred tefórid tefɛrɛ́do tefóred teforéden
tedɛ́kor tedɛ́kir tedɛkɛ́ro tedɛ́ker tedɛkóren
3 jefóred tefóred jefɛrɛ́do tefɛrɛ́do jefóred teforéden
jedɛ́kor tedɛ́kor jedɛkɛ́ro tedɛkɛ́ro jedɛ́ker tedɛkóren
4.6.2.5 pcs
TABLE 12.13 THE SHORT PREFIX CONJUGATION OF ACTIVE AND NONACTIVE VERBS
sg du pl
m f m f m f
1 lˠefrɛ́d lˠefrɛ́do nefrɛ́d

lˠedkór lˠedkɛ́ro nedkór
2 tefrɛ́d tefríd tefrɛ́do tefréd tefrɛ́den
tedkór tedkír tedkɛ́ro tedkér tedkóren
3 lifrɛ́d tefrɛ́d lifrɛ́do tefrɛ́do lifréd tefrɛ́den
lidkór tedkór lidkɛ́ro tedkɛ́ro lidkér tedkóren
The opposition between the active and nonactive types in pcs, generally maintained in the
printed texts (both the Vienna corpus and CSOL), tends to be blurred in the forms directly
elicited from our informants, who often adduced ɛ-forms for nonactive verbs, reserving
o‑forms exclusively for the internal passive (Naumkin et al. 2014: 42–3).
4.6.2.6 “Old imperative”
TABLE 12.14 THE IMPERATIVE OF ACTIVE AND NONACTIVE VERBS
sg du pl
m f m f
ʔefrɛ́d ʔefríd ʔefrɛ́do/ʔefrído ʔefréd ʔefrɛ́den

ʔedkór/ʔedkɛ́r ʔedkír ʔedkɛ́ro/ʔedkíro ʔedkér ʔedkóren /ʔedkɛ́ren
4.6.2.7 n-Conditional
TABLE 12.15 THE CONDITIONAL
sg du pl
m f m f m f
1 lˠefrídin lˠefrídon nefrídin

2 tefrídin tefrídin tefrídon tefréden tefrɛ́dnɛn
3 lifrídin tefrídin lifrídon tefrídon lifréden tefrɛ́dnɛn
The n-Conditional of the nonactive type does not differ from that of the active type.
4.6.3 Verbal stems
The system of verbal stems in Soqotri is in agreement with the Common Semitic pattern
and with the corresponding systems of continental MSA languages. Its seven main ele-
ments are summarized in the following chart.
Soqotri 297
Causative Passive-Reflexive Causative-Reflexive

Basic (G) C Gt Ct
Intensive (D) – Dt CtD
Much further study is needed to evaluate the productivity of each stem, but a few
trends are clear. Thus, the passive-reflexive of the intensive (Dt) is the least common stem
(Table 12.18) and certainly unproductive, whereas the causative (C) is the commonest
and most regularly produced one (Table 12.17). The situation with other stems can be
more complex: for example, the causative-reflexive of the basic stem (Ct) is not particu-
larly common (Table 12.20), but fairly productive with the potential-passive meaning ‘it
is possible to do something’ (§4.6.3.5.2).
4.6.3.1 D stem
4.6.3.1.1 Structure
TABLE 12.16 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE D STEM
sc pcl pcs Meaning
mótil jemotílin limɛ́tɛḷ ‘to tell’

dɛ́kir jedɛkírin lidɛ́kɛr ‘to remind’
The distribution between the -o- and -ɛ- forms (neutralized in pcs) remains to be explained.
4.6.3.1.2 Functions
The common Semitic derivational function of raising transitivity of the source verb is well
attested for the D stem in Soqotri: déker ‘to remember; to mention’ – dɛ́kir ‘to remind’,
tʕek’ ‘to be minced, made into small bits’ – tʕák’ik’ ‘to mince’. For source verbs of high
transitivity, the derived verbs often exhibit the semantics of pluractionality: gédom ‘to cut
off’ – gódim ‘to dismember’ (Naumkin et al. forthc.).
4.6.3.2 C stem
4.6.3.2.1 Structure
TABLE 12.17 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE C STEM
sc pcl pcs Meaning
[1] ʔébrek jebɛ́rok lábrɛk ‘to make kneel down’

[2] tref jetɛ́rof látrɛf ‘to cure’
[3] keden jekɛ́don lákdɛn ‘to make appear’
[4] ked jekód lákɛd ‘to scare’
From a structural point of view, there are four types of formation of the causative stem
(the first three being neutralized in the prefix conjugation). The majority type [1] com-
prises the verbs with the first radical voiced or emphatic. Types [2] and [3] comprise
the verbs with the first radical voiceless; epenthesis (type [3]) is common, but not fully
regular, when the second radical is voiced or emphatic. Type [4] is characteristic of verbs
with initial ʔ (etymologically *ʔ and *ʋ).
4.6.3.2.2 Functions
The C stem functions typically as the causative to low transitive verbs in the basic stem:
bɛ́hɛlˠ ‘to be cooked, ready’ – ʔébhelˠ ‘to cook, to make ready’, férod ‘to flee’ – fered ‘to
put to flight’.
4.6.3.3 Dt stem
4.6.3.3.1 Form
The Dt stem is uncommon in Soqotri and the relatively few available examples show a
rather disparate picture (the verb ʔentɛ́gif ‘to spread’ adduced in Table 12.18 appears to
reflect the most neutral, “canonical” allomorph). The safest guide to distinguish Dt from
Gt (§4.6.3.4, Table 12.19) is the presence of the n-ending in pcl.
TABLE 12.18 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE DT STEM
sc pcl pcs Meaning
ʔentɛ́gif jentɛgífin lintɛ́gɛf ‘to wave, to brandish; to spread’
4.6.3.3.2 Functions
This rare stem does not show any clearly definable function, although one reliable example
of reciprocal derivation is attested: mótil ‘to tell’ – mɛ́stelˠo (3mdu) ‘to talk with each other’.
4.6.3.4 Gt stem
4.6.3.4.1 Form
TABLE 12.19 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE GT STEM
sc pcl pcs Meaning

ɬɛténɛz jeɬténoz liɬténɛz ‘to go askew, to be slanted’
For most Gt verbs in sc, the informants admit an alternative pattern with o and e in
the first and third syllables respectively (ɬoténez), the 3msg and both mpl and fpl being
thereby identical.
4.6.3.4.2 Functions
The Gt stem is mostly attested with the derivational meaning of passive and reciprocal for
the basic stem: k’óʕof ‘to spill, to overturn (transitive)’ – k’atáʕaf ‘to be spilled’, sǿbak’
‘to stick, to be attached’ – sotébek’ (3mpl) ‘to join one another’.
Soqotri 299
4.6.3.5 Ct stem
4.6.3.5.1 Form
TABLE 12.20 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE CT STEM
sc pcl pcs Meaning
ʃérben jeʃrɛ́bon liʃɛ́rbɛn ‘to obey’
4.6.3.5.2 Functions
The Ct stem is attested with the function of passive for the basic or the C stem, as well
as indirect causative for the C stem, potential-passive to the basic stem, and declarative
to the basic stem: náfaʕ ‘to make, to do’ ~ ʃénfaʕ ‘to be made, performed, carried out’,
ħame ‘to give in marriage’ ~ ʃħame ‘to ask for a woman’s hand’, ʕǿk’alˠ ‘to put, to let stay’
~ ʃáʕk’elˠ ‘it is possible to preserve’, ʔɛ́mon ‘to tell the truth’ ~ ʃéʔmen ‘to acknowledge
one’s truth, to believe’.
4.6.3.6 CtD stem
4.6.3.6.1 Form
TABLE 12.21 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE CTD STEM
sc pcl pcs Meaning
ʃemɛ́lik jeʃmɛlíkin liʃmɛ́lˠɛk ‘to be in front of’
4.6.3.6.2 Functions
The reliably attested derivational functions of the CtD stem are passive and reflexive to
the D stem (§4.6.3.1, Table 12.16): ʔɛ́zi ‘to divide, to separate’ ~ ʃɛʔɛ́zi ‘to be separated’,
k’ábit ‘to teach’ ~ ʃek’ábit ‘to learn’, ʕóli ‘to praise, to flatter’ ~ ʃeʕáli ‘to be proud, to
boast’.
4.6.4 Quadriradical verbs
Soqotri has a complex system of quadriradical verbs, with a morphological distinction
between non-reduplicated (Q) and reduplicated (QR) roots, as illustrated by Table 12.22.
TABLE 12.22 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE QUADRIRADICAL VERBS
sc pcl pcs Meaning
Q ʕánʃek jeʕánʃok liʕánʃɛk ‘to splash’

QR gɛ́rger jegɛ́rger ligɛ́rgɛr ‘to purl’
The two types are identical in sc and pcs, but in pcl a major distinction is present (cf.
Johnstone 1968: 521): while the reduplicated type copies the sc base, the non-reduplicated
type displays a-ablaut (*ắ or *ā́ > o). The majority of quadriradical verbs belong to the
reduplicated type.
Not unlike the triradical verbs, both types of quadriradical verbs can produce an inten-
sive stem, encoded as QII and QRII respectively. Their conjugational forms are illustrated
by Table 12.23.
In the reduplicated type, pairs of verbs in the basic stem and the intensive stem are
attested, such as dɛ́mdem – demɛ́dim ‘to rock’ or ɮʕáfɮʕef – ɮʕafáɮʕif ‘to blink’. According
to our informants, in such pairs the intensive verb is usually associated with additional
strength or repetition in performing the action.
4.6.5 Reduplicated stem
Not a small number of Soqotri verbs are formed through reduplication of the third radical
(encoded here as R stem, cf. Table 12.24) (cf. Johnstone 1968: 521).
There are several attestations of R verbs with i-vocalism. For some of them, ɛj‑coun-
terparts are known, and according to our informants the two forms are opposed as active
and passive:
ʔegrɛ́jfef ‘to bend’ vs. ʔigrífif (jegrífif/ligrífif) ‘to be bent’

ʔemhɛ́jded ‘to pull’ vs. ʔimhídid (jemhídid/limhídid) ‘to be pulled’
4.6.6 Stems with prefixed n

The role of the n-prefixation remains to be comprehensively described, as the few exam-
ples attested in our corpus are sufficient for a preliminary survey only.
4.6.6.1 From reduplicated roots (QN)

ʔengɛ́rger ‘to purl’, ʔenlˠɛ́mlˠem ‘to be filled’, ʔenráʕraʕ ‘to wag one’s tail’
4.6.6.2 Denominative
ʔenmak’ítʕo (3fsg) ‘to become pregnant (large cattle)’ < ʔémk’atʕ ‘pregnant’, ʔenzéħe ‘to
grow up’ < záħi ‘grown up’
TABLE 12.23 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE INTENSIVE QUADRIRADICAL VERBS
sc pcl pcs Meaning
QII temɛ́til jetemɛtílin litemɛ́tɛlˠ ‘to recite’

QRII demɛ́dim jedemɛdímin lidemɛ́dɛm ‘to rock’
TABLE 12.24 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE R STEM
sc pcl pcs Meaning
ʔegʔɛ́jrer jegʔɛjrírin ligʔɛ́rɛr ‘to grumble’

Soqotri 301
4.6.6.3 Varia
ʔenberɛ́ʔiɬ (jenberɛʔíɬin/linberɛ́ʔɛɬ) ‘to get in motion’ (QNII), ʔenk’ánaʕ (jenk’aníʕin/
link’ánaʕ) ‘to be crazy, to behave as a fool’ (NII), ʔenʃˠaʕréro (3sgf) (tenʃˠáʕrer/tenʃˠáʕrɛr)
‘to be sterile (a palm)’ (RN).
4.6.7 Passive voice
In a “biconsonantal” C stem verb (§4.6.3.2.1) the passive in sc is marked by strong pala-
talization of the first consonant: daħ ‘to put, to leave’ ~ djaħ, keb ‘to make enter, to bring
in’ ~ kjɛb. If the first consonant is ʕ, the palatal element appears before rather than after
it: ʕeɮʕ ‘to release one’s large cattle from the milking place out to pasture’, passive jeʕaɮʕ.
The passive forms for most stems are adduced in Table 12.25. Passive voice for the Gt
and Ct stems is seldom attested. No examples for the Dt stem are attested in our corpus.
4.6.8.1 Participles
Neither active nor passive participles are productively derived in Soqotri, but participial
origin can be plausibly surmised for some nouns and adjectives, as for the following ones
(cf. Bittner 1918: 58–9).
G stem, active: ʕádɛlˠ ‘carrier, porter’, ʔégeħ ‘one who climbs’, ráʕi (f reʕíjje)
‘shepherd’.
G stem, passive (?) and/or C stem, active/passive (?): métʕeb (f metʕébo) ‘tanned
(leather)’, mébʔħel (f mebʕélˠo) ‘slave’.
D stem, passive: menék’hel (f menek’élˠo) ‘the best one’, meték’af ‘well-arranged,
harmonious’, metʕelˠék’o ‘divorced woman’.
Gt stem, active and/or passive (?): mek’tétʕaʕ (f mek’tetʕíʕo) ‘a man who has no rela-
tives close enough to inherit from him’, meɬténez (f meɬtinɛ́zo) ‘slanted’.
Ct stem, active and/or passive (?): meʃómtil ‘interpreter’, meʃénker (f meʃenkéro)
‘prodigious’.
N stem: menk’ájnaʕ (f menk’iníʕo) ‘crazy’.
4.6.8.2 Verbal nouns
Soqotri displays a complex system of derived nouns associated with verbal lexemes. As
with the Arabic masʕdars, the basic stem with its variety of patterns is opposed to the
TABLE 12.25 THE BASIC FORMS OF THE PASSIVE
Stem sc pcl pcs Meaning
G gíʃɛlˠ jegóuʃolˠ ligʃólˠ ‘to be broken’

D nék’alˠ jenek’élˠen linék’alˠ ‘to be selected’
C ʔík’dɛm jek’óudom lik’dóm ‘to be seen’
Gt k’etenǿʋe jek’etóunɛ lik’tón ‘to be eaten’
Ct ʃíʕrɛk jeʃʕúrok liʃóʕrok ‘to be fished’
Q k’írħɛlˠ jek’eróuħolˠ lik’órħolˠ ‘to be stirred’
TABLE 12.26 DERIVED VERBAL NOUNS
Pattern Verb Verbal Noun Meaning
C1íC2iC3 rǿbon ríbin ‘to give advice’

C1íC2hiC3 ɬóʔom ɬíʔhim ‘to sell’
C1oC2C3 térof torf ‘to heal’
C1ɛC2C3 réɮʕaf raɮʕf ‘to be beautiful’
C1ɛ́C2ɛC3 jhérak’ ʃárak’ ‘to steal’
C1ɛ́C2oC3 ʕétʕab ʕátʕob ‘to set (sun)’
C1éC2C3o ráħab réħbo ‘to be broad’
C1iC2óC3e báʕalˠ biʕólˠe ‘to get married’
C1iC2íC3hin néker nikírhin ‘to be nostalgic’
sound verb, D stem

C1ɛC2íC3o ħósib ħasíbo ‘to count’
sound verb, C stem
ʔeC1C2éC3o ʔénfer ʔenféro ‘to release’
sound verb, Ct stem
šeC1C2ɛ́C3e ʃék’naʕ ʃek’náʕa ‘to believe’
sound verb, CtD stem
š(e)C1iC2íC3o ʃek’ábit ʃk’ibíto ‘to learn’
quadriradical verb, QR
C1eC2C1ɛ́C2e démdem demdɛ́me ‘to rock’
quadriradical verb, QRII
C1eC2ɛC1íC2o demɛ́dim demɛdímo ‘to rock’
derived stems with one unified pattern for each stem. Table 12.26 illustrates the most
prominent trends in the formation of the verbal noun in Soqotri.
4.7 Adpositions/adverbs
4.7.1 Adpositions
Only prepositions are used in Soqotri. The key prepositions are ʔe- ‘to, for (dative,
often benefactive)’, di- (id-) ‘to, towards’, lˠe- ‘on, above’, be- ‘in’ and ke- ‘with’. Other
prepositions include ʔalˠ ‘to, towards’, mej id., diʔálˠ id., ʕaf ‘till’, ʕan ‘from’, ken id.,
báʕad ‘after’, ker ‘on, over, along’, di-balˠ ‘without’, nħatʕ ‘under’, tʕahar ‘on, above’,
sɛr ‘behind’, tóʔo ‘as, like’. Common are composite prepositions like be-ʕamk’ di- ‘in
the middle of’, be-dɛ́fε di- ‘beside’, be-k’áne di- ‘inside’, be-tɛr di- ‘outside’, di-tʕádaʕ
di- ‘onto’.
Several prepositions employ two bases (Table 12.27), one used with nouns, and the
other with pronominal suffixes; furthermore, the forms with the 1sg suffix often display
irregularities.
Prepositions can attach two sets of pronominal suffixes (Table 12.28), a shorter one
(apparently more common in speech) and a longer one, to be exemplified by the dative
preposition ʔe- (before short pronominal suffixes, mostly he-).
Soqotri 303
TABLE 12.27 THE BASES OF PREPOSITIONS
Before With 1sg With Other Persons Meaning

Nouns (Exemplified by 2msg)
ʔe- ʔénhi hek ‘to’

lˠe- ħe ʕek ‘on’
be- fe bek ‘in’
ke- ʃe ʃek (3fsg ses) ‘with’
TABLE 12.28 PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES ON PREPOSITIONS
sg du pl
1 ʔénhi ʔeníʔho héjki ʔekíʔki hin ʔeníʔħan

2m hek ʔekɛ́
héjki ʔekíʔti héken ʔekéʔten
2f heʃ ʔeʃí
3m hej ʔeʃɛ́ héhen ʔeʃéʔjhen
héjhi ʔeʃíʔjhi
3f hes ʔesɛ́ hésen ʔeséʔsen
4.7.2 Adverbs
Examples of non-derived adverbs: béne ‘very, much’, náʕa ‘now’, dɛ́hɛr ‘always’, ħer
‘today’, sémek ‘then’. Combinations of nouns with prepositions often appear as adverbs:
lˠe-ʕóɬi ‘at dawn’, men bɛ́ker ‘for the first time’, be-bɛr ‘openly’.
The ending -e performs an adverbial function in neɬjós-e ‘as splinters’, ɬijób-e ‘up to
the sinews’. Otherwise, there is no regular way of forming quality adverbs.
5 SYNTAX
5.1 Phrasal word order
In noun phrases, independent possessive pronouns precede the modified nominal, whereas
adjectives, genitive modifiers and relative clauses follow it.
díʔjho bíʃʃolˠ gen:1sg thing.pl ‘my things’

ʕejjúg ħourhéten man.pl black:mpl ‘black people’
tʕádaʕ di-sijjára roof gen-car ‘roof of the car’
ʕag di-jeħóreb ħíggob man rel-cut.pcl:3msg palm.branches ‘a man who cuts palm
branches’
Simple demonstratives usually precede the modifier. Adverbial extensions of demon-

stratives are placed after the modified.
de míʔʃer dem.msg billy.goat ‘this billy goat’

lhe ʕejjúg ʔil-bok’ dem.pl man.pl pl-dist ‘those men’
The preposition men + 3pl pronominal suffixes as a marker of indefiniteness usually

precedes the modifier, but the opposite order is also attested.
méjhen ʔílliho ʔeʔlˠhíten indf:mpl gen.pl:1sg cow.pl ‘some cows of mine’
The prepositions, as well as the possession markers, usually directly precede the head
of the noun phrase introduced by them.
díʔjho di-k’áʕar gen:1sg all-house ‘to my house’

mésen be-k’áʕjhɛr indf:fpl loc-house.pl ‘in some houses’
5.2 Sentential word order and information structure

In verbal clauses, the neutral word order is VSO.
fǿlˠos ʕag ʔóben be-máʕʋal

break.sc:3msg man stone ins-hammer
‘A man broke up a stone with a hammer.’ (CSOL I 8:32)
A discourse topic can be fronted, so SVO order is sometimes attested.
ʋa-ʕejjúg ʔézʕem ʋa-jefónek’ men fɬo

and-man.pl sit.sc:3mpl and-wait.pcl:3mpl from lunch
‘As for the men, they sat (there) waiting for the lunch.’ (CSOL I 16:29)
Left dislocations, with the dislocated constituent substituted by a pronominal element,

are also a common means of topic promotion.
ʋa-díʔse múgʃem zenɛ́got-ʃ be-k’ajd

and-gen:3fsg boy hang.sc:3fsg-obj.3msg ins-rope
‘And as for her son, she hung him up (in a piece of cloth) with a rope.’ (CSOL II 25:5)

Soqotri distinguishes between verbal (cf. examples from the preceding section) and
non-verbal clauses (with zero copula), as in the following example.
ʃégre ʔésʕbeʕ díʔjhe di-bɛ́bɛ

tree finger gen:3msg gen-father
‘The tree is his father’s finger.’ (CSOL II 4:24)
The existential copula ʔíno and its negative counterpart bíŝi are used to form existential
clauses.
ʔíno ħer xejr

cop today goodness
‘There is goodness today.’ (CSOL II 1:97)
Soqotri 305
bíɬi bes fɛ́jde

cop.neg loc:3fsg profit
‘There is no profit from it.’ (CSOL II 10:3)
Predicative possession is expressed by combination of the existential copula and the

preposition ke- ‘with’.
ʔíno ʃin k’áʕjhɛr men ʕálɛ

cop com:1pl house.pl from above
‘We have houses above.’ (CSOL II 27:23)
5.4 Definiteness
There is no definite article in Soqotri. Definiteness is usually unmarked. However, it can
be expressed by demonstrative pronouns, pronominal anticipation or both.
men báʕad ħa ʔaʕbéro ʕej dɛ́nʕa máʕref

from after here pass.sc:3fsg on:3msg dem.msg glass
‘Then she passed him the glass.’ (CSOL I 1:14)
ʋa-ɮʕóuʋɛf ʕes férhim

and-make.feast.sc:pass:3msg on:3fsg girl
‘And a wedding feast was made for the girl.’ (CSOL II 1:102)
Indefiniteness can be expressed by the numeral ‘one’ for nouns in the singular, and by
the combination of the preposition men ‘from’ and plural pronominal suffixes for nouns
in the plural.
nɛ́hɛr tʕad ʕoujɛ́ghɛn báʕad-ʔalˠ múɣreb lˠe-bustán

pass.sc:3msg one.m boy after evening on-grove
‘One boy passed by the palm-grove in the evening.’ (CSOL II 1:108)
ʕémer méjhen ʕejjúg taláta

say.sc:3mpl indf.mpl man.pl three
‘Three certain men said. . . .’ (CSOL I 1:4)
5.5.1 Synthetic/analytic constructions in the verbal system
Aspect, imperative, subjunctive and conditional moods, as well as the passive voice, are
expressed synthetically.
The suffix conjugation expresses perfective.
lˠékodk márdof di-beʕer

make.saddle.sc:1sg saddle gen-camel
‘I made a camel saddle.’
With stative verbs, sc is often used to describe situations in the present:
ho náʕa nékerk díʔjho ʔembórje

1sg now miss.sc:1sg gen:1sg child.pl
‘I miss my children now.’
The long form of the prefix conjugation expresses imperfective. It is used in sentences
about present and future time (cf. Simeone-Senelle 1993: 252).
jeħóreg dor men mónke

flow.pcl:3msg blood from wound
‘Blood is flowing from the wound.’ (CSOL I 28:42)
ho ʔebóʕolˠ-s náʕa
1sg marry.pcl:1sg-obj.3fsg now
‘I will marry her now.’ (CSOL I 26:96)
In some cases, pcl can be used as an independent verb expressing imperfective (in the
example below, habitual) in the past.
kúlle sʕabħ jesʕábaħ ʋa-jegóhom

every morning go.to.cattle.pcl:3msg and-gather.pcl:3msg
ʋa-jeħólˠeb ʋa-jelˠóʕom ʋa-lˠatʕ
and-milk.pcl:3msg and-let.suckle.pcl:3msg and-then
jetʕaħímin
release.to.pasture.pcl:3msg
‘Every morning he would go to the goats, gather them, milk them, and let the kids
suckle, and he would let (the she-goats) out.’ (CSOL I 6:31)
pcl is also the neutral exponent of the imperative.
tóudof lˠe-xetʕám deʃ di-gemál di-ʔɛ́hɛ bok’

take.pcl:2msg on-bridle dem.fsg gen-camel prox dem
ʋa-tenóɬer ʔóʔorem
and-walk.ahead.pcl:2msg road
‘Grasp the bridle of this she-camel and walk ahead.’ (CSOL II 1:82)
A special paradigm of the imperative (§4.6.2.6) derived from the base of pcs expresses
emphasized commands.
ʔɛ bɛ́bɛ táʕɬeɬ sʕibóħo . . . jɔ

voc father stand.up.pcl:2msg be.morning.sc:3fsg interj
ʔaʕɬɛ́ɬ di-tɛr
stand.up.imp:msg all-outside
‘Oh father, stand up, it is morning! . . . But please stand up (and come) outside!’
(CSOL II 1:74, 76)
The short form of the prefix conjugation is the exponent of the subjunctive. It marks
verbs dependent on matrix verbs of wishing, giving, allowing (including the indeclinable
Soqotri 307
element ɮʕábi ‘let’), ability, attempt. It can also be dependent on other verbs to denote
the goal.
ʕéjjek lˠaħtón
want.sc:1sg circumcise.pcs:pass:1sg
‘I want to be circumcised.’ (CSOL II 8:13)
pcs is also used in subordinate clauses introduced by certain conjunctions, mostly in

complementary distribution with pcl (§5.6.2.3.1; §5.6.2.3.3).
The use of non-negated pcs to mark main verbs is rare and mostly expresses uncer-
tainty on the part of the speaker.
tʕáhɛrk ken díʔjho ʔembórje ʔɛ́daʕ jhen lik’bélˠ

go.sc:1sg from gen:1sg child.pl perhaps 3mpl be.fine.pcs:3mpl
‘I went on a trip without my children. Let’s hope they’re fine with this.’ (CSOL II 6:17)
The jussive use of pcs in prose texts of our corpus is restricted to a few fixed expres-
sions: lák’dɛm ʕek díjje ‘blessings upon you’ (passim, lit. “may the good see you”), litɛ́
ħórsʕe ‘may he return safely’ (CSOL I 10:8).
Negated pcs regularly expresses the prohibitive.
ʃkolˠ deʃ ɬek’a di-ħa ʋa-ʔalˠ-tesʕtát

wrap.pcl:2msg dem.fsg cloak prox and-neg-look.pcs:2msg
ʔalˠ-tʕa ʋa-ʔalˠ-tʕa
neg-thus and-neg-thus
‘Wrap yourself in this cloak and do not look either to this side or that.’ (CSOL I 2:36)
The conditional mood (§4.6.2.7) is employed in real and unreal conditional sentences,
or main sentences with the meaning of uncertainty or wish (Kogan and Bulakh 2017:
88–104).
The passive voice is widely used. Particularly common and remarkable is the imper-
sonal construction: the object of the corresponding active verb does not alter its object
status at the passivization, and there is no agreement between it and the passive verb (cf.
Bittner 1917–1918: 351, Lonnet 1998: 78–9, 1994: 248–51).
ʔíʕbɛr ħe mesʕrɛ́re di-ʔidák’o
pass.sc:pass:3msg on.1sg pole rel-be.heavy.sc:3fsg
‘A heavy carrying pole was given to me.’ (CSOL I 2:50)
Analytic verbal constructions are few in Soqotri. They express various types of Aktions
art or tense. The auxiliaries are predicative elements inflected for sc, viz. ʔérem ‘to be’,
ber ‘to be already’, ʕad ‘to remain, continue’. Here some examples of analytic construc-
tions with these auxiliaries are adduced.
The construction ʔérem + pcl denotes past imperfective.
ʔéremk fɔ́ne ʔalˠ-ʔeʃħárog súʋa

be.sc:1sg formerly neg-read.pcl:1sg well
‘Formerly, I was unable to read well’ (CSOL II 1:127)
The construction ʔérem + sc can denote pluperfect or remote past.
ʔerémen tóʔo kɛ́rhe nekóteb ʕan díʔħan mɛ́talˠ di-sak’ɔ́tʕri

be.sc:1pl when just write.pcl:1pl from gen:1pl speech gen-Soqotri
níʃin ʔílliħan ʔaʋrák’
forget.sc:1pl gen.pl:1pl paper.pl
‘Long time ago, when we just started to write down our Soqotri speech, we left behind
our papers.’ (CSOL II 1:127)
The construction ber + sc denotes pluperfect or present perfect (cf. Lonnet 1999: 198).
k’arére díʔjh e lˠe-zɛm gédaħ ʕag

tomorrow gen:3msg on-time come.sc:3msg man
ʋa-se bíro tʕahɛ́ro diʔálˠ tʕad ʋustád
and-3fsg be.already.sc:3fsg go.sc:3fsg all one.m wise.man
‘The next day at the time appointed for him the man came, and she had earlier gone to
a wise man.’ (CSOL I 1:11)
The construction ʕad + pcl denotes continuation of action/state or future tense.
ʋa-ʕag ʕad jéroj mes ɬħaf

and-man remain.sc:3msg drink.pcl:3msg from.3fsg milk
‘And the man went on drinking its milk.’ (CSOL II 7:33)
ʋa-ʕak ʔaħásʕak’ be-sémmo

and-remain.sc:1sg return.pcl:1sg loc-Semmo
‘I will come back to Semmo.’ (CSOL II 24:12e)
All the auxiliaries mentioned previously can also be used in clauses with non-verbal
predication.
Some further conjugated elements (lˠetˤ ‘to do something afterwards’, kánaħ ‘to do
something once more’, etc.) are used to form analytic constructions denoting various
phasal nuances (usually appearing in the same form as the main verb, preceding or
following it).
teɬóʔom tekánaħ tóʔo di-fɔ́ne

sell.pcl:2msg repeat.pcl:2msg as formerly
‘Sell it again as before!’ (CSOL I 25:53)
5.5.2 Synthetic/analytic constructions in the nominal domain

Synthetic inflection in nouns and adjectives involves the number and gender marking
(§4.5.1.1, §4.5.1.2). There is no case system. The syntactic roles are expressed by prepo-
sitions and word order. The vocative is expressed by the unchangeable particle ʔɛ.
Possessive relations are expressed analytically by means of the genitive marker di- (pl
ʔil-): bɛ́bɛ di-ʕougéno father gen-girl ‘the father of the girl’.
Soqotri 309
5.5.3 Synthetic/analytic expression of pronominal possessors and objects

Competition between synthetic and analytic forms is most obvious in the introduction of
pronominal possessors. The ancient system of synthetic possessive pronominal suffixes
is restricted to a few nouns (a hyphen means that the word can be used only with pronom-
inal suffixes): ʔaʔħ- ‘brother’, ʔiʔħít- ‘sister’, ʔíʔif- (or ʔif-) ‘father’, ʔɛ́ʔɛmhɛ- (or ʔɛ́mhɛ-)
‘mother’, ʔébreh- ‘grand-son; nephew; son-in-law’, ħámit- ‘brother’s wife; wife’s sister’,
ʕalˠ- ‘friend’, baʕ- ‘master, owner’, bɛr ‘son, daughter’, gad ‘body, self’, ʔélbeb ‘heart’.
Most nouns belonging to this category use the short forms of the pronominal suffixes
(exemplified by ʔélbeb ‘heart’ in Table 12.29).
With other nouns, pronominal possessors are expressed by independent possessive
pronouns, formed by the genitive marker di- + independent personal pronoun: díʔjho bɛ́bɛ
gen:1sg father ‘my father’.
For some types of inalienable possession (body parts, parts of plants and other objects,
characteristics, etc.) pronominal possessors are introduced by the preposition men ‘from’
whenever the subject of the clause is not co-referential with the possessor.
ʕámok hej kéfed mek ʔélbeb

tell.sc:1sg dat:3msg be.narrow.sc:3msg from:2msg heart
ʋássaʕ ʔéntʕen díʔɛ ʔélbeb
widen.Arabic.imp:2msg a.little gen:2msg heart
‘I told him: “Your heart is narrow (you are angry), widen a bit your heart (don’t be
angry).” ’
Object pronouns can be directly attached to the verbal stem, but may be also intro-
duced by means of the direct object marker t- (Table 12.30).
TABLE 12.29 POSSESSIVE PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES ON NOMINALS
sg du pl
1 ʔelbéb-hen ʔelbéb-ki ʔelbíb-in

2m ʔélbeb-k
ʔelbéb-ki ʔelbéb-ken
2f ʔélbeb-ʃ
3m ʔélbeb-ʃ ʔelbéb-jhen
ʔelbéb-jhi
3f ʔélbeb-s ʔelbéb-sen
TABLE 12.30 INFLECTION OF THE DIRECT OBJECT MARKER
sg du pl
1 tho tójki tan

2m tok
tójki tó(j)ken
2f toʃ
3m toj (toʃ) tójhen
tójhi
3f tos tósen
The synthetic and analytic forms of object pronouns coexist within the same paradigm.
The 1sg and 1pl object pronouns are always introduced analytically in modern Soqotri.
k’álˠaʕ tho ʕag be-ʔóben ʋa-hɛ́men toʔóte

throw.sc:3msg obj:1sg man ins-stone and-almost hit.pcl:3fsg
tho di-ri
obj:1sg all-head
‘A man hurled a stone at me, and it almost hit my head.’ (CSOL II 30:18)
For other pronominal suffixes, the distribution of synthetic and analytic attachment
depends on the structure of the verbal base: with 2nd person and 1sg and 1du of sc,
analytic forms of object pronouns are used, whereas elsewhere pronominal suffixes are
preferred.
ʕek’álˠ-eʃ put.sc:3msg-obj.3msg ‘he put it’

jenádak’-ʃ give.pcl:3msg-obj.3msg ‘he gives it’
but
lˠoʔófk toj take.without.permission.sc:2msg obj:3msg ‘you (msg) took it without

permission’
ʕek’álˠken toj put.sc:2pl obj:3msg ‘you (p) put it’
Synthetically attached object pronouns can be optionally replaced with analytic

constructions: lindák’ toj ʔénhi give.pcs:3msg obj:3msg dat:1sg or lindák’-ʃ ʔénhi
give.pcs:3msg-obj.3msg dat:1sg ‘let him give it to me’.
5.6 Coordination and subordination

5.6.1 Coordination
Coordinated constituents and clauses are linked by the conjunction ʋa- ‘and’.
neħólˠeb ɬħaf ʋa-lˠatʕ jóusod be-ɬijátʕ

milk.pcl:1pl milk and-then put.on.fire.pcl:pass:3msg loc-fire
ʕaf laʕfɛ́ɬ
until boil.pcs:3msg
‘We milk the milk, then it is put on the fire until it boils.’ (CSOL II 2:1)
The constrasting conjunction is likán (borrowed from Arabic):
ʕégeb ʕoujɛ́ghɛn mɛl di-ʕággi ʋa-likán rénhem

want.sc:3msg boy money gen-man:du and-but sea
hégo
be.stormy.sc:3fsg
‘The boy wanted the money of the two men, but the sea was stormy.’ (CSOL I 16:5)
Soqotri 311
The alternative conjunctions ʕam and ʋálla can likewise coordinate two phrase constit-
uents or two clauses. Less frequently used are the alternative conjunctions ʔaʋ and ʔémme
(both borrowed from Arabic).
ʔɛ́daʕ ho lˠósi ʋa-lˠetrɛ́f ʕam ho

perhaps 1sg desire.special.food.pcs:1sg and-recover.pcs:1sg or 1sg
bɛ lˠegʕár ʋa-lˠósʕim
not be.ill.pcs:1sg and-die.pcs:1sg
‘Perhaps I am showing signs of pregnancy and will be cured, or maybe I am ill and
will die.’ (CSOL II 6:17)
ʋa-ʔalˠ-taʕjhɛ́fen kenʃ ʋálla ʔelˠátaʕ-ʃ

and-neg-be.lost.pcs:3fpl from:2fsg or kill.pcl:1sg-obj.2fsg
‘And may none get away from you, or I’ll kill you!’ (CSOL II 6:12)
Asyndetic coordination is likewise widespread.
tʕahɛ́ro tak’itʕót-ʃi ʕemɛ́ro díʔti

go.sc:3fsg wake.up.sc:3fsg-obj.3du say.sc:3fsg gen:2du
bɛ́bɛ sʕáme
father die.sc:3msg
‘She went, she woke them up, she said: “Your father has died”.’ (CSOL I 17:12)
5.6.2 Subordination
Subordination can be asyndetic or can involve subordinate conjunctions or the relative
marker di-.
5.6.2.1 Asyndetic subordination

Asyndetic subordination involves complement clauses, indirect questions and goal clauses.
ħérek lˠeʃɛ́rk’aħ ɬégre di-sʕáʕanhin

try.sc:1sg go.up.pcs:1sg slope upwards
‘I tried to climb up the slope.’ (CSOL I 8:27)
ʔébdodk sʕétʕaʕk
feel.sc:1sg be.hungry.sc:1sg
‘I felt that I was hungry.’ (CSOL I 18:42)
Asyndetic goal clauses usually employ verbs in pcs, but with some verbs of motion,
pclis consistently used to indicate goal.
tʕáhɛr tʕad méjhi jeħódem lˠe-nhɔf-ʃ

go.sc:3msg one.m from:3du work.pcl:3msg on-himself-3msg
‘One of them went to work for himself.’ (CSOL I 6:2)
5.6.2.2 Relative clauses

The relative marker di- (pl ʔil-) is used to introduce relative clauses. The plural agreement
of the relative marker is optional. If the head of the relative clause is co-referential with
the subject of the relative clause, the verb agrees with it in person, number and gender.
ħérek men ʔóʔoz di-gedɛ́ro

look.for.sc:1sg from goat rel-be.lost.sc:3fsg
‘I looked for a goat which was lost.’ (CSOL II 1:78)
A relative clause can be preceded by a demonstrative pronoun.
gemɔ́hɔlˠ lhe ʔil-ʕad

camel.pl dem.pl rel.pl-remain.sc:3fpl
‘The remaining camels.’ (CSOL II 1:83)
If the head of the relative clause is not co-referential with the subject of the rela-
tive clause, its syntactic role is indicated by a copying pronoun, which agrees with the
co-referent constituent of the main clause in person, number and gender.
témhɛr ʔil-zeʕé-sen ʕag

palm.tree.pl rel.pl-take.sc:3msg-obj.3fpl man
‘Palms which the man had taken.’ (CSOL I 27:17)
5.6.2.3 Clauses introduced by subordinating conjunctions

5.6.2.3.1 Temporal clauses
The principal temporal conjunctions are báʕad-ʔalˠ (men báʕad-ʔalˠ) ‘after’, balˠ
(bɛ) ‘before’, lˠalˠ ‘when’, menálˠ (malˠ) ‘while; after’, tóʔo ‘when’, ʕaf ‘until’, ʕatʕaf
(ʋa-ʕatʕaf) id. The choice of the verbal form in the subordinate clause may depend on the
syntactic properties of the conjunction, but also on the relative time of the action and the
form of the head verb. Here are some examples of temporal clauses.
báʕad-ʔalˠ ʕemɛ́ro ʕáʒe dɛ́nʕa lˠetóʕo-s ʕággi

after say.sc:3fsg woman dem.msg kill.sc:3mdu-obj.3fsg man:du
‘After the woman said this, the two men killed her.’ (CSOL I 4:11)
ʃfɛ́to balˠ linkéʕ lhɛg

hurry.sc:3fsg before come.pcs:3mpl other.pl
‘She was in a hurry (to finish) before the others came.’ (CSOL I 7:4)
mébrehe lˠalˠ jebóde jeħobíʔin jedáħdaħ

child when begin.pcl:3msg crawl.pcl:3msg tumble.pcl:3msg
‘When a small child starts to crawl, he tumbles over.’ (CSOL II 2:6)
tóʔo sʕálik ʔal-ʕásʕar bǿk’alˠk ker gáħi

when pray.sc:1sg afternoon.prayer go.up.sc:1sg along wadi
‘After I prayed in the afternoon, I went up the wadi.’ (CSOL I 17:25)
Soqotri 313
tóʔo jóʕod fótker mɔn liʃɛ́nħar

when walk.pcl:3msg think.sc:3msg who complain.pcs:3msg
‘As he walked, he thought to whom he could appeal.’ (CSOL I 27:12)
tóʔo litʕhóm de jebáddel

when wear.out.pcs:3msg dem.msg replace.Arabic.pcl:3msg
gad nhɔf-ʃ
hide himself-3msg
‘Whenever one (hide) wore out, he replaced it with (another) hide for himself.’ (CSOL
II 1:5)
ʔék’ɬaʕk ʔílliho fik’héten lˠe-raħ ʕaf jegɛ́ɬob

put.sc:1sg gen.pl:1sg dress:pl on-wind until evaporate.pcl:3msg
méjhen rího
from:3mpl water
‘I put my clothes out to dry in the wind until the water evaporated from them.’ (CSOL
II 3:2)
5.6.2.3.2 Causal clauses
Causal clauses are mostly introduced by conjunctions ber, tóʔo (also men tóʔo), as well
as the Arabic borrowings liʔénne and mesɛ́b.11
díʔε sijjára ʔalˠ-teʃrák’aħ lˠe-ħa lˠe-deʃ ʔóʔorem

gen:2msg car neg-go.up.pcl:3fsg there on-dem.fsg road
ber ʕíɮʕo
because be.strong.sc:3fsg
‘Your car won’t make it up there, on that road, because it’s tough.’ (CSOL II 1:92)
béʃe men tóʔo ʔalˠ-ʕegɛ́bo hej

weep.sc:3fsg because neg-want.sc:3fsg dat:3msg
‘She wept because she did not like him.’ (CSOL II 1:104)
5.6.2.3.3 Goal clauses
Goal clauses are typically introduced by the conjunction kor (kéjhor). The subordinate
verb is marked for pcl if non-negated, and for pcs if negated.
ʋa-lˠatʕ k’álˠk’olˠk tos kor jetʕóhor mes dijáʕ

and-then swish.sc:1sg obj:3fsg goal go.pcl:3msg from:3fsg bad:sg
‘And then I swished it around so that the dirt would wash out from it.’ (CSOL II 2:8)
ʋa-lˠóujo bej ʕággi kor ʔalˠ-liɬtʕár

and-seize.sc:3mdu loc:3msg man:du goal neg-cut.pcs:3msg
nhɔf-ʃ k’ar
himself-3msg throat
‘The two men grabbed him to stop him from cutting his own throat.’ (CSOL I 12:14)
5.6.2.3.4 Complement clauses
Complement clauses used with verbs of speech or knowledge are usually introduced by
the conjunctions ber or ʔénne (the former is autochthonous, the latter is an old borrowing
from Arabic).
bíto ber tegodíħin ʕáʒe

understand.sc:3fsg comp come.pcl:3fsg woman
‘She realized that the woman was coming.’ (CSOL II 25:9)
ʕérob ʔénne díʔjhe ʕáʒe teɬorífin kidbát

know.sc:3msg comp gen:3msg woman calumniate.pcl:3fsg falsehoods
‘He learned that his wife had been making false accusations.’ (CSOL II 6:23)
The complex object construction, with the semantic subject of the complement clause
filling the syntactic slot of the object of the main clause, is a widespread means of intro-
ducing complement clauses.
betk toj ber ħter

understand.sc:1sg obj:3msg comp be.angry.sc:3msg
‘I understood that he was angry.’ (CSOL II 6:3)
Asyndetic attachment of complement clauses is also known (§5.6.2.1).
5.6.2.4 Conditional clauses

The protasis of real conditional sentences is introduced by the conjunctions ke ‘if’ (nega-
tive kalˠ ‘if not’), karámme, or kéllama. The verb in the protasis is marked for sc.
ke ʕéjjek terɛ́ tek’ádef ʋa-lˠatʕ téroj

if want.sc:2msg drink.pcs:2msg stir.pcl:2msg and-then drink.pcl:2msg
‘If you want to drink (it), stir (it) a bit and then drink.’ (CSOL II 2:24)
karámme ʔedɛ́fo ħe be-ri ħa tʕar

if take.sc:3fsg on.1sg loc-head here catch.pcl:3fsg
‘If she seizes me by the head, she will catch (me).’ (CSOL I 18:22)
kalˠ ʃébne góuʔor fáħre

if.neg be.built.sc:3msg destroy.pcl:pass:3msg all
‘If it is not built well, it will be destroyed entirely.’
The protasis of unreal conditional sentences is introduced by the conjunctions lˠe-,

lˠe-ʕam, lˠɛ́bin, lˠɛ́min. The verb in the protasis is usually marked for sc. In the apodosis,
the verb is marked for conditional or pcl (cf. further Kogan and Bulakh 2017: 101–4).
lˠɛ́bin ʃémtelˠ tho lˠaʕbírin ʕеj sijjára

if talk.sc:3msg obj:1sg pass.cond:1sg on:3msg car
‘If he had talked to me, I would have given him the car.’ (CSOL I 6:45)
Soqotri 315
lˠɛ́min fátħaʃ ʔeʃór-ʃ fegrémo di-ʔif-ʃ

if fall.sc:3msg let.follow.pcl:1sg-obj.2fsg skull gen-father-poss.2fsg
‘If he had fallen, I would have made you follow the skull of your father.’ (CSOL II
30:23)
5.7 Negation
In the speech of our informants, the negative marker ʔalˠ is used in narrative and prohib-
itive contexts, as well as in the non-verbal clauses.
ʔalˠ-ɬínin díʔɛ beʕer

neg-see.sc:1pl gen:2msg camel
‘We haven’t seen your camel.’ (CSOL I 17:35)
ʔalˠ-tetʕhír kénhi
neg-go.pcs:2fsg from:1sg
‘Don’t go from me!’ (CSOL II 1:14)
ʔalˠ-ʃker kalˠ ʔetʕáddal hes díʔse ħamól

neg-good if.neg be.balanced.Arabic.sc:3msg dat:3fsg gen:3fsg load
‘It is not good if its (the car’s) load is not balanced.’ (CSOL II 13:12)
6 LEXICON
The core vocabulary of Soqotri can be conventionally classified into the following dia-
chronic strata.
• Vocabulary directly inherited from Proto-Semitic. As elsewhere in MSA, the number

of such retentions is comparatively low: tʕífɛr ‘nail’ < *θ’ipr-, ʔídhɛn ‘ear’ < *ʔuðn-,
ʕajn ‘eye’ < *ʕajn-.
• Lexemes shared with the continental MSA, often isolated within Semitic: ħáher
‘black’, dor ‘blood’, ʔe-nħe ‘to burn’.
• Exclusive isoglosses between Soqotri and Jibbali: gɛ́hɛ ‘breast’, ʃéʔef ‘to lie down’,
ɬeríħo ‘root’, gáʕalˠhalˠ ‘round’.
• Specifically Soqotri lexemes, many of them etymogically obscure: ʕǿk’ar ‘(to be)
big’, ɮʕáʕab ‘to bite’, sʕǿħlˠo ‘bone’, gédaħ ‘to come’, sʕáme ‘to die’, ʃker ‘(to be)
good’, ʔé-zʕem ‘to sit’, déme ‘to sleep’.
Arabic loan words are notoriously few in the core vocabulary of the Soqotri language,
in sharp contrast with the continental MSA. Thus, there is only one proven Arabism in
the Swadesh list (gedíd ‘new’). More Arabisms are found in the non-basic vocabulary.
Both nouns and verbs can be borrowed, and the degree of integration into the Soqotri
morphological system is usually very high: ʕélˠatʕ (jeʕálˠotʕ/liʕlˠátʕ) ‘to err’ < Arb. ɣltʕ,
ħédom (jeħódem/laħdɛ́m) ‘to work’ < Arb. xdm, ktob (jekóteb/liktɛ́b) ‘to write’ < Arb. ktb,
ʔírhɛz ‘rice’ < Arb. ʔaruzz-, beʕer (du beʕíri, pl ʔébʕar) ‘male camel’ < Arb. baʕīr-. Recent
non-adapted loans are characterized by preservation of Arabic morphology (Naumkin
et al. 2014: 532–3).12
Reliable examples of borrowings from other languages (except for the most recent
Anglicisms) are very rare in Soqotri. A curious example is gírbag ‘cat’, going back to
Middle Persian gurbak (Bittner 1913: 31).13
7 SAMPLE TEXT
genníje di-mesɛ́mir
jinni.woman gen-nail.pl
‘A Jinni Woman with Nails.’ (CSOL II Text 18)
1 genníje mes ʃɛm di-mesɛ́mir
jinni.woman from:3fsg name gen-nail.pl
‘There is a jinni woman whose name is “The One with Nails.” ’
2 mes kɛn kɛn di-ʕáʒe ʕaf lˠalˠ k’ádom

from:3fsg appearance appearance gen-woman until when see.pcl:2msg
ʕes ʔɛ tʃóbeʔ-s ʕáʒe

on:3fsg 2msg believe.pcl:2msg-obj.3fsg woman
‘Her appearance is the appearance of a woman, and when you see her, you take her
for a woman.’
3 bɛss ʕaf lˠalˠ tʃoʔóki-s ʋa-tésʕtet

only until when approach.pcl:2msg-obj.3fsg and-look.pcl:2msg
mes ɬérʕħon ʕaf lˠalˠ k’ádom ʕes mes

from:3fsg foot.pl until when see.pcl:2msg on:3fsg from:3fsg
lˠe-ɬérʕħon k’ádom mes lˠe-ɬɔb tóʔo ʕemɛ́ro

on-foot.pl see.pcl:2msg from:3fsg on-foot as make.sc:3fsg
tʕa tóʔo mésmar

like.this like nail
‘But when you draw near her and look at her feet, until you see her, (and) her feet,
you see that her foot became like this, like a nail.’
4 tefóred ʔɛ́hɛn tóʔo tferɛd taħtéren

flee.pcl:2msg 2msg when flee.pcs:2msg be.angry.pcl:3fsg
‘You start to flee from her, but when you flee, she angers.’
5 ʋa-tóʔo taħtór se tenóʕoɬ díʔse

and-when be.angry.pcs:3fsg 3fsg pull.out.pcl:3fsg gen:3fsg
ɬɔb se ʋa-ʔɛ́hɛn tefóred

foot 3fsg and-2msg flee.pcl:2msg
‘And when she gets angry, she pulls out her foot – while you are still fleeing.’
Soqotri 317
6 tferer men ħa tferer men ħa ʕaf

jump.pcl:3fsg from here jump.pcl:3fsg from here until
lˠábraħ ʔitʕók’
land.pcs:3fsg there
‘She leaps from here, she leaps from here and lands there (where you have just been).’
7 bok’ menálˠ lˠábraħ ʔɛ tekóse de

there where land.pcs:2msg
2msg find.pcl:3fsg dem.msg
ħalˠf lˠatʕ se de ħalˠf di-bek ʔɛ

place follow.pcl:3fsg 3fsg dem.msg place rel-be.already.sc:2msg 2msg
férodk mej
flee.sc:2msg from:3msg
‘Wherever you’ve landed, she then finds that place, she follows (you) and comes to
the place whence you’ve fled.’
8 tekánaħ tefóred tferer se men ħa

repeat.pcl:2msg flee.pcl:2msg jump.pcl:3fsg 3fsg from here
ʋa-báraħ de be-ħalˠf díʔɛ ʋa-ʔɛ

and-land.pcl:3fsg
dem.msg loc-place
gen:2msg and-2msg
bek ʔɛ nóhork tʕok’

be.already.sc:2msg 2msg pass.by.sc:2msg there
ʋa-se tek’obíɮʕin
and-3fsg be.active.pcl:3fsg
‘You start to flee again, and she leaps from there and lands in the place where you
are – and you have already gone further. Now, she moves quickly.’
9 kéllama ɮʕóʕot-k kob-k ʔarɮʕ

if seize.sc:3fsg-obj.2msg let.enter.pcl:3fsg-obj.2msg earth
‘If she seizes you, she makes you enter the earth.’
NOTES
1 L. Kogan’s work on the article has been carried out in the framework of the project
34.5109.2017/8.9 supported by the Russian Ministry of Science and Education. M.
Bulakh’s work on the article has been supported by RFBR/РФФИ, grant # 17–04–00410.
2 Cf. Simeone-Senelle (1998: 310, 1997a: 379) and Lonnet and Simeone-Senelle
(1997: 344).
3 M.-C. Simeone-Senelle has often referred to Soqotri’s dialectal subdivision (1998:
310, 1997b: 809, 2002a: 389–90, 2011: 1076, 2003), but hardly ever adduced any par-
ticular dialectal feature. The only systematic description of a Soqotri dialect remains
Ewald Wagner’s (1954) description of the ʕAbd al-Kūrī variety, entirely based on the
only published text in this idiom (Müller 1902: 92–111).
4 According to Lonnet and Simeone-Senelle (1997: 367), an affricate [͡ʔħ].
5 In the present description, it is provisionally kept apart from the biphonemic combi-
nation jh: the symbol jh is used only when alternation with h/j/ʃ is attested.
6 But note such exceptions as jhí(hin) ‘they (du)’, the 3du object pronoun -jhi, ħójhi
‘earth’, nojhíri ‘two birds’.
7 In the present contribution, the phonemic transcription distinguishes between ɛ and a,
whereas morphonemic/morphological transcription employs ɛ only.
8 The laryngeals ʔ and h, not included in the group of consonants causing syncope of e,
are to be analyzed as unmarked for the value of voice.
9 In the framework of the present description, ‑e and -ɛ are provisionally treated as two
variants of a single allomorph of the feminine morpheme insofar as no distribution
between the two could be established.
10 Encoded with the figures from the earlier introductory paragraph.
11 Presumably, a peculiar development from *min sabab ‘for the reason’.
12 Throughout the present chapter, such forms are tagged as Arabic in the glossing.
13 Most of the remaining Iranisms listed in Bittner (1913: 32–6) are either indirect (via
Arabic) or unreliable.
REFERENCES
Bulakh, M. and L. Kogan. “Arabic Influences on Tigre. A Preliminary Evaluation.”
BSOAS 74 (2011): 1–39.
Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language
56.2 (1980): 251–99.
Johnstone, T. M. Jibbāli Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Kogan, L. “Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology.” In The Semitic Languages. An
International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 54–151. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
Kogan, L. Genealogical Classification of Semitic. The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2015.
Ratcliffe, R. The “Broken” Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative Semitic.
Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998.
Rhodokanakis, N. “Der zweigipflige Akzent im Minäo-Sabäischen.” SWAW 178 (1915):
12–56.
Rubin, A. The Jibbali (Shaḥri) Language of Oman. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2014.
Rubin, A. The Mehri Language of Oman. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2018.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “The Modern South Arabian Languages.” In The Semitic
Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 378–423. London: Routledge, 1997a.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “Suḳuṭra. 3. Language.” In EI 9: 809a – 811a. Leiden: Brill, 1997b.
Watson, J. The Structure of Mehri. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Further readings
Bittner, M. Vorstudien zur Grammatik und zum Wörterbuche der Soqoṭri-Sprache. I.
Wien: Hölder, 1913.
Bittner, M. “Einige Besonderheiten aus der Sprache der Insel Soqoṭra.” WZKM 30
(1917–1918): 423–5.
Soqotri 319
Johnstone, T. M. “The Non-Occurrence of a t-Prefix in Certain Socotri Verbal Forms.”

BSOAS 31 (1968): 515–25.
Johnstone, T. M. “Diminutive Patterns in the Modern South Arabian Languages.” JSS 18
(1973): 98–107.
Johnstone, T. M. “New Sibilant Phonemes in the Modern South Arabian
Languages of Dhofar.” In Current Progress in Afro-Asiatic Linguistics, 3.
Amsterdam-Philadelphia, 1984, 389–390.
Kogan, L. and M. Bulakh. “On Some Poorly Known or Unrecognized Verbal Categories
in Soqotri: 1905–2015.” BJAALL 9 (2017): 73–105.
Leslau, W. “Der š-Laut in den modernen südarabischen Sprachen.” WZKM 44 (1937):
211–18.
Lonnet, A. “Quelques résultats en linguistique sudarabique moderne.” QSA 11 (1993):
37–82.
Lonnet, A. “Le verbe sudarabique moderne: hypothèses sur des tendances.” MAS-GELLAS
NS 6 (1994): 213–55.
Lonnet, A. “Le socotri: une métamorphose contrariée.” In Actes du 1er congrès
chamito-sémitique de Fès, edited by Mohamed El Medlaoui, Said Gafaiti and Fouad
Saa, 69–85. Fès: Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines Sais-Fés, 1998.
Lonnet, A. “Le vocabulaire de la parenté en socotri.” In Afroasiatica Tergestina: Papers
from the 9th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Linguistics, Trieste,
April 23-24, 1998, edited by Marcello Lamberti and Livia Tonelli, 187–211. Padova:
Unipress, 1999.
Lonnet, A. “La marque -i de féminin en (chamito-)sémitique et son développement en
sudarabique moderne oriental.” AuOr 26 (2008): 117–34.
Lonnet, A. and M.-C. Simone-Senelle. “La phonologie des langues sudarabiques
modernes.” In Phonologies of Asia and Africa, edited by Alan S. Kaye, 337–72.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Müller, D. H. “Die Formen qátlal und qátlil in der Soqoṭri-Sprache.” In Florilegium,
ou, Recueil de travaux d’érudition dédiés à monsieur le marquis Melchior de Vogüé
à l’occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de sa naissance, 18 octobre 1909,
445–55. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1909a.
Müller, D. H. “Soqoṭri-Glossen.” WZKM 24 (1909b): 347–54.
Naumkin, V., M. Bulakh, D. Cherkashin, L. Kogan, A. Issa, I. Gumaan. “Studies in the
Verbal Morphology of Soqotri I/1. Strong Triconsonantal Roots in the Basic Stem (the
Analysis).” ZAL 59 (2014): 25–56.
Naumkin, V., M. Bulakh, D. Cherkashin, L. Kogan, A. Issa, I. Gumaan, M. Mohammed.
“Studies in the Verbal Morphology of Soqotri III. The Intensive Stem.” ZAL,
Forthcoming.
Naumkin, V. and L. Kogan. “The Vowels of Soqotri As a Phonemic System.” In
Languages of Southern Arabia: Papers from the Special Session of the Seminar for
Arabian Studies held on 27 July 2013, edited by Orhan Elmaz and Janet C. E. Watson,
57–79. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2014.
Наумкин, В. В. and В. Я. Порхомовский. Очерки по этнолингвистике Сокотры.
Moscow: Nauka, 1981.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “Notes sur le premier vocabulaire soqotri: le mémoir de Wellstedt
(1935). I.” MAS-GELLAS NS 3 (1991): 91–135.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “Notes sur le premier vocabulaire soqotri: le mémoir de Wellstedt
(1935). II.” MAS-GELLAS NS 4 (1992): 13–82.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “L’expression du “futur” dans les langues sudarabiques
modernes.” MAS-GELLAS NS 5 (1993): 249–277.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “The Soqotri language.” In Proceedings of the First International

Symposium on Socotra Island: Present and Future. Volume 1, edited by Henri J.
Dumont, 309–21. New York: United Nations Publications, 1998.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “Les langues sudarabiques modernes a l’aub de l’an 2000.
Evaluation des connaissances.” IOS 20 (2002a): 379–399.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “Soqotri Dialectology and the Evaluation of the Language
Endangerment.” Presentation given at the Second Scientific Symposium on the
Developing Strategy of Soqotra Archipelago and the Other Yemeni Islands, 14–16
December, 2003, at the University of Aden, Yemen. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/32225993_Soqotri_dialectology_and_the_evaluation_of_the_language_
endangerment (accessed November 06, 2018).
Wagner, E. “Der Dialekt von ‘Abd-el-Kūri.” Anthropos 54 (1954): 475–86.
Grammars
Bittner, M. “Charakteristik der Sprache der Insel Soqoṭra.” Anzeiger der philosophisch-
historischen Klasse der kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 55 (1918): 48–83.
The only attempt at a comprehensive description of Soqotri, clearly outdated. A modern
fundamental grammar of Soqotri is a desideratum.
Text editions
CSOL I: Naumkin, V., L. Kogan et al. Corpus of Soqotri Oral Literature. Volume One.
CSOL II: Naumkin, V., L. Kogan et al. Corpus of Soqotri Oral Literature. Volume Two.
Morris, M. “Soqotra: The Poem of ‘Abduh and Hammudi by ‘Ali ‘Abdullah al-Rigdihi.”
In Arabia Vitalis, edited by Aleksandr V. Sedov and Irina M. Smilyanskaya, 354–70.
Moscow: Institut Vostokovedeniya, 2005.
Müller, D. H. Die Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Sprache. I. Texte. Wien: Hölder, 1902.
Müller, D. H. Die Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Sprache. II. Soqoṭri-Texte. Wien: Hölder, 1905.
Müller, D. H. Die Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Sprache. III. Šḫauri-Texte. Wien: Hölder, 1907.
Naumkin, V., M. Bulakh, L. Kogan. “Two Erotic Stories from Soqotra Revisited.” Babel
und Bibel 7 (2014): 527–63.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “Une version soqotri de la légende de Abu Šawārib.” In Studies
on Arabia in Honour of Professor Rex G. Smith, edited by John F. Healey and Venetia
Porter, 227–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002b.
Overview articles
Johnstone, T. M. “The Modern South Arabian Languages.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 1
(1975): 93–121.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “The Modern South Arabian Languages.” In The Semitic
Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 378–423. London: Routledge, 1997a.
Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. “Modern South Arabian.” In The Semitic Languages:
An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 1073–113. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2011.
Dictionaries
LS: Leslau, W. Lexique Soqoṭri (Sudarabique moderne) avec comparaisons et explications
étymologiques. Paris: Klincksieck, 1938.
CHAPTER 13
ANCIENT SOUTH ARABIAN ANNE MULTHOFFANCIENT SOUTH ARABIAN
Anne Multhoff
1 INTRODUCTION
Ancient South Arabian (ASA) is a group of epigraphically attested languages of the
southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, roughly the area of present day Yemen
(Map 13.1). It is documented in inscriptions covering a range from the early first mil-
lennium bce up to the 6th century ce. Though often treated as one common language
“Ancient South Arabian,” it can actually be divided into four different languages: Sabaic,
Qatabanic, Minaic and Ḥaḍramaitic. These languages largely correspond to different
political entities, namely the kingdoms of Sabaʔ, Qatabān, Maʕīn and Ḥaḍramawt. These
kingdoms were centered in the great wadis on the fringes of the Ramlat as-Sabʕatayn
desert and existed both on the basis of rain-water agriculture (maintained mainly by
monsoon-floods from the mountains) and long-distance trade along the incense road.
Agricultural activities are thus a common topic in extant texts. Whereas a common pan-
theon comprising deities like ʕAṯtar (ʕṯtr), Wadd(um) (wd(m)) or ʔAṯirat (ʔṯrt) shines
through the texts throughout South Arabia, a number of additional national deities were
worshipped in the different kingdoms and tribes, such as ʔAlmaqah (ʔlmqh) in Sabaʔ,
ʕAmm (ʕm) in Qatabān, Siyān (syn) in Ḥadramawt and a triad consisting of ʕAṯtar, Wadd
and Nakraḥ (nkrḥ) in Maʕīn. Beside these prominent figures, a broad range of minor
deities is also attested. Apart from the mere names, little is known about the character,
function or internal relations of these deities within the pantheon. During the late 4th
century ce, however, a complete change in the religious system can be observed. From
this time onwards, any allusion to the traditional pantheon disappears from the inscrip-
tions, being replaced by a monotheistic faith. This monotheism, invoking a deity called
‘the God’ (ʔln or ʔlhn), Raḥmānān (rḥmnn) or ‘the lord of heaven and earth’, was first
inspired by Judaism. After the Ethiopian invasion in 525 ce, however, it was changed to
a Christian denomination.
Grammatical, lexical and idiomatic interferences between neighboring languages are
common and can be attributed to both close relationship between different populations
and alterations in their political affiliation. Relations between these languages evolved
in different ways. Sabaic and Minaic can be clearly separated from each other in ques-
tions of grammar, style and featured textual elements right from the start, even though
idiomatic and lexical peculiarities of Minaic diminished in the course of their common
history in favor of a Sabaic “standard,” eventually ending up with the disappearance of
the Minaic language. On the other hand, epigraphic tradition in Qatabān and Ḥaḍramawt
starts with an imitation of Sabaic inscriptions in both grammar and content. Neverthe-
less, it is unclear to what extend these normally very short texts represent the language
actually spoken in the area. Probably Sabaic models accepted as a cultural standard were
simply replicated, the Sabaic language of these texts being perceived as an obligatory
feature of the product “inscription.” The present chapter is mainly concerned with Sabaic.
322 Anne Multhoff
MAP 13.1
THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT SOUTH ARABIAN
INSCRIPTIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF ANCIENT SOUTH ARABIAN HISTORY,
SABAIC GRADUALLY REPLACED THE OTHER LANGUAGES
Qatabanic, Minaic and Ḥaḍramitic all show substantial orthographic and morphologic
differences, which are only indicated if clarification seems necessary.
Dialectal differences within Sabaic are attested both geographically and diachronically.
The language is traditionally divided into Early (up to around the 4th century bce), Middle
(3rd century bce up to 4th century ce) and Late Sabaic (inscriptions of the monotheistic
period, 4th to 6th century ce). Late Sabaic is actually a regional dialect productive from
the 1st century ce in the southern part of the Sabaean territory that gained dominance in
the whole of the Sabaean kingdom due to political changes during the late 3rd century ce.
Nevertheless, Sabaic grammar is astonishingly stable over the long course of its history.
Middle Sabaic can be further divided into several regional and/or tribal dialects. A cen-
tral dialect in the regions around Mārib and Ṣirwāh, the traditional political and cultural
center of the Sabaean kingdom, is often treated as a standard. Apparent characteristics
of this dialect are the assimilation of n to a following consonant and the regular use of
n-augmented infinitives of derived verbal stems (see §4.4.5). Southern dialects include
those of Ḥimyar in the southern highlands (eventually turning into Late Sabaic) and Rad-
mān on the border to former Qatabān. The main characteristics of these are metathesis
of the first two radicals in certain nouns I w (ʔlwd for ʔwld (sg wld) ‘sons’), development
of verbal roots III w into III y (ġzy instead of ġzw ‘to conduct a raid’) and the incon-
sistent use of n-augmented infinitives. The dialect of Radmān is further characterized
by frequent grammatical, syntactical and lexical borrowings from Qatabanic. A northern
dialect is that of the ʔAmīr, a tribe of camel breeders mainly centered in the Yemeni Jawf.
Ancient South Arabian 323
Amiritic is largely characterized by North Arabian influences. Apparent characteristics

are the absence of a third sibilant (written ś), suffix -t for the 1st and 2nd person of the
sc (see §4.4.2), particle lm + pc to negate past-time clauses (cf. §5.6) and several lexical
peculiarities. Other apparent hints to Arabic such as the clause-initial particle hn (Arabic
ʔan, ʔanna, ʔinna) and the coordination of main clauses with f- (Arabic fa-) can be traced
back into Minaic and are thus probably of different origin.
Until recently, ASA documentation was entirely based on so-called monumental
inscriptions. These mainly commemorate dedications to the gods, oracular requests and
building activities, or settle juridical and economic affairs. Monumental inscriptions are
almost exclusively composed in the 3rd person and can therefore only clarify part of the
paradigm. With a few exceptions, inscriptions are closely orientated to a standardized
formulaic pattern, more or less thoroughly adjusted to actual circumstances.
In the 1970s, however, texts incised in palm-leaf stalks or branches of wood came to
light. These so-called minuscule inscriptions cover a broad range of everyday issues, such
as letters, notifications and quittances of debts, administrative texts and so on. Whereas
juridical and administrative texts are written in the 3rd person, letter correspondence,
though normally referring to the sender in the 3rd person (instead of the 1st) refers to the
addressee in the 2nd person. This new material provides substantial improvements to our
knowledge of the paradigms, even though there are still many lacunae, especially in the
1st person and in the feminine (cf. Stein 2010).
Except for a handful of hymns (in Sabaic śmdt), no literary texts are known. Apart
from rhyme, Sabaic poetry as occurring in these hymns is characterized by several lin-
guistic peculiarities. These eventually even led to them being misinterpreted as remnants
of a non-Sabaic language, often identified with the so-called Ḥimyaritic mentioned in
later Arabic tradition. Since most of the texts in question are either in a rather poor state
of preservation or poorly published, a detailed analysis of these texts has not yet been
achieved (cf. Stein 2008).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
ASA has preserved all of the 29 consonants commonly reconstructed for Proto-West
Semitic; for the forms of the letters, see Figure 13.1. Their alphabetical order is known
from minuscule inscriptions:
h l ḥ m q w š r b t s k n ḫ ṣ ś f ʔ ʕ ḍ g d ġ ṭ z ḏ y ṯ ẓ
The alphabet developed into two different sets of letters: a so-called monumental writing
used for prestigious inscriptions on stone and metal and a so-called minuscule or cursive
writing used in documents on wood and palm-leaf-stalks (in a very few cases also for
graffiti on other material). These systems largely follow the requirements of their respec-
tive writing techniques and developed out of an older, nonstandard form of monumental
script. Both scripts initially shared a set of 29 consonants, but the minuscule set was sub-
sequently reduced to 28, losing ẓ (see §3). Note that the term “cursive script” in pre-1980
literature refers to nonstandard forms of the monumental script. In contrast to Sabaic,
Ḥaḍramitic has a considerably restricted consonantal system.
Writing is almost exclusively consonantal. However, both w and y are widely used
as vowel letters for final /uː/ and /iː/ respectively. Long vowels in non-final position are
324 Anne Multhoff
normally not marked, nor are short vowels in general. A vowel letter for /aː/ is not securely
attested. Spellings of etymological /aː/ with y probably represent a perception of the vowel
as /iː/, /aj/ or maybe even /eː/. Note that while Qatabanic prefers w in such cases, both
Minaic and Ḥaḍramitic make use of a vowel letter h for /aː/ (and maybe also /a/).
Orthographic standards vary in different writing systems. “Historical” or “analytic”
orthographies are common, but are used to varying extents. Thus, writing of assimilated n
may vary even within a single inscription (see §3). Monumental inscriptions are in some
respects more conservative as compared to minuscule documents, as can be seen from the
retention of etymological ẓ and “analytic” writings of H stems from roots with geminated
second radical (see §4.4.6).
FIGURE 13.1
THE ANCIENT SOUTH ARABIAN ALPHABET. THE LEFT COLUMN IS THE
MONUMENTAL SCRIPT (EARLY SABAIC); THE RIGHT COLUMN IS THE
CURSIVE MINUSCULE SCRIPT (EARLY SABAIC)
Source: Adapted from Stein (2013).
Various systems of transliteration are in use, the situation being particularly confusing
in regard to the sibilants. Table 13.1 gives an overview.
Translations of ASA tend to make use of the traditional transliteration (as can be seen
from onomastics), even if the neutral one appears in the corresponding edition. Note that,
at least up to the 1920s, further renderings were in use. Those may be completely arbi-
trary and sometimes vary even within a single edition. The present chapter makes use of
the traditional system.
3 PHONOLOGY
Our knowledge of ASA phonology is very restricted due to the defective writing sys-
tem and an interrupted tradition. The following chart of consonants (Table 13.2) is
conventional.
From late Early Sabaic times onwards, etymological ẓ is written ḍ in minuscule (but
not monumental) inscriptions, thus minuscule mḍʔ for monumental mẓʔ ‘he came’.
Though orthography suggests otherwise, this probably reflects a merger of the original
plosive into a fricative.
Little is known about vowels in general. A subsequent replacement of unmarked dual
endings in both verbal and nominal endings with y (see §4.2.1 and 4.4.2), however, hints
at a phenomenon similar to Arabic ʔimāla (/aː/ > /eː/). Alternating writings of some roots
II w/y with and without the letters w and y probably indicate a diphthong /aw/ or /aj/,
eventually perceived as /oː/ or /eː/ respectively and thus not expressed in writing.
Middle Sabaic shows frequent assimilation of n to a following consonant as in the plu-
ral ʔfs for Early Sabaic ʔnfs (sg nfs) ‘souls’ or the pc ygwn (√NGW) ‘he will say’. Most
of our established knowledge about syllable structure is deduced from this phenomenon.
TABLE 13.1 TRANSLITERATION OF SIBILANTS
Traditional Neutral North-West- Modern Classical Gəʕəz Proto-Semitic

Semitic South Arabian Arabic
s s1 š š s s *s
š s2 ś ś š ś *ɬ
ś s3 s s s s *ʦ
TABLE 13.2 CONSONANTS (IPA EQUIVALENTS IN BRACKETS)
Bilabial Interdental Denti- Palato- Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal

alveolar alveolar
Plosive b d, t, g, k q ʔ
ḍ [dˁ], ṭ [tˁ]
Fricative f ḏ [ð], ṯ [θ] z, ẓ [ðˁ], ś/s3 [s], s/s1 [ʃ] ḫ [χ] ġ [ʁ] ʕ, ḥ [ħ] h
ṣ [sˁ], š/s2 [?]
Lateral l
Nasal m n
Liquid r
Semivowel w y [j]
FIGURE 13.2 A MIDDLE SABAIC STONE INSCRIPTION MENTIONING THE DEDICATION OF A
BRONZE STATUETTE. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM SEMITICARUM, PARS QUARTA:
INSCRIPTIONES ḤIMYARITICAS ET SABÆAS CONTINENS (VOL. II, PARIS, 1908),
TEXT NO. 352
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
Subject pronouns (Table 13.3) are in most cases not required by syntax and therefore
comparatively rare. They typically serve as means to express emphasis or to clarify seg-
mentation. For 3rd person pronouns, the corresponding demonstratives of remote deixis
are used, for which see Table 13.5. In post-Early Sabaic times, the n of 2nd person pro-
nouns can be assimilated.
Pronominal suffixes (Table 13.4) serve as verbal objects, prepositional objects and
possessive pronouns and are thus omnipresent in ASA texts.
Even though a suffix of the 1st person gen is not yet attested, the corresponding Minaic
suffix ‑y is probably to be reconstructed for Sabaic as well. Note that in Middle Sabaic
texts, the suffix of the 3rd person singular feminine is sometimes replaced by the mascu-
line form. 3rd person pronouns in the other ASA languages generally show sibilants, thus
-s etc. in Qatabanic and Minaic and ‑s (m) or ‑ś/-ṯ (f) in Ḥaḍramitic.
4.1.2 Demonstrative pronouns

There are two sets of demonstratives (Table 13.5), one for near and one for remote deixis.
Demonstratives are inflected for number and gender. The near deixis form shows a ḏ-base
in the singular and a ʔl-base in the plural. Pronouns of remote deixis are inflected for case.
They also serve as personal pronouns of the 3rd person (see §4.4.1).
Note that other ASA languages show different forms, the remote deixis forms gener-
ally exhibiting a base with sibilants, thus Qatabanic sw, swt instead of Sabaic hʔ, hwt.
4.1.3 Relative pronouns

The morphology of relative pronouns changes over time. In Early and Middle Sabaic,
both genders show a ḏ-base for singular and dual and a ʔl-base for the plural. In Late
Sabaic (and some South Sabaic dialects) the feminine singular is formed on a t-base. In
TABLE 13.3 SUBJECT PRONOUNS
sg du pl
1 m/f ʔn – ?
m ʔnt, ʔt ʔntmw, ʔtmw
2 f ʔnt, ʔt ʔntmy, ʔtmy ?
TABLE 13.4 PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES
sg du pl
1 m/f -n (acc) – -n
m -k -kmw
2 -kmy
f -k -kn
m -hw -hmw
3 f -h, (-hw) -hmy -hn
328 Anne Multhoff
Near Remote
nom obl
m ḏn hʔ, (hwʔ) hwt

sg
f ḏt hʔ, (hyʔ) hyt
m ḏn, (ḏyn)
du hmy hmt, (hmyt)
f ?
m ʔln hmw hmt, (hmwt)
pl
f ʔlt hn hnt, (hnyt)
Note: Forms in parentheses are only sparsely attested.
TABLE 13.6 RELATIVE PRONOUNS (INFLECTED FORMS)
sg du pl
Early-Middle Late Early-Middle Late Early Middle Late
nom ʔlw
m ḏ- ḏy ʔl ʔlht, (ʔlt)
obl ʔly
f ḏt t- ḏty ? ʔlt
Middle Sabaic, the plural is case-inflected. There is also one instance of a plene form ḏw
in the singular nominative. Hints for a possible corresponding oblique ḏy come in the
form of a particle (k-)l-k-ḏy in place of more common (k-)l-k-ḏ- ‘(he ordered,) that. . . ’.
Case inflection (Table 13.6) is thus also highly probable for singular forms, although it is
not expressed in the defective script.
Besides the inflected pronoun, an invariable pronoun ḏ- can be used irrespective of
gender and number. Non-Sabaic languages show different forms. Especially noteworthy
are Qatabanic ḏw (du) and ḏtw (pl) and Minaic ʔhl (pl).

Interrogative pronouns are mn ‘who’ and mh, mhn ‘what’. Both forms are mostly used as
indefinite pronouns (‘whoever’, ‘whatever’ or, combined with the negation ʔl, ‘nobody’,
‘nothing’). A specific indefinite pronoun ʔy (m), ʔyt (f) ‘any’ is only sparsely attested.
4.2 Nominals
4.2.1 Inflection
ASA nouns show two different genders (masculine and feminine), three numbers (singu-
lar, dual and plural) and four states (determinate, indeterminate, construct and absolute).
Gender opposition can be marked with a suffix ‑t as in ṣlmt ‘(female) statue’ beside
ṣlm ‘(male) statue’, but this mostly applies to nouns denoting persons. A wide range of
feminine nouns such as ʔrḍ ‘land, earth’, ʔrḫ ‘matter’, or hgr ‘city’, are morphologically
unmarked. Regarding nouns describing inanimate things and abstract concepts, most
TABLE 13.7 NOMINAL STATES
sg du pl – External pl – Internal
Nominative Oblique Nominative Oblique
m fʕl fʕl, fʕl-y fʕl-y fʕl-w fʕl-y

Construct ʔfʕl
f fʕl-t [fʕl-t], fʕl-ty fʕl-ty fʕl-t fʕl-t
m fʕl-m fʕl-n fʕl-n
Indeterminate ʔfʕl-m
f fʕl-tm fʕl-tn fʕl-tm
m fʕl-n fʕl-nhn fʕl-nhn
Determinate ʔfʕl-n
f fʕl-tn fʕl-tnhn fʕl-tn
Note: The construct dual fʕl is the Early Sabaic form, all later dialects use fʕly.
forms ending in ‑t show feminine agreement and should thus be considered feminine.
Nevertheless, such forms may also be construed as masculine.
The dual is generally marked with a particular ending. While this ending is irrespective
of gender, it is inflected according to state: ‑y in the construct, ‑n in the indeterminate and
‑nhn in the determinate state. None of these is unambiguous in script (see Table 13.7).
A cardinal number may therefore be added for clarification. In Qatabanic, construct duals
are often marked with a suffix ‑w, apparently due to different phonetics.
Sound or external masculine plurals are marked with a suffix ‑w or ‑y in the construct
nominative and oblique respectively, with a suffix ‑n in the indeterminate and a suffix
‑nhn in the determinate state. The latter two graphs, however, are more common as dual
markers, since the sound plural is generally rare. Sound feminine plurals show a suffix ‑t
in the construct, a suffix ‑tm in the indeterminate and a suffix ‑tn in the determinate state.
The graphs of the feminine plural also have counterparts in the singular and dual. While
sound plurals are comparatively well attested for the feminine, only a few cases can be
illustrated for the masculine, as most nouns form their plural by pattern replacement,
called “broken” or “internal” plural (see §4.2.2.2).
Determinate (det) and indeterminate (indet) states are marked by endings which vary
according to number, but are not always unambiguous in script (see Table 13.7). Note that
broken plurals show singular endings. The absolute state is similar to the construct (cst)
at least in its written form, but is only used in a restricted number of contexts, mainly
cardinal numbers. A few biradical forms, mainly bn ‘son’ and ʔḫ ‘brother’ may show an
extended form bny and ʔḫy before suffix pronouns, irrespective of case. Note that the
indeterminate state is normally unmarked in Minaic.
Case inflection was probably productive at least in Sabaic. Due to the defective writing
system, however, it can only be proven in a restricted number of instances. Besides some
pronouns (see §4.1), this mostly applies to sound plural forms in the construct. Evidence
is mainly available for the filiation bnw (nom) vs. bny (obl) ‘sons (of)’, other possible
examples such as ḥwrw ‘inhabitants (of)’ or ʕlmy ‘documents (of)’ being only attested
in either the nominative or the oblique case. Note that case is sometimes not rendered
correctly due to careless and summary composition of the texts.
4.2.2 Patterns
A wide range of both singular and plural patterns is attested. Most graphs illustrated later
can be vocalized in different ways and probably represent more than one actual pattern.
330 Anne Multhoff
Many forms are ambiguous with regard to number and gender. There is no apparent mor-
phological difference between nouns and adjectives.
4.2.2.1 Singular patterns

Nominal roots can consist of one, two, three or four radicals. Monoradical roots such as
f- ‘mouth’ as well as biradical ones are few in number. However, many common words,
such as ʔḫ ‘brother’, ʔḫt ‘sister’ or ʔl ‘god’, are biradical. Apart from the feminine ending
‑t, derived patterns normally show an augmented root, as in ʔḫwn ‘alliance’ (from ʔḫ
‘brother’).
Triradical roots show a broad range of different patterns. Common forms are these:
1 The unaugmented root fʕl serves to denote all kinds of primary and various derived
nouns, as in byt ‘house’, hgr ‘town’ or bḍʕ ‘mutilated (person, as to get trophies)’.
2 fʕln and fʕlt derive abstract nouns from both verbal and nominal roots, as in wšʕn
‘help’, sbʔt ‘expedition, march’ and qdmt ‘office-period of a leader (qdm)’.
3 fʕly forms derived relational adjectives to denote tribal or local affiliation, as in
sbʔy ‘Sabaean (man)’. A homograph is used to denote professions such as grby
‘stonemason’.
4 mfʕl and mfʕlt derive abstract nouns as well as nouns of place and instrument, as in
msʔl ‘oracle’, mḥrm ‘sanctuary’ and mḏbḥt ‘sacrificial altar’.
5 tfʕl derives abstract nouns from the 02 stem (see §4.4.3), as in tbql ‘plantation’.
6 hfʕlt (with a variant ʔfʕlt) derives nouns from the H stem (see §4.4.3), as in hqnyt,
ʔqnyt ‘dedication’.
Quadriradical roots include reduplications of the last radical such as ġrbb ‘a kind of rai-
sin’, total reduplications of biradical roots such as sʕsʕ ‘summer’ or glgln ‘sesame’ and
roots consisting of four different consonants such as blśn ‘lentils’ and ʕglmt ‘a kind of
dam’. Several nominal patterns are attested, as illustrated by these examples.
4.2.2.2 Plural patterns

Most plural nouns have a specific broken or internal plural pattern. Note that, for many
nouns, more than one corresponding plural is attested. Broken plurals are generally
inflected as singulars.
Plurals of biradical roots are unpredictable. They range from sound plurals such as
bnw ‘sons’ and mwy ‘waters’ to broken plurals based on augmented roots such as ʔmh
‘maidservants’ (sg ʔmt) or ʔḫwt ‘brothers’ (sg ʔḫ) and reduplicated forms such as ʔlʔlt
‘divinities’ (sg ʔl).
Many triradical plural forms are linked to a specific singular. Common forms are ʔfʕl
(sg fʕl) as in ʔṣlm ‘(male) statues’, fʕl (sg fʕl, fʕlt) as in hnʔ ‘sound (pl)’ and blṭ ‘tetra
drachms’, fʕlt (sg fʕl) as in ʕqbt ‘governors’ and ʔrḍt ‘pieces of land’, fʕwl (sg fʕl) as in
bḥwr ‘storeys’, fʕyl (sg fʕlt) as in ḫṭyʔ ‘sins’, mfʕl (sg mfʕl, mfʕlt) as in mġbb ‘curtain
walls’ and msbʔ ‘roads’, mfʕlt (sg mfʕl) as in mḥfdt ‘towers’ and mšymt ‘(agricultural)
installations’, tfʕlt (sg tfʕl) as in tbqlt ‘plantations’, hfʕl (sg hfʕlt) as in hwkl ‘(oracles)
that produce confidence’, ʔfʕl (sg ʔfʕlt) as in ʔṯwb ‘transactions’, ʔfʕlt (sg fʕl and maybe
also fʕlt) as in ʔwdyt ‘wadis’ and ʔḥrrt ‘free women’, ʔfʕlw (sg fʕl) as in ʔḏkrw ‘males’.
Derived relational adjectives take a plural ʔfʕl (m) and ʔfʕlt (f).
4.3 Numerals
The numeric system is decimal. ‘One’ and ‘two’ are normally expressed via singular and
dual nouns respectively. Cardinal numbers can be added for clarification or emphasis and
are then congruent in number and gender. Cardinals from ‘three’ to ‘ten’ are construed
with plural forms or collective nouns of the opposite gender (Table 13.8). Note that for
‘three’, ‘six’ and ‘eight’, forms of different spelling came into use at the end of the Early
Sabaic period, but coexisted with the older forms for a comparatively long period of time.
Cardinals from ‘eleven’ to ‘nineteen’ consist of the unit and an invariable element ʕšr
‘ten’ and are otherwise constructed like units.
Except for ʕšry ‘twenty’, morphologically a dual of ʕšr ‘ten’, tens are represented
by the dual of the corresponding unit, thus šlṯy/ṯlṯy ‘thirty’, ʔrbʕy ‘forty’ and so on. In
compound numbers, the smallest element generally comes first. Cardinals follow their
corresponding noun in determination: indeterminate nouns are construed with cardinals
in the absolute state as in ṯny w-ṯlṯy ʔsd-m (two.m and-thirty man.pl-indet) ’32 men’,
whereas determinate nouns are combined with determinate numbers as in ʔrbʕ-tn w-ʕšr-
nhn ʔṣlm-n (four-det.f and-ten-det.du statue.mpl-det) ‘the 24 (present) statues’. Hun-
dreds and thousands are expressed by the nouns mʔt (pl mʔ, mʔn and mʔt) and ʔlf (pl ʔlf,
ʔʔlf), respectively.
Except for qdm (m), qdmt (f) ‘first’, ordinals follow a triliteral pattern of the cardinal
root, thus ṯny ‘second’, ṯlṯ ‘third’, rbʕ ‘fourth’, and so on. The corresponding feminine is
marked with a suffix ‑t. Note that in post-Early Sabaic times, feminine ṯnyt is replaced
with a shorter form ṯnt.
4.4 Verbs
4.4.1 Tense/aspect
Sabaic has two finite paradigms: suffix conjugation (sc) and prefix conjugation (pc). The
sc denotes the relative past and can therefore be used for both the perfect and the plu-
perfect. Due to the formulaic character of the inscriptions, this form largely prevails in
the extant material. The pc is used for relative present and future. Usages include actual
present and future contexts as well as optative clauses A special case is the consecutive
m f m f
Older Younger Older Younger Older Younger Older Younger
1 ʔḥd ʔḥt 11 ʔḥd ʕšr ʔḥt ʕšr

2 ṯny ṯty 12 ṯny ʕšr ṯty ʕšr
3 šlṯ ṯlṯ šlṯt ṯlṯt 13 šlṯ ʕšr ? ? ṯlṯt ʕšr
4 ʔrbʕ ʔrbʕt 14 ʔrbʕ ʕšr ʔrbʕt ʕšr
5 ḫms ḫmst 15 ? ḫmst ʕšr
6 sdṯ sṯ sdṯt sṯt 16 ? sdṯt ʕšr sṯt ʕšr
7 sbʕ sbʕt 17 sbʕ ʕšr sbʕt ʕšr
8 ṯmny ṯmn ṯmnt, ṯmnyt 18 ? ṯmnt ʕšr, (ṯmnyt ʕšr)
9 tsʕ tsʕt 19 tsʕ ʕšr tsʕt ʕšr
10 ʕšr ʕšrt 20 ʕšry (absolute), ʕšrnhn (det)
332 Anne Multhoff
imperfect denoting past actions in more elaborate narrative historical passages. Shorter
and/or less elaborate inscriptions typically include few, if any, pc forms. The pc has fur-
ther morphological subdivisions. First, forms appear either with or without an additional
suffix ‑n (sg) or ‑nn (du and pl). While this differentiation is morphologically obvious,
its semantic value is not yet clear; the form with n(n) is abbreviated pc-n in this chapter.
Second, a morphological differentiation between indicative (ind) and jussive (juss) forms
can be deduced from some roots II w/y. Nevertheless, both indicative and jussive forms
of the pc 01 follow a pattern /-fʕVl/, as can be proven particularly for roots I n and I w
(thus tldnn (√WLD) ‘they (f) will give birth’, but never *twldnn; cf. Nebes 1994). An
imperative is only scarcely attested. Just as in the pc, a “short” and a “long” form coexist.

The sc inflection (Table 13.9) is marked with suffixes differentiating person, gender and
number. Specifically Sabaic forms include the suffix ‑y of 3fpl and the suffix ‑k of the 1st
and 2nd person singular. In contrast, the Amiritic dialect uses forms ending with ‑t for the
latter. In Early Sabaic, both the 3fpl and the homographic 3mdu are graphically unmarked.
Note that Sabaic orthography requires the suppression of the final ‑w in the plural masculine
before a pronominal suffix, thus hrg-hw ‘they (mpl) killed him’ beside hrgw ‘they killed’.
In the pc inflection (Table 13.10), both prefixes and suffixes are in use to mark gender,
number and person. A peculiar case is the pc of the 3fpl, which exhibits two different pat-
terns, tfʕln and yfʕln. Documentation is, however, too scanty to allow any further expla-
nation. Note that 3rd person masculine forms may lose their y- after the optative/jussive
particle l- especially in 01, thus l-fʕl-n besides l-y-fʕl-n. In Early Sabaic, the masculine dual is
graphically unmarked. Many of the patterns illustrated are only attested in a few examples.
The imperative (Table 13.11) is, thus far, almost exclusively known for the masculine
gender.
TABLE 13.9 THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION (sc)
sg du pl
1 fʕl-k – fʕl-n
2m fʕl-k fʕl-kmw
fʕl-kmy
2f fʕl-k fʕl-kn
3m fʕl-Ø fʕl-Ø, fʕl-y fʕl-w
3f fʕl-t fʕl-t, fʕl-ty fʕl-Ø, fʕl-y
TABLE 13.10 THE PREFIX CONJUGATION (pc)
sg du pl
pc-Ø pc-n pc-Ø pc-n pc-Ø pc-n
1 ʔ-fʕl ? ? ? ? ?
2m t-fʕl t-fʕl-n ? t-fʕl-nn
? t-fʕl-nn
2f t-fʕl-n (?) ? ?
3m y-fʕl y-fʕl-n y-fʕl, y-fʕl-y y-fʕl-nn y-fʕl-w y-fʕl-nn
3f t-fʕl t-fʕl-n ? t-fʕl-nn t-fʕl-n, y-fʕl-n t-fʕl-nn
sg du pl
short long short long short long
m fʕl-Ø fʕl-n fʕl-n fʕl-nn

f (fʕl-y ?) ? fʕl-n ? ? ?
TABLE 13.12 VERBAL STEMS
sc pc inf sc pc inf
01 fʕl yfʕl fʕl T1 tfʕl ftʕl ftʕl(n)

02 fʕl yfʕl fʕl(n) T2 tfʕl ytfʕl tfʕl(n)
H hfʕl yhfʕl hfʕl(n) ST stfʕl ystfʕl stfʕl(n)
For the other ASA languages, documentation is even scarcer. In Minaic monumental
inscriptions (but not in the minuscule documentation), the suffix of the 3mpl sc is gener-
ally suppressed (thus fʕl instead of fʕlw). Both Qatabanic and Ḥaḍramitic tend to form a
dual masculine fʕlw. Note that both Minaic and Qatabanic have (indicative) pc forms with
an additional prefix b-, thus b-yktrb (Qatabanic) ‘he will implore (as a blessing)’.
4.4.3 Verbal stems
While the Sabaic system of verbal stems is rather clear from a semantic point of view, it
contains several morphological oddities and has only recently been clarified (cf. Multhoff
2011). Altogether, Sabaic shows three different “basic” stems (01, 02 and H) and three
corresponding T stems (T1, T2 and ST). In written form, both 01 and 02 consist of the bare
root. H is distinguished by a prefix h-, which appears in all finite and non-finite forms. T
stems are generally characterized by an affix t which is either prefixed or infixed. Note
that T1 has a specific irregular formation in Sabaic (and Qatabanic): while t-prefixed
forms are used in the sc, e.g. thrgw ‘they (m) fought’, both pc and non-finite forms have
a t-infix, e.g. htrgn (inf) ‘to fight, fighting’. T2, on the contrary, is a regular, entirely
t-prefixed form. The ST stem has a prefix st‑.
Semantically, 01 is the basic form (= G of other Semitic languages). Transitive as well
as intransitive verbs are widely attested. Both 02 (probably corresponding to D elsewhere
in Semitic) and H (= C) form causative and factitive derivations of 01 on the one hand
and denominative verbs on the other. Further differentiation between the two forms might
once have existed, but cannot be established in the extant material. T-stems are primarily
used to denote reflexive, reciprocal and desiderative nuances. They generally correspond
to a related basic stem. The system can be described as in Table 13.12.
Verbal stem formation in non-Sabaic languages differs considerably, but is still not
completely understood. Obvious distinctions from Sabaic are the prefix s- instead of h-
in causative stems of all three languages and the existence of a reduplicated pattern fʕʕl
(and, still poorly attested, sfʕʕl, ftʕʕl and stfʕʕl) in Minaic. Furthermore, a t-prefixed stem
is only found in Qatabanic (in an irregular formation tfʕl (sc)/yftʕl (pc)/ftʕl (inf), as in
Sabaic), whereas Minaic and Ḥaḍramitic T stems are always t-infixed (cf. Multhoff 2010).
334 Anne Multhoff
4.4.4 Voice
Sabaic exhibits both an active and a passive voice, which must have been differentiated
by means of vocalization. While the passive voice is comparatively well attested for 01,
02 and H, there are only marginal examples for the T stems.
Non-finite forms in ASA include an infinitive (inf) and two participles. Infinitives are
widely used in Sabaic and thus very well documented. Morphologically, they follow
the pattern of the prefix conjugation (see Table 13.12). In post-Early Sabaic times, the
infinitive of derived stems is augmented with a suffix ‑n, at least in the central dialects,
thus fʕln (02) in contrast to fʕl (01). The most common infinitive constructions involve the
addition of further predicates in a so-called infinitive chain (see §5.2) and optative for-
mulae in dedicatory inscriptions. While infinitives in ‑n are specific for Sabaic, infinitives
augmented with ‑m may appear in Qatabanic.
The participle of 01 follows a pattern fʕl. Participles of derived stems are generally aug-
mented with a prefix m-, thus mfʕl (02), mhfʕl (H), mftʕl (T1), mtfʕl (T2) and mstfʕl (ST).
A probable differentiation between active and passive voice is not expressed orthograph-
ically. The participle is only seldom used as a predicate and therefore comparatively rare.
Roots I w lose their first radical in the pc of 01 as in yhbn (√WHB) ‘he will give’. Their
form in T1 is determined by the particular conjugation: t-prefixed sc is generally written
with w, whereas t-infixed pc and infinitive are written without w, as in twsy ‘he guaran-
teed’ beside ytsyn ‘he guarantees’. All other verbal stems follow strong patterns at least in
the active voice. Note, however, that there are hints at a loss of the w in the passive of H.
Roots I n may generally show assimilated forms in post-Early Sabaic times in all verbal
stems except 02 and T2, for example ygwn (√NGW, 01) ‘he will say’ and hqḏ besides hnqḏ
(√NQḎ, H) ‘he seized’.
For roots II w/y, writings with and without w and y do not follow an overall system. In
01, orthography generally differs according to lexeme. Thus, in the sc, some words such
as the common verb kwn ‘to be’ show almost exclusively forms with the w, whereas other
verbs such as qyf ‘to erect a stela’ are normally written without the y (thus qf ‘he erected
a stela’). Note that a few roots II w may also show forms II y, thus kyn besides kwn ‘he
was’. The picture gets even more complex in the pc, where jussive forms in the singular
tend to be written without w and y in all words, whereas in indicative context writings
with w and y are also attested in some verbs, cf. b-ḏt tšymn ‘that she will set up (ind)
(well-being)’ besides l-yšmn ‘he shall set up (juss) (well-being)’. A similar pattern seems
to apply to the sparsely attested T1. In H and ST, forms without w and y largely prevail, as
in hqḥ (√QYḤ, H) ‘he achieved’, yhʕnn (√ʕWN, H) ‘he will help’ and stʕn (√ʕWN, ST)
‘he asked for help’. Forms with w or y, as in hqwḥ (√QYḤ, H) ‘he achieved’ and stṯwbn
(√ṮWB, ST) ‘a kind of financial transaction (inf)’, are only rarely attested. Apart from
hqḥ ‘to achieve, complete’, all attested verbs show either forms with or forms without the
w or y. 02 and T2 are always written with w or y.
Roots III w/y generally follow the model of strong roots, as in bny ‘he built’ and bnyw
‘they (m) built’. Note, however, that in the sc the weak radical is normally unwritten
before consonantal suffixes, thus rḍk ‘you (m/f) liked’ beside rḍw ‘he liked’. The quality
of the weak radical may change according to dialect, thus ḏkw and ḏky ‘to send; to expel’.
In late Sabaic texts, verbal forms III w are generally replaced with roots III y. Nominal
derivations of the same roots, however, keep the w.
For roots in which the second and third radicals are the same, writings with a single
token of the geminated radical largely prevail in the sc and pc of 01, whereas in the infini-
tive the geminated radical is always written twice. For the H stem, however, both types of
writings are attested for all three forms, thus hbrn and hbrrn (inf) ‘to fulfil’. In 02 and T2
forms the geminated radical is always written twice. T1 and ST are too sparsely attested
to allow decisive conclusions.
4.5 Prepositions and conjunctions

Prepositions can comprise up to four consonants. Monoliterals such as b- ‘in, at, with’
and l- ‘to, up to, for’ are normally proclitic to the following word. Pluriliteral prep-
ositions either are independent particles such as ʕm ‘with’, or are derived from con-
struct nouns, such as b-ḥg ‘according to, as’, from ḥg ‘argument, authority’. They are
often combined with a proclitic b- or l- without apparent semantic function, as in b-ʕm
(besides ʕm) ‘with’. A change in direction is expressed by an enclitic particle ‑n, as
in b-n, l-n and ʕm-n, all ‘from’. In prepositions augmented with b-, this enclitic is
joined to the latter, thus b-n ʕm ‘from’. Common subordinating particles are k- ‘that’
and the relative pronouns ḏ- and (more often) ḏt. Most prepositions can also serve as
conjunctions; following subordinating particle is in most cases optional. Conjunctions
may also be derived from adverbials, such as (b-)ywm ‘when (< on the day)’ and b-kn
‘when’.
5 SYNTAX
ASA syntax is highly affected by the specific genre of the epigraphic material. Inscrip-
tions follow a rather strict formulaic pattern according to genre. Texts consisting of sev-
eral independent sentences are initially only to be expected in letters and juridical texts,
mostly written in minuscule script on wooden sticks. Conversely, truly monumental
genres such as dedicatory and building inscriptions comprise only one sentence. This
sentence always starts with the main subject of the text, probably to emphasize the author.
The pattern was already developed in early times and is mainly attested in rather short
laconic inscriptions. Nevertheless, extra adverbials can be included in form of subordi-
nate, typically temporal, clauses inserted within the core of the text (see text sample A).
This structure is subsequently enriched with further elements. All parts of such texts are
indicated by specific and mostly obligatory lexical or syntactical markers. Nevertheless,
the basic single-sentence structure may be broken by insertions of narrative passages.
These show standard Semitic syntax and are typically well constructed as such. However,
their correct insertion into the surrounding sentence often failed.
5.1 Agreement
Corresponding elements of speech mainly agree in gender, number and, if applicable,
state. Nevertheless, collective nouns are often construed according to sense, and groups
336 Anne Multhoff
consisting mainly of women may be construed with a generic feminine, the generic
masculine being otherwise a norm. As text composition was often done rather superfi-
cially, agreement between elements separated by more extensive insertions, for example
non-personal titles, may be at odds, as is also the case with agreement between different
subsections of the text.
5.2 Sentential word order

The majority of clauses in the extant inscriptions has a finite verbal predicate. The stan-
dard word order is predicate-subject-object-adverbial phrase (see example a). Except for
the predicate, all elements can be suppressed if the context is clear. This typically applies
to a pronominal subject which is already encoded in the morphology of the verb. ASA
can combine several verbal expressions within one sentence. This is mostly done via the
so called infinitive chain: a finite verb is followed by one or more infinitives coordinated
with the conjunction w- ‘and’ (example b). While this construction is common to all
ASA languages, Qatabanic has the peculiarity of combining several uncoordinated finite
forms, as in example c.
Nominal clauses are attested to a much lesser extent. The standard word order is
subject-predicate-adverbial clause. Possible predicates are nouns, prepositional phrases
or subordinated adverbial clauses (example d).
Any element of the sentence can be transposed to an initial position. A particle f- initi-
ating the remainder of the sentence is optional (on the particle in general cf. Nebes 1995).
Even though originally probably expressing focus, this transposition is in the extant cor-
pus used almost exclusively as a means of text segmentation (see example e and text
sample B).
a w-tʕlm yhfrʕ b-ḏn mṣdq-n

and-sign.sc.3msg Yuhafriʕ at-dem.msg document-det.sg
‘and Yuhafriʕ signed on this document’.
b ḫlḥmd . . . bnyt w-hwṯrn w-hšqrn byt-n
Ḫālḥamad . . . build.sc.3fsg and-found.inf and-complete.inf house-det.sg
‘Ḫālḥamad . . . built, laid the foundations of and completed the house’.
c ʕsyw ẓrbw qbr-smy
acquire.sc.3mdu purchase.sc.3mdu tomb.cst-3mdu
‘the two of them acquired and purchased their tomb’.
d w-hʔ qrn-m b-hgr-n nšqm
and-3msg.nom garrison-indet.sg at-city-det.sg Našqum
‘and he was on garrison duty in the city of Našqum’.
e w-bn hgr-n nʕḍ f-gbʔw
and-from city-det.sg Naʕḍ foc-return.sc.3mpl
‘and they returned from the city of Naʕd’.
5.3 Definiteness
The ending ‑n etc. of the determinate state functions as definite article; see §4.2.1 with
Table 13.7. Neither heads of construct chains nor nouns with pronominal suffixes can
take a definite article, since both usages require a construct state.

ASA shows both construct chains and analytic constructions using the relative pronoun
as a genitive exponent, albeit in different contexts and to various extents. Both types
can take either a noun (examples a–c) or a relative clause (examples d–e) as second
element. In purely nominal constructions, the construct chain seems to prevail, except
for specifications of material as in example b (note, however, that the other ASA lan-
guages use a construct chain in this particular case, as in example c). Analytic con-
structions are more or less obligatory if further specifications of the head are inserted
(example e).
a mṣrʕ-y fnwt ṣrḥt-hmw

doorleaf-cst.du gate.cst courtyard.cst-3mpl
‘the two leaves of their courtyard’s gate’
b mslm-n ḏ-ḏhb-n (Sabaic)
altar-det.sg rel-bronze-det.sg
‘the altar of bronze’
c mslm w-mfḥm-y ḏhb-n (Minaic)
altar.sg.cst and-incense_altar-cst.du bronze-det
‘the altar and the two incense-altars of bronze’
d kl sbʔt w-ḍbyʔ w-tqdmt sbʔy
all.cst expedition.cst.pl and-campaign.cst.pl and-battle.cst.pl go.sc.3mdu
‘all expeditions, campaigns and battles they went on’
e hnt sbʔt-n w-ḍbʔt-n ḏ-sbʔw
dem.fpl.obl expedition.pl-det and-campaign.pl-det rel-go.sc.3mpl
‘those expeditions and campaigns they went on’
5.5 Subordination
Subordinative clauses are typically introduced by a conjunction. There is a broad vari-
ety of adverbial clauses of which only some common examples can be illustrated here.
They include, for instance, temporal clauses introduced by b-kn ‘when’ (example a) and
(b-)ywm ‘when (< on the day)’, comparative clauses introduced by ḥg-n (k-) ‘as (< on
the authority of)’ (example b) and causal clauses introduced by l-qbly (ḏ-/ḏt) ‘because’
(example c). Object clauses are introduced by the conjunctions k- or (b-)ḏ(t) ‘that’ (exam-
ples d and e). Due to the conventional, highly formalized single-sentence structure of
most inscriptions, texts often comprise several adverbial clauses that follow the initial
main clause.
Independent relative clauses are normally introduced by the relative pronoun ḏ-
(example f ) or its feminine or plural equivalents; indefinite mn is much less common. For
attributive relative clauses, see §5.4.
a ḥmd-m b-ḏt ḫmr-hw mhrg-m

praise-indet.sg with-rel grant.sc.3msg-3msg killing-indet.sg
b-kn sbʔw ʔrḍ ḥḍrmwt
at-so go.sc.3mpl land.cst Ḥaḍramawt
‘(he dedicated) in praise because (the deity) has granted him a killing when they
went out for the land of Ḥaḍramawt’
338 Anne Multhoff
b w-bhʔ l-ʕbr rbslm sʕdm ḥg-n

and-enter.sc.3msg to-to Rabbsalām Saʕdum authority-from
stwšʕ
ask_for_help.sc.3msg.pass
‘and Saʕdum went to Rabbsalām as he was asked for help’
c hqny ʔlmqh bʕl ʔwm
dedicate.sc.3msg ʔAlmaqah lord.cst ʔAwām
ṣlmt-m ḏhb-m l-qbly ḏt mtʕ
female_statue-indet.sg bronze-indet.sg to-for rel save.sc.3msg
bt-hw
daughter.cst-3msg
‘(ʔIlhaʕān) dedicated a female statue in bronze to ʔAlmaqah, the lord of (the
temple) ʔAwām, because he saved his daughter’
d w-wkbw flyt-hmw k-ʕbr-n-mw ʔlmqhw
and-find.sc.3mpl decision.cst-3mpl that-to-from-foc ʔAlmaqah
bʕl ʔwm kwn ḫdg ʔtw sqy-m
lord.cst ʔAwām be.sc.3msg neglect.inf come.inf irrigation-indet
‘and they found their (oracular) decision that particularly on behalf of (the deity)
ʔAlmaqah, the lord of (the temple) ʔAwām, the coming of irrigation was interrupted’
e w-ykbw flyt-hmw ʕbr-n ʔlmqh b-ḏt
and-find.sc.3mpl decision.cst-3mpl to-away ʔAlmaqah with-rel
sbṭ hwtrʕṯt . . . ʕbd-n ṯwbʔl
beat.sc.3msg Hawtarʕaṯt . . . servant-det.sg Ṯawbʔil
‘and they found their (oracular) decision with (the deity) ʔAlmaqah that Haw-
tarʕaṯt . . . has beaten the servant Ṯawbʔil’
f w-l-ḫmr-hw ḏ-yḫtmrn-hw
and-for-grant.inf-3msg rel-ask_for.pc-n.3msg-3msg
‘(he dedicated in order that. . .) and in order that (the deity) will grant him what
he will ask from him’
5.6 Negation
The only particle of negation in Standard-Sabaic is ʔl ‘not’. It is used both in nominal
and verbal phrases irrespective of tense. In Late Sabaic, this is replaced by a particle dʔ.
Only the Amiritic dialect uses lm + pc (as in Arabic) to negate past-time clauses, as in
example a. The particle always precedes the negated, as in example b. Due to limited con-
texts, truly nominal negations are almost exclusively restricted to the expressions ʔl ʔ(y)s
‘nobody’ (example c) and ʔl tʕly ‘no removal’. Basic Minaic negations are lhm and l-.
a w-lm yġtsl
and-neg wash_oneself.pc.3msg
‘and he did not wash himself’.
b ḏ-dʕw w-ʔl dʕw
rel-know.sc.3mpl and-neg know.sc.3mpl
‘those they knew of and they did not know of’.
c w- ʔl ʔs sʔl-hmy b-ḥrt-hmy
and-neg man.absolute?.sg claim.sc.3msg-3du about-channel.cst.sg-3du
‘and nobody shall claim their channel from them’.
6 LEXICON
Since all ASA languages are only epigraphically attested, our knowledge of the lexicon
is restricted. Observable lexical differences within South Arabia are probably rather idi-
omatic than truly lexical. Of the several thousands of distinct lexemes known so far, only
a few can be securely distinguished as loan words from other Semitic or Indo-European
languages. Borrowing on a recognizable scale only started in monotheistic times, and was
largely restricted to religious terms. It should, however, be kept in mind that linguistic
documentation for the immediately adjacent regions is very poor. Possible borrowings
within the area therefore largely escape observation.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
Sample text A: YM 375 = CIAS 95.41/r 4
The text was first edited by Beeston (1977: 225–7). It is commonly dated to the 8th cen-
tury bce. The carefully executed stela has been exhibited in many expositions on Ancient
Yemen and is often illustrated in catalogs on the topic.
yśqʔl bn brrm brmy-n hqny

Yaśiqʔil son.cst.sg Barīrum of_Barām-det.sg dedicate.sc.3msg
nswr ʕmšfq ywm ršw w-ywm
Niswar ʕAmmšafaq when be_priest.sc.3msg and-when
hwfr mwfrt ʔlmqh b-ʔbhy
make_pilgrimage.sc.3msg pilgrimage.cst.sg ʔAlmaqah at-ʔAbhay
b-ʔlmqh w-b krbʔl w-b nbṭyfʕ
with-ʔAlmaqah and-with Karibʔil and-with Nabaṭyafaʕ
‘Yaśiqʔil, son of Barīrum, the Barāmite, dedicated to (the divinity) Niswar (the man
named) ʕAmmšafaq when he (Y.) was priest, and when he accomplished (the god) ʔAl-
maqah’s pilgrimage in (the month of) ʔAbhay – with (the help of) ʔAlmaqah, with (the
help of) Karibʔil, and with (the help of) Nabaṭyafaʕ.’
Sample text B: Mon. script. sab 68

This letter on various private matters was first published by Weninger (2002: 217–23).
It can be dated to around the 2nd century ce. Some corrections have been made by Peter
Stein. Even though more or less devoid of actual content, the text is an illustrative exam-
ple of the genre. For the abbreviation pc-n, see §§4.4.1–4.4.2.
l-šfnm ʕm-n ʔrzn w-ʕṯtr l-hṣbḥ-n l-k

to-Šafnum with-away ʔArzan and-ʕAṯtar opt-make_shine. pc-n.3msg to-2msg
nʕmt-m w-sṭr sṭrk b-ʕm rḥbm
happiness-indet and-line.cst.sg write.sc.2sg at-with Raḥbum
f-mḍʔ w-rḍy w-hʔ f-ʔl yḫdg-n
foc-come.sc.3msg and-please.inf and-3sg.nom foc-neg neglect.pc-n.3msg
340 Anne Multhoff
b-hṭbn l-k kl ʔḥṣn-k w-hʔ

at-inform.inf for-2sg all.cst subordinate.cst.pl-2sg and-3sg.nom
f-rʔ k-hysr-n b-n ṣnʕw ḫṭ bnt-k
foc-behold that-send.pc-n.3msg at-away Ṣanʕāʔ line.cst daughter.cst-2sg
k-wkb-hmw rḥbm k-yʔty-n b-n ḍfr

when-find.sc.3msg-3mpl Raḥbum when-come.pc-n.3msg at-away Ẓafār
w-b wzʔ sṭr l-hmw l-tḥmd-n w-hnʔm
and-at continue.inf write.inf to-3mpl opt-praise.pc-n.2sg.pass and-Hāniʔum
f-ḥywn l-hw w-ʕlhn f-ḥywn l-hw
foc-greet.imp.msg for-3msg and-ʕAlhan foc-greet.imp.msg for-3msg
w-l-k nʕmt-m
and-for-2sg happiness-indet
‘To Šafnum from ʔArzan. May (the god) ʕAṯtar let happiness shine on you. The letter you
have sent with Raḥbum has arrived and was pleasant. He (= ʔArzan) will not neglect to
inform all your subordinates on your behalf. And he – behold! – will send you the line
(= letter) of your daughter from Ṣanʕāʔ as soon as Raḥbum has reached them when he
comes back from Ẓafār. You shall be praised that you will continue to write to them. Greet
Hāniʔum for him, and greet ʕAlhān for him. And for you, happiness!’
REFERENCES
Beeston, Alfred F.L. “Offering of a Person.” In Corpus des inscriptions et antiquités
sud-arabes I/1. Louvain: Peeters, 1977: 225–7.
Multhoff, Anne. “TFʕL/FTʕL – Die verbalen T-Stämme im Altsüdarabischen.” Folia
Orientalia 47 (2010): 19–69.
Multhoff, Anne. “Die Verbalstammbildung im Sabäischen” (Ph.D. dissertation,
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena 2011).
Nebes, Norbert. “Zur Form der Imperfektbasis des unvermehrten Grundstammes im
Altsüdarabischen.” In Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by
Wolfhart Heinrichs and Gregor Schoeler, Beirut: Beiruter Texte und Studien, 1994:
59–81.
Nebes, Norbert. Die Konstruktionen mit /fa-/ im Altsüdarabischen. Syntaktische und
Epigraphische Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995.
Stein, Peter. “The ‘Himyaritic’ Language in Pre-Islamic Yemen. A Critical Re-evaluation.”
Semitica et Classica 1 (2008): 203–12.
Stein, Peter. Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der
Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München. Band 1: Die Inschriften der mittel- und
spätsabäischen Periode. Tübingen/Berlin: Wasmuth, 2010.
Stein, Peter. “Palaeography of the Ancient South Arabian Script. New Evidence for an
Absolute Chronology.” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy (2013): 186–95.
Weninger, Stefan. “More Sabaic minuscule texts from Munich,” In Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 32, 2002: 217–23.
GENERAL ANCIENT SOUTH ARABIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grammars and textbooks
Arbach, Mounir. “Le maḏābien: Lexique – Onomastique et grammaire d’une langue de
l’Arabie méridionale préislamique” (Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Provence Aix
Marseille I 1993).
Frantsouzoff, Serguei A. “En marge des inscriptions de Raybūn. Remarques sur la
grammaire, le lexique et le formulaire de la langue ḥaḍramoutique épigraphique.”
Arabia. Revue de Sabéologie 1 (2003): 39–58, 211–13.
Stein, Peter. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen. Rahden/
Westf.: Marie Leidorf, 2003.
Stein, Peter. Lehrbuch der sabäischen Sprache. 1. Teil: Grammatik; 2. Teil: Chrestomathie.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012–13.
Dictionaries
Beeston, Alfred F. L., Mahmud A. Ghul, Walter W. Müller, and Jacques Ryckmans.
Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic). Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters/Beyrouth:
Librairie du Liban, 1982.
Ricks, Stephen D. Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian. Roma: Pontificio Istituto
Biblico, 1989.
An online resource for Sabaic is the Sabäisches Wörterbuch hosted at Jena University:
sabaweb.uni-jena.de
Overview articles
Nebes, Norbert and Stein, Peter. “Ancient South Arabian.” In The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 454–87.
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004.
Stein, Peter, “Ancient South Arabian.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Stefan
Weninger, 1042–73. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
Documentation
An easily accessible online resource is the Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions (CSAI)
hosted at Pisa University. The corpus is currently available via the Digital Archive for
the Study of Pre-Islamic Arabian Inscriptions (DASI): dasi.humnet.unipi.it
CHAPTER 14
SAFAITIC AHMAD AL-JALLADSAFAITIC
Ahmad Al-Jallad
1 INTRODUCTION
Safaitic is a term for the northernmost variety of the South Semitic script classified under
the umbrella of Ancient North Arabian. The Safaitic inscriptions were carved mostly by
nomadic pastoralists, concentrated in the Syro-Jordanian Harrah, a basalt desert stretch-
ing from southern Syria to northwestern Saudi Arabia (see Map 14.1). In the same area,
one also encounters, but in much smaller numbers, Thamudic B and D, Greek, Nabataean
Aramaic, Palmyrene Aramaic and early Arabic-script inscriptions. Safaitic texts are also
occasionally found elsewhere. Isolated examples come from Palmyra (Dentzer-Feydy
and Teixidor 1993: 144–5), Dura Europos (Macdonald 2005) and even as far as Pompeii
(Calzini Gysens 1990).
SYRIA
JORDAN
SAUDI ARABIA
LEGEND
Safaitic
MAP 14.1 THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SAFAITIC INSCRIPTIONS

Safaitic 343
1.1 Classification
Safaitic has usually been classified as an Ancient North Arabian “language.” This term
refers to a dialect bundle closely related to, and perhaps mutually intelligible with, Clas-
sical Arabic (Macdonald 2009: 318, n. 198). In several recent works, Al-Jallad (2015a:
11–13, 2017d, forthcoming) has suggested that the distinction between Safaitic and Old
Arabic (i.e. Arabic from the pre-Islamic period) is arbitrary, and that, linguistically, these
texts represent a dialect continuum of Old Arabic, spanning from the southern Levant
to northwest Arabia. Safaitic shares many of the important isoglosses that characterize
Arabic, including but not limited to the following (Al-Jallad 2017d, Huehnergard 2017,
and Chapter 15):
1 system of verbal negation

2 the G-passive participle pattern mafʕūl
3 ʔan as a complementizer
4 the use of f to introduce modal clauses
5 independent object pronominal base (ʔ)y
6 unique set of prepositions and adverbs, such as ʕnd [ʕend] ‘at’ (Classical Arabic
ʕinda), f [phiː] ‘in’ (Classical Arabic fī), etc.
7 vestiges of nunation
8 the subjunctive use of the prefix conjugation terminating in -a
Unlike later forms of Arabic, Safaitic exhibits a variety of definite articles. While the most
frequent form is h-, other article forms are attested, including ʔl (see §4.2.5), suggesting
that the ʔal article was one of many competing forms in the earliest stages of Arabic.
Thus, Safaitic represents our largest corpus of Old Arabic, and gives us our clearest view
of the language more than half a millennium before the rise of Islam.
1.2 Dialectal variation

A considerable amount of linguistic variation is attested in the Safaitic corpus; however,
the laconic nature of most inscriptions, combined with the fact that their authors were
mobile, prevents us from interpreting the exact nature of this variation. Moreover, the
diachronic dimension remains unclear, as no clear chronology of these texts has been
established. Individual points of variation will be discussed under their respective gram-
matical headings.
1.3 Dating
The dating of the Safaitic inscriptions is wrought with difficulties. Scholars have con-
ventionally placed their period of production between the 1st century bce and the 4th
century ce (Macdonald 1994). A small minority of inscriptions contain a dating formula
introduced by the word s1nt ‘year’ (Al-Jallad 2015a: 211). The nomads who produced
Safaitic inscriptions do not seem to have had a fixed calendar; instead, texts were dated to
notable local events, many of which have been lost to history, for example, ‘the year ʔdrm
died’ (KRS 1852). On the other hand, a few of these texts mention identifiable groups
or events, such as ‘the year of the Nabataean war’ (C 211). Since most of the latter type
belong to the Nabataean and Roman periods, it has been suggested that the inscriptions
344 Ahmad Al-Jallad
begin in the 1st century bce. However, we must bear in mind two facts: first, the vast
majority of texts are not dated; second, none of the other desert North Arabian inscrip-
tions contain a dating formula.
It may be the case that the tradition of dating inscriptions was a late innovation.
Thus, basing the chronology of the entire corpus on this small subset of texts could be
misguided. Instead, the practice of carving Safaitic may be much older than previously
thought and only at a relatively late period was the custom of dating one’s inscription
introduced. The development of the Safaitic script from its still-unidentified anteced-
ent North Arabian alphabet remains to be worked out. An important inscription from
Bāyir, Jordan, carved in an undefined “Ancient North Arabian” script and containing
a prayer formula common to both Safaitic and Thamudic B may bear on this question.
This text, which contains an undeciphered Canaanite component, invokes the gods of
the Iron Age kingdoms of Edom, Moab and Ammon, suggesting that it dates to the Iron
Age II period (Hayajneh, Ababneh, and Khraysheh 2015). It therefore may be the case
that Safaitic reflects a continuous tradition of writing in the region stretching back to
this period.
1.4 Text genres

The corpus of Safaitic inscriptions, which now nears 40,000 texts, contains mostly
anthroponyms, ranging from single names to genealogies exceeding 14 generations. Sub-
jects include building inscriptions, funerary texts, prayers for safety during migration,
pasturing, watch keeping, military activities, commemorations of the performance of reli-
gious rituals and the signing of rock art. Only two literary texts have been discovered so
far, both poems (Al-Jallad 2015b, Al-Jallad 2017c). The purpose of the Safaitic inscrip-
tions is the subject of much debate and to date no consensus has been reached as to why
these texts were carved (Al-Jallad 2015a: 1–10). Their highly formulaic structure and
stable language suggest that the texts containing narrative content belong to a tradition of
writing rather than being examples of opportunistic graffiti.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
The Safaitic script is a branch of the South Semitic alphabet. Previously, scholars
assumed that Safaitic, and indeed all North Arabian scripts, derived from the Ancient
South Arabian script. This relationship, however, has been soundly disproven (Al-Jallad
2015a: 26–7, and especially Macdonald 2015). Instead, the Safaitic script seems to share
a common ancestor with the Ancient South Arabian alphabet rather than descending from
it. The relationship between Safaitic and the other Ancient North Arabian scripts remains
unclear. Thamudic B would seem to be the closest in terms of letter shapes and inscrip-
tional formulae.
A small number of Safaitic inscriptions contain a mixture of Hismaic letter forms,
another Ancient North Arabian script used primarily in southern Jordan and Northwest
Saudi Arabia.1 The patterns of this mixture vary across the corpus of such texts and the
exact reasons for this are unclear. A relatively large number of the Safaitic inscriptions
concentrated in the region of the ancient oasis of Dūmah (modern Dūmat al-Jandal), how-
ever, exhibit a more consistent mixture of Safaitic and Hismaic letters, and may constitute
a distinct script type (Norris 2018).
Safaitic 345
FIGURE 14.1 SAFAITIC SCRIPT CHART: TOP ROW NORMAL LETTER FORMS AND BOTTOM
ROW SQUARE LETTER FORMS
Source: Al-Jallad (2015a: 37).
The Safaitic script comprises 28 separate glyphs, one for each phoneme in Old Ara-
bic (for Classical Arabic phonology, see Chapter 15, §3). Despite their seemingly infor-
mal nature, the Safaitic alphabet exhibits a high degree of stability in letter shapes (see
Figure 14.1). Nevertheless, different script variants exist, most robustly described by
Clark (1979: 70–1); variant letter forms occur throughout the corpus, and sometimes
within a single inscription. For a description of the letter forms, see Al-Jallad (2015a:
29–38) and Macdonald (2015: 30–3).
The orthography of Safaitic is purely consonantal. No vowel letters are employed in
any position and vowel prothesis, if it existed, is not noted either. What is more, diph-
thongs, at least word internally but often in word-final position as well, were treated as
long vowels, even though they did not monophthongize in pronunciation (§3.2). This
phenomenon is illustrated clearly in Safaitic–Greek bilinguals, e.g. ġṯ [ɣawθ] = Γαυτος
(Al-Jallad and al-Manaser 2016: 57–60).
3 PHONOLOGY
Like Classical Arabic, Safaitic keeps distinct 28 of the 29 Proto-West Semitic consonants
(see Table 14.1), exhibiting only the merger of s1 (*s) and s3 (*ʦ) to [s].
3.1 Consonants
The realization of s1: this glyph corresponds to Classical Arabic /s/ (the letter sīn). Bee-
ston (1962) proposed that the plain sibilant of Arabic was pronounced [ʃ] even as late
as the 8th century ce. This theory was applied to North Arabian as well based on the
use of the phoneme to render loans from Northwest Semitic languages containing [ʃ],
and the use of ṣ [(t)sʕ] to render Northwest Semitic and Greek [s]. However, with the
346 Ahmad Al-Jallad
FIGURE 14.2 A SAFAITIC ROCK INSCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHED IN SITU IN NORTHEASTERN

JORDAN
Image courtesy of Ahmad Al-Jallad.
TABLE 14.1 CONSONANTAL PHONEMES OF SAFAITIC
Bilabial Labiovelar Interdental Dental/ Palatal Velar Pharyngeal Glottal

Alveolar
Stop f [ph]? b[b] t [θ] d [ð] ẓ [θʕ] ? t [t] d [d] ṭ[tʕ]? k[k] g[g] ʔ [ʔ]
q[q]
Nasal m[m] n [n]
Trill r [r]
Fricative s1 [s] z[z] ṣ[(t)sʕ]? ḫ [x] ġ [ɣ] ḥ [ħ] ʕ [ʕ] h [h]
~ [(d)zʕ] ?
Lateral s2[ɬ] l[l] ḍ [(t)ɬʕ]?
Approx. w[w] y [j]
accumulation of more texts, it is clear that both s1and ṣ were used to transcribe foreign
[s], much as in Classical and Modern Arabic (Al-Jallad 2017a: 129–32, 138). It therefore
seems more economical to posit that Safaitic s1 remained [s].
The realization of s2: this glyph corresponds to Classical Arabic š ([ʃ], the letter šīn).
Since s2 was not used to transcribe Northwest Semitic [ʃ], it is reasonable to assume
that it retained its original, lateral articulation, [ɬ].
The realization of the “emphatics”: Greek transcriptions of Arabic names from settled
areas near the Harrah as well as bilingual Safaitic-Greek inscriptions from the desert
itself indicate that the emphatic series was voiceless (see Table 14.2). It is unclear
whether they were pharyngealized or glottalized; in our phonetic reconstruction, we
will assume that they were pharyngealized (Al-Jallad 2015a: 43–4, 2017a: 128–38).
Safaitic 347
TABLE 14.2 THE “EMPHATIC” CONSONANTS
Proto-Semitic Old Arabic (in Greek Safaitic (Emphatic Classical Arabic

Transcription) Correlate Unclear)
[θ’] τ<t> [θʕ] [ðʕ] ‫ظ‬

[t’] τ<t> [tʕ] [tʕ] ‫ط‬
[ʦ’] σ<s> [sʕ] [sʕ] ‫ص‬
[tɬ’] σ<s> [ɬʕ] [ɮʕ] ‫ض‬
[k’] κ<k> [q] [q] ‫ق‬
The realization of *p: it is natural to assume that Proto-Semitic *p was realized as [f ]
as in all other varieties of Arabic; however, the fact that authors used the f glyph
rather than b to render Greek π, e.g. f lfṣ = Φίλιππος (KRS 1991) may suggest that
the phoneme was still realized as [ph].
3.2 Vowels
Greek transcriptions indicate that the short high vowels, *u and *i, were realized lower
than in Classical Arabic, i.e. as [o] and [e], respectively. Short *a, however, remained
stable in all environments. The long vowels do not seem to have conditioned allophones,
and were realized as [aː], [uː] and [iː] (Al-Jallad 2015a: 46).
3.3 Diphthongs and triphthongs

Greek transcriptions further suggest that the diphthongs *aj and *aw did not monoph-
thongize, ġṯ = Γαυτος [ɣawθ-] and tm = Θαιμος [tajm-] (Al-Jallad 2015a: 47, Al-Jallad
and al-Manaser 2016). The Proto-Semitic triphthongs *awa and *aja also pass unchanged
into Safaitic, while the sequences awu/i and ayu/i, found most commonly in medial-weak
verbs, occasionally collapse (Al-Jallad 2017b: 76).
3.4 Marginal sound changes

Several marginal sound changes are attested in the inscriptions:
w and y: confusion of w and y is common in verbs III–y/w, but this may be the result
of morphological merger rather than a purely phonological phenomenon.
ḍ > ṭ: a very rare sound change, attested a handful of times in inscriptions from north-
ern Jordan (Al-Jallad 2017b: 77).
q >ʔ: this sound change is attested twice in the word qyẓ > ʔyḍ ‘to spend the dry sea-
son’ (Macdonald 2004: 498, Al-Jallad 2015a: 53).
ẓ > ḍ: this change is attested a handful of times, notably in the same inscription that
shows q > ʔ (see earlier).
ḍ > ẓ: the writing of the lateral with the “emphatic” interdental glyph is rarely attested.
The clearest example is found in the word ḍrt ‘enclosure’ (CSNS 318), usually
spelled ẓrt (Al-Jallad 2015a: 355).
348 Ahmad Al-Jallad
Loss of the glottal stop: the glottal stop is very rarely lost, yielding a homorganic glide.
This is clearly attested in the expression ḏ-yl [ðiːjaːl] ‘of the lineage’ from ḏ-ʔl
[ðiːʔaːl] (AAHY 1, Al-Jallad 2015a: 53, 2017b: 79).
N-assimilation: the sporadic assimilation of n to a following consonant is found
throughout the Ancient North Arabian inscriptions (Macdonald 2004: 501), as well
as in Classical Arabic (e.g. assimilation of the final ‑n of nominal forms), and in
modern Arabic dialects (e.g. Egyptian Arabic bitt < *bint), and so appears to be
an areal feature of North Arabia. In Safaitic, assimilation most frequently occurs
in unstressed environments, mainly with proclitics such as the preposition *min,
written mostly as m and only rarely as mn. By-forms with and without assimilation
abound: e.g. bnt [bent] (WH 1861) and bt [bett] (WH 214), both ‘daughter’.
4 MORPHOLOGY
Independent personal pronouns are attested very rarely. Only the 1sg is attested with
certainty, ʔn [ʔanaː]; the 3msg independent pronoun may be attested as h [huː], but this
depends on the interpretation of a few difficult texts, where there is a possibility of read-
ing it as a clitic pronoun as well. The independent object pronoun is attested once with
the base y, the 3msg yh [ejjaːh] (AWS 218).
The most frequently attested pronominal forms are the clitic pronouns. These express
the genitive when attached to nouns, the pronominal object of a preposition, the object of
finite verbs, and, rarely, the subject or object of infinitives. The following clitic forms are
known (see Table 14.3).
The n-infix: the 3rd person pronominal clitics can sometimes follow an n-infix, a form
found in other Semitic languages. The n-suffix is attested on clitics attached to the
prefix conjugation, imperative, and suffix conjugation: ʔgʕ-nh [ʔawgaʕa-nnoh] ‘he
caused him pain’ (KRS 3074); ḏ yʕwr-nh [ðVː yoʕawwer-Vnnoh] ‘he who effaces
it’ (LP 566); s²ʕ-nh [ɬiːʕ-Vnnoh] ‘join him’ (KRS 307).
4.2 Demonstratives
Demonstrative pronouns are infrequently attested. The most common deictic element is
the definite article itself, which often has a demonstrative force: l-pn h-bkrt ‘this camel
(referring to a rock drawing of a camel) is by pn’ or l-pn h-nfs1 ‘this funerary monument is
for pn’. In rare cases, demonstrative pronouns are used in the same contexts as the deictic
h. These are found in Table 14.4.
TABLE 14.3 CLITIC PERSONAL PRONOUNS
singular dual plural
1c ∅ -n [-niː]
2m -k [-ka] -km[-komaː] (?) -km [-kom]
2f -k [-ek] or [-kiː]
3m -h [-oh], -nh [-Vnnoh] -hm[-homaː] (?) -hm [-hom]
3f -h [-ah] or [-ha]
Safaitic 349
Masculine Singular ḏ [ðaː]

ḏ ṣwy ‘this cairn’ (LP 684)
Feminine Singular ḏ [ðiː]
ḏ h-dr ‘this place’ (ASWS 217)
t [tiː]
t h-ḫṭṭ ‘this writing’ (BS 870)
Plural ʔly [ʔolaːy]/[ʔolay]
ʔ-ʔfs1 ʔly ‘these funerary monuments’ (unpub.)
4.3 Relatives
Relative pronouns are most often attested as part of the phrase ḏ ʔl ‘of the lineage’.
The following forms (Table 14.5) are known. While these clearly indicate that the rel-
ative inflected for gender and number, in some inscriptions the masculine singular has
been generalized for all genders and numbers. The indefinite relative has only one form,
m [maː].
4.4 Nominals
4.4.1 Gender
Two genders are distinguished, an unmarked masculine and a feminine usually marked
by -t [‑at]. Lexically determined feminine nouns are also known, mainly pertaining to
animates: ʔtn ‘she-ass’ (C 505), ʔm ‘mother’ (ZSI 1).
The sound change -at > -ah, which operates in Aramaic and most varieties of Arabic,
did not yet operate in Safaitic. Only one example of this sound change is attested so far:
nʕmh [naʕaːmah] (AWS 302) from nʕmt ‘ostrich.’
4.4.2 Number
Safaitic inflects for three numbers: singular, dual and plural. The dual is indicated
orthographically by the termination -n, which may reflect either [aːn] or [ajn] depend-
ing on whether case inflection remained active, bkrtn [bakr-at-ajn] (camel-f‑du) ‘two
she-camels’ (WH 182). Two strategies of plural formation exist: pattern replacement and
suffixes, and these sometimes go hand and hand. Plural patterns, corresponding to their
Classical Arabic cognates in parentheses, include the following: ʔCCC (=ʔafʕaːl, ʔafʕul),
CCCn (fVʕlaːn, suffix faʕal-uː/iːna), CCCt (faʕalat, suffix fVʕVl-aːt), CCC (fVʕal, fuʕuːl,
fVʕl, fVʕlay, etc.), ʔCCCt (ʔafʕilat), CCCy (fVʕlaː, fVʕlaːʔ), ʔCCCy (ʔafʕilaːʔ).
TABLE 14.5 RELATIVE MARKER
Masculine Singular ḏ (passim) [ðVː]

Feminine Singular ḏʔt (CSNS 412) [ðaːʔat]
ḏʔ (SHS 10) [ðaːʔ]
ḏt (JbS 1) [ðaːt]
Plural ḏw (C 2156) [ðawVː]
350 Ahmad Al-Jallad
External plural suffixes are m n (uː/iːna) and f t (aːt). These suffixes occur most fre-
quently on verbal adjectives (participles), as in mḥrbn [maħruːbiːna] ‘plundered’ (mpl)
(HCH 71); ġnmt [ɣanamaːt] ‘goats’ (C 4448).
Singulatives and collectives: collectives are lexically determined and from these
singulatives can be formed through the addition of the feminine suffix ‑t. Singula-
tives are pluralized with the termination ‑aːt, which is orthographically identical to
the singular: ḍʔn [ɬʕaʔn] ‘sheep’ > ḍʔnt [ɬʕaʔnat] ‘an ewe’ > ḍʔn t [ɬʕaʔnaːt] ‘a number
of sheep’.
4.4.3 Case
Our only clear witness to the existence of case inflection in Safaitic is the Graeco-Arabic
inscription A1 (Al-Jallad and al-Manaser 2015). This text attests the loss of the final short
vowels *u and *i but the maintenance of *a as a marker of the accusative: (α)ουα ειραυ
βακλα [wa ji-rʕa-w baql-a] (conj 3-pasture.pst-mpl herbage-acc) ‘and they pastured on
fresh herbage’; cf. the common Safaitic phrase rʕy bql. All other examples of case inflec-
tion in the consonantal Safaitic alphabet can be debated.
4.4.4 State
The genitive construction remains the normal way to express a possessive relationship
between two nouns. As in other Central Semitic languages, only the final element of a
genitive construction can take the definite article.
bʔs¹ ʔ-s¹nt
misfortune.cst def-year
‘misfortune of this year’ (SIJ 37)
Safaitic permits the coordination of two (or more) nouns in construct with the
conjunction w:
ʕm w wld ḏ yʕwr h-s¹fr

people.cst conj offspring.cst rel 3msg.efface.iprf def-writing
‘(may destruction befall) the people and offspring of him who would efface this writ-
ing’ (AWS 81)
Dual and masculine plural nouns lose their final n when in construct with a noun or
when they bear a pronominal suffix. There only seem to be vestiges of nunation (i.e. final
n on singular nouns, as in Classical Arabic), e.g. mḥltn (KRS 1551) ‘dearth of pasture’,
wln (AAEK 394) ‘woe’, ʔmtn ‘Libra’ (KRS 1770), ʕrtn ‘a journey’ (SG 5) and possibly
ʔws1n ‘a boon’ (RWQ 62). Otherwise, the feature has completely disappeared, and no
examples in Greek transcription are known.
4.4.5 Definiteness
Definite nouns are marked by a prefixed article, which can vary in its morphological
form. The most common article is h- [ha-], but ʔ [ʔa-] is not uncommon. The article ʔl is
Safaitic 351
also encountered, without assimilation to following coronals (see Chapter 15, §3). It is

possible that the ʔ-article is an assimilating variant of ʔl. Rarer yet is the article form hn,
which is attested only a handful of times, including one occurrence in an inscription by
a man from the tribe of Ḥwlt (LP 87). This tribe was located in North Arabia, and the hn
article may be a dialectal feature of that area. A few important inscriptions lack a definite
article in places where it is expected (e.g. HSNS 5), a feature common in the Hismaic
inscriptions. These varieties probably reflect the original situation – an Arabic dialect
without a definite article.
4.5 Numerals and quantifier

The quantifier kll is attested for ‘all’, ‘every’, ‘each’; the individual meanings are syntac-
tically conditioned. Its spelling suggests that it was bisyllabic, perhaps reflecting a plural
form [kelaːl] or [koluːl].
The cardinal numerals found in Table 14.6 are attested (ordinals are not yet
attested).
The syntax of numerals is in agreement with the classical Semitic languages: digits
exhibit gender polarity with the quantified noun; the decade and digit of 12 (and presum-
ably 11) exhibit polarity with the quantified noun; the decade of the teen agrees with the
quantified noun while the digit exhibits polarity.
4.6 Verbs
The verbal system of Safaitic is rather close to Classical Arabic and what can be recon-
structed for Proto-Central Semitic: a suffix conjugation, a prefix conjugation that inflects
for three moods, an imperative, active and passive participles, and an infinitive (Classical
Arabic maṣdar). The following section will outline the form and function of these indi-
vidual parts of the verbal system.
TABLE 14.6 CARDINAL NUMERALS
Masculine Feminine
1 wḥd
3 ṯlṯt ṯlṯ
4 ʔrbʕt ʔrbʕ
5 ḫms¹t ḫms¹
6 s¹t
7 s¹bʕ
8 ṯmny
10 ʕs²r
12 ṯnʕs²r
18 ṯmnʕs²rt
20 ʕs²rn
25 ḫms¹tʕs²rn
30 ṯlṯn
100 mʔt
1000 ʔlf
352 Ahmad Al-Jallad
2f -t [t] or [tiː] NA NA
3m Ø [a] -y [aj] Ø [uː]
3f -t [at] NA -n [na]
4.6.1 Suffix conjugation

The suffix conjugation is a perfective that can denote realized and non-realized actions.
Person, number and gender are indicated through suffixes to the verbal stem. Table 14.7
shows the attested person-number-gender suffixes of the suffix conjugation.
The 3m forms of the unmarked verbal stem, the G stem, are identical in the orthography
to the verbal root, e.g. qtl [qatala] ‘he killed’; rġm [roɣemuː] ‘they were struck down’.
Realized actions are pragmatically in the past tense, and can be translated as a perfect
or pluperfect, while unrealized actions can be translated in a variety of modal ways.
Realized actions:
s²ty ʕnzt
spend.winter.prf.3msg gn
‘he spent the winter at ʕnzt’ (MKJS 1)
wgd ḥbb-h f bky
find.prf.3msg loved one pro.3msg conj weep.prf.3msg
‘he found (the writing) of his loved one and wept’ (C 2036)
s1mʕ ʔn myt flfṣ
hear.prf.3msg comp die.prf.3msg Phillip
‘he heard that Phillip had died’ (Ms 44)
Non-realized actions:
The non-realized dimension of the suffix conjugation covers a wide range of functions. It
is often used to express wishes and requests:
ḏkrt lt ʔls1 w rb
be.mindful.prf.3fsg Allāt ʔls1 conj Rb
‘May Allāt be mindful of ʔls1 and Rb’ (JaS 189.2)
In prayers and curses, the suffix conjugation denotes the possible completion of an
action that has not yet occurred.
ʕwr ds2r ḏ ḫbl

blind.prf.3msg Dusares rel efface.prf.3msg
‘may Dusares blind the one who effaces’ (NST 3)
gdḍf s¹lm m-s²nʔ s¹lm l-ḏ dʕy
Gaddoḍayf security prep-enemy.pl secure.inf prep-rel read.prf.3msg
‘O Gaddoḍayf, may he who reads (this writing) be well secured against enemies’
(WH 613)
Safaitic 353
1c n-2
3m y-
3f t-
4.6.2 Prefix conjugation

The three historical moods of the prefix conjugation are attested in Safaitic, but it is
unclear if they were all distinguished morphologically. The subjunctive mood, at least,
must have terminated in a final [a], as the spelling of III–weak verbs of this mood attest
the final radical, while their indicative counterparts do not.
The prefix conjugation inflects for person, number and gender through a combination
of prefixes and suffixes. Since this verb form is much rarer in the inscriptions, only the
preformative prefixes found in Table 14.8 are attested.
4.6.2.1 Indicative
ytẓr ḥyt
3msg.lie.in.wait.iprf animal.pl
‘(while) he was lying in wait for animals’ (WH 3929)
ḥyy l-ḏ yqrʔ h-ktb
life prep-rel 3msg.read.iprf def-writing
‘may he who reads this writing have long life’ (C 4803)
4.6.2.2 Subjunctive
The subjunctive is attested in result and purposes clauses. This form historically termi-
nated in a short [a], which is naturally invisible in most cases in Safaitic orthography. In
WH 135, the spelling nngy points towards the preservation of this final vowel, as otherwise
the verb would have been spelled nng, compare to ydʕ [yadʕiː] ‘he reads aloud’ (QZMJ
468). The subjunctive, when expressing purpose, may follow the dative preposition l-.
h lt qbll ʔhl s1lm f nngy

voc Allāt be.reunited.inf family safe conj 1pl.be.saved.sbjv
‘O Allāt, may there be a safe reunion with family so that I/we may be saved’ (WH 135)
trwḥ l-ys²rq
set.off.at.night.prf.3msg prep-3msg.migrate.to.inner.desert.sbjv
‘he set off at night in order to migrate to the inner desert’ (LP 180)
4.6.2.3 Jussive
The jussive hails back to the Proto-Semitic preterite and has no vocalic termination. This
form is employed in Safaitic, as it is in Classical Arabic and other West Semitic lan-
guages, to express wishes and requests. The jussive can be used independently or follow-
ing the asseverative particle l-.
354 Ahmad Al-Jallad
ngʕ ʕl- s²mt ʔs¹r f h lt ys¹lm

grieve.in.pain.prf.3msg prep-S²mt captured.ptcp.msg conj voc Allāt 3msg.be.secure.juss
‘he grieved in pain for S²mt, who was captured, so O Allāt, may he be secure’ (LP 643)
Following l-:
h rḍw f-l-yʕwr m ʕwr w
voc Roḍaw conj-prep-3msg.be.blinded.juss rel efface.prf.3msg conj
l-yqʔ b-ṣdq
prep-3msg.be.thrown.out.juss prep-friend
‘O Roḍaw, let whosoever effaces (this inscription) be made blind and let him be
thrown out (of the grave) by a friend’ (AWS 237)
The imperative is identical in its consonantal form with the verbal base of the prefix
conjugation, without the prefixes. It is encountered most frequently in prayers and curses:
h rḥm s1lm-h
voc Raḥīm keep.safe.imp.msg-pro.3msg
‘O Raḥīm, keep him safe!’ (C 3315)
4.6.3 Derived verbal stems

The following verb stems are attested in Safaitic. Of the major stems in Classical Arabic
(see Chapter 15, §4.7.3), only the Ct stem is missing, but this may be due to gaps in attes-
tation rather than morphological loss.
D (= Classical Arabic faʕʕala) and L (= Classical Arabic faːʕala)
The D stem (Table 14.9), formed by the doubling of the medial consonant, is only
apparent in medial weak and geminate verbs, forms factitive, causative and denominal
verbs.
The L stem is identical in orthography to the D stem and so its existence is posited
purely on the basis of Classical Arabic cognates with a reciprocal sense, e.g. qtl [qaːtala]
(HCH 71) ‘to fight one another’.
ʔCCC = C (= Classical Arabic ʔafʕala)
The C stem (Table 14.10), formed with a prefixed glottal stop, has a similar functional
range to the D stem. Synonymous C and D stem verbs derived from the same root exist.
TABLE 14.9 THE D SYSTEM
G-Stem/Noun D
Factitive wlh [waleha] ‘to be distraught’ wlh [wallaha] (C 3177) ‘to make
distraught’
Causative ʔkl [ʔakala] ‘to eat’ ʔkl [ʔakkala] (HaNSC 8) ‘to feed’
Denominal ḍrḥ [ɬʕariːħ] ‘tomb’ ḍrḥ [ɬʕarraħa] (RWQ 340) ‘to
construct a tomb’
Safaitic 355
TABLE 14.10 THE C STEM
G/Noun C
Factitive hlk [halaka] (CEDS 87) ‘to die’ ʔhlk [ʔahlaka] (C 35) ‘to slaughter’
Causative wgd [wagada] ‘to find’ ʔgd [ʔawged] (imp, KRS 1715) ‘to
make find’
Denominal *dmʕ ‘tears’ ʔdmʕ [ʔadmaʕa] ‘to weep’, cf. dmʕ
(AAEK 141)
TABLE 14.11 THE GT STEM
‘to await’; ‘to keep watch’ nẓr tẓr [ettaθʕara] < *intaẓara C 2967
‘to wage war’ qtl qttl [eqtatala] KRS 1024
‘to despair’ yʔs tʔs1 [ettaʔasa] LP 679
‘petition’ s² ky s²tky [eɬtakaya] C 31
TABLE 14.12 PREFIXED T STEMS
‘to be weighed down by grief’ tṯql [taθaqqala] KRS 49

‘to be made distraught’ twlh [tawallaha] WH 1243
‘to depart at night’ trwḥ [tarawwaħa] LP 180
‘to preserve oneself’ twqy [tawaqqaja] C 2209
The causative morpheme is lost in the prefix conjugation, e.g. ʔs2rq (sc) ~ ys2rq (pc) ‘to
migrate to the inner desert’. Based on Greek transcriptions, the preformative vowel was
[o], e.g. Θοκιμ- [toqiːm-].
CtCC = Gt (= Classical Arabic iftaʕala)
Forms with an infixed t are very rare (Table 14.11). No single semantic function can be
identified for this form and so it appears that the stem was already lexicalized.
tCCC = tD (= Classical Arabic tafaʕʕala); tL (= Classical Arabic tafāʕala);

tG (= Egyptian Arabic itfaʕal; Aramaic eṯqṭel)
Verbs with a prefixed t are rather common; however, their morphological identity is
not always certain. Verbs of this type could in some cases reflect tD stems or a pre-
fixed t-morpheme; see Table 14.12) to form a medio-passive, as in Aramaic, Sabaic and
Egyptian Arabic. Generally speaking in the Safaitic inscriptions, verbs of this type are
medio-passive or reflexive in meaning, although in some cases the meaning is lexical.
nCCC = N (= Arabic infaʕala)
This stem forms passive, medio-passive and reflexive verbs, overlapping to some degree
with the prefixed t stems discussed earlier. The vocalization of the stem was likely
naCCaCa, as the n does not exhibit assimilation (Table 14.13).
356 Ahmad Al-Jallad
TABLE 14.13 THE N SYSTEM
‘to be angry’ nġḍb [naɣɬʕaba] LP 475

‘to grieve in pain’ ngʕ [nawgaʕa] KRS 213
‘to be removed’ ns²l [naɬaːla] KRS 2640
‘to be captured’ ns1l [nasalla] C 1758
TABLE 14.14 THE REDUPLICATED SYSTEM
R stem ‘to be reunited’ AWS 48 qbll [qeblaːl] (inf)

KRS 455 qbl [qaballa] (prf)
Unpub. yqbl [jeqballa] (sbjv)
4.6.3.1 Reduplicated stem
A stem with reduplication (Table 14.14) of the final radical is commonly attested in the
infinitive qbll ‘to be reunited’.
4.6.3.2 Internal passives

The context of some finite verbs requires a passive reading, suggesting the existence of a
passive signified by vowel apophony beside the n- and t- stems. There is no independent
evidence for the vocalization of this form.
w ṣlb ḥbb-h
conj crucify.prf.3msg beloved-pro.3msg
‘and his beloved was crucified’ (HaNSB 660)
4.6.4 Weak roots
The inflection of verbs derived from roots containing a glide (weak roots) can experi-
ence irregularities. Roots with a medial and/or final glide tend to remain triconsonantal,
although examples of the collapse of the triphthong exist for II–w/y.
4.6.4.1 I–w/y
Only one example of this root class has been attested in the prefix conjugation, lm ygd-h
[lam jaged-oh] (neg 3msg.find-3msg) ‘he did not find him’ (unpub.), attesting the absence
of the first radical, as in Classical Arabic.
4.6.4.2 II–w/y
Preserved Collapsed
To return ʕyd [ʕajeda] (C 654) ʕd [ʕaːda] (KhS 13)
Safaitic 357
Medial weak roots in the prefix conjugation show a biradical verbal stem. The triphthong
of III–weak roots monophthongizes, except in the subjunctive on account of the vocalic
[a] suffix. Geminate roots show metathesis.
4.6.4.3 III–w/y
The collapse of the triphthong of III–weak verbs in the suffix conjugation has not yet
been clearly attested. This form of the verb is found in Greek transcription, where it is
clearly trisyllabic: αθαοα [ʔatawa] ‘he came’ (Al-Jallad and al-Manaser 2015). While the
triphthong remains, there is a clear tendency to merge III–w roots with III–y ones, and the
latter are far commoner in the corpus (Tables 14.15 and 14.16).
4.6.4.4 Geminate roots
Geminate roots are most often metathesized in the suffix conjugation stems in the 3msg,
as in Classical Arabic, e.g. wd [wadda] (KRS 307) ‘he loved’ (< *wadada). However,
the common verb ‘to encamp’ ḥll is attested most frequently in an unmetathesized form.
This may, in fact, suggest that it reflects a D stem rather than a G stem in contrast to
Classical Arabic.
4.6.5.1 Participles
Each verbal stem forms an active and passive participle. These decline as adjectives; the
forms found in Table 14.17 are attested.
Participles usually form asyndetic subordinate clauses signifying an action contempo-
rary with the main event or a completed action at the time of the main event.
ḫrṣ {ʔ}s²yʕ-h ḍbʔn

keep.watch.prf.3msg companions-pro.3msg raid.ptcp.mpl
‘he kept watch for his companions who were on a raid’ (HH 1)
TABLE 14.15 WEAK ROOTS IN sc
III–w III–y
to spend the winter s2tw [ɬatawa] (KhBG 376) s2ty [ɬataya] (KRS 1964)
to escape ngw [nagawa] (C 406) ngy [nagaya] (WH 153)
TABLE 14.16 WEAK ROOTS IN pc
I–w/y ‘to find’ ygd [jaged] (juss) KRS 1715

II–w/y ‘to return’ yṭf [jatʕuːph] WH 3840
III–w/y ‘to live (long)’ nḥyy [neħjaja] (sbjv) LP 495
‘to read’ ydʕ [jadʕiː] QZMJ 468
C2=C3 ‘to make a pilgrimage’ yḥg [jaħogga] (sbjv) WH 3053
358 Ahmad Al-Jallad
TABLE 14.17 PARTICIPLES
Masculine Feminine
Singular mqtl [maqtuːl] (HCH 72) ‘killed’ trḥt [tariːħat] (NST 2) ‘perished’
Dual qṣyn [qasˤejjajn] (C 1658) NA
‘dedicated’
Plural ḍbʔn [ɬʕaːbeʔiːna] (HH 1) ‘raiding’ ms2rqt [moɬreqaːt] (KRS 1011) ‘migrating’ (or fsg)
TABLE 14.18 THE INFINITIVE
Infinitive without -t Infinitive with -t
G Stem ks1r [kasr](?) ‘to break’ (KRS 1023) ʕlgt [ʕelaːgat](?) ‘to restore to health’ (KRS 1575)
D Stem tḍbʔ [taɬʕbiːʔ] ‘to raid’ (AWS 347) tfyt [tawphejjat] ‘to fulfill’ (C 1744)
C Stem ʔqwy [ʔeqwaːj] ‘to grant endurance’ NA
T Stem tnẓr [tanaθʕθʕor] ‘to await’ (Mu 412) NA
N Stem nʕgl [naʕgaːl] ‘to be hasty’ (WH 2181) nġbt [naɣaːbat] ‘to disappear’ (C 2786)
wlh fqd ʔs²yʕ-h

be.distraught.prf.3msg lose.ptcp.msg companion.pl-pro.3msg
‘he was distraught by grief having lost his companions’ (C 2538)
In the derived stems, participles are formed by a prefixed m and voice is distinguished
through apophony, e.g. KWQ 119: mʕwr [moʕawwer] ‘effacing (d act.ptcp)’ vs. AWS
48 mʕwr [moʕawwar] ‘effaced (d pass.ptcp)’. In the G stem, the active participle is
identical in form with the suffix conjugation while the passive has two forms, probably
reflecting dialectal variation: the first with an m-prefix, cognate with Classical Arabic
maCCuːC and the second with prefix-less pattern, reflecting the vocalizations CaCuːC
or CaCiːC.
m-augment CaCuːC or CaCiːC

‘plundered’ mḥrbn [maħruːbiːna] (HCH 71) ḥrbn [ħariːbiːna] (KRS 1161)
‘killed’ mqtl [maqtuːl] (C2947) qtl [qatiːl] (C2113)
4.6.5.2 Infinitives
The Old Arabic of the Safaitic inscriptions often uses a nominal form of the verb, an
infinitive (Table 14.18), as a verbal complement and in purposes clauses, as well as to
express commands. Unlike Classical Arabic, the infinitive does not require the definite
article when it is used as verbal complement. A variety of noun patterns are employed
to form the infinitive of the G stem, like the Classical Arabic maṣdar. Other stems
exhibit variation regarding whether or not the infinitive is modified by the feminine
ending.
4.7 Particles
4.7.1 Prepositions
The attested prepositions are as follows:
Safaitic 359
ʔl = ‘to, for’, used most commonly with complements of verbs of petition and motion.
l = ‘to, for’, a dative preposition used to express indirect, benefactive, temporal and
directional objects. This preposition is also used to express a possessive predicate,
l-pnh-nfs1 ‘this funerary monument is for (belongs to) pn’.
b = ‘by, at, with’, used to express location in space and time, and association.
bʕd = ‘after, for’, cognate with Classical Arabic baʕda, the preposition in Safaitic can
express reason or benefaction, WH 559: nẓr bʕd h-ms1rt ‘he kept guard on behalf
of the troop’.
bn = ‘between’.
ʕl = ‘on, against’; this preposition is most often used to introduce the object of verbs
of grieving, as in wgm ʕl-pn ‘he grieved for pn’.
f = ‘in’, a rare alternative to b-, cognate with Classical Arabic fī.
mʕ = ‘with’, used exclusively with animate objects.
m(n) = ‘from, because’; the [n] of this preposition inconsistently assimilates to the
following word. Compound prepositions with mn are attested: m-ʕl ‘because of’,
m-dn [medduːn] ‘without’, mn-qbl [men-qobol] ‘facing’.
ʕnd = ‘at, with’.
k = ‘like’.
4.7.2 Vocative particles

A variety of vocative particles are attested; from most common to least, they are h, hy,
ʔy, hyh, ʔyh and y.
4.7.3 Subordinating particles

The following are attested: ʔḏ [ʔeðaː] ‘when’, ʔn [ʔan] ‘that’ (comp) and possibly ʕkdy
‘thereafter’ (vocalization unclear) and ḥt [ħattaj] ‘until’, although the latter two are not
attested in unambiguous contexts (Al-Jallad 2015a: 164).
4.7.4 Conjunctions
The conjunction w primarily connects equivalent elements, but can introduce result and
purpose clauses as well, which will be discussed under subordination. The conjunction f
indicates sequential actions:
wgd ḥbb-h f bky

find.prf.3msg beloved-pro.3msg conj weep.prf.3msg
‘he found his beloved and then wept’ (C 2036)
The conjunction f can also connect individual words, e.g. ʕm f ʕm ‘year after year’ (SIJ
119), and can be used to express intensity when it connects two identical words, ẓlmn f
ẓlmn ‘(they were) terribly unjust’ (KRS 1087).
f can also optionally introduce modal clauses:
h lt w ds²r f ṯʔr mn-ḥwlt

voc Allāt conj Dusares conj vengeance prep-Hawilat
‘O Allāt and Dusares, may he have vengeance against Hawilat’
360 Ahmad Al-Jallad
5 SYNTAX
The laconic nature of the inscriptions and their highly formulaic structure greatly limit what
can be learned about syntax. The following sections will deal with major points of syntax.

The unmarked word order is verb-subject-object, but in most cases an explicit subject is
missing. Adjectives follow their heads and subjects precede predicates, although given
the formulaic nature of the inscriptions, examples of both are extremely limited. Since
most inscriptions begin with a preposition phrase, l- (‘by, for’) and the name of a person,
a conjunction usually introduces a new clause containing the verb:
l pn w rʕy bql
prep pn conj pasture.prf.3msg fresh.herbage
‘by pn and he pastured on fresh herbage’
Other elements can be fronted to the beginning of a clause, reflecting nuance of topic
and focus. Adverbs and prepositional phrases have a relatively free syntax. Vocative sub-
jects, however, are often fronted to the beginning of the clause:
y lt ġyrt
voc Allāt abundance
‘O Allāt, let there be abundance’ (HAUI 76)
5.2 Predication types
Clauses containing requests from deities often lack a verb, as in HAUI 76 from earlier.
These have traditionally been taken as examples of ellipsis. While that is possible, a
number of cases exist where an imperative cannot be posited, suggesting that existential
clauses were often formed without an overt marker of predication.
ṯlg b-h-dr
snow prep-def-region
‘there was snow in this region’ (C 3818)
It is therefore possible to interpret requests lacking a verb as examples of modal existen-

tial clauses, ‘may there be X’ or ‘let there be X’:
h mlk h-s1my my
voc master.cst def-sky water
‘O Master of the sky, let it rain’ (lit. ‘let there be water’) (KRS 1944)
5.3 Syntax of the accusative

Static location and the goal of verbs of motion are usually indicated by the accusative
rather than with a preposition.
w rʕy h-nḫl
conj pasture.prf.3msg def-valley
‘and he pastured in the valley’
Safaitic 361
w ḫyṭ mdbr
conj journey.prf.3msg inner.desert
‘and he journeyed to the inner desert’ (KRS 1554)
Even in cases without a verb, the unmarked noun, presumably in the accusative, can
signify static location:
l pn h-mdṯʔ
prep pn def-spring.pasture
‘by pn, at the spring pasture’
5.4 Negation
The negation of tense is tied to mood. Three negative adverbs are attested, revealing a
system of negation rather similar to that of Classical Arabic.
lm + prefix conjugation: the particle lm [lam] negates the jussive to create the negated
preterite; cf. Classical Arabic lam yafʕal ‘he did not do.’
lm tmṭr h-s1knt
neg rain.iprf.3fsg def-settlements
‘it did not rain upon the settlements’ (WGGR 1)
m+ suffix conjugation: the particle m [maː] is used to negate the suffix conjugation; cf.
Classical Arabic mā faʕala ‘he did not do.’
ngʕ w m hnʔ
grieve.in.pain.prf.3msg conj neg be.happy.prf.3msg
‘he grieved in pain and was not happy’
lʔn + prefix conjugation: this particle, cognate with Classical Arabic lan, takes a subjunctive
complement and negates the explicit future. It has been attested only once in Safaitic.
w lʔn yqtl ḏ ys1lm-h

conj neg 3msg.be.killed.sbjv rel 3msg.pray.for.security.iprf-pro.3msg
‘and may he who makes a prayer for security upon him (the author) never be killed’
No examples of the negative indicative imperfect have yet appeared.
5.5 Subordination
Safaitic exhibits several strategies of subordination and clause linking. The conjunctions
w and f can be used to introduce logically subordinated clauses:
ʕlf h-mʕzy s¹nt bʔs1

feed.on.fodder.prf.3msg def-goats year.cst misfortune
w ḥgz-h bʕls¹mn
conj withhold.prf.3msg-pro.3msg Baʕalsamīn
‘he fed the goats on dry fodder on the year of misfortune because Baʕalsamīn withheld
it (the rain)’ (SG1)
362 Ahmad Al-Jallad
wgm ʕl-ʔḫ-h ḥry f myt

grieve.prf.3msg prep-brother-pro.3msg Ḥry conj die.prf.3msg
‘he grieved for his brother Ḥry because he died’ (KRS 1051)
The conjunctions also serve to introduce result and purpose clauses:
ḏbḥ l-rḍy w ġnm nqt

sacrifice.prf.3msg prep-Roḍay conj grant.prf.3msg she.camel
‘he sacrificed to Roḍay so he may grant a she-camel (as spoil)’ (MA 1)
s²tky ʔl-lt f ḥnn
petition.prf.3msg prep-Allāt conj show.compassion.imp.fsg
‘he petitioned Allāt, so show compassion’ (C 31)
Verbal complement clauses can be introduced by ʔn [ʔan], as in Classical Arabic.
s¹mʕ ʔn myt flfṣ

hear.prf.3msg comp die.prf.3msg Philipp
‘he heard that Philipp died’ (Ms 44)
Syndetic relative clauses are not as common as they are in later forms of Arabic. They
are attested with definite and indefinite antecedents, and the relative pronoun is rarely
prefixed with the deictic element h.
wgm ʕl-ʔs²yʕ-h ḏ ns¹l

grieve.prf.3msg prep-companion.pl-pro.3msg rel be captured.prf.3mpl
‘he grieved for his companions who were captured’ (C 1758)
h ḏs²r lʕn ḥwlt hḏ ʔṯm
voc Dusares curse.imp.msg Hawilat rel act.wrongfully.prf.3mpl
‘O Dusares, curse the Hawilat who acted wrongfully’ (RWQ 73)
Asyndetic relative clauses are by far the commonest strategy of subordination. They can
occur with definite or indefinite antecedents.
wgm ʕl-dd-h ms¹by s¹byt-h ṭyʔ

grieve.prf.3msg prep-paternal.uncle-pro.3msg captured capture.prf-pro.3msg Tayyi’
‘he grieved for his paternal uncle, who was captured, whom the Tayyiʔ captured’
(CSNS 1004)
5.6 Syntax of the infinitive

The infinitive is much more productive in Safaitic and compared to other forms of Arabic,
and often replaces the verb in the following environments:
Infinitive of command:
h bʕls¹mn trwḥ b-mṭr
voc Baʕalsamīn send.winds.inf prep-rain
‘O Baʕalsamīn, send the winds with rain!’ (SESP.U 18)
Safaitic 363
Infinitive of purpose:
mrd ʕl-h-mlk grfṣ ks¹r h-s¹ls¹lt
rebel.prf.3msg prep-def-king Agrippa break.inf def-chains
‘he rebelled against King Agrippa to break the chains (of bondage)’ (KRS 1023)
Adverbial infinitive:
tẓr h-s¹my b-ḥḍr
await.prf.3msg def-rains prep-camp.inf
‘he awaited the rains while camping by permanent water’ (WH 2584)
In addition to these functions, the infinitive can replace a non-initial member of a

sequence of coordinate verbs (the infinitive chain). In such cases, the infinitive can only
be identified if it differs in its spelling from the suffix conjugation.
h lt ryḥ w qyt
voc Allāt grant.ease.imp conj protect.inf
‘O Lāt, grant ease and protect!’ (KRS 78)
6 LEXICON
Due to the formulaic nature of the inscriptions, there are huge gaps in our knowledge of
the Safaitic lexicon. For example, we have over half a dozen synonyms for grieving but
not a single word for thanksgiving. The lexicon of the Safaitic inscriptions is very similar
to that of Classical Arabic and the modern dialects of Arabic. There are, however, words
that do not appear in either source and are instead found in Northwest Semitic, such as
mdbr ‘the inner desert’, nh̬ l ‘wadi; valley’, dd ‘paternal uncle’. The phonologies of these
words seem to rule out recent borrowing from Northwest Semitic;3 rather, they appear to
be true cognates, perhaps lost in other varieties of Arabic. A significant minority of words
is not attested in the Classical Arabic dictionaries but is found in the modern dialects of
Arabic, for example: tll ‘writing’, cf. Levantine Arabic jetaltel ‘to talk, prattle’; ngʕ ‘to
grieve in pain’, cf. Levantine Arabic inwaʒaʕ ‘to feel pain (metaphor for grief)’; ns2l,
cf. Levantine Arabic inʃaːl, both ‘to be removed’. On the other hand, the meaning of a
significant number of culturally specific vocabulary must be reconstructed from cog-
nates and context. Some examples include the names of asterisms, specific curses such as
‘ejection from the grave’ nqʔt [naqaːʔat], or actions connected with the culture of carving
inscriptions, such as dʕy [daʕaya]‘to read (an inscription)’. There are also a small number
of Aramaic loans in the Safaitic inscriptions, such as ktb ‘writing’ and qrʔ ‘to read’. The
forthcoming dictionary of Safaitic (Al-Jallad and Jaworska forthcoming) contains over
1,400 lemmata, a number that is sure to grow with every expedition to the desert.
6.1 Sigla
A Greek inscriptions in Al-Jallad and al-Manaser (2015)
AAEK Safaitic inscriptions in Al-Manaser (2008)
AAHY Safaitic inscriptions in A. Al-Manaser (2014)
ASWS Safaitic inscriptions in Awad (1999)
AWS Safaitic inscriptions in Alolow (1996)
364 Ahmad Al-Jallad
BS Safaitic inscriptions published on OCIANA

C Safaitic inscriptions in Ryckmans (1950)
CEDS Safaitic inscriptions recorded by V. Clark and published on OCIANA
CSNS Safaitic inscriptions in Clark (1979)
HaNSB Safaitic inscriptions in Harahsheh (2010)
HaNSC Safaitic inscriptions in Harahsheh (2007)
HCH Safaitic inscriptions in Harding (1953)
HH Safaitic inscriptions in Hayajneh (2016)
HSNS Safaitic inscriptions in Harahsheh and Shdeifat (2006)
JaS Safaitic inscriptions published on OCIANA
JbS Safaitic inscriptions from Jebel Says published on OCIANA
KhBG Safaitic inscriptions in Khraysheh (2002)
KhS Safaitic inscriptions in Khraysheh (2007)
KRS Safaitic inscriptions collected by G.M.H. King, published on OCIANA
LP Safaitic inscriptions in Littmann (1943)
MA Safaitic inscriptions in Al-Maani and Al-Ajlouni (2003)
Ms Safaitic inscriptions from Isawi published on OCIANA
Mu Safaitic inscriptions form Isawi published on OCIANA
OCIANA Online Corpus of the Inscriptions of Ancient North Arabia: http://krcfm.
orient.ox.ac.uk/fmi/webd#ociana
QZMJ Safaitic inscriptions to appear on OCIANA
RWQ Safaitic inscriptions in Al-Rousan (2005)
SESP.U Safaitic inscriptions published on OCIANA
SG Safaitic inscriptions published on OCIANA
SHS Safaitic inscriptions in Sadaqah and Harahsheh (2005)
SIJ Safaitic inscriptions in Winnett (1957)
WGGR Safaitic inscriptions published on OCIANA
WH Safaitic inscriptions in Winnett and Harding (1978)
ZSI Safaitic inscription in Zayadine (1980)
NOTES
1 On Hismaic, see King (1990).
2 The few attestations of the 1st person prefix conjugation do not allow us to deter-
mine whether the n-preformative prefix signaled only the plural as in most Semitic
languages or whether it signaled the singular as well, as in Maghrebian dialects of
Arabic and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.
3 For example, if nh̬ l ‘valley’ were a loan from Aramaic, we would expect the form nḥl
rather than the etymologically correct form.
REFERENCES
Al-Jallad, A. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions. SSLL 80. Leiden:
Brill, 2015a.
Al-Jallad, A. “Echoes of the Baal Cycle in a Safaito-Hismaic Inscription.” Journal of
Ancient Near Eastern Religions 15 (2015b): 5–19.
Al-Jallad, A. “Graeco-Arabica I: The Southern Levant.” In Arabic in Context: Celebrating
400 Years of Arabic at Leiden University, edited by Ahmad Al-Jallad, 99–186. Leiden:
Brill, 2017a.
Safaitic 365
Al-Jallad, A. “Marginal Notes on and Additions to an Outline of the Grammar of

the Safaitic Inscriptions (SSLL 80; Leiden: Brill, 2015), with a Supplement to the
Dictionary.” Arabian Epigraphic Notes 3 (2017b):75–96.
Al-Jallad, A.“Pre-Islamic ‘Ḥamāsah’ Verses from Northeastern Jordan: A New Safaitic
Poetic Text from Marabb Al-Shurafā, with Further Remarks on the ‘Ēn ‘Avdat
Inscription and KRS 2453.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 47
(2017c): 117–28.
Al-Jallad, A. “The Earliest Stages of Arabic and Its Linguistic Classification.” In
Routledge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, edited by Elabbas Benmamoun and Reem
Bassiouney, pp. 315–30. New York: Routledge, 2017d.
Al-Jallad, A. “What Is Ancient North Arabian?” In Re-Engaging Comparative Semitic
and Arabic Studies, edited by Daniel Birnstiel and Na‘ama Pat-El. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, forthcoming.
Al-Jallad, A. and A. al-Manaser. “New Epigraphica from Jordan I: A Pre-Islamic Arabic
Inscription in Greek Letters and a Greek Inscription from North-Eastern Jordan.”
Arabian Epigraphic Notes 1 (2015): 51–70.
Al-Jallad, A. and A. al-Manaser. “New Epigraphica from Jordan II: Three Safaitic-Greek
Partial Bilingual Inscriptions.” Arabian Epigraphic Notes 2 (2016): 55–66.
Al-Jallad, A. and K. Jaworska. A Dictionary and Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions.
Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.
Al-Maani, S. and F. Al-Ajlouni. “Safaitic Inscriptions from the Eastern Part of Mafraq
Govenorate/Jordan.” Adumatu 8 (2003): 33–49.
Al-Manaser, A. “ḥ r b y h d fī ʔl-nuqūš al-ʕarabiyyah al-šamāliyyah al-qadīmah
(al-ṣafāwiyyah).” Al-majallah al-urduniyyah li-l-taʔrīḫ wa-ʔl-āṯār 8.1 (2014): 1–13.
Al-Manaser, A. Y.Kh. Ein Korpus neuer safaitischer Inschriften aus Jordanien. Semitica
et Semitohamitica Berolinensia 10. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2008.
Alolow, G. Dirāsat nuqūš ṣafawiyyah ǧadīdah min wādī as-sūʕ ǧanūb Sūriyā. Master’s
Thesis. Irbid: Irbid Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1996.
Al-Rousan, M. Nuqūš Ṣafawiyyah min Wādī Qaṣṣāb bi-l-ʔUrdunn. Ph.D.dissertation.
Riyadh: Ǧāmiʕat al-Malik Saʕūd, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2005.
Awad, ʕAbd al-Rahman. Dirāsat Nuqūš Ṣafawiyyah min Ǧanūb Wādī Sārah Al-Bādiyah
Al-ʔurdunniyyah Aš-Šamāliyyah. Master’s Thesis. Irbid: Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Yarmouk University, 1999.
Beeston, A. F. L. “Arabian Sibilants.” Journal of Semitic Studies 7.2 (1962): 222–33.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/7.2.222.
Calzini Gysens, J. “Safaitic Graffiti from Pompeii.” Proceedings of the Seminar for
Arabian Studies 20 (1990): 1–7.
Clark, V. A. A Study of New Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan. Ph.D.dissertation,
University of Melbourne. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1979.
Dentzer-Feydy, J. and J. Teixidor. Les Antiquités de Palmyre Au Musée Du Louvre. Paris:
Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1993.
Harahsheh, R. “Nuqūš ṣafāʔiyyah muḫtārah min al-bādiyah al-ʔurdunniyyah.” Journal of
Epigraphy and Rock Drawings 1 (2007): 29–52.
Harahsheh, R. Nuqūš Ṣafāʔiyyah Mina ʔl-Bādiyah al-ʔUrdunniyyah. Amman: Ward
Books, 2010.
Harahsheh, R. and Y. M. Shdeifat. “Nuqūš ṣafawiyyah muʔrraḫah ilà ḥukm aġrībā
al-ṯānī (19/50–92/93 m).” Maǧallat muʔtah li-l-buḥūṯ wa-ʔl-dirāsāt (silsilat al-ʕulūm
al-insāniyyah wa-ʔl-iǧtimāʕiyyah) 20.6 (2006): 111–29.
Harding, G. Lankester. “The Cairn of Haniʔ.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan 2 (1953): 8–56.
366 Ahmad Al-Jallad
Hayajneh, H. “Ancient North Arabian Inscriptions, Rock Drawings, and Tribal Brands
(Wasms) from Šammāẖ/ʔAyl (ʔĒl) Region – Southern Jordan.” In The Shammakh to Ayl
Archaeological Survey, Southern Jordan (2010–2012), edited by Burton Macdonald,
Geoffrey Clark, Larry Herr, D. Scott Quaintance, Hani Hayajneh, and Jürg Eggler,
505–41. Amman: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2016.
Hayajneh, H, M. I. Ababneh, and F. Khraysheh. “Die Götter von Ammon, Moab und Edom
in einer neuen frühnordarabischen Inschrift aus Südost-Jordanien.” In Fünftes Treffen
der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semitistik in der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
vom 15. – 17. Februar 2012 an der Universität Basel, edited by V. Golinets, H.-P.
Mathys, and S. Sarasin, 79–105. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015.
Huehnergard, J. “Arabic in Its Semitic Context.” In Arabic in Context: Celebrating
400 Years of Arabic at Leiden, edited by Ahmad Al-Jallad, 3–34. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Khraysheh, F. Nuqūš Ṣafawiyyah min biyār al-Ġuṣayn. Mudawwanat an-nuqūš
al-ʔUrdunniyyah 1. Irbid: Yarmouk University Press, 2002.
Khraysheh, F. “al-Ṣayd ʕinda ʔl-ʕarab al-Ṣafāʔiyyīn qabla ʔl-ʔislām.” Journal of
Epigraphy and Rock Drawings 1 (2007): 9–28.
King, G. M. H. Early North Arabian Hismaic. Ph.D. dissertation. London: University of
London, School of Oriental and African Studies,1990.
Littmann, E. Safaïtic Inscriptions. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological
Expeditions to Syria in 1904–1905 and 1909. Division IV, Section C. Leiden:
Brill, 1943.
Macdonald, M. C. A. “Safaitic.” Encyclopedia of Islam. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Macdonald, M. C. A. “Ancient North Arabian.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
World’s Ancient Languages, edited by R.D. Woodard, 488–533. Cambridge: Cambridge
Macdonald, M. C. A. “The Safaitic Inscriptions at Dura Europos.” In A Journey to
Palmyra: Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers, edited by Eleonora
Cussini, 118–29. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2005.
Macdonald, M. C. A. “Arabs, Arabias, and Arabic before Late Antiquity.” Topoi 16
(2009): 277–332.
Macdonald, M. C. A. “On the Uses of Writing in Ancient Arabia and the Role of
Palaeography in Studying Them.” Arabian Epigraphic Notes 1 (2015): 1–50.
Norris, J. “A Survey of the Ancient North Arabian Inscriptions from the Dūmat Al-Jandal
Area (Saudi Arabia).” In Languages, Scripts, and their Uses in Ancient North
Arabia: Papers from the Special Session of the Seminar for Arabian Studies held on
5 August 2017, edited by M. C. A. Macdonald, 71–93. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2018.
Ryckmans, G. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum: Pars Quinta, Inscriptiones
Saracenicae Continens: Tomus I, Fasciculus I, Inscriptiones Safaiticae. Paris: E
Reipublicae Typographeo, 1950.
Sadaqah, I., and R. Harahsheh. “Nuqūš Ṣafawiyyah jadīdah min minṭaqat marabb
al-Ġanam.” Adumatu 12 (2005): 45–74.
Winnett, F. V. and G. Lankester Harding. Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns.
Toronto-Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1978.
Winnett, F. V. Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1957.
Zayadine, F. “A Safaitic Inscription in the Amman Archaeological Museum.” Annual of
the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 24 (1980): 107–9.
CHAPTER 15
CLASSICAL ARABIC
Daniel Birnstiel
1 INTRODUCTION
The Arabic branch of Semitic forms part of the West Semitic language group. It is grouped
alongside Northwest Semitic and Ancient South Arabian as Central Semitic. In addition,
Arabic together with Ancient South Arabian has participated in two linguistic areas, one
with Canaanite and Aramaic, the other with (the ancestor of) Modern South Arabian and
Ethiopian, explaining certain linguistic features shared between these branches (Hueh-
nergard 2017: 7–11, Huehnergard and Rubin 2011).
Throughout history, the terms Arab, Arabic and Arabia have been applied to various
people(s) and geographic areas, especially in antiquity (Macdonald 2009a, 2009b, Retsö
2007, 2009). In this chapter, Arabic designates a subgroup of Semitic that is defined by
shared innovations (Map 15.1). Recent research has identified a number of isoglosses
(Al-Jallad 2018b, 7–8, Huehnergard 2017: 18–22). The most important of these are as
follows:
1 leveling the first allomorph of the Semitic feminine ending *-at/-t (apart from a few
inherited nouns)
2 mafʕuːl as paradigmatic passive participle pattern of the basic verb stem
3 internal passive vowel pattern u~i in the suffix conjugation
4 a preverbal particle qad
5 the preposition fiː ‘in’ (probably from the noun ‘mouth’)
6 a complex system of negations resulting in two parallel negation patterns for most
tenses
7 the development of an independent accusative pronoun base (ʔij)jaː-
8 the use of the Common Semitic prefix conjugation subjunctive in -a as subordinate
verb form
The notion of Classical Arabic is fraught with problems, including the scope and meaning
of the Arabic terms for this entity, fasˤiːħ/fusˤħaː and ʕarabijja; depending on the context,
different ideas and concepts may be intended (Huehnergard 2017: 11–12, n. 32). In this
description, Classical Arabic refers to the linguistic standard established as a subset of
the features described and deemed acceptable by the 8th/9th-century Arab grammarians
and attested in the literary works of the 8th to 10th centuries ce. The different varieties
of Arabic dating from the time prior to the establishment of the Classical standard are
referred to as Old Arabic.
Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the
ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to
368 Daniel Birnstiel
MAP 15.1
THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF VARIETIES OF ARABIC IN LATE
ANTIQUITY; THE DARKER REGION INDICATES THE LOCATION OF TRIBES
WHOSE DIALECTS INFLUENCED THE FORMATION OF CLASSICAL ARABIC
Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient
and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding
more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard
2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from
Classical Arabic. Older literature presents three views regarding the language situation in
the 7th century: according to one view, there was no difference between Classical Arabic
and the spoken varieties of the time; according to another view, Classical Arabic was no
longer a spoken language but rather a literary vehicle reserved for certain contexts; a third
view regarded Classical Arabic as the spoken language of the Bedouins in opposition to
the varieties spoken by the sedentary population (Al-Sharkawi 2009: 689). In the first
and third scenarios, Arabic diglossia is the result of the Islamic conquests and due to the
influence of non-Arabic ad- and substrata; in the second scenario, it is already the natural
state in 7th-century Arabia.
Classical (or “High”) Arabic was long regarded as the language of the extant pre- and
Early Islamic, orally transmitted literary corpora. These comprise pre-Islamic poetry, the
‘tales of the ancient Arabs’ (ʔaxbaːr al-ʕarab), the Qurʔaːn and the reports concerning
Muhammad and the early Muslim community. In this view, the central feature of Classi-
cal Arabic is its continuity and stability from the earliest attestation in pre-Islamic poetry
to its modern-day manifestation in the shape of Modern Standard Arabic. It corresponds
largely to the view espoused by the Arabic linguistic and intellectual tradition but has
also found its share of adherents among Western scholars (Fischer 1971–1972, Suleiman
Classical Arabic 369
2009: 173). Classical Arabic appears as the prestigious and correct high-level language
(fusˤħaː) in opposition to the corrupted and incorrect low-language vernaculars.
According to a different model prevalent in Western academia, the language of the
literary Old Arabic corpora is defined as pre-Classical Arabic, with Classical Arabic being
strictly confined to the texts reflecting the standardized grammar abstracted and condensed
from the Old Arabic texts by the 8th/9th-century Arab grammarians. The period of Clas-
sical Arabic (ca. 750 ce–10th century ce) is followed by a period of post-classical Arabic
(10th century ce onwards), which attempts to copy the standard of Classical Arabic but
is characterized by innovative features in syntax and style (Fischer 1971–1972, 1982).
Epigraphic attestations for Arabic in pre- and early Islamic times (622 to ca. 750 ce)
come from several sources (Al-Jallad 2018a, Macdonald 2000, 2009c). Arabic is increas-
ingly attested in personal names and other lexemes as well as certain morphological
and syntactic features in Nabatean Aramaic inscriptions and papyri (2nd century bce
onwards). It is also attested in Greek transcriptions from the Southern Levant and North-
ern Arabia from the second century ce onwards (Al-Jallad forthcoming, 2017b). How-
ever, the Arabic of these sources as well as the Arabic of the Islamic conquests attested in
early papyri does not correspond to Classical Arabic (Al-Jallad 2017b, 2017c, Hopkins
1984, Kaplony 2015).
Recent findings confirm the mid-7th century as terminus ad quem for the codification
of the Qurʔaːn, but this refers only to the consonant text, not the reading traditions, which
emerge only about 80–150 years later. The Arabic of the consonant text differs consider-
ably in several respects from both the grammar underlying these reading traditions and
Classical Arabic (van Putten 2017a, 2017b, 2018, van Putten and Stokes 2018). More-
over, the Arabic of the Qurʔaːnic consonant text is similar, but not identical to the Arabic
of nonliterary corpora of Old Arabic.
The information presented by the 8th/9th-century grammarians regarding the
pre-Islamic tribal dialects is likewise problematic (Rabin 1951: 6–16). These descriptions
are only partial; occasionally, the information given in different sources is contradictory.
Moreover, the nature of Classical Arabic orthography (see §2), which is based on the writ-
ing conventions of a more progressive dialect and thus unsuited to many of its features,
conceals the fact that the literary corpora of Old Arabic may have been composed in rather
different varieties of Arabic, with Classical Arabic phonology and morphology partially
being superimposed on the extant texts. The long, alleged oral transmission of these cor-
pora likewise may hide a gradual adaption to the developing Classical Arabic norms.
While more research is needed, the following scenario is tentatively suggested: Old
Arabic is a linguistic continuum consisting of varieties characterized each by different
innovated and/or retained features. Importantly, these dialects reflect different degrees of
preservation or loss of nominal declension. While several varieties were used for differ-
ent literary purposes, especially poetry, it is not clear if or how these literary varieties also
corresponded or overlapped with spoken dialects. These standards were not necessarily
contemporaneously in use in the same vicinities, but the coexistence of such strongly
diverging standards is possible. Different equally prestigious language varieties may
have been affiliated with and allotted to certain literary genres, resembling the situation
in Ancient Greece, where certain dialects are highly correlated with specific genres, e.g.,
Doric with choral poetry, the Homeric dialect with Epic poetry or Ionic with prose.
Following the early Muslim conquests, the new Muslim and largely urban elite devel-
oped a new Arab identity (Webb 2016). As part of this ethnogenesis, the emerging concept
of Arab-ness became strongly tied to ideas regarding the pristine nature of the Bedouin
lifestyle and its uncorrupted language. Classical Arabic crystallized consequently as a

unifying literary standard from the (semi-)conscious efforts of the grammarians in eval-
uating the different materials as well as the (performative-ritual, not necessarily spoken)
language of certain Bedouins. During the same period, the other orally transmitted lit-
erary corpora, including the reading traditions of the Qurʔaːn, underwent an increasing
adaptation to the emerging standard.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
The origin of the Arabic script lies in the Nabatean script, itself a variant of the Aramaic
script. Early attestations of Arabic have been discovered in a variety of writing systems,
including Greek as well as several Ancient North Arabian scripts. The Nabatean script
possesses 22 distinct characters to represent 22 consonant phonemes, while Classical
Arabic possesses a larger consonant inventory. Additionally, already in Nabatean, espe-
cially when writing on soft materials, certain characters became increasingly undistin-
guishable from each other. These difficulties were solved through the introduction of
diacritic marks consisting of one to three dots placed above or below otherwise homo-
graphic characters used to represent distinct phonemes (iʕʤaːm). During the develop-
ment from Nabatean to Arabic, most characters developed additional context variants to
connect with the preceding and/or following character. The Arabic script is written right
to left. Words are written separately, except for prepositions, connectives and particles
consisting of a single letter as well as the definite article; these are written together with
the following word.
In Table 15.1, each character is presented in four positions: independent, initial, medial
and final. The traditional transliteration used by linguists and Semitists has been retained
for practical reasons, even though it is somewhat misleading and ill-suited to represent
the actual phonemes of Classical Arabic (see §3). The names of the individual letters, and
all diacritics (Tables 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3), are given according to the traditional pronun-
ciation, although it may in some instances deviate from the reconstructed pronunciation
of Classical Arabic.
The original order of the letters followed the order of the Aramaic alphabet; characters
subsequently distinguished by diacritics to present phonemes non-existent in Aramaic
were added at the end. Later, characters possessing the same underlying basic form were
grouped together, giving rise to the present order.
The Arabic script is an abjad with each character originally representing one conso-
nant. Two of these are also used to indicate long vowels, namely jaːʔ and waːw for [iː]
and [uː] respectively. Since [ʔ] was lost in many positions in the dialect of Arabic whose
spelling conventions were adopted for writing Classical Arabic, ʔalif has come to be
used to indicate [aː]. An additional character ‫ء‬, called hamza, was introduced to represent
[ʔ]. Depending on the historical environment, hamza is partially written independently,
partially combined with ʔalif, and partially combined with the letters representing the
outcome of the loss of [ʔ] (see §3). In this case, these letters are not pronounced them-
selves and referred to as ‘carrier’ or ‘seat’ of hamza; when hamza is combined with jaːʔ,
the diacritic dots are dropped:
• َ‫ قَ َرأ‬qaraʔ-a read.sc-3msg ‘he read’

• ‫ئ‬َ ‫ قُ ِر‬quriʔ-a read.sc.pass-3msg ‘it was read’
• ‫ قِ َرا َءة‬qiraːʔah recitation.fsg ‘a recitation’
TABLE 15.1 THE ARABIC SCRIPT
Final Medial Initial Independent Transliteration Name
‫‍ا‬ ‫‍‍ا‬ ‫‍ا‬ ‫ا‬ ā ʔalif

‍‫ب‬ ‍‫‍ب‬ ‫‍ب‬ ‫ب‬ b baːʔ
‍‫ت‬ ‍‫‍ت‬ ‫‍ت‬ ‫ت‬ t taːʔ
‍‫ث‬ ‍‫‍ث‬ ‫‍ث‬ ‫ث‬ ṯ θaːʔ
‍‫ج‬ ‍‫‍ج‬ ‫‍ج‬ ‫ج‬ ǧ ʤiːm
‍‫ح‬ ‍‫‍ح‬ ‫‍ح‬ ‫ح‬ ḥ ħaːʔ
‍‫خ‬ ‍‫‍خ‬ ‫‍خ‬ ‫خ‬ ḫ xaːʔ
‍‫د‬ ‍‫‍د‬ ‫‍د‬ ‫د‬ d daːl
‍‫ذ‬ ‍‫‍ذ‬ ‫‍ذ‬ ‫ذ‬ ḏ ðaːl
‍‫ر‬ ‍‫‍ر‬ ‫‍ر‬ ‫ر‬ r raːʔ
‍‫ز‬ ‍‫‍ز‬ ‫‍ز‬ ‫ز‬ z zaːj
‍‫س‬ ‍‫‍س‬ ‫‍س‬ ‫س‬ s siːn
‍‫ش‬ ‍‫‍ش‬ ‫‍ش‬ ‫ش‬ š ʃiːn
‍‫ص‬ ‍‫‍ص‬ ‫‍ص‬ ‫ص‬ ṣ sˤaːd
‍‫ض‬ ‍‫‍ض‬ ‫‍ض‬ ‫ض‬ ḍ dˤaːd
‍‫ط‬ ‍‫‍ط‬ ‫‍ط‬ ‫ط‬ ṭ tˤaːʔ
‍‫ظ‬ ‍‫‍ظ‬ ‫‍ظ‬ ‫ظ‬ ẓ ðˤaːʔ
‍‫ع‬ ‍‫‍ع‬ ‫‍ع‬ ‫ع‬ ʕ ʕajn
‍‫غ‬ ‍‫‍غ‬ ‫‍غ‬ ‫غ‬ ġ ɣajn
‍‫ف‬ ‍‫‍ف‬ ‫‍ف‬ ‫ف‬ f faːʔ
‍‫ق‬ ‍‫‍ق‬ ‫‍ق‬ ‫ق‬ q qaːf
‍‫ك‬ ‍‫‍ك‬ ‫‍ك‬ ‫ك‬ k kaːf
‍‫ل‬ ‍‫‍ل‬ ‫‍ل‬ ‫ل‬ l laːm
‍‫م‬ ‍‫‍م‬ ‫‍م‬ ‫م‬ m miːm
‍‫ن‬ ‍‫‍ن‬ ‫‍ن‬ ‫ن‬ n nuːn
‍‫ه‬ ‍‫‍ه‬ ‫‍ه‬ ‫ه‬ h haːʔ
‍‫و‬ ‍‫‍و‬ ‫‍و‬ ‫و‬ w/ū waːw
‍‫ي‬ ‍‫‍ي‬ ‫‍ي‬ ‫ي‬ y/ī jaːʔ
Diacritic marks were also introduced to represent short vowels, vowel absence, or the
gemination of consonants. Additional signs were developed to indicate [aː] not represented
by ʔalif (or jaːʔ; see §3), to indicate [aː] following [ʔ], as well as instances where an ʔalif
is written, but not pronounced. The latter situation arises because the phonetic surface
structure of Classical Arabic does not permit initial consonant clusters. Therefore, an epen-
thetic non-etymological syllable ʔV is introduced; however, this syllable is not pronounced
whenever a preceding word ends with a vowel. An unpronounced ʔalif is also placed after
the ending of 3mp past tense suffix -uː, though the exact reason for this remains unknown.
Short vowels are marked with diacritics on the consonant that precedes them (Table 15.2);
when the vowel is long, both diacritics and consonant (jaːʔ, waːw or ʔalif) are used. The
case markers of morphologically nonbound nouns ending in a short vowel followed by /n/
(tanwiːn, nunation; see §4.6.1) had apparently been lost in the variety of Arabic on which the
orthography of Classical Arabic is based (van Putten and Stokes 2018). Consequently, this /n/
is not reflected in the consonant text; the simple short vowel signs were therefore doubled to
indicate that the vowel is followed by /n/. These diacritics are commonly referred to as taʃkiːl.
FIGURE 15.1 PAGES FROM A MANUSCRIPT OF THE “THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS” (13TH
CENTURY?)
Open source (Wikipedia.org).
TABLE 15.2
SHORT VOWELS AND VOWELS
FOLLOWED BY NUNATION
Form Transliteration Name
‫ب‬ َ a fatħa
‫ب‬
ِ i kasra
ُ‫ب‬ u dˤamma
ً‫ب‬ an fatħataːn
‫ب‬ ٍ in kasrataːn
ٌ‫ب‬ un dˤammataːn
TABLE 15.3 ADDITIONAL DIACRITICS
Example/Gloss Sign Explanation Name
‫[ بَيْت‬bajt] house.msg.nom ‘a house’ ◌ْ absence of vowel sukuːn

‫[ َعلَّ َم‬ʕallam-a] teach.sc-3msg ‘he taught’ ◌ّ consonant gemination ʃadda
‫ْت ْٱل َملِ ِك‬ ُ ‫[ بَي‬bajt-u l-malik-i] house.msg-nom.cst ‫ٱ‬ unpronounced ʔalif wasˤla
def-king.msg-gen ‘the house of the king’
‫ب‬ َ ‫[ َم ِدينَةُ يَ ْث ِر‬madiːnat-u jaθrib-a] city.fsg-nom.cst ‫ة‬ -t taːʔ
Yathrib(f)-gen ‘the city of Yathrib’ marbuːtˤa
ُ‫[ اَ ْلقُرآن‬al-qurʔaːn] def-Qurʔaːn.msg.nom ‘the ‫آ‬ [aː] madda
Qurʔaːn’
‫[ ٰه َذا‬haːðaː] this.msg ‘this’ ◌ٰ [aː] not represented by ʔalif
ʔalif or jaːʔ xanʤariːja
Lastly, two dots were placed on top of haːʔ to indicate the feminine singular construct
ending -(a)t (taːʔ marbuːtˤa), which for historical reasons was written as -h (see §3). This
and additional diacritics used to indicate phenomena that are not otherwise marked in the
consonantal script are shown in Table 15.3.
Nowadays, apart from the Qurʔaːn, only poetic texts and, to a lesser extent, collections
of reports ascribed to Muhammad are completely printed with diacritics. Medieval man-
uscripts generally make only sporadic use of taʃkiːl and are often somewhat negligent in
applying the iʕʤaːm consistently. In the case of Qurʔaːnic editions, additional signs may
be added to indicate different types of assimilation as well as the rhythmic and syntactic
parsing of the recital to facilitate the euphonic performance of the text.
3 PHONOLOGY
Classical Arabic has 28 consonants, having only merged PS *s, *ʦ > /s/. The exact real-
ization of some Classical Arabic phonemes remains partially unknown. Both the con-
ventional transcription in Western academia as well as the pronunciation by educated
speakers of Modern Standard Arabic largely reflect the artificial medieval reading tradi-
tions of the Qurʔaːn, which deviate significantly from the realization of these phonemes
according to the descriptions given by Medieval Arab grammarians, such as Sibawayhi.
Although the number of consonants is almost identical to that of Proto-Semitic, both their
reconstructed realization in the Arabic described by Sibawayhi as well as the traditional

pronunciation depict a phonological system with a structure highly diverging from that
of Proto-Semitic.
Table 15.4 shows the phonological system of Classical Arabic as far as it can be
reconstructed based on Sibawayhi’s description. The juxtaposition of the usual Sem-
itistic transliteration (in italics) reflecting the traditional reading practice and the IPA
phonetic transcription (in brackets) readily show the divergence between the traditional
pronunciation and the phonological system reconstructible for Classical Arabic. Both the
development from Proto-Semitic and the differences with the traditional pronunciation
of Classical Arabic are listed.
• The “emphatic” consonants traditionally transcribed as /ḍ/, /ṭ/, /ẓ/, /ṣ/ were not
glottalized as in PS, but rather pharyngealized or velarized, possibly with differing
degrees, although the exact realization is difficult to pinpoint.
• PS *ʔ [ʔ] is generally retained.
• The reflex of PS *g is traditionally transcribed as /ǧ/ and pronounced as an affricate,
[ʤ], while Sibawayhi’s description points to a voiced palatal stop [ɟ].
• PS *x and *ɣ are traditionally transcribed as /ḫ/ and /ġ/ and pronounced as [x] and [ɣ];
according to Sibawayhi, they have a uvular realization, [χ] and [ʁ].
• PS *ʣ was deaffricated > /z/ [z].
• PS *s and *ʦ were merged; the result is represented by the Nabatean character used
for Aramaic /š/ [ʃ] but transcribed and traditionally pronounced as [s]; Sibawayhi’s
description is not entirely clear, pointing to either [ʃ], [s] or possibly a retracted, apical
or laminal realization of the latter; this article adopts a realization as [s].
• PS *ł was realized as palatal fricative according to Sibawayhi, [ç]; it is traditionally
transcribed as /š/ and pronounced [ʃ].
• PS *ʦ’ became pharyngealized; since Sibawayhi describes an unacceptable variant
realization similar to /s/ and possibly pointing to [sˤ], as in the traditional pronunciation,
its preferred realization may have been [ʦˤ] (Al-Jallad 2014).
• PS *ɬ’ has become pharyngealized; it is traditionally transcribed as /ḍ/ and pronounced
as [dˤ]; Sibawayhi’s description points towards a lateral realization [ɬˤ] or [ɮˤ]; it is
not impossible that it may even have been realized as affricate, [tɬˤ] or [dɮˤ]; the latter
realization is adopted in this article.
TABLE 15.4 CONSONANT INVENTORY OF CLASSICAL ARABIC
Labial Interdental Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyng. Glottal
Plosives b [b] t [t] d [d] ǧ [ɟ] k [k] q[q] ʔ [ʔ]

ṭ [dˤ]
Nasals m [m] n [n]
Fricative f [f] ṯ [θ] ḏ [ð] s [s] z [z] š [ç] ḫ [χ] ġ [ʁ] ḥ [ħ] ʕ [ʕ] h [h]
ẓ [ðˤ] ṣ [(t)sˤ]
Lateral ḍ [(d)ɮˤ]?
Approx. w [w] y [j]
Lateral Approx. l [l]
Trill r [r]
• PS *t’ has become a pharyngealized dental stop; when losing its emphatic realization,
it is identical to /d/ according to Sibawayhi, possibly pointing to a voiced realization
[dˤ], which is adopted in this article; its traditional pronunciation is [tˤ].
• PS *θ’ has become a pharyngealized interdental fricative; when losing its emphatic
realization, it is identical to /ð/ according to Sibawayhi, pointing to a voiced realization [ðˤ];
its traditional pronunciation is [ðˤ], but also the pronunciation [zˤ] is found in the educated
speech of areas where the underlying Arabic dialect has lost the interdental fricatives.
• PS *p > /f/ [f].
• PS *k’ became deglottalized and uvularized, /q/; it was realized as [q] or possibly [ɢ];
this article adopts the voiceless realization.
The /l/ of the definite article al- assimilates completely to a following coronal or api-
cal consonant (/ð/, /θ/, /ðˤ/, /d/, /t/, /dˤ/, /z/, /s/, /sˤ /, /n/, /r/, /dɮˤ/, /ç/), e.g., al-nahaːr >
an-nahaːr ‘the day’. The reflexive verbal infix -t- usually assimilates completely to pre-
ceding alveolar stops and fricatives. Particles ending in a nasal as well as the verbal prefix
n- usually assimilate completely to following /m/.
Syllables with /ʔ/ as onset and coda realize the final /ʔ/ as length, e.g., [ʔaʔ] > [ʔaː].
Moreover, [ʔ] was lost in non-word-initial position in the variety of Arabic underlying
the consonant text of the Qurʔaːn (van Putten 2018). The loss of pre-consonantal [ʔ] was
accompanied by a lengthening of the preceding vowel; post-consonantal [ʔ] was lost
completely; intervocalically, a glide, [j] or [w], developed in most cases. The various
“carriers” of hamza are the result of this development (see §2).
The triphthongs [aja], [awa] collapsed in Classical Arabic to [aː] in both medial and
final position. However, in the Arabic of the Qurʔaːn consonant text, final [aja] developed
to [eː] and was written with jaːʔ. Therefore, in addition to ʔalif, also jaːʔ came to be used
to represent final [aː] < *[aja] (van Putten 2017b).
In addition, Sibawayhi mentions the assimilation, e.g., of /n/ as root consonant to an
adjacent /m/ as well as the assimilation of the nominal suffix /n/ to certain following
consonants under certain conditions. Moreover, when occurring in syllable-final posi-
tion, the consonants /b/, /ɟ/, /d/, /dˤ/ and /q/ are accompanied by a murmured, schwa-like
vowel (qalqala). These phenomena are nowadays restricted to Qurʔaːnic recitations.
Where the vowels /i/ and /u/ are followed by non-homorganic semivowels, the semi-
vowel often assimilates to the quality of the preceding vowel or vice versa.
Before a pause, mostly at the end of sentences, final vowels are usually dropped, but
in poetry they are often lengthened. The nominal suffix -vn is likewise affected by pausal
realization, losing the final nasal or being dropped altogether. Geminated consonants in
word-final position in pause may be simplified.
The surface structure of Classical Arabic does not allow initial or final consonant clus-
ters unless in pausal position. Only the syllable types CV, CVC or CV̄ can occur. Initial
clusters are avoided by adding an epenthetic vowel before the first consonant, unaccept-
able codas are avoided by shortening the vowel, dropping weak consonants, simplify-
ing geminated consonants or adding a paragogic vowel to word-final clusters. The only
exception are active participles of geminate roots, e.g., dɮˤaːll-un err.ptcp.msg-nom ‘err-
ing’ < *dɮˤaːlil-un and the dual forms of the distal demonstrative, daːnnika, etc.
The descriptions of the Arab grammarians do not include information on accentua-
tion. Nowadays when reading Classical Arabic texts, the stress falls on the penultimate,
when closed (e.g., katáb-tu write.sc-1sg ‘I wrote’), otherwise on the antepenult kátab-a
write.sc-3msg ‘he wrote’).
4 MORPHOLOGY
Classical Arabic has a rich morphology. In general, it has retained the grammati-
cal distinctions reconstructible for Proto-Semitic (two genders, three numbers, three
cases, three persons). Its paradigms are characterized by a high degree of symmetry
and systematization. These are largely the outcome of analogous re-pattering and other
neo-formations.

Classical Arabic possesses independent and suffixed personal pronouns. The indepen-
dent pronouns (Table 15.5) are used as subjects in clauses with non-verbal predicates.
With finite verbs, they are used to place the subject in focus and in sentence patterns
that demand subject-predicate word order, e.g., circumstantial clauses. In addition, they
can be used in conjunction with finite verbs or suffixed pronouns to distinguish between
inclusive and exclusive constructions; they can also occur following possessive pronouns
to emphasize the possessor.
The suffixed pronouns (Table 15.6) are used to mark object and possessive pronouns.
Except for the 1st person singular, the object and possessor paradigms are identical. The
possessive pronouns are attached to the construct form of the noun, and to prepositions;
the object pronouns are attached to finite verb forms and particles.
All suffixes of the 3rd person pronoun containing -u- undergo vowel harmony, if
the preceding syllable is /iC/, /iː/ or /aj/. In bi-transitive verbs, both objects maybe pre-
sented as object pronouns, e.g., ʔadχal-tu-ka-huː enter.sc-1sg-2msg-3msg ‘I made you
enter it’. Instead of marking the object on the finite verb, the object can also be attached
to the object marker base ʔijjaː- by using the possessive pronouns, creating an analytic
construction.
TABLE 15.5 INDEPENDENT (SUBJECT) PRONOUNS
Person/Number Singular Dual Plural
1 ʔanaː naħnu
2m ʔanta ʔantumaː ʔantum
2f ʔanti ʔantunna
3m huwa humaː hum
3f hija hunna
TABLE 15.6 SUFFIXED (POSSESSIVE AND OBJECT) PRONOUNS
Person/Number Singular Dual Plural
1 -iː/-ja; -niː -naː

2m -ka -kumaː -kum
2f -ki -kunna
3m -hu -humaː -hum
3f -haː -hunna
Proximal Distal
Nominative Oblique Nominative Oblique
singular masculine haː-ðaː ðaː-lika

feminine haː-ðihiː ti-lka
dual masculine haː-ðaːni haː-ðajni ðaːn-nika ðajn-nika
feminine haː-taːni haː-tajni taːn-nika tajn-nika
plural haː-ʔulaːʔi ʔulaːʔi-ka
4.2 Demonstratives
Arabic possesses two sets of demonstratives, proximal and distal. Both sets inflect for
gender and number; case, however, is marked only in the dual, which distinguishes only
between nominative and oblique. The gender distinction is neutralized in the plural.
As seen from Table 15.7, both sets are derived from the same demonstrative bases.
In the proximal set, they are preceded by the deictic/presentative element haː-, while
in the distal set is followed by -lika or -ka. Usually, the former attaches to singular and
dual forms, the latter to plural form; syncopations and assimilations take place, e.g.,
*ðaːni-li-ka > *daːn-li-ka > *ðaːnnika. Exceptions as well as hybrid forms (prefixed haː-
plus suffixed -ka) are encountered occasionally. In older Arabic, the distal suffix may
behave like a 2nd person possessive pronoun, showing agreement with the addressed per-
sons. In addition to the forms given in Table 15.7, several additional forms, including the
bare demonstrative bases are encountered, albeit rarely, and almost exclusively in poetry.
The proximal deixis covers both spatial and temporal closeness, distal deixis covers
spatial and temporal remoteness. In Qurʔaːnic Arabic, this usage is rare. There, the prox-
imal set is often used to express identity (‘the very same’) while the distal set expresses
similarity (‘such’), especially where the demonstrative functions as subject of a nominal
clause (Birnstiel 2011). The proximal demonstratives can also be used as presentatives
(Bloch 1986). Where the presented entity is a personal pronoun, the elements of the
demonstrative envelop the personal pronoun, e.g., haː-ʔanaː ðaː dei-1sg dem ‘here I am’.
4.3 Relative pronouns

Classical Arabic possesses a set of relative pronouns (Table 15.8) inflecting for gender
and number, with case being distinguished only in the dual. The feminine plural possesses
TABLE 15.8 RELATIVE PRONOUNS
masculine feminine
singular (a)llaðiː (a)llatiː

dual nominative (a)llaðaːni (a)llataːni
oblique (a)llaðajni (a)llatajni
plural (a)llaðiːna (a)llaːtiː/(a)llawaːtiː
variants that are used without any change in meaning. The forms of these pronouns and
their use as relative markers are an innovation of Arabic (Huehnergard 2017: 16–17).
They are formed by prefixing the definite article al- followed by the assertive particle
la- to forms originating in the demonstrative base paradigm.
4.4 Possessor pronoun

In Classical Arabic, the inherited Proto-Semitic relative pronoun has acquired the sense
of ‘owner of, possessor of’ (Table 15.9), e.g., ðuː raħmat-in owner.msg mercy(f)-gen.sg
‘owner of mercy’, i.e. ‘merciful’.
4.5 Interrogatives
Arabic possesses several interrogatives (Table 15.10), which can be used also as indefi-
nite relatives, e.g., man ‘who’ and ‘whosoever’. They generally do not inflect for gender,
number or case, except for ʔajjun ‘which’ (construct state ʔajju-), which inflects for case
and has rarely used feminine forms; ʔajju- is usually followed by a noun in the genitive,
or possessive suffixes.
man and maː can be added to other interrogatives to form indefinite pronouns, e.g.,
ʔajjuman ‘whoever’, ʔajnamaː ‘wherever’, mahmaː (< *maːmaː) ‘whatever’; maː can
also be added to indefinite nouns with the sense of a certain, e.g., bajt-un maː house.
msg-nom certain ‘a certain house’.
TABLE 15.9 POSSESSOR PRONOUN
fasculine feminine
singular nominative ðuː ðaːtu

genitive ðiː ðaːti
accusative ðaː ðaːta
dual nominative ðawaː ðaːtaː, ðawaːtaː
oblique ðawaj ðaːtaj, ðawaːtaj
plural nominative ðawuː, ʔuluː ðawaːtu, ʔulaːtu
oblique ðawiː, ʔuliː ðawaːti, ʔulaːti
man ‘who’ masculine (feminine)

maː ‘what’
ʔannaː ‘where’ nominative ʔajju- (ʔajjatu-)
ʔajna ‘where(to)’ genitive ʔajji- (ʔajjati-)
ʔajjaːna ‘when’ accusative ʔajja- (ʔajjata-)
kam ‘how much/
many’
kajfa ‘how’
mataː ‘when’
4.6 Nominals
4.6.1 Inflection
Nouns in Classical Arabic comprise substantives and adjectives. Their inflection is in prin-
ciple identical, albeit with some difference pertaining to plural formation. Adjectives are
often substantivized, primarily when definite, while many substantives can also be used
attributively as adjectives. Nouns inflect for gender (masculine, feminine), number (sin-
gular, dual, plural), case (nominative, genitive, accusative) and state (indefinite, definite,
construct).
The indefinite form is the basic form of the noun. Nouns are made determinate by pre-
fixing the definite article (a)l- indicating identifiability. The construct is the form, which
marks a noun as head of genitive attributes and possessive suffixes.
The nominative case indicates the subject in verbal and nominal clauses as well as the
predicate of certain nominal clause patterns; the accusative marks the direct object in verbal
clauses, the subject following certain clause-initial particles, the predicate in certain nom-
inal clause patterns and adverbial expressions; the genitive marks nominal attributes fol-
lowing head nouns and prepositions. For certain nominal patterns and inflections, only two
cases are distinguished morphologically, nominative and oblique; these are called diptotes.
Tables 15.11 and 15.12 show the regular inflection of masculine and feminine nomi-
nals with explanations listed later.
In the indeterminate state, the case vowels (-u, -i, -a) are added to the nominal stem fol-
lowed by -n (tanwiːn, nunation) originally marking nonboundness. In both the construct
and determinate states this marker is dropped. The indeterminate accusative singular end-
ing -an becomes -aː in pause. In both dual and plural, only two cases are distinguished,
nominative and oblique.
TABLE 15.11 INFLECTION OF MASCULINE TRIPTOTES
Indeterminate Construct Determinate
singular nominative muslim-u-n muslim-u (a)l-muslim-u

genitive muslim-i-n muslim-i (a)l-muslim-i
accusative muslim-a-n muslim-a (a)l-muslim-a
dual nominative muslim-aː-ni muslim-aː (a)l-muslim-aː-ni
oblique muslim-aj-ni muslim-aj (a)l-muslim-aj-ni
plural nominative muslim-uː-na muslim-uː (a)l-muslim-uː-na
oblique muslim-iː-na muslim-iː (a)l-muslim-iː-na
TABLE 15.12 INFLECTION OF FEMININE TRIPTOTES
Indeterminate Construct Determinate
singular nominative muslim-at-u-n muslim-at-u (a)l-muslim-at-u

genitive muslim-at-i-n muslim-at-i (a)l-muslim-at-i
accusative muslim-at-a-n muslim-at-a (a)l-muslim-at-a
dual nominative muslim-at-aː-ni muslim-at-aː (a)l-muslim-at-aː-ni
oblique muslim-at-aj-ni muslim-at-aj (a)l-muslim-at-aj-ni
plural nominative muslim-aːt-u-n muslim-aːt-u (a)l-muslim-aːt-u
oblique muslim-aːt-i-n muslim-aːt-i (a)l-muslim-aːt-i
In the singular, the feminine gender is marked by the suffix -at attached to the nominal
stem and followed by the case vowels. In pause, the case endings are dropped in both the
indeterminate and determinate state and the ending -at becomes -ah [a] (< [ah]) (see §2).
Apart from the formation of feminine equivalents to masculine forms describing living
beings of natural gender, the marker -at is mainly employed to derive singulative nouns
from collectives and abstract nouns. Occasionally, such abstract nouns have come to refer
to male persons by way of metonymy, e.g., χaliːfah ‘replacement, stewardship’ > ‘stew-
ard, caliph’. There exists a small number of grammatically unmarked feminine nouns,
some of which refer to living beings with natural female gender, e.g., ʔumm ‘mother’,
or qualities regarded as specifically feminine, e.g., ħaːmil ‘pregnant’; others are simply
lexically feminine, e.g., jad ‘hand’ or nafs ‘soul, self’. In addition, the adjectival deri-
vation patterns faʕiːl with passive sense, e.g., ɟariːħ ‘hurt’ and faʕuːl with active sense,
e.g., kaðuːb ‘lying, mendacious’ preclude the formation of corresponding morphological
feminine forms, using only one form for both genders in the singular. The Proto-Semitic
marker -t is preserved only in a few forms, such as ʔuχt ‘sister’, bint ‘daughter’ as well as
the quantifier kiltaː ‘both’ and the numeral θintaːni ‘two’.
There are two additional feminine endings, -aː (written with final jaː) and -aːʔ-. These
can be added to certain nominal bases and are mainly used for the formation of feminine
forms to certain adjectival patterns. However, the nominal bases to which the feminine
endings are added are not identical to the nominal bases of the corresponding masculine
forms, e.g., ʔakbar (msg) ~ kubraː (fsg) ‘greater’, or ʔaswad (msg) ~ sawdaːʔ (fsg) ‘black’.
Plural formation is accomplished in two different ways, either by adding specific suf-
fixes to the singular stem (“sound plural”) as in the tables above or else by suppletion
with a different derivation pattern (“broken plural”), e.g., rasuːl ~ rusul ‘messenger(s)’.
Broken plurals are morphologically singular; syntactically they function as plurals, and
condition plural agreement. This type of plural formation is found with most substantives
and a few adjectival patterns. The predictability or lexicalization of the respective broken
plural pattern is a contested subject (Fischer 1997: 194, Fischer 2002: 54, 56, Ratcliffe
1998). A given singular noun may possess a sound as well as a broken plural or several
broken plurals, e.g., ʕamuːdun ~ ʕumudun/ʔaʕmidatun ‘column(s)’. Broken plurals may
also be formed for singular nouns ending in -at (e.g., ɟaziːrat ~ ɟazaːʔir ‘island’). Sound
plurals are usually formed from nouns with the derivation pattern faʕʕaːl, diminutives,
nouns ending with the derivational suffix -ijj (nisba) and participles and verb nouns of
derived stems as well as the passive participle of the basic stem; nouns denoting living
beings use the plural ending in accordance with the natural gender (mpl -uːn, fpl -aːt), and
abstracts etc. form the plural with -aːt.
From a syntactic point of view, plurality may be expressed by collective nouns, plurals
of paucity denoting a small number (broken plural patterns with prefix ʔa-) and individual
plurals denoting a larger number of individuals (broken plurals, sound plurals). In many
cases these semantic connotations have become blurred.
Most singular and broken plural patterns distinguish three cases in all states (triptotes).
Some distinguish only two cases (diptotes); they show a nominative in -u and an oblique
in -a in the indeterminate state and lack tanwiːn; in the construct and determinate state,
they distinguish all three cases. The following noun classes are diptotic:
• proper names with the feminine ending -at-, whether referring to men or women
• proper names possessing more than three root consonants
• proper names syntactically marked as feminine

• male proper names not based on participle patterns or the derivation patterns faʕl-,
fiʕl-, fuʕl-, faʕal- and faʕil-
• most proper names of foreign origin
• nouns with the feminine endings -aːʔ- and -aː, the latter being indeclinable
• certain derivation patterns, including broken plural patterns
In addition to these, nouns derived from roots with a weak third consonant often have
a reduced declension where several or all case endings having merged due to historical
phonological developments.
4.6.2 Derivational patterns

Classical Arabic has a rich inventory of nominal derivation patterns. This is due partially
to the large number of inherited patterns and partially to the apparent incorporation of
forms originating in different dialects into the standard language. In addition, there is
a small number of borrowed patterns, mainly from Aramaic. Apart from a small set of
inherited primary nouns, most nominals are derived by interdigitization of a stem pattern
with a root consisting usually of three consonants. The patterns are constructed utilizing
different vocalizations, root consonant gemination, prefixes (ʔa-, ʔi-, ʔu-, ta-, ti-, tu-, ma-,
mi-, mu-), infixes (-n-) and suffixes (-aːn, -ijj, -uːt).
The following list shows some common nominal derivation patterns, giving the
indeterminate nominative singular to indicate the declension type (triptotic or diptotic)
as well as typical corresponding feminine and plural forms where feasible. The list is
ordered by basic stems (to which feminine endings may be added), using the root √fʕl as
paradigmatic root:
• Monosyllabic stems, e.g.:

• faʕlun (variants faʕalun, faʕilun; plural of paucity: ʔafʕaːlun, ʔafʕaːlun): substan-
tives, adjectives, abstracts; verb nouns (basic stems), collective nouns denoting
persons
• fiʕlun (plural of paucity: ʔafʕaːlun): substantives (especially denoting paired items),
adjectives, abstracts, verb nouns
• fuʕlun (variant fuʕulun): substantives, adjectives, abstracts, verb nouns, collective
plurals; plurals (e.g., for fiʕaːlun, faʕiːlun)
• Bisyllabic stems with short second syllable CVCVC-, e.g.:

• faʕalun (plural of paucity: ʔafʕaːlun): substantives, adjectives, abstracts, verb
nouns (basic stem)
• faʕilun (variant fiʕlun; plural fuʕuːlun): nouns (especially denoting body parts),
adjectives
• faʕulun (plural fiʕaːlun): nouns, adjectives
• Bisyllabic stems with long second syllable, e.g.:

• faʕaːlun (plural fiʕlaːnun): substantives, abstracts, verb nouns; adjectives (no
feminine/plural forms)
• fiʕaːlun (plurals of paucity ʔafʕilatun): substantives denoting tools and devices,

abstracts, verb nouns, collective plurals; plurals (e.g., for faʕulun, faːʕilun); plurals
for adjectives
• fuʕaːlun: substantives (especially denoting illnesses and birds), adjectives (no fem-
inine/plural forms), abstracts, verb nouns, collective plurals
• Bisyllabic stems with long first syllable, e.g.:

• faːʕalun (from Aramaic): nouns
• faːʕilun (plural: fuʕʕaːlun, fawaːʕilu, ʔafʕaːlun; plural of paucity: ʔafʕilaːʔu): sub-
stantives, participles, ordinal numbers
• faːʕulaːʔu: abstract nouns
• Bisyllabic stems with geminated second consonant, e.g.:

• fuʕʕalun (variant: fiʕʕalun): animals, plants; plurals denoting persons; plurals of
adjectives
• faʕʕaːlun: substantives denoting occupations (from Aramaic); intensive adjectives
• fuʕʕaːlun: nouns denoting animals, plants; plurals denoting persons; adjectives (no
feminine/plural forms)
• Patterns with nisba ending:

• -ijjun: adjectives denoting affiliation, membership (so-called nisba-adjective)
• -ijjatun: abstract nouns, often from nisba adjectives
• Patterns with prefixes, e.g.:

• ʔafʕalu (elative pattern): adjectives denoting colors, defects, and noticeable qual-
ities (feminine faʕlaːʔu, plural fuʕlun, fuʕlaːnun), adjectives denoting contrastive
qualities, comparative/superlative (feminine fuʕlaː)
• mafʕalun (plural: mafaːʕilu): deverbal substantives of place and time, verb nouns
• mifʕaːlun (plural mafaːʕiːlu): substantives denoting instruments; intensive adjec-
tives (no feminine/plural forms)
• mifʕalun, mifʕalatun (plural mafaːʕilu): substantives denoting instruments
• mifʕiːlun: intensive adjectives (no feminine/plural forms)
While belonging to a given derivational pattern will make certain semantic connotations
more likely, the actual meaning has usually become lexicalized and is not strictly predict-
able from the derivational pattern alone.
4.6.3 Numerals
The cardinals in Classical Arabic are nouns, possessing masculine and feminine forms
(see Table 15.13). In the numbers from 3 to 10, the unmarked form is feminine, while the
masculine form is formed by adding -atun to the basic form. The gender of the numeral
depends on the gender of the counted item. The numerals are the construct head of the
counted noun, which in turn is in genitive plural. Alternatively, the numeral can follow
the counted noun as an attribute, in which case it is either determinate or indeterminate,
depending on the definiteness of the counted noun.
The forms of the number one are adjectival. The second decade is formed by prefix-
ing the masculine or feminine form in the accusative to the respective form of the num-
ber 10, i.e. ʕaçara for masculine and ʕaçrata for feminine, e.g.: χamsata ʕaçara ‘15 (m)’,
χamsa ʕaçrata ‘15 (f)’. In the case of 11 and 12, the single unit elements are ʔaħada
TABLE 15.13 CARDINALS OF THE FIRST DECADE
masc fem masc fem
1 waːħidun waːħidatun 6 sittatun sittun

2 (i)θnaːni (i)θnataːni 7 sabʕatun sabʕun
3 θalaːθatun θalaːθun 8 θamaːnijatun θamaːnin
4 ʔarbaʕatun ʔarbaʕun 9 tasʕatun tisʕun
5 χamsatun χamsun 10 ʕaçaratun ʕaçrun
TABLE 15.14 ORDINALS OF THE FIRST DECADE
masc fem masc fem
1 ʔawwalun uːlaː 6 saːdisun saːdisatun

2 θaːnin θaːnijatun 7 saːbiʕun saːbiʕatun
3 θaːliθun θaːliθatun 8 θaːminun θaːminatun
4 raːbiʕun raːbiʕatun 9 taːsiʕun taːsiʕatun
5 χaːmisun χaːmisatun 10 ʕaːçirun ʕaːçiratun
(m)/ʔiħdaː (f) and iθnaː (m)/iθnataː (f) respectively. The tens are not gendered and are formed
by adding -uːna (oblique -iːna) to the singulative (except for 20, which is ʕiçruːn/ʕiçriːna),
e.g., χams-uːna ‘50’. In composite numbers between 21 and 99, the single units precede the tens,
e.g., ʔarbaʕun wa-θalaːθuna ‘34 (m)’, ʔarbaʕatun wa-θalaːθuna ‘34 (f)’. The counted noun
follows in the indeterminate accusative singular; when the counted noun is definite, the arti-
cle is prefixed to the numeral, e.g., (as-)sitta ʕaçrata lajlat-an (def-)16.f night.fsg-acc ‘(the)
16 nights’, (al-)χamsatu wa-(l-)ʔarbaʕuːna raɟul-an (def-)45.m man.msg-acc ‘(the) 45 men’.
The hundreds and thousands do not exhibit gender agreement with the counted noun.
The number 100 miʔatun itself is a feminine noun; the hundreds are formed by the fem-
inine form of the numeral followed by the genitive miʔatin, 200 is miʔataːni (oblique
miʔatajni). The number 1,000 ʔalfun (plural ʔaːlaːfun) is a masculine noun; the thousands
are formed by the masculine form of the numeral followed by the genitive plural ʔaːlaːfin,
2000 is ʔalfaːni (oblique ʔalfajni). The counted noun follows in the genitive singular, e.g.,
ʔarbaʕu miʔat-i raɟul-in four hundred.fsg-gen.cst man.msg-gen ‘400 men’. In complex
numbers, the thousands and hundreds usually precede, but not always. The form of the
counted noun is dependent on the last numeral.
The ordinals from 2 to 10 take the derivational pattern faːʕilun (feminine faːʕilatun),
the ordinal of 1 takes the elative pattern ʔawwalu (feminine ʔuːlaː). The ordinal of 6 is
saːdis (feminine saːdisah), the cardinal sitt having developed from *sids via assimilation.
The ordinals from 11–19 are undeclinable and formed by prefixing the masculine or fem-
inine form of the ordinal single unit in the accusative to the respective form of the number
10, i.e. ʕaçara (m) and ʕaçrata (f). In the forms for 11th and 12th, the single unit elements
are ħaːdija (m)/ħaːdijata (f) and θaːnija (m)/θaːnijata (f) respectively. In ordinals from
20 onwards, the single units take the pattern faːʕilun followed by the cardinal forms of
the tens, hundreds, and thousands. The ordinal is an adjective and follows its head noun
displaying number-gender agreement. Table 15.14 presents the ordinals from 1 to 10.
4.7 Verbs
Classical Arabic possesses a rich verbal system in terms of derivational stems, inflec-
tional categories and moods.

The finite verb in Classical Arabic distinguishes three persons, three numbers and two
genders. All persons inflect for singular and plural; the second and 3rd persons possess
a dual form. A distinction between masculine and feminine is made in all forms of the
3rd person as well as in the singular and plural forms of the 2nd person. The 1st person
singular and plural as well as the 2nd person dual do not distinguish gender.
4.7.2 Tense/aspect/mood categories and diathesis

Classical Arabic has two basic finite verb paradigms: (a) a suffix conjugation, tradition-
ally called perfect, indicating completed action, e.g., daχal-tu ‘I entered’ (Table 15.15);
(b) a prefix conjugation, traditionally called imperfect, indicating an incomplete action,
e.g., ʔa-dχul-u ‘I am entering, I will enter’ (Table 15.16). Within the latter several moods
are distinguished. The suffix conjugation marks the inflectional categories by suffixes.
These suffixes are added to the base form, which depends on the respective verb stem.
Traditionally, dictionaries give the 3msg, from which the base can be formed by dropping
the 3msg suffix -a.
In the basic stem, several base patterns can be distinguished depending on the stem
thematic vowel between R2 and R3, which can be -a-, -i- or -u- and is partially dependent
Person/Number singular dual plural
1 faʕal-tu faʕal-naː
2m faʕal-ta faʕal-tum
faʕal-tum-aː
2f faʕal-ti faʕal-tunna
3m faʕal-a faʕal-aː faʕal-uː
3f faʕal-at faʕal-at-aː faʕal-na
Person/Number Indicative Jussive Subjunctive Energic
1sg ʔa-fʕal-u ʔa-fʕal ʔa-fʕal-a ʔa-fʕal-an(na)

2msg ta-fʕal-u ta-fʕal ta-fʕal-a ta-fʕal-an(na)
2fsg ta-fʕal-iː-na ta-fʕal-iː ta-fʕal-iː-∅ ta-fʕali-n(na)
3msg ja-fʕal-u ja-fʕal ja-fʕal-a ja-fʕal-an(na)
3fsg ta-fʕal-u ta-fʕal ta-fʕal-a ta-fʕal-an(na)
2du ta-fʕal-aː-ni ta-fʕal-aː ta-fʕal-aː ta-fʕal-aː-n(ni)
3mdu ja-fʕal-aː-ni ja-fʕal-aː ja-fʕal-aː ja-fʕal-aː-n(ni)
3fdu ta-fʕal-aː-ni ta-fʕal-aː ta-fʕal-aː ta-fʕal-aː-n(ni)
1pl na-fʕal-u na-fʕal na-fʕal-a na-fʕal-an(na)
2mpl tafʕal-uː-na tafʕal-uː tafʕal-uː-∅ ta-fʕal-u-n(na)
2fpl ta-fʕal-na-∅ ta-fʕal-na ta-fʕal-na-∅ ta-fʕal-naː-n(ni)
3mpl ja-fʕal-uː-na ja-fʕal-uː ja-fʕaluː-∅ jafʕal-u-n(na)
3fpl ja-fʕal-na-∅ ja-fʕal-na ja-fʕal-na-∅ jafʕal-naː-n(ni)
on the semantics of the root. The root traditionally used as paradigmatic example is √fʕl
‘to do’.
In the prefix conjugation, gender and person are primarily expressed by prefixes while
number is primarily marked by suffixes. In the basic stem, different bases can be distin-
guished depending on the thematic vowel between R2 and R3, which can be -u-, -a- or -i-,
depending partially on the semantics of the root and partially on its phonetic structure.
Within the prefix conjugation, several moods must be distinguished:
• a jussive (or apocopate): jafʕal

• an indicative formed by suffixing -u (after consonants) or -na/ni (after long vowels) to
the jussive
• a subjunctive formed by suffixing -a (after consonants) to the jussive
• an energic, formed by suffixing -anna (rarely -an) to the jussive
The jussive is used in conditional clauses, as jussive (i.e., Ist and 3rd person imperative)
and as the negated correspondence of the perfect, e.g.: lam ja-fʕal neg 3msg-do.pc.juss
‘he did not do’. The subjunctive forms are marked as dependent and occur mainly after
certain subordinators. The energic is employed to highlight the certainty of statements or
wishes with future reference.
The two tenses indicate primarily whether an action has been completed (perfect) or
is ongoing/incomplete (imperfect). This means that the suffix conjugation has generally
past reference, although it can also refer to the present, e.g., in performative statements
or with stative verbs or verbs expressing qualities, and to the future, e.g., in wishes. The
prefix conjugation generally refers to the actual, the habitual or general present or the
future, although it can also refer to the past, often indicating habitual or repeated action.
When being subordinate to another verb, the imperfect denotes simultaneous or imminent
action vis-à-vis the action indicated by the main verb while the perfect denotes a com-
pleted action vis-à-vis the main verb.
The imperative is derived from the imperfect base, i.e., the jussive minus the verbal
prefix. In the basic (and certain derived) verb stems, dropping the verbal prefix would
lead to an initial consonant cluster. This is avoided by prefixing an epenthetic vowel;
in the basic verb stem, the quality of the vowel depends on the thematic vowel of the
imperfect base: u- if the thematic vowel is -u-, i- if it is -a- or -i-; in the derived stems,
the epenthetic vowel is always -i. In context, following vowels, the epenthetic vowel is
elided. On occasion, the energic ending -an can be suffixed to the imperative to indicate
the urgency of the request (see Table 15.17).
In Classical Arabic, a passive can be formed by changing the internal vowel pattern,
e.g., for the perfect kataba ‘he wrote’ but kutiba ‘he was written’, and in the imperfect
TABLE 15.17 THE IMPERATIVE
Person/Number Simple Energic
2msg (i)fʕal (i)fʕal-an

2fsg (i)fʕal-iː (i)fʕal-i-n
2du (i)fʕal-aː (i)fʕal-aː-n
2mpl (i)fʕal-uː (i)fʕal-u-n
2fpl (i)fʕal-na (i)fʕal-naː-n
jaqtulu ‘he kills’ but juqtalu ‘he is killed’. In transitive verbs, the object of the active verb
becomes the subject in its passive counterpart; additional actants and circumstants remain
unchanged. Passive constructions in Classical Arabic cannot indicate the agent. Conse-
quently, passive clauses are often employed when the agent is unknown or else unmen-
tioned. Intransitive verbs with objects introduced by prepositions can also be employed in
passive constructions, but in this case the passive construction will be impersonal. More-
over, reflexive verb stems can occasionally adopt a passive meaning and do so increas-
ingly in post-Classical literature.
In addition to these finite verbal forms, there are also three nominal forms regularly
formed for every verb, an active and a passive participle as well as a verbal noun or infin-
itive. The participles inflect for gender and number like all regular adjectives. The forms
of all these are predictable from the respective stem, excluding the infinitive of the basic
verbal stem, which is largely lexicalized despite some general derivation pattern classes
based on the overall semantics of verbs.
4.7.3 Verbal stems
The forms discussed earlier and shown in the tables were inflections of the basic verb
stem. Classical Arabic has a large inventory of derivational verb stem patterns most of
which continue inherited Semitic forms. These stems are formed by modifying the usu-
ally triradical root through geminating consonants, lengthening vowels or affixing certain
elements. Historically, most of the core stems formed a corresponding reflexive stem by
prefixing or infixing -t-. Traditionally, these verb stems are enumerated by Roman digits
I through XV and listed in the form of the 3msg suffix conjugation. Of these, only stems
I to VIII and X are used frequently. Table 15.18 shows these stems and their historical
relation with each other from a Semitic perspective (G stands for German Grundstamm,
i.e. basic stem, D for doubled, L for lengthened, C for causative and N for prefixed n-).
In the basic stem (stem I), three subclasses can be distinguished by their thematic
vowels in the suffix conjugation: faʕala (transitive, intransitive verbs), faʕila (mainly
intransitives and verbs denoting qualities) and faʕula (exclusively verbs denoting quali-
ties). The thematic vowel of the prefix conjugation partially depends on the subclass and
partially on the root shape: faʕala verbs usually form their imperfect with -u- or -i-; when
the third root consonant is a laryngeal or pharyngeal ([ʔ], [h], [ʕ] or [ħ]), the vowel is -a-;
faʕila verbs have jafʕalu and faʕula verbs jafʕulu.
Stem II (faʕʕala) is marked by doubling the second root consonant. It forms intensive,
factive, causative and declarative verbs vis-à-vis stem I; it is also used to derive verbs
from nouns. Stem III (faːʕala) is often conative, i.e., indicates an attempt at performing
the action indicated by stem I; these verbs have often undergone lexicalization. Stem IV
(ʔafʕala) forms causatives of stem I; if stem I indicates a state, IV may describe acting in
accordance with the state. Often, the semantic difference vis-à-vis stem II is unclear, as
both are employed as causatives.
TABLE 15.18 VERB STEMS
G D L C N
Active I faʕala II faʕʕala III faːʕala IV ʔafʕala VII (i)nfaʕala

Reflexive VIII (i)ftaʕala V tafaʕʕala VI tafaːʕala X (i)stafʕala
Stem V (tafaʕʕala) forms reflexives of stem II; when stem II is declarative, stem V
denotes pretense. Stem VI (tafaːʕala) forms reflexives of stem III; it often has reciprocal
meaning or can indicate pretense, like stem V. Stem VII ((i)nfaʕala) and VIII ((i)ftaʕala)
form reflexives of stem I. Stem X is originally a reflexive to stem IV. However, due to the
sound change *s > *h > ʔ in certain grammatical elements in initial positions, the active
causative has changed from *safʕala > *hafʕala > ʔafʕala and the original relationship
between these two stems has become obscured.
Stem IX ((i)fʕalla) and stem XI ((i)fʕaːlla) are verbalizations of the nominal derivation
pattern ʔafʕala used for denoting colors, defects and noticeable qualities and occur rather
rarely. Stems XII ((i)fʕawʕala), XIII ((i)fʕawwala), XIV ((i)fʕanlala) and XV ((i)fʕanlaː)
occur extremely rarely. Verbs with four root consonants are incorporated into the system
by using stem patterns where the gemination of root consonants or the sequence of root
consonant and infix create consonant clusters (Table 15.19).
4.7.4 Verbal roots
When occurring in certain root positions, some consonants show specific alterations or
phonological developments resulting from the contact with prefixes, infixes, suffixes or
the vocalization patterns.
Most roots with initial w loose this consonant in all forms derived from the imper-
fect base, i.e. the imperative and the prefix conjugation, and partially the infinitive, e.g.,
walada ‘he gave birth’, but jalidu ‘he will give birth’, lidatun ‘birth’. In stem VIII, the
w is always assimilated to the reflexive infix -t-, e.g., wakala ‘to entrust (sth. to sb.)’,
ittakala ‘entrust oneself’.
Roots with medial w and j manifest this consonant only in stems with geminated sec-
ond radical (stems II, V) or lengthened preceding vowel (III, VI). Otherwise, they tend to
manifest only as a coloring and/or lengthening of the thematic vowel; in certain environ-
ments the vowel may become shortened due to phonotactic reasons. From the root √qwm
‘to rise’, e.g., sc 3msg qaːma, 1sg qumtu, pc 3msg indicative jaquːmu, 3msg jussive jaqum;
from the root √njl ‘to receive’, sc 3msg naːla, 1sg niltu, pc 3msg indicative janaːlu, 3msg
jussive janal. In the active participle of stem I, the root consonant is reflected as glottal
stop, e.g., qaːʔimun ‘rising’. Roots with final w and j manifest this consonant by length-
ening the final vowel in most conditions.
TABLE 15.19 INFLECTION OF MAJOR VERB STEMS
Suffix Conjugation Prefix Conjugation Participle Infinitive

Active Passive Active Passive Active Passive
Stem I faʕa/i/ula fuʕila jafʕu/i/alu jufʕilu faːʕilun mafʕuːlun

Stem II faʕʕala fuʕʕila jufaʕʕilu jufaʕʕalu mufaʕʕilun mufaʕʕalun tafʕiːl
Stem III faːʕʕala fuːʕila jufaːʕilu jufaːʕalu mufaːʕilun mufaːʕalun fiʕaːl
Stem IV ʔafʕala ʔufʕila jufʕilu jufʕalu mufʕilun mufʕalun ʔifʕaːl
Stem V tafaʕʕala tufuʕʕila jatafaʕʕala jutafaʕʕalu mutafaʕʕilun mutafaʕʕalun tafaʕʕul
Stem VI tafaːʕala tufuːʕila jatafaːʕala jutafaːʕalu mutafaːʕilun mutafaːʕalun tafaːʕul
Stem VII (i)nfaʕala (u)nfuʕila janfaʕilu junfaʕalu munfaʕilun munfaʕalun (i)nfiʕaːl
Stem VIII (i)ftaʕala (u)ftuʕila jaftaʕilu juftaʕalu muftaʕilun muftaʕalun (i)ftiʕaːl
Stem X (i)stafʕala (u)stufʕila jastafʕilu justafʕalu mustafʕilun mustafʕalun (i)stifʕaːl
4.8 Prepositions/connectives/adverbs/particles
Prepositions function as heads of a construct chain and precede their nominal dependents.
The nominal dependent itself can be a noun, including a construct chain, a pronoun, a
demonstrative or a relative clause. Conjunctions likewise precede the phrase or clause
they join to the preceding section.
Except for the prepositions bi- ‘in, with, by’, li- ‘to, for’, ka- ‘like, as’ and min ‘from’,
Classical Arabic prepositions are derived from nouns in the accusative construct state,
the accusative functioning as adverbial case, e.g., *taħtun ‘bottom part’ ~ taħta ‘at the
bottom part of’ > ‘below’. The major prepositions in addition to the ones above are ʕalaː
‘on, upon’, ʕan ‘off from’, baʕda ‘after’, bajna ‘between’, duːna ‘below, without’, fiː ‘in’,
ʔilaː ‘toward’, ʕinda ‘near, by, in the opinion of’, ladaː ‘at, near to’, maʕa ‘together with’,
and qabla ‘before’; ʕalaː, ʔilaː and ladaː retain their original final consonant -j before the
personal suffixes, e.g., ʕalaj-hi ‘above him’. The preposition li- has the form la- before
pronominal suffixes. Many denominal prepositions can themselves be dependent on the
prepositions min and ʔilaː; in this case, their ending reflects the original genitive, e.g., min
baʕdi ‘from after’ > ‘at the end of, after’.
Some of these prepositions can be used together with the nominalizers maː, ʔan
and ʔanna to create subordinating conjunctions, e.g., baʕda maː/ʔan ‘after’, qabla ʔan
‘before’, li-ʔanna ‘because’, etc.
The most important connectives are wa- ‘and’, fa- ‘(and) then, consequently’, θumma
‘thereupon, thereafter, then’, ʔaw ‘or’ and ʔam ‘or’ (in alternative questions). The voc-
ative particles are jaː followed by the indeterminate nominative or the accusative in the
case of the construct chain and (jaː) ʔajjuhaː followed by the determinate nominative.
Apart from inherited adverbs, Classical Arabic has mainly uses the accusative (-an)
to derive new adverbs, e.g., ɟamiʕan ‘altogether’, ɟiddan ‘very’, maʕan ‘together’, etc.
This usage is especially prominent with temporal nouns, e.g., masaːʔan ‘in the evening’
< masaːʔ ‘evening’, or jawman ‘by day’ < jawm ‘day’. Some of the inherited adverbs
seem to be derived from nouns in an old locative case, e.g., qablu ‘before’ or baʕdu
‘after’. In addition to these, Classical Arabic employs a number of circumstantial and
tautological infinitive constructions to derive adverbial phrases modifying parts of the
clause.
5 SYNTAX
In nominal clauses, the typical order is subject-predicate or predicate-subject; in ver-
bal clauses with explicit subject, the order is normally verb-subject. In finite verbs, the
subject is incorporated into the morphology; an explicit subject stands to some extent in
apposition to the incorporated subject.
In prepositional phrases, nominal phrases and related constructions, the order is
head-dependent. For example:
PP ʔilaː l-bajt-i
to def-house.msg-gen
‘to the house’
N–N risaːlat-u l-malik-i

epistle.fsg-nom def-king.msg-gen
‘the epistle of the king’
N–Adj al-raɟul-aːni l-maqtuːl-aːni

def-man.msg-du.nom def-killed.msg-du.nom
‘the two killed men’
N–Rel al-bint-u llaθiː raʔaj-tu-haː

def-girl.fsg-nom rel.fsg see.sc-1sg-3fsg
‘the girl I saw’
In phrases with demonstratives, the position of the demonstrative depends on the type
of the head. When the nominal head carries the article, the demonstrative precedes; if
the nominal head is a proper name, a substantive with possessive suffix or the head of a
genitive construction, the demonstrative follows the nominal phrase. Attributive demon-
stratives can only be used with definite heads. For example:
haːðaː l-kitaːb-u
this.msg def-book.msg-nom
‘this book’
kibaːb-iː ðaːlika
book.msg-1sg that.msg
‘that book of mine’
sˤaːħib-u tilka r-risaːlat-i

author.msg-nom.cst that.fsg def-epistle.fsg-gen
‘the author of that epistle’
sˤaːħib-u r-rasaːil-i haːða

author.msg-nom.cst def-epistle.fpl-gen this.msg
‘this author’
5.2 Definiteness
Classical Arabic has a definite article, which is prefixed to the noun. Proper names and
nouns with possessive suffixes do not take the definite article. The agreement rules
demand that attributive adjectives must agree with their head regarding definiteness, for
example:
ħadiːθ-un ħasan-un
tradition.msg-nom.indf good.msg-nom.indf
‘a good tradition’
al-riwaːjat-u l-ħasanat-u
def-narration.fsg-nom def-good.fsg-nom
‘the good narration’
Zajnab-u l-ħasanat-u
Zaynab(f)-nom def-beautiful.fsg-nom
‘beautiful Zaynab’
In a construct chain, the definiteness of the last element determines the definiteness of all
elements in the chain, e.g.:
bi-raħmat-i rabb-i-hiː
by-mercy.fsg-gen.cst lord.msg-gen.cst-3msg
‘by the mercy of his lord’
ʔamiːr-u ɟajç-in
leader.msg-nom.cst army.msg-gen.indf
‘a leader of an army’
5.3 Agreement
In general, elements in subject-predicate and head-dependent relationships show
gender-number agreement between nominal subjects and nominal as well as verbal predi-
cates and gender-number-case-state agreement in N–Adj phrases. Some exceptions apply
in certain constructions.
Moreover, the plural of nouns referring to other than human beings (e.g., bujuːtun
‘houses’) as well as collective nouns referring to tribes, ethnic groups, etc. (e.g., banuː
Kalbin ‘the tribe of Kalb’, al-jahuːdu ‘the Jews’) are constructed as fsg; other collective
nouns referring to human beings are often treated as mpl, e.g., an-naːsu ‘the people’.
5.4 Predication types
There are two main predication types in Classical Arabic, verbal clauses and nominal
clauses. In verbal clauses, the predicate consists of a finite verb, in nominal clauses it con-
sists of a nominal phrase, a prepositional phrase and other non-verbal phrases. Sentences
in which a fronted noun is followed by a verbal or nominal clause with a resumptive
pronoun referring to the fronted noun are regarded by the Arab grammarians as a type of
nominal clause with a sentence-initial, explicit subject and a verbal or nominal clause as
predicate.
5.4.1 Verbal clauses

Verbal clauses in Classical Arabic do not necessitate an explicit subject, since the finite
verb form has specific person-gender-number markers. Any explicit subject follows the
finite verb. Due to information structure considerations, other constituents may occupy the
slot between verb and subject, e.g., object, adverbial complements, etc. There is gender
agreement between the verb and a following explicit subject, but no number agreement:
3msg verbs precede masculine subjects irrespective of their number (singular, dual or plu-
ral), and 3fsg verbs precede feminine subjects irrespective of the number. For example:
daχal-a l-malik-u
enter.sc-3msg def-king.msg-nom
‘the king entered’
daχal-a l-muslim-uːna
enter.sc-3msg def-Muslim.msg-pl.nom
‘the Muslims entered’
ta-dχul-u l-ʔamat-aːni
3fsg-enter.pc-ind def-maidservant.fsg-du.nom
‘the two maidservants entered’
In older texts, 3msg verbs can also occur before certain feminine subjects. If the finite
verb refers to a noun that has been mentioned before, there is number and gender agree-
ment, e.g.:
ʔaχað-a-huː r-raɟul-aːni wa-ʔaχraɟ-aː-hu

take.sc-3msg-3msg def-man.msg-du.nom and-pull.out.sc-3mdu-3msg
‘The two men took him and pulled him out’
5.4.2 Nominal clauses

In nominal clauses, the predicate can be a substantive, an adjective, a pronoun, a sub-
stantive clause, a prepositional phrase or an adverb. The predicate is typically indefinite
and in the nominative. Predicative adjectives show number and gender agreement. There
is no copula, although in clauses where the predicate is a definite nominal, a 3rd person
pronoun (in agreement with the subject) can be used to mark the border between subject
and predicate. Several predicative adjectives can be strung together without intervening
conjunction. For example:
al-bint-u sˤaʁiːrat-un
def-girl.fsg-nom small.fsg-nom.indf
‘the girl is little’
hum sˤiʁaːr-un
they small.mpl-nom.indf
‘they are little’
ar-raɟul-u fiː l-bajt-i

def-man.msg-nom in def-house.msg-gen
‘the man is in the house’
ðaːlika (huwa) l-fawz-u l-ʕaðˤiːm-u

that.msg (he) def-success.msg-nom def-mighty.msg-nom
‘such is the mighty success’
The usual word order is subject-predicate; in questions and clauses where the subject is
indefinite and the predicate an adverb or a prepositional phrase, the predicate is fronted.
There is no specific existential clause pattern; instead, positive existential clauses are
subsumed under the last pattern. For example:
man haːʔulaːʔi r-riɟaːl-u

who these.mpl def-man.mpl-nom
‘who are these men?’
fiː l-madiːnat-i bujuːt-un

in def-city.fsg-gen house.mpl-nom
‘there are houses in the city’
Nominal clauses are inherently present tense or extra-temporal. Past and future reference is
accomplished by the respective form of kaːna ‘to be’, which precedes the subject. The predi-
cate noun is marked as an accusative. This is strictly a verbal predication pattern. For example:
kaːn-a Zajd-un raɟul-an ʕaliːm-an

be.sc-3msg Zayd(m)-nom man.msg-acc.indf informed.msg-acc.indf
‘Zayd was an informed man’
As mentioned above, sentences with a fronted noun followed by a verbal or nom-

inal clause are analyzed as nominal clause by the native grammarians. The subject is
referenced in the predicate clause by the subject marker of the finite verb or a personal
pronoun. For example:
Zajd-un maridɮˤ-a ʔab-uː-hu

Zayd(m)-nom get.ill.sc-3msg father.msg-nom-3msg
‘Zayd’s father got ill’
These clauses are commonly used for selecting the subject as salient, often contrasting it
with other elements; they occur as regular transformations of verbal clauses where one of
the constituents is an interrogative. For example:
ʔajj-u bn-i zaːnijat-in ja-ʔkul-u min

which-nom son.msg-gen.cst adultress.fsg-gen.indf 3msg-eat.pc-ind from
haːðaː l-χubz-i raʁiːf-ajni

this.msg def-bread.msg-gen loaf.msg-du.nom
‘which son of a whore will eat two loaves of this bread?’
This clause type occurs often with certain introductory particles, such as ʔammaː ‘as for’
(with predicate introduced by fa-), ʔinna ‘behold, verily’, (wa-)laːkinna ‘but’, (fa-)ʔiðaː
‘and suddenly’, and rubba ‘many a’. For example:
ʔammaː l-qarn-u fa-l-waɟh-u fiː-hi maʕruːf-un

as.for def-horn.msg-nom then-def-essence.msg-nom in-3msg known.msg-nom.indf
‘As for the horn, its qualities are known.’
5.5 Analytic and synthetic constructions

Classical Arabic is conservative in this respect and exhibits strong preference for synthe-
sis. Analytic constructions are frequently found in the verbal system, where a number of
compound tenses are attested.
To indicate clear future reference, the particles sa- or sawfa can be placed before the
indicative of the prefix conjugation; sais prefixed to the verb. Both suffix and prefix
conjugation can be used together with the particle qad placed before the verb. With the
former, it indicates an action that was completed before a given point in time and the
effect of which is already or still present; with the latter, it indicates that the action is
possible or likely to occur. Both, suffix and prefix conjugation can also be combined
with the perfect of ‘to be’ (kaːna); kaːna faʕala indicates anteriority (past perfect), kaːna
jafʕalu denotes a repeated, habitual or continuous past action. The suffix conjugation can
moreover be combined with the imperfect of ‘to be’ (jakuːnu), indicating posteriority
(future perfect).
In addition, a small set of grammaticalized verbs can be combined with a following
suffix conjugation form with identical person inflection to express certain aktionsarten:
ʔasˤbaħa/ʔamsaː ‘to reach a point where something happens’, ʔaχaða/ɟaʕala ‘to begin
doing’, ðˤalla/baːta ‘to do continuously, keep doing’, and ʕaːda ‘to do repeatedly’.
The object marker base ʔijjaː- followed by the possessive pronouns can be used to
express a pronominal object instead of marking it directly on the finite verb. This occurs
commonly with bi-transitive verbs to avoid a sequence of two object pronouns on the
verb but can also be found with mono-transitive verbs. In the latter case, the object
marker precedes the finite verb.
5.6 Nominal phrase expansions

A substantive can be modified by a following substantive in the genitive case; in this case,
the head is in the construct state, which morphologically means it lacks the suffix -n and
cannot carry a definite article. When the head is an adjective, it describes an inalienable
quality of the dependent noun, e.g., kabiːr-u r-raʔs-i [big.msg-nom.cst def-head.msg-gen
‘having a big head, big-headed’]. The dependent noun in these instances is always deter-
mined, but not the construction as such. When it is used itself to expand another substan-
tive, the adjective shows determination agreement with the head, e.g.:
baqarat-un kabiːrat-u r-raʔs-i

cow.fsg-nom big.fsg-nom.cst def-head.msg-gen
‘a big-headed cow’
al-baqarat-u l-kabiːrat-u r-raʔs-i

def-cow.fsg-nom def-big.fsg-nom def-head.msg-gen
‘the big-headed cow’
5.7 Verbal complements

Verbal predicates can take nominal, verbal and prepositional complements. A common
construction is the internal object, where a transitive or intransitive verb is expanded by
a verbal noun of the same root and stem. It has two functions, either emphasizing the
factuality of the predication or else to modify the quality of the action; in the latter case,
the verbal noun maybe itself be expanded by adjectives. For example:
dɮˤarab-a-niː dɮˤarb-an
strike.sc-3msg-1sg striking.inf.msg-acc.indf
‘He did indeed strike me’
dɮˤarab-a-niː dɮˤarb-an ʔaliːm-an

strike.sc-3msg-1sg striking.inf.msg-acc.indf painful.msg-acc.indf
‘He hit me in a painful manner’
Verbal predicates can also be specified by adverbial accusatives, often stating the time,
place, manner, etc.; e.g.:
baːt-a lajlat-an
spend.night.sc-3msg night.fsg-acc.indf
‘he stayed for a night’
raħal-a maçj-an
travel.sc-3msg walk.inf.msg-acc.indf
‘He travelled on foot’
A verbal predicate can be expanded by an adverbial verb clause specifying the manner of
the action expressed by the main clause, e.g.:
daχal-a l-madiːnat-a ja-rkab-u ɟamal-a-huː

enter.sc-3msg def-town.fsg-acc 3msg-ride.pc-ind camel.msg-acc-3msg
‘he entered the town riding his camel’
In these instances, it can be difficult to determine whether the clause refers to the verbal
predicate or else modifies one of the nominal constituents of the verbal clause, e.g., the
subject or the object.
5.8 Circumstantial clauses

Constituents in verbal clauses may be expanded by predicative circumstantial clauses
specifying the state or situation of the respective constituent, i.e., the subject, object or
dependent noun of a prepositional phrase. Three basic constructions are possible: an
indefinite circumstantial accusative agreeing with its referent in gender and number, a
circumstantial verbal clause where the subject agrees in gender and number with the ref-
erent, or a clause of the structure [personal pronoun + verb clause/predicative adjective]
introduced by wa- ‘and’. For example:
raʔaj-tu Faːdˤimat-a dɮˤaːħikat-an

see.sc-1sg Fatima(f)-obl laugh.ptcp.fsg-acc.indf
‘I saw Fatima laughing’
raʔaj-tu Faːdˤimat-a ta-dɮˤħak-u

see.sc-1sg Fatima(f)-obl 3fsg-laugh.pc-ind
‘I saw Fatima laughing’
marar-tu bi-Faːdˤimat-a wa-hija ta-dɮˤħak-u

pass.by.sc-1sg by-Fatima(f)-obl and-she 3fsg-laugh.pc-ind
‘I passed by Fatima while she was laughing’
Two additional important constructions are used to describe the circumstantial situation
of the main clause: an imperfect indicative verb form is used to describe an intended
action after the action of the main clause, a suffix tense verb form usually introduced by
wa-qad describes the contemporaneous result of a preceding action. For example:
ʔarsal-naː Zajd-an ju-saːʕid-u-kum

send.sc-1pl Zayd(m)-acc 3msg-help.pc-ind-2mpl
‘we have sent Zayd to help you’
5.9 Subordination
Several different types of subordination exist in Classical Arabic. The most important of
these are complement clauses, relative clauses and conditional clauses.
5.9.1 Complementary clauses

Clauses can be nominalized by ʔan, ʔanna or maː. Verbal clauses are introduced by ʔan;
if the action described is factual, the sc is used, while the subjunctive is used when the
action is expected or desired. Verbal clauses can also be introduced by maː; in older texts,
the msg relative allaðiː can also be used. Nominal clauses are introduced by ʔanna, which
conditions the accusative on the subject of the subordinated clause. Complement clauses
can occupy any position in the matrix clause. For example:
saʔal-a-niː ʔan ʔa-biːt-a ʕinda-huː

ask.sc-3msg-1sg that 1sg-stay.over.pc-sbjv at-3msg
‘he asked me to stay overnight at his place’
ja-zʕam-u ʔanna l-fuqaraːʔ-a ʔafdɮˤal-u min-hum

3msg-claim.pc-ind that def-poor.mpl-acc preferable.msg-nom from-3mpl
‘he claims that the poor are preferable to them’
5.9.2 Relative clauses

In Classical Arabic, two types of relative clauses exist, asyndetic and syndetic. The first
type occurs as qualification of an indefinite head and consists of verbal or nominal clause
juxtaposed to the head; the syndetic type occurs with definite heads and is connected
to the head by a relative pronoun showing gender, number (and in the also dual case)
agreement with the head. The head is referenced by the subject marker of the finite verb
or a personal pronoun, which may be omitted in the case of an accusative object. For
example:
fiː kitaːb-in qaraʔ-tu(-huː)

in book.msg-gen.indf read.sc-1sg(-3msg)
‘in a book I read’
maʕa raɟul-in maːt-at ʔumm-u-huː

with man.msg-gen.indf die.sc-3fsg mother.fsg-nom-3msg
‘with a man whose mother died’
fiː l-qarjat-i llati marar-tu bi-haː

in def-town.fsg-gen rel.fsg pass.by.sc-1sg by-3fsg
‘in the town that I passed’
al-raɟul-u llaðiː bi-jadi-hiː dirham-un

def-man.msg-nom rel.msg in-hand.fsg-3msg dirham.msg-nom.indf
‘the man in whose hand there is a dirham’
Relative clauses with allaði can also occur without head, e.g., allaðiːna ʔaːman-uː rel.mp
believe.sc-3mpl ‘those who believe’.
When the predicate of the relative clause is an adjective (including participles),
the predicate undergoes a transformation: it continues to show gender/number agree-
ment with the subject, but agrees with the head with regards to case and determina-
tion, e.g.:
fiː madiːnat-in ʔaʁnijaːʔ-in sukkaːn-u-haː

in city.fsg-gen.indf rich.mpl-gen.indf resident.mpl-nom-3fsg
‘in a city whose residents are rich’
fiː l-madiːnat-i l-ʔaʁnijaːʔ-i sukkaːn-u-haː

in def-city.fsg-gen def-rich.mpl-gen resident.mpl-nom-3fsg
‘in the city whose residents are rich’
Lastly, a nominal phrase maybe expanded by a prepositional phrase or an accusative of

specification; this accusative is always indefinite and specifies e.g. the material, content
or property of the adjectival predicate. For example:
ðurrijat-u-ka min baʕd-i-ka

progeny.fsg-nom.cst-2msg from after-gen.cst-2msg
‘your progeny after you’
ʔafsˤaħ-u kalaːm-an
most.eloquent.msg-nom.indf speech.msg-acc.indf
‘the most eloquent in speech’
Such adnominal prepositional phrases are more often introduced by relative pronouns
in agreement with the head and thus marked explicitly as adnominal qualifications, e.g.:
al-marʔat-u llatiː fiː l-bajt-i

def-woman.fsg-nom rel.fsg in def-house.msg-gen
‘the woman (who is) in the house’
5.9.3 Conditional clauses

Conditional clauses are introduced by ʔin ‘if’ or ʔiðaː ‘if, when’ as well as indefinite pro-
nouns such as man ‘who(ever)’, maː ‘what(ever)’, ʔajna(maː) ‘where(ever)’, etc. Both
the sc and the pc jussive (except with ʔiðaː) can be used in both protasis and apodosis with
present tense reference; to mark the construction as referring to the past, kaːna precedes
the conditional conjunction. The apodosis is often introduced by fa-.
Hypothetical conditions and wishes are introduced by law. The tense in both apodosis
and protasis is usually sc, but the pc indicative also occurs. The apodosis is often marked
by la-. For example:
man ɟaːl-a naːl-a

who search.sc-3msg obtain.sc-3msg
‘who(ever) searches obtains’
ʔin faʕal-ta ðaːlika fa-ʔaħsan-ta

if do.sc-2msg that.msg then-do.well.sc-2msg
‘If you do that you have done well’
law mit-ta la-raɟam-tu qabr-a-ka

if die.sc-2msg apo-stone.sc-1sg grave.msg-acc.cst-2msg (apo = apodosis marker)
‘if you were to die, I would stone your grave’
5.9.4 Other subordinate clauses

Apart from the subordinators created from prepositions followed by compliment clauses,
Classical Arabic possesses several additional subordinators. Final clauses are introduced
by li- and (li-)kaj ‘in order to’ with the verb in the pc subjunctive. Other conjugations are
ħattaː ‘until, as long as, so that’ (usually with subjunctive), ħajθu ‘where, insofar as’ and
the temporal conjunctions lammaː ‘when, after’ (with sc) and ʔið ‘when’. For example:
lammaː raʔaj-tu-huː dɮˤaħak-tu

when see.sc-1sg-3msg laugh.sc-1sg
‘when I saw him, I laughed’
5.10 Interrogative clauses

Questions are formed either by specific interrogatives representing clause constituents
(see §4.5) or by specific interrogative particles in the case of polar questions. There are
TABLE 15.20 NEGATION PATTERNS
Positive Clauses Negative Counterparts
faʕala maː faʕala lam jafʕal

jafʕalu maː jafʕalu laː jafʕalu
Nominal Clause maː sbj pred/nom/bi-pred.gen lajsa sbj pred.acc/bi-pred.gen
two particles, ʔa- and hal; the former indicates that the answer is open while the latter
indicates that the speaker expects a negative answer or else that the question is rhetorical.
5.11 Negation
Negation in Classical Arabic is complex (Table 15.20). Each major tense as well as nomi-
nal clauses possesses two negation patterns, which are semantically distinct or used to be.
The major opposition between these patterns seems to be that the negations with maː
emphasize that it is only one of the constituents of the clauses that is negated, e.g., the
subject, whereas in clauses with the other negative particles, the predicative relationship
between subject and predicate is negated (Birnstiel 2011). For example:
laː ʔu-ħibb-u ʔan ʔa-raː-hu

not 1sg-love.pc-ind that 1sg-see.pc.juss-3msg
‘I do not wish to see him’ → ‘It is not the case that I wish to see him’
wa-maː ʔa-driː ʔasˤab-tu ʔam ʔaχdˤaʔ-tu

and-not 1sg-know.pc.ind hit.sc-1sg or miss.sc-1sg
‘but what I don’t know is if I hit or missed’
6 LEXICON
The lexicon of Classical Arabic is characterized by the coexistence of synonymous lex-
emes derived from the same root. This is due to the large number of derivational pat-
terns as well as concrete items originating in different pre-Islamic dialects and strata
that were incorporated into the Classical language. There is also a substantial number
of borrowings, mainly from Aramaic, especially Syriac, and Persian, but also Ethiopian.
The impact of the South Arabian lexicon is difficult to estimate, since the near identical
number and correspondence of phonemes leaves it unclear whether a root or lexeme in
Arabic is borrowed or inherited in these instances. Borrowings from Greek or Latin exist
but are thought to have entered usually via different varieties of Aramaic. Two important
studies discussing the lexicon of the Qurʔaːn are Jeffery (1938) and Zammit (2002).
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The beginning of the biography of the pre-Islamic poet Taʔabbadˤa Çarran from the Kitaːb
al-ʔaʁaːniː of ʔAbu: al-Faraɟ al-ʔIsˤfaha:ni: (d. 967). The text is taken from Brünnow’s
chrestomathy that was republished with grammatical notes in 2008 by Lutz Edzard and
Amund Bjørsnøs.
huwa θaːbit-u bn-u ɟaːbir-ini l-fahmijj-i

he Θa:bit-nom son.msg-nom.cst Ɉa:bir.msg-gen.indf def-Fahmite.msg-gen
wa-taʔabbadˤa çarran laqab-un luqqib-a

and-Taʔabbadˤa Çarran nickname.msg-nom.indf nickname.sc.pass-3msg
bi-hiː ðakar-a r-ruwaːt-u ʔanna-huː kaːn-a

by-3msg mention.sc-3msg def-transmitter.mpl-nom that-3msg be.sc-3msg
raʔaː kabçan fiː sˤ-sˤaħraːʔ-i fa-ħtamal-a-huː

see.sc.3msg sheep.msg-acc.indf in def-desert.fsg-gen then-take.away.sc-3msg-3msg
taħta ʔibdˤ-i-hiː fa-ɟaʕal-a ja-buːl-u ʕalaj-hi

below armpit.msg-gen.cst-3msg then-begin.sc-3msg 3msg-urinate.pc-ind on-3msg
dˤuːl-a dˤariːq-i-hiː fa-lammaː qarub-a mina

length.msg-acc.cst way.m/fsg-gen.cst-3msg then-when come.close.sc-3msg from
l-ħajj-i θaqul-a ʕalaj-hi l-kabç-u

def-tribe.msg-gen become.heavy.sc-3msg on-3msg def-sheep.msg-nom
fa-lam ju-qilli-hi fa-ramaː bi-hiː fa-ʔiðaː

and-not 3ms-be.able.to.carry.pc.juss-3msg then-throw.sc.3msg by-3msg then-behold
huwa l-ʁuːl-u fa-qaːl-a la-huː qawm-u-huː maː

he def-demon.msg-nom then-say.sc-3msg to-3msg people.msg-nom-3msg what
taʔabbadˤ-ta jaː θaːbit-u qaːl-a l-ʁuːl-a

carry.under.armpit.sc-2msg O Θa:bit(m)-nom say.sc-3msg def-demon.msg-acc
qaːl-uː la-qad taʔabbadˤ-ta çarr-an

say.sc-3mpl indeed carry.under.armpit.sc-2msg evil.msg-acc.indf
fa-summij-a bi-ðaːlika wa-qiːl-a bal qaːla-t la-huː

then-name.sc.pass-3msg by-that.msg and-say.sc.pass-3msg rather say.sc-3fsg to-3msg
ʔumm-u-huː kull-u ʔiχwat-i-ka ja-ʔtiː-niː

mother.fsg-nom.cst-3msg all-nom brother.mpl-gen.cst-2msg 3msg-bring.pc-1sg
bi-çajʔ-in . . . fa-qaːl-a la-haː sa-ʔaː-tiː-ki

by-thing.msg-gen.indf so-say.sc-3msg to-3fsg fut-1sg-bring.pc-2fsg
l-lajlat-a bi-çajʔ-in
def-night.fsg-acc by-thing.msg-gen.indf
‘His real name is Θa:bit, son of Ɉa:bir the Fahmite (from the tribe of Fahm). Taʔabbadˤa
Çarran is a nickname he was given. The transmitters mention that he had seen a sheep
in the desert. So he picked it up and took it away below his armpit. (The sheep) began
to urinate on him throughout his journey. When he came close to his tribe, the sheep
became heavy on him and he could not carry it anymore. So he threw it down and all of
a sudden it became a demon. Then his people said to him: “What have you carried under
your armpit, O Θa:bit?” He said: “The demon.” They said: “Verily, you have carried evil
under your armpit,” and he was named thus. And it has also been said: Rather, his mother
said to him: “All your brothers bring me something. . . .” So he said to her: “I will bring
you something tonight.” ’
REFERENCES
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. “Aṣ-ṣādu llatī ka-s-sīn – Evidence for an Affricated ṣād in Sibawayh?”.
Folia Orientalia 51 (2014): 51–7.
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. (ed.). Arabic in Context. Leiden: Brill, 2017a.
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2017b. “Graeco-Arabica I: The Southern Levant.” In Al-Jallad 2017a,
99–186.
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2017c. “The Arabic of the Islamic Conquests: Notes on Phonology
and Morphology Based on the Greek Transcriptions from the First Islamic Century.”
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. “The Earliest Stages of Arabic and Its Linguistic Classification.” In
The Routledge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, edited by Alabbas Benmamoun and
Reem Bassiouney, 315–31. London: Routledge, 2018(a).
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. “What is Ancient North Arabian?” In Re-engaging Comparative
Semitic and Arabic Studies, edited by Daniel Birnstiel and Na‘ama Pat-El, 1-43.
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2018b.
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. “The Linguistic Landscape of Pre-Islamic Arabia: Context for the
Qurʾān.” In The Oxford Handbook of Qurʾānic Studies, edited by Muhammad Abdel
Haleem and Mustafa Shah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.
Al-Sharkawi, Muhammad. “Pre-Islamic Arabic.” In Versteegh, Eid, Elgibali, Woidich,
and Zaborski 2009, vol 3, 689–99.
Birnstiel, Daniel. “Selected Features of Arabic Syntax in the Qur’ān.” Ph.D., Faculty of
Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge, 2011.
Brünnow, Rudolf E., August Fischer, Lutz Eberhard Edzard, and Amund Bjørsnøs.
Klassisch-arabische Chrestomathie aus Prosaschriftstellern. 8., neu bearb. Aufl.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008a (Porta linguarum orientalium, N. S., 17,1).
Brünnow, Rudolf-Ernst, August Fischer, Lutz Eberhard Edzard, and Amund Bjørsnøs.
Chrestomathy of Classical Arabic Prose Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
2008b (Porta linguarum orientalium, neue serie, Bd. 17, 2).
Bloch, Ariel A. Studies in Arabic Syntax and Semantics. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1986.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. “Die Perioden des Klassischen Arabisch.” Abr Nahrain 12
(1971–1972): 15–18.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. “Das Altarabische in islamischer Überlieferung: Das Klassische
Arabisch.” In Grundriß der arabischen Philologieː Band I:. Sprachwissenschaft,
edited by Wolfdietrich Fischer, 37–50. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1982.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. “Classical Arabic.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert
Hetzron, 187–219 (Routledge language family descriptions). New York, London:
Routledge, 1997.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. A Grammar of Classical Arabic (3rd revised edition), translated by

Jonathan Rodgers. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2002.
Hopkins, Simon. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic Based on Papyri Datable
to Before 300 a.h./912 a.d. London Oriental Series 37. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1984.
Huehnergard, John. “Arabic in Its Semitic Context.” In Al-Jallad 2017a, 3–34.
Huehnergard, John, and Aaron D. Rubin. “Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of
the Semitic Languages.” In Weninger 2011, 259–78.
Jeffery, Arthur. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qurʾān. Baroda: Oriental
Institute, 1938.
Kaplony, Andreas. “The Orthography and Pronunciation of Arabic Names and Terms
in the Greek Petra, Nessana, Qurra, and Senouthios Letters (sixth to eighth centuries
CE).” Mediterranean Language Review 22 (2015): 1–81.
Macdonald, Michael C. A. “Reflections on the Linguistic Map of Pre-Islamic Arabia.”
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11 (2000): 28–79.
Macdonald, Michael C. A. “Arabians, Arabias, and the Greeks: Contact and Perceptions.”
In Literacy and Identity in Pre-Islamic Arabia, edited by Michael C. A. Macdonald.
Variorum collected studies series 906. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009a.
Macdonald, Michael C. A. “Arabs, Arabias, and Arabic Before Late Antiquity.” Topoi 16
(2009b): 277–322.
Macdonald, Michael C. A. 2009c. “Old Arabic (Epigraphic).” In Versteegh, Eid, Elgibali,
Woidich, and Zaborski 2009, 464–77.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. 2017. “Digging up Archaic Features: “Neo-Arabic” and Comparative
Semitic in the Quest for Proto Arabic.” In Al-Jallad 2017a, 441–75.
Putten, Marijn van. “The Feminine Ending -at as a Diptote in the Qurʾānic Consonantal
Text and Its Implications for Proto-Arabic and Proto-Semitic.” Arabica 64 (2017a):
695–705.
Putten, Marijn van. “The Development of the Triphthongs in Quranic and Classical
Arabic.” Arabian Epigraphic Notes 3 (2017b): 47–74. http://hdl.handle.net/1887/
47177.
Putten, Marijn van. “Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text.” Orientalia 87 (2018):
93–120.
Putten, Marijn van and Phillip W. Stokes. “Case in the Quranic Consonantal Text.”
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 108 (2018): 143–79.
Rabin, Chaim. Ancient West-Arabian. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1951.
Ratcliffe, Robert R. The “Broken” Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative
Semitic: Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-concatenative Morphology. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 1998.
Retsö, Jan. 2007. “ʿArabs (historical).” In Encyclopaedia of Islam. Third edition, edited
by Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, and Everett Rowson,
vol. 1, 73–8. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Retsö, Jan. 2009. “Arab.” In Versteegh, Eid, Elgibali, Woidich, and Zaborski 2009, 126–33.
Retsö, Jan. “Classical Arabic.” In Weninger 2011, 782–810.
Suleiman, Yasir. “ʿArabiyya.” In Versteegh, Eid, Elgibali, Woidich, and Zaborski 2009,
vol. 1, 173–8.
Versteegh, C. H. M., Mushira Eid, Alaa Elgibali, Manfred Woidich, and Andrzej Zaborski
(eds.). Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguisticsː Vol 1ː A-Ed; Vol 2ː Eg-Lan;
Vol 3ː Lat-Pu; Vol 4ː Q-Z; Vol 5ː Index. 5 vols. Leiden, Biggleswade: Brill, 2009.
Webb, Peter. Imagining the Arabsː Arab Identity and the Rise of Islam. (1st ed.).
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016.
Weninger, Stefan (ed.). Semitic Languagesː An International Handbook. With the
assistance of G. A. Khan, M. P. Streck and J. C. E. Watson. Berlin: Mouton, 2011.
Zammit, Martin R. A Comparative Lexical Study of Qur'ānic Arabic. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
GENERAL ARABIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Further reading
Versteegh, C. H. M. The Arabic Language. Second edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Grammars
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch. 2., durchgesehene Aufl.
Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1987 (Porta linguarum orientalium. Neue Serie, 11).
Nöldeke, Theodor. Zur Grammatik des classischen Arabisch. Wien: Carl Gerold’s
Sohn, 1897 (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Philosophisch-Historische Classe, 45.II).
Reckendorf, Hermann. Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen. Erster Teil;
Zweiter Teil. Leiden: Brill, 1895–8.
Reckendorf, Hermann. Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1921.
Roman, André. Étude de la phonologie et de la morphologie de la koinè arabe. Aix en
Provence, Marseille: Université de Provence; Diffusion J. Laffitte, 1983.
Wright, William. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Reprint of 3rd edition. Beirut:
Librairie du Liban, 1996.
Overview articles
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. “Classical Arabic.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert
Hetzronpp, 187–219. New York, London: Routledge, 1997 (Routledge language
family descriptions).
Retsö, Jan. “Classical Arabic.” In Semitic Languages. An International Handbook, edited
by Stefan Weninger, 782–810. With assistance of Geoffrey Allan Khan, Michael P.
Streck, Janet C. E. Watson. Berlin: Mouton.
CHAPTER 16
LEVANTINE ARABIC KRISTEN BRUSTAD AND EMILIE ZUNIGALEVANTINE ARABIC
Kristen Brustad and Emilie Zuniga
1 INTRODUCTION
Levantine Arabic (LA) is best described as a dialect bundle whose varieties are spo-
ken across the Levant, in lands currently known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestinian
territories and Israel, as well as parts of Southern Turkey, in particular in the provinces
of Mersin and Hatay (Map 16.1). The term is not indigenous, and it is likely that many
speakers would resist the grouping on the basis that the rich phonological, morphological
and lexical variation within the Levant carries important social meanings and distinc-
tions. For this reason, standardization of Levantine Arabic is not likely to occur, despite
its wide use in public life. Like Egyptian Arabic, LA is widely exported in the forms of
expatriate employees, television and music, and social media. The recent trend of dub-
bing Turkish television serials into the dialect of Damascus (beginning around 2008) has
achieved widespread popularity and made this dialect comprehensible all over the Arab
world.
LA dialects vary along geographical, social, sectarian and generational lines. Sub-
groupings of dialects recognizable to LA speakers include the following: the urban dia-
lects of Damascus and Beirut, differentiated from each other mainly by vowel raising
and lengthening; Druze and Alawite, both distinguished from other dialects in the region
by retention of the phoneme /q/; Tripoli and north Lebanon, with distinct lowering and
raising of vowels; Palestinian, distinguished by discontinuous negation with maː . . . ʃ (or
simply -ʃ) (see Chapter 17, “Egyptian Arabic”); tribal1 (eastern Syria; much of Jordan;
Negev; rural dialects share some of these features), stereotypically [g] for /q/, velarization
of consonants (e.g., /ð/ > [ðˤ] in Jordanian haːðˤ ‘this’), lowering or narrowing the range
of /a/, and the verb ntˤa for ʕatˤa ‘to give’. Eastern and tribal dialects in this region show
affinities to Iraqi and Peninsular dialects, to which they are related at varying degrees of
historical depth and contact; shared features include, in addition to [g] for /q/, the allo-
phone [ʧ] for /k/ in the context of a high front vowel, feminine plural agreement including
verb conjugations, and a lack of morphological marking to distinguish indicative and
subjunctive verbal moods.
Much information is available on LA dialects in studies of individual dialects and
grammatical features or sociolinguistic aspects. The prestige dialect of Damascus rep-
resents the most widely documented and described variety (e.g., Cowell 1964,2 Grotzfeld
1965, Lentin 2006, Klimiuk 2013). Many texts have been published, and recordings are
available on the website Semitisches Tonarchiv (www.semarch.uni-hd.de/index.php43).
Much information is also available in Behnstedt’s valuable Sprachatlas von Syrien
(1997). Descriptions of varying depth are available for Amman (Abdel-Jawad 1981,
Al-Wer 2006), the village dialects of Lebanon (Feghali 1919, 1928, Jiha 1964, Fleisch
1974), dialects in southern Turkey (Arnold 1998), Aleppo (Sabuni 1980), and eastern
404 Kristen Brustad and Emilie Zuniga
TURKEY
SYRIA
LEBANON
PT
ISRAEL
JORDAN
LEGEND
Levantine Arabic
MAP 16.1 THE SPEECH AREA OF LEVANTINE ARABIC
Syria (Behnstedt 1994, Jastrow 1978, Talay 1997), the tribal dialects of Jordan (Palva
1984–1986), the rural and tribal dialects of the Horan (Cantineau 1946), and Palestinian
dialects, including Hebron and Ramallah (Seeger 1996, 2009, 2013), Negev (Blanc 1970,
Henkin 2010) and Sinai tribal dialects (Shahin 2009, de Jong 2000, Shawarbah 2012).
The description presented here takes as its baseline the normative dialect spoken in
Damascus, with a sample text from Beirut. The text is taken from a 2012 field recording
of a monolingual male 85-year-old resident of Beirut with basic literacy, from which
illustrative examples have been provided in the grammatical sketch when possible (e.g.,
[ST 7], indicating “Sample Text, Line 7”). Other unpublished examples are taken from
the authors’ field recordings in Syria and Lebanon, with occasional elicited examples to
fill out paradigms. Reference is occasionally made to other Arabic varieties described in
this volume for comparison and contrast, especially Classical Arabic (see Chapter 15),
Egyptian Arabic (see Chapter 17) and Moroccan Arabic (see Chapter 18).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Until recently, it has been widely assumed that Arabic was only written in standard reg-
ister. In 1988, a three-month search across Syria for anything published in LA turned up
nothing. Now, however, it is possible to see LA written in many public venues as well as
on the internet and in social media.
Although LA has recently come to be written in a variety of spheres, no standard-
ized writing system exists. Like other colloquial varieties of Arabic, it is written in both
Latin and Arabic scripts. Writing LA in Latin script (outside Western academic contexts)
Levantine Arabic 405
appears to have arisen in part as a solution to the lack of Arabic script in electronic
devices in the early 2000s. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this practice is currently
most common in urban areas in Lebanon and Jordan, where English and French are part
of the linguistic landscape, especially in interpersonal communication, as the following
familial post on “What’s App” shows:3
“M happy anniversary nchalla l 3omor kello inty w K”

M happy anniversary n=ʃa=ɫɫa l-ʕəmər kǝll=o ʔǝnti w K
M Happy Anniversary if=willed.3msg=God def-age all=poss.3msg sbj.2fsg and K
‘M Happy Anniversary May you celebrate it for the rest of your life you and K’
Of interest here is the spelling of ‘age, life’ as l 3omor, a spelling that does not reflect the
normal pronunciation of this word, l-ʕəmər, but rather appears to be a hybrid between it
and the standard pronunciation l-ʕumr, and may be interpreted as an effect of the associ-
ation between writing and standard Arabic.
In another exchange, a picture of a delicious meal was posted with the caption Tfadd-
alo chabeb, a representation of the spoken form tfaddˤalu ʃabɛːb be-favored.imp.2pl
youth.pl ‘please help yourselves guys’, followed by the polite response (‘bon appétit!’)
from two different people, spelled two different ways: Sahhteen and Sahtain (pronounced
sˤaħ[ħ]ˈteːn). The latter example demonstrates that geminate consonants are often not
represented in Latin script, reflecting unmarked Arabic script.
Writing with LA features in Arabic script is also found in interpersonal communica-
tion; while it used to be rare in the linguistic landscape in most places, this has changed
rapidly; it is now common to see officially sanctioned signs written completely with
spoken forms, such as the following, addressed to the president of Syria:
‫منحبك‬
mǝ–n-ħəbb=ak
ind–ipfv.1pl-love=obj.2m
‘We love you’
Of note here is that the indicative prefix b- is spelled in its allophonic form m-, which is a
common articulation when added to a 1pl imperfective verb whose subject pronoun is n-.
Table 16.1 supplies the currently used graphemic representations of the LA phonemes
(see §3.1) in both scripts, with the more common values listed first where there is varia-
tion. Consonants are listed by place of articulation, beginning with labials.
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonantal
The phonology of LA is characterized by rich variation that patterns along social and
geographical lines. It is common for various reflexes of the phonemes /q/, /θ/, /ð/, /ðˤ/, /k/
to be characterized as rural, bedouin, Christian, Druze, Muslim and so forth. But Behn-
stedt’s (1997, throughout) maps of Aleppo and the surrounding regions are illustrative of
the difficulty of delineating individual dialects in an area that has seen massive population
movements for hundreds of years.
Table 16.2 presents LA phonemes; although they constitute more than one linguistic
system on a micro-level, we would argue that their salience makes them all part of a mac-
ro-system that LA speakers know and interpret.
TABLE 16.1 ORTHOGRAPHY OF LA IN LATIN AND ARABIC SCRIPTS
Consonants:
IPA b f m w t tˤ d dˤ s sˤ
Latin b f m w, u, ou t 6, t d d, 9’ s s, 9
Arabic ‫ب‬ ‫ف‬ ‫م‬ ‫و‬ ‫ث‬،‫ط ت‬ ‫د‬ ‫ض‬ ‫ث‬،‫صس‬
IPA z ᵶ, ðˤ n l r j ʃ ʒ k χ
Latin z z, 9’ n l r y, i sh, ch, $ j k 5, kh, 7’
Arabic ‫ ذ‬، ‫ظ ز‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ج‬ ‫ك‬ ‫خ‬
IPA ʁ ħ ʕ h ʔ
Latin 3’, gh 7, h 3 h 2
Arabic ‫غ‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ـه‬ ‫ء‬, ‫ق‬
Vowels and Diphthongs:
IPA aː eː uː oː iː A u i e o aw aj ǝ
Latin a, e ee, ai o, ou, u o, ou i, ee a, e, Ø o, u, Ø e, i, Ø e, Ø o, Ø ow ai, ei Ø, e, i
Arabic ‫ا‬ ‫ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫و‬ ‫ي‬ ‫َــ‬ ‫ُــ‬ ‫ِــ‬ Ø Ø ‫ ْـيَـ ْوَـ‬Ø
TABLE 16.2 PRIMARY CONSONANTAL PHONEMES OF LA
Manner of Articulation
Plosive Nasal Fricative Affricate Rhotic Lateral Approximant
Bilabial b m w
Labiodental f
Interdental θ ð ðˤ
Dental-alveolar t tˤ d dˤ n s sˤ z zˤ r (rˤ) l (lˤ)
Place of
Palato-alveolar ʃʒ ʧʤ j
Articulation
Velar k g4
Uvular q χ ʁ
Pharyngeal ħ ʕ
Glottal ʔ h
The phonemic status of several LA phones is still debated. Here, we consider /rˤ/ and /
lˤ/ to have marginal phonemic status because in LA, they form only a handful of minimal
pairs with /r/ and /l/ respectively. On the other hand, with Klimiuk (2013: 26), we do not
consider [mˤ], [nˤ] and [bˤ] to be phonemes. Neither do we consider [p] and [v], which are
common in borrowed words among some speakers and also as allophones of /b/ and /f/,
to have achieved phonemic status.
Other notable features include the following:
• All consonants can be geminated.

• Pharyngealization spreads in words containing a pharyngealized consonant: b-sˤalli >
[bˤ-sˤɑllˤi] ‘I pray’ (√sˤlw) [ST 8].
• In many (especially urban) dialects, interdentals /θ/, /ð/, and /ðˤ/ merge to stops or
fricatives: /θ/ > [t] ~ [s]; /ð/ > [d] ~ [z]; and /ðˤ/ > [dˤ] ~ [zˤ]. The choice between
fricative or stop appears to be socially and lexically driven and not phonological.
• The voiceless uvular plosive /q/ has reflexes [q], [ʔ], [g] and [k] that are distributed
along regional, social, and lexical lines.
• The voiceless velar plosive /k/ has reflexes [k] and [ʧ].
• The voiceless glottal plosive /ʔ/ is used by some speakers, e.g., qabaːʔɪl ‘tribes’ (taken
from an eastern Syrian text, Behnstedt 2000: 538), but is generally considered to
belong to educated speech.
3.2 Vocalic
Vowel length is phonemic in LA, and vowels often show dialectal and/or allophonic vari-
ation. Tables 16.3 and 16.4 present the vocalic inventory of LA.
Notable features include the following:
• The entire vocalic inventory of LA shows significant allophonic range. This variation
is socially, geographically and phonologically conditioned. Tables 16.3 and 16.4
only indicate allophones of the low vowel /a(ː)/ because it exhibits the most extreme
allophonic range out of all the vowels. For example, Beiruti /aː/ is raised in some
phonological contexts in comparison to Damascene; the production of /aː/ in northern
Lebanese and Aleppan dialects famously varies from [ɑː] to [eː] (also phonologically
conditioned); the word-final short /a/ which usually marks feminine singular nouns and
adjectives varies in its allophonic range along social, geographical and phonological
lines from [ɑ] to [i].
• Many LA dialects allow long vowels in closed syllables.
• Diphthongs /aj/ and /aw/ are found in some Lebanese dialects, most commonly in open
syllables. In closed syllables in those dialects, as well as in all phonological contexts
TABLE 16.3 PRIMARY LONG VOWELS IN LA
Long Vowels
Front Back
High /iː/ /uː/

Mid /eː/ /oː/
Low /aː/ [ɛː ~ æː ~ aː ~ ɑː]
TABLE 16.4 PRIMARY SHORT VOWELS IN LA
Short Vowels
Front Mid Back
High /i/ /u/

Mid /e/ /ǝ/ /o/
Low /a/ [i ~ ɛ ~ æ ~ a ~ ɑ]
in the overwhelming majority of LA dialects outside of Lebanon, they correspond to

long vowels /eː/ (for diphthong /aj/) and /oː/ (for diphthong /aw/).
• Long vowels /eː/ and /oː/ are also commonly found in borrowings.
• Short /e/ and /o/ constitute phonemes in at least some LA dialects. In Damascus, for
example, they appear in word-final syllables (both open and closed) in such minimal
pairs as this:
'ʃaː.f=o (see.pfv.3msg=obj.3msg) ‘he saw it’ ~ 'ʃaː.f-u (see.pfv-3mp) ‘they saw’;
'ʔən.te (sbj.2msg) ‘you (masc)’ ~ 'ʔən.ti (sbj.2fsg) ‘you (f)’
• For Damascene and Beiruti speakers, as well as speakers of some other dialects of LA
especially in the Syria-Lebanon-Southern Turkey region, the central mid vowel /ǝ/
is a variant of both short /i/ and short /u/ (see, e.g., ǝʒ-ʒǝmʕa [ST 8] ‘Friday’ and not
ǝʒ-ʒumʕa).
3.3 Syllabification and phonotactics

Syllabification and phonotactics in LA are quite complex, even within a single dialect.
Here we focus on that of Damascus, which has at least fourteen documented syllable
patterns (Lentin 2006: 547; Klimiuk presents an additional eight, using an alternative
syllabification, 2013: 81–6).
Syllable-initial consonant clusters of CC occur regularly; CCCV may occur as stC
(this occurs in verbal pattern stCaCCaC; see Klimiuk 2013: 84). It is not uncommon for
Damascene speakers to insert a short epenthetic vowel right before a word-initial con-
sonant cluster in order to break it, though this process of anaptyxis does not seem to be
imposed by the phonology of Damascus Arabic (except in the case of a word-initial CC
appearing immediately after a word ending in C in the same intonational phrase; e.g. ktiːr
ǝ
mniːħ ‘very good/well’).
In contrast, a word-final consonant cluster of CC is only tolerated if the following word
starts with a vowel (even epenthetic) and both words are part of the same intonational
phrase (see Table 16.5, Example 1). Table 16.5 shows the main phonotactic patterns in
this dialect.
Table 16.5 shows that if a word that ends in CC marks the end of an intonational
phrase or if it is followed by a consonant-initial word, a short epenthetic vowel is
TABLE 16.5 PHONOTACTICS OF WORD-FINAL CC IN DAMASCUS ARABIC
Example Distribution
0 *ǝl-baħr ‘the sea’ does not exist at the end of an intonational phrase
1 ǝl-baħr ǝl-majjet ‘the Dead Sea’ CC occurs at the end of the first word because it is followed
by a vowel with no intonational break
2 ǝl-baħǝr ‘the sea’ normal pronunciation of CC at the end of intonational
phrase (epenthetic vowel is inserted to break the cluster)
3 ǝl-baħǝr baːred ‘The sea is epenthetic vowel inserted between C1 and C2 of a three-
cold.’ consonant cluster
4 ǝl-baħr ǝkbiːr epenthetic vowel inserted between C2 and C3 of a four-
‘The sea is big.’ consonant cluster
inserted in order to break the consonant cluster. Here, we will highlight three possible
scenarios:
1 The last word of an intonational phrase ends in CC. In this case, the epenthetic vowel
is inserted in between the two consonants (see Table 16.5, Example 2).
2 A word ends in CC and is directly followed by another word that starts with CV or
CV: within the same intonational phrase. This creates a three-consonant cluster: C1,
C2 and C3. In this case, the epenthetic vowel is inserted between C1 and C2 (see
Table 16.5, Example 3).
3 A word ends in CC and is directly followed by another word that starts with CC
within the same intonational phrase. This creates a four-consonant cluster, C1, C2,
C3 and C4. In this case, the epenthetic vowel is inserted at the word boundary,
between C2 and C3, thus creating two CC clusters in positions where they are toler-
ated (see Table 16.5, Example 4).
These epenthetic vowels, like all others in LA, have no impact on word stress. They often
sound like a short schwa vowel but vary slightly in quality based on the surrounding
segments. As with other linguistic features, this phenomenon of anaptyxis is subject to
social and regional variation.
In Damascus Arabic, word stress falls on the last superheavy syllable (CVːC or CVCC).
In the absence of a superheavy syllable, stress falls on the penultimate if the word is bisyl-
labic. If the word contains more than two syllables and none of them is superheavy, stress
falls on the penultimate if it is heavy (CVː or CVC). However, if the penultimate is light
(CV), stress falls on the antepenult.
Unlike in Egyptian Arabic, long vowels in closed syllables retain their length, and it is
possible to have multiple long vowels in the same word. As in Egyptian Arabic, the vowel
in a word-final open syllable is always phonemically short except in one case: when a
3msg object pronoun is added to a verb stem ending in a vowel, that vowel becomes pho-
nemically long and attracts word stress:
ʹʃaː.f-u vs. ʃaː.ʹf-u=ː

see.pfv-3pl see.pfv-3pl=obj.3msg
‘they saw’ ‘they saw him’
In Damascus, if /ǝ/ (< /i/ and /u/) appears in an open, unstressed syllable, it is usually
deleted (e.g. ʹtʕa:.leb ‘male student’ vs. ʹtʕa:l.be < *ʹtʕa:.lǝ.be ‘female student’). If this
deletion creates an infelicitous consonant cluster, an epenthetic vowel is inserted in order
to break it, e.g., ʹbtəd.rǝ.si > ʹbtəd.rsi > ʹbtəd.ərsi ‘you (fsg) study’.
Of particular note in many rural LA dialects is the phenomenon of pausal forms, in
which the pronunciation of a word changes when that word appears before a pause in the
speech flow. This is not a unique phenomenon, since the pause has been documented to
affect pre-pausal sounds at both the segmental and suprasegmental levels in many of the
world languages,5 but in Arabic it can cause salient enough allophonic variation that it
deserves a brief mention here. While pausal systems have been found in Egypt (see, for
example, Lane 1850, Dawod 1949, Woidich 1974, Blanc 1973–74), the Arabian Penin-
sula (Jastrow 1984 and Naim-Sanbar 1994, cited in Watson 2007) and Malta (Borg 1977),
LA dialects seem particularly prone to containing a pausal system, especially (though not
exclusively) in Lebanon and Southern Turkey (Jiha 1964, Fleisch 1974, Arnold 1998).
In LA, a word in pausal form can differ from the same word in its non-pausal form (tra-
ditionally called context form) in several ways, including these: vowel lengthening, rais-
ing, lowering and backing; diphthongization; nasalization; devoicing; anaptyxis (Cowell
1964, Fleisch 1974, Arnold 1998, Klimiuk 2011, Zuniga 2015).
Patterning in urban and rural dialects in the western Levant suggests historical change
in a regional pausal system. Some rural dialects exhibit a pausal form ending in [e] for
words that end in [i] in context. In word-final open syllables, the modern urban Beirut
dialect, however, only allows [e] (see, e.g., l-kǝrse ‘the chair’ [ST 10] as opposed to
l-kǝrsi in Damascus). It is likely that the Beirut dialect used to have a productive pausal
system in which /i/ was produced [i] in context and [e] at the pause. The distinction
between pausal and context forms subsequently diminished, until pausal [e] was general-
ized to all forms of the old [i]~[e] contrast (Zuniga 2015).6
4 MORPHOLOGY
In general, LA morphology does not diverge from that shared by most varieties of Arabic,
except that LA prefix conjugation verbs have a relatively large set of prefixes for mark-
ing indicative mood (see §4.6). As in other dialects, the dual is optional and expressed
only on substantives; feminine plural forms modifying human females are found mostly
in rural and tribal areas. Otherwise, standard Arabic morphological forms are generally
available to LA speakers, with minor, regular phonological variation.

Pronouns in LA correspond closely to pronouns in other Arabic dialects, and show
regional variation as well as variation along urban vs. rural/tribal lines. Like other variet-
ies of Arabic, LA utilizes four sets of personal pronouns:
• Subject (freestanding) (Table 16.6)

• Possessive (cliticize to nouns and prepositions) (Table 16.7)
• Object (largely overlap with possessive pronouns in form; cliticize to verbs, active
participles, or to the disjunctive object pronoun stem jaː; follow dative or possessive
pronouns if present) (Table 16.7)
• Dative (formed with preposition l-; cliticize to verbs; precede object pronouns if
present) (Table 16.8)
As Table 16.6 shows, the subject pronouns in LA differentiate gender in the 2nd and 3rd
persons singular, but not the 1st person. Most urban dialects do not distinguish gender in
the plural, but many rural and tribal dialects have distinct m and f pronouns for 2ᴘ and
3ᴘ. Here and throughout, regional and other variants are given following the Damascene
forms, but these should be understood to be token examples, and not an exhaustive list.
Most information on these forms is taken from Behnstedt (1997: 543–5), where an exten-
sive list may be found.
The suffix pronouns distinguish in form between possessive and object functions only
in 1sg. Shown in Table 16.7, these pronouns cliticize directly to nouns, verbs (includ-
ing active participles), pseudo-verbs (certain lexical items that carry verbal meaning and
aspects of verbal syntax, including bədd- ‘want’ and baʕd- ‘still’), the object pronoun
stem jaː- and complementizer ʔǝnn- ‘that’. The 3msg suffix displays allomorphy after
Singular Plural
1 Ɂana, Ɂani, Ɂaːni nǝħna, niħna,

Ɂiħna
2 masc Ɂǝnta, Ɂǝnte, Ɂint, Ɂǝntu, Ɂǝnto,
hint Ɂǝntum, hintu
fem Ɂǝnti, Ɂǝnte, Ɂǝntin, Ɂǝntan,
hinti hintni
3 masc huwwe, huːwa hinni, hinnin, hinnon
fem hijje, hiːje hinna, hin, hinnen
TABLE 16.7 POSSESSIVE AND OBJECT PRONOUN SUFFIXES
Singular Plural
1 poss: =i, =e =na

obj: =ni, =ne
2 masc =ak, =ek =kon, =kun, =kin,
=kum, =kam, =kim
fem =ik, =iʧ, =ʧi =kin, = ʧin, = ʧan

3 masc =o, =u, V=lengthening of vowel =(h)on, =(h)in, =hum
fem =(h)a =hin
TABLE 16.8 DATIVE PRONOUNS
Singular Plural
1 =li =lna
CC=ǝlli7 C=ᵊlna
CC =ǝlna
2 masc =lak =lkon, =lkin, =lkum
CC=ǝllak C=ᵊlkon
fem =lek CC=ǝlkon
CC=ǝllek
3 masc =lo =lon, =lhon, =lhin,=lhum
CC=ǝllo CC =ǝllon
fem =la, =lha
CC=ǝlla, ǝlha
vowels; otherwise, variation shown in Table 16.7 is regional and/or social. However, in

certain areas of northern Syria and southern Turkey, the independent subject pronoun
forms are sometimes used in place of object pronouns (see e.g. Behnstedt 1997: 548–9).
In the case of doubly transitive verbs such as ʕatˤa ‘to give’, if both objects are pro-
nouns, the “dative” pronoun takes the form of the object pronoun and precedes the direct
object, which is attached to the object stem jaː and follows the indirect object pronoun:
ʕatˤaː=ni jaː-ha kǝll-ha ‘He gave it all to me’ (Cowell 2005 [1964]: 545). Verbs that take
TABLE 16.9 DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS
Immediate Proximal Distal
singular masc ha= haːda, haːd, hajda, hadaːk

haːð, haːðˤ
fem haːdi, hajj, hajdi, hadiːk
haːði
plural hadoːl, hoːl, hawdi hadoːliːk, hadoːk,
hawdiːk, haðˤoːl
direct and indirect objects show the same word order, but the indirect pronoun is dative
(see Table 16.8).
The dative pronouns, given with common allophonic variants in Table 16.8, are formed
with the dative preposition *l- and cliticize directly to verbs.
4.2 Demonstratives
The demonstrative system of LA consists of three referential types: immediate, proximal
and distal. Common variants of these pronouns are listed in Table 16.9 (feminine plural
forms may be found in rural and tribal dialects but are not included here; see Behnstedt
1997: 550–9 for a mapping of variants across Syria). Freestanding demonstrative pro-
nouns agree with their referent in number and, if singular, in gender. Attributive demon-
strative adjectives precede the definite noun and agree in number and gender.
The genderless and numberless immediate demonstrative article, ha= ‘this/the’, func-
tions to bring into discourse focus an entity that is either immediately visible or imme-
diately accessible. The distinction between proximal and distal demonstratives is not so
much one of physical distance as of temporal or metaphorical; distal demonstratives are
often used to contrast one entity with another. Instances are occasionally heard of the
feminine distal demonstrative modifying masculine temporal nouns: hadiːk l-joːm dem.
fsg.dist def-day ‘the other day’ (ST 7; cf. also Chapter 18), a phenomenon that deserves
further study. Like speakers of Moroccan Arabic and many other varieties of spoken Ara-
bic (the main exception being Egyptian Arabic), LA speakers can pair the demonstrative
article with a post-nominal demonstrative pronoun for greater focus (but not contrast): ha
sˤ-sˤabi haːda ‘this (particular) boy’ (Brustad 2000: 132).
4.3 Interrogatives
LA agrees with most other Arabic varieties in having both pronominal and adverbial
interrogatives, the most common of which are: miːn, miːnu ‘who?’; ʃu, ʔeːʃ, ʔeːʃu ‘what?’;
ʔajj, ʔanu, ʔina ‘which?’; ʔeːmta, mata, ʔejmat ‘when?’, weːn ‘where’?; mneːn, mənweːn
‘from where?’; leːʃ, laʃu ‘why?’; kiːf, ʃloːn ‘how?’; kaːm ‘how many?’; ʔaddeːʃ, qaddeːʃ,
ʔaʃ qədd ‘how much?’; and bᵊkaːm ‘for how much?’
4.4 Relative
The relative pronoun, invariable for number and gender, is ǝlli (variants yǝlli, halli, ǝl),
which can also function as an independent relative subject pronoun ‘he who, whoever,
whatever’. LA speakers occasionally use miːn ma ‘anyone’ as a nonspecific, non-attrib-

utive relative pronoun in object or oblique position (example cited from Klimiuk 2013:
113–14):
laː tǝ-ħki maʕ miːn ma kaːn

neg ipfv.2fsg-talk with anyone be.pfv.3msg
‘do not talk to anyone you meet’
See further §5.5.
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
LA nominals do not show case. There are two categories for gender, masculine and fem-
inine, and three for number, singular, plural and an optional dual. Masculine gender is
unmarked, and feminine nouns are normally marked with a suffixed -a ~ -e, with a few
exceptions shared with other varieties of Arabic. It is possible to form dual nouns with
the suffix -eːn, e.g., bǝnteːn ‘two girls’, but this specification is optional, and the plural
can be used if the exact number is not of concern. Especially in the case of temporal and
spatial nouns, the dual is often used in a non-exact sense: ʒǝmᵊʕteːn ‘a couple of weeks’
[ST 8]. For parts of the body, the dual ending functions as a plural (Ɂarbaʕ Ɂǝʒreːn ‘four
legs’); the true dual of these nouns has an inserted t (presumably linked in some way to
the feminine gender of these nouns) and the n is not deleted when a possessive pronoun
is added: Ɂǝʒᵊrteːn=o ‘both his legs’ (Cowell 2005 [1964]: 367).
As in other dialects and Classical Arabic, pluralization in LA relies heavily on so-called
broken plurals, in which the consonantal root of the singular is reformed into a new syl-
labic template (nonconcatenative morphology), e.g., CǝCC ʕǝmr ‘age’ > aCCa:C aʕma:r
‘ages’. These plural patterns are shared with other Arabic varieties. Borrowed words may
also be pluralized in this fashion: faːtuːra, pl fwaːtiːr invoice (< Ital. fattura). The mp suf-
fix -iːn rarely pluralizes nouns, but may occur on adjectives modifying human or other
highly salient items. The feminine plural suffix -aːt is rarely used in urban dialects to
refer to human females, but does occur as a regular inanimate plural (see also Brustad
2007 for the use of -aːt as a diminutive in LA). In fact, the so-called feminine markers
-a ~ -e and -ijja ~ -ijje are often associated with collective human plurals, ǝl-lǝbneːnijje
the Lebanese (compare also “Moroccan Arabic”). The following examples illustrate that
number distinctions in the plural are not bound by the rules of standard Arabic but rather
follow patterns of salience and individuation (Brustad 2000: 52). Thus, the same plural
noun may be treated as either feminine singular or as plural:
n-naːs b-ǝt-ʔuːl or n-naːs b-i-ʔuːl-u

def-people ind-ipfv.3fsg-say def-people ind-ipfv-say-3pl
‘People say’ (collective) ‘Some people say’ (individuated)
Some adjectives have three possible forms of plural agreement:8
(a) tjaːb wǝsxa

clothes dirty.fsg
‘dirty clothes’ (batch)
(b) kǝll tjaːbi wǝsxiːn

all clothes.poss.1sg dirty.pl
‘all my clothes are dirty’ (salient)
(c) ʒraːbaːti wsaːx

socks.poss.1sg dirty.pl
‘my socks are dirty’ (individuated)
4.5.2 Patterns
The nominal patterns of LA are too numerous to cover here; a nearly exhaustive list may
be found in Cowell (2005 [1964]: 125–70). Some of the most common singular pat-
terns, with examples from the sample text, are CǝCC (ʕǝmr ‘age’), CaCCa:Ce (ʕakka:ze
‘crutch’), and CǝCCe (ʒǝmʕa ‘week/Friday’, -a is an allophone of final -e). Inherited Old
Arabic broken plural patterns are widely productive, with only minor phonetic shifts,
examples include CaCaːjiC, CCaːCiːC, maCaːCǝC, ʔǝCǝCCe and CCuːCe. We may note
that the comparative/superlative pattern ʔaCCaC remains productive in LA dialects, e.g.,
the tongue-in-cheek ʔatħat ʃi ‘the thing at the bottom of the pile’ (lit., the “most-below”
thing, from taħt, ‘below’).
4.5.3 Numerals
4.5.3.1 Cardinal numerals
LA numerals and number agreement follow the patterns of other varieties of spoken Ara-
bic, including the general lack of reverse-gender agreement between number and noun
characteristic of Classical Arabic (cf. Chapter 4, §3 and Chapter 15, §4.6.3). As in Egyp-
tian Arabic, when a numeral in LA between 3 and 10 is followed by a vowel-initial plural,
a linking t is inserted between them; presumably this is a trace of the Old Arabic feminine
marker -at.
Numerals include cardinal and ordinal sets. The cardinal number 1 is only used
with a noun adjectivally and emphatically. Number 2 (masculine tneːn and feminine
tǝnteːn) may either precede a plural noun (usually animate) or follow a noun inflected
by dual suffix -eːn to emphasize the exact quantity. Table 16.10 lists cardinals 1–20,
of which 3–19 take independent forms when used in isolation or adjectivally, and con-
struct forms when preceding a noun. In the latter case, the phrase may be made definite
with a preceding l-: ǝl-ʕaʃar sniːn ǝlli madˤu ‘the past ten years’. Numbers 3–10 are
followed by a plural noun; all numbers above 10 require the enumerated noun to be
singular.
After ʕǝʃriːn ‘20’, the tens are formed by suffixing -iːn to close variants of the cardi-
nal digits: tla(:)tiːn ‘30’, ʔarbʕiːn ‘40’, xamsiːn ‘50’, sǝttiːn ‘60’, sabʕiːn ‘70’, tma(:)niːn
‘80’, tǝsʕiːn ‘90’. The hundreds and thousands are constructed by means of prefixing the
short form of the cardinal. After mijje ‘100’ and mi(:)teːn ‘200’, the hundreds annexe
mijje, e.g., tlat mijje ‘300’, xams mijje ‘500’, and so forth. When the numeral occurs in a
construct state, the allomorph miːt replaces mijje, as in xams miːt sǝne ‘300 years’. After
ʔalf ‘1,000’ and ʔalfeːn ‘2,000’, the thousands are compounded with the construct form
followed by taːlaːf (plural of ʔalf plus linking t), e.g., tman-taːlaːf, ‘8,000’.
TABLE 16.10 CARDINAL NUMBERS 1–20
# independent construct # independent construct
1 waːħed, waːħad -- 11 ʔidaʕʃ, ħdaʕʃ ʔidaʕʃar, ħdaʕʃar

f waːħde
2 tneːn -- 12 tˤnaʕʃ tˤnaʕʃar
f tǝnteːn
3 tlaːte tlǝt, tlat 13 tlǝttˤaʕʃ tlǝttˤaʕʃar
4 ʔarbʕa ʔarbaʕ 14 ʔarbaʕtˤaʕʃ ʔarbaʕtˤaʕʃar
5 xamse xams 15 xamstˤaʕʃ xamstˤaʕʃar
6 sǝtte sǝtt 16 sǝttˤaʕʃ sǝttˤaʕʃar
7 sabʕa sabʕ, sabaʕ 17 sabaʕtˤaʕʃ sabaʕtˤaʕʃar
8 tma(y)ne tmǝnn, tmann 18 tmǝntˤaʕʃ tmǝntˤaʕʃar
9 tǝsʕa tǝsʕ, tǝsaʕ 19 tǝsaʕtˤaʕʃ tǝsaʕtˤaʕʃar
10 ʕaʃara ʕaʃr, ʕaʃar 20 ʕǝʃriːn --
4.5.3.2 Ordinal numerals

Ordinal numbers 1–10 may function as attributive adjectives, agreeing in gender, with
semantically definite nouns, or in construct with an indefinite noun, taːlet beːt ‘the third
house’. Ordinal numbers 3–10 take the active participle pattern CaːCeC. No distinct ordi-
nal numbers exist above 10, and the cardinal numbers are used in this function.
4.6 Verbs
4.6.1 Tense, aspect and mood
Tense, aspect and mood values are indicated in LA through the use of two finite stem
types, the suffix conjugation (perfective) and the prefix conjugation (imperfective), and
one non-finite stative stem, the participle. The suffix and prefix stems carry aspectual
meaning and temporal implication; time reference is mainly determined by moment of
speech (see §5.5), but also with adverbs, and it is generally interpretable from discourse
context. LA dialects are unusual among spoken Arabic varieties in distinguishing gram-
matically continuous/habitual Aktionsart from progressive.
The suffix conjugation is an aspectual perfective, presenting an event as a one-time
occurrence with no internal contour; in unmarked usage, it tends to refer to past events.
In the following example, the perfective is used (rather than the participle) because the
context calls for the event to be emphasized rather than the resultant state.9
ʕomr=i hallaʔ sˤaːr halla l-yoːm setta u tmɛːniːn sene

age=poss.1sg now became.pfv.3msg now def-day six and eighty year
‘My age now has reached now, as of today, 86 years’ [ST 2–3]
The suffix conjugation is also used to convey conditional mood without reference to
timeframe. In LA, the prefix conjugation may also occur in conditional sentences, but
the suffix conjugation carries greater conditional weight, and is obligatory for irrealis
mood.
The prefix conjugation is imperfective, and describes an event or action as ongoing or

unfinished; it has two distinct modalities:
• The unmarked prefix conjugation expresses either a subjunctive mood (‘would,

should, could’), or functions as a subordinated verb. It inflects with subject prefixes
and suffixes but no aspectual prefixes.
• The indicative mood is marked with one of three prefixes to convey continuous/
habitual or progressive Aktionsart, or future time reference.
In addition, the prefix conjugation forms the base of the imperative mood.
Most LA dialects utilize an indicative prefix b- and a progressive ʕam (variants ʕamma,
ma), as well as an intentional b- and a future raħ (laħ, ħa), as illustrated in Table 16.11.10
The participle forms function as the primary carriers of perfect aspect, defined as a
resultative, relevant state that has ensued from the completion of an action or entry into
that state: ʔaːʕed ‘seated’ (‘having sat down and still sitting’; ST 10).12 Participles them-
selves carry no time reference and thus may be used in all time frames.
In addition to the shared active participial form CaːCi-eC (fsg Ca:CCe, pl Ca:CCiːn),
LA dialects also use the form CaCCaːn (fsg CaCCaːne, pl CaCCaːniːn): dˤaʕfaːn ‘having
lost weight’. CaCCaːn is often (but not exclusively) used with physical or emotional
states; there appears to be a degree of overlap between the two participial forms.
4.6.2 Gender/number/person inflections

Both prefix and suffix conjugations inflect for person, gender and number, while the par-
ticiple inflects only for gender and number (but see §5.2). Both prefix and suffix conju-
gations distinguish three persons and two numbers; gender is further distinguished in the
singular forms of the 2nd and 3rd persons. In some rural and many tribal dialects, the 3rd
person plural also has masculine and feminine conjugations; these are included in the
TABLE 16.11 GRAMMATICAL PARTICLES ON THE IMPERFECTIVE
Prefix Meaning Example
Ø Modal; non-finite (subordinate) bedd=o j-sˤallˤi

wish=obj.3msg ipfv.3msg-pray
He wants to pray [ST 13]
b- Continuous; habitual b -sˤallˤi [ST 8]
ind -ipfv.1sg.pray
I pray [habitually or continuously]
ʕam (b-)11 Progressive ʕam= (b-) i-sˤallˤi
ʕamma prog= (ind-) ipfv.3msg-pray
ma He is praying (now)
b- Intentional future bə-t-sˤallˤi maʕ=na nhaːr ǝʒ-ʒǝmʕa?
fut-ipfv.2m-pray with=obj.1pl day def-Friday
Would you care to pray with us on Friday?
raħ Future raħ n-sˤallˤi
laħ fut ipfv. 1pl-pray
ħa We will pray, are going to pray
next several tables for reference. Across the Levant, phonological variation in verb con-
jugations involves vowel raising, lowering, fronting, backing, (un)rounding, or deletion,
and is regionally and socially determined.13
In the suffix conjugation (Table 16.12), all values are marked by suffixes, while in
the prefix conjugation (Table 16.13), person is marked by prefixes with the addition of
suffixes to mark gender and/or plural number (except in 1st person). Tables 16.12 and
16.13 show the conjugation markers, using √drs ‘study’. The prefix vowel of the prefix
conjugation (Table 16.14) also varies in LA based on dialect, speaker, root type and stem.
The mid-central vowel /ə/ was selected here but /a/ or /e/ are also found in some regions.
The rural/tribal 2fsg, 2fpl and 3fpl suffixes end in /n/ (forms shown here are extrapolated
from Behnstedt 1997: 276–9, 298–9, 309, 317).
The imperative inflects for 2nd person only, omitting the subject prefix tǝ-: ʔʕod (msg)
‘sit!’ [ST 14]; the feminine and plural suffixes remain intact: ʔʕodi (fsg), ʔʕodu (pl). In
Palestinian and Jordanian, an initial helping vowel (which receives word stress) facili-
tates pronunciation of stems -CCVC; in Lebanon and urban Syrian, there tends not to be
a helping vowel, and the stem vowel of 2msg -CCVC tends to be stressed and lengthened:
ko:l u ʃko:r eat.imp.2msg and thank.imp.2msg ‘Eat and Thank’ (a kind of baklava).
Participles inflect with regular nominal suffixes fsg -a ~ -e and mpl – i:n. When active
participles function verbally, they can take object pronoun suffixes, in which case the
feminine ending activates -t as happens in construct: ʃa:jfe seeing.ptcp.f but ʃa:jfǝt=a
seeing.ptcp.f=obj.3fsg ‘seeing it’.
4.6.3 Verbal stems

The basic LA verbal stem system can be seen as a somewhat less productive and pho-
netically adjusted version of the Classical Arabic system (see Chapter 15), in which all
patterns are available to speakers in the form of specific lexical items, with predictable
TABLE 16.12 THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION (PERFECTIVE)
Singular Plural
1 da′ras-t da′ras-na
2 masc da′ras-t da′ras-tu (-to)
fem da′ras-ti (-te) da′ras-tin (-ten)
3 masc ′daras-Ø ′daras-u (-o)
fem ′daras-ǝt (-et, -it) ′daras –in (-an)
TABLE 16.13 THE PREFIX CONJUGATION (IMPERFECTIVE)
Singular Plural
1 ǝ-drus nǝ-drus
2 masc tǝ-drus tǝ-drus-u (uːn)
fem tǝ-drus-i (-e) (-iːn) tǝ-drus-in (ni)
3 masc jǝ-drus jǝ-drus-u (uːn)
fem tǝ-drus jǝ-drus-in (ni)
TABLE 16.14 VERBAL STEM PATTERNS
pfv ipfv Semantic Example
CvCvC -CCvC depends on root ʔaʕad, -ʔʕod ‘to sit’ [ST 14]
semantics
CaCCaC – CaCCeC causative or transitive ʔaʕʕad, -ʔaʕʕed ‘to seat (someone)’
of CvCvC; also [ST 14]
denominative
tCaCCaC – tCaCCaC reflexive or medio- tʕsʕawwar, -tʕsʕawwar ‘to imagine,
passive of CaCCaC picture for oneself’ (cf. sʕawwar ‘to
take a picture’) [ST 7]
nCaCaC – nCǝCeC the regular, productive nkamaʃ, -nkəmeʃ ‘to be arrested’ (cf.
– nCaːC in medial passive of CvCvC kamaʃ ‘to grab’ [ST 12])
glide roots
staCCaC – staCCeC denominal, ‘to seek staħaʔʔ, -staħeʔʔ ‘to deserve’
CCC’, or deadjectival, ‘to (cf. ħaʔʔ ‘right’ [ST 16], see for
consider (obj) CCC’ metathesis §4.6.4)
vowel raising, shortening and deletion (see §§3.2 and 3.3); for example, Classical taCaC-
CaC > LA tCaCCaC. A rare and nonproductive innovation (or borrowing) shared with
Egyptian Arabic is a combination of st- and CaCCaC, as in stmanna ipfv jǝstmanna ‘to
wish for’ (< √mny). Table 16.14 lists the productive stems in LA with an example for
each; short vowel variations include e ~ i ~ ǝ and a ~ ǝ.
LA speakers use a small number of verbs of the pattern ʔaCCaC. These verbs show
two analyses by speakers: one, analogous to Classical Arabic, manifests as ipfv -CCeC
and ptcp mǝCCeC; the other appears as a reanalysis of the initial ʔ as part of the root:
CaCCaC. Beiruti informants confirm the two available participles for the verb ʔaʕlan
‘announce’: mǝʕlǝniːn (√ʕln) ~ mʔaʕlǝniːn (√ʔʕln) ‘having announced’. Cowell includes
these reanalyzed verbs in a class he calls “pseudo-quadriliterals,” as they are based on
triliteral roots. Other patterns he lists here include reduplicative C1aC2C1eC2 and C1aC-
C eC3, and patterns with one of the formatives /w/, /r/, and /n/. One of these, CawCaC,
2 1
presents in some dialects as CoːCaC, e.g., bawrad ~ boːrad ‘to cool off’ from the root
√brd ‘cold’.
It is worth noting that all verbs of the pattern CaCCaC, ipfv – CaCCeC, whether they
are triliteral, quadriliteral or augmented from a transparent triliteral root, share vocaliza-
tion and syllabification patterns, and all verbs that semantically allow a reflexive meaning
produce it with a t- prefix: tCaCCaC, ipfv – tCaCCaC, e.g. ħmaːr ‘donkey, stupid jerk’
> tħamran ‘to make oneself into a donkey, to act like a stupid jerk’. There are moreover
semantic similarities among most of these verbs: as with the Classical Arabic D stem,
these verbs tend to be causative or intensive in CaCCaC: daʕas ‘to step on’ > daʕwas ‘to
trample;’ ʃabak ‘to entwine’ > ʃarbak ‘to complicate, entangle’.
4.6.4 Weak roots

Regular LA verb stems derive from roots consisting of three or four consonants. While
quadriliteral roots are less common, they serve as a highly productive means of coining
new vocabulary, and are commonly used to Arabicize foreign words (see §4.6.3 and §6).14
Verbs with a geminate root (possible only as C1C2C2, never as C1C1C2) show metath-
esis, namely C1aC2C2-, and take the formative -eː ~ aj before consonant-initial suffixes:
ħabb ‘he liked’, ħabbe:t ~ ħabbajt ‘I liked’. However, many LA dialects, especially in the
western Levant, reflect typical morphology for geminate roots in the active participle,
without metathesis: ħaːbeb msg ‘liking, wanting’.
Predictably, roots with glides or glottal stop show variations resulting from root reanal-
ysis and/or pattern leveling. The similarities between LA and other varieties of Arabic,
and the rich phonological variation across the Levant, render a detailed discussion of
this topic of little benefit. Rather, we will note a few phenomena of comparative interest.
• Root-initial w in -CCvC (ipfv of CvCvC) is generally maintained as /oː/, but speakers

in some areas elide it; thus from root √wsˤl we find b-joː.sˤal and (less commonly) b-je.
sˤal ‘he arrives’.
• In some Jordanian and Palestinian dialects, the glottal stop in √ʔkl ‘eat’ and √ʔxð
‘hold’ sometimes surfaces as a reflex of /w/ > /oː/, as in joːkal, joːxað; in many western
rural and tribal dialects in the area, the active participles for these verbs are maːkil,
maːxið. These patterns do not apply to /ʔ/ as a reflex of Classical Arabic /q/ (see §3.1).
• In forms other than CvCvC, root-initial /ʔ/ varies regionally, socially and lexically,
thus √ʔzn staʔzan ‘to take leave of’ but √ʔhl staːhal ‘to deserve’.
• In most cases, and in agreement with many spoken Arabic varieties, non-root-initial
/ʔ/ is pronounced /j/, thus √hjʔ > hajjaj-t ‘I set up’ [ST 14].
• Root-medial glides follow predictable patterns. As in other varieties of Arabic, stem
patterns in which the glide is intervocalic allow for a secondary derivation: tˤǝwel,
ipfv jǝ-tˤwal ‘to become taller, longer’ > tˤaːl, ipfv jǝ-tˤuːl ‘to reach’ (ʔid=o tˤaːjl-e
hand=poss.3msg having.reached.ptcp-fsg ‘he has connections’).
• III–w roots, as in other dialect areas, tend to present as III–j roots.

Non-finite verb forms in LA include active and passive participles and the verbal noun.
4.6.5.1 Participles
We noted earlier that the active and passive participles can carry perfect aspect, but they
do not carry tense. They are marked only for number and gender (gender is marked only
in the singular in urban dialects, but in both singular and plural in many rural/tribal dia-
lects). Participles also function without aspect as attributive adjectives, and, by semantic
extension, nouns: l-mǝtʒawziːn ‘the married (people)’.
Active participle patterns closely follow those of Classical Arabic, with predictable
vowel shifts, especially the shortening or loss of unstressed schwa and high vowels in
open syllables: *kaːmiʃiːn > kɛːmʃiːn ptcp.pl ‘grabbing’ [ST 12], and the shift from Clas-
sical Arabic prefix mu to m(ǝ). Like Egyptian Arabic, LA makes use of the CaCCaːn
pattern, but more extensively, see further §4.6.1. Active participles in verbal function are
distinguished by their ability to take object pronoun suffixes. The manner of affixation in
the case of fsg e- ~ a- + obj distinguishes most Syrian and Lebanese dialects from Pal-
estinian and Egyptian Arabic, in that the underlying t- of the feminine suffix is retained:
ʔana kaːtbe ‘I have written’ (1sg write.ptcp.fsg) > ʔana kaːtbet=(h)a ‘I have written it’
(1sg write.ptcp.fsg-obj.fsg).
Passive participles are largely limited to classes CvCvC and CvCCvC, taking the forms
maCCuːC (sɪmɪʕ ‘he heard’ > masmuːʕ ‘heard’) for the former and mCaCCaC for the latter.
4.6.5.2 Verbal nouns

Verbal nouns exist only as nouns in LA, not as infinitives. As such, they belong to the
lexicon, not the verbal system.
4.7 Prepositions/adverbs
Most prepositions in LA are shared with the common Arabic lexicon with slight phonetic
variation: l-, Ɂǝl ‘to, for’ (dative, possessive), mǝn ‘from, (made) of’, (with comparative)
‘than;’ b ‘at, by means of, with’ (instrumental, locative); fi (fǝ, f) (locative); ʕa(la) ‘on,
about, against’, ʕan about, (away) from’; maʕ ‘with’. Short unstressed vowels may be
elided, and the n in mǝn and ʕan is doubled before a vowel-initial pronominal suffix (ʕan-
nak ‘away from you’). Optionally, when mǝn is directly followed by the definite article,
the n can elide and the vowel collapses: mǝn ǝl- > m=ǝl-.
The dative preposition has two main forms, l(a) and Ɂǝl; the former varies according
to the phonetic environment, especially following two consonants and preceding a third,
where epenthetic schwa can precede l. It is cliticized to verbs and participles, preceding
a direct object (hajjajt=ǝllo kǝrse ‘I prepared for him a chair’ ST 14), negative maː (see
§5.6), and elatives (aħsan=lak ‘better for you’). The two may be combined for contrastive
emphasis: la=Ɂǝli ‘mine!’ (see further Cowell 2005 [1964]: 477–84).
LA does not usually distinguish between lexical adverbs such as ʃwajj ‘a little’, hoːn
‘here’, and hniːk ‘there’, heːk ‘like that, so’, and adjectives in adverbial function. Almost
any adjective can be used as an adverb in its uninflected form: mniːħ ‘good’ vs. nǝmti
mniːħ? ‘Did you sleep well?’ LA speakers make regular use of adverbs shared with stan-
dard Arabic, and these normally show the suffix -an (Ɂabadan ‘at all’).
5 SYNTAX
It is a truism that word order in Arabic is flexible; however, that does not mean unprinci-
pled. Extraposition is a common feature of Arabic in general, and the resources of stress
and intonation give spoken Arabic additional tools to convey both semantic and prag-
matic meaning. LA utilizes left and right dislocation to convey pragmatic functions such
as focus, contrastive focus and resumptive topic.
Basic unmarked word order in declarative sentences may be either V(S)(O) or SV(O),
each one functioning as a distinct typology of information packing, with subject-initial
order indicative of topic-prominent, and verb-initial order of subject-prominent sentences
(particularly those in which the subject is discursively new information, e.g., an indefinite
noun). VO with a null overt subject is frequent in narrative discourse.
SVO
l- ʕa ʒaza b-jǝ-ʔʕǝd-u ʕa l-kǝrse
def-infirm.pl ind-ipfv-sit-3mpl on def-chair
‘Handicapped people sit on chairs’. [ST 10]
VS
twaffe-t sett=i
die.pfv-3fsg grandmother=poss.1sg
‘My grandmother died’.
VO
kɛːmʃiːn=o tnɛːn
grab.ptcp.pl=obj.3msg two
‘Two guys were grabbing him’ [ST 12]
Interrogative sentences are characterized by the fronting of the interrogative particle (see,
e.g., ST 18).
Phrasal word order in LA is Head-Dependent:
P-N: b=ǝl-ʒɛːmǝʕ [ST 8]

at=def-mosque
‘at the mosque’
Dem-N: hadiːk ǝl-joːm [ST 7]
dem def-day
‘that day, the other day’
N-N: leːl-t ǝl- ʕǝrs
night-cst def-wedding
‘the night of the wedding’
N-Adj: ʃaʁle kbiːre
thing big.fsg
‘a big deal’
N-Rel: l-ʕaziːme lli ʕaːmil-t-ǝlna jaː=ha
def-invitation rel do.ptcp-fsg-dat.1pl obj=3fsg
‘the invitation that she arranged for us’ (Brustad 2000: 397)
Prepositions must precede nominals in LA. Sentence position is not fixed, but adverbs
often appear in post-verbal and post-adjectival position, except for ktiːr ‘very’: ktiːr
ǝ
mniːħ ‘very good’ or ‘very well’).

The major predicate types of LA are nominal, verbal and existential. Verbal predicates
are headed by a finite verb phrase, and nominal predicates consist of a noun phrase,
an adjective phrase, a prepositional phrase or a locative adverb. As one would expect,
the verb kaːn ‘to be’ does not occur in the present tense except in habitual or modal
sentences.
Aspectually charged active participles can exhibit some facets of verbal behavior; thus,
it is common in LA for a predicative participle to be followed by its subject, especially
when the subject is indefinite (for examples, see ST 11 and 12). The verbal character of
the participle is echoed in a distinctively Syrian-Lebanese phenomenon: when a 2fsg

active participle takes an object pronoun, a “verbal” suffix -iː is added:
ʃaːjfe > ʃaːjəft=iː

see.ptcp.fsg see.ptcp.fsg=obj.3msg
you (fsg) saw you (fsg) saw him
Existential predication in LA exhibits predicate-subject word order. The category of exis-

tential predicates includes pseudo-verbs such as existential fiː ‘there is’ (variants biː, buː
in some rural/tribal dialects) and prepositions Ɂǝl= ‘for, belonging to’ ʕand= (~ ʕann=)
‘in the possession of’ (for ‘to have’).
l-ʕǝmǝr ʔǝl=o ħaʔʔ

def-age belonging.to.prep = obj.3msg right
‘Old age has its dues’ [ST 16]
5.3 Definiteness
Any discussion of definiteness in LA must take into account a continuum of specificity
and salience. On one end of the scale, indefinite, nonspecific and non-salient nouns are
bare of article and attributes: beːt ‘a house’ (nothing identifiable or significant about it).
The article ʃi ‘some’ adds specificity: ʃi ʒǝmᵊʕteːn ‘a couple of weeks or so’ [ST 8]. The
indefinite modifier waːħed ‘one’ (f waːħde) may precede a bare animate noun to identify
an indefinite, yet specific individual: waːħed mǝskiːn ‘this poor guy’ [ST 11].
The definite article in LA is l- [ǝl ~ l]; the /l/ undergoes total assimilation to a following
coronal consonant. In LA, this often (but not always) extends to /ʒ/: the speaker in our sam-
ple text says əl-ʒɛːmǝʕ ‘the mosque’ then ǝʒ-ʒǝmʕa ‘week’ [ST 8]. Adjectives must agree in
definiteness with head nouns they modify, and are made definite by means of the definite
article. Definiteness may also be expressed through the construct state (see §5.4.2).
5.4.1 Analytic constructions in the verbal system
There do not exist analytic constructions in the verbal system of LA.
5.4.2 Analytic constructions in the nominal system

LA nouns may occur in a genitive relationship either in construct state (direct adposition)
or linked by means of a genitive exponent. Head nouns in construct remain morphologi-
cally unchanged, except for non-final feminine nouns ending in -a, which are obligatorily
marked with -t. A construct may in theory extend to three or more nouns; however, this is
rare except with very common or monosyllabic nouns. Only the final noun in a construct
may take definite marking, and the marking of this noun determines the definiteness of
the construct as a whole for syntactic purposes.
The most common analytic genitive markers in the urban Levant are tabaʕ (invari-
able in Damascus, can take f tabaʕiːt, pl tabaʕuːl) and taːʕ (f taːʕt, pl taʕiːn). While the
construct and the analytic genitive overlap in meaning, their usage patterns are distinct:
the analytic construction allows speakers to classify an indefinite noun with nominal
attribute (warʔa tabaʕ xamsmijje ‘a 500 [pound] note’, Cowell 2005 [1964]: 489), to place
contrastive focus on the possessor and to more fluidly link nouns with more than two
syllables.
5.5 Subordination
LA exhibits two kinds of subordination: temporal and complementation. Temporal sub-
ordination refers to the relationship between the verb tense and either (a) for a main verb,
the moment of speaking; and (b) for a subordinate verb, the tense of the main clause. This
relationship is one of relative tenseː a perfective verb indicates an action or event that
occurred prior to the moment of speech, while an imperfective verb indicates contempo-
raneity. In narration, one perfective verb can set the time frame for more than one event
in a close sequence (see Brustad 2000: 203–12).
Temporal subordination can be clearly seen in the formation of complex tenses. The
verb kaːn ‘be’ specifies the time reference of an action or event relative to the moment
of speaking, and subsequent asyndetically linked verbs show time reference relative to
it: b-kuːn ʒiː-t ind-ipfv.1sg come-pfv.1sg ‘I will have come’; kaːn-u maː j-ʃuːf-u be.3mpl.
pfv neg ipfv.3-see-mpl ‘they didn’t use to see’ (Brustad 2000: 401). The latter example
shows a feature that distinguishes LA dialects in general from Egyptian Arabic: for many
speakers, the imperfective in complex tenses does not take prefix b- in its continuous/
habitual meaning (see also §4.6.1).
LA has both indicative and non-indicative complements. Non-indicative complements
are normally asyndetically annexed to the main verb or pseudo-verb, and are headed by
an unprefixed imperfective verb:
ʃu bǝdd=i ʔǝl=l-o
what 1s. want=poss.1sg ipfv.1sg.say=to-poss.3msg
‘What could I say to him?’ [ST 18]
Certain temporal adverbs may be used in conjunction with the complementizer ma to

form a subordinate clauseː
baʕd ma tnaːm
after comp sleep.ipfv.3fsg
‘after she goes to sleep’
Finite complements include sentence complements and relative clauses. The former can
optionally (more frequently in formal speech) be introduced with complementizer ʔǝnn=
‘that’, to which some speakers attach 3msg “dummy pronoun” =o, though other personal
pronouns may also be used (e.g., ʔǝnn=i ‘that I’):
nǝħna m-naʕref ʔǝnn əl-ʒa:r ma: b-ja3ref ʒa:r=o

sbj.1cpl ind-know.ipfv.1pl comp def-neighbor neg
know.ind.3sg neighbor=poss.3msg
‘We know that one neighbor does not know another’.
No syntactic features distinguish direct from indirect speech; both are often asyndenti-
cally joined to the sentence, or may be introduced with ‘that’. In narrative, verb subjects
may switch suddenly, the listener being expected to follow along from context:
ʔaʕʕat-t=o ǝ
ʔʕod!
sat.tr.pfv-1sg=3msg.obj sit.imp.2msg
‘I sat him down, [saying to him] sit down!’ [ST 14]
Relative clauses are finite. The linking of relative clauses to their head nouns is triggered by
the degree of specificity and salience of the head noun. When the head noun is salient, spe-
cific or definite, the relative clause is normally headed by ǝlli (jǝlli). When it is indefinite and
nonspecific, the relative clause is asyndetically linked. In both cases, when the head noun
corresponds to the object of a verb or preposition, or a possessive pronoun in a construct,
a resumptive pronoun is required which matches the gender and number of the head noun:
ma: b-t-a:xod ǝlli b-t-iʃtǝh=i: b=ba:l=a

neg ind-3fsg-take rel ind-3fsg-desire=obj.3msg in=mind=poss.3fsg
‘She can’t have the one she really wants in her mind’.
5.6 Negation
LA dialects utilize two main strategies of negation that may be designated as verbal and
predicate (see Brustad 2000: 281–3). The basic verbal negation particle is maː throughout
the region:
maː t-wæːxəz=ni
neg ipfv.2msg-take.offence.from=obj.1sg
‘Excuse me (don’t take offence)’ [ST 15]
In many areas, /la:/ may optionally be used as a prohibitive particle in negative impera-
tives (Damascene example from Klimiuk 2013: 113–14):
laː tǝ-ħki maʕ miːn=ma kaːn

neg ipfv.2fsg-talk with anyone be.pfv.3msg
‘do not talk to anyone you might meet’
Predicate negation particles, on the other hand, show several regional variants, the most
commonly heard of which are Damascene muː and Palestinian mɪʃ.
hijje mu: ho:n

sbj.3fsg neg here
‘She isn’t here’.
Beirut speakers tend to retain ma: even in predicative negation:
maː mbajjan
neg clarified.ptcp
‘It doesn’t show’ [ST 3]
TABLE 16.15 NEGATIVE COPULA FORMS IN LA
Person Singular Plural
1 maːni, manni maːna, maːnna

2m maːnak, mannak maːnkon, mankon
2f maːnek, mannek
3m maːno, manno maːnon, mannon
3f maːna, manna
The discontinuous negation marker ma= . . . =ʃ (also a feature of Egyptian Arabic) is

found in southern areas of the Levant. Within this region, the dropping of negative ma,
resulting in verbal negation with ʃ only, or the omission of m, resulting in ʔa= . . . =ʃ, is
well documented for Palestinian dialects.
LA has a negative copula consisting of the negating particle maː and a suffixed pronoun.
In Beirut, this appears to be an unmarked form of negation; in other dialects, it functions
to negate a presupposition. In the following example, the presupposition negated is that
“I” am part of society:
ʔiza ma: fakkar-t b=ǝl-muʒtamaʕ maʕna:t=a ma:ni mǝn

If neg think-pfv.1sg in=def-society meaning-cst=poss.3fsg neg.1s from
ǝl-muʒtamaʕ
def-society
‘If I don’t think about society, it means I am not [actually] of the society’.
Common forms in Damascus and Beirut are given in Table 16.15.15
6 LEXICON
The lexicon of LA remains overwhelmingly Arabic, although lexical variation is found
across the region; one example is ‘nose’, reflexes for which include words from roots
√xſm √Ɂnf and √nxr (Behnstedt and Woidich 2005: 193). As one would expect from its
long history at an important geopolitical crossroad, the LA lexicon has also accumu-
lated loan words from other languages. Aramaic, Italian, French, Turkish, Greek, Per-
sian and English have all contributed. However, the process of borrowing and Arabizing
loan words is balanced by a process of borrowing and gradually replacing loan words
with Arabic roots, a process we can witness with Ottoman Turkish words. Borrowings
from Turkish that were common in the 20th century have been largely replaced by Ara-
bic words as the generations that were born during the Ottoman Empire have passed on;
for example, the Turkish ʔaːzʕaːn ‘water heater’ has been superseded by saxxaːn. More
recent adoptions are predictably technological, and vary from region to region from
French to English borrowings. A sampling from Beirut, where French is a commonly
used languageː saljuleːr ‘cell phone’ and numerous parts of the automobile; also, some
words deployed to signal social class, education, or material culture, such as mersi,
bõjuːr, breveː ‘preparatory school degree’. Borrowed words are often adopted into the
morphological system of Arabic, becoming active participles: mdapras ‘depressed’,
mkatteʃ ‘kitschy’, and taking broken plurals: faːtuːraː ‘bill’ < Italian fattura, pl fwaːtiːr.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The text below is taken from the field recordings of Emilie Zuniga. Despite having only
a primary education, this elderly Beiruti speaker is an avid consumer of news in newspa-
pers and on television. The text begins with the speaker’s answer to the question, “What
year were you born?” Our transcription is phonetic, and shows the range of vocalic vari-
ation characteristic of many LA dialects. It also shows the kind of sudden shifts in voice
and from direct to indirect speech with no overt marking that is characteristic of narration
in spoken Arabic.
Line 1:
ʔalf u 'tǝs.əʕ 'mij.je u 'sit.ta u ʕǝʃ.'riːn
thousand and nine.m hundred and six.f and twenty
Line 2:
'hal.la 'ʕom.r=i 'hal.laʔ sʕaːr 'hal.la l-'yoːm
now age= poss.1sg now pfv.became.3msg now def-day
Line 3:
'set.ta u tmɛ.'niːn 'se.ne maː 'mbaj.jan
six.f and eighty year neg ptcp.clarified.msg
Line 4:
'maː 'ħa.da 'b-ja.ʕref ʕa'laj=je 'hal.laʔ 'ha.di sɪnt əl . . .
neg one ind-ipfv.3msg.know on=1sg now dem.fsg year.gen def
Line 5:
ᵵnaʕʃ 'hal.laʕ m=’sit.ta u ʕǝʃ.'riːn 'xam.sa u tmɛ.'niːn
twelve now from=six and twenty five and eighty
Line 6:
'sɪt.ta u tmɛ.'niːn 'se.ne 'hal.laʔ dxalt bə= s-'sət.ta
six and eighty year now pfv.enter.1sg loc= def-six
Line 7:
u tme.'niːn. 'tʕsʕaw.ri. 'ʔa.na kǝnt b= ha.'diːk əl-'joːm
and eighty imp.imagine.2fsg I pfv.be.1sg loc= dem.dist.f def.day
Line 8:
b= əl. . . ʃi ʒǝ.mᵊʕ.'t-eːn b= əl-ˈʒaː.mǝʕ p-'sʕɑllʕi16 nhaːr ǝʒ-'ʒǝm.ʕa
loc= def some week-du loc= def-mosque ind-ipfv.1sg-pray day def-Friday
Line 9:
ta= far.'ʒiː=k kiːf 'yaʕ.ni17 l-ʔin.'seːn
so.that= ipfv.1sg.show=obj.2msg how ipfv.3msg.mean def-human.being
nʕɑ.zʕɑ.'riː-t=o.
viewpoint-gen=poss.3msg
Line 10:
'ʔaː.ʕed ʕa= l-'kǝr.se l-'ʕa.ʒa.za b-'jǝ-ʔ.ʕǝd-u ʕa= l-'kǝr.se
ptcp.sit.msg on= def-chair def-infirm.pl ind-ipfv.3m-sit-pl on= def-chair
b-ǝ.'sʕallʕ-u
ind-ipfv.pray-3pl
Line 11:
b= ᵊʒ-'ʒɛː.miʕ ʒɛj 'waː.ħed mǝs.'kiːn 'mit.l=i 'heː.ke
loc= def-mosque ptcp.coming one.m poor.msg like=obj.1pl like.so
Line 12:
kɛːm.'ʃ-iː.n=o tnɛːn mǝn hoːn mǝn hoːn
grab-pl=obj.3msg two from here from here
Line 13:
u ʕa=l.-ʕak.kaː.'z-eːt u ʒɛːj 'bed.d=o j-'sʕallʕi
and on=def-crutch-pl and coming.ptcp want=obj.3msg ipfv.3msg-pray
Line 14:
'ʔa.na 'rkǝᵭ-ᵊt haj.jaj-t='ǝ.ll=o 'kǝ.rse ʔaʕ.'ʕat-t=o ᵊʔ.'ʕod!
I pfv.run-1sg pfv.set.up-1sg=dat=3msg chair pfv.sat.tr-1sg=obj.3msg imp.sit.msg
Line 15:
'ʔaʕad 'heː.ke 'ʔal=li 'ʕam.m=uː18 maː t-wæ:.'xəz=ni
pfv.sit.3msg like.so pfv.say.3msg=dat.1sg uncle=voc neg ipfv.2msg.hold.against=obj.1sg
Line 16:
l-'ʕǝ.mǝr 'ʔǝ.l=o ħaʔʔ 'ʔa.na . . . 'ʔa.na kbiːr b= ǝl-'ʕǝ.mǝr
def-age belonging.to=obj.3msg right[s] I. . . I old.msg loc= def-age
Line 17:
ʔǝddeːʃ ʕǝmr=ak ja ʕamm? ʔal=li 'ʕǝm.ri sab.'ʕiːn 'se.ne
how.much age=poss.2msg voc uncle? pfv.say.3msg=dat.1sg age=poss.1sg seventy year
Line 18:
ʃu bǝdd=i ʔǝl=l-o 'ʔa.na ʕǝmr=i xamsa u tmɛniːn sene!
what want=poss.1sg ipfv.1sg.say I age=poss.1sg five and eighty year!
‘1926. Now, my age now has reached now, today, 86 years. I don’t look it. No one can
tell I am [that old]. Now, this year is [20]12 now, from [19]26, 85, 86 years [old] now,
I have entered 86. Imagine. The other day, I was at the mosque, at . . . some two weeks
ago, at the mosque doing Friday prayers. Just to show you how human beings see
things [lit. the human being is his perspective]. [I was] sitting on the chair, umm . . .
the infirm sit on chairs [and] to pray at the mosque. Along comes this poor guy, like
me, sort of, two men grabbing him here and here [on each side], [he was] leaning
on crutches, coming to pray. I ran over and set up a chair for him and sat him down,
saying “sit!” He sat down, he was like [imitates heavy breathing]. He said to me,
Please excuse me, young man, old age has its dues, I . . . I am an old man. [I asked:]
How old are you, uncle? He said to me, I am seventy years old. What could I say to
him? I am 85 years old!’
NOTES
1 We prefer the term “tribal” over the commonly used term “bedouin” (in Arabic ʕarab
‘Arabs’) because members of a tribe, or a subdivision of a tribe, are assumed to con-
stitute a speech community, but cannot be assumed to share a nomadic lifestyle. The
relationship of rural dialects in eastern Syria to tribal dialects is a matter of debate and
speculation; see e.g. the discussion in Lentin (2013: 152–3).
2 Cowell’s A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic (1964) is one of the most thorough
descriptions of any Arabic dialect especially because of its many full-sentence exam-
ples and its attention to semantic and pragmatic nuance. Most, but not all, of his data
is from Damascene speakers; he normally specifies forms that are non-Damascene.
3 Names have been shortened to initials for privacy.
4 For a discussion of the phonemic status of /g/ in Damascus Arabic, see Klimiuk
(2013: 54–5).
5 See, for example, Whalen and Beddor (1989), Aikhenvald (1996), Woodbury (2000),
DeCaen (2005), and Watson and Asiri (2008).
6 Cairo is another example of an urban center that experienced the loss of a pausal
system (Blanc 1973–74).
7 The gemination of l-, called junctural doubling, is a regular prosodic feature of the
attachment of the dative pronouns to a word ending in CC in many LA dialects (with
thanks to John Huehnergard).
8 The correspondence of different plural forms to varying levels of individuation is
also attested in CA, and is comparable to CA “plural of paucity” and “plural of
multitude.”
9 The English translation of the sentence represents a different set of aspectual pri-
orities, and demonstrates the problems inherent in basing grammatical analysis on
translations.
10 It is unclear whether the two meanings of the b- prefix derive from the same source,
especially as LA shares the indicative/habitual b- with Egyptian Arabic, and the inten-
tional/immediate future b- with Gulf dialects.
11 ʕam may be followed by indicative b-; this varies across dialects.
12 In the case of verbs of motion, we hypothesize that the progressive meaning of the
participle developed from a perfective stem meaning ‘to set out to go’, and hence
‘having set out’ > ‘going’.
13 In Damascus Arabic, for example, it is typical for a base stem with an /a/ stem vowel
(like daras-) to be reduced to dars- in the 3fs. In other dialects, the perfective stem
may be reduced to dras- for 1st and 2nd person (see, e.g., dxal-t ‘I entered’, ST 6).
14 For formation of quadriliteral roots, see Cowell (2005 [1964]: 54, 109–24).
15 We have not found examples of the feminine plural forms.
16 Devoicing of the indicative prefix b- is not uncommon before a voiceless consonant.
17 While this verb literally means ‘to mean’, it is commonly used as a filler during con-
versation, as we see here.
18 It is common in LA dialects in particular for speakers to use familial terms recipro-

cally, so that an older person who is literally or figuratively an uncle can address a
younger person as “uncle” using the same term that the younger person would use to
address him. The suffix – o: ~ uː is a form of vocative used especially with ‘uncle’,
‘aunt’, ‘grandmother’, and ‘grandfather’.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Jawad, Hasan. “Lexical and Phonological Variation in Spoken Arabic in Amman.”
Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1981.
Aikhenvald, A. “Words, Phrases, Pauses and Boundaries: Evidence from South American
Indian Languages.” Studies in Language 20.3 (1996): 487–517.
Al-Wer, Enam. “Jordanian Arabic (Amman).” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Manfred Woidich, Alaa Elgibali,
and Andrzej Zaborski. Vol. II, 505–17. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Arnold, Werner. Die arabische Dialekte Antiochens. Semitica Viva 19. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1998.
Behnstedt, Peter. Der arabische Dialekt von Soukhne (Syrien). Teil 2: Phonologie,
Morphologie, Syntax. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994.
Behnstedt, Peter. Sprachatlas von Syrien. Band Iː Kartenband. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1997.
Behnstedt, Peter. Sprachatlas von Syrien. Band IIː Volkskundliche Texte. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2000.
Behnstedt, Peter and Manfred Woidich. Arabische Dialektgeographie. Eine Einführung.
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Blanc, Haim. “The Arabic Dialect of the Negev Bedouins.” Proceedings of the Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1970): 112–50.
Blanc, Haim. “La perte d’une forme pausale dans le parler arabe du Caire.” Mélanges de
l’Université Saint Joseph 48 (1973–74): 375–90.
Borg, Alexander. “Reflexes of Pausal Forms in Maltese Rural Dialects?” Israel Oriental
Studies 7 (1977): 211–25.
Brustad, Kristen. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press, 2000.
Brustad, Kristen. “Drink Your Milks: -aat as Individuation Marker in Levantine Arabic.”
In Classical Arabic Humanities in Their Own Terms: Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs,
edited by Beatrice Gruendler and Michael Cooperson, 1–19. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007.
Cantineau, Jean. Les parlers arabes du Ḥōrān. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1946.
Cowell, Mark. A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press, 2005 [1964].
Dawod, T. The Phonetics of the Il-Karnak Dialect (Upper Egypt). MA thesis, University
of London, 1949.
DeCaen, V. “On the Distribution of Major and Minor Pause in Tiberian Hebrew in the
Light of the Variants of the Second person Independent Pronouns.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 50.2 (2005): 321–7.
De Jong, Rudolf E. A Grammar of the Bedouin Dialects of the Northern Sinai Littoral:
Bridging the Linguistic Gap between the Eastern and Western Arab World. Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 2000.
Feghali, Michel T. Le parler de Kfar’abada (Liban-Syrie). Essai linguistique sur la

phonétique et la morphologie d’un parler arabe modern. Paris: Imprimerie nationale,
1919.
Feghali, Michel T. Syntaxe des parlers arabes actuels du Liban. Paris: Geuthner, 1928.
Fleisch, Henri. Etudes d’arabe dialectal. Beirut: Dar Al-Mashreq, 1974.
Grotzfeld, Heinz. Syrisch-Arabische Grammatik (Dialekt von Damaskus). Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1965.
Henkin, Roni. Negev Arabic: Dialectal, Sociolinguistic, and Stylistic Variation. Semitica
Viva (48). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010.
Jastrow, Otto. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen qəltu-Dialekte. Band Iː Phonologie und
morphologie. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 43/4. Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1978.
Jastrow, Otto. “Zur Phonologie und Phonetik des San’anischen.” In Entwicklungsprozesse
in der Arabischen Republik Yemen, edited by H. Kopp and G. Schweizer, 289–309.
Jiha, Michel. Der arabische Dialekt von Bišmizzīn. Volkstu>̈mliche Texte aus einem
libenasischen Dorf mit Grundzügen der Laut- und Formenlehre. Beirut/Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner, 1964.
Klimiuk, Maciej. Arabski dialekt Latakii (Syria). Fonologia i morfologia [The Arabic
Dialect of Latakia (Syria). Phonology and Morphology]. Department of Arabic and
Islamic Studies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw. Dissertation, 2011.
Klimiuk, Maciej. Phonetics and Phonology of Damascus Arabic. Trans. Agnieszka,
Waoekiewicz. Warsaw: Katedra Arabistyki i Islamistyki, Uniwersytet Waszawski, 2013.
Lane, Edward W. “Über der Aussprache der arabischen Vokale und die Betonung der
arabischen Wörter.” Zeitschriften der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 4
(1850): 171–86.
Naim-Sanbar, S. “Contribution à l’étude de l’accent yéméniteː parler des femmes de
l’ancienne génération.” Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 27 (1994): 67–89.
Lentin, Jerome. “Damascus Arabic.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Manfred Woidich, Alaa Elgibali, and Andrzej
Zaborski. Vol. I, 546–55. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Lentin, Jerome. “Lexical Notes on the Dialect of Mayadin (Eastern Syria) in the Late
1970s, with Jean Cantineau’s Fieldnotes of 1935.” In Ingham of Arabiaː A Collection
of Articles Presented as a Tribute to the Career of Bruce Ingham, edited by Clive Holes
and Rudolf de Jong, 151–71. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Palva, Heikki. “Characteristics of the Arabic Dialect of the Ḥwēṭāt Tribe.” In Orientalia
Suecana 33–35(1984–1986): 295–312.
Sabuni, A. Laut- und Formenlehre des arabischen Dialects von Aleppo. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter D. Lang, 1980.
Semitisches Tonarchiv (www.semarch.uni-hd.de/index.php43).
Seeger, Ulrich. “Der Arabische Dialekt von il-Xalīl (Hebron).” Master’s thesis, University
of Heidelberg, 1996.
Seeger, Ulrich. Der Arabische Dialekt der Dörfer um Ramallah. Tl. 1: Texte; Tl. 2:
Glossar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009.
Seeger, Ulrich. Der Arabische Dialekt der Dörfer um Ramallah. Tl. 3: Grammatik.
Shahin, Kimary N. “Palestinian Arabic.” Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Manfred Woidich, Alaa Elgibali,
and Andrzej Zaborski. Vol. III Lat-Pu, 527–38. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2009.
Shawarbah, Musa. A Grammar of Negev Arabic. Comparative Studies, Texts and Glossary
in the Bedouin Dialect of the ‘Azazmih Tribe. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
Talay, Shabo. Der arabische Dialekt der Khawētna, I Grammatik, II Texte und Glossar.
Semitica Viva 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997, 2003.
Watson, Janet. “Linguistic Leveling in San’ani Arabic as Reflected in a Popular Radio
Serial.” In Arabic in the City, edited by Catherine Miller, Enam El-Wer, Dominique
Caubet and Janet C. E. Watson, 166–87. London/New York: Routledge, 2007.
Watson, Janet. and Y. Asiri. “Pre-pausal Devoicing and Glottalisation in Varieties of the
South-Western Arabian Peninsula.” Langues et Linguistique 22 (2008): 17–38.
Whalen, D. H. and Beddor, P. S. “Connections between Nasality and Vowel Duration
and Height: Elucidation of the Eastern Algonquian Intrusive Nasal.” Language, 65.3
(1989): 457–86.
Woidich, M. “Ein arabischer Bauerndialekt aus dem südlichen Oberägypten.” In
Zeitschriften der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 124 (1974): 42–58.
Woodbury, T. “Utterance Final Phonology and the Prosodic Hierarchy: A Case from
Cup’ig (Nunivak Central Alaskan Yupik Eskimo).” In Proceedings of LP ’98, edited
by O. Fujimura, Osamu et al., 47–63. Pragueː Charles University Press, 2000.
Zuniga, Emilie. “An Instrumental Study of Pausal Vowels in Il-Ǧillī Arabic (Southern
Turkey).” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2015.
FURTHER READINGS
Behnstedt, Peter and Manfred Woidich. Arabische Dialektgeographie. Eine Einführung.
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. “Sprachatlas von Syrien und Palästina”. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palästina Vereins 38 (1915): 169–222.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich and Otto Jastrow (eds.). Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Porta
Linguarum Orientalium, n.s. XVI. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980.
Mitchell, T. F. and S. A. El-Hassan. Modality, Mood and Aspect in Spoken Arabic: with
Special Reference to Egypt and the Levant. Library of Arabic Linguistics, Monograph
11. London/New York: Kegan Paul, 1994.
Owens, Jonathan. A Linguistic History of Arabic. New York: Oxford University Press,
2006.
Versteegh, Kees. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997.
Watson, Janet. The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Grammars
See under References above for Behnstedt 1994, Cantineau 1946, Cowell 1964, Feghali
1919 and 1928, Grotzfeld 1956, Seeger 2013, and Shawarbah 2012.
Dictionaries and lexical studies

Barthélemy, Adrien. Dictionnaire arabe-français, dialectes de Syrie: Alep, Damas,
Liban, Jérusalem. Paris: Geuthner, 1935–1969.
Behnstedt, Peter and Manfred Woidich. Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte. Band Iː
Mensch, Natur, Fauna und Flora. Handbook of Oriental Studies, vol.100. Leiden-
Boston: Brill, 2011.
Cadora, Frederic J. Interdialectical Lexical Compatibility in Arabic. An Analytical Study

of the Lexical Relationships among the Major Syro-Lebanese Varieties. Studies in
Semitic Languages and Linguistics XI. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Freyha, Anis. A Dictionary of Non-Classical Vocables in the Spoken Arabic of Lebanon.
Beirut: American University, 1947.
Halloun, Moïn. A Practical Dictionary of the Standard Dialect Spoken in Palestine.
Bethlehem: Bethlehem University, 2000.
Stowasser, Karl, and Moukhtar Ani. A Dictionary of Syrian Arabic. English-Arabic.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1964.
CHAPTER 17
EGYPTIAN ARABIC THOMAS LEDDY-CECERE AND JASON SCHROEPFEREGYPTIAN ARABIC
Thomas Leddy-Cecere and Jason Schroepfer
1 INTRODUCTION
Egyptian Arabic (EA) is the language spoken by the nearly 20 million residents of Cairo
(cf. Paul et al. 2017). EA is not an official language, nor is it a standardized language in
Egypt. However, as a native tongue it is spoken in contexts ranging from daily interac-
tions to academic discourse. It is internationally exported in television, music and other
forms of media, which propagate EA not only across Egypt but throughout the Arab
world. EA also represents an influential lingua franca within the country. Egyptians liv-
ing outside of Cairo as well as Cairenes of diverse dialect backgrounds are frequently
conversant in EA alongside their native Arabic varieties (Schroepfer 2016, Leddy-Ce-
cere 2014). Egyptians who are speakers of other minority indigenous languages such as
Nubian and Siwi often proficiently speak EA as well. In total, when taken together with
closely related varieties spoken across Lower Egypt, the Ethnologue estimates speakers
of EA (in the broad sense) to number over 60 million, rendering it the most widely spoken
extant Semitic language by a wide margin (Paul et al. 2017) (see Map 17.1).
EA is representative of the broader Egyptian Arabic dialect group, identified as a pri-
mary tier dialect area in most proposed classifications of modern Arabic varieties (e.g.,
Kaye and Rosenhouse 1997). It also constitutes one of the most thoroughly studied vari-
eties of Arabic. Several quality descriptive works have documented EA from the end of
the 19th century until the present, for example Spitta-Bey (1880), Mitchell (1962) and
Woidich (2006), with the last considered the most complete modern descriptive work
on the language. Hinds and Badawi (1986) have assembled a crucial and trusted lexical
resource. Harrell (1957) and Lehn (1963) have analyzed the phonology of EA, while
Brustad (2000) has investigated its syntax in comparison with other varieties of spoken
Arabic. Other scholars have studied sociolinguistic aspects of the EA speech community
(Royal 1985, Haeri 1996).
In addition to published materials and publicly available media, the linguistic attesta-
tions upon which this description is based derive from both direct elicitation and natural-
istic observation conducted during the authors’ respective periods of dialectological field
research in Cairo (spanning 2011–13). A characteristic example of EA is provided in the
sample text at the end of this chapter, to which reference is made whenever relevant (i.e.,
[ST 7], indicating “Sample Text, Line 7”).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Scholars have traditionally claimed that Egyptians exclusively reserve Modern Standard
Arabic for the written realm. However, an increasing body of literature challenges this
view, demonstrating that most Egyptians write more frequently and in more contexts
434 Thomas Leddy-Cecere and Jason Schroepfer
ISRAEL
JORDAN
Cairo
EGYPT SAUDI ARABIA
LEGEND
Primary Dialect
Prestige/Second Dialect
MAP 17.1
THE SPEECH AREA OF EGYPTIAN ARABIC. THE DARKER SHADING MARKS
THE REGION OF THE PRIMARY DIALECT, THE LIGHTER SHADING THE AREA IN
WHICH IT IS IN USAGE AS A PRESTIGE OR SECOND DIALECT
in EA than they do in Modern Standard Arabic (Kindt et al. 2016: 331). The EA ency-
clopedia Wikipedia Masry (‘Egyptian Wikipedia’), social media websites like Facebook
and Twitter, SMS messages and commercial advertisements all represent popular venues
for writing in EA (see Panovic 2015). Further, recent novels dealing with contemporary
Egyptian social issues such as Khaled Al Khamissi’s Tāksī (‘Taxi’) and Ghada Abdel
Aal’s ʿĀyza Atgawwiz (‘I want to get married’) are written wholly or partially in EA.
Although EA is a written language in a variety of spheres, no standardized writing
system yet exists. It is written in both Latin and Arabic scripts like other contemporary
varieties of Arabic (compare “Moroccan Arabic” and “Levantine Arabic” in this vol-
ume). A recent ad from the prominent Egyptian telecommunications company Vodaph-
one demonstrates EA written in Arabic script:
<‫>الكارت بقى كارتين‬

ik-kart baʔaː kart-eːn
def-phone.card become.pfv phone.card-du
‘The phone card has become [the value of] two phone cards.’
Writing EA in Latin script began as a solution to the lack of Arabic script in electronic
devices during the early 2000s. However, Arabic script is more common in electronic
devices today in Egypt. Latin script is still used to write EA, although its use is now much
Egyptian Arabic 435
TABLE 17.1 ORTHOGRAPHY OF EA
Trans. b f m w t ᵵ d ᵭ s ᵴ
Latin b f m w, u t 6, t d d, 9’ s s, 9
Arabic ‫ب‬ ‫ف‬ ‫م‬ ‫و‬ ‫ت‬،‫ث‬ ‫ط‬ ‫د‬ ‫ض‬ ‫ س‬،‫ث‬ ‫ص‬
Trans. z ᵶ n l ɫ r j ʃ g k x
Latin z z, 9’ n l l r y, i sh g k 5, kh, 7’
Arabic ‫ ز‬،‫ذ‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ج‬ ‫ك‬ ‫خ‬
Trans. ɣ ħ ʕ h ʔ
Latin 3’, gh 7, h 3 h 2
Arabic ‫غ‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ق‬,‫ء‬
less common than that of Arabic script (Kindt et al. 2016). Nonetheless, one can still find
Latin script employed on social media, as shown in the following post:
< EZAYAK YA EHAB 3AMEL EH ANA F MASR ELGEDIDA GAMBAK!!! >

ʔizzajj=ak jaː ihaːb ʕaːmil ʔeːh
how=poss.2msg voc ehab do.ptcp what
anaː f=maᵴr ig-gidiːd-aː gamb=ak!!!

sbj.1sg in=Cairo def-new-fsg next.to=poss.2msg
‘How are you Ehab? What’s up? I am in New Cairo next to you!’
Table 17.1 supplies the respective graphemic representations of the EA consonantal pho-

nemes (see §3.1) in both scripts, with the more common values listed first where there is
regular variation.
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonantal
EA possesses a large consonant inventory, as Table 17.2 illustrates. The marginal pho-
nemes /v/ and /p/ are variable by speaker and are documented in loan words only. The
palato-alveolar /ʒ/ is also found in loan words (raʒiːm ‘diet’ < Fr. régime), but has
achieved contrastive phonemic status in EA. All consonants can be geminated. Notable
features include the following:
• Proto-Semitic interdentals */θ/, */ð/, and */θ’/ merge to stops or fricatives: /θ/ > /t/,
/s/, /ð/ > /d/, /z/, and /θ’/ > /ᵭ/, /ᵶ/. No clear phonological conditioning determines the
choice of fricative or stop reflex, though stops are significantly more frequent. Modern
Standard Arabic lexemes containing interdentals are typically borrowed with fricative
realizations.
• The realization of Proto-Semitic */g/ is a velar stop /g/, though there is strong
evidence from historical documentation and loan phonology that this is a secondary
development via Old Arabic */d͡ ʒ/.
TABLE 17.2 PRIMARY CONSONANTAL PHONEMES
(Bi-)labial (Denti-)alveolar Palato-alveolar Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Voiceless (p) t k q ʔ
Stops
Voiced stops b d g
Voiceless f s ʃ x ħ h
Fricatives
Voiced (v) z ʒ ɣ ʕ
Fricatives
Nasals m n
Laterals l
Rhotics r
Semivowels w j
Pharyngealized consonants: ᵵ, ᵭ, ᵴ, ᵶ, ɫ
• Proto-Semitic */k’/ has split to /ʔ/ and /q/ following a lexical distribution without
regular phonological conditioning, leading to numerous contrastive doublets: ʔɑrɑːr
‘bottom’, qaraːr ‘decision’.
• Proto-Semitic */ʔ/ is generally lost with compensatory lengthening of a preceding
vowel, though it is sporadically present in some lexemes: ʔadab ‘literature’, suʔaːl
‘question’.
3.2 Vocalic
The vocalic inventory of EA consists of six long vowels and four short vowels, as
Table 17.3 demonstrates.
The present account departs from most previous analyses by identifying distinct pho-
nemic status for /ɑː, ɑ/ [ɑː ~ ɒː, ɑ ~ ɒ] and /aː, a/ [aː ~ æː, a ~ æ ~ ɛ] in EA. In the
presence of pharyngealized/velarized consonants /ᵵ, ᵭ, ᵴ, ᵶ, ɫ/ and /q/, all vowels show
allophonic backing and lowering in quality. In the terminology of Kiparsky (2016), this
quality difference is quasi-phonemic, being distinctive (a highly salient secondary cue to
the pharyngealization/velarization of the triggering consonant) but not contrastive. In the
case of /ɑː, ɑ/, however, numerous examples exist outside of this traditionally recognized
complementary distribution, resulting in minimal pairs such as the following: /kadd/ ‘to
comb’ vs. /kɑdd/ ‘to toil’, /barr/ ‘to keep a promise’, vs. /bɑrr/ ‘door jam’, /ʕarʃ/ ‘ceiling’
vs. /ʕɑrʃ/ ‘throne’. Similarly for /aː/ and /ɑː/: /kaːdid/ ‘comber’ vs. /kɑːdid/ ‘toiler’, /
zaradaːn/ ‘a yield of juice’ vs. /zɑrɑdɑːn/ ‘gulp’, /raːsiː/ ‘sensible’ vs. /rɑːs=iː/ ‘my head’,
/sakakaːn/ ‘vitiating’ vs. /sakɑkɑːn/ ‘closing’, /baːbaː/ ‘text of a shadow puppet play’
vs. /bɑːbɑː/ ‘father’. Prior descriptions have generally identified consonants as the locus
of contrast in such pairings, positing the existence of phonemically distinct “emphatic”
variants of /k/, /r/, /b/, etc., which condition the lowered quality of [ɑː, ɑ]. However, as no
segmental phonetic difference (e.g., pharyngealization or velarization) has been proposed
or instrumentally demonstrated to distinguish these emphatic consonants from their plain
counterparts, it is theoretically preferable in a synchronic sense to identify the relevant
Egyptian Arabic 437
TABLE 17.3 PRIMARY VOCALIC PHONEMES
Short Vowels Long Vowels
Front Back Front Back
High /i/ /u/ /iː/ /uː/

Mid /eː/ /oː/
Low /a/ /ɑ/ /aː/ /ɑː/
vowels themselves – which are phonetically differentiated – as the locus of any segmental
phonemic contrast (cf. Kiparsky 1982, Blevins 2004). This contrastiveness indicates a
phonologization of the distinct vowel qualities and points to an incipient phonemicization
of /ɑː, ɑ/ alongside /aː, a/.
Models of emphasis beyond the segment have been occasionally proposed for EA:
Harrell (1957) views it as a word-level phenomenon, Lehn (1963) as a syllable-level
characteristic. Such views may ultimately prove superior in accounting for the global
distribution of backed vowel phones and of contrastive/non-contrastive tokens, but much
empirical investigation remains to be done before a suprasegmental hypothesis may be
accepted for EA.

The following five syllables are permissible in EA: CV, CVː, CVC, CVːC and CVCC.
CCC consonant clusters are not permitted in words or across word boundaries and must
be resolved with an epenthetic vowel between the second and third consonants (CCiC):
il-binti diː ‘this girl’, ʕandi ᵵaːriʔ ‘at Tariq’s (house)’. Long vowels in CVːC syllables
are realized as short if closed by a following C, with long mid vowels reverting to
short high counterparts: /beːt=haː/ > [bɪthaː] ‘her house’. Unstressed short vowels in
open syllables undergo syncope when preceded by an open syllable; deletion of /i, u/
in this case may be conditioned by any preceding vowel, while that of /a, ɑ/ requires a
preceding long vowel (Woidich 2011). These latter two rules can and do interact, even
across word boundaries: /daː bi=kaːm/ > [dab.kaːm] ‘How much does this cost?’ (‘this
with=how.many?’).
Stress falls on the vowel of the final VːC or VCC sequence in a given word, unless two
or more subsequent syllables intervene before the word boundary (in which case it falls
on the penultimate): /kitaːb/ > [ki.ʹtaːb] ‘book’, /b-adris/ > [ʹbad.ris] ‘I study’, /maɣsalaː/
> [maɣ.ʹsa.la] ‘laundry, cleaners’. Long vowels are realized as short when in unstressed
position: /kaːbuːs/ > [kabuːs] ‘nightmare’, /salaːmaːt/ > [salamaːt] ‘greetings’. Given this
pattern, there is strong evidence from processes of clitic addition and lexicalization that
all word-final vowels in EA are phonemically long, though most often phonetically real-
ized as short due to lack of stress (cf. McCarthy 2005). Once additional phonological
material is added and changes the stress calculation, the underlying quantity becomes
apparent: /ʕanduː/ > [ʹʕan.du] ‘he has’ but /maː=ʕanduː=ʃ/ > [ma.ʕan.ʹduːʃ] ‘he doesn’t
have’, /maʕaː/ > [ʹma.ʕa] ‘with’ but /maʕaː=naː/ > [ma.ʹʕaː.na] ‘with us’, /sanaː/ > [ʹsa.na]
‘year’ but lexicalized /issanaːdiː/ > [is.sa.ʹnaː.di] ‘this year.’
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
EA contrasts its personal pronouns on the basis of person, gender and number. There
are four morphologically separate sets of pronouns, which are similar to other spoken
varieties of Arabic (see “Moroccan Arabic” and “Levantine Arabic” in this volume). The
pronouns are as follows:
• Subject (morphologically free)

• Possessive (cliticize to nouns and prepositions)
• Object (cliticize to verbs; precede dative pronouns if present)
• Dative (cliticize to verbs; follow object pronouns if present)
As demonstrated by the subject pronouns in Table 17.4, EA pronouns differentiate plural-

ity for all persons. Gender is distinguished only in the 2nd and 3rd persons singular, but
not the 1st person, or any plurals.
The possessive clitics (Table 17.5) attach to nouns and prepositions. EA’s 2nd and 3rd
person singular possessive clitics are differentiated according to gender. The pronouns show
distinct allomorphs when preceded by single consonants, consonant clusters and vowels.
The object pronouns are identical in form to the possessive suffixes with the exception
of the 1st person singular =niː. These cliticize to finite verbs and active participles in
verbal function: ʃaːf=uː ‘he saw it (m)’.
The dative pronouns can be suffixed directly after verbs: ʔaːl=luː ‘he told him’. They
can also be suffixed after object pronouns in verb phrases: ʔiddaː=huː=liː ‘he gave it (m)
to me’. Table 17.6 displays their distribution.
Singular Plural
1 anaː iħnaː
2 masc intaː
intuː
fem intiː
3 masc huwwaː
fem hijjaː humːaː
TABLE 17.5 POSSESSIVE CLITICS
Singular Plural
1 =iː (V-jaː) =naː (CC=inaː)

2 masc =ak (V=k)
=kuː (CC=ukuː)
fem =ik (V-kiː)
3 masc =uː (V=h)
=hum (CC=uhum)
fem =haː (CC=ahaː)
Egyptian Arabic 439
Singular Plural
1 =liː (=CCiliː) =linaː

(CC=ilnaː, V=lnaː)
2 masc =lak (CC=ilak) =lukuː
fem =lik (CC=ilik) (CC=ilkuː, V=lkuː)
3 masc =luː (CC=iluː)
fem =lahaː =luhum (CC=ilhum, V=lhum)
(CC=ilhaː, V=lhaː)
TABLE 17.7 EA DEMONSTRATIVES
Masculine Singular Feminine Singular Plural
daː diː doːl
TABLE 17.8 CONTRASTIVE DEMONSTRATIVES1
Masc Fem col
dukhaː dikhaː dukhum
4.2 Demonstratives
The proximal demonstratives in EA also semantically play the role of distals. They can
be freestanding pronouns or attributive adjectives that agree with their referent in number
and gender. In the latter case, the demonstratives must follow a definite noun: il-binti diː
def-girl dem.fsg ‘this girl, that girl’. Table 17.7 displays their distribution.
The EA contrastive demonstratives (Table 17.8) are much less common than the
forms listed above but function identically in terms of morphosyntax. They differ in that
they express a contrastive meaning, and virtually always occur paired with a general
demonstrative:
il-fustaːn daː ʔaħlaː min dukhaː

def-dress dem.msg prettier from dem.cntr.msg
‘This dress is prettier than that other one.’ (Hinds-Badawi 1986: 274)
The EA form kidaː is a demonstrative manner adverb that means ‘thus, like so’. It is
also employed as an uninflected anaphoric deictic: baʕdi kidaː ‘after that’, ʔakbar min
kidaː ‘bigger than that’.
4.3 Interrogatives
There are pronominal and adverbial interrogatives in EA. Pronominals include miːn
‘who?’, ʔeː(h) ‘what?’ and ʔajj ‘which?’. The last precedes indefinite nouns, and has
paradigmatic alternatives ʔanhuː (msg), ʔanhiː (fsg) and ʔanhum (pl) which agree with
a modified noun in number and gender. Of the latter set, fsg ʔanhiː may be generalized
across masculine and plural contexts.
The adverbial interrogatives are as follows: ʔimtaː ‘when?’, feːn ‘where?’, mineːn
‘from where?’, leː(h) ‘why?’, ʔizzajj ‘how?’, kaːm ‘how many?’, bikaːm ‘for how much?’,
ʔaddi eː(h) ‘how much?’, and ʔiʃmiʕnaː ‘why (in particular)?’.
4.4 Relative
Relatives in EA are indicated by a zero form and the relativizer illiː. Refer to §5.5 for
syntax.
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
EA nouns do not show case. There are two categories for gender, masculine and femi-
nine, and three for number, singular, plural and (nonobligatory) dual. Masculine gender
is marked with a zero form, while feminine nouns are usually marked with a suffixed -aː.
The dual is denoted by the -eːn suffix.2 So-called broken plurals formed on a noncon-
catenative morphological template are extremely common (kalb ‘dog’, kilaːb ‘dogs’),
as is the suffixed feminine plural marker -aːt. It is often suffixed to feminine nouns as in
ʕarabijj-aː ‘car’, ʕarabijj-aːt ‘cars’. However, it can be suffixed to some masculine nouns:
gawaːb ‘letter’, gawaːb-aːt ‘letters’. The suffixed masculine plural marker -iːn, however,
is usually restricted to human nouns. Table 17.9 exemplifies these inflectional patterns for
the substantive maᵴriː ‘Egyptian’.
Some feminine lexical items carry no formal inflection of feminine gender; examples
are ʔumm ‘mother’, ħɑrb ‘war’, balad ‘town’, and ruːħ ‘soul’. Adjectival inflection corre-
sponds to that of the noun modified, though adjectives modifying dual nouns display plu-
ral agreement. However, pragmatics play a role in adjective marking and lack of concord
between substantives and adjectives frequently occurs (cf. Brustad 2000: 52).
4.5.2 Patterns and derivational affixes

The -aːt suffix represents a common non-human plural in EA that is suffixed to many
feminine nouns in addition to some masculine substantives: bidaːj-aː ‘beginning’,
bidaːj-aːt ‘beginnings’, ħiwaːr ‘conversation’, ħiwaːr-aːt ‘conversations.’ Some frequent
“broken” plurals formed via nonconcatenative morphology are as follows: beːt ‘house’
bujuːt ‘houses’, xabar ‘a piece of news’, ʔaxbaːr ‘news’, zamiːl ‘colleague’, zamaːjil ‘col-
leagues’. See §4.5.1 for further information.
TABLE 17.9 NOUN INFLECTION
Masculine Feminine
singular maᵴriː maᵴrijj-aː

dual maᵴrijj-eːn maᵴrijj-it-eːn
plural maᵴrijj-iːn maᵴrijj-aːt
Egyptian Arabic 441
The reflexes of the Semitic monosyllabic patterns (*qatl, *qitl, *qutl) are extant: katf
‘shoulder’, rigl ‘foot’, ᵭufr ‘nail’. The inherited Old Arabic diminutive pattern *CuCajjiC
is no longer productive though numerous lexicalized examples exist, particularly noting
the lower end of scalar adjective pairs: ᵴuɣajjar ‘small’, ʔurajjib ‘near’, ʔulajjil ‘few’.
One of the more common derivational suffixes is -iː, which can be used to derive
adjectives from nouns: ᵴiːn-iː ‘Chinese’. The suffix -aːniː~ -aːniː is fairly productive and
can denote skin colors, negative characteristics, locatives, origins, professions and other
attributes: ʔasmar ‘dark skinned’, asmar-aːniː ‘dark skinned (pejorative)’, miʃʕar ‘hairy’,
miʃʕar-aːniː ‘hairy (pejorative)’, guwwaː ‘inside’, guww-aːniː ‘internal’, fakhaː, ‘fruit’,
fakah-aːniː ‘fruit merchant’, iskindiriːjjaː ‘Alexandria’, iskindir-aːniː ‘Alexandrian’, ruːħ
‘spirit’, ruːħ-aːniː ‘spiritual’, ʔaħmar, ‘red’ and aħmar-aːniː ‘reddish’.
4.5.3 Numerals
The numerals in EA have one cardinal and one ordinal set. The cardinal number ‘one’
is the sole cardinal number that can demonstrate gender agreement, and then only if it
follows the noun that it modifies: waːħid ᵵaʕmijjaː, ᵵaʕmijjaː waħdaː ‘one falafel ball’. For
‘two’, invariant itneːn may either precede a singular noun or follow a noun inflected by
dual suffix -eːn. Cardinals ‘three’ through ‘ten’ take invariant long forms when they are
standing independently or modifying a plural substantive as an adjective, and short forms
when preceding the plural noun (see Table 17.10). When plurals in the vowel-initial pat-
terns aCCaːC, aCCuC and aCCiCaː are preceded by a short form numeral, they gain a prefix
t- and undergo mutation of the initial vowel to /i/ or /u/: sabaʕ tiwlaːd ‘seven children’.
The ordinal numbers generally assume the CaːCiC pattern and follow the noun that
they modify. They usually agree in gender with the head noun. Table 17.11 exemplifies
these patterns (feminine forms are represented in parentheses).
TABLE 17.10 EA CARDINAL NUMBERS 1–10
# Cardinal Short Form # Cardinal Short Form
1 waːħid (m), waːħdaː (f) 6 sittaː sitt

2 itneːn 7 sabʕaː sabaʕ
3 talaːtaː talat 8 tamaːnjaː taman
4 arbaʕaː arbaʕ 9 tisʕaː tisaʕ
5 xamsaː xamas 10 ʕaʃaraː ʕaʃar
TABLE 17.11 EA ORDINAL NUMERALS 1–10
# Ordinal # Ordinal
1 awwil (uːlaː), awwalaːniː (awwalaːnijjaː) 6 saːdis (saːdsaː)

2 taːniː (taːnjaː) 7 saːbiʕ (saːbʕaː)
3 taːlit (taːltaː) 8 taːmin (taːmnaː)
4 raːbiʕ (raːbʕaː) 9 taːsiʕ (taːsʕaː)
5 xaːmis (xaːmsaː) 10 ʕaːʃir (ʕaːʃraː)
The enumerated noun after ‘11’ is invariably singular. The second decade is generally
constructed by suffixing -ᵵaːʃar to the short form cardinals: xamasᵵaːʃar ‘15’, tisaʕᵵaːʃar
‘19’. Irregular forms are ħidaːʃar ‘11’, iᵵnaːʃar ‘12’, and siᵵᵵaːʃar ‘16’. The tens are
formed by suffixing -iːn to close variants of the cardinal numbers: talatiːn ‘30’, arbiʕiːn
‘40’, xamsiːn ‘50’, sittiːn ‘60’, sabʕiːn ‘70’, tamaniːn ‘80’, tisʕiːn ‘90’. The number ‘20’
is an exception: ʕiʃriːn.
The hundreds are constructed by prefixing forms in the pattern CuCCu-mijjaː: mijjaː
‘100’, tultu-mijjaː ‘300’, rubʕu-mijjaː, ‘400’, xumsu-mijjaː ‘500’, sutːu-mijjaː ‘600’,
subʕu-mijjaː ‘700’, tumnu-mijjaː ‘800’, tusʕu-mijjaː, ‘900’. The exception to this is 200,
which uses miːt and the dual suffix -eːn: miːt-eːn. The form miːt is also an allomorph of
mijjaː for the construct state: tultu-miːt gineː ‘300 Egyptian Lira’.
The thousands are constructed with the short form cardinals followed by the enumer-
ated plural of alf ‘thousand’, talaːf: xamas talaːf ‘5,000’; ‘2,000’ uses the singular alf
and the dual suffix -eːn: alf-eːn.
4.6 Verbs
Tense, aspect and mood (TAM) values are indicated in EA through the use of two finite
stem types, the suffix conjugation and the prefix conjugation, combined with a set of
TAM prefixes and auxiliary verbs, in addition to the active participle form.
The suffix conjugation indicates perfective aspect. This generally aligns with the past
tense (ʃirib-t ‘you (msg) drank’), but may also be employed in non-simple past contexts,
such as conditional constructions and perfect structures of various tense values.
The prefix conjugation marks imperfective aspect. Utilized with no other inflec-
tional markers, the prefix conjugation delivers a subjunctive reading, as in multi-verb
constructions, modals and indirect suggestions, as demonstrated by the following
examples:
giː-t ti-ʃrab
come-2msg 2-drink
‘You came to drink.’
laːzim ti-ʃrab
must 2-drink
‘You must drink.’
ti-ʃrab ħaːgaː?
2-drink thing
‘(would you like to) drink something?’
In combination with the continuative prefix bi-, the prefix conjugation marks the pres-
ent indicative, with both habitual and progressive readings possible depending on the
verb’s internal semantic qualities, and when used with the prefix ħa- ~ ha- it indicates the
future tense:
bi-ti-ʃrab
cont-2-drink
‘You drink, are drinking.’
Egyptian Arabic 443
ħa-ti-ʃrab
fut-2-drink
‘You will drink.’
The active participle form plays a critical role in the EA verbal system. It interacts with
the internal semantics of the verb to express a variety of inflectional values. With telic
actions, the meaning is generally equivalent to a present perfect: ʃaːrib ‘has drunk’. With
atelic actions, the unmodified meaning is present progressive: gaːriː ‘is running’. With
stative verbs, both continuous and (inchoative) perfect readings are viable: faːhim ‘under-
stands, has understood’. In-depth studies of this complex phenomenon in EA include
Eisele (1990), Mitchell and Al-Hassan (1994) and Brustad (2000). The active participle
in verbal function does not require an overt subject.
Complex tenses are formed via the combination of these forms with the verb kaːn ‘be’.
Varying tense values of inflected kaːn followed by the suffix conjugation indicate past and
future perfect: kun-ti ʃrib-t ‘you had drunk’, ħa-t-kuːn ʃirib-t ‘you will have drunk’. Suffix
conjugation kaːn with the bi- and ħa- prefix conjugations is used to mark past continuous
actions and past intent: kun-ti b-ti-ʃrab ‘you were drinking, used to drink’, kun-ti ħa-ti-ʃrab
‘you were going to drink’.

Both prefix and suffix conjugations agree with their subject for person, gender and number,
while the imperative and active participle show agreement for gender and number only.
Both prefix and suffix conjugations distinguish three persons and two numbers (there is no
dual in the verbal system); gender is further distinguished in the singular forms of the 2nd
and 3rd persons. In the suffix conjugation, all values are marked by suffixes (Table 17.12),
while in the prefix conjugation they are primarily marked by prefixes with the addition of
suffixes to mark feminine gender in the 2nd person singular and plural number in the 2nd
and 3rd persons (Table 17.13). Examples are shown using the root √ʔtl ‘kill’, with a suffix
conjugation base stem of ʔatal and a prefix conjugation base stem of -ʔtil.
TABLE 17.12 THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION
Singular Plural
1 ʔatal-t ʔatal-naː
2 masc ʔatal-t ʔatal-tuː
fem ʔatal-tiː
3 masc ʔatal-Ø ʔatal-uː
fem ʔatal-it
TABLE 17.13 THE PREFIX CONJUGATION
Singular Plural
1 a-ʔtil ni-ʔtil
2 masc ti-ʔtil ti-ʔtil-uː
fem ti-ʔtil-iː
3 masc ji-ʔtil ji-ʔtil-uː
fem ti-ʔtil
Imperatives are derivable from the corresponding 2nd person prefix conjugation forms
by removing the person prefix and preposing an initial /i/ when necessary to resolve
the resulting consonant cluster: iʔtil ‘kill! (msg)’, iʔtil-iː ‘kill! (fsg)’, iʔtil-uː ‘kill! (pl)’.
Active participle forms in verbal function approximate nominal agreement patterns, with
the stem showing regular phonological changes triggered by changes in syllabification:
ʔaːtil ‘has killed (msg)’, ʔaːtl-aː ‘has killed (fsg)’, ʔaːtl-iːn ‘have killed (pl)’. They are,
however, distinct from nominal equivalents in terms of allomorphy: verbal hijjaː kaːtb-
aː=haː ‘she has written it’ vs. nominal hijjaː kaːtb-it=haː ‘she is its author’.
4.6.3 Verbal stems

EA verbs belong to multiple stem classes. Several of these continue the common Semitic
pattern of fitting a triconsonantal root into nonconcatenative (root and pattern) alter-
nating stem types used in the suffix and prefix conjugations. Others, however, have
generalized a single, invariable stem across both paradigms. The former, alternating
stem classes and the latter, non-alternating stem classes are each discussed separately in
Tables 17.14 and 17.15.3
Stems in CiCiC represent a continuation of the Old Arabic patterns *CaCiCa and
*CaCuCa, though the class has expanded to absorb some previous members of *CaCaCa
(e.g., nigiħ ‘succeed’ < OA *nad͡ ʒaħa). In the prefix conjugation, verbs of this class dis-
play a stem -CCaC while those with CaCaC suffix stems generally alternate to -CCiC
or -CCuC, with some exceptions. Syntactically, verbs of CiCiC may be transitive or
intransitive. In terms of thematic relations, they tend to assign their subject the role of
patient, experiencer or theme, and thus often describe physical state changes (xirib ‘be
destroyed’), mental or sensory experience (ziʕil ‘be angry’), and bodily motion (nizil
‘go down’). It is not uncommon for pairs of CiCiC and CaCaC verbs to exist in a
causative relationship: wiʔif ‘come to a stop’, waʔaf ‘stop s.t.’. The historical presence
of back consonants in a root may yield a variant of CiCiC in CuCuC: ʔirib ~ ʔurub
‘become near’ (< Old Arabic *qaruba).
TABLE 17.14 ALTERNATING STEM CLASSES
Suff. Conj. Pref. Conj.
CiCiC, CuCuC -CCaC

kimil ‘become complete’ -kmal
CaCaC -CCiC, -CCuC, -CCaC
fataħ ‘open (tr)’ -ftaħ
itCaCaC -tCiCiC
itfataħ ‘open (intr), be opened’ -tfitiħ
inCaCaC -nCiCiC
infataħ ‘open (intr), be opened’ -nfitiħ
iCtaCaC -CtCiCiC
iftataħ ‘inaugurate’ -ftitiħ
ʔaCCaC, ʔiCCaC -CCiC
ʔakmal ‘to complete, finish’ -kmil
Egyptian Arabic 445
TABLE 17.15 NON-ALTERNATING STEM CLASSES
CaCCiC, CaCCaC, CɑCCɑC

fattaħ ‘open wide, repeatedly’
itCaCCiC, itCaCCaC, itCɑCCɑC
itfattaħ ‘be opened wide, repeatedly’
istaCaCCiC, istaCaCCaC, istaCɑCCɑC
istaħaᵭᵭar ‘prepare oneself’
CaːCiC
faːtiħ ‘address oneself to’
itCaːCiC
itfaːtiħ ‘be addressed’
istaCaːCiC
istabaːrik ‘seek a blessing’
istaCCiC, istaCCaC, istɑCCɑC
istaftaħ ‘approach initially’
iCCaCC
iswadd ‘blacken (intr)’
The class itCaCaC is the regular, productive passive of both the CiCiC and CaCaC
classes. A few isolated members of the class, as well as those with a glide as the second
radical, are more properly identified as non-alternating with a single, invariant stem
utilized for both suffix and prefix conjugations: itwasaʔ, jitwasaʔ ‘be trusted’. The non-
productive inCaCaC class designates the passive for a much smaller subset of lexi-
cally specified verbs (e.g., inᵭarab ‘be hit’). The infixed form iCtaCaC, encompassing
a broad range of (generally intransitive) meanings, is similarly nonproductive. A small
number of verbs constitute a class ʔaCCaC or ʔiCCaC, corresponding formally and
functionally to the Semitic causative stem (Classical Arabic Form IV): ʔadrak ‘realize’,
ʔidrak ‘reach puberty’, ʔaxrag ‘produce (a movie or film)’. These may represent bor-
rowings from Modern Standard Arabic. The anomalous ʔiddaː ‘give’ may belong to this
class, via *ʔahdaː.
Several EA inflectional classes have leveled a single stem across both suffix and pre-
fix conjugation paradigms. This change is relatively minor as a dialectological isogloss,
often involving the fixing of a single short vowel, but its results are typologically signif-
icant as it serves to shift these verbs away from an inherited root-pattern morphological
scheme toward a stem-affix inflectional model. This trend is further evidenced by the
clear analyzability and historical productivity of the it- and ista- prefixes as applied to
the CaCCiC and CaːCiC stem classes. The transition is not complete – many imperative
forms and roots containing long vowels still display inherited ablaut – but nonetheless the
change to the underlying mechanics of EA verbal inflection should not pass unnoticed.
Verbs of the class CaCCiC, CaCCaC or CɑCCɑC in which the middle radical is gem-
inated often share a causative relationship with CaCaC or CiCiC equivalents as in daras
‘study’, and darris ‘teach (lit. make s.o. study)’. However, they are also a highly pro-
ductive source of denominal and deadjectival verbs and adapted loan verbs as in ᵴannaf
‘classify (derived from ᵴanf ‘type’)’, ʃaddid ‘intensify (derived from ʃidiːd ‘intense’)’,
and ‘ʃajjir ‘share’ (Fan 2014). Quadriliteral verbs in EA also have the pattern CaCCiC,
CɑCCɑC, as in farfiʃ ‘cheer s.o. up’, baʕtar ‘scatter’.
The leveling of /ɑ/, /a/ or /i/ in the final syllable has a phonological basis: /ɑ/ is linked
by Woidich (2011) to the historical presence of adjacent back consonants, while /a/
appears to occur in non-back environments immediately preceding /ħ/. The addition of
prefix it- to this class often results in a reflexive meaning, though at times the semantic
relationship is less transparent: kallim ‘talk to s.o.’, itkallim ‘talk, speak’. The addition of
prefix ista- also generally denotes reflexivity: xabbaː ‘hide s.t.’, istaxabbaː ‘hide oneself’.
Verbs of the class CaːCiC often have an associative meaning, and may similarly be
modified by the prefixes it- and ista-. Application of it- tends to lead to a reciprocal
reading: xaːniʔ ‘quarrel with (s.o.)’, itxaːniʔ ‘quarrel (with one another)’. The addition of
ista- to CaːCiC is rare, but attested by Woidich (2011).
Verbs of the istaCCiC, istaCCaC or istɑCCɑC class are often denominal (with a mean-
ing of ‘to seek X’) or deadjectival (‘to consider s.t. X’). The leveling of /i/ and /ɑ/ in the
final syllable follows similar phonological conditioning to CaCCiC, CɑCCɑC. Verbs of
iCCaCC are predominantly deadjectival, most often relating to color and bodily defects:
ibjaᵭᵭ ‘be, become white’, iʕwarr ‘go blind in one eye’.
4.6.4 Roots
Regular EA verb stems derive from roots consisting of three (rarely four) consonants.
Root-initial glides are maintained in EA in both suffix and prefix conjugations: wiᵴil ‘he
arrived’, jiwᵴal ‘he arrives’; in stem class iCtaCaC the glide may be deleted with compensa-
tory gemination of the following /t/: ittaᵴal ‘contact’. In CiCiC/CaCaC verbs, root-medial
glides are realized as long vowels of corresponding quality in the prefix conjugation,
short vowels of corresponding quality in the suffix conjugation preceding consonant-
initial suffixes, and /aː/ in the suffix conjugation preceding vowel-initial suffixes or zero:
ni-ʔuːl ‘we say’, ʔul-naː ‘we said’, ʔaːl-it ‘she said’ (√ʔwl). A few verbs show /aː/ in both
prefix and suffix conjugation stems and an unpredictable short vowel preceding conso-
nant-initial suffixes: ni-naːm ‘we sleep’, nim-naː ‘we slept’, naːm-it ‘she slept’ (√nwm). In
class ʔaCCaC, root-medial glides are reflected by /iː/ in the prefix conjugation, /a/ before
consonant-initial suffixes and /aː/ elsewhere. In classes itCaCaC, inCaCaC and iCtaCaC,
they are realized as /a/ before consonant-initial suffixes and /aː/ in all other positions.
Class istaCCiC generally follows the latter pattern, though many variants exist displaying
the same pattern as class ʔaCCaC: jistafaːd ~ jistafiːd ‘he benefits’ (√fjd). Root-final glides
in CiCiC are reflected by /j/ before vowel-initial suffixes and /iː/ elsewhere. Those of the
other alternating stem types plus CaCːiC, CaːCiC and istaCCiC, display /iː/ in the prefix
conjugation, /eː/ before consonant-initial suffixes, zero before vowel-initial suffixes and
/aː/ elsewhere. Remaining classes show /eː/ before consonant-initial suffixes, zero before
vowel-initial suffixes and /aː/ in all other cases.
Verbs with a geminate second root consonant receive the formative -eː before the addi-
tion of consonant-initial suffixes. Historical root-initial /ʔ/ may be maintained in the suf-
fix conjugation or deleted along with the following vowel, and is reflected by /aː/ in the
prefix conjugation and /w/ in the active participle: ʔakal, j-aːkul, waːkil ‘he ate, eats, has
eaten’ (√ʔkl).

Non-finite verb forms in EA consist of active and passive participles and the verbal
noun. As previously discussed, the active participle is a fundamental component of the
Egyptian Arabic 447
EA verbal system in addition to its nominal and adjectival functions. Formation of the
active participle is dependent on stem class. Verbs of class CaCaC have active participles
in CaːCiC (baʕat ‘send’ > baːʕit), while those of class CiCiC have participles in either
CaːCiC or CaCCaːn (wiᵴil ‘arrive’ > waːᵴil, xiliᵴ ‘be finished’ > xalᵴaːn). For other alter-
nating stem classes (see Table 17.14), a prefix mi- is added to the prefix conjugation stem,
while for non-alternating classes (Table 17.15) mi- is added to the invariant stem follow-
ing deletion of any initial vowel (itᵭaːjiʔ ‘be upset’ > mitᵭaːjiʔ). It is not uncommon for
lexically specified verbs, particularly of classes aCCaC and istaCCiC, to have a variant
participle formation in mu- (ʔadrak ‘realize’ > midrik ~ mudrik).
Formally distinct passive participles are largely limited to classes CiCiC and CaCaC,
taking the form maCCuːC (simiʕ ‘hear’ > masmuːʕ). For all other classes, the passive
participle, if extant, is generally identical with the active participle and distinguished via
context. Some stem classes (e.g., itCaCaC, inCaCaC) cannot broadly be said to contain
distinct passive participles, as such a reading is expressed via the application of active
morphology to the verbs’ inherently passive internal semantics. Some lexically specified
verbs have alternate passive participles on a model analogous to Modern Standard Ara-
bic, utilizing a prefix mu- and a change in the final stem vowel to /a/ (istaxdim ‘use’ >
mistaxdim ~ mustaxdam). It is unclear whether these forms are productive derivations or
lexicalized borrowings.
Verbal nouns in EA do not fulfill many of the infinitival and gerundive functions
of their counterparts in closely related varieties (see “Classical Arabic,” this volume).
Instead, they are largely limited to “true” nominal roles and restricted to nominal mor-
phosyntax. These nouns are not productively derivable from the verb stem as a string but
rather represent a complete templatic reorganization of the root and any accompanying
derivational morphology: itɣajjar ‘change (intr)’ > taɣajjur. When modified with the
feminine marker -aː, they may be interpreted as individuated instance nouns: ɣasl ‘the act
of washing’, ɣaslaː ‘a specific instance of washing’.
4.7.1 Position
Prepositions must precede nominals in EA, while adverbs usually occur post-verbally.
4.7.2 Derivation
Most prepositions in EA are shared with the common Arabic lexicon (see also the chap-
ters on “Moroccan Arabic,” “Levantine Arabic,” and “Classical Arabic”). One common
strategy for creating adverbs is to procliticize the instrumental preposition bi= to a bare
deadjectival noun: bi=surʕaː ‘quickly’ (surʕaː ‘speed’), bi=ᵴaraːħaː ‘frankly’ (ᵴaraːħaː
‘frankness’). EA does not formally distinguish between lexical adverbs such as ʃwajjaː
‘a little’, hinaː ‘here’, and hinaːk ‘there’, and adjectives in adverbial function. Almost
any adjective can be used as an adverb in its uninflected form: kwajjis ‘good’ vs. daras-it
kwajjis ‘she studied well’. There exists also a closed class of adverbs marked by the
suffix -an, such as ʔabadan ‘never’, ɣaːliban ‘probably’. While lexical connections may
often be observed between such forms and corresponding nouns or adjectives in EA (e.g.,
il-ʔabad ‘eternity’, ɣaːlib ‘probable’), the relationship is not one of productive derivation.
Rather, many phonological details of this class’ members indicate that they represent
borrowings from Modern Standard Arabic, where a productive -an adverbial suffix is
active. For example, the fricative realization of historical interdentals and lack of syn-
cope in EA saːlisan ‘thirdly’ clearly recommend an origin in Modern Standard Arabic
θaːliθan ‘thirdly’ (< θaːliθ ‘third’) over a synchronic derivation from EA taːlit ‘third’,
which would deliver the hypothetical **taːltan.
5 SYNTAX
EA word order in basic declarative sentences may be either VSO or SVO. Brustad (2000)
has argued convincingly that these reflect two distinct typologies of information pack-
ing active in the language, with subject-initial order indicative of topic-prominent and
verb-initial order of subject-prominent sentences (particularly those in which the subject
is discursively new information):
ruːħ=ak ti-bʔaː mirtaːħ-aː

soul=poss.2msg 3fsg-become.pc comfortable-fsg
‘Your soul becomes content.’
gaː=liː is-saːʕaː talaːtaː wagaʕ fi=widn=iː faᵶiːʕ
come.3msg.sc=dat.1sg def-hour three pain in=ear=poss.1sg terrible
‘At three o’clock I got a terrible pain in my ear.’ (Brustad 2000: 344)
Among modern Arabic varieties, EA is notable for the lack of WH-movement in unmarked
interrogative sentences.
ibn=ik ħa-ji-ʕmil ʔeːh saːʕit=haː?

son=poss.2fsg fut-3msg-do.pc what time=poss.3fsg?
‘What will your son do then?’
Phrasal word order in EA is Head-Dependent:
P–N: ʕalaː s-siriːr

on def-bed
‘on the bed’
N–N: tarbijit banaːt=iː
raising girls=poss.1sg
‘the raising of my daughters’
N–Adj: mawᵭuːʕ ᵴaʕb
subject difficult
‘a difficult subject’
N–Rel: is-sanaː illiː gaːjj-aː
def-year rel come.ptcp-fsg
‘the year which is coming, next year’
N–Dem: is-saʕaːdaː diː
def-happiness dem.fsg
‘this happiness’
Egyptian Arabic 449

The major predicate types of EA are verbal, nominal and existential. Verbal predicates are
built on a finite verb phrase, and nominal predicates consist of a noun phrase, an adjec-
tive phrase or a prepositional phrase. Locative and interrogative adverbs may also serve as
nominal predicates. Semantically and morphologically distinct from their substantive coun-
terparts, predicative active participles in verbal function display a mixture of verbal and
nominal features; while able to take objects as part of a verbal complementation structure,
for example, they are negated by means of nominal morphosyntax (see §5.6 for details).
guduːr=ak diː ti- mtadd li=l-ħajaː

roots=poss.2msg dem.fsg 3fsg-extend.pc to=def-life
‘Those roots of yours extend to life.’
daː mawᵭuːʕ ᵴaʕb
dem.msg subject difficult
‘This is a difficult subject.’
intiː miʃ ʕaːrfaː=niː
subj.2fsg neg know.ptcp=obj.1sg
‘You don’t know me.’
Existential predicates consist of either the existential marker fiː(h) ‘there is’ or a prepo-
sitional phrase composed of a preposition and a pronominal complement. A closed set
of these (existential fiː(h), and prepositions fi= ‘in, at’, li= ‘to’, ʕand ‘by, belonging to’)
take verbal morphosyntax when negated in this function. The latter two prepositions are
also utilized in existential predicate structures to express predicative possessive relation.
The possessor is expressed by means of a clitic pronoun and the possessed noun follows
the resulting prepositional phrase; if an explicit nominal possessor is expressed, it occurs
preceding the prepositional phrase in topic position.
ma=fiː=ʃ masalan ʃagaraː ᵴɣajjar-aː

neg=exist=neg for.example tree small-fsg
‘There isn’t, for example, a small tree.’
waraː=jaː sittiːn ħaːgaː
behind=poss.1sg sixty thing
‘There are sixty things behind me (I have a thousand things to do).’
ir-raːgil daː ma=ʕand=uː=ʃ fikraː
def-man dem.msg neg=by=poss. 3msg=neg idea
‘That man has no idea.’
5.3 Definiteness
Definiteness marking in EA is less elaborated than in many other dialects of spoken Ara-
bic (compare “Levantine Arabic” and “Moroccan Arabic” in this volume). In the majority
of cases, definiteness is expressed by prefixing il- or encliticizing possessive pronouns to
bare substantives: il-beːt ‘the house’, beːt=hum ‘their house’. Adjectives must also agree
in definiteness with head nouns they modify. This is accomplished by prefixing il- to the
respective adjective: beːt=hum il-waːsiʕ ‘their spacious house’. Definiteness can also be
manifested in the construct state: beːt il-mudiːr ‘the manager’s house’ (see §5.4.2). As in
many other varieties of modern Arabic, the /l/ of the definite marker il- undergoes total
assimilation to a following coronal consonant; in EA, this pattern variably extends to
velar and uvular stops: /iq-qaːhiraː ig-gamiːlaː/ ‘beautiful Cairo’.
Indefinite nouns typically remain unmarked: beːt ‘a house’. If an adjective modifies
an indefinite head noun, then it must also remain bare: beːt kibiːr ‘a big house’. When
EA speakers want to express a degree of specificity with a bare noun, they frequently
employ the adverb kidaː: ʃuf-ti ħaːgaː kidaː ‘I saw something . . . or I saw this thing . . .’
(cf. Brustad 2000: 30). An inflected indefinite modifier waːħid ‘one’ may precede a bare
animate noun to identify an indefinite yet specific individual: fiːh waːħdaː ᵴaːħbit=iː . . .
‘there is this friend of mine. . . .’. For more information on indefinite modifiers in EA,
see Brustad (2000).
See §4.6.1 for discussion of the analytic construction of complex tenses in EA.

EA nouns may be placed in a genitive relationship either via direct apposition
(construct state) or through the use of the genitive exponent bitaːʕ. The only overt
morphological marker of the construct state is the use of the allomorph -it for the
feminine singular nominal marker ‑aː. Only the final noun in a construct sequence
may be marked for definiteness, and it determines the definiteness of the construct
as a whole:
ħimaːjit il-ʔaʔbaːᵵ
protection.cst def-Copts
‘the protection of the Copts’
Analytic genitive constructions with bitaːʕ may be used to express a semantically simi-
lar meaning to the construct state in all cases save that of inalienable possession. Both the
antecedent of bitaːʕ and the following noun are nearly always definite, and it agrees with
the antecedent in gender and number: bitaːʕ (msg), bitaːʕit (fsg), bituːʕ (pl). The following
noun may be replaced by a cliticized possessive pronoun.
il-ʔamiːᵴ bitaːʕ ᵴaːħb=uː

def-shirt gen friend=poss.3msg
‘his friend’s shirt’
il-ʔoːᵭaː bitaːʕt=iː
def-room gen.fsg=poss.1sg
‘my room’
As a stand-alone substantive, definite il-bitaːʕ serves as a nominal placeholder

[ST 7, 9].
Egyptian Arabic 451
5.5 Subordination
Relative clauses can be introduced with illiː or a zero marker. When the relativized head
noun is definite, illiː is employed. Relative clauses can encompass predicates [ST 7–8] or
nested sentences. When the head noun is the object of a subordinated verb or preposition,
and with equative sentences, a resumptive pronoun is required which matches the gender
and number of the head noun:
huwwaː ir-raːgil illiː ʃuf-naː=h imbaːriħ

sbj.3msg def-man rel see.sc-1pl=obj.3msg yesterday
‘He is the man who we saw yesterday.’
If the head noun that is being relativized is indefinite, the relativizer usually is asyndetic:
ʕaːrif ᵵaːlibaː Ø ism=ahaː saːmjaː

know.ptcp student rel name=poss.3fsg Samya
‘I know a student whose name is Samya.’
The relativizer illiː may be used in some cases with an indefinite head noun for pragmatic
reasons (cf. Brustad 2000: 93).
The sentential complementizer inn ‘that’ requires a possessive enclitic pronoun, sub-
ject pronoun or noun to act as the subject of the nested sentence.
inn=ak tu-ʔʕud mabsuːᵵ wi=mistakanjaᵴ

comp=poss.2msg 2msg-sit.pc happy and=lounging
‘. . . that you sit happy and lounging.’
Although it is a far less productive function, illiː can also serve as a sentential comple-
mentizer (cf. Brustad 2000: 105).
Adverbial subordination occurs with a variety of temporal nouns, locative interrog-
atives, and adverbial interrogatives. These are marked with the complementizer maː=,
which procliticizes to the main verb of a subordinated sentence:
ʔabl intaː ma=t-ruːħ

before sbj.2msg comp=2msg-come.pc
‘before you go’
5.6 Negation
Nominal predicates, active participles in verbal function, and the future tense marked
with ħa- and are negated with miʃ (var. muʃ); the inclusion of the future marker ħa- in this
class is a legacy of its origin in a grammaticalized active participle raːjiħ ‘going’.
daː muʃ ħaʔiːʔiː

dem.msg neg true
‘That isn’t true.’
miʃ ʔaːdr-aː a-staħmil
neg be.able.ptcp-fsg 1sg-bear.pc
‘I can’t bear [it].’
miʃ ħ-a-skut ʕalaː kidaː

neg fut-1sg-be.quiet.pc on dem
‘I won’t be quiet about that.’
The particle miʃ may also be used as a sentential negator:
il-walad raːjiħ ji-tʕallim, miʃ ji-tħibis fi=lundun

def-boy go.ptcp 3msg-learn.pc neg 3-be.imprisoned.pc in=London
‘The boy is going [there] to learn, not to be trapped in London.’
Increasingly, it is reported (Brustad 2000, Woidich 2011) that miʃ is a valid negator for
the prefix conjugation modified by the continuous marker bi-. In this context, it remains
secondary to that of the discontinuous negation marker discussed below, and any socio-
linguistic or pragmatic conditioning for its use is yet to be investigated.
miʃ b-a-tkallim fi=s-sijaːsaː

neg cont-1sg-talk.pc in=def-politics
‘I’m not talking about politics.’
Verbs in both the suffix and prefix conjugations (save those marked with ħa-) are
negated with the discontinuous negation marker ma= . . . =ʃ. All inflectional prefixes,
direct object and dative object clitics associated with a given verb fall within the syntac-
tic scope of the bipartite negator. Used with the bare prefix conjugation, it can express a
negative imperative.
ma=fakkar-tiː=ʃ in-naːs ħa-t-ʔuːl ʔeːh

neg=think.sc-2fsg=neg def-people fut-3fsg-say what
‘You didn’t think about what the people would say.’
ma=b-a-ħibb =uː=ʃ
neg=cont-1sg-love.pc=obj.3msg=neg
‘I don’t love him.’
ma=ti-ʔlaʔ=ʃ!
neg=2msg-worry.pc=neg
‘Don’t worry!’
The discontinuous negation marker is also utilized with existential and prepositional
predicates.
ma=fiː=ʃ ħall xaːliᵴ?

neg=exist=neg solution totally
‘There isn’t a solution at all?’
It may also occasionally be used to negate pronouns, both subject and indefinite, and
nominal predicates (e.g., ma=ħnaː=ʃ ‘we are not’). Use of this negation strategy generally
indicates the negation of a presupposition (Brustad 2000).
Egyptian Arabic 453
Negation of verbs with ma= only, without a corresponding second component,

is reserved for emphatic or categorical negation contexts triggered by specific opera-
tors, most commonly ʕumr=poss ‘never’ and oath particles such as waɫɫaːhiː ‘by God’,
waħjaːtak ‘by your life’, etc. Negation using only =ʃ has been reported as a marginal phe-
nomenon by Lucas (2010), and is attested in the common expression ism=ahaː=ʃ . . . ‘It’s
not called . . .’ (name=poss.3fsg=neg).
6 LEXICON
The EA lexicon boasts elements from diverse linguistic sources, reflecting the
long-standing integration of Egypt into a broader Eastern Mediterranean cultural area.
Sources attest loans from languages including Italian, French, Turkish, Greek, Persian
and English. These belong to numerous semantic domains, from the civic sphere and
technology (abuːneː ‘metro pass’ < French abonné, flaːʃaː ‘flash drive’ < English flash
[drive]) to home life and material culture (ᵵaraːbeːza ‘table’ < Greek trapéza, bantu-
fliː ‘slippers’ < Italian pantofoli); they comprise nouns, verbs (dallit ‘delete (a file)’
< English delete), adjectives (ʃiːk ‘chic’ < French chic), and adverbs (tamalliː ‘continu-
ally, always’ < Turkish temelli). Some borrowed nouns receive broken plurals: faːtuːraː
‘bill’ < Italian fattura, pl. fawaːtiːr. While new loan words are continuously entering the
language, many older loans are simultaneously phased out as terminology in certain
fields becomes increasingly Arabized: compare previously attested ʔagzagiː ‘pharmacist’
< Turkish eczacı, isbitaːljaː ‘hospital’ < Italian ospedale (Vollers 1895) with modern
ᵴajdaliː, mustaʃfaː.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The text here represents an original transcription of a segment from a 2017 YouTube
show called tilifizjoːn ʕasseːliː ‘Esseily Television’, in which Ahmad Esseily analyzes
contemporary social issues in Egyptian society. In this segment, Esseily philosophizes
about the meaning of happiness and how one can attain it despite challenging circum-
stances. It showcases the use of EA in highly abstract and intellectual discourse.
Line 1:
liʔann intaː ma=ji-nfaʕ=ʃ ti-wᵴal is-saʕaːdaː bi=ᵴudfaː
because sbj.2msg neg=3-suffice=neg 2-arrive def-happiness by=chance
Line 2:
ma=ji-nfaʕ=ʃ ti-ᵴħaː kidaː intaː mumkin ti-ʕmil
neg=3-suffice=neg 2-wake.up dem sbj.2msg possible 2-make
Line 3:
iʃ-ʃaːj b=il-laban wi=ti-ʃrɑb=uː wi=ti-bʔaː ʔɑː mabsuːᵵ
def-tea with=def-milk and=2-drink=obj.3msg and=2-become yeah happy
Line 4:
bass is-saʕaːdaː miʃ ha-ti-wᵴal=lahaː saʕiːd laː daː
but def-happiness neg fut-2-arrive=dat.3fsg happy neg dem.msg
Line 5:
mawᵭuːʕ ᵴaʕb ʕaʃaːn fi=s-saʕaːdaː xalliː baːl=ak is-saʕaːdaː
subject difficult because in=def-happiness keep.imp mind=poss.2msg def-happiness
Line 6:
diː miʃ ʕan inn=ak tu-ʔʕud mabsuːᵵ wi=mistakanjaᵴ
dem.fsg neg about comp=poss.2msg 2-sit happy and=lounging
Line 7:
is-saʕaːdaː ʕan inn=ak ti-kuːn fa=ti-rtaːħ min il-bitaːʕ
def-happiness about comp=poss.2msg 2-be so=2-relax from def-thing
Line 8:
illiː foːʔ daː fa=ruːħ=ak ti-bʔaː mirtaːħ-aː
rel above dem.msg so=soul=poss.2msg 3fsg-become relaxed-fsg
Line 9:
wi=ma=ji-bʔaː=ʃ ʕand=ahaː ʔaᵴrijjaː faːᵴl-aː=haː ʕan il-bitaːʕ
and=neg=3msg-become=neg at=poss.3fsg pot separate.ptcp- fsg=3fsg from def-thing
Line 10:
fa=ti-ʕraf guduːr=ak diː ti-mtaddi li=l-ħajaː wi=ti-bʔa
so=2-know roots=poss.2msg dem.fsg 3fsg-extend to=def-life and=3fsg-become
Line 11:
guziʔ min=haː wi=ti-bʔa
part of=poss.3msg and=2-become
Line 12:
geː-t ʕamal-t illiː geː-t ti-ʕmil=u
come-2msg do-2msg comp come-2msg 2-do=obj.3msg
geː-t ʕamal-t illiː geː-t ti-ʕmil=u zajj=ak
come-2msg do.2msg comp come-2msg 2-do=obj.3msg like=poss.2msg
Line 13:
bi=ᵶ-ᵶabᵵ zajji kulli ħaːgaː fi=ᵵ-ᵵabiːʕaː lammaː
with=def-precision like every thing in=def-nature when
Line 14:
ti-tʔammil fi=ᵵ-ᵵabiːʕaː ha-t-laːʔiː inn=uː ma=fiː=ʃ masalan
2-look at=def-nature fut-2-find comp=poss.3msg neg=exist=neg for.example
Line 15:
ʃɑgɑrɑː ᵴɣajjar-aː ʔawiː bi-t-ʔuːl li=ʃɑgɑrɑː
Tree small-fsg very cont-3fsg-say to=tree
Line 16:
tultumiːt matr il-ʕamlaːqaː diː jaː ħaᵶᵶ=ik
300.cst meter def-giant dem.fsg voc luck=poss.2fsg
Egyptian Arabic 455
‘Because it will not do for you to reach happiness by chance. It will not do for you
to wake up like that. You can make tea with milk and you get – yeah – happy, but
you will not reach [true] happiness. Are you happy? No. This is a difficult subject
because in [true] happiness, mind you, happiness is not about you sitting happy and
lounging about. Happiness is about you just being. So, you relax from that thing up
above [your mind] and your soul becomes relaxed. It [your soul] doesn’t have a pot
separating it from the thing [mind] there. You know that those roots of yours extend
to life and become a part of it. You have come and done what you came to do, just
like everything in nature. When you look at nature, you will find that there isn’t, for
example, a really small tree saying to a 300 meter tall tree, this giant thing, “you are
so lucky.” ’
NOTES
1 These forms can also include variants of huwwaː ‘he’, hijjaː ‘she’ and hummaː ‘they’
(cf. Woidich 2006: 46).
2 Body parts that come in pairs and some other noun classes use -eːn for plural, not dual,
number: iːd-eːn ‘hands’, rigl-eːn ‘feet’.
3 If one accepts the independent phonemic status of /ɑ, ɑː/ (see §3.2), then for each stem
class including /a, aː/ it is also necessary to posit an additional possible variant of the
stem with /ɑ, ɑː/. While less than ideal in terms of morphological description (as noted
by Lehn 1963), this is not inherently problematic: since the phonemic distinctness of /i/
and /u/ is accepted, the assignment of CiCiC and CuCuC stems to the same inflectional
class is uncontroversial. In the interest of concision, the more frequent stem forms with
/a, aː/ are used when referring to the class as a whole.
REFERENCES
Blevins, Juliette. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. New York:
Press, 2000.
Eisele, John. “Time Reference, Tense, and Formal Aspect in Cairene Arabic.” In
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics I, edited by Mushira Eid, 173–212. Amsterdam,
Fan, Ryan. “Verb Borrowing in a Root-pattern Language: English Verbs in Cairene
Arabic,” In Paper presented at The Fourth UIC Bilingualism Forum, The University of
Illinois at Chicago, 2014.
Harrell, Richard. The Phonology of Colloquial Egyptian Arabic. New York, NY:
American Council of Learned Societies, 1957.
Haeri, Niloofar. The Sociolinguistic Market of Cairo: Gender, Class and Education.
London: Kegan Paul International, 1996.
Hinds, Martin and El-Said Badawi. A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic: Arabic-English.
Beirut: Libraire du Liban, 1986.
Kaye, Alan and Judith Rosenhouse. “Arabic Dialects and Maltese.” In The Semitic
Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 263–311. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Kindt, Kristian Takvam, Jacob Høigilt and Tewodros Aragie Kebede. “Writing
Change: Diglossia and Popular Writing Practices in Egypt.” Arabica, 63.3–4
(2016): 324–76.
Kiparsky, Paul. “Labov, Sound Change, and Phonological Theory.” Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 20 (2016): 464–88.
Kiparsky, Paul. Explanation in Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris, 1982.
Leddy-Cecere, Thomas. “Dialectal Accommodation to Morphology and Phonology by
Sudanese Immigrants in Cairo.” Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America
Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, January 2, 2014.
Lehn, Walter. “Emphasis in Cairo Arabic.” Language, 39.1 (1963): 29–39.
Lucas, Christopher. “Negative -š in Palestinian (and Cairene) Arabic: Present and Possible
Past.” Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 2 (2010): 165–201.
McCarthy, John. “The Length of Stem-Final Vowels in Colloquial Arabic.” In
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XVII-XVIII, edited by Mohammad Alhawary and
Elabbas Benmamoun. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2005.
Mitchell, Terrence. Colloquial Arabic: The Living Language of Egypt. London: The
English Universities Press, 1962.
Mitchell, Terrence and Shahir Al-Hassan. Modality, Mood and Aspect in Spoken Arabic:
with Special Reference to Egypt and the Levant. Library of Arabic Linguistics,
Monograph 11. London, New York: Kegan Paul, 1994.
Panovic, Ivan. Literacies in Contemporary Egypt: Everyday Writing and Political
Change. London. New York: Routledge, 2015.
Paul, Lewis, Gary Simons, and Charles Fennig (eds.). Ethnologue: Languages of the
World, Nineteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. www.ethnologue.com,
2017.
Royal, Anne. Male/female Pharyngealisation Patterns in Cairo Arabic: A Sociolinguistic
Study of Two Neighborhoods. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at
Austin, 1985.
Schroepfer, Jason. “Ethnic Variation in */tˁ/ in Aswan Arabic.” University of Pennsylvania
Working Papers in Linguistics, 22/2 (2016): Article 17.
Spitta-Bey, Wilhelm. Grammatik des arabischen Vulgärdialectes von Aegypten. Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrich, 1880.
Vollers, Karl. The Modern Egyptian Dialect of Arabic: A Grammar with Exercises,
Reading Lessons, and Glossaries. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1895.
Woidich, Manfred. Das Kairenisch-Arabische: eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2006.
Woidich, Manfred. “Cairo Arabic.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
Zaborski, Vol. 3, 1–12. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
FURTHER READINGS
Press, 2000.
Versteegh, Kees. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001.
Watson, Janet. The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic, New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Egyptian Arabic 457
Grammars
Abdel-Massih, Ernest and El-Said Badawi and Zaki Abdel-Malek. A Comprehensive
Study of Egyptian Arabic. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Center for Near Eastern and North
African Studies, University of Michigan, 1978.itchell, Terence. Colloquial Arabic: The
Living Language of Egypt. London: Teach Yourself, 1962.
Wise, Hilary. Transformational Grammar of Spoken Egyptian Arabic. Oxford: Blackwell,
1975.
Woidich, Manfred. Das Kairenisch-Arabische: eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2006.
Textbooks
Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud Al-Batal, and ʻAbbās Tūnisī. Alif Baa: Introduction to Arabic
letters and Sounds. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2010.
Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud Al-Batal, and ʻAbbās Tūnisī. Al-Kitaab fii taʻallum
al-ʻArabiyya: A Textbook for Beginning Arabic. Part One. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 2011.
Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud Al-Batal, and ʻAbbās Tūnisī. Al-Kitaab fii taʻallum
al-ʻArabiyya: A Textbook for Beginning Arabic. Part Two. Washington, DC:
Louis, Samia and Nessim Guirges. Kallimni ʻArabi bishweesh. A Beginner’s Course in
Spoken Egyptian Arabic. Cairo, Egypt: American University in Cairo Press, 2008.
Dictionaries
Hinds, Martin and El-Said Badawi. A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic: Arabic – English.
Beirut: Libraire du Liban, 1986.
Historical attestations and descriptions

Spiro, Socrates. Arabic – English Dictionary of the Modern Arabic of Egypt (2nd ed.).
Cairo: Elias’ Modern Press, 1923.
Spitta-Bey, Wilhelm. Grammatik des arabischen Vulgärdialectes von Aegypten. Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrich, 1880.
Vollers, Karl. The Modern Egyptian Dialect of Arabic: A Grammar with Exercises,
Reading Lessons, and Glossaries. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1895.
Overviews
Wilmsen, David and Manfred Woidich. “Egypt.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language
and Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Manfred Woidich, Alaa
Elgibali, and Andrzej Zaborski, Vol. 2, 1–12. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Woidich, Manfred. “Cairo Arabic.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
Zaborski, Vol. 1, 323–33. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
CHAPTER 18
MOROCCAN ARABIC
Mike Turner
1 INTRODUCTION
Moroccan Arabic (MA)1 refers to a group of closely related varieties of the Arabic branch
found in Northwest Africa and represents, along with dialects found in Mauritania, Alge-
ria, Tunisia, and Libya, one of the key dialect clusters of the Western Arabic subgroup
(see Palva 2006 on classification of dialects). Although neither afforded official status nor
standardized by any top-down authority, MA is the everyday lingua franca of Morocco
and widely used on national television and radio, in advertising and for personal elec-
tronic communication (see Map 18.1). The 2014 Moroccan Census reported that 90.9%
of the Moroccan population spoke MA, totaling over 30 million people; this figure
includes both speakers for whom MA is a first language and those for whom it is a second
or conative language alongside a Berber variety or French.
S PA I N
MOROCCO
ALGERIA
WESTERN
SAHARA
LEGEND
Moroccan Arabic
MAP 18.1 THE SPEECH AREA OF MOROCCAN ARABIC

Moroccan Arabic 459
Scholars have traditionally identified two major Arabic types in Morocco, positing that
one type dates to the original arrival of Arabs in the late 7th century and the other to the
11th-century influx of a tribal confederation known as the “Banu Hilal”; many works thus
distinguish “Pre-Hilalian” dialects of old urban centers and the rural North from “Hilalian
dialects” of the central country and Atlantic coast. However many of the features said to
differentiate these groups are phonological or lexical (see Heath 2002: 9–10 for a com-
parison) rather than morphological innovations of the sort that would be most reliable in
historical subgrouping. Over time, dialect mixing and internal migration have eroded the
range of “Pre-Hilalian” features, and there is an emerging consensus that modern MA is
undergoing a process of koinezation (see Maas and Procházka 2012) and moving toward
a shared set of leveled features that approximate those of the traditional “Hilalian” group.
Because it is the variety most readily identifiable by Moroccans as a shared standard,
features described in this chapter are to be taken as representative of the modern MA
koine. Except in simple paradigms, care has been taken to give linguistic examples as
actual tokens produced by native speakers in unelicited speech. Frequent in-line refer-
ence is made to the sample text at the end of the chapter (e.g., [ST 3], meaning “Sample
Text, Line 3”); other sources include the audio corpus that informed Post (2015), labeled
[RP], and the present author’s own data, labeled [MT]. Note the following citation forms:
for substantives, the historical “absolute” (e.g., wᵊld ‘boy’, as occurs for indefinite pred-
icates; see §5.3); for verbs, the 3msg perfective followed by the 3msg imperative, if for-
mally distinct (e.g. ktᵊb ‘write’, mat/mut ‘die’; see §4.6.3).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
As a written language, MA is not standardized and there is no single body that governs its
usage. It is nonetheless widely written in both Latin and Arabic scripts (see Elinson 2013)
and shows some emergent conventions. The following printed example, taken from a box
of snack cookies, shows a single phrase represented in two scripts:
<dou9 ou rad 3lya lkhbar>

<‫( >دوق ورد عليا لخبار‬DWQ WRD ʕLYA LXBAR)
duq u ᵲᵊᵭᵭ ʕli=ja l-ᵊxbaᵲ
taste.imp and respond.imp on=1sg.poss art-news
‘Taste and tell me the news’ [MT]
Table 18.1 is adapted from Post (2015: 92) and gives the respective graphemic represen-
tations of the MA consonants, vowels and epenthetic vocoids (see §3) in both scripts,
with multiple values listed where there is regular variation.
Latin script representations of MA tend to approximate typical phonetic values in
French, where possible. Phonemes with no near equivalent in French are represented
with a unique digraph (as in <kh> for /x/) or, as in other colloquial Arabic varieties, with
a numeral (<3> for /ʕ/).2 Unlike most other Latin script representations of spoken Ara-
bic, written MA does not typically differentiate pharyngealized/velarized consonants, nor
does it represent gemination.
Arabic script representations of MA vary by speaker (see Aguadé 2006), with some opt-
ing for a more logographic approach that mirrors conventions in Modern Standard Arabic or
other spoken varieties, while others seek to approximate actual phonetic values. For exam-
ple, the assimilated article l- (see §5.3) in ʃ-ʃᵊms ‘the sun’ can either be written, as in <‫>الشمس‬
460 Mike Turner
TABLE 18.1 ORTHOGRAPHY OF MA
IPA b p f v m w t ᵵ d ᵭ s ᵴ
Latin b p f v m w, ou t d s(s)
Arabic ‫ب‬ ‫ ب‬،‫ف پ‬ ‫ ف‬،‫م ڤ‬ ‫و‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ط‬ ‫د‬ ‫ ظ‬،‫س ض‬ ‫ص‬
IPA z ᵶ n l ɫ r ᵲ j ʃ ʒ k(ʷ) g(ʷ) q(ʷ)
Latin z n l r y ch, sh j k g 9, k
Arabic ‫ز‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ج‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ گ‬،‫ ك‬،‫ق ݣ‬
IPA x(ʷ) ɣ(ʷ) ħ ʕ h ʔ a i u [ə̌]
Latin kh, 5 gh, r 7, h 3 h 2 a i ou, o e, a, o
Arabic ‫خ‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ء‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ي‬ ‫و‬ -
TABLE 18.2 PRIMARY CONSONANTAL PHONEMES
Bilabial Labio- Denti- Postal Palatal Velar3 Uvular Pharyn Glottal

dental alveolar veolar geal
Plosive pb tᵵdᵭ k kʷ g gʷ q qʷ ʔ
Nasal m n
Trill rᵲ
Fricative fv sᵴzᵶ ʃʒ ɣ ɣʷ x xʷ ħʕ h
Approximant w j
Lateral lɫ
approximant
(ʔLʃMS), or omitted, as in <‫( >شمس‬ʃMS), with gemination of the first letter unmarked. Sim-
ilarly, the relativizer lli (see §5.5) is attested as both <‫( >اللي‬ʔLLY), the conventionalized
spelling of its counterpart in eastern dialects, and as a uniquely Moroccan <‫( >لي‬LY).
3 PHONOLOGY
MA has a large consonant inventory with minimal allophonic variation, a small vowel
inventory with a moderate degree of allophony, and complex constraint-based syllabifi-
cation processes that operate as a function of grammatical category.
3.1 Consonantal
The MA consonant inventory, given in Table 18.2, is large both cross-linguistically and in
comparison with other Arabic varieties (see Chapters 15–17 in this volume).
The phonemes /p/, /v/ and /ʔ/ are often excluded because of their association with loan words,
but are included here because they are well established among even monolinguals in words
such as pil ‘flashlight’, villa ‘villa’, and suʔal ‘question’. All consonants can be geminated.
Notable features include the following:
• Consistent merger of the OA interdental fricatives /θ, ð, ð̴/ to alveolar stops /t, d, ᵭ/.
• Loss of the OA glottal stop /ʔ/ in inherited lexemes (OA *ᵭiʔb- > dib ‘wolf’), but
reintroduction through Modern Standard Arabic borrowings (nisaʔ ‘women’ [ST 1, 3]).
Moroccan Arabic 461
• Typically, realization of OA */d͡ʒ/ (PS */g/) as an alveolar fricative /ʒ/ (OA *d͡ ʒamal- >
ʒmᵊl ‘camel’); however, it has historically merged to a stop /g/ (sometimes /d/) before
/s/ or /z/ (OA *d͡ʒaːmuːs > gamus ‘water buffalo’; OA *d͡ ʒazzaːr > gᵊᵶᵶaᵲ ‘butcher’;
OA *d͡ ʒaːz > daz ‘he passed’).
• Typically, split of OA */q/ (PS */k’/) into either a voiceless uvular stop /q/ or a voiced
velar stop /g/ (e.g. qᵊrʕa ‘bottle’ vs. gᵊrʕa ‘gourd, pumpkin’, both < OA *qarʕa);
however, for some lexemes alternation, even for the same speaker (qabᵊl ~ gabᵊl ‘look
after’ [ST 11, 15, 18]).
• Phonemicization of /g/, with origins in three sources: (1) OA */d͡ʒ/, (2) OA */q/, (3) or
direct borrowing from another language (Sp. asegurar > sugᵊr ‘insure’).
• Phonemicization of a set of additional pharyngealized or velarized consonants /ɫ, ᵲ, ᵶ/,
seen in minimal pairs such as lla ‘no’ vs. ɫɫa ‘God’ [ST 13]; kbᵊr ‘grow up’ vs. kbᵊᵲ
‘larger’; zᵊʕzᵊʕ ‘shake’ vs. ᵶᵊʕᵶᵊʕ ‘shout’.
• Phonemicization of a set of labio-velarized consonants /kʷ, gʷ, xʷ, ɣʷ, qʷ/, seen in
minimal pairs such as kᵊll ‘become exhausted’ vs. kʷᵊll ‘all’ [ST 9]; gᵊlta ‘puddle’ vs.
gʷᵊl-ti ‘you said’ [ST 16]; tqᵊl ‘heavier’ vs. tqʷᵊl ‘weight’; xᵲa ‘shit’; xʷᵲa ‘other (f.)’,
ᵴɣᵊᵲ ‘smaller’ vs. ᵴɣʷᵊr ‘youth’.4
• Affricated or palatalized release of /t/ ([ts] ~ [tʃ]), which has no effect on the phonemic
inventory but is sociolinguistically salient (Schwartz 2017).
3.2 Vocalic
MA has a simple four-way vowel inventory, given in Table 18.3.
It is the vocalic system that most differentiates MA phonology from that of other Ara-
bic varieties (compare “Levantine Arabic” and “Egyptian Arabic,” this volume). Most
crucially, dephonemicization of the OA short vowel triad */a, i, u/ has neutralized the
length attribute that formerly distinguished */aː, iː, uː/, giving MA a single set of phone-
mic vowels /a, i, u/ as a reflex of the latter. For each of these vowels, we can differentiate
a “plain” set of allophones [æ, i, u] from an “emphatic” set [ɑ, ɯ, o]5 that occurs in the
vicinity of the pharyngealized/velarized consonants /ᵵ, ᵭ, ᵴ, ᵶ, ɫ, ᵲ/.6 The consonants /x,
ɣ, q/ likewise trigger allophonic backing and lowering in quality, but to a lesser extent.
Finally, /a/ has a word-final allophone [ɑ ~ ɒ] that occurs regardless of the preceding
consonant.
In addition, MA has more recently witnessed the phonemicization of what was for-
merly an environment-restricted allophone of /a/ into a fourth full vowel /ɑ/. Although
most general grammars of MA omit this phoneme from their charts, Heath (1989) pro-
posed it as one nearly three decades ago,7 and there is little reason to believe that it is
anything but phonemic for the generation that has since grown up speaking of l-bɑk ‘the
high school exit exam’, kɑʃ ‘cash’, ma kijɑʒ ‘makeup’, vɑ ni ‘vanilla’, and l-kwɑ fur ‘the
hairdresser’.8
TABLE 18.3 PRIMARY VOCALIC PHONEMES
Front Back
High i u
Low a ɑ
462 Mike Turner
On a phonetic level, MA has a number of ultra-short vocoids whose quality is deter-

mined by the immediate consonantal environment; these vocoids are traditionally given
as a vowel /ə/ (corresponding with a vocoid [ə̌] in the vicinity of plain consonants, e.g.,
[ktə̌b] ‘he wrote’).9 However, because this vowel is predictable via syllabic processes (see
§3.3) it is better seen as a prosodic feature rather than a phoneme.

Syllabification in MA is complex and best described as determined by a set of constraints
on allowable surface representations of underlying consonant clusters (see Boudlal 2009
for a detailed account). Primary among these constraints is the avoidance of surface-level
clusters within lexical stems, a process that “proceeds from right-to-left and assigns every
unsyllabified CC sequence the shape CəC” (Boudlal 2009: 69) via insertion of an epen-
thetic vocoid glossed here as a superscript schwa <ᵊ>. This vocoid can occur only in
closed syllables. It is necessary to distinguish two classes of lexemes for the purposes of
syllabification, namely (a) verbs and adjectives and (b) nouns and prepositions. For both
of these classes, underlying representations can be said to consist solely of phonemic
consonants and vowels (see §§3.1–3.2).
Verbs are subject to a two-cycle approach in which they are first syllabified right-to-
left on a stem level without consideration of affixes, as in /ktb/ > k.tᵊb ‘write’, where the
epenthetic vocoid intervenes in the final /CC/ cluster. For the second cycle, affixes are
added; if the output form does not violate the closed syllable constraint on the schwa,
it is valid (k.tᵊb.-t ‘I wrote’), but if it does, the word must be resyllabified from right to
left (**k.tᵊ.b-u > kᵊt.b-u ‘they wrote’). Adjectives follow the same approach, so that an
unaffixed /zᵲq/ ‘blue (m.)’ syllabifies as ᵶ.ᵲᵊq whereas affixed /zᵲq-a/ ‘blue (f.)’ yields
ᵶᵊᵲ.qa.
Nouns and prepositions differ in that they are syllabified (a) with consonant sonority
as a factor in segmentation of /CCC/ nouns and (b) in a single cycle with affixes taken
into account. It is for the first reason that /bnt/ ‘girl’ has a surface form bᵊnt whereas /
tbn/ ‘straw’ has tbᵊn; in both cases the epenthetic vocoid precedes the /n/ because it is
the more sonorant consonant. The second rule can be seen in /mslm/ > mᵊs.lᵊm ‘Mus-
lim’, /mslm-in/ > m.sᵊl.min ‘Muslims’, both of which are independently syllabified
right to left in a single cycle. The word class opposition’s role in syllabification is
witnessed in examples such as l-bᵊjᵭ bjᵊᵭ (art-egg.col white) ‘white eggs’ (both under-
lying /bjᵭ/) and knᵊz l-kᵊnz (hoard.msg.pfv art-treasure) ‘he hoarded treasure’ (both
underlying /knz/).
There are few restrictions on underlying word shapes, which can easily have
multiple-consonant clusters; however, if one allows for minor syllables composed of a
single consonant, as does Boudlal, actual surface forms consist of only C, CV, CᵊC or
CVC syllables.10 These syllable types are relevant to stress assignment (Boudlal 2009:
128). When words are spoken in isolation, stress falls on the penultimate syllable (n-.
ˈfᵊᵲ.ᵭ-u ‘let’s suppose’) unless the final syllable is a heavy CVC, in which case it receives
stress instead (li.ˈmun ‘orange’). In connected speech, however, stress is consistently
word-final except for function words and at the end of an utterance:
n-.fᵊᵲ.ˈᵭ-u l-.xᵊd.ˈma .mu.ˈʒu.d-a

1.sbjv-suppose-pl art-work available-f
‘let’s suppose work is available’ [ST 11–12]
Moroccan Arabic 463
4 MORPHOLOGY
MA reflects a fairly typical Arabic and Semitic morphology in the pronominal and
nominal systems, but in the verbal system shows a move toward replacing its inherited
root-pattern model with a stem-affix model.

For personal pronouns, MA distinguishes the categories of person, gender and number.
There are four morphologically distinct sets of personal pronouns:
• Subject (freestanding words)

• Possessive (cliticize to nouns and prepositions)
• Object (cliticize to verbs; precede dative pronouns if present)
• Dative (cliticize to verbs; follow object pronouns if present)
The subject pronouns, given in Table 18.4, maintain a plurality distinction for all persons.
Gender is distinguished in the 2nd and 3rd person singular, but not the 1st person, or any
plurals. For the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns an enclitic focusing particle =ja
can be used for pragmatic contrast (compare place adverbs ‘here’ and ‘there’ in §4.7.2):
ma=fahᵊm=ʃ nta=ja gaʕ s-sistᵊm djal l-mᵊɣrib

neg=understand.ptcp=neg 2msg=foc at.all art-system gen art-Morocco
‘you [as opposed to me] don’t understand the Moroccan system at all’ [RP]
The possessive pronouns, given in Table 18.5, cliticize to a number of high-frequency

nouns and prepositions, but on the whole are relatively unproductive, with most genitive
relationships expressed via syntactic means (see §5.4.2). Unlike most Arabic varieties
Singular Plural
1 ana (=ja) ħna

2 masc nta (=ja) ntuma
fem nti (=ja)
3 masc huwa huma
fem hija
TABLE 18.5 POSSESSIVE AND OBJECT CLITICS
Singular Plural11
1 POSS: =i (V=ja) =na

OBJ: =ni
2 =(ᵊ)k =kum
3 masc =u (V=h) =hum
fem =ha
464 Mike Turner
base =l- base =li-
1 =li =lna =lija =lina

2 =lᵊk =lkum =lik =likum
3 masc =lu =lhum =lih =lihum
fem =lha =liha
outside of North Africa, MA does not distinguish gender for the 2nd person singular in
the clitic pronouns; this development can be attributed to dephonemicization of the short
vowels in the OA forms *=ak and *=ik (see §3.2). The two vocalic suffixes =i (=1sg.poss)
and =u (=3msg.poss) display allomorphy after vowels.
The direct object pronouns, also in Table 18.5, are identical in form to the possessive
pronouns with the exception of the 1st person singular =ni. They cliticize to finite verbs
(ʃaf=ni see.3msg.pfv=1sg.obj ‘he saw me’) and, more rarely, active participles in verbal
function.
The dative pronouns, given in Table 18.6, are related to the dative-allative preposition
*l- and cliticize to verbs. There are two variable sets of dative pronouns, one with a base
=l- and another with a base =li-.12 It is not uncommon for the same speaker to mix para-
digms; note, for example, both gal=lija (say.3msg.pfv=1sg.dat) ‘he told me’ [ST 13] and
gʷᵊl-t=lu (say-1sg.pfv=3msg.dat) ‘I told him’ [ST 16]. Dative pronouns can cliticize to
a verb phrase containing a direct object, as in ʕᵵi=hum=lha (give.imp=3pl.obj=3fsg.dat)
‘give them to her!’ [ST 18].
4.2 Demonstratives
MA has a binary demonstrative system, summarized in Table 18.7, that differentiates
proximal and distal referents. Freestanding demonstrative pronouns agree with their ref-
erent in number and, if singular, gender. Demonstrative adjectives precede the noun and
agree in number and gender if distal, but are invariant if proximal.13 Modified nouns take
the shape that is associated with definiteness (but not exclusive to it; see §5.3); it is also
possible to follow a modified noun with a pleonastic pronominal demonstrative, as in had
l-mulaħaᵭa hadi (dem.adj art-observation.f dem.pron.f) ‘this [particular] observation’
[ST 2].
Reference to uniquely identifiable referents, particularly those that are animate,
requires the inflected demonstrative pronouns. However, a pair of uninflected anaphoric
deictics hadʃi (in focus) and dakʃi (contextually retrievable) are used for generic situ-
ations: hadʃi/dakʃi ʕlaʃ (dem why) ‘this/that’s why . . . ’; ma=ʕʒᵊb=ni=ʃ hadʃi/dakʃi
(neg=please.3msg.pfv=1sg.obj=neg dem) ‘I didn’t like this/that’.
4.3 Interrogatives
MA has both pronominal and adverbial interrogatives. Pronominals include ʃkun ‘who?
(nom/acc)’ [ST 12, 15], mᵊn ‘who? (gen)’, ʃnu ‘what? (nom/acc)’, aʃ ‘what?’ (acc/gen),14
Moroccan Arabic 465
Proximal Distal
Attributive Pronominal Attributive Pronominal
masc had hada dak hadak

singular
fem had hadi dik hadik
plural had hadu duk haduk
aʃmᵊn ~ ina ‘which?’, ama ‘which one?’. Adverbial interrogatives include fuqaʃ ~ wᵊqtaʃ
‘when?’, fin ‘where’?, mnin ‘from where?’ [ST 1], ʕlaʃ ‘why?’ [ST 16], ki(f) ~ kifaʃ ‘how?’
[ST 10], ʃħal ‘how many, how much?’, and bᵊʃħal ‘for how much?’. See §5.1 for remarks
on word order and polar questions.
4.4 Relative
The clausal relativizer lli (see §5.5) can function as an independent relative subject pro-
noun for animates, as in the proverb:
lli ʕᵊᵭᵭ=u l-ħᵊnʃ ka-j-xaf mᵊn l-ħbᵊl

rel bite.3msg.pfv=3msg.obj art-snake ind-3msg-fear from art-rope
‘whoever gets bitten by a snake becomes afraid of ropes’ [MT]
In addition, MA has a relative pronoun ma= (compare complementizer in §5.5) that is

restricted to unspecified inanimate entities in existential constructions. It procliticizes to
a subjunctive verb: kajᵊn ma=j-tʃaf (exist.ptcp rel=3msg.sbjv-see.pass) ‘there are [things]
to be seen’; ʕᵊnd=u ma=j-gʷul (at=3msg.poss rel=3msg.sbjv-say) ‘he has [things] to say.
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
MA nouns do not show case. There are two productive categories for gender (masculine
and feminine) and two for number (singular and plural).15 For singular nouns and adjec-
tives, masculine gender is unmarked, while feminine gender is usually marked with a
suffixed ‑a.16 Plural forms for both human and non-human nouns most often show non-
concatenative morphology (wᵊld ‘son’ > pl wlad [ST 12, 15, 19]; ᵭaᵲ ‘house’ [ST 9] > pl
ᵭjuᵲ). The most common plural suffix to occur with both human and non-human nouns
is -a (xᵊᵭᵭaᵲ ‘vegetable seller’ [ST 5] > pl xᵊᵭᵭaᵲ-a), often in combination with noncon-
catenative patterns (mᵊɣrib-i ‘Moroccan’ > pl mɣarb-a); a suffix -in is attested but less
productive. The marker ‑at is used for both human feminine plurals and (more regularly)
generic non-human plurals, but never for adjectives, which have either -in or nonconcat-
enative plurals. Table 18.8 shows these inflectional patterns for two nouns, ᵲbaᵵi ‘person
from Rabat’ and mᵊɣribi ‘Moroccan’, and two adjectives, mᵊzjan ‘good’ and ᵴɣiᵲ ‘small’.
The Semitic “construct state” is not regularly productive and most genitive relation-
ships are instead expressed via syntactic means (see §5.4.2). For the limited set of nouns
that do retain such morphology – typically family members and body parts – it is only
466 Mike Turner
TABLE 18.8 NOMINAL INFLECTIONS
Human Noun Human Noun Adjective Adjective

(mpl -in ) (mpl -a ) (pl -in ) (pl /CCaC/)
Singular Masc ᵲbaᵵi mᵊɣribi mᵊzjan ᵴɣiᵲ

Fem ᵲbaᵵij-a mᵊɣribij-a mᵊzjan-a ᵴɣiᵲ-a
Plural Masc ᵲbaᵵij-in mɣarb-a mᵊzjan-in ᵴɣaᵲ
Fem ᵲbaᵵij-at mᵊɣribij-at mᵊzjan-in ᵴɣaᵲ
the feminine singular inflection that shows suffix allomorphy, which even then varies
between a lexicalized -t (bɫaᵴa ‘place’ > bɫas-t=u place-f=3msg.poss ‘his place’) and -at
(ʒᵊdda ‘grandmother’ > ʒᵊdd-at=u grandmother-f=3msg.poss ‘his grandmother’). Defi-
niteness in MA is complex; see §5.3 for a discussion.
4.5.2 Patterns
Due to the loss of short vowels (see §3.2) the PS monosyllabic patterns have all been
reduced to a single underlying /CCC/ representation, with surface forms determined by
syllabification constraints (see §3.3). A common derivational suffix is -i(j), which can be
used to derive adjectives from nouns (mᵊɣrib-i ‘Moroccan’). Two occupational/character-
istic patterns are observed: /CCːaC/ (bᵊnnaj ‘mason’ [ST 4]) and /CCajCi/ (skajri ‘drunk-
ard’). These patterns can be further combined with the prefix/suffix combination ta-/-t to
create abstract nouns (ta-mᵊɣrib-i-t ‘Moroccanness’, ta-bᵊnnaj-ᵊt ‘masonry’, ta-skajri-t
‘drunkenness’).17
The inherited OA diminutive pattern remains very productive and is used with both
nouns (wᵊld ‘child’ > dim wlijᵊd [ST 8]) and adjectives (ᵴɣiᵲ ‘small’ > dim ᵴɣʷiwᵊᵲ).
Reflexes of the OA “broken” plural, generally involving insertion of a vowel /a/ after
the second C (mᵊɣribi > pl mɣarb-a ‘Moroccans’), likewise remain highly productive.
Although contact with European languages has led to the influx of many loan nouns, most
are subject to typical derivation patterns: Fr. guide > gid ‘tourist guide’ > dim gwijᵊd, pl
gjad (Heath 1989: 276).
4.5.3 Numerals
MA uses a decimal system. For cardinal numbers, we can distinguish two numeral classes,
“count” and “clitic,” both given for numbers 1–10 in Table 18.9. The count numerals are
used for most quantification operations; they occur in isolation and in genitive constructs
with plural nouns, as in ᵲᵊbʕa djal l-ᵊwlad (four gen art-children) ‘four children’ [ST 15].
The clitic numerals are phonologically unstressed and syntactically dependent on the
small class of words to which they can attach, which consists primarily of other numeral
elements and the temporal nouns saʕa ‘hour’, jum ‘day’, ʃhᵊr ‘month’, and ʕam ‘year’,
e.g. jum ‘one day’, jum=ajᵊn ‘two days’, tᵊlt=ijam ‘three days’.
The count numeral ʒuʒ ~ zuʒ ‘2’ is a simple semantic extension of OA *zawd>͡j ‘cou-
ple’. For ‘9’, Aguadé (2010a) hypothesizes origins in an old euphemism in which speak-
ers substituted a near-homophonous *ti-sʕa ‘you beg’ for the more fortuitous *ti-sʕud
‘you rejoice’. One may note that the shapes of the count and clitic forms parallel those of
the PS masculine and feminine numerals, respectively; however, gender is not a feature
Moroccan Arabic 467
TABLE 18.9 MA NUMERALS 1–10
# Count Clitic # Count Clitic
1 waħᵊd 6 sᵊtta sᵊtt=

2 ʒuʒ ~ zuʒ =ajᵊn18 7 sᵊbʕa sbᵊʕ=
3 tlata tᵊlt= 8 tmᵊnja tmᵊn=
4 ᵲᵊbʕa ᵲbᵊʕ= 9 tᵊsʕud tsᵊʕ=
5 xᵊmsa xᵊms= 10 ʕᵊʃᵲa ʕʃᵊᵲ=
of the MA numeral system beyond use of waħᵊd (f wᵊħda) as a pronoun ‘one’ or enclitic
adjective ‘single’.
The count numerals ‘11’ and ‘12’ have unique forms ħᵭaʃ and ᵵnaʃ; numbers 13–19
are constructed by attaching the clitic numerals to a stem -ᵵaʃ: tlᵊᵵ=ᵵaʃ ‘13’, ᵲbᵊʕ=ᵵaʃ ‘14’,
xmᵊs=ᵵaʃ ‘15’, etc. For ‘20’ MA has ʕᵊʃrin; other tens are constructed with a suffix -in:
tlatin ‘30’, ᵲᵊbʕin ‘40’, xᵊmsin ‘50’. Interdecadal numbers are constructed from the count
numbers followed by the ten (waħᵊd u ʕᵊʃrin ‘21’) but have tnajn rather than ʒuʒ for ‘2’
(tnajn u ʕᵊʃrin ‘22’). The hundreds and thousands are constructed by attaching the clitic
numerals to mja ‘hundred’ or alf/alaf ‘thousand/s’ (tᵊlt=ᵊmja ‘300’, tᵊlt=alaf ‘3000’).
Ordinal numbers occur only as modifying adjectives for semantically definite nouns.
The ordinals ‘first’ and ‘second’ have unique forms luwᵊl [ST 8] and tani. Ordinal num-
bers ‘third’ through ‘tenth’ take the active participle pattern /CVCC/ (see §4.6.5) and
share a root with triconsonantal clitics: talᵊt ‘third’, ᵲabᵊʕ ‘fourth’, xamᵊs ‘fifth’. The ordi-
nals ‘eleventh’ and ‘twelfth’ have unique forms ħadᵊʃ and tanᵊʃ. There is no distinction
between cardinal and ordinal numbers above 12.
4.6 Verbs
Tense, aspect and mood values are indicated in MA through the use of two inflectional
paradigms (reflexes of the Semitic suffix and prefix conjugations) – and, less produc-
tively, the active participle – in combination with a set of TAM prefixes and auxiliary
verbs. Formally distinct TAM categories and subcategories are as follows:
• Perfective Aspect (PS suffix conjugation)

• Imperfective Aspect (PS prefix conjugation)
• Imperative Mood (suffixed only)
• Subjunctive Mood (prefixed/suffixed)
• Indicative Mood (prefixed/suffixed with preposed marker ka- ~ ta-)
• Consecutive Mood (prefixed/suffixed with preposed pronominal element)
• Perfect Aspect (active participle)
The MA reflex of the suffix conjugation marks perfective aspect. This generally aligns
with the past tense (ʃrᵊb-ti drink-2sg.pfv ‘you drank’), but may also be employed in
non-simple past contexts, such as conditional structures and perfect structures of various
tense values. In the perfect usage, it is considerably more productive than in other Arabic
varieties, often associated with meanings for which they would use an active participle
(see “Egyptian Arabic” and “Levantine Arabic,” this volume).
468 Mike Turner
The MA reflex of the prefix conjugation marks imperfective aspect. It can be further
subdivided into four distinct moods:
• The imperative mood inflects for 2nd person and takes the prefix conjugation suffixes
only: xʷᵊrʒ-i (go.out.imp-fsg) ‘go out’ [ST 11]; the masculine singular is accordingly a
freestanding stem: xʷrᵊʒ (go.out.imp.msg).
• The subjunctive mood inflects with both prefixes and suffixes but no other marking,
and is used in multi-verb constructions (bɣi-na n-xᵊddm-u=ha want-1pl.pfv
1.sbjv-employ-pl=3fsg.obj ‘we want to employ her’ [ST 14–15]), with modals, and in
indirect suggestions (t-ᵊglᵊs? 2fsg.sbjv-sit ‘would you like to sit?’).
• The indicative mood is marked with a prefix ka- ~ ta- and conveys a habitual,
progressive, or iterative meaning; the two prefixes are identical in meaning and often
used side-by-side by the same speaker: ta-j-mut mskin u ka-t-ᵴbᵊħ l-ᵊmᵲa (ind-3msg-die
poor.guy and ind-3fsg-awake art-woman) ‘the poor guy dies and the woman wakes
up’ [ST 7].
• The consecutive mood is constructed with the coordinating conjunction u- followed
by a subject pronoun (see §4.1) and inflected verb, and conveys subsequent realis
action:19
gal=lu ʕᵵi=ni n-nᵊmra djal=ᵊk

say.3msg.pfv=3msg.dat give.msg.imp=1sg.obj art-number gen=2sg.poss
u-huwa-j-ᵊʕᵵi=h nnit n-nᵊmra djal=u
and-he-3msg-give=3msg.obj foc art-number gen=3msg.poss
‘he said give me your number, so he gave him his number’ [RP].
The active participle in MA is lexically and semantically restricted, and only regu-
larly derived for triliteral stems (see §4.6.5). While possible, it is increasingly rare in
koine-type dialects to hear it with telic actions, for which the suffix conjugation can
also convey a present perfect meaning: ʃaᵲᵊb (drink.ptcp.msg) ~ ʃᵲᵊb (drink.3msg.pfv)
‘he has drunk’. With atelic actions it is more productive, conveying a present progres-
sive meaning: galᵊs (sit.ptcp.msg) ‘is sitting’. With stative verbs it is more stable than
for telic actions, but still alternates with the suffix conjugation to give a continuous or
perfect reading: fahᵊm (understand.ptcp.msg) ~ fhᵊm (understand.3msg.pfv) ‘he under-
stands, has understood’.
The prefix conjugation in the subjunctive mood is combined with an active par-
ticiple ɣadi ‘going’ (usually uninflected) or a derived prefix ɣa- ~ a- to indicate the
future tense: ɣa-t-xᵊddm-u=ha (fut-2.sbjv-employ-pl=3fsg.obj) ‘you will employ her’
[ST 17].
Complex tenses are formed by combining above forms with kan/kʷun ‘be, exist’
inflected for the same referent. Varying tense values of inflected kan/kʷun followed
by the suffix conjugation indicate past and future perfect: kʷᵊn-ti ʃᵲᵊb-ti (be-2sg.pfv
drink-2sg.pfv) ‘you had drunk’; ɣa-t-kʷun ʃᵲᵊb-ti (fut-2msg.sbjv-be drink-2sg.pfv) ‘you
will have drunk’. The verb kan/kʷun in the suffix conjugation is combined with indica-
tive structures to mark past continuous action (kʷᵊn-ti ka-t-ʃᵲᵊb be-2sg.pfv ind-2msg-drink
‘you were drinking, used to drink’) and future structures to mark past intent (kʷᵊn-ti ɣa-t-
ʃᵲᵊb be-2sg.pfv fut-2msg.sbjv-drink ‘you were going to drink’). See §5.2 for remarks on
verbal predicates with the focusing particle ᵲa=.
Moroccan Arabic 469

Both suffix and prefix conjugations show agreement for person, gender and number,
while the active participle agrees for gender and number only. The MA reflex of the suffix
conjugation, given in Table 18.10, distinguishes three persons and two numbers; gender
is differentiated only for the 3rd person singular. It is marked exclusively with suffixes
and has a conditioned allomorph for the 1st and 2nd persons when the stem ends in either
/Cː/ or /CVC/.20
The MA reflex of the prefix combination, given for qtᵊl ‘kill’ in Table 18.11, distin-
guishes the same persons and numbers, but differentiates gender for both the second and
3rd person singular. It is primarily marked with prefixes,21 but has a feminine suffix -i for
the 2nd person singular and a suffix -u for all plurals.22
Active participle forms in verbal function follow adjectival agreement patterns (see
§4.5.1) and syllabification rules (§3.3), i.e. galᵊs ‘is sitting (msg)’, gals-a ‘is sitting (fsg)’,
gals-in ‘are sitting (pl)’. When acting as telic verbs clitics attach directly without any
change of state: hija katb-a=ha (she write.ptcp-f=3fsg.obj) ‘she has written it’, though
such constructions are fairly rare.
4.6.3 Verbal stems
The MA verbal system is characterized by a general move away from traditional Semitic
nonconcatenative morphology toward a more exclusively stem-affix model.23 For some
verbs, suffix and prefix conjugations are still accompanied by stem-internal alternation
along the lines of old patterns, but in MA such alternations are unidirectionally condi-
tioned by the phonological shape of the uninflected prefix conjugation stem (identical in
form to the masculine singular imperative) rather than expressing a bidirectional templa-
tic relationship.
TABLE 18.10 THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION (WITH ALLOMORPHY)
/qtl/ ‘kill’ /_Cː/ /_CVC/

/ʃdː/ ‘grasp’ /xtaᵲ/ ‘choose’
sg pl sg pl sg pl
1 qtᵊl-t qtᵊl-na ʃᵊdd-it ʃᵊdd-ina xtaᵲ-it xtaᵲ-ina

2 qtᵊl-ti qtᵊl-tu ʃᵊdd-iti ʃᵊdd-itu xtaᵲ-iti xtaᵲ-itu
3 masc qtᵊl-Ø ʃᵊdd-Ø xtaᵲ-Ø
qᵊtl-u ʃᵊdd-u xtaᵲ-u
fem qᵊtl-at ʃᵊdd-at xtaᵲ-at
sg pl
1 n-ᵊqtᵊl n-qᵊtl-u
2 masc t-ᵊqtᵊl t-qᵊtl-u
fem t-qᵊtl-i
3 masc i-qtᵊl i-qᵊtl-u
fem t-ᵊqtᵊl
470 Mike Turner
Alternating stems in MA can be divided into three types based on phonological charac-
teristics of the uninflected prefix conjugation stem (i.e., masculine singular imperative):
triliteral medial-vowel (/CVC/), final vowel (/_V/) and labialized-C.
• Prefix conjugation stems of the shape /CVC/, such as ban ‘appear!’, ʒib ‘bring!’ and
ʃuf ‘see!’, yield /CC-/ for the 1st and 2nd persons of the suffix conjugation (bᵊn-t ‘I
appeared’, ʒᵊb-t ‘I brought’, ʃᵊf-t ‘I saw’) and /CaC-/ for 3rd person (ban ‘he appeared’,
ʒab ‘he brought’, ʃaf ‘he saw’).
• Prefix conjugation stems with a final vowel, such as nsa ‘forget!’, kri ‘rent!’, and
ħbu ‘crawl!’, see the vowel realized as /i/ for the 1st and 2nd person of the suffix
conjugation (nsi-t ‘I forgot’, kri-t ‘I rented’, ħbi-t ‘I crawled’) and /a/ for the 3rd
person (nsa ‘he forgot’, kra ‘he rented’, ħba ‘he crawled’). This process is not limited
to any particular stem shape and is highly productive for foreign loans (Fr. partager >
paᵲᵵaʒi ‘share!’ > paᵲᵵaʒi-t ‘I shared’, paᵲᵵaʒa ‘he shared’).
• Prefix conjugation stems with labialized consonants generally see the labialization
feature lost in the suffix conjugation, but maintain the primary consonantal skeleton
(dxʷᵊl ‘enter!’ > dxᵊl ‘he entered’); the exception to this is /CVC/ stems such as gʷul
‘say’ [ST 10], where labialization is maintained for the 1st and 2nd person suffix
conjugation (gʷᵊl-t ‘I said’ [ST 16]) but not for the 3rd person (gal ‘he said [ST 13]’).
Non-alternating stems include all verbs for which the previous phonological condi-
tions are unmet, and can be said to have a single underlying stem shape that is used for
both the suffix and prefix conjugations. For example, ʃᵊᵲb-at (drink-3fsg.pfv) and t-ᵊʃᵲᵊb
(3fsg.sbjv-drink) both have a phonemic stem /ʃᵲb/, and surface voweling is simply an
outcome of syllabification constraints (see §3.3). Because these verbs do not see inter-
nal ablaut of phonemic vowels, their morphology is entirely affixal. In an odd twist of
fate, much of the Semitic verbal material in MA falls into the non-alternating stem class,
whereas most verbal borrowings from European languages (which tend to have a final
vowel /-i/ < Fr. – er/ir) fall into the alternating class.
Although reflexes of the OA verb themes are present in MA, on a synchronic level it is
of little benefit to recognize most of them as distinct classes rather than lexicalized stem
shapes. The primary productive correspondence that remains is between /CCC/ and /CCːC/
stems, where the latter lends the former a causative meaning (xdᵊm ‘work’, xᵊddᵊm ‘put to
work’). For passive stems, MA has a productive prefix t- before a syllable CᵊC or CVC
(zᵊʕ.zᵊʕ ‘shake’ > t-zᵊʕzᵊʕ ‘be shaken’) or tt- before a minor syllable C (k.tᵊb ‘write’ > tt-ᵊktᵊb
‘be written’). For alternating stems, passive forms are derived from the suffix conjugation
stem (ʃaf/ʃuf ‘see’ > t-ʃaf ‘be seen’); derived passives themselves, however, are consis-
tently non-alternating (ka-j-t-ʃaf ind-3msg-pass-see ‘he is being seen’). Although passives
of the shapes /t-CCːC/ and /t-CaCC/ parallel the OA patterns *tafaʕʕala and *tafaːʕala,
they are synchronically derived via the same productive process that operates on loans of
non-Semitic shapes and origin (paᵲᵵaʒa/paᵲᵵaʒi ‘share’ > t-paᵲᵵaʒa ‘be shared’).
4.6.4 Roots
In keeping with the general attenuation of root-pattern morphology in the MA verbal sys-
tem, it is no longer obligatory that verbs have analyzable roots. Root analysis nonetheless
still plays a role for triliteral /CCC/, /CCː/, /CVC/, and /CCV/ imperative stem shapes,
for which it is needed to derive causative /CCːC/ stems and both active and passive
Moroccan Arabic 471
participles. For /CCːC/ and quadriliteral /CCCC/ stems, root analysis is relevant to the
derivation of verbal nouns. For other stems, there need not be an identifiable root, and
relationships with other patterns and non-finite forms can be seen as purely lexical; this
is particularly true for loan verbs.
For /CCC/ verbs, the root is simply the three underlying consonants in the
non-alternating stem (ktᵊb ‘write!’ > √ktb). For /CVC/ stems, middle vowels /a/ and /i/ in
the prefix conjugation stem correspond with a glide /j/ (ban/ban ‘appear’ > √bjn; rab/rib
‘curdle’ > √rjb) and /u/ with a glide /w/ (daz/duz ‘pass’ > √dwz). For /CCV/ stems, final
vowels correspond with a glide /j/ (nsa/nsa ‘forget’ > √nsj). There is a small set of basic
verbs that historically had /ʔ/ in the root, including ʒa/aʒi ‘come’, kla/kul ‘eat’, xda/xud
‘take’, dda/ddi ‘take away’, for which roots are not easily retrievable and for which stems
and derived non-finite forms can be seen as lexicalized.
For MA one can distinguish three types of non-finite verbal forms: active participles,
passive participles and the verbal noun. As mentioned in §4.6.1, the active participle is
considerably less productive than in other varieties of Arabic and only regularly derived
for /CCC/, /CCː/, /CVC/ and /CCV/ stems, for which it takes the shapes /CaCC/, /CaCː/,
/CajC/ and /CaCi/, respectively (glᵊs ‘sit’ > galᵊs ‘sitting’; ħᵊll ‘open’ > ħall ‘having
opened’; daz/duz ‘pass’ > dajᵊz ‘passing’; kra/kri ‘rent’ > kari ‘renting’). For other stems
active participles are not typically available; instead, perfect meanings are given with
the suffix conjugation and progressive meanings with the indicative mood of the prefix
conjugation.
Passive participles are much more productive and are regularly derived for all tran-
sitive stems. For /CCC/ and /CCː/ stems, they display nonconcatenative morphology,
taking a shape /mCCuC/ (ktᵊb ‘write’ > mᵊktub ‘written’; ħᵊll ‘open’ > mᵊħlul ‘open’). For
other stem shapes passive formation is entirely affixal and is accomplished by prefixing
m- to a bare prefix conjugation stem: qᵊllᵊq ‘anger s.o.’ > m-qᵊllᵊq ‘angry’; tqabᵊl ‘face’ >
m-ᵊtqabᵊl ‘faced’ [ST 8]; stᵊʕmᵊl ‘use’ > m-ᵊstᵊʕmᵊl ‘used’; ʃarʒa/ʃarʒi ‘charge’ > m-ʃarʒi
‘charged’. This is generally true for /CVC/ and /CCV/ stems as well (baʕ/biʕ ‘sell’ >
m-biʕ ‘sold’; ʃra/ʃri ‘buy’ m-ʃri ‘bought’).
Verbal nouns in MA are largely limited to “true” nominal roles and restricted to nom-
inal morphosyntax. For most verb stems, these nouns cannot be predictably derived; an
exception is stems of the shape /CCːC/ and /CCCC/, for which verbal nouns regularly take
the shapes /tCCiC/ ~ /tCCaC/ and /tCCCiC/ (nᵊqqᵊz ‘jump’ > tᵊnqiz ~ tᵊnqaz ‘jumping’;
xᵊrbᵊq ‘speak nonsense’ > txᵊrbiq ‘nonsense’). When modified with a feminine marker -a,
a verbal noun takes on the meaning of an individual instance noun (ᵭᵊᵲb ‘hitting’ > ᵭᵊᵲb-a
‘a strike’). Such nouns do not fulfill many of the infinitival and gerundive functions of
their counterparts in other Arabic varieties (see Chapter 15); these meanings are instead
given with the subjunctive mood of the prefix conjugation, increasingly alongside a ver-
bal complementizer baʃ (see §5.5).
MA preserves reflexes of most reconstructible Western Semitic prepositions, as well as
many from Old Arabic. Adverbs are uninflected and are not formally distinguished from
other parts of speech.
472 Mike Turner
4.7.1 Position
Prepositions are obligatorily prenominal; adverbs are typically (but not obligatorily)
post-verbal.
4.7.2 Derivation
Common prepositions in MA include b= ‘with (ins)’, l= ‘to, for (all-dat)’, f= ‘in’, ʕla ‘on ~
about’, mᵊn ‘from’, and mʕa ‘with’, among others. Unlike in some Arabic varieties, b= in MA
is exclusively instrumental and cannot be used for locative or temporal meanings, for which
f= is used instead: f=ᵊᵭ-ᵭar (in=art-house) ‘in the house’ [ST 9]; f=ᵊl-ʔʃija (in=art-afternoon)
‘in the afternoon’. For exact times MA has mʕa: mʕa l-xᵊmsa (with art-five) ‘at five o’clock’.
Common adverbs include the place adverbs hna ‘here’ (contrastive hna=ja), tᵊmma ‘there’
(contrastive tᵊmma=ja), and lhih ‘over there (out of sight)’ and manner adverbs hakʷkʷa
‘like that’, ʃwija ‘a little’, bᵊzzaf ‘a lot’, and gaʕ ‘totally ~ at all’; see §4.3 for interrogative
adverbs. A common adverbial derivation strategy is to procliticize instrumental b= to a
noun with the article: b=ᵊz-zᵊᵲba (with=art-quickness) ‘quickly’; b=ᵊʒ-ʒuʒ (with=art-two)
‘both’; b=ᵊl-ʕani (with=art-intention) ‘intentionally’. As in most other Arabic varieties,
uninflected adjectives can be used adverbally (mᵊzjan ‘good, well’). Adverbs borrowed
from Modern Standard Arabic may have a frozen suffix ‑an (ᵵᵊbʕan ‘certainly’ [ST 1]).
5 SYNTAX
MA is notable for its use of a verbal strategy for existential predication, semantic extension
of the former definite article l- to indefinites, development of a set of discrete prepositional
relativizers, and expansion of verbal negation markers to certain nominal predicates.

MA word order in declarative sentences may be either VSO or SVO, the choice of which
is determined by pragmatic factors (Brustad 2000: 315). VSO order is more basic and
predominates in narration of events, whereas SVO appears in descriptive discourse and
conversation where topics switch frequently. Like most Arabic varieties (but contrast
Egyptian Arabic; see Chapter 17), MA sees WH-movement in unmarked interrogative
sentences, which are further characterized by falling intonation on the last syllable:
aʃ ɣadi n-gʷul=↘lᵊk?
what fut 1sg.sbjv-say=2sg.dat
‘what am I going to tell you?’ [RP]
Polar questions have the same word order as declarative sentences, but are marked with a
preposed particle waʃ (knowledge unimplied: waʃ mʃi-ti? q go-2sg.pfv ‘did you go?’) or
jak (knowledge implied: jak mʃi-ti? q go-2sg.pfv ‘you went, right?’).
Phrasal word order in MA is Head-Dependent:
P-N: mʕa l-kra [ST 9]

with art-rent
‘with the rent’
Moroccan Arabic 473
N-N: mul l-ħanut

owner art-shop
‘the shopkeeper’
N-Adj: l-ma sxun
art-water hot
‘hot water’
N-Rel: l-ʕam lli daz
art-year rel pass.3msg.pfv
‘last year’
Dem-N: haduk l-ᵊflus [ST 17]
dem art-money
‘that money’

The major predicate types in MA are nominal and verbal. Nominal predicates usually
have a null copula and consist of a noun phrase, an adjective phrase, a prepositional
phrase or a locative or interrogative adverb. Of these, adjectival predicates must agree
with the subject in gender and plurality: l-xᵊdma ∅ muʒud-a (art-work.f ∅ available-f)
‘work is available’ [ST 11–12]. Verbal predicates are built on a finite verb phrase: huwa
mʃa (he go.msg.pfv) ‘he went’. Though they are inflected for agreement like substantives,
active participles are treated as verbal predicates when negated; see §5.6.
There is no unique paradigm for existential predication; it is normally accomplished
verbally with kan/kʷun ‘be, exist’, for which the active participle form kajᵊn expresses
a progressive meaning (kajᵊn ᵭ-ᵭlam exist.msg.ptcp art-darkness ‘it’s dark’) and the
inflected finite verb is used for other TAM values (kan ᵭ-ᵭlam exist.3msg.pfv art-darkness
‘it was dark’; ɣa-j-kʷun ᵭ-ᵭlam fut-3msg.sbjv-exist art-darkness ‘it will be dark’). In for-
mally marked indefinite constructions, null existentials are possible:
∅ waħᵊd s-sijda bɣi-na n-xᵊddm-u=ha

∅ indf art-woman want-1pl.pfv 1-employ-pl=3fsg.obj
‘[there’s] this woman we want to employ’ [ST 14–15]
Both nominal and verbal predicates can be brought into discursive focus with a particle
ᵲa=, which either inflects for the subject via a cliticized object pronoun (hadik ᵲa=ha
xᵊdma dem.f foc=3fsg.obj work ‘that is certainly work’ [ST 19]) or is an uninflected ᵲah
(hadik ᵲah ma=mᵊħᵲuqa=ʃ dem.f foc neg=ptcp.burnt.f=neg ‘that’s not just burnt’ [RP]).
When this focus is lent to a telic verb in the suffix conjugation, it can reinforce a present
perfect reading: ᵲa=h ʃᵲᵊb l-qᵊhwa (foc=3msg.obj drink.msg.pfv art-coffee) ‘he’s already
drunk coffee’ [MT]; see §4.6.1.
5.3 Definiteness
Like most other Arabic varieties, MA has an article l- (glossed here simply as art) that
is prefixed to substantives and undergoes assimilation to a following coronal consonant
(l-ma ‘water’ [ST 9]; ᵭ-ᵭuw ‘electricity’ [ST 10]). Unlike in other varieties, however, l-
does not show a strict one-to-one relationship with definiteness when it is prefixed to
474 Mike Turner
head nouns, and may even be seen as a word class marker that is simply the default in the
absence of any particular syntactic or semantic condition that would disallow it (Turner
2013, 2018: 175–201).24 The article alone regularly occurs with non-referential indefinites:
ma=ʕᵊnd=ha=ʃ l-wᵊld. naᵭ gal=lha

neg=at=3fsg=neg art-boy arise.3msg.pfv say.3msg.pfv=3fsg.dat
ana xᵊᵴᵴ=ni l-wᵊld
I need=1sg.obj art-boy
‘She didn’t have a son. He up and said to her, “I need a son.” ’ (Brustad 2000: 36)
Referential indefinites that cannot be uniquely identified by the speaker are marked with
a particle ʃi, which disallows the article:
ila lqi-na ʃi ∅-bᵊnt mʕa ʃi waħᵊd f=ʃi ∅-qᵊnᵵ

if find-1pl.pfv indf ∅-girl with indf one in=indf ∅-corner
‘If we found some girl with someone in some corner’ [RP]
Referential indefinites that can be uniquely identified by the speaker (i.e., are specific)
are marked with an uninflected indefinite article waħᵊd, in combination with the article:
ʒa ʕᵊnd=i waħᵊd s-sijᵊd

come.3msg.pfv at=1sg.poss indf art-man
‘this guy came to me’ [ST 13]
Contextually definite head nouns have the article (l-ᵊmᵲa ‘the woman’ [ST 7]), as do
generic and abstract nouns. Unlike in other Arabic varieties, the vocative a does not
disallow the article: a l-wᵊld! (voc art-boy) ‘hey boy!’. Some nouns, particularly loans
from Berber, never have the article: atay l-luwᵊl (tea art-first) ‘the original tea’. Despite
having lost its strict association with definiteness for head nouns, for adjectival attributes
the article shows a binary opposition between unmarked non-referential and generic enti-
ties (l-qᵊhwa kᵊħla art-coffee black ‘black coffee’) and anaphoric definites marked with
l- (l-qᵊhwa l-kᵊħla art-coffee art-black ‘the black coffee’).
See §4.6.1 for a discussion of the analytic construction of complex tenses in MA.

Genitive relationships in MA are most commonly expressed through use of the genitive
exponent djal (short form d= before nouns only), which is significantly more productive
than directly affixed possessive pronouns (§4.1) or the construct state (§4.5.1). Analytic con-
structions with djal may have either definite or indefinite antecedents: l-ᵊqmiʒa djal saħb=i
(art-shirt gen friend=1sg.poss) ‘my friend’s shirt’, waħᵊd l-ᵊqmiʒa djal saħb=i (indf art-shirt
gen friend=1sg.poss) ‘a [particular] shirt of my friend’s’; the following noun may also be
replaced by an enclitic possessive pronoun: l-ᵊqmiʒa djal=u (art-shirt gen=3msg.poss) ‘his
shirt’. The exponent djal is found in constructs involving a count numeral and plural noun:
tlata djal l-ᵊwlijd-at (three gen art-child-pl) ‘three children’ [ST 8].
Moroccan Arabic 475
5.5 Subordination
Relativization in MA is accomplished with either a zero marker or a relativizing particle.
For indefinites, zero-marking may be used:
tᵊmma kajn-a waħᵊd l-ʕimaᵲa ∅ dar-u fi=ha

there exist.ptcp-f indf art-building ∅ do-3pl.pfv in=3fsg.poss
supermarket
supᵊᵲmaᵲʃi
‘there’s this building there in which they’ve put a supermarket’ [RP]
The general relativizer for subjects and direct objects in MA is lli. It may optionally be
used with referential indefinite nouns. For definites it is typically obligatory:
had n-nisaʔ hadu lli ta-j-mut z-zᵊwʒ

dem art-women dem rel ind-3msg-die art-husband
‘these women whose husband dies’ [ST 3–4]
However, when the relativized head noun is the object of a preposition, an alternative set
of prepositional relativizers faʃ ‘in which (loc)’, baʃ ‘by which (ins)’, and mnin ‘from
which’ can be used:25
ᵵ-ᵵariqa baʃ ta-t-faʕᵊl mʕa=h

art-way rel.prep ind-2msg-interact with=3msg.poss
‘the way in which you interact with him’ [RP]
The same prepositional relativizers have been further extended to subordinating func-
tions: faʃ ‘when’, baʃ ‘in order to’, mnin ‘when, since’. Notably, the purposive baʃ can
also be used as a sentential complementizer with finite subjunctive verbs:
baʃ i-kʷun ʕᵊnd=ᵊk fajᵊsbuk u nta silibaᵵiɣ maʃi

comp 3msg.sbjv-be at=2sg.poss Facebook and you single (Fr. célibataire) neg
baʃ i-kʷun ʕᵊnd=ᵊk fajᵊsbuk u nta m-zuwᵊʒ
comp 3msg.sbjv-be at=2sg.poss Facebook and you ptcp-married
‘Having Facebook when you’re single isn’t [like] having Facebook when you’re married’ [MT]
Adverbial subordination occurs with a variety of temporal nouns, interrogative pronouns,

locative interrogatives and adverbial interrogatives. These are marked with the comple-
mentizer ma= (compare relative pronoun ma= in §4.4), which procliticizes to the main
verb of a subordinated sentence:
mᵊn bᵊʕd ma=sali-t mʕa=h

from after comp=finish-1msg.pfv with=3msg.poss
‘after I was done with it’ [RP]
Indirect speech is optionally introduced with a complementizer bᵊlli: gal bᵊlli (say.msg.pfv
comp) ‘he said that. . . ’. Direct speech is zero-marked: gal=lija ∅ ɫɫa i-ʒᵊzzi=k bixiᵲ
(say.msg.pfv=1sg.dat ∅ God 3.sbjv-reward=2sg.obj well) ‘he told me, “may God reward
you” ’ [ST 13–14].
476 Mike Turner
5.6 Negation
The default negation strategy for nominal predicates is a preposed marker maʃi: maʃi
sahᵊl (neg easy) ‘[it’s] not easy’ [ST 1]. However, unlike most other Arabic varieties, MA
also allows for negation of nominal predicates with a discontinuous marker ma= . . . =ʃ
in order to establish pragmatic contrast:
hadik ᵲah ma=m-ħᵲuq-a=ʃ ʃwija dik ᵲah m-ʃuwᵵ-a kaml-a

dem foc neg=ptcp-burnt-f=neg a.little dem foc ptcp-roasted-f fully-f
‘That’s not just a bit burnt, that’s totally roasted’ [RP]
The discontinuous negation strategy is the default for finite verbs, active participles in
verbal function and semi-verbal predicative possession constructions with the inflected
prepositions ʕᵊnd ‘at’ and f= ‘in’ (~ ‘to have’):
ma=kajᵊn=ʃ bħal atay djal=hum

neg=exist.ptcp=neg like tea gen=3pl.poss
‘There’s nothing like their tea’ [RP]
Of the two discontinuous elements, however, only the proclitic ma= is obligatory; the
exclusion of the enclitic =ʃ indicates absolute negation. For this reason it cannot co-occur
with walu ‘nothing’ or the absolute negation particles (ħᵊ)tta or la:
ma=ʕᵊnd=u . . . la ħtta ʃi ħaʒa

neg=at=3msg.poss neg neg indf thing
‘he doesn’t have . . . a single thing’ [ST 5–6]
6 LEXICON
In the realm of basic vocabulary, the MA lexicon is primarily of OA origin. Elsewhere,
however, it reflects centuries of cultural contact with both Berber and Romance languages
and a recent surge in literacy in Modern Standard Arabic. Loans from Berber are relatively
few and generally relate to flora and fauna (Be. igran > ʒran ‘frogs’; tata ‘chameleon’).
Some Romance borrowings are old and widespread enough that they cannot be reliably
attributed to any particular source (bɫaᵴa ‘place’); most, however, have discernible ori-
gins in Spanish (rueda > ᵲwiᵭa ‘tire’; manta > manᵵa ‘blanket’) or French (appartement
> baᵲtma ‘apartment’; volant > vuɫa ‘steering wheel’). Modern Standard Arabic borrow-
ings into MA can often be distinguished from inherited lexemes because they preserve
etymological short vowels; they include both literary terms (Modern Standard Arabic
wað̴iːfat- > waᵭifa ‘role, position’) and reclassicalized counterparts of basic vocabulary
(Modern Standard Arabic nisaːʔ- > nisaʔ ‘women’ [ST 1, 3] vs. inherited nsa).
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The following text is an original transcription of a segment of a 2014 speech given in
front of the Moroccan Parliament by Abdelilah Benkirane, the Prime Minister from 2011
to 2017, in which he argues for more government welfare for widows.26 It highlights the
use of MA as a vehicle for political rhetoric in a formal governmental setting, a strategy
that Benkirane regularly embraced.
Moroccan Arabic 477
Line 1:
ᵵᵊbʕan maʃi sahᵊl. walakin mal=hum had n-nisaʔ? mnin
certainly neg easy but issue=poss.3pl dem art-women from.where
Line 2:
ʒa-t had l-mulaħaᵭa hadi? ʒa-t mᵊn
come-3fsg.pfv dem art-observation dem come-3fsg.pfv from
Line 3:
l-mulaħaᵭa . . . 27 djal had n-nisaʔ hadu lli ta-j-mut
art-observation gen dem art-women dem rel ind-3msg-die
Line 4:
z-zᵊwʒ u huwa ta-j-kʷun ħirafi, bᵊnnaj wᵊlla
art-husband and he ind-3msg-be laborer mason or
Line 5:
xᵊᵭᵭaᵲ wᵊlla ʃi ħaʒa ma=ʕᵊnd=u la. . . CN[SS] la tta
vegetable.seller or indf thing neg=at=3msg neg social.security neg neg
Line 6:
ᵭaman, la tᵊɣᵵja ʒtimaʕij-a, la ħtta ʃi ħaʒa
insurance neg coverage social-F neg even indf thing
Line 7:
ma=ʕᵊnd=u=ʃ. u ta-j-mut mskin u ka-t-ᵴbᵊħ l-ᵊmᵲa
neg=at=3msg=neg and ind-3msg-die poor.guy and ind-3fsg-awake art-woman
Line 8:
mᵊn n-nhaᵲ l-luwᵊl, m-ᵊtqabl-a mʕa tlata djal l-ᵊwlijd-at
from art-day art-first ptcp-meet-fsg with three gen art-child-pl
Line 9:
f=ᵊᵭ-ᵭaᵲ kʷᵊll=hum ᵴɣaᵲ, u mʕa l-kra u l-ma u
in=art-house each=poss.3cpl small.pl and with art-rent and art-water and
Line 10:
ᵭ-ᵭuw u l-maᵴarif l-jumij-a kif d-dir? (t-dir) ta-j-gʷul=lha
art-electricity and art-expenses art-daily-f how 3fsg.sbjv-do ind-3msg-say=3fsg.dat
Line 11:
l-muʒtamaʕ xʷᵊrʒ-i t-xᵊdm-i. ᵵajjib. n-fᵊᵲᵭ-u l-xᵊdma
art-society go.out-2fsg.imp 2.sbjv-work-2fsg sure 1.sbjv-suppose-pl art-work
Line 12:
muʒud-a. ʃkun lli ɣa-j-qabᵊl=lha l-ᵊwlad? had
available-f who rel fut-3msg.sbjv-look.after=3fsg.dat art-children dem
478 Mike Turner
Line 13:
n-nhaᵲ ʒa ʕᵊnd=i waħᵊd s-sijᵊd gal=lija
art-day come.3msg.pfv at=1sg indf art-man say.3msg.pfv=1sg.dat
Line 14:
ɫɫa i-ʒᵊzzi=k bixiᵲ, waħᵊd s-sijda bɣi-na
God 3msg.sbjv-reward=2sg.obj well indf art-woman want-1pl.pfv
Line 15:
n-xᵊddm-u=ha ʕᵊnd=ha ᵲᵊbʕa djal l-ᵊwlad, ʃkun
1.sbjv-employ-pl=3fsg.obj at=3fsg four gen art-children who
Line 16:
lli i-qabᵊl=na l-ᵊwlad? gʷᵊl-t=lu ʕlaʃ
rel 3msg.sbjv-look.after=1pl.dat art-children say-1sg.pfv=3msg.dat why
Line 17:
ɣa-t-xᵊddm-u=ha? haduk l-ᵊflus lli baʃ
fut-2.sbjv-employ-pl=3fsg.obj dem art-money rel rel.prep
Line 18:
ɣa-t-xᵊddm-u=ha ʕᵵi=hum=lha u ᵲ-ᵲᵊbʕa djal
fut-2.sbjv-employ-pl=3fsg.obj give.imp=3pl.obj=3fsg.dat and art-four gen
Line 19:
l-ᵊwlad t-glz (t-glᵊs) t-gabᵊl=hum hadik ᵲa=ha xᵊdma.
art-children 3fsg.sbjv-stay 3fsg.sbjv-look.after=3pl.obj dem foc=3fsg work
‘Of course it’s not easy. But what’s the deal with these women? Where did this obser-
vation come from? It came from the observation . . . of these women whose husbands
die, and he’s a laborer, a mason or a vegetable seller or something, who has no social
security . . . no insurance, no social benefits, no nothing, and the poor guy dies and the
woman wakes up from the first day faced with three kids in the house, all of whom are
young, and with rent and utilities and daily expenses how can she make do? Society
tells her “get out and work.” Sure. Let’s assume work is available. Who’s going to
look after her kids for her? Today this guy came to me and said “may God reward you,
[there’s] this lady we want to employ who has four kids, who can look after her kids?”
I said “why are you going to employ her? That money with which you would employ
her, give it to her and her four kids and she can stay and look after them; that is certainly
work.” ’
NOTES
1 Additional abbreviation in this chapter: OA (Old Arabic).
2 These often differ from other Arabic varieties. In MA, for example, <9> is exclu-
sively used for /q/, whereas elsewhere in the Arab world it tends to represent /ᵴ/.
Moroccan Arabic 479
3 The phonemes /x/ and /ɣ/, seen here as velar or post-velar, are sometimes given as
uvular (Harrell 1962: 3, Maas 2011: 30). It is probably most accurate to say that a lack
of phonemic contrast allows the place of articulation to vary.
4 Historically, this development would have involved transfer of the rounding feature
from an original short vowel */u/ to an adjacent consonant (compare Classical Ethio-
pic, Chapter 6).
5 Here I concur with Dell and Elmedlaoui’s (2002: 39) observation that the emphatic
allophone of /i/ is best described as [ɯ] and not [e].
6 Because pharyngealization historically spread to other alveolar consonants within the
stem (e.g. daᵲ ~ ᵭaᵲ ‘house’) and has wide-reaching allophonic effects on vowels,
MA shows some signs of an incipient vowel harmony system with two harmonic sets;
however this system is not fully realized (see Heath 1987: 321).
7 Heath (1989: 79): “In some borrowings [[ɑ]] appears, though no neighboring pho-
neme can be considered pharyngealized, so a phoneme [/ɑ/] must be recognized.”
8 See “Egyptian Arabic,” Chapter 17, for a similar analysis. It is difficult to find true
minimal pairs for /a/ vs. /ɑ/; however ka.ʃᵊf ‘faded’ vs. ka.ʃi ‘cache’ shows the oppo-
sition in the same immediate phonological environment.
9 Some authors also argue for /ǔ/ alongside /ə/, even offering minimal pairs (Aguadé
2010b); however, I am inclined to believe that these instances of [ǔ] are either allo-
phonic in the vicinity of a labialized consonant or simply a full vowel /u/.
10 In fast speech, the liquids /m/, /n/, /l/ can also be syllabic for some speakers even
where an epenthetic vocoid would be expected (see t-glᵊs ~ t-glz ‘she can stay’ in
ST 19, with voicing assimilation of /s/, and mskin ‘poor thing’ in ST 7).
11 Some authors (Harrell 1962: 134, Maas 2011: 92) give the vowel in =hum and =kum as
ultra-short, perhaps because these clitics, unlike other word-final CVC syllables, do not
normally receive stress. I view it as more likely that the vowel is /u/, via analogy with
the subject pronouns, and that there is a general restriction on clitics receiving stress.
12 While these sets have similar semantics, the =l- base is somewhat more restricted: it
can neither occur outside the scope of negation nor be fronted, while the =li- base
optionally can (Maas 2011: 96–7).
13 Among some speakers, one also finds an invariant dik- for the distal attributive
demonstrative, indicating a process of leveling that may foreseeably result in a situa-
tion parallel to the proximal forms.
14 The case distinction for ‘what?’ is not entirely strict: aʃ xbaᵲ=ᵊk (what news.nom=2sg.poss)
‘what’s your news?’. Both forms are regularly used for the accusative.
15 An unproductive dual form is restricted to a few time-related lexemes; see §4.5.3.
16 Some feminine lexical items carry no formal inflection of feminine gender: ᵭaᵲ
‘house’, ᵵᵲiq ‘road’, idd ‘hand’, etc.
17 This pattern is undisputedly a borrowing from Berber languages.
18 This suffix is historically inflectional, but provided here because it patterns semanti-
cally with the clitic numerals.
19 This structure is mentioned in the literature (Harrell 1962: 166) but not explicitly iden-
tified elsewhere as a “consecutive mood,” a term I borrow from descriptions of similar
subjunctive-like forms with realis meanings in Africanist literature (e.g., Posthumus
1991). It is my view that the structure is more inflectional than syntactic: the coordina-
tor and pronominal elements are obligatory, and can precede new referents (u-hija-t-ʒi
waħᵊd l-ᵊʕguza and-she-3fsg-come indf art-old.woman ‘then along came an old
woman’ [MT]), meaning the anaphoric dimension of a true pronoun is not present.
480 Mike Turner
2 0 After a vowel the suffix /-u/ has an allomorph /-w/: bqa-w ‘they remained’.
21 After a vowel the prefix /i-/ has an allomorph /-j/: ta-j-gʷul ‘he is saying’ [ST 10]. Before
a voiced consonant the prefix /t-/ has an allomorph /d-/: d-dir ‘she can do’ [ST 10].
22 After a vowel the suffix /-i/ has an allomorph /-j/: t-ᵊbqa-j ‘you (f.) can stay’. After a
vowel the suffix /u/ has an allomorph /-w/: t-ᵊbqa-w ‘you (pl.) can stay’.
23 This situation is not without parallel in other modern Arabic varieties, though in MA
it is further developed. See the discussion in “Egyptian Arabic,” Chapter 17.
24 Restricted contexts include the following: as a nominal predicate or adverb, alongside
cliticized ordinal numbers, when the entity is explicitly single and with quantifiers
such as bla ‘without’, kʷᵊll ‘every,’ ʃi ‘some’, etc. Compare the similar distribution of
“absolute” forms in Syriac; see Chapter 25.
25 It is possible for general and preposition relativizers to co-occur; see lli baʃ ‘by which’
in ST 16–17.
26 A video clip can be viewed at https://archive.org/details/SemLanguages_Moroccan.
27 A parenthetical aside here is omitted.
REFERENCES
Aguadé, Jordi. “Writing Dialect in Morocco.” Estudios de Dialectología Norteafricana y
Andalusí 10 (2006): 253–74.
Aguadé, Jordi. “The Word for ‘Nine’ in Moroccan Arabic and Other Euphemisms Related
to Numbers.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 37 (2010a): 275–82.
Aguadé, Jordi. “On Vocalism in Moroccan Arabic Dialects.” In The Arabic Language
Across the Ages, edited by Nader Al Jallad and Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala, 95–105.
Reichert Verlag, 2010b.
Boudlal, Abdelaziz. The Prosody and Morphology of a Moroccan Arabic Dialect: An
Optimality-Theoretic Account. Saarbrücken: VDM-Verl. Müller, 2009.
Brustad, Kristen. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan,
Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press, 2000.
Dell, François and Mohamed Elmedlaoui. Syllables in Tashlhiyt Berber and in Moroccan
Arabic. Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics, v. 2. Dordrecht; Boston:
Kluwer Academic, 2002.
Elinson, Alexander E. “Darija and Changing Writing Practices in Morocco.” International
Journal of Middle East Studies 45 (2013): 715–30.
Harrell, Richard S. A Short Reference Grammar of Moroccan Arabic. Washington, DC:
Heath, Jeffrey. Ablaut and Ambiguity: Phonology of a Moroccan Arabic Dialect. SUNY
Series in Linguistics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987.
Heath, Jeffrey. From Code-Switching to Borrowing: Foreign and Diglossic Mixing in
Moroccan Arabic. Kegan Paul International, 1989.
Heath, Jeffrey. Jewish and Muslim Dialects of Moroccan Arabic. Routledge, 2002.
Maas, Utz. Marokkanisches Arabisch: Die Grundstrukturen. Munich: LINCOM
Publishers, 2011.
Maas, Utz and Stephan Procházka. “Moroccan Arabic in Its Wider Linguistic and Social
Contexts.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 65.4 (2012): 329–57.
Palva, Heikki. “Dialects: Classification.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006.
Moroccan Arabic 481
Post, Rebekah Elizabeth. “The Impact of Social Factors on the Use of Arabic-French
Code-Switching in Speech and IM in Morocco.” Ph.D. dissertation, Austin, TX: The
University of Texas at Austin, 2015.
Posthumus, L. C. “Past Subjunctive or Consecutive Mood?” South African Journal of
African Languages 11.3 (1991): 91–5.
Schwartz, Sarah. “Accessing Hip-Hop: Analyzing Meknassi Rappers’ Adoption of
Casablanca Features.” In Presented at the 12th International Conference of the
International Association of Arabic Dialectogy (AIDA), Aix-Marseille University,
May 31, 2017.
Turner, Michael. “Definiteness in the Arabic Dialects.” Ph.D. dissertation, Austin, TX:
The University of Texas at Austin, 2018.
Turner, Michael. “Definiteness Marking in Moroccan Arabic: Contact, Divergence, and
Semantic Change.” M.A. Thesis, Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 2013.
Overviews
Aguadé, Jordi. “Morocco.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited
by Kees Versteegh. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.
Grammars
Caubet, Dominique. L’arabe marocain: Phonologie et morphosyntaxe. Paris/Louvain:
Peeters, 1993a.
Caubet, Dominique. L’arabe marocain: Syntaxe et catégories grammaticales, textes.
Paris/Louvain: Peeters, 1993b.
Youssi, Abderrahim. Grammaire et lexique de l’arabe Marocain moderne. Lettres et
Arts. Casablanca: Wallada, 1992.
Dictionaries
Harrell, Richard S. A Dictionary of Moroccan Arabic: Arabic-English. The Richard Slade
Harrell Arabic Series: No. 9. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1966.
Textbooks
Chekayri, Abdellah. An Introduction to Moroccan Arabic and Culture. Washington, DC:
Harrell, Richard S. A Basic Course in Moroccan Arabic with MP3 Files. Georgetown
Classics in Arabic Languages and Linguistics Series. Washington, DC: Georgetown
Peace Corps Morocco. Moroccan Arabic Textbook. Rabat: Peace Corps Morocco, 2011.
CHAPTER 19
UGARITIC 1
Josef Tropper and Juan-Pablo Vita
1 INTRODUCTION
Ugarit is the name of an ancient city located on the north Syrian coast of the Mediter-
ranean Sea, about 10 km north of the modern port-city of Latakia, and less than 1 km
from the coast itself (see Map 19.1). The modern name of the tell is Ras Shamra (‘Cape
Fennel’). Ras Shamra-Ugarit has been excavated almost yearly from 1929 until recently
by French and Syrian-French archeological teams.2 In the course of the excavations,
archeologists came across several archives, some in the royal palace, others in private
houses. Already in 1929 inscribed tablets were discovered, most of which were written
in a new, previously unknown alphabet cuneiform script, which was deciphered in less
than a year by Charles Virolleaud, Édouard Dhorme, Hans Bauer and Marcel Cohen. It
became clear that this script was an alphabet of 30 signs and that it was used primarily for
the indigenous Semitic language of Ugarit, which came to be called Ugaritic. Altogether
the archives contained some 2,000 clay tablets in the cuneiform alphabetic script (most
in the Ugaritic language) and more than 2,500 tablets in Mesopotamian syllabic cunei-
form (most in Akkadian; see Chapter 5).
In 1973 archeological remains were also uncovered at a cape called Ras Ibn Hani,
8 km north of Latakia and 4.5 km southwest of Ras Shamra. In the so-called North Palace
there, both Akkadian documents and about 150 Ugaritic documents of the 13th century
bce were discovered.
Nearly all of these texts are to be dated to the 13th and the beginning of the 12th centu-
ries bce. They provide insights into many diverse aspects of life in the city-state of Ugarit,
and testify to its international relations. The texts predominantly in Ugaritic belong to a
wide variety of genres: administrative texts, letters, legal, medical, cultic and (poetically
phrased) mythological texts, as well as inscriptions and so-called school texts (scribal
exercises). Ugarit is thus the only Late-Bronze Age locale in the region of Syria in which
a rich indigenous literature has been preserved.
Ugaritic is more closely related to Aramaic and especially to Canaanite than to (North)
Arabic; thus, Ugaritic is a Northwest Semitic language.
The majority of scholars today consider Ugaritic to be an independent Northwest
Semitic language. More recent research into the lexical similarities between Ugaritic and
the Canaanite languages, especially the investigation and evaluation of exclusive lexical
isoglosses, underline that Ugaritic and Canaanite are related (Halayqa 2008, Kogan 2015:
343–6).
Many individual aspects of the classification of Ugaritic, however, continue to be dis-
puted. What is certain is that Ugaritic is not the direct ancestor of one of the known
Canaanite languages of the first millennium bce (see Chapter 20). Besides the many
points of similarity between Ugaritic and the later Canaanite languages, there are also
Ugaritic 483
MAP 19.1 THE TERRITORY OF THE KINGDOM OF UGARIT
Source: After van Soldt (2005).
clear differences, several of which are the result of linguistic development, and others are
to be explained through sound change (Tropper 2012: 114).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
The cuneiform long alphabet used in Ugarit is one of the older forms of Semitic alpha-
betic writing. It was used exclusively in the city-state of Ugarit, and until the destruction
of Ugarit (beginning of the 12th century bce) served for the transcription of the vast
majority of the Ugaritic texts, but also for the transcription of many Hurrian texts as
well as a few Akkadian texts. It comprises 30 characters. The direction of writing is
left to right in texts found at Ugarit, following the practice of Mesopotamian syllabic
cuneiform writing. The basic components of the signs are identical with those of syllabic
cuneiform: there are straight wedges, oriented horizontally, vertically or diagonally, and
also “Winkelhaken” (angled wedges). Table 19.1 shows all significant sign forms of the
Ugaritic alphabet (see further the sign lists of Tropper 2012: 17–19 and J. L. Ellison in
Huehnergard 2012: 180–4).
A series of abecedaries (tablets listing the alphabet in its standard order) have been
found at Ugarit; they present the alphabetic signs in the following order:
ả b g ḫ d h w z ḥ ṭ y k š l m ḏ n ẓ s s̀ ˁ p ṣ q r ṯ ǵ t ỉ ủ s̀
484 Josef Tropper and Juan-Pablo Vita
TABLE 19.1 THE UGARITIC CUNEIFORM ALPHABET
ả 𐎀 d 𐎄 ḥ 𐎈 š 𐎌
b 𐎁 h 𐎅 ṭ 𐎉 l 𐎍
g 𐎂 w 𐎆 y 𐎊 m 𐎎
ḫ 𐎃 z 𐎇 k 𐎋 ḏ 𐎏
n 𐎐 p 𐎔 ṯ 𐎘 ủ 𐎜
ẓ 𐎑 ṣ 𐎕 ǵ 𐎙 s̀ 𐎝
s 𐎒 q 𐎖 t 𐎚
ˁ 𐎓 r 𐎗 ỉ 𐎛
TABLE 19.2
THE USE OF THE THREE SIGNS FOR
SYLLABLE-INITIAL /ʔ/
{ả} for /ʔa/ alp /ʔalpu/ ‘bull’

{ỉ} for /ʔi/ irt /ʔirtu/ ‘breast’
for /ʔê/ in /ʔênu/a/ < *ʔaynu/a ‘non-existence’
{ủ} for /ʔu/ um /ʔummu/ ‘mother’
for /ʔô/ u /ʔô/ < *ʔaw ‘or’
The abecedary shows that the sign inventory of the Ugaritic alphabet contains eight more
signs than the Northwest Semitic short alphabet. The last three signs, ỉ ủ s̀, are secondary,
in view of their position at the end of the alphabet (as additions after the sign {t}), as well
as the fact that they function as allographs to other signs ({ả} and {s}). It can therefore be
assumed that the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet had as model an early “linear” alphabet that
comprised 27 signs in the order ʔ-b-g, etc. The Ugaritians converted this to a cuneiform
alphabet (Table 19.1) and expanded it by three signs. When the long, 30-sign Ugaritic
alphabet was “invented” is disputed, but more recent research indicates the second half
of the 13th century bce.
The most noteworthy feature of the Ugaritic alphabet is that it has three distinct signs
for writing the glottal stop /ʔ/ (Table 19.2), viz., an a-aleph = {ả}, an i-aleph = {ỉ}, and a
u-aleph = {ủ}. In syllable-initial position, {ả} stands for /ʔa/ and /ʔā/, {ỉ} for /ʔi/, /ʔī/, /ʔê/
and probably also an ultra-short vowel /ʔi/ ~ /ʔe/, and finally {ủ} for /ʔu/, /ʔū/, and /ʔô/:
The question of how syllable-final (vowelless) /ʔ/ is written, however, has been
controversial.
Apart from the aleph-graphemes, the orthography of the Ugaritic texts transcribed with
the Ugaritic alphabet is in principle purely consonantal. Geminated consonants are nor-
mally not distinguished from simple consonants. Vowels, whether short or long, are not
indicated in the script.
In several sites in Syria-Palestine, including Ugarit, and also in Cyprus and Tiryns, a
small number of texts have been found that were written in a short cuneiform alphabet
of, presumably, 22 signs. The direction of writing is either right to left or left to right.
This short alphabet is probably not a direct development of the long cuneiform alphabet.
Also found at Ugarit is a clay tablet with an abecedary that has some unusual letter
shapes and has the letters in the order of the South Arabian alphabet (see Chapter 13).
A limited number of Ugaritic words and forms were transcribed into the syllabic
Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform of Mesopotamia. Although that writing system represents
Ugaritic 485
the specific consonant inventory of Ugaritic imprecisely, it does indicate the vowel struc-
ture of the words thus written, and is therefore of considerable importance for the vocal-
ization of Ugaritic. Numerals in alphabetic texts can also be written logographically,
following the Mesopotamian cuneiform system.
3 PHONOLOGY
The evidence of the Ugaritic alphabet, which consists of 27 basic signs and 3 supplemen-
tary signs, indicates that the Ugaritic language had at least 27 consonantal phonemes.
This is a relatively large inventory, in comparison with other Northwest Semitic lan-
guages. Although the exact pronunciation of many of the consonants is not known, they
can be classified as obstruents (stops and fricatives), resonants (nasals and liquides), and
semivowels (glides or approximants), as in Table 19.3.
Corresponding to the basic vowel system of early Semitic, Ugaritic has three short
vowels, /ă/, /ĭ/, /ŭ/, and three long vowels /ā/, /ī/, /ū/. In addition there are two secondary
vowels, /ê/ and /ô/, resulting from the contraction of the PS diphthongs *ay and *aw (e.g.,
*bayt‑ > /bêt‑/ ‘house’, written {bt}; *mawt‑ > /môt‑/ ‘death’, written {mt}). Of special
note is that the long vowel /ā/ remains unchanged in Ugaritic, and does not change to /ō/
as in the Canaanite languages, including Hebrew; compare, e.g., Ugaritic ảḫd /ʔāḫid‑/
‘holding’ and Hebrew ʔōḥēz, Ugaritic ksảt /kussiʔāt-/ ‘thrones’ and Hebrew kisʔôt. This
is also shown by the syllabic transcriptions of Ugaritic words, as in a-da-nu /ʔadānu/
‘father, lord’ vs. Hebrew ʔādôn.3
The PS phoneme *ð is written with {d} consistently in only a few Ugaritic texts. In
most texts, *ð is mostly written with {d}, which suggests a conditioned phonemic merger
of PS *ð and *d in Ugaritic.
Etymological /ẓ/ (PS *θ’) as a rule appears in Ugaritic orthography as {ẓ}. There are
however a few words in which {ġ} appears for etymological /ẓ/.
Ugaritic has four sibilants (in the narrower sense), viz., /s/, /z/, /ṣ/ and /š/. The first
three of these phonemes are affricates; they were probably realized as [ʦ, ʣ, ʦ’]. In con-
trast, /š/ was a fricative palato-alveolar sibilant, pronounced [ʃ]. Since neither /š/ nor /s/
in Ugaritic was pronounced [s], other graphemes were chosen to transcribe [s] in alpha-
betically written texts in non-Semitic languages (such as Hurrian), viz., {t} for voiceless
articulation and {d} for voiced. Hurrian texts and proper names written in alphabetic
script are thus characterized by an especially frequent usage of those letters.
The alphabetic script suggests that Ugaritic did not preserve the PS laterals *ɬ (*ś) and
*(t)ɬ' (*ś ̣) as discrete phonemes, since they are regularly written with the graphemes {š}
TABLE 19.3
UGARITIC CONSONANTS; POSSIBLE IPA EQUIVALENTS IN SQUARE
BRACKETS
(Bi)labial Interdental Dental-alveolar Palatal Velar-uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Stop p [p] b [b] t [t] d [d] ṭ [t’] k [k] g [g] q [k’] ʔ [ʔ]
Fricative t [θ] d [ð] ẓ [θ’] s [ʦ] z [ʣ] ṣ [ʦ’] š [ʃ] ḫ [x] ġ [ɣ] ḥ [ħ] ʕ [ʕ] h [h]
Nasal m [m] n [n]
Liquid l [l], r [r]
Approx. w [w] y [j]
and {ṣ}, respectively. There are, however, orthographic variations that might indicate at
least a rudimentary preservation of the emphatic lateral *(t)ɬ' in certain texts (e.g., yẓḥq
‘he laughed’, ẓỉ ‘go out!’).
Ugaritic exhibits three syllable types:
CV̆ (open syllable with short vowel)

CV̄ (i.e., CVː, open syllable with long vowel)
CV̌ C (closed syllable with short vowel)
Lengthened (geminated) consonants are spread over two syllables: /kak.ka.ru/ ‘talent’.
The question of whether Ugaritic had phonemic stress cannot be decided with certainty.
Comparative evidence, however, suggests that stress was not phonemic, that is, that it
was mechanically assigned by rule.
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
Independent nominative forms are presented in Table 19.4, oblique (genitive-accusative)
forms in Table 19.5 and pronominal suffixes in Table 19.6.
Ugaritic has dual pronouns, which are used productively: e.g., w ʕrb hm /humā/ (and
enter.prf.du they.du) ‘and both (scil. both “beloved gods”) entered’.
Personal pronouns can be extended by the enclitic particles ‑m and ‑n to indicate spe-
cial emphasis, as in hw-m ‘he himself/alone’.
The 1csg possessive suffix is /‑ya/ after short /i/ and the long vowels (including the
vowels /ê/ and /ô/ from contraction), and /‑ī/ in all other cases.
TABLE 19.4 INDEPENDENT NOMINATIVE PERSONAL PRONOUNS
sg 1c ảnk = syll. a-na-ku /ʔanāku/

ản /ʔanā/4
2m ảt = syll. at-ta /ʔattā̆/ < *ʔantā̆
2f ảt /ʔattī̆/ < *ʔantī̆
3m hw = syll. ú-wa /huwa/
3f hy /hiya/
du 2c ảtm /ʔattumā/ < *ʔantumā
3c hm /humā/5
pl 2m atm /ʔattumū/ < *ʔantumū
TABLE 19.5 INDEPENDENT OBLIQUE (GENITIVE-ACCUSATIVE)

PERSONAL PRONOUNS
sg 3m hwt /huwati/
3f hyt /hiyati/
du 3c hmt /humāti/
pl 3m hmt /humūti/6
Ugaritic 487
TABLE 19.6 PERSONAL PRONOUN SUFFIXES
Possessive Suffixes Object Suffixes
sg 1c -Ø, -y /ī/ -n /nī/

-y /‑ya/
n-variant: -n(y) /-nī/
2m -k /-kā/ -k /-kā/
n-variant: -nk
2f -k /-kī/ -k /kī/
3m -h = syll. ‑ú /-hū/ -h /-hū/
n-variant: -nh n-variants: -nh, -nn, -n(?)
3f -h /-hā/ (form *-h unattested)
n-variant: -nh n-variants: -nh, -nn
du 1c -ny /-nayā/ -ny /-nayā/
2c -km /-kumā/ -km /-kumā/
3c -hm /-humā/ -hm /-humā/
pl 1c -n /-nā/ or /-nê/ -n /-nā/ or /-nê/
variant: ny /-nay(V)/7
2m -km /-kumū/ -km /-kumū/
n-variant: -nkm
2f -kn /kun(n)ā/ Unattested
3m -hm /-humū/ -hm / /-humū/
3f -hn /-hun(n)ā/ -hn /-hun(n)ā/
The final long vowels in the sg and pl suffixes in Table 19.6 may instead have been short.
In the 2/3 du/pl suffixes, /u/ may have been /i/, e.g., 3mpl /‑himū/ rather than /‑humū/.
Ugaritic is one of the only Semitic languages to exhibit a specific first-person dual
suffix (see also Mehri, Chapter 11).
As Table 19.6 shows, there are in Ugaritic variant pronominal suffixes with n alongside
the simpler forms. This element ‑n(n) is properly an extension of the base and not part of
the pronoun itself; it is attested (a) together with prepositions that are extended with n, as
in ʕl-n-h ‘upon him’ (on-encl-3msg), and (b) together with verb forms that are extended
with n, as in ả-qbr-n-h ‘I will bury him’ (1csg-bury.pc-encl-3msg). Many of these forms
show assimilatory processes between this enclitic element ‑n(n)‑ and the suffixes proper.
Verb forms that are extended with the n-element(s) are termed “energic” (§4.4.4).
The demonstrative pronoun for near deixis is hnd /hannadī/ā/(?), formed from *hn (§4.5.1)
and the determinative pronoun d < PS *ð (§4.1.5). The form hnd is indeclinable for gender
and number, and always attributive in function. An extended variant hnd-n is also attested.
spr mlk hnd

document king dem
‘this document of the king.’
w mspr hnd
and account dem
‘and this account.’
Far deixis is expressed by several forms: hnk ‘that, the following’ (< hn [§4.5.1] +
k; substantive, sg); hnhmt /hanhumVti/ ‘those (two)’ (< hn + hmt, the 3mpl/du personal
pronoun; adjectival); hnmt /hannumūti/ (3mpl, attributive), a phonetic variant of hnhmt.
ʕl ʕrbn hnhmt
against guarantor.pl dem.mpl
‘(claims) again the following guarantors.’
bnš l y-qḥ ʕps-m hnmt b-d ybnn ʕd ʕlm
man neg 3-take.pc border-mpl dem.mpl from-hand pn for eternity
‘no one may take the (above-)mentioned lands (lit.: borders) from the hands of Yab-
ninu for ever.’
Personal, substantival ‘who?’: my /mi/īya/(?) and mn /mannu/.
Impersonal, substantival ‘what?’: mh /mah(a)/, with variants mhy (< *mh + ‑y), mat
/maʔati/(?) (< *mh + ‑t), and mn /mānu/ or /mīnu/.
4.1.4 Indefinite pronouns

Personal, substantival ‘anyone, whoever’: forms based on mn /mannu/ ‘who?’: mnk
(< *mn + ‑k), mnkm (< *mn + k + enclitic particle ‑m), mnmn /manmannu/, mnm /man-
nummV/, mnn (< *mn + ‑n); forms based on kl /kullu/ ‘totality, all’: klkl ‘any’, kll ‘anyone’.
Impersonal, substantival ‘anything, whatever’: forms based on mh /mah(a)/ ‘what?’:
mhk (< *mh + ‑k), mhkm (< *mhk + ‑m); forms based on mn /mā/īnu/ ‘what?’: mnm, mnk;
klkl /kulkullu/ ‘everything possible, everything else, all (related) items’.
Impersonal, adjectival ‘whichever’: ảy /ʔayyu/.
4.1.5 Relative
The basic formative of the Ugaritic determinative pronoun, which also functions as a
relative pronoun, is d or d (< *ð). There are declinable and indeclinable variants; the
indeclinable is d = /dā/(?); the forms of the declinable variant are found in Table 19.7.
Declinable relative pronouns follow the head and agree with it in gender and number.
The distribution of the declinable and indeclinable variants of the determinative pronoun
apparently depends on the syntactic context. When it serves to introduce a verbal relative
TABLE 19.7 RELATIVE MARKER
msg nom d /dū/ (syllabic du-ú)

gen /dī/ or ḏ /ḏī/
acc /dā/
fsg nom dt /dātu/
gen /dāti/
acc /dāta/
c(?)pl dt /dūtV/
c(?)du dt (not certainly attested)
Ugaritic 489
clause, the declinable variant is normally used, whereas when it governs a nominal phrase
or a nominal verbless class, the indeclinable variant can appear. Examples:
kl bnš-m dt ḫbṯ ṯmn

all person-mpl rel.pl run there
‘all person who ran away (from) there’ (declinable variant)
tḥt adr-m d b grn
under noble-mpl rel in threshing-floor
‘among the nobles who (were gathered) at the threshing-floor’ (indeclinable variant).
4.2 Nominals
4.2.1 Inflection
There are two grammatical genders, masculine and feminine. masc nouns are in principle
unmarked, while fem nouns as a rule exhibit a specific ending, the most common of which by
far is /‑(a)t/, the choice of the allomorphs /‑at/ vs. /-t/ being largely determined by the syllable
structure. The ending /‑(a)t/ also serves to mark singulatives (nomina unitatis), as in mnḥt ‘(a
single) gift’, corresponding to the generic mnḥ ‘gift(s)’. In addition to ‑t, a rare fem ending
‑y /‑ayV/ may also be attested. As elsewhere in Semitic there are also a number of grammat-
ically fem nouns without a fem ending, i.e., with naturally fem gender, such as ủm ‘mother’.
Ugaritic nouns exhibit three numbers, singular, dual, and plural. The sg is formally
unmarked and also serves to denote a group of individuals/things (collective) or a generic
noun (nomen generis).
The du, which is productive in Ugaritic, is marked by a morpheme /‑ā/, which always
merges with the case-ending: nom /‑ā/, obl (gen-acc) /‑ê/. In the absolute state the du is
extended by mimation: nom /‑āmi/, obl /‑êma/ (and /‑êmi/) (for ‘state’ see later). The du end-
ing is normally attached to the sg base of the noun; it follows the fem ending /‑(a)t/. The du
denotes either “natural” pairs or a twofold number of (not naturally paired) beings or objects.
The pl is marked by a morpheme characterized by vowel lengthening. In fem nouns the
pl marker appears before the gender marker and the case-ending: nom /‑ātu/, obl /‑āti/;
in masc nouns it merges with the case-endings: nom /‑ū/, obl /‑ī/ (absolute state: /‑ūma/,
/‑īma/). The pl also serves to express a collection of non-countable individual elements,
augmentatives and abstracts.
As in common Semitic, Ugaritic exhibits three main cases, nom, gen and acc, which
are marked by vocalic morphemes; the latter follow a fem marker. In the sg (masc and
fem) these basic cases are distinguished from one another by distinct vowels: nom /‑u/, gen
/‑i/, acc /‑a/. In the du and mpl there is only a diptotic (two-case) inflection, nom and obl,
characterized by the following endings: du nom /‑ā/, du obl /‑ê/, mpl nom /‑ū/, mpl obl /‑ī/.
The vocative is expressed by several syntagms, viz., through (a) an isolated noun; (b)
a noun introduced by the particle l; (c) a noun introduced by the particle y; or (d) a noun
with the 1csg pronominal suffix. There is no clear information about the case-ending on
vocative forms.
Ugaritic also possesses two cases with primarily adverbial function, namely, the ter-
minative (-h /‑ah/) and the locative ({‑Ø} for /‑ū/ or /‑u/). Both are relatively seldom
attested. It is possible that Ugaritic also preserved vestiges of a so-called absolute case,
the main functions of which would be these: (a) as the usual citation of form of the noun,
TABLE 19.8 NOUN DECLENSION
Singular (Triptoptic Inflection)
m (All States) f (All States)

nom kalb-u kalbat-u
gen kalb-i kalbat-i
acc kalb-a kalbat-a
Dual
m ncst m cst/pron f abs f cst/pron
nom kalb-āmi kalb-ā kalbat-āmi kalbat-ā
obl kalb-êma kalb-ê kalbat-êma kalbat-ê
Plural
m nsct m cst/pron f (all states)
nom kalab-ūma kalab-ū kalabāt-u
obl kalab-īma kalab-ī kalabāt-i
(b) predicative form of the noun, (c) vocative form, (d) as the case for units of measure-
ment and (e) for adverbial and distributive expressions.
There are three states of the noun, whose use depends on the syntactic position of
the noun:
• Absolute state: nouns that are syntactically free, that is, without a following dependent
genitive noun or unmarked relative clause. The noun may be either definite or
indefinite: bt ‘a/the house’.
• Construct state: nouns with a following dependent genitive noun or unmarked relative
clause. The dependent element brings about an implicit definiteness in the construct
noun: bt mlk ‘the house of the king’.
• Pronominal state: the noun before a pronominal suffix: bt-h ‘his house’; a byform of
the construct state.
All of these states exhibit case-endings. The full declension of the noun is illustrated
in Table 19.8.
Ugaritic has no morphological marker for denoting determination or indetermination.
Whether a noun is definite or indefinite depends on the syntax and/or the context. In some
prose texts, however, a lexeme hn appears before nouns in an anaphoric-identifying func-
tion, which is the basic function of the article (§5.2).

There are severe restrictions on the identification of noun patterns in Ugaritic, since the
consonantal orthography often allows no certain conclusions about them. The noun forms
attested in syllabically written texts are informative, however, and reveal a variety of
morpheme types (Huehnergard 2008: 302–17), e.g.:8
qil: i-lu /ʔilu/ ‘god’

qatl: ar-ṣu /ʔarṣu/ ‘earth’
Ugaritic 491
qatal: da-ka-rù /dakaru/ < *ðakaru ‘male’

qatul: a-du-rù /ʔaduru/ ‘strong, powerful’
qutīl: ḫu-zi-rù /ḫuzīru/ ‘pig’
qattāl: ḫa-ra-šu /ḥarrāšu/ ‘artisan’
In addition to unaugmented forms, there are nouns with prefixed and suffixed elements:
prefixed m-: maqtal: ma-ṣa-du /maʕṣadu/ ‘bill hook, ax’; maqtil: ma-ar-zi-ḫi (gen)
/marziḥu/ ‘(a cultic festival)’
prefixed t-: taqtal: ta-ar-bá-ṣi (gen) /tarbaṣu/ ‘yard, stable’
prefixed ʔ: ʔaqtVl: ảlỉy /ʔalʔiyu/ ‘(all-)powerful’
suffixed ‑n: qatlān: ad-ma-ni (gen) /ʔadmānu/ ‘red’
suffixed -y (“nisbe”): qutlāy: uḫ-ra-a-yi (gen) /ʔuḫrāyu/ ‘end’
4.3 Numerals
Numerals are from a morphological perspective a noun category. They are treated sep-
arately here, however, since they present a semantically uniform group and, further,
exhibit specific syntactic features.
Ugaritic in principle uses the decimal system (Table 19.9).
Cardinal ‘one’, ảḥd/ảḥt, is an adjective and as such it normally follows the counted item
(in the singular) and agrees with it in gender, as in ǵzr ảḥd ‘a young man’, pǵt ảḥt ‘a girl’.
The forms of ‘two’, ṯn and ṯt, function solely as substantives. They usually stand before
the counted item, and agree with it in gender. The counted item is usually in the dual, as
in ṯt qšt-m w ṯn qlʕ-m ‘two bows and two shields’ (two.f bow.f-du and two.m shield.m-du).
The cardinals ‘3’ to ‘10’ function syntactically as substantives and thus normally
appear before the counted item. In typologically archaic Semitic languages, the cardinals
‘3’ to ‘10’ exhibit the opposite gender vis-à-vis the counted item (gender-polar syntax).
Ugaritic constitutes an exception to this, in that the endingless (formally masc) forms of
the numerals may be construed with nouns of both genders; e.g., before a masc noun, ḫmš
bnš-m ‘five persons/servants’ (five.m person.m-pl), or before a fem. noun, ṯlṯ ảṯ-t ảdr-t
‘three elder women’ (three.m woman.f-pl old-fpl). The counted item after the cardinals
‘3’ to ‘10’ regularly appears in the plural (as in the foregoing examples). Exceptions are
TABLE 19.9 CARDINALS 1–10
Form Without Ending (masc) Form with fem Ending
1 ảḥd /ʔaḥ(ḥ)ad‑/ ảḥt /ʔaḥ(ḥ)att-/

2 ṯn /ṯinā/ (nom), ṯt /ṯittā/ (nom)
/ṯinê/ (obl) /ṯittê/ (obl)
3 ṯlṯ /ṯalāṯ‑/ ṯlṯt /ṯalāṯat‑/
4 ảrbʕ /ʔarbaʕ‑/ ảrbʕt /ʔarbaʕat‑/
5 ḫmš /ḫamiš‑/ ḫmšt /ḫam(i)šat‑/
6 ṯṯ /ṯiṯṯ‑/ ṯṯt /ṯiṯṯat‑/
7 šbʕ /šabʕ‑/ šbʕt /šabʕat‑/
8 ṯmn /ṯamān/ < *ṯamāniy‑ ṯmnt ṯamānît‑/ < *ṯamāniyat-
9 tšʕ /tišʕ‑/ tšʕt /tišʕat‑/
10 ʕšr /ʕaš(a)r‑/ < *ʕaśar‑ ʕšrt /ʕaš(a)rat‑/ < *ʕaśarat‑
mass nouns as well as collectives, which appear in the singular: tšˁ ṣỉn ‘nine (animals of
a) flock’ (nine.m flock.fsg).
The cardinals from ‘11’ to ‘19’ are composed of lexemes for the unit and ‘10’. In ‘12’
to ‘19’ the unit term is formally identical with the cardinals ‘2’ to ‘9’. For ‘11’, however,
rather than ảḥd/ảḥt for the unit, the lexeme ʕšt is used (thus, ʕšt ʕšr[h/t]). For all of the
cardinals ‘11’ to ‘19’, the ‘10’ element is formed on the root √ʕšr; three distinct forms
are attested, ʕšr, ʕšrt und ʕšrh. The relevant numerical expressions generally exhibit the
order ‘unit-10’, as in (a) ḫmš ʕšr, (b) ḫmšt ʕšrt and (c) ḫmš ʕšrh ‘15’. If the numerals ‘12’
to ‘19’ are formed in the opposite order, i.e., ‘10-unit’, the unit is followed by the lexeme
kbd, which means ‘plus’ or ‘added’; e.g., ʕšr ảrbʕ kbd ‘14’, literally, ‘10 (and) 4 added’.9
The counted item with ‘12’ to ‘19’ may be either plural or singular.
The cardinal ‘20’ is formed as mpl or du of ʕšr ‘10’, while ‘30’ to ‘90’ are masculine
plurals of ‘3’ to ‘9’: ʕšrm, ṯlṯm, ảrbʕm, ḫmšm, etc. The counted item normally comes after
the numeral and usually appears in the singular.
The composite cardinals ‘21’ to ‘99’ are comprised of at least two, at most three, words:
(a) the decade, (b) the unit and (c) as a rule also a lexeme that combines the decade and
the unit (either the word kbd or the preposition l).
‘100’ is mỉt /miʔt-/, ‘200’ is mỉtm (dual of mỉt). The hundreds from ‘300’ are formed by
the combination of an endingless unit numeral and mảt /maʔāt‑/ (plural of mỉt); e.g., tlt
mảt ‘300’. The counted item may be singular or plural.
The composite cardinals ‘101’ to ‘999’ can be either (a) hundreds and decade/unit, or
(b) hundreds, decades and units. The counted item mostly follows immediately after the
hundred term, and is in the singular; if the counted items follows the decade or the unit,
however, it is in the plural.
‘1000’ is ảlp /ʔalp‑/, ‘2000’ is ảlpm (dual of ảlp). The thousands from ‘3000’ consist
of a unit number and ảlpm (plural of ảlp), as in ḫmš ảlpm ‘5000’. After ảlp ‘1000’ the
counted item is either singular or plural, after ảlpm ‘2000’ always plural.
Within the composite cardinals 1001 to 9999 the following combinations are attested:
(a) thousands and hundreds; (b) thousands, hundreds and decades (c) thousands, hun-
dreds and units.
The form rbt (also rbbt) functions as the lexeme for ‘10,000’ (or ‘myriad’); the counted
item follows in either singular or plural.
The ordinals ‘second’ to ‘tenth’ in Ugaritic are probably formed with the patter qātil
(Table 19.10).
Forms for higher ordinals, and apparently also for ‘first’ and ‘eighth’, do not exist, and
the cardinals assume the function of the ordinals: lbš ảḥd ‘a (first) robe’, b tmnt ‘on the
eighth (day)’. For ‘first’ the form prʕ is also used: b ym prʕ ‘on the first day’.
TABLE 19.10 ORDINALS 1–10
‘second’ masc ṯn /ṯān/ < *ṯāniy‑

fem(?) ṯnt /ṯānît‑/(?)
‘third’ ṯlṯ /ṯāliṯ‑/
‘fourth’ rbʕ /rābiʕ‑/
‘fifth’ ḫmš /ḫāmiš‑/
‘sixth’ ṯdṯ /ṯādiṯ‑/
‘seventh’ masc šbʕ /šābiʕ‑/
fem šbʕt /šābiʕ(a)t‑/
ninth(?) tšʕ /tāšiʕ‑/(?)
Ugaritic 493
4.4 Verbs
Ugaritic exhibits a large number of verbal forms for the differentiation of the categories
of diathesis and Aktionsart. For the expression of tense/aspect and mood, the following
morphological forms are available:
• the prefix conjugation, a form with prefixes and suffixes, with various subvarieties
• the imperative, a prefixless form with suffixes that are identical with those of the 2nd
person in the short prefix conjugation
• the suffix conjugation, another prefixless form with suffixes of a different type and
origin
4.4.1 Aspect and tense system

The following forms differentiate verbal aspects and (relative) tenses: (a) the subvarieties of
the prefix conjugation; and (b) the fientic variants of the suffix conjugation (Table 19.11).
It follows from these observations that the long prefix conjugation is an imperfective cat-
egory, while the short prefix conjugation and the fientic suffix conjugation function per-
fectively. Since the long prefix conjugation is always used for simultaneous events, it is
conventionally termed “Present.” And since on the other hand the indicative short prefix
conjugation and the fientic suffix conjugation overwhelmingly express past events, they are
conventionally termed “Preterite” and “Perfect,” respectively. But those designations, which
suggest an opposition in tense between the long prefix conjugation on the one hand and the
indicative short prefix conjugation and the fientic suffix conjugation on the other, are factu-
ally incorrect. It should be noted that the long prefix conjugation can also express past events,
while conversely the fientic suffix conjugation can also express present or future events.
4.4.2 Modal system

The two most important moods that are morphologically grounded in the verbal system
are the “indicative” (a neutral mood) and the “volitive” (wish and command mood). With
the exception of the imperative, all finite verbal forms can express indicative nuances.
And with the exception of the long prefix conjugation, all finite forms can have volitive
functions. In particular, see the following examples:
(a) The imperative, a 2nd person command form:

qḥ ksp w yrq ḫrṣ
take.imp.msg silver and yellow.cst gold
‘Take silver and yellow gold!’
TABLE 19.11 THE TENSE-ASPECT SYSTEM
Perfective Imperfective
Anteriority yaqtul (pcsi) qatala (scf) yaqtulu (pcl)

Simultaneity –– *qatala (scf) yaqtulu (pcl)
Posteriority *yaqtul(ā) (pcsv/e) qatala (scf) *yaqtulu (pcl)
Note: For pc forms, see Table 19.14; scf = fientic suffix conjugation.

ʕl l ẓr mgdl rkb ṯkmm ḥmt

go.up.imp.msg to top.cst tower mount.imp.msg shoulder.cst wall
‘Climb to the top of the tower! Mount the “shoulder” of the wall!’
The base is qVtl, where V stands for the characteristic theme-vowel, /a/, /i/, or /u/, which is
basically identical with that of the prefix conjugation (pc; §4.4.3) (Tables 19.12 and 19.13).
Since an initial consonant cluster is not tolerated, it is usually resolved via the insertion
(anaptyxis) of a helping vowel after the first radical, usually /i/, less often /u/: e.g., ỉsp
/ʔispī/ < *ʔVsupī ‘gather (fsg)!’; ủḫd /ʔuḫud/ < *ʔḫud ‘seize (msg)!’.
(b) The short prefix conjugation in volitive usage; a general wish and command mood
for all persons:
w y-ṣỉ ʕdn mʕ
and 3msg-go out.pcsv troop strong
‘And may a mighty troop go forth.’ (yṣi = /yaṣiʔ/, root yṣʔ)
w y-ḥ mlk
and 3msg-live.pcsv king
‘And may the king live!’ (yḥ = /yaḥī/, root ḥw/yy)
(c) The extended short prefix conjugation; frequently and reliably attested in the func-
tion of a 1st person self-command (cohortative):
ỉ-qra ỉl-m nʕm-m
1csg-summon.pcse god-mpl lovely-mpl
‘Let me summon the love[ly] gods.’ (iqra = /ʔiqraʔā̆/)
(d) The fientic suffix conjugation, which usually denotes indicative expressions, sporad-
ically serves in poetry for volitive expressions (optative):
yḥd bt-h sgr ảlmnt škr t-škr
single house-3msg close.sc.3msg widow hireling 3fsg-hire.pcsv
‘The single man may close his house, the widow should hire a hireling.’
imp *qtul ~ pc yaqtul-

imp *qtal ~ pc yiqtal-
imp *qtil ~ pc yaqtil-
TABLE 19.13 IMPERATIVE. GENDER-NUMBER INFLECTION
2m q tul
u
qut lā
u
qutulū
qatal qatalā qatalū
qitil qitilā qitilū
2f qutulī (unattested)
qatalī
qitilī
Ugaritic 495
The modal nuances ‘must’, ‘may’ and ‘can’ are expressed with the long prefix conju-
gation, which otherwise denotes imperfective indicative actions:
klny-y qš-h n-bl-n klny-y n-bl ks-h

all.1cpl-encl jug-3msg 1cpl-carry.pcl-encl all.1cpl-encl 1cpl-carry.pcl cup-3msg
‘We must all carry his jug; we must all carry his cup’.
ỉk t-mtḫṣ ʕm ảlỉyn bʕl
how 2msg-strike.recp.pcl with all-powerful Baʕlu
‘How can you (only) fight with all-powerful Baʕlu?’
4.4.3 Prefix conjugation

Morphological data and functions indicate that the following varieties of the prefix con-
jugation are to be distinguished (Table 19.14).
The theme vowel is /a/, /i/, or /u/. The prefix vowel is either /a/ or /i/, the quality of the
vowel standing in the following relationship to the theme vowel in the (active) basic stem
of the verb: when the them vowel is /u/ or /i/, the prefix vowel is /a/; but when the theme
vowel is /a/, the prefix vowel is /i/ (the so-called “Barth-Ginsberg” Law). Thus, for the
3msg prefix y- the forms are /yaqtul/, /yaqtil/, and /yiqtal/.
The paradigm of the short form of the prefix conjugation (pcs) is found in Table 19.15;
that of the long prefix conjugation (pcl) appears in Table 19.16.
TABLE 19.14 FORMS OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION
Form Function Abbrev.
Short form (a) perfective: indicative mood (“preterite”)10 pcsi

(b) perfective: volitive mood (“jussive”)11 pcsv
Extended short form “cohortative” mood (1st person) pcse
Long form imperfective (“present”) pcl
TABLE 19.15 PARADIGM OF THE SHORT PREFIX CONJUGATION
Singular Plural Dual
3m yaqtul-Ø taqtul-ū y/taqtul-ā

3f taqtul-Ø taqtul‑nā (?) taqtul-ā
2m taqtul-Ø taqtul-ū taqtul‑ā
2f taqtul-ī taqtul-nā (?) taqtul‑ā (like masc)
1c ʔaqtul-Ø naqtul-Ø – (?)
Note: pcs; paradigmatic root √qtl, theme-vowel /u/.
TABLE 19.16 PARADIGM OF THE LONG PREFIX CONJUGATION
3m yaqtul-u taqtul-ūna y/taqtul-āni

3f taqtul-u taqtul ‑nā (?) taqtul-āni
2m taqtul-u taqtul-ūna taqtul-āni
2f taqtul-īna taqtul -nā (?) taqtul-āni (like masc)
1c ʔaqtul-u naqtul-u – (?)
Note: pcs; paradigmatic root √qtl, theme-vowel /u/.

Unlike in nearly all other Semitic languages, in Ugaritic the prefix consonant of the
3mpl is usually t‑, as in tšủ /tiššaʔū/ < *tinśaʔū (√nšʔ) ‘they raised (their heads)’.
4.4.4 Suffix conjugation

It is important to distinguish between two suffix conjugation forms (Table 19.17), one
with stative meaning and a second with fientic (perfective-preterite) meaning. The forms
with stative meaning correspond functionally with the Akkadian stative and the suffix
conjugation forms of stative verbs in other West Semitic languages. The fientic variant
serves especially to designate perfective actions of the past; in addition it has a range of
other functions and can also appear for actions of the present and future. The two variants
are generally also distinguished morphologically through distinctive theme vowels.
The theme vowel of the suffix conjugation may be /a/, /i/ or /u/. The theme vowel /a/
appears only in the fientic subvariety, /u/ only in the stative subvariety, while /i/ appears
in both. The system of theme-vowels in the suffix conjugation and its relationship to those
of the prefix conjugation may be summarized in Table 19.18.
Finite verb forms, and apparently also infinitives of the pattern qatāl that function nar-
ratively, often exhibit, in addition to the inflectional endings, a so-called energic ending,
which appears orthographically as either ‑n or ‑nn, as in tḥsp-n /taḥsup-anna/ ‘she cer-
tainly drew water’ (short prefix conjugation). The energic morpheme essentially expresses
a specific modal nuance, viz., a particular emphasis of the underlying verb form:
ql l bʕl ttn-n
voice to Baʕlu 3fsg-give.pcsi
‘She truly directed (ttn = /tâtin-anna/, root ytn) (her) voice to Baʕlu.’
4.4.5 Verbal adjectives

“Verbal adjective” is a generic term for all verb-derived adjectives. The participles com-
prise a subgroup of these, but their semantics and syntactic use have close analogs to the
TABLE 19.17 PARADIGM OF THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION
3m qatVl-a qatVl-ū qatVl-ā

3f qatVl-at qatVl-ā/ū(?) qatVl-tā
2m qatVl-ta/ā qatVl-tum(V)12 qatVl-tumā
2f qatVl-ti/ī *qatVl-tun(n)ā qatVl-tumā (like masc)
1c qatVl-tu/ū13 *qatVl-nā/ū qatVl-na/iyā
Note: V = Variable Theme-Vowel.
TABLE 19.18 THEME-VOWELS OF THE SUFFIX AND PREFIX

CONJUGATIONS
Suffix Conjugation Prefix Conjugation
Stative qatila/qatula yiqtal

Fientic qatala yaqtul/yaqtil
II/III-“guttural” qatila yiqtal
Ugaritic 497
finite verbal forms. The participle in the basic verbal stem (G stem) has the pattern qātil.
Examples: ảḫd /ʔāḫid‑/ ‘holding’; ảpy /ʔāpiy‑/ ‘baker’. As an adjective it is inflected like
other nouns (Table 19.19).
For the passive participle of the basic verb stem (G stem) the pattern is probably qatīl.
The possibility of a maqtūl passive participle has also been suggested.
4.4.6 Verbal substantives

Verbal substantives are inflected as nouns, but syntactically they may govern arguments
either nominally or verbally.
Infinitives are verbal substantives that both semantically and syntactically exhibit a
strongly verbal character. Their morphological forms are correlated with the various ver-
bal stems (§4.4.7).The most important morpheme type of the G stem infinitive (inf) has
the form qatāl. In addition there are a number of other verbal substantives in the G stem.
The three most important uses of the Ugaritic infinitie are as follows:
1 paronomastic (figura etymologica), to emphasize the verbal expression:

bt krt bu t-bu
house Kirta enter.inf 3fsg-enter.pcl?
‘She did indeed enter Kirta’s house (bu = /bâʔu/, root bwʔ; tbu = /tabûʔu/, root bwʔ).’
2 imperative function:
ḥš-k ˁṣ-k
hurry.inf-2msg press.inf-2msg
‘Hurry, you! (ḥš = /ḥûš-/, root ḥwš) Press on, you! (ˁṣ = /ʕVṣṣ-/, root ʕṣṣ).’
Literally, ‘your hurrying, your pressing.’
3 narrative function:
šmḫ btlt ʕnt
rejoice.inf virgin ʕAnatu
‘The virgin ʕAnatu rejoiced (šmḫ /šamāḫ-/, root šmḫ).’
4.4.7 Verbal stems
Ugaritic exhibits ten verbal stems. Four of these ten verbal stems may be described as
“main stems” (marked in bold in Table 19.20): G, D, Š and N. There are no other inde-
pendent stems besides those presented in Table 19.20.14
The basic stem (G, for German Grundstamm) is unmarked. The mark of the D stem
(for German Doppelungsstamm) is the gemination of the middle radical, that of the Š
TABLE 19.19 PARADIGM OF THE PARTICIPLE
Masculine Feminine
Singular qātilu/qātili/qātila qātil(a)tu/qātil(a)ti/qātil(a)ta

Plural qātilūma/qātilīma qātilātu/qātilāti
construct: qātilū/qātilī
TABLE 19.20 UGARITIC VERBAL STEMS
Symbol Designation Main Functions
G basic stem lexical base form

Gp G passive passive of G
Gt G reflexive reflexive of G and other
D doubling stem intensive, factitive, and other
Dp D passive passive of D
tD D reflexive reflexive of D and other
Š Š stem causative
Šp Š passive passive of Š
Št Š reflexive reflexive of Š and other
N N stem reflexive/passive and other
TABLE 19.21 PARADIGMS OF THE VERBAL STEMS
pcs imp sc ptcp inf
G yaqtu/il qVtu/il qatala qātil (act.) qatāl

yiqtal qVtal qati/ula qatūl (pass.)
Gp yuqtal * quti/ala — ?
Gt yiqtatil (ʔi)qtatil (ʔi)qtat(a)la muqtatil ? tVqtatil
D yuqattil qattil qattila muqattil quttal
Dp yuqattal ? * qutti/ala ? muqattal ? *
tD yVtqattVl * (ʔi)tqatti/ala * ?
Š yušaqtil šaqtil šaqtila mušaqtil šVqtVl
Šp yušaqtal * šuqta/ila mušaqtal *
Št yVštaqtil * * muštaqtil *
N yiqqatil naqtVl ? naqtala naqtal ? naqtāl
* = no attestation
stem a prefixed š‑, and that of the N stem a prefixed n‑. Apart from the N stem, all of the
main stems also exhibit passive and reflexive stem variants. The reflexive stem variants
show an additional t element, which in the Gt appears after the first radical, in the tD
before the first radical and in the Št immediately after the causative marker š. The passive
stem variants (Gp, Dp, Šp) are distinguished from their active counterparts exclusively
through vowel alternation (Table 19.21).
Weak roots in Ugaritic are primarily those that have as one of their radicals w or y, or
occasionally n, l, or h or rarely ʔ. These radicals do not appear as consonants in certain
forms or in certain syllable positions. Rather, they either are assimilated to following
consonants, or bring about a change (usually lengthening) of the vowel of the relevant
syllable, or are lost without other change. The following root types are attested: I/II/III–ʔ
(aleph-verbs), I–h, I–n and weak roots in the narrower sense, namely, I/II/III–w/y and
roots with identical second and third radicals (geminate roots). Quadriradical roots are
also attested.
Ugaritic 499
4.5 Particles
4.5.1 Adverbs
The Ugaritic text corpus, especially the poetry, exhibits many adverbs, which may be
classified into several categories (the list of lemmas is not exhaustive):
Local: ‘here’: hn /hannV/; hnn (hn + ‑n); hnny (hnn + -y); ‘there’: ṯm /ṯammV/; ṯmt
(ṯm + ‑t); ṯmn (ṯm + -n); ṯmny (ṯmn + ‑y); hnk; hnkt (hnk + ‑t).
Temporal: ‘now’: ht /hittV/; ‘then, after’: ảḫr /ʔaḫ(ḫ)aru/; ảpnk /ʔappūnaka/(?); ỉdk
/ʔidāka/(?); ‘on the following/next day’: ʕlm /ʕalû(m)mV/.
Modal: ‘thus, in this way’: k /kā/; kn; kmm (km + ‑m: ‘as well, likewise’); ‘very’: mỉd;
midm (mỉd + ‑m).
Demonstrative: ‘look!’: hn /ha/innV/; hl; hlk (hl + ‑k).
Interrogative and indefinite: ‘where?’: ỉy /ʔeyya/u/(?); ản /ʔânV/ < *ʔayynV; ‘how
(so)? why?’: ỉk /ʔêkā/ < *ʔayyV‑kā; ‘why? for what reason?’: lm /li/amā/; ‘how
much/many?’: mn.
4.5.2 Prepositions
Ugaritic prepositions generally have a broad functional “bandwidth.” Most denote primar-
ily an adverbial position, although they can also, in connection with certain verbs, be used
to indicate direction. They can then essentially indicate both directions, the terminative and
the ablative. They may be monoconsonantal (e.g., b, syllabic bi-i /bi/ or /bī/ ‘in, on, upon,
with’), bi- or triconsonanatal (e.g., yd /yada/ ‘beside, (together) with’; tḥt /taḥta/ ‘beneath,
under’), or compound (e.g., b tk /bi tôki/ ‘within’). Prepositions can – especially in poetry –
be extended by the enclitic particles ‑m, ‑n, ‑y, with no essential change in their meaning.
The widely attested West Semitic preposition mn /min/ ‘from’ is either completely
absent in Ugaritic, or at least unproductive. Corresponding nuances are expressed by the
prepositions l, b, and ʕl, which denote no specific direction.
4.5.3 Conjunctions
The most frequent conjunctions are the following:
Coordinating: w /wa/ ‘and, namely, but’; p /pa/ ‘and then, thereupon, consequently’;
ảp /ʔappV/ ‘also, as well, even’; ủ /ʔô/ (< *ʔaw) ‘or’.
Subordinating: hm /him(ma)/ ‘if’; k /kī/ ‘when, as soon as’; ỉd /ʔidā/ê/ ‘when, as soon
as’; kd ‘because’ (alternatively, ‘when’).
5 SYNTAX
5.1 Types of predication; sentential and phrasal word order
Ugaritic distinguishes two main types of predication, nominal and verbal.
5.1.1 Nominal main clauses

The standard Ugaritic nominal sentence is comprised of two components, the subject and
the predicate. The order S–P is more common than P–S.
ṣbủ-k ủl mảd
army-2msg force great
‘Your army is a mighty force.’
ảṯt-m ảṯt ỉl
woman-du woman.du.cst Ilu
‘The two w[om]en will be Ilu’s women.’
Nominal clauses with a basic two-part structure may be expanded by an additional element:
k ksp l ʕbr-m zt . . .

like silver for go.over.ptcp-mpl olive. . .
‘Like silver were the olives for those who had gone over (scil. spirits of the dead).’
(Basic structure: P – S: k ksp . . . zt).
Nominal clauses are not specific as to mood. They may express statements and dec-
larations (i.e., nuances of the indicative mood), but also wishes and commands (i.e.,
nuances of the volitive mood). The relevant mood can be determined only from the
context; e.g,:
ảt ảḫ w ản ảḫt-k
you brother.1csg and I sister-2msg
‘You should be my brother and I should be your sister!’
5.1.2 Verbal main clauses

The verbal clause can comprise diverse elements, which may be categorized as follows:
(a) the verbal predicate; (b) all expansions required by the verbal valence; (c) optional
adverbial elements; (d) other elements such as conjunctions. The most important constit-
uent is the verbal predicate. The number of the expansions is dependent on the syntactic
valence of the verbal predicate, that is, the obligatory or facultative filling of slots in a
number and type required by the verb as the valence carrier. Thus, three main categories
of verbs may be distinguished:
Monovalent verbs, i.e., verbs construed with a subject only, but no object:
rb-t ỉl-m l ḥkm-t

be.great.sc-2msg Ilu-encl interj be.wise.sc-2msg
‘You are great, O Ilu, you are truly wise.’
Bivalent verbs, i.e., verbs with an object:
t-šủ ỉl-m rảšt-hm

3mpl-lift.pcsi god-pl head.pl-3mpl
‘The gods lift their heads.’
Trivalent verbs, i.e., verbs with two objects:
hlm ktp zbl ym bn yd-m ṯpṭ nhr

strike.imp shoulder prince Yammu between arm-du judge river
‘Strike Prince Yammu (on) the shoulder(s), Judge Naharu (River) (in the place)
between the (two) arms!’ (The form ydm, in the absolute state, shows that the root hlm
is here construed as doubly transitive.)
Ugaritic 501
Semitic languages also make use of morphological means for changing (especially rais-
ing) verbal valence. For Ugaritic, two factors are relevant in this regard: (a) by changing
the theme vowel of the basic stem, a verb can be transferred to another semantic group
and its valence altered; (b) much more frequently, valency is altered by changing the
verbal stem. Especially important in this context are the D, Š, N and Gt stems (§4.4.7).
A verbal predicate usually appears in first or second position in its clause. In clauses
with explicit subject and object, the most common word orders are V-S-O and S-V-O.
Clauses with the verb in third or fourth position are rare.
Verb in first position:
V-S: w y-ʕn ảlỉyn bʕl

and 3msg-answer.pcsi all-powerful Baʕlu
‘And all-powerful Baʕlu answered.’
V-S-O(–A): t-bl-k ǵrm mỉd ksp

3mpl-bring.pcsv-2msg mountains much silver
‘The mountains should bring you much silver.’
Verb in second position (subject before verb):
S-V-O: ỉl-m y-pʕr šmt-hm

Ilu-encl 3msg-announce.pcsi names-3mpl
‘Ilu announced their names.’
mlk-n y-bqṯ ảnyt

king-encl 3msg-seek.pcl ships
‘The king seeks ships.’
S-V-A: hyn tbʕ l mšknt-h

pn depart.sc.3msg to dwelling-3msg
‘Hayyānu went away to his dwelling.’
w bn mlk w bnt mlk t-ʕl-n

and sons.cst king and daughters.cst king 3mpl-go.up.pcl‑pl
pảmt šbʕ
times seven
‘The sons of the king and the daughters of the king will go up seven
times.’
Verb in second position (subject after verb):
O-V-S: w ḫmšm ksp lqḥ mlk gbl

and fifty silver take.sc.3msg king.cst Byblos
‘The king of Byblos took 50 (shekels of) silver.’
A-V-S: šbʕ šnt y-ṣrk bʕl

seven years 3msg-be.weak.pcl Baʕlu
‘Will Baʕlu be weak for seven years?’
Verb in third position (usually also sentence-final position):
S-A-V: ỉlm l šlm t-ǵr-km

gods to health 3mpl-guard.pcsv-2mpl
‘May the gods keep you well.’
O-S-V: ql-h qdš bʕl y-tn

voice-3msg holy Baʕlu 3msg-give.pcs
‘May Baʕlu let his holy voice resound.’
In summary, it is to be noted that the order of constituents in Ugaritic verbal clauses is

not uniform but rather – especially in poetry – relatively free and variable. Further, con-
siderable differences between the various text genres can be discerned. Nevertheless, the
following points may be noted with regard to the unmarked order of constituents:
The (direct) object normally stands after the verb; when fronted it is apparently
always stressed. Adverbials are either preposed (i.e., before the verb) or, more often,
placed toward the end of the sentence. When there is an explicit subject, it usually stands
(immediately) after the verb in poetry, but conversely often before the verb in prose.
The verb, however, does not normally appear beyond the second position. If an object or
adverbial (whether stressed or unstressed) is sentence-initial, the normal order in prose
is O/A-V-S.
From this it follows that, except for the position of adverbials, Ugaritic exhibits V-S-O
and S-V-O as the usual order of constituents. The fact that in poetry the order V-S-O gen-
erally prevails, but in prose the order S-V-O, is perhaps to be interpreted as indicating that
Ugaritic was originally a V-S-O language, which during the course of its history tended
to shift toward a S-V-O language.
5.2 Definite article

Ugaritic has no definite article, in contrast to later Northwest Semitic languages, although
in certain instances the lexeme hn appears before nouns in an anaphoric – identifying
function, i.e., the basic function of the article; it can therefore be considered a kind of
proto-article.
5.3 Agreement
In nominal clauses with an adjective, substantive or pronoun as predicate, the subject and
predicate agree in case, gender and number. Deviations from strict gender and number
agreement are very rare.
In verbal clauses the verbal predicate normally agrees with the subject in gender,
number and person. Gender and number concord is also the rule when the verb stands
before the subject (contrary to Arabic, for example), and there are few instances of lack
of concord in number. The verb may, however, be in the singular when the subject is a
compound consisting of two or more elements connected with ‘and’. Pronominal suffixes
normally agree with their antecedents in person, gender and number.
Ugaritic 503
Determinative-relative pronouns, in the majority of cases, agree with their antecedent

in gender and number. The indeclinable variant d (§4.1.5) always exhibits the simplest
form (i.e., msg), independent of the gender and number of the antecedent.
5.4 Negation
l /lā/ for negation of individual words and of verbal clauses
ảl /ʔal/ for negation of volitive verbal clauses (before pcsv/e)
bl /bal(î)/ for negative of individual words and of nominal clauses; also
for negation of interrogative verbal clauses
(?) blt /bal(V)ti/ (< bl possibly used like bl; alternatively, a modal adverb in the sense
+ -t) of ‘only, exclusively’
in /ʔênu/a/ < “existential particle” meaning ‘there is/are not’; extended
*ʔaynu/a variants: ỉnn, ỉnm, ỉnnm, ỉnmm, ỉnny.
5.5 Subordination
The following are the main types of subordinate clauses.
5.5.1 Temporal
Temporal clauses are usually introduced with one of the following subordinating con-
junctions: ảḫr ‘after’, ỉd ‘when, as soon as’, hlm ‘as soon (as)’, ʕd ‘as long as, while,
until’, k(y) or km ‘when’. They may however also be introduced by w or have no introduc-
tory particle at all. Temporal clauses may stand before or after the main clause:
hlm ʕnt t-ph ỉlm b-h pʕnm t-ṭṭ

conj ʕAnatu 3fsg-see.pcsi god.pl in-3fsg leg.du 3fdu-tremble.pcsi
‘As soon as ʕAnatu saw (tph = /tiphê/, root phy/w) the gods, (her) legs shook (tṭṭ =
/taṭṭutā/, root nṭṭ) on her.’
5.5.2 Causal
Causal relationships are often expressed simply by the juxtaposition of two main clauses.
But subordinate causal clauses may be introduced by k(y) or kd:
ky ảkl b ḥwt-k ỉnn

conj food in land-2msg there.is.not
‘(Regarding the fact, that you sent the king a letter concerning food), because there is
no food in your land.’
5.5.3 Relative
Relative clauses are very common in Ugaritic. The antecedent (head-noun) stands before
the relative clause in the absolute state or (rarely) in the pronominal state:
ỉl mlk d y-knn-h
Ilu king rel 3msg-create.pcsi-3msg
‘Ilu, the king, who created (yknn = /yukânin/, root kwn) him.’
5.5.4 Conditional
Conditional sentences are normally introduced with the conjunctions hm, ỉm, and k (‘if,
in case’):
hm ảṯtm t-ṣḥn
cond woman.du 3fdu-call.pcl
‘If the two women call (tṣḥn = /taṣî/ûḥāni, root ṣy/wḥ), . . . (then the two women will
be Ilu’s women).’
6 LEXICON
The Ugaritic lexicon comprises some 2,300 lexemes (Halayqa 2008: 26), including some
530 verbal roots that may be identified (Tropper 2008: 147–64). The lexicon includes
as well a high number of personal and divine names and toponyms (Halayqa 2008: 26,
Bordreuil and Pardee 2010: 73–8). The greater part of the lexicon is Semitic, but it also
includes an appreciable number of loans from other languages (Akkadian, Hurrian and
Hittite, among others; Watson 2007: 63–151). The Semitic part of the lexicon shares sets
of exclusive isoglosses with the Canaanite languages (ca. 80), with Arabic (ca. 20), with
Aramaic (ca. 5) and with Akkadian (ca. 30) (Kogan 2015: 275–343).
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The so-called “Kirta Epic” relates the adventures of Kirta, king of an unknown locality
called Bt Ḫbr. The poem is preserved on three tablets, excavated in Ras Shamra (Ugarit)
in 1930 and 1931 and housed at the Museum of Aleppo in Syria (see Figure 19.1). In the
following excerpt (KTU 1.14.III: 50–1.14.IV: 5), Kirta awakes from a dream sent by the
god Ilu, and prepares to perform a sacrifice in honor of the the gods Ilu and Baʕlu.
Krt y-ḫṭ w ḥlm ʕbd ỉl

Kirta 3msg-wake.pcsi and dream servant Ilu
Kirta awoke and (it was) a dream (yḫṭ = /yaḫîṭ/, root ḫyṭ, G), the servant of Ilu (awoke)
w hdrt y-rtḥṣ w y-ảdm y-rḥṣ

and vision 3msg-wash.intr.pcsi and 3msg-become.red.pcsi 3msg-wash.pcsi
and (it was) a vision. He washed himself (yrtḥṣ = /yirtaḥiṣ/, root rḥṣ, Gt) and painted
himself red (yảdm = /yiʔʔadim/, root ʔdm, N), he washed (yrḥṣ = /yirḥaṣ/, root rḥṣ, G)
yd-h ảmt-h ủṣbʕt-h ʕd ṯkm

hand.du-3msg elbow-term finger.pl-3msg up.to shoulder
his hands to the elbows, his fingers to the shoulder.
ʕrb b ẓl ḫmt lqḥ

enter.sc.3msg in shadow tent take.sc.3msg
He entered (ʕrb = /ʕaraba/, root ʕrb) into the shadow of the tent, took (lqḥ = /laqaḥa/,
root lqḥ, G)
ỉmr dbḥ b yd-h llả klảt-n-m

sheep sacrifice in hand.sg-3msg kid both-du.loc-encl
a sacrificial sheep in his hand, a kid in both (hands).
Ugaritic 505
FIGURE 19.1 A UGARITIC TABLET CONTAINING PART OF THE EPIC OF KIRTA. THE PHOTO
SHOWS KTU 1.14 (DIETRICH, LORETZ, AND SANMARTÍN 2013), CONTAINING
PART OF THE EPIC THAT APPEARS AS THE SAMPLE TEXT IN §7
Image courtesy of Wayne T. Pitard.
klt lḥm-h d nzl lqḥ msrr

all bread-3msg rel offering take.sc.3msg flying(.animal)
He took (lqḥ = /laqaḥa/, root lqḥ, G) all of his bread offerings, (he took) flying creatures,
ʕṣr dbḥ yṣq b gl ḥtṯ yn

bird sacrifice pour.sc.3msg from bowl silver wine
bird sacrifices. He poured (yṣq = /yaṣaqa/, root yṣq, G) wine from a silver bowl,
b gl ḫrṣ nbt w ʕly l ẓr mgdl

from bowl gold honey and go.up.sc.3msg to back tower
honey from a golden bowl, and he climbed (ʕly = /ʕalaya/, root ʕly, G) to the top of
the tower,
rkb ṯkm-m ḥmt nšả yd-h šmm-h

mount.sc.3msg shoulder-encl wall raise.sc.3msg hand.du-3msg heaven-term
mounted (rkb = /rakaba/, root rkb, G) the “shoulder” of the wall. He raised (nšả =
/našaʔa/, root nšʔ, G) his hands to heaven.
‘Kirta awoke and (it was) a dream, the servant of Ilu (awoke) and (it was) a vision. He
washed himself and painted himself red, he washed his hands to the elbows, his fingers to
the shoulder. He entered into the shadow of the tent, took a sacrificial sheep in his hand, a
kid in both (hands). He took all of his bread offerings, (he took) flying creatures, bird sac-
rifices. He poured wine from a silver bowl, honey from a golden bowl, and he climbed to
the top of the tower, mounted the “shoulder” of the wall. He raised his hands to heaven.’
NOTES
1 Additional glossing abbreviations in this chapter: pcse, pcsi, pcsv = prefix conjuga-
tion extended form, indicative form, volitive form, respectively; scf = fientic suffix
conjugation.
2 www.mission-ougarit.fr
3 There may, however, be a few exceptions to this rule in Ugaritic (Tropper 2012:
178–80).
4 The short form ản is attested only in the poetic text corpus.
5 An alternative vocalization is /-himā/; 1cdu, 1cpl and 2fpl forms are not attested; also
lacking are clear examples of 3m/fpl.
6 Alternative vocalizations are /himūti/ for 3mpl and /himāti/ for 3cdu.
7 In four instances the 1cpl possessive suffix appears with certainty as ‑ny‑, in each of
which the suffix also has an enclitic particle attached (thus ‑ny-y and ‑ny-n), and the
context excludes a 1cdu suffix; see Tropper (2012: 228, 823, 834).
8 In this list, forms in italics that are connected by hyphens, such as i-lu, are culled from
texts written in Mesopotamian syllabic cuneiform.
9 For the lexeme kbd see the recent study of Baker (2018).
10 On the differentiation of the aspects (perfective : imperfective), see Tropper (2012:
682, §76).
11 “Volitive” is used here as a generic term for the wish-command mood, and thus
includes categories such as jussive, cohortative and imperative.
12 Alternatively with /i/, i.e., /qatVl-tim(V)/. So also for the 2fpl (/qatVl-tin(n)/) and
2cdu (/qatVl-timā/).
13 The length and the quality of the final vowel are uncertain; /‑tī/ is also possible (corre-
sponding to the Canaanite form). In favor of /‑tu/, however, is the form of the independent
1csg personal pronoun in Ugaritic, /ʔanāku/, vs. /ʔanōki/ in Canaanite, the latter suggest-
ing that the final /‑tī/ is secondary (note Arabic /‑tu/; cf. Akkadian and Ethiopic /‑ku/).
14 The so-called lenthened stem (L) is attested only for verbs II–w/y and possibly also
geminate verbs. They are thus merely conditioned morphological variants of the
D stem.
Ugaritic 507
REFERENCES
Baker, Sarah Lynn. “Counting in Ugaritic: a New Analysis of KBD.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 63.1 (2018): 59–75.
Halayqa, Issam K. H. A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite. Münster:
Huehnergard, John. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Additions and
Corrections. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Huehnergard, John. An Introduction to Ugaritic. Peabody. MA: Hendrickson, 2012.
Kogan, Leonid. Genealogical Classification of Semitic. The Lexical Isoglosses. Boston/
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2015.
van Soldt, Wilfred H. The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit. Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2005.
Tropper, Josef. Ugaritische Grammatik, zweite, stark überarbeitete und erweiterte
Auflage. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012.
Watson, Wilfred. G. E. Lexical Studies in Ugaritic. Sabadell/Barcelona: AUSA, 2007.
GENERAL UGARITIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grammars
Bordreuil, Pierree and Pardee, Dennis. Manuel d’Ougaritique. Paris: Geuthner., 2004.
Bordreuil, Pierre and Pardee, Dennis. Manual of Ugaritic. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2010.
Huehnergard, John. An Introduction to Ugaritic. Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2012.
Schniedewind, William. M. and Hunt, Joel H. A Primer on Ugaritic. Language, Culture,
and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Sivan, Daniel. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Tropper, Josef. Ugaritisch. Kurzgefasste Grammatik mit Übungstexten und Glossar.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002.
Tropper, Josef. Ugaritische Grammatik, zweite, stark überarbeitete und erweiterte
Auflage. Münster: Ugarit, 2012.
Overview articles
del Olmo Lete, Gregorio. “Ugarítico: lengua, escritura, literatura.” In Estudios de
lingüística ugarítica. Una selección, edited by Gregorio del Olmo, 3–24. Sabadell:
AUSA, 2016.
Gianto, Agustinus. “Ugaritisch.” In Sprachen aus der Welt des Alten Testaments, edited
by Holger Gzella, 28–47. Darmstadt: WBG, 2009.
Pardee, Dennis. “Ugaritic.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 131–44.
London: Routledge, 1997.
Pardee, Dennis. “Ugaritic.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient
Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 288–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004.
Pardee, Dennis. “Ugaritic Morphology.” In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, edited by
Alan S. Kaye, 49–74. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Pardee, Dennis. “Ugaritic.” In The Semitic Languages. An International Handbook,
edited by Stefan Weninger, 460–72. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011.
Pardee, Dennis. “Sprache und Schrift.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie, edited by

Michael P. Streck. 14.3–4: 283–8. Berlin: Harrassowitz, 2014.
Tropper, Josef. “Ugaritic Grammar.” In Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, edited by Wilfred
G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt, 91–121. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Comprehensive text collections

Dietrich, Manfreid, Loretz, Oswald and Sanmartín, Joaquín. Die keilalphabetischen
Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten/The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts
from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013 (= KTU
3rd edition).
Concordances and word-lists

Cunchillos, Jesús-Luis, Vita, Juan-Pablo and Zamora, José-Ángel. A Concordance of
Ugaritic Words. 5 vol., Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2003.
Dietrich, Manfried and Loretz, Oswald. Word-List of the Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts
from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996.
Dictionaries
del Olmo Lete, Gregorio and Sanmartín, Joaquín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language
in the Alphabetic Tradition. 2 vol. (3rd ed.). Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Halayqa, Issam K. H. A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite. Münster:
Huehnergard, John. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Additions and
Corrections. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Tropper, Josef. Kleines Wörterbuch des Ugaritischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008.
CHAPTER 20
THE CANAANITE
LANGUAGES
Aren M. Wilson-Wright
1 INTRODUCTION
The Canaanite languages include Ammonite, Amarna Canaanite, Edomite, Hebrew,
Moabite, Phoenician and the language of the Deir ʕAllā plaster text (from here on, sim-
ply Deir ʕAllā) (Pat-El and Wilson-Wright 2015, 2016). Together with Aramaic, they
form the Aramaeo-Canaanite subgroup of Northwest Semitic (Pat-El and Wilson-Wright,
forthc.). As a family, the Canaanite languages are attested from roughly 1360 bce to 400
ce with Proto-Canaanite dating no earlier than 1550 bce (Wilson-Wright, forthc.). The
Canaanite languages were originally attested in what is today Israel (Hebrew), Western
Jordan (Ammonite, Deir ʕAllā, Edomite and Moabite) and the coast of Lebanon (Phoe-
nician). Beginning around 1000 bce, Phoenician seafarers, traders and colonists spread
their language across the Mediterranean basin, to sites in Cyprus, North Africa and Spain.
With the exception of Phoenician, speakers of Canaanite languages never wielded much
political power, and their languages only ever assumed regional importance. Phoenician,
by contrast, was the language of the Carthaginian Empire and continued to serve as a
lingua franca in North Africa after the fall of Carthage in 146 bce. Because Hebrew is
treated separately in Chapters 21 and 22, this chapter will focus on the other six Canaanite
languages with occasional references to Hebrew when necessary.
Texts in the Canaanite languages represent a variety of genres, including monumen-
tal, votive and dedicatory inscriptions as well as narratives, epitaphs, financial docu-
ments and letters. Edomite is attested in a single late 7th- or early 6th-century bce letter.
Moabite is known primarily from three 9th-century bce monumental inscriptions and
possibly a legal document and a dedicatory inscription. Texts in Ammonite span the
9th to 6th centuries bce and include two monumental inscriptions, several financial
documents, a letter and an inscribed bronze bottle. Deir ʕAllā is recorded in a single
early 7th-century bce narrative text, while Amarna Canaanite is known only through
glosses and hybrid verbal forms employed in Akkadian letters sent to Egypt during the
14th century bce (Izre'el 2012: 171–2). Texts in Phoenician include monumental, votive
and dedicatory inscriptions, epitaphs and a passage in the Roman-era play Poenulus by
Plautus.
Because most of the Canaanite languages are attested for only a brief period of time
and in only a handful of texts, it is hard to detect diachronic and dialectal variation.
The only exception to this rule is Phoenician, which is attested over a long period of
time – almost 1500 years – and across the Mediterranean basin. The earliest Phoenician
inscriptions (Map 20.1) stem from late 11th or early 10th century bce Byblos and are
written in the Byblian dialect, which differs in several significant ways from the Standard
510 Aren M. Wilson-Wright
Phoenician used elsewhere in the Levant. Byblian and Standard Phoenician, in turn, dif-
fer from the Phoenician used in the Mediterranean basin, which is called Punic after the
Latin word for the Phoenicians. Punic used after the fall of Carthage in 146 bce is known
as Late Punic.
Despite the poor attestation of several of the Canaanite languages, the unity of the
Canaanite family is well established. Six innovative features distinguish the Canaanite
languages from Aramaic and the rest of Northwest Semitic more generally: (a) the shift
of aː to oː, which triggered (b) the shift of the 1sg independent pronoun from ʔanaːkuː to
ʔanoːkiː and the 1sg perfective suffix from ‑tuː to -tiː; (c) the generalization of ‑nuː as the
1pl suffix to both nominative and oblique positions; (d) the shift of the D stem perfec-
tive base from kattib to kittib and the C stem perfective base from haktib to hiktib; (e) a
systematic morphosyntactic distinction between two different infinitives (the ‘infinitive
absolute’ and the ‘infinitive construct’) in the G stem; and (f) a relative marker derived
from the noun *ʔaθr- ‘place’ (Huehnergard 1991a, 2006, Pat-El and Wilson-Wright
2016).
Although the place of Canaanite within the Semitic family is well established, the
internal subgrouping of the Canaanite languages remains murky due to two factors.
First, most of the Canaanite languages are poorly attested, making it difficult to know
when morphosyntactic innovations are shared among languages. In Standard Phoenician,
for example, the C stem suffix conjugation takes the form yktb, which differs from the
form hktb found in Amarna Canaanite, Deir ʕAllā, Edomite and Hebrew. At first glance,
this form seems to be a good diagnostic feature of Phoenician. Yet the C stem suffix
MAP 20.1 THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CANAANITE INSCRIPTIONS

The Canaanite languages 511
conjugation is currently unattested in Ammonite, Moabite and Byblian Phoenician, which

means that this feature may not go back to Proto-Phoenician and may have been shared
with Ammonite and Moabite. Second, most of the Canaanite languages are recorded in
a purely consonantal script (see §2), which makes it difficult to detect morphosyntactic
changes that affected only vowels.
Finally, it is important to note that Amarna Canaanite does not seem to be a direct
ancestor of any of the other Canaanite languages, even though it is attested 300 or more
years before these other languages. It possesses several distinctive features, such as a
3mpl verbal prefix in tV-, that mark it as a separate language.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
With the exception of Amarna Canaanite, all of the Canaanite languages are recorded in a
variant of the Phoenician alphabet, a script that first emerged in the late 11th or early 10th
century bce. Over time, the Phoenician alphabet gave rise to two daughter scripts: Old
Hebrew in the 9th century and Aramaic in the late 8th century bce, which are named after
the languages that they recorded (note that Northwest Semitic script typology does not
replicate the subgrouping of Northwest Semitic). The Aramaic script, in turn, gave rise
to the Transjordanian scripts used to write Ammonite and Edomite. Not every Canaanite
language developed its own script, however: Moabite was written in the Old Hebrew
script for all of its recorded history, while the Deir ʕAllā plaster texts were written in a
variant of the Ammonite script (Rollston 2010: 19–46). Figure 20.1 contains examples of
some of the alphabetic scripts used to write the Canaanite languages.
The Phoenician script and its descendants originally distinguished 22 consonantal let-
ters but lacked a way to mark vowels. Starting around 900 bce, however, three letters
were co-opted to denote word-final long vowels in the Aramaic and Old Hebrew scripts:
<h> marked final aː and oː, <y> marked final iː, and <w> marked final uː. Over time, the
letters <y> and <w> were used to mark internal long vowels as well. Unlike its daughter
FIGURE 20.1
SOME OF THE ALPHABETIC SCRIPTS USED TO WRITE THE CANAANITE
LANGUAGES
Drawing by author.
scripts, the Phoenician script remained purely consonantal until the 3rd century bce, when
<ʔ> was sporadically used to represent any final vowel and <y> came to represent final
iː. Later still in the late 2nd century bce the letters <ʔ>, <ʕ>, <ḥ> and <h> were co-opted
to represent additional vowels after the phonemes represented by these letters were lost
(Jongeling and Kerr 2005: 7–8):
<ʔ> /o/ /e/ /u/

<h> /a/
<ḥ> /a/
<ʕ> /a/
FIGURE 20.2
A 10TH-CENTURY BCE PHOENICIAN ROYAL INSCRIPTION. THE ELIBAAL
INSCRIPTION (KAI 6) PICTURED HERE IS INSCRIBED ON A BUST OF PHARAOH
OSORKON I, WHO RULED OVER EGYPT FROM 924 TO 889 BCE
Open source: Wikimedia.
The use of these letters as vowels gives Late Punic inscriptions a somewhat alien look,
with non-etymological “consonants” appearing in the middle of words, e.g., mʕqʔm
‘place’ (KAI 124: 2) for earlier mqm.
The Canaanite languages are occasionally attested in other writing systems. Amarna
Canaanite was written in cuneiform, and after the fall of Carthage in 146 bce, Punic
was occasionally written in Greek or Latin script due to the loss of scribal facility in the
Neo-Punic script.
3 PHONOLOGY
The consonantal phonology of the Canaanite languages differs from language to lan-
guage. Standard Phoenician (Table 20.1) distinguished 22 consonantal phonemes, reflect-
ing the following mergers from the point of view of Proto-Aramaeo-Canaanite:
*s, *θ, *ɬ > s

*ʣ, *ð > ʣ
*ʕ, * ɣ > ʕ
*ħ, *x > ħ
*ʦ’, *θ’, *ɬ’ > s’
Other languages, by contrast, preserve a more archaic phonemic repertoire. Greek tran-
scriptions of Hebrew, for example, show that Hebrew maintained the distinction between
*ɣ and *ʕ and between *x and *ħ until the 1st or 2nd century ce (Steiner 2005: 266).1
Hebrew also maintained the voiceless lateral fricative *ɬ, which is distinguished from *s
> ʃ in the orthography of the Hebrew Bible by the use of diacritics (‫שׁ‬ = [ʃ] and ‫[ =שׂ‬ɬ]).
A Neo-Assyrian transcription of the Moabite personal name <kmš-ʕšh> as ka-ma-aš-ḫal-ta
suggests that Moabite also preserved *ɬ (Knauf and Maani 1987: 93). And finally, the
different outcomes of *ɬ’ in Deir ʕAllā compared to the rest of the Canaanite languages
shows that *ɬ’ was a distinct phoneme in Proto-Canaanite. In the orthography of the Deir
ʕAllā inscription, the ejective lateral fricative *ɬ’ is represented with <q>, which suggests
that *ɬ’ had either merged with k’ or shifted to a phoneme similar enough to k’ (kχ’?) that
it could be represented with the letter for k’. In the other Canaanite languages, by contrast,
*ɬ’ merges with *s’ and *θ’. Based on these survivals, Proto-Canaanite can be recon-
structed with 26 consonantal phonemes, which are summarized in Table 20.2.
Even though most of the Canaanite languages were written in consonantal orthogra-
phy, we can glean information about the vocalic systems of the Canaanite languages using
the comparative method, orthographic anomalies and transcriptions of some Canaanite
TABLE 20.1 THE CONSONANTAL PHONEMES OF STANDARD PHOENICIAN
Manner Bilabial Dental Lateral Palatal Alveolar-Palatal Velar Pharyngeal Glottal
Stops pb t d t’ k g k’ ʔ
Fricatives ∫ ħʕ h
Affricates ʦ ʣ ʦ’
Nasals m n
Approximants w r l j
TABLE 20.2 THE CONSONANTAL PHONEMES OF PROTO-CANAANITE
Manner Bilabial Dental Lateral Palatal Alveolar-Palatal Velar Pharyngeal Glottal
Stops pb t d t’ k g k’ ʔ
Fricatives ɬ ɬ’ s xɣ ħʕ h
Affricates ʦ ʣ ʦ’
Nasals m n
Approximants w r l j
TABLE 20.3 THE OUTCOME OF THE DIPHTHONGS IN THE CANAANITE LANGUAGES
Ammonite Deir ʕAllā Edomite Moabite Phoenician
*aj eː aj aj aj ~ eː eː
*aw aw aw aw > oː aw ~ oː oː
languages in cuneiform, Greek and Latin. The Canaanite family’s immediate ancestor,
Proto-Aramaeo-Canaanite, possessed six vocalic phonemes – a, i, u and their long coun-
terparts aː, iː, uː – and two diphthongs, *aj and *aw. In Proto-Canaanite, however, the
phonemic opposition between long and short vowels began to disintegrate with the shift
of *aː > oː. Although this type of shift is typologically common and even occurred in the
history of English, Semitists refer to this change as the Canaanite shift. Amarna Canaan-
ite seems to preserve the inherited Canaanite system of vowels. In other languages, by
contrast, one or both of the diphthongs contracted. In Edomite, the contraction of aw
to oː occurred in the historical period, sometime between the 7th and 6th centuries bce,
and in Moabite, the diphthongs were in the process of collapsing during the 9th century
(compare <bt> [beːt] ‘house’ in KAI 181:7, 23 with <byt> [bajt] ‘house’ in KAI 181:25).
Table 20.3 summarizes the outcome of the diphthongs in the Canaanite languages where
attested.
Only in the case of Phoenician do we possess adequate data to detect significant dia-
chronic changes in phonology. These data show that the already diminished Phoenician
consonantal system underwent further reductions and modifications in the last centuries
of the first millennium bce. In the 2nd century bce, Punic lost ʔ, h, ʕ and ħ. Around the
same time the voiceless stops p, t and k underwent spirantization to f, θ and x; w shifted to
v and b shifted to w; and θ was lost in the word-final position. In contrast to the upheaval
in the inventory of “gutturals” and stops, the affricates ʦ, ʣ and ʦ’ remained stable, at
least in the Late Punic spoken in North Africa. The use of the Greek letter <ζ> to write ʣ
and a ligature of T and S to write ʦ’ in Latin transcription suggests that these consonants
retained their affricated pronunciation. This state of affairs stands in contrast to Hebrew,
where the affricate ʦ shifted to s during the 7th century bce (Wilson-Wright, forthc.).
Phoenician vowels also underwent radical changes from the perspective of
Proto-Canaanite. Already in the earliest inscriptions, the diphthongs *aj and *aw con-
tracted to eː and oː respectively, and the latter vowel merged with the oː produced by the
Canaanite shift. By the Hellenistic period, the product of this merger was raised to uː:
χουσωρ [kuːsor] < *kawθar (PE 1.10.11). Around the 8th century bce short, accented
a shifted to o in originally open syllables, a sound change that Semitists refer to as the
Phoenician shift: ḫi-ru-um-mu [ħiːrom] < *ʔaħiːrám (Annals of Tiglath-Pileser 27, ln.
2, Fox 1996: 38–41). Similarly, short, accented i shifted to eː in originally open sylla-
bles during the Hellenistic period (βαλσιλληχ [baʕl-silleːk] < *baʕl-sillík ‘Baal has sent’
[CIL VIII 16]), while unaccented i shifted to ε in originally open syllables (Γεραστρατος
[gεr-ʕaštart] < *gir-ʕaštart ‘client of Astarte’ [Contra Apion 1, 157]). In all other posi-
tions, short i was retained. By the Hellenistic period, Phoenician distinguished the follow-
ing vowels: a, eː, ε, i, iː, o, u and uː.
Ultimately, these changes disrupted the inherited opposition between long and short
vowels, and, eventually, vowel length ceased to be phonemic in Punic (Kerr 2010: 106).
Instead, vowel length came to be conditioned by stress: stressed vowels were long (even
if they were historically short), while unstressed vowels were short (even if they were
historically long), and tended to reduce to schwa. These developments can be seen espe-
cially clearly in the inherited 1st person independent pronoun *ʔanoːkiː, which is written
anech [anəx] in the Poenulus. The historically short a vowel in the first syllable was
accented and therefore retained, while the historically long vowels oː and iː reduced to
schwa and, in the case of iː, disappeared entirely.
Syllables in the Canaanite languages could take the form CV, CVC and CVː. Accord-
ing to the available data, this restriction on syllable type remained historically stable in
all of the Canaanite languages.
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
The Canaanite languages employed two series of personal pronouns: independent and
suffixed. The independent forms were primarily used for the nominative and occasionally
to topicalize suffixed forms, while the suffixed forms marked nominal possession and
served as the object of finite verbs. The suffixed forms could also act as the subject of an
infinitive as in the following example from Moabite:
b-hltḥm-h b-y
in-fight.refl. inf.cst-3msg in-1sg
‘when he was fighting me’ (KAI 181:9)
Only the 1sg suffix pronoun distinguished between post-verbal (i.e., accusative) and
post-nominal (i.e., genitive) forms. Tables 20.4, 20.5 and 20.6 summarize the personal
pronouns in the Canaanite languages
Most of the suffixed pronouns remained relatively stable across languages. The 3sg
suffix pronouns, however, underwent several ad hoc changes in different languages and
dialects. Interestingly, these changes often presume different phonetic environments,
reflecting different relics of the Northwest Semitic case system. The Byblian 3msg forms
<‑w> and <‑ø> reflect syncope of original -huː before the a vowel of the accusative (-ahuː
> -auː > -aw > -oː) as do Standard Phoenician <‑ø>, Punic <-ʔ> and Late Punic [‑oː]. The
3fsg forms <‑ø>, <-ʔ> and [‑aː] probably derive from a similar sound change. Standard
Phoenician 3msg and 3fsg <-y> reflects palatalization of h following the i vowel of the
genitive: -ihuː > -ijuː and -ihaː > -ijaː (Huehnergard 1991b: 187). And the Late Punic
3msg suffix <-m> has been explained in several ways. Huehnergard (1991b: 189–90)
sees it as a rendering of [‑iw], which would have been phonologically similar to [‑im]
TABLE 20.4 THE INDEPENDENT PRONOUNS IN THE CANAANITE LANGUAGES
Byblian Standard Late Punic Moabite Deir Edomite Amarna

Phoenician Phoenician ʕAllā Canaanite
1sg ʔnk ʔnk [anəx] ʔnk [ʔanoːkiː]

2msg ʔt ʔt
2fsg ʔt
3msg hʔ, hʔt hʔ [u] hʔ hʔ
3fsg hʔ hʔ
1pl ʔnḥn
2mpl
2fpl
3mpl hmt hm
3fpl hmt
TABLE 20.5 THE SUFFIXED PRONOUNS IN PHOENICIAN
Byblian Phoenician Standard Phoenician Punic Late Punic
1sg /C_ -ø, -y

/V_ -y
on verbs -n
2msg -k
2fsg -k
3msg /C_ -h, -w -ø -ʔ [-oː], [-m]
/V_ -y
/aj_ -w -y
3fsg /C_ -h -ø -ʔ [-aː]
/V_ -y -y
/aj_ -y
1pl -n [-oːn]
2mpl [-ʔom]
2fpl
3mpl /C_ -hm -m -m [-noːm]
/V_ -nm -nm
3fpl /C_ -m
/V_ -nm
TABLE 20.6 THE SUFFIXED PRONOUNS IN THE REST OF THE CANAANITE LANGUAGES
Amarna Canaanite Ammonite Deir ʕAllā Edomite Moabite
1sg on nouns [-ya] -y

on verbs -ny
2msg -k -k -k
2fsg -ky
3msg [-huː] -h -h -h
on mpl nouns -wh -h
3fsg [-hiː] -h
1pl [-nuː]
2mpl -km -km
2fpl
3mpl [-muː] -hm, -m
3fpl
in Late Punic and would reflect h syncope before the genitive: ‑ihuː > -iuː > -iw. Kerr
(2010: 141), by contrast, relates it to the obscure 3sg pronoun -moː occasionally found in
Hebrew (e.g., Genesis 9:26, Deuteronomy 33:2).
The 3msg suffix also exhibits several idiosyncrasies when attached to masculine plural
nouns. In Deir ʕAllā, the masculine plural bound morpheme ‑aj undergoes partial assim-
ilation to the vowel of the 3msg suffix, leading to ‑awhuː, written <-wh>. In Standard
Phoenician, by contrast, the h of the 3sg suffixes assimilates to the eː of the construct
morpheme: -eːhuː > -eːjuː and -eːhaː > -eːjaː. Byblian <‑w> probably reflects partial
assimilation of the bound morpheme to the vowel of the suffix, followed by syncope of
the h: -ajhuː > -awhuː > -awuː.
The Phoenician 3m pronouns exhibit several other quirks. The Byblian 3msg indepen-
dent pronoun hʔt and the Standard Phoenician 3mpl and 3fpl independent pronouns hmt
reflect oblique forms of the 3m independent pronouns inherited from Proto-Semitic. The
origin of the distinctive Standard Phoenician, Punic and Late Punic 3mpl suffix pronoun
-noːm is debated. Huehnergard (1991b: 191–4) derives the unexpected nasal element of
this suffix from the old 3mpl indicative prefix ending ‑uːnaː: *yaktubuːna-hum > *yaktu-
buːnawm > yaktubuːnoːm, which was then reanalyzed as yaktubuː-noːm by comparison
with the usual 3mpl prefix form yaktubuː. Kerr (2010: 143), on the other hand, derives
-noːm from -Vn-humu, where -Vn- is the nasal infix occasionally used with prepositions.
In Phoenician, the 1sg and 3pl suffixed pronouns have two allomorphs whose usage
is conditioned by phonetic environment. The forms <‑ø> and <‑m> appear after a con-
sonant, while the forms <‑y> and <‑nm> appear after a vowel. This distinction demon-
strates that a reduced case system was still operative in Phoenician: nouns in the genitive
take the prevocalic forms, while nouns in the nominative and accusative bear the precon-
sonantal forms, which indicates that genitive nouns in Phoenician still ended with an ‑i.
The Late Punic 2mpl possessive suffix takes the form [-ʔom] following the spirantiza-
tion of the velar stop and the loss of the voiceless velar fricative, e.g., *-kumu > *-xum
> [-ʔom].
4.2 Demonstratives
The Canaanite languages possessed two series of demonstrative pronouns, proximal and
distal. The proximal series followed a suppletive paradigm, employing a z base in the
singular and an ʔl base in the plural, and only distinguished gender in the singular. In Late
Punic, the feminine singular proximal demonstratives underwent devoicing, most likely
due to the presence of the final ‑t. This devoicing then spread to the masculine forms. For
the most part, the distal pronouns are identical to the 3rd person independent pronouns.
Table 20.7 summarizes the various proximal demonstratives attested in Phoenician, the
TABLE 20.7
THE PROXIMAL DEMONSTRATIVES IN THE VARIOUS DIALECTS OF
PHOENICIAN
Byblian Phoenician Standard Phoenician Punic Late Punic
msg zn, z z z, s, st [sə]

fsg zʔt, zʔ z zt, st [səθ]
pl ʔl ʔl ʔlʔ [illə]
only Canaanite language other than Hebrew to preserve the full paradigm. Outside of
Phoenician, Moabite attests to the fsg proximal demonstrative zʔt (KAI 181:3).
4.3 Interrogatives
In contrast to the rest of the pronominal system, the interrogative pronouns were marked
for animacy (animate vs. inanimate) rather than person-gender-number. The animate
interrogative appears in Punic as mi [miː] ‘who?’ (Poen. 1010) and in Amarna Canaanite
as mi-ya [mija] ‘who?’ (EA 85:63; 94:12; 116:67). Amarna Canaanite also possessed an
oblique form of the animate interrogative in [mijatiː] (EA 220:11). The final -atiː on this
form is most likely the oblique morpheme ‑t found on the Byblian 3msg independent
pronoun hʔt and the Standard Phoenician 3mpl independent pronoun hmt. The inanimate
interrogative *mah ‘what?’ appears in Deir ʕAllā (I, 5), Hebrew (Genesis 2:9 inter alia)
and Punic (Poen. 1010) and came to be employed as a relative particle in Late Punic.
Deir ʕAllā also possessed a compound interrogative l-m ‘why’ (literally ‘for what?’). In
Standard Phoenician, both interrogatives could serve as indefinite pronouns, e.g., w-my
yšḥt h-spr z ‘and whoever destroys this inscription’ (KAI 24:14), mʔš pʕlt ‘whatever I did’
(KAI 24:4).
4.4 Relative
Although both Byblian Phoenician, Late Punic and Archaic Hebrew preserve vestiges
of the inherited Northwest Semitic relative pronoun *zVː, all of the Canaanite languages
use a grammaticalized form of the noun *ʔaθr ‘place’ as a relative particle (Pat-El and
Wilson-Wright 2016: 44–7). This particle grammaticalized differently in the various lan-
guages. In some, it retained its full morphological form; in others, it reduced to ʔš or even
to a clitic š with gemination in the following consonant (Huehnergard 2006: 124–5). In
addition to forms derived from *ʔaθar and *zVː, Late Punic also possessed a third relative
marker, mu, derived from the inanimate interrogative pronoun *mah ‘what?’. Table 20.8
summarizes the different forms of the relative marker in the Canaanite languages.

Nouns and adjectives in the Canaanite languages were declined for gender (masculine
and feminine), number (singular, plural and rarely dual), state (bound or nonbound)
TABLE 20.8 THE VARIOUS FORMS OF THE RELATIVE MARKER IN THE CANAANITE

LANGUAGES
Ammonite Deir Edomite Moabite Byblian Standard Late Punic

ʕAllā Phoenician
*ʔaθar ʔš, š ʔš ʔšr ʔšr ʔš [əʃ]
*zVː z [zə]
*mah [mu]
and in some instances, case (nominative or oblique). As in Semitic in general, nouns

in the Canaanite languages could be bound (i.e., dependent on a following nominal,
verbal clause or prepositional phrase) or nonbound (i.e., independent). Bound and non-
bound nouns took the same form in the singular in the Canaanite languages, but the
plural employed different morphemes to distinguish bound and nonbound forms. Some
Canaanite languages preserved vestiges of the Northwest Semitic case system, which dis-
tinguished nominative, genitive and accusative cases in the singular and nominative and
oblique cases in the plural. Phoenician preserved a distinction between the nominative
and oblique case in the singular before the 1sg and 3rd person suffixes, while Amarna
Canaanite preserved a general distinction between the nominative and oblique cases in the
plural: mar-ia-nu-ma [maryanuːma] ‘chariot warriors (nom)’ (EA 107:43) and li-mi-ma
[liʔmiːma] ‘peoples (obl)’ (EA 205:6). Table 20.9 summarizes the nominal declensions
of the various Canaanite languages.
With the exception of Amarna Canaanite and Deir ʕAllā, all of the Canaanite lan-
guages feature a prefixed definite article derived from the presentative particle *han-:
Ammonite h-krm ‘the vineyard’ (KAI 308:4); Edomite h-ʔkl ‘the food’ (Ḥorvat Uza ln.
3); Moabite h-ʔrṣ ‘the land’ (KAI 181:29); Phoenician h-btm ‘the houses’ (KAI 4:2).
In most cases, the n of the definite article assimilated to the following consonant. The
resulting doubling usually remains undetectable in the purely consonantal orthography of
the Canaanite languages, but several unusual Punic spellings confirm its presence, e.g.,
ʕm-mqm [am-maquːm] ‘the place’ (KAI 173:5), as does the vocalization of the Hebrew
Bible, [ham-mɔjim] ‘the water’ (Genesis 1:2).
4.6 Numerals
Apart from Hebrew, Phoenician preserves the best evidence for the numerals, which were
arranged in a decimal system. The units were nouns and declined for gender, with fem-
inine forms invariably taking a final -t (Table 20.10). The tens were formed by adding
the plural morpheme to the corresponding unit, with the exception of ‘twenty’, which
was the plural of ‘ten’. Separate words for ‘hundred’ (mʔt) and ‘thousand’ (ʔlp) are also
attested. Composed numbers took the form hundreds and tens and ones, e.g., mʔt w-šlšm
w-šlš ‘133’ (KAI 130:2). In Late Punic, the units could take a pronominal suffix to refer
to groups, e.g., ʔrbtnm ‘the four of them’ (IPT 79:5). The existence of this construction
TABLE 20.9 THE NOMINAL DECLENSIONS OF THE CANAANITE LANGUAGES
Amarna Ammonite Deir ʕAllā Edomite Moabite Standard Late Punic

Canaanite Phoenician
msg [-ø] -ø -ø -ø -ø -ø [-ø]

mpl [-uːma] -m -n -n -m [-iːm]
nbnd [-iːma]
mpl -ø -y -ø, -y -ø [-eː]
bnd
fsg -t -h -t -t
fpl -t -t -t -t [-uːθ]
du -n [-eːm]
TABLE 20.10 THE UNITS IN PHOENICIAN
Masculine Feminine
1 ʔḥd ʔḥt
2 šnm (nbnd)
šn (bnd)
ʔ šlš šlšt
4 ʔrbʕ ʔrbʕt
5 ḥmš ḥmšt
6 šš ššt
7 šbʕ šbʕt
8 šmnh /šmn
9 tšʕ
10 ʕsr2 ʕšrt
suggests that numerals stood in construct with the noun that they modified. Ordinal num-
bers were formed in Phoenician with the addition of a final ‑y (e.g., ʔrbʕy ‘fourth’ in KAI
76B:1), which can probably be vocalized [‑iːj] on the basis of Hebrew.
Outside of Phoenician the evidence for the number system is slim: ‘one’ (ḥd) appears
once in Deir ʕAllā (II, 10), ‘seven’ (ši-bi or ši-bi-i/e) occurs several times in Amarna
Canaanite (EA 196:4, 211:4, 215:6), and the numbers ‘30’ (šlšn), ‘40’ (ʔrbʕn), ‘100’ (mʔt),
‘200’ (mʔtn) and ‘7,000’ (šbʕt ʔlpn) show up once each in Moabite (KAI 181:2, 8, 16, 20,
29); the texts in Ammonite and Edomite do not contain any numerals.
4.7 Verbs
Verbal morphology in the Canaanite languages, as in the Semitic languages in general,
was particularly rich. Verbal roots occurred in two finite conjugations – prefix and suf-
fix – and a variety of stems, which altered the semantics of the underlying root. Each stem
also possessed its own infinitive, participle and imperative forms. In Proto-Canaanite at
least, the basic stem distinguished between two morphologically and syntactically dis-
tinct infinitives.
The Canaanite languages inherited a complex TAM system from Central Semitic that
distinguished between three prefix conjugations: an imperfective yaktubu ~ yaktubuːna
form, a preterite/jussive yaktub ~ yaktubuː form, and a cohortative yaktuba ~ yaktubuː
form. Any of the three prefix conjugations could be marked additionally with the suffix
‑(n)na (the so-called energic suffix), whose function is still poorly understood. Amarna
Canaanite still retains this system largely intact, which is summarized using a G stem
verb in Table 20.11. In the remaining languages, however, the morphological distinc-
tion between the three forms collapsed due to the loss of final short vowels: *yaktub,
*yaktubu, *yaktuba > yaktub. The loss of distinctiveness in the singular, in turn, led to
leveling in the plural form: Standard Phoenician and Deir ʕAllā leveled the jussive form,
while Ammonite probably leveled the imperfective form. Despite this loss of morpho-
logical distinctiveness, the later Canaanite languages still preserved a regular semantic
distinction between the imperfective and jussive forms. The prefixed preterite form, how-
ever, was restricted to certain syntactic environments, with the suffix conjugation being
TABLE 20.11 THE THREE PREFIX CONJUGATIONS OF AMARNA CANAANITE
Indicative/Imperfect Jussive/Preterite Cohortative
1sg ʔVktVbu ʔVktVb ʔVktVba

2msg tVktVbu tVktVb
2fsg
3msg yVktVbu yVktVb
3fsg tVktVbu tVktVb
1pl nVktVbu nVktVb nVktVba
2mpl tVktVbuːna
2fpl
3ml tVktVbuːna tVktVbuː
3fpl
3mdu tVktVbaː
TABLE 20.12
THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION IN AMARNA CANAANITE, STANDARD
PHOENICIAN AND LATE PUNIC
Amarna Canaanite Standard Phoenician Late Punic
1sg [katabtiː] ktbt [katabθi]

2msg [katabta(ː)] ktbt
2fsg ktbt
3msg [kataba] ktb [katob]
3fsg [katabat] ktbt [kataba]
1pl [katabnuː] ktbn
2mpl [kataltunu]
2fpl
3mpl [katabuː] ktb [katabu]
3fpl
3mdu [katabaː]
the preferred means of expressing the past tense. Hebrew, Moabite and Deir ʕAllā pre-
serve the preterite form as a narrative tense to describe consecutive actions. Interestingly,
Amarna Canaanite differs from Phoenician, Hebrew, Moabite and Ammonite in using
tV- as the 3mpl prefix. The 3mpl prefix form is unattested in Edomite.
The suffix conjugation is far simpler than its prefix counterpart. Historically, it derives
from the Proto-Semitic stative, a verbal adjective marked with enclitic pronouns, which
developed into a perfective conjugation in West Semitic (see Chapter 3, §3.5.4). In the
Canaanite languages, it acts as perfective form and, with certain roots, can have a sta-
tive meaning. Table 20.12 summarizes the forms of the G stem suffix conjugation in
Amarna Canaanite, Standard Phoenician and Late Punic, the three languages where it is
best attested.
In addition to the conjugation system, the Canaanite languages distinguished at least
four verbal stems (G, D, C, N), which rang morphological and semantic changes on the
verbal root. The Ground stem (G), whose finite forms are summarized above, was the
basic form of the verb. The Doubled stem (D) was marked by doubling of the middle
radical of the verbal root in all derived forms (kittib ~ yukattib). The semantic effect
of this stem is hard to quantify. In general, it tends to raise the valence of the verbal
root by one and, therefore, is often referred to as a factitive stem. It is also used to form
denominal verbs. The Causative stem (C) is marked by a prefixed hV-, which elided in
the prefix conjugation (hiktib ~ yaktib). In Standard Phoenician, this prefix palatalizes
to yi-, making it difficult to distinguish between suffix yiktib and prefix yaktib in purely
consonantal orthography. True to its name, the C stem imparts a causative meaning to the
verbal root. The N stem is marked by a prefixed nV-, which regularly assimilated to the
following consonant, including the first root consonant of the prefix conjugation (naktab
~ yakkatib). It has a medio-passive or reflexive meaning.
Some stems possessed corresponding passive and reflexive forms. The passive forms
of the various stems were marked by a change in vowel melody. G active kataba ~ yVktVb,
for example, becomes katiba ~ yuktab in the passive, e.g., Amarna Canaanite la-qí-ḫu
[lak’iħuː] ‘they (m) were taken’ (EA 287:56); yu-pa-šu [yupaʃu] ‘it is done’ (EA 114:42).
The reflexive forms, on the other hand, were marked by a prefixed or infixed t in both
the prefix and suffix conjugations, e.g., Moabite w-ʔltḥm ‘and I battled’ (KAI 181:11).
As usual, the purely consonantal orthography employed to write most of the Canaanite
languages makes it difficult to detect most of the stems and their passive and reflexive
variants. Only the suffix conjugation of the C and N stems and the reflexive variants of
the four stems can be easily recognized. The following examples illustrate the distinctive
morphology of these forms:
Deir ʕAllā hqrqt C ‘it causes to flee’ (I, 16)

nṣbw N ‘they stood’ (I, 6)
ytmlk tD ‘he will take council’ (II, 9)
Amarna Canaanite ḫi-iḫ-bi-e [hixbiʔ] C ‘he hid’ (EA 256:7)
na-aq-ṣa-pu [nak’s’apuː] N ‘they were angry’ (EA 82:51)
Edomite hbrktk C ‘I blessed you’ (Ḥorvat ‘Uza ln. 2)
Moabite hšʕny C ‘he saved me’ (KAI 181:4)
w-ʔltḥm Gt ‘and I fought’ (KAI 181:11)
Phoenician yqdš D ‘he sanctified’ (KAI 42:4)
npʕl N ‘it was done’ (RES 1204:1)
thtpk Gt ‘let it be overturned’ (KAI 1:2)
The Canaanite languages distinguish morphosyntactically between two different infin-

itive forms, at least in the G stem: the infinitive absolute and the infinitive construct; this
distinction is one of the innovative features of the Canaanite branch of Aramaeo-Canaanite
(Pat-El and Wilson-Wright 2016: 47–52). When paired with the appropriate independent
pronoun, the infinitive absolute can take the place of a finite verb as in the following
Phoenician example:
w-qrʔ ʔnk
and-call.inf.absl 1sg
‘and I called’ (KAI 10:2)
It can also serve as an argument of a finite verb from the same root as in the following
example from Moabite:
w-yšrʔl ʔbd yʔbd

and-Israel perish.inf.absl perish.ipfv.3msg
‘and Israel will surely perish’ (KAI 181:7)
The infinitive construct, by contrast, is used as the object of prepositions and with pro-
nominal suffixes:
b-hltḥm-h b-y
in-fight.refl.inf.cst-3msg in-1sg
‘when he was fighting me’ (KAI 181:19)
The infinitive absolute and the infinitive construct also differ in their morphology. The infinitive
absolute reflects a Proto-Semitic *kataːb (Proto-Canaanite *katoːb) pattern, while the infinitive
construct reflects a variety of patterns. Strong roots favor a *kutub pattern, while I–y roots and
the verb ntn ‘to give’ usually occur in a *tib-t pattern. III–y roots tend to take a *kitaːt pattern.
Each stem had a corresponding participle, which declined for number and gender like
a noun. The active G stem participle in Canaanite took the form koːtib as in Amarna
Canaanite sú-ki-ni [soːkin-] ‘commissioner’ (EA 256:9) and Late Punic dvber [dubεr]
< *doːbir ‘speaking’ (Poen. 944). The G passive participle had the form katuːb, e.g.,
ḫa-mu-du [ħamuːdu] ‘desired’ (EA 138:126). Vocalized examples of the D and C stem
participles are not attested, but they can be distinguished in consonantal orthography by
the presence of a prefixed m-, e.g., Ammonite mʕrb ‘the one who causes to enter (C)’
(KAI 307:3). N stem participles are marked by an n- prefix as in Phoenician nštʕm ‘those
who are feared’ (KAI 26A II:4).
Each stem also had a corresponding imperative, which expressed 2nd person com-
mands. Vocalized examples of the imperative are rare outside of Biblical Hebrew, but
they suggest that the imperative took the form qutul or qital for strong verbs (Bjøru,
forthc.), e.g., nu-pu-ul [nupul] ‘fall!’ (EA 252:25) and [ləbaʃ] ‘put on!’ (1 Kings 22:30).
Some middle weak roots reflect a qitil pattern in the imperative, e.g., [ɬiːm] < *ɬiyim
(Genesis 31:37). Negative imperatives were formed by using the non-indicative negative
particle ʔl in conjunction with the corresponding jussive prefix conjugation as in the fol-
lowing example from Deir ʕAllā:
ʔl t-hgy
neg 2fsg-remove.juss
‘do not remove (it)!’ (I, 7)
Commands in the 3rd and 1st person were expressed using the jussive and cohortative
prefix conjugations respectively, e.g., Deir ʕAllā thby ‘let her place’ (I, 7) and Biblical
Hebrew [ʔeʃmoːrɔ] ‘I shall guard’ (Psalms 59:10).
4.8 Prepositions and conjunctions

Three short proclitic prepositions, b- ‘in, among’, l- ‘to, for’, and k- ‘like, as’, did most of
the heavy lifting in the Canaanite languages. Nevertheless, all of the Canaanite languages
possess longer, free-standing prepositions, many of which derive from bound nouns.
The most conspicuous example is boːd ‘through’, which is attested in Phoenician and
Amarna Canaanite and represents a contraction of *bi-yadi ‘in the hand of’. Other
examples include ʕl ‘upon’ (Ammonite, Edomite, Deir ʕAllā, Phoenician), tḥt ‘under’
(Amarna Canaanite, Deir ʕAllā), mn ‘from’ (Ammonite, Deir ʕAllā, Phoenician), ʔḥr ‘after’
(Amarna Canaanite, Deir ʕAllā), l-pn ‘before’ (Phoenician) and ʕmd ‘with’ (Edomite). In
addition to prepositions, Amarna Canaanite and Phoenician possessed post-positive loc-
ative markers in either ‑um(m)a or *-ah > aː: ba-aṭ-nu-ma [bat’nu(m)-ma] ‘on the belly’
(EA 232:10) and mʕl-ʔ [miʕ-ʕal-aː] ‘above’ (KAI 145:14).
The prepositions were subject to several ad hoc phonological changes, due no doubt to
their frequent usage. In languages with a definite article, the h of the definite article under-
went syncope after the three short, proclitic prepositions b-, l- and k-, e.g., *li-hap-patħ
> lap-petaħ ‘at the door’ (Genesis 4:7). In Phoenician, prepositions could be extended
through the addition of a prefixed ʔ (e.g., ʔb for b-) or a suffixed n or t (e.g., bn for b-, ʕlt
for ʕl). The preposition mn could be used proclitically or as a freestanding preposition;
the n of the proclitic variant usually assimilated to the first consonant of its nominal
dependent, e.g., Ammonite m-ʔlt ‘from Elat’ (Heshbon 1:4).
The Canaanite languages inherited an object marker, *ʔayaːt, from Aramaeo-Canaanite,
which in some languages came to mark the definite direct object of a verb (Wilson-Wright
2016: 7–15). This particle is attested in Edomite and Moabite as ʔt and in Standard Phoe-
nician Punic as ʔyt and ʔt. The shorter form reflects vowel contraction and is transcribed
as οθ in a Phoenician inscription in Greek script from Wasṭa Syria, reflecting perhaps ʔoːt
< *ʔayoːt < *ʔayaːt. In Late Punic, the object marker reduced to [ət] (written <yth> in
Poen. 930, 932, 935, 936, 937 and 940 and Wadi Chanafes LP 1:1) and even [t-] (Zliten
LP 1:1) following the loss of the “guttural” consonants and the realignment of the vocalic
system in Late Punic.
The conjunction in the Canaanite languages was a simple wV-, which should probably
be vocalized wa- based on Hebrew and comparative Semitic evidence. In Late Punic, the
conjunction underwent reduction to [və].
4.9 Negation markers

According to the available evidence, the Canaanite languages inherited a system of three
negation markers from Northwest Semitic – laː, ʔal and bal – which served to negate
different parts of speech. Northwest Semitic laː > Canaanite loː negated indicative verbs,
ʔal negated non-indicative verbs, and bal negated nouns. This system remains intact in
most of the Canaanite languages. In Phoenician, however, bal replaces loː as the standard
negation for indicative verbs (Pat-El 2013). In some Canaanite languages, such as Deir
ʕAllā, the negative particle loː was proclitic; in others, like Hebrew, it was a freestanding
particle.
5 SYNTAX
The lack of long, non-formulaic texts makes it difficult to analyze the syntax of the
Canaanite languages in detail. Nevertheless, certain general features can be distilled from
the available data.
5.1 Word order
Because the subject of finite verbs in the Canaanite languages is encoded in the verbal
morphology, word order tends to be VO as the following example from Moabite shows:
w-y-ʕnw ʔt mʔb
and-3msg-oppress.fact obj gn
‘and he oppressed Moab’ (KAI 181:5)
When an independent subject is expressed, it usually appears before the finite verb as in
the following example from Moabite:
ˀnk bn-ty ʕrʕr

1sg build.pfv-1sg gn
‘I myself built Aroer’ (KAI 181:26)
Other phrases in the Canaanite languages follow head-dependent order:
PP ʕmd ʔḥʔmh
with pn
‘with Ahimo’ (Edomite; Ḥorvat ‘Uza ln. 4)
N-N k-mšʔ ʔl
like-oracle.cst dn
‘like an oracle of El’ (Deir ʕAllā I, 2)
N-Adj šn-t rḥq-t

year-fpl far-fpl
‘years far off’ (Ammonite; KAI 308:9)
N-Rel ʔrn z pʕl [ʔ]tbʕl

coffin rel make.pfv.3msg pn
‘the coffin that Ittobaal made’ (Byblian Phoenician; KAI 1:1)
N-Dem h-bmt zʔt

def-high.place dem
‘this high place’ (Moabite; KAI 181:3)
5.2 Predication
The Canaanite languages distinguish two types of predication, nominal and verbal. In
verbal predication, the predicate is a finite verb, while in nominal predication the predi-
cate is a noun, pronoun, adjective or prepositional phrase:
Verbal predication
w-y-qm blʕm
and-3msg-rise.pfv pn
‘and Balaam rose’ (Deir ʕAllā I, 3)
Nominal predication
ḥzh ʔlh-n hʔ
see.ptcp.msg god-mpl 3msg
‘he was a seer of the gods’ (Deir ʕAllā I, 1)
5.3 Definiteness
With the exception of Amarna Canaanite and Deir ʕAllā, definiteness is morphologically
marked in the Canaanite languages. Ammonite, Edomite, Moabite and Phoenician all
attest to a prefixed definite article in h-. Interestingly, the Canaanite languages differ in
terms of demonstrative agreement as it relates to definiteness. In Byblian Phoenician, the
bare demonstrative modifies indefinite nouns, while in Standard Phoenician and Moabite,
the bare demonstrative modifies definite nouns. In Hebrew, the demonstrative agrees with
its head noun in terms of definiteness. Compare the following:
Byblian Phoenician ʔrn zn

coffin dem
‘this coffin’ (KAI 1:2)
Moabite h-bmt zʔt

def-high.place dem
‘this high place’ (KAI 181:3)
Hebrew h-ʕt h-zh

def-time def-dem
‘this time’ (Lachish 6:2)
5.4 Analytics structures

The Canaanite languages are predominantly analytic in both their nominal and verbal
systems. Dependency between a noun and a following noun, clause or prepositional
phrase is expressed by assigning the construct state to the head noun as in the following
example from Deir ʕAllā:
k-mšʔ ʔl
like-oracle.cst dn
‘like an oracle of El’ (I, 2)
The verbal system is also highly analytic, with both person-gender-number and
TAM being encoded through verbal morphology. For the most part, pronominal
objects are attached directly to both nouns and verbs. Late Punic, however, devel-
oped a synthetic genitive using a relative pronoun, the preposition l- and the suf-
fixed pronouns:
[bə-marov zə-lo-ʔom]
in-protection rel-to-2mpl
‘in your protection’ (Poen. 933)
w-rdm š-l-ʔ
and-family rel-to-3msg
‘and his family’ (Hr Maktar N 58:3)
5.5 Subordination
Relative clauses are the main type of subordination attested in the Canaanite languages.
Such clauses are marked with a relative particle, typically a reflex of *ʔaθr, but relatives
in zVː and moː are attested in Phoenician and Hebrew. Relative clauses usually mark
resumption of the head noun within the relative clause except when the head noun func-
tions as the direct object within the relative clause:
ʔnk yḥwmlk . . . ʔš pʕl-t-n h-rbt bʕlt gbl mmlkt ʕl gbl

1sg pn rel made.pfv-3fsg-1sg def-lady dn sovereign upon gn
‘I am Yahwimilk . . . whom the lady, Lady of Byblos made sovereign over Byblos’
(KAI 10:1–2)
5.6 Negation
As mentioned previously, the Canaanite languages inherited three negation markers
from Proto-Northwest Semitic: a nominal negation marker bal, an indicative negation
marker laː (> loː with the Canaanite shift), and a non-indicative negation marker ʔal. ʔal
negated the jussive prefix conjugation and, when used in conjunction with 2nd person
prefix verbs, formed the negative imperative. This system is preserved in Hebrew and
survives in altered form in Phoenician, with bal replacing loː as the negation marker for
indicative verbs. Phoenician inscriptions from Cyprus and Sidon also attest a negative
existential marker in ʔy. The following examples illustrate the Phoenician system of
negation:
bl t-drk-n
neg 2-walk.ipfvfpl
‘you will not walk’ (KAI 27:8)
bl ʕt-y
neg time-1sg
‘not (in) my time’ (KAI 14:3)
w-ʔl t-rgz-n
and-neg 2msg-disturb.ipfv-1sg
‘and do not disturb me’ (KAI 13:4)
ʔy šm bn-ø mnm
neg there in-3sg something
‘there is nothing in it there’ (KAI 14:5)
It is unclear whether this system was retained unaltered in the other Canaanite lan-
guages, due to the lack of data. In Amarna Canaanite, [bali] or [balu] negates infini-
tives (e.g., EA 98:17–18), and [jaːnu(m)] and [ijjaːnu(m)] serve as negative existential
markers (e.g., EA 362:49–50). Deir ʕAllā preserves a single example of the indicative
negation maker loː (I, 9), while Moabite attests to a negative existential marker in ʔn
(KAI 181:24).
6 LEXICON
The Canaanite languages preserved the inherited Semitic lexicon largely intact and – as
far as the available evidence suggests – shared a significant amount of core vocabulary.
Nevertheless, lexical differences do exist among the various languages (Kogan 2015:
372). Moabite, for example, uses the root ʕšy ‘to make’ where Phoenician tends to use pʕl.
Apart from Hebrew, only Phoenician is attested well enough for loan words to be
detectable. This is not surprising. As Phoenician seafarers, traders and colonists spread
across the Mediterranean basin, they borrowed words from the various speech commu-
nities they encountered. As a result, Punic contains words of Greek, Latin, Egyptian and
Numidian origin including ʔksdr (< Greek ἐξέδρα ‘hall’), ʔmprʕṭr (< Latin imperator
‘emperor’), ṭnʔ (< Egyptian dnỉt ‘basket’) and myknd < Numidian (mnkd ‘head, chief’)
(Watson 2013).
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The opening section of the Karatepe inscription
In this 8th-century Standard Phoenician text, the city ruler Azatiwadda enumerates his
accomplishments and requests blessings from various deities. Azatiwadda ruled over
the city of Karatepe in south central Turkey at the behest of Awariku, king of Adana.
The text was discovered in 1946 and is published in KAI (Donner and Röllig I: 6–7, II:
35–43).
ʔnk ʔztwd hb-brk-bʕl ʕbd bʕl ʔš ʔdr

1sg pn def-bless.ptcp.pass.msg-dn servant dn rel be.strong.fact.pfv.3msg
ʔwrk mlk dnny-m pʕl-n bʕl l-dnny-m l-ʔb

pn king Danunian-mpl make.pfv.3msg-1sg dn to-Danunian-mpl to-father
w-l-ʔm yḥw ʔnk ʔyt dnny-m yrḥb ʔnk

and-to-mother live.caus.inf.absl 1sg obj Danunian-mpl be.wide.caus.inf.absl 1sg
ʔrṣ ʕmq ʔdn l-m-mṣʔ šmš w-ʕd mbʔ-y w-kn

land valley gn to-from-rising sun and-until setting-3msg and-be.pfv.3msg
b-ym-t-y kl nʕm l-dnny-m w-šbʕ w-mnʕm

in-day-fpl-1sg all pleasantness to-Danunian-mpl and-satiety and-abundance
w-mlʔ ʔnk ʕqr-t pʕr w-pʕl ʔnk ss ʕl

wa-fill.fact.inf.absl 1sg sack-fpl gn and-make.inf.absl 1sg horse upon
ss w-mgn ʕl mgn w-mḥn-t ʕl mḥn-t b-ʕbr bʕl

horse and-shield upon shield and-army-f upon army-f in-sake dn
w-ʔlm w-šbr-t mlṣ-m w-trq

and-deity and-break.fact.pfv-1sg mock.caus.ptcp-mpl and-destroy.inf.absl
kl h-rʕ ʔš kn b-ʔrṣ w-yṭnʔ ʔnk bt

all def-evil rel be.pfv.3msg in-land and-set.caus.inf.absl 1sg house
ʔdn-y b-nʕm w-pʕl ʔnk l-šrš ʔdn-y

lord.gen-1sg in-pleasantness and-make.inf.absl 1sg for-root lord.gen-1sg
nʕm w-yšb-ø ʔnk ʕl ksʔ ʔb-y

pleasantness and-sit.caus.inf.absl-3msg 1sg upon throne father-3msg
w-št ʔnk šlm ʔt kl mlk

and-set.inf.absl 1sg peace with all king
‘I am Azatiwadda, blessed of Baal, servant of Baal, whom Awariku, king of the Danunians
honored. Baal made me a father and a mother to the Danunians. I caused the Danunians to
live. I enlarged the land of the valley of Adana from the rising of the sun to its setting. And
there was in my day every pleasant thing for the Danunians, and satiety, and abundance.
And I filled the grain sacks of Paara. And I made horse upon horse and shield upon shield,
and army upon army for the sake of Baal and my patron deity. And I broke scoffers and
I destroyed all of the evil which was in the land. And I set the house of my lord in good
order. And I did a kindness for the offspring of my lord and I sat him on the throne of his
father. And I made peace with every king.’
NOTES
1 For the possible preservation of *ɣ in Edomite, see Lipiński (2014: 374).
2 For some reason, Proto-Northwest Semitic *ʕaɬr ‘ten (m)’ is written ʕsr in Phoenician
instead of the expected ʕšr.
REFERENCES
Bjøru, Øyvind. “The Morphology of the G-Stem Imperative in Semitic.” Journal of the
American Oriental Society (forthcoming).
Fox, Joshua. “A Sequence of Vowel Shifts in Phoenician and Other Languages.” Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 55 (1996): 37–47.
Huehnergard, John. “On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative šε-.” In Biblical Hebrew
Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, 103–25. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Huehnergard, John. “Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages.”
In The Balaam Text Reevaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held
at Leiden 21–24 August 1989, edited by J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, 282–93.
Leiden: Brill, 1991a.
Huehnergard, John. “The Development of the Third Person Suffixes in Phoenician.”
Maarav 7 (1991b): 183–94.
Izre'el, Schlomo. “Canaano-Akkadian: Linguistics and Sociolinguistics.” In Language
and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th
Birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‘ama Pat-El, 171–218. Studies in
Ancient Oriental Civilization 67. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 2012.
Jongeling, Karel and Robert M. Kerr (eds.). Late Punic Epigraphy. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2005.
Kerr, Robert M. Latino-Punic Epigraphy: A Descriptive Study of the Inscriptions.
Forschung zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Knauf, Ernst Axel and Sultan Maani. “On the Phonemes of Fringe Canaanite: The Case
of Zerah-Uḏruḥ and ‘Kamâšḫaltâ’.” Ugarit-Forschungen 19 (1987): 91–4.
Kogan, Leonid. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2015.
Lipiński, Edward. Semitic Linguistics in Historical Perspective. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 230. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “On Negation in Phoenician.” In Linguistic Studies in Phoenician in
Memory of J. Brian Peckham, edited by Robert D. Holmstedt and Aaron Schade,
47–67. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
Pat-El, Na‘ama and Aren M. Wilson-Wright. “The Features of Canaanite: A Reevaluation.”
Pat-El, Na‘ama and Aren M. Wilson-Wright. “Deir ‘Allā as a Canaanite Dialect:
A Vindication of Hackett.” In Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible:
Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew
Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett, edited by Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin,
13–23 (2015).
Pat-El, Na‘ama and Aren M. Wilson-Wright. “Features of Aramaeo-Canaanite.” Journal
of the American Oriental Society 138 (2018): 781–806.
Rollston, Christopher A. Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic
Evidence from the Iron Age. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010.
Steiner, Richard C. “On the Dating of the Hebrew Sound Changes (*Ḫ > Ḥ and *Ġ >
ʕ) and Greek Translations (2 Esdras and Judith).” Journal of Biblical Literature 124
(2005): 229–67.
Watson, Wilfred G. E. “Loanwords in Phoenician and Punic.” In Ritual, Religion, and
Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella, edited by Oswald
Loretz, Sergio Ribichini, Wilfred G. E. Watson, and Josés Á. Zamora, 327–46. Alter
Orient und Altes Testament 404. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013.
Wilson-Wright, Aren M. “A Reevaluation of the Semitic Direct Object Markers.” Hebrew
Studies 57 (2016): 7–15.
Wilson-Wright, Aren M. “Linguistic Contact between Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian.” In
The Oxford Handbook on Ancient Egypt and the Hebrew Bible. Forthcoming.
GENERAL CANAANITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Further reading
Garr, W. Randall. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 bce. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Texts
Aḥituv, Shmuel. Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the
Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta, 2008.
Aufrecht, Walter E. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press, 1989.
Donner, Herbert and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, Band
I (5th ed.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002.
Donner, Herbert and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, Band
II: Kommentar (4th ed.). Wiesebaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1979.
Jongeling, Karel and Robert M. Kerr (eds.). Late Punic Epigraphy. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2005.
Rainey, Anson F. The El-Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform
Letters from the Site of El-Amarna based on Collations of all Extant Tablets. 2 vols.
Eds. William M. Schniedewind and Zipora Cochavi-Rainey. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Grammars
Friederich, Johannes and Wolfgang Röllig. Phönizisch-punische Grammatik (3rd ed.),
revised by Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo. Analecta Orientalia 55. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1999.
Hackett, Jo Ann. The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Allā. Harvard Semitic Monographs 31.
Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984.
Jackson, Kent P. The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age. Harvard Semitic Monographs
27. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983.
Kerr, Robert M. Latino-Punic Epigraphy: A Descriptive Study of the Inscriptions.
Forschung zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Rainey, Anson F. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed
Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Tropper, Josef and Juan Pablo Vita. Das Kanaano-Akkadische der Amarnazeit. Lehrbücher
orientalischer Sprachen 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.
Vanderhooft, David S. “The Edomite Dialect and Script: A Review of the Evidence.” In
You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother, edited by Diana V. Edelman,
137–57. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
Overview articles
Gzella, Holger. “Phoenician.” In Languages from the World of the Bible (2nd ed.), edited
by Holger Gzella, 55–75. Berlin: de Gruyer, 2011.
Hackett, Jo Ann. “Phoenician and Punic.” In The Languages of Syria-Palestine and
Arabia, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 82–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008.
Parker, Simon B. “Ammonite, Edomite, and Moabite.” In Beyond Babel: A Handbook

for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, edited by John Kaltner and Steven L.
McKenzie, 43–60. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Röllig, Wolfgang. “Phoenician and Punic.” In The Semitic Languages: An International
Handbook, edited by Stefan Weniger, 472–79. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
Segert, Stanislav. “Phoenician and the Eastern Canaanite Languages.” In The Semitic
Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 174–86. London: Routledge, 1997.
CHAPTER 21
PRE-MODERN HEBREW AARON D. HORNKOHLPRE-MODERN HEBREW
Biblical Hebrew
Aaron D. Hornkohl
1 INTRODUCTION
“Pre-modern Hebrew” is a maximally inclusive term that encompasses the language
of a variety of material from a period spanning around three thousand years, ca. 1200
bce–1900 ce (Saénz-Badillos 1993). The historical periodization of the language, each
phase entailing a linguistically heterogenous assemblage of material, may be schemati-
cized as follows:
• Iron Age (ca. 1200–6th century bce): Epigraphy (Aḥituv, Garr, and Fassberg 2016);
Literary (biblical) texts (Lam and Pardee 2016)
• Persian (Achaemenid) Period (6th–4th centuries bce): Literary (biblical) texts
(Morgenstern 2016) and sparse extra-biblical material (Greenfield and Naveh
1984: 122)
• Hellenistic (4th–1st centuries bce) and Roman Period (1st century bce–4th century
ce): Literary – biblical and extra-biblical material from the Judean Desert (Joosten and
Rey 2016); Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus; van Peursen 2016); Tannaitic sources (Kutscher
and Breuer 2007); Samaritan Pentateuch reading tradition (Florentin 2013, 2016);
Greek and Latin transcriptional evidence (Yuditsky 2013); Documentary – receipts,
letters and contracts from the Judean Desert (Mor 2013); Epigraphy – epitaphs,
numismatics, lists
• Byzantine Period (4th–7th centuries ce): Amoraic sources (Breuer 2013); Liturgical
poetry (Rand 2013)
• Medieval and Ottoman Period (7th–18th centuries ce): Translations, science,
philosophy, secular and liturgical poetry (Sáenz-Badillos 2013)
• Late pre-modern (late 18th–early 20th centuries ce): Europe (late 18th–late 19th
centuries ce) – Jewish Enlightenment (Haskala) (Kahn 2013a); Hasidic tales (Kahn
2013b); Palestine – Revival (Teḥiya) and revernacularization (late 19th–early 20th
centuries ce (Reshef 2013a, 2013b) (see Chapter 22)
The present chapter focuses on Biblical Hebrew (BH), the language of the Hebrew Bible.
While the reality of diachronic development is palpable throughout the history of Hebrew,
BH-like forms of the language not only continued to be copied into the late pre-modern
period, but were used for such diverse purposes and/or genres as translation, commentary,
liturgy, science, magic, journalism, poetry and prose literature up to and including the late
534 Aaron D. Hornkohl
pre-modern period. This is especially true in the case of morphology and the lexicon, but
extends to the realms of morphosyntax, syntax and even phonology.
Along with Phoenician, Moabite and Ammonite, Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite
subgroup of Northwest Semitic (see Chapter 20). The earliest Hebrew inscription, the
so-called Gezer Calendar, is dated to the 10th century bce (Aḥituv 2008: 252–7). Very
little in the way of inscriptional material comes from the Persian Period, but the Hebrew
of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods is represented by numerous documentary, literary,
epigraphic and numismatic sources, the most celebrated of which are documents found
during the 20th century in the Judean Desert, including (but not limited to) the cele-
brated Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) from Khirbet Qumran, which date from approximately
200 bce–70 ce.
The bulk of ancient Hebrew linguistic evidence comes from the Hebrew Bible. Though
a literary language undoubtedly leveled due the homogenizing effects of scribal conven-
tion and albeit represented most comprehensively in medieval manuscripts that are the
end-products of hundreds of years of transmission, the Hebrew of the biblical books can
be broadly periodized according to linguistic features (Hurvitz 2000, Hornkohl 2013b).
Certain sections of biblical poetry are thought to predate the earliest extant inscriptional
sources and/or to preserve salient features of an earlier linguistic stratum (early Iron Age,
i.e., 1200–1000 bce), which is termed Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH).
The majority of the BH corpus, though, is linguistically similar to Iron Age inscrip-
tional evidence, and likely stems from a period spanning approximately 1000–500 bce.
The language of the relevant biblical material is commonly referred to as Classical (or
Standard) Biblical Hebrew (CBH [or SBH]). According to biblical historiography, the
Babylonian Captivity (early to late 6th century bce) marks a linguistic watershed. On the
basis of unmistakable signs of linguistic development in biblical material from the period
of the Restoration on (after 450 bce, including the biblical books of Esther, Daniel, Ezra,
Nehemiah and Chronicles) the Hebrew represented by this material is generally con-
sidered a diachronically distinct stage in the language, commonly termed Late Biblical
Hebrew (LBH; Hurvitz 2013, Morgenstern 2016). Some scholars discern a transitional
phase of Hebrew between CBH and LBH (Hornkohl 2013b, 2016). While CBH as pre-
served in manuscripts from Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages is not an exact match
for the Hebrew of Iron Age epigraphic material from Israel-Palestine, the main differ-
ences are orthographical and (probably) phonological. Beyond this, the Hebrew of these
sources is remarkably similar, demonstrating a high degree of linguistic continuity.
Non-biblical material from the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that a form of Hebrew similar
to BH continued to serve as the literary language into the 2nd century ce. Contempora-
neous spoken Hebrew, a form of which was later reduced to writing as Rabbinic Hebrew
(RH) and succeeded BH as the standard written form, was in common use until the begin-
ning of the 3rd century ce and persisted as a vernacular in some locales until later (Fass-
berg 2012). The language of works written while this form of Hebrew was still spoken
(until about 220 ce) is called Tannaitic Hebrew; it was succeeded by Amoraic Hebrew, the
form of RH written after Hebrew was no longer widely spoken (Breuer 2013).
While it would be simplistic to conceive of CBH, LBH, and forms of Hebrew from the
Hellenistic and Roman Periods as successive stages in a straight line of diachronic evo-
lution, in many of its departures from classical style LBH anticipates more pronounced
developments in other forms of Hebrew and cognate languages from these later periods,
including DSS Hebrew (DSSH), Syriac, and the Aramaic of the biblical Targums (Fass-
berg 2013a, Morgenstern 2013).
Pre-modern Hebrew 535
MAP 21.1 THE SPEECH AREA OF PRE-MODERN HEBREW. DARKER SHADING DENOTES

THE CORE SPEECH AREA; LIGHTER SHADING MARKS AREAS OF MAXIMAL
ISRAELITE/HEBREW EXPANSION
Ancient Hebrew undoubtedly included regional dialects, but diagnostic features are
difficult to recover due mainly to linguistic leveling during transmission (see Map 21.1).
A few clear-cut distinctions indicate distinct northern (Israelian) and southern (Judahite)
dialects (see §3.2 on diphthongs) as well as a Transjordanian variety (see §3.1 on the
Shibboleth incident). The probative value of other linguistic features is debated (Rends-
burg 2013a, Pat-El 2017).
BH has been preserved in a variety of traditions, Jewish and non-Jewish (Khan 2013c).
The fact that the traditions are not unanimous in their presentation of linguistic detail both
complicates and enriches the study of the language. Long considered the most prestigious
Jewish tradition, the Tiberian Masoretic tradition reached its present form around the turn
of the 11th century ce. Despite a degree of linguistic variety in the various Jewish tradi-
tions, they all reflect the same textual traditions, divergences involving minutiae.
Non-Jewish traditions that inform our understanding of ancient Hebrew include the Samar-
itan written and reading traditions of the Pentateuch (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, Florentin 2013),
along with Greek and Latin transcriptions, such as fragments from the Hexapla’s Second Col-
umn (i.e., the Secunda; Yuditsky 2013, Kantor 2017), which presented a Greek phonetic tran-
scription of the Hebrew text as recorded by Origen, and Jerome’s transcriptions in the Latin
Vulgate and his commentaries (Yudtisky 2013). The ancient translations are also important.
The present chapter consists of a linguistic description of CBH as reflected in the
standard Tiberian tradition, though occasional comments on other forms of Hebrew are
also offered.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Users of ancient Hebrew, whose language had 25 consonantal phonemes (see Table 21.4),
borrowed unchanged the Phoenician version of the Canaanite alphabet (more precisely an
abjad), with its 22 characters (Daniels 2013). This writing system, often called Paleo-He-
brew, initially represented only consonants. The Canaanite characters were gradually
replaced in the Achaemenid period with various renditions of a square script initially used
to write Aramaic, though Paleo-Hebrew continued to serve in certain formal contexts. In
the Aramaic square script five letters eventually developed special medial forms charac-
terized by a stroke in the direction of the following letter. Though historically secondary
relative to the letter forms preserved in final position, these special medial forms came to
be considered the basic, default forms of the relevant characters. See Table 21.1.
The earliest extra-biblical Hebrew was written in purely consonantal orthography, with
no signaling of vowel sounds. By the 8th century bce, inscriptions exhibit regular use of
vowel letters, i.e., select consonants, traditionally termed matres (singular mater) lectio-
nis ‘mothers of reading’, to signal vowel qualities word-finally and, in the case of certain
vowels in open syllables, word-internally (Hutton 2013). Thus /y/ came to represent e- or
i-quality vowels word-internally and word-finally; /w/ does the same for o and u; while
/h/ signals a- and e-quality vowels only word-finally. Signification of vowels with these
consonants became more common with time, so that the orthography of DSSH and RH
(where even unstressed vowels in closed syllables are often denoted with a vowel letter)
is generally more vocalically representative than in Tiberian biblical texts, which, with a
few exceptions, lie on a continuum between highly defective, like early inscriptions, and
more fully representative of vowels, though their vocalic representation is routinely less
full than is typical of many extra-biblical texts from the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.
Because even the most vocalically explicit examples of ancient Hebrew orthography
leave many phonetic ambiguities, several medieval systems of vocalic notation were
developed for the transcription of reading traditions. The Tiberian system indicates sev-
en-vowel qualities (on quantitative differences, see §3.2). In Table 21.2 these are printed
with a dummy letter /s/.
The Tiberian tradition also includes various diacritics; see Table 21.3 for a summary.
TABLE 21.1 THE SQUARE SCRIPT HEBREW ALPHABET
Letter Name Letter/Final Form Letter Name Letter/Final Form
ʔalef ‫א‬ lamed ‫ל‬

bet ‫ב‬ mem ‫מ‬/‫ם‬
gimel ‫ג‬ nun ‫נ‬/‫ן‬
dalet ‫ד‬ sameḵ ‫ס‬
he ‫ה‬ ʕayin ‫ע‬
waw/vav ‫ו‬ pe ‫פ‬/‫ף‬
zayin ‫ז‬ tsade ‫צ‬/‫ץ‬
ḥet ‫ח‬ qof/quf ‫ק‬
ṭet ‫ט‬ resh ‫ר‬
yod/yud ‫י‬ shin ‫ש‬
śin
kaf ‫כ‬/‫ך‬ tav ‫ת‬
TABLE 21.2 VOWEL NOTATION
Vowel Name Symbol Tiberian IPA Vowel Name Symbol Tiberian IPA
Vowel Quality Vowel Quality
pataḥ ‫ַס‬ a [a] šewa naʕ ‫ְס‬ ə [a]

qamets ‫ָס‬ å [ɔ] šewa naḥ ‫ְס‬ ---
segol ‫ֶס‬ ɛ [ɛ] ḥatef pataḥ ‫ֲס‬ ă [a]
tsere ‫ֵס‬ e [e] ḥatef segol ‫ֱס‬ ɛ̆ [ɛ]
ḥireq ‫ִס‬ i [i] ḥatef qamets ‫ֳס‬ å ̆ [ɔ]
ḥolem ‫ ֹו‬,ֹ ‫ס‬ o [o]
šureq ‫סּו‬ u [u]
qibbuts ‫ֻס‬ u [u]
TABLE 21.3 A SELECTION OF DIACRITICS
Diacritic Name(s) and Explanation Symbol with Example

Relevant
Character(s)
dagesh ḥazaq for gemination of ‫ ב‬b due to ‫ּב‬ ‫ ִמ ָּב ֶ֡בל‬mib-bå̄ḇɛl [mibbɔːˈvɛːl]
regressive (anticipatory) assimilation of ‫ נ‬n in ‘from Babylon’ (2 Kgs 17.24)
preceding preposition ‫ מִ ן‬min ‘from’ (Golinets 2013)
dagesh qal in initial ‫ ב‬b to represent plosive ‫ּב‬ ‫ ָּב ֶ֔בל‬bå̄ḇɛl [bɔːˈvɛːl] ‘Babylon’
realization; absence of dagesh in second ‫ ב‬v to (Gen 10.10)
represent fricative realization (Golinets 2013)
mappiq in ‫ ה‬h to indicate consonantal realization ‫ּה‬ ‫ ק ָֹלּ֖ה‬qōlå̄h [qoːˈlɔːh] ‘her voice’
(as opposed to use as a vowel letter) (Ofer 2013) (Gen 21.16)
‫ ּפְדַ ְּה ֵ ֖אל‬pəḏahʔēl [phaðahˈʔeːl]
‘Pedahel’ (Num 34.28; cf. BHS)
mappiq (or dagesh) in ‫ א‬to ensure careful (rather ‫ּא‬ ‫ ַוּי ִָב֥יּאּו‬way-yå̄ḇīʔū [vaɟɟɔːˈviːʔuː]
than slurred) pronunciation ‘and they brought’ (Gen 43.26)
rafe and absence of dagesh in second ‫ ב‬v to ‫ֿב‬ ‫ ּבָבֶ ֿ֛ל‬bå̄ḇɛl [bɔːˈvɛːl] ‘Babylon’ (2
represent fricative realization Kgs 20.12)
rafe over ‫ כ‬χ to signal fricative realization and rafe ‫ ֿה‬,ֿ‫כ‬ ‫ לְָא ְכֿלָ ֽ ֿה‬lə-ʔå̄ḵlå̄(h) [lɔʔɔχˈlɔː] ‘for
over ‫ ה‬to signal non-consonantal status (the ‫ ה‬serves food, to eat’ (Gen 1.29)
only to indicate the preceding å ̄ -vowel)
rafe over ‫ א‬to signal elision ‫ֿא‬ ‫ ִרא ֿׁ֥שֹון‬rī(ʔ)šōn [ʀiːˈʃoːn] ‘first’
(Exod 12.2)
rafe over ‫ ה‬to signal elision (when a mappiq for ‫ֿה‬ ‫ ו ְַרח ָ ְ֖מ ֿה‬wə-raḥmå̄(h) [vaʀaħˈmɔː]
consonantal realization of the 3fsg pronominal ‘and her womb’ (Jer 20.17)
suffix is expected)
rafe over ‫ ל‬to signal non-gemination (when ‫ֿל‬ ‫ ִ ׂ֣שיחָה ִלֿי‬śīḥå̄ lī [ˈsiħɔː liː] ‘my
syntactic gemination might be expected) meditation’ (Ps 119.99; cf.
‫ ֶעז ָ ְ֣רתָ ה ִּל֑י‬ʕɛzrå̄ṯå̄ llī [ʕɛzˈʀɔːθɔː
lliː] ‘my help’ [Ps 63.8])
major gaʕya (meteg) to signal slow reading of ֽ ‫ָי‬ ‫ ָי ֽדְ ָ֙ך‬yå̄ḏəḵå̄ [jɔːðˈχɔː] ‘your (msg)
initial qamets (ָ◌) vowel and vocalic realization of hand’ (Gen 22.12)
following shewa (ְ◌) (Khan 2013e)
minor gaʕya (meteg) to signal secondary stress on a ֽ ‫ִנ‬ ‫ ִנ ֽתְ ַחכּ ָ ְ֖מה‬niṯḥakkəmå̄
syllable distant from primary stress [ˌniθħakhkhaˈmɔː] ‘let us deal
wisely’ (Exod 1.10)
3 PHONOLOGY
The description below focuses on the pronunciation of the Tiberian biblical reading tra-
dition reflected in the most prestigious medieval codices as reconstructed on the basis of
contemporary evidence (Khan 2013i: 771–3, 2013j: 85–107) rather than on a conjectural
reconstruction of Iron Age Hebrew phonology.
Of the 30 reconstructed Proto-Semitic consonantal phonemes, Iron Age Hebrew
retained 25 (Table 21.4). However, due to several mergers that took place in the Persian or
Hellenistic Periods, the phonemic inventory fell to 22, the number to which the Tiberian
tradition bears witness. Several conditioned allophones add to the phonological variety.
The following description of the Tiberian Hebrew consonantal inventory is a sum-
mary of Khan (2013j: 85–93). Proto-Semitic *w, represented by ‫ו‬, was generally realized
as [v] in the Tiberian tradition and as [w] only when adjacent to an u-class vowel (the
labio-dental realization of this phoneme is already evidenced in Late Antiquity in DSSH,
RH and Greek transcriptions). Geminated y [j] was pronounced as the voiced palatal stop
[ɟɟ]. The voiceless counterparts of b [b], d [d] and g [g] were aspirated, i.e., p [ph], t [th]
and k [kh], respectively. The Tiberian q was a voiceless uvular [q] (or pre-uvular [q+] plo-
sive; herein represented as the former). The Tiberians realized r as the voiced uvular trill
[ʀ] (or, alternatively, as the frictionless uvular continuant [ʁ̖], it is not certain which; rep-
resented here as the former), but it underwent partial assimilation adjacent to an alveolar
consonant, producing the pharyngealized apico-alveolar trill [ṛ]. There is also evidence
for pharyngealized realizations of other consonants in individual words.
The reduction from 30 PS phonemes to 25 in Iron Age Hebrew was due to consonantal
mergers.
• PS *ð, *z > z
• PS *θ, *ʃ > ʃ
TABLE 21.4 THE CONSONANTAL PHONEMES
Manner Stops Fricatives Nasals Approximants
Place Voiced Voiceless Emphatic Voiced Voiceless Emphatic
Bilabial b [b] p [ph] m [m]

Labiodental w [v]
Dental d [d] t [th] ṭ [tˤ] n [n]
Interdental
Lateral l [l]
palatal z [z] s, ś [s] ṣ [sˤ] y [j]
Palatal- š [ʃ]
Alveolar
Velar g [g] k [kh] q [q]
Uvular r [ʀ]
Pharyngeal ʕ [ʕ] ḥ [ħ]
Glottal ʔ [ʔ] h [h]
(laryngeal)
• PS *θˤ, *sˤ, *ɬˤ > sˤ

• PS *x, *xˤ > x
The reduction from 25 to 22 phonemes involved later mergers:
• PS *ɬ, *s > s
• PS *x, *ħ > ħ
• PS *ɣ, *ʕ > ʕ
When not geminated, the six bgdkpt consonants developed corresponding post-vocalic
fricative (spirant) allophones via lenition, i.e., b [b] > ḇ [v], g [g] > ḡ [ʁ], d [d] > ḏ [ð],
k [kh] > ḵ [χ], p [ph] > p̄ [f], and t [th] > ṯ [θ] (note that the fricative uvular realizations
ḡ [ʁ] and ḵ [χ] were produced farther back in the mouth than their respective plosive
counterparts, g [g] and k [kh]). The antiquity of these sound changes, which probably
affected different phonemes at different times, is debated (Khan 2013j: 94, Rendsburg
2013c: 104–5). In many traditions the fricative allophones of only some plosives were
maintained. Sephardic Hebrew (followed by Modern Hebrew) preserves fricative allo-
phones of only b, k and p, while Ashkenazi Hebrew also preserves a reflex of fricativized
t, i.e., [s] < [θ]. Distinctive reflexes of all six allophones have been maintained in some
Yemenite traditions of BH (Doron 2013: 1014).
The pharyngeal phonemes ḥ [ħ] and ʕ [ʕ] exhibit characteristics indicating their rela-
tive weakness. In syllable-final position, they regularly require the insertion of an epen-
thetic vowel and they could not be geminated (this latter characteristic is also generally
true of r [ʀ]). Compensation for the lack of gemination regularly results in a quantitative
and qualitative change in the preceding vowel, e.g., i [i] > ē [eː], a [a] > å ̄ [ɔː] and u [u]
> ō [oː] (Khan 2013d). The laryngeal (i.e., glottal) ʔ [ʔ] and h [h] are even weaker. They
do not geminate, regularly resulting in vocalic compensation, but are also particularly
susceptible to elision. Late Second Temple cases of confusion and omission of pharyn-
geals and laryngeals also serve as evidence for the weakened realization of the gutturals.
However, since these are largely confined to specific geographical areas and traditions,
the phenomenon should not be over-generalized (Mor 2013).
In Tiberian Hebrew, the emphatics were pharyngealized (Khan 2013i: 771–3, 2013j:
89, 91–2).
Metathesis occurs regularly in Dt stem (hitpaʕel) verbs with a sibilant, i.e., s, ś, š, as
first radical, e.g., mistattēr [misthathˈtheːʀ] ‘hides, is hiding (msg)’ for expected *mitsattēr
(root s-t-r). From RH onwards this also applies to verbs with an initial z radical, which
then induces partial lag (‘progressive’) assimilation: *hizdayyep̄ [hizdaɟˈɟeːf] ‘be falsi-
fied’ < *hiztayyep̄ < *hitzayyep̄ (root z-y-p).
Anticipatory (regressive) assimilation regularly takes place in the case of syllable-final
n, leading to gemination (elongation) of the succeeding consonant (when possible), e.g.,
*natantī > nå̄tattī [nɔːˈthaːththiː] ‘he gave’ and *yintin > yittēn [jithˈtheːn] ‘he will give’.
Dentals (and in BH palatal z) also assimilate to a following dental, e.g., the numeral
*ʔaḥadt > *ʔaḥatt > *ʔaḥat > ʔaḥaṯ [ʔaːˈħaːθ] ‘one (f)’ (gemination does not occur
word-finally). Additionally, following metathesis (see earlier), partial lag (progressive)
assimilation occurs in Dt stem (hitpaʕel) verbs with first root consonant ṣ, e.g., where the
expected sequence *tṣ > *ṣt > ṣṭ as in niṣṭaddēq [nisˤtˤadˈdeːq] ‘we will justify ourselves’
(rather than *nitṣaddēq or *niṣtaddēq).
In the Tiberian tradition the basic vocalic opposition involved quality, though earlier
quantitative differences are indirectly discernible via qualitatively distinct reflexes. Cer-
tain factors conditioned vowel length, e.g., stressed vowels and vowels in open syllables
were pronounced long. Additionally, Tiberian ō [oː] and ē [eː] were always pronounced
long. Significantly, however, in the Tiberian reading tradition the ḥatef vowels and vocal
shewa were quantitatively identical to short vowels, ă as [a], ɛ̆ as [ɛ], ɔ̆ as [ɔ], and (in
some sources) ĭ as [i].
Long PS *ī and *ū generally retained their quality in BH. PS *ā, on the other hand,
regularly changed to ō in what is commonly referred to as “the Canaanite shift” (see
Chapter 20). See Table 21.5.
In theory, Tiberian shewa represents two distinct phonological realities. Quiescent
shewa (shewa naḥ) signals zero vowel, and thus, by definition, the end of a word-internal
closed (i.e., CVC) syllable. Word-final closed syllables are typically left unmarked. Vocal
(or mobile) shewa (shewa naʕ), on the other hand, represents the result of syncope in
unstressed open syllables. Vocal shewa is regularly symbolized as ə in scholarly treat-
ments (and here) and is realized with an ultra-short e-quality vowel in both the Sephardic
tradition and Modern Israeli Hebrew. In the Tiberian reading tradition it had multiple
phonetic realizations. When audibly realized, it was normally [a], but it assimilated to the
vowel of a following pharyngeal-laryngeal, e.g., bəʔēr [beˈʔeːʀ] ‘well’, məʔōḏ [moˈʔoːð]
‘very’, śəʕīr [siˈʕiːʀ] ‘Seir’, and became i [i] before y [j], e.g., bə-yōm [biˈjoːm] ‘on a day,
on the day of. . .’. In practice, many cases of shewa that had developed from syncope were
reduced to zero in the Tiberian tradition, e.g., šomərīm [ʃoːmˈʀiːm] ‘guard, are guarding
(mpl)’, šå ̄ mərū [ʃɔːmˈʀuː] ‘guarded (3mpl)’, hinəni [hinˈniː] ‘here I am’.
Historical short vowels in open unstressed propretonic syllables rather consistently
reduce to vocal shewa, i.e., ə (with all of its allophonic realizations; Khan 2013g, 2013h).
Immediately before the tone, and especially word-initially, i and u, were also vulnerable
to syncope; a was more stable. Alternatives to reduction included syllable closure by
means of spontaneous gemination (e.g., the preservation of the u-vowel in the G stem
internal passive; see §4.6.3) and, especially in the case of a, lengthening and backing to
å ̄ [ɔː] or, in the case of i and u, lengthening and lowering to ē [eː] and ō [oː], respectively
(Khan 2013f).
Forms with the guttural (pharyngeal and laryngeal) phonemes, ʔ, h, ḥ and ʕ, and, to
some extent, r, often deviate predictably from expected patterns. For example, a conso-
nant’s failure to geminate is frequently offset by changes in the preceding vowel’s length
and quality, e.g., bēraḵ/bērēḵ [beːˈʀaːχ/beːˈʀeːχ] ‘he blessed (contextual/pausal)’ from
the qiṭṭēl (3msg D stem, piʕel) pattern; high vowels are generally lowered, e.g., maḥšå̄ḵ
[maħˈʃɔːχ] ‘darkness’ from the miqṭå̄l nominal pattern; and the addition of epenthetic
vowels in syllable-final environments (not with r or word-final ʔ), e.g., rūaḥ [ˈʀuːaħ]
TABLE 21.5 REFLEXES OF PS LONG VOWELS IN TIBERIAN HEBREW
PS Vowel Tiberian Vowel Examples
*ā ō [oː] PS *kās- > Hebrew kōs [khoːs] ‘cup’

*ī ī [iː] PS *šīr- > Hebrew šīr [ʃiːʀ] ‘song’
*ū ū [uː] PS *sūs- > Hebrew sūs [suːs] ‘horse’
Note: Here and throughout PS nominal forms are reconstructed without final case vowels.
‘wind, spirit’ from < * rūḥ. Particularly vulnerable to elision are the laryngeals ʔ and
h: despite largely consistent orthographical representation, word-final ʔ regularly elides;
word-medial syllable-final ʔ is more resistant, but can also elide, often resulting in the
opening of a formerly closed syllable and a change in vowel, e.g., *lɛʔmōr > (*lɛʔɛ̆mōr >)
lēmōr [leːˈmoːʀ] ‘to say, saying’ and *qå ̄ raʔtī > qå ̄ rå ̄ ṯī [qɔːˈʀɔːθiː] ‘I read, called’; ʔ
can even elide at syllable onset, e.g., yōṣʔīm [joːsˤˈʔiːm] ‘go/going out (mpl)’ vs. yōṣēṯ
[joːˈsˤeːθ] < *yōṣʔēṯ ‘ibid. (fsg)’. Though more stable than ʔ as a radical, intervocalic
consonantal h is also vulnerable to elision, e.g., the preposition+definite article sequence
baCC- < bəhaCC-.
Predictable irregular forms also involve the ‘weak’ consonants n, w and y. Syllable-final
n assimilates to the following consonant and leads to gemination and, sometimes, vowel
shifts (or failures to shift), e.g., mattå ̄ n [mathˈthɔːn] ‘gift’ vs. the standard miqṭå̄l pat-
tern. The approximants w and y are often missing or have no consonantal value where
expected according to the relevant pattern. The treatment of diphthongs in BH varies.
A falling diphthong, consisting of a semi-vowel followed by a vowel, is generally treated
as an ordinary consonant-vowel sequence (Blau 2010: 71). The rising diphthongs *iy
and *uw always contract in Tiberian Hebrew, e.g., *yiyqạs > yīqaṣ [jiːˈqaːsˤ] ‘he will
awaken’, *huwrad > hūraḏ [huːˈʀaːð] ‘he/it was brought down’. The anticipated triph-
thong of the mpl gentilic, -iyyīm [-iɟˈɟiːm], regularly (though not unfailingly) contracts
to -īm [-ˈiːm], e.g., ʕiḇrīm [ʕivˈʀiːm] < ʕiḇriyyīm [ʕivˈʀiɟɟiːm] ‘Hebrews’ (see §4.5.2).
The diphthongs ay and aw are known to persist word-finally, e.g., må̄ṯay [mɔːˈθɑːj]
‘when?’, qå̄w [qɔːv] (< *qaw-) ‘line’ (the shift from a > å [ɔ] due to assimilation to w),
as are word-final uy, e.g., bå ̄ nūy [bɔːˈnuːj] ‘built (msg)’ and iw, e.g., ʔå̄ḇīw [ʔɔːˈviːv]
‘his father’. Word-medial stressed ay is usually expanded to ayi [ˈaji], e.g., absolute
*bayt- > bayiṯ [ˈbaːjiθ] ‘house’; in similar environments aw can expand, e.g., *mawt- >
*mawet > må̄wɛṯ [ˈmɔːvɛθ] ‘death’, but usually contracts, e.g., *jawm- > yōm [joːm]
‘day’. Unstressed diphthongs regularly contract, e.g., construct *bajt- > bēṯ [beːθ] ‘house
of. . .’, construct *mawt- > mōṯ [moːθ] ‘death of. . .’. The /h/ ending of most substantives
ending in ɛ [ɛː] and of verbs ending in å ̄ [ɔː] represents the collapse of a final poly
phthong (Blau 2010: 248–52).
Stress is typically word-final, though there are regular exceptions (Blau 2013). In a few
categories stress is phonemic, e.g., the II–w 3fsg sc rå ̄ ́ ṣå̄ [ˈʀɔːsˤɔː] ‘she ran’ vs. the II–w fsg
active participle or III–y 3msg sc rå ̄ ṣå̄́ [ʀɔːˈsˤɔː] ‘she is running’ and ‘he accepted, wanted’,
respectively. The Tiberian reading tradition was chanted, the tune transcribed via cantil-
lation signs – commonly called accents (Hebrew ṭeʕamim) – written above and/or below
the words. Beyond their musical value, most of the signs also mark word stress (though a
few consistently occur word-initially or word-finally) and all encode aspects of syntactic
prosody, specifically conjunction or disjunction (Dresher 2013). The shifts in stress and
vocalization associated with pause often evince archaic phonology (Fassberg 2013b).
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
Hebrew has two sets of personal pronouns: independent and suffixed. The standard con-
textual forms of the independent subject pronouns are listed in Table 21.6.
Both independent 1csg forms occur in CBH and pre-exilic epigraphy. Their distribu-
tion in CBH is partially attributable to syntactic, pragmatic and stylistic factors.
TABLE 21.6 INDEPENDENT SUBJECT PRONOUNS
Independent
Singular Plural
1c ănī, ʔå̄nōḵī ʔănaḥnū

2m ʔattå̄ ʔattɛm
2f ʔat ʔattēnå̄
3m hū hēmmå̄, hēm
3f hī hēnnå̄
The rare biblical alternative 2msg ʔat [ʔaːθ] is known from Aramaic dialects and occurs
together with the standard biblical ʔattå̄ [ʔatˈtɔː] in the more reliable RH manuscripts.
The rare 2fsg spelling /ʔty/, in BH always realized phonetically as ʔat, is predicted on the
basis of comparative research and is relatively common in DSS Hebrew, where it may
reflect Aramaic influence or, alternatively, a dialect in which the original final i-vowel
was preserved (Hornkohl 2013a: 112–19).
The rare 1cpl naḥnū [ˈnaːħnuː], which corresponds to the only form found in Iron Age
Hebrew epigraphy, is considered by some the more primitive 1cpl form, with dominant
ʔănaḥnū [ʔaˈnaːħnuː] explained on analogy to the 1csg forms (Blau 2010: 165–6). The
consonantal spelling /ʔnw/, found just once in BH and replaced in the reading tradition
with standard ʔănaḥnū, anticipates the dominant RH form ʔå̄nū [ˈʔɔːnuː].
The gender-neutral use of mpl forms (at the expense of fpl alternatives), attested
already in CBH, seems to increase in LBH and Post-Biblical Hebrew.
The distribution of the short and long 3mpl forms is complicated, probably involving,
inter alia, register, diachrony, genre and scribal leveling.
As for the pronominal suffixes – singular and plural substantives (including participles)
take different sets of possessive pronominal suffixes (Table 21.7). The set for plurals includes
a reflex of the -ay/-ē/-ɛ suffix from the annexed form of the predominantly mpl suffix that
corresponds to nonbound -īm. Due to analogy, this reflex regularly links the possessive suf-
fixes to plural nouns ending in -ōṯ, producing forms with double plural marking, e.g.,
bənōṯay
[ban-oːˈθ-aːj]
child-fpl-1csg
‘my daughters’
Prepositions also split between those that take the ‘singular’ and ‘plural’ suffixes; com-
pare the following:
lī
[l-iː]
to/for-1csg
‘to me, for me’
ʔēlay
[ʔeːˈl-aː-j]
to-pl-1csg
‘to me’
TABLE 21.7 POSSESSIVE PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES
On ‘Singular’ Nouns/Prepositions On ‘Plural’ Nouns/Prepositions
sg pl sg pl
1 -ī -nū -ay, -ēnī -ēnū

2m -ḵå̄ -ḵɛm -ɛḵå̄ -ēḵɛm
2f -ēḵ, -å̄ḵ -ḵɛn -ayīḵ -ēḵɛn
3m -ō, -hū, -w, -nū -hɛm, -å̄m -å̄w, -ēhū -ēhɛm, -å̄m
3f -å̄h, -nå̄ -hɛn, -å̄n -ɛhå̄ -ēhɛn, -å̄n
TABLE 21.8 OBJECT PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES
After C- After V-
sg pl sg pl
1 -anī, -ēnī -å ̄ nū, -ēnū -nī -nū

2m -ḵå̄ -ḵɛm -ḵå̄, -kkå ̄ -ḵɛm
2f -ēḵ(ī), -ɛḵ -ḵɛn -ḵ –
3m -ō, -hū, -ū, -mō, -ēm(ō), -å̄m(ō) -w, -hū, -ō -ēhɛm, -m, -mō
-ēhū, -ɛnnū
3f -å̄h, -ɛhå̄, -ɛnnå̄ -å̄n, -å̄nå ̄ , -an -hå̄, -å̄h -n
Object suffixes (Table 21.8) often overlap in form with the corresponding possessive
suffixes, but show greater variety.
Post-consonantal 1st person forms containing a/å̄-vowels are reserved chiefly for
suffix conjugation verbal forms. Though suffixes on participles and infinitives regularly
refer to syntactic objects, they normally take the form of possessive rather than object
suffixes, e.g., 1csg -ī rather than -ēnī. Compare, e.g.,
rōʔī
[roːˈ-iː]
see.ptcp.act.msg-1csg
‘the one who sees me’ (lit. ‘my seeing one’)
rōʔå̄nī
[roːˈ-ɔːniː]
see.ptcp.act.msg-1csg
‘[there is none] who sees me’
Other than the 3msg forms with m, which are archaic and used mainly in poetry,
all 3msg forms develop from *-Vhu: standard post-consonantal -ō and post-vocalic -w
resulted from elision of the h retained in the allomorphs with -hū, of which -ū is a rare
variant. Some 2msg and 3sg forms have an extra n or gemination resulting from its assim-
ilation when attaching to the prefix conjugation (or, more rarely, the imperative; more on
this n in §4.6.2).
4.2 Demonstratives
The main proximal demonstrative pronouns are msg zɛ [zɛː] and fsg zōṯ [zoːθ], both ‘this’,
and cpl ʔēllɛ [ˈʔeːllɛː] ‘these’ (occasionally ʔēl [ʔeːl]). A morphologically more primitive
fsg alternative, zō [zoː] (written /zh/ or /zw/), comes in apparently northern contexts and
Qohelet (Ecclesiastes), and is dominant in RH, where the more transparently cpl ʔēllū
[ˈeːlluː] replaces ʔēllɛ. Both zɛ and zōṯ are used generically. The demonstrative pronouns
also serve as the proximal demonstrative adjectives. The distal demonstratives, which
double as adjectives, consist of the the 3rd-person independent subject pronouns. See
Table 21.9.
A rarer set of more remote distal demonstratives that includes msg hallå ̄ zɛ [hallɔːˈzɛː],
fsg hallēzū [halleːˈzuː], and csg hallå ̄ z [halˈlɔːz] is also sporadically attested.
4.3 Interrogatives
A series of interrogatives derive from ʔay- [ʔaj-]:
ʔē [ʔeː] ‘where?’
ʔayyē [ʔaɟˈɟeː] ‘where?’, also with pronominal suffix, e.g., ʔayyō [ʔaɟˈɟoː] ‘where is
he?’ (restricted to nominal clauses)
mē-ʔayin [meːˈʔaːjin] ‘from where, whence?’
ʔå̄nå ̄ [ˈʔɔːnɔː] ‘to where, whither?’
ʔēp̄ ō [ʔeːˈfoː] ‘where?’
ʔēzɛ [ʔeː ˈzɛː] ‘ where?’ (this compound still has a locative sense in CBH – cf. ʔē miz-zɛ
[ʔeː mizˈzɛː] ‘from where, whither?’ – but comes to mean ‘which?’ in
LBH and later Hebrew; in RH it is the msg form, joined by fsg ʔēzō
[ʔeːˈzoː] and cpl ʔēlū [ʔeːˈluː])
ʔēḵå̄ [ʔeːˈχɔː] ‘where?’ (rare, evidently related to RH hēḵå̄n [heːˈχɔːn] ‘where’)
ʔēḵ [ʔeːχ] ‘how?’
Other interrogatives include:
ma/må ̄ /mɛ [maCC-/mɔː/mɛ] ‘what?’ (also serves as relativizer; often treated as pro-
sodic proclitic; Dresher 2009)
mī [miː] ‘who?’ (also serves as relativizer)
lå ̄ mmå ̄ [ˈlɔːmmɔː] ‘why?’ (also lå ̄ må ̄ [lɔːˈmɔː], mainly before gutturals or consonant
with shewa)
madduaʕ [madˈduaʕ] ‘why?’
må ̄ ṯay [mɔːˈθaːj] ‘when?’
hă- [ha-] is a proclitic marking a yes/no question.
Gender Proximal Distal
singular m zɛ hū
f zōṯ/zō hī
plural m ʔēllɛ hēm, hēmmå̄
f hēnnå̄
4.4 Relative
The main relativizer is ʔăšɛr [ʔaˈʃɛːʀ] ‘that, which’, though šɛ-/ša- [ʃɛCC-/ʃaCC-], dom-
inant in RH, occurs in northern and some late texts. The normally demonstrative zɛ [zɛː]
as well as zū [zuː] also function as archaic poetic relative pronouns in the sense ‘which,
that, the one of’.
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
Hebrew nouns distinguish gender (masculine and feminine) and number (singular, plural
and sometimes dual). Due to the loss of final short vowels, nouns no longer decline for case,
though reflexes of obsolete case vowels sometimes persist. msg nouns are unmarked. When
it comes to substantives that present all four of the gender-number possibilities (especially
adjectives and participles, but also some nouns), the fsg, mpl and fpl endings are largely pre-
dictable. Table 21.10 illustrates the inflection of the adjective ṣaddīq [sʕadˈdiːq] ‘righteous’.
Morphologically marked fsg substantives end in -t [-θ] (< PS *-t), though after
a-vowels the -t elides, yielding -å ̄ [-ɔː], except when annexed to (i.e., in construct with) a
following constituent, in which case -aṯ [-aːθ] is preserved. The mpl ending is -īm [-iːm],
-ē [-eː] in construct, and the fpl ending, which persists in construct, is -ōṯ [-oːθ] (< PS
*-aːt). However, certain basic feminine nouns are morphologically unmarked, e.g., ʔɛrɛṣ
[ˈʔɛːʀɛsˤ] ‘land, earth’. Moreover, many masculine nouns have plurals in -ōṯ, e.g., ʔå̄ḇ
[ʔɔːv] ‘father’, pl å ̄ ḇōṯ [ʔɔːˈvoːθ], while many feminine nouns have plurals in -īm, e.g.,
ʔiššå̄ [ʔiʃˈʃɔː] ‘woman’, pl nå ̄ šīm [nɔːˈʃiːm]. The dual ending -ayim [-ˈaːjim] was not pro-
ductive in Hebrew and is limited chiefly to nouns that regularly occur in twosomes, e.g.,
body parts, paired items and units of time and measure.
Plural formation generally involves predictable modifications to the base due to reg-
ular changes in syllable structure and stress. A notable exception is the group of nouns
known as ‘segolates’ (see §4.7.2). Since the segolate absolute plural form, e.g., məlå̄ḵīm
[malɔːˈχiːm], cannot be derived from either the Hebrew or PS singular, it has been
explained as a remnant of the old Southwest Semitic “broken” (internal, apophonic) plu-
ral (see Chapter 3, §3.3.2.2), to which the more transparent Hebrew plural endings were
later added (Huehnergard 2013: 529, cf. Blau 2010: 273).
4.5.2 Patterns
Hebrew nominal patterns generally include three root letters (though there are basic lex-
emes with two and even one). They are distinguished on the basis of vowel patterns and,
sometimes, affixes and gemination. For further details refer to Huehnergard (2015).
TABLE 21.10 NOMINAL INFLECTION
Absolute (Nonbound) Construct (Annexed)
msg ṣaddīq ṣaddīq

fsg ṣaddīqå̄ ṣaddīqaṯ
mpl ṣaddīqīm ṣaddīqē
fpl ṣaddīqōṯ ṣaddīqōṯ
Most nominal patterns have no fixed semantic value. For example, nouns that derive
from the monosyllabic Semitic C1VC2C3 (qVṭl) pattern developed into the paroxytone
‘sogolates’ (with anaptyctic ɛ-vowels) with various meanings: thus *qaṭl- mɛlɛḵ [ˈmɛːlɛχ]
‘king’, *qiṭl- sēp̄ ɛr [ˈseːfɛʀ] ‘letter, writing, book’ or qɛḇɛr [ˈqɛvɛʀ] ‘grave, tomb’, and
*quṭl- qōḏɛš [ˈqoːðɛʃ] ‘sanctity’, whose suffixed forms (represented here by forms
with the 1csg possessive suffix) show earlier phonology or reflexes thereof, e.g., malkī
[malˈkiː], sip̄ rī [sifˈʀi], qiḇrī [qivˈʀiː], qåḏšī [qɔðˈʃiː].
Forms associated with specific semantic senses include C1aC2C2å ̄ C3 (qaṭṭå̄l), denoting
professions and persistent qualities, e.g., ṭabbå̄ḥ [tˤabˈbɔːħ] ‘cook, butcher’; C1iC2C2ēC3
(qiṭṭēl), denoting people with disabilities, e.g., ʕiwwēr [ʕivˈveːʀ] ‘blind’; C1aC2C2ɛC3ɛṯ
(qaṭṭɛlɛṯ), denoting defects and diseases, e.g., ʕawwɛrɛṯ [ʕavˈvɛːʀɛθ] ‘blindness’; and
miC1C2å ̄ C3 (miqṭå̄l), often denoting a place, e.g., miqdå ̄ š [miqˈdɔːʃ] ‘holy place, temple’.
Nouns ending in -ūṯ, which multiply in the later phases of ancient Hebrew (probably
under Aramaic influence), tend to have abstract meaning, e.g., ʕaḇdūṯ [ʕavduːθ] ‘servi-
tude, bondage’. Use of the typically gentilic suffix – msg -ī [-ˈiː], fsg -iyyå ̄ [iɟˈɟɔː], mpl
-īm [-ˈiːm] < -iyyīm [-iɟˈɟiːm], and fpl -iyyōṯ [-iɟˈɟoːθ] – e.g., miṣrī [misˤṛˈiː] ‘Egyptian’,
was extended to more general attributive marking; e.g., from ʔaḵzå̄r [ʔaχˈzɔːʀ] ‘cruel’
there developed the more adjectivally transparent but semantically equivalent ʔaḵzå̄rī
[ʔaχzɔːˈʀiː] ‘id.’.
4.5.3 Numerals
Hebrew uses a decimal system. The numerals have masculine and feminine forms. With
the exception of the number 1, cardinal numbers up to 10 are nouns that precede the
item they enumerate; the numeral 1, as an adjective, follows its enumerated item and
agrees with it in gender. The number 2, usually in construct with its numbered item, also
shows gender concord. Construct forms are also used when the numbered item is deter-
mined with the definite article. Against the gender concord between 1 and 2 and the items
they number, from 3 on the numerals exhibit gender polarity: morphologically feminine
numeral forms are employed with masculine nouns and vice versa. The numerals 5 and 6
(and their derivatives) present allomorphs with and without gemination. Irregularly for
BH phonology, the feminine forms of the numeral 2 begin with a consonant cluster, i.e.,
štayim (štē) [ˈʃthaːjim (ʃtheː)] with zero shewa followed by plosive t, possibly reflecting
an erstwhile initial epenthetic vowel.
The teens are constructed with forms of the numerals 1–9 and special forms of the
numeral 10, i.e., šəlōšå̄ ʕå̄śå̄r [ʃaloːˈʃɔː ʕɔːˈsɔːʀ] ‘13 (m)’, šəlōš ʕɛśrē [ʃaˈloːʃ ʕɛsˈṛeː]
‘13 (f)’. Along with the expected forms for 11, ʔaḥaḏ ʕå̄śå̄r [ʔaːˈħaːð ʕɔːˈsɔːʀ] (m) and
ʔaḥaṯ ʕɛśrē [ʔaːˈħaːθ ʕɛsˈṛeː] (f), come the alternatives ʕaštē ʕå̄śå̄r [ʕaʃˈtheː ʕɔːˈsɔːʀ] and
ʕaštē ʕɛśrē [ʕaʃˈtheː ʕɛsˈṛeː]. The decades are epicene; excepting ʕɛśrīm [ʕɛsˈṛiːm] ‘20’,
they are formed using the feminine ordinal form with the plural ending -īm, e.g., šəlōšīm
[ʃaloːˈʃiːm] ‘30’. Higher numerals, also epicene, include mēʔå̄ [meːˈʔɔː] ‘100’, ʔɛlɛp̄
[ˈʔɛːlɛf] ‘1000’, ribbō/rəḇå̄ḇå̄ [ʀibˈboː/ʀavɔːˈvɔː] ‘10,000’.
The ordinal numerals are adjectives. The ordinal corresponding to 1 derives from the
word rōš [ʀoːʃ] ‘head’. The forms of the ordinals from 2 to 10 incorporate the adjectival
(originally gentilic) -ī suffix (see §4.5.2), and, with the exception of 2 and 6, have the
pattern C1əC2īC3ī (see Table 21.11). Beyond 10, the cardinal numerals serve as ordinals.
TABLE 21.11 THE FIRST DECADE
Cardinal Ordinal (msg)
Masculine Absolute Feminine Absolute

(Construct) (Construct)
1 ʔɛḥå̄ḏ (ʔaḥaḏ) ʔaḥaṯ (ʔaḥaṯ) rīšōn

2 šənayim (šənē) štayim (štē) šēnī
3 šəlōšå̄ (šəlōšɛṯ) šå ̄ lōš (šəlōš) šəlīšī
4 ʔarbå̄ʕå̄ (ʔarbaʕaṯ) ʔarbaʕ (ʔarbaʕ) rəḇīʕī
5 ḥămiššå̄ (ḥămēšɛṯ) ḥå̄mēš (ḥămēš) ḥămīšī
6 šiššå ̄ (šēšɛṯ) šēš (šēš) šiššī
7 šiḇʕå̄ (šiḇʕaṯ) šɛḇaʕ (šəḇaʕ) šəḇīʕī
8 šəmōnå̄ (šəmōnaṯ) šəmōnɛ (šəmōnɛ) šəmīnī
9 tišʕå̄ (tišʕaṯ) tɛšaʕ (təšaʕ) təšīʕī
10 ʕăśå̄rå ̄ (ʕăśɛrɛṯ) ʕɛśɛr (ʕɛśɛr) ʕăśīrī
4.6 Verbs
4.6.1 Tense–aspect–mood (TAM)
The BH verbal system encodes relative tense, aspect and mood, tense and mood most
prominently (Cook 2012, Joosten 2012, 2013, Cohen 2013: 16–50, Hornkohl 2018).
There are two basic verbal conjugations, the suffix conjugation (sc; or qaṭal, perfect, past)
and the prefix conjugation (pc; or yiqṭol, imperfect, future), each augmented by its respec-
tive sequential counterpart with integrated w-conjunction. Semantically equivalent to the
sc is the wapc (wayyiqṭol) and semantically equivalent to the pc is the wsc (weqaṭal). The
sc and wapc have mainly past, perfective, indicative force. The pc and wsc have either
past imperfective (usually frequentative), generic present, or (aspectually undefined)
future-modal force. The active participle (ptcp.act), though a morphological substantive,
also plays an important role in the BH verbal system, where, among other uses, it is the
default form for the actual present. An analytic verbal construction combining the ‘be’-
verb hå ̄ yå ̄ (usually in the sc) with the active participle normally carries frequentative past
force (see §5.4.1). A dedicated imperative and two infinitives, the construct and absolute,
fill out the system. The uses may be summarized as follows:
Perfective past: sc and wapc

Imperfective past (frequentative and habitual): pc, wsc, and hå ̄ yå ̄ + active participle
Generic present: pc, wsc, participle (sc and wapc in the case of stative verbs)
Actual present and relative present: participle (sc and wapc in the case of stative verbs)
Future-modal: pc and wsc

The conjugations inflect for person, number and gender. sc and wsc inflection is via suf-
fixes alone. The 3msg form is the basis for the (w)sc pattern, though ultimate stress in
the 3fsg, 2pl and 3pl patterns coincides with differences in the vocalic (see Table 21.12).
TABLE 21.12 PARADIGM OF THE G STEM (PAʕAL/QAL) SUFFIX CONJUGATION

(sc AND wsc)
Singular Plural
suffix form and gloss suffix form and gloss
1c -tī šå ̄ mártī ‘I guarded’ -nū šå ̄ márnū ‘we guarded’

2m -tå ̄ šå ̄ mártå ̄ ‘you (msg) guarded’ -tɛ́m šəmartɛ́m ‘you (mpl) guarded’
2f -t šå ̄ márt ‘you (fsg) guarded’ -tɛ́n šəmartɛ́n you (fpl) guarded’
3m – šå ̄ már ‘he guarded’ šå ̄ mərū́ ‘they guarded’
-ū
3f -å ̄ šå̄́mərå̄́ ‘she guarded’
TABLE 21.13 PARADIGM OF THE G STEM (PAʕAL/QAL) PREFIX CONJUGATION

(pc AND wapc)
Singular Plural
suffix form and gloss suffix form and gloss
1c ʔ- ʔɛšmōr ‘I will guard’ n- nišmōr ‘we will guard’

2m t- tišmōr ‘you (msg) will guard’ t—ū tišmərū ‘you (mpl) will guard’
2f t—ī tišmərī ‘you (fsg) will guard’ t—nå ̄ tišmōrnå̄ you (fpl) will guard’
3m y- yišmōr ‘he will guard’ y—ū yišmərū ‘they (mpl) will guard’
3f t- tišmōr ‘she will guard’ t—nå ̄ tišmōrnå̄ ‘they (fpl) will guard’
The example forms represent the base G(round) stem, traditionally termed paʕal on
account of the vowel pattern of its citation form, the 3msg sc, or qal ‘light’, because it
lacked the prefixes or gemination of other stems. Most G stem scs have an å ̄ -a [ɔː-aː]
(< PS *a-a) vowel pattern; å ̄ -ē [ɔː-eː] (< *a-i) and å ̄ -ō [aː-oː] (< *a-u) are rarer, found
chiefly in stative verbs.
In the case of the prefix conjugation (pc and wapc), prefixes and suffixes combine to
encode person, gender and number. The prefix conjugation base is the pattern without
prefixes and suffixes, which is identical or similar to the base form of the corresponding
infinitive construct and imperative. In G stem, this is normally -qṭVl-, where the vowel is
typically o or a, which syncopates upon the addition of stressed suffixes (see Table 21.13).
The vowel of the prefix depends on verbal stem (binyan; see §4.6.3) as well as certain
phonological factors. The 2msg and 3fsg have identical forms, as do the 2fpl and 3fpl
(though in a few cases the primitive 3fpl y—nå ̄ [j—nɔː] occurs). The mpl forms some-
times serve as cpl forms, especially in LBH and Post-Biblical Hebrew. The 2fsg and mpl
forms sometimes end in a n (called “paragogic nun”) more common in other Semitic
languages.
There are additional verbal forms synchronically related to the pc.
• A lengthened (“cohortative”) form, discernible only in consonant-final forms, is

largely restricted to the 1st person, e.g.,
ʔɛšmərå̄
[ʔɛ-ʃmaˈʀ-ɔː]
1csg-guard.pc-cohortative
‘let me guard, may I guard’
• A short volitional (“jussive” [juss]) form is discernible only in certain weak and
C[ausative] stem [hifʕil] verbs, e.g.,
yəhī
[ja-ˈhiː]
3m-be.pc.juss.sg
‘let it/there be’
It serves with the negative modal particle ʔal [ʔal] in negative commands, e.g.,
ʔal tašḥēṯ
[ʔal ta-ʃˈħeːθ]
neg 2m-destroy.pc.juss.sg
‘do not destroy’
It is also the form of the pc used in the wapc construction, e.g.,
wayəhī
[va-y-hiː]
conj-3m-be.wapc.sg
‘and it was’
• The function of n- ‘energic’ forms is debated. In theory, these are thought to have once
been restricted to indicative pc forms with object suffixes, e.g.,
lō yaʕazḇɛkkå̄
[loː ya-ʕazˈv-ɛːkh-khɔː]
neg 3m-forsake.pc-energic-2msg
‘he will not forsake you’
but there are numerous exceptions, including object-suffixed 1st person pc forms, which,
not surprisingly, tend to be volitional, e.g.,
našqɛnnū
[na-ʃˈqɛː-n-nuː]
1cpl-make.drink.pc-energic-3msg
‘let’s make him drink’.
The imperative takes the same suffixes as the (wa)pc, but lacks the pronominal prefix
marking person (Table 21.14). It generally takes the same theme vowel as the (wa)pc.
Imperatives are restricted to the 2nd person.
TABLE 21.14 THE GS IMPERATIVE (imp)
Singular Plural
masculine šəmōr šimrū

feminine šimrī šəmōṛnå̄
The active participle, a morphological substantive, is the default TAM form for the
actual present (see §4.6.4 for the morphology). In addition to encoding the actual present,
participles can encode relative present, including past continuous, force, but can also
encode general present and future meaning.
4.6.3 Verbal stems (binyanim)

There are five basic derivational patterns (verbal stems), traditionally called binyanim (singu-
lar binyan ‘building’), plus internal (apophonic) passive patterns, two of which – the D-passive
and the C-passive – are counted in some traditional numberings of the templates. Table 21.15
gives a highly schematized presentation of the standard Semitic and traditional Hebrew cat-
egories. A note on terminology and presentation: in one of the better-known Hebrew gram-
matical traditions, the verbal patterns were labeled according to the 3msg sc forms of the
root p-ʕ-l, a convention inherited from the Arabic grammatical tradition, with which many
medieval Hebrew grammarians were familiar (the verb på ̄ ʕal [phɔːˈʕaːl] ‘to do’, cognate to a
common Arabic verb of the same meaning, is a rare poetic term in BH). However, because
the middle root-letter ʕ does not geminate, more transparent forms using the common Semitic
root q-ṭ-l (qå ̄ ṭal [qɔːˈtʕaːl] ‘kill’ is also rare and poetic in BH) are also provided.
The G stem (paʕal/qal) is semantically opaque, including active and stative verbs,
transitive and intransitive. Intolerance of this semantic opacity is likely part of the back-
ground behind the shift of some formerly G stem verbs to more semantically transparent
stems in LBH and Post-Biblical Hebrew, especially D stem for transitive verbs (Fassberg
2001: 244–52) and N stem for non-agentive and reflexive verbs (Khan 2013b: 308). Sim-
ilarly, the original G stem passive was consistently realized in the Tiberian tradition as
nifʿal where the consonantal spelling made this possible or, alternatively, reanalyzed as
puʿal or hofʿal (with which its pronunciation in some forms had become identical).
The D stem (piʕel), with paradigmatic geminated (elongated) middle root consonant,
defies straightforward semantic categorization. Despite the traditional label, in the BH
(w)sc an a theme vowel is not rare; ɛ occurs in a few verbs. Scholars typically point to a
factitive or resultative connotation, along with intensiveness, the latter involving height-
ened transitivity and/or verbal plurality in comparison to related G stem verbs (Beckman
2015). Yet the picture is complicated by the number of common D stem verbs with no
documented G stem alternative, by cases in which it is difficult to discern a semantic
difference between related D and G stem verbs, and by mixed G and D stem paradigms.
The D stem is also a convenient denominative form. The apophonic Dp pattern is puʕal.
TABLE 21.15 PRINCIPAL VERBAL PATTERNS (BINYANIM)
G Ground D Intensive/Factitive/ C Causative

Resultative
Basic paʕal (or qal) piʕel hifʕil

qå ̄ ṭal qiṭṭēl/qiṭṭal hiqṭīl
Passive (p) nifʕal (also puʕal) (puʕal) (hofʕal/hufʕal)
niqṭal (also quṭṭal) (quṭṭal) (hoqṭal/huqṭal)
Reflexive (t) hitpaʕel
hitqaṭṭēl
The C stem (hifʕil), with h prefix (elided in the pc and participle), commonly has facti-
tive or causative force in relation to related G stem verbs, but sometimes has inchoative/
ingressive meaning, and often lacks related verbs in other stems. The C stem is also used
for demoninative verbs. The apophonic Cp pattern is hofʕal/hufʕal.
Th N stem (nifʕal) incorporates a prefixed n. It has reflexive, reciprocal, middle, intran-
sitive and passive meanings, especially (but not exclusively) compared to related G stem
verbs. A shift of intransitive and passive G stem verbs to N stem is perceptible in BH. The
h in the N stem imperative and infinitives is difficult to account for.
The Dt stem (hitpaʕel) has a prefix hit (the h of which is elided in the pc and partici-
ple) and gemination (elongation) of second radical. Its semantics are chiefly reflexive or
reciprocal, usually (but not exclusively) with respect to D stem verbs, but in a minority of
verbs Dt stem verbs have simulative force, e.g.,
hiṯnakkēr
[hiθnakhˈkheːʀ]
act.the.stranger.sc.3msg
‘to act the stranger’
There are other minor stem patterns, some serving as phonological alternatives for the
standard ones, e.g., polel, which regularly substitutes for piʕel in the case of verbs with
middle-waw/yod (hollow) and geminate (with identical second and third radicals) roots.
The expected Gt and Ct stems known from other Semitic languages are only sporadically
attested in BH.
Along with the G stem forms of the completely regular verb šå ̄ mar ‘guard’,
Table 21.16 gives the forms and meanings of verbs that share the root q-d-š ‘be holy’,
as this is represented in all the stems (with a stative i-a pc pattern). While this latter
array constitutes a useful example of the sorts of semantic relationships that often exist
between the various verbal patterns, finegrain semantic nuances, predictable seman-
tic correlations between patterns, and the very existence of verbs in specific patterns
should not be assumed in accordance with the traditional form-meaning associations
(Dan 2013, Retsö 2013).
TABLE 21.16 EXAMPLE FORMS OF THE VERBAL PATTERNS (BINYANIM)
G Stem G Stem D Stem C Stem N Stem Dt Stem

(paʕal/qal) (stative) (piʕel/piʕal) (hifʕil) (nifʕal) (hitpaʕel)
Gloss ‘guard’ ‘be holy’ ‘sanctify’ ‘dedicate’ ‘be sanctified’ ‘sanctify oneself’
sc šå ̄ mar qå ̄ ḏaš qiddaš hiqdīš niqdaš hitqaddēš

pc yišmōr yiqdaš yəqaddēš yaqdīš yiqqå ̄ dēš yitqaddēš
ptcp.act šōmēr qå ̄ ḏēš məqaddēš maqdīš niqdå ̄ š hitqaddēš
imp šəmōr *qəḏaš qaddēš haqdēš hiqqå ̄ dēš hitqaddēš
inf.cst lišmōr/ *liqdōš/ (lə)qaddēš (lə)haqdīš (lə)hiqqå̄dēš (lə)hitqaddēš
šəmōr *qəḏōš/*qidšå ̄
inf.absl šå ̄ mōr *qå ̄ ḏōš *qaddēš/*qaddōš haqdēš niqdōš/hiqqå̄dēš hitqaddēš
ptcp.pass šå ̄ mūr *qå ̄ ḏūš – – – –
TABLE 21.17 THE G STEM (PAʕAL/QAL) ACTIVE PARTICIPLE (ptcp.act)
Singular Plural
masculine šōmēr šōmərīm

feminine šōmɛrɛt (or šomərå̄) šōmərōṯ
In the G stem the active participle (ptcp.act) has an ō-ē [oː-eː] (< PS *ā-i) vowel pattern,
or å ̄ -ē [ɔː-eː] (< *a-i) in the case of stative verbs. Table 21.17 gives the forms of the
G stem.
As a substantive, it takes nominal suffixes indicating gender and number: the msg is
unmarked, the fsg has either -ɛṯ [-ɛθ] or -å ̄ [-ɔː], the mpl -īm [-iːm] and the fpl -ōṯ [-oːθ].
Active participles serve as both attributive and predicate nouns (especially for the nomen
agentis) and adjectives.
The G stem has a dedicated passive participle (ptcp.pass) with an å ̄ -ū [ɔː-uː] (< *a-ū)
vowel pattern that serves as an adjective, both attributively and predicatively, e.g.,
ʔå̄rūr ʔattå̄
[ʔɔːˈʀuːʀ ʔathˈthɔː]
curse.ptcp.pass.msg pro.2msg
‘cursed are you!’
The participles of the other verbal patterns also take nominal suffixes. The D, C and
Dt stem participles all have a prefix m (as do the participles of the Dp and Cp stems),
while the msg N stem participle is distinguished from the 3msg sc by stem vowel alone
(see Table 21.16).
BH has two infinitives with different patterns, traditionally called infinitive “construct”
(inf.cst) and infinitive “absolute” (inf.absl). The infinitive “construct” typically has a
form similar to the base of the pc without affixes. It can be annexed to nouns and pronom-
inal suffixes. It serves as the complement of certain verbs, typically after a preposition,
e.g.,
tūḵal lispōr
[thuː-ˈχaːl li-sˈphoːʀ]
2m-be.able.pc.sg to-count.inf.cst
‘you (msg) can count’
and as a gerund-like verbal noun. This infinitive can be used in temporal adverbial
phrases with other prepositions (k- ‘when, after, once’ and b- ‘while’ or ʕim ‘with’ in later
Hebrew), e.g.,
kiqərō
[khi-ˈqʀoː]
like-read.inf.cst
‘after (the king of Israel) read’
biqərō
[bi-ˈqʀoː]
in-read.inf.cst
‘while (Baruch) was reading’
The infinitive “absolute” is an indeclinable verbal noun that fulfills four basic func-
tions in BH: (a) verbal focus alongside (usually before) a related finite verb (same root
and, often, same stem), e.g.,
mōṯ təmūṯūn
[moːθ tha-muːˈθ-uː-n]
die.inf.absl 2m-die.pc-pl-paragogic
‘you (pl) will (surely) die’;
(b) adverb, e.g., hēṯēḇ [heːˈθeːv] ‘well, rightly’; (c) command, e.g., šå ̄ mōr [ʃɔːˈmoːʀ]
‘keep!’; (d) alternative for finite form or participle (especially in later texts).
4.6.5 Weak roots
Phonological and morphological deviations from the standard patterns often involve
verbs with roots containing ‘weak’ phonemes. Specific consonants regularly assimilate or
elide in certain positions, the resulting forms often being predictable. The most common
weak patterns include at least one of the consonants ʔ, h, w, y and n. Verbs are tradition-
ally grouped according to the weak consonant’s place (I, II or III) in the root. The first
root consonant in I–n forms in which the n is syllable-final regularly assimilates to an
immediately following consonant, yielding forms such as ti-ddōr 2m-promise.pc.sg ‘you
will promise’ from n-d-r (vs. ti-šmōr 2m-guard.pc.sg ‘you will guard’ from š-m-r). Due to
a PS sound rule (*w > C/_C [+dental]), verbs with both I–y (< *w) and II–dental pattern
like I–n verbs (Huehnergard 2005), e.g.,
yiṣṣōq
[ji-sʕˈsʕoːq]
3m-pour.pc.sg
‘he will pour’
Geminate verbs (with identical II and III radicals) often deviate from standard pat-
terns or exhibit biforms that do so. Verbs with laryngeals, pharyngeals and r regularly
diverge phonologically from standard patterns in terms of vowel quality and/or lack of
gemination.
4.7 Particles/adverbs
4.7.1 Position
Prepositions and the definite direct object marker precede their nominal dependents,
whether noun, pronominal, demonstrative or relative clause. BH has a few proclitic prep-
ositions that cannot be written independently in l- ‘to, for’, k- ‘as, like’, and b- ‘in, with
(instr)’ (typically vocalized with ə [a], and all with longer independent forms ending in
-mō [-moː]). The preposition min [min] ‘from’ also has procliticized forms, commonly
reducing to miCC- or mē-, though, like many BH prepositions, the graphically inde-
pendent form is regularly treated as a prosodic proclitic, with lack of stress and (where
relevant) matching vocalization (Dresher 2009).
4.7.2 Derivation
Many of the following prepositions are based on (obsolete) construct nouns:
ʕim [ʕim] ‘with’

ʔēṯ/ʔɛṯ-/ʔitt- [ʔeːθ/ʔɛθ-/ʔithth-] ‘with’
ʔɛl [ʔɛl] ‘to’
ʕal [ʕal] ‘upon, at, against’
ʔēṣɛl [ˈeːsˤɛl] ‘at, near’
taḥaṯ [ˈthaːħaθ] ‘under, in place of’
så ̄ ḇīḇ [sɔːˈviːv] ‘around’
ʕaḏ [ʕað] ‘until, as far as’
ʔaḥar [ʔaːˈħaʀ]/ʔaḥărē [ʔaħaˈʀeː] ‘behind, after’
bēn (. . . l-/u-ḇēn . . .) [beːn] ([l-]/[ʔuˈveːn] . . .) ‘between (. . . and . . .)’
nɛḡɛḏ [ˈnɛːʁɛð] ‘against, opposite’
mūl [muːl] ‘before, opposite’
Composite prepositions are not uncommon:
lə-maʕan [laˈmaːʕan] ‘for the purpose/sake of’

ba-ʕăḇūr [baʕaˈvuːʀ] ‘for the purpose/sake of’
bə-qɛrɛḇ [baˈqɛːʀɛv] ‘among, in the midst of’
mit-taḥaṯ l- [mithˈthaːħaθ l-] ‘beneath’
mē-al l- [meːˈʔaːl l-] ‘above’
ʕaḏ l- [ʕað l-] ‘until, as far as’ (characteristic of post-exilic Hebrew)
When declined, some prepositions take the pronominal suffixes that attach to singular
nouns, e.g., ʕim [ʕim] ‘with’, ʕimm-ō [ʕimˈmoː] ‘with him’, whereas others take the
suffixes that attach to plural nouns, e.g., ʔɛl [ʔɛl] ‘to’, ʔēl-å̄w [ʔeːˈlɔːv] ‘to him’ (see
Table 21.7).
The accusative marker is ʔeṯ [ʔeːθ], more often joined prosodically and procliticized
to the following word as ʔɛṯ- [ʔɛθ-] (and ʔōṯ-/ʔɛṯ- [ʔoːθ-/ʔɛθ-] with pronominal suffixes),
regularly – but not obligatorily – precedes definite direct objects, i.e., proper nouns, nouns
with possessive suffixes, nouns with the definite article and construct phrases containing
any of the above. In LBH it is often replaced by l-, probably under Aramaic influence.
The relatively few BH conjunctions include the ubiquitous and polysemic w- ‘and’, as
well as more specific particles such as ʔō [ʔoː] ‘or’, gam [gam] ‘also’, ʔap̄ [ʔaf] ‘also’, kī
[khiː] ‘for, that, because, when, if’, ʔim [ʔim] ‘if, when (realis)’, lū [luː] ‘if (irrealis)’ and
lūlē [luːˈleː] ‘if not (irrealis)’.
Lexical adverbs are rare in BH. Productive adverbialization strategies include the
adverbial use of adjectives, prepositional phrases (especially with b- and l-), certain
examples of the infinitive absolute, and a limited number of lexemes bearing the suffixes
-å ̄ m [-ɔːm] and -ōm [-oːm], e.g., yōmå̄m [joːˈmɔːm] ‘by day, daily’, piṯʔōm [phiθˈʔoːm]
‘suddenly’. The unstressed suffix -å ̄ [-ɔː] is attached to nouns mainly to indicate direction
(or location) e.g., ʔarṣ-å̄ [ˈʔaṛsˤɔː] ‘to the ground, landward’ < ʔɛrɛṣ.
5 SYNTAX
Sentences in BH have variable constituent order, but certain orders correlate highly with
specialized pragmatic functions involving information structure and discourse discon-
tinuity. The default, i.e., pragmatically unmarked, order in nominal (verbless and par-
ticipial) clauses is Subj-Pred. The entire predicate or individual elements therein can
be preposed or fronted for focus or topicalization (Buth 1999). Some nominal clauses
include a focalizing 3rd person subject pronoun that eventually developed into a
full-fledged copula.
Whether main or subordinate, verbal clauses without special marking for focus, topic
or discourse discontinuity have the order VSO (where subject and object are full noun
phrases, since BH is a pro-drop language). Due partly to the pragmatically neutral sta-
tus of VSO word order, the default verbal forms for perfective past discourse, on the
one hand, and for future or imperfective past discourse, on the other, are the wapc and
wsc, respectively. Integrating the ‘and’ conjunction w-, these TAM structures iconically
encode basic discourse continuity (especially temporal succession and adjacency, but
also continuity of discourse topic, setting and participants). Conversely, the respective
semantically corresponding forms, sc for wapc and pc for wsc, are employed where use of
the wapc and wsc, respectively, is precluded due to a fronting for topicalization (discourse
topic, contrastive topic, scene-setting adverbial), argument focus (fill-in, counterexpec-
tation, reinforcement) or discourse discontinuity (departure from sequence, flashback,
parenthesis, explanation, unit boundary, highlighting), or because of a pre-clausal particle
(negative, relativizer, conjunction other than w-) (Khan 1988: 86–8, Buth 1995, Horn-
kohl 2005, 2018, Moshavi 2010). Two preverbal slots may be occupied by pragmatically
marked fronted constituents; if both are filled, the order is typically Topic-Focus. Verbal
clauses also have an immediately post-verbal slot reserved for highly presupposed infor-
mation, usually anaphoric deictics (e.g., pronominals). Standard narrative constituent
order is illustrated in the following examples:
way-yiḇrå̄ ʔĕlōhīm ʔɛṯ- hat-tannīnīm hag-gəḏōlīm

[vaj-ji-vˈʀɔː ʔeloːˈh-iːm ʔɛθ hat-tanniːˈn-iːm hag-gaðoːˈl-iːm
conj-see.3m-wapc.sg deity.m-pl obj art-sea.creature.m-pl art-large-mpl
‘And God created the large sea creatures’
wə-ʔēṯ kål- nɛp̄ ɛš ha-ḥayyå̄ hå ̄ -rōmɛśɛṯ
ve-ˈʔeːθ kɔl ˈnɛːfɛʃ ha-ħajˈjɔː ha-ʀoːˈmɛːs-ɛθ
conj-obj all.cst soul(f) art-living.fsg art-crawl.ptcp.act-fsg
‘and every living creature that moves’
ʔăšɛr šå̄rəṣū ham-mayīm lə-mīnēhɛm
ʔaˈʃɛʀ ʃåːṛˈsʕ-uː ham-ˈmajiːm la-miːneː-ˈhɛm
rel teem.sc-3pl art-water.mpl to-kind.msg.cst-3mpl
‘with which the water teems, according to their kind’
wə-ʔēṯ kål- ʕōp̄ kå ̄ nå ̄ p̄ lə-mīnēhū

ve-ˈʔeːθ kɔl ʕoːf kɔːˈnɔːf la-miːˈneː-huː
conj-obj all.cst flying.creature.cst wing to-kind.m.cst-3msg
‘and every winged creature’
way-yar ʔĕlōhīm kī- ṭōḇ
vaɟ-ˈɟaː-ʀ ʔeloːˈh-iːm kiː tʕoːv
conj-see.-3m-wapc.sg deity.m-pl conj.that good
‘and God saw that it was good’.
Clause-initial pcs (with or without a preceding w- conjunction) also occur, but typically
have directive-volitive and/or final force and, where possible, explicitly modal morphol-
ogy: lengthened ʔɛqṭəlå̄/niqṭəlå̄ 1st person forms; short 3rd person yiqṭol forms.
Traditionally, the wapc (wayyiqṭol) and wsc (weqaṭal, weqaṭaltí) were explained as ‘con-
versive’ verbal constructions, with ‘reversed’ TAM semantics relative to their respective cor-
responding forms without prefixed w- (wa+gemination in the case of the wapc). It has long
been recognized, however, that the yiqṭol of the wapc (from Proto-Central Semitic yaqṭul)
has an origin different from that of the pc (from Proto-Central Semitic *yaqṭul-u), though,
to be sure, an increased tendency to replace short yiqṭol patterns with long and lengthened
alternants is traceable from Iron Age Hebrew into later stages of the language (Hornkohl
2013a: 159–80). The wapc is the main narrative TAM form in BH. The signature gemina-
tion of its verbal prefix, i.e., wayyiqṭol, which distinguishes it from the volitional-final wepc,
i.e., weyiqṭol, may well reflect a secondary, semantically driven development.
For its part, the wsc seems to have spread from conditional apodoses to more general
future and imperfective past usage due in part to analogy to the relationship between the
other three TAM forms: sc : wapc :: pc : x, where x = wsc, i.e., a future-imperfective-modal
wsc developed as a pragmatically distinct semantic equivalent to the pc to com-
plete a paradigm that included the semantically equivalent but pragmatically distinct
past-perfective-indicative sc and wapc (language users may also have grown intoler-
ant of the identity of volitional-final wpc and the past-perfective-indicative wapc, both
of which have standard clause-initial position). Significantly, w+sc with the expected
past-perfective-indicative meaning of the sc is not a salient component of the BH verbal
system (though it is the norm in Qoheleth [Ecclesiastes] and RH; Rogland 2003, Horn-
kohl 2013a: 254–66, 287–93). Exceptionally from the perspective of BH verbal phonol-
ogy, the 1csg and 2msg wsc forms regularly have ultimate stress (especially after a closed
penultima; Revell 1985), e.g.,
šå ̄ láḥtī
[ʃɔːˈlaːħ-thiː]
send.sc-1csg
‘I (have) sent’
vs.
wə-šå̄laḥtī́
[va-ʃɔːlaħ-ˈthiː]
conj-send.wsc-1csg
‘and I will send, and I habitually sent’
Dislocation (extraposition) in BH is chiefly pre-clausal (Khan 1988: 78–97, Gross

2013), but can also occur post-clausally (Holmstedt 2014: 109–56).
Phrases in BH have Head-Dependent order.
PP kå ̄ -zɛ
[khɔː-ˈzɛː]
like-dem.msg
‘like this’
N-N nišmaṯ ḥayyīm
[niʃˈm-aːθ ħaɟˈɟ-iːm]
breath-fsg.cst life.m-pl
‘breath of life’
N-Adj nəḡå̄ʕīm gəḏōlīm
[naɣɔːˈʕ-iːm gaðoːˈl-iːm]
plague.m-pl great-mpl
‘severe plagues’
N-Rel ha-ḥălōm haz-zɛ ʔăšɛr ḥå̄lå ̄ mti
[haː-ħaˈloːm haz-ˈzɛ ʔaˈʃɛʀ ħɔːˈlɔːm-thiː]
art-dream.m art-dem.msg rel dream.sc-1csg.pause
‘this dream that I dreamt’
In BH the demonstrative, as an adjective, generally stands after the modified

constituent.
qōl diḇrē hå̄-ʕå̄m haz-zɛ

[qoːl divˈʀ-eː hɔː-ʕɔːm haz-ˈzɛː]
voice.m word.m-pl.cst art-people.m art-dem.msg
‘the sound of this people’s words’ (lit. ‘the sound of the words of this people’)

BH has two main types of predication. Verbal clauses have verbal predicates. For
example:
rå ̄ ʔīṯī ēṯ kål ʔăšɛr lå̄ḇå̄n ʕōśɛ ləḵå̄

[ʀɔːˈʔiː-θiː ʔeːθ khɔl aˈʃɛːʀ lɔːˈvɔːn ʕoːˈsɛː la-ˈχɔː]
see.sc-1csg obj all.cst rel Laban do.ptcp.act.msg to-2msg
‘I have seen all that Laban is doing to you’.
In nominal clauses the predicate may be a participle, adjective, pronoun, adverb or prep-
ositional phrase. For example:
ʔēllɛ ṯōləḏōṯ haš-šå̄mayim wə-hå̄-ʔå̄rɛṣ bə-hibbå̄rəʔå̄m

[ˈʔeːllɛː θoːlˈð-oːθ haʃ-ʃɔːˈmaːj-im vɔ-hɔː-ˈʔɔːʀɛsˤ bi-hibbɔːʀˈʔ-ɔːm]
dem.cpl generation.f-pl.cst art-sky.m-pl conj-art-land.f in-be.created.inf.cst-3mpl
‘These are the generations of the sky and the land when they were created’.
The BH existential particle (exist), yēš ‘there is/are’, and its negative counterpart,
ʔēn/ʔayin ‘there is/are not’, are used primarily to encode (non-)existence and, with the
preposition l- marking the possessor, possession and its negation. The negative particle,
ʔēn/ʔayin, especially when inflected for person, also serves for negation in nominal (verb-
less and participial) clauses.
hă-yēš lå̄kɛm ʔå̄ḥ

[ha-ˈjeːʃ lɔː-ˈχɛm ʔɔːħ]
int-exist to-2mpl sibling.m
‘Do you (mpl) have a brother?’
BH has focal constructions, which typically entail constituent or predicate focus by

means of fronting or via the insertion of a focalizing, pseudo-copular pronoun.
mē-ʔayin ʔattɛm. . . mē-ḥå̄rå ̄ n ʔănå̄ḥnū

[meː-ˈʔaːjin ʔathˈthɛːm. . . meː-ħɔːˈʀɔːn ʔaˈnɔːħnuː]
from-where sbj.pro.2mpl from-Haran sbj.pro.1cpl.pause
‘Where are you (mpl) from?’ . . . ‘(It’s) Haran (that) we’re from’.
ʔattå̄ hū hå̄-ʔɛ̆lōhīm
[ʔat ˈt ɔː huː hɔː-ʔɛloːˈh-iːm]
h h
2msg foc art-deity.m-pl

‘(It is) you (who) is God’.
5.3 Definiteness
The definite article has the default form haCC- [haCC-] and the conditioned allo-
morphs hå ̄ - [hɔː-] before ʔ [ʔ], ʕ [ʕ], and r [ʀ] and hɛ- [hɛː-] before unstressed h
[h] or ʕ [ʕ] when vocalized with å ̄ [ɔː] and before ḥ [ħ] when vocalized with å ̄
[ɔː] or å ̆ [ɔ]. It developed from a deictic marker (Rubin 2005: 65–6, 72–8, Pat-El
2009), a use still evident in such forms as hay-yōm [haɟ-ˈɟoːm] ‘today’, hap-paʕam
[haph-ˈphaʕam] ‘this time’. Hebrew has no dedicated means of signaling indefinite-
ness, though the numeral ʔɛḥå̄ ḏ [ʔɛːˈħɔːð] (m)/ʔaḥaṯ [ʔaːˈħaːθ] (f) ‘one’ serves spo-
radically to signal shades of indefiniteness, e.g., ʔīš ʔɛḥå̄ ḏ [ʔiːʃ ʔɛːˈħɔːð] ‘one man,
a man, a certain man’.
Because the definite article in CBH had lost much of its earlier deictic force, other
means were adopted in BH for encoding higher degrees of determination, such as a
demonstrative or ʕɛṣɛm [ˈʕɛːsˤɛm] ‘bone’ in the sense ‘self-same’.
bay-yōm ha-hū
[b-aɟ-ˈɟoːm haː-ˈhuː]
in-art-day.m art-3msg
‘on that day’
bə-ʕɛṣɛm hay-yōm haz-zɛ
[bɛ-ˈʕɛːsˤɛm haɟ-ˈɟoːm haz-ˈzɛː]
in-bone.f.cst art-day.m art-dem.msg
‘on that (same, very) day’
5.4 Synthetic and analytic constructions

5.4.1 Verbal system
The only analytic verbal construction in BH combines the ‘be’-verb hå ̄ yå ̄ (usually in the
sc) with the active participle. It typically has past imperfective, mainly habitual, force, e.g.,
wə-ʔēṯ kål ʔăšɛr ʕōśīm šå̄m hū hå̄yå ̄ ʕōśɛ

[ve-ˈʔeːθ khɔl ʔaˈʃɛʀ ʕoːˈs-iːm ʃɔːm huː hɔːˈjɔː ʕoːˈsɛː]
conj-obj all.cst rel do.ptcp.act-mpl there 3msg be.sc.3msg do.ptcp.act.msg
‘and all that was being done there he would do’
Since the participle also serves as an agent noun, such constructions can be ambiguous, e.g.,
yōsēp̄ . . . hå ̄ yå ̄ rōʕɛ ʔɛṯ ʔɛḥå̄w baṣ-ṣōn

[joːˈseːf. . . hɔːˈjɔː ʀoːˈʕɛ ʔɛθ ʔɛːˈħɔː-v basˤ-ˈsˤoːn]
Joseph be.sc.3msg see.ptcp.act.msg obj sibling.mpl-3msg in.art-small.cattle
‘Joseph was a shepherd with his brothers’ or
‘Joseph would regularly pasture the sheep and goats with his brothers’ or
‘Joseph was pasturing the sheep and goats with his brothers’
Direct objects can be marked synthetically, via pronominal suffixes added directly to
the verb, or analytically, with the suffix joined to the accusative particle.
zå ̄ ḵå̄r u-nəqēḇå̄ bərå̄ʔå̄m wa-yəḇå̄rɛḵ ʔōṯå̄m

[zɔːˈχɔːʀ u-nqeːˈv-ɔː baʀɔːˈʔ-ɔːm va-j-ˈvɔːʀɛχ ʔoːˈθ-ɔːm]
male.m conj-female-f create.sc.3msg-3mpl conj-3m-bless.wapc.sg obj-3mpl
‘Male and female he created them and he blessed them’.
5.4.2 Nominal system

Compound genitive constructions involving two (or more) substantives are common
in Hebrew. Typically, these construct phrases indicate nominal dependence of various
nuances, such as
ʔiš ʔĕlōhīm
[ʔi:ʃ ʔɛloːˈh-iːm]
man.m.cst deity.m-pl
‘man of God, prophet’
nɛzɛm zå̄hå ̄ ḇ
[ˈnɛːzɛm zɔːˈhɔːv]
ring.m.cst gold.m
‘ring of gold’
yəp̄ aṯ tōʔar
[yaˌf-aθ ˈthoːʔaʀ]
beautiful-fsg.cst form.m
‘beautiful (fsg) of form’
Construct chains can involve more than two members, in which case all but the final
member are in construct. For purposes of determination, the definite article or a posses-
sive suffix is added only to the final member of a construct phrase:
gibbōrē ḥēl məlɛḵɛṯ ʕăḇōḏaṯ bēṯ

[gibboːˈʀ-eː ħeːl maˈlɛːχ-ɛθ ʕavoːˈð-aːθ beːθ
hero.m-pl.cst valor.m.cst work-f.cst service-f.cst house.m.cst
hå ̄ -ʔɛ̆lōhīm
[haː-ʔɛloːˈh-iːm]
art-deity.m-pl
‘able men for the work of the service of the house of God’
Otherwise, possession is generally indicated synthetically, via pronominal suffixes, but

analytic constructions employing relativizing particles are also found.
naʕăro
[naːʕaˈʀ-oː]
lad.m-3msg
‘his lad’
han-naʕar ʔăšɛr lō
[han-ˈnaːʕaʀ ʔaˈšɛːʀ l-oː]
art-lad.m rel to-3msg
‘his lad’ (lit. ‘the lad that is to him’)
śå̄rē ha-ḥăyå̄līm ʔăšɛr lō
[sɔːˈʀ-eː haː-ħajɔːˈl-iːm ʔaˈšɛːʀ l-oː]
officer.m-pl.cst art-force.m-pl rel to-3msg
‘his military officers’ (lit. ‘officers of the forces that are to him’)
Instead of ʔăšɛr l- [ʔaˈšɛːʀ l-] ‘which is (i.e., belongs) to’, certain forms of Second
Temple Hebrew, including LBH, used the synonymous šɛCC+l-, resulting in the prefixed
šɛl-l- [ʃɛll-], which eventually, though not in BH, became the independent particle šɛl
[ʃɛl].
karmī šellī
[khaʀˈm-iː ʃɛlˈl-iː]
vineyard.m.cst-1csg gen-1csg
‘my vineyard’ (lit. ‘my vineyard that is to me’)
Rare instances of synthetic nominal dependency using zɛ and ʔăšɛr are also known
(Pat-El 2010), e.g.,
zɛ sīnay
[zɛː siːˈnaːj]
rel.msg Sinai
‘the One of Sinai’
lam-mōʕēḏ ʔăšɛr šəmūʔēl

[l-am-moːˈeːð ʔaˈʃɛʀ ʃamuːˈʔeːl]
to-art-appointed.time rel Samuel
‘Samuel’s appointed time’
5.5 Subordination
BH exhibits several types of subordination (Isaksson 2013, Holmstedt 2013, 2016). Con-
tent clauses typically employ the complementizer kī [khiː] ‘that’.
way-yar ʔĕlōhīm kī ṭōḇ

[vaɟ-ˈɟaː-ʀ ʔɛloːˈh-iːm khiː tˤoːv]
conj-see.-3m-wapc.sg deity.m-pl comp good.msg
‘And God saw that it was good’.
BH relative clauses are mostly syndetic, utilizing ʔăšɛr [ʔăˈʃɛːʀ], šɛCC-/šaCC- [ʃɛCC-/
ʃaCC-], or, in the case of participles, the definite article, but (especially in poetry) can also
be asyndetic, where the relationship is not explicit.
ʔɛṯ had-dɛrɛḵ yēləḵū ḇå̄h wə-ʔɛṯ ham-maʕăśɛ ʔăšɛr yaʕăśūn

[ʔɛθ had-ˈdɛːʀɛχ jeː-lˈχuː v-ɔːh vɛ-ʔɛθ ham-maʕaˈsɛː ʔaˈʃɛʀ ja-ʕaˈsuːn]
obj art-way.f 3m-walk.pc.pl in-fsg and-obj art-deed.m rel 3m-do.pc.pl
‘the way in which they should walk and the deed that they should do’
ma ššɛ-hå̄yå ̄ hū šɛy-yihyɛ
[ma ʃʃɛː-hɔːˈjɔː huː ʃɛɟ-ɟiː-hˈjɛː]
what rel-be.sc.3msg cop rel-3m-be.pc.sg
‘that which was is that which will be’ (i.e., ‘what was is what will be’)
bə-yaḏ malʔå̄ḵīm hab-bå̄ʔīm yərūšå̄layim
[bi-jaːð malʔɔːˈχ-iːm hab-bɔːˈʔ-iːm jaʀuːʃɔːˈlaːjim]
in-hand.f messenger.m-pl art-come.ptcp.act-mpl Jerusalem
‘by the hand of messengers who have come to Jerusalem’
The relativizer ʔăšɛr can have a null head, e.g.,
ʔăšɛr yimmå̄ṣē ʔittō mē-ʕăḇå̄ḏɛḵå̄ wå ̄ -mēṯ

[ʔaˈʃɛʀ ji-mmɔːˈsˤeː ʔit t -oː
h h
meː-ʕavɔːˈð-ɛː-χɔː vɔː-ˈmeːθ]
rel 3m-be.found.pc.sg with-3msg from-servant.m-pl.cst-2msg and-die.wsc.3msg
‘that one among your servants with whom it is found – he will die’
Adverbial subordination employs a variety of prepositions with or without an overt

relativizer.
ʔaḥar hikkå̄ ʔɛṯ gəḏalyå̄

[ʔaːˈħaːʀ hik ˈk ɔː
h h
ʔɛθ gaðalˈjɔː]
after strike.sc.3msg obj Gedaliah
‘after he had struck down Gedaliah’
ʔaḥar ʔăšɛr hukkəṯå̄ hå ̄ -ʕīr

[ʔaːˈħaːr aˈʃɛʀ hukhkha-ˈθɔː hɔː-ˈʕiːʀ]
after rel be.struck.sc-3fsg art-city.f
‘after the city had been attacked’
Direct speech in BH often includes a finite speech verb followed by the infinitive con-
struct lēmōr [leːˈmoːʀ] ‘saying’ (or some other form of the verb ʔå̄mar [ʔɔːˈmaːʀ] ‘say’)
(Miller 1996). Indirect speech employs the complementizer kī [khiː], as in content clauses
(see the first example in this section).
5.6 Negation
The particle lō [loː] negates indicative verbal clauses with the sc and pc, clausal argu-
ments, and, when special emphasis is required, nominal predicates. The particle ʔal [ʔal]
negates volitionals; with the pc (usually in short form, if possible) it functions as the nega-
tor of the imperative. The particle of non-existence ʔēn/ʔayin serves for negation in nomi-
nal clauses, including those employing the active participle (Naudé and Rendsburg 2013).
u-lə-ʔå̄ḏå̄m lō må̄ṣå̄ ʕēzɛr kə-neḡdō

[u-l-ʔɔːˈðɔːm loː mɔːˈsˤɔː ˈʕeːzɛʀ kha-nɛɣˈd-oː]
conj-to-man.m neg find.sc.3msg helper.m as-against-3msg
‘but for man he did not find a fitting helper’
wə-lō yiṯbōšå̄šū
[va-loː ji-θboːˈʃɔːʃuː]
conj-neg 3m-feel.shame.pc.pl
‘and they felt no shame’
lō ṯōḵlū mimmɛnnu
[loː θo-χˈluː mimˈmɛn-nuː]
neg 2m-eat.pc.pl from-3msg
‘you will not eat from it’
lō ṭōḇ hĕyōṯ hå̄-ʔå̄ḏå̄m lə-ḇaddō
[loː tˤoːv hɛˈjoːθ hɔː-ʔɔːˈðɔːm la-vadˈd-oː]
neg good be.inf.cst art-man.m to-one-3msg
‘it is not good for the man to be alone’
wə-yå̄ḏēnū ʔal təhī ḇō
[va-jɔːˈð-eː-nuː ʔal thi-ˈhiː v-oː]
conj-hand.f-pl-1cpl neg 3f-be.pc.sg in-3msg
‘let not our hand be against him’
wə-ʔå̄ḏå̄m ʔayin laʕăḇōḏ ʔɛṯ hå̄-ʔăḏå̄må ̄
[vɔ-ʔɔːˈðɔːm ˈʔaːjin laː-ʕaˈvoːð ʔɛθ hɔː-ʔaðɔːˈmɔː]
conj-man neg.exist to-work.inf.cst obj art-ground.f
‘and there was no man to work the ground’
we-has-sənɛ ʔēnɛnnū ʔukkå̄l
[va-has-saˈnɛː ʔeːˈnɛn-nuː ʔukhˈkhɔːl]
conj-art-bush.m neg-3msg be.eaten.ptcp.pass.msg
‘and the bush was not being consumed’
6 LEXICON
BH has inherited many common Semitic lexemes, but also has unique vocables (Kogan
2013). Many lexemes were borrowed (Ellenbogen 1962). The distribution of foreign
loans in BH and other strata of Hebrew is considered by many at least partially indicative
of the historical period and context in which given texts were composed. For example,
Egyptian loans occur in some CBH material (Muchiki 1999, Rubin 2013), while LBH
and other later phases of the language are known for relatively frequent Aramaic, Akka-
dian and Persian loans, the latter two sometimes via mediation of the former (Mankowski
2013, Wilson-Wright 2015). Certain biblical genres are known for their characteristic use
of vocabulary not typical of other genres. For example, BH poetry often resorts to the use
of rare BH words standard in other Semitic languages (Watson 2013). For its part, RH is
known for its Aramaisms and many Greek loans.
FIGURE 21.1 LEAF 17A (RECTO) OF THE LENINGRAD CODEX OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
(1008 ce), FROM THE END OF GENESIS 28.18 THROUGH 29.22, WHICH
INCLUDES THE SAMPLE TEXT
Public domain.
Loans often flout Hebrew root and pattern conventions, but are sometimes Hebraized,
as in RH hizdawwēḡ ‘to pair up’ (from Greek ζευĭγος ‘pair’; cf. RH zūḡ ‘pair’).
7 SAMPLE TEXT
Genesis 29.1–7
This brief section focuses on Jacob’s arrival in Aram among the people of his uncle,
Laban. Superscript numerals mark the beginning of a verse.
1
way-yisså ̄ yaʕăqoḇ raḡlå̄w way-yēlɛḵ ʔarṣå̄ ḇənē
1
[vaɟ-ɟi-sˈsɔː jaːʕaˈqoːv ʀaʁˈl-ɔː-v yaɟ-ˈɟeː-lɛχ ˈʔaːṛsˤ-ɔː vaˈn-eː
1
conj-3m-lift.wapc.sg Jacob foot.f-pl.cst-3msg conj-3m-go.wapc.sg land.f.cst-loc child-mpl.cst
qɛḏɛm 2
way-yar wə-hinnē bəʔēr baś-śå̄ḏɛ wə-hinnē šå̄m šəlōšå̄
ˈqɛːðɛm 2
vaɟ-ˈɟaː-ʀ vi-hinˈneː beˈʔeːʀ bas-sɔːˈðɛː vi-hinˈneː ʃɔːm ʃaloːˈʃ-ɔː
east.m 2
conj-3m-see.wapc.sg conj-pres well.f in.art-field.f conj-pres there three-f
ʕɛḏrē ṣōn rōḇəṣīm ʕå̄lɛhå̄ kī min hab-bəʔēr

ʕɛðˈṛ-eː sˤoːn ʀoːvˈsˤ-iːm ʕɔːˈlɛː-hɔː kiː min hab-beˈʔeːr
flock.m-pl.cst small.cattle.m lie.down.ptcp.act-mpl upon-fsg conj.because from art-well.f
ha-hī yašqū hå̄-ʕăḏå̄rīm wə-hå̄-ʔɛḇɛn gəḏōlå̄ ʕal pī

haː-hiː ja-ʃˈquː hɔː-ʕaðɔːˈʀ-iːm vɔ-hɔː-ˈʔɛːvɛn gaðoːˈl-ɔː ʕal piː
art-pro.3fsg 3m-water.pc.pl art-flock.m-pl conj-art-stone.f large-fsg upon mouth.m.cst
hab-bəʔēr wə-nɛʔɛsp̄ ū šå̄må ̄ kål hå̄-ʕăḏå̄rīm

hab-beˈʔeːʀ 3 va-nɛːʔɛsˈf-uː ˈʃɔːm-ɔː kɔl hɔː-ʕaðɔːˈʀ-iːm
art-well.f 3
conj-be.gathered.wsc-3pl there-loc all.cst art-flock.m-pl
wə-ḡå̄lălū ʔɛṯ hå̄-ʔɛḇɛn mē-ʕal pī hab-bəʔēr wə-hišqū

va-ʁɔːlaˈl-uː ʔɛθ hɔː-ˈʔɛːvɛn meː-ˈʕal piː hab-beˈʔeːʀ vi-hiʃˈq-uː
conj-roll.wsc-3pl obj art-stone.f from-upon mouth.m.cst art-well.f conj-water.wsc-3pl
ʔɛṯ haṣ-ṣōn wə-hēšīḇū ʔɛṯ hå̄-ʔɛḇɛn ʕal pī hab-beʔēr

ʔɛθ hasˤ-ˈsˤoːn ve-heːˈʃiːv-uː ʔɛθ hɔː-ˈʔɛːvɛn ʕal piː hab-beˈʔeːʀ
obj art-small.cattle.m conj-return(tr).wsc obj art-stone.f upon mouth.m.cst art-well.f
li-məqōm-å̄h 4
way-yōmɛr lå̄hɛm yaʕăqōḇ ʔaḥay mē-ʔayin
li-mqoːˈm-ɔːh 4
vaɟ-ˈɟoː-mɛʀ lɔː-ˈhɛm jaːʕaˈqoːv ʔaːˈħ-aː-j meː-ˈʔaːjin
to-place.m.cst-fsg 4
conj-3m-say.wapc.sg to-3mpl Jacob sibling.m-pl-1csg from-where
ʔattɛm way-yōmərū mē-ḥå-rå̄n ʔănå̄ḥnū 5

way-yōmɛr
ʔatˈtɛːm vaɟ-ɟoː-mˈʀuː meː-ħɔːˈʀɔːn ʔaˈnɔːħnuː 5
vaɟ-ˈɟoː-mɛr
sbj.pro.2mpl conj-3m-say.wapc.pl from-Haran sbj.pro.1cpl.pause 5 conj-3m-say.wapc.sg
lå ̄ hɛm ha-yəḏaʕtɛm ʔɛṯ lå̄ḇå̄n bɛn nå̄ḥōr way-yōmərū

lɔː-ˈhɛm ha-jðaʕˈ-tɛːm ʔɛθ lɔːˈvɔːn bɛn nɔːˈħoːʀ vaɟ-ɟoː-mˈʀuː
to-3mpl int-know.sc-2mpl obj Laban child.m.cst Nahor conj-3m-say.wapc.pl
yå ̄ ḏå̄ʕnū 6
way-yōmɛr lå̄hɛm hă-šå̄lōm lō way-yōmərū
jɔːˈðɔːʕ-nuː 6
vaɟ-ˈɟoː-mɛʀ lɔː-ˈhɛm ha-ʃɔːˈloːm l-oː vaɟ-ɟoː-mˈʀuː
know.sc-1cpl.pause 6
conj-3m-say.wapc.sg to-3mpl int-peace.m to-3msg conj-3m-say.wapc.pl
šå ̄ lōm wə-hinnɛ rå̄ḥēl bittō bå̄ʔå̄ ʕim haṣ-ṣōn 7

way-yōmɛr
ʃɔːˈloːm vi-hinˈnɛː ʀɔːˈħeːl bitˈt-oː bɔːˈʔ-ɔː ʕim hasˤ-ˈsˤoːn 7
vaɟ-ˈɟoː-mɛʀ
peace.m conj-pres Rachel child.f-3msg come.ptcp-fsg with art-small.cattle 7 conj-3m-say.wapc.sg
hēn ʕōḏ hay-yōm gå̄ḏōl lō ʕēṯ hēʔå̄sēp̄ ham-miqnɛ hašqū

heːn ʕoːð haɟ-ˈɟoːm gɔːˈðoːl loː ʕeːθ heːʔɔːˈseːf ham-miqˈnɛː haʃˈq-uː
pres still art-day.m large.m neg time.f be.gathered.inf.cst art-livestock water.imp-mpl
haṣ-ṣōn u-ləkū rəʕū

hasˤ-ˈsˤoːn u-lˈχ-uː ʀuˈʕ-uː]
art-small.cattle conj-go.imp-mpl pasture.imp-mpl
‘1
Then Jacob resumed his journey and traveled to the land of the people of the east. 2 Then
he looked and saw a well in a field and there he also saw three flocks of sheep and goats
lying beside it, for from that well the flocks were customarily watered. The stone was
large upon the opening of the well. 3 And all the flocks would be gathered there and they
would roll the stone from the opening of the well and water the sheep and goats, and then
put the stone back in its place over the opening of the well.
4
Jacob said to them, “My brothers, where are you from?” They said, “We’re from
Haran.” 5 He said to them, “Do you know Laban, the son of Nahor?” They said, “We
do.” 6 He said to them, “Is it well with him?” They said, “It is; and look, Rachel his
daughter is coming with the sheep and goats!”* 7 He said, “Look, it is still the middle of
the day; it is not time for the gathering of the livestock. Water the sheep and go, pasture
them.” ’
* V. 6 Or “It is.” And, behold, Rachel, his daughter, was coming with the sheep and goats.
REFERENCES
Further reading
Aḥituv, Shmuel. Echoes from the Past. Jerusalem: Carta, 2008.
Beckman, John C. “Toward the Meaning of the Biblical Hebrew Piel Stem.” Ph.D. disser-
tation, Harvard University, 2015.
Blau, Joshua. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew (Linguistic Studies in
Ancient West Semitic 2). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010.
Blau, Joshua. “Stress: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 3 (2013): 623–5.
Breuer, Yochanan. “Amoraic Hebrew.” EHLL 1 (2013): 102–07.
Buth, Randall. “The Hebrew Verb in Current Discussions.” Journal of Translation and
Testlinguistics 5.2 (1992): 91–105.
Buth, Randall. “Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Integrated, Textlinguistic
Approach to Syntax.” In Discourse Analysis of Biblical Hebrew: What It Is and What It
Offers, edited by W. R. Bodine, 77–102. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995.
Buth, Randall. “Word Order in the Verbless Clause: A Generative-Functional Approach.”
In The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Linguistic
Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1), edited by C. Miller, 79–108. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Cohen, Ohad. The Verbal Tense System in Late Biblical Hebrew Prose (Harvard Semitic
Studies 63). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
Cook, John A. Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West
Semitic 7). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Dan, Barak. “Binyanim: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 1 (2013): 354–62.
Daniels, Peter T. “Alphabet, Origen of.” EHLL 1 (2013): 87–95.
Doron, Yaʕakov. “Yemen, Pronunciation Traditions.” EHLL 3 (2013): 1012–21.
Dresher, B. Elan. “The Word in Tiberian Hebrew.” The Nature of the Word: Essays in
Honor of Paul Kiparsky, edited by K. Hanson and S. Inkelas, 95–111. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2009.
Dresher, B. Elan. “Biblical Accents: Prosody.” EHLL 1 (2013): 288–96.
Ellenbogen, Maximillian. Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and
Etymology. London: Luzac, 1962.
Fassberg, Steven E. “The Movement of Qal to Piʕel in Hebrew and the Disappearance of
the Qal Internal Passive.” Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 243–55.
Fassberg, Steven E. “Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews
Speak?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012): 263–80.
Fassberg, Steven E. “Dead Sea Scrolls: Linguistic Features.” EHLL 1 (2013a): 663–9.
Fassberg, Steven E. “Pausal Forms.” EHLL 3 (2013b): 54–5.
Fassberg, Steven E. and Avi Hurvitz (eds.). Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic
Setting. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press and Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2006
Garr, W. Randall and Steven E. Fassberg (eds.). A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift: Eine
philologisch-historische Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wörterbücher der
hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig: Vogel, 1815.
Golinets, Victor. “Dageš.” EHLL 1 (2013): 647–54.
Greenfield, Jonas C. and Joseph Naveh. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period.”
Cambridge History of Judaism, 8 vols., vol. 1, edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein,
115–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Gross, Walter. “Extraposition: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 1 (2013): 892–3.
Holmstedt, Robert D. “Hypotaxis.” EHLL 2 (2013): 220–2.
Holmstedt, Robert D. “Critical at the Margins: Edge Constituents in Biblical Hebrew.”
Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 17
(2014): 109–56.
Holmstedt, Robert D. The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew (Linguistic Studies in
Hornkohl, Aaron D. “The Pragmatics of the X+Verb Structure in the Hebrew of Genesis:
The Linguistic Functions and Associated Effects and Meanings of Intra-Clausal
Fronted Constituents.” Ethnorêma 1 (2005): 35–122.
Hornkohl, Aaron D. Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of
Jeremiah (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 74). Leiden: Brill, 2013a.
Hornkohl, Aaron D. “Hebrew Language: Periodization.” EHLL 1 (2013b): 315–25.
Hornkohl, Aaron D. “Biblical Hebrew Tense – Aspect – Mood, Word Order and
Pragmatics: Some Observations on Recent Approaches.” In Studies in Semitic
Linguistics and Manuscripts, edited by N. Vidro, R. Vollandt, E. M. Wagner, and
J. Olszowy-Schlanger. Uppsala: University of Uppsala Press, 2018.
Huehnergard, John. “Hebrew Verbs I-w/y and a Proto-Semitic Sound Rule.” In Memoriae
Igor M. Diakonoff (Babel und Bibel 2), edited by L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and
S. Tishchenko, 457–74. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Huehnergard, John. “Segholates: Pre-Modern Hebrew.” EHLL 3 (2013): 520–2.
Huehnergard, John. “Biblical Hebrew Nominal Patterns.” In Epigraphy, Philology, and
the Hebrew Bible: Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative
Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett, edited by J. M. Hutton and
A. D. Rubin, 25–64. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2015.
Hurvitz, Avi. “Can Biblical Texts Be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives

in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew.” In Congress Volume: Oslo 1998, edited by
A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø, 143–60. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Hurvitz, Avi. “Biblical Hebrew, Late.” EHLL 1 (2013): 329–38.
Hutton, Jeremy M. “Orthography: Epigraphy.” EHLL 2 (2013): 964–71.
Isaksson, Bo. “Subordination.” EHLL 3 (2013): 657–64.
Joosten, Jan. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the
Basis of Classical Prose (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10). Jerusalem: Simor, 2012
Joosten, Jan. “Verbal System: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 3 (2013): 921–5.
Kahn, Lily. “Maskilic Hebrew.” EHLL 2 (2013a): 581–5.
Kahn, Lily. “Hasidic Hebrew.” EHLL 2 (2013b): 173–6.
Kantor, Benjamin P. “The Second Column (Secunda) of Origen’s Hexapla in Light of
Greek Pronunciation.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 2017.
Khan, Geoffrey A. Studies in Semitic Syntax (London Oriental Series 38). Oxford: Oxford
Khan, Geoffrey A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 3 vols.
Khan, Geoffrey A. “Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Background of Masoretic Text.” EHLL
1 (2013b): 304–15.
Khan, Geoffrey A. “Biblical Hebrew: Pronunciation Traditions.” EHLL 1 (2013c): 341–52.
Khan, Geoffrey A. “Compensatory Lengthening.” EHLL 1 (2013d): 500–04.
Khan, Geoffrey A. “Gaʕya.” EHLL 2 (2013e): 6–10.
Khan, Geoffrey A. “Pretonic Lengthening: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 2 (2013f): 224–9.
Khan, Geoffrey A. “Reduction of Vowels: Biblical Hebrew Reading Traditions.” EHLL
3 (2013g): 327–30.
Khan, Geoffrey A. “Shewa: Pre-Modern Hebrew.” EHLL 3 (2013h): 543–54.
Khan, Geoffrey A. “Tiberian Reading Tradition.” EHLL 3 (2013i): 769–78.
Khan, Geoffrey A. A Short Introduction to the Masoretic Hebrew Bible and its Reading
Tradition (2nd ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013j
Kogan, Leonid. “Lexicon: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 2 (2013): 528–32.
Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel and Yochanan Breuer. “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic.”
Encyclopaedia Judaica 8 (2007): 639–49.
Mankowski, Paul V. “Akkadian Loanwords.” EHLL 1 (2013): 82–4.
Miller, Cynthia. The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic
Analysis. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1996.
Mor, Uri. “Guttural Consonants: Pre-Masoretic.” EHLL 2 (2013): 161–5.
Morgenstern, Matthew (Moshe). “Second Temple Period.” EHLL 3 (2013): 504–11.
Moshavi, Adina. Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause (Linguistic Studies in
Muchiki, Yoshiyuki. Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic
(Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 173). Atlanta, GA: Society of
Biblical Literature, 1999.
Naudé, Jacobus and Gary Rendsburg. “Negation: Pre-Modern Hebrew.” EHLL 2 (2013):
801–11.
Ofer, Yosef. “Mappiq.” EHLL 2 (2013): 577.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A Syntactic
Approach.” Journal of Semitic Studies 54.1 (2009): 19–50.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “On Periphrastic Genetive Constructions in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew
Studies 51 (2010): 43–8.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “Israelian Hebrew: A Re-Evaluation.” Vetus Testamentum 67.2 (2017):

227–63.
Rand, Michael. “Paytanic Hebrew.” EHLL 3 (2013): 55–60.
Rendsburg, Gary A. “Biblical Hebrew: Dialects and Variation.” EHLL 1 (2013a): 338–41.
Rendsburg, Gary A. “Morphology: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 2 (2013b): 721–35.
Rendsburg, Gary A. “Phonology: Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 3 (2013c): 100–09.
Reshef, Yael. “Revival of Hebrew: Grammatical Structure and Lexicon.” EHLL 3
(2013a): 397–405.
Reshef, Yael. “Revival of Hebrew: Sociolinguistic Dimension.”: EHLL 3 (2013b):
408–15.
Retsö, Jan. “Diathesis.” EHLL 1 (2013): 721–24.
Revell, E. John. “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms
in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 277–300.
Rogland, Max. Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew (Studia Semitica
Neerlandica 44). Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003.
Rubin, Aaron D. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2005.
Rubin, Aaron D. “Egyptian Loanwords.” EHLL 1 (2013): 793–4.
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Trans. J. Elwolde. Cambridge:
Watson, Wilfred G. E. “Poetry, Biblical Hebrew.” EHLL 3 (2013): 151–4.
Wilson-Wright, Aren. “From Persepolis to Jerusalem: A Reevaluation of Old
Persian-Hebrew Contact in the Achaemenid Period.” Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015):
152–67.
Yuditsky, Alexey (Eliyahu). “Transcription into Greek and Latin Script: Pre-Masoretic
Period.” EHLL 3 (2013): 803–21.
Grammars
Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge:
Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des
alten Testamentes. Halle: Niemeyer, 1922.
Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes and Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. Hebräische Grammatik. 2 vols. Leipzig: Vogel, 1918–1929.
Gogel, Sandra L. A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBL Resources for Biblical Study
23). Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1998.
Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica
27). Trans. and rev. by T. Muraoka. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006.
Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Trans. A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Oxford
König, Eduard. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache. 2 vols.
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1881–1895.
König, Eduard. Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1897.
Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
Rand, Michael. Introduction to the Grammar of Hebrew Poetry in Byzantine Palestine.

Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006.
Reymond, Eric. Qumran Hebrew: A Review of Orthography, Phonology, and
Morphology (Resources for Biblical Study 76). Atlanta, GA: Society for Biblical
Literature, 2014.
Segal, Moshe H. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1927.
van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze.A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax (2nd ed.), edited by J. Beckman. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2007.
Textbooks
Buth, Randall J. Living Biblical Hebrew for Everyone. Vol. 2 (The Book of Jonah and the
Scroll of Ruth). Jerusalem: Biblical Language Center, 2003.
Fernández, Miguel Pérez. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Trans.
J. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Hackett, Jo Ann. A Basic Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2010.
Kahn, Lily. The Routledge Introductory Course in Biblical Hebrew. Abingdon:
Routledge, 2014.
Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. London: Darton Longman and
Todd, 1973.
Pratico, Gary D. and Miles V. Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar. Second
Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014.
Seow, Choon Leong. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Revised edition. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon, 1995.
Lexicons
Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906.
Hurvitz, Avi. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in
the Writings of the Second Temple Period (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 160).
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. 2 vols.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum
Alten Testament (3rd ed.) Leiden: Brill, 1967–1996.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. 5 vols. Rev. W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm et al.; trans. and edited by
M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000.
Meyer, Rudolf, Hebert Donner, Johannes Renz, and Udo Rüterswörden (eds.).
1987–2013. Wilhelm Gesenius hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über
das Alte Testament. 18th edition. Berlin: Springer, 2013.
Overviews
Aḥituv, Shmuel, W. Randall Garr, and Steven E. Fassberg. “Epigraphic Hebrew.” In
A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., edited by W. R. Garr and S. E. Fassberg,
1.55–68, 2.36–42. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
Bar-Asher, Moshe. “Mishnaic Hebrew: An Introductory Survey.” Hebrew Studies 40
(1999): 115–51.
Bar-Asher, Moshe. “The Contribution of Tannaitic Hebrew to Understanding Biblical
Hebrew.” In A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., edited by W. R. Garr and S. E.
Fassberg, 1.203–14. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016
Driver, Samuel Rolles. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Rev.
edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898.
Florentin, Moshe. “Samaritan Hebrew: Biblical.” EHLL 3 (2013): 445–52.
Florentin, Moshe. “Samaritan Tradition.” In A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols.,
edited by W. R. Garr and S. E. Fassberg, 1.117–32, 2.71–89. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2016.
Gianto, Agustinus. “Archaic Biblical Hebrew.” In A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, 2
vols., edited by W. R. Garr and S. E. Fassberg, 1.19–29, 2.5–12. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2016.
Hackett, Jo Ann. “Hebrew (Biblical and Epigraphic).” In Beyond Babel: A Handbook
for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, edited by S. McKenzie and J. Kaltner,
139–56. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Hornkohl, Aaron D. “Transitional Biblical Hebrew.” In A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew,
2 vols., edited by W. R. Garr and S. E. Fassberg, 1.31–42, 2.13–28. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2016.
Joosten, Jan and Jean-Sébastien Rey. “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In
A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., edited by W. R. Garr and S. E. Fassberg,
1.83–97, 2.48–61. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel and Yochanan Breuer. “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic.”
Encyclopaedia Judaica 8 (2007): 639–49.
Lam, Joseph and Dennis Pardee. “Standard/Classical Biblical Hebrew.” In A Handbook
of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., edited by W. R. Garr and S. E. Fassberg, 1.1–18, 2.1–4.
Levine, Baruch A. “Hebrew (Postbiblical).” In Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical
Hebrew and Related Languages, edited by S. McKenzie and J. Kaltner, 157–82.
Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Morgenstern, Matthew. “Late Biblical Hebrew.” In A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, 2
vols., edited by W. R. Garr and S. E. Fassberg, 1.43–54, 2.29–35. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2016.
van Peursen, Wido. “Ben Sira.” In A Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., edited by W.
R. Garr and S. E. Fassberg, 1.69–82, 2.43–47. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
Rabin, Chaim. “Hebrew.” In Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 6, edited by Thomas A.
Sebeok, 304–46. The Hague: Mouton, 1970.
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. “Medieval Hebrew.” EHLL 2 (2013): 624–33.
Steiner, Richard C. “Ancient Hebrew.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by R. Hetzron,
145–73. London: Routledge, 1997.
CHAPTER 22
MODERN HEBREW PHILIP ZHAKEVICH AND BENJAMIN KANTORMODERN HEBREW
Philip Zhakevich and Benjamin Kantor
1 INTRODUCTION
Modern Hebrew, spoken by about six million people primarily in the state of Israel
(Map 22.1), belongs to the Canaanite subgroup within the branch of Northwest Semitic
languages. Of the Canaanite languages, Modern Hebrew is the only language spoken today.
With respect to the historical development of the language, Modern Hebrew fol-
lows Biblical Hebrew (12th–2nd c. bce), Post-Biblical Hebrew (2nd c. bce–2nd c. ce),
Rabbinic Hebrew (2nd–5th c. ce) and Medieval Hebrew (6th–15th c. ce) as well as the
Hebrew of the early modern period (16th–18th c. ce). Hebrew ceased to be a spoken
language around the 3rd century ce, but it remained a liturgical language until the early
modern period. In the 18th century, during the Jewish Enlightenment in Europe, Modern
Hebrew emerged as a medium for writing secular academic works as well as non-reli-
gious literature, both prose and poetry. It was in the 19th century, however, that Hebrew
was revived as a spoken language by Eastern European immigrants in Palestine. Today,
Modern Hebrew is used for day-to-day communication in all registers and environments
(e.g., media, education, medicine).
MAP 22.1 THE MODERN HEBREW SPEECH AREA

572 Philip Zhakevich and Benjamin Kantor
Some researchers cast doubt on the Semitic character of Modern Hebrew on the basis of
non-Semitic elements present in the language (Zuckerman 2008, Wexler 1990). Foreign
influence on Modern Hebrew is clearly exemplified in loan words, calque translations,
semantic borrowing, borrowed lexical suffixes and borrowed syntax. Indeed, Hebrew has
a unique history in that it was revived for speaking purposes after almost two millennia of
dormancy. This required its initial speakers to fill in the gaps of the language with lexical
items from foreign languages. Nevertheless, in terms of its morphological, phonological
and syntactic features, Modern Hebrew retains a strong and discernible Semitic character
(Goldenberg 1996, Shlesinger 2013: 375–81).
Because Hebrew served as a literary language from the 3rd until the 19th century ce, it
experienced a much slower rate of change in its morphology than many other languages.
For this reason, the morphology of Modern Hebrew closely resembles the morphology
of earlier stages of the language. This, of course, means that earlier texts of Hebrew (e.g.,
Bible, Mishnah, medieval commentaries) remain accessible to an educated speaker of
Modern Hebrew.
While ancient Hebrew had regional dialects, Modern Hebrew has been relatively
homogenous. From the 1890s to the 1920s, however, a unique dialect created by Yitzḥak
Epstein existed in the Galilee. Called the ‘Galilean Dialect’, it was based on a tradi-
tional pronunciation of Hebrew that was customary among Jews from Arabic-speaking
countries. The dialect included the pronunciation of guttural and velarized (“emphatic”)
consonants as well as geminated consonants (Bar-Adon 1975). Today, however, linguists
only speak of sociolects, ethnolects, and religiolects (Schwarzwald 2013e, Bar-Asher
2010). Modern Hebrew superficially appears to be a continuation of earlier stages of
Hebrew. This resemblance, however, masks the fact that the language has undergone sig-
nificant changes that distinguish it from its earlier attestations. Phonologically, Modern
Hebrew is a combination of two pronunciation traditions, the Sephardic and Ashkenazic;
the former is the source of the vocalic pronunciation of the language, whereas the latter
is the source of the consonantal pronunciation. Modern Hebrew, then, composed of these
two traditions, does not reflect the phonology of ancient Hebrew but the fusion of two
particular descendant phonologies of the ancient pronunciation.
Morphologically, Modern Hebrew generally resembles Biblical Hebrew in verbal and
nominal inflections. However, its TAM reflects the Rabbinic system rather than bibli-
cal. Rabbinic forms, both nominal and verbal, served to fill gaps within the lexicon; for
instance, verbal nouns (e.g., ktiva ‘writing’), habitual past tense forms (i.e., haja holeχ
be.pst.3msg go.prs.msg ‘he used to go’), and certain verbal patterns (i.e., ʃiχtev rewrite.
pst.3msg ‘he rewrote’) can be traced to Rabbinic Hebrew. Syntactically, Modern Hebrew
is similar to Rabbinic Hebrew in its sentence structure, but it resembles Biblical Hebrew
in its phrase structure. The influence of European languages has also left its mark on the
syntax of Modern Hebrew, especially with respect to its macrostructures such as compli-
cated sentences and paragraphs (Reshef 2013a).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Modern Hebrew is written right to left in an alphabet that consists of 22 consonants,
three of which may also be marked by an apostrophe to signify foreign sounds. There are
essentially two different scripts used for writing Modern Hebrew today, a square script
and a curisve script. The square script, whose roots are ancient, is used in printed text,
Modern Hebrew 573
TABLE 22.1 HEBREW ALPHABET
square script ‫א‬ ‫ּב‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ג‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ט‬ ‫י‬ ‫ּכ‬ ‫)ך) כ‬
cursive script ‫א‬ ‫ּב‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ג‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ט‬ ‫י‬ ‫ּכ‬ ‫)ך( כ‬
ipa ʔ b v g d h v z χ t j k χ
square script ‫ל‬ ‫)ם( מ‬ ‫)ן( נ‬ ‫ס‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ּפ‬ ‫)ף) פ‬ ‫)ץ( צ‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ׂש‬ ‫ת‬
cursive script
‫ל‬ ‫)ם( מ‬ ‫)ן( נ‬ ‫ס‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ּפ‬ ‫)ף) פ‬ ‫)ץ) צ‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ׂש‬ ‫ת‬
ipa l m n s ʔ (ʕ) p f ʦ k r ʃ s t
square script '‫ג‬ '‫ז‬ '‫צ‬

cursive script
'‫ג‬ '‫ז‬ '‫צ‬
ipa ʤ ʒ ʧ
Note: Signs appearing in parentheses are final forms of the corresponding signs not in parentheses.
whereas the cursive script, whose emergence dates to the Middle Ages, is utilized for
text written by hand (Engel 2013: 492–4, 501). See Table 22.1 for the Hebrew alphabet.
The Hebrew square script derives from ancient Aramaic script, which utilized 22 dis-
tinct graphemes to represent the consonants of the language. In addition to representing
consonants, Aramaic script also utilized certain graphemes to indicate certain vowels,
namely, h (final a), w (u, o), j (i) and ʔ (a). These “vowel letters” are referred to as matres
lectionis ‘mothers of reading’, and their use for writing vowels was adopted into Hebrew
already in the biblical period and has continued into Modern Hebrew (Daniels 2013:
89–90).
Besides the matres lectionis, Hebrew also has a diacritic system, niqqud ‘pointing’, to
mark vowels, geminated consonants, as well as other aspects of pronunciation. This point-
ing system consists of dots and lines that appear underneath, beside, within and above
consonants. Established by the Tiberian Masoretes around the 8th century ce, niqqud is
used today as a system that is superimposed upon the historical matres lectionis system.
While Modern Hebrew has inherited the diacritics of Tiberian Hebrew, these diacrit-
ics generally do not reflect the same sounds in Modern Hebrew as they did in Tiberian
Hebrew. For instance, today, there are only five vowels: a, e, i, o, u (Bolozky 2013f: 985),
whereas the Tiberian system specified seven distinct vowel qualities that could occur as
long or short vowels (Khan 2013: 774). Also, the function of a diacritic called dagesh – a
dot in the middle of a letter (e.g., ‫ – )ּג‬is different in Modern Hebrew when compared to
Tiberian Hebrew. While one of its functions in Tiberian Hebrew was to mark gemination,
it remains only a spelling convention in many cases in Modern Hebrew due to the lack
of phonemic gemination in the language. Nevertheless, its presence in certain letters still
serves to mark a plosive, rather than fricative, consonant when both the plosive and fric-
ative are represented by the same basic letter: i.e., ‫ּב‬ = /b/ and ‫ב‬ = /v/, ‫ּפ‬ = /p/ and ‫פ‬ = /f/,
‫ּכ‬ = /k/ and ‫כ‬ = /χ/.
Throughout its history, Hebrew writing conventions relating to the matres lectionis
were applied inconsistently, which has resulted in fluid writing conventions. The intro-
duction of the Tiberian system helped establish a correct way of reading the text, but also
complicated spelling conventions. Official rules for spelling were only created in the 20th
century (Barak 2013: 956–64) and resulted in two official writing orthographies: pointed
and unpointed. For instance, in pointed orthography, the word ʦohorajim ‘noon’ is writ-
ten as ‫( ָצה ֳַרי ִם‬consonantal text = ʦhrjm), whereas in unpointed form it is written as ‫צוהריים‬
(consonantal text = ʦwhrjjm). Pointed orthography appears in children’s books and
poetry, while unpointed orthography appears in almost all other printed texts and public
signs. Today, a word can be spelled in different ways and different publishers may display
different spellings of the same word.
3 PHONOLOGY
As mentioned earlier, the phonology of Modern Hebrew is a hybrid of the Ashkenazi and
Sephardi pronunciation traditions. While the early modern Hebrew speech community
was made up mostly of Sephardi Jews, later immigration waves of European Jews to
Palestine resulted in a heavy Ashkenazi influence on pronunciation. The earliest wave of
Ashkenazi migrants attempted to adopt the Sephardi pronunciation and distance them-
selves from certain distinctive features of their own tradition (due to its association with
the Diaspora), but much of their pronunciation remained. It was predominantly in the
realm of vowels and word stress that Sephardi phonology was adopted, whereas the con-
sonantal system remained largely Ashkenazi (Morag 1980: 86, Reshef 2013a: 399–400,
Reshef 2013b). Modern Hebrew phonemes not original to either the Ashkenazi or Sep-
hardi pronunciation traditions mainly occur in loan words or are the result of natural
speech development.
3.1 Consonants
The consonantal inventory of Modern Hebrew, as given in Table 22.2, is nearly identical
to that of the Ashkenazi tradition with the exception that the reflex of the post-vocalic
allophone of /t/ is realized as [t] instead of [s] as it is in Ashkenazi Hebrew (see (8) in
Table 22.3) (Bolozky 1997, 2013c, Reshef 2013a: 399). (Parentheses enclose phonemes
particular to loan words and angled brackets enclose phonemes present among a minority
of speakers.)
This consonantal system reflects a number of mergers from Biblical Hebrew (see
Table 22.3; see also Chapter 21).
In addition to these mergers, a few further points are noteworthy:
Gemination: Historical gemination (i.e., consonantal length) has been simplified and is
thus no longer phonemic: e.g., [diber] (< *dibber) ‘speak.pst.3msg’ (but see §3.4).
TABLE 22.2 HEBREW CONSONANTS
Bilabial Labio- Alveolar Palato- Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal

dental alveolar
Stop pb td kg ʔ
Affricate ʦ (ʧ) (ʤ)
Fricative fv sz ʃ (ʒ) χ <ʁ> <ħ> <ʕ> h
Nasal m n
Lateral l
Trill <r> <ʀ>
Approximant (w) <ɹ> j ʁ
Modern Hebrew 575
TABLE 22.3 CONSONANTAL MERGERS
(1): /w/, /v/ > /v/

(2): /ħ/, /χ/ > /χ/
(3): /q/ (or /kˀ/), /k/ > /k/
(4): /tˁ/ (or /tˀ/), /t/ > /t/
(5): /ʕ/, /ʔ/, (/h/) > /ʔ/ > Ø
(6): /g/, /γ/ > /g/
(7): /d/, /ð/ > /d/
(8): /t/, /θ/ > /t/1
(9): /ɬ/, /s/ > /s/
(1) The approximant /w/ ‫ ו‬has merged with the post-vocalic allophone of /b/ ‫[( ּב‬v] ‫)ֿב‬.2
(2) The voiced pharyngeal fricative /ħ/ ‫ ח‬has merged with the post-vocalic allophone of /k/ ‫[( ּכ‬χ] ‫)ֿכ‬.
(3–4) The “emphatics” /q/ ‫( ק‬or /kˀ/) and /tˁ/ ‫( ט‬or /tˀ/) have merged with their non-emphatic counterparts
/k/ ‫ ּכ‬and /t/ ‫ּת‬.3
(5) For most speakers, the voiced pharyngeal /ʕ/ ‫ ע‬has merged with /ʔ/ ‫א‬, which itself has come to be
realized as zero (Ø). The glottal fricative /h/ ‫ ה‬is also, though less frequently, realized as Ø.
(6–8) The post-vocalic allophones of /g/ ‫[( ּג‬γ] ‫)ֿג‬, /d/ ‫[( ּד‬ð] ‫ )ֿד‬and /t/ ‫[( ּת‬θ] ‫ )ֿת‬have merged with their
plosive counterparts.
(9) Finally, the lateral fricative /ɬ/ ‫ ׂש‬and /s/ ‫ ס‬have merged (i.e., /ɬ/, /s/ > /s/), but this merger likely began
during the biblical period.
Spirantization: Historically, the stops /b/, /p/, /g/, /k/, /d/, /t/ each had a fricativized
allophone in post-vocalic environments: /b/~[v], /p/~[f], /g/~[γ], /k/~[χ], /d/~[ð], /t/~[θ].
In Modern Hebrew, only the fricative allophones of /b/~[v], /p/~[f] and /k/~[χ] remain,
and they have come to attain phonemic status in and of themselves. The phonemic sta-
tus of the fricatives /v/, /f/ and /χ/ has arisen as a consequence of a number of historical
processes that have resulted in violations of the rule C[+plosive] > C[+fricative] /V_. Examples
of such processes include vowel syncope (e.g., [malχe(j)] < *malakē king.mpl.bnd ‘kings
of’), the simplification of gemination (e.g., [kibes] < *kibbes ‘wash.pst.3msg’), the merg-
ers of /w/ > /v/, /q/ > /k/, /ħ/ > /χ/ (e.g., [viter] < *witter ‘give.up.pst.3msg’; [bakar]
< *baqar ‘cattle; beef’; [χadal] < *ħadal ‘cease.pst.3msg’), loan words (e.g., [mikroskop]
‘microscope’) and analogy (e.g., [kiven] ‘aim.pst.3msg’ > [jekaven] ‘3msg.aim.fut’,
instead of expected [jeχaven]; [tafar] ‘sew.pst.3msg’ > [jitfor] ‘3msg.sew.fut’, instead
of expected [jitpor]). Numerous minimal pairs are created as a result of these processes,
with some even exhibiting morphophonemic contrasts: e.g., [χiber] ‘connect.pst.3msg’
vs. [χiver] ‘pale.adj’; [sapa] ‘sofa’ vs. [safa] ‘language’; and [lefaχot] ‘at.least.adv’ vs.
[le=paχot] for=less.adv ‘for less . . . ’ (Schwarzwald 2011: 526, Bolozky 2013a, 2013c).
Gutturals: The pharyngeals /ħ/ and /ʕ/ may be preserved in limited contexts. In a high
register of the language reserved for television and radio broadcast, both /ħ/ and /ʕ/ may
be pronounced, though such a practice is not as common as it used to be. Also, in the
speech of Israelis from North African or Middle Eastern backgrounds, /ħ/ is typically
preserved (Shatil 2013).4
/r/: The realization of /r/ exhibits a considerable amount of variation. It is most com-
monly realized as a voiced uvular approximant [ʁ], though some realize it as a uvu-
lar fricative [ʀ]. The uvular approximant has a tendency to weaken or elide entirely in
common vocabulary or in fast speech: e.g., [ʦariχ laleχet] > [ʦəχ laleχet] need.prs.msg go.
inf ‘need(s) to go’. A minority of speakers, mostly from North African or Middle Eastern
backgrounds, realize /r/ as an alveolar trill [r], but this pronunciation is also common
to the elevated register of television and radio broadcast. Other speakers realize /r/ as a
dento-alveolar approximant [ɹ] or uvular trill [ʀ] (Bolozky 2013e).
/ʦ/: It is likely that the realization of /ʦ/ as an alveolar affricate [ts] reflects an ancient
pronunciation minus glottalization/ejection ([ʦˀ]) (Steiner 1982: 11–44). This is as
opposed to the non-affricate, pharyngealized realization of /ʦ/ as [sˁ] in Tiberian Hebrew
of the Middle Ages, which likely developed as a result of contact with Arabic.
Phonemes in loan words: The phonemes /w/, /ʒ/, /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ occur in loan words: e.g.,
/ˈwiski/ ‘whisky’, /ʒaˈket/ ‘jacket’, /ʧips/ ‘chips’, and /ʤiˈrafa/ ‘giraffe’.
Voicing assimilation: Obstruents often assimilate in voicing to a following obstruent:
e.g., /jisgor/ [jizˈgor] 3msg.close.fut ‘he will close’ and /zkenim/ [skeˈnim] old.adj.mpl
‘old people’ (Bolozky 1997, 2013c).
3.2 Vowels
The vocalic inventory of Modern Hebrew (see Table 22.4) varies only slightly from the
Sephardi pronunciation tradition of five vocalic phonemes from which it derives. Only
vowel quality is phonemic, with variations in length being realized phonetically (Bolozky
1997, 2013c).
This vocalic system reflects a number of mergers from the Tiberian seven-vowel sys-
tem (see Table 22.5; see also Chapter 21).
A few further points are worthy of mention:
/e/ vowels: In some environments, there may be a distinction between two types of /e/
vowels, namely, the /e/ vowel indicated by the sign ‫( ֶא‬segol) ([e]) and a sort of offglided
ֶ [moˈre] ‘teacher.msg’ vs. ‫מֹורי‬
diphthong [ej] indicated by the sign ‫( ֵא‬tsere): e.g., ‫מֹורה‬ ֵ
TABLE 22.4 VOWELS
Front Back
high i u
e o
low a
TABLE 22.5 MODERN REFLEXES OF TIBERIAN VOWELS

(EXEMPLIFIED WITH DUMMY CONSONANT ‫)א‬
(1): /e/ (‫)ֵא‬, /ε/ (ֶ‫ א‬, ‫)א‬,

ֱ ə5 (‫ > )ְא‬/e/
(2): /a/ (‫ַא‬, ‫)ֲא‬, /ɔ/ ‫ > ָא‬/a/
(3): /o/ (ֹ ‫א‬, ‫)אֹו‬, /ɔ/ (‫ָא‬, ‫ > ) ֳא‬/o/
(1) The vowels represented by the signs ‫( ֵא‬tsere), ‫ ֶא‬, (segol), ‫( ֱא‬xataf segol) and ‫( ְא‬the shewa sign) merge
to a front-mid vowel /e/ (lower than tsere).
(2) The vowels represented by the signs ‫( ָא‬qamats), ‫( ַא‬patax) and ‫( ֲא‬xataf patax) merge to a low vowel /a/.
(3) The vowels represented by the signs ‫( ֳא‬xataf qamats) and ‫( ָא‬qamats qatan [in closed unstressed sylla-
ble]) are realized as /o/.
Modern Hebrew 577
[moˈrej] teacher.mpl.bnd ‘teachers of’.6 This likely has roots in the Ashkenazi pronuncia-
tion of tsere (Berman 1997: 314, Schwarzwald 2011: 526).
Phonetic length: While vowel length is not phonemic, phonetic long vowels may be
produced according to prosodic factors. For example, similar to the ancient develop-
ment of pretonic lengthening in Biblical Hebrew, though far more limited in scope, pre-
tonic vowels in unstressed open syllables sometimes lengthen phonetically: e.g., /ʔaˈni
roˈʦa/ [ʔaˈni roːˈʦa] sbj.1csg want.prs.fsg ‘I want’ and /ˈʔima ʃeˈli/ [ˈʔima ʃeːˈli] mom.
fsg gen=poss.1csg ‘my mom’ (Bolozky 2013d). Phonetic length may also arise as the
result of the deletion of /ʕ/, /h/ or /ʔ/, which results in length being a “semi-distinctive
feature” (Bolozky 2013f): e.g., [taːˈvod] (< *taʕavod) 2msg.work.fut ‘you will work’ and
[maːpeˈχa] (< *mahapeχa) ‘revolution’. In some cases, such length distinctions can actu-
ally result in minimal pairs or morphological distinctions: e.g., [naˈtati] (< *natatti) give.
pst.1csg ‘I gave’ vs. [naˈtaːti] (< *nataʕti) plant.pst.1csg ‘I planted’, [taˈvi] (< *taviʔ)
2msg.bring.fut ‘you will bring’ vs. [taˈviː] (< *taviʔi) 2fsg.bring.fut ‘you will bring’, and
[jaˈrim] (< *jarim) 3msg.raise.fut ‘he will raise’ vs. [jaːˈrim] (< *jaʕarim) 3msg.deceive.
fut ‘he will deceive’ (Schwarzwald 2011: 526; Bolozky 1997, 2013f).
3.3 Diphthongs and triphthongs

The three historical diphthongs are /uj/, /oj/ and /aj/: e.g., /kanuj/ buy.pass.ptcp.msg
‘bought’, /goj/ ‘gentile’, /ʔelaj/ ‘to me’. The offglided pronunciation of tsere (ֵ‫[( )י‬ej]) in
certain contexts would also qualify as a diphthong (see §3.2). In fact, certain minimal pairs
with this diphthong such as [be(j)n] ‘between’ vs. [ben] ‘son’ indicate that the diphthongs
are phonemic in Modern Hebrew (Berman 1997: 314, Schwarzwald 2011: 526, 2013b).
Diphthongs are often found in loan words and exclamations: e.g., [miki maws] ‘Mickey
Mouse’, [plejstejʃen] ‘play station’ and [ʔaw] ‘ouch!’. The rare triphthong is also found in
exclamations: e.g., [waj] ‘Oh no!’ and [waw] ‘wow!’ (Schwarzwald 2013b).

The following four syllable types are permissible in Modern Hebrew: CV, CVC, CːV,
CːVC. In loan words, these rules are not always followed and additional syllable types are
attested: e.g., [ʃtrudel] ‘strudel; at (@)’ and [spring] ‘(brand name)’ (Cohen-Gross 2013).
Consonant clusters: Word-initial clusters (#CC) or word-medial clusters (C.CC) fol-
low the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP), namely, sonority increases from the onset
to the nucleus and then decreases from the nucleus to the coda: e.g., [ʃlita] ‘control’,
[gmul] ‘reward’, and [dvar-im] thing-mpl ‘things’. When the SSP would be violated, an
epenthetic [e] is inserted to resolve the cluster: e.g., [levan-im] ‘white.adj-mpl’, [mesu-
dar] ‘tidy.adj.msg’, and [jesod] ‘foundation’. Word-medial strings of three consonants
(C.CC) are typically limited to loans or compound words: e.g., [ʔabstrakti] ‘abstract.
adj.msg’ and [pesekzman] ‘time-out’. As in Biblical Hebrew, final consonant clusters
are permissible in the 2fsg past tense verbal form [katav-t] write.pst-2fsg ‘you wrote’ as
well as in some loan words, provided that the final consonant is an obstruent and it obeys
the SSP: e.g., [bank] ‘bank’ and [terapist] ‘therapist’ (cf. [ʒaner] ‘genre’ and [faʃizem]
‘Facism’) (Cohen-Gross 2003, 2013).
Phonetic gemination and the obligatory contour principle: When the normal forma-
tion of a pattern would result in a geminate consonant, an epenthetic [e] is inserted: e.g.,
[zalelan] ‘glutton’ (cf. [kamʦan] ‘miser’), [noχeχut] ‘presence’ (cf. [rokχut] ‘pharma-
cology’), and [χageg-a] celebrate.pst-3fsg ‘she celebrated’ (cf. [katv-a] write.pst-3fsg
‘she wrote’). This rule, an expression of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), is not
always maintained in fast speech: e.g., [hi ˌχageˈga] > [ˌiχagˈga] ‘she celebrated’. In
some cases, this rule does not apply and gemination may be realized secondarily across
morpheme boundaries: e.g., /ʃavat + ti/ [ʃavat-ti] strike.pst-1csg ‘I was on strike’ and
/natan + nu/ [natan-nu] give.pst-1cpl ‘we gave’. It is more common, however, for identi-
cal and homorganic consonants to be broken up by an epenthetic vowel or for gemination
to be simplified: e.g., [ʃavateti] ‘I was on strike’, [avad-eti] work.pst-1csg ‘I worked’ and
[natanu] ‘we gave’ (Bolozky 1997, 2013c: 116–17).
3.5 Stress
Modern Hebrew generally reflects the stress system of the Sephardi tradition rather than
the Ashkenazi tradition (Reshef 2013b). As in Biblical Hebrew, stress is usually on the
ultima, though there are a number of exceptional categories due to historical developments
(e.g., segolate nouns, i.e., nouns from the historical pattern *CVCC, such as [ˈsefer] ‘book’
and II–weak verbs such as [ˈkam-u] get.up.pst-3cpl ‘they got up’ [see §4.4.4]). While
stress has become entirely predictable in the verbal system in Modern Hebrew, stress in the
nominal system has become even more complex (Cohen and Ussishkin 2013).
Verbs are normally stressed on the ultima (e.g., [kaˈtav] write.pst.3msg ‘he wrote’;
[hiχtiv] dictate.pst.3msg ‘he dictated’; [hitkatev] correspond.pst.3msg ‘he corresponded’)
with three exceptions: when a consonant-initial suffix is added (e.g., [kaˈtav-ti] write.
pst-1csg ‘I wrote’),7 when a vocalic suffix is added to a verb in the hifʕil stem (e.g.,
[hiχˈtiv-u] dictate.pst-3cpl ‘they dictated’), and when the verb has a word-final epenthetic
vowel, which is ignored in stress assignment (e.g., [hivˈtiaχ] promise.pst.3msg ‘he prom-
ised’) (Cohen and Ussishkin 2013).
In the nominal system, there is a distinction between “accented” and “unaccented”
forms. Most nominal forms in Modern Hebrew are “unaccented” and thus have mobile
stress, according to which the stress always falls on the ultima: e.g., [daˈvar] ‘thing’ and
[dvaˈr-im] thing-mpl ‘things’. The only native Hebrew category without ultimate stress is
the class of segolate forms (e.g., [ˈsefer] ‘book’ > [sfaˈr-im] book-mpl ‘books’). In
“accented” nominal forms, stress is fixed on a particular syllable and does not shift if a
suffix is added, though longer words can sometimes exhibit a shift toward (but not to) the
end of the word: e.g., [ˈtiras] ‘corn’ > [ˈtiras-im] corn-mpl and [ˈtelefon] ‘telephone’ >
[ˈtelefon-im]/[teleˈfon-im] telephone-mpl. Instances of such “lexical stress” are particu-
larly common in loan words, acronyms (e.g., ‫[ ַמנְּכָ”ל‬manˈkal] ‘CEO’ > ‫ַמנְּכָ”לִים‬
[manˈkal-im] CEO-mpl), and other categories. Function words also behave similarly to
nominal forms, though they may undergo a significant degree of reduction and/or neutral-
ization of stress (Melčuk and Podolsky 1996, Cohen and Ussishkin 2013).
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
4.1.1 Independent pronouns
The independent pronominal system in Modern Hebrew differentiates person, number
and gender (except in 1csg and 1cpl) (see Table 22.6). The only independent pronoun
Modern Hebrew 579
TABLE 22.6 NOMINATIVE PRONOUNS
Singular Plural
1 common ʔani ʔanaχnu/ʔanu

2 masculine ʔata ʔatem
feminine ʔat ʔaten
3 masculine hu hem
feminine hi hen
Group 1 Group 2
1csg =i =aj
2msg =χa =e(j)χa
2fsg =aχ =ajiχ
3msg =o =av
3fsg =a =e(j)ha
1cpl =anu =e(j)nu

2mpl =χem =e(j)χem
2fpl =χen =e(j)χen
3mpl =ahem =e(j)hem
3fpl =ahen =e(j)hen
with variant forms is the 1cpl; the common form is ʔanaχnu, while ʔanu belongs to a
higher register.
4.1.2 Pronominal suffixes

While nominative pronouns appear as independent forms, genitive and accusative forms
occur as suffixes on nouns, prepositions and other lexicalized forms. The suffixal pro-
nouns appear in two forms. The first set of suffixes (Group 1) is attached to singular
nouns and a closed set of prepositions, whereas the second set of suffixes (Group 2) is
attached to plural nouns and a second closed set of prepositions (see Table 22.7).
Examples of lexemes with suffixes of both groups are given below (see Table 22.8).
Suffixes attached to nouns (singular or plural) mark the genitive (e.g., sifr=i book.
msg=poss.1csg ‘my book’; sfar=aj book.mpl=poss.1csg ‘my books’), while suffixes
attached to prepositions signify the object of the preposition (e.g, ʕal=aj on.prep=poss.
1csg ‘on, about me’). Possessive pronouns are created by appending suffixes to the prep-
osition ʃel- ‘of’, while objective pronouns are formed by attaching suffixes to the gram-
maticalized morpheme ʔot- obj (Coffin and Bolozky 2005: 168–70).
4.1.3 Demonstrative pronouns

Demonstrative pronouns in Modern Hebrew are marked for number and gender. The
common set of demonstratives includes ze dem.msg ‘this’, zot dem.fsg ‘this’ and ʔele dem.
Group 1 Group 2
sg nouns gen=suffix acc=suffix pl nouns prep

sifr- ‘book’ ʃel- ‘of’ ʔot- sfar- ‘books’ ʕal ‘on’
1csg sifr=i ʃel=i ʔot=i sfar=aj ʕal=aj
2msg sifr=eχa ʃel=χa ʔot=χa sfar=e(j)χa ʕal=e(j)χa
2fsg sifr=eχ ʃel=aχ ʔot=aχ sfar=ajiχ ʕal=ajiχ
3msg sifr=o ʃel=o ʔot=o sfar=av ʕal=av
3fsg sifr=a ʃel=a ʔot=a sfar=e(j)ha ʕal=e(j)ha
1cpl sifr=enu ʃel=anu ʔot=anu sfar=e(j)nu ʕal=e(j)nu

2mpl sifr=eχem ʃel=aχem ʔet=χem (colloquial form: sifr=e(j)χem ʕal=e(j)χem
ʔot=χem)
2fpl sifr=eχen ʃel=aχen ʔet=χen (colloquial form: sifr=e(j)χen ʕal=e(j)χen
ʔot=χen)
3mpl sifr=ehem ʃel=ahem ʔot=am sifr=e(j)hem ʕal=e(j)hem
3fpl sifr=ehen ʃel=ahen ʔot=an sifr=e(j)hen ʕal=e(j)hen
TABLE 22.9 DISTAL DEMONSTRATIVES
Masculine Feminine
singular ha-hu ha-hi

plural ha-hem ha-hen
cpl ‘these’; belonging to a higher register are the pronouns zo dem.fsg ‘this’ and ʔelu dem.
cpl (for definiteness and demonstratives, see §5.4).
In Modern Hebrew, the forms of distal pronouns, which always occur in post-nominal
position, are identical to the 3rd person independent pronouns. Unlike the use of prox-
imal demonstrative pronouns, which can occur with or without the definite article, the
utilization of distal demonstratives always includes the definite article on both elements
of the noun phrase (e.g., ha-sefer ha-hu def-book def-3msg ‘that book’) (see Table 22.9).
4.1.4 Relative pronouns

There are two relative pronouns in Hebrew, ʃe- and ʔaʃer. The former, a proclitic lexeme,
is used commonly, while the latter, a free form, belongs to a higher register (Zewi 2013:
360). Etymologically, ʃe- most likely derives from ʔaʃer (Huehnergard 2006).
See §5.6 for the syntax of relative sentences.

Hebrew interrogatives can be divided into interrogative pronouns and interrogative
adverbs. Pronominal interrogatives are the following: mi int ‘who’, ma int ‘what’,
ʔe(j)ze int.adj.msg ‘which’, ʔe(j)zo int.adj.fsg ‘which’ and ʔe(j)lu int.adj.cpl ‘which’.
Modern Hebrew 581
Interrogative adverbs, on the other hand, are as follows: ʔe(j)fo int.adv ‘where’, mataj
int.adv ‘when’, lama int.adv ‘why’, ʔe(j)χ int.adv ‘how’ and kama int.adv ‘how much,
how many’. There are other interrogative adverbs that belong to a higher register (e.g.,
ke(j)ʦad int.adv ‘how’, he(j)χan int.adv ‘where’, maduaʕ int.adv ‘why’). Another set of
interrogative adverbs, which is used only in higher register, introduces yes-no questions:
ha- int.adv, ha-ʔim int.adv, klum int.adv, and ve-χi int.adv (Burstein 2013: 316–20).
4.1.6 Indefinite pronouns

Modern Hebrew has few independent indefinite pronouns. Words such as ha-kol ‘every-
thing’, kulam ‘everyone’, maʃehu ‘something’, and miʃehu ‘someone’, as well as klum
‘nothing’ and meʔuma ‘nothing’, are examples of such lexemes. Other indefinite pro-
nouns occur as a combination of a determiner and noun, creating an indefinite phrase.
For instance, kol ‘each, every’ can occur with any singular noun (e.g., kol jeled every.det
child.indf ‘every child’) as well as in fixed phrases (kol davar every.det thing.indf ‘every
thing’, kol ʔeχad every.det one ‘everyone’); when appearing before plural nouns, kol is
always followed by the definite article ha- and carries the meaning ‘all of the’ (e.g., kol
ha-jelad-im all.det def-child-mpl ‘all of the children’). The pronouns ʃum neg.det ‘no;
any’ and ʔaf neg.det ‘no; any’ can occur before any singular noun (e.g., ʃum jeled neg.det
child ‘no child’ or ʔaf jeled neg.det child ‘no child’) or in fixed phrases to designate neg-
ative indefinite pronouns (e.g., ʃum davar neg.det thing ‘nothing’, ʔaf ʔeχad neg.det one
‘no-one’). Certain quantifier words function as indefinite adverbs (e.g., harbe ‘many.det’,
kʦat ‘a.bit.det’, meʕat ‘a.little.det’, hamon ‘a.great.deal.of.det’). The quantifier kama
‘some.det’ always stands before plural nouns (e.g., kama jelad-im some.det child-mpl
‘some children’). The word ‘one’, ʔeχad one.adj.msg, which stands after nouns, can carry
the semantics of an indefinite article (e.g., jeled ʔeχad child.msg one.adj.msg ‘one child; a
child’); and the plural form of ‘one’ means ‘some’ (e.g., jelad-im ʔaχad-im child-mpl one.
adj-mpl ‘some children’) (Fruchtman 2013: 257–60, Coffin and Bolozky 2005: 173–5).

4.2.1 Nouns
Nouns in Hebrew are marked for gender and number (see Table 22.10) as well as bound
or nonbound state (= dependent or independent state; see §5.3). The masculine singular
is unmarked, while the feminine singular is marked by a suffixed -a, -at, -it, -et or -ut.
Certain feminine nouns are not marked as feminine (ʕir ‘city.fsg’, sakin ‘knife.fsg’).
Masculine plural nouns take the suffix -im, while feminine plurals are marked by
the suffix -ot8 (see Table 22.10). Certain masculine nouns, however, take the feminine
TABLE 22.10 NOMINAL INFLECTION (JELED ‘CHILD’, STUDENT ‘STUDENT’)
jeled- student-
masculine feminine masculine feminine
singular jeled jald-a student student-it

plural jelad-im jelad-ot student-im student-ijot
pluralizing marker (e.g., χalon-ot window.m-pl ‘windows’, kir-ot wall.m-pl ‘walls’),

while a number of feminine nouns take the masculine pluralizing marker (e.g., naʃ-im
woman.f-pl ‘women’, nemal-im ant.f-pl ‘ants’).
A number of nouns that occur in pairs take the dual suffix -ajim. This ending occurs
on dual body parts (ʕe(j)n-ajim eye.f-du ‘eyes’), on certain temporal nouns (ʃnat-ajim
year.f-du ‘two years’, χodʃ-ajim month.m-du ‘two months’) and on certain articles of
clothing (garb-ajim sock.m-du ‘socks’). The gender of a noun with the dual ending
corresponds to the gender of the same noun in the singular form. Thus, feminine singu-
lar nouns will remain feminine when appearing with a dual ending (e.g., ʕajin ‘eye.fsg’
~ ʕe(j)n-ajim eye.f-du ‘eyes’; ʃana ‘year.fsg’ ~ ʃnat-ajim year.f-du ‘two years’), while
masculine singular nouns will remain masculine when taking a dual ending (e.g., ʃad
‘breast.msg’ ~ ʃad-ajim breast.m-du ‘breasts’; χodeʃ ‘month.msg’ ~ χodʃ-ajim month.m-du
‘two months’).
By default, nouns are indefinite (e.g., bajit ‘a house’). A noun can be marked as definite
by prepending the definite article ha- to the noun (e.g., ha-bajit def-house ‘the house’).
A noun is also definite when it takes a pronominal possessive suffix (e.g., sifr=i book.
msg=poss.1csg ‘my book’).
4.2.2 Adjectives
Adjectives, like nouns, are marked for gender and number, and they always stand after
the head noun. There are two types of adjectives. In the first type, feminine and plural
suffixes are attached directly to the base of the adjective (see tov in Table 22.11). The
second type is the result of a substantive being modified with the morpheme -i to form an
adjective (see prati in Table 22.11), after which feminine and plural suffixes are attached.
The morpheme -i is commonly used to derive adjectives from substantives (e.g., prati
‘private.adj.msg’ < prat ‘detail.msg’; χodʃi ‘monthly.adj.msg’ < χodeʃ ‘month.msg’). This
morpheme is also used to derive ordinal numbers (e.g., ʃiʃi ‘sixth.adj.msg’ < ʃeʃ ‘six.f’;
see §4.3.2).
Adjectival modifiers inflect according to the gender of nouns irrespective of the plural
suffix (e.g., χalon-ot gdol-im window.m-pl big.adj-mpl ‘large windows’; ʕar-im gdol-ot
city.f-pl big.adj-fpl ‘large cities’). Adjectives modifying nouns with the dual ending
take a pluralizing suffix that corresponds to the gender of the noun (garb-ajim χum-im
sock.m-du brown.adj-mpl ‘brown socks’; ʕe(j)n-ajim jaf-ot eye.f-du beautiful.adj-fpl
‘beautiful eyes’). Lastly, adjectives modifying a definite noun must take a definite article
(e.g., ha-bajit ha-gadol def-house.msg def-big.adj.msg ‘the big house’; sifr=i ha-katan
book=poss.1csg def-small.adj.msg ‘my small book’) (Danon 2001: 1073–82, 2013c:
684–8).
TABLE 22.11 ADJECTIVAL INFLECTION (TOV ‘GOOD’, PRATI ‘PRIVATE’)
tov- prati-
masculine feminine masculine feminine
singular tov tov-a prati prati-t

plural tov-im tov-ot prati-jim prati-jot
Modern Hebrew 583
4.2.3 Bound and nonbound state (dependent and independent state)

See §5.3.
4.2.4 Noun patterns

As in other Semitic languages, Hebrew nouns and adjectives can be categorized accord-
ing to fixed nominal patterns. Some estimate that Modern Hebrew attests to around 300
distinct patterns (Schwarzwald 2013d: 646–67; Even-Shoshan 2003: 2169–78). Such
patterns, whose shape is determined by particular vowel sequences and affixes, are super-
imposed upon a triconsonantal root in order to form words. While most nominal patterns
have been inherited from earlier stages of the language, Modern Hebrew has innovated
new patterns as well. Table 22.12 illustrates how different nominal patterns may be super-
imposed on the etymological root *k-t-b, which is semantically related to writing (note
that etymological *k may be realized as χ and *b as v).
4.3 Numerals
4.3.1 Cardinal numerals
Cardinal numbers 1–10, as given in Table 22.13, are marked for gender. In regard to
gender marking, numbers 1 and 2 behave as expected; that is, the unmarked base forms
are the masculine forms, which can be marked by the feminine suffix/affix -t to form the
corresponding feminine forms. The gender marking of numbers 3–10, however, behaves
in a manner that is opposite to what is expected: the unmarked base forms are actually
feminine forms, which, when marked by the common feminine suffix -a, become mas-
culine forms.
The number 1 functions adjectively, always standing after the head noun, while num-
bers 2–10 behave as quantifiers, positioned before the head noun. Numbers 3–10 are also
marked for nonbound or bound (independent or dependent) state; nonbound numerals
are used before indefinite nouns, and bound-form numerals occur before definite nouns.
Numbers 11–19 are marked for gender. These numbers consist of two elements, the
singular masculine or feminine number followed by the element ʕasar for masculine
TABLE 22.12 NOMINAL PATTERNS (SAMPLE)
Noun Pattern Hebrew Term Gloss
CCaC ktav ‘script’

CCiC ktiv ‘spelling’
CCiCa ktiva ‘writing’
CCuCa ktuba ‘marriage contract’
CCuCit ktuvit ‘subtitle’
CaCaCa katava ‘newspaper article’
CCoCet ktovet ‘address’
miCCaC miχtav ‘letter’
miCCaCa miχtava ‘writing desk’
taCCiC taχtiv ‘edict’
Masculine Feminine
Nonbound Bound Nonbound Bound
1 ʔeχad ʔaχad ʔaχat ʔaχat

2 ʃnajim ʃne(j) ʃtajim ʃte(j)
3 ʃloʃ-a ʃloʃ-et ʃaloʃ ʃloʃ
4 ʔarbaʕ-a ʔarbaʕ-at ʔarbaʕ ʔarbaʕ
5 χamiʃ-a χameʃ-et χameʃ χameʃ
6 ʃiʃ-a ʃeʃ-et ʃeʃ ʃeʃ
7 ʃivʕ-a ʃivʕ-at ʃevaʕ ʃevaʕ
8 ʃmon-a ʃmon-at ʃmone ʃmone
9 tiʃʕ-a tiʃʕ-at teʃaʕ teʃaʕ
10 ʕasar-a ʕaser-et ʕeser ʕeser
numbers (e.g., ʔarbaʕa ʕasar four.m ten/-teen.m ‘fourteen’) or ʕesre for feminine num-
bers (e.g., ʔarbaʕ ʕesre four.f ten/-teen.f ‘fourteen’). The masculine and feminine forms
of the number 11 are comprised of the dependent form of the number one followed by
ʕasar in the masculine (i.e., ʔaχad ʕasar one.m.bnd ten/-teen.m) and ʕesre in the femi-
nine (i.e., ʔaχat ʕesre one.f.bnd ten/-teen.f). Both genders of the number 12 consist of a
variant of the number 2, followed by ʕasar and ʕesre (i.e., ʃnem ʕasar two.m ten/-teen.m
‘twelve’, ʃtem ʕesre two.f ten/-teen.f ‘twelve’). Finally, for numbers 13, 17 and 19, the
feminine numerals consist of variant forms of the numbers 3, 7 and 9 followed by the
expected ʕesre element (i.e., ʃloʃ ʕesre three.f.bnd ten/-teen.f ‘thirteen’, ʃvaʕ ʕesre sev-
en.f.bnd ten/-teen.f ‘seventeen’ and tʃaʕ ʕesre nine.f.bnd ten/-teen.f ‘nineteen’), whereas
the corresponding masculine numbers consist of the expected forms (i.e., ʃloʃa ʕasar
three.m.bnd ten/-teen.m ‘thirteen’, ʃivʕa ʕasar seven.m.bnd ten/-teen.m ‘seventeen’ and
tiʃʕa ʕasar nine.m.bnd ten/-teen.m ‘nineteen’). Speakers of Hebrew often confuse the
numerals, using forms of the gender that is grammatically incongruent with the gender
of the head noun.
Numbers 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90 occur only as plural masculine forms and
are composed of variants of numbers 3–10. So, 20 is a plural of 10 (i.e., ʕesr-im ten-pl),
while 30 and 40 are plurals of 3 and 4 (i.e., ʃloʃ-im three-pl ‘thirty’ and ʔarbaʕ-im four-pl
‘forty’).
The number 100 is comprised of the word meʔa hundred.fsg, while 200 is mat-ajim
hundred.f-du, a dual form of meʔa. The numbers 300–900 consist of the plural form of
meʔa (i.e., meʔ-ot hundred.f-pl), which is preceded by the dependent feminine forms of
numbers 3–9 (e.g., ʃloʃ meʔ-ot three.f.bnd hundred.f-pl ‘three hundred’).
The thousands are constructed in similar manner as the hundreds. Thus, 1,000 is ren-
dered with the lexeme ʔelef thousand.msg, while 2,000 with the dual of ʔelef (i.e., ʔalp-ajim
thousand.m-du); 3,000–9,000 are constructed with the plural of ʔelef (i.e., ʔalaf-im thou-
sand.m-pl), which is preceded by the dependent masculine forms of the numbers 3–9 (e.g.,
ʃloʃet ʔalaf-im three.m.bnd thousand.m-pl ‘three thousand’) (Meir 2013: 903–6; Coffin
and Bolozky 2005: 177–87).
Modern Hebrew 585
4.3.2 Ordinal numerals

Ordinal numbers, as given in Table 22.14, are adjectives and stand after the noun that they
modify. Ordinals display agreement in number, gender and definiteness with the noun
that they modify (e.g., ha-jom ha-riʃon def-day.msg def-first.msg ‘the first day’) (Coffin
and Bolozky 2005: 187–8). The ordinals 2–10 are constructed by modifying the relevant
base form with the adjectival morpheme -i, which in the feminine forms precedes the
feminine suffixes -a and -t.
4.4 Verbs
4.4.1 Verb forms, tense and mood
Hebrew verbs are based on triconsonantal roots (and less frequently on quadriconso-
nantal roots). In this section, the root *k-t-b, which is associated with the semantics of
writing, will be used to demonstrate the standard conjugation of verbs.
In Modern Hebrew, verbs are marked for gender, number, person, tense and mood. The
indicative present tense, which is technically a nominal/adjectival/participial form, is not
marked for person. A unique verbal noun and infinitive forms are also part of the system.
The three tenses of Modern Hebrew, namely, past, present and future, are marked by
prefixes, suffixes and vowel sequence patterns. The indicative mood in Modern Hebrew
is unmarked.
The past tense is distinguished by suffixes that mark gender, number and person (see
Table 22.15), and refers to past events, both episodic and habitual. It can also denote the
past perfect and present perfect when used with specific adverbs (e.g., kvar ‘already’).
The future tense takes prefixes which, as in the past tense, mark gender, number and
person (see Table 22.16). The future tense denotes future events, and is also associated
with mood and modality, for instance, in requests and in low-frequency regularities.
The present tense is inflected only for number and gender (see Table 22.17), and can
be considered morphologically a participial form, although it fulfills the duty of both the
present tense and the participle. The present tense form is used primarily to express pres-
ent tense, including habitual actions. This form can also denote the future tense (maχar
Masculine Feminine
1 riʃon riʃon-a
2 ʃeni ʃni-ja
3 ʃliʃi ʃliʃi-t
4 reviʕi reviʕi-t
5 χamiʃi χamiʃi-t
6 ʃiʃi ʃiʃi-t
7 ʃviʕi ʃviʕi-t
8 ʃmini ʃmini-t
9 tʃiʕi tʃiʕi-t
10 ʕasiri ʕasiri-t
TABLE 22.15 PAST TENSE
*k-t-b
1csg katav-ti 1cpl katav-nu
2msg katav-ta 2mpl ktav-tem (colloquial form: katav-tem)
2fsg katav-t 2fpl ktav-ten (colloquial form: katav-ten)
3msg katav-∅ 3mpl
katv-u
3fsg katv-a 3fpl
TABLE 22.16 FUTURE TENSE
*k-t-b
1csg ʔe-χtov 1cpl ni-χtov
2msg ti-χtov 2mpl
ti-χtev-u
2fsg ti-χtev-i 2fpl
3msg ji-χtov 3mpl
ji-χtev-u
3fsg ti-χtov 3fpl
TABLE 22.17 PRESENT TENSE
*k-t-b
msg kotev mpl kotv-im
fsg kotev-et fpl kotv-ot
*k-t-b
2msg ktov 2mpl
kitv-u
2fsg kitv-i 2fpl
ani noseaʕ le=tel aviv tomorrow.adv sbj.1csg travel.prs.msg to=Tel Aviv ‘tomorrow, I am
travelling to Tel Aviv’). The present tense form can also carry a present perfect connota-
tion (see §4.4.2). In direct speech narration, the present tense form may also refer to the
past (ʔetmol, ʔani metajel, ve=pitʔom ʔani roʔe ʔet david yesterday.adv sbj.1csg stroll.
prs.msg and.conj=suddenly.adv sbj.1csg see.prs.msg obj David ‘yesterday, I’m taking a
stroll and suddenly I see David’) (Boneh 2013c; Hatav 2010).
The imperative mood is used to express commands and requests. An imperative form,
marked for gender and number, exists in Modern Hebrew (see Table 22.18), but it is
primarily used in weak roots (bo come.imp.msg ‘come!’ < weak root *b-w-ʔ), whereas
the use of the imperative in strong roots is generally limited to an elevated register. In
common speech, the 2nd person future forms of verbs, as given in Table 22.13, are used
most frequently as command forms for strong roots.
The verbal noun (see Table 22.19) is a nominal form and can therefore take pronominal
possessive suffixes as any other noun. The infinitive can take pronominal possessive or
objective suffixes in higher registers.
Modern Hebrew 587
TABLE 22.19 INFINITIVE AND VERBAL NOUN
*k-t-b
infinitive liχtov
verbal noun ktiva
The subjunctive/optative mood is marked by the subordinating marker ʃe-, which pre-
cedes a verb in the future tense (e.g., ʃe=je-χake that.sbrd=3msg-wait.fut ‘let him wait’).
It is also possible to express the subjunctive mood by utilizing the lexeme halevaj ‘let
it be’ along with ʃe- ‘that.sbrd’ and a verb in any tense (halevaj ʃe=ʔu-χal lavo let.it.be
that.sbrd=1csg-be.able.fut come.inf ‘May it be that I will be able to come’).
Finally, the conditional mood is expressed in two ways in Hebrew. For potential
events, past, present, and future tense forms are used. Hypothetical or counterfactual
events are expressed by using a conjugated past tense of the verb ‘to be’ (i.e., haya ‘be.
pst.3msg’) along with the present tense of any verb. Such formations are introduced with
certain subordinating elements such as ʔim ‘if’ and lu ‘if’ (e.g., ʔim hu haja ba b=a-zman,
hu haja roʔe ʔot=i if.conj sbj.3msg be.pst.3msg come.prs.msg in=def-time.msg, sbj.3msg
be.pst.3msg see.prs.msg obj=poss.1csg ‘If he were to come on time, he would have seen
me!’) (Boneh 2013b: 696–7).
4.4.2 Aspect
While Modern Hebrew verbs are not morphologically marked for viewpoint aspect, verbs
may carry an aspectual sense in different contexts.
In the past tense, dynamic predicates function perfectively by default, whereas stative
predicates function imperfectively. Exceptions to the default state exist, however. Specif-
ically, in punctual when-clauses and in clauses modified by time-frame adverbs (e.g., ‘on
that night’), dynamic predicates can function imperfectively whereas stative predicates
can function perfectively (Boneh 2013a: 211).
Contrary to the default state in past tense, in the present tense verbs of all aspec-
tual classes (i.e., state, activity, accomplishment, achievement) function imperfectively
(Boneh 2013a: 212). The future tense, on the other hand, primarily expresses mood and
modality (Boneh 2013c: 748).
Aspectual values can also be expressed in a periphrastic manner. The most common
of these, briefly mentioned earlier, consists of the past tense of the verb ‘to be’ (haja ‘be.
pst.3msg’) and the present tense of any verb; such a structure expresses past habitual
action and counterfactual modality (e.g., haji-ti ʕose be.pst-1csg do.prs.msg ‘I used to do;
I would do’). Certain auxiliary verbs with infinitives can denote actions that are about to
happen (e.g., ʔani ʕomed lesajem sbj.1csg stand.prs.msg finish.inf ‘I am about to finish’)
and frequent actions (hu marbe liʃtot sbj.3msg increase.prs.msg drink.inf ‘he drinks a
lot’). Yet another periphrastic type utilizes a bleached auxiliary verb combined with a
fully lexical verb by means of the conjunction ‘and’ (e.g., ʔani χozer ve=ʔomer sbj.1csg
return.prs.msg and.conj=say.prs.msg ‘I repeat’) (Boneh 2013a: 213–15).
A perfect reading of a verb may arise with the presence of adverbs such as kvar
‘already’, ʕaχʃav ‘now’, and mi-ze ‘for’, which must come with a temporal noun phrase.
The adverb mi-ze ‘for’ can also occur in the present tense, creating a perfect meaning
(Boneh 2013a: 215–17).
The derived stems, which are different verbal templates (see §4.4.3), may express var-
ious aspectual values. For instance, a root in one verbal template may carry a durative
meaning, whereas the same root will carry a punctual meaning in a different template.
Such formations, however, are rare (Boneh 2013a: 213, Laks 2013: 31, Doron 2013: 370).
4.4.3 Derived stems
Modern Hebrew has seven templates, referred to as stems or binyanim ‘structures’, that
are used to derive verbs by means of consonantal patterns, vowel sequences and affixes.
The basic template, known as qal or paʕal, has traditionally been viewed as an unmarked
template, whereas the other templates derive from qal and are marked with affixes and
vowel sequences (Doron 2013: 364–71, Sadan 2013: 925–9).
As Table 22.20 displays, Modern Hebrew has three active stems (paʕal, piʕel, hifʕil)
that differ in degree of action and three corresponding passive stems (nifʕal, puʕal,
hufʕal). Historically, puʕal and hufʕal were mere subsets of the piʕel and hifʕil stems.
In theory, there should also be three corresponding templates in the middle voice. In
practice, only piʕel has a corresponding stem carrying a middle voice meaning (i.e., hit-
paʕel), whereas nifʕal functions as both the passive voice and the middle voice of paʕal;
and hifʕil has no corresponding stem with a middle voice. See Table 22.20 for a general
picture of the semantics of the different verbal patterns (examples are in the participle/
present tense form).
Theoretically, a root can occur in all stems. In such a case, the meaning of the root in
each template would generally fall in line with the semantics of each template. Roots are
typically restricted to only a few stems, however, and do not always carry the expected
meaning of a particular stem. It is also worth noting that the template system of Modern
Hebrew is very productive, which allows speakers to innovate new verbs by using roots
in new templates.
The paʕal stem is a simple active stem and the piʕel and hifʕil generally serve their
respective functions in relation to the qal stem. While the piʕel stem can carry an intensive
meaning in relation to qal (e.g., qal: ʃavar break.pst.3msg ‘he broke’ ~ piʕel: ʃiber shatter.
pst.3msg ‘he shattered’), it can also carry functions such as causative (e.g., qal: lamad
study.pst.3msg ‘he studied’ ~ piʕel: limed teach.pst.3msg ‘he taught’), factitive (e.g., qal:
gadal grow.up.pst.3msg ‘he grew up’ ~ piʕel: gidel make.grow.pst.3msg ‘he made grow;
he raised’), and denominative (e.g., bijet domesticate.pst.3msg ‘he domesticated’, derived
from bajit ‘house’). The hifʕil stem is usually causative (e.g., qal: lavaʃ wear.pst.3msg ‘he
wore’ ~ hifʕil: hilbiʃ dress.pst.3msg ‘he dressed (s.o.)’) but can also function factitively
TABLE 22.20 DERIVED STEMS (msg FORMS)
simple intensive causative
active paʕal: kotev piʕel: meχatev hifʕil: maχtiv

‘write(s)’ ‘CC(’s), address(es), inscribe(s)’ ‘dictate(s)’
passive puʕal: meχutav hufʕal: muχtav
nifʕal: niχtav ‘is CC’d, is addressed, is inscribed’ ‘is dictated’
middle voice ‘is written’ hitpaʕel: mitkatev
Ø
‘correspond(s) by writing’
Modern Hebrew 589
(e.g., heʔedim turn.red.pst.3msg ‘he turned red’, factitive of ʔadom ‘red’) and denomina-
tively (hifʦiʦ bomb.pst.3msg ‘he bombed’, derived from pʦaʦa ‘bomb’).
The nifʕal stem fulfills the passive voice of paʕal. However, it can also express mid-
dle voice (ha-χalon niʃbar def-window.msg break.pst.3msg ‘the window broke’), active
meaning (niχnas enter.pst.3msg ‘he entered’, nilχam war.pst.3msg ‘he warred’), or incho-
ative sense (nizkar remember.pst.3msg ‘he remembered’). The stems puʕal and hufʕal
function as passives of piʕel and hifʕil, respectively. Finally, the hitpaʕel stem functions
reflexively (hitraχeʦ wash.oneself.pst.3msg ‘he washed himself’; hitlabeʃ get.dressed.
pst.3msg ‘he got dressed’), reciprocally (hitkatev correspond.pst.3msg ‘corresponded
with’), passively (hitkabel be.accepted.pst.3msg ‘he was accepted’), and inchoatively
(hitjaʃev sit.down.pst.3msg ‘he sat down’).
Metathesis occurs in the hitpaʕel stem when the first radical of the root is s or ʃ:
e.g., hiʃtameʃ use.pst.3msg ‘he used’ < *hitʃameʃ. When the first radical is z, in addi-
tion to metathesis, partial assimilation also occurs: e.g., hizdaken grow.old.pst.3msg
(< *hiztaken < *hitzaken) ‘he grew old’. Metathesis also occurs in the case of tsade: e.g.,
hiʦtaʕer be.sorry.pst.3msg ‘he was sorry’. Historically, a first radical tsade would also
have brought about partial assimilation (*hitṣaʕer > *hiṣṭaʕer (ṣ = [ʦˀ], [ʦˁ], [sˀ], or [sˁ];
ṭ = [tˀ] or [tˁ]) > hiʦtaʕer be.sorry.pst.3msg ‘he was sorry’), but due to the merger of his-
torical tˀ (or tˁ), t > t, the assimilation is no longer realized in speech but is still reflected
in the orthography (Schwarzwald 2013a).
The piʕel template, as well as the related templates puʕal and hitpaʕel, were histor-
ically marked by a geminated middle consonant (i.e., piʕel < piʕʕel; puʕal < puʕʕal;
hitpaʕel < hitpaʕʕel). For example, the common piʕel verb diber speak.pst.3msg ‘he
spoke’ historically derives from dibber (with a geminated middle consonant), which was
orthographically marked by a dot (dagesh) in the middle consonant to signify gemination.
Because these three templates geminated the middle root consonant, it was possible for
quadriconsonantal or reduplicated biconsonantal roots to occur in these templates (e.g.,
piʕel: gilgel roll.pst.3msg ‘he rolled’ < g-l-g-l). This phenomenon continues to exist in
Modern Hebrew (e.g., piʕel: tirgem translate.pst.3msg ‘he translated’ < t-r-g-m). These
three stems are highly productive in forming denominative roots (both triconsonantal as
well as quadriconsonantal) from foreign words. For instance, the 3msg past tense piʕel
and puʕal forms, fikes ‘he focused’ and fukas ‘it was focused’, are built upon the newly
created triconsonantal root f-k-s, which was extracted from the English word ‘focus’ (i.e.,
f-k-s < focus); similarly, the 3msg past tense piʕel and puʕal forms, fikses ‘he faxed’ and
fuksas ‘it was faxed’, are built upon the newly shaped quadriconsonantal root f-k-s-s,
which derives from the English word ‘fax’ (i.e., f-k-s-s < fax) (Bat-El 2013: 704–9).
Formally, the seven verbal templates have the following distinguishing marks (see
Table 22.21):
1 The qal stem is marked by an a–a vowel sequence in the past, an o–e vowel sequence
in the present (as well as a–e for stative verbs), and an i–o vowel sequence in the
future, with variations in roots containing gutturals and glides.
2 The piʕel stem is marked by an i–e vowel sequence in the past, a preformative me-
and an a–e vowel sequence in the present, and an e–a–e vowel sequence in the
future.
3 The hifʕil stem is marked by a preformative hi- and an i theme vowel in the past, a
preformative ma- and an i theme vowel in the present, and an a–i vowel sequence in
the future.
TABLE 22.21 BASIC FORMS OF THE DERIVED STEMS (PAST AND FUTURE FORMS ARE
3msg, WHILE PRESENT AND IMPERATIVE FORMS ARE msg)
qal piʕel hifʕil nifʕal puʕal hufʕal hitpaʕel
past katav kitev hi-χtiv ni-χtav kutav hu-χtav hit-katev

present kotev me-χatev ma-χtiv ni-χtav me-χutav mu-χtav mit-katev
future ji-χtov je-χatev ja-χtiv ji-katev ju-χtav ju-χtav jit-katev
imperative ktov katev ha-χtev hi-katev Ø Ø hit-katev
infinitive liχtov leχatev lehaχtiv lehikatev Ø Ø lehitkatev
verbal noun ktiva kituv haχtava hikatvut Ø Ø hitkatvut
4 The nifʕal stem is marked by a preformative ni- and an a theme vowel in the past and
present, and an i–a–e vowel sequence in the future.
5 The puʕal is marked by a u–a vowel sequence in the past, a preformative me- and a
u–a vowel sequence in the present, and a u–a vowel sequence in the future.
6 The hufʕal stem is marked by a preformative hu- and an a theme vowel in the past,
a preformative mu- and an a theme vowel in the present, and a u–a vowel sequence
in the future.
7 The hitpaʕel stem is marked by a preformative hit- and an a–e vowel sequence in
the past, a preformative mit- and an a–e vowel sequence in the present, and a prefix
t- and an i–a–e vowel sequence in the future.
4.4.4 Root and weak verbs

The verbal paradigms given previously display the standard conjugation patterns of strong
roots, whereas weak roots deviate from the standard pattern in their vowel sequences and
consonantal patterns. Strong roots consist of any consonant excluding a guttural, a glide,
n or r, whereas roots defined as weak are those that contain any of the aforementioned
consonants.
As a result of historical processes, Modern Hebrew has inherited from ancient Hebrew
varying vowel patterns in verbal forms whose roots originally contained the gutturals *h,
*ħ (χ in Modern Hebrew), *ʔ, or *ʕ (generally ʔ in Modern Hebrew) (as well as r): e.g.,
laʔavod [laʔavod]/[laːvod] work.inf ‘to work’ (< *laʕavod [root: *ʕ-b-d]; cf. liχtov write.
inf ‘to write’ [root: *k-t-b]). When the gutturals h, χ (< *ħ), or ʔ (< *ʕ) occur word-finally,
an epenthetic a vowel is added just before the close of the syllable (e.g., liʃmoaʔ listen.inf
‘to listen’ [< *liʃmoʕ]). Also, as discussed in §3.1, the voiced pharyngeal ʕ, the glottal stop
ʔ, and the glottal fricative h have come to be realized as zero (Ø) in most environments
(e.g., koret read.prs.fsg ‘write(s)’ < *q-r-ʔ [cf. kotevet write.prs.fsg ‘write(s)’ < *k-t-b]).
There is an important distinction to be made regarding verbal forms that are spelled
with a final -h in the pst.3msg form. Such verbal forms fall into two categories with
respect to their triconsonantal root: those that derive from a root with an etymological h
as the third radical (e.g., tama [‫=תמה‬tmh] be.amazed.pst.3msg ‘he was amazed’ < *t-m-h)
and those that derive from a root with an etymological j or w as the third radical (e.g., raʔa
[‫=ראה‬rʔh] see.pst.3msg ‘he saw’ < *r-ʔ-j). Roots with an etymological h display the h
orthographically in the verbal paradigm, although it is usually deleted in pronunciation,
resulting in the lengthening of the adjacent vowel (e.g., [taˈmaːti] (< *tamah-ti) be.amazed.
pst-1csg ‘I was amazed’); as discussed in §3.2, this also occurs in roots containing other
Modern Hebrew 591
gutturals as the final consonant. Similarly, in verbal and nominal patterns of roots with
original j (less frequently w), the j has generally not been preserved in pronunciation. It
is, however, preserved in verbal nouns (e.g., reʔija ‘vision’ < *r-ʔ-j); and although not
usually pronounced, an original j is often still reflected in the spelling of certain past tense
forms (e.g., raʔi-ta [‫ראית‬ = rʔjt] see.pst-2msg ‘you saw’ < *r-ʔ-j).
Roots with initial j or n display certain deviations in the infinitive and imperative
forms. Specifically, in infinitives and imperatives of such roots, the first syllable begin-
ning with j or n is dropped entirely (e.g., ʃev sit.imp.msg ‘sit!’ < j-ʃ-b [cf. ktov write.imp.
msg ‘write!’ < *k-t-b]). Also, when n appears as the first phoneme in a consonant clus-
ter, it usually assimilates to the second consonant (e.g., ji-pol 3msg-fall.fut ‘he will fall’
< *jippol < *jinpol < *n-p-l).
In j-initial roots that historically derive from w-initial roots, an original w is preserved
as an o vowel in post-vocalic environments (e.g., word-initial y (< *w): jald-a give.
birth.pst-fsg ‘she gave birth’; cf. post-vocalic w: nold-a be.born.pst-fsg ‘she was born’
< *nawladat < *w-l-d). Also, in such roots an original w is preserved as v if the origi-
nal w was historically geminated (e.g., lehivaled be.born.inf ‘to be born’ < *lVhiwwaled
< *w-l-d). In roots with a glide as their second consonant, the glide falls out entirely in
most of the verbal paradigm (e.g., kam arise.prs.msg ‘arise(s)’; kam-ti arise.pst-1csg ‘I
arose’; ʔa-kum 1csg-arise.fut ‘I will arise’ < *q-w-m).
Lastly, in discussing the root and weak verbs, it is noteworthy that roots with an iden-
tical second and third radical often drop the latter (e.g., nifʕal past tense: namas melt.
pst.3msg ‘it melted’ < *m-s-s).
4.5 Prepositions, phrasal verbs, adverbs and conjunctions

4.5.1 Prepositions
Prepositions stand before nominals in Modern Hebrew. Certain prepositions consist of
individual morphemes, a small number of which are proclitics (e.g., le- ‘to’, be- ‘in’,
mi-/me- ‘from’), while others are free forms (e.g., ʕal ‘on, about’, min ‘from’, ʔel ‘to,
toward’). Some are comprised of two morphemes (e.g., meʕal ‘above; from on top of’
[lit: me=ʕal from.prep=on.prep ‘from on/above’]) and many derive etymologically from
nouns (e.g., lejad ‘next to’ [lit: le=jad to.prep=hand.fsg.bnd ‘to/at the hand of’] and biʃvil
‘for the sake of’ [lit: bi=ʃvil in.prep=path.msg.bnd ‘in the path of’]) (Botwinik 2013b).
Certain verbs appear to take a prepositional phrase rather than a direct object as a
complement. Such phrasal verbs often take the preposition be- ‘in’ (e.g., hu bataχ b=a
sbj.3msg trust.pst.3msg in.prep=poss.3fsg ‘he trusted her’), while other verbs occur with
ʕal ‘on, about’ (e.g., hu hitχaret ʕal ze sbj.3msg regret.pst.3msg about.prep dem.msg
‘he regretted this’) or le- ‘to’ (e.g., hu hifriaʕ l=a sbj.3msg interrupt.pst.3msg to.prep=
poss.3fsg ‘he interrupted her’). Some verbs can occur with either an object or a preposi-
tion (e.g., hu baʕat b=o sbj.3msg kick.pst.3msg in.prep=poss.3msg ‘he kicked him’ or hu
baʕat ʔot=o sbj.3msg kick.pst.3msg obj=poss.3msg ‘he kicked him’) (Botwinik 2013a).
4.5.2 Adverbs
Adverbs, which usually occur post-verbally, are formed in various ways in Modern Hebrew.
The most common method is to prefix a preposition to a noun or adjective, creating a
prepositional phrase that can function adverbially (e.g., bi=mhirut in.prep=quickness.fsg
‘quickly’, b=a-riʃon-a in.prep=def-first.adj-fsg ‘at first’, k=a-rega as.prep=def-moment

‘now’); many of these forms have become lexicalized (e.g., kimʕat [ki=mʕat as.prep=
little.msg] ‘almost’, mijad [mi=jad from.prep=hand.fsg] ‘immediately’). The preposi-
tional phrase be=ʔofen in.prep=manner.msg ‘in a specific manner’ is used with various
adjectives to produce adverbial phrases (e.g., be=ʔofen klali in.prep=manner.msg general.
adj.msg ‘generally, in a general manner’, be=ʔofen kriti in.prep=manner.msg critical.adj.
msg ‘critically, in a critical manner’).
It is also possible to form an adverbial by suffixing the feminine plural marker -ot to
adjectives (gluj-ot revealed.adj-fpl ‘transparently’) or by suffixing the feminine singular
marker -t to the adjectival suffix -i (e.g., ʔiʃi-t personal.adj-fsg ‘personally’). Addition-
ally, one can attach the suffix -a to the four cardinal directions or to place names in order
to create directional adverbs (e.g., ʦafon-a north-dir ‘northward’, tel aviv-a Tel Aviv-dir
‘Tel Aviv-ward’). The masculine singular forms of most adjectives can be used as adverbs
(e.g., ha-mivχan kaʃe def-test.msg difficult.adj.msg ‘the exam is hard’; hem lomd-im kaʃe
sbj.3mpl study.prs-mpl difficult.adj.msg ‘they study hard’). The definite article can be
prefixed to terms related to time to create temporal adverbs (e.g., ha-jom def-day ‘today;
the day’, ha-ʃavuaʕ def-week ‘this week; the week’). There are also lexicalized terms that
function as adverbs (e.g., meʔod ‘very’, harbe ‘a lot’) (Oren 2013: 52, Mor 2013: 44–9,
Ravid and Shlesinger 2000: 342–4).
4.5.3 Conjunctions
Coordination is usually expressed with the conjunctions ve- ‘and’, ʔo ‘or’, ʔaval ‘but’,
and ʔela ‘(but) rather’. Subordination is marked by the conjunctions ʃe- and ʔaʃer, both
of which mean ‘that, which, who(m)’, ki ‘that; because’ and ʔim ‘if, whether’. There are
many more subordinating conjunctions, most of which require a following ʃe- (e.g., lif-
ne(j) ʃe- ‘before’; ʔaχare(j) ʃe- ‘after’; biglal ʃe- ‘because’). Conjunctions always precede
the element that they are conjoining (Glinert 2013a: 566–9).
4.5.4 Negation markers

The three common sentence negation markers are lo, ʔe(j)n and ʔal. For most cases, in
statements and questions, lo is used as the negator; ʔe(j)n fulfills an identical function
but it belongs to a higher register. The negator ʔal with the future tense functions as the
negation of the imperative, and, in a higher register, it can negate 1st and 3rd person
commands.
There are many other negative words that can occur along with the aforementioned neg-
ative markers. A selection of such words are klum ‘nothing’, ʃum ‘any’, ʔaf ‘not a sin-
gle, even’, ʔaf paʕam ‘not even once’, leʕolam ‘never’ and bli ‘without’ (Glinert 2013b:
811–14).
See §5.7 for syntax of negation markers.
5 SYNTAX
5.1 Word order
5.1.1 Sentential word order
The typical word order for sentences with an overt subject is SVO (possibly followed by
an adverbial) (Giora 1982, Ilani, Shlomo, and Goldberg 2013, Halevy 2013b):
Modern Hebrew 593
ha-ʕitonaj hikʃiv l=a-sipur be=ʕinjan rav

def-journalist.msg listen.pst.3msg to=def-story.msg in=interest.msg great.msg
‘The journalist listened to the story with great interest’.
There are, however, a number of factors that give rise to variants in word order (e.g.,
disambiguation, focus, length, legal language). One clear example is when a sentence
begins with a complement (especially in written Hebrew), in which case the basic SVO
word order normally changes to VSO as long as the verb is in the past or future tense:
be=ʕinjan rav hikʃiv ha-ʕitonaj l=a-sipur

in=interest.msg great.msg listen.pst.3msg def-journalist.msg to=def-story.msg
‘With great interest the journalist listened to the story’.
If the verb is in the present, both SVO and VSO are acceptable after a complement:
be=ʕinjan rav ha-ʕitonaj makʃiv l=a-sipur

in=interest.msg great.msg def-journalist.msg listen.prs.msg to=def-story.msg
or
be=ʕinjan rav makʃiv ha-ʕitonaj l=a-sipur
in=interest.msg great.msg listen.prs.msg def-journalist.msg to=def-story.msg
‘With great interest the journalist listens to the story’.
This variation does not apply, however, when the subject is a pronoun:
maχar hu ja-vo ʔel=aj

tomorrow.adv sbj.3msg 3msg-come.fut to=poss.1csg
‘Tomorrow he will come to me’.
In existential sentences, the VS word order occurs:
jored geʃem
rain.prs.msg rain.msg
‘It is raining’.
Similarly, in statements of existential possession which utilize the existential particles jeʃ
‘there is/are’ and ʔe(j)n ‘there is/are not’, the VS word order is preferred (see also §5.2):
jeʃ l=i meχonit

exist to=poss.1csg car
‘I have a car’.
5.1.2 Phrasal word order

Phrasal word order is Head-Dependent (Borochovsky 1986, Berman 2013, Danon 2013b,
Faust 2013, Halevy 2013a):
P-P: ʕal ha-ʃulχan

on def-table
‘on the table’
N-N: miʦ tapuz-im

juice oranges-mpl
‘orange juice’
N-Adj: χalon-ot gdol-im
window.m-pl big.adj-mpl
‘big windows’
N-Rel: ha-jeled ʃe=kana ʔet ha-matana ʃe=bikaʃnu lekabel
def-boy rel=buy.pst.3msg obj def-gift rel=ask.pst.1cpl receive.inf
‘the boy who bought the gift that we asked to receive’
N-Dem: ha-makom ha-ze
def-place def-dem.msg
‘this place’
Most modifiers follow the noun in the following order: genitive attribute, adjective, gen-
itive exponent (ʃel), prepositional phrase and attributive clause:
ʃulχan ha-ktiva ha-jaʃan ʃel=i

table.msg.bnd def-writing.fsg def-old.msg gen=poss.1csg
‘my old desk’
There are, however, a select number of modifiers that precede the noun (e.g., quantifiers,
prenominal determiner ʔoto/ʔota/ʔotam/ʔotan ‘that. . . ; the same. . .’):
ʃloʃa ʔanaʃ-im
three.m people-mpl
‘three people’
kol ha-ʔanaʃ-im
all def-people-mpl
‘all the people’
ʔot-o ha-ʔiʃ
dem-msg def-man.msg
‘that man, the same man’

Modern Hebrew has three types of predication: verbal, nominal and existential. Verbal
predication is achieved by means of a finite verb phrase. Nominal predication is achieved
by means of a noun phrase, adjective phrase, prepositional phrase or adverbial phrase. In
the case of nominal predication, the addition of a copula, which is identical with the 3rd
person independent or demonstrative pronouns, may be implemented for clarity (Ornan
1979, Danon 2013b, Uziel-Karl 2013):
Verbal predication:
Dan noten neʃika le=Rina
pn give.prs.msg kiss.fsg to=pn
‘Dan gives a kiss to Rina’.
Modern Hebrew 595
Nominal predication without copula:

ha-jeled b=a-bajit
def-boy in=def-house.msg
‘The boy is at home’.
ha-sefer ha-ze meʔod populari ʕaχʃav
def-book.msg def-dem.msg very popular.adj.msg now
‘This book is very popular now’.
Nominal predication with copula:
ha-sefer ha-ze hu meʔod populari ʕaχʃav
def-book.msg def-dem.msg sbj.3msg very popular.adj.msg now
‘This book is very popular now’.
Existential predication is achieved by means of the existential particle jeʃ exist ‘there is/
are’ or ʔe(j)n ‘there is/are not’.
jeʃ harbe ʔanaʃ-im ʃe=lo meχabd-im ʔeχad ʔet ha-ʃeni

exist many.adv people-mpl rel=neg respect.prs-mpl one.msg obj def-second.msg
‘There are many people who do not respect one another.’
ʔe(j)n ʦedek b=a-ʕolam
neg.exist justice.msg in=def-world.msg
‘There is no justice in the world’.
Hebrew is a “non-habere” language, and a combination of the existential particles and the
preposition le- ‘to’ with suffixes is used to indicate possession. In less formal language,
the direct object marker can even precede the grammatical subject. This construction is
referred to in the literature as a verboid:
jeʃ l=i sefer

exist to=poss.1csg book
‘I have a book’.
jeʃ l=i ʔet ha-sefer ve=jeʃ ʔot-o b=a-sifrijah
exist to=poss.1csg obj def-book conj=exist obj=3msg in=def-library.fsg
‘I have the book and it is also in the library’.
With respect to predication, there are a number of ways to formulate impersonal state-
ments in Hebrew (Halevy 2013b). It is possible, for instance, to use one of the passive
stems, as in the following example with the nifʕal stem: ha-bajit neheras def-house.msg
be.destroyed.pst.3msg ‘the house was destroyed’ (see §4.4.3). One can also employ the
3rd person masculine plural form of an active stem to denote a depersonalized discourse
stance (e.g., harsu ʔet ha-bajit destroy.pst.3cpl obj def-house ‘they destroyed the house’).
Yet another way to create impersonal statements in Hebrew is to use the 3rd person mas-
culine singular form of a passive verb. This structure is called in Hebrew by the acronym
χagam (i.e., χaser guf ve-min ‘lacking person and gender/number’):
huχlat leʃanot ʔet ha-χok

be.decided.pst.3msg change.inf obj def-law
‘It was decided to change the law’.
The χagam paradigm is in fact very dynamic and heterogeneous. In addition to occurring
with 3rd person forms of passive stems, the structure also commonly occurs with modals:
mumlaʦ lifnot l=a-rofe

recommended.adj.msg turn.inf to.prep=def-doctor
‘. . . it is recommended to turn to a doctor’.
χaʃuv l=i lehagid ʃe
important.adj.msg to=poss.1csg say.inf comp
‘It is important for me to say that . . .’
A genitival relationship between nouns in Modern Hebrew can be achieved either syn-
thetically or analytically. In the case of nouns with the feminine singular ending (-a) or
with the masculine plural ending (-im), the genitival relationship is indicated by direct
apposition of the nouns (i.e., the head noun is immediately followed by the dependent
noun(s) without the genitive exponent ʃel intervening) as well as an overt bound form
(bnd) of the fsg/mpl morphemes (fsg -at; mpl -e(j); these are also called construct forms).
In the case of unmarked nouns (-Ø) or nouns with feminine plural morphological endings
(-ot), the dependent genitival relationship is indicated by direct apposition of the nouns
and possibly also by a variant vowel pattern. Other morphosyntactic features, such as
agreement and definiteness in adjectives modifying the genitive chain, can also indicate
that a sequence of nouns is in the bound (construct) state. Gender is determined by the
head noun and definiteness is marked only on the final element of the chain (Glinert 1989:
33–49, Doron and Meir 2013, Edzard 2013b, Ilani, Shlomo, and Goldberg 2013):
roʃ memʃala
head.msg.bnd government
‘prime minister’
be(j)t ha-miʃpat (cf. bajit)
house.msg.bnd def-judgment (house.msg.nbnd)
‘courthouse’
dira-t Moʃe (cf. dira)
apartment-fsg.bnd pn (apartment.fsg.nbnd)
‘Moshe’s apartment’
The same genitival relationship can be expressed analytically in three different ways.
First, the nonconstruct form may be used with the genitive exponent ʃel:
ha-dira ʃel Moʃe

def-apartment gen pn
In mostly formal and written registers, the head noun may be combined with a cataphoric
pronoun and followed by the genitive exponent ʃel:
dira-t=o ʃel Moʃe

apartment-bnd=poss.3msg gen pn
Modern Hebrew 597
Finally, the genitive exponent may be combined with a preposition indicating authorship:
maʔamar mi=ʃel Moʃe

article from=gen pn
‘an article by Moses’
5.4 Definiteness
Formally, definiteness in Modern Hebrew is most commonly expressed either by pre-
fixing the definite article ha- to a noun or by adding a possessive suffix to a noun: e.g.,
ha-sefer def-book ‘the book’ and sifr=o book=poss.3msg ‘his book’. Other determiners
such as demonstratives and the prenominal determiner ʔoto ‘that . . . ; the same . . .’
may also indicate definiteness: e.g., ha-sefer ha-ze def-book.msg def-dem.msg ‘this book’
and ʔoto ha-sefer same/that.det.msg def-book.msg ‘that/the same book’. In each of these
examples, the article is actually optional: e.g., sefer ze book.msg dem.msg ‘this book’
and ʔoto sefer same/that.det.msg book.msg ‘that/the same book’. The demonstrative
without the article in the example sefer ze ‘this book’ is reflective of a formal register.
Both demonstratives and adjectives must agree in definiteness with the head noun: e.g.,
ha-sfar-im ha-ʔele def-book-mpl def- dem.cpl ‘these books’, sifrija zo library.fsg dem.fsg
‘this library’, sefer ʔadom book.msg red.adj.msg ‘(a) red book’, and ha-sifrija ha-ʔaduma
def-bookcase.fsg def-red.adj.fsg ‘the red bookcase’. When used pronominally, a demon-
strative is inherently definite and thus preceded by the obj when used as an object (e.g., ze
sefer dem.msg book.msg ‘this is a book’; kara-ti ʔet ze read.pst-1csg obj dem.msg ‘I read
this’) (Fruchtman 1982, Glinert 1989: 12–23, 91–101; Wintner 2000, Coffin and Bolozky
2005: 170–2, Danon 2001, 2013c).
Nouns in the construct state are marked as definite by virtue of the last element of the
construct state being marked as definite: e.g., χalon ha-bajit window.msg.bnd def-house.
msg ‘the window of the house’ and ʕekron χofeʃ ha-bituj principle.msg.bnd freedom.msg.
bnd def-expression.msg ‘the principle of freedom of speech’. In colloquial speech, it is
not uncommon for the definite article to be attached to the initial element of the con-
struct chain rather than the final element: e.g., ha-ʕoreχ din def-editor/arranger.msg.bnd
judgment.msg ‘the lawyer’ (cf. ʕoreχ ha-din editor/arranger.msg.bnd def-judgment.msg),
ha-be(j)t sefer def-house.msg.bnd book.msg ‘the school’ (cf. be(j)t ha-sefer house.msg.
bnd def-book.msg) and ha-ʕuga-t tapuχ-im def-cake-fsg.bnd apple.m-pl ‘the apple cake’
(cf. ʕuga-t ha-tapuχim cake-fsg.bnd def-apple.m-pl). This is especially common with lex-
icalized compounds and construct pairs in which the second element is a non-referential
modifier (Doron and Meir 2013, Edzard 2013a).
There is no explicit indefinite marker in Modern Hebrew, though the adjectival
numeral ʔeχad/ʔaχat ‘one’ is occasionally implemented to express the idea of ‘a cer-
tain’: e.g., ʔiʃ ʔeχad man.msg one.adj.msg ‘a certain man’. The interrogative ʔe(j)ze
‘which?’ is also utilized for a similar purpose, though with a narrower meaning of
‘some (kind of a)’: e.g., hu halaχ le=ʔe(j)ze mesiba sbj.3msg go.pst.3msg to=which.
int (to=which.indf) party.fsg ‘he went to a/some party’. A similar use has also been
identified for the noun min ‘kind’, though its meaning is more along the lines of ‘a
kind of/some sort of’ (with the optional addition of ka=ze as.prep=dem.msg, ka=zot as.
prep=dem.fsg ‘like this’): e.g., jeʃ l=a min marʔe klasi (ka=ze) exist to=poss.3fsg kind.
msg.bnd appearance.msg classic.adj.msg (as.prep=dem.msg) ‘she has a kind of classic
look’ (Rubin 2013).
5.5 Case
Modern Hebrew does not exhibit a full-fledged system of morphologically marked case.
Pronouns, however, are indeed marked for accusative case (see ʔot- obj in Table 22.8 of
§4.1.2). Likewise, directional case occurs to a limited degree in the language (e.g., ʔani
noseaʕ darom-a/tel aviv-a sbj.1csg travel.prs.msg south-dir/Tel Aviv-dir ‘I am traveling
south(ward)/to Tel Aviv’) (Danon 2013a: 397).
There are two environments in which case is observable in Modern Hebrew. First,
structural case is apparent in genitival constructions formed synthetically (see earlier). In
such constructions, head nouns (albeit only fsg and mpl nouns) undergo morphological
changes and appear adjacent to genitival nouns, thereby assigning the genitive case in a
specific structural configuration (Danon 2013a: 398). In such structures, adjectives and
prepositions can also function as the head (e.g., tov-e(j) lev good.adj-mpl.bnd heart.msg
‘good of heart, good-hearted’; lifne(j) ha-ʃulχan before.prep def-table.msg ‘in front of the
table’).
Second, case is observable in the use of the lexicalized element ʔet obj, which appears
before all definite direct objects (e.g., ʔani kore ʔet ha-sefer sbj.1csg read.prs.msg obj
def-book.msg ‘I am reading the book’). Traditionally, ʔet has been interpreted as marking
the accusative because it appears before direct objects, albeit definite direct objects. More
recently, though, ʔet has been viewed as a preposition-like element functioning as the
head of definite direct objects, thereby assigning structural genitive case to direct objects
(Danon 2013a: 398–9).
5.6 Subordination
Relative clauses in Modern Hebrew are usually introduced by the particles ʔaʃer, which
was the common relative particle of Biblical Hebrew, and ʃe-, which was the common
relative particle of Rabbinic Hebrew. In addition to ʔaʃer and ʃe-, the definite article
ha- can also be utilized in place of a relative before a participle or adjective. This usage
is characteristic of formal register (Glinert 1989: 361–75, Halevy 2013b, Kotek 2013,
Zewi 2013):
Relative particle ʔaʃer (example from the internet):
hem ha-manhig-im ʔaʃer jaʦ-u me=ha-tnuʕa
sbj.3mpl def-leaders-mpl rel come.out.pst-3cpl from=def-movement
‘They are the leaders who left the movement’.
Relative particle ʃe-:
ʔe(j)fo ha-brag-im ʃe=jaʦ-u
where.int def-screws-mpl rel=come.out.pst-3cpl
‘Where are the screws that came out?’
Definite article ha- used as a relative:

ʃel ʔanaʃ-im ha-makir-im ze ʔet ze he(j)tev
rel people-mpl def-know.prs-mpl dem.msg obj dem.msg well.adv
‘. . . of people who know each other well’.
Modern Hebrew 599
When the antecedent is also the direct object or prepositional object within the relative
clause, a resumptive pronoun corresponding to the antecedent may be used:
ha-ʦijur ʃe=hitbonan-ta b=o

def-painting.msg rel=look.pst-2msg in=poss.3msg
‘the painting at which you looked’
ha-ʃir ʃe=ʔani ʔohev ʔot=o
def-song.msg rel=sbj.1csg like.prs-msg obj=poss.3msg
‘the song that I like’
Resumptive pronouns may also be omitted, especially in the case of the direct object
resumptive pronoun:
ha-ʃita ʃe=hiʃtamaʃ-nu (b=a) lo matʔim-a

def-system.fsg rel=use.pst-1cpl (in=poss.3fsg) neg appropriate.adj-fsg
‘The system that we used (it) isn’t appropriate’.
ha-ʃir ʃe=ʔani ʔohev
def-song.msg rel=sbj.1csg like.prs-msg
‘the song that I like’
Finally, while some sort of relative particle is obligatory in common register, asyn-
detic relative clauses are found in highly formal or poetic registers. Such a con-
struction is often expressed by means of a preposed prepositional phrase with a
resumptive pronoun in the absence of the relative particle (Halevy 2013b; see also
Cohen 2016):
ha-ʦijur b=o hitbonan-ta

def-painting.msg in=poss.3msg look.pst-2msg
‘The painting at which you looked’.
ha-bajit b=o gar-ti
def-house.msg in=poss.3msg reside.pst-1csg
‘the house in which I lived’.
ha-ʔiʃa ʔot=a pagaʃ-ti
def-woman.fsg obj=3fsg meet.pst-1csg
‘the woman whom I met’.
5.7 Negation
There are three primary negative particles in Modern Hebrew: lo, ʔe(j)n and ʔal. The
various usages of these particles are mainly determined syntactically, though they may
also vary according to register. The main negative particle, lo, is used for negation in
both main clauses and subordinate clauses in most contexts, such as negating verbs in
all forms (but see comments on the participle and ʔe(j)n later) and negating adjectives
(Glinert 1982, 1989: 293–307, Berman 1997: 327, Schwarzwald 2011: 532, Agmon
2013, Bolozky 2013b, Glinert 2013b, Halevy 2013b):
hu be=vadaj lo jadaʕ
sbj.3msg in=certainty neg know.pst.3msg
‘He certainly did not know’.
hem lo joʃv-im
sbj.3mpl neg sit.prs-mpl
‘They do not sit; They are not sitting’.
ʔata lo ta-zuz
sbj.2msg neg 2msg-move.fut
‘You won’t move’.
sipur=enu matχil be=makom lo raχok
story=poss.1pl begin.prs.msg in=place.msg neg far.adj.msg
‘Our story begins in a place not far away (lit. “a not-far place”)’. (example from the internet)
While ʔal is used formally to express negative commands (see later), lo following the
complementizer ʃe- may also be used to express a prohibitive or negative volitional:
ʃe=lo te-ʦe me=ha-bajit

rel=neg 2msg-leave.fut from=def-house
‘don’t you dare leave the house!’
As is common in Semitic, the imperative form cannot be negated. Instead, to express a

negative command, the particle ʔal is normally utilized, before a 2nd person form of the
“future” conjugation:
ʔal ta-zuz
neg 2msg-move.fut
‘don’t move’
In formal register, the particle ʔal may also precede the 1st and 3rd person verbal forms of
the prefix conjugation to indicate a negative volitional: e.g., ʔal ni-ʃkaχ neg 1cpl-forget.
fut ‘let us not forget’.
The particle ʔe(j)n is regarded as the more formal or “correct” negative particle for
negating the present tense (cf. lo). When following the subject (or in lieu of an overt sub-
ject), the particle ʔe(j)n inflects with suffixes. When preceding an explicit subject, ʔe(j)n
does not inflect:
ha-ʦav ʔe(j)n=o zaz

def-turtle.msg neg.exist=poss.3msg move.prs.msg
‘The turtle is not moving’.
hem ʔe(j)n=am joʃv-im
sbj.3mpl neg.exist=poss.3mpl sit.prs-mpl
‘They do not sit; they are not sitting’.
Modern Hebrew 601
ʔe(j)n ha-ʦav zaz

neg.exist def-turtle.msg move.prs.msg
‘The turtle is not moving’.
k=a-regaʕ ʔe(j)n Sara levad
at=def-moment neg.exist pn alone.adv
‘At the moment Sara is not alone’.
Such usages are common in formal register. In colloquial speech, however, the particle
lo typically negates the present tense (see earlier). The particle ʔe(j)n may also be used to
negate the infinitive to express a prohibitive in certain restricted contexts and/or registers
(example from the internet):
ʔe(j)n lehaχnot ʔo laχsom maʕavar

neg.exist park.inf or.conj block.inf passage.msg
‘no parking or blocking of passage’
It is also common for the negative lo to be used in similar contexts:
lo lidroχ ʕal ha-deʃe

neg step.inf on def-grass
‘Do not step on the grass!’
For the use of ʔe(j)n as an existential particle, which is common in all registers,
see §5.2.
There are also a number of other nominal negators used in Modern Hebrew with far
more restricted usage. The particles bli conj and le-lo conj (< to.prep=neg) are both used
to express the idea of ‘without’, whether before a nominal or verbal form: e.g., bli kesef
without.conj money.msg ‘without money’, gamr-u bli leʃanot klum finish.pst-mpl with-
out.conj change.inf anything ‘they finished without changing anything’ and le-lo hefsek
without.conj (< to.prep=neg) ceasing.msg ‘without ceasing’. The particle bilti may negate
adjectives and participles, roughly approximating English un- or in-/im-: e.g., bilti ʃavir
neg breakable.adj.msg ‘unbreakable’ and bilti savir neg reasonable.adj.msg ‘improbable’.
Finally, the prefixes ʔi- and ʔa- may be used to negate certain nouns and adjectives,
though it may be better to regard the prefix ʔa- entirely as a borrowing rather than as a
productive morpheme in Modern Hebrew: ʔi-havana neg-understanding.fsg ‘misunder-
standing’, ʔi-raʦjonali neg-rational.adj.msg ‘irrational’, ʔi-zugi neg-even.adj.msg ‘odd
(lit: ‘not even/dual’)’ and ʔa-politi neg-political.adj.msg (or perhaps merely ʔapoliti apo-
litical.adj.msg) ‘apolitical’.
6 LEXICON
The majority of the Modern Hebrew lexicon is inherited from earlier stages of the language
(i.e., Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, Medieval Hebrew), though a significant portion
of the lexicon is first attested in Modern Hebrew (i.e., loan words, neologisms). Since the
revival of Hebrew as a spoken language, the Academy of the Hebrew Language has played
a significant role in innovating new words and disseminating them by means of the media.
Nevertheless, in a typical Modern Hebrew text, most words can be traced back to Biblical
Hebrew, though often with a further-developed semantic range. The high presence of Bib-
lical Hebrew terms in Modern Hebrew texts should not be surprising, for these lexemes are
often function words such as copulas, common verbs, pronouns, numbers, prepositions and
adverbs. Moreover, the utilization of Hebrew as a literary language from the 3rd century ce
onward preserved vocabulary from all strata of the language up until its revival as a spoken
language in the late 19th century (Schwarzwald 2013c: 535, Sivan 1980: 27).
Loan words, which are quite common, are a result of language contact and can be
divided into two groups: (a) those that entered pre-modern layers of Hebrew and are pre-
served in Modern Hebrew and (b) those that have entered Modern Hebrew since the Jewish
Enlightenment of the 18th century. Examples of the former include ktav ‘writing’ (Biblical
Hebrew < Aramaic), talmid ‘pupil’ (Biblical Hebrew < Aramaic < Akkadian), sfog ‘sponge’
(Rabbinic Hebrew < Greek), safsal ‘bench’ (Rabbinic Hebrew < Latin) and merkaz ‘center’
(Medieval Hebrew < Arabic) (Sáenz-Badillos 1993: 256, Bar-Asher 2013: 534–5, Kogan
2013: 528–32). Examples of the latter include kugel ‘noodle casserole’ (German), ʤuk
‘cockroach’ (Russian), tembel ‘fool’ (Turkish) and hepi-end ‘happy end’ (English). Arabic
accounts for many borrowed food terms (e.g., χumus ‘hummus’, falafel ‘falafel’), slang
expressions (wala ‘wow’, uχti ‘sis’) and obscenities. While loan words are generally not
register-specific, those derived from Jewish languages (e.g., Yiddish, Ladino) and Pales-
tinian Arabic tend to be relegated to a lower register (Schwarzwald 2013c: 538–9). On the
other hand, loan words from Slavic languages or from English that fill a lexical void in
Hebrew (e.g., norma ‘norm’, banana ‘banana’, bakterja ‘bacteria’) are used in all registers.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The text represents an online article found on a website providing medical advice. This
particular article was found in a section dealing with children and youth. The article
discusses the positive and negative effects of the internet on children and teenagers. The
original article can be found here: www.drtal.co.il/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9
8%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%98.
Line 1:
barur ʃe=ʔi-ʔefʃar limnoaʕ mi=jelad-im legamre(j) ʔet
clear.adj.msg comp=neg-possible.pred.adj prevent.inf from=child-mpl totally.adv obj
Line 2:
ha-ʃimuʃ b=a-ʔinternet, ʔaχ ribuj ha-katav-ot ʔodot
def-usage in=def-internet.msg but.conj multiplicity.msg def-article.f-pl concerning.prep
Line 3:
pgiʕa b=a-jelad-im dereχ ha-medja ha-zo meʕorer
damage.fsg in=def-child-mpl through.prep def-media.fsg def-dem.fsg arouse.prs.msg
Line 4:
χaʃaʃ gadol bekerev hor-im rab-im.
fear.msg big.adj.msg among.prep parent-mpl many.adj-mpl
Modern Hebrew 603
Line 5:
ʔaz ʔe(j)χ be=ʔemet ha-ʔinternet maʃpiaʕ ʕal jelad=e(j)nu,
so.adv how.int in=truth.fsg def-internet.msg influence.prs.msg on.prep child.mpl=poss.1cpl
Line 6:
ve=beʔikar ma ʔanaχnu ke=hor-im jeχol-im laʕasot
conj=in.essence.adv what.int sbj.1cpl as=parent-mpl be.able.prs-mpl do.inf
Line 7:
ʕal menat limnoaʕ ʔet haʃpaʕ-ot=av ha-ʃlili-jot?
in.order.to.prep prevent.inf obj influence.f-pl=poss.3msg def-negative.adj-fpl
Line 8:
ne-nase laʕanot ʕal ʃeʔel-ot ʔelu.
1cpl-try.fut answer.inf on.prep question.f-pl dem.cpl
Line 9:
ʔim be=χol zot niʃʔar-u la=χem ʃeʔel-ot
if.conj in=all dem.fsg remain.pst-pl to=poss.2mpl question.f-pl
Line 10:
nosaf-ot, hitlabtu-jot ʔo sfek-ot mumlaʦ lifnot
additional.adj-fpl indecision.f-pl or.conj doubt.m-pl recommended.adj.msg turn.inf
Line 11:
le=ʔiʃ mikʦoaʕ ha-mumχe le=tipul be=jelad-im ve=bn-e(j)
to=man.msg profession.msg def-expert.msg to=treatment.msg in=child-mpl conj=son-mpl.bnd
Line 12:
noʕar le=kabala-t ʕeʦa ʔo hadraχa-t hor-im b=a-nose.
youth.msg to=reception-fsg.bnd counsel.fsg or guidance-fsg.bnd parent-mpl in=def-subject.msg
Line 13:
Lo tamid neχon-a ha-hanaχa ha-rovaχ-at
neg always.adv correct.adj-fsg def-assumption.fsg def-widespread.adj-fsg
Line 14:
ʃe=jelad-im ha-meval-im b=a-ʔinternet hem davka jelad-im
comp=child-mpl def-spend.prs-mpl in=def-internet.msg sbj.3mpl particularly.adv child-mpl
Line 15:
boded-im ve=lo mekubal-im.
lonely.adj-mpl conj=neg accepted.adj-mpl
Line 16:
lehefeχ, peʕam-im rab-ot jelad-im ve=bn-e(j) noʕar
on.the.contrary.adv time.f-pl many.adj-fpl child-mpl conj=son-mpl.bnd youth.msg
Line 17:
ha-peʕil-im b=a-ʔinternet hem gam peʕil-im meʔod
def-active.adj-mpl in=def-internet.msg sbj.3mpl also.adv active.adj-mpl very.adv
b=a-χevra,
in=def-society.fsg
Line 18:
ve=ze paʃut ʕaruʦ nosaf b=o hem miʃtamʃ-im
conj=dem.msg simply.adv channel.msg additional.adj.msg in=poss.3msg sbj.3mpl use.prs-mpl
Line 19:
l=a-peʕilut ha-χevrati-t ʃel=ahem ha-ʕanef-a mimela.
to=def-activity.fsg def-activity.adj-fsg gen=poss.3mpl def-diverse.adj-fsg anyway.adv
‘1 It is clear that it is impossible to completely prevent children from 2 using the internet.
However, the multiplicity of articles concerning 3 the damage caused to children through
this medium does raise considerable 4 fear among many parents. 5 So how does the inter-
net actually influence our children, 6 and what in essence can we as parents do 7 in order to
prevent its negative influences? 8 We will attempt to answer these questions. 9 Neverthe-
less, if you still have additional 10 questions, concerns, or doubts, we recommend that you
turn to 11 a professional with expertise in treating children and 12 youth to receive counsel
or parental guidance on the subject.
13
It is not always the case, as the common assumption would have it, that 14 children
who spend time on the internet are particularly lonely 15 children or ‘not accepted’. 16 On
the contrary, in many instances children and youth 17 who are active on the internet are
also very active in society 18 and it (the internet) just so happens to be another channel that
they use 19 for their already diverse social activity.’
NOTES
1 Note that in Ashkenazi Hebrew, /t/ > [t] and /θ/ > [s].
2 A horizontal line above the letter (e.g., ‫) ֿב‬, known as rafe, was a mark developed by the
Tiberian Masoretes to indicate the fricative pronunciation of the consonants ‫ב ג ד כ פ ת‬
as opposed to the plosive pronunciation of the consonants ‫ּב ּג ּד ּכ ּפ ּת‬, which was signi-
fied with dagesh. It is used conventionally here for the diachronic discussion in light of
its historical use, even though it is not used in Modern Hebrew orthography.
3 While it was held for some time that the Hebrew “emphatic” consonants were origi-
nally pharyngealized, it is likely that they were actually glottalic ejectives in the earli-
est stages of Hebrew. In the Tiberian Biblical Hebrew reading tradition of the Middle
Ages, however, these consonants were pronounced with pharyngealization as in Ara-
bic, probably due to Arabic influence.
4 Because ʕ is preserved in the speech of some speakers, we have decided to transcribe
etymological *ʕ as ʕ throughout this chapter. Nevertheless, this is merely a transcrip-
tion convention and one should keep in mind that what we have transcribed as ʕ is
actually realized as ʔ or even Ø by a majority of speakers. Relevant phonological and
morphological phenomena regarding etymological *ʕ are detailed explicitly in this
chapter.
Modern Hebrew 605
5 The symbol ə is not necessarily meant to represent the phonetic realization of shewa,
since various traditions pronounced shewa differently. For example, while in Tiberian
Hebrew shewa was typically pronounced as [a], in the Palestinian tradition it was pro-
nounced as either [e] or [a]. It is used here merely as a convention.
6 Elsewhere in this chapter, the optional offglided pronunciation of historical tsere is
represented with a [j] in parentheses: i.e., [e(j)].
7 In highly formal speech and among some elderly speakers, this rule does not apply to
the 2p suffixes (-tem, -ten) on the past tense: e.g., [ktav-ˈtem]/[ktav-ˈten] write.pst-2mp/
write.pst-2fpl ‘you wrote’ (see §4.4.1).
8 While -ot is the most regular plural form, there is some variation in particular patterns.
Feminine nouns that end in -ut have a plural of -ujot and feminine nouns that end in -it
have a plural of -ijot.
REFERENCES
Agmon, Galit. “Negation of Adjectives.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, Vol. 2, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 814–15. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Bar-Adon, Aaron. The Rise and Decline of a Dialect: A Study in the Revival of Modern
Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton, 1975.
Bar-Asher, Moshe. “On the Multiple Facets of Contemporary Hebrew.” Ha-ʕIvrit 58
(2010): 5–26.
Bar-Asher, Moshe. “Lexicon: Rabbinic Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, Vol. 2, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 532–5. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Barak, Dan. “Orthography: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Bat-El, Outi. “Denominal Verbs: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
Berman, Ruth A. “Modern Hebrew.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron,
312–33. London: Routledge, 1997.
Berman, Ruth A. “Noun Phrase.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics,
Vol. 2, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 873–9. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Bolozky, Shmuel. “Israeli Hebrew Phonology.” In Phonologies of Asia and Africa, Vol. 1,
edited by Alan S. Kaye, 287–311. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Bolozky, Shmuel. “Bgdkpt Consonants: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 262–8. Leiden: Brill, 2013a.
Bolozky, Shmuel. “Imperative and Prohibitive: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 245–8. Leiden:
Brill, 2013b.
Bolozky, Shmuel. “Phonology: Israeli Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 113–22. Leiden: Brill, 2013c.
Bolozky, Shmuel. “Pretonic Lengthening: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 229–30. Leiden: Brill,
2013d.
Bolozky, Shmuel. “Resh: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 389–90. Leiden: Brill, 2013e.
Bolozky, Shmuel. “Vowel Length: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 985. Leiden: Brill, 2013f.
Boneh, Nora. “Aspect: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and

Linguistics, Vol. 1, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 205–18. Leiden: Brill, 2013a.
Boneh, Nora. “Mood and Modality: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
2013b.
Boneh, Nora. “Tense: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 742–51. Leiden: Brill, 2013c.
Borochovsky, Esther. “The Hierarchy in Post-Nominal Modifiers.” Lešonenu 50 (1986):
103–18.
Botwinik, Irena. “Phrasal Verbs: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 142–3. Leiden: Brill, 2013a.
Botwinik, Irena. “Prepositions: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 212–19. Leiden: Brill, 2013b.
Burstein, Ruth. “Interrogative Particles and Adverbs in Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of
Brill, 2013.
Coffin, Edna Amir, and Shmuel Bolozky. A Reference Grammar of Modern Hebrew.
Cohen-Gross, Dalia. “Syllable Structure in Modern Hebrew (in Hebrew).” In A Tribute
to Raphael Nir: Studies in Communication, Linguistics and Language Teaching (in
Hebrew), edited by Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, and Elite
Olshtein, 359–69. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2003.
Cohen-Gross, Dalia. “Syllable Structure: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 676–9. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Cohen, Eran. “The Modern Hebrew Prepositional Relative Clause Strategy.” Studies in
Language 40.4 (2016): 733–64.
Cohen, Evan-Gary, and Adam Ussishkin. “Stress: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of
Brill, 2013.
Daniels, Peter. “Alphabet, Origin of.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Danon, Gabi. “Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of Modern Hebrew.” Linguistics
39 (2001): 1071–116.
Danon, Gabi. “Case: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Danon, Gabi. “Copula.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1,
edited by Geoffrey Khan, 627–31. Leiden: Brill, 2013b.
Danon, Gabi. “Definiteness: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
Doron, Edit. “Binyanim: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Doron, Edit and Irit Meir. “Construct State: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Edzard, Lutz. “Compound Nominals.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Edzard, Lutz. “Genitive.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2,
edited by Geoffrey Khan, 44–7. Leiden: Brill, 2013b.
Modern Hebrew 607
Engel, Edna. “Script, History of Development.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language

Even-Shoshan, Abraham. Milon Even Shoshan: Renewed and Updated for the 2000’s.
Edited by Moshe Azar et al. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, Kineret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir, and
Yediot Aharonot, 2003.
Faust, Noam. “Noun.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2,
edited by Geoffrey Khan, 864–9. Leiden: Brill, 2013
Fruchtman, Maya. Ha-Yaduaʕ Ve-Ha-Satum: Qategoryot Shel Yiduaʕ Ve-Tixum Ba-ʕivrit
Ha-Yisreʔelit. Tel-Aviv: Papyrus, 1982.
Fruchtman, Maya. “Indefinite Pronouns.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Giora, Rachel. “The Function of Topicalization at the Sentence and Discourse Level.”
In Studies in Discourse Analysis, edited by Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Yishai Tobin, and
Raphael Nir, 263–301. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1982.
Glinert, Lewis. “Negative and Non-Assertive in Contemporary Hebrew.” Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 45 (1982): 434–70.
Glinert, Lewis. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
Glinert, Lewis. “Conjunctions: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, Vol. 1, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 566–9. Leiden: Brill, 2013a.
Glinert, Lewis. “Negation: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, Vol. 2, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 811–14. Leiden: Brill, 2013b.
Goldenberg, Gideon. “Hebrew as a Living Semitic Language.” In Evolution and Renewal:
Trends in the Development of the Hebrew Language, edited by Yehoshua Blau, 148–90.
Jerusalem: Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1996.
Halevy, Rivka. “Deixis.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1,
edited by Geoffrey Khan, 693–7. Leiden: Brill, 2013a.
Halevy, Rivka. “Syntax: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 707–22. Leiden: Brill, 2013b.
Hatav, Galia. “Relative and Absolute Tense Interpretation in Modern Hebrew.” Hebrew
Studies 51 (2010): 261–85.
Huehnergard, John. “On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative šε-.” In Biblical Hebrew
in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited
by Steven E. Fassberg, and Avi Hurvitz, 103–25. Jerusalem/Winona Lake, Indiana:
Magnes/Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Ilani, Noga, Sigal Shlomo, and Dina Goldberg. “Word Order: Modern Hebrew.” In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
1002–7. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Khan, Geoffrey. “Tiberian Reading Tradition.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Kogan, Leonid. “Lexicon: Biblical Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Kotek, Hadas. “Syntactic-Semantic Interface in Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Laks, Lior. “Actionality (Aktionsart): Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
2013.
Meir, Irit. “Numerals: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and

Melčuk, Igor and Baruch Podolsky. “Stress in Modern Hebrew Nominal Inflection.”
Theoretical Linguistics 22 (1996): 154–94.
Mor, Galila. “Adverb.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1,
edited by Geoffrey Khan, 44–50. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Morag, Shelomo. “ʕal Lashon Ve-ʔestetiqa Ve-Ha-ʕivrit Bat-Zmanenu.” Molad (n.s.) 8
(1980): 81–90.
Oren, Mikhal. “Adverbial.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1,
edited by Geoffrey Khan, 50–3. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Ornan, Uzzi. The Simple Sentence. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1979.
Ravid, Dorit and Yitzhaq Shlesinger. “Modern Hebrew Adverbials: Between Syntactic
Class and Lexical Category.” In Between Grammar and Lexicon, edited by
Ellen Contini-Morava and Yishai Tobin, 333–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 2000.
Reshef, Yael. “Revival of Hebrew: Grammatical Structure and Lexicon.” In Encyclopedia
of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 397–405.
Reshef, Yael. “Revival of Hebrew: Sociolinguistic Dimension.” In Encyclopedia of
Brill, 2013b.
Rubin, Aaron D. “Indefinite Article.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, Vol. 2, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 256. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Sadan, Tsvi. “Verbal System: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
Schwarzwald, Ora. “Modern Hebrew.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Stefan
Weninger, 523–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011.
Schwarzwald, Ora. “Defective Verbs.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Schwarzwald, Ora. “Diphthongs: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, Vol. 1, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 739. Leiden: Brill, 2013b.
Schwarzwald, Ora. “Lexicon: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
Schwarzwald, Ora. “Mishqal.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics,
Vol. 2, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 646–50. Leiden: Brill, 2013d.
Schwarzwald, Ora. “Modern Hebrew: Language Varieties.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
2013e.
Shatil, Nimrod. “Guttural Consonants: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 169–72. Leiden:
Brill, 2013.
Shlesinger, Yitzhak. “Borrowing in Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 375–81. Leiden:
Brill, 2013.
Sivan, Reuben. The Revival of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1980.
Modern Hebrew 609
Steiner, Richard C. Affricated Ṣade in the Semitic Languages. New York: The American
Academy for Jewish Research, 1982.
Uziel-Karl, Sigal. “Predicate.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics,
Vol. 3, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 205–8. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Wexler, Paul. The Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search of a
Semitic Past. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1990.
Wintner, Shuly. “Definiteness in the Hebrew Noun Phrase.” Journal of Linguistics 36
(2000): 319–63.
Zewi, Tamar. “Relative Clause: Modern Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
Zuckerman, Ghil’ad. Israeli, a Beautiful Language. Tel Avid: Am Oved, 2008.
General
Blau, Joshua. The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
Izre’el, Shlomo. “The Emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew.” In Corpus Linguistics and
Modern Hebrew: Towards the Compilation of The Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew,
edited by Benjamin H. Hary, 85–104. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Chaim
Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, 2003.
Khan, Geoffrey, (ed.). Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden:
Brill, 2013.
Netzer, Nisan. ʕivrit be-Jins (in Hebrew). Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2007.
Schwarzwald, Ora. Modern Hebrew. Munich: Lincom Europa, 2001.
Schwarzwald, Ora. “Modern Hebrew.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Stefan
Weninger, 523–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011.
Yardeni, Ada. The Book of Hebrew Script. Jerusalem: Carta, 1997.
Grammars
Arad, Maya. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.
Bar-Asher, Moshe. “On the Multiple Facets of Contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew).”
Ha-ʕivrit 58 (2010): 5–26.
Bolozky, Shmuel. “Israeli Hebrew Phonology.” In Phonologies of Asia and Africa, Vol. 1,
edited by Alan S. Kaye, 287–311. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Coffin, Edna Amir and Shmuel Bolozky. A Reference Grammar of Modern Hebrew.
Glinert, Lewis. Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar. New York/London: Routledge,
2016.
Sharvit, Yael. “Aspects of the Semantics of Tense in Modern Hebrew (in Hebrew).” In
Theoretical Hebrew Linguistics, 139–62. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008.
Textbooks
Etzion, Giore. The Routledge Introductory Course in Modern Hebrew. New York:
Routledge, 2009.
Ringwald, Vardit, Bonit Porath, Yaron Peleg, Esther Shorr, and Sara Hascal. Brandeis
Modern Hebrew. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2015.
Dictionaries
Doniach, Nakdimon S., and Ahuvia Kahane (eds.). The Oxford English – Hebrew
Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Even-Shoshan, Abraham. Milon Even Shoshan: Renewed and Updated for the 2000’s (in
Hebrew), edited by Moshe Azar et al. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, Kineret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir,
and Yediot Aharonot, 2003.
Levy, Ya’acov (ed.). Oxford English-Hebrew, Hebrew – English Dictionary. Jerusalem:
Kernermann/Lonnie Kahn, 1995.
CHAPTER 23
SAMARITAN ARAMAIC CHRISTIAN STADELSAMARITAN ARAMAIC
Christian Stadel
1 INTRODUCTION
Samaritan Aramaic belongs with the Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic languages
to the Late Western Aramaic dialect group within the Aramaic branch of Northwest
Semitic. The Western Aramaic dialects are literary languages from the first centuries ce
that are based on vernaculars spoken in different areas of Palestine. Immediate predeces-
sors are unattested, but are rather to be sought in western Old Aramaic than in the Ach-
aemenid and post-Achaemenid Aramaic literary languages in use in Palestine from the
5th century bce to the 1st century ce (viz. Imperial Aramaic, Biblical Aramaic, Qumran
Aramaic). The ancestor of Western Neo-Aramaic (Chapter 24) also belonged to the Late
Western Aramaic dialect group, and this affiliation is still borne out by shared lexical and
morphological features (Stadel 2013).
Samaritan Aramaic was spoken by adherents of the Samaritan religion (a close sibling
of Judaism) in the Samarian hill country and adjacent areas (Map 23.1) during the 1st to
12th centuries ce, approximately. It replaced a Hebrew vernacular and after the Muslim
conquest subsequently gave way to Arabic. The late, medieval literary language Hybrid
Samaritan Hebrew still preserves Aramaic elements (Florentin 2005).
MAP 23.1 THE SAMARITAN ARAMAIC SPEECH AREA

612 Christian Stadel
The lifespan of the dialect can be divided into three phases. Only a few manuscripts
with Aramaic translations of the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch, so-called Targums (Tal
1980–1983), reflect Early Samaritan Aramaic (1st–3rd c.). Presumably, the orthographic
principles for writing the dialect were fixed during this time. Classical Samaritan Aramaic
(4th–9th c.), the stage described in this chapter, is also attested in Targum manuscripts,
as well as in the first two books of Tibat Marqe (Ben-Ḥayyim 1988), a collection of exe-
getical pieces, and in more than 60 liturgical poems, most of which are still recited by
Samaritans today (Ben-Ḥayyim 1967: 41–121, 133–274). The latter are the only Samari-
tan Aramaic texts with a pronunciation tradition. Less than half a dozen short inscriptions
can be dated to the classical phase. The dialect continued to be written as Late Samaritan
Aramaic (Tal 2009) when the language was in decline and gradually gave way to Arabic
(10th–12th c.).
There are no clear indications for distinct dialects of Samaritan Aramaic, but three
genres are attested: only the exegetical texts contain narrative sections (intertwined with
poetic pieces), the liturgical poems show constraints of rhyme and acrostic, and the Tar-
gum is a strictly literal translation of the Hebrew. The Targumic language represents a
distinct register of Samaritan Aramaic (Stadel 2017b online).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Samaritan Aramaic is written in the Samaritan script, which is also employed for
Samaritan Hebrew and rarely Samaritan Arabic. It is an offshoot of the ancient Hebrew
script, which was still used by the Samaritans (besides a form of the Aramaic square
script) in a few inscriptions on Mt. Gerizim from ca. 3rd century bce. The Samari-
tan alphabet has 22 graphemes and is first attested as a distinct script in epigraphic
sources from the 3rd/4th century ce (Barag 2009). Subsequently, more ornate letter
forms evolved. These are found in medieval manuscripts and are given in alphabetical
order in Table 23.1.
Texts are written without spaces, with dots used as word dividers. The characters rep-
resent consonantal phonemes, except for four vowel letters, ⟨ʔ, h, w, y⟩ (and occasionally
⟨ḥ, ʕ⟩), which can indicate vowels, but not systematically. The letters ⟨ʔ, h, ḥ, ʕ⟩ all repre-
sent /ʔ/ and can be used interchangeably. The digraphs ⟨-wy⟩ and ⟨-yw⟩ represent final /o/.
Although Samaritans developed various systems of diacritics to indicate vowels, these
were never systematized and their use is mainly restricted to Hebrew texts.
The principles of Samaritan Aramaic orthography were fixed at a relatively early date
(presumably before the 4th century ce) and sometimes reveal the phonology of stages of
the language that clearly precede the traditional pronunciation, e.g., in the use of ⟨y⟩ for
historically long /iː/.
3 PHONOLOGY
This presentation of Samaritan Aramaic phonology takes as its starting point the tradi-
tional pronunciation of some 50 liturgical poems that are still regularly recited in the
Samaritan community; examples from other texts are given in transliteration only. The
IPA notation is adapted from Ben-Ḥayyim (1967), based on my own acquaintance with
a limited number of recordings. The Samaritan Aramaic inventory of phonemes, phono-
tactics and morphophonology are almost identical with the pronunciation of Samaritan
Samaritan Aramaic 613
TABLE 23.1 THE SAMARITAN SCRIPT
Sign Name of Letter Transliteration Represents
A [ʔæːˈlæːˑf] ʔ /ʔ/, /a/, /æ/

B [biːt] b /b/, /f/
G [gæːˈmæːˑn] g /g/
d [dæːˈlæːˑt] d /d/
h [ʔiːj] h /ʔ/, /a/, /æ/
w [baː] w /o/, /b/, /w/
z [zeːn] z /z/
x [ʔiːt] ḥ /ʔ/, /ʕ/
j [tˁiːt] ṭ /ṭ/
y [juːt] y /j/, /i/, /e/
k [kaːf] k /k/
l [læːˈbæːˑt] l /l/
m [miːm] m /m/
n [nuːn] n /n/
s [sinˈgaːˑt, sinˈkaːˑt] s /s/
[ [ʔiːn] ʕ /ʔ/, /ʕ/
p [fiː] p /f/, /b/
c [sˤaːˈdiːˑj] ṣ /ṣ/
q [quːf] q /q/
R [riːʃ] r /r/
f [ʃæːn] š /š/
t [taːf] t /t/
Hebrew (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000). Transcriptions into Arabic script and descriptions in medi-
eval grammatical treatises prove that the Hebrew pronunciation has been stable since
the 13th century ce (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000: 30–8), and presumably this holds true for the
Aramaic as well. Nevertheless, the traditional pronunciation contains some clearly late
features, and previous stages of Samaritan Aramaic phonology can be inferred from the
grammatical treatises, from orthography and from internal reconstruction. Some recon-
structed traits might have been in effect in the spoken language, and some might be
proto-Samaritan Aramaic.
3.1 Consonants
Samaritan Aramaic has 20 consonantal phonemes (Table 23.2). In previous stages
of Aramaic and until Middle Aramaic (around the turn of the first millenium) – the
proto-Samaritan Aramaic stage – the 30 Proto-Semitic consonants had gradually been
reduced to 22 by the following mergers:
• *θ, *t > /t/

• *ð, *d > /d/
• *θˀ, *tˀ > /tˁ/
• *ɬˀ, *ɣ, *ʕ > /ʕ/
• *xˀ, *x, *ħ > /ħ/
• *ɬ, *s > /s/
TABLE 23.2 CONSONANTS
Bilabial Labio- Dental- Alveolar Palatal- Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal

dental Alveolar alveolar
Stop b t d ṭ[tˁ] kg q ʔ
Fricative f s z ṣ[sˤ] š[ʃ] ʕ
Trill [r]
Nasal m n
Approx. w l j
Two additional mergers, *ħ, *ʕ > /ʕ/ and *h, *ʔ > /ʔ/, produced the early Samaritan
Aramaic stage, which is presumably reflected in the orthography (Tarshin 2017: 44–7).
Later on *ʕ, *ʔ > /ʔ/, except in word-initial position with a following a-vowel: ʕlmh
[ʕaːlaːma] ʻeternity’ but l-ʕlmh [l-aːˑlaːma] ʻfor eternity’.
The phoneme /ʔ/ has allophones in the pronunciation tradition. If /ʔ/ is preceded and
followed by vowels of the same quality, it is elided and an extra-long vowel emerges, e.g.,
nḥt [næːˑt] ʻhe descended’; Initial /ʔ/ is also lost with the addition of proclitic elements
to the word. If preceded by a-, i- or u-vowels, respectively, and followed by a vowel of a
different quality, /ʔ/ is realized as [ʔ], [jj] or [ww], respectively, e.g., yhb [jaːʔɪb] ʻgiver’,
šqyḥh [ʔæʃqijja] ʻthe one who is present’, nṣwḥh [naːsˤuwwa] ʻthe victor’. In coda, /ʔ/
is elided and causes the lengthening of the preceding vowel, of the following conso-
nant, or both, e.g., nʔmn [naːmɪn] ʻwe shall believe’, zrʕt [zeːrættæ] ʻyou (msg) sowed’,
šʕbd [ʃeːˑbbod] ʻsubordination’. The reflexes of original *p and *b hearken back to the
post-vocalic fricative realization of stops that is characteristic of all Late Aramaic dia-
lects from the first centuries ce. Today, *p is always realized as [f], but *pp as [bb], e.g.,
npšh [næfʃe] ʻhis soul’, mnpšyn [ʔæmnabbaːʃɪn] ʻthey benefit’. But during the lifetime
of Samaritan Aramaic, /p/ was probably pronounced [p] when geminated or following a
consonant and [f] when post-vocalic. In medieval times, under the influence of the Arabic
vernacular, which lacks [p], *p > [f], but *pp > [bb]. This late shift is rarely reflected in
the orthography, which has mainly ⟨p⟩ for *p. A post-vocalic fricative allophone [v] can
also be inferred for original *b. Most cases of [v] were subsequently shifted back to [b]
under the influence of Arabic, which lacks [v], but the allophone [f] (< *v < *b) is still
attested today, e.g., b-qrbh [ʔæf-qirba] ʻin proximity’, though it is not reflected in the
orthography. The existence of fricative allophones for /t/ and /d/ (presumably [θ] and
[ð]) can be deduced from medieval diacritical marks and Arabic transcriptions (Tal 2013:
26), but there is no evidence for the double pronunciation of /g/ and /k/. Possibly, the
voiced-unvoiced distinction was at least partly given up with non-pharyngealized final
stops and fricatives, as evinced by variant spellings such as ḥryd ~ ḥryt /ʔaːrɪd/ ʻincised’,
ʕsp ~ ʕsb /ʔaːsap/ ʻearthenware’, lḥwd ~ lwt /luːˑd/ ʻonly’ or tmwz ~ tmws ʻTammuz’.
The phenomenon also shows in the letter names [juːt], [læːˈbæːˑt], and [taːf] (Vilsker
1981: 32).
During the lifetime of Samaritan Aramaic, original *w was presumably realized as [v],
like the fricative allophone of /b/. This situation is reflected in numerous spellings of *w
with ⟨b⟩, e.g., kbth ʻlike him’. Under the influence of Arabic, *v (< *w) > /b/, as in today’s
pronunciation kaːbaːte, though /w/ is sometimes preserved as a marginal phoneme after
an u-vowel. /k/ might have been realized as palatalized [t͡ʃ ] or [kj] (as in the rural Arabic
dialects of Samaria today), and the spelling ⟨k⟩ of the 2nd person suffix conjugation
endings in III–j verbs can also be interpreted as indicating palatalized [t͡ʃ ] (for */t/) after
an i-vowel (Stadel 2015).
3.2 Vowels, syllable structure and stress

The pronunciation tradition attests to five vocalic phonemes: /i/, /e/, /æ/, /a/ and /o/
(Table 23.3).
Syllable structure determines vowel length: Short vowels appear in closed sylla-
bles (CvC), long vowels in open syllables (Cvː) – though they are realized as short
in the ultima – and extra-long vowels in syllables that evolved from the elision of
/ʔ/ (Cvːˑ, CvːˑC; v1ːˑ < *v1ːʔv1). The distinction between long and extra-long vowels
is sometimes blurred. /o/ has the allophones [uː] and [uːˑ], /i/ and /e/ are not distin-
guished in a closed, unstressed ultima and are both realized as [ɪ]. /æ/ and /a/ are not
always kept apart by the informants and the difference between the two phonemes
is not consistently retained (e.g., [rabb] ~ [ræbb] in the sample text), but there are
minimal pairs such as ʔn [ʔæn] ʻif’ and ḥn [ʔan] ʻgrace’. Stress invariably falls on the
penult, except when the ultima and penult merged with the elision of /ʔ/, e.g., d-nḥt
[ʔæd-ˈnæːˑt] ʻwho descended’. The historical diphthongs *ay and *aw contracted to
/e/ and /o/, respectively. Presumably, this happened early on in the history of Samar-
itan Aramaic, since unequivocal spellings of the diphthongs such as ybnh for /jawna/
ʻdove’ are very rare.
The inventory of vocalic phonemes and the stress pattern of proto-Samaritan Aramaic
and of the early Samaritan Aramaic reflected in the orthography were demonstrably
different in certain aspects from the traditional pronunciation. As in contemporaneous
Aramaic dialects, short, unstressed vowels in open syllables were reduced to zero in
proto-Samaritan Aramaic. Since this deletion also affected the penult, the stress pattern
must have been different at this stage: *daˈkiːr > *ˈdkiːr ʻremembered’. The resulting
consonant clusters were subsequently broken up by an anaptyctic a-vowel (less often
e) or by prosthetic ʔæ-. The latter became part of the lexemes, was stressed in penulti-
mate position, and is occasionally represented in writing: *ˈdkiːr > *adˈkiːr > [ˈʔædkɪr]
⟨ʔdkyr⟩. In two-syllable nouns with initial *j, the elision of the unstressed vowel resulted
in *#jVC > *#jC > #ʔiC, e.g., ʔytm [ʔiːtam] ʻorphan’ (as against Samaritan Hebrew
[jeːtom]). Possibly, vowel length was still phonemic when orthographic principles were
fixed: ⟨y⟩ represents historically long /iː/, irrespective of vowel length in the pronuncia-
tion, as in the homonyms ṭryd [tˁaːrɪd] (< *ṭariːd) ʻdriven out’ vs. ṭrd [tˁaːrɪd] (< * ṭaːrid)
ʻdriving out’. Similarly, the vowel letters ⟨ʔ⟩ and ⟨h⟩ usually mark historically long /aː/,
as in the fpl.cst morpheme *-aːt ⟨-ʔt⟩ or ⟨-ht⟩ (and fpl.ncst *-aːn ⟨-ʔn⟩) as against fsg.
cst *-at ⟨-t⟩.
TABLE 23.3 VOWELS
Front Central Back
Close i
Close-mid e o
æ
Open a
Some changes in the quality of short vowels in closed syllables affected the pronun-
ciation during the lifetime of the dialect and previous stages are occasionally revealed in
the orthography. In a number of monosyllabic words /i/ shifted to /æ/ (*CiC# > CæC#),
e.g., *ʔin > [ʔæn] ʻif’, but the word is still spelled ʔyn in an epigraphic source (Stadel
2014: 168). The shift of short *o (< *u) > a in closed syllables had not yet occurred when
exceptional spellings such as ḥwršh ʻforest’ (< *ħurʃa) or ḥwšnh ʻbreastplate’ (< *ħuʃn;
Samaritan Hebrew [ʔaːʃɪn]) were produced. *ˈCaC$ > ˈCiC$ is restricted to the penult of
multi-syllable words and must postdate the fixation of penultimate stress, e.g., *ʕamad-
nan > [ʕæːmidnan] ʻwe stood’.
4 MORPHOLOGY
Samaritan Aramaic morphology is rather conservative in comparison with contempo-
raneous Eastern Aramaic dialects. Wherever a form is unattested in the pronunciation
tradition and cannot be reconstructed with reasonable certainty, only the transliteration is
provided (except in verbal paradigms). The vocalization of some morphemes and nomi-
nal patterns may show secondary influence from Samaritan Hebrew.
4.1 Pronouns
Independent pronouns (Table 23.4) denote the subject, suffixed pronouns express a pos-
sessive or object relation.
The archaic 1pl variant ʔnḥnn is restricted to the Targum. The spellings ʔth (as against
ʔt; Tal 2000: 70) and hwʔ/hyʔ are also much more common in this text, presumably under
Hebrew influence. Masculine pronouns are sometimes used instead of the 2fsg, 2fpl and
3fpl. Enclitic forms of the independent pronouns that consist only of the last syllable are
attached to certain particles, e.g., dw [duː] (contraction of *d-ʔuː) ʻthat he’, ʔlyt [ʔillitta]
(contraction of *ʔin lit ʔatta) ʻif not you (msg)’.
Possessive suffix pronouns (Table 23.5) are attached to the construct state of nouns. On
mpl constructs that end in /i/, some suffixes have variant forms.
The 1sg suffix is not found on nouns denoting close relatives and was replaced by the
definite form, e.g., ʔb-h father-def ʻmy father’. The unique 2mpl suffix [-uːkon] is typi-
cal for proclitic prepositions and monosyllabic words, e.g., l-wkwn [l-uːkon] ʻfor you’,
mn-wkwn ʻfrom you’. The 3msg suffix [-o] developed from a common Western Aramaic
*-oj (< *oːhiː) already attested around the turn of the era at Qumran. The orthography
-wy was fixed before the contraction of *oj# > [o#] in Samaritan Aramaic (the variant
spelling -yw is of Hebrew origin). With monosyllabic primary nouns whose construct
historically ended in an u-vowel, the suffix [-o] can also be spelled -h, as in ʔbw-h ~ ʔb-yw
[ʔaːb-o] ʻhis father’. The original /h/ of the 3mpl suffix [-on] (< *hon) was elided in the
proto-Samaritan stage before the general weakening of the gutturals, as shown by the
defective spelling -ywn for [-ijjon] on plural nouns.
The suffix pronouns used on constructs that end in a consonant also double as object
pronouns on verbal forms (excluding the participle, for which see §5.3.2). In this func-
tion, the suffixes from Table 23.5 may be preceded by -n- [‑inn-] ~ [-nn-] (a remnant
of so-called energicum forms) or -t- (< *yāt, the direct object marker). Originally, the
Singular Plural
1c ʔnh [ʔaːnæ] ʔnn [ʔaːnan]

2m ʔt [ʔæt], ʔth [ʔatta] ʔtwn [ʔætton]
2f ʔty [ʔatti] ʔtyn [ʔættɪn]
3m hw [ʔuː] ʔnwn [ʔinnon]
3f hy [ʔiː] ʔnyn [ʔinnɪn]
TABLE 23.5 POSSESSIVE PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES
Singular Suffix, on Construct Ending . . . Plural Suffix, on Construct Ending . . .
. . . in consonant . . . in /i/ . . . in consonant . . . in /i/
1c -y [-i] -y [-i] -n [-an], -nn [-nan] -ynn [-iːnan]

2m -k [-ak] -yk [-ɪk] -kwn [-kon], -ykwn [-iːkon]
-wkwn [-uːkon]
2f -yk [-ɪk] -yk [-ɪk] -kyn [-kɪn] -ykyn [-iːkɪn]
3m -h [-e] -wy, -yw [-o] -wn [-on] -ywn [-ijjon]
3f -h [-a] -yh [-ijja] -yn [-ɪn] -yyn
forms with the -nn- element were used on the prefix conjugation, the bare suffixes on the
suffix conjugation and imperatives with a final consonant (including /ʔ/ < *h, ḥ, ʕ), and
the forms with -t- on any suffix conjugation or imperative form with a vocalic ending
(Florentin 1991, Stadel 2011), e.g., yšbḥ-n-h [jeːʃæbbæːʔ-inn-e] ʻhe will praise him’,
ʔwšṭ-h [ʔuːʃeːtˁ-a] ʻhe extended it’, ml-t-h [maːlaː-t-e] ʻhe filled it’. Gradually, analogical
processes led to the breakdown of the system and in Late Samaritan Aramaic the various
forms were in free variation.
4.2 Demonstratives
The form and syntax of proximal demonstratives differs according to text genre
(Table 23.6). The Targum and clauses with a clear affinity to a biblical verse show more
archaic forms (Stadel 2013: 41–3).
In the Targum, the adjectival use of forms with an initial h- and the head-demonstrative
word order are probably due to Hebrew influence. In non-translational texts, the demon-
strative precedes its nominal head (§5.2). The archaic [dæn] from the Targum survived in
Classical Samaritan Aramaic only in a syntagm expressing reciprocity, e.g., ʔmrw dn l-dn
[ʔaːmaːru dæn æl-dæn] ʻthey said to each other’.
There is no evidence for a different set of distal pronouns; The use of hhwʔ and hhyʔ in
the Targum mimics the Hebrew. In non-translated text, the direct object marker [jæt] with
cataphoric possessive pronouns precedes its head and functions as adjectival demonstra-
tive, e.g., yt-h qdš-h [jaːt-e qaːdeːʃ-a] obj-3msgi holiness(msg)i-def ʻthis holiness’.
In Non-Translational Text In Targum
Adjectival Use Pronominal Use
msg ʔhn [ʔaːʔɪn] hdn dn [dæn]

fsg hdh [ʔaːdæ] hdh [ʔaːdæ] dh
pl ʔlyn [ʔaːllɪn] hʔlyn [ʔaːllɪn] ʔlyn [ʔaːllɪn]
4.3 Interrogatives
Most interrogatives are not inflected: ʔmt [ʔimmat] ʻwhen’, ʔhn [ʔaːˑn] ʻwhere’, hk [ʔik]
ʻhow’. The pair mn [mæn] ʻwho’ and mh [maː] ʻwhat’ distinguishes humans from other
animates and inanimates. Presumably, the dialect had three interrogative pronouns, but
only the msg form is attested: ʔydn [ʔiːdɪn] ʻwhich (msg)’ (cf. the demonstrative [dæn],
§4.2). The basic interrogatives can be combined with prepositions, e.g., k-mh [kaː-ma]
ʻhow much’, l-mh and m-mh ʻwhy’ (the latter is restricted to the Targum).
4.4 Relative complementizer

Relative clauses are marked with the proclitic d- [ʔæd-] ~ [d-], a nominalizing particle
sometimes written separately as ʔd in the Targum. When the interrogatives [mæn] ʻwho’,
[maː] ʻwhat’, or [ʔaːˑn] ʻwhere’ serve as indefinite head of a relative clause, the comple-
mentizer can be missing (Stadel 2013: 53–4). In the Targum, and occasionally elsewhere,
h- can mark a relative clause that opens with a participle. This feature is possibly a result
of contact with Hebrew.
4.5 Nominals
Substantives and adjectives inflect for gender (m/f), number (sg/pl) and state. Gender is
lexical and not predictable on substantives, but regular on adjectives (Table 23.7). State
marks a noun as independent and indefinite (absolute = nonconstruct ncst), bound (con-
struct: cst) or definite (def).
4.5.1 Inflection
The three feminine endings /-a/, /-i/, /-u/ (ncst) all show an additional /-t/ in the con-
struct and emphatic states. Nouns with the -u ending are predictably of feminine gender.
The mpl.ncst morpheme has a common variant [-ɪm] -ym. Vowel length of construct
endings changes when attached possessive suffixes alter syllabification; in the fsg, orig-
inal short *a is usually elided, e.g., ʕbdtwn [ʔeːbidton] (< *ʔeːbiːdat + -on) ʻtheir work’.
The extra-long vowel in the fpl morphemes is either a secondary spelling pronunciation
of ⟨ʔ⟩ (for original */aː/; Macuch 1982: 124) or a deliberate attempt to maintain the
distinction between the construct (without suffixes) and emphatic fsg and fpl forms
that would have become homophonous once phonemic length was lost. Notably, the
fpl absolute and emphatic morphemes attest to the variants [-an] and [-aːta] (spelled
defectively), respectively, which reflect the regular outcomes of original *-aːn and
TABLE 23.7 NOMINAL STATES ([TˁAB] ‘GOOD’)
Nonconstruct (absolute) Construct Definite
msg [tˁab] [tˁab] [tˁaːb-a] -h

fsg [tˁaːb-a] -h [tˁaːb-at] -t [tˁaːb-aːta]-th
mpl [tˁaːb-ɪn] -yn [tˁaːb-i] -y [tˁaːb-æjja] -yh
fpl [tˁaːb-aːˑn] -ʔn [tˁaːb-aːˑt] -ʔt [tˁaːb-aːˑta] -ʔth
*-aːtaː, e.g., ṭb-n [tˁaːb-an] ʻgood ones (fp)’, yld-th [jild-aːta] ʻthe mothers’ (Tarshin
2017: 75–6).

Apart from a limited set of primary nouns, the morphology of nominals typically con-
sists of a combination of a discontinous triconsonantal root and a discontinous pattern of
vowels and consonant gemination, and sometimes prefixes or suffixes or both. Frequent
patterns without affixes include C1aːC2aC3, e.g., ʔtr [ʔaːtar] ʻplace’, C1aːC2oC3, typi-
cally indicating an agent noun, e.g., yhwb [jaːʔob] ʻgiver’, C1aC2C2ɪC3, e.g., šlyṭ [ʃallɪtˁ]
ʻruler’, C1iC2C2oC3, e.g., npwš [nibboʃ] ʻrelief’. The most common derivational prefixes
are mæ- and tæ-, as in m-mll [mæ-mlal] ʻspeech’ and t-šnyq [tæ-ʃnɪq] ʻaffliction’, deriva-
tional suffixes include -an and -on, as in zʕwr-n [zuːˑr-an] ʻlittle’ and rḥṣ-wn [reːˑsˤsˤ-on]
ʻrefuge’.
4.5.3 Numerals
Cardinal numbers are substantives and precede the counted noun, except for the numeral
ʻ1’, which is adjectival and follows its head. Counted definite nouns of both genders are
preceded either by the regular construct form of the masculine numeral (mainly in the
Targum), e.g., tlt-t ywm-yh [taːlaːt-at juːm-æjja] three.m-cst day(m)-pl.def ʻthe three days’
vs. tlt-t qry-ʔth three.m-cst city(f)-pl.def ʻthe three cities’, or by unique forms with an
additional mpl.cst morpheme /-i/ as given in Table 23.8.
With definite nouns, only ʻ2’ evinces gender distinction: m [taːri] but f [tærti]. The
pronunciation [ʕæmʃæ] ʻ5’ differs from the Hebrew cognate and homograph [ʔeːmiʃʃæ].
The form ʔšʕ ʻ9’ is unique to Samaritan Aramaic; it was probably pronounced *ʔæʃʃæ (<
*ʔaθʃa < *tʃaʕ < *tiʃaʕ), assuming assimilation of the fricative allophone [θ] of the orig-
inal /t/ to the following /ʃ/. Construct forms can be combined with the definite article or
possessive suffixes, e.g., trtyh [tærtæjja] ʻthe two’, trykwn ʻthe two of you (mpl)’.
Numerals of the second decade combine the single number with ʕsry (m) or ʕsr (f)
ʻ10’ of the opposite gender, but gender agreement with the counted noun is not observed
consistently. Contraction in the pronunciation of these numerals is frequently reflected in
the orthography, e.g., ʔrbʕsr ʻ14’, ḥmʕsr ʻ15’, tmnsr ʻ18’. Tens are formed by adding the
mpl morpheme [-ɪn] to the ones, e.g., ʔštyn [ʔæʃtɪn] ʻ60’, but ʻ20’ is ʕsryn. Tens do not
distinguish gender.
Ordinals from 3 to 10 combine the nominal pattern C1eːC2iC3 with the nisba-ending
-ʔy [-ˈaːˑj], e.g., štytʔy [ʃeːtiːˈtaːˑj] ʻsixth’, ʔšyʕyth ʻthe ninth (f)’; qmʔy [qamˈmaːˑj] (<
*qadmay) is ʻfirst’ and tnyʔn [tinjan] ʻsecond’.
With m Noun With f Noun With def Noun
1 ʔḥd [ʕæːˑd] ḥdh [ʕæːda] N/A

2 tryn [taːrɪn] trtyn [tærtɪn] try [taːri], trty [tærti]
3 tlth [taːlaːta] tlt [taːlat] tlty [taːlaːti]
4 ʔrbʕh [ʔærbæː] ʔrbʕ [ʔærbæ] ʔrbʕty
5 ḥmšh [ʕæmʃæ] ḥmš ḥmšty
6 ʔšth [ʔæʃtæ] št [ʃat] ʔštty [ʔæʃtætti]
7 šbʕh [ʃaːbæː] šbʕ [ʃaːbæ] šbʕty
8 tmnyh tmny tmnty
9 ʔšʕh ʔšʕ ʔšʕty
10 ʕsrh [ʕaːsaːra] ʕsr [ʕaːsar] ʕsrty [ʕaːsarti]
4.6 Verbs
Verbal forms combine a lexical root and a vocalic pattern that modifies the basic meaning
of the root with inflectional morphemes to form four paradigms: suffix conjugation (sc),
prefix conjugation (pc), imperative (imp) and participle (ptcp). These mark tense, aspect
and mood. Paradigms will be exemplified with the dummy root q-ṭ-l ‘kill’. So-called
weak roots that have one or more of the consonants /ʔ/, /w/ or /j/ as radicals or that have
identical second and third radicals may exhibit different forms due to phonological pro-
cesses; these will be mentioned only if they are extraordinary and not deducible from
regular phonological rules.
4.6.1 Verbal stems
Samaritan Aramaic has a system of six verbal stems. In principle, the meaning of a stem is
lexical for any given root, but the C stem is often the causative counterpart of the G stem
(German Grundstamm, ʻbasic stem’), and the t stems usually function as reflexive and/or
passive counterparts of their primary stem (see Table 23.9).
Except for the G stem, each stem has a single, recurring vowel pattern for its base in
all conjugations. D stem forms (German Dopplungsstamm, ʻgeminated stem’) are char-
acterized by gemination of the second radical, C stem forms by the prefix ʔæ-, and t
stem forms by the infix -t-. In Gt and Dt stem forms, the -t- infix often assimilates to the
following consonant (but not consistently so), except for /ʔ/ or sibilants (which exhibit
metathesis), and might then be dropped in writing, e.g., y-blš [ji-bbaːlɪʃ] 3msg-be.sought.
after(Gt).pc ʻhe will be sought after’, but y-tʕbd [jeːtæːbɪd] ʻit will be done’ and y-stgd
[jistæːgɪd] ʻhe shall be worshipped’. In roots II-j/w (and rarely C1C2C2), the quːlɪl pattern
is used instead of the regular D stem, e.g., l-mpwggh [l-æmfuːgeːga] ʻto relieve’.
4.6.2 Inflection of finite verbal forms

The suffix conjugation, prefix conjugation and imperative inflect for person, gender and
number. In the sc and imp, these are marked by suffixes, in the pc by a combination of pre-
fixes and suffixes. The inflection will be exemplified on a G stem form, but the suffixes
are the same in the derived stems, though the prefix vowel may vary from stem to stem.
TABLE 23.9 PRIMARY FORMS OF THE VERBAL STEMS
G Stem D Stem C Stem
sc qaːṭal, ʔæqṭal ⟨qṭl⟩ qaṭṭɪl ⟨qṭl⟩ ʔæqṭɪl ⟨ʔqṭl⟩

pc jiqṭal ⟨yqṭl⟩ jeːqæṭṭɪl ⟨yqṭl⟩ jæqṭɪl ⟨yqṭl⟩
Primary
imp qeːṭal, ʔiqṭal ⟨qṭl⟩ qaṭṭɪl ⟨qṭl⟩ ʔæqṭɪl ⟨ʔqṭl⟩

ptcp qaːṭɪl ⟨qṭl⟩ ʔæmqæṭṭɪl ⟨mqṭl⟩ mæqṭɪl ⟨mqṭl⟩
ptcp pass qaːṭɪl ⟨qṭyl⟩ ʔæmqaṭṭal ⟨mqṭl⟩ mæqṭal ⟨mqṭl⟩
inf mæqṭal ⟨mqṭl⟩ ʔæmqaṭṭaːla ⟨mqṭlh⟩ mæqṭaːla ⟨mqṭlh⟩
sc ʔiqqaːṭɪl ⟨ʔqṭl⟩, ⟨ʔtqṭl⟩ ʔiqqaṭṭal ⟨ʔqṭl⟩, ⟨ʔtqṭl⟩ ʔittaqṭɪl ⟨ʔtqṭl⟩
t stems: Gt, Dt, Ct
pc jiqqaːṭɪl ⟨yqṭl⟩, ⟨ytqṭl⟩ jiqqæṭṭal ⟨yqṭl⟩, ⟨ytqṭl⟩ jittaqṭɪl ⟨ytqṭl⟩

imp ʔiqqaːṭɪl ⟨ʔqṭl⟩, ⟨ʔtqṭl⟩ ʔiqqaṭṭal ⟨ʔqṭl⟩, ⟨ʔtqṭl⟩ ʔittaqṭɪl ⟨ʔtqṭl⟩
ptcp miqqaːṭɪl ⟨mqṭl⟩, ⟨mtqṭl⟩ miqqaṭṭal ⟨mqṭl⟩, ⟨mtqṭl⟩ mittaqṭɪl ⟨mtqṭl⟩
inf miqqaːṭaːla ⟨mqṭlh⟩, miqqaṭṭaːla ⟨mqṭlh⟩, mittaqṭaːla
⟨mtqṭlh⟩ ⟨mtqṭlh⟩ ⟨mtqṭlh⟩
TABLE 23.10 THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION
Singular Plural
1c qaːṭaːl-ɪt ⟨-t⟩ qaːṭil-nan ⟨-nn⟩

2m qaːṭal-ta ⟨-t⟩ qaːṭal-ton ⟨-twn⟩
2f qaːṭal-ti ⟨-t⟩/⟨-ty⟩ qaːṭal-tɪn ⟨-tyn⟩
3m qaːṭal-Ø qaːṭaːl-u ⟨-w⟩
3f qaːṭaːl-at ⟨-t⟩ qaːṭaːl-i ⟨-y⟩
The sc (Table 23.10) usually expresses past tense, but it is also used as counterfactual
conditional mood.
The vowel pattern of the sc base is predictable for derived stems, but in the G stem
different patterns are attested for different lexemes. The most common patterns are
qaːṭal- and ʔæqṭal-, but other patterns are also found: qaːṭɪl-, qeːṭal- and qeːṭɪl-, e.g., dḥl
[dæːʔɪl] ʻhe was afraid’, gml [geːmal] ʻhe recompensed’, qdm [qeːdɪm] ʻhe preceded’,
respectively. The G stem base of either pattern does not normally change throughout the
paradigm, but exceptional forms such as [sælq-i] ʻthey (f) went up’ reveal different syl-
labification in proto-Samaritan Aramaic.
The final vowel of the 2msg ending [-ta] is probably secondary (Florentin 1982: 6–7)
and might reflect Hebrew influence. The /t/ suffix of all 2nd person endings is spelled
⟨k⟩ in forms from roots III–j, e.g., tly-k ʻyou (msg) lifted up’, hwy-kwn ʻyou (mpl) were’,
which are traditionally pronounced [taːlɪ-k] and [ʔaːbiː-kon], respectively, but the orthog-
raphy might reflect palatalization ([t͡ʃ ] or [kj ]; see §3.1). Some III–j roots attest to 3msg
forms that end in -w [-u], e.g., ʔmṭw [ʔæmtˁu] ʻhe arrived’. These forms are homophonous
with the 3mpl and their origin is contested (Tarshin 2017: 263–4, Fassberg 2017).
The pc (Table 23.11) expresses future tense or nuances of deontic modality, including
the negation of the imperative. It is also sometimes used as a subordinate verbal form.
The vowel pattern of the G stem is almost always ji-CCaC (ji-qṭal < *ja-qṭul, *ji-qṭal),
but a rare variant ja-qṭɪl is also attested, e.g., y-prs [ja-frɪs] ʻhe shall spread out’. In late
texts, the final /n/ of the 2fsg, 2mpl, and 3mpl endings is often not represented in writing,
Singular Plural
1c ʔi-qṭal ⟨ʔ-⟩ ni-qṭal ⟨n-⟩

2m ti-qṭal ⟨t-⟩ ti-qṭaːl-on ⟨t- . . . -wn⟩
2f ti-qṭaːl-ɪn ⟨t- . . . -yn⟩ ti-qṭaːl-ɪn ⟨t- . . . -yn⟩
3m ji-qṭal ⟨y-⟩ ji-qṭaːl-on ⟨y- . . . -wn⟩
3f ti-qṭal ⟨t-⟩ ji-qṭaːl-an ⟨y- . . . -n⟩
TABLE 23.12 THE IMPERATIVE
Singular Plural
m qeːṭal qeːṭaːl-u ⟨-w⟩

f qeːṭaːl-i ⟨-y⟩ *qeːṭaːl-an ⟨-n⟩
e.g., ymll-w ʻthey will speak’ (instead of ymll-wn), presumably reflecting leveling of the
respective sc, imp and pc endings.
Imperatives (Table 23.12) share their base with the pc, but lack the pronominal prefix.
Imperatives exist only for 2nd person and inflect for gender and number. The conso-
nant cluster in the G stem base -qṭal- is resolved either by anaptyxis, e.g., dbq [deːbaq]
ʻredeem (msg)’, or by a prosthetic i-vowel, e.g., pšṭ [ʔifʃatˁ] ʻextend (msg)’, depending
on the lexeme.
The G stem imperatives of roots I–j and I–n are derived from a biconsonantal base
without the first radical, e.g., hb [ʔæb] ʻgive (msg)’ (j-ʔ-b), ṭr [tˁar] ʻwatch (msg)’ (n-ṭ-r).
4.6.3 Non-finite verbal forms

Samaritan Aramaic has two sets of non-finite verbal forms: active and passive participles
and infinitives (see Table 23.9 for forms). Participles are adjectives and show a regular
gender-number adjectival inflection (Table 23.7). All participles, whether definite or not,
may be used as substantives. The absolute form of the active participle is also part of
the verbal system and expresses present and sometimes future tense and functions as a
subordinate verbal form.
In the G stem, the variant patterns qaːṭal and qaːṭol are occasionally attested. The
latter, originally an agent noun, became part of the verbal system in Late Samaritan Ara-
maic, e.g., nṭwr [naːtˁor] ʻwatcher’ > ʻ(he) watches’. G stem participles of roots II–j/w
usually have [ʔ] in lieu of the second radical, e.g., ṣʕm [sˤaːʔɪm] ʻ(he) fasts’.
The G, D and C stems attest to passive participles as well, which are not part of the
verbal system and differ from their active counterparts in vocalization. The D and C
stem passive participle forms are characterized by an -a- vowel after the second radical:
ʔæmqaṭṭal and mæqṭal, respectively, as opposed to an -i- for the active participle. Of the
half a dozen patterns attested in the G stem, qaːṭɪl, ʔæqṭɪl and qeːṭɪl, all spelled qṭyl, are
the most common.
In non-translated texts, the infinitive mainly functions as a complement. Infinitives all
have an m- prefix, with different vocalic patterns in different stems. In the derived stems,
all forms show the feminine ending /-a/. In the G stem, a by-form maqṭol is attested, e.g.,
mḥkwm [mæːˑkkom] ʻto know’; Similar forms in other Late Western Aramaic dialects
have been connected to the stem vowel of the pc of the respective roots, but this explana-
tion does not hold for Samaritan Aramaic, which attests to the stem vowels /a/ and /i/ only.
In the D stem, the qiṭṭol pattern (originally designating a verbal noun) is also employed as
infinitive, e.g., l-qdwš-h [ʔæl-qidduːʃ-e] to-sanctifying.inf-3msg ʻto sanctify him’.

Samaritan Aramaic displays great variation in the forms of prepositions, conjunctions and
adverbs. However, many forms are only attested in the Targum and are probably artificial
formations, based on learned principles of translation technique and on Hebrew influence
(Margain 1993).
Except for the primary and proclitic l- [ʔæl-] ~ [læ-] ʻto’, b- [ʔæf-] ~ [bæ-] ʻin’, k- [kæ-]
ʻlike’ and [mæn] ʻfrom’ (sometimes with assimilation of /n/, unlike in earlier Aramaic:
m-ṭwr syny [mitˁ-tˁor siːni] ʻfrom Mount Sinai’), most prepositions are grammaticalized
nominals in the construct state, e.g., ʔysṭr ʻside’ > ʻbeside’. b-yd ‘in hand’ > [bid] ʻby’
indicates the agent of a passive verbal form.
There is a limited number of primary conjugations like ʔy [ʔiː] ʻor’, brn [baːran] ʻbut’
or ʔp [ʔaf] ʻalso’. Subordinating conjunctions are formed by combining prepositions or
interrogatives with the nominalizing particle d-, e.g., btr d- [baːtar ʔæd-] ʻafter’, bgll d-
[ʔæfgeːlal ʔæd-] ʻin order to’, ʔmt d- [ʔimmat ʔæd-] ʻwhen’. The particle d- assimilated to
the final /d/ of [ʕæd] ʻso that’, which is therefore often simply spelled ʕd.
Common adverbs are tmn [tamman] ʻthere’, kdw [kæddu] ʻnow’, ywmn ʻtoday’, lḥwd
[luːˑd] ʻonly’, šwy [ʃeːbi] ʻimmediately’ and šryr [ʃaːrɪr] ʻmuch, very’. The forms ʔkh
[ʔaːkæ], originally ʻhere’, and ʔkhn, originally ʻnow’ or ʻthus’, are used interchangeably.
ṭṭh ʻthen’ and ṭkḥ ʻperhaps’ are Greek loan words.
5 SYNTAX
Aspects of morphosyntax that have been treated in §4 will not be repeated here.

There are two main predication types: verbal and nominal. In verbal predication (Example
1), a finite verbal form serves as predicate and its subject is encoded in verbal morphol-
ogy. In nominal predication, a nominal (including the participle), adverb or prepositional
phrase is the predicate, and a pronoun or noun serves as the subject. Adjectival predicates
agree with their subjects in gender and number, but not in definiteness (Example 2).
1 n-ptḥ pmm-y-nn
[ni-ftæ feːmaːm-iː-nan]
1pl-open.pc mouth(m)-pl-1pl
ʻWe shall open our mouths’.
2 rḥm-yh prys-yn
[reːˑmm-æjja faːriːs-ɪn]
mercy(m)-pl.def spread.out.ptcp.pass-mpl
ʻThe mercy is spread out’.
Nominal sentences are unmarked for tense, but past or future tense can be made explicit
with a finite form of the root *h-w-y ʻto be’.
Samaritan Aramaic has a negated existential particle (neg.exist) that is used to express
existence or possession (Example 3). The positive counterpart is found only in the Tar-
gum, where it mimics the underlying Hebrew.
3 lyt l-n ʔp-ym l-mṣbʕ

[lit l-an ʔæbb-ɪm ʔæl-misˤbæ]
neg.exist for-1pl face(m)-pl to-shout.inf
ʻWe do not have the guts (literally: face) to shout’.
Apparent nominal sentences with a 3rd person pronoun between the subject and
predicate are best interpreted as complex, cleft variants of the simple clause without
the pronoun (Example 4). If the simple clause is verbal or has a participle predicate
(Example 5), the original predication is nominalized by the particle d- (Stadel 2013:
27–8, 51). Unlike in other functions, singular pronouns in cleft sentences are often
enclitic (§4.1).
4 ḥywl-yn ʔnwn ʔnš-h

[ʕæjjuːl-ɪn ʔinnon ʔeːnaːʃ-æ]
mighty-mpl.ncst 3mpl mankind(m)-def
ʻMighty it is, what men are’.
5 ʔt-hw d-bry-k ʕlm-h

[ʔatˈtaː-ʔu ʔæd-baːr-ɪk ʕaːlaːm-a]
2msg-3msg nmlz-create.sc-2msg world-def
ʻIt is you who created the world’.
5.2 Phrasal and sentential word order

Noun phrases generally have a Head-Dependent word order (Examples 6–9).
6 noun.cst – noun (construct phrase)

gʕwz-y ʕlm-h
[gæːʔuːz-i ʕaːlaːm-a]
pass.ptcp-mpl.cst world-def
ʻ(Those) passing from the world’.
7 noun – adjective (gender, number and definiteness agreement)

b-ʔdrʕ rm-h
[b-idra raːm-a]
with-arm(f) high-f
ʻWith a raised arm’.
8 noun – relative clause

ʔlh d-brʔ-th
[ʔeːlæ ʔæd-baːraː-ta]
god(msg) rel-create.sc.3msg-3fsg
ʻGod, who created it’.
9 noun – noun (apposition, no bound form)

yhwšʕ ngwd-h
[jeːʔuːʃæ naːguːd-a]
Joshua(msg) leader(msg)-def
ʻJoshua, the leader’.
Regular exceptions occur in the collocation nbyh rbh mšh [nibya rabba muːʃi] ʻthe great
prophet Moses’, in which the apposition precedes its head, and with demonstratives
(Example 10), which are normally positioned before the noun they modify (§4.2).
10 demonstrative – noun
ʔhn ywm-h
[ʔaːʔɪn juːm-a]
dem.msg day(msg)-def
ʻThis day’.
On the clause level, unmarked word order differs slightly according to the type of
predication but is generally VSO. In verbal clauses of narrative sections, the following
order is most common: (temporal adjunct) – finite verb – independent subject – verbal
complements – adjuncts (Example 11).
šʕt-h
11 d-ʕl-w lgw mn trḥ-h ʔmlʔ mdwr-h nhr
hour(fsg)-def nmlz-enter.sc-3mpl into gate(msg)-def be.filled.sc.3msg house(msg)-def light
ʻWhen they entered the gate, the house was filled with light’.
With participles, the subject usually precedes the predicate, e.g.:
12 ʔbh-n w-bn-ym mtḥnn-ym l-mlkwt-k

[ʔaːˈbaːˑ-n w-baːn-ɪm metaːˑnnaːn-ɪm ʔæl-maːlaːkuːt-ak]
father(m)-pl and-son(m)-pl beg.ptcp-mpl to-kingdom(fsg)-2msg
ʻFathers and sons beg for your kingdom’.
Except for the temporal adjunct in a verbal clause, fronted elements are marked for con-
trastive focus (Examples 13–14).
mn-k
13 hwʔ ʕlm-h w-lyd-k hwʔ mʕzr
[minn-ak ʔuː ʕaːlaːm-a w-liːd-ak ʔuː mæːˑzzar]
from-2msg 3msg world(msg)-def and-to-2msg 3msg return.ptcp.msg
ʻFrom you is the world, and to you it will return’.
ʔpq-y
14 mn-h w-ʔnh ʔ-pq ʕm-k
lead.out.sc.3msg-1sg from-3msg and-1sg 1sg-lead.out.pc people(msg)-2msg
ʻHe led me out from it, and as for me, I will lead out your people’.
5.3 Analytic constructions

Various analytic constructions are used to express aspect, future tense and simultaneity
in the verbal system, to mark a pronominal direct object on participles and to replace the
construct nominal phrase.
5.3.1 Analytic verbal constructions

Active participles can be combined with finite forms of the root *h-w-y ʻto be’ to express
habitual or frequentative aspect, e.g.:
15 hw-w šmr-ym l-h

[ʔeːb-u ʃaːmeːr-ɪm l-eː]
be.imp-mpl keep.ptcp-mpl to-3msg
ʻGo on keeping it!’
Participle forms of three lexemes have begun to grammaticalize and may express future
tense when combined with a subordinated verbal form: The passive participle ʕtyd [ʕæːtɪd],
literally ʻprepared’ (Example 16), and active participles of the roots b-ʔ-y (< *b-ʕ-y) ʻto
want’ (Example 17) and ʔ-z-l ʻto go’ (Example 18) (Stadel 2013: 138–9, 192–93).
16 d-w ʕtyd krz

[d-uː ʕæːtɪd kaːrɪz]
rel-3msg prepare.ptcp.pass.msg call.out.ptcp.msg
ʻThat he is about to call out’.
17 symh ʔnh bʕy mʕbd

sign(fsg) 1sg want.ptcp.msg make.inf
ʻA sign I shall make’.
18 nṣwḥ-h ʔzl mpq l-qrb-h

victor(msg)-def go.ptcp.msg go.out.inf to-war-def
ʻThe victor is going to go to war’.
In a limited number of examples, the active participle preceded by the preposition mæn
ʻfrom’ expresses simultaneity (Stadel 2013: 147), e.g.:
19 l-qnwm-h hwh mn ʕbd ʕwbd-yw

[ʔæl-qeːnuːm-e aːba mæn ʕæːbɪd ʔuːbaːd-o]
to-self-3msg be.sc.3msg from make.ptcp.msg deed.pl-3msg
ʻHe was on his own when doing his deeds’.
5.3.2 Analytic pronominal object

Pronominal direct objects are usually not attached to participles, but rather require the
preposition l-, e.g.:
20 ʕmy l-h
[ʕæːmi l-eː]
see.ptcp.msg to-3msg
ʻHe sees it’.
The infix -t- that precedes object suffixes on some finite verbal forms (§4.1) originates
from an analytic construction, which is occasionally still preserved in the orthography
(Stadel 2011: 240).
5.3.3 Analytic genitive constructions

The dependency between two nouns that is marked by a construct head (§5.2) can also be
expressed analytically by two constructions with the nominalizing particle d-. In the more
common one, the first noun is in the emphatic state (Example 21), while in the other, it
carries a cataphoric possessive pronoun that agrees with the second noun (Example 22).
21 ktb-h d-mlk-h
[ʔæktaːb-a ʔæd-mælk-a]
book-def nmlz-king(msg)-def
ʻThe book of the king’.
22 ql-h d-nby-h
[qæːl-e ʔæd-niby-a]
voice-3msgi nmlz-prophet(msg)i-def
ʻThe voice of the prophet’.
In Samaritan Aramaic, the construct phrase is the default. The choice of the analytic con-
structions is determined by the specificity and definiteness of their members (Stadel 2013:
79–86). The analytic constructions are not used with a pronominalized second member.
5.4 Subordination
Subordinated clauses are usually introduced by the nominalizing particle d- (for conjunc-
tions see §4.7), e.g.:
23 yhb-t l-h šm-y bdyl d-lʔ y-dḥl

give.sc-1sg to-3msg name-1sg so.that nmlz-neg 3msg-be.afraid.pc
ʻI gave him my name in order that he not be afraid’.
In relative clauses, the head is represented by a resumptive pronoun (Example 24), except
when it functions as subject or direct object (Stadel 2013: 55–8).
24 mlk-h d-ʔty-kwn b-šm-h

king(msg)-defi rel-come.sc-2mpl in-name-3msgi
ʻThe king in whose name you came’.
Indirect speech is also introduced by d- and can be interpreted as an object clause, while
direct speech is not integrated into the matrix sentence syntactically (Stadel 2017a).
5.5 Negation
The particle lʔ [laː] negates final verbal forms. In most cases, it directly precedes the
verb, e.g.:
25 lʔ ʔnš-w
[laː ʔænʃ-u]
neg forget.sc-3mpl
ʻThey did not forget’.
In the Targum, negated 2nd person pc forms that express a negative command are occa-
sionally spelled as one word, e.g., l-tdḥlwn neg-fear.pc.2mpl ʻdon’t be afraid!’. Apparently,
the orthography reflects contraction, and it could be interpreted as a reflex of the original
negation particle *ʔal (see Chapter 3, §3.9).
Nominal clauses are negated with the negative existential particle lit (§5.1). Clauses
with participle predicates take a medial position: (Example 26) lit is used only when
an overt subject is present in the clause (subject pronouns are enclitic to the negation
particle), otherwise (Example 27) the verbal negation laː is employed (Stadel 2013:
150–2).
26 lyt-w dmy l-mʔwr-yh

[liːt-u dːami ʔæl-maːʔuːr-æjja]
neg.exist-3msg resemble.ptcp.msg to-light-mpl.def
ʻHe does not resemble the lights’.
27 nṭr l-n d-lʔ mtʕmy

[naːtˁar l-an ʔæd-la meːtaːˑmmi]
guard(msg) for-1pl rel-neg be.seen.ptcp.msg
ʻA guard for us who cannot be seen’.
dlʔ [ʔædla] and blʔ [ʔæbla] ʻwithout’ are used for nominal negation and precede the noun,
e.g., blʔ mzwn [ʔæbla maːzon] ʻwithout food’.
6 LEXICON
The core of the Samaritan Aramaic lexicon includes common Aramaic words. The dialect
shares some distinctive Western Aramaic isoglosses with Jewish and Christian Palestin-
ian Aramaic, e.g., the roots ʕ-m-y (< *ḥ-m-y) ʻto see’, g-l-g ʻto praise’, p-s-q-l ʻto make
an agreement’, but also shows unique lexical traits, e.g., kty ʻunder’ or the root ṭ-l-m-s ʻto
create’ (< ṭ-l-m ʻto knead’?). A number of Hebrew substrate words survive in the texts,
e.g., rbq ʻyoung man’ (Rabbinic Hebrew /rawwɔq/), ʔylym ʻpillars’ (Biblical Hebrew
/ʔeːliːm/, unattested in the Pentateuch and therefore no literary loan). More Hebrew terms
are loan words, in particular from the religious sphere, e.g., [ʃuːfar] ʻshofar’. Some 70
Greek loan words occur in the corpus, including adverbs and denominalized roots (Stadel
and Shemesh 2018). Most are common to the Western Aramaic dialects, but some occur
only in Samaritan Aramaic, e.g., ʔzbys ʻdisgraceful’.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
Beginning of a liturgical poem by Amram Dare
Amram Dare (3rd/4th century ce) is traditionally seen as the earliest Samaritan Aramaic
poet. This poem reflects an early stage in the Samaritan Aramaic poetic composition,
without rhyme or acrostics. Lines usually consist of about four words.
ʔlh rb w-lyt kwt-h qhl rb w-lyt
[ʔeːlæ rabb‿ u-lit kaːbaːt-e ‖ qæːˑl rabb‿ u-lit]
god(msg) great(msg) and-neg.exist like-3msg congregation(msg) great(msg) and-neg.exist
dmy l-h nby rb w-lyt qʕm kwt-h

[daːmi l-eː ‖ neːbi ræbb‿ u-lit qæːˑm kaːbaːt-e ‖]
resemble.ptcp.msg to-3msg prophet(msg) great(msg) and-neg.exist rise.ptcp.msg like-3msg
ʔzdmn-w ʕl ṭwr syny ywm-h d-nḥt ktb-h

[ʔizdaːmaːn-u ʕæl tˁor siːni ‖ juːm-a ʔæd-ˈnæːˑt ʔæktaːb-a ‖]
gather.sc-3mpl on mount.cst Sinai day-def rel-descend.sc.3msg book(msg)-def
šry šwpr-h krz w-ql-h d-nby-h

[ʃaːri ʃuːfaːr-a kaːraz ‖ w-qæːl-e ʔæd-nibj-a]
begin.sc.3msg shofar(msg)-def call.out.ptcp.msg and-voice-3msg nmlz-prophet(msg)-def
mtḥyl w-ṭwb-h ʔmr y-rwm nby

[meːtæːˑjjal ‖ w-tˁuːb-a ʔaːmar jeː-rom neːbi ‖]
intensify.ptcp.msg and-good(msg)-def say.ptcp.msg 3msg-rise.pc prophet(msg)
w-y-rby nby-h w-y-špr w-y-qlʕ

[w-ji-rbi nibj-a w-ji-ʃfar ‖ w-ji-qlæ]
and-3msg-be.great.pc prophet(msg)-def and-3msg-be.beautiful.pc and-3msg-grow.pc
w-y-mṭy l-ʕrpl-h [. . .] ky-y mksy b-ʕnn-h

[w-ji-mtˁi l-ærfill-a ‖ [. . .] kæjj-i ʔæmkæssi b-aːnaːn-a ‖]
and-3msg-reach.pc to-mist-def [. . .] indeed-3msg cover.ptcp.pass.msg in-cloud-def
w-ʔp-yw mlbš-yn b-qrn ʔwr-h ʕd y-dʕ-n

[w-æbb-o mælbaːʃ-ɪn ʔæf-qaːran ʔuːr-a ‖ ʕæd ji-dˈdæːˑ-n]
and-face(mpl)-3msg vest.ptcp.pass-mpl in-beam.cst light-def so.that 3-know.pc-fp
kl ʔm-yh ʔn mšh ʕbd-h d-ʔlh w-mhymn-h

[kæl ʔæmm-æjja ‖ ʔæn muːʃi ʕæbd-e d-eːlæ w-miːˑmeːn-a ‖]
all.cst nation(f)-pl.def that Moses servant-3msg nmlz-god(msg) and-believe.ptcp.msg-def
ʔdkyr-h hy l-ṭb ywkbd gpn-h dky-th

[ʔædkiːr-a ʔiː ʔæl-tˁab juːkaːbɪd ‖ gafn-a ʔædkiː-ta]
remember.ptcp.pass-fsg 3fsg for-good Jochebed vine(f)-def be.pure.ptcp.pass-fsg.def
qdyš-th d-ʔhlyn nkl-yh mn-h ʔḥd-h nby-h

[qæddiʃ-ta ‖ d-aːˑllɪn ʔænkaːl-æjja minn-a ‖ ʕæːd-a neːbijj-a]
holy-fsg.def rel-dem.pl bunch.of.grapes-mpl.def from-3fsg one-f prophet-fsg.ncst
w-ʔḥd khn w-ʔḥd ʔlhym l-mṣrʔy

[w-æːˑd kaːʔɪn ‖ w-æːˑd ʔeːluwwɪm ʔæl-misˤraːʔi ‖]
and-one(m) priest(m) and-one(m) god(m) for-Egyptian.mpl.def
‘A great god, and there is no one like him,

a great congregation, and there is none resembling it,
a great prophet, and no one like him rises up:
They gathered on Mount Sinai,
the day that the Book descended.
The shofar began to call out,
and the voice of the prophet intensifies.
The Good says: “A prophet shall rise!”
And the prophet will be great and beautiful,

and he will grow and reach the Divine Presence (literally: mist).
[. . .]
Indeed, he is covered in the cloud,
and his face is vested with the beam of light,
so that all nations may know that Moses is the servant of God and the believer.
Remembered for good be Jochebed,

the pure and holy vine,
that these are her grapes:
One prophetess and one priest,
and one god for the Egyptians.’
REFERENCES
Barag, Dan. “Samaritan Writing and Writings.” In From Hellenism to Islam, edited by H.
M. Cotton et al., 303–23. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.
Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeev. The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst
the Samaritans. Vol. 3B: The Recitation of Prayers and Hymns. Jerusalem: Academy
of the Hebrew Language, 1967 (Hebrew).
Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeev. Tībåt Mårqe: A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim, Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988 (Hebrew).
Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeev. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000.
Fassberg, Steven E. “Perfect Third Masculine Singular BˁW and Related Forms in
Samaritan Aramaic.” Language Studies 17–18 (2017): 447–54 (Hebrew).
Florentin, Moshe. “Developments in the Verbal System of Samaritan Aramaic:
A Diachronic Study Based on the Material from the Targum to the Pentateuch.” M.A.
diss., Tel Aviv University, 1982 (Hebrew).
Florentin, Moshe. “The Object Suffixes in Samaritan Aramaic and the Modes of Their
Attachment to the Verb.” Abr-Nahrain 29 (1991): 67–82.
Florentin, Moshe. Late Samaritan Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis of Its Different Types.
Margain, Jean. Les particules dans le Targum samaritain de Genèse – Exode: Jalon pour
une histoire de l’araméen samaritain. Geneva: Libraire Droz, 1993.
Stadel, Christian. “Object Suffixes in Samaritan Aramaic from the First Two Books
of Tībåt Mårqe and Some Considerations as to Their Development.” Ancient Near
Eastern Studies 48 (2011): 232–47.
Stadel, Christian. “Aspekte der Sprachgeschichte des Neuwestaramäischen im Licht
des spätwestaramäischen Dialektes der Samaritaner.” In Nicht nur mit Engelszungen:
Beiträge zur semitischen Dialektologie: Festschrift für Werner Arnold zum 60.
Geburtstag, edited by R. J. Kuty et al., 333–42. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013.
Stadel, Christian. “Studies in the Conditional Sentence in Samaritan Aramaic.” Carmillim
[Ha‘ivrit ve’ahyoteha] 10 (2014): 163–80 (Hebrew).
Stadel, Christian. “Second Person Suffix Conjugation Endings with ⟨k⟩ on tertiae y Verbs
in Samaritan Aramaic.” Le Muséon 128 (2015): 127–56.
Stadel, Christian. “Quotative Frames in Samaritan Aramaic.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 167 (2017a): 47–70.
Stadel, Christian. “Samaritan Targumic Aramaic.” In Textual History of the Bible, vol. 3,
edited by A. Lange, online edition. Leiden: Brill, 2017b.
Stadel, Christian and Mor Shemesh. “Greek Loanwords in Samaritan Aramaic.” Aramaic
Studies 16 (2018): 144–81.
Tal, Abraham. The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition, 3 vols.,
Tel-Aviv: Tel Aviv UP, 1980–1983.
Tal, Abraham. “In Search of Late Samaritan Aramaic.” Aramaic Studies 7 (2009): 163–88.
Tarshin, Alina. “The Morphology of Samaritan Aramaic: The Verb.” Ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv
University, 2017 (Hebrew).
GENERAL SAMARITAN ARAMAIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Further reading
Pummer, Reinhard. The Samaritans: A Profile. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.
Grammars
Macuch, Rudolf. Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramäisch. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982.
Stadel, Christian. The Morphosyntax of Samaritan Aramaic. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik,
2013 (Hebrew).
Textbooks
Tal, Abraham. Samaritan Aramaic. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013.
Vilsker, Leib. Manuel d´araméen samaritain. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1981.
Dictionaries
Tal, Abraham. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Overviews
Macuch, Rudolf. “Samaritan Languages.” In The Samaritans, edited by A. D. Crown,
531–84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989.
Tal, Abraham. “Samaritan Aramaic.” In The Semitic Languages: An International
Handbook, edited by S. Weninger, 619–28. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
CHAPTER 24
MODERN WESTERN
ARAMAIC STEVEN E. FASSBERGMODERN WESTERN ARAMAIC
Steven E. Fassberg
I INTRODUCTION
Modern Western Aramaic developed from the preceding phase of Aramaic, Late Western
Aramaic (200–700 ce), which is known from the surviving literary dialects of Jewish
Palestinian, Christian Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic (see Chapter 24). The study
of Modern Western Aramaic began in 1863 with the publication by Julius Ferrette of
transcribed words and texts from the village of Maʕlula, which is located 56 kilometers
to the northeast of Damascus. Transcriptions of texts from the two closely related dialects
of the nearby villages of Baxʕa and Jubbʕadin were published by Jean Parisot in 1902
(Map 24.1). Before the current civil war in Syria, Maʕlula was the largest of the Modern
Western Aramaic-speaking villages (5,000 inhabitants during the summer – it is a resort),
MAP 24.1 THE MODERN WESTERN ARAMAIC VILLAGES

Modern Western Aramaic 633
followed by Jubbʕadin (2000) and Baxʕa (1000–1500). Today Maʕlula is primarily

Christian; the two other villages have become entirely Muslim over the past centuries.
Maʕlula has been studied by some of the most important Semitists, including Theodor
Nöldeke (1867, 1917–1918). Three scholars in particular have shaped the field: Bergsträsser
with the publication of a glossary (1921), a short grammatical description (1928, 1983) and
scientific linguistic transcriptions of texts (1915), including intonational and suprasegmen-
tal markings (1933); Anton Spitaler with texts (1957, 1967) and a grammar (1938); and
especially Werner Arnold with an unparalleled wealth of oral texts from Maʕlula (1991),
Baxʕa (1989) and Jubbʕadin (1990), as well as a synchronic and comparative grammar of
the three villages (1990). Moreover, Arnold is close to completing a comprehensive dictio-
nary of Modern Western Aramaic. See also the articles of Arnold dealing with Arabic gram-
matical borrowing (2007), spirantization (2009a) and relative clauses (2009b). To date, the
comparative notes in Spitaler’s grammar remain the fullest historical treatment of Modern
Western Aramaic. Several other scholars have also published texts and contributed gram-
matical analyses of linguistic phenomena, among them Parisot (1898, 1902), Reich (1938),
Cantarino (1961), Cohen (1979) and Correll (1969, 1993). The last scholar is the only one
to have written a syntactic investigation of Modern Western Aramaic (1978), in which he
also examined the adstratal influences of spoken Arabic. On the mutual contact of Aramaic
and Arabic in the Qalamun region of Syria, see Arnold and Behnstedt (1993). Recent gen-
eral surveys of Modern Western Aramaic include Jastrow (1997) and Arnold (2011).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
The Modern Western Aramaic dialects of Maʕlula, Baxʕa and Jubbʕadin have been writ-
ten down almost solely by scholars and in transcription. A few native speakers have also
used modern transcription in writing letters (Arnold 1995–1997). One native speaker of
Maʕlula, Hanna Yousef Francis, wrote a grammar of Maʕlula in Arabic, which was later
translated into English (2003): he created a modified Old Aramaic alphabet with Classical
Arabic vowel signs. A decade ago an institute was set up in Maʕlula to teach the local dia-
lect. The Jewish Aramaic square script was adopted but soon was scrapped for political
reasons since it is in use today in Modern Hebrew.
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonantal phonemic inventory of Maʕlula
The consonants in parentheses in Table 24.1, (d), (g) and (ʔ), are limited to loan words.
In general the consonantal inventory of Maʕlula is slightly less archaic than that of Baxʕa
but less progressive than that of Jubbʕadin (Arnold 1990 [“New Materials”]: 131). For
example, in Baxʕa older Aramaic t has shifted to ʦ as opposed to t > ʧ in Maʕlula and
Jubbʕadin; ʤ of Arabic loan words entered Maʕlula and Jubbʕadin as ʒ according to the
Damascene Arabic pronunciation of the affricate, whereas ʤ remained in Baxʕa as in the
Arabic pronunciation of the surrounding villages. Older Aramaic k is a strongly palatal-
ized kj in Maʕlula, a slightly palatalized kj in Baxʕa and an affricate ʧ in Jubbʕadin. The
older Aramaic “emphatic” uvular plosive q is a slightly post-velar k̠ in Maʕlula, a strongly
post-velar k in Baxʕa and has lost its pharyngealization and become a velar plosive k in
Jubbʕadin.
Older Aramaic had conditioned allophones of plosive and fricative realizations for the
consonants b/v, g/ɣ, d/ð, k/x, p/f, t/θ; the fricatives occurred after vowels and the plosives
634 Steven E. Fassberg
TABLE 24.1 CONSONANT INVENTORY
Bilabial Dental Lateral Palatal Palatal – Velar Pharyng. Glottal

Alveol.
Plosive pb t (d) tˤ k,kj,k (g) (ʔ)

Nasal m n
Affricate ʧ
Fricative θ ð ðˤ s z sˤ zˤ ʃʒ xɣ ħʕ h
Approx. w r l j
TABLE 24.2 VOWEL INVENTORY
Long Vowels Short Vowels
iː uː i u
eː oː e o
aː a
after consonants. In Modern Western Aramaic (Arnold 2009a), the fricatives ɣ, ð, x, θ

remain unchanged, but the voiced plosives bdg have become voiceless; voiceless t and k,
as noted previously, were palatalized and then affricated in Maʕlula and Jubbʕadin : t > ty
> ʧ, and k > kj > ʧ, whereas in Baxʕa t > ʦ and k > kj. Under the influence of Arabic, which
has neither v nor p, the former merged with b and the latter with f.
3.2 Vocalic inventory

Long vowels (Table 24.2) bear the stress and occur only in ultimate or penultimate syl-
lables. Two long vowels cannot coexist in a word. eː and oː are shortened to i and u
when unstressed: ˈxeːfa ‘stone’ vs. xiˈfoː ‘stones’, ˈyoːma ‘day’ vs. yuˈmoː ‘days’. aː
> oː in stressed syllables, but is shortened to a in unstressed syllables: cf. ˈdoda (<
*da:da:) ‘uncle’ with daˈdo (< *daːdajjaː) ‘uncles’. Some speakers in Jubbʕadin, partic-
ularly women, add a reduced a to long vowels: iːa, uːa, eːa and oːa: nʃi:afa ‘bulgur wheat’,
maʃʧu:aθa ‘wedding feast’, θlo:aθa ‘three’, blo:ata ‘village’. A non-phonemic helping
vowel ə intrudes to break up non-initial consonantal clusters, e.g., iθr > iθər ‘two’, taxlθa
> taxəlθa ‘passage’.
3.3 Diphthongs
The diphthongs aw and aj remain stable in Maʕlula and Jubbʕadin, e.g., pajθa ‘house’,
jawna ‘dove’. In Baxʕa, if the diphthong is followed by a syllable-closing consonant, aw
> oː and aj > eː. cf. Maʕlula and Jubbʕadin awɣ ‘he drives’ with Baxʕa oːɣ.
3.4 Stress
Stress is ultimate on words ending in a long vowel or doubly closed syllable: ħuˈnoː
‘brothers’, haːˈθinn ‘those’; otherwise, it is penultimate:ˈxoːθeb ‘he writes’, ˈiːða ‘hand’.
It is on the antepenultima in loan words of the type CvCvCv, e.g., ˈsalatʕa ‘salad’. Pen-
ultimate stress has often led to the creation of stressed initial anaptyctic vowels before
consonantal clusters, e.g., ˈebra (< bra) ‘son’, ˈislek (< slek) ‘he ascended’.
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
Personal pronouns are marked for person, gender and number. There are two sets: inde-
pendent (Table 24.3) and suffixed (Table 24.4).
Independent pronouns mark the subject. In clauses with verbal predication, the inde-
pendent pronoun (bold in the following examples) is used for emphasis, often contrastive,
and it may appear before or after the verb:
aħref amel-l-un huː

answer.pret.3msg say.prs.3msg-to-3mpl 3msg
‘He answered saying to them’
Maʕlula Baxʕa Jubbʕadin
1sg ana ana ana

2msg haʧʧ(i) haʦʦ haːʧ
2fsg haʃʃ(i) haʃʃ haːʃ
3msg huː huː huː(h)
3fsg hiː hiː hiː(h)
1pl anaħ anaħ anaħ
2mpl haʧxun haʦxun haʧəx
2fpl haʧxen haʦxun haʧxen
3mpl hinn(un) hinn hiːn
3fpl hinn(en) hinn hinnen
1sg -ø/-i -ø -aj/-ø

2msg -(a)x -(a)x -(a)x
2fsg -(i)ʃ -(i)ʃ -(i)ʃ
3msg -e -i/-e -e/-i
3fsg -a -a/-ø -a(h)
1pl -(n)aħ -(n)aħ -(n)aħ
2mpl -xun -xun -x
2fpl -xen -xun -xen
3mpl -(h)un/-n -(h)un - ø/-un
3fpl -(h)en/-n -(h)un -(h)en
w-ðoːb ana nzaħiː-ʃ

but-cond 1sg win.prs.1msg-2fsg
‘but if I beat you’
On nouns, pronominal suffixes mark the possessor:
pajθ-ax ħmoːr-iʃ
house-2msg donkey-2fsg
‘your house’ ‘your donkey’
On verbs the pronominal suffixes mark the accusative object:
ʃaḵliʧ-xun ħaml-a
take.pret.1sg-acc.2mpl carry.pret.3msg-acc.3fsg
‘I took you’ ‘he carried her’
Suffixes can mark the object of prepositions:
ʕlaj-naħ minnaj-hun
to-1pl from-3mpl
‘to us’ ‘from them’
4.2 Demonstratives
There are two sets of demonstratives, proximal and distal (Table 24.5). They may modify
a noun, in which case they agree with the head noun in gender and number and are posi-
tioned before their nominal head, or be freestanding. The ð of the proximals is a reflex
of the older Aramaic demonstrative element *d and the θ of the distals is from the older
Aramaic accusative particle *jaːθ. ð and θ sometimes assimilate to the initial consonant
of the nominal head.
hanna ḵamħa hoːʃ ʃuniːθa (< hoːθa ʃuniːθa)

dem flour dem woman
‘this flour’ ‘this/that woman’
Proximal Distal
Maʕlula Baxʕa Jubbʕadin Maʕlula Baxʕa Jubbʕadin
msg hanna hanna hanna hoːθe hoːθi hoːθe

fsg hoːð(i) hoːθ hoː(ð)/hoːðen hoːθa hoːθa hoːθa
mpl hann(un) hann haːn haθinn(un) haθinn haθiːn
fpl hann(en) hann hannen/haːn haθinn(en) haθinn haθinnen
The force of the proximal demonstratives has weakened frequently to that of a definite
article (see §5.3). To ensure the demonstrative meaning, speakers may repeat the demon-
strative after the nominal head:
hanna ɣabroːna hanna vs. hanna ɣabroːna

dem.msg man dem.msg dem.msg man
‘this man’ ‘this/the man’
The pl proximal demonstrative hann occurs before a nominal head and before the relative
ti. When the demonstrative functions as a substantive, one hears the longer forms hannun,
hannen.
4.3 Adverbial Interrogatives

moː (Table 24.6) may be joined to the copula iːle: Maʕlula moː-le, Baxʕa moː-li ‘what he
has’. moːn/man/muːn ‘who’ (Table 24.7) merges with the 3p independent personal pronouns.
4.4 Relative and genitive

ti derives from the older Aramaic relative and subordinating particle dī:
hann ti elʕel app xebra l-ti erraʕ

dem.pl rel above give.pret.3mpl information to-rel below
‘Those who (were) above gave information to those who (were) below’
‘who’ moːn man muːn

‘what’ moː maː/ma maː(h)/ma(h)
‘when’ emmat emmat emmat
‘how’ ex(t) ext ext/iːxet
‘how many’ exma exma exma
‘which’ anu/i anu/ana/ani m anahuː(h), f anahiː(h),
mpl anahiːn, fpl
anahinnen
‘where’ (h)anik hanik hoːn
TABLE 24.7 INFLECTION OF THE INTERROGATIVE MAN ‘WHO’
msg mannu mannu mannu

fsg mannu/manne mannu mannu/manne
mpl maninn(un)/mannun mannun muːn
fpl maninn(en)/mannen mannun munnen
TABLE 24.8 THE RELATIVE MARKER
ti/ʧi ʦi ti/ʧi
TABLE 24.9 INDEPENDENT POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS
1sg tiːð(i) ʦi liːl tiːðaj

2msg tiːðax ʦi le:xi tiːx
2fsg tiːðiʃ ʦi liːʃ tiːʃ
3msg tiːðe ʦi le:li tiːðe
3fsg tiːða ʦi le:la tiːðah/tiːh
1pl tiːðaħ ʦi leːħ tiːħ
2mpl tiːðxun ʦi leːlxun tiðəx
2fpl tiːðxen ʦi leːlxun tiːðxen
3mpl tiːðun ʦi leːlun tiːðun
3fpl tiːðen ʦi leːlun tiːðen
The variant ʧi (Table 24.8) in Maʕlula and Jubbʕadin is used by only a few speakers. If
the following noun begins with a vowel in Jubbʕadin, the preposition l- is suffixed to the
relative particle: ti-l. ti functions as the genitive (gen) marker only when bound by ð with
pronominal suffixes in independent possessive pronouns (see later). The proclitic prepo-
sition l- has usually replaced the relative ti as the genitive particle (Hopkins 1997), e.g.,
loɣθ l-siryoːn
language.f gen-Syriac
‘the language of Syriac’
The independent possessive pronouns (Table 24.9) are formed by the suffixation of the
pronominal suffixes to the relative and genitive particle (ti). They add slight emphasis to
the possessive relationship vis-à-vis the pronominal suffix attached to a noun:
pajθa tiːðax vs. pajθ-ax

house gen.2msg house-2msg
‘your house’ ‘your house’
The plural tiðoː functions as the noun ‘relatives’.
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
Nouns and adjectives in Modern Western Aramaic may be masculine or feminine, singular
or plural and definite (called “emphatic” by Aramaists) or indefinite (designated “abso-
lute”) (see §5.3). The forms are distinguished by suffixes and by regular sound changes.
See, e.g., the inflection of the adjective ħuwwar ‘white’ in Maʕlula in Table 24.10.
TABLE 24.10 INFLECTION OF ADJECTIVES
Indefinite Definite
msg ˈħuwwar ħuwˈwoːr-a

fsg ħuwˈwoːr ħuwˈwoːr- ʧa
mpl ħuwˈwuːr-in ħuwwar-ˈoː
fpl ħuwˈwoːr-an ħuwwar-ˈ(j)oːθa
As opposed to the morpheme -in on mpl adjectives, the mpl indefinite form of sub-
stantives ends in -i/-ø. The definite forms contain the older enclitic Aramaic definite arti-
cle and are the default form for nouns: singular *-aːɁ > a; plural *-ajjaː > oː; a variant
-oːi was rare last century in Maʕlula but is no longer heard; -oːja is infrequent today in
Maʕlula but common in Jubbʕadin. The indefinite form is restricted to:
1 nouns following cardinal numerals: eθlaθ ʕapt-an (three slave-fpl.indf) ‘three

female slaves’, oːlef ðahb-i (1000 gold.m-pl.indf) ‘thousand pieces of gold’
2 Predicate adjectives:
haːn raʔisoːj-in
dem.pl great-mpl
‘They are great’ (Jubbʕadin)
3 On the use of the indefinite form with attributive adjectives, see §5.3
There are only vestiges of the “construct” (annexed) form of older Aramaic: beː ‘house,
family’ (beː ħoːl ‘the family of my uncle’; cf. the definite form pajθa ‘house’), ʕeːð ‘festi-
val’ (ʕeːð ɣanna ‘the garden festival’; cf. ʕeːða ‘festival’). A neo-construct form ebr ‘son’
(ebr ʃultʕoːna ‘the son of the sultan’) is a backformation from the definite ebra.
4.5.2 Patterns
Reflexes of the older Aramaic nominal patterns are well attested in Modern Western Ara-
maic, e.g., the frequent Aramaic nominal patterns *ḳaṭl (> Maʕlula ḵatʕla, ḵetʕla), *ḳiṭl
(> ḵetʕla), and *ḳuṭl (> ḵotʕla). *ḳaṭṭiːl (>ḵatˁtˁiːl) continues to mark adjectives (and also
functions as the base for the present in intransitive verbs; see §4.6.1); Arabic adjectives of
the pattern ḳatʕiːl often assimilate to it. The Arabic elative ʔaqtʕal (> ʔaḵtʕal) is used freely
for Arabic loans as well as native Aramaic adjectives. As in earlier periods of Aramaic,
there are nominal patterns with prefixed ma- and mi-; the prefixes t- and a- are primarily
restricted to Arabic loans.
Aramaic suffixes are:
1 *‑aːn > -oːn, which on adjectives and participles indicates an agent noun (nomen
agentis). ‑oːn was also a diminutive suffix in earlier Aramaic and has been suffixed
to a few frequently occurring nouns (synchronically it is semantically empty): ħoːna
‘brother’, ɣabroːna ‘man’, psoːna ‘boy’
2 ‑aːj, the gentilic ending; on Arabic loans it replaces the native Arabic gentilic ‑iː
3 -oːnaj (combination of the preceding two suffixes)
4 -uːθa, the suffix of abstract nouns
5 -iːθa, a feminine suffix
4.5.3 Numerals
4.5.3.1 Cardinal numerals
The numerals ‘two’ to ‘ten’ (Table 24.11) precede their head noun and agree with it in
gender; the head noun takes the indefinite plural form: eθlaθ bisniy-an (three.f maid-
en.f-indf) ‘three girls’, arpʕa yuːm-i (four.m day.m-indf) ‘four days’. ‘One’ also precedes
the head noun, which, however, takes the definite form: aħħað pso:n-a (one.m boy.m-def)
‘one boy’, eħða bisniː-θa (one.f girl.f-def) ‘one girl’.
The second decade (‘eleven’–‘nineteen’; Table 24.12) is not uniform in the three
dialects. Maʕlula and Jubbʕadin distinguish between numerals that precede masculine
nouns and numerals that precede feminine nouns. Baxʕa has preserved only one series
of numerals.
Under the influence of Arabic, speakers of Jubbʕadin have also created a compound
numeral (‘ten’ + ‘and’ + digit) that is used for masculine and feminine nouns (see
Table 24.13).
There is no distinction between masculine and feminine in the decades, which are the
indefinite plural forms of the first decade numerals (Table 24.14).
TABLE 24.11 CARDINAL NUMERALS: FIRST DECADE
M F M F M F
1 aħħað eħða aħħað eħða aħħa eħða

2 iθər/iθri θarʧ iθθar θarʦ iθθer θarʧ
3 eθlaθ θloːθa eθlaθ θloːθa eθlaθ θloːθa
4 arpaʕ arpʕa arpaʕ arpʕa arpaʕ arpʕa
5 ħammeʃ ħamʃa ħammeʃ ħamʃa ħammeʃ ħamʃa
6 ʃeθθ ʃeʧʧa ʃeθθ ʃeʧʧa ʃeːθ ʃeʧʧa
7 eʃbaʕ ʃobʕa eʃbaʕ ʃobʕa eʃbaʕ ʃobʕa
8 θmoːn θmoːnya θmoːn θmoːnya θmuːn θmuːnya
9 etʕʃaʕ tʕeʃʕa etʕʃaʕ tʕeʃʕa etʕʃaʕ tʕeʃʕa
10 eʕsar ʕasra eʕsar ʕasra eʕsar ʕasra
TABLE 24.12 CARDINAL NUMERALS: SECOND DECADE
Maʕlula and Jubbʕadin Baxʕa
M F Common Gender
11 aħħaðaʕsar eħðaʕas rə
eħðaʕasər
12 θleʕsar θarʧʕasər θarʦʕasər
13 θleʧʧaʕsar eθlaθʕasər eθlaθʕasər
14 arpʕaʧaʕsar arpaʕʕasər arpaʕʕasər
15 ħammeʃʧaʕsar ħammeʃʕasər ħammeʦʕasər
16 ʃeʧʧaʕsar ʃeθʕasər ʃeθʕasər
17 ʃobʕaʧaʕsar eʃbaʕʕasər eʃbaʕʕasər
18 θmoːnyaʧaʕsar (M) θmoːnʕasər (M) θmoːnʕasər
θmuːnyaʧaʕsar (J) θmuːnʕasər (J)
19 tʕeʃʕaʧaʕsar etʕʃaʕʕasər etʕʃaʕʕasər
TABLE 24.13
CARDINAL NUMERALS: SECOND
DECADE IN JUBBʕADIN
11 ʕasra w-aħħa
12 ʕasra w-iθθer
13 ʕasra w-θloːθa
14 ʕasra w-arpʕa
15 ʕasra w-ħamʃa
16 ʕasra w-ʃeʧʧa
17 ʕasra w-ʃobʕa
18 ʕasra w-θmuːnya
19 ʕasra w-tʕešʕa
TABLE 24.14 CARDINAL NUMERALS: TENS
20 ʕisər/ʕisri ʕisər ʕisər

30 θleːθ(i) θleːθ θleːθ
40 irpiʕ/irpʕi irpiʕ irpiʕ
50 ħiməʃ/ħimʃi ħməʃ ħməʃ
60 ʃiʧʧ(i) ʃiʦʦ ʃiːʧ
70 ʃubəʕ/ʃubʕi ʃubəʕ ʃubəʕ
80 θmeːn(i) θmeːn θmeːn
90 tʕiʃəʕ/ tʕiʃʕi tʕiʃəʕ tʕiʃəʕ
Maʕlula, Baxʕa, and Jubbʕadin
first awwal
second θeːni (masc also θeːn)
third θeːleθ
fourth reːbeʕ
fifth xeːmes
sixth seːdes
seventh seːbeʕ
eighth θeːmen
ninth tʕeːseʕ
tenth ʕeːʃer
4.5.3.2 Ordinal numerals

The ordinal numerals ‘first’ to ‘tenth’ are borrowed from Arabic and exhibit the Arabic
sound shift known as imāla (aː > eː) (Table 24.15).
The ordinals ‘eleventh’ and above are expressed by the relative ti and the cardinal
numeral, e.g., ti ħammeʃʧaʕsar ‘the fifteenth’.
4.6 Verbs
4.6.1 Tense/aspect
The tense system of Modern Western Aramaic (as exhibited by Maʕlula) consists of a
1 preterite (pret) expressed by a suffixed conjugation (based on the older Aramaic

suffix conjugation ḳṭal-), e.g., 3fsg ḵatʕl-aθ,1sg ḵatʕl-iθ
2 subjunctive (sbjv) expressed by a prefixed conjugation (based on the older Aramaic
prefix conjugation -ḳṭul), e.g., 3msg ji-ḵtʕul, 1sg ni-ḵtʕul
3 present (prs; based on the older Aramaic active participle ḳāṭil) with prefixes, e.g.,
2msg ʧ-ḵoːtʕel, 1msg n-ḵoːtʕel
4 imperative (imp; based on the older Aramaic imperative ḳṭō/ūl) with suffixes, e.g.,
msg ḵtʕoːl-ø, mpl ḵutʕl-oːn
5 perfect (prf; based on the older Aramaic passive participle ḳṭīl) with prefixes, e.g.,
2msg ʧi-ḵtʕel, 1msg ni-ḵtʕel; intransitive verbs appear in the frequent Aramaic adjec-
tival pattern ḳaṭṭīl: 2msg ʧ-ḵatʕtʕel, 1msg n-ḵatʕtʕel
The future tense is expressed by the pseudo-verb batt (< Arabic badd-; Jubbˁadin beːl-)
+ subjunctive:
batt-i ni-ʃmutʕ
want-1sg 1sg-flee.sbjv
‘I will flee’.
The present progressive (prs.prog) is expressed by the particle ʕamma, ʕam-, ʕa- (<
Arabic ʕammāl [agent noun ‘doer’]) + present:
moː ʕam-ʧoːmar ja zalmθa

what prs.prog-say.prs.2msg voc man
‘Hey fellow! What are you saying?’
Durative or habitual action in the past is expressed by the pseudo-verb woːb (< hwaː
‘was’ + jhiːb ‘given’) + present:
woːb mzappen biʕ-oː

dur.pst sell.prs.3msg egg.f-pl
‘He was selling eggs’.
There are also pseudo-verbs that express existence: oːθ(i) ‘there is’ (< haːwe ‘is’ + iːθ
[existential particle]) and ‘there was’ (< hwaː + iːθ) (see also §5.4.1).

The preterite and imperative are inflected with suffixes. The subjunctive, present and
perfect are inflected with prefixes.
Preterite -ḵtʕal (< √ḳṭl ‘beat, strike, kill’) with an initial anaptyctic vowel (i-ḵtʕal) is the
base for 3 msg, mpl and fpl. ḵatʕl- is the base for 1 and 2 persons. The inflection in
Table 24.16 is according to the pronunciation in Maʕlula.
TABLE 24.16 PRETERITE
Singular Plural
1 ḵatʕl-iθ ḵatʕl-in-naħ
2m ḵatʕl-iʧ ḵatʕl-iʧ-xun
2f ḵatʕl-iʃ ḵatʕl-iʧ-xen
3m iḵtʕal-ø iḵtʕal-ø
3f ḵatʕl-aθ iḵtʕal-ø
msg iḵtʕul/ḵtʕoːl uḵtʕul/ḵtʕol ktʕoːl

fsg iḵtʕul/ḵtʕuːl uḵtʕul/ḵtʕul ktʕuːl
mpl ḵutʕl-un/ḵutʕl-oːn ḵútʕl-un/ḵutʕl-ún kutʕl-oːn
fpl ḵutʕl-en/ḵutʕl-eːn kutʕl-eːn
TABLE 24.18 SUBJUNCTIVE
Singular Plural
1 ni-ḵt ul
ʕ
ni-ḵtʕul
2m ʧi-ḵtʕul ʧ-ḵutʕl-un
2f ʧi-ḵtʕul ʧ-ḵutʕl-an
3m yi-ḵtʕul y-ḵutʕl-un
3f ʧi-ḵtʕul y-ḵutʕl-an
Imperative – the forms are differentiated by suffixes and ablaut (Table 24.17).

Subjunctive – all forms have prefixes; the 2 and 3 plural forms also have suffixes. The
base forms as realized in Maʕlula are -ḵtʕul/-ḵutʕl- (Table 24.18).
4.6.3 Verbal stems
The old Aramaic system of nine verbal stems (three active, three reflexive/passive with
prefixed hiθ-/Ɂiθ- and three internal passive [ablaut]) has been reduced in Modern Western
Aramaic to three: a basic stem pʕal (for transitive verbs; pʕel for intransitive verbs), an
intensive stem paʕʕel and a causative stem afʕel. Only the latter two stems are productive.
The internal passive stems have disappeared. Of the older reflexive stems with prefixed
hiθ-/Ɂiθ-, only three verbs have survived, which have been reduced to forms of the basic
stem: iʃtaʕ < iʃtaʕi (√šʕy) ‘play’, iʧxel < ittḵel (√tkl) ‘trust’, iʧneħ < ittniːħ (√nwħ) ‘rest’.
Verbs borrowed from Arabic stems assimilate to the corresponding Aramaic stems.
When there are not parallel Aramaic stems, the Arabic forms are borrowed and follow
Modern Western Aramaic phonology and inflection, e.g., the Arabic stem III qātala >
Modern Western Aramaic ḵoːtʕel, Arabic stem VI taqātala > ʧḵoːtʕel, Arabic stem VII
inqatala > inəḵtʕal; Arabic stem VIII iqtatala > ikəʧtʕal, Arabic stem X istaqtala > sʧaḵtʕel.
The older Aramaic active participle and passive participle are fully assimilated into the
verbal system and inflected for person, gender and number. The active participle func-
tions as the present tense and the passive participle as the perfect (see §4.6.1). A third
non-finite form is the old Aramaic infinitive, which now serves as a verbal noun. With
verbs related to the basic stem, speakers form a verbal noun according to the pattern
ḵtʕoːla (with verbs of motion meːḵtʕla), with the intensive stem ḵutʕtʕolːa (Jubʕaddin
ḵatʕtʕolːa) and with the causative stem maḵtʕoːlθa. The complement function of the infin-
itive has been taken over by the subjunctive (see §5.5).
4.7.1 Position
Prepositions may precede their nominal object or they may be bound by a pronominal
suffix. The preposition l- ‘to’ is enclitic to the verb when marking an object (see §5.3).
4.7.2 Derivation
Modern Western Aramaic has inherited monosyllabic prepositions from earlier Aramaic.
The monoconsonantal prepositions b- ‘in’, l- ‘to, of’ are proclitic. Two frequent bicon-
sonantal prepositions are often clipped and are now also proclitic: ʕal-/ʕa- (< ʕal) ‘on,
upon’, mn-/m- (< min) ‘from’. Other prepositions are grammaticalized nouns, e.g., ɣapp
(< gabb ‘side, back’) ‘with’, ħasʕsʕ ‘on’ (< ‘loin’). Sometimes the preposition l- is suffixed
to prepositional phrases (see §5.5), e.g., b-ðukk-l ‘instead of’ (< ‘in-place-of’), b-rajʃ-l
‘on’ (< ‘in-head-of’). Arabic prepositions have also been borrowed into Modern Western
Aramaic, e.g., ʧuħʧ ‘under’, min duːn ‘without’.
There is no productive strategy for the formation of adverbs (cf. the Syriac suffix
-āɁiːθ). Some adverbs are inherited from earlier Aramaic and were originally (a) nouns
(rumʃ[i] ‘yesterday’ < ramʃaː ‘evening’), (b) noun and adjective (ʃiʧʧoːð[i] ‘this year’
< ʃattaː haːðeː) or (c) prepositional phrases (l-bar ‘outside’ < ‘to field’). Others are bor-
rowed lexemes from Arabic (abatan ‘never’, awwalʧa ‘before’). And yet others are new
formations: ḵalles ‘little’ (< adjective ḵall ‘little’ + diminutive -iːs).
5 SYNTAX
In verbal clauses the default word order is Verb-Subject (marked in bold), e.g.:
ḵoːmaθ emm l-ħanne

arise.pret.3fsg mother.f gen-Hanne
‘The mother of Hanne arose’.
aḵreb le-ʕl-a iʃmatʕ ðiːb-oː

approach.pret.3msg to-on-3fsg flee.pret.3mpl wolf-mpl
imtʕ l-ħmoːr-ʧaː ʃʧeħ-n-a

reach.pret.3msg to-donkey-f find.pret.3msg-obj-3fsg
fziril-l-a ðiːb-oː
tear.prf.3mpl-to-3fsg wolf-mpl
‘He approached her (the jenny), the wolves fled, he reached the jenny, he found her,
wolves had torn her apart’.
Subjects, objects and adverbs may be moved to the front of the clause for pragmatic rea-
sons. Cf. the word order (the forms are in bold – the first at the end of the clause and the
second at the beginning of the clause) in the following two examples:
ajθ-n-ø l-ħmoːr-ʧ
bring.pret.3msg-obj-3fsg to-donkey-f
‘He brought the jenny.’
w-ħmoːr-ʧa axl-un-n-a ðiːb-oː

and-donkey-f eat.pret-3mpl-obj-3fsg wolf-mpl
‘And as for the jenny, wolves ate her’.

Predication may be nominal or verbal. In the case of the former, the predicate is a noun,
pronoun, adverb or prepositional phase:
eʃm-a fesʕsʕa
name-3fsg clover.f
‘Its name is “clover” ’.
w-anaħ n-ḵury-oːjin
but-1pl 1pl-Christian-mpl
‘But we are Christians’.
ʧu ɣappaj-xun ħabl-oːja elʕel

neg with-2mpl rope-mpl above
‘Don’t you have ropes above?’
Verbal predication contains a finite verb:
ntʕalpiθ ʕaskraj eʃn l-etʕʃaʕ emʕa w-eʃbaʕʕasər

draft.pret.1sg soldier year gen-nine hundred and-seventeen
‘I was drafted as a soldier in the year 1917’.
w-θalla tunja ʕaroːba θoːlun

and-come.pret.3fsg world.fsg evening come.pret.3mpl
bn-oːj-a m-ʃoɣl
son-mpl-3fsg from-work
‘Evening fell. Her sons came back from work.’
5.3 Definiteness
The definite form with the suffixes msg ‑a, fsg -ʧa; mpl ‑oː, fpl ‑[j]ōθa is the default form
for nouns and no longer marks definiteness. Context alone determines whether or not a
noun is definite in meaning. On attributive adjectives, however, the definite suffixes still
mark definiteness: if the head noun is not semantically definite, the attributive adjective
does not take the definite article. When the noun is semantically definite, the attributive
adjective takes a definite suffix.
cf. ɣabroːna rabb with ɣabroːn-a rapp-a

man.def big.indf man-def big-def
‘a big man’ ‘the big man’
To ensure the definiteness of a noun that does not have a modifying adjective, speakers
place the proximal demonstrative pronoun before the noun:
hanna ɣabroːna
dem.msg man.msg
‘this/the man’
hoːʃ ʃuniː-θa
dem.fsg woman-fsg
‘this/the woman’
hann xʧur-oː
dem.mpl old_man-mpl
‘these/the old men’
The definite direct object is obligatorily marked with the preposition l-, in which case it
is suffixed to the verb (-il after CC).
cf. ajθ leħma with ajθ-il leħma

bring.pret.3msg bread.m bring.pret.3msg-obj bread.m
‘He brought bread’ ‘He brought the bread’.
When the definite direct object is preceded by an indirect object (also introduced by the
preposition l-), the definite direct object marker l- is inserted into the verb with a proclitic
pronominal suffix before the enclitic indirect object.
Contrast
ajθeː-l-e xilˁθa
bring.pret.3msg-to-3msg robe_of_honor
‘He brought him a robe of honor’.
with
ajθ-l-aː-l-e xilˁθa
bring.pret.3fsg-to(dirobj)-3msg-to(indirobj)-3msg robe_of_honor
‘He brought the robe of honor to him’.
See §4.6.1 on the use of the pseudo-verbs batt-/beːl- ‘want, wish’ + subjunctive to express
the future, woːb + present to express durative or habitual past, and ʕamm-/ʕam-/ʕa- +
present to express the present progressive.
Object pronouns, direct and indirect, are suffixed to the verb. Depending on the verbal
tense, the pronouns are either (a) suffixed directly to the verb; or (b) follow a suffixed
preposition l- ‘to’ or n- (in earlier Aramaic the nasal element mediated between verbs
inflected in the prefix conjugation and object suffixes). See, e.g., the verb √fθħ < *ptħ
‘open’:
preterite – ifθaħ ‘he opened’, faθħ-e ‘he opened it (msg), fθaħ-l-a ‘he opened for her’,
faθəħ-l-eː-l-a ‘he opened it (msg) for her’
subjunctive – jifθuħ ‘that he opens’, jfuθħ-enn-e ‘that he opens it (msg)’, yjfθoħ-l-e
‘that he opens for him’, jfuθəħ-l-eː-l-a ‘that he opens it (msg) for her’
The pronominal suffixes suffixed to the present and perfect tenses following l- may be
accusative or dative:
fōθaħ + l-e > faθaħ-l-e ‘he opens it (msg)’ or ‘he opens for him’
ifθeħ + l-a > fθīħ-l-a ‘he had opened it (fsg)’ or ‘he had opened for her’

The dependent relationship between two nouns, known as “construct” or “annexation,”
was marked morphologically in earlier Aramaic on the first of the two nouns (the bound
form is traditionally referred to as nomen regens). For traces of this, see §4.5.1. The
construct relationship in Modern Western Aramaic is usually expressed by an analytic
construction with the preposition l- ‘to’ (see §4.4). The preposition is suffixed on the bare
form of the noun:
soːb-lə bloːta
mayor-to(gen) village
‘The mayor of the village’
berʧ-il ɣabroːna
daughter-to(gen) man
‘The daughter of the man’.
l- has largely replaced the older relative di- (> ti), which is still in use, however:
soːba ti bloːta
mayor rel village
‘The mayor of the village’.
5.5 Subordination
The older Aramaic relative and subordinating particle dī has survived (see §4.4) in
the forms ti and ʧi (ʦi in Baxʕa). It is used to introduce relative clauses only when the
antecedent is definite; when the antecedent is indefinite, the relative clause is unmarked
(Correll 1978: 117).
woːθ roːʕja ʕam-raʕeː-l ʕizz-oːj-e

be.pret.3msg shepherd prs.prog-herd.prs.3msg-to goat.f-mpl-3msg
‘There was a shepherd, (who was) herding his goats’.
hanna ɣamla ti tʕʕil-l-e

dem.msg camel rel carry.prf.3msg-to-3msg
‘This camel, which has carried him’
A relic of di is preserved in the conditional particle that introduces the protasis, ð-oːb (also n-ð-
oːb), but as often occurs elsewhere, l tends to replace the relative/genitive ð: l-oːb.
One finds the subordination of the preposition l (replacing early Aramaic d-; see §4.7)
to other prepositions and nouns, e.g., ðokk-l (< dukkːa d-) ‘place where’, exm-il (< ax +
maː + d) ‘just as’, ʕemm-l ʕaskra ‘with the army’, ɣapp-l ʕali ‘by Ali’.
In place of the infinitive, subordination is expressed by the use of subjunctive verbal forms:
θeːlun fekjra jnoħʧun

come.prs.3mpl idea go_down.sbjv.3mpl
‘The idea comes to them to go down.’
sulḵoːn l-oːxa neħm

come_up.imp.mpl to-here see.sbjv.1pl
‘Come up here so that we may see.’
5.6 Negation
The main negator is la/laː with variants laʔ and laʔa. It typically precedes the element
negated. The particle negates the preterite and subjunctive:
la θoːle
neg came.pret.3msg
‘He did not come.’
la jizbun
neg buy.sbjv.3msg
‘He should not buy’
The particle la fuses with verbs to create other negators: (a) ‘but not’ – loːmar (laː + √Ɂmr
‘say’; Maʕlula), lamar (Baxʕ) and lasa/loːsa/losa (laː + issa ‘now’ [< Arabic as-saʕa ‘the
hour’]?; Jubbʕadin); (2) ‘not again, never again’ – loːrkjaʕ/lorkjaʕ (laː + √rkʕ [< Arabic
√rd͡ ʒʕ]‘do again’; Maʕlula), loːrʧaʕ/lorʧaʕ (Jubbʕadin) and lōfaš/lafaš (la + afaš, √fjʃ <
* pyʃ ‘remain’). In Maʕlula and Jubbʕadin la occasionally merges into a single segment
with the following verb, as in the following example from Maʕlula:
loː-ʃḵal ḵirʃ-oː
neg-take.pret.3msg money-mpl
‘He did not take piasters’
The negator ʧu(ː) (Baxʕa ʦu(ː)) negates the present and perfect. Though many view it as
a loan from Kurdish, it has also been argued that it is a reflex of the Aramaic negator laː
+ existential particle ʾiθ(aj) + independent 3msg pronoun huː (Correll 1974).
ʧu foːθaħ
neg open.prs.3msg
‘He does not open’
ʧu itʕʕen
neg carry.prf.3msg
‘He did not carry’
ʧu merges with the pseudo-verbs iːθ ‘there is’ and oːb ‘he is/was’: ʧuːθ(i) ‘there is not’,
ʧuːb(i)’ there is/was not’.
6 LEXICON
On the one hand, the vocabulary of Modern Western Aramaic has retained much of the older
general Aramaic stock; on the other, it has been heavily influenced by its long contact with
the Arabic vernacular of the Qalamun region in Syriac (Arnold and Behnstedt 1993). Per-
sian, Turkish and European elements have entered the lexicon mainly through the medium
of Arabic. Early nominal loans have been thoroughly Aramaized: they have participated in
Modern Western Aramaic sound changes and acquired the Aramaic determined suffix, e.g.,
tarba ‘way’ (< Arabic darb); however, newer loans have not been fully Aramaized, e.g.,
babboːr ‘locomotive’ (Arabic baːbuːr < French vapeur, Italian vapore). Originally Arabic
verbs have also become Aramaized and inflected according to the patterns of Aramaic stems.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
The text, which describes the village of Maʕlula, was first published in Spitaler (1957:
314) and republished in Spitaler (1967: II/1).
Maʕluːla bloːta mn-blat-oːj l-suːriːja. mabʕða

Maʕlula village.f from-village-mpl gen-Syria be.distant.prs.3fsg
ḵim-ʧ l-ħimʃ w-ʃobʕa kiːlomeːtr mʕa ðemseḵ,

distance-f gen-fifty and-seventy kilometer from Damascus
masʕiːfa m-ʔaħsan masʕif-oːj l-mantʕakʕ-θ

summer_residence.f from-best summer_residence-mpl gen-region-f
l-suːriːja. bloːta θaḵḵina b-weːtja moːħetʕ

gen-Syria village.f be.prs.3fsg in-valley surround.prs.msg
b-aː suːra m-ʃenna ʕalja irʧifoːʕ-e ʧu moːḵel

in-3fsg wall.m from-rock.f high.f height-3msg neg be_less.prs.3msg
mʕa-Ɂemʕa w-ħimʃ miʧr sakkan-oːj-a noːfḵ-in

with-hundred and-fifty meter inhabitant-mpl-3fsg number.prs-mpl
eθlaθ oːlef nasm-an maħkj-in loɣθ l-sirjoːn,

three thousand soul-fpl speak.prs-3mpl language.f gen-Syriac
lajjif-il-l-a mʕa tið-ajhun. ʧu koːrj-in

learn.prf-mpl-to-3fsg with gen-3mpl neg read.prs-3mpl
w-xoːθp-in b-aː laːkin maħkj-il-l-a

and-write.prs-3mpl in-3fsg but speak.prs-3mpl-to-3fsg
zʕur-oː exm-il maħkj-il-l-a rapp-oː.

young-mpl like-rel speak.prs-3mpl-to-3fsg adult-mpl
‘Maʕlula is one of the villages of Syria. It is a distance of 57 kilometers from Damascus,

one of the best summer residences of the region of Syria. The village happens to be in a val-
ley surrounded by a wall of high rock whose height is not less than 150 meters. Its inhab-
itants number three thousand. They speak the Syriac language, which they have learned
from their relatives. They do not read or write in it, but they speak it, young and old alike.’
REFERENCES
Grammars
Arnold, Werner. Das Neuwestaramäische. Semitica Viva 4/V: Grammatik. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, I: Texte aus Texte aus Baxʿa, 1989; II. Texte aus Ǧubbʿadin, 1990; III.
Volkskundliche Texte aus Maʿlūla, 1991; IV. Orale Literature aus Maʿlūla 1991. For
recordings of the texts in these volumes, go to www.semitistik.uni-hd.de/arnold/nwaton.
Correll, Christoph. Materialien zur Kenntnis des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Baḫʻa.
Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät
der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität zu München. München, 1969.
Correll, Christoph. Untersuchungen zur Syntax der neuwestaramäischen Dialektes
des Antilibanon (Maʿlūla, Baḫʿa, Ğubbʿadīn) mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Auswirkungen arabischen Adstrateinflusses nebst zwei Anhängen zum neuaramäischen
Dialekt von Ğubbʻadīn. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenländes 44.4.
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1978.
Francis, Hanna Yousef. The Spoken Aramaic of Ma’aloula: The Language of Christ the
Lord. Damacus/Ma’aloula: Issam Hanna Francis, 2003.
Spitaler, Anton. Grammatik des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʿlūla (Antilibanon).

Abhandlungen für die Kundes des Morgenlandes 23.1. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1938.
Textbooks
Arnold, Werner. Lehrbuch des Neuwestaramäischen (2nd ed.). Semitica Viva Series
Didactica 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989.
Glossaries and dictionaries

Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. Glossar des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʻlūla. Leipzig,
Brockhaus, 1921.
Spitaler, Anton. “The Aramaic Dialect of Maʿlūla.” In An Aramaic Handbook, edited by
Franz Rosenthal, II/2: 82–96. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1967.
Overview articles and noteworthy studies

Arnold, Werner. “New Materials on Western Neo-Aramaic.” In Studies in Neo-Aramaic,
edited by Wolfhart Heinrichs, 131–49. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990.
Arnold, Werner. “Neuwestaramäische Briefe.” Mediterranean Language Review 9
(1995–1997): 1–12.
Arnold, Werner. “Arabic Grammatical Borrowing in Western Neo-Aramaic.” In
Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras and
Jeanette Sakel, 184–5. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2007.
Arnold, Werner. “The Begadkephat in Western Neo-Aramaic.” In Neo-Aramaic Dialect
Studies: Proceedings of a Workshop on Neo-Aramaic Held in Cambridge 2005, edited
by Geoffrey Khan, 171–6. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias,
2009a.
Arnold, Werner. “Relative Clauses in Western Neo-Aramaic.” In Relative Clauses and
Genitive Constructions in Semitic, edited by Janet C. E. Watson and Jan Retsö, 65–8.
Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 25. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009b.
Arnold, Werner. “Western Neo-Aramaic.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Stefan
Weninger et al., 685–96. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
Arnold, Werner and Peter Behnstedt. Arabisch-Aramäische Sprachbeziehungen im
Qalamūn (Syrien): Eine dialektgeographische Untersuchung mit einer wirtschafts- und
sozialgeographischen Einführung von Anton Escher. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. Neuaramäische Märchen und andere Texte aus Maʿlūla,
hauptsachlich aus der Sammlung E. Prym’s und A. Socin’s. Abhandlungen für die
Kunde des Morgenlandes 13.2. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1915.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. Phonogramme im neuaramäischen Dialekt von Malula.
Satzdruck und Satzmelodie. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1933.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. “Modern Aramaic: Dialect of Maʿlūla.” In Introduction to
the Semitic Languages: Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches, translated with
notes and bibliography and an appendix on the scripts by Peter T. Daniels, 99–109.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983 [= Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen:
Sprachproben und grammatische Skizzen, 80–9. München: Max Hueber, 1928].
Cantarino, Vincent. Die neuaramäische Dialekt von Ǧubb ʿAbdin (Texte und Übersetzung).
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1961.
Cohen, David. “Sur le système verbal du néo-araméen de Maʿlula.” Journal of Semitic

Studies 24 (1979): 219–39.
Correll, Christoph. “Eine Vorschlag zur Erklärung der Negation čū (ćū) in den
neuwestaramäischen Dialekten des Antilibanon.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Correll, Christoph. “Zur Geschichte des l-Infixes im Neuwestaramäischen (NWA).”
Ferrette, Julius. “On a Neo-Syriac Language, Still Spoken in the Anti-Lebanon.” Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society 20 (1863): 431–36.
Hopkins, Simon. “On the Construction ŠMĒH L-ḠAḆRĀ ‘The Name of the Man’ in
Aramaic.” Journal of Semitic Studies 42 (1997): 23–32.
Jastrow, Otto. “The Neo-Aramaic Languages.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by
Robert Hetrzon, 334–77. London: Routledge, 1997.
Nöldeke, Theodor. “Beiträge zur Kenntniss aramäischer Dialekte 1.” Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 21 (1867): 183–200.
Nöldeke, Theodor. “Texte im aramäischen Dialekt von Maʿlūla.” Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie 31 (1917–1918): 203–30.
Parisot, Jean. “Le dialecte de Maʿlula: grammaire, vocabulaire et textes.” Journal
asiatique 9e sér., 11 (1898): 239–312, 440–519; 12 (1898): 124–76.
Parisot, Jean. “Le dialecte néo-syriaque de Bakhaʿa et Djubʿadin.” Journal asiatique 9e
sér., 19 (1902): 51–61.
Reich, Stefan. Études sur les villages araméens de l'Anti-Liban. Damascas: Institut
français de Damas, 1938.
Spitaler, Anton. “Neue Materialien zum aramäischen Dialekt von Maʿlūla.” Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 107 (1957): 299–399.
Spitaler, Anton. “The Aramaic Dialect of Maʿlūla.” In An Aramaic Handbook, edited by
Franz Rosenthal, II/1: 62–8. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1967.
CHAPTER 25
SYRIAC
Na‘ama Pat-El
1 INTRODUCTION
Syriac is a dialect of Late Aramaic, and was spoken in parts of today’s Syria, Eastern Tur-
key, Mesopotamia and Kerala, India. Its position is debated; most scholars consider it an
Eastern dialect, along with Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Mandaic (Chapter 26), while
others consider it a central dialect, neither Eastern nor Western. During Late Antiquity, it
spread far and wide, both eastwards and westwards, from its core area around the city of
Edessa in Turkey. Syriac became the language of the main non-Greek branch of Eastern
Christianity, although it is likely that it was only used as a literary language in part of
this area. In the 5th century, as a result of the first council of Ephesus, the church split
into the Jacobite church in the west and the Nestorian church in the east, a fact that will
have ramifications for the writing system of Syriac. The use of Syriac slowly declined
after the Arab conquest of the Middle East in the 7th century, but the language was still
used as a liturgical language and was spoken in large pockets, especially in northern
Iraq and southeastern Turkey (Map 25.1). It was the main vehicle of transferring Greek
TURKEY
SYRIA
IRAQ
LEGEND
Syriac
MAP 25.1 THE SYRIAC SPEECH AREA IN ANTIQUITY

654 Na‘ama Pat-El
philosophy and science into Arabic through Syriac Christian translators, either through
intermediary Syriac translations of the Greek texts or directly from the Greek original to
Arabic by Syriac-Arabic bilingual translators.
Among the pre-Modern Aramaic dialects, Syriac is the best attested. The most famous
and best-studied texts in the language are bible translations, mainly the Peshitta Old Tes-
tament and New Testament. While most of the Syriac texts are theological, they belong to
very different genres. There are biblical commentaries, hagiographies, letters, philosoph-
ical discussions, sermons and poetry. History is also frequently written as a theological
text, either as a narrative or in epistolary style. Syriac has a rich and ancient grammatical
tradition, covering grammar books, lexicons, which were written as part of a biblical
exegetical tradition, and rhetorics and poetics. Finally, the Syrians were interested in the
sciences, particularly medicine, astronomy and geography. They were less interested in
more abstract sciences, such as mathematics. Classical Syriac ceased being used produc-
tively for writing no later than the 14th century.
Syriac has two “dialects,” which differ not only in their phonology (especially the
vocalic inventory), but also in their choice of writing system (Mingana 1905). In this
chapter, the West Syriac (Jacobite) tradition will be followed.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
Three writing systems are used to write Syriac, all of which are traced eventually to
Phoenician. Estrangelɔ is the oldest and was used in all pre-8th-century manuscripts. The
two other writing systems, Sertɔ (or Jacobite) and Nestorian (or Chaldean), are a result
of a theological schism between the Western church (Monophysite or Jacobite) and the
Eastern church (Nestorian) (Daniels 1996, Kiraz 2012: 214–18). The following is the first
line of the pater noster in all three systems:
ʔabbu-n da-b-šmayyɔ netqaddaš šm-ɔk

father-1pl.poss rel-in-heaven.mpl be.blessed.pc.3msg name.msg-2msg.poss
tite malkut-ɔk nehwe ṣebyɔn-ɔk

come.pc.3fsg kingdom.fsg-2msg.poss be.pc.3msg wish.msg-2msg.poss
Sertɔ
‫ܨܒܝܢܟ‬ ‫ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܢܬܩܪܒ ܫܡܟ ܬܐܬܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ ܢܗܘܐ‬
Nestorian
‫ܨܒܝܢܟ‬ ‫ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܢܬܩܕܫ ܫܡܟ ܬܐܬܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ ܢܗܘܐ‬
Estrangelɔ
‫ܨܒܝܢܟ‬ ‫ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܢܬܩܪܒ ܫܡܟ ܬܐܬܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ ܢܗܘܐ‬
Not only do these different churches use unique writing systems, they also use a dif-
ferent vocalization system: the western tradition uses vowels based on Greek script (e.g.,
epsilon for /e/, iota for /i/, etc.; see Table 25.1), while the eastern tradition uses a com-
bination of dots above and below the letter. The eastern tradition also specifies vocalic
length consistently. Most early texts, however, are not vocalized. Manuscripts do not mix
systems, although Estrangelɔ may be used for headings.
Syriac 655
In all systems, 22 consonants are represented. Most letters have independent and
connected variants (see Table 25.3). Some consonants are used to mark vowels: final e
(Nestorian ē) and ɔ are marked with <ʔ>, i (Nestorian ī) in any position can be marked
with <y> and back vowels are usually marked with <w>.
In addition, all systems use a complicated set of diacritic points to distinguish morpho-
logical homographs, such as plurals vs. singulars, perfect (kteb) vs. participle (kɔteb) etc.
(see sample in Table 25.2). Additionally, the allophones of six consonants are optionally
orthographically distinguished: a dot underneath them (rukkɔkɔ ‘soft’) signifies a frica-
tive allophone while a dot above (quššɔyɔ ‘hard’) marks a stop allophone (e.g., χ vs. k,
θ vs. t etc.). As the fricative allophone is a result of a preceding vowel, indicating these
allophones supplies important information about the morphology of the form.
As Syriac frequently uses historical spelling, some letters which are not pronounced
synchronically are marked with a narrow horizontal line above them, called linea occul-
tans. In this chapter, such quiescent consonants will not be represented, e.g., when hwɔ is
clitic, it will be represented as =wɔ. The 1c.poss, which is only indicated in writing but is
not pronounced, will be indicated in paranthesis -(y).
TABLE 25.1 VOWELS
East West
a ‫ܲܒ‬ ‫ܰܒ‬
ɔ ‫ܵܒ‬ ‫ܳܒ‬
e ‫ܸܒ‬ ‫ܶܒ‬
ē ‫ܹܒ‬
i ‫ܒܼܝ‬ ‫ܺܒ‬
o ‫ܒܿܘ‬
u ‫ܒܼܘ‬ ‫ܽܒ‬
TABLE 25.2 DIACRITICS
syɔme ̈
‫ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‬ mdinɔtɔ
linea occultans ‫ܡܕܝܢ̱ܬܐ‬ mdittɔ
rukkɔkɔ ‫ܛܒܐ‬
ܼ ṭɔbɔ
quššɔyɔ ‫ܛܒܐ‬ܿ ṭebbɔ
TABLE 25.3 THE ALPHABET
Transliteration Square Aramaic Nestorian Sertɔ Estrangelɔ W-Syr. name
ʔ ‫א‬ ‫ܐ ܦܐ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܐ ܦܐ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܐ ܦܐ ܐܦ‬ ʔɔlap

b ‫ב‬ ‫ܒ ܦܒ ܒܦ‬ ‫ܒ ܦܒ ܒܦ‬ ‫ܒ ܦܒ ܒܦ‬ bet
g ‫ג‬ ‫ܓ ܦܓ ܓܦ‬ ‫ܓ ܦܓ ܓܦ‬ ‫ܓ ܦܓ ܓܦ‬ gɔmal
d ‫ד‬ ‫ܕ ܦܕ ܕܦ‬ ‫ܕ ܦܕ ܕܦ‬ ‫ܕ ܦܕ ܕܦ‬ dɔlat
(Continued)
656 Na‘ama Pat-El
TABLE 25.3 (CONTINUED)
Transliteration Square Aramaic Nestorian Sertɔ Estrangelɔ W-Syr. name
h ‫ה‬ ‫ܗ ܦܗ ܗܦ‬ ‫ܗ ܦܗ ܗܦ‬ ‫ܗ ܦܗ ܗܦ‬ he

w ‫ו‬ ‫ܘ ܦܘ ܘܦ‬ ‫ܘ ܦܘ ܘܦ‬ ‫ܘ ܦܘ ܘܦ‬ waw
z ‫ז‬ ‫ܙ ܦܙ ܙܦ‬ ‫ܙ ܦܙ ܙܦ‬ ‫ܙ ܦܙ ܙܦ‬ zen
ḥ ‫ח‬ ‫ܚ ܦܚ ܚܦ‬ ‫ܚ ܦܚ ܚܦ‬ ‫ܚ ܦܚ ܚܦ‬ ḥet
ṭ ‫ט‬ ‫ܛ ܦܛ ܛܦ‬ ‫ܛ ܦܛ ܛܦ‬ ‫ܛ ܦܛ ܛܦ‬ ṭet
Y ‫י‬ ‫ܝ ܦܝ ܝܦ‬ ‫ܝ ܦܝ ܝܦ‬ ‫ܝ ܦܝ ܝܦ‬ yud
k ‫ך‬/‫כ‬ ‫ܟ ܦܟ ܟܦ‬ ‫ܟ ܦܟ ܟܦ‬ ‫ܟ ܦܟ ܟܦ‬ kɔp
l ‫ל‬ ‫ܠ ܦܠ ܠܦ‬ ‫ܠ ܦܠ ܠܦ‬ ‫ܠ ܦܠ ܠܦ‬ lɔmad
m ‫ם‬/‫מ‬ ‫ܡ ܦܡ ܡܦ‬ ‫ܡ ܦܡ ܡܦ‬ ‫ܡ ܦܡ ܡܦ‬ mim
n ‫ן‬/‫נ‬ ‫ܢ ܦܢ ܢܦ‬ ‫ܢ ܦܢ ܢܦ‬ ‫ܢ ܦܢ ܢܦ‬ nun
s ‫ס‬ ‫ܣ ܦܣ ܣܦ‬ ‫ܣ ܦܣ ܣܦ‬ ‫ܣ ܦܣ ܣܦ‬ semkat
‘ ‫ע‬ ‫ܥ ܦܥ ܥܦ‬ ‫ܥ ܦܥ ܥܦ‬ ‫ܥ ܦܥ ܥܦ‬ ʕe
p ‫ף‬/‫פ‬ ‫ܦ‬ ‫ܦ‬ ‫ܦ‬ pe
ṣ ‫ץ‬/‫צ‬ ‫ܨ ܦܨ ܨܦ‬ ‫ܨ ܦܨ ܨܦ‬ ‫ܨ ܦܨ ܨܦ‬ ṣɔde
q ‫ק‬ ‫ܩ ܦܩ ܩܦ‬ ‫ܩ ܦܩ ܩܦ‬ ‫ܩ ܦܩ ܩܦ‬ ḳɔp
r ‫ר‬ ‫ܪ ܦܪ ܪܦ‬ ‫ܪ ܦܪ ܪܦ‬ ‫ܪ ܦܪ ܪܦ‬ reš
š ‫ש‬ ‫ܫ ܦܫ ܫܦ‬ ‫ܫ ܦܫ ܫܦ‬ ‫ܫ ܦܫ ܫܦ‬ šin
t ‫ת‬ ‫ܬ ܦܬ ܬܦ‬ ‫ܬ ܦܬ ܬܦ‬ ‫ܬ ܦܬ ܬܦ‬ taw
3 PHONOLOGY
3.1 Consonants
Syriac has 22 consonants, listed in Table 25.4. Its phonological system reflects a number
of consonantal mergers. The following changes from Proto-Semitic are attested; some of
these should be dated to earlier dialects:
• The PS interdentals merged with the dentals during Official Aramaic: *ð, *d > d; *θ,
*t > t; *θ̣, *ṭ > ṭ.
• The PS velar fricatives merged with the pharyngeals in the Eastern Late Aramaic
dialects as late as the first century CE: *ʕ, *γ > ʕ; *ḥ, *χ > ħ.
• The PS alveolar lateral merged with its non-lateral counterpart in Old Aramaic: *ɬ, *s > s.
• The PS glottalic alveolar lateral, which in Old Aramaic was written with the letter
used for the glottalic velar, /k’/, merged with the voiced pharyngeal during Official
Aramaic: *ɬ’, *ʕ > ʕ.
Stops have fricative allophones, in any position other than (historically) initial syl-
labic margin, for example: ktab [kəθav] ‘he wrote’, where /k/ at the initial margin is a
stop, but /t/ and /b/ are fricatives, vs. nektob [neχ.tov] ‘he writes’, where /k/ and /b/ are
on the final margins and so are fricatives, while /t/ is in initial margin and therefore is
a stop. Spirantization is blocked by gemination; this rule applies across morphological
boundaries. Historically, fricative allophones were found postvocalically, but due to pho-
nological processes resulting in vowel deletion, this rule no longer reflects the allophony
in Syriac. One effect of vowel deletion is that stops and fricatives may synchronically
occupy the same slot, e.g., dahbɔ [dah.vɔ] ‘gold’ vs. malkɔ [mal.kɔ] (Edzard 2001). This
Syriac 657
TABLE 25.4 THE CONSONANTAL INVENTORY OF SYRIAC (IPA IN SQUARE BRACKETS)
Bilabial Dental Lateral Alveolar Palatal Palato- Velar Pharyngeal Glottal

Alveolar
Stop p b t d ṭ [t’] k g q [k’] ʔ

Nasal m n
Trill r
Fricative s z ṣ [s’] š [ʃ] ḥ [ħ] ʕ h
Approx. w l y [j]
inconsistency reflects the original syllabification of such words (in this case * ðahab vs.
*malk). Thus, the occurrence of fricative and stop allophones is not completely phonolog-
ically predictable, and in some cases they form minimal pairs: ḥdi-t [χðiːθ] rejoice.sc-1sg
‘I rejoiced’ vs. ḥdi-t [χðiːt] rejoice.sc-2msg ‘you rejoiced’.
The glottal stop, although represented in the writing system, is only a marginal phoneme,
and is lost in final position, e.g., saggi ‘tall’ (< saggiʔ, √sgʔ). In medial position, especially
intervocalically, it shifts to a glide, e.g., sɔnyɔ ‘hate.ptcp.fsg’ (<√snʔ), or disappears all
together, e.g., sɔnɔ ‘hate.ptcp.msg’ (<√snʔ). In initial position, it may be pronounced when it
is not preceded by any proclitic element; otherwise, it is lost, e.g., ʔalɔhɔ ‘god’, but l-alɔhɔ
‘to god’. There are, however, many words where the initial glottal stop is not pronounced;
this is especially common when it is followed by schwa, e.g., nɔšɔ ‘man’ (< ʔnɔšɔ; the word
may be written with a glottal stop marked with a linea occultans). The glottal stop remains
in medial position when geminated, e.g., šaʔʔel ask.sc.3msg ‘he asked’.
The fricative pharyngeals exhibit some peculiarities. No more than one such phoneme
can occur in a word. In words with two etymological ʕ, the first shifts to a glottal stop,
e.g., *ɬ’alʕ ‘rib’ > Aramaic ʕalʕ > Syriac ʔalʕ-. At a later stage, this has also happened in
the vicinity of a fricative glottal, e.g., ʔuhdɔnɔ ‘memory’ (< √ʕhd).
The fricative glottal is lost in non-initial position, e.g., hwɔ be.sc.3msg ‘he was’, but
kɔteb=wɔ write.ptcp.msg=be.sc.3msg ‘he was writing’.
3.2 Vowels
The consonantal system is largely shared by all dialects, but they differ when it comes to
vowels. The Jacobite writing tradition marks five vowels: a, ɔ, e, i, u, a result of mergers
of ě, i > i and o, u > u, which resulted in a system with no real length distinction. /o/ can
still be found in Greek loan words. The Nestorian writing tradition marks seven vowels,
and length is a feature of both /a/ and /e/: a, aː, e, eː, i, u, o. Schwa is not phonemic and
is not marked in either tradition but is part of the system and is used to break consonant
clusters. In this chapter the Jacobite tradition is used.
Diphthongs are ay [aj] (e.g., ʔitayn ‘we are’; see Table 25.17), aw (e.g., qraw ‘they
called sc.3mpl’) and ɔy (e.g., qɔymin ‘they stand ptcp.mpl’).
3.3 Syllabification and stress

Syllables in Syriac may begin with one or two consonants (CC), are open or closed (CVC,
CV) and are short or long (CVː, CV̆); long vowels in closed syllables are permissible
(CVːC). No CCC- clusters are allowed within a syllable. If a word begins with CC-, any
658 Na‘ama Pat-El
preceding proclitic particle, such as the conjunction w-, the relative d- and the preposition
l-, must take the vowel /a/, e.g., wa-ktab [wa-χ.tθav] and-write.sc.3msg ‘he wrote’.
Typically, stress falls on the ultimate, if it is closed, e.g., ketbet [keθ.ˈbeθ] ‘I wrote’.
Otherwise, stress falls on the penultimate, e.g., ktɔbɔ [ˈkəθɔ.vɔ] ‘script’.
4 MORPHOLOGY
By and large Syriac reflects a fairly typical Aramaic morphology, but a number of import-
ant innovations are starting to emerge, primarily in the verbal system.
4.1 Pronouns
Subject pronouns have independent and suffixal forms. The independent forms can
be used with any type of predicate. The suffixal forms are attached to non-verbal
predicates, such as participles, nominals, pronouns and prepositions, and function as
the subjects. The morphosyntax of 3rd person suffixal pronouns is different than that
of 1st and 2nd pronouns; the singular forms cannot function as subjects (see Table
25.16), and the plural forms are not phonetically clitic (Table 25.5). The 3rd person
plural forms can be used as subjects of non-verbal predicates but also as object pro-
nouns. Additionally, the 3msg suffix is used to mark the predicate in a cleft construc-
tion (see §5.2).
Possessive pronouns have alternating forms depending whether their host in the “abso-
lute” state (see §4.5.1) ends with a consonant or a diphthong. In practical terms, it means
that most singular as well as feminine plural nouns take one set of pronouns (Table 25.6,
on “singular” nouns) and masculine plural nouns, which typically end with -ay, take
another (Table 25.6, on “plural” nouns). This distribution, however, is not synchronically
predictable, as the form of the plural suffix on nouns is not assigned purely on the basis of
Singular Plural
indep. suff. indep. suff.

1c ʔenɔ =nɔ ḥnan/naḥnan =nan
2m ʔatt =att ʔatton =ton
2f ʔatt(y) =att(y) ʔatten =ten
3m hu =u/w hennon ʔennon
3f hi =i hennen ʔennen
TABLE 25.6 POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS
On “Singular” Nouns On “Plural” Nouns
sg pl sg pl
1c -(y) -an -ay -ay-n

2m -ɔk -kon -ay-k -ay-kon
2f -ek(y) -ken -ay-k(y) -ay-ken
3m -eh -hon -a-w(hy) -ay-hon
3f -ɔh -hen -eh -ay-hen
Syriac 659
gender (see §4.5.1), and non-plural forms may also end with a diphthong. For example,
some prepositions may take the “singular” set, e.g., ʕam-ɔk (with-2msg.poss) ‘with you’,
and some the “plural” set, e.g., ʕal-ayk (on-2msg.poss) ‘on you’.
1sg on “singular” nouns is not pronounced, but is regularly represented in writing as -y.
Thus, lwāt-(y) ‘towards me’ is pronounced like the basic lexeme [ləwɔθ].
The possessive pronoun agrees with the possessor of its host, not with the host; thus,
ḥasyut-ɔk ‘your holiness’ is a fsg noun ‘holiness’ with a 2msg pronoun in agreement with
the possessor, ‘you.msg’.
Most object pronouns (Table 25.7) are identical to their corresponding possessive pro-
nouns, with a few notable exceptions. 1sg has different pronouns for possessive, -(y), and
object, -an. Additionally, there are no 3rd person plural object suffixes; instead, indepen-
dent demonstratives are used (see Table 25.5).
4.2 Demonstratives
There are two sets of demonstratives, distal and proximal (Table 25.8). They are most
commonly positioned after their nominal head, but may also be found before it, primarily
in fixed phrases (§5.1).
4.3 Interrogatives
Most interrogatives in Syriac do not inflect. 3rd person singular pronouns and demonstra-
tives can be attached to interrogatives, e.g., man hu > manu ‘who is he?’
ʔaykanɔ ‘how?’
ʔemmat ‘when?’
man ‘who?’
mɔ / mɔn / mɔnɔ ‘what?’
TABLE 25.7 OBJECT PRONOUNS
After C- After V-
sg pl sg pl
1c -an(y) -an -n(y) -n

2m -ɔk -kon -k -kon
2f -ek(y) -ken -k(y) -ken
3m -eh ʔennon -w(hy) ʔennon
3f -ɔh ʔennen -h ʔennen
Proximal Distal
singular m hɔnɔ/hɔn haw

f hɔde hɔy
plural m hɔllen hɔnnon
f hɔnnen
660 Na‘ama Pat-El
Only one interrogative shows basic inflection; it is traditionally referred to as an interrog-

ative demonstrative:
msg ʔaynɔ, fsg ʔaydɔ, pl ʔaylen ‘which’.
4.4 Relative
The relative is an uninflected marker d-, which is proclitic on a host. The inflection of the
relative is achieved periphrastically through a preceding demonstrative or interrogative
(see §5.5).
4.5 Nominals
4.5.1 Inflection
Nouns in Syriac have two genders (masculine and feminine), two numbers (singular and
plural) and three states (absolute, construct and emphatic). Feminine gender is mostly
marked with a suffix -t- before the emphatic ending. Table 25.9 exemplifies the basic
inflection of the adjective ‘good’, from a common Semitic pattern *qaṭṭīl:
This is as a rule true for adjectives, which inflect regularly; substantives, however, vary
significantly. Many common feminine nouns do not have an explicit feminine ending,
such as ʔemmɔ ‘mother’, ʔarʕɔ ‘earth’, kipɔ ‘stone’, etc. Several nouns can have both
genders, e.g., zabnɔ ‘time’ and ḥarbɔ ‘sword’. The plural suffixes, fpl -ɔtɔ and mpl -e,
are likewise predictable primarily for adjectives and participles. Nouns typically follow
suit, yet there are many exceptions: yawmɔ ‘day.msg’ ~ yawm-ɔtɔ ‘days.m-pl’ vs. ʕaynɔ
‘eye.fsg’ ~ ʕayn-ē ‘eyes.f-pl’.
Historically, nominal states reflect the basic morphosyntax of the noun, namely
whether it is independent (‘absolute’ state), carries a dependent (‘construct’ state), or is
definite (‘emphatic’ state). As the definite article is no longer functional in this Aramaic
dialect, the default form of the substantive is essentially the emphatic. The change has
created a syntactically conditioned distribution, especially with adjectives: the absolute
TABLE 25.9 NOMINAL INFLECTION
Absolute Construct Emphatic
msg šappir šappir šappir-ɔ

fsg šappir-ɔ šappir-at šappir-tɔ
mpl šappir-in šappir-ay šappir-e
fpl šappir-ɔn šappir-ɔt šappir-ɔtɔ
TABLE 25.10 STATES AND THEIR FUNCTION
State Example (fsg) Original Function Syriac Function
Absolute biš-ɔ ‘bad’ indefinite predicate, adverb

Construct biš-at head of a nominal chain head of a nominal chain
Emphatic biš-tɔ definite citation form
Syriac 661
form is used primarily to mark predicative and adverbial functions, the construct form is
used to mark a head noun in a nominal chain, and the emphatic state is used for all other
functions (Table 25.10).
4.5.2 Patterns
Many Semitic patterns are attested in Syriac; however due to vowel reduction, several of
them fell together and may not be distinguished synchronically.
The reflexes of the Semitic monosyllabic patterns (*qaṭl, *qiṭl, *quṭl) appear respec-
tively as qaṭlɔ (e.g., ʔarʕɔ ‘land’), qeṭlɔ (e.g., seprɔ ‘book’) and quṭlɔ (e.g., ʔurḥɔ ‘road’).
Due to vowel reduction, a pattern based on the Semitic pattern *qatVl also appear as
qaṭlɔ, where spirantization may point to the original pattern (e.g., ḥalbɔ ‘milk’ < *ħalab,
but katpɔ ‘shoulder’ < *katp). Other common patterns are as follows:
qɔṭlɔ (< *qāṭvl): ʕɔlmɔ ‘eternity’;

qṭɔlɔ (< *qvṭāl): qrɔbɔ ‘war’;
qaṭṭɔlɔ (< *qaṭṭāl): ḥayyɔṭɔ ‘tailor’ (mostly professions);
qaṭṭilɔ (< *qaṭṭīl): rakkik ‘soft’ (mostly adjectives).
There are very few patterns with geminated third root radical, e.g., prakkɔ ‘(non-Chrisian)
altar’.
In addition to vocalic patterns, several suffixes are also used. The most common
nominal suffix is -ɔn-, which can be used to derive adjectives from substantives (e.g.,
šmayyɔnɔ ‘heaven > heavenly’) or adjectives from participles (e.g., mʕaddərɔnɔ ‘protect-
ing, helping > protector’). The feminine counterpart carries the ending -ɔnitɔ.
Syriac has additionally a small set of reduplicated patterns (e.g., šlamləmɔ ‘perfect’ <
*šalamlam-).
4.5.3 Numerals
Syriac uses a decimal system. Cardinal numerals are nouns, and have a masculine and
feminine forms for each number. Except for the numbers 1 and 2, the masculine numerals
look morphologically feminine (Table 25.11).
The second decade is constructed of the single number in construct followed by the
decade of the opposite gender, e.g., m ʔarbəʕat-ʕsar, f ʔarba-ʕesre ‘14’. The tens are not
gendered; they are constructed from the basic number with the plural absolute suffix *‑in
(see Table 25.8): tlɔt-in ‘30’, ʔarbʕ-in ‘40’, ḥamš-in ‘50’ etc. The only exception is ‘20’,
which is the plural of the numeral ‘10’, not ‘2’: ʕešr-in.
TABLE 25.11 INFLECTION OF THE FIRST DECADE
M F M F
1 ḥad ḥdɔ 6 šəttɔ/ʔešəttɔ šet

2 tren tarten 7 šabʕɔ šbaʕ
3 tlɔtɔ tlɔt 8 tmɔnyɔ tmɔne
4 ʔarbəʕɔ ʔarbaʕ 9 tešʕɔ tšaʕ
5 ḥamšɔ ḥammeš 10 ʕesrɔ ʕsar
662 Na‘ama Pat-El
When referring to countable nouns, cardinal numerals will usually assume a construct
state, e.g., ʔarbʕat ruḥe ‘the four directions’. With the exception of ‘1’, the first decade
can take pronominal suffixes to refer to number of members in a group, e.g., ḥamšɔtay-n
‘we five.m’, ḥamšɔtay-hon ‘the five.m of them’ etc.
Ordinal numbers, with the exception of ‘first’ and ‘second’, take the adjectival pattern
qṭilɔyɔ, e.g., tlitɔyɔ ‘third’, rbiʕɔyɔ ‘fourth’, etc. To express ‘first’, an adjective from the
root √qdm ‘to be early, before’ is used: qadmɔyɔ. The ordinal ‘second’ uses a different
pattern, with the adjectival ending -ɔnɔ (see §4.5.2): m trayyɔnɔ, f trayyɔnitɔ.
4.6 Verbs
The verbal system of Syriac is rich, containing both inherited forms and a number of
innovative paradigms.
4.6.1 Tense/aspect
Syriac has two finite paradigms and two non-finite paradigms that form part of its tense
system.
1 Past: Suffix conjugation, marking past tense: ktab-t ‘you.msg wrote’ (Table 25.11).
2 Future: Prefix conjugation, marking future tense: te-ktob ‘you.msg will write’
(Table 25.12).
3 Present: Active participle with a clitic subject suffix, marking present: (kɔteb-att >)
kɔtb=att ‘you.msg are writing’ (Table 25.14).
4 Present copula: An existential particle with a clitic possessive suffix: ʔit-ayk ‘you.msg
are’ (Table 25.15).
To all these, a clitic inflected form of the verb hwɔ ‘to be’ in the suffix conjugation, =wɔ
(pst), can be added, to mark relative past, mood or Aktionsart (see Table 25.12):
• suffix conjugation > pluperfect / past background: ktab-t=way-t write.sc-2msg=

be.sc-2msg ‘you.msg had written’
• prefix conjugation > hypothetical / iterative: te-ktob=way-t 2msg-write.pc=be.sc-2msg
‘you.msg should have been writing’
• active participle > past frequentative: kɔteb=way-t write.ptcp.msg=be.sc-2msg
‘you.msg were writing’
• copula > past: ʔit-ayk=way-t exist-2msg=be.sc-2msg ‘you.msg were’
TABLE 25.12 PAST EXPONENT (pst)
Singular Plural
1c =we-t =way-n
2m =way-t =way-ton
2f =way-t(y) =way-ten
3m =wɔ =wa-w
3f =wɔ-t =wa-y
Syriac 663

The prefix and suffix conjugations inflect for number-gender-person. These are marked as
suffixes for the suffix conjugation, and as person prefixes and gender-number suffixes for
the prefix conjugation (Table 25.11; the root used as an example is √qṭl ‘kill’).
1 The base of the suffix conjugation is the 3msg (qṭal- or qṭel), except for the 1sg and
3fsg, which have a different stem (qeṭl-). Due to vowel reduction and subsequent
deletion, some of the forms are identical, namely, 3msg, 3mpl and 3fpl. Some forms
have an archaic orthographic variant, which is used to distinguish them in writing
(marked here in parenthesis); their pronunciation is not affected. Thus, the suffix
conjugation shows syncretism of the genders of the 2nd person singular, and the
genders of the 3rd person plural.
The suffix conjugation (Table 25.13) is used primarily to mark past tense events
broadly speaking, or the relative past. It is additionally conditioned by certain subor-
dination markers, like mɔ d- ‘when’ and men d- ‘since’. It can be used as a hypothet-
ical or irrealis in certain contexts.
2 For the prefix conjugation, person-gender is primarily marked as a prefix while
number-gender is primarily marked as a suffix. The base of the prefix conjugation
in the basic verbal stem has a thematic vowel between R2 and R3, which is a reflex
of an older system, where roots showed different vocalic patterns depending on their
semantics. The thematic vowel ‑o- of ʔeqṭol ‘I will kill’ is a reflex of the West Semitic
*-u- (*ʔiḳtul), marking active transitive verbs. The vowel is syncopated in forms with
number-gender suffixes, e.g., ne-qṭl-un 3-kill.pc-mpl ‘they (m) will kill’. An innovation
in Eastern Aramaic resulted in syncretism between 3msg and 1pl, ne-qṭol.
The prefix conjugation is used primarily for the future, both immediate (futur
proche) and distant. It is also used for modal expressions, like wish, requests and
commands. It is used in complement clauses of verbs of speaking, causation, cogni-
tion and experience.
Singular Plural
1c qeṭl-et qṭal-n
2m qṭal-t qṭal-ton
2f qṭal-t(y) qṭal-ten
3m qṭal qṭal-(w)
3f qeṭl-at qṭal-(y)
Singular Plural
1c ʔe-qṭol ne-qṭol
2m te-qṭol te-qṭl-un
2f te-qṭl-in te-qṭl-ɔn
3m ne-qṭol ne-qṭl-un
3f te-qṭol ne-qṭl-ɔn
664 Na‘ama Pat-El
Synchronically the imperative is related to the prefix conjugation; namely, the

thematic vowel of both forms is the same. The base of all imperative forms is 2msg
qtol- with gender-number suffixes. Orthographically, the different forms are distinct,
but their pronunciation is identical. The plural has a secondary form which is distinct
in pronunciation (though it is rarely used) (Table 25.15).
3 The present tense is based on a nominal form, the active participle, which inflects for
gender-number in the “absolute” state (see §4.6.3). Person marking is supplied by a
suffixed subject clitic (see Table 25.5), with the exception of the 3rd person, which while
it retains its nominal gender-number inflection, typically remains unmarked for per-
son. Because the base is nominal and inflects for gender-number, even the 1st person is
marked for gender, unlike the case for other verbal paradigms, as shown in Table 25.16.
The subject clitic can be orthographically attached to the participle, or written separately.
This construction is used to mark the present, both simple and continuous. It may
also be used for the future, instead of the pc. Introduced by w- ‘and’ after the sc, it
can be resultative. The participle of the verb ʔmar ‘say’ introduces speech acts in the
past, but otherwise the participle is not typically used in narratives.
For a few active transitive verbs, this construction is also possible with passive
participles; e.g., dkīr=nɔ remember.ptcp.pass.msg=1sg ‘I remember’.
4 The copula (Table 25.17) is based on the existential particle (exist), which is an
uninflected form. When it is used as a copula, pronominal possessive suffixes (the
set attached to “plural” nouns; Table 25.7) mark person-number-gender.
Singular Plural
m qṭol qṭol-(w)
qṭol-un
f qṭol-(y) qṭol-(y)
qṭol-en
TABLE 25.16 THE ANALYTIC PRESENT TENSE
Singular Plural
1m qɔṭel=nɔ qɔṭl-in=nan
1f qɔṭl-ɔ=nɔ qɔṭl-ɔn=nan
2m qɔṭl=att qɔṭl-in=ton > qɔṭl-it=ton
2f qɔṭl-(ɔ)=att(y) qɔṭl-ɔn=ten > qɔṭl-ɔt=ten
3m qɔṭel qɔṭl-in
3f qɔṭl-ɔ qɔṭl-ɔn
TABLE 25.17 THE COPULA
Singular Plural
1m ʔitay ʔitay-n
2m ʔitay-k ʔitay-kon
2f ʔitay-k(y) ʔitay-ken
3m ʔit-aw ʔitay-hon
3f ʔit-eh ʔitay-hen
Syriac 665
4.6.3 Verbal stems
Tables 25.12–25.15 show inflections of the basic stem, known as G (from German Grund-
stamm). This stem, semantically unmarked, has two subtypes: “active,” with sc in a, and
sc in o (ktab ~ nektob ‘write’); and “stative,” with sc in e, and sc in a (kpen ~ nekpan ‘be
hungry’). Synchronically, this devision is mostly lexical.
Overall, Syriac has three morphologically distinct active verbal stems, G, D (for Dou-
ble, with R2 gemination) and C (for Causative) (Table 25.18), and three corresponding
passive-reflexive stems, Gt, Dt and Ct. The latter are marked with a prefix ʔet-, on a base
which keeps the morphological stamp of the active form (gemination for the intensive,
and a prefix ʔa- for the causative).
Historically, all active stems were semantically derived from G; however, in Syriac the
relationship between the various active forms is not always transparent, and some roots
do not occur in G at all. The semantic functions associated with these stems in earlier
phases of Semitic, or indeed Aramaic, are by and large no longer relevant for Syriac, with
the possible exception of C. Many roots have a causative form with a transparent mean-
ing, but not all C forms are causative. For example:
G ktab ‘he wrote’; Gt ʔetkteb ‘it was committed to writing’ < √ktb.
D mallel ‘he spoke’; Dt ʔetmallal ‘it was said’ < √mll.
C ʔanhar ‘it gave light’; Ct ʔettanhar ‘he was enlightened’ < √nhr.
All stems have full paradigms with the TAM described in §4.6.2 (numbers 1–2). See
Table 25.19 for a comparison of the primary forms of all stems.
All stems have additionally three types of deverbal nouns: participle, infinitive and agent
noun. Only for G are these three forms based on distinct morphological patterns; all other
stems use the active participle as the basis for all deverbal nouns.
The participles and the agent noun have the distribution and syntax of an adjective,
namely, they can modify nouns and follow the same agreement rules as adjectives. The
infinitive can be used as a verbal complement or as a substantive, and takes possessive
suffixes.
Table 25.19 provides the basic forms of verbs and deverbal nouns for all verb stems.
TABLE 25.18 THE VERBAL STEMS
G “Basic” D “Intensive” C “Causative”
Active R1R2aR3 (ktab), R1R2eR3 (dḥel) R1aR2R2eR3 (mallel) ʔaR1R2eR3 (ʔanhar)

Pass-Reciproc ʔetR1R2eR3 (ʔetkteb) ʔetR1aR2R2aR3 (ʔetmallal) ʔettaR1R2aR3 (ʔettanhar)
TABLE 25.19 PRIMARY FORMS
G Gt D Dt C Ct
sc qṭal, qṭel ʔetqtel qaṭṭel ʔetqaṭṭal ʔaqṭel ʔettaqṭal

pc neqṭol, neqṭal netqṭel nqaṭṭel netqaṭṭal naqṭel nettaqṭal
imp qṭol etqṭel qaṭṭel ʔetqaṭṭal ʔaqṭel ʔettaqṭal
ptcp.act qɔṭel metqṭel mqaṭṭel metqaṭṭal maqṭel mettaqṭal
ptcp.pass qṭil mqaṭṭal maqṭal
inf meqṭal metqṭɔlu mqaṭṭɔlu metqaṭṭɔlu maqṭɔlu mettaqṭɔlu
agent noun qɔṭolɔ metqaṭlɔnɔ mqaṭṭlɔnɔ metqaṭṭəlɔnɔ maqṭalɔnɔ mettaqṭlɔnɔ
666 Na‘ama Pat-El
4.6.5 Weak roots
Verbs may exhibit different forms if one or more of their root radicals is a pharyn-
geal, glide, /n/ or less often /r/. In addition, verbs whose second and third radicals
are identical behave irregularly. The following is a brief review of the main points of
interest:
R1=n roots: Following a regular sound rule n > C/_C, the pc of most I – n roots shows
assimilation of R1 to R2, e.g., teppoq ‘you will leave’ from √npq. In the G imp, the
/n/ is missing from most I – n verbs: poq ‘leave!’.
R1=y roots: Most of these roots show regular phonological results (e.g., yə > i). In the
roots √ytb ‘sit’ and √ydʕ ‘know’, however, the initial /y/ assimilates to the follow-
ing consonant in the same environment as /n/: iteb ‘he sat’ but netteb ‘he will sit’
(√ytb). Likewise, in the G imp the initial /y/ is missing, e.g., teb ‘sit!’.
R1=R2 (“geminate”) roots: These show a number of unexpected behaviors. In the G
sc they reflect metathesis, thus bazz > baz ‘he plundered’ (instead of expected
**bzaz). The G participle has two different patterns: msg absolute bɔʔez ‘plun-
dering.msg’, as if the root is √bwz, but all other forms show the expected form,
thus bɔzzin ‘plundering.mpl’. In the G pc and infinitive, R1 is geminated, instead
of the expected R2, e.g., nebbzun ‘they will plunder’ (instead of **nebzzun), and
mebbaz ‘to plunder’ (instead of **mebzaz).
4.7 Prepositions/adverbs/conjunctions
4.7.1 Position
Prepositions are always positioned before their nominal dependent, which can be a noun,
pronoun, demonstrative or relative marker.
4.7.2 Derivation
Most Syriac prepositions are based on construct nouns, except l ‘to’, b ‘in’ and men
‘from’. Some prepositions have a different pattern depending whether their object is a
noun or a suffixed pronoun, for example, ʔak ‘like’ + nouns, but ʔakwat + pronouns;
tḥet ‘under’ + nouns, but tḥot + pronouns. Apart from these, the main prepositions are as
follows.
baynɔt ‘between’ lwɔt ‘with, towards’ men blay ‘wothout

belʕad ‘without’ luqbal ‘against’ meṭṭul ‘because of’
bestar ‘behind’ ʕad ‘until, up to’ qdɔm ‘before’
bɔtar ‘after’ ʕal ‘on’ ṣed ‘with, towards’
dlɔ ‘without’ ʕam ‘with’
Most adverbs are prepositional phrases, e.g., l-ʕal ‘above’, mekkel (<*men-kel) ‘now’.
There are a few lexical adverbs, e.g., hɔššɔ ‘now’, ʔeštqad ‘last year’, kaddu ‘already’; all
of these are fossilized prepositional phrases or noun phrases. Beyond these adverbs, most
of which were inherited from the proto-language, Syriac has two productive strategies
to form adverbs. Any adjective can be used as an adverb in its basic, uninflected form,
Syriac 667
namely msg absolute, for example, qallil ‘a little bit’, biš ‘badly’, etc. Additionally, Syriac
has a suffix which allows the derivation of an adverb from any nominal form: adjective
> adverb: šappirɔʔit ‘beautifully’; substantive > adverb: ʔalɔhɔʔit ‘divinely’; participle >
adverb: mṭaššyɔʔit ‘hidden’ (Butts 2010).
4.7.3 Conjunctions
The basic conjunctions are w- ‘and’, ʔaw ‘or’, ʔɔp ‘also’, ʔellɔ ‘rather, however’.
A few borrowed Greek conjunctions are also common: ger ‘indeed’, men ‘indeed’,
den ‘now’.
5 SYNTAX
Syntax is where Syriac differs most from other related languages, and where it shows
grammatical innovations.
5.1 Word order
The order of subject and predicate in the verbal sentence is fairly free, as the subject is
encoded in the morphology of the verb. The order of the constituents in the nominal sen-
tence is mostly Predicate-Subject, where the subject is typically a clitic subject pronoun,
except in the case of 3rd person subjects, where an overt subject pronoun is not obligatory
(Goldenberg 1983). An additional nominal subject may occur appositionally either before
the predicative core or after it.
Other phrases in Syriac invariably have the order Head-Dependent. For example,
PP ʔak hɔde
like dem.msg
‘Like this’.
N–N reḥmat ʔalɔhɔ

love.fsg.cst god.msg
‘Love of god, i.e., faith, religion’.
N–Adj qullɔs-e rawrb-e

praise.m-pl many-mpl
‘Many praises’.
N–Rel ʔɔtw-ɔtɔ hɔllen d=mestaʕr-ɔn

sign.f-pl dem.pl rel=happen.ptcp-fpl
‘The signs that take place’.
The demonstrative typically stands before the constituent it modifies (§4.2):
haw matlɔ d=zizɔn-e

dem.msg tale.msg rel=tare.m-pl
‘That parable of the weeds’.
668 Na‘ama Pat-El

Syriac has two main types of predication: verbal, where the predicate is a finite verb, and
nominal, where the predicate is a substantive, adjective, participle, adverb or preposi-
tional phrase. For example:
Verbal predication:
nɔš men ʔabɔ-hɔtɔ ḥzet
man.msg from father.msg-pl see.sc.1sg
‘I saw one of the fathers’.
Nominal predication:
hɔllen ʔennen sɔʕurw-ɔtɔ d=alɔhɔ
dem.pl copmpl doing.m-pl rel=god
‘These are the actions of god’.
Syriac additionally has an existential particle (exist), ʔit, and its negative variants, lɔ
ʔit/layt, which are primarily used to mark possession, existence and, when inflected for
person, copula (see inflection in Table 25.17). When used in possessive predication, the
possessor is marked with the preposition l- (2msg in the example), and the possessum
(meddem) is left unmarked, for example:
ʔit l=ɔk meddem b=reʕyɔn-ɔk

exist to=2msg.poss something in=idea.m-2msg.poss
‘You have an idea’.
Some participles take non-canonical subject; these belong to a small, close set of
non-agentive participles, most commonly ‘it is befitting’, zɔdeq ‘it behooves’, yɔyɔ ‘it
is appropriate’. The subject experiencer is introduced via the preposition l-. This type of
predication typically expresses modality (Pat-El 2018). For example:
lɔ zɔdeq l=eh d=ne-dḥal

neg be.right.ptcp.3msg to=3msg.poss rel=3m-fear.pc
‘He should not be afraid’.
In addition, the perfect can also be expressed with a non-canonical subject, where the
predicate is a passive participle:
qre-n l=ɔk ktɔb-e

read.ptcl.pass-mpl to=2msg book.m-pl
‘Have you read the books?’
Cleft in Syriac is not expressed by subordination, but rather by attaching a clitic 3msg
pronoun -u to the logical subject (Goldenberg 1983).
ʔatt=u yɔheb ṣlotɔ l=aylen da=mṣalle-n

2msg=foc give.ptcp.msg prayer.fsg to=dem.mpl rel=pray.ptcp-mpl
‘It is you who give prayer to those who pray’.
Syriac 669
5.3 Definiteness
The inherited Aramaic definite article (*ɔ < *-aː < *-aʔ) is no longer functional as a
definite article. The default form of substantives contains the suffixed article, now a mere
marker of their category, thus ktɔbɔ could be ‘book’, ‘a book’ or ‘the book’ depending on
context. The absolute form may be used in some cases, but it is syntactically conditioned
and does not carry any synchronic reference to definiteness. Positions which favor the
absolute are, for example, after numerals, after the preposition dlɔ ‘without’ and after the
quantifier kul ‘all’. Adjectives still maintain an absolute for regular functions, most nota-
bly in predicative position, for example: raḥḥiq-in=waw far-mpl=be.sc.3mpl ‘they were
far’, and as an adverb (see §4.7.2).
Definiteness, however, can be marked syntactically. A definite noun phrase is
made overtly definite through an agreement pronoun, which can either be suffixed
to the head of the noun phrase or be independent, in which case it can be a demon-
strative or a 3rd person pronoun. The preceding pronoun, traditionally called pro-
leptic pronoun, is in agreement with the following substantive (Pat-El 2012). For
example:
• Definite objects of verbs:

w=kad qabbl-ɔh=wɔ Yešuʕ l=eggartɔ
and=when receive.sc.3msg-3fsg.obj=pst Jesus obj=letter.fsg
‘And when Jesus had received the letter’.
• Definite objects of prepositions:
b=ɔh b=šɔʕtɔ
in=3fsg.poss in=time.fsg
‘At the time’.
ʕl-aw d=Adday
on-3msg.poss rel=Addai
‘About Addai’.
• Definite genitive construction:
ʕuhdɔnay-hen d=mardw-ɔtɔ
memory.mpl-3fpl.poss rel=punishment.f-pl
‘The memories of the punishments’.
• Definite subject:
yɔdaʕ=wɔ hu ʔAdday
know.ptcp.msg=pst pro.3msg Addai
‘Addai knew’.
Definiteness can also be marked contextually, without any marker.
men malpɔn-e qadmɔy-e da-b-leššɔnɔ suryɔyɔ ʔetḥzi ʔit-aw(hy)

from teacher.m-pl first-mpl rel-in-tongue Syrian see.pass.3msg cop-3msg
‘He is one of the first teachers known in the Syriac language’.
670 Na‘ama Pat-El
The main analytic structures are used for TAM in the verbal system, and for possession
in the nominal system.

The verb hwɔ ‘to be’ in its enclitic inflected form (pst) is used in several constructions
with inflected verbs and participles. It inflects for gender-number-person and marks either
a relative past or Aktionsart (see §4.6.1 for examples). Analytic verbal forms in which
hwɔ is used appear in Table 25.20.
The existential marker (exist), in its function both as a possessive predicate and as
copula, typically takes an uninflected =wɔ as a past tense marker:
ʔit=wɔ l=ɔh ʔamtɔ

exist=pst to=3fsg.poss maid.fsg
‘She had a maid’.
The perfect can be expressed by the passive participle where the agent is marked as a
non-canonical subject, typically through the preposition l-:
qre-n l=ɔk ktɔb-e

read.ptcp.pass-mpl to=2msg.poss book.m-pl
‘Have you read the books?’
Nominal direct objects are usually marked with the preposition l- ‘to’, though a verbal
object may be unmarked, in which case it is unspecified for definiteness:
qabbel-t ktib-ɔtɔ
receive.sc-1sg write.ptcp.pass-fpl
‘I have received letters/the letters’.
In general, the marking of pronominal objects is synthetic. With the exception of the 3rd
person plural, pronominal objects of verbs are suffixed rather than marked with an exter-
nal object marker. If the nominal object is definite, it may be marked by a variety of ways.
• Basic definite pattern (V l=N/Pron):

n-ḥabbel l=Orišlem
3m-destroy.pc obj=Jerusalem
‘He will destroy Jerusalem’.
TABLE 25.20 ANALYTIC VERBAL FORMS
BasicF Resulting Function Example
Suffix conjugation Pluperfect/past background kad ettiled=wɔ ‘when he was born’

when bear.sc.pass.3msg=pst.3msg
Prefix conjugation Present iterative kad n-ezal=wɔ ‘whenever he comes’
when 3m-come.pc=pst.3msg
Active participle Past iterative mappq-in=waw ‘they were bringing out’
go.out.ptcp-mpl=pst.3mpl
Syriac 671
• Expanded definite pattern (V-Proni l=Ni):

ʔaḥud-ih hakkel l=hɔy maḥzitɔ špi-tɔ
grasp.imp.2msg-3msg adv obj=dem.fsg mirror.fsg clear-fsg
‘Therefore, hold on to this clear mirror’.

Dependency (annexation, construct) between two nouns, or between a noun and pronoun,
can be marked directly, namely, when the head is in construct state, e.g., qɔl zmir-ɔtɔ
sound.msg.cst song.f-pl ‘the sound of melodies’; typically, however, this construction
is reserved for theological terminology, archaic language and frozen expressions (Brock
1997). More commonly, the relationship between two nouns is marked with analytic con-
structions, all based on the relative particle d-, depending on the perceived definiteness or
specificity of the nouns involved:
• Basic pattern (N d=N):

ktib-ɔtɔ d=ḥasyut-ɔk
write.ptcp.pass-fpl rel=holiness.fsg-2msg.poss
‘The letters of your holiness’.
• Definite (N-proni d=Ni):
br-eh d=alɔhɔ
son.msg-3msg.poss rel=god.msg
‘The son of god’.
• Definite (N dil=Proni d=Ni):
episqɔpɔ qaddišɔ dil=ɔh d=huparkiyɔ
bishop.msg holy.msg gen=3fsg.poss
rel=province.fsg
‘The holy bishop of the province’.
• Definite and specific (Ni Demi d-N):
maʕbartɔ hɔy d=Iriḥu
crossing.fsg dem.fsg rel=Jericho
‘The crossing of Jericho’.
The independent possessive marker dil is used to mark the pronominal genitive comple-
ment of substantives, primarily (but not exclusively) those which cannot formally take a
possessive pronoun, mostly loan words:
ʔusyas dil=hon
estate.mpl gen=3mpl.poss
‘Their resources’.
It can also be substantivized:
dil=an dil=eh ʔitaw=wɔ

gen=1pl.poss gen=3msg.poss cop.3msg=pst
‘Ours was his’.
672 Na‘ama Pat-El
Definite objects of prepositions show a similar set of patterns, with proleptic pronoun in
agreement with the object which in turn is introduced via d= or dil=:
• Prep-Proni d/dil=Ni:
lwɔt=an dil=an
toward=1pl.poss gen=1pl.poss
‘Toward us’.
menn=ɔh da=mdittɔ
from=3fsg.poss rel=city.fsg
‘From the city’.
In a less common pattern the preposition is repeated, first with the proleptic pronoun and
then with the noun itself:
b=eh b=hɔnɔ zabnɔ qašyɔ

in=3msg.poss in=dem.msg time.msg hard.msg
‘At this difficult time’.
5.5 Subordination
All subordinated sentences must be introduced with the relative particle d-. The anteced-
ent is typically represented in the relative clause as a pronoun, with the occasional excep-
tion of the direct object. In the following example, the head noun riše ‘chapters’, is
represented as the object of the preposition b-hon ‘in them’.
šɔlm-in=nan riš-e hɔllen d=idiʕtɔ

complete.ptcp-mpl=1pl head.m-pl dem.pl rel=knowledge.fsg
d=sim b=hon ḥaylɔ rabbɔ
rel=put.ptcp.pass.msg in=3mpl power.msg great.msg
‘We have completed the chapters on knowledge in which there is great understanding’.
Relative clauses whose antecedent is definite may be additionally preceded by a demon-

strative or an inflected interrogative (see §4.3) in agreement with the antecedent (Pat-El
2010).
kalbɔ den ḥad ʔukkɔmɔ ʔid-eh d=yamminɔ

dog.msg adv one.msg black.msg hand.fsg-3msg.poss rel=right.fsg.abs
hɔy d=arim ʕal Yihudɔ šqil=wɔ
dem.fsg rel=lift.sc.3msg on Judas take.ptcp.pass.msg=pst
‘A black dog picked up the right hand which [the man] raised against Judas’.
Adverbial subordination is based on a variety of prepositions and nouns followed by the

relative particle, for example bɔtar d- ‘after’, ʔatar d- ‘where’, etc. (Pat-El 2008). Even the
protasis in conditional sentences may be introduced by this particle, ʔen d- or ʔen hu d-.
w=men maḥšulɔ lɔ nɔpel meṭṭul da=sleq

and=from storm neg fall.ptcp.msg because
rel=go.up.sc.3msg
Syriac 673
l=eh benyɔn-eh ʕal šuʕɔ d=kipɔ šarrir-tɔ

to=3msg building-3msg on rock rel=stone.f true-fsg
‘He does not fall on account of the tempest, because his building had been built upon
the rock of the true Stone’.
Direct and indirect speech are likewise marked with the relative particle, whether or not
they are introduced by a verb of speech. In the case of direct speech, this marking is not
obligatory, but very common.
Direct speech:
lɔ ger šemšɔ memmətum ʔɔmar d=lɔ sɔleq=nɔ
neg adv sun.msg adv say.ptcp.msg rel=neg rise.ptcp.msg=1sg
b-ʕedɔn-(y)
in-time-1sg.poss
‘The sun does not say: I will not rise at my usual time’.
Indirect speech:
ʔɔp hennen ṣebw-ɔtɔ d=emr-et da=b=puqdɔn-e qɔym-ɔn
adv dem.fpl thing.f-pl rel=say.sc-1sg rel=in=rule-pl stand-fpl
‘Also these things which I have said that they follow rules’.
5.6 Negation
Negation in Syriac is more complicated than in other Aramaic dialects. Canonical pred-
icates, like verbs, adjectives, participles and the existential and copula ʔit, are negated
with the common Semitic particle lɔ. The negation is typically closer to the predicate.
Nominal negation (‘without’) is dlɔ.
w=lɔ sepqat ʕaynɔ d=tarʕit-(y) l=metbaqqiw

and=neg be.enough.sc.3fsg eye.f rel=mind-1sg to=understand.inf
‘My intelligence is not sufficient to understand’.
w=lɔ ʔit-aw meddem priš men meddem

and=neg cop-3msg something separate.ptcp.pass.msg from something
‘One thing is not separated from another’.
Non-canonical predicates, for example, prepositional phrases, clauses etc., are negated
with lɔ with a following inflected perfect form of the verb hwɔ ‘to be’, although the sen-
tence’s tense remains present.
hɔllen ger lɔ hway d=šulṭɔn-eh d=barnɔsɔ

dem.fpl adv neg be.sc.3fpl rel=control-3mpl rel=man.m
‘These are out of the man’s control’.
An uninflected complex negation lɔ=wɔ or law is used to negate cleft sentences, whose
predicate is marked with clitic -w/u (§5.2) (Pat-El 2006).
law l=barnɔšɔ mṣalle=att

neg to=man.msg pray.ptcp.msg=2msg
‘It is not to a human being that you are praying’.
674 Na‘ama Pat-El
6 LEXICON
The lexicon of Syriac shows many borrowings from Indo-European languages, especially
Greek, but Latin and Middle Persian are also attested (Ciancaglini 2008). Some of these
loan words should be dated to an earlier phase than Syriac. The abundance of lexical bor-
rowing is a result of a number of factors: Syriac was the language of the Eastern Christian
church, whose canon was partly translated from Greek; additionally the dialect of Edessa,
a Hellenized city in Syria, became the literary norm and spread both direct borrowings and
calques. The heavy Greek influence on this dialect sets it apart from most other contempo-
rary dialects (Butts 2016). For more innovation in the Aramaic lexicon see Kogan (2015).
FIGURE 25.1
A PAGE OF A SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT LECTIONARY. BORGIA SYRIAC
MANUSCRIPT 13 (13TH CENTURY), VATICAN LIBRARY
Open source: Wikimedia.

Syriac 675
7 SAMPLE TEXT
An introduction to the Chronicles of Joshua the Stylite
This short section is the beginning of a letter to Sergius, an abbot of a monastery in Edessa,
where Joshua recounts events in the region dating to the beginning of the 6th century ce
(possibly 506). This section deals with the reasons to commit the history of the Christians
in the region to writing, before Joshua turns to their lengthy description. The text was pub-
lished by William Wright in 1882, and was reprinted in 2003 by Gorgias Press.
qabbel-t ktib-ɔtɔ d=ḥasyut-ɔk rɔḥm-at

receive.sc-1sg writing.f-pl
rel=holiness.f-2msg loving.ptcp-fsg.cst
l-alɔhɔ. hɔllen da=b=hen pqad-t l-i d=e-ktob

to-god dem.pl rel=in=3fpl order.sc-2msg to-1sg rel=1sg-write.pc
l=ɔk ʔak da=l=ʕuhdɔn d=emmat ʔetɔ qamṣɔ

to=2msg as rel=to=record rel=when come.sc.3msg locust.m
w=emmat šemšɔ ḥšek w=emmat hwɔ

and=when sun.m be.dark.sc.3msg and=when be.sc.3msg
zawʕɔ w=kapnɔ w=mawtɔnɔ wa=qrɔbɔ d=Rumɔyy-e

quake.m and=hunger.m and=plague.m and=battle.m
rel=Greek-pl
wa=d=Pɔrsɔyy-e. ʕam hɔllen den ʔɔp qullɔs-e

and=rel=Persian-pl with
dem.pl but also praise.m-pl
rawrəb-e da=ʕl-ay škiḥ-in=waw b=hen hɔnnon

great-mpl rel=on-1sg find.ptcp.pass-mpl=pst.3mpl in=3fpl dem.mpl
da=b=kuḥḥɔdɔ rabbɔ ʔaqimu-n bet l=i

rel=in=shame.m great.m raise.sc.3mpl-1sg between to=1sg
wa=l=napš(y) b=yad d=aplɔ ḥad men=hon

and=to=soul.f-1sg in=hand.f rel=even one from=3mpl
škiḥ lwāt-(y) ba=ʕbɔdɔ ṣbe-t den

find.ptcp.pass.msg toward-1sg in=reality.m want.sc-1sg but
ʔenɔ d=e-ktob ʔaylen d=b=ɔk w=lɔ

1sg rel=1sg-write.pc dem.mpl rel=in=2msg and=neg
sepq-at ʕaynɔ d=tarʕit(y) l=metbaqqiw

be.sufficient.sc-3fsg eye.f rel=mind-1sg to=understand.inf
wa=l=meḥze ʔak d=it-eh l=estɔlɔ d=tadmur-tɔ

and=to=see.inf as rel=cop-3msg to=garment.f rel=wonder-f
da=zqar l=ɔk w=albeš-ɔk

rel=weave.sc.3msg to=2msg and=dress.sc.3msg-2msg
676 Na‘ama Pat-El
ṣebyɔn-ɔk kašširɔ.
will.m-2msg able.msg
‘I received the letters of Your Holiness, a friend to the Lord, in which you have requested
that I write to you, as a type of record, about the time that the locust arrived and the sun
darkened and there were earthquake, hunger and plague, and a war between the Greeks
and the Persians. On top of these, there were also great praises of me in them [= the let-
ters], which filled me personally with great embarrassment, because I possess not even
one of them in reality. I wanted to write those (praises) about you, but my intelligence,
such that it is, cannot comprehend and observe the wonderful garment which your able
resolution had weaved for you and adorned you.’
REFERENCES
Brock, Sebastian P. “Some Remarks on the Use of the Construct in Classical Syriac.”
In Built on Solid Rock: Studies in Honour of Professor Ebbe Egede Knudsen on the
Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by Elie Wardini, 44–60. Oslo: Novus verlag, 1997.
Butts, Aaron Michael. “The Etymology and Derivation of the Syriac Adverbial Ending
-āʔiθ”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69/1 (2010): 79–86.
Butts, Aaron Michael. Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in its Greco-Roman
Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016.
Ciancaglini, C. A. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert
Verlag, 2008.
Daniels, Peter T. “Classical Syriac.” The World’s Writing Systems, edited by Peter T.
Daniels and William Bright, 499–504. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Edzard, Lutz. “Problems with Post-vocalic Spirantization in Syriac: Cyclic Rule Ordering
Vs. ‘Early Phonemization with Paradigmatic Levelling’ ”. Journal of Semitic Studies
46.1 (2001): 77–95.
Goldenberg, Gideon. “On Syriac Sentence Structure”. In Arameans, Aramaic and the
Aramaic Literary Tradition, edited by Michael Sokoloff, 97–140. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan
Kiraz, George Anton. Tūrrās Mamllā. A Grammar of the Syriac Language. Vol. 1:
Orthography. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012.
Kogan, Leonid. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2015
Mingana, Alphonse. Clef de la Langue Araméenne, ou Grammaire complete et pratique
de deux dialects syriaque occidental et oriental. Mossul: Imprimerie des pères, 1905.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “Syntactic Aspects of Negation in Syriac.” Journal of Semitic Studies
51.2 (2006): 329–48. Corrigenda Journal of Semitic Studies 52.1 (2007): 185.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination.” In Aramaic
in Its Historical Linguistic Setting, edited by Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer,
Pat-El, Na‘ama. “The Origin and Function of the So-Called ‘Correlative’ in Classical
Syriac”. Folia Orientalia 45–46 (2010): 125–33.
Pat-El, Na‘ama. Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias
Press, 2012.
Syriac 677
Pat-El, Na’ama. “The Diachrony of Non-Canonical Subjects in Northwest Semitic.” In

Non-Canonical Subjects across Language Families: The Reykjavík/Eyjafjallajökull
Papers, edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El, and Stephen Mark Carey, 159–84.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2018.
GENERAL ARAMAIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Degen, Rainer. Altaramäische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1969.
Donner, H. and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1962.
Folmer, Margaretha L. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in
Linguistic Variation. Leuven: Peeters, 1995.
Gibson, John C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1978.
Gzella, Holger. “Language and Script”. In The Arameans in Ancient Syria, edited by
Herbert Niehr, 71–107. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Gzella, Holger. A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of
Islam. Leiden: Brill. 2015.
Huehnergard, John. “What Is Aramaic?” Aram 7 (1995): 261–82.
Hug, Volker. Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh.s v.Chr. Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Orient, 1993.
GENERAL SYRIAC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Further readings
Brock, Sebastian P. An Introduction to Syriac Studies, Vol. 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias
Press, 2006.
Grammars
Arayathinal, Thomas. Aramaic (Syriac) Grammar. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007.
Costaz, Louis. Grammaire syriaque2. Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique, 1964.
Duval, Rubens. Traité de grammaire syriaque. Paris: F. Vieweg, 1881.
Nöldeke, Theodor. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001.
Ungnad, Arthur. Syrische Grammatik, mit Übungsbuch2. München: C. H. Beck 1932.
Textbooks
Coakley, James Farwell. Robinson’s Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar.
Healey, John F. Leshono Suryoyo: First Studies in Syriac. Vol. 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias
Press, 2005.
Kiraz, George Anton. The New Syriac Primer: An Introduction to the Syriac Language
with a CD. Vol. 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007.
Thackston, Wheeler McIntosh. Introduction to Syriac: An Elementary Grammar with
Readings From Syriac Literature. Bethesda, MD: Ibex, 1999.
678 Na‘ama Pat-El
Overview articles
Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise. “Syriac as the Language of Eastern Christianity.” In The
Semitic Languages, edited by Stefan Weninger, 652–9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.
Butts, Aaron M. “The Syriac Language.” In The Syriac World, edited by Daniel King.
New York: Routledge, 2017.
Creason, Stuart. “Aramaic.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient
Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 391–426. Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 2004.
Healey, John F. “Syriac.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Stefan Weninger, 537–652.
Kaufman, Stephen A. “Aramaic.” In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron,
114–30. New York: Routledge, 1997.
CHAPTER 26
MANDAIC C.G. HÄBERLMANDAIC
C.G. Häberl
1 INTRODUCTION
Mandaic (in the form generally described as ‘Neo-Mandaic’ or ‘Modern Mandaic’; ISO/
DIS 639–3: mid) is the language of the Mandæan community, which was formerly based
in Iraq and Iran (Map 26.1) but is today distributed throughout the world, principally in
Europe, Australia and North America, as the result of ethnic cleansing in its homeland.
Despite its long history of attestation and copious literature, it is moribund today. Even
though the members of the Mandæan community, numbering perhaps 60,000 adherents,
are familiar with Mandaic through their sacred literature and liturgy, only a few hundred
Mandæans, located primarily in Iran, speak it as a first language. Of these, even fewer use
it regularly in writing, primarily to compose the colophons that accompany manuscripts
(of which an example is given in §7).
Mandaic is the only known literary dialect of Aramaic to survive in vernacular usage
to the present date. At first glance, its vernacular form appears to differ considerably from
its literary form, primarily as a result of contact with neighboring languages, namely
Arabic and Persian. All contemporary Mandaic speakers are bi- or even tri-lingual in
these languages, and their influence upon the grammar of contemporary Mandaic is sub-
stantial, particularly in the lexicon (§6) and the morphology of the noun (§4.2). It was
on the basis of this influence that Nöldeke (1875: XXI–XXV) first proposed his tentative
periodization of Mandaic into two periods: an “Old Mandaic,” in which the principal
works of the sacred canon were composed, and a “Young Mandaic,” the language of the
later medieval and post-medieval manuscripts, including the aforementioned colophons
and the priestly handbooks.
Nöldeke characterizes the latter by an abundance of Arabic and Persian loan words,
and the former by their absence, although he is mute concerning their chronology.
Macuch (1965a) classified the language of the former as “Classical Mandaic” (against
the “Post-Classical Mandaic” of the latter compositions), even though the grammar of the
former was never subject to the pervasive and sustained scholarly elaboration that char-
acterizes all other classical languages, such as Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, Latin,
Sanskrit and Syriac.
For that matter, Old or “Classical” Mandaic has never been used as a vehicle of com-
munication or to create original compositions, in the manner of these other classical lan-
guages. Instead, the living vernacular tradition, Nöldeke’s Young Mandaic, has served in
all such functions. The oldest surviving witness to this tradition is a polyglot glossary (the
Glossarium Sabicum, Persicum, Turcicum, et Arabicum) incorporating a column of lex-
ical items from the now extinct dialect of Basra. This manuscript was produced roughly
three and a half centuries ago by the 17th-century Carmelite missionary Matteo di San
Giuseppe (Borghero 2000) in collaboration with a local informant, and therefore predates
most of the surviving manuscripts of the classical literature.
680 C.G. Häberl
MAP 26.1 THE MANDAIC SPEECH AREA IN ANTIQUITY
The corpus of Mandaic texts available to scholars has grown considerably over the last
century, particularly with regard to the spoken language. While samples of this language
were collected and published by Nicholas Siouffi (1880) and Stefana Drower (1937), no
complete Young Mandaic text was published until the beginning of the 20th century, when
Jean Jacques de Morgan published facsimiles of five such texts in the fifth volume of his
Mission scientifique en Perse (1904). In recent years, scholars have come to refer to the
contemporary spoken forms of this language as “Neo-Mandaic” to distinguish them from
those forms of Mandaic known only from manuscripts. Two surviving dialects of Man-
daic have thus far been documented, those of Ahvāz and Khorramshahr. These dialects
are mutually intelligible, to the extent that speakers of either dialect will deny that there
are any substantive differences between the two. A third dialect, that of southern Iraq, is
today extinct, but the samples of this dialect that were collected by Drower and published
by Häberl (2010, 2013) are still completely comprehensible to speakers of Mandaic in their
written form, despite some relatively minor phonological and morphosyntactic differences:
Phonological
Old Mandaic Iraq Ahvaz Khorramshahr
house baita bejθæ b(ij)eθa/ɔ bieθɔ
in, ins b- gaw; b- gu gɔw
work ebada wad wɔd əwɔdɔ
planet sibiaha ʃewjæ ʃewjɔha ʃewjɔhɔ
come! (imp.pl) atun doθi d(ij)ɵθi doθi
Mandaic 681
Morphosyntactic
Old Mandaic Glossarium Iraq Ahvaz Khorramshahr
Emphatic -a -a -a -a/-ɔ -ɔ
1sg cop -na n/a -non -nɔn -nɔ
3mpl pfv -(i)un -jon -jon -jon -jon
deontic - ga-wɔjeb læ bod bɔjad bɔjad
if hin/eu eð law sˁɔr agar agar
that (dem) hak hɔχ ta aχ and tɔ aχu
that (rel) ḏ əleθɔ/əleθolli elli and ke ke elli and ke
under atutia θuθa əl-tuθ tuθ tuθ
with em donba ʕorqi mork/orke orke
priest.pl tarmidia tarmid-e tærmid-an-æ tarmid-ɔn tarmid-ɔn-ɔ
woman.pl enšia eθθ-e enʃ-æ/enʃ-ɔn-æ enʃ-ɔn enʃ-ɔ
yet akandit kandi kændæ kandi kandi
When compared to Old Mandaic, Young Mandaic appears remarkably conservative,

and most of the features that distinguish the two stages of the language (in particular, the
restructuring of the nominal morphology and the verbal system) are the result of devel-
opments already amply attested within the classical literature. These include the obso-
lescence of the system of states, the loss of a distinction between definite and indefinite
nouns and the reinterpretation of the former emphatic state of the noun as the unmarked
form, all of which are also characteristic of other eastern Aramaic languages (see Chap-
ter 25 on Syriac). As Macuch (1965a: 207) notes, the classical texts also bear witness
to the emergence of a new distinction in reference, which would become more fully
elaborated in Young Mandaic. Another common eastern Aramaic phenomenon is the rise
of an innovative participial present tense and its expansion to occupy all the syntactic
roles formerly performed by the inherited prefix conjugation (§4.4). This gradual pro-
cess, which has reached its natural conclusion in Young Mandaic, is well documented in
the classical texts, in some of which the prefix conjugation is still quite productive, and
in others it is increasingly restricted to fewer and fewer contexts, primarily to indicate
irrealis moods (Häberl 2015). Uniquely among the surviving Eastern Aramaic languages,
Mandaic preserves the West Semitic suffix conjugation to represent the perfective, which
is as vigorous in Young Mandaic as it is in Old Mandaic.
In a few respects, Young Mandaic appears even more conservative than Old Mandaic;
for example, Nöldeke (1875: 86–7) describes the Old Mandaic 2nd person independent
pronouns anat and anatun (singular and plural) as the product of restructuring through
paradigmatic leveling, but as Morgenstern (2010: 514) notes, Young Mandaic preserves
more conservative forms of these pronouns, ɔt and atton.
2 WRITING SYSTEM
When writing Mandaic and occasionally Arabic, the Mandæans of Iraq and Iran employ
a cursive and ligatured script unique to their community. Prior to 1963, scholars regularly
transliterated Mandaic as if it were a pure abjad. The graphemic equivalents of Ɂ, j, w, ʕ
and h were (and occasionally still are) transliterated as consonants that could optionally
be used to represent vowels. In fact, the reverse is true: these are primarily vowel letters,
although j and w also represent the glides /j/ and /w/, and Ɂ can be used to delineate the
682 C.G. Häberl
margins of words that begin or end with a vowel other than a or ɔ, even though it lacks
any phonetic value of its own in these contexts – something like the hashtag # used in
linguistic glossing. A Mandaic Dictionary (Drower and Macuch 1963) introduced a new
transliteration system, according to which transliterations are rendered in bold type to
avoid confusion with transcriptions (see Table 26.1).
A final tally of the characters reveals 20 distinct segments represented by 21 different
characters, of which two, i and e, overlap, albeit with a different distribution. The charac-
ter e most often appears at the beginning of the word. The character i, by contrast, cannot
appear at the beginning of the word, in which context initial e- or i- are represented by the
combination ai-. These are joined by two morpho-graphemes, ẖ, which represents the suf-
fixed form of the 3sg pronouns, and ḏ, which governs genitive relationships and relative
clauses, and which is pronounced identically to d. The first and final character, halqɔ ‘cir-
cle’, brings the final tally of characters to 24 and returns entire series back to its beginning.
This script only exceptionally distinguishes vowel quality or consonant length, but it
does regularly and consistently represent vowels, in contrast to the earliest Old Mandaic
texts, such as the epigraphic incantation texts, which occasionally omit vowel letters.
Some texts employ a bar beneath the vowel letters to distinguish them from the equiva-
lent glottal or approximants (a̱ vs. a /ʔ/, i̱ vs. i /j/ and u̱ vs. u /w/), and a single dot beneath
a consonant letter to indicate doubling, but these conventions are not generally used out-
side the context of early childhood and primary education (Choheili 2004). In addition,
TABLE 26.1 THE MANDAIC ALPHABET
Letter Transliteration Transcription Name
ࡀ a Ɂ, a, ɔ a/halqɔ ‘circle’
ࡁ b b, w ba
g g, ɣ ga
ࡃ d d, ð da
ࡄ h h ha
ࡅ u o, u, w wa/ʃennɔ ‘tooth’
ࡆ z z za
ࡇ ẖ -i (3sg) i (e in Iraq)
ṭ tˁ tˁa
ࡉ i e, i, j ja/aksɔ ‘reverse’
ࡊ k k, χ ka
ࡋ l l la
ࡌ m m ma
ࡍ n n na
ࡎ s s sa
ࡏ e Ɂ, e, i i
ࡐ p p, f pa
ࡑ ṣ sˁ sˁa
ࡒ q q qa
ࡓ r r ra
ࡔ š ʃ ʃa
ࡕ t t, θ ta
ࡖ ḏ (ə)d du ʃennɔ ‘du tooth’
ࡀ a - halqɔ ‘circle’
Mandaic 683
four non-canonical letters represent sounds in Mandaic texts that are not inherited from
Old Mandaic. One of these has been borrowed directly from Arabic; the other three are
created by modifying existing letters with two dots below:
ࡘ ʿ ʕ ʕajn
ࡄ࡙ h̤ ħ ħa
ṭ̈ dˁ, δˁ dˁa, δˁa
ࡔ࡙ š̤ ʤ, ʧ ʤa/ʧa
This same system can also be used to represent the fricativized reflexes of the Old
Mandaic plosive series and equivalent sounds in other languages such as Arabic and
Persian, but is only occasionally used in this manner.
g̈ ɣ ɣa
ࡃ࡙ d̤ ð ða
ࡊ࡙ k̤ χ χa
ࡐ࡙ p̈ f fa
ࡕ࡙ t̤ θ θa
In Young Mandaic, w is regularly represented by u, even when it is historically a reflex
of *b, although occasionally a hypercorrect b is substituted for etymological *w, even
in the older texts, e.g. zawjɔθɔ ‘corners’ (from *zāwij-) appears once in the Canonical
Prayerbook (Q 3:17) as zabiata.
As noted earlier, Mandaic is a ligatured script. Most of these characters can join indis-
criminately to the adjacent characters on the left or the right. Five graphemes (a, z, ẖ, i
and š) can only join to the right. The morpho-grapheme ẖ is found exclusively at the end
of a word, and ḏ appears only in isolation; the character d replaces it in ligature, e.g., ḏ
‘which’ but udla ‘and which does not’, except before a vowel, where it is replaced by ṭ,
e.g., ṭabid [tˁɔwɛd] ‘the one who does,’ ṭabahatan [tˁawɔhɔθan] ‘of our ancestors’.
Mandaic orthography is largely (but not exclusively) phonetic, albeit with a marked
tendency towards morphographemic and historicizing spellings. Macuch (1965a: 104)
was the first to recognize a useful distinction between the inherited pronunciations of
native speakers and learned pronunciations derived from the written forms, coining
the term abagadical for the latter.1 For example, in Mandaic as in many other related
languages, the alveolar nasal /n/ regularly assimilates to the following plosive conso-
nant, e.g., nitin ‘he gives’ (*nantin-) and nitilẖ ‘he gives him’ (*nantin-li-hū̆). This is an
ancient phenomenon, inherited from earlier stages of the language. The spoken varieties
attest to it as well, e.g., npaq ‘he left’ and anpiq ‘he caused s.o. to leave, expelled’, which
are pronounced nəfaq and affeq, and hurina ‘other (msg)’ and hurinta ‘other (fsg)’,
which are pronounced horinɔ and horettɔ. With a few possible exceptions (e.g., enta
‘wife’, consistently pronounced eθθɔ) these spellings should not be mistaken for “histor-
ical” spellings under any circumstances, since they operate on a purely synchronic basis.
In most cases, historical *n appears only where it might be restored through analogy.
Separate from these morpho-graphemic spellings are genuinely historical ones, which
were either inherited from earlier stages of the writing system or perhaps influenced by
other Aramaic writing traditions. For example, the Mandaic reflex of Aramaic *ð is not
infrequently represented by a z in writing, even when it is pronounced as a d in the spoken
language, e.g., zahba dahwɔ ‘gold’ (abagadical: zahba) from *ðahab-. This has resulted
684 C.G. Häberl
FIGURE 26.1 COLOPHON OF A MANUSCRIPT OF THE MANDÆAN BOOK OF JOHN, COPIED

BY SHEIKH MƏHATTAM, SON OF YAḤYA BEHRAM OF ʕAMĀRAH, IRAQ, IN
1910. FROM THE COLLECTION OF NASSER SOBBI OF FLUSHING, NEW YORK
Image courtesy of Charles Häberl.
in a series of by-forms, reflecting the received pronunciation and the abagadical one. In
addition, the words ziqla deqlɔ ‘date-palm’ (abagadical: zeqla) and zma dəmɔ ‘blood’
(abagadical: zəma or zammɔ) are regularly spelled with a z, despite deriving from *diqil-ā
and *damm-ā, respectively. Such hypercorrections are also characteristic of Mandaic
orthography.
Similarly, q sometimes represents ø, generally where it is the reflex of PS *ɬ', e.g., arqa
arrɔ ‘land’ (abagadical: arqa) from *ʔarɬ'-. The subsequent merger of PS *ɬ' and *ʕ has
provided an environment for occasional hypercorrect forms such as aqapra afrɔ ‘dust’
(abagadical: aqafra) from *ʕapar-ā. Note that in this example, as in the words for aqna
‘sheep’ and aqamra ‘wool’, it is appended to the beginning of the word in a separate
syllable, hence ʾaq-afrɔ. Such silent prothetic syllables are not uncommon, particularly
Mandaic 685
in prepositions (e.g., atutia tuθi ‘under’, abagadical: atuθi), even when they are neither
etymological nor reflected in the spoken language. Many of these words appear alongside
by-forms, with and without the prothetic syllable, e.g., amra and aqamra, ana and aqna.
Apart from the silent a, Macuch (1965a: 127–30) cites a few examples of a seemingly
silent u that appears after š and/or before m, e.g., šuma eʃmɔ ‘name’ (abagadical: ʃoma).
These orthographic conventions, and the continued use of inflected forms that have dis-
appeared from the spoken language (such as the prefix conjugation), are part and parcel
of Mandaic writing at all periods.
3 PHONOLOGY
There are 28 phonemic consonantal segments in Mandaic (see Table 26.2): eight stops,
nine fricatives and six sonorants, all of which are inherited, and five loan-phonemes: the
labiodental fricative v, the postalveolar affricates ʧ and ʤ and the pharyngeal fricatives
ʕ and ħ, all of which are found only in vocabulary of foreign origin, particularly Arabic
and Persian.
3.1 Stops and affricates

The glottal stop ʔ and two pharyngealized segments (a voiced alveolar stop and a voiced
alveolar fricative ðˤ) are found in a few Arabic loan words, but I have excluded them from
the phonemic inventory of Mandaic due to their marginal status.
This phonemic inventory is the product of a series of historical mergers and splits:
• the PS interdentals merged with the dentals: *ð, *d > d; *θ, *t > t; *θ’, *t’ > t’
• the PS alveolar lateral merged with its central counterpart: *ɬ, *s > s
• the PS velars merged with the pharyngeals: *ʕ, *ɣ > *ʕ; *ħ, *χ > *ħ
• the PS *ɬ', here reconstructed as a glottalic alveolar lateral, likewise merged with the
voiced pharyngeal: *ɬ', *ʕ > *ʕ
• the pharyngeals then merged with the glottals: *ʔ, *ʕ, > ø; *h, *ħ > h
Bilabial Labio Inter Alveolar Postal Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyn Glottal
dental dental veolar geal
Voiceless p b t d tˤ ʧʤ kg q
Fricatives
Voiceless fv θ s z sˤ ʃ χɣ ħʕ h
Sonorants
Nasal m n
Lateral l
Apical r
Approxi w j
mant
686 C.G. Häberl
The “emphatic” consonants, which are today only very lightly pharyngealized, are here
reconstructed as historically glottalic, as they are in the Ethio-Semitic languages, in light
of evidence from the relative pronoun ḏ-. As noted in §2, it appears in two allophones,
tˁ before a vowel (i.e., in contexts where it would historically have been followed by a
glottal stop), and d in all other environments.
At some point in the history of Mandaic, the surviving non-emphatic stops (b, g, d,
k, p, t) developed fricative allophones (w, ɣ, ð, χ, f, θ) in certain environments. Due to
the regular deletion of short vowels in open pretonic syllables, analogical restructuring,
and lexical borrowing from Arabic and other languages, the distribution of these former
allophones is not at all predictable, and they have emerged as new phonemes in their own
right, as illustrated by a number of minimal pairs, e.g., bɔwɔ ‘father’ vs. wɔwɔ ‘gate’,
sˁoprɔ ‘bird’ vs. sˁofrɔ ‘yellow’, atton 2pl vs. aθθon ‘they brought’.
The vowel system (Table 26.3) in Mandaic is composed of seven distinct vowels, of
which six (a, e, i, o, u and ɔ) are principal phonemes, and one (ə) is marginal. The vowels
are distinguished by quality rather than quantity.
Three of the principle vowels, the ‘tense’ vowels ɔ, i and u, are lengthened in open
accented syllables to [ɔː] or [ɒː], [iː] and [uː]. These normally represent the reflexes of the
PS series of long vowels, *ā, *ī and *ū, in all environments save for open pretonic syllables.
The other three principle vowels, the ‘lax’ vowels a, e and o, appear only exception-
ally in open accented syllables. Their allophones are conditioned by the structure of the
syllable in which they are found and presence or absence of stress. a is realized as [ɑ]
in closed accented syllables, and as [a] or [æ] elsewhere. e is realized as [eː] in open
accented syllables, [ɛ] in closed tonic or post-tonic syllables and [ɪ] elsewhere. Likewise,
o is realized as [oː] in open accented syllables, [o] in closed tonic or post-tonic syllables,
and [ʌ] elsewhere. These three vowels usually continue the PS series of short vowels,
*a, *i and *u, in all environments save for open pretonic syllables, where they represent
the reflexes of PS *ā, *ī and *ū. The final vowel, schwa (ə), has the widest allophonic
variation of all the vowels; it is regularly fronted, backed, raised or lowered in harmony
with the vowel of the following syllable. It often represents the reflex of PS *a, *i and *u,
in open pretonic syllables, in which vowels are regularly subject to reduction or deletion.
There are also six diphthongs, ej, ew, aj, aw, ɔj and ɔw. The diphthongs aj and aw,
which had collapsed to i and u in closed accented syllables already in the classical lan-
guage, have collapsed in all accented syllables in the dialects of Ahvaz and Khorram-
shahr, apart from those in words of foreign origin.
Words of one, two, three, four and five syllables are common:
men [mɪn] from

mendi [ˈmɛn.di] something
qanɔjɔ [qaˈnɔːjɔ] smith
moʃmenɔnɔ [mʌʃ.mɛ.ˈnɔː.nɔ] Muslims
əmalfenanni [ə.ˌmal.fɛ.ˈnɑn.ni] we will teach him
TABLE 26.3 MANDAIC VOWEL INVENTORY
Front Central Back
Close i u
Mid e ə o
Open a ɔ
Mandaic 687
The constituent syllables consist of an onset (which is optional in word-initial sylla-

bles) and a rime. The rime consists of a nucleus (usually a vowel or a syllabic consonant)
with or without a coda. The onset and the coda which frame the nucleus consist of conso-
nants; the onset is mandatory for all word-internal syllables, but the coda is optional in all
environments. The syllable patterns V, VC, CV and CVC are the most common.
ɔ [ɔ] this (contextual)

aχ [ɑχ] that (contextual)
mu [muː] what
tum [tum] then
Considerably less common are syllables containing clusters of consonantal or vocalic

segments, such as VCC, CCV, CCVC, CVCC, CVVC and even CVVCC:
ahl [ahl] or [ahhəl] family

klɔθɔ [ˈkl̥ ɔː.θɔ] three
sˁtˁɔnje [ˈstˁɔn.je] he is a boy
waχt [væχt] time
bieθ [biɛ̆θ] house (contextual)
ʃieltχon [ˈʃiɛ̆lt.χon] I asked you (pl)
These transcriptions reflect the Khorramshahr dialect. The treatment of these syllables
varies from dialect to dialect. The Iraqi dialects, in particular, regularly introduce a pro-
thetic e- before all initial clusters. In Khorramshahr, this is common only among short
words of two syllables (with an underlying CCV pattern), which have been reanalyzed
as if they were VC.CV, e.g., eʃmɔ ‘name’, along the lines of triradicals that have lost an
initial consonant, such as esrɔ ‘10’. When these lose the final augment (see §4.2), such
as within the construct chain (§5.3.3), an anaptyctic ə is inserted between the first and
second consonant, thereby preserving the VC.CV(C) syllable structure, e.g., eʃʃəm ‘name
(of)’. Word-final consonant clusters are common only in words of Arabic origin, such as
ahl ‘people’.
Word stress typically falls upon a tense vowel within a closed syllable. The placement
of the stress is determined from the final syllable. Any final syllable (or ultima) that is
closed and contains a tense vowel automatically receives the accent, e.g., qə=mahrəw-
ɔ́t ind=destroy.ipfv-2sg ‘you destroy’. If the final is open or contains a lax vowel, the
accent will fall upon the penultimate syllable, provided that it is closed or contains a tense
vowel, e.g., kálbɔ ‘dog’. Otherwise, the stress will fall on the final syllable, e.g., dəmɔ́
‘blood’, bəġásˁ ‘he stopped’. In words of three or more syllables, if neither the ultima nor
the penultima is closed and contains a tense vowel, then the accent recedes to the ante-
penultimate syllable, e.g., gatˁél-nɔ-χon kill.ipfv-1sg-2mpl ‘I will kill you’. Several mor-
phemes automatically take the accent, such as the negative morpheme lá, which causes
the stress to shift to the first syllable of the verb.
4 MORPHOLOGY
Like many Aramaic languages, Mandaic is fundamentally a synthetic language, mark-
ing distinctions in gender, number, pragmatic status (in nouns) and person, tense, mood,
aspect and voice (in verbs) primarily through inflectional morphemes and secondarily
through clitics and word order.
688 C.G. Häberl
4.1 Pronouns
Pronouns may be substituted for any noun phrase. There are five types of pronouns:
personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, relativizers, indefinite pronouns and inter-
rogative pronouns.
4.1.1 Independent and suffixed pronouns

Personal pronouns have both independent and suffixal forms (Table 26.4). The suffixal
forms are attached to non-verbal predicates, such as participles, nouns, pronouns and
prepositions. The independent personal pronouns are optionally employed to represent
the subject of a verb. Whenever the singular forms appear before a verb, their final vowel
is apocopated. The enclitic pronominal suffixes are in complementary distribution with
them; they may represent the object of a transitive verb, a nominal or verbal complement
or adjunct in a prepositional phase, or indicate possession on the noun. Exclusively on
nouns of foreign origin, they are affixed after -d- (which superficially resembles the Old
Mandaic relative pronoun, see §5.4.2.2, albeit with a different distribution).
On the noun nafʃ- ‘self’, the suffixed pronouns also serve to form the reflexive pronouns.
Mandaic also has two reciprocal pronouns, ham ‘each other’ and hədɔdɔ ‘one another’.
Mandaic distinguishes between near-deixis and far-deixis in the singular demonstrative
pronouns, but not in its plurals. The demonstratives also reflect no distinction in gender.
The original far-deictic plural demonstrative pronoun ahni ‘those’ (Old Mandaic hani)
has assumed the function of a general plural demonstrative pronoun. It is also often used
in the place of the independent third plural personal pronoun.
The demonstrative pronouns precede the noun they modify. In this position, the final
vowel of the singular demonstratives is apocopated (these are the forms listed as ‘contex-
tual’ in Table 26.5). The plural demonstrative does not appear in a contextual form. Singular
forms may be used before plural nouns when a plural morpheme is present, indicating
plurality on the whole noun phrase, e.g., ɔ ʃerʃ-ɔn-ɔ this religion-pl-aug ‘these religions’.
Mandaic also has two locative demonstrative pronouns, hənɔ/ehnɔ ‘here’ and ekkɔχ ‘there’.
TABLE 26.4 THE INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRONOUNS (AND ENCLITIC PRONOMINAL

SUFFIXES)
msg fsg pl
1 anɔ (-e) ani (-an)

2 ɔt (-aχ) ɔt (-eχ) atton (-χon)
3 huwi (-i) hidɔ (-a) honni (-u)
TABLE 26.5 THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS
Near-Deixis Far-Deixis
Isolated Contextual Gloss Isolated Contextual Gloss

ɔhɔ ɔ this aχu aχ that
ahni - these ahni - those
Mandaic 689
4.1.3 Relativizers
Whenever the head noun of the clause is presumed to be identifiable to the audience,
Mandaic employs one of two relativizers, which have been borrowed from other lan-
guages: elli ‘which’ (Arabic) and ke ‘that’ (Persian). These two relativizers are indeclin-
able. The primary distinction between the two lies in the type of relative clauses which
they govern. The former, elli, is employed to introduce nonrestrictive relative clauses,
and the latter, ke, introduces restrictive clauses. For this reason, ke also serves after verbs
of perception and verbs that introduce direct speech. Headless indefinite relative clauses
can also be introduced by the indefinite pronouns kol man ‘whoever’ and kol mɔ ‘what-
ever’; see §4.1.4.

Mandaic disposes of a wide array of interrogative particles, none of which inflect for
gender or number:
man who
mu what (contextual form mo-)
eljɔ where (contextual form elli)
hemdɔ when
qamu why
kammɔ how (contextual form kam)
hem which
mojur how; in what way
ʧand how much
kaθkammɔ how much/many (contextual form kaθkam)
Noun substantives and adjectives, modified by the indefinite morpheme -i, are likewise
employed as pronouns to indicate nonspecific or indefinite referents, e.g., enʃi ‘someone,
anyone (lit. a person)’, mendi ‘something, anything (lit. a thing)’. As these indefinite
pronouns cannot be modified by an adjective or govern another word in a construct chain
(§5.3.3), they never occur in contextual forms.
In addition to indefinite pronouns formed from nouns and adjectives with the indefinite
morpheme, there are compound indefinite pronouns composed of a quantifier or an inter-
rogative preposition and a second nominal or pronominal element, e.g., kol dokkɔ ‘every-
where’, kol man ‘whoever’, kol mɔ ‘whatever’. In the compound indefinite pronouns, the
original Semitic quantifier kol ‘all’ is replaced by the Persian quantifier hiʧ ‘no/never’
whenever these pronouns serve as the argument of a negative verb, e.g., hiʧ waχt ‘never’.
4.2 Noun substantives and adjectives

Nouns can reflect two genders (masculine and feminine), two numbers (sg and pl) (see
§4.2.1), as well as identifiability and referentiality (§4.2.2). The basic lexical form of
most nouns is that of the stem and the augment (aug) -ɔ, the presence or absence of which
is determined largely by phonological factors. The morphemes indicating gender and/or
number immediately follow the stem, and precede the augment. The indefinite morpheme
takes the place of the augment. Non-nativized loan words possess the same structure as
other nouns, but dispense with the augment.
690 C.G. Häberl
4.2.1 Noun patterns

Most Mandaic nouns fall into five basic patterns, CVC-, CVCC-, CVCVC-, CCVC- and
CVCCVC-. Note that the glottal stop /ʔ/ (which is not transcribed when it appears in
initial position) may also stand for the initial root consonant. Apart from the repetition
of the two initial consonants, any permutation of consonants and vowels is theoretically
possible, although many of the potential patterns are rare and/or restricted to vocabulary
borrowed from other languages, such as CaCCɔC-, which generally denotes professions
or occupations. Nearly all of these patterns are lexically restricted, and only a few are
productive. These productive patterns are deverbal, such as CɔCeC- and CəCɔC-, which
generate verbal adjectives and verbal nouns, respectively.
In addition to the basic patterns, there are patterns in which afformatives are affixed
to the noun stem. Some afformatives, such as the derivational morphemes -ɔj-, -í and
-uθ-/-oχt-, are applied to existing lexemes in such a way as to change their meanings in
a consistent and predictable manner. Other afformatives, such as m-, t- and -ɔn- do not
appear to impart any consistent meaning to the lexeme.
4.2.2 Gender and number marking

Mandaic has two basic grammatical genders, masculine and feminine. The gender of a
given noun, and its plural form, are unpredictable (see Table 26.6).
While most nouns, masculine and feminine alike, are marked with the plural morpheme
ɔn, ablaut and suppletive plurals are attested. The feminine plural morpheme (w/y)ɔθ- most
commonly appears on nouns whose singular form is marked explicitly with the feminine
singular morpheme t, although it can also be found on the plural forms of many feminine
nouns not marked as such in the singular. Most loan words take the plural morpheme (h)ɔ́,
although a few retain the plural forms of their source languages, including suppletive plurals.
4.2.3 Referentiality and identifiability

The appearance of the indefinite and plural morphemes on the noun is determined primar-
ily by its pragmatic status (Table 26.7), such as the referentiality and identifiability of the
referent. Referential nouns are explicitly marked when plural as well as when they serve
as the object of a verb, in which case they are marked with the enclitic morpheme əl and
anticipated by a pronominal suffix on the verb. The referent of an unmarked noun such
TABLE 26.6 GENDER AND NUMBER MARKING
Gender Singular Gloss pl Gloss
m mend-ɔ thing mend-ɔn-ɔ things

f kərɔj-ɔ leg kerj-ɔn-ɔ legs
f nəʃem-t-ɔ soul neʃm-ɔθ-ɔ souls
f bieθ-ɔ house bieθ-wɔθ-ɔ houses
m gawr-ɔ man gowr-ɔ men
f eθθ-ɔ woman enʃ-ɔ women
m darviʃ dervish darviʃ-ɔ́ dervishes
m waχt time awqɔt times
Mandaic 691
TABLE 26.7 PRAGMATIC STATUS OF THE NOUN
Specific Nonspecific Generic Identifiable Gloss
barnɔʃ-ɔ - + people/the person

barnɔʃ-i - - a person
barneʃ-ɔn-ɔ - + the people
barneʃ-ɔn-i - - some (of the) people
əl-barnɔʃ-ɔ + + the person/the people
əl-barnɔʃ-i + - a (specific) person
əl-barneʃ-ɔn-ɔ + + the (specific) people
əl-barneʃ-ɔn-i + - some (specific) people
Traditional Modern Gloss Traditional Modern Gloss
ehdɔ jek one esrɔ dah ten

tren do two esrin bis twenty
klɔθɔ se three klɔθin si thirty
arbɔ ʧahɔr four ɔrbin ʧel forty
hamʃɔ panj five hamʃin panjɔh fifty
ʃettɔ ʃeʃ six ʃettin ʃast sixty
ʃowwɔ haft seven ʃowwin haftɔd seventy
təmɔnɔ haʃt eight təmɔnin haʃtɔd eighty
etʃtʃɔ noh nine etʃin navɔd ninety
as barnɔʃɔ can either be specific (‘the person’) or generic (‘people’) but not nonspecific
(‘a person’). By contrast, the indefinite morpheme ‑i indicates that the referent is neither
generic nor identifiable, but is ambiguous as to whether the referent is specific (‘a partic-
ular person’) or nonspecific (‘some person’).
As noted earlier (§4.1.4), nouns and adjectives modified by the indefinite morpheme
-i can serve as indefinite pronouns to indicate nonspecific or indefinite referents (such as
enʃi ‘someone’ and mendi ‘something’).
4.3 Numerals
4.3.1 Cardinals
The cardinal numbers (Table 26.8) most commonly used in Mandaic are borrowed from
colloquial Persian, although the inherited numbers survive alongside them. Regardless
of their origin, cardinal numbers appear before the noun, and are invariable; they do
not agree in gender with the noun. Likewise, the noun modified by the number always
appears in the singular.
The number esrin ‘twenty’ is derived from the number esrɔ ‘ten’; the other decades
are formed on the basis of the numbers 3–9 with -in appended. All numbers apart from
the units and the decades are formed from compounds. Numbers 11–19 are formed from
the unit in juncture with the contextual form of esrɔ ‘ten’. In other compound num-
bers, the unit and the decade are combined by the conjunction u ‘and’. The centuries are
formed from the units in juncture with the word for one hundred, emmɔ, e.g., tʃemmɔ
692 C.G. Häberl
‘nine-hundred’. The word for one thousand is alfɔ. In counting, centuries always precede
decades, and millennia always precede centuries.
4.3.2 Ordinals
As with the cardinals, the inherited ordinals (Table 26.9) are less commonly used than
their Persian equivalents. The former generally behave more like attributive adjectives
than the other numerals and non-numeral quantifiers, such as perzɔ ‘few/little’, genzɔ
‘much/many’, kol ‘all; every’ and hiʧ ‘no/never’ (§4.1.4).
Outside of proper nouns, the Old Mandaic ordinal qadmɔjɔ ‘first’ seldom appears in
place of the more common awwál, which is a loan word; the adjectives horinɔ and horettɔ
are more commonly used in the place of tenjɔnɔ ‘second’; kleθɔjɔ ‘third’ frequently
appears instead of tleθɔjɔ; and the loan word aχír ‘last’ appears more frequently in place
of the Old Mandaic baθrɔjɔ ‘last’. Note that, with the exception of the loan words awwál
and aχir, ordinals follow the noun that they modify.
4.4 Verbs
The verbal system of Mandaic is relatively conservative in comparison with other living
Eastern Aramaic languages. Uniquely within this subgroup, it preserves the West Semitic
suffix conjugation (the “perfect”) and the imperative. One of its most salient features is
an innovative “participial present tense,” which has supplanted the prefix conjugation in
all of its other forms and functions.
4.4.1 Tense/aspect/mood and voice

The morphology of the verb reflects two aspects (perfective and imperfective) and three
moods (indicative, subjunctive, and imperative). Perfective verbs are by their nature gen-
erally indicative, although they can be used in counterfactual constructions:
ágar pərɔh-ɔ həwɔ=l=ey turt-i zawn-it

if money-aug be.pfv.3msg=to=1sg cow-indf buy.pfv-1sg
‘If I had had the money, I would have bought a cow.’
Traditional Modern Gloss
qadmɔjɔ yekóm first

tenjɔnɔ dovvóm second
tleθɔjɔ sevvóm third
arbɔjɔ ʧehɔróm fourth
hamʃɔjɔ panjóm fifth
ʃetɔjɔ ʃeʃóm sixth
ʃowɔjɔ haftóm seventh
təmenɔjɔ haʃtóm eighth
etʃɔjɔ nohóm ninth
esrɔjɔ dahóm tenth
Mandaic 693
When indicative in meaning, imperfective verbs are marked with the morpheme q(a)-.
Their subjunctive equivalents are built upon a reduced form of the same base, in which
the vowel of the initial syllable reduces to /ə/ whenever it is open and in pretonic position
(following the regular sound rule introduced in §3), and the 1sg and 1pl personal mor-
phemes introduced in Table 26.10 are dropped.
Each verb which may appear in one or more of six verbal stems: the G stem or basic
stem, the D stem or transitivizing-denominative verbal stem, the C stem or causative
verbal stem, and the mediopassive tG, tD and tC stems, to which a derivational mor-
pheme, t‑, was historically prefixed before the first consonant of the root. This mor-
pheme has disappeared from all roots save for those possessing a sibilant as their initial
radical, such as esˁtˁəwɔ ~ esˁtˁəwi (mesˁtˁəwi) ‘to be/get baptized’ in the G stem or
eʃtallam ~ eʃtallam (meʃtallam) ‘to be welcome, get welcomed’ in the C stem, in which
the stop and the sibilant are metathesized. A seventh stem, the Q stem, is reserved
exclusively for those verbs whose stems contain four consonants in place of the canon-
ical three.
The principal parts upon which all inflected forms of the verb are built are the per-
fective base (represented by the 3msg form of the perfective), the imperative base (rep-
resented by the msg form of the imperative), and the imperfective base (represented by
the msg form of the active participle, §4.4.5). In the G stem, the second syllable of the
perfective base can have one of three thematic vowels: /a/, /e/ and /o/. Transitive verbs
predominantly belong to the first, which is the most common of the three, whereas the
latter two typically characterize intransitives and stative verbs. Examples of the principal
parts for all seven verbal stems are given in Table 26.10.
Apart from the relatively uncommon mediopassive t stems, a true passive voice can
also be rendered by means of passive participles (§4.4.5). Most commonly, the passive is
rendered with an impersonal construction, e.g., nedɔ əwad-yon herald do.pfv-3pl ‘it was
proclaimed’, lit. ‘they made proclamation’.
4.4.2 Gender, number and person

The inflected forms of the verbs are produced by adding the personal suffixes introduced
in Table 26.11 to the principal parts introduced in Table 26.10. The forms given in paren-
theses are infrequently found and not consistently used. It appears that these feminine
forms are in the process of being leveled towards the masculine forms. Before personal
TABLE 26.10 THE PRINCIPAL PARTS OF THE SEVEN STEMS
Stem Perfective Imperative Imperfective Gloss
G Stem (a~o) gətˁal gətˁol gɔtˁel to kill

G Stem (e~o) dəhel dəhol dɔhel to be afraid
G Stem (o~o) ʃəχow ʃəχow ʃɔχew to lie down
tG Stem epseq epseq mepseq to be cut off
D Stem kammer kammer əmkammer to (re)turn
tD Stem kammar kammar mekammar to turn back
C Stem ahrew ahrew mahrew to destroy
tC Stem ettar ettar mettar to wake up
Q Stem baʃqer baʃqer əmbaʃqer to know
694 C.G. Häberl
TABLE 26.11 PERSONAL SUFFIXES ON THE VERB BƏDAQ ~ BƏDOQ (BƆDEQ) ‘TO PUT;
PLACE’
sg pl
pfv imp ipfv pfv imp ipfv
1 bedq-it qə-badeq-nɔ bədaq-ni qə-badq-enni

2m bədaq-t bədoq-ø qə-bɔdq-et bədaq-ton bədoq-jon qə-badq-etton
2f (bedq-it) bədoq-ø (bədaq-ten) (bədoq-jen)
3m bədaq-ø qə-bɔdeq-ø bədaq-jon qə-bɔdq-en
3f bedq-at qə-bɔdq-ɔ (bədaq-jɔn)
morphemes beginning with a vowel, the vowel of the syllable immediately preceding the
suffix is deleted and the former coda becomes the onset for the new syllable. The addition
of the morpheme may also cause the accent to shift, resulting in the reduction of vowels
in pretonic syllables as noted in §3. The enclitic object suffixes, introduced in Table 26.4,
also have the same effect upon preceding syllables.
4.4.3 “Weak” and irregular roots

Verbs that begin with a vowel rather than a consonant are called I–weak. Verbs begin-
ning with the approximants n and j, which were susceptible to assimilation in Old
Mandaic, have been reformed on the analogy of the strong verbs. When they appear
as the second or third radical of a consonantal root, the liquids w and j are susceptible
to the general collapse of diphthongs described earlier (§3). The verbs that are thus
affected are known as II–weak and III–weak verbs. Those roots in which the second
and third radical consonants were identical have been reformed on the analogy of
the II–weak verbs. Some verbs are “doubly weak,” which is to say that they have
two root consonants that are susceptible to deletion; others are completely irregular,
either because they are deficient in one or more of their principle parts or make use of
suppletive stems.
The verb ‘to come’ (Table 26.12) is doubly weak and is conjugated accordingly, apart
from the anomalous prefix d- on the imperative. A similar and likely related morpheme,
d(i), appears with more regularity on the imperative in Iraqi Arabic.
The verb ‘to want’ (Table 26.13) is conjugated as if it were a doubly weak root (like
‘to come’) from two different suppletive stems. Its perfective stem behaves as if the root
were ʾ-b-w/j and its imperfective stem behaves as if the root were b-ʾ- w/j in the 3rd person
and ʾ-b-w/j in all other persons, save for the 2msg.
The paradigm of the verb ‘to go’ (Table 26.14) is truly suppletive, in that it is com-
posed of forms from two separate roots: z-g- w/j in the perfective and imperative, and a
series of unrelated forms in the imperfective, based on the stems ɔzi and ɔll-, both of
which Morgenstern (2010: 520) derives from the Old Mandaic root ʾ-z-l.
Two pseudo-verbs, jɔd- ‘to know’ and jimb- or jomb- ‘to be able’ are conjugated with
the enclitic pronominal suffixes introduced in Table 26.4 rather than the usual subject
personal suffixes on the verb. They can both take the indicative morpheme q- as well,
e.g., qəjɔdey ‘I know’, q(əj)ombaχ ‘you are able’.
Mandaic 695
TABLE 26.12 THE VERB AΘƆ ~ DOΘI (ƆΘI) ‘TO COME’
sg pl
1 aθ-it q-aθi-nɔ aθi-ni q-aθ-enni

2m aθ-et d-oθi-ø q-ɔθ-et aθi-ton d-oθ-on q-aθ-etton
2f (aθ-it) d-oθe-ø (aθi-ten) (d-oθ-en)
3m aθɔ-ø q-ɔθi-ø aθ-on q-ɔθ-en
3f aθ-at q-aθj-ɔ (aθ-ɔn)
TABLE 26.13 THE VERB ABƆ (BƆJI) ‘TO WANT’
sg pl
1 ab-it q-abi-nɔ abi-ni q-ab-enni

2m ab-et n/a qə-bɔ-t abi-ton n/a q-ab-etton
2f (ab-it) n/a (abi-ten) n/a
3m abɔ-ø qə-bɔji-ø ab-on qə-bejj-en
3f ab-at qə-bejj-ɔ (ab-ɔn)
TABLE 26.14 THE VERB ‘TO GO’
sg pl
1 ezg-it q-ali-nɔ ezgi-ni q-al-enni

2m ezg-et ezgi-ø q-ɔll-et ezgi-ton ezg-on q-al-etton
2f (ezg-it) ezge-ø (ezgi-ten) (ezg-en)
3m ezgɔ-ø q-ɔzi-ø ezg-on q-ɔz-en
3f ezg-at q-all-ɔ (ezg-ɔn)

Each verbal stem is associated with two deverbal adjectives, an active participle and a
passive participle. Together with the personal morphemes (§4.4.3), the former also serves
as the base of the imperfective (§4.4.2). In addition, each stem also yields a deverbal
agent noun, although only the G stem remains productive in Young Mandaic. A few
words preserve a relic G stem verbal noun pattern miCCaC, e.g., mizgɔ ‘going’ and miθjɔ
‘coming’. There is no infinitive (see Table 26.15).
The G stem passive participle assumes the form CəCiC- before vowels, e.g. gətˁel
‘killed (msg)’, fsg gətˁilɔ and pl gətˁilen.
696 C.G. Häberl
TABLE 26.15 NON-FINITE FORMS
G D C
ptcp.act gɔtˁel/gɔtˁlɔ əmgatˁtˁel/əmgatˁlɔ magtˁel/magtˁilɔ

ptcp.pass gətˁel/gətˁilɔ əmgatˁtˁal/əmgatˁlɔ magtˁal/*magtˁəlɔ
agent noun gətˁɔlɔ/gətˁaltɔ - -

Mandaic disposes of a large number of prepositions of diverse origins. They always pre-
cede their dependent, whether it is a noun, pronoun, demonstrative or relative clause.
Some are enclitic, and can take the suffixed pronouns (§4.1.1) directly; those that have
been borrowed from other languages and have not been nativized take the suffix d- before
the suffixed pronouns.
men from ad until, as far as

nazdik near (+d-) b- in, with, by
orke with baʕad after
pahli beside (+d-) barɔbar opposite (+d-)
qə- to, for (clitic) bɔθar after, behind
qam to, for (+d-) bienɔ among; bienɔ . . . bienɔ between
qamɔj before, prior ewaz instead of (+d-)
qɔr at, before, to, by, with əl- to, for (clitic)
qəlɔw to, for əlɔw to, for (independent)
tum until, for (period of time) gɔw in(to); about; through; according to
tuθ under hemke like
There are considerably fewer conjunctions, most of which have been borrowed from
other languages. These include ágar ‘if’, ammɔ ‘but’, ke ‘when; because’, tum ‘then’,
u ‘and’, and jɔ ‘or’. There are two correlative conjunctions, lo . . . lo ‘either . . . or’ and
lu . . . lu ‘neither . . . nor’.
Adverbs do not compose a discrete morphological category within Mandaic indepen-
dent of the lexicon. Apart from the inherited adverbs such as eʃtɔ ‘now’, genzɔ ‘very;
much’, kandi ‘yet; still’ and tum ‘again’, most substantives and adjectives can also serve
indiscriminately as adverbs, e.g., yanq-ɔ mieθ-ø child-aug die.pfv-3msg ‘he died [as] a
child’, honin kədɔw-ɔn-i small book-pl-indf ‘a few books’.
5 SYNTAX
The syntax of Young Mandaic is recognizably similar to Old Mandaic and other related
Eastern Aramaic languages, but it has innovated syntactic distinctions not found in the
parent language, among which are attributive and equational predicates, relative and
absolute comparison, alienable and inalienable possession, and restrictive and nonrestric-
tive relative clauses.
Mandaic 697
5.1 Word order

The noun phrase consists of a noun (or pronoun) and any associated modifiers. With
the exception of cardinal numbers and most other quantifiers, these modifiers follow the
noun. In a nominal sentence, the subject is obligatorily expressed by the copula (§5.2),
which follows the predicate. An explicit subject can also optionally appear in apposition
before the predicate.
The verb phrase consists of a verb, its auxiliaries, its complements, modifiers such as
adverbs and any other adjuncts. Its subject is typically expressed by the personal suffixes
on the verb, although it can optionally precede the verb in apposition. The object typically
follows the verb, except when the verb is a copular verb (§5.2), or a light verb (§5.4.1),
in either which case it precedes.
5.2 Predication
There are two primary forms of predication: verbal, for which the predicate is a finite
verb, and nominal, for which the predicate is a substantive, adjective, pronoun, adverb or
prepositional phrase. In verbal sentences, the subject is generally reflected by the mor-
phology of the verb (§4.4.3). In nominal sentences, the subject generally precedes its
predicate, unless it is expressed by the enclitic form of the copula, in which case it fol-
lows. The subject may also be expressed before the predicate in apposition.
q=all-én ekkaχ kol əraft-ɔ

ind=go.ipfv-1pl there every Friday-aug
‘We go there every Friday.’
ahni barra əm=welɔθ=non

they outside from=city=3pl
‘They are outside the city.’
Mandaic expresses various types of predication, including equation, attribution, location,

existence, and possession, by means of independent and enclitic forms of the copula (in the
simple present tense) (Table 26.16) and a copular verb (in all other tenses) (Table 26.17).
The enclitic (or ‘short’) forms of the copula and the independent (or ‘long’) forms of
the copula are interchangeable when the predicate consists of a single word. For more
complicated predicates, the use of the long copula is obligatory. Its base is ultimately
TABLE 26.16 THE COPULA (ENCLITIC AND INDEPENDENT FORMS)
sg Gloss pl Gloss
1 ʃəbir-nɔ(n) ʃəbir eχtey I am good - ʃəbir eχtan we are good

2m ʃəbir-jɔt ʃəbir eχtaχ you are good - ʃəbir eχtəχon you are good
2f - ʃəbir eχteχ you are good - -
3m ʃəbir-je ʃəbir eχti he is good ʃəbir-non ʃəbir eχtu they are good
3f ʃəbir-ja ʃəbir eχta she is good - -
698 C.G. Häberl
TABLE 26.17 THE COPULAR VERB HƏWƆ ~ HƏWI (HƆWI)
sg pl
1 həw-it hawi-nɔ həwi-ni haw-enni

2m həw-et həwi-ø hɔw-et həwi-ton həw-on haw-etton
2f (həw-it) həwe-ø (həwi-ten) (həw-en)
3m həwɔ-ø hɔwi-ø həw-on hɔw-en
3f həw-at hɔwj-ɔ (həw-ɔn)
derived from the Old Mandaic existential particle iθ, but due to several regular sound
changes it only appears in two allomorphs, eχt- (before a vowel) and eh- (before the prep-
osition l-). Its original role in existential constructions has been assumed by the demon-
strative pronoun ekkɔ ‘there’.
To express possession, Mandaic employs a predicate locative construction, which
is built upon the aforementioned form eh-l-, and takes the suffixed oblique pronouns
(Table 26.4), yielding ehli, ehla and so forth. For all copular constructions in tenses other
than the simple present, the copular verb həwɔ ~ həwi (hɔwi) is used in the place of the
independent or enclitic forms of the copula.
lá=hwɔ-ø=l=u ganzewr-ɔ, ammɔ eʃtɔ eh=l=u

neg=be.pfv-3msg=to=3pl priest-aug but now cop=to=3pl
‘They didn’t used to have a priest, but now they do.’
The copular verb is also used to conjugate pseudo-verbs like jɔd- ‘to know’ and jimb-
or jomb- ‘to be able’ in tenses other than the present.

Within the noun phrase, the noun may be modified by one or more additional elements,
including a second noun in an appositive relationship, an attributive, predicate or compar-
ative adjective, a numeral or non-numeral quantifier and a possessor.
5.3.1 Appositive nouns

A noun may also be modified by other nouns in an appositive relationship. This applies
particularly to geographic expressions.
ʃuʃtar welɔt
gn city
‘Shushtar City’.
5.3.2 Adjectives
Adjectives can fulfill three roles within a phrase: attributive, predicative and compara-
tive. The first two can modify indefinite and definite referents, whereas the third can only
apply to definite referents.
Mandaic 699
5.3.2.1 Attributive adjectives

Attributive adjectives directly follow the noun which they modify. As the examples here
demonstrate, the head noun may be inflected to reflect gender and number; most adjec-
tives do not agree with the head noun in gender and number, although a few do.
qazγɔn honin-i
cauldron small-indf
‘A small cooking pot (m)’.
kədɔw Mandɔjí
book Mandaic
‘A Mandaic book (m)’.
bieθ-wɔθ ba‘id
house-fpl distant
‘Far-off houses (f)’.
barnɔʃ horin-ɔ
person.m other-aug
‘Another person (m)’.
ʃer horet-t-ɔ
war.f other-f-aug
‘Second World War (f)’.
As these examples demonstrate, the nominal augment on the head noun is deleted
whenever it is modified by an attributive adjective, as when the head noun is followed
by a second noun in construct (§5.3.3). Unlike the construct chain, however, a noun
followed by an attributive adjective may be construed as either definite or indefinite;
in the latter case, the indefinite morpheme is typically appended at the end of the noun
phrase rather than on each of the constituent elements. Optionally, it may be added
to all elements for emphasis, e.g., ya qaramb-i raft-i a melon-indf big.f-indf ‘a big
melon’.
5.3.2.2 Predicative adjectives

Predicative adjectives are always accompanied by the copular verb or the enclitic cop-
ula (§5.2).
ja jeki həwɔ-ø mariz-i

a someone be.pfv-3msg ill-indf
‘There once was a man who was ill’.
həwɔ-ø ja jeki pahli=d=i jəhem=je

be.pfv-3msg a someone beside=of=3msg sit.pass=cop.3msg
‘There was someone sitting beside him’.
700 C.G. Häberl
5.3.2.3 Absolute and relative comparison

A noun may be modified by an adjective to express two forms of comparison: relative
comparison, in which the noun is explicitly compared with a second noun, or absolute
comparison, in which it is compared against all other members of its category. In Man-
daic, as in most other Semitic languages, relative comparison is expressed by means of
a predicative adjective (describing the property being compared) modified by a comple-
ment with the preposition men or its enclitic form əm-.
mien-ɔ beh əm=bira

water-aug good from=beer
‘Water is better than beer’.
Absolute comparison, by contrast, is always expressed with the Persian suffix -tar.
Adjectives modified by this suffix can be used predicatively or attributively:
awwáli raf-tar u=χorda=χorda honin-tar qə=hɔw-en

first big-compar and=little=little small-compar ind=be.ipfv-3pl
‘The first was bigger, but little by little they became smaller’.
q=ɔθ-en gɔw mentekɔr raf-tar-i

ind=come.ipfv-3pl in motor.car big-compar-indf
‘They came in a larger car’.
They may also be used adverbially.
ʃoww-ɔ ʃett-ɔ eʃtɔ qamɔ-tar

seven-aug year-aug now before-compar
‘Seven years ago (lit. seven years more before now)’.
The superlative is expressed with the absolute comparative and the word geʃ ‘all’.
beh-tar əm=geʃ
good-compar from=all
‘The best’.
5.3.3 The construct chain

The construct chain serves to indicate possession:
POSSESSED + POSSESSOR
The possessor can be any noun or noun phrase. The possessed must always appear in its
contextual form, but otherwise neither the possessor nor the possessed is morphologically
marked to indicate possession.
ebbər ebr=i
son son=3msg
‘His grandson (lit. his son’s son)’.
Mandaic 701
qazɣɔn ʃəwɔw-ɔ
cauldron neighbor-aug
‘The neighbor’s cooking pot’.
bɔw ħammɔm
father bathhouse
‘The owner of the bathhouse’.
5.4 Analytic/synthetic
As noted in §4, Mandaic is fundamentally a synthetic language, but it does make occa-
sional use of analytic structures to impart nuances of tense/aspect in the verbal system,
and for certain possessive constructions in the nominal system.
5.4.1 Verbs and analytic constructions

Mandaic uses the copular verb həwɔ ~ həwi (hɔwi) to render all copular constructions
(§5.2) in tenses other than the simple present, as well as to conjugate pseudo-verbs like
jɔd- ‘to know’ and jimb- or jomb- ‘to be able’ in tenses other than the present.
Pronominal objects are suffixed (§4.1.1) directly to the verb that governs them, with
the exception of the 3rd person imperfective forms, singular and plural, which obliga-
torily take the enclitic object marker -l- before the object suffix. The final consonant of
the 3pl personal suffix -en regularly assimilates to this enclitic object marker, producing
the form -el(l)-. Additionally, the second singular and first plural morphemes assume the
forms -ɔt- and -nan(n)-, respectively, before object suffixes.
If the non-pronominal object of a verb is intended to be specific and identifiable, it is
introduced by the referential object marker el- (§4.1.2) and a proleptic pronominal suffix
on the verb (which is regularly elided before the referential object marker, whenever the
latter directly follows the former).
an qə=mandi-n=ø el=dešt-ɔ
1sg ind=shake.ipfv-1sg=3fsg ref=ground-aug
‘I will make the ground shake’.
If, on the other hand, the object is intended to be nonspecific or generic, it may form a
single semantic and syntactic unit with the verb, corresponding tho (and in many cases
directly calqued upon) Persian compound verbs. The non-verbal element is most often a
noun such as əwɔdɔ ‘deed’ in the compound əwɔdɔ əwad ~ əwod (ɔwed) ‘to work or to
do something’, lit. ‘to deed-do’, or an adjective such as həjɔnɔ ‘alive’ in the compound
həjɔnɔ tammɔ ‘to survive’, lit. ‘to alive-stay’, although prepositions such as qɔr ‘at’,
in the compound qɔr tammɔ ‘to be born to s.o.’, lit. ‘to at-become’ are attested. As in
Persian, the verbal element is often a ‘light’ verb, which serves only to indicate verbal
inflections such as person, tense, mood, and aspect. The most common light verbs are
əwad ~ əwod (ɔwed) ‘to do’, əhaw ~ əhow (ɔhew) ‘to give’, məhɔ ~ məhi (mɔhi) ‘to hit’
and tammɔ ‘to become’.
702 C.G. Häberl
5.4.2 Nouns and analytic constructions

Possession may be expressed in five ways: synthetically by means of the pronominal
clitics (§4.1.1) and the construct chain (§5.3.3), or analytically via the prepositions qɔr
‘at’ and əl- ‘to’, the relative pronoun d-, and the noun mɔl ‘property’. The first four con-
structions may express either alienable or inalienable possession; mɔl is used to indicate
alienable possession only.
5.4.2.1 Possession indicated by preposition

The preposition əl- is used for general possession, most often with people and other ani-
mate beings. It is also employed in situations where the genitive construct chain (§5.3.3)
would be inappropriate (for example, when the head noun is indefinite). This same prep-
osition can be applied to the interrogative pronoun man ‘who’.
riʃɔmm-ɔ el=Mandej-ɔn-ɔ
rishama-aug to=Mandæan-pl-aug
‘The leader of the Mandæans’.
ahni el=man=non
those to=who=3pl
‘Whose are they?’
The preposition qɔr, by contrast, is employed to specifically indicate that the object pos-
sessed is on the possessor’s person or that the possessor otherwise has immediate access
to it.
rɔz-ɔ qɔr=ey
secret-aug at=1sg
‘My secret’.
5.4.2.2 The relative pronoun d-

In Old Mandaic, possession is generally expressed by the relative pronoun d-, which
can either follow the noun with augment or the noun modified by an anticipatory pro-
nominal suffix in agreement with the noun introduced by d-. In addition to these frozen
expressions, this construction continues to be used in some epithets and in archaiz-
ing expressions; note the obligatory appearance of the augment on the Arabic word
ħɔkem ‘governor’, despite the fact that the augment would not otherwise appear on a
non-nativized loan word.
b=eʃm-ey=hon ed=Hejj-i Rabb-i

in=name-pl=3pl of=life-pl great-pl
‘In the name of the Great Life’.
ħɔkim-ɔ d=ʃuʃtar
governor-aug of=gn
‘The governor of Shushtar’.
Mandaic 703
5.4.2.3 Mɔl construction

The Arabic noun mɔl ‘property,’ also commonly used in some colloquial Iraqi dialects as
the usual genitive particle, is used to express alienable possession.
bieθ mɔl sˁobbi-hɔ́

house property Sabian-pl
‘The Sabians’ houses’.
5.5 Subordination
Subordinating conjunctions introduce a relative clause. The type of conjunction employed
depends upon the presence or absence of a head noun, and whether the relative clause
is referential or non-referential. An indefinite pronoun may be employed to introduce a
headless relative clause, and a relativizer is used to introduce a relative clause that refers
back to an entire clause or verb phrase rather than a nominal antecedent.
If the relative clause depends upon a head noun, the type of relative pronoun employed
is further determined by whether the antecedent is definite or indefinite, and whether the
clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. As mentioned earlier (§4.1.2), nouns may be mor-
phologically marked as indefinite (in opposition to definite nouns, which are unmarked),
and syntactically or morphologically marked as nonspecific (as opposed to specific or
generic, which are unmarked). If the antecedent additionally serves as an object of the
verb of the subordinate clause, its role within that clause must be explicitly marked with
a pronoun that refers anaphorically back to it:
eh=l=ey pɔs-i kol dokk-ɔn q=əmzabn-en əlɔww=u

cop=to=1sg pass-indf all place-pl ind=sell.ipfv-pl to=3pl
‘I had a pass, all the places to which we sold’ (lit. ‘the places, we sold to them’).
5.5.1 Indefinite antecedents

Relative pronouns are completely absent from relative clauses headed by indefinite
antecedents. This indicates that the speaker assumes that his or her audience cannot iden-
tify the referent of the head noun; note also that none of the relative pronouns may intro-
duce a headless relative clause, this function being relegated to the indefinite pronouns
kol mɔ ‘whatever’ and kol man ‘whoever’.
gɔw Aħwɔz həwɔ-ø tarmid-i eʃm-i ʃieχ ‘Abdalla

in gn be.pfv-3msg priest-indf name-3msg sheikh pn
‘In Ahvaz, there was a priest, whose name was Sheikh Abdallah’.
5.5.2 Definite antecedents

Whenever the head noun of the clause is presumed to be identifiable to the audience,
Mandaic employs one of two relative pronouns, elli and ke, which were introduced in
§4.1.3. The former introduces nonrestrictive relative clauses, and the latter restrictive
relative clauses.
704 C.G. Häberl
5.5.2.1 Nonrestrictive relative clauses

The relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun elli contributes supplemental
information about the head noun to which it refers.
q=abi-n amer-ø genz farwɔh Professər Bokli

ind=want.ipfv-1sg say.sbjv-1sg many thanks pn
elli genz əwɔd awd-at qam Mandej-ɔn-ɔ

rel much work do.pfv-3fsg for Mandæan-pl-aug
‘I want to say thanks very much to Professor Buckley,
who has done so much work for the Mandæans’.
5.5.2.2 Restrictive relative clauses

Relative clauses introduced by ke contribute information essential to the understand-
ing of the main clause. Note that the antecedent is the object of the verb of the sub-
ordinate clause in these two examples, and that the verb or copula takes a resumptive
pronoun.
aθθ-on barneʃ-ɔn-ɔ ke ʃewih-ɔn-ɔ kɔwʃ-el=l=u

come.fact.imp-pl person-pl-aug rel demon-pl-aug subdue.ipfv-3pl=obj=3pl
‘Bring the people who will subdue the demons!’
The restrictive morpheme -i, not to be confused with the indefinite morpheme, imparts
a demonstrative meaning upon the antecedent.2 In this example, a resumptive object pro-
noun on the verb refers back to the head of the clause.
dokk-ɔn-i ke həz-it=u awwál

place-pl-restr rel see.pfv-1sg=3pl before
‘The places which I saw before’.
5.6 Negation
Verb phrases (and the independent form of the copula) are negated with the common
Semitic particle lá, which is prefixed to the word it modifies and takes the primary stress.
Before a vowel, the negative particle is elided to l-.
lá-q=əmħaθθ-en Mandɔjí
neg-ind=speak.ipfv-pl Mandaic
‘They don’t speak Mandai’.
ʃəbir l=eχt=ey
good neg=cop=1sg
‘I am not well’.
Mandaic 705
Noun phrases may likewise be negated with lá-, but when they serve as the predicate of a
copular clause with the enclitic form of the copula, they must be negated with the invari-
able particle lu (*lɔw, presumably a contracted form of *lā-hū).
lu=ganzewr-i=je
neg=priest-indf=3msg
‘He is not a priest’.
This same particle negates any nominal to which it is appended:
lu=mandej-ɔn-ɔ
neg=Mandæan-pl-aug
‘Non-Mandæans’.

Mandaic has two different ways of indicating that a given utterance is a request for infor-
mation rather than a declarative speech act. Requests for a simple yes/no answer are
indicated by a rising intonation:
ɔt q=ɑ́ll-et?
2sg ind=go.ipfv-2sg
‘Are you going?’
Questions that expect a more elaborate response employ a number of interrogative pro-
nouns or question words to elicit specific information. The words man and mu are the
only interrogatives that may substitute for either the subject or the object of a verb. They
generally appear at the beginning of the clause, regardless of the function they serve
within the phrase. In either case, the interrogative pronoun must be followed by a verb.
man əmal-ø=l=aχ
who say.pfv-3msg=obj=2msg
‘Who told you?’
mu əmal-ø=l=aχ
what say.pfv-3msg=obj=2msg
‘What did he tell you?’
When the interrogative pronoun anticipates the object of the verb rather than the subject,
it may be followed by the copula (for which see §5.2). More frequently, however, the
copula is omitted in this position.
mo=jje haw-t=ell=i
what=3msg give.pfv-2sg=obj=3msg
‘What did you give him?’
706 C.G. Häberl
The interrogative pronouns may also introduce a dependent clause as a relative pronoun.
In this function, they may appear after the verb, particularly when their referent is specific
and definite. Otherwise, they will appear at the beginning of the sentence.
gatˁl-ø=ø əl=man qə=rahem-ø=l=i

kill.pfv-3msg=3msg ref=who ind=love.ipfv-3msg=obj=3msg
‘He killed the one whom he loves’.
mu q=abɔ-t ana q=awed-ø qamd=aχ

what ind=want.ipfv-2sg 1sg ind=do.ipfv-3sg for=2msg
‘Whatever you want, I’ll do for you’.
The other question words are introduced in §4.1.4. The interrogatives eljɔ, hemdɔ, qamu,
kammɔ and mojur are primarily adverbial. The interrogatives hem, hemdɔ, mojur and
kaθkammɔ are fused compounds; compounds of question words and prepositions are not
uncommon.
m=elj-ɔ
from=where-aug whence
m=hem ohhər
with=which road whither
men mojur
with what.kind in comparison with, like
These other question words may not introduce relative clauses, this function having been
assumed by the interrogative pronouns man and mu or relativizers such as ke and elli.
6 LEXICON
Much like other languages spoken in the region, Mandaic has enriched its lexicon with
vocabulary from the languages with which it has come into contact. Apart from the
parent language, the two largest contributors to its vocabulary have been Arabic and
Persian. Given the influence of both languages upon one another, and of Aramaic upon
Arabic, the direction of borrowing is not always obvious. For example, the word welɔt
‘city’ may be related either to Arabic bila:d ‘country’ (ultimately from Greek palátion)
or wila:jah ‘province’ indirectly via some undetermined source, such as Kurdish wilat
‘country’. The Mandæan scholar Qays al-Saʿadi (2008) has compiled a dictionary of
Mandaic cognates in the vernacular Arabic of Iraq, which includes common Semitic
vocabulary as well as borrowings presumably from diverse forms of Aramaic into this
vernacular.
Nevertheless, the lexicon preserves the core vocabulary of Old Mandaic to a great
degree; in a list of 207 of the most common terms in Mandaic, over 85% were also
attested in the classical literature, the remaining 15% deriving primarily from Persian
and Arabic (Häberl 2009: 39–44). In his Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic,
Mutzafi (2014) identifies copious pre-modern Aramaic lexemes that are unattested among
the other surviving Aramaic languages or, for that matter, even within the Old Mandaic
corpus.
Mandaic 707
7 SAMPLE TEXT
A Mandaic colophon
Every Mandaic manuscript concludes with a colophon in which the copyist provides
details concerning its commission and copying, including his or her name, lineage,
those of the sponsor, the sources of the text, the circumstances under which it was
copied and the date and location of its completion. The copying of these texts is con-
sidered meritorious, not only for the copyist but also the sponsor, and was formerly
a major source of income for the priests as well. Consequently, there are many such
manuscripts, and many such colophons, but they have been under-utilized as a source
for Mandaic.
The following selection is from a manuscript copy of the Mandæan Book of John
in the collection of Nasser Sobbi of Flushing, New York (Figure 26.1). The copyist,
Sheikh Məhattam, son of Yaḥya Behram, informs us that he completed his work on
Saturday (ʃaftɔ) on the 22nd day of the 9th month of the year (which he calls Tiʃrin,
Qejnɔ ‘Libra’, and Ɔχer Gejtˁɔ ‘the last [month] of summer’), in the “Year of Saturday”
(so-called because it began on Saturday, August 14, 1909), and in 1328 AH by the Mus-
lim calendar. By our own reckoning, this would be Saturday, April 9, 1910. He also tells
us that he completed copying the manuscript at home, in the city of ʿAmārah, which is
today in the Maysan Governorate of Iraq, about 50 km from the border with Iran. As a
subject of the Ottoman Empire, he composed this colophon in the wake of the Young
Turk Revolution, and shares some information concerning the effects of this revolution
upon the Mandæans of ʿAmārah.
tum te-d-un ja ahh-an ʃehjɔn-ɔ Esˁtˁambul tˁɔz eh=l=u

again 2-know.ipfv-pl voc brother.pl-1pl ruler-aug gn new cop=to=3pl
‘Now you ought to know, our brethren, they have a new ruler of Istanbul’
ħokom=d=a maʤlis ħorrija tammɔ-ø omur aθɔ-ø

government=of=3fsg parliament free become.pfv-3msg order.pl come.pfv-3msg
‘whose government became a Freedom Council. The orders came:’
Sˁoltˁɔn Esˁtˁambul eʃm-i Moħammad Raʃɔd

sultan gn name-3msg pn
‘the Sultan of Istanbul’s name is Mehmed V Reşâd’
u=maʤlis ħorrija ħokom=d=u tammɔ-ø u=ʕaskar ɣejr

and=parliament free government=of=3pl become.pfv-3msg and=soldier other
‘and the Freedom Council has become their government, and the soldiers of other’
ʃerʃ-ɔ raʕijat ʕəsˁmo=ll=a kol awdonn-u ʕaskar

religion-aug subjects keep.pfv=obj=3fsg all make.pfv-pl soldier
‘religions whom they kept as subjects, they made all of them soldiers.’
jahud we=nsˁɔr-ɔ u=mandɔjí ʕaskar tamm-on

Jew.pl and=Christian-aug and=Mandæan soldier become.pfv-3pl
‘Jews, Christians, and Mandæans became soldiers.’
708 C.G. Häberl
albəʃ-onn=u setr-ɔ pantˁərun u=fezzɔ ħatta ebn-i

dress.pfv-3pl=3pl jacket pants and=fez even son.pl=3msg
‘They dressed them up in jackets, pants, and fezzes.’
d=tarmid-ɔ albəʃ-onn=u u=kol jum qɔl=an ork=u

of=priest-aug dress.pfv-3pl=3pl and=every day voice=1pl with=3pl
‘They even dressed the sons of priests, and every day our voice was with them,’
taʕlum q=ɔwd-en Mandɔ d-Hejji ʃɔri=l=i el=kann-ɔ

teaching ind=do.ipfv-3pl dn release.3msg=obj=3msg ref=vessel-aug
‘teaching. May Manda d’Heyyi release the vessel’
d=neʃm-ɔθ-ɔ men jad janq-ɔ d=Ruhɔ u=Mandɔjí

of=soul-pl-aug from hand child-aug of=dn and=Mandæan
‘of souls from the hand of the child of Ruha, since the Mandæans’
kol b=emteħɔn u=ḍiʤa tamm-on Mɔrɔ d-Rabuθɔ

all in=test distress become-3pl dn
‘are beset by trials and distress.3 May Mara d-Rabutha’
əmzahar=l=i el=kann-ɔ d=neʃm-ɔθ-ɔ men id-ɔ janq-ɔ ?

protect.ipfv=obj=3msg ref=vessel-aug of=soul-pl-aug from hand-aug child-aug
‘protect the vessel of souls from the hand of the child’
d=Krun Hejji Qadmɔjɔ Hejji Tenjɔnɔ Hejji Tleθɔjɔ

of=dn dn dn dn
‘of Krun. May the First Life, the Second Life, and the Third Life’
əmzahar=l=an men janq-ɔ d=ruhɔ ánin u=ʤamiʕ

protect.ipfv=obj=1pl from child-aug of=dn 1pl and=all
‘protect us from the child of Ruha, us and all’
mandɔji b=tɔ dɔr-ɔ koll-a nəqɔʃ-ɔ we=rdɔf-ɔ hɔjeft-ɔ

Mandæan in=this age-aug all=3msg beating-aug and=persecution-aug frightening-aug
‘the Mandæans in this age, all of which is beatings and frightful persecution.’
NOTES
1 I have taken the abagadical forms provided from al-Saʿadi (2012), and as such they
reflect the received Iraqi pronunciation rather than that of the Iranian communities.
2 Much like the Persian jɔ-je eʃɔrat from which it is derived, for which see Windfuhr
(1979: 37).
3 This is none other than Standard Arabic ḍiqa ‘distress’. In the dialects of Maysan, q is
affricated to ʤ.
Mandaic 709
REFERENCES
Al-Saʿadi, Q. M. Muʿjam al-Mufradāt al-Mandāʾīyah fī-l-ʿĀmīyah al-ʿIrāqīyah [in
Arabic]. Germany: Drabsha, 2008.
Al-Saʿadi, Q. M. Enhura: Sedra ed-Malāli Mandāya-Arabāya [in Arabic and Mandaic].
Germany: Drabsha, 2012.
Borghero, R. “A 17th Century Glossary of Mandaic.” Aram Periodical 11–12 (2000):
311–31.
Buckley, J. J. The Mandæans: Ancient Texts and Modern People. New York: Oxford
Buckley, J. J. The Great Stem of Souls. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010.
Choheili, S. “Untitled Contribution.” Aram Periodical 16 (2004): 310–14.
Drower, E. S. The Mandæans of Iraq and Iran. Oxford: Clarendon, 1937.
Drower, E. S. The Book of the Zodiac (Sfar Malwashia). London: Royal Asiatic Society,
1949.
Drower, E. S. The Mandæans of Iraq and Iran. 2nd edition reprint. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias, 2002.
Drower, E. S. and R. Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
Häberl, C. G. “The Relative Pronoun d- and the Pronominal Suffixes in Mandaic.”
Journal of Semitic Studies 52.1 (2007): 71–8.
Häberl, C. G. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr. Semitica Viva 45. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2009.
Häberl, C. G. “Flights of Fancy: A Folktale in Iraqi Neo-Mandaic.” ARAM Periodical 22
(2010): 549–72.
Häberl, C. G. “Neo-Mandaic.” In Semitic Languages: An International Handbook/Ein
internationales Handbuch, edited by S. Weninger and G. Khan, M. P. Streck, and J.
C. E. Watson. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36, 725–37.
Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2011.
Häberl, C. G. “The Demon and the Damsel: A Folktale in Iraqi Neo-Mandaic.” In Durch
Dein Wort Ward Jegliches Ding! /Through Thy Word All Things Were Made! – II
Mandäistische und Samaritanistische Tagung, edited by Rainer M. Voigt, 97–116.
Häberl, C. G. “Tense, Aspect, and Mood in the Doctrine of John.” In Neo-Aramaic and
its Linguistic Context, edited by G. Khan and L. Napiorkowska, 397–406. Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias, 2015.
Macuch, R. Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965a.
Macuch, R. “The bridge of Shushtar. A Legend in Vernacular Mandaic with Introduction,
Translation and Notes.” In Studia Semitica Philologica necnon Philosophica Ioanni
Bakoš Dedicata, edited by S. Segert, 153–72. Bratislava: Slovenskej Akademie Ved,
1965b.
Macuch, R. Neumandäische Chrestomathie mit grammatischer Skizze, kommen-
tierte Übersetzung und Glossar. Porta Linguarum Orientalium N.S. 18. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1989.
Macuch, R. and G. Dankwarth. Neumandäische Texte im Dialekt von Ahwāz. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1993.
710 C.G. Häberl
Morgan, J. J. de. Mission scientifique en Perse, tome V (études linguistiques), deuxième

partie: textes mandaïtes. Paris: E. Leroux, 1904.
Morgenstern, M. “Diachronic Studies in Mandaic.” Orientalia 79.4 (2010): 505–25.
Mutzafi, H. Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Nöldeke, T. “Ueber die Mundart der Mandäer.” Abhandlungen der historisch-philol-
ogischen Classe der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 10
(1862): 81–160.
Nöldeke, T. Mandäische Grammatik. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1875.
Siouffi, N. Études sur la religion des Soubbas ou Sabéens: leurs dogmes, leurs moeurs.
Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1880.
Windfuhr, Gernot L. Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study. The Hague: de
Gruyter, 1979.
CHAPTER 27
NORTHEASTERN
NEO-ARAMAIC ELEANOR COGHILLNORTHEASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC
The dialect of Alqosh1

Eleanor Coghill
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects
The Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects form the largest branch of the Aramaic language
family surviving today (see Map 27.1). They are traditionally allocated to the eastern
branch of the family. Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) is spoken by both Christian
and Jewish communities, but not by Muslim communities.
The NENA branch is not only the largest Neo-Aramaic branch, but also by far the
most diverse. Given that the dialects vary significantly even from village to village, one
MAP 27.1 THE SPEECH AREA OF THE NORTHEASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS BEFORE

1914
712 Eleanor Coghill
can count over 100 separate dialects. Over large geographical distances there is limited
mutual comprehensibility. The NENA dialects vary at all levels of language, including
phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. The factors behind this variation are not
only geographical, but also communal: Jews and Christians have different dialects. In
some areas they were similar and mutually comprehensible, such as in Zakho; in others,
they were essentially different languages. No NENA dialect was spoken by both Jews and
Christians as their mother tongue.2
An internal genetic classification of NENA is not yet available: in fact it is not cer-
tain that it is possible. While shared innovations can certainly be identified, it is not
clear to what extent these will lead to discrete groupings. Given that the dialects have
coexisted alongside each other for a long time, some of these shared innovations may
be due not to shared inheritance but to later inter-dialectal borrowing. The NENA dia-
lects may be grouped, for convenience, on a mixture of linguistic and geographical
grounds. They must also be categorized by the religion of the speakers (Jewish or
Christian, abbreviated here as J. and C.). It should be noted however, that the Jewish
Lishana Deni dialects are linguistically more similar to neighboring Christian dialects
than to other Jewish dialects.
Most dialects of NENA are severely endangered and some have already died out, due
to the persecutions, wars and ethnic cleansing the various communities have endured,
especially since the early 20th century; now there are most likely many more speakers in
the world-wide diaspora than in the homeland.
1.2 Oral and written literature in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic

Most dialects of NENA have no written form and most linguistic research on them has
been based on transcribed recordings. Thus a large part of the literature available in
NENA is of this type and may be found in appendices to the dialectal grammars written
by scholars. A very rich oral literature of folktales, poems and songs has been transmitted
up to the present day but is increasingly endangered. There are also various religiously
oriented literary traditions among both Christians and Jews of Iraq, the earliest going
back at least to the 16th century (see, e.g., Mengozzi 2002a, 2002b and Sabar 1976 for
samples). A new literary variety was developed in the 19th century at the instigation of
American missionaries who had settled in Urmia in Iran (Murre-van den Berg 1999).
Initially used for religious literature, including a Bible translation, it was extended to sec-
ular literature and works of a wide variety of genres continue to be published in it today.
1.3 The dialect of Alqosh

The NENA dialect of Alqosh is spoken by the inhabitants of the town of that name
(known as Alqoshnaye [ʔalquʃnaːjə]) and by the extensive diaspora of Alqoshnaye to be
found in the cities of Iraq, as well as in the West. Like other dialects spoken by Christians
it is known to its speakers as Surath [suːraθ].
Alqosh is located north of the city of Mosul, at the northern edge of the Mosul Plain
(also known as the Nineveh Plains), just where the mountainous region of northern Iraq
begins. The inhabitants of Alqosh belong mainly to the Chaldean Catholic Church, hav-
ing converted over the past few centuries from the Church of the East.
Northeastern Neo-Aramaic 713
The dialect of Alqosh is most closely related to the other dialects of the Mosul Plain,
in particular neighboring Tisqopa. It is part of a dialect continuum, sharing some features
with the more southerly dialects of the Mosul Plain (such as Telkepe), but others with the
dialects further north.
The data in this chapter was gathered through recordings of Alqoshnaye in London,
Damascus and Baghdad in the years 1999–2004. A full description of the phonology and
morphology, along with some texts, can be found in Coghill (2004). The syntax has not
been covered elsewhere, but areas of the syntax of a closely related dialect, Telkepe, are
described in Coghill (2010a, 2010b, 2014).
2 WRITING SYSTEM
The scripts used for writing Northeastern Neo-Aramaic depend most of all on who is
writing. Texts written within the Jewish community are generally in the Square Script
(commonly known as the ‘Hebrew script’, but in fact originally used for ancient Ara-
maic), which they are accustomed to use for their heritage languages, Hebrew and
Aramaic. Christians write their language in their own heritage script, the Syriac script,
specifically the Eastern variant of that script or, occasionally, the older form, Estran-
gelo. Neo-Aramaic is sometimes written by Christians in Arabic or Roman script for
the benefit of speakers who have not learned the Syriac script; such transcriptions can
be found, for instance, in liturgical booklets produced for worshippers at Chaldean
churches.
Some texts originating in the former Soviet Union also exist in a variant of the Roman
script adapted specially for Neo-Aramaic, known as the New Alphabet. This was part of
a policy of nation-building within the Soviet empire during the 1920s and 1930s. Some
texts have been republished and studied by scholars, e.g., Friedrich (1959, 1960) and
Pennacchietti and Tosco (1991).
3 PHONOLOGY
The inventory of consonant phonemes in the dialect of Alqosh is given in Table 27.1.
Phonemes given in brackets have marginal or uncertain phonemic status. Plosives
are unaspirated. The ‘emphatic’ consonants are realized as velarized/pharyngealized
in Alqosh. Voiced plosives and fricatives are devoiced in word-final position, e.g.,
mʤaːwəb [mʤæːup] ‘answer!’, qapaɣ [qɑpɐx] ‘lid’. The glottal stop is a phoneme in
this dialect, but is frequently elided, especially after a consonantal prefix, e.g., b‑alquʃ
~ b‑ʔalquʃ ‘in Alqosh’.
There are nine vowel phonemes, six of them long and three short (see Table 27.2). The
distinction between long and short is not phonemic in all environments. The phonemes
/i/, /e/, /ɛ/ and /o/ are usually realized as long but not marked as such, in order to minimize
the number of diacritics.
The most common realizations of these vowels (in the environment of non-
pharyngealized consonants) are as shown in Table 27.3. In a pharyngealized environment
they may be backed and lowered, at least in the onset.
Within NENA, Alqosh is relatively conservative in its phonology, preserving, for
instance, the /o/-/u/ distinction which has been lost in some dialects. Original diphthongs,
Postalveolar
Labio-dental
Pharyngeal
Laryngeal
Alveolar
Bilabial
Palatal
Uvular
Dental
Velar
Stops/Affricates
Voiceless p t ʧ k q ʔ
Plain
Voiced b d j g
Voiceless (pˁ) tˁ ʧˁ
Emphatic
Voiced (dˁ)
Fricatives
Voiceless f θ s ʃ x ħ h
Plain
Voiced (v) ð z (ʒ) ɣ
Voiceless sˁ
Emphatic
Voiced ðˁ
Nasals
Plain m n
Emphatic (mˁ)
Lateral Approximant
Plain l
Emphatic (lˁ)
Tap/Trill
Plain r [ɺ̢ ]3
Emphatic rˁ
Approximants w j ʕ4
TABLE 27.2 VOWEL INVENTORY
Long /i/ /e/ /ɛ/ /aː/ /o/ /uː/

Short /ə/ /a/ /u/
TABLE 27.3 PHONETIC REALIZATIONS OF VOWEL PHONEMES
/i/ = [iː]; in an unstressed syllable also short: [i] or [ɪ]

/e/ = [eː]; in an unstressed syllable also mid-long or short: [eˑ], [e]
/ɛ/ = [ɛ̝ː], i.e. a high [ɛː]
/aː/ = [æː]; in an unstressed syllable also mid-long: [æˑ]
/o/ = [ɵː], i.e. a fronted [oː]; in an unstressed or closed syllable also mid-long: [ɵˑ]
/uː/ = [uː]; in an unstressed syllable also mid-long: [uˑ]
/ə/ = [ɘ], i.e. a highish shwa, or a more fronted [e̠] ~ [ɪ]
/a/ = [ɛ] or a centralized [ɜ], or a lower [æ]
/u/ = [u] or a more lax [ʊ]
however, have been monophthongized: *aj > ɛ and *aw > o. The latter shift also applies
to any *aw which goes back to original *aḇ or *aːḇ:
*tawra > tora ‘ox’

*gaḇra > gora ‘man’
*bajṯa > bɛθa ‘house’
*xaːzaj > xaːzɛ ‘they may see’
Diphthongs /aw/, /aj/ and /ew/ are, however, found in loan words from Classical Syriac
or other languages:
surajtuːθa ‘Christianity’ (< Syriac suryaːyuːtaː)5

ʕewrˁaːja ‘Hebrew’ (< Syriac ʕeḇraːyaː)
ʔawwal ‘first’ (< Arabic)
tˁawlə ‘backgammon’ (< Arabic)
Syllables are generally of the following types, with rare exceptions:
Cv e.g. si ‘go!’, go.ra ‘man’

CCv e.g. xzi ‘see!’, pli.ma ‘bent’
CvC e.g. mor ‘speak!’, bax.ta ‘woman’
CCvC e.g. pθox ‘open!’, smaq.ta ‘red (fsg)’
Word stress is mostly penultimate, as is the case in most Christian NENA dialects
and some Jewish ones, e.g., xajáːtˁa ‘tailor’ and kəm-ʃaːqə́l-lə (pst.pfv-take.pres.S.3msg-
L.3msg) ‘he took it’. Non-penultimate stress can be found in some verbal forms, when
certain suffixes or enclitics are added. As a result of this, stress is marginally phonemic:
1 a mápləx-lə b maplə́x-lə
use.imp.sg-L.3msg use.pres.S.3msg-L.3msg
‘use it!’ ‘he may use it’
In this chapter, word stress will not be marked unless it is non-penultimate.

Anticipatory voicing assimilation is consistently applied in this dialect. When two
consonants are adjacent, the first one assimilates in voicing to the second: for instance,
bʃaːla ‘to boil’ is realized as [p]ʃaːla. All consonants undergo and trigger this assimilation
except for /ʔ/, /h/, /ʕ/, /m/, /n/, /l/, /r/, /j/ and /w/, as well as any emphatic counterparts of
these. Nasal assimilation occurs where /b/ or /d/ precede /m/ or /n/. The phoneme /b/ is
consistently assimilated before /m/ and this is commonly seen with the future prefix b‑,
e.g., b‑maħkəx (fut-speak.pres.S.1pl) > mmaħkəx ‘we’ll speak’, and the preposition b-.
Other kinds of nasal assimilation are sporadic, e.g., kud꞊naqla ~ kun꞊naqla ‘every time’.
A very common type of assimilation is emphatic spread, where vowels and consonants
close to an emphatic consonant are also realized with pharyngealization/velarization.
Emphatic spread may affect a whole word, but frequently only affects a part:
bəsˁla [bˁəsˁlˁa] ‘onion’

pxalsˁətta [pxalˁsˁətta] ‘you’ll (msg) finish it (f)’
716 Eleanor Coghill
A selection of the synchronic vowel alternations in this dialect is presented here. Sylla-
ble closure, through the addition of a suffix, usually results in the shortening of a vowel:
/aː/ to /a/, /i/ to /ə/, /uː/ to /u/ and /o/ to /a/~/o/:
rˁaːba ‘big (m)’ rˁabθa ‘big (f)’

pθixa ‘open (m)’ pθəxta ‘open (f)’
suːsa ‘stallion’ susta ‘mare’
zora ‘small (m)’ zarta ‘small (f)’
Vowel lengthening also takes place, either through a shift in stress or the opening of a
syllable:
k-xáːzə ‘he sees’ k-xaːzé-la ‘he sees her (ind-see.pres.3msg-L.3fsg)’

bánas ‘fault’ banáːs-i ‘my fault (fault-1sg)’
Vowel shortening can take place when an open stressed syllable becomes pretonic:
ʔixáːla ‘food’ ʔixal-ɛ́j ‘their food (food-3pl)’

jáːma ‘sea’ jam-aːθa ‘seas (sea-pl)’
4 MORPHOLOGY
4.1 Pronouns
Table 27.4 shows the independent personal pronouns and the possessive suffixes. The
latter are attached to the stems of nouns and prepositions.
Note that a final /n/ has a tendency to be elided in 2pl forms. In the 3rd person posses-
sive suffixes, original */h/ has become a pharyngeal, /ħ/.6
The independent possessive pronouns are formed on the stem dij-, e.g., dij-əħ (poss-
3msg) ‘his’, dij-i (poss-1sg) ‘mine’ etc. These are typically used predicatively:
2 dij-ux꞊ilə.7
poss-2msg꞊prs.cop.3msg
‘It is yours’.
TABLE 27.4 PERSONAL PRONOUNS AND PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES
Independent Personal Possessive Suffixes

Pronouns
1 sg ʔaːna I -i bɛθ-i my house

pl ʔaxni we -an bɛθ-an our house
2 msg ʔaːjət you -ux bɛθ-ux your house
fsg ʔaːjat you -ax bɛθ-ax your house
pl ʔaxtu(n) you -oxu(n) bɛθ-oxu(n) your house
3 msg ʔaːw he -əħ bɛθ-əħ his house
fsg ʔaːj she -aħ bɛθ-aħ her house
pl ʔaːni they -ɛ́j bɛθ-ɛj their house
Near Deixis Far/Absent Deixis
Independent Attached Independent Attached
csg ʔaːði ~ ʔaːj ʔaθ- ~ ʔaj- msg ʔaːwa ʔo-

fsg ʔaːja ʔɛ-
pl ʔaːni ʔan- pl ʔaːnɛ ʔanɛ-
The demonstratives distinguish two degrees of dexis (Table 27.5), in contrast to many
other NENA dialects which distinguish three: near-far-absent. The independent demon-
stratives stand alone as pronouns, while attached demonstratives are used attributively. It
is the attached demonstratives which may form the head of a relative clause:
3 a ʔaːj lʔel.|
this above
‘This is upstairs’.
b ʔɛ꞊ʔara
that.f꞊field(f)
‘that field’
c ʔo- də=k-naːʔəs-lə xuːwə . . .
that.m- rel=ind-bite.pres.3msg-L.3msg snake(m)
‘He whom a snake bites . . .’
Demonstratives usually take the genitive prefix d- when preceded by an independent

(non-prefixed) preposition, e.g., mən d‑aːni (from gen‑these) ‘from among these’.
4.1.3 Other pronouns

The reflexive pronoun is formed from gjaːna ‘soul, self’ with possessive suffixes attached
to its stem:
4 dri baːla lə-gjaːn-ux.|

put.imp.msg attention to-self-2msg
‘Take care of yourself’.
Reciprocity can be expressed with ʔə́ɣðaːðə ‘each other’ or with the expression xaː=
xənna [one.m=other.m]:
5 k-ʃaql-i ʔə́ɣðaːðə.|
ind-accept.pres-S.3pl recp
‘They accept each other’.
Table 27.6 presents the main indefinite pronouns. Some are compounds, involving xa꞊
‘one, a’, ʧu꞊ ‘no’, kul꞊ ‘all’ or kud꞊ ‘every’.
718 Eleanor Coghill
TABLE 27.6 INDEFINITE PRONOUNS
xa꞊məndi ‘something’
xa꞊naːʃa ‘someone’
ʧu꞊məndi ‘nothing’
ʧu꞊naːʃa ‘no-one’
kul꞊məndi ‘everything’
kud꞊naːʃa, kut꞊xaʔ ‘everyone’
Table 27.7 presents the interrogative pronouns, along with some interrogative adverbs.
maː, maha ‘what?’

man, maːni ‘who?’
ʔɛma ‘which?’
kma ‘how many?’
máːqada, maːqad, maːqa, ‘how much?’, ‘how many?’
maː꞊qadra
ʔiman ‘when?’
dex ‘how?’
qaːj ‘why?’
ʔɛka ‘where?’, ‘whither?’
mɛka ‘whence?’
4.2 Nouns
4.2.1 Gender and noun morphology
Northeastern Neo-Aramaic has retained the two gender system of Semitic: masculine
and feminine. These trigger gender agreement in pronouns, adjectives and verbs. Usu-
ally the gender is predictable from the form, but not in all cases. Masculine nouns usu-
ally end in ‑a, e.g., gora ‘man’, kalba ‘dog’ and kθaːwa ‘book’. Feminine nouns usually
end in ‑Ta, i.e., either ‑ta (< *‑ta) or -θa (< *‑ṯa), e.g., nunta ‘fish’, kalθa ‘daughter-in-
law’, tanɛθa ‘word’. There are also some unmarked feminine nouns, which end in ‑a,
e.g., jəmma ‘mother’, ʃəmʃa ‘sun’, jaːma ‘sea’, ʃmajja ‘sky’, ʔara ‘field’, guːba ‘loom’.
These mostly fall into the following semantic categories: females, place names, natu-
ral phenomena, circumscribed spaces, smaller animals and parts of the body (Coghill
2004: 199–203). Loan words from Kurmanji or Arabic mostly retain the gender of the
donor language, resulting in further unmarked feminine nouns, e.g., ʧaːra ‘solution’
(< Kurm. ç’are f).8
Nouns with other endings may be masculine or feminine, e.g., ʔurxə (f) ‘watermill’,
gaːrə ~ gaːra (f) ‘roof’, lelə (m) ‘night’, məndi (m) ‘thing’ and kaːlu (f) ‘bride’. Natu-
rally female beings (animals or humans) are always feminine, regardless of form, e.g.,
baxta ‘woman’ and ʔwaːna ‘ewe’, as are most place names, e.g., ʔalquʃ ‘Alqosh’, baɣdad
‘Baghdad’ and zaːxu ‘Zakho’.
4.2.2 Noun patterns and derivational affixes

Alqosh, like other NENA dialects, preserves several templatic noun patterns from earlier
Aramaic. Some also play a role in the verbal system. Some of the common ones are given
in Table 27.8.
The feminine endings -Ta and -iθa are often used for derivations that, in relation to the
source noun, are female (kalba ‘dog’, kaləbθa ‘bitch’), diminutive (ʔalola ‘street’, ʔalalta
‘alley’) or singulative (ʔənwə ‘grapes’, ʔənwiθa `grape’).
The suffix -u occurs as a diminutive suffix, e.g., sota ‘old woman’, sotu ‘little old lady’.
It is frequently used with hypocoristic names, e.g., mixaːjəl ‘Michael’, mixa ‘Mike’, mixu
‘Mikey’. Female hypocoristic names, on the other hand, usually end in -ə, e.g., ħabuːba,
ħabə. The -u suffix, however, also has a femininizing function, being used as an alter-
native to the feminine -Ta and -iθa endings, e.g., qaːtˁa ‘male cat’, qaːtˁu ‘female cat’.
In particular it may be used with active participles with this function (§4.5.3). Another
diminutive suffix attested on a few nouns is Aramaic -ona, e.g. kalba ‘dog’, kalbona
‘little dog’.
Various other derivational affixes exist. Their functions can be broadly described as
follows. The suffix -uːθa (< *‑uːṯa) derives abstract nouns, e.g., zoruːθa ‘childhood’
(from zora ‘small, young’). The suffix ‑aːja is used for gentilics, which serve both as
adjectives and nouns, e.g., qurðaːja ‘Kurdish, Kurd’. A similar suffix, -naːja, is used for
TABLE 27.8 ARAMAIC TEMPLATIC NOUN PATTERNS
*CaCCa > CaCCa jarxa ‘month’

*CeCCa > CəCCa Includes verbal nouns of derivation I verbs:
gəxka ‘laughter’ gxk I ‘to laugh’
gədʃa ‘accident’ gdʃ I ‘to happen’
> CuCCa ʔupra ‘earth, soil’ Syriac ʔap̄ raː
*CuCCa > CuCCa ʔurxa ‘way, path’ Syriac ʔurħaː
*CaːCa > CaːCa qaːla ‘voice’ Syriac qaːlaː
*CuːCa > CuːCa nuːra ‘fire’ Syriac nuːraː
*CeCːa > CəCːa ləbba ‘heart’ Syriac lebbaː
*CuCːa > CuːCa duːka ‘place’ Syriac dukkaː
*CaCːa > CaːCa kaːka ‘tooth’ Syriac kakkaː
*CeːCa > CeCa ʔeða ‘festival’ Syriac ʕeːʔḏaː
*CCaːCa > CCaːCa Includes infinitives of derivation I verbs:
ʃlaːma ‘peace’ Syriac ʃlaːmaː
kθaːwa ‘book’ kθw I ‘to write’, Syriac kṯaːḇaː
gwaːra ‘marriage’ gwr I ‘to marry’
*CaCːaːCa > CaCaːCa Active participles of derivation I verbs:
xajaːtˁa ‘tailor’ xjtˁ I ‘to sew’
ʃaðaːja ‘wool-teaser’ ʃðj I ‘to tease (wool’
*CaːCoCa > CaːCoCa Alternative active participles of derivation I verbs:
naːtˁora ‘guard’ ntˁr I ‘to guard’
qaːtˁola ‘killer’ qtˁl I ‘to kill’
*CuCːaːCa > CuCaːCa Verbal noun of derivation II verbs:
buʃaːla ‘cooked food’ bʃl II ‘to cook’
buqaːra ‘question’ bqr II ‘to ask’
720 Eleanor Coghill
town of origin, e.g., ʔalquʃnaːja ‘Alqoshi’: there is, however, some overlap between these
two suffixes.
Some compounds are based on the original Aramaic apocopate construct state (now
only existing as a relic). We see this in, for instance, barzara ‘seed’ (< *bar zarʕa,
son.cst seed/offspring) and zaqarqoda ‘spider’ (< *zaqqaːr qawda, weaver.cst chain).
Some of these former constructs can be used productively: the prefix mar- (from maːra
‘lord, owner’) expresses ‘owner of’, e.g., mar‑ʔərwe [owner.of‑sheep] ‘sheep-owner’
and mar‑paːrə [owner.of‑money] ‘moneyed person’. The prefix bi- (< *beːṯ, house.cst)
expresses ‘family of’, e.g., bi‑ʕamm‑i [family.of‑paternal.uncle‑1sg] ‘my paternal uncle’s
family’.
4.2.3 Noun inflection

Nouns inflect for plurality. This inflection takes the form of a set of eight suffixes, whose
distribution is for the most part lexically defined. Tendencies can however be identified,
on the basis of gender, place in an animacy hierarchy, phonological or morphological
shape and origin (inherited or borrowed). The suffixes are given in Table 27.9 along with
examples.
Nouns taking the suffix -aːnə or -aːCə often use the plural -ə when treated as countable
(e.g., preceded by a numeral or kma ‘how many?’):
6 a mʃaðr-ən-nux p-parʧ-aːʧə
(fut-)send.pres-S.1msg-L.2msg in-piece-pl
‘I’ll send you back in pieces!’
b kma꞊parʧ-ə?
how.many꞊piece-pl
‘How many pieces?’
In some cases the stem of the noun undergoes irregular changes before the plural suf-
fix: gor‑a ‘man’, pl guːr‑ə; braː‑ta ‘girl, daughter’, pl bn‑aːθa. Sometimes Arabic words
are used in their original plural forms, e.g., bahaːráːt ‘spices’ and baːraːmíl ‘barrels’.
The only other inflectional marker on nouns is the construct suffix, -əd (§5.3). If a noun,
whether singular or plural, ends in -a or -ə, this ending is replaced by the construct suf-
fix, e.g. gupta ‘cheese’, gupt‑əd=ʔərwə (cheese-cst=sheep) ‘sheep’s cheese’; lɛlə ‘night’,
lɛl‑əd=niʃan (night-cst=sign) ‘Night of the Sign’. The /d/ of the suffix may assimilate to
TABLE 27.9 NOUN PLURALS
-ə ʃivaːna (m) ‘shepherd’ pl. ʃivaːnə xabuʃta (f) ‘apple’ pl. xabuːʃə
-aːnə ʃəmma (m) ‘name’ pl. ʃəmmaːnə karma (m) ‘vineyard’ pl. karmaːne
-aːθa tawərta (f) ‘cow’ pl. toraːθa ʔurxa (f) ‘road’ pl. ʔurxaːθa
-aːCə parʧa (m) ‘piece’ pl. parʧaːʧə təlpa (m) ‘eyelid’ pl. təlpaːpə
-awaːθa baːba (m) ‘father’ pl. babawaːθa lɛlə (m) ‘night’ pl. təlpaːpə
-waːθa xaːθa (f) ‘sister’ pl. sojaːθa matˁəmta (f) ‘face’ pl. paθwaːθa
-jaːθa sota (f) ‘old woman’ pl. sojaːθa matˁəmta (f) ‘spoon’ pl. matˁəmjaːθa
-at9 kuʧəkə (f) ‘room’ pl. kuʧəkat qalaːma (f) ‘pen’ pl. matˁəmjaːθa
the initial consonant of the following word (§3), unless this begins with a consonant clus-
ter preceded by an epenthetic vowel: nuːr‑ət=ħadaːda (fire-cst=blacksmith) ‘the black-
smith’s fire’; duːk-əd=əsxaːja [place-cst=swimming] ‘swimming place’.
4.3 Adjectives
Adjectives agree with the noun modified, whether in attributive or predicative position:
7 a xze-lə ɣða꞊kaːwə kom-ta.|

see.past-L.3msg indf.f꞊window(f) black-fsg
‘He saw a black window’.
b ʔurxa jarəx-ta꞊waːwa.|
road(f) long-fsg꞊pst.cop.3fsg
‘The road was long’.
Adjectives in Alqosh each follow one of the inflection patterns given in Table 27.10.
The native inflectional pattern, pattern 1, is the most common. Pattern 2, borrowed
from vernacular Arabic, is found with a small group of borrowed adjectives, expressing
mostly human/animal characteristics. Some other adjectives do not inflect at all. Pattern
3 is so far only attested with one word. Two loan adjectives are uninflected and placed
before the noun: xoš꞊ ‘good’ (< Kurm./Arab./Turk.) and ʔawwal꞊ ‘first’ (< Arab.), e.g.
xoš꞊nāša [good꞊person(m)] ‘good person’ and ʔawwal꞊ga [first꞊time(f)] ‘the first time’.
Comparatives are frequently expressed using the particle bəʃ꞊ ‘more’ (apparently bor-
rowed from Persian):
8 gupt-əd꞊ʔərw-ə bəʃ꞊bassəm-t꞊ɛla꞊u| bəʃ꞊rxəʃ-ta.|

cheese(f)-cst=sheep-pl more꞊tasty-fsg꞊prs.cop.3fsg꞊and more꞊common-fsg
‘Sheep’s cheese is tastier and more common’.
When the phrase is definite, the comparative may be expressed simply by a demonstra-
tive and adjective: ʔo=rˁaːba (that.m=big.msg) ‘the big(ger) one’. A superlative may be
made explicit by annexing the adjective to kullɛ ‘all of them’:
9 xze-li ʔaxona rˁaːb-ət=kull-ɛ

see.past-L.1sg brother(m) big.m-cst=all-3pl
‘I saw the oldest brother’.
TABLE 27.10 ADJECTIVAL INFLECTIONS
Pattern Masculine Feminine Plural
1 -a xaːθa -ta, -θa xaθta -ə xaːθə ‘new’

2 -a karra -ə karrə -ə karrə ‘deaf’ < Kurm. ker̄
3 -Ø brəndar -Ø brəndar -ə brəndaːrə ‘injured’ < Kurm. birîndar)
4 -Ø náppalax -Ø náppalax -Ø náppalax ‘lazy’< Kurm. na ‘not’,
NENA palaːxa ‘worker’
722 Eleanor Coghill
As in many other Semitic languages, adjectives may also serve as nouns, i.e., as heads
of noun phrases. In this function, they also inflect as nouns, thus we also see a distinct
feminine plural. Compare the inflection of saːwa ‘old’ with the inflection of saːwa ‘old
man, grandfather’ in Table 27.11.
Many Alqosh adjectives conform to specific templatic patterns, reflexes of patterns in
earlier Aramaic (Table 27.12).
Some adjectives are derived from nouns by the addition of the suffix -aːna (e.g.,
xəʃkaːna ‘dark’ < xəʃka ‘darkness’). Other adjectives are the active participles of verbs.
Depending on the derivation of the verb, they have different templatic patterns (e.g.,
zadaːʔa ‘fearful’ < zdʔ I ‘to be afraid’; maʧəhjaːna ‘tiring’ < ʧhj III ‘to tire’).
The active participle of derivation III verbs is used in a set of adjectives describing
color. These are not the basic color words, but correspond to the English color adjectives
ending in -ish, e.g., ‘blueish’, ‘blackish’ etc. They are formed from the root consonants
of the basic adjective, for instance smoqa (√smq) ‘red’ is transformed into masəmqaːna
‘reddish’ and jaruːqa (√jrq)‘green’ into majərqaːna ‘greenish’.
4.4 Numerals
4.4.1 Cardinal numerals
NENA, like earlier Aramaic, has a decimal system. Numerals above ten are compounds.
When cardinal numerals occur with a noun, the numeral is preposed. Most commonly the
numeral forms a stress group with the following noun, the number taking the stress, e.g.,
tre꞊ʔalolə (two.m꞊street(m):pl ‘two streets’).
TABLE 27.11 ADJECTIVAL VS. NOMINAL INFLECTION
adjectival msg gora saːwa ‘old man’

fsg baxta sota ‘old woman’
mpl guːrə saːwə ‘old men’
fpl ʔənʃə saːwə ‘old women’
nominal msg saːwa ‘old man, grandfather’
fsg sota ‘old woman, grandmother’
mpl saːwə ‘old men, grandfathers’
fpl sojaːθa ‘old women, grandmothers’
TABLE 27.12 ARAMAIC TEMPLATIC ADJECTIVE PATTERNS
*CaCːa > CaːCa rˁaːba ‘big’

*CCiCa > CCiCa Resultative participles of derivation I verbs:
psˁixa ‘happy’ psˁx I ‘to be happy’
*CaCːiCa > CaCiCa ʔatiqa ‘old’ Syriac ʕattiqaː
xamima ‘hot’ Syriac ħammimaː
> CaCːiCa bassima ‘tasty, nice’ Syriac bassimaː
*CaCːuCa > CaCuːCa xamuːsˁa ‘sour’ Syriac ħammuːsˁaː
ʕamuːqa ‘deep’ Syriac ʕammiqaː (sic)
Numerals 1–10, given in Table 27.13, are inflected to agree with the gender of the noun
modified (10a–b):
10 a xamʃáː꞊xuːrə
five.m꞊friend(m):pl
‘five friends’.
b xammə́ʃ꞊ʔarmonə
five.f꞊pomegranate(f):pl
‘five pomegranates’.
If these numerals stand independently, they take normal penultimate stress, with the
exception of təttéʔ (‘two.f’) which usually takes final stress. Before a noun the stress is
usually shifted onto the final syllable, with some resultant phonological changes, e.g.,
tˁlaθáː꞊baːrə ‘three sides’, ʔarbé꞊mðinaːθa ‘four towns’. The attributive forms for ‘one’
undergo shortening: xa꞊joma ‘one day’, ɣða꞊tawərta ‘one cow’.
Numbers 11–19, given in Table 27.14, are not inflected for gender (which is restricted
to numerals 1–10). They all end in -sar, apparently derived from ʔəssar ‘ten.f’. The
attached forms are identical to the independent forms. The stress may be shifted onto the
TABLE 27.13 CARDINAL NUMERALS 1–10
Independent Forms Attached Forms
M F M F
1 xaːʔ ɣðaːʔ xa꞊ ɣða꞊

2 treʔ təttéʔ tré꞊ tətté꞊
3 tˁlaːθa tˁəllaθ tˁlaθá꞊ tˁəlláθ꞊
4 ʔarba ʔarbəʔ ʔarbá꞊ ʔarbé꞊
5 xamʃa xamməʃ xamʃá꞊ xammə́ʃ꞊
6 ʔəʃta ʔəʃʃət ʔəʃtá꞊ ʔəʃʃə́t꞊
7 ʃoʔa ʔəʃwaʔ ʃoʔá꞊ ʔəʃʃə́t꞊
8 tmanja tmaːnəʔ tmanjá꞊ tmané꞊
9 təʃʔa təʃʃaʔ təʃʔá꞊ təʃʃá꞊
10 ʔəsrˁa ʔəssar ʔəsrˁá꞊ ʔəssár꞊
11 xadesar
12 tresar
13 təltaːsar
14 ʔarbaːsar
15 xamʃaːsar
16 ʔəʃtaːsar
17 ʔəʃwaːsar
18 tmanesar
19 ʔətʃaːsar
724 Eleanor Coghill
Independent Attached
20 ʔəsri ʔəsrí꞊
30 tˁlaːθi tˁlaθí꞊
40 ʔarbi ʔarbí꞊
50 xamʃi xamʃí꞊
60 ʔəʃti ʔəʃtí꞊
70 ʃoʔi ʃoʔí꞊
80 tmaːna tmaná꞊
90 təʃʔi təʃʔí꞊
final syllable but not consistently, e.g., tresár꞊guːrə ‘twelve men’ and xadésar꞊ʃənnə
‘eleven years’.
All the tens end in -i (a reflex of the Aramaic mpl absolute state -in), except for tmaːna
‘eighty’ (Table 27.15). The final syllable takes the stress in the attached form, e.g.,
ʔarbí꞊jomə (forty꞊day:pl) ‘forty days’.
The word for hundred is ʔəmma. There are two ways of forming the series of hun-
dreds. One is to treat ʔəmma as any masculine noun and form its (count) plural, e.g.,
tˁlaθáː꞊ʔəmm-ə (three.m꞊hundred-pl) ‘three hundred’. The other has ʔəmma in the sin-
gular preceded by a feminine numeral, e.g. tˁəlláθ꞊ʔəmma (three.f꞊hundred) ‘three hun-
dred’. The only exception is two hundred, which is tré꞊ʔəmm-ə (two.m꞊hundred-pl) only.
The collective (uncounted) plural of hundred is irregular: ʔəmmaːjə ‘hundreds’.
Thousands are formed on the plural of ʔalpa(m) ‘thousand’, and never on the
singular. Examples are as follows: tre꞊ʔalp-ə [two.m꞊thousand-pl] ‘two thousand’,
ʔəsrˁáː꞊ʔalp-ə (ten.m꞊thousand-pl) ‘ten thousand’. A million is expressed with the loan
word məljón.
Combinations of tens and units are ordered with the unit first, e.g., treʔ꞊u=ʔəsri
(two.m꞊and꞊twenty) ‘twenty-two’. When the unit ends in -a it usually combines with
conjunction ꞊u ‘and’ and is monophthongized to /o/, e.g., xo꞊ʔəsri ‘twenty-one’, from
*xa꞊u ʔəsri (one.m꞊and twenty). Stress is placed on the final syllable of the unit, e.g.,
ʃoʔó꞊ʔəsri ‘twenty-seven’, ʔarbó꞊ʔəsri꞊ʃənnə (four.m.and꞊twenty꞊year(f).pl) ‘twen-
ty-four years’.
In combinations with hundreds or thousands the numbers are ordered from largest
to smallest, except for tens which come after the unit as shown above, e.g., ʔəmma꞊u
xo꞊ʔəsri꞊ʃənnə (hundred꞊and one.m.and꞊twenty꞊year(f).pl) ‘a hundred and twenty-one
years’.
If there are units but no tens, the unit numeral agrees in gender with the noun it precedes,
e.g., ʔəmma꞊u tˁəlláθ꞊ʃənnə (hundred꞊and three.f꞊year(f).pl) ‘a hundred and three years’
and ʔalpa꞊u ɣða꞊ʃaːta (thousand꞊and one.f꞊year(f)) ‘a thousand and one years’.
4.4.2 Ordinal numerals

The first ordinal, qamaːja, is an adjective and as such agrees with the noun in gender and
number (m qamaːja, f qamɛθa, pl qamaːjə), e.g., joma qamaːja [day(m) first.m] ‘the first
day’, gaː qamɛθa (time(f) first.f) ‘the first time’.
All other ordinals are genitive constructions formed either with the construct suffix
‑(ə)d or its prefixed counterpart d-. Although the number is in a genitive rather than an
adjectival relationship with the noun, any number up to ten will inflect to agree with
the noun:
11 a jom-d=ətreʔ
day(m)-cst=two.m
‘the second day’
b ʔizalt-ət=təttéʔ
going.f-cst=two.f
‘the second going’
A nominal head is not obligatory and may be omitted or replaced by a demonstrative

pronoun:
12 a twerə t-tətteʔ.|
break.past.L.3msg gen-two.f
‘He broke the second one’.
b ʔɛ-t=xamməʃ
that.f-cst=five.f
‘the fifth one’
4.5 Verbs
4.5.1 Stems and derivations
As in other Semitic languages, verb lexemes consist of a root and a verbal derivation. The
root typically consists of three radicals (consonants or glides j and w), but quadriradicals
are also common. Verbs are formed from a set of stems (‘bases’), which are inflected for
person. The bases are formed on root-and-pattern templates, which vary according to
the verbal derivation. These are given in Table 27.16. Where the stem has allomorphs,
these are also given and non-stem, inflectional morphemes are hyphenated. The forms are
presented through real verbs, rather than as abstract patterns (such as C1aC2C3- etc.) but
the radicals may easily be replaced by other radicals to form other verbs of the same der-
ivation. Note, however, that verbs with weak radicals (w, j, ʔ) and irregular verbs deviate
somewhat from the patterns presented here (§4.5.5).
In addition to the derivations given in Table 27.16, there are two loan derivations,
found only in Arabic loan verbs, namely the Ct- derivation (with infixed -t- after the first
radical, from the Arabic VIII derivation) and the St- derivation (with prefixed st-, from
the Arabic X derivation). These show a combination of NENA and Arabic morphology.
So far only Present Base forms are attested in this dialect:10
xlf Ct-derivation ‘to differ’ (< Arab. xlf VIII): Present Base məxtəlf- (3msg
məxtələf)
ʕml St-derivation ‘to use’ (< Arab. ʕml X): Present Base məstaʕaml- (3msg
məstaʿaməl)
4.5.2 Verbal inflection

Verbs in Alqosh are either simplex or analytical. The simplex verbs are the Present Base
forms, the Past Base forms and the imperatives. Analytical verb forms are based on the
726 Eleanor Coghill
TABLE 27.16 VERBAL BASES ACCORDING TO DERIVATION
I II II2 (Geminate) III Q
pθx bʃl lkk plx ʃxlp

‘to open’ ‘to cook’ ‘to seal’ ‘to use’ ‘to change’
Present Base paθx- mbaʃl- mlakk- mapəlx- (m)ʃaxəlp-
Present Base 3msg paːθəx mbaːʃəl mlakkək mapləx (m)ʃaxləp
Past Base pθəx- mbuʃəl- mlukkək- mupləx- (m)ʃuxləp-
Past Base before S‑suffixes pθix- mbuʃl- mlukk- mupəlx- (m)ʃuxəlp-
Imperative pθox mbaːʃəl mlakkək mapləx (m)ʃaxləp
Imperative pl pəθx-u mbaʃl-u mlakk-u mápəlx-u (m)ʃáxəlp-u
Infinitive pθaːx-a mbaʃol-ə mlakkok-ə maplox-ə (m)ʃaxlop-ə
ptcp.res.m pθix-a mboʃl‑a mlokk‑a mupəlx-a (m)ʃuxəlp-a
~ mbaʃl‑a ~ mlakk‑a
ptcp.res.f pθəx-t-a mbuʃal-t-a mlukkak-t-a muplax-t-a (m)ʃuxlap-t-a
ptcp.act paθaːx‑a mbaʃlaːn-a ? mapəlxaːn-a (m)ʃaxəlpaːn-a
~ paːθox‑a
non-finite forms: the infinitive and the resultative participle. Being non-finite, these
require a finite auxiliary (such as a copula) to give them predicative force and are dealt
with in §4.6.4.
Present and Past Base forms are inflected with S-suffixes and L-suffixes. These index
subjects and objects. The function of the suffixes on the Present Base is the inverse of
their function on the Past Base: S-suffixes index the subject on Present Base forms and
the object on Past Base forms. L-suffixes index the subject on Past Base forms and the
object on Present Base forms. Inflection is illustrated in Table 27.17.
The /l/ of the L-suffixes undergoes progressive assimilation to an /n/ (of the base or
an S‑suffix), e.g. zwən‑+‑lux > zwən‑nux (buy.past‑L.2msg) ‘you (msg) bought’. The
same applies to an /r/, but the resultant /rr/ is degeminated and the vowel lengthened in
compensation: mər‑+‑lux > merux (say.past.L.2msg). L‑suffixes also undergo progres-
sive assimilation to a /t/ of an S‑suffix, e.g. p‑xalsˁ‑ət‑ta (fut‑finish.pres‑S.2msg-L.3fsg)
‘you’ll (msg) finish it (f)’.
The subject is obligatorily indexed on the verb. If an object is also indexed on the verb,
then the ordering of the suffixes is thus: BASE-S-L. On Past Base forms, S-suffixes may
only index a 3rd person object, and then only 3fs or 3pl (the 3msg S-suffix being -Ø). If
other objects need to be expressed, a suppletive Present Base form is used, with the past
perfective prefix kəm- (§4.5.4), which indexes objects with L-suffixes and, indeed, cannot
occur without them.
In ditransitive constructions, if both direct and indirect objects are indexed on the verb,
a further two sets of person indexes are used. The indirect object (R) is indexed by a
variant of the L-suffix set (LR‑suffix), in which the 3rd person forms are slightly different:
3msg -ləħ, 3fsg -laħ, 3pl -lɛj. A 3rd person direct object/theme (T) is indexed by a clitic
set identical to the present copula (i‑L, i.e., 3msg ‑ilə, 3fsg ‑ila, 3pl ‑ilɛ), which follows
the L‑suffix:
13 b-jaːwə́l-ləħ-ilɛ
fut-give.pres.S.3msg-LR.3msg-pres.cop.3pl
‘He’ll give them to him’.
TABLE 27.17 VERBAL PERSON INFLECTION
S-Suffixes Present Base with L-Suffixes Past Base with

S-Suffixes L-Suffixes
1 msg -ən ʃaqlən -li ʃqəlli

fsg -an ʃaqlan -li
pl -əx ʃaqləx -lan ʃqəllan
2 msg -ət ʃaqlət -lux ʃqəllux
fsg -at ʃaqlat -lax ʃqəllax
pl -uːtu(n) ʃaqluːtu(n) -loxu(n) ʃqə́lloxu(n)
3 msg -Ø ʃaːqəl -lə ʃqəllə
fsg -a ʃaqla -la ʃqəlla
pl -i ʃaqli -lɛ ʃqəllɛ
TABLE 27.18 GENDER/NUMBER INFLECTION OF PARTICIPLES IN DERIVATION I
Resultative Participle Active Participle
msg -a ʃqila ʃaqaːla

fsg -ta, -θa ʃqəlta ʃaqalta, ʃaql-u
pl -ə ʃqilə ʃaqaːlə
The imperative is inflected for singular (‑Ø) and plural (‑u), with some adjustment
to the stem, e.g. pθox ‘open (sg)!’, pəθx‑u ‘open (pl)!’ (see Table 27.16). The impera-
tive, unusually, takes initial stress, e.g., mápəlx‑u ‘use (pl)!’, mbáʃlu‑lə ‘cook (pl) it (m)!’
A masculine/feminine distinction, present in ancient Aramaic, is preserved only for III–y
verbs and some irregular verbs, and then only in the singular (§4.5.5).

The resultative and active participles are inflected, like adjectives, for masculine singular,
feminine singular and common plural (Table 27.18). An unusual feature of Alqosh is the
inflection of the active participle (CaCaːCa), which functions as an adjective or noun.
The feminine can be formed, as in most NENA dialects, by the addition of the feminine
suffix ‑ta/‑θa; there is, however, an alternative available, formed from the Present Base
plus diminutive derivational suffix ‑u. Thus kaθaːwa means ‘given to writing (m), male
writer’, and kaθo‑ta ~ kaθw‑u means ‘given to writing (f), female writer’. Other feminine
examples in the ‑u form are xɛtˁu ‘dressmaker’, mzabnu ‘female seller’, msˁalju ‘prayer-
ful (fsg)’ and maʧəhju ‘tiring (fsg)’.
The infinitive may take feminine inflection (-ta or -θa) to produce a noun referring to
an individual occurrence of the activity denoted, e.g., pθaːxa ‘opening, to open’, pθaxta
‘an opening’.
4.5.4 Tense–aspect–mood (TAM) categories and verbal modifiers

Alqosh, like other NENA dialects, has a rich array of TAM categories, despite a limited
set of bases. These are formed by affixes, particles and auxiliary verbs. The Present Base,
in particular, may be modified in many different ways (Table 27.19).
728 Eleanor Coghill
TABLE 27.19 TAM MODIFIERS OF PRESENT BASE FORMS
Modifier Main Function In Combination Translation
Ø- jussive jalpa ‘let her learn’

Ø- complement kəba d=jalpa ‘she wants to learn’
k- (g-, q-, kə-) indicative k-jalpa ‘she learns’
b-~bəd- (bət-, p-, m-, Ø-) future b-jalpa ~ bəd-jalpa ‘she will learn’
ʃud= (ʃut-) jussive ʃud=jalpa ‘let her learn’
kəm- past perfective kəm-jalpaː-lə ‘she learned it’
dí- (də́-) immediate future dí-zaːli ‘I’m just about to go’
zil- (1st person only) prospective zil-jalpən ‘I’m (m) going to learn’
ʃwoq/ʃoq d= jussive ʃoq d=yalpa ‘let her learn’
xoʃ d= cohortative xoʃ d=yalpəx ‘let us learn’
laːzəm/garag necessitive laːzəm yalpa ‘she must learn’
zil‑S (1st person only) prospective zilən yalpən ‘I’m going to learn’
As in other NENA dialects, the past perfective prefix kəm‑ always co-occurs with
object L‑suffixes. The Present Base form with kəm‑ usually serves in place of Past
Base forms whenever an object needs to be indexed, as only 3fsg and 3pl objects
may be indexed on the Past Base (with S‑suffixes). Thus one says (with no object
indexed) xze‑la gora (see.past‑L.3fsg man) ‘She saw a man’, but kəm‑xazj‑aː‑lux (pst.
pfv‑see.pres‑S.3fsg‑L.2msg) ‘She saw you (msg)’.
The particles k‑, b‑, bəd‑ and ʃud= follow the normal rules or tendencies of assimila-
tion. Prefixes also follow the rules of syllable structure, disallowing the sequence CCC,
so that when the addition of an affix causes a consonant cluster, an epenthetic vowel, ə, is
usually inserted to break it up:
kəmbaːʃəl
k- + mbaːʃəl > ‘he cooks’
When kəm- or b- (> m-) is prefixed to a stem beginning with /mC/, an /m/ is elided. This
can cause ambiguity:
kəm‑ + mbaːʃəlla > kəmbaːʃəlla ‘he cooked it (f)’

kə‑ + mbaːʃəlla > kəmbaːʃəlla ‘he cooks it (f)’
b‑ + mbaːʃəl > mbaːʃəl ‘he will cook’
Ø- + mbaːʃəl > mbaːʃəl ‘he may cook’
Verbs formed on the Present and Past Bases may take an anterior affix ‑wa (‑waː‑)
directly after the base (or S‑suffix if there is one) and before any L‑suffix, i.e.,
past‑S‑waː‑L. This shifts the time reference (further) into the past, e.g., pθəx‑lɛ (open.
past‑L.3pl) ‘they opened’, pθə́x‑waː‑lɛ (open.past‑ant‑L.3pl) ‘they had opened’. With
‑wa there is no formal distinction between indicative and subjunctive (the k‑ prefix
is not used), e.g., paθx‑aː‑wa ‘she used to open’, ‘she might open’. With roots III-/r/
or /rˁ/, where the L‑suffix assimilates to the rhotic, the rhotic is treated as part of the
L‑suffix rather than the stem: thus spera (< *spər‑ra < *spər‑la; wait.past‑L.3fsg) ‘she
waited’ and spe‑waː‑ra (wait.past‑ant‑L.3fsg) ‘she had waited’, rather than the expected
*spə́r‑waː‑la (wait.past‑ant‑L.3fsg).
4.5.5 Weak and irregular verbs

Weak verbs are those which have at least one weak radical, that is one radical that is /w/,
/y/ or /ʔ/. They are regular according to their own rules. Irregular verbs, on the other hand,
each have their own unique pecularities. Weak and irregular verbs may behave like strong
verbs in some parts of their paradigms. A selection of some common weak and irregular
verbs is presented in Table 27.20.
ʔzl I has a special verb form unique to itself. The Past Base stem zil‑ may be inflected
with 1st person S‑suffixes to express a kind of immediate future ‘I’m/we’re going’:
14 zil-ən l-baɣdad.|
go.imm-S.1msg to-Baghdad
‘I’m going to Baghdad’.
The same form is used as an auxiliary to express prospective aspect; it also occurs as
an uninflected particle (Table 27.19) (see Coghill 2010b for the development of this
construction).
4.6 Copulas, verboids and analytical verb forms

4.6.1 The copula
A noun, adjective or adverbial phrase is usually predicated by means of one of a set of
copulas (Table 27.21). These do not share the same morphology as verbs, although there
are some similarities.
TABLE 27.20 WEAK AND IRREGULAR VERB PARADIGMS
Roots I–ʔ Roots I–y Irregular
ʔxl I xzj I ʔzl I

‘to eat’ ‘to see’ ‘to go’
Present Base
1 msg ʔaxlən xaːzən zaː-li
fsg ʔaxlan xazjan zaː-li
pl ʔaxləx xaːzəx zaː-lan
2 msg ʔaxlət xaːzət zaː-lux
fsg ʔaxlat xazjat zaː-lax
pl ʔaxluːtu(n) xaːzotu(n) zá-loxu(n)
3 msg ʔaːxəl xaːzə zaː-lə
fsg ʔaxla xazja zaː-la
pl ʔaxli xaːzɛ zaː-lɛ
k- kixəl, kəxl-S k-xaːzə, k-xazja kizəl, kiz-S
past base xəl- xze- zəl-
imperative sg ʔixul, pl ʔəxlu msg xzi, fsg xzɛ, pl xzo msg si, fsg sɛ, pl so
infinitive ʔixaːla xzaːja ʔizaːla
res. ptcp msg xila, fsg xəlta msg xəzja, fsg xziθa msg zila, fsg zəlta
act. ptcp msg ʔaxaːla, fsg ʔaxalta msg xazaːja, fsg xazɛθa msg ʔazaːla, fsg ʔazalta
730 Eleanor Coghill
TABLE 27.21 THE COPULAS
Present Neg. Present Deictic Past Independent/ Neg. Past

Enclitic Clitic
1 msg ꞊iwən lɛwən ~ lɛn wowən ~ won wənwa la꞊wənwa

fsg ꞊iwan lɛwan ~ lɛn wowan ~ won wanwa la꞊wanwa
pl ꞊iwəx lɛwux ~ lɛx wowəx ~ wox wəxwa la꞊wəxwa
2 msg ꞊iwət lɛwət ~ lɛt wowət ~ wot wətwa la꞊wətwa
fsg ꞊iwat lɛwat ~ lɛt wowat ~ wot watwa la꞊watwa
pl ꞊iwotu(n) lɛ́wotu(n) ~ lɛtu wotu(n) wótunwa la꞊wotunwa
3 msg ꞊ilə lɛlə wolə wewa la꞊wewa
fsg ꞊ila lɛla wola waːwa la꞊waːwa
pl ꞊ilɛ lɛlɛ wolɛ wɛwa la꞊wɛwa
The present copula is purely enclitic. The /i/ of the present copula merges with any
final vowel of the predicate:
15 a dex + ꞊iwat > dex꞊iwat?

how꞊prs.cop.2fsg
‘How are you (fsg)?’
b ʔaːxa + ꞊ilə > ʔaːxɛ꞊lə
here꞊prs.cop.3msg
‘He is here’.
The past copula may be independent or enclitic and may occur before or after the
predicate (16a, b).
16 a wewa kpina,| miθa m-kəpn-əħ.|

pst.cop.3msg hungry.msg dead.msg from-hunger-3msg
‘He was hungry, dying from his hunger’.
b ɣða꞊baxta mar-ɣira꞊waːwa
indf.f꞊woman possessor.of-zeal꞊pst.cop.3fsg
‘She was an active woman’.
The deictic and negated copulas always precede the predicate (17a–c).
17 a mera qaːy lɛ-t x-kul꞊naːʃə?|

say.past.L.3fsg why neg.prs.cop-2sg like-all꞊people
‘She said, “Why aren’t you like all (the other) people?” ’
b wo-n nasáːx.|
dei.cop-1sg ill
‘I am ill (currently)’.
c zəl-lə lə-staːð-əħ.| ʔəlla wo-lə miθa!|
go.past-L.3msg to-master-3msg lo! dei.cop-3msg dead.msg
‘He went to his master – lo! he is dead!’
TABLE 27.22 THE EXISTENTIAL PARTICLES
Positive Existential Negative Existential To Remain/Be Left
present ʔiθ ~ ʔiθən ‘there is/are’ lɛθ ~ lɛθən ‘there is/are no’ piʃən ‘there is/are . . . left’
past ʔəθwa ‘there was/ laθwa ‘there was/were piʃənwa ‘there was/were . . .
were’ no’ left
TAM values not expressed by the copulas in Table 27.21 may be expressed with the
inflected verb hwj I ‘to be’, for instance irrealis mood, the future tense, a general present,
the past habitual etc. (18):
18 ʔən haːw-ət kpina꞊u ħaːlə| ʔi-bux ʃ=ʃaql-ət-tɛ.|

if be.pres-S.2msg hungry.msg꞊and so.on exist-B.2msg comp=take.pres-s.2msg-L.3pl
‘If you are hungry and so on, you can take them [the fruit in the fields]’.
b-urx-ux k-aːw-ɛ.|
on-way-2msg ind-be.pres-S.3pl
‘They are [in general] on your way’.
4.6.2 The existential particles and their inflected forms

The existence of something can be predicated by means of one of the existential particles
presented in Table 27.22.
Examples (19a–b) show them in use.
19 a g-baːrə d꞊iθən xa꞊naːʃa miθa taːma.|

ind-happen.pres.3msg comp꞊exist indf.m꞊person(m) dead.msg there
‘Perhaps there is a dead person there’.
b piʃ xa꞊məndi xənna.|
remain one.m꞊thing(m) other.msg
‘There is one more thing left’.
When inflected with L-suffixes, the existential particles express possessive

predication, i.e. ‘to have’. The sequence */θl/ is realized as /tt/. Thus we find this:
ʔətti ‘I have’, latti ‘I don’t have’. A further stem is wə́ lle‑, used to express passive
acquisition: wə́ lleli ‘I got, acquired’, la꞊wəlleli ‘I didn’t get’. Table 27.23 shows the
paradigms.
For other TAM values, the L-suffixes may be affixed to 3msg Present Base forms of the
verb hwj I ‘to be’. Examples (20a–c) show the various types in use.
20 a lat-tan ʧu꞊məndi d=axl-əx ʔəmməd=ʃtɛθa.|

neg.exist-L.1pl neg꞊thing comp=eat.pres-S.1pl with=drink
‘We don’t have anything to eat with the drink’.
732 Eleanor Coghill
TABLE 27.23 EXPRESSIONS OF POSSESSION AND ACQUISITION
Positive Negative Positive Negative ‘Got’ ‘Didn’t Get’

Present Present Past Past
1 sg ʔətti latti ʔə́θwaːli láθwaːli wə́lleli la꞊wəlleli

pl ʔəttan lattan ʔə́θwaːlan láθwaːlan wə́llelan la꞊wəllelan
2 msg ʔəttux lattux ʔə́θwaːlux láθwaːlux wə́llelux la꞊wəllelux
fsg ʔəttax lattax ʔə́θwaːlax láθwaːlax wə́llelax la꞊wəllelax
pl ʔə́ttoxu(n) láttoxu(n) ʔə́θwaːloxu(n) láθwaːloxu(n) wə́lleloxu(n) la꞊wəlleloxu(n)
3 msg ʔəttə lattə ʔə́θwaːlə láθwaːlə wə́llelə la꞊wəllelə
fsg ʔətta latta ʔə́θwaːla láθwaːla wə́llela la꞊wəllela
pl ʔəttɛ lattɛ ʔə́θwaːlɛ láθwaːlɛ wə́llelɛ la꞊wəllelɛ
b k-aːwe-lɛ kutʃat.|
ind-be.pres.3msg-L.3pl every.year
‘They have it every year’.
c la꞊wəlle-li paːrə.|
neg꞊got-L.1sg money
‘I didn’t get any money’.
With B‑suffixes (identical to L‑suffixes, but with l‑ replaced by b‑), the existentials
express location (21a) and ability (21b). The stem wəlle- with B-suffixes expresses con-
tingent (in)ability (21c).
21 a u ʔalquʃ ʔi-ba tətté=ʔetaːθa.|

and Alqosh(f) exist-B.3fsg two.f=church:pl
‘And Alqosh has two churches’.
b láθ-waː-bə də=mħaːrək-wa.|
neg.exist-ant-B.3msg comp=move.pres.S.3msg-ant
‘He couldn’t move’.
c mə-zdoθ-əħ gora la꞊wəlle-bə z=zaː-lə mmət=karwan.|
from-fear-3msg man(m) neg꞊got-B.3msg comp=go.pres-L.3msg with=caravan
‘Out of fear, the man wasn’t able to go with the caravan’.
4.6.3 Other verboids

There are a few other verboids attested, for instance mɛ́kaː‑L (22a) and bass‑poss (22b):
22 a m-ɛ́kaː-li paːrə?|
from-where-L.1sg money
‘Where could I get the money?’
b bass-i.|
enough-1sg
‘It is enough for me’ or ‘I have had enough’.
4.6.4 Analytical verb forms

The copulas and hwj I ‘to be’ are used with the infinitive (with preposition b- or its
allomorphs) to express a present progressive. In the present tense, the decitic copula is
usually used (23a), unless it is a question (§5.7) or the copula is attached to the relative
particle d=, in which case the enclitic present copula is used (23b, 23c).
23 a wo-lɛ b-izaːla mtaʤorə

dei.cop-3pl in-go.inf (in-)trade.inf
‘They are going trading’.
b bə-ʃmaːʔɛ꞊wat?
in-hear.inf꞊prs.cop.2fsg
‘Are you (fsg) hearing me?’
c ʔan-d=ilɛ bə-ʔraːqa
these-rel=prs.cop.3pl in-run.inf
‘Those who are running’.
d wəxwa bə-spaːr-aħ
pst.cop.1pl in-wait.inf-3fsg
‘We were waiting for it (fsg)’.
e m-qam jumaːθa mbaʃolə haːwɛ-wa ʔənʃə.|
from-before days (in-)cook.inf be.pres.S.3pl-ant woman.pl
‘Days before, the women would be cooking’.
The copulas and hwj I ‘to be’ are also used with the resultative participle, to express a
state or a resultative perfect:
24 a wo-la plətˁ-tˁa.|
dei.cop-3fsg go_out.ptcp.res-fsg
‘She’s gone out’.
b ʃ=lɛ-n swe-ta.|
yet=neg.cop-1sg sate.ptcp.res-fsg
‘I’m not full yet’.
With transitive verbs, the resultative participle may express either active (25a) or passive
(25b) voice:
25 a man꞊ilə mujəlp-ux?|
who꞊prs.cop.3msg teach.ptcp.res.msg-2msg
‘Who has taught you (msg)?’
b molp-e꞊lɛ.|
teach.ptcp.res-pl꞊prs.cop.3pl
‘They have been taught’.
When objects (direct or indirect) are indexed on the analytical verb forms, it is with a
possessive suffix (see 23d and 25a).
A dynamic passive can be formed using the auxiliary verb pjʃ I ‘to become, to remain’
with the resultative participle:
26 maθlə k-pɛʃ-i mir-ə go ʔalquʃ|

proverb:pl ind-become.pres-S.3pl say.ptcp.res-pl in Alqosh
‘Proverbs [which] get said in Alqosh’.
734 Eleanor Coghill
An inchoative may be expressed using the same auxiliary verb (pjʃ I; 27a) or ʃrj II ‘to
begin’ (27b) along with the infinitive (prefixed by b- or its allomorphs).
27 a pəʃ-lə m-manʃoj-əħ| m-maħkoyə mm-əħ꞊u

become.past-L.3msg in-forget.inf-3msg in-speak.inf with-3msg꞊and
‘He started distracting him, chatting with him’.
b u mʃure-lan m-maħðˁorə|
and begin.past-L.1pl in-prepare.inf
‘and we started preparing’.
4.7 Prepositions/conjunctions/adverbs
Only prepositions are found in Alqosh, not post- or circumpositions. Given here are the
most common prepositions with their affixal forms in brackets (these take pronominal
suffixes; see Table 27.4):
l‑ (ʔəll‑ ~ ‑ll‑) ‘to, on to’, (b)go ~ go ((b)gaːw‑) ‘in’, m‑ (mənn‑) ‘from’, x‑

(xwaːθ‑) ‘like’, ta (tˁaːl‑) ‘to, for’, ʔəmməd= (ʔəmm‑) ‘with’, rəʃ (reʃ‑), xu ~
xoθəd‑ (xoθ‑), (m)baθər (baθrˁ‑) ‘after, behind’, qam‑ ~ qamməd= (qaːm‑)
‘before’ (spatial and temporal), barqul (barquːl‑) ‘opposite’, gebəd= (geb‑)
‘at the house of’, binaθ (binaːθ‑) ‘between’, xawəðˁraːnəd= (xawəðˁraːn‑)
‘around’, sˁob‑ ‘towards, near’, baħás ‘about’, həl ~ wəl ‘up to’, m‑badal
(m‑badl‑) ‘instead of’.
The following are the most common conjunctions:
u ‘and’, fa ‘so, for, you see’, kud ‘when’, ʔən ‘if’, tad= ‘so that’, həl d=~ wəl d=
‘until’, lo ~ ʔaw ~ jan ‘or’.
The following are some common adverbs. Adverbs may also be formed productively
from nouns by prefixing them with the prepositions b- or go ‘in, with (instrumental)’,
e.g., p-qəsyuːθa ‘harshly’:
haːdax ‘thus’, ham ‘also’, har ‘just, always’, bas ‘only, just’, həʃ ~ ʃ= ‘still’, lappəʃ
‘no longer’, ʔɛga ‘then’, ʔəlla ‘lo and behold!’, ʔaːxa ‘here’, taːma ‘there’, lʔel
‘above’, ltex ‘below’, təmmal ‘yesterday’, sˁapra ‘tomorrow’, ʔomaxənna ‘the day
before yesterday, the day after tomorrow’, mxuʃka ‘in the morning’, kabira ‘much,
very’, xá꞊qəsˁsˁa ~ xaqsˁa ‘a little’.
5 SYNTAX
Most clauses contain a verb or a verboid, though clauses without also occur.
5.1.1 Clauses containing a verb

Clauses containing a verb always have a subject argument. This is obligatorily indexed
on the verb, whether or not a conominal is present (28a, b):
28 a sˁhe-lɛ.|
become_thirsty.past-L.3pl
‘They became thirsty’.
b qəm-la jəmm-i
get_up.past-L.3fsg mother-1sg
‘My mother got up’.
Word order in verbal clauses is conditioned by information structure, rather than syn-
tactic role. A primary topic usually appears clause-initially (29a, b) (though it may be
preceded by frame-setting adverbials):
29 a fa. . . tətté꞊ʃwojaːθa b-ʕaːsˁərta derˁɛ.|

so two.f꞊female.neighbour:pl in-evening return.past.L.3pl
‘So . . . the two neighbours returned in the evening’.
b u ləxma raqiqa mtˁaːpɛ́-waː-lə go manzaq.|
and bread(m) fine.m stick.pres.S.3pl-ant-L.3msg ins oven_tool
‘And the fine bread they stuck (inside the oven) with an oven-tool’.
5.1.2 Clauses containing a copula

The verboid copulas are used to predicate adjectives, nouns, locations and other adverbial
phrases. The present copula is encliticized to the predicate; the past copula may come
before or after the predicate, while the deictic and negated copulas precede the predicate
(§4.6.1).
If a TAM value other than simple present, simple past or deictic present is required,
then the verb hwj I ‘to be’ is conjugated as appropriate. It may precede (30a) or follow
(30b) the predicate depending on the information structure of the clause:
30 a u ʔodˁaːθa haːwɛ-wa pʃitˁ-ə|

and room:pl be.pres.S.3pl-ant simple-pl
‘And the rooms were [in general] simple’.
b treʔ tˁlaːθa k-aːwɛ . . . | ʔaːni. . . d=amr-əx-lɛ naːtˁorˁə.|
two.m three.m ind-be.pres.S.3pl these rel=say.pres-S.1pl-L.3pl guard.pl
naːtˁorˁə k-aːwɛ.|
guard:pl ind-be.S.3pl
‘Two or three are . . . those that we call “guards”. They are guards’.
736 Eleanor Coghill
5.1.3 Clauses without a verb or verboid

Clauses without a verb or verboid are limited in the corpus of transcribed texts to two
specific types. One is the circumstantial clause, described in §5.8.2. The other is a
clause beginning with a demonstrative referring back to the preceding discourse, which
expresses a clarification or a summing up before moving on to the next topic (31a, b):
31 a (A description of how various types of bread were made, in answer to a question
about bread- and cheese-making, is followed by:)
ʔaːj ləxma.| daːrˁ-əx l-gupta.|
this bread return.pres-S.1pl to-cheese
‘So that’s bread. Let’s go back to cheese’.
b (A description of the game of Kisxure is followed by:)
ʔaːj t-kəsxuːrə.| w=iθən də-sˁlaːwa.|
this gen-Kisxure and=exist gen-Slawa
‘That’s [the game] of Kisxure. And then there’s [the game] of Slawa’.
5.1.4 Existential clauses

The existential particles (§4.6.2) predicate the existence of something (the ‘existee’).
They usually precede the existee, but not always. They may be inflected with L‑suffixes
to index the possessor or B‑suffixes to index the location. The possessor or location itself,
if expressed as a co‑nominal, is not flagged (see, e.g., examples 21a, 21c). The existee is
not indexed or flagged in any way:
32 a ʔəθ-wa xa꞊baːba| u ʔə́θ-waː-lə xa꞊brona ʕaziza.|

exist-ant indf.m꞊father(m) and exist-ant-L.3msg indf.m꞊son(m) only.msg
‘There (once) was a father and he had an only son’.
b (‘She said, “I’m going to see the lower field.”’)
lan tətté꞊ʔaraːθa ʔəθ-waː-lan.|
because two.f꞊field(f):pl exist-ant-L.1pl
‘Because we had two fields’.
5.2 Conditions for object indexing on verbs

Pronominal objects, direct or indirect, are normally indexed on the verb:
33 a zəl-lan l-ʔaraːθa.| kəm-xaːz-əx-lɛ꞊u derˁan.|

go.past-L.1pl to-field:pl pst.pfv-see.pres-S.1pl-L.3pl꞊and return.
past.L.1pl
‘We went to the fields. We saw them and came back’.
b b-yaːw-an-nux ɣða꞊paθəxta
fut-give.pres-S.1fsg-L.2msg indf.f꞊pitta.f
‘I’ll give you a pitta-bread’.
In ditransitive constructions, two pronominal objects (direct/theme and indirect) may

be indexed on the verb (§4.5.2):
34 bas di-parx-ə́n-nux-ilə| n=marəkx-ən-nə.|

just imm-rub-S.1msg-L.2msg-prs.cop.3msg comp=soften.pres-S.1msg-L.3msg
‘I’m just going to massage it for you, to soften it’.
Under certain conditions a pronominal indirect object must or may be expressed out-
side the verb, flagged by the preposition ta ‘to, for’ (tˁaːl‑). This is obligatory when the
theme is 1st or 2nd person, as in example (35) (see Coghill 2010a: 229–30):
35 mʃadr-an-nux tˁaːl-əħ.|
(fut-)send.pres-S.1fsg-L.2msg dat-3msg
‘I’ll (f) send you (msg) to him’.
When there is a nominal object, it is indexed on the verb if it is definite and topical
(whether primary or, as in example 36, secondary topic):
36 (A sparrow got a thorn in its foot. . .)

kəm-mapəltˁ-aː-lə kətw-əħ,|
pst.pfv-take_out.pres-S.3fsg-L.3msg thorn-3msg
‘She took out his thorn’.
Differential object indexing of this type appears to be universal across the NENA dia-
lects; in some other dialects there is also differential object flagging (Coghill 2014).

A noun may be modified by an adjective, another noun, a demonstrative, a numeral
(including xa ‘one’, which also serves as an indefinite article) or a quantifier. Modifica-
tion by a clause is described in §5.4.
Adjectives normally follow the noun modified and agree in gender and number (§4.3).
Demonstratives (§4.1.2), cardinal numerals (§4.4.1) and quantifiers (e.g., xa꞊qəsˁsˁa~
xaqsˁa ‘a little’, xakma ‘some’, kabirə ‘many’11) precede the noun. A modifying noun
follows the head noun in one of two genitive constructions, expressing possession and
other semantic relationships. Either the head noun takes the construct suffix ‑əd (37a), or
the modifying noun takes the genitive12 prefix d‑. The second construction occurs more
often when the nouns are separated by another element or a pause (37c). Nouns may be
linked in a longer chain in both ways (37b, c):
37 a baːt-əd=ʔalquʃ
house.pl-cst=Alqosh
‘houses of Alqosh’
738 Eleanor Coghill
b jom-əd=reʃ-əʃ=ʃaːta
day-cst=head-cst=year
‘New Year’s day’
c ʔeða꞊wewa d-ləbb-əd=iʃoʕ|
festival(m)꞊pst.cop.3msg gen-heart-cst=Jesus
‘It was the festival of Jesus’ heart’.
5.4 Relative clauses

Relative clauses also modify a noun using the same two constructions as non-clausal
components (§5.3).
38 a dɛrˁ-əd=rabban=orməz,| d=ilə p-tˁuːra|

monastery-cst=Rabban=Hormiz rel=prs.cop.3msg loc-mountain
t=kul꞊naːʃə k-eð-i-lə꞊u| . . .
rel=all꞊people(pl) ind-know-S.3pl-L.3msg꞊and
‘the monastery of Rabban Hormizd, which is on the mountain, which all the
people know and. . .’
b ʔilaːn-əd=la꞊k-jaːwəl perˁə|
tree(m)-cst=neg꞊ind-give.pres.S.3msg fruit:pl
‘The tree that yields no fruit’.
Noun phrases with both a genitive construction and an adjective are not common, but
example (39) shows that it is possible for the construct suffix to attach to an adjective
modifying the head noun (something also attested in the C. Barwar and J. Zakho dialects,
see Gutman 2018: 99–100):
39 joma qamaːj-ət=ʃaːta
day(m) first.m-cst=year
‘the first day of the year’.
5.5 Co-ordination of constituents

Noun phrases, adjectives, adverbs and other elements within a clause are coordinated by
the unstressed particle u ~ ꞊u ~ u= ~ w= ‘and’. This may be encliticized to the preceding
or procliticized to the following element. Other co-ordinators are jan ~ lo ~ ʔaw ‘or’, u
laː ‘nor’ and u ham ‘also’. These often occur in pairs: jan X jan X ‘either X or Y’, laː X
u laː Y ‘neither X nor Y’ and ham X u ham Y ‘both X and Y’:
40 a tad=la꞊paːjəʃ laː naqiða꞊u laː xlima.|

purp=neg꞊become.pres.S.3msg not thin.msg꞊and not thick.msg
‘so that it becomes neither thin nor thick’.
5.6 Negation
The negators are la꞊, laː and ʧu꞊. Usually the negator forms a stress group with the mod-
ified word and takes the main stress.
5.6.1 Negation of constituents

Constituents of a clause, e.g., nouns, adjectives or adverbial phrases may be negated by
the preposed, stressed particle laː꞊ (41a, b):
41 a ʃuːl-ə laː꞊tˁaːw-ə
thing-pl neg꞊good-pl
‘bad things, ‘things (that) are not good’
b tuːma tari, yaʕni,| laː꞊tuːma mən d-aːni fəsˁsˁə.|
garlic fresh I.mean neg꞊garlic from gen-these cloves
‘Fresh [i.e. green] garlic, I mean, not garlic from these cloves’.
Negative pronouns or adverbs are formed with the negator ʧu꞊, borrowed from Kur-
manji: ʧu꞊məndi (neg꞊thing) ‘nothing’, ʧu꞊naːʃa (neg꞊person) ‘no-one’, ʧu꞊dukθa
(neg꞊place) ‘nowhere’. If a negated constituent (whether with laː or ʧu) is in a clause,
then the verb is negated as well:
42 la꞊k-uːð-ən-nux ʧu꞊məndi ʔədju.|

neg꞊ind-do.pres-S.1msg-L.2msg neg꞊thing today
‘I won’t do anything to you today’.
5.6.2 Negation of verbs

Verbs in any TAM form are negated by the proclitic particle la, which usually takes the
main stress (43a, b). It precedes any TAM prefix (43a).
43 a la꞊k-taxr-ən-na.
neg꞊ind-remember.pres-S.1msg-L.3fsg
‘I don’t remember it (f)’.
b la꞊ʃme-lə qaːl-əd=baːb-əħ.|
neg꞊hear.past-L.3msg voice-cst=father-3msg
‘He didn’t heed his father’ (lit. ‘hear his father’s voice’).
The future tense with b‑~bəd‑ cannot be directly negated: instead the negated present
indicative form is used (see example 42), and the tense distinction is neutralized (com-
pare 43a). The imperative also cannot be negated directly: instead the negated present
subjunctive (unprefixed Present Base) is used:
44 la꞊baːx-ət
neg꞊cry.pres-S.2msg
‘Don’t cry!’
5.6.3 Negation of verboids

Verboids, like verbs, are negated by la꞊, but in many cases the particle has merged with the
verboid form, e.g., la꞊+ilə [neg꞊prs.cop.3msg] > lɛlə ‘he is not’ and la꞊+iθ [neg꞊exist] >
lɛθ ‘there is/are not’.
740 Eleanor Coghill

Polar interrogative sentences are typically distinguished from declarative sentences only
by intonation, that is, a rising pitch usually with lengthening of the final syllable, as is the
case in example (45):
45 g-daːl-at-ta?|
ind-perceive.pres-S.2fsg-L.3fsg
‘Can you (fsg) see it (fsg)?’
The deictic copula wolə is not attested in polar interrogative sentences. In contexts
where it might be expected, such as the present progressive construction, it is replaced by
the enclitic present copula:
46 bə-ʃmaːʔɛ꞊wat?
in-hear.inf꞊prs.cop.2fsg
‘Are you (fsg) hearing me?’
Other interrogative sentences are introduced by interrogative words (§4.1.3). These usu-
ally come first in the clause and normally take the nuclear stress. Any enclitic copula will
usually encliticize to the interrogative:
47 ʔaːjət man꞊iwət꞊u| maː kəm-mɛθe-lux ʔaːxa?|

you.msg who꞊prs.cop.2msg꞊and what pst.pfv-bring.pres.S.3msg-L.2msg here
‘You, who are you? And what brought you here?’
5.8 Clause combining

5.8.1 Coordination of clauses
Clauses, like constituents, may be coordinated with u ‘and’ and lo ‘or’. Another particle
used is fa (< Arab. fa) ‘so, for, you see’.
48 a ʔarjoθɛ꞊lə lo xa꞊məndi xənnɛ꞊lə.|

ʔaryoθa꞊prs.cop.3msg or indf.m꞊thing other.m꞊prs.cop.3msg
‘(I don’t know whether) it is ʔarjoθa [a kind of thornbush] or something else’.
b (‘I mean . . . whoever went there – those times were not good – perhaps they’d
be killed’.)
fa baxta sota꞊waːwa.| ʔaːj la꞊mtaxəml-aː-wa b-an=ʃuːlə.|
for woman(f) old.f꞊pst.cop.3fsg this neg꞊think.pres-S.3fsg-ant about-these=things
‘For she was an old woman, you see. She didn’t think about those things’.
5.8.2 Subordination of clauses

Certain verbs and verboids take a finite verb complement in the subjunctive (with no
TAM prefix), introduced by the complementizer particle d=:
49 a k-əb-ən d=maħk-ən l-eðawaːθa.|

ind-want.pres-S.1msg comp=speak.pres-S.1msg about-festival:pl
‘I’d like to speak about the festivals’.
b ʃwoq-lan t=xaːz-əx-lux gaː꞊xərta.|

let.imp.sg-L.1pl comp=see.pres-S.1pl-L.2msg time(f)꞊other.fsg
‘Let us see you again’.
Factive complements are also introduced by d=, but the d= is often omitted:
50 a ʃme-lə| d=ilə bron-əħ b-ɛ=mðita.|

hear.past-L.3msg comp=prs.cop.3msg son-3msg in-that.f=town(f)
‘He heard that his son was in that town’.
b k-xaʃw-ən ʔət-tə bɛθa.|
ind-think.pres-S.1msg exist-L.3msg house
‘I think he has a house’.
The protasis of a conditional clause is usually introduced by ʔən ‘if’ or ʔəlla ‘if not,
unless’:
51 w=əlla ʔiðe-lux,| p-qatˁ-ən-nə qar-ux,|

and=if.not know.past-L.2msg fut-cut.pres-S.1msg-L.3msg head(m)-2msg
‘And if you don’t know, I’ll cut off your head!’
Other kinds of subordinate clauses are introduced by a variety of conjunctions (see §4.7
for a selection):
52 a kud qəm-lə,| kəm-xaːze-lə bron-əħ.|

when get_up.past-L.3msg pst.pfv-see.pres.S.3msg-L.3msg son-3msg
‘When he got up, he saw his son’.
b m-maːx-ət-tə l-qatta tad=ʕalj-a m-ʔara.|
fut-hit.pres-S.2msg-L.3msg on-stick(f) purp=go_up.pres-S.3fsg from-
ground
‘You’ll hit it on the stick so that it goes up from the ground’.
A circumstantial clause (‘while. . .’) is introduced by u ‘and’ and lacks a copula:
53 u fət-lə zona,| u jəmma b-imaːra ta baːba,|

and pass.past-L.3msg time(m) and mother in-say.inf to father
‘And time passed, while the mother was saying to the father . . .’
6 LEXICON
While the basic vocabulary of Alqosh is primarily inherited from Semitic, like other
NENA dialects, Alqosh has many loan words from neighboring languages. The most well
established are from Kurmanji Kurdish (more specifically the Bahdini dialects spoken
in northern Iraq), but more and more Arabic words are coming into common use. The
Kurds are the majority ethnic group in NENA-speaking region, but Alqosh lies not far
from Mosul, where Arabic is spoken, and there are villages very close by where Arabic
is spoken. Arabic is, moreover, the language of the state since the formation of Iraq, and
military service, migration and the media have brought NENA speakers into ever more
frequent contact with it. Most influence comes from vernacular Iraqi dialects, rather than
742 Eleanor Coghill
Standard Arabic. Some Arabic words have been borrowed indirectly, via Kurmanji; this
may be apparent from the form of the word or its gender (e.g., qalaːma f ‘pen’ < Kurm.
qelem f~m, cf. Arab. qalam m). Other sources of words are the colonial languages: Otto-
man Turkish (from the time of the Ottoman Empire), French (mainly from the church, due
to the presence of French Jesuits in the region) and English (from the time of the British
Mandate in Iraq).
Borrowed nouns and adjectives may be integrated to varying extents. In many cases the
nominal ending ‑a is added, e.g., barxa ‘lamb’ (< Kurm. berx). There are also loan words
without the ‑a, e.g., mes ‘table’ (< Iraqi Arab. mēz < Portugese). Loan words sometimes
bear the feminine suffix ‑ta/‑θa, e.g., darguʃta f. ‘cradle’ (< Kurm. dergûş f.). Loan words
may also take Aramaic plural inflection, although an Arabic plural suffix has also been
borrowed (§4.2.3). Borrowed nouns may be given Aramaic derivational suffixes, e.g.
dəʒmənuːθa ‘enmity’, composed of dəʒmən ‘enemy’ (< Kurm. dijmin) and the abstract
derivational suffix ‑uːθa.
There is a surprising number of loan verbs in Alqosh and NENA generally. In order to
fit to the Semitic root-and-pattern system, a tri- or quadriradical root is usually extracted
from the donor word. Most loan verbs are from Arabic, perhaps because these already
have a root, which in many cases can simply be adopted as it is. For instance, Arab. ʃbh
i ‘to resemble’ is borrowed as Alqosh ʃbh I ‘to resemble’. Sometimes the root is adapted
to conform to the particular rules of root-formation in Alqosh. The loan verb must still
be allocated to a derivational class (Coghill 2015). The root-extraction strategy is also
possible with non-Semitic donor languages.
7 SAMPLE TEXT
An excerpt of a traditional children’s story in the Alqosh dialect is given here, fully
glossed and translated. The complete story is published in Coghill (2009), along with
other variants of the same story, told in different dialects.
1 ʔəθwa꞊u laθwa xa꞊bedika.| jəklə kətwa b-aqləħ.|

ʔəθ-wa꞊u laθ-wa xa꞊bedika
exist-ant꞊and neg.exist-ant indf.m꞊sparrow
‘Once upon a time there was (lit. ‘there was and there wasn’t’) a sparrow.’
jək-lə kətwa b-aql-əħ
get_stuck.past-L.3msg thorn.m in-foot-3msg
‘A thorn got stuck in his foot.’
2 zellə bəfyaːrˁa,| xzelə ɣða꞊sota.| ʔaːmərwa: wo sotó!| máplətˁlə kətwi!|

zəl-lə bə-fyaːrˁa xze-lə ɣða꞊sota
go.past-L.3msg in-fly.inf see.past-L.3msg indf.f꞊old.woman
‘He went flying, he saw an old woman.’
ʔaːmər-wa wo sot-ó! máplətˁ-lə kətw-i
say.pres.3msg-ant hey old.woman-dim take_out.imp.sg-L.3msg thorn-1sg
‘He said, “Hey, Granny! Take out my thorn!” ’
3 ʔamraːwa: hayyu.| kəmmapəltˁaːlə kətwəħ,| kəmħalqaːlə p-tanuːra.|

ʔamr-aː-wa hayyu kəm-mapəltˁ-aː-lə kətw-əħ
say.pres-3fsg-ant come.imp.sg pst.pfv-take.out.pres-S.3fsg-L.3msg thorn-3msg
‘She said, “Come!” She took out his thorn,’

kəm-ħalq-aː-lə p-tanuːra
pst.pfv-throw.pres-S.3fsg-L.3msg in-oven
‘she threw it into the oven.’
4 pəʃlə bəbxaːya.| ʔaːmərwa: ʔuː, kəbən kətwi!|

pəʃ-lə bə-bxaːya ʔaːmər-wa ʔuː k-əb-ən kətw-i
become.past-L.3msg in-cry.inf say.pres.3msg-ant oh ind-want.pres-1msg thorn-1sg
‘He started crying. He said, “Oh, I want my thorn!” ’
5 ʔamraːwa: la꞊baːxət,| byaːwannux ɣða꞊paθəxta.|

ʔamr-aː-wa la꞊baːx-ət b-yaːw-an-nux ɣða꞊paθəxta
say.pres-3fsg-ant neg꞊cry.pres-S.2msg fut-give.pres-S.1fsg-L.2msg indf.f꞊pitta(f)
‘She said, “Don’t cry! I’ll give you a pitta-bread.” ’
6 ʔaːmərwa: halli.| ʃqəllə paθəxta꞊w| pəʃlə fyaːrˁa.|13

ʔaːmər-wa hal-li
say.pres.S.3msg-ant give.imp.sg-L.1sg
‘He said, “Give it to me.” ’
ʃqəl-lə paθəxta꞊w pəʃ-lə fyaːrˁa
take.past-L.3msg pitta꞊and become.past-L.3msg (in-)fly.inf
‘He took the pitta-bread and started flying.’
ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSING CONVENTIONS USED IN

THIS CHAPTER
I, II, II2, III, Q NENA verbal derivation patterns
ant anterior (shifting the time reference back, glossing -wa ~ -waː-)
Arab. Arabic
B B-suffix
BASE Present or Past Base
C. Christian (dialect)
CSyr Classical Syriac
Ct, St NENA verbal derivation patterns borrowed from Arabic
J. Jewish (dialect)
JBA Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
Kurm. Kurmanji Kurdish
L L-suffix
NENA Northeastern Neo-Aramaic
NP noun phrase
past Past Base
Pers. Persian
pres Present Base
pst.pfv past perfective (glossing the convertor prefix kəm-)
ptcp.res resultative participle
remain existential expressing to remain
S S-suffix
small caps nuclear stress in intonation phrase
744 Eleanor Coghill
Turk. Turkish
= links two words or morphemes in a phrase with a single stress on the
second component (including but not limited to proclitics)
꞊ links two words or morphemes in a phrase with a single stress on the
first component (including but not limited to enclitics)
| intonation phrase boundary
() In the gloss this indicates a morpheme that has been elided via
assimilation (typically a labial before another labial), but whose func-
tion remains, e.g. mʃaðr-ən [(fut-)send.pres-S.1msg] ‘I will send you’,
which is underlyingly *m-mʃaðr-ən < *b-mʃaðr-ən. In Aramaic words,
the sound within the brackets may optionally be omitted, for instance
(m)ʃaxlopə ‘to change’ has two variants: mʃaxlopə and ʃaxlopə.
NOTES
1 Additional abbreviations and glossing conventions used in this chapter are listed at
the end of the chapter.
2 The communal differentiation resembles the situation for Arabic in parts of the Mid-
dle East and North Africa. Cf. Blanc’s (1964) study of the communal dialects of
Baghdad.
3 The /r/ in Alqosh is typically realized as a retroflex lateral flap, an apparently rare
sound found also in Pashto. There is no dedicated IPA sign for this, so I have used the
sign for the lateral flap plus the retroflex hook.
4 This sound (the Arabic ʕayn) is conventionally described as a fricative, the voiced
counterpart of /ħ/, but is now thought to be more accurately described as an approxi-
mant (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 168–9).
5 Classical Syriac is here transcibed in IPA, broadly phonemically. The (mostly) allo-
phonic stop-fricative distinction known as beḡaḏkep̄ aṯ is indicated, for the reader’s
information, as it has become phonemic in NENA: the fricative realization is indi-
cated with a line above or below the letter. Purely orthographic (unpronounced) let-
ters are written in superscript, as in CSyr ʕeːʔḏaː ‘festival’, where the glottal stop is
not pronounced.
6 See Coghill (2008: 96–7) for a possible explanation of this development as disam-
biguating between the 3rd person singular possessive suffixes and the most common
nominal inflections (sg -a, pl -ə).
7 In the transcription, the normal equals sign “=” links two words or morphemes in
a phrase with a single stress on the second component (including but not limited to
proclitics), while the short equals sign “꞊” links two words or morphemes in a phrase
with a single stress on the first component (including but not limited to enclitics). The
sign “|” indicates an intonation phrase boundary. The nuclear stress in an intonation
phrase is indicated with small caps, but only in the sample text or where nuclear stress
is being discussed.
8 The main sources used for Kurmanji and Iraqi Arabic words are Chyet (2003) and
Woodhead, Beene and Stowasser (1967), respectively.
9 This suffix is borrowed from Arabic -aːt but occurs also with Kurdish loans. See
Coghill (2005) for more details on noun plurals.
10 See Coghill (2015) for a discussion of these derivations in the NENA dialects of the
Mosul Plain from the perspective of borrowed morphology.
11 Kabirə ‘many’, uniquely among the quantifier expressions (which are a morpho-
syntactically diverse group), may also occur after the noun, e.g., kabirə ʔalquʃnaːjə
‘many Alqoshis’ and naːʃə kabirə ‘many people’.
12 ‘Genitive’ is perhaps not an ideal term. D‑NP may also occur without a head noun, in
which case d‑ could be viewed as a kind of pronoun (Gutman 2018: 38–9, 174–6).
13 Fjaːrˁa here is a variant of the progressive form bəfjaːrˁa ‘flying’, where the b‑prefix
has entirely assimilated to the initial labio-dental of the infinitive (fjaːrˁa < *f‑fjaːrˁa
< *b‑fjaːrˁa).
REFERENCES
Blanc, Haim. Communal Dialects in Baghdad. Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs.
Cambridge, MA: Distributed for the Center for Middle Eastern Studies of Harvard
University by Harvard University Press, 1964.
Chyet, Michael L. Kurdish-English Dictionary = Ferhenga Kurmancî-Inglîzî. Yale
Language Series. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Coghill, Eleanor. “The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Alqosh.” University of Cambridge, 2004.
Coghill, Eleanor. “The Morphology and Distribution of Noun Plurals in the Neo-Aramaic
Dialect of Alqosh.” In Studi Afroasiatici. Xi Incontro Italiano Di Linguistica
Camitosemitica, edited by Alessandro Mengozzi, 337–48. Milan: FrancoAngeli, 2005.
Coghill, Eleanor. “Some Notable Features in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects of
Iraq.” In Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies: Proceedings of a Workshop on Neo-Aramaic
Held in Cambridge 2005, edited by Geoffrey Khan. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies,
91–104. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008.
Coghill, Eleanor. “Four Versions of a Neo-Aramaic Children’s Story.” ARAM 21 (2009):
251–80.
Coghill, Eleanor. “Ditransitive Constructions in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Telkepe.”
In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, edited by Andrej
Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie, 221–42. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton, 2010a.
Coghill, Eleanor. “The Grammaticalization of Prospective Aspect in a Group of
Neo-Aramaic Dialects.”. Diachronica 27.3 (2010b): 359–410.
Coghill, Eleanor. “Differential Object Marking in Neo-Aramaic.”. Linguistics 52.2 (Mar
2014): 335–64.
Coghill, Eleanor. “Borrowing of Verbal Derivational Morphology between Semitic
Languages: The Case of Arabic Verb Derivations in Neo-Aramaic.” In Borrowed
Morphology, edited by Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev and Nino Amiridze.
Language Contact and Bilingualism, 83–108. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2015.
Fassberg, Steven E. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Challa. Studies in Semitic
Languages and Linguistics. Edited by Hezy Mutzafi, C. H. M. Versteegh and Aaron
Rubin, D. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010.
Friedrich, Johannes. “Neusyrisches in Lateinschrift Aus Der Sowjetunion.” Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 109 (n.F. 34). 1 (1959): 50–81.
Friedrich, Johannes. Zwei Russische Novellen in Neusyrischer Übersetzung Und
Lateinschrift: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. Abhandlungen Für Die Kunde
Des Morgenlandes. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1960.
Gutman, Ariel. Attributive Constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Studies in Diversity
Linguistics, edited by Martin Haspelmath, Berlin: Language Science Press, 2018.
746 Eleanor Coghill
Khan, Geoffrey. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Handbook
of Oriental Studies. Section 1 the near and Middle East. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Khan, Geoffrey. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Studies in Semitic Languages
and Linguistics. Edited by T. Muraoka and C. H. M. Versteegh. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Khan, Geoffrey. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja. Studies
in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, edited by Hezy Mutzafi and C. H. M. Versteegh
Khan, Geoffrey. “The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects.” Journal of Semitic Studies
52.1 (2007): 1–20.
Khan, Geoffrey. “The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar.” In Handbook of Oriental Studies,
Section One: The near and Middle East, edited by W. H. van Soldt, 3 vols. Leiden:
Brill, 2008a.
Khan, Geoffrey. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic
Studies. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008b.
Khan, Geoffrey. “The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj.” In Gorgias Neo-Aramaic
Studies, edited by Geoffrey Khan and Hezy Mutzafi. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press,
2009.
Khan, Geoffrey. “North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic.” Chap. 40 In Semitic Languages: An
International Handbook, edited by Stefan [in collaboration with Geoffrey Khan
Weninger, Michael P. Streck, 708–24. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011.
Khan, Geoffrey. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi: Volume
4: Texts. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics. Edited by Aaron D. Rubin and
Ahmad Al-Jallad, 4 vols. Vol. 86, Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Phonological
Theory. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
Maclean, Arthur John. A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac as Spoken by
the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan, Northwest Persia, and the Plain of Moṣul. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1901.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe. A Story in a Truthful
Language: Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century). Vol.
I: Text and Glossary. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. 2 vols. Vol. I,
Lovanii: Peeters, 2002a.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe. A Story in a Truthful
Language: Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century). Vol. II:
Introduction and Translation. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. 2 vols.
Vol. II, Lovanii: Peeters, 2002b.
Murre-van den Berg, Heleen. From a Spoken to a Written Language: The Introduction
and Development of Literary Urmia Aramaic in the Nineteenth Century. Publication of
the De Goeje Fund. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999.
Mutzafi, Hezy. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan). Semitic
Viva, edited by Otto Jastrow. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004.
Mutzafi, Hezy. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (Province of Dihok).
Semitica Viva, edited by Otto Jastrow. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008.
Oraham, Alexander Joseph. Oraham’s Dictionary of the Stabilized and Enriched Assyrian
Language and English. Chicago: Consolidated Press (Assyrian Press of America),
1943.
Pennacchietti, Fabrizio A. and Mauro Tosco. Testi Neo-Aramaici Dell’unione Sovietica

Raccolti Da Enrico Cerulli. Series Minor. Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale,
Dipartimento di studi asiatici, 1991.
Sabar, Yona. Pəšaṭ Wayəhî Bəšallaḥ, a Neo-Aramaic Midrash on Beshallaḥ (Exodus):
Introduction, Phonetic Transcription, Translation, Notes, and Glossary. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrasowitz, 1976.
Sabar, Yona. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and
Zakho, Northwestern Iraq. Semitica Viva. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002.
Woodhead, Daniel R., Wayne Beene, and Karl Stowasser. A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic:
Arabic-English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1967.
GENERAL NORTHEASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Overview
Two short overviews of Northeastern Neo-Aramaic are Khan (2007) and Khan (2011).
Dictionaries
There remains only one dictionary of the spoken Christian varieties: Maclean (1901).
There are also some dictionaries of the written varieties, for instance Oraham (1943).
For Jewish dialects there is Sabar (2002).
Grammars
There are now many grammars, both full monographs and article-length sketches of
NENA dialects. Among the most comprehensive published grammars of individual
dialects are the following: Fassberg (2010) on J. Challa; Mutzafi (2004) on J. Koy
Sanjaq; Mutzafi (2008) on J. Betanure; Khan (1999) on J. Arbel; Khan (2002) on C.
Qaraqosh; Khan (2004) on J. Sulemaniyya and Ħalabja; Khan (2008a) on J. Urmi;
Khan (2008b) on C. Barwar; Khan (2009) on J. Sanandaj; and Khan (2016) on C.
Urmi.
LANGUAGES INDEX
Aari 27, 32, 42 Arabic, Palestinian 403, 404, 417, 419, 424,
Afar 34, 36, 40, 42 425, 602
Afro-Asiatic 1, 18, 22 – 9, 32 – 3, 36, 39 – 43, 56, Arabic, Qurʔanic 11, 59, 89, 368 – 70, 373, 375,
64 – 5, 72, 80 – 1, 83 – 4 377, 398
Agaw 25 – 6, 31, 42 Aramaic ch. 23 – 7, xiii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16,
Akkadian ch. 5, 1 – 2, 4, 6 – 12, 14, 17, 29 – 30, 17, 42, 50, 53, 57, 59, 64, 68, 72, 82, 84, 87,
33 – 5, 37 – 8, 42, 49 – 61, 64 – 74, 81 – 7, 89, 91, 113, 137, 263, 355, 363, 367, 374, 381,
207, 220, 265, 268, 482 – 4, 496, 504, 506, 509, 382, 398, 425, 482, 504, 509, 510, 511, 534,
563, 602 536, 542, 546, 554, 563, 602
Akkadian, Assyrian ch. 5, 4, 6 – 10, 50, 61, 65, 68, Aramaic, Achaemenid see Aramaic, Imperial
71, 83, 86, 513 Aramaic, Hatran 6, 13
Akkadian, Babylonian ch. 5, 2, 4, 6 – 7, 16 – 17, Aramaic, Imperial 5, 13, 611
50 – 2, 61, 65, 67 – 8, 70, 74, 80, 91 Aramaic, Jewish Babylonian 6, 13, 653
Akkadian, Old ch. 5, 4, 6, 16 – 17, 58, 91 Aramaic, Jewish Galilean 6, 13
Ala:ba 31 Aramaic, Modern Western 6, 13, 90, 611
Amharic ch. 9, 1, 4, 8, 55, 60, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, Aramaic, Nabatean 6, 11, 342, 343, 369, 370, 374
118, 119, 137, 145, 146, 175, 176, 177, 180, Aramaic, Official see Aramaic, Imperial
185, 186, 197, 227, 238, 251 Aramaic, Old 5, 13, 64, 68, 82, 611, 633, 643,
Ammonite 5, 12, 509, 511, 514, 516, 518 – 21, 644, 656
523 – 6, 534 Aramaic, Palestinian (Jewish and Christian) 6, 13,
Ancient South Arabian ch. 13, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 364, 611, 627, 632
49, 59, 67, 73, 80, 344, 367 Aramaic, Palmyrene 6, 13, 342
Angas 38 Aramaic, Samaritan ch. 23, 6, 13, 632
Arabic ch. 14 – 18, xiii, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 – 11, 14, Argobba 4, 146, 176, 202 – 3
15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 30, 42, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, Awnji 26
57, 58, 59, 61, 64, 65, 68, 70, 71, 72, 81, 84,
85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 118, 119, 134, 137, 145, Banna 27
149, 156, 163, 164, 169, 197, 220, 221, 228, Bantu 26
251, 252, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, Bat’ħari 5, 9
270, 273, 280, 281, 282, 286, 291, 294, 301, Beja 25 – 6, 29, 31, 34 – 6, 38 – 40, 42
310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 318, 323, 325, 338, Beniamer 31
482, 502, 504, 506, 550, 572, 576, 602, 604, Berber 1, 18, 22 – 4, 29 – 30, 33 – 8, 40 – 3, 73, 458,
611 – 14, 633, 634, 639, 640 – 4, 649, 654, 679, 474, 476, 479
681, 683, 685, 686, 687, 689, 713, 715, 718, Bilin 26, 31, 145, 216, 220 – 1
720, 721, 725, 741 – 2, 744 Biu-Mandara 28
Arabic, Classical ch. 15, 9, 17, 51, 52, 53, 65, 68, Burunge 29, 31
71, 74, 80, 82, 86, 89, 91, 343, 345, 346, 347,
348, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, Canaanite languages ch. 20, 5, 12 – 13, 52, 55,
358, 359, 361, 362, 363, 413, 414, 417, 418, 88, 344, 367, 482, 485, 504, 506, 534, 536,
419, 445, 447, 471 540, 571
Arabic, Egyptian ch. 17, 82, 348, 355, 403, 409, Central Neo-Aramaic 13
412, 414, 418, 419, 423, 425, 428, 461, 467, Central Semitic 7, 9 – 13, 14, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60,
472, 479, 480 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 73, 85, 259, 270,
Arabic, Iraqi 5, 403, 687, 694, 703, 706, 708, 350, 351, 367, 520, 556
742, 744 Chadic 1, 22, 23, 27 – 8, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41,
Arabic, Levantine ch. 16, 82, 84, 434, 438, 447, 42, 43
449, 461, 467 Chaha 4, 206, 213, 227 – 8, 253, 256
Arabic, Modern Standard 5, 11, 368, 373, 410, Classical Ethiopic (Gəʕəz) ch. 6, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
413, 420, 433 – 5, 445, 447 – 8, 459 – 60, 472, 14, 16, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65,
476 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, 82, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91,
Arabic, Moroccan ch. 18, 82, 364, 412, 413, 434, 112, 203, 325, 479, 506
438, 447, 449 Coptic 22, 25, 30, 37
750 LANGUAGES INDEX
Cushitic 1, 14, 22 – 3, 25 – 9, 31 – 40, 42 – 3, 65, 90, 91, 145, 220, 263, 267, 268, 485, 611, 616,
74, 85, 87, 91, 137, 197, 203, 216 – 17, 220 – 1, 617, 618, 619, 621, 623, 624, 628, 679, 713
227, 250 Hebrew, Biblical ch. 20 – 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 51,
Cushitic, East 26 – 7, 34, 36, 220 53, 65, 68, 70, 71, 73, 86, 88, 612, 628
Cushitic, Highland East 26 – 7, 31, 251 Hebrew, Modern Israeli ch. 22, 81, 90, 91,
Cushitic, South 26 – 7, 29 533, 633
Hebrew, Samaritan 611, 613, 615, 616
Dadanitic 5, 11 Hismaic 5, 11, 344, 351, 364
Daffo 38 Hittite 504
Deir Alla 5, 12, 509 – 11, 513 – 14, 516 – 26, 528 Hobyot 5, 9, 257 – 9
Demotic 25 Hurrian 483, 485, 504
Dime 27, 42
Dobbi 4, 227 Inor 4, 227, 253, 256
Dullay 26 Iraqw 26
Italian 169, 176 – 7, 197, 221, 425, 453, 649
East Semitic ch. 5, 1, 4, 6 – 7, 8, 14, 49, 51, 55, 65,
67, 68, 69, 71 Janjero 27
Eblaite 1, 4, 6, 7, 14, 55, 67, 69, 74, 95 Jibbāli 5, 9, 50, 59, 67, 86, 90, 257 – 9, 262, 280,
Edomite 5, 12, 509 – 11, 514, 516, 518 – 22, 285, 315
524 – 6, 529
Egyptian 1, 11, 12, 14, 18, 22, 23, 24 – 5, 29, 30, Kabyle 24
32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 73, 528, 563 Kafa 27
el-Amarna Canaanite 5, 12, 509 – 11, 513 – 14, Kambaata 251
516, 518 – 24, 526 – 7 Karo 27
Endegagn 4, 227, 256 Kemant 26, 42, 221
Ener 4, 227 Kistane 4, 227 – 8, 253, 256
English 169, 176, 197, 221 – 2, 258, 261, 405, 425, Kulere 38
428, 453, 514, 589, 601 – 2, 633, 722, 742 Kunfal 26
Ezha 4, 227, 256 Kurdish, Kurmanji 649, 706, 718 – 19, 721,
741 – 2, 744
Falasha 26
French 85, 272, 405, 425, 453, 458 – 9, 476, Ladino 602
649, 742 Latin 72, 119, 137, 398, 510, 513 – 14, 528, 533,
535, 602, 674, 679
Gafat 4, 18, 146, 227
Galila 4, 227 Mandaic ch. 26, 6, 13, 84, 653
German 1, 17, 64, 109, 131, 267, 386, 497, 602, Mao 27
620, 665 Mehreyyet 259
Gəʕəz see Classical Ethiopic (Gəʕəz) Mehri ch. 11, 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 49, 51, 84, 90,
Ghadames 30, 37, 42 146, 280, 285, 487
Gimira 27 Meroe 25
Greek 14, 25, 118 – 19, 134, 137, 140, 176, 206, Mesmes 4, 227, 256
342, 345 – 7, 350, 355, 357, 363, 369 – 70, 398, Mesqan 4, 227, 253, 256
425, 453, 513 – 14, 524, 528, 533, 535, 538, Minaic 5, 10, 67, 321 – 4, 327 – 9, 333, 337 – 8
563 – 4, 602, 623, 628, 653 – 4, 657, 667, 674, Mlahso 6
679, 706 Moabite 5, 12, 509, 511, 513 – 16, 518 – 26,
Guanche 24 528, 534
Gumer 4, 227, 256 Modern South Arabian xiii, 5, 7, 9, 14, 18, 49, 53,
Gura 4, 227 59 – 60, 65, 67, 71, 73, 81, 84 – 6, 90 – 1, 122,
Gurage ch. 10, 4, 9, 84, 118, 146, 202 146, 257 – 60, 262, 267 – 9, 271, 273, 280 – 1,
Gurage, Gunnän 4, 227, 229, 232, 252 – 3 296, 315, 325, 367
Gurage, Muher ch. 10, 4, 9 Mubi 29, 32, 40, 42
Gyeto 4 Muher see Gurage, Muher
Mukulu 41
Had’ramitic/Ḥaḍramitic 5, 10, 67, 322 – 4,
327, 333 Nilotic 26 – 7, 32, 43
Hamar 27 Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) ch. 27, 6,
Harari 4, 8, 146, 202 13, 85
Ħarsusi 5, 257 – 9, 262 Nubian 25, 433
Hausa 22, 27 – 9, 32, 39 – 42 Numidian 528
Hdi 32
Hebrew 1, 5, 12, 14, 16, 17, 42, 50, 52, 57, 58, Ometo 27
59, 61, 64, 65, 67, 72, 73, 74, 84, 85, 86, 89, Omo-Tana 26, 31
LANGUAGES INDEX 751
Omotic 1, 22 – 3, 26 – 7, 32 – 3, 36, 40, 42 – 3, 227 Thamudic 5, 11, 342, 344
Oromoid 26 Tigre ch. 7, 4, 8, 67, 84, 118, 174, 176, 182 – 3,
192 – 3, 195, 197
Persian 13, 316, 398, 425, 453, 563, 649, 674, Tigre, Gindaʕ ch. 7
679, 683, 685, 689, 691 – 2, 700 – 1, 706, Tigre, Mansaʕ 147, 152, 154, 161 – 2, 165
708, 721 Tigre, Masḥalit 147
Phoenician ch. 20, 5, 12, 14, 53, 534, 536, 654 Tigre, Massawa 145, 147, 164
Phoenician, Byblian 509 – 11, 515 – 18, 525 – 6 Tigre, Zula 147
Punic 5, 12, 510, 513 – 19, 521, 523 – 4, 526, 528 Tigrinya ch. 8, 1, 4, 8, 58, 118, 145 – 7, 163 – 4,
168 – 9
Qatabanic 5, 10, 67, 321 – 2, 324, 327 – 9, 333 – 4, 336 Tigrinya, Hamasen 175
Quara 26 Tigrinya, Tigray 175
Tsamakko 31
Romance languages 24, 476 Tuareg 24, 42
Ron 38 Turkish 403, 425, 453, 602, 649, 721
Russian 602 Turkish, Ottoman 425, 742
Turoyo 6
Sabaic 1 – 2, 5, 10, 49, 51 – 2, 59, 67, 321 – 9,
331 – 5, 337 – 8, 355 Ugaritic ch. 19, 1 – 2, 5, 12, 14, 17, 42, 51 – 3, 55,
Safaitic ch. 14, 5, 11 58, 60, 64, 68, 85, 89, 91
Saho-Afar 26, 220
Samalian 13 Western Neo-Aramaic ch. 24, 13, 82, 90, 611
Shinasha 27 West Semitic 4, 7 – 9, 17, 33, 49, 54 – 5, 57, 61,
Silt’e 4, 227 – 8, 256 63 – 4, 66 – 8, 70, 72 – 4, 95, 105, 107, 118, 259,
Slavic languages 602 268, 270, 294, 323, 345, 353, 367, 496, 499,
Soddo 146 521, 663, 681, 692
Somali 26, 31, 39, 42, 221 Wolane 4, 227, 252, 256
Soqotri ch. 12, 5, 9
Syriac ch. 25, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 51, 84, 91, Xamir 26
112, 398, 480, 534, 644, 679, 681, 713, 715, Xamta 26
719, 722, 744
Yaaku 26
Tamasheq 24 Yemsa 27, 32 – 3, 42
Tamazight 24 Yiddish 602
Tarifit 24
Tashelhiyt 24, 30, 40 Zay 4, 227, 253, 256
Taymanitic 5, 11 Zenaga 24
SUBJECT INDEX
abjad 370, 536, 681 backing 410, 436, 461, 540

ablative 180, 194, 233, 246, 248, 499 benefactive 180, 208, 217, 240, 246, 302, 359
ablaut 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 65, 83, 90, 209, 270, bleaching 216, 587
293, 300, 445, 470, 643, 690
absolute 15, 16, 17, 40, 103, 104, 105, 106, 127, cleft 112, 137, 166, 192, 194, 218, 249, 250, 624,
328, 329, 331, 338, 459, 476, 480, 489, 490, 658, 668, 673
500, 503, 541, 545, 547, 618, 619, 622, 660, clitic 32, 33, 36, 53, 54, 55, 59, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68,
661, 664, 666, 667, 669, 724 71, 74, 122, 125, 133, 134, 208, 335, 348, 410,
abstract 58, 73, 83, 185, 211, 221, 236, 328, 412, 420, 437, 438, 447, 449, 450, 451, 452,
330, 380, 381, 382, 466, 474, 489, 546, 639, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 472, 473, 474,
719, 725 475, 476, 479, 480, 486, 487, 488, 499, 506,
abugida 203, 228 518, 521, 523, 524, 544, 553, 554, 580, 591,
accusative 12, 39, 54, 60, 100, 101, 104, 124, 614, 616, 618, 623, 624, 628, 638, 639, 644,
125, 127, 128, 129, 135, 136, 140, 141, 185, 646, 655, 657, 658, 660, 662, 664, 667, 668,
210, 245, 246, 247, 252, 350, 360, 361, 367, 670, 673, 687, 688, 690, 694, 696, 697, 698,
379, 382, 383, 388, 392, 394, 395, 396, 479, 699, 700, 701, 702, 705, 715, 726, 730, 733,
486, 515, 517, 519, 554, 559, 579, 598, 735, 738, 739, 740, 744
636, 647 coda 203, 230, 231, 375, 577, 614, 687, 694
affrication 122 cognition 215
agent 386, 550, 623, 668, 670 collective 156, 291, 331, 335, 350, 380, 381, 382,
agent noun 58, 146, 182, 184, 185, 211, 236, 237, 390, 413, 489, 492, 724
552, 559, 619, 622, 639, 642, 665, 695, 696 compensatory lengthening 261, 436, 539, 726
Ajäm 228 compound(ing) 211, 212, 266, 414, 559, 577,
Aktionsart 195, 393, 415, 416, 493, 607, 662, 670 597, 720
allative 180, 182, 194, 464 construct 2, 15, 16, 17, 53, 59, 60, 69, 87, 88, 89,
alphasyllabary 14, 228 103, 104, 113, 127, 129, 135, 166, 211, 266,
anaptyxis 95, 408, 409, 410, 494, 546, 615, 622, 328, 329, 336, 337, 350, 373, 376, 378, 379,
635, 642, 687 380, 382, 388, 390, 393, 414, 415, 417, 422,
annexation 16, 647, 671 423, 424, 442, 450, 465, 474, 490, 497, 517,
apocope 385, 688, 720 520, 526, 541, 545, 546, 547, 554, 559, 560,
apophony 37, 40, 182, 295, 356, 358, 545, 596, 597, 616, 617, 618, 619, 623, 624, 625,
550, 551 627, 639, 647, 660, 661, 662, 666, 671, 687,
applicative 180, 181, 188, 199, 208, 237 689, 699, 700, 702, 720, 724, 737, 738
argument 179, 180, 181, 189, 195, 245, 246, 247, converb 131, 132, 133, 186, 187, 190, 196, 197,
497, 523, 555, 689, 735 206, 213, 214, 215, 219, 234, 239, 243, 244,
aspect 16, 17, 32, 36, 38, 62, 64, 105, 106, 107, 245, 248, 250
131, 135, 157, 158, 159, 168, 195, 241, 243, copula 69, 90, 91, 152, 160, 168, 188, 192, 193,
247, 248, 294, 305, 331, 284, 415, 416, 419, 194, 195, 208, 214, 216, 217, 243, 244, 245,
421, 428, 442, 467, 468, 493, 506, 520, 526, 249, 250, 253, 304, 305, 391, 425, 473, 524,
547, 587, 588, 620, 625, 626, 642, 662, 687, 555, 558, 594, 595, 602, 637, 662, 664, 668,
692, 701, 727, 729 670, 673, 697, 698, 699, 701, 704, 705, 726,
assimilation 50, 52, 99, 100, 101, 109, 122, 178, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 735, 740, 741
179, 199, 206, 207, 231, 265, 273, 284, 287, counterfactual 587, 621, 692
288, 322, 324, 325, 327, 334, 348, 351, 355,
359, 373, 375, 377, 387, 422, 450, 459, 473, dative 7, 12, 95, 100, 101, 102, 245, 246, 252,
479, 487, 498, 517, 519, 522, 524, 537, 538, 302, 353, 359, 410, 411, 412, 420, 428, 438,
539, 540, 541, 553, 576, 589, 591, 619, 620, 439, 451, 463, 464, 647
623, 636, 639, 643, 644, 666, 683, 694, 701, definiteness 16, 59, 60, 112, 129, 135, 194, 207,
715, 720, 726, 728, 744, 745 209, 210, 211, 234, 235, 304, 305, 336, 350,
Auslaut 180, 181, 183 382, 389, 390, 422, 449, 450, 464, 473, 474,
SUBJECT INDEX 753
490, 526, 558, 580, 585, 596, 597, 623, 624, ideophone 207, 216, 236, 243
627, 646, 669, 670, 671 impersonal 215, 237, 239, 247, 252, 386, 488,
(de-)glottalization 81, 176, 178, 283, 346, 374, 595, 693
375, 576 (in)alienable 272, 309, 393, 450, 696, 702, 703
denominative 57, 185, 268, 300, 333, 354, (in)animate 58, 70, 71, 83, 154, 155, 182, 209,
355, 388, 418, 445, 446, 522, 550, 588, 589, 234, 235, 238, 328, 349, 359, 413, 414, 422,
628, 693 450, 464, 465, 518, 618
(de)voicing 50, 81, 90, 253, 283, 284, 410, 428, information structure 304, 390, 555, 735
479, 517, 576, 713, 715 ingressive 65, 243, 551
diminutive 147, 156, 182, 264, 266, 290, 291, instrument(al) 180, 185, 207, 208, 210, 211, 217,
292, 380, 413, 441, 466, 639, 644, 719, 727 237, 246, 252, 330, 382, 420, 447, 472, 734
diphthongization 284, 410
direct object 29, 39, 101, 111, 129, 135, 137, 140, koinezation 459, 468
210, 263, 309, 379, 411, 420, 452, 464, 524,
527, 553, 591, 595, 599, 616, 617, 625, 627, labialization 122, 177, 178, 183, 203, 204, 205,
646, 672, 726 228, 230, 232, 286, 470, 479
discourse 134, 216, 244, 304, 412, 415, 420, 472, left-branching 192
555, 295, 736 linker 245, 246, 249, 252
dislocation 136, 137, 304, 420, 557 locative 61, 64, 67, 180, 182, 189, 192, 193,
dissimilation 7, 71, 207, 284 194, 195, 196, 199, 208, 217, 231, 233, 235,
dual 17, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 73, 83, 85, 103, 237, 245, 251, 252, 304, 305, 308, 310, 313,
104, 111, 140, 146, 262, 264, 266, 270, 288, 314, 317, 388, 420, 421, 426, 427, 441, 449,
290, 293, 325, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 451, 472, 473, 475, 489, 524, 544, 564, 688,
348, 349, 350, 352, 358, 375, 376, 377, 378, 698, 738
379, 384, 391, 395, 410, 413, 414, 440, 441, lowering 17, 403, 410, 417, 436, 461, 540
442, 443, 455, 479, 486, 487, 489, 490, 491,
492, 494, 495, 496, 518, 545, 582, 584 malefactive 180, 208, 217, 240, 246, 252
merger 6, 11, 14, 49, 52, 56, 65, 99, 121, 122,
emphatic state 2, 16, 17, 618, 627, 638, 660, 661, 681 146, 148, 175, 176, 178, 205, 230, 231, 248,
epenthetic vowel 133, 183, 184, 231, 287, 288, 250, 280, 325, 345, 347, 357, 373, 374, 381,
298, 371, 375, 385, 408, 409, 420, 437, 459, 407, 435, 460, 461, 485, 489, 513, 514, 538,
462, 479, 540, 546, 577, 578, 590, 721, 728 539, 574, 575, 576, 589, 613, 614, 615, 634,
experiencer 215, 247, 444, 668 637, 656, 657, 684, 685
metathesis 10, 50, 65, 66, 181, 322, 357, 419, 539,
fidäl 119, 120, 121, 147, 203, 204 589, 620, 666, 693
flag(ging) 232, 234, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, monophthongization 231, 345, 347, 357,
736, 737 715, 724
focus marking 100, 106, 134, 135, 136, 137, 194,
210, 216, 218, 250, 252, 336, 360, 376, 412, nasalization 87, 89, 262, 286, 410
420, 423, 463, 464, 468, 473, 553, 555, 558, neologisms 184, 197, 601
589, 593, 625 nominalization 16, 71, 236, 237, 388, 395, 618,
623, 624, 627
gemination 9, 12, 18, 32, 37, 38, 50, 53, 56, 57, nominative 2, 39, 40, 54, 55, 60, 63, 100, 101,
58, 62, 66, 86, 91, 97, 103, 109, 119, 122, 102, 104, 247, 328, 329, 377, 378, 379, 380,
140, 146, 149, 153, 156, 161, 177, 180, 181, 381, 388, 391, 486, 510, 515, 517, 519, 579
183, 184, 188, 189, 199, 203, 207, 209, 210, (non-)canonical 239, 247, 298, 668, 670,
213, 228, 231, 239, 240, 241, 250, 253, 265, 673, 683
268, 288, 324, 335, 354, 357, 371, 373, 375, (non-)existence 8, 68, 69, 91, 146, 157, 159, 160,
381, 382, 386, 387, 405, 406, 419, 428, 435, 163, 164, 165, 168, 193, 208, 214, 216, 244,
446, 459, 460, 484, 486, 497, 498, 506, 518, 245, 249, 304, 305, 360, 392, 421, 422, 449,
537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 543, 545, 546, 548, 452, 465, 472, 473, 484, 503, 527, 528, 558,
550, 551, 553, 556, 572, 573, 574, 575, 577, 593, 594, 595, 601, 624, 628, 642, 649, 662,
578, 589, 591, 619, 620, 656, 657, 661, 665, 664, 668, 670, 673, 697, 698, 731, 732, 736, 743
666, 726 nonrestrictive 689, 696, 703, 704
glide 37, 39, 50, 56, 66, 74, 121, 162, 230, 231,
239, 240, 269, 282, 348, 356, 375, 418, 419, oblique 90, 102, 103, 104, 140, 328, 329, 377,
445, 446, 471, 485, 589, 590, 591, 657, 666, 378, 379, 380, 383, 413, 486, 510, 517, 518,
681, 725; see also vocoid 519, 698
goal 181, 192, 195, 198, 199, 307, 311, 313, 360 onomatopoetic 216
grammaticalization 11, 12, 38, 60, 88, 105, 216, onset 82, 119, 206, 230, 231, 375, 541, 577, 687,
235, 393, 451, 518, 579, 623, 626, 644 694, 713
754 SUBJECT INDEX
palatalization 50, 99, 122, 146, 151, 176, 177, sonority 56, 100, 206, 462, 577
203, 205, 206, 228, 231, 232, 283, 285, 286, spatial 233, 377, 413, 734
461, 515, 522, 614, 615, 621, 633, 634 specificity 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 245,
pause/pausal 17, 375, 379, 380, 409, 410, 428, 252, 413, 422, 424, 627, 671, 691, 701,
540, 541, 557, 558, 564, 737 703, 706
pharyngealization 11, 15, 49, 50, 81, 90, 346, 374, spirantization/fricativization 148, 177, 514, 517,
375, 406, 436, 459, 461, 479, 538, 539, 576, 539, 575, 633, 656, 661, 683
604, 614, 633, 685, 686, 713, 715 state see absolute; construct; emphatic state
phrasal verb 216, 243, 591 substantivization 64, 182, 379, 671
polarity 61, 85, 130, 245, 247, 248, 351, 546 suppletion 156, 235, 239, 264, 281, 380, 517, 690,
pro-drop 192, 555 694, 726
pronominal state 490, 503 suprasegmental 178, 231, 409, 437, 633
prosody 428, 462, 541, 544, 554, 577 syncope 53, 58, 66, 100, 179, 287, 318, 377,
prototypical 182, 207, 292 437, 448, 515, 517, 524, 540, 548,
pseudo-cleft 250 575, 663
syncretism 86, 663
quotative 207
telicity 443, 468, 469, 473
raising 403, 407, 417, 418, 514, 686 tifnagh 24
reciprocal 7, 65, 109, 191, 207, 208, 214, 215, transitivity 39, 62, 64, 65, 74, 157, 200, 239,
268, 298, 333, 354, 387, 446, 551, 589, 617, 246, 247, 268, 269, 294, 297, 298, 333, 376,
665, 688, 717 386, 393, 411, 418, 444, 445, 500, 550, 551,
reduplication 38, 56, 64, 65, 109, 183, 192, 215, 639, 642, 643, 663, 664, 688, 693, 726,
233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 242, 266, 269, 292, 733, 737
299, 300, 330, 333, 356, 418, 589, 661 transnumeral 233, 234, 235
reflexive 7, 65, 109, 110, 132, 190, 191, 207, 215,
241, 268, 297, 299, 333, 355, 375, 386, 387, uvularization 11, 15, 49, 375
418, 446, 498, 522, 550, 551, 589, 620, 643,
665, 688, 717 velarization 81, 282, 283, 284, 374, 403, 436, 459,
relational noun 245, 246 461, 572, 715
resultative 56, 65, 186, 214, 218, 416, 550, 664, verboid 595, 729, 732, 734, 735, 736, 739, 740
722, 726, 727, 733, 743 vocative 104, 308, 359, 360, 388, 429, 474,
right-branching 192 489, 490
rounding 150, 178, 417, 479 vocoid 230, 231, 232, 459, 462, 479
volition 195, 215, 549, 556, 562, 600
salience 57, 392, 413, 414, 422, 424
singulative 209, 350, 380, 383, 489, 719 WH-movement 168, 448, 472

The Semitic Languages (Routledge Language Family Series) 2nd Edition. by John Huehnergard (Editor), Na'ama Pat-El (Editor) .

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

The Semitic Languages (Routledge Language Family Series) 2nd Edition. by John Huehnergard (Editor), Na'ama Pat-El (Editor) .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE SEMITIC

• new introductory chapters on Proto-Semitic grammar and Semitic linguistic typology

John Huehnergard is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies

Na‘ama Pat-El is Associate Professor of Comparative Semitic Linguistics in the

The Romance Languages The Celtic Languages, 2nd Edition

The Slavonic Languages The Sino-Tibetan Languages,

The Tai-Kadai Languages Language Isolates

The Iranian Languages The Bantu Languages, 2nd Edition

Other titles in the series can be found at www.routledge.com/languages/series/SE0091

Edited by John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El

Jon Erling Litland

19 Ugaritic Josef Tropper and Juan-Pablo Vita482

2.1 Approximate distribution of Afro-Asiatic language families

1.1 The internal classification of the Semitic languages 3

4 Morphology: pronouns; nouns (including adjectives); numerals; verbs; particles

Cp causative verb stem with passive vocalization

Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Arabic Hebrew Aramaic

1sg *ʔana, ʔanaːku anāku ʔänä ʔana ʔănī, ʔå̄nōkī ʔenɔ

1pl *niħnu nīnu nəḥnä naħnu ʔănaḥnū ḥnan/naḥnan

Proto-Semitic Akkadian Sabaic Arabic Ugaritic Hebrew Aramaic

2 SUBGROUPING OF THE SEMITIC FAMILY AND

FIGURE 1.1 THE INTERNAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES

This figure is available online as an e-resource at www.routledge.com/9780415731959.

Modern South Arabian

Middle Aramaic (3rd c. bce–2nd c. ce)

2.1 East Semitic

Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Mehri Arabic Hebrew Aramaic

1sg *ʔak’bir aqbir ʔǝḳbǝr l-ək’beːr ʔaqbir ʔɛqbōr ʔeqbor

1pl *nak’bir niqbir nǝḳbǝr nək’beːr naqbir niqbōr neqbor

in West Semitic (Huehnergard 2003). A common Akkadian feature is the dissimilation of

2.2 West Semitic

Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Mehri Arabic Hebrew Aramaic

1sg *k’abir-(aː)ku qabrāku ḳäbärku k’əberk qabartu qå ̄ bartī qebret

1pl *k’abir-(aː)nu qabrāni ḳäbärnä k’əbuːrən qabarnaː qå ̄ barnū qbarn

2.2.2 Modern South Arabian

2.2.3 Central Semitic

 HE LONG PREFIX CONJUGATION (pcl) OF THE ROOT *K’-B-R ‘TO BURY’,

Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Mehri Arabic Hebrew

1sg *ʔVk’abbar aqabbir ʔəḳäbbər ək’awbər ʔaqbiru ʔɛqbōr

TABLE 1.5 (CONTINUED)

Proto-Semitic Akkadian Ethiopic Mehri Arabic Hebrew

2.2.3.1 Central Semitic: Ancient South Arabian

2.2.3.2 Central Semitic: North Arabian

2.2.3.3 Central Semitic: Northwest Semitic

3 WRITING SYSTEMS AND TRANSLITERATION SYSTEMS

A more comprehensive list of traditional Semitistic transliteration conventions for the

4 GRAMMATICAL TERMS USED IN SEMITIC STUDIES

Arabic bajt-u-n vs. bajt-u-

Biblical Hebrew bå̄tt-ē ham-mɛlɛk hag-gədōlīm

Biblical Hebrew kål yəm-ē hithallak-nū ʔitt-å̄m (asyndetic)

Old Akkadian in bēt-i sarr-i-m

Nunation/mimation: These terms refer to a morpheme that marks nonbound nominals

Classical Arabic bajt-u-n Old Akkadian bēt-u-m

Bulakh, Maria and Leonid Kogan. “More on Genealogical Classification of Ethiopian

Huehnergard, John. “Features of Central Semitic.” In Biblical and Oriental Essays

Pat-El, Na‘ama and Aren Wilson-Wright. “Features of Aramaeo-Canaanite.” Journal of

SEMITIC AND AFRO-ASIATIC GENE GRAGGSEMITIC AND AFRO-ASIATIC

MAP 2.1 APPROXIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF AFRO-ASIATIC LANGUAGE FAMILIES (OTHER

2 THE AFRO-ASIATIC LANGUAGE PHYLUM

16 million persons in a kind of “discontinuous continuum” (Kossmann 2012: 18, who

1 Earlier Egyptian: 3000–1300 bce, characterized by complex suffix-based mor-

Beja (Bedawiye, “North Cushitic”) is spoken by about 3,000,000 individuals belong-

supposedly forming the substrate of Ethiopian Semitic, introduced from southern

19 Ugaritic Josef Tropper and Juan-Pablo Vita482

HE LONG PREFIX CONJUGATION (pcl) OF THE ROOT *K’-B-R ‘TO BURY’,

MAP 2.1 APPROXIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF AFRO-ASIATIC LANGUAGE FAMILIES (OTHER

w assimilated to a following dental-alveolar stop: e.g., ja-t-wabal (3-recp-carry.