The Subgrouping of The Semitic Languages

Language and Linguistics Compass 2/1 (2008): 79–102, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00044.
The Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages

Aaron D. Rubin*
Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
The Semitic languages have enjoyed a long tradition of linguistic study, and remain
one of the most widely studied of the world’s language families. The large amount
of scholarship that is generated on both the ancient and modern languages
continues to have an effect on our understanding of the internal subgrouping of
the Semitic family. Unfortunately, for both the specialist and non-specialist,
reliable and up-to-date treatments of this topic are not easily found. This article
will survey the current views on Semitic subgrouping and highlight recent
scholarship on the issue.
1. Introduction
The Semitic family of languages is one of the longest attested, most widely
studied, and, thanks to Arabic, most widely spoken in the world. Yet, with
regards to the proper subgrouping of the Semitic family, a consensus has
not been reached among scholars, and probably never will be.1 Unfortunately,
for both the specialist and non-specialist, current and reliable information
is not always found in the available handbooks.2 This is especially true
since the last two decades have seen many advances in the scholarship of the
ancient languages, resulting in an improved understanding of the subgrouping
of the family. Therefore, an up-to-date survey of Semitic subgrouping seems
a worthwhile undertaking.
The current model of the subgrouping of the Semitic family is based
in large part on the work of Robert Hetzron, who, in a series of articles
in the 1970s, emphasized the importance of morphological innovations
over phonological innovations and typological similarities in determining
genetic relationships.3 The classification scheme proposed by Hetzron
for Semitic is still generally promoted today, though with some slight
modifications, in particular with regards to the Old South Arabian (OSA)
languages and the Central Semitic group. In the last two decades, Semitists
from all subfields of the discipline have continued to work toward the
refinement of Hetzron’s model.
Figure 1 shows the subgrouping of the Semitic family as it is best
understood given the facts available to date. In the sections that follow
© 2007 The Author
Journal Compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
80 Aaron D. Rubin
Fig. 1. The subgrouping of the Semitic language family.
(and which are referred to in parentheses within Figure 1), we will present
the evidence for this scheme and provide information regarding the
further subgrouping of some of these branches.
2. East vs. West Semitic

The primary division among the Semitic languages is between East Semitic,
comprising the various dialects of Akkadian and Eblaite, and West Semitic,
which includes everything else. This division has remained relatively
uncontroversial for more than a century.4 The basis for this division is a
major innovation that took place in the verbal system of West Semitic. In
West Semitic, the inherited prefixed past tense (yaqtul) was replaced by the
suffixed conjugation (qatala), which in East Semitic functions as a stative.5
This shared development of a stative into a past tense,6 and the replacement
(or marginalization) of the inherited past tense is a defining characteristic
of West Semitic, though there are, of course, other innovations that are
specific to these two branches. For example, East Semitic developed a new
perfect tense with an infixed t (iptaras) and a unique set of possessive
pronominal adjectives.7 Such additional isoglosses separating East and West
Semitic are important, for as Hetzron noted, referring to the West Semitic
suffixed conjugation past tense, ‘the chances for such an innovation having
taken place separately in [Central Semitic, Ethiopian, and Modern South
Arabian] are low (though not non-existent!).’8
3. East Semitic and Eblaite

Eblaite designates the language of ancient Ebla, modern Tell Mardikh,
which lies just south of Aleppo, Syria. The language was unknown until
the mid-1970s, when Italian excavators discovered thousands of cuneiform
© 2007 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 2/1 (2008): 79–102, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00044.x
The Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages 81
tablets at the site, all of which can be dated to a period that spans less than
a century, from the late twenty-fourth to the mid-twenty-third centuries
bce. Because of the nature of the cuneiform writing system used for
Eblaite – in particular the broad use of logograms and the ambiguity in
the representation of nearly all consonants and vowels – knowledge of the
language remains patchy. Soon after its discovery, claims were made that
Eblaite was an early form of Northwest Semitic.9 Since then, more careful
study has shown that Eblaite should instead be classified as East Semitic,
as it shares a number of innovative morphological isoglosses with Akkadian.10
These include the formation of masculine plural adjectives in -utum, the
terminative case -iš and locative case -um, the verbal patterns of quadriliteral
roots, the development of dative pronouns, and the prepositions in and
ana. There are isoglosses between Eblaite and West Semitic as well, such
as VSO word order, but this and other such features should be considered
retentions from Proto-Semitic.11 One can find Eblaite lexical isoglosses
with both Akkadian and West Semitic, but these are of no consequence
for classification.
It remains disputed whether or not Eblaite should be considered a
dialect of Old Akkadian, or whether it constitutes a separate branch of
East Semitic. The latter scenario seems more probable, as Eblaite exhibits
a few independent innovations and lacks some (minor) innovations present
in all dialects of Akkadian.12 For example, in Akkadian, word-initial m
(followed by a vowel other than u) was dissimilated to n when another
labial consonant appeared in the word (e.g. Old Babylonian Akkadian
narkabtum < markabtum ‘chariot’). This rule, known as Barth’s law, did not
operate in Eblaite. Some scholars, however, maintain that Eblaite should
be considered a dialect of Akkadian.13
4. Akkadian
Akkadian is attested in a number of dialects over a period covering roughly
two and a half millennia (ca. 2350 bce to 100 ce). The oldest recorded
Akkadian is designated Old Akkadian. Following the Old Akkadian
period (ca. 2000 bce), Akkadian is split into two principal dialects, Assyrian
and Babylonian, each of which is in turn divided into several chronological
periods. The Old Babylonian dialect is considered the ‘classical’ dialect
today, and Akkadian words and forms are typically cited in Old Babylonian.
A thorough study of the relationship of the Akkadian dialects has yet to
be undertaken, but its dialects (or phases) can be outlined as follows:
Old Akkadian
Old Babylonian Old Assyrian
Middle Babylonian Middle Assayrian
Neo-Babylonian Neo-Assyrian
Late Babylonian
82 Aaron D. Rubin
One often reads that Old Akkadian in its written form is not the direct
ancestor of the later dialects, much as standard Biblical Hebrew is not the
direct ancestor of Rabbinic Hebrew and written Old English is not the
direct ancestor of Middle English.14 However, the situation is not that
simple, as the Old Akkadian corpus is not linguistically homogeneous.
Recent study has shown that some Old Akkadian texts do in fact show
diagnostic Babylonian traits, while others reflect an archaic stage of the
language from which the later dialects could have derived.15 It is true,
however, that Middle Babylonian is not the direct descendent of Old
Babylonian, as Middle Babylonian preserves certain guttural letters in places
where they are lost in Old Babylonian.16
In addition to the paradigmatic dialects of Akkadian, there are a number
of dialects collectively designated Peripheral Akkadian. These are dialects
that are attested outside of the Assyrian and Babylonian homelands at
sites such as Nuzi, Alalakh, Mari, Emar, Ugarit, and El-Amarna.17 These
peripheral dialects all reflect the use of Akkadian as a lingua franca rather
than as a native tongue, and each exhibits varying degrees of substrate
influence from either West Semitic languages or non-Semitic languages
like Hittite and Hurrian. Most of the peripheral dialects are based on
Middle Babylonian, although often they also exhibit archaic or Assyrian
features.18 For these reasons, peripheral dialects are not classified genetically.
Peripheral dialects can, however, be grouped with regard to certain features,
such as their orthographic traditions.19
5. Central Semitic
Among the West Semitic languages, there is a division between the Ethiopian
languages, the Modern South Arabian (MSA) languages, and the Central
Semitic languages. Central Semitic was first defined as such by Hetzron.20
The chief morphological feature that led Hetzron to posit the Central
Semitic group is the development of a new imperfective verbal form
(yaqtulu). This form is made up of the inherited prefixed conjugation
(yaqtul ) with the addition of a suffixed -u (after a consonant) or -na/ni
(after a vowel). These suffixes are undoubtedly to be connected with the
markers of subordination found in Akkadian.21 This new verbal form
completely replaced the inherited imperfective form of the pattern
yVqattVl, which is still found in East Semitic, Ethiopian, and MSA. That
the pattern yVqattVl must be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic, as first argued
by Haupt (1878), is proven both by the attestation of this pattern elsewhere
in Afro-Asiatic and by peculiarities present in the verbal forms of both
Ethiopic and Akkadian that are unlikely to have arisen by accident.22
Since the 1970s, there has been much written on the topic of Central
Semitic. The most notable studies are those of Voigt (1987) and Huehn-
ergard (2005), the latter of which is the most thorough treatment of the
topic to date. In his study, Huehnergard reviews sixteen features common to
Central Semitic, in order to determine which of these likely reflect shared

innovations as opposed to shared retentions, areal phenomena, or independent
developments. He concludes that of the sixteen, five are reliably designated
shared innovations: the development of imperfective yaqtulu (see above)
and the tense-mood-aspect system in general; the forms of the ‘tens’
(twenty, thirty, forty, etc.); the distribution of the vowels in verbal prefixes
(the so-called Barth-Ginsburg law); a syntactic construction in which a
demonstrative is inserted after an interrogative (as well as the interrogative
form *mah ‘what?’); and the cognate forms of the rare Hebrew demonstrative
hallaz and the Arabic relative pronoun, ’allaði. This last feature is certainly
a shared innovation, but that it appears only in Hebrew and Arabic gives
it limited value to a discussion of Central Semitic. Nevertheless, by
assembling these and the many other features shared by Central Semitic,
Huehnergard has confirmed the validity of Central Semitic as a subgroup
of West Semitic.
Faber has suggested that a major innovation that defines Central Semitic
is the development of a series of pharyngealized consonants from the
inherited series of Proto-Semitic glottalic consonants (the so-called
‘emphatics’). This claim is problematic for several reasons. Faber argues
that certain assimilation rules present in the Hebrew hithpael conjugation,
and in the various Aramaic t-stems, suggest the presence of pharyngeali-
zation.23 This assimilation can be seen in forms like Aramaic (Syriac) ’estallah
‘it was ripped open’ (< *’estallah < *’etsallah), and is explainable by the
fact that pharyngealization has a tendency to spread. This alone is weak
evidence for reconstructing pharyngealization for the early Central Semitic
emphatics, since there is no evidence as to how the emphatics were
pronounced in OSA or Ugaritic.24 Moreover, there is also evidence for
glottalics in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician. Steiner has given detailed
evidence for an affricated pronunciation of s in Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Phoenician, suggesting the presence of a glottalic series of consonants,
rather than a pharyngealized series.25 A final problem pertaining to the
issue of pharyngealization, and one more damaging to Faber’s theory, is
that a phonetic feature of this type could have easily spread due to areal
influence, and is thus poor evidence of genetic relationship. Faber also
suggests that the development of the negative particle *bal is common to
Central Semitic.26
Details pertaining to the individual members of Central Semitic and
their inclusion in this group will be discussed in the following sections.
6. Arabic
Arabic shares a number of linguistic features with the other southern
(geographically speaking) Semitic languages, namely, those of the OSA,
MSA, and Ethiopian language groups. Among these features are the shift
of Proto-Semitic *p > f, the widespread use of internal (broken) plurals,
84 Aaron D. Rubin
the existence of a verbal stem with a long first vowel (the L-stem, qatala),
and numerous shared lexical items. This has in the past led many scholars
to group Arabic with these other languages into a branch of Semitic called
South (or Southwest) Semitic.27 All of these common features, however,
can be explained as retentions from Proto-Semitic or as the result of areal
phenomena, and today Arabic is included by most scholars in the Central
Semitic subgroup, with the Northwest Semitic and Old South Arabian
languages, as outlined above in Figure 1.
The idea that Arabic should be connected more closely with Hebrew
and Aramaic, as against the more southerly languages, was first suggested
by V. Christian.28 But, it was really the work of R. Hetzron that proved
that morphological innovations in Arabic – most importantly the indicative
yaqtulu form and the vocalization of verbal prefixes – rule against the once
traditional classification scheme.29 Recent work on Central Semitic by
J. Huehnergard has strengthened Hetzron’s arguments (see above, Section
5); however, there is still no universal agreement on the position of Arabic
within the Semitic family. Many scholars still group Arabic with the other
southern Semitic languages (i.e. Ethiopian, OSA, and MSA), with which
Arabic undeniably shares many similarities.30
The most salient argument for the genetic affiliation of Arabic with the
other southern languages is the complex system of internal (broken) plurals
found in only these languages. Internal plurals can be reconstructed as a
Proto-Semitic feature, since remnants are found in Akkadian and North-
west Semitic, but only in Arabic and the other southern languages is the
use of internal plurals so pervasive. Not only this, but the patterns of these
plurals bear strong similarities, suggesting a period of common innovation
among these languages. A thorough comparative study of this topic has
been made by R. Ratcliffe.31 Ratcliffe recognizes that Arabic shares
morphological innovations with the Northwest Semitic languages (as
proposed by Hetzron), but argues that the system of broken plurals
represent additional morphological innovations shared with Ethiopian, OSA,
and MSA (which together he calls Southwest Semitic). Ratcliffe’s arguments
are strong, but it is still not certain that the similarities of the Southwest
Semitic languages cannot be considered areal phenomena. Perhaps, as
Ratcliffe himself notes, Arabic (and Semitic in general) cannot be simply
classified using the tree model.32
6.1 NEO-ARABIC DIALECT SUBGROUPING
The modern Arabic language can be divided into a number of dialect

groups, which in turn contain a large number of dialects. Some of these
dialects are so different from one another that one should technically
speak of the modern Arabic languages, in plural. The main reason for
speaking of a single Arabic language today is the fact that, for the purposes
of writing (and formal speech), Arabic speakers use a modern version of
the classical language, known as Modern Standard Arabic, or by Arabic

speakers usually as fusha. Thus, all Arabic speakers share a common written
language, though their vernacular tongues can differ considerably.
Scholars usually divide the modern dialects into five major groups:
Arabian peninsular, Mesopotamian, Syro-Palestinian (or Syro-Lebanese),
Egyptian, and Maghrebine (or North African).33 This division is mainly
geographic, though there are indeed linguistic characteristics that pertain
to each group. The individual dialects within each of these groups can
vary considerably, not only with respect to location, but often also with
respect to religious affiliation. For example, one cannot speak accurately
of Baghdadi Arabic, but only of Muslim, Jewish, or Christian Baghdadi
Arabic.34 Linguistic subgrouping of the Arabic dialects is an enormously
difficult task and so scholars have for the most part remained satisfied with
this rough geographical division.35
One Neo-Arabic dialect stands apart from the rest, in that it can safely
be designated as a separate language. This is Maltese, spoken on Malta and
its neighboring islands. Maltese has no tradition of written Arabic (in its
classical or modern standardized form), and instead has developed a written
tradition of its own, using the Roman script. But historically it can be
classified as a Maghrebine dialect,36 and despite the many phonological
and lexical influences of Romance languages (and more recently, English),
it is still easily recognizable as such.
6.2 ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN DIALECTS
Ancient North Arabian is a cover term for several closely related dialects
that are attested in inscriptions found mainly in the territories that are
now Syria and Jordan, and which date from about the eighth century bce
to the fourth century ce. Ancient North Arabian is attested about a
millennium before Arabic, but none of these dialects are the ancestor of
Arabic. Ancient North Arabian should be considered distinct from, though
closely related to, the language that would become Classical Arabic. This
scenario is sketched in Figure 2.
Fig. 2. The relationship of Arabic and Ancient North Arabian.
Traditionally, the North Arabian dialects include Thamudic, Lihyanite,

Safaitic, and Hasaitic, though the terms Thamudic and Lihyanite have
86 Aaron D. Rubin
often been misused and are no longer in favor. More precise are the terms
promoted by M. Macdonald, who distinguishes Taymanitic, Dadanitic,
Dumaitic, Safaitic, Hismaic, and Hasaitic.37 The hallmark of these dialects
is the appearance of the prefixed definite article h(n)- (or no article), as
opposed to the Arabic definite article ’al-.38 Other distinctive features
include the frequent assimilation of n to a following consonant and the
absence (apparently) of the common Arabic preposition fi ‘in’.
Nearly all Ancient North Arabian inscriptions are quite short,39 and this
fact, coupled with the lack of vocalization in the scripts used, have limited
our knowledge of the dialects. However, this knowledge continues to
improve with the discovery and publication of new texts. Further study
needs to be done on how these dialects are similar to and different from
Arabic, in order to arrive at a better understanding of their common
ancestor. Perhaps such a study will help us to accurately determine the
position of Arabic within Semitic.
7. Old South Arabian

Old South Arabian, also known as Epigraphic South Arabian, includes four
languages (or dialects), called Sabaic, Minaic, Qatabanic, and Hadramitic.40
These designations are based on those of the third-century Greek geographer
Eratosthenes. A better designation for this group as a whole is Sayhadic,
which was suggested by A. F. L. Beeston.41 Not only does this term do
away with misleading connections with Arabic and the MSA group, but
it also allows the possibility of distinguishing Sabaic, Minaic, Qatabanic,
and Hadramitic from the rare and very poorly understood other epigraphic
languages of ancient South Arabia.42
The Sayhadic languages are known almost exclusively from monumental
texts. There are several thousands of these, though the great majority of
these are in Sabaic. Hadramitic is especially poorly attested, with perhaps
only a few dozen texts published to date. The limited content of the
monumental texts, the almost complete lack of vocalization in the script,
and the paucity of material for some of the languages mean that many
features of the languages are unknown. Enough is known, however, to
allow for a reasonably certain classification of their position within the
Semitic family.
The Sayhadic languages share a number of areal features with Arabic,
MSA, and Ethiopic, notably the shift of Proto-Semitic *p > f, widespread
use of broken plurals, and a number of lexical items. Because of these
features, and its geographic location, Sayhadic has traditionally been
grouped with these languages into the group called South Semitic. However,
as discussed above (Section 6), it has been demonstrated that Arabic should
be classified as Central Semitic, the hallmark of which is the development
of the imperfective yaqtulu form. Finding such a development in Sayhadic
is not so simple, as the script used for the languages indicates neither
vowels nor gemination of consonants. So, an inscriptional form yqtl could

represent either a Central Semitic type imperfective yaqtulu or an Ethiopic/
MSA type imperfective yVqattVl. There has been much debate over this
issue, but N. Nebes has shown, based on the orthography of forms made
from weak verbal roots, that the Sayhadic languages, like Arabic, possess
an imperfective of the Central Semitic type.43 Huehnergard has since given
further evidence in favor of the classification of the Sayhadic languages as
Central Semitic.44
Until quite recently, it was assumed by most scholars that the OSA
languages must be the ancestors of the MSA languages, and not only
because of the misleading designations.45 Both groups are attested in
Southern Arabia. Both groups preserve the three Proto-Semitic sibilants
(s, š, and s), in contrast with almost all other Semitic languages. Both make
broad use of internal (broken) plurals, and the languages share a number
of lexical items. The recognition that the Sayhadic languages should be
classified as Central Semitic has made it clear that such a connection is
untenable. However, even without this fact, the innovations present in
Sayhadic and lacking in MSA should have made this clear; for example,
the presence of a suffixed definite article -(h)n in all Sayhadic languages.
It has been suggested that Hadramitic – the most divergent of the
Sayhadic languages – may in fact be connected with the MSA languages.46
Hadramitic is the most easterly of the Sayhadic languages, and its homeland
(the Hadramawt, in central Yemen) approaches the Mahra, the westernmost
area of present-day MSA territory. More importantly, Hadramitic exhibits
a curious set of third person pronouns, namely, masculine singular š /*šu/
and feminine singular s /*si/.47 Compare these to the third-person pronouns
of the other OSA dialects and some other Semitic languages, as presented
in Figure 3.48
Fig. 3. Third person pronouns in OSA and elsewhere in Semitic.
As can be seen from the Figure 3, only in Hadramitic and in the MSA
languages is there a consonantal distinction between the masculine and
feminine pronouns.49 Elsewhere the distinction is made only by the fol-
lowing vowel. The consonantal distinction may be a Proto-Semitic fea-
ture, in which case we are dealing with a shared retention. However, it is
more likely that we are dealing with an innovation. Perhaps when Proto-
Semitic *s shifted to h or š, as happened in the pronominal system of most
Semitic languages, Proto-MSA blocked this change in the feminine form,
in order to preserve greater contrast.50 Neighboring Hadramitic may have
shared this development due to language contact.
88 Aaron D. Rubin
Hadramitic and the MSA languages have another curious isogloss,

namely, the preposition h- ‘to’. There are also possible lexical isoglosses,
but these are of little value in classification.51 Despite these connections
between Hadramitic and MSA, there are a number of features of Hadramitic
that preclude it from being the ancestor of the modern languages, most
importantly the merger of s and θ, and possibly also z and ð, each of which
is distinct in the modern languages;52 the use of the common Sayhadic
preposition bn ‘from’, vs. Mehri men, Soqotri men, etc.;53 and the presence
of the suffixed definite article in Hadramitic, vs. the prefixed article (or
complete lack of article) in MSA. Therefore, it seems safest to say only
that the Hadramitic may have been influenced by the spoken language(s)
of its neighbors, or vice versa.
8. Northwest Semitic
The Northwest Semitic (NWS) languages include Ugaritic, Aramaic, the
Canaanite languages (or dialects), Sam’alian, and the language of the Deir
‘Alla inscription. These languages all share a number of innovations, the
most recognizable of which is the shift (with few exceptions, most notably
the conjunction wa-) of word-initial w > y. This change means that no
verbal root can have w as its first consonant in these languages. A shared
morphological innovation among these languages (and thus a more
important one) is the plural pattern used for nouns of the historical shape
CVCC.54 For these nouns, often referred to as segholate nouns, the plural
form contains the vowel a between the second and third root consonants,
as well as a suffixed plural marker [e.g. Hebrew melek (< *malk) ‘king’,
melakim (< *malak-im) ‘kings’]. The inserted a is a remnant of the internal
(broken) type of plural marking, which otherwise is absent from NWS,
save perhaps the occasional frozen lexical form. Such plurals are thus
doubly marked, by internal and external means, and it is precisely this
double marking that is remarkable, as internal plural-marking alone is a
shared inheritance from Proto-Semitic.55
Another possible shared NWS innovation is found in the pronominal
system. In Proto-Semitic, the first common plural independent pronoun
can be reconstructed as *nihnu, but in Canaanite (Hebrew and Phoenician)
and Aramaic, a prefixed ’a- has been added to this form, certainly due to
the fact that all other first- and second-person pronouns contain this
onset. Unfortunately, the 1cp pronoun remains unattested in Ugaritic,
Sam’alian, and in the Deir ‘Alla inscription, and so it remains uncertain
whether or not this change is common to all of NWS.
9. Canaanite
The Canaanite group includes several very closely related ancient languages,
at least some of which were in all likelihood mutually intelligible. Hebrew
and Phoenician are both well attested,56 while Moabite, Ammonite, and
Edomite are very poorly attested. Of these last three, it is only Moabite
for which we possess an inscription of any significant length. Many early
Canaanite words and verbal forms are also attested in the corpus of Akkadian
letters found at El-Amarna in Egypt (fourteenth century bce), and these
provide evidence for a Canaanite language several hundred years before
the attestation of the known languages.
The Canaanite languages, including the forms from the El-Amarna
letters, all share a number of innovations.57 These include: the shift of a to i
in the initial syllable of D- and C-stem perfects, that is, D-stem qittil (< qattil)
and C-stem hiqtil < haqtil;58 the shift of inherited a > o (the so-called
Canaanite shift); the replacement of -u with -i in the 1cs pronoun and 1cs
suffix of the perfect, that is, ’anoki < ’anaku and qatal-ti < qatal-tu; and the
leveling of the 1cp pronominal suffix -nu in all functions (verbal, objective,
and possessive).
10. Aramaic
Aramaic is first attested from the ninth century bce, around the same time
as the first attestation of Hebrew. This makes Aramaic and Hebrew the
Semitic languages with the longest attested histories. Yet, unlike Hebrew,
Aramaic has never ceased to be a living, spoken language.59 During the
nearly three millennia of its attestation, Aramaic can be divided into a large
number of dialects, both chronologically and geographically.60 There are
various schemes for dividing Aramaic into chronological periods, but a
widely accepted one is the following: Old Aramaic (ca. 900 –700 bce),
Imperial Aramaic (ca. 700–200 bce),61 Middle Aramaic (ca. 200 bce–200 ce),
Late Aramaic (ca. 200 –700 ce), and Modern Aramaic (until the present).62
As an emendation to this popular scheme, it is useful and more accurate
to divide the Imperial Aramaic period into two: Early Imperial Aramaic
(ca. 700 –550 bce) and Imperial Aramaic (ca. 550 –200 bce). Discussion
of Aramaic dialects can often be confused by the fact that there are several
terms that refer to corpora containing more than one Aramaic dialect
(e.g. Biblical Aramaic, Targumic Aramaic, Talmudic Aramaic, and Qumran
Aramaic), as well as terms that refer to a corpus within a dialect (e.g.
Egyptian Aramaic within Imperial Aramaic).63 Such terms certainly have
their place in scholarship, but not within the context of the present
discussion of subgrouping.
Already in the Old Aramaic period, there is evidence of geographic
dialect differences, but it is not until the end of the Middle Aramaic
period that such differences fully manifest themselves in the records. At
this time, a clear distinction between western (Palestinian and northern
Arabian) and eastern (Syrian and Mesopotamian) dialects becomes evident.
The most notable characteristic feature of the eastern dialects – which
includes Syriac, Jewish Babylonian, Hatran, and Mandaic – is the
90 Aaron D. Rubin
replacement of the inherited third-person preformative y- of the prefixed

conjugation with the preformative l-/n-.64
10.1 NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT SUBGROUPING
The Aramaic language has developed into a number of modern dialects,

many of which are distinct enough to be called languages. These are spoken
in a discontiguous area covering parts of Syria, southeastern Turkey, northern
Iraq, and northwestern and southwestern Iran.65 The split between eastern
and western dialects that is seen already in the Middle and Late Aramaic
periods has survived into the present, though none of the modern
languages is the direct descendent of any recorded ancient dialect. In the
modern remnant of the western branch, known as Western Neo-Aramaic,
there survive only three closely related dialects, spoken in the Syrian
villages of Ma‘lula, Bax‘a, and Jubb‘adin. These dialects are well studied,
thanks especially to the work of W. Arnold.66 The rest of the modern
languages, those of the Eastern Neo-Aramaic branch, can be further divided
into three subgroups: Central Eastern Neo-Aramaic (CENA), Northeastern
Neo-Aramaic (NENA),67 and Neo-Mandaic. The relationship of the modern
languages is illustrated in Figure 4.
Fig. 4. The Neo-Aramaic languages.
The Central Eastern Neo-Aramaic branch includes just Turoyo – one

of the most thriving Neo-Aramaic dialects – and the closely related dialect
of Mlahso. On the other hand, the NENA subgroup includes a large
number of dialects, many of which are mutually unintelligible.68 Several
of these have been well studied in recent years, but many more have yet
to be investigated fully. Until this happens, a full understanding of NENA
and its subgrouping will not be possible. Nevertheless, the appearance of
many Neo-Aramaic grammars over the last two decades has provided a
large amount of material to begin work on subgrouping, and several
studies on this topic have appeared.69 One interesting fact that complicates
subgrouping of the NENA languages is that dialect grouping is in many
cases based on religious affiliation, rather than geographic location. So, for
example, the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of one village may be incom-
prehensible to the Christian Neo-Aramaic speakers of the same village,
but not to Jewish speakers of another. Such a state of affairs is somewhat
analogous to the situation of African American Vernacular English, which
defies the traditional geographical dialect boundaries of the USA.
The NENA languages shed little light on subgrouping of the Semitic

family as a whole, but the subgrouping of these languages themselves is
an area for fruitful future research.
11. Ugaritic
Since the decipherment of Ugaritic, which occurred shortly after its
discovery in 1929, there has been an ongoing debate as to its exact
position in the Semitic family. It has recently been pointed out by F. Israel
that there have been over 35 different theories on the classification of
Ugaritic!70 It was claimed already in the 1930s that Ugaritic should be
considered a Canaanite language, and this position still finds some adherents.71
However, the evidence for this is poor. Segert, for example, lists the
features that Ugaritic shares with Canaanite as including the shifts of
Proto-Semitic * ’ (d) > s and (on occasion) *θ > š, the assimilation of n,
external masculine plurals in -m, the collapse of diphthongs, and certain
lexical items.72 All of these, however, are useless for the purposes of
classification; some are simply shared retentions, while others are either
natural, coincidental changes or areal phenomena (e.g. the phonetic
changes).
Instead, Ugaritic is best classified as an independent branch of North-
west Semitic. As discussed above (Section 8), Ugaritic shares a number of
features with Canaanite and Aramaic, as against Arabic and OSA. The
most important of these is the double plural marking that occurs with the
CVCC class of nouns, that is, nouns of the shape qatl, qitl, or qutl.73
12. Sam’alian and Deir ‘Alla

Sam’alian is the term for the language (or dialect) of three monumental
inscriptions from ancient Sam’al, modern Zinjirli in southeastern Turkey,
which date from about 820 –730 bce.74 Some consider this a dialect of
Aramaic, while others consider it a separate branch of Northwest Semitic.75
The determining factor should be whether Sam’alian participates in any
of the innovations that characterize Aramaic, or at least shares innovations
with Aramaic as against Canaanite and Ugaritic. In fact, it does not
exhibit any of the innovations that characterize Aramaic, such as the
definite article -a, the loss of the N-stem, and the feminine plural nominal
ending -an.76 In addition, the Sam’alian features that are shared with
Aramaic are extremely poor evidence for linking them together as a
subgroup of Northwest Semitic.77 Therefore, Sam’alian is best considered
a separate branch of Northwest Semitic.78
Similarly, the language (or dialect) of the inscription found at Deir ‘Alla
(ca. eighth century bce) is also best considered an independent branch of
Northwest Semitic, as there are no distinctive features linking it with
Canaanite, Aramaic, or Ugaritic.79
92 Aaron D. Rubin
13. Ethiopian
Ethiopian Semitic is classified here as a distinct branch of West Semitic,
as it is unclear whether or not there are innovations that warrant grouping
it together with the MSA languages. The branch includes about two dozen
languages,80 the most important of which is Amharic, the modern Semitic
language with the second largest number of speakers. At least three of the
languages – Ge‘ez, Gafat, and Argobba – are extinct, though the latter two
became so only in the last several decades. With the exception of Ge‘ez,
the classical language of Ethiopia first attested in the fourth century ce,
our knowledge of Ethiopian Semitic comes mainly from the modern
period. All but a few of the languages remain without a written tradition.
Wolf Leslau has been by far the most prolific scholar ever to work on the
Ethiopian languages, though it is the work of Robert Hetzron that has given us
the best understanding of the group’s internal classification. In a comprehensive
study published in 1972, Hetzron gave us the model of classification for
Ethiopian Semitic that is widely accepted and promoted today. In fact, there
has been little work on Ethiopian Semitic classification since Hetzron, in part
because the political situation in Ethiopia since the 1970s has made fieldwork
impossible or unattractive,81 and in part because Hetzron’s work was so
thorough. A number of the Ethiopian languages lack comprehensive grammars,
and so future work may shed new light on the classification of these languages.
One area of interest should be the dialect spoken by just two or three
thousand people on the Dahlak archipelago, off the coast of Eritrea. A recent
short study of this dialect by M. Simeone-Senelle (2005) suggests that this
may be a previously unrecognized, distinct North Ethiopic language.
Figure 5 contains an outline of the Ethiopian branch of Semitic,
extracted from Hetzron (1972).
Fig. 5. Ethiopian Semitic. Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of languages within a
subgroup.
14. Modern South Arabian
Modern South Arabian is the umbrella term for a group of six unwritten
languages spoken in eastern Yemen, western Oman, and on the island
groups of Soqotra and Kuria Maria. These languages are Mehri, Jibbali
(or Sheri), Harsusi, Soqotri, Hobyot (or Hobi), and Bathari.82 Mehri,
Jibbali, and Soqotri in turn have a number of dialects.83 Only discovered
by western scholars in the nineteenth century, these languages remain
among the most understudied of the Semitic tongues. As discussed in
detail above, the term MSA can be very misleading, as these languages are
not the descendants of those called OSA (see Section 7), nor are they
dialects of Arabic.
The exact position of MSA within West Semitic is unclear. It is certain
that, like the Ethiopian branch, it is distinct from Central Semitic, because
it did not participate in the innovation of the indicative yaqtulu form.84
But do MSA and Ethiopian stem from a single node? Many have argued
just this.85 They share many features, most of which are also shared by
Arabic and/or OSA, but these features are shared retentions from Proto-
Semitic or are the result of areal phenomena (e.g. the leveling of k-suffixes
in the perfect). The most important morphological feature shared by
MSA and Ethiopian to the exclusion of Arabic and OSA is the presence
of the imperfective form yVqattVl; this, however, is also a retention from
Proto-Semitic (as attested by its presence in Akkadian), and is therefore of
no use in classification. At present, MSA should be considered an inde-
pendent branch of West Semitic.86
Currently, there exists no modern comprehensive grammatical study,
synchronic or diachronic, of any MSA language. The grammars of Bathari
and Hobyot are especially poorly known. Therefore, the internal subgrouping
of the MSA languages cannot as yet be determined with certainty. However,
it is clear that Harsusi and Bathari are very closely related to Mehri, as
they share a number of innovative features.87 For example, in these three
languages the active participle has developed into a future tense, while
Jibbali and Hobyot both have developed other means of expressing the
future tense, and Soqotri has no such development.88 Soqotri is the most
typologically divergent of the languages, which is not surprising given the
remote location of its speakers (on Soqotra and smaller neighboring islands).89
Of course, typology is not relevant to the study of genetic relationships.
In fact, there are several morphological isoglosses between Jibbali and Soqotri
that suggest that these two form a group. For example, they share the
conditioned loss of prefixed t- in certain verbal forms, as well as remnants
of certain productive feminine forms in -i.90 Hobyot shows heavy influence
from both Mehri and Jibbali, but it exhibits independent innovations as
well. Its exact classification remains difficult, however, in no small part because
of the almost total lack of published data on this language. The languages may
be tentatively classified as in Figure 6, which is taken from Lonnet (2006).
94 Aaron D. Rubin
Mehri, Harsusi, Bathari
Fig. 6. The Modern South Arabian languages.
16. Summary
Following are some of the main points pertaining to the subgrouping of
the Semitic languages:
a. West Semitic is differentiated from East Semitic foremost by the
development of the inherited stative (qatala) into a past tense, while the
inherited past tense (yaqtul) has been marginalized or lost.
b. Central Semitic is characterized most importantly by the development
of the indicative form yaqtulu.
c. It is unclear whether or not the Ethiopian and MSA languages share a
common ancestor as distinct from Central Semitic.
d. Within Central Semitic, the Northwest Semitic languages are characterized
by several shared developments, including the change of initial w to y,
the double plural marking on nouns of the pattern CVCC, and possibly
the prefixing of ’a- to the inherited 1cp independent pronoun.
e. The Canaanite languages are characterized by the shift of a to i in the
initial syllable of D- and C-stem perfects, the Canaanite shift (*a > o),
the replacement of -u with -i in the 1cs pronoun and 1cs suffix of the
perfect, and the leveling of the 1cp pronominal suffix -nu in all functions.
f. The MSA languages are not descended from the OSA languages, nor
are they closely connected (genetically) with Arabic. Due to a lack of
reliable data for several of the languages, internal subgrouping remains
to be accurately determined.
g. The Ethiopian languages comprise perhaps the most diverse group
within Semitic, and the subgrouping of these languages has been
carefully studied.
h. Arabic and Aramaic have developed a wide variety of modern forms,
and thorough classification work remains to be done on these many
dialects.
Short Biography
Since 2004, Aaron Rubin has been Mal and Lea Bank Early Career
Professor of Jewish Studies and Assistant Professor of Classics and Ancient
Mediterranean Studies at Pennsylvania State University. His research
interests lie primarily in comparative Semitic linguistics, so far with particular
attention to the historical grammars of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic,

and to the syntax and morphology of Mehri. He also has a great interest
in the history of the study of Hebrew grammar, from the early middle
ages to modern times. He is the author of two books, Studies in Semitic
Grammaticalization (Eisenbrauns, 2005) and Samuel David Luzzatto, Prolegomena
to a Grammar of the Hebrew Language (Gorgias, 2005). He holds a BA and
MA in Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania and a PhD in Near
Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University.
Notes
* Correspondence address: Aaron D. Rubin, Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean
Studies, 108 Weaver Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Email: adr10@psu.edu.
1
The history of Semitic classification is discussed by Hetzron (1974), Voigt (1987), and Rubio
(2003).
2
Excellent synopses of Semitic subgrouping can be found in Faber (1997) and Huehnergard
(1992a, 1995a), with Faber providing the most detailed discussion. Huehnergard (2004) presents
the current scheme (and very valuable Proto-Semitic reconstructions), though specific discussion
of classification is very brief.
3
Cf. Hetzron (1974, 1975, 1976). On Hetzron’s contribution to the subgrouping of the
Ethiopian languages, see below, Section 13.
4
The statement made by Lipinski (1997: 47) that ‘this [East-West] conception can no more be
sustained’ would find very few adherents.
5
P. Haupt (1878) first recognized that the qatala past tense found in West Semitic was an
innovation, and that the Akkadian prefixed past tense must be archaic. It was F. Hommel,
however, who recognized the implications of this for the subgrouping of Semitic; cf. Hommel
(1883: 63, 442; 1892: 92–97; 1926: 75 – 82).
6
See my discussion elsewhere on the origins and development of the Semitic stative (Rubin
2005: 26 – 8).
7
For further on the innovations specific to East and West Semitic, see Huehnergard (2006).
On the existence of the form iptaras in Eblaite, see Rubio (2006: 122).
8
Hetzron (1976: 105).
9
Cf. Pettinato (1975: 373 – 74 = 1979: 16 –17), Dahood (1981). Still others have seen Eblaite
as forming a distinct North Semitic branch. For example, Lipinski (1997: 50) groups Eblaite
(which he terms ‘Palaeosyrian’) with Ugaritic and Amorite (the latter known only from proper
names in Akkadian and Egyptian texts) as North Semitic.
10
On this conclusion, see Gelb (1981: 46 –52), Caplice (1981), Krebernik (1996), and the
excellent recent studies of Rubio (2003, 2006) and Huehnergard (2006).
11
Huehnergard (2006: 4).
12
Cf. Huehnergard (2006: 4–5).
13
Cf. Dombrowski (1988), Krebernik (1996).
14
Cf. Reiner (1966: 21, 113 –14), Huehnergard and Woods (2004: 219). For some arguments
supporting this conclusion, see Kienast (1981).
15
See the study of Hasselbach (2007).
16
Examples and discussion can be found in Aro (1955: 75 – 8).
17
The Akkadian texts from El-Amarna (Egypt) are letters that originated in a variety of locales,
most of which were Canaanite speaking areas (i.e. modern Israel and Lebanon).
18
For an example of an archaism in peripheral Akkadian, see Moran (1973). On Assyrianisms
see Moran (1975) and the sources in the following note.
19
On issues pertaining to peripheral dialects, including their classification and divergent features,
see Huehnergard (1989: 20, 271– 84), Pentiuc (2001: 12).
20
Hetzron (1974, 1976). For Hetzron, Central Semitic included Aramaic, Arabic, and Canaanite.
96 Aaron D. Rubin
21
On the development of the Central Semitic indicative, see Hamori (1973) and Rubin (2005:
146 – 8).
22
The Afro-Asiastic background of this form was demonstrated by Rössler (1951 [= 2001: 341–56],
1981 [= 2001: 693 –72]) and Greenberg (1952), though both of these authors should be read
with caution; see also Lipinski (1997: 339, 382–3). For the internal evidence, see Gensler (1997).
23
Faber (1990: 629, 1997: 8).
24
For a discussion of Ugaritic emphatics, see Tropper (2000: 96 – 8).
25
See Steiner (1982) for discussion.
26
Faber (1991, 1997: 9). Strangely, Faber ignores the occurrence of bl ‘without’ in OSA. This
fits with the presentation of Central Semitic in this article, but Faber herself (in these works,
at least) does not classify OSA as Central Semitic.
27
Cf. the classic reference work of Nöldeke (1899: 17 = 1911: 621). Many modern scholars
still use this evidence to promote this scenario, for example, Blau (1978), Diem (1980); see also
Corriente (1996).
28
Christian (1919 –20).
29
Hetzron (1974, 1976).
30
See Zaborski (1991, 1994) for discussion of this ongoing debate.
31
Ratcliffe (1998a,b).
32
Ratcliffe (1998b: 122).
33
For an overview of the dialects and this system of division, see Fischer and Jastrow (1980:
20–38) and Versteegh (1997: 130 –72).
34
See the classic study of Blanc (1964).
35
There have been some more careful linguistic studies of dialect groups in recent years, but
no comprehensive work. See Behnstedt and Woidich (2005) for an excellent overview.
36
It was Nöldeke (1904) who first made this clear. See the discussion in Borg (1978: 343 –7).
37
Macdonald (2000, 2004). Macdonald continues to use the older terms Thamudic B, C, D,
and Southern Thamudic for those texts which are essentially unclassified.
38
See Rubin (2005: 65 –90) for a discussion of the forms of the articles and their origins.
39
According to Macdonald (2004: 490), of the 40,000 or so inscriptions, 98% are graffiti that
usually consist of names only.
40
The first three of these are also referred to as Sabaean, Minaean, and Qatabanian. Recently,
South Arabian scholars have suggested replacing the names Minaic/Minaean with Madhabic;
cf. Robin (1991: 98) and Macdonald (2000: 30). For an overview of the languages, see Robin
(1991: 93 –100).
41
Beeston (1984: 1).
42
See the discussions in Beeston (1987) and Macdonald (2000: 30 –1).
43
Nebes (1994). Nebes also provides discussion of the history of the debate.
44
It should be noted that already Voigt (1987) argued for the inclusion the Sayhadic languages
in the Central Semitic branch.
45
Although many scholars have made such a connection with accompanying doubts, for
example, Huehnergard (1992a: 158, 1995a: 2120), Lipinski (1997: 81). Already Rabin (1963:
108 n. 1) recognized that the MSA languages do not descend from the OSA, but it was the
short article of Porkhomovsky (1997) that has most influenced recent scholarship.
46
Cf. Huehnergard (1992a: 158; 2004: 142).
47
I transcribe here <š> and <s> in place of the traditional, but more cumbersome, <s1> and
<s3>. It is not relevant for our purposes whether the symbols <š> and <s> accurately reflect
the phonetics of Hadramitic. It is possible that <s1> and <s3> actually represent [s] and [ts],
which are their Proto-Semitic values.
48
Forms with asterisks in Qatabanic and Minaic are unattested, but are based on other attested
forms of the pronoun, such as the suffixed forms.
49
The initial h of the Mehri 3ms form is derived from an earlier sibilant, just as the h’s of
Sabaic, Hebrew, and Arabic undoubtedly are.
50
Cf. the introduction of the feminine pronouns with initial sh- (she, scho, etc.) in Middle
English dialects, replacing the inherited forms with initial h-, in order to remove ambiguity.
51
See Frantsouzoff (1997: 115 –17, 123). Frantsouzoff also suggests an additional morphological
isogloss, but this is rather speculative, as it is based on a single Hadramitic form, of uncertain
etymology.
52
Beeston (1984: 68). Note that these sounds have fallen together in some dialects of Mehri
and in Soqotri, but this is an internal development.
53
Arguably, the modern preposition could be explained as an Arabic borrowing.
54
Cf. Ginsburg (1970: 102), Huehnergard (1991: 284).
55
Indeed, plural patterns of the type CVCaC for singulars of the pattern CVCC are found in
other branches of Semitic.
56
The claim made by Kaufman (1996: 278) that Hebrew is not Canaanite is unsubstantiated.
57
Cf. Huehnergard (1991: 285 – 6). See also the pioneering work of Harris (1939).
58
For the reconstructed forms of the D-stem (qittil) and C-stem (hiqtil ), see Huehnergard
(1992b).
59
From about the fourth to nineteenth centuries ce, Hebrew functioned as a literary and
liturgical language, and not as anyone’s native tongue.
60
See Brock (2001) and Ferrer (2004) for detailed discussions of the history of Aramaic.
61
Imperial Aramaic is also called Official, Classical, Standard, and Achaemenid Aramaic.
62
Cf. Fitzmyer (1979) and the discussion therein. See also Kaufman (1997) for a similar division
but with different dates of division. Discussion of other classification schemes can be found in
Fitzmyer (1979) and Ferrer (2004: 65 – 86).
63
Egyptian Aramaic actually falls into both categories, as it is a subset of Imperial Aramaic,
although the texts can be divided into Imperial and Early Imperial material.
64
On this development, see Rubin (2007a). See Boyarin (1981) for further discussion of
Middle Aramaic dialect grouping.
65
Many, if not most, Neo-Aramaic speakers have been displaced from these areas as a result of
the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. Nearly all Jewish Neo-Aramaic speakers
have moved to Israel or the USA since 1948, and many Christians have also emigrated, or at
least moved to larger, Arabic-speaking cities.
66
Especially, Arnold (1989 – 91).
67
The term Northeastern Neo-Aramaic was coined by Hoberman (1988: 557–8 n. 2).
68
See the excellent recent overview of the NENA dialects by Khan (2007).
69
For example, Fox (1994) and Heinrichs (2002).
70
Israel (2006: 178).
71
Cf. Harris (1939: 10–11). Other early adherents included Dussaud and Albright, as noted by
Harris in his footnote 21.
72
Segert (1984: 14).
73
On the Ugaritic evidence of this type of plural, see Huehnergard (1987: 281–2, 304 –7).
74
An excellent edition and study of these texts can be found in Tropper (1993).
75
On Sam’alian as Aramaic, cf. Tropper (1993: 311), Kaufman (1997: 114). On Sam’alian as
an independent branch, cf. Huehnergard (1995b). Garr (1985: 231) considers Sam’alian as a
separate branch, although with a close connection to Aramaic; his view is essentially the same
as that of Tropper, who posits a binary split from the Proto-Aramaic node between Sam’alian
and all other Aramaic dialects.
76
See Huehnergard (1995b) for a detailed discussion of these and the other innovative features
that define Aramaic.
77
See Tropper (1993: 308–9) for the discussion of such features and the argument that they should
be considered shared innovations. See Huehnergard (1995b: 277–82) for the counterargument.
78
This is the conclusion of Huehnergard (1995b: 282).
79
Huehnergard (1991).
80
Hetzron (1972: 4) calls Eastern Gurage, Central West Gurage, and Peripheral West Gurage
‘dialect clusters’. If indeed the languages within each of these groups are mutually intelligible
(and this is unclear), then they should more correctly be called dialects, and the total number
of distinct Ethiopian languages could be reduced to as few as fourteen.
81
A recent exception to this is the study of Elias (2005), which remains to be published. It
should also be noted that Leslau continued publishing until 2004 (he died in 2006, at the age
of 100), but his data came from fieldwork made decades earlier.
82
Overviews of the MSA languages and dialects can be found in Johnstone (1975), Lonnet
(1985, 2006), and Simeone-Senelle (1997).
83
Counted among the Soqotri dialects is that of ‘Abd-el-Kuri, on which see Wagner (1959).
98 Aaron D. Rubin
84
A minority of scholars, most notably David Cohen and his students, have suggested that the
MSA imperfective form (e.g. Mehri yekoteb) does in fact stem from yaqtulu, and not from the
Proto-Semitic *yVqattVl; cf. Cohen (1974; 1984: 68–75); Lonnet (2005: 187–8). See Goldenberg
(1977: 475 –77, 1979) for an argument against this scenario.
85
Cf. the works of Cantineau (1932), Leslau (1943), Marrassini (1991), and Rodgers (1991),
all of whom also group OSA (but not Arabic) with Ethiopic and MSA.
86
For this conclusion, see Porkhomovsky (1997). The data in Appleyard (1996) support this
conclusion, though Appleyard himself seems to suggest otherwise. Against this conclusion, see
Müller (1964).
87
Johnstone (1975: 2).
88
Cf. Simeone-Senelle (1997: 408–9). On this development in Mehri, see Rubin (2007b).
89
Cf. Lonnet (1998: 303 – 4).
90
On the loss of t, see Johnstone (1968, 1980), Testen (1992), and Voigt (2006). Both Johnstone
(1980) and Testen note the importance of this feature in grouping these two languages. On
feminine marking in -i, see Lonnet (forthcoming).
Works Cited
Appleyard, David L. 1996. Ethiopian Semitic and South Arabian: Towards a re-examination of
a relationship. Israel Oriental Studies XVI: Studies in modern Semitic languages, ed. by
Shlomo Izre’el and Shlomo Raz, 203 –28. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Arnold, Werner. 1989–91. Das Neuwestaramäische. 5 vols. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
Aro, Jussi. 1955. Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. Helsinki, Finland: Societas
Orientalis Fennica.
Beeston, A. F. L. 1984. Sabaic grammar. Manchester, UK: Journal of Semitic Studies.
——. 1987. Apologia for ‘Sayhadic’. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 17.13 –14.
Behnstedt, Peter, and Manfred Woidich. 2005. Arabische Dialektgeographie: Eine Einführung.
Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Blanc, Haim. 1964. Communal dialects of Baghdad. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blau, Joshua. 1978. Hebrew and North West Semitic: Reflections on the classification of the
Semitic languages. Hebrew Annual Review 2.21– 44. Reprinted in idem, Topics in Hebrew
and Semitic linguistics, 308 – 32. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes (1998).
Borg, Alexander. 1978. A historical and comparative phonology and morphology of Maltese,
PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Boyarin, Daniel. 1981. An inquiry into the formation of Middle Aramaic dialects. Bono
homini donum: Essays in historical linguistics in memory of J. Alexander Kerns, Part II,
ed. by Yoël L. Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard, 613 – 49. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Benjamins.
Brock, Sebastian P. 2001. The hidden pearl: The Syrian Orthodox Church and its ancient
Aramaic heritage. 3 vols. With the assistance of David G.K. Taylor. Rome, Italy: Trans World
Films Italia.
Cantineau, Jean. 1932. Accadien et sudarabique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris
33.175 – 204.
Caplice, Richard. 1981. Eblaite and Akkadian. La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale
( Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980), ed. by Luigi Cagni, 161– 4. Naples, Italy: Istituto Universitario
Orientale.
Christian, V. 1919 – 20. Akkader und Südaraber als ältere Semitenschichte. Anthropos 14 –
15.729 –39.
Cohen, David. 1974. La forme verbale à marques personelles préfixées en sudarabique moderne.
IV Congresso internazionale di studi etiopici (Roma, 10 –15 aprile 1972), vol. 2, 63 –70.
Rome, Italy: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
——. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique: Études de
syntaxe historique. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
Corriente, Federico. 1996. Introducción a la gramática comparada del semítico meridional.
Madrid, Spain: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Dahood, Mitchell. 1981. The linguistic classification of Eblaite. La lingua di Ebla: Atti del
convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980), ed. by Luigi Cagni, 177– 89. Naples,
Italy: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Diem, Werner. 1980. Die genealogische Stellung des Arabischen in den semitischen Sprachen:
Ein ungelöstes Problem der Semitistik. Studien aus Arabistik und Semitistik Anton Spitlaer
zum siebzigsten Geburtstag von Seinen Schülern überreicht, ed. by Werner Diem and Stefan
Wild, 65 – 85. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
Dombrowski, B. W. W. 1988. ‘Eblaitic’ = The earliest known dialect of Akkadian. Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 138.211–35.
Elias, David L. 2005. Tigre of Habab: Short grammar and texts from the Rigbat people, PhD
dissertation, Harvard University.
Faber, Alice. 1990. Interpretation of orthographic forms. Linguistic change and reconstruction
methodology, ed. by Philip Baldi, 619 –37. Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: Mouton de
Gruyter.
——. 1991. The diachronic relationship between negative and interrogative markers in Semitic.
Semitic studies in honor of Wolf Leslau, ed. by Alan S. Kaye, vol. 1, 411–29. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Harrassowitz.
——. 1997. Genetic subgrouping of the Semitic languages. The Semitic languages, ed. by
Robert Hetzron, 3 –15. London/New York, NY: Routledge.
Ferrer, Joan. 2004. Esbozo de historia de la lengua aramea. Cordoba, Spain: Servicio de
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich, and Otto Jastrow, eds. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Harrassowitz.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1979. A wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic essays. Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press.
Fox, Samuel Ethan. 1994. The relationships of the Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Journal of
the American Oriental Society 114.154 – 62.
Frantsouzoff, Serguei A. 1997. Regulation of conjugal relations in ancient Raybun. Proceedings
of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27.113 – 27.
Garr, W. Randall. 1985. Dialect geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000 – 586 B.C.E. Philadelphia,
PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gelb, Ignace. 1981. Ebla and the Kish civilization. La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno
internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980), ed. by Luigi Cagni, 9–73. Naples, Italy: Istituto
Universitario Orientale.
Gensler, Orin D. 1997. Reconstructing quadriliteral verb inflection: Ethiopic, Akkadian,
Proto-Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 42.229 – 57.
Ginsburg, H. L. 1970. The Northwest Semitic languages. The world history of the Jewish
people, vol. 2: Patriarchs, ed. by B. Mazar, 102–24. Givatayim, Israel: Jewish History
Publications/Rutgers University Press.
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1977. The Semitic languages of Ethiopia and their classification. Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40.461–507.
——. 1979. The Modern South Arabian prefix-conjugation: Addendum to BSOAS, XL, 3,
1977. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42.541–5.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1952. The Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) present. Journal of the Ameri-
can Oriental Society 72.1–9.
Hamori, Andras. 1973. A note on yaqtulu in East and West Semitic. Archiv Orientální 41.319–24.
Harris, Zellig S. 1939. Development of the Canaanite dialects: An investigation in linguistic
history. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2007. The affiliation of Sargonic Akkadian with Babylonian and Assyrian:
New insights concerning the internal subgrouping of Akkadian. Journal of Semitic Studies
52.21– 43.
Haupt, Paul. 1878. The oldest Semitic verb-form. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
10.244 –52.
Heinrichs, Wolfhart. 2002. Peculiarities of the verbal system of Senaya within the framework
of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). ‘Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir
verstehen es!’. 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik: Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag,
ed. by Werner Arnold and Hartmut Bobzin, 237– 68. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
100 Aaron D. Rubin
Hetzron, Robert. 1972. Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in classification. Manchester, UK: Manchester
University Press.
——. 1974. La division des langues sémitiques. Actes du premier congrès international de
linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitque, Paris 16–19 juillet, 1969, ed. by André Caquot
and David Cohen, 181–94. The Hague, The Netherlands/Paris, France: Mouton.
——. 1975. Genetic classification and Ethiopian Semitic. Hamito-Semitica, ed. by James Bynon
and Theodora Bynon, 103–27. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
——. 1976. Two principles of genetic reconstruction. Lingua 38.89–108.
Hoberman, Robert D. 1988. The history of the Modern Aramaic pronouns and pronominal
suffixes. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.557–75.
Hommel, Fritz. 1883. Die semitischen Völker und Sprachen. Leipzig, Germany: Otto Schulze.
——. 1892. Die sprachgeschichtliche Stellung des bab.-assyrischen einer- und des west-
semitischen anderseits. Idem, Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabitisch-semitologischen Inhalts,
vol. 1, 92–123. Munich, Germany: G. Franz.
——. 1926. Ethnologie und Geographie des alten Orients. Munich, Germany: C. H. Beck.
Huehnergard, John. 1987. Ugaritic vocabulary in syllabic transcription. Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press.
——. 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
——. 1991. Remarks on the classification of the Northwest Semitic languages. The Balaam
text from Deir ‘Alla re-evaluated, ed. by J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, 282–93. Leiden,
The Netherlands: Brill.
——. 1992a. Languages: Introductory survey. The Anchor bible dictionary, ed. by David Noel
Freedman, vol. 4, 155–70. New York, NY: Doubleday.
——. 1992b. Historical phonology and the Hebrew Piel. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed.
by Walter R. Bodine, 209–29. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
——. 1995a. Semitic languages. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. by Jack M. Sasson,
vol. 4, 2117–34. New York, NY: Scribners.
——. 1995b. What is Aramaic? Aram 7.261–82.
——. 2004. Afro-Asiatic. Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages, ed. by
Roger Woodard, 138–59. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
——. 2005. Features of Central Semitic. Biblical and oriental essays in memory of William L.
Moran, ed. by Agustinus Gianto, 155–203. Rome, Italy: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
——. 2006. Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. The Akkadian language in its Semitic context,
ed. by G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, 1–18. Leiden, The Netherlands: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Huehnergard, John, and Christopher Woods. 2004. Akkadian and Eblaite. Cambridge encyclopedia
of the world’s ancient languages, ed. by Roger Woodard, 218–87. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Israel, Felice. 2006. Tradition(s) et classement des langues syro-palestiniennes: observations
déconstructionnistes. Faits de Langues 27.173–89.
Johnstone, T.M. 1968. The non-occurrence of a t- prefix in certain Socotri verbal forms.
Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies 31.515–25.
——. 1975. The Modern South Arabian languages. Afroasiatic Linguistics 1.93–121.
——. 1980. The non-occurrence of a t- prefix in certain Jibbali verbal forms. Bulletin of the
School of African and Oriental Studies 43.466–70.
Kaufman, Stephen A. 1996. Semitics: Directions and re-directions. The study of the Ancient
Near East in the twenty-first century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference,
ed. by Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz, 273–82. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
——. 1997. Aramaic. The Semitic languages, ed. by Robert Hetzron, 114–30. London/New
York, NY: Routledge
Khan, Geoffrey. 2007. The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Journal of Semitic Studies
52.1–20.
Kienast, Burkhart. 1981. Die Sprache von Ebla und das Altsemitische. La lingua di Ebla: Atti
del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980), ed. by Luigi Cagni, 83–98. Naples,
Italy: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Krebernik, Manfred. 1996. The linguistic classification of Eblaite: Methods, problems, and
results. The study of the Ancient Near East in the twenty-first century: The William Foxwell
Albright Centennial Conference, ed. by Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz, 233–49.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Leslau, Wolf. 1943. South-East Semitic (Ethiopic and South-Arabic). Journal of the American
Oriental Society 63.4–14.
Lipinski, Edward. 1997. Semitic languages: Outline of a comparative grammar. Leuven, Belgium:
Peeters.
Lonnet, Antoine. 1985. The Modern South Arabian languages of the P.D.R. of Yemen. Proceedings
of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 15.49–55.
——. 1998. The Soqotri language: Past, present and future. Proceedings of the first international
symposium on Soqotra Island: Present and future, ed. by H. J. Dumont, vol. 1, 297–308. New
York, NY: United Nations.
——. 2005. Quelques réflexions sur le verbe sudarabique moderne. Studi Afroasiatici: XI
Incontro italiana di linguistica camitosemitica, ed. by Alessandro Mengozzi, 187–201. Milan,
Italy: FrancoAngeli.
——. 2006. Les langues sudarabiques modernes. Faits de Langues 27.27–44.
——. forthcoming. Le féminin en - i du sémitique. Aula Orientalis.
Macdonald, M. C. A. 2000. Reflections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabian
Archaeology and Epigraphy 11.28–79.
——. 2004. Ancient North Arabian. Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages,
ed. by Roger Woodard, 488–533. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marrassini, Paolo. 1991. Some observations on South Semitic. Semitic studies in honor of Wolf
Leslau, ed. by Alan S. Kaye, vol. 2, 1016–23. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
Moran, William. 1973. The dual personal pronouns in Western Peripheral Akkadian. Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 211.50–3. Reprinted in idem, Amarna
Studies: Collected Writings, ed. by John Huehnergard and Shlomo Izre’el, 243–47. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns (2003).
——. 1975. The Syrian scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna letters. Unity and diversity, ed. by
Hans Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, 146–68. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Reprinted in idem, Amarna Studies: Collected Writings, ed. by John Huehnergard and
Shlomo Izre’el, 249–74. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns (2003).
Müller, Walter W. 1964. Über Beziehungen zwischen den neusüdarabischen und den abessi-
nischen Sprachen. Journal of Semitic Studies 9.50–5.
Nebes, Norbert. 1994. Zur Form der Imperfektbasis des unvermehrten Grundstammes im
Altsüdarabischen. Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, vol. 1: Semitische Studien
unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Südsemitistiker, ed. by Wolfhart Heinrichs and Gregor
Schoeller, 59–81. Beirut, Lebanon/Stuttgart, Germany: F. Steiner.
Nöldeke, Th. 1899. Die semitischen Sprachen: Eine Skizze, 2nd edn. Leipzig, Germany: Chr.
Herm. Tauchnitz.
——. 1904. Review of Maltesische Studien, by Hans Stumme. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 58.903–20.
——. 1911. Semitic languages. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edn, vol. 24, 617–30.
London: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2001. West Semitic vocabulary in the Akkadian texts from Emar. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Pettinato, G. 1975. Testi cuneiformi del 3. millennio in paleo-cananeo rinvenuti nella campagna
1974 a Tell Mardikh = Ebla. Orientalia N.S. 44.61–74.
——. 1979. Old Canaanite cuneiform texts of the third millennium. Introduction and translation
by Matthew L. Jaffe. Malibu, CA: Undena.
Porkhomovsky, Victor. 1997. Modern South Arabian languages from a Semitic and Hamito-
Semitic perspective. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27.219–23.
Rabin, C. 1963. The origin of the subdivisions of Semitic. Hebrew and Semitic studies
presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver in celebration of his seventieth birthday, 20 August
1962, ed. by D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy, 104–15. Oxford, UK: Clarendon
Press.
Ratcliffe, Robert R. 1998a. The ‘broken’ plural problem in Arabic and comparative Semitic.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
102 Aaron D. Rubin
——. 1998b. Defining morphological isoglosses: The ‘broken’ plural and Semitic subclassification.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57.81–123.
Reiner, Erica. 1966. A linguistic analysis of Akkadian. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Robin, Christian, ed. 1991. L’Arabie antique de Karib’îl à Mahomet. Revue du Monde
Musulman et de la Méditerranée 61. Aix-en-Provence, France: Édisud.
Rodgers, Jonathan. 1991. The subgrouping of the South Semitic languages. Semitic studies in
honor of Wolf Leslau, ed. by Alan S. Kaye, vol. 2, 1323–36. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
Rössler, O. 1951. Akkadisches und libysches verbum. Orientalia N.S. 20.101–7, 366–73.
——. 1981. The structure and inflection of the verb in the Semito-Hamitic languages –
Preliminary studies for a comparative Semito-Hamitic grammar. Bono homini donum: Essays
in historical linguistics in memory of J. A. Kerns, ed. by Y. L. Arbeitman and A. R. Bomhard,
679–748. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
——. 2001. Gesammelte Schriften zur Semitohamitistik, ed. by Thomas Schneider, with Oskar
Kaelin. Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag.
Rubin, Aaron. 2005. Studies in Semitic grammaticalization. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
——. 2007a. On the third person preformative l-/n- in Aramaic, and an Ethiopic parallel.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44.1–28.
——. 2007b. The Mehri participle: Form, function, and evolution. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society (Series 3) 17.381–8.
Rubio, Gonzalo. 2003. Falling trees and forking tongues: On the place of Akkadian and Eblaite
within Semitic. Studia Semitica, ed. by Leonid Kogan, 152–89. Moscow, Russia: Russian
State University for the Humanities.
——. 2006. Eblaite, Akkadian, and East Semitic. The Akkadian language in its Semitic context,
ed. by G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, 110–39. Leiden, The Netherlands: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Segert, Stanislav. 1984. A basic grammar of the Ugaritic language. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. 1997. The Modern South Arabian languages. The Semitic
languages, ed. by Robert Hetzron, 378– 423. London/New York, NY: Routledge.
——. 2005. La détermination du nom en dahalik, langue afro-sémitique parlée en Erythrée.
Studi Afroasiatici: XI Incontro italiana di linguistica camitosemitica, ed. by Alessandro Mengozzi,
203–17. Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
Steiner, Richard C. 1982. Affricated Sade in the Semitic languages. New York, NY: American
Academy for Jewish Research.
Testen, David. 1992. The loss of the person-marker t- in Jibbali and Soqotri. Bulletin of the
School of African and Oriental Studies 55.445 –50.
Tropper, Josef. 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag.
——. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag.
Versteegh, Kees. 1997. The Arabic language. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Voigt, Rainer. 1987. The classification of Central Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 32.1–21.
——. 2006. Zum Verlust der personalen Elemente in den Präfixkonjugationen des Neu-
südarabischen. Loquentes linguis: Linguistic and oriental studies in honour of Fabrizio A.
Pennacchietti, ed. by Pier Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi, and Mauro Tosco, 717–
31. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.
Wagner, Ewald. 1959. Der Dialekt von ‘Abd-el-Kuri. Anthropos 54.475–86.
Zaborski, Andrzej. 1991. The position of Arabic within the Semitic dialect continuum. Proceedings
of the Colloquium on Arabic Grammar, ed. by Kinga Dévéni and Tamás Iványi, 365–75.
Budapest, Hungary: Eötvös Loránd University Chair for Arabic Studies and Csoma de Korös
Society Section of Islamic Studies.
——. 1994. Problèmes de classification des dialectes sémitiques méridionaux. Actes des
premières journées internationales de dialectologie arabe de Paris, ed. by Dominique Caubet
and Martine Vanhove, 399 – 411. Paris, France: Institut National des Langues et Civilisations
Orientales.

The Subgrouping of The Semitic Languages

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 Subgrouping of The Semitic Languages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language and Linguistics Compass 2/1 (2008): 79–102, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00044.

The Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages

Fig. 1. The subgrouping of the Semitic language family.

2. East vs. West Semitic

3. East Semitic and Eblaite

Central Semitic, in order to determine which of these likely reflect shared

6.1 NEO-ARABIC DIALECT SUBGROUPING

The modern Arabic language can be divided into a number of dialect

the classical language, known as Modern Standard Arabic, or by Arabic

6.2 ANCIENT NORTH ARABIAN DIALECTS

Fig. 2. The relationship of Arabic and Ancient North Arabian.

Traditionally, the North Arabian dialects include Thamudic, Lihyanite,

7. Old South Arabian

vowels nor gemination of consonants. So, an inscriptional form yqtl could

Fig. 3. Third person pronouns in OSA and elsewhere in Semitic.

Hadramitic and the MSA languages have another curious isogloss,

replacement of the inherited third-person preformative y- of the prefixed

10.1 NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT SUBGROUPING

The Aramaic language has developed into a number of modern dialects,

Fig. 4. The Neo-Aramaic languages.

The Central Eastern Neo-Aramaic branch includes just Turoyo – one

The NENA languages shed little light on subgrouping of the Semitic

12. Sam’alian and Deir ‘Alla

14. Modern South Arabian

Mehri, Harsusi, Bathari

Fig. 6. The Modern South Arabian languages.

attention to the historical grammars of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic,

You might also like