See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225965985

Arabic morphology: Diminutive verbs and diminutive nouns in San'ani Arabic

Article  in  Morphology · December 2006

DOI: 10.1007/s11525-006-9103-5

CITATIONS READS

32 3,889

1 author:

Janet C.E. Watson

University of Leeds
125 PUBLICATIONS   1,150 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The documentation and ethnolinguistic analysis of Modern South Arabian View project

Yemeni oral literature View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Janet C.E. Watson on 02 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Morphology (2006) 16:189–204
DOI 10.1007/s11525-006-9103-5

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Arabic morphology: diminutive verbs and diminutive

nouns in San’ani Arabic

Janet C. E. Watson

Received: 1 March 2006 / Accepted: 14 July 2006 / Published online: 16 November 2006

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract Word formation in Arabic has traditionally been assumed to involve

interdigitation of a consonantal root with a vocalic pattern. This view is adopted by
a large number of modern generative morphologists. More recently, however, sev-
eral morphologists have argued that words in Semitic are formed from fully voca-
lised stems. In this paper, I argue that in San’ani (the dialect of San’a), and in some
other Arabic dialects, there is a class of verbs that have as part of either their
denotations or connotations a diminutive sense. I then consider diminutive nouns in
the dialect. On the basis of semantic and phonological relationships between
diminutive verbs and their non-diminutive counterparts, as well as native speakers’
explanations of certain diminutive verbs, and the relationship between diminutive
nouns and their non-diminutive counterparts, I argue that while some derivational
processes take the root as the basic morphological unit, phonological and semantic
similarities between certain stems can only be accounted for by derivation from a
fully vocalised stem. I therefore conclude that both root-based and stem-based types
of word formation occur.

Keywords Arabic . Stem . Root . Diminutive . Prosodic morphology . Prosodic

faithfulness constraints

1 Introduction

The morphological structure of Arabic stems has traditionally been analysed in terms
of consonantal roots and vocalic patterns, with the consonantal root considered an
independent morphological unit. This is reflected in the organisation of traditional
monolingual and bilingual Arabic dictionaries, which present lexical entries in terms

J. C. E. Watson (&)
School of Languages, University of Salford,
Maxwell Building, Salford, Greater Manchester, M5 4WT, UK
e-mail: j.c.e.watson@salford.ac.uk
123
190 Morphology (2006) 16:189–204

of roots, generally giving under each entry the most basic form of the vocalised root
first—the third masculine singular perfect verb—followed by (increasingly) less basic
forms (for Classical Arabic, Hava, 1915; Ibn Manzur, 1955–1956; for Modern Stan-
dard Arabic, Wehr, 1961; for Arabic dialects, Hinds & Badawi, 1986; Piamenta,
1990–1991; Behnstedt, 1992; Al-Iryani, 1996; Holes, 2001; Dickins, 2006; etc.). Thus,
for the root /k-t-b/ Wehr (1961) gives the third masculine singular perfect kataba,
then the verbal nouns katb, kitba, kitaaba, the gloss ‘to write’, derived forms of the
verb with their glosses, non-suffixed stems (kitaab ‘piece of writing; message; book’),
followed by suffixed and prefixed stems (maktab ‘office’, maktaba ‘library’). These
traditional insights were formalised by McCarthy in a non-concatenative morphology
model as the interdigitation of a consonantal melody (the consonantal root), a
syllabic template and a vocalic melody (McCarthy, 1981, 1982, etc.): thus, kitaab
‘piece of writing; message; book’ is analysed as the interdigitation of the consonantal
root /k-t-b/, the syllabic template CvCvvC and the vocalic melody /i-a/.
In recent years, the extent to which morphological processes in Semitic languages
involve derivation from the root as opposed to the stem/word has been questioned,
with stem theorists claiming that processes operate directly on a vocalised stem,
itself a derived or output form (Heath, 1987; Bat-El, 1994; Ratcliffe, 1997, 1998;
Ussishkin, 1999, 2005; Gafos, 2002),1 while root theorists bring facts from language
games and hypocoristics (Davis & Zawaydeh, 1999), metathesis and aphasia (Prunet,
Béland, & Idrissi, 2000) in support of the root as an independent morphological unit.
I argue here for neither an entirely root-based nor an entirely stem-based ap-
proach, rather claiming, on the basis of data from a modern dialect, that both types
of word formation occur in Arabic. An examination of diminutive verbs and
diminutive nouns in San’ani Arabic, the dialect of the old city of the Yemeni capital,
San’a, indicates that while some derivational processes do indeed appear to take the
root as the basic morphological unit, phonological and semantic similarities between
certain stems can only be accounted for by derivation from a fully vocalised stem.
Within a constraint-based model such correspondence relationship between voca-
lised stems is formalised in terms of Output-to-Output prosodic faithfulness
constraints (Burzio, 1999; Ussishkin, 1999; McCarthy, 2000).

2 Diminutives

Cross-linguistically, diminutives are characterised by the basic denotative meaning of

dimensional smallness, and potentially by a large number of connotative meanings,
such as endearment, as in English bunny, puppy, sweetie, depreciation or contempt,
as in Italian attric-etta ‘starlet’, Russian donn-etta ‘woman of mean spirit’ (Jurafsky,
1996; Barbaresi, 2003, pp. 438–439) and English darkie and roughie (Dressler &
Merlini Barbaresi, 2001, pp. 46–47), and ‘non-seriousness’ (Dressler & Merlini
Barbaresi, 1994, 2001). Diminutives tend to be used mostly by women in addressing
and in reference to children, and in reference to women (Jurafsky, 1996; Dressler &
Merlini Barbaresi, 2001). Most languages form diminutives by suffixation, with an
iconic tendency towards palatal phonemes and/or high tonality, as in English -ie, -y,
-let, -ette, German -chen, -lein, Spanish -ito, -ico, -illo and Czech -ink- (Jurafsky, 1996;
Barbaresi, 2003). In some cases, diminutives are formed by reduplication (Jurafsky,

1
Also in computational morphology (cf. Soudi, Cavalli-Sforza, & Jamari, n.d.).
123
Morphology (2006) 16:189–204 191

1996, p. 570), particularly, but not exclusively, in children’s language, as in English

puspus, weewee, German Wehweh-chen and Wehweh-tscherl (< es tut weh ‘it hurts’)
(Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi, 1994, p. 121), Tagalog bahay ‘house’ > bahay-baha-
yan ‘doll-house/game of house’ (Jurafsky, 1996, p. 570), and the San’ani Arabic verbs
dagdag ‘to knock several times lightly’, laflaf ‘to go round in small circles’.
Universally, diminutive formation applies most commonly to noun bases
(Barbaresi, 2003; Dahl, 2006), followed by adjectives, adverbs and verbs. Diminutive
verbs, whose denotative meaning often indicates the lightness/unimportance of the
action of the verb and, sometimes, its fragmentation into smaller repeated actions
(Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi, 1994, p. 127), are attested in several languages,
including Russian (Stawnicka, 2001), Czech, Oceanic and Salish. In Czech, dimin-
utive verbs often refer to children’s activity. Thus, spát ‘to sleep’ has the diminutive
spinkat ‘to sleep [child]’, and blı́t ‘to puke’ has the diminutive blinkat ‘to bring up
[child, milk/food]’. Czech verbs which relate to children’s activities in the base form
have an affectionate diminutive form, as in: hajat ‘to sleep [child]’ versus hajinkat
[affectionate form], papat ‘to eat [child]’ versus papinkat [affectionate form]
(T. Dickins, personal communication). Diminutive verbs may, indeed, be more
common than is generally believed: Italian, English and German have a (in the case
of the latter two, relatively small) number of diminutive-type verbs, e.g. German
hüsteln ‘to cough lightly and repeatedly’ versus husten ‘to cough’, Italian dormic-
chiare ‘to sleep lightly and intermittently’ versus dormire ‘to sleep’ and English to
quibble (a little quip), to piddle (to do a little piss) and even to fiddle and to wobble,
though these latter may have no non-diminutive counterparts today.
In San’ani Arabic, diminutive forms are derived in one of three ways: by suffix-
ation of -ii, exemplified in hypocoristics, shahaabii < shahaab [personal name],
muHammadii < muHammad [personal name], nouns indicating physical smallness,
Su9bii ‘young donkey’ < Sa9b ‘donkey’, zugzugii ‘small alley’, and individuatives,
mawzii ‘a banana’ < mawz ‘bananas [coll]’, zurgayfii ‘a marble’ < zurgayf ‘marbles
[coll]’ (Watson, 2002, pp. 192–193); by reduplication, as in kuskusii ‘puppy’, dagdag
‘to knock lightly several times’ (cp. dagg ‘to knock’), wa9wa9 ‘to whimper’, 9as9as
‘to touch several times’ (cp. 9ass ‘to touch’), hazhaz ‘to wobble s.th.’ (cp. hazz ‘to
shake s.th.’); and by infixation of -y-, as in: tjayhal ‘to act like a child’ (cp. jaahil
‘child’), trayjal ‘to act like a man’ (cp. rajjaal ‘man’). The denotative meaning of
nominal diminutives is essentially physical smallness, with connotations of affection
and, less frequently, contempt. The denotative meaning of verbal diminutives with
infix -y- is lightness/unimportance of the action of the verb, including diminution of
harm, with connotations of contempt, pejorativeness, pretence, playfulness and
jocularity. In this paper, I will not deal with diminutive verbs derived by redupli-
cation, which, by contrast, generally have the denotative meaning of segmentation
into a number of smaller actions, nor will I deal with the nominal diminutive suffix
-ii, which has denotations of smallness and individuation and connotations of
endearment.

3 Diminutive verbs in San’ani

In common with several other Arabic dialects (cf. Holes, 2004), San’ani has a rich
inventory of quadriliteral verbs on the template CaCCaC. One of the most

123
192 Morphology (2006) 16:189–204

productive of these in San’ani is (t)CayCaC,2 also attested in the Saudi dialect of

Abha (Y. Asiri, personal communication), and, apparently to a lesser extent, in
Eastern Arabian (Holes, 2004) and Central Sudanese dialects (J. Dickins, personal
communication.).3 (t)CayCaC verbs mostly describe mental and physical states with
pejorative overtones of pretence, viz: ‘to act as if/pretend to be X’,4 and they are
often used in jocular or otherwise non-serious situations. Forms without initial /t/
(i.e. CayCaC) are considerably less common than forms with initial t-.5 The former
occur either as synonyms of an otherwise identical tCayCaC verb, as in Hayraf and
tHayraf ‘to be poor/destitute’, or as a transitive counterpart to intransitive tCayCaC,
as in jaymal ‘to make s.o. appear beautiful’ versus tjaymal ‘to make oneself (o.s.)
appear beautiful’, or have the intransitive sense of pretence and do not have a
t-initial counterpart, as in: daywal ‘to act like a ruler’.
During field-work conducted in San’a between 2000 and 2002, and in 2006, the
majority of (t)CayCaC examples I collected from women and children and from a
Yemeni comedy radio series (Mutahhar & Watson, 2002) could be classified in the
semantic field of harmless childish naughtiness: e.g. ‘being naughty/silly/cheeky/
inattentive/ignorant/neglectful’. Here we have the sense of lightness/unimportance
of the action coupled with pejorative overtones. As for diminutives in other lan-
guages (Jurafsky, 1996; Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi, 2001), tCayCaC verbs are used
considerably more by women than by men—both in addressing and referring to
children, and in addressing women. Between women, the tCayCaC verb often has
playful, jocular connotations. When used between men, pejorative or contemptuous
connotations are paramount. Thus, the verb tlay9an amongst women in addressing
women has the sense of ‘to be cunning; to be sharp in a devilish way’, while amongst
men it has the more directly negative sense of ‘to behave badly; to misbehave’.
San’ani has a very few instances of tCayCaC with positive or neutral connota-
tions. These include: tHaylaa ‘to think the world of; to act sweet towards’, tHaymash
‘to act efficient [woman]’ and, arguably, t9ayzab ‘to be/act as if unmarried’. For a few
verbs, a triliteral tCaCiCiaC6 counterpart exists with positive connotations, as in:
tgaHHam ‘to be bold’ versus tgayHam ‘to be rash’. For a few other verbs, the
tCayCaC verb has a form V synonym, as in: tkabbar/tkaybar ‘to be proud/boastful’.
And for others, alongside the tCayCaC verb is a triliteral form III (CaaCaC) with
slightly different connotations, as in: tSaynaj ‘to pretend not to hear’ versus Saanaj
‘to not hear’. All these verb forms (tCayCaC, tCaCCaC, CaaCaC) have in common a
stem-initial heavy syllable (Cay, CaC, Caa).
For Eastern Arabian dialects, Holes (2004) claims the (t)CeeCaC verb type to be
derived denominally from adjectives: however, while tmayraDh ‘to malinger/feign
illness/pretend to be ill’ (Eastern Arabian tmeeraDh) is semantically related to, and
could be argued to be derived from, the adjective mariiDh ‘sick’, there is no reason
in this case to rule out derivation from the bare root /m-r-Dh/ ‘ill’. A rather clearer

2
In San’ani, 89 examples of (t)CayCaC in a dictionary data base of 7,000 words.
3
In Central Sudanese, three examples in a dictionary data base of c. 26,000 entries.
4
Form VI (taCaaCaC) in San’ani, in common with many other dialects of the Peninsula, has a
predominantly reciprocal sense, and does not have the alternative sense of pretence attested in
Standard Arabic (cf. Wright, 1975) or dialects of Cairo (Hinds & Badawi, 1986) and Central Sudan
(J. Dickins, personal communication).
5
7 Of 89, i.e. under 8% of (t)CayCaC verbs in the database occur without initial t-.
6
In traditional Arabist nomenclature form V.
123
Morphology (2006) 16:189–204 193

case is the verb tmaywat ‘to pretend to be dead’, which can certainly not be derived
from the adjective stem mayyit ‘dead’ due to the presence in the tCayCaC verb of
the medial root consonant /w/, lacking in the adjective. The derivation of ‘to pretend
to be dead’ from mayyit ‘dead’ would yield the unattested form *tmayyat.
The intuition of speakers is, of course, crucial: the fact that a theorist is able to
construct a theory whereby stems are derivable from roots is not sufficient to indi-
cate that the consonantal root is an independently accessible part of the native
speaker’s mental lexicon. When I elicited the meaning of tCayCaC verbs, informants
most commonly provided a partial explanation, not through a triliteral adjective
from the same consonantal root or through a phrase or a synonym from a different
root, but through one or more basic triliteral verbal noun/s or other singular noun/s
of the same root. Thus, txaybal ‘to act as if stupid’ was explained as xabal ‘stupidity’,
axbal ‘stupid’, xabaalih or mixbaalih ‘acting stupidly’ (root /x-b-l/); tlaygan ‘to bicker’
as lagaanih and layganih ‘bickering’ (root /l-g-n/); tbaylah ‘to act stupid’ as balah
‘stupidity’ (root /b-l-h/); and txayda9 ‘to act to deceive’ as xada9 and xadaa9ah
‘deceit; deception’ (root /x-d-9/). The explanatory use of a large number of different
base forms, which share with the diminutive verb only the consonantal root, suggests
both that the basic consonants are extractable from the tCayCaC form and that the
triliteral consonantal root is recognised by speakers as an independent morpholog-
ical unit. Further evidence for the morphological independence of the consonantal
root in these verbs is the fact that synonyms and near-synonyms in certain abstract
semantic fields often share two or three consonants or that the root consonants of
synonyms and near-synonyms share place of articulation features: for example, most
verbs describing ‘to be stupid/daft/naive’ have root consonants with the features
[guttural]/[labial]/([lateral]) in various orders, as in: /h-b-l/, /b-l-h/, /x-b-l/, /x-w-sh/,7
/x-j-f/, /x-b-S/. Verbs describing ‘to cling/stick’ have the initial root consonants /l-
[sibilant]/, as in: /l-z-g/, /l-z-T/, /l-z-m/, /l-s-y/.
Arabic in all registers exploits full pattern repetition for rhetorical effect (cf.
Johnstone, 1991; Dickins & Watson, 1999, pp. 518–520, 546–547), and this we find in
San’ani with both diminutive verbs and diminutive verbal nouns, as in: ma nguul laa
Haggak as-sayhalih wa-d-daywa9ah8 ‘what can we say about your lack of concern?!’
(Mutahhar & Watson, 2002, p. 48) and tijaymiliihaa wa-ti9aynigiiha ‘you f.s. make her
appear beautiful and elegant’, tijaymiliihaa and ti9aynigiiha are partial synonyms,
while sayhalih and daywa9ah are synonymous. The only morphological distinction
between the two words in each pair is the triliteral consonantal root, providing further
support for the view that speakers manipulate roots, not just rhyming patterns.
The following analysis of diminutive verbs relies on recognition of a default verb
stem in Arabic with an initial bimoraic syllable. This is evidenced by the fact that:
(a) cross-dialectically verbs of the template CaCCaC, as in rassal ‘to send’, zawwaT
‘to hurry’, are by far the most common in modern Arabic. Historically verbs with a
medial geminate (CaCiCiaC)9 have replaced verbs with an initial ’a- (’aCCaC)10 in

7
There is evidence that the phoneme represented here as /sh/ was at one stage a voiceless lateral
fricative in Arabic (Watson, 2002, p. 2).
8
Verbal nouns of diminutive verbs most commonly have a non-t-initial stem + -ih suffix, as in
shaylatih ‘being silly’, faylatih ‘acting as if physically weak’, layganih ‘bickering’.
9
In traditional Arabist nomenclature form II.
10
In traditional Arabist nomenclature form IV.

123
194 Morphology (2006) 16:189–204

most dialects, and the mainly colour/defect specific final geminate verb (iCCaCiCi)11
in many dialects.
(b) In the derivation of the vast majority of verbs from loan words, onamatopaeic
words, and phrases, three or four consonants are extracted from the base and
associated with the template CaCCaC.12 Examples from San’ani include: Sabban ‘to
wash’ (< Saabuun ‘soap’), mazzag or mayzag ‘to make music’, kansal ‘to cancel’,
sayyaf ‘to save [on a computer]’, zaflat ‘to lay asphalt, pave’, kawfar ‘to dress hair’
(< coiffure) washwash ‘to display interference [television]’. Verbs formed from
words with derivational suffixes or from prepositional phrases include: baxxar ‘to
cure’ (< bi-xayr ‘well’ lit: ‘of-goodness’), and suffixes, as in: (t)San9an ‘to become
San’ani’ (< San9aanii < San9aa [proper noun] + nii [adjectival suffix]).
(c) Intensive counterparts of the basic verb (CvCvC)13 are derived through affixation
of a mora in the initial syllable. This results in medial C gemination or, in a number of
dialects including some Syrian dialects and San’ani, association of /l/ with the affixed
mora. San’ani examples include: Hamash ‘hitch up’ and Hammash ‘hitch right up’,
dama9 ‘to make tears [eye]’ and damma9 ‘to tear a lot [eye]’, katab ‘write’ and kattab/
kaltab ‘write continuously’, dahaf ‘push’ and dalhaf ‘push hard’, Saffag ‘clap’ and
Salfag ‘keep clapping’, DhaHak ‘laugh’ and DhalHak ‘laugh hard/continuously’.
In deriving a diminutive verb from the consonantal root, root consonants
associate with the consonant slots of the default verb stem (here linked to nuclear
mora to form CV moraic sequences); the right-most C is placed in angled brackets
to denote its extrametical status; the diminutive morpheme /y/ associates with
the right-most mora of the initial bimoraic syllable; the detransitivising morpheme,
/t/ (McCarthy & Prince, 1990a), is prefixed; the default vocalic melody is /a/:

ð1Þ (σ) σ σ

µ µ µ {perfect verb}

X b <l>
t {detransitiviser}

y {diminutive}

a {default vocalic melody}

Output: txaybal

11
In traditional Arabist nomenclature form IX.
12
In Modern Hebrew, most denominative verbs are formed on the typically transitive pattern
pi’el—the intensified form of the basic pa’al and the MH equivalent to the Arabic form II template.
The verb form with most prosodic flexibility, pi’el is able to deal with the derivation of verbs from
loan words with more than the three consonants typically contained in a Semitic verb. Examples
include: télegraf ‘telegraph’ > tilgref ‘to telegraph’, citáta ‘quotation’ > citet ‘to quote’ and torpédo
‘torpedo’ > tirped ‘to damage’ (Bat-El, 1994).
13
In traditional Arabist nomenclature form I.
123
Morphology (2006) 16:189–204 195

There are other cases, however, in which the semantics of the verb indicate deri-
vation from some morphological unit higher than the root. This is again supported
by the semantics of the verb and the manner in which informants explain terms.
Terms such as twayzar ‘to pretend to be a minister’ and tmaydar ‘to pretend to be a
manager/to lord it over s.o.’, for example, were paraphrased respectively as uuga9
waziir/mudiir ‘he became a minister/manager’ with additional suggestions of pre-
tence and disapproval. In the sense of ‘manager’, mudiir is a relatively recent term in
Arabic. An active participle of form IV from the root /d-w-r/ (’adaar), it is the only
word with the consonants /m-d-r/ which entails the sense of ‘manage’: the term for
‘management’ is ’idaarih. The verb tmaydar is listed in neither Piamenta’s dictionary
(1990–1991) nor in Rossi’s glossary (1939), and is most probably an innovation
dating back to the 1980s, when administration began to become a fact of urban life in
Yemen. In San’ani, the sense of ‘minister’ is only entailed in the noun waziir, its
plural wuzaraa’, and the verb twayzar ‘to pretend to be a minister’; the root /w-z-r/,
etymologically derived from /’-z-r/, now refers to a men’s waist-wrapper (Piamenta,
1990–1991). Similarly, the verb tHaymash ‘to act efficient [woman]’ shares the
specific connotations of efficiency [of a woman] with only one other vocalised stem
with the consonants /H-m-sh/, namely Humaysh ‘efficient [woman]’. It has none of
the connotations of the verbs Hamash ‘to hitch up’ and Hammash ‘to hitch right up’.
In Abha, the verb taHaymar ‘to act like a donkey’, also attested in San’ani, was
described to me by Yahya Asiri as ‘more polite than yaa Himaar ‘‘you donkey!’’’
taHaymar has none of the redness connotations of the basic root /H-m-r/, from which
the noun Himaar ‘donkey’ is ultimately derived.
In a number of cases, that the basic morphological unit is the basic singular noun or
adjective is suggested both by the semantics of the verb and by the uniqueness of the
base word: i.e. the base noun is otherwise the only form in the language with this root:
this is the case with t’aysad ‘to act like a lion’, uniquely linked to the noun ’asad ‘lion’;
twayghad ‘to act the scoundrel’, uniquely linked to waghd ‘scoundrel’ (cf. Piamenta,
1990–1991); and tkay9ad ‘to be mean’, uniquely linked to ku9dih ‘mean’, a
metaphorical extension of the concrete term ku9dih ‘clay jug with narrow spout’.14

4 Diminutive nominals

In Standard Arabic, diminutive nouns, adjectives and adverbs are derived at least
semi-productively from singular nouns, adjectives and adverbs on the pattern Cu-
CayC < CvCC/CvCvC, CuwayC(iC) < CvvC(vC) and CuCayyiC < CvCvvC (cf.
McCarthy & Prince, 1990b; McCarthy, 2000, etc.). Examples from Standard Arabic
(list adapted from McCarthy 2000) are given in (2) below:

(2)
Template base diminutive gloss
(a) CvCC nafs nufays-ah soul
Hukm Hukaym judgement
(b) CvCvC ’asad ’usayd lion
rajul rujayl man
malik mulayk king
(c) CvCvvC+ah saHaab+ah suHayyib cloud
jaziir+ah juzayyir island
14
According to Tim Mackintosh-Smith (personal communication), the sense of meanness stems
metaphorically from the narrowness of the spout of the ku9dih.
123
196 Morphology (2006) 16:189–204

Haluub+ah Hulayyib milch camel

(d) CvvCvC(+ah) faakih+ah fuwaykih fruit
’aanis ’uwaynis cheerful
(e) CvvCv(v)C xaatam xuwaytim signet ring
qaamuus quwaymiis dictionary
(f) CvCCv(v)C jundub junaydib locust
sulTaan sulayTiin sultan

4.1 Nominal diminutives in the dialects

There is evidence that at one stage in the development of the language, Cairene
derived nominal diminutives in this way: thus ’uTeeT-a15 ‘kitten’ is related to ’iTT-a
‘cat’ (CvCC base), rufayya9 ‘thin’ is etymologically related to rafii9 ‘thin’ (CvCvvC
base), ’urayyib ‘near’ to ’ariib ‘near’, Sughayyar ‘small’ to Saghiir ‘small’, and shu-
wayy-a ‘a little’ to shee’ ‘thing’ (CvvC base). Today, diminutives are most commonly
formed in Cairene by suffixation to the base, usually of -aaya (cf. Woidich, 2006). In
North African dialects, in which long vowels have merged historically with short
vowels, productive diminutive formation is based on a single pattern (depending on
the dialect, CCeyyeC, CCiw/yeC, CCiwiwieC, CCiyiyieC) irrespective of the pattern
of the non-diminutive form: for Jewish Libyan Tripoli, Yoda (2005, p. 244) gives
Hneyyesh ‘snake’ (< Hnesh), kleyyeb ‘dog’ (< kelb) and zgheyyer ‘child’ (< zghir);
for some Moroccan dialects, Heath (2002, p. 324) gives Sghiwwer < Sghir ‘small’ and
qwliyyel < qlil ‘few’.
In San’ani, we have an interesting situation shared with a number of other modern
dialects (e.g. Abha, Central Sudanese): while diminutives are not derived from base
nouns, adjectives or adverbs on the pattern CuCayC, the CuCayC pattern is richly
attested in proper nouns (e.g. al-Hudaydah, al-Hubaysh, al-Junayd, al-9udayn, Bani
Hushaysh, Zubayri, BuHayr, Musayk, cf. Al-Maqhafi 1985), and present in a few
fixed expressions in children’s games (e.g. udhaynii ‘ear’, Sudayri ‘chest’, jubayhii
‘forehead’, rujaylii ‘leg’, nuxayrii ‘nose’, luTaymii ‘slapping cheek’, sulayxaan
‘thighs’) and in a few isolated lexemes (e.g. Humaysh ‘efficient [said of a woman]’,
zughayr / zughayrii / zughayyir ‘small’ and kuwayyis ‘good’16), some of which are
related semantically to a tCayCaC verb (e.g. xubaySii ‘clever talking’).17 With the
exception of expressions used in children’s games,18 any diminutive sense the
CuCayC pattern may once have had is no longer present in these lexemes. CuCayC
pattern lexemes of the root /z-gh-r/ have no non-diminutive counterpart.
For a limited period, however, CuCayC diminutive formation appeared to
become semi-productive in San’a. One of the most popular evening television series
during Ramadan 2000 screened on a daily basis the inevitable misadventures of a
wretched hero, Kashkuush. After each misadventure, Kashkuush would hold his
head in his hands and cry yaa muxxii yaa muxayxii ‘my brain, my poor brain!’ Within

15
The feminine suffix -a adds a sense of diminution in many Arabic dialects, and is present in Cairene
in most, if not all, diminutives on the pattern CuCayC.
16
This last recently introduced from Cairene (cf. Diem, 1973).
17
Cf. txaybaS ‘to pretend innocence cunningly’ (Piamenta, 1990–1991).
18
Where the participant is small (cf. Jurafsky, 1996).
123
Morphology (2006) 16:189–204 197

days, this catch-phrase had become adopted and adapted by children and young men
in particular, with phrases such as:

(3)
yaa lukfii yaa lukayfii ‘my mouth, my poor mouth!’
yaa rijlii yaa rujaylii ‘my leg, my poor leg!’
yaa Dhahrii yaa Dhuhayrii ‘my back, my poor back!’
yaa bizzii yaa buzayzii ‘my breast, my poor breast!’
yaa raasii yaa ruwaysii ‘my head, my poor head!’

This was adopted not only by native speakers, but also by my children aged 7 and 11,
who were attending Yemeni school and learning Arabic on the basis of input from
school and neighbourhood friends. Spotting the sea on the way to al-Mukha in
February 2001, they, together with three San’ani children, cried out yaa baHrii yaa
buHayrii ‘my sea, my little sea!’
This use of the nominal diminutive CuCayC only occurred in jocular situations
and in conjunction with the base.19 The semantics indicates that the diminutive is
derived in these cases from the base noun—a vocalised stem—and not from the
more abstract root.

5 An analysis

In a Prosodic Morphology model, McCarthy and Prince (1990b) analyse derivation

of the nominal diminutive20 in Standard Arabic as the parsing out of the minimal
word (a quantitative trochee, Fqu) from the left-edge of the non-diminutive base, its
subsequent mapping onto a light-heavy iambic foot template, the restoration of the
residue, which is protected from alteration by the template, and overwriting of the
original vocalic melody by that of the diminutive (u-ay-(i)). Thus, the diminutive
’usayd is derived from ’asad ‘lion’ by the following process:

(4) (a) Extraction of a quantitative trochee (Fqu), ’asa, from the left-edge of the base, ’asad;
(b) Mapping of the extracted portion, ’asa, to a light-heavy iambic foot, to give ’asaa;
(c) Restoration of the portion, d, that remained after Fqu extraction, to give ’asaad;
(d) Overwriting of the original vocalic melody, a, with that of the diminutive, u-ay,
to give ’usayd.

Since many Arabic nominals do not begin with a quantitative trochee, extraction of
the trochaic foot may be at the expense of any pre-existing prosodic analysis. In the
list of base forms and corresponding diminutives given in (2) above and repeated
below with explicit circumscription, this is seen in (c) where the long vowel of the
base is split between the extracted element (for convenience, represented here as
Ex) and the residue (for convenience, represented here as Res):

19
On my return to San’a in April 2006, informants remembered using such forms, but since the
decline in popularity of the Kashkuush series in which the expression originated, have apparently
stopped using them.
20
And the broken plural. The distinction between the broken plural and the diminutive is marked by
the vocalic melody—/a-i/ in the case of the unmarked broken plural of a non-minimal singular, /u-ay-
(i)/ in the case of the diminutive, as in: faakihah ‘fruit’ > fawaakih ‘fruits’ / fuwaykih ‘fruit [dim]’.
123
198 Morphology (2006) 16:189–204

(5) Formal treatment circumscriptionally (adapted from McCarthy, 2000)

Template base Ex Res diminutive gloss
(a) CvCC nafs naf s nufays-ah soul
Hukm Huk m Hukaym judgement
(b) CvCvC ’asad ’asa d ’usayd lion
rajul raju l rujayl man
malik mali k mulayk king
(c) CvCvvC+ah saHaab+ah saHa ab suHayyib cloud
jaziir+ah jazi ir juzayyir island
Haluub+ah Halu ub Hulayyib milch camel
(d) CvvCvC+ah faakih+ah faa kih fuwaykih fruit
’aanis ’aa nis ’uwaynis cheerful
(e) CvvCv(v)C xaatam xaa tam xuwaytim signet ring
qaamuus qaa muus quwaymiis dictionary
(f) CvCCv(v)C jundub jun dub junaydib locust
sulTaan sul Taan sulayTiin sultan

One important insight of Prosodic Morphology is that the residue (Res) remains
prosodically unaltered in the diminutive (as it does in the broken plural). Where the
residue is C, the diminutive ends in C, as in ’asad / ’usayd ‘lion / little lion’; where the
residue is CvC, the diminutive ends in CvC, as in jundub / junaydib ‘locust / little
locust’; and where the residue is CvvC, the diminutive ends in CvvC, as in qaamuus /
quwaymiis ‘dictionary / little dictionary’.
In recent work, however, McCarthy (2000) argues that parsing-mode prosodic
circumscription seems to have no applicability beyond a narrow range of cases like
Arabic. He demonstrates that circumscription can be eliminated in favour of
Optimality theoretic output–output (O–O) constraints, constraints that capture the
insights of Prosodic Morphology, but express them in terms of universal prosodic
faithfulness constraints. Faithfulness constraints are formulated under Correspon-
dence Theory (McCarthy & Prince, 1995; McCarthy, 2000), which posits the
following general relation between linguistic forms:

(6) Correspondence
Given two linguistic forms S1 and S2 standing to one another as input and
output, base and reduplicant, etc., correspondence is a relation R between any
subset of elements of S1 and S2. Any element a of S1 and any element b of S2 are
correspondents of one another if aRb.

The faithfulness constraints are of two kinds: faithfulness to the elements standing in
correspondence (segments and moras), and faithfulness to the autosegmental asso-
ciation relations between these elements. The relevant constraints are:

Element Constraints

MAX-l—every mora in S1 has a correspondent in S2,

DEP-l—every mora in S2 has a correspondent in S1,
MAX-seg—every segment in S1 has a correspondent in S2,
DEP-seg—every segment in S2 has a correspondent in S1.

123
Morphology (2006) 16:189–204 199

Association Constraints
NO-DELINK(s, V)
Let si and Vj stand for elements on distinct autosegmental tiers in two related pho-
nological representations S1 and S2, where
s1 and V1 e S1,
s2 and V2 e S2,
s1Rs2 and
V1RV2
if s1 is associated with V1
then s2 is associated with V2.
NO-SPREAD(s, V)
Let si and Vj stand for elements on distinct autosegmental tiers in two related pho-
nological representations S1 and S2, where
s1 and V1 e S1,
s2 and V2 e S2,
s1Rs2 and
V1RV2
if s2 is associated with V2
then s1 is associated with V1.

NO-DELINK/NO-SPREAD express faithfulness to autosegmental associations, mili-

tating against the loss and gain of association lines in corresponding forms. The
autosegmental associations of interest in Arabic are moras and segments, thus
NO-SPREAD(s, V)/NO-DELINK(s, V) read NO-SPREAD(l, seg)/NO-DELINK(l, seg), where
moras and segments stand in correspondence.
Following McCarthy (2000), superscripted indices in the diagram below are used
for the mora-to-mora correspondence relation and subscripted indices for the seg-
ment-to-segment correspondence. Faithfulness to autosegmental associations is ex-
pressed in terms of:
If Xa associates to li in S1 (here the base), then Xa associates to li in S2 (here, the
diminutive).
The mappings baHr ‘sea’  buHayr ‘little sea’ and jundub ‘locust’  junaydib
‘little locust’ can be characterised as below:

(7) baHr  buHayr Correspondence Relations

123
200 Morphology (2006) 16:189–204

(8) jundub  junaydib Correspondence Relations

The added mora in the diminutive forms buHayr and junaydib appears at the end of the
second syllable (after lii). This mora and diminutive y, to which it is linked, are shown
without superscripts/subscripts, because they both lack correspondents in the singular.
The vowels in the diminutive are prescribed, hence the vowels of baHr and buHayr,
jundub and junaydib are not in correspondence with each other, and are shown without
subscripts. Of the element constraints, MAX-lOO is undominated, while DEP-lOO is
violated by virtue of the added mora in the diminutive; MAX-segOO is undominated,
while DEP-segOO is violated by virtue of the added segment, y, in the diminutive.
The position of the affixed mora in the diminutive noun (after lii) is determined
by positional faithfulness (after Beckman, 1997). Positional faithfulness constraints
assert that some prosodic positions are priviliged to receive special faithfulness
treatment. The positions so priviliged universally are stem-initial and stem-final
syllables. In Arabic, positional faithfulness to the stem-initial syllable forces mora
affixation in the stem-medial syllable. This is what we see in the mapping of jundub
‘locust’  jundaydib ‘little locust’. In disyllabic stems which lack a stem-medial
syllable, such as baHr ‘sea’  buHayr ‘little sea’, faithfulness to the stem-initial
syllable takes precedence over faithfulness to the stem-final syllable, with the result
that mora affixation is forced in the stem-final syllable.
The diminutive of bases in which the initial bimoraic sequence is a long vowel,
such as raas ‘head’  ruways, show an epenthetic consonant, w, after li. The position
of the epenthetic consonant is explained in terms of faithfulness to autosegmental
associations, the effects of preserving corresponding segment-to-mora linkage of the
NO-DELINK/NO-SPREAD type (McCarthy, 2000). The mapping of raas ‘head’ 
ruways can be characterised as in (9):

(9) raas  ruways Correspondence Relations

123
Morphology (2006) 16:189–204 201

In the correspondence relations in raas  ruways, s is associated to lii in neither

the base nor the diminutive, remaining extrametrical in both. The preference of
epenthesis of w over spread of the medial consonant (which would give the
disallowed form*rusays) shows that spreading is dispreferred where no spreading
takes place in the base, expressed as the constraint ranking NO-SPREADOO(l, seg)
>> DEP-segOO.
The mapping of bizzii ‘my breast’  buzayzii ‘my poor breast’, by contrast, in
which the second consonant, z, occupies two syllabic positions in both the base and
the diminutive, shows that where spreading occurs in S1, spreading, and not epen-
thesis (which would give the disallowed form *buwayzii), is preferred in S2. Just as
epenthesis in ruways ‘little head’ follows from the anti-spread constraint
NO-SPREADOO(l, seg), so spread in buzayzii ‘my poor breast’ follows from the anti-
delink constraint NO-DELINK(l, seg).
The case of the diminutive verb in San’ani differs somewhat from that of the
diminutive noun. Because verbs in Arabic have to accommodate both consonant-
initial and vowel-initial inflectional suffixes and because trimoraic syllables are
disallowed, expressed as the constraint *lll]r (McCarthy, 2005), no verb stem ends
in -vvC or -vCC.21 Thus, hypothetical forms such as *kataab / kataab-tu and *kanasl /
kanasl-tu, in which the verb stem ends in -vvC and –vCC, respectively, are disal-
lowed. This means that the diminutive verb cannot be formed by mora affixation in
the stem-final syllable, to give *twazayr or *tmadayr. This is not a case of positional
faithfulness, however, since positional faithfulness to the stem-final syllable would
fail to explain the correspondence relations between nouns ending in –vvC and
diminutive verbs, as in: waziir ‘minister’  twayzar ‘he acted like a minister’ and
mudiir ‘manager’  tmaydar ‘he acted like a manager’. The requirement that all
verb stems end in -vC or -vv is better accounted for by McCarthy’s Optimal Para-
digms theory, which acknowledges correspondence relations between the stems in
every pair of paradigm members. Verb stems in Arabic end in -vC/-vv before
C-initial inflectional suffixes in order to not breach the undominated constraint
*lll]r. Optimal Paradigm weight faithfulness constraints are breached whenever
vowel length alternates within the paradigm (McCarthy, 2005), as in the hypothetical
paradigm members: kataab ROP katabtu. Dominance of the Optimal Paradigm
weight constraints forces the verbal stem to end in -vC throughout the paradigm to
give katab ROP katabtu. Since the weight of the stem-final syllable is fixed, any mora
affixation within the verb is forced into the stem-initial syllable. Thus, the verbal
diminutive is formed by mora affixation in the stem-initial syllable, to which y is
linked, as in the correspondence relations of ’asad ‘lion’  (t)’aysad ‘to act like a
lion’ in (10) below:

21
Apart from final geminate verbs, such as jarr ‘to pull’. In Standard Arabic, these take
the alternative stem CvC1vC1 before C-initial suffixes, as in jarar-tu ‘I pulled’; in colloquial
Arabic, -C1C1 final stems take the infix -ay- before C-initial suffixes on analogy with final-weak
verbs of the form jaraa > jar-ay-t ‘I ran’, as in San’ani dagg-ay-t ‘I knocked’ (cp. dagg ‘he
knocked’).
123
202 Morphology (2006) 16:189–204

(10) ’asad  (t)’aysad Correspondence Relations

6 Conclusion

The principal diminutive morpheme in San’ani Arabic is y linked to an affixed mora.

Depending on the semantics of the verb, San’ani diminutive verbs are derived either
by association of the root consonants to the consonantal slots of the default verb
form (with association of the diminutive morpheme y to the post-initial mora), or
from a fully vocalised nominal stem. Evidence from a short-episode in the history of
San’ani Arabic, by contrast, indicates that nominal diminutives are derived from
fully vocalised stems.
According to Lass, ‘Languages … innovate preferentially by utilising (including
transforming) existing material’ (Lass, 1997, p. 305). The existence of CuCayC as a
nominal pattern in other parts of the San’ani lexicon, such as proper nouns, presents
a pattern to be used for a second purpose—the nominal diminutive.22 Speakers’
strong awareness of patterns and their ability to manipulate them enables the ana-
logical extension of one pattern to a second (related) purpose. The semantics of
diminution and its phonological realisation—association of y to an affixed mora—are
adopted from the presence of diminutives in other Arabic dialects to which speakers
have access directly or through the mass media (e.g. Egyptian, Syrian), and from the
diminutive verb, tCayCaC.
Language games, metathesis and aphasic dyslexia in which the consonantal root is
manipulated and reorganised provide some of the clearest evidence in favour of
considering the root an independent morphological unit, which is stored in the
lexicon on a distinct morphemic tier. My evidence here does not involve reordering
of root consonants, but rather the use of same-root synonyms in informants’
explanations of terms, similarities in root consonants in lexemes with the same or
similar connotations, and frequent rhetorical repetition of patterns which differ only
in the identity of the root consonants. Recognition of the root as an independent
morphological unit at one level, however, does not exclude the existence of con-
straints that transform one stem into another stem without recourse to the root unit,
a relationship expressed here in terms of O–O prosodic faithfulness constraints.
22
In general historical terms, the diminutive sense, of course, is older—Al-Iryani describes the
Yemeni place name al-9Udayn as a diminutive of 9Adan, and lists it under the root /9-d-n/
(Al-Iryani, 1996). This brief period of nominal diminutive derivation can therefore be seen as a case
of secondary innovation or re-innovation in San’ani.
123
Morphology (2006) 16:189–204 203

Acknowledgements Many thanks to my informants in San’a for cheerfully explaining

and re-explaining San’ani diminutive verbs, in particular the women and children of
Bayt al-Gini, Bayt al-Sayrafi, Bayt Banga, Bayt Shamiya, Bayt al-Shamahi, Bayt
al-Haddad and Bayt al-Amri. Thanks are also due to Tim Mackintosh-Smith, for his
undying enthusiasm in San’ani and his willingness to sit for hours discussing the
minutiae of the San’ani lexicon and morphology, to Lutz Edzard, Judith Broadbent
and my husband, James Dickins, for suggesting many changes, to Tom Dickins for
providing the Czech examples of diminutive verbs, to Geert Booij and to two
anonymous reviewers for their pertinent suggestions. I, of course, am responsible for
all remaining errors.

References

Al-Iryani, M. (1996). al-mu‘jam al-yamany fi l-lughat wa-t-turath. Damascus: Dar al-Fikr.

Al-Maqhafi, I. A. (1985). mu‘jam al-mudun wa-l-qabaa’il al-yamaniyyah. San’a: Dar al-Kalimah.
Barbaresi, L. M. (2003). Diminutives. In W. F. Frawley, (Ed.), International encyclopedia of
linguistics (2nd ed. pp. 438–439). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bat-El, O. (1994). Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 12, 571–596.
Beckman, J. (1997). Positional faithfulness. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Burzio, L. (1999). Surface-to-surface morphology: when your representations turn into constraints.
Paper presented at the 1999 Maryland Mayfest, University of Maryland.
Behnstedt, P. (1992). Die nordjemenitischen Dialekte. Teil 2: Glossar. Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig
Reichert.
Dahl, Ö. (2006). Diminutives and augmentatives. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language
and linguistics (vol. 3, 2nd ed. pp. 594–595). London: Elsevier.
Davis, S., & Zawaydeh, B. (1999). A descriptive analysis of hypocoristics in Colloquial Arabic.
Language and Linguistics, 3, 83–98.
Dickins, J. (2006). An English–Arabic/Arabic–English dictionary of Sudanese Arabic. http://
www.languages.salford.ac.uk/staff/dickins.php.
Dickins, J. & Watson, J. C. E. (1999). Standard Arabic: an advanced course. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Diem, W. (1973). Skizzen jemenitischer Dialekte. Beirut: Franz Steiner.
Dressler, W., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in
Italian, German, and other languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dressler, W., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2001). Morphopragmatics of diminutives and augmentatives:
on the priority of pragmatics over semantics. In I. Kenesei & R.M. Harnish (Eds.), Perspectives
on semantics, pragmatics and discourse: a festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (pp. 43–58). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Gafos, A. I. (2002). An argument for a stem-based view of Arabic morphology: doubled verbs
revisited. In D. B. Parkinson, & E. Benmamoun (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics
(Vol. 13–14, pp. 59–86). Amsterdam: Benjamins..
Hava, J. G. (1915). al-fara’id al-durriyyah fi al-lughatayn al-‘arabiyyah wa-l-inkiliziyyah. Beirut:
Catholic Press.
Heath, J. (1987). Ablaut and ambiguity: phonology of a Moroccan Arabic dialect. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Heath, J. (2002). Jewish and Muslim dialects of Moroccan Arabic. London: Curzon/Routledge.
Hinds, M., & Badawi, El. S. (1986). A dictionary of Egyptian Arabic. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Holes, C. (2001). Dialect, culture, and society in Eastern Arabia. 1 Glossary. Leiden: Brill.
Holes, C. (2004). Quadriliteral verbs in the Arabic dialects of Eastern Arabia. In M. Haak,
R. de Jong, & K. Versteegh (Eds.), Approaches to Arabic dialects: a collection of articles
presented to Manfred Woidich on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 97–116). Brill: Leiden.
Ibn Manzur, Muhammad ibn al-Mukarram (1955–1956). Lisan al-’Arab (15 Vols). Beirut: Dar
al-Sadir.
Johnstone, B. (1991). Repetition in Arabic: paradigms, syntagms and the ecology of language.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

123
204 Morphology (2006) 16:189–204

Jurafsky, D. (1996). Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language, 72, 533–578.
Lass, R. (1997). Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12,
373–418.
McCarthy, J. J. (1982). Prosodic templates, morphemic templates and morphemic tiers. In H. van der
Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations (Vol. 1, pp. 191–233).
McCarthy, J. J. (2000). Faithfulness and prosodic circumscription. In J. F. Dekkers, van der Leeuw,
& J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Optimality theory: syntax, phonology and acquisition (pp. 151–189).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, J. J. (2005). Optimal paradigms. In Downing, L., T. A. Hall & R. Rattelsiefen (Eds.),
Paradigms in phonological theory (pp. 170–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, J. J. & Prince, A. (1990a). Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology. In M. Eid, &
J. J. McCarthy (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 2 (pp. 1–54). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McCarthy, J. J. & Prince, A. (1990b). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken
plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8, 209–283.
McCarthy, J. J. & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. Walsh
Dickey, & Urbancsyk S. (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers 18: papers in
optimality theory (pp. 249–384). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Mutahhar, A-R., & Watson, J. C. E. (2002). Social issues in popular Yemeni culture. San’a: al-Sabahi
Press.
Piamenta, M. (1990–1991). A dictionary of post-classical Yemeni Arabic. Leiden: Brill.
Prunet, J-F., Béland, R., & Idrissi, A. (2000). The mental representation of Semitic words. Linguistic
Inquiry, 31, 609–648.
Ratcliffe, R. R. (1997). Prosodic templates in a word-based morphological analysis of Arabic. In
M. Eid, & Ratcliffe R. R. (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 10 (pp. 147–171).
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ratcliffe, R. R. (1998). The ‘broken’ plural problem in Arabic and comparative Semitic: allomorphy
and analogy in non-concatenative morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rossi, E. (1939). L’arabo parlato a San’a’. Rome: Instituto per l’Oriente.
Soudi, A., Cavalli-Sforza, V., & Jamari, A. (n.d.). A computational lexeme-based treatment of
Arabic morphology. http://libra.sfsu.edu/~vcs/v-public.htm.
Stawnicka, J. (2001). Deminutywa werbalne w jazyku rosyjskim i ich ekwiwalenty w jazyku
niemieckim. [The diminutive verbs in Russian and their equivalents in German]. In O. Propo-
pczuk (Ed.), Wschód – Zachód Pogranicze Kultur: Kultura – Literaturoznawstwo – Jazykoz-
nawstwo, (pp. 332–336). Slupsk: Materialy z II Miedzynarodowej konferencji Naukowej.
Ussishkin, A. P. (1999). The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebrew and output–output
correspondence. Phonology, 16, 401–442.
Ussishkin, A. P. (2005). A fixed prosodic theory of nonconcatenative templatic morphology. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 169–218.
Watson, J. C. E. (2002). The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wehr, H. (1961). A dictionary of modern written Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Woidich, M. (2006). Das Kairenisch-Arabische: eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Wright, W. (1975). A grammar of the Arabic Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yoda, S. (2005). The Arabic dialect of the Jews of Tripoli (Libya): grammar, text and glossary.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

123

View publication stats