PORTA LINGUARUM ORIENTALIUM, HERAUSGEGEBEN VON BERTOLD SPULER UND HANS WEHR. NEUE SERIE v AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR OF THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY THIRD PRINTING 1980 OTTO HARRASSOWITZ + WIESBADEN AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR OF THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY By ANTON SPITALER EDWARD ULLENDORFF 1980 OTTO HARRASSOWITZ -WIESBADEN8 JAN 1967 ‘Table ot Contents 1 Plone2 Morphaogs artiulaely developed in South Semiti, though ii mat without precedent In Hanito-Seitio generally. ‘The importance of vowel ‘tornation {epoptions) di Settle morphology has been stressed by Kurytonie. Syntactical morphemes are eonstited by the der of words or by independeat laments th Inter re of rela {ely low trequney in the Semiti languages (for example in the [able formation of the future tense by means of the article ‘aj The above account is concerned with eonmnanal radiala id 1 has long boon tual to conceive of Semitic roots as purely consoantal. nach « teonstraction is wnrocrvedly male Lined by some atholars (eo Meich, TPA, pp. 247-61) but is Aiepoted by other. Von Soden, In partieule, (GAG, pp. 5132, ‘a7 olds that vowel elements ahoald be opardd a forming {rt ofthe oot (se ale E, Uden Or 28 (1055, pp. 8270. Such seme, which ean be identied in the imperative of verbs ‘od in the prefix conjuation, ao shore in ticononantal roots (eg: pd to gued, to deposit) but predominantly Long in bicon- fonntial ones fog. ik "to Ail One "to ud"), Te should bo ‘hecrved that thao ater rots exhibit tale vowel nother parts {the Hanito Semitic area a well (11.6), s thatthe ineorpora tion of original ecivowel radial dik, bs) may be ascribed fla reconstruction, A sila stability men inthe vowel ements of mona rots (og, Sem. Kab “dog which have to be ‘ifecentiated from the verbal ones whieh, in thelr cor, are to be lived into thow Indicating tates or conditions and thos con- toting actions (of. §162}-” ‘The distinction betwoon the three femante mer of noun, adjctive and tative verb, and sctive Serb is reflected in differentiation in the steyeture of the oot, 2, The Proto-Semitle Root 114. Tn the bstorily attested Semi language trconsonantal roots form the great majority; oote with two or with four radials {te mach lew numerous, while those with one ar with fve are rao fn roots with more than thre consonants therein » pomibiliey of soondary formations by metsplar, disimilation, ete). Be Sinimtion of the divtionary revels the folowing phenomence: there abe many groupe of roots having two radials ia commen Prati 7” ich exprean Wontisal or simi meanings. ‘Ths for exanipl in Tebrew: pr "to separate”, pm “to Lar", pr “to apis ey to Deak doen", pep "to pall apa”, yor to dlrs pf to di Tings” et. TAIL thee verbs have in common the radios pr snd the base notion "to divide”. This phenomenon, whi ‘iespreadin the Semitic lexen, inn the question whether many ‘oomnartal rote re not, in fat, derived from Dleensonatal we; and whether a apt of bisonsoantal roots moy, perio, tive prootded the trconsonantl theme la Semitic 1.8, For station of this problem the fllowing data must be eon a nied 1) Tho Semitic languages have tany biconsonantal nouns (in wliltion to some monbecnronantal ones) which, frnn the objecte they denoto, must be adjudged fay saient: eg dam “blond”, tnd “hand”, yom “ea”, ote. The assignation of these noane 10 Srconsenantal rots must be ruled ost as contsived and fr ‘shed 1) The socalled “weak” verbs exhibit many Biadiol form: "ig: Heb. gim “ho reso” (oot qu), "£40 "T dell” (rot yi), \W. rama “she threw” (oot my), ote, Tt in our grammatoal sitemetization whieh lok upon thies forms as having “repped” radical, while doe might malatain with ar mach reson thatthe ‘weak radinal—in thos forma which conta was, in fact, Ved to the rot forthe ake of adaptation to the trsonsonantal system, ‘This consideration stems partially eagent where the Vn in question esineide emantialy with others on «bison. ©) Comparison with other languages of the Hanito-Seaite sop strengthens the biconsonsntal hyputheds: eg. Som. gl "to ‘i, Cashiti gal; Sem. (7 “to make", Cushiti fa (should Ye noted as inood appr ftom thse exampler-that Cshitic radon consonant root with male vowel 11.2. The data just at forth show that blcoasonantal rete in ‘io Semitic languages are net» hypotboin relating to a pre nor peviod but onatate an historical reality atest. by "up Of nouns and by a seven of verbal forms; thi in frther “iypurel by the nemante concurrence of taay tte in two of Tule radicals, There , however, no mulfcent reason for tain