Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes And the Tenets of the Comparative Method

Arnaud Fournet
The article investigates instances of phoneme mergers in Proto-Arabic. This process, which has so far remained unnoticed, has resulted in a certain number of triliteral roots having biliteral variants. The possibility and phonological circumstances of these mergers are an internal source of information about the phonological system of Proto-Arabic and Proto-Semitic. They also raise the issue of how to apply the basic tenet of phonetic correspondences in such a situation.

Present-day comparative and historical linguistics maintains that the validity of genetic relationships between languages and families of languages lies in the structural isomorphism of words and morphemes that can be found among related languages. The backbone of the method lies in the concept of phonetic correspondence. According to that tenet, words belonging to separate languages can be considered cognate and inherited if and only if they display a certain number of recurrent structural similarities. For example, English words father, !sh precisely display f where Latin words pater, piscis display p. This concept was gradually theoricized during the XIXth century. It took some time in the history of linguistics until it became established. In the Middle Ages kabbalistic speculation accepted a whole set of letter operations that managed to derive words of one language from other words, most often from Hebrew, which was long held to be the source of all other languages. About all these derivations are unacceptable in light of modern linguistics and Arawak cannot be derived from Hebrew in a way that makes sense in the modern approach. Later on TURGOT, a Frenchman who was among the writers of the French Encyclopdie (1756) held that etymology of words had to rely on the morphemic structure of words. For example Britannic, to be analysed as a stem Britann- and a su!x -ic could not be compared with Hebrew Baratanac land of tin because the structure of these two words was totally di"erent. J.C. ADELUNG, a German

A. Fournet

linguist, also made clear that a word such as German pack-en could not be compared with Greek ap-ago of similar meaning but made up of two morphemes ap(o)- and ago. In other words, cognates must be coherent as regards morphemic structure. The next point is that these componential morphemes must be coherent as regards phonetic structure. In the most simple case, one-to-one matches between phonemes of cognate morphemes and lexemes are expected. These are the basic tenets of the method.

The realization that phonetic correspondences were crucial in determining cognates took some time. Some early precursors have only recently been recognized. Among them, as early as the year 1782, a Spanish churchman of South American, FELIPE SALVADOR GILIJ, called coherencia mayor the fact that Arawak languages display the forms shapa, dapa, yapa for mountain and shema, dema, yema for tobacco. RASMUS RASK, a Dane, is the #rst to have explicitly asserted that Icelandic, Latin and Greek words displayed such phonetic recurrent properties that they should be held to be cognates for that particular reason. The idea was also developed by BOPP and ultimately the principle of phonetic correspondences got #rmly af#rmed as exceptionless around 1870 with the generation of neogrammarian comparatists. The nickname neogrammarian or Junggrammatiker was #rst coined to express contempt by the previous generation but it is now more remembered for quality. A modern synthesis of the method can be found in BOMHARD (2008: 10):

The basic principles underlying the Comparative Method may be summarized as follows: The #rst step involves the arduous task of data gathering, placing special attention on gathering the oldest data available. Once a large amount of lexical material has been gathered, it must be carefully analyzed to try to separate what is ancient from what is an innovation and from what is a borrowing. After the native lexical elements have been reasonably identi#ed in each phylum, the material can be compared across phyla to determine potential cognates. Once a su!cient body of potential cognates have been identi#ed, one can begin to work out the sound correspondences. Not only must the regular sound correspondences (that is, those that occur consistently and systematically) be de#ned, exceptions must also be explained. Here, widely-attested sound changes (palatalization, metathesis, syncope, assimilation, dissimilation, etc.) provide the key to understanding the origin of most exceptions.

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

We will now look at Arabic when it comes to satisfactorily apply the tenet of phonetic or sound correspondences. Arabic possesses a very large and well-described vocabulary. This wealth of data makes this language a major source of information about the (pre-)historical linguistics of the Semitic family to which Arabic belongs. The tradition of the Arab grammarians describes the lexicon on the basis of triliteral roots (al). In this article, the roots and the phonemes of Proto-Arabic will be examined under the light of a particular process, which fused two phonemes into only one. There is a signi#cant number of examples and they raise the issue of the intrinsic limitations of the comparative method. A typical example1 is : - sail rain - all rain, The process underlying this pair can be illustrated as follows :

The segments */s/ and *// fused to become one : the emphatic sibilant *//. As can be seen with this example, the result of the fusion is a biliteral so-called deaf root. The second phoneme, which used to be the third before the fusion occured, is then duplicated and distributed on the third slot. Such a process can only have taken place in a state of language where the contemporary triliteral system of Arabic was not yet operating with the same level of rigor and rigidity as nowadays. Otherwise the speakers would not have accepted the fusion. In that case, the merger of a fricative like */s/ with a pharyngeal like *// into *// raises little issue about what the proto-phonemes could have been in Proto-Arabic. The fusion still makes sense
1 Our examples are all taken from KAZIMIRSKI's dictionary of Arabic, a translation into French of Lisn Al-Arab. This dictionary provides a extensive (and easy) access to the oldest layer of the vocabulary of Classical Arabic. The original French glosses from KAZIMIRSKI are given in appendix and replaced by English (short) translations.

A. Fournet

with the phonological features of present-day Arabic. Another example, that raises more issues, is : - ilb very old man - muibb very old man; young man

This example is more complex than the previous one because the phonological system of present-day Arabic cannot account for the fusion of the fricative like // with a lateral like /l/ into //. It has been suggested that Arabic // originally was a lateral fricative, as in South Arabic. This example provides internal evidence that such was indeed the case and o"ers the opportunity to revisit the remarkable work by STEINER (1977) on lateral fricatives in Proto-Semitic from a di"erent point of view. It can be noted that the item muibb is strange because it conveys two contradictory meanings: young man and very old man. The contradiction is solved by the elicitation that the meaning very old man refers not to the root ( b) young but to another root ( l b) very old. This item has two contradictory meanings because it should be analyzed as two items, but the fusion of two segments has generated a situation which can no longer be detected synchronically. As noted by STEINER (1977: 97), the alternation between ( b) et ( l b) has parallels in phonetic alternations in Soqori: - io he pushes ~ iol-s he pushes it The same happens with the emphatic: - imero he cured ~ imerol-s he cured him/her The examples in STEINER (1977) are taken from LESLAU (1938: 30). STEINER (1977: 103105) lists a certain number of alternating with in Arabic, but they are cases of emphatization of through contact with a neighboring guttural. This is not the topic discussed in the article: fusion of phonemes. - ie he helps ~ iel-s he helps it/him/her

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

We have tried to make a full survey of lexical pairs that exhibit processes of phoneme merger. They are dealt with in the followings paragraphs. In general, the mergers are either evidenced by a rather high number of cases (3 or 4) or not evidenced at all, which suggests chance coincidence can be excluded as a possible explanation. Examples with /t/ The examples with this phoneme are described in the following table: Alternation t- ~ t- ~ t- ~ t-h ~ Number of instances 3 3 0 0

The absence of examples with // may be an indication that the processes of phonemic merger took place at a time when *// was a pharyngealized emphatic (and not a glottalized one). Or maybe this just means that there were too few words with the sequence /t-/ for the merger to happen or to have left lexical traces. Alternation: t- ~ - tais far away; to die

- ass to go away; to disappear - taab to #ll up (a vase) - t (t y ) to ,ow - waaf to pour - naaf to ooze - aba (F.V) to #ll up (a vase, a river)

It should be noted than in some cases, the biliteral root resulting from the merger has been su!xed. The su!xes involved usually are labials -b, -f and -m. The word t (t y ) is structurally very weak and the merger has created a monoliteral root () which has been both pre#xed and su!xed.

10

A. Fournet

Alternation : t- ~

- tat underneath, lower part - aa to (let) fall, to lower - tatata to move about noisily

- (ta)abab (F. II) to murmur (water), to resound (steps)

This example seems of onomatopeic origin and should maybe not be taken into account. - taam to weave with di"erent colors - atamma, atam black - iml hued cloth; black Examples with // The examples with this phoneme are listed in the following table. They con#rm that the antecedent of // in Proto-Arabic must have been a fricative: Alternation - ~ - ~ - ~ -h ~ / Alternation: - ~ - ar lex talionis - arr to be harmful Number of instances 3 0 1 0

- arar damage, wrong Alternation: - ~

This item arr is pan-semitic, Cf. STEINER (1977: 150). - aab to ,ow (tears, blood) - abb to ,ow slowly This example can also be explained with either saab or daab to ,ow (a liquid, water).

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

11

- a to ,ow (water)

- na to ooze, to ,ow slowly - a a group (of travellers) - a ,ock of sheep - abb lizard - uab a kind of venimous lizard This item abb is pan-semitic, Cf. STEINER (1977: 29). It can be noted that the polysemy of the root ( b) is not inherited but results from several fusions of phonemes at the Proto-Arabic stage: - abb lizard (probably inherited) - abb tumor. Cf. af ulcer - ibb hatred. Cf. af hatred

- abb to ,ow slowly (blood, drool). Cf. maybe saab to ,ow (water) The polysemy of this root or better the homophony of these di"erent items is therefore to a large extent the result of coincidences and fusions in Proto-Arabic.

Another kind of merger is -l ~ . We have seen ilb very old man ~ muibb very old man ; young man. Another example is : - all to defecate (animal) - aw (camel) dung On the contrary, there is no example of s-l ~ . The phonetic antecedents of /s/ and // were too di"erent to permit a fusion of that kind. This sentence in STEINER (1977: 107) is also a potential solution: an answer is readily available: the pitch of is closer to that of than to that of s. Examples with /s/ The examples with this phoneme are listed in the following table : Alternation s- ~ s- ~ s- ~ s-h ~ Number of instances (1) 3 3 0

12

A. Fournet

Alternation: s- ~ - sifa sand - abab sand

Most examples show a change from /f/ to /b/, concomitant with the merger. - saab to drink up - aab to drink up - saad to drink - ad to be thirsty

This example and the preceding seem to be derivatives of the same biliteral root (s ). Alternation: s- ~ - saifa torrential rain

- abn torrential, vehement - awb rain - sail rain - all rain - isam to rain

- abb to pour ; to ,ow rapidly - aba violent torrent (with a su!x -)

- am to ,ood Examples of the merger s- are exceedingly rare. A possible instance is: - saab to ,ow, to drool - musbb viscous liquid, saliva

- abb to ,ow slowly (blood, drool) This example is unconvincing because it can be explained otherwise with either aab or daab to ,ow (a liquid, water). The gap between the antecedents of /s/ and // seems unbridgeable. There are examples of mergers of // becoming // but about none with /s/ becoming //.

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

13

Examples with //

The phoneme // of modern Arabic is known to have been a lateral fricative at previous stages of the language and in Proto-Semitic as well. There exist very clear indications for this claim. The comparative study of Semitic languages shows that Arabic // corresponds with Southern Arabic //2. Another indication is the fact that Phoenician baam perfume was borrowed in Greek as balsam, where // is rendered by a combination of /l/ and /s/ in Greek. As is shown by the extensive analysis in STEINER (1977: 6891), the antecedents of // and // have left in Ancient Greek, Spanish, Malay, Hausa, etc. many loanwords where these phonemes have been rendered by non native speakers of Arabic as being [l] or [ld]. One of the oldest observations that the lateral l alternates in Akkadian or AssyroBabylonian with is in SCHRADER (1872: 205): die Verwandlung des Zischlautes in ein l vor nachfolgendem Dental. Demgemss sagt man [...] amilti statt amisti [for !fteen]. This is even older than DELITZSCH (1889) cited in STEINER (1977: 158). Another indication is provided by the Arabic vocabulary itself, as shown before with ilb very old man and muibb very old man; young man. In this example, the phonemes // and /l/ merged into the antecedent of //, which must therefore have been a lateral fricative or a fricative with a lateralized component. For the same reasons, the phoneme // of modern Arabic, currently realized as a pharyngealized voiced dental stop [d], must have been a lateral(ized) emphatic before. Southern Arabic and some aramauti dialects of Arabic have // and the borrowing of al-qa in Spanish has become alcalde, where a decomposition of the antecedent of // into two phonemes /l/ and /d/ can be observed, as is the case of Greek balsam. The alternations inside the Arabic vocabulary con#rm those well-known conclusions: - ar (sea)shore, (river)bank - arir, urra (sea)shore, (river)bank In this example, *//, a lateral fricative, merged with // to become the emphatic //. With the features on present-day Arabic, one would expect ** not . A variant of that merger is exhibited in this pair:

As regards lateral fricatives, the API conventions are: voiceless //, voiced //, emphatic [pharyngealized] //. The voiceless lateral fricative is usually written <> in the semitologist tradition and corresponds to the Hebrew letter sin.

14

A. Fournet

- al root

- root Here, *//, an emphatic fricative, merged with a lateral /l/ to become the emphatic *//. These considerations explain why // can be an emphatic partner of //. Even though these phonemes share no phonological feature in modern Arabic, they must have belonged to the same lateral(ized) series in the older stages of the language, and in Proto-Semitic as well. The examples with this phoneme are listed in the following table : Alternation - ~ - ~ - ~ -h ~ Alternation : - ~ - af ulcer - abb tumor - af hatred - ewe - ibb hatred - in sheep, goat Alternation : - ~ - ar (sea)shore, (river)bank - mu quarrelsome - d to quarrel - miserly Number of instances 3 7 3 0

- arir, urra (sea)shore, (river)bank

- z to wrong (sb) ; to deprive

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

15

- aab to be weak, skinny - to be thin, skinny - awaa to be tall (a female horse) - awar a tall, bulky man In this case, the merger resulted in an root structure with two consonants // and //, something that contradicts Arabic root phonotactics. A root like awar should not exist. - aa to slaughter - aa to slaughter - am grease This merger also resulted into an anomic root structure. - ama, ama to oil, anoint - ima a very fat woman Alternation: - ~ The mergers involving // also include examples like these ones: - amr unlucky, sinister - amm misfortune Alternation: - ~ - ar blackbird - ar scar - irr (a kind of) sparrow - urad scar This example is a minimal pair with this example of alternation - ~ : - ar (sea)shore, (river)bank - arir, urra (sea)shore, (river)bank This suggests that there may well exist traces within the Arabic vocabulary that // should be split into two lateral(ized) fricatives: a voiced one */ /, becoming and a voiceless one //, becoming , when merging with gutturals. There are much fewer examples involving a possible voiceless lateral(ized) fricative and this phoneme appears to have been rarer than its voiced counterpart. Descriptions of Proto-Semitic usually do not posit any

16

A. Fournet

opposition voiced ~ voiceless for lateral(ized) fricatives. This point should probably be reassessed. Three other interesting examples involve // : - alla to be of a lower class, quality - al to be lowspirited, downcast - to sadden, to cause to grieve - al to speed up, be in a hurry - to arrive #rst These examples should probably be interpreted as another indication that here, the antecedent of // was a voiced lateral(ized) fricative *. For that reason, the plain lateral /l/ cannot represent the voiced fricative of the lateral(-ized) series as is sometimes suggested. CANTINEAU (1954) considered but rejected this hypothesis, because the lateral l can freely combine with and in Arabic roots, a feature that should not be possible if the phonemes l, and were belonging to the same series. In his conclusion, STEINER (1977: 156) accepts this idea. We disagree with STEINER. ProtoSemitic must have had a full set of phonemes: *l (plain lateral) * (voiceless lateral fricative) * (voiced lateral fricative) et * (emphatic lateral fricative [glottalized at the Proto-Semitic stage]). Examples with // We have found only one example of fusion involving , the pair: - al root - root In this case *// an emphatic fricative merged with /l/ to create *//, which con#rms that *// must have been an emphatic lateral(ized) fricative before. STEINER (1977: 151) gives an example of contact lateralization of with -l- in the Semitic family: - Aramean maalt mattress - Soqori ael rug - taaa (F. II) to be vile, of a lower quality

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

17

Moreover, LESLAU (1938: 151) cites seven Soqori words where z in contact with r or n is in free variation with in that position, for example enzof, enof to spread. Examples with // Another kind of (rare) merger involving // is - > . Alternation : - ~ - a to have sexual intercourse - u statterer - aam to have sexual intercourse - to speak unintelligibly because of a physical defect This example probably has an onomatopeic origin. - u cold - ubib to have fever ; illness These examples suggest that the antecedent of // was originally an a"ricate and that the antecedent of // was not an a"ricate but a fricative. Moreover, there seems to be no instance of -l ~ , which can be interpreted as another indication that the antecedents of // and // were too di"erent to allow mergers of that kind.

The merger of // with a guttural never becomes //, even though they share phonological features in the present-day system of Arabic. This con#rms that // was not an (inter)dental fricative in Proto-Arabic, otherwise // should be the expected result. Conclusions We have found twenty four pairs of words, where fusions of phonemes occured in Proto-Arabic (or maybe even earlier) before the language began to be written. There are several practical and theoretical consequences of that discovery.

As regards more practical and direct consequences, we have shown that Arabic and Proto-Semitic must have had a full set of phonemes: *l * * et *. This set must have existed before in Proto-Hamito-Semitic. Another point is that the phonetic antecedents of present-day Arabic can be determined on the basis of their possible fusions or impossible fusions. Modern orthoepic Arabic has the following phonemes:

18

A. Fournet

- labials: m, f, b, w,

- coronal stops: n, t, d, , , - coronal fricatives: , , , - sibilants: s, z, ,

- miscellaneous: l, r, y, , , - dorsals: k, q, , , , , , - glottals: , h.

Labials, dorsals and glottals seem to have been rather stable in the history of Arabic. The phonemes to be discussed are the coronals and sibilants. Besides, // is well-known to have been a velar stop *g. A #rst step in the analysis of this sub-system is to reinstate the lateral(ized) series and the a"ricate series. This leads to the following sub-system of Proto-Arabic : - coronal stops: *n, *t, *d, *, - coronal fricatives: *, *, - sibilants: *s, *z, *, - a"ricates: *,

- laterals: *1, *2, * [=*], - miscellaneous: *l, *r, *y. Furthermore, the sibilant /s/ in Arabic corresponds to two di"erent phonemes of Proto-Semitic, represented by /s/ (samekh) and // (shin) in Hebrew. The treatment of Semitic loanwords in Old Egyptian shows that /s/ (samekh) must have been an a"ricate. For example, soper scribe was rendered in Egyptian as <pr>, and not **<spr>. These facts are well known and have been #rst described in the 1930ies. For that reason, Arabic /s/ represents the merger of two phonemes: *ts and *s, respectively /s/ (samekh) and // in Hebrew. The situation is therefore as follows: - coronal stops: *n, *t, *d, *, - coronal fricatives: *, *, - sibilants: *s1, *z, *, - a"ricates: *ts2, *d,

- laterals: *1, *2, *,

- miscellaneous: *l, *r, *y.

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

19

The absence of an emphatic in the coronal fricative series is quite understandable if the hypothesis of a glottalized articulation is accepted. Glottalization is best combined with stops or a"ricates. For that reason, the lateral(-ized) series probably was articulated */t/ */d/ */t/ in ProtoSemitic in a way closer to a"ricates than to plain fricatives. There is no possibility to state if there existed a contrast between *z1 and *dz2 in ProtoArabic. The system is coherent with the potential existence of such a contrast. On account of that analysis, Proto-Semitic probably had the following system: - labials: *m, *p, *b, *w, - coronal stops: *n, *t, *d, *, - coronal fricatives: *, *, - sibilants: *s1, *z1, *,

- a"ricates: *s2 (=[ts]), *(z2)3, * (=[]), - miscellaneous: *l, *r, *y, - glottals: *, *h.

- lateralized stops: *1 (=*/t/), *2 (=*/d/), * (=[t]), - dorsals: *k, *q, *g, *, *, *, *, *, As regards the tenet of one-to-one sound correspondance, the process of segmental fusion is a challenge, because this case is not explicitly dealt with so far. Emphatics are supposed to be original inherited sounds alongside voiced and voiceless phonemes. This cannot be considered granted. A thorough reexamination of Hamito-Semitic (or Afrasian) data is necessary because it is highly probable than many cognates have not been detected so far. This phenomenon which we have evidenced with Arabic alone, for the sake of clarity, is pervading. STEINER (1977: 130) discusses the word arsela ~ ara bed, hammock. In Aramean the form is ars < *ara (fused) but in Judeo-Aramean one #nds arsel (unfused). The eastern Syriac form irzl has been borrowed in Arabic as irzl. In Hebrew the word ere unambiguously shows that the sibilant had a lateral(ized) feature. Some authors cited by STEINER (FRNKEL, JASTROW, EPSTEIN) have proposed a su!x *-l of diminutive value. STEINER rejects this hypothesis which he considers unlikely, or, at least, unproven. In light of our discovery, the most simple hypothesis is that the proto-form is *( r s l) alternates with
3 There is no internal support or evidence for this a"ricate in contrast with the simple fricative.

20

A. Fournet

*( r ) because of the fusion of *s and *l. It can be added that in SouthArabic, Western Mehri is arlit tent(unfused) but Eastern Mehri is arit tent (fused). These phenomena are not speci#c to Arabic. Other Semitic languages have clear examples. Appendix: List of lexemes of Classical Arabic cited in the article NB: ayin is listed between n and p. al root, K: racine alla to be of a lower class, quality, K: tre bas (de naissance) ; de qualit infrieure al to be lowspirited, downcast, K: tre abattu, perdre courage al to speed up, be in a hurry, K: se hter, se dpcher root, K: racine

to be thin, skinny, K: avoir le corps maigre et chtif d to quarrel, K: se quereller in sheep, goat, K: ovin, caprin

z to wrong (sb) ; to deprive, K: lser, priver qn de ce qui est lui d

abb to ,ow slowly (blood, drool), K: se rpandre lentement la surface (sang, bave) abb lizard, K: lzard abb tumor, K: tumeur ( la lvre, au genou) ibb hatred, K: haine, malveillance a ,ock of sheep, K: nombreux troupeau de moutons amaj, ama to oil, anoint, K: oindre aa to slaughter, K: gorger ima a very fat woman, K: femme trs grasse arr to be harmful, K: nuire, tre nuisible

arar damage, wrong, K: dommage, prjudice

arir, urra (sea)shore, (river)bank, K: rivage, cte, berge

awar a tall, bulky man, K: homme, grand, gros, pais, fessu na to ooze, to ,ow slowly, K: suinter, couler doucement naaf to ooze, K: s'couler, suinter, couler doucement saab to drink up, K: se gorger d'une boisson saad to drink, K: boire de l'eau

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

21

sifa sand, K: sable trs #n au bas d'un monticule de sable isam to rain, K: verser de la pluie (ciel)

sail rain, K: pluie qu'un nuage verse en une seule fois, onde, averse saab to ,ow, to drool, K: couler (de l'eau) ewe, K: brebis

musbb viscous liquid, saliva, K: une liqueur visqueuse (miel) ; salive to sadden, to cause to grieve, K: attrister, causer du chagrin to arrive #rst, K: devancer, gagner de vitesse af ulcer, K: ulcre taaa (II) to be vile, of a lower quality, K: tre vil, de qualit infrieure af hatred, K: haine

amr unlucky, sinister, K: qui porte malheur aw (camel) dung, K: #ente (chameau) mu quarrelsome, K: querelleur miserly, K: tre avare am grease, K: graisse ar scar, K: cicatrice muibb very old man ; young man, K: vieillard ; jeune homme

aab to be weak, skinny, K: tre maigre, a"aibli ar (sea)shore, (river)bank, K: rivage, cte, berge ar blackbird, K: a kind of sparrow aa to slaughter, K: gorger awaa to be tall (a female horse), K: tre longue et haute (jument) aab to drink up, K: tre rempli, gorg de boisson abab sand, K: sables #ns

abb to pour ; to ,ow rapidly, K: verser de l'eau ; descendre rapidement la pente (torrent) aba violent torrent (with a su!x -), K: torrent violent ad to be thirsty, K: avoir soif

abn torrential, vehement, K: violent, vhment, qui emporte tout sur son passage saifa torrential rain, K: pluie violente qui emporte tout sur son passage

22

A. Fournet

all rain, K: pluie abondante ; pluie lgre qui tombe et l comme une rose amm misfortune, K: malheur am to ,ood, K: se rpandre et inonder urad scar, K: cicatrice awb rain, K: pluie

irr (a kind of) sparrow, K: une sorte de passereau

tatata to move about noisily, K: se mouvoir avec bruit

taam to weave with di"erent colors, K: nuancer une to"e, la tisser de di"rentes couleurs atamma, atam black, K: tre noir tat underneath, lower part, K: le dessous, la partie infrieure taab to #ll up (a vase), K: remplir (un vase) tais far away ; to die, K: tre loin, loign ; prir t (t y ) to ,ow, K: couler (se dit des liquides) ar lex talionis, K: talion, sang vers pour le sang ilb very old man, K: vieillard us

all to defecate (animal), K: rendre les excrments (animal) a to ,ow (water), K: couler (eau)

aab to ,ow (tears, blood), K: faire couler, verser (larmes, sang) a a group (of travellers)

uab a kind of venimous lizard, K: sorte de lzard trs vnimeux aa to (let) fall, to lower, K: laisser tomber de haut en bas ; abaisser

(ta)abab (F. II) to murmur (water), to resound (steps), K: bruire (eau) ; bruit des pas ass to go away ; to disappear, K: s'en aller, s'loigner ; disparatre aba (F.V) to #ll up (a vase, a river), K: remplir (un vase, une rivire) a to have sexual intercourse, K: cohabiter avec une femme u statterer, K: bgue, qui a la langue embarrasse u cold, K: rhume de cerveau

iml hued cloth ; black, K: to"e trempe et sature de couleur ; tre noir

waaf to pour, K: tomber en grande quantit (se dit d'une forte averse)

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

23

to speak unintelligibly because of a physical defect, K: lvre fendue, ratelier brch aam to have sexual intercourse, K: cohabiter avec une femme ubib to have fever ; illness, K: avoir de la #vre ; maladie Bibliography ALBRIGHT, WILLIAM F. (1966): The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and their Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

BARTH. J. (1972) [1907-1911]: Sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Semitischen. Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam 1972).

BENNETT, PATRICK R. (1998): Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. BERGSTRSSER, GOTTHELF (1995) [1923]: Introduction to the Semitic Languages: Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches. (Translated by PETER T. DANIELS). Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

BOHAS, GEORGES (1997): Matrices, etymons, racines, lments d'une thorie lexicologique du vocabulaire arabe. Paris : Louvain.

BOHAS, GEORGES (2000): Matrices et tymons, dveloppements de la thorie. Lausanne: Editions du Zbre.

BOMHARD, ALLAN R. & KERNS, JOHN C. (1994): The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Berlin-New York: Mouton. BOMHARD, ALLAN (2008): Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic, Comparative Phonology, Morphology, And Vocabulary, 2. Vol. Leiden: Brill. BOTTER WECK, G.J. (1952): Der Triliterismus im Semitischen. Bonn: Peter Hanstein.

BROCKELMANN, CARL (1910): Prcis de linguistique smitique. Paris.

BROCKELMANN, CARL (1908): Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, I. Laut - und Formenlehre. Berlin : Reuther Reichard. BROCKELMANN, CARL (1916): Semitische Sprachwissenschaft, 2. Au4. Leipzig. BROCKELMANN, CARL (1928): Einfhrung in die semitischen Sprachen. Mnchen.

BROCKELMANN, CARL (1999): A prcis of Semitic linguistics. Calcutta [Eng. version of the Einfhrung of 1928]

24

A. Fournet

BYNON. J. & BYNON, TH. (eds.) (1975): Hamito-Semitica, The Hague Paris: Mouton.

CANTINEAU, JEAN (1954): Le consonantisme du smitique. In: Semitica IV: 7994. COHEN, MARCEL (1947): Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phontique du chamito-smitique. Paris: Champion.

DHORME, P. (1930): Langues et critures smitiques. Paris.

DIAKONOV, I.M. (1988): Afrasian Languages. Moskva.

DIAKONOV, I.M. (1965): Semitico-Hamitic Languages, an Essay in Classi#cation. Moskva: Nauka. FLEISCH, HENRI (1947): Introduction ltude des langues smitiques: Elments de bibliographie. Paris. GARBINI, GIOVANNI (1984): Le lingue semitiche: studi di storia linguistica. Napoli: Istituto Orientale. GARBINI, GIOVANNI & DURAND, OLIVIER (1995): Introduzione alle lingue semitiche. Brescia: Paideia.

FRONZAROLI, P. (1973): Studies on Semitic Lexicography. Firenze.

GRANDE, B.M. (1959): Morfologicheskoje i leksicheskoje vyrazenije grammaticheskih kategorij v semitskih jazykch [The morphological and lexical expression of grammatical categories in the Semitic Languages], PV 3: 126128.

GRANDE, B.M. (1972): Vvedenije v sravniteljnoje izuchenije semitskih jazykov (Introduction to the comparative study of the Semitic languages), Moskva.

HETZRON, ROBERT (ed.) (1997): The Semitic Languages. London: Routledge. HOERTH, ALFRED J. et al. (1994): Peoples of the Old Testament World. Grand Rapids: Baker.

HOOKER, J.T. (1990): Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet. London: British Museum Press. KAZIMIRSKI, A. DE BIBERSTEIN (1860): Dictionnaire arabe-franais. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie. KIENAST, B. (2001): Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Mit Beitrgen von E. GRAEFE (Altaegyptisch) und G.B. GRAGG (Kuschitisch). Wiesbaden. KURYOWICZ, JERZY (1961): Lapophonie en smitique. Warszawa.

Some Features of Proto-Arabic Phonemes

25

KUTSCHER, E.Y. (1982): A History of the Hebrew Language. JrusalemLeyde: Magnes Press. LIPINSKI, EDWARD (2001): Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Leuven: Peeters.

LOPRIENO, ANTONIO (1995): Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. MARTINET, ANDR (1953): Remarques sur le consonantisme smitique. BSL 49: 6778.

MILITAREV, ALEXANDER & KOGAN, LEONID (2000): Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. I: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Mnster. MORAG, SHELOMO (1962): The vocalisation systems of Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The Hague: Mouton.

MOSCATI, SABATINO (1954): Il sistema consonantico delle Lingue Semitiche. Roma: Ponti#co Istituto Biblico.

MOSCATI, S., SPITALER, A., ULLENDORF, E. & VON SODEN, W. (1964): An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Pholonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden. MOSCATI, SABATINO (1969): An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages: phonology and morphology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

NLDEKE, T. (1899): Die semitischen Sprachen, 2. Au,. Leipzig.

NAVEH, JOSEPH (1987): Early history of the alphabet. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. NLDEKE, T. (1904): Beitrge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strasbourg. NLDEKE, T. (1910): Neue Beitrge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strasbourg. O'LEARY, DE LACY EVANS (1923): Comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. London : K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.

OREL, VLADIMIR, E. & STOLBOVA, OLGA, V. (1995): Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Leiden-NewYorkKln. PETRAEK, K. (1975): Le dynamisme du systme phonologique protosmitique et les problmes de la phonologie chamito-smitique. In: BYNON. J. & BYNON, TH. (eds.). (Titre ?) 1975: 161168.

RABIN, H. (1989): Brve histoire de la langue hbraque. Paris.

26

A. Fournet

RABIN, C. (1991): Semitic languages: an introduction (Heb.). Jerusalem.

RINALDI, G. (1954): Le lingue semitiche. Torino.

RENAN, E. (1833): Histoire gnrale et systme compar des langues smitiques. Paris. RUNDGREN, F. (1976): Semitic Languages. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 6: 99112. SENZ-BADILLOS, ANGEL (1996): A History of the Hebrew Language. Tr. by ELWOLDE, JOHN. Cambridge University Press.

SASS, BENJAMIN (1988): The Genesis of the Alphabet and its Development in the Second Millennium BC, gypten Und Altes Testament, Band 13. In Kommission bei Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.

SASSON, JACK M. (1995): Civilizations of the ancient Near East, vols. IIV. New York, NY : Scribner.

SIMEONE-SENELLE, MARIE-CLAUDE (1997): The modern South Arabian languages. In: HETZRON, ROBERT (ed.) (Titre?) 1997: 378423. STEINER, RUDOLF (1977): The case of fricative-laterals in Proto-Semitic. American oriental series, vol. 59. New Haven: American oriental society.

TORCZYNER, H. (1916): Die Entstehung des semitischen Sprachtypus. Wien. ULLENDORFF, EDWARD (1955): The Semitic languages of Ethiopia: a comparative phonology. London: Taylor's (Foreign) Press.

WATSON, JANET C.E. (2002): The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic. Oxford University Press.