Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:22:52.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Middle and Old Arabic Material for the History of Stress in Arabic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

J. Balu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The scholastic investigation of stress in Arabic starts with Lambert's pioneering article in 1897. Lambert demonstrated that the accepted stress of Classical Arabic is not based on genuine tradition, but was formulated at the beginning of the seventeenth century by Erpenius, who was influenced by the (Syrian–) Lebanese pronunciation of Classical Arabic. Recognizing the secondary origin of the traditional stress in Classical Arabic, Lambert established the relationship of stress in Classical Arabic to that of the various Arabic dialects on an entirely new basis. He himself emphasized the originality of stress as it is preserved in the Maghribī dialects (ibid., 409).3 In 1907 the first fascicle of Brockelmann's monumental Grundriss appeared, in which (pp. 82 ff.) Brockel-mann advocated the originality of the traditional accentuation in Classical Arabic, as generally preserved in the Syrian-Lebanese dialects. In 1908, Kampffmeyer reached the conclusion that the system of stress in the Maghribī dialects is more original than that of the Syrian-Lebanese group. However, since he published only the first part of his Untersuchungen, he dealt only with the stress in Spanish Arabic and the Moroccan (pp. 7–58), in addition to his results (pp. 1–7) contained in his brief introduction. A short synopsis of his views, with additional material, is included in Kampffmeyer, EI. An important review of the stress in Arabic (pp. 35–41) is contained in Sarauw. Despite the late appearance of his work (1939), he had almost completed it at the time of his sudden death in 1925. Moreover, the main body of his treatise had been composed as early as 1908 (cf. p. 3), the same year in which Kampffmeyer claimed the originality of the Western (Maghribī) stress.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , October 1972 , pp. 476 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For bibliography, see p. 484.

2 Sarauw (on whom see above) arrived at similar conclusions (p. 35), without knowing of Lambert's article.

3 Nöldeke, , in one of his reviews (ZDMG, xxix, 1875, 324)Google Scholar, had already expressed the view that ┌kaeáb┐ (i.e. the Maghribī type) is more original than kátab (the Syrian-Lebanese type). It was perhaps due to Nöldeke's influence that his pupil Barth (p. 15; quoted by Kampffmeyer, p. 2) regarded the stress on the second syllable of the perfect (‘as preserved by the Bedouin of the Syrian desert’) as original.

4 Further literature may easily be found in the treatises quoted in § 1. I do not deal with stress in other Semitic languages, since it is beyond the scope of this paper. Yet the importance of the original stress of Arabic for the reconstrvietion of the Proto-Semitic stress system may easily be inferred from Moscati's view (quoted supra), who mainly (though not exclusively) assumed a similar stress pattern for Proto-Semitic, basing his view on the traditional stress of Classical Arabic.

Obiter dictu, no proof can be adduced for the originality of the Eastern stress system from Hebrew. As a rule, because of the sound shift > ō, a stress system of Old Hebrew is reconstructed which concurs with that assumed for Classical Arabic (i.e. from the Eastern type). Yet a stress system that, in its basic traits, is identical with the old Maghribī stress pattern, accounts for the sound shift > ō as well, no less than the Eastern stress system. I hope to deal with this subject in a paper on problems of stress in Old Hebrew.

I did not mention papers dealing only with synchronic descriptions of Arabic dialects without a diachronic slant, such as Mitchell's, T. F. important paper, BSOAS, XXIII, 2, 1960, 369–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am exclusively interested in the historical stress pattern that may be inferred from the present stress system.

5 One should pay special attention to Birkeland's claim quoted above that the Eastern (and accordingly younger) stress system is superimposed on the Western (and accordingly older) one. Cf. also Grotzfeld's view that the new, Syrian—Lebanese, stress system started from the centre of the speech area and later spread gradually to its margins.

6 cf. also Ch. A, p. 31, § 1.4.3.9.

7 Since the photographs attached to Violet are almost illegible, I had to rely on Violet's and Kahle's reading.

8 See p. 398, where Kampffmeyer reads yu'ṭī 'he gives’ and alē ‘he has come’ with oxytone accent, as against ίουγ.τι and ατε respectively in Violet (and Kahle) without any accent. καδσο, quoted on p. 397, does not, it seems, bear any accent either.

9 These forms then became productive, causing other forms (such as the participle) to be formed from the fourth verbal form as well.

10 Whether the stress remained oxytone (’aẓhάr) or later passed to the prosthetic vowel (> άẓhar), is, of course, of no significance for the historical reconstruction of the stress.

11 As happened, e.g., with the participle, v. above, n. 9.

12 It hlᾱ (pronounce hollᾱ?) is not a mere scribal error for hōlᾱ (Ch. A, p. 138, § 32.6), it may be explained as being due to stress on the last syllable, thus causing the preceding long vowel in an open syllable to be shortened (pace Ch. A, p. 138, n. 32, where the Syrian stress system is taken for granted). Yet this contravenes our assumption § 3.3.

Words like ’ukra < kura ‘ball’, 'aghdan (?) <ghadan ‘tomorrow’ (Ch. A, 73) may be interpreted as being due to the tendency of adapting short words to the general rhythmic pattern.

13 Also Classical Arabic hᾱ᾽it ‘wall’, spelt in Christian Arabic hyt, presumably to be pronounced hēṭ (Ch. A, p. 94, § 11.4.1.1), has apparently to be interpreted as stressed on its first syllable: > hyit > hyt > hēṭ, and the same applies to classical mᾱ᾽ida ‘table’, spelt in Christian Arabic myda: > myida > > myida > māyda > mᾱyda (as it was presumably pronounced). Theoretically, however, it may be claimed that these Christian Arabic features are derived from forms stressed on their second syllables: ḥᾱyίdαmᾱyίda, in which ᾱyί shifted to ē.

14 The only seeming exception, ᾽yd ‘hands’ = ᾽aydī, may be interpreted as singular: ᾽īd, v. Ch. A, p. 199, n. 258.

15 At any rate, it will be rather venturesome to attribute oxytone stress to the syllable pattern ‘short syllable—long syllable (i.e. with long vowel)—closed syllable’, since the material is so scantv.

16 Yet Sarauw, p. 38, n. 1, derives this form from *jabl.

17 Again, because of the meagre material, one will hesitate to claim paroxytone stress for the syllable pattern ‘short—closed’ (bά‘αth), as against oxytone stress for ‘closed—closed’ (᾽asάl) or for the ‘closed—short—open’ pattern (such as yu‘dim), though this is well possible.

18 Again, one will hesitate to attribute paroxytone stress to the syllable structure ‘closed— long’.

19 One will again hesitate to attribute paroxytone stress to special syllable structures. More-over, paroxytone ᾽antumū (closed—short—long) would contravene our immediately following assumption as to the possible oxytone stress of words like harbuhū ‘his war’.

20 Yet see the preceding note.

21 Thus e.g. Bauer-Leander, 179.