Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:13:18.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A reconstruction of the system of verb aspects in proto-Berbero-Semitic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2018

Maarten Kossmann  and
Benjamin D. Suchard
Maarten Kossmann*
Affiliation:
Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
Benjamin D. Suchard*
Affiliation:
Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several verbal forms reconstructed for proto-Semitic strongly resemble reconstructed forms in proto-Berber: compare Semitic yV-PaRRaS to Berber y-əFăRRăS, Semitic yV-PRaS to Berber y-əFRăS, and Semitic yV-PRuS and yV-PRiS to Berber y-ăFRəS. We suggest that these forms are historically related and sketch a line of development from the reconstructed meanings to their attested uses. yVPaRRaS, originally imperfective, retains that value in both Berber and Semitic. yVPRas, originally stative, gained a perfective meaning in Berber and Semitic; the stative meaning is retained in Berber, but was largely lost in Semitic. yVPRus/yVPRiS, originally perfective, retained that meaning in Semitic, merging with the newly perfective yVPRas forms; in Berber, yVPRaS completely replaced perfective yVPRuS/yVPRiS, relegating the latter to non-aspectual uses. We conclude by considering the quality of the first vowel; the alternation seen in Berber y-əFRăS and y-ăFRəS supports reconstructions as yiPRaS and yaPRuS/yaPRiS, conforming to the Barth–Ginsberg Law of Semitic.

Keywords

SemiticBerberAspectComparative linguisticsVerbal systemReconstruction
Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 41 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS, University of London 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

Our sincere thanks go to Holger Gzella, Ahmad Al-Jallad, Marijn van Putten and Lameen Souag as well as to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Aro, Jussi. 1964. Die Vokalisierung des Grundstammes im semitischen Verbum. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.Google Scholar
Barth, Jakob. 1894. “Zur vergleichenden semitischen Grammatik”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 48, 1–21.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
CAD: The Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Chaker, Salem. 1995. Linguistique berbère. Études de syntaxe et de diachronie. Paris and Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Cohen, David, 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique. Leuven and Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marcel, 1955. “Verbes déponents internes (ou verbes adhérents) en sémitique”, in Cohen, M., Cinquante années de recherches linguistiques, ethnographiques, sociologiques, critiques et pédagogiques, 227–47. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Diakonoff, Igor. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dillmann, August. 1899. Grammatik der äthiopischen Sprache. Leipzig: Hermann Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Shay, Erin (eds). 2012. The Afroasiatic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galand, Lionel. 1977. “Continuité et renouvellement d'un système verbal : le cas du berbère”, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 72, 275–303.Google Scholar
Galand, Lionel. 1980. “Une intégration laborieuse : Les verbes de qualité en berbère”, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 75/1, 347–362.Google Scholar
Galand, Lionel. 1987. “Les emplois de l'aoriste sans particule en berbère”, in Jungraithmayr, Herrmann and Müller, Walter (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, 361–79.10.1075/cilt.44.20galGoogle Scholar
Galand, Lionel. 2010. Regards sur le berbère. Milan: Centro Studi Camito-Semitici.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, Harold L. 1932–33. “On the epic of ʿAlʾēyân Baʿl” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 4, 106–09, 380–90.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, Harold L. 1939. “Two religious borrowings in Ugaritic literature”, Orientalia 8, 317–27.Google Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2004. “The markers of person, gender, and number in the prefixes of G-preformative conjugations in Semitic”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 124/1, 23–35.10.2307/4132151Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1976. “Two principles of genetic reconstruction”, Lingua 38, 89–108.10.1016/0024-3841(76)90074-7Google Scholar
Huehnergard, John. 1987. “‘Stative,’ predicative form, pseudo-verb”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, 215–32.10.1086/373246Google Scholar
Huehnergard, John. 2005. “Features of Central Semitic”, in Gianto, Agustinus (ed.), Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, 155–203. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.Google Scholar
Huehnergard, John. 2006. “Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian”, in Deutscher, Guy and Kouwenberg, N.J.C. (eds), The Akkadian Language in its Semitic Context, 1–18. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.Google Scholar
Ingham, Bruce. 1994. Najdi Arabic. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/loall.1Google Scholar
Kienast, Burkhart. 2001. Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Knudsen, Ebbe Egede. 1984–86. “Innovations in the Akkadian present”, Orientalia Suecana 33–5, 231–9.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 1997. Grammaire du parler berbère de Figuig. Paris and Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 1999. Essai sur la phonologie du proto-berbère. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2000. “Le futur à Ghadamès et l'origine de la conjugaison verbale en berbère”, in Chaker, Salem and Zaborski, Andrzej (eds), Études berbères et chamito-sémitiques. Mélanges offerts à Karl-G. Prasse, 237–55. Paris and Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2001. “The origin of the glottal stop in Zenaga and its reflexes in the other Berber languages”, Afrika und Übersee 84, 61–100.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2002. “L'origine de l'aoriste intensif en berbère”, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 97/1, 353–70.10.2143/BSL.97.1.503764Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2011. A Grammar of Ayer Tuareg (Niger). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2012. “Berber”, in Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Shay, Erin (eds), The Afroasiatic Languages, 18–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2013. The Arabic Influence on Northern Berber. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2015. “On the origin of the negative aspectual stems in Berber”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 185/2, 255–77.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, N.J.C. 1997. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Assen: Van Gorcum.10.1163/9789004358638Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, N.J.C. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Lanfry, Jacques. 1973. Ghadamès. II. Glossaire (parler des Ayt Waziten). Algiers: Le Fichier Périodique.Google Scholar
Lipiński, Edward. 2001. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd edition. Leuven and Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Mettouchi, Amina. 2004. “Diathesis, aspect and stativity in Taqbaylit Berber”, in Naït-Zerrad, Kamal, Vossen, Rainer and Ibriszimow, Dymitr (eds), Nouvelles études berbères. Le verbe et autres articles, 95–110. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Naït-Zerrad, Kamal. 2002. Dictionnaire des racines berbères (formes attestées). III. Ḍ-GƐY. Paris and Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Prasse, Karl-G. 1972–73. Manuel de grammaire touarègue. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Prasse, Karl-G. 2009. Manuel de grammaire touarègue. Syntaxe. Schwülper: Cargo Verlag.Google Scholar
Rössler, Otto. 1952. “Der semitische Charakter der libyschen Sprache”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 50, 121–50.10.1515/zava.1952.50.1.121Google Scholar
Rubin, Aaron. 2010. The Mehri Language of Oman. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004187627Google Scholar
Rubin, Aaron. 2014. The Jibbali (Shaḥri) Language of Oman. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rundgren, Frithiof. 1959. Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation. Uppsala: Lundelquistska Bokhandeln; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Soden, Wolfram von. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.Google Scholar
Streck, Michael. 1995. “ittašab ibakki ‘weinend setzte er sich’: iparras für die Vergangenheit in der akkadischen Epik”, Orientalia 64/2, 33–91.Google Scholar
Suchard, Benjamin D. 2016. The Development of the Biblical Hebrew Vowels. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Suchard, Benjamin D. Forthcoming. “A triconsonantal derivation of the lamed-he paradigm”, Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt.Google Scholar
Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2004. “Les verbes à finale laryngale en zénaga”, in Naït-Zerrad, Kamal, Vossen, Rainer and Ibriszimow, Dymitr (eds), Nouvelles études berbères. Le verbe et autres articles, 171–90. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2009. “Les morphèmes de futur en arabe et en berbère. Réflexions pour une typologie”, Faits de Langues 33, 91–102.10.1163/19589514-033-01-900000012Google Scholar
Testen, David. 1992. “A trace of Barth's preradical *i in Akkadian”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51, 131–3.10.1086/373536Google Scholar
Testen, David. 1994. “The I-w verbal class and the reconstruction of the early Semitic preradical vocalism”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 114/3, 426–34.Google Scholar
Testen, David. 2000. “Conjugating the ‘prefixed stative’ verbs of Akkadian”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59/2, 81–92.Google Scholar
Voigt, Rainer. 1988. Die infirmen Verbaltypen des Arabischen und das Biradikalismus-Problem. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Voigt, Rainer. 2004. “Die Entwicklung des Aspektsystems vom Ursemitischen zum Hebräischen”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 154, 35–55.Google Scholar
Vycichl, Werner. 1992. “Der Ursprung der Partikel ad- zur Bildung des Konjunktivs, des Optativs und des Futurum im Berberischen”, Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 4, 82–5.Google Scholar
Weninger, Stefan. 2011. “Reconstructive morphology”, in Weninger, Stefan (ed.), The Semitic Languages, 151–78. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar