No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The origins of open and closed e in Proto-Syriac
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
As is well known, the Eastern (or Nestorian) vocalization of Syriac (henceforth ES) consistently distinguishes between ē and ī, whereas the Western (or Jacobite) tradition (henceforth WS), although having both e and i, also has in many cases (originally long) e coinciding with (originally long) i. The question arises of how it happened that in some cases (originally long) e was preserved, whereas in others it shifted to i. Brockelmann and Birkeland were, no doubt, correct in assuming that in Proto-Syriac (henceforth PS) there existed two long e sounds, ē and ē. In ES vocalization these two sounds were not differentiated, whereas in WS (originally long) ę was preserved, but ē shifted to i. Only the assumption of two different forms of ē in PS can account for the twofold representation of original ē in WS, by both ę and i.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , February 1969 , pp. 1 - 9
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1969
References
1 v. the standard Syriac grammars, viz. Nöldeke, T., Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik, second ed., Leipzig, , 1898 (henceforth Nöldeke, Gram.), 7–8Google Scholar, Brockelmann, C., Syrische Grammatik, seventh ed., Leipzig, , 1955 (henceforth Brockelmann, Gram.), 9–10Google Scholar, and the important paper by Birkeland, H., ‘The Syriac phonematic vowel systems’ (henceforth Birkeland), Festskrif til O. Broch…, Oslo, 1947, 13 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Morag, S., The vocalization systems of Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic, '-Gravenhage, 1962, 49 ff.Google Scholar
2 In this vocalization system quantitative differences have altogether disappeared, v.especaially Birkeland, 15. Therefore, ě/ē and ĭ/ī respectively are marked by the same vowel signs. Here, however, we are concerned with WS e and i corresponding to historical long vowels only.
3 v. especially Brockelmann, , Gram., 14–15Google Scholar. Brockelmann's original thesis, as it was expressed in earlier editions of his grammar (v. also Brockelmann, , Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Berlin 1908–1913 (henceforth Brockelmann, Grundriss), I, 37–8, 562gGoogle Scholar) was elaborated by Birkeland, 19 ff.
4 It stands to reason that they were only phonetically different, but did not represent separate phonemes; cf. Birkeland, passim, and Brockelmann, Gram., 15.
5 Nevertheless, one is inclined to assume that they subsisted as Phonetic variants, but, being phonematically not differentiated, they were not marked by special signs
6 According to Nöldeke, , ZDMG, XXXV 1881, 224Google Scholar, the original ē is preserved in the West Syriac Neo-Aramaic dialect of TŪr 'Abdīn, the only exceptions being rīšŊ ‘head’ and šīdŊ ‘devil’, the latter perhaps a loan-word form the ecclesiastical language. It would be easy to explain rūšŊ phonetically, as influenced by the following š, v. A. Siegel, Laut- und Formenlehre des neu-aramäischen Dialekts des Ṭūr Abdî (Beitrage zur Semitischen Philologie und Linguistik, 2), Hannover, 1923 §§ 14e, 15b (and even šīdŊ owing to the preceding š). However, ē > ī occurs in ṬŪr 'Abdīn in some other cases (v. Siegel, op. cit., 87, Jastrow, O., Laut- und Formenlenlehre des neuaramäischem Dialekts von Miḏin im Ṭur 'Abdin. Inaugural- Dissertation… Unuversität des Saarlandes, Bamberg 1967, 179Google Scholar): bīrŊ ‘well’, fīrŊ ‘fruit’. Should one assume dialect mixture ? This assumption, however, does not seem necessary for old WS, v. infra.
7 cf. also Birkeland (whose paper and the above–mentioned paragraphs in Brockelmann, are together the most importand contributions to our subject), 26.
8 For the themes yiqṭal as against yaqṭual (yaqṭil, cf. e.g. Ewald, H., Ausfuhrliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes, eighth ed., Göttingen, , 1870, § 138Google Scholar; Barth, J., ZDMG. XLVIII, 1894, 1 ff.Google Scholar; Brockelmann, , Grundriss, I, 562Google Scholar; Ginsberg, H. L., Orientalia, VIII, 1939, 319 ff.Google Scholar; Bloch, A., ZDMG, CXVII, 1, 1967, 22ff.Google Scholar
9 Verba primae w(y) also follow this pattern as well, e.g. WS nilaḏ ‘he will bear’, cf. Nöldeke, , Gram., §175AGoogle Scholar, pace Brockelmann, , Grundriss, I, 601gβGoogle Scholar. Brockelmann, , Gram., § 181E, F, G.Google Scholar
10 v. Brockelmann, Gram., 91. One assumes the existence of oen original infinitive form miqtal, rather than postulating two different vowels in the first syllable in accordance with the imperfect prefixes.
11 So Nöldeke, , Gram., 74Google Scholar; Smith, R. Payne, Thesaurus syriacus, Oxford, 1879–1901 (henceforth Payne smith)Google Scholar, s.v.; as against mi…, Brockelmann, , Lexicon syriacum, second ed., Halle, /Saale, , 1928 (henceforth Brockelmann, LS), S.v.Google Scholar
12 Even the infinitive of 'ty is, according to Payne Smith s.v., meṯo, presumably because the influence of the imprefect, terminating in –e as against the final in the infinitive (v. infra p.7, n.55), was less conspicuous.
13 Thus Nöldeke, , Gram., 124Google Scholar, yet Moberg, A. (ed.), Le Livre des splendeurs: le grande grammaire de Grégoire Barhebraeus, Lund, 1922, (henceforth Bar Hebraeus), p. 125, 1. 25Google Scholar, and Payne Smith s.v., read neРe. In some cases, however, even nouns beginning with original ma- are influenced by the imperfect: mizlọ, mizalṯọ, ‘going’ mizalṯọ ‘saying’.
14 Not *ka’bā, pace Bergsträsser, G., Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen, München, 1928, 61.Google Scholar
15 v. e. g. Brockelmann, , Grundriss, I, 202cGoogle Scholar; Bauer, H. and Leander, P., Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, Halle/Saale, 1927 (henceforth Bauer and Leander), 60f.; Brockelmann, Gram., § 47bβ, 58 [sic].Google Scholar
16 v. e.g. Brockelmann, Gram., β 58.
17 Pace Bauer and Leander, 60 f.
18 vv. Bauer and Leander, 41s.
19 cf. also Hebrew rēšiṯ ‘beginning’ and perhaps Ugaritic riš as well. But one would not go as far as J. Friedrich, Orientalia, XII, 1943, 18.
20 v. Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, 266, 379; Bauer and Leander, 59c; Brockelmann, Ls, s.v., where, however, the possibility of another derivation is indicated.
21 For the special status of mānā cf.also Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, 379, § 198c; v., however, also Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, 266, §, Where a more likely solution is offered, and, following him, Bauer and Leander 194r. This ancient sound shift is perhaps shown also by būṯar, WS bǫṯar, if it is to be dericed form *ba'tar (rather than from bр'aṯar, from which the later baṯar arose). This would, however, presuppose an ancient construct form *'tar, rather than 'aṯar. As a rule, however, it is derived form *ba'aṯar. On the other hand, qerā
22 This seems more likely than the assumption (v. Brockelmann, Gram., § 59) that owing to the influence of the ‘,’ shifted to ā rather than to ē.
23 cf.also A. Spitaler, BO, XI, I, 1954, p.32, n. 5. As to ‘ā‘yāṯā ‘pinnacle’, v. Brockelmann, Ls, s. v. (and the literature quoted there), as against Nöldeke, Gram., 38, § 53. ḥannā ‘bosom‘ <*ha’nā <*ḥa‘nā ļ*ḥaḍnā the glottal stop was assimilated to the immediately following n, v. Brockelmann, Gram., 23, § 35, remark.
24 For the (relatively late) analogical spread of i in ‘in in prepositional use v. Brockelmann, Gram., 33, Anm. 2, where other cases of analogical formation are also mentioned. This phenomenon is also exhibited by WS k∂mino ‘ambush’ and r∂mino ‘ambush’ and r∂tito ‘trembling’, derived from the theme quṫayl, v. Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, § 137.
25 But also lelyo, v. Nöldeke, Gram., 91.
26 For this form, instead of the expected laylay, which still occurs (v. Nöldeke, Gram., 91), with ay in the final open syllable, v. P. 7, n. 54.
27 Some of the cases may show original ayi, v. infra, § 3.2.
28 So according to Payne Smith, s.vv.; Nöldeke, Gram., 97, § B. Brockelmann, LS, s.vv. is inexact.
29 As against r∂mayt ‘you threw (masc./fem.)’, where the final vowel disappeared later, thus preserving the diphthong in the originally open syllable.
30 For ayī, v. infra, p. 6, n. 48.
31 One will not try to disprove the shift ayi/auṅ > ệ (> WS i) by citing the occurrence of forms like ES mīṯ ‘dead’, ‘īr ‘awake’, as a rule regarded as also belonging to the theme qaṭil (cf. Nöldeke, Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, Strassburg, 1910 [henceforth NBSS], 209), thus allegedly exhibiting awi > ī (i.e. *mawit > mīṯ, *‘awir > ‘īr). They may reflect the lengthening of originally bilitral words (to whose pattern originally triliteral words might have been adapted). Ths same may apply to WS ‘eqaṯ leh but ES ‘qaṯ ‘to loathe’, v. Bar Hebraeus, 236, 28. Biblical Aramaic rệm ‘was high’ according to the Babylonian vocalization need not be due to Canaanite influence, as Bauer and Leander, 145, assume, but may exhibit the regular sound shift.
32 One will not regard it as diminutive of rūḥā, pace Brockelmann, Ls, s.v., or as exhibiting rayh, pace Brockelmann, Gram., 33, Anm. 2, since its root is rwḥ, but as belongint to the scheme qaṭil, v. Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, 348, Anm., Bauer and Leander, 186w, pace J. Barth, Nominal-bildung …, 79. One cannot, however, agree with Bauer and Leander, loc. cit., that qaṫil shifted to both qāl and qēl. One prefers to regard qāl as being due to lengthening of originally biliteral nouns.
33 One derives this word from a root mediae infirmae, rather than from pqq, pace Brockelmann, LS, s.v., who, because of its medial ē (= WS i), is inclined to consider it a loan from Akkadian: this conclusion arises from circuitous reasoning.
34 Our assertion in the preceding note that nothing indicates an Akkadian loan applies (because of Hebrew kện) even more to this word, pace Brockelmann, LS, s.v., Brockelmann, Gram., 29, § be, v. e.g. Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, § 51a. WS zipǫ ‘falsity’, however, is perhaps of Akkadian origin.
35 This, however, corresponds to Arabic ḥayf.
36 One may consider this form also to be due to dissimilation of r and subsequent lengthening. In cases of dissimilation of r, it is true, the following consonant is doubled (as *gargartā > gaggartā ‘throat’, v. Brockelmann, Gram., § 31); in our case, however, there is a double r.
37 v. Brockelmann, Gram., § 31, and cf. also §bγ; Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, 247, § e. Cf. also the preceding note.
38 On the other hand, nothing can be inferred from WS m∂niqiṯǫ ‘sacred bowl’, pace Brockelmann, Gram., 29, § bγ, since it is a loan-word < Hebrew m∂naqqīǫ. Similarly, nothing can be inferred from many loan-words containing WS e/e, since they may depend upon the timbre of the vowel in the original language. Cf. also Bar Hebraeus, p. 237, 1.3, for WS e to the timbre of ē in the original language, pace Brockelmann, Gram., 30, Anm. 3.
39 Pace Sarauw, C., Über Akzent und Silbenbildung in den älteren semitischen Sprachen, Kebenhavn, 1939, 121, n. 1.Google Scholar
40 As against ‘aynā ‘eye’, which seems to have been less frequent in the status constructus; accordingly, it developed differently, v. supra, P. 3, n. 24.
41 One could, however, claim that *baytā shifted to *bęnt through assimilation to the n(§ 4.2) and beṯ the status constructus of baytā, was influenced by it. This assumption, however, does not explain the (open) e of ṣeḏ.
42 Presumably < ṣadd, v. Nöldeke, Gram., § 21C, Brockelmann, ZDMG, XCIV, 3, 1940, 351.
43 For the influence of r and l cf. Brockelmann, Gram., § 56β; for r also cf. Bauer and Leander, 42u; for h, cf. Bauer and Leander, 39–40, Brockelmann, Gram., § 60; for n, cf. Bauer and Leander, 41t.
44 Yet gērā, WS gerǫ ‘arrow’, has open e, perhaps influenced by the r, as against WS ḥirǫ ‘free’,v. § 3.2. Its derivation from grr is not generally accepted, v. e.g. Brockelmann, Ls, s.v. (whose etymology, howerver, is very doubtful); yet it is borne out by girrā according to Targum Aramaic and the Yemenite reading tradition of Babylonian Aramaic (v. Morag, S., ‘Oral traditions and dialects’, offprint from Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies, Jerusalem, 1965, p. 10, n. 26). According to some (admittedly inferior) traditions it was pronounced WS girǫ, v. Bar Hebraeus, p. 230, 2. 16 ff.Google Scholar
45 Hǫydęḵ ‘then’ is influenced by hǫydęn.
46 cf. e.g. Bauer and Leander, 83j.
47 Saṯīn (also in ES) ‘two measures’ is presumably influenced by the masc. pl. ending, v. Brockelmann, LS, s.v., Nöldeke, NBSS, 131, as against Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, 458. The same occurs with maṯīn ‘200’, v. Nöldeke, NBSS, p. 152, n. 4.
48 One is not inclined to assume that ayī shifted to ệ, as against ayi shifting to ī (v. § 3.2).
49 For the ordinary lengthening of ệ to ệ (WS i) v. § 3.3, where, however, slightly different cases are quoted.
50 cf. also Bauer and Leander, 78–9, who consider this e to be long (but one cannot consent to the proofs adduced by them), as against Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, 312.
51 At this stage of our knowledge, one shpould not rely too heavily on the fluctuation of ‥ and = in ES MSS, v. Nöldeke, Gram., p.8,1. 3; Brockelmann, ZDMG, XCIV, 3, 1940, 350; Segal, J. B., The diacritical point and the accents in Syriac, London, 1953, 30–1. The same applies perhaps to the use of matres lectionis in words like šeṯ, v. Sarauw, op. cit. (above, p.5, n. 39), 113, Nöldeke, Gram., §47, Brockelmann, ZDMG, XCIV, 3, 1940, 351.Google Scholar
52 It may be argued that this ē was a closed one; it did not, however, shift to i in WS in final position. Since thus ệ could occur in WS in final position only, where no ệ was to be found, the differences between these two variants of ệ continued to be non-phonematic, and were, accordingly, marked by the same vowel sign. Nevertheless, this seems less likely.
53 As against *r∂miy > r∂mī ‘throw!’, having final -iy not followed by an original vowel.
54 One would not claim with Birkeland, 24, that m∂rammay cannot be due to analogical formation (cf. q∂ṭalt:r∂mayt = m∂qaṭṭal: X), but a form like salway exhibits, no doubt, originalay. Laylệ: q∂shē = lilyā:X), but to dissimilation as well.
55 Pace Birkeland, 23, q∂nệ = Arabic qanāt has to be analysed as qaṫal. The plural -ēn of nouns ending in original -iy is presumably due to the analogy of nouns terminating in original -ay, v. e.g. Bauer and Leander, 64y. For another explanation v, Kutscher, E.,Studies in Galilean Aramaic (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1952, 28, n. 1. On the other hand, forms like infinitive p‘al WS mermǫ ‘to throw’ < *mermay are due to the analogy of the perfect, v. Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, 379.Google Scholar
56 One has, however, to admit that Syriac grammars and MSS sometimes contain pronunciation systems different from what is known to us both from ES and WS standard vocalization. We stand only at the beginning of these investigations, cf. for the time being the important observations of Segal. The diacritical point, passim, especially 28ff., 152–3. Accordingly, further investigations may alter the conclusions reached.
57 v. Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, p. 293, n. 5.
58 v. e.g. Nödeke, Mandäische Grammatik, 56–6 (who, op. cit., p. 293, n. 5, in my opinion exaggerates when stating that the shift ∂ > ‘ī occurs ‘more or less’ in every Aramaic dialect; it is not impossible that his words are based on the occurrence of ‘īṯ); Brockelmann, Gram., p. 45, Anm. 4; for the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud e.g. Epstein, J. N., A grammar of Babylonian Aramaic (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, 1960, 77, n. 199,203.Google Scholar
59 This had been proposed by other scholars, even before the discovery of Ugaritic iṯ, v. e.g. F. R. Blake, JAOS, XXXV, 1915, 377 ff.; I. Eitan, AJSL, XLV, 1928–9, 138.
60 Final -ay followed by the case vowel should have shifted to ệ, cf. Birkeland, H., Über Akzent und Vokalismus im Althebräischen, Oslo, 1949, 6.Google Scholar
61 cf. for the addition of demonstrative elements to numerals Barth, J., Sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen, 2, Berlin, 1911, 2 ff. The only other Hebrew noun terminating in status absolutus in ệ is ‘aryệ ‘lion’. Is it a loan-word from Aramaic ? This is, at any rate, the opinion of Bauet and Leander, p. 193, n. 2,Google ScholarWagner, M., Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen ARamaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebräisch, Berlin, 1966, 29–30. Yošpē is attested both with ē and ē.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62 The closed ệ was not assimilated to the following n, because of the analogy of nounslike ‘aynā:‘ện = *’ohraynā:X.
63 For the vast literature about this subject cf. Fleisch, H., Traité de philologie arabe, 1, Beyrouth, 1961, 69Google Scholar; cf. also Moscati, S. (ed.), An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, Wiesbaden, 1964, 46–7.Google Scholar