The imperative forms of Proto-Semitic and a new perspective on Barth's Law.

• Author: Bar-Asher, Elitzur Avraham
• Position: Report

1. INTRODUCTION

   Over a century ago Jakob Barth suggested, (1) in what has come to be known as Barth's Law, that the quality of the vowel following the consonantal pronominal prefix in the G-stem depends on the thematic vowel of the verbal base, i.e., a dissimilarity between the two vowels. Thus, the assumed Proto-Semitic [henceforth: PS] forms are: *ya-qtul, *ya-qtil and *yi-qtal. Since that time, this law has been confirmed from various facts in the various branches of the Semitic languages.

   In this paper I would like to propose a new perspective on this law, and to suggest that this law is in fact connected to another phenomenon. Accordingly, it is not an independent law but rather a reflection of the process through which the preformative conjugation originates, and the distribution of the vowels can be explained accordingly. This hypothesis can be described as synchronic rules or as diachronic changes; for the sake of clarity I will use the historical linguistic terminology.

   In order to support this theory I propose the following three hypotheses, which represent three stages in the postulated development:

   1. In PS there was a variety of imperative forms. Among them--if this was not indeed the case for all--were three patterns in which the first and second vowels were not the same: qatil, qatul, and qital.

   2. The prefix conjugation is a result of the merging of the prefixes with the basic verbal form, which is the [empty set]-marked form, also used for the imperative mood.

   3. The vowel of the prefixes was similar to the original first vowel of these verbal forms, and later the first vowel of the basic form of the verb was reduced to zero.

   An alternative to C will be considered, according to which there was originally no vowel after the pronominal prefix, and parts of the affixation involved a metathesis.

   Acceptance of all of these hypotheses leads to a result according to which all of the verbs in their prefix forms agree with Barth's Law. Let us demonstrate this last statement by following the different options (P stands for Prefix):

   *P+qatil > [*Pa+qatil >] Paqtil [yaqtil] *P+qatul > [*Pa+qatul >] Paqtul [yaqtul] *P+qital > [*Pi+qital >] Piqtal [yiqta] The stage described in hypothesis C is put within brackets, since it depends upon the necessity of this stage.

   In the first part of this article ([section]2) I will support hypothesis A regarding the forms of the imperative in PS by adducing on the one hand the evidence for this hypothesis from the different languages, and on the other I will examine the compatibility of the actually occurring forms in the different branches of the Semitic languages with this suggestion.

   In [section]3 I will present the various theories regarding the origin of the prefix conjugation, and will argue in support of the theory presented in B. Following this conclusion, I will assess the validity of the different options that were mentioned in C ([section]3.3.1), and propose a few explanations for these processes, indicating parallel phenomena in the various Semitic languages. I will conclude this part with the above-mentioned result regarding Barth's Law ([section]3.3.1.1). In [section]3.3.1.2 I will follow a discussion on the ramifications of this study for our understanding of Barth's Law, and section [section]3.3.2 will examine an alternative explanation for the phenomenon discussed.

   As a result of hypothesis C, Barth's Law may be assumed to apply already at the stage of PS. In [section]4 I will deal with the counter-arguments against this result and conclude with an appendix where I will suggest that these hypotheses have the advantage of shedding some light on another unexplained phenomenon in Akkadian.

2. THE FORMS OF THE IMPERATIVE IN PROTO-SEMITIC

   2.1. To apply the Prague school terminology, imperatives are used as manifestations of the conative function of languages. By this form the speaker is asking the obedience of the hearer. Sometimes, more humbly, the use of this form of the verb, rather than the indicative, functions merely as a wish for a certain action to be performed by the addressee, especially when the speaker does not have the authority to command his interlocutor.

   In this paper I will not discuss any of these issues. (2) I will deal with neither functions nor uses, and will constrain myself solely to the realm of "pure forms." I will examine the signum with little reference to the signatum, and will try to propose a new explanation concerning the structural and derivational relationship between the imperative forms and other categories in the verbal system of the Semitic languages.

   There are two major questions concerning the form of the imperative in PS:

1. What were the forms of the imperative in PS? Or to be more specific: what were these forms in the G-stem? (It seems that in the other stems the answer is rather simple.) (3)

2. What is the derivational relationship, if any, between the imperative form and other verbal forms?

   Although these two questions are often connected, as it is clear from the relevant literature, they can, or perhaps even should, be treated independently. Therefore I will start by dealing with the former, and following the results of this discussion I will reconsider the latter.

   There are two common competing theories in the literature concerning the forms of the imperative in PS. One suggests a monosyllabic *qtVl pattern as the original form. (4) that is, the root with the thematic vowel; the other, based mostly on evidence from Arabic and Akkadian, assumes that the basic forms were the three different possible disyllabic alternations of the root with two identical short vowels after the first and the second radicals, either with /a/ or with /u/ or /i/. Thus, the three options for the imperative G-stem were: qatal, qutul and qitil. (5)

   These standard suggestions are based on the fact that in most Semitic languages the first vowel is a schwa, (6) while a full vowel appears regularly only in Akkadian. Some remnants of this vowel are reflected in Arabic as well, but with one shift: the first vowel is pronounced before the first radical of the root, a phenomenon which will require further consideration later on in this paper. Both in Akkadian and in Arabic the first and second vowels are usually the same, with the exception that in Arabic (and often in Akkadian as well) when the last vowel is /a/ the first vowel is /i/.

   In order to understand the background for these proposals let us begin by introducing the regular forms in all the main branches of the Semitic languages, especially in those with vowel attestation:

   Akkadian qutul, qatal (qital), qitil Arabic (7) ('u)qutul, ('i)qtil, ('i)qtal Ethiopic qetel, qetal Hebrew qetVI Aramaic qetVI It should be noted that attestations of imperative forms with identical first and second vowel are found in the Amarna letters as well. (8)

   While those who hold the first theory take the schwa in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ethiopic as a reflection of an original absence of vowel, adherents of the second theory assume that this schwa in fact reflects an original vowel. This is obviously very plausible, since the presence of a schwa mobile in these languages is usually an indication of an original short vowel. In Hebrew and Aramaic, we should assume that the stress was on the ultima, an assumption that can be supported by the fact that the second vowel is either /e/ or /o/ and not /i/ or /u/ respectively. Taking for example the qutul form, we can assume the following development: *qutul > *qutol > qetol.

   Only in the case of an original /a/ after the first radical would we assume that the original vowel should have been preserved, but its reduction can easily be explained as the result of analogy with the other imperative forms that consist of only one vowel: [yaqtil : qetil :: yiqtal: X = qetal].

   In Ethiopic, since these are original short vowels, reduced vowels are to be expected in the case of original /i/ and /u/; again the reduction of the vowel in verbs with an /a/ vowel would be explained by a similar analogy. (9)

   These two common suggestions for the historical development of the imperatives, based on the standard forms of each individual language, are often put forward in the comparative grammars. In this paper, I challenge these schemes by scrutinizing carefully the different forms in the various languages, paying more attention to those forms which are less regular. An alternative picture can be suggested.

   I will argue that the first and the second vowels were originally not the same, or--to be more careful and take a more minimalist path--that in many verbs they were not the same. This suggestion was briefly mentioned by Bauer-Leander, but they believed that it could be supported only from Akkadian, and they never developed this option any further. (10) For this purpose I will survey the main branches of the Semitic languages, and try on the one hand to find evidence that will support my suggestion, and on the other examine whether the actual forms in the different languages are compatible with this theory.

   In this paper I will not directly refute the *qtVl hypothesis. The reason for this is that a priori if a linguist has to choose between the two theories, the one that assumes two vowels should be pursued first, since the option of *qtVl violates what is known to us about the syllabic structures of all classical Semitic languages. The only reason to choose this option would be if there were facts about the imperative forms or their distribution among the different branches of the Semitic languages that were otherwise inexplicable. Thus, by explaining the development of the imperative forms according to the assumption of two vowels, I will have indirectly refuted most of the arguments for the *qtVl hypothesis.

   2.2. Arabic

   We have already seen that in Classical Arabic, when the second vowel is /a/ the first vowel is regularly /i/.

   Therefore, I assume that the /i/ vowel following the...