Notes on the Functions of the L-Stem (Stem III) in Quranic Arabic.

• Author: Sjors, Ambjorn

INTRODUCTION

The L-stem refers to a verbal stem in Semitic that is characterized by a (historically) long vowel after the first radical of the root. In Classical Arabic, and in relation to the basic stem I, or the G-stem, the L-stem, also known as stem III, is formed in the perfect by lengthening (compare G qatal- and L qatal-) and in the imperfect and jussive by infixation of long -a-(compare yaqtul- and yuqatil-).

This morphological template has not been postulated for Akkadian, and the consonantal writing systems (sg. abjad) of epigraphic Northwest Semitic and Ancient South Arabian make it impossible to separate formally the L-stem from the D-stem (stem II) or G-stem in most forms of the verb. There are, it is true, a limited number of po'el-verbs in Biblical Hebrew, primarily in the poetic texts, but most, if not all, appear to be produced ad hoc and do not display a common form-meaning pairing (Gzella 2010). The so-called polel-stem of hollow roots, in turn, e.g., Biblical Hebrew konen 'he established', can be derived directly from the D-stem in Northwest Semitic by assimilation of the glide to the final radical, *kawnina < *kawwina (Suchard 2016: 323-24), and does not presuppose the existence of the L-stem.

Thus, this morphological template is primarily known from Arabic, Ethiopian Semitic, and Modern South Arabian, and it has reasonably been interpreted as an areal feature of the geographically southern Semitic languages (Huehnergard and Rubin 2011: 273). However, the grammatical function of the template has proven difficult to reconstruct for the following reasons: in Modern South Arabian, the so-called D/L-stem, which presents Ablaut or vowel infixation in relation to the G-stem, is traditionally interpreted as a morphological merger of the D-stem and the L-stem (Bittner 1911: 12). Thus, its value for the description of the function of the L-stem contrasting with the D-stem is limited. In the Southern Ethiopian Semitic languages, in turn, the L-stem, also known as Type C, is lexically determined and its function cannot be derived synchronically from Type A, the historical G-stem (Leslau 1954). In Ge'ez too, the L-stem is only known from twenty-three roots in Leslau's dictionary (1987) and appears to be lexicalized (Ambros 1991: 62; Tropper 2002: 106).

The L-stems in Tigre of Mensa' and Classical Arabic, on the other hand, are almost universally viewed as derivational verb stems, but they are associated with different functions. The L-stem (Type C) in Tigre is frequently a pluractional modification of the G-stem (Type A) and has intensive, frequentative, or iterative functions (Leslau 1945: 5, 10; Leslau 1954: 18; Raz 1983: 53; Bulakh and Kogan 2011: 26). At the same time, most D-verbs (Type B) in Tigre are lexicalized and exist without a corresponding G-stem (Raz 1983: 52; Bulakh and Kogan 2011: 28-29). In Classical Arabic, the D-stem is primarily a factitive and pluractional derivation of the G-stem (Wright 1967, 1:31; Greenberg 1991). The L-stem. on the other hand, has traditionally been associated with reciprocal, comitative, conative, and emulative functions (see below).

The aim of this investigation is to advance the knowledge of the historical background of the L-stem in Semitic. It will do so by describing the functions of the L-stem in Quranic Arabic. The investigation consists of three sections and an appendix. The first section reviews previous research on the L-stem in Classical Arabic; the second section explains the methods used in the investigation and briefly describes the concept of pluractionality; and the third section analyzes the most frequently occurring functions of the L-stem in Quranic Arabic. The appendix lists all the L-stems in the corpus in Tables 1-5.

1. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE L-STEM IN CLASSICAL ARABIC

   Henri Fleisch (1944: 47-61) distinguishes two major approaches to the functions of the L-stem in Classical Arabic in his literature review. (1) According to one school of thought, originating with Sibawayhi (fl. eighth century) and followed by subsequent medieval grammarians, the L-stem expresses "the action of two." (2) This idea is most clearly expounded by al-Astarabadhi (fl. thirteenth century) in Sharh al-Shafiyya, his commentary on a work by Ibn al-Hajib (d. 1248), who is quoted as saying that the L-stem is used "explicitly for coparticipation, and then the opposite comes implicitly." (3) According to al-Astarabadhi, this means that the subject of the L-verb is someone who participates (musharik) with the referent of the accusative in the action of the verb, and that the referent of the accusative is someone with whom the subject participates (musharak), but the musharik is also the musharak, because man sharaktahu fa-qad sharakaka "whomever you have participated with, he has also participated with you" (Shafiyya, 1: 98.6). For example, in the clause darahtu zaydan, the accusative is both a patient, i.e., someone who is beaten, and a musharak, i.e., someone who has participated in the beating (Shafiyya, 1: 98.13-14), e.g., "I beat Zayd and vice versa."

   The second approach was advanced by Heinrich Ewald (1831, 1: 97), according to whom the L-stem expresses "action aimed toward something in order to affect it or, if it is hostile, to conquer and overcome it." (4) This approach, with an emphasis on the second part, was subsequently taken over by Carl Caspari (1848: 17) and W.Wright (1967, 1: 32-33), according to whom the L-stem primarily expresses an effort or attempt to perform the action of the verb. (5) Thus, and according to this school of thought, qatalahu is primarily 'he tried to kill him' and secondarily 'he fought (with) him'. August Dillmann (1857: 119-21) and Carl Brockelmann (1908-13, 1: 512), in turn, emphasize the first part of Ewald's description, and hold that the L-stem in Arabic is used for "influencing action" (Einwirkung), viz., to influence another and challenge to a counter-activity.

   Henri Fleisch endeavored to reconcile the ideas of Sibawayhi and Ewald. As to the coparticipative function, Fleisch (1944: 62-66) distinguishes between "pure participation," which corresponds most closely to the comitative in contemporary linguistic terminology, and "implicitly reciprocal participation," corresponding to Ibn al-Hajib's and al-Astarabadhi's musharaka. The conative and emulative functions, i.e., the effort to be superior to someone else in the action, are implications that result from resistance on the part of the coparticipant, according to Fleisch (1944: 65-66).

   In addition to coparticipation, Fleisch (1944: 67-72) suggests that the L-stem also is used for so-called affecting action, viz., action that is carried out on another participant and affects the direct object without a response action. (6) The L-stem of w-d-d G 'love, desire', for example, is used to intensify the energy toward the object, according to Fleisch (1944: 68). In a similar vein, Moustapha Chouemi (1966: 111-12) has suggested that the L-stem in the Quran primarily expresses "l' action intensive dirigee vers (ou sur) quelqu'un" (italics in original). In other words, L-verbs are used for constructions that involve an animate (human?) participant and have this participant as the endpoint of an intensive action. However, Alfred Bloch (1954: 1140) has suggested that a number of Fleisch's affecting L-verbs can be reinterpreted as coparticipative, e.g., "love someone" in the sense of "get along with someone." Furthermore, whereas Chouemi's description suggests that the L-stem primarily adds the involvement of an animate coparticipant to the situation, constructions that do not mention a coparticipant are not infrequent in the Quran.

   Since Joseph Greenberg (1991) introduced the concept of verbal plurality into Semitic linguistics, the conative, emulative, and affecting (influencing) functions have been interpreted as inferences of pluractional functions, such as the intensive, iterative, and continuative. Similar functions of the L-stem were also noted in the earlier literature (e.g., Jouon 1935: 102-3, Fleisch 1944: 78-81; Chouemi 1966: 112), and have traditionally been interpreted as iconically reflected by the long vowel after the first radical. (7)

   Andrzej Zabcrski, for example, has argued in a series of articles (1997, 2005, 2006) that the L-stem goes back to a pluractional verb stem in Proto-Semitic (and Afro-Asiatic) and that it is historically an allomorph of the D-stem. A similar idea is also found in Brockelmann (1908-13. 1: 511-12), who suggests that lengthening replaced gemination in -qatil-. (8) However, whereas Brockelmann holds that the L-stem has functionally diverged from the D-stem in the southern Semitic languages, Zaborski (1997: 260) maintains that the L-stem remained synonymous with the D-stem, and is intensive, frequentative, and continuative in historical Arabic. (9) Thus, Zaborski (1997: 260; 2005: 567) suggests that the conative function, for example, is secondary and inferred from an intensive function with implied repetition. (10) It should be noted, however, that Zaborski (2005; 2006) argues for the synonymity of D with L based on glosses of individual D-verbs and L-verbs as entered in the dictionaries of Hans Wehr and Kh. Baranov, which reproduce primarily Modern Standard Arabic. Thus, it is possible that an investigation of Classical Arabic examples in context would yieid different results.

   Abdelkader Fassi Fehri (2003), in turn, uses a minimalist program and theorizes that the L-stem is derived from the D-stem through a "displacement" of the encoding of plurality from the second syllable to the first, and that this displacement creates a two-segment head (event) that then licenses two specifiers (arguments). The head does not license discrete events, however, which results in a plurality of participants participating in the same verb phrase. While the minimalist program may be used to explain how the D-stem and the L-stem are two formal...