Reduplicated nominal patterns in Semitic.

• Author: Michael Butts, Aaron
• Position: Essay

1. INTRODUCTION

   For more than a century, J. Barth's Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen served as the standard reference work on Semitic nominal patterns. (1) Notwithstanding its undeniable merits, it is well known that Barth's book was long in need of revision. Such an update was recently supplied by J. Fox in his Semitic Noun Patterns. (2) Fox's work not only provides a substantial improvement in terms of data, especially for languages that were not yet discovered or adequately understood in Barth's time, such as Akkadian and Ugaritic, but also (and perhaps more importantly) it introduces drastic advances in methodology that lead to improved interpretations and conclusions. (3) Nevertheless, despite improving on Barth's classic in countless ways, Fox's book has a much more limited scope than Barth's. Most notably, Fox treats only internal nominal patterns, excluding external patterns with prefixes, suffixes, or reduplication. Thus, an updated treatment of the external nominal patterns in Semitic still remains a desideratum. The current study aims to fill part of this void by providing a description of reduplicated nominal patterns in Semitic. (4)

2. REDUPLICATION IN SEMITIC

   In literature on Semitic languages, the terms reduplication and gemination have at times been employed interchangeably. (5) Nevertheless, while geminates may in some cases derive historically from reduplication, (6) there are many instances where the origin of gemination is to be sought elsewhere. (7) Consequently, reduplication is to be strictly distinguished from gemination. (8) In this study, reduplication is said to occur when a form shows a doubled segment. (9) A geminate, on the other hand, is a phonologically long consonant. (10)

   Reduplication is attested in all branches of the Afroasiatic language family, including Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, and Semitic. (11) Within the Semitic branch, reduplication occurs in phonology, as in the example in (la), in root formation, as in the example in (1 b), in nominal morphology, as in the example in (lc), in verbal morphology, as in the example in (Id), and in syntax, as in the example in (le):

   (1) a. Arabic qudayd[i.bar]m- 'partie la plus avancee', diminutive of qudd[a.bar]m- 'le devant' (BK 2.69 lb-92a; Lane 2985b-86b)

   2. Syriac 'ar'ar 'to gargle' (SL 1141; LS 545a; TS 2974)

   3. Ge'ez hamalmil 'green' from [check]hml; cf. haml 'vegetation' (LGz 233a; LLA 70-71)

   4. Akkadian suqallula 'to be suspended' (CAD S3 330a-32a; AHw 1281b) from [check]sql'to weigh' (CAD S2 1a-13a; AHw 1178a-79a)

   5. Sabaic wlwz''Imqhthwnb'1' wm sdq whwfyn 'dmhw bny s(1) hymm bkl 'ml' wtb[s.sub.2]r wsry yz'nn wtb[s.sub.2]rn wstryn b'mhw "and may 'Almagah Tahw[a.bar]n, master of 'Aww[a.bar]m, continue to perform and grant to his worshippers, the sons of Suhaymum, all of the favors, good news, and protection which they continue to seek from him" (Ja 615.31-34 from Jamme 1962: 114)

   This study focuses primarily on reduplication that is found in nominal derivation, as in (lc). This type of reduplication is said to occur when a noun is morphologically derived by duplicating one or more root consonants.

   Reduplication in nominal derivation is to be distinguished from another type of reduplication that has been termed phonological reduplication, or better compensatory reduplication, in linguistic literature.12 Compensatory reduplication is a phonologically driven process that compensates for potential inadequacies in phonological output without providing any obvious semantic import. An example of this type of reduplication was given in (la). A further example can be found in the formation of denominative verbs in Syriac. Syriac, like other Semitic languages, often derives denominative verbs with the D-stem template *[C.sub.1][VC.sub.2][C.sub.2][VC.sub.3]. Nevertheless, in a case such as gem 'muzzle' (SL 1307; LS 639a; TS 3458), a loanword from Greek kemos (GEL 947b), the only candidates for consonantal input are {q, m}. Thus, there is no phonological input for the last consonantal slot of the template *[C.sub.1][VC.sub.2][C.sub.2][VC.sub.3]. In order to compensate for this phonological inadequacy, [C.sub.2] is duplicated via compensatory reduplication resulting in qammem 'to muzzle' (SL 1378; LS 671b; TS 3458):

   (2) [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

   This duplication of [C.sub.2] is said to be compensatory reduplication since it is strictly a phonological process. (13) This type of compensatory reduplication is not limited to loanwords, but also occurs in words of native Semitic stock, e.g., Syriac pammem 'to pronounce' (SL 1204; LS 577b) from puma 'mouth' (SL 1165-66; LS 577ab; TS 3063-64). Compensatory reduplication in nominal patterns has not been systematically treated in this study, but several instances in which interpretation is either unclear or disputed will be discussed in the following sections.

   Reduplication in nominal derivation must further be distinguished from reduplication in root formation, an example of which was given in (lb). It is well known that reduplication serves as a root formation process in creating quadriliteral (and quintiliteral) roots in Semitic. (14) The most common reduplicated root formations are those of the type *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.1][C.sub.2]. (15) A root type *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] also exists in several of the Semitic languages. In all of the Semitic languages, nouns can be derived from reduplicated roots in the same way as other quadriliteral (or quintiliteral) roots. (16) In Geez, for instance, the following derived nouns are formed from the root [check]fdfd 'to increase; to be numerous' (LGz 155a; LLA 1380-82): .faclfud 'excellent', fadf[a.bar]d 'excellence', fadf[a.bar]d 'superiority', fadf[a.bar]de 'abundance', fadfddann[a.bar] 'excellence', etc. (17) Nouns such as these, which involve reduplicated roots, are not systematically treated in this study since reduplication did not occur in nominal derivation, but in root formation. (18)

   A final distinction is needed between nouns that are derived via pattern from existing roots in the language, i.e., deverbal (motivated) nouns, and nouns that do not share a root with another word with a similar meaning, i.e., primary (unmotivated) nouns. (19) Primary nouns with reduplication are attested in all of the Semitic languages and can also be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic, e.g., *kabkab-'star'. (20) Nevertheless, these nouns reflect a different morphological process and so are not included in this study. (21)

3. SEMANTICS OF REDUPLICATION

   A few remarks on the semantic properties of reduplicated nominal patterns are necessary. In Semitic nominal derivation, reduplication often provides an extension in the meaning of a word in comparison to its non-reduplicated base. (22) There are, however, examples in which the dictionaries record no difference in meaning between a reduplicated word and its non-reduplicated base. In cases where reduplication does add meaning, reduplicated nouns in Semitic usually fall into well-defined semantic groups, most of which are cross-linguisti-cally common for reduplication, such as diminutives, intensives, sound-symbolic terms, and bodily or personal characteristics, including defects and color terms. (23) In addition, many of these semantic groups have an iconic nature, i.e., there is a clear relationship between the repetition of the consonant(s) and the semantic categories expressed. (24)

   Almost all reduplicated adjectives in Semitic are qualitative adjectives. A semantic group traditionally interpreted as intensives, which mark a heightened degree of strength, depth, or fullness, is attested in several languages:

   (3) a. Arabic ri's[i.bar]s- 'trembling, quivering (with intensity)' (BK 1.882a; Lane 1106ab) from [check]r's'to tremble, shiver' (BK 1.881b-882a; Lane 1106bc)

   2. Ge'ez 'asabsib 'very hard' (LGz 74ab; LLA 1021) from [check]'sb 'to be difficult' (LGz 74ab; LLA 1019-21)

   3. Hebrew *yapaypiy-(a)t > y[p.bar]e[p.bar]iyc 'very beautiful' (HALOT 424a) for MT y[p.bar]e-[p.bar]iyc (Jer. 46:20), from [check]ypy 'to be beautiful' (HALOT 423b-24a)

      Intensives such as these are cross-linguistically common with reduplication. (25)

      Another particularly widespread semantic group (especially with the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]) is that of sound-symbolic terms:

      (4) a. Ge'ez bar[a.bar]hraht 'glittering, sparkling' (LGz 104b; LLA 501) from [check]brh 'to shine' (LGz 103b-104a; LLA 499-501)]

   2. Hebrew ptaltol 'tortuous, perverse' (HA LOT 990b) from [check]ptl N 'to wrestle, be tortuous' (HALOT 990ab)

   3. Syriac 'qalqlc 'coiling, twisting' (SL 1130; LS 542b; TS 2965) from [check]'ql, cf. 'qclc 'gripping pain' (SL 1130; LS 542b; TS 2965)

      These sound-symbolic terms are a type of expressive formation in which the repetition of the consonant(s) depicts a sense such as touch or sight. (26) The repetition in Ge'ez barahraht 'sparkling' (4a), for instance, represents the visual effect of the emission of numerous rays of light.

      By far the most common semantic group for reduplicated adjectives is that traditionally known as bodily or personal characteristics, including color terms and defects: (27)

      (5) a. Arabic hurjuj-/ hurj[u.bar]j-/hurj[i.bar]j-'lean; sharp spirited; fat; strong' (BK 1.405a; Lane 543ab) from [check]hrj, cf. harij 'lean, slender' (Lane 543a)

   2. Ge'ez qay[a.bar]hyaht 'reddish' (LGz 456b; LLA 457) from [check]qyh 'to be red' (LGz 456b; LLA 457)

   3. Hebrew sa'ncn 'carefree, self-confident, undisturbed' (HALOT 1375a) from [check]s'n 'to be quiet, at rest' (HALOT 1374b-75b)

      This semantic group represents a subcategory of augmentatives, which mark the speaker's attitude toward the person being described. (28) Words that belong to this group are iconic, because they express an extension in meaning due to their heightened emotive, empathetic character. (29)

      For substantives, the most common semantic group is that of diminutives, which is found in all...