Etymological study of semitic languages

The Semitic Languages, 2nd ed., 2019

Reflections on Arabic and Semitic: Can proto-Semitic case be justified?, 2016

From a comparative linguistic perspective the question whether or not proto-Semitic had a functioning case system similar to that in Classical Arabic does not readily yield an unequivocal answer. It is generally agreed that there are Semitic languages or sub-language families for which a proto-case system is plausible, but equally, there are others where such a system did not exist. The issue is, arguably, more interesting for Arabic than for any other Semitic language, since Arabic is a language whose contemporary varieties totally lack morphological case, but whose classical variety had a case system. In this paper I reiterate arguments I have made before for the indeterminacy of knowing whether proto-Arabic had a case system, embedding it in an expanded comparative look at two Semitic languages, Amorite and Epigraphic (Old) South Arabian. As a spinoff of this comparative discussion one can contemplate ways in which the case system such as described by Sibawaih was instrumentalized out of a system which was not necessarily the system he himself described. Giving greater due to comparative linguistic arguments than is customary practice in Semitic studies opens the door to a consideration of a number of important aspects of Arabic linguistic history which have hitherto been neglected.

2010

The following is meant as Hebrew (H) typological identity-card. A characterization of its grammatical components is proposed (with some developments on other aspects as well, especially lexicon and iconicity) which spans through its different diachronic stages, schematically Biblical Hebrew (BH), divided into Classical (CBH) and Late (LBH); Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) and Contemporary Hebrew (CH). Phonology CBH attests to the loss of several Proto-Semitic (PS) consonantal phonemes: the PS emphatic interdental D (Arabic ‫,ﻈ‬ BH > S), its non emphatic counterpart t (Ar. ‫,ث‬ BH > T), the latter's voiced counterpart d (Ar. ‫,ذ‬ BH > z), the voiced fricative lateral  (Ar. ‫,ﺾ‬ BH > S), the unvoiced fricative velar  (Ar. ‫,خ‬ BH > ) and the voiced fricative uvular γ (Ar. ‫,غ‬ H > ). On the other hand, Hebrew is almost unique within Semitic-the other case is South-Arabian-to preserve the unvoiced fricative lateral // ‫,שׂ(‬ traditionally noted as /ś/, cf. Steiner 1977) until relatively late (it begins to merge with /s/ in LBH, but the process is completed in MH). This is a fact worth mentioning since a conservative language like Arabic has lost it even though it has preserved all the other PS consonants including the voiced counterpart of the phoneme, called /dad/. BH also develops a series of fricative allophones for the non-emphatic stops /b, p, d, t, g, k/. They are realized as plosives in syllable initial position (including word-initial position) after a schwa quiescent that closes the previous syllable, but as fricatives in all other conditions, including after a schwa mobile following the first homo-syllabic consonant. Gemination is a morphophonemic device which in Hebrew can affect all consonants except laryngeals and pharyngeals (both groups are traditionally called 'gutturals') viz. /h, , , /, the very same phonemes that are vacillating in IH and utterly lost in other Semitic languages, e.g.

Was there ever such a language?

By Ivan Petryshyn *In honor of the Arabs and Jews known, **In memory of the Arabs and Jews killed. (Author).