Abstract
The morphology of the pronominal suffixes in dialectal Arabic are of particular interest for scholars of the history of Arabic for two main reasons. First, multiple dialects attest suffixes that, from a comparative perspective, apparently retain final short vowels. The second and more complicated issue concerns the vowels which precede the suffixes in the dialects, which are thought to either have been case inflecting or epenthetic. In this paper, I take up Jean Cantineauâs âembarrassing questionâ of how to account for the development of the vowels of the pronominal suffixes. Based on data from dialectal tanwÄ«n in modern dialects, and attestations from pre-modern texts as well, I will argue that the pre-suffix vowels did originate in case inflecting vowels, but that no historical model heretofore proposed can satisfactorily account for how the various dialectal forms might have arisen. I identify two major historical developments and propose models for each. First, I suggest that dialects in which the pre-suffixal vowels harmonized with the suffix vowels developed via a process of harmonization across morpheme boundaries before the loss of final short vowels. For dialects in which one vowel is generalized, I argue that a post-stress neutralization took place, which led to a single vowel both before suffixes and tanwÄ«n as well. Finally, I rely on evidence from the behavior of the suffixes to argue that the final vowel of the 3fs suffix was originally long, but that those of the 3ms, 2ms, and 2fs were most likely short.
Highlights
The thorniest issue from a historical perspective is how to account for the functional shift of the pre-suffixal vowels, from morpho-syntactic inflection to their current forms, while assuming the loss of final short vowels, which should have eliminated several of the vowels of the pronominal suffixes
In this paper I argue in favor of the case vowel origin and propose reconstructions that address both issues: final vowel length and the nature and development of the presuffixal vowel
Following a discussion of the previous proposals and their deficiencies, I discuss both of these questions, with special focus on the problems posed by the third and second person singular forms
Summary
AcadTehmeic3Efdsitosrus:TfSfhiimxeoin3sefsBinesttumegfafoixstids iianlemctosTsrthedeailmaizloecrdptsahrsoelâaoalgiozyreoâdf(Vaths)ehâap.roTorhnâeo(mVla)ithntaea.rlTsuhfegfiglxaeetststesirnasdnuigoaglreiegcstitaâsl aAnraobricgiaâre of particular interest naalnldyRloobenrgtna Mafliolnryaanlolovnogwfeilna*âlhvÄ,owbueftlotr*hâshecÄh,fobrluamrtsetrohfeistfhaoemrmhbiesigrtouirosyuaosm.f Abihrgamuboaicudsf.oArAlâthJwamlolamd aA(ipnl.âcrJ.ae)allhsaoadnss(p. .Fci.r)sht,ams ultiple dialects attest pointed ouptotinhtaetdthoeurtetihsastotmheerpesriuesâfsIfiosxlmaemsetiphcraAet,ârIfasrlobamimc eaicpciAogmrapbpaihcriacetpievivgeirdpaepnrhscpiecefecotvirvidaee,snahcpoeprtfaor*erâhnaatlsbyhyroâertta*inâhfianbaylâshort vowels: dialectal pfoaprArRP.amuecc4cbbeel0iipiksv5ntheeoâedddll:6:li:22â)npf343a)o1e.pJAhrruAF.amuon/uoge4bnâgur02ukeisk05snte2itoo2ân1i20llt6f0g2lih2â)n1t1a)eohe.rhfeFo//aokNnâlrlukeaeliAmloniâtfhgrhÄaatreohb/arfeâhdfao/aalkr(NllcirMlnut/aAakslt.AmlruchCââarhalrÄ.hiblEatapâreibh/amtcMsâiÄhoovto/rua(naisMwcnd/,trkdsiiewa.eeucCostrdwhlnsi.ilEeâupiaâocsh,lmtMuh.di
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.