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 Cantineau’s “embarrassing question” of how to account for the development of the vowels of the pronominal suffixes. Based on data from dialectal tanwīn 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 tanwīn 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

Read more

Summary

Introduction

AcadTehmeic3Efdsitosrus:TfSfhiimxeoin3sefsBinesttumegfafoixstids iianlemctosTsrthedeailmaizloecrdptsahrsoel‐aoalgiozyreo–df(Vaths)eh‐ap.roTorhn–eo(mVla)ithntaea.rlTsuhfegfiglxaeetststesirnasdnuigoaglreiegcstita‐sl aAnraobricgia‐re of particular interest naalnldyRloobenrgtna Mafliolnryaanlolovnogwfeilna*‐lhvā,owbueftlotr*h‐shecāh,fobrluamrtsetrohfeistfhaoemrmhbiesigrtouirosyuaosm.f Abihrgamuboaicudsf.oArAl‐thJwamlolamd aA(ipnl.‐crJ.ae)allhsaoadnss(p. .Fci.r)sht,ams ultiple dialects attest pointed ouptotinhtaetdthoeurtetihsastotmheerpesriues‐fsIfiosxlmaemsetiphcraAet,‐rIfasrlobamimc eaicpciAogmrapbpaihcriacetpievivgeirdpaepnrhscpiecefecotvirvidaee,snahcpoeprtfaor*er‐hnaatlsbyhyro‐ertta*in‐hfianbayl‐short vowels: dialectal pfoaprArRP.amuecc4cbbeel0iipiksv5ntheeo–edddll:6:li:22‐)npf343a)o1e.pJAhrruAF.amuon/uoge4bn“gur02ukeisk05snte2itoo2–n1i20llt6f0g2lih2‐)n1t1a)eohe.rhfeFo//aokNn“lrlukeaeliAmloni‐tfhgrhāaatreohb/arfe”hdfao/aalkr(NllcirMlnut/aAakslt.AmlruchC‐“arhalrā.hiblEatap‐reibh/amtcMs”iāhoovto/rua(naisMwcnd/,trkdsiiewa.eeucCostrdwhlnsi.ilEe”upia‐ocsh,lmtMuh.di

Pre-Suffix Vowel
Third Person Masculine and Feminine Forms
Second Person Masculine and Feminine Forms
Suffix Vowel Length
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call