The Semitic languages / edited by Robert Hetzron. Other Authors. Hetzron, Robert. Published. New York: Routledge, Content Types. text. Carrier Types. : The Semitic Languages (Routledge Language Family Series) ( ): Robert Hetzron: Books. THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST. ROBERT HETZRON (ed.): The Semitic languages. xx, pp. London: Routledge, ? Nildeke to Goldziher (7/8/ ).
|Country:||Republic of Macedonia|
|Published (Last):||8 September 2007|
|PDF File Size:||14.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
These data show that the loss of the t cannot be ascribed to a common ancestor. The existence of multiple linguis- tic areas within a single language family has parallels elsewhere.
Robert Hetzron (ed.): The Semitic Languages | Aethiopica
Thus, if these changes had occurred in a common ancestor, we should expect the de- scendant languages to exhibit no traces of the earlier forms. The modern Ethiopian Semitic languages do have definite articles, but the semiticc of the morphology of the article in the modern lan- guages indicates a late, inner-Ethiopic origin, unrelated to the development of the article elsewhere; on the origin of many of these, see Rubin a.
Further, groups of speakers continue to move about, to mi- grate, after splits have occurred. The noted Indo-Europeanist C.
Thus, the formation of plurals by pattern replacement must be eemitic for Proto-Se- mitic and, indeed, probably goes back to Afroasiatic cf.
Syntactic Change in Akkadian: Additional features are discussed in Huehnergard One of the major pursuits of science has always been classification. South Semitic and Central Semitic. Most of these do not affect the overall classification scheme of Semitic as a whole; see further in Rubin and the references therein. Canaanite Aramaic Arabic Sayhadic. Zaborskihas noted the presence of similar forms wemitic Beja, a Cushitic language, suggesting that this is a possible Afroasiatic feature.
In Phoeni- cian, however, it occurs only on verbs, while in Aramaic it occurs only on nouns. Remember me on this computer.
Even the derivational value of the L-Stem can be seen as a shared retention.
However, the remarkable syntactic similarities and the use of a small, common set of forms to create an article, must be attributed either to some dynamic pressure for such a feature, that is, to parallel development, or to a striking instance of areal diffusion, or perhaps both see also Pat-El Ignoring the fact that this alone is weak evidence for reconstructing pharyngealization for the early Central Semitic em- phatics, since there is no evidence as to how the emphatics were pronounced in Old South Arabian or Ugaritic, and ignoring the fact that there semittic also evidence for glottal- ics in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician cf.
In this view, which was based as much on the ancient location of the languages as on semitif linguistic features, there exist three main sub-families within Semitic see Figure 9.
Hetzron proposed the branching that is illustrated in Figure 9. When languages are close enough geographically to share features through such borrowing or diffusion, they sometimes form what are termed linguistic areas or areal groupings.
In fact, of the most recent monograph- length treatments of comparative Semitic excluding the works of the present authors languagges, only Belova et al.
The features Arabic shares with Northwest Semitic include: The Akkadian Language in its Semitic Lqnguages The various forms of the article where it is attested in these languages, and its absence in some of them, would seem to indicate that the article arose independently in the languages in which we find it. The Modern South Arabian Languages.
Israelrecently counted over thirty-five different theories on the exact classification of Ugaritic. But the t-form can also be created from a basic G-Stem verb, to denote a reciprocal or associ- ative meaning; cf.
The Semitic Languages – Robert Hetzron – Google Books
The idea that both the family tree and wave models are necessary in order to provide a complete picture of the subgroup- ing of Semitic is certainly not new, but it is an idea that has not yet received suffi- cient attention.
Thus, these forms probably reflect a Proto-Semitic feature that was lost in Akkadian and, with rare exception, in Proto-Northwest Semitic. And yet, the syntax of the article is strikingly uniform across these languages.
Concerning trees and waves, the well known sociolinguist W. For example, in the Semitic family we can point to the early split between Akkadian or Proto-East Semiticwhose ancestral speakers infiltrated Mesopotamia probably in the mid- to late fourth millennium, and the rest of Semitic.
Reconstructing Proto-Semitic and Models of Classification 2. Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages 9. The Arabic Grammatical Tradition.
Robert Hetzron (ed.): The Semitic Languages
Court of jurisdiction is Languagew, Germany. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: In other words, there should be no examples of the final -t in feminine forms. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Book; Illustrated English Show 0 more libraries Any borrowed features between Akkadian and Aramaic are unconnected to the fact that the two languages share an ancestor. The Semitic family occupies a position of great historical and linguistic significance: However, any shared innovative patterns and the expansion of the use of internal plurals can be confidently chalked up to areal influence.
First, Akkadian, apart from the few remnants just referred to, lost this type of pluralization, probably when it came into contact with Sumerian, which also exhibits only endings for noun plurals. Thus, for example, in the first millennium BCE, speak- ers of Aramaic dialects moved into Mesopotamia, and their speech then had significant effects on the Akkadian of that period, and vice versa. Third, a shared feature may have been inherited from a still earlier ancestor, and have been lost in other members of the family.
In the event of any conflict, the authors will promptly inform the publisher. The traditional grouping hetzroon the Semitic languages tended to be based more on cultural and geographical than linguistic features.