UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN Internationales Jahrbuch für die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas begründet von Manfried Dietrich und Oswald Loretz † Herausgegeben von Valérie Matoïan • Giovanni Mazzini Wilfred Watson • Nicolas Wyatt Band 50 2019 © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 Valérie Matoïan: valerie.matoian@college-de-france.fr Giovanni Mazzini: giovanni.mazzini@unipi.it Wilfred Watson: wge.watson@gmail.com Nicolas Wyatt: niqmad3@gmail.com Redaktion Ugarit-Verlag, Salzstraße 45, D-48143 Münster Für unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte kann keine Gewähr übernommen werden. Die Herausgeber sind nicht verpflichtet, unangeforderte Rezensionsexemplare zu besprechen. Manuskripte für die einzelnen Jahresbände werden jeweils bis zum 31.12. des vorausgehenden Jahres erbeten. © 2019 Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel Münster www.ugarit-verlag.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-86835-280-1 ISSN 0342-2356 Printed on acid-free paper © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 Inhalt Vorwort ............................................................................................................. vii *In Memoriam Meindert Dijkstra* .................................................................. 1 Noga Ayali-Darshan The Literary Development of the Myth of the Moon-God and His Cow........ 3 Shlomo Bahar Biblical Hebrew Parallels to Phrases and Expressions in the El Amarna Letters from Canaan that are Unattested Elsewhere in Akkadian (Part 2) ...................................................................................... 33 Stefan Bojowald Die Verwendung von Horn in Kompositbögen nach ägyptischen und vorderasiatischen Textstellen – ein Versuch zur Parallelisierung ............................................................... 43 Annie Caubet – Marguerite Yon René Dussaud (1868-1958), premier mentor des études ougaritiques ......... 51 Dominique Charpin La taxation des gouverneurs, de chefs du cadastre et des intendants dans le royaume de Mari ............................................................ 65 Anne-Sophie Dalix Nouvelles lectures de tablettes (1) ............................................................... 81 Johannes C. de Moor Ugaritic and the Book of Micah ................................................................... 93 Gregorio del Olmo Lete Oaths and their Risks in Canaanite-Hebrew Proverbial Wisdom (RS 15.010:1-4; Qoh. 5:1-6) ...................................................................... 111 †Meindert Dijkstra Some Unfinished Business: New and Old Proposals for Joins in the Ugaritic Administrative Texts .......................................................... 115 Nadine Eßbach Zur Datierung des Generals-Briefes (RS 20.033): Militärische Konfliktsituationen unter Sethos I. ........................................ 137 © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 iv Inhalt [UF 50 Joseph Lam The Meaning of m̫t in KTU 1.14 I:38 (Kirta): A Review of Previous Solutions and a New Proposal ............................... 179 Michel Al-Maqdissi R. Dussaud, G. Saadé et l’archéologie syrienne I « Dédicace faite par R. Dussaud » ............................................................. 193 Valérie Matoïan Le char de la victoire : Nouvelle analyse du décor du sceau-cylindre RS 29.113 .......................................................................... 201 Giovanni Mazzini On ia-pa-aq-ti in the Amarna Tablet 64, 23: Further Semitic Parallels ....... 241 Patrick M. Michel A propos de l’étymologie de sikkƗnum ...................................................... 253 Nadav Naތaman A New Appraisal of the Samaria Ostraca .................................................. 259 Herbert Niehr Ritual und Magie im Kirta-Epos ................................................................ 273 Juan Oliva Anmerkungen zum hurro-akkadischen Brief TT4 aus Qa৬na und neue geschichtliche Aussichten .......................................................... 295 Dennis Pardee – Madadh Richey Le texte ougaritique RS 16.266 : vue d’ensemble ..................................... 313 Robin B. ten Hoopen Who Wants to Live Forever? The Meaning and Reception of blmt in Ugaritic Studies ......................................................................... 359 David T. Tsumura Is IL a Proper Noun in the Phrase BT IL and in the Ugaritic Pantheon Lists? .......................................................................................... 377 Juan-Pablo Vita Remarks on the Chronology and the Overall Total of Administrative Texts from Ugarit .............................................................. 397 Wilfred G. E. Watson The Meaning of Ugaritic cbb (KTU 1.92:14) ............................................. 419 Ola Wikander The Call of *Yaqtulu: The Central Semitic Imperfective, Nominalisation and Verbal Semantics in Cyclical Flux ............................ 435 © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] Inhalt v Nicolas Wyatt A Ritual Response to a Natural Disaster: KTU 1.119.31 = RS 24.266.31 Revisited .................................................. 453 Jonathan Yogev Looking for gd in KTU 1.23:14 ................................................................. 471 Abkürzungsverzeichnis ................................................................................. 477 Indizes ............................................................................................................. 485 A. Stellen ................................................................................................ 485 B. Lexeme ............................................................................................... 497 C. Namen ................................................................................................ 506 D. Sachen ................................................................................................ 515 Anschriften der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter .......................................... 525 © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 The Call of *Yaqtulu: The Central Semitic Imperfective, Nominalisation and Verbal Semantics in Cyclical Flux Ola Wikander, Uppsala1 Abstract: The article discusses the discrepancy between the *yaqattal and *yaqtulu imperfectives (the former known from East Semitic, Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian and the latter from Central Semitic). It argues that original nominalised phrases such as “he is a killer” came about based on an earlier “he is one who killed”, and that these were subsequently reinterpreted as imperfectives. A comparison is made with Modern South Arabian “insubordination”, and further lines are drawn into the attested development of Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic and to the problems such a development imply for exegetical work. Arguments concerning the cladistics of West Semitic are also offered, and the possibility of an initial rise of *yaqtulu already in Proto-West Semitic is cautiously supported. Résumé : L’article examine la divergence entre les imperfectifs *yaqattal et *yaqtulu (le premier connu du Sémitique oriental, de l’éthio-sémitique et l’arabe du sud moderne, et le second du sémitique central). Il fait valoir que des phrases nominalisées originales telles que « il est un tueur » sont nées sur la base d’un précédent « il est celui qui a tué », et que celles-ci ont ensuite été réinterprétées comme des imperfectifs. Une comparaison est faite avec « l’insubordination » sud-arabe moderne, et d’autres lignes sont tracées dans le développement attesté de l’hébreu biblique et de l’ougaritique et aux problèmes que ce développement implique pour le travail exégétique. Des arguments concernant la cladistique du sémitique occidental sont également proposés, et la possibilité d’une montée initiale de *yaqtulu déjà en sémitique proto-occidental est prudemment soutenue. 1 This article is part of my work on ancient Northwest Semitic poetic language and inherited poetic phraseology under the aegis of the Pro Futura Scientia research programme, funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond in collaboration with the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study. Part of the work was conceived during a stay at the Swedish Institute in Rome during the summer of 2019. Thanks to the Lund Old Testament seminar for comments and suggestions, and to my great friend David Tibet for help with certain literature. Some of the matters discussed in this article were also informally talked about during the 2020 online “Semitics Twitter Corona Conference” (organised by Benjamin Suchard), and I would like to thank the participants (especially Øyvind Bjøru and Na’ama Pat-El) for the discussion. Last but not least, I would like to thank Daniel A. Beck and Seth Sanders for suggesting the Lovecraftian title of the article (which was called “The Rise of *Yaqtulu” during writing, itself a reference to another cultural franchise). © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 436 Ola Wikander [UF 50 Zusammenfassung: Im Artikel wird die Diskrepanz diskutiert zwischen den Imperfektivformen *yaqattal und *yaqtulu (das erstere aus dem Ostsemitischen, Ethiosemitischen und modernen Südarabischen bekannt und das letztere aus dem Zentralsemitischen). Die Argumentation geht von einem früheren Syntagma vom Typus „er ist einer, der getötet hat” aus, das als imperfektiv reinterpretiert würde. Ein Vergleich wird mit der „Insubordination” im modernen Südarabisch gemacht, und weitere Linien werden in die Entwicklung des biblischen Hebräisch und Ugaritisch und deren exegetischen Arbeit gezogen. Argumente zur Kladistik des Westsemitischen werden auch angeboten, und die Möglichkeit eines Anfangs von *yaqtulu bereits im Ur-Westsemitischen wird vorsichtig gestützt. Keywords: yaqattal, yaqtulu, Central Semitic, relatives, nominalisation, grammaticalisation Introduction One of the most important questions in the reconstruction not only of Proto-West Semitic and Proto-Central Semitic as linguistic stages but of their literary/poetic traditions (as later reflected, inherited and transformed in the Hebrew Bible and in Ugaritic literature) is that of the development of the semantics and morphosyntax of the verbal system, i.e. the tense/aspect/modality system. The morphological and semantic developments that started to affect the system already at the split between East and West Semitic continued for a long time and in several steps, and the later stages of these processes can be observed in the pages of the Hebrew Bible itself. The morphosemantic changes that West and later Central Semitic went through were, of course, discrete events when each one of them is viewed in isolation, but the broader and more protracted stream of change that effected the move from the early system of “stative suffix conjugation versus eventive (prefix) conjugation” reflected and preserved in East Semitic and (mutatis mutandis) Ancient Egyptian to the perfect/imperfect/consecutive system of Biblical Hebrew (and the related ones in Ugaritic, Aramaic etc.) was not just a set of isolated, discrete changes but a series of ongoing and interconnected developments. The different stages in these developments were interlocking and interconnected, and they continued into the level of historically attested Northwest Semitic. Even though one can reconstruct with a fair amount of certainty the various steps that these processes took and show how earlier systems changed into later ones, one should not make the mistake of presupposing that any one of the stages need have been totally “stable” and “orthogonal” in its construction: rather, every stage of development probably included internal tensions and seeming “inconsistencies” (which is, of course, a driving force in the continuing developments of the systems). This is, in fact, one of the driving factors that I intend to explore here. In this article, I shall endeavour to use this type of perspective to elucidate and attempt to explain one of the most fraught questions in the development of Central Semitic – indeed, what is perhaps the clearest isogloss usually taken as defining Central Semitic as such2: the change from the *yaqattal imperfective 2 Indeed, this is the very factor that made HUEHNERGARD 2005: 160-161, RUBIN 2008: 69 (and others) redefine the Sayhadic languages as part of Central Semitic (an idea that goes © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] The Call of *yaqtulu 437 (known from Akkadian, Ethiosemitic, Modern South Arabian, and – outside of Semitic – in Beja and Berber3) to the – probably – innovative form *yaqtulu found in Central Semitic (e.g., as the “long imperfect/prefix form” of Ugaritic and Hebrew). From *yaqattal to *yaqtulu – how and why? The most common explanation of this difference (found in the works of many different authors) is the idea that the *yaqattal4 form was the original Semitic imperfective, whereas the *yaqtulu one appeared as a reinterpretation of the perfective form *yaqtul (the form ultimately giving the “short” *yiqܒol and the wayyiqܒol in Biblical Hebrew) with the added so-called “subjunctive” ending -u (etc.) known from Akkadian (where it is an obligatory marker of relative clauses, such as in the phrase ša šurqam imېur-u, “he who received the stolen goods”).5 back to the work of NEBES 1994a and 1994b); at an earlier point, a Central Semitic classification of Sayhadic had also been argued in VOIGT 1987. For further musings on this question, see footnote 16 in the present article. 3 For interesting suggestions about the relationship between the Berber forms and the Semitic ones (and a possible “Berbero-Semitic” subclade of Afro-Asiatic), see now KOSSMAN – SUCHARD 2018. 4 I am well aware of the discussion of whether the original (or general) vocalisation of the version with doubled middle radical was indeed *yaqattal or not (and which verbs had which vocalisation) – some scholars prefer to write *yaqVttVl/yiqVttVl or similar. The reader is advised to view *yaqattal as a sort of shorthand for the purposes of this article, meaning “an imperfective prefix form with doubled middle radical”, without implying any certain judgment on the question of vocalic pattern. In the same way, I mostly write *qatala for the whole suffix conjugation. 5 This basic solution appears in RÖSSLER 1950 (esp. pp. 467-468, though without mentioning the subjunctive ending outright) and was taken up in HETZRON 1976: 105, LIPIēSKI 2001: 342 (where semantically hypotactic and subjunctive-marked, yet syntactically paratactic, sentences are seen as the origin of the construction), HUEHNERGARD 2019: 71-72 and many other places. An important upcoming article is BJØRU – PAT-EL (forthcoming), in which it is argued that, whereas the *-u of the Central Semitic *yaqtulu form is indeed etymologically identical with the old relativising subjunctive morpheme, the *-na in some of the plural forms is not connected to the -ni variant of the Akkadian relative (as is often argued in the literature). BJØRU and PAT-EL argue at the end of their article that the fact that Akkadian -u cannot occur with modal forms suggests that it was reanalysed in Proto-West Semitic as being a marker of indicativity itself. They view the appearance of the *qatala neo-perfect as provoking the shift to an imperfective/non-past meaning for *yaqtulu, and, in fact, use this as a reason for dating the change to ProtoWest Semitic (rather than Proto-Central Semitic). I agree that the rise of *qatala is important in the whole chain of development, but my analysis is somewhat more involved – see below in this article for details. I also agree (for partly different reasons) with ProtoWest Semitic being the correct time frame (see below for this as well). I would like to thank BJØRU and PAT-EL for letting me see their manuscript prior to publication (during the late, revision stage of the present article). Their article ends with a similar view of the *yaqattal-*yaqtulu relationship as the one argued here (with *yaqattal as the original Semitic imperfective and *yaqtulu being a subsequent development based, partly, on subordinate clauses) but with rather different argumentation, based, as mentioned, on the relationship of *-u to lack of modal marking. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 438 Ola Wikander [UF 50 This reinterpreted form, so the theory goes, took over the role of the imperfective and totally ousted *yaqattal in the Central Semitic languages6. The question is why this typologically uncommon change occurred7. Here, I shall endeavour to delineate one possible line of explanation for this phenomenon, and mention a few implications for the history of Central Semitic languages, all the way into attested Biblical Hebrew itself. The explanation that I will be arguing is in some ways similar to the one suggested already in 1973 by A. Hamori (to whose arguments I will be returning later in the text, as well as to the similarities and differences to the one given here)8, yet I believe that additional points can be made and further conclusions drawn. Given the mainstream theory of “*yaqattal lost, *yaqtulu from preterite/perfective plus subjunctive” as definitional to Central Semitic, there is one fact that carries undoubtable importance, viz., that this development (from a perfective to an imperfective) must have occurred more or less in parallel with the virtually opposite development “stative -> *qatala neo-perfect” (which subsequently became the qƗܒal known from Hebrew, etc.). To be sure, the latter development appears to have started earlier than the Proto-Central Semitic point often posited for the rise of *yaqtulu, at the point of the East/West Semitic split (indeed, it is among the standard morphological isoglosses of West Semitic as a whole), yet the perseverance of stative and performative qƗܒals all the way into Biblical Hebrew shows that the development was a gradual one, still ongoing as of the actually attested languages (indeed, Hebrew itself attests to the inner-language process of the expansion of qƗܒal into the realm of general perfective narration from its earlier, more restricted and perhaps constative or “pure perfect” use – as opposed to the older *yaqtul preterite surviving in wayyiqܒol). We shall return to the question of relative chronology later on. Thus, early Central Semitic would have been undergoing one process turning a nominal-like old stative into a perfect(ive) and another one turning a relativised variant of an old perfective into a present/durative/imperfective. The cooccurrence of these two virtually inverted processes is highly remarkable, and I find it very likely that the two are intertwined. *Qatala could demonstrably be both stative and perfect(ive) in ProtoCentral-Semitic (both meanings being preserved all the way into Hebrew, for example), and my contention is that this fact would have precipitated a blurring 6 In this article, I will in general not discuss suggestions of vestigial *yaqattal in Central Semitic in detail (see, for example, the recent suggestion of *yaqattal in Amorite by ANDRASON – VITA 2014, with important references to earlier literature for the entire *yaqtul-*yaqattal question on p. 32; criticism of their proposal can be found in BARANOWSKI 2017. Another rather recent publication is VERNET 2013). Even if such vestiges could be argued to occur, it does not change the fact that the innovative *yaqtulu is more or less completely dominant in Central Semitic. I will, however, return to this question when discussing the cladistics of that sub-family. 7 The typological uncommonness of this change is underscored in KOGAN 2015: 159-150 (with further references). See also ZABORSKI 2013: 267-268 for the view that an opposite change is much more typologically likely. 8 And followed, for example, in RUBIN 2005: 147-148, as well as in HUEHNERGARD 2019: 74, n. 30 (where Hamori’s solution is referred to as “plausible”). © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] The Call of *yaqtulu 439 of the semantic categories in that proto-language. Such a situation would have substantially potentiated another process, which we now come to, which forms the centre of my proposed analysis: the process of sentences with relative clauses of characteristic (as known from Latin, for example) with the old preterite and the relative -u (of the semantic type “s/he was one who killed/the type who killed”) being semantically reinterpreted a duratives/presents/imperfectives. Relative clauses of characteristic and nominalisation This, in fact, is the locus I would suggest for the change from *yaqattal to *yaqtulu imperfectives: relative clauses of characteristic of the type “(a man) that killed/would kill (i.e., [a man] of the sort that killed)” (which would have been*ڴnj yaqtul-u) that were semantically reinterpreted as “a man that tends to kill”, and thereby “a man who (generally) kills”. Out of this type of phrase, the verb *yaqtulu would have been extrapolated, and subsequently reinterpreted as a present-future imperfective (“kills/will kill”), which is what later appears in Hebrew as yiqܒol. Thus, a Proto-Central Semitic phrase like *ގin(¿)šum ڴnj yaqtul-u would at first have meant “a man that killed”. If interpreted as a relative clause of characteristic, we would then get the translation “a man of the killing sort”, and the verb could be extrapolated as “is of the killing sort”, i.e. “is a killer”. Gradually, this form would have started to oust *yaqattal – and the reason for this may be quite simple: the latter has a doubled middle radical, which would have been so strongly associated with the D stem (piҵel) as to appear “weird” in the qal, making it an excellent candidate for replacement9. At the same time, the existence of the old stative (the ancestor of the qƗܒal), being originally an inflected verbal noun (as it still is in Akkadian) would have reinforced the conceptual connection between nominal or nominalised verbal forms with that of stativity (and thus, by implication, imperfectivity). Both the newly nominalised *yaqtul-u (which went from perfective to imperfective via nominalisation) and the old nominal-like stative (turning into a “neo-perfect”) *qatala would then have showed a similar development – but in opposite directions, the nominality being the mid-point where the developments could have influenced each other. The developments take on an almost dance-like quality. The model analogical reinterpretations would have been (the two developments being in a weird way the mirrors of each other): Nominal-like *qatala = originally stative (i.e. nominal-like neo-perfect=stative) — Nominal-like *yaqtul-u = imperfective/durative [i.e., similar to a stative] (i.e. nominal-like/nominalised old perfective=imperfective/durative). That is, both stative *qatala and relativised *yaqtul-u were associated with nominality, which feature functioned as a pivotal point, which in the second case was 9 Thus also HETZRON 1976: 105. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 440 Ola Wikander [UF 50 reinterpreted as/associated with stativity/durativity and, thereby, imperfectivity (in effect, similar to where the former had begun). Thus, the retention of some cases of stative *qatala/qatila in combination with the general move of *qatala towards perfect or perfective was instrumental in the rise of the imperfective/durative *yaqtulu (note that the development of *qatala toward perfectivity would have been gradual, as shown by the retention of the short *yaqtul for perfective narrativity all the way into Hebrew). The asymmetry of the *qatala as both intransitive/nominal and transitive/verbal provided a template for the reinterpretation of *yaqtul-u10. A summary thus far To summarise the model presented thus far, I have argued that the development of the old preterite with subjunctive ending (*yaqtul-u) into a durative/imperfective in the West Semitic languages involved the following points or steps (to which I will add one more): x A syntagm of the type *ڴnj yaqtulu (“one that killed”, a meaning that was reinterpreted as “one that started to kill” or “a person that kills”, through the means of a relative-of-characteristic meaning like “a person of the type that killed” or “a person who tends to kill”), out of which the verb was extrapolated in the approximate meaning “tends to kill”. x A lack of semantic difference between this and the corresponding form with doubled middle radical (*ڴnj yaqattalu, “who is killing”), which would more or less have meant the same thing but would have gradually been avoided due to the possibility of misinterpretation as a form of the D stem. x The gradual development of the *qatala from a stative/nominal form into a perfect(ive) one provided a developmental template of which the new *yaqtulu was a sort of mirror or inverse – the nominality being the pivot point across which an old stative could move towards perfectivity and an old nominalised perfective could move towards imperfectivity. x And, perhaps adding to these: a synchronic association with the nominative -u ending of nouns, being semantically thought of as a “statement of current fact”. Cf., in a way, with the suggestion of RETSÖ (2014), that a locative -u known from Arabic could be involved here. 10 Of course, one could theoretically object with the question “why, then, did not the old stative + *-u form an innovative imperfective form just like *yaqtul-u did?”. To this, I would answer that the old stative was already “nominal-like enough” at an early point that such a redetermination would be entirely pleonastic; and, in fact, the very nominallike characteristics of the stative would, on the model here, have been part of the attracting factor for the creation of *yaqtulu as an imperfective. Cf. the arguments of CARVER 2016, who regards the (Akkadian version of the) stative as verbal, yet not finite in the sense of marked for tense, mood and aspect – and even defines the stative as “nonprogressive, continuous imperfective” in aspect on p. 20. If this definition be correct, it would mean that the old stative is, by definition, imperfective by itself, again obviating the need for a nominalising particle. And this “stative nominality”, so to speak, sometimes persists even into attested Hebrew and Ugaritic. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] The Call of *yaqtulu 441 Shortening the path: the original meaning of *-u The model described so far is predicted on the idea of relative clauses of characteristic in the preterite/perfective being reinterpreted as semi-nominal statements of the type “he is a killer” and thence as “he kills”. However, it could be possible to shorten the path of the development even more, if one widens one’s interpretation of what the *-u verbal ending originally meant as far back as in ProtoSemitic. This may additionally teach us something more about the verbal system of the proto-language and about the relationship between it and its daughters. In the arguments usually put forth about the *yaqtulu/*yaqattal dichotomy, there is often a type of silent presupposition of the East Semitic meaning of the *-u morpheme being not only primary in some sense but actually more or less identical to what it was in Proto-Semitic. The Akkadian morphosyntactic pattern, in which a relative clause starts with a particle (ša in the classical Akkadian case, presumably *ڴnj/ڴƯ/ڴƗ in Proto-Semitic) and ends with a verb with the *-u ending, is retrojected onto the common ancestor of both East and West Semitic. The question becomes how this relativising morpheme ended up marking imperfectivity in Central Semitic (which is, indeed, the question I have tried to answer above). However, flat-out identifying the Akkadian and Proto-Semitic morphosyntactic patterns in this case is not self-evident – actually, it could be argued to be somewhat methodologically suspect. It is actually quite probable that a morphological pattern that is identical in two descendant branches but syntactically and semantically totally different descend from a proto-language category which, though formally identical with them, was used in a way that was not identical with either but from which both of the others could plausibly be explained as having descended. That is: the Akkadian use of *-u need not have been the original one either. There is such a possibility in this case. If we presuppose that verbal *-u in Proto-Semitic was not a fully grammaticalised marker of relative clauses but rather a general nominaliser of verbal phrases, the above-delineated development becomes even simpler11. The path to the East Semitic relative clause function would, of course, be straightforward, but the Central Semitic development would also be rather easier to understand. In fact, all the arguments put forth above would still apply, except for the need to presuppose actual relative clauses as the locus of the change: x *yaqtul-u would then by itself mean “who killed”, which would be extremely easy to reinterpret as “killer”. This means that a nominalised “who killed” may in a way have acted almost like a sort of participle (note the way in which participles sometimes act as imperfective-like verbs in later Semitic languages – we shall return to this matter later on). Again, the addition of an *-u may have been synchronically and impressionistically associated with the nominative ending *-u, enforcing such a connection (cf. HASSELBACH 2012: 133 and KOGAN 2015: 161, n. 445). 11 Note that relatives simply marked by *-u and not requiring a relative pronoun/particle were, in fact presupposed in the model of HAMORI 1973 (and accepted in RUBIN 2005: 147). © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 442 Ola Wikander x x [UF 50 Given the lack of a word for “is”, “he killer” would have been interpreted as “he is a killer”. The ongoing change in the use of *qatala from stative to perfect(ive) – in flux even in some of the historical languages – would again provide a pattern from conflating “is one who X-ed” with “is an X-er”. My suggested analyses here are, in a way, quite parallel to the phenomenon of “insubordination”, discussed by OLGA KAPELIUK 12 (building on pioneering work by FABRIZIO PENNACCHIETTI 13 ) as a morphological isologloss between Modern South Arabian and Ethiopic Semitic languages (again involving relative verbs being reinterpreted as main clause verbs). That attested phenomenon provides a type of inner-Semitic typological “proof of concept” for the proposed development. Note that the “insubordinated” verbs are synchronically reinterpreted as a type of participle with unstated copula in the Modern South Arabian Cases – more or less exactly what I am proposing above for much earlier periods and another Semitic branch. Note also that PAT-EL – BJØRU (forthcoming) also mention insubordination as an explanatory framework for the present question (with reference, among others, to the general linguistic introduction in EVANS 2007), though not mentioning Modern South Arabian and Ethiosemitic specifically in this context. Also, one should once again note that a development like this would mean that *yaqtulu went through a process in a strange way inverted compared to that of the old stative/qatala. The stative (and West Semitic “neo-perfect”) started as an inflected nominal form that acquired verbal characteristics, and *yaqtulu started as a nominalised verb that then reacquired full verbal force, but including the state/imperfective-ness out of the development it went through. As mentioned above, I believe that these two (semi-concurrent) developments would have influenced and precipitated each other. Back to HAMORI 1973. The solution suggested in that classic publication was a proto-language analogy between clauses such as “I saw a man who killed” and “I saw a man killing” (where the “kill” verb of the second clause would originally have been in the *yaqattal). He, too, saw a relative clause in the perfective as being reinterpreted as an imperfective, but he seems to have been thinking more of concomitance (co-temporality with the main clause) than of nominalisation. Rubin fittingly illustrates and elucidates Hamori’s point (which the originator puts rather more technically) by positing the following two theoretical Akkadian sentences with the verb “to speak” (qabûm; Akkadian chosen for ease and practicality – this would, of course, have been at the Proto-Central Semitic stage in the model): mutam iqabbi Ɨmur / mutam ša iqbû Ɨmur14 12 KAPELIUK 2018. PENNACCHIETTI 1997; 2007. 14 RUBIN 2005: 147-148. He marks the first of the two with an asterisk because, as he points out, the sentence is actually ungrammatical. 13 © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] The Call of *yaqtulu 443 The idea is that both of these would have been interpreted as “I saw the man who spoke/was speaking” (the first one is actually not good Akkadian, but the idea is that this type of sentence once existed), and that the concomitance of the relative (ša) iqbû (“who spoke”) would thus have been analogically identified with the original imperfective iqabbi (“was speaking”). This is, as mentioned earlier, similar to the solution I have presented above. But there are differences. As I mentioned, my point is one of nominalisation, characteristic relatives and (almost) pseudo-participles (“is one who speaks, is a speaker”), whereas Hamori’s is one of concomitance with a superordinated verb (in this case, “I saw”). Also, I see a problem in the example above: why would the actual imperfective verb (iqabbi in the theoretical example) not have the relative ending even though semantically relative or at least subordinate in nature, whereas the perfective (iqbû) would? The argument rests on an analogical identification between these two clause types, but would the patterning really have been like this (relative/nominalising morpheme on the perfective but not on the imperfective) in the first place? The model I present above obviates this problem by arguing that the development was not mainly one of analogy with another theoretical sentence but of reinterpretations of certain relatives/nominalisations themselves. As an objection to the model I present above, one could theoretically ask a similar question: why were these nominalisations/relatives of characteristic in the perfective and not in the imperfective, or rather: why were the perfectives with *-u the ones that “won out” for describing the general “killer”? To this I would reply that a nominalised imperfective *yaqattal-u and a nominalised perfective *yaqtulu in this type of expression would have been functionally identical (that is, indeed, the basis of my whole argument), and – given that – a form of the type *yaqattal-u would have seemed to be overly morphologically marked. Indeed, it would have appeared as though it marked “nominal-imperfectivity” twice, thus producing redundancy. And again, possible confusion with the D stem may also have facilitated the fact that *yaqtul-u won out. Once more, I would like to underscore the parallel between a nominalised “who killed” and a participle: just as the active participles of, say, Classical Hebrew are basically unmarked for temporality but do, however, often start to carry a general sense of imperfectivity with them, so *yaqtul-u would have acquired imperfectivity through its nominal-like characteristics. Possible implications for the cladistics of West Semitic It is very interesting to note that Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian – exactly those branches of West Semitic that kept some reflex of *yaqattal as the imperfective – appear to have lost the *-u nominalising marker15. Is this perhaps 15 HUEHNERGARD 2019: 71. There have been suggestions of a parallel morpheme in Northern Gurage (see LESLAU 1967 and HETZRON 1968), but this rather works as a “Main Verb-Marker” (Hetzron) or actually as a marker of imperfectivity, which means that – if it is even related to the relativiser/nominaliser – it would actually strengthen the above argument that the shift to a verbal durative/imperfective marker is general West Semitic. See BJØRU – PAT-EL (forthcoming) for a highly sceptical assessment of the relevance of the Northern Gurage evidence to the present question (with further references to previous literature, among others APPLEYARD 2002: 417, who also argues that the Northern Gurage morpheme is unrelated to the old relativiser). © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 444 Ola Wikander [UF 50 a sign that these branches had also taken part in the semantic switch of *-u into a marker of imperfectivity, but that the resulting form “lost the battle” against the inherited *yaqattal in the pre-stages of those branches – i.e., the exact opposite development from what happened in Central Semitic? Such a possibility is, of course, not easy to prove, but it would explain the data very neatly. If this would turn out to be true, it would mean that the rise of the *yaqtulu imperfective is not strictly Central Semitic, as often surmised, but West Semitic. Only the victory of that new form and the relegation of *yaqattal to a few possible remnants (if even that) would then be suitably regarded as definitional to Central Semitic. In fact, the victory of one of the two competing forms could then perhaps have constituted a mutual split between Ethiopic/Modern South Arabian on one hand and Central Semitic on the other.16 16 By the way, it should be mentioned that the place of the Sayhadic (Old South Arabian) languages in these developments is not totally clear. As NEBES showed, Sayhadic (at least Sabaic) seems to have had *yaqtulu imperfectives (rather than *yaqattal ones), which has been used to argue that Sayhadic as a whole must be regarded as Central Semitic (rather than the “South Semitic” category as such) – see NEBES 1994a, 1994b; subsequently used for cladistic purposes, e.g., HUEHNERGARD 2005: 160-161 and RUBIN 2005: 69 (as mentioned earlier). However, given the spotty attestation and defective writing systems of Sayhadic, one wonders whether we can be 100% sure that it did not have any traces of *yaqattal at all. It is theoretically possible that Sayhadic stood on the borderline of this development and included relics of the older form (the sort of relics that have been suggested, rightly or wrongly, in the form of Northwest Semitic [?] Amorite: see footnote 6). What we can know is that, despite including the *yaqtulu isogloss of Central Semitic, Sayhadic normally does not show the change of the first-person singular ending of the suffix conjugation from *-ku to *-tu seen in the other Central Semitic languages. So, if Sayhadic was Central Semitic, it could be argued to have been the first to leave that subgroup, before the *-ku > *-tu change took place (though that may well have been an areal feature; it does, admittedly, occur in Yemeni Arabic dialects, too – see HUEHNERGARD – RUBIN 2011: 273-274). In effect, Sayhadic could theoretically be argued to end up between Central and “South Semitic” (note the quotation marks), or, rather, to be Central Semitic only in a wider sense, not a narrow one. But again, all this rest on numerous unknowable quantities. Of course, it very much becomes a question of which factor one regards as definitional for “Central Semitic” and of avoiding definitional circularity. Given that there have for a long time been attempts to find vestiges of *yaqattal in languages that are not normally thought to preserve it (rightly or wrongly – I am personally rather sceptical), and as the lack of nominalising *-u in Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian could, as argued in the main text, point to the first signs of imperfective *yaqtulu having started to appear (as opposed to “win out”) at the Proto-West Semitic level itself, one must admit that the waters are rather muddy. Could there theoretically have been scattered vestiges of *yaqattal in Sayhadic (and perhaps – though not very likely – *yaqtulu Northern Gurage; see the previous footnote) and of *yaqattal in Northwest Semitic (Amorite)? Again, I am sceptical, but it bears keeping in mind that the rise and loss of verbal forms may have been a stepwise development, which would, of course, be a problem for cladistics. Without taking a stand on their view of possible Amorite *yaqattals (again, note the counterarguments of BARANOWSKI 2017!), I would like to point to the view of ANDRASON – VITA 2014 28-29, that branches like Northwest Semitic show varying degrees of “prototypicality”, and that this may have been something of sliding scale in certain cases. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] The Call of *yaqtulu 445 A lesson: how to look at verbal forms Another important point that is in a way both a premise and result of the developments delineated here – and one of direct relevance not only for Central Semitic morphosyntactic history but for individual languages like Biblical Hebrew and its exegesis – is the concept that verbal forms need not have one, single synchronic meaning but that older and younger semantic contents may coexist in the same linguistic system, being superimposed, as it were, in a semantically complex patchwork17 . In studies of, for example, the Hebrew verbal system, there is often a tacit presupposition that the meaning of the qƗܒal can be reduced to one thing primarily or even exclusively and the yiqܒol to another, and that the question is just what exact categories (“perfective, perfect, past, constative”, etc.) describe them best. However, we know from other languages that this is not necessarily the case. In an instance oddly parallel to the Central Semitic perfect, one can look at the “preterito-presents” of Germanic languages (e.g. Gothic witan, Swedish veta, German wissen), which are historically perfects but semantically have present meaning (in the witan case, originally having meant “I have seen”>”I know). This is dependent not on any morphological difference but on which verbs we are talking about. The same applies to Latin verbs formally in the perfect such as nǀvƯ (“I know”) and meminƯ (“I remember), which have a meaning that is historically logical but is at odds with the “normal” meaning of the Latin perfect. So, too, is the case with the Hebrew stative qƗܒals, performative qƗܒals and similar cases, and this type of phenomenon is a necessary part of the developments argued here. In fact, the processes delineated and suggested here – statives, nominalised verbal forms and “presents” being associated with one another and reinterpreted in terms of one another – continues into the attested history of Hebrew itself. In the earlier stages of the language, we have the stative perfects and examples such as yƗdaҵtî. Later on, as the active participles gain ground as the main imperfective form in later Biblical Hebrew and especially in Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew, the pendulum turns, again creating a verbal stative/present from a nominal form (whereas the old yƗdaҵtî increasingly tends to mean “I knew” rather than “I know”). And in Modern Hebrew, a “new imperfect” is almost created in speech forms such as 'tâ-rô܈eh (“you want”, often pronounced quickly as [tݓotse]), quite similar to Talmudic Aramaic compound forms such as kƗtebnƗ (“I am writing”). This type of development is, of course, cross-linguistically quite common, but its persistence and constant self-inversion in the history of Hebrew itself suggests that a stative-nominal-imperfective conflation is quite probable for an earlier period as well18. 17 The point I am making here is similar to that made in CARVER 2016: 20, where it is stated that “[...] there is no reason to search for a single semantic meaning from which all the uses of the *qatVla form stem”, a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. Another similar position is taken in ANDRASON – VITA 2017: 383, where it is argued that, concerning Ugaritic, “[…] the ‘one form – one meaning’ approach should be abandoned in favor of a dynamic, semantic-map approach.” 18 In a way, one may compare these developments with the ones suggested by COWGILL 1979 for the early Indo-European verbal system and the development of the Hit- © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 446 Ola Wikander [UF 50 Also, one should never discount the relevance of poetic/literary structure to the matter of verbal usage; as recently studied in detail by TATU, the role of qƗܒal/yiqܒol or yiqܒol/qƗܒal couplets seems to have become engrained in the classical Hebrew poetic style of the Psalter – he even goes as far as seeing this pattern as a diagnostic for poetry as a genre. He argues that in Ugaritic poetry, the use of the suffix tense signals “[…] marked Themes, Subject change, process variation and irregular clause complex structure,” an idea reminiscent of Ulf Bergström’s interpretation of the prefix conjugation (in Hebrew) possessing “reduced appeal function” in comparison with the suffix conjugation. This type of patterning shows that the use of verbal forms cannot simply be reduced to one-dimensional, functional shifts but always must be read in the context of the literature in which it appears.19 Kouwenberg’s alternative interpretation The radical alternative to explaining the emergence of the *yaqtulu imperfective in some way as a function of what we know about the *-u ending itself is to go down the path taken by Kouwenberg to regard *yaqtulu in its imperfective use as an inheritance not only from Proto-Central Semitic but from Proto-Semitic itself, i.e., to regard it as a retention instead of an innovation. This is radical not only because of what it says about Proto-Semitic but because of what it would entail for the cladistic subgrouping of the family as a whole. Since the *yaqtulu innovation is normally regarded as one of the most important – if not the most important – defining characteristic of Central Semitic, denying it as an innovation ipso facto implies a weakening of the idea of Central Semitic as such. This, in effect, is what Kouwenberg does – merely regarding *yaqtulu as a shared retention in the languages normally referred to as “Central Semitic” rather than tite ېi-conjugation (which he thought was based on an original nominal-like form that subsequently developed into a full verb, a process that he expressly compared with the rise of *qatala from the stative; see also the presentation – and criticism – in JASANOFF 2003: 17-21). Specifically, Cowgill imagined a scenario in which these nominal verbs originally had meanings of the type “is a doer”, which is rather similar to the development *qatala demonstrably went through and the second part of the development here suggested for *yaqtulu (first “who killed”, then “is a killer” and finally “tends to kill” or “kills”). For further similar typological comparisons between the entirety of the IndoEuropean and Semitic/Afroasiatic verbal systems in relation to “nominal verbs” (so to speak), see BUBENIK 2017: 178-179 and my own WIKANDER 2017: 12-13, both separately published the same year and with quite similar ideas in the respective pages. I further expand on this type of idea in relationship to the Hebrew wayyiqܒol in WIKANDER (forthcoming 2020). Both BUBENIK 2017: 102 and myself (2010) have also discussed typological parallels between Indo-European in the relationship between jussives/injunctives and perfectives/aorists (as did TESTEN 1998: 197-198, who presented ideas similar, but not identical, to those I wrote about in my 2010 article). By the way, Bubenik himself (BUBENIK 2017: 100-101) suggests the possibility that the difference in the formation of imperfectives between East and West Semitic may go back to an original dialectal difference within Proto-Semitic itself, with a fundamental difference between verbs of state/motion and verbs action also being integral to the system. 19 TATU 2008: 339-343 (the quotation on the suffix form in Ugaritic is from p. 343); BERGSTRÖM 2014: 150, 152-154, 159-160. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] The Call of *yaqtulu 447 as a defining, common innovation of a cladistic group. Nota bene that this differs from the cautious suggestion above that *yaqtulu may have started earlier than Central Semitic – in that case, it would have been created in Proto-West Semitic, whereas Kouwenberg retrojects it all the way back to Proto-Semitic itself20. However, since Kouwenberg realises and agrees that it would be impossible to deny that the *yaqattal form is old (as it occurs in different branches of Afroasiatic), he must offer a model that leaves room for both *yaqtulu and *yaqattal in Proto-Semitic (and perhaps even earlier, as he regards the two forms as having existed together in relative stability, as opposed to the situation of struggle between the forms that I delineate above). Thus, his model needs two different semantic spheres for the forms. He accomplishes this by relegating *yaqattal to a “pluractional” stem category and regarding *yaqtulu as the true Proto-Semitic imperfective. Ingenious and impressive though this solution is, however, I must side with Kogan and ask why, then, the two forms appear in more or less complementary distribution across the Semitic language family. Where one exists, the other does not (and as seen above, it is even more pervasive than that: the Modern South Arabian languages – and perhaps Ethiosemitic, see footnote 15 – lack not only *yaqtulu but any trace of its formal marker *-u – which may, as I argued earlier, perhaps mean the same thing in essence). If there really was a neat semantic separation in Proto-Semitic, why did that duality not neatly and demonstrably survive anywhere? One would at least expect some evidence of morphological confluence or the slightest sign of an u-imperfective in Akkadian (and, conversely, *yaqtulu seems very much the winner in Central Semitic, so it seems like something of a zero-sum game – though cf. footnote 16 above). Thus, it seems both more parsimonious and more explanatory to argue that only one of the two categories existed as such, but that the other one was created out of earlier and different morphological material. If it weren’t for the extraSemitic (Berber and Beja) evidence, it would be as easy to argue that it was *yaqattal that was created in this way, perhaps on analogy with the D stem (which would, indeed, fit a “pluractional”). One could, in fact, well believe that there is such a connection at an early point. Indeed, as I have argued above, I think it quite probable that this association was also made synchronically at the time of the emergence of Central Semitic: the similarity to and confusability with the D stem made *yaqattal quite the “odd man out” within the G/Qal paradigm, thus making it an excellent candidate for innovation and replacement. Despite my views above, I should point out that I do not find it impossible that sporadic cases of “durativised nominalising” *yaqtul-u could have appeared within Proto-Semitic itself, but then only as a sort of spoken shorthand (again, “he is a killer”) rather than as a grammaticalised form or syntagm. One should remember that, whereas full grammaticalisation at one point or other becomes a discrete, Hegelian “qualitative leap”, the phenomena to be grammaticalised may have been there as sporadic instances for a long time previously. 20 His ideas (including the suggestion of a pluractional) can be found in KOUWENBERG 2010: 95-125 (contra – though highly respectfully so: KOGAN 2015: 158-166). For this question, I recommend the discussion in SUCHARD’S 2015 review of KOUWENBERG 2010 (esp. pp. 713-716). Another position negative to the idea that the imperfective *yaqtulu developed from the relative morpheme can be found in ZABORSKI 2013: 267-268. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 448 Ola Wikander [UF 50 One should, however, clearly admit that the scenario I have suggested above for the emergence of imperfective *yaqtulu could theoretically be inverted to work for a scheme in which that form were the original Proto-Semitic imperfective21. It could then be argued to have switched to a relativising meaning known from Akkadian based on the same sort of relative clauses of characteristic that I discussed earlier (“a man that [generally] kills” could have been reinterpreted as “a man that [once] killed/started killing”). However, the ubiquity of *-u as a relativiser/nominaliser of many other forms in Akkadian makes that solution rather less parsimonious to my mind. In conclusion I have argued that the simplest way to account for the appearance of the *yaqtulu imperfective in Central Semitic is to regard its “nominal-ness” as having been associated with imperfective-durative meaning, and that this process of change occurred in tandem with the stepwise movement of *qatala (Hebrew qƗܒal) from a nominal stative (as its Akkadian cognate is) to a real perfect(ive). These co-developments continue, in a way, into Hebrew itself, and the conflation between “nominal” and “imperfective” can be seen in later Hebrew, and in the Hebrew Bible itself. I have also discussed the lack of the nominalising *-u in precisely those two branches of West Semitic (Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian) that have kept *yaqattal, and suggested that this may mean that the “struggle” between the two imperfectives began earlier than the creation of the Central Semitic clade. The study of these forms teaches an important lesson in the exegetical interpretation of Hebrew (and other verbal forms): that the system may well be in flux, and that a single form can have different meanings depending on what verb one is looking at. Changes can be gradual, before their Hegelian jump into full grammaticalisation. Specific semantic loads of specific verbal forms can depend on a specific construction being generalised and extrapolated from, and it is quite plausible (probable, actually) that such cases would appear within the attested corpora of known languages (especially languages with a wide temporal divide between texts, such as Biblical Hebrew). A verb became a “noun phrase”, and that phrase became a “kill-er, and that “kill-er” became an imperfective verb. And then participles gained ground, and the cycle started again. Bibliography ANDRASON, A. – VITA, J.-P. 2014. The Present-Future in Amorite, Journal for Semitics 23: 21-36. — 2019. The YQTL-Ø “Preterite” in Ugaritic Epic Poetry, Archiv Orientální 85: 345–387. APPLEYARD, D. 2002. New Finds in the 20th Century: The South Semitic Languages, Israel Oriental Studies 20: 401-430. BARANOWSKI, K. J., 2017. The Present-Future in Amorite: A Rejoinder, ANES 54: 81-89. 21 Actually, something vaguely similar is found in KURYàOWICZ 1962: 60 (again focusing on concomitance, however). © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] The Call of *yaqtulu 449 BERGSTRÖM, U. 2014. Temporality and the Semantics of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System, Uppsala. BJØRU, Ø. – PAT-EL, N. forthcoming. The Indicative Markers in West Semitic and their relationship to the East Semitic subordinative, in R. Hasselbach and N. Pat-El (eds.), BƝl LišƗni: papers in Akkadian Linguistics presented to John Huehnergard on the occasion of his retirement. Winona Lake. BUBENIK, V. 2017. Development of Tense/Aspect in Semitic in the Context of Afro-Asiatic Languages, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 337, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. COWGILL, W. 1979. Anatolian ېi-Conjugation and Indo-European Perfect: Installment II, in E. Neu and W. Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 25), Innsbruck, 25-39. CARVER, D. E. 2016. The Akkadian Stative: A Non-Finite Verb, ANES 53: 1-24. EVANS, N. 2007. Insubordination and its Uses, in Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Oxford, 366-431. HAMORI, A. 1973. A Note on Yaqtulu in East and West Semitic, Archiv Orientální 41: 319-324. HASSELBACH, R. 2012. The Verbal Endings -u and -a: A Note on Their Functional Derivation, in R. Hasselbach – N. Pat-El (eds.), Languages and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Chicago, 119-136. HETZRON, R. 1968. Main Verb-Markers in Northern Gurage, Africa 38: 156-172. — 1976. Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction, Lingua 38:89-108. HUEHNERGARD, J. 2005. Features of Central Semitic, in A. Gianto (ed.), Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran (Biblica et Orientalia, 48), Rome, 155-203. — 2019. Proto-Semitic, in J. Huehnergard and N. Pat-El (eds.), The Semitic Languages: Second Edition (Routledge Language Family Series). 49-79. HUEHNERGARD, J. – RUBIN, A.D. 2011. 9. Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages, in S. Weninger et al. (eds.), Semitic Languages: An International Handbook (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36), Berlin/Boston, 259-278. JASANOFF, J. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb, New York/Oxford. KAPELIUK, O. 2018. Insubordination in Modern South Arabian: A Common Isogloss with Ethiosemitic?, in M. Tosco (ed.), Afroasiatic: Data and Perspectives (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 339). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 153-165. KOGAN, L. 2015. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses, Boston/Berlin. KOSSMANN, M. – SUCHARD, B. D. 2018. A Reconstruction of the System of Verb Aspects in Proto-Berbero-Semitic, BSOAS 81: 41-56. KOUWENBERG, N.J.C. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background, Languages of the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 450 Ola Wikander [UF 50 KURYàOWICZ, J. 1962. L’apophonie en sémitique, Prace jĊzykoznawcze (Wrocáaw) 24, Wrocáaw : Zakáad narodowy imienia ossoliĔskich. LESLAU, W. 1967. Hypothesis on a Proto-Semitic Marker of the Imperfect in Gurage, JNES 26: 121-125. LIPIēSKI, E. 2001. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar, Leuven. NEBES, N. 1994a. Verwendung und Funktion der Präfixkonjugation im Sabäischen, in N. Nebes (ed.), Arabia Felix. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien. Festschrift Walter W. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 191-211. — 1994b. Zur Form der Imperfektbasis des unvermehrten Grundstammes im Altsüdarabischen, in W. Heinrichs – G. Schoeller (eds.), Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, vol. I, Beirut, 59-81. PENNACCHIETTI, F. A. 1993. Le forme pseudorelative: isoglossa strutturale del semitico sud-occidentale, in R. Contini – F.A. Pennacchietti (eds.), Semitica: Serta Philologica Constantini Tsereteli Dicata, Torino, 213-225. — 2007. L’impiego di frasi pseudorelative come verbi finiti, in F. Venier (ed.), Relative e Pseudorelative tra Grammatica e Testo, Alessandria, 133-148. RETSÖ, J. 2014. The B-Imperfect Once Again: Typological and Diachronic Perspectives, in L. Edzard and J. Huehnergard (eds.), Proceedings of the Oslo–Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 88), Wiesbaden, 64-72. RÖSSLER, O. 1950. Verbalbau und Verbalflexion in den Semitohamitischen Sprachen, ZDMG 100: 461-514. RUBIN, A. D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake. — 2008. The Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages, Language and Lingustics Compass 2/1: 61-84. SUCHARD, B. D. 2015. Review of KOUWENBERG 2010, Bibliotheca Orientalis 72: 712-719. TATU, S. 2008. The Qatal//Yiqtol (Yiqtol//Qatal) Verbal Sequence in Semitic Couplets: A Case Study in Systemic Functional Grammar with Applications on the Hebrew Psalter and Ugaritic Poetry, Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 3, Piscataway. TESTEN, D. D. 1998. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics: The Development of Arabic la- and Related Semitic Particles. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 26, Leiden. VERNET, E. 2013. New Considerations on the Historical Existence of a West Semitic ‘Yaqattal’ Form, in J.P. Monferrer-Sala – W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Archaism and Innovation in the Semitic Languages: Selected Papers (Series Semitica Antiqva 1), Cordoba, 145-161. VOIGT, R. M. 1987. The Classification of Central Semitic, JSS 32: 1-21. WIKANDER, O. 2010, The Hebrew WƗw Consecutive as a North West Semitic “Augment”, VT 60: 260-270. — 2017. Unburning Fame: Horses, Dragons, Beings of Smoke, and Other Indo-European Motifs in Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, ConBOT 62, Winona Lake. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1 2019] The Call of *yaqtulu — 451 Forthcoming 2020. Literary Grammar: The Grammaticalization of the Hebrew Wayyiqܒol in Typological Comparison with the Classical Japanese Kakari-Musubi, the Old Irish Dependent Conjugation, and the Tocharian Gendered 1st Person Singular Pronoun, SJOT 34. ZABORSKI, A. 2013. Big and Small Problems of the Biggest Panorama of the Semitic Languages, in Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 5: 253-304. © 2019, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster ISBN: 978-3-86835-280-1
