The Pausal Phrase in Tiberian Aramaic and the Reflexes of * i
1
Vincent DeCaen
Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto decaen@chass.utoronto.ca
5/2002
Aramaic systematically encodes the grammatical category voice , as do Semitic systems generally, by means of ablaut .
2 In the active voice , the verbal stem is marked by the thematic vowel *i ; its reflex throughout the Aramaic dialects is lowered to [e]. In contrast, the verbal stem is marked by the thematic vowel *a in the passive voice ; its reflex is [a].
In the medieval Tiberian reading of Biblical Aramaic (TA), the expected reflex of
*i in a closed, final syllable is [e] when stressed , [

] when unstressed . However, upwards of 40% of the time, a more conservative [i] pronunciation obtains.
3 Rosenthal suggests that [e] and [i] are in free variation
: he concludes that the variants “may apparently be used interchangeably” in the several verbal binyanim 4 .
Bauer and Leander address variation in vowel reflexes under §5
Satzdruck .
5
They first note that *a is lengthened ( gedehnt ) to [

] in pause, on the pattern of Tiberian
Hebrew (TH) prosody—“falsely” in their opinion.
6
Then, regarding the reflexes of *i , they claim that [i] also appears principally ( hauptsächlich
) in pause (on the accents
 and
 — an overgeneralization); whereas, [e] appears in context exclusively ( ausschließlich 7
; there is, however, one exception, as explained below).
Nevertheless, there are unexplained exceptions to this weak generalization.
8
While

somewhat of an improvement over Rosenthal, Bauer and Leander's statement amounts theoretically to the same thing: the variants may apparently be used interchangeably.
This study is motivated by the strong claim that Tiberian phonology is rule governed . It is not reasonable that free variation should obtain in the canonical TA vocalization: after all, the various Masoretic schools devoted several centuries to perfecting an exquisitely detailed notation to preserve a traditional phonology. I propose a prosodic rule to govern this [e] ~ [i] variation in TA, following the suggestion of Bauer and Leander: the variants are sensitive to a prosodic constituent I call the “pausal phrase,” an interesting extension of the more traditional notion of Tiberian “pause.”
This study is limited to the reflexes of *i in the TA verbal system, though the phenomenon occurs elsewhere.
9
The past tense (or perfectum ) is treated separately, since significant complications are found in this conjugation, as will be explained presently.
To prevent distortion from secondary phonological processes, certain root types are excluded: so-called hollow verbs such as

,
10
and all final-weak verbs (including quiescent

and the gutturals). By ensuring methodological control, we significantly limit the database to 49 tokens (though augmented to 74 by including the past tense).
1. Pausal Phonology
For the purposes of this study pause will be defined as follows. A pausal form exhibits the fuller, more conservative pronunciation with respect to vowel quality and stress placement. By contextual form , we will simply mean the contrasting nonpausal
2

variant. A pausal form is said to be in pause ; similarly, a contextual form is said to be in context .
The term pause will be shorthand, then, for pausal environment : a prosodically prominent position in the verse, typically but not necessarily coinciding with the end of a sentence. Words with pausal vs. contextual variants must display pausal phonology in a pausal environment; of course, many words are without pausal-contextual variants, but can still be meaningfully characterized as in pause . (The precise phonological-syntactic definition of pause remains an open empirical question.) In TH, pause is understand to come in two degrees: major pause and minor pause , as summarized in the table in (1).
11
(1)
D
EGREE OF
P
AUSE
E
XAMPLE
D
ESCRIPTION
Major Pause
Minor Pause
Context
D
ISTRIBUTION
 full vowel
 modified vowel pause on lesser accents
 stress shifting only end of the half-verse absence of pause
12
Restricting consideration to the participle (33 tokens) and the nonpast tense (or imperfectum , 16 tokens, for a total of 49), we can detect only one minimal pair.
13
The contrasting forms of

are given in (2) and (3).
14
(2) Ezra 6
(E 6:11)

(E 6:12)

(3) Ezra 7
(E 7:21)

...
3

(E 7:23)

On this basis we can assert that [i] is the pausal variant: the more conservative reflex, as might reasonably be expected. The contextual variant, then, is [e]. This is
Bauer and Leander's basic observation.
15
2. The Distribution of Pausal [i]
We will now elevate the pausal observation to a strong claim: all and only pausal forms exhibit the reflex [i] (and contrasting with contextual [e]). We will now consider the distribution of [i] in order to formulate the correct prosodic generalization.
The end of the half-verse (n. 12), it is confidently assumed, is a pausal environment . The database contains 11 forms occurring on either

(verse-final) or

(the first division of the verse): D 2:44, 3:17, 4:10, 5:19, 6:3, 7:9, 7:24; E 4:13,
6:4, 6:12, 7:21. All 11 tokens, quite strikingly, are pronounced with [i]. We may confidently assert that major pause forces pausal [i].
A further 5 tokens showing [i] are found immediately before a word bearing either

or

(major pause). Crucially, these tokens are phrased together with the word bearing major pause.
In the three cases given in (4) and (5), a form with [i] bears a conjunctive accent
(C). The conjunctive accent

appears twice in (4); the conjunctive accent

appears only once in (5).
16
(The situation in (5) is a violation of the Tiberian aversion to stress clash
—two stressed syllables back-to-back; and we might hypothesize that it is this situation that gives rise to the anomalous

.)
4

(4)
(D 2:40)

...
(D 7:8)

...
(5)
(D 4:13)

...
The three half-verses in (4)-(5) can be diagrammed schematically as in (6), using a tree diagram to represent the continuous dichotomy of the accentual syntax.
17
(6)
D1
D0 [ = half-verse]
D1f
D0
C
W [i]
D0
D0
W
A further two tokens that appear on the disjunctive

(D1f) are given in
(7). In these cases,

functions as a promoted conjunctive accent (

).
These are similarly diagrammed in (8).
5

(7)
(D 3:17)

(D 4:34)

(8)
D1
D0 [ = half-verse]
D1f
W[i]
D0
D0
W
We can elevate this discovery to a strong claim. Let us, therefore, define a pausal phrase as follows, with reference to (9).
(9)



(10)





Let

be a prosodic word in pause. Then, the phrase

is a pausal phrase . If a prosodic word is immediately dominated by the node

, as

is in (9), then it too is in pause . Hence, the new term pausal phrase . Notice the crucial difference between (9) and (10), and the implict prediction: in (9) the words are phrased together, and so

is in pause; whereas, in (10)

is not directly phrased together with

(even though it immediately precedes it in linear order!), and so should not be in pause.
6

3. Testing the Hypothesis
According to the definition of pausal phrase , as diagrammed by means of (9) above, a branching phrase dominated by

(D1f) (cf. (10) above) cannot cause the pausal variant [i]; rather, [e] necessarily is found. This prediction, confirmed in two cases (E 6:11, 7:26), is given schematically in (11).
(11)
...
D1f
D0
D1f
W [e]
D0
W
Returning to our database of 49 tokens, 16 cases with [i] are now systematically accounted for, and a further 23 cases of [e] are systematically excluded (the total now covered is 39 out of 49). Yet, there are still 5 cases of [e] phrased together with
 or

. There are a further 5 cases of [i] appearing elsewhere.
Four of the 5 cases with [e], in violation of our prediction (D 2:31, 4:26, E 4:19
[with maqqef ], 4:20), can be eliminated with a structural distinction. In these cases, the violating word pronounced with [e] is in the correct configuration; but, crucially, there is only one D1 branch in the entire half-verse: the D1f acts to block phrasal pause in (12); cf. (13), (14). These four cases can be systematically eliminated.
(12) D0
7

(13)
D1f
C
D0
D0
W [e] W
D1
D0
D0
(14)
D1f
W [i]
D0
W
D1
D0
D0
D1f
C
W [i]
D0
D0
W
8

6.4. The last case in [e] is D 4:6, given in (15). In this case, stress retraction or nesigah 18 should have applied; two near-minimal cases are given in (16) for comparison
(in which stress retraction could not apply). Crucially, there is no exact minimal contrast to (15).
(15)
(D 4:6)
 
...
(16)
(D 4:13)
 
...
(E 4:19)

6.5. We might speculate on the prosodic distinction in (15): is it in fact related to the nesigah phenomenon as just suggested? Perhaps we should be reading

with stress retraction? That would solve the problem. In this regard, we should further note that there is a Masoretic annotation in the margin, the

( hapex legomenon ), signalling a perceived difficulty with this reading. The only conceivable difficulty is the vowel [e] and/or the placement of the accent.
19
The 5 exceptions in [i] indicate that minor pause may be sufficient to project a pausal phrase. Two exceptions appear phrased together on a D2 (the diamond-shaped

) in (17). The remaining 3 exceptions in (18) all appear on conjunctives.
(17)
9

(D 6:28)

(18)
(D 2:44)

(D 4:20)

(D 7:20)

7.2. Arguably we are still dealing with pausal phrasing in these cases: certainly there is a pausal caesura in (17), and apparently also in (18). The only real exception is D 2:44, where

cannot be read pausally. But surely it is no coincidence that

is immediately preceded by

at the half-verse?
4. Considering the Past Tense Forms
As noted at the outset, the past tense conjugation (25 tokens) was bracketed because of complications. The problems are set out briefly in light of the foregoing.

. There are 5 clear cases of a G-stem stative (

) in the past tense pronounced [i] (the thematic vowel here is exceptionally *i , not *a ). All five occur on

:

(D 2:46),

(D 4:8; 4:17),

(D 6:21),

(D
7:9). These tokens tend to confirm our hypothesis.
There are a further 2 cases that are somewhat ambiguous in their parse. One example appears on

,

(E 5:16). It is not clear, however, that this is not the past tense of the G-stem passive . Indeed, Bauer and Leander note that Kittel's Biblica
Hebraica reads

, in which the

clearly signals long *ii , not short *i (§5g); the form is parsed this way as well in the standard BDB (assuming scripta defectiva ).
10

Similarly, there is some difficulty with the anomalous

(D 6:21) on the conjunctive

. This may not, therefore, be a counterexample. Indeed, only reading

(cf.

) could make sense of the marginal note

(in plain
English: “do not accidentally insert a 
here”).
In contrast, there are 4 contextual forms pronounced with [e]. Two cases conform to prediction:

(D 3:26) on the conjunctive of a D2; and

(D 3:27) buried on the conjunctive of a D3. Two apparently do not. In D 6:24,


is arguably a pausal phrase; however, the now familiar Masoretic note
 highlights this form, presumably because of its pointing. An identical case,


in D 6:15, is not so highlighted.

. There are 9 tokens of the H-stem past tense (

) among the 25.
Three of these 9 should be cases of pausal phrases, yet only one is pronounced [i]:

(D 6:24). One of the failures, in D 6:19, requires closer inspection:

. In this case there is both an anomalous
 and another
Masoretic note,

(twice), which I would read, “ sic cf. 2:25”. However, 
(E
6:5) is accompanied by no such note.

.
The most difficult case is saved for last. There are only 5 tokens of the past tense of the D-stem (

), so it is difficult to mount an argument; but to the extent that there is a pattern, [i] is found in context , whereas [e] is found in pause .
There does not appear to be an escape from the suggestion.
There are 3 cases in which there can be no suspicion of pause. In these cases, given in (19), we observe [i].
11

(19)
(D 2:19)

(D 3:22)

...
(E 6:12) ...

There is one clear case of a pausal phrase (D1f as a promoted conjunctive: see (8) above) in which [e] is found (

D 6:1). This is the mirror image , then, of the behaviour established for *i . On the other hand, we find

in D 6:22. The verse
6:22, however, is quite exceptional in its length; we might suspect that this length is a mitigating context.
If the suggestion be correct, we would have to allow for a morphologically determined mirror-image effect. From a theoretical perspective, this would entail a different underlying vowel for the D-stem past tense: crucially, not *i . We should then be on the lookout for independent motivation elsewhere in Aramaic phonology.
12

5. Conclusion
The labours of the Tiberian scribes are criticized often enough, but it has been suspected that they were especially sloppy with the Aramaic (I believe that they were working twice as hard here, judging by the quantity of marginal annotation). Johns comments,
... the author [Johns] suspects the possibility (difficult to prove) that the earliest Masoretes or pre-Masoretic scribes were not quite as careful with the Aramaic portions of the
Bible as with the Hebrew portions. How could the books of written partially in Aramaic occupy quite as high a spot in the canon as others written entirely in the “sacred” language, Hebrew?
20
On the contrary, this study goes some way to exonerating the scribes and confirming the accuracy with which they preserved a complicated phonology. The [i] and [e] variants are clearly in complementary distribution , governed by a prosodic law: it was suggested above that there is a sensitivity to pausal phrasing , suitably defined. To the extent that there are deviations, these appear to be understood as such in the masora parva .
The phenomenon observed here is highly suggestive for the study of TH variation, and in two ways. First, there are similar phenomena in TH, including difficulty
13

with the reflexes of *i
—not surprisingly—, that might be amenable to such an analyis; and in such an event, the analyses would be mutually clarifying and reinforcing.
Second, it may very well be the case that a morphologically determined mirrorimage effect could solve some puzzles as well.
21
14

1
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor Ernest Clarke, my first instructor in
Aramaic language and literature.
My work is made possible in part by a generous donation from the nonprofit
GRAMCORD Institute (www.gramcord.org), and by the continued generosity of Albert
(Dov) Friedberg.
2
Vowel change in related words in (esp. the parent Indo-European) language, arising out of differences of accent and stress, and surviving e.g. in sing, sang, sung (OED).
3
“Short i in a closed, accented syllable is either retained or becomes sere (this latter sere is changed to seghol before maqqeph)” From A. F. Johns' list of “Selected Phonetic Rules for Vowels,” in his A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (1963), §I (H), p. 6.
4 F. Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden 1961), §103.
5
H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Hildesheim 1927), 22-
25.
6
§5d, e.g.,

[
 ]“my hands” in pause, contrasting with expected 
[

].
7
§5e.
15

8
As understated in §5j: [i] appears frequently elsewhere.
9 Bauer and Leander note an interesting contrast: expected

“six” in context (E
6:15), contrasting with pausal

on

(D 3:1) (§5i).
10
The biradicals are excluded because of possible vowel-lengthening rules. However, when such roots appear as triradicals , they are included: e.g., the participle

.
11
N.B. Bauer and Leander, Grammatik , are assuming implicitly that Pausa can only be major pause according to the distinction made here.
12
By “half-verse,” we will understand units dominated by either

(verse-final) or

(marking the major dichotomy).
13 As isolated by Bauer and Leander, Grammatik , §5f.
14
A fifth example in [e] is found in D 3:29.
15
“Die tib. Masoreten haben zwischen den Formen mit
í und denen mit
é in geschlossener Ultima ... einen, wenn auch nicht ganz durchgeführten, künstlichen
Unterschied geschaffen, indem sie
í hauptsächlich in der P., é
ausschließlich im Kontext gebrauchen” (§5e, p. 23).
16

16
J. D. Price, The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible (1990): “The accent may have only one conjunctive serving it, and that must always be Mereka
(mer)” (p. 57).
17 The symbolism employed here is borrowed from M. Cohen, The System of
Accentuation in the Hebrew Bible (1969); cf. B. E. Dresher, ‘The Prosodic Basis of the
Tiberian Hebrew System of Accents,’
Language 70.1 (1994). In this notation, the hierarchy of the disjunctive accents (D) is encoded by means of the numerals 0-3. For alternative notations, see J. D. Price, Syntax and D. M. Weil, The Masoretic Chant of the
Bible (Jerusalem 1995).
18
E. J. Revell , Nesiga (Retraction of Word Stress) in Tiberian Hebrew (Madrid 1987).
19
There are some unique properties in this case compared to (16). Perhaps the non branching D1f (

) in (15) is involved (whereas D1f is branching in (16), signalled by the conjunctive

); or perhaps the
 plays a role. Regardless, one apparent failure should not be enough to overthrow the very strong generalization: we will therefore bracket D 4:6 for future consideration.
20
A. F. Johns, Short Grammar, vi.
21 This in fact is the approach Bill Idsardi and I take in our “The Eight Phonemic Vowels of Tiberian Hebrew: Evidence from Segholate Nouns” (unpublished ms., 1999).
17