Proto-Austronesian Hebrew/Verbs: Difference between revisions

From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(making huge verbs charts)
m (note)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The confluence of the Semitic binyanim/aspect system and the Proto-Austonesian alignment/triggers is among the most labyrinthine combinations in the history of morphosyntactic amalgamation. In the realm of phonaesthetics, PAH progressivelty capitulated to its surroundings. Here, however, it subsumed and appropriated new processes while maintaining ''all'' of its original syntax.
The confluence of the Semitic binyanim/aspect system and the Proto-Austonesian alignment/triggers is among the most labyrinthine combinations in the history of morphosyntactic amalgamations. In the realm of phonaesthetics, PAH progressivelty capitulated to its surroundings. Here, however, it subsumed and appropriated new processes while maintaining ''all'' of its original syntax.


== History ==
== History ==
=== PH ===
=== PH ===
[[File:Binyanim.png|thumb|right|Hebrew system of voices]]
[[File:Binyanim.png|thumb|right|Hebrew system of voices]]
PH was a Nominative-Accusative language, favoring VSO 40% of the time. SVO occurred in 34% of cases, VOS 17%, OSV 5.3%, SOV 2.3%, and OSV 0.98%. Definite direct objects were marked with the preposition /eθ/. Thee enclitic, post-position location marker /aː/ was slowly giving way to the preposition /lə/ and the relative clause marker /ʃə/ was being replaced by the relative pronoun /ʔaʃer/. Theere was no tense per se<ref>However, the qatal system does seem to have been only for the past tense, see [http://books.google.com/books?id=ijemxoeFvnUC Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew], M.F. Rogland Ph.D dissertation</ref>, but a complex system of seven voices<ref>simple active/passive, intensive active/passive, causative active/passive, and reflexive</ref>, two aspects<ref>perfective and imperfect</ref>, four moods<ref>indicative, imperative/cohortative/jussive, infinitive construct, and participial</ref> and a binary system of reduplication<ref>an admittedly Austronesian way to discuss the infinitive absolute</ref>. Most of these could be conjugated for person, number, and gender.
PH was a Nominative-Accusative language, favoring VSO 40% of the time. SVO occurred in 34% of cases, VOS 17%, OSV 5.3%, SOV 2.3%, and OSV 0.98%. Definite direct objects were marked with the preposition /eθ/. The enclitic, post-position location marker /ah/ was slowly giving way to the preposition /la/ and the relative clause marker /ʔaʃer/ was being replaced by the relative pronoun /ʃa+/. There was no tense ''per se''<ref>However, the qatal system does seem to have been only for the past tense, see [http://books.google.com/books?id=ijemxoeFvnUC Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew], M.F. Rogland Ph.D dissertation</ref>, but a complex system of seven voices<ref>simple active/passive, intensive active/passive, causative active/passive, and reflexive</ref>, two aspects<ref>perfective and imperfect</ref>, four moods<ref>indicative, imperative/cohortative/jussive, infinitive construct, and participial</ref> and a binary system of reduplication<ref>an admittedly Austronesian way to discuss the infinitive absolute</ref>. Most of these could be conjugated for person, number, and gender.


Most Hebrew grammars deem stems to have expressed either the active or the passive voice. They are said to be either ‘simple’, ‘intensive’, or ‘causative’.  The hitha’el is was the ‘causative reflexive’. However, the medio-passive role of the niphal and the shadowy remnants of a Qal-passive voice make some Semitologists conjecture a nine-part system of nine binyanim in the earliest stages of Hebrew development, not seven
Most Hebrew grammars deem stems to have expressed either the active or the passive voice. They are said to be either ‘simple’, ‘intensive’, or ‘causative’.  The hitha’el is was the ‘causative reflexive’. However, the medio-passive role of the niphal and the shadowy remnants of a Qal-passive voice make some Semitologists conjecture a nine-part system of nine binyanim in the earliest stages of Hebrew development, not seven
Line 13: Line 13:
|-
|-
! Active
! Active
| qatal || piel || hifal
| pa'al || pi'el || hif'al
|-
|-
! MIddle
! Middle
| nifal || hitpael || qutal<ref>reconstructed in PH from such forms as אֻּכַל and יֻּתַן</ref>
| nif'al || hitpa'el || šitpa'il<ref>unattested in the literature we have preserved from the ANE.  Also known as "pa'il of šit".</ref>
|-
|-
! Passive
! Passive
| pual || nitfael<ref>unattested in the literature we have preserved from the ANE</ref> || hofal
| pu'il<ref>reconstructed in PH from such forms as אֻּכַל and יֻּתַן</ref> || pu<nowiki>''</nowiki>al || hof'al
|}
|}


Line 42: Line 42:
| i- || i- «in»-iu || r(a)- -un || -u || -au
| i- || i- «in»-iu || r(a)- -un || -u || -au
|}
|}
There were four voices: Actor, Direct-Passive, Local-Passive and Instrumental-Passive (also known as the Benefactive). This system moves from Nominative-Accusative (N-A) alignment, to Ergative-Absolutive (E-A) alignment and beyond via a system of ‘triggers’ on the verb. VSO word-order made this easier to com- prehend in real-time.
There were four voices: Actor, Direct-Passive, Local-Passive and Instrumental-Passive (also known as the Benefactive). This system moves from Nominative-Accusative (N-A) alignment, to Ergative-Absolutive (E-A) alignment and beyond via a system of ‘triggers’ on the verb. VSO word-order made this easier to comprehend in real-time.


N-A alignment (e.g., English) puts the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the agent of a transitive verb (A) in the same case, called ‘nominative’. The object of a transitive verb (O) is in a second case, called ‘accusative’.  E-A treats A as its own case (‘ergative’) but S and O as the same case (‘absolutive’).  Austronesian morphosyntactic alignment introduces two more terms to the matrix: a location of the action (L) and an instrument or beneficiary of the action (I). The system of triggers indicate which element will be in the ‘direct’ case (D). Other elements revert to their original cases. In the Local and Instrumental, S cannot be stated.
N-A alignment (e.g., English) puts the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the agent of a transitive verb (A) in the same case, called ‘nominative’. The object of a transitive verb (O) is in a second case, called ‘accusative’.  E-A treats A as its own case (‘ergative’) but S and O as the same case (‘absolutive’).  Austronesian morphosyntactic alignment introduces two more terms to the matrix: a location of the action (L) and an instrument or beneficiary of the action (I). The system of triggers indicate which element will be in the ‘direct’ case (D). Other elements revert to their original cases. In the Local and Instrumental, S cannot be stated.


== Stems ==
== Stems ==
Within less than 500 years of their involuntary journey to Southeast Asia, the ancient Semitic peoples had come to see their various “conjugations” differently, because of their environment. The system encompassed tense, aspect, the Austronesian 4-voice system, and a simple system of Realis and Irrealis moods.
Within 500 years of their involuntary journey to Southeast Asia, the ancient Semitic peoples had come to see their various “stems” differently, because of their environment.
 
Certain prepositions became proclitic case-markers in PAH. Direct case was marked either with the inseparable-preposition ha+gemination ハッ (from the PH definite article hā ָה) or the inseparable-postposition reduplication+a ヽㇷ (from the PH directional Hā Locale -a ָה–) . The ergative case was marked with hen ヘン (הֶן), which meant something like ‘behold!’ in PH. The accusative marker was ta タ, a metathesis and ablaut of PH *ʔeθ אֵת־.  The locative marker was ba バ, from PH ַּבְ/ּב . Benefactive was la ラ゜, from PH . לְ/לַ


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Reconstructed PH Finite Verb Stem Usage Redistribution √QTL
|
|
! colspan="3" | Non-Past
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | ''Nominative''
! colspan="3" | Past
! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | ''Oblique''
! colspan="3" | Causative
|-
|-
|
|
! Perfect. || Imperf. || Subjunct.
! Direct
! Perfect. || Imperf. || Subjunct.
! Ergative
! Perfect. || Imperf. || Subjunct.
! Accusative
! Genitive
|-
! Common nous
| ha+...u/ma
| hin...u/ma
| ...a/ti
| ...i/ti
|-
! Proper nouns
| ...u/ma
| hin+...u/ma
| ta...a/ti
| ...i/ti
|}
 
Non-core arguments are generally made with (inseparable) prepositions, which are typically in the genitive case.  All nouns in some forms, and some nouns in all forms are diptotes, that is, only have two case endings.
 
In addition to all the forms listed below, there are versions with the prefixed ヰ-/wi- that indicated action prior to the main verb.  wi+contemplative = pluperfect (cp. wayyiqtol).  wi+completed = present perfect (cp. weqatal).  wi+progressive = future perfect (there is no corresponding wayyiqtolu* in PH).
 
=== Simple Actor Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic G-Stem a.k.a. Qatal(a) a.k.a. Pa'al''
The "standard" Semitic stem was commissioned to be the "actor" trigger.  That is, this "voice" expects subject of an intransitive verb or the actor of a transitive verb to be in the direct case and the object of a transitive verb to be in the accusative.
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right;"
! INFINITIVES
|-
! Absolute<ref>that is, a verbal adverb or adjective</ref>
|-
| ŊāLuMa†
|-
! Construct<ref>that is, a verbal noun</ref>
|-
| ŊuLuMu
|}
{| class="wikitable"
| ||
! Completed<ref>cp. Hebrew Perfect aspect</ref>|| Progressive<ref>cp. Hebrew Imperfect</ref> || Contemplative<ref>cp. Hebrew Jussive</ref> || Coh/Imp/Part<ref>The first person forms are ''Cohortative'', the second person ''Imperative'' and the third person ''Participles''.  The participle does not inflect for person: it it placed on this chart for convenience.</ref>
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Sing.
! 1c
| ŊaLaMtū
| 'aŊLuMu
| 'aŊLuM
| 'aŊLuMa
|-
! 2m
| ŊaLaMtā
| taŊLuMu
| taŊLuM
| ŊuLuM(a)
|-
! 2f
| ŊaLaMtī
| taŊLuMīna
| taŊLuMī
| ŊuLuMī
|-
! 3m
| ŊaLāMa
| yaŊLuMu
| yaŊLuM
| ŊōLiMu*
|-
! 3f
| ŊaLaMō
| taŊLuMu
| taŊLuM
| ŊōLiMatu*
|-
! rowspan="3" style="vertical-align:middle" | Dual
! 1c
| ŊaLaMnāyā
| naŊLuMā
| naŊLuMā
| naŊLuMa
|-
! 2c
| ŊaLaMtumā
| taŊLuMāna
| taŊLuMā
| ŊuLuMā
|-
! 3c
| ŊaLaMā
| yaŊLuMāna
| yaŊLuMā
| ŊōLiMaymi*
|-
|-
! Agent
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Plural
| qīttela || yiqattēl || qattil || qatala || yiqtolu || qutulu || hiqtīla || yaqtīl || haqtēl
! 1c
| ŊaLaMnū
| naŊLuMu
| naŊLuM
| naŊLuMa
|-
|-
! Patient
! 2m
| hitqattela || yitqattēl || hutqattil || niqtala || yinqatelu || hinqatila || nitiqtela || yitqatīl || hiqtel
| ŊaLaMtumu
| taŊLuMūna
| taŊLuMū
| ŊuLuMū
|-
|-
! Local
! 2f
| quttala || yquttēl || ø || qutīla || yuqtalu || ø || hoqtala || yoqtal || ø
| ŊaLaMtina
| taŊLuMna
| taŊLuM
| ŊuLuMnā
|-
|-
! Bene.
! 3m
| šiqīttola || yišuqīttēl || ø || šuqtīla || yišqtalu || ø || šuqotōla || yišoqtīl || ø
| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ŊaLaMū
| yaŊLuMūna
| yaŊLuMū
| ŊōLiMīma*
|-
! 3f
| taŊLuMna
| taŊLuM
| ŊōLiMōtu*
|}
|}
Infinitive construct not in construct relationship should be the same as the imperative form.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Participles are given in the nominative/direct absolute. <br />
† Infinitive absolutes can be inflected for case to match a noun, or left in the accusative to function adverbially.


=== Simple Object Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic N-Stem a.k.a. Niqtal(a) a.k.a. Nip̅a'al''
The normal passive voice of Semitic verbs became the first passive of the Austronesian system, a.k.a. the "object" trigger.  This "voice" expects subject of an intransitive verb or the patients of a transitive verb to be in the direct case and the actor of a transitive verb to be in the ergative.
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right;"
! INFINITIVES
|-
! Absolute
|-
| hiŊŊaLōMa
|-
! Construct
|-
| hiŊŊaLiMu
|}
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Non-Finite Verb Stems
| ||
|
! Completed || Progressive || Contemplative || Coh/Imp/Part
! colspan="3" | Non-Past
|-
! colspan="3" | Past
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Sing.
! colspan="3" | Causative
! 1c
| naŊLaMtū
| 'iŊŊaLiMu
| 'iŊŊaLiM
| 'iŊŊaLiMa
|-
! 2m
| naŊLaMtā
| tiŊŊaLiMu
| tiŊŊaLiM
| hiŊŊaLiM(a)
|-
! 2f
| naŊLaMtī
| tiŊŊaLiMīna
| tiŊŊaLiMī
| hiŊŊaLiMī
|-
! 3m
| naŊLāMa
| yiŊŊaLiMu
| yiŊŊaLiM
| niŊLāMu
|-
! 3f
| naŊLaMō
| tiŊŊaLiMu
| tiŊŊaLiM
| niŊLāMatu
|-
! rowspan="3" style="vertical-align:middle" | Dual
! 1c
| naŊLaMnāyā
| niŊŊaLiMā
| niŊŊaLiM
| naŊLuMa
|-
! 2c
| naŊLaMtumā
| tiŊŊaLiMāna
| tiŊŊaLiMā
| hiŊŊaLiMā
|-
! 3c
| naŊLaMā
| yiŊŊaLiMāna
| yiŊŊaLiMā
| niŊLāMaymi
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Plural
! 1c
| naŊLaMnū
| niŊŊaLiMu
| niŊŊaLiM
| naŊLuMa
|-
! 2m
| naŊaLaMtumu
| tiŊŊaLiMūna
| tiŊŊaLiMū
| hiŊŊaLiMū
|-
! 2f
| naŊLaMtina
| tiŊŊaLiMna
| tiŊŊaLiM
| hiŊŊaLiMnā
|-
! 3m
| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | naŊLaMū
| yiŊŊaLiMūna
| yiŊŊaLiMū
| niŊLāMīma
|-
! 3f
| tiŊŊaLiMna
| tiŊŊaLiM
| niŊLāMōtu
|}
 
 
=== Simple Local Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic Gp-Stem, a.k.a. Gt-Stem a.k.a. Qutila a.k.a. Qal Passive''
Aramaic seems to have made good use of what would be called in Hebrew the Qal Passive system, and it came into PAH very much intact.  This is in contradistinction to Hebrew where it survived only in the participle.  In PAH, it marked the "local" or "instrumental" trigger, corresponding to the Hebrew -בְּ.
 
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right;"
! INFINITIVES
|-
! Absolute
|-
| ŊetuLiMa
|-
! Construct
|-
| ŊeLiMu
|}
{| class="wikitable"
| ||
! Completed || Progressive || Contemplative || Coh/Imp/Part
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Sing.
! 1c
| 'iŊtuLiMū
| 'iŊtuLiMu
| 'iŊtuLiM
| 'iŊtuLiMa
|-
! 2m
| 'iŊtuLiMtā
| tiŊtuLiMu
| tiŊtuLiM
| ŊeLiM(a)
|-
! 2f
| 'iŊtuLiMtī
| tiŊtuLiMīna
| tiŊtuLiMī
| ŊeLiMī
|-
! 3m
| 'iŊtuLiMa
| yiŊuLiMu
| yiŊuLiM
| ŊaLūMu
|-
! 3f
| 'iŊtuLiMō
| tiŊtuLiMu
| tiŊtuLiM
| ŊaLūMatu
|-
! rowspan="3" style="vertical-align:middle" | Dual
! 1c
| 'iŊtuLiMnāyā
| niŊtuLiMā
| niŊtuLiMā
| niŊtuLiMa
|-
! 2c
| 'iŊtuLiMtumā
| tiŊtuLiMāna
| tiŊtuLiMā
| ŊeLiMā
|-
! 3c
| 'iŊtuLiMā
| yiŊtuLiMāna
| yiŊtuLiMā
| ŊaLūMaymi
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Plural
! 1c
| 'iŊtuLiMnū
| niŊtuLiMu
| niŊtuLiM
| niŊtuLiMa
|-
! 2m
| 'iŊtuLiMtumu
| tiŊtuLiMūna
| tiŊtuLiMū
| ŊeLiMū
|-
! 2f
| 'iŊtuLiMtina
| tiŊtuLiMna
| tiŊtuLiM
| ŊeLiMnā
|-
! 3m
| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 'iŊtuLiMū
| yiŊtuLiMūna
| yiŊtuLiMū
| ŊeLiMīma
|-
! 3f
| tiŊtuLiMna
| tiŊtuLiM
| ŊeLiMōtu
|}
 
=== Simple Benefactive Trigger ===
The Benefactive or Directive trigger appears to be have been created in Melanesia, either as an extrapolation from the Qal Passive or Infinitive Construct but using the Austronesian phonological process of reduplication (not just gemination).  The range of meaning applied to the noun in the direct case seems to be the same as the Hebrew preposition לְ.
 
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right;"
! INFINITIVES
|-
! Absolute
|-
| ŊeLuLuMa
|-
! Construct
|-
| ŊuLuLMu
|}
{| class="wikitable"
| ||
! Completed || Progressive || Contemplative || Coh/Imp/Part
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Sing.
! 1c
| ŊuLuLuMū
| 'iŊLuLuMu
| 'iŊLuLuM
| 'iŊLuLuMa
|-
! 2m
| ŊuLuLuMtā
| tiŊLuLuMu
| tiŊLuLuM
| ŊeLoLom(a)
|-
! 2f
| ŊuLuLuMtī
| tiŊLuLuMīna
| tiŊLuLuMī
| ŊeLoLoMī
|-
! 3m
| ŊuLuLuMa
| yiŊLuLuMu
| yiŊLuLuM
| ŊoLuLuMu
|-
! 3f
| ŊuLuLuMō
| tiŊLuLuMu
| tiŊLuLuM
| ŊoLuLuMatu
|-
! rowspan="3" style="vertical-align:middle" | Dual
! 1c
| 'iŊtuLiMnāyā
| niŊtuLiMā
| niŊtuLiMā
| niŊtuLiMa
|-
! 2c
| ŊuLuLuMtumā
| tiŊLuLuMāna
| tiŊLuLuMā
| ŊeLoLoMā
|-
! 3c
| ŊuLuLuMā
| yiŊLuLuMāna
| yiŊLuLuMā
| ŊoLuLuMaymi
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Plural
! 1c
| ŊuLuLuMnū
| niŊLuLuMu
| niŊLuLuM
| niŊLuLuMa
|-
! 2m
| ŊuLuLuMtumu
| tiŊLuLuMūna
| tiŊLuLuMū
| ŊeLoLoMū
|-
! 2f
| ŊuLuLuMtina
| tiŊLuLuMna
| tiŊLuLuM
| ŊeLoLoMnā
|-
! 3m
| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ŊuLuLuMū
| yiŊLuLuMūna
| yiŊLuLuMū
| ŊoLuLuMīma
|-
! 3f
| tiŊLuLuMna
| tiŊLuLuM
| ŊoLuLuMōtu
|}
 
=== Intensive Actor Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic D-Stem a.k.a. Pi<nowiki>''</nowiki>el a.k.a. Qittela''
 
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right;"
! INFINITIVES
|-
! Absolute
|-
| ŊaLLūMa
|-
! Construct
|-
| ŊaLLiMu
|}
{| class="wikitable"
| ||
! Completed || Progressive || Contemplative || Coh/Imp/Part
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Sing.
! 1c
| ŊiLLaMtū
| 'iŊŊaLiMu
| 'iŊŊaLiM
| 'iŊŊaLiMa
|-
! 2m
| ŊiLLaMtā
| tiŊŊaLiMu
| tiŊŊaLiM
| hiŊŊaLiM(a)
|-
! 2f
| ŊiLLaMtī
| tiŊŊaLiMīna
| tiŊŊaLiMī
| hiŊŊaLiMī
|-
! 3m
| ŊiLLāMa
| yiŊŊaLiMu
| yiŊŊaLiM
| niŊLāMu
|-
! 3f
| ŊiLLaMō
| tiŊŊaLiMu
| tiŊŊaLiM
| niŊLāMatu
|-
! rowspan="3" style="vertical-align:middle" | Dual
! 1c
| ŊiLLaMnāyā
| niŊŊaLiMā
| niŊŊaLiM
| naŊLuMa
|-
! 2c
| ŊiLLaMtumā
| tiŊŊaLiMāna
| tiŊŊaLiMā
| hiŊŊaLiMā
|-
|-
|
! 3c
! colspan="2" | Infinitive ||  
| ŊiLLaMā
! colspan="2" | Infinitive ||
| yiŊŊaLiMāna
! colspan="2" | Infinitive ||
| yiŊŊaLiMā
| niŊLāMaymi
|-
|-
|
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Plural
! Abs. || Constr. || Part.
! 1c
! Abs. || Constr. || Part.
| ŊiLLaMnū
! Abs. || Constr. || Part.
| niŊŊaLiMu
| niŊŊaLiM
| naŊLuMa
|-
|-
! Actor
! 2m
| qattol || qattel || muqattilu || qātōl || qutul(a) || qōtilu || haqtilu || haqtīl || maqtīlu
| naŊaLaMtumu
| tiŊŊaLiMūna
| tiŊŊaLiMū
| hiŊŊaLiMū
|-
|-
! Patient
! 2f
| hitqattal || hutqattul || muhitqattilu  || hinqātōl || hinqātel || munniqtālu
| ŊiLLaMtina
| tiŊŊaLiMna
| tiŊŊaLiM
| hiŊŊaLiMnā
|-
|-
! Local
! 3m
| quttōl || ø || muquttālu || || ø || qatūl || hoqtel || ø || mhoqtālu
| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ŊiLLaMū
| yiŊŊaLiMūna
| yiŊŊaLiMū
| niŊLāMīma
|-
|-
! Benefact.
! 3f
| šiqīttal || ø || mišqīttolu || šuqtala || ø || mušiqtolu || šoqatōl || ø || moqtolu
| tiŊŊaLiMna
| tiŊŊaLiM
| niŊLāMōtu
|}
|}


The centrality of D and O can be seen in suffixed pronouns/demonstratives in all the voices. The subject of the verb always reflected which argument was in the direct case. In every voice except the Patientive, the suffix represented O, the object of the verb. The Patientive was a special case, wherein if there was a suffix on the verb, it always matched the subject in person and number. In such a case, the verb functioned as a medio-passive, either reflexively or self-referentially. Most PH verbs that were found only in the Niphal came into PAH this way.
=== Intensive Object Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic Quttal a.k.a. Pu<nowiki>''</nowiki>al a.k.a Dt-stem''
 
=== Intensive Local Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic Hitpa<nowiki>''</nowiki>el Hiṭqattel a.k.a. tD-Stem''
 
=== Intensive Benefactive Trigger ===
??? Hitqattatel ???
 
=== Causative Actor Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic Hifil a.k.a. hiQTīL a.k.a. Š-stem''
 
=== Causative Object Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic Hofal a.k.a. hoQTal a.k.a. tŠ-stem''
 
=== Causative Local Trigger ===
: ''Compare Semitic šitpa'el a.k.a. Št-stem''
 
=== Causative Benefactive Trigger ===
??? šiqtatel ???
 
== Weak Verbs ==
The nightmare of Semitic weak verbs only multiplied (sigh) in the Philippines, the perhaps under more uniform rules.  They are most easy understood in terms of the species of weakness in question, and then under the heading of where they occur.
 
=== Gutturals ===
; Aleph : The glottal stop almost universally quiesces and then lengthens the preceding vowel
; Q : '''Q''' typically becomes ィ (diphthong /j/) instead of a coda consonant.  With gemination, it lengthens the preceding syllable and stays 'q'  in the following syllables.
; R : In the coda, nothing changes.  If there was supposed to be gemination, however, the entire syllable disappears.
; H : Even though it can appear in the coda, it usually doesn't, but rather just produces lengthening of the previous vowel. When there should have been gemination, it will sometimes appear in the following syllable and lengthen the preceding syllable, and other times completely disappear.
 
There are times when '''g''' and '''k''' behave as gutturals, because they comes from Semitic roots with Levantine gutturals in them.
 
=== Sonorants ===
 
<references />
<references />

Latest revision as of 17:40, 6 February 2013

The confluence of the Semitic binyanim/aspect system and the Proto-Austonesian alignment/triggers is among the most labyrinthine combinations in the history of morphosyntactic amalgamations. In the realm of phonaesthetics, PAH progressivelty capitulated to its surroundings. Here, however, it subsumed and appropriated new processes while maintaining all of its original syntax.

History

PH

Hebrew system of voices

PH was a Nominative-Accusative language, favoring VSO 40% of the time. SVO occurred in 34% of cases, VOS 17%, OSV 5.3%, SOV 2.3%, and OSV 0.98%. Definite direct objects were marked with the preposition /eθ/. The enclitic, post-position location marker /ah/ was slowly giving way to the preposition /la/ and the relative clause marker /ʔaʃer/ was being replaced by the relative pronoun /ʃa+/. There was no tense per se[1], but a complex system of seven voices[2], two aspects[3], four moods[4] and a binary system of reduplication[5]. Most of these could be conjugated for person, number, and gender.

Most Hebrew grammars deem stems to have expressed either the active or the passive voice. They are said to be either ‘simple’, ‘intensive’, or ‘causative’. The hitha’el is was the ‘causative reflexive’. However, the medio-passive role of the niphal and the shadowy remnants of a Qal-passive voice make some Semitologists conjecture a nine-part system of nine binyanim in the earliest stages of Hebrew development, not seven

Reconstructed PH
Simple Intensive Causative
Active pa'al pi'el hif'al
Middle nif'al hitpa'el šitpa'il[6]
Passive pu'il[7] pu''al hof'al

PAn

PAn had the following proclitic case-markers: na for ergative, ta for accusative, and a for direct.

Reconstructed PAn Voice System
Non-past Past Future Dep. Subjunct.
Actor «um» «inum» r(a)- -un Ø -a
Direct -en «in» r(a)- -en -a -ao
Local -an «in»-an r(a)- -an -i -ai
Instrum. i- i- «in»-iu r(a)- -un -u -au

There were four voices: Actor, Direct-Passive, Local-Passive and Instrumental-Passive (also known as the Benefactive). This system moves from Nominative-Accusative (N-A) alignment, to Ergative-Absolutive (E-A) alignment and beyond via a system of ‘triggers’ on the verb. VSO word-order made this easier to comprehend in real-time.

N-A alignment (e.g., English) puts the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the agent of a transitive verb (A) in the same case, called ‘nominative’. The object of a transitive verb (O) is in a second case, called ‘accusative’. E-A treats A as its own case (‘ergative’) but S and O as the same case (‘absolutive’). Austronesian morphosyntactic alignment introduces two more terms to the matrix: a location of the action (L) and an instrument or beneficiary of the action (I). The system of triggers indicate which element will be in the ‘direct’ case (D). Other elements revert to their original cases. In the Local and Instrumental, S cannot be stated.

Stems

Within 500 years of their involuntary journey to Southeast Asia, the ancient Semitic peoples had come to see their various “stems” differently, because of their environment.

Nominative Oblique
Direct Ergative Accusative Genitive
Common nous ha+...u/ma hin...u/ma ...a/ti ...i/ti
Proper nouns ...u/ma hin+...u/ma ta...a/ti ...i/ti

Non-core arguments are generally made with (inseparable) prepositions, which are typically in the genitive case. All nouns in some forms, and some nouns in all forms are diptotes, that is, only have two case endings.

In addition to all the forms listed below, there are versions with the prefixed ヰ-/wi- that indicated action prior to the main verb. wi+contemplative = pluperfect (cp. wayyiqtol). wi+completed = present perfect (cp. weqatal). wi+progressive = future perfect (there is no corresponding wayyiqtolu* in PH).

Simple Actor Trigger

Compare Semitic G-Stem a.k.a. Qatal(a) a.k.a. Pa'al

The "standard" Semitic stem was commissioned to be the "actor" trigger. That is, this "voice" expects subject of an intransitive verb or the actor of a transitive verb to be in the direct case and the object of a transitive verb to be in the accusative.

INFINITIVES
Absolute[8]
ŊāLuMa†
Construct[9]
ŊuLuMu
Completed[10] Progressive[11] Contemplative[12] Coh/Imp/Part[13]
Sing. 1c ŊaLaMtū 'aŊLuMu 'aŊLuM 'aŊLuMa
2m ŊaLaMtā taŊLuMu taŊLuM ŊuLuM(a)
2f ŊaLaMtī taŊLuMīna taŊLuMī ŊuLuMī
3m ŊaLāMa yaŊLuMu yaŊLuM ŊōLiMu*
3f ŊaLaMō taŊLuMu taŊLuM ŊōLiMatu*
Dual 1c ŊaLaMnāyā naŊLuMā naŊLuMā naŊLuMa
2c ŊaLaMtumā taŊLuMāna taŊLuMā ŊuLuMā
3c ŊaLaMā yaŊLuMāna yaŊLuMā ŊōLiMaymi*
Plural 1c ŊaLaMnū naŊLuMu naŊLuM naŊLuMa
2m ŊaLaMtumu taŊLuMūna taŊLuMū ŊuLuMū
2f ŊaLaMtina taŊLuMna taŊLuM ŊuLuMnā
3m ŊaLaMū yaŊLuMūna yaŊLuMū ŊōLiMīma*
3f taŊLuMna taŊLuM ŊōLiMōtu*

* Participles are given in the nominative/direct absolute.
† Infinitive absolutes can be inflected for case to match a noun, or left in the accusative to function adverbially.

Simple Object Trigger

Compare Semitic N-Stem a.k.a. Niqtal(a) a.k.a. Nip̅a'al

The normal passive voice of Semitic verbs became the first passive of the Austronesian system, a.k.a. the "object" trigger. This "voice" expects subject of an intransitive verb or the patients of a transitive verb to be in the direct case and the actor of a transitive verb to be in the ergative.

INFINITIVES
Absolute
hiŊŊaLōMa
Construct
hiŊŊaLiMu
Completed Progressive Contemplative Coh/Imp/Part
Sing. 1c naŊLaMtū 'iŊŊaLiMu 'iŊŊaLiM 'iŊŊaLiMa
2m naŊLaMtā tiŊŊaLiMu tiŊŊaLiM hiŊŊaLiM(a)
2f naŊLaMtī tiŊŊaLiMīna tiŊŊaLiMī hiŊŊaLiMī
3m naŊLāMa yiŊŊaLiMu yiŊŊaLiM niŊLāMu
3f naŊLaMō tiŊŊaLiMu tiŊŊaLiM niŊLāMatu
Dual 1c naŊLaMnāyā niŊŊaLiMā niŊŊaLiM naŊLuMa
2c naŊLaMtumā tiŊŊaLiMāna tiŊŊaLiMā hiŊŊaLiMā
3c naŊLaMā yiŊŊaLiMāna yiŊŊaLiMā niŊLāMaymi
Plural 1c naŊLaMnū niŊŊaLiMu niŊŊaLiM naŊLuMa
2m naŊaLaMtumu tiŊŊaLiMūna tiŊŊaLiMū hiŊŊaLiMū
2f naŊLaMtina tiŊŊaLiMna tiŊŊaLiM hiŊŊaLiMnā
3m naŊLaMū yiŊŊaLiMūna yiŊŊaLiMū niŊLāMīma
3f tiŊŊaLiMna tiŊŊaLiM niŊLāMōtu


Simple Local Trigger

Compare Semitic Gp-Stem, a.k.a. Gt-Stem a.k.a. Qutila a.k.a. Qal Passive

Aramaic seems to have made good use of what would be called in Hebrew the Qal Passive system, and it came into PAH very much intact. This is in contradistinction to Hebrew where it survived only in the participle. In PAH, it marked the "local" or "instrumental" trigger, corresponding to the Hebrew -בְּ.

INFINITIVES
Absolute
ŊetuLiMa
Construct
ŊeLiMu
Completed Progressive Contemplative Coh/Imp/Part
Sing. 1c 'iŊtuLiMū 'iŊtuLiMu 'iŊtuLiM 'iŊtuLiMa
2m 'iŊtuLiMtā tiŊtuLiMu tiŊtuLiM ŊeLiM(a)
2f 'iŊtuLiMtī tiŊtuLiMīna tiŊtuLiMī ŊeLiMī
3m 'iŊtuLiMa yiŊuLiMu yiŊuLiM ŊaLūMu
3f 'iŊtuLiMō tiŊtuLiMu tiŊtuLiM ŊaLūMatu
Dual 1c 'iŊtuLiMnāyā niŊtuLiMā niŊtuLiMā niŊtuLiMa
2c 'iŊtuLiMtumā tiŊtuLiMāna tiŊtuLiMā ŊeLiMā
3c 'iŊtuLiMā yiŊtuLiMāna yiŊtuLiMā ŊaLūMaymi
Plural 1c 'iŊtuLiMnū niŊtuLiMu niŊtuLiM niŊtuLiMa
2m 'iŊtuLiMtumu tiŊtuLiMūna tiŊtuLiMū ŊeLiMū
2f 'iŊtuLiMtina tiŊtuLiMna tiŊtuLiM ŊeLiMnā
3m 'iŊtuLiMū yiŊtuLiMūna yiŊtuLiMū ŊeLiMīma
3f tiŊtuLiMna tiŊtuLiM ŊeLiMōtu

Simple Benefactive Trigger

The Benefactive or Directive trigger appears to be have been created in Melanesia, either as an extrapolation from the Qal Passive or Infinitive Construct but using the Austronesian phonological process of reduplication (not just gemination). The range of meaning applied to the noun in the direct case seems to be the same as the Hebrew preposition לְ.

INFINITIVES
Absolute
ŊeLuLuMa
Construct
ŊuLuLMu
Completed Progressive Contemplative Coh/Imp/Part
Sing. 1c ŊuLuLuMū 'iŊLuLuMu 'iŊLuLuM 'iŊLuLuMa
2m ŊuLuLuMtā tiŊLuLuMu tiŊLuLuM ŊeLoLom(a)
2f ŊuLuLuMtī tiŊLuLuMīna tiŊLuLuMī ŊeLoLoMī
3m ŊuLuLuMa yiŊLuLuMu yiŊLuLuM ŊoLuLuMu
3f ŊuLuLuMō tiŊLuLuMu tiŊLuLuM ŊoLuLuMatu
Dual 1c 'iŊtuLiMnāyā niŊtuLiMā niŊtuLiMā niŊtuLiMa
2c ŊuLuLuMtumā tiŊLuLuMāna tiŊLuLuMā ŊeLoLoMā
3c ŊuLuLuMā yiŊLuLuMāna yiŊLuLuMā ŊoLuLuMaymi
Plural 1c ŊuLuLuMnū niŊLuLuMu niŊLuLuM niŊLuLuMa
2m ŊuLuLuMtumu tiŊLuLuMūna tiŊLuLuMū ŊeLoLoMū
2f ŊuLuLuMtina tiŊLuLuMna tiŊLuLuM ŊeLoLoMnā
3m ŊuLuLuMū yiŊLuLuMūna yiŊLuLuMū ŊoLuLuMīma
3f tiŊLuLuMna tiŊLuLuM ŊoLuLuMōtu

Intensive Actor Trigger

Compare Semitic D-Stem a.k.a. Pi''el a.k.a. Qittela
INFINITIVES
Absolute
ŊaLLūMa
Construct
ŊaLLiMu
Completed Progressive Contemplative Coh/Imp/Part
Sing. 1c ŊiLLaMtū 'iŊŊaLiMu 'iŊŊaLiM 'iŊŊaLiMa
2m ŊiLLaMtā tiŊŊaLiMu tiŊŊaLiM hiŊŊaLiM(a)
2f ŊiLLaMtī tiŊŊaLiMīna tiŊŊaLiMī hiŊŊaLiMī
3m ŊiLLāMa yiŊŊaLiMu yiŊŊaLiM niŊLāMu
3f ŊiLLaMō tiŊŊaLiMu tiŊŊaLiM niŊLāMatu
Dual 1c ŊiLLaMnāyā niŊŊaLiMā niŊŊaLiM naŊLuMa
2c ŊiLLaMtumā tiŊŊaLiMāna tiŊŊaLiMā hiŊŊaLiMā
3c ŊiLLaMā yiŊŊaLiMāna yiŊŊaLiMā niŊLāMaymi
Plural 1c ŊiLLaMnū niŊŊaLiMu niŊŊaLiM naŊLuMa
2m naŊaLaMtumu tiŊŊaLiMūna tiŊŊaLiMū hiŊŊaLiMū
2f ŊiLLaMtina tiŊŊaLiMna tiŊŊaLiM hiŊŊaLiMnā
3m ŊiLLaMū yiŊŊaLiMūna yiŊŊaLiMū niŊLāMīma
3f tiŊŊaLiMna tiŊŊaLiM niŊLāMōtu

Intensive Object Trigger

Compare Semitic Quttal a.k.a. Pu''al a.k.a Dt-stem

Intensive Local Trigger

Compare Semitic Hitpa''el Hiṭqattel a.k.a. tD-Stem

Intensive Benefactive Trigger

??? Hitqattatel ???

Causative Actor Trigger

Compare Semitic Hifil a.k.a. hiQTīL a.k.a. Š-stem

Causative Object Trigger

Compare Semitic Hofal a.k.a. hoQTal a.k.a. tŠ-stem

Causative Local Trigger

Compare Semitic šitpa'el a.k.a. Št-stem

Causative Benefactive Trigger

??? šiqtatel ???

Weak Verbs

The nightmare of Semitic weak verbs only multiplied (sigh) in the Philippines, the perhaps under more uniform rules. They are most easy understood in terms of the species of weakness in question, and then under the heading of where they occur.

Gutturals

Aleph
The glottal stop almost universally quiesces and then lengthens the preceding vowel
Q
Q typically becomes ィ (diphthong /j/) instead of a coda consonant. With gemination, it lengthens the preceding syllable and stays 'q' in the following syllables.
R
In the coda, nothing changes. If there was supposed to be gemination, however, the entire syllable disappears.
H
Even though it can appear in the coda, it usually doesn't, but rather just produces lengthening of the previous vowel. When there should have been gemination, it will sometimes appear in the following syllable and lengthen the preceding syllable, and other times completely disappear.

There are times when g and k behave as gutturals, because they comes from Semitic roots with Levantine gutturals in them.

Sonorants

  1. ↑ However, the qatal system does seem to have been only for the past tense, see Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew, M.F. Rogland Ph.D dissertation
  2. ↑ simple active/passive, intensive active/passive, causative active/passive, and reflexive
  3. ↑ perfective and imperfect
  4. ↑ indicative, imperative/cohortative/jussive, infinitive construct, and participial
  5. ↑ an admittedly Austronesian way to discuss the infinitive absolute
  6. ↑ unattested in the literature we have preserved from the ANE. Also known as "pa'il of šit".
  7. ↑ reconstructed in PH from such forms as אֻּכַל and יֻּתַן
  8. ↑ that is, a verbal adverb or adjective
  9. ↑ that is, a verbal noun
  10. ↑ cp. Hebrew Perfect aspect
  11. ↑ cp. Hebrew Imperfect
  12. ↑ cp. Hebrew Jussive
  13. ↑ The first person forms are Cohortative, the second person Imperative and the third person Participles. The participle does not inflect for person: it it placed on this chart for convenience.
Retrieved from "http://www.frathwiki.com/index.php?title=Proto-Austronesian_Hebrew/Verbs&oldid=72774"