Proto-Austronesian Hebrew/Verbs: Difference between revisions

From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(making huge verbs charts)
(too sleepy to continue)
Line 4: Line 4:
=== 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 || pu'alu<ref>reconstructed in PH from such forms as אֻּכַל and יֻּתַן</ref>
|-
|-
! Passive
! Passive
| pual || nitfael<ref>unattested in the literature we have preserved from the ANE</ref> || hofal
| pu<nowiki>''</nowiki>al || šitpa'il<ref>unattested in the literature we have preserved from the ANE</ref> || 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.  The system encompassed voice, aspect, the Austronesian "trigger" system, and a simple system of Realis and Irrealis moods.


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
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
Line 108: Line 108:


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.
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.
=== G-Stem a.k.a. Qatala 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"
| ||
! 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
| 'aŊLuMā
|-
! 2m
| ŊaLaMtā
| taŊLuMu
| taŊLuM
| ŊuLuM(a)
|-
! 2f
| ŊaLaMtī
| taŊLuMīna
| taŊLuMī
| ŊuLuMī
|-
! 3m
| ŊaLōMa
| yaŊLuMu
| yaŊLuM
| ŊōLiMu*
|-
! 3f
| ŊaLaMō
| taŊLuMu
| taŊLuM
| ŊōŊiMatu*
|-
! rowspan="4" style="vertical-align:middle" | Dual
! 1c
| ŊaLaMnāyā
| naŊLuMā
| naŊLuMā
| naŊLuMa
|-
! 2c
| ŊaLaMtumā
| taŊLuMāna
| taŊLuMā
| ŊuLuMā
|-
! 3m
| ŊaLaMā
| yaŊLuMāna
| yaŊLuMā
| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ŊōLiMaymi*
|-
! 3f
| ŊaLaMtā
| yaŊLuMāna
| yaŊLuMā
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Plural
! 1c
| ŊaLaMnū
| naŊLuMu
| naŊLuM
| naŊLuMa
|-
! 2m
| ŊaLaMtumu
| taŊLuMūna
| taŊLuMū
| ŊuLuMū
|-
! 2f
| ŊaLaMtina
| taŊLuMna
| taŊLuM
| ŊuLuMā
|-
! 3m
| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ŊaLaMū
| yaŊLuMūna
| yaŊLuMū
| ŊōLiMīma*
|-
! 3f
| taŊLuMna
| taŊLuM
| ŊōLiMōtu*
|}
* participles are given in the nominative/direct
=== Gp Stem a.k.a. Qutal 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 has come into PAH very intact.  This is in contradistinction to Hebrew where it survived only in the participle.  In PAH, it marked the "local" trigger.
{| class="wikitable"
| ||
! Completed || Progressive || Contemplative || Coh./Imp./Part.
|-
! rowspan="5" style="vertical-align:middle" | Sing.
! 1c
| Ŋ
|}
<references />
<references />

Revision as of 20:32, 26 December 2012

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.

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 pu'alu[6]
Passive pu''al šitpa'il[7] 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. The system encompassed voice, aspect, the Austronesian "trigger" system, and a simple system of Realis and Irrealis moods.

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

Reconstructed PH Finite Verb Stem Usage Redistribution √QTL
Non-Past Past Causative
Perfect. Imperf. Subjunct. Perfect. Imperf. Subjunct. Perfect. Imperf. Subjunct.
Agent qīttela yiqattēl qattil qatala yiqtolu qutulu hiqtīla yaqtīl haqtēl
Patient hitqattela yitqattēl hutqattil niqtala yinqatelu hinqatila nitiqtela yitqatīl hiqtel
Local quttala yquttēl ø qutīla yuqtalu ø hoqtala yoqtal ø
Bene. šiqīttola yišuqīttēl ø šuqtīla yišqtalu ø šuqotōla yišoqtīl ø

Infinitive construct not in construct relationship should be the same as the imperative form.

Non-Finite Verb Stems
Non-Past Past Causative
Infinitive Infinitive Infinitive
Abs. Constr. Part. Abs. Constr. Part. Abs. Constr. Part.
Actor qattol qattel muqattilu qātōl qutul(a) qōtilu haqtilu haqtīl maqtīlu
Patient hitqattal hutqattul muhitqattilu hinqātōl hinqātel munniqtālu
Local quttōl ø muquttālu ø qatūl hoqtel ø mhoqtālu
Benefact. šiqīttal ø mišqīttolu šuqtala ø mušiqtolu šoqatōl ø moqtolu

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.

G-Stem a.k.a. Qatala 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.

Completed[8] Progressive[9] Contemplative[10] Coh/Imp/Part[11]
Sing. 1c ŊaLaMtū 'aŊLuMu 'aŊLuM 'aŊLuMā
2m ŊaLaMtā taŊLuMu taŊLuM ŊuLuM(a)
2f ŊaLaMtī taŊLuMīna taŊLuMī ŊuLuMī
3m ŊaLōMa yaŊLuMu yaŊLuM ŊōLiMu*
3f ŊaLaMō taŊLuMu taŊLuM ŊōŊiMatu*
Dual 1c ŊaLaMnāyā naŊLuMā naŊLuMā naŊLuMa
2c ŊaLaMtumā taŊLuMāna taŊLuMā ŊuLuMā
3m ŊaLaMā yaŊLuMāna yaŊLuMā ŊōLiMaymi*
3f ŊaLaMtā yaŊLuMāna yaŊLuMā
Plural 1c ŊaLaMnū naŊLuMu naŊLuM naŊLuMa
2m ŊaLaMtumu taŊLuMūna taŊLuMū ŊuLuMū
2f ŊaLaMtina taŊLuMna taŊLuM ŊuLuMā
3m ŊaLaMū yaŊLuMūna yaŊLuMū ŊōLiMīma*
3f taŊLuMna taŊLuM ŊōLiMōtu*
  • participles are given in the nominative/direct

= Gp Stem a.k.a. Qutal 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 has come into PAH very intact. This is in contradistinction to Hebrew where it survived only in the participle. In PAH, it marked the "local" trigger.

Completed Progressive Contemplative Coh./Imp./Part.
Sing. 1c Ŋ
  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. ↑ reconstructed in PH from such forms as אֻּכַל and יֻּתַן
  7. ↑ unattested in the literature we have preserved from the ANE
  8. ↑ cp. Hebrew Perfect aspect
  9. ↑ cp. Hebrew Imperfect
  10. ↑ cp. Hebrew Jussive
  11. ↑ 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=71755"