Proto-Austronesian Hebrew/Verbs

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, but a complex system of seven voices, two aspects, four moods and a binary system of reduplication. 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
Passive	pu'il	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.

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
ŊāLuMa†
Construct
ŊuLuMu

		Completed	Progressive	Contemplative	Coh/Imp/Part
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.