THE PRESENT-FUTURE IN AMORITE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25159/1013-8471/2770Abstract
The present note discusses the problem of a paradigmatic present-future form in the Amorite language. By employing the continuum model of language evolution and dialectal classification and using the comparative, typological and empirical evidence, the authors conclude that Amorite must have had a systematic category with the meaning of a dynamic present-future. They argue that, out of the two possible candidates – i.e., yaqattal and yaqtulu – it is the former that is the most plausible. This conclusion, in turns, strengthens the hypothesis whereby the reduplicative yaqattal was a Proto-Semitic paradigmatic present-future category.Metrics
References
Andrason, A 2010. The Akkadian Iprus from the unidirectional perspective, Journal of Semitic Studies 55/2:325-345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgq001
The Biblical Hebrew wayyiqtol – a dynamic definition, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11/7:1-50.
El sistema verbal hebreo en su contexto semÃtico: una visión dinámica. Madrid: Estella.
Bybee, J 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526
Bybee, J, Perkins, R & Pagliuca, W 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Croft W 2003. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840579
Croft, W & Cruse, A 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864
Diakonoff, I M 1991-1992. Proto-Afrasian and Old Akkadian. A study in historical phonetics, Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 4/1-2:1-133.
Dahl, Ö (ed.) 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197099
Durand, J-M & Kupper, J-R (eds.) 1985. Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Edzard, L & Retsö, J (eds.) 2005. Current issues in the analysis of Semitic grammar and lexicon I. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Fenton, T L 1970. The absence of a verbal formation *yaqattal from Ugaritic and North-West Semitic, Journal of Semitic Studies 15/1:31-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/15.1.31
Gianto, A (ed.) 2005. Biblical and Oriental essays in memory of William L. Moran. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico.
Goetze, A 1938. The tenses of Ugaritic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 58/2:266-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/594813
Gordon, C H 1965. Ugaritic textbook. Grammar. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Hasselbach, R & Huehnergard, J 2007. Northwest Semitic languages, in Versteegh 2007:408-422.
Haupt, P 1878. Studies on the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, with special reference to Assyrian, JRAS New Series 10:244-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00016981
Heine, B & Kuteva, T 2007. The genesis of grammar: a reconstruction. Oxford: Oxform University Press.
Hempel, J & Rost, L (eds.) 1958. Von Ugarit nach Qumran (Festschrift O. Eissfeldt). Berlin: Topelmann.
Hetzron, R 1976. Two principles of genetic reconstruction, Lingua 38:89-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(76)90074-7
Hewson, J & Bubenik, V 1997. The tense and aspect in Indo-European languages: theory, typology, diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.145
Holm, J 1988. Pidgins and creoles. Vol. 1. Theory and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P & Traugott, E 2003. Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huehnergard, J 2005a. Features of Central Semitic, in Gianto 2005:155-203.
b. A grammar of Akkadian. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Languages of the ancient Near East, in Kutsko 2008:576-580.
Huehnergard, J & Rubin, A 2011. Phyla and waves: models of classification of the Semitic languages, in Weninger 2011:259-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110251586.259
Huffmon, H B 1965. Amorite personal names in the Mari texts. A structural and lexical study. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kaye, A-S (ed.) 1991. Semitic studies in honor of Wolf Leslau, vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kerr R 2001. Wie lange dauert die Gegenwart? or The future revisited. The verbal formation yaqattal in North-West Semitic, Dutch Studies – Studies – Society of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 4/2:129-174.
Kienast, B 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Knudsen, E E 1991. Amorite grammar. A comparative statement, in Kaye 1991:866-885.
Review of M. P. Streck: Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Band 1. Die Amurriter. Die onomastische Forschung. Orthographie und Phonologie. Nominalmorphologie, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 92:145-152.
Kogan, L 2012. Review of Kowenberg‟s The Akkadian verb and its Semitic background, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 102:304-371.
Kouwenberg, N J C 2010. The Akkadian verb and its Semitic background. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781575066240
Kuryłowicz, J 1962. L’apophonie en sémitique. Wrocław: Zakład Ossolińskich.
Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. Wrocław: Zakład Ossolińskich.
Kutsko, J E (ed.) 2008. The new interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3. Nasville: Abingdon.
Lipiński, E. 2001. Semitic languages: outline of a comparative grammar. Leuven: Brill.
Mettinger, T N D 1973. The Hebrew verb system, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 9:64-84.
Meyer, R 1958 Spuren eines westsemitischen Präsens-Futur in den Texten von Chirbet-Qumran, in Hempel & Rost 1958:118-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112314982-011
Monferrer-Sala, J P & W Watson 2013. Archaism and innovation in the Semitic languages. Cordoba: Oriens Academic.
Mühlhäusler, P 1986. Pidgin and creole linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Notarius, T 2013. The verb in archaic biblical poetry. A discursive, typological, and historical investigation of the tense system. Leiden: Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253353
Nurse, D 2008. Tense and aspect in Bantu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pérez Fernández, M 1992. La Lengua de los Sabios. Morfosintaxis. Estella: Verbo Divino.
Rössler, O 1950. Verbalbau und Verbalflexion in den Semitohamitischen Sprachen. ZDMG 100:461-514.
Eine bisher unbekannte Tempus form im Althebräischen. ZDMG 111:445-451.
Rubin, A 2005. Studies in Semitic grammaticalisation. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Rundgren, F 1959. Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation. Studien zur äthiopischen und akkadischen Verbalstammbildung. Uppsala: UUA.
Sivan, D 2001. A grammar of the Ugaritic language. Leiden: Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047427216
Streck, M P 2000. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Band 1. Die Amurriter. Die onomastische Forschung. Orthographie und Phonologie. Nominalmorphologie. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Großes Fach Altorientalistik: Der Umfang des keilschriftlichen Textkorpus, MDOG 142:35-58.
Amorite, in Weninger 2011:452-459.
Tropper, J 2012. Ugaritische Grammatik. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Vernet, E 2013. New consideration on the historical existence of a West Semitic „yaqattal‟ form, in Monferrer-Sala & Watson 2013:145-161.
Versteegh, K (ed.) 2007 Encyclopedia of Arabic language and linguistics. Leiden: Brill.
von Soden, W 1985. Präsensformen in frühkanaanäischen Personennamen, in J-M Durand & J-R Kupper 1985:307-310.
Waltke, B & O‟Connor, M P 1990. An introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Weninger, S (ed.) 2011. The Semitic languages. An international handbook. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110251586
Zaborski, A 2005. Tense, aspect and mood categories of Proto-Semitic, in Edzard & Retsö 2005:11-30.
Ziegler, N & Charpin, D 2007. Amurritisch lernen, WZKM 97:55-77.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
