108 Semitic Templates - Outi Bat-El ... 108 Semitic Templates OUTI BAT-EL 1 Introduction Senutic...

download 108 Semitic Templates - Outi Bat-El ... 108 Semitic Templates OUTI BAT-EL 1 Introduction Senutic morphology

of 14

  • date post

    11-Mar-2021
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 108 Semitic Templates - Outi Bat-El ... 108 Semitic Templates OUTI BAT-EL 1 Introduction Senutic...

  • 108 Semitic Templates

    OUTI BAT-EL

    1 Introduction

    Senutic morphology is characterized by phonological restrictions on the shape of the '"'ords, allo,ving only a lim ited set of prosodic templates and vocalic patterns. The prosodic templates, which set the size restrictions on '''ords and display the permissible syllable structure, host a limited set of vocalic patterns, and in some cases also affixes. The sten1 consonants fit into the consonantal positions provided by the prosodic ten1plates, as do the vo,vels of the vocalic pattern.

    To clarify these notions, consider the dexivational para.digm in Table 1.08.1. The words in Table 108.l are structurally related on both the vertical and hori­ zontal axes of the paradigm. On the horizontal axis, they share the stem con­ sonants. On the vertical axis, they share a prosodic ten1plate, a vocalic pattern, and, in the t�'o rightmost colun1ns, an affix. The properties on the vertical axis provide '"ords 'vith their phonological structure. When these properties are com­ bined, i.e. CaCaC, hiCCiC, CCiCa, they form '''hat is kno,,.,n as "Semitic templates" (McCarthy 1981). Throughout the chapter, I use the term "configuration" for this

    Table 108.1 Derivational paradigm in "1'1odern Hebre\V

    Prosodic cvcvc cvccvc CCV CV Stem fL'lnplnfe: C01l$0,ltlt1f

    Vocalic la al li i I lil pntterti: Affix: ,,_ -ll

    ga'dal 'to gro\v' hig'dil 'to enlarge' gdi' la 'growing' lg d I} sa'gar 'to close' his'gir 'to extradite' sgi'ra 'closing' ls g r) fa 'tak 'to keep quiet' hif'tik 'to quieten' fti'ka .-silence' lf t k) ka'lat 'to absorb' hik'lit 'to record' kli'ta 'absorption' lk I t) z.a'rak 'to throvr' hiz'rik 'to inject' zri'ka 'throv1ing, lz r k)

    injection'

    Material com direitos autorais

  • Semitic Templates 2587

    combination of properties, ivhile the term "template" is used exclusively for prosodic templates.

    The systen1 of configuration is found in all Semitic languages in various paradigmatic relations, although to various degrees. This is demonstrated in §2 \Vith examples from several languages. As the configurations consist of both segmental and prosodic elements, their structure is non-linear (see CHAPTER 105: TIER SEGREGATION). The structure of the configurations, and of Semitic \vords in general, is introduced in §3, with en1phasis on theoretical develop1nents in the representation of the prosodic te1nplate. The hvo ensuing sections illustrate the mapping of the configurations, where §4 is devoted to a procedural approach and §5 to a constraint-based approach. Within each of these two sections, two types of input are considered: the consonantal root and the word/stem. The concluding ren1arks in §6 draw attention to the status of the configurations "'ithin a cross­ linguistic perspective.

    2 The nature of Semitic morphology

    In Semitic n1orphology, words are organized into classes, identified by their configuration. The class system in verbs (§2.1) is more prominent and restricted than in nouns (§2.2); nevertheless, the same structural generalizations hold, regardless of the lexical category.

    2.1 Verb classes (binyanim) Verbs belonging to the same class have an identical configuration, as exemplified in (1). The designator of a verb class is the 3rd masculine singular perfect, \vhich is free of inflectional affixes.'

    (1) Verb classes in Palestinian Arabic (Elihay 2004) CiCeC tCaCCaC 'misek 'to grasp' 't�allam 'to study' 'fihem 'to understand' 'tdarra� 'to burp' 'nizel 'to go do"rn' 'tbaddal 'to be replaced' 'liimeq 'to lose temper' 'tbaxxar 'to evaporate' 'li!1eq 'to catch' 'tda\vwaf 'to sho,ver'

    staCCaC 'sta�mal 'to use' 'staqbal 'to welco1ne' 'staw�ab 'to take in' 'staslarn 'to submit' 'stafhad 'to quote'

    The restricted structure of the configurations is evident in (1), where all the configurations are disyllabic, with a final CVC syllable. They differ in the first syUable, CV in Ci.CeC and CCVC in staC.CaC and tCaC.CaC. The latter hvo con­ figurations are distinguished by their prefixes, ivhere consonant positions (C-slots) not occupied by an affix are left for the sten1 consonants. In staC.CaC the prefix

    ' Throughout the chapter, I do not consider irregular verbs, whi,oh for phonological reasons (often only hislorically motivated) deviale from the regular configuration. I also ignore the epenthetic ['il in Arabic, which rescues word-initial dusters. Epenthesis is obligatory in Standard Arabic (e.g. ['is'ta

  • 2588 Outi Bat-El

    occupies the two positions of the initial complex onset, thus leaving three slots for the stem consonants, while in tCaC.CaC the prefix occupies only one posi­ tion in the complex onset, thus leaving four slots for the consonants. When a configuration provides four slots for steo1 consonants but the stem has only tluee different consonants, one consonant occupies hvo slots (e.g. ['t�allam] 'to study' vs. ['tt1arkaf] 'to provoke').

    Semitic languages vary \vith regard to prosodic "plasticity." Hebre\v verbs accom­ n1odate as many stem consonants as possible (i.e. respecting the OCP and the Sonority Sequencing Generalization; CHAPTER 49; SONORITY), as long as the verb does not exceed the disyllabic maximal size (Bat-El l994a, 2003a). In contrast, Amharic adjusts the number of syllables in the template according to the number of consonants (McCarthy 1985; Rose 2003). That is, Hebre\v expands its syllabic inventory beyond CV and CVC, keeping the disyllabic te1nplate, while Amharic expands its syllabic template, keeping a restricted syllabic inventory (see Bender and Fulass 1978 for a study of Amharic verbs).

    (2) Tem.platic plasticity (A111haric) vs. syllable plasticity (Hebrew)

    Amharic Hebrew 3 Cs S

  • Semitic Templates 2589

    (5) Derivational relations in Modern Hebreiv verbs

    CaCaC CiCeC hitCaCeC ga'dal 'to gro,v' gi'del 'to raise' hitga'del 'to aggrandize' xa1Jav 'to think' xi'Jev 'to calculate' hitxa'Jev 'to consider' ka 'dam 'to precede' ki'dem 'to promote' hitka'dem 'to progress' pa'rak 'to unload' pe'rek 'to dismantle' hitpa'rek 'to disintegrate' ka'Jar 'to bind' ki'Jer 'to connect' hitka'fer 'to get in touch'

    The thematic-syntactic properties of the configurations are relational ratl1er than absolute, such that the property assigned by a configuration is largely contingent upon the base of the derived verb (Berman 1978; Horvath 1981; Doron 2003; Laks 2007). For example, the Hebrew configuration hitCaCeC assigns deaccusative in [hir'giz] 'to make so111eone angry' --> [h.itra'gez) 'to beco1ne angry', but reciprocal in [x.i'bek) 'to hug' --> (hitxa'bek) 'to hug each othe.r'. Moreover, [hit?a'lel) 'to torture' is neither deaccusative nor reflexive, as it is not derived from another verb. Similarly in Arabic, ?aCCaC assigns causative in [' ['?a

  • Semitic Templates 2591

    However, a rich configuration system in the nominal category is found in the singular /plural paradign1 of several Semitic languages (see Ratcliffe 1998b for a comparative study), such as Arabic (Hanlffiond 1988; McCarthy and Prince 1990; Ratcliffe 1997, 1998a; McCarthy 2000; \'\latson 2002, 2006), Tigre (Paln1er 1962; Raz 1983), and Tigrinya (Palmer 1955; Buckley 1990). In Arabic, for example, most underived nouns and lexicalized derived nouns (Abd-Rabo 1990; Boudelaa and Gaskell 2002) are pluralized in a configuration system called "broken plural," \Vhich contrasts with the suffixation n1ode of pluralization called "sound plural."

    (8) Broken plurals

    a. Standard Arabic (Wright 1962) plural singular

    7aCCa:C ?ali'ka:m liukm 'judgment' 'aq'da:m 'qadam 'footstep' ?aj'ma:n ja'mi:n 'oath'

    ?aCCuC ''abhur bahr 'sea' ''azmtu1 'zan1an 'time' ''a!sun li 'sa :n 'tongue'

    CuCuC 'suquf saqf 'roof' ''usud ''asad 'lion' 'surur sa'vri:r 'throne'

    CiCa:C ri'ma:h rum'!\ 'spear' xi'ba:l 'xabal 'hill' li''a:m Ja''i:m 'base'

    b. Tigre (Palmer 1962) plural singular

    ?aCCiC ?akbid kabid 'belly' ?ab7is bi? is 'husband' 7abnir binar 'sea'

    'aCCuC 7aqlub qalib 'root' 'amtud mitid 'stake' ?adhub dihab 'gold'

    CaCaCCi li.anaddi run di 'hoof' k;;itarri katra 'pigeon' kadabbi kadbet 'floor'

    CaCaCit masanit masru 'friend' warazit \Vareza 'bachelor' ?ara,vit 'ar,ve 'serpent'

    While in the verb system, every class has a fixed configuration for each tense/ aspect form, allowing a predictable system of one-to-one correspondence, in the noun system there is one-to-many correspondence (Bateson 2003). As sho\vn in (8) above, a singular configuration may correspond to several plural configurations (e.g. Arabic CVCC in [t1ukn1] - ['ah'ka:n1] vs. [rwnn] - [ri'1na:n]). In addition, a singular noiln may have h"o or three alternative corresponding plural for.ms, more so in the spoken dialects (e.g. Arabic ['�anzi] - [�i'na:z] - [�u'nu:z] - [''a�nuz] 'goat(s)', ['qafil] - ['aq'fa:l] - ('?aqful] 'lock(s)'). However, as disctissed in §4.2 below, there are some tendencies for nouns '"ith certain configurations to select particular plural configurations.

    Copyrighted material

  • 2592 Outi. Bat-El

    The system of configurations is not limited to nouns and verbs. As sho\vn below, An'lharic argot (Leslau 1964) and Arabic hypocoristics (Davis and za,vaydeh 2001) take specific configurations (Caj(C)CiaCi and CaCCu:C, respectively) regardless of the shape of the base. Sinularly, Arabic adjectives and superlatives (Wright 1962) each take a consistent configuration.

    (9) Other configu.rati.ons

    a. Arabic adjectives CaCi:C ?aCCaC ka'bi:r 'b