THE AKKADIAN VERB AND ITS SEMITIC BACKGROUND

L A N G U A G E S O F T H E A N C I E N T N E A R E A S T

Editorial BoardGonzalo Rubio, Pennsylvania State University

Editor-in-Chief

James P. allen Brown University Gene b. GRaGG The Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago John huehneRGaRd Harvard University manfRed KRebeRniK Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena antonio loPRieno Universität Basel h. CRaiG melCheRt University of California, Los Angeles PiotR miChalowsKi University of Michigan P. oKtoR sKJæRvø Harvard University miChael P. stReCK Universität Leipzig

1. A Grammar of the Hittite Language, by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. and H. Craig Melchert Part 1: Reference Grammar Part 2: Tutorial

2. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background, by N. J. C. Kouwenberg3. Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian, by Nathan Wasserman

The Akkadian Verb and

Its Semitic Background

by

n. J. C. KouwenbeRGThe University of Leiden

Winona Lake, IndianaEisenbRauns

2010

© 2010 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

www.eisenbrauns.com

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kouwenberg, N. J. C. The Akkadian verb and its Semitic background / by N. J. C. Kouwenberg. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-193-1 (alk. paper) 1. Akkadian language—Verb. I. Title. PJ3291.K678 2010 492′156—dc22 2010040187

v

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Part one

Preliminaries

Chapter 1. Objective, Structure, and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2.1. (Diachronic) Typology 21.2.2. Grammaticalization 31.2.3. The structure of paradigms 5

1.3. The Structure of the Present Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.4. Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.4.1. Akkadian 91.4.1.1. Third-Millennium Akkadian 111.4.1.2. Babylonian 12

1.4.1.2.1. Archaic Babylonian 131.4.1.2.2. Old Babylonian 131.4.1.2.3. Middle Babylonian 151.4.1.2.4. Neo-Babylonian 151.4.1.2.5. Late Babylonian 161.4.1.2.6. Standard Babylonian 16

1.4.1.3. Assyrian 171.4.1.3.1. Old Assyrian 171.4.1.3.2. Middle Assyrian 181.4.1.3.3. Neo-Assyrian 19

1.4.2. Semitic 191.4.3. Afroasiatic 20

1.5. Excursus: The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadian . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2. Structure and Organization in the Akkadian Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . 282.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.2. The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.2.1. The basic structure 292.2.2. Derivational categories related to the verb 332.2.3. Lexicalization and grammaticalization 35

2.3. The Structure of Individual Verb Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.3.1. The root-and-pattern system 372.3.2. The rise of vowel alternation in Semitic 38

vi Contents

2.3.3. The root and the radicals 402.3.4. The pattern and the base 44

2.4. Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.5. The Personal Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Part two

the Basic stem

Chapter 3. The Paradigm of the G-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533.2. The G-stem as the Basis of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533.3. Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs . . . . . . . 54

3.3.1. Fientive verbs with a stative meaning 553.3.2. Adjectival verbs 583.3.3. List of adjectival verbs 603.3.4. Deviating adjectives in Assyrian 64

3.4. Transitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663.5. The Vowel Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.5.1. Form and function 683.5.2. The individual vowel classes 71

3.5.2.1. The vowel class I/i 713.5.2.2. The A/u or Ablaut class 723.5.2.3. The vowel class U/u 733.5.2.4. The vowel class A/a (including E/e) 743.5.2.5. The vowel class A/i 75

3.5.3. Changes in vowel class 753.6. Appendix: List of G-stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class . . . . . 81

Chapter 4. The Impact of Gemination I: The Imperfective iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 884.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884.2. The Imperfective: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884.3. The Imperfective: Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914.4. The Historical Background of iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4.4.1. The controversy about the Proto-Semitic imperfective 974.4.2. The emergence of iparrVs 1004.4.3. Evidence 103

4.4.3.1. Historical evidence from Akkadian 1034.4.3.2. Comparative evidence from Afroasiatic 1044.4.3.3. Typological evidence 107

4.5. From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal- to Akkadian iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094.5.1. The development of a variable imperfective vowel 1094.5.2. The pluractional of the derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs 1124.5.3. The ending(s) of Proto-Semitic *yiqattal- 115

4.6. Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1174.6.1. iparrVs and yəqattəl 117

viiContents

4.6.2. The quadriradical and quinqueradical verbs in South Semitic 123

Chapter 5

The Perfective and the Imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1265.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1265.2. The Perfective: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1265.3. The Perfective: Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1275.4. The Historical Background of the Perfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1295.5. The Imperative: Form and Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 6. The t-Perfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1386.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1386.2. The t-Perfect: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1386.3. The t-Perfect: Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

6.3.1. The t-perfect in Old Babylonian 1416.3.2. The t-perfect in third-millennium Akkadian 1496.3.3. The t-perfect in Old Assyrian 1506.3.4. The t-perfect in the later dialects 153

6.4. The Historical Background of the t-Perfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Chapter 7. The Stative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1617.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1617.2. The Stative: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1617.3. The Stative: Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

7.3.1. Statives derived from adjectives and nouns 1657.3.2. Statives derived from verbs 1687.3.3. Marginal and secondary uses of the stative 174

7.4. The Prehistory of the Stative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1767.4.1. The formal background of the stative 1767.4.2. The relationship with the West Semitic perfect 1817.4.3. The suffixed stative conjugations of Afroasiatic 189

Chapter 8. The Nominal Forms of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1948.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1948.2. The Infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

8.2.1. Form and function 1948.2.2. Historical background 199

8.3. The Past Participle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2008.3.1. Form and function 2008.3.2. Historical background 202

8.4. The Present Participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2038.4.1. The simple present participle 2038.4.2. The present participle with the suffix -ān- 2078.4.3. Historical considerations 209

viii Contents

Chapter 9. The Secondary Members of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2119.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2119.2. The Irrealis Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

9.2.1. The precative 2129.2.1.1. Form and function 2129.2.1.2. Historical background 213

9.2.2. The vetitive: form and function 2179.2.3. The prohibitive 219

9.3. The Subjunctive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2209.3.1. The form of the subjunctive 2209.3.2. Other subjunctive-like suffixes 2249.3.3. The function and the historical background of the subjunctive 227

9.4. The Ventive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2329.4.1. The form of the ventive 2329.4.2. The function of the ventive 233

9.4.2.1. The ventive as allative 2349.4.2.2. The ventive as dative 2359.4.2.3. Other ventives 2369.4.2.4. The ventive as a linking morpheme 238

9.4.3. The ventive in a historical perspective 240

Part three

the Derived Verbal stems

Chapter 10. The Derived Verbal Stems: General Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24510.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24510.2. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24510.3. Formal Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24610.4. Functional Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24810.5. The Relationship between the G-Stem and the Derived Stems . . . . . . . . . 25010.6. Oppositions between Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25210.7. Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25410.8. The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems . . . 256

10.8.1. Verbal plurality 25610.8.2. Causative and factitive 25610.8.3. Voice 257

10.8.3.1. Passive 25910.8.3.2. Mediopassive 26010.8.3.3. Direct reflexive 26110.8.3.4. Indirect reflexive or autobenefactive 26310.8.3.5. Reciprocal 26310.8.3.6. The middle voice and “middle verbs” in Akkadian 265

Chapter 11. The impact of gemination II: the D-stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26811.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26811.2. The Form of the D-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

ixContents

11.3. The Function of the D-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27111.3.1. D-stems of intransitive process verbs 27211.3.2. D-stems of intransitive action verbs 27411.3.3. D-stems of transitive process verbs 27411.3.4. D-stems of transitive action verbs 274

11.4. D tantum Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27711.5. The Essence of the D-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27811.6. The D-Stem in Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

11.6.1. The D-stem in Semitic and Afroasiatic 28011.6.2. The development of the factitive function 282

Chapter 12. The Prefix n- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28812.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28812.2. The N-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

12.2.1. The form of the N-stem 28812.2.2. The function of the N-stem 294

12.2.2.1. The N-stem of transitive verbs 29412.2.2.2. The N-stem of intransitive verbs 29712.2.2.3. The N tantum verbs 298

12.2.3. The essence of the N-stem 29912.3. The naparraru Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30112.4. The Verb mēlulu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30512.5. The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30712.6. The Historical Background of the Prefix n- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

12.6.1. The prefix n- as an original “light verb” 31412.6.2. The development of the N-stem 321

Chapter 13. The Prefix š- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32413.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32413.2. The Š-stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

13.2.1. The form of the Š-stem 32413.2.2. The function of the Š-stem 327

13.2.2.1. The Š-stem as causative of transitive verbs 32713.2.2.2. The Š-stem as causative or factitive of intransitive verbs 32813.2.2.3. The “elative” use of the Š-stem 33113.2.2.4. The denominal function of the Š-stem 33213.2.2.5. The relation of the Š-stem to the D-stem and the N-stem 333

13.3. The ŠD-stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33413.4. The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefix š- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

13.4.1. The šubalkutu group 33813.4.2. The šuparruru group 34013.4.3. The šuḫarruru group 34113.4.4. Šukennu and šupellu 346

13.5. The Š-stem in Other Semitic Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35013.6. The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

Chapter 14. The t-Infix and Its Ramifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35514.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

x Contents

14.2. Formal Aspects of the t-Infix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35614.2.1. The form of the Gt-stem in historical Akkadian 35614.2.2. Assimilation and metathesis of the t-infix in general 359

14.3. The Function of the Gt-Stem in Historical Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36014.3.1. The Gt-stem in older non-literary texts 361

14.3.1.1. Third-millennium Akkadian 36114.3.1.2. Assyrian 36214.3.1.3. Old Babylonian 363

14.3.2. The Gt-stem in later non-literary texts 36514.3.3. The Gt-stem in literary texts: Standard Babylonian 36714.3.4. The functional development of the Gt-stem in Akkadian 369

14.4. The Evolution of the Gt-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37514.4.1. The formal evolution of the Gt-stem in Semitic: from prefix to infix (and back) 37514.4.2. The functional development of the Gt-stem in West Semitic 380

14.5. The Remaining Secondary Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38214.5.1. The Dt-stem 38314.5.2. The Št1-stem 38614.5.3. The Neo-Assyrian stems with a double t-infix 38814.5.4. The Nt-stem 39114.5.5. Comparison with West Semitic 39214.5.6. Excursus: The Eblaite verbal nouns with both prefixed and infixed t 395

14.6. The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Št2-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39714.6.1. The pattern taPRvS(t) 39714.6.2. The Št2-stem 403

14.6.2.1. The paradigm of the Št2-stem 40314.6.2.2. The function of the Št2-stem 40414.6.2.3. Comparison with West Semitic 412

14.7. The tan-Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41514.7.1. The function of the tan-stems 41514.7.2. The Gtn-stem 41714.7.3. The Dtn-stem 42214.7.4. The Štn-stem 42414.7.5. The Ntn-stem 42514.7.6. The historical background of the tan-stems 431

Chapter 15. Verb Forms with Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43815.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43815.2. The Dtr-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43915.3. Deverbal Nouns with Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44415.4. Derived Verbal Stems with Reduplication in Other Semitic Languages . . 445

xiContents

Part Four

the Minor Paradigms

Chapter 16. The Weak Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44716.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44716.2. The I/w Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

16.2.1. The corpus 44816.2.2. The forms of the G-stem 45016.2.3. The derived stems 45416.2.4. The historical background of the I/w verbs 457

16.3. The I/*y Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46216.3.1. The prefix forms of the adjectival I/w verbs 46216.3.2. The original I/*y verbs 46416.3.3. The verbs idû ‘to know’ and išû ‘to have’ 465

16.4. The I/n Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46916.4.1. The assimilation or non-assimilation of n to the following consonant 46916.4.2. The elision of word-initial n 47016.4.3. The paradigm(s) of n/tadānu ‘to give’ 472

16.5. The II/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47416.5.1. The sources 47416.5.2. The paradigm of the G-stem 47616.5.3. The derived stems 480

16.5.3.1. The Gt-stem 48016.5.3.2. The Gtn-stem 48016.5.3.3. The D-stem 48216.5.3.4. The Š-stem and the Št2-stem 48516.5.3.5. The N-stem 488

16.6. The II/gem Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49116.6.1. Formal aspects of the II/gem verbs 49116.6.2. Semantic aspects of the II/gem verbs 494

16.7. The III/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49616.7.1. The sources 49616.7.2. The paradigm of the III/voc verbs 499

16.7.2.1. The original paradigm 49916.7.2.2. Further developments in third-millennium Akkadian 50116.7.2.3. Further developments in Assyrian 50116.7.2.4. Further developments in Babylonian 506

Chapter 17. The Verbs with Gutturals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51017.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51017.2. The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51017.3. The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51517.4. The Strong ʾ in Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52017.5. The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525

17.5.1. E-colouring in the older dialects 52517.5.2. E-colouring in later Babylonian 534

xii Contents

17.6. The I/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53717.6.1. Introductory remarks 53717.6.2. The paradigm of the G-stem 54217.6.3. The derived stems 546

17.6.3.1. The Gt-stem and the Gtn-stem 54617.6.3.2. The D-stem 54717.6.3.3. The Š-stem and its derivatives 54817.6.3.4. The N-stem and the Ntn-stem 550

17.7. The II/H Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55417.7.1. Introduction and sources 55417.7.2. (Pre-)Sargonic Akkadian and Mari Old Akkadian 55717.7.3. The II/H verbs in Assyrian 560

17.7.3.1. The strong paradigm 56017.7.3.2. The weak paradigm 563

17.7.4. The II/H verbs in Babylonian 56617.7.4.1. The II/ā verbs in Babylonian 56617.7.4.2. The II/ē verbs in Babylonian 570

17.8. The III/H Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57217.8.1. Introduction and sources 57217.8.2. The III/H verbs in third-millennium Akkadian 57317.8.3. The III/H verbs in Assyrian 57617.8.4. The original III/H verbs in Babylonian 582

Part Five

Proto-semitic from an Akkadian perspective

Chapter 18. The Verbal Paradigm of Proto-Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58418.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58418.2. The Main Developments from Proto-Semitic to Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . 58418.3. The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586

18.3.1. The basic stem 58718.3.2. The derived stems 591

18.4. The Sub-grouping of Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635Index of words from other languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650Index of Akkadian words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653

xiii

PreFACe

This book is the result of the project “The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background,” financed by the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (NWO) in the years 2001–2005. It represents the completion of a long preoccupation with the structure and the history of the Ak-kadian verb, which started with my 1997 doctoral dissertation on the D-stem.

It would not have been written if the NWO had not provided me with a generous grant that allowed me to focus completely on this research project for almost four years without being dis-tracted by other obligations. I am grateful for this grant and for the trust they have had in me. I would also like to thank the Faculty of Arts of Leiden University and the Netherlands Institute for the Near East (NINO) for the facilities they offered me during and after this period.

It is a great pleasure to thank the people who have contributed to the completion of this book. In the first place, I thank my supervisor, Klaas Veenhof, who spent much time and energy on this project, dealing with the paperwork for the NWO, and, in the final stages, reading the manuscript, giving valuable comments, and providing me with additional material, especially in Old Assyrian matters.

Gonzalo Rubio, editor-in-chief of Eisenbrauns’ series Languages of the Ancient Near East, Wilfred van Soldt, Holger Gzella, Guy Deutscher, and Bram Jagersma also read the manuscript, and Harry Stroomer and Joris Borghouts read parts of it. I would like to thank all of them for their valuable comments. Obviously, none of these colleagues are responsible for any errors, omis-sions, and incongruities that remain.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank my wife Yvonne not only for undertaking the trouble-some task of reading through the entire manuscript to eradicate the barbarisms of my English and to improve the style but also for her unfailing moral support and her tolerance during the years that I have been engrossed in the intricacies of the Akkadian verb.

xiv

List oF ABBreViAtions, syMBoLs, AnD terMinoLogy

1. Abbreviations of series, Periodicals, Dictionaries, and ManualsAfO Archiv für Orientforschung. Vienna.AHw = von Soden 1959/81. AION Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Naples.AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature. Chicago.AMMK Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi. Konferanslari. Ankara.AMMY Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi. Yıllığı. Ankara.AnOr. Analecta Orientalia.AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament. AoF Altorientalische Forschungen. Berlin.AOS American Oriental Society.ArAn. Archivum Anatolicum. Ankara. ARES Archivi reali di Ebla—Studi.ArOr. Archív Orientální. Prague.AS Assyriological Studies. ASJ Acta Sumerologica (Japonica). Tokio.Assur Assur, Monographic Journals of the Near East. Malibu.AuOr. Aula Orientalis. Barcelona.BagF Baghdader Forschungen (BagF 18 = S. M. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung).BBVOT Berliner Beiträge zum vorderen Orient. Texte. BiOr. Bibliotheca Orientalis. Leiden.BM Bibliotheca Mesopotamica.BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. London.CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. CDA A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, ed. J. Black, A. George, and N. Postgate. Santag 5.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999.CDG = Leslau 1987.CDLJ Cuneiform Digital Library Journal. CILT Current Issues in Linguistic Theory.CM Cuneiform Monographs. CRRAI Comptes rendus de la rencontre assyriologique internationale.DRS = D. Cohen 1994–.DTCFD Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi (Revue de la Faculté de langues,

d’histoire et de géographie). Ankara.FAOS Freiburger Altorientalische Studien. FM Florilegium Marianum. Mémoirs de NABU. Paris.GAG = von Soden 1952a.GAG3 = von Soden 1995.GAV = Kouwenberg 1997.GKT = Hecker 1968.GLECS Comptes rendus des séances du Groupe linguistique d’études chamito-sémitiques. Paris.HSAO Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient.

xvList of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

HSS Harvard Semitic Studies.HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual. Cincinnati.IOS Israel Oriental Studies. Tel Aviv and Winona Lake, IN.JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society. New York.JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society. New Haven, CT.JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies. New Haven, CT.JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’. Leiden.JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago.JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. London.JSS Journal of Semitic Studies. Manchester.KUSATU Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. Waltrop.LAPO Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient. MAD 3 = Gelb 1957.MARI Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires. ParisMC Mesopotamian Civilizations. MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung. Berlin.MUSJ Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph. Beyrouth.MEE Materiali Epigraphici di Ebla. NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. Paris.OAAS Old Assyrian Archives, Studies.OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. OIP Oriental Institute Publications (OIP 27 = I. J. Gelb, Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity).OLA Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta. OLP Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica. Leuven.Or. Orientalia. Rome.OrAnt. Oriens Antiquus. Rome.OrSuec. Orientalia Suecana. Uppsala.PIHANS Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden, voorheen

Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stanboul.QuSem. Quaderni di Semitistica. RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale. Paris.RSO Rivista degli Studi Orientali. Rome.SAACT State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts.SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies. SED I/II = Militarev and Kogan 2000 and 2005.SEL Studi epigraphici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico. Verona.SSLL Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics.StAT Studien zu den Assur-Texten.StEb. Studi Eblaiti. Rome.StOr. Studia Orientalia. Helsinki.TTK Türk Tarih Kongresi.TTKY Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından. TSL Typological Studies in Language. UF Ugarit-Forschungen. Münster.WdO Die Welt des Orients. Göttingen.WKAS Wörterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1958–.WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-GesellschaftWZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Vienna.ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie. Berlin.ZAh Zeitschrift für Althebraistik. Stuttgart.ZAL Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik. Wiesbaden.ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen.ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden.

xvi List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

2. Abbreviations of text PublicationsEditions of Akkadian texts are referred to with the abbreviations enumerated in AHw III: ix–xvi, with the following additions:

Adapa S. Izre'el, Adapa and the South Wind. Mesopotamian Civilizations 10. Winona Lake IN, 2001: Eisenbrauns.

AIHA F. Rasheed, The Ancient Inscriptions in Himrin Area. Baghdad: The State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage, 1981.

AKI I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. FAOS 7. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990.

AKT Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri / Ankaraner Külltepe-Texte (1/2: E. Bilgiç et al., 4: I. Albayrak, 5: K. R. Veenhof, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1990, 1995, 2006, and 2010; 3: E. Bilgiç and C. Günbattı, FAOS Beiheft 3, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1995).

ARET Archivi reali di Ebla—Testi. Roma: Missione archeologica in Syria.Balag-Komp. K. Volk, Die Balag-Komposition úru à-ma-ir-ra-bi. FAOS 18. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,

1989.BAP B. Meissner, Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht. Assyriologische Bibliothek

11. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893.BDHP L. Waterman, Business Documents of the Hammurabi Period I. AJSL 29 (1913)

145–204; II. ibid. 288–303; III. AJSL 30 (1913/14) 48–73. CTMMA Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vols. I–III. New York:

Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1987–2005.Diagnostik N. P. Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik. AOAT 43. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,

2000.Edikt F. R. Kraus, Ein Edikt des Königs Ammi-ṣaduqa von Babylon. Studia et Documenta ad

Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia, vol. V. Leiden: Brill, 1958.ELTS I. J. Gelb; P. Steinkeller; and R. M. Whiting, Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near

East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991.

Epilepsy M. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia. CM 2. Groningen, 1993.EV Estratti di Vocabulari (in Pettinato 1982: 347–81).Fernhandel B. I. Faist, Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jh.

v. Chr. AOAT 265. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001.FI M. Civil, M. The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. AuOr.

Supplementa 5. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1994.GAKI B. Kienast, Glossar zu den altakkadischen Königsinschriften. FAOS 8. Stuttgart:

Franz Steiner, 1994.Gilg. A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2003.Giricano K. Radner, Das mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von Giricano /Dunnu-ša-Uzibi.

Subartu XIV. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.Innāya C. Michel, Innāya dans les tablettes paléo-assyriennes II: Edition des texts. Paris:

Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991.Ištar B. Groneberg, Lob der Ištar, Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin.

CM 8. Groningen, 1997.kt Siglum of unpublished tablets from Kültepe (Kaniš).Kaufvertragsrecht B. Kienast, Das altassyrische Kaufvertragsrecht. FAOS Beiheft 1. Stuttgart: Franz

Steiner, 1984.Land Tenure A. Suleiman, A Study of Land Tenure in the Old Babylonian Period with Special

Reference to the Diyala Region, Based on Published and Unpublished Texts. Ph.D. dissertation, London, 1966.

Legends = Westenholz 1997. LB Siglum of unpublished tablets in the de Liagre Böhl Collection, Leiden.

xviiList of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

Lugal J. van Dijk, LUGAL UD ME-LÁM-bi NIR-GÁL. Leiden: Brill, 1983.MARV H. Freydank, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte I–VII, 1976–

2006.MATC S. Jakob, Die mittelassyrische Texte aus Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien.

Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung, Band 2, Teil III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009.

MATSH = Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996.MBTU O. R. Gurney, The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur. British

School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1983.MesMagic Mesopotamian Magic. Textual, Historical and Interpretative Perspectives, ed.

T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn. Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx, 1999.

MHET Mesopotamian History and Environment: Texts. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1991–.MSL SS Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon, Supplementary Series. Rome: Pontificium

Institutum Biblicum, 1986.MVN 3 D. I. Owen, The John Frederick Lewis Collection. Materiali per il vocabolario

neosumerico, vol III. Rome: Multigrafica, 1975.NATN D. I. Owen, Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts Primarily from Nippur. Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns, 1982.NATSH K. Radner, Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad. Berichte der Ausgrabung

Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu, Band 6, Texte 2. Berlin: Reimer, 2002.NBNippur = Cole 1996.NTA V. Donbaz, Ninurta-Tukulti-Aššur. TTKY VI/19. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1976.OAA Old Assyrian Archives. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2002–.OBAH F. N. H. Al-Rawi and S. Dalley, Old Babylonian Texts from Private Houses at Abu

Habbah, Ancient Sippar. Baghdad University Excavations. É-DUB-BA-A 7. London: NABU Publications, 2000.

OBE U. Jeyes, Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Museum. PIHANS 64. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1989.

OBHorn 1 and 2 M. Sigrist, Old Babylonian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. Andrews University Cuneiform Texts IV and V. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1990 and 2003.

OBLAP K. van Lerberghe, Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia. OLA 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1986.

OBRED L. Dekiere, Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum. MHET, Series III, vol. II, 1–6. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1994–1997.

OBTA = Whiting 1987. POAT W. C. Gwaltney Jr., The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts. Hebrew Union College

Annual Supplements 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1983.

Prag I K. Hecker, G. Kryszat, and L. Matouš, Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln aus den Sammlungen der Karlsuniversität Prag. Prague: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, 1998.

RIMA Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987–.

Rīm-Anum A. Rositani, Rīm-Anum Texts in the British Museum. Nisaba 4. Messina: Di.Sc.A.M, 2004.

RIME Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990–.

RitDiv. I. Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner. BM 12. Malibu: Undena, 1983. ŠA S. M. Freedman, If a City Is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma Ālu

ina Mēlê Šakin, Volume I: Tablets 1–21. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 17. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1998.

SAA State Archives of Assyria. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987–.

xviii List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

SAB = Kienast and Volk 1995.Sadberk V. Donbaz, Cuneiform Tablets in the Sadberk Hanim Museum. Istanbul: Sadberk

Hanim Müzesi, 1999.ShA J. Eidem, and J. Læssøe, The Shemshara Archives, Vol. I: The Letters. Copenhagen:

The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 2001.SKS W. Farber, Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf!, Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und

-Rituale. MC 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989.St. Alp Hittite and other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, ed.

H. Otten et al. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992.St. Biggs Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, June 4, 2004, ed. M. Roth et al. From the

Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Volume 2. AS 27. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2007.

St. Birot Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot, ed. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985.

St. de Meyer Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien, offertes en homage à Léon de Meyer, ed. H. Gasche et al. Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional Publications 2. Leuven: Peeters, 1994.

St. Dietrich Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. O. Loretz et al. AOAT 281. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002.

St. Finet Reflets des Deux Fleuves: Volume de mélanges offerts à André Finet, ed. M. Lebeau and P. Talon. Akkadica Supplementum VI. Leuven: Peeters, 1989.

St. Garelli Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs: Études sur la civilization mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991.

St. Kraus Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. van Driel et al. Leiden: Brill, 1982.

St. Landsberger Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, ed. H. G. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

St. Larsen Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen. PIHANS 100. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004.

St. Moran Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, ed. T Abusch et al. HSS 37. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990.

St. Nimet Özgüç Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors—Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, ed. M. J. Mellink et al. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993.

St. Oelsner Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner, ed. J. Marzahn and H. Neumann. AOAT 252. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.

St. Pettinato Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück: Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato, ed. H. Waetzoldt. HSAO 9. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2004.

St. Reiner Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton. AOS 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987.

St. Sjöberg DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1989.

St. Veenhof Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2001.

St. von Soden (AOAT 1) Lišān Mitḫurti: Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden, ed. W. Röllig. AOAT 1. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969.

St. von Soden (AOAT 240) Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995.

xixList of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

St. Walker Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker, ed. C. Wunsch. Babylonische Archive 1. Dresden: ISLET, 2002.

Tall Biʿa = Krebernik 2001.TAZ = Sommerfeld 1999.TB 1 = Ismail et al. 1996; 2: L. Milano; W. Sallaberger; P. Talon; and K. van Lerberghe.

Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1996–2002). Subartu XII. Turnhout, 2004.

TCBI Tavolette cuneiformi . . . delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia, 2 vols. Rome: Banca d’Italia, 2006.

TPAK C. Michel and P. Garelli, Tablettes paléo-assyriennes de Kültepe, volume I (Kt 90/k). Paris: De Boccard, 2001.

VE (Sinossi del) Vocabulario di Ebla (in Pettinato 1982: 197–343).

3. other Abbreviations

LB Late Babylonianlex. sect. lexical section (in CAD)lit. literal(ly)LL (attested in a) lexical listMA Middle AssyrianMasc masculineMB Middle BabylonianMN month nameMSA Modern South ArabianNA Neo-AssyrianNB Neo-BabylonianNn noun (indexes)Nom nominativeOA Old AssyrianOAk Old AkkadianOB Old BabylonianObl oblique casep personPartc participlePerf perfectpf plural femininePl pluralpm plural masculinePN proper namePNF feminine proper namePPartc past participlePrec precativePres presentPret preteriteProh prohibitiveprov. provenancePrPartc present participlePSAk Pre-Sargonic AkkadianPSem Proto-SemiticR1 first radicalR2 second radicalR3 third radicalR4 fourth radical

AA AfroasiaticAcc accusativeAdj adjectiveAkk AkkadianAll allativeAr ArabicAram AramaicArBab Archaic BabylonianAss AssyrianBab BabylonianBo Boğazköyc. br. context brokenc. st. construct statecomm. sect. commentary section (in CAD)cp(s) copy/copiesCT consecutio temporumDat dativeDN divine nameDNF feminine divine nameDu dualduf dual femininedum dual masculineEbl Eblaitee.o. each otherESA Epigraphic South ArabianEth EthiopianFem feminineGen genitiveGN geographic nameHe HebrewImp imperativeImpf imperfectImpfv imperfectiveincant. incantationIndic indicativeInf infinitiveintr. intransitiveJuss jussive

xx List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

4. symbols/.../ surrounds a phonological interpretation of a transliterated word or a cuneiform sign[...] surrounds a phonetic approximation of a phonological interpretation1 ⟨ ⟩ (surrounding a cuneiform) sign indicates the specific reading of the sign (capitals indicate the

name of the sign): Pi = ⟨wa⟩, bad = ⟨be⟩> and < indicate a phonological change, e.g. *baytum > bītum; *yilqaḥ > yilqē > ilqē; iššakin > (Ass)

iššikin, or a semantic change, e.g. šaknum ‘appointed’ > ‘governor’.→ and ← indicate (1) a morphophonemic or morphosyntactic (analogical) change or replacement, e.g.,

*ušāḫaz → ušaḫḫaz; nāmurum → nanmurum; iššaknū → (Ass) iššiknū; (2) a relationship of derivation, e.g., iparrVs → paris; iparras → ipparras.

// separates different manuscripts (duplicates) of the same text.* precedes a reconstructed but not actually attested form.** precedes an incorrectly reconstructed or presupposed form: **putanrrusum (Inf Dtn),

**innimir.

Conventions of transcription and terminologyFor Akkadian, I have in general adopted a transliteration system that is fairly close to what

may be considered to be the actual form of the word—i.e., basically that of von Soden and Röllig 1991 rather than the more “objective” system of Gelb 1970 and CAD; see Reiner 1973: 39–45 for a discussion of some relevant points. I will also adhere to the traditional convention of dis-tinguishing between long vowels with a circumflex (if they are contractions of adjacent vowels) and long vowels with a macron (if they are “originally” long or compensate for a lost guttural or sonant), although it is unlikely that there is a phonological motivation to do so.

However, for third-millennium Akkadian, this system is problematic for several reasons (see Rubio 2003b: 363–67 and Hasselbach 2005: 24–25). Therefore, I have adopted for Sargonic Ak-kadian Gelb’s system of transliteration, which is also used in Hasselbach’s recent grammar of Sargonic Akkadian (2005), supplemented by a phonological interpretation (which is of course subjective), e.g. ga-ti-su /qātīsu/, ìl-gi /yilqē/, iš-du-ud /yisdud/, etc.2 For Mari Old Akkadian,

1. For instance, in Old Assyrian /qabyāku/ represents what I take to be the most likely phonological representation of qá-áb-a-ku and qá-bi-a-ku ‘I have (been) told’. Occasionally, I have ventured to posit a more phonetic reconstruction, e.g. [qabiyāku].

2. The contrast between the phoneme /s/ of Sargonic Akkadian corresponding with /š/ elsewhere (in-cluding Mari Old Akkadian; Hasselbach 2005: 135–36) is awkward in cross-dialectal comparison. There-

RI(s) royal inscription(s)SAk Sargonic Akkadiansb. somebodySB Standard BabylonianSem Semiticsf singular feminineSg singular sm singular masculineStat stativesth. somethingSubj subjunctiveSum Sumerian

Syr SyriacTN temple namet-Pf t-perfecttr. translationtrans. transitiveUgar Ugariticvar. variantVb verb (indexes)Vent ventiveVet vetitiveWSem West Semitic

xxiList of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

which has only one series of sibilants as compared with the two series found in Sargonic Akka-dian (A. Westenholz 1978: 163a), I will use š for the reflex of PSem *š/ś, e.g. ù-šu-rí-id /y?ušūrid/ AKI p. 361 MŠ 4:4), where Sargonic Akkadian would have /yusūrid/.3 For Ur III Babylonian, I will normalize the transliteration in accordance with later Babylonian practice. Whenever this seemed relevant, I have added to third-millennium quotations an indication of the genre and the provenance of the text.4

Also for Eblaite, where the distance between spelling and the (presumably) intended form is fairly large and many interpretations are uncertain, I have preferred the more cautious translitera-tion that is employed by most specialists; for instance, I write mu-sa-ga-i-núm (VE 1306) rather than mu-śa-kà-i-núm for what is phonologically doubtless /muskayyinum/ (Bab muškênu ‘com-moner’; see §13.4.4, p. 347).

For the second-millennium and later dialects, I use the traditional system of transcription as it is applied in the standard manuals and dictionaries, although this is not always phonologically accurate and sometimes inconsistent with the third-millennium transcriptions.

I use the forms of Old Babylonian, but without mimation, as the “default dialect” for quoting verbs in contexts where no specific dialect is referred to or when the form in question is not at-tested nor reconstructible for the dialect under discussion; for instance, I speak of the verb petû ‘to open’. Other forms, such as Old Assyrian patāʾum or Middle Assyrian patāʾu, will only be quoted when this is relevant in the context.

With regard to other Semitic languages, I have opted for a transcription system that suits the historical and comparative orientation of the present study. For Hebrew, this is basically the Moscati system (Moscati, ed. 1964: 50), with e for ṣerē ( ), e for s egōl ( ), a for pataḥ ( ), ā or o for qāmeṣ ( ), o for ḥolem ( ), and u for ḥireq ( ), with an additional macron if the vowel is long, and the superscript version for ḥāṭēp and pataḥ furtivum. Spirantization of consonants will be ignored.

For Geʿez, I will also follow Moscati, ed. 1964: 54 in using a for the 1st order, ū for the 2nd order, ī for the 3rd order, ā for the 4th order, ē for the 5th order, ə or ∅ for the 6th order, and ō for the 7th order.

For consonants of Proto-Semitic for which there is no generally accepted symbol, I will use the rather traditional and typographically convenient system of Moscati, ed. 1964: 43–44, with, however, θ for the voiceless interdental (> Akk š ), ð for the voiced interdental (> Akk z), θ for the glottalic interdental (> Akk ṣ), and ś for the glottalic lateral fricative (> Akk ṣ), which is also written ð or ḏ elsewhere (see also Huehnergard 2004: 142–43). For the Proto-Semitic sibilants, I will use the familiar signs *š, ś, and *s rather than *s1, *s2, and *s3 (cf. Faber 1981: 253–57).

With regard to grammatical terminology, there are two particular areas where the juxtaposition of forms from different languages leads to terminological difficulties: the tense/aspect system and the system of derived verbal stems. The tense/aspect system of the older Semitic languages is based on a binary opposition between a marked and an unmarked category, the former having an imperfective aspect and usually referring to non-past tense, whereas the latter may basically be a perfective but is generally used as a straightforward past tense. In the various Semitic languages, different terms are traditionally used to refer to these categories, such as Imperfect, Present, and

fore, I will ignore this difference and use Babylonian š in the pertinent words, except in the phonological representation of Sargonic Akkadian words between slashes, e.g. /yusēṣī/, the Š Perf of waṣû ‘to go /come out’, but elsewhere yušēṣī.

3. See §16.2.3 (p. 455) for this form.4. For the label “Me-ság,” which refers to the Sargonic Akkadian texts of BIN 8 coming from the estate

of Me-ság in the Umma or Girsu region, see Foster 1982a: 6 and 1982b: 301.

xxii List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

Durative for the marked category, and Perfect and Preterite for the unmarked category (whereas in Akkadian “Perfect” refers to a third category). If we include other branches of Afroasiatic, a massive terminological confusion arises in which no term can be taken at its face value and in which categories that correspond across languages have quite different labels.

In order to avoid ambiguity on the one hand and cumbersome formulations on the other, I—at least for Semitic—use the terms imperfective and perfective for the marked and the unmarked variants of the prefix conjugations, respectively, regardless of the traditional term in a given lan-guage and no matter whether the category in question is perhaps more temporal than aspectual (as is certainly the case in Akkadian; see §4.3, pp. 91–95): so Akk iparrVs, Ar yaqtVlu, He yiqṭol and Geʿez yəqattəl are imperfective; Akk iprVs, Ar yaqtVl, and He (way)yiqṭol are perfective (in so far as they have indicative function). For the rest, I use the traditional terms perfect and jussive for the West Semitic suffix conjugation (qatVla) and the irrealis use of yaqtVl, respectively. For the Akkadian past tense with infixed t (iptarVs), I use the label t-perfect to avoid confusion with the West Semitic perfect. For other languages, I use the terms imperfective and perfective when these are clearly appropriate, or else the labels current in the specific language (with an initial capital), with a definition when ambiguity might arise. The abbreviations of grammatical terms in the list of abbreviations are mainly used as tags to specific forms quoted.

Each Semitic language also has its own terminology for the derived verbal stems,5 and even for Akkadian itself two different systems are in use. For specific languages, I will use the system current for that language, but for comparative purposes and when referring to a specific stem across languages, I follow the Akkadian notation employed by W. von Soden in his grammar (GAG) and his dictionary (AHw), which is transparent and mnemonically superior. For the de-rived stems with a lengthened vowel, which occur in some West Semitic languages but not in Akkadian, I use the symbol L when that is convenient.

5. See Goshen-Gottstein 1969 for a description of the history of the terms; Tropper 2002: 100–101 and Lipiński 1997: 334 contain handy tables for comparing the various terminological systems.

1

Part OnePreliminaries

Chapter 1Objective, structure, and methOd

1.1. objectiveThis book has two closely related objectives: to describe the Akkadian verbal system during

its period of attestation, and to reconstruct its prehistory on the basis of internal reconstruction, comparison with cognate languages, and typological evidence. The first of these aims is a neces-sary prerequisite for the second: before we start comparing aspects of the Akkadian verb with corresponding phenomena in related languages, we must squeeze the maximum amount of infor-mation out of the languages involved—in particular, Akkadian itself.

Moreover, description of the Akkadian verb has a merit of its own, because Akkadian has one of the longest documented histories of all languages: data are available from about two and a half millennia—although the data are not without interruptions and are not always as copious as we would like. During the course of this history, numerous developments took place, illustrating how languages change over time and offering parallels for the reconstruction of changes that occurred in poorly documented periods. Knowledge of historical processes enables us to go backward in time by extrapolating them into prehistory, especially because such processes are often cyclic.

There is no lack of detailed and competent studies of the Akkadian verb and specific aspects of it, among which we of course single out W. von Soden’s monumental Grundriss der akkadi schen Grammatik (1952), which has lost little of its relevance as a comprehensive description of Ak-kadian, although several of its historical and more theoretical statements are in need of revision. Nonetheless, even further progress can be gained from a variety of strategies.

The first one is a more detailed and more comprehensive look at our primary evidence, the Akkadian texts themselves, which constitute our basic set of data. They still contain untapped re-sources that can be made available by means of systematic comparison between dialects, detailed investigation of orthographical features, and the exploitation of new data from recently published texts and to some extent also from the language of Ebla, which is gradually revealing more and more of its secrets.

A second strategy is a greater emphasis on the systematic nature of the Akkadian verb. A verbal system is a complex structure, with its own dynamics based on and driven by the func-tions it has to perform. This means that we should not limit ourselves to an atomistic description of the verbal categories in isolation from one another but also study their interactions and the ways they influence each other through the course of time. The structure of the paradigm and the

2 Method  1.2.

dependency relations between its members hold important clues for understanding diachronic processes and thus also for reconstructing its prehistoric development.

A third strategy is the use of typological evidence, which provides insight into the question of what kinds of developments are common or uncommon in the history of languages. Therefore, it is an important tool in evaluating the likelihood of proposed hypothetical developments and particularly relevant in situations where actual data are inadequate.

By combining these strategies, I will describe the verbal categories of Akkadian as they de-veloped in the historical period, reconstruct the oldest attainable situation, compare this with other Semitic languages, and formulate a hypothesis regarding the structure of the verb in Proto-Semitic from an Akkadian perspective, in order to bridge the gap between Akkadian and the rest of Semitic and to shed light on the diachronic processes that have led to their diversification. Deeper comparison on the level of Afroasiatic is not a specific aim of this book, although I will not hesitate to use Afroasiatic evidence if I consider it relevant to the point under discussion. In fact, achieving some kind of consensus about the nature of Proto-Semitic is a major condition for a fruitful study of Afroasiatic.

1.2. Method

The methods used will be in accordance with the objectives outlined in the preceding sec-tion. The extant Akkadian texts provide the primary data for a description of the verbal system. This description is in principle synchronic, but because of the large time span covered by the recorded history of Akkadian, this is hardly the appropriate term. A synchronic description is only possible for the individual dialects or periods of Akkadian, even though generally speaking the differences between them—or rather between the written forms in which they are available to us—are surprisingly small. I will instead use the term “historical” for the descriptive part of the present study, in contrast to “prehistoric,” when referring to the reconstruction of the genesis of the verbal system, which mainly took place in the prehistoric period.

The reconstruction of the prehistoric development will primarily be based on the time- honored methods of historical linguistics: internal reconstruction and the comparative method (in this order). However, they can be supplemented by other approaches that have been developed in the domain of general linguistics in the past few decades. I will single out three of them that are immediately relevant to the historical study of language in general, and to the present study in particular: (diachronic) typology, grammaticalization, and the structure of paradigms.

1.2.1.  (Diachronic) TypologyOf particular importance to historical linguistics is the typological approach to language,

which originates with Greenberg’s studies on word-order universals (Greenberg 1963, 1966) and was carried on by others, such as Bybee (1985, 2001), Croft (1991, 2003), Givón (espe-cially 1979, 1995), Hopper and Thompson (1980, 1984), to mention only those who have been a particular source of inspiration for the present study. This typological approach starts from the assumption that variation in language is subject to universal restrictions that are ultimately grounded in the function(s) language performs. It investigates these restrictions in order to detect cross-linguistic regularities and ultimately to establish what is a possible human language or, perhaps more modestly, “what is a more probable, as opposed to less probable, human language” (Song 2001: 3).

The basic method of typologists is large-scale comparison on the basis of a representative cor-pus of languages. Studies of this kind have revealed remarkable parallels in the way in which par-

31.2.  Method

ticular domains of grammar are encoded cross-linguistically, such as the expression of the pas-sive (Siewierska 1984; Keenan 1985; Haspelmath 1990), the middle voice (Kemmer 1993), the causative (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973; Song 1996), the resultative (Nedjalkov and Jaxon tov 1988), tense/aspect in general (Dahl 1985; Bybee et al. 1994), adjectives (Dixon 1982; Wetzer 1996; Dixon and Aikhenvald 2004), intransitive predicates (Stassen 1997), and nominal predi-cates (Hengeveld 1992).

It has also become clear that these domains tend to be grammaticalized through a restricted number of diachronic processes. This is the field of diachronic typology, which studies occurring changes (Greenberg 1995) in order to understand the limits of possible diversity (Givón 1999: 110). Diachronic typology conceives language states as stages in a process of change, so that the focus of attention shifts from the states themselves to the transitions between them (Croft 2003: 232–44). This has blurred the borderline between synchronic and diachronic linguistics, which has had the status of a dogma since Saussure and has long tended to relegate historical linguis-tics to a marginal position. It is now recognized that both approaches are equally valuable, that change is an inherent property of language, and that there are grammatical phenomena that can best be meaningfully described in a historical perspective (Hopper 1987; Heine and Claudi 1986: 147–50; Heine et al. 1991: 248–52; Bybee 2001: 57, 189–215).

The typologists maintain a different emphasis from the more traditional comparative linguists: they are primarily interested in the process of diachronic change itself and the principles that govern it, and therefore focus on historical stages of languages that are attested over a long period. They do not shun reconstructions but regard them as by-products rather than as goals in themselves (Givón 1999: 109–11). Their studies have shown that diachronic developments in languages tend to follow rather narrowly circumscribed paths that recur again and again with different lexical means even in unrelated languages. This enables us to determine which kinds of historical processes are common in language development, and which kinds are uncommon or even not attested, and thus to check our hypotheses and reconstructions. The importance of this kind of information for the reconstruction of prehistoric stages of a language is obvious: a hypothetical reconstruction that has parallels in historical developments has a greater plausibility than one that has few or no parallels. The latter is not automatically disqualified but needs to be supported by stronger evidence to be acceptable.

1.2.2.  Grammaticalization

The study of diachronic processes in language has demonstrated the importance of grammati-calization as a pervasive principle of language development. Grammaticalization is “that subset of linguistic changes whereby a lexical item or construction in certain uses takes on grammatical characteristics, or through which a grammatical item becomes more grammatical” (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 2).1 If an element undergoes grammaticalization, it becomes more frequent but less independent, it gets a more general and more grammatical meaning, a reduced form, and a less variable position. Ultimately, it may lose its status as an independent word and become a clitic or an affix with a grammatical rather than a lexical meaning. Accordingly, grammatical-ization is an important mechanism for creating new grammatical categories and for replacing existing ones, in contrast to sound change and analogy, which normally only modify existing

1. General introductions are Hopper and Traugott 2003 and Heine et al. 1991; see also Croft 2003: 253–79; Bybee et al. 1994: 4–9; Joseph and Janda, eds. 2003: 575–601. A non-technical account of gram-maticalization and its role in the development of language, with special attention to the rise of the Semitic verbal system, is Deutscher 2005.

4 Method  1.2.

categories (Meillet 1948b: 133). It has its own dynamics and follows its own rules, and is often cyclical: a new mode of expression that has arisen because of its greater expressivity gradu-ally replaces the older expression, loses its expressivity in the process and becomes vulnerable to being replaced in its turn.2 The study of well-documented grammaticalization processes has provided a considerable amount of knowledge that is applicable to the clarification of synchronic states of languages without a documented past. Since it is inherently diachronic, it has—to-gether with typology—strongly contributed to ending the (post-)Saussurean bias in favour of synchronic analysis and to creating an upsurge in diachronic research.

A grammaticalization process that is particularly relevant for the present study is the renewal of tense and aspect categories. As far as I am aware, Jerzy Kuryłowicz was the first to draw at-tention to the regularity and recursiveness in the way the verbal categories referring to the present and the past evolve over time. He formulates the development of present categories as follows (1975: 104):

The most important phenomenon which has repeated itself over and over again and has left numerous traces in the old I.E. languages, is the renewal of the durative character of the verbal forms denoting the moment of speaking (present-imperfect system). The durative form may easily invade other semantic spheres: general (“timeless”) present, futurity, modality (“capa-bility,” “eventuality”), etc. This expansion, involving the loss of expressiveness (i.e., of con-centration on durativity), is the cause of drawing upon derived forms designed to renew the durative function. A formal split is likely to ensue: durative present (new form) and general or indetermined present (old form), present (new form) and future (old form), indicative (new form) and subjunctive (old form).

A corresponding process for the past tense starts with the perfect:

As regards the so-called perfect the normal evolution seems to be: derived form (or verbal noun + auxiliary verb) > perfect > indetermined past (“passé indéfini”) > narrative tense. The derivative is adopted as a regular member of the conjugation in order to replace the old form of the perfect, which, having been additionally charged with the narrative function, has lost its expressiveness. (Kuryłowicz 1975: 106; see also ibid. 128).

Kuryłowicz’s claims have been confirmed by the cross-linguistic study of grammaticalization processes by Bybee et al. (1994) and have been applied to the Semitic languages by D. Cohen (1984) in his monumental study of the renewal of verbal categories in Semitic. Bybee et al. have established far-reaching commonalities in the ways verbal categories that are semantically paral-lel develop over time even in unrelated languages. They investigate in particular the evolution of past tense forms, the rise of futures and irrealis forms, and—most importantly for the present study—the renewal of present and imperfective categories. D. Cohen uses the long period of at-testation of most West Semitic languages to investigate the evolution of the verbal system and

2. See Heine et al. 1991: 243–47 (they refer in particular to Hodge [1970], who illustrated this with examples from Old Egyptian and Coptic); Hopper and Traugott 2003: 122–24; Givón 1971; Croft 2003: 253; Haspelmath 1998: 54–55. Prominent examples of cyclic processes in Semitic are the renewal of the verbal categories by means of periphrastic constructions (to be described in chap. 4), the restriction of the perfective iprVs to subordinate clauses in later Akkadian, a repetition of what happened to the original Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, which became a subjunctive in Akkadian (see §9.3.3, pp. 227–232); the introduction of the new pluractional category ipta(na)rrVs after the earlier pluractional iparrVs had become the regular imperfective (see §14.7.6, pp. 431–437); and the development of the original stative/resultative suffix conjugation into the West Semitic perfect, which is a repetition of what happened to the earlier Proto-Semitic perfective *yiqtVl.

51.2.  Method

to show in detail how the same functional tendencies repeatedly trigger the renewal of existing verbal categories. Since this is an important clue to the understanding of the evolution of the verb in prehistoric times as well, I will discuss it in greater detail in chap. 4 on the Akkadian imperfec-tive iparrVs.3

In sum, the interest in diachronic typology and grammaticalization has proved highly fruitful for the historical study of language, especially for the solution of diachronic problems, such as the way in which complex grammatical systems develop over time. This approach is crucial for the solution of the problems caused by the Akkadian verb and its relation to the verb in other Semitic languages.

1.2.3.  The structure of paradigmsAn important means for language speakers to handle complex morphological structures is

to organize them in paradigms. According to Bybee (1985: 49), a paradigm is “a group of in-flectionally related words with a common lexical stem”.4 Each form (or “member”) is specified for one or more of the relevant inflectional categories constituting the paradigm. In a nominal paradigm, these typically include case, gender, and number; in a verbal paradigm, they include person, gender, number, tense/aspect, mood, and diathesis (Booij 1998: 15).

A paradigm has a hierarchical structure, in which some forms are (more) basic and others (more) derived. Generally speaking, the more basic forms are those that perform the prototypi-cal functions of the paradigm. For a verbal paradigm, this means that verb forms are more basic when they are finite rather than non-finite, when they refer to an event rather than to a state, and when they are realis (indicative) rather than non-realis.5 Among the finite realis forms, the most basic forms are those that refer to the actual moment of speech—that is, those of the present or imperfective—and among the persons of this category, it is the third-person singular that is the most basic form of the verbal paradigm.6 In accordance with their prototypical status, the finite realis forms also tend to show the greatest number of morphosemantic distinctions—typically,

3. For a survey of grammaticalization processes in Semitic languages, see Rubin 2005. Deutscher 2000 is a pioneering study of the grammaticalization of complement markers in Akkadian. For an application of the results of Bybee et al.’s investigations on the verb in Biblical Hebrew, see T. D. Andersen 2000. Cook 2001 also offers a grammaticalization approach to the Hebrew verbal system.

4. Cf. also Hock (1991: 168), who defines a paradigm as “the set of inflected forms of a given word.” 5. See in general Bybee 1985: 49–65; for events versus states: Givón 1984: 51–56; for realis versus

non-realis: Manńczak 1958: 387–88; Greenberg 1966: 46; Hopper and Thompson 1984: 708, 726; Givón 1995: 56.

6. For the basicness of the present or imperfective, see Mánczak 1958: 388; Greenberg 1966: 48–49; Hock 1991: 218–220; H. Anderson 1990: 8–10; Croft 2003: 162. With regard to Semitic languages, Green-berg (1966: 48), Benmamoun (1999), Ratcliffe (1998a: 33 n. 6), and Heath (2002: 120–21) argue that the imperfective is the basis of word formation in Arabic. For the third-person singular as the most basic form of a verbal paradigm, see Kuryłowicz 1964: 137; Bybee and Brewer 1980: 210–14; Bybee 1985: 50; Hock 1991: 220–22; Aikhenvald and Dixon 1998: 61–62; van Loon 2005: 13 and 46. The main arguments are the following. First, semantically, the third person is the “zero person,” which refers to the one who is not pres-ent at the speech situation and which accordingly often has zero expression (Benveniste 1966; Kuryłowicz 1968: 74); second, where word counts are available, the third person usually turns out to have the highest frequency (Greenberg 1966: 44–45); third, in language acquisition by children, the third-person singular present is acquired first in many languages and used initially for all other forms of the paradigm (Bybee 1985: 50–51; Bybee Hooper 1980); fourth, in historical change, this form often serves as the basis for the innovation of the paradigm or for the remake of other forms (Bybee and Brewer 1980: 210–14 for Spanish and Provençal dialects). In nominal paradigms, it is usually the nominative or the absolutive that is basic (Hock 1991: 216–18).

6 Method  1.2.

those of tense/aspect, mood, diathesis, person, number, and gender; the less prototypical forms, in contrast, often show varying degrees of neutralization of these verbal distinctions.

The prototypical members also tend to be the most frequent, and according to Bybee (1985: 117–18), frequency is the ultimate criterion for determining basicness: each time a form is heard and produced, it becomes more entrenched in the speaker’s mind and acquires what she calls a greater “lexical strength.” A great lexical strength entails a high degree of “autonomy”—that is, the degree to which the word in question is represented as an independent item in the speaker’s mental lexicon. Autonomous forms are relatively resistant to change (see below) and are the ba-sis on which other, less frequent and therefore less autonomous, forms are built.

In a complex paradigm, the members are organized in subgroups on the basis of similarity in meaning. Similarity in meaning can be measured by means of Bybee’s concept of relevance—that is, the degree to which the contrast between the respective forms affects the semantic content (Bybee 1985: 33): a contrast is more relevant as it has more drastic consequences for the nature of the action. In a verbal paradigm, for instance, differences in person are less relevant than dif-ferences in aspect, because for the nature of the action it makes less difference who performs it than how it is performed; in the noun, differences in case are less relevant than differences in number and gender, since the former do not affect the lexical meaning. Traditionally, forms that are similar are arranged in conjugations (in the verb) and declensions (in the noun).

The definition of a paradigm quoted above stipulates that the members of a paradigm have inflectional status. As such, they are opposed to (etymologically or historically) related forms with derivational status.7 The difference is aptly summarized by Haspelmath (1996: 47): “the most basic property of inflectional forms is that they are described exclusively in grammatical paradigms, whereas derivational formations are described by listing them individually in a dic-tionary.” In more concrete terms, inflectional forms generally serve to express a relatively small, closed set of grammatical functions; they are predictable in meaning and function and often also in form, and they are fully productive, since they must be available for each lexeme, unless se-mantic factors interfere (Booij 1998: 14–15). Derivation typically serves to create new lexemes on the basis of others in order to express complex meanings that are in some way related to the basic word. It cannot be applied automatically and may therefore be more or less productive (Hock 1991: 173–75; Booij 1998: 16–17). The semantic relationship between source word and derivation is much more unpredictable than in the case of inflection: since a derivational form is essentially an independent lexeme, it undergoes lexicalization more easily than an inflectional member of a paradigm (Bybee 2001: 118).8

However, the boundary between inflection and derivation is not clear-cut (Bybee 1985: 81–84, 108–9; Dressler 1989). Instead, it is a continuum, with prototypically inflectional and pro-totypically derivational categories at both ends, and in between are the categories that are more

7. A selection of the huge literature about inflectional versus derivational categories should include Kuryłowicz 1964: 35–38; Bybee 1985: 81–110; Dressler 1989; Haspelmath 1996; Booij 1998; Stump 2001: 252–60.

8. An often-quoted difference between inflection and derivation is that derivation entails a change in the syntactic category (word class) of the word. This is indeed often the case, but it does not seem to be an essential property (Haspelmath 1996; Booij 1998: 12–14). Well-known derivational categories such as diminutives (nouns from nouns), derived adjectives (such as English adjectives with -ish: bluish from blue), and verbs from verbs (in particular, the derived verbal stems of Semitic; see §10.5, pp. 250–252) do not entail a category change. Nor is it an essential property of inflection that it does not entail a change in word-class; cf. infinitives and participles, which are nouns and often inflectional members of the verbal paradigm (Haspelmath 1996).

71.2.  Method

or less inflectional or derivational depending on the number of features they show of either kind (Kuryłowicz 1964: 37). The gradual nature of the contrast makes it possible for categories to shift from (more) derivational to (more) inflectional and vice versa: lexicalization and grammatical-ization, respectively (see §2.2.3, pp. 35–36).

A paradigm is a dynamic structure: the relations between its members are in a constant flux. Some of them may be expanding their range of use, usurping functions of others; other members may be in a process of gradual decline or replacement by another form. Therefore, the structure of a paradigm is also relevant from a historical point of view.9 The most important point is that the hierarchy among its members influences the type of change to which they are exposed. We can distinguish three kinds of historical changes affecting the members of a paradigm: sound change, analogical (morphophonemic and morphosyntactic) change, and grammaticalization. Basic forms will be affected by both sound change and grammaticalization, the former because it indiscriminately affects all words that meet the phonological conditions for the change, the latter because it is triggered by semantic and discourse factors that lead to renewal of categories regardless of their status in the paradigm. Basic forms will not normally be affected by analogical change, since they are the source rather than the target of analogical change; this is Kuryłowicz’s (1945–49: 23–25) second law (see Hock 1991: 212–22). Derived forms, on the other hand, are affected by all three kinds of change, but in particular by analogical change. Sound change af-fects them directly if they meet the phonological conditions for the change, or indirectly, when their basic form is affected, since they will tend to adjust to the new base form. In this way, the effects of the sound change will gradually penetrate into the more derived forms, whether or not they meet the phonological conditions (it is not always easy to determine whether a change in a derived form is caused by sound change or analogy). Even where no sound change is involved, analogical change will tend to make derived forms more regular and predictable.10 In general, de-rived forms are sensitive to any kind of change in their base form. This agrees with the principles formulated by Mańczak (1958, 1980), who establishes that among the forms of a paradigm some will be more conservative and others more prone to change, that the more conservative forms include the singular, the present, the indicative, the third person, inferior numerals (vs. superior numerals), and the cardinal numbers (vs. the ordinal numbers), and that these forms trigger ref-ormation of other forms more often than vice versa. These are the categories that, also according to other criteria, are the basic ones in their respective domains.

9. For a striking example of change under the influence of the paradigm, see Malkiel 1968, in particu-lar pp. 47–49.

10. See Hock 1991: 167–89, Givón 1995: 58–59, and in particular Bynon 1977: 34: “in contrast however with phonological change, which operates independently of grammatical and semantic structure, analogy is concerned precisely with the relationship between phonological structure and grammatical structure. It is in fact the very mechanism which, either by modifying existing linguistic forms or by creating new ones, brings back into alignment phonological forms and grammatical function after the relationship between these has been disrupted by sound change.” A good example from Akkadian is offered by the independent personal pronouns (GAG §41). Their paradigm shows a striking difference between the nominative, which is the basic form (both in function and in frequency), and the oblique cases: whereas the nominative remains more or less stable in form throughout the history of Akkadian, the oblique cases have a different form in almost every dialect and period. Another example is the imperfective: since the form referring to the actual moment of speech is the basic category of the verbal paradigm, a change in the present or imperfective of a given language will have important consequences for the entire paradigm. Accordingly, in Akkadian the introduction of a new imperfective with gemination of the second radical (iparrVs) led to a drastic restruc-turing in many other areas of the verbal paradigm, as I will argue in the rest of the present study.