An Unexpected Co-occurrence Restriction on Syriac Root Consonants

‎1 ∗ I am grateful to Georges Bohas and to the anonymous reviewers of Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies for their helpful comments. Of course, any errors and insufficiencies remain my own.

‎2  The transliteration of Syriac follows the Eastern tradition. The transliteration of the vowels resembles the system in Nöldeke (1904) and Costaz (1997): matres lectionis are not transliterated, rbāṣāʿarrīkā is always transcribed as e (never i or ə). Following the remarks and evidence put forward by Bohas (1999, 2017), Daniels (1997: 135) and Healey (2011: 641), vocal šǝwā is not marked. For sake of clarity, spirantization of the bgdkpt is not written. Note that h, ‘ and r are never geminated; the following compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (e.g. /ṭaʿʿīyā/ > ṭaʿīyā > ṭāʿīyā ‘erring’) is a late phenomenon that is not noted in the spelling (see Bohas 2017: 7). For this reason, it is not transcribed here.

‎3  Needless to say, these restrictions do not apply outside the root or between the root and affix. The literature on Semitic radical consonants incompatibilities is large, see Vernet (2011) for a comprehensive overview. Not too surprisingly, studies that specifically deal with Aramaic are rare. We can mention Aešcoly (1937-40) which unfortunately I could not consult and, with focus on roots with identical II and III radicals, Bohas (1990) and Hoberman (1993).

‎4  Note that each language also has its own restrictions (e.g. in Akkadian, dissimilation applies on two emphatic consonants (Geers' Law) as in *qaṭnu > qatnu ‘thin’ cf. Hebrew qāṭān ‘little’) and that some constraints are not of dissimilatory origin (e.g. in Akkadian g and z as III radicals are excluded, cf. Moscati 1964: 74).

‎5  On the Ethio-Semitic roots with identical I and II radicals, see Banksira (2000).

‎6  For that reason, studies that do not take the semi-vowels into account are common (e.g. McCarthy 1989, Pierrehumbert 1993). Nonetheless, McCarthy (1989: 18) already noted that w and y may be subject to some incompatibilities.

‎7  I follow the characterization of the coronal feature suggested by Clements (1993) that includes the palatal articulation. That is, Syriac coronal consonants are: dental t, d, ṭ, s, z, ṣ, l, n, r, post-alveolar š and palatal y. In fact, whatever the feature by which y is defined (coronal, palatal, dorsal), it is clear that it can combine with all the root consonants. Besides, it is not significant here to distinguish between obstruent coronals t, d, ṭ, s, z, ṣ, š and sonorant coronals l, n, r as is sometimes necessary when considering root incompatibilities. I also consider q as the emphatic counterpart of k, that is as a velar consonant (cf. Moscati 1964: 37). To consider q as an uvular will not affect our analysis: instead of 'velar' it would be just necessary to understand ‘velar and uvular’.

‎8  There are about thirty I-w roots (isolated nouns included); evidence that these roots are still I-w from a synchronic perspective (cf. forms as ʾawdaʿ ‘he made known’) is given in Aïm (2016: 87-90). Note that Syriac wbš is related to Arabic and Geez ybs and that Syriac wdʿ is related to Akkadian wdʾ and to Arabic and Geez ydʿ. I-y roots are very rare. In addition to the examples above, they are attested by some roots (yʾy 'beautiful', yʾb 'to desire', ybb 'to sound', yll 'to wail') and by about ten isolated nouns (e.g. ʾīdā < /yadā/ 'hand', yadnā 'hyena', yawmā 'day', yawnā 'dove', yammā 'sea'). There are also some loans and interjections. Besides, both initial and medial radical w shift to y in various contexts; on this well-known sound change, see Aïm (2016).

‎9  In causative conjugation, the root appears in two forms: ʾayneq ~ ʾawneq 'to suckle'.

‎10  Cf. Hebrew ʾlp and Arabic ʾlf.

‎11  As it is well known, II-y verbs merged diachronically with II-w verbs (the intervocalic syncope of y and w and the shift w>y have certainly favored mixing and then leveling of the conjugations, cf. Brockelmann 1910: 185). As a result, II-w verbs are numerous whereas II-y verbs are rare (sām, nsīm 'to place', the other verbs being frequently considered as denominatives, e.g. ḥayyel 'to strengthen' from ḥaylā 'force'). The same process occurred in the nouns as well; the opposition between II-y and II-w roots remains mostly in the CaCC pattern, e.g. ḥaylā 'force' vs. qawmā 'standing position'. Apart from that, no attempt is made in the present study to distinguish between hollow II-w roots and roots with strong wāw; on this particular issue, see Aïm (2017).

‎12  Most grammars discuss the III-w/y verbs as III-Alaph verbs since the final long vowel of these verbs (which results from the syncope of y or w) is written with an Alaph. Besides, note that the tendency to change III‑w verbs into III-y verbs appears also in Standard Babylonian (Huehnergard 2000: 598) and sedentary Arabic dialects (Kaye and Rosenhouse 1997: 297)

‎13  Loanwords are not considered. Generally, w is retained (e.g. ʾarwānā 'calf' < Avestan aurvant, badwāyā 'bedouin' < Arabic badawī, kalwā 'miter' < Latin calautica) even when preceded by a homorganic consonant as in gagwāyā 'a fornicator, harlot' < Akkadian gagū < Sumerian gagi 'cloister, hierodulic home'.

‎14  From underlying /ṭaʿʿīyā/; remember that ʿ is not geminated at the 'phonetic' level.

‎15  For sake of clarity, morphological boundaries are sometimes noted.

‎16  See below the section on the feminine CvCw nouns.

‎17  A great number of III-w nouns appears with various vocalizations, e.g. mḥōtā ~ maḥōtā or maḥḥōtā ~ māḥōtā 'brim', mṭūtā ~ maṭūtā or maṭṭūtā ~ māṭūtā 'portion'. In most of the cases, the first vowel can either vanish (mḥōtā) or remain albeit in open syllable (maḥōtā). In this last case, it could be a form with geminate consonant (maḥḥōtā). Note that vowel retention in open syllable is common after the vocalization of w into ū, e.g. /ḥadwtā/ > ḥadūtā 'joy'. Anyway, these questions do not affect the argument of this paper. Thus, for reason of place and clarity, only one variant of each noun will be cited unless variations are of interest.

‎18  Most of the data has been drawn from Brockelmann (1928), Payne Smith (1879-1901), Payne Smith (1903) and Costaz (1997). I have occasionally checked Eastern Syriac vocalization in Audo (1985).

‎19  Contra Birkeland (1947: 30) who argues for a CvCāw pattern. Of course, the Western Syriac form is CCūtō as in brūtō, dyūtō, etc.

‎20  Some variations occur in the CaCaw nouns declension, compare sg. emph. ṣlōtā, sg. cst. ṣlōt, sg. abs. ṣlō, pl. emph. ṣalwātā (as in Nöldeke 1904: 52) or ṣlawātā (as in Muraoka 1997: 25, 26 note 15) vs. sg. emph. mḥōtā, sg. cst. maḥwat, sg. abs. maḥwā, pl. emph. maḥwātā. These fluctuations could be due to a difference in stem (resulting from interactions between CaCaw nouns, CvCw nouns and abstract nouns with –ūt, as advocated by Duval 1881: 213) or - as a reviewer pointed out to me - a difference between the two allomorphs -t/-at of the feminine suffix (/ṣalaw-t/ > ṣlōt vs. /maḥaw-at/ >mḥōt, cf. Brockelmann 1908: 407).

‎21  According to Duval (1881: 212-213); other sources give ḥayūtā.

‎22  Cited in Duval (1881: 215).

‎23  Variant: ʿanwītā.

‎24  Variants: ʿarwītā and ʿarāwītā.

‎25  There appears to be no sg. abs./cst. form for these nouns.

‎26  Variants: ʿlāwā and ʿelāwāy.

‎27  The original consonant in ḥedwā ~ ḥedbā 'cichorium endivia (plant)' might be b as shown by the parallel form hendbā and its Greek etymology ἐντύβον (see Sokoloff 2010: 346). I would like to thank here the reviewer who let me know this fact and provide me the reference in Sokoloff (2010).

‎28  This hypothesis is also suggested by Neo-Syriac form, see Brockelmann (1928: s.v. ʾalwā).

‎29  In two special cases, it is impossible to determine with certainty the underlying semi-vowel. First, there is a ‑awātā plural suffix, e.g. nahrā > nahrawātā 'river'. Some nouns definitely III-y form their plural with this suffix with a further syncope of y, e.g. rāʿyā > rāʿawātā 'shepherd'. Some nouns, possibly III-y or III-w, also form their plural in this way, e.g. ḥ>ewyā > ḥwawātā 'serpent'. Now the plural suffix -ātā exists as well, e.g. malkā > malkātā 'queen'. So, we might think that the sequence aw does not belong to the suffix but to the noun: /ḥwaw‑ātā/. Consequently, there would be an alternation between w and y. Whether in case of the root of an isolated name or in case of a root already attested under the two forms III-w and III-y, it is not possible to confirm this hypothesis nor to define the underlying semi-vowel with certainty. For instance, is ḥewyā from a III‑y root (as its singular as well as its Arabic cognate ḥayy-(at) suggest) or from a III-w root (as its feminine and plural counterparts ḥwāwītā and ḥwawātā imply)? The same reasoning applies to nouns whose final semi-vowel merges with the preceding vowel in the singular (e.g. sḥātā 'washing' from /saḥaw-tā/ or /saḥay-tā/, cf. saḥwā 'swimming' vs. sḥāyā 'purification') and whose plural is formed with -awātā (e.g. sḥawātā). Note that the Eastern Syriac form of the suffix is -awātā according to Audo (1985: passim) and Muraoka (1997: 25) but ‑āwātā with expected aw>āw according to Nöldeke (1904:35) and Costaz (1997: 30); it is transcribed as ‑auwātā (that is ‑awwātā) in Brockelmann (1912). The Western Syriac form is -awōtō. On some y-w interchanges in the broader perspective of comparative afroasiatic linguistics, see Putten (2018).

‎30  The inflected forms of the two examples are not all attested (of course, the unattested forms have been reconstituted by analogy with the declension of other nouns). The most relevant forms, viz. sg. abs. ḥaywā vs. ḥayū and sg. cst. ḥaywat vs. ḥayūt are nevertheless attested.

‎31  Also ḥayōtā, cf. supra under the CaCaw nouns section.

‎32  Cf. its masculine form ḥadwā 'joy'.

‎33  Comparative analysis helps define the roots that have been historically III-w. But since the majority of III-w roots have become synchronically III-y in Syriac, the comparative evidence has a limited impact in a synchronic study like the present one.

‎34  Cf. its masculine counterpart hetwā.

‎35  Or perhaps ḥaddūtā, cf. note 16.

‎36  According to Payne Smith (1879-1901: q.v.), it is a loan from Arabic, as suggested by the irregular sound correspondence Syriac š – Arabic š. This etymology is not retained by Brockelmann (1928: q.v.).

‎37  The case of šārūtā which has a concrete meaning but a sg. abs. šārū whose shape is that of an abstract noun with -ūt is is to be paralleled with the already noted irregularities of ṣlōtā 'prayer' whose sg. abs. is ṣlō in place of expected ṣalwat.

‎38  Or eventually as disyllabic CvCvw with second vowel syncope after addition of the suffix, e.g. *^?/salaw-ay/ > salway 'quail'.

‎39  On this particular suffix, see Butts (2010).

‎40  ḥānūtā means 'arched chamber, room, cell, shop, booth' hence the related but distinct words and meanings ḥānwāyā 'tavern-keeper, huckster' and ḥānwāyūtā 'hermit's life' (hermits have often lived in cells).

‎41  The three indecisive cases ʾelāwā ~ ʾalwā ~ ʾelbā 'colostrum', ruʿūtā 'opinion' and tarʿūtā 'reconciliation' have been included. Note that ruʿūtā and tarʿūtā are from two distinct roots (cf. Brockelmann 1928: s.v. reʿyānā II, rʿē III).

‎42  This is not an isolated case. For instance, qṭūtā 'cucumber' has also a III-y plural form, viz. qṭayyā (cf. also the related maqtyā 'field of cucumbers') alongside a plural with suffix –awātā, viz. qṭawātā.

‎43  The masculine plural ḥwawātā is of no help since it could be a III-w form as ^?/ḥwaw-ātā/ or a III-y- form with further syncope of y as in ^?/ḥawy-awātā/ since -awātā is used inter alia for III-y nouns (see note 27 on this complicated issue).

‎44  This is why the other Cww roots (attested only by isolated nouns) are not considered here. Here they are: gww, gāwwā 'inside (of the body)', hww, hāwwtā 'abyss', kww, kāwwtā 'window'.

‎45  See the comparative evidence in Leslau (1987: s.v. saqaya).

‎46  As a reviewer pointed out to me, it is possible that II-p/m/k/g–III-w roots are unattested due to chance, considering the low number of attested roots.

‎47  Comparative study that encompass the other more or less contemporaneous Aramaic dialects (such as Jewish-Palestinian, Jewish-Babylonian, Mandaic, etc.) would not be possible within the limits of this paper. The first step in such a study would be to check whether II-labial III-w and II-velar III-w roots are attested in these dialects. If this were the case, it would not call into question our analysis of Syriac: the existence of linguistics differences (such as phonological ones) is precisely what justifies the identification of distinct dialects and languages and we should be aware of this when evidence from one dialect is used to evaluate an analysis based on data from a different dialect.

‎48  Data has been drawn mostly from Black, George and Postgate (2000), Brockelmann (1928), Kazimirki (1944) and Leslau (1987); alas, I was not able to consult Sokoloff (2010).

‎49  The abstract noun zākūtā, sg. abs. zākū 'innocence' is obviously a loan from Hebrew; the genuine Aramaic root is that of the table, viz. dky.

‎50  Cf. Targumic Aramaic sky 'to look out, hope', sakwā’ā 'watchman', sākūtā 'outlook-point'. Arabic škw ~ šky ~ škk 'to complain, complain while waiting for help' is perhaps related.

‎51  There is also another interesting (and to date unrecognized) related dissimilatory constraint involving final w in the CvCw nouns. The vowel preceding w is never the homorganic u or, stated differently, the CuCw pattern is barred from the entire lexicon (the sole exception is ruʿūtā 'opinion', an indecisive case, see section 2.3.). The exact definition of this other restriction is beyond the scope of this article; I hope to treat it thoroughly in a future study.