Andrason 2010 Akkadian Iprus From the Unidirectional Perspective

8/6/2019 Andrason 2010 Akkadian Iprus From the Unidirectional Perspective

1/21

Journal of Semitic Studies LV/2 Autumn 2010 doi: 10.1093/jss/fgq001

The author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester.

All rights reserved.

325

THE AKKADIAN IPRUSFROMTHE UNIDIRECTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

ALEXANDERANDRASON

UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH

Abstract

This paper is aimed at describing the Akkadian construction iprusfromthe perspective of the unidirectional theory of grammaticalization.First, general notions of grammaticalization, unidirectionality and

source determination are given. Next, in the first part of the article, theauthor presents the development of the resultative construction as pos-ited by Dahl (1985, 2000) and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994).These famous definitions will be modified in view of observationsof Maslov (1988) and Andrason (2009a and 2009b). In the secondpart, the author proceeds to the analysis of the iprusgram. Firstly,the core and peripheral uses of the iprus are presented. Secondly,employing the unidirectional model of the development of resultativeconstructions established in the first part, the author explains allmeanings and functions of the iprusas realizations of different stagesof the regular resultative evolution. In consequence, from the unidi-rectional perspective, the synchronic set of chaotic and unrelatedvalues displayed by the iprus turns into a homogeneous and regularpicture a single resultative diachrony, i.e., one original resultativeinputthat follows a determined diachronic path. Finally, the authorshows how this proposal fits into the proto-Semitic model and howother Semitic languages may support the unidirectional resultativeinterpretation of the iprus.

There exists a wide range of theories explaining the verbal system ofAkkadian. Some of them emphasize its aspectual nature, while othersstress the temporal or the perfectal component. What unifies all thesetheories is the fact that they describe elements of the Akkadian verbal

organization from the synchronic perspective, having based themodel a priorion the alleged dichotomy between two constructions:the iprusand the iparras and, depending on the scholars view, thisopposition consists of aspect, tense or relative tenses. In consequence,due to the radical synchronic perspective, both the iprusand the ipar-ras are usually described as static items that form a static contrast.

atEbscoonNovember9,2010

jss.oxfordjournals.org

Downloade

dfrom


2/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

326

However the author of this paper, who admits the supremacy of thediachronic method, intends to present the iprusas a dynamic gram,and consequently to explain its nature and values from the unidirec-tional perspective of grammaticalization and universal paths (cf. Dahl1985 and 2000, and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994). Following

the laws of grammaticalization, any verbal formation must be under-stood as a developing gram that moves from the periphery of thesystem into the core area, acquiring and losing determined meanings.This means that different uses (both typical/core and atypical/periph-eral) of a construction are the results of its gradual, unidirectional andordered development. Thus, if the theory is correct, the dynamic viewof the iprusshould enable us to group the synchronically chaotic andunrelated values displayed by the Akkadian gram into a homogenousand regular set one original inputthat follows a single diachronicpath. Moreover, it should be possible to explain the complex opposi-

tion between the iprusand the iparrasin terms of two distinct func-tional trajectories without, at the same time, reducing it to a bipolarcontrast.1

1 The author is aware of the unusual application here of the diachronic andsynchronic method. Normally these terms refer to earlier and later forms (diachronic)or contemporary forms (synchronie). However, the author uses the universal dia-chrony (paths) of a given construction in order to explain contemporary data. Putdifferently, the diachronic approach provides a schematic explanation for forms thatare all viewed as contemporaneous. In this way, the diachronic model enables us torelate all superficially incompatible values of a construction (in this case ofthe iprus) and define it as a homogeneous form, i.e., as a synchronic expression ofa prototypical diachrony (the resultative path). This means that every grammaticalformation at a given moment is a synchronic manifestation of a diachronic develop-ment that is consistent with predetermined universal paths. Certainly, such a viewdoes not explain conditions that determine different uses of the construction inquestion. However, it does explain whythe construction displays various and almostopposite meanings (for instance the past and the future in the case of the iprus), andfurthermore it reduces all synchronic values to a single input and its subsequentregular diachrony. This method of explanation coincides with methodology used inIndo-European studies. For instance, in Germanic languages the same verbal mor-phology serves to provide both the simple past (strong preterite) and present mean-ing (preterite-present verbs or modal verbs). In order to explain this paradox, one

must resort to the concept of the resultative (perfect) that was the PIE source ofboth groups of verbs (cf. Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988). In a similar vein the valueof the verb oda is explained in Classical Greek this verb had a clear presentmeaning while the same morphological pattern in the immense majority of verbsshowed prototypical perfect uses. Yet again, both types originated in the PIE resulta-tive and followed either of the two drifts that resultative constructions universallyfollow (on resultative paths and drifts see part 1).



Downloade

dfrom


3/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

327

In the next part of the article, general notions of grammaticalization,unidirectionality and source determination will be given. Then, wewill focus on the development of the resultative construction as pos-ited by Dahl (1985, 2000) and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1989).These famous definitions will, however, be modified in view of obser-

vations provided by Maslov (1988) and Andrason (2009a and 2009b).After that, the author will proceed to the analysis of the iprus. Firstly,the core and peripheral uses of the Akkadian formation will be pre-sented. Secondly, applying the unidirectional model of grammati-calization, we will explain all meanings and functions of the gram asmanifestations of different stages of a regular functional evolution,i.e. as a single diachrony. Finally, it will be demonstrated how thisproposal fits into the proto-Semitic model and how other Semiticlanguages may support the unidirectional interpretation of the iprus.

0. Introduction Grammaticalization

Grammaticalization is a change that attributes a grammatical characterto a formerly independent word or a semantically transparent periph-rasis (cf. Meillet 1948: 132), or put differently, grammaticalisationconsists in the increase of the range of the morpheme advancing froma lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more gram-matical status (Kuryowicz 1965: 52). This means that grammati-calization is a movement whereby one unit acquires a grammaticalfunction and loses its phonetic substance, semantic independence,

transparency and complexity, syntactic freedom, and pragmatic sig-nificance (cf. Heine and Reh 1984: 15). In consequence, a semanticitem or a periphrasis becomes an element of the grammatical (mor-phological, analytic or synthetic) system of the language travellingfrom the peripheral area to the more central sphere (cf. Bybee, Perkinsand Pagliuca 1994 and Dahl 2000). According to Dahl (2000), thereare two types of grams, i.e. peripheral gramsand core grams. This dis-tinction reflects differences in grammaticalization. Non-grammatical-ized peripheral grams are usually lexical and analytical. Core grams, onthe other hand, are fully grammaticalized and may be inflectional (cf.

Dahl 2000: 1517). Moreover, a distinction may be made betweencoming grams, i.e. those which are invading the core area of the sys-tem, and leaving grams, i.e. those which have already achieved theirfunctional apogee and are consequently moving out of the centre zoneback to the periphery. The leaving grams, even though peripheral, areusually synthetic. It must be also emphasized that grammaticalization



Downloade

dfrom


4/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

328

is a complex process in which various phenomena participate andconverge, e.g. generalization, decategorialization, specialization,increased frequency, morphologization and phonological reduction(cf. Hopper and Traugott 2003: 99174).

Grammaticalization theory claims that the functional paths are univer-

sal, unidirectional and input-output determining (cf. Bybee 1994: 915). As far as the the verbal system is concerned, Dahl (1985, 2000) andBybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994) establish three possible evolutionaryprocesses: from locative constructions into imperfective (and present),from modal expressions into modality and future, and finally fromresultative-completive periphrasis into perfective past and simple past. Inthis article, we will deal especially with the third trajectory, which may beapplied to the Akkadian preterite iprus. In the next paragraph, we willpresent the resultative path as posited by Dahl (1985, 2000) and Bybee,Perkins and Pagliuca (1994). However, these definitions will be slightly

modified in light of the evidence concerning the development of theresultative constructions provided by Maslov (1988) and Andrason(2009a and 2009b). The precise description of the resultative path willenable us to reconstruct the history of the Akkadian iprusand explain itsuses in Old Babylonian from the unidirectional perspective.

1. Resultative and its development

Dahl (2000: 1517) determines the resultative path as a diachronicprocess which begins with lexical periphrases that include items withthe meaning of already or finish. The lexical inputsthat correspondto the meaning of already generate the resultative proper, whilethose that have their source in the finish lexemes lead to the creationof the perfect. The resultative consequently develops into the perfect,and then after a possible convergence with the finish perfect, it turnsinto a perfective or past. This development may be illustrated by thefollowing picture (cf. Figure 1):

OUTPUTPATHINPUT

finish perfectiveperfect

already pastresultative

Figure 1. Resultative path according to Dahl (1985, 2000)



Downloade

dfrom


5/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

329

According to Dahl (1985) and Bybee and Dahl (1989) the perfectiveequals in fact the perfective past since the typical system that includesthe timeframe perfective aspect is tripartite and the perfective isrestricted to the past. In consequence, the transformation of the per-fect into the perfective involves the further change into the perfective

past. Finally, the aspectual distinction may be lost and the gramacquires pure temporal past significance.

A highly similar trajectory (called here anterior path) has beenposited by Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994). According to theirmodel, the evolution originates in three possible types of expres-sions: first, in periphrases with the verbs have and be, together

with participles (as commonly used in Romance and Germanic lan-guages). These constructions give the resultative proper, and conse-quently the anterior. They may also lead to evidential uses and func-tions. Secondly, the anterior path may have its source in verbs that

convey the idea of coming. This type will directly generate theanterior. Thirdly, the anterior may be a descendent of completivelocutions that, on its own, can derive from finish constructionsand directional expressions. The completive, as we have said, turnsregularly into the anterior. However, some completives may become

what Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca call derivational perfective (asfor example in Slavic). All resultatives, completives and direct ante-riors (i.e. those that arise from come constructions) evolve intoperfects (anterior proper), and consequently turn into the perfective,finally becoming the simple past. Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca fol-low Dahls opinion on the perfective aspect and its temporal impli-

cation. Thus, the perfective will usually equal the perfective past.They observe that the perfective past is more specific and it inter-acts with the imperfectivity by contrasting with it, while the simplepast is more general and may be used to describe not only perfectiveevents but also situations viewed as imperfective (Bybee, Perkinsand Pagliuca 1994: 84). In consequence, in languages where thereis an imperfective past, the new anterior will develop, by contrast,into the perfective past, while in languages where the imperfect doesnot exist, the anterior will directly generate the simple past. Bybee,Perkins and Pagliuca (1994: 85) also note that derivational comple-

tives, differently from other formations which correspond to pre-anterior stages situated on the anterior path, do not evolve into theperfective past, but rather yield the derivational perfective. Thederivational perfective is not restricted to past events and situations;quite the contrary, it may occur in any temporal sphere of a finiteverb, cf. the present perfective that indicates future (Polish) or



Downloade

dfrom


6/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

330

in subordinate clauses expresses the idea of purpose (Serbo-Croat).It can also appear in the imperative or in non-finite verbal forms(cf. Classical Greek or again Slavic languages). In fact, such a deri-vational perfective aspect is not restricted to verbs, but it may bepresent in nouns, cf. verbal nouns in Polish which can be aspectu-

ally marked expressing imperfective or perfective actions. The entireanterior trajectory, and its sub-paths may be summarized in the fol-lowing figure (cf. Figure 2):

INDIRECT EVIDENCEINFERENCE FROM RESULTS

be/have RESULTATIVE PERFECTIVE/SIMPLE PASTANTERIORcome

finish

directionals DERIVATIONAL PERFECTIVE

COMPLETIVE

Figure 2. The anterior path according to Bybee,Perkins and Pagliuca (1994: 105)

Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994) maintain that the completive andthe resultative, i.e. the constructions which reflect pre-anterior stagesof the development, are highly similar. Both present an event as com-posed of two temporal and consecutive planes: the previous cause andthe posterior result. However, while the resultative emphasizes theresulting present state of a prior action, the completive stresses the

previous action. As shown in the figure (cf. Figure 2), the resultativecan also acquire an evidential character. This change is itself a gradualdevelopment that passes through the following stages: a) informationvia direct evidence, b) via indirect inferred evidence; and c) viareported (second-hand) evidence; cf. Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca(1994: 95).

As we have said, the resultative is a semantically complex and bipo-lar formation. According to Maslov (1988: 64) [t]he term [resulta-tive]2 include[s] two temporal planes: that of precedence, and thatof sequence. The situations corresponding to these planes are in one

way or another related, as cause and effect. In consequence, the inter-nal structure of a resultative construction can be represented in thefollowing way (cf. Figure 3):

2 Maslov uses the term perfect.



Downloade

dfrom


7/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

331

Figure 3. The structure of a resultative construction

Maslov (1988: 64) adds that [u]sually, one of the two situationsseems to be semantically more important, while the other serves,as it were, as a background, often barely suggested. This inherentsemantic instability leads to a focus either on the precedence or onthe consequence. Gradually, one of the two planes becomes domi-nant and the other disappears. Here the terms priorand posterior

are used to describe the internal correlation between two planes ofthe resultative. In relation to the time of the context (the main timeof sentence, text, dialogue, discourse etc.) the labels anterior andsimultaneous will be used. This means that the emphasis on theprior plane (cause) of the resultative construction will surface asanterior drift to the main time of the context, while the emphasison the posteriorplane (result) will surface as simultaneous drift tothe main time. Though the resultative is originally shaped andgrammaticalized in the present tense context (in the spoken lan-guage, and in discursive genres that are closely related to it), it isnot a tense expression. In fact, the resultative does not carry any

exact time reference by itself. The tense is frequently provided bythe auxiliary verb or by the context if there is no verb in the initialperiphrasis. The development following the anterior drift (resultative perfect past) corresponds to Dahls resultative path (1985,2000) and to the anterior path as posited by Bybee, Perkins andPagliuca (1994). On the other hand, scholars have paid less atten-tion to the simultaneous path (resultative stative present).However, this development is extremely common and may beobserved for example in Latin (cf. the verbs like meminiand odi),Greek (cf. the verb oda)and in Germanic languages (cf. the pret-

erite-present verbs like kunnain Old Icelandic and Gothic). More-over, as demonstrated by the history of the Romance and Germanicfamilies, the two drifts may be active in a single language (cf. Andra-son 2009a and 2009b). In consequence, the complete model of thedevelopment of a resultative construction based on Dahl (1985,



Downloade

dfrom


8/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

332

2000), Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994) and Andrason (2009aand 2009b) may be summarized in the following way (cf. Figure 4):3

EVIDENTIAL

ANTERIOR PERFECT PERFECTIVE PAST

RESULTATIVE

STATIVE PRESENT

Figure 4. The resultative path

The trajectory described above applies to the present temporal refer-ence. Since grammatical items usually start their grammaticalizationin the present time frame, the development in this temporal contextis more advanced and better marked (cf. the difference between

the pass compos originally the present perfect vs. the plus-que-parfait the past resultative in French). Furthermore, the anteriordrift is regulary stronger than the simultaneous drift, whichis frequently limited to stative verbs (this may have its roots in thefientive nature of verbs which describe an action rather than a state).However, the resultative may also occur in the past or future timecontext. The evolution, though governed by the same principles,i.e. by the anterior and simultaneous drifts, is not identical with theresultative path in the present time frame. The outcomes ofthe simultaneous drift in the past are first the past stative and later

the simple past. Similarly with the future temporal reference, thesame drift produces the future stative and subsequently the simplefuture (cf. the memineram and meminero in Latin). The anterior driftin the past gives the past perfect (the pluperfect) and then, usually,the remote past tense. In the future temporal environment, it leadsto the creation of the future perfect (future resultative) that mayfinally generate the simple future (cf. Polish byem (z)robi y bdrobi), cf. Figure 5:

3 The objections that have been targeted at the grammaticalization and paththeory have led to its use for heuristic purposes rather than as the prediction oflinguistic developments. However, the author claims that even if the future shapeof a language is not entirely predictable, the grammaticalization laws are determin-istic in nature. In this respect, languages are examples of chaotic systems theyare governed by deterministic laws but their shape remains to a certain degreeunpredictable.



Downloade

dfrom


9/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

333

PAST STATIVE PAST

PAST CONTEXT

PAST PERFECT REMOTE

RESULTATIVE

FUTURE STATIVE FUTURE

FUTURE CONTEXT

FUTURE PERFECT FUTURE

Figure 5. The anterior and simultaneous drifts in the past andfuture time context

It is important to stress that the growing resultative gram whenacquiring new semantic values does not have to lose its previous uses.It may preserve them as typical and primary functions (cf.pass com-

posin French which still conveys resultative meaning even though it

may be used as a perfective or narrative past) or as secondary andperipheral uses (cf. the preterite-present verbs in Germanic languages this original stative present function of the resultative is preservedonly with approximately ten verbs while the perfect of all other strongpredicates acquired the past meaning).

Having explained the universal evolution of resultative constuc-tions, in the following section, we shall analyse the typical and atyp-ical uses ofiprus, This inventory of functions will subsequently enableus to define the Akkadian formation from the grammaticalizationperspective as a homogeneous phenomenon, a diachronic path.

2. Akkadian iprus

The core of the Akkadian verbal system is formed by the oppositionbetween two verbal forms, i.e. the iprusand the iparras(called dura-tive or present, cf. Knudsen 1986, Kienast 2001, Malbran-Labat andVita 2005) this opposition is usually defined in terms of aspectu-ality (perfective aspect vs. imperfective aspect, cf. Malbran-Labat andVita 2005: 978, 102) or relative tenses (anteriority vs. non-anteri-ority, cf. Streck 1999). According to Landsberger (1926) and Hueh-

nergard (2005: 19) the iprusindicates a punctual event seen as occur-ring or having occurred at a single point in time. It frequentlycorresponds to the simple past or, in temporal clauses, to the pluper-fect. In Akkadian grammar the iprus formation is usually labelledpreterite and consequently defined as the tense of narration of pastevents (cf. the following example in Huehnergard 2005: 119):



Downloade

dfrom


10/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

334

(1) Erib-Sn u Nur-Samas tapptam ipusu-ma ana bit Samas irubu-maemsunu ipusu-ma kaspam babtam amtam u wardam saarranim u libbialim mitaris izuzu

Erib-Sin and Nur-Shamash entered into a partnership; they enteredthe Shamash temple and carried out their intention: they divided

equally the silver, outstanding goods, (and) female and male slaves of(both) business trip(s) and within the city (CT2 28 = Schorr, VAB5no. 172).

According to Malbran-Labat and Vita (2005: 102) the iprusse oponeal inacabado [i.e. the iparras] sobre el plano del aspecto [y] expresauna accin considerada como acabada. However, they affirm thatboth the iprusand the iparrasmay have not only aspectual but alsotemporal values (cf. Malbran and Vita 2005: 97). Loesov (2006: 111)rejects Landsbergers view, and claims that the primary function ofthe iprus is the expression of a general past and not of punctual or

momentary events (cf. the example 2). Even though Loesov criticizesthe theory of the aspectual opposition between the iprusand the ipar-ras, he admits that the aspectual interpretation of the iprus is pre-dominantly perfective4 (cf. the following example in Loesov2006:111).

(2) eqlam mari PN assur-maMU 15.KAMakul

I cut off of the field belonging to the sons of PN and lived from it forfifteen years (AbB 4, 69:7 ff.).

Streck (2003: 425) is another modern scholar who does not agreewith the traditional definition of the iprusconstruction as a punctualpast. His hypothesis of relative tenses seems to work better than thetraditional aspectual view; for instance, this model can more accu-rately explain the use of the iparraswith the conjunction lamawhenthe time of the main clause is the past. There also exists a deictic tenseapproach that relates the iprusand the iparrasin independent clauseswith clearly temporal interpretation, respectively as past (cf. the inter-pretation of the iprusin Lipinski 2001) and non-past. This hypoth-esis seems to be weak when it comes to explaining situations which

4 The aspectual theory may be also supported by the fact that the iprusof stativeverbs has the inchoative meaning. This corresponds to the situation in Slavic lan-guages where the perfective aspect of stative verbs has not the terminative or telicvalue (as in the case of regular verbs), but rather indicates the ingressive meaning,cf. the imperfective bac si be scared vs. the perfective przestraszyc si becomescared, get scared or miec have vs. dostac get.



Downloade

dfrom


11/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

335

occur simultaneously with the speech time and especially various usesin temporal clauses.

Kienast (2001: 2967) does not reduce the iprusto a single seman-tic domain, but enumerates its functions. The primary values of theiprusare perfect (the expression of an anterior and completed event),

pluperfect (the same but in the past context), and narrative past tense.Kienast also identifies two other uses which we will present in detailwhen describing the atypical (or peripheral) functions of the forma-tion, i.e. the performative value (Koinzidenzfall, cf. Kienast 2001:297) and the future perfect meaning (futurumexactum, cf. ibid.).

Whichever model is chosen, the iprusseems to refer to past eventsor situations, viewed, depending on the scholars position, as perfec-tive, punctual, anterior, or simple. However, there are uses of theipruswhich do not directly indicate the past. In consequence, onemay detect examples where the gram cannot be labelled as a straight-

forward narrative past, preterite, perfective past or anterior to present.We shall now introduce these atypical uses.According to Loesov, one of the peripheral functions of the iprus,

would be the expression of performative meaning (cf. Loesov 2006:11517) which frequently corresponds to the present tense in Indo-European languages. The performative iprusis commonly used withthe verb saparum to send, write in the conventional greeting formulaof OB letters (cf. Example 3), or in other less formulaic phrases,cf. atam I swear, -na-i-i-id-ka I call your attention, I order you(cf. Loesov 2006: 117).

(3) anasulmika aspur-am

I wish you well-being (Sallaberger 1999: 8792).

In Loesovs view, the performative use of the ipruswas still productivein Old Babylonian since even non-utterance verbs, i.e. verbs that arenot explicitly performative (e.g. sakanum put, place in as-ku-un-kaI demand [this] of you in Goetze 1958, No. 47:279), could beperformativized (cf. Loesov 2006: 117). On the contrary, Denz(1982), Mller (1986), Streck (1995) and Metzler (2002) relate theperformative nature of the iprusto its basic perfective aspect or ante-

rior value Consequently, the performative meaning would be consist-ent with the prototypical domain of the construction (perfect, perfec-tive and past functions).

There are other uses of the iprusthat do not have any deictic pastreference in such cases, the formation does not equal a preteriteor a past. In the majority of temporal clauses the idea of explicit



Downloade

dfrom


12/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

336

anteriority in reference to the future (or general present) is conveyedby the perfect iptaras. However, in subordinated phrases introduced bythe conjunction adila, when the time of the main clause is presentor future (in fact, this is the only possibility in the case of this conjunc-tion), the iprus (and not the perfect iptaras) expresses the anteriority

(cf. Huehnergard 2005: 285):

(4) adi abi la illikam ul tr

I will not return before my father has come

Additionally, the iprus may be found in temporal clauses with theparticle lama. If the main clause describes a future event, the iprusisused to indicate immediate and certain future actions (cf. Huehner-gard 2005: 286):

(5) lama ipsurusu alkim

Come before they sell / have sold it

Another atypical meaning of the formation may be found in the caseof two verbs, i.e. edm and ism, which Testen (2000) labels prefixedstatives. These predicates also show some morphological irregulari-ties. Firstly, in the form iprusthey do not display the expected pre-radical vowel (iand a), but the vowel is invariably i for all persons.Secondly, the verbs in question do not offer, as regular verbs do, threestem configurations (iprus, iparrasand iptaras), but employ only oneform, i.e. the iprus. The meaning of the iprusof these two verbs is

also peculiar. Huehnergard affirms that, even though preterites, theydo not have any specific temporal value, and translates them aspresents, respectively know(s) and have/has (cf. Huehnergard2005: 282). This situation recalls the Indo-European verb *oid- /id- see its perfect (resultative) in all daughter languages, eventhough formally perfect or past, has a present meaning (cf. ClassicalGreekoda). Another parallel may be provided by Germanic lan-guages and the preterite-present verbs like kunnaor urfawhich maybe understood as stative. The preterite (formerly perfect) of theseverbs is used in all Germanic languages (even already in Gothic)

uniquely with the present meaning (Birkmann 1987 and Andrason2009b).

In consequence, the iprusconstruction can function as a past,both perfective and simple with no perfective or punctual marking(this second possibility does not mean that the aspect is imperfec-tive!). It may be employed as a past tense of narration, i.e. as a pret-



Downloade

dfrom


13/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

337

erite. And in main clauses, it usually indicates the temporal contextthat is anterior to the present. These three uses seem dependent onthe perspective adopted by a given scholar but as we will see, theymay be understood as three different contextual realizations of oneand the same meaning. Furthermore, in subordinated temporal, and

sometimes in principal clauses when the main time reference is thepast, the formation equals the past anterior (i.e. anterior to the pastor past perfect) the pluperfect. In clauses with adila and lamait appears with the present-future time reference, and indicatesrespectively anteriority to the future, and immediate future events.Finally, the iprusform of two verbs edm and ism has stative mean-ing with no explicit temporal information; in the present or generaltime context, it corresponds to the Indo-European present tense.

Additionally, the iprusmay appear in modal expressions as theprecative and vetitive (cf. Huehnergard 2005: 1447, Malbran-

Labat and Vita 2005: 102). The uses in the injunctive constructionsmay additionally support the aspectual theory of the iprussince inthis function the gram refers to the future time sphere.5 It is possibleto summarize the typical and atypical values of the iprusin the fol-lowing table (cf. Table 1):

Value Uses

Preterite (simple past and past narrative) Main clauses

Past perfective (punctual) Main clauses

Anterior to present Main clausesPerformative Mainly, but not only with performative

verbs

Pluperfect, i.e. past perfect Temporal clauses and main clauses

Anterior to the future Temporal clauses with adi la

Immediate future Temporal clauses with lama

Present (past) stative (atemporal) Prefixed stative edm and ism

Precative and vetitive With prefixes (li-,lu-, i- and ayy-/e-)

Table 1. The uses of the iprus

5 The uses of the iprusin injunctions may in fact reflect the Proto-Semitic situa-tion. According to Huehnergard (1988:22) [b]oth the zero-form yaqtuland []the imperfect, Central Semitic yaqtulu, were probably unmarked for mood: bothcould occur in both statements and injunctions. What distinguished the two forms,accordingly, was not mood but primarily a matter of aspect, and secondarily of tense:yaqtul is a perfective or punctual form, temporally a specific past; yaqtulu is animperfective or durative form, temporally a future.



Downloade

dfrom


14/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

338

If one tries to relate the above mentioned uses and to find one syn-chronic formula covering them all, one faces a hard if not impossibletask of explaining such a complex amalgam of values. How is thefuture perfect connected to the present stative or to the narrative past?In what sense is it possible to relate the stative meaning ofedm and

ism to examples of many fientive verbs that in the iprusshow aspec-tually perfective value? And in what way is the discursive nature ofperformative expressions cognate to the narrative? Is the iprus forman amalgam of random meanings and uses? The formation certainlyappears chaotic if one limits the description to the synchronic per-spective. However, if we analyse the iprus from the unidirectionalperfective, as a developing gram, the construction stops being seman-tically heterogeneous and instead of displaying a set of random andunrelated meanings becomes the expression of a single growing gram-matical unit (cf. the Figure 6, see p. 339); in the case of the ipruswe

are dealing with a resultative gram that progresses in three temporalcontexts following the resultative path which itself consists of twodrifts (anterior and simultaneous).6

This understanding of the Akkadian formation coincides with theregular evolution of the resultative as posited in part 1 above. Themain functions match the anterior drift in the present time context.The construction may be used as anterior, perfective past or simplepast of narration. This means that, the gram has acquired all possiblevalues on the scale of the anterior drift. However, even if it providesuses that reflect all stages of the anterior drift, its main function cor-responds to the perfective past and narrative past. Furthermore, one

must also take into consideration other resultative constructions which, being aggressive younger grams, reduce the old semanticdomain of the iprus,i.e., the stative and perfectal values (cf. the dough-nut gram phenomenon). The usual expression of the perfect is theiptaras, and the regular stative is conveyed by the permansiveparsaku.

6 It is important to note that one gram may follow several drifts (or sub-paths)at the same time. For example, a resultative construction can simultaneously followthree drifts established for the resultative path, i.e., anterior drift, simultaneous drift,and evidential drift. There are numerous examples of such a multi-faced development,

e.g. the PIE perfect that in the majority of verbs became a past (e.g. in Greek, Latinand Gothic). However, some stative verbs had followed the simultaneous drift andthus became presents (cf. Latin memini, Greekoda, and preterite-present verbsin Germanic languages). As observed by Graves (2000) and Lindstedt (2000), inMacedonian and in some other Slavic languages the same morphology has followedboth the anterior and evidential drifts (evidential drift is the third possible drift thatconstitutes the resultative path, cf. Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994: 95).



Downloade

dfrom


15/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

339

Consequently, this situation (i.e., the coexistence of three resultativediachronies) leads to the phenomenon oflayering. The anterior driftin non-present time spheres is more conservative and shows clearperfectal uses as pluperfect and future perfect. As usual, the simulta-neous drift is less active being restricted to two stative verbs edm

and is

m. With the present time reference it conveys a present stativeor simply present meaning. Less commonly, it appears in the pastand future time context giving respectively a past (stative) and future(stative).

It is also possible that in the case of the iprusone deals with azerogram (cf. Dahl 1985 and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994: 901),and the perfective value of the iprusis a consequence of the develop-ment of the iparras. Originally, the ipruswas a resultative gram withno aspectual value. However, due to the development of the imper-fective iparras(cf. imperfective path in Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca1994 and Dahl 2000), the non-aspectual iprusbecame a default per-

7 It should be noted that the author does not attempt to determine a discretelocation on the evolutionary path for each and every one of the meanings of theiprus. These graphic locations are simplifications. It is obvious that the semantic-functional development of the iprusreflects a gradual and non-discrete progress onthe resultative path.

PAST STATIVE PAST

PAST CONTEXTPAST PERFECT REMOTE

ANTERIOR PERFECT PERFECTIVE PAST

RESULTATIVE PRESENT CONTEXTSTATIVE PRESENT

FUTURE STATIVE FUTURE

FUTURE CONTEXTFUTURE PERFECT/IMMEDIATE FUTURE

main clauses regular uses

edm and ism

edm and ism

clauses with adi la

and lama

edm and ism

temporal clauses, mainclauses in the past timereference

Figure 6. The iprusas a developing resultative gram7



Downloade

dfrom


16/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

340

fective category. It must be stressed that the aspectual meaning wasnot a prototypical characterization of the Akkadian formation theiprustook up the space left over by the overtly marked iparras. Nev-ertheless, the iprusmay still provide a general perspective of an event,which is not limited to the perfective aspect (cf. the example given by

Loesov above). A similar phenomenon, but with a marked perfectiveand an unmarked imperfective (the situation opposite to the relationbetween the iprusand the iparras) may be found in Slavic languages,for example in Polish, where some imperfective verbs can still (ofcourse only in determined contexts) provide a perfective view ofevents. In consequence, the simple past meaning of the iprus lesscommon than the perfective value may stem from its origin (theresultative was not marked aspectually) as well as from the universaldevelopment of the past perfective into a simple past. However, in thecase of the iprus the gram is far from being grammaticalized as an

expression of all past events since the language includes a core cate-gory that describes imperfective past events, i.e. the iparras. The sim-ple past meaning of the iprusdoes not mean that the aspect is imper-fective it means that the form is aspectually unmarked, i.e., neitherperfective nor imperfective. The development of the iprusin terms ofa zero gram may be summarized in the following way,cf. the Figure 7:

objectiveAkkadianorigin

peripheral use?core useperipheral use?

NON-ASPECTUAL RESULTATIVE ASPECTUAL ZERO GRAM SIMPLE PAST

Figure 7. The iprusas a zero gram

From the typological perspective, the Akkadian example is not iso-lated, and a parallel, both synchronically and diachronically, situa-tion may be found in French in the case of thepass compos. Let usfirst present all possible meanings of the French gram according to

Grevisse 1975 (cf. Table 2, see p. 341).Like the iprus, the pass compos seems to be synchronically an

amalgam of unrelated meanings. However, diachronically one dealswith a single resultative gram that has its roots in the Latin possessiveperiphrasis habeo scriptum. Thepass composshows all possible valuessituated on the scale of the anterior drift: resultative, anterior, perfec-



Downloade

dfrom


17/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

341

tal, perfective past, simple past and narrative. Since, the present tense

(the tense of the auxiliary in forms like jai termin) in French mayalso indicate future events, the construction can provide future per-fect or future immediate information. The pass composhas not lostits resultative and perfect uses because there is no grammaticalizednew resultative or perfect. The only new resultative expression (venirde+ infinitive) has still a lexical force, or at least has not been gram-maticalized entirely. As in the case of the Akkadian iprus, the anteriordrift in the past and future temporal context (the form is then respec-tively javais terminand jaurais termin) is less advanced and moreconservative this means that the uses with the non-present timereference are practically reserved to perfectal or resultative ones.

3. Iprus and Proto-Semiticyaqtul

If the description of the Akkadian iprusas a dynamic category (i.e. asa resultative diachrony) is correct, we should be able to relate this factto Proto-Semitic and to other Semitic languages. In consequence, twoquestions must be answered. First, how does this model fit into thedescription of the Proto-Semitic verbal system? And secondly, is theresultative character of the ipruspreserved (at least residually) in other

Semitic languages?According to Lipinski (2001) the proto-Semiticyaqtul8was the mostunmarked category situated outside the system of aspect. Lipinskidefines it as a simple past a preterite. Huehnergard (1988:21)

8 The Proto-Semitic formyaqtulis the ancestor of the Akkadian iprus.

Values of thepass composwith theauxiliary in the present tense

Uses

Past anterior to the present Main clause

Past perfective opposite to the imperfect Main clause

Narrative past preterite Main clause orally (seldom literally)

Present perfect Main clause

Present resultative, or present Main clause, cf. il est mort

Immediate future Main clause discursive

Future perfect Temporal clauses

Present of the general truth Proverbs

Table 2: The meanings of thepass composwith the auxiliary in the present tense



Downloade

dfrom


18/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

342

affirms that theyaqtulwas a single form that expressed the perfectiveaspect of verbal actions [] and injunctions. He adds that theyaqtulcould also have a temporal value functioning as a specific past(Huehnergard 1988: 22). Kienast (2001: 334) claims that the yaqtul was the basic form in the Proto-Semitic verbal system and sees its

origin in an agglutination of the proclitic personal prefix and thenominal predicate. In his view, the contrast between the primaryform yaqtul and the Steigerungsform yaqattal consists of aspect,respectively the perfective vs. the imperfective. The same aspectualopposition between theyaqtulandyaqattalwas posited by Diakonoff(1965: 95, and 1988: 89) and Bubenik (1998: 44). However, Dia-konoff and Bubenik reconstruct the imperfective as yaqatal intheir opinion the reduplication of the second root consonant waslimited to the derived D conjugation (cf. Bubenik 1998: 45). In allthese models theyaqtulis the unmarked basic form, while theyaqat(t)

alis a secondary, derived and overtly marked imperfective (a dynamicimperfective gram in its development according to the imperfectivepath; cf. Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994, Dahl 2000, Bertinetto2000, Bertinetto, Ebbert and Groot 2000, and Ebbert 2000). Thiscoincides with our definition of the yaqtul (iprus) as an originallyunmarked (aspectually and temporally) form the perfective andpast marking would be acquired by default due to the developmentand grammaticalization of the yaqattal(cf. zero gram). Nevertheless,the past and perfective values could also stem from the developmentdetermined by the resultative path (cf. the development from theresultative through the perfective to the past). The yaqtul cannot bereduced in Proto-Semitic to the notion of preterite, since it still showsnon-past meanings in Akkadian (cf. part 2). Furthermore, the non-pastvalues of the yaqtulare not limited to Akkadian. They may also befound in Classical Arabic cf. the use ofyaqtulin conditional clauses.Moreover, the Arabic construction lamma yaqtulhas clearly a presentperfect meaning. The perfectal (both present and past) values of theyaqtulcan also be found in the Biblical Hebrewwayyiqtol. Even thoughthis construction usually functions as a preterite, it can sometimes (infact very seldom) refer to future events presenting them as a singleperfective whole (cf. Waltke and OConnor 1990: 557). Addition-

ally, according to Waltke and OConnor (1990), the wayyiqtolcandescribe a present persistent perfective situation. Finally, in Phoeni-cian the proto-Semitic yaqtul may function as the future perfect( futurum exactum, cf. Kienast 2001: 314).

There is also another fact that supports the view of the yaqtulas adynamic phenomenon.The opposition between theyaqtulandyaqat-



Downloade

dfrom


19/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

343

tal in Semitic languages is not simply perfective vs. imperfective butmay consist of three gradually intensified elements (aspect, tense, andresultativity9-simultaneity). In consequence, the yaqtul is moreresultative, aspectually perfective and temporally past-oriented thantheyaqattal. Conversely, theyaqattalis more simultaneous, imperfec-

tive and non-past-oriented. However this opposition is far from beingdiscrete. One rather deals with two contrastive diachronies: theresultative path vs. the imperfective path. Each one of these trajecto-ries is a gradual development in consequence, the two grams donot form a perfect dichotomy, but rather two different diachronicmovements that at different stages of their developments may surfaceas an aspectual, resultative-simultaneous, or temporal opposition. Infact, at the same time, the yaqtuland the yaqattalmay involve a setof contrasts reflecting achieved, but not necessarily lost, stages of theirdevelopment. Thus, it is no longer surprising that in one language,

even in one context, this opposition may be complex and consist ofthree segments, i.e. aspect, tense, and resultativity-simultaneity.

4 Conclusion

In light of the presented evidence, we may state that the iprus is aresultative gram that grows in accordance with the unidirectionaldevelopment codified by the resultative path and grammaticalization.This observation enables us to claim that, in the case of the Akkadianformation, one does not deal with a single semantic category (past,

perfective aspect, anterior etc.) but rather with a single diachrony. Inconsequence, from the unidirectional perspective, the synchronic setof chaotic and unrelated values displayed by the iprus turns into ahomogeneous and regular picture one original resultative inputthat follows a single diachronic path. We have also observed that thethesis of the resultative nature of the iprusis supported by data pro-vided by other Semitic languages, and furthermore, it perfectly fitsinto the proto-Semitic model.

The positive verification of the thesis whereby the iprusshould beunderstood as an originally resultative construction that undergoes theregular development in terms of the resultative paths leads to anotherconclusion. According to evolutionary linguistics, meanings that cor-respond to less advanced stages on the anterior drift (a sub-path of theresultative path) should be older while those that reflect more advanced

9 Resultativity in a broad sense as was posited in part 1.



Downloade

dfrom


20/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

344

stages are supposed to be younger. This means that, the oldest usesof the iprusshould correspond to more resultative and less preteritevalues, while the youngest ones are expected to have a more tempo-rally explicit character (in particular, they should indicate the past).The corroboration of this hypothesis constitutes the future research

project of the author.

Address for Correspondence:University of Stellenbosch, Department of Ancient Studies, Private Bag XI, 7602Matieland, South Africa

REFERENCES

Andrason, A. 2009a. Comparando diacronas. El resultativo en las lenguas romni-cas y germnicas. Tendencias actuales en la investigacin diacrnica de la lengua.Actas del VIII congreso Nacional de AJIHLE(Barcelona). 18395

2009b. Pretrito germnico como un resultative la situacin en el gtico.Interlingstica XIX(Gerona). 45265Bertinetto, M. 2000. The progressive in Romance, as compared with English, in

sten Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe(Berlin). 559604Bertinetto, M, K. Ebert and C. de Groot. 2000. The progressive in Europe in

sten Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe(Berlin). 51758Birkmann, T. 1987. Prteritoprsentia. (Tbingen)Bubenik, V. 1998. Grammatical and lexical aspect in Akkadian and Proto-Semitic,

in Monica Schmid (ed.), Historical Linguistics.Amsterdam Studies in the Theoryand Historical Linguisticsvol. 164. (Amsterdam, Philadelphia).4156

Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. (Chicago)Bybee, J. and . Dahl. 1989. The creation of tenses and aspect systems in the

languages of the world, Studies in Language13: 51103Dahl, . (ed.). 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. (Berlin, New

York)Dahl, . 2000. The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a typological

perspective in sten Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe(Berlin). 325

1985. Tense and aspect systems. (Oxford)Denz, A. 1982. Die Struktur des Klassischen Arabisch, in W. Fischer (ed.), Grund-

ri der Arabischen Philologie(Band I: Sprachwissenschaft, Wiesbaden). 58109Diakonoff, I. 1965. Semito-Hamic Languages. (Moscow) 1988.Afrasian Languages. (Moscow)Ebert, K.. 2000. Progressive markers in Germanic languages in sten Dahl (ed.),

Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe(Berlin). 60553

Goetze, A. 1958. Fifty Old Babylonian Letters from Harmal. Reprinted from Sumervol. 14. (Baghdad)Grevisse, M.. 1975. Le bon usage. (Gembloux)Graves, N. 2000. Macedonian a language with three perfects? in sten Dahl

(ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe(Berlin). 47994Heine, B. and M. Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Lan-

guages. (Hamburg)



Downloade

dfrom


21/21

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS

345

Hopper, P. and E. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. (Cambridge)Huehnergard, J. 2005.A Grammar of Akkadian. (Winona Lake) 1988. The Early Hebrew Prefix-Conjugations. Hebrew Studies29. 1923Kienast, B. 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. (Wiesbaden)Knudsen, E.E. 1986. Innovation in the Akkadian Present, Orientalia Suecana

335, 2319

Kuryowicz, J. 1965. Zur Vorgeschichte des germanischen Verbalsystems, in Bei-trge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Volkskunde und Literatrforschung: Wolfgang Steinitzzum 60. Geburstag. (Berlin) 24247

Landsberger, B. 1926. Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt, Islamica2,35572

Lindstedt, J. 2000. The perfect aspectual, temporal and evidential in sten Dahl(ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe(Berlin). 36583

Lipinski, E. 2001. Semitic Languages Outline of a Comparative Grammar(UitgeverijPeeters en Departement Oosterse Studies Leuven. Paris)

Loesov, S. 2006. Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time Part One, inLeonid Kogan, (ed.), Babel and Bibel2: Memoriae Igor M. Diakonof . (Annualof Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies. Winona Lake).10148.

Malbran-Labat, F. and J.-P. Vita. 2005. Manual de lengua acadia vol.1. (Saragossa)Maslov, J. 1988. Resultative, Perfect and Aspect, in Vladimir Nedjalkov (ed.),

Typology of Resultative Constructions. (Amsterdam). 6385Meillet, A. 1948. Lvolution des formes grammaticales, Linguistique historique et

linguistique gnrale. (Paris)Metzler, K.A. 2002. Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten (Alter Orient

und Altes Testament279). (Mnster)Mller, H.P. 1986. Polysemie im semitischen und hebrischen Konjugationssystem,

Orientalia55, 3659Nedjalkov, V and S. Jaxontov. 1988. The Typology of Resultative Constructions,

in Vladimir Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions (Amsterdam).363

Sallaberger, W. 1999. Wenn Du mein Bruder bist,. Interaktion und Textgestal-tung in altbabylonischen Alltagsbriefen. (Leiden)

Streck, M.P. 2003. Sprache und Denken im Alten Mesopotamien am Beispiel desZeitausdrucks, in L. Kogan (ed.). Studia Semitica. (Orientalia. Papers of theOriental Institute. Issue 3, Moscow). 42431

1999. Das Perfekt iptaras im Altbabylonischen der Hammurapi-Briefe, inN. Nebes (ed.) Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen (Jenaer Kolloquiumzur Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft = Jenaer Beitrge zum Vorderen Orient 1,Wiesbaden). 10126

1995. Zahl und Zeit. Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems imSptbabylonischen. (Cuneiform Monographs Band 5. Groningen)

Testen, D. 2000. Conjugating the prefixed stative verbs in Akkadian. Journal of

Near Eastern Studies59 no. 2. 8192Traugott, E. and B. Heine (eds). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. (Amster-dam)

Waltke, B. and M.P. OConnor. 1990.An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.(Winona Lake)



Downloade

dfrom

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scott-booth
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

Andrason 2010 Akkadian Iprus From the Unidirectional Perspective

Documents