Bulakh Negative Markers in Ethio-Semitics

8/22/2019 Bulakh Negative Markers in Ethio-Semitics

1/36

Negativemarkers*!ay-,*!i-and*!al-inEthio-Semitic*

Maria BulakhRussian State University for the Humanities, Moscow

1.Introduction

One of the isoglosses separating neatly the North Ethio-Semitic (NES)

and the South Ethio-Semitic (SES) languages is the shape of the generalnegative marker: !ay-/!i- in North Ethio-Semitic vs. *!al- in South Ethio-Semitic (Faber 1997:12). The former element is the basic negative mor-pheme in Geez, Tigre and Tigrinya, and its remnants can be discerned,in a few fossilized forms, also in SES. Similarly, the main SES negativemarker *!al- is found marginally also in NES. Both markers have cog-nates outside Ethio-Semitic (ES) and are traceable to proto-Semitic. Atfirst sight, it may seem reasonable to assume that both of them were pre-sent in proto-Ethio-Semitic and, whereas the former ousted the latter in

North Ethio-Semitic, the opposite development took place in South Ethio-Semitic. Such an interpretation would imply, incidentally, that *!ay-/*!i- asa general negative marker is a shared innovation of NES and perhaps theonly significant argument in favor of NES as a genealogical unity (Faber1997:12; BulakhKogan 2010:280281).

However, a closer inspection of the facts reveals that the reconstruc-tion presented above is an oversimplification: the actual relationship be-tween *!al- and !ay-/!i- can be obscured by the alternation -l-/-y-, well at-

tested in SES. Besides, the distribution between the two negative markersin proto-ES should be more strictly defined. Are we indeed faced withmere free variants? Such a reconstruction is not impossible, of course, butis better avoided before other, more meaningful possibilities are fully ex-ploited and rejected.

It was probably these or similar considerations that led G. Hudson(2003) to question the traditional understanding of the synchronic and

* I am deeply grateful to Dr. L. Kogan who discussed the text with me in de-tail and helped improve both its content and style. Warm thanks go to Dr. S. Loe-sov who also carefully read the manuscript and made several insightful com-ments. Needless to say, I am responsible for all errors.


2/36

386 Articles: Semitic Studies

diachronic distribution of the negative particles in ES and to offer a newinterpretation of the negative verbal forms in SES.

According to the traditional view (v. references in Hudson 2003:209),

reflexes of *!al- in SES are employed in negative forms of both perfectand imperfect. Within Hudsons new analysis, the negative *!al- is used inSES only in the perfect, whereas in the imperfect paradigm *!ay- ratherthan *!al- is employed. The negative marker *!ay- is thus reconstructedfor the imperfect/jussive, and *!al- for the perfect (Hudson 2003:217).

This analysis has important implications for the reconstruction of thenegative markers of proto-ES. It shows SES to be more heterogeneousthan NESand therefore, more likely to have preserved the original,

proto-ES, negative paradigm.It seems, however, that some of Hudsons claims are in need of a de-

tailed examination, whereas some of the facts to which he drew attentioncan be evaluated in a different way. A few arguments supporting Hud-sons new analysis and a few other which contradict it are discussed belowin this contribution, together with some additional evidence. Special at-tention will be paid to the negative forms of existential verbs and copulaswhichas correctly pointed out by Hudsonmay have preserved archaic

negative elements which are lost elsewhere.1

* * *

Table 1 describes the negation in ES in the following contexts (each ofthem is morphologically distinct from the others in at least one ES lan-guage): negation of verbal forms (he did not do, he does not do), nega-tion of non-verbal forms (not doing, not good etc.), negative form ofthe copula (he is not tall), negation of the locative verb (he is not there),negation of the predicative possessive construction (he does not have),

negation of the existential construction (there is not, referred to aspresence in Hudson 2003). For each position, data are given from anumber of languages, which represent each of the major ES branches.2

1 For the importance of these forms for the reconstruction of proto-ES nega-tive markers v. already Cohen 1931:3435.

2 The data are drawn from the following grammatical descriptions: Raz 1983;Elias 2005; Simeone-Senelle 2008; Dillmann 1907; Leslau 1941; Voigt 1977; Les-lau 1995; Leslau 1997; Cerulli 1936; Wagner 1983; Leslau 1958; Meyer 2005;Meyer 2006; Gutt 1997; Leslau 1956; Leslau 1968; Leslau 1981; Leslau 2004;Hetzron 1977; ChamoraHetzron 2000. I am deeply grateful to Dr. A. Wetterwho kindly shared with me the relevant paradigms for Argobba of onke/olla-haa variety of Argobba in several respects more conservative and less close to

Amharic than the one described by Leslau (v. Wetter 2006).


3/36

M. Bulakh,Negativemarkers *!ay-, *!i- and *!al-in Ethio-Semitic 387

In some languages, the patterns of negation in different dialects are notidentical. This is why Tigre of Mensa (the dialect described by Sh. Raz,referred to as Tigre throughout the article) is treated separately from

Tigre of Habab and Dahalik (whose statusa dialect of Tigre or a sepa-rate languageis debatable), and Argobba of Aliyu Amba from Argobbaofollaha.

Some general remarks on various processes influencing the negativeparadigms in ES are now in order.

In Tigrinya, some Tigre dialects and most of SES, the predicativeforms with negative prefixes in the main clause are expanded withsuffixed *-n (Tigrinya,3 Tigre of Habab) or *-m (SES), so that negation is

marked by a circumfix rather then a prefix.4 The second element of thesecircumfixes is of little relevance for the present discussion. Therefore, forthe sake of simplicity the negative preformatives are referred to asmarkers of negation throughout this article, be they independent mor-phemes or first elements of circumfixes.

In a number of languages, the paradigm of the imperfect of the mainclause differs from that of the subordinate clause. Not infrequently, thesubordinate forms preserve archaic negative markers, whereas in the

paradigm of the main clause innovative means of expressing negation areused (as in Wolane, Selti, Gafat, Soddo).The negative markers used with nominal forms in Tigrinya, Amharic,

Harari, Zway and Wolane are preceded (in Amharic, Zway and Wolane,optionally) by a relative pronoun.

In Argobba ofollaha (in the perfect) and in Modern Harari (in therelative imperfect) the base of the jussive is employed in the negative

3 With dialectal variants -ni and -(3)y (Voigt 1977:236).4 In Modern Harari, the second part of the circumfix (-(u)m) is suffixed to the

verb in the perfect (al-sbr-m), but precedes the reflex of the negative auxiliaryin the complex imperfect (y3sabr-um-l < *y3sabr-um-!i-hal, BREAK:3MS:IMPF-NEG-NEG-AUX). Interestingly, in many languages the second part of the cir-cumfix can sometimes be attached not to the verb, but rather to another part ofthe sentence: Amh. l3ual-ma-m the child did not come vs. l3u-mal-mathe child did not come (in the second sentence the element -m functions as akind of focus marker, cf. Leslau 1995:293 where -m in such contexts is analyzedas a conjunction of insistence). Similarly, in Modern Harari the element -m in thenegative copula can be suffixed to the copula (al-ta-m), or to the preceding word(...-mal-ta), or, more rarely, to any other word in the negative sentence (GaradWagner 1998:89). For the Hamasen dialect of Tigrinya, Voigt (1977:237) re-cords a negative markerny-, with the element n- occupying the position beforethe verb and merging with the prefix !ay-.


4/36


forms. This is undoubtedly due to the influence of Oromo and/or Somali(Wagner 1997:598599). Likewise, in Zway some types of verbal conjuga-tion employ the base of the jussive for the negative perfect.

* * *It is important to distinguish between lexically restricted negative mark-ersconfined to one or several particular rootsand general negativemarkers. The latter term will be applied below to the negative mor-phemes which function as the principal means of expressing the negationin this or that ES language. A language may have more than one generalnegative marker, in which case they are either interchangeable or followsome distributional patterns. In a given ES language different general

negative markers can be used with verbs and nouns or with differenttypes of verbal forms.

Lexically restricted negative markers in ES are typically associatedwith lexemes functioning as equational copulas, locative verbs, exponentsof predicative possession, and existential words. Within a given language,morphosyntactic devices expressing equation, location, possession andexistence may overlap: an equational copula can be used in locative con-structions;5 a locative verb can shift to existential word; possessive con-

structions can be based on a locative verb or a locative prepositionalphrase6 and can also be a source of existential constructions.

In the majority of ES languages locative, possessive and existentialconstructions (henceforth referred to as LPE) are based on one and thesame element, going back to the locative verb *hallawa, as in Amh. allhe is (there)/there is; allw he has (lit. it is on/at him). Alternatively,possessive and existential constructions can be based on prepositionalphrases with *ba- in, the reflex of *hallawa being restricted to locative

constructions: Gez. bo he has/there is vs.hallo/hallawa he is (there).It turns out that LPE constructions based on prepositional phrases aremore widespread in the negative forms than in the affirmative ones.Thus, the reflex of *hallawa is employed as the universal LPE affirmativepredicate in Tigrinya, but its negative counterpart y-llo-n does not ap-pear in the possessive constructions: instead, the form y-billu-n he does

5 Such a use is indeed found in ES (Amh. nkarran I am strong andahunbetn I am at home at present, cf. Leslau 1995:271, 273). However, this phe-

nomenon was disregarded in the present study as irrelevant for the discussion.6 For the locative constructions as a source of possessive constructions v. Hei-ne 1997:5053.


5/36


not have is used, going back to a possessive element based on the locativepreposition *ba- (cf. fn. 21).

It is crucial for the present investigation that the distribution of nega-

tive markers in LPE constructions normally depends on the lexical ele-ment to which the negative marker in question is bound rather than onthe particular semantic function of the construction as a whole.

For instance, the negative morpheme *!i- is regularly connected to thereflexes of *hallawa regardless of its concrete LPE function (v. 3.2 below).Conversely, the preposition *ba- in negative constructions is practicallyalways combined with the negative reflexes of the marker *!al(a)-, some-times with further markers imposed on it (v. 3.1 below).7

It stands to reason that lexically restricted negative markers may rep-resent archaic morphemes ousted elsewhere by innovative generalmarker(s). Correct understanding of their evolution is thus of paramountimportance for a reliable reconstruction of the negative markers of proto-ES (cf. fn. 1).

The evidence presented above makes it clear that the apparent functionalshifts affecting lexically restricted negative markers (e.g., from locative to ex-istential) are in fact conditioned by the semantic evolution of the lexical ele-

ments associated with them. This means that the functional load of a recon-structed general negative marker cannot be deduced from the syntacticalcontexts in which its lexically restricted continuation is attested in this or thatindividual ES language. Furthermore, the distribution of various negativemarkers in a given ES language usually depends on the morphologicalshape of the negated word rather than on the semantics of the negative con-struction as a whole, and there are good reasons to believe that the situationin proto-ES was quite similar. It is therefore more important to establish foreach negative marker the morphological contexts in which it could be usedin proto-ES.

For a lexically restricted marker, the morphological form of the corre-sponding lexical element, if traced back to proto-ES, can help us makesome valuable conclusions about the respective negative marker. Suchconclusions, however, can by no means be considered exhaustive. For in-stance, if a negative morpheme is restricted throughout ES to one par-

7 LPE constructions based on the same lexical element but using different nega-

tive markers are a rarity throughout ES. One characteristic example is Tna.yl-bo-nthere is no vs.y-billu-n he does not have: both go back to the negation of theprepositional phrase with ba- in, but the negative prefix, synchronically, isyl- ( *!a- in Epigraphic Geez.


8/36


morphological context (RIE 187:4; less important is the evidence fromRIE 232:911, which belongs to a later period), against !ay- registeredthrice. This makes the hypothesis of free variation between !i- and !ay-

undesirableone cannot fail to notice that !ay- is preferred before theprefix y3- of 3 masc. sg. imperfect/jussive, and !i- elsewhere (nothing canbe said, of course, about those verbal forms whose combinations withnegative morphemes are not documented in EG, such as 2 pers. imper-fect/jussive).

In principle, an even stricter distribution between !i- and !ay- could bepostulated, restricting the latter to only one position, viz. 3 masc. sg. ofthe jussive. To make feasible such a hypothesis, one would have to inter-

pret y3tmaww! in RIE 188:5, RIE 189:4, and RIE 189:6 as jussive ratherthan imperfect. Such a usage in itself is unproblematic: at least once in theepigraphic corpus (RIE 192B:4) the jussive is actually employed in a simi-lar construction (l-!gzbr / l--d! / ymt / w-!-ybl = *la-!3gziber la-za-da!y3mutwa-!ay-y3bli to God, may he not die or grow old (lit. who may not dieor grow old)). In this passage, the unvocalized formymt can only stay forthe jussive (*y3mut). This interpretation would imply that in the phrasewhich is not to be conquered by the enemy the verb was variably used in

the imperfect (RIE 187:4) or the jussive (elsewhere). Such a variation is,however, rather unlikely within such a clearly stereotype expression: aslight vocalic change in the negative prefix is much easier to imagine.

The negative !ay- seems thus to be primarily connected with the verbalprefix y3- of 3 masc. sg. imperfect/jussive. It is tempting to see in EG atransitory stage from the original negative paradigm with a rigid distribu-tion between !ay- (before y3-) and !i- (elsewhere) to that of Classical Geezwhere !i- is generalized in all positions.

The most likely explanation for this distribution is that the allomorph!ay- is a result of dissimilation of -i- before -y3- (!i-y3-> !ay-y3-)12.

It seems likely, therefore, that the emergence of the allomorph !ay-was conditioned by the following sequence -y3-. This assumption allows usto reconstruct this marker for each position of the verbal paradigmwhere y3- is present, viz. 3 masc. sg. and 3 masc. and fem. pl. imper-fect/jussive (the pertinent negative forms are not attested in the EG cor-pus). However, already in the early Geez inscriptions !i- began to pene-trate even this position. In later periods, the allomorph !ay- was not in

use any more.

12 On the sequence *-y and various means of avoiding it in Semitic v. Brock-elmann 1908:250251.


9/36


It is possible that such a distribution had existed already in proto-ES.On a later stage, the allomorph !i- was generalized in Classical Geez andTigre, and the allomorph !ay-, in Tigrinya.

2.2. General negative markers in SES

2.2.1. Negative markers used with verbs

Traditionally, the negative marker *!al- is thought to underlie all nega-tive verbal forms throughout SES and hence reconstructed as the onlygeneral negative marker for proto-SES (Cohen 1931:35, Hetzron 1972:21). Within an alternative approach developed by Hudson (2003), thenegative marker *!al- in SES is present only in the perfect, whereas in theimperfect/jussive the underlying negative marker is *!ay-.

To be sure, the reconstruction of the negative marker *!ay- for theimperfect/jussive in SES is not improbable. Indeed, in the SES negativeparadigm of the imperfect/jussive the element -l- surfaces in 1 sg. only(Amh. al-sbr-3m I do not break), being allegedly assimilated to the fol-lowing consonant elsewhere: at(t3)-sbr-3m (2 masc. sg.), at(t3)-sbri-m (2fem. sg.), ay-sbr-3m (3 masc. sg.), at(t3)-sbr-3m (3 fem. sg.), an(n3)-sbr-3m(1 pl.),at(t3)-sbru-m (2 pl.),ay-sbru-m (3 pl.). More precisely, it is usually

claimed that *-l- is palatalized into -y- before *y3- (with a subsequent sim-plification of -yy3- into -y-, cf. Brockelmann 1908:262) and assimilated tot- andn- in *t3- and *n3- with a subsequent (optional) degemination andsyncope. In 1 sg., the development is assumed to be *!al-!3- > *al3- > al-,i. e. loss of the gutturals in agreement with the general trend of SES andsubsequent syncope of -3-.

As far as the 2/3 person sg./pl. and the 1 person pl. forms are con-cerned, the choice between *!al- and *!ay- in the underlying form can in-

deed be considered debatable: there is no immediate reason for the tradi-tional *al-t- > at- to be preferred to Hudsons *ay-t- > at-. But the 1 sg.form *!al- is, at first sight at least, by far less ambiguous, and it is thisform that provides the most serious argument in favor of the traditionalreconstruction and against Hudsons thesis.

Being aware of this difficulty, Hudson rejects the traditional under-standing of -l- in the negated forms of 1 sg. as part of the negative mor-pheme *!al-. Instead, he considers it as a marker of 1 sg., identical to the

element -l- in the 1 sg. prefix of the jussive (Amh. l3sbr let me break).

13

13 For the SES element -l- in the 1 sg. prefix of the jussive and its parallels

elsewhere in Semitic v. Huehnergard 1983:580.


10/36


Hudson does not deny that l in thejussive need not immediately bear onthe diachronic interpretation of the negation in the imperfect. He never-theless observes that in some SES languages (notably in Argobba) the el-

ement l is present also in 1 sg. and pl. of the affirmative imperfect: Arg.3lsk3r I am drunk.14 For Hudson (2003:212), the element -l- in both thejussive and the imperfect is a reflex of the proto-Semitic asseverative par-ticle la-, extensively discussed in Huehnergard 1983.

An immediate objection to Hudsons hypothesis is that l-forms in theaffirmative imperfectunlike l in the jussive and the negative imper-fectare by no means common SES. In view of this circumstance, Hud-sons hypothesis must force one to assume that the reflex of the assevera-

tive *la-, originally present in the 1 sg. affirmative imperfect and jussive,was taken over to the negative imperfect but, for some reason, subse-quently disappeared in the affirmative imperfect in most SES languages.Such a development is clearly very unlikely. Moreover, Hudsons claimthat asseverative l ... was naturally favored in emphatic negative, 1stperson is not compatible with the evidence of other Semitic languages,where the asseverative particle *la- was confined to main clause asser-tions, and did not co-occur with negative particles (Huehnergard 1983:

592). Thus, Hudsons reconstruction turns out to be highly artificial incomparison with the more straightforward and economical traditionalexplanation which presumes that the negative particle *!al- was used inthe imperfect as well as in the perfect.

Hudsons other arguments against the traditional view (2003:212) areall concerned with the optional gemination of the consonant of the per-sonal marker in 2 pers. and 1 pers. pl.: Amh. at(t3)-sbr-3m do not2 fem. sg.break, etc. As just mentioned above, within the traditional approach thisgemination is thought to result from the assimilation of *-l- and the formswithout gemination are explained as due to secondary simplification.Hudson, on the contrary, considers the geminated forms to be secon-dary, emerging in order to avoid the contact between the consonant ofthe prefix and the first radical which risked to result in full assimilation:atsb3r > *assb3r. Hudsons explanation is supported by the fact that sec-ondary gemination of the prefix consonant is attested elsewhere in theAmharic verbal paradigm: consider, for example, the optional gemina-tion of -n- in the 1 pl. affirmative form (3n(n3)sb3r we break) or in the

affirmative subordinate verbs (b3t(t3)sb3r if you break). However, this

14 After prefixes also in Zway, cf. fn. 48.


11/36


explanation undermines the reconstruction of *!ay- exactly in the sameway as it does with *!al-. Indeed, if the forms with gemination are secon-dary, the last consonant of the negative marker must have disappeared

without leaving a trace, which would be highly atypical for both -l- and -y-.[T]he reasonable loss of y before consonants posited by Hudson(2003:215) is difficult to accept in the absence of compelling parallel ex-amples15. In short, the hypothetical shift *!ay-t3sb3r > *!atsb3r faces ex-actly the same difficulties as *!al-t3sb3r > *!atsb3r.

At the same time, Hudsons seven arguments in support of his ownanalysis (2003:213217) are by no means flawless.

Three of these arguments rely on the general assumption that loss of

-y- is more plausible that loss of -l-. For Hudson, fluctuating geminationin 2 pers. and 1 pers. pl. in Amharic (Argument 1) as well as absence ofgemination in the corresponding forms in Gafat (Argument 5) and Selti(Argument 7) all suggest that the consonant of the negative morphemewas omitted rather than assimilated and, consequently, point to *!ay-rather than *!al- in proto-SES. As pointed out above, this reasoning isquestionable: simplification of gemination is at least as plausible as com-plete and traceless loss of -y-.

Argument 2 focuses on the prefixesay- and- used with the negativecopula (*dbl) in Amharic and Soddo respectively, as well as on the prefixa- before the perfect forms of *kona in the Argobba variety of Aliyu Amba.As will be shown below (3.3), the Amharic and Soddo negative copulasare 3 masc. sg. verbal forms whose conjugation originally followed theparadigm of the imperfect rather than that of the perfect. In such a con-text, the use of *!ay- is only to be expected. As for the prefix a- in Ar-gobba, it can be reasonably traced back to *!al- (v. below, 3.4).

Argument 3 derives from Hudsons important observation that thenegative marker *!i- is not entirely absent from SES, but can be detectedin the paradigm of the locative verb *hallawa. Within Hudsons approach,the hypothetic *!ay- in the imperfect represents still another (and by farmore broadly present) SES remnant of the common ES negative marker*!ay-/*!i-. For Hudson, the presence of the negative marker *!i- in theperfect of *hallawa favors the presence of *!ay- in the imperfect ofall ver-bal lexemes in SES. However, the usage of *!i- in combination with

15 Hypothetic monophtongization of *ay into e cannot be relevant as it would in-volve change of the vowel quality, which is not the case. Nor does the variationay ~

a in aydllm adllm he is not provide a good analogy: the unique phoneticprocesses affecting this form are undoubtedly conditioned by its high frequency.


12/36


*hallawa is a clear example of a lexically restricted negative morphemeand may well have functioned as such already in proto-SES, whereas the cumulative evidence of the attested SES languages plainly sug-

gests all other verbs employed the general marker *!al-. In otherwords, the presence of the negative *!i- in the paradigm of one singleverb is an important piece of evidence for the proto-ES reconstruc-tion, but it does not tell us anything on the distribution of generalnegative markers in SES.

In his Argument 4, Hudson claims that the prefix an- (instead of theexpectedal-) in the 1 sg. negative imperfect/jussive in Harari (coincidingwith the 1 pl. form) can only result from the combination of the negative

a- (ay-) and the reflex of asseverative *l3- (>n3-). In his opinion, the shift l> n in Harari is restricted to the 1 sg. affirmative jussive (n3sbr been reported by Gutt (1997:910), the latter form appearing only before vowels (ay-no sterile, barren < e give birth,al-sbo unexpected < saba notice). Onewonders whether this distribution is a further development from a system docu-mented in Zway or whether !ay-/!al- in Selti continue the negative marker *!al(a)- ofnon-verbal forms (for the possibility of such a development v. fn. 36).


16/36


dence in support of this reconstruction can be found in the lexically re-stricted negative *!al(a)- (3.1), which can be identified with the negativemorpheme under scrutiny.

3.Lexicallyrestrictednegativemarkers

In the discussion of the negative markers occurring with copulas, locativeverbs and possessive constructions, attention should be paid to thespecific verbs or predicative elements with which the lexically restrictednegative markers are associated. At least in some cases, the combinationof a given negative prefix with this or that root is ubiquitous in ES andcan be safely reconstructed for the proto-language. Negative forms of thepertinent predicative elements are examined below in this section, in anattempt at establishing for each of them its original negative marker.

3.1. Possessive expressions involving *ba+possessivesuffix are ne-gated with the particle *!al(a)- in NES (Geez, Tigre of Mensa, Tigre ofHabab, Dahalik, Tigrinya) as well as in SES (Gafat). An important ques-tion is, however, which of the variants is original: *!ala- (Tigre of Mensa,Tigre of Habab, Dahalik, Gafat) or *!al- (Geez and Tigrinya)? The pri-macy of the former element appears more attractive: the shift *!alabo >

*!albo in Geez and Tigrinya can be explained as a result of vocalic syn-cope (v. 2.2.2), whereas gemination of -l- in Dahalik (y-alle-b-ni) andGafat (allb-am) can be regarded as strengthening of the first syllable inorder to avoid the syncope. Furthermore, the reconstructed negative*!ala- is compatible with the negative marker *!ala- combined with nomi-nal forms in some of the SES languages (2.2.2).20 Conversely, transitionfrom *!al- to *!ala- is hardly plausible as there is no immediate reason forthe hypothetic insertion of -a- between !al- and -bo.

In Dahalik, Tigrinya and Gafat the old negative possessive construc-tion has been expanded with new negative morphemes, a process obvi-ously to be accounted for by desemantization of *!al(a)-. In Dahalik, thenegative construction is augmented with the general negative markery-(...-ni): y-alle-b-ni he does not have. As for Tigrinya, an extensive dis-cussion of the whole spectrum of the expanded forms with a special at-tention to their historical background can be found in Voigt 1977:237250. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to say that the most common

20 For this comparison v., e. g., Leslau 1956:149. Note that in the case of thepre-nominal *!ala- the second vowel is absent (presumably syncopated) in Harariand Selti.


17/36


form of the negation of existential construction is *!albo augmented withthe general negative marker *!ay--n: *!ay-!albo-n >yl-bo-n.21 In Gafat,the element -am (also a part of the general negative circumfix) is imposed

upon the old possessive construction. Another peculiarity of this lan-guage is that *!alab- has been reanalyzed as a verbal stem and is conju-gated through the suffixes of the perfect.

3.2. Negative forms based on *hallawa in the expressions of location,possession, or existence are negated with !i- in Tigre and Geez. It seemsreasonable to assume (with Hudson 2003:213214; v. already Praetorius1879:259) that the corresponding forms in the rest of ES (Tna. y-llo-n,Amh. y-ll-m and, with y- > e//, Har. l, Zwy. !l(l)o, Cha. en, etc.) go

back to the same proto-form. The shift from !i- to y- in Tigrinya and SEScan be plausibly explained by a morphophonemic rule !VH- > yVH-,synchronically operative in the negated forms of verbs with initial guttur-als in Tigre (*!i-azze >y3-azze I do not want/he does not want).22 Onecan also surmise that the negative markers y3- andy- recorded for someNES idioms (v. 2.1) result from generalization of the allomorphs of *!i-before gutturals.

3.3. Negative forms of the copula based on the root *dblare found in

Amharic, Gafat and Soddo.23

In Soddo (Leslau 1968:13), all forms of thenegative copula consist of the preformative , the stem of the imperfect

21 The negative form of the possessive construction (ybillu-n) may also goback to the combination *!al(a)- + ba- + pronominal suffix. It can be explained asa result of metathesis ofl and b with a subsequent reinterpretation ofl as an ap-plicative suffix (hence, possibly, its gemination). Alternatively, it can be seen as afurther development (simplification) of the rarely attested yl-b3llu-n, clearly de-rived from *!al-b- + pronominal suffix and expanded with a general negativemarker and the applicative suffix -l- (for a detailed analysis v. Voigt 1977:242243). In Voigts view, however, ybillu-n rather goes back to a regular negativeform of the otherwise unattested possessive construction (a combination of thepreposition !ab-, the applicative -l- and a pronominal suffix), v. Voigt 1977:247.

22 Saleh Mahmud Idris, communication made in the framework of the Inter-national Workshop History and Language of the Tigre-speaking Peoples (Eri-trea and Sudan), Naples, 78 February 2008. A similar diachronic rule probablyaccounts for such Amharic forms asyaz to take < *!aaza, although one has toadmit that in some non-verbal roots containing two adjacent gutturals (such as*!aad- one or *!ut- sister) no change !- >y- is registered anywhere in ES.

23 Leslau (1956:77) mentions the form adb3l for Chaha, which is, however,missing from EDG I and EDG as well as from Hetzron 1977. Note also the obvi-ously related expression aldbl except, with the exception of, found in Soddoand Wolane (EDG 39).


18/36


and an object pronoun (with the exception of the 1 person, where thesuffix of the perfect conjugation is used instead of the object pronoun).24

Sg. Pl.3 masc. -db3ll (-IMPF:OBJ.3MS) -db3llm (-IMPF:OBJ.3MP)3 fem. -db3lla (-IMPF:OBJ.3FS) -db3llma (-IMPF:OBJ.3FP)2.masc. -db3kk (-IMPF:OBJ.2MS) -db3kk3m (-IMPF:OBJ.2MP)2 fem. -db3(-IMPF:OBJ.2FS)25 -db3kk3ma (-IMPF:OBJ.2FP)1 -dbukk (-PERF:SUBJ.1S) -db3lln (-IMPF:OBJ.1P)

The paradigm of the Gafat cognate is very similar except for the addi-tion of the innovative morpheme of the negative imperfect t--am (Les-lau 1956:77).26

Sg. Pl.3 masc. t--db3ll-am (t--IMPF:OBJ.3MS-am)3 fem. t--db3llat-am (t--IMPF:OBJ.3FS-am)

t--db3llm-an (t--IMPF:OBJ.3P-am)

2 masc. t--db3kk-am (t--IMPF:OBJ.2MS-am)2 fem. t--db3-am (t--IMPF:OBJ.2MS-am)27

t--db3kkmw-am (t--IMPF:OBJ.2P-am)

1 t--db3kkw-am (t--PERF:SUBJ.1S-am) t--db3lln-am (t--IMPF:OBJ.2P-am)

The verbal root *dbl is well known in ES with the meaning to add, re-peat, join; parallels with the meaning to collect, unite are found in Ara-

bic and Soqotri (v., e.g., EDG 195196; for its comparison with the nega-tive copula v. Leslau 1956:77, Goldenberg 1968:74, Hudson 2003:213214 as well as EDG 1415 for an overview of alternative proposals). Thesemantic development is reconstructed as follows: X is not added to Y >X is not counted as Y > X is not Y.28 The Amharic negative forms ay-dll-m, ay-doll-m is generally considered to go back to the same verbal

24 Note that this form has no Main Verb Markers, and that the object suffixesof the 2 person are attached to the stem in a way slightly different from that in

which they are normally attached to the imperfect stems (namely, without a vowelinserted between the stem and the pronoun: y3gdl--hhe kills yousg., y3gdl-3-

h3m he kills youpl.).25 Normally, the 2 fem. sg. object pronoun is -, but the form -appears in the

impersonal conjugation (Leslau 1968:2325).26 As in Soddo, no vowel is inserted between the stem and the 2 pers. object pro-

noun, although such a vowel usually appears when the object pronoun is attached to aregular verb in the imperfect. The forms of the object suffixes of 2 fem. sg. and 2 pl. de-viate from the suffixes employed with regular verbs (-and -hum < *-kum respectively).

27 In Gafat, both -and -are present as the exponents of the 2 fem. sg. objectpronoun (Leslau 1956:5960).

28 Cf. the usage of the Wolane verbdl- in the meaning to be counted as oreven to become in the expression tsbydl 3l being circumcised, lit. achild which is added to the human beings (Meyer 2006:140).


19/36


root *dbl (with the shift *-ab- > *-aw- > -o-). Indeed, the Old Amharic ev-idence (Getachew Haile 1970:75) favors such a comparison, revealingboth the original -o- and the object suffixes rather than the perfect sub-

ject suffixes attached to the base. Relying on the actual forms appearingin the old manuscripts, as well as on the comparative data from Gafat andSoddo, one can propose the following paradigm of the negative copula inOld Amharic.

Sg. Pl.3 masc. !ay-dol(l)w-3m (*!al-IMPF:OBJ.3MS-m)3 fem. !ay-dol(l)at-3m (*!al-IMPF:OBJ.3FS-m)

!ay-dol(l)aw-3m (*!al-IMPF:OBJ.3P-m)

2 masc. !ay-dol(l)h-3m (*!al-IMPF:OBJ.2MS-m)2 fem. !ay-dol(l)-3m (*!al-IMPF:OBJ.2FS-m)

!ay-dol(l)ahu-m (*!al-IMPF:OBJ.2P-m)

1 !ay-dol(l)hu-m (*!al-PERF:SUBJ.1S-m) !ay-dol(l)n-3m (*!al-IMPF:OBJ.1P-m)

This reconstructed paradigm differs from the one proposed in Ge-tachew Haile 1970:75 in one position, viz. 1 sg.: the form *!aydoll3m Iam not reconstructed by Getachew Haile is neither found in the manu-scripts nor confirmed by data from Gafat and Soddo. It is reasonable toassume that the Old Amharic paradigm of the negative copula whichimmediately preceded the modern one was similar to that of Gafat andSoddo. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that the paradigmsof Old Amharic, Soddo and Gafat, in their turn, go back to a paradigmwhich had object suffixes in all positions (similar to the one offered byGetachew Haile).

The substitution of the object pronominal suffixes with the perfectsubject suffixes which one can thus observe in the history of the negativecopula in Amharic is undoubtedly related to the similar replacement inthe affirmative copula, postulated by Hetzron (1972:8081) for the ma-jority of SES languages.29 Interestingly, this replacement did not occur

simultaneously in the affirmative and negative copulas. As we have seen,in the negative copula based on the root *dbl this development took placein Amharic only. As for the the affirmative copula, it has preserved theoriginal suffixes in Amharic, Argobba and Gafat, whereas in the rest ofSES they were replaced with the perfect subject suffixes.30

29 In other words, the Amharic negative copula provides an additional argu-ment in support of Hetzrons claim that the object suffixes in the copula are morearchaic.

30 The use of subject (perfect) and object pronominal suffixes within one andthe same paradigm of a negative copula is also registered for Argobba of Aliyu

Amba (Leslau 1997:3536, v. below, 3.4), where the object suffixes are found in 3


20/36


It becomes clear that the subject suffixes of the perfect paradigm inmodern Amharic represent a relatively recent innovation: originally, assuggested by the evidence of Gafat and Soddo, the morphological form

of this copula was that of 3 masc. sg. of the imperfect, which agreed withthe logical subject by means of the object pronoun. This reconstructionundermines Hudsons reasoning according to which the Amharic formay-dll-m represents a rare (and, presumably, archaic) case of the nega-tive elementay- combined with the perfect and provides a direct link be-tween SES *!ay- (not traceable to *!al-) and the main negative marker !ay-in Tigrinya (Hudson 2003:214). The data presented above suggest thatthe prefixay- in the Amharic negative copula is diachronically the regular

Amharic negative prefix of 3 masc. sg. imperfect: ay-dll-m/ay-doll-m isthus not different from ay-sbr-3m.

In the corresponding forms of Gafat and Soddo the prefix *!ay- doesnot surface, however: the shape of the base under scrutiny isdb3l-31 andit can hardly be a coincidence that both languages display -- before thefirst radical, which is difficult to explain synchronically. What is the originof this vowel?

For Hudson (2003:214), the initial element - in Soddo is a continua-

tion of *a- < *ay-. Since the alleged shift *a- >- is difficult to explain, onemay wonder whether the development *ay > *e > could provide a plau-sible alternative. Such a shift, however, would also be unique since thecombination ay- is usually preserved in both Soddo (ay-rs he does notbegin) and Gafat (ayfr3k he cannotsubordinate). An irregular simplification of*ay is not that improbable for a grammatical word of high frequency. In-deed, the Amharic form adllm is to be regarded as an independent ex-ample of a similar simplification from a more regularaydllm.

We may conclude that the negative copula based on the root *dbl orig-inally consisted of the imperfect base preceded by a vocalic element(probably going back to a combination of a personal prefix of the imper-fect and of a negative marker) and followed by an object suffix whichagreed with the logical subject. This may be true for all forms of thenegative copula, although in 1 sg. the object suffix is replaced by the sub-ject suffix of the perfect in all attested paradigms.

sg. and pl. and the subject suffixes of the perfect elsewhere. In Argobba ofol-

laha, only subject suffixes are used (A. Wetter, p. c.).31 The only difference between Gafat and Soddo is that the Gafat form alsodisplays the new negative prefix t-, obviously imposed on the older negative cop-ula as soon as its original negative marker became desemantized.


21/36


3.4. Negative copulas based on the verb *kona usually attach generalnegative markers rather than any lexically restricted markers. The onlyexception is Argobba of Aliyu Amba, where the negative copula has the

form a-huney-u, apparently with a negative prefix a- instead of the ex-pected general marker al- or the preformative ay- (NEG:3MS). Hudson(2003:214) seems to interpret this prefix as a continuation of the negativemarker *!ay- (rather than *!al-), but the data from Argobba of ollahapermit one to reconsider this question from a different angle. Indeed,the paradigms of the negative copula of Argobba of Aliyu Amba and Ar-gobba of ollaha are structurally similar: the base of the jussive is fol-lowed by an object suffix in 3 masc. sg. and pl. and by a subject suffix of

the perfect in the rest of the paradigm. In Argobba ofollaha, the nega-tive marker used with this combination is *!al- (-l- sometimes surfacing,but mostly assimilated to the first radical of the verb), in agreement withthe general pattern of negation of the perfect conjugation in this idiom.It stands to reason that the elementa- in the negative copula of Argobbaof Aliyu Amba must go back to the same negative morpheme, *l beingfirst assimilated to the initial radical and then dropped as a result of sim-plification of geminated consonants (v. fn. 40).

3.5. It is generally believed that the indeclinable negative copula !akko inGeez derives from the verbkona to be, become combined with the negativemarker *!al- (CDG 14 with further references). This etymology seems to besupported by the Tigre negative copula !i-kon which, as the Geez one, is inde-clinable, but preserves the final -n and is thus clearly related to the verbkona.

At the same time, it is hard to refrain from comparing Geez !akko withZway !unku and Selti inko, very similar to it in both form and function.32The vowels of the first syllable in East Gurage point to original *3,33 whichmakes it difficult to derive !un-/in- from *!al-. Instead, these elements are tobe identified with *!3n-, a marginally attested but doubtless archaic nega-tive marker found in such fossilized forms as Gez. !3n-d"i, Tna. !3n-d3"i,Amh. 3n-a I do not know, Gez. !3n-bi, !3n-b3ya no, Tna. !3m-bibl refuse(Leslau 1969b:140).34 If this etymology is correct, one has to choose be-tween *!3n-ko and *!al-ko as two alternative proto-ES reconstructions.

32 The form !unku in Zway is probably to be explained by a mutual assimila-tion of the first and second vowels (*!3n-ko > !unku).

33

For the variation between 3, i and u in Zway v. Meyer 2005:46. In Guttstranscription of Selti,i is the regular reflex of3.34 Leslau further compares the element 3n-, combined with 2 person forms of

the perfect and expressing prohibition in Muher, Mesqan, and Western Gurage,


22/36


The replacement of *!3n- by *!al- is indeed not improbable since*!al(a)- in proto-ES apparently functioned as the general negative markerin the same positions where *!3n- probably occurred as a lexically re-

stricted one: before nouns (*!3n-d") and before the preposition *ba-(*!3n-ba+POSS.1S). In such a context, identification of *-ko withkona mayseem a major problem: why a verbal form should have used negativemarkers typically associated with non-verbal forms? Still, one can surmisethat the use of non-verbal negative markers in this case was conditionedby desemantization of -ko, which already in proto-ES probably began tobe perceived as a non-verbal form. The emergence of negative copulasbased on kona in Tigre and elsewhere in ES must then be attributed to

independent development.3.6. It is not to be excluded that the negative copula in Harari (alta-m)

and the negative locative verb in Argobba ofollaha (yata-m) are related.The element -t- in the Harari form is certainly the same as in the positivecopula (with the basis t-, v. GaradWagner 1998:45). Given the fact thatthere is no plausible diachronic explanation for Argobbayata-m, one mayhypothesize that it is based on the same element -t-, followed by suffixesof the perfect and probably preceded by the general negative marker

*!al-, which, as in some other positions (fn. 38 and 40), could be assimi-lated to -t- with the subsequent loss of gemination. The negative locativeverb in Argobba ofollaha is thus structurally identical to the negativecopula of Harari (for the shift from copula to locative verb, v. section 1with fn. 5). One must admit that the initial y- in Argobba ofollaha re-mains difficult to explain. One might tentatively analyze it as a relativepronoun, whose appearance with a negative copula or a locative verbwould, however, be quite unusual.

4.Reconstructionoftheproto-ESnegativeparadigm

4.1. Table 3 (q.v.) gives a summary of the evidence presented and an-alyzed above.

A comparison between general negative markers and lexically re-stricted negative markers allows one to draw two conclusions aboutproto-ES negative markers combined with the perfect and with non-verbal forms.

but this is rather unlikely. Instead, the Gunnn-Gurage 3n- can be compared to!3l(a)- as the negative marker of the main imperfect in Wolane and Selti.


23/36


(1) The element *!i- can be reconstructed as the proto-ES generalnegative marker of the perfect. This function is preserved in Tigre ofMensa and in Geez, whereas in the rest of ES its traces can be detected in

the reflexes of the negative forms of the locative verb *hallawa (which, asis well known, has the inflectional paradigm of the perfect when it refersto the present time).

(2) Proto-ES probably used different methods for negating verbalforms and other words. The negative marker of non-verbal forms can bereconstructed as *!ala-, which preserves this function in some of the SESlanguages, but is restricted to negative constructions based on the prepo-sition *ba- in Gafat, Tigre, Tigrinya and Geez.

4.2. My hypotheses concerning the proto-ES negative markers of theimperfect/jussive are considerably more speculative since the data allowseveral interpretations.

The general negative marker of the imperfect/jussive is !ay- in Ti-grinya and !i- in Classical Geez and Tigre, whereas in Epigraphic Geez acomplementary distribution between !ay- and !i- is observed. As far asproto-SES is concerned, the general negative marker of the imper-fect/jussive is to be reconstructed *!al- or, alternatively, a complimentary

distribution between *!al- and *!ay- can be posited, structurally resem-bling the Epigraphic Geez picture.The most straightforward reconstruction based on these data is to as-

sume that the distribution between !ay- and !i- in Epigraphic Geez faith-fully reflects the proto-ES heritage. In such a case, various generaliza-tions in the verbal paradigm must have occurred in Tigre, Classical Geezand Tigrinya, whereas in SES the prefix *!al- (presumably going back tothe proto-ES negative marker of non-verbal forms *!ala-) must have re-placed the allomorph *!i- (or the morpheme *!i-/*!ay- in general)throughout the verbal paradigm.

This reconstruction may seem to face some difficulties. It is indeedhard to imagine how the proto-ES negative marker *!ala-, thought to berestricted to the rather marginal function of negating non-verbal formsin proto-ES, could have been generalized as the main negative mor-pheme in SES. Still, if one takes into consideration some phonologicalprocesses which likely affected the morphemes *!ay- and *!i- on their wayfrom proto-ES to SES, the emergence of *!al- in SES can find a satisfac-

tory explanation.The development of the negative paradigm from proto-ES to proto-

SES is thought to be influenced by two major factors.


24/36


The first one is the morphophonemic rule !VH- > yVH- which, asshown above (3.2), can be postulated for Tigrinya and SES. The negativemarker was thus likely realized as *y3- before the forms of the perfect of

verbs with initial gutturals as well as before the 1 sg. prefix !3- of theimperfect/jussive. In the latter case at least, such a realization must havebrought about the clearly undesirable development *!i-!3- > *y3!3- >*y3-, with the resulting homonymy of 1 sg. of the negative imper-fect/jussive with 3 masc. sg. of the affirmative imperfect/jussive. It maywell be that generalization of!ay- at the expense of *!i- in Tigrinya wastriggered by the necessity to avoid this homonymy. One has to recon-struct a similar generalization for proto-SES in order to account for the

further development: the replacement of *!ay- by *!al- is likely to be at-tributed to a phonological process (for which v. immediately below),whereas a direct change from *!i- to *!al- can hardly be explained inphonological terms.

The second factor potentially accounting for the shift from *!ay- to*!al- in SES is the alternation between -l- and -y-a phenomenon well at-tested in SES, but conspicuously absent from Geez, Tigre and Tigrinya.

Indeed, palatalization of *-l- into -y- before front vowels and y (as in

Amh. by sayimv. fem. sg. < *bl-i) is a regular morphophonemic process inSES. The opposite development, viz. hardening of the original intervo-calic -y- into -l-, can thus be regarded as hypercorrect interpretation ofeach intervocalic -y- as resulting from palatalization. This kind of hyper-correction is admittedly rare and sporadic, but several reliable examplescan be detected in some SES languages: Amh. abbl to break onespromise, promise falsely, Har.abla to refuse as opposed to Gez. !abayato refuse35 or Amh. lla to be red vs. Gez. ea (*y) to be red (CDG456, Cohen 1939:28, Praetorius 1879:48, 75; Podolsky 1991:36). A par-ticularly interesting case is Gaf.al brother/al3t sister (Leslau 1956:175),likely traceable to PS *!a(w)- (* > *y > l). One can assume that the samehypercorrect development took place whenever the negative *!ay- wasfollowed by a vowel. Although such environments in proto-SES wereprobably not so numerous as they are in most modern SES languages be-cause of the loss of gutturals, there are good reasons to suppose that theshift was at work at least before the etymological *-!-, likely dropped ear-lier than other gutturals. The path of the development can be recon-

structed as follows: *!ay-!V- > *!ay-V- > *!al-V-. The shift from *!ay- to

35 Contra Cerulli (1936:406) and Leslau (EDH 17), who reject this comparison.


25/36


*!al- was especially prominent in the 1 sg. imperfect/jussive (which oth-erwise would have become homonymous with 3 sg. masc. imper-fect/jussive) and in the dependent verbal forms (where the exponent

of the negative marker was least discernible). Indeed, the shift from-y- to -l- is quite conspicuous in some dependent negative forms of thelocative verb, cf. the Ancient Harari relative form of l (zi-ll or za-llwhich is not < *z3-yll), Amharic y-lell (< *y-yll), Argobba ofAliyu Amba ylella (< *y-yll). The same process may be responsiblefor the emergence of the allomorphs y-/-l- of the 1 sg. prefix in Zway(v. fn. 48).

It is thus likely that *!al- in the verbal negative paradigm of SES

emerged as a phonetically conditioned allomorph of *!ay-. How can oneexplain its expansion to preconsonantal environments? The existence ofthe phonetically similar old negative morpheme *!ala-, appearing beforeall non-verbal forms, including participles and infinitives, must have con-tributed in no small way to this expansion. Generalization of * !al- canthus be regarded as a merger of two negative markers of different ori-gin *!ala-, an archaic element used with non-verbal forms, and * !al-, aninnovative allomorph of *!ay-.36

The present reconstruction does not presuppose a common NES gen-eralization of *!i-/*!ay- as the principal negative marker throughout theverbal paradigm. Rather, generalizations of *!i- in Tigre and ClassicalGeez and that of *!ay- in Tigrinya are seen as independent developmentsfrom a common proto-ES stage, at which *!i- and *!ay- functioned ascomplimentary distributed allomorphs within the verbal paradigm.Moreover, generalization of *!ay- is reconstructed for proto-SES as well,as a stage preceding generalization of *!al-.37

In a similar vein, loss of the negative marker *!ala- confined to non-verbal elements appears as a trivial development which took place inde-pendently in Tigre, Tigrinya and Geez (most probably, in a few SES lan-guages as well) and, as such, has no classificatory value. Conversely, gen-eralization of *!al- as the general negative marker of the verb in SESturns out to be a reliable common innovation.

36 It is possible that the morphophonemic distribution of!ay- and !al- in nega-tive deverbal adjectives in Selti (v. fn. 19) is due to a similar merger of the pre-

verbal *!al-/!ay- with the negative marker *!al(a)- of the non-verbal forms. Obvi-ously, the process in Selti should be dated at a more recent stage.37 In view of the absence of *!ay- in Tigrinya of May Tchew it seems wise to re-

frain from treating *!ay- as a common innovation of Tigrinya and proto-SES.


26/36


This reconstruction is in agreement with other pieces of comparativeevidence connected with the NES/SES dichotomy: while common SESinnovations are by no means a rarity, there are hardly any convincing

examples of an innovative morphological feature shared by Geez, Tigreand Tigrinya (BulakhKogan 2010).


27/36

Table1.

NegationinEthio-Semiticlanguages

Thesign=

showsthatthiscontextis

nottreatedasaseparatem

orphologicalcategoryinthelanguageinquestion;thesign?

showsthatnoexactdatahavebeenfoundinthegrammaticaldescriptionsavailabletotheauthor.

Whenevergeminationofthe

adjacentconsonantisinvolved,noattemptatreconstructingth

econsonantoftheprefix

isundertaken,sothatthe

negative

morphemeisreferredtoas*!aC-.

Theform

sarenormallyadducedastheyarequotedinthegra

mmars,withnecessaryada

ptationsofthetranscription.

Thenegativemorphemes(orelementswhichresultfromthefusionofnegativemorphemeswithpersonalprefixes)areinbold.

Tgr.(Mensa)

Tgr.(Habab)

Dahalik

Gez.

Tna.

Amh.

Arg.ofAliyu

Amba

Arg.ofollaha

Perfect

!i-sabrahe

didnot

break

y3-sabra-n

(ni

)/

!i-sabrahed

id

notbreak

(y)i-...-ni

(yi-me!eki-nihe

didnotcome

toyou)

!i-sabara

hedid

not

break

!ay-s

br-n

hedidnot

break

al-sbbr-m

hedidn

ot

break

al-sddba-whe

didnotinsult

a-s3m"

a-m(

Date post:	08-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	taharcharfi
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Bulakh Negative Markers in Ethio-Semitics

Documents