Review: A Fresh Look at Sabaic

Reviewed Work(s): Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen by

Peter Stein
Review by: A. Avanzini
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society , Apr. - Jun., 2006, Vol. 126, No. 2
(Apr. - Jun., 2006), pp. 253-260
Published by: American Oriental Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20064481

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Fresh Look at Sabaic
A. AVANZINI
University of Pisa

In recent years, Norbert Nebes and Peter Stein have been doing an excellent job in fostering
a better understanding of Sabaic grammar. Particularly worthy of mention here is the succinct
but very well prepared summary of grammar in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World 's
Ancient Languages (Nebes and Stein 2003). This excellent volume by Stein is a study of
phonology and morphology and thus not simply a grammatical description but an authentic
linguistic study on Sabaic.
The very useful indices, which for every inscription give not only bibliographical but also
internal references?that is, page and note citing a specific line of a particular text?make
the vast Sabaic corpus accessible for the first time to scholars of south Arabia as well as to
scholars of Semitics in general. Great care has gone into the editing. One is struck by the
painstaking effort to prevent the trivial mistakes that are so easy to make in a work of this
size and of this editorial difficulty.
I confess that, upon opening the book I was somewhat frightened by the great quantity
of notes, but the first impressions that this was the work of a young scholar merely wishing
to appear knowledgeable by including as much bibliography as possible soon disappeared.
The notes are almost always rich in useful information, and they often cite other texts to
support the translations and grammatical rules discussed in the text.
Following the example of an excellent layout used earlier by Nebes, the grammar presents
around 580 examples that clarify the phonological and morphological phenomena discussed.
This approach is very effective, even though the contexts adduced are sometimes rather
difficult to interpret philologically, which makes the discussion rather contorted and hard to
read.
A number of morphological features of Sabaic, for example, the declension of the sub
stantive or the use of the n-suffix in the infinitive of the verb have already been presented
by the author in previous works (Stein 2002a; 2002b), and he has returned to the general
topic of the diachronic and geographical subdivision of Sabaic in two articles published
subsequent to his grammatical work (Stein 2004; 2005).
The breadth of documentation on Sabaic and its complex temporal, geographical, and
typological evolution emerge clearly from Stein's work. Sabaic is certainly the best known
language of south Arabia, with its very long history of almost 1500 years and an enormous
corpus of attestations in a variety of textual genres: construction texts, dedications, and legal
texts; no fewer than 5,300 of them constitute the documentary basis on which Stein con
structs his work. A number are short and linguistically simple, but the majority are syn
tactically complex and discursive; to the monumental texts are to be added the earliest
examples written in cursive characters carved on wooden sticks.

This is a review article of: Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sab?ischen. By Peter Stein.
Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, vol. 3. Rahden, Westphalia: Verlag Marie Leidorf,
2003. Pp. xiii + 324, map.

Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.2 (2006) 253

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
254 Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.2 (2006)

Stein's criterion for defining a Sabaic text is purely linguistic: a Sabaic text is one that
has Sabaic linguistic features (p. 4). This is not always self-evident. Texts such as CSAI I,
7 = Doe 6 and CSAI I, 8 = Doe 7, written in the capital of Qataban, are only included
by Stein in the Sabaic corpus because they contain certain "Sabaic" morphological features
within a text which was obviously drawn up in Qataban. This is a question internal to
Qatabanic language and culture, and the texts are assuredly Qatabanic and not Sabaic. The
definition of an epigraphic corpus should be based on a combination of linguistic and cul
tural features.
From the viewpoint of general reconstruction, it is significant that Stein always refers to
the Sabaic "language" (pp. 4-5) and the other south Arabian "languages," scrapping the mis
leading definition still found in Beeston's first work of grammar (1962), of a south Arabian
"language" and its "dialects," Sabaic, Minaic and so on. Stein rightly urges the publication
of works of grammar for other south Arabian languages, and I fully agree with his impression
that there are significant grammatical differences among the languages of south Arabia. By
contrast, I am much less in agreement with his statement that "South Arabian" is a purely
geographical term (indicating, in addition, a characteristic common writing method) and not
a linguistic one. Resemblances among south Arabian languages can certainly not be dem
onstrated merely on the basis of a common script, but rather on that of a series of phono
logical, morphological, syntactical, and lexical features which make up a linguistic group
within Semitic.
In my view, the idea of an "innovative" Sabaic being part of "central Semitic" (according
to Hetzron's well-known definition) put forward by Voigt (1987) and Nebes (2001) and here
taken up by Stein, while the other three south Arabian languages are considered more archaic
and more similar to Modern South Arabian and Ethiopie, must also be reconsidered. My own
work on the Qatabanic corpus (Avanzini 2004; 2005) has brought to light typical features
of what in many ways, including writing and morphology, is a well-stratified language lin
guistically more "innovative" than Sabaic. Sabaic is assuredly the language of south Arabia
for which we now possess the most tools: Beeston's grammars, a number of grammatical
sketches, and the Sabaic dictionary.
At the outset of this work, Stein lists the reasons why he thought it necessary to present
a new work on Sabaic grammar despite the existence of several others: Beeston's works
(one from 1962 about all the south Arabian languages, the other from 1984) are too concise
to address all the linguistic and epigraphic problems raised by the documentation. There has
been a notable increase in recent years of the number of inscriptions published. The first
non-monumental Sabaic texts written on sticks or on palm-leaf stalks published recently
document for the first time a language typologically different from that of the monumental
texts. Many recent studies have clarified or modified aspects of Sabaic grammar. Stein could
perhaps have added another reason, which appears to have no direct bearing on his work: the
beginning of Sabaic documentation dates back almost five hundred years earlier than stated
in Beeston's works.
The short chronology, which dates the beginning of southern Arabian states to the middle
of the first millennium A.D., an idea widely accepted from the mid-1950s up to the 1990s, was
put forward and backed up by epigraphers who preferred to concentrate the south Arabian
documentation into a shorter period. Pushing the beginning of its history back to the early
centuries of the millennium, which archaeologists have obliged reluctant philologists to
accept, brings a new perspective to studies on south Arabia, the implications of which should
be given the prominence they deserve and not considered of secondary importance. Ante
dating the first written attestations of the language by almost five hundred years is by no

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AvANZiNi: A Fresh Look at Sabaic 255

means of secondary importance either for the history of Sabaic itself or for comparative
studies.
In his introduction, Stein presents the epigraphic corpus on which his grammar is based
(pp. 5-10), tracing its development through time and space also in the description of the
individual phenomena, closely examining the resulting variations. Compared to previous
works of grammar, Stein's constitutes a fundamental milestone in south Arabian linguistic
studies precisely because of the attention he focuses on the complexity of the documen
tation. The morphological features are not simply listed alongside one other as in earlier
works, but are subdivided and set in their proper evolutionary perspective and geographical
placement.
The study of dialectal differences is very important; despite the lack of documentation
for the other languages of pre-Islamic Arabia, they too had an equally complex history.
Qatabanic shows very clear "dialectal" features in documentation from the outer regions of
the kingdom on the high plateau. Stein identifies a core area of Sabaic documentation (the
region of Marib, Sirwah), and high plateau documentation, with the latter also showing dif
ferences between the western high plateau and its eastern parts (the vicinity of Radman),
where one can see mechanisms of convergence with Qatabanic.
The documentation of the high plateau will have to be studied in its entirety some day in
order to understand the contact mechanisms. One general question to be asked, for instance,
is whether Sabaeans and Qatabanians met on the high plateau, as Stein seems to think in
describing some features of Sabaic from the region of Radman (p. 8). This would explain
why some "Qatabanisms" are found in Sabaic inscriptions and why some Qatabanic inscrip
tions contain "Sabaisms." But this idea only envisages contact between the two linguistic
communities in a far-off region, neglecting the peoples who actually lived there. Both Qata
banic and Sabaic were probably superstrate languages on the high plateau, enjoying great
cultural prestige as written idioms, and texts might possibly display not only phenomena of
contact between the two languages but also with the language of the inhabitants of the high
plateau itself. We might well find ourselves confronted with a linguistic phenomenon
involving three actors and not just two. From both an historical and a linguistic stand
point, the high plateau is assuming a crucial importance in the history of south Arabia (see
Wilkinson 2005).
Stein relegates the Sabaic inscriptions in Ethiopia from the first millennium to a note
(p. 168, n. 78), and the definition he applies to them ("?thio-sab?isch") makes it clear that
he does not consider them Sabaic and, indeed, he does not include them in the index of
Sabaic inscriptions. I find it hard to agree with this. The situation in Ethiopia was not so
different from that on the high plateau: Sabaean language and culture were imposed, but
they also interacted with the local populations.
In terms of diachronic development, Beeston had already divided the Sabaic material
into three major periods: Early, Middle, and Late, for which Stein suggests the following
absolute dates: Early Sabaic from the ninth to the eighth century b.c., Middle Sabaic from
the third century b.c. to the end of the third century a.D., and Late Sabaic from the fourth
to the sixth century a.D.
At this juncture, I would like to review briefly some of the linguistic features Stein iden
tifies as significant for dating the drafting of a text, features which are also useful in a broader
discussion.
The assimilation of ? to a following consonant appears only after Early Sabaic (pp. 19
22). Stein not only rightly states that a single phenomenon does not constitute solid proof,
but also that the absence of assimilation can sometimes be taken as a mere graphic

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.2 (2006)

phenomenon. Therefore, while full writing does not necessarily indicate non-assimilation,
by contrast assimilation is certain proof that a text is post-Early Sabaic. The only exception
seems to be RES 3945 (example 13), the great Karibil inscription and one of the primary
texts for our knowledge of ancient Sabaic, where line 8 reads: w-nqm yhqm hr S!b\ "and he
avenged the free men of Saba." Yhqm can be interpreted on the basis of the preceding nqm
as a causative of the root NQM, with assimilation of the first radical. Stein eliminates this
exception by postulating a causative of the root QWM, "to establish, set, or place." Deriving
yhqm from QWM removes the paronomasia that comes from the inner object, but is none
theless a possible solution. Another interpretation that Stein would probably accept, because
it eliminates the problem of the temporal value of the verb yhqm, would be to take Yhqm as
a proper noun (p. 21 n. 27). This, however, is unacceptable: the avenger of dead Sabaean
citizens can only be the king, certainly not an unknown Yhqm. Stein also wonders how to
interpret nqm, which cannot be an infinitive absolute, a syntactic construction well known
in Hebrew, but not in Sabaic. (An example of this use of the infinitive is, however, attested
in Qatabanic: CSAI I, 208 = R 3566, 9, 11-120.) Nor can nqm be a substantive, because in
that case it should have mimation. But this is a false problem. In order to emphasize the
vengeance perpetrated by the king, the author of the text has anticipated the substantive gov
erning the verb that follows: "the vengeance with which he avenged the free men of Saba."
An interesting linguistic feature identified by Stein is the appearance of the n-suffix on the
infinitive only in post-Early Sabaic. This suffix only occasionally appears on the infinitive,
and its use had been considered more a coincidence or a lexical choice (Nebes 1988) than
a question of grammar. Stein has discovered a rule for its use (pp. 198-200): the suffix is
attached to the derived forms of the verb and not to the basic form in inscriptions from the
center of the kingdom of Saba and from the western high plateau. It never appears in ancient
Sabaic or in the eastern area of the high plateau.
There are other lexical features that enable us to distinguish Middle Sabaic from Early
Sabaic. I refer, for example, to the preposition "from" set in relation to "to," which in Early
Sabaic is In (cf. Ugaritic), which is later replaced by bn. This rigidity of writing in Sabaic
texts has, furthermore, some interesting historical consequences, and the study of stylistic dif
ferences is assuredly a factor in geographical and chronological classification. Determining
how the centers of culture change through time is rich in possible consequences for writing
the history of south Arabia.
The graphic oscillation highlighted by Stein regarding the general issue of writing vowels
deserves a general remark. He points out that the preposition/conjunction cd(y) is always
attested in Early Sabaic in defective writing, but later in full writing. He correctly links this
diachronic variation to similar phenomena. For example, the termination of the dual nomina
tive of the substantive (pp. 92-93) and of the verb (pp. 169-70) in Early Sabaic is 0, vs. -y
in later Sabaic. Starting from the fact that the long a-vowel in Sabaic was never marked in
writing (pp. 41-43), Stein postulates that Sabaic presents a phenomenon similar to the Arabic
imala. The pronunciation of the ? would have become ?, and hence it would have been
written with the mater lectionis y. An easier explanation is to be found in the tendency over
time to write an increasing number of matres lectionis. (A very similar phenomenon is also
to be seen in Qatabanic.) The earliest phase of Sabaic displays a very limited use of matres
lectionis compared to other south Arabian languages. In particular, it does not write a (being
in this regard wholly parallel, for instance, to epigraphic Aramaic). In later periods the a is
written and, as in other Semitic languages, is the most ambiguously marked vowel. This leads
us to the remarks of Robin on the possible writing of a with w and y, with which Stein does
not agree (p. 41 n. 193).

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AvANZiNi: A Fresh Look at Sabaic 257

The dual supplies proof for our argument: as Stein himself maintains, we must reconstruct
a termination /-?/ for the dual. The difficulty in writing this vowel is seen in the initial de
fective writing followed in Sabaic by normalization as -y, but as -w in Qatabanic, two ways of
writing the same morphological marker. I therefore believe that the alternation of defective
and full writings for these phenomena is a question of writing tradition and not of language.
As regards phonetics, Stein agrees, while mentioning some exceptions (p. 18 n. 5), with
the phonetic correspondence of the three non-emphatic unvoiced sibilants suggested by
Beeston: south Arabian s1 = Semitic s; south Arabian s2 = Semitic s; south Arabian s3 =
Semitic s, but he rejects Beeston's suggested transcription of the sibilants. In my opinion, this
is wrong in a work of grammar. The "traditional" transcription system is at best ambiguous in
a south Arabian text edition, but it becomes decidedly misleading in a study of phonetics,
which is also presumably aimed at readers who are not specialists in south Arabian. A non
specialist is likely to be somewhat worried to see, on page 19, s listed among the lateral
south Arabian consonants alongside d, while only on closer examination does it become clear
that s is s2, which, in turn, corresponds to Semitic s.
Stein often also explains phonetic changes by dialectal and diachronic variants. The devel
opment s3 > s1, for example, is typical for Late Sabaic: ms3dn becomes ms1dn, and the prepo
sition s3n becomes sJn. Furthermore, an interesting phonetic shift attested only in cursive
texts, d instead of z, is explained by Stein as a dialectal phenomenon, since the majority of
sticks on which the relevant texts are written comes from as-Sawda, in the Jawf.
In addition to dialectal or diachronic differences, Stein very reasonably considers that in
regard to phonetic changes there may exist variants in the spoken language which only
emerge in texts. This explanation well suits the oscillation between sibilants or the phonetic
changes found in the texts on sticks mentioned earlier.
The chapters on nouns and verbs are very interesting. In particular, Stein's remarks on the
states of nouns are original, and while I do not find them wholly convincing, they certainly
direct attention to the issue.
If a general criticism of this significant work is to be made, it is that the author has
unreasonably placed every phenomenon examined into set categories within rules. While
such precision is not always easy even for well-documented dead languages, for example,
ancient Greek, it is virtually impossible for a language like Sabaic.
In Sabaic the substantive can be in the construct state, determinate with an n-suf?x, or
have an m-suffix, which is normally defined as marking the indeterminate state. Precisely
because Sabaic is attested as early as the beginning of the first millennium, the presence
of a morpheme determining the substantive is something new, as for all the other Semitic
languages of the same period. This phenomenon is absent in second millennium Semitic lan
guages, and had not yet become usual, as it had, for example, in Arabic. Furthermore, south
Arabian makes use of two morphological markers with a long history. The m-element was
an indicator of the singular of the noun in opposition to the dual and plural marked by n. In
Akkadian and Amorite the two suffixes had already lost this function and had taken on others,
such as marking the determinate or indeterminate states (see Diem 1975).
Substantives with the m-suffix have posed problems of definition. Beeston found a way
to highlight the issue by replacing "indeterminate state" with "absolute state," pointing out
that it is difficult to define as an indefinite marker a suffix normally also applied to proper
nouns, which by definition constitute the category with the greatest semantically determi
nate function within a linguistic system. But in addition, other examples of nouns with
mimation do not fit the definition of "indeterminate substantive" as we understand it in
our languages. Also, the presence of substantives with the w-suffix in Qatabanic, which can

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
258 Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.2 (2006)

almost never be summarily defined as "indeterminate," gives an idea of the complexity of

the problem.
Curiously, Stein, who is always attentive to diachronic and geographic variations of these
phenomena, gives no examples of oscillation in the presence of the m-suffix. Instead, well
attested oscillations such as the Ja 633 (n. 115), an inscription from Marib: drm b-hrfm,
"one time a year," should be compared to the inscription RES 4176 of the third century b.c.
from the high plateau: >lmn b-hrf "two banquets a year," and also w-kwn mrt( ylmn hmslt
b-yhd hrfym Tr(t, "and the payment of five banquets each year shall be on the day of 7rci,"
with hrf without m.
Stein does not abandon the definition of "indeterminate state" in favor of an abstract,
polys?mie one like "absolute state," as Beeston suggested for the noun with mimation. This
is not just a more or less interesting question of terminology. Stein believes that "absolute
state" is a fourth state of the noun in Sabaic, found in some nominal categories: cardinal
numbers, the names of the seasons, or the points of the compass, which, as has been
pointed out in previous grammatical works, has no suffix. Similar to the "absolute state" in
Akkadian, these are nouns which are syntactically in the construct state but with no genitive
connotation (p. 88). The employment of the "absolute state," like many uses of the m-suffix,
is an issue of syntax. Postponing a study of syntax to a later work was not a good idea here,
and makes the morphological phenomenon less clear.
As I continued reading with ever increasing interest, making notes on the study of
grammar, it occurred to me that the readership Stein had intended to serve was first and
foremost scholars of south Arabia. Because it is high time for Arabia to reach out and hold
a dialogue with a broader audience, a somewhat greater effort of synthesis would have been
welcome. What would be useful is not so much the creation of often highly hypothetical
synoptic tables or the writing of yet another work on the grammar of epigraphic Aramaic,
but rather the presentation of the novelties that our heightened knowledge of Sabaic now
reveals. Although Stein did not intend to write a work of comparative grammar, he might
have given proper emphasis to those aspects of Sabaic most suggestive to the scholar of
comparative Semitics, distinguishing them from more trivial features of the language.
The description of the feminine substantive here is a bit too detailed, if no emphasis is
given to the fact that south Arabian languages also keep the -t suffix for feminine nouns
outside the construct state, an archaic feature in all of south Arabia no longer present in any
first millennium Semitic language. Also concerning nouns, special mention should be made
of the interesting chapter on declension (pp. 95-97), which Stein reconstructs on the basis
of plural terminations (marked by matres lectionis w [nominative] and y [non-nominative]),
which regularly take the substantive bn.
The chapter on verbs is one of the most interesting because of the centrality of the verbal
system in every language. In these pages, the number of examples cited, the incredible wealth
of the documentation presented, the new forms attested in the cursive texts, and the interest
shown for a number of forms and comparisons is truly outstanding.
Here I wish to comment on a general historical linguistic issue on which I am not in com
plete agreement with Stein. The chapter treating the prefixing form yf(l is one of the most
interesting, since it deals with general problems of linguistic classification. For years, when
linguists compared the verbal isogloss y?nag?r vs. y?ng?r (Ethiopie and Modern South
Arabian; indicative/conjunctive) to Akkadian iprus vs. iparras (preterite/present), they in
terpreted it as supporting the hypothesis of a layer of archaic Semitic, attested geographically
on the periphery of the Semitic area and dating to a period prior to the innovation of the
more recent central Semitic. Moreover, the study of Sabaic grammar carried out in recent

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AvANZiNi: A Fresh Look at Sabaic 259

years by Nebes has made a subjunctive y?ng?r very unlikely, as opposed to an indicative
y?nag?r. (On the question of the subjunctive, see Nebes 1994; 1997.) Stein agrees with Nebes
on the absence in south Arabian of the iprus/iparras opposition. Ancient south Arabian,
therefore, seems closer to recent Semitic (Arabic) than to archaic Semitic.
Despite what I have maintained in the past, I too believe that there is no proof for the
existence of the /yaqattal/ form in south Arabian. But in the reconstruction of archaic
southern Semitic, this feature loses all its importance if we imagine an independent develop
ment of the /yaqattal/ form in Modern South Arabian and Ethiopie (cf. Cohen 1974: 59-78;
Marrassini 2003: 465).
Much more interesting is another isogloss between ancient South Arabian and Northwest
Semitic in the second millennium pointed out by Tropper (1994) and rejected by both Nebes
and Stein. This regards two prefixed forms found alongside the suffixed form in both south
Arabian and Ugaritic, one of which is long and the other short, the former indicating the
narrative present and the second the aorist. These two forms have been proven to exist in
Qatabanic, along with the later addition, by means of an obvious neo-morphologism, of the
form with the b- prefix to indicate the present-future.
Perhaps having oversimplified, Tropper thought he had at least partly explained the two
forms of the Sabaic "imperfect" as yf'ln = "present," yfcl = "past," and on this matter some
of Stein's remarks (p. 166 n. 67) are assuredly correct. But to go so far as to deny the
presence of a prefixed form indicating a "past" runs counter to the documentary evidence.
Suffice it to recall yhqm mentioned earlier, which even Stein translates with the past "r?chte."
Stein's explanation of the apparent past tense significance of the prefixed forms is linked
to the syntactic capacity of the yf l-form to relate to the verb of the main clause (p. 166).
This may be true, but Sabaic has a way of marking temporal concomitance, namely by
means of a chain of infinitives. As soon as a new action is introduced by a w-yfcl verb form,
the text syntactically emphasizes a shift in style, and in these contexts, yfcl certainly has past
significance.
Gruntfest (1999), who is not mentioned in the extensive bibliography, draws interesting
stylistic parallels with Hebrew wa-yiqtol. In Hebrew, also, the wa-yiqtol form is to be
explained, historically at least, not as a "converted" tense, but rather as a reflex of an early
Semitic preterite (Huehnergard 1996: 252-53).
In sum, the Sabaic verb has no particular relationship with that in Modern South Arabian
or Ethiopie, and even less with the Arabic; but it does share features with the verb of second
millennium Northwest Semitic. I am convinced that south Arabian culture and language
were of endogenous formation, as opposed to a result of mass movements of people in the
second and first millennium from the Levant (cf. Wilkinson 2005), and I feel sure that new
knowledge of the ancient languages of southern Arabia will force us to reconsider our clas
sification of ancient South Arabian within Semitic.
I hope that these remarks will convey an idea of the importance of this book for scholars
of south Arabia and students of Semitics in general. Stein has given new prominence to
a Semitic language with a long and complex history, the product of an ancient Near East
culture that deserves to be better known by scholars of neighboring disciplines.

REFERENCES

Avanzini, A. 2004. Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions I-III. Qatabanic, Marginal Qatabanic,
Awsanite Inscriptions. Pisa.
_. 2005. Some Remarks on the Classification of Ancient South Arabian Languages. Quaderni
di Semitistica 25: 117-25.

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 260 Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.2 (2006)

Cohen, D. 1978. La phrase nominale et l'?volution du syst?me verbal en s?mitique. Paris.

Diem, W. 1975. Gedanken zur Frage der Mimation und Nunation in den semitischen Sprachen. ZDMG
125: 239-58.
Gruntfest, Y. 1999. The Consecutive Imperfect in Semitic Epigraphy. In Michael: Historical, Epi
graphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, ed. Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch.
Tel Aviv. Pp. 171-89.
Huehnergard, J. 1996. New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages. In The Study of the Ancient
Near East in the Twenty-First Century, ed. J. S. Cooper and G M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, Ind.
Pp. 251-72.
Marrassini, P. 2003. Sur le sud-s?mitique: probl?mes de definition. In M?langes David Cohen, ed.
J. Lentin and A. Lonnet. Paris. Pp. 461-70.
Nebes, N. 1988. The Infinitive in Sabaean and Qatabanian Inscriptions. Proceedings of the Seminar
for Arabian Studies 18: 63-78.
_. 1994. Verwendung und Funktion der Pr?fixkonjugation im Sab?ischen. In Arabia Felix:
Beitr?ge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien. Festschrift Walter W. M?ller zum 60.
Geburtstag, ed. N. Nebes. Wiesbaden. Pp. 191-211.
_. 1997. Stand und Aufgaben einer Grammatik des Alts?darabischen. In Aktualisierte Beitr?ge
zum 1. Internationalen Symposion S?darabien interdisziplin?r an der Universit?t Graz mit kurzen
Einf?hrung zu Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte, ed. R. G Stiegner. Graz. Pp. 111-31.
_. 2001. Zur Genese der alts?darabischen Kultur: Eine Arbeitshypothese. In Migration und
Kulturtransfer: Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischen Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1.
vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums. Berlin, 23. bis 26 November
1999, ed. R. Eichmann and H. Parzinger. Bonn. Pp. 427-35.
Nebes, N., and P. Stein. 2003. Ancient South Arabian. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's
Ancient Languages, ed. R. D. Woodard. Cambridge. Pp. 454-87.
Stein, P. 2002a. Gibt es Kasus im Sab?ischen? In Neue Beitr?ge zur Semitistik, ed. N. Nebes. Wies
baden. Pp. 201-22.
_. 2002b. Zur Morphologie des sab?ischen Infinitivs. Orientalia 71: 393-414.
_. 2004. Zur Dialektographie des Sab?ischen. Journal of Semitic Studies 49: 225-45.
_. 2005. Linguistic Contribution to Sabaean Chronology. Arch?ologische Berichte aus dem
Yemen 10: 179-89.
Tropper, J. 1994. Present *yaqtulum in Central Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 39: 1-6.
Voigt, R. M. 1987. The Classification of Central Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 32: 1-27.
Wilkinson, T. J. 2005. The Other Side of Sheba: Early Towns in the Highlands of Yemen. Bibliotheca
Orientalis 62: 1?14.

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:02:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms