O!

printfrom
O!print fromEncyclopedia
EncyclopediaofofArabic
ArabicLanguage
Languageand
andLinguistics,
Linguistics,
ed.K.
ed. K.Versteegh
Versteegh(Leiden:
(Leiden:Brill),
Brill),volume
volume33(2007)

408 northwest semitic languages

the Bani !axar tribe”. Orientalia Suecana 29.112–
138.
——. 1984a. “A general classification for the Arabic
dialects spoken in Palestine and Transjordan”. Stu-
dia Orientalia 55.359–376.
——. 1984b. “Further notes on the descriptive imper-
ative of narrative style in spoken Arabic”. Studia
Orientalia 55.377–391.
——. 1984–1986. “Characteristics of the Arabic
dialect of the "w#$%t tribe”. Orientalia Suecana
33–35.295–312.
——. 1989. “Linguistic sketch of the Arabic dialect of
el-Karak”. Studia linguistica et orientalia memoriae
Haim Blanc dedicata, ed. Paul Wexler, Alexander
Borg, and Sasson Somekh, 225–251. Wiesbaden:
O. Harrassowitz.
——. 1991. “Is there a North West Arabian dialect
group?”. Festgabe für Hans-Rudolf Singer, zum
65. Geburtstag am 6. April 1990, überreicht von
seinen Freunden und Kollegen, ed. Martin Forstner,
I, 151–166. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.
——. 1997. “Linguistic observations of the explor-
ers of Arabia in the 19th century”. Built on solid
rock: Studies in honour of Professor Ebbe Egede
Knudsen on the occasion of his 65th birthday April
11th 1997, ed. Elie Wardini, 226–239. Oslo: Novus
Forlag and Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kultur-
forskning.
——. 2004. “Remarks on the Arabic dialect of the
"w#$%t tribe”. Jerusalem Studies of Arabic and
Islam 29 (2004), 195–209.
Peake, Frederick G. 1958. History and tribes of Jor-
dan. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press.
Piamenta, Moshe. 1996. “More on the Arabic dialect
of the Negev Bedouins”. Quaderni di Studi Arabi
14.123–136.
Rabin, Chaim. 1951. Ancient West-Arabian. London:
Taylor’s Foreign Press.
Reichmuth, Stefan. 1983. Der arabische Dialekt der
Šukriyya im Ostsudan. Hildesheim: G. Olms.
Rentz, G. 1968. “Al-"uway$%t”. Encyclopaedia of
Islam, 2nd ed. III, 642–644. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Rosenhouse, Judith. 1984. The Bedouin Arabic
dialects: General problems and a close analy-
sis of North Israel Bedouin dialects. Wiesbaden:
O. Harrassowitz.
Schreiber, Giselher. 1970. Der arabische Dialekt von
Mekka: Abriß der Grammatik mit Texten und
Glossar. Ph.D. diss., University of Münster.
Sieny, Mahmoud Esma!il. 1978. The syntax of urban
Hijazi Arabic (Sa!udi Arabia). London and Beirut:
Librairie du Liban and Longman.
Stewart, Frank Henderson. 1987. “A Bedouin narra-
tive from Central Sinai”. Zeitschrift für Arabische
Linguistik 16.44–92.
——. 1988. Texts in Sinai Bedouin law. I. The texts in
English translation. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
——. 1990. Texts in Sinai Bedouin law. III. The texts
in Arabic. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
Wallin, George Augustus. 1854. “Narrative of a jour-
ney from Cairo to Medina and Mecca, by Suez,
Arabá, Tawilá, al-Jauf, Jubbé, Háil, and Nejd, in
1845”. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society
24.115–207.
Werner, Jürgen. 2003. “Ein arabischer Text aus dem
Wadi Ram/Jordanien: Bestandsaufnahme alltägli-
cher sprachlicher Verwirrung am Beispiel eines
beduinischen Sprechers”. Zeitschrift für Arabische
Linguistik 42.53–79.
Yrttiaho, Kaarlo. 1988. “Texts from Arabia Petraea
in the dialect of the seminomadic an-N!#m%t tribe of
the Shara mountains (Jordan)”. Studia Orientalia
64.145–168.
Heikki Palva (University of Helsinki)
Northwest Semitic Languages
1. T h e N o r t h w e s t S e m i t i c
Languages
The term ‘Northwest Semitic’ is the traditional
designation of a group of languages compris-
ing Ugaritic, the Canaanite dialects, and the
Aramaic dialects.
Ugaritic is the language of the ancient city
of Ugarit (modern R%s Šamra, on the north-
east coast of the Mediterranean in Syria). The
roughly eleven hundred Ugaritic texts are writ-
ten in an alphabetic cuneiform script on clay
tablets; unlike other Semitic alphabets, the
Ugaritic script reads from left to right. In addi-
tion to several important mythological texts,
there are also some hundred letters, a few legal
documents and treaties, and several hundred
administrative texts. Most of the texts date to
the 13th/12th centuries B.C.E., although some
of the literary texts were probably written ear-
lier. The alphabetic script indicates consonants
only, although there are three signs for aleph
(hamza), each of which indicates the glottal
stop followed by a different vowel quality (e.g.
<ŠMAL> for /šim&%lu/ ‘left’; <ŠIL> for /ša&ila/
‘he asked’; <RPUM> for /r%pi&'ma/ ‘healers’
[nom.]). The standard reference grammar of
Ugaritic is Tropper (2000).
The best-known form of Canaanite is Hebrew.
The earliest Biblical Hebrew texts probably
date to about the 12th century B.C.E., and the
latest to the 2nd century B.C.E. There are also
many Hebrew inscriptions, most of them quite
short, beginning in the 10th century B.C.E.; the
grammar of these is nearly identical to that of
Biblical Hebrew, although a number of geo-
graphical variations are attested. Developments
in the grammar over the centuries also occur in
both biblical and inscriptional texts. From the
2nd century B.C.E. to the 5th century C.E. is
the period of Mishnaic Hebrew, which reflects

!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*12 314*4'115000+6&(6'5078
 northwest semitic languages
a spoken dialect not directly descended from
Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew continued to be writ-
ten in the medieval and early modern periods,
and – a phenomenon unique among the world’s
languages – was revived as a spoken language
in the 19th century (! Ivrit). Hebrew vocalism
is known from the use of vowel letters (matres
lectionis), which began early in the history of
the written language, and from vowel points
that were added to consonantal texts beginning
in the late 1st millennium C.E. Reference gram-
mars of Biblical Hebrew include Gesenius a.o.
(1910), Bauer and Leander (1922), Waltke and
O’Connor (1990), and Joüon (1991).
Another well-known form of Canaanite is
Phoenician, the language of the city-states of
the eastern Mediterranean coast, such as Tyre,
Sidon, and Byblos. The earliest texts, from
Byblos, date to the beginning of the 10th cen-
tury B.C.E., while the latest are from the 2nd
century C.E. The dialect of the texts written
in Phoenician colonies established around the
Mediterranean and beyond, especially that of
Carthage (Phoenician /qart (adašt/ ‘new city’)
is referred to by scholars as Punic (from the 5th
century B.C.E.). After the fall of Carthage, texts
are said to be written in Neo-Punic (attested
until the 5th century C.E.). The Phoenician
alphabet is purely consonantal; there is no indi-
cation of vowels until late in the Punic period.
The standard reference work on Phoenician is
Friedrich, Röllig, and Amadasi Guzzo (1999).
Another Canaanite dialect is Moabite,
attested almost solely in the long 9th-century
inscription of the Moabite king Meša!. Still
other Canaanite dialects, attested in a few short
inscriptions only, are Ammonite and Edomite
(9th/6th centuries B.C.E.; see Parker 2002).
The earliest attestation of Canaanite is found
in a group of several hundred letters sent by
vassal rulers in cities in Syria-Palestine (includ-
ing Byblos, Tyre, Jerusalem, Shechem, Gezer,
Ashkelon) during the first half of the 14th
century B.C.E., to their Egyptian suzerain. The
texts were found in excavations at Akhetaten,
a short-lived capital of the Egyptian Empire
under King Akhenaten (Amenophis IV), mod-
ern el-!Am%rna. While ostensibly written in
Akkadian, the lingua franca of the period, the
letters betray a great deal of the scribes’ native
Canaanite language, especially in the morpho-
syntax of the verb, which is strikingly similar
to that of Classical Arabic. Glosses of actual
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*19
409
Canaanite words are also frequently encoun-
tered in these texts. The still-standard critical
edition of the texts is Knudtzon (1907–1915);
the grammar is described in Rainey (1996).
Aramaic is first attested in inscriptions on
stone monuments dating to the 9th century
B.C.E. These early inscriptions, down to the
6th century B.C.E., are collectively referred
to as Old Aramaic, an umbrella term, since
the inscriptions reveal a variety of grammati-
cal idiosyncrasies. The inscriptions are writ-
ten in the 22-letter Phoenician alphabet; the
usage of the consonants indicates that many
of the consonantal mergers that characterize
later Aramaic had not yet occurred in this
early period. During the Achaemenid period,
Aramaic became one of the official languages
of the Persian chancery, a factor in its spread
across the Near East as a lingua franca for
much of the next millennium. Official (or Impe-
rial) Aramaic, as this phase is called, comprises
a large number of letters and legal documents,
most found in Egypt, as well as the Aramaic of
the Biblical book of Ezra. After the fall of the
Persian Empire, in which Aramaic texts exhibit
a relatively uniform standard language, Ara-
maic begins again to show dialectal diversity; in
the so-called Middle Aramaic period (3rd cen-
tury B.C.E.-2nd century C.E.), dialects include
Palestinian (in the Biblical book of Daniel, in
texts from Qumran, and in certain targums, i.e.
Aramaic translations of Biblical texts), Naba-
taean, Palmyrene, and Hatran. In Late Aramaic
(3rd-9th centuries C.E.), a division into eastern
and western forms of the language is evident.
Western Late Aramaic includes the large corpus
of Jewish targum and talmud texts, a significant
number of Christian texts in a dialect known
as Christian Palestinian, and the Aramaic of
the small Samaritan sect. Eastern Late Aramaic
includes the text of the Babylonian Talmud,
as well as Mandaic. Syriac, the dialect of an
enormous corpus of Christian texts, is variously
considered to be an Eastern dialect or a sepa-
rate branch. Aramaic continues to be spoken
by more than one hundred thousand people,
especially the many dialects known collectively
as Northeastern ! Neo-Aramaic (from Iran,
Iraq, and northeastern Syria) but also )'r*yo
in Turkey, and the Western dialects of the vil-
lages of Ma!l'la and vicinity near Damascus. A
comprehensive Aramaic grammar has not been
written; for Old Aramaic, see Degen (1969)
314*4'115000+6&(6'5078
 410 northwest semitic languages

and Hug (1993); for Imperial Aramaic, Folmer
(1995) and Muraoka and Porten (2003); for
Biblical Aramaic, Bauer and Leander (1927)
and Rosenthal (1995); for Nabataean, Can-
tineau (1930–1932); for Palmyrene, Cantineau
(1935); for Mandaic, Macuch (1965); for Syr-
iac, Nöldeke (1904); for other late varieties of
Aramaic, see, for example, Dalman (1905),
Müller-Kessler (1991), and Macuch (1982).
In Akkadian (and a few Egyptian) texts of
the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia B.C.E.
personal names are found that do not conform
to the usual pattern of Akkadian personal
names. The individuals bearing such names
are often called Amorites. Many of the names
exhibit features of the later Northwest Semitic
languages (in phonology, e.g. in the name ia-
qa-rum = /yaqarum/ ‘esteemed’, with initial y,
vs. Arabic waqara and Akkadian waq!rum; in
morphology, e.g. preterite verbs with initial ya
rather than i as in Akkadian, such as ya-šu-ub-
d
da-gan = /ya!ub-dagan/ ‘[the god] Dagan has
returned’). In view of the great chronological
and geographical spread of the relevant texts,
it is likely that a number of early dialects are
reflected in these Amorite names. A recent
study is Streck (2000).
2. F e a t u r e s o f N o r t h w e s t
Semitic Languages
The following paragraphs review some of the
linguistic features that distinguish and/or con-
nect Arabic and the Northwest Semitic lan-
guages. In order to compare the Northwest
Semitic languages with Arabic, we have to be
aware of the linguistic features that were already
present at a Proto-Northwest Semitic stage and
those that ought to be considered innovations
within the individual subbranches of Northwest
Semitic. The following comparison is mainly
based on Classical Arabic, although evidence
from Ancient North Arabian, Old Arabic, and
Arabic dialects is included where appropriate.
For the relationship of these subgroups to Clas-
sical Arabic, see, for example, Rabin (1951:3)
for Ancient North Arabian and Old Arabic,
Fischer (1995) for modern Arabic dialects.
2.1. Phonology
The consonantal inventory of Proto-Northwest
Semitic has to be reconstructed with all 29
Proto-West Semitic consonants.
In Ugaritic, many of the Proto-Semitic
consonants remain distinct phonemes. Two
unconditional mergers took place: *" and *s
merged to š; and *t# and *!" merged to # (e.g.
<!!+R> ‘small’; <AR!> / &ar,u/ ‘earth’ vs. Clas-
sical Arabic !ar!). *"" was often preserved; it is
transcribed ", as in <-BY> /"abyu/ ‘gazelle’,
although it sometimes merged with *$, as in
<N.R> /na/ara/ ‘he guarded’ (cf. Classical
Arabic na%ara ‘he watched’). The Proto-Semitic
sound *ð had merged with *d to /d/ in most
cases (e.g. <UDN> / &udnu/ ‘ear’), although the
alphabet still had a separate letter for /ð/ (e.g.
<!R!> /#ir%!u/ ‘arm’).
In Hebrew (and Phoenician), *ð and *z
merged to z: *!uðn- > !&zen ‘ear’; *' and *x

Table 1. Consonants in the Northwest Semitic languages

Proto-Semitic Ugaritic Hebrew Phoenician Aramaic Arabic

(See
and corrigendum
Proto- in separate pdf file.)
Northwest
Semitic

*ð d/# z z d (OA <Z>) #

*/ (!) / ! ! ! /
*( (0) ( ( ( ( (
*1 (x) 1 23 ( ( ( x
*2¢ š ,3 2 š s (OA <Š>) š
*¢’ , š3 s , ! (OA <Q>) %
*s š s3 š š š s
*ts s ,3 s s s s
*t, , š3 , , , ,
*! $ ,3 š š t (OA <Š>) $
*"! "// z3 , , $ (OA <!>) 4
*dz z 3 z z z z

!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*31 314*4'115000+6&(6'2078
Corrigendum to:

Hasselbach – Huehnergard, “Northwest Semitic Languages,” EALL 3, p. 410

Table I. Consonants in the Northwest Semitic Languages

Proto-Semitic Ugaritic Hebrew Phoenician Aramaic Arabic

and Proto-
Northwest
Semitic
*® d/d z z d (OA <Z>) d
*g◊ (g) g◊ · · · g◊
*˙ (h) ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
*≈ (x) ≈ ˙ ˙ ˙ ≈
*s´ (Ò) ∆ s´ ∆ s (OA <∑>) ∆
*s´≥ (Ò’) ß ß ß · (OA <Q>) ∂
*s ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ s
*ts s s s s s
*tß ß ß ß ß ß
*ª t ∆ ∆ t (OA <∑>) t
*ª≥ Ω/g◊ ß ß † (OA <Í>) ∂
*d z z z z z z
 northwest semitic languages
merged to ': *!ax- > !!' ‘brother’; *# and *$
merged to #: *t#a$(r- > #!#(r ‘small’; *s and *"
merged to š: *s(i)m- > š)m ‘name’; *"al!"- >
š!l*š ‘three’; *!", *t#, and *"" all merged to #:
*!ar!"- > *!ar# > !ére# ‘earth’; *t#idq- > #é$eq
‘righteousness’; *na""ara > n!#ar ‘he guarded’.
Common Semitic *" remained distinct for most
of the early history of Hebrew, but under Ara-
maic influence it eventually merged with s (<
*ts). Since *" had merged with *s and *" to
š in Phoenician, from which Hebrew scribes
borrowed their alphabet, there was no special
letter to represent the still-distinct ", and so the
letter for š was used; later the two consonants
were distinguished by diacritical dots.
The orthography of early inscriptions indi-
cates that nearly all Proto-Semitic consonants
remained distinct in most Old Aramaic dialects.
Consonants that were later lost through merg-
ers were represented with the closest letter avail-
able in the borrowed Phoenician alphabet. In
Official Aramaic and in later Aramaic dialects,
however, a large number of mergers occurred
(examples from Syriac): *ð merged with *d and
*x merged with *': *!axaða > !e'ad (Old Ara-
maic <&"Z>) ‘he seized’; *" merged with *ts to s:
*"!ma > s!m (Old Aramaic <ŠM>) ‘he placed’;
*" merged with t: *"al!"- > tl!t (Old Aramaic
<ŠLŠ>) ‘three’; *$ merged with #: *ba$aya > b#!
(Old Aramaic <B!H> ‘he sought’); *"" merged
with +: *na""ara > n+ar (Old Aramaic <N!R>)
‘he guarded’; the reflex of *!" in Old Aramaic was
written with <Q> but later merged with #: Old
Aramaic <MRQ>, Syriac mra# ‘he was sick’ (cf.
Classical Arabic mari!a).
Table 1 provides an overview of the main
mergers and differences in the individual North-
west Semitic languages.
Classical Arabic and most Ancient North Arabian
dialects had a consonantal inventory of 28 con-
sonants, following the merger of Proto-Semitic
*ts and *s to s. The Ancient North Arabian
dialect of Tayman is exceptional in having pre-
served all three original voiceless fricatives (Mac-
donald 2004:499). Although Ancient North
Arabian is not the direct ancestor of what
is called ‘Arabic’ today, it nevertheless might
be related to pre-Islamic West-Arabian (Rabin
1951:2). Should the dialect of Tayman be
related to later ‘Arabic’, the preservation of *s,
*ts, and *" could indicate that Proto-Arabic had
all 29 Proto-West Semitic consonants.
A significant sound change that distinguishes
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*33
411
Northwest Semitic from other Semitic languages
is the shift of word-initial w to y, as in Hebrew
yéle$, Syriac yald!, Ugaritic <YLD> ‘child’, vs.
Classical Arabic walad. In the Ancient North
Arabian dialect Safaitic, we also find evidence
for the occasional change of initial w > y, as in
yr, ‘month’, which occurs as a biform of wr,.
This change is rare, though, and not limited to
word-initial position. Thus, it should not be
evaluated as the same isogloss found in North-
west Semitic.
Another sound change that has sometimes
been postulated for Northwest Semitic is the
assimilation of n to a following consonant,
which is attested in Ugaritic and Canaanite.
Biblical Aramaic occasionally preserves origi-
nal n before a consonant, as, for example, in
!ant(h) ‘you’ (2nd pers. masc. sg.) (Rosenthal
1995:23), while Syriac has reflexes of precon-
sonantal n in its orthography, although n is not
pronounced in such cases. These attestations
suggest a preservation of this phoneme in pre-
consonantal position until after the split of Ara-
maic from the rest of Northwest Semitic. Thus,
n was probably not assimilated at the earliest
stages of Northwest Semitic. Classical Arabic
and most modern Arabic dialects, of course,
do not assimilate n to a following consonant;
in nearly all Ancient North Arabian dialects,
however, with the exception of "a,aitic, n
assimilates regularly (Macdonald 2004:501),
as it does, less consistently, in the Old South
Arabian dialects.
The reflex of Proto-Semitic *p remains a
stop, /p/, in Canaanite and Aramaic, although
it has a postvocalic fricative allophone in both
language groups, as do all nondoubled, nonem-
phatic stops: Hebrew p!%a' and yifta', Syriac
p%a' and nefta' ‘he opened’, ‘he will open’, vs.
Classical Arabic fata'a, yafta'u.
The Proto-Northwest Semitic vowels can be
reconstructed as in Proto-Semitic, viz. three
basic short vowels, three long vowels, and
two diphthongs, just as preserved in Classical
Arabic:
*a, *i, *u
*!, *(, *-
*aw, *ay
The consonantal nature of the Ugaritic script
precludes a detailed knowledge of the vowel
system. Evidence of writings in syllabic cunei-
314*4'115000+6&(6'2078
 412 northwest semitic languages

form texts, and the use of the three aleph
symbols, however, show a number of devel-
opments. The original diphthongs *aw and
*ay contracted unconditionally to * and ),
respectively: <MT> /m*tu/ ‘death’; <BT> /b#tu/
‘house’. There is vowel harmony around gut-
turals: /$uh'ru/ < *+ah-ru ‘pure’; /tah%matu/
< *tih!matu ‘sea’; and in the patterns CvC-
C5C, as in Arabic: /,ibb6ru/ < *#abb(ru ‘collec-
tive land’; <ULP> / &ull'pu/ < *!all-pu ‘leader’.
There is also evidence of the sporadic syncope
of short, unaccented vowels: /nabak6ma/ and
/nabk6ma/ ‘springs’.
For Phoenician, because of the strictly con-
sonantal orthography, we are dependent on
transcriptions into other languages for any
evidence concerning the vowel system. Such
transcriptions show that in Phoenician, as in
Ugaritic, the original diphthongs *aw and *ay
contracted universally to /*/ and /#/ respec-
tively: thus /m*t/ ‘death’ and /b#t/ ‘house’. A
characteristic of all Canaanite languages is the
change of Semitic *! to * (considered by some
scholars to be dependent on stress, by oth-
ers to be unconditioned): (Greek transcription)
ozer for [!*zir] < *#!ðir- ‘helper’. A specifically
Phoenician development was the shift of an
original short Semitic *a to o in accented syl-
lables: (Greek transcription) labon for [labon]
< *laban- ‘white’.
Biblical Hebrew is characterized by a large
number of developments in the vowel sys-
tem. Diphthongs collapsed when unstressed
but were triphthongized under the stress: b)%(
‘my house’ but bayi% ‘house’ (< *bayt(-()); m*%(
‘my death’ but m!we% ‘death’ (< *mawt(-()). As
in Phoenician and other Canaanite languages,
original long *! became *, as in k*%)" <
*k!tib- ‘writer’. Short vowels underwent com-
plex developments: lost word-finally; lowered
or backed under the stress or in open syllables
immediately before the stress: d!"!r < *dabar-
‘word’, yitt)n < *yittinu ‘he gives’, yi.t*" <
*yiktubu ‘he writes’; reduced to / or zero in
open syllables otherwise, and generally in finite
verbs: d/"!r(m < *dabar(ma ‘words’, yitt/n- <
*yittin- ‘they give’, yi0t/"- < *yiktub- ‘they
write’. Words of the shape CvCC underwent
anaptyxis: *!ar!" - > *!ar# > !ére# ‘earth’; *sipr- >
s1#er ‘book’; *quds- > q&$eš. Still other devel-
opments occurred in the neighborhood of the
guttural consonants (!, h, ', #).
A number of vowel changes may be said
to characterize Proto-Aramaic. As in Hebrew
(and most Northwest Semitic languages), short
final vowels were lost early, including the sin-
gular case vowels: *k!tibu > *k!tib (> k!%e")
‘writer’; *k!tib(na > *k!tib(n (> k!%"(n) ‘writ-
ers’; *tisma#-na > *tišma#-n (> tešm#un) ‘you
[masc. pl.] hear’. Resulting final consonant
clusters were resolved by epenthesis: *katabtu >
*katabt > *katabit (> Targumic k/%á"i%; Syriac
ke%be%) ‘I wrote’. A pervasive feature of Ara-
maic is the reduction of short vowels in open
syllables: *kataba > *katab > k/%a" ‘he wrote’;
*katab+ih > ka%"eh ‘he wrote it’ (see also the
preceding examples). Original long vowels gen-
erally remained unchanged.
2.2. Morphology
2.2.1. Pronouns
The Northwest Semitic system of personal inde-
pendent pronouns and pronominal suffixes is
similar to that of Classical Arabic, although
only in Ugaritic are dual forms of the pronouns

Table 2. Independent personal pronouns

PNWS Ugaritic Hebrew Syriac Arabic

1cs *!an!(±ku) /&an%ku/, <AN> !!n*.(, ’an( !an! !ana

2ms *!anta <AT> !att! !a(n)t !anta
2fs *!anti <AT> !att !a(n)t(y) !anti
3ms *hu!a /huwa/ h-(!) hu(!) huwa
3fs *hi!a <HY> h((!) hi(!) hiya
3cd *? <HM> — — hum!
1cp *na'nu ? !ana'n- 'nan na'nu
2mp *!antum(±-) <ATM> !attem !a(n)ton !antum
2fp *!antin(±na) ? !atten(n!) !a(n)ten !antunna
3mp *hum(±-) <HM> h)m(m!) hennon hum
3fp *hin(±na) <HN> h)nn! hennen hunna

!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*3' 314*4'115000+6&(6'9078
 northwest semitic languages
attested (vocalization unknown); Ugaritic even
has a 1st person dual suffix (<-NY>, as in
<B!LNY> ‘the lord of the two of us’).
As the table indicates, the main differences lie
in the 2nd person and 3rd person plural forms;
while Ugaritic and Hebrew have m vs. n for
the masculine/feminine contrast, as in Classical
Arabic, the Hebrew forms exhibit an i vowel
vs. the u of Classical Arabic. In most Aramaic
dialects, the masculine/feminine contrast is in
the vowels (u/o for masc. vs. i/e for fem.), the
n having been leveled through all forms. In
the 3rd person singular forms, it is likely that
the aleph of the Canaanite and Aramaic forms
is original, and developed into the glides w and
y in Ugaritic, as in Classical Arabic, by assimi-
lation to the preceding vowel.
The common Semitic longer biform of the
independent 1st person singular pronoun,
*!an!ku (cf. Akkadian an!ku), is found in
Ugaritic and in the Canaanite languages (e.g.
Hebrew !!n*.() alongside the shorter form,
which alone has been preserved in Aramaic, as
in Arabic.
Ugaritic and Phoenician also have independ-
ent 3rd person forms with final <-T>, such
as 3rd person masculine singular <HWT> (/
huw%ti/??); in Ugaritic these are oblique (geni-
tive-accusative) forms.
The Northwest Semitic pronominal suffixes
were originally quite similar in form to those of
Classical Arabic and were added to nouns (to
indicate possession) and to verbs (to indicate
objects) much as in Classical Arabic, i.e. simply
attached to the bound form of a noun (or prepo-
sition) and to the end of finite verb forms. Pho-
nological and analogical developments, however,
have produced complex changes in the forms of
the suffixes in both Canaanite and Aramaic.
It is possible to reconstruct a common Proto-
Northwest Semitic determinative-relative pro-
noun that was declined for case, number, and
gender, *ð2. For Ugaritic this pronoun has
feminine and plural forms with <-T> (vocaliza-
tion unknown): masculine singular nominative
<D> (/d'/), feminine singular <DT>, masculine
plural <DT>. In Biblical Hebrew, the pronoun
is only vestigially preserved in a few examples
as indeclinable (old nominative) z- (this was
generally replaced in Hebrew by the form !ašer,
grammaticalized from a noun meaning ‘place’,
cognate with Classical Arabic !a%ar ‘trace’); a
relative <Z> also occurs in some Phoenician
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*3&
413
dialects. In Aramaic, the reflex is the common
indeclinable relative and genitive marker d(
in Biblical Aramaic (the old genitive; writ-
ten <ZY> in Old Aramaic inscriptions), which
became d(/)- in Syriac. There are still traces of
the same fully declined determinative-relative
pronoun *ð2 in Classical Arabic, although
its semantic range shifted to the expression
of possession. In Ancient North Arabian, this
form of the relative pronoun is still regularly
used in the form $ (masc. sg.) and $!t (fem. sg.)
(Macdonald 2004:508), while Yemenite has an
undeclined form $( (Rabin 1951:39).
There is no common Proto-Northwest Semitic
demonstrative pronoun, although all languages
use the same basic constituents to form demon-
stratives. Ugaritic has a near deixis pronoun
hnd, probably vocalized as /han%du/, and,
perhaps, a far deixis pronoun hnk /hun%ka?/
(Tropper 2000:229–231). Especially the lat-
ter resembles the Classical Arabic word for
‘there’ hun!ka, while the first resembles Classi-
cal Arabic hun! ‘here’ + demonstrative element
*ð7. In Canaanite and Aramaic, near deixis is
expressed by an element *ð7 in the singular,
as in Hebrew ze ‘this’ (masc. sg.), z*(!)% (fem.
sg.). Individual languages can add particles to
this base, such as Targumic Aramaic h!den
(masc. sg.) and h!d! (fem. sg.), but these seem
to be secondary additions, since, for example,
Biblical Aramaic has a feminine singular with-
out prefix, d! ‘this’. Near deixis in the plural
is expressed by a basic particle *!ill V, as in
Hebrew !)lle (comm. pl.) and Biblical Aramaic
!ill)n (comm. pl.). Classical Arabic employs the
same basic particles as Hebrew and Aramaic,
although in a slightly different distribution, for
example h!$! for the masculine singular and
not, as in Targumic Aramaic, the feminine sin-
gular. The main difference between the North-
west Semitic and the Classical Arabic forms
of the demonstrative pronoun is in the plural
base. In contrast to the Hebrew and Aramaic
base *!ill V, with i and double -ll-, the Classical
Arabic base has u and single -l-, as in h!!ul!!i.
Modern Arabic dialects either do not use this
base (e.g. Moroccan, Tunisian), or they have a
base that seems to correspond to Classical Ara-
bic (Lebanese hawl(k < h!!ul!!i+k). Since this
base is not attested in Ugaritic, it is impossible
to determine whether this vowel alternation is
Proto-Northwest Semitic or not.
For far deixis, Biblical Aramaic uses the same
314*4'115000+6&(6'9078
 414 northwest semitic languages
base *ð7 with the addition of final -k: d).
‘that’ (masc. sg.), d!. (fem. sg.), !ill). (comm.
pl.). Other Aramaic dialects, such as Syriac,
and Hebrew exclusively use the 3rd person
pronouns as anaphoric elements to express far
deixis, as in Hebrew h!!-(š ha-h-(!) ‘that man’.
Classical Arabic is unusual among the Semitic
languages in no longer employing the 3rd per-
son pronouns anaphorically, using instead a
full set of demonstratives, formed with the
demonstrative elements for near deixis plus -k,
as in $!lika (masc. sg.), !ul!!ika (comm. pl.).
The feminine singular is an exception in that it
has initial t instead of expected $, tilka. Ancient
North Arabian offers little evidence for demon-
strative pronouns, but it seems that Dedanitic
had a form $ (h) as well (Macdonald 2004:509;
Müller 1982:20).
2.2.2. Nouns
Proto-Northwest Semitic undoubtedly had
the same triptotic noun declension in the sin-
gular as Classical Arabic (see Table 3). The
full declension, however, is preserved only in
Ugaritic and in the Canaanite reflected in the
Amarna Akkadian texts, later Canaanite and
Aramaic dialects having lost case distinctions
with the general loss of final short vowels (like
later Arabic dialects). Certain nominal forms
with pronominal suffixes in Hebrew and Ara-
maic still reflect the original case endings, such
as Hebrew d/"!r). ‘your [fem. sg.] word’ <
*dabari-ki [gen.], malk* ‘his king’ < *malku-
hu [nom.], Syriac malkeh ‘his king’ < *malkihi
(gen.; this last form is common Aramaic and
reflects a frozen allomorph of the 3rd pers.
masc. sg. suffix alternation -hu/-hi found in
Classical Arabic). There is evidence in Ugaritic
for a diptotic declension in the singular in some
proper nouns (especially personal names end-
ing in /-7n/; see Liverani 1963), but its status
for Proto-Northwest Semitic is uncertain. The
declension of the dual and plural was diptotic
as in Classical Arabic (! diptosis).
Hebrew and Ugaritic also preserve a direc-
tive ending -h, as in Ugaritic <AR!H> ‘to the
ground’, Hebrew h!#(r!h ‘to the city’, which is
probably related to the Akkadian terminative
ending -iš. This morpheme is not attested in any
form of Arabic.
All Northwest Semitic languages lost !
mimation/! nunation in the singular and in the
(external) feminine plural. This loss might thus
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*3*
be reconstructed as Proto-Northwest Semitic
(e.g. Proto-Semitic *+!bum > Proto-Northwest
Semitic *+!bu ‘good [masc. sg. nom.]’; Proto-
Semitic *+!b!tum > Proto-Northwest Semitic
*+!b!tu ‘good [fem. pl. nom.]’), although the
possibility that it was an independent develop-
ment within the individual Northwest Semitic
branches cannot be ruled out, since loss of
mimation/nunation is a widespread phenome-
non, which, for example, also occurred in post-
Old Babylonian Akkadian and in Ge!ez (and, of
course, in most modern Arabic dialects).
In Northwest Semitic languages, the plural
is normally indicated by external markers. For
the masculine plural, corresponding to the final
-na of Classical Arabic (as in fall!'-na), some
Northwest Semitic languages likewise exhibit
-n(a) (e.g. Aramaic, some Canaanite dialects
such as Moabite and Mishnaic Hebrew), while
others exhibit -m(a) (Ugaritic, other Canaan-
ite dialects such as Phoenician and Biblical
Hebrew). Syllabic cuneiform evidence indi-
cates that in Ugaritic the ending was /-ma/ on
masculine plurals. Only Ugaritic retains case
distinctions; as in Classical Arabic, these are
nominative in /-'/ and oblique (genitive-accu-
sative) in /-(/ (e.g. nom. /y%,ir'ma/ ‘potters’,
oblique /dipr%n6ma/ ‘junipers’). In the other
Northwest Semitic languages, with the loss
of case distinction in the singular (see above),
the oblique form was generalized in the mas-
culine plural; further, the final a of the ending
*-na/-ma also disappeared with the general
loss of short final vowels; thus, we find, for
example, Hebrew +*"(m, Aramaic +!b(n ‘good’
< oblique *+!b-(-ma/na. Vestiges of broken
plurals are rare, but they are found in nearly
every subbranch of Northwest Semitic (Rat-
cliffe 1998:99). The most striking exception,
and one of the major distinguishing isoglosses
of Northwest Semitic, is the double marking
of singular nouns of the pattern *qVtl- in the
plural with inserted a after the second radical in
addition to external plural markers (Huehner-
gard 1991:284), as in Hebrew m/l!.(m ‘kings’
< *malak(ma and Ugaritic /malak'ma/ ‘kings’
from the singular base *malk-. Vestiges of this
a-insertion are also found in Syriac (Nöldeke
1904:63). In Classical Arabic double marking
is also occasionally found, but it is not manda-
tory; cf. la#nat- ‘curse’, pl. la#an!t- vs. !ahl-, pl.
!ahl-na ‘people’.
The feminine singular is marked with either
314*4'115000+6&(6&1078
 northwest semitic languages
-t or -at. While in Classical Arabic the latter
ending has been generalized (except for a few
words, such as bint and !uxt), in Hebrew, the
choice of ending appears to be lexical: e.g. dele%
< *dal-t- ‘door’ vs. !!m! < *!am-at- ‘maidserv-
ant’. (This seems to be true in Ugaritic as well.)
In Aramaic, the choice of ending was prob-
ably determined phonologically originally, *-at
appearing after bases ending in a consonant
cluster (and sometimes after bases ending in
5C), *-t appearing otherwise. In both Hebrew
and Aramaic, the original ending *-at became
-! phrase-finally (i.e. when not in construct
or followed by a pronominal suffix), as in
Hebrew malk! ‘queen’, bound form malka%,
both < *malkat- and malk!%( ‘my queen’ <
*malkat-(; cf. post-Classical Arabic dialects. (In
Phoenician, however, the final t remained in all
forms.) Other feminine endings that are found
in Arabic, such as -! (-ay), are attested only ves-
tigially in a few Northwest Semitic languages
(e.g. Syriac salway ‘quail’).
The feminine plural is marked by the end-
ing -!tu (nom.)/-!ti (oblique), corresponding to
Classical Arabic -!tun/-!tin, but again with loss
of the final mimation/nunation. In Ugaritic and
Amarna Canaanite, this ending is unchanged. In
later Northwest Semitic languages, once again,
the final case-vowel has been lost; thus, we
find Aramaic +!"!% ‘good’, while in Canaanite
the change of *! to * yields -*t, as in Hebrew
+*"*%. Plurals of feminine nouns of the pattern
qVtlat also exhibit a-insertion, as in Hebrew
m/l!.*% ‘queens’ < *malak!tu.
The dual is fully productive in Ugaritic; the
endings are nominative /-%ma/ (also /-%mi/),
oblique /-#ma/ (also /-#mi/; from *-ayma/i),
as in nominative /mašla(%ma/ ‘two garments’.
In Biblical Hebrew the dual is restricted to
words denoting objects that naturally occur
in pairs and a few time words; as in the mas-
culine plural, the original oblique ending has
been leveled, with *-aymV > -áyim: y!$áyim
‘(two) hands’, y*máyim ‘two days’. In Aramaic
the dual appears on a few forms in the early
dialects (e.g. Biblical Aramaic qarnáyin ‘(two)
horns’ < *qarnaynV), but in later dialects it has
ceased to be used.
Genitive expressions are constructed as in
Arabic, with the nomen rectum standing in
a bound (construct) form. In Ugaritic, the
bound form of singular nouns was probably
not distinguished from the absolute form (the
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*3+
415
latter having lost the original final mimation).
In Hebrew and Aramaic, different stress pat-
terns in bound forms frequently resulted in
allomorphism, as in Hebrew b!q!r, bound
form b/qar ‘cattle’ (cf. Classical Arabic baqar).
As noted above, feminine nouns that originally
ended in *-at lost the t when not bound: š!n!,
bound form š/na% ‘year’ (cf. Classical Arabic
sana(tun)). Masculine plural and dual bound
forms in Ugaritic lost the final -ma/-mi (e.g.
/maqqa(%/ ‘tongs of’), just as the final -na/-ni
is lost in such forms in Arabic. Likewise the
final -n or -m is lost in later Northwest Semitic
languages in masculine plural and dual bound
forms, as in Hebrew dual #)náyim, bound
form #)n) ‘eyes’ (< *#ayn-ay(-mV)). Curiously,
in both Aramaic and Hebrew bound forms
of masculine plurals, the expected final -( is
replaced by what appears to be the dual end-
ing, -), as in Aramaic (Biblical) ’el!h(n ‘god(s)’,
bound form ’el!h).
Table 3. Proto-Northwest Semitic noun
declension (masc. sg.)
singular dual plural
nominative *malku *malk!n/ma/i *malak-n/ma
genitive *malki *malkayn/ma/i *malak(n/ma
accusative *malka *malkayn/ma/i *malak(n/ma
It is unlikely that Proto-Northwest Semitic had
a definite article, since Ugaritic does not contain
evidence for such a morpheme. The different
forms of the definite article in Canaanite and
Aramaic also indicate that these two branches
of Northwest Semitic underwent independent
developments: in Canaanite, the definite article
ha- is prefixed to the nominal base with gemina-
tion of the following consonant, as in Hebrew
ham-mele0 ‘the king’; in Aramaic, the definite
article –! (originally -a!) is suffixed, as in malk!
‘the king’. While all Northwest Semitic definite
articles are perhaps to be derived from the same
original particle, *han- (Rubin 2004), Classical
Arabic employs a different base for the definite
article, (!)al-, with the well-known variation
(!)aC- when followed by a coronal ‘sun letter’.
This article is already attested in the earliest
evidence of Old Arabic (Macdonald 2000:50).
Ancient North Arabian, on the other hand,
employs the definite article h(n)-, a form that
is much closer to the Canaanite definite arti-
cle than to Old Arabic and Classical Arabic.
314*4'115000+6&(6&3078
 416 northwest semitic languages
Yemenite has yet another form of the definite
article, am-, which might be a phonemically
altered form of h(n)- (Rabin 1951:34–36).
The syntax of the definite article in the
Northwest Semitic languages that attest it is
virtually identical to that of the Arabic article:
the article may appear only on the last member
of a genitive chain; it may not appear on a noun
with a pronominal suffix; it does not appear on
predicate adjectives.
2.2.3. Verbs
For the Proto-Northwest Semitic and Arabic
finite verbal system, one suffix conjugation
and several prefix conjugations may be recon-
structed:
*qatala
*yaqtul pl. *yaqtul-
*yaqtula pl. *yaqtul-
*yaqtulu pl. *yaqtul-na
‘energic’: *yaqtulVn(n)a
The suffix conjugation generally denotes the
past tense in the Northwest Semitic languages,
as in Arabic. In the earliest Northwest Semitic,
such as Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite, it
seems to alternate with *yaqtul for the past.
The latter form, *yaqtul, is the Proto-Semitic
perfective form par excellence. As in Arabic, it
is used as a jussive in all Northwest Semitic lan-
guages (though usually without a preposed li-).
It also continues to be used as a past tense: in
Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite, as just noted;
in Classical Hebrew with preposed conjunc-
tion wa-, as in wayyi0t*" ‘and he wrote’ (also
frequently in early poetry without the preposed
wa-); similarly in a few examples in the earliest
Aramaic inscriptions. The form *yaqtula is used
in Amarna Canaanite as a virtual equivalent of
the jussive *yaqtul (Amarna scholars usually
term it the ‘volitive’); in Ugaritic its function
is debated, but it seems to be roughly similar
to its use in Amarna Canaanite; in Hebrew it
has been reduced in range to 1st person forms,
called the ‘cohortative’, likewise injunctive in
meaning, as in !e0t/"! ‘let me write’; in Aramaic
*yaqtula has disappeared. The form *yaqtulu is
imperfective in Northwest Semitic, as in Arabic,
used as a future, a present, a past habitual, and
a circumstantial. As in Arabic, the masculine
plural of *yaqtulu in Amarna Canaanite and
in Ugaritic ends in --na (although the prefix
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*3(
y has been replaced by t in those languages,
i.e. taqtul-na). In Hebrew and Aramaic, the
loss of final short vowels has resulted in the
falling together of original *yaqtul and *yaq-
tulu in singular forms. Thus, Classical Hebrew
yi0t*" may be either jussive ‘let him write’ (<
*yaktub) or imperfect ‘he writes, will write’
(< *yaktubu); a number of weak verb types,
however, preserve the original distinction, such
as y!q*m ‘let him stand’ < *yaqum vs. y!q-m
‘he stands, will stand’ < *yaq-mu and yí"en ‘let
him build’ < *yabni(y) vs. yi"ne ‘he builds, will
build’ < *yabniyu. Early Aramaic preserves this
distinction in a number of verbs as well, but it
is lost in later dialects. The merger of *yaqtul
and *yaqtulu in the singular made the distinc-
tion between plural *yaqtul- and *yaqtul-na
redundant; Aramaic leveled the latter form
(thus, e.g., Biblical Aramaic yi0t/"-n), while
Hebrew leveled the former (yi0t/"-, although
the latter, yi0t/"-n, continued to appear as a
biform in imperfect usages).
All Northwest Semitic languages attest !
‘energic’ prefix conjugation forms, or at least
vestiges of them. In Amarna Canaanite, the
form is *yaqtuluna, which occurs especially in
the 1st person, and especially in emphatic ques-
tions, as in m(na (pušuna ‘what am I to do?’. In
Ugaritic, energic forms written with both <N>
(for /-an(n)a/?) and <NN> (for <-anVn(n)V/??)
occur; their function is debated (see Tropper
2000:497–506). In Hebrew and Aramaic, the
energic appears only before pronominal object
suffixes, as in Hebrew yi0t/"enn-:, Aramaic
(Biblical) yi0t/"inneh ‘he will write it’; such
forms replace *yaqtulu + suffixes. (Both the
Hebrew and the Aramaic suggest an earlier
form *yaqtul-in-, with -i- rather than the a of
Arabic yaqtulan(na) [and Ugaritic?] and the u
of Amarna yaqtuluna.) A recent treatment of
energic forms in Arabic and Northwest Semitic
is Zewi (1999).
The prefixes of the prefix conjugations in
Proto-Northwest Semitic are similar to those
in Classical Arabic except in the 3rd person
plural, for which we have to assume an origi-
nal heterogeneous distribution of *y- (3rd pers.
masc. pl.) and *t- (3rd pers. fem. pl.) (see Table
4). The distribution of prefix consonants in the
individual Northwest Semitic languages would
otherwise be difficult to explain. Ugaritic and
Amarna Canaanite leveled the feminine *t-, so
that the 3rd person masculine plural is most
314*4'115000+6&(6&3078
 northwest semitic languages 417
Table 5. Derived verbal forms

Classical Arabic Hebrew Aramaic (Biblical) Ugaritic

D (II) fa!!ala/yufa!!il- qitt)l/y/qatt)l qatt)l/y/qatt)l qattila/yVqattil-

Caus. (IV) !af #ala/yuf #il- hiqt(l/yaqt(l haqt)l/y/haqt)l šaqti/ala/yVšaqtil-
Syriac: !aqtel/naqtel
N (VII) (i)nfa!ala/yanfa!il- niqt!l/yiqq!t)l — naqtala/yiqqatil-
L (III) f! !ala/yuf! #il- (q*t)l/y/q*t)l) — ?
R (IX) (i)f !alla/yaf!all- q*m)m/y/q*m)m (q!m)m/y/q!m)m) ?yuk!nin-
tG (VIII) (i)fta#ala/yafta#il- (hi%q!t)l/yi%q!t)l) hi%q/t)l/yi%q/t)l !iqtati/ala/yiqtatil-
tD (V) tafa!!ala/yatafa!!al- hi%qatt)l/yi%qatt)l hi%qattal/yi%qattal taqattala or !itqattila/
yVtqatta/il-
Ct (X) (i)staf #ala/yastaf !il- (hišta' w!/yišta' we) Syriac: !e%taqtal/ne%taqtal
a a !ištaqt i
/al/yVštaqtil-
tL (VI) taf! !ala/yataf! !al- (hi%q*t)l/yi%q*t)l) —
tR (hi%q*m)m/yi%q*m)m)

often attested as t-, while Aramaic leveled the
masculine *y- (as did Akkadian and Ethiopic).
Hebrew preserves the original distinction of
3rd person masculine plural *y- and 3rd person
feminine plural *t-. Since even Ancient North
Arabian and Old Arabic seem to have *y- in
both the masculine plural and feminine plural,
this distribution might go back to the earliest
stages of Arabic.
The prefix vowels in the Proto-Northwest
Semitic basic stem were originally dependent on
the theme vowel of the imperfect base. When
the theme vowel was i or u, the prefix vowel
was a, yaqtul and yaqtil, but it was i when the
theme vowel was a, yiqtal. This distribution
is known as the Barth-Ginsberg Law. Ugaritic
preserves this vowel distribution, while Hebrew
and Aramaic only have vestige forms (Barth
1894:4–5). Classical Arabic regularly has the
prefix vowel a in the basic stem, but some
ancient and modern dialects preserve reflexes
of the Proto-Northwest Semitic distribution,
indicating that the a of Classical Arabic is the
result of leveling (Bloch 1967:22–25; Hetzron
1973–1974; Hasselbach 2004).
The feminine plural forms of the prefix conju-
gations exhibit final -na in Hebrew (and, prob-
ably, Ugaritic), e.g. 2nd person feminine plural
ti0t*"n!, as in Arabic taktubna. This was prob-
ably also true in the earliest Aramaic dialects;
later Aramaic, however, has replaced -na with
-!n, as in ti0t/"!n (Huehnergard 1987).
A few Ugaritic imperative forms, all feminine
singular, exhibit a prothetic vowel, as in Clas-
sical Arabic imperative forms, e.g. <IBKY> for
/ &ibkiy6/ ‘weep!’ (Tropper 2000:426–427). Most
Ugaritic imperatives, however, have no pro-
Table 4. Proto-Northwest Semitic prefixes
3ms *yV- 3cd *yV- 3mp *yV-
3fs *tV- 3fp *tV-
2ms *tV- 2cd *tV- 2mp *tV-
2fs *tV- 2fp *tV-
1cs *!V- 1cp *nV-
thetic vowel; rather, the first two root conso-
nants are separated by an anaptyctic vowel (e.g.
<RGM>, probably /rugum/ ‘speak!’). The latter
is the norm in all other Northwest Semitic lan-
guages (and the rest of Semitic), as in Hebrew
and Aramaic k/%*" ‘write!’.
The active participle of the basic form of the
verb may be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic
as q!til-, and this remains unchanged in both
Arabic and the Northwest Semitic languages
(> q*t)l in Hebrew, with the change of *! >
*). A common passive participle, however,
cannot be reconstructed. For Hebrew, the par-
adigmatic form is *qat-l, as in k!%-" ‘writ-
ten’, whereas Aramaic regularized *qat(l, as
in k/%i". The pattern *maqt-l, which was
leveled as the paradigmatic passive participle
in Arabic, as in makt-b, is not used as such in
Northwest Semitic, with the possible exception
of Ugaritic, where a few examples have been
suggested, such as /mašn'’u/? ‘enemy’ (i.e.
‘hated’) and <MDD> for /m*d'du/? ‘beloved’,
but other interpretations of such forms are
equally possible (see Tropper 2000:476–477).
A few *maqt-l nouns in Hebrew seem to have
passive semantics, e.g. masp-n(m ‘treasures’,
i.e. ‘hidden things’.
In contrast to the large set of patterns from
which Arabic verbs may select their verbal nouns

!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*35 314*4'115000+6&(6&'078
 418 northwest semitic languages
(ma#dars), the Northwest Semitic languages
exhibit only a small number of patterns. Most
Aramaic dialects exhibit *miqtal as the basic
(G) infinitive, but the earliest inscriptions also
attest forms without the initial m (vocalization
uncertain). Biblical Hebrew has two paradig-
matic infinitive forms: q!t*l < *qat!l, tradition-
ally called the ‘infinitive absolute’; and q/t*l
(perhaps also < *qat!l, or perhaps < *qutul),
called the ‘infinitive construct’. There are ves-
tiges of other patterns used as verbal nouns,
however, such as *qitl and *qitlat. In Ugaritic it
is likely that *qat!l and *qitl occurred as verbal
nouns, and probably a few other patterns as
well (Tropper 2000:480–490).
2.2.3.1. Derived verbal forms
Table 5 provides an overview of the derived
forms in Classical Arabic and the main North-
west Semitic languages. Forms in parentheses
are rare.
D-stem: The Proto-Central Semitic form of the
D-stem was most likely *qattil-. Arabic (Clas-
sical and dialects), and Ge!ez for that matter,
leveled the /a/-vowel, resulting in the attested
form qattala, while Proto-Northwest Semitic
preserved the form qattila, as reflected in Ugar-
itic and Aramaic. In Canaanite, another change
occurred from *qattila to *qittila (Huehnergard
1992:219), resulting in the Hebrew form qitt)l.
Both Canaanite and Arabic reflect independ-
ent innovations, while Proto-Northwest Semitic
preserved the original forms. For the meaning
of the D-stem, which is similar in all Central
Semitic languages, see Kouwenberg (1997).
Causative stem: The Ugaritic form of the
causative indicates that the sibilant formative
that is likewise attested in Akkadian, as in
ušapris, was still preserved in the early stages
of Northwest Semitic. For the reconstruction of
an original sibilant, see Voigt (1988:60). The
original sibilant of the causative is also still pre-
served in the Arabic Form X, (i)staf #ala. This
sibilant changed to h in Canaanite and Biblical
Aramaic, and further to ! in Classical Arabic
and Syriac (Voigt 1988:57–59), i.e. *yusaqtil
> *yuhaqtil > *yu(!)aqtil > *yaqtil in Hebrew
and Syriac, but yuqtil in Classical Arabic. Also
note that Dadanitic still has a derived stem
with prefixed h-, hf #l, in addition to !f #l (Mac-
donald 2004:512). The vowels of the suffix
conjugation underwent the same changes as in
the D-stem in both Canaanite and Arabic, i.e.
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*32
*haqtila > *hiqtila in Caananite and *haqtila >
*haqtala in Arabic.
N-stem: The N-stem is characterized by an
/n/ that is prefixed to the verbal root in all
languages that preserve it. In the suffix conjuga-
tions of Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Hebrew, the
/n/ stands at the beginning of the word with a
vowel between /n/ and R1, nVR1–, while in Ara-
bic the /n/ is immediately prefixed to the verbal
base and has a hamzat al-wa#l to resolve the
initial consonant cluster, (!i)nR1–. The vowel
that follows /n/ in Northwest Semitic languages
differs in that Hebrew has /i/, while Ugaritic
has /a/. It is likely that Ugaritic preserves the
original vowel of the perfect, while the Hebrew
form is the result of an inner Hebrew develop-
ment; cf. also the Akkadian N-verbal adjective
naprus. In the imperfect, Arabic, Hebrew, and
Ugaritic share the same basic form, except that
Ugaritic and Hebrew assimilate the original /n/
to the following root consonant. Aramaic lost
the N-stem completely. The N-stem is used as
a middle/reflexive/passive stem in Arabic and
in Ugaritic. When used as a passive, it usually
relates to the G-stem. The function as passive
to the basic stem is the one most commonly
used in Hebrew and Phoenician, which might
be explained by the loss of internal passives in
these languages.
L-stem: Northwest Semitic languages do not
have a productive L-stem as found in Arabic
(Form III). There are, nevertheless, vestiges
of such stems in Hebrew and perhaps also
in Ugaritic (Tropper 2000:577–585). The rare
attestations of the form q*t)l for strong roots in
Hebrew resemble the Classical Arabic Form III
both formally – the long /*/ between R1 and R2
derives from original *! – and semantically. As
is well known, the L-stem of Arabic expresses
the notion of ‘having an action/somebody as
goal’, as in q!tala ‘to fight’, i.e. ‘having kill-
ing as a goal’. The same meaning is found in
Hebrew, as in m/š*p+( ‘my adversary’, i.e.
‘somebody who would contend with me’ (Ges-
enius a.o. 1910, § 55b). In Ugaritic, a similar
stem seems to be used for geminate roots, but
with the semantic range of the D-stem, as in
t#zzk /tu!%ziz'ka/ ‘may they make you strong’,
from the root #-z-z ‘to be strong’.
R-stem: The R-stem in Hebrew and Ugar-
itic is confined to roots IIw/y for which it has
the same semantic range as the D-stem, as in
Hebrew m*%)% ‘to slay, kill’ from the root *m-
314*4'115000+6&(6&&078
 northwest semitic languages
w-t ‘to die’ and Ugaritic yrmm /yur%mim/ ‘he
built/made high’ from the root *r-y-m ‘to be
high’. The Arabic R-stems (Forms IX and XI)
are used for adjectival forms of the type !af #alu,
as in (!i)#farra and (!i)#f!rra ‘to become yellow’
from the adjective !a#faru ‘yellow’. The differ-
ent R-stems in Arabic and Northwest Semitic
are probably not related since they differ both
formally and semantically.
t-stems: The forms of the t-stems in the indi-
vidual languages differ with regard to whether
the t-preformative is prefixed or infixed. In
Syriac, we only find prefixed forms, while Ugar-
itic and Hebrew have prefixed t-forms except
in the Ct, where the t is infixed, but note that
Hebrew only has one verbal root that occurs in
the Ct. The infixation of the t in the causative
is probably caused by the sibilant. In Hebrew,
a metathesis of the prefixed t with a following
sibilant regularly takes place in the Hithpa&el,
e.g. hitpall)l ‘he prayed’ vs. hištamm)r ‘he
guarded himself’. In Arabic, the tD and tL
are prefixed and the Gt and Ct infixed. For a
reconstruction of these forms, see, for example,
Diem (1982) and Testen (1999). In most of the
languages, the t-stems are used as reflexive/mid-
dle, rarely as passive, although in Syriac, they
are exclusively used for the passive. Note that
the Proto-Semitic St stem (Arabic Form X)
is vestigial in Hebrew (one verb, yišta'awe <
*yista'wiyu ‘he prostrates himself’) and was
lost in Aramaic (though later reintroduced from
Akkadian), where it was replaced by innovative
’ittaqtal. Also in Hebrew the Gt (Arabic Form
VIII) was lost except for a few relic forms.
Other stems, such as Forms XII–XV, are miss-
ing or at best vestigial in Northwest Semitic.
2.3. Syntax
The basic word order in Arabic and the
Northwest Semitic languages is the same,
with Subject-Predicate in nominal sentences
and Verb-Subject-Object in verbal sentences.
Attributive adjectives usually follow the noun
they modify. Variations to these basic rules
are found when specific elements of a sentence
are fronted for emphasis and topicalization
(see Khan 1988). Classical Arabic differs from
Northwest Semitic in that an indefinite subject
cannot stand at the beginning of a sentence, in
which case the predicate is fronted. This con-
struction is not found in Northwest Semitic.
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*39
419
Predicate and subject usually agree in gen-
der and number in both nominal and ver-
bal sentences in Northwest Semitic languages,
regardless of the position of the predicate in a
sentence. (An exception is the dual in Canaanite
and Aramaic, since the dual is only preserved
in vestiges in these languages; dual subjects
are therefore construed as plural, with the gen-
der depending on the gender of the singular.)
In Canaanite and Aramaic, as in Arabic, an
attributive adjective also agrees in definite-
ness with the noun it modifies, while predicate
adjectives remain indefinite. Exceptions to these
agreement rules can occur. In Hebrew, plu-
rals of names, animals, things, and abstracts
are sometimes construed as feminine singular
with verbal predicates. There also occur vari-
ations when the predicate precedes its subject,
in which case the predicate can stand in the
3rd person masculine singular, independent of
the number of the following subject, although
agreement is more frequent. Interestingly,
unlike Hebrew, Ugaritic does not seem to have
cases of lack of agreement in verbal sentences
(Tropper 2000:886).
Classical Arabic agreement rules differ from
Northwest Semitic. Two major differences need
to be addressed. First, a verbal predicate when
it precedes its subject is always construed in
the singular, whether the subject is singular or
plural. Although this situation is sometimes
found in Hebrew as well, it is not as strict as
in Classical Arabic. In some colloquial Arabic
dialects, a verbal predicate agrees in number
and gender with its subject independent of its
position (Rabin 1951:209). In Ancient North
Arabian, verbs generally agree with their sub-
jects in gender and number as well (Macdonald
2004:526). The second major difference is that
inanimate plurals are generally construed as
feminine singulars, likewise a situation that is
found only sporadically in Northwest Semitic.
Another syntactic feature in which Arabic dif-
fers from Northwest Semitic languages is with
regard to relative clauses. In Classical Arabic,
relative clauses are not introduced by a relative
pronoun when the nominal antecedent is indefi-
nite, but they have to be introduced by a rela-
tive pronoun when the antecedent is definite. In
!afaitic, this distinction is not kept as strictly;
although relative clauses may be introduced
by the relative pronouns $ or mn, these pro-
nouns can be absent even after a definite noun
314*4'115000+6&(6&&078
 420 northwest semitic languages
(Macdonald 2004:528). In Northwest Semitic,
no distinction of this kind is made in those
languages that have a marker for definiteness.
In Syriac, relative clauses are generally intro-
duced by the relative pronoun d-. Exceptions
to this rule are rare and often are Hebraisms
(Nöldeke 1904, § 354). In Hebrew, relative
clauses are usually introduced by the pronoun
’ašer, but asyndetic relative clauses occur as
well, especially in poetry. These asyndetic rela-
tive clauses, interestingly, are most commonly
found after an indefinite antecedent, a situation
that resembles Classical Arabic (Gesenius a.o.
1910, § 155d).
2.4. Lexicon
The Northwest Semitic languages and Arabic
share a significant number of lexical items that
are not attested in other Semitic languages,
such as the prepositions *!il(ay) ‘to(ward)’
and *#im/ma# ‘with’; the nouns *#abd ‘servant’,
*kapp ‘palm of hand’, *laban ‘white’, and the
extended form *!il!h ‘god’; and verbal roots
such as #-$-r ‘to help’, '-g-g ‘to make a pilgrim-
age’, '-z-y ‘to see’, n-'-m ‘to console’, s-k-n ‘to
dwell’, t-m-m ‘to be complete’, and +-r-p ‘to
pluck’. There are also, however, many items
that are found in Arabic but not in Northwest
Semitic, and vice versa.
3. S u b g r o u p i n g
The most disputed aspect concerning the sub-
grouping of the Semitic languages is the posi-
tion of Arabic. The traditional view is that
Arabic belongs to a ! South Semitic group
that also includes Old South Arabian, Modern
South Arabian, and Ethiopian Semitic (Nöldeke
1899:17; Brockelmann 1908:21). This view
was challenged in several influential articles by
Hetzron (1974, 1976), in which he argued for
a subgroup labeled Central Semitic, consisting
of Arabic and the Northwest Semitic languages,
on the basis of certain shared morphological
innovations in the verbal system, particularly
the imperfect form yaqtulu. Hetzron’s clas-
sification is widely accepted today (e.g. Faber
1980, 1997; Voigt 1987), although a number
of scholars continue to argue in favor of a
subgrouping of Arabic as South Semitic (Blau
1978; Diakonoff 1988; Diem 1980; Zaborski
1991, 1994; Ratcliffe 1998).
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*'1
The debate centers on different evaluations
of certain isoglosses that Arabic shares with
Northwest Semitic on the one hand and with
South Semitic on the other. Scholars who argue
in favor of the subgrouping of Arabic with
Northwest Semitic, in a Central Semitic sub-
grouping, usually consider the form of the
prefix conjugation yaqtulu, underlying the
Northwest Semitic and Arabic imperfect, to be
a shared innovation of these languages (now
known to be shared by the Old South Arabian
languages as well; see Nebes 1994). South
Semitic does not have a reflex of this verbal
form but uses yaqattal instead, a shared reten-
tion from Proto-Semitic also found in Akkadian
(Hetzron 1974:187, 1976:105).
Scholars who support the subgrouping of Ara-
bic as a member of South Semitic explain simi-
larities between Northwest Semitic languages
and Arabic as results of language contact. The
main two isoglosses quoted against a genealogi-
cal relationship with Northwest Semitic are the
wide range of broken plural patterns used in
Arabic and South Semitic (but see Huehnergard
2005), and the Arabic/South Semitic verbal
stems with lengthened first vowel, q!tala and
taq!tala (i.e. Arabic Forms III and VI), which
are explained as shared innovations (Nöldeke
1899:17; Diem 1980:69; Zaborski 1991:370,
1994:399; Ratcliffe 1998:120). Rare occur-
rences of Hebrew Po!el forms of strong roots
resemble the Classical Arabic q!tala both for-
mally and semantically, however (Gesenius a.o.
1910, § 55b). Furthermore, this stem is attested
outside Semitic, for example in Beja (Zaborski
1991:371), and may go back to an early stage
of Afro-Asiatic; if so, it would not constitute a
shared Arabic/South Semitic innovation.
Bibliographical references
Barth, Jacob. 1894. “Zur vergleichenden semitischen
Grammatik”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-
ländischen Gesellschaft 48.1–21.
Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. 1922. Historische
Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testaments. Halle: Niemeyer.
——. 1927. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen.
Halle: Niemeyer.
Blau, Joshua. 1978. “Hebrew and North West Semi-
tic: Reflections on the classification of the Semitic
languages”. Hebrew Annual Review 2.21–44.
Bloch, Ariel A. 1967. “The vowels of the imper-
fect preformatives in the old dialects of Ara-
bic”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 117.22–29.
Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der ver-
314*4'115000+6&(6&*078
 northwest semitic languages
gleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen,
I. Berlin: Reuther und Reichard.
Cantineau, Jean. 1930–1932. Le nabatéen. 2 vols.
Paris: Ernest Leroux.
——. 1935. Grammaire du palmyrénien épi-
graphique. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale.
Dalman, Gustav. 1905. Grammatik des jüdisch-
palästinischen Aramäisch. 2nd ed. Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs.
Degen, Rainer. 1969. Altaramäische Grammatik der
Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh. v. Chr. Wiesbaden:
F. Steiner.
Diakonoff, Igor M. 1988. Afrasian languages. Mos-
cow: Nauka.
Diem, Werner. 1980. “Die genealogische Stellung
des Arabischen in den semitischen Sprachen: Ein
ungelöstes Problem der Semitistik”. Studien aus
Arabistik und Semitistik: Anton Spitaler zum
siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. Werner Diem, 65–85.
Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
——. 1982. “Die Entwicklung des Derivationsmor-
phems der t-Stämme im Semitischen”. Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
132.29–84.
Faber, Alice. 1980. Genetic subgroupings of the
Semitic languages. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas
at Austin.
——. 1997. “Genetic subgrouping of the Semitic
languages”. The Semitic languages, ed. Robert
Hetzron, 3–15. London: Routledge.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1995. “Zum Verhältnis
der neuarabischen Dialekte zum Klassisch-Ara-
bischen”. Studia Orientalia 75.75–86.
Folmer, M.L. 1995. The Aramaic language of the
Achaemenid period: A study in linguistic variation.
Leuven: Peeters.
Friedrich, Johannes, Wolfgang Röllig, and Maria
Giulia Amadasi Guzzo. 1999. Phönizisch-Punische
Grammatik. 3rd ed. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Bib-
lico.
Gesenius, Wilhelm, E. Kautzsch, and A.E. Cowley.
1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. 2nd English ed.
from the 26th German ed. Oxford: Clarendon.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2004. “The markers of per-
son, gender and number in the prefixes of G-pre-
formative conjugations in Semitic”. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 124.23–35.
Hetzron, Robert. 1973–1974. “The vocalization
of prefixes in Semitic active and passive verbs”.
Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 48.35–48.
——. 1974. “La division des langues sémitiques”.
Actes du Premier Congrès International de Lin-
guistique Sémitique et Chamito-Sémitique, ed.
André Caquot, 181–194. The Hague: Mouton.
——. 1976. “Two principles of genetic reconstruc-
tion”. Lingua 38.89–108.
Huehnergard, John. 1987. “The feminine plural jus-
sive in Old Aramaic”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 137.265–277.
——. 1991. “Remarks on the classification of the
Northwest Semitic languages”. The Balaam text
from Deir ‘Alla re-evaluated, ed. Jacob Hoftijzer,
283–293. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
——. 1992. “Historical phonology and the Hebrew
piel”. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*'3
421
R. Bodine, 209–229. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns.
——. 2005. “Features of Central Semitic”. Bibli-
cal and Oriental essays in memory of William L.
Moran, ed. Agustinus Gianto, 155–203 (= Bib-
lica et Orientalia, 48). Rome: Pontificio Istituto
Biblico.
Hug, Volker. 1993. Altaramäische Grammatik der
Texte des 7. und 6. Jh.s v.Chr. Heidelberg: Heidel-
berger Orientverlag.
Joüon, Paul. 1991. A grammar of Biblical Hebrew.
Trans. and rev. Takamitsu Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome:
Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Khan, Geoffrey. 1988. Studies in Semitic syntax.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knudtzon, J.A. 1907–1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln
mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen. Annotations
and index by O. Weber and E. Ebeling. 2 vols.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
Kouwenberg, N.J.C. 1997. Gemination in the Akka-
dian verb. Assen: van Gorcum.
Liverani, Mario. 1963. “Antecedenti del diptotismo
arabo nei testi accadici di Ugarit”. Rivista degli
Studi Orientali 38.131–160.
Macdonald, Michael C.A. 2000. “Reflections on the
linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia”. Arabian
Archeology and Epigraphy 11.28–79.
——. 2004. “Ancient North Arabian”. The Cam-
bridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient
languages, ed. Roger D. Woodard, 488–533. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macuch, Rudolf. 1965. Handbook of classical and
modern Mandaic. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
——. 1982. Grammatik des samaritanischen Ara-
mäisch. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Müller, Walter W. 1982. “Das Altarabische und das
Klassische Arabisch”. Grundriss der arabischen
Philologie. I. Sprachwissenschaft, ed. Wolfdietrich
Fischer, 17–29. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.
Müller-Kessler, C. 1991. Grammatik des Christlich-
Palästinisch-Aramäischen. Hildesheim: G. Olms.
Muraoka, Takamitsu and Bezalel Porten. 2003. A
grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. 2nd ed. Leiden:
E.J. Brill.
Nebes, Norbert. 1994. “Zur Form der Imperfekt-
basis des unvermehrten Grundstammes im Alt-
südarabischen”. Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65.
Geburtstag. I. Semitische Studien unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Südsemitistik, ed. Wolfhart
Heinrichs, 51–81. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1899. Die semitischen Sprachen.
Leipzig: Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz.
——. 1904. Compendious Syriac grammar. London:
Williams and Norgate. (Repr., Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 2001.)
Parker, Simon. 2002. “Ammonite, Edomite, and
Moabite”. Beyond Babel: A handbook for Biblical
Hebrew and related languges, ed. John Kaltner and
Steven L. McKenzie, 43–60. Atlanta, Ga.: Society
of Biblical Literature.
Rabin, Chaim. 1951. Ancient West-Arabian. Lon-
don: Taylor’s Foreign Press.
Rainey, Anson F. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna
tablets. 4 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Ratcliffe, Robert R. 1998. “Defining morphologi-
cal isoglosses: The ‘broken’ plural and Semitic
314*4'115000+6&(6&*078
 422 noun
subclassification”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
57.81–123.
Rosenthal, Franz. 1995. A grammar of Biblical Ara-
maic. 6th ed. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
Rubin, Aaron. 2004. Studies in Semitic grammati-
calization. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Streck, Michael. 2000. Das amurritische Onomas-
tikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. I. Die Amur-
riter: Die onomastische Forschung, Orthographie
und Phonologie, Nominalmorphologie. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag
Testen, David. 1999. “Arabic evidence for the forma-
tion of the verbal noun of the Semitic Gt-stem”.
Journal of Semitic Studies 44.1–16.
Tropper, Josef. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. Mün-
ster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Voigt, Rainer M. 1987. “The classification of Central
Semitic”. Journal of Semitic Studies 32.1–21.
——. 1988. “Die Personalpronomina der 3. Perso-
nen im Semitischen”. Welt des Orients 18.49–63.
——. 1999. “Nominal (and verbal) nasalization and
the nominal plural morphemes in Semitohamitic”.
Afroasiatica Tergestina: Papers from the Ninth
Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic)
Linguistics, Trieste, April 23–24, 1998, ed. Mar-
cello Lamberti and Livia Tonelli, 11–22. Padua:
Unipress.
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. 1990. Intro-
duction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Zaborski, Andrzej. 1991. “The position of Arabic
within the Semitic dialect continuum”. Proceed-
ings of the Colloquium on Arabic Grammar, ed.
Kinga Dévényi, 365–375. Budapest: Csoma de
K"rös Society of Islamic Studies.
——. 1994. “Problèmes de classification des dialectes
sémitiques méridionaux”. Actes des Premières
Journées Internationales de Dialectologie Arabe
de Paris, ed. Dominique Caubet, 400–411. Paris:
Publications Langues’O.
Zewi, Tamar. 1999. A syntactical study of verbal
forms affixed by -n(n) endings in Classical Arabic,
Biblical Hebrew, el-Amarna Akkadian and Ugar-
itic. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Rebecca Hasselbach (University of Chicago)
John Huehnergard (Harvard University)
Noun
1. D e f i n i t i o n
Generally speaking, the term ‘noun’ can be
used either as a synonym for ‘substantive’ and
‘adjective’, or as an umbrella term for all ‘nomi-
nal’ parts of the sentence, including adjectives
as well as pronouns and numerals. In the con-
text of Semitic and Arabic linguistics, ‘noun’
(!" ism) is always used in the first, narrower
sense. The demarcation between substantive
and ! adjective poses a morphosyntactic prob-
!"##$%$&'()*+*,-.//000*''
lem in some Semitic languages (! noun phrase;
! adjective phrase) because from a typologi-
cal point of view, substantive-adjective phrases
could also be analyzed as two nouns in apposi-
tion, e.g. ar-rajulu l-kab(ru ‘the man the big
(one)’. Moreover, the strict distinction between
nominal patterns (including declensional fea-
tures) specific to substantives and those specific
to adjectives that is found, for instance, in
Akkadian (Huehnergard 2000:607–609) does
not exist in (Classical) Arabic (see, e.g., Fischer
1997:192). Therefore, the following notes do
not exclude references to adjectives, because
these can function regularly as substantives,
which is especially evident in the case of the !
participle.
From the native Arab grammarians’ point
of view, the definition of ‘noun’ is more com-
plicated. On the one hand, ! ism philosophi-
cally denotes everything that can be assigned
a name. Much in the spirit of the Qur&%nic
verse wa-#allama !3dama l-!asm!!a kullah! ‘and
He taught Adam all the names [sc. of things
that can be assigned a name]’ (Q. 2/31), S6ba-
wayhi writes that !i$! qulta marartu bi-rajulin
!innnam! za#amta !annaka !innam! mararta bi-
w!'idin mim-man yaqa#u #alayhi h!$! l-ism ‘by
saying “I passed by a man” simply means that
one passed by one of those to whom this name
[i.e. ‘man’] applies’ (Kit!b I, 2201ff./187.18ff.).
On the other hand, S6bawayhi also subsumes
the demonstrative pronoun, the participle, the
elative form !af #alu, and certain indeclinable
words under his concept of !asm!! (see Diem
1970–1971:316ff.). This broader definition is
still reflected in Wright’s grammar (1967:I,
104ff.), which lists six kinds of nouns: (1)
al-ism al maw#-f or al-man#-t ‘the noun that
can be qualified by an adjective’, (2) a#-#ifa, al-
wa#f, or an-na#t ‘the adjective’, (3) ism al-#adad
‘the number’, (4) ism al-!iš!ra ‘the demonstra-
tive pronoun’, (5) al-ism al-maw#-l ‘the relative
pronoun’, and (6) a!-!am(r or al-mu!mar ‘the
pronoun’.
The concept ‘noun’ in the sense of a word
denoting a person or a thing (cf. Sanskrit
n!man or Greek ónoma) is discussed here with
special attention to morphological notions; the
entry does not, nevertheless, neglect semantic
categories, because these are closely associ-
ated with noun patterns. ‘Nominalized’ clauses
(cleft sentences and relative clauses), which
can adopt the syntactic position of a noun, are
314*4'115000+6&(6&+078