Pat-El Def

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEMITIC DEFINITE ARTICLE
19
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEMITIC
DEFINITE ARTICLE:
A SYNTACTIC APPROACH*
NA}AMA PAT-EL
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Abstract
This paper aims at explaining the development of the Semitic definite
article through an examination of its attested syntactical features. The
paper will try to show that the original function of the definite article
was not to mark definiteness, that it was first attached to the at-
tribute, not the noun, and that only later was it transferred to the
noun and interpreted as an article.
1. Introduction
Several important studies have been published lately concerning the
historical development and the function of the West-Semitic definite
article. Naturally, this topic has attracted much scholarly attention in
the past, and some of its aspects are still a matter of great contention.
There is almost no dispute in the field that the origin of the definite
article is an attributive demonstrative.
1
The exact identification of this
Journal of Semitic Studies LIV/1 Spring 2009 doi:10.1093/jss/fgn039
The author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester.
All rights reserved.
*Several people have commented on earlier versions of this paper. I would like
especially to thank John Huehnergard for his continued support and interest and for
his many thought-provoking comments. I would also wish to thank Wolfhart
Heinrichs, Geoffrey Khan and Aaron Rubin for their helpful comments. Any errors
are mine alone. Abbreviations used in this paper are: Adj - adjective; AdN - adnominal;
Akk. - Akkadian; Amh. - Amharic; Arb. - Arabic; Arm. - Aramaic; BH - Biblical
Hebrew; C - Christian; CA - Classical Arabic; Can. - Canaanite; CS - Central
Semitic; Def. - definite; Dem - demonstrative; ES - East Semitic; G - Gz; IE -
Indo-European; Indef. - indefinite; J - Jewish; LateA - Late Aramaic; M - Muslim;
MidA - Middle Aramaic; MH - Mishnaic Hebrew; N - noun; Nor. - Norwegian;
OA - Old Aramaic; OfA - Official Aramaic; OSA - Old South Arabian; Ph. -
Phoenician; Poss. = possessive suffix; PS = proto-Semitic; P-WS - proto West-Semitic;
TO - Targum Onqelos; Ug. - Ugaritic.
1
In this paper, the term definite refers to the grammatical marker, and not to its
pragmatic or semantic features, unless specifically noted, as the emphasis of the cur-
rent paper is syntax. The term demonstrative is a deictic expression; attributive/
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 19
20
demonstrative is what essentially divides scholars (Rubin 2005: 72). In
their most recent contributions to the discussion, Voigt (1998) and
Tropper (2001) reconstructed *han for both Hebrew and Arabic but
Rubin (2005: 726) argued for two separate demonstratives as the
origin for the Arabic and Hebrew articles. According to Rubin, the CS
article developed from two Semitic demonstratives *han- (Can., Arm.,
OSA) and *ul (Arb.). The doubling caused by attaching the article is a
result of an assimilation of the final n/l to a following consonant.
Typologically, most languages develop articles from attributive
demonstratives (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 10911) and this typology
is the basis for most of the work done on the Semitic article.
2
However,
there are several substantial discrepancies with this general approach
and its application to the Semitic languages.
3
The first problem is the position of attributive demonstratives rela-
tive to their head noun. Most Semitic languages show a N-Dem word
order except G., OSA and occasionally Arab. This position is in agree-
ment with the regular position of attributes in Semitic: adjectives, rela-
tive clauses and other adnominal modifiers normally follow their head
noun. Note the following examples which portray the typical word
order with attributive demonstratives in the Semitic languages:
4
Akk.: kaspam anniam this silver (acc.)
G.: ba-za hagar in this city
OSA:
5
dn l-n-hn these two gods (R 2923/7)
BH: hay-yom haz-ze (Gen. 17:26) this day
Ph.: mlkt z this work (KAI 10:14)
pronominal demonstrative is a pronominal paradigm which is used to mark deixis
(Diessel 1999: 2). Attributive demonstratives occur with a coreferential noun, and
pronominal demonstratives may syntactically substitute a noun. This paradigm dis-
tinguishes (at least) distal and proximal and has the same morphological distinction
as any other adjective in Semitic.
2
This is especially evident in Rubin (2005). Zaborski also maintains that the
demonstrative origin of the article is the only reasonable solution since usually defi-
nite articles go back to demonstratives (2000: 25).
3
Lambdin is the only scholar I am aware of who objected to the assumption that
a demonstrative is the origin of the Semitic article. He nicknamed it the particle
theory (1971: 315, n. 1). Lambdin recognized and pointed to many of the problems
I will discuss below, but his worries were largely ignored by later scholars. While I do
not agree with parts of the solution Lambdin offers, his observations are insightful
and astute. It is regrettable that this important article, despite its flaws, was shunned.
4
The underlined examples mark languages where the demonstrative precedes the
head noun.
5
Note also that the relative pronoun, which is identical to the near demonstra-
tive, stands after the noun (Beeston 1984:41): brktn t rn the cistern of the castle
(Hfner 1943: 43).
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 20
21
Ug.: spr hnd this book (m.acc.) (2.19, 9); alpm sswm hnd these 2000
horses (m.pl)' (2.33, 32); mlakty hnd this mission (f.) of mine
(2.33, 35)
Arm.: dmwt zt this statue (Fekh. 15)
6
Arb.: hada l-malik / l-malik haa this king
zayd haa this Zeid
ibadi haulai these servants of mine
In Arab. Dem-N is permissible only when the noun is marked with
the definite article, which is a late feature, at least later than proto-CS. In
any case, the Dem-N word order is conditioned by the syntax of the
noun.
7
G. is under heavy influence of non-Semitic languages, about
which we know very little.
8
Thus, since the preferred word order in
both ES and WS is N-Dem, it should be considered both a PS and a P-
WS feature, while the article is only common CS (Rubin 2005: 65).
This is a major weakness in the assumption that the article developed
from an attributive demonstrative. Note also, that according to Rubins
reconstruction, the Canaanite and Aramaic articles both go back to the
same demonstrative (*han), yet the article is post-positive in Aramaic
and pre-positive in Canaanite.
9
While the syntax of the article is con-
sistent in all the CS languages, which no doubt points to a similarity in
the development of their article, the differences in its position cannot be
ignored.
10
6
This word order changed by LateA and later to become Dem.-N. See Pat-El
(forthcoming).
7
The situation in OSA is hard to evaluate. There are not many examples of the
attributive demonstrative and the information regarding their behaviour in different
syntactic environments is therefore partial.
8
The order of N-modifier in G. is variable, that is adjectives, genitive and relative
clauses may be positioned before, or after their head noun; however, in modern Ethio-
Semitic, most languages exhibit modifier-N word order, although some variation is
possible (Little 1974: 79, fig. 7). This is a strong indication that there has been sub-
stantial shift of nominal modifiers from post-position to pre-position. Some elements
are more likely to gain a fixed position than others. Already in G. quantifying adjec-
tives, such as bzu much, and ordinal numbers are regularly pre-posed: sabawit
hagar the seventh city. Thus, the pre-position of the demonstrative in G. is a result of
a process of change, rather than an indication of the original situation.
9
A similar point was made by Lambdin (1971: 316). Firmages rejection (2002:
37, n. 14) of Lambdin in this regard should not be accepted. Lambdin is correct in
noting that demonstratives appear after the noun in Semitic. Firmage uses Arabic as
evidence that Lambdin is wrong, but Arabic is a clear innovation, and a late one at
that, and even there we find the demonstrative regularly after the noun.
10
It is well known by now that the order of morphemes does not necessarily
reflect their word order prior to grammaticalization (Harris and Campbell 1995:
199200); however, in this case, it seems that the development of the article is much
later than the stabilization of the demonstrative word order.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 21
22
The second problem is the exact function of the Semitic demonstra-
tive pronoun *ha(-n). First, we should note that *ha(-n) does not occur
as an independent demonstrative in Semitic,
11
but rather is always pre-
fixed to a demonstrative as in the following:
Akk. annm < *hanni
12
Ug. hnd
BH haz-ze, hallaze
MH halla
Arb. haa
Arm. hdyn, hlyn
13
Amh. nnzzih (cf. b-zzih in this)
Hasselbach (2007: 21)
14
argues that the particle *ha and its exten-
sion *ha-n are originally adnominal, basing her conclusions on their
tendency to be attached to attributive demonstratives when two sepa-
rate paradigms (adnominal and pronominal) exist. Some dialects of
Aramaic show this clearly. In other languages, forms with the prefix
*ha(-n) are primarily or exclusively attributive:
TO. ha-a
15
(attributive): ara haa (Gen. 12:7) this land.
da (pronominal): da ara (Num. 34:2) this is the land.
Ug. hn-d and hndn are always used attributively: p hndn his upu-
soldier (KTU 2.72).
16
BH ha-is hallaze (Gen. 24:65) this man; ha-is haz-ze (Gen. 24:58)
this man.
17
11
Once more, Lambdin is right to note that ha is not an independent demonstra-
tive in Hebrew and Phoenician (1971: 315). Here too, we must reject Firmages dis-
missal of Lambdin who asserts that we simply do not have enough early material in
these two languages to make such a claim (2002: 37, n. 14). We do indeed have
comparative evidence which clearly corroborates Lambdins claim.
12
Lieberman (1986: 591) argues that this form is constructed out of several ele-
ments: an-, the first element in independent nominative pronouns (*an-a, an-ta
,
an-ti etc.) and -ni, an Afroasiatic pronoun. For Hasselbach (2007: 25) *han is a prefix,
while Rubin (2005: 76) claims that the origin of this form is a nisbe *hanni, which was
reduced when cliticized. All these scholars agree that the Akkadian form is not an
inflected *han, but either a derivation of it or a complex form with a prefix *han.
13
Starting from MidA (Cook 1992: 10). See more below.
14
I would like to thank Rebecca Hasselbach for making her paper available to me
pre-publication.
15
Even if we assume that the Targumic Aramaic ara ha-a is an imitation of the
Hebrew ha-are haz-zo()t, it still behoves us to note that while the Hebrew definite
article haC- is represented by the Aramaic definite article -a, the Aramaic translator
clearly identified haC- before a demonstrative in Hebrew with ha- in Aramaic.
16
Other forms (hndt, hnk, hnkt) appear in unclear contexts.
17
In MH the head noun is not necessarily marked with an article: slosa darim
hallalu these three things (Av. 5:19). See discussion in section 3.4.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 22
23
ze seper tolo a am (Gen. 5:1) this is the book of the history of
man
Akk. (*han >) annm is primarily used attributively, though not exclu-
sively.
Given that *ha(-n) is prefixed to attributive elements, it is strange
that in Aram. and OSA, *ha(-n) is a suffix.
18
Hasselbach also notes that
these forms inflection, if it exists at all, is secondary (Hasselbach 2007:
21). If indeed these forms were not inflected, it is hard to regard them
as pronominal.
While the phonological arguments for reconstructing a form *ha(-n)
as the underlying form of the article are solid, there are some indica-
tions that *ha(-n) could not have been a demonstrative. Demonstratives
by definition mark degrees of proximity (Diessel 2005: 1701). Yet
the element *ha(-n) not only lacks such a distinction
19
, it may also be
cliticized to various elements indiscriminately:
20
the proximal demon-
strative in CA (haa) and Akk. (anni-); the distal demonstrative in BH
(hallaze); to both in TO (ha-hu, ha-a), Syriac (hanna, haw < ha-w),
and Mand. (hahu, hax).
21
A slightly less perplexing problem is the lack of inflection. The defi-
nite article in CS does not exhibit gender-number distinctions.
22
This
is quite puzzling since even languages which have lost gender distinc-
tions in the nominal paradigm (e.g. Dutch
23
) still maintain gender dis-
18
Even Hasselbach who supports Rubins analysis notes that already in early Se-
mitic there existed the possibility to mark the demonstrative pronouns as adnominal
by affixing the element *ha(n) (2007: 21). With no evidence to the contrary, affix-
ing should be understood as prefixing.
19
Hasselbach (2007: 21) argues that -n- is probably a near deixis element in Se-
mitic, but ha- itself does not seem to have any such attribute.
20
This lack of proximity distinction is found with the relative-determinative pro-
noun as well; the determinative is, of course, not a demonstrative.
21
In addition, from the very beginning, the article and the demonstrative co-
occur: Arb. haa al-malik this king, BH ha-ama haz-zo()t this maidservant (Gen.
21:10). In a process of grammaticalization of Dem>article, there is usually a period
where the presence of the article excludes the demonstrative; this did not happen in
CS. In most Indo-European languages it is still the case, and the demonstrative and
definite article are in complimentary distribution: *this the king.
22
Zaborski (2000) argues that the definite article was originally inflected for gen-
der and number (m. ha-n, f. ha-t, pl. ha-l), but subsequent assimilation levelled the
differences. However, there is no direct evidence that this is so and the entire premise
lies heavily on the assertion that the article must have its origin in a demonstrative.
23
The adnominal categories in the Germanic languages were more gender-dis-
tinctive than the nominals. This is especially evident in the article and demonstratives
(Dekeyser 1980: 98). While in English the noun, the definite article and even the
indefinite article (slightly later) lost all gender-number-case distinctions in Late Old
English, the demonstrative maintained a basic number-marked paradigm. In Dutch
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 23
24
tinctions on the article; in fact in many languages the rise of the article
is assumed to be related to the collapse of the nominal system which
leads to the article carrying the relevant nominal inflection.
24
In
Semitic, with its rich nominal morphology, there is no reason that the
attributive demonstrative should lose its inflection as it becomes a defi-
nite article.
25
Thus, it would be highly problematic to reconstruct the CS definite
article from a demonstrative. The only way that a non-inflecting
adnominal prefix *ha(-n) could have been the origin of the CS article
is if it was attached to the attribute first, and only later to the noun by
analogy, as it is quite unlikely that an ad-nominal prefix will be at-
tached to a substantive. This point is crucial to the understanding of
the syntax of the article and its later developments in Semitic.
While many of the syntactical features of the article are shared, there
are some native, and apparently old, patterns in each language which
do not quite fit what we think we know about the articles syntax. The
importance of relics to historical reconstruction has been highlighted
repeatedly by historical linguists dealing with morphology,
26
but is
where the distinctions were lost much later than English, the demonstrative and defi-
nite article are the only forms which maintain a distinction between genders (com-
mon de and neuter het).
24
Lyons (1999: 67) mentions only one inflected language (Hungarian) where the
article is frozen, while the demonstrative and noun show inflection. However, Hun-
garian has fewer nominal features than Semitic (e.g. it has no gender). Note also that
the innovated article in Amharic distinguishes gender: m.s.: lg-u the boy / bra-w
the ox; f.s: lg-it
w
a the girl / lam-
w
a or lam-itu or lam-it
w
a cow; c.pl.: ngus-occ-u
kings (Leslau 1995: 1556). The tendency of articles in world languages to carry
more grammatical load than the noun is so strong that it was the basis of a theory that
the innovation of articles is a way to ensure that the nominal phrase will carry the
grammatical markers, even when the morphological expression is lost (Lyons 1999:
324). There are of course known exceptions, as English, where the noun distinguishes
number but the article does not.
25
Compare, for example, the definite article in Central Neo-Aramaic, which origi-
nated from pronouns, where distinctions between the genders were not levelled: ur.
b-u-gab-ano (Jastrow 1992, 6.10:8) On this side (m.); b-i-xarae (Jastrow 1992,
12.13:11) On this peg (f.). Typological studies have shown that attributive
demonstratives are the last grammatical entities in the nominal system to lose inflec-
tion. Moravcsiks proposed universal is: if the adnominal adjective agrees with the
noun, so does the adnominal demonstrative (1997: 317). Nevertheless, it is possible
that in the process of grammaticalization, a demonstrative may lose its inflection. The
difficulty in Semitic is that even outside the article position hn does not show inflec-
tion.
26
Hetzron (1976: 92ff.) labelled it the principle of archaic heterogeneity, ac-
cording to which the relatively most heterogeneous system must be the most archaic.
Hetzron used this principle mostly in comparative historical linguistics to determine
the relative archaism of one system over the other. This, however, may very well apply
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 24
25
equally valid in syntax.
27
We should mention in this context Meillets
note that we reconstruct on exceptions, not rules (Meillet 1954: 27).
Therefore, these relics will be an important part of the following dis-
cussion, along with a reassessment of the syntactic rules and the expla-
nations previously given to them. In the following discussion I will use
the term article to refer to the form, not the function, of the so-called
definite article in CS.
2. The Syntax of the Definite Article
The syntax of the definite article in CS is quite peculiar yet consistent
across the CS languages. This common syntax was recently discussed
by Huehnergard (2005: 1846) as a part of his discussion of common
CS features. Although Huehnergard does not believe the article to be a
result of shared innovation,
28
he does mention a list of common syn-
tactical features that are found in Canaanite, Aramaic, Arabic and pos-
sibly OSA and thus may point to a regional phenomenon: the article
appears on the last member of a construct; it does not occur with proper
nouns or nouns with pronominal suffix; predicative adjectives are not
marked with the article and attributive adjectives agree in definiteness
with the noun (2005: 185). To Huehnergards list one should add that
the definite article allows nominalization of adjectives: BH ha-ira
(Gen. 19:38) the young (sister).
29
The fact that all languages exhibit
exactly the same peculiar syntax should at least point to a common
process. The similarities in syntax may help us figure out the origin of
the pattern, by tracing back what triggered this behaviour. In order to
do that we need to assume, as we do in morphological reconstruction,
that the attested situation is a result of a process, not the original state.
The common explanations suggested hitherto to account for the
syntactic similarities are mostly unsatisfactory and do not account for
to internal reconstruction as well. See for example Greenberg: a highly irregular for-
mation which has withstood analogy must be very old (1957: 51).
27
Watkins noted that [t]here are frequently more-highly bound or restricted con-
structions in the syntax of a language, just as in its morphology, and it is the duty of
the historian to look precisely here, even though such constructions may be of little
interest to the descriptivist (1976: 312).
28
The lack of an article in Deir {Alla, Samalian and Ug. makes the assumption of
it being a common CS feature improbable.
29
Many Semitic languages do not require any special apparatus to nominalize
adjectives. However, all CS languages which use the article use it to nominalize much
more than marking, if they use the latter at all. Note that with the exception of
some Neo-Aramaic dialects, no Semitic language uses the demonstrative, or any other
independent pronoun, in order to nominalize attributes.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 25
26
all of the data as a system. The redundancy of marking the article on
both noun and adjective has been explained as a feature of nominal
agreement (Rubin 2005: 83). The question of agreement is a complex
issue which I shall not delve into here; suffice it to mention Arabic
examples such as manzilatun qafrun desolate abode, nisaun aliatun
pious women (Reckendorf 1921: 71; Fischer 2001: 72) to note that
agreement does not necessarily imply similarity of form. Moreover,
other nominal clitics, such as the possessive suffixes, do not move
from the substantive to the adjective. Thus, the redundancy is still
unresolved.
The exclusion of nouns with possessive suffixes is usually compared
to IE languages, where it is not normally common for the article to be
attached to nouns with possessive pronouns (Rubin 2005: 82). While
it is true that in many of the worlds language possessivity excludes the
definite article, in many cases it is so because possessivity is marked
through a possessive determiner. In French, mon/ma/mes are syntacti-
cally equivalent to le/la/les and carry similar morphology. This type of
possessivity occupies the slot of the determiner, like quantifiers and
attributive demonstratives, and therefore the article, being a determiner
itself, is excluded.
30
Since in Semitic the possessive suffixes are not a
determiner (i.e. an article or a demonstrative pronoun), but rather suf-
fixes, there is no apparent reason the article should be excluded. In
addition, in all the Semitic languages the attributive demonstrative is
permissible with nouns with suffixes, thus the article, if indeed from a
demonstrative origin, should not be exluded either.
31
For comparison,
IE languages which exclude the article from nouns with possessive pro-
nouns, exclude the attributive demonstrative as well.
The genitive construction has been described and explained many a
time, but for our purposes, it is important to note that it expresses the
attributive relation syntactically, where the regens is the head and the
rectum is the attribute (Goldenberg 1995: 3). The argument that the
construct equals nouns with possessive suffixes (Brockelmann 1910:
30
Note that in Greek, where possession is expressed through pronouns with ad-
jectival declension (emos, eme, emon), the definite article, which originated from a
demonstrative, is not excluded from nouns with possessive pronouns: ta hemetera
biblia our books and similarly, in Italian la mia casa my house. In this sense, French
is a determiner-genitive language, while Italian is an adjectival-genitive language. See
Haspelmath (1999: 2334) where he attempts to explain the exclusion of articles
with performance economy.
31
In Mehri, where the definite article is from a different source than the CS lan-
guage, the article does not exclude possessive suffixes. Note also that independent
possessive articles in Semitic (Heb. sel-, Aram. dil-, Iraqi Arab. mal- etc.) require the
article: it-talafon mal-ak your telephone (Rubin 2004: 333).
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 26
27
178; Rubin 2005: 82), while true, does not by itself account for the
fact that only the second element is marked with the definite article;
pronouns and nouns do not have the same syntax nor the same level of
definiteness (Khan 1984: 470).
3. Relics
The following discussion focuses on native patterns in specific lan-
guages which do not exhibit the expected syntax but which seem to be
very established. The last section of the discussion deals with noun-
adjective combinations where only the adjective is marked with an
article. This pattern occurs in all languages which developed an article.
3.1 Arabic
3.1.1 Improper Annexation (al-iafa gayr al-aqiqiyya)
Improper annexation is a special construct which contains an adjective
as the regens and a noun as the rectum: asanu l-waghi beautiful (lit.
pretty of appearance) (cf. BH ypa toar). In this pattern, the rectum is
normally marked with the definite article, yet the construct is not syn-
tactically definite, i.e. an adjective modifying it would not be marked
with an article and attributive demonstratives are excluded. In a regu-
lar type of annexation, whenever the rectum is marked with an article,
the annexation is syntactically definite. However, in the improper an-
nexation, if the construct is to be definite, the article must precede the
regens, i.e. the adjective, as well as the rectum:
32
gadu s-saari curly of hair, a person with curly hair
al-gadu s-saari the curly of hair, the person with curly hair
It is hard to understand why a definite rectum does not mark the
entire construct as definite as it does with any normal construct pat-
tern.
3.1.2 The Relative Pronoun allai
The Arabic relative pronoun (allai, allati) is a combination of the
definite article al-, a particle la and the PS relative-determinative pro-
noun *u (Akk. sa, BH zu, Aramaic zi). There is no doubt that the
32
This is not the case in Hebrew, where the improper annexation imitates the
syntax of the regular annexation: sa hap-paro ypo ham-mare the seven healthy
cows (Gen. 41:4). Note, however, that most examples in the Bible are predicative
and there are in effect very few examples of the improper annexation with a definite
article.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 27
28
relative-determinative pronoun u was used in other dialects in the
same way that allai is used in CA.
33
In Quranic and Classical Arabic, only definite antecedents may take
allai to introduce their relative clause. However, other types of Arabic
use allai with indefinite as well as definite nouns.
34
This is an indica-
tion that the use of allai was originally independent of nominal defi-
niteness. This is further substantiated by comparative evidence, since
the relative construction developed much earlier than the definite arti-
cle and it exists in all the Semitic languages, whether they use an article
or not.
For example, the BH defunct relative pronoun zV occurs with both
definite and indefinite heads:
Indef.: hodieni derek zu elek (Ps. 143:8) let me know which road I should
walk.
Def.: hinne
e
lohenu ze qiwwinu lo (Isa. 25:9) here is our lord for whom
we have waited.
Akk. and Ug., which did not develop an article, also use the relative
pronoun indeterminately. It is therefore very likely that the preference
of some dialects of Arabic to position allai only before definite heads
is secondary and was a result of differentiating two patterns which origi-
nally served the same function.
3.2 Hebrew
3.2.1 The Definite Article as a Subordinating Particle
The definite article may appear on participles whose head noun is not
definite:
spipon
a
le ora han-nose iqqe sus (Gen. 49:17) a snake on a road
biting a horses heels.
b-ya malaim hab-baim Yrusalayim (Jer. 27:3) by the hand of mes-
sengers coming to Jerusalem.
The lack of article on the head noun causes great difficulty to
Hebraists. Davidson states that in this pattern the head noun is defi-
nite, and even when it is not formally marked, the preceding word is
really definite (1902: 133, 99).
33
This basic pronoun is still in use in some Modern dialects, like the Zbala dialect
in Morocco. See Brustad (2000: 10910).
34
Hopkins (1984: 240, 288 n. 1) notes that the cases where an asyndetic relative
clause follows an intrisincally or formally definite antecedent are much rarer than
allai-clauses following an indefinite noun.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 28
29
This pattern is very often termed a relative pattern (Gesenius 1910:
440, 126a; Waltke and OConnor 1990: 246, 621). This is of course
not impossible, since participles are a nominal form with verbal func-
tions. Nevertheless, the relative participle gave rise to the assumption
that the definite article is a relative pronoun. This idea was suggested
previously by a number of scholars (Goshen-Gottstein 1946: 29; Wright
1967: II 232, 95f; Siloni 1995; Shlonsky 1997: 36; Firmage 2002:
35). Lately, it was used again by Gzella (2006), in his discussion of the
Phoenician definite article, who claimed that the definite article was
not used to mark definiteness, but was added to substantives that were
already definite. According to him, the definite articles original func-
tion must have been subordination:
Allein die Annahme, dass sich Syntagmen wie das in KAI 14:9 [hlnm
hqdsm] aus einer alten relativischen Apposition wie *die Gtter, die heilig
[sind] durch Breviloquenz ber die Gtter, die heiligen entwickelt haben,
vereinigt die einzelnen linguistischen Fakten in einer plausiblen
Zusammenschau. (Gzella 2006:11)
In BH, the position of the definite article before participles with an
indefinite head noun points, according to Gzella, to a subordinating
function: Ganz deutlich verweist jedoch mitunter die Setzung des
Artikels beim hebrischen Partizip auf eine relativische oder
unterordnende Funktion (Gzella 2006: 17).
There is a lot of evidence against such an analysis: finite verbs were
originally excluded from this pattern,
35
it cannot be negated, the parti-
ciple can predicate only the head noun,
36
and lastly the article can be
35
See Gesenius (1910: 447i); Goshen-Gottstein (1946: 29); Peretz (1967: 75,
1089); Waltke and OConnor (1990: 339d). There are some examples of finite
verbs; however, all the examples with finite verbs occur in late books, except Josh.
10:24: qine anse ham-milama he-halu() itto (Josh. 10: 24) officers, men of
war, who travelled with him. This pattern with finite verbs disappeared all together
in later stages of Hebrew, while the participle with the definite article is used from the
earliest sources until Israeli Hebrew. In addition, note that almost all the finite verbs
found preceded by the definite article begin with h, and thus may be explained as
cases of dittography. Therefore, it is possible that the pattern with finite verbs is a late
analogy to the pattern with participles and developed after the participle became a
part of the verbal paradigm, thus
a
ser+predicative participle:
a
ser+ finite verb::
haC+participle:? > haC+finite verb.
36
That is, there can never be an overt subject in this relative clause and there can
never be constructions of the type **malaim
i
hab-baim
j
elehem
i
messengers to whom
people come. The Arabic nat sababi pattern allows the attribute to refer to a different
referent than the head noun. However, the nat is clearly a nominal pattern, as its
negation is the nominal negator gayr rather than the verbal negators ma/la (Polotsky
1978: 169, 1712). Note also that the predicate of the alleged relative clause is as-
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 29
30
attached only to the participle and never to any other element. All
these are substantial differences between the relative clause and the
participle clause, the latter being highly restricted compared to
a
ser
relatives.
37
Besides the lack of agreement in definition, the N-partici-
ple combination is syntactically identical to the N-Adj. combination
(for which see section 3.4).
In addition, there is no reason to treat an article on participles as
having a function distinct from the article on substantives. Therefore
hqdsm in hlnm hqdsm cannot be a sentence, if hlnm is not a sentence.
Moreover, if Gzellas analysis is correct then the PS relative-determina-
tive *V could have similarly transferred to the substantive from its
attributive position, but this did not happen.
38
Relative clauses, like adjectives, are exponents of the attributive rela-
tion, but this does not imply that their internal syntax is identical to
that of the adjective, nor that the article is identical to the relative
pronoun, as I hope the discussion above illustrates.
signed case by the head noun, not by its function within the clause, that is, it bears
regular nominal agreement: l-adwiyat
i
l-gayr
i
muarra
n
bi-bay
i
-ha qanun
an
drugs,
the sale of which is prohibited by law (Qanun as-sura 36, apud Polotsky 1978: 171,
e.g. 40).
37
Siloni (1995: 448, n. 3) acknowledges the possibility that participles can func-
tion as nouns or adjectives, but maintains that they are verbal in this pattern, because
they take direct objects, while nouns cannot take direct objects. This approach is a bit
circular, as Siloni takes this to be a given, while this is what needs to be proven and in
any case, examples where participles take direct objects when they are non-verbal
exist: ki-mragglim e ha-are (Gen. 42:30) as spying over the land; l-norim e
piryo (Song 8:12) people guarding its fruit. Silonis sole reason to analyse the article
as a relativizer is her inability to explain the lack of article on the head noun, despite
the fact, that even according to her parameters, there is only one minor similarity
between relative clauses and participle clauses (see her table in p. 452). It is also re-
grettable that Silonis data and analysis are so misleading. Many of the examples she
provides as ungrammatical may be grammatical with other lexemes; she uses sen-
tences with the presentative hinne which show a different syntax than regular nomi-
nal sentences in the language. She ignores some important facts concerning partici-
ples in Hebrew, e.g. participles can occur without definite article in Modern Hebrew,
only when they have been fully substantivized, thus qonim shoppers (her example) is
acceptable, but not olim diners, mitnaalim settlers but not yosim residers.
Finally, she refers to Arabic nat sababi construction to prove that in some languages,
the participle may predicate a non-subject element. Here too the participle is no
different than the attributive adjective and merits no special consideration. Moreover,
Siloni ignores the clear indication of case in Arabic, which undeniably points to a
nominal agreement with the head noun.
38
In some Neo-Arabic dialects, the definite article is used as a relativizer, probably
due to contamination with the relative pronoun illi; this is, however, a secondary and
late innovation and should not be taken to represent the original function of the
Arabic article.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 30
31
Note also that like the Arabic improper annexation, here too, the
pattern is not definite unless the head noun is also definite:
al ham-mizbe
a
hab-banuy (Judg. 6:28) on the already-built altar.
ha-alma hay-yoe liso (Gen. 24:43) the maiden going out to draw
(water).
This pattern occurs in Mishnaic Hebrew with the same syntax:
indefinite noun is followed by a definite participle (e.g. Er. 9:4). If
indeed the function of the particle *han was to mark definiteness, a
definite article on the attributive participle should have been enough
to render the entire construction definite.
3.3 Distribution: Phoenician and Old Aramaic
In both Phoenician and OA the definite article appears mostly on
modified nouns, i.e. nouns followed by attributive demonstratives or
relative clauses. In OA, out of 54 nouns in Lambdins sample over half
were followed by an attributive demonstrative and only 10 were un-
modified (Lambdin 1971: 318). This is very similar to the situation in
Phoenician. Firmage went as far as to suggest that before relative clauses
the article is a discontinuous morpheme: h s (2002: 334).
3.4 Common deviation: Noun-[Article-Adjective]
In all languages, there are cases where only the adjective is marked with
the definite article, in contradiction to the rule of noun-adjective agree-
ment. It should be noted that the meaning of these clauses remains
identical to their meaning were the noun to be marked with the article
as well.
3.4.1 Arabic
In Arabic, this pattern was largely reanalysed as a construct chain and
the adjective was marked with a genitive case (Ewald 1833: II 29;
Brockelmann: II 209, 132bc; Wright 1967: II 232, 95f).
39
Most
Arabists agree that the reinterpretation of this pattern as construct,
which is more common in the modern dialects than in Middle Arabic,
is later and arose due to the external similarity of the two (Hopkins
1984:186, n. 1). This pattern is quite common with numerals:
39
Note that this syntactic re-interpretation goes against the meaning of the clause:
yawm
u
s-sabi
i
is the seventh day, not the day of the seventh N, dar
u
l-airat
i
is the
other world, not the world of the other N and so on. In addition, note that in the
noun and adjective in this pattern are always in agreement, which is not the case for
the construct: (Lebanese Arb) sint il-maye last year.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 31
32
bayt
u
l-muqaddas
i
the holy temple
alat
u
l-ula the first prayer
yawm
u
s-sabi
i
the seventh day.
Grotzfeld (2000) suggested that the pattern was used to denote
binary alternatives: the big N as opposed to the small N. This oppo-
sition is marked both morphologically, with the elative akbar-kubra,
and syntactically, with a pattern where only the adjective is marked
with a definite article while the noun is not. Grotzfeld, like some other
Arabists, is of the opinion that this pattern is an example of secondary
article deletion. He estimates that the rise of the elative caused
the merger of the binary pattern and its subsequent disappearance. Thus,
the pattern must have been common before the rise of the elative.
40
This pattern is found in all attestations of Middle Arabic (Christian,
Jewish and Muslim). The pattern appears even when quoting Quranic
expressions which show regular determination originally, like ,.
,,:... ira l-mustaqim the straight path (Hopkins 1984: 182 186).
41
,,.. . .:.. the weight of the large fils (Hopkins 1984: 182 186)
,,. . the lands where kharaj is paid (Hopkins 1984: 182 186)
42
.. ,,,, the second day (Hopkins 1984: 203 212)
In Judaeo-Arabic, the appearance of the article only on the adjective
is a general phenomenon. Blau (1952: 33; 1995: 168, n. 20) suggests
that it originated from a pattern with ordinal numbers, which is com-
mon in Judaeo-Arabic: the fiftieth day.
on the straight path (Blau, 1995: 161 229)
from the new coin (f.) (Blau, 1995: 161 229)
Blau proposes two possibilities: either the N-Adj. was understood as
one word, a kind of compositum, or the combination was understood
as a construct. The former suggestion does not account for the appear-
ance of the article on the second element, instead of on the entire
phrase: **al[N-Adj]; the second suggestion seems circular: the noun is
understood as the regens because only the adjective is marked with an
article.
The head noun of a relative clause is occasionally not marked with
an article, even when the clause opens with allai (Blau, 1995: 233
355, 357).
40
Another possibility which Grotzfeld puts forward is that both patterns split
from a single pattern.
41
Cf. a-ira l-mustaqim (Quran 6:71).
42
The final ya is either a genitive or perhaps a construct (Hopkins 1984: 186,
n. 4).
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 32
33
Similarly in Christian Arabic, the adjective is commonly marked
only on the adjective (Blau 1966: 356, 239), with the same distribu-
tion as other Middle Arabic dialects:
43
..:. the holy land
:,.. ,.. the old books
,. .,.. human nature
The pattern is very common in Neo-Arabic, particularly in both the
Gulf and the Levant, but is found in other dialects as well.
44
As many
Arabists dealing with modern dialects have noticed, speakers tend to
correct themselves and avoid using the pattern when asked to produce
a definite N-Adj. combination.
45
Thus, the exact spread of the pattern
is not quite clear from the literature.
Levantine Arabic:
bayt l-maru the burnt house
bai l-aar the green watermelon
su l-ati the old marketplace
sint il-maye last year (cf. Modern Hebrew [rel.+verb] has-sana se-ara)
sint ig-gaye next year (cf. Modern Hebrew [def.+participle] has-sana hab-
baa)
Feghali (1928: 135) suggests that the pattern originated from an
older, classical, pattern which the Arab grammarians attempted to ex-
plain as either an annexation where the adjective is understood as a
real substantive,
46
as a kind of compositum (amu l-awwali >
amulawwali last month) or as an annexation with a missing noun
(alatu l-ula < alati l-saati l-ula).
47
43
Blau (ibid.) notes that since the article on the adjective is the one marking the
opposition between predicative and attributive, the article on the noun was felt to be
redundant. Note also the positioning of the article on the noun alone is much rarer
(Blau, ibid 240).
44
See also Rhodokanakis (1911: II 89a) for Omani Arabic. In Maltese, the pat-
tern is common mainly in toponyms and adverbials: wied il-kbir the great valley;
blata l-bajda the white rock. See Borg (1989) for details and discussion.
45
Grotzfeld (2000: 10) notes that speakers of Lebanese Arabic tend to correct
this pattern in writing according to what they think is normative, thus adding l-
before the noun, while in speech the pattern with no l- before the noun is productive.
Similarly, my colleague SN explained ktab z-zgir small book in his Southern Leba-
nese dialect as incorrect fast speech. See also Borg (1989: 78, n. 19) who quotes a
local scholar explaining a similar pattern in Maltese as orthographical abbreviation.
46
See also Grotzfeld: adjektivische Attribute, die unterscheidenden Wert haben,
sind gewhnlich wie untergeordnete Substantive konstruiert: selber mit Artikel bei
einem Beziehungswort ohne Artikel (1965: 93).
47
Note also Borg (2000: 30) who suggests that BH patterns such as om ha-
a
siri
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 33
34
Iraqi Arabic
The pattern is quite common and productive in the Christian and
Jewish dialects of Baghdad, but can be found also in the Muslim dia-
lect, though there it occurs mostly in fixed combinations (Blanc 1964:
126; Mansour 1991: 44).
48
The tendency to reanalyse it as a construct
is even more pronounced in this dialect, as can be seen in examples
with feminine nouns, where the construct differs morphologically from
the non-construct. All Iraqi dialects use the pattern for place names,
like bab es-sarji the Eastern Gate (a name of a city quarter), and some
recurrent expressions, such as id el-yemna the right hand
49
as well as
for temporal expressions, such as sahr ej-jay next month.
C: id le-kbig the great feast (Easter)
qondart el-lexxi the other shoe
J: lat l-jdidi the new synagogue
dfater el-ettaq the old note-books
M: id ec-cebir the great feast (Feast of the Sacrifice)
enab l-aswad the black grapes
The regular relative construction is le-blad s-sefnaha the country we
saw. However, in all dialects, though particularly in the Jewish dialect,
there are examples where the head noun is not marked (Blanc 1964:
127). Here too, the pattern is occasionally reinterpreted as a construct.
In the Christian and Muslim dialects the pattern is again common
with temporal expressions, while in the Jewish dialect it is very pro-
ductive:
C/M: sant ej-jina the year we came
waqt el-kent bej-jays the time you were in the army
J: sen es-suwwet-u the thing you did
aur ellai qa-yezzawwaj the young man who is getting mar-
ried
ma-ynam be-mkan el-yebgadlu he doesnt sleep where [lit. in a
place that] hell be cold
Since this pattern occurs in CA and other modern dialects of Ara-
bic, Blanc (1964: 128) cautiously suggests that the Jewish and Chris-
(Zech. 8:19) may be normal constructs with two nouns and an attributive adjective,
i.e. not the tenth fast, but rather the fast of the tenth (month).
48
Geoffrey Khan noted (in a personal communication) that in the Eastern Arabic
dialects one cannot exclude a possible influence of a Persian substratum, where the
izafe pattern is similar to the pattern discussed here.
49
Note Syriac ieh da-ymina the right hand where the N-Adj combination is
reinterpreted as a genitive construction.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:58 34
35
tian dialect preserve traces of an older usage, while the Muslim dialect
shows widespread levelling.
3.4.2 Hebrew
The BH article may precede the attribute of a formally unmarked noun
(Lambdin 1971: 321; Waltke and OConnor 1990: 260). Note that
the noun is not in the construct state, thus, unlike Arabic, this pattern
in Hebrew is synchronically understood as a noun-adjective construc-
tion:
50
sea paro ha-oo (Gen. 41:26) the seven healthy cows
qane ha-o (Jer. 6:20) the good cane
aer hag-gdola (1 Kg. 7:12) the big courtyard
ru
a
ha-raa (1 Sam. 16:23) the evil spirit
As in Arabic, this pattern is quite common with ordinals (Brockel-
mann 1961: II 209, 132cd):
51
miy-yom ha-rison ad yom has-sii (Exod. 12:15) from the first to the
seventh day.
el mabo has-slisi (Jer. 38:14) the third entrance.
a mqom saar ha-rison (Zech. 14:10) as far as the place of the first
gate.
Lambert (1895) notes that the word yom is always unmarked with
an article when followed by an ordinal number, while the number is
always marked. There are only two exceptions, both in late books (Neh.
8:18 and Dan. 10:12). In the vast majority of the cases the word yom is
preceded by a preposition, where the definiteness is only revealed in
the vocalization. Lambert (1895: 280) further claims that the masoretes
added the article wherever they could, without changing the conso-
nantal text, although originally no article was there. The original pat-
tern is, according to Lambert, a construct.
This situation is even more widespread in MH, where it seems that
when the article is used, the combination N-definite Adj. is more com-
mon than definite N-definite Adj (Sarfatti 1989:156).
52
50
The consonantal text makes some examples ambiguous, e.g. b-dere ha-oa
w-ha-ysara (1 Sam. 12:23) the good and upright way.
51
Note that examples, where the noun is marked with article or possessive suffix
and the ordinal is not, are not definite: ha-ros ea (1Sam. 13:18). Similarly: aiem
ea (Gen. 42:19) one of your brothers, despite the suffix on the noun.
52
There is also a pattern where only the noun is marked with the article, however
in Sarfattis corpus there were only 7 such occurrences, compared to 63 of the pattern
under discussion. Sarfatti (1989: 157) suggests that the pattern where only the noun
is marked was a substandard form. Ben Hayyim (1992: 434) analyses the adjective in
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 35
36
naara ham-morasa (San. 7:4) a betrothed maiden
li-mqom mayim ha-raim (Avot 1:11) to a place of evil water
While Kutscher (1982: 217) claims that this pattern is the general
rule in MH, Sarfatti (1989: 161) prefers to call it a tendency as there
are no rules that explain the preference of one pattern over the other.
Sarfatti (1989: 1645) concludes that the use of this pattern probably
expanded since it was secondarily understood as a construct.
Ben Hayyim (1992: 438) suggests that this pattern is a subject-less
relative clause: naara ham-morasa > a girl who is engaged to be mar-
ried.
53
This of course applies, then, to phrases like han-naara ham-
morasa. Like Gzella (2006), Ben Hayyim bases his suggestion
diachronically on the occurrences of haC before a finite verb in the
Bible.
54
For him, haC and
a
ser have the same syntactical function.
3.3.3 Phoenician
There are relatively few examples of noun-adjective combinations in
Phoenician and only one example of an adjective marked with an arti-
cle while the noun is not: lnm hqdsm l these holy gods (KAI 14:22).
55
Firmage (2002: 41) suggests that since a definite noun typically came
before the demonstrative, in this example, the adjective, which is posi-
tioned immediately before the demonstrative, took the article by anal-
ogy.
3.3.4 Syriac
In Syriac, the noun is in the absolute state, instead of the emphatic
one, when it is preceded by cardinal numbers.
56
However, the adjective
is in the emphatic state:
hannon tlaa garin zaddike these three righteous men (Aph. Fide 29:
1920)
Thus, it seems that the adjective is the one carrying the state distinc-
tion (a remnant of the definite-indefinite opposition), rather than the
noun (Brockelmann 1961: II 210, 132e)
the latter pattern as an adverbial clause: ba-
a
bur hay-yele ay (2 Sam. 12:21) the
boy, (when he was) alive.
53
Ben Hayyim does not discuss the semantics of such a pattern, so it is hard to tell
whether he thinks it carries a definite meaning or not.
54
See my discussion above in section 3.2.1. Note also Pat-El and Treiger (2008)
for the rejection of subject-less relative clauses in Semitic.
55
Another possible example is rt dgn hdrt rich lands of grain (KAI 14:19),
which depends on the reading of dgn; if it is the name of the god, the construct is
definite, if not - the article on the adjective does not agree with the noun.
56
The absolute state is the normal state of the noun after ordinals in Syriac.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 36
37
3.3.5 Summary
All the languages surveyed above, except perhaps Phoenician, exhibit
this pattern as part of their system, not as an accidental form, despite
the fact that it is in contradiction with the regular agreement rules in
these languages.
Several explanations have been given to account for its existence:
compositum (Feghali 1928; Borg 2000), construct (Blau), relative (Ben
Hayyim 1992; Gzella 2006) and syntactic elative (Grotzfeld 2000).
57
The assumption of compositum is not in accordance with Semitic syn-
tax: if the entire combination is understood as one word, why is the
article medial and not prefixed? The construct explanation is not in
accordance with the meaning of the pattern, and the regular gender-
number agreement between the noun and the adjective indicates that
the adjective modifies the noun and is not dependent on it. The claim
for a relative origin I have dealt with above. Grotzfelds suggestion is
interesting, but it does not resolve the historical origin of the pattern.
4. The Function of the Article: Re-evaluation
Analysis of the data presented above indicates that the articles original
function was not to mark definiteness and that it belongs with the
attribute. The following is a summary of the arguments, based on the
examples and discussion above.
4.1 The origin of the CS article is not a demonstrative
Word OrderWhile the CS article may be pre-positive or post-posi-
tive, the demonstrative in the Semitic languages consistently occupies
an attributive position after the noun and the adjective. It is unreason-
able to assume an unmotivated demonstrative movement from a noun-
phrase-final position to a noun-phrase-initial position, when we have
no proof for such a development.
InflectionThe article has no inflection in any CS language. This is a
unique situation for a Semitic pronominal form. If indeed *ha(n) was
a demonstrative, the loss of its inflection is unaccounted for and even
unlikely; the CS languages maintained at least gender/number distinc-
57
Borgs explanation may also be closer to the one made by Grotzfeld. Borg (1989,
2000) claims that this pattern did not originate from the nominal construct and is
independent of it. He suggests that the pattern with what he calls initial article, [N
article-Adj.], antedates the regular pattern [article-N article-Adj.], and was used for
specific combinations in order to mark the entire phrase as one lexeme.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 37
38
tion in the nominal paradigm. Even the article in Amharic, a language
devoid of most nominal inflectional distinctions, exhibits gender dis-
tinctions. If PS *han did not have an inflection, as is very likely the
case, it cannot be regarded as a demonstrative pronoun.
DefinitenessThe existence of patterns like the improper annexation
in Arabic or the relative participle in Hebrew, where the definite arti-
cle does not render the noun definite, casts doubt on the assumption
that the article marks definiteness. The fact that CA gadu s-saari and
BH malaim hab-baim are indefinite, despite having an article, can be
explained if the article was not originally a definite marker.
This point also substantiates our rebuttal of the demonstrative ori-
gin: the demonstrative is the epitome of definite markers. Languages
which do not have an article, like Russian or Ug., use the demonstra-
tive to render a noun specifically definite. However, if *han is incon-
sistent in rendering elements definite, it seems unlikely that it arose
from a demonstrative.
4.2 The article was first positioned on the attribute
PS *hanThe existing data show that *ha(n) is not an independent
demonstrative, but some kind of adnominal element. When it appears
in a language with a morphological distinction between attributive and
independent demonstrative, it is attached to the attributive demonstra-
tives. We never find ha-Dem. as a pronominal demonstrative where a
bare demonstrative functions as an attributive. This is not a coinci-
dence.
Predicative AdjectiveThe article distinguishes the attributive adjec-
tive from the predicative adjective. If we assume that the article marked
attributes, it will explain its exclusion from predicative position.
Possessive PronounThe Semitic possessive pronouns are not deter-
miners, as in IE languages, and yet nouns with these suffixes exclude
the article. This phenomenon should be taken with the exclusion of
the article from construct noun. Both N+N and N+Poss. are basically
the same pattern, where the possessive pronoun is a pronominalized N
(Goldenberg 1995: 34). In both patterns, the second element is the
attributive of the head N. While in N+N, the article appears on the
attributive (the rectum), in N+Poss., this is not possible, as the posses-
sive suffix is a clitic, not an independent word.
58
58
Note that in some languages, a noun marked with an article is semantically
equivalent to a noun with possessive suffixes: Aram. aba, imma = the father/mother,
my father/mother (similarly with brother).
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 38
39
Double-markingThe double marking on the noun and adjective is
commonly explained as a case of analogy; all scholars assume that the
adjective takes the article due to its agreement with the noun. How-
ever, whenever an influence in the nominal system can be traced, it is
normally the adjective that influences the noun (N < Adj).
59
Typically
in language change, the regular influences the irregular.
Moreover, if movement of features from the noun to its modifier
was indeed possible or common, the possessive suffixes would have
been moved as well; if *han-malku kabiru yielded *han-malku han-
kabiru, then *malku-na kabiru our great king might be expected to
have yielded **malku-na kabiru-na. Yet no Semitic language, ancient
or modern, has ever taken that path.
60
Rules of noun-adjective agree-
ment do not imply identical morphology in Semitic.
61
NominalizationOne of the important features of the article is its
capacity to nominalize adjectives:
62
al-kabirat
u
the big woman, qaddis-
a the holy man etc.
63
Excluding some Neo-Aramaic dialects, the de-
monstrative never nominalizes in Semitic. If this function of the article
is original, which it seems to be, there is no reason it would be attached
to nouns.
The Semitic relative pronoun is also an adnominal marker and a
nominalizer. The difference between the article and the relative pro-
noun is the grammatical elements they nominalize: *ha(n)- nominalizes
all elements with nominal inflection: adjectives, participles and attribu-
59
The plural endings are a case in point: some form of broken plural is known to
exist in proto-WS, but in NWS, excluding a group of relics, all nouns take regular
adjectival endings. Furthermore, the anding *-at for f.pl. and *-un for m.pl. are pro-
ductive and predictable on nouns in NWS, despite the fact that nouns normally do
not have predictable plural forms. The Semitic feminine ending -t/-at also likely origi-
nated from the adjective. It is most likely that in PS substantives were not morpho-
logically marked for gender, e.g. Arb. umm mother, BH een stone and pairs such
as Arb. gamal camel / naqa she-camel, where natural gender is marked lexically.
60
Even Amharic, which uses the suffix pronoun to mark definiteness, does not
mark both noun and adjective with the article.
61
Arabic has fsg agreement with inanimate plural nouns of both genders, while
collective nouns with singular morphology usually take plural adjectives, though they
may occasionally be found with singular adjectives (Reckendorf 1921: 59). Some
sporadic examples of lack of agreement in case are also found. See Reckendorf (1921:
60 41.8).
62
The article is not strictly speaking needed to nominalize adjectives. Yet, beyond
a small set of adjectives, it is hard to find an adjective without an article outside the
attributive position. Some adjectives may be fully substantivized, ex. BH addiq right-
eous man and then their syntax is like that of substantives, i.e. no article is needed.
63
Note that even in Amharic the definite article nominalizes adjectives: tllq-u
the big one (Leslau 2000: 49 44.5).
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 39
40
tive demonstratives, while *u nominalizes elements without nominal
inflection: prepositional phrases, adverbs and sentences. These patterns
appear in all CS languages which developed an article.
64
In short, the
two forms are in complementary distribution.
When adjectives are nominalized, it may be argued that the article
is their head: al-kabir, hag-gdola the older one. In fact, the article
does not determine the syntax of the nominalized element; case, number
and gender are already marked in the latters morphology.
65
Conversely
the relative pronoun carries all these traits when nominalizing preposi-
tional phrases, adverbs and sentences (Pat-El and Treiger, 2008). The
pronoun *V is the head of what follows it (note the genitive on the
noun in CA du l-qarnayni), but *ha(n) never shows this behaviour: the
case of al-kabir- is determined by the function of the noun to which
al- is affixed.
5. Origin
The most likely origin of the article is a deictic particle *ha and its
derivatives, *han and *hal, as is suggested by Hasselbach (2007).
66
One
or both of these particles exist in all the Semitic languages and mostly
function as presentatives:
67
Akk. all, ann (anna?)
Amarna. all, ann presentative (Rainey 1988)
BH. hinne, hen (he?)
68
64
The pattern with PS *u should be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic (Pat-El and
Treiger 2008).
65
In Arabic, the article excludes nunation, but it does not determine the case of
the form; the case is determined by the syntax of the noun, regardless of definiteness
or the presence of the article.
66
Rubin (2005:75) emphasized that *han- and *ul- are not etymologically re-
lated. He also did not connect any of them to *ha. Other scholars, like Tropper (2001),
assumed a phonological process *han > *hal.
67
The development presentative > article is found elsewhere as well: In Creole
French, the French presentative la is used as a definite article, while the old article le/
la/les is not used as a definite article (Grant 1995). Sissala, a Niger-Congo language,
spoken in Burkina Faso and Ghana, uses a derivation of the verb to see as a definite
article (Blass 1990: 197). This form also functions as a presentative and is attached to
demonstratives to indicate spatial distance (Blass 1990: 1989). Finally, in French
the demonstrative ce/cette/ces are compound forms which originate from an attach-
ment of an uninflected Latin presentative ecce to demonstratives: ce < ecce-hoc, cet/
cette < ecce-iste, celui/celle < ecce-ille (Harris 1980: 147).
68
Brown (1987) suggests that h
a
lo represents two separate particles: ha+lo (inter-
rogative with the negative particle) and *halu etymologically related to Aram. hlw/lw
and Akk. all. He notes that translating h
a
lo as is it not? nonne? cannot be applied
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 40
41
Arm.
69
h/ha/,
a
lu (BA), hlw (EgA) (Muraoka and Porten 1998: 329)
Ug. hl /halli-/,
70
hn
Arb. hal, inna
(G. hyya there perhaps connected to BH he, na-yya here (I am), nahu
presentative)
71
This function of the presentative may be attested in Ug. as well,
though Ug. did not develop an article. There are examples of a relative
pronoun preceded by the prefiix ha:
anykn dt likt mrm hndt b r mtt (KTU 1.19.1013) The group of ships
that you sent to Egypt, which was wrecked off Tyre.
Pardee analyses hndt as an independent demonstrative referring to
the f. noun any (2003/2004: 136) against Troppers reading it as a
locative adverb (230). Pardee takes hnd to be the basic demonstrative
in Ug. However, it is quite possible that hnd and its derivatives are
themselves complex entities: hn-d, hn-dt, as in other Semitic languages,
and as can be seen in other Ug. deictic particles, like hnk etc.
72
This is
also evident in the fact that hn is a presentative, and only when it takes
a demonstrative extension, like d, k, m, it is a demonstrative pronoun.
This pattern occurs with substantives as well:
73
hn alpm sswm hnd (RS 16.402 312 and 378) these 2000 horses.
Both Tropper (2000: 233) and Pardee (2003/2004: 125, n. 455)
suggest that hn here functions as a locative adverb. This is possible, but
consistently to all the biblical examples (e.g. 1 Sam. 20:37; Ps. 54:2; Prov. 26:19).
Brown (1987: 219, n. 103) further suggests that the was added to *halu because it
was confused with the homophonous halo.
69
To this Brown (1987: 21112) adds
a
ru. The semantic similarities between
hlw/lw and rw should not be confused with etymological connection; therefore,
I see no reason to include this form in the list. Another possible form is Syr. harka
here, which Rubin (2007: 123) suggests is derived from hn-ka, which underwent
*#n > #r (Testen 1985).
70
See also hlk, hlny (in some contexts interchangeable with hnny) in the opening
formula in epistolary usage (Brown 1987: 2034; Tropper 2000: 738; Pardee 2003/
2004:365), hlm (Tropper 2000: 797, Huehnergard and Pat-El 2007: n. 55). For
evidence of doubling see syllabic spelling in Huehnergard (1987: 33): al-li-ni-ya.
71
Na/na is a very common presentative in G. and Ethio-Semitic, and later
became the suppletive imperative come in Amh. For more forms see Leslau (1987:
3801).
72
Pardee himself suggests that the forms hnhmt (RS 15.128:8) and hnmt
(94.2965:20) are a combination of presentative hn and independent pronoun.
73
Note the similarity to the syntax of OA and Phoen., described in Lambdin,
where the definite article mostly appears with attributive demonstrative and relative
clauses.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 41
42
may still show us an early stage of the development which led in other
languages to the grammaticalization of the article.
74
The presentative hn may also precede a noun followed by an at-
tributive demonstrative: hn bns hw that servant (RS 96.2039:8, 10,
15). In one example, the spelling hbt (the) house (RS 29.093:16)
either points to an assimilation, or to the use of ha, instead of han.
75
The connection between the prefix ha and the presentative is appar-
ent in other patterns as well. In Huehnergard and Pat-El (2007), we
have shown that Arab. hada and BH hinne ze have very similar syntax,
which we argued is cleft, where the presentative is marked as the predi-
cate:
ha-da bnuka wajadnahu bi-ala makkata (Ibn Hisam Sirah 113) Here is
you son whom we have found in the mountain of Mecca.
76
w-hinne-ze mala nogea bo (1Kg 19:5) Then an angel touched him.
This pattern is used to predicate the excitement of the speaker, simi-
lar to Fr. voici que, voila que, which also shows the pattern [Presenta-
tive]-[Subordinate clause]. In both languages, the presentative may be
syntactically separated from the relative pronoun, though in Arabic
this separation is less common than in Hebrew.
77
6. A Proposed Scenario
The article was first attached to non-predicative adjectival forms, i.e.
to adjectives/participles/demonstratives, either nominalized or attribu-
tive.
78
These forms derive their attributes externally, i.e. from an exter-
nal referent. It is possible that the incentive for marking non-predica-
74
In this I take Pardees analysis against Troppers (2000: 233, 42.734). While
Tropper argues that hn (which he vocalizes as hannV) in the examples quoted above
functions as a demonstrative, Pardee (2003/2004: 135, 365 and elsewhere) insists
that there is no substantiation for a demonstrative function as hn functions uniquely
as a presentative particle in Ugaritic, and the same is true of the expanded forms hnn
and hnny (p. 365). Pardee (ibid, n. 494) further suggests that French voici works best
for hn.
75
Pardee is certainly right that there are too few examples in Ug. to substantiate
Troppers claim for an article.
76
In Christian Arabic, haa is regularly used as a presentative (Blau 1966: 463,
363).
77
Note that in the article cited above, which dealt with the Semitic determinative
*V, we have claimed that the patterns are similar syntactically, though using
etymologically different elements. My claim here is that these elements are not
etymologically different.
78
This was already alluded to in Lambdin (1971: 324).
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 42
43
tive adjectival forms is that nominal phrases and nominal sentences
have the exact same syntax: Akk. sarrum dannum could be interpreted
as the king is strong or the strong king.
79
Thus, the basic opposition
is predicative (unmarked) vs. attributive (marked). The process non-
predicative > definite should be reconstructed as follows:
80
Stage 1: *ha-u, *ha-ab- this one (m.s), a/the good one >
This was expanded to positions where a head noun precedes:
Stage 2: *kalb- ha-u, *kalb- han-ab- a/the dog, this one, a/the good
dog >
Due to its frequent appearance on attributives, at a later stage, it was
understood as an adnominal marker. As a result there is movement of
the article to the noun due to appositional relation, though stage-2
patterns were never lost:
Stage 3: *han-kalb- ha-u, *han-kalb- han-ab- a/the dog, this one, a/
the good dog >
Note that the transference of article did not occur in construct, be-
cause the nouns there are not in apposition. An opposition between
marked (+feature) and unmarked (-feature) is formed. Although the
opposition was originally not differentiated semantically, it was
reanalysed as distinguishing definiteness, due to the nature of the pre-
fix (< presentative) and the elements to which it was attached:
Stage 4: *han-kalb- han-ab- the good dog as opposed to kalb- ab- a
good dog.
Presentatives are typically excluded from predicative position, so their
use as a marker of non-predicative function is logical. The pattern dis-
cussed in Huehnergard and Pat-El (2007) exemplifies that the assign-
ment of a predicate function to a presentative can be done only through
cleaving.
The process adnominal > article may be compared to the develop-
ment of the relative pronoun in Semitic. Subordination was originally
done by dependency: construct head+sentence, similarly to nominal
construct: construct head+noun. The determinative pronoun expresses
the appositional relation: non-construct head=u+sentence, where the
79
A similar proposal was made in Pat-El and Treiger (2008), where the authors
argued that the incentive to mark prepositional phrases with the relative-determina-
tive pronoun was to mark these phrases as specifically adnominal, as opposed to predi-
cative, where they are un-marked.
80
Note that all the stages are attested in most languages.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 14:59 43
44
head noun and the relative pronoun are in apposition (Goldenberg
1995; Pat-El and Treiger 2008). Later in Arabic, the determinative u
was understood to be a marker of definiteness: N-Sentence > (adnominal
marker) N=u-Sentence > (marker of definite head) N u-Sentence as
opposed to N Sentence (non definite head).
Thus Proto-CS may have had the following pairs, where the op-
tion was inherited from PS:
Non-nominal attributes:
: *gaa faris
u
yarkabu ala faras
in
a horseman who rides a horse came.
adN: *gaa faris
un
u

yarkabu ala faras
in
a horseman who rides a horse
came
Def. > the horseman who rides a horse came.
Nominal attributes
: *faris
un
kabir
un
a/the strong horseman
adN: *faris
un
ha-kabir
un
a/the strong horseman
Def.: > the strong horseman
Note that in both constructions the attributive complex is marked
for agreement: in the determinative pattern the head pronoun carries
agreement, while in the article-pattern the nominal attribute does.
Thus, both have the same phrasal syntax, regardless of their internal
syntax: N
i
-[Att.]
i
(Goldenberg 1995).
The complementary distribution with the relative-determinative
pronoun is easily explained: both forms mark adnominals, but the rela-
tive-determinative pronoun marks forms without nominal inflection
(sentences, adverbs and prepositional phrases), while the article marks
adnominals with nominal inflection (adjectives and demonstratives).
The relative-determinative pronoun is inflected in complete agreement
(number-gender-case) with its head noun and with no relation to its
syntactical function in the relative clause; the pronoun carries nominal
inflection for the entire phrase: faris-un -u rakaba horseman who
rode or faris-un -u bi-bayt-in horseman at home.
81
However, there is
no need for inflection on the article, because the pattern shows com-
plete nominal inflection on the attribute: faris-un al-kabir-un strong
horseman. Nominal agreement in gender-number-case is a feature of
adnominal relations.
81
This feature of the determinative pronoun may be the reason why it was never
transfered to the noun like the article.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 15:00 44
45
6.1. Aramaic and OSA
In Aramaic and OSA the process through which the prefix *han- be-
came the article must have been somewhat different, because the end
result is a suffixed article, despite the fact that most likely the origin of
the article of these two languages is the same as that of the BH article,
i.e. the prefix *ha(-n).
82
We may assume a similar process to what was
described for BH and Arabic, thus the entire pattern was originally N
ha-Dem, as is the case in other Semitic languages. The prefix then was
attached to the preceding noun through a process of reanalysis which
resulted in N-han Dem (for the phonological process see Rubin 2005:
7980):
83
*malkV han-V > *malk-han V > *malka V > OA-OfA malka zna
This is partially substantiated by evidence from OA where definite
nouns are commonly found with a following attributive demonstra-
tive lacking ha- (Lambdin 1971: 318): b-spr znh in this inscription
(Sef. I B:28); spry ln these inscriptions (Sef. II C:9); b-nb znh in
this monument (Sef. I C:17). This is the case for OSA as well, where
the demonstrative pronouns lack a ha- prefix: n, t, ln (Beeston 1984:
41). Except Gz, all other Semitic languages use ha- prefix on their
demonstrative pronouns.
84
Aramaic and OSA are therefore a notable
exception.
82
Here, too, the comparison to IE languages, used especially in Rubin (2005: 69
71) and Zaborski (2000: 25), does not stand. All Romance languages use a reflex of a
Latin demonstrative, ille or ipse, as their article. Of all the Romance languages, only
Rumanian has a post-positive article. However, the reason for this difference does not
lie in internal historical developments in Romance, but is rather due to contact. A post-
positive article is a common feature of the Balkan Sprachbund, of which Rumanian is a
part: Rumanian castel-ul the castle, Bulgarian ruklja-ta the dress, Albanian vazja-t
the girl, Macedonian nedela-ta the week'; (Tomic 2004: 15). Another important fea-
ture which Rumanian shares with members of the group, but not with other Romance
languages, is the loss of the infinitive. In short, a post-positive article in Romance is not
a regular option that may happen at random. Similarly, the post-positive article in Old
Norse and later in the Scandinavian languages arose from a post-positive demonstra-
tive: *ulfr hinn this wolf > ulfrinn the wolf (> Nor. ulv-en the wolf ), while the article
in German arose from a pre-positive demonstrative. Thus, none of these examples can
be easily compared with the Semitic situation, where N-Dem is a shared feature and no
contact can explain the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic.
83
Zaborski (2000: 32) has a different interpretation: he suggests that the final -a
on demonstrative pronouns like ha-zena was reinterpreted as belonging to the defi-
nite article and was transferred to the noun. This explanation does not account for
the absence of ha- in all early Aramaic dialects. Zaborski also ignores the fact that znh
appears only after ms. nouns, but the suffixed definite article -a is common to all
nouns, regardless of gender or number.
84
Phoenician does so sporadically (Hackett 2004: 376).
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 15:00 45
46
The prefix ha- was reattached to the attributive demonstrative again
in MidA and spread thenceforth (Cook 1992: 10).
85
Note that the
prefix ha- is attached to different bases in different dialects and there-
fore should be considered a secondary development in Aramaic: Hatran
hdyn, OSyr. hn this (ms). Some MidA dialects, like Nabatean and
Palmyrene, do not use the prefix ha at all, which may indicate that it is
still an innovation.
86
However, all LateA dialects use it, though not
always with all demonstrative forms.
87
Thus, since most Semitic lan-
guages show the prefix *ha- on their attributive demonstratives, Ara-
maic and OSA ha-less demonstratives are unusual. The transference of
the ha from the demonstrative to the noun may explain its absence in
earlier dialects.
8. Summary and Conclusions
The common explanation for the CS article has been shown to be
insufficient and to rely heavily on typological evidence instead of
Semitic evidence. Comparative data and the attested syntax indicate
that its origin is not an attributive demonstrative. It was further shown
that many of the relics found in both classical and Neo-Semitic lan-
guages are very consistent and should be assumed to go back to a com-
mon ancestor. Based on the syntax of these relics and the common
85
We may perhaps speculate that the return of the attributive prefix ha- is related
to the process of article weakening. This process is evident in Eastern Aramaic, but
may have had its origins already in MidA. Thus, the prefix ha- may have been added
to demonstratives to further strengthen their deictic features.
This process may be compared to a certain innovation in Creole French, where in
a large part of the nominal lexicon, the original French article was agglutinated to the
following noun and understood as a part of it (la vie > lavi life, les yeux > lizye eyes).
These languages then innovated an article based on the deictic particle la, which is
suffixed in all forms of French: Fr. le chien > Mauritian Creole lisye a dog, lisye-la the
dog (Grant 1995).
Posner (1997: 384) suggests that this process in Creole French can be seen as a
culmination of the process that led to the creation of the French definite article.
Possibly as a result of the collapse of the French case system, ille, a semantically bleached
demonstrative, was increasingly being used as a noun marker. Ille became the default
marker in the absence of other determiners. Posner posits that this is merely a redistri-
bution of elements, rather than a structural change.
86
Note for example that more conservative dialects, like Q, do not use this prefix
(Cook 1992: 16). There is one occurrence of hdn in 4QAmram
b
, but since the text
after it is fragmentary it is hard to evaluate its exact meaning and analysis.
87
Partial list: JPA hdyn, hhyn, hhw, hhy; SamA hdh, hdyn, hhw, hhy; CPA hlyk,
hlyn, hdn, hd, hlyn; Syr. hana, hae, halen; Mand. hazin, haze, halin; JBA hada,
haden, hailen.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 15:00 46
47
syntax of the article in CS, I have argued that the article was first at-
tached to a non-predicative form, and was then reanalysed as an
adnominal marker. The existence of two patterns, one with a marker
and one lacking it, led to the understanding of the prefix as marking a
definite nominal as opposed to non-definite noun with -prefix. This
process happened with the Semitic relative-determinative, whose origi-
nal function had nothing to do with definiteness, but was reanalysed
as marking a relative clause with a definite head. These arguments are
substantiated by empirical data and explain the existing syntax and the
relic syntax.
I have further suggested that the article was derived from the pre-
sentative, which is a non-predicative particle. The presentative, or its
reflexes han/hal, exists in all the languages. In Ug., which did not de-
velop an article, the presentative hn may be attached to relative pro-
nouns and demonstratives, a stage that I have argued preceded the full
development of the article.
While Huehnergards claim that the article is not a common CS fea-
ture stands, we can see the beginning of the process described above in
Ug. although it did not lead to the creation of an article there. How-
ever, since the preliminary stages exist already in Ug., the use of ha or its
reflexes to mark attributes should be considered a common CS feature.
REFERENCES
Beeston, A.F.L. 1984. Sabaic Grammar. (Manchester)
Ben Hayyim, Z. 1992. The Definite Article in the Combination Noun-Adjective
[Hebrew] in idem, The Struggle for a Language. (Jerusalem). 4349
Blanc, H. 1964. Communal Dialects in Baghdad. (Cambridge)
Blass, R. 1990. Relative Relations in Discourse. (Cambridge)
Blau, J. 1952. Numerals in Judeo-Arabic [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 23:4, 2735
1966. A Grammar of Christian Arabic, based mainly on South-Palestinian texts
from the first millennium. (Louvain)
1974. Studies in Semitic Pronouns (Including the Definite Article) [Hebrew].
in E.Y. Kutscher et al. Henoch Yalon Memorial Volume (Ramat Gan). 2934
1978. On Some Arabic Dialectal Features Paralleled by Hebrew and Aramaic.
JQR 76:1, 512
1995. A Grammar of Mediaeval Judeo-Arabic [Hebrew]. (Jerusalem)
Borg, A. 1989. Some Maltese Toponyms in Historical and Comparative Perspective,
in P. Wexler, A. Borg and S. Somekh (eds) Studia Linguistica et Orientalia Memoriae
Haim Blanc Dedicata (Wiesbaden). 6285
2000. Some Observations on the Syndrome on the Hebrew of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds) Diggers at the Well (Leiden).
2639
Brockelmann, C. 1961. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen
Sprachen. (Hildesheim)
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 15:00 47
48
Brown, M.L. 1987. Is it not? or Indeed!: HL in Northwest Semitic, Maarav
4:2, 20119
Brustad, K.E. 2000. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comprehensive Studies of Moroc-
can, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. (Washington)
Cook, E.M. 1992. Qumran Aramaic and Aramaic dialectology, in T. Muraoka (ed.)
Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Louvain). 121
Davidson, A.B. 1902. Introductory Hebrew Grammar; Hebrew Syntax. (Edinburgh)
Dekeyser, X. 1980. The Diachrony of the Gender Systems in English and Dutch, in
J. Fisiak (ed.) Historical Morphology (The Hague). 97111
Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. (Amster-
dam)
Ewald, H. 1833. Grammatica Critica Linguae Arabicae. (Leipzig)
Feghali, M.T. 1928. Syntaxe des parlers arabes actuels du Liban. (Paris)
Firmage, E. 2002. The Definite Article in Poenician, Maarav 9, 3353
Fischer, W. 2001. A Grammar of Classical Arabic. trans. Jonathan Rodgers. (New Haven)
Garr, W.R. 2004 [reprint of 1985]. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586
B.C.E. (Winona Lake, In.)
Goldenberg, G. 1995. Attribution in the Semitic Languages, Langue Orientales
Anciennes: Philologie et Linguistique 5/6, 120
Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 1946. Definiteness in the Phoenician and Punic Inscrip-
tions. Leshonenu 14, 1938
Grant, A.P. 1995. Article Agglutination in Creole French: a wider perspective, in
P. Baker (ed.) From Contact to Creole (Westminster). 14976
Greenberg, J.H. 1957. Essays in Linguistics. (New York)
1978. How Does a Language Acquire Gender Markers? in J.H. Greenberg
(ed.) Universals of Human Language (Stanford). 3: 4882
Grotzfeld, H. 1965. Syrisch-arabische Grammatik (Dialekt von Damaskus). (Wiesbaden)
2000. Rabi al-awwal and Nahr el-kibir. The Notion of Dichotomy and its
Expression in Arabic, ZAL 38, 714
Gzella, H. 2006. Die Entstehung des Artikels im Semitischen: eine phnizische
Perspektive, JSS 51:1, 318
Hackett, J. A. 2004. Phoenician and Punic, in R.D. Woodard (ed.) The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages (Cambridge). 36585
Harris, M.B. 1980. The Marking of Definiteness in Romance, in J. Fisiak (ed.)
Historical Morphology (The Hague). 14156
Haspelmath, M. 1999. Explaining Article-Possessor Complementarity: Economic
Motivation in Noun Phrase Syntax, Language 75, 22743
Hasselbach, R. 2007. Demonstratives in Semitic, JAOS 127:1, 127
Heine, B. and T. Kuteva 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. (Cambridge)
Hetzron, R. 1976. Two principles of Genetic Reconstruction, Lingua 38, 89198
Hfner, M. 1943. Altsdarabische Grammatik. (Leipzig)
Hopkins, S. 1984. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic based on papyri datable to
before 300 A.H./912 A.D. (Oxford)
Huehnergard, J. 1987. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. (Atlanta)
2005. Features of Central Semitic, in A. Gianto (ed.) Biblical and Oriental
Essays in Memory of William L. Moran (Rome). 155203
and N. Pat-El. 2007. Some Aspects of the Cleft in Semitic Languages, in E.
Cohen and T. Bar (eds) Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of
Gideon Goldenberg (Mnster). 32542
Jastrow, O. 1992. Lehrbuch der uroyo-Sprache. (Wiesbaden)
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 15:00 48
49
Khan, G. 1984. Object Markers and Agreement Pronouns in Semitic Languages,
BSOAS 47, 468500
Kutscher, E. Y. 1982. A History of the Hebrew Language. (Jerusalem)
Lambdin, T. 1971. The Junctural Origin of the West Semitic Definite Article, in H.
Goedicke (ed.) Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albrigh (Balti-
more). 31533
Lambert, M. 1895. Le mot suivi des nombres ordinaux, Revue des Etudes Juives
31, 27981
Leslau, W. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geez (classical Ethiopic): Geez-English/
English-Geez with an Index of the Semitic Roots. (Wiesbaden)
1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic. (Wiesbaden)
Lieberman, S. 1986. The Afro-asiatic Background of the Semitic N-Stem: Towards
the Origins of the Stem-Afformatives of the Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Verb, BiOr
43, 577628
Lyons, C. 1998. The Origins of Definiteness Marking, in J.C. Smith and D. Bent-
ley (eds) Historical Linguistics 1995 (Amsterdam/Philadelphia). 1: 22341
1999. Definiteness. (Cambridge)
Mansour, J. 1991. The Jewish Baghdadi Dialect: Studies and Texts in the Judaeo-Arabic
Dialect of Baghdad. (Or-Yehuda)
Meillet, A. (1954). La mthode comparative en linguistique historique. (Paris)
Moravcsik, E.A. 1997. Parts and Wholes in the Hungarian Noun Phrase - A Typo-
logical Study, in B. Palek (ed.) Typology: Prototypes, Item Orderings and Universals
(Prague). 30724
Pardee, D. 20034. Review of Tropper Ugaritische Grammatik, AfO 50. Online
Version
Pat-El, N. and A. Treiger. 2008. On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases and
Adverbs in Semitic, ZDMG 151: 265352
Peretz, Y. 1967. The Relative Clause [Hebrew]. (Tel-Aviv)
Posner, R. 1997. Linguistic Change in French. (Oxford)
Reckendorf, H. 1921. Arabische Syntax. (Heidelberg)
Rainey, A.F. 1988. Some Presentation Particles in the Amarna Letters from Canaan.
Ugaritische Forschung 20, 20920
Rhodokanakis, N. 1911. Der vulgrarabische Dialekt im ofr (fr). (Vienna)
Rubin, A. 2004. Notes on the Genitive Exponents of Some Modern Arabic Dialects,
Folia Orientalia 40, 32736
2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. (Winona Lake, Indiana)
2007. On Syriac harka and Aramaic r < *n, JNES 66:2, 1234
Sarfatti, G. B. 1989. Definiteness in Noun-Adjective Phrases in Rabbinic Hebrew
[Hebrew], in M.Z. Kaddari and S. Sharvit (eds) Studies in the Hebrew Language
and the Talmudic Literature (Ramat-Gan). 15367
Shlonsky, U. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: an essay in
comparative Semitic syntax. (New York)
Siloni, T. 1995. On Participial Relatives and Complementizer D
0
: a case study in
Hebrew and French, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 44587
Testen, D. 1985. The Significance of Aramaic r > *n, JNES 44:2, 1436
Tomic, O.M. 2004. The Balkan Sprachbund Properties: An Introduction, in O.M.
Tomic (ed.) Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Amsterdam/Philadelphia). 155
Tropper, J. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. (Mnster)
2001. Die Herausbildung des bestimmten Artikels im Semitischen, JSS 46,
131.
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 15:00 49
50
Voigt, R. 1998. Der Artikel im Semitischen, JSS 43, 22158
Waltke, B.K. and M.P. OConnor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
(Winona Lake, Indiana)
Watkins, C. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European Syntax: Problems and Pseudo-
Problems, in S.B. Steever, C.A. Walker and S.S. Mufwene (eds) Papers from the
Parasession on Diachronic Syntax (Chicago). 30226
Wright. 1967. A Grammar of the Arabic Language
3
. (London)
Yahuda, A.S. 1906. Bagdadische Sprichwrter, in C. Bezold (ed.) Orientalische Studien
Theodor Nldeke (Gieszen). 1: 399416
Zaborski, A. 2000. Inflected Article in Proto-Arabic and Some Other West Semitic
Languages, Asian and African Studies 9, 2435
1731-08_Joss09-1_Art02_fgn039 03-09-2009, 15:00 50

Pat-El Def

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pat-El Def

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEMITIC DEFINITE ARTICLE

You might also like