SEMITIC LANGUAGES

Languages spoken by the Semitic peoples (comp. Semites). These peoples are the NorthArabians, the South-Arabians, the Abyssinians (ancient and modern), the ancient
Babylonians and Assyrians, the various Aramean tribes, the Hebrews and their kindred
(the Moabites and Edomites), the Canaanites, and the Phenicians and their colonies.
Not Related to the Aryan Tongues.
Like the Aryan languages, the various dialects of the Semitic group are inflectional. Both
in the Aryan and in the Semitic tongues the agglutinative stage of development has
passed, and words (such as verb-stems and pronouns) originally placed in juxtaposition
have been worn down and welded into inflectional forms. Here the analogy ends; and the
differences between the two groups are so striking that it is probable that they belong to
two independent families of languages, each developed in a different part of the world
quite apart from the other, and each representing an independent evolution of human
speech.
The most fundamental characteristic of the Semitic languages is the triliteral form of their
roots. With the exception of some biliterals, each root consists of three letters, as "k tl." A
few have been worn down through use; but most of the words still exhibit the triliteral
character. These roots consist entirely of consonants, vowels being only secondary; the
substantial meaning resides in the former. When vowels are added the word is inflected,
as "k atala"="he killed," "k tilun" "="one who kills," and "k utila"="he was killed." The
Aryan roots are totally different, as "i"="go," "sth"= "stand," and "vid"="know." The
Semitic languages contain a system of guttural and palatal letters, some of which ("alef,"
"'ayin," and "ghayin") have no parallels in Aryan, and are nearly impossible for Aryan
vocal organs. Moreover, the Aryan languages have an elaborate system of tenses; the
peoples which originated them were careful to express when an action occurred. The
Semites possess but two so-called tenses, neither of which primarily denotes time, but
which simply represent an action as complete or incomplete: while little attention is paid
to the time of an action or state, the manner of its occurrence is expressly noted; i.e.,
whether it was done simply or intensively, whether it was done reflexively or was caused
by another, whether it was complete or incomplete, etc. Semitic modes of indicating these
ideas, such as the doubling of the middle radical (thus, "k attala") to express the intensive,
the prefixing of "'a," "ha," or "sha" to represent the causative idea, and the prefixing of
"na" or prefixing or inserting of "t" to express the reflexive, are absolutely foreign to the
genius of the Aryan tongues. In expressing the dependence of one noun upon another in
the genitive relation Semites modify the first noun, producing what is known as the
construct state, while theAryans modify the second or dependent noun. In short, the
whole method of conceiving and expressing thought is different in the two groups of
languages.
Relation to the Hamitic Tongues.
With reference to the languages sometimes called Hamitic the case is quite different.
Here a degree of kinship is demonstrable. The Hamitic tongues are the ancient Egyptian,
Coptic, Tameshek, Kaby'e, Bedza, Galla, Somali, Saho, Belin, Chamir, and Dankali, or

'Afar. The kinship of this group to the Semitic is indicated by the following facts: (1) The
oldest known representative of the group, Egyptian, possesses the peculiar gutturals
"alef" "'ayin." (2) The roots of ancient Egyptian, like those of the Semitic languages, were
criginally triliteral (comp. Erman in "Sitzungsberichte der Kniglichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin," 1900, p. 350); the same is probably true with regard to the
primitive stock of the whole group. (3) The personal pronouns in the two groups are
almost identical; and as pronouns are ordinarily the most individual of all the parts of
speech, the similarities here are the more significant. (4) In both the Hamitic and the
Semitic groups intensive stems are formed by doubling the second radical (comp. Erman,
l.c. p. 321; F. Mller, "Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft," iii., section ii., pp. 268 et seq.).
(5) Both groups form reflexive or passive verb-stems by prefixing or infixing the letter
"t." (6) In both groups a causative stem is formed by prefixing "s" or "sh," which in some
of the Semitic dialects is thinned to "ha" and even to "'a." (7) Five of the numerals, viz.,
two, six, seven, eight, and nine, are expressed by the same roots in the two groups (comp.
Barton, "Sketch of Semitic Origins," p. 9, note 2). (8) The two groups have also the same
endings to denote the two genders: masculine, "u" or "w"; feminine, "t."
It can not, therefore, be doubted that the two groups of languages sprang from the same
stock. The Semitic languages betray their relationship one to another not only by
similarity of articulation and grammatical foundation, but by identity of roots and wordforms; while the Hamitic languages reveal their kinship merely by a similarity in
morphology and of the forms of their roots, less often in the material of the roots (comp.
Mller, l.c. p. 225; Barton, l.c. p. 11).
Classification of the Semitic Languages.
The linguistic differences of the various Semitic tongues (described below) lead most
scholars to divide them into two groups, the South-Semitic and the North-Semitic.
Hommel ("Aufstze und Abhandlungen," pp. 92 et seq.) proposed to divide them into
East-Semitic and West-Semitic, the former consisting of Babylonian-Assyrian, and the
latter including the other languages. The older and more generally accepted classification
is, however, far more satisfactory, as it groups the languages much more in accordance
with their similarities and differences. These groups are subdivided as follows:
North-Arabic dialects.
South-Semitic Languages
- South-Arabic dialects.
Abyssinian dialects.
Babylonian-Assyrian.
North-Semitic Languages
- Canaanitish dialects (including Phoenician and Hebrew).
Aramaic dialects.
The probability has been demonstrated in recent years that the Hamito-Semitic stock was
a part of the Mediterranean race, that its primitive home was in North Africa, and that the
Semites migrated to central Arabia, where in their sheltered existence their special
linguistic characteristics were developed (comp. Semites, Critical View; Barton, l.c. ch.
i.).

The linguistic differences between the northern and southern Semites make it probable
that the ancestors of the northern group migrated at an early time to the northeastern part
of Arabia, whence they found their way in successive waves to the Mesopotamian valley
and thence to the Syro-Palestinian coast. The following is a tentative genealogical chart
of the ancestry of the Semitic languages:
The known dialects of these languages are as follows:
Known Dialects of Semitic.
South-Semitic Languages.
(1) North-Arabic Dialects: Old classical Arabic; North-Arabic inscriptions (various
dialects); the Safatic inscriptions; modern Arabic (embracing many dialects, as Syrian
Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, Tunisian Arabic, Algerian Arabic, Maltese Arabic, 'Omani
Arabic, etc; often each separate village has a dialect of its own).
(2) South-Arabic Dialects: Minan and Sabean inscriptions; modern South-Arabic
dialects (as Mehri and Socotri).
(3) Abyssinian Dialects: Old Ethiopic inscriptions; Ethiopic (Ge'ez); and the modern
dialects Tigre, Tigria, Amharic, Harar, and Gurg.
North-Semitic Languages.
(1) Babylonian-Assyrian (including inscriptions from c. 4000 B.C. to c. 250 B.C.).
(2) Canaanitish Dialects: Canaanitish glosses in the El-Amarna tablets; Hebrew
(including Biblical Hebrew and post-Biblical Hebrew); Moabitish (Moabite Stone);
Phenician (including Punic).
(3) Aramaic Dialects: West-Aramaic, including: inscriptions of Zenjirli; Jewish Aramaic
(embracing Biblical Aramaic, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic [Targ. Onk . and Targ.
Jonathan], Galilean Aramaic [Jerusalem Talmud, Jerusalem Targumim, and Midrashim]);
Christian Palestinian Aramaic (a version of the Gospels), closely related to the Galilean
Aramaic; Samaritan; Palmyrene inscriptions; Nabatan inscriptions; modern dialect of
Ma'lula in the Lebanon. East-Aramaic, including: Babylonian Aramaic (dockets to
cuneiform tablets and the Babylonian Talmud); Mandan; Syrian (Edessan); Syriac
inscriptions from north-central Syria (comp. Littmann, "Semitic Inscriptions"); modern
dialects spoken at Tur 'Abdin and in Kurdistan, Assyria, and Urumia.
Consonants and Vowels.
The Semitic languages contain the following consonants: gutturals, "alef," "'ayin", "h,"
and "h "; lower palatals, "k ," "kh," and "gh"; upper palatals, "k," "g," ("y"); sibilants, "s" (
), "" ( ), "s" (), "sh," "z," "z "; dentals, "t," "d," "t ," "th," "dh," "d "; liquids, "l," "n,"
"r"; labials, "p," "ph" (f), "b," "m," and "w." Some of these characters ("d " and "z ") are
peculiar to the South-Semitic group.
A comparison of the Semitic languages reveals such facts of phonetic equivalence as the
following:
(1) In passing from one language to another the gutturals frequently interchange: 'with
"h," as Arabic "'ak tala," Syriac "'ak t el," but Hebrew "hik il," Biblical Aramaic "hak t el,"

and Sabean "hk tl"; also Arabic "humu," but Ethiopic "'emnt." So, "h " with', as Hebrew
"h ob," Syriac "'obba," Arabic "'ubb."
(2) "T" and "t " are frequently interchanged, as Hebrew "k at al," Syriac "k t al," but
Arabic "k atala," and Ethiopic "k atal."
(3) Hebrew "z" is often equivalent to Aramaic "d" and Arabic "dh," e.g.: Hebrew
"zahabh," Aramaic "dehabh," Arabic "dhahab"; Hebrew "zabah ," Ethiopic "zabh a,"
Aramaic "debhah ," Arabic "dhabah ."
(4) Hebrew and Assyrian "sh" is frequently represented in Aramaic by "t" ("th"), in
Arabic by "th," and in Ethiopic by "s," as: Hebrew "shor," Assyrian "shuru," but Aramaic
"tora," Arabic "thaur," and Ethiopic "sr"; Hebrew "yashabh," Assyrian "ashabu," but
Aramaic "yetheb," Syriac "itheb," Arabic "wathaba."
(5)"Sh" or "s" is sometimes thinned to "h" and then to'; e.g., Assyrian "shu," Sabean "su,"
but Hebrew "hu'," Aramaic "hu," Arabic "hua." This appears in the causative of the verb:
Assyrian has a "shaf'el" (e.g., "shukshud"), which in Hebrew and Sabean is a "hif'il" (e.g.,
Hebrew "hik t il," Sabean "hk tl"), and in Arabic and Ethiopic "'af'el" (e.g., Arabic
"'ak tala," Ethiopic "'angar"). Aramaic exhibits all three forms, since Biblical Aramaic has
the hif'il or haf'el, while Syriac presents the shaf'el and 'af'el side by side. In Phenician a
further change to "y" occurred, making a "yif'il" or "if'il" (e.g., "yt n'th"="I caused to
erect").
(6) Hebrew "" ( )is often represented in Aramaic by', and in Arabic by "d "; e.g.,
Hebrew "'ere," Aramaic "'ar'a," Arabic "'ard ." For fuller illustration of consonantal
equivalence compare the literature cited below.
It is characteristic of all the Semitic languages that the peculiarities of the gutturals, the
weakness of "w" and "y," and the tendency of a vowelless "n" to assimilate with the
following letter, create "weak" or irregular verbs and cause anomalous noun-forms.
It is probable that in primitive Semitic, as in classical Arabic, there were but three vowels,
"a," "i," and "u," of each of which there were a long and a short variety. Perhaps there
was also the volatilized vowel "shewa" (e). In Assyrian an "e" was developed; and in the
other dialects in which the vowels can be determined both an "e" and all "o" were
developed. "W" and "y" in combination with "a" resulted in the diphthongs "au" and "ai."
The Verb.
The two Semitic verb-states mentioned above are the perfect and the imperfect. The
former expresses a completed action; the latter, an uncompleted action. The perfect is
formed in all the languages by affixing to the verb-stem certain particles which were once
pronouns or fragments of pronouns. The third person singular masculine is an exception
to this, as it is the verb-stem alone. The imperfect is formed by prefixing particles,
likewise of pronominal origin, to the stem, and, in some forms, by adding affixes also.
The stems are vocalized differently in the different languages.
The South-Semitic languages are characterized by a fuller and more symmetrical
development of the verb-forms than are the North-Semitic, by a more complete system of
characters for the expression of sounds, by the fact that they often make the plural of
nouns by means of internal changes (as "wah shun"="a beast," "wuh shun"="beasts"),
and by many minor differences.

South-Semitic Languages. Arabic.

The Arabic language with its various dialects is used to-day by a much greater number of
people than is any other Semitic tongue. This preeminence it owes to the influence of
Islam. Although its literary monuments are much younger than those of several of the
other Semitic languages, scholars recognize in the classical Arabic (of which the Koran is
the chief example) the dialect which has retained most fully the forms of the primitive
Semitic speech. These were preserved in Arabic owing to the isolated position of the
Arabian people. Living in the desert fastnesses of central Arabia, they were not subjected
to the disintegrating influences of foreign contact. In both verb-and noun-forms,
accordingly, classical Arabic is much richer than the other Semitic languages. The
development of its verb may be comprehended by a glance at the verb-stems. They are as
follows:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
k atala k attala k tala 'ak tala tak attala
tak tala
VII. VIII. IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
ink atala
ik tatalaik talla istak tala
ik tlla ik tautala
XIII. XIV. XV.
ik tawwala
ik tanlala
ik tanla(y).
Of these forms, I. denotes the simple action; II., the intensive of I.; III., an attempted or
indirect action; IV., a causative action; V. is reflexive of II.; VI. is reflexive or reciprocal
of III.; VII. and VIII. are reflexive or passive of I.; IX. and XI. areused to denote inherent
qualities or bodily defects; X. is a reflexive of IV.; and XII.-XV., while rare and obscure,
seem to indicate the doing of a deed, or the possession of a quality, in intensity. All the
forms except IX. and XI.-XV. possess a passive as well as an active voice, whence it will
be seen that the characteristic of the Semitic verb in contrast with the Aryan has here its
fullest expression. In the imperfect of the verb, also, Arabic is more fully developed than
the other languages, having the following modes in both the active and the passive
voices:
Indicative.
Subjunctive.
Jussive.
First Energic.
Second Energic.
Moreover, in the richness of its development of infinitives or verbal nouns Arabic far
surpasses the other Semitic tongues. This is not easily illustrated in a short article; but it
has led grammarians to make the Arabic forms the standard by which to measure and
explain all Semitic nouns. In the modern dialects of Arabic many of the refinements of
form and syntax are neglected, and much phonetic decay is apparent.

Minan and Sabean.

The grammatical development of the South-Arabic dialects seems to be less complete. In
the older dialects, as known from the inscriptions (which are written in a distinctive
South-Arabic alphabet), the verb-stems corresponding to the Arabic I., II., III., V., VI.,
VII., VIII., and X. are found. Instead of the Arabic IV. ('af'al), in Minan the original "sh"
of the Semitic causative is preserved in a saf'el (as "sak nak a"), and in Sabean it is only
thinned to a hif'il (as "hah datha"). In the modern dialects (Mehri and Socotri)
considerable decay is noticeable.
Abyssinian Dialects.
The oldest inscriptions from Abyssinia are written in the Sabean script, but inscriptions of
about 380 C.E. written in the Ge'ez character are met with. In the Ge'ez (or Ethiopic) a
version of the Scriptures was soon made; and there exists in it a considerable Christian
literature. It is still the sacred language of Abyssinia, bearing to the modern dialects much
the same relation that Latin bears to the Romance languages. While Ethiopic has many
features in common with the other South-Semitic dialects (such, for example, as "broken"
or internal plurals), it has preserved some features in common with certain members of
the North-Semitic group (such as the "k" of the first person perfect of the verb). Such
characteristics are important philologically; for coincidences in languages far removed
from one another in locality are strong evidence of the survival of primitive features.
Ethiopic, moreover, has evolved the most symmetrical development of the Semitic verb.
It has, first, the stems corresponding to the Arabic I., II., and III. Then it makes a
causative not only of I., as in Arabic, by prefixing "'a," but also of II. and III. in like
manner. Again, from the three stems first mentioned it makes three passive or reflexive
stems by prefixing "ta." Then, lastly, from each of the three simple stems it forms a
causative-reflexive stem by prefixing "'asta." Thus a very symmetrical system of twelve
forms is secured. The modern Abyssinian dialects present considerable linguistic change
from the Ethiopic. Of these the Tigre and Tigria are closely related, while the Amharic,
Harar, and Gurg form another closely related group.
As noted above, the North-Semitic languages are not so closely related to one another as
are the South-Semitic. It seems probable that from a common North-Semitic home in
northeastern Arabia, where they had been but loosely held together, the ancestors of these
tongues migrated in three great separate waves, all of which moved by way of the TigrisEuphrates valley. Of course there were many minor, intermediate waves of migration, as
well as much direct mixture from Arabia later; but these three main types were strong
enough to impose their languages upon later comers.
North-Semitic Languages. Babylonian-Assyrian.
The Semitic ancestors of the Babylonians migrated into the Mesopotamian valley long
before the dawn of history (comp. Semites, Critical View; Barton, l.c. pp. 196 et seq.).
Their language, which was perpetuated by their colonists, the later Assyrians, in some
respects differs from the Semitic prototype more than does any other Semitic tongue.
This is no doubt owing to the fact that upon their settlement in Babylonia the Semites

came into contact with the highly civilized Sumerians, among whom they settled, and
whom they gradually absorbed. At first the Semites when they committed their thoughts
to writing employed the Sumerian language; but Semitic idiom betrays itself in such
inscriptions as early as 4000 B.C. The Sumerians had developed a system of picturewriting. This the Semites adapted to their own language partly as a syllabic method of
writing and partly as an ideographic system. Semitic was written thus as early at least as
the time of Manishtu-irba (c. 3900 B.C.), and continued to be so written as late at least as
the time of the Seleucid king Antiochus I. (282-261 B.C.).
Some of the most striking of the peculiarities of this dialect are as follows: (1) All the
gutturals, including the lower palatal "gh," are worn away. The presence of the stronger
of them is indicated by the change of an original "a" or "i" to "e." (2) The form called
"permansive," which corresponds to the perfect in the other Semitic languages, has lost
its original significance and is used to express a state. The imperfect has been
differentiated into two forms, the shorter of which is used to express completed action,
and the longer uncompleted, and thus performs the functions of both the perfect and the
imperfect. (3) The forms of verb-stems exhibit the following scheme: there are four
stems, which correspond in meaning respectively to the Arabic stems I., II., IV., and VII.
Three of these are formed analogously to the Arabic; but the causative is the original
Semitic shaf'el. Grammarians indicate these as follows: I. 1 (simple stem); II. 1
(intensive); III. 1 (causative); and IV. 1 (reflexive). By inserting a "t" in stems I. 1, II. 1,
and III. 1 after the first consonant a secondary series (I. 2, II. 2, III. 2), each of which was
originally the reciprocalor reflexive of a corresponding form of the first series, is
produced. One other form (I. 3) is obtained by inserting in the form I. 1 the syllable "tan"
after the first radical. This system is somewhat analogous to the Ethiopic verb-system, but
is not so complete.
(4) Babylonian-Assyrian exhibits several phonetic laws peculiar to itself. For example, a
vowelless sibilant before a dental frequently, though not invariably, becomes "l"; as
"lubultu" for "lubushtu" and "Kaldaai" for Hebrew .
The Canaanitish Group.
With the exception of a few inscriptions, of which that of Mesha (Moabite), that of
Eshmunazer (Phenician), and the Marseilles inscription (Punic) are the longest, modern
knowledge of the Canaanitish group is confined to Hebrew. As the Hebrews were partly,
if not largely, of Aramcan stock, it follows that they adopted the language of the
Canaanites among whom they settled (comp. Semites, Critical View). This Canaanitish
language was spoken in Palestine and Phenicia as early as 1400 B.C.; for its idioms
appear in the El-Amarna letters (comp. Tell el-Amarna). The Canaanites, who appear to
have moved westward between 1700 and 1800 B.C., settled among the Amorites. The
latter appear to have moved into Palestine about 2400 or 2500 B.C., at the time of the
Semitic migration which brought to Babylonia the founders of the first Babylonian
dynasty (comp. Paton, "Early History of Syria and Palestine," ch. iii.). It is possible that
the Amorites fixed the type of the Canaanitish languages and that the Canaanites
borrowed it from them, as the Hebrews did at a later time from the Canaanites. This is
mere conjecture; but the divergence of Canaanitish from Aramaic would warrant one in

supposing that those who developed the former were isolated from their kinsfolk at an
early date. The chief distinguishing characteristic of the Canaanitish languages is the
construction known as "waw consecutive," in which a peculiarly vocalized conjunction
connecting two verbs in a narrative enables a discourse begun in the imperfect state to be
continued in the perfect, and vice versa. This construction gives especial vividness to a
narrative, enabling the reader to stand as a spectator of the original events and watch their
development. It is found only in Biblical Hebrew and in the Mesha inscription on the
Moabite Stone. From later Hebrew, from Phenician (no known inscription of which is
earlier than 500 B.C.), and from Punic, it has disappeared.
The forms of the verb-stems known in (Canaanitish are: the "k al" (simple stem = Arabic
I.), the "pi'el" and "pu'al" (active and passive of the intensive, Arabic II.), the "hif'il"
(Phenician, "yif'il") and "hof'al" (active and passive of the causative, Arabic IV.), the
"hitpa'el," formed by prefixing "hit" to the "pi'el" (reflexive of the latter, equivalent to
Arabic V.), and the "nif'al" (equivalent in form and meaning to Arabic VII.). Compare
Hebrew Language.
Aramaic.
The Arameans appear in history about 1500 B.C. At this time they were making their way
westward via Mesopotamia into Syria (comp. Paton, l.c. ch. vii., viii.). They were the
middlemen of the East; and their language became a means of international
communication, displacing both Babylonian and Hebrew. Thus it happens that many of
the dialects, through the literary monuments of which Aramaic is known to-day, are
dialects spoken by foreigners.
Jewish Aramaic
The oldest Aramaic known is found in dockets to Babylonian tablets, inscriptions on
weights, and the much longer inscriptions from Zenjirli of the eighth and seventh
centuries B.C. This language, though undoubtedly Aramaic, approximates much more
closely to Canaanitish than does the later Aramaic. During the Persian period Aramaic
was the official language of the western provinces. Some inscriptions of this periodone
as early as Xerxesand several tattered papyri in Aramaic are known, all of which
exhibit much the same form of the language, though differing from that of Zenjirli.
Aramaic as spoken by the Jews is known in several dialects as noted above. Of these, the
Biblical Aramaic has been much influenced by Hebrew. The other Palestinian dialects
closely resemble the Biblical Aramaic, but exhibit a later form of it. In them the causative
in "ha" instead of "'a," and the formation of the passive by means of internal vowelchanges have disappeared (comp. Aramaic Language).
Samaritan, Nabatan, and Palmyrene.
The Samaritans translated their sacred books into Aramaic, writing it in a script peculiar
to themselves but developed out of the old Hebrew character. Their dialect of Aramaic is
closely related to the other Palestinian dialects, though perhaps they softened the
gutturals a little more. They have often arbitrarily introduced into their sacred books
Hebrew forms from the original. This has led some wrongly to suppose that Samaritan is
a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. Aramaic is the language also of the inscriptions of the

Nabatan kingdom, which flourished for two or three centuries with its capital at Petra,
until overthrown by Trajan in 105 C.E. It is thought by Nldeke that the Nabatans were
Arabs who used Aramaic simply as a literary language. At Palmyra Aramaic inscriptions
are found dating from a time shortly prior to the beginning of the Christian era down to
the third century. The dialect of the Palmyrene inscriptions, while in most respects
resembling closely West-Aramaic, has some features, such as the plural in , in common
with East-Aramaic.
Modern knowledge of the dialect of north-central Syria is confined to the Syriac
inscriptions collected by Littmann ("Semitic Inscriptions," pp. 1-56). These offer but little
grammatical material. While they exhibit some dialectical differences, the formation of
the third person imperfect with "n" links the dialect with East-Aramaic.
Edessan or Syriac.
Syriac is the language of the Christian versions of the Bible made from the second
century onward, and of a large Christian literature. Through this literature it became
widely influential even in parts where it had not been previously known. It was called
Syriac because the name "Aramaic," which belonged to the old inhabitants of the
country,had come to the Christians to mean "heathen." In the eastern part of the Roman
empire it was, next to Greek, the most important language until the Arabian conquest. Its
characteristics, such as the imperfect in "n," and the emphatic state in "a" from which all
trace of its use as a definite article had disappeared, were clearly marked from the
beginning.
Babylonian and Mandan Dialects.
The Babylonian Talmud (Gemara) is written in Babylonian Aramaic; but, as there is a
constant mingling of Hebrew and Aramaic passages, the Aramaic is not pure. Closely
akin to this is the dialect of the Mandans, a peculiar sect, half Christian, half heathen,
whose members lived probably in a different part of Babylonia. Mandan is, therefore,
slightly purer, because not subject to Hebrew influence. These dialects employ an
imperfect either in "n" or in "l." They were displaced by the Arabian conquest, though
possibly the Mandans still speak among themselves a descendant of their old language.
In the region of ancient Assyria, Kurdistan, and Urumia dialects of Aramaic are still
spoken by many Christians and by some Jews. American missionaries have developed the
dialect spoken in Urumia into a new literary language. These modern dialects present
many changes from the older usage, especially in verbal forms.
The Verb-Stems of Aramaic.
The formal relation of Aramaic to the other Semitic languages can, perhaps, be best
illustrated by a glance at its verb-stems. These are most fully developed in Edessan and
Mandan, where are found (I.) a simple stem = Arabic I.; (II.) an intensive stem = Arabic
II.; (III.) an 'af'eland (IV.) a shaf'el, both equivalent to Arabic IV. A reflexive of each of
these stems is formed by prefixing "t." As this "t" is vowelless it takes prosthetic' with the
auxiliary vowel "i," making '"it." Thus stems V., VI., VII., and VIII. became the
reflexives of I., II., III., and IV.

In the Jewish Palestinian dialects the shaf'el and its reflexive (i.e., stems IV. and VIII.) are
wanting. In Biblical Aramaic and the inscriptions of Zenjirli the haf'el takes the place of
the 'af'el, and it has no reflexive; so that in these dialects stems IV., VII., and VIII. are
wanting.

Bibliography:
F. Mller, Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft, iii., section ii., Vienna, 1887;
Erman, Das Verhltniss des Aegyptischen zu den Semitischen Sprachen, in Z. D. M. G.
xlvi. (1892) 93-126;
idem, Die Flexion des Aegyptischen Verbums, in Sitzungsberichte der Kniglichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1900, pp. 317-353;
idem, Aegyptische Grammatik, 2d ed., Berlin, 1902;
Steindorff, Koptische Grammatik, 2d ed., ib. 1904;
Collizza, Lingua 'Afar, Vienna, 1887;
Belkassen ben Sedira, Langue Kabyle, Algiers, 1887;
Reinisch, Die Somali Sprache, Vienna, 1900-1;
Wright, Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Lanquages, Cambridge University Press,
1890;
Zimmern, Vergleichende Grammatik der Semitischen Sprachen, Berlin, 1898;
Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen, Leipsic, 1889;
Nldeke, Beitrge zur Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, Strasburg, 1904;
Wright, Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3d ed. (by W. R. Smith and De Goeje),
Cambridge University Press, 1896-98;
Socin, Arabische Grammatik, 4th ed., Berlin, 1899;
Spitta, Grammatik des Arabischen Vulgdrdialectes von Aegypten, Leipsic, 1880;
Hartmann, Arabischer Sprachfhrer, 2d ed., ib. 1895;
Stumme, Grammatik des Tunisischen Arabisch, 1896;
Vollers, Lehrbuch der Aegypto-Arabisch Umgangs-Sprache, Cairo, 1890;
Vassalli, Grammatica della Lingua Maltese, Malta, 1827;
Reinhardt, Ein Arabischer Dialekt Gesprochen in Oman, Berlin, 1894;
Marais, Le Dialecte Arabe Parl Tlemen, Paris, 1902;
Littmann, Zur Entzifferung der Safa-Inschriften, Leipsic. 1901;
idem, Zur Entzifferung der Thamudenischen Inschriften, Berlin, 1904;
Hommel, Sd-Arabische Chrestomathie, Munich, 1893;
D. H. Mller, Mehri- und Soqotri-Texte, in Anzeigen der Kaiserlichen Academie der
Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Classe, 1900-3;
Die Mehri und Soqotri Sprache, Vienna, 1902;
Jahn, Die Mehri-Sprache in Sdarabischen, ib. 1902;
D. H. Mller, Epigraphische Denkmler aus Abessinien, ib. 1894;
Dillmann, Grammatik der Aethiopischen Sprache, Leipsic, 1857;
Prtorius, Grammatica thiopica, Berlin, 1886;
idem, Die Amharische Sprache, Halle, 1879;
Guidi, Grammatica Elementare della Lingua Amaria, 2d ed., Rome, 1892;
Prtorius, Grammatik der Tigriasprache, Halle, 1871;
Vito, Grammatica Elementare della Lingua Tigrigna, Rome, 1895;

Mondon-Vidailhet, La Langue Harari et les Dialectes Ethiopiens du Gouragh, Paris,

1902;
Delitzsch, Assyrian, Grammar, Leipsic, 1889;
Lyon, Assyrian Manual, 2d ed., Boston. 1892;
Gesenius, Hebrische Grammatik, 26th ed. (by Kautzsch), Leipsic, 1896;
Eng. ed. (by Collins and Cowley), Oxford, 1898;
Knig, Lehrgebude der Hebrischen Sprache, Leipsic, 1881-97 (comp. bibliography
under Hebrew Language);
Schrder, Die Phnizische Sprache, Halle, 1869;
C. I. S. Paris;
Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nord-Semitischen Epigraphik, Giessen, 1898;
idem, Ephemeris fr Semitische Epigraphik, ib. 1900-3;
Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford, 1903;
Kautzsch, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramischen, Leipsic, 1884;
Dalman, Grammatik des Jdisch-Palstinischen Aramisch, ib. 1894;
Luzzatto, Elementi Grammaticali di Caldeo Biblico e Dialetto Talmudico Babilonese,
Padua, 1865;
Nicholls, A Grammar of the Samaritan Language, London, 1858;
Petermann, Brevis Lingu Samaritan Grammatica, Berlin, 1873;
Nestle, Brevis Lingu Syric Grammatica, Leipsic, 1881;
Nldeke, Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik, 2d ed., Leipsic, 1898;
idem, Mandische Grammatik, Halle, 1875;
idem, Grammatik der Neusyrischen Sprache, Leipsic, 1868;
Littmann, Semitic Inscriptions, New York, 1904.
See also Grammar.
Of lexicons the following may be mentioned: Lane, Arabic Lexicon, London;
Dillmann, Lexicon Lingu thiopic, Leipsic, 1865;
Gesenius, Hebrisches und Aramisches Handwrterbuch, 13th ed. (by Buhl), Leipsic,
1899;
Briggs, Brown, and Driver, Hebrew and English Lexicon, Oxford, 1892 et seq.;
Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwrterbuch, Leipsic, 1896;
Muss-Arnolt, Assyrisch-Englisch-Deutsches Handwrterbuch, Berlin, 1894 et seq.;
Jastrow, Dict. London and New York, 1902;
Dalman, Aramisch-Neuhebrisches Wrterbuch zu Targum, Talmud, und Midrasch,
Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1901;
Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, Clarendon Press, Oxford;
Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Berlin, 1895;
Steingass, Arabic-English Dictionary, London, 1884;
Wahrmund, Wrterbuch der Neu-Arabischen und Deutschen Sprachen, Giessen, 1887;
Cook, Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions, Cambridge, 1898;
Bloch, Phoenicisches Glossar, Berlin, 1891.
See also Dictionaries.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13415-semitic-languages#anchor11