Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract: This paper argues that the voiceless re%ex of the emphatics *
(d) and * () in some preHilalian Maghrebian Arabic dialects is in fact
an archaism. These phonemes were voiceless in Old Arabic, as proven by
Greek transcriptions from the pre-Islamic period, and so preHilalian Ma-
ghrebian Arabic may continue the original situation. The voiced re%exes,
more common in other modern Arabic dialects and in the conventional pro-
nunciation of Classical Arabic, are then interpreted as a later development.
Keywords: Arabic dialectology, Maghrebian Arabic, emphatic consonants,
preHilalian, Old Arabic, phonology
1 Introduction
Advances in the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages in the 20th
century have helped dispel the view of Classical Arabic (CAr) as the most
archaic Semitic language.2 At almost every linguistic layer, CAr exhibits im-
portant innovations distinguishing it from Proto-Semitic (PS), and even
from its more direct ancestor, ProtoArabic.3 There is at least one domain,
however, in which this belief obtains phonology. While CAr is unarguably
conservative in that it keeps separate 28 of the 29 PS phonemes, merging
only *s (s1) and *ts (s3) to [s], the phonetic realization of these phonemes is
to be considered highly innovative. A reassessment of the evidence from the
1 The abbreviations used in this paper are PS: Proto-Semitic; NWS: Northwest
Semitic; CAr: Classical Arabic.
2 On these features, see HUEHNERGARD (forthcoming) and AL-JALLAD (forth-
coming).
3 See AL-JALLAD (2014; 2015 a, b).
* Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen, Institute for Area Studies (LIAS), Leiden
University, a.m.al-jallad@hum.leidenuniv.nl
preIslamic period, however, suggests that Old Arabic4 was more conserva-
tive in this respect than CAr and most of the modern dialects (see ALJALLAD
2015b). An exception is some of the preHilalian dialects of North Africa.
This paper will reexamine the realization of the emphatics of these varie-
ties in light of Old Arabic and PS, and argue that they in fact better re%ect
the original Arabic situation.
4 Old Arabic is used here to refer to the pre-Islamic dialects of Arabic attested in
documentary sources, such as epigraphy and papyri, and not materials attributed
to the pre-Islamic period by Arabo-Islamic traditions.
5 KOGAN (2011: 60+).
6 Glottalized sibilants and interdentals are extremely rare cross-linguistically, and
so it may have been the case that these sounds were a+ricates, like *, see
KOGAN (2011: 71).
for at least some members of the series to have been realized as glottalics.7
In addition to the ancient evidence, there are some contemporary south-
western Arabian dialects of Arabic that realize these consonants as glotta-
lized in certain environments, but this could be due to substrate in%uence
from Ancient or Modern South Arabian.8
Our main source for the phonology of Old Arabic comes from Greek
transcriptions from the preIslamic period. While the Greek glyphs cannot
supply unambiguous evidence for glottalization, they do prove that the Old
Arabic series was entirely voiceless, a fact compatible with both glottaliza-
tion and pharyngealization.9 Thus, the evidence from Syria proves that
ProtoArabic at least maintained the original voiceless quality of the empha-
tic series, regardless of whether or not they had become phrayngealized.
The following table gives a reconstruction of the ProtoArabic emphatics as
voiceless, without explicitly taking a position on the quality of the emphatic
correlate.
*[t] [] [] []
*[t] [t] [t] [t]
*[ts] [s] [s] [s]
*[t] [] [] []
*[k] [q] [q] [g]
Urban dialects of the Levant and most of North Africa can be derived from
an antecedent form similar to the Anatolian con*guration through two sound
changes: the shift of interdentals to stops and, in some cases, the shift q > .
Table 4: Re-exes of the Emphatics in Urban Dialects
Proto-form Cairo Northern Syria Damascus
[] [d] [d] [d]
[t] [t] [t] [t]
[s] [s] [s] [s]
[] [d] [d] [d]
[q] [] [q] []
3 Pre-Hilalian Maghrebian
The foregone discussion gives the impression that the voiceless con*gura-
tion of the emphatics in ProtoArabic and the Old Arabic from the Levant
does not continue into the modern dialects. Instead, the modern colloquials
descend from a mixed series as found in Anatolian Arabic, upon which the
conventional pronunciation of CAr may have been based. There is, however,
one group of dialects that may constitute an exception the preHilalian
Maghrebian dialects. As is well known, , the re%ex of * and *, and have
merged in a number of Maghrebian Arabic varieties, including Jijel (Alge-
ria), Tangier, Tetuan, Branes, Mtioua (Morocco) (KOSSMANN 2013: 1867;
HEATH 2002: 159). The origin of the pronunciation is unclear. HEATH
assumes a > shift and suggests one could posit that the -pronunciations
were once regular across preHilalian Maghrebian Arabic, but *nds such a
scenario ultimately unlikely (2002: 161). KOSSMANN notes that the Berber
languages adjacent to these dialects also have a , but emphasizes that the
directionality of in%uence is unclear (2013: 187). The emphatic series of
what I will conventionally term modern preHilalian appears as follows:
The traditional view holds that the [t] realization of * and * is the result
of the devoicing of [d], but this scenario is based solely on the idea that
the voiced pronunciation was original. Moreover, the sound change does
not a+ect all instances of (<* and *) in any variety, suggesting instead
that it is an older feature, which began to give way to the spread of the
voiced of the urban koins. Of course, one could assume an old shifted
to and then back to through lexical di+usion, but such a scenario is
needlessly complex. I would instead like to propose a di+erent interpreta-
tion, namely, that the modern preHilalian set continues the voiceless Old
Arabic con*guration. An extra stage, however, is required to bridge the gap
between the two sets the loss of interdentals. The scenario needed to ex-
Romance had only a voiced lateral, [l]. Nevertheless, from the evidence at
hand, we can conclude that both voiced and voiceless re%exes of the empha-
tic lateral and interdental co-existed in Andalusia.
This hypothesis, if correct, would mean that a phonologically conserva-
tive dialect similar to the Old Arabic of the Levant was implanted in the Ma-
ghreb at an early stage. I say similar because it is impossible to know if this
dialect was indeed a re%ex of the Old Arabic of southern Syria or of an un-
attested Arabian dialect with an identical emphatic repertoire. In support of
the former theory, one may point towards another peculiar feature shared
with the preIslamic Levantine dialects the relative pronoun di, ddi, d
(HEATH 2002: 494495). Northern Old Arabic preserved the original shape
of the relative pronoun -, which could have continued to in%ect for case or
have become frozen as either or . In one case it is preceded by the
article/demonstrative pre*x h-, h */haV/.14 Old igz Arabic, on the
other hand, seems to have innovated a new relative pronoun based on the
demonstrative series alla. Could it be that the Anatolian emphatic
con*guration re%ects an Old igz development? It is possible, but we
have so far no evidence for the pronunciation of these phonemes in their
original context. Aside from a short inscription in the Dadanitic script, JSLih
384, our only evidence for Old igz is the Qurnic Consonantal Text
(QCT), which, on its own, tells us nothing about the phonetic realization of
its consonants independently of the reading traditions imposed upon it.
On the other side of the Arabophone world, in what is today Yemen, a
voiceless re%ex of * is also encountered, but alongside a voiced realization
of *q, [g]. Perhaps equally as important, we also *nd re%exes of the relative
pronoun *V in this peripheral area as well. Such dialects may also re%ect a
development from Old Arabic directly rather than from the intermediate
stage of Old igz, and may have been implanted in Yemen during the
period of the conquests, if not earlier. Since both the Maghrebian and
Yemeni dialects are characterized by archaisms, there is no a priori reason to
assume a direct connection between them in order to explain these features.
4 Conclusion
The conclusion of this paper is that the voiceless re%exes of the emphatic
series, especially * and *, continue the ProtoArabic situation, as re%ected
in the Old Arabic material from Syria. The mixed voiced-voiceless series
characteristic of most contemporary dialects of Arabic and the conventional
pronunciation of Classical Arabic then re%ects a departure from this situa-
tion, and may be characteristic of Old igz, but this can only be a sugges-
tion. Its ubiquity in the Arabic dialects of today may re%ect a convergence
towards this dialect, which would have acquired considerable prestige in
the context of Arabo-Islamic civilization.
Siglum
JSLih Dadanitic inscriptions in Jaussen and Savignac 19091922
References
AL-JALLAD, A. (2014): A-du llat kas-sn Evidence for an a+ricated d
in Sibawayh? In: Folia Orientalia 51: 5157.
AL-JALLAD, A. (2015a): An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscrip-
tions. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
AL-JALLAD, A. (2015b): Graeco-Arabic I: the southern Levant. In: Nehm, L.
et al (eds.): Ecrit et criture dans la formation des identits en monde syria-
que et arabe IIIe-VIIe sicles. Leuven: Peeters.
CORRIENTE, F. (1977): A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect
Bundle. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultura.
CORRIENTE, F. (1989): South Arabian Features in Andalusi Arabic. In:
WEXLER, P. BORG, A. SOMEKH, S. (eds.): Studia linguistica et orienta-
lia memoriae Haim Blanc dedicata. Wiesbaden, 94103.
HEATH, J. (2002): Jewish and Muslim Dialects of Moroccan Arabic. London-
New York: Routledge.
HUEHNERGARD, J. (forthcoming): Arabic in its Semitic Context. In:
ALJALLAD, A. (ed.): Arabic in Context. Leiden: Brill.
JAUSSEN, A. SAVIGNAC, M. (19091922): Mission archologique en Arabie
(6 vols.). Paris: Leroux/Ernest Paul Geuthner. Reprint 1997, Cairo: Insti-
tut Franais dArchologie Orientale.
KOGAN, L. (2011): Proto-Semitic Phonology and Phonetics. In: WENINGER,
S. et al. (eds.): The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Berlin/
Boston: de Gruyter, 54150.
KOSSMANN, M. (2013): The Arabic InEuence on Northern Berber. Leiden: Brill.
RECASENS, D. ESPINOSA, A. (2005): Articulatory, positional and coarticu-
latory characteristics for clear /l/ and dark /l/: evidence from two Catalan
dialects. In: Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35 (1): 1, 20.
WATSON, J. (2011): Arabic Dialects (general article). In: WENINGER, S. et
al. (eds.): The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Berlin-
Boston: de Gruyter, 851896.