Printer Friendly

A fresh look at Sabaic.

In recent years, Norbert Nebes and Peter Stein have been doing an excellent job in fostering a better understanding of Sabaic grammar. Particularly worthy of mention here is the succinct but very well prepared summary of grammar in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (Nebes and Stein 2003). This excellent volume by Stein is a study of phonology and morphology and thus not simply a grammatical description but an authentic linguistic study on Sabaic.

The very useful indices, which for every inscription give not only bibliographical but also internal references--that is, page and note citing a specific line of a particular text--make the vast Sabaic corpus accessible for the first time to scholars of south Arabia as well as to scholars of Semitics in general. Great care has gone into the editing. One is struck by the painstaking effort to prevent the trivial mistakes that are so easy to make in a work of this size and of this editorial difficulty.

I confess that, upon opening the book I was somewhat frightened by the great quantity of notes, but the first impressions that this was the work of a young scholar merely wishing to appear knowledgeable by including as much bibliography as possible soon disappeared. The notes are almost always rich in useful information, and they often cite other texts to support the translations and grammatical rules discussed in the text.

Following the example of an excellent layout used earlier by Nebes, the grammar presents around 580 examples that clarify the phonological and morphological phenomena discussed. This approach is very effective, even though the contexts adduced are sometimes rather difficult to interpret philologically, which makes the discussion rather contorted and hard to read.

A number of morphological features of Sabaic, for example, the declension of the substantive or the use of the n-suffix in the infinitive of the verb have already been presented by the author in previous works (Stein 2002a; 2002b), and he has returned to the general topic of the diachronic and geographical subdivision of Sabaic in two articles published subsequent to his grammatical work (Stein 2004; 2005).

The breadth of documentation on Sabaic and its complex temporal, geographical, and typological evolution emerge clearly from Stein's work. Sabaic is certainly the best known language of south Arabia, with its very long history of almost 1500 years and an enormous corpus of attestations in a variety of textual genres: construction texts, dedications, and legal texts; no fewer than 5,300 of them constitute the documentary basis on which Stein constructs his work. A number are short and linguistically simple, but the majority are syntactically complex and discursive; to the monumental texts are to be added the earliest examples written in cursive characters carved on wooden sticks.

Stein's criterion for defining a Sabaic text is purely linguistic: a Sabaic text is one that has Sabaic linguistic features (p. 4). This is not always self-evident. Texts such as CSAI I, 7 = Doe 6 and CSAI I, 8 = Doe 7, written in the capital of Qataban, are only included by Stein in the Sabaic corpus because they contain certain "Sabaic" morphological features within a text which was obviously drawn up in Qataban. This is a question internal to Qatabanic language and culture, and the texts are assuredly Qatabanic and not Sabaic. The definition of an epigraphic corpus should be based on a combination of linguistic and cultural features.

From the viewpoint of general reconstruction, it is significant that Stein always refers to the Sabaic "language" (pp. 4-5) and the other south Arabian "languages," scrapping the misleading definition still found in Beeston's first work of grammar (1962), of a south Arabian "language" and its "dialects," Sabaic, Minaic and so on. Stein rightly urges the publication of works of grammar for other south Arabian languages, and I fully agree with his impression that there are significant grammatical differences among the languages of south Arabia. By contrast, I am much less in agreement with his statement that "South Arabian" is a purely geographical term (indicating, in addition, a characteristic common writing method) and not a linguistic one. Resemblances among south Arabian languages can certainly not be demonstrated merely on the basis of a common script, but rather on that of a series of phonological, morphological, syntactical, and lexical features which make up a linguistic group within Semitic.

In my view, the idea of an "innovative" Sabaic being part of "central Semitic" (according to Hetzron's well-known definition) put forward by Voigt (1987) and Nebes (2001) and here taken up by Stein, while the other three south Arabian languages are considered more archaic and more similar to Modern South Arabian and Ethiopic, must also be reconsidered. My own work on the Qatabanic corpus (Avanzini 2004; 2005) has brought to light typical features of what in many ways, including writing and morphology, is a well-stratified language linguistically more "innovative" than Sabaic. Sabaic is assuredly the language of south Arabia for which we now possess the most tools: Beeston's grammars, a number of grammatical sketches, and the Sabaic dictionary.

At the outset of this work, Stein lists the reasons why he thought it necessary to present a new work on Sabaic grammar despite the existence of several others: Beeston's works (one from 1962 about all the south Arabian languages, the other from 1984) are too concise to address all the linguistic and epigraphic problems raised by the documentation. There has been a notable increase in recent years of the number of inscriptions published. The first non-monumental Sabaic texts written on sticks or on palm-leaf stalks published recently document for the first time a language typologically different from that of the monumental texts. Many recent studies have clarified or modified aspects of Sabaic grammar. Stein could perhaps have added another reason, which appears to have no direct bearing on his work: the beginning of Sabaic documentation dates back almost five hundred years earlier than stated in Beeston's works.

The short chronology, which dates the beginning of southern Arabian states to the middle of the first millennium A.D., an idea widely accepted from the mid-1950s up to the 1990s, was put forward and backed up by epigraphers who preferred to concentrate the south Arabian documentation into a shorter period. Pushing the beginning of its history back to the early centuries of the millennium, which archaeologists have obliged reluctant philologists to accept, brings a new perspective to studies on south Arabia, the implications of which should be given the prominence they deserve and not considered of secondary importance. Antedating the first written attestations of the language by almost five hundred years is by no means of secondary importance either for the history of Sabaic itself or for comparative studies.

In his introduction, Stein presents the epigraphic corpus on which his grammar is based (pp. 5-10), tracing its development through time and space also in the description of the individual phenomena, closely examining the resulting variations. Compared to previous works of grammar, Stein's constitutes a fundamental milestone in south Arabian linguistic studies precisely because of the attention he focuses on the complexity of the documentation. The morphological features are not simply listed alongside one other as in earlier works, but are subdivided and set in their proper evolutionary perspective and geographical placement.

The study of dialectal differences is very important; despite the lack of documentation for the other languages of pre-Islamic Arabia, they too had an equally complex history. Qatabanic shows very clear "dialectal" features in documentation from the outer regions of the kingdom on the high plateau. Stein identifies a core area of Sabaic documentation (the region of Marib, Sirwah), and high plateau documentation, with the latter also showing differences between the western high plateau and its eastern parts (the vicinity of Radman), where one can see mechanisms of convergence with Qatabanic.

The documentation of the high plateau will have to be studied in its entirety some day in order to understand the contact mechanisms. One general question to be asked, for instance, is whether Sabaeans and Qatabanians met on the high plateau, as Stein seems to think in describing some features of Sabaic from the region of Radman (p. 8). This would explain why some "Qatabanisms" are found in Sabaic inscriptions and why some Qatabanic inscriptions contain "Sabaisms." But this idea only envisages contact between the two linguistic communities in a far-off region, neglecting the peoples who actually lived there. Both Qatabanic and Sabaic were probably superstrate languages on the high plateau, enjoying great cultural prestige as written idioms, and texts might possibly display not only phenomena of contact between the two languages but also with the language of the inhabitants of the high plateau itself. We might well find ourselves confronted with a linguistic phenomenon involving three actors and not just two. From both an historical and a linguistic standpoint, the high plateau is assuming a crucial importance in the history of south Arabia (see Wilkinson 2005).

Stein relegates the Sabaic inscriptions in Ethiopia from the first millennium to a note (p. 168, n. 78), and the definition he applies to them ("athio-sabaisch") makes it clear that he does not consider them Sabaic and, indeed, he does not include them in the index of Sabaic inscriptions. I find it hard to agree with this. The situation in Ethiopia was not so different from that on the high plateau: Sabaean language and culture were imposed, but they also interacted with the local populations.

In terms of diachronic development, Beeston had already divided the Sabaic material into three major periods: Early, Middle, and Late, for which Stein suggests the following absolute dates: Early Sabaic from the ninth to the eighth century B.C., Middle Sabaic from the third century B.C. to the end of the third century A.D., and Late Sabaic from the fourth to the sixth century A.D.

At this juncture, I would like to review briefly some of the linguistic features Stein identifies as significant for dating the drafting of a text, features which are also useful in a broader discussion.

The assimilation of n to a following consonant appears only after Early Sabaic (pp. 19-22). Stein not only rightly states that a single phenomenon does not constitute solid proof, but also that the absence of assimilation can sometimes be taken as a mere graphic phenomenon. Therefore, while full writing does not necessarily indicate non-assimilation, by contrast assimilation is certain proof that a text is post-Early Sabaic. The only exception seems to be RES 3945 (example 13), the great Karibil inscription and one of the primary texts for our knowledge of ancient Sabaic, where line 8 reads: w-nqm yhqm hr [S.sup.1]b', "and he avenged the free men of Saba." Yhqm can be interpreted on the basis of the preceding nqm as a causative of the root NQM, with assimilation of the first radical. Stein eliminates this exception by postulating a causative of the root QWM, "to establish, set, or place." Deriving yhqm from QWM removes the paronomasia that comes from the inner object, but is nonetheless a possible solution. Another interpretation that Stein would probably accept, because it eliminates the problem of the temporal value of the verb yhqm, would be to take Yhqm as a proper noun (p. 21 n. 27). This, however, is unacceptable: the avenger of dead Sabaean citizens can only be the king, certainly not an unknown Yhqm. Stein also wonders how to interpret nqm, which cannot be an infinitive absolute, a syntactic construction well known in Hebrew, but not in Sabaic. (An example of this use of the infinitive is, however, attested in Qatabanic: CSAI I, 208 = R 3566, 9, 11-120.) Nor can nqm be a substantive, because in that case it should have mimation. But this is a false problem. In order to emphasize the vengeance perpetrated by the king, the author of the text has anticipated the substantive governing the verb that follows: "the vengeance with which he avenged the free men of Saba."

An interesting linguistic feature identified by Stein is the appearance of the n-suffix on the infinitive only in post-Early Sabaic. This suffix only occasionally appears on the infinitive, and its use had been considered more a coincidence or a lexical choice (Nebes 1988) than a question of grammar. Stein has discovered a rule for its use (pp. 198-200): the suffix is attached to the derived forms of the verb and not to the basic form in inscriptions from the center of the kingdom of Saba and from the western high plateau. It never appears in ancient Sabaic or in the eastern area of the high plateau.

There are other lexical features that enable us to distinguish Middle Sabaic from Early Sabaic. I refer, for example, to the preposition "from" set in relation to "to," which in Early Sabaic is In (cf. Ugaritic), which is later replaced by bn. This rigidity of writing in Sabaic texts has, furthermore, some interesting historical consequences, and the study of stylistic differences is assuredly a factor in geographical and chronological classification. Determining how the centers of culture change through time is rich in possible consequences for writing the history of south Arabia.

The graphic oscillation highlighted by Stein regarding the general issue of writing vowels deserves a general remark. He points out that the preposition/conjunction 'd(y) is always attested in Early Sabaic in defective writing, but later in full writing. He correctly links this diachronic variation to similar phenomena. For example, the termination of the dual nominative of the substantive (pp. 92-93) and of the verb (pp. 169-70) in Early Sabaic is o, vs. -y in later Sabaic. Starting from the fact that the long a-vowel in Sabaic was never marked in writing (pp. 41-43), Stein postulates that Sabaic presents a phenomenon similar to the Arabic imala. The pronunciation of the a would have become e, and hence it would have been written with the mater lectionis y. An easier explanation is to be found in the tendency over time to write an increasing number of matres lectionis. (A very similar phenomenon is also to be seen in Qatabanic.) The earliest phase of Sabaic displays a very limited use of matres lectionis compared to other south Arabian languages. In particular, it does not write a (being in this regard wholly parallel, for instance, to epigraphic Aramaic). In later periods the a is written and, as in other Semitic languages, is the most ambiguously marked vowel. This leads us to the remarks of Robin on the possible writing of a with w and y, with which Stein does not agree (p. 41 n. 193).

The dual supplies proof for our argument: as Stein himself maintains, we must reconstruct a termination [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for the dual. The difficulty in writing this vowel is seen in the initial defective writing followed in Sabaic by normalization as -y, but as -w in Qatabanic, two ways of writing the same morphological marker. I therefore believe that the alternation of defective and full writings for these phenomena is a question of writing tradition and not of language.

As regards phonetics, Stein agrees, while mentioning some exceptions (p. 18 n. 5), with the phonetic correspondence of the three non-emphatic unvoiced sibilants suggested by Beeston: south Arabian [s.sup.1] = Semitic s; south Arabian [s.sup.2] = Semitic s; south Arabian [s.sup.3] = Semitic s, but he rejects Beeston's suggested transcription of the sibilants. In my opinion, this is wrong in a work of grammar. The "traditional" transcription system is at best ambiguous in a south Arabian text edition, but it becomes decidedly misleading in a study of phonetics, which is also presumably aimed at readers who are not specialists in south Arabian. A non-specialist is likely to be somewhat worried to see, on page 19, s listed among the lateral south Arabian consonants alongside d, while only on closer examination does it become clear that s is [s.sup.2], which, in turn, corresponds to Semitic s.

Stein often also explains phonetic changes by dialectal and diachronic variants. The development [s.sup.3] > [s.sup.1], for example, is typical for Late Sabaic: [ms.sup.3]dn becomes [ms.sup.1]dn, and the preposition [s.sup.3]n becomes s1 n. Furthermore, an interesting phonetic shift attested only in cursive texts, d instead of z, is explained by Stein as a dialectal phenomenon, since the majority of sticks on which the relevant texts are written comes from as-Sawda, in the Jawf.

In addition to dialectal or diachronic differences, Stein very reasonably considers that in regard to phonetic changes there may exist variants in the spoken language which only emerge in texts. This explanation well suits the oscillation between sibilants or the phonetic changes found in the texts on sticks mentioned earlier.

The chapters on nouns and verbs are very interesting. In particular, Stein's remarks on the states of nouns are original, and while I do not find them wholly convincing, they certainly direct attention to the issue.

If a general criticism of this significant work is to be made, it is that the author has unreasonably placed every phenomenon examined into set categories within rules. While such precision is not always easy even for well-documented dead languages, for example, ancient Greek, it is virtually impossible for a language like Sabaic.

In Sabaic the substantive can be in the construct state, determinate with an n-suffix, or have an m-suffix, which is normally defined as marking the indeterminate state. Precisely because Sabaic is attested as early as the beginning of the first millennium, the presence of a morpheme determining the substantive is something new, as for all the other Semitic languages of the same period. This phenomenon is absent in second millennium Semitic languages, and had not yet become usual, as it had, for example, in Arabic. Furthermore, south Arabian makes use of two morphological markers with a long history. The m-element was an indicator of the singular of the noun in opposition to the dual and plural marked by n. In Akkadian and Amorite the two suffixes had already lost this function and had taken on others, such as marking the determinate or indeterminate states (see Diem 1975).

Substantives with the m-suffix have posed problems of definition. Beeston found a way to highlight the issue by replacing "indeterminate state" with "absolute state," pointing out that it is difficult to define as an indefinite marker a suffix normally also applied to proper nouns, which by definition constitute the category with the greatest semantically determinate function within a linguistic system. But in addition, other examples of nouns with mimation do not fit the definition of "indeterminate substantive" as we understand it in our languages. Also, the presence of substantives with the m-suffix in Qatabanic, which can almost never be summarily defined as "indeterminate," gives an idea of the complexity of the problem.

Curiously, Stein, who is always attentive to diachronic and geographic variations of these phenomena, gives no examples of oscillation in the presence of the m-suffix. Instead, well-attested oscillations such as the Ja 633 (n. 115), an inscription from Marib: drm b-hrfm, "one time a year," should be compared to the inscription RES 4176 of the third century B.C. from the high plateau: 'lmn b-hrf, "two banquets a year," and also w-kwn mrt' 'lmn [hms.sup.1]t b-'hd hrfym Tr't, "and the payment of five banquets each year shall be on the day of Tr't," with hrf without m.

Stein does not abandon the definition of "indeterminate state" in favor of an abstract, polysemic one like "absolute state," as Beeston suggested for the noun with mimation. This is not just a more or less interesting question of terminology. Stein believes that "absolute state" is a fourth state of the noun in Sabaic, found in some nominal categories: cardinal numbers, the names of the seasons, or the points of the compass, which, as has been pointed out in previous grammatical works, has no suffix. Similar to the "absolute state" in Akkadian, these are nouns which are syntactically in the construct state but with no genitive connotation (p. 88). The employment of the "absolute state," like many uses of the m-suffix, is an issue of syntax. Postponing a study of syntax to a later work was not a good idea here, and makes the morphological phenomenon less clear.

As I continued reading with ever increasing interest, making notes on the study of grammar, it occurred to me that the readership Stein had intended to serve was first and foremost scholars of south Arabia. Because it is high time for Arabia to reach out and hold a dialogue with a broader audience, a somewhat greater effort of synthesis would have been welcome. What would be useful is not so much the creation of often highly hypothetical synoptic tables or the writing of yet another work on the grammar of epigraphic Aramaic, but rather the presentation of the novelties that our heightened knowledge of Sabaic now reveals. Although Stein did not intend to write a work of comparative grammar, he might have given proper emphasis to those aspects of Sabaic most suggestive to the scholar of comparative Semitics, distinguishing them from more trivial features of the language.

The description of the feminine substantive here is a bit too detailed, if no emphasis is given to the fact that south Arabian languages also keep the -t suffix for feminine nouns outside the construct state, an archaic feature in all of south Arabia no longer present in any first millennium Semitic language. Also concerning nouns, special mention should be made of the interesting chapter on declension (pp. 95-97), which Stein reconstructs on the basis of plural terminations (marked by matres lectionis w [nominative] and y [non-nominative]), which regularly take the substantive bn.

The chapter on verbs is one of the most interesting because of the centrality of the verbal system in every language. In these pages, the number of examples cited, the incredible wealth of the documentation presented, the new forms attested in the cursive texts, and the interest shown for a number of forms and comparisons is truly outstanding.

Here I wish to comment on a general historical linguistic issue on which I am not in complete agreement with Stein. The chapter treating the prefixing form yf'l is one of the most interesting, since it deals with general problems of linguistic classification. For years, when linguists compared the verbal isogloss yenager vs. yenger (Ethiopic and Modern South Arabian; indicative/conjunctive) to Akkadian iprus vs. iparras (preterite/present), they interpreted it as supporting the hypothesis of a layer of archaic Semitic, attested geographically on the periphery of the Semitic area and dating to a period prior to the innovation of the more recent central Semitic. Moreover, the study of Sabaic grammar carried out in recent years by Nebes has made a subjunctive yenger very unlikely, as opposed to an indicative yenager. (On the question of the subjunctive, see Nebes 1994; 1997.) Stein agrees with Nebes on the absence in south Arabian of the iprus/iparras opposition. Ancient south Arabian, therefore, seems closer to recent Semitic (Arabic) than to archaic Semitic.

Despite what I have maintained in the past, I too believe that there is no proof for the existence of the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] form in south Arabian. But in the reconstruction of archaic southern Semitic, this feature loses all its importance if we imagine an independent development of the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] form in Modern South Arabian and Ethiopic (cf. Cohen 1974: 59-78; Marrassini 2003: 465).

Much more interesting is another isogloss between ancient South Arabian and Northwest Semitic in the second millennium pointed out by Tropper (1994) and rejected by both Nebes and Stein. This regards two prefixed forms found alongside the suffixed form in both south Arabian and Ugaritic, one of which is long and the other short, the former indicating the narrative present and the second the aorist. These two forms have been proven to exist in Qatabanic, along with the later addition, by means of an obvious neo-morphologism, of the form with the b- prefix to indicate the present-future.

Perhaps having oversimplified, Tropper thought he had at least partly explained the two forms of the Sabaic "imperfect" as yf'ln = "present," yf'l = "past," and on this matter some of Stein's remarks (p. 166 n. 67) are assuredly correct. But to go so far as to deny the presence of a prefixed form indicating a "past" runs counter to the documentary evidence. Suffice it to recall yhqm mentioned earlier, which even Stein translates with the past "rachte."

Stein's explanation of the apparent past tense significance of the prefixed forms is linked to the syntactic capacity of the yf'l-form to relate to the verb of the main clause (p. 166). This may be true, but Sabaic has a way of marking temporal concomitance, namely by means of a chain of infinitives. As soon as a new action is introduced by a w-yf'l verb form, the text syntactically emphasizes a shift in style, and in these contexts, yf'l certainly has past significance.

Gruntfest (1999), who is not mentioned in the extensive bibliography, draws interesting stylistic parallels with Hebrew wa-yiqtol. In Hebrew, also, the wa-yiqtol form is to be explained, historically at least, not as a "converted" tense, but rather as a reflex of an early Semitic preterite (Huehnergard 1996: 252-53).

In sum, the Sabaic verb has no particular relationship with that in Modern South Arabian or Ethiopic, and even less with the Arabic; but it does share features with the verb of second-millennium Northwest Semitic. I am convinced that south Arabian culture and language were of endogenous formation, as opposed to a result of mass movements of people in the second and first millennium from the Levant (cf. Wilkinson 2005), and I feel sure that new knowledge of the ancient languages of southern Arabia will force us to reconsider our classification of ancient South Arabian within Semitic.

I hope that these remarks will convey an idea of the importance of this book for scholars of south Arabia and students of Semitics in general. Stein has given new prominence to a Semitic language with a long and complex history, the product of an ancient Near East culture that deserves to be better known by scholars of neighboring disciplines.


Avanzini, A. 2004. Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions I-III. Qatabanic, Marginal Qatabanic, Awsanite Inscriptions. Pisa.

______. 2005. Some Remarks on the Classification of Ancient South Arabian Languages. Quaderni di Semitistica 25: 117-25.

Cohen, D. 1978. La phrase nominale et l'evolution du systeme verbal en semitique. Paris.

Diem, W. 1975. Gedanken zur Frage der Mimation und Nunation in den semitischen Sprachen. ZDMG 125: 239-58.

Gruntfest, Y. 1999. The Consecutive Imperfect in Semitic Epigraphy. In Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, ed. Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch. Tel Aviv. Pp. 171-89.

Huehnergard, J. 1996. New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages. In The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century, ed. J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, Ind. Pp. 251-72.

Marrassini, P. 2003. Sur le sud-semitique: problemes de definition. In Melanges David Cohen, ed. J. Lentin and A. Lonnet. Paris. Pp. 461-70.

Nebes, N. 1988. The Infinitive in Sabaean and Qatabanian Inscriptions. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 18: 63-78.

______. 1994. Verwendung und Funktion der Prafixkonjugation im Sabaischen. In Arabia Felix: Beitrdge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien. Festschrift Walter W. Muller zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. N. Nebes. Wiesbaden. Pp. 191-211.

______. 1997. Stand und Aufgaben einer Grammatik des Altsudarabischen. In Aktualisierte Beitrage zum I. Internationalen Symposion Sudarabien interdisziplindr an der Universitat Graz mit kurzen Einfuhrung zu Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte, ed. R. G. Stiegner. Graz. Pp. 111-31.

______. 2001. Zur Genese der altsudarabischen Kultur: Eine Arbeitshypothese. In Migration und Kulturtransfer: Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischen Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums. Berlin, 23. bis 26 November 1999, ed. R. Eichmann and H. Parzinger. Bonn. Pp. 427-35.

Nebes, N., and P. Stein. 2003. Ancient South Arabian. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, ed. R. D. Woodard. Cambridge. Pp. 454-87.

Stein, P. 2002a. Gibt es Kasus im Sabaischen? In Neue Beitrdge zur Semitistik, ed. N. Nebes. Wiesbaden. Pp. 201-22.

______. 2002b. Zur Morphologie des sabaischen Infinitivs. Orientalia 71: 393-414.

______. 2004. Zur Dialektographie des Sabaischen. Journal of Semitic Studies 49: 225-45.

______. 2005. Linguistic Contribution to Sabaean Chronology. Archdologische Berichte aus dem Yemen 10: 179-89.

Tropper, J. 1994. Present *yaqtulum in Central Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 39: 1-6.

Voigt, R. M. 1987. The Classification of Central Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 32: 1-27.

Wilkinson, T. J. 2005. The Other Side of Sheba: Early Towns in the Highlands of Yemen. Bibliotheca Orientalis 62: 1-14.



This is a review article of: Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabaischen. By PETER STEIN. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, vol. 3. Rahden, Westphalia: VERLAG MARIE LEIDORF, 2003. Pp. xiii + 324, map.
COPYRIGHT 2006 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabaischen
Author:Avanzini, A.
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Article Type:Book review
Date:Apr 1, 2006
Previous Article:Archaeology and nation-building in Iraq.
Next Article:Die Erzahlung des Wenamun: Ein Literaturwerk im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters