Printer Friendly

Reduplicated nominal patterns in Semitic.


For more than a century, J. Barth's Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen served as the standard reference work on Semitic nominal patterns. (1) Notwithstanding its undeniable merits, it is well known that Barth's book was long in need of revision. Such an update was recently supplied by J. Fox in his Semitic Noun Patterns. (2) Fox's work not only provides a substantial improvement in terms of data, especially for languages that were not yet discovered or adequately understood in Barth's time, such as Akkadian and Ugaritic, but also (and perhaps more importantly) it introduces drastic advances in methodology that lead to improved interpretations and conclusions. (3) Nevertheless, despite improving on Barth's classic in countless ways, Fox's book has a much more limited scope than Barth's. Most notably, Fox treats only internal nominal patterns, excluding external patterns with prefixes, suffixes, or reduplication. Thus, an updated treatment of the external nominal patterns in Semitic still remains a desideratum. The current study aims to fill part of this void by providing a description of reduplicated nominal patterns in Semitic. (4)


In literature on Semitic languages, the terms reduplication and gemination have at times been employed interchangeably. (5) Nevertheless, while geminates may in some cases derive historically from reduplication, (6) there are many instances where the origin of gemination is to be sought elsewhere. (7) Consequently, reduplication is to be strictly distinguished from gemination. (8) In this study, reduplication is said to occur when a form shows a doubled segment. (9) A geminate, on the other hand, is a phonologically long consonant. (10)

Reduplication is attested in all branches of the Afroasiatic language family, including Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, and Semitic. (11) Within the Semitic branch, reduplication occurs in phonology, as in the example in (la), in root formation, as in the example in (1 b), in nominal morphology, as in the example in (lc), in verbal morphology, as in the example in (Id), and in syntax, as in the example in (le):

(1) a. Arabic qudayd[]m- 'partie la plus avancee', diminutive of qudd[]m- 'le devant' (BK 2.69 lb-92a; Lane 2985b-86b)

b. Syriac 'ar'ar 'to gargle' (SL 1141; LS 545a; TS 2974)

c. Ge'ez hamalmil 'green' from [check]hml; cf. haml 'vegetation' (LGz 233a; LLA 70-71)

d. Akkadian suqallula 'to be suspended' (CAD S3 330a-32a; AHw 1281b) from [check]sql'to weigh' (CAD S2 1a-13a; AHw 1178a-79a)

e. Sabaic wlwz''Imqhthwnb'1' wm sdq whwfyn 'dmhw bny s(1) hymm bkl 'ml' wtb[s.sub.2]r wsry yz'nn wtb[s.sub.2]rn wstryn b'mhw "and may 'Almagah Tahw[]n, master of 'Aww[]m, continue to perform and grant to his worshippers, the sons of Suhaymum, all of the favors, good news, and protection which they continue to seek from him" (Ja 615.31-34 from Jamme 1962: 114)

This study focuses primarily on reduplication that is found in nominal derivation, as in (lc). This type of reduplication is said to occur when a noun is morphologically derived by duplicating one or more root consonants.

Reduplication in nominal derivation is to be distinguished from another type of reduplication that has been termed phonological reduplication, or better compensatory reduplication, in linguistic literature.12 Compensatory reduplication is a phonologically driven process that compensates for potential inadequacies in phonological output without providing any obvious semantic import. An example of this type of reduplication was given in (la). A further example can be found in the formation of denominative verbs in Syriac. Syriac, like other Semitic languages, often derives denominative verbs with the D-stem template *[C.sub.1][VC.sub.2][C.sub.2][VC.sub.3]. Nevertheless, in a case such as gem 'muzzle' (SL 1307; LS 639a; TS 3458), a loanword from Greek kemos (GEL 947b), the only candidates for consonantal input are {q, m}. Thus, there is no phonological input for the last consonantal slot of the template *[C.sub.1][VC.sub.2][C.sub.2][VC.sub.3]. In order to compensate for this phonological inadequacy, [C.sub.2] is duplicated via compensatory reduplication resulting in qammem 'to muzzle' (SL 1378; LS 671b; TS 3458):


This duplication of [C.sub.2] is said to be compensatory reduplication since it is strictly a phonological process. (13) This type of compensatory reduplication is not limited to loanwords, but also occurs in words of native Semitic stock, e.g., Syriac pammem 'to pronounce' (SL 1204; LS 577b) from puma 'mouth' (SL 1165-66; LS 577ab; TS 3063-64). Compensatory reduplication in nominal patterns has not been systematically treated in this study, but several instances in which interpretation is either unclear or disputed will be discussed in the following sections.

Reduplication in nominal derivation must further be distinguished from reduplication in root formation, an example of which was given in (lb). It is well known that reduplication serves as a root formation process in creating quadriliteral (and quintiliteral) roots in Semitic. (14) The most common reduplicated root formations are those of the type *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.1][C.sub.2]. (15) A root type *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] also exists in several of the Semitic languages. In all of the Semitic languages, nouns can be derived from reduplicated roots in the same way as other quadriliteral (or quintiliteral) roots. (16) In Geez, for instance, the following derived nouns are formed from the root [check]fdfd 'to increase; to be numerous' (LGz 155a; LLA 1380-82): .faclfud 'excellent', fadf[]d 'excellence', fadf[]d 'superiority', fadf[]de 'abundance', fadfddann[] 'excellence', etc. (17) Nouns such as these, which involve reduplicated roots, are not systematically treated in this study since reduplication did not occur in nominal derivation, but in root formation. (18)

A final distinction is needed between nouns that are derived via pattern from existing roots in the language, i.e., deverbal (motivated) nouns, and nouns that do not share a root with another word with a similar meaning, i.e., primary (unmotivated) nouns. (19) Primary nouns with reduplication are attested in all of the Semitic languages and can also be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic, e.g., *kabkab-'star'. (20) Nevertheless, these nouns reflect a different morphological process and so are not included in this study. (21)


A few remarks on the semantic properties of reduplicated nominal patterns are necessary. In Semitic nominal derivation, reduplication often provides an extension in the meaning of a word in comparison to its non-reduplicated base. (22) There are, however, examples in which the dictionaries record no difference in meaning between a reduplicated word and its non-reduplicated base. In cases where reduplication does add meaning, reduplicated nouns in Semitic usually fall into well-defined semantic groups, most of which are cross-linguisti-cally common for reduplication, such as diminutives, intensives, sound-symbolic terms, and bodily or personal characteristics, including defects and color terms. (23) In addition, many of these semantic groups have an iconic nature, i.e., there is a clear relationship between the repetition of the consonant(s) and the semantic categories expressed. (24)

Almost all reduplicated adjectives in Semitic are qualitative adjectives. A semantic group traditionally interpreted as intensives, which mark a heightened degree of strength, depth, or fullness, is attested in several languages:

(3) a. Arabic ri's[]s- 'trembling, quivering (with intensity)' (BK 1.882a; Lane 1106ab) from [check]r's'to tremble, shiver' (BK 1.881b-882a; Lane 1106bc)

b. Ge'ez 'asabsib 'very hard' (LGz 74ab; LLA 1021) from [check]'sb 'to be difficult' (LGz 74ab; LLA 1019-21)

c. Hebrew *yapaypiy-(a)t > y[]e[]iyc 'very beautiful' (HALOT 424a) for MT y[]e-[]iyc <yphpyh> (Jer. 46:20), from [check]ypy 'to be beautiful' (HALOT 423b-24a)

Intensives such as these are cross-linguistically common with reduplication. (25)

Another particularly widespread semantic group (especially with the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]) is that of sound-symbolic terms:

(4) a. Ge'ez bar[]hraht 'glittering, sparkling' (LGz 104b; LLA 501) from [check]brh 'to shine' (LGz 103b-104a; LLA 499-501)]

b. Hebrew ptaltol 'tortuous, perverse' (HA LOT 990b) from [check]ptl N 'to wrestle, be tortuous' (HALOT 990ab)

c. Syriac 'qalqlc 'coiling, twisting' (SL 1130; LS 542b; TS 2965) from [check]'ql, cf. 'qclc 'gripping pain' (SL 1130; LS 542b; TS 2965)

These sound-symbolic terms are a type of expressive formation in which the repetition of the consonant(s) depicts a sense such as touch or sight. (26) The repetition in Ge'ez barahraht 'sparkling' (4a), for instance, represents the visual effect of the emission of numerous rays of light.

By far the most common semantic group for reduplicated adjectives is that traditionally known as bodily or personal characteristics, including color terms and defects: (27)

(5) a. Arabic hurjuj-/ hurj[]j-/hurj[]j-'lean; sharp spirited; fat; strong' (BK 1.405a; Lane 543ab) from [check]hrj, cf. harij 'lean, slender' (Lane 543a)

b. Ge'ez qay[]hyaht 'reddish' (LGz 456b; LLA 457) from [check]qyh 'to be red' (LGz 456b; LLA 457)

c. Hebrew sa'ncn 'carefree, self-confident, undisturbed' (HALOT 1375a) from [check]s'n 'to be quiet, at rest' (HALOT 1374b-75b)

This semantic group represents a subcategory of augmentatives, which mark the speaker's attitude toward the person being described. (28) Words that belong to this group are iconic, because they express an extension in meaning due to their heightened emotive, empathetic character. (29)

For substantives, the most common semantic group is that of diminutives, which is found in all of the major branches of Semitic:

(6) a. Akkadian kulb[]bu 'ant' (CAD K 501a-502b; AHw 501a), cf. kalbu 'dog' (CAD K 67b-72a; AHw. 424a-25a)

b. Arabic huburb[]r- / habarbar- 'petit d'outarde' (BK 1.366b; Lane 499b), cf. h[]b[]r[] 'out-arde' (BK 1.365b-66a; Lane 498b-500b)

c. Ge'ez daharhir 'heap of earth on which monks lean for sleeping' (LGz 121b; LLA 1102-3), cf. dabr 'mountain' (LGz 121 ab; LLA 1102-3)

d. Israeli Hebrew gvarvar 'little man' (Bolozky 1994: 49), cf. gever 'man

e. Syriac parkukc 'fragment' (SL 1241; LS 597a; 7'S 3263) from [check]prk 'to pound, grind' (SL 1240-41: LS 597a; TS 3262-64)

Although prima facie it may seem contrary to the iconicity usually associated with reduplication, diminutive formation is cross-linguistically common for reduplication. (30) There are also several other nouns that, though not historically attested as diminutives, likely derive from a diminutive meaning. such as the pejorative in (7a) and the animal term in (7b). (31)

(7) a. Arabic sur[]r-'mauvais poete' (BK 1.1238b; Lane 1560c-61a), cf. s[]'ir-'poete' (BK 1.1238a; Lane 1562a)

b. Akkadian burm[]mu 'porcupine' (CAD B 330ab; AHw 140a) from ibrm 'to be multicolored' (CAD B 103ab; AHw 105b)

Thus, the meaning of Arabic su'r[]r- 'mauvais poete' (7a) derives from *little poet'. As is the case with reduplicated adjectives, a semantic group of color terms is attested among the reduplicated substantives:

(8) a. Ge'ez hamalm[]l 'green color' (LGz 233a; LLA 70-71) from [check]hml, cf. band 'vegetation' (LGz 232; LLA 70-71)

b. Hebrew *kimrir 'darkening' (HALOT 482a) from [check]kmr (HALOT 482a), cf. Syriac kmirc 'black' (SL 630; LS 332b; TS 1757)

c. Syriac hwarwcre 'white spots' (SL 433; LS 223b; TS 1231) from [check]hwr 'to be(come) white' (SL 431-32; LS 223ab; TS 1231a)

Finally, a semantic group of sound-symbolic terms also occurs with substantives:

(9) a. Akkadian namr[]r[] 'supernatural, awe-inspiring luminosity' (CAD B 237a-38b; AHw 728b-29a, 1577b) from [check]nwr 'to dawn, shine brightly'

b. Syriac zahrirc 'splendor, ray' (SL 368-69; LS 190a; TS 1091) from "[check]zhr 'to shine, flash' (SL 368; LS 190a; TS 1088-92)

The semantic group of sound-symbolic terms is, however, more common with adjectives than it is with substantives.

4. NOMINAL PATTERNS WITH REDUPLICATION OF [C.sub.2]: *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] is extremely rare in Semitic. (32) Nouns of this pattern that involve morphological reduplication are basically limited to the modern Ethiopian languages:

(10) a. Amharic negegger 'speech' (KAmh 1064a) from [check]ngr 'to say' (KAmh 1060b-65a)

b. Tigre sebabeh 'twilight' (LH 639a) from [check]sbh 'to be(come) morning' (LH 638b-39b)

These nominal formations are probably related to the frequentative verbal stem that is productive in most modern Ethiopian languages, which also has reduplication of [C.sub.2]. (33)

Outside of the modern Ethiopian languages, most nouns of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] result from compensatory reduplication. In Arabic, for instance, compensatory reduplication occurs in the derivation of plurals, as in (11 a), and diminutives, as in (11 b):

(11) a. sin. kutt[]b-'ecole primaire' [right arrow] pl. kat[]t[]b-(BK 2.859b; Lane 2591a)

b. qudd[]m-'le devant' [right arrow] qudayd[]m-'partie la plus avancee' (BK 2.69 lb-92a; Lane 2985b-86b)

In Akkadian, a similar case of compensatory reduplication is attested in the stem-based diminutive zuq[]q[]pu 'scorpion' (CAD Z 163b-66a; AHw 1538b-39a) from [check]zqp 'to erect' (CAD Z 51a-55a; AHw 1512a-13a).(34) Although a semantic group of diminutives is common for reduplication in Semitic (and other languages of the world), Akkadian zuqaqipu 'scorpion' and Arabic forms such as qudayd[]m-'partie la plus avancee' are not examples of morphological reduplication, because reduplication in these cases only compensates for inad-equacies in phonological output. The Arabic example qudayd[]m-'partie la plus avancee', for instance, is formed according to the pattern *CuCayC[]C, which productively derives diminutives from nouns with four consonants and a long vowel in the final syllable, e.g., sirhein-'wolf [right arrow] surayh[]n-'small wolf' (BK 1.1079ab, Lane 1345c).(35) Thus, it is the diminutive nominal pattern *CuCayCiC that provides the semantic meaning of diminutive in an Arabic example such as qudayd[]m-, whereas the duplication of [C.sub.2] is the result of compensatory reduplication.

Akkadian possesses several other nouns formed according to the vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]u[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3]: (36)

(12) a. bun(n)anna 'general region of the face; outer appearance' (CAD B 317a 1 9a; AHw 138ab) from ham? 'to grow; to be pleasant' (CAD B 90b-94a; AHw 103a) (37)

b. sum[]m[]tu 'thirst' (CAD S 243a-44a: AHw 1111b) from samu 'to be thirsty"(CAD S 95b-96a; AHw 1081b)

c. tum[]m[]tum 'oath' (CAD T 470ab; AHw 1370) from taint? 'to swear' (CAD T 159a-68a: AHw 13 1 7b-1 8b) (38)

Testen analyzes this group of substantives as stem-based diminutives similar to zug[]q[]pu. (39) Nevertheless, the development of the semantic connotation is problematic. (40) Since all of the substantives in (12) involve weak roots, it seems more likely that they result from root variation between geminate and Ill-weak roots. (41) Thus, they are not examples of reduplicated nominal patterns.

5. NOMINAL PATTERNS WITH REDUPLICATION OF [C.sub.3] *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]

5.0 General Semitic

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] is attested in every branch of Semitic and so can be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic.(42) The vocalization template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3] can be reconstructed for substantives, while *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3] forms adjectives. The adjectival vocalization template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3] is attested unambiguously only in Arabic and Hebrew. In most of the languages, *C1VC, C3VC3 likely merged with the nominal pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3] due to the metathesis rule [C.sub.x]V > V [C.sub.x]/[C.sub.y]_[C.sub.x]V.(43) Thus, additional examples of the reduplicated pattern *CIVC, C3VC3 are probably to be found among adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3].(44) Semantically, adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] are usually qualitative adjectives with bodily or personal characteristics, including defects and color terms, being especially common. For substantives, the vocalization template *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3] can be reconstructed to Prow-Semitic as well as three vocalization schemes: *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3], *[C.sub.1]u[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3], and *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]i[C.sub.3]. Many substantives with the vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]u[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][]C belong to a semantic group of diminutives; a semantic group of sound-symbolic terms is also attested with the vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3].

In several Semitic languages, the feminine form of the reduplicated nominal pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]is derived with the feminine morpheme *[]. (45) In the Modern South Arabian language Jibbali, for example, sazrer (<*sizr[]r[])'yellow' (JL 265) is the feminine of masculine sazrer (<*sizr[]ri). (46) A remnant of this feminine derivation may also occur in Akkadian *s[]q[]q + *[] + *u > suqaqu 'alley' (CAD S 398b; AHw 1061ab).(47) In Syriac, the feminine morpheme *(a)t was added to *r resulting in doubly marked forms such as *'ayn[]n + *i + *(a)t > 'aynunitc 'eye' (TS 2870). (48) This same accretion of feminine morphemes may also be found in the Hebrew relic sa'rurit / sa'ruriyc 'something horrible' (HALOT 1619a). (49)

5.1 Akkadian

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]is only attested with substantives in Akkadian. (50) The adjectival pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]likely merged with the nominal pattern [C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]due to the metathesis rule [C.sub.x]V > V[C.sub.x] / [C.sub.y]_ [C.sub.x]V. Consequently, examples of the reduplicated adjectival pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]are probably to be found among adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]. (51) The vocalization template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3] forms substantives. A semantic group of diminutives is attested for this pattern: (52)

(13) a. kulb[]bu 'ant' (CAD K 501a-502b; AHw 501 a), cf. kalbu 'dog' (CAD K 67b-72a; Allw 424a-25a)

b. s[]q[]qu 'alley' (CAD S 398b; AHw 1061 ab), cf. si[]qu 'to become narrow' (CAD S 169b-70b; AHw 1039a) (53)

The following two animal terms are probably also related to a diminutive meaning:

(14) a. burm[]mu 'porcupine' (CAD B 330ab; AHw 140a) from "[check]brm 'to be multicolored' (CAD B 103ab; AHw 105b)

b. namb[]btu (nambamtu) 'wasp' (CAD B 224a; AHw 726b) from [check]nwb, cf. n[]btu 'honeybee' (CAD N2 309a; AHw 800a)

The template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3] is also attested with a sound-symbolic meaning:

(15) a. namr[]r[] 'supernatural, awe-inspiring luminosity' (CAD B 237a-38b; AHw 728b-29a, 1577b) from [check]nwr 'to dawn, shine brightly' (AHw 768b-70a; 04D N1 209a-19b) Other examples of the substantival template *[C.sub.1][][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]are rare.(54)

A vocalization template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]t, which is reliably attested only in the feminine, can be found in the dictionaries for two substantives:

(16) a. isbabtu (a grass or a weed)' (CAD H 233b-34a; AHw 393a) from *^kgb, cf. es[]bu 'to grow luxuriantly' (CAD E 352a; AHw 253b)

b. sabrartu 'deathly silence; devastation' (CAD S1 100b; AHtiv 1 132b) from \i, c/2r, cf. suharrura 'to become dazed, still, numb with fear' (CAD S3 203b-4b; AHw 1 260b-6 la)

On the basis of comparative evidence, these substantives should either be normalized with a long vowel in the second syllable and thus connected with the substantival template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]or alternatively be analyzed as remnants of the adjectival pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]with the feminine ending *-(a)t as an abstract ending.

5.2 Arabic

Classical Arabic has more examples of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] than the other Semitic languages, though most of the words do not occur with great frequency. (55) In many of these nouns, the quality of the leftmost vowel is secondary due to the vowel assimilation rule *a > [V.sub.x]/ _[CC[].sub.x]. (56) For instance, the Arabic vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]u[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3], which is not attested in the other Semitic languages, is to be explained as a secondary development from *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]due to vowel assimilation.

Adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]are usually formed in Arabic according to the vocalization template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]. This template, however, likely derives from the Proto-Semitic adjectival template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]with the final vowel being secondarily lengthened in order to avoid a merger with the nominal pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3]due to the metathesis rule [C.sub.x]V > V[C.sub.x]/[C.sub.y]_[C.sub.x]V. (57) This lengthening of the vowel was likely reinforced by analogy to the West-Semitic adjectival pattern *CiaCA/iC3, which has a long vowel in the final syllable. (58) In several cases, the Proto-Semitic adjectival template *CIVC, C3VC3 is also attested as a by-form. These developments can be exemplified by an adjective such as qumdud-'fort. robuste et au corps epais (homme)' (BK 2.810b; Lane 2562ab), which exhibits lengthening of the final vowel in quituitid-, but metathesis in qumudd-. Most adjectives of the pattern C1C, C3C3 belong to the semantic group of bodily or personal characteristics, including defects and color terms: (59)

(17) a. 'ulf[]f-'coarse, rough, rude; large, big, bulky' (BK 2.343a; Lane 2132a) from [check]'lf 'to feed' (BK 2.342a-43a, Lane 2131a-32b)

b. buhl[]l-'rieur; moqueur; (one) that shrinks from foul things; noble' (BK 1.173b; Lane 267c) from [check]bhl laisser quelqu'un libre; maudire' (BK 1.172b-73b; Lane 267b-68a)

c. 'clamorous; (one) who exults greatly, behaves insolently' (BK 1.136a; Lane 217bc) from [check]btr 'etre tres-gai; etre petulant, etre insolent' (BK 1.136a; Lane 217abc)

d. da'bub-/ da'bub-/ da'b[]b- 'brisk, lively; stupid (with intensity)' (BK 1.699a; Lane 881ab) from [check]d'b 'to jest, joke' (BK 1.698b-99a; Lane 881ab)

e. duyr[]r-'mechant, qui se plait a faire du mal aux autres' (BK 1.707b) from "[check]dyr 'etre d'un mauvais caractere, mechane (BK I .707ab; Lane 885c-86a)

f. fardad-/ furd[]d-'unique dans son genre, incomparable' (BK 2.565b; Lane 2363c-64a) from '[check]frd 'to be(come) single' (BK 2.564b-66b; Lane 2363b-65a)

g. hulb[]b- 'intensely black' (BK 1.477b; Lane 624c) from [check]hlb, cf. hulub-'black' (BK 1.477a; Lane 624b)

h. hulk[]k-'intensely black' (BK 1.482b; Lane 631c) from [check]hlk 'to be(come) intensely black' (BK 1.482b; Lane 631 bc)

i. hin[eth]i[eth]-'(a man) that sweats much' (BK 1.502b; Lane 656b) from [check]hn[eth] 'to roast' (BK 1.502b; Lane 656abc)

j. hurjuj-/ hurj[]j- / hirj[]j-'lean; sharp spirited; fat; strong' (BK 1.405a; Lane 543ab) from [check]hri, cf.harij-'lean, slender' (Lane 543a)

k. kahr[]r-'homme aux traits severes, a l' air rebarbatif, qui chasse tout le monde de sa presence' (BK 2.939a) from [check]khr 'to revile; to oppress' (BK 2.939a; Lane 2635a)

1. lihm[]m-/ lihmim-/ lahm[]m-tres-genereux, large dans ses dons (homme)' (BK 2.1034b) from [check]lhm, cf. lahm-'tres-genereux' (BK 2.1034a)

m. mitr[]r-'criarde et devergondee (femme)' (BK 2.1123a) from [check]mtr 'to rain' (BK 2.1122a-23a; Lane 2721c-22c)

n. nihr[]r 'soundly, or thoroughly, learned' (BK 2.1213b; Lane 2774c) from "[check]nhr 'to know affairs soundly, or thoroughly' (BK 2.1212b-13b; Lane 2774a-75a)

o. qumd[]d-/ qumdud-/ qumudd-'fort, robuste et au corps epais (homme)' (BK 2.810b; Lane 2562ab) from [check]qmd 'to be(come) tall, long' (BK 2.810b; Lane 2562ab)

p. qayd[]d-'easy to be led; long, or tall, she-ass' (BK 2.832a; Lane 2573c) from [check]qwd 'to lead' (BK 2.831a-33a; Lane 2572c-74a)

q. ra'b[]b-'a cowardly man, who sees nothing without being frightened' (BK 1.879a; Lane 1104b) from [check]rb 'to fear' (BK 1.878a-79b; Lane 1103c-4c)

r. ri'd[]d-'cowardly; quaking, quivering; soft, tender' (BK 1.881a; Lane 1105) from [check]rd Gt (VIII) 'to tremble, shiver' (BK 1.880b-81a; Lane 1105a-6a)

s. ri's[]s- / ras[]s-'trembling, quivering (with intensity)' (BK 1.882a; Lane 1106ab) from [check]rs 'to tremble, shiver' (BK 1.88 lb-82a; Lane 1106bc)

t. ruhs[]s-'qui donne beaucoup de lait (chamelle); gene'reux, bienfaisant' (BK 1.937b) from [check]rhs, cf. rah[]s- 'qui a du lait en abundance (chamelle)' (BK 1.937b)

u. sikt[]t-'constantly silent' (BK 1.1113b; Lane 1390b) from[check]rhs 'to be(come) silent' (BK 1.1113ab; Lane 1389b-90c)

v. suqd[]d-'amaigri (cheval)' (BK 1.1105b) from [check]sqd D (II) 'amaigrir' (BK 1.1105b)

w. timl[]l-/ tuml[]l-/ timl[]l-'gueux, miserable, pauvre et mechant' (BK 2.109b), cf. timl-'vil, bas, ignoble; mechant, criminel' (BK 2.109ab)

x. timr[]r-/ tumr[]r-/ timrir-/ timirr-'fleet, swift, excellent (horse)' (BK2.107ab; Lane 1879c-80a) from [check]tmr 'to hide; fill; leap' (BK 2.106b-107b; Lane 1879b-80c)

y. zu'l[]l- 'light, active' (BK 1.992a; Lane 1232b) from [check]z'm 'to be(come) brisk, lively, active' (BK 1.991 b-92a; Lane 1232b)

z. zu'm[]m-'qui a la parole embarrasee' (BK 1.993a) from [check]z'm 'to say' (B.K. 1.992a-93a; Lane 1232b-34a)

aa. zu'r[]r- 'ill-natured' (BK 1.990a, Lane 1231a) from [check]z'r 'to be(come) scanty' (BK 1.990a; Lane 123 lab)

bb. zihl[]l- / zuhl[]l- 'quick, swift' (BK 1.979a; Lane 1220b) from '[check]zhl to remove, withdraw; to be(come) distant, remote' (BK 1.978b-79a; Lane I 220abc)

A number of these adjectives are traditionally interpreted as intensives. Additional examples of the reduplicated adjectival pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3] are also to be found among adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3]. (60)

Substantives are usually formed according to the vocalization template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][VC.sub.3][C.sub.3]. Among these substantives, a semantic group of diminutives (18a c) is attested as well as a semantically related pejorative (18d): (61)

(18) a. hubr[]r-/ hibr[]r-'petit d'outarde' (BK 1.366b; Lane 499b), cf. hub[]r[] 'outarde' (BK 1.366b; Lane 498b-500b)

b. hins[]s-'petit de tigre' (BK 1.640a; Lane 817a) from [check]hns, cf. hinnawsat-'petit de tigre' (BK 1.640a; Lane 817a)

c. ju'r[]r-'espece d'insecte' (BK 1.300a), cf. ja'[]r-'hyene'(BK 1.299b; Lane 429bc)

d. su'r[]r-'mauvais poete' (BK 1.1238b; Lane 1560c-61a), cf. s[]'ir-'poete' (BK 1.1238a; Lane 1562a)

A semantic group of sound-symbolic terms is also found among these substantives:

(19) a. 'ujr[]r-'raie que le vent fait sur le sable' (BK 2.176a) from [check]'jr 'to bend, twist' (BK 175a-76a; Lane 1958a-59b)

b. si'r[]rat-/ su'r[]rat-'daybreak; rays of the sun entering an aperture of a house' (BK 1.1092a; Lane 1363e) from s'r-'to light' (BK 1.1091a-92a; Lane 1363a-64b)

There is also a semantic group related to the anatomy of humans and animals: (62)

(20) a. hurk[]k-'branches of the two shoulder-blades of a horse' (BK 1.413b; Lane 553c), cf. h[]rik-'idem' (BK 1.413a; Lane 553c) and harkakat-'haut de la hanche' (BK 1.413b)

b. ju'sus-'breast, chest' (BK 1.245; Lane 370ab), cf. ja's-'fright; soul, heart' (BK 1.245a; Lane 370a). See also SED 1.90-91.

c. luyd[]d-/ liyd[]d-'lobe de l'oreille, le has de l'oreille' (BK 2.1005a; Lane 2664ab), cf. luyd-'idem' (BK 2.1005a; Lane 2664ab) Other examples of the substantival template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3] include (63)

(21) a. du'l[]l-'calamity, misfortune; confusion' (BK 1.660b; Lane 840b) from [check]d'l 'marcher avec peine, comme un homme faible, infirme' (BK 1.660b; Lane 840ab)

b. dah[]r[]r-(pl.) 'temps anciens; misfortunes, calamities' (BK 1.741b; Lane 924a) from [check]dhr, cf. dahr-'time' (BK 1.741ab; Lane 923ab)

c. fays[]sat-'weakness and laxness' (BK 2.653b; Lane 2471b) from [check]fys 'to glorify, boast' (BK 2.653ab; Lane 2471 ab)

d. qayl[]lat-'habitude de faire la sieste; sieste' (BK 2.848a) from [check]qyl 'to sleep during midday' (BK 2.847a-48a; Lane 2997c)

e. sa'al[]l-(pl.) 'things and persons scattered or dispersed' (BK 1.1241b; Lane 1564a) from [check]s'l 'allumer, disperser' (BK 1.1240b-4113; Lane 1563b-64c)

f. simt[]t-/ sumt[]t-/simt[]t 'troupe, bande' (BK 1.1270b) from [check]smt 'meler, melanger une chose avec une autre' (BK 1.1270ab)

g. tumr[]r-'old and worn-out garment' (BK 2.107b; Lane 1879c), cf. timr-'idem' (BK 2.107a; Lane 1879c)

h. [eth]ayr[]r-'confins, frontiere' (BK 1.226a; Lane 338c-39a) from [check]Oyr 'briser, rompre' (BK 1.225b-26a; Lane 338b-39a), cf. [eth]ulayr-'confins' (BK 1.226a; Lane 338c-39a)

These substantives do not fall into any clear semantic groups.

5.3 Ge'ez

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] is attested only with substantives in Geez. (64) Due to the metathesis rule [C.sub.x]V > V[C.sub.x]/[C.sub.y]_[C.sub.x]V, the adjectival template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3] likely merged with the nominal pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3], which is unidentifiable because gemination is not marked in the orthography of the written language. The only vocalization template that is reliably attested for this pattern is *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3], the feminine of which is *[C.sub.1]e[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]e[C.sub.3]t < *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]t, where V = {u, i }. (65) This vocalization template forms the following substantives: (66)

(22) a.der[k.sup.w]e[k.sup.w]t'doorpost' (LGz 142b; LLA 1095) from [check]drk 'be rough' (LGz 142b; LLA 1095), cf. madrak 'doorway, doorpost' (LGz 142b; LAA 1095)

b. kelsest 'sheaf, bundle' (LGz 284a; LLA 818) from [check]klz (with assimilation); (67) cf. Arabic kalaza I-assembler' (BK 2.923b)

c. kanfif 'border, limit' (LGz 287a; LLA 858) from [check]knf, cf. bill' 'wing, border' (LGz 287a; LLA 858)

d. sanh[]h 'burnt offering, sacrifice' (LGz 560b; LLA 1285-86) from [check]snh, cf. Tigre sanha 'censer' (LH 642a) and Ge'ez 'asn[]hneha 'to shake a censer' (LGz 560b)

These substantives do not fall into any clear semantic groups. (68)

In Ge'ez, there are also a number of nouns of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]that derive from reduplicated roots of the same shape. (69) Nouns from these roots are built according to the standard quadriliteral nominal patterns. (70) From the root damsasa 'to abolish, obliterate' (LGz I 36a; LLA 1088-89), for instance, the following nouns are derived: damsasi 'destroyer', demsus 'the one destroyed', demsus 'destruction', etc. These nouns are examples of reduplication in root formation, but are not sensu stricto reduplicated nominal patterns.

5.4 Hebrew

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] forms both adjectives and substantives in Biblical Hebrew. (71) With the exception of rd'nan 'leafy' (HALOT 1269a) and sa'ncn 'carefree' (HALOT 1375a), all examples of this pattern are limited in frequency, being attested at most several times and often only once in the Hebrew Bible.

The vocalization template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]forms adjectives. A semantic group of bodily or personal characteristics is attested among these adjectives:

(23) a. *'umlal > 'umlal 'frail' (HALOT 63b) from [check]ml Dp to dry out, dwindle' (HALOT 63ab) (72)

b. *sa'nan > sa'ncn 'carefree, self-confident, undisturbed' (HALOT 1375a) from [check]s'n to be quiet, at rest' (HALOT 1374b-75b)

Additional qualitative adjectives include (73)

(24) a. *gabnun-[]m > gabnunnim '(many-peaked)' (HALOT 174a) from [check]gbn. 'to curve', cf. gibbet, 'hunchbacked' (HALOT 174a)

b. *rd'nan > ra"ncn 'leafy, luxuriant' (HALOT 1269a) from [check]r'n 'to be leafy' (HALOT 1268b-69a)

Further examples of the reduplicated pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] are probably to be found among adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3], especially those related to bodily or personal characteristics, including color terms, e.g., 'dummim 'reddish(-brown)' (HALOT 15a).(74)

The vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]forms substantives. A semantic group of color terms is attested among these substantives:

(25) a. *kamr[]r > *kimrir 'darkening' (HALOT 482a) from [check]kmr (HALOT 482a), cf. Syriac kmirc 'black' (SL 630; LS 332b; TS 1757)

b. *pa'r[]r > pa(')rur 'redness' (HALOT 909a) from [check]p'r D 'to glorify' (HALOT 908b)

Other examples of the substantival pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]include(75)

(26) a. *abt[]t > 'abtit '(debt, deposit)' (HALOT 778b) from [check]'bt 'to borrow' (HALOT 798ab), cf. 'bot; 'deposit' (HALOT 777b)

b. *na'p[]p-[]m > *na'[]u[]im 'offspring of adultery' (HALOT 658a) from [check]'bt 'to commit adultery' (HALOT 658a)

c. *nahl[]l > *na[h.sup.a]lol 'drinking place, watering place' (HALOT 676a) from [check]nhl D 'to escort' (HALOT 675b-76a), cf. Arabic nahila 'gaiter un peu d'un breuvage' (BK 2.1358ab; Lane 3039a)

d. *sagr[]r > sagrir 'cloudburst' (HALOT 743b) from [check]sgr (HALOT 743b), cf. Syriac sagrc 'rain' (SL 970; LS 460a; TS 2527)

e. *.sa'r[]r-at > sa'rur 'horrible things' (HALOT 1619a) from [check]s'r (HALOT 1614b), perhaps compare Arabic sa'ara 'to light (a fire); excite' (BK 1.1091a-92a; Lane 1363a-64b). Cf. sa'rurit / sa'ruriyc 'something horrible' (HALOT 1619a)

These substantives do not fall into any clear semantic groups.

In Hebrew, there are several additional substantives with reduplication of C3 that involve II-w roots: (76)

(27) a. 'olel 'child' (HALOT 798ab; 131)13 760h) from [check]'w/ 'to suckle' (HALOT 797b; BDB 732a)

b. 'olcl 'child' (HALOT 798ab; BDB 760b) from [check]'wl 'to suckle' (HALOT 797b; BDB 732a)

c. sobcb '(backturning [?])' (HALOT 1434b-35a; BDB 1000a) from [check]swb 'to bring back' (HALOT 1427b-35a; BDB 996b-1000b)

It remains unclear whether these nouns derive from *[C.sub.1]aw [C.sub.3][C.sub.3]or *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]. (77) Nonetheless, the reduplication of [C.sub.3] in these nouns is likely due to compensatory reduplication. (78)

5.5 Syriac

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] is only attested with substantives in Syriac. Due to the metathesis rule [C.sub.x]V > V[C.sub.x]/[C.sub.y]_[C.sub.x]V, the adjectival template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3] likely merged with the nominal pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3], which, as in the case of Geez, is mostly unidentifiable because of the orthography of the written language.79 The most common vocalic realization of the substantival template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3] is *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]> *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]u[C.sub.3]c. The feminine of this pattern is doubly marked with the feminine morphemes *[] and *(a)t, e.g., 'aynunitc 'eye' (TS 2870).8 Most substantives of the pattern *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]u[C.sub.3]c are diminutives, and almost all of the examples can probably be traced back to such an origin: (81)

(28) a. 'amquqyctc' pits, ditches' (SL 1113; LS 532a; TS 2918) from [check]'mq 'to be(come) deep' (SL 1113; LS 531a-32a; TS 2916-18)

b. 'aynunitc 'eye' (TS 2870), cf. 'aync 'eye' (SL 1097; LS 522ab; TS 2867)

c. 'azrur(t)c 'swaddling clothes' (SL 1091; LS 519b; TS 2855) from [check]zr, cf. Arabic 'azara 'to prevent, to tie' (BK 243ab; Lane 1034c-35a)

d. dahlulc 'wonder, miracle; terror, scarecrow' (SL 291; LS 149ab; TS 865) from [check]dhl 'to fear' (St 290-91; LS 148b-49b; TS 862-66)

e. haldudc 'mouse' (SL 453; LS 233b) from [check]mrt to creep' (SL 453; LS 233ab; TS 1276)

f. martut 'cloak' (SL 832; LS 404b, TS 2224) from [check]prd 'to tear out, pluck' (St 831-32; LS 404ab; TS 2223-24)

g. pardudc 'little bits' (St 1228: LS 593b) from [check]prd 'to flee' (St 1227-28; LS 593ab; TS 3236-39)

h. parkuka 'fragment' (SL 1241; LS 597a; TS 3263) from [check]prk 'to pound, grind' (St 1240-41; LS 597a; TS 3262-64)

i. partutci 'fragment' (St 1256; LS 609b; TS 3312) from [check]prt 'to split, pierce' (SL 1255; LS 609b-10a; TS 3311-13)

j. rahsusc 'reptile, creeping thing' (SL 1459; LS 726a; TS 3892) from [check]rhs 'to move; to crawl, creep' (SL 1458-59; LS 726a; TS 3890-93)

Several other diminutives of the pattern [C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]are also found in Syriac. (82)

The vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]i[C.sub.3]> *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]i[C.sub.3]c is limited to two nouns in Syriac. First, this vocalization scheme forms a sound-symbolic substantive in zahrirc 'splendor, ray' (SL 368-69; LS 190a; TS 1091) from zhr'to shine, flash' (SL 368; LS 190a; TS 1088-92). This substantive probably represents an ancient retention to be compared with Akkadian namrirli 'supernatural, awe-inspiring luminosity' (15a). In the second instance, the vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]i[C.sub.3]c(< *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]i[C.sub.3]) forms an adjective in bacrird (bdrirayd) 'uncultivated, brutal, harsh' (SL 173; LS 85a; TS 566-67) from [check]b'r, cf. b'irc 'animal, beast' (SL 170; LS 84b-85b; TS 565-67). It is likely, however, that this adjective is derived from the reduplicated root [check]b'rr 'to make brutish' (ST 173; LS 85b; TS 566) according to the adjectival pattern *[C.sub.a]CCiC.(83) Thus, ba'rirc probably does not represent an instance of reduplication in nominal derivation.

In Syriac, there is also a small group of abstract substantives derived according to the vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]u[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]a[C.sub.3]> *[C.sub.1]u[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]c[C.sub.3]c:

(29) a. 'ubbcdc 'servitude' (St 1076; LS 506b), cf. [check]'bd 'to work' (SL 1054-60; LS 504a-6b; TS 2765-81) and +17dd 'to enslave' (SL 1060-61; LS 506b; TS 2771)

b. 'urdcdc 'gnawing away' (SL 1086; LS 547b; TS 2987), cf. [check]rd Dt 'to gash' (SL 1135; LS 547b; TS 2987-88) and [check]rdd 'to cut, tear to pieces' (SL 1136; LS 547b; TS 2987)

c. purdcdc 'crumbling' (SL 1169; LS 593b; TS 3237), cf. [check]prd 'to flee' (SL 1227-28; LS 593ab; TS 3236-39) and [check]prdd 'to break up, crush to pieces' (SL 1228; LS 593ab; TS 3237) as well as pardude 'little bits' (SL 1228; LS 593b)

These substantives probably derive from reduplicated roots of the type *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]according to the vocalization scheme *CuCC[]C, which is productive in forming abstract substantives from D-stem verbs and, by extension, quadriliteral roots. (84) Thus, the nouns in (29) are likely the result of reduplication in root formation and are not sensu stricto reduplicated nominal patterns.

6. NOMINAL PATTERNS WITH REDUPLICATION OF [C.sub.2] AND [C.sub.3]: *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]

6.0 General Semitic

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] occurs throughout West Semitic, but is absent from East Even though it is not found in East Semitic, the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] can be reliably reconstructed to Proto-Semitic since similar forms are attested in other Afroasiatic languages, such as Egyptian swtwt 'Spazierweg' (EG 4.1 78) and whahs 'Uberhebung' (EG 1.2 340). (86) Both adjectives and substantives occur in West Semitic with the former being more common than the latter. In West Semitic, *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2][][C.sub.3] can be reconstructed as the vocalization template for adjectives and *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3] as the vocalization template for substantives. (87) Most substantives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] have no discernable semantic characteristics, although isolated examples of diminutives are found in Ge'ez, Arabic, and Israeli Hebrew. (88) Adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3], on the other hand, have clear semantic characteristics: almost all of them are qualitative adjectives that fall into well-defined semantic groups, such as diminutives, intensives, sound-symbolic terms, and bodily or personal characteristics, including defects and color terms. (89) Notably, color terms are found in all of the West-Semitic languages, though with language-specific semantic connotations. In Arabic, these adjectives are traditionally considered intensives, whereas they are usually glossed as diminutives in Geez. For Hebrew, both interpretations are found in the literature.(90)

6.1 Akkadian

No derived nouns of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] are attested in Akkadian. (91)

62 Arabic

The pattern *CiC2C3C2C3 is relatively rare in classical Arabic.(92) The vocalization template *CiaC, aC3C, VC3 forms substantives while *C1aC2aC3C2VC3 forms adjectives. Almost all adjectives of this pattern fall into a semantic group of color terms and bodily or personal characteristics, especially defects: (93)

(30) a. 'abalbal-'great' (BK 2.159b; Lane 1942a) from [check]'bl 'to be(come) large' (BK 2.158b-95b; Lane 1941b-42a)

b. 'afarfarai-'mechant et malfaisant' (BK 2.298b), cf. 'ifir-'machant et ruse comme un demon' (BK 2.297b; Lane 2089c-90a)

c. 'aramram-'hard, strong, vehement' (BK 2.235b; Lane 2025c-26a) from [check]'rm'etre dur a l'egard des autres' (BK 2.234b-35b; Lane 2024c-26a)

d. 'asabsab-'vehement, severe' (Lane 2060a) from [check]'sb 'to be twisted' (BK 2.266b-69a; Lane 2057a-60b)

e. 'a[eth]am[eth]am-'strong' (BK 2.172b; Lane 1954b) from [check]'[eth]m, cf. cay[eth]am-'big, bulky, tall' (Lane 1954b)

f. barahrahat-'white, soft, tender' (Lane 196bc) from [check]brh 'to return to health, be white (of the body)' (BK 1.118b 1 9a; Lane 196abc)

g. damakmak-'fort, robuste (homme, animal); qui tourne avec rapidite et moud fin (meule)' (BK 1.7340 from [check]dmk, cf. 'tres-rapide'

h. yasamsam-'one who acts with much wrongfulness; bold' (BK 2.470b; Lane 2261 ab) from [check]ys, 'to act or treat wrongly' (BK 2.470ab; Lane 2261 ab)

i. hajafjaf-'qui a un grand ventre' (BK 2.1393b) from [check]hjf 'avoir faim' (BK2.1393ab)

j. haqabqab-'hard, or firm, and strong, or robust' (BK 2.1430b; Lane 2897), cf. haqh-'width; amplitude; largeness' (BK 2.1430b; Lane 2897b)

k. hawarwarat-'femme qui petit ou qui peest pres de sa perte' (BK-2.1457) from [check]hwr 'to throw down, demolish' (BK 2.1456b-57a; Lane 2906c-7a)

I. hawarwarat-'femme qui a la peau tres-blanche' (BK 1.511a; Lane 666b) from [check]hwr 'etre d'un noir et d'un blanc bien prononce' (BK 509a-1 lb; Lane 665a-67b)

m. kuouboub-'liar' (BK 2.878b; Lane 2600ab) from [check]kob, 'to lie' (BK 2.877a-78b; Lane 2597c-2600b)

n. salajlaj-/ sulajlaj-'bon, excellent' (BK 1.1120a; Lane 1401c-2a) from [check]slj, cf. salij-'bon, excellent' (BK 1120a; Lane 1401c-2a)

o. sara'ra'at-'tres-rapide a la course' (BK 1.1082b) from [check]sr' 'to he quick' (BK 1.1081b-82b; Lane 1349b-50c)

p. samahmah-'fort, robuste et d'un corps epais; chauve, rase' (BK 1.1369a) from '[check]smh, cf. 'asmah-'fort, brave' (BK 1.1369a)

q. samakmak-'puant, fetide; fort, robuste' (BK 1.1373a) from [check]smk XI 'etre en colere; etre epais' (BK 1.1372b-73a)

r. warahrahat-'sotte, stupide (femme)' (BK 2.1525b) from "[check]wrh 'etre sot, stupide, imbEcile' (BK 2.1525b-26a)

A number of these adjectives are traditionally interpreted as intensives. (94) In addition, a sound-symbolic term occurs in darahrahat-'shining, bright-shining (star)' (BK 693b: Lane 876b) from [check]drh 'to repel' (BK 693b; Lane 876ab).

The substantival template *CiaC2aC3C2VC3 is extremely rare in Arabic, but a diminutive is attested in huburb[]r-/ habarbar-'petit d'outarde' (BK 1.366b; Lane 499b), cf. hub[]r[] 'outarde' (BK 1.365b-66a; Lane 498b-500b).

6.3 Ge'ez

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] forms both adjectives and substantives in Geez.(95) The adjectival template *C1aC2aC3C2VC3 is preserved only in the feminine form *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3], (96) e.g., qaylityaht 'reddish' (LGz 456b; LLA 457). Most adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]are formed according to the vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2][][C.sub.3]> *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3]. This form with an historic long vowel in the third syllable likely arose as a back-formation from the feminine pattern *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]e[C.sub.3]t, where the rightmost vowel could be interpreted as underlying-long due to a Proto-Semitic rule whereby long vowels are shortened in closed syllables. (97) In addition to *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]e[C.sub.3]t, *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2][][C.sub.3] occurs as a feminine form of *C1aC2aC3C2iC3.98 A semantic group of color terms is found among adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]:

(31) a. lyamalmil 'green' (LGz 233a; LLA 70-71) from [check]hml, cf. lyaml 'vegetation' (LGz 232; LLA 70-71)

b. gayahydht 'reddish' (LGz 456b; LLA 457) from [check]qyh 'to be red' (LGz 456b: LLA 457)

c. tydacrid 'whitish' (LGz 242b; LLA 1307) from [check]s'd(w) 'to be white' (LGz 542b-43a; LLA 1306-7)

The remainder of the adjectives of this pattern fall into various semantic groups that are widely attested for reduplication, such as the intensive in (32a), the diminutive in (32b), the sound-symbolic term (32c), and the personal characteristics in (32d e):

(32) a. 'assabsib 'very hard' (LGz 74ab; LLA 1021) from [check]'sb 'to be difficult' (LGz 74ab; LLA 1019-21)

b. mantantin 'petty, very small' (LGz 352b, 372b-73a; LLA 224) from [check]mtn, cf. 'ratan 'measure' (372b-73a)

c. barahrdht 'glittering, sparkling' (LGz 104b; LLA 501) from [check]brh 'to shine' (LGz 103b-4a; LLA 499-501)

d. 'abadbid 'foolish, inept' (LGz 3a; LLA 761-62) from [check]'bd 'to be insane, rage' (LGz 2b-3a; LLA 760-62)

e. hazanzin 'mournful, lugubrious' (LGz 253b-54a; LLA 123) from [check]han 'to be sad' (LGz 253b-54a; LLA 122-24).

Additional qualitative adjectives include

(33) a. damanmin 'Obscure' (LGz 135a; LLA 1091) from [check]dmn, cf. damman[] 'cloud' (LGz 134b-35a; LLA 1090-91)

b. ma'ar'ir 'sweet' (LGz 327a; LLA 207) from [check]m'r . cf. ma'[]r'honey' (LGz 326b-27a; LLA 207)

The vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2][][C.sub.3]forms the following substantives in Ge'ez: (99)

(34) a. dabarbir 'heap of earth on which monks lean for sleeping' (LGz 121b; LLA 1102 3), cf. dabr 'mountain' (LGz 121 ab; LLA 1102-3)

b. gabatb[]t 'stomach disease' (LGz 180a; LLA 1175) from [check]gbt, cf. gabt colic, stomach ache' (LGz 180a; LLA 1174-75)

c. hamalm[]l 'green color' (LGz 233a; LLA 70-71) from [check]hml, cf. haml 'vegetation' (LGz 232; LLA. 70-71)

d. natabt[]b 'drop' (LGz 587a; LLA 697) from [check]ntb 'to drop, trickle' (LGz 408a; LLA 696-97)

The diminutive in (34a), the personal defect in (34b), and the color term in (34c) should be noted. In Geez, there are also a small number of substantives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]that occur in otherwise unattested vocalization schemes. (100)

6.4 Hebrew

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]is relatively rare in Biblical Hebrew. (101) The vocalization template *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3]forms substantives, while *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3]forms adjectives. The most common vocalic scheme of the adjectival template is *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3]. A semantic group of color terms is attested among these adjectives:

(35) a. *'adamdam > 'damdcm 'bright red, reddish' (HALOT 15a) from [check]dm 'to be red' (HALOT 15a)

b. *saharhur-(a)t > sharhoret '(darkish colour [of the face])' (HALOT 1469b) from [check]yrq 'black' (HALOT 1466b)

c. *yaraqraq > yraqray 'yellowish-green, pale' (HALOT 441a) from [check]yrq 'to be green (HALOT 440b-41a)

Adjectives of the template *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3]also occur in a semantic group of sound-symbolic terms:

(36) a. *'aqalqal-at > ("yak/allot 'twisting' (HALOT 874a) from [check]'q1 (HALOT 423b-24a)

b. *hapakpak > ha[]akpak 'crooked (way)' (HALOT 254a) from [check]hpk 'to overthrow' (HALOT 2531-54a)

c. *halaqlaq-[]t > halaglaqqot, 'smooth, slippery places' (HALOT 324b) from [check]hlq 'smooth' (HALOT 323ab)

d. *pataltul > ptaltol 'tortuous, perverse' (HALOT 990b) from [check]ptl N 'to wrestle, be tortuous' (HALOT 990ab)

Finally, one adjective of this pattern is an intensive: *yapaypiy-(a)t > y[]e[]iyc 'very beautiful' (HALOT 424a) for MT y[]e-[]iyc <yph-pyh> (Jer. 46.20), from [check]ypy 'to be beautiful' (HALOT 423b-24a).102

The substantival template *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3]is basically limited to the following examples:

(37) a. *'asaps[]p > *'sa[]su[] 'bunch of vagabonds' (HALOT 75a) from [check]'sp 'to gather' (HALOT 74a-75a)

b. * habarb[]r-[]t > *habarburot 'skin-specks' (HALOT 288b) from [check]hbr C 'to be brilliant' (HALOT 287b), cf. Proto-Semitic hi/ab(V)r-'spot on the skin' (SED 1.103-4)

c. *paqahqah > *pqahqoah 'liberation' (HALOT 960a) for MT pqah-qoah (Isa. 61.1) from [check]pqh'to open' (HALOT 959ab)

These substantives do not fall into any clear semantic groups.

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] became increasingly more common throughout the history of Hebrew to the point that it is partially productive in Israeli Hebrew. (103) With substantives, the pattern forms diminutives, such as klavlav 'little dog' from kelev 'dog' and gvarvar 'little man' from Over 'man.' With adjectives, especially those denoting colors and physical char-acteristics, the pattern is usually glossed with 'ish', such as kxalxal 'bluish' from kaxol 'blue', ktantan 'smallish' from katan 'small', and smanman 'fattish' from samen 'fat'. (104)

6.5 Syriac

The pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]is rare in Syriac. (105) The vocalization template *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2][][C.sub.3]forms substantives, while *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3]forms adjectives. The adjectival template is realized as *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]in Syriac. A semantic group of sound-symbolic terms is found among these adjectives:

(38) a. 'qalqlc 'coiling, twisting' (SL 1130; LS 542b; TS 2965) from [check]ql, cf. 'gab 'gripping pain' (SL 1130; LS 542b; TS 2965). See also [check]'qlql T-stem 'to twist' (SL 1130; LS 542; TS 2964)

b. 'qasqsc 'wrinkled, frizzled' (SL 1131; LS 543a; TS 2968) from [check]'qs, cf. 'qisc 'twisted' (SL 1130; LS 543ab; TS 2967-68)

An additional qualitative adjective is attested in slamlmc 'perfect, entire, complete' (SL 1568; LS 783b; TS 4191-92) from [check]slm'to be or remain complete' (SL 1566-67; LS 782a-83b; TS 4183-96). (106)

The substantival template *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2][][C.sub.3]is most commonly realized as *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3] > *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]c[C.sub.3]c:(107)

(39) a. hwarwcrc 'white spots' (SL 433; LS 223b; TS 1231) from [check]hwr 'to be(come) white' (SL 431-32; LS 223ab; TS 1231a)

b. smarmcrc 'strangury, difficulty of passing urine; dizziness' (SL 1294; LS 632b; TS 3419) from [check]smr, cf. smara 'retention of urine, kidney stone' and pmarto 'retention of urine' (SL 1294; TS 3419; LS 632)

c. qlaplopt 'desiccated barks' (SL 1374; LS 670b; T..S' 3641) from [check]qlp 'to peel; to scrape off' (SL 1374; LS 669b-70b; TS 3639-42)

The color term in (39a) and the personal defect in (39b) should be noted. Finally, the vocalization scheme *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2][][C.sub.3]> *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]u[C.sub.3]coccurs in prahruhtc 'spark' (SL 1236; LS 595a; 7S3256) from [check]prh 'to fly' (SL 1235-36; LS 594b-595a; TS 3254-57). (108)


To summarize, *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]and *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] are the only two reduplicated nominal patterns that can be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic. A third pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]is basically restricted to the modern Ethiopian languages. Reduplicated nouns of the patterns *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] and *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]generally fall into well-defined semantic groups, which are cross-linguisti-cally common for reduplication, such as diminutives, intensives, and sound-symbolic terms. The most common semantic group is that of bodily or personal characteristics, including defects and color terms. These semantic groups are all iconic in that there is a clear relationship between the repetition of the consonant(s) and the semantic categories expressed. As is the case with the internal nominal patterns treated by Fox, (109) deverbal reduplicated nouns cannot readily be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic. Nevertheless, the vocalization template *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]can be reconstructed for substantives of the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]while *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]forms adjectives. In addition, several vocalic realizations can be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic for this pattern. For the pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3], it is possible to reconstruct *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3]as the vocalization template for adjectives and *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3]as the vocalization template for substantives. Thus, it can be generalized that reduplicated nominal patterns have a short vowel in the final syllable for adjectives and a long vowel in the final syllable for substantives. (110)


AHw Soden, W. von. 1965-1981. Akkadisches Hanthvarterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

BK Biberstein-Kaziniirski, A. de. 1860. Dictionnaire arabe-franc.cds. Paris: Maison-neuve et cie.

CAD Gelb, I. J., et al. 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

EG Erman, A., and H. Grapow. 1926-1963. Worterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

GEL Liddell, H., and R. Scott (revised by H. Stuart Jones and R. McKenzie). 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

HALOT Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner (revised by W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm). 1994-2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill.

JL Johnstone, T. M. 1981. Jibbali Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

KAmh Kane, T. L. 1990. Amharic-English Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Lane Lane, E. W. 1863-1893. An Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Williams and Norgate.

LGz Leslau, W. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

LH Littmann, E., and M. Hofner. 1956. Worterbuch der Tigr[]-Sprache: Tigr[]-Deutsch-Englisch. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

LLA Dillmann, A. 1865. Lexicon linguae aethiopicae. Leipzig: T. 0. Weigel.

LS Brockelmann, C. 19282. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle: M. Niemeyer.

SED I Militarev, A., and L. Kogan. 2000. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag.

SED II Militarev, A., and L. Kogan. 2005. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 2: Animal Names. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag.

SL Sokoloff, M. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmamz's Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns and Piscataway: Gorgias Press.

TS Payne Smith, R. 1879-1901. Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the North American Conference on Afroasiatic Linguistics (NACAL 37), Albuquerque, NM, March 13-16,2009. I am grateful to the audience for the insightful discussion. I would also like to thank H. H. Hardy II, J. Huehnergard, D. Pardee, I. Yakubovich, and especially R. Hasselbach for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Abbreviations of lexicographic tools are explained on pp. 104-5. The following symbols are used throughout this study:

[right arrow] synchronic inflection and/or

> derivation diachronic development

* reconstructed form

(1.) Barth 1889-1890; 1894 (2).

(2.) Fox 2003.

(3.) So also Huehnergard 2002a: 125; Pardee 2008: 125.

(4.) This study is based on a corpus of reduplicated nouns that were systematically extracted from the major dictionaries of Akkadian (AHw and CAD), Classical Arabic (BK and Lane), Ge'ez (LGz and LLA), Hebrew (HALOT), and Syriac (SL, TS, and LS). The selection of languages follows Fox 2003. This study does not take into account developments witnessed in the modern Semitic languages, a topic which is deserving of further study. The genetic classification of the Semitic languages presented in Huehnergard 2005a: 162 is adopted in this study.

(5.) See, e.g., Ibrahim 1982; Greenberg 1991.

(6.) Niepokuj 1997: 60-64. For Semitic, see the survey in Kouwenberg 1997: 43-45.

(7.) See Blevins 2004: 170-78.

(8.) So also Voigt 1981: 154 n. 80. Cf. Prochazka 1995: 41; Marantz and Wiltshire 2000: 558.

(9.) Cf. Inkelas and Zoll 2005: 6. For the problems in adequately defining reduplication, see Thun 1963: 1-27; Prochazkzi 1995: 39; al-Hassan 1998: 17-23.

(10.) For gemination in Semitic, especially Akkadian, see Kouwenberg 1997.

(11.) For Chadic, see al-Hassan 1998; Newman 1986, 1990; for Cushitic, see Zaborski 1986; for Egyptian, see Gardiner 1957(3): [section][section]274, 425-26: Edel 1955: [section][section]429-39, 558b; Reintges 2003. No comprehensive treatment of reduplication in Semitic has yet been undertaken though surveys are available in Nyberg 1954: 128-32; Whiting 1981; Fischer 1993; Kouwenberg 1997: 39-43. For syntactic reduplication in Semitic, see Reckendorf 1909. After this study was completed, J. Huehnergard kindly provided me with a copy of a Harvard BA thesis on reduplication in Semitic by David Cody Dydek.

(12.) See Inkelas 2005: 79-81; Inkelas and Zoll 2005: 20-23; esp. Yu 2005 with references therein. Yu introduced "compensatory reduplication" as a theoryneutral term for what is called "phonological reduplication" in Morphological Doubling Theory. Since it has not been necessary in this study to choose between the various theoretical models for analyzing reduplication, such as Base-Reduplication Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1993, 1995) and Morphological Doubling Theory (Inkelas 2005; esp. Inkelas and Zoll 2005). the term "compensatory reduplication" has been used throughout.

(13.) It should be noted that there is an alternative repair strategy to the one represented in (2) in which both [C.sub.1] and [C.sub.2] are duplicated resulting in gamqem 'to muzzle' (SL 1379; LS 671b; TS 3458). Since gamqem does not fall into any of the semantic groups typically associated with the root type *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.1][C.sub.2], (see the references in n. 15), it is likely that qamqem, like gammem, arose from compensatory reduplication.

(14.) Nyberg 1954: 128-32; Fischer 1993. Cf. Kurylowicz 1972: 8, 11; Voigt 1998: 84-85; Zaborski 1991: 1680-81.

(15.) This root type is attested in all of the Semitic languages and also occurs in other Afroasiatic languages, such as Egyptian (Gardiner 1957(3): [section]274; Edel 1955: [section][section]429-39; cf. Conti 1980). *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.1][C.sub.2] roots have been collected in various places; for Arabic, see Boekels 1990: 48-85; for Ge'ez, see Stade 1871: 7-20; for Hebrew (including post-Biblical Hebrew), see Yannay 1970: 47-55; for Syriac, see Boekels 1990: 17-20. The semantic function of these roots in Arabic has been discussed in Jouon 1926: 24-35 and more recently in Prochazka 1995. For Hebrew, see Eitan 1920: 174-76; for Geez, see Stade 1871: 7-20. While verbal roots of the type *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.1][C.sub.2] are absent in Akkadian (Nyberg 1954: 128), a number of primary nouns do occur (von Soden 1995(3): [section]57a-b; Kouwenberg 1997: 42-43). In addition, there is a small group of deverbal nouns of this pattern in Akkadian, all of which derive from synchronically "weak" roots (von Soden 19953: 57ab; Black and al-Rawi 1987: 121), e.g., *bulbul > bubbulu 'flood' (CAD B 298a-300b; AHw 135a) from [check]wbl, cf. abalu 'to bring' (CAD A 10a-29b; AHw 1450a-54a); dandannu 'almighty' (CAD D87a; AHw 160a) from [check]dnn 'to become strong' (CAD D 83a-86b; AHw 159a-60a); kaskassu 'overpowering' (CAD K 290a; AHw 462) from [check]kss 'to master' (CAD K 286ab; AHw 462a); *ma'mV'-tu (cf. von Soden 1995(3) [section]57a) > mamitu 'oath; curse' (CAD M 189b-95a; AHw 599b) from [check]wm', cf. (w)ama 'to argue in court; to discuss' (CAD A 86a-89b; AHw 1459a); ziqziqqu 'gale' (CAD Z 134a; AHw 1532b), cf. zaqu 'to blow' (CAD Z 64a-65b; AHw 1523ab); zirzirru 'dwarf (adj.), minuscule' (CAD Z 137b; AHw 1523a), cf. ziru 'dwarf' (CAD Z 136a; A/1w 1532b-1533a).

(16.) For comparative treatments, see Barth 1894(2): [section][section]137-39; Brockelmann 1908: [section][section]178-86; Nyberg 1954: 128-30; Moscati et al. 1964: 84; Lipinski 1997: [section]29.13; Kienast 2001: [section]115.

(17.) For the various nominal patterns involved, see Dillmann 1907(2): [section]112; Tropper 2002: [section]42.18.

(18.) These nouns have also usually been excluded from past treatments of reduplicated nominal patterns and subsumed under other rubrics, such as noun formations from biliteral roots (e.g., Kienast 2001: [section]115), quadriliteral nouns (e.g.. Moscati et al. 1964: 84), reduplicated root formations (e.g., Barth 1894(2): [section][section]137-39), etc.

(19.) For this distinction, see Fronzaroli 1973: 2-5; Kienast 2001: [section]47; Fox 1998; 2003: 61-87; etc. This is not to say that productive derivational roots cannot be extracted from primary nouns (Fox 2003: 61; Gai 2001: 1-2; Kogan 2008: 94).

(20.) For additional examples, see SED I.cxxxix-cxl; SED II.1xxi-lxxii. Proto-Semitic primary nouns with reduplication, which do not belong to the semantic groups already treated in SED, can be found in Fronzaroli 1964, 1965a, 1965b, 1968, 1969, 1971; Fox 1998. 2003: 72-87; Kogan 2005.

(21.) For similat cross-linguistic remarks, see Moravcsik 1978: 301, but also note Prochazka 1995: 39.

(22.) This additive property is considered a cross-linguistic universal for reduplication (Moravcsik 1978: 316; cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 127-28).

(23.) For cross-linguistic studies of the semantics of reduplication, see Key 1965; Moravcsik 1978; Niepokuj 1997: 65-87.

(24.) For the iconic nature of reduplication, see Sapir 1921: 76-78; Jakobson and Waugh 1987(2): 198-203; Mayerthaler 1988: 85-86; Kouwenberg 1997: 19-26,39-43.

(25.) Key 1965: 95-97; Moravcsik 1978: 321-23; Niepokuj 1997: 67-80.

(26.) Niepokuj 1997: 73-80; Kouwenberg 1997: 40-41. Compare Ullmann's "secondary onomatopoeia" (Ullmann 1973: 14).

(27.) This semantic group is also common with the verbal stem that has reduplication of [C.sub.3] (Huehnergard 2004: 153). Compare the Arabic IX and XI stems (Wright 1896-1898(3): [section]59).

(28.) See Kouwenberg 1997: 32 with literature cited therein.

(29.) Cf. Jakobson and Waugh 1987(2): 199.

(30.) Key 1965: 93; Moravcsik 1978: 322. For two different attempts to interpret reduplicated diminutives in terms of iconicity. see Niepokuj 1997: 70-73 and Kouwenberg and LaCharite 2005.

(31.) For these (and other) diachronic developments in the semantics of diminutives, see Jurafsky 1996.

(32.) In general. see Brockelmann 1908: [section]158; Lipinski 1997: [section]29.14; Kienast 2001: [section]102.

(33.) So Kienast 2001: [section]102.1, 3. For the frequentative stem in the modern Ethiopian languages, see Leslau 1939.

(34.) This derivation was first proposed in von Soden 1991 and subsequently developed in Testen 2006. For the length of the vowel in the second syllable of zug[]g[]pu, see Testen 2006: 146 n. 5.

(35.) See Fischer 2002: [section][section]81-82; Wright 1896-1898(3): [section][section]269-84.

(36.) See von Soden 1995(3): [section]55r; Kienast 2001: [section]102.2. The vocalization scheme [C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.2][][C.sub.3]is also attested in Akkadian. It is, however, restricted to two possible tokens, both of which are extremely rare: hananabu '(a sweet fruit)' (CAD H 76b; AHw 320a) from [check]hnb 'to grow abundantly' (CAD 1:1 75b-76b; AHw 319b) and dabababu 'case' (CAD D lb-2a; AHw 145b) from [check]dbb 'to speak' (CAD D 4a-14a; AHw 146b-47b).

(37.) Von Soden (19953: [section]560) analyzes this noun as belonging to a "deminutiv-pejorativ" pattern * *[C.sub.1]u[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]a[C.sub.3]i. This noun. however, derives from the III-weak root ban/i. and thus it is [C.sub.2] that is duplicated. not [C.sub.3]

(38.) It should be noted that a verbal stem with reduplicated [C.sub.2], also exists for this root (cf. Whiting 1981: 2-3).

(39.) Testen 2006: 146-47.

(40.) Testen (p. 147) suggests that "the semantic relation between the derivative and its base would presumably have been not so much 'diminutive' as affective along some other dimension." More evidence is, however, needed that supports the development of a diminutive to an "affective" meaning, which could encompass these examples. For universal tendencies in the semantics of diminutives. see Jurafsky 1996.

(41.) So already Kouwenberg 1997: 42.

(42.) In general, see Barth 1894(2): 209-16; Brockelmann 1908: [section][section]163-72; Nyberg 1954: 130-32; Lipitiski 1997: [section]29.14: Kienast 2001: [section]103.

(43.) In the most recent formulation of this rule. Huehnergard (2005a: 171-76) argues that it was certainly productive in Central Semitic. but may also have operated in other Semitic languages. The reduplicated nominal pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]provides additional evidence that this metathesis rule was in fact productive throughout Semitic. In Akkadian. for instance, there is a group of nouns of the pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3] that share the same semantic connotation as either another nominal pattern with reduplicated [C.sub.3], e.g., namurru 'of awesome brightness' (CAD N 254a: AHw, 730a) - namr[]r[] 'supernatural, awe-inspiring luminosity' (CAD B 237a-38b: Atht. 728b-29a. 1577b). or as the verbal stem with reduplicated C3, e.g.. saqumunu 'silent' (CAD S2 34ab: AHw 1182b) gugammumu 'to fall silent' (CAD .g3 332ab; AHw 1281b-82a) (for the verbal stem with reduplication of C3 in Akkadian, see Kienast 1957, 1961: Groneberg 1989: Huehnergard 2005(2)b: 463-64: esp. Whiting 1981). The semantic similarity between nouns of the pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3]and other reduplicated stems (whether nominal or verbal) suggests that the nominal pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3] derives from the reduplicated pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3] via the metathesis rule [C.sub.x]V > V[C.sub.x]/[C.sub.y]_[C.sub.x]V.

(44.) For this nominal pattern in Semitic. see Fox 2003: 281-86.

(45.) For this feminine morpheme, see Brockelmann 1908: [section]225B2 (sic, pp. 414-15); Lonnet 2008.

(46.) For this derivation with additional examples, see Lonnet 2008.

(47.) CAD lists a writing su-qu-qu-u. which should indicate a long final vowel (see also the lexical lists cited in CAD). The gender of the singular is unknown, but the plural is formed with a feminine plural (i.e., s[]q[]q[]tu), which might indicate that the singular is also feminine.

(48.) For other examples of the accretion of the feminine morphemes *[] and *(a)t, see Butts 2010: 83-85.

(49.) Alternatively, sa'rurit / sa'ruriyc could be analyzed as *sa'r[]r + *-[]y-(nisba ending) + *(a)t.

(50.) In general, see von Soden 1995(3): [section]55r; Kouwenberg 1997: 42.

(51.) For this nominal pattern in Akkadian, see von Soden 19953: 55r; Fox 2003: 281-83.

(52.) Cf. von Soden 19953: [section]560.

(53.) Kaufman (1974: 94 n. 322) is correct in analyzing s[]q[]qu as a diminutive, but his classification as the pattern *[C.sub.1]u[C.sub.2][][C.sub.3]should be rejected.

(54.) E.g.. ups[]su 'Behexung(en). (AHw 1425b-26a), cf. epesu to act' (CAD E 191b-235b; AHw. 223h-29a): zaq[]qu (ziq[]qu) 'phantom. ghost' (CAD Z 58b-60b; AHw 1530ab), cf. z[]qu 'to blow' (CAD Z 64a-65b: AHw 1523ab); and perhaps hubs[]su '(a bottle or cup)' (CAD H 215a; AHw 351a), possibly from [check]hbs 'to break into pieces' (CAD H 9b; 303b).

(55.) In general. see Fleisch 1961: [section]86. Due to their large number. it has not seemed necessary to give an exhaustive listing of Arabic examples. though an attempt has been made to provide a representative sample.

(56.) For this rule. see Fox 2003: 267 n. I. Compare the development of the Prow-Semitic nominal pattern *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]to *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]in Arabic (Fox 2003: 267-68). A similar assimilation rule is also found in Ugaritic (Huehnergard 1987: 269-70).

(57.) For the metathesis rule in Arabic, see Fleisch 1961: 141 48.

(58.) For these nominal patterns, see Fox 2003: 123.

(59.) Kouwenberg 1997: 42. Other possible examples include 'unj[]j-'fleet, swift' (BK 2.381 a; Lane 2170a); ba's[]s- maigre et mince' (BK 1.142b); virb[]b-'intensely black' (Lane 2242c-43a): ja'b[]b-'short, ugly; homme petit et d'un air bas. ignoble' (BK 1.298ab; Lane 428c): ja's[]s-'petit de taille, et regalde avec dedain (BK 1.300a): kuhl[]l-'gal. enjoue. toujours riant; noble' (BK 2.940a); qula'dud-'nearness of relationship; next of kin: cowardly, ignoble' (BK 2.778a; Lane 2546a); subr[]r-'poor' (Lane 1293c); suhk[]k-'tres-noie (BK 1.106 1b); / siml[]l-/ simlal-/ simlal-'qui marche d'un pas Leger et rapide (chamelle)' (BK 1.1273b; Lane 1600c).

(60.) For this nominal pattern in Arabic, see Fox 2003: 282-84 with the references in n. 12.

(61.) An additional animal term that could be analyzed as a diminutive is found in zu'q[]qat-'poussin' (BK 1.991 b; Lane 1232) from [check]z'q 'to cry out' (BK 1.991* Lane 1231e-32h).

(62.) Cf. SED I.cxxxix cxl.

(63.) Less certain examples include 'uns[]s-'reste (de troupeaux, de biens)' (BK 2.384b); ji'1[]l- 'frayeur' (BK 1.245a); ju's[]s-'excrement' (Lane 429c-30a); ma'kukt-'grande abondance, grand nombre (de troupeaux)' (BK 2.1129b).

(64.) In general, see Tropper 2002: 66-68.

(65.) The feminine form *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3][][C.sub.3]t derives from *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]+ *t due to a Proto-Ge'ez (likely Proto-Semitic) rule whereby long vowels are shortened in closed syllables. For this development in Ge'ez, compare *kab[]r -*t>*kuburt > kabart 'mighty (f.s)' vs. *kab[]r >*kubur> kebur 'mighty (m.s.)' (Huehnergard 2002b: 40).

(66.) Less certain examples include beltit 'flint' (LGz 98a; LLA 488) possibly from [check]blt 'to separate, cut meat into pieces' (LGz 97b-98a; [Not in LEAD; salbib 'cross' (LGz 499a; [not in LLA]) from [check]slb 'to crucify' (LGz 498b-99a; LLA 324), which was borrowed from Arabic salaba (BK 1.1356b-57b; Lane 1711c-13c; cf. Leslau 1990: 79).

(67.) For the regressive assimilation of [-voice], compare hebezt > habest 'bread' from [check]hbz 'to bake' (LGz 257b; LLA 601-2). Cf. Tropper 2002: 35; Brockelmann 1908: 54d[beat].

(68.) An otherwise unattested vocalization scheme occurs in ma'arir 'sweet' (LGz 327ab; LLA 207) from m'r, cf. ma'ar 'honey' (LGz: 326b-27a: LLA 207). It seems likely, however, that this noun is phonologically reduced from ma'ar'ir 'sweet' (LGz 327a; LLA 207). which is formed according to a more productive pattern in Ge'ez (cf. [section]6.3). Thus, indarir (<*ma'ar'ir) provides some evidence for a reduction of the reduplicated pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3]to *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3]in Semitic. This development would lit well with the so-called "grammaticalization model" of reduplication that was proposed in Bybee et al. 1994: 166-74 and Niepokuj 1997: 60-64 and discussed further in Hurch and Mattes 2005.

(69.) There are more than thirty roots of the type *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.3] in Ge'ez (Dillmann 1907(2): [section]71a[beat]), a partial list of which can he found in Stade 1871: 28-33. Cf. Baekels 1990: 40-42.

(70.) For these nominal patterns. see Dillmann 1907(2): [section]112: Tropper 2002: [section]42.18.

(71.) In general. see Bauer and Leander 1922: 483; Kautzsch 1910: 234: _lotion and Muraoka 1991; [section][section]88, Ja; Meyer 1992: [section]39.1.

(72.) Compare '"melclim 'wretched' (HALOT 631,).

(73.) A less certain example of the pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2][C.sub.3]V[C.sub.3]is pirhah 'brood' (HALOT 967a) from [check]prlt 'to fly' ( HALOT 966a).

(74.) For the nominal pattern *[C.sub.1]V[C.sub.2]V[C.sub.3][C.sub.3]in Hebrew. see Fox 2003: 284-85.

(75.) A less certain example is *hakl[]l + *[]y > * haklili 'sparkling' (HALOT 313b) possibly from [check]khl 'to paint' (the eyes)' (HALOT 469b) [with metathesis].

(76.) For previous discussions with several less likely examples, see Lambert 1892: 107 n. 2; Barth 1894(2): [section]142, 1897: 86-91; Fleisch 1944: 8-9; Fox 2003: 251.

(77.) See Fox 2003: 251.

(78.) It should be noted that these nouns can be compared to the Hebrew Polel-stem.

(79.) For the sparse remnants of this pattern in Syriac, see Fox 2003: 285-86.

(80.) See Noldeke 1904: [section]71.

(81.) Sec Noldeke 1904: [section]122; Brockelrnann 1908: [section]172d; 1928: 117.

(82.) These include blesusitc (belsusitc) 'spark' (SL 160: LS 77b: TS 540) possibly from [check]bls 'to blossom' (SL 160: LS 77b-78a: TS 540): pctlolc 'thin thread' (SL 1268; LS 617b: TS 3344) from [check]ptl 'to twist., distort' (SL 1268: LS 617b-18a; TS 3343-45); tclloltc 'small hill' (SL 1647; LS 824a; 7S 4440), cf. nib 'hill' (SL 1646: LS 824ab; 7S 4438); jab/ob 'small drum' (SL 510; LS 266b), cf. labia 'drum' (SL 510; LS 266b; TS 1425).

(83.) It should be noted, however, that Sokoloff (SL 173) prefers to understand the verbal root [check]b'rr as a denominative of ba'rirc. For the adjectival pattern *CaCC[]C in Syriac. see Noldeke 1904: [section]118; Pox 2003: 195-96.269.

(84.) For this nominal pattern in Syriac, see Noldeke 1904: [section][section]117, 123.

(85.) In general, see Barth 18942: 216-18; Brockelmann 1908: [section][section]173-77; Nyberg 1954: 132; Kouwenberg 1997: 41; Lipinski 1997: [section]29.14; Kienast 2001: [section]104; Unseth 2003.

(86.) Compare also Egyptian verbal forms such as hegeg 'froh sein' (EG 3.1 35). For the Egyptian forms in general, see Gardiner 1957(3): [section]274 (cf. Conti 1980). Unseth (2003: 266) also argues that the nominal pattern *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] is to be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic.

(87.) Cf. Kienast 2001: [section]104.

(88.) See Brockelmann 1928: 118-19.

(89.) See Barth 1894(2): 216.

(90.) %lotion and Muraoka (1991: [section]88Jb) and Lipinski (1997: [section]29.14) consider them diminutive color adjectives, while Bauer and Leander (1922: 483 rt.1) prefer to see this pattern as "superlativisch." For this debate, see the literature cited in Yannay 1970: 47 n.1.

(91.) Nyberg 1954: 132; Kouwenberg 1997: 41. For zutpagipu 'scorpion', which Halevy (1902: 136) and Brockelmann (1908: [section][section]158 Anm. 2, 176, 1928: 118) derive from this pattern, see [section]4.

(92.) In general. see Fleisch 1961: 87.

(93.) Less certain examples include 'anajnaj-'great, large' (13K 2.381 a; Lane 2I70a); 'anasnas -'long; leger, leste et rapide a la course (cheval. homme)' (BK 2.385a); 'arakrak 'thick, strong (camel): bulky, ugly' (Lane 2024b): sama'ma' 'small, quick' (Lane 1429ab); sajawjan (<*sajawjawan) 'long in the legs; very tall' (BK 1.1196a; Lane 1510c).

(94.) See, for example, Brockelmann 1908: [section]l73; Fleish 1961: [section]87.

(95.) In general, see Dillmann 19072: [section]110b; Tropper 2002: 68-69.

(96.) The reconstruction of the second /a/ as short is based on comparative evidence since all examples of this pattern involve roots in which [C.sub.3] = (b, h), making it impossible to determine the underlying length of the second vowel due to the rule *a >[]/ _GS, G = {', ', h, b. b}. Cf. Tropper 2002: 36; Diem 1988.

(97.) For this rule in Gocoz, see n. 65. For a similar development, compare West Semitic adjectives of the pattern *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3], which derive from the Proto-Semitic adjectival pattern *CiaC2iC3 due to the ambiguity of the underlying vowel-length in the final syllable of the feminine form *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3]t(Fox 2003: 123, 187, 292; Huehnergard 2006: 10).

(98.) A similar gender marking is found with other adjectival patterns in Geez, e.g., masc. *[C.sub.1]a([C.sub.2])[C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3]-fern. *[C.sub.1]a([C.sub.2])[C.sub.2][][C.sub.3](Fox 2003: 183, 190-91; Huehnergard 2002b: 77).

(99.) Kienast (2001: [section]104.3) also cites nasafs[]f 'drops' (LGz 54%; LLA 1321-22), which, however, should probably be analyzed as *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.1][C.sub.2] with n-prefix as per LGz.

(100.) These include ma'ar'er 'perfume' (LGz 327a: [not in LLA]) from ma'[]r 'honey' (LGz 326b-27a: LLA 207); deleqleq 'shaking, violent agitation' (LGz 131b; LLA 1077-78) possibly from [check]dlq 'to be agitated' (LGz. 131b) [this verb is not found in LLA and thus may be a late back-formation]; he(n)bernere 'eruption on the skin' (LGz 224b; LLA 108) from [check]hbr; cf. Proto-Semitic hilab(V)r-'spot on the skin' (SED 1.103-4).

(101.) In general, see Halevy 1902; Eitan 1920: 176-77; Bauer and Leander 1922: 482-83; Kautzsch 1910: 234-35: Jouon and Muraoka 1991: 88.1b; Meyer 1992: 39.2.

(102.) Compare Ugaritic <ttpp> 'she makes herself beautiful', which is most likely a T-reflexive of the reduplicated verbal stem *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2][C.sub.3][C.sub.2][C.sub.3] from the root "Iypy 'to be beautiful' (Pardee 2003-2004: 265; Pardee 2004: 303). Bauer and Leander (1922: 483) derive Hebrew *_yfieriiya from the pattern *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3]. It is preferable, however, to derive this noun from *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3][C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3]as in Barth 18942: 217; Brockelrnann 1908: [section]174; Kienast 2001: [section]104, with the following development *yapaypiy-at > *yapaypiyy[] (for the "spontaneous gemination" of the rightmost y, see Kautzsch 1910: 234) > *yapayp[]y[] > *ya[][]p[]y[] > y[]e-[]iyc.

(103.) See Masson 1974: 267-68, 270-71; Bolozky 1994: 49,57.

(104.) For these examples and others, see Bolozky 1994: 49.

(105.) In general, see Noldeke 1904: [section]124.

(106.) A less certain example is the personal defect smrmr', perhaps to be vocalized smarmrc, 'nyctalops, night-blind' (SL 1576; LS 78711 TS 4222) from [check]smr D 'to make flow' (SL 1575; LS 787b-88a; TS 4219-22). For the adjective. see the second part of Bar 'Ali's definition: smrmr' (with sycme): town db knot blely.? "those who cannot see in the night" (ed. Gottheil 1910-1928: 441.16-17).

(107.) A less certain example is the personal defect smrmr' (with sycmc), perhaps to he vocalized smarmore, 'nyctalopia, night blindness' (SL 1576: LS 787b. TS 4222) from [section]smr D 'to make flow' (SL 1575; LS 787b-88a: TS 4219-22). For the substantive, see. e.g., Land 1862-75: vol. 4, 54.20 [Syr.J: 52 [LT].

(108.) See also sradudc 'corpse' (Si. 1602; LS 807b; TS 4326-27), cf. sladc 'corpse, body' (SL 1560; LS 779b; TS 4170). borrowed from Akkadian salamtu 'corpse' (CAD 203-6; AHw 1143; see Kaufman 1974: 98).

(109.) Fox 2003: 52-53, 291; Huehnergard 2002a: 125, but see S E D 1.xlvii xlviii and especially Kogan 2008. 110. Compare the Proto-Semitic adjectival pattern *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3] versus the substantival pattern *[C.sub.1]a[C.sub.2][][C.sub.3].


Al-Hassan, B. S. Y. 1998. Reduplication in the Chadic Languages: A Study of Form and Function. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.

Barth, J. 1897. Die Polel-Conjugation und die Polal-Participien. In Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut, ed. G. A. Kohut. Pp. 83-93. Berlin: S. Calvary & Co.

--. 1889-1890 (18942). Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Bauer, H., and P. Leander. 1922. Historische Grammatik der hebraischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes. Halle: M. Niemeyer.

Bender, M. L., et al., eds. 2003. Selected Comparative-Historical Afrasian Linguistic Studies in Memory of Igor M. Diakonoff. Munich: Lincom.

Black, J. A., and F. N. H. al-Rawi. 1987. A Contribution to the Study of Akkadian Bird Names. ZA 77: 117-26.

Blau, J. 1971. Studies in Hebrew Verbal Formation. HULA 42: 133-58. [Repr. idem. 1998. Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics. Pp. 155-80. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.]

Blevins, J. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Boekels, K. 1990. Quadriradikalia in den semitischen Sprachen unter besonderer Berucksichtigung des Arabischen. Dissertation, Freic Universitat Berlin.

Bolozky, Sh. 1994. On the Formation of Diminutives in Modern Hebrew Morphology. Hebrew Studies 35: 47-63.

Brockelmann, C. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, vol. 1: Lautund Formenlehre. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard

--. 1928. Deminutiv und Augmentativ im Semitischen. ZS 6: 109-34.

Butts, A. M. 2010. The Etymology and Derivation of the Syriac Adverbial Ending -.c'i[eth]. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69: 79-86.

Bybee, J., et al. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Conti, G. 1980. Studi sul bilitterismo in semitico e in egiziano, vol. 1: II terra verbale NI212. Florence: Istituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali, Universita.

Deutscher, G., and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Diem, W. 1988. Laryngalgesetze and Vokalismus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Altathiopischen. ZDMG 138: 236-62.

Dillmann, A. 19072. Ethiopic-Grammar, ed. C. Bezold: tr. J. A. Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate.

Edel, E. 1955. Altagyptische Gtzmnatik. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum.

Eitan, L. 1920. La repetition de la racine en Hebreu. Journal of the Palestinian Oriental Society 1: 171-86.

Fischer. W. 1993. Die Entstehung reduplizierter Wurzelmorpheme im Semitischen. In Semitica: Sena philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata, ed. R. Contini et al. Pp. 39-61. Turin: Zamorani

--.2002. A Grammar of Classical Arabic. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Fleisch, H. 1961. Traiti de philologie arahe, vol. 1: Preliminaires, phonetique, morphologic nominale. Beirut: Impr. catholique.

Fox, J. 1998. Isolated Nouns in the Semitic Languages. ZAH 11: 1-32

--.2003. Semitic Noun Patterns. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Frajzyngier, Z. 1979. Notes on the [R.sub.1][R.sub.2][R.sub.2]stems in Semitic. JSS 24: 1-12.

Fronzaroli, P. 1964. Studi sul lessico comunc semitico. 11. Anatomia e fisiologia. ANLR 8/19.7-12: 243-80.

--. 1965a. Studi sul lessico comune semitico. HI. I lenomeni naturali. ANLR 8/20.3-4: 135-50.

--. 1965b. Studi sul lessico comune semitico. IV. La religions. ANLR 8/20.5-6: 246-69.

--. 1968. Studi sul lessico comune semitico. V. La natura selvatica. ANLR 8/23.7-12: 267-303.

--. 1969. Studi sul lessico comune semitico. VI. La natura domestics. ANLR 8/24.7-12: 285-320.

--. 1971. Studi sul lessico comune semitico. VII. L'alimentazione. ANLR 8/26.7-12: 603-43.

--. 1973. Problems of a Semitic Etymological Dictionary. In Studies on Semitic Lexicography, ed. P. Fronzaroli. Pp. 1-24. Florence: Istituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali, Universita.

Gai. A. 2001. Several Points of Semitic and Akkadian Grammar. Le Musson 114: 1-13.

Gardiner, A. 19573. Egyptian Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gottheil, R. J. H. 1910-1928. Bar 'Ali (Ishff ): The Syriac-Arabic Glosses, 1-2. Rome: R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

Greenberg, J. H. 1991. The Semitic "Intensive" as Verbal Plurality. In Kaye 1991: 577-87.

Groneherg. B. 1989. Reduplications of Consonants and 'R'-stems. Revue d'assyriologie et d'archeologie orientate 83: 27-34.

Halevy, J. 1902. Le quadrilitteres it la seconde radicale redoublee. JA 19: 136-37.

Huehnergard, J. 1987. Ugaritic. Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

--. 2002a. Comparative Semitic Linguistics. In Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, ed. Sh. lzre'el. Pp. 119-50. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

--. 2002b. Introduction to the Comparative Study of the Semitic Languages. Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, Mass.

--. 2004. Afro-Asiatic. In Woodard 2004: 138-59.

--. 2005a. Features of Central Semitic. In Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, ed. A. Gianto. Pp. 155-203. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

--. 2005(2)b. A Grammar of Akkadian. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

--. 2006. Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. In Deutscher and Kouwenberg 2006: 1-18.

Hurch, B., ed. 2005. Studies on Reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hurch. B., and V. Mattes. 2005. Ober die Entstehung von partieller Reduplication. In Sprache and Naturlichkeit: Gedenkband far Willi Mayerthaler, ed. G. Fenk-Oczlon and C. Winkler. Pp. 137-56. Tubingen: G. Narr.

Ibrahim, M. H. 1982. Radical Reduplication in Arabic. Zeitschrift fur arahische Linguistik 9: 82-87.

Inkelas, S. 2005. Morphological Doubling Theory: Evidence for Morphological Doubling in Reduplication. In Hurch 2005: 65-88.

Inkelas, S., and C. Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Jakobson, R. 1990. On Language. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Jakobson, R., and L. R. Waugh. 19872. The Sound Shape of Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jamme, A. 1962. Sahaean Inscriptions from Mabram Bilclis (Midrib). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

Jespersen, 0.1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: G. Allen & Unwin.

Jouon, P. 1926. Etudes de semantique arabe. MUSJ 11: 3-36.

Jouon, P., and T. Muraoka. 1991. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

Jurafsky, D. 1996. Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. Language 72: 533-78.

Kaufman, S. A. 1974. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Kautzsch, E. 1910. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, tr. A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kaye, A. S., ed. 1991. Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Eighty-fifth Birthday, November 14th, 1991. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Key, H. 1965. Some Semantic Functions of Reduplication in Various Languages. Anthropological Linguistics 7: 88-102.

Kienast, B. 1957. Verbalformen mit Reduplikation im Akkadischen. Orientalia 26: 44-50.

--. 1961. Weiteres zum R-Stamm des Akkadischen. JCS 15: 59-61.

--. 2001. Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Kogan, L. 2005. Observations on Proto-Semitic Vocalism. Aula Orientalis 23: 131-67.

--. 2008. On Prow-Semitic Deverbal Derivation. Aula Orientalis 26: 91-115.

Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 1997. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Kouwenberg, S., and D. LaCharite. 2005. Less is More: Evidence from Diminutive Reduplication in Caribbean Creole Languages. In Hurch 2005: 533-45.

Kurylowicz, J. 1972. Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press.

Lambert, M. 1892. Remarques sur le pluriel des noms en Hebreu. REJ 24: 99-111.

Land, J. P N. 1862-1875. Anecdota syriaca. Lugnuni Batavorum, apud E. J. Brill.

Leslau, W. 1939. Le theme verbal frequentatif dans les langues ethiopiennes. In Revue des etudes semi-tiques et babyloniaca. Pp. 15-31. Paris: P. Geuthner.

--. 1990. Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopian Semitic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Lipinski, E. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Louvain: Peeters.

Lonnet, A. 2008. La marque -i de feminin en (chamito-) semitique et son developpement en sud-arabique moderne oriental. Aula Orientalis 26: 117-34.

Marantz, A., and C. Wiltshire. 2000. Reduplication. In Morphologic: Eth internationales Handbuch zur Flexion and Wortbildung, ed. G. Booij et al. Pp. 557-66. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Masson, M. 1974. Remarques sur les diminutik en hebreu israelien. In Actes du premier congres international de linguistique semitique et chamito-semitique, Paris 16-19 juillet 1969, ed. A. Caquot and D. Cohens. Pp. 256-79. The Hague: Mouton.

Mayerthaler, W. 1988. Morphological Naturalness. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.

McCarthy, J., and A. Prince. 1993. Prosodic Morphology 1: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University.

--. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, vol. 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. J. Beckman et al. Pp. 249-384. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association, Univ. of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Meyer, R. 1992. Hebraische Grammatik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. Reduplicative Constructions. In Universals of Human Language, vol. 3: Word Structure, ed. J. H. Greenberg. Pp. 298-334. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Moscati, S., et al. 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Newman. P. 1986. Reduplicated Nouns in Hausa. Journal of African Languages and Linguistic. 8: 1 1 5-32.

--. 1990. Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris.

Niepokuj, M. 1997. The Development of Verbal Reduplication in Indo-European. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.

Noldeke. T. 1904. Compendious. Syriac Grammar, Translated from. the Second and Improved Getman Edition by James A. Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate.

Nyberg. H. S. 1954. Zur Entwicklung der meter als dreikonsonantischen Stamme in den semitischen Sprachen. In Westostliche Abhandlungen, ed. F. Meier. Pp. 128-36. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Pardee, D. 2003-2004. Review of Tropper 2000 (online version). AfO 50.

--. 2004. Ugaritic. In Woodard 2004: 288-318.

--. 2008. Review of Fox 2003. JNES 67: 125-30.

Prochazka, S. 1995. Semantische Funktionen der reduplizierten Wurzeln im Arabischen. ArOr 63: 39-70.

Reckendorl, H. 1909. Ober Paronomasie in den semitischen Sprachen. Giessen: A. Topelmann.

Reintges, C. H. 2003. The Reduplicative Passive in Older Egyptian: Description and Typology. In Bender et al. 2003: 175-86.

Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Soden. W. von. 1991. Deminutiva nach der Form qutail > quill and vergleichbare vierkonsonantige Bildungen im Akkadischen. In Kaye 1991: 1488-92.

--. 1995 (3). Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

Stade, B. 1871. Lieber den. Ursprung der mehrlautigen ThatwOrter der Ge'ersprache. Leipzig: G. Kreysing.

Testen. D. 2006. An Akkadian-Arabic Cognate-Pair and the Formation of Stern-Based Diminutives in Early Semitic. In Deutscher and Kouwenberg 2006: 140-49.

Thun, N. 1963. Reduplicative Words in English. Uppsala.

Tropper, J. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag.

--. 2002. Altathiopisch. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Ullmann, S. 1973. Meaning and Style: Collected Papers. Oxford: Blackwell.

Unseth, P. 2003. Bi-Consonantal Reduplication in Semitic. In Bender et al. 2003: 257-73.

Voigt, R. 1981. Inkompatibilitaten and Diskrepanzen in der Sprache and das erste Inkompatibilitiits-gesetz des Semitischen. WO 12: 136-72.

--. 1988. Die infirmen Verbaltypen des Arabischen and dos Biradikalismus-Problem. Wies-baden: Steiner.

Whiting, R. M., Jr. 1981. The R Stem(s) in Akkadian. Orientalia 50: 1-39.

Woodard, R. D. 2004. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Wright, W. 1896-18983. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Yannzty, 1.1970. The Quadriradical Verb in the Hebrew Language. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.

Yu, A. 2005. Toward a Typology of Compensatory Reduplication. In WCCFL 24: Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. J. Alderete et al. Pp. 397-405. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

Zaborski, A. 1986. The Morphology of Nominal Plural in the Cushitic Languages. Vienna: AFRO-PUB.

--. 1991. Biconsonantal Roots and Triconsonantal Root Variation in Semitic: Solutions and Prospects. In Kaye 1991: 1675-1703.

COPYRIGHT 2011 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Michael Butts, Aaron
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2011
Previous Article:Portmanteau characters in Chinese.
Next Article:A tragedy of politics or an apolitical tragedy?

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |