4.3 A(n ir)regular binyan system
The aim of this section is to summarize the most important conclusions drawn in the previous and the current chapter, which tried to (i) identify the regular and irregular aspects of the binyan system; (ii) describe the extent to which the system is transparent and opaque; and (iii) account for the dual nature of templatic verbs by means of a prin-‐
cipled distinction in the process of word formation. Let us give a brief outline of the as-‐
sumptions and results (Sect. 4.3.1), in order to bring together the key contributions of this analysis of templatic verbs in Maltese (Sect. 4.3.2).
4.3.1 Main findings and assumptions
Semantic (un)relatedness
The point of departure for the preceding discussion was the puzzle that the semantics of words containing the same root consonants may be close and relatively predictable (e.g., xorob ‘I, drink’, xorb ‘drinking’), on the one hand, and distant and idiosyncratic (e.g., xarrab ‘II, wet’, inxtorob ‘VII, shrink’), on the other.
Underspecified roots
In order to resolve the above puzzle, I resorted to (i) one tenet of Distributed Morphol-‐
ogy, the so-‐called Root Hypothesis; that is, the idea that nouns, verbs and adjectives, regardless of their morphological complexity, may be decomposed into roots, atomic
lexical elements; and to (ii) the assumption that roots are underspecified on three lev-‐
els. First, roots are category-‐neutral. It is only when they merge with a word-‐creating head that an actual verb, noun or adjective is formed. Second, roots are incomplete from a phonological point of view: √ktb, for instance, is unpronounceable on its own. Third, the semantic content of roots is not fully definable. Just as √ktb becomes a continuous, pronounceable string when inserted in a verbal or nominal pattern, roots acquire spe-‐
cific interpretations in the environment of different patterns.
Contribution of patterns
Contrary to the deterministic approach taken by traditional grammars of Maltese, there is no exclusive mapping between the semantic and syntactic property of verbs and their morphological realization. Rather, (i) the same binyan may host verbs of different se-‐
mantic types, e.g., a verb in binyan VII may be passive, reflexive, inchoative;9 and (ii) verbs of the same semantic type (e.g., reflexive) may appear in different binyanim (e.g., V, VI, VII, VIII, X). A significant contribution of the binyanim to morphological transpar-‐
ency is instead in terms of transitivity. Some of them (VI, VII, IX) are inherently intransi-‐
tive, which means that verbs that are typically transitive, i.e. causative, active and non-‐
reflexive verbs, will not appear in these non-‐transitive binyanim. The same holds for binyan V, which is predominantly intransitive. Other verbal patterns are almost always transitive (II, III) and are therefore incongruent with inchoatives, passives and reflex-‐
ives. The valency of the remaining three patterns, I, VIII, X, is, however, inconsistent.
Distribution of roots
The mean number of patterns per root is around 2, which means that the binyan system is full of gaps. In fact, on examining the distribution of roots across patterns, it turns out that over two thirds of tri-‐consonantal roots combine with only one or two patterns, leaving several binyan slots empty. The rest typically occur in three (17%) or four (11%) different patterns. While no root appears in all nine binyanim, there are very few roots (less than 5%) that are inserted in five, six, or seven patterns.
Combinatorial constraints
The combination of roots and patterns is subject to a few phonological constraints. Bin-‐
yan VIII, which involves a -t- infixed between the first C-‐ and V-‐slot, does not combine
9 The sole exception is binyan IX, which is associated almost exclusively with inchoatives.
with roots whose first consonant is a stop /b, p, t, d, k, g, ʔ/, an affricate /tʃ, dʒ, ts/, a glide /j, w/, or silent għ and h. By contrast, it hosts roots with liquids, nasals, fricatives, and sibilants as first radical. For phonotactic reasons, certain roots are not inserted in binyan X. Being characterized by a prefix st-, it does not combine with roots starting with /t, tʃ, d, dʒ, ts/ etc., as they would create onset clusters that are not permissible in Maltese. Silent-‐medial roots tend not appear in binyan II and V, as the virtual phonemes għ and h cannot be geminated. In addition, there are some dispreferences for root types. For instance, reduplicative roots tend not to be embedded in binyan III and VI;
weak-‐initial roots do not appear in VIII (see restriction above on glides as first radical), and they rarely appear in I and VII; weak-‐medial roots hardly ever occur in III, VI and VIII; and weak-‐final roots do not usually combine with II, V and IX.
Correspondences among patterns
Subject to such combinatorial constraints, tri-‐consonantal roots can in principle com-‐
bine with any of the nine binyanim to create different verbal lexemes. However, an ex-‐
amination of the distribution of roots across patterns revealed that only four binyanim are really productive, I, II, V and VII. The other four are underrepresented, especially X.
Several grammars of Maltese observe four similarities between the productive and the non-‐productive patterns. First, on the equivalence of binyan II and III, Sutcliffe (1936: 84) remarks, “[t]he third form [… ] is practically an extension of the second, and has the same meanings”. Similar observations have been made by Borg (1981, 1988) and Cachia (1994: 207), among others.
Second, a parallel equivalence obtains between binyan V and VI, which, as we have seen above, regularly mark the passives, reflexives and inchoatives of the correspond-‐
ing transitive verbs in II and III respectively.10
Third, the qualitative analysis in Sect. 4.2 has also brought to light the fact that 17% of the absolute and contextual synonyms are marked by VII and VIII. That several verbs in VII and VIII have identical meanings was already observed by Sutcliffe (1936:
97), “[s]ome verbs are found both in the seventh and in the eighth form without change of meaning.”
Fourth, Borg (1981: 90) identifies a parallelism between intransitive verbs in bin-‐
yan I and verbs in IX: “Semantically, first form verbs such as ‘kiber’ “he grew” and
10 Borg (1981: Ch.3) notes a semantic equivalence of V, VI and VII, which is confirmed by the results in Sect.
4.2.
‘għolob’ “he became lean” are indistinguishable from ninth form verbs such as ‘ċkien’
“he grew small” and ‘ħxien’ “he grew fat”.”
The semantic and syntactic equivalence between the productive I, II, V, VII and the respective non-‐productive IX, III, VI, VIII is mirrored by morphological similarity:
• Both binyan V (tC1vC2C2vC3) and VI (tC1vvC2vC3) involve a prefix t-, which under-‐
goes complete assimilation when the first radical of the root is a coronal.
• Binyan I (C1vC2vC3) and IX (C1C2vvC3), by contrast, are prefixless. In addition, some inflectional forms of I and IX are identical, namely the first and second persons of the perfective. Compare, for instance, kiteb ‘I, write’, 1SG ktib-t and 1PL ktib-na, with swied ‘IX, get dark/tanned’, 1SG swid-t and 1PL swid-na.
• Some grammars, such as Cachia (1994: 207), claim that the only difference between II (C1vC2C2vC3) and III (C1vvC2vC3) is that the latter usually combines with roots whose second radical is an ungeminatable silent għ or h, though they also note that some binyan III verbs are derived from roots with a /r/ or /f/ as their middle radi-‐
cal, which can be geminated.
• Finally, consider the formal equivalence of binyan VII (ntC1vC2vC3) and VIII (C1tvC2vC3), especially when they combine with nasal-‐ and liquid-‐initial roots, such as √nfħ, creating intnefaħ and intefaħ, which, in addition, happen to be synonymous,
‘inflate, v.i’. Besides, recall that metathesis takes place with the prefixal t- of binyan VII and roots that have a sibilant for first radical, yielding forms such as inxtorob (for *int-xorob) ‘shrink’. At first glance, these verb forms appear to be hybrids of binyan VII (prefix n-) and VIII (infix -t-), and, in fact, in some dictionaries they are listed as VII+VIII verbs (cf. Aquilina 1987-‐1990).
These correspondences suggests that the four pairs of binyanim have a quasi-‐
allomorphic status. They are virtually in complementary distribution. This claim is sup-‐
ported by the analysis of the co-‐occurrence of patterns on the same root in Sect. 4.1.3, which revealed that less than one percent of all tri-‐consonantal roots appear in both I – IX (0.98%) and II – III (0.47%).11 An examination of Table 4.13 shows that 1.4% of tri-‐
consonantal roots appear in V and VI, and that 2.09% co-‐occur in VII and VIII. Note that when two verbs in V and VI share the same root, the latter verb form is very often dated
11 A root appearing in I and IX may correspond to an instance of multiple interpretation (e.g., √sbħ, sebaħ
‘dawn’, sbieħ ‘become beautiful’) or, more likely, to two synonymous verbs, e.g., √twl, tal, twal ‘become long’, √smn, simen, smien ‘get fat’. One tends to be more frequent or current (twal, simen) than the other.
When a root appears in II and III, the verbs created are synonymous, e.g., √wld, welled, wieled ‘give birth’,
√ġld, ġelled, ġieled ‘provoke a fight’. The verb in III is usually dated.
and synonymous with the binyan V verb, e.g., iġġieneb ‘move aside’, tbiedel ‘be ex-‐
changed’, tħaseb ‘worry’, tħalat ‘be mixed’. The number of roots co-‐occurring in VII and VIII is relatively ‘higher’ because of the propensity roots have for creating synonyms in these two patterns.
In terms of productivity, morphosyntactic similarity, and distribution in the lexi-‐
con, we can therefore conclude that Maltese templatic verbs make up a four-‐way sys-‐
tem consisting of binyan I, II, V and VII, which in a few cases alternate with their
‘shadow’ binyanim IX, III, VI and VIII respectively. Binyan selection is often phonologi-‐
cally conditioned. For instance, silent-‐medial roots almost always appear in III rather than II, because they cannot be geminated, and weak-‐medial roots are more likely to be inserted in V than VI (cf. the (dis)preferences of root types by binyanim Sect. 4.1.2). Fi-‐
nally, binyan X is highly underrepresented, hosting only 24 roots (0.74%), seven of which have practically fallen out of use (cf. Sect 2.2.2).
Vowel sequences of binyanim
In passing, it was noted that the vowel sequence of some verbs derived from one root is the same throughout, e.g., ħareġ ‘I, take out’, ħarreġ ‘II, train’, tħarreġ ‘V, train, v.i’,
inħareġ ‘VII, be taken out’, stħarreġ ‘X, investigate’, while the vowels of other verbs change from one pattern to the other, kiber ‘grow, v.i’, kabbar ‘grow, v.t’, tkabbar ‘be grown’.
Four categories
A qualitative analysis of the interactions between roots and patterns has shown that tri-‐
consonantal roots fall into four major categories. Argument alternations, such as active-‐
passive and causative-‐inchoative, make up the largest group. The other three categories consist of roots that derive singleton verbs, roots that acquire multiple interpretations, and roots that form synonymous verbs.
4.3.2 Verb formation and the four categories
To conclude this section on the binyan system in Maltese, I integrate the discussion on the morphological realization of the four categories roots fall into with the structural distinction between root derivation and word derivation, which was introduced in Ch. 3
to explain why the system has both transparent and opaque elements. Let us go over the most important observations concerning the distinction in word formation.
In line with Marantz and Arad’s model of word formation, couched within the framework of Distributed Morphology, I argued in Ch. 3 that words can be formed in syntax in two ways: (i) by merging a category-‐free root with a syntactic head, turning the root in a noun, verb or adjective, or (ii) by combining a previously formed word with a new syntactic head. From this distinction follows a locality constraint on the in-‐
terpretations and forms of roots: root-‐formed words are more likely to display mor-‐
phonological irregularities and semantic idiosyncrasies than word-‐formed words. Refer to Sect. 3.3 for empirical evidence from different languages, including Maltese, in favor of the distinction between root and word derivation, and for potential counterexamples to the predictions made by the model.
Based on these assumptions and generalizations, we can reinterpret the morpho-‐
syntactic realization and semantic behavior of the four categories (singletons, argument alternations, multiple interpretations, and synonyms) in light of the distinction in word formation. To preempt, the result is that singleton verbs, synonyms, multiple interpre-‐
tations, causative, inchoative and noncausative verbs are root-‐derived whereas pas-‐
sives and reflexives are word-‐derived.12 Let us now survey the two groups in some de-‐
tail, beginning with cases of root derivation.
Root-derived verbs
Unsurprisingly, root derivation gives rise to verbs belonging to very different catego-‐
ries. Verbs directly created from a root range from verbs that stand on their own (sin-‐
gletons) to verbs that are morphologically related to other verbs (causatives, synonyms, etc.); from verbs whose meanings are systematically related (synonyms, verbs entering the causative-‐inchoative alternation) to verbs that are semantically quite far apart (multiple interpretations).
Singletons are root-‐derived for two main reasons. First, they display many gaps in the system. The actual presence of singletons means there are eight other binyanim, which, at the intersection with that same root, yield a phonologically ill-‐formed verb (e.g., a stop-‐initial root in binyan VIII) or a verb form that cannot be interpreted. Sec-‐
ond, the morphological marking of singletons is relatively variable, in the sense that
12 Strikingly, these findings echo to a great extent the conclusions Arad (2005: Ch. 6) draws for templatic verbs in Hebrew, suggesting strong similarities in the verbal systems of Semitic languages.
they may appear in any of the nine patterns, as the following examples show, even though most of them occur in I and II (cf. Sect 4.2.1.1).
Root Binyan Verb Meaning
√xrq I xeraq suit
√slj II salla swear
√lgħb III liegħeb drool
√ħsr V tħassar take pity on
√bgħl VI tbagħal work hard
√fxx VII infexx erupt in
√sjd VIII stad fish
√żrq IX żrieq become azure
√’dn X stieden invite
It goes without saying that verbs with multiple interpretations are also formed at the first merging of a root with a functional head. As Arad (2005: 203) rightly observes, the only difference between these verbs and singletons lies in “the number of verbal environments in which they are assigned an interpretation.” In fact, unlike roots that take on an interpretation in one pattern only, the roots belonging to the category of multiple interpretations acquire a different interpretation in more than one pattern.
And these interpretations are irreconcilable. Consider a couple of examples mentioned in Sect. 4.2.1.3: the interpretations that √lqt or √tbgħ are assigned in binyan I (laqat
‘hit’, tebagħ ‘print’) and in binyan II (laqqat ‘collect’, tebba’ ‘stain’) are not mutually de-‐
rived. In addition, the analysis of the morphological realization of the roots in this cate-‐
gory demonstrated that there is no clear pattern as regards the forms that mark verbs with multiple interpretations.
Although synonyms tend to be realized in particular groups of patterns such as I – II (e.g., bidel, biddel ‘change’) and VII – VIII (e.g., instadd, stadd ‘clog up’), as shown in Sect 4.2.1.4, they nonetheless constitute a case of root derivation because they exhibit a lot of variation in the morphological marking. In fact, synonymous verbs may appear in a variety of 26 different pairs, 15 different triplets, and 7 different quadruplets.
In addition, both multiple interpretations and synonyms may include vocalic varia-‐
tion, which is typical of root derivation. Some examples of synonyms derived from the same root that have different vowel sequences include the following:
Root Binyan Verb Meaning
√ġbd V ġebbed be pulled repeatedly
VII inġibed be pulled
√qlj I qela fry
II qalla fry
√slf I silef lend
V sellef lend
√sqj I seqa give water to
II saqqa water, irrigate
Roots that are assigned multiple interpretations in the context of different binyanim may also have different vowel patterns. Consider the following verb forms:
Root Binyan Verb Meaning
√tkk II tikkek put dots on letters
V ittekkek have blemishes
√xrb I xorob drink
II xarrab wet
Of particular interest are the already mentioned roots √frd and √tbgħ, each creating four different verbs in I, II, V and VII. The verbs in I – VII and II – V mark different argu-‐
ment alternations, such as active-‐passive tebba’ ‘stain’, ittebba’ ‘be stained’, and transi-‐
tive-‐reflexive fired ‘separate, v.t’, infired ‘separate, v.i’.
Root Binyan Verb Meaning Binyan Verb Meaning
√frd I fired separate (v.t) II farrad make unpaired
VII infired separate (v.i) V tfarrad become unpaired
√tbgħ I tebagħ print II tebba’ stain (v.t)
VII intebagħ be printed V ittebba’ stain (v.i)
The two alternating pairs are, however, difficult to relate derivationally. Because all verb forms are derived from the same semantically underspecified root, it is perhaps conceivable to metaphorically associate the state of being unpaired with that of being separated. Similarly, it is not impossible to find figurative links between the event of staining and the event of printing. However, they do not semantically entail each other in the same way that, for instance, an event of separating reciprocally entails the event
of separating.
Evidence in support of this claim that these two roots are assigned multiple inter-‐
pretations in binyan I and II comes from the morphonology of the verb pairs. The verb forms derived from √frd show vocalic variation, i-e in binyan I, a-a in binyna II. The verbs created from √tbgħ retain the same vowel sequence, however the virtual pho-‐
neme għ gets realized as /ħ/ in binyan I, /ˈtɛbɐħ/, and has no phonetic realization in binyan II, /ˈtɛbbɐ/. I argue that the verbs in binyan VII and V are verb-‐derived from the verbs in I and II respectively. For this reason, they inherit not only the form of the base verbs (same vowel sequence, same phonetic realization of għ), but also the semantics of the corresponding verbs (they, in fact, constitute cases of argument alternations). These observations are in line with the predictions about the morphonological and semantic behavior of root-‐derived and word-‐derived words. Let us now turn to more cases of verb derivation, leaving causative and non-‐causative verbs for last.
Verb-derived verbs
The above cases of root derivation, where verbs are built at the first merging of a root with a functional head, involve gaps in the system, special meanings assigned in differ-‐
ent verbal environments, vowel change, and a great deal of variation in the morphologi-‐
cal realization of the verbs falling in a given category. Passives and reflexives, on the contrary, are almost always morphologically and semantically regular. An examination of their behavior in the binyan system suggests that they must be instances of verb derivation, as they are dependent on the form and meaning of their transitive counter-‐
parts.
Evidence for this claim comes first of all from the asymmetry between actives and passives, on the one hand, and non-‐reflexives and reflexives, on the other. While all pas-‐
sives have a corresponding active verb, there are some active verbs, such as ċeda ‘con-‐
cede’, għama ‘blind’, stieden ‘invite’, which stand on their own, without a passive coun-‐
terpart. In such cases it is possible to resort to the periphrastic passive (7a) or the pseudo-‐passive (7b).
(7a) Il=kelliem ġie mistieden
DEF=speaker come.PFV.3SG.M inivite.PST.PTCP mil-l=kumitat organizzattiv.
from-‐DEF=committee organizing
‘The speaker was invited by the organizing committee.’
(7b) Lil ħu=h sawt-u=h
OBJ brother=his beat-‐PFV.3PL=him u għam-ew=h minn waħd-a.
and blind-‐PFV.3PL=him from one-‐F
‘His brother was beaten and blinded in one eye.’
Similarly, reflexives are derivationally related to their corresponding transitive verbs.
There are many transitive verbs which lack a reflexive counterpart, but there is not one reflexive templatic verb that exists independent of a transitive verb form. Such verbs as xorob ‘drink’, wera ‘show’, wieġeb ‘answer’, can only be reflexivized periphrastically, as in (8), if they can be conceived in a reflexive sense at all.
(8a) It=tifel wera ruħ=u sodisfatt.
DEF=boy show.PFV.3SG.M soul=his pleased
DEF=boy show.PFV.3SG.M soul=his pleased