By John Huehnergard, Cambridge, Mass.
The aim of the present note is to suggest that in the dialects of Old
Aramaic, the jussive of the third person feminine plural, written yqtln
(or Iqtln), reflects not *yvqtvlän, as might be expected from later Arama¬
ic dialects, but rather *yvqtvlnä, as in Arabic'
Third feminine plural forms ofthe prefix-conjugation occur in Old Ara¬
maic in the Sfire inscriptions, the Tell Fakhariyah inscription, and the
Samalian texts from Zincirli.^ Since our analysis of the feminine forms
involves comparison with their masculine counterparts, it is necessary
to list below the examples of both genders that are found in the texts
just mentioned. The examples are divided into indicative (i. e., non-jus¬
sive) and jussive usages, since that distinction will also be important in
the discussion that follows.
' The arguments put forth in this note would appfy equaffy to the second per¬
son feminine piuraf, no exampfes of which are attested as yet in Ofd Aramaic in¬
scriptions. Given that the endings on second mascuhne pturat forms ofthe pre¬
fix-conjugation (see below, notes 10, 14) exhibit the same distribution as the cor¬
responding third person forms, we may be confident in assuming that the second feminine plural would be written *tqtln, which in the jussive, if my hj^pothesis is valid, would reflect *tvqtvlna rather than Hvqtvlän. Note: In vocalizations of
paradigmatic Aramaic verbs throughout the paper, I have represented both the
prefix vowef and the thematic vowei of active G (pa'al) forms simpiy as v; the thematic vowel is, of course, lexical, while the date ofthe generalization of i as the prefix vowel in Aramaic (i.e., yi-, etc., from earlier *ya-/yi-) is unknown.
^ Except where noted otherwise, these texts are cited below according to the
following publications: KAI (= H. Donner and W. Röllig: Kanaanäische und
aramäische Inschriften^. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1971) numbers 222-224 for
Sfire, numbers 214-215 for Zincirli; A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil, A. R. Mil¬
lard: La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-arameenne.
Paris: Ed. Recherche sur les civhisations — ADPF 1982. (fitudes Assjrriologi- ques. Cahier no. 7.), pp. 23-24 for Tell Fakhariyah.
The Feminme Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic 267 Sfire'
Indicative: 3mp wySlhn "and (the gods) vrill send," KAI 222 A
30;
wygzm "and (his nobles) will be cut up," KAI
222 A 40;
yqtln "(if) they kill," KAI 224:11;
and several others, all y-. . .-w."
3fp' y'rm "(the wives of Mati"el) will be stripped,"
KAI 222 A 41;
yqhn "they will be taken," KAI 222 A 42.
Jussive: 3mp y^rw "may (the gods) keep," KAI 222 C 15;
yhpkw "may (the gods) overturn," KAI 222 C
21;
wySmw "and may they set," KAI 222 C 23.
3fp' yhynqn "may they suckle," KAI 222 A 22 (bis),
23 (bis); 223 A 2;
' The indicative and jussive forms listed for Sfire correspond formally to R.
Deoen's "Langimperfekt" and "Kurzimperfekt," respectively, in his Altar¬
amäische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Steiner 1969, 64-65, 108-16, though I must
disagree with his categorization oftwo forms as indicative rather than jussive;
see below, note 6.
ysqn "(who) wih come up," KAI 222 A 5, C 4; ysm "they will keep," 222 B 8;
ymlkn "(who) rule," 222 B 22; (w)lySm'n "(and) they do not obey," 223 B 2', 3;
y'wm "(who) are watchful (?)," 223 B 4; y[r'\Sm.n "they are written," 223 C 3;
ivyhkn''&nA (iO they go," 224:5; "they do not dweU (?),' 224:6; wySI)dn
"and (if) they bribe," 224 :28. See Degen: Grammatik (above, n. 3), 109-13, for the clauses in which these forms occur.
' That y'rm and yqhn are indicative is assured by the parallel occurrence, in the same set of curses, of the masculine indicative ygzm "they will be cut up,"
KAI 222 A 40. On y'rm, see also further below, note 37.
' Degen: Gmmmaiii (above, n. 3), 109, lists the first two forms under "Lang¬
imperfekt." Note, however, the close similarity of the clauses in which they occur to those in lines 20-22 ofthe Fakhariyah inscription (see S. A. Kaufman:
Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh. In: Maarav 3 [1982], 170-72; E. F*uech: Les inscriptions arameennes I et III de Sfire: nouvelles lectures. In: RB 89 [1982], 576-83). In the latter, the verbs (cited below) are clearly marked as jussive by means of the prefix I-, and, given the absence of intemal evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the corresponding verbs in the Sfire text are likewise jussive: e. g., "let seven mares suckle a foal, but may it not be sated," KAI 222 A 22. (The form ymSh[n], "may they anomt" [KAI 222 A 21], because of its broken ending, is not significant for our discussion.)
The readings of our second and third forms as yhkn and w'l yhrgn, respective¬
ly, have until recently been accepted without question, although the interpreta¬
tion ofthe clauses in which they are found has been much discussed (see P*uech, 19 ZDMG 137/2
yhkn/y'pn "may they go"/"may they bake,"
KAI 222 A 24;
w'l yhrgn/yrnVn "but may they not kill (or,
seduce)"/"but may they not fill," KAI 222 A 24.
Tell Fakhariyah
No indicative forms in the plural.
Jussive: 3mp llqfw "may (his people) glean," 1. 22;
I'klw'' "may they eat," 1. 22.
3fp Uiynqn "may they suckle," 11. 20 (bis), 21;
I'jm^ "may they bake," 1. 22;
w'l yml'nk^ "but may they not fill it," 1. 22.
Zincirli
Indicative:'" 3mp ytnw "they would give" KAI 214:4;
y'hdw "they would work," KAI 214:7;
yqhw "they would take," KAI 214:12.
3fp None.
Jussive: 3mp Itgmrw^^ "may (his brothers) gather," KAI
214:30;
plktSh " and may they strike him, " KAI 214:31.
ibid., 576-78, for a review ofthe proposals). But recently, Kaufman, in the
article just cited (pp. 170-72), has suggested that y'pn and w'l yml'n should be read instead, on the basis ofthe parallel in Fakhariyah 22. Collation of this line
is now clearly a desideratum. Whatever the correct reading of these forms,
however, it seems certain that they are both third feminine plural jussives ofthe form y-. . .-n.
' Kaufman: Reflections (previous note), 173; JAOS 104 (1984), 572b, has
proposed that I'klw be understood as an abstract noun, "for sustenance." To my mind, however, a jussive verb, asyndetically joined to llqtw, remains the more likely interpretation.
" This form is discussed in some detail further below.
' The final -h on this form is not part ofthe verbal ending but a 3ms object suf- frx referring back to tnwr "oven." That the sufiix is -h only, not -nh ( *ynd'nnh), is further evidence that the verb form is jussive; see Degen: Grammatik (above, n.
3), 80; Kaufman: Reflections (above, n. 6), 150, n. 31.
On the use ofthe prefix-conjugation to indicate past durative or habitual
action, see P.-E. Dion: La Langue de Ya'udi. Waterloo: Corporation for the
Publication of Academic Studies in Religion in Canada 1974, 266-67. Two
second masculine plural verbs, tSm[w] . . . wthrgw "you have placed . . . and kU- led" (KAI 215: 4-5), are apparently used as preterites; see ibid., 263-66.
'' Itgmrw is better understood as a third person form ofa t- conjugation (tG or tD) than as a second person G or D; see Dion: Langue (above, n. 10), 167, 206- 7.
The Femmine Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic 269
3fp [%m]m" "may (his sisters) gather," KAI
214:31;
plktSnh "and may they strike her," KAI
214:31.
From these examples the followdng paradigms may be constructed:
Sfire Tell Fakhariyah Zincirli
Indic. Jussive Indic. Jussive Indic. Jussive"
3mp yqtln yqtlw ? lqtlw/*'l yqtlw yqtlw l(y)qtlw
3fp yqtln yqtln ?
Iqtln/'l yqtln ?
l{y)qtln
As is widely recognized, the masculine forms at Sfire reflect a Proto-
West Semitic distinction: indicative *yvqtvlüna, plural of *yvqtvlu; jus-
sive *yvqtvlü, plural of *yvqtvl (and of subjunctive/volitive *yvqtvla)}''
In the Samalian dialect, *yvqtvlüna fell out of use and *yvqtvlü was
generalized for both functions," with the prefix I- available to mark
forms as specifically jussive.'* At TeU Fakhariyah, the jussive iq^iw like¬
wise reflects proclitic I- + *yvqtvlü;^^ the non-occurrence of indicative
forms (in the plural) unfortunately prevents us from ascertaining whe¬
ther the indicative in the Fakhariyah dialect was yqtln as at Sfire or
yqtlw as in Samalian.
'^ Restored with a fair degree of certainty on the basis of masculine Itgmrw in 1. 30 and the analogy of masc. pIktSh vs. fem. plktSnh n. 1. 31.
" Dion: Langue (above, n. 10), 301-3, considers the prefix I- that appears before jussives in the Zincirli inscriptions to be optional. It seems possible, however, to construe all ofthe prefix-conjugation forms with initial y- (i. e., third masc. sg. and pl.) in KAI 214 and 215 as non-jussive. If so, then the prefix I- may have been obligatory to mark such forms as injunctive (except after the negative
% of course), as in the Fakhariyah text; note, however, that apparent jussives with other prefixes are not preceded by 1-: t'kl . . . wtSty "may (the spirit of pn) eat . . . and drink" (KAI 214: 21-22). On the presence or elision ofthe prefix y- after I-, see Dion, ibid., 123-24.
'" Note also these second person masc. pl. forms: indicative [lt']tum "(if) you do not come," KAI 222 B 32; jussive w'l tpnw "and do not turn," KAI 224:7.
" Note also the second person masc. pl. forms (Hvqtvlü) cited above in n. 10.
" See note 13, above ; further, my Asseverative *la- and Hypothetical *lü/law in
Semitic. In: JAOS 103 (1983), 569-93, esp. 589-90.
" No second person forms occur in the Fakhariyah inscription.
19'
The feminine forms yqtln are usually said to represent *yvqtvlän,^^
corresponding to yiqtalän in later Aramaic dialects." While this is pro¬
bably the case for the indicative forms at Sfire (see further below), seri¬
ous historical difiiculties arise if the jussive forms yqtln are also so con¬
strued. Consider the personal markers for third person plural verbs in
the major Semitic languages:
Akkadian Ethiopic Arabic Hebrew P^oto-Aram.
Suffix- conju¬
gation
3mp -M -Ü -Ü -Ü *-M
3fp -ä -ä -na -Ü •-ä^°
Prefix- conju¬
gation
3mp i-. . .-Ü
y-. . .-Ü y-. . .-ü{na) y-. . .-ü(n) *y-. . .-ü{na) 3fp i-. . .-ä
y-. . .ä y-. . .-na t-. . .-nä(h) ?
These forms suggest the following reconstruction for Proto-West Se¬
mitic:
3mp 3fp
SufTix-conjugation *. . .-Ü *. . .-ä
Prefix-conjugation *y-. . .-ü{na) *y-. . .-nd
See, e. g., J. A. Fitzmyer: The Aramaic Inscriptions of Seßre. Rome: Ponti- ficaf Biblical Inst. 1967 (Biblica et Orientalia. 19.) 42, 57; W. R. Gaer: Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. PhUadelphia: Univ. of Pennsyl¬
vania 1985, 127-28. The suggestion of K. Beyer (in his review of Degen's
grammar [above, n. 3] In: ZDMG 120 [1970], 201), that the -nof 2//jr^(KAI222 A 24) is an energic ending ( *yahrugdnn), is unacceptable unless we are willing to make the highly unlikely claim that all of the fem. pl. jussives under discussion here happen coincidentally to be energic forms. Further, as Degen has pointed
out (in Die Präfixkonjugatianen des Altaramäischen. In: ZDMG Supplementa I
[1969], 704, n. 4), the appearance of an energic form after five non-energic forms (KAI 222 A 21ff.) would also be difiicult to explain.
" E.g., in the gare of Biblical Aramaic, in Targum Onqelos, Palestinian Tar¬
gum, etc.; cf also Syriac neqtlän.
Note the reflexes of *qatvlä in the gare of Biblical Aramaic, in Targum Onqe¬
los, Babylonian Talmudic, and in the Syriac presuflixal form qatlä-. No examples of third feminine plural forms of the perfect are attested as yet in Old Aramaic.
In Official Aramaic, third feminine forms were for the most part repfaced by
their mascuhne counterparts; see Z. Ben-Hayyim: The Third Person Feminine
Rural in Old Aramaic. In: Eretz-Israel 1 (1951), 135-39 (Hebrew). (Inanumber of later Aramaic dialects, the third fem. pl. ends in -en, an ending usually said to
The Feminme Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic 271
The suffix-conjugation forms, of course, present few problems: in
Arabic, feminine *qatvlä was replaced with qatvlna by analogy with the
jussive contrast yaqtvlü ~ yaqtvlna; in Hebrew, •gaiüiä was lost as mas¬
culine *qatvlü was levelled through for both genders.^'
Reconstruction of the prefix-conjugation forms is more complicated.
The most reasonable solution, as indicated by the table, is to assume for
Proto-West Semitic the modal and formal distribution exhibited in
Arabic, viz., a formal distinction in the masculine plural between indica¬
tive *yvqtvlüna and jussive/subjunctive *yvqtvlü,^^ but a common form
*yvqtvlnä for all moods in the feminine plural.^' It might be argued that
the feminine plural could also be reconstructed as *yvqtvlä, as in East
Semitic (Akkadian and Ethiopic in the table above). That is unlikely,
however. If we begin with a proto-form *yvqtvlnä, the East Semitic form
*yvqtvlä is readily explainable as the result of analogy with the mascu¬
line ~ feminine contrast in the suffix-conjugation ( *qatvlü : *qatvlä : :
*yvqtvlü : X= *yvqtvlä). If, on the other hand, we begin with *yvqtvlä, we
are at a loss to explain the existence of *yvqtvlna in Arabic and Hebrew;
certainly no phonological process could be involved, and no analogy,
e.g., with masculine *yvqtvlüna, would adequately account for the re-
have been borrowed from the independent pronoun; see C. Brockelmann:
Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatilc der semitischen Sprachen. Vol. 1 Berlin 1908; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms 1961, 574-75. A table showing the distribution of third masc. and fem. pl. endings ofthe perfect in various Aramaic dialects is
presented by S. E. Fassberg: A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments
from the Cairo Genizah. PhD diss., Harvard Univ. 1983, 236-37.)
^' So also in Official Aramaic and some Middle Aramaic dialects; see the
article by Ben-Hayyim cited in the previous note.
This contrast is also exhibited in the Canaanite verb forms ofthe Amama (and other Akkadian) letters from Palestine: third common plural indicative
tvqtvlüna, jussive/vohtive tvqtvlü; see, e.g., W. L. Moran: New Evidence on
Canaanite taqtulü(na). In: JCS 5 (1951), 33-35; A. F. Rainey: Morphology and
the Prefix-Tenses of West Semitized El-Amama Tablets. In: Ugarit-Forschungen 7
(1975), 395-426. Ugaritic, too, exhibits third plural forms with and without finaf -n (tqtl{n); see most recentfy D. L. Dobbusin: The Third Masculine Hural of the FVefixed Form of the Verb in Ugaritic. In: Joumal of the Ancient Near Eastem Society of Columbia University 13 [1981], 5-14); the formal markers of gender (if there was a distinction) and the modal distribution remain elusive, however.
" In Hebrew, of course, the 3fp form (tiqtölnä{h)) has acquired the prefix of
the corresponding singuiar, with rare exception (e.g., way-yehamnäh Gen.
30 :38). Note too the Amama Canaanite and Ugaritic forms with prefix t- cited
in the previous note. The Amama forms, which are of common gender, have the
masc. pl. endings (-ü/-üna)\ no forms reflecting *yvqtvlnä are attested.
placement either.^'* Finally, and more to the point ofthe hypothesis of¬
fered here, the Old Aramaic feminine plural jussive forms themselves
militate against the assumption of a proto-form *yvqtvlä; see below,
note 27.
Given the likely existence of Proto-West Semitic *yvqtvlnä, we should
note at this point that the orthography of the Old Aramaic texts allows
us, a priori, to read the feminine plural forms yqtln either as the reflex of
*yvqtvlna or as *yvqtvlän later Aramaic yiqtalän)?^ Note further
that none of the other Semitic languages exhibits a feminine plural
form like *yvqtvlan. The latter is clearly an Aramaic innovation, which
came about by analogy with the masculine plural form *yvqtvlün,^^ prob¬
ably through the forms of the perfect; i.e.,
qatvlü : *qatvlä :: *yvqtvlün : X = *yvqtvlän.
Other lines of development might be proposed, but only the one given
here is free of difficulties.^' What is significant is that the origin of
H. Bauer and P. Leander: Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Halle/
Saale: Niemeyer 1927; repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1981, 96-97, suggested the
following forms for Proto-Semitic: "Kurz-Aorist" 3mp *yaqtulü, 3fp *yaqtulä;
"Voff-Aor." *yaqtulürM, *yaqtuläna, the latter forms having arisen through the extension of -nä from the 2nd and 3rd person fern. pf. independent pronouns.
Their reconstruction, as neat as it is for Aramaic, is impossible, however, for there is no mechanism by which the ending -na could replace the "original" 3fp - ä (thus, *yaqtulä > *yaqtidna; their § 30f) in Arabic and Hebrew, whUe at the same time simply be tacked onto the end ofthe 3mp -m and 2fs -i (thus, *yaqtulü
> *yaqtulürM, *taqtuli > *taqtulina; their § 30i). In other words, the feminine
plural ending -nd must be considered a separate morpheme distinct from the
indicative marker -na which follows long vowels (2fs -i, 2/3mp -ü).
This has already been pointed out by S. Segert: Altaramäische Gramma¬
tik. Leipzig: VEB 1975, 251 (§ 5.6.4.7.7).
Throughout this study I have assumed in my vocalized representations of
reconstructed Aramaic and Old Aramaic forms the loss of PVoto-(We8t) Semitic final short vowels. The date of the loss of such vowels is an important issue requiring further investigation, beyond our present scope. See the recent com¬
ments of S. Kaufman: Reflections (above, n. 6), 157, n. 56. Another considera¬
tion: if T. 0. Lambdin's hypothesis in: The Junctural Origin of the West Semitic Definite Article. In: Near Eastem Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Ed.
H. Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 1971, 315-33, esp. p. 322, is vahd, as
I think it is, then final short vowels (or at least, case endings) are likely to have been lost in those dialects which exhibit a definite article (i. e., Sfire and Fakha¬
riyah). Happily, the presence or absence of final short final vowels does not bear
upon the developments under consideration here.
It may be appropriate, if somewhat tedious, to review the other means that might be suggested to account for *yvqtvlän. Note that only (a) and (b) below
The Feminine Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic 273
*yvqtvlän depends upon the rnasculine *yvqtvlün. A necessary corollary
of this fact is that the new form *yvqtvlän could only be indicative, not
jussive, in each of the dialects of Old Aramaic under consideration.
involve analogies with the proportional completeness of the one offered in the text above; yet they too are problematic.
(a) We might assume the existence in Proto-Aramaic ofa fem. pl. form *yvqtv- lä, either inherited directly from Proto-West Semitic (but see the discussion of this possibility above), or generated within Aramaic by analogy to the forms of the perfect or the imperative (but see below): i.e., *yvqtvlü : *yvqtvlün: : *yvqtvlä : X = *yvqtvlän. The difficulty here, of course, is that *yvqtvlä is simply not attest¬
ed in Old Aramaic; in each of the dialects, the fem. pl. jussive occurs as yqtln/
Iqtln, with final -n. Nor can we assume that *yvqtvlä existed at an earlier period and was lost after the analogical process, for we would then have to suggest a generalization ofthe new form *yvqtvlän as both indicative and jussive; but this is extremely unlikely, given that the masculine forms remained distinct, at Sfire at least. (The evidence at Fakhariyah is insufficient, since no indicative plural forms occur. In Samalian generalization did occur, but it was the jussive form of the masculine that was levelled through — which form of the feminine survived
must remain uncertain, but it is improbable that a form *yvqtvlän eould ever
have been generated in that dialect, given the absence of *yvqtvlün; see below, n.
38.)
(b) Given that in some later Aramaic dialects (e. g., Targum Onqelos) the fem.
pl. imperative is q(3)tvlä, it might be argued that the analogy that produced
*yvqtvlänyioTV.ed through the plural imperative forms (i.e., *q(v)tvlü : *q(v)tvlä : : *yvqtvlün : X = *yvqtvlän) . But it is doubtful that *q(v) tvlä was in fact the form of the fem. pl. imperative in PYoto-Aramaic (the early texts furnish no evidence).
It should be recalled that throughout the Semitic languages there is a elose for¬
mal relationship between imperative and jussive. I would suggest, therefore,
that since, as was shown above, the fem. pl. jussive in Proto-Aramaic was not
*yvqtvlä, the corresponding imperative would not have been *q(v)tvlä — most
likely, it was *q(v)tvln *- *q(v)tvlnd; see further n. 28, below. (The imperative q(d)tvlä of later dialects, then, must be seen as another irmovation, which arose after the jussive had ceased to be a distinct form, probably on the analogy ofthe
perfect forms [or even of the generalized prefix-conjugation forms: yiqtvlün :
yiqtvlän : : qatvlü : X = qdtvlä].)
(c) It has been suggested (e.g., Segert: Grammatik [above, n. 25], 251 [§
5.4.6.7.7]) that the absolute form of fem. pl. nouns in -än played a role in the creation of the new form *yvqtvlän. This seems unlikely, since no acceptable ana¬
logy ean be proposed. In faet, the influence was probably in the opposite direc¬
tion; see the end of this study.
(d) Finally, one cannot account for the new 3fp form *yvqtvlän by appealing
to a dubious phonological process by whieh -n is simply added haphazardly to
open final syllables (suggested for late dialects by A. Tal: Layers in tiie Jewish
Aramaic of Palestine: the Appended Nun as Criterion. In: Leäonenu 43 [1979],
165-84, esp. p. 171 [Hebrew]; for a critique, see Fassberg: Grommar [above, n.
20], 151-53); there is in any case no other evidence for such a process in Old Aramaic.
Since the mascuhne form *yvqtvlün, which served as the catalyst for the
generation of feminine *yvqtvlän, is never jussive in these dialects, it
could not have given rise to a jussive feminine counterpart. Rather, the
masculine plural jussive in each ofthe dialects is *{la-)yvqtvlü, without
final -n, and that form could not have generated an analogical feminine
form ending in -än. Thus, the only viable explanation for the appearance
of an -n on the Old Aramaic feminine plural jussives yqtln/lqtln is to
assume, given no evidence in the texts to the contrary, that they repre¬
sent the reflex of early West Semitic *(la-)yvqtvlnä, viz., *yvqtvln/
Ivqtvln.^^
Some hard evidence for our hypothesis is provided by the form Vpn
"let them (fem.) bake" in the TeU Fakhariyah text (line 22)." If the
feminine plural jussive in this dialect were Hvqtvlän, we would expect
for "let them (fem.) bake" the form Hv'pvyän, which would require a
consonantal y in the orthography (cf., e.g., Targum Onqelos w9-
yep{i)yän "and they [fem.] will bake" Leviticus 26 :26).'*' Since no y is
^' The final vowel of Proto-West Semitic *yvqtvlnä must be reconstructed as
anceps. It seems likely that if the Old Aramaic refiex had been *yvqtvlnä, with long -ä, the form would have been written with final -h. Whether final short -a was present depends on whether finaf short vowefs in general were preserved in these dialects. As elsewhere in this study, I have assumed the loss of all such vowels (see above, n. 26), and therefore represent the form as *yvqtvln rather than as *yvqtvlna; cf e.g., the similar development of *yvqtvlna to *yvqtvln in
certain modem Arabic dialects (see Brockelmann: Gmndriß [above, n. 20],
567) and probably in the bibhcal Hebrew dialect(s) in which the 2/3 fem. pl. was written without final -h.
We noted above in n. 27 (under b) the close formal relationship between jus¬
sive and imperative. If the Proto-Aramaic fem. pl. jussive was indeed *yvqtvln&, as we propose, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the corresponding
imperative was *q(v)tvlna (cf Arabic yaqtulna — uqtulna, Hebrew tiqtölnä(h) ~
qdlölnä(h)). As evidence for such a proto-form in Aramaic, we may perhaps point to the fem. pl. imperatives in -en exhibited in certain later dialeets, such as Sjriac qtolen. Despite the spelling (with y before the n), it is not impossible that qtolen is the refiex of *q(v)tvln <- *q(v)tvln&; ct., e.g., mlek *- *mcdk(v). Prof D.
Hillers has kindly reminded me, however, that the ending -en should not be
considered in isolation from other masc. ~ fem. pairs -un — en in the language, as in the 3rd person of the perfect.
" Possibfy afso y'pn at Sfire, if S. Kaufman's suggestion (above, n. 6) is to be accepted.
■"^ This has also been noted by Kaufman: Reflections (above, n. 6), 150, and D.
M. Gropp and T. J. Lewis: Notes on Some Problems in the Aramaic Text oJ the
Hadd-Yith'i Bilingual. In: BASOR 259 (1985), 53-54. I wish to thank Drs.
Gropp and Lewis for providing me with a copy of their tjrpeseript before the
study's publication.
The Feminine Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic 275
written, and since a contraction of final -vyän is unlikely (cf. later Ara¬
maic dialects), it is probable that Vjm reflects Hv'pin, from earlier Hv-
yv'piyna,^^ in which no vowel, only *-na, followed the third radical y.
We noted above that the innovative feminine plural form *yvqtvlän
could only be indicative in our Old Aramaic texts. We must ask, finally,
whether the two attested feminine plural indicatives, the Sfire forms
y'rm and yqhn, do in fact denote that new form or, like the jussive forms,
still denote the earlier *yvqtvln. Unfortunately, our data do not permit
us to date precisely the process, described above, which generated
*yvqtvlän. But a point of linguistic rule ordering suggests that the pro¬
cess had occurred, at least in the Sfire dialect. The ending -än which
marks the absolute state of feminine plural nouns and adjectives in Ara¬
maic is commonly derived by means of an analogy with the
corresponding masculine plural -in?^ That analogy, however, is not
legitimate,.and would not have generated the attested form in -än."
More likely, the nominal ending -än arose by analogy vrith the new verb
form *yvqtvlän, in a period in which the masculine plural nominative
desinence hat not yet been replaced by the generalized oblique ending
-in:''
*yvqtvlün : *yvqtvlän : : Häbün : X = *päbän.
If this is the process that produced the absolute feminine pliu-al ending
-än, then, given that at Sfire the nominative masculine plural ending -ün
has almost certainly been lost,'^ and that one or two feminine plural
" See also the study of Gropp and Lewis (previous note), who similarly sug¬
gest *li'pina <- *li'piyna. It seems likely that Ppn reflects an i-cfass form ( *yaq- tü-, cf., e.g., Arabic ya'tina "they wüi/let them [fem.] come"), rather than an a- class form (Arabic yaräayna, Hebrew tibne(y)nä(h) «- *tvbnaynä); in an a-class form (i. e., Hv'payn), the stressed diphthong -ay- would almost certainly appear in the script ofthe Fakhariyah text as a ?/ (cf , e.g., 'lym for *'ulaym, line 21), whereas the long -i- of *to'pm would not necessarily be reflected (cf , e.g., 'Ihnior
*'üähin, line 14).
See, e.g., Garr: Dialect Geography (above, n. 18), 95, and 153, n. 116, for earlier discussion.
The fatal difficulty in the proportion tab : tähä :: {abin : X = (abän is that the masc. plural marker can only be interpreted as -in, not as -n. Thus, the propor¬
tion fails.
'" The analogy offered here was suggested (orally) by T. 0. Lambdin. That
the nominal fem. ending -än was derived from the verbal inflection was sug¬
gested already over eighty years ago by F. Praetorius: Über einige Pluralfor¬
men des Semitischen. In: ZDMG 56 (1902), 686, and others (see ibid., n. 1).
This is not clear from any of the absolute masc. pl. forms themselves at
Sfire, aff nominative examples of which are written simply with -n, without indi¬
cation ofthe vowel. But all masc. pl. constructs, including nominative forms, end
absolute forms ending in -n seem to occur, the form *yvqtvlän must
already have come into existence.'' Thus, at Sfire, as jussive *yvqtvlü
contrasted with indicative *yvqtvlün in the masculine plural, so prob¬
ably jussive *yvqtvln contrasted with indicative *yvqtvlän in the femi¬
nine plural. Whether indicative *yvqtvlän occurred in the other dialects
must remain uncertain.'*
uniformly in -y, indicating a generalization of the oblique desinence (usually
taken to be the dual -ay); see Fitzmyer: Aramaic Texts (above, n. 18), 155.
" The data are unfortunately not as compelling as one might hope. The forms in question are S'n "ewes" (KAI 222 A 23) and [mhy'\nqn "wet-nurses" (KAI 222 A 21). The restoration of the latter is very likely, but complete certainty is of course impossible. The former is a feminine noun, written S't in the singular (KAI
222 A 21), reflecting *OvH (for cognates and discussion of this vocable, see
D. Pardee and R. D. Biggs in: JNES 43 [1984], 256; Huehnergard, review
of Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil, and Millard [op. cit., above, n. 2], in: BASOR
261 [1986], 91-5). Thus, it has naturally been assumed that ^'w reflects *Ov'än.
But the plural ofthe same word appears in the Fakhariyah text as s'wn; while
this may denote the fem. absolute form *6r'äwän (with the consonantal w before the plural marker characteristic of some final-weak nouns in other Aramaic dia¬
lects), it has also been suggested that -urn, denotes the nominative masculine pl. ending: *er'ün (see J. W. Wesselius: BO 40 [1983], 182; cf , e.g., Hebrew rähel "ewe", pl. rdhelim). (It is not clear to me why Degen, in his Orammatik [above, n. 3], 53, hsts m'ynn "springs" [KAI 222 A 12] as fem. pl.; cf Syriac m'i- ne, Hebrew ma'yänim.) Nevertheless, it does seem likely that the fem. pl. abso¬
lute ending had become -än. The pl. Ihyt "evh" (KAI 222 C 20, 224 :2), then, is an
archaic form (so Fitzmyer: Aramaic Texts [above, n. 18], 105); S. A. Kauf¬
man's suggestion (BO 34 [1977], 94) that the distinction -än — öt may perhaps denote noun ~ adjective or non-predicative ~ predicative, while attractive, requires additional evidence.
^' The form .«/'rm ("they will be stripped," KAI 222 A 41) might argue against this if we were forced to construe it as G (passive), since then the most likely vocalization would be *yu'ram <- *yu'rama, as in Arabie; the ending "^-än would cause the falling together of the seeond and third radicals, so that only one r would be written (i. e., *yu'arrän, as, e. g., in y'l <- *yv'ullu"(v/\\o) enters," in KAI 222 B 35; whether such verbs had by this period been re-formed to, e. g., *yi"ul,
cannot be ascertained). More likely, however, we should follow Degen: Gram¬
matik (above, n. 3), 73, and construe y'rm as passive D.
'* It is unlikely to have occurred in Samalian, since the masculine *yvqtvlün on which it is based had fallen out of use in that dialeet (although admittedly we
do not know when). Note too that the absolute form of fem. pl. nouns is uni¬
formly *-ät, not *-än, and so does not argue for or against the existence of
*yvqtvlän (see the discussion, above). In the dialect ofthe Fakhariyah inscrip¬
tion, the form of the plural marker on the only fem. pl. absolute nouns (s'um
"ewes," 1. 20; nSwn "women," h. 21, 22) is ambiguous; see note 36. That faet and the fortuitous absence of any plural indicative verbs make further speculation pointless.
The Femmine Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic 277
To summarize the hypothesis presented above, the following para¬
digm of third plural forms in the prefix-conjugation may be proposed for
the dialects of Old Aramaic:
Jussive Indicative
3mp afp 3mp 3fp
Sfire yvqtvlü yvqtvln yvqtvlün yvqtvlän
Fakhariyah Ivqtvlü Ivqtvln \ ?
Zincirli lv(yv)qtvlü lv{yv)qtvln yvqtvlü {*yvqtvln ?)
In most later Aramaic dialeets, of course, the jussive ceased to be a
distinct morphological category, and a reduction of these paradigms
ensued. For the most part, indicative forms like those at Sfire survived
— masculine *yvqtvlün yiqtdlün, feminine *yvqtvlän yiqtalän — while
the early jussive forms like *yvqtvlü and *yvqtvln fell out of use."
In some later dialects, it should be noted, the jussive with prefix I-, liqtvl, did survive, either replacing or alternating with yiqtvl; see my Asseverative *la- (above, n. 16), 590. The plural forms, however, usuaUy acquired the endings of the indicative (-ün, -än).
By Alice Faber, Gainesville
The two major inscriptions in Yaudi Aramaic (KAI 214, 215) contain
between them 8 clearcut instances of the word mt.
1. wmt yqhw mn ydy 'and they took from my hands' (H12)^
2. mt nM y'mr 'and [if] he utters his oath' (H28-9)'
3. whnw mt yS' ydyh I'lh 'bh 'and if he raises his hands to the god of
his father' (H29)
4. plw ntn hdd mt'* 'and may Hadad give' (H13)
5. pbnyt mt 'and I built' (H 14)
6. wbymy 'by, pnmw Sm mt b''ly kpry wb'^ly rkb 'and in the days of my
father, Panamuwa, he (em)placed chiefs of villages and chiefs of
cavalry' (PIO)
7. wmh 'S'l mn 'Ihy mt ytr^ ly 'and what I asked from the gods they
gave me' (H12-3)
8. wytrh mt ml ' msgrt ' and with their remnants he filled the prisons '
(P4)
They syntax ofthe word is unclear (Dion 1974: 298) and none ofthe
"obvious" Semitic cognates ('man,' 'dead', 'country') provides any
help: Kutscher (1976: 58) refers to it as an "orphan," and Gibson
suggests that it is unattested outside of Yaudi. The item is generally
interpreted as an "emphatic" meaning 'certainly, surely' (Dupont-Som-
' I am grateful for a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Sti¬
pend (1983), which provided partial support for the research reported on in this paper. This paper is an expanded version of a paper read at the 1985 joint ses¬
sion of the American Oriental Society and the North American Conference on
Afroasiatic Linguistics. 1 would like to thank all those who commented on the
oral version and to absolve them of responsibUity for any shortcomings in my
presentation.
^ I use H(adad) for KAI 2U and P(anamuwa) for KAI 215.
^ iL4/treat this sentence as an implicit conditional, an interpretation that is supported by the foUowing eontext.
" The end of this sentence is unclear.
^ Gibson reads here ytnw. While the verbs here are clearly prefix conjuga¬
tion, the context is unambiguously past. See below for discussion.
