AFRO-ASIATIC PERSONAL PRONOUNS

We've seen that the Hausa p.p. can be reconstructed as:

1. *ni < *mi [~ *mu-a > *wa]
2m. *ka
2f. *ki ~ *kim
3m. *si ~ *sa [*ya]
3f. [*ta]
1p. *mu ~ *mun
2p. *ku ~ *kun
3p. *su ~ *sun

The Berber pronouns are:

suffix independent
1. -i(yi) n&k
2m. -k kay
2f. -m k&m
3. -s nta
1p. -na n&kkâni
2p. -w&m kâwni
3p. -s&n &ntâni

From Cushitic:

Beja Rendille
suffix independent
1. -0 an(i)
2m. -ka at(i)
2f. -ki
3. -s us(u)
3f. ic^e
1p. -n inno
2p. -kna atin
3p. -sna ic^o

Old Kingdom Egyptian:

suffix enclitic independent
1. =j (*-ay) =wj (*-wVy) jnk (*?anakV)
2m. =k (*-ku) =kw, =t_w (*-kuw) ntk ((*?a]ntaku)
t_wt (*kuwVtV)
2f. =t_ (*-ki) =t_m (*-kim) ntt_ (*[?a]ntaki)
t_mt (*kimVtV)
3m. =f (*-su) =sw (*-suw) ntf (*[?a]ntasu)
swt (*suwVtV)
3f. =s (*-si) =sj, =st (*-siy) nts (*[?a]ntasi)
stt (*siyVtV)
1p. =n (*-ina) =n (*-ina) jnn (*?ananV)
2p. =t_n (*-kina) =t_n (*-kina) ntt_n (*[?a]ntakina)
3p. =sn (*-sina) =sn (*-sina) ntsn (*[?a]ntasina)
1d. =nj (*-iniy)
2d. =t_nj (*-kiniy)
3d. =snj (*-siniy) ntsnj (*[?a]ntasiniy)


Semitic:

The Akkadian independent pronouns are in the nominative:

1. ana:ku
2m. atta:
2f. atti:
3m. s^u:
3f. s^i: ~ s^at
1p. ni:nu
2pm. attunu
2pf. attina
3pm. s^unu
3pf. s^ina

The first and second person forms can be explained as stative forms,
made by suffixing the stative verbal endings to a base *?an- ("here").
As the Egyptian evidence shows, this happened initially in the first
person *?an-a:ku "I am here" > "I", and was later extended to the
second person (2m. *?an-ta: > atta:, 2f. *?an-ti: > atti:), in
Egyptian to the 2nd and 3rd. persons (and additionally using suffix
pronouns besides the --in Egyptian-- obsolete stative endings):
*?an-ta -> *?an-ta-k(u), *?an-ta-k^(i), 3rd. person based on 2nd.
person *?an-ta + -f ~ -s. The older (O.K.) Egyptian 2/3 person
pronouns are *kuwVtV ~ *kimVtV and *suwVtV ~ *siyVtV.

The Akkadian 3rd. person pronouns are s^u: and s^i: or s^it. Third
masculine s^u can be analyzed as root *s^ + nominative/ergative marker
*-u, together the masculine base *s^u + again nominative -u = s^u:.
The absolutive/accusative form was *s^u-a (Arabic huwa).
The feminine can be analyzed as *s^ + "oblique" -i. The feminine base
+ acc./abs. *-a gives *s^i-a > s^iya (Arabic hiya). Feminine s^i: is
probably analogical after masc. s^u: (a derivation from *s^i-u does
not seem plausible).

The 2p. plural again has the stative endings m. -tunu, f. -tina. The
3pl. can be analyzed as *s^u + plural marker -n- + erg/nom -u. The
feminine is s^i-n-a with an acc./abs. marker.

The most problematical form is 1pl. Akk. ni:nu, Proto-Semitic
*[?a]nih.nu. We would have expected *?an-a:nu with the 1pl. stative
ending, the form we see in Egyptian <jnn>. Berber n&kkâni seems to
suggest an irregular development, either *?an-a:k-nu > *nah.nu, where
the *k is the 1sg. stative ending *-k(V) or, perhaps more likely,
*ni-k-nu, with 1st peron *ni + 2nd. person *k making a 1pl. inclusive
pronoun "me and you", to which stative -nu was added. In either case
we'e dealing with an irregular development *-kn- > -h.n-.

The oblique forms of the independent personal pronouns are only well
preserved in Akkadian. We have:

Gen./Acc. Dat. Poss.
1. yâti yâs^Vm ya:?um
2m. kâta, kâti kâs^Vm kûm
2f. kâti kâs^im kattum
3m. s^ua:ti/u s^ua:s^Vm s^ûm
3f. s^ia:ti s^ia:s^im sâttum, s^uttum
1p. nia:ti nia:s^im nûm, f. nia:?tum
2pm. kunu:ti kunu:s^im kunûm
2pf. kina:ti kina:s^im
3pm. s^unu:ti s^unu:s^im s^unûm
3pf. s^ina:ti s^ina:s^im

The Gen/Acc suffix is -(a)ti, -(a)tu, -(a)ta [formally identical with
the feminine suffix], the Dative has -as^i(m), the Poss. -?um. What's
left are the oblique bases of the personal pronouns:

1. *ya- < *n-i-0-a [< *m-i-0-a]
2m. *ka- < *k-u-0-a
2f. *ka- < *k-i-0-a
3m. *s^ua- < *s-u-0-a
3f. *s^ia- < *s-i-0-a

1p. *ni(y)a- < *n-i-n-a [< *m-i-n-a]
2pm. *kunu- < *k-u-n-u
2pf. *kina- < *k-i-n-a
3pm. *s^unu- < *s-u-n-u
3pf. *s^ina- < *s-i-n-a

The Akkadian suffixed pronouns are similar:

Gen. Dat. Acc.
1. -i:, -ya, -a -am, -m, -nim -ni:, -i:
2m. -ka -kum -ka
2f. -ki -kim -ki
3m. -s^u -s^um -s^u
3f. -s^a -s^im -s^i
1p. -ni -nia:s^im -nia:ti
2pm. -kunu -kunu:s^im -kunu:ti
2pf. -kina -kina:s^im -kina:ti
3pm. -s^unu -s^unu:s^um -s^unu:ti
3pf. -s^ina -s^ina:s^im -s^ina:ti


THE AFRO-ASIATIC NOUN

Akkadian nouns are declined as follows:

masc. fem.
Nom -u -atu
Acc -a -ata
Gen -i -ati

pl.
Nom -u: -a:tu
-a:nu:
-u:tu
Obl. -i: -a:ti
-a:ni:
-u:ti

du.
Nom. -a:
Obl. -i: (< *-ay)

Of the other AA languages, ouside Semitic, only Berber preserves this,
as a circumfix:

masc. fem.
Nom u-funas tu-funas-t
Acc a-funas ta-funas-t

pl.
Nom. u-funas-&n tu-funas-in
Acc. i-funas-&n ti-funas-in

In view of what we saw above in the personal pronouns (where *-u marks
the 2/3 masculine, as opposed to *-i for the first person and the
feminine), and the fact that -u still serves as a
locative/instrumental in Semitic, it is tempting to regard *-u as an
ancient agentive suffix, used for transitive subjects, while *-a and
*-i are non-agentive (transitive objects, intransitive subjects, etc.)

The original system can then be reconstructed as follows:

Erg. *-u
Obl. *-a

pl.
Erg. *-[VC]-u:
Obl. *-[VC]-i:

Whether there was a second vocalic oblique (sg. *-i, pl. *-a:)
is not certain. Semitic adopted *-i as the gen.sg. and *-a: as
the nom. dual (extended with a secondary oblique *-a:-i: > *-ay),
but sg. *-i may be identical with the adjectival suffix *-i:, *-iy-,
and dual *-a: may have been created to fill the hole in the system.
However, the use of *-i versus *-u in the personal pronouns suggests
that *-i was not necessarily adjectival/genitival, and we've seen that
Hausa has plurals in -a:, while *-a can also be reconstructed (as
we'll see later) for the PIE verbal plural.


NUNATION AND MIMATION

The Semitic languages distinguish different "states" of the noun.
The "status constructus" is unmarked, and is used when the noun is
followed by a determiner (noun in the genitive, possessive pronoun,
relative clause). The determiante and indeterminate states are marked
by suffixes -n and/or -m, as follows:

AKKADIAN
(indeterminate)
m. f.
-uM -atuM
-aM -ataM
-iM -atiM
pl.
-u: -a:tuM
-i: -a:tiM
du.
-a:N -ata:N
-i:N -ati:N

UGARITIC
(determinate)
m. f.
-u -atu
-a -ata
-i -ati
pl.
-u:Ma -a:tu
-i:Ma -a:ti
du.
-a:M -ata:M
-i:M -ati:M

ARABIC
(indeterminate) (determinate)
m. f. m. f.
-uN -atuN -u -atu
-aN -ataN -a -ata
-iN -atiN -i -ati
pl.
-u:Na -a:tuN -u:Na -a:tu
-i:Na -a:tiN -i:Na -a:ti
du.
-a:Ni -ata:Ni -a:Ni -ata:Ni
-ayNi -atayNi -ayNi -atayNi

ARAMAIC
(determinate)
m. f.
-0 -a:(h)
pl.
-i:N -a:N
du.
-ayiN -&tayiN

HEBREW
(determinate)
m. f.
-0 -a:(h)
pl.
-i:M -o:t
du.
-ayiM -a:tayiM


The pattern is that the indeterminate forms have -n or -m everywhere,
except in the Akk. masc.pl., where -m was dropped after long /u:/ (the
adjectives in -u:tu-m _do_ have mimation), and then analogically in
the masc.pl. oblique *-i:m > -i:. The suffix was originally *-n,
which became *-m after /u/ or /u:/ (and then analogically in the
oblique cases of the sg. and pl.). Only Akkadian and Arabic have this
"indeterminate" suffix *-n, perhaps once an indefinite article.

The determinate forms also go back to *-n (with *-un > -um
analogically extended in Ugaritic and Hebrew). The pattern here is
that *-n appears in the masc. plural (but not in the feminine), and in
the whole of the dual. The origin must be a definite article with
case forms:

Nom. *-u
Acc. *-a
Gen. *-i
pl.
Nom *-u-n
Obl. *-i-n
du.
Nom. *-a-n
Obl. *-ay-n

In the singular, the article merged with the case endings (but note
that in e.g. Hebrew the fem. status constructus has -at, while the
determinate form has -a:(h)), in the plural and dual, the plural
marker *-n remained as nunation or mimation.

Remains the problem of why the femine plural does not receive
nunation/mimation. Perhaps it's because the suffix -a:tu was felt to
provide sufficient determinacy and/or plurality all by itself.


THE BROKEN PLURAL

Besides the external plurals (-a:nu, -a:tu), Arabic (and other Semitic
languages) also have a category of "broken plurals", which
grammatically behave as feminine singulars, or rather as
"collectives".

Some common patterns in modern Egyptian Arabic:

C1 C2 C3 -> C1 C2 C3

1. $ á k - l -> ?a $ - k á:l "shape"
2. S á H - n -> S u H ú:n "plate"
3. $ á n - T a -> $ ú n a T "bag"
4. k i b í:r -> k u b á:r "big"
5. 3 á:m i l -> 3 u mmá:l "workman"
6. x a T í:b -> x ú T a b a "orator"
7. $ á k - w a -> $ a k á:w i "chair"
8. g a w á:b -> ?a g - w í b a "answer"
9. má k - t a b -> ma k - t á:b "office"
10.fi n - g á:l -> fa n a g í:l "cup"
11. g á m a l -> g i m á:l "camel"
12. w á l a d -> ?a w - l á:d
w i l á:d "boy"
13. k i t á:b -> k ú t u b "book"
14. m a d í:n a -> m ú d u n "city"

The pattern in most cases can be reduced to a rule which lengthens
the vowel between C2/C3 and shortens/reduces the vowel between C1/C2:

1. a/0 -> 0/a:
2. a/0 -> u/u:
3. a/0 -> u/a
5. a:/i -> u/a:
7. a/0 -> a/a:
9. a/0/a -> a/0/a:
11. a/a -> i/a:
12. a/a/ -> 0/a: ~ i/a:

If the second vowel is long, the results are varied:

4. i/i: -> u/a:
6. a/i: -> u/a
8. a/a: -> 0/i
10. i/0/a: -> a/a/i:
13. i/a: -> u/u
14. a/i: -> u/u

A simplified rule for collective formation would thus be:

C1 V(:)' C2 V C3 --> C1 V C2 V:' C3


THE AFRO-ASIATIC VERB: PREFIX CONJUGATION

Without outside parallels, but clearly reconstructable for
Afro-Asiatic is the prefix conjugation:

Akkadian Arabic Beja Berber Hausa PAA
1 a- ?a- ?a- &- -&G *?a-
2 ta- ta- ti- -a t&- -&D *ta- (-a:)
ta- -i: ta- -i: ti- -i *ta- (-i:)
3 i- ya- yi- y&- ya *ya-
ta- ta- ti- t&- *ta-

1 ni- na- ni- n&- *na-
2 ta- -a: ta- -u: ti- -na t&- -&m *ta- (-u:)
ta- -na t&- -&mt *ta- (-na)
3 i- -u: ya- -u: yi- -na &- -&n *ya- (-u:)
i- -a: ya- -na &- -&nt *ya- (-na)


THE AFRO-ASIATIC VERB: STATIVE CONJUGATION

Akkadian Hebrew Arabic Ge'ez Egyptian Berber PAA
1 -a:ku -ti: -tu -ku .kj -&G *-ku
2 -a:ta -ta: -ta -ka .tj -&d. *-t(k)a:
-a:ti -t -ti -ki *-t(k)i:
3 -0 -0 -a -a .j -0 *-a
-at -a: -at -at .tj -&t_ *-at(a)
1 -a:nu -nu: -na: -&n .wjn -it_ *-munu ~ *-nu:
2 -a:tunu -tem -tum -k&m .twjn -it_/-&m(t) *-t(k)unu
-a:tina -ten -tunna -k&n *-t(k)ina
3 -u: -u: -u: -u .wj -it_/-&n(t) *-unu ~ *-u:
-a: -u: -na -a: .tj *-ana ~ *-a:


The 1sg. can be reconstructed as *-ku (replaced by *-tu in part of
Semitic). For the 2sg. we can posit *-ta: (m.) and *-ti: (f.) (cf.
also the Akkadian p.p. atta: and atti: < *an-ta: and an-ti:, as well
as Aramaic 2sg.f. -ti:).

South-Arabic/Ethiopic *-ka(:) and *-ki(:) can perhaps be explained as
intrusions from the independent form of the pronoun. In the light of
the PIE stative 2sg. *-th2 (< **-tk), another possibility is perhaps
that the form was originally *-tka: ~ *-tki:. Then maybe Berber -d.
is from -dGV.
The 3rd. person is a verbal noun in the absolutive.
In the plural, Egyptian -wjn perhaps shows original *-mun(u), Semitic
otherwise shows *-nu:. In the 2pl. the development *-un(u) > -um(u)
is apparent in Hebrew, Arabic and Ge'ez. Akkadian retains original
*-n.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...