Arabic-L:LING:Lexical Relationships Summary

Fri Mar 26 20:36:45 UTC 2004

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-
Arabic-L: Fri 26 Mar  2004
Moderator: Dilworth Parkinson <dilworth_parkinson at byu.edu>
[To post messages to the list, send them to arabic-l at byu.edu]
[To unsubscribe, send message from same address you subscribed from to
listserv at byu.edu with first line reading:
            unsubscribe arabic-l                                      ]

-------------------------Directory------------------------------------

1) Subject:Lexical Relationships Summary
2) Subject:Lexical Relationships response
3) Subject:Lexical Relationships response
4) Subject:Lexical Relationships response
5) Subject:Lexical Relationships response

-------------------------Messages-----------------------------------
1)
Date: 26 Mar  2004
From:"Robert R. Ratcliffe" <ratcliffe at tufs.ac.jp>
Subject:Lexical Relationships Summary

[moderator's note: I sent all the responses to the original query to  
Robert, who prepared this summary.  I will then post below it the  
responses that were sent to the list.  dil]

     Thanks to every one who responded to my query about lexical
relationships. The results were reassuring (in terms of my
expectations). They were nine votes for 1 (ibn, bunn, binaaya
unrelated), four votes for 4a (bunn unrelated, ibn and binaaya belonging
to different final glide roots),  one vote for 4 (binaaya and ibn
belonging to same root b-n-w). In addition two respondents said either 1
or 4a would do.

     As Waheed Samy points out this reflects the position of the
lexicographers. Wehr has ibn listed as a biradical (bn) option 1, the
Lisaan al-Arab has  ibn listed under a 3-weak root bnw (option 4 or 4a).

Stephen Taylor points out that logically there is a fifth option:
binaaya and bunn are related, ibn is not.  This is true of course, but
linguistically I can't imagine anyway to relate binaaya and bunn except
through a biradical bn. I suppose if I exercised my brain a bit I could
come up with some way to do it. But the point is that (as far as I know)
no one has actually proposed any analysis that would correlate with this
option, while each of the other options correlates more or less with a
published analysis of one or sort or another (dictionary, theoretical
article, monograph, etc.)

I am happy to see there are no-radical biradicalists on the list (option
2-- ibn, bunn, and binaaya all related through a biradical root bn).
(Not that they are bad people, of course. I'm just glad not to have to
open that particular can of worms.)

So I suppose that most of you will be surprised to learn, as I have
been, that the analysis that most theoretical linguists insist upon is
option 3 (ibn and bunn both derived from a biradical bn; binaaya
unrelated). So my next question, for anyone who is willing to indulge me
further, is Why and how do you rule out option 3?

My own preference, by the way is option 1, but I know there is a case to
be made for option 4 or 4a. As Jonathan Owens rightly comments it
depends on what your view is on the status of the 'consonantal root.' Or
to put it another way, it depends on whether you want to locate
triliteralism in the lexicon or in the morphology. Do you assume that
triliteral-roots and pattern-based-morphology are completely independent
features of Arabic, or do you assume that there is some necessary
correlation between them. I have always (in my 1998 book and elsewhere)
assumed the latter, namely that the pattern imposes 'the root'-- and
further that patterns are only applied to derived words. This is why, I
suggest, triliteralism doesn't apply to pronouns, prepositions,
particles--- or (necessarily to) basic underived nouns, though these
acquire a third consonant in the derived forms, hence plural ?abnaa?un,
and denominal verb samma(y)a, from ism, etc.-- by hypothesis simply a
default consonant required to fill out the pattern.

[I'm having some trouble receiving arabic-l, so if you post to the list
on this, please also post to me, thank you]

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
2)
Date: 26 Mar  2004
From:fishbein at humnet.ucla.edu
Subject:Lexical Relationships response

Of the four hypotheses, I favor number one.

> 1. No relation. ibn belongs to (or is derived from) a biconsonantal  
> root
> b-n, bunn belongs to a triconsonantal root b-n-n (where the second and
> third consonant happen to be the same), binaaya belongs to a
> triconsonantal root b-n-y

In synchronic terms, I prefer this analysis. It is assumed by Wehr's  
dictionary. It has the advantage of describing how the Arabic system of  
derivation works in synchronic terms, without getting us into  
discussions of Afro-Asiatic or proto-Semitic roots.

> 2. All are related-- derived (through a productive, synchronic process)
> from a bi-consonantal root b-n

I see no evidence that there is a PRODUCTIVE process for deriving, bunn  
and binaaya from the same root as ibn. If all are to be related to a  
biconsonantal root b-n, such a root must be located in a language that  
was an ancestor of Arabic -- in proto-Semitic or even Afro-Asiatic. The  
productive processes of word-derivation in Arabic operate on  
preexisting triconsonantal roots. The closest one can get to operations  
on biconsonantal roots are ways of supplementing such roots (as in the  
case of ism and ibn, for example) with final weak letters in order to  
obtain a triconsonantal form from which to generate broken plurals  
(asmaa' and abnaa') or denominative verbs (sammaa, yusammii and  
tabannaa, yatabannaa).

> 3. ibn and bunn are related. Both belong to a biradical root b-n.
> binaaya is unrelated

I read somewhere that bunn is a loan word into Arabic from one of the  
Ethiopian languages -- coffee being native to Ethiopia. If that is the  
case, the etymology in Ethiopic Semitic (or non-Semitic) needs to be  
investigated. However, the fact of its being a loan word means that it  
has no productive derivation in Arabic. As far as I know, the only  
derivative from bunn in Arabic is the nisba adjective bunni (brown, the  
color of roasted coffee beans).

> 4. ibn and binaaya are related. Both belong to triconsonantal root with
> final glide. bunn is unrelated.

Again, even if ibn is to be related to a final weak root (as in the  
verb tabannaa), Wehr's dictionary assumes the existence of homonymous  
roots in Arabic. Synchronically, the roots operate as separate. The  
verb tabannaa, yatabannaa is not felt to be related to the verb banaa,  
yabnii. A poet might use the similarity of sound in a figure of jinaas  
(paronomasia), but that does not mean that ibn and binaaya are related.

> 4a. ibn doesn't belong to the same root as binaaya, but to a different
> root, perhaps b-n-w, with final glide.

Possibly, although I lean toward the hypothesis of a two-letter root.

I therefore favor hypothesis 1
-- 
Michael Fishbein, Undergraduate Advisor

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
3)
Date: 26 Mar  2004
From:farwaneh at email.arizona.edu
Subject:Lexical Relationships response

Your first choice is the correct one, but ['ibn] is derived from a
glide-final triconsonantal root /bnw/. The glide appears in derivations
like [bunuwwa], and converts to a glottal word-finally in the plural
['abnaa'].

Samira

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
4)
Date: 26 Mar  2004
From:Michael.Schub at trincoll.edu
Subject:Lexical Relationships response

Dear Robert,
      A propos: 0n the attached, Fast Eddie Said  (al-Maqbuur) botches  
up the relationships between /ism/, /sammaa/, /samaa/, and /saamii/, in  
a totally hilarious, perspicuous, and characteristically smarmy way.
      I suspect  that /bunn/,  like  /saamii/, is the odd man out:  the  
first may well be a loan word, and the second is a secondary nisba from  
the Biblical name of Noah's son [ibnu-hu].
      Synchronically,  /ibn/ and /banaa/ are separate triliteral roots;  
diachronically, however, according to the "biradical theory," it is  
entirely possible that both roots developed historically from  /-bn-/.   
(We even have a uniradical /-f-/  =  "mouth,"  from which we have  
nominative /fuu-hu/; accusative  /faa-hu/; and genitive /fii-hi/.  [And  
the derivitive  /'anfun/   = "nose."])   Its plural, like the plural of  
the later  /famun/, is  /'afwaahun/, with the artificial  /m/  elided.
      In the Hagadda, we are instructed to read the Hebrew  "Jerusalem's  
sons /baane-haa/" as "Jerusalem's builders  /boone-haa/,"  thrusting a  
homilitical element into our sermon.

                  Mike Schub

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
5)
Date: 26 Mar  2004
From:Mkotun at aol.com
Subject:Lexical Relationships response

I'm not an arabic linguist, but when you get the results of your survey  
I would like to know  the final concensus.
Salam,
Miriam

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
End of Arabic-L:  26 Mar  2004