Leiden-Boston-Koln: Brill, 2002. 652 p. (Handbook of Oriental Studies. Sec. 1. The Near and Middle East. Bd. 61)*.

(c) 2004

Arabic linguistics and Semitology were supplemented with a new study carried out in research centers in Malta, England and Italy, in broad consultation with Israeli semitologists and Maltese scientists. The author of the book is Martin R. Zammit, Ph. D. in Arabic Studies and Semitology, lecturer in Arabic at the Department of Arab and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Malta.

Qur'anic studies has a long history and is represented by an extensive multi-faceted scientific literature both in the East and in the West. But even in such a field as the language of the Koran, where, it would seem, "everything is studied", the appearance of such a research work is not an ordinary event. The author of the book opens up a new aspect of linguistic study of the largest and in many respects original monument of the Arabic language. Drawing on the comparative lexical material of eight Semitic languages, M. Zammit sets out to establish a quantitative relationship between the Arabic vocabulary of the Koran, which goes back to the general Semitic fund, and the Arabic vocabulary itself, i.e., the vocabulary that does not have its correspondences in the Semitic languages involved in the comparison. By establishing a different number of common lexemes between Qur'anic Arabic (hereinafter - QA) and each of the Semitic languages involved, the researcher intends to determine not so much the degree of genetic affinity between QA and a given Semitic language, but the degree of their "cultural and historical affinity", the level of socio-cultural inter-Semitic ties (p.1).

The book is provided with a complete technical apparatus. The appendix at the end of the book presents: bibliography (p. 617-627), including 223 titles; index of Arabic root bases in the order of the Arabic alphabet (p.629-645); general index of proper names and terms (p. 646-652).

* Martin R. Zammit. Comparative study of the vocabulary of the Koran. Leiden-Boston-Cologne: Bril, 2002. 652 p. (Literature on Oriental Studies. 1. Near and Middle East, vol. 61).

page 200

The research section consists of an introduction, six chapters, and notes.

The introduction sets out the author's initial positions. The material of the study is the vocabulary of the Koran as the most authoritative and reliable monument of the Arabic language of the 7th century. From the text of the Qur'an, 1717 lexical units were selected (excluding borrowings and proper names), which correspond to 1504 roots. Taking into account the latest estimates of the root stock of the Arabic language (3775 units), the inventory of KA roots is about 40% of the total number of Arabic roots (p. 2). Comparative material from eight Semitic languages is drawn to this corpus of KA vocabulary. In order of their permanent location in tables and diagrams: Geez, epigraphic South Arabian (undivided), Syriac, Aramaic (undivided), Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Akkadian.

The first chapter, "Previous Lexicological Studies", is a historical overview of the literature devoted to the study of Arabic vocabulary, starting with the national philological schools of the first centuries of Islam. The main research areas are discussed below: 1) comparative and historical study of the Arabic language and its vocabulary in the West and East, the first attempts to establish and reconstruct the general vocabulary of Semitic languages and, more broadly, Afrasian (Semitic - Hamitic); 2) the direction of lexical and statistical methods that establish the degree of genetic proximity of related languages and the chronology of their separation.

M. Zammit examines in detail the results of lexical and statistical research in the field of Semitic languages and Arabic dialects in the works of D. Cohen, H. Rabin and some other Western Arabists and Semitologists of the second half of the XX century, but does not mention the latest glottochronological classification of Semitic languages put forward by A. Y. Militarev in the Semitic Etymological Dictionary [SED, 2000, p. XXXIX-XLII], although the title of this book is included in the bibliography and mentioned on other occasions.

Noting inaccuracies and contradictions in lexical-statistical works on Semitic languages and Arabic dialects based on limited lists of "basic vocabulary", M. Zammit believes that such lists of words are insufficient to establish real genetic relations between languages. Instead of such limited lists of basic vocabulary, he suggests a new approach: to begin with, take the full lexical composition of the KA and determine what correspondences there are in other Semitic languages and how many of them there will be in quantitative terms.

The second chapter, "The Text of the Qur'an", is a detailed account of the "external" history of the Arabic language in relation to the history of its native speakers. M. Zammit uses all known sources and studies on the pre-Islamic history of the Arabs and the Arabic language, gives a brief description of its first monuments, touches on the long-standing discussion about the authenticity of pre-Islamic poetry, the question of possible diglossia. in the pre-Islamic period and on the addition of superdialect forms of the language. In this connection, the question of the place of the Qur'an language in the system of modern tribal dialects and supra-dialect forms of oral poetry and koine is considered. A special section is devoted to the issue of borrowings in the Qur'an, their statistical assessment, semantic classification, and the percentage of thematic groups with the total number of borrowings. The lexical and numerical data provided may be of great interest to Arabic and Qur'anic scholars.

I will note cases when the etymological interpretation of borrowings requires clarification. Thus, according to the author, "the original Arabic words drs - 'to be erased, disappeared'; qr' - 'to gather' take on foreign-language 'technical' (apparently, 'cultural') meanings: 'to study, to read'; 'to call, to retell', respectively (p. 60). However, upon closer examination of the comparative Semitic material, it should be noted that the original meanings of these Arabic verb roots are not only common Semitic, but also go back to the more ancient Afrasian period. Cf. Afrasian reconstruction data: Arabic. drs - "to be erased, covered with dust (about traces on the ground)" > "to winnow grain, thresh"; ser. drs/s; iud. aram, drs; acc. drs / s - "crush, trample", all - from afraz. * DVRs/ * dVrc - "thresh, crush, crush" [HCVA, N 305]. In this situation, we can rather assume that the KA is directly borrowed from the northwestern Semitic languages of the verb root drs - "to teach, to study", which results in the appearance of two homonymous roots. The same can be said about the etymology of the verb base qr', which not only in Arabic, but also in a number of Semitic languages means " collect[s], invite-

page 201

to invite guests to a feast." Cf.: geez qry - "to receive guests"; Sab. - "to be gathered"; other Heb. - "to invite to a feast"; acc. qer i tu - "feast, celebration". Where the semantic development is viewed: "call, shout, pronounce, recite > read". If in the latter case it is possible to assume the semantic development of one initial root, then in the first case there is no direct semantic connection and we can talk about the presence of two homonymous roots already in Old Semitic languages.

M. Zammit concludes the second chapter by classifying the vocabulary of the KA into seven semantic fields: the universe, physical existence, soul-intellect, man as a social organism, social structure, man and the universe, and grammatical categories (i.e., service parts of speech). In general, in terms of the abundance of documented information, coverage of the most important sources and scientific literature, the second chapter of M. Zammit's book is an important section that is of interest to all Arabists, historians of the Arabic language and semitologists. The analysis of historical data allows the author of the book to finally abandon the traditional and outdated statement that during the long pre-Islamic period, the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula and the Arabic language were isolated from the surrounding world of ancient Semitic and non-Semitic civilizations.

The third chapter, "Lexical Corpus", consists of tables of the KA vocabulary arranged in the order of the Arabic alphabet. Correspondences from the specified Semitic languages are given for each Arabic unit. If there are no matches, a space is left. Arabic vocabulary is given in the form of: the nominal basis of the singular, the perfect verb basis of the singular, the 3rd L., M. R. Correspondences from Semitic languages are given in the forms used in the corresponding dictionaries or in the form of a consonant root. M. Zammit justifies the choice of these Semitic languages by the fact that they are supported by the most reliable sources and studies.

The last part of the third chapter is "lexical grids" - tables that record the presence or absence of lexical correspondence between the KA unit and each of the Semitic languages. Such "grids" cover all 1717 spacecraft units. Each "lexical grid" consists of 19 positions, which also include semantic characteristics (by field numbers) and areal geographical characteristics. The methods of tables and" grids " used by the author allow the reader to determine the complete characteristics of each token of interest, at least within the limits set by the author himself.

Chapter four "Diachronic notes on Semantics" is devoted to an interesting and complex issue of semantic changes and their orientation in the lexical system of the language in general and in the vocabulary of the KA in particular. M. Zammit traces this process on the example of 210 lexemes selected from the entire lexical corpus of the third chapter. Comparing the meaning of a lexeme from KA with the meanings of its correspondences in other Semitic languages, the author tries to determine the trends (directions) of its semantic change. It considers three main processes established in general linguistics: preservation, narrowing ("specialization"), or expansion of the primary meaning of a particular lexeme or its root base. Naturally, the most difficult task is to establish this primary value. As a criterion for the primacy of the meaning of any lexeme, the author takes the identity or greatest proximity of the values of the corresponding lexemes found on opposite peripheries ("East-South") of the Semitic-speaking area. The semantic analysis conducted by M. Zammit leads him to the conclusion that the archaic (or primary) Semitic semantics prevails in the considered KA lexemes.

This section of the book undoubtedly gives the reader a clear idea of one of the possible approaches to understanding the history of the formation of the lexical system of the Arabic language. However, in my opinion, when dealing with such issues as primary/secondary meaning, change of meaning, etc., it is not enough to compare the Arabic lexeme with the dictionary data of other Semitic languages alone. In many cases, the meaning of a lexeme in the KA is determined by this context, while in Arabic, outside the KA, such a lexeme may have other meanings, up to homonymous ones. However, this is also shown in some examples of the author's analysis. In addition, the question of establishing the primary meaning, separating homonyms, and taking into account the contamination of the meanings of homonymous roots could be, if not completely resolved, then at least to some extent clarified, if M. Zammit involved in his analysis the data of already known Semitic reconstructions (for example, from SED) or deeper ones (and, consequently, from other sources)., more than

page 202

ancient) Afrasian reconstructions (for example, from HCVA). Thus, for the root brm (p.517) - "twisting; being mottled", it would be necessary to take into account the contamination of the values of two homonymous roots that are separated in the Afrasian reconstruction [HCVA, N 120 and N 121]. Analyzing the Arabic root r gm (in KA - "to stone"), M. Zammit evaluates (p.545) its meaning as a result of "narrowing" the more general semantics of the root - "to speak, to speak against, to curse". In this case, contamination of homonymous roots is also not taken into account: 1) r gm - "a stone, a pile of stones", cf. in the Safa inscriptions [Winnet and Harding, 1978, N 234, 329, 410, 421, 636, 929, 938] and 2) r gm - "call out, accuse, curse" ¹ . We can also assume contamination of values for the roots krm (p. 538) - "to be generous" and krm - "rain, winter season" and some others.

It's hard to agree with a comparison like n sr [The Qur'an, 18:16; 81:10] - "extend, deploy" and nsr/nsr - "saw, cut" (p. 401 and comm. p. 525). The units being compared go back to two different roots: prasem.* n-sr - "cut, cut" (i.e.-to a two-consonant root with a prepositional complement *p- [Zaborski, 1971, p. 87, N229] and Arabic. nsr, which probably represents the phonetic variant of Arabic. ntr - "scatter, scatter" [Maisel, 1983, p. 153].

In a number of etymologies, reference to Afrasian material and Afrasian reconstructions would contribute to more accurate and reliable decisions about the primary or secondary meaning of a particular lexeme. Taking into account recent studies on the structure of the Semitic and Afrasian roots would help in some cases to identify the complement (a later consonant formant of the root) and discover the more ancient "primary" (or "archaic") meaning of the Arabic lexeme. So, numerous meanings of Arabic. far' (pp. 521-522) at the Afrasian level are represented by reconstructions of different roots [HCVA, N 33, 35, 64, 66]. The meaning of the lexeme KA wabil - "downpour" (p.553) is raised by the author of the book to the primary meaning of "bring, deliver". However, this lexeme with the meanings "rain; pour" goes back to the proto-Semitic and deeper - to the Afrasian two-consonant root *bul/*bVl - "rain; wet, flow" [Zaborski, 1971, p. 56, N 15; HCVA, N 131; HSED N 312, 329, 331, 334]. For the lexeme t't in KA - "to taste, to taste" and its correspondences in other Semitic languages (p.269-270, 536), the primary meaning could also be confirmed on the basis of the Afrasian reconstruction *t'm [HCVA, N 244].

In the light of new ideas about the possible structure of the Semitic/Afrasian root with an additional complement, the etymology Arabic, nfr seems incorrect [Koran, 9: 122] - "step forward" (p. 541), which (with reference to the opinion of V. Leslau) suggests the direction of development of the meaning from "jump, fly" to "boil, beat with a spring". Polysemy Arab, nfr - "run away, run away" and "boil, boil" goes back to two different two-consonant roots, which are already distinguished at the proto-Semitic level: * pr - "run away, run away" (Zaborski, 1971, p. 80, N 174), in afraz. * pVr II - "go out" [HCVA, N31], * pVr IV - "run away, fly away" [HCVA, N 33] and sem. * fur - "boil" [Belova, 2002, p. 32].

Irregular intersemitic correspondence between Arab, bst and zap. sem. and acc. pst - "expand, extend" (p. 94, 528 - 529) M. Zammit explains as a case of labial ringing in Arabic, although no phonetic conditions in the Arabic root that could cause such ringing are observed. At the same time, modern semitology has long been working on the hypothesis of the possible existence of the primal Semitic emphatic labial *b or *p².

Regarding some semantic interpretations of Arabic and Semitic lexemes related to anatomy, it would be possible to take into account reconstructions and comments on them from the SED included by M. Zammit in the bibliography and in some rare references. For example, you could refer to SED about Arab. gawf - "body; interior" (pp. 531-532) (cf. [SED, N 100]), in reference to the Arab. qarn (p. 538) - "horn" (cf. [SED, N 168]), about the Arab, 'azm (p.536) - "bone" (cf. SED, N 25).

The fifth chapter of the book "Schema Analysis" presents tables and results of statistical (quantitative and percentage) calculations on the distribution of the vocabulary of KA and other Semitic languages-

¹ See [Maisel, 1983, p. 201], where the reverse semantic process is shown.

² See, for example: [Yushmanov, 1998, p. 145-146, p. 194, note. 30; Cantineau, 1960, p. 15-17, p. 280; Militarev, 1976, N 20], as well as Afrasian constructions in [HCVA, N 43-51].

page 203

Northwestern Semitic languages (40.44%) and South Semitic languages (30.26%) have the highest number of convergences of the KA vocabulary (pp. 526-563). Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Phoenician show a lower percentage (in the latter two cases, you should take into account the limited lexical material). Out of 1,717 lexical units of KA, no correspondence was found for 535 units in any of the eight Semitic languages (p. 575). According to the author of the book, the origin of these exclusively Arabic lexemes is currently difficult to establish. It assumes that some of them are: 1) it is preserved from an older proto-Semitic period (not preserved in other Semitic languages); 2) it is a reinterpretation of common Semitic roots; 3) it is a lexical innovation; 4) for some lexemes, the special meaning is determined by this context (pp. 576-57).

Without disputing in general the very valuable results of the painstaking statistical calculation carried out by M. Zammit, I would like to note that the involvement of a wider range of Semitic languages could somewhat change the current picture. So, for the muzzammil token [Qur'an, 73: 1] - " wrapped (in a garment)" the author does not find any correspondence in the selected eight languages (pp. 209-210). However, in the Mehri language, the verb basis zemul is found - "tighten the camel's girth" and its derivatives [J, p. 468]. The same can be said about the lexeme KA s agara - "tree, plant", which does not correspond in any of the eight languages (p. 235), but in mehri you can find the lexeme 'seger -" plants, trees "[J, p. 374]. Cf. also the lexeme KA ' a'gam - "foreign-speaking, poorly speaking Arabic" (p. 282), presented without correspondences in the Semitic languages involved. But mehri gives us the root 'gm and its derivatives -" to be dumb, wordless " [J, p. 16]. For the lexeme KA ganah - "hand, wing", marked only as Arabic (p.127), one can find additional material in [SED, N 86], supported by Afrasian material.

In the last, sixth chapter, "Results and Conclusions", M. Zammit addresses the main question: to what extent the results of comparative lexical and statistical analysis of the Arabic language can determine the place of the Arabic language as a whole in the family of Semitic languages. To answer this question, the author provides the reader with a detailed overview of studies and discussions on the history of the division of Semitic languages, on the localization of their ancestral homeland, concerns the "Amorean hypothesis", according to which it was the Amorean language (or a group of dialects) that was the focus of innovative development of West Semitic languages; touches on the ongoing discussion on the genetic classification of Semitic languages and classifications ³ . Ultimately, despite differences in approaches, positions, criteria, and classification principles, it seems that Arabic most often occupies an intermediate, middle position between the main areas of Semitic languages "west-south" (east and Akkadian are less often involved in classification disputes).

Taking into account the fact that the considered vocabulary of the KA makes up about 40% of the total root composition of the Arabic language, M. Zammit considers the established lexical relations between the nine Semitic languages quite significant. Arabic is located at the same distance from each of the two Semitic language groups "northwest" - "south". At the same time, the convergence in the field of semantic fields between KA and the Semitic languages involved indicates a greater semantic differentiation on individual topics (Table 1). on page 588). In the question of the degree of semantic variability and stability of the original Korneslov, M. Zammit also comes to the conclusion about a certain stable equilibrium of both archaic semantics and the "specialization" of ancient meanings (p.589).

As a result, the author connects all the typological and lexical features of the Arabic language with the historical and geographical conditions of its formation and functioning.

Before making a general assessment, I want to emphasize that all the statistical data, tables of lexical correspondences and semantic fields give us an idea of only one, albeit the most important monument of the Arabic language. Its lexical composition and the nature of its semantic fields are largely determined by the genre and purpose of the monument.

³ When currently considering various genetic classifications of Semitic languages, in my opinion, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the new glottochronological principle of genetic classification based on a fundamentally different criterion. See, in particular, the proposed classification of A. Y. Militarev, given in [SED, p. XXXIX-XLII].

page 204

The comparative material is limited to only eight languages. Such important groups of Semitic languages as modern South Arabian (Mehri, Shahri, Socotri), and many Ethiopian-Semitic languages were left out.

The inclusion of more diverse and multi-genre monuments of the Arabic language and more complete comparative material of Semitic languages can significantly change the statistical position of the Arabic vocabulary in the Semitic-language continuum.

As for the semantic analysis of the Semitic root language, the phenomena of archaism or innovation in this system can be more accurately established using the comparative material of other Afrasian languages, on which there are already certain studies in the world science, but not fully taken into account by the author of the book.

In general, the large and complex work undertaken by M. Zammit can be assessed as a serious innovative approach to the study of the vast ocean of Arabic vocabulary. Due to special cultural and historical conditions, it is the Arabic vocabulary that can represent the most extensive source of many roots and words that are not preserved in the monuments of other Semitic languages. The book is a kind of prologue to the long-overdue task of compiling an etymological dictionary of the Arabic language, which, of course, will require the combined efforts of a large team of scientists.

list of literature

Belova A. G. K voprosu o strukturu semitiskogo kornya (komplementy i phoneticheskie dilateli) [On the structure of the Semitic root (complements and phonetic expanders)]. In memory of I. M. Diakonov, St. Petersburg, 2002.

Maizel S. S. Puti razvitiya kornevogo fonda semitskikh yazykov [Ways of development of the root fund of Semitic languages].

On the supposed Prasemitic * r / / Istoriya i filologiya Drevnego Vostoka [History and Philology of the Ancient East], Moscow, 1976.

Yushmanov N. V. Struktura semitskogo kornya [Structure of the Semitic root]. Works on general phonetics, semitology and Arabic classical morphology, Moscow, 1998.

Cantineau J. Etudes de linguistique arabe. P., 1960.

Winnet F.W., Harding G.L. Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns. Toronto-London, 1978.

Zaborski A. Biconsonantal Verbal Roots in Semitic // Zeszyty Naukowe Uniw. Jagellonskiego. CCLXIX. Prace jezykoznawcze. Z. 35. 1971.

LIST OF ACCEPTED ABBREVIATIONS

HCVA - Diakonoff I. & Co. Historical Comparative Vocabulary of Afrasian // St. Petersburg Journal of African Studies. N 2 - 6. 1994 - 1997.

HSED - Orel V.E., Stolbova O.V. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for reconstruction. Leiden, 1994.

J - Johnstone T.M. Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-List. L., 1987.

SED - Militarev A., Kogan L. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1. Munster, 2000.

Permanent link to this publication: