(5-20-97)
The language (Nostratic) from which Afrasian and Indo-European are descended had a
simple device for distinguishing between activity which was durative, i.e. pictured as lasting
over time; or momentary, i.e. as an activity viewed at a point (of its inception ["start to ..."] or
conclusion ["cease ... -ing; stop ... -ing"]).
In IE studies, this mechanism is recognized:
Lehmann writes: "...momentary and durative, was expressed primarily through forms of the durative by an accented and ... momentary by lack of principal accent on the root..." (Lehmann 1974: 186).
Since IE roots are primarily biliteral, this results in the patterns:
''CV-C(V) = durative
C(V)-"CV = momentary
As a consequence, an IE root like *der-, "run", has this form (which results from
"dV-r(V); and is durative) but also occurs as *dra:-, which is momentary; and is the result of
dV-"rV. Different nuances are associated with each: *dra:- means primarily "run away, flee";
this is "running" looked at as a single act with an outcome. *der-, on the other hand, means "run
around", activity that continues for some time.
AFRASIAN
Egyptian
A simple bi-consonantal root in Egyptian has basically two simple forms: e.g. *"Dam(a),
durative, and *Da"ma, momentary. When additional formatives were added to the beginning of
the word, such as s- (representing /sa/-), the stress-accent was drawn one syllable to the left:
sa+"Dam(a) became "saDam(a); this is the form we see reflected in the Coptic infinitive
so:tm after Egyptian backed a central low A (a in fAther) to back low O (o in nOt); and then
lengthened and raised stress-acccented vowels in open syllables (*"so-tm, o - open and stressed
-> "so:-tm) [o has been raised to o: in nOte].
The punctual form also persisted into Coptic in the imperative for some verbs:
*(sa)Da"ma patterns like *ya"nai (from ini, "fetch"), and is Coptic e/anai (that is e/a-"na-i)
though the simple infinitive is more commonly used so that the distinction between "be
listening!" and "start to listen!" was lost.
Both durative and momentary forms were in use in earliest Egyptian.
Edel (1955/64) says : "Die sDm.f-Form ist in sich nicht einheitlich"; and details the use
of the momentary form which he characterizes as "zum Ausdruck des Perfekts" (pp. 213-215);
e.g. h3b w(j) Hm.f, "His Majesty dispatched me", in which h3b was almost certainly
conceptualized as a momentary act, and vocalized ha"Rab. Loprieno also cites this example
(1995: 77), and correctly illustrates that the stress-accent shifted because of the addition of a
personal suffix; his proposed "/hVR'bif/" should, however, be emended to haR"baf (from
*ha"Raba+fa -> *haRa"bafa).
It can also be "zum Ausdruck des Präsens und Futurs": Dj Hm jr.t.f Hr-'.w(j), "(My)
Majesty will have it accomplished immediately". It is treacherously easy to associate the
imperfective with present and future occurences but the passage does not visualize the order of
the king having a duration but is at a point in the future, hence momentary (punctual); and
vocalized Da"ya.
Loprieno (1995:75) correctly perceives that the basic division among Egyptian verbs is
based on whether the action takes place "before (past tense or preterite), in concomitance
(present or unmarked tense), or after (future tense)".
Unfortunately, Egyptian did not indicate tense but only whether an action was
concomitant, i.e. occurring at the same time, or non-concomitant, occurring in either the future
or the past. The earliest mark of non-concomitance was the prefix i-, which I interpret as an
adverbial element meaning "*then", either past or future, opposing "now".
J. Vergote correctly captured the essence of this situation.
J. Vergote concluded: "A detailed examination...convinced me of the exactness of these
three vocalizations and I have even proposed to complete, by means of the neutral vowel /a/, the
unaccented syllables: såDmaf, saDåmmaf, saDmåf" (Vergote 1971: 56), which he labels
perfective, imperfective, and prospective. For Vergote, å indicates a stress-accented a.
If we assume that the subject suffix of Egyptian drew the stress-accent one syllable to the
right, then a durative form, "saDam(a) + fa will become sa"Damaf (not Vergote's saDåmmaf
but essentially right). But if earliest Egyptian followed the Akkadian-Arabic-Sumerian pattern
discussed below, i.e. doubling a consonant after a stress-accented vowel rather than the clear
later Egyptian pattern of raising (closing) the vowel (e.g. /o/ to /o:/), my reconstruction of
sa"Da(:)maf may be less accurate that Vergote's sa"Dammaf .
The momentary form, sa"Dam(a) + fa became saD"maf with deletion of the vowel
immediately preceding the stress-accented syllable, which corresponds to Vergote's prospective,
non-concomitant (future) time saDmåf.
Early Egyptian (and Late Egyptian but Middle Egyptian hardly at all) shows forms with
the i-prefix, which Elmar Edel calls "j-Augment", and discusses (Edel 1955/64: 199-203) its
appearance in various verbal classes without assigning it a defined function.
The momentary form, *saD"maf, became *ya"saDmaf when prefixed with it. Since the
form without ya- was distinctive, ya- could be deleted, leaving *"saDmaf (corresponding to
Vergote's såDmaf). This new formulation could be used tense-like as a past opposed to
*saD"maf, future (and therefore, prospective).
The proof that j- originally indicated any non-concomitant time is its employment in
Coptic as a component of the imperative of bi-consonantal verbs: e.g. aco: (from *jDd from
*ya+Da"da -> ya"Dad). An imperative, is, of course a kind of future.
Akkadian
It is a fundamental feature of language that expiratorily stress-accented syllables, that otherwise would be open, acquire an additional feature: either (vocalic) /length/, which often involves closure (e.g. "/e/ -> "/i/ ) or diphthongization (e.g. "/e/ -> "/ei/); or a /consonant/.
The attested Akkadian forms are iSabbat, "he (will) grasp(s)", and iSbat, "he grasped".
If we assume that the doubled consonant of the durative form (iSaBBat) should be
interpreted as the result of a previously stress-accented vowel, and restore *i-"Sa-ba-t(a); and if
we further assume that the i- drew the stress-accent one syllable to the left; we arrive at an
original durative form of *Sa"bat(a).
If we assume that the elided vowel (iSabat(a)) indicates a succeeding stress-accent; and
restore *i-Sa"bat(a); and if we further assume that the i- had drawn the stress-accent one
syllable to the left; we arrive at an original momentary form of *Saba"ta.
We see that the Nostratic (viz. the Proto-Language) pattern, after allowance is made for a
triliteral rather than a biliteral root, has been maintained:
This analysis has implications for the understanding of the formation of triliteral roots in
Afrasian. If we assume that the underlying biliteral root is *Saba, and further assume that a final
suffix drew the stress-accent one place to the right, we reconstruct an earlier "Saba, durative, and
Sa"ba, momentary, a perfect match with our proposed Proto-Language pattern. This would seem
to substantiate the analysis by Ehret of triliteral roots being composed of biliteral roots plus suffixes
rather than the opposing view of triliterals derived from prefixes plus biliteral roots.
If Sa- were a prefix which had drawn the stress-accent one syllable to the left when added
to the biliteral root *bata, the underlying durative form would be *ba"ta; while the momentary form
(*bata ") would imply that the momentary form either had no stress-accent, or needed a following
element on which the stress-accent could be placed. This is certainly possible but far less likely.
Arabic
Arabic shows the pattern "yaktub(u), "he (will) write(s)" as against "katab(a), "he wrote".
If we assume that the personal marker ya-, the third person marker, drew the stress-accent one
syllable to the left on both forms (as in Akkadian but was later lost in the momentary form in
Arabic), and restore it, we have:
Sumerian
Scholars would generally agree that Sumerian marû forms correspond to durative ideas while
hamTu forms are momentary (Thomsen 1984: 120-121).
According to prevalent views, Sumerian contains a group of verbs of the reduplication class,
a characteristic of which is that if the verb ends in a consonant for the momentary form, the final
consonant is suppressed for the reduplicated durative form: e.g. kur-9 and ku-4-ku-4, "enter" (both
kur-9 and ku-4 are written with the same sign [Jaritz #99]).
Sumerian has at least 13 other signs reading ku (and at least 9 other signs reading kur). To
reduce kur to ku is to introduce an intolerable level of ambiguity in the spoken language; and is
furthermore less likely in that the general pattern of Sumerian is invariable verbal forms.
The momentary first person singular is supposed to be i-3-kur-9-re-en as opposed to the
durative i-3-ku-4-ku-4-en. The written resumption of the r in -re- is supposed to indicate the fuller
form (i.e. kur-9) as a reading for the sign.
Another interpretation is that the resumptive r indicates rather a doubled consonant (cf.
sadámmaf, iSabbat above), and indicates the stress-accent of the preceding syllable.
If we assume an original pattern of *"ku-rV- (durative) and *ku-"rV- (momentary), after
final stress-unaccented vowels were lost, *(")kur (durative) would have opposed *ku"rV
(momentary). This violated the ancient pattern of contrasting trochaic accentuation for durative (-v)
with iambic accentuation for momentary verbs (v-). The Sumerian solution was to reduplicate the
durative syllable so that *"kur-kur could contrast with *ku-"re.
Subsequently, Sumerian began prefixing finite verbal forms with i-3 (probably ia-3 when
stress-accented), both readings of Jaritz #456; corresponding to Proto-Language $O, "what is held
in the fist, object, it", a relative pronoun in IE [ yo-]).
According to the pattern we will repeatedly see, this element formed a new stress-accentual
unit with the verb, and drew the stress-accent one syllable to the left, producing *"ia-3-kur-9-kur-9
(durative) contrasting with *i-3-"kur-9 (momentary).
Later, suffixes were added to express various modifications but these suffixes, contrary to
the earlier pattern, did not draw the stress-accent to the right.
When -e/a/u(n) was added to the momentary form, the final -r was resumed to indicate
stress-accentuation of the previous syllable: i-3-"kur-9-re-e(n). In the durative, since the stress-accent was on the prefix (and occasioned the reading ia-3 as opposed to i-3), no resumption
indicated a lack of stress-accent on the previous-syllable: *"ia-3-kur-9-kur-9-e(n). Final -n was not
employed in earliest Sumerian.
Since Sumerian separated from the evolving Proto-Language before it had reached the stage
of "nominative type"(Klimov), it offers support for the idea that variable stress-accent (expiratory)
was a feature of not only Nostratic (Afrasian and Indo-European) but also of the Proto-Language.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Edel, Elmar. 1955/64. Altägyptische Grammatik. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum
Ehret, Christopher. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone,
Consonants, and Vocabulary. University of California Publications in Linguistics: Vol. 126.
Berkeley and Los Angeles. University of California Press
Jaritz, Kurt. 1967. Schriftarchäologie der altmesopotamischen Kultur. Graz: Akademische Druck-
u. Verlagsanstalt
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin, Texas and London: University of
Texas Press
Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Thomsen, Marie-Louise. 1984. The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and
Grammatical Structure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag
Vergote
