Traces of biconsonantal roots

[tiramisu]

Preface: I had a hard time deciding whether I should start this thread immediately or wait until I looked into the subject some more. I decided that since I'm not too sure how to go about looking into it more (and with little free time on my hands), I should just bring it up and hear some others' input that might lead me in the right direction. At the same time, I figured it doesn't hurt to make a splinter of a contribution to the zBB's collective knowledge.

Occassionally, I come across instances in which Arabic demonstrates what were formerly biconsonantal roots (or at least that the two consonants derive from a morpheme unit with two consonants). Most recently, I have noticed what may have been a biconsonantal root *m-l.
We see, for example:
k-m-l "(be) complete"
sh-m-l "contain"; "fill (eg. with emotions)" -- possibly *m-l modified by the Semitic causative š-root?
m-l-ʔ "fill in, fill up"

Another instance that immediately comes to mind but I'm less certain about concerns *s-m:
s-m-a "call (s.o.) (s.t.)"
s-m-ع "hear"

Does anybody have any input? Particularly other instances of *m-l in Afro-Asiatic languages? Or other evidences of biconsonantal roots in Arabic?

I would partially like this thread to become a list of examples of biconsonantalism for future investigation, so all input (no matter how little) is good input. (Likewise, if the thread does turn out this way, I will also contribute examples as they come to my attention in my Arabic studies).

[linguoboy]

Attempts to reconstruct Proto-Afro-Asiatic (e.g. Ehret's Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian)) generally assume PAA roots were biconsonantal and extended by means of certain suffixes. (If these seems reminiscent of how PIE is reconstructed, it should, since a lot of work on PAA is dedicated to demonstrating its inclusion in a larger phylum.)

(I've heard a lot of criticism of Ehret's work in particular, but I'm not really in a position to pass judgment over it.)

[Astraios]

m-l-ʔ "fill in, fill up"

This *m-l is the same in Hebrew.

Another instance that immediately comes to mind but I'm less certain about concerns *s-m:
s-m-a "call (s.o.) (s.t.)"
s-m-ع "hear"

Hebrew:
šem name (n.)
š-m-ע hear, listen

[Mecislau]

Yes, it's generally assumed that Proto-Afro-Asiatic was biconsonantal. There has been some efforts to identify many of the formants, but I don't know how far that's gotten.

The other things I remember from what I've read on the subject (which may well be misremembered) is that you see *d as the first radical in a disproportionately large number of roots dealing with destruction, death, and desolation, and *n as the first radical in many terms describing "useless" or "disgusting" animals.


EDIT: Also, all Semitic languages still have numerous roots that are still biconsonantal (things like *ʔb "father", *rš "head", *šl "to ask", *Hd "one", *mt "death", etc). Every language has turned at least some of these triconsonantal through various augments, however (eg, Hebrew šaʔal "ask")

[tiramisu]

you see *d as the first radical in a disproportionately large number of roots dealing with destruction, death, and desolation

d-m-ع "watery eyes"
d-m-r "(be) destroyed"
d-m "blood"
d-th-r "(become) extinct"
d-r-s "wipe out"

[tiramisu]

Came across this while perusing my dictionary:
*f-t
f-t-q "unsew"
f-t-l "entwine"
f-t-f-t "crumble"
f-t-t "weaken" (Form I) > "crumble" (Form II)

[Astraios]

d-m-ع "watery eyes"
d-m "blood"
d-r-s "wipe out"

These three are in Hebrew:
d-m-ע to shed tears
dam blood
d-r-s to squash, trample, run over

Looking through the d-section of my dictionary, I am seeing a lot of words dealing with what Mecislau said, but I don't know how many it is in comparison with all the other letters.

[Tropylium⁺]

you see *d as the first radical in a disproportionately large number of roots dealing with destruction, death, and desolation

…Did you do that intentionally?

[Mecislau]

you see *d as the first radical in a disproportionately large number of roots dealing with destruction, death, and desolation

…Did you do that intentionally?

Intentionally, no, but I did notice that right after I wrote it.

[tiramisu]

zomg arabic n english r relatttted!!!!!!!!11r

[tiramisu]

<Mecislau> Zayk: That said... p-t-ch "open, p-t-ch "carve, engrave", p-t-k "mix, blend", p-t-l "twist, twine", p-t-t "crumb, bit > break bread into pieces", p-t "piece of bread", p-t-y "be foolish", p-t-h "be wide", p-t-r "solve", p-t-` "surprise, amaze", p-t-q "split, cleave"

(Hebrew)

[Mr. Z]

d-r-s "wipe out"

Is that an Arabic root? If so, doesn't Arabic d-r-s means "learn"?

[Ser]

d-r-s "wipe out"

Is that an Arabic root? If so, doesn't Arabic d-r-s means "learn"?

It actually means both "to wipe out" and "to study".

[Nesescosac]

sh-m-l "contain"; "fill (eg. with emotions)" -- possibly *m-l modified by the Semitic causative š-root?

Didn't that have a different outcome in Arabic? I feel like it became ا or something like that.

[tiramisu]

Well, what I mean is that the š-root pre-Semitically might have become part of the triconsonantal makeup and therefore would no longer be š-root morphemically by the time it became Semitic.

[David McCann]

There's an interesting article on the web (I can't remember where): Root extension and root formation in Semitic and Afrasian, by Alexander Militarev. He discusses various suffixes and prefixes applied to biconsonental roots, with examples.

[Khvaragh]

d-r-s "wipe out"

Is that an Arabic root? If so, doesn't Arabic d-r-s means "learn"?

It actually means both "to wipe out" and "to study".

There's some argument that the meaning of "to wipe out" is older [in Arabic], and that "to study" is the result of borrowing from Syriac, or a related dialect of Aramaic, which has d-r-S (i.e. /draS/ "he argued, debated" and /dar:eS/ "he instructed"), though Hebrew has it as well, d-r-S (/da:raS/ "he sought")
For example, see this line from the Mu`allaqa:t of Imru' l-Qays:

Code: Select all

فَهَلْ عِنْدَ رَسْمٍ دَارِسٍ مِنْ مُعَوَّلِ

/fahal ?\inda rasmin da:risin min mu?\aw:ali/
"So is there [any] solace [to be gained] from an obliterated trace?"

Of course, it's also possible that there's an even older meaning, which is "to tread over." The use of /da:ris/. /darasa/, etc. in old poetry suggests that it's not a general type of destruction (i.e. /damara/; there are lots of words in Arabic for destruction, but they have different senses; for example, I believe /halaka/ means originally "to abandon, to leave in dilapidation" and /xaraba/ means "to make into a ruin," and there are others), but specifically connected to the remains of caravan passes, settlements, campsites (this is how Imru' l-Qays uses it).

I tend to believe the d-r part of the root is an original bi-consonantal root: Hebrew /da:raS/ "he sought," Arabic /darasa/ "he effaced, tread over," Aramaic /draS/ "he argued, prepared, or tread out"; Hebrew /dror/ "flowing," Arabic /dar:a/ "it streamed" Hebrew /da:rak/ "he tread," Arabic /darraka/ "it lasted" /?adraka/ "he reached, arrived at," Aramaic /drEk~drak/ "he tread, stepped," /da:rka:/ "step (also threshing of corn)" . Hebrew /madrega:/ "steep place," Arabic /daradZ)a/ "he walked", /daridZ)a/ "he rose gradually," Aramaic /darga:/ "step, degree," /dar:eg/ "he stepped forward, advanced." Arabic /dariba/ "he was used to, trained" (c.f. /darb/ "road, path), Aramaic /dErba:/ "way."

All of these seem to have something to do with walking, or treading, or spreading out on, but this is just a theory of mine.

[Nesescosac]

There's an interesting article on the web (I can't remember where): Root extension and root formation in Semitic and Afrasian, by Alexander Militarev. He discusses various suffixes and prefixes applied to biconsonental roots, with examples.

Is it this?

[David McCann]

There's an interesting article on the web by Alexander Militarev.

Is it this?

That's it!