{"title":"Über die unregelmäßige Form yǝbe im Altäthiopischen. II","authors":"R. Voigt","doi":"10.15460/aethiopica.3.1.574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Classical Ethiopic yǝbe ‘he said’ (with suffixes yǝbel-) is irregular with respect to the loss of the second and third radical of the root (√bhl) as well as especially to its preterite meaning. The attempt has been made to regard this unique feature as Proto-Semitic and connect it with the morphological difference between the narrative yaqtul and the jussive yaqtul as known from Classical Hebrew a´śēm ‘may he put’ as against (a-)´aśem ‘(and) he put’. Accordingly, yǝbe would represent an old narrative which would be all the more plausible since this form is very often — as in Hebrew — preceded by wa-. In VOIGT (1997) an argument against this view was made based on the difficulty of deriving yǝbe(lV) from *yǝb(h)al. An etymo-logical investigation of all kinds of long e in Classical Ethiopic as presented there does not support this derivation. It is better to explain yǝbe as a historical present form often ex-pressing an accompanying action (§ 3, IV, b). In order to understand the phonological processes better, several Ethio-Semitic reflexes of the root √bhl are investigated. Special attention is devoted to the multifarious forms in Tigre which can be split up into four different paradigms. Through the derivation of the Tigre forms one can obtain grounds for tracing Classical Ethiopic yǝbe back to a present form too (§ 4). A parallel is found in Beɗauye where the preterite of the verb ‘to say’ is originally a present form (§ 5). Thus we are able to assign the specific Classical Ethiopic development to Cushitic influence. Since yǝbe ‘he said’ goes back to the Proto-Ethiopic present form *yǝbah:ǝl, the present form yǝbǝl ‘he says’ must have the same origin (§ 6).","PeriodicalId":229518,"journal":{"name":"Aethiopica: International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aethiopica: International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15460/aethiopica.3.1.574","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Classical Ethiopic yǝbe ‘he said’ (with suffixes yǝbel-) is irregular with respect to the loss of the second and third radical of the root (√bhl) as well as especially to its preterite meaning. The attempt has been made to regard this unique feature as Proto-Semitic and connect it with the morphological difference between the narrative yaqtul and the jussive yaqtul as known from Classical Hebrew a´śēm ‘may he put’ as against (a-)´aśem ‘(and) he put’. Accordingly, yǝbe would represent an old narrative which would be all the more plausible since this form is very often — as in Hebrew — preceded by wa-. In VOIGT (1997) an argument against this view was made based on the difficulty of deriving yǝbe(lV) from *yǝb(h)al. An etymo-logical investigation of all kinds of long e in Classical Ethiopic as presented there does not support this derivation. It is better to explain yǝbe as a historical present form often ex-pressing an accompanying action (§ 3, IV, b). In order to understand the phonological processes better, several Ethio-Semitic reflexes of the root √bhl are investigated. Special attention is devoted to the multifarious forms in Tigre which can be split up into four different paradigms. Through the derivation of the Tigre forms one can obtain grounds for tracing Classical Ethiopic yǝbe back to a present form too (§ 4). A parallel is found in Beɗauye where the preterite of the verb ‘to say’ is originally a present form (§ 5). Thus we are able to assign the specific Classical Ethiopic development to Cushitic influence. Since yǝbe ‘he said’ goes back to the Proto-Ethiopic present form *yǝbah:ǝl, the present form yǝbǝl ‘he says’ must have the same origin (§ 6).
古典埃塞俄比亚语yǝbe ' he said '(带有后缀yǝbel-)在词根(√bhl)的第二个和第三个词根(√bhl)的丢失方面是不规则的,尤其是它的首选意义。人们试图将这种独特的特征视为原始闪米特语,并将其与叙述性的yaqtul和从古典希伯来语中已知的jussive yaqtul之间的形态学差异联系起来,即a ' śēm ' may he put '与(a-) ' aśem ' (and) he put '。因此,yǝbe将代表一个古老的叙述,这将更加可信,因为这种形式经常-如在希伯来语中-前面有wa-。在VOIGT(1997)中,基于从*yǝb(h)al推导yǝbe(lV)的难度,提出了反对这一观点的论点。对古典埃塞俄比亚语中所有长e的词源学研究并不支持这种派生。最好将yǝbe解释为一个历史的现在形式,通常表示一个附带的动作(§3,IV, b)。为了更好地理解语音过程,研究了几个埃塞俄比亚-闪米特语词根√bhl的反射。特别注意的是虎的多种形式,可以分为四种不同的范式。通过Tigre形式的推导,我们也可以获得将古埃塞俄比亚语yǝbe追溯到现在形式的依据(§4)。在Be auye中发现了一个类似的例子,在那里动词“说”的优先级最初是一个现在形式(§5)。因此,我们能够将古埃塞俄比亚语的特定发展归因于库希特的影响。既然yǝbe“他说”可以追溯到古埃塞俄比亚的现在形式*yǝbah:ǝl,那么现在形式yǝbǝl“他说”一定有同样的起源(§6)。