On Verbal Negation in Semitic : Summary
On Verbal Negation in Semitic : Summary
Summary: While there have been many studies of negative expressions and negation in a
number of Semitic languages, negation is not normally used in comparative Semitic lin
guistic and is avoided in discussions about subgrouping. This study reviews the nega
tion of verbal predicates in an attempt to reconstruct the original Semitic set of negation
particles. It concludes that verbal negation in Semitic was originally a set containing two
particles with distinct functions: *ʾ l was used to negate indicative verbal forms, while *lā
was used to negate non-indicative ones. Many languages generalized the indicative nega
tion particle to negate all verbal forms, a move which subsequently led to the loss of the
original syntactic distinction. The reconstruction of the innovations in Semitic corrobo
rates the subgrouping of Semitic suggested by Hetzron (1976) and modified by Porkho
movsky (1997) and Huehnergard (1991; 2005), and in fact validates the modification of
Hetzron’s proposal.
1. Introduction
Every Semitic language has its own set of negation particles and there is
no one set that is shared by all of them, sometimes even within the same
sub-branch. For the negation of nouns a number of prepositions as well as
negation particles are used. In order to limit the discussion to a manageable
amount of data, I will deal here mainly with verbal negation and will try to
avoid negation particles that are unique to only one language.1
While there have been many studies of negative expressions and negation
in a number of Semitic languages, negation is not normally used in compara
tive Semitic Linguistics and is generally avoided in discussions about sub
grouping. The reason for this is not hard to see: the number of particles and
their distribution make it a very hard task to discuss even basic reconstruc
tion. Take for example Central Semitic: Arabic uses mā and lā and OSA uses
ʾal. Or even a more tightly related branch, Canaanite: Phoenician uses bal
and ʾal and Hebrew lō and ʾal. In addition, in Akkadian, the set of negation
particles seems different than that of WS: ula or ul and lā. Many scholars
(e.g., Testen 1998) have tried to argue for a relationship between ʾal and ul.
Similarly, some scholars (e.g., Lipiński 2001, Pardee 2003–2004) suggested
that lā and ʾal are variants, i.e. the latter is identical to the former with an
ʾa- prefix.
However, the main problem is not only the etymology of the original
Semitic negation particle, but primarily the usefulness or even feasibility of
using negation for subgrouping.1 This is indeed a puzzle. On the one hand,
we have an essential feature which should be used for subgrouping, on the
other hand, the category shows such lexical and syntactic diversity, that it is
hard to see the connection between forms in the different languages.
There have been two main attempts to reconstruct negation in Semitic:
Walker (1896) and Faber (1991). The former is more comparative in na
ture while the latter is also historical and reaches all the way to Proto-Afro-
Asiatic (PAA). Walker collected an impressive number of negation particles
from a number of Semitic languages, however his definition of negation is a
very broad semantic one.2 He divides negation into four categories: negation
of pure dissent; negation by association, negation by transference of force;
negation by suggestion. Walker’s study shows a rather antiquated form of
historical linguistics, where, for example, a feature such as vowel length was
claimed to represent a meaning or an emotional attitude.
Faber made an attempt to connect the negation particles in Semitic to
supposedly related forms in other Afro-Asiatic branches and to explain
the apparent morphological similarity between some of the Semitic nega
tions and interrogative particles, mostly mā and ʾay-. She concluded that
Semitic had three original negation particles: *lā, *ʾayn and *ʾay. Faber
further claimed that the particle ʾal is a WS innovation and developed to
a general negation only in South Semitic, but its original function, which
was preserved only in some NWS, is a prohibitive deverbal particle “don’t!”
(Faber 1991, p. 422). Central Semitic innovated bal as a negation particle,
which Faber takes as a compound negation particle of as yet unknown ori
gin (Faber 1991, pp. 415–416).
Faber’s reconstruction is problematic on a number of levels. First, her
Afro-Asiatic reconstruction of Arabic mā as *mba is not strictly needed or
meaningful. Even if PAA had a negation *mba, Semitic most probably did
The negation particle lā is found in all branches but Ethiopic, as the negation
of nominal forms, besides its function in the verbal system. Many languages
developed special prepositions for nominal non-predicative substantives, yet
very often lā is also found: OAkk. lā pātiḥtum ‘not opened’ (Hasselbach
2005, p. 175); OB lā watar ‘no more’ (von Soden 1995, pp. 220, § 122 a); He
brew lōʾ ʾĕlōah ‘a non-God’ (Deut. 32:17); Ugaritic l ib ‘no enemy’ (1.3:III:37);
3 Al-Jallad objects to the derivation interrogative > negation, which was suggested
by Wehr (1953) and later Rubin (2005). He suggests that mā moved from being a sub
ordinating particle (indefinite relative) to being a negation particle.
4 For the development of bal- in NWS, see Pat-El (forthcoming).
5 In fact, as I shall attempt to show below, restricted negations in the Semitic lan
guages tend to be abandoned in favor of more general negations.
6 I will not deal with *ʾayn here as it is not strictly a negation particle but a negative
predicate, and therefore a different element than other negation particles. Cf. Dahl (1979)
for examples of similar structures in other languages.
20 Na’ama Pat-El
Arabic min lā šayʾ in ‘for nothing’; Aramaic l-hn ‘not so’ (Sefire I B 36). This
function is missing from Ethiopic, OSA and probably Phoenician.7 Gener
ally, ʾ l is not used for negation of nominals;8 the only language which uses ʾ l
to negate non-predicative nominal forms is Biblical Hebrew, where it is very
rare9: hārê ba-gilbōaʿ ʾal ṭal wə-ʾal māṭār ʿălêkem ‘mountains of the Gilboa,
let there be no-dew and no-rain on you’ (2Sam 1:21). Even languages, which
use only ʾ l in the verbal system, like OSA, prefer to use other prepositions
to negate their nominal forms, rather than using ʾ l.10
In this section I will briefly review the distribution of lā and ʾal (and/or
their reflexes) in the Semitic languages. This section is an attempt to concen
trate on the shared morphosyntax of the languages, thus by definition, not
all negation forms and patterns are included. Furthermore, the semantics of
the negated verbs is for the most part not relevant for the arguments posited
here, as the emphasis is placed on the combination of a negation particle with
a certain verbal form. Thus, for example, the fact that in Arabic lam + Jussive
is a negation of the past is not as important as the fact that lam negates the
morphologically apocopate form, rather than the suffix conjugation (kāna).
A) Akkadian
In East Semitic, negation particles distinguish between matrix verbs (i.e.,
verbs in main clauses), negated by ula (later ul),11 vs. dependent verbs (i.e.,
verbs in subordinated clauses), negated by lā. The particle lā has several addi
tional functions, most importantly it negates the durative to create a negative
imperative and cohortative (modal negation) and is the common negation in
sentences with interrogative particles (von Soden 1995, p. 220, § 122 a).
ZÍD.BA-su ù-la e-bı -́ ı ś ‘I will not provide for his flour rations’ (Hasselbach
2005, p. 175, § 4.3.6)
lā tanaddin ‘do not give!’ (von Soden 1995, p. 133, § 81h)
aššat awīlim ša zikaram lā īdû ‘someone’s wife, who did not sleep with any
man’ (von Soden 1995, p. 267, § 165e)
7 However, see Gibson (1982, III, p. 109) and Pat-El (forthcoming) for a possible
remnant of lā in the nominal system of Phoenician.
8 This is also true of Akkadian ul(a).
9 Qimron (1983, p. 473) suggests that examples of ʾal without a following verb are
variations of ʾal + PC and are, therefore, not negation of non-verbal forms.
10 One exception is some modern Ethio-Semitic languages (Amharic, Gurage and Ga
fat) which use alä ‘without’ to negate nominal forms. In Tigre and Tigrinya, the same
particle negates nominal predicate: ʾalä-bu ‘there is not’.
11 The earliest texts show only ula. See data in Hasselbach (2005, p. 175, § 4.3.6).
A rare form uli is also attested.
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 21
corresponds to WS ʾal, where the vowel difference is, according to him, also
attested in other particles (Akk. lu ~ G. la-). This is a very elegant solution;
however, since ula is the older form in Akkadian, not ul, the correspondence
should be Akkadian ula – WS ʾal. Akkadian ul is probably an apocopated
form of ula and thus cannot be the basis for the etymology suggested by
Testen. Lipiński (2001, p. 464) connects both ul and ʾal to Berber war. The
relationship between ula and ʾal seems logically possible, but the etymologi
cal explanations given so far are not convincing. Hence, the fact remains that,
Akkadian has a set of two particles, each with a distinct function.
B) Ethio-Semitic
In Classical Ethiopic, one particle, ʾ i, is used as a common negation particle
for all verbal forms, indicative as well as modal. This particle is also the
regular negation of nominal forms, like ʾ i-yāʾməro ‘ignorance’.15
ʾ i-faqada yəkšətā ‘[Joseph] did not want to expose her’ (Matt. 1:19)
ʾ i-təfrāh našiʾotā la-Māryām fəḫərtəka ‘don’t be afraid to take Mary to be
your wife’ (Matt. 1:20)
ʾ i-taḥaṣṣəṣi ʾəmənna masāfenta za-Yəhudā ‘you are not lesser than the rulers
of Judea’ (Matt. 2:6)
Other Ethio-Semitic languages use this prefix invariably as a nominal nega
tion: Gurage e-š ‘no’, Amh. yällämm ‘there is no …’16.
The particle ʾal is not used in Classical Ethiopic as a verbal negation; how
ever, it is used in some non-verbal predicative forms (ʾal-bo ‘there is not’) and
in relics, like ʾakko ‘(emphatic) no’< *ʾal-kona ‘no, on the contrary’. This relic
clearly shows that ʾal was a verbal negation in Proto-Gəʿəz. Indeed, in Amharic
and other modern south Ethio-Semitic languages, al …-əmm is the negation
of the indicative perfect and imperfect (Leslau 1995, pp. 292, 302)17: pf.: al-
säbbärn-əmm ‘we didn’t break’, an-nəsäbr-əmm ‘we are not breaking’ etc. An
15 This particle is probably etymologically related to similar negation particles in other
branches: Hebrew ʾ î-nāqî ‘not clean’ (Job 22:30); Phoenician ʾ bl /ʾi-bal/ ‘no’, ʾy šm ‘noth
ing’ (KAI 14:5); Old Aramaic ʾ-šm ‘no-name’ (Sefire I C 24). The connection of ʾ i to ay
(attested in Akkadian, MSA and Phoenician) is unclear.
16 This particle is inflected like allä ‘[be]’, i.e., like a verb, and like a verb it can take
suffixes. The negation suffix (ə)mm is positioned at the end of the form: yällä-čč-əňň-
əmm (NEG-3fs-1s-NEG) ‘I don’t have it (fs)’. See Leslau (1995, p. 528) for the full verbal
paradigm of yällämm.
17 This is the case for the 1st person singular of the impf.; other persons have the form
a-(…əmm). The final -əmm is elided under certain conditions, for example when the clitic
-əmm is attached to any other member of the sentence, or when the imperfect is subordi
nated. The negation of the Jussive is also a-, but this prefix causes gemination when at
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 23
Jibbāli:
el hemm yedre lo ‘he could not get up’ (B II 5, Wagner 1953)
Meḫri:
ʾəl səbēb lā ‘it’s not my fault’ (Simeone-Senelle 1997, p. 413)
In Ḥarsūsi and the Yemeni dialect of Meḫri only, lā is the regular nega
tion and ʾal seems to be missing; however, even there, lā is always in final
position:
Ḥarsūsi:
əkhōl ʾəġəter lā ‘I cannot speak’ (Simeone-Senelle 1997, p. 414)
Meḫri:
tijira ḫāmer lā ‘don’t drink wine!’ (MI 31:30 apud Wagner, p. 13)
šay ḳawt lā ‘I have no food’ (73:4 apud Rubin 2010, p. 266)
In all the Semitic languages the verbal negation, regardless of its form, is pre
posed, and even in MSA one of the negation particles, ʾal, is preposed. Thus,
we may safely conclude that the post-positioning of lā in MSA is an innovation
of this branch; since all MSA dialects attest to it, the change must be dated to
Proto-MSA. There are two options to reconstruct to process: (1) Proto-MSA
moved lā to final sentence position and then some dialects used a preposed
ʾal in addition; (2) all dialects generalized a preposed ʾal and a post-posed lā,
and some dialects dropped ʾal at some later point. I think the latter possibility
is more reasonable, given the data. First, post-positing lā is a clear innova
tion, while pre-positing ʾal is an inherited feature, shared by all the Semitic
languages (see below). Since, unlike ʾal, lā has other functions beyond verbal
negation, there are scenarios that may explain the post-positioning of lā, but
it would be almost impossible to explain abandoning and re-introducing ʾal
back into the system of some dialects. Finally, Ethio-Semitic, the closest rela
tive of MSA, shows regular generalization of pre-positive ʾal.
Therefore, I assume a common MSA double negation *ʾal… lā. The later
developments in MSA are according to Jespersen’s cycle, similar to the pro
cess attested in French, which produced the verbal negation ne… pas, where
pas is slowly taking over as the main negation particle, while ne may be
omitted > … pas (je veux pas vous aider ‘I don’t want to help you’, y va
pas ‘don’t go there’).22 Similarly, we can reconstruct for Ḥarsūsi and Yemeni
Meḫri a basic structure *ʾal V (lā) where ʾal is the main negation and lā is a
22 See van Gelderen 2008 for a broader discussion of the phenomenon.
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 25
23 Such a phenomenon is also attested in Ṣanʿānī Yemeni Arabic. Watson (1993, p. 261)
notes that when the full form -ši is used (rather than -š) “it often emphasizes the negative
element”. Although Meḫri is spoken in Yemen, the development in Meḫri is probably not
a result of language contact since the South Arabian dialects in Yemen are spoken around
the border with Oman in West Yemen.
24 Many languages allow or require co-occurrence of verbal negation consisting of
two negations: verbal and nominal, e.g., Italian: non ho visto nessuno ‘I have seen no-one’
(Weiss 1999). The North Germanic languages are an interesting case in point. Old Norse
used a pre-verbal negation né and a post verbal negation -a(t) from a nominal negation
pattern: Gunnarr né kemr-at ‘Gunnar doesn’t return’ (van Gelderen 2008, ex. 16b).
The post-verbal negation -a(t) may not have been an original negation in Old Norse
(some suggest that it is derived fron nt. *ainata ‘one’), but by the time it was used as a
verbal negation, it was no longer recognized as anything but a negation. Later -a(t) can
appear as the sole negation of the verb: kemr-a nu Gunnarr ‘Gunnarr will not come now’
(van Gelderen 2008, ex. 18 a).
25 Similarly, several French linguists noted that from its earliest attestations, French pas,
as well as other particles used in similar structures (aucun, point, jamais etc.), were com
monly used as a negative answer: avez-vous rencontré des amis? aucun ‘have you met any
friends? none’ (Grevisse 1975, p. 937, § 877 a ; Winters 1987, p. 43), though this is not the
common explanation for the development of pas, aucun etc. as verbal negations in French.
26 There are four examples of lm in the Haramic dialect and some examples of lhm/lm
in Minean before an imperfect, which seem to correspond to Arabic lam with the jussive,
used as the negation of the perfect (kāna – lam yakun): w-lm yġtsl ‘he didn’t wash himself’
(C 523/7). Koogan and Korotayev (1997, p. 239) suggest that this is a borrowing from
26 Na’ama Pat-El
E) Arabic27
In Classical Arabic, the regular negation of the perfect is mā,28 while non-in
dicative verbs as well as the imperfective29 are negated by lā and variations
thereof (lam, lan, lammā). Mā may also negate the imperfect (Reckendorf
1921, p. 45); however, in this position, the verb is co-temporal with another
verb.30 This is mostly the case when the negated verb is in a subordinated clause.31
Arabic (such a suggestion is not mentioned in Beeston 1984). A borrowing seems reason
able in light of the small number of examples and the general tendency of this dialect to
borrow North Arabian forms.
27 Note that the discussion here is regarding morphosyntax, not semantics; hence, it is
inconsequential that a combination such as lam + Jussive is semantically the negation of
the past or that lā + Jussive is the negation of the imperative, but rather that the negation
of these verbal forms is lā or variations thereof and not mā.
28 Most scholars agree that the interrogative particle mā was grammaticalized to a ne
gation particle and is not an original Semitic negation particle; scholarly disagreement lies
in which process specifically led to the change interrogative > negation particle. Rubin
(2005, p. 50) suggests a process of grammaticalization: what evil is in my hand > there is
no evil in my hand (see also Wehr 1953). Recently, Al-Jallad (2008) has argued that mā
entered the negation system originally in subordinated clauses, through its function as an
indefinite relative particle. He further showed that there is some evidence from NWS to
support this reconstruction for the Central Semitic branch, not just for Arabic, though
this function of mā in NWS has largely been abandoned. This is a very attractive sugges
tion which nicely connects Arabic to other Central Semitic languages; however, the data
from the Qūrʾan does not support it since in the Qūrʾan, the negation particle mā, with
very few exceptions, is excluded from subordinated clauses. See also Reckendorf (1921,
p. 45): “Im Nebensatz ist mā verhältnismäßig selten”. Lucas (2007) suggests that mā was
reanalyzed through its function as a grammatical subject in sentences with quasi-verbal
predicates (like fī- etc.).
29 The indicative status of yaqtulu is not exactly equivalent to qatala. Its semantics is
mostly dependent on other verbs in the clause (simultaneity) or on particles (sawfa), while
qatala has regular independent indicative functions such as past and performative, and, of
course, it has no paradigmatic or historic connection to non-indicative forms, as yaqtulu does.
30 This is obvious from Reckendorf’s discussion (1921, p. 45), which describes a verb
negated by mā as carrying mostly a present meaning, while past and future are also pos
sible. It is likely that such a co-temporal usage was the impetus for the spread of mā to
negate all verbs.
31 There are a number of cases where mā could conceivably be understood as the
interrogative mā, rather than the negation particle. For example: [quli nẓurū māḏā fī
s-samāwāti wa-l-ʾarḍi] wa-mā tuġnī l-ʾāyātu wa-n-nuḏuru ʿan qawmin lā yuʾminūna
(Q 10:101) [Say: “look what is in the heavens and in the earth!”] “But no signs or warn
ings help people who do not believe”; or: “what help will signs and warnings be to people
who do not believe?” The negative reading is adopted by Arberry (1955), the interroga
tive reading – by U. Rubin (2005). Such ambiguity is of course the basis of the path of
change suggested by A. D. Rubin (2005). There are, however, two main reasons to reject
it: first, mā functions as a negation particle in other Central Semitic languages (Canaanite,
Aramaic), not just in Arabic, so Arabic inherited the negation particle mā, rather than
developed it. Furthermore, as Al-Jallad (2008) already noted, Rubin offers no syntactic
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 27
Lā may also negate the perfect, when the perfect express a wish, i.e. when
it expresses modality (Reckendorf 1921, p. 43; Fischer 2001, p. 103, § 182 b,
318). In addition, lā is used to negate nominal forms, alongside the preposi
tions ġayr, bi-lā and dūna, as well as nominal predicates (lā šakka ‘there is
no doubt’). Arabic is the only West Semitic language where ʾal is not attested
at all.
–– pf. (past tense): mā qāla hāḏā ‘he did not say that’
–– pf. (modal): wa-llāhi lā fataḥtu hāḏā l-bāb ‘by God, I will not open this
door!’; lā ʾaʿǧaltu-ka wa-lā qātaltu-ka wa-lā fataktu bi-ka ‘I will not
force, fight or fatally deceive you’
–– impf.: lā yakrimu s-saḫiyyu l-baḫīla ‘a generous man shall not respect a
stingy one’
–– subj.: li-kay-lā taʾsaw ʿalā mā fātakum ‘that you may not grieve over
what escapes you’; yanbaġī ʾan lā yuḍʿ ifa n-nafsa ‘he must not weaken
the spirit’.
–– Juss.: lā yuḥzin-kumu llāhu ‘may God not cause you grief’
–– energ.: lā taqūlanna ‘don’t say a thing!’
Modal verbs are also negated by lam or lan, two negation particles which are
probably derived from lā. The particle lan negates the subjunctive to express
the negative future, or an ‘emphatic’ negation (lan taf ʿalū ‘you will never do
it’), while lam negates the jussive to express the negative perfect (lam taʿ lam
‘you did not learn’).32 Lan is assumed to be built on a combination of lā
and ʾan, a particle which conditions the subjunctive (Wright 1967, I, p. 287,
§ 362hh; Fleisch 1990, II, p. 476, § 149 t). Both lam and lan are never used
to negate the predicate of a nominal sentence. It seems that the only mor
phologically marked indicative form negated by lā in Arabic is the imperfect
(yaqtul-u), while other forms negated by lā and its reflexes are clearly modal.
The functions of Arabic lā correlate with some of the functions of Ak
kadian lā: in both languages, lā is used to express negative imperative or
cohortative (durative in Akkadian; jussive in Arabic), and in both lā is used
in oaths33:
Arab.:
lā raʾayta šarran ‘may you not see evil!’; wa-llāhi lā ʿaṣaytu rabbī ‘by God, I
will not disobey my lord!’
motivation for the change. After all, ambiguous readings are common, but they do not
normally result in syntactic change.
32 Lam has a poetic variant lam-mā with the same function.
33 Note that in Akkadian, the verb in oaths of this type is marked as subordinated
(with final -u).
28 Na’ama Pat-El
Akk.:
TUKUL da-me al-su la a-sa-ga-nu ‘I shall not raise the weapon of blood
giš
F) NWS languages
In most NWS languages, ʾal has a very restricted function. It mostly negates
the modal imperfect (“Jussive”) as the negative counterpart of the impera
tive (when the subject is the 2nd person) or the cohortative and jussive (when
the subject is 1st or 3rd persons). In Ugaritic, Old Aramaic and Hebrew, lā
negates all other verbal forms and is a common nominal negation particle
as well34:
Hebrew35:
u-lə-ʾādām lōʾ māṣāʾ ʿēzer kə-negdô ‘He did not find a companion to Adam.’
(Gen. 2:2)
lōʾ ʾōsīp ləqallēl ʿ ôd ʾet hā-ʾădāmā ba-ʿăbûr hā-ʾādām ‘I will not curse the
earth any more on account of man’ (Gen. 8:21)
ʾal tabbīṭ ʾaḥărêkā ‘don’t look back!’ (Gen. 19:17)36
34 Deir ʿAllā has a number of occurrences of l (/lā/) but only two of ʾ l (I:6, 7). Hackett
(1984, p. 104) suggested that one of these occurrences is with a jussive: ʾ l thgy (I:7). The
other instance of ʾ l (šm ḥšk w-ʾ l ngh ʿ lm, I:6–7) is more problematic, since ʾ l occurs before
a noun (ngh ʿ lm ‘eternal light’). Hackett (1984, pp. 43–44, 105) suggests an ellipsis of a
volitive verbal form, since ʾal normally does not negate nouns in NWS. Thus, despite scant
evidence, Deir ʾAllā seems to show the expected NWS situation, similar to Old Aramaic
and Classical Hebrew. Due to the minimal attestation of negation in this language, it will
not be used in this discussion.
35 The function of ʾ l as a modal negation particle in Hebrew is also emphasized by its
use with the particle nāʾ. ʾal + nāʾ with a verb occurs 19 times in the Bible, where it usually
occurs in proximity to another nāʾ either on the verb or in another syntagm, like hinne-
nāʾ (Qaddari 1985, p. 199; Fassberg 1994, pp. 41–42). Note that lōʾ does not occur before
nāʾ, nor does it negate the cohortative or the jussive in Biblical Hebrew. The particle lôʾ
may function as the negation of the cohortative, but than the verb negated is an indica
tive verb, rather than subjunctive: lôʾ taʿǎśe (Ex. 20:4) vs. ʾal taʿaś (Gen. 22:12). Qaddari
(1985, pp. 200–201) also mentions some very rare nominal functions of ʾal: wə-yāśēm lə-
ʾal millātî (Job 24:25) My word was set to naught.
36 The form following ʾal is not necessarily the paradigmatic form of the jussive; how
ever, the function of ʾal with the imperfect is a vetitive. There are occasional examples of
the jussive preceded by lōʾ rather than the expected ʾal (e.g., 1Kg. 2:6), which Waltke/
O’Connor (1990, p. 567, § 34.2.1 d) suggest is indicative of conflation of the imperfect and
the jussive in the Masoretic tradition. See Hoftijzer (1985) and Huehnergard (1988,
p. 21) regarding the weakening and eventual marginalization of the indicative -n plurals
(< *yaqtulūna).
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 29
wə-ʾal yədabbēr ʿ immānû ʾălōhîm pen nāmût ‘let God not speak with us di
rectly, lest we die’ (Ex. 20:19)
ʾal ʾerʾe bə-môt hay-yāled ‘let me not see the child die’ (Gen. 21:16)
Old Aramaic:37
w-l-yšmʾ Mtʿʾ l ‘M. will not obey.’ (S 1 B 21)
zy l-ydʿ ‘one who does not knows (act. participle)’ (S II C8)
w-ʾ l tštq ḥdh mn mly sprʾ zn[h] ‘Let not one word in this inscription be silent.’
(S 1 B 8–9)
Ugaritic:
lm l likt ‘why did you not send?’ (2.63:7)
w mnkm l yqḥ spr mlk hnd ‘no one shall take this royal document’ (2.19:12–13)
ʾal tqrb l bn ʾ ilm mt ‘do not come close to the son of Il, Mot!’ (1.4:VIII:15–16)
Hebrew exhibits a conundrum, where two syntagms, lō yiqtôl and ʾal yiqtôl
appear concurrently. Gesenius (1910, p. 317, § 107 o), and others following
him, perceive the difference as a matter of emphatic strength: lōʾ with the PC
is understood as more emphatic than ʾal with the PC.38 It is possible that the
difference between indicative and non-indicative forms in Biblical Hebrew
evolved to be mostly syntactic, due to the degradation of the morphological
distinctions between the jussive forms and imperfect forms.39 A similar de
velopment in Aramaic reached its peak in Middle Aramaic, where lā spread
to negate all verbal forms (see below). In Biblical Hebrew, the process did not
reach a natural end and a full spread, à-la Aramaic, because Biblical Hebrew
37 The particle lā is written as a prefix l- in Old Aramaic, Ugaritic and Deir ʾAllā. The
final -ʾ found in other Central Semitic languages is probably an indication of a long vowel,
rather than an etymological consonant (Garr 1985, p. 199).
38 This is apparently not unique to Hebrew. Huehnergard (1988, pp. 21–22) noted a
similar phenomenon in Old Babylonian: ul tanaddin ‘you will not give’ vs. lā tanaddin
‘do not give’. Huehnergard suggests that the Hebrew and Akkadian evidence suggests
that the difference between yaqtul and yaqtulu/yaqattal is not mood, but rather aspect:
yaqtul is punctual (perfective) and yaqtulu/yaqattal durative (imperfective). Thus, the dif
ference between indicative and injunctive “had to be marked in some way other than by
the morphology of the verb and probably occurred at the level of the phrase” (ibid. p. 21).
39 Qimron (1986, p. 80, § 400.13 b) notes that the pentateuchal prohibitions with lōʾ are
normally formulated with ʾal in Qumran Hebrew. See for example: lōʾ tassîg gəbûl rēʿăkā
(Deut. 19:14) ‘do not move your neighbor’s boundary’ vs. ʾ l tsg gbwl ʿwlm (Pr 22:28) ‘do
not move the eternal boundary’. Qimron (1983, p. 479) suggests that the reason for the
elevated use of ʾal in some Qumran documents in what seems to contradict the Biblical
usage may be explained by the loss of mood in the Hebrew of that period. He further sug
gests that the lack of ʾal in Aramaic at that time rendered this particle a more literary air.
30 Na’ama Pat-El
ceased to exist as a spoken variant before the conclusion of the process. The
existence of two types of negation with the PC synchronically must have
resulted in functional differentiation, which Gesenius formulates in terms
of emphasis. The question is, of course, which one of them is original and
which developed later.
The only consistent exception to the NWS set is Phoenician, which seems
to lack lā,40 and instead uses bal for all indicative verbal negations. Bal is a
known nominal negation particle in Semitic (cf. Akkadian balu- ‘without’)
and a rare verbal negation in Ugaritic and Hebrew. The particle ʾal is used
with the modal imperfect to express a negative imperative:
Phoenician:
bl pʿ l ‘he did nothing’ (KAI 24:2)
bl tdrkn ‘you do not tread’ (KAI 27:8)
ʾ l ʾ l tptḥ ʿ lty w-ʾ l trgzn ‘do not open my sarcophagus and do not upset me’
(KAI 13:3–4)
Therefore, except for OSA, the distinction in the Central Semitic set of nega
tion particles is indicative / non-indicative. Arabic has a rich modal system,
where this is evident; while the modal system reduced substantially and so
did the function of ʾal, the difference is at least minimally kept: the jussive is
negated by ʾal to express the negative imperative and all indicative verbs are
negated by a separate particle (lā or bal).
3. The problem
40 This is the common view. For a possible example of lā in Phoenician, see Gibson
(1982, III, p. 109). In Pat-El (forthcoming) lā is also argued to have been retained in
Phoenician for nominal negation.
41 Contra Garr (1985, p. 175) who claims that most Semitic languages prefer to use lā
to negate their finite verbs. As the data above shows, in fact most Semitic languages prefer
ʾal for this function.
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 31
tion, even if only as a relic, it is more reasonable to reconstruct a dual set for
Semitic: lā and ʾal.
This then raises two questions: which verbal distinction do these particles
denote and what is the function of each particle within the set. In addition,
it is important to substantiate why ʾal is preferred as a generalized negation
marker across WS branches. These questions are further complicated as Ar
abic and NWS show two contradictory sets, where in Arabic, lā is the nega
tion of the non-indicative, while in most NWS languages it is the negation of
the indicative. The following discussion will present a solution, accounting
for the issues raised above and explaining subsequent developments in the
daughter languages.
4. Discussion
42 The only exception is found in the modern Ethio-Semitic languages. Some of these
languages have a different negation for subordinated verbs vs. independent verbs; however,
subordinated and negated verbs do share some similarities: in which show two types of
imperfects, simple and compound with an auxiliary; see for example Amharic: yämmə-
tsäbr set ‘a woman who breaks’, a-tsäbr-əmm ‘she does not break’ (Leslau 1967, p. 121).
The compound imperfect in Amharic is təsäbr-alläčč ‘she breaks’. These distinctions seem
to reflect a secondary distribution and function assignment, which developed in the Ethi
opic branch and does not go back to a previous node. Another possible exception is Clas
sical Arabic, where mā is generally excluded from subordinated clauses, while lā can occur
in both main and subordinated clauses. Since mā is a secondary development, this too may
be a local innovation.
43 Such is the case in many Neo-Arabic dialects, where various moods are marked
with prefixes of various origins. These prefixes very often originate from auxiliary verbs,
originally conveying modality. For an overview and discussion of modal prefixes in Neo-
Arabic see Stewart (1998).
32 Na’ama Pat-El
A) Aramaic45
Old and Official Aramaic dialects exhibit the expected WS set: indicative lā /
non-indicative ʾal.
Official Aramaic:
EgA: hn nḥt l-Mnpy ʾ l tšbq l-ʾšn ‘If you come down to Memphis, do not leave
[anything] to ʾNŠ.’ (C 42:11)
w-hn lʾ yhb hmw lk šlḥ ʿ ly ‘If he did not give them to you, inform me.’ (C 42:10)
There are some indications that ʾal was still used in Middle Aramaic:
Qum: w-kʿn ʾ l tdḥl ʾnʾ ʿmk ‘therefore, don’t be afraid. I’m with you’ (1Q20, 22:30)
However, in some Middle Aramaic dialects and later, ʾal disappears and lā
is used for all functions, including to form the negative imperative. Some
Aramaic dialects innovated new negation particles, which are based on lā
(Pat-El 2006), but their distribution is not conditioned by verbal modality:
Middle Aramaic:
TO: lā tidḥal ʾAbrām ‘fear not, Abraham’ (Gen. 15:1 Cf. Hebrew: ʾal tîrāʾ ʾAbrām)
Late Aramaic:
Syriac: magīstros dēn ʾemar da-šrabhōn d-hāllen lā ta[d]kar lī ‘the magistrate
said: don’t remind me of the affairs of these people’ (Joshua the Stylite, 76:3–4)
The particle ʾal is not attested in any Aramaic dialect later than the first cen
tury.46 Additionally, Neo-Aramaic dialects use lā for all verbal and nominal
44 The similarity in the structure of the Semitic languages makes this type of “internal
typology” more helpful, and by far more reliable than typology. Repeated developments
have been pointed to in many Semitic languages, the most well known example being the
development of the “perfect” in Late Aramaic and Neo-Aramaic dialects from a deverbal
adjective, similar to the original WS perfect, also from a deverbal adjective (Akkadian sta
tive). I will discuss more examples in a monograph to be published by Brill soon.
45 See also Folmer (1995, p. 520) for a brief review of the distribution of verbal nega
tion particles until and including Official Aramaic.
46 Beyer (1984, p. 152) notes that the last attestation of ʾal in Aramaic is in 37 BCE, in
a text from Qumran; therefore, he suggests that ʾal was replaced by lā by the first century.
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 33
functions, like Late Aramaic dialects. Note the following from the Jewish
dialect of Arbel:
ʿUmar ʾ ixālan la k-xilwāle ‘Umar didn’t eat our food’ (Khan 1999 B:102)
la qatlinnox ‘I won’t kill you’ (Khan 1999 B:149)
la zdimun ‘don’t be afraid’ (Khan 1999 Y:182)
Of the original Aramaic set ʾal/lā, the particle which was used for indicative
negation, lā, spread to all positions, despite the fact that the verbal system
in Middle Aramaic and later dialects carried the same tense-mood distinc
tions: perfect/imperfect-imperative. The particle which was used to negate
the non-indicative verbal form, ʾal, was completely abandoned. Hence we
may formulate the change as: indicative lā > indicative/non-indicative lā.47
B) Arabic48
In Classical Arabic two particles are used: mā, primarily for the perfect, and
lā for modal verbs (jussive, subjunctive and energic) and the imperfect; how
ever, already Middle Arabic shows signs that lā is dropping out of natural
use, while the use of mā spreads. In Judeo-Arabic, lā is hardly ever used for
the negation of verbal forms and the particle mā negates the imperfect and
the imperative, which are negated by lā in Classical Arabic. Other particles,
like lam, are rare and were probably not used in the vernacular (Blau 1995,
p. 142).
Some Neo-Arabic dialects generalized mā for all indicative verbal forms,
and lā was restricted to the negation of the imperative. For example, in Le
vantine Arabic, mā negates the perfect and imperfect: ma ʾakalna šī ‘we
didn’t eat a thing’, ma raḥ-qūl šī ‘I won’t say a thing’. The particle lā is still
used, but it is restricted to the imperative; however, mā can also be used in
the negation of the imperative: ma tinsa hayda ‘don’t forget it!’, lā tqūl hayk
‘don’t say it!’.49 That is, lā is slowly pushed away from the verbal system.
In some Neo-Arabic dialects, the process described above for Levantine
Arabic is already complete. In Cairene Arabic mā …š is used as a general ne
gation particle, while lā is not normally used for verbal negation (Woidich
47 Some Neo-Aramaic dialects also use na for negation, though rather rarely. This par
ticle is probably of Persian origin.
48 There have been several pragmatic studies on Arabic Negation. Dahlgren (2006)
compared the use and distribution of mā and lam in the Qurʾān and concluded that lam “is
used in more varied contexts than mā” (p. 74) and that mā “is mainly used in main clauses
of realis declarative and conditional sentences” (pp. 74–75). See also Larcher 1994.
49 I am informed by my colleague, Dr. Mahmoud Al-Batal, that the use of lā rather
than mā, for the negation of the imperative in Lebanon depends on dialectal preferences.
34 Na’ama Pat-El
50 Note, however, that lā has not disappeared from Cairene Arabic; the negation par
ticle is still used in restricted and sometimes marginal constructions, like wala (< wa-lā),
which negates the element following it (Woidich 2006, pp. 342–344), and it is still at
tested in the Classical pattern “no … and no …” or “neither … nor …” (Woidich 2006,
pp. 345–346; Brustad 2000, pp. 310–311). Brustad (2000, p. 295) notes that in some dia
lects in Egypt lā is still used for negated imperative. She also notes that in dialects that
use both lā and mā to negate the imperative, the difference between them is pragmatic.
Brustad suggests that when lā …š is used to negate an imperative, it “carries less impera
tive force”. This could be a similar distinction as the one found in Hebrew and Akkadian;
however, this is most probably not an original distinction in Egyptian Arabic, but rather
one that developed there independently. Furthermore, it seems that at least in those Leba
nese dialects where both mā and lā are used to negate the imperative, there is no such
pragmatic distinction.
51 Cf. Gesenius’ comments (1910, p. 317, § 107 o) about the difference between ʾal and
lôʾ negating the imperative in Biblical Hebrew, where according to him ʾal with the SC
denotes a simple imperative (don’t steal), while lôʾ with the SC is a more emphatic negation,
suitable for divine commands (you shall not steal).
52 The negation of the non-verbal predicate is identical to the negation of the indicative
verbal predicate in all the dialects, e.g. Moroccan: huwa ma-ši hna ‘he’s not here’.
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 35
C) Provisional conclusions
The same type of change is observed in both Aramaic and Arabic: the old in
dicative negation particle (Aramaic lā, Arabic mā) was generalized at the ex
pense of the non-indicative particle, which was abandoned in Aramaic and
in several Arabic dialects. Even in Arabic dialects, which did not lose their
non-indicative negation, its function has reduced significantly. If Arabic and
Aramaic are representative of the reduction in the negation system, we may
conclude that the indicative negation tends to be generalized.53
Following this conclusion, the generalization of ʾ l, found in Ethio-Semitic,
MSA and OSA, suggests that ʾ l was originally the indicative negation parti
cle. We may note that lā was normally not preferred for generalization un
less special conditions occurred.54 A system where lā is the non-indicative
negation particle fits well with the set of negation particles found in Arabic,
where lā is the negation of the non-indicative verb,55 and in Akkadian, where
lā functions as the negation of the prohibition, when negating the durative
(e.g., lā terrubī ‘do not enter’).
Therefore, we may reconstruct a set: ʾ l (indicative) / lā (non-indicative).
This system is attested almost intact in Arabic and if we agree that ʾal and
ula are somehow related, than this set is also attested in Akkadian. Many of
the remaining languages (Ethio-Semitic, MSA, OSA, Neo-Arabic and Late
and Neo-Aramaic) have generalized their indicative negation particle.56 Such
53 Note that the process of generalization is not necessarily related to loss of morpho
logical distinctions in the verbal modal system; Gəʿəz and Amharic have morphologically
distinct forms of the jussive and Neo-Arabic and Neo-Aramaic distinguish between in
dicative and subjunctive, though these languages do not use distinct forms of negation. A
contrary example is Biblical Hebrew, where the jussive and imperfect are indistinguish
able morphologically in the sound verb, but the syntactic difference between the jussive
and imperfect is retained for all forms in the negation. Similarly Akkadian, see footnote 34.
54 For Aramaic see B) above; for Ḥarsūsi it was suggested that lā was preferred as it
was the second element of a double negation pattern (“Jespersen’s Cycle”). See above for
details.
55 As was mentioned above, the Arabic system has exceptions, which suggest that it
is breaking down. In section 2.E it was shown that lā may also negate a morphologically
indicative verb, whereby a modal meaning is adduced, while mā is attested negating an
imperfect, when the verb is co-temporal with another verb. Since mā became the general
negation particle it was suggested above that mā + impf. was the motivation for the spread
of mā to negate all verbs (while, of course, the modal system was eroding). Therefore, the
Arabic system should be considered an intermediate phase between the inherited WS sys
tem and the new modern Arabic one.
56 The conclusion suggested here that the choice of negation particle is dependent on
mood seems to be rare typologically. Aikhenvald and Dixon (1998), for example, claim
that polarity, the ability to negate a clause, is positioned at the beginning of the depend
ency hierarchy (ibid., p. 68) and is not dependent on any other category (e.g., number, case
etc.). Both polarity and mood are associated with the clause (ibid., p. 73) and both are at
36 Na’ama Pat-El
a set, therefore, accounts for the situation in the daughter languages, except
the NWS ones, which will be dealt with in the next section.57
D) Negation in NWS
All NWS languages use ʾal as the negation of the imperative and most use
lā as the negation of the indicative, which is the exact opposite of the situ
ation in Arabic and Akkadian and contradicts the reconstruction for WS
suggested above. Obviously, the NWS languages did not simply invert the
function of the particles, without any motivation. Since all NWS languages
show the same functionally inverted set, the change there must have oc
curred in Proto-NWS.
CS inherited the WS system; however, while Arabic retained lā for the ne
gation of non-indicative verbs, OSA generalized the indicative ʾal to all posi
tions. It is possible that this generalization was shared by its sister language,
Proto-NWS. Nevertheless, like in other languages, lā remained functional
in the nominal system and probably also as a negative response.58 This func
tion of lā is not evident in the OSA inscriptions and we must, therefore, as
sume that lā was lost completely in this branch. OSA uses only prepositions
(bly/blt) for nominal negation.59
NWS then “borrowed” lā back from the nominal system to function as
its indicative negation. The incentive for this innovation was probably the
negation of the nominal predicates with lā.60
the upper level of the dependency hierarchy Aikhenvald and Dixon have devised. The
positive is always the unmarked term, while the negative is always marked. This seems to
be correct in Semitic; however, the choice which negation particle is used is dependent on
mood. Note also that in a previous study (Pat-El 2006), I have shown that in Syriac nega
tion marks more distinctions than positive statements.
57 As a point of comparison, we should mention Greek and Latin, both of which have
a dual negation set similar at least in part to what is proposed here. In Greek, mē is called
prohibitive while ou(k) is the negation of facts (indicative). Moreover, like in Akkadian (ul)
and Amharic (al-…əmm), the indicative negation, ou(k), is the negation in the protasis of
conditional sentences (Seiler 1971, p. 81). Similarly, in Latin, nē is used with imperatives
and optatives while nōn is used with indicative and potential subjunctive (Gildersleeve
1895, p. 287). Note that nōn is derived from nē. As was argued above, this is probably not
the case in Semitic.
58 Such a situation is attested in MSA and many Neo-Arabic dialects.
59 Akkadian uses balu(m) and lā; Arabic uses ġayr and lā; Ethiopic uses ʾ i and ʾal; MSA
uses be, biśi and other particles; NWS uses ʾ i, lā and bal-. Kurdish Neo-Aramaic dialects
use both lā and bē ‘without’.
60 In other Semitc languages, verbal and nominal negation often overlap. Some use a
preposition additionally: This function of lā as the negation of nominal predicates is sup
ported by evidence from Akkadian and Arabic, where the predicate of a nominal sentence
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 37
Biblical Hebrew61:
lōʾ šālēm ʿăwōn hā-ʾĕmōrî ‘The iniquity of the Emorites is not complete’
(Gen. 15:16)
lōʾ ṭôb had-dābār ʾăšer ʾattā ʿōśe ‘What you are doing is not good’ (Ex. 18:17)
Ugaritic:
yn d l ṭb ‘bad wine (lit. wine which is not good)’ (4.213:1)
d l nʿm ‘one who is not pleasant’ (2.50:19)
Aramaic:
l-ṭb hʾ mk ‘he is not better than you’ (S III 22)
zy l-ydʿ ‘one who does not know (ptcl.)’ (S II C 8)
A similar process of introducing features from nominal system into the ver
bal system probably accounts for the sporadic use of bal as a verbal negation
in both Ugaritic and Hebrew (for Phoenician, see below), and for the process
of nominal negation > verbal negation accounts also for Gəʿəz ʾ i-.62 Both
particles are nominal negations in most languages; bal is a negative prepo
sition in Ethiopic and Akkadian and ʾ i- is used as a nominal negation in a
number of languages.63
The introduction of a new indicative negation particle pushed ʾal to an in
creasingly restricted function, subsequently to be lost in Aramaic, but main
tain a specialized function in Old Aramaic, Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew.
is negated with lā: la KUR Ḫamata šunu ‘they are not from Ḫama (ABL 331 r. 5); lā
d-dāru ǧāmiʿatun ‘the house is not united’ (Reckendorf 1921, p. 44).
61 It is quite possible that the allomorphy found in Hebrew with the PC (ʾal yqtl and
the “emphatic” lā yqtl) may be an indication that Hebrew never quite lost lā, but rather
restricted it to prohibitions. The re-introduction of the nominal lā and the subsequent
restriction of ʾal caused a functional differentiation and individuation (lā being a “more
emphatic” prohibition), which is generally lost in later phases of Hebrew, as the system
stabilized.
62 Note that introduction of elements from the nominal system into the verbal system
is found even in the morphology of the Semitic languages. E.g., in Samaritan Aramaic,
the 2nd person perfect suffix on III-weak is -k, whereas it is normally -t in Aramaic (and
generally in CS). This new suffix is probably borrowed from the 2nd person possessive
suffix, which is -k everywhere in CS (Goldenberg 1977, p. 478). A similar movement of
-k from the nominal system to the verbal is attested in some Ethio-Semitic languages as
well (Appleyard 1996, p. 214) and in Neo-Assyrian: parsāka < parsāta (von Soden 1995,
p. 122, § 75 c). Another type of movement from one system to another is attested in Old
Assyrian, where sometimes the pronominal possessive suffix for 1cs -ī is used instead of
the pronominal objective suffix -nī: lá-mı -̀ dı ́ ‘teach me’ (Hecker 1968, p. 75, § 49).
63 Hebrew ʾ î-nāqî ‘not clean’ (Job 22:30); Phoenician ʾ bl /ʾi-bal/ ‘no’; Old Aramaic
ʾ-šm ‘no-name’ (S I C 24). Similarly Soqotry ʾē.
38 Na’ama Pat-El
CS P-NWS NWS
nominal *lā *lā
indicative *ʾal lā
non-indicative *lā *ʾal ʾal
Some further changes are observable later in NWS. Phoenician, the only
NWS language which does not use lā as a verbal negation, “borrowed” from
its nominal system a different nominal negation particle: bal. This particle
is found as a rare verbal negation particle in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,64
but it never gained status as a regular verbal negation in these two l anguages.65
Despite the differences between Phoenician and the other languages, the
NWS system remained otherwise intact, with the basic distinctions between
indicative and non-indicative negation still functional. The Phoenician situ
ation is thus reminiscent of the Classical Arabic system, where the indicative
negation particle ʾal was replaced by mā, but otherwise the system marks the
same distinctions inherited from an earlier phase.
The innovation of ʾal as negation of the imperative sets NWS apart from
other CS languages. This type of innovation is another indication that Ara
maic is closer to Canaanite than to Arabic, which does not share this inno
vation.66 The innovation in NWS, however, does not affect the position of
OSA, as loss of a feature cannot be used as a diagnostic tool.
64 For example, Biblical Hebrew: yuḥan rāšāʿ bal lāmad ṣedeq ‘grace is given to the evil
person, [though] he does not learn justice’ (Is. 26:10); Ugaritic: bl išlḥ… ‘I will not send’
(1.14:V:21).
65 Since Aramaic did not participate in this innovation, the process of introducing bal
into the verbal system must have happened later than the re-introduction of lā. It, there
fore, is unlikely that there was a competition in these languages between lā and bal which
ended with Phoenician generalizing bal, while the other languages generalized lā.
66 Other innovations of NWS are (1) double plural of segholates nouns (a-insertion and
sound plural); (2) verbal templates C qattila and D haqtila; (3) 1pl suffix -nū̌ on the perfect,
but -nā ̌ as object and possessive suffix. This features were proposed by Huehnergard
(1991, 2005) on the basis of Hetzron (1976), with some adjustments. Note that the inno
vation in Phoenician (bal) could be a lexical replacement, which is a rather weak evidence
for subgrouping.
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 39
Note the following genetic tree, which shows the developments from
Proto-Semitic to the daughter Semitic languages:
PS
? indep. *ʾal/ul
? dep. *lā
WS ES
ind. *ʾal Akk.
non-ind. *lā main ula/ul
subord. lā
Ethiopic MSA
G. ʾ i Meh./Soq. al
Amh. ʾal Ḥar. lā CS
CA OSA NWS
ind. mā ʾl ind *lā
non-ind. lā non-ind. *ʾal
What immediately strikes one is the similarity of this genetic tree to the
one suggested by Hetzron (1976) and modified by Porkhomovsky (1997)
and Huehnergard (1991; 2005), and in fact it validates the modification
of Hetzron’s proposal.67 Hetzron suggested that Arabic and Canaanite
67 Note that MSA and Ethiopic do not share the same innovations (Eth. ʾ i- for ver
bal negation; MSA double negation and post-positive lā). OSA generalized the negation
40 Na’ama Pat-El
particles ʾal as well as most Modern Ethio-Semitic languages, but it is problematic to rely
on generalizations in a set of two elements. Huehnergard (2005, pp. 168–169) illustrates,
using the suffix-conjugation ending k/t, why such two-way leveling is an invalid argument
for subgrouping.
68 OSA did not share the innovation in Arabic (indicative mā) nor the one in NWS
(indicative lā, non-indicative ʾal).
69 Moreover, note that the innovation of ʾ i to negate verbs in Ethiopic is restricted to
North Ethiopic (Gəʿəz, Tigre and Tigrinya), while in South Ethiopic ʾal is used as the ver
bal negation. It is, therefore, possible that the generalizations and innovations took place
in this branch internally, perhaps long after it was split from other WS languages.
70 Even with a possible OSA *ʾul, we would have to assume, following Blake (1911), an
ad hoc vocalic PS *l, which appears only in this form and which is realized randomly as a
different vowel in the daughter languages.
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 41
5. Conclusions
I have suggested that verbal negation in Semitic was a originally set contain
ing two particles with distinct functions: *ʾ l was used to negate indicative
verbal forms, while *lā was used to negate non-indicative ones. Since the
relationship between Akkadian ul(a) and WS ʾ l is still not resolved and since
Akkadian negation particles mark distinctions that WS does not (namely,
main vs. non-main predication), I cautiously suggest that this reconstruction
is Proto-WS, rather than Proto-Semitic.
Many languages generalized the indicative negation particle to negate all
verbal forms, which subsequently led to the loss of the original syntactic
distinction. The NWS languages show a further innovation, where after
an initial generalization in P-NWS (apparent in OSA), the nominal nega
tion lā was re-introduced from the nominal system into the verbal system
for negation of the indicative. I have suggested that the incentive for the re-
borrowing was the function lā has across Semitic as the negation particle of
nominal predicates.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the reconstruction suggested
above confirms the validity of Hetzron’s tree, and its later modifications by
Porkhomovsky and Huehnergard. It was further argued that the NWS
set (non-indicative ʾal, and lā/bal for indicative forms) should be considered
a diagnostic feature, which connects Phoenician, Aramaic, Ugaritic, He
brew and Deir ʿAlla (NWS), and separates them from OSA and Arabic. An
innovation on a smaller scale separates North Ethiopic (< innovation of *ʾ i-
for verbal negation) from South Ethiopic (< retention of *ʾal).
42 Na’ama Pat-El
Abbreviations
Bibliography
— 2005: “Features of Central Semitic.” In: A. Gianto (ed.): Biblical and Oriental
Essays in Memory of William L. Moran. Rome, pp. 155–203.
— 2009: “Trees and Waves: On the Classification of the Semitic Languages.” Paper
read at thirty-seventh annual meeting of the North American Conference on
Afroasiatic Linguistics in Albuquerque, NM.
Johnstone, T. M. 1975: “The Modern South Arabian languages.” In: Afroasiatic
Linguistics 1(5), pp. 1–29.
— 1977: Ḥarsūsi Lexicon and English-Ḥarsūsi Word-List. London.
— 1981: Jibbāli Lexicon. London.
— 1987: Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-List. London.
Khan, G. 1999: A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden.
Kienast, B. 2001: Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden.
Kogan, L. E./A. V. Korotayev 1997: “Sayhadic (Epigraphic South Arabian).” In:
R. Hetzron (ed.): The Semitic Languages. London, pp. 220–241.
Larcher, P. 1994: “Mā faʿala vs. lam yaf ʿal: une hypothèse pragmatique.” In: Ara-
bica 51, pp. 388–415.
Leslau, W. 1967: “Hypothesis on a Proto-Semitic Marker of the Imperfect in Gur
age.” In: JNES 26, pp. 121–125.
— 1995: Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden.
Lipiński, E. 2001: Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Leuven.
Lucas, C. 2007: “Jespersen’s Cycle in Arabic and Berber.” In: Transactions of the
Philological Society 105(3), pp. 398–431.
Mallory, J. P./D. Q. Adams 2006: The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-
European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford.
Palmer, F. R. 2001: Mood and Modality. Cambridge.
Pardee, D. 2003–2004: Review on J. Tropper: Ugaritische Grammatik. In: AfO 50,
pp. 1–404.
Pat-El, N. 2006: “Syntactical Aspects of Negation in Syriac.” In: JSS 51(2),
pp. 329–348.
— forthcoming: “On Negation in Phoenician.” In: R. Holmstedt/A. Schade
(eds.): The Phoenician Language: Studies in Writing and Linguistics. Winona
Lake, IN.
Porkhomovsky, V. 1997: “Modern South Arabian languages from a Semitic and
Hamito-Semitic perspective.” In: Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian
Studies 27, pp. 219–224
Qaddari, M. Z. 1985: “Studies in Diachronic Syntax: the Negation Particle ʾal”
[Hebrew]. In: Studies in Language I. Jerusalem, pp. 197–210.
Qimron, E. 1983: “The Negation Particle ʾal in Ancient Hebrew Sources” [He
brew]. In: M. Bar-Asher et al (eds.): Studies in Language presented to Zeev
Ben Ḥayim. Jerusalem, pp. 473–482.
— 1986: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta.
Reckendorf, H. 1921: Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg.
Rosenbaum, G. M. 2002: “The Particles ma and lam and Emphatic Negation in
Egyptian Arabic.” In: W. Arnold/H. Bobzin (eds.): “Sprich doch mit deinen
Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!” Wiesbaden, pp. 583–598.
On Verbal Negation in Semitic 45