Skip to content
Publicly Available Published by De Gruyter Mouton December 16, 2022

Ablaut in Cairene Arabic

  • Radwa Fathi EMAIL logo
From the journal The Linguistic Review

Abstract

The vowel alternations relating the perfectives and imperfectives of Form I verbs in Cairene Arabic are examined in this article. It is argued that such alternations are driven by a coherent system of Ablaut (or apophony), the same system as was proposed by Guerssel and Lowenstamm for Classical Arabic. Mounting evidence from unrelated languages strongly suggests that Ablaut systems are organized in similarly rigid fashion cross-linguistically. The question of the impact of linguistic change on Ablaut thus arises. One possibility is that change may culminate in the abandonment of apophony. Another possibility is that apophony itself drives change. It is argued in this article that several past and ongoing developments in the evolution of the vocalization of verbs in Cairene took place under the control of the apophonic system.

1 Introduction

This article is devoted to the study of a set of vowel alternations in the verbal system of Cairene Arabic. Following Cantineau (1950) and McCarthy (1979), familiarity with which I assume, I accept the idea that Semitic verbs arise from the combination of three ingredients: a consonantal root, a vocalic melody, and an array of prosodic patterns. The Cairene Arabic verbal system is a typical example of the gamut of verb types produced by the combination of these ingredients, and its 10 types will be illustrated in due course. The topic of this article concerns one only of these verb types, the type sometimes called “basic”, or “Form I”, or “Measure I”. In Form I, the perfective/imperfective aspectual alternation is accompanied, as we will see in detail, by a vowel change which varies from one verb to the other, e.g., silim/yi-slam ‘be safe’ versus ṭalab/yi-ṭlub ‘ask’ versus ʁasal/yi-ʁsil ‘wash’.[1] Earlier discussions of the vocalization of Form I verbs in Arabic include Cantineau (1949), Fleisch (1954), Brame (1970), Kuryłowicz (1972).

On the basis of a corpus of more than twelve hundred verbs of Cairene Arabic,[2] I will argue, against the general consensus, that the perfective/imperfective vowel changes are controlled by a coherent apophonic mechanism. This mechanism makes it possible to derive the vocalization of imperfectives from that of their respective perfectives. I will first identify the underlying vocalic makeup of Cairene Arabic perfectives (the input to apophony).[3] I will then show that the apophonic mechanism actioning those Cairene inputs is exactly the same as the one proposed by Guerssel and Lowenstamm (1996) for Classical Arabic.

As well, I intend to show, for the first time I believe, how that theory can be harnessed to explain linguistic change, past or ongoing. Consider for instance well-known pairs of verbs such as tiʕib ‘tire, intransitive’ versus taʕab ‘tire, transitive’, both from the same root √tʕb. Here, the differential vocalization of the verbs is the vehicle of a difference in argument structure. Such cases will not be discussed in this paper. But next to pairs of that type, numerous doublets are attested, e.g., nigiħ ∼ nagaħ both from the same root √ngħ ‘succeed’, this time with no difference in meaning.[4] Because such doublets cannot be traced back to older forms of Arabic, I assume that they are Egyptian developments. I will show that they are not randomly distributed. Rather, pockets of doublets arose in very specific contexts and, I will argue, as a direct consequence of apophonic pressure on the vocalization system.

While I do not assume that Cairene Arabic is a direct descendant of Classical Arabic, much of the discussion of the former will be conducted against the background of the latter.[5] The reasons for this are: a) the two forms of Arabic are obviously related genetically, and close enough to warrant parametric comparison, b) the anteriority of one over the other provides diachronic perspective, c) much more altogether is known about Classical Arabic than about Cairene Arabic, and d) the theory of apophony I will argue for was developed on the basis of Classical Arabic evidence.

The discussion is organized in 9 sections. In Section 2, I introduce and compare relevant aspects of Classical Arabic and Cairene Arabic evidence. In Section 3, I lay out the basics of Guerssel and Lowenstamm’s theory of apophony. Section 4 is a preliminary assessment of the facts of Cairene Arabic in that light. In Section 5, I offer an analysis of the organization of Cairene Arabic perfectives. In Sections 6 and 7, I demonstrate the operation of apophony in the Cairene dialect. In Section 8, I speculate about the future evolution of the Cairene system. Section 9 contains several remarks on the theory of apophony. In the conclusion, I sum up my results.

2 Classical Arabic and Cairene Arabic

Classical Arabic Measure I verbs are classified into four major classes according to the vocalization of their perfective and imperfective.[6] The first class involves perfective FaʕaL which alternates with imperfective ya-FʕiL,[7] e.g., ʁasal/ya-ʁsil. The second involves again perfective FaʕaL which alternates this time with imperfective ya-FʕuL, e.g., ṭalab/ya-ṭlub. The third class involves perfective FaʕiL which alternates with imperfective ya-FʕaL, e.g., salim/ya-slam. The fourth and last class involves perfective FaʕuL which alternates with imperfective ya-FʕuL, e.g., kabur/ya-kbur. These four classes are displayed in (1).[8] The alternations just observed are known as “Ablaut”.

(1)
Perf./Imperf. Perf. Imperf. Root ‘gloss’
i. FaʕaL/ya-FʕiL ʁasal ya-ʁsil √ʁsl ‘wash’
ii. FaʕaL/ya-FʕuL ṭalab ya-ṭlub √ṭlb ‘ask’
iii. FaʕiL/ya-FʕaL salim ya-slam √slm ‘be safe’
iv. FaʕuL/ya-FʕuL kabur ya-kbur √kbr ‘grow up’

Ablaut is also present in the Cairene dialect. But Cairene Arabic displays six classes of alternations and not only four as in Classical Arabic. This is illustrated in (2). Unlike Classical Arabic which exhibits three types of perfectives: FaʕaL, FaʕiL and FaʕuL, Cairene Arabic is reputed to exhibit only two: FaʕaL and FiʕiL.[9] Each of these two perfectives, FaʕaL and FiʕiL, may alternate with three imperfective patterns, yi-FʕaL, yi-FʕiL and yi-FʕuL.[10]

Thus, Cairene perfectives kasar, ʁasal and ṭalab, all sharing the same pattern FaʕaL, alternate with yi-FʕaL, yi-FʕiL and yi-FʕuL, hence yi-ksar, yi-ʁsil, and yi-ṭlub, respectively. Likewise, perfectives silim, misik and ṣibir, all sharing the same pattern FiʕiL, alternate with different imperfective melodies, yi-FʕaL, yi-FʕiL and yi-FʕuL, hence yi-slam, yi-msik, and yi-ṣbur, respectively.

(2)
Perf. Imperf. Root ‘gloss’ Perf. Imperf. Root ‘gloss’
i. kasar yi-ksar √ksr ‘break’ iv. silim yi-slam √slm ‘be safe’
ii. ʁasal yi-ʁsil √ʁsl ‘wash’ v. misik yi-msik √msk ‘take hold of’
iii. ṭalab yi-ṭlub √ṭlb ‘ask’ vi. ṣibir yi-ṣbur √ṣbr ‘act with patience’

The complexity of the facts just laid out has led most if not all investigators to conclude that the alternating patterns in (2) are lexical, i.e., not rule-governed. Mitchell, for instance, notes in his manual (Mitchell 1962: 76) “[…] the imperfective of any verb should be learnt in conjunction with the perfective as it is met.” Abdel-Massih’s manual (Abdel-Massih 1975: 94) also indicates that the vocalization of the imperfective is not predictable from the perfective. While Broselow (1976: 139) sees the vocalization of verbs as an arbitrary lexical fact, Gadalla (2000: 63–64) notes that the stem vowel alternations are unsystematic. So does Abboud-Haggar (2003).

It is true that there is something forbidding in the data in (2). Because every logical possibility seems to be attested, we have no clue even as to whether a directional system relates the vowel of one aspect to the vowel of the other. Nevertheless, a specific reason leads me to strongly doubt that the general consensus is justified. I will assume that Ablaut serves as the exponent of aspectual derivation. If the derivation of aspect is systematic, so must be the realization of its exponent. On this view, the data in (2) cannot just be an inert morass of forms. Rather, it must be organized in the form of a directional system, the very same directional system whereby aspect itself is derived. Guerssel and Lowenstamm (1990, 1996 developed such a proposal for Classical Arabic. It is presented in the next section.

3 The perfective/imperfective vowel alternations as a vehicle of derivation of aspect in Classical Arabic (Guerssel and Lowenstamm 1996)

Guerssel and Lowenstamm (1990, 1996 argue that alternations such as in (1) are “[…] part of a genuine apophonic system serving in synchronically active fashion as the vehicle of the derivation of aspect.” I briefly reproduce their proposal here.

In (3), we can see anew the four major classes of alternations. The first a vowel of the perfective stem is an invariable ingredient in all the perfective forms, so is the a vocalizing the prefix in the imperfective. These two ‘invariable’ components, italicized in columns (a) and (b) of (3), are not involved in the derivation of aspect.[11] When they are factored out, there remains the two series of vowel alternations in (c) and (d) of (3), isolated in (4). The hypothesis is that these vowels are involved in the derivation of aspect.

(3)
a. Perf. b. Imperf. c. Perf. d. Imperf. e. Root ‘gloss’
i. ʁasal ya-ʁsil ʁ_sal y_- ʁsil √ʁsl ‘wash’
ii. alab ya-ṭlub ṭ_lab y_-ṭlub √ṭlb ‘ask’
iii. salim ya-slam s_lim y_-slam √slm ‘be safe’
iv. kabur ya-kbur k_bur y_-kbur √kbr ‘grow up’
(4)
a. Perfective b. Imperfective
i. a i
ii. a u
iii. i a
iv. u u

Guerssel and Lowenstamm (1996) identify two main analytical challenges that hinder the establishment of the directionality of the derivation (Perfective → Imperfective or Imperfective → Perfective): opacity and partial polarity.

First, regarding opacity, if the derivation goes from the perfective to the imperfective, a perfective input a will have two different imperfective outputs, i and u, (4.i) and (4.ii). This is illustrated in (5a). Conversely, if the derivation goes from the imperfective to the perfective, an input u will give rise to two different perfective outputs, a and u, (4.ii) and (4.iv). This is shown in (5b).

(5)

Regarding partial polarity, as shown in (6), regardless of the direction of the derivation, an input a has an output i while an input i has an output a; in either case: a ↔ i.

(6)

Guerssel and Lowenstamm blame this vexing situation on a failure to detect a fourth input object, they call it X. Suppose X is introduced in such way that it eliminates the ambiguity inherent in (5a) and (5b). I illustrate this with the example involving /a/ in (5a). The ambiguity of a stems from the fact that an input a has two different outputs, i and u. That ambiguity can be reduced in two ways: a → i and X → u or X → i and a → u. The inclusion (in that manner) of X in the set of inputs in (5) gives rise to the four possibilities in (7) – two for each version of directionality – all of which are free from any ambiguity.

(7)

When all four schemes in (7) are compared, a salient feature of (7b) distinguishes it from the other three: unlike the other three, the boxed scheme in (7b) does not involve the a ↔ i polarity noted above. For that reason, Guerssel and Lowenstamm see it as the most promising of all four hypotheses in (7). Selecting (7b) carries two consequences: a) the vowel of the imperfective is derived from the perfective;[12] b) the alternating pattern involving X is FaʕaL/ya-FʕiL. Concretely, the difference between perfectives ṭalab and ʁasal is the presence of underlying /a/ in the former and underlying /X/ in the latter, both neutralizing on the surface as [a]. Given that difference, their respective roles in the apophonic scheme is as in (8).

(8)

Guerssel and Lowenstamm proposed that /X/ is ø (zero). If so, the [a] vocalizing the second root consonant in [ʁas a l] can be viewed as a result of the propagation of the a vocalizing the first root consonant. This is shown in (9a). This is because vacuous vocalization of the second root consonant of a perfective – *ʁasl in the case at hand – would be rejected by the grammar of Classical Arabic. ṭalab, on the other hand is assumed to be equipped with lexical vowel /a/ which vocalizes its second root consonant, (9b). The idea behind the view of X as “zero” is that unlike the perfectives of the verb classes represented by ṭalab, salim and kabur which are assigned lexical vowels {a, i, u} by the grammar, the perfectives of the class of ʁasøl is not assigned any lexical vowel.

(9)

The alternations given earlier in (3) and (4) can consequently be redefined as in (10) where the input perfective vocalizations and the corresponding output vowels in the imperfectives have been italicized.

(10)
a. Perf. input b. Imperf. output c. Perf. → Imperf.
i. ʁasal /ʁasøl/ ya-ʁsil ø → i
ii. ṭalab ya-ṭlub a → u
iii. salim ya-slam i → a
iv. kabur ya-kbur u → u

With the minimal re-organization of the verbs in (10) given in (11), the full picture of the proposal emerges. Guerssel and Lowenstamm (1996) highlight the striking formal property of the individual vowel alternations in (11): each output vowel is the input to another, (11c).

(11)

That is, the apophonic mechanism can be construed as the linear path in (12).

(12)
The apophonic chain: ø i a u u

Guerssel and Lowenstamm (1996) conclude that the vowel alternations attested in Classical Arabic Measure I verbs are not lexically recorded as such. Rather, each root is associated with one of the four “vocalizers” {ø, i, a, u}. This results in exactly four types of perfectives. They note: “[…] Classes of vowel correspondences are a mere by-product of the operation of the ablaut function.”

The descriptive potential of the apophonic chain in (12) is further explored in Chekayri and Scheer (1996, 2003 for Classical Arabic, Faust (2017) for Palestinian Arabic, Ségéral (1995; 1996 for Ge’ez, Ségéral (2000) for Semitic nouns in general. It has also been tested against evidence from Berber, see Bendjaballah (1998, 1999, 2001, 2005 for Kabyle; Lahrouchi (2011), Lahrouchi and Ségéral (2009) for Tashelhyt, Idrissi (2000) for Berber nouns in general. For extensions to German, see Ségéral (1995), Ségéral and Scheer (1998). As well, see Bendjaballah (2003) for Beja, Baturay Meral (2010) for Turkish, and Boyé (2014) for Malay.

The next section is devoted to a preliminary assessment of the Cairene Arabic evidence in light of the apophonic mechanism in (12).

4 Towards an apophony-based account of the ‘aspectual’ alternations in Cairene Arabic

Let us examine once more the perfective/imperfective vowel alternations of Cairene Arabic.

(13)
Perf. Imperf. Root ‘gloss’ Perf. Imperf. Root ‘gloss’
i. kasar yi-ksar √ksr ‘break’ iv. silim yi-slam √slm ‘be safe’
ii. ʁasal yi-ʁsil √ʁsl ‘wash’ v. misik yi-msik √msk ‘take hold of’
iii. ṭalab yi-ṭlub √ṭlb ‘ask’ vi. ṣibir yi-ṣbur √ṣbr ‘act with patience’

If we recast the data in (13) in terms of the token root FʕL as in (14), it becomes clear that the alternations therein are also plagued by partial polarity and even more severely by opacity than their Classical Arabic counterparts.

(14)
Perf. Imperf. Perf. Imperf.
FaʕaL yi-FʕaL FiʕiL yi-FʕaL
FaʕaL yi-FʕiL FiʕiL yi-FʕiL
FaʕaL yi-FʕuL FiʕiL yi-FʕuL

The system appears opaque as to whether the derivation goes from the perfective to the imperfective or the other way round. In (15), I have represented two possibilities regarding directionality. In (15a), the perfective is the base of the derivation and in (15b) the imperfective serves as the base. In either case, the system is opaque: no single output can be traced back to a unique base.

(15)

Moreover, polarity plagues both schemes: under either version of directionality, it will be the case that an i in the input corresponds to an a in the output while at the same time an a in the input corresponds to an i in the output. In other words, at all times, a ↔ i, see (16).

(16)

As we see, Cairene Arabic offers the same two challenges as Classical Arabic, namely opacity and partial polarity. Moreover, the terms of polarity are exactly the same in the two languages, viz. a and i. Consequently, I pursue the idea that the apophonic mechanism in (12) can shed light on Cairene Arabic, too.

For better visibility, let me first factor out the imperfective prefix yi-, invariable in all forms, only retaining the imperfective vowel and one only of the two identical vowels of the perfective. This is done in (17).

(17)
Perfective Imperfective Perfective Imperfective
a a i a
a i i i
a u i u

Under the assumption that the vowel of the perfective is derived from that of the imperfective, one alternation appears to conform with the apophonic mechanism established in (12): the boxed cell in (18) manifests the (i → a) step.

(18)

On the alternative view that the perfective melody is mapped into the imperfective via apophony, both boxed cells in (19) comply with the apophonic mechanism, specifically with steps (i → a) and (a → u).

(19)

Comparing the results of (18) and (19), I decide to pursue the hypothesis that it is the imperfective melody that is derived from that of the perfective by apophony.

In (20), I illustrate (19) with examples of actual verbs, one for each case. 306 verbs pattern like ṭalab → yi-ṭlub, thus exemplifying the (a → u) apophonic step. 177 verbs exemplify the (i → a) step, patterning as silim → yi-slam.

(20)

This preliminary result is highly encouraging for two reasons. First, with two perfective melodies, the a of FaʕaL and the i of FiʕiL, the presence of two matching imperfective types, yi-FʕuL and yi-FʕaL as their respective outputs is exactly what the apophonic scheme predicts. Second, the two classes boxed in (20) are well populated: together, they amount to a big third of all verbs in my corpus.[13]

But, by the same token this encouraging result begs a question. With just two perfective melodies – FaʕaL and FiʕiL – as sole inputs to apophony, two classes of alternations only are expected, viz. FaʕaL/yi-FʕuL and FiʕiL/yi-FʕaL. In other words, the verb types exemplified in (20) should pattern uniformly (but counterfactually) as in (21). The question is why does the actual system display a significantly wider range of alternations?

(21)
Perf. Imperf. Perf. Imperf.
i. kasar *yi-ksur iv. silim yi-slam
ii. ʁasal *yi-ʁsul v. misik *yi-msak
iii. ṭalab yi-ṭlub vi. ṣibir *yi-ṣbar

What is needed at this point is a richer set of perfective types, one which will make it possible to account for the attested range of alternations. Identifying the fine structure of perfective verbs is therefore necessary. This is one of the topics taken up in the next section.

5 The ingredients of the Cairene Arabic perfective and their deployment

A comparison between the perfectives of Cairene and Classical Arabic (22) brings to light two clear differences. The first element of difference is the supposed absence in Cairene Arabic of an u-Perfective corresponding to the FaʕuL type of Classical Arabic, e.g., kabur in (22.iv).

(22)
a. Classical. Ar. b. Cairene Ar. c. Classical Ar. d. Cairene Ar. Root ‘gloss’
i. ʁasal ʁasal FaʕaL FaʕaL √ʁsl ‘wash’
ii. ṭalab ṭalab FaʕaL FaʕaL √ṭlb ‘ask’
iii. salim silim FaʕiL FiʕiL √slm ‘be safe’
iv. kabur kibir FaʕuL FiʕiL √kbr ‘grow up’

The second element of difference has to do with the i-Perfective: both languages do have an i-Perfective but whereas the i is confined to the rightmost vocalic position of the stem in Classical Arabic sal i m, it occupies both positions in Cairene s i l i m.

5.1 The u-perfectives

In Section 2, I hinted at the fact that the presentation of the Cairene Arabic evidence as given so far would be in need of refinement. Indeed, Cairene Arabic in reality possesses an u-Perfective. Its existence often remains unacknowledged because where an u-Perfective is possible, it stands in free variation with an i-Perfective. Badawi and Hinds (1986) mention 51 FuʕuL verbs, 48 of which are in free variation with FiʕiL. Even though the FuʕuL variants are much less frequently used than their FiʕiL counterparts, they can still be used without causing surprise or perplexity.[14] Examples are given in (23), and their existence is recorded in (24). Section 7 below is entirely devoted to a discussion of such doublets and how they arose.

(23)
kubur ∼ kibir ‘grow up; increase in size/age, √kbr’
ʁulub ∼ ʁilib ‘suffer inconvenience or hardship, √ʁlb’
ʁuluṭ ∼ ʁiliṭ ‘err; make a mistake, √ʁlṭ’
xuluṣ ∼ xiliṣ ‘come to an end; be finished, √xlṣ’
suxun ∼ sixin ‘become hot, √sxn’
kutur ∼ kitir ‘become numerous; proliferate, √ktr’
(24)
a. b. Root ‘gloss’
i. ʁasal FaʕaL √ʁsl ‘wash’
ii. ṭalab FaʕaL √ṭlb ‘ask’
iii. silim FiʕiL √slm ‘be safe’
iv. kibir ∼ kubur FiʕiL ∼ FuʕuL √kbr ‘grow up’

When Cairene FuʕuL perfectives are acknowledged, it becomes clear that i, a, and u too are involved in the vocalization of the perfectives of Cairene and Classical Arabic, (25).

(25)
a. Cl. Ar. b. Cai. Ar. c. Cl. Ar. d. Cai. Ar. Root ‘gloss’
i. ʁasal ʁasal FaʕaL FaʕaL √ʁsl ‘wash’
ii. ṭalab ṭalab FaʕaL FaʕaL √ṭlb ‘ask’
iii. salim silim FaʕiL FiʕiL √slm ‘be safe’
iv. kabur kubur ∼ kibir FaʕuL FuʕuL ∼ FiʕiL √kbr ‘grow up’

Extrapolating from that observation, I formulate the strong claim in (26).[15]

(26)

Cairene Arabic and Classical Arabic Measure I perfectives manage the same vocalic material.

The differential arrangement of the same ingredients in the two languages remains to be accounted for: why does Cairene Arabic have silim and kubur with two identical vowels where Classical Arabic has salim and kabur with both a and then the lexical vowel?

5.2 The u-perfectives and the i-perfectives

In Section 3, Classical Arabic perfectives were shown to be equipped with the following vowel material: /ṭalab/ for ṭalab, /ʁasøl/ for ʁasal, /salim/ for salim, and finally /kabur/ for kabur. This material was organized as in (27).

(27)

The conjecture in (26) implies the presence in Cairene Arabic of the ingredients present in (27), i.e., the lexical vowel, italics in (27), and the a to its left. The difference as I will now show is in the way they deploy.

Being superficially identical in both varieties, the two verbs ṭalab and ʁasal do not clearly indicate whether their organization in Cairene Arabic is as in (27a) and (27b) or otherwise. By contrast, Cairene Arabic silim and kubur (compared to salim and kabur) point to the organization shown in (28) whereby the lexical vowel has propagated leftward, and vowel a, parenthesized in (28), has remained latent, as I show in the next subsection.

(28)

5.3 The a-perfectives

I submit that the organization described in (28) is one of the parameters characterizing the Cairene dialect. The rule is thus: latency of vowel a and leftward propagation of the lexical vowel. This applies across the board, i.e., not only in the case of silim and kubur but also to ṭalab and ʁasal. However, because of the vacuity of V2 in ʁasal, vowel a is the only local resource available for the vocalization of the stem, as seen in (29b).[16] The emptiness of V2 creates the conditions for the overt manifestation of the “latent” vowel a.[17] We will soon see that the underlying /ø/ whose presence follows from the hypothesis in (26) is apophonically active.

(29)

In the account just offered, ʁasal (29b) is identically represented in Classical and Cairene Arabic, cf. (9a) above. In the next section, we will see how ʁasal and forms of that type behave exactly in Cairene as they do in Classical Arabic in the apophonic derivation of the vowel of their corresponding imperfectives.

My proposal is not as abstract (or difficult to learn) as it might seem. Indeed, the idea noted in (29) that a is a basic ingredient of every single verb finds justification in the Cairene data in (30): the ubiquity of vowel a (italicized) strongly suggests that it is part of every verbal form in Cairene Arabic. If so, Measure I verbs, as represented in (29), are no exception.[18]

(30)
Measure II FaʕʕiL fahhim ‘he made X understand, √fhm
Measure III FāʕiL sāfir ‘he travelled, √sfr
Measure IV ʔaFʕaL ʔaħrag ‘he embarrassed, √ħrg
Measure V ʔitFaʕʕiL ʔitħakkim ‘he kept under control, √ħkm
Measure VI ʔitFāʕiL ʔitfāhim ‘he arrived at a mutual understanding, √fhm
Measure VII ʔinFaʕaL ʔinfagar ‘he exploded, √fgr
Measure VIII ʔiFtaʕaL ʔištaʁal ‘he worked, √šʁl
Measure IX ʔiFʕaLL ʔiħmarr ‘he became red, √ħmr
Measure X ʔistaFʕiL ʔistangid ‘he asked for rescue, √ngd

To sum up, in this section I reintroduced the FuʕuL perfective into the discussion, only to emphasize how severely marginalized it has become. Section 7 is devoted to FuʕuL. There, I will argue that apophony is responsible for its demise. The other point made in this section had to do with the organization of the vocalic ingredients of perfective forms. The various classes of ablaut can now be addressed.

6 The ablaut classes of Cairene Arabic

6.1 The most direct cases

With more than one third of all verbs falling out, we saw in Section 4 encouraging indications of how the apophonic mechanism might account for aspectual alternations in Cairene Arabic. Those were the cases implementing apophonic steps (a → u) and (i → a) and exemplified by (ṭalab → yi-ṭlub) and (silim → yi-slam). These alternations are boxed in (31), repeated from (20) for convenience. They are attested by a total of 483 verbs out of the 1,256 of my list.

(31)

According to the view of the perfective established in Section 5, ṭalab/yi-ṭlub and silim/yi-slam can be broken down into the ingredients appearing in (32). Each of the two perfectives is made up of a root, a lexical vowel in V2 (a in ṭalab and i in silim), and a “latent” a vowel in V1 (in brackets). The perfective stem emerges upon leftward propagation of the lexical vowel (32a), and the vowel of the imperfective by apophony (32b).

(32)

In the next subsection, we look at the implementation of apophonic step (ø → i).

6.2 The (ø → i) alternation

Two alternating patterns in (31) display an i-Imperfective. These are yi-ʁsil in the pair ʁasal/yi-ʁsil in (31.ii) and yi-msik in the pair misik/yi-msik in (31.v). I will argue that both patterns instantiate apophonic step (ø → i).

The first of these two alternations, ʁasal/yi-ʁsil, can be accounted for in straightforward fashion. The derivation involves underlying /ʁasøl/ where /ø/ serves as the input to the derivation of the imperfective; then, because of the vacuity of V2, “latent” a eventually spreads rightward (33). As we will soon see, the behavior of “latent” a is what distinguishes the two patterns discussed in this subsection, ʁasal/yi-ʁsil and misik/yi-msik.

(33)

457 verbs behave as ʁasal→ yi-ʁsil. This is recorded in (34.ii).

(34)

At this point, the vocalization of the imperfectives of 940 verbs out of 1,256 (i.e., ¾ of the cases) has been credited to one of the apophonic steps.

Our straightforward assessment of the ʁasal/yi-ʁsil pattern in (34.ii) was based on the idea that an imperfective melody yi-FʕiL can only be the output of apophony applying on /FaʕøL/. What do we make then of the pattern in (34.v) where yi-FʕiL is matched by a FiʕiL perfective?

Indeed, what we expect is for “masak” (not misik) to be the lawful perfective of yi-msik. In the rest of this subsection, I explore the content of the class to which misik belongs, eventually showing how the pattern in (34.v) can be absorbed into (34.ii).

Examining the 21 verbs which that class contains brings to light a crucial finding: the FiʕiL perfectives of 16 out of those 21 verbs are in free variation with a FaʕaL variant.[19] Examples are given in (35a). For the five verbs in (35b) only, is FiʕiL the only possible perfective.

(35)
a. FiʕiL ∼ FaʕaL → yi-FʕiL (16 verbs out of 21)
i. wiris ∼ waras/yi-wris ‘inherent, √wrs’
ii. ħilif ∼ ħalaf/yi-ħlif ‘swear, √ħlf’
iii. filit ∼ falat/yi-flit ‘slip away, √flt’
iv. ʕinid ∼ ʕanad/yi-ʕnid ‘behave stubbornly, √ʕnd’
b. FiʕiL→ yi-FʕiL (5 verbs out of 21)
i. misik/yi-msik ‘take hold of, √msk’
ii. libis/yi-lbis ‘dress, √lbs’
iii. nizil/yi-nzil ‘descend, √nzl’
iv. biʕid/yi-bʕid ‘be distant, bʕd’
v. wilid/yi-wlid ‘give birth, √wld’

The 16 FaʕaL variants – an example of which is waras in (35a) – are derived exactly as ʁasal/yi-ʁsil in (33). But, what makes the 21 FiʕiL versions, e.g., wiris, possible?

My answer is simply that, in such cases, instead of behaving as in (29b), the “latent” vowel a (part of the basic equipment of all perfectives) has remained latent, (36a). This triggers the epenthetic system of which the default vowel is i, (36b).

(36)

To sum up this discussion of the 478 verbs participating in the (ø → i) alternation, the breakdown is as follows: a) a large group of 457 verbs, with ʁasal/yi-ʁsil as an example, involves the overt manifestation of latent vowel a, b) a very small group of 5 verbs, exemplified in (35b) results from the inertia of the latent vowel, finally, c) a small group of 16 verbs, documented in (35a), displays a pattern of wavering between overt manifestation and inertia. Because the underlying vocalic endowment in all three groups is the same, their apophonic behavior is uniform. I illustrate the case of misik in (37) for comparison with ʁasal in (33).

(37)

The boxed cell in (38.v) should thus be seen, not as a genuine type of alternation, but rather as a special case of the (ø → i) class. For clarity, I continue representing the 21 verbs patterning as misik/yimsik as a group of its own, viz. (38.v).

(38)

At this point, three of the apophonic steps of the chain have been identified for the Cairene system: (a → u) as in ṭalab/yi-ṭlub (38.iii), (i → a) as in silim/yi-slam (38.iv), and (ø → i) as in both ʁasal/yi-ʁsil (38.ii) and misik/yi-msik (38.v). Before identifying the last step (u → u), in the next subsection I analyze the FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL pattern in (38.i).

6.3 The FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL group – what is it?

With 288 items, almost ¼ of the entire corpus, FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL verbs form a sizeable group. Examples are given in (39).

(39)
kasar/yi-ksar ‘break, √ksr’
baʕat/yi-bʕat ‘send, √bʕt’
masaħ/yi-msaħ ‘sweep, √msħ’
nahab/yi-nhab ‘loot, √nhb’
zaraʕ/yi-zaraʕ ‘plant, √zrʕ’
xaṭaf/yi-xṭaf ‘kidnap; snatch, √xṭf’
ʔabaḍ/yi-ʔbaḍ ‘cash, √ʔbḍ’
nasax/yi-nsax ‘copy, √nsx’
ladaʁ/yi-ldaʁ ‘sting, √ldʁ’, etc.

The existence of this group challenges Guerssel and Lowenstamm’s theory of apophony because, as the reader will recall, it does not include an (a → a) step.

Three options suggest themselves in relation to this apparent challenge, (40).

(40)
a. The theory of apophony must be revised so as to include an (a → a) step.
b. The theory of apophony per se is not in need of revision along the lines of a. above, but its scope must be reappraised: apophony selectively applies to specific sectors of the verbal system and ignores entire portions of it altogether; perhaps, the FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL group is one such portion.
c. The theory of apophony does not need amending; rather, apophony applies unrestrictedly but its output can be obfuscated by the subsequent application of a further process.

Option (c) opens a promising path. Indeed, the verbs of the FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL group share a significant property: the second and/or third consonant of their root is a guttural, an emphatic, a uvular or an r, i.e., {ʕ, ʔ, h, ħ, ẓ, ṣ, ṭ, ḍ, ʁ, x, r}.[20] On the view that such consonants can exert a lowering influence on vowels, we have to ask whether the a of yi-FʕaL does not mask a canonical apophonic output. Two such possibly altered outputs must be considered. Indeed, we established that surface FaʕaL expresses two different underlying objects, /FaʕøL/ and /FaʕaL/. /FaʕøL/ derives yi-FʕiL and /FaʕaL/ derives yi-FʕuL. In both cases, a high vowel – i or u – is the output. It stands to reason that in a “lowering” consonantal environment both high vowels could lower to a as per the derivations in (41).

(41)
a. FaʕøL → yi-FʕiL >> eventually lowered to yi-FʕaL
b. FaʕaL → yi-FʕuL >> eventually lowered to yi-FʕaL

If so, the FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL set does not even constitute a unitary group. Rather, it is the sum of the results of the two processes depicted in (41).[21]

This reasoning was anticipated by the medieval Arabic scholars in their work on Classical Arabic. Alongside the alternations reviewed in Sections 2 and 3, Classical Arabic also has a FaʕaL/ya-FʕaL group of verbs. Early on, the medieval Arabic scholars noted the presence of guttural consonants in the roots of those verbs and explained the outstanding vocalization of their imperfectives in terms of the lowering effect of such consonants. Of interest, is the impeccable argument developed by the Arabic grammarians to the effect that the FaʕaL/ya-FʕaL alternation reflects the interference of lowering consonants and is therefore derivative and not genuine. Their position is most clearly summed up by Raḍī d-Dīn al-Astārābāđī, a 13th century scholar, in his Šarḥ Šāfiyat Ibn al-Ḥāğib (Al-Astārābāđī 1975, vol. I: 117):

The masters of morphological derivation say: FaʕaL/yaFʕaL is derived from FaʕaL/yaFʕuL or FaʕaL/yaFʕiL. Here is why: when they saw that a only appears when a guttural is present, they found in the guttural the reason for the presence of a in the imperfectives of FaʕaL. They became convinced that the guttural is the cause of the presence of a, and as it is impossible to find a except in the vicinity of a guttural, they concluded that this a has no other motivation. Consequently, they became convinced that a is not free and unconditioned as u or i are, or it would occur freely where no guttural is present.

Lowering in Cairene – as in Classical Arabic – does not apply with full regularity. Sometimes, it simply does not apply at all. Sometimes, it applies optionally, allowing doublets to arise. In such cases, i or u emerges.

A sample of verbs which are not affected by lowering is given in (42).

(42)
ṣaraf/yi-ṣrif ‘spend (money), √ṣrf’
šaʁal/yi-šʁil ‘occupy, √šʁl’
ʁaṣab/yi-ʁṣib ‘oblige, √ʁṣb’
zaħam/yi-zħim ‘crowd, √zħm’
laxam/yi-lxim ‘fluster; confuse, √lxm’
ħaḍan/yi-ħḍun ‘hug, √ħḍn’
ʔamar/yi-ʔmur ‘order, √ʔmr’
zaʁad/yi-zʁud ‘poke, √zʁd’
salaʔ/yi-sluʔ ‘boil, √slʔ’
šarax/yi-šrux ‘crack, √šrx’

“Hesitating” application of the rule gives rise to two classes of doublets, each of seven verbs. In the first class, the imperfective vowel may be a or i. Examples are given in (43).

(43)
faḍaħ/(yi-fḍaħ ∼ yi-fḍiħ) ‘subject to scandal, √fḍħ’
bahar/(yi-bhar ∼ yi-bhir) ‘dazzle, √bhr’
gaħad/(yi-għad ∼ yi-għid) ‘receive with ingratitude, √għd’
rabaʕ/(yi-rbaʕ ∼ yi-rbiʕ) ‘gallop (of a donkey), √rbʕ’

In the other class, it may be a or u.

(44)
ṣalaħ/(yi-ṣlaħ ∼ yi-ṣluħ) ‘be suitable, √ṣlħ’
ṭabaʔ/(yi-ṭbaʔ ∼ yi-ṭbuʔ) ‘take a constricting hold, √ṭbʔ’
šaʔaṭ/(yi-šʔaṭ ∼ yi-šʔuṭ) ‘catch (a flying object), √šʔṭ’
gaħar/(yi-għar ∼ yi-għur) ‘bury in a hole, √għr’

In sum, the behavior of verbs from triliteral roots including a lowering consonant in second and/or third position breaks down into three groups: a) 288 lower a vowel to yi-FʕaL, b) 14 lower a vowel in wavering fashion, c) the rest of them, 429 verbs, do not lower a vowel; 177 are part of group (45.ii) and 252 are part of group (45.iii).

If the yi-FʕaL imperfectives of FaʕaL verbs can be traced back to yi-FʕiL or yi-FʕuL as per the sequences in (41),[22] the entire group in (45.i) reduces to special cases of either (45.ii) or (45.iii).

(45)

Up to this point, I have shown how apophony accounts for all but one of the alternating patterns in Cairene Arabic. To sum up: the alternating patterns in (45.ii), (45.iv) and (45.iii) follow the three regular steps (ø → i → a → u) respectively. I have argued that the class in (45.v) is a special case of the pattern in (45.ii), and that the class in (45.i) a special case of either pattern (45.ii) or (45.iii).

We can now turn our attention to the last group (45.vi) and proceed to its autopsy.

6.4 The FiʕiL/yi-FʕuL group

According to the apophonic mechanism, yi-ṣbur should be the output of either ṣabar (a → u) or ṣubur (u → u), but not ṣibir as there is no (i → u) apophonic step. The examination of the class to which ṣibir/yi-ṣbur belongs, which contains all in all seven verbs, reveals a striking finding: all such verbs have their FiʕiL perfectives alternating in free variation with either FaʕaL or FuʕuL or both. This is shown in (46).

(46)
sikin ∼ sakan/yi-skun ‘inhabit, √skn’
ʁirib ∼ ʁarab/yi-ʁrub ‘to set (of the sun), √ʁrb’
fitir ∼ fatar/yi-ftur ‘become tepid, √ftr’
milik ∼ malak/yi-mluk ‘posses, √mlk’[23]
gibin ∼ gubun/yi-gbun ‘act cowardly, √gbn’
sikit ∼ sakat ∼ sukut/yi-skut ‘become silent, √skt’
ṣibir ∼ ṣabar ∼ ṣubur/yi-ṣbur ‘act with patience, √ṣbr’

It is obvious that the imperfective melody characterizing this class of verbs is derived from either perfective FaʕaL or perfective FuʕuL, not FiʕiL. The question therefore is why FiʕiL figures as a possible perfective for a yi-FʕuL imperfective. In the next section, I examine FuʕuL verbs. As part of this discussion, I will explain how FiʕiL came to gradually replace FuʕuL.

7 The 4th apophonic step (u → u) in Cairene Arabic – what happened to it?

In this section, I review the group of 51 verbs whose perfectives are vocalized as FuʕuL. The expectation is that their imperfectives will be of the yi-FʕuL type as per the 4th apophonic step, (u → u). Such is not the case, as we will see. Indeed, they are in their overwhelming majority of the yi-FʕaL type, much as if apophony had played no role in the vocalization of those verbs. I will argue, on the contrary, that the numerous departures from the FuʕuL/yi-FʕuL pattern are cases of back formation induced by strict application of apophony.

I will first review FuʕuL perfectives, then their corresponding imperfectives.

7.1 FuʕuL perfectives

In Subsection 5.1, I indicated that FuʕuL verbs alternate with variants. Thus, the verb from root √kbr ‘grow’ can be realized as kubur or kibir with no difference in meaning. The set of logical possibilities for FuʕuL to occur or not to occur with variants is as in (47).

(47)
a. FuʕuL alone (i.e., with no variants)
b. FuʕuL ∼ FaʕaL
c. FuʕuL ∼ FiʕiL ∼ FaʕaL
d. FuʕuL ∼ FiʕiL

All four patterns are instantiated, though with a striking imbalance.

Two verbs exemplify the pattern in (47a), ħuduʔ ‘become too salty, √ħdʔ’ and ħurum ‘be forbidden, √ħrm’). This pair of verbs can be readily dismissed as insignificant because the first verb is most commonly realized in Form IX, ʔiħdaʔʔ (i.e., not in Form I, ħuduʔ) whereas the second verb primarily appears in idiomatic expressions (cf. Badawi and Hinds 1986: 200–201).

One single verb exemplifies the pattern in (47b), ḍumur ∼ ḍamar ‘shrivel; atrophy, √ḍmr’.

Five verbs only follow the pattern in (47c):

(48)
ṣubur ∼ ṣibir ∼ ṣabar ‘act with patience, √ṣbr’
sukut ∼ sikit ∼ sakat ‘become silent, √skt’
ṭuhuʔ ∼ ṭihiʔ ∼ ṭahaʔ ‘become thoroughly fed up, √ṭhʔ’
kufur ∼ kifir ∼ kafar ‘deny God’s existence, √kfr’
ṣuʔuṭ ∼ ṣiʔiṭ ∼ ṣaʔaṭ ‘fall; fail, √ṣʔṭ’

In sharp contrast, 43 verbs exemplify the pattern in (47d). Examples were given earlier in (23). More examples appear in (49):

(49)
ṣuʕub ∼ ṣiʕib ‘become more difficult, √ṣʕb’
zuhuʔ ∼ zihiʔ ‘get bored, √zhʔ’
ʁumuʔ ∼ ʁimiʔ ‘darken, √ʁmʔ’
xurub ∼ xirib ‘be destroyed; be ruined, √xrb’
xumur ∼ ximir ‘ferment; rise (of dough), √xmr’

In other words, except for the isolated cases just reviewed, the generalization in (50) holds:

(50)
a FuʕuL verb can also be realized as FiʕiL.

Note that the generalization in (50) is asymmetrical: while just about every FuʕuL verb can be realized as FiʕiL, the reverse is not true. For instance, kubur can be realized as kibir as we saw, but realizing libis ‘dress, √lbs’ as *lubus, or silim ‘be safe, √slm’ as *sulum, is out of the question.

The conclusion is inescapable: the territory of FuʕuL was gradually invaded by FiʕiL.

Although no systematic surveys were conducted on that particular point over time, we can get a sense of the gradual nature of the phenomenon when late 19th century descriptions are compared with contemporary accounts.

Spitta-Bey (1880), introducing Measure I triliteral perfectives, recognizes three versions: FaʕaL, FiʕiL, FuʕuL. The very fact of acknowledging the existence of FuʕuL is in itself highly significant as we will soon see. Simultaneously, Spitta-Bey also acknowledges the presence of frequent FuʕuL FiʕiL doublets. Spitta-Bey (1880: 194) offers kutur ∼ kitir ‘become numerous; proliferate, √ktr’ as an example: “Frequently [emphasis mine] both forms FiʕiL and FuʕuL are found next to each other, e.g., kitir and kutur (…)”.[24] Note that Spitta-Bey, a writer very careful in his choice of words, says “frequently”, not “always” nor “regularly” nor “systematically”. This suggests that in the 1870’s the point has not yet been reached where every FuʕuL verb can equally well be realized as FiʕiL. In Spitta-Bey’s description, the FaʕaL and FiʕiL patterns are illustrated by means of very common verbs, katab ‘he wrote’ and misik, respectively. kutur is the verb picked by Spitta-Bey (1880: 204) to illustrate the FuʕuL pattern. The fact that kutur sits as a bona fide representative of its own pattern alongside other items of everyday use such as katab and misik strongly suggests, in turn, that its marginalization by kitir has not been completed, yet.

Willmore (1905: 116), also acknowledging the existence of the pattern in (47d) writes: “Many verbs (…) take the form birik or buruk optionally,[25] though the latter is perhaps more common”. One of his examples of such FuʕuL FiʕiL doublets is precisely the verb from root √ktr, quoted as kutur ∼ kitir. Willmore only provides one example explicitly documenting a definite preference on the part of speakers for a FuʕuL variant over the FiʕiL alternative: ʕuṭus ‘sneeze, √ʕṭs’ over ʕiṭis. It is difficult to know how representative Willmore’s single example is. But, we can assume that his remark rests on the observation that the FuʕuL pattern was still well alive at the time of his writing.

As we reach the middle of the 20th century, descriptions change, attesting to the progressive marginalization of the FuʕuL pattern.

On the FuʕuL pattern, Mitchell (1956: 32, 1962: 71) writes: “The sequence u-u occurs for i-i with some speakers, e.g., xuruṣ ‘he was struck dumb’. i-i (xiriṣ), however, is much commoner and may always be used”. Mitchell’s statement makes it possible to put a date on (50): by mid-20th century, the invasion by FiʕiL of the domain of FuʕuL has been completed.

Subsequent decades show something new: in sharp contrast with Spitta-Bey and Willmore, authors such as Tomiche (1964) or Jomier and Khouzam (1973) do not even mention the FuʕuL pattern any more. Gadalla (2000) goes as far as to explicitly deny its existence.

Woidich (2006), is an interesting exception.[26] Noting its residual status, Woidich acknowledges the FuʕuL pattern. He illustrates each of the three vocalization classes – FaʕaL, FuʕuL, FiʕiL – by means of single examples. That is, the possible membership in doublets or triplets of his verbs is not indicated. The verb from root √ktr is one of the illustrative examples. Significantly, it serves to illustrate pattern FiʕiL, i.e., kitir. If one version only is to be given for each verb, then surely Woidich is correct in selecting kitir as the more popular form.

This rapid survey documents the gradual infringement of FiʕiL over the domain of FuʕuL verbs. Prima facie, this is intriguing. Indeed, a FuʕuL perfective is supposed to produce a yi-FʕuL imperfective. On that basis, we can well see how FaʕaL might come to compete with FuʕuL in the form of a FaʕaL/FuʕuL doublet: both FaʕaL and FuʕuL are legitimate apophonic sources for yi-FʕuL. FiʕiL, by contrast, produces a yi-FʕaL imperfective and it is not immediately clear what caused it to compete with FuʕuL. But a review of the imperfectives of FuʕuL verbs answers this question.

7.2 The imperfectives of FuʕuL verbs and the apophonic backlash

Unexpectedly, a tiny minority of only 4 (out of 51) FuʕuL verbs are paired with the expected yi-FʕuL imperfective.[27] The other 47 have a yi-FʕaL imperfective. This a-vocalization is clearly related to the fact that 43 of those 47 verbs are from roots including a lowering consonant in C2 or C3 position, or in both.[28] We will see how this majoritarian imperfective vocalization is key to understanding the rise of FiʕiL.

Consider the verb from root √ṣʕb ‘become more difficult’, our first example in (49). As we know, its perfective comes in two variants, ṣiʕibṣuʕub and its imperfective is yi-ṣʕab. We cannot precisely identify a period when ṣuʕub was the sole perfective of that verb but I assume that such was the case at some point. At that point, ṣuʕub/yi-ṣʕab can be interpreted in light of the apophonic mechanism as follows. The input being ṣuʕub, the relevant apophonic step is (u → u), and the output is yi-ṣʕub. An additional event is therefore required for the derivation of yi-ṣʕab. Given the presence of a lowering consonant in one of the relevant positions of the root, Lowering can be credited for the completion of that last step. In sum, ṣuʕub and yi-ṣʕab are related as shown in (51).

(51)
ṣuʕub yi-ṣʕub yi-ṣʕab
apophony Lowering

I submit that at some further point in the course of the transmission of the language from one generation to the other, speakers ceased to analyze the a of yi-ṣʕab as resulting from Lowering. Rather, they took that a at face value. I represent that reanalysis as in (52), which reproduces the configuration in (51) with the difference that yi-ṣʕab is no longer construed as the lowered guise of yi-ṣʕub.

(52)
ṣuʕub yi- ṣʕ ub yi-ṣʕab
apophony Lowering

Severing the link between the initial and the final point of the derivation wrecks the entire scheme. To see this, consider (53) where the strikethroughs in (52) have been omitted.

(53)
ṣuʕub yi-ṣʕab
apophony

The diagnosis is inescapable: the reanalysis in (52) culminates in the apophonic dead end in (53). Indeed, because there is no (u → a) apophonic step, ṣuʕub cannot possibly be the apophonic antecedent of yi-ṣʕab. In the face of this dead end, I submit, apophony steps in and enforces the existence of a new form, one capable of fulfilling that role. The theory of apophony is unambiguous as to what the rightful input to yi-FʕaL should be: FiʕiL is the only apophonic source of yi-FʕaL. In the case at hand, therefore, ṣiʕib must be the new form. I call apophonic backlash this type of back formation whereby apophony creates new, suitable input forms (further examples will be adduced and discussed in the next section).

The creation of a new form such as ṣiʕib hardly entails the instantaneous disappearance from the linguistic environment of the already existing ṣuʕub. Indeed, it cannot be the case that the entire speech community performs a reanalysis such as in (52) as a block and at once. For the generation which initiates the change, ṣuʕub is no longer apophonically motivated but it is still present in the linguistic environment because the older generations continue operating along the lines of (51) with ṣuʕub as an active apophonic player. The diachronic scheme I have advocated thus predicts the existence of same-meaning doublets. But, it also predicts the asymetrical distribution whereby perfectives (not imperfectives) come in doublets: if, as I claim, doublets arise as a result of back formation, their distribution is exactly that of apophonic inputs, i.e., perfectives.

We are now in a position to characterize the compelling competitive advantage of FiʕiL over FuʕuL. Consider once more the micro-system formed by yi-ṣʕab and its two perfectives, ṣuʕub and ṣiʕib.

(54)

The competitive edge of FiʕiL is twofold. On the one hand, the derivation in (54b) is apophonically optimal in the sense that the output of apophony has not been rendered opaque by the subsequent application of Lowering. On the other hand, (54b) brings the tiny and motley group of FuʕuL verbs into the fold of a richly attested pattern, the FiʕiL/yi-FʕaL pattern (silim/yi-slam, etc.). This answers the question inherent in the title of this section. We can at last construe the existence of the mysterious class in (45.vi): the pressure exerted by FiʕiL is so strong that it replaces FuʕuL where the imperfective is yi-FʕaL, but also in the handful of cases where it has remained yi-FʕuL.

In this section, I described how the apophonic system can explain the gradual demise of the FuʕuL pattern over time. In the next section, I speculate about the future evolution of the vocalization pattern of the language.

8 Changes, past and future

My account of the competitive advantage of FiʕiL with respect to FuʕuL predicts that, given the opportunity, FiʕiL will proliferate in other sectors of the verbal system, too.

In the preceding section, we saw how ṣiʕib came to be viewed as a more attractive input to yi-ṣʕab than ṣuʕub. Outputs with the same yi-FʕaL profile as yi-ṣʕab abound, offering FiʕiL additional opportunities to increase its territory. In Section 6.3, we established that all the imperfectives of the 288 verbs of the FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL type could be construed as ‘lowered’ cases of either yi-FʕuL or yi-FʕiL. For convenience, I illustrate this anew, this time with the dual analysis of verb nagaħ/yi-ngaħ ‘succeed, √ngħ’. nagaħ is intrinsically ambiguous as to whether it expresses underlying /nagaħ/ (55a) or underlying /nagøħ/ (55b). Either way, apophony will assign a high vowel to the corresponding imperfective, viz. yi-nguħ (a → u) or yi-ngiħ (ø → i), respectively. Both vowels are equally likely to fall prey to Lowering and neutralize into yi-ngaħ.

(55)

As already noted in 6.3., a derivation such as in (55) is not only opaque because the output of apophony is modified by Lowering, but also ambiguous because it is impossible to retrieve what the input of the derivation was, /nagaħ/ or /nagøħ/. But, note that an alternative scheme is possible, viz. the reanalysis culminating in back formation, (56c): with its a, yi-ngaħ (exactly as yi-ṣʕab) can be analyzed as the output of another of the steps of the apophonic chain, namely (i → a). If so, nigiħ must be the perfective and indeed that form is an attested variant of nagaħ.

(56)

Evidently, when all available analytical options are compared, /nigiħ/ comes out as a much more attractive input to the derivation than the obscure and undecidable “/nagaħ/ or /nagøħ/” disjunction. This verb is not an isolated example. Indeed, 24 of the 288 FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL verbs have a FiʕiL alternant. Some examples are given in (57).[29]

(57)
waṣal ∼ wiṣil/yi-wṣal ‘arrive, √wṣl’
harab ∼ hirib/yi-hrab ‘escape, √hrb’
waʔaʕ ∼ wiʔiʕ/yu-ʔaʕ (</yi-wʔaʕ/) ‘fall down, √wʔʕ’
raḍaʕ ∼ riḍiʕ/yi-rḍaʕ ‘suckle, √rḍʕ’

At the time of this writing, two forms coexist for the perfectives of the verbs in (57). My account of what I have called the competitive advantage of the FiʕiL variant leads to the expectation that it will evict the FaʕaL variant over time. The prediction is that, while nagaħ and nigiħ for example are still both recognized as the legitimate perfectives of yi-ngaħ, their prospects are quite different: nigiħ will outlive nagaħ, eventually causing nigiħ/yi-ngaħ to join the FiʕiL/yi-FʕaL class.

The conjecture that the days of nagaħ are numbered (and more generally the FaʕaL perfectives of the FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL group) is more than just speculation. That trend has been under way for some time as I now show.

Aro (1964) compiled lists of vocalization patterns for Measure I verbs in Semitic languages. While the focus of his book is on classical languages, a portion of his chapter on Classical Arabic includes a substantial discussion of Cairene Arabic. There, Aro notes that the bulk of Cairene FiʕiL/yi-FʕaL verbs includes verbs from the same roots as in Classical Arabic. e.g., Classical Ar. fariħ/ya-fraħ and Cairene Ar. firiħ/yi-fraħ ‘rejoice’, both evidencing the same i–a alternation. But he observes that in addition the Cairene FiʕiL/yi-FʕaL group has also absorbed a significant number of verbs which in Classical Arabic belong to the FaʕaL/ya-FʕuL and FaʕaL/ya-FʕiL classes.[30] An example of that “class shift” appears in (58) with the verb from root √ṭlʕ ‘rise’, a FaʕaL/ya-FʕuL verb in Classical Arabic though a FiʕiL/yi-FʕaL verb in Cairene Arabic.

(58)
Classical Arabic ṭalaʕ/ya-ṭluʕ Cairene Arabic ṭiliʕ/yi-ṭlaʕ

Beyond a brief remark to the effect that such class-shifters seem to be of the “intransitive-fientive” type, Aro does not discuss the phenomenon any further. A crucial fact seems to have escaped his notice: such verbs are from roots including a lowering consonant. When that factor is taken into account, the change exemplified in (58) can be explained. My argument will be that the verb from root √ṭlʕ did not simply migrate from one class to another. Rather, the change comprises distinct steps described in (59), all of which mobilize two independent phenomena already identified earlier in this paper, viz. Lowering, then the apophonic backlash effect. The point I wish to establish is this: the sequence of steps necessarily includes a transitory stage at which a FiʕiL ∼ FaʕaL perfective doublet exists, then disappears only leaving the FiʕiL version.

Stage 1 is the representation of the verb as it was passed on to Cairene Arabic as part of the legacy of an earlier form of Arabic. Stage 2 shows what I assume to be an Egyptian development, viz. the lowering of the vowel of the imperfective (in bold). This causes the temporary membership of the verb in the FaʕaL/yi-FʕaL group. Stage 3 shows the back-formation of an innovative, alternative perfective (in bold) as a result of what I have called “backlash”. Both perfective forms coexist, but only for as long as the more conservative generation is present. Stage 4 represents the situation after the conservative generation has disappeared. At that stage, the FaʕaL variant has been totally ousted.

(59)
Stage 1 Legacy: the verb from root √ṭlʕ ṭalaʕ/ya-ṭluʕ
Stage 2 Lowering ṭalaʕ/yi-ṭl a ʕ
Stage 3 Back-formation of a new perfective ṭiliʕ ṭalaʕ/yi-ṭlaʕ
Stage 4 Loss of FaʕaL ṭiliʕ alaʕ /yi-ṭlaʕ

In (60), I provide a sample of such verbs (Aro 1964: 91). Strikingly, no FaʕaL perfectives are attested for those verbs anymore, even though (by hypothesis) they were passed on as such from Classical Arabic.

(60)
Classical Arabic Cairene Arabic
Attested Non-attested[31]
ṭalaʕ/ya-ṭluʕ ‘climb’ ṭiliʕ/yi-ṭlaʕ ṭalaʕ
ʕaθar/ya-ʕθur, ‘stumble; find’ ʕitir/yi-ʕtar ʕatar
xalaṣ/ya-xluṣ ‘escape’ xiliṣ/yi-xlaṣ xalaṣ
faṭar/ya-fṭur ‘breakfast’ fiṭir/yi-fṭar faṭar
ʕaraf/ya-ʕrif ‘know’ ʕirif/yi-ʕraf ʕaraf
ʕaṭas/ya-ʕṭis ‘sneeze’ ʕiṭis/yi-ʕṭas ʕaṭas

I conclude this section with a return to its initial point: my prediction is that the currently extant nigiħnagaħ doublet (and others of the same kind) awaits the same development as was undergone earlier by the verbs in (60).

The next (and last) section is devoted to an assessment of what the Cairene Arabic evidence discussed in this article can tell us about the theory of apophony.

9 A note on the theory of apophony

In this article, I have shown how FuʕuL/yi-FʕuL alternations had essentially disappeared from the Cairene system. How does this absence square with my claim that apophony is the central device responsible for the perfective/imperfective alternations in Forms I verbs?

I address this question through the prism of proposals put forth by Guerssel 2003, 2014.

Guerssel argues that the apophonic chain comprises 3 (not 4!) steps:

1) ø → i, 2) i → a, 3) a → u.

That is, Guerssel claims there is no 4th apophonic step (u → u). I briefly review his demonstration on the basis of Classical Arabic evidence.[32]

Guerssel proposes that the vocalization of Form I verbs proceeds as follows. First, the melody of the perfective is copied onto the bare imperfective template shown in (61b). When that first step is completed, the perfective and the imperfective have identical melodies (61a) and (61b). Then, apophony takes the (copied) imperfective melody as its input and modifies it as expected, (61c).

In the case of FaʕuL verbs such as kabur, the perfective melody is copied onto the imperfective as in all other cases. But, because there is no 4th apophonic step, the imperfective simply surfaces with the vowel which was copied from the perfective.

(61)

On this view, FaʕuL/ya-FʕuL alternations such as kabur/ya-kbur manifest apophonic inertia. In other words, they are not part of the apophonic system. Guerssel’s proposal has two important consequences.

The first consequence is the rationalization of an intriguing and hitherto unexplained property of the 4th apophonic step: unlike all other apophonic steps, it does not induce a change. On the view that there is no such thing as a 4th apophonic step, the puzzle vanishes.

The second consequence is that a language heavily relying on apophony for the vocalization of its verbal or nominal forms may or may not display (u – u) alternations. Such alternations are extraneous to apophony and their presence or their absence cannot found an apophonic diagnosis. Cairene Arabic is an interesting case in this respect. We saw how the language lost (u – u) verbal alternations. That loss in no way indicates that apophony has lost any of its vigor. On the contrary, I have shown that with its backlash effect, apophony can even “correct” the lexical vocalization of perfectives.

10 Conclusion

In this article, I have examined the vowel alternations relating the perfectives and imperfectives of Form I verbs in Cairene Arabic. I have argued that the exact same system of Ablaut which Guerssel and Lowenstamm (1990, 1996 identified for Classical Arabic is at work in Cairene, too. However, I have gone further than this. Handling the evidence of a living language involves facing the specific challenge of understanding the direction of its continuous evolution. In the case of Cairene Arabic, one such challenge is the puzzling proliferation of doublet forms in the perfective. I have argued that such doublets arise as the result of apophonic pressure and that their existence represents a transitory stage of ongoing linguistic change: for each of the doublets discussed in this article, one member is imposed as a back-formation effect of apophony; it will co-exist for some time with the “old” member of the doublet, but it is bound to eventually oust it. That the apophonic mechanism can be viewed as an agent of linguistic change constitutes a novel kind of argument in its favor.


Corresponding author: Radwa Fathi, Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes, UMR 6310, Nantes, France, E-mail:

References

Abboud-Haggar, Soha. 2003. Introducción a la dialectología de la lengua árabe. Granada: Fondacion El Legado andalusi.Search in Google Scholar

Abdel-Massih, Ernest. 1975. An Introduction to Cairene Arabic. Ann Arbor: Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan.Search in Google Scholar

Al-Astārābāđī, Raḍī d-Dīn. 1975. In Muḥammad Nūr al-Ḥasan, Muḥammad Al-Zafzāf & Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd (eds.), Šarḥ Šāfiyat Ibn al-Ḥājib, vol. 4. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmiyya.Search in Google Scholar

Aro, Jussi. 1964. Die Vokalisierung des Grundstammes im Semitischen Verbum. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.Search in Google Scholar

Badawi, El-Said & Martin Hinds. 1986. A dictionary of Cairene Arabic. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.Search in Google Scholar

Baturay Meral, Semra. 2010. Apophony in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic 5/4. 201–220. https://doi.org/10.7827/turkishstudies.1787.Search in Google Scholar

Behnstedt, Peter & Manfred Woidich. 2018. The formation of the Egyptian Arabic dialect area. In Clive Holes (ed.), Arabic historical dialectology: Linguistic and sociolinguistic approaches, 64–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198701378.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

Bendjaballah, Sabrina. 1998. Aspects Apophoniques de la Vocalisation du Verbe Berbère (Dialecte Kabyle). In Patrick Sauzet (ed.), Langue et grammaire II & III – Phonologie, 5–24. Paris: Université Paris 8.Search in Google Scholar

Bendjaballah, Sabrina. 1999. Trois figures de la structure interne des gabarits. Paris: Université Paris 7 dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Bendjaballah, Sabrina. 2001. The negative preterite in Kabyle Berber. Folia Linguistics 34. 185–223. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2000.34.3-4.185.Search in Google Scholar

Bendjaballah, Sabrina. 2003. The internal structure of the determiner in Beja. In Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), Research in afroasiatic grammar II, 35–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.241.04benSearch in Google Scholar

Bendjaballah, Sabrina. 2005. Apophony. In Kees Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic language and linguistics, 64–68. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Bohas, Georges & Jean-Patrick Guillaume. 1984. Etudes des théories des grammairiens arabes. Damascus: Institut français de Damas.Search in Google Scholar

Boyé, Gilles. 2014. Apophony and chiming words in Malay. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Noam Faust, Mohamed Lahrouchi & Nicola Lampitelli (eds.), The form of structure, the structure of form: Essays in honor of Jean Lowenstamm, 57–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.12.05boySearch in Google Scholar

Brame, Michael K. 1970. Arabic phonology: Implications for phonological theory and historical semitics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Broselow, Ellen. 1976. The phonology of Cairene Arabic. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Cantineau, Jean. 1949. Le vocalisme radical de l’inaccompli dans le parler arabe d’Alep. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique XLV–1. 61–73.Search in Google Scholar

Cantineau, Jean. 1950. La notion de schème et son altération dans diverses langues sémitiques. Semitica III. 73–83.Search in Google Scholar

Chekayri, Abdallah & Tobias Scheer. 1996. The apophonic origin of glides in the verbal system of classical Arabic. In Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Studies in afroasiatic grammar, 62–76. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar

Chekayri, Abdallah & Tobias Scheer. 2003. The appearance of glides in Classical Arabic defective verbs. Folia Orientalia 40. 7–33.Search in Google Scholar

Fathi, Radwa. 2013. La longueur vocalique en arabe égyptien : une nouvelle conception. Paris: Université Paris 7 dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Fathi, Radwa & Jean Lowenstamm. 2016. The gender assignment pattern of French nouns – selection and allomorphy. Morphology 26. 477–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-016-9287-2.Search in Google Scholar

Fathi, Radwa. In press a. Quelques mythes à propos du système vocalique de l’arabe du Caire. Canadian Journal of Linguisticsin press.Search in Google Scholar

Fathi, Radwa. In press b. Vowel length and prominence in Cairene Arabic. In Florian Breit, Yuko Yoshida and Connor Youngberg (eds.),. Elements, licensing and GovernmentLondon: UCL Press.Search in Google Scholar

Faust, Noam. 2017. The apophonic chain and the form of weak and strong verbs in Palestinian Arabic. The Linguistic Review 34(1). 83–121. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2016-0006.Search in Google Scholar

Fleisch, Henri. 1954. La première forme du verbe arabe dans un parler libanais (Maâsser Beit ed-dîne). Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph XXXI–5. 287–313. https://doi.org/10.3406/mefao.1954.1053.Search in Google Scholar

Gadalla, Hassan. 2000. Comparative morphology of standard and Cairene Arabic. Munich: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Guerssel, Mohand. 2003. Why Arabic guttural assimilation is not a phonological process. In Stefan Ploch (ed.), Living on the edge, 581–599. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110890563.581Search in Google Scholar

Guerssel, Mohand. 2014. On the licensing of glides. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Noam Faust, Mohamed Lahrouchi & Nicola Lampitelli (eds.), The form of structure, the structure of form: Essays in honor of Jean Lowenstamm, 85–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.12.08gueSearch in Google Scholar

Guerssel, Mohand & Jean Lowenstamm. 1990. The derivational morphology of the verbal system of Classical Arabic. Ms. Université du Québec à Montréal & Université Paris 7.Search in Google Scholar

Guerssel, Mohand & Jean Lowenstamm. 1996. Ablaut in classical Arabic measure I active verbal forms. In Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Studies in afroasiatic grammar, 123–134. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar

Idrissi, Ali. 2000. On Berber plurals. In Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar, 101–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.202.06idrSearch in Google Scholar

Jomier, Jacques & Joseph Khouzam. 1973. Manuel d’arabe égyptien, parler du Caire. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1972. Studies in semitic grammar and metrics. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Search in Google Scholar

Lahrouchi, Mohamed. 2011. Co-occurrence restrictions in the vocalic patterns of afroasiatic plurals. Folia Orientalia 47. 89–103.Search in Google Scholar

Lahrouchi, Mohamed & Philippe Ségéral. 2009. Morphologie gabaritique et apophonie dans un langage secret féminin (taqjmit) en berbère tachelhit. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 54(2). 291–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008413100001262.Search in Google Scholar

Lowenstamm, Jean. 2011. The phonological pattern of Phi-features in the perfective paradigm of Moroccan Arabic. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 3. 140–201. https://doi.org/10.1163/187666311x562495.Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, Terence F. 1956. An introduction to Cairene Colloquial Arabic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, Terence F. 1962. Colloquial Arabic: The living language of Egypt. London: The English Universities Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ségéral, Philippe. 1995. Une théorie généralisée de l’apophonie. Paris: Université Paris 7 dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Ségéral, Philippe. 1996. L’Apophonie en Ge’ez. In Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Studies in afroasiatic grammar, 360–391. La Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar

Ségéral, Philippe. 2000. Théorie de l’Apophonie et Organisation des Schèmes en Sémitique. In Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Research in afroasiatic grammar, 263–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.202.13segSearch in Google Scholar

Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer. 1998. A generalized theory of ablaut: The case of modern German strong verbs. In Fabri Ray, Ortmann Albert & Teresa Parodi (eds.), Models of inflection, 28–59. Tubingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110919745.28Search in Google Scholar

Spitta-Bey, Wilhelm. 1880. Grammatik des arabischen vulgärdialectes von Aegypten. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.10.1524/zaes.1880.18.14.149Search in Google Scholar

Tomiche, Nada. 1964. Le parler Arabe du Caire. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Vollers, Karl & Francis C. Burkitt. 1895. The modern Egyptian dialect of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Willmore, John S. 1905. The spoken Arabic of Egypt. London: David Nutt.Search in Google Scholar

Woidich, Manfred. 1994. Cairo Arabic and the Egyptian dialects. In Dominique Caubet & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Actes des premières journées internationales de dialectologie arabe de Paris, 493–507. Paris.Search in Google Scholar

Woidich, Manfred. 2006. Das kairenisch-arabische. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-12-16
Published in Print: 2023-02-23

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/tlr-2022-2105/html
Scroll to top button