მრავლობითის ფორმათა სპეციფიკისთვის არაბულში

Abstract

The paper focuses on some specific cases of plural forms in Arabic. It is based on the material of the literary language and Arabic dialects; data from other Semitic languages are also used for comparison. 1. The following morphs act as plural markers (more than one) in the Arabic language: suffix long vowel, mīm, nūn, or markers consisting of more than one component named above. The descending diphthong presented in some forms can be equated with a long vowel from a principal position, as such diphthongs are monophthongized in all forms of Arabic or show a tendency to monophthongization. The final short vowels (which end plural markers) do not have the function of expressing plurality, so they can be ignored in a given context. 2. Personal pronouns and pronominal suffixes express plurality like verbs and the observation on it confirms that the source form between the dual and the plural, is exactly the plural, not the dual. Unlike plural forms, dual forms of the pronouns do not distinguish genders even in literary language; in other forms of Arabic pronouns do not have dual forms at all. Plural forms of the pronouns go back to the singular forms: sing. IIIp., masc. huwa > pl. hum; sing. IIIp. fem. hiya > pl. hunna. In both cases, we have common marker h- for the III person. Sing. IIp. masc. ’anta > pl. ’antum; sing. IIp. fem. ’anti > pl. ’antunna. We have a common marker -nt- for the II person. In I p. sing. ’anā > naḥnu, is preserved I person marker n; the second n should be regarded as a sign of plurality. III p., the dual pronoun humā < III p., masc., pl. hum + -ā; and IIp., dual pronoun ’antumā < II p., masc., pl. ’antum + -ā; in both cases final long vowel indicates more than one (in the given case, duality). Finally, formal analysis confirms that the singular forms of pronouns provide the basis for the plural forms, and these, in turn, provide the basis for the dual forms. In other words: sing. > pl. > dual, and not as follows: sing. > dual > pl. 3. In some varieties of Egyptian Arabic (Upper Egyptian) in verbs, Perfective, III p., pl., final mīm appears (faʽal-u-m), the origin and function of which causes the interest. In the mid 20th century this mīm was regarded by Sharbatov as a remnant of old Semitic mīmation, but the supposition was followed by criticism, since mīmation, as nūnation, is a phenomenon characteristic of nouns and discovery of its trace in verbs was considered doubtful. In the paper an opinion is suggested about the plurality function of the -m; further, the question of the coincidence of this thesis and the aforementioned thesis of Sharbatov is discussed. In more detail: in the form fa‘al-ū the final long vowel was shortened (which is the norm for Arabic orthoepy); this shortened vowel was not perceived as a “sufficient” marker of plurality. As a result, it became necessary to bring an additional sign of plurality. The most common in the given context would be exactly this -m with the explitic function of plurality, and, at the same time ‒ by analogy with the forms: hum, entum, fa‘altum, etc. Finally, the suffix mīm under the current study is a marker of plurality. At the same time, as a result, a unified form of conjugation was created. As for the coincidence of the two theses presented above: In Arabic tradition, inflextion markers are not distinguished by morphological attachment of the word. If compare the following pairs: sing. muʽallim-un > pl. muʽallim- ūn, we can observe that the long vowel -ū is practically the only distinguishing morph between the singular and plural forms; in both cases final -n appears, which functions in the Singular under the name nunation. But in fact, it can be regarded that -n in plural forms, from the principal point of view, has the same origin as in the singular _ nunation. One may object, that nunation is characteristic of status absolutus, as for the plural, final -n in the plural remains even if al- of status determinatus is added (al-muʽallim-ūn). Here we must recall the fact that the establishment of nunation as a marker of status absolutus in Arabic had its development, and not always nunation was connected with status absolutus (cf. mani m-qā‘imun “who is standing” in Yemeni Arabic). In other words, nunation is not required to indicate an indefinite status. The above-mentioned also means that nunation (/mimation) is an attribute that designates not necessarily only (status absolutus of) nouns. Since the same marker in Arabic (and Semitic, in general) can be attached to both verbs and nouns, it can also be permissible to suppose that in the form faʽalum under the current study, Sharbatov’s “trace of old Semitic mimation” may have a realistic basis. Finally, we presume, that final -m traced in Egyptian verbs (which functions in verbs as a plural marker) is the same as final -m in nouns (also with plural marker function), but on the other hand, it can also be regarded, that it is the same as Semitic mimation/nunation, which in some forms of Semitic languages has disappeared, while in some others still functions (in Arabic al-Fuṣḥā), even if in a restricted form (cf. Standard Arabic, modern Arabic dialects).