SEMITICHE, LINGUE - Enciclopedia Cattolica, Vol. XI, p. 190

Machine translation of the 1948–1954 Italian original. The original text is authoritative.

SEMITIC LANGUAGES. – A group of languages characterized by a large number of common phonetic, morphological, syntactic, and lexical elements that, persisting through time and geographical shifts, conform to the idea of a unitary genetic descent. The totality of these elements constitutes the so-called Proto-Semitic, a necessarily abstract, uncertain, and incomplete reconstruction.

I. CLASSIFICATION

The Semitic languages are classified into the following major groups:

a) Akkadian: the language of the Semites of Mesopotamia, which, after an early period, divides into Babylonian and Assyrian dialects, each consisting of an Old, Middle, and Late phase. Despite its historical antiquity, Akkadian, being under the influence of the non-Semitic substratum of the region, presents in many respects more evolved features compared to the other Semitic languages.

b) Canaanite: the most debated group, as it is difficult to identify characteristics that apply to all its languages and are absent in others. Maintaining the traditional division provisionally, the group includes Old Canaanite (the glosses of el-'Amrnah, probably Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, perhaps pseudo-hieroglyphic inscriptions of Byblos), Hebrew, Phoenician-Punic, and Moabite. The unitarian language shares only partially common features with the group.

c) Aramaic: includes a large number of languages and dialects. The earliest phase comprises pre-Christian inscriptions and papyri and Biblical Aramaic. Subsequently, a division into two branches occurs. The first, called Western or Recent (because it develops the features of Old Aramaic without much differentiation), includes Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish Aramaic, Samaritan, and Christian Aramaic; the second, called Eastern, includes Syriac (the language with the most extensive literature), Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic, and Mandaic. Remnants of spoken Aramaic survive today in Syria, Armenia, and Mesopotamia.

d) Arabic: divided into Southern and Northern. The former comprises the dialects of the ancient inscriptions of Yemen, the latter those of pre-Islamic North Arabian inscriptions and especially Classical Arabic, the language of the Qur’an and Islamic literature. This language has today branched into various modern dialects, while others exist in the south. Classical Arabic, originating from a geographically less exposed area (the desert), is the Semitic language that exhibits the most conservative features and is therefore of primary importance in the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic.

e) Ethiopic: includes Classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez) and the modern dialects derived from it (Tigré, Tigrigna, Amharic, etc.). Like Akkadian, it is found in a peripheral area with a non-Semitic substratum, resulting in consequent differentiations.

The groups of Semitic languages are often gathered into a further classification based on geography: on one side stands Eastern Semitic (Akkadian), on the other Western Semitic, which is in turn divided into Northern (Canaanite, Aramaic) and Southern (Arabic, Ethiopic).

II. DESCRIPTION

1. Phonetics

Semitic languages exhibit a very rich consonantal system; in particular, they feature characteristic laryngeal, guttural, spirant, and emphatic sounds. The Semitic consonantal inventory is as follows:

| O c c l u s i v e | S p i r a n t i |

From the aforementioned roots, reflexive forms can be derived with the prefix ta- (e.g., taqàtala, reflexive of qàtala), and with the prefix n-. From the four primary roots, passive forms can also be derived through a change in the vocalic pattern: Arabic preserves this fully, with the u-i-a series in place of a-a-a (e.g., qutila, passive of qatala).

The roots are conjugated according to tense and mood. Except for Akkadian, there are two fundamental tenses: the imperative, conjugated with prefixes and suffixes on the imperative root, and the perfect, conjugated with suffixes alone. The former expresses an incomplete action, the latter a completed action.

Here is the most probable schema of the prefixal imperfect in the fundamental transitive root:

And here is the probable schema of the perfect in the same root:

| | | |
| 3rd m. | qatal-a |
| 1st c. | qatal-kù |

Phonetic and analogical laws modify these forms in the various languages, in addition to the peculiar developments each undergoes in the course of its evolution. Akkadian further diverges from the temporal schema of the other Semitic languages by distinguishing three conjugations: two with prefixes and suffixes, the first (preterite, corresponding in form to the imperfect) expressing a completed action, and the second (present) an incomplete or durative action; one with suffixes (permansive, similar but not identical to the perfect), indicating a state.

Noteworthy is the series of moods: in addition to the infinitive, participle (based on the fundamental root qàtìl), imperative (qatal, qitil, qutul), indicative, and subjunctive, there is also an energic form without a final vowel and an energic with the ending -an (-anna). These moods are, more than in any other Semitic language, preserved in Arabic.

Numerous verbs exhibit deviations from the usual patterns, primarily due to the presence of a laryngeal or semivowel between the radicals.

2. Syntax

The Semitic construction of the sentence generally places the verb at the beginning of the narrative (verbal sentence), while the precedence of the noun indicates description and state (nominal sentence). In the period, coordination prevails over subordination. Conjunctions are therefore often avoided, giving rise, for example, to relative clauses of the type “A man, we saw him” (= “A man whom we saw”), or to typical circumstantial clauses (e.g., “He went out, a book in my hand” = “He went out with a book in his hand”). It is especially in syntax that Akkadian and Ethiopic, due to their peripheral position, diverge markedly from the common features of the other Semitic languages.

III. RELATIONS WITH OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES

The complex problem can only be touched upon here. Undoubtedly, there are relations between Semitic languages on one side and Hamitic on the other, provided that the term “Hamitic” is not understood as a unitary group to be contrasted with Semitic, but rather as the aggregate of several groups in an approximately analogous relationship to Semitic and to one another. Thus, Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Cushitic are considered to have a probable genetic descent from an original Hamito-Semitic.

Some relations have long been observed between Hamito-Semitic languages on one side and Indo-European on the other. However, studies aimed at demonstrating an original unity (Möller, Cuny) have been met with skepticism. For now, one can speak of certain isoglosses, more lexical than morphological, which indicate a relationship of affinity rather than kinship.

BIBL.: C. Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 2 vols., Berlin 1908–11 (fundamental; vol. I has a reduced and revised French edition by W. Marçais and M. Cohen, Précis de linguistique sémitique, Paris 1910); H. Fleisch, Introduction à l'étude des langues sémitiques, 1914; H. Kramers (with bibliography of previous similar works); J. H. Kramers, De semitische talen, Leiden 1949. On relations with other language families: M. Cohen, Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonétique du chamito-sémitique, Paris 1947; L. Heilmann, Camito-semitico e indoeuropeo, Bologna 1949. Sabatino Moscati.