# Etymology of the Arabic ء-ث-ل/ʔ-θ-l root (in the non-tamarisk senses)



## inquisitiveness1

Does anyone know of the etymology of the Arabic ء-ث-ل root (other than for the noun meaning "tamarisk", which does have clear cognates)? Any cognates in other Semitic languages? It looks unrelated to me, but is it somehow a denominal verbal root from the noun for "tamarisk" (which, in this theory, maybe gave the "rooted" sense that maybe was the first denominal sense all of the other senses, such as "rooted -> firm, established -> ancient, long-standing -> nobility -> etc", sprung from)? I don't know enough about tamarisks to know if they (especially in contrast to other plants) were known for their root strength in antiquity for this idea to have any basis, although my short search leads to me believe that it is because of their long roots that maybe they were famous.


----------



## Treaty

This genus, _tamarix aphylla_ (as compared with other _tamarix_ plants: Arabic طرفاء) is much taller and has a very deep root reaching and sucking the underground water supply. However, I'm not sure if the medieval Arabs were aware of the latter fact (unless they had realized it for the difficulty of uprooting one). By the way is it possible that _'-ṯ-l_ (non-tamarisk) and _'-ṣ-l_ (both meaning "root") have the same root but one was a irregular dialectal development, which later re-merged into main Arabic? Is there a _ṣ>ṯ_ shift there?


----------



## origumi

In regard to the Biblical Hebrew cognate eshel < *athl (tamarix aphylla), I don't know if the meaning was preserved since ancient times or maybe restored according to Arabic / Aramaic cognates. It's likely to be the same tree, one of very few that flourish in the Negeb (Naqb) desert, but not absolutely certain.

I cannot think of any other cognate in Hebrew that may answer the TO's interest.


----------



## rushalaim

inquisitiveness1 said:


> Does anyone know of the etymology of the Arabic ء-ث-ل root (other than for the noun meaning "tamarisk", which does have clear cognates)? Any cognates in other Semitic languages? It looks unrelated to me, but is it somehow a denominal verbal root from the noun for "tamarisk" (which, in this theory, maybe gave the "rooted" sense that maybe was the first denominal sense all of the other senses, such as "rooted -> firm, established -> ancient, long-standing -> nobility -> etc", sprung from)? I don't know enough about tamarisks to know if they (especially in contrast to other plants) were known for their root strength in antiquity for this idea to have any basis, although my short search leads to me believe that it is because of their long roots that maybe they were famous.


Pentateuch's אשרה [ashera] derived from Aramaic אתל


----------



## inquisitiveness1

Treaty said:


> This genus, _tamarix aphylla_ (as compared with other _tamarix_ plants: Arabic طرفاء) is much taller and has a very deep root reaching and sucking the underground water supply. However, I'm not sure if the medieval Arabs were aware of the latter fact (unless they had realized it for the difficulty of uprooting one). By the way is it possible that _'-ṯ-l_ (non-tamarisk) and _'-ṣ-l_ (both meaning "root") have the same root but one was a irregular dialectal development, which later re-merged into main Arabic? Is there a _ṣ>ṯ_ shift there?


Oh, that is an interesting idea (that '-ṯ-l might be a variant of '-ṣ-l). Of course, the ṣ>ṯ shift would be irregular (and I don't know if there are any other recorded instances of it occurring in any dialect of any Semitic language), so it would be hard to prove if this were the case.



rushalaim said:


> Pentateuch's אשרה [ashera] derived from Aramaic אתל


Just for my curiosity, is it normal for Aramaic ת (I assume with a /θ/ pronunciation in that word-position at that stage of the language) to be borrowed as Hebrew ש /ʃ/? I know that Aramaic ת and Hebrew ש /ʃ/ are cognate when derived from P.S. *θ, but I assumed this equivalence wasn't maintained in borrowings between them (i.e. I thought a borrowed Aramaic ת would remain as ת in Hebrew)...unless you mean something along the lines of what origumi suggested could potentially be the case and that אשרה already existed in Hebrew, but maybe did not have the meaning of "tamarisk" until it assimilated that meaning from (what would have been (correctly) perceived as) the Aramaic cognate אתל (so a borrowing in a sense).


----------



## fdb

rushalaim said:


> Pentateuch's אשרה [ashera] derived from Aramaic אתל



"Cognate with", not "derived from".


----------



## rushalaim

inquisitiveness1 said:


> Oh, that is an interesting idea (that '-ṯ-l might be a variant of '-ṣ-l). Of course, the ṣ>ṯ shift would be irregular (and I don't know if there are any other recorded instances of it occurring in any dialect of any Semitic language), so it would be hard to prove if this were the case.
> 
> 
> Just for my curiosity, is it normal for Aramaic ת (I assume with a /θ/ pronunciation in that word-position at that stage of the language) to be borrowed as Hebrew ש /ʃ/? I know that Aramaic ת and Hebrew ש /ʃ/ are cognate when derived from P.S. *θ, but I assumed this equivalence wasn't maintained in borrowings between them (i.e. I thought a borrowed Aramaic ת would remain as ת in Hebrew)...unless you mean something along the lines of what origumi suggested could potentially be the case and that אשרה already existed in Hebrew, but maybe did not have the meaning of "tamarisk" until it assimilated that meaning from (what would have been (correctly) perceived as) the Aramaic cognate אתל (so a borrowing in a sense).


Pentateuch's *ש*נה _"repeat"_ derived from Aramaic *ת*נא and Arabic _"*S*unna"_ derived from Aramaic *ת*נא too. 
Or Pentateuch's א*ש*ה _"woman"_ where "Shin" from "Taw" of Aramaic א*ת*ת 
And "Lamed" often turns to "Reish". Aramaic את*ל* to Pentateuch's אש*ר*ה _"oak"_ or _"Astarte"_.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Pentateuch's *ש*נה _"repeat"_ derived from Aramaic *ת*נא


And also here:


fdb said:


> "Cognate with", not "derived from".


----------



## berndf

inquisitiveness1 said:


> Just for my curiosity, is it normal for Aramaic ת (I assume with a /θ/ pronunciation in that word-position at that stage of the language) to be borrowed as Hebrew ש


The pronunciation of ת in imperial Aramaic and adopted from there in Mishnaic Hebrew is /t/ word-initially and in geminate form; /θ/ in inter-vocallic and final positions. But this allophonic split is a relatively late development in Aramaic.

The often observed correspondence of ש (Hebrew), ת (Aramaic) and ث (Arabic) (as in the numeral 3: Hebrew שלוש/שלש, Aramaic תלת, Arabic ثلاثة) has nothing to do with borrowing but are different outcomes of native words inherited from a common root. In other cases we have the correspondence ש (Hebrew), ש (Aramaic) and س (Arabic) (as in the words for _name_: Hebrew שֵׁם, Aramaic שמא, Arabic اسم) where the original phoneme was different and underwent different mergers.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> The pronunciation of ת in imperial Aramaic and adopted from there in Mishnaic Hebrew is /t/ word-initially and in geminate form; /θ/ in inter-vocallic and final positions. But this allophonic split is a relatively late development in Aramaic.



Current thinking in Aramaic studies (since Beyer) is that the softening of post-vocalic /p,b,t,d,k,g/ did not take place until the first or second century of the Christian era, and even then not in all dialects. It is in any case post-Achaemenid.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> Current thinking in Aramaic studies (since Beyer) is that the softening of post-vocalic /p,b,t,d,k,g/ did not take place until the first or second century of the Christian era, and even then not in all dialects. It is in any case post-Achaemenid.


Interesting, thank you. I thought it was older. So, during the second temple period existed neither in Aramaic nor in Hebrew?


----------



## fdb

So it seems.


----------



## rushalaim

fdb said:


> Current thinking in Aramaic studies (since Beyer) is that the softening of post-vocalic /p,b,t,d,k,g/ did not take place until the first or second century of the Christian era, and even then not in all dialects. It is in any case post-Achaemenid.


So, according to your proof the Book of Judges was rewritten in 9th century of Christian era? 
(Judges 12:6) Judges' *ש*יבולת is Aramaic *ת*ובלא [θubla] _"brook"_? When one was asked to pronounce "Taw", then one pronounced incorrectly like "Sin"?


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> So, according to your proof the Book of Judges was rewritten in 9th century of Christian era?
> (Judges 12:6) Judges' *ש*יבולת is Aramaic *ת*ובלא [θubla] _"brook"_? When one was asked to pronounce "Taw", then one pronounced incorrectly like "Sin"?


1) Word-initial ת is never [θ]. The pronunciation [θ] applies only to post-vocalic, non-geminate ת.
2) The merger of PS _ṯ_ into _š _in Hebrew (yielding ש) and into _t_ in Aramaic yielding (ת) happened independently and form each other and long before the allophonic split ת = t/θ.

You really have to purge this strange idea from your mind that Hebrew is somehow derived from Aramaic. The two languages evolved independently from a common origin. If we say "שיבולת is Aramaic תובלא" than this means that the two words are "cognate", i.e. evolved from the same common root, not that one is "derived" from the other.


fdb said:


> "Cognate with", not "derived from".


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> 1) Word-initial ת is never [θ]. The pronunciation [θ] applies only to post-vocalic, non-geminate ת.
> 2) The merger of PS _ṯ_ into _š _in Hebrew (yielding ש) and into _t_ in Aramaic yielding (ת) happened independently and form each other and long before the allophonic split ת = t/θ.


I may be mistaken, but for example, the first "Gimmel"-letter is softened to "j"-sound in Arabic _"*j*amal"_ instead of _"*g*amal"_. Why it couldn't be with "Taw"-letter?

That case in Judges 12:6 is senseless now with those *ש*יבולת / *ס*יבולת
It'll get the sense, when we'll see that with Aramaic *ת*ובלא _"brook"_.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> I may be mistaken, but for example, the first "Gimmel"-letter is softened to "j"-sound in Arabic _"*j*amal"_ instead of _"*g*amal"_. Why it couldn't be with "Taw"-letter?


The opposite happened. In Aramaic θ hardened to t while in Hebrew θ merged with ש. It is quite typical a thing to happen, if languages lose θ that it either becomes t or merges with another fricative. If we jump to a different era now, in Tiberian Hebrew we have _Shabbath _with a θ at the end. In _Sephardic _Hebrew θ merged with t and the modern pronunciation is _Shabat _while in Ashkenazi Hebrew θ merged with s and _Shabbath _is pronounced _Shabes_. We see something similar in the name of the _Ottoman Empire_. The original name is _Uθman _and English got it via Italian and θ became tt and hence we now say in English _O*tt*oman Empire_. In German, θ is usually assimilated as an s and, hence, the German name is _O*s*manisches Reich_.

Both languages, Hebrew and Aramaic had at some point lost the sound θ completely and spelling reflects this stage. In a completely independent and much later step, when spelling was already fixed, both language (and here Hebrew was influenced by Aramaic) post-vocalic t weakened to θ. But this is really completely independent from the phonological process that produced ת in Aramaic and ש in Hebrew.



rushalaim said:


> That case in Judges 12:6 is senseless now with those *ש*יבולת / *ס*יבולת


סיבולת is not really a word. The author of this text tried to transcribe how the Ephraimite dialect sounded to the people of Gilead. As we don't know how ס (samekh) was pronounced at the time we don't know what this transcription meant. Maybe it meant that Ephraimites couldn't pronounce ʃ and said s instead but that is only one possibility.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> סיבולת is not really a word. The author of this text tried to transcribe how the Ephraimite dialect sounded to the people of Gilead. As we don't know how ס (samekh) was pronounced at the time we don't know what this transcription meant. Maybe it meant that Ephraimites couldn't pronounce ʃ and said s instead but that is only one possibility.


Don't you think, there is similarity between those two cases:
a) Aramaic *ת*נא _"repeat"_ > Arabic _"*S*unna"_; *ש*נה
b) Aramaic *ת*ובלא > Ephraimite *ש*יבולת / *ס*יבולת

Maybe, initial "Taw"-letter had "shwa" under, that's why תְבֹלְתָ [θbolta] became *ש*יבולת


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Don't you think, there is similarity between those two cases:
> a) Aramaic *ת*נא _"repeat"_ > Arabic _"*S*unna"_; *ש*נה
> b) Aramaic *ת*ובלא > Ephraimite *ש*יבולת / *ס*יבולת
> 
> Maybe, initial "Taw"-letter had "shwa" under, that's why תְבֹלְתָ [θbolta] became *ש*יבולת


In Hebrew Proto-Semitc _ṯ_ merged into _š_ and in Aramaic into _t_. Actually early Aramaic still had the distinction between _ṯ_ and _t _but in Imperial Aramaic the two sounds were merged and ת was always pronounced _t_ and never _θ_. I don't understand why this is so difficult.


----------



## rayloom

rushalaim said:


> Pentateuch's *ש*נה _"repeat"_ derived from Aramaic *ת*נא and Arabic _"*S*unna"_ derived from Aramaic *ת*נא too.
> Or Pentateuch's א*ש*ה _"woman"_ where "Shin" from "Taw" of Aramaic א*ת*ת
> And "Lamed" often turns to "Reish". Aramaic את*ל* to Pentateuch's אש*ר*ה _"oak"_ or _"Astarte"_.



*ת*נא and Arabic thanā ثنى are cognates. 
Sunna has a different etymology.


----------



## berndf

rayloom said:


> *ת*נא and Arabic thanā ثنى are cognates.
> Sunna has a different etymology.


... The typical pattern, th in Arabic, t in Aramaic and sh in Hebrew.


----------



## rushalaim

rayloom said:


> *ת*נא and Arabic thanā ثنى are cognates.
> Sunna has a different etymology.


Aramaic [*t*i*n*yana] _"second"_ derived from the root *TN* _"to repeat"_. Arabic [i*tn*ani] _"two"_ is similar. There were rabbinic scholars *T*a*n*naim who gave Mi*s*h*n*a and *S*u*n*na.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Arabic [i*tn*ani] _"two"_ is similar.


But not cognate.


----------

