# ح ب ب vs. א ה ב



## clevermizo

I thought that this might have been discussed before, but I haven't been able to locate it. If someone finds an appropriate thread please direct me to it.

I was musing on the roots with the meaning of "love" in Hebrew and Arabic. The commonest one in Arabic is ح ب ب which would correspond to Hebrew ח ב ב if it existed (and my Hebrew is very shaky so I can't say if it exists), and similarly the commonest in Hebrew is א ה ב which would correspond to Arabic أ ه ب which _does_ exist. The verb أهّب [ahhaba] off the pattern *faʕʕala* (I think this is cognate with Hebrew *pi'el*) means to make preparations or ready something. I haven't seen this root in the base form *faʕal* *أهب يأهب.

However, when you say "I love you" of course you have in Hebrew אוהב אותך _ohev otkha _and in Arabic you have أحبك _uħibbuka_. (Never mind that grammatically these are very different constructions as Hebrew uses what would be a participle in Arabic, etc.) My point is they have a certain similarity, if only in they both contain _h-_like sounds (though one is /h/ and the other is /ħ/) and they both contain _b_'s (despite the lenition in Hebrew b>v). In other words, there is a similarity in the segment _h-b/ħ-b_.

Could these two roots even be remotely related? Or are there actual cognate roots in the two languages that overlap in meaning? 

What about in other Semitic languages?

Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## berndf

How similar are _h _and_ħ _really? Do we have any examples of shifts from one to the other in any other root in any Semitic language and if so, how frequent are they? I can't think of any example.


----------



## clevermizo

berndf said:


> How similar are _h _and_ħ _really? Do we have any examples of shifts from one to the other in any other root in any Semitic language and if so, how frequent are they? I can't think of any example.



It could just be my Western mindset that considers them similar at all, you're right. Phonetically speaking however, if we loose the pharyngeal constriction in ħ we arrive at . However the same could be said for a shift [s>h] or any other voiceless fricative >  which is the underlying sound in all voiceless fricatives.

Furthermore h<>ħ is not a recognized sound shift between Hebrew and Arabic.

But sometimes there are roots with similar meanings in Arabic although there is a change in a root consonant like that. For example, we just had this discussion in the Arabic Only forum in which Cherine found the quadriliteral roots طرخم　ṭ - r - *x* - m found in the form اطرخمّ　which among meanings is the "darkening" that occurs during the night-time, which overlaps with طرهم ṭ - r -*h* - m again found as اطرهمّ．　

This is sort of an arcane example, I admit, but I think there are others, I just can't think of any off the top of my head. This is between x<>h but there are some, I think, between ħ<>h. That's in Arabic by itself though, not between languages.

Does Hebrew have חבב?


----------



## tFighterPilot

Hebrew does indeed have this root. It can loosely be translated to "fond", at least in modern Hebrew.


----------



## clevermizo

tFighterPilot said:


> Hebrew does indeed have this root. It can loosely be translated to "fond", at least in modern Hebrew.



Is it common or fairly rare to say that you חובב something (or did I misconjugate that)?


----------



## Flaminius

The _qal_-conjugation is probably Biblical.  "I am fond of" in modern Israeli Hebrew is _ani meḥabev_.

Calling someone _ḥabibi_ is common too.  But I wonder if that's directly borrowed from Arabic.


Edit:
I myself have wondered if Heb. ʾ-h-b is related to Ara. ħ-b-b.  What threw me off was the difference between dagesh and shadda.  Phonetically they both mean (in case of Hebrew meant) gemination, but the former is a modification to a root element and the latter is a merger of two root elements.  I.e., even if you find in Hebrew that which can be transliterated into _meḥabbeb_, it does not justify a quadriliteral root *ʾ-h-b-b.  In Arabic, _umaimat_ (or _umajmat_?) does justify ʾ-m-m.  This is also the result of analyzing shadda in the more basic _umm_.

I cannot point you exactly to where but there are a few pieces of evidence that dagesh could have also meant a merger of two elements back in Biblical Hebrew.


----------



## clevermizo

Flaminius said:


> I.e., even if you find in Hebrew that which can be transliterated into _meḥabbeb_, it does not justify a quadriliteral root *ʾ-h-b-b.  In Arabic, _umaimat_ (or _umajmat_?) does justify ʾ-m-m.  This is also the result of analyzing shadda in the more basic _umm_.



Well I think the strongest objection yet to the relationship is h<->ħ as Bernd mentions above. I'm fairly certain there are a few roots in Arabic where h<>ħ can be interchanged to yield similarly meaning roots, and I'm working on researching that. I think if the roots were '-h-b and h-b-b then you could rationalize a relationship. 

It may just be that they sound similar if only to non-Semitic ears and make one think that they could be related.

By the way, I don't think in any way that the root '-h-b and the Arabic ħ-b-b are cognates, as we know both languages possess both roots and ħ-b-b has related meanings in both languages. If the segments h-b<>ħ-b were actually related I think this relationship would have to be much older in Semitic language history.


----------



## ma7adan

This reminds me of a funny incident in a Jewish history course. The professor was telling us about a movement that arose some time or another amongst European Jews, called "Chibbat Zion." There were plenty of Jewish Americans in the class, all of them with a knowledge of Hebrew, but of course only I, the Arab, was able to say what Chibbat Zion meant when the prof asked =) 

Sorry, that was slightly off topic but ch-b-b definitely exists in Hebrew, as does the name Chaviva, the cognate of the Arabic Habiba. 

I've thought about this question a lot too, and wonder if it's just the funny coincidence that even the vowels in "U7ib" and "Ohev" are extremely similar that makes as look for a deeper connection. Before I knew how ohev was written I speculated that there might be a connection with "hawa," which means wind but also love in Arabic. But that idea, too, died once I saw that ohev was written with a bet not vav. 

Sigh. The etymological relation may not be there, but we should all learn to love each other anyway.


----------



## tFighterPilot

The phrase "ḥovev shel" can be used to describe a person's hobbies. The word for hobby is "taḥbiv". 

The word "ḥabibi" is indeed taken straight from Arabic, however the exact same spelling can make "ḥavivi" (in this word the last syllable is stressed), which means the exact same thing, but in proper Hebrew. It's hardly ever used though. The word ḥaviv is used to describe something that is moderately nice.


----------



## origumi

Both roots are very old in Hebrew and coexist for millenia. אהב is found also in Ugaritic, חבב is preferred in Aramaic. I think that it's safe to assume that Proto-Central-Semitic had both, and a relation, if there, is older than that.

Those who like the root cluster concept would associate אהב (love) with אהד (favor) and חבב (fond, like) with חבר (connect, be a friend), חבק (hold, hug) and maybe חבל (rope). This may tell that both roots are there for long enough.


----------



## clevermizo

origumi said:


> Both roots are very old in Hebrew and coexist for millenia. אהב is found also in Ugaritic, חבב is preferred in Aramaic. I think that it's safe to assume that Proto-Central-Semitic had both, and a relation, if there, is older than that.
> 
> Those who like the root cluster concept would associate אהב (love) with אהד (favor) and חבב (fond, like) with חבר (connect, be a friend), חבק (hold, hug) and maybe חבל (rope). This may tell that both roots are there for long enough.



Thanks those are more interesting connections probably than hb vs. ħb. I don't always buy into the clustering of biliteral segments like that but it does yield some interesting results.

Should the cognate of אהב actually be أهب in Arabic or would it be something else like وهب?


----------



## tFighterPilot

origumi said:


> Both roots are very old in Hebrew and coexist for millenia. אהב is found also in Ugaritic, חבב is preferred in Aramaic. I think that it's safe to assume that Proto-Central-Semitic had both, and a relation, if there, is older than that.
> 
> Those who like the root cluster concept would associate אהב (love) with אהד (favor) and חבב (fond, like) with חבר (connect, be a friend), חבק (hold, hug) and maybe חבל (rope). This may tell that both roots are there for long enough.



I'm pretty sure חבק as "hug" only exists in modern Hebrew.


----------



## origumi

tFighterPilot said:


> I'm pretty sure חבק as "hug" only exists in modern Hebrew.


See for example 2 Kings 4:16. חבק is what a mother does to her newborn child.

Also חבק ידיים in few different locations in the Bible.


----------



## Flaminius

clevermizo said:


> I think if the roots were '-h-b and h-b-b then you could rationalize a relationship.


Perhaps you are aware that we still need a few things confirmed in order to establish a relationship.  Off the top of my head, we need to find an Arabic verb built on the pattern  '-h-b and at the same time means "love," "hold dear" and so on.  Alternatively, we would do well by finding h and ħ being interchangeable in Hebrew.  We might know it for fact in case of Arabic, but whether or not applies to other Semitic languages is to be seen.

Now, in order to explore the latter possibility, I have gleaned all the roots in _501 Hebrew Verbs_ by Shmuel Bolozky and stored them in a database.  I now know how many roots there can replace h and ħ and still means something (10 verbs in 5 patterns; without regard to the meaning), how often each letter appears in what position of the root, subtotals and totals and so on.  But I am stuck here.  Would anyone be able to suggest how to proceed from here?  Or is my attempt useless?


----------



## rayloom

Flaminius said:


> Perhaps you are aware that we still need a few things confirmed in order to establish a relationship.  Off the top of my head, we need to find an Arabic verb built on the pattern  '-h-b and at the same time means "love," "hold dear" and so on.  Alternatively, we would do well by finding h and ħ being interchangeable in Hebrew.  We might know it for fact in case of Arabic, but whether or not applies to other Semitic languages is to be seen.



The closest thing to that I can think of, is the Arabic root '-b-h (possible metathesis?), which means "to care". It's also used commonly in the active participle form 'aabih آبه.
Just a thought.
It would be interesting (and important) to know if this root also occurs in Hebrew with this meaning or a similar meaning. If not, can it be -linguistically speaking- considered a metathesis on the part of Arabic?


----------



## origumi

rayloom said:


> It would be interesting (and important) to know if this root also occurs in Hebrew with this meaning or a similar meaning.


אבה 'bh (mute h) exists in Hebrew. It means to agree, to want. Mostly in negative form (70 of 71 appearances in the Bible) - לא אבה _lo abah _(pronounced _lo ava_) = didn't agree. It is similar to root אוה awh = to desire, want. These two, along with Hbb and 'hb (aspirated h), are similar in sound and belong to the same semantic field, and yet I am not sure what it means from etymological and historical point of view.


----------



## Abu Rashid

clevermizo said:
			
		

> What about in other Semitic languages?



ḥ-b-b exists in Aramaic (Syriac), Phoenician & Akkadian at least, with the meaning of love.


----------



## clevermizo

origumi said:


> אבה 'bh (mute h) exists in Hebrew. It means to agree, to want. Mostly in negative form (70 of 71 appearances in the Bible) - לא אבה _lo abah _(pronounced _lo ava_) = didn't agree. It is similar to root אוה awh = to desire, want. These two, along with Hbb and 'hb (aspirated h), are similar in sound and belong to the same semantic field, and yet I am not sure what it means from etymological and historical point of view.




If there's a real relationship at all (which there might not be  ), perhaps it indicates were multiple metathesis and exchange events leading to duplicate roots with the close meaning that then diverged in meaning further after they became distinct. Or such events happened in daughter dialects (of some ancestral community/ies) and then bled in through borrowing events and acquired new meanings.

Sort of like a "gene duplication" event (not to stretch the biology analogy too far  ).

Even after my initial musings I'm not convinced there is any real relationship between '-h-b and ħ-b-b, but there might be between the '-h-b and '-b-h (and maybe also '-w-h) as you and Rayloom cite.

Of course we might be seeing what we want to see. A good control would be to pick some roots at random and shuffle the consonant phonemes or exchange them for consonant phonemes with some shared phonetic features, and see if we find roots that by chance have similar semantic fields.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> אבה ... It is similar to root אוה awh = to desire, want.


I don't quite understand. Why do you think there should be a similarity between אבה and אוה ? Do we have any indication of frequent shifts between /b/ and /w/ in the history of Semitic languages?


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:
			
		

> I don't quite understand. Why do you  think there should be a similarity between אבה and אוה ? Do we have any  indication of frequent shifts between /b/ and /w/ in the history of  Semitic languages?



Some dialects of Aramaic have undergone a b>v>w shift.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Some dialects of Aramaic have undergone a b>v>w shift.


Isn't that a consequence of /v/ being an allophonic variant of /b/ in Aramaic? Since the example is from pre-exile biblical Hebrew where the /v/ allophone didn't exist yet, we would have to find older examples of /b/<->/w/.


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> I don't quite understand. Why do you think there should be a similarity between אבה and אוה ? Do we have any indication of frequent shifts between /b/ and /w/ in the history of Semitic languages?


Very similar sound, very similar meaning. Nothing beyond that.

There are also few examples in Hebrew like גו = גב (back), but it's possible that all them have better explanation than shifts like w -> v -> bh -> b (or vice versa).


----------



## tFighterPilot

/b/ and /w/ relationship makes perfect sense to me, as the lips are almost in the same position. It surely makes more sense than the /g/ and /dʒ/ relationship, but that's for a different thread.


----------



## rayloom

A similar phenomenon where the /b/ shifts to a /w/ is in kawkab. Although I'm unsure if it's because of the same phonological reason.
ProtoSemitic kabkab becomes kawkab in Arabic, כוכב (kokhav) in Hebrew. While Ugaritic for example retains the form kbkb.


----------



## Flaminius

In the source I previously mentioned, replacing the second radical with the third creates 17 verb pairs.  In other words, changing the order of a root from 123 to 132 still finds 17 verbs*.  Semantically, the verb before transformation and the one after do not necessarily have relationships.  Almost all pairs represent a different pattern of 23 (or 32).  The exception is b-r (or r-b), to which three pairs belong:
s-b-r vs. s-r-b; become evident, explain vs. refuse
ʿ-b-r vs. ʿ-r-b; cross, transmit vs. intervene, mix
q-b-r vs. q-r-b; bury vs. approach, be brought closer, sacrifice

I don't seem to get the connection among these.  Alas, these are interesting to look at but leading to no significant conclusion.


*Details are found in the attached file.  Please rename the file to something.html to display the table structure.


----------

