A Disputed Sabaic ‘Relative’ Pronoun

Extract

The following note, though drafted by A. F. L. Beeston, is essentially the result of co-operative discussion between him, A. K. Irvine, W. W. Müller, M. Rodinson, and J. Ryckmans; all of whom are now in agreement on the issue. The discussion originated from the question whether four words beginning with t- in CIH 540 (tbs²nf line 15, ts³n/ts¹n lines 16 and 19, tbn line 18) are to be explained as containing a feminine relative pronoun t as a variant of the normal Sabaic form ḏt, as Praetorius suggested; or are t-prefix verb forms. In favour of the relative interpretation are the facts, firstly that in classical Arabic poetry we find a masculine ḏā contrasting with feminine tī, and the same type of alternation is widely attested in vernacular dialects, including Yemeni ones; secondly, that in all four cases there is a defined feminine antecedent (‘glmtn, k'btn, k'bt/ġyln, k'bt/mfllm—assuming, as is most probable, that the last word is a proper name). Against it was the fact that such a pronoun appeared to be attested nowhere in all Sabaic except in this text. G. M. Bauer (Yazyk yuzhnoarabiyskoy pis'mennosti, Moscow, 1966, 92) accepted the relatival interpretation, but describes it as a ‘late’ use; while M. Rodinson (‘Sur un pseudo-relatif sudarabique’, Actes du premier Congrès international de Linguistique Sémitique et Chamito-semitique, Paris, 1969, ed. by Caquot and Cohen, Paris, 1974, 290–1) and W. W. Müller (in an article for AION, 1975, sent to press before our discussions took place) were inclined to deny the existence of this relative and adopt the verbal interpretation.