What is Proto-Semitic *x̣?

Question

In his Akkadian grammar (specifically the appendix on phonology), Huehnergard lists the following Proto-Semitic consonants:

Most of this looks familiar to me. However, *x̣ caught me by surprise; I'm not used to an emphatic velar fricative being included. (Semitic is very much not my specialty, though, so I'm not very well-read on it; it's entirely possible that it's a mainstream thing that I just haven't come across before.)

Is this part of the mainstream consensus? And what is the evidence for it?

Answer 1

One page further (p. 587), Huehnergard gives as one of the changes from Proto-Semitic to Old Babylonian:

Common Semitic *ḫ and *x̣ merged to ḫ (Huehnergard 2003):
     *ḫamisum > ḫamšum ‘five’; *saḫānum > šaḫānum ‘to be warm’;
     *x̣apārum > ḫepērum ‘to dig’; *rax̣āṣ́um > raḫāṣ́um ‘to wash’.

The reference is to the author's 'Akkadian ḫ and West Semitic *ḥ'; pp. 102–119 in Leonid Kogan, ed., Studia Semitica; Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute, 3 (Alexander Militarev volume).

The background is that Akkadian lost ḥ (preserved in West Semitic, whence the traditional ḫ/ḥ distinction), and that ḫ corresponds to ḫ in West Semitic, while there are exceptions to this (where ḫ corresponds to ḥ in West Semitic). The numbers are as follows (p. 112):

• Akkadian Ø corresponds to West Semitic *ḥ in about 60 examples; there are in addition some 50 examples of Akkadian Ø with a > e, i.e., in which the earlier presence of either Proto-Semitic *ḥ or Proto-Semitic ʕ is likely.

• Akkadian ḫ corresponds to West Semitic *ḥ in about 50 examples.

• Akkadian ḫ corresponds to West Semitic ḫ in about 90 examples; there are also nearly 200 additional Akkadian roots with ḫ for which no West Semitic cognates are known.

The traditional solution is that Proto-Semitic ḫ stays unaffected, whereas Proto-Semitic *ḥ is dropped in East Semitic. However, the second group, where West Semitic *ḥ corresponds to East Semitic ḫ, is too large for this. In default of a phonological explanation that can predict which instances of *ḥ become Ø and which become ḫ, we must posit a third consonant for this second group (Huehnergard compares this to the situation of ð merging with d in Aramaic but z in Hebrew; cf. Aramaic dkr vs. Hebrew zkr 'remember').

Because this hypothetical consonant merged with ḫ and ḥ it should be a fricative articulated near the velum or pharynx. Most consonants in Proto-Semitic come in a triadic opposition (voiced/voiceless/emphatic), the exceptions being bilabials and velar and pharyngeal fricatives (none of which have emphatics). Because a emphatic pharyngeal fricative is 'unexpected on articulatory grounds' (p. 115), an emphatic velar fricative x̣ is proposed, i.e., IPA [x'].

We then get (p. 116):

• Proto-Semitic ḥ is unaffected in West Semitic but dropped in East Semitic.
• Proto-Semitic ḫ is unaffected throughout.
• Proto-Semitic x̣ becomes ḥ in West Semitic and ḫ in East Semitic.

Is this the mainstream consensus? I can't really comment since I don't work in phonology, but I can say that (1) you are right to be surprised (2003 is pretty recent) and (2) Huehnergard is usually right.

Answer 2

Today´s consensus is that the emphatic sounds were realized as glottalized (as, e.g., in Akkadian), not as pharyngalized (cf., e.g., Arabic). Therefore, one for a root, no more (in Akkadian, known as the Geers´ Law). The problem with Huehnergard´s theory (as I see it) is that it reconstructs/creates quite a lot of roots with two emphatic radicals in his reconstruction of, say, Protoakkadian. OK, perhaps we can postulate that it was a retention from another stage (between Protosemitic and Protoakkadian?; H. self was playing with many additional stages in his reconstruction of the history of Aramaic), but it violates the language economy. I do not see an elegant way out of this "Huehnergards´ paradox". Perhaps we should expect another secondary articulation for this velar fricative?