--- title: "Does Ugaritic Go with Arabic in Semitic — Kaye 2026" description: "Kaye revisits a long-standing question in Semitic historical linguistics: where Ugaritic, the language of the tablets found at Ras Shamra in 1929…" authors: ["Alan S. Kaye"] year: 2026 venue: "Folia Orientalia 28" source: "https://wydawnictwo.pan.pl/index.php/fo/article/view/6195" licence: "CC BY (journal licence per DOAJ; Folia Orientalia)" licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License" canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kaye-2026-ugaritic-go-arabic-semitic-genealogical/" --- [Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kaye-2026-ugaritic-go-arabic-semitic-genealogical/) [home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/page/5/) / Does Ugaritic Go with Arabic in Semitic Genealogical Sub-Classification? # Does Ugaritic Go with Arabic in Semitic Genealogical Sub-Classification? **Authors:** Alan S. Kaye · **Year:** 2026 · **Venue:** Folia Orientalia 28 · **Licence:** [CC BY (journal licence per DOAJ; Folia Orientalia)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) **Links:** [Publisher's page](https://wydawnictwo.pan.pl/index.php/fo/article/view/6195) · [PDF](https://wydawnictwo.pan.pl/index.php/fo/article/download/6195/5171) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W7213389161) **Citations:** 0 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) ## Summary Kaye revisits a long-standing question in Semitic historical linguistics: where Ugaritic, the language of the tablets found at Ras Shamra in 1929, belongs in the family tree. Many scholars filed it under Canaanite, close to Hebrew and Phoenician. The author argues this was never properly defended against Goetze's 1941 objections. He reviews Goetze's list of phonological and morphological traits that separate Ugaritic from Canaanite, Gordon's views, and the classic trees of Brockelmann, Bauer-Leander and Barton. He then sets these against Hetzron's Central Semitic grouping and Huehnergard's 1991 Northwest Semitic proposal. His method rests on a strict principle: only shared innovations justify a subgroup. Shared retentions, literary parallels, borrowings and universal tendencies do not count. His conclusion is that Ugaritic is not Canaanite. It should stand as its own branch of Central Semitic and may be specially linked to Arabic, perhaps through an intermediate Proto-Arabo-Ugaritic stage. The paper matters because it shows how a field's habitual viewpoint, here a Biblical-Hebrew one, can harden a weak classification into accepted fact. ## Key points - Goetze (1941) set seven Canaanite traits against Ugaritic: - Ugaritic keeps Proto-Semitic sounds such as *ḫ/*ġ distinct where Canaanite merges them. - Its causative uses š- rather than h-. - It has no definite article, while Canaanite uses ha-. - Its masculine plural distinguishes nominative -uma from oblique -ima. - Earlier Semitic trees (Brockelmann, Bauer-Leander, Barton) are reviewed. So are Hetzron's Central Semitic (Arabic + Canaanite + Aramaic) and Huehnergard's (1991) Northwest Semitic. - Kaye draws on Dyen, Hoenigswald and Lehmann for method: subgroups need shared innovations, and evidence must be weighed against borrowing and wave-like diffusion. - He warns that doubly-marked or broken plurals may reflect a universal tendency rather than a common innovation. - His proposed tree puts Ugaritic as a separate Central Semitic branch, possibly paired with Arabic. Dyen's Slavo-Germanic argument and the case of Venetic within Italic serve as parallels. ## Interesting ideas - Group languages only by what they changed together, never by what they both happened to keep unchanged, since conservatism is shared by default. — For Mova (learn): When clustering witness-parser behaviours or failure types, group by shared deviations from a baseline, not by shared default outputs, so the clusters reveal real common causes. - Similar outcomes can arise independently through common universal tendencies, so resemblance alone is not evidence of a shared origin. — For Mova (learn): Agreement between witness parsers that share an architecture or training data should count less as silver-data evidence; negative controls can test whether the agreement is just a common bias. - A classification can be skewed by viewing everything from one dominant reference language, as happened with the Biblical-Hebrew perspective on Ugaritic. — For Mova (tree): In UD dialect conversion, avoid treating one treebank's conventions as the norm and others as deviations; compare each against neutral criteria. - Rather than forcing a flat split, the author leaves room for a tentative intermediate node (Proto-Arabo-Ugaritic) that is flagged as needing further evidence. — For Mova (world): When merging WordNet/FrameNet/Wikidata hierarchies, allow hypothesised intermediate classes marked as provisional, so they stay explainable and can be revised. *Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.* Fields: [Linguistics & languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/linguistics/) Topics: [Akkadian and cuneiform NLP](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/akkadian-cuneiform-nlp/) · [Hebrew & Aramaic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/hebrew-aramaic/) · [Semitic languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/semitic-languages/) ## Cite The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. ```bibtex @inproceedings{kaye2026does, title = {{Does Ugaritic Go with Arabic in Semitic Genealogical Sub-Classification?}}, author = {Kaye, Alan S.}, booktitle = {Folia Orientalia 28}, year = {2026}, url = {https://wydawnictwo.pan.pl/index.php/fo/article/view/6195} } ``` - [← previous Document-Level Text Simplification in Estonian Using Large Language Models](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/muru-2026-document-level-text-simplification-estonian/) - [next → Domain-Aware Error Correction for Citation NER in Medieval Hebrew Responsa](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/aclbulk-2026-liebeskind-domain-aware-error-correction-citation/) - [↑ back to papers of 2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/page/5/) ## References 2 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet. 1. Al-Yasin, I. Arabic. 1952. The Lexical New York: Department 1909. 11:188. Relation Between Ugari tic and of Semitics, Shelton College. Barton, George. Encyclopedia "Semitic Languages." Bauer, Hans, and Leander, Fontus. 1922. Historische Grarnrnatik der hebraischen Sprachen des Al ten Testaments. Halle. [Reprinted (1962) by Georg Olms Verlagbuchhandlung, Hildeshe'im.] Beeler, Madisqn S. 1949. University of California Blau, Joshua. 1968. "Some Difficulties in the Reconstruction Proto-Canaanite." In M. Black and G. Fohrer, Eds., Memoriam Paul Kahle: Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur alttestamentlich~senschaft. Berlin: ~03:29-43. The Venetic Publications Language. in Linguistics Blust, Robert. 1990. "Patterns of - Austrones_ian_ Languages." In Philip Change and Reconstruction Methodology, Mouton de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Al%2DYasin%2C+I%2E+Arabic%2E+1952%2E+The+Lexical+New+York%3A+Department+1909%2E+11%3A188%2E+Relation+Between+Ugari+tic+and+of+Semitics%2C+Shelton+College%2E+Barton%2C+George%2E+Encyclopedia+%22Semitic+Languages%2E%22+Bauer%2C+Hans%2C+an) 2. Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der semitischen Sprachen. Vol. by Georg Olms Verlagbuchhandlung, Historical Press. Berkeley: 4:1-60. of In die Sound Change in the Baldi, Ed., Linguistic pp. 231-67. Berlin: der [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brockelmann%2C+Carl%2E+1908%2E+Grundriss+der+semitischen+Sprachen%2E+Vol%2E+by+Georg+Olms+Verlagbuchhandlung%2C+Historical+Press%2E+Berkeley%3A+4%3A1%2D60%2E+of+In+die+Sound+Change+in+the+Baldi%2C+Ed%2E%2C+Linguistic+pp%2E+231%2D67%2E)