A Comparative Lexical Study of Qur?anic Arabic

562 CHAPTER FIVE
Table 2 (cont.)
Ar. -
Ar. -
Ar. -
Ar. -
Heb.
Ph.
Ug.
Akk.
741
229
394
414
43.16
13.34
22.95
24.11
44
22
50
56
2.56
1.28
2.91
3.26
932
1466
1273
1247
4159 - 364 - 9213
54.28
85.38
74.14
72.63
Total
1717
1717
1717
1717
The above figures in descending order will render a clearer picture
of the distribution of the cognates:
Ar. -
it
H
n
ti
n
n
n
Heb.
Aram.
Syr.
ESA
Ge.
Akk.
Ug.
Ph.
741
685
657
520
519
414
394
229
Table 3
ESA
Akk.
Ug.
Heb.
Ge.
Aram.
Syr.
Ph.
86
56
50
44
43
34
29
22
Ph.
Ug.
Akk.
Ge.
ESA
Syr.
Aram.
Heb.
1466
1273
1247
1155
1111
1031
998
932
As can be seen from the above, most cognates are found in Hebrew,
with Aramaic and Syriac following closely, whereas the least number
of cognates are attested in Phoenician. 2
Table 4 below illustrates the average percentage rates of lexical
community (1), as well as lack of community (0) in the case of NWS
and SS. The figures for Phoenician, Ugaritic and Akkadian are reproduced
from table 2 for comparison. Moreover, in the following table
Phoenician is listed separately so as to prevent that its low figures
influence the averages obtained from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac.
2 By way of comparison see Barr 1968: 162 where he states that ". . . samples
taken from various kinds of Arabic literature (e.g. early poems, modern legal documents)
suggest that the percentage of words used which have a cognate of similar
sense in ancient Hebrew will seldom exceed 30-40 percent." The Hebrew
cognates in the present work are, however, not necessarily homosemantic, hence
the greater percentage obtained here.