A REEVALUATION OF THE SEMITIC DIRECT OBJECT MARKERS * Aren M. Wilson-Wright University of Texas at Austin This paper aims to clarify the relationship between the superficially similar direct object markers attested in Modern South Arabian, Ge’ez, Arabic, Aramaic, Samalian, Hebrew, and Phoenician. I argue that the direct object markers in Aramaic and the Canaanite languages derive from a single innova- tive form, which I reconstruct as *  ayāt-. I further claim that the remaining forms are unrelated. Although verbal objects were originally marked with the accusative case in Semitic, several languages developed independent morphemes to mark the object of a transitive verb, which in some cases functioned alongside the accusative case. 1 Scholars have long debated the relationship between the similar-looking Modern South Arabian, Ge’ez, Arabic, Aramaic, Samalian, Hebrew, and Phoenician direct object markers. Many favor a maximal inter- pretation linking most, if not all, such forms despite clear phonological dif- ferences. 2 In this paper, I will take a more minimalistic approach. I argue that the direct object markers in Aramaic and the Canaanite languages derive from * I would like to thank Na’ama Pat-El, John Huehnergard, and Saralyn McKinnon-Crowley for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Any remaining errors are mine alone. 1 The accusative case could coexist with the direct object marker in certain Semitic languages like Ge’ez and Arabic because they did not fulfill the same function. The accusative case marked verbal objects without distinction and could also assume adverbial functions, while the direct object markers marked pronominal objects and, in some cases, definite noun phrases. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the Semitic direct object markers developed to replace an ailing or defunct case system. P. Bekins, Transitivity and Object Marking in Biblical Hebrew (HSS 64; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), pp. 203–204, provides a good summary of the distinctive features of direct object markers. 2 For the sake of brevity, I will refer to previous studies as necessary rather than providing a detailed literature review. For a summary of scholarship up to 2005, see A. Rubin, Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization (HSS 57; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), pp. 117–121. All of the scholars cited by Rubin assume that most of the Semitic direct object markers are related and provide their own explanations to account for the phonological differences between them as do J. Blau, עיונים בבלשנות עברית(Studies in Hebrew linguistics; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996), pp. 27, 82 n. 27; A. Dolgopolsky, “On the Origin of the Hebrew Nota Accusativi  eṯ ~  εṯ and the t-Accusative in Akkadian, Agaw and Saho,” in Afroasiatica Tergestina: Papers from the 9 th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Linguistics, Trieste, April 23–24, 1998 (ed. M. Lamberti and L. Tonelli; Padua: Unipress, 1999), pp. 43–46; D. Wilmsen, “More on the Arabic Object Marker iyyā: Implications for the Origin of the Semitic Notae Accusativi,” FO 50 (2013): 67; and P. Bekins, Transitivity and Object Marking, p. 38. H. H. Hardy, “Whence Come Direct Object Markers in Northwest Semitic, ” JSS 61 (2016): 313–315. Only P. Noorlander, “Sam’alian in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: A Historical- Comparative Approach,” Or 81 (2012): 225–226, suggests the possibility of independent innovation across the different branches of Semitic.