Read on Twitter
In my Akkadian class, we recently came across the word muškēnu, which is obviously cognate to Arabic مِسكين miskīn. So naturally, I decided to look into its origins and exactly how this term entered Arabic. 
:
:
In Akkadian, it meant something like ‘commoner, dependent, bondsman.’ In Arabic, it means ‘poor, unfortunate,’ which is similar to the Aramaic cognate meaning ‘poor, modest.’
The most probable immediate source of the Arabic form must have been Aramaic, where it’s attested in multiple dialects across time. For example, in the Targum Onkelos, a 2nd cent CE Jewish Aramaic translation of the Torah, in Deuteronomy 15:11 מִסְכֵּנָא miskēnā:
An Aramaic source would account for the Arabic /s/, as opposed to the Akkadian /š/, which was likely pronounced /ʃ/. Ge‘ez also has an /s/: ምስኪን mǝskin ‘poor, wretched, needy.' Leslau states that it too comes from Aramaic-Syriac and that it’s ultimately of Akkadian origin.
In other words, Akk. muškēnu > Aram. miskēn- > Ar. miskīn and Ge. mǝskīn. Within Akkadian, muškēnu is derived from an irregular verb šukēnu (attested in Old Babylonian), which goes back to an older form that is attested in other dialects as šukaʾʾinu ‘to prostrate oneself.’
This form can be parsed in one of two ways. The first is that it’s a rare ŠD-stem of root k-ʾ-n ‘to be firm, loyal’ (i.e. D-stem intensive coupled with Š-stem causative) in other words, ‘to cause to be loyal,’ with some semantic drift that leads to a reflexive verb.
This explanation is attractive because it’s based on an attested root, it’s morphology is clear, and the semantic change follows a seemingly logical progression. However, there’s a problem with this account.
Akkadian /š/ corresponds to Aramaic /s/ only when it goes back to Proto-Semitic *s₂, which has been reconstructed as a lateral fricative /ɬ/. But the causative š goes back to a different sibilant *s₁, which is always realized as š in Aramaic.
We would therefore expect that Akkadian muškēnu would have entered Aramaic as miškēn or something similar, just as Akkadian šūzubu ‘to save’ enters Aramaic as šêzib. This explanation therefore needs to account for the unexpected sound correspondence.
A possible counterargument to this objection is that from the Middle period on, /š/ becomes /l/ before coronal consonants: e.g., we find Middle Assyrian ultakaʾʾin ‘I bow’ instead of expected uštakaʾʾin, which would point to a lateral consonant origin.
However, this sound change affects all /š/, regardless of whether it comes from original *s₂ or not: e.g. pirištu ‘secret matter’ from root p-r-s (< PS *s₃) is realized as piriltu in Standard Babylonian. Therefore, we can’t make any claims based on MA ultakaʾʾin.
The alternative explanation seems to address this issue. If we assume that this is an underivable quadriliteral, composed of š-k-ʾ-n, then the initial š need not be a causative prefix and it can correspond to Aramaic s without any difficulties.
The only caveat is it would have to have been a very early borrowing, taking place before *s₂ had shifted to its attested forms in each language.
For what it's worth, both the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and the Concise Dictionary of Assyrian list it as a quadriliteral.
For what it's worth, both the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and the Concise Dictionary of Assyrian list it as a quadriliteral.
It should be noted that in his Akkadisches Handwörterbuch II, p 684, von Soden claims that the Akkadian term is itself a borrowing from altamoritisch ‘Old Amorite.’ The CDA also suggests a possible West Semitic borrowing into Akkadian, without specifying a language.
But 1) we don’t know much about Amorite; and 2) even if we accept Pardee's claim that the better-attested Ugaritic was a variety of Amorite, PS *s₁ = Ugaritic š, and we’d still expect it to be realized as š in Aramaic. So we return to the same issue with the first explanation.
The quadriliteral explanation seems to have the least problems in my opinion but it still isn’t particularly satisfying because it’s almost like a dead end.
We can say for sure that the word originated in Akkadian, was borrowed into Aramaic, and spread to other Semitic languages including Arabic. From Arabic, it spread into Romance and beyond.
Sources:
Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
Concise Dictionary of Assyrian
Huehnergard, J. A Grammar of Akkadian
Leslau, W. Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez
Pardee, D (2008). Ugaritic. In Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia
von Soden, W. Akk. Handwörterbuch
Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
Concise Dictionary of Assyrian
Huehnergard, J. A Grammar of Akkadian
Leslau, W. Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez
Pardee, D (2008). Ugaritic. In Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia
von Soden, W. Akk. Handwörterbuch
