Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures

# **Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic**

**EditEd by GEoffrEy Khan and Paul M. noorlandEr**

## To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices

and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions

Go to: **htps://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1169**

Open Book Publishers is a non-proft independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works.

# STUDIES IN THE GRAMMAR AND LEXICON OF NEO-ARAMAIC

# Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

*Edited by Geofrey Khan and Paul M. Noorlander*

#### https://www.openbookpublishers.com

© 2021 Geoffrey Khan and Paul M. Noorlander. Copyright of individual chapters is maintained by the chapters' authors.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information:

Geoffrey Khan and Paul M. Noorlander (eds.), *Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic.* Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2021, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209

In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit, https:// doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209#copyright

Further details about CC BY licenses are available at, https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/

All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web

Updated digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209#resources

Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher.


Cover image: Women in the village of Harbole, south-eastern Turkey (photograph taken by Brunot Poizat in 1978 before the village's destruction). Cover design: Anna Gatti




## **GLOSSING ABBREVIATIONS**



## **CONTRIBUTORS**

**Eugene Barsky** (PhD, St Tikhon's Orthodox University of Humanities, Moscow, 2010) researched the Book of Ezra in his PhD thesis. His current work focuses on the grammar of Aramaic and the history of the Bible. His previous publications on Neo-Aramaic relate to the lexicon of Turoyo and Mlaḥso.

**Sergey Loesov** (PhD, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, 1994) is a professor at the National Research University 'Higher School of Economics' (Moscow). His research publications concern the following main felds: history of Aramaic, Neo-Aramaic dialectology, history of Akkadian and morphosyntax of Akkadian�

**Paul M. Noorlander** (PhD, Leiden University, 2018) is a Rubicon Fellow at Leiden University seconded to the University of Cambridge. His current work focuses on the documentation of endangered Neo-Aramaic dialects originally spoken in Turkey and coordinating the development of the online NENA database and NENA digital corpus. His PhD thesis was on the typology of alignment in Neo-Aramaic. He has worked on Semitic languages from a comparative-historical perspective and on diachronic developments in Aramaic in particular, including detailed syntactic studies of Late Antique Aramaic varieties. His research interests and published work also involve tense-aspect-mood, word order and contact between Neo-Aramaic and neighbouring languages such as Iranian and Armenian.

**Dorota Molin** is a PhD student (2018–2021) in Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge, working on North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. She obtained her MPhil degree at Cambridge for a dissertation on Biblical Hebrew quotations in the Aramaic incantation bowls in the context of Biblical Hebrew pronunciation traditions. She is interested in comparative dialectology and its contribution to understanding diachrony (e.g., grammaticalisation). She has also published on contact between Modern Hebrew and Negev Arabic and worked as a research assistant on a forthcoming Diplomatic Edition of Mishna-Codex Kaufmann (A50). She holds a BA degree in Hebrew and Arabic (Cambridge).

**Geofrey Khan** (PhD, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 1984) is Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Cambridge. His research publications focus on three main felds: Biblical Hebrew language (especially medieval traditions), Neo-Aramaic dialectology and medieval Arabic documents. He is the general editor of *The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics* and is the senior editor of *Journal of Semitic Studies*� His most recent book is *The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew*, 2 vols, Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 1 (University of Cambridge & Open Book Publishers, 2020).

**Eran Cohen** (PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002) is a professor of linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His work is mainly descriptive and comparative, covering various phases and registers of several languages—Akkadian, Neo-Aramaic, Biblical and Modern Hebrew, as well as various aspects of comparative linguistics of Semitic. The domains covered in his work are syntax and macro-syntax, including such topics as information structure, the functional analysis of verbal systems (tense, aspect and modality, as well as its functions in narrative), the structure of narrative, conditional structures and relative clauses. Recent research topics include interrogative markers in Semitic, the diachrony of epistemic particles from a comparative perspective, genitive constructions in Semitic, conditional constructions in Semitic and manner demonstratives.

**Michael Waltisberg** (PhD, Marburg, 2008; Habilitation, Marburg, 2014) is currently Privatdozent at the Philipps-University of Marburg, and is employed at the University of Heidelberg as interim Professor for Semitic Linguistics. He has worked on the Semitic language family as a whole in a comparative and typological perspective, with a particular focus on issues of syntax and semantics. His main contributions are in the felds of Classical Arabic and several pre-modern and modern Aramaic varieties. He is currently participating in a project on the information structure of Syriac (Middle Aramaic).

**Ivri Bunis** (PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2018) is a post-doctoral Research Associate in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge. He wrote his PhD thesis on the morphosyntax of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period. His research interests include Aramaic historical linguistics, Late Western Aramaic, Rabbinic Hebrew in contact with Aramaic and Western Neo-Aramaic in contact with Syrian Arabic.

**Steven E. Fassberg** (PhD, Harvard University, 1984) is Caspar Levias Professor of Ancient Semitic Languages at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research has focused on Northwest Semitic, Aramaic dialectology and the Hebrew of the First and Second Temple periods. His publications in the feld of Neo-Aramaic include *The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Challa* (Brill, 2010). His latest book is *An Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew* (Bialik Institute, 2019).

**Ariel Gutman** (PhD, University of Konstanz, 2016), researched Neo-Aramaic dialects for his PhD thesis in Konstanz, where he was an Associate Fellow of the Zukunftskolleg Interdisciplinary Institute. He is also an alumnus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Sorbonne Nouvelle University and the École Normale Supérieure of Paris. He has conducted linguistic feldwork in France, in Israel and in West Papua, Indonesia. His research interests and publications are in the felds of Syriac Philology, Neo-Aramaic dialectology, Child Language Acquisition and Natural Language Processing. He is currently working as a software engineer specialising in computational linguistics at Google in Zurich.

**Lidia Napiorkowska** (PhD, University of Cambridge, 2013) researched the Diyana-Zariwaw dialect of Neo-Aramaic for her PhD thesis. Her postdoctoral project involved further documentation of rare Neo-Aramaic dialects in Iraqi Kurdistan, Sweden and Great Britain. She is now a lecturer at the Department of Hebrew Studies, Warsaw University, where she combines teaching Modern Hebrew with her research interests in phonology, language contact and comparative Semitic studies.

**Aziz Tezel** is a Researcher Emeritus in Semitic Languages. His research focuses on etymological problems, borrowings, quadriradical verbal formations, fora and the *bgdkft*-consonants� His book publications include *Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac (Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon* (Uppsala University, 2003).

**Yulia Furman** (PhD, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, 2017) is an Alexander von Humboldt fellow at the Freie Universität Berlin. Her PhD thesis was on a 7th-century Syriac universal history by John bar Penkaye. Her research interests include Neo-Aramaic languages, the grammar of Classical Syriac and the history of Syriac literature. Her current project deals with the lexical and grammatical aspect of the Turoyo verb.

**Hezy Mutzaf** (PhD, Tel Aviv University, 2001) is Professor of Semitic Linguistics in the Department of Hebrew Language and Semitic Linguistics, Tel Aviv University. His research and publications focus on Neo-Aramaic dialectology, in particular North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic regional varieties and Neo-Mandaic� His latest book is *Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic*  (Brill 2014).

**Alexey Lyavdansky** is a lecturer of Classical Hebrew and Aramaic at the Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics (Moscow). His research and publications focus on Neo-Aramaic, Babylonian Aramaic and Classical Hebrew. Currently, he is leading a project to create an electronic corpus of literary Christian Urmi Neo-Aramaic. He is also undertaking documentation of the Neo-Aramaic dialects in Russia.

**Aziz Emmanuel Eliya Al-Zebari** (PhD, Salahaddin University, Erbil, 2018) is a lecturer in the English Department of the Catholic University of Erbil, Iraq. He was born in the village of Upper Gerbish in the area of Nekhla, North of Aqra. For his PhD thesis he documented the Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Aqra region.

**Salam Neamah Hirmiz Hakeem** (PhD, Salahaddin University, Erbil, 2010) focuses on three main felds of research: sociolinguistics, text analysis and pedagogy. He teaches Syriac in the Department of Syriac of Salahaddin University� He is a native speaker of the Ankawa dialect of Neo-Aramaic and has researched the impact of Arabic on this dialect and its sociolinguistics motivations�

**Sina Tezel** (PhD, Uppsala University, 2011) is Senior Lecturer in Semitic Languages at the University of Uppsala. Her PhD thesis was on Arabic loanwords in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. Her current research focuses on comparative Semitics, loanwords, language contact, the *bgdkpt*-consonants and neologisms�

## **PREFACE**

The Neo-Aramaic dialects are modern vernacular forms of Aramaic, which has a documented history in the Middle East of over 3,000 years, the earliest inscriptions being datable to approximately 1,000 BCE� The Neo-Aramaic dialects that have survived down to modern times are generally classifed into four subgroups:


The Neo-Aramaic dialects are clearly closely related to the written forms of Aramaic of earlier periods� The Neo-Aramaic subgroups can be correlated broadly with dialectal divisions that are refected in pre-modern written Aramaic sources from the frst millennium CE onwards particularly during Late Antiquity, which are sometimes referred to collectively as 'Middle Aramaic' or 'Late (Antique) Aramaic'. Central Neo-Aramaic, North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic and Neo-Mandaic are related to the eastern branch of pre-modern Aramaic, e�g� Classical Syriac, Classical Mandaic and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, whereas Western Neo-Aramaic is related to the western branch, e.g. Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic� No Neo-Aramaic subgroup, however, could be considered a direct descendent of the attested forms of the literary pre-modern Aramaic varieties�

Nine of the papers in this volume focus on NENA dialects, fve concern Turoyo varieties, two focus on Western Neo-Aramaic and one compares all three subgroups.

Due to upheavals in the Middle East over the last one hundred years, thousands of speakers of Neo-Aramaic dialects have been forced to migrate from their homes or have perished in massacres� As a result, the dialects are now highly endangered. The study and documentation of these dialects is thus of prime concern not only for the preservation of the speakers' oral heritage but also for their identity. A number of contributors to this volume are native speakers of Neo-Aramaic (Aziz Tezel, Sina Tezel, Aziz Al-Zebari, Salam Hakeem). We hope this Open Access volume will be a source of inspiration for speakers to take pride in their linguistic heritage and seek ways to contribute to its preservation.

In recent years research on the Neo-Aramaic dialects has been fourishing. This has resulted in the documentation of many endangered dialects and the discovery of many fascinating aspects of linguistic variation and change. The dialects exhibit a remarkable diversity in all aspects of grammar. Moreover, the considerable depth of attestation of Aramaic from earlier periods provides evidence for pathways of change� For these reasons the research of Neo-Aramaic is of importance for more general felds of linguistics, in particular language typology and historical linguistics.

The papers in this volume represent the full range of research that is currently being carried out on Neo-Aramaic dialects and advance the feld in numerous ways. Many of them originated as papers presented at the last two international conferences of Neo-Aramaic (Warsaw 2016, organised by Lidia Napiorkowska, and Uppsala 2018, organised by Eleanor Coghill and Sina Tezel). The contributions to the volume cover a wide range of topics, including studies of phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. A large proportion of them, however, focus on syntax or lexicon. In order to allow linguists who are not specialists in Neo-Aramaic to beneft from the papers, the examples are fully glossed. Abbreviations for the glosses can be found at the beginning of the volume.

Several of the papers investigate the historical development of verbal syntax (Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov, Dorota Molin, Geofrey Khan, Ivri Bunis), dative subjects (Paul Noorlander), verbal stem morphology (Steven Fassberg) and nominal case morphology (Ariel Gutman). These papers demonstrate that Neo-Aramaic varieties are indispensable for the study of the historical development of Aramaic� Its long history is not only remarkable but also is instructive for understanding language change in general. The volume contains detailed case studies of, for instance, the shift from adjectives into verbs (Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov), from dependent into main clauses (Geofrey Khan), dative into nominative subjects (Paul Noorlander), reanalysis of causatives as intransitives (Steven Fassberg) and the cyclic reinvention of case marking (Ariel Gutman).

Since the Neo-Aramaic dialects are so diverse, each variety requires a detailed description in its own right. Narrative texts like folktales are invaluable for preserving an endangered language without a written culture of its own. Moreover, they facilitate the study of language use in context. Detailed synchronic descriptions of language use in this volume include studies on non-canonical subject marking across Neo-Aramaic varieties (Paul Noorlander) and Tense-Aspect-Mood in NENA, particularly the negation of the future and continuous aspect (Dorota Molin), modality and discourse dependency (Geofrey Khan) and conditional constructions (Eran Cohen). Dialectal variation is a challenge for linguistic analysis. One paper (Lidia Napiorkowska) applies an articulatory phonological model to describe the phonological variation in a highly endangered NENA dialect. Such synchronic variation points to diachronic processes in progress and holds important clues for the limitations of grammaticalisation (Dorota Molin), the reanalysis of modal verbal forms (Geofrey Khan) and internal motivations besides language interference (Lidia Napiorkowska).

Neo-Aramaic variation has often arisen due to dialect mixing or contact. Syntax is particularly prone to change due to language contact. Since they belong to linguistic-religious minorities, Neo-Aramaic speakers are necessarily bi- or multilingual. Arabic-Aramaic contact is the particular focus of two papers pertaining to Turoyo (Michael Waltisberg) and to Western Neo-Aramaic (Ivri Bunis), both of which show the complexities of such language contact situations. While pattern replication may seem evident, it cannot be easily identifed using current frameworks of contact (Michael Waltisberg). Prolonged bilingualism among linguistic minorities can even show unexpected resilience against contactinduced change (Ivri Bunis). Two papers address central issues of morphological structures concerning verbal derivation in Western Neo-Aramaic (Steven Fassberg) and the genitive in NENA (Ariel Gutman). While the reanalysis of causative stem formations in Western Neo-Aramaic cannot be attributed to language contact with Arabic (Steven Fassberg), the re-emergence of the genitive in NENA is partially due to convergence with Kurdish (Ariel Gutman).

The papers on lexicon make important contributions to documenting particular semantic felds in various dialects, e.g. plant names (Aziz Tezel), animal names (Hezy Mutzaf) and material culture (Aziz al-Zebari). The papers of Aziz Tezel and Hezy Mutzaf also discuss the etymology of the items in the semantic felds they are concerned with. Two papers (Eugene Barsky and Yulia Furman, Alexey Lyavdansky) examine the profle of the core lexicon with a view to establishing historical relationships by applying the Swadesh list.

The fnal two papers in the volume focus on features of Neo-Aramaic dialects that refect their attrition and incipient loss, in one case (Salam Hakeem) in northern Iraq, which is the historical heartland of Aramaic, and in the other (Sina Tezel) among the younger generations of Neo-Aramaic speakers in the diaspora communities of Europe.

We are very grateful to Open Book Publishers for all their efcient help. Their open-access initiative will allow this publication to be widely read not only by scholars but also by members of the Neo-Aramaic-speaking communities in the Middle East and in the diaspora throughout the world.

The Editors, Cambridge, June 2020

## **ABSTRACTS**

**Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov** examine the history of the Semitic nominal pattern \**qaṭṭīl* (\*C1 aC2 C2 īC<sup>3</sup> ) in terms of its evolving grammatical semantics� The \**qaṭṭīl* form is a Central Semitic innovation, which became fully productive in old Aramaic as a adjective denoting properties (e�g� *ʿammīq* 'deep', *ḥakkīm* 'wise'), marginalising the inherited property adjective patterns \**qaṭil* (\*C1 aC2 iC3 ) and to some extent also \**qaṭīl* (\*C1 aC2 īC<sup>3</sup> ). It eventually became the past tense stem of intransitive verbs in Turoyo. The paper traces in detail the history of the verbalisation of \**qaṭṭīl*, drawing on a corpus-based study of Classical Syriac.

**Paul M. Noorlander** presents a study of subject-like possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic. These are expressed through person afxes on verbs and verboids that historically go back to a dative preposition—the marker of recipients. Based on a crossdialectal study of their clause structure, the paper argues that these arguments are non-canonical subjects whose morphosyntax is still reminiscent of their original recipient-like function. The identical marking of the agent of past perfective verbs and these non-canonical subjects are likely to be ultimately historically related and part of the overall typology of the language area, since some of these constructions have close parallels in Iranian languages.

**Dorota Molin** presents two folktales from the hitherto unstudied NENA dialect of the Jews of Dohok (north-western Iraq) accompanied by linguistic glosses, translation and comments on a few grammatical features. There is a link to an audio recording of the texts. These folktales are followed by a survey of selected TAM features in this dialect. The asymmetric distribution of the realis habitual preverb (*k-*) between past and non-past is likely to be due to an incomplete grammaticalisation of this preverb. The resultative construction is lexically restricted, indicating that it is not a full perfect in this dialect. The use of the progressive/ continuous is also very restricted compared to other dialects.

**Geofrey Khan** examines various verbal forms in NENA dialects that are used to express discourse dependency. The common feature of all these forms is that they express some kind of cognitive continuity from what precedes without there being syntactic subordination. There is a discussion of the various contexts in which the forms are used and of the possible pathways of their historical development. The forms expressing discourse dependency include *bət-qaṭəl*, *qam-qaṭəl* and narrative subjunctive *qaṭəl*. It is argued that *bət-qaṭəl* with this function developed from a future form in apodoses to conditional constructions. Evidence is presented from dialects in the Cudi region to support the hypothesis that the *qam-qaṭəl* form originally expressed an immediate future. The origin of the narrative subjunctive is identifed in the subjunctive of dependent purpose clauses.

**Eran Cohen** presents a description and discussion of the various conditional phenomena in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Zakho. He explains and exemplifes the diferent conditional types—ordinary, speech-act, inferential, and concessiveconditionals. The paper identifes two patterns expressing ordinary conditionals, with and without a conditional particle, and examines the strutures of counterfactual conditionals. Narrative conditionals are compared with counterfactuals and their function is explained vis à vis other clause types. Finally, the co-occurrence of conditionals with other epistemic expressions is analysed�

**Michael Waltisberg** develops an earlier paper (Waltisberg 2013) on the circumstantial clause of Turoyo, where it was argued that the circumstantial clause both formally and semantically is a direct replication of the corresponding Arabic construction. The present article resumes this discussion by adducing more data from neighbouring Arabic dialects as well as from other Middle Aramaic and Neo-Aramaic varieties. This results in a slightly diferent and less clearcut conclusion concerning the impact of language contact. The paper demonstrates the methodological issues that must be taken into account when attempts are made to identify syntactic replication across closely related languages.

**Ivri Bunis** examines aspects of language contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic. The genetic relationship between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic and the retention of the older Aramaic sufx and prefx conjugations in Western Neo-Aramaic have left the latter with a verbal morphology very similar to Syrian Arabic. Both languages, however, diverge in how their cognate verbal forms express TAM. The divergences between the languages were originally due to independent development, most likely before the intensive contact between them. The paper argues that given the close and prolonged contact of Western Neo-Aramaic with Arabic, the divergences between the two languages also refect signifcant conservatism in Western Neo-Aramaic.

**Steven E. Fassberg** draws attention to a noteworthy feature of the morphology of Maʿlula Western Neo-Aramaic whereby some *Afel* verbs correspond to *Peal* intransitive verbs in older Aramaic. 1st form intransitive Arabic loans also show up in Maʿlula in *Afel*� The shift may have begun in Late Western Aramaic, when there was a retraction of stress followed by the creation of prosthetic vowels resolving word-initial consonantal clusters. Speakers possibly reinterpreted *Peal Vqtel* (< \**qatila*) forms as *Afel* verbs. Such a reanalysis would have been reinforced by the overlap between the two stems in expressing state and condition.

**Ariel Gutman** draws attention to a case of cyclic morphological change in Neo-Aramaic� In its earliest attested stages, Aramaic had already lost the Proto-Semitic case system, as only vestiges of an oblique case are found in an ancient inscription. Yet starting in the 17th century CE, one can observe a process which leads to the re-emergence of genitive and oblique case markers in certain Neo-Aramaic dialects, facilitated by Kurmanji language contact. This cycle is accompanied by another cyclic change, namely the decline and re-creation of an apocopate construct state marking of nouns.

**Lidia Napiorkowska** uses Articulatory Phonology (ArtP) to model phonological variation in the NENA dialect of Azran� ArtP construes speech production as composed of gestures that may shift in time and magnitude. This approach explains palatalisation and fronting of pronunciation encountered in Azran as a result of gestural overlap, thus identifying an internal motivation for variation in addition to possible language contact infuence. Moreover, employing a dynamic model provides insights into the phonology–phonetics interface and has implications for establishing conventions of transcription

**Aziz Tezel** presents material from his ongoing research of plant names in Turoyo (Ṣurayt) and their background. The discussion here focuses on some plants whose names are either of obscure origin or have undergone changes. Taking the corresponding names in Syriac and other earlier languages of the region into consideration, proposals are made for the origin of the names of the plants concerned, with a brief description of their uses in the local culture. Comparisons to corresponding names in NENA are made. An account of dialectal diferences is given. Some borrowings from neighbouring languages are identifed.

**Eugene Barsky and Yulia Furman** study selected concepts from the 208-Swadesh list in Turoyo: bird, head, husband, man (male), man (human being), sun, wife and woman� This is based on feldwork conducted in Germany in 2016 among the Turoyo-speaking community and a published feld corpus gathered in the 1960s. Each concept and its possible exponents are presented together with a discussion of their distribution in the corpus and in the modern language. The results of the study reveal diachronic change and dialectal diversity in the usage of the exponents in question.

**Hezy Mutzaf** examines animal names in various Neo-Aramaic dialects, from Western Neo-Aramaic in south-eastern Syria to Neo-Mandaic in south-western Iran. A large number of modern Aramaic animal names—mostly of inherited Aramaic origin and hitherto unattested—are discussed. Among these are lexical innovations that were moulded by processes of word-formation. Some other animal names, supposed to be related to the Christian Urmi dialect, are shown to have nothing to do with genuine Neo-Aramaic speech, but are rather Syriac classicisms interpolated into Bible translations and dictionaries.

**Alexey Lyavdansky** presents a basic word list for literary Christian Urmi Neo-Aramaic together with etymologies and a discussion of problematic issues. This study, which uses a variant of the Swadesh list of 110 basic words, is the frst research outcome of a project that has created an electronic corpus of literary Christian Urmi based on the texts published in the Soviet Union between 1929 and 1938 (Novij Alfavit). With some exponents being uncertain (having two possible variants), the statistical results demonstrate that more than 90 percent of the exponents have reliable Aramaic etymologies. Four meanings have exponents that originate from Persian� The exponents of two meanings have Kurdish etymologies� Six exponents have no clear etymology�

**Aziz Emmanuel Eliya Al-Zebari** presents lexical material relating to material culture from the NENA dialects of the Aqra region. These dialects can be classifed broadly into those of the villages lying to the North of the Aqra mountain and those of the inhabitants of the region to the South of the mountain. Those lying to the North are situated in an area known as Nexla and include the villages of Dinarta, Upper Gerbish and Sanaye. The dialect area lying to the South of the Aqra mountain includes the town of Aqra and the villages of Kherpa, Kharjawa, Nuhawa, Barrake, Sharmen and Malaberwan. The lexical items that are presented are classifed into the follow semantic felds: (§1.) Buildings and Structures, (§2.) Containers, (§3.) Instruments and Tools, (§4.) Agriculture, (§5.) Sewing, Weaving and Spinning, (§6.) Hunting, (§7.) Fires, (§8.) Clothes and Fabrics.

**Salam Hakeem** identifes and classifes the types of Arabic loanwords that currently occur in the spoken Neo-Aramaic dialect of Ankawa. He examines the reasons for the extensive use of such loanwords by the younger generation. It is shown that although the main contact language in Ankawa is now Kurdish, Arabic continues to have a greater impact on the Neo-Aramaic dialect than Kurdish. The reasons for this are identifed as the infuence of education, which was entirely in Arabic until the last decade, social media, in which Arabic is still the dominant means of communication, and the recent displacement of many Arabic-speaking Christians from Mosul to Ankawa.

**Sina Tezel** discusses language loss in communities speaking Turoyo (Ṣurayt) in the diaspora in Sweden. She examines the challenges of new social and cultural terminology. There is a loss of the regional dialectal diversity of Turoyo with consequent dialect mixing. Many lexemes are falling from use and the semantic range of lexemes is contracting. Also under threat is culturally-specifc idiomatic phraseology. Such incipient loss of the language is, moreover, refected by codeswitching in the speech of the younger generations.

## **A HISTORY OF THE INTRANSITIVE PRETERITE OF TUROYO: FROM A PROPERTY ADJECTIVE TO A FINITE TENSE1**

*Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov*

## **1. Research Question**

The ultimate source of inspiration for the present study is our ambition to ofer a detailed description of the history of the Aramaic verbal system. A key event in this history is what Goldenberg used to call 'the morphological revolution', i.e. the shift, within Eastern Aramaic, from the Middle Aramaic2 verbal systems to those of Modern Aramaic. In the course of this shift, Eastern Aramaic gave up the inherited sufx conjugation<sup>3</sup> (\**qatala*) and the prefx conjugation (\**yaqtulu*) and developed a new repertoire of verbal forms, all of whose bases were deverbal adjectives in earlier stages of Aramaic's history�

We start our historical investigation with Turoyo, since the verbal system of this language, with its two Preterites, *qaṭəl*-Preterite for most intransitive verbs of the G-stem vs� L-Preterite *qṭəlle* for transitive ones, seems to be more conservative than that of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). It may represent

<sup>1</sup> The research was supported by RFBR grant 19-012-00475.

<sup>2</sup> The term 'Middle Aramaic' is used in this paper to refer both to unwritten varieties of Aramaic spoken throughout the 1st millennium AD and the literary registers of those that were committed to writing during the same period (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Syriac, Mandaic, etc.).

<sup>3</sup> With the exception of Neo-Mandaic, which retained the sufx conjugation�

a stage that used to exist in some of the ancestor languages of NENA as well� 4

Various studies have attempted to establish how the Eastern Aramaic L-Preterite *qṭəlle* developed historically� 5 As far as we know, however, there have been no corpus-based studies of the diachronic pathway that led to the *qaṭəl*-Preterite of Turoyo, i.e. how the Central Semitic adjective *\*qaṭṭīl* became verbalised.

In Aramaic, \**qaṭṭīl* started as an adjective expressing permanent properties and ended up being the base of various verbal forms in the past tense domain. The functional range of *\*qaṭṭīl* in the modern Aramaic verbal system is not restricted to the G-stem intransitive Preterite of Turoyo. *\*Qaṭṭīl* is the Perfect of both transitive and intransitive verbs in Mlaḥsó (Jastrow 1994, 45, 52f.). Moreover, in certain village varieties of Turoyo (in particular, Midən and Kfarze), \**qaṭṭīl* is the base for the Passive Preterite of III-y verbs. Thus, in these villages, the Passive Preterite of the verb *ḥzy* is *ḥazi* ('he was seen') rather than *ḥze*� 6 The latter form exists in Midyat and some village dialects� This has been inherited directly from the Middle Aramaic ancestor of Turoyo, while the former (*ḥazi*) developed within Turoyo by analogy with the 1 f�s� and 3 f�s� intransitive Preterite forms of IIIy verbs: *baxyono* 'I (f.) wept' : *ḥazyono* 'I (f.) was seen', *baxyo* 'she wept' : *ḥazyo* 'she was seen', *baxi* 'he wept': x; x = *ḥazi* 'he was seen'� 7 In Ma*ʿ*lula, a Western Neo-Aramaic variety, \**qaṭṭīl*  of intransitive G-stem verbs functions both as a dynamic past


<sup>4</sup> If we adhere (as we do) to the *Stammbaum* model in historical linguistics, we cannot accept a hypothesis according to which all NENA known to us had one and the same ancestor in the Middle Aramaic period� Positing a shared ancestor for all NENA is tantamount to claiming that out of all Eastern Middle Aramaic varieties only three had produced progeny that survived into modern times: the ancestor of NENA, the ancestor of Turoyo and Mlaḥsó and the ancestor of Neo-Mandaic�

verbal form8 and a stative (or continuous) present tense form, depending on the lexical semantics of the root and even on the utterance context.<sup>9</sup>

By contrast, in both NENA10 and Neo-Mandaic, <sup>11</sup> refexes of *\*qaṭṭīl* have not produced new fnite verb forms but rather are extant only in nominal forms (i.e., adjectives and substantives).

In this paper, we restrict the scope of the study to a comparison of the data collected from Classical Syriac and Turoyo. For the Turoyo data, we have drawn upon our Verb Glossary of Turoyo (in progress).<sup>12</sup> According to our glossary of verbs, Turoyo has over 200 verbal roots with a *qaṭəl*-Preterite. Around 100 of them are of Aramaic origin, the majority of the remainder are of Arabic origin�

## **2. Prehistory of the** *Qaṭəl***-Preterite:** *\*Qaṭṭīl* **Outside Aramaic and in Early Aramaic**

The Turoyo *qaṭəl*-Preterite is the end product of the complete verbalisation of *\*qaṭṭīl*, originally a deverbal adjective pattern� This pattern (in the guise of *qaṭilo*) still continues in Turoyo for adjectives, including deverbal ones, i.e. as the 'participle' of certain intransitive verbs.<sup>13</sup>


<sup>8 &</sup>quot;Das Perfekt," according to Werner Arnold, see, e.g., Arnold (2006, 22) and Arnold (1999).

<sup>9</sup> Compare *tarbil ḳamuʿō ti šawwīlle* 'the way of stone piles, the one **he had made**' (Arnold 2006, 68, l. 26) with *nḏōb nḥōmyin … šunyōṯun šawwīyan xanni* 'if we see … [that] their wives do so (= are also disloyal to their husbands)' (Bergsträsser 1915, 27: 16f.). See Correll (1978, 63–68) for numerous examples of this verbal form. Correll's interpretation of its grammatical meaning is unfortunately dogmatic. For him, it is "das Resultativpartizip" in virtually all contexts.

### **2.1. The Etymology of \****Qaṭṭīl*

Diachronically, the verbal adjective *\*qaṭṭīl* developed as follows: *qaṭil → qaṭīl* → *qaṭṭīl*� 14 All three patterns have in common that they denoted property adjectives, and as a matter of fact this use is preserved for all the three patterns in various Central Semitic languages, e.g. Biblical Hebrew, Syriac, and Classical Arabic� This use as a property adjective must have been the original one for each of the three derivations in question.

In written Central Semitic languages apart from Aramaic, *\*qaṭṭīl* is well-documented in Biblical Hebrew and Arabic. In both languages, it mostly expresses enduring properties of human beings. The respective nominals may be syntactically both substantives and adjectives, as the following lists illustrate.

#### **Biblical Hebrew** (complete list):

*ʿallīz* 'exultant', *ʿārīṣ* 'violent, powerful', *ʿattīq* 'old; removed, set apart' (<Aram., Wagner 1966, no. 229), *ʾabbīr* 'strong, powerful', *ʾaddīr* 'mighty', *ʾammīṣ* 'strong', *bārī*<sup>a</sup> *ḥ* 'fugitive', *kabbīr* 'strong, mighty', *pārīṣ* 'burglar', *ṣaddīq* 'innocent, just', *šallīṭ* 'having power' (<Aram., Wagner 1966, no. 309), *taqqīp̄* 'mighty' (<Aram., Wagner 1966, no. 330), *yaqqīr* 'precious, dear' (hapax in Jr 31:20; < Aram.?).

#### **Arabic** (selected examples):<sup>15</sup>

*ʿirrīḍ* 'mean, malevolent', *ʿiššīq* 'lover', *ḏikkīr* 'having a retentive memory', *ḍillīl* 'steeped in deviation', *ḏ̣ illīm* 'very unfair', *fḫḫīr* 'self-important', *ḫibbīṯ* 'very bad', *ḫirrīq* 'very generous', *ḫittīr* 'one who frequently acts with treachery', *mirrīḥ* 'joyful'.

Our perusal of dictionaries shows that the lexicon of written Arabic has hardly more than some ffty tokens of the *\*qaṭṭīl* pattern�

<sup>14</sup> See Barth (1894, 51), Brockelmann (1908, 354), Bauer and Leander (1927, 192), Kuryłowicz (1973, §46), Fox (2003, 267 f.).

<sup>15</sup> Note the "attenuation" *a* > *i* in the frst syllable of the base. In Classical Arabic, this is a regular shift *a* > *i*/\_ CCī.

### **2.2. \****Qaṭṭīl* **in Biblical Aramaic**

It is in Aramaic, unlike Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, that *\*qaṭṭīl* frst becomes a productive noun pattern that is regularly derived from verbal roots. Biblical Aramaic (BA) has twelve *\*qaṭṭīl* derivations, as many as Biblical Hebrew, though the Aramaic Biblical corpus is circa ffty times smaller than that of Hebrew.

*\*qaṭṭīl* also started its life in Aramaic as an adjective expressing permanent properties. Thus, in Biblical Aramaic, \**qaṭṭīl* expresses properties, including the basic lexical items: *ʿammīq* 'deep', *ʿattīq* 'old, aged', *ḥakkīm* 'wise', *ḥassīr* 'wanting, defcient', *qaddīš* 'holy', *raḥḥīq* 'far', *saggī* 'great, much, many', *šallīṭ* 'powerful, mighty', *šappīr* 'beautiful', *taqqīp̄* 'strong, mighty', *yaqqīr* 'difcult, honourable', *yaṣṣīḇ* 'well established', *yattīr* 'extraordinary, exceeding'�

The innovative and productive nature of \**qaṭṭīl* in Aramaic of the 1st millennium BC stands in sharp relief when we compare the Biblical Aramaic adjectives from the list above with their Biblical Hebrew cognates, most of which display the patterns \**qaṭil*, \**qaṭal*, and \**qaṭul*, which are retentions from the proto-Semitic stage and no longer productive in Central Semitic: *ʿāmōq*  'deep', *ḥāḵām* 'clever, skillful', *ḥāsēr* 'one in want', *qāḏōš* 'holy', *rāḥōq* 'far', *yāqār* 'scarce, precious, valuable', *yōṯēr* 'excessive'�

Thus Biblical Hebrew adjectives derived from the same roots as BA *qaṭṭīl* adjectives were mostly formed using archaic patterns, while Biblical Hebrew *qaṭṭīl* tokens are scarce and partly borrowed from Aramaic�

Syntactically, these Biblical Aramaic nominals are used as verbal arguments, attributive adjectives and nominal predicates. The *qaṭṭīl* of Biblical Aramaic still behaves syntactically as a nominal. We fnd, however, one instance where a *qaṭṭīl* adjective derived from a dynamic verb inherits the argument structure of the source verb (2):

(1) *malḵū … dī ṯi-šlaṭ b-ḵol* kingdom�indet.s dep 3fs-rule.pc in-all *ʾarʿ-ā*

land-det.s

'A kingdom … that will rule in the whole earth.' (Dan 2: 39)


'And mighty kings were over Jerusalem, and ruling in all Beyond-the-River, and tribute, custom and toll were paid to them.' (Ezra 4: 20)

The syntagm *malḵīn … šallīṭīn b-ḵōl ʿăḇār nahărā* 'kings ruling in all Beyond-the-River' in (2) replicates the argument structure of the fnite verb *šlṭ* 'have power, rule'. Both the derivation of a *qaṭṭīl* form (here *šallīṭīn*) from a fairly dynamic verb and its syntactic usage are atypical for Biblical Aramaic and foreshadow the career of *qaṭṭīl* in Middle Aramaic, which is represented in this paper by Classical Syriac�

## **3.** *\*Qaṭṭīl* **in Syriac**

We have searched for *qaṭṭīl* tokens in the *Compendious Syriac Dictionary* (CSD, J. Payne Smith 1903) and *Peshitta* New Testament (PNT). In CSD, we have found some 180 *qaṭṭīl* lexemes whose existence seems reliable. Of these, we have found some 64 in the PNT. We have found 207 vocalised words following the *qaṭṭīl* pattern in R. Payne Smith's (1879–1901) *Thesaurus Syriacus*  (TS), Sokolof's (2009) *Syriac Lexicon* (SL) and CAL (the online *Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon*) alongside CSD. Our principal source is CSD, where the tokens are either independent lemmata, such as *šappīr* 'fair, good, lovely' (CSD, 590), or nominal forms in verb entries, usually labelled 'part. adj.', e.g. *sallīq* (CSD, 379).

Unfortunately, these data cannot be accepted uncritically. The identifcation, in CSD or TS, of a form as *qaṭṭīl* rather than *qṭīl* is not always reliable. Note that J. Payne Smith employs the term 'part. adj.' in verb entries, both for *qaṭṭīl* and *qṭīl* tokens,16 while most *qṭīl* tokens she labels as 'pass. part'. In verb entries of CSD, the meanings of nominal forms are not uniformly provided. Furthermore, we have been unable to fnd textual evidence for several *qaṭṭīl* tokens that appear in the dictionaries�

### **3.1. From Property Adjective to Verbal Adjective**

A major diference between Biblical Aramaic and the Syriac NT regarding *qaṭṭīl* is that in PNT *qaṭṭīl* is formed not only from unambiguous property roots, but also from stative and dynamic verbal roots. Some of the examples are ʾ*abbīḏ* 'lost, gone astray', ʾ*azzīl* '(is) gone', ʾ*attī* 'having come', ʿ*allīl* 'having entered', *dabbīq '*close to, cleaving', *daḥḥīl* 'fearing', *dammīḵ* 'asleep', *naḥḥīṯ* 'having gone down', *tammīh* 'amazed'� It stands to reason that these are used almost exclusively as **predicates** rather than independent nominals or attributive adjectives. Due to their semantics, they cannot be easily employed independently in specifcally nominal

<sup>16</sup> I�e� for *qṭīl* tokens with non-trivial meanings, in particular those derived from intransitive verbs.

syntactic functions. This means they were formed in order to serve as predicates in the frst place, by analogy with the predicative use of the property adjective *qaṭṭīl*. Further research is required to establish the relative chronology of *qaṭṭīl* derivations, i�e� to answer the question which verbs (in terms of the four Vendlerian classes)<sup>17</sup> were the frst to form purely predicative *qaṭṭīl* forms� We speculate, however, that it was stative verbs that were the frst to produce them, by analogy with property adjectives:

```
ḥakkīm ʾat 'You are wise' > tammīh ʾat 'You are amazed'
```
The shared feature of the two kinds of clauses is as follows. Both were thought of as **stative**, while *tammīh ʾat* was also **resultative**, i�e�, it encoded a **stative** situation that was thought of as 'having come about' rather than a **property** that 'always' existed of itself�

(3)


'All those who were listening to him **were amazed**�'

<sup>17</sup> I�e�, stative verbs, atelic verbs, telic events (accomplishments), and punctual situations (achievements).

b. *ʾāmr-ā l-ęh ʾa<sup>n</sup> tṯā hāy mār-<sup>y</sup> lā* say�sc-3fs to-3ms woman voc lord-1s neg *dawlā l-āḵ w-ḇęrā ʿammīqā* bucket to-2ms and-well deep Greek original: *leg-ei aut-o e gyn-e*  say-prs.act.3s pron.pers-dat.ms art.nom.fs woman-nom.s *Kyri-e, oute antlem-a ech-eis* lord-voc.ms and�not bucket-acc.ns have-prs.act.2s *kai to phrear est-in bathy* and art.ns well�nom.s be-prs.act.3s deep�nom.ns (Jn 4:11 BYZ) 'The woman told him, My lord, you do not even have a bucket, and **the well is deep***.*' c� *yawsep̄ dēn baʿl-āh kēʾnā-h wā* pn top husband-3fs honest-pst.3ms Greek original (Mt 1:19 BNT): *Ioseph de ho aner aut-es,*  pn.nom top art.def.ms husband-nom.s pron.pers-gen.fs *dikai-os on* righteous-nom.ms be.ptcp.prs.act.nom.ms

'Joseph, her husband, **was a decent man**�'

d� *lḇūš-ęh ḥewwār-h wā* clothes-3ms white-pst.3ms Greek original (Mt 28:3 BNT): *en de to endym-a* be.impf.act.3s top art.nom.ns garment-nom.ns *aut-ou leuk-on* pron.pers-gen.ms white-nom.ns

'His clothes **were white**�'

The predicate of (3a) has the same morphological shape *qaṭṭīl* as the predicate of (3b) and the same surface syntax as those of (3c) and (3d), while the predicative adjectives in (3c) and (3d) have morphological patterns other than *qaṭṭīl*. In (3a), *w-ṯammīhīn-<sup>h</sup> waw* (semantically, a stative-resultative predicate) translates the Greek fnite (Imperfect) form *eksistanto*, while the *qaṭṭīl*-predicate of (3b), *w-ḇęrā ʿammīqā* (semantically, a property adjective), translates the Greek predicative adjective (with the present-tense verbal copula) *estin bathy* 'is deep'. In (3c) and (3d), Syriac predicative property adjectives translate Greek predicative property adjectives (note that in 1d the Syriac adjective is in the determined state).

### **3.2. From Stative-Resultative to Dynamic Perfect**

What one observes in Syriac is a verbalisation stage of *qaṭṭīl* even more advanced than that of a stative-resultative predicate: *qaṭṭīl* lexemes formed from dynamic roots **can take the kinds of verbal arguments and adjuncts that exclude a stativeresultative interpretation**� This means these forms are no longer stative-resultative nominal predicates but rather **dynamic verbal forms**. The contexts show that these verbal forms encode **past** events and can express a perfect or anterior. They could be used as translations of past tense forms of the Greek NT texts�

Consider the following examples, which come both from translations and original texts:


#### *makrothen hek-asin*

far�away come�perf-act.3pl

'And if I let them go home while they are fasting, they will faint on the way, for some of them **have come from far away**�'


get.out.prf.ptcp.act-acc.ns

'She went to her house and found that her daughter was lying upon the bed and that her demon **had gone** out of her�'

(6) *w-īṯeḇ-<sup>w</sup> ba-sp̄ī<sup>n</sup> ttā w-ʾāṯ-ēn-h waw* and-sit�sc-3mpl on-boat and-go�ptcp-3mpl-pst.3mpl *l-ʿeḇrā la-ḵp̄arnaḥum w-ḥešk-aṯ-h wāṯ* to-crossing to-gn and-be.dark.sc-3fs-pst.3fs *l-āh w-lā ʾattī-h wā lwāṯ-hon* to-3fs and-neg come�qattīl.ms-pst.3ms towards-3mpl *Yešūʿ* pn Greek original (Jn 6:17 BNT): *kai emba-nt-es eis ploi-on* and get�into�aor-ptcp.act-nom.mpl into ship-acc.ns *erch-onto peran tes thalass-es* come-impf.med.3pl on�the�other�side art.gen.fs sea-gen.fs *eis Kapharnaoum. kai skoti-a ede*  into gn and darkness-nom.fs already *egegon-ei kai oupo elelyth-ei*  take�place�pluprf-act.3s and not�yet come�pluperf-act.3s *pros aut-ous ho Iesous* to pron-acc.mpl art.nom.ms PN

> 'And they sat in a boat and were going to Capernaum. And it became dark, and **Jesus had not** (yet) **come** to them�'


'(Anastasius) was unwilling to meet him (Qawad) in battle, that blood might not be shed on both sides; but he sent him money by the hand of Rufnus, to whom he gave orders that, if Qawad was on the frontier and **had not yet crossed over** into the Greek territory, he should give him the money and send him away.' (JS 46)



'And the wall of Batnan-Qastra in Serug, which **had collapsed** into ruin, was completely rebuilt and restored by the decision of Eulogius, the governor of Edessa.' (JS 83)

(9) *ʾap̄en lā ʾamīṯ-ęh b-mawtā* though neg kill�sc.3ms-acc.3ms with-death *kyānāyā ʾellā b-haw da-ḥṭīṯā* natural but with-dist.ms dep-sin *mayyīṯ-h wā*

die�qattīl.ms-pst.3ms

Though he (God) did not kill him (Adam) with natural death, he **had** still **died** a death of sin (IshGn 064).<sup>18</sup>

In (4) *men ruḥqā ʾattīʾīn*, the adjunct *men ruḥqā* 'from afar' corroborates a dynamic past interpretation of *ʾattīʾīn*� The same applies to (5) *w-nappīq mennāh šę*ʾ*ḏāh.* In (6), the two Greek pluperfects (*skotia ede egegonei* and *oupo eleluthei... ho Iesous)* were rendered diferently in Syriac. The frst one was translated with Preterite+*hwā* (*ḥeškaṯ-h wāṯ lāh*), the second by *qaṭṭīl*+*hwā*  (*lā* ʾ*attī-h wā*)*.* This is because Syriac *ḥaššīḵ* denoted a property with the senses 'obscure, under a cloud, in darkness, ignorant'

<sup>18</sup> I.e., Mar Ishodad of Merv believes that Adam had died a spiritual death of sin even before he left the Garden of Eden.

(CSD, 162), and, therefore, would be inappropriate in this text as a rendering of a dynamic event. In (7), *wa-ʿḏakkēl lā ʿabbīr l-ḇēṯ rh omāyē*, besides the endpoint of crossing, there is a phasal particle *ʿḏakkēl* 'not yet', well known for its propensity to combine with a perfect. In (8), *šūrā … d-nappīl-h wā ... kullęh ʾeṯbannī*, the form *nappīl-h wā* clearly has an eventive pluperfect force. In (9), *b-haw da-ḥṭīṯā mayyīṯ-h wā*, the predicate is clearly dynamic�

Thus, *qaṭṭīl* predicates in (4)–(9) are not stative but rather past dynamic (eventive, fentive). Semantically, they are perfects, not resultatives, as we consider (with mainstream functional typology) the resultative to be a sub-class of stative situations but the perfect to encode dynamic situations.<sup>19</sup>

So, the Syriac evidence for dynamic *qaṭṭīl* points to a 'mature' Perfect, which is employed as both an absolute and a relative tense: i.e., in narrative, a *qaṭṭīl*-Perfect has a reference point diferent from speech time. In other words, our Syriac *qaṭṭīl*-Perfect can function as both a shifter (or 'deictic') perfect and as a pluperfect� 20 In the latter case, it may have an appropriate marker -*(h)wā*, <sup>21</sup> which, as we have seen, may be used with all kinds of nominal predicates in Syriac�

Symmetrically, another innovative construction, *qṭīl lęh*, provides both active perfect and analytical pluperfect for Syriac transitive verbs:<sup>22</sup>

<sup>19</sup> We use small caps for linguistic universals, such as perfect or passive�

<sup>20</sup> Or as a verb form employed to introduce 'nachgeholte Information' [recovered information], to use an elegant term of Harald Weinrich (1985).

<sup>21</sup> It anticipates relative tense markers in Modern Aramaic, which are etymologically related to this -*hwā*�

<sup>22</sup> See also numerous examples in Bar-Asher Siegal (2014) and Coghill (2016, 306–27).

(10) *hānnā dēn meddem da-snē lā* prox.ms top something dep-wicked neg *ʿḇīḏ l-ęh* do.qtīl.ms to-3ms Greek original (Lk 23:41 BNT): *hout-os de oud-en atop-on*  pron.dem-nom.ms top pron.indef-acc.ns wrong-acc.ns *epraks-en* do�aor-act.3s

'But this one has done nothing bad'


*proteron hoti prosait-es en* earlier that beggar-nom.ms be.impf.3s *e-leg-on: ouch hout-os est-in* impf-say-3pl not pron.dem-nom.ms be-prs.3s *ho kathe-men-os kai prosait-on* art.nom.ms sit-ptcp.prs-nom.ms and beg-ptcp.prs.nom.ms

'His neighbours and those who **had formerly seen** him begging said, "Isn't this the [same man] who used to sit and beg?"'

These sentences should not be interpreted as passive, since the agents are given prominence by special particles (in both the originals and translations) and by the context.23 The fact that corresponding verbal forms in the Greek original are active transitive further supports this.

Thus, one could surmise that Classical Syriac might have had a Perfect tense roughly comparable with German or Italian� This Perfect would have had two shapes depending on the respective verb's value of transitivity. In the individual Syriac corpora we have perused, the dynamic *qaṭṭīl* is predominantly derived from intransitive telic verbs of motion, though even in such verbs it is rare. The data of our sample are as follows:


<sup>23</sup> In terms of pragmatics, passive is demotion (most often, deletion) of agent�

<sup>24</sup> Aphrahat 10:194, 14:270, 19:360.

ʾ*bd* 'perish' (4 tokens), *npq* 'go out' (1 token). Total: 9 tokens� 25


The number of dynamic *qaṭṭīl* tokens in each of the individual corpora is small, but, throughout the nine centuries of Syriac literature examined for this study, the *qaṭṭīl* pattern tends to express the perfect consistently in the context of essentially the same tightly-knit group of telic/punctual verbs. In more detailed terms of lexical semantics, these are, for the most part, either verbs of motion or patientive intransitives, such as ʾ*bd* 'perish', *myt* 'die', and *ḥrb* 'get ruined'. This fact remains to be explained.

<sup>25</sup> Mt 18:11; Mk 7:30, 8:3, 11:20; Lk 8:30, 15:6, 15:9, 19:10; Jn 6:17, 11:19.

<sup>26</sup> Eusebius 52, 56, 148, 149, 210, 317.

<sup>27</sup> JS 46, 83�

<sup>28</sup> IshGn 64, 123, 127, 188; IshEx-Dt 8, 25, 67, 109, 117, 137.

<sup>29</sup> BH 1:331, 1:411, 2:783, 3:23, 3:71, 3:311, 3:317, 4:429.

Moreover, throughout our corpus, the grammatical reading of individual deverbal tokens of *qaṭṭīl* still depends on the lexical semantics of the respective verb.30 For example, in Syriac, *dammīḵ* invariably denotes 'he is asleep' (not 'he fell/has fallen asleep'). It expresses a state contemporaneous with a reference point, as observed in (12):


top impf-sleep-3s

<sup>30</sup> As against Turoyo, where all fnite *qatəl* forms have the perfective aspectual reading. Thus, *daməx* is 'he slept', 'he fell asleep', see below.

'And look, a great commotion arose in the sea, so that the boat was being covered by waves. But he, Jesus, **was asleep.'**

The predicate *dammīḵ-h wā* is a translation of the Greek Imperfect *e-katheud-en* 'was sleeping/asleep.'

Most importantly, this is the only token of *dammīḵ* in the standard text of the Peshitta for both OT and NT.31 Otherwise, in this corpus, the situation 'be asleep' is rendered by the adjective *dmeḵ* for the Present (e.g., Mark 5:39 PNT) and *dmeḵh wā* for the Past (e.g., Acts 12:6 PNT). It stands to reason that the morphological form of the Syriac adjective *dmeḵ* is a refex of the archaic pattern \**qaṭil*, no longer productive in Central Semitic (see Sections 1.1. and 1.2 above). Thus, *dammīḵ* is an inner-Syriac innovation that had not existed in earlier Aramaic� The same applies to *nappīq* and ʾ*attī*. By contrast, ṭuroyo *daməx* corresponding to Syriac *dammīḵ* expresses 'he fell asleep', while *damixo*, the erstwhile determined form, means 'asleep', e�g� *ono damíxo-no* 'I am asleep'�

### **3.3. Summary**

In sum, throughout our Syriac sample, *qaṭṭīl* derivations of intransitive **telic** verbs have the force of the perfect (or a pluperfect when used as relative tense with a reference point in the past in narrative). Yet, their use to express these grammatical meanings is not obligatory, because *qṭal* also appears with the same functions in texts. Consider three Syriac renderings of the same Greek verse, Jn 6:17:<sup>32</sup>

<sup>31</sup> The manuscript tradition has preserved a few more occurrences of *dammīḵ* where the standard text has *dmeḵ* or *dāmeḵ* (e.g., Act 12:6).

<sup>32</sup> See Kiraz (1996, 100f.)

	- (PNT) *w-lā ʾattī-h wā*

and-neg come.qattīl.ms-pst.3ms

*w-iṯeḇ<sup>w</sup> ba-sp̄ī<sup>n</sup> ttā w-ʾāṯēnh waw l-ʿeḇrā la-Ḵp̄arnaḥum mettol d-ḥeškaṯ-h wāṯ lāh w-lā* ʾ*eṯā-h wā lwāṯhon Yešūʿ* (S).

(S) *w-lā ʾeṯā-h wā*

and-neg come.pst.3ms-pst.3ms

*w-iṯeḇ<sup>w</sup> ba-sp̄ī<sup>n</sup> ttā w-ʾāṯēnh waw l-ʿeḇrā d-yamṯā la-Ḵp̄arnaḥum w-ḥeškaṯ-h wāṯ lāh w-lā* ʾ*eṯā lwāṯhon Yešū*ʿ (C).

(C) *w-lā ʾeṯā*

and-neg come.pst.3ms

'And they sat in a boat and were going to Capernaum. And it became dark, and **Jesus had not** (yet) **come** to them�'

In PNT, the 'pluperfect' sense is rendered by the *qaṭṭīl* form, while S uses the *qṭal*, and C uses the *qṭal-wā* form�

In the Classical Syriac corpus, *qaṭṭīl* need not be restricted to derivations of telic verbs to express the perfect. Thus, *tammīh* sometimes has the meaning 'he became amazed', and even *yabbīš* in certain contexts seems to express 'it has dried up' (cf. Mk 11: 20 PNT). These facts will hopefully be dealt with in the course of our further research.

## **4. The Development from an Assumed Middle Aramaic Ancestor of Turoyo to the Turoyo of Today**

The transition from the Middle Aramaic past-tense repertoire to the Neo-Aramaic repertoire of Turoyo seems broadly straightforward� The new Perfect (*qaṭṭīl*) takes root and its use increases exponentially, and fnally ousts the old Preterite (*qṭal*) to become the basic Past tense. This follows the well-known typological pathway, which is found, for example, in Western European languages like French, certain dialects of Italian and most of contemporary German�

Our aim is to trace the development of the Turoyo verbal system in as much detail as possible. This study is still in progress. For the moment, we have undertaken a comparison of *qaṭṭīl* formations found in CSD with approximately one hundred Turoyo verbs of Aramaic origin that have *qaṭəl*-Preterites� It stands to reason that Proto-Turoyo was not identical to Edessan Syriac, yet we have no better starting point for a diachronic study of Turoyo than Syriac.

We have found around 50 overlaps between the two groups of verbs. Some 50 intransitive Syriac verbs with *qaṭṭīl* attested in CSD have direct correspondences in Turoyo and have a *qaṭəl*-Preterite, while the rest of them (i�e�, approximately 130 verbs with *qaṭṭīl*-derivations) are not in our Verb Glossary of Turoyo and, therefore, most probably have not survived into this language.

The surviving verbs can be neatly divided into two semantic groups: motion and state-and-property (including body posture). In the table below, we present 14 Turoyo motion verbs with Aramaic etymology out of 50 in total. The leftmost column of the table provides glosses of Syriac verbs whose *qaṭṭīl* forms stand in the next column. In the Turoyo column, we adduce special glosses for Turoyo when the meanings do not match the Syriac ones and we give the Preterite forms of the etymologically related Turoyo verbs.


Table 1: Syriac and Turoyo Correspondences of \**Qaṭṭīl*

Also worth mentioning is the Syriac verb *rkb* 'mount, bestride, ride (a horse)'. CSD (541) only mentions *rḵīḇ* and not the expected \**rakkīḇ*. Cognate verbs in Turoyo include *raku/roku* 'to get on, to mount (vehicle, horse *ʿal*)'; *raxu/roxu* 'ride, mount (horse)'. Note also *lawišo* 'wearing, clothed', while CSD (235) records *lḇīš* rather than \**labbīš*�

Thus, as far as the correspondences of geminated R<sup>2</sup> -stops in Turoyo go, we have *ʾattī* vs� *aṯi*, *ṭabbīʿ* vs� *ṭawəʿ, ʿabbīr* vs� *ʿabər*� Additional relevant examples from our comparative list include *yattīḇ* 'sitting, seated' (CSD, 198f.) vs. *yatu* 'he sat down', *sabbīʿ '*full, satisfed' (CSD, 358) vs. *sawǝʿ* 'he became full/satiated', and *rabbīʿ* (CSD, 526: "pass. part." of *rḇaʿ '*lie down, couch; recline') vs� *rawǝʿ* 'it lied down, rested (animals)', *rakkīḵ* 'soft, gentle' (CSD 540) vs. *rakəx* 'it became soft',<sup>33</sup> *rattīḵ* 'fervent, enthusiastic' (CSD 552) vs. *raṯəx* 'to seethe'. The behaviour of second radical stops vs. spirants appears to be unpredictable.34 This means that, e�g�, *aṯi* is not an immediate refex (or a direct descendent) of *ʾattī*� The implication is that the *qaṭəl-*Preterite was derived directly from the 'new' (Neo-Aramaic) root at a certain stage of development, and in no instance is it a continuation of the corresponding Syriac *qaṭṭīl* form�

Our preliminary conclusions are as follows.

We do not know whether *qaṭṭīl* became an infectional form that was available for every intransitive verb in the ancestor of Turoyo. (This is a possibility we have been entertaining for a long time in the course of our research.) Due to a lack of adequate Syriac textual corpora at our disposal, it is difcult to identify textual examples even for the 180 *qaṭṭīl* lexemes recorded in CSD�

Since, phonologically, numerous tokens of the Turoyo Preterite *qaṭəl* and the deverbal adjective *qaṭilo* do not go back directly to the corresponding forms attested in Syriac, we believe that all the infectional forms of Turoyo verbs were derived at a certain period synchronically from the new roots, whether of Aramaic or Arabic origin. This means that we can neither prove nor refute the existence of a Middle Aramaic stage at which a productive fnite form of *qaṭṭīl* of intransitive verbs existed� Finally, the diachronic background for plosive or spirant realisation of etymological stops in Turoyo has to be studied in its own right, as a step forward in the reconstruction of Proto-Turoyo.

## **Abbreviations**

### **Bibliographical Abbreviations**

Aphrahat *The Homilies of Aphraates, The Persian Sage.* Edited by W. Wright� Vol� 1� The Syriac Text. 1869. London: Williams and Norgate�

<sup>33</sup> On this verb, see Furman and Loesov (2016, 41).

<sup>34</sup> See also Jastrow (2015, 240).


### **Glossing Abbreviations not in the Leipzig Glossing List**


## **References**

Arnold, Werner. 1999. 'Das Verbum in den neuwestaramäischen Dialekten'. In *Tempus und Aspekt in den Semitischen Sprachen: Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft*, edited by Norbart Nebes, 1–8. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag�


<sup>———. 2006.</sup> *Lehrbuch des Neuwestaramäischen.* Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag�



<sup>———. 1993.</sup> *Neumandäische Texte Im Dialekt von Ahwāz.* Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz�

## **TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF POSSESSORS AND EXPERIENCERS IN NEO-ARAMAIC: NON-CANONICAL SUBJECTS AS RELICS OF A FORMER DATIVE CASE**

*Paul M. Noorlander*

## **Introduction1**

Predicative possessors and impersonal experiencer constructions are encoded by the dative preposition *l*- across Semitic languages, in addition to Aramaic, Hebrew (e.g. Berman 1982) and Syrian Arabic (e.g. Cowell 1964; Al-Zahre and Boneh 2010, 250). Like most non-European languages, Semitic languages do not have a designated possession verb. Predicative possessors equivalent to English *have* are based on locational expressions of prepositional possessor (Stassen 2009), as illustrated for Hebrew in (1a-b) below.

(1) Israeli Hebrew

predicative possessor

a� *yeš le-Dan sefer* there�is to-Dan book.ms

'**Dan has** a book.'

<sup>1</sup> Preparation of this article was made possible by funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

b. *yeš l-i sefer* there�is to-me book '**I have** a book.'

Predicative possessors are originally intransitive constructions where the existential element agrees or used to agree with the possessee� It is a common phenomenon, sometimes termed 'havedrift' (Stassen 2009), that predicative possession undergoes transitivisation by assimilation of its morphosyntax to that of more typical and frequent agent-patient verb constructions because of their matching semantic-pragmatic properties (Stassen 2009, 208–43). While the agent-like possessor is still prepositional, the possessee has grammaticalised to a full-fedged object in colloquial Israeli Hebrew. It can be marked diferentially by the object marker *et*, for example:


Similarly, the preposition *l*- expresses the experiencer in impersonal experiencer verb constructions, as illustrated for Israeli Hebrew in (1e-f). The adjective or verb denoting the mental state is non-referential ms., while the subject-like experiencer is introduced by *l-*�

#### impersonal experiencers

e� *kar le-Dan* cold�ms to-Dan

'**Dan** is cold�'

f� *kar l-i* cold�ms to-me '**I** am cold�'

The same preposition can also mark so-called external possessors� The possessor is not dependent on the nominal possessee itself but is expressed as an afectee part of the verbal predicate, for example:

external possessor


Such prepositional arguments can also be optionally added to co-refer to the subject with various semantic nuances such as (1i) below. Such subject-coreferential datives are also known as ethic or ethical datives (*dativus ethicus*) in Semitic linguistics<sup>2</sup> �

<sup>2</sup> See Fassberg (2018) for a recent survey of its use in Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic with ample references�

#### subject co-referential dative


'The kids (**upped** and) ran away.' (ibid. 51)

All of these constructions are, of course, semantically and formally related to the expression of the recipient of ditransitive constructions in denoting often highly animate, typically human afectees (e.g. Berman 1989, 49; Næss 2007, 185–208).

Such subject-like prepositional afectees have been argued to be a common trait of Northwest Semitic (e.g. Pat-El 2018). Both full nominals and pronouns are marked prepositionally in all of the constructions illustrated above. Most Semitic languages lost case infection presumably through phonetic erosion and other forces of change such as increasing fxation of word order. Thus instead of case declensions Neo-Semitic languages use zeromarked nouns and independent pronouns as the default citation form. They developed diferential marking strategies of defnite nominals, including cross-referencing through pronominal afxes.<sup>3</sup>

Typically, the predicative possessor and the experiencer of impersonal experiencer verb constructions are marked by the same preposition *l-* and its allomorphs in Late Antique Aramaic languages such as Syriac. A key diference in Syriac is the optional use of additional 'pronominal copies'. That is, prepositional person markers that cross-reference a co-nominal. In (2a) below, for example, the prepositional possessor (*l-ḡaḇrå ḥaḏ*) is referred back to by a prepositional person marker (*l-eh*). The same holds for the experiencer in (2b).

<sup>3</sup> See Khan (1988); Kapeliuk (1989); Rendsburg (1991); Goldenberg (1997); Rubin (2005).

(2) Classical Syriac


'A certain man had two sons (lit� Him were two sons).' (Luke 15:11, *Curetonian*)


'The men were grieved and very angry (Them grieved itF and angered itM).' (Genesis 34:7, *Pšiṭta*)

The possessor is stripped of its prepositional marking and becomes a zero-marked noun or pronoun, when it undergoes topicalisation. Its grammatical function as possessor or experiencer has to be resumed by the prepositional person marker such as *l-eh* in the following examples�


d� *malka… kery-aṯ l-eh saggi* king�ms grieved-3fs to-him much

> 'The king (who judged Daniel) felt very sorry (lit� Him grieved itF ).' (*Aphrahat* XXI: 411.20)

Such agreement markers emerge out of topicalisation constructions through increasing obligatorisation (e.g. Givón 1976; Lehmann 1988, 62; cf. Diem 2012; Mor and Pat-El 2016) and accordingly transitivisation (see above). That is, the clause-initial position without prepositional marking is favoured for discourse topics. This position grammaticalises for 'non-canonical' subjects on the model of the 'canonical' subject in other clauses (i.e. transitivitisation) where sentence-initial position of the subject has become the default position. The remaining cross-referencing prepositional pronoun becomes efectively an infectional crossindex like verbal afxes.

Neo-Aramaic languages have a set of person markers generally known as the L-sufxes that historically go back to such dative person markers based on the preposition *l-*� In a similar fashion as (2c-d) above, these L-sufxes are used to express the predicative possessor and impersonal experiencer, for example in the dialects of Tur ʿAbdin, i.e. Turoyo (3a-b), and Christian dialect of Urmia, i�e� C� Urmi, (4a-b):

(3) Turoyo (Kfaerze, SE Turkey; Ritter 1967–1971)


(4) C*.* Urmi (NW Iran; Khan 2016, transcription modifed)


This article is a comparative survey of the morphological properties of such possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic, concentrating on North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) and Central Neo-Aramaic (i.e. Turoyo and Mlaḥsó). Some comparative remarks concerning Western Neo-Aramaic will also be made. The data are mostly from NENA and Turoyo grammatical descriptions4 and feldwork I conducted personally in the diaspora

<sup>4</sup> For ease of comparison and accessibility, the various styles of transcription have been made uniform as follows. The reduced centralised vowel ([ɪ] ~ [ə] (~ [ɯ])) sometimes represented as <i>, <ı>, <ɨ>, <ĭ>, or <ə> is represented by the single grapheme <ə>.The voiceless and voiced interdental fricatives are marked by <θ> and <ð>, respectively, (as against <ṯ>, respectively, <ḏ> in some sources), and the pharyngeal and glottal stop by <ʕ> and <ʾ> (against half rings <ʿ> and <ʾ> in some sources). Post-velar unaspirated /k̭/, in for example C. Urmi (Khan 2016), corresponding with /q/ in other dialects, is represented by <q> for simplicity's sake. Moreover, I have taken the liberty to adapt Prym and Socin (1881) and Ritter's (1967–1971) detailed transcription of Turoyo to a phonological transcription that matches NENA more closely like that of Jastrow (1992). Emphasis and glossing are mine in examples, unless stated otherwise�

or in collaboration with G. Khan and/or D. Molin in Iraq<sup>5</sup> and with D. Molin in Jerusalem. There are notable diferences and resemblances across Neo-Aramaic dialects, some of which go back to pre-modern Aramaic.

As the term used for these person markers already suggests, the L-sufxes are no longer prepositional in nature but have become infectional sufxes. While their use in these constructions is still reminiscent of a formerly dative case, synchronically, they are no longer prepositional but serve to cross-index arguments in the clause. Obligatorisation of such cross-indexing is a well-known feature of the 'canonical' subject relation (e.g. Keenan 1976; Onishi 2001) contrary to objects, the marking of which remains conditioned by discourse-referential properties (e.g. Haig 2018a). Do these L-sufxes express a 'non-canonical' subject? To what extent have these L-sufxes become obligatory? And to what extent do they still interact with prepositional arguments? As we shall see, dialects have diferent strategies and not all of them operate on the same level as (2c-d) above.

First, we shall briefy review verbal infection and how the recipient is expressed in ditransitive constructions. These fndings are compared with the morphosyntax of predicative possessors and (impersonal) experiencer verb constructions in both subgroups of Neo-Aramaic.

## **1. A Synopsis of Argument Marking in NENA and Turoyo**

### **1.1. Role Reference Inversion**

Verbal person marking in NENA and Turoyo is considerably complex and cannot be treated in full detail here.<sup>6</sup> Historically, verbal infection goes back to participial constructions that

<sup>5</sup> Data collection in Iraq was made possible by GCRF funding.

<sup>6</sup> Overviews of the morphosyntax in NENA and Turoyo can be found in Khan (2010), Coghill (2016, 55–101), Waltisberg (2016) and Noorlander (2018b, forthcoming).

combined with clitic person markers. Two sets of person markers are used. They will be referred to as the E-sufxes and L-sufxes, which are respectively diachronically enclitic pronouns and participial agreement (E-sufxes) and prepositional pronouns based on *l* (L-sufxes). These are attached to the following infectional bases. The imperfective base is derived from the active participle and the perfective base is derived from a verbal adjective that expressed result states. I will refer to themas *qaṭəl-*  (< \**qāṭel-*) and *qṭil-* respectively after the infection of stem I strong verbs. The NENA *qaṭəl-*base corresponds to Turoyo *qoṭəl-*, where \**ā* has shifted to /o/ in open syllables. A so-called neuter class of mainly intransitive verbs in Turoyo follows the pattern C1 *a*C2 *i*C3 in the perfective, such as *damixo* 'she slept' for *dmx*� Historically, this goes back to a verbal adjective with a geminate second consonant, e�g� \**dammīḵ* 'asleep', which should not be confused with NENA *qaṭəl-*�

Transitive clauses show a type of role reference inversion<sup>7</sup> conditioned by these infectional bases (Noorlander forthcoming). The roles that the E-sufxes and L-sufxes refer to are diferent depending whether they attach to the imperfective or perfective base. This can be seen, for instance, in the following examples from Amidya (NW Iraq). While the L-sufxes mark the object in the *qaṭəl-*base for the verb *šmʾ* 'hear', they mark the agent in the *qṭil-*base, and *vice versa* for the E-series�


ind-hearIPFV-they woman

'They hear a woman�'

<sup>7</sup> Or "agreement inversion" (Doron and Khan 2012). See also Polotsky (1979, 209; 1991, 266; 1994, 95), Hoberman (1989:96, 113), Mengozzi (2002b, 44–5), Noorlander (2018b, 119–23, 129, 408–10).

b. *k-šamʾ-i-la.* ind-hearIPFV-they-her 'They hear **her**�'

(6) Perfective (J� Amidya, NW Iraq; Hoberman ibid.)


hearPFV-her-they

'They heard **her**�'

Prominent objects are marked diferentially via cross-indexing and/or prepositional marking. The defnite object in (7) below, for instance, is marked consistently by the preposition (*ʾəl*)*l-* and triggers agreement throughout the constructional *qaṭəl-*/*qṭil*-split� In (7a), however, the L-sufx attached to *qaṭəl-* cross-indexes the object, whereas the E-sufx attached to *qṭil-* does so in in (7b).


In addition, agent focus can be expressed optionally by means of the preposition (*e)l-* combined with the agreement through L-sufxes in Turoyo. The prepositional marking of the object and the agent are both optional. Additional cross-indexing of a prominent object is also optional in Turoyo.<sup>8</sup> Contrast (8a) with (8b) below. Type (8b) is peculiar to the dialect of Raite (Waltisberg 2016, 186f.). Both can also be lacking altogether, as illustrated in (8c). The L-sufx that expresses the agent, however, is obligatory, cf. (8d) and (8e) below. Hence optional ergative prepositional marking is always accompanied by an agent L-sufx as illustrated in (8c).

(8) Turoyo (SE Turkey)


'He does not fnd **his brother**' (Raite, ibid. 97/113)

<sup>8</sup> See Waltisberg (2016, 189–90) for more examples.


Thus both the nominal and verbal marking of objects is conditioned by the discourse salience of the argument. The verbal agreement with the agent, however, is obligatory. The prepositional marking of the agent is optional only in the preterite in Turoyo.

### **1.3. Semi-Clitic L-Suffixes and Ditransitive Verbs**

The L-sufxes show lingering features of their enclitic origin (Doron and Khan 2012, 231). First of all, they allow tense morphemes like *-wa-* to intervene, e�g�


pullIPFV-you.ms-pst-me

'YouFS used to pull **me**�'

b. *griš*-*át*-*wa*-*li*  pulledPFV-you.ms-pst-I

'**I** had pulled youFS�'

Secondly, verbs generally only take one object afx. There are a number of dialects, however, that allow a verb to take more than one L-sufx, i.e. to stack L-sufxes. This occurs across the constructional split illustrated above. Thus, the frst L-sufx always marks the (T)heme, i.e. the entity transferred to somebody, and the second marks the (R)recipient role in the *qaṭəl-*base infection. Example (10) illustrates this where the frst L-sufx *-nay* (i�e� *maxzən-+ -lay* → *maxzən-nay*) expresses the T and the second L-sufx *-lux* expresses the R� This is generally only allowed when the T is third person� 9

(10) **C. Marga** (SE Turkey)


'I will show youMS **them**�'

In a number of dialects, a second L-sufx is added to the perfective to express the R. Thus we fnd perfective forms in dialects like C� Marga such as (11) below where the frst L-sufx *-li* (i�e� *mər-* + -*li* → *mər-ri*) marks the A, but the second one, *-lux*, marks the R�

(11) **C. Marga** (SE Turkey)

[V -A -R] *mə́r -ri -lux* saidPFV -I -you.ms 'I told youMS�'

<sup>9</sup> This third person restriction is documented for at least the *lišana deni* dialects J� Dohok (Molin and Noorlander feld notes) and J. Zaxo (Cohen 2012, 163–65), as well as C. Artun (Hertevin, Jastrow 1988, 63).

Moreover, stacking of L-sufxes may occur even when the T is marked by the E-sufxes such as *-a* in (12) below.

(12) **C. Marga** (SE Turkey)


'They betrothed her to him.'

This is also attested for rural dialects in Turoyo (cf. Ritter 1990, 75), for example:


Turoyo, however, prefers an unmarked set of bound person markers10 to express third person Ts11 when both the T and R are bound pronouns, as exemplifed in (13b) below.

<sup>10</sup> These are identical to the third person forms of the copula that historically goes back to bound person markers, e�g� e�g� *ú-dawšo basímo-yo* 'The honey is nice'�

<sup>11</sup> See Jastrow (1985, 137–38), Waltisberg (2016, 296), Noorlander (2018b, 341–45).


'I gave them **it**M (the milk).' (ibd., 75/375)

In addition, a prepositional indirect object construction is available to all persons as well as all types of full nominals. Various dialect-dependent prepositions are used to mark the R independently of the verb. The respective preposition will vary signifcantly across as well as within dialects. Variants of the preposition (*ʾəl*)*l*- still occur, such as:



The prepositional recipient NP can trigger additional agreement by L-sufxes on the verb, to illustrate:

b. *Gorgis k-omar-*∅-*re l-áb-baqore* Gorgis prs-sayIPFV-he-them to-the-cowherder�mpl 'Gorgis says **to the cowherders.**' (ibid. 115/164)

Several NENA dialects, however, make use of other (novel) prepositions such as *ṭ*(*l*)*a*-, *ta-*, *ba*(*q*)-, *qa*- etc., for example:

(15) C� Marga (SE Turkey)

*xa mər-re ta-d-ay-xena* one saidPFV-he to-lnk-dem-other

'One said **to the other**�'

Prepositional marking of the R is preferred when the T is a frst or second person pronominal afx attached to the verb and when the R is a full nominal.<sup>12</sup>

Thus, full nominal recipients are generally prepositional� An extra L-sufx can express pronominal recipients in both NENA and Turoyo for both the *qaṭəl-* and *qṭil-*based person marking� When the verb selects an additional L-sufx, it is confned to recipients found throughout the verbal system in Turoyo and several NENA dialects. Third person themes can be marked through a diferent, unmarked set of bound person markers.

When such additional L-sufxes of the frst and second person are added to *qṭil-* in Turoyo, they also express the object of monotransitive verbs, e.g. *grə́š-le-li* 'He pulled **me'**� One cannot say \*\**grə́š*-*li*-*le* for 'I pulled **him**' (e.g. Noorlander 2018b, 340). Generally, NENA dialects do not add such object L-sufxes to *qṭil*forms. Jewish dialects in Iranian Azerbaijan, however, such as Urmi and Salamas and several Christian dialects in SE Turkey such as Bohtan (Ruma; Fox 2009), Haṣṣan (Jastrow 1997; Damsma forthcoming), Umṛa and Jənnet (Noorlander feld notes) use the L-sufxes for objects throughout the *qaṭəl-*/*qṭil*-split, i�e� *grə́š-li-le* 'I pulled **him'**, cf� *garš-ax-le* 'We pull **him**'� 13

<sup>12</sup> See, among others, Hoberman (1989:106–10), Coghill (2010) and Noorlander (2018b, 129, 144–53, 172–74, 186–87, 395–402) for further studies of ditransitives in NENA and Waltisberg (2016) and Noorlander (2018b, 340–45) for Turoyo.

<sup>13</sup> See Noorlander (2018b, 220–30, 381, 429–30; 2019a-b; forthcoming) for a discussion.

The preterite illustrated in (6) above is known as the *šmīʿ l-* or *qṭīl l-*construction in Aramaic studies. Historically, it goes back to the resultative participle and an agent-like argument marked by *l-* � It developed from a stative-resultative to a preterite via a perfect. Views diverge as to its exact interpretation. It has been connected with possessors, experiencers and subject co-referential datives� <sup>14</sup> It lies beyond the scope of this article to address this issue here. It should be noted, however, that, while a connection between these 'non-canonical' subject construction types and the *šmiʿ l-*constructions developing into the preterite seems plausible to me in itself, we shall see that there are important distinctions� Forms like *grəš-li* 'I pulled' consist of L-sufxes that are marked for tense-aspect. They serve as infectional agent sufxes of the preterite based on *qṭil-*. This is a notable distinction from the use of L-sufxes to express afectees, since they are found across diferent infections and not just the *qṭil-*based forms. This diference is observed above for the recipient role but also extensions thereof that are the relics of a formerly dative argument.

## **2. Beneficiaries and Subject Co-referential L-suffixes**

## **2.1. Beneficiaries**

Apart from recipients of ditransitive verbs, L-sufxes can be added to any monotransitive verb to express an additional R-like afectee, as if it were an additional argument of the verb. The Turoyo L-sufx *-lən* in (16), for example, expresses a benefciary in a construction that is clearly derived from ditransitive constructions. The same holds for *-li* in (17) below to illustrate this for *lišana deni* dialects of NENA like J� Dohok:

<sup>14</sup> See, among others, Noorlander (2012, 2018b, 2019a-b, forthcoming) and Coghill (2016).

(16) Turoyo (Midyat, SE Turkey)


'He opened the door **for them**.' (Ritter 1967–1971, 26/237)

(17) J� Dohok (NW Iraq)


'He opened the door **for me.**'

The T-like argument can be pronominalised through the same unmarked set as in ditransitive constructions added to the L-sufx expressing the benefciary in Turoyo, e.g.

(18) Turoyo (Midən, SE Turkey)


<sup>&#</sup>x27;(From a ball of threads) she made **me** a pair of stockings.' (Jastrow 1992, 138.12)

Indeed, both the A and the R-like afectee can be *l-*marked and cross-referenced by L-sufxes� 15 The *l-*marking of the A is pragmatically conditioned (agent/narrow focus), for example:

<sup>15</sup> See also Waltsiberg (2016, 195) and Noorlander (2018b, 345–53; forthcoming).

(19) Turoyo (ʿIwardo, SE Turkey)


### **2.2. Subject Co-referential L-suffixes**

An additional R-like argument expressed by the L-sufx can also denote an interested party, indirect afectee or benefactor that is co-referential with the subject. This is found across the verbal system for many telic dynamic verbs, including



'Let **us** drink some cofee and have **ourselves** a chat for a moment�' (Midyat, ibid. 65/77)

b. imperative:

*xu*<sup>16</sup> *-lux fak̭o* eat�imp -you.ms bite

'Have **yourself**M a bite to eat!' (Midən, ibid. 75/85)

c� perfective:

*damix -ən -ne b-dŭkθo* sleptPFV -they -them in-place�fs 'They slept (lit� **them**) somewhere.' (Midən, 115/97) *xí -le -le fak̭o* atePFV -he -him bite

'He had **himself** a bite to eat.' (Miden, 73/367)

Subject co-referential L-sufxes are not uncommon for verbs of position and motion in Turoyo, e.g.

(21) Turoyo (SE Turkey) a� *yatu -*∅ *-le əšmo* satPFV -he -him a�little '**He** sat down a little.' (Miden, ibid. 77/238) b. *qayəm -*∅ *-le Kandar* rosePFV -he -him Kandar '**Kandar** stood up.' (Midyat, Prym and Socin 1881, 23.29)

<sup>16</sup> *xu-lux* < *xŭl-* 'eat!' + -*lu*x�

c� *saləq -*∅ *-le* ascendedPFV -he -him '**He** went up.' (Midyat, Prym and Socin 1881, 117.3)

Indeed, co-referential L-sufxes have become special (stressed) infectional endings in the high frequency motion verb *ʾzl* 'go' as well as the imperative forms of *ʾθy* 'come' in Turoyo, replacing the original subject encoding. Because of this, the verb *ʾzl* has an irregular and unique infection that is identical to the L-sufxes except for the 2pl� and 3pl�, which take special endings, as shown in (22) below.



Presumably the fnal /*l*/ of the original root *ʾzl* played a role, yielding special endings because of the complete assimilation with the preceding /*z*/. The 3s forms can be enhanced with -*yo*, which mimics its use in ditransitive constructions and creates a penultimate stress as in the frst person *-no* in forms like *k-əzz-i-no*  'I'm going' and *k-əzz-an-o* 'We're going'. Subject co-referential L-sufxes can even be added instead, e.g.

(23) Turoyo

a� *azz -e -le* (\*< *az-* + *-le* + *-le*) wentPFV -he -him '**He** went�' (Raite, Ritter 1967–1971, 95/4) b. *azz -a -la* (\*< *az-* + *-le* + *-le*) wentPFV -she -her '**It**<sup>F</sup> reached�' (Raite,ibid. 95/27)

Importantly, no such conjugations are attested for *ʾzl* in the closely related Central Neo-Aramaic dialect Mlaḥsó� The imperfective and imperative do not take L-sufxes, e.g. ∅-*oz-ina*  'Let's go' and *iz-ewun* 'GoPL!'. The L-sufxes function as subject markers for the preterite, e�g� preterite *azi-le* 'He went', against the perfect *azi-*∅ 'He has gone' (Jastrow 1994, 156). Only the pl� imperative of *ʾsy* 'come' in Mlaḥsó, e.g. *toxun* 'ComePL!' does seem to parallel Turoyo *toxu*�

Subject co-referential datives also occur in NENA dialects. This is, for instance, common in the imperative of motion verbs17, e�g� C� Urmi *ta-lux* 'ComeMS!, *si-lux* 'GoMS!' (Khan 2016II:151–52). It can also combine with other verbs and verbal forms expressing a benefciary, e�g� *šqul-lux xa-dana ʾərba* 'Take a sheep **for yourself**' (ibid. 152), *zon-i-lay mexulta* 'They buy **themselves** food', *zvun-nux xaql-i* 'BuyMS (yourselfMS) my feld!' (Polotsky 1996, 37, transcription modifed).

The verb *ʾzl* is also highly irregular in Christian NENA dialects in SE Turkay and northern Iraq, especially on the Mosul plain� Both the *qaṭəl-*base and *qṭil-*base take L-sufxes as subject coding, as shown in (25) below, including after the 'past convertor' -*wa*, e�g� *k-zá-wa-la* 'She used to go'. Khan (2002, 120) assumes the base *za-* is a reduced form of the infnitive *ʾəzála*� Note also that

<sup>17</sup> See Fassberg (2018: 113, incl. fn. 61) for more examples across NENA dialects�

the imperative of *ʾθy* 'come' has similarly irregular forms infected with L-sufxes. (The imperative of *ʾzl* does not take L-sufxes in this dialect.)


In Western Neo-Aramaic, subject co-referential L-sufxes are readily found in the imperative, e.g. *zubnu-llxun* 'BuyMPL **yourselves** (sth.)!', and are common with the verbs of motion *ʾty* 'come' and *zyl* 'go', and with the change-of-state verbs *qʿy* 'sit' and *ðmx* 'sleep, fall asleep' (Arnold 1990b, 238, cf. Spitaler 1938, 222, §196*o-p*):


'Let **us** sleep for an hour.'

b. *θe -∅ -le* coming -he -him '**He is** coming�'

c� *zli -n -naḥ* went -we -us '**We** went�'

The imperative forms of *ʾθy* 'come' is thus regularly fused with L-sufxes in Western Neo-Aramaic (Arnold 1990b, 173) similarly to Turoyo and NENA dialects on the Mosul Plain:


Subject co-referential datives (or ethical datives) were already common with such intransitive verbs in pre-Modern Aramaic and can be considered an archaic feature in Neo-Aramaic, e.g. *qum leḵ!* 'AriseFS!' *qåm-∅ l-eh* 'He has risen' (see Fassberg 2018; cf. Joosten 1989). Fassberg (2018), following Ullendorf, argues the so-called ethical dative refects the colloquial language. Several scholars claim the ethical dative infuenced the emergence of intransitive verbal forms infected with L-sufxes like *qəm-li* 'I rose' in NENA and Mlaḥsó (Mengozzi 2002b, 44; Halevy 2008; Fassberg 2018, 115). While this is conceivable, one should note that this dative endured as additional L-sufxes in the spoken varieties and did not disappear as a result (*pace* Fassberg 2018, 116). Moreover, where the original dative pronominal is conventionalized as infectional morphemes of the verb, it is attested across the infectional system, and thus not an infectional property of *qṭil*as verbal form *per se*�

## **2.3. Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects:** *əll-***series**

A diferent strategy comparable with subject co-referential L-sufxes exists in the so-called Trans-Zab Jewish dialects of NENA (Mutzaf 2008b). Certain intransitive verbs can take bound person markers derived from the independent set based on the preposition *ʾəll-*, constituting a secondary LL-series. They are impersonal, dummy pronouns belonging to the 3ms. or 3fs. in intransitive predicates functioning like a middle voice marker (Mengozzi 2006). They are not co-referential with the subject but seem to express the telic endpoint, for example:


restedPFV-I-it�f

'I rested (lit� **it**<sup>F</sup> )'


*dmíx-i-lev* sleptPFV-they-it�m

'They slept (lit� **it**M)'

## **3. Morphosyntax of Possessors in Neo-Aramaic**

Possession can be expressed in various ways in Neo-Aramaic languages (Noorlander 2018b, 154–58).<sup>18</sup> The focus here will be on the possessor marking strategies that are related to the original dative preposition *l-*. I should note briefy, however, that possession can be expressed adnominally by means of nominal sufxes, e.g. *bab-i* 'my father', *bab-ax* 'yourFS father'� There also refexes of a historical adnominal linker \**ḏ* that are used to denote possession through nominal annexation, 19 e�g�

(29) Turoyo (SE Turkey)

a� *í-barθo d-ú- malko* the-daughter.fs of-the king�ms 'the king's daughter'

Nouns that are marked by such a linker can also occur independently, for example as the nominal element of the predicate:


'This garden **belonged to** the king', lit� 'was the king's' (Midyat, Ritter 1967–1971, 24/164).

There are independent possessive/genitive pronouns derived from this particle with augmentation, for example:

<sup>18</sup> See Stilo and Noorlander (2015, 473–76) for an areal perspective.

<sup>19</sup> See Gutman (this volume, cf. 2016) for an overview of such constructions.

c� *í-gweto díð- i -yo* the-chees�fs of my -it�is

'The cheese is **mine**!**'** (Midyat, ibid. 22/2).

### **3.1. Possessor Marked by L-suffixes Only**

Predicative possession is based in existential clauses introduced by the dialectal refexes of the existential marker \**ʾiθ*- 'there is/are'. This uninfectable particle is negated by the negator *la*  (in NENA and Turoyo) in a form going back to \**la*-*yθ*- 'there is/are not', and for past tense by the sufx -*wa*, e�g� \**ʾiθ*-*wa*  'there was/were' (in NENA and Turoyo), similarly to verbs. The preverbal TAM-marker *k-* typical for the indicative-durative present is always combined with it in Turoyo, e.g. *k-ito* 'There is'. Together with L-sufxes they express predicative possession, e�g� *kət-li* 'I have'� In Western Neo-Aramaic, the existential particle is reduced to *ī-* or *ū-* before L-sufxes, e.g. *ī-le* 'He has' (Arnold 1990a, 185). The negator is *čū* and the past particle is *wa* preceding the predicate, e�g� *čū-le* 'He has not', *wa ī-le* 'He had'. The L-sufx in Neo-Aramaic marks the possessor which is reminiscent of their use as markers of the recipient (i.e. 'T belongs to R').

The co-referential nominal, however, is usually not prepositional. Thus, (30a) below presents a simple existential predicate in Turoyo. (30b) illustrates the additional L-sufx expressing the R-like possessor without a co-nominal referent. In (30b), the possessor NP *ú-malk-ano* 'this king' is zero-marked but the L-sufx cross-references it, indexing its role as the possessor. The unmarked set of independent pronouns is similarly used to express the possessor, as illustrated in (30c).

(30) Turoyo


The same holds for NENA, as illustrated below for the Christian dialect of Urmi�

	- I exst -me news

'I **have** news.' (ibid. A 1:37)

Possessors are generally also expressed by an L-sufx in Western Neo-Aramaic such as *ī-le* 'He has' and *ī-l* 'I have' in the following examples� The possessor co-nominal itself is zero-marked�


## **3.2. (External) Possessors Marked on Verbs**

3.2.1. The Verb *hwy* 'be', 'become', 'beget'

The predicative possessor constructions are marked for particular tense, aspect and mood (TAM) values like verbs. The verb *hwy*  stands in a suppletive relation to the existential markers to express other TAM categories such as the future tense and subjunctive� The verb remains impersonal like the existential marker� Its infection is identical with the 3ms. *-∅* E-sufx. The L-sufx is added to the verb, for example

(33) Turoyo (Miden, SE Turkey) *Baṣuṣ gt-owe-le abro* Baṣuṣ fut-beIPFV-him son '**Baṣuṣ** will **have** a son.' (Ritter 1967–1971, 115/309) (34) C� Urmi (NW Iran) *ʾana t-avi-li ʾarxe* I fut-beIPFV-me guests '**I** will **have** guests.' (Khan 2016IV, A11:1)

When L-sufxes are attached to the verb *hwy*, the construction can semantically entail a process, i.e. 'become', rather than a state, i.e. 'be'. The verb can be used to convey 'be born'. The L-sufx denotes an R-like afectee, i.e. the one who begot the child, for example:

(35) Turoyo (Midyat, SE Turkey)

*ú-tajər hawi-le barθo* the-merchant�ms be.born-him daughter.fs 'The merchant **begot** a daughter' (Ritter 1967–1971, 23/4)

(36) C� Urmi (Literary, NW Iran; Polotsky 1979, 211–12)

a� *vazir bət- havi -lə brata* vizier fut- be.born -**him** daughter.fs 'The vizier **will have/beget** a daughter.'

In C� Urmi, the verb takes a 3fs. L-sufx in the *qṭil-*based preterite (Khan 2016II, 396) such as *vi-la-lə bruna* 'He begot a son', lit� 'ItF (impersonal) was born to him a son', below:

b. *vazir ví -la -lə bruna* vizier be.born -it�F -**him** son 'The vizier **had/begot** a son�'

Pronominal objects are otherwise not marked through L-sufxes on the *qṭil-*based preterite verb in such dialects. Forms like \*\**grəš-la-li* for intended 'She pulled me' do not occur. The secondary L-sufx is clearly reminiscent of the stacking of L-sufxes in ditransitive constructions in dialects like C. Marga and *lišana deni* Jewish dialects, cf. (37) below. This indicates how the L-sufx is considered an R-like argument in the system and expressed by an L-sufx regardless of the infectional base, cf. (37a) below taken from the Jewish dialect of Dohok.

(37) J� Dohok (Molin and Noorlander feld notes)

a� *hú -le li pare* gavePFV -he me money�pl '**He** gave **me** money�'

Apart from (37), examples (33)–(36) above are impersonal like the predicative possessor constructions. The verb *hwy* can also agree with the possessee in an external possessor construction. The possessor is expressed as an afectee part of the verbal predicate independently of the nominal possesee� For instance, the verb agrees with the possessee *yalunke* 'children' in (37b) below but takes an additional L-sufx to denote the possessor� The possessor is expressed as an argument of the verb.

b. *hwé -lu li yalunk-e* be.bornPFV -they me child-mpl 'I begot **children**�' (lit� **Children** were born unto me)

The verb *hwy* can also be infected for person and combine with the L-sufx not to convey a strict sense of belonging but a broader sense of relation, i.e. 'X is/becomes Y with respect to somebody'. The construction parallels ditransitive verbs. Only in this sense can the pronominal possessee be expressed in the same way as the theme in ditransitives such as *-yo* , for example in (36b):


The same combination can also be modal. This is recorded in Ritter's corpus of Turoyo. It is accompanied by negation denoting inability, for example:

c� *ló k***-***owe -li -yo d-əzz-i-no* neg ind-beIPFV -me -it sbjv-goIPFV-me-I '**I cannot** go.' (ibid. 63/378)

The expression of ability through predicative possessors is also recorded in Trans-Zab Jewish varieties (e�g� Khan 2004, 311, 364), *ma ʾit-wa-lu hol-i-wa* 'What could they do?', *ʾana kwe-li* 'I will be able'.

### 3�2�2� External Possessors

Sporadically, L-sufxes can express a possessor-like afectee of verbal predicates akin to example (1g) from Hebrew� At least one such instance where the secondary L-sufx marks an external possessor is attested in Mlaḥsó:

(39) Mlaḥsó (Lice, SE Turkey) *ṭafoki mís -le -li* a�child diedPFV -he -me 'One child **of mine** died (on me).' (Jastrow 1994, 124.121)

Such external possessors are also attested in NENA dialects where the second L-sufx marks the R in *qṭil-*� The possessor is added as an R-like afectee in both the *qaṭəl-* and *qṭil-*based infection such as the construction in J. Dohok given in (40). Its usage in J. Dohok does not seem to have a clear distribution. Coghill (2019, 368) notes that apart from *pyš* 'remain', it is confned to telic intransitives in C. Telkepe (NW Iraq), such as *myθ* 'die', *ʔθy* 'come' and *bry* 'happen'�

(40) **J. Dohok** (Molin and Noorlander feld notes)

*mə́t -lu -li yalunke* diedPFV -they -me children '**My** children died (on me).'

An L-sufx denoting an R-like argument can be added to intransitive verbs in Turoyo. It can be combined with the verbs *fyš* 'remain', *qyθ* 'hit, touch, meet', *ʾθy* 'come' and *mṭy* 'arrive'� Since these motion verbs denote movement towards an endpoint, these constructions typically convey a sense of reception, e.g.

(41) Turoyo (Midyat, SE Turkey)

*qayəṯ- -le rŭmḥo bə-droʿ-e* stuckPFV -him spear�fs in-arm-his

'A spear hit **his** arm�' (lit� hit **him** in **his** arm') (Prym and Socin 1881, 141.11)

The additional L-sufx and -*yo* on the intransitive verb parallels ditransitive constructions. Compare *aθí-*∅*-li-yo* 'I received **it**' and *mšadál-le-li-yo* 'He sent **me it**' in (42) below.

(42) Turoyo (Midən, SE Turkey)

*k- aθi -∅ -li səsyo m-ú-ʿmiro* perf- camePFV -it�m -me horse�ms from-the-emir�ms '**I** received a horse from the emir' *aθí -∅ -li -yo, mšadál -le -li -yo* camePFV -it�m -me -it sentPFV -he -me -it **'I** received **it**, he sent **me it**.' (Ritter 1967–1971, 81/55)

3.2.3. Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects: *əll-* and -*la-l-*series

Occasionally, one also fnds prepositional external possessors in NENA attached to the verbal base. An LL-series of person markers based on the preposition (*ʾəl*)*l-* is used to express the external possessor as illustrated for J. Arbel below.

(43) J. Arbel (NE Iraq; Khan 1999, 292)


'Many **of her** children died�'

Western Iranian dialects such as J. Saqqiz and J� Sanandaj use the morpheme -*la-*<sup>20</sup> as base for the L-sufxes to express predicative possession together with the verb 'become' (Khan 2009, 88–90, 301–02). This *la-* is possibly a relic of a former impersonal L-sufx *-la* 'itF ', i�e� *xír-la-li* 'ItF became to me' → 'I have'. Full possessor NPs are zero-marked and can occupy preverbal position as illustrated in (44) below. The verbal base *xir* is invariable like the existential marker and does not agree with, for instance, indefnite plural nouns such as *puḷe* 'money' in J� Sanandaj *ʾaná hămešá puḷé xír-la-li* 'I have always had money' (Khan 2009, 302). This *lal-*series, therefore, serves as a special set of person markers, identifying their role as the most salient afectee�

(44) J� Sanandaj (W Iran; Khan 2009, A:108)


'**Nadir Shah Afshar** had a lot of power�'

<sup>20</sup> Khan (2009, 89) notes "the element *la-* is likely to be a fossilised form of a 3fs. copula form *\*ila*"*.* It also possible it is an L-sufx used impersonally.

### **3.3. Prepositional Marking of Possessors**

3.3.1. Possessor Marked by *l-* Only

The independent possessor argument is generally zero-marked in NENA� Alternative expressions do exist where the possessor is prepositional in some varieties of NENA such as J. Sulemaniyya combined with a 3ms. copula in (33b) below.

(45) J. Sulemaniyya (NE Iraq)


'The house belongs **to him**.' (Khan 2004a, 336, 362)

Similarly, sporadically, a predicative possessor can be expressed independently by means of the preposition *(e)l*- in Turoyo, e.g.

(46) Turoyo (SE Trukey)


'The whole place belongs **to you**FS (Midən, Ritter 1967–1971, 115/240)

Unlike the rest of Neo-Aramaic, however, the predicative possessor is always independent in Mlaḥsó� The possessor is expressed as an independent dative (pro)noun such as *eli* 'to me' in (47). The possessee controls the agreement of the verb *hwy*  'be'. Jastrow (1994) does not appear to provide examples of full nominal possessors in Mlaḥsó.

(47) Mlaḥsó (SE Turkey; Jastrow 1994, 76.19)


Sporadically, a full nominal possessor can also be prepositional in Western Neo-Aramaic, for example:


'**A certain man** had a wife.' (Arnold 1991b, 8.1)

Note that, in these cases, the possessor is marked only by a preposition just like the examples from Hebrew in (1).

3.3.2. Possessor Marked by *l-* and L-suffixes

The possessor can be optionally marked through the preposition *l-* in addition to the L-sufx in Turoyo.<sup>21</sup> This includes predicative possessors such as (49a) and R-like afectees such as (49b-c).

<sup>21</sup> See Waltisberg (2016, 125) for more examples.


The optionality of the prepositional marking of the possessor alongside the L-sufx is reminiscent of the morphosyntax of agents in the Turoyo *qṭil-*based preterite (cf. Diem 2012). This strategy to combine the preposition *l-* and L-sufxes does not occur in NENA.

### **3.4. Transitivisation of Possessive Constructions**

Predicative possessive constructions have undergone transitivisation in NENA and Turoyo in that the L-sufxes are obligatory person markers like verbal infection. Apart from the L-sufxes, the construction remains impersonal� The possessee does not control agreement and does not trigger diferential object marking. Generally speaking, even when a possessee could still be contextualised through anaphora such as where English would use a pronominal object for 'to have', it will tend to remain implicit in Neo-Aramaic� Forms like *ʾət-li* or *kət-li* could also mean 'I have itF /itM' or 'I have them'. This raises the question of how transitivised the predicative possessive construction are in being compatible with pronominal objects like transitive clauses in general�

There are indeed cases where the transitivisation seems to be more advanced and pronominal objects are overtly expressed� This, for instance, applies when the possessee is frst or second person. First and second person pronominal objects difer across dialects. The possessee can be expressed as a pronominal object either through the unmarked set of independent pronouns, e�g�

(50) C� Shaqlawa (NW Iraq) a� *ʾaxni ʾahat ʾət-an*<sup>22</sup> we you.s exst-us 'We have **YOU**<sup>S</sup> ' (Khan feld notes)

This parallels the use of independent personal pronouns in transitive clauses to express focal objects, for example:


If available, the possessee can also be expressed through a dedicated set of prepositional pronominal objects, e�g�

(51) C� Urmi (NW Iran) a� *ʾaxnan qatux ʾət-lan* we you exst-us 'We have **you**MS' (Noorlander feld notes)

22 *ʾət-an* > \**ʾət-tan* < *ʾət-lan* (through assimilation).

In the latter, the marking of the possessee clearly patterns like that of objects of *qṭil-*based preterite verbal forms where the agent is expressed by the L-sufxes, e�g�

b. *ʾaxnan qatux xze-lan* we you sawPFV-us 'We saw **you**MS'

A few NENA dialects in SE Turkey such as Artun (Hertevin), Umṛa and Jənnet mark the object on the transitive *qṭil-*based perfective by means of additional L-sufxes, e�g� *grə́š-le-la* 'He pulled it<sup>F</sup> '� The marking of the possessee is the same as the object in the predicative possessor construction, e.g. *ʾə́t-le-la*  'He has itF '. It has taken over the full agent and object marking morphology of the perfective (see the examples below). When object L-sufxes like *-la* 'itF ' are added to *grəš-lax* 'YouFS pulled', frst and second person agents are marked by a special set one could call the L-E-series yielding *grə́š-lət-ta* 'YouFS pulled it'.23 The same transitive verbal coding occurs in the predicative possessor construction, e.g. ʾ*ət-lət-ta* 'YouFS have itF '� Moreover, these transitive constructions are used when full nominal possessees trigger diferential marking. Thus the indefnite possessee in (52a) functions like an indefnite object in (52c)but the defnite possessee in (52b) triggers cross-indexing like a defnite object in (52d).


'I don't have knowledge�'

<sup>23</sup> See Noorlander (2018b, 242–49, forthcoming) for a detailed discussion of the verbal person marking in C. Artun (Hertevin).

b. *lə́t -lə́n -na hay* exst -I -**it**�f knowledge�fs

'I don't have **the** knowledge�'

c� *ḥzé -li baxta* sawPFV -I woman

'I saw a woman�'


It should be noted, however, that this is not acceptable in the majority of dialects� Speakers of J� Dohok, for example, do not readily accept pronominalisation of the possessee in predicative possessor constructions. They disfavour expressions like \*\**ʾətli ʾahat* 'I have youFS' and circumvent this by choosing constructions involving independent possessive pronouns akin to English 'YouFS are mine'�

## **3.5. Verboid** *bas-* **'enough'**

A related verboid construction in NENA based on the particle *bas-* 'enough' is generally infected with sufxes going back to possessor-like L-sufxes that have assimilated to the preceding /s/. The possessee-like complement of the quantifer *bas*, i�e� that which is possessed in a satisfactory amount such as *xaye* 'life' below, is prepositional (*m-*), e.g.

(53) C� Barwar (NW Iraq)

*bass-i m-xáye*  enough-me from-life�pl

'**I have had enough** of my life' (Khan 2008a, 1241).

The original L-sufx can still be observed in the past equivalent, e�g� *bas-wa-li* 'I had had enough'. Depending on the dialect, the copula can also be added to this to express the referent of the quantifer *bass-*, e�g�

(54) C� Urmi (NW Iran)

*báss -ux -ila* enough -you.ms -it�is�f

'**That**<sup>F</sup>  **is** enough for you.' (Khan 2016<sup>I</sup> , 585)

The same particle is fully infectable for L-sufxes in Turoyo, as illustrated below. Unlike (53) above, the possessee is not prepositional but zero-marked or expressed by a copula:

(55) Turoyo (SE Turkey)


The structure is at least superfcially similar to ditransitives in that the T-like person markers are identical with the copula�

## **4. Morphosyntax of Experiencers in Neo-Aramaic**

There are numerous ways in which experiencers are encoded in Neo-Aramaic. One should note that some of the constructions discussed in what follows also have equivalent expressions in other dialects involving a diferent structure. In impersonal experiencer constructions, for instance, experiencers can also be expressed adnominally through agreeing possessive sufxes, e.g.


b. *d-măni -la qarsa*

of-whom -it�is�f cold�fs

'**Who** is cold?' (lit. Whose coldness is?)

Adnominal possession is the regular expression of the experiencer of the physiological sates of 'heat' and 'cold' in Western Iranian Jewish varieties of NENA� An adnominal possessor encodes the agreement with the experiencer on the NP denoting the sensation:

(57) J� Saqqiz (W Iran)

*brat-í qard-ev-ya* daughter-my cold�fs-her-it�is�f

'**My daughter** feels cold.' (lit. Her coldness is) (Israeli 1998, 170)

This is an areal phenomenon found across languages in West Asia, including the Neo-Aramaic speaking area.<sup>24</sup> It regularly features in neighbouring Iranian varieties where the experiencer is marked in the so-called 'oblique' case or through pronominal clitics that also denote the possessor and the agent in the past (Haig 2018b, 132–33, 2018c, 286–87), for example:

(58) Northern Kurdish (Behdini, NW Iraq)

*min sar e* me�'obl' cold is '**I** am cold' (Haig 2018b, 132)

(59) Persian (Iran)

*man sard-am ast* I coldness-my is

'**I** am cold' (lit. my coldness is)

There are cases where the experiencer is expressed as the object. For example, the verb *ʿjb* 'please, like', borrowed from Arabic, takes object sufxes in Western Neo-Aramaic just like the corresponding verb in Arabic, e.g.

(60) Western Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlula, NW Syria)

*ana aʿžb-īš-n* I pleased-you.fs-me '**I** like youFS.' (Arnold 1991, 140.42)

<sup>24</sup> See Khan (2016II, 355–59)

It will become clear, however, that experiencers are construed as R-like afectees similarly to possessors in the previous discussion.

### **4.1. Experiencer Marked by L-suffixes Only**

4�1�1� Transitive Verbs

Apart from benefciaries and predicative possessors, L-sufxes can denote experiencers. In several (Christian) NENA dialects (and Turoyo), verbs like I *bsm*, II/III *ʿjb* and I *hny* (variants include *nny* and *nhy*) are impersonal experiencer predicates conveying more or less the equivalent to English 'like', 'please' or 'enjoy', as illustrated for Turoyo and C. Barwar below.

(61) Turoyo (Mzizaḥ, SE Turkey)


'**My brother** used to like honey.'

(62) C� Barwar (NW Iraq)

*xon-i basəm-∅-wa-le duša* brother-my pleaseIPFV-it�m-pst-him honey�ms

'**My brother** used to like honey' (Khan 2008a, B8:12)

There are other verbs across NENA dialects that display the same pattern, such as *wjj* 'care' (J� Amidya NW Iraq; Hoberman 1989, 226), *ṭwy* 'be worth, merit', *ʾby* 'want, need', *mly* 'be enough' (J. Betanure NW Iraq; Mutzaf 2008a, 88–89), *mṭy* 'deserve, lit� arrive, reach' (J. Zaxo NW Iraq; Cohen 2012, 144).

When the experiencer verb is impersonal apart from the L-sufx, it takes non-referential 3ms� or 3fs� morphology� Unlike NENA, the verb *bsm* is stative 'was pleasant/nice' or inchoative 'became pleasant/nice' in Turoyo.25 It takes the *C*<sup>1</sup> *aC*<sup>2</sup> *iC*<sup>3</sup> -pattern in the perfective typical for non-referential 3ms� morphology, for example:

(63) Turoyo (SE Turkey)

a� *basəm-∅-le***…** *íy-itawto d-ʿawwəl* was�pleasantPFV-it�m-him the-sitting�fs of-before '**He** (lit� **Him**) enjoyed (once again) sitting idly like earlier times.' (Midən, Ritter 1967–1971, 77/219)

The stimulus can be pronominalised like themes in a ditransitive construction, such as -*yo* in the following example:


It would seem that there are also constructions where -*yo*  is efectively non-referential. This is at least the case in fxed expressions of the following kind:

c� *ġălabe kary-ó-la -yo ʿal i-səsto* very.much upsetPFV-it.f -her it on the-mare�fs *d-ú-babo* lnk-the-father:ms 'She (lit� Her **it**) was very upset about her father's mare.' (Ritter 1967–1971, 107/121)

<sup>25</sup> Similarly, the verb *ḥly* 'sweet', e�g� *ḥaly-o-li* 'I liked her'�

The stimulus, however, can still control agreement and be referential, as is the case with the stimulus of *lzm* 'need' (56d-e) below.

d� *ono l-mə g- ləzm -i -li* I for-what pvb- needIPFV -they -me 'What do I need **them** (i.e. gold pieces) for?' (Midən; Ritter 1967–1971, 44/146) e� *ú-yawmo d- lŭzm -at -lan itŭx́* the-day�ms rel needIPFV -you.s -us come�imp 'Come the day we need **you**<sup>S</sup> !**'** (Midyat, letter, Ritter 1990, 207)

In NENA, the *qṭil-*based form of the experiencer predicate infects for two L-sufxes such as (64b) and (65b) below. The frst represents the impersonal coding, which is expressed by the E-sufx in the *qaṭəl-*based forms in (64a) and (65a), and the second denotes the R-like experiencer in both (64a-b) and (65a-b).

	- I pleased-it�ms-me food�ms '**I** liked the food�'

### (65) J� Dohok (NW Iraq; Molin and Noorlander feldnotes)


The only example known to me where Western Neo-Aramaic has similarly grammaticalised an experiencer L-sufx is the verb 'want' in the dialect of Jubbʿadin. The L-sufx attaches to an uninfected form *be-*, e�g� *bē-le* (< *\*bʿē l-eh* 'Him wanted'), the originally 3ms. form of the resultative participle \**bʿē* of *bʿy* 'want' (Arnold 1990a, 192). *bēle* (like *batte* in the other Western dialects) developed under infuence of the corresponding construction *bədd-o* 'He wants' < 'In his wish' in local Arabic varieties� The experiencer nominal is zero-marked and controls the agreement expressed by the L-sufx:

(66) Jubbʿadin (SW Syria)


'**She** wants to return.' (ibid. 78.45)

Similar impersonal 'want' constructions occur in Turoyo and NENA to convey the sense of 'need'. The L-sufx expresses the person lacking something:

(67) Turoyo (SE Turkey)

*kə- bʿe -lux sayfo kayiso* pvb want -you.ms sword�ms good�ms

'**You** need a good sword�' (Prym and Socin 1881, 141.25)

(68) J. Betanure (NW Iraq)

*g- bé wā -leni ṛāba ṣiwe* pvb want pst -us very.much wood�pl

'**We** needed a great deal of wood.' (Mutzaf 2008a, 142.33)

### 4.1.2. Intransitive Verbs

The L-sufx denoting the experiencer can even be added to an intransitive predicate such as the verb *ʾty* 'come' and *ʾwr* 'pass' in C� Urmi and J� Dohok. The mental state is expressed through an NP somehow reaching the experiencer�

(69) C� Urmi (Literary NW Iran; Polotsky 1979, 212)

<sup>+</sup>*ʾav ti -la -lə muxabən d-an* he camePFV -itF -him pity�fs of-dem.pl *taxmanyatə* thoughts:pl

'**He** was sorry for those thoughts.'

(70) J� Dohok (NW Iraq; Molin and Noorlander feldnotes)

*wə́r -ra -li xšuta b-reš-i* passedPFV -it�f -me thought.fs in-head-my

'**I** thought a thought in my mind.'

Verbal experiencer predicates can comprise an NP denoting the mental state or process somehow reaching the experiencer expressed through the L-sufx as illustrated in (71). Note that in (71a) and (71b) the verb does not agree with the NP and is essentially impersonal. The key person marker being the L-sufx.


The experiencer can be added to intransitive verbs denoting physiological states such to 'be cold' in various dialects in SE Turkey. Thus the expression 'I am cold' corresponds with:

(72) Turoyo (SE Turkey)

*ko- qoraš -li* pvb be.cold- -me

(73) C. Artun (Hertevin, SE Turkey) *qarəš -li* be.cold- -me (74) C. Umṛa (SE Turkey) *qayər -ri*

be.cold- -me

There are several more intransitive verbs in Turoyo that can express an experiencer in this way, notably *kyw* 'get ill', e�g� *kayu-li* 'I got ill', and *nyḥ* 'get well', *nayəḥ-li* 'I got well'. The verbs *ḥrw* 'be concerned' (lit. 'get destroyed') and *ʿyq* 'get distressed' combine with an additional prepositional stimulus. The verbal form is impersonal, for example:

(75) Turoyo (SE Turkey) a� *mə ḥaru -lax min-i* what be.destroyed -you.fs from-me 'Why are **you**FS concerned about me?' (Kfaerze, Ritter 1967–1971, 61/324) b. *ʿayəq -le me-ruḥ-e* be.distressed him from-self-his

> '**He** (lit� **Him**) was distressed about himself.' (Kfaerze, ibid. 63/7)

4.1.3. Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects: *-la-l-*series

Jewish Western Iranian varieties, such as Saqqiz and Sandanaj, have a special use of the L-sufxes added to an invariant -*la-* which presumably goes back to an impersonal L-sufx (see §3.2.3). Israel (1998, 170–71) records numerous examples where verbs in the *qaṭəl-*based infection regularly combine with experiencers expressed in this way including verbs denoting pleasure such as *bsm* 'please' as illustrated below but also verbs denoting pain *mry* 'hurt', capability *kšy* 'fnd difcult' and merit such as *mṭy* 'deserve' (lit. reach) and *špr* 'beft'. The construction combines with a prepositional stimulus or a clausal complement. What is striking is that the morpheme *-la-*, although presumably originally an impersonal L-sufx (i.e. *bsəm-la-li* 'ItF pleased me'), is also required with L-sufxes denoting experiencers in *qaṭəl*based infection<sup>26</sup>:

(76) J� Saqqiz (W Iran)

*la basə́m-la -li mənn-év* not pleasesIPFV-it�m me from-him

'**I (**lit� **Me)** do not like (lit� **from**) him.' (Israeli 1998, 170–71)

### **4.2. Prepositional Marking of the Experiencer**

4�2�1� Experiencer Marked by a Preposition only

So far we have observed that the experiencer NP is zero-marked like the 'canonical' subject and only expressed through L-sufxes on the verb. Nevertheless, prepositional marking of experiencer predicates does occur in several NENA dialects, refecting an oblique status.

It is common for physiological states� The independent *ʾəll*series is part of fxed expressions for the sensations of heat and

<sup>26</sup> An invariant *-le-* also occurs with *qaṭəl-*infection in C. Telkepe, e.g. *k-ʕājəb-le-li* 'I am willing' (Coghill 2019, 39).

cold which themselves feature as nouns in this construction, for example in C� Marga:

(77) C� Marga (NW Iraq) a� *xə́mma-yle ʾəlli* heat:ms-it�is�m **me** '**I** am hot' (lit� **Me** is heat) b. *qársa-yla ʾəlli* coldness�ms-it�is�F me

'**I** am cold�' (lit� **Me** is cold)

Both NENA and Turoyo dialects in SE Turkey confne this construction to the experiencer of heat, as illustrated below, while the sensation of cold is expressed through a verb, cf. (72)- (74) above.

(78) Turoyo (SE Turkey)

*ḥémo-yo aʿl-i* heat�ms-it�is upon-me

(79) C. Artun (SE Turkey)

*ḥəmme-le lal-i* heat�ms-it�is�m to-me

(80) C. Umṛa (SE Turkey)

*ḥəmme-le əll-i* heat�ms-it�is�m to-me

'**I** am hot�'

Prepositional marking of experiencers typically occurs at least in Western Iranian dialects of NENA� The R-like experiencer is prepositional in the Christian variety of Sanandaj, for instance

(81) C� Sanandaj (W Iran)

*maḥkēsa kabər-ta špēr-a*<sup>27</sup> *el-ē* story.fs great-fs was�pleasantPFV-it�f to-him 'The story pleased **him** very much.' (Panoussi 1990, 123.31)

4.2.2. Experiencer Marked by *l-* and L-suffixes

Like the agent (§1.1.) and possessor (§3.3.2.), optional *l-*marking of the experiencer does occur in Turoyo, for example:

(82) Turoyo (SE Turkey)


'**The beast** got very upset.' (Raite, Ritter 1967– 1971, 112/331)

<sup>27</sup> *špēra* < \**sper-ra < \*sper*-la

## **4.3. Transitivisation of Experiencer Verb Constructions**

The verb *ʿjb* 'please, like', borrowed from Arabic, is a stem III causative verb in Turoyo and is ambivalent as to its orientation. The verb of liking can be directed at the R-like afectee expressed by the L-sufx, for example:

(83) Turoyo (SE Turkey) a� *hăka lo maʿjáb-le-lax* if neg III:pleasedPFV-it�m-you.fs **'**If **you**FS don't like him' (Miden, Ritter 1967–1971, 115/147)

At the same time, the verb can also have undergone complete transitivization� Its coding is not distinct from primary transitive verbs. The experiencer is expressed like an agent, for example:


This also occurs in NENA dialects. At least in the preterite, the verb that is otherwise typically impersonal can also be used with 'canonical' transitive verbal coding, for instance in C. Urmi and C. Artun (Hertevin):


### **4.4. Verboids**

A few experiencer verbs have a distinct verbal base in the imperfective, comparable to the verb *ʾzl* in some NENA dialects (see Subsection 2.2), e.g. *zəl-wa-li* 'I had gone' (perfective) and *k-za-wa-li* 'I used to go' (imperfective). The verb *zdy* ~ *zdʾ* 'fear, be afraid' has a regular *qṭil-*based preterite construction, e.g. J. Betanure *zdeʾ-li* '**I** feared', but an impersonal *qaṭəl-*based equivalent *ṣad-*, e.g. J. Betanure *k-ṣad-li* '**I** fear' (Mutzaf 2008, 88), C. Barwar *ʾi-ṣad-wa-le* 'He was afraid' (Khan 2008a, 297–98). Both *zdeʾ-* and *ṣad-* infect the experiencer through L-sufxes, but the preterite forms like *zdeʾ-li* 'I feared' mark the experiencer completely like the agent of transitive verbs (*xze-li* 'I saw') and the forms based on *ṣad-* mark the experiencer like other impersonal experiencer verb constructions (*basəm-li* 'I like'). One may compare this also to the experiencer verboid *qar-* 'be cold' in *lišana deni* dialects (NW Iraq), e.g. J. Dohok ʾ*ana qar-ri* (< *\*qar-li*) 'I am cold', *qarwa-li* 'I was cold'�

<sup>28</sup> Compare §3.4. above for the transitivisation of predicative possessors in C. Artun (Hertevin).

## **Conclusions**

Both the possessor and experiencer nominal or independent pronoun are generally clause-initial, zero-marked and obligatorily cross-referenced by the L-sufx in both NENA, Turoyo and Western Neo-Aramaic. They are arguably 'non-canonical' subjects. Only sporadically do we fnd purely prepositional arguments.

L-sufxes can be added to monotransitive and intransitive verbs to express an R-like afectee in similar fashion to ditransitive verbs. While the optional subject co-referential L-sufxes marking that can mark an afected subject like the middle voice or express dynamic telicity seem to be generally a common Aramaic phenomenon, they undoubtedly conventionalized to verbal infectional morphemes in certain Neo-Aramaic languages, particularly the motion verbs \**ʾzl* 'go' and \**ʾty* 'come'�

Impersonal experiencer constructions tend to diverge across dialects. It is common to fnd that verbs of liking take 'noncanonical' subject marking besides physiological states of 'cold' and 'heat'� Dialects can prefer distinct strategies for these physical sensations. In SE Turkey, for example, the experiencer of 'cold' is expressed by L-sufxes attached to a verbal predicate, while that of 'heat' by a preposition as a complement of a nominal predicate�

The Neo-Aramaic languages have developed 'non-canonical' subject marking that exhibits similar structures as the agent in the perfective past in NENA and Turoyo (e.g. *grəš-li* 'I pulled'). The 'non-canonical' subject, for instance, can be marked by both the preposition *l-* and L-sufxes in Turoyo only. This closely parallels the optional ergative marking in the preterite� An important diference from agent L-sufxes in the preterite is that the L-sufxes that mark the 'non-canonical' subject are found across the infectional system, just like other R-like afectees. Exceptions where the 'non-canonical' subject marking is confned to the imperfective are the verbs 'fear', which has a verboid base *ṣad-*, and the verb 'go', which has a base *za-*, in NENA dialects� These correspond with the 'canonical' verbal infection in the preterite (e�g� *zəl-lan* 'We went' : *za-lan* 'Let's go!').

The scope of this paper notwithstanding,29 the originally dative possessor (i�e� \**ʾīt-wā-*∅ *l-eh kθāwā* lit. 'Him was a book') and experiencer subjects (i.e. \**bāsem-*∅-*wā-*∅ *l-eh deḇšā*, lit� 'Him was liking honey') and subject co-referential datives (i�e� \**ʾāzel-*∅*-wā-*∅ *l-eh* lit. 'Him was going') and the historically dative subject of the preterite (i�e� \**qīm-*∅-*wā-*∅ *l-eh* lit� 'Him was stood' → most of NENA *qəm-wa-le* 'He had stood') are all connected�

The topical, human and subject-like referent is referred back to by L-sufxes. The L-sufxes serve as cross-indexes of the possessor and experiencer similarly as their cross-indexing of agents in the preterite. The subject co-referential datives can similarly end up as infectional afxes (e.g. Turoyo *azz-í* 'I went' < \**ʾazīl-*∅ *l-ī* 'Me went').

One important diference, however, is that the L-sufxes of the preterite are dependent on the infectional base *qṭil-* and have an additional TAM function. This does not apply to the other uses of the L-sufxes that were subsumed under 'noncanonical' subjects in the previous discussion that can still be more R-like. The 'non-canonical' subject marking, therefore, is role-based. It is the construal as an R-like indirect afectee that makes it favour coding distinct from the 'canonical' subject. By contrast, the agent marking through L-sufxes in the preterite is not only role-based but also TAM-based. That is, the originally dative agent is dependent on the infectional base (*qṭil-*) and hence, generally, perfective past aspect� Occasionally, however, the 'non-canonical' subject undergoes full transitivisation and takes over 'canonical' transitive coding� Sometimes it is only the transitive morphosyntax peculiar to the *qṭil-*based preterite that is taken over, identifying the L-sufxes that mark the possessor or experiencer with those that mark the agent�

<sup>29</sup> Cf. Noorlander (2019a-b). One can compare this to European languages like French and Dutch where have can be used as a possessive verb (*J'ai du pain* 'I have some bread'), a tense-aspect auxiliary (e.g. have-perfect *J'ai mangé du pain* 'I ate some bread') and an experiencer verb (lit. *J'ai froid* 'I am cold', lit. 'I have cold').

Nevertheless, it is also clear that in many cases where the L-sufx is used as an extension of an R-like afectee the sufx can maintain characteristics of a ditransitive construction. These subject-like afectees are still treated like recipients, presumably as relics of their formerly dative prepositional marking� This is evident in the stacking of L-sufxes to the *qṭil-*base in NENA where the frst L-sufx is impersonal and the second L-sufx denotes the R-like afectee. Impersonal experiencers thus resemble the predicative possessor construction based on the invariable existential marker (cf. Polotsky 1979, 209–10), yet, since they are verbal, they select the regular verbal afxes, even L-sufxes expressing the impersonal agent in the *qṭil-*based forms (e�g� *ʿjəb-le-le ʾalaha* 'ItM pleased God'). Pronominalisation of the stimulus can be expressed by the unmarked set of bound person markers (also serving as the copula) like *-yo* in Turoyo, which are confned to third person themes in ditransitive clauses.

The topicalisation and hence zero-marking of the NP became increasingly obligatory and original independent prepositional pronouns have undergone complete verbalisation in most cases� L-sufxes, while originally prepositional and independent of the verb, exhibit a tendency to convert into verbal person markers and sustain referential continuity with the most topical argument in sometimes otherwise largely impersonal predicates�

Both more conservative and more innovative patterns are found in Neo-Aramaic� Dialects also have the option to withstand the proclivity to convert a topicalised afectee into a 'non-canonical' subject. A dialect may still prefer to retain prepositional marking as a viable alternative besides verbal person marking or it may prefer an oblique status throughout for such arguments. In the end, each dialect 'can do its own thing' and a uniform category of 'subject' is not always readily identifable.

### **References**

Any data not cited are based on the author's notes from feldwork individually or in collaboration with G. Khan and/or D. Molin.


———. 2009. *The Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj*. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press�


———. 2008a. *The Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (Province of Dihok).*  Semitica Viva 40. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.


## **THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF DOHOK: TWO FOLKTALES AND SELECTED FEATURES OF VERBAL SEMANTICS**

*Dorota Molin*

## **1. Introduction**

This paper presents a selection of primary data from the hitherto unstudied NENA dialect of the Jews of the town of Dohok, located in north-western Iraq (this dialect is henceforth referred to as 'Jewish Dohok'). Glossing is provided for a part of the texts to ensure accessibility for readers who are not NENA specialists and notes on noteworthy linguistic features are supplied. These texts are complemented by a brief grammatical study, which is based on the texts. This study surveys selected features of verbal semantics1 of Jewish Dohok. In particular, the study focuses on verbal forms with a grammatical function that is distinct from the function of the corresponding forms in many other NENA dialects. This demonstrates the importance of studying each dialect in its own right. The paper aims to situate the Jewish Dohok dialect typologically within the broader NENA family. In addition, it draws attention to certain less prototypical functions of the verbal forms in question. Such functions apparently refect the subjective creative use of the tense-aspect-mood system in order to achieve a particular discourse efect.

<sup>1</sup> The terms 'verbal semantics', 'grammatical semantics' and 'grammatical functions' are used here synonymously. These refer to the tense-aspectmood system in its various grammatical and pragmatic applications.

The Jewish Dohok dialect is most closely afliated with a group of Jewish dialects that were historically spoken West of the Great Zab River, and are known by their speakers and scholars as *Lišana Deni* ('our language'). Dialects belonging to this group were spoken also in Zakho, Amedia, Betanure, Nerwa (north-western Iraq) and Challa (south-eastern Turkey). Today, the Jewish Dohok dialect is on the verge of extinction, having only about twenty remaining active speakers. These speakers were born in the 1930s or 1940s in Dohok, or in the 1950s in Israel� As far as I know, all of them live today in Israel, mostly in the Jerusalem area.

In the following section, two folk tales are presented� I recorded these in 2018 in Castel (near Jerusalem). They were narrated by Mr Tzvi Avraham (aged 79).

The stories presented here give a taste of the rich oral literature of the NENA-speaking Jews.<sup>2</sup> Though stories such as the ones presented here were narrated in the Jewish community in Aramaic, many of them are likely to have been Kurdish (or Arabic) in origin (Sabar 1982, xxxii). The folktales are indeed sometimes situated in the realia of the Kurdish world—a fact illustrated in the following stories by the direct speech in lines 19 and 20 of the frst story. A part of this speech is given in Bahdini Kurdish.<sup>3</sup> Other stories, however, appear to be distinctly Jewish, as shown by their ideological character. This was the view of the narrator himself. I have collected several stories that feature the fgure of a poor, yet wise Jew, who—contrary to everyone's expectation—emerges as the hero of the story. Such folktales are apparently aimed at raising the morale of the Jews by presenting them in a very positive light (e.g. showing their resourcefulness).

<sup>2</sup> See Aloni (2018) for the folk literature of the *Lišana Deni* Aramaic speakers� All of the other communities of the area—NENA-speaking Christians, as well as Kurdish- and Arabic-speaking communities—also possess a wealth of oral literature. These diferent story-telling traditions have historically undoubtedly been in contact with one another (e.g., Coghill 2009).

<sup>3</sup> For background on the folk literature of the Aramaic-speaking Jews, see Sabar (1982) and other publications by this author.

## **2. The Verbal System of Jewish Dohok**

In addition to their cultural value, the following folktales also attest to the complexity of the verbal system. The verbal system of Jewish Dohok, as is the case with that of other NENA dialects, can convey nuanced meanings of tense, aspect and mood, and enliven and structure the narrative, e�g�, draw attention to noteworthy situations, divide story units (cf. Coghill 2009; Khan 2009). Some noteworthy forms found in the stories are used as the starting point of the grammatical survey. Reference will also be made to 'the corpus'. This is a body of Jewish Dohok texts consisting of orally-delivered personal narratives, folktales and descriptions of customs that I have collected from fve diferent speakers.

Methodologically, this study draws from the notions of Function Grammar (Dik 1997), which maintains that the meaning of a given verbal form is context-dependent, in that it emerges from the interaction of the form with the other arguments in the context. The relevant context may be the clause or the broader discourse. In some cases a form conveys a general meaning, but the specifc meaning arises from the contextual usage of the verbal form. In such cases, the verbal form is said to be 'unmarked' for the specifc contextual meaning (Comrie 1976, 111–12). For example, while the future is most often 'perfective' (that is, the clause does not focus on the internal temporal composition of the situation such as its iteration or temporal duration), in Jewish Dohok, there is only one form for the expression of futurity. This means that the prototypically-future verbal form itself is aspectually unmarked and the specifc aspect of the verb depends on contextual usage. A similar question of interaction between diferent factors contributing to 'meaning' applies to lexical semantics: sometimes—though not always—grammatical meaning interacts with lexical meaning (Comrie 1976, 41–51), suggesting that lexical meaning may also be a relevant factor in the semantics of verbs.<sup>4</sup>

<sup>4</sup> For the application of an approach which is more structuralist in nature, see Hoberman (1989, 123–24; *Lišana Deni* dialects), and for a functional

The following overview of the verbal system will aid the reader in following the stories and the grammatical survey. Jewish Dohok has four infectional bases: *šaqəl*, *šqəl*, *šqul* and *šqil*� 5 The *šaqəl* form is semantically the most versatile one� Its grammatical meaning is determined by a verbal prefx or its absence. In addition to these bases, the infnitive form *šqala* is also used in some constructions*.*

The table below presents the inventory of verbal forms, their prototypical grammatical functions and the glosses used to mark them in this paper. A category is left blank if the form is considered unmarked for that feature (i.e. it may express diferent values of this feature). In light of the aforementioned versatility of *šaqəl*, I have adopted a glossing system in which only the meaning-specifying verbal afxes—and not the infectional base itself—are tagged.<sup>6</sup> The base itself is glossed only with the lexical meaning of the verb.


study which pays special attention to discourse parameters and discourse functions of verbal forms, see Cohen (2012; Jewish Zakho dialect).



\*This applies to Patterns II, III and IV (whose traditional names in Semitic philology are, respectively, 'stems II and III' and 'the quadriliteral stem'). In these forms, whic realis h always begin with *m*, the future prefx *b*-/*p-* has been lost after being assimilated to the following *m*, e.g.: \**b-mašxən-*Ø (fut-warm\_up-he) 'he will warm up' > \**m-mašxən* > *mašxən*� This has led to their merger with the *šaqəl*  forms*,* i.e.: Ø*mašxən-*Ø (irr-warm\_up-he) 'he may warm up'. In order to indicate this morphological ambiguity, all Pattern II, III and IV *šaqəl* forms and those that may have been underlyingly *p-šaqəl* are glossed as irr/fut�

\*\*The alternative to *šqəlle*, used with object sufxes.


Table 2: Forms based on *šqəlle*

Table 3: Forms based on the infnitive (*šqala*)


Table 4: Forms based on the imperative (*šqul*)


Table 5: Forms based on the resultative participle (šqila)


## **3. Texts with Comments on Selected Grammatical Features**

### **3.1. Transcription and Translation Conventions**

As the overview of the verbal system will have made apparent, the complexity of the meanings of verbal forms cannot be fully captured by a glossing system. The glosses that are used here, therefore, are conventional. The table above may be consulted for a more nuanced characterisation of the forms.

As for the transcription, a minimalist system is used. This assumes a phonetically predictable opposition of long vowels (open, unaccented syllables) and of short ones (elsewhere). Consequently, vowel length or shortness is only indicated when not predictable from this rule. One of the exceptions to this are monosyllabic words with *a* with an open syllable (the most common of which are *xa* 'one, a certain', *la* 'no' and verbal negator, *ma* 'what' *ta* 'for (+noun)'), which are always short. Being lexically predictable, shortness in these words is not marked� Monosyllabic prepositions and conjunctions (that is, with the exception of monophonemic ones) are transcribed as separate words� In the vast majority of cases, however, they do not carry nucleus stress, and lexical stress in them is inaudible.

Typically, only nucleus stress is marked ( ̀ ), and the end of an intonation unit is indicated by the symbol 'ˈ'. Sometimes, however, a single intonation unit apparently has two nucleus stresses, both of which are indicated� Lexical stress is only indicated when it is not penultimate (in morphologically complex verbal forms, this typically has implications for vowel length, which is also marked).

The symbols '-' and '=' are employed in the transcription. '=' is used for enclitics. In Jewish Dohok, the only certain (i�e� phonetically verifable) type of clitic is the present copula, so this sign is used only in those cases. The symbol '-' is used for certain units that are morphologically complex, but prosodically are one word� This is done to make the reading more transparent�

Foreign words and phrases which refect spontaneous codeswitching, rather than being loans, are marked with superscript 'H', 'A' and 'K'. These indicate, respectively, Modern Hebrew, Arabic or Bahdini Kurdish as the source. In these words, phonological detail, i�e� vowel length and lexical stress, is not indicated. Morphologically unintegrated loanwords are not parsed�

The recordings of the two stories are available online at https://nena.ames.cam.ac.uk/�

### **Text 1: A Man is a Wolf to a Wolf**


…a father of a household who used to make his living by woodcutting.<sup>7</sup>


<sup>7</sup> Sentence 2. is not its own clause, but rather a correction to sentence 1., itself unfnished. This is refected in the translation.


He said 'I want to… I make my living by woodcutting.

15� *gǝ-mzabn-ǝn-nu go šuqa* hab-sell-IM-them in market *ʾu-*Ø*-máʿăyǝš-ǝn yalunk-e dìdi.ˈ* and-irr/fut-sustain-I child-pl my

I sell it in the market and provide for my children�

16� *bǝ-d-è ʾana g-ʿeš-ǝn.ˈ* In-gen-thisF I hab-live-I M In this way I make my living�'

9 The activity 'woodcutting' in the construction *gʿešǝn bǝt qaṭʾǝn ṣìwe* in the sentence above is expressed by a fnite form (literally 'I live by that I cut wood'), rather than by the infnitive *qṭaʾa* 'cutting'. The infnitive is expected here, and is in fact attested after the verb *ʿ-y-š* 'to make a living' in sentences 9–10 above: *gʿešiwa* (…) *mǝn mzabonǝt ṣìwe*�

<sup>8</sup> Note that the modal word is *gǝbǝn* is followed by a realis form, though irrealis forms are standard in such contexts. These two verbs are therefore not a single construction but are separated by a hesitation. This is indicated in the translation. Indeed, it is the only attestation of such a sequence of verbs (modal verb + realis verb) in my corpus. The informant himself rejected other such constructions during an interview.

17� *g-emər-*Ø *ʾana b-yāw-ǝn-nox kud-yom* hab-say-he I fut-give-I-you every-day *xa lira kurkamàna.ˈ* one coin golden

He replied 'Every day, I will give you one golden coin.

18� *s-i maṣrəf-*Ø *ta yalunk-e didox.ˈ* imp.go-youMS imp.spend-youCS to child-pl yourMS Go, spend it on your children.'


and came to the market

<sup>10</sup> The defnite direct object *lira kurkamana dide* is not referenced with an object sufx on the verb. In the past tense in Jewish Dohok, we would expect here the following construction: *qam-šāqəl-*Ø*-le* (pfv-take-he-him) *lira kurkamana dide.* In NENA, defnite objects are generally referenced with an object sufx on the verb itself. For a recent study on object marking in NENA, see, for instance, Coghill (2014).


'Indeed, I met a friend on the mountain, but he is a wolf.


*ʾu-g-ewəð-*Ø *ṣìw-eˈ* and-hab-make-he wood-pl

So every day, he goes to the mountain, cuts wood



he will enjoy himself at our house, and we will feast together�'


He says to her 'Leave him alone� He's a wolf� He's an animal�


What does it mean "He will come among people"? People will be afraid.

38� Ø*-mbàrbəʿă-*Ø*-lu gurga* Ø*-yaʾəl-*Ø *go ma-θa.ˈ* irr/fut-alarm-he-them wolf irr-enter-he in city-fs.

A wolf that enters the city will alarm them�'

<sup>11</sup> This construction is likely to be a calque from Modern Israeli Hebrew. There, the interrogative 'what' can be used before future forms to express the speaker's disapproval of the predicated eventuality, for instance, 'what [do you mean] that he should come?!' Incidentally, constructions such as this one are likely to be the 'missing link' in the grammaticalisation of interrogatives ('what') into negators. This development has been posited for, inter alia, *mā* in Modern Standard and some dialectal varieties of Arabic. In the present example, the meaning 'what' is possible, assuming an ellipsis (see translation). The implicature of this clause, however, may be understood as '[Surely] he won't come!'

39� *g-əmr-a là,ˈ là,ˈ mar-*Ø*-re.* Ø*-ʾàθe-*Ø*.ˈ* prs-say-she no, no, imp.say-youCS-him irr-come-he She said 'No, no, tell him to come�'


So he went and told the wolf, but he said 'I can't come.


I am a wolf� I eat people�


So the man went and told his wife, this is what the wolf said�

44� *ʾaz g-əmr-a šud* Ø*-ʾaθe-*Ø *b-lèle, xə̀ška.ˈ* so prs-say-she let irr-come-he in night�ms darkness So she said 'Let him come at night, when there is darkness�' 45� *bə-d-aw wàxtˈ l-əθ-wa beher-ùθaˈ.* in-gen-thatM time�ms neg-exist�pst light-fs� At that time, there were no lights�


There was nothing like lamps� There was no electricity�

47� *xə̀ška wewa.ˈ* darkness cop.pst.he It was dark�


When it got dark, the whole city would be dark.


50� *beθ-*Ø*-an wele bə-dumằhik dət ma-θa.ˈ* house-our deix.cop.prs.he in-outskirts gen city-fs Our house is on the outskirts of town.


He will come straight to our house and go back. No one will see him�'


So he told the wolf 'My wife will make for you a great banquet.'

53� *mər-re ṭa-le b-àθ-ən,ˈ g-emər-*Ø *b-àθ-ən.ˈ* pfv.say-he to-him fut-come-IM prs-say-he fut-come-IM

He replied to him 'I will come,' he said 'I will come'�

54� *g-emər-*Ø*,* <sup>H</sup>*tov*<sup>H</sup>*, b-àθ-ən.ˈ* prs-say-he HgoodH, fut-come-IM

The wolf said 'Well then, I will come�'


<sup>12</sup> Note that it is the feminine singular subject sufx that is used nonreferentially for the impersonal construction *pəšla drangi* (pfv*.*stay-she late 'it got late'). Indeed, the non-referential use of a feminine singular subject afx is common in NENA. Moreover, a feminine non-referential object morpheme is also attested in many NENA dialects, for instance: *ʾărəq-a-le* (pfv.run-her-he 'he fed'). For non-referential object afxes and likely contact dimension with Kurdish, see Mengozzi (2007).


The wolf came and says 'Take for yourself also today one golden coin, but from today [onwards], don't come, until forty more days�


<sup>13</sup> The verb *m-x-y* 'to hit' takes as its direct object argument the noun *năra* 'axe', referred to here by the object sufx on the verb: *mx-i-le go reš-Ø-i* (imp.hit-youMS-it on head-my) lit. 'hit it on my head', while *go reši* 'on head' is an adjunct. The same argument structure is attested with this verb in sentences 79 and 81 below.

82� *ʾaw naša ži faqìra,ˈ kma də-mṣèle, qam-māxele go rèše,ˈ* <sup>H</sup>*qamsālə̀ḥle*<sup>H</sup> *gurga.*ˈ

This poor man, he hit him14 on his head as [hard as] he could [and] the wolf forgave him.


He says to him 'Only after another forty days will you come again�

85� *bas ʾarbi yoma xeta b-àθət ˈb-axlə̀nnox.ˈ*

Only, in another forty days will you come, [otherwise] I will eat you.'


<sup>14</sup> In the Aramaic text, the sufx *le* 'him/it' refers to the axe, not the wolf; see note on line 75 above.

<sup>15</sup> The word order in both of these verbal clauses is predicate—subject: *pədlu ʾarbi yome* lit. 'passed by forty days', and *qəmle ʾaw naša* lit. 'got up that man'. Such word order occurs occasionally in Jewish Dohok—mostly with intransitive verbs, as is the case with these two verbs.


He says 'Untie this scarf from my head and see [the] place [which] you hit [with] that axe (lit. see [the] place you hit your axe on it).'

92� *qam-šārela mən ʿāqə̀le,ˈ wela trə̀ṣta.ˈ*

He untied it from his head (lit. mind)*—*it had healed�

93� *g-emər mà k-xazət?ˈ* 

He says 'What do you see?'

94� *g-emər wele rešox trìṣa.ˈ*

He says 'Your head has healed!'<sup>16</sup>

95� *g-emər k-xàzət?ˈ g-emər šwirət*<sup>17</sup> *năra dìdoxˈ qam-māxətte baθər ʾarbi yome,ˈ trə̀ṣle reši.ˈ*

He says 'Do you see?' He says 'The wound of your axe [which] you had hit*—*after forty days, my head has healed�

<sup>16</sup> Note the unusual syntax: deictic copula—subject—predicate. The canonical order would be subject—copula—predicate (*rešox wele triṣa*), or perhaps copula—predicate—subject (*wele triṣa rešox*).

<sup>17</sup> The etymology of this word is unknown to me.


<sup>18</sup> A Kurdish loanword, compare Jewish Zakho *pēv*(*a*) (Sabar 2002, 254).

## **Text 2: The True Lie**


<sup>19</sup> In Jewish Dohok, the originally plural form *dugl-e* lie-pl has evidently been generalised to the singular, meaning 'a lie'. Contrast this with the form *dugla* in Jewish Zakho (Sabar 2002, 138).


<sup>20</sup> The clause *ʾo dùglē=la* (thism lie.ms-cop.prs.she), which appears here twice, exhibits a lack of agreement between the subject and the copula� The subject (expressed by the demonstrative) is masculine singular, whereas the copula is feminine singular.

17� *ʾu-ḥakoma žik mərre,ˈ k-xāzə́tula kǝsta dǝt-pàre,ˈ kǝs dət zùze,ˈ zuzət dèhwa?ˈ*

And the ruler also said 'Do you see [the] bag of money, bag of coins, golden coins?


<sup>21</sup> Note that the accent is pre-penultimate, rather than penultimate. Such accent retraction occurs sometimes in forms near the end of intonation units.


[who] used to live of alms. They used to give him and he would live of [that].

42� *šmeʾle,ˈ g-emǝr mà-loxun ta parlament.ˈ*

He heard [and] says 'What is [up] with you?' to the parliament�

43� *g-ǝmri ḥāl ʾu-măsale ʾèha=la.ˈ* 

They say 'The situation is this.'


Buy me a royal suit and take me to [the] bathhouse, and I shall wash, change and shave, shoes and everything new,

48� *ʾu-náblūli kəs ḥakoma,ˈ ʾana mdaglǝn ṭale xa-dugle žiˈ d-ʾawa ʾàmərˈ ʾe dùglē=la.ˈ*

and take me to [the] ruler, I shall tell him such a lie [that] he will say [that] it is [a] lie�


and also bring seven donkey drivers for … so that they can take them to the ruler and place them [in] a line in his reception room�'

53� <sup>H</sup>*tòv*Hˈ*. gəbe maxəlṣi b-gyànu.ˈ zunnu ṭale šoʾa lʾìneˈ ʾu-šoʾa ḥammàreˈ ʾu-zəllu kəs ḥakoma.ˈ*

Good. They want to save themselves. They bought him seven big jugs and seven donkey drivers and they went to the king�

54� *θelu kəs dargằvanˈ dət ḥakoma,ˈ ʾanna talme ʾu-kadùne,ˈ talme ʾu-nàše,ˈ*

They came to the ruler's gate-keeper, [all] these vessels and jugs, vessels and people.


They say '[The] king told [us that] we should come [and] tell a lie for him�'


He put all his big jugs in a line and a few of the donkey drivers behind the big jugs.

64� *ʾu-g-emər ṭale d-mằ,ˈ mdaglət xa-dùgleˈ d-ʾana ʿāqəli qaṭe dùglē=la?ˈ* 

And [the ruler] says 'What? You [want to] tell me a lie which my mind would consider to be a lie (lit. my mind would decide it is [a] lie)?


[The Jew] says 'Good ruler, I do not tell you [a] lie, I tell you something that was true.

67� *troṣa wewa.ˈ* 

It was true.

68� *ʾana là-θeli mdaglənnox dugle.ˈ* I haven't come to tell [a] lie�'


'And your grandfather was a ruler. He needed my grandfather to lend him money, coins,


he came and borrowed from my grandfather, in these big jugs, which they flled for him with golden coins, money.

77� *sawoyiˈ mdoyənne tà sawoyoxˈ šoʾa lʾine dət zùze.ˈ* My grandfather lent your grandfather seven big jugs of coins�

78*. ʾu-ʾatta ʾana pəšli …ˈ ḥali wele twìraˈ ʾu-θeli šaqlən denət sawoyi mə̀nnox.ˈ*

And now I became … I have gone bankrupt (lit. my situation is broken) and I have come to take my grandfather's loan from you.

79� *ʾāt ḥakoma=wətˈ ʾə̀tlox.ˈ* 

You are the ruler [and] you have [enough].'


'When was your grandfather such a flthy bastard (lit. big dog) that my grandfather, the king, the ruler, would borrow from him big jugs of money?

82� *mən ʾèmal ila?ˈ hatxa wewa rùwa.ˈ*

Since when does such a thing happen (lit. since when is it)? He was such a great (flthy bastard).

83� *sawoyox kalba rùwa wewa.ˈ*

Your grandfather was a flthy bastard.'

84� *g-emər ṭaleˈ ḥakomaˈ maḥki ta gyànox,ˈ là-mṣaʾărət sawoyi.ˈ* [The Jew] says to him 'Ruler, speak to yourself [quietly], [but] do not curse my grandfather.

85� *ʾēn ila troṣaˈ sawoyox wele šqila mən sawoyi pàreˈ ṃḷìlu ʾanna lʾine ṭàliˈ dena dìdi.ˈ*

If it is true—your grandfather had borrowed from my grandfather money—fll these big jugs for me [with the money for] my loan�

86� *ʾu-ʾēn ila dùgle,ˈ hàlli kəsta.ˈ*

And if it is a lie, give me a bag [of money].'

87� *ʾawa ḥakoma krə̀ble,ˈ g-emər šqùl.ˈ qam-māxela ṣàdre,ˈ g-emər ʾèhaˈ qṭèle ʿāqəli duglē=la.ˈ*

That ruler got angry and says 'Take.' He threw the bag his way and says 'This one I accepted as a lie (lit� this one my mind has determined to be [a] lie)'.

## **4. Survey of Selected Functions of Verbal Forms**

In this section I present a commentary on the grammatical meanings of selected verbal forms (mostly of those attested in the texts above). As remarked, the goal of this section is to highlight some of the more distinctive features of Jewish Dohok in the context of NENA, and to draw attention to certain nonprototypical, creative applications of verbal forms that are intended to create particular discourse efects.

### **4.1. Expression of Realis Mood through** *šaqəl-wa*

The *šaqəl* form typically expresses irrealis present and future, while its past counterpart *šaqəl-wa* is prototypically past irrealis� In addition, however, *šaqəl-wa* also sometimes occurs in sentences conveying realis mood. The prototypical realis counterparts of *šaqəl* and *šaqəl-wa* have the habitual indicative prefx *k-,* thus *k-šaqəl* (present) and *k-šaqəl-wa* (past).<sup>22</sup>

<sup>22</sup> Overview of the use and origin of the habitualindicative prefx across the NENA dialects can be found in Khan (2007) and in Rubin (2018,

As the previous paragraph implies, there is an asymmetry between the verbal forms: the *k-* prefx is omitted in forms conveying realis mood in the past, but in the present, such omission of the prefx is virtually unattested in the corpus.<sup>23</sup>

In the texts presented above, *šaqəl-wa* occurs in clauses that can be identifed as subordinate relative clauses (though asyndetic), as well as in main clauses (examples 2/39–40 and 1/4 below respectively):

2/39–41<sup>24</sup> *xă wewa huðaya go šùqaˈ* There was a Jew in the market Ø*-ṭāləb-*Ø*-wa* <sup>H</sup>*nedavòt*H, irr-ask-he-pst HalmsH, '[who] used to beg,' 1/4 *g-meθè-*Ø*-wa-lu,ˈ* Ø*-dāré-*Ø*-wa-lu rəš*

hab-bring-he-pst-them irr-place-he-pst-them on

*xmara dìde…ˈ*

donkey his…

'He would bring them [and] place them on his donkey…'

57:130–39), who presents some alternative reconstuctions.

23 For the past tense, a sample of the corpus (about 4000 words) was studied, and the ratio between *k-šaqəl-wa* and *šaqəl-wa* in Pattern I verbs in clauses interpreted as realis was found to be 11:1, though this ratio could be slightly diferent if the whole corpus were taken into account.

<sup>24</sup> The frst number refers to the text (frst or second), the second indicates the line within that text�

If the absence of the habitual indicative prefx is a matter of phonetic elision, this elision is highly irregular (i.e. it is not restricted to a single phonetic environment). A more likely explanation for its absence, therefore, is linked to the original semantics of the *k*prefx and to its process of diachronic grammaticalisation� Namely, the *k-* prefx (and its dialectal variants) most likely originated as a progressive or presentative marker (Khan 2007, 94), which was added to the base *šaqəl*, the latter subsequently becoming restricted to irrealis mood. The progressive and presentative functions are bound especially closely with the (actual) present, since they are typically used to draw attention to situations overlapping with speech time. This, in turn, suggests that the habitual indicative prefx in NENA originated in the present tense (ibid), and only later began its spread into habituality and the past tense. In light of this, it is likely that in Jewish Dohok, the *k-* prefx has not been fully grammaticalised as a marker of realis and habituality. Specifcally, it does not always occur in contexts that are not directly associated with the original function of this morpheme, viz. present tense presentative or progressive. This hypothesis would explain the lack of obligatoriness of *k-* in the case of the past�

Partial grammaticalisation can also be postulated for other dialects� C� Barwar, for instance, has the realis prefx *ʾi-*� According to Khan, however, *ʾi-qaṭəl* and *ʾi-qaṭəl-wa—*in contrast to *qaṭəl* and *qaṭəl-wa—*are used to indicate 'discourse prominence'. In other words, *ʾi-qaṭəl* and *ʾi-qaṭəl-wa* forms are apparently restricted to clauses conveying a high degree of pragmatic assertiveness (Khan 2008, 590–91). The domain of assertiveness (presenting a situation as new to the listener; Cristofaro 2003, 29–33) is itself likely to be related to the actual present, which draws attention to a situation in the present that is typically assumed by the speaker to be new or surprising for the hearer. Thus, the original domain of the realis prefx is not only the actual present, but also pragmatic assertion. The synchronic distribution of the *ʾi-* prefx in Barwar may still refect this origin.

## **4.2. Expression of Emphatic Negative Imperative through la** *k-šaqəl* **(prototypically realis)**

The negative form *la k-šaqəl* is used more broadly than its afrmative *kšaqəl* counterpart*,* which conveys realis present� The form *la kšaqəl* negates not only the present, but also the future, which, in the afrmative, is expressed by *p-šaqəl*� Modally, these future forms convey the sense of 'near-realis'. That is, it conveys the higher-certainty, predictive type of epistemic future.<sup>25</sup>

This prototypical function notwithstanding, *la k-šaqəl* can also sometimes be used for an emphatic negative imperative. Prototypically, the negative imperative is expressed by the irrealis *la šaqəl,* e�g� *la* Ø*-aθ-ət* (neg irr-come-youMS) 'do not come'.<sup>26</sup> One such case is attested in the texts (1/87, see below), and a few parallel examples are found elsewhere in my corpus:

1/87

*là-k-eθ-ət* (neg hab-come-youMS) *ʾarbi yoma xeta ʾaxxa.ˈ*

'You will not be coming here for another forty days.'

<sup>H</sup>*ʾaz*<sup>H</sup> *g-əmri là-k-eθ-etu* (neg hab-come-youPL) *mən dəšdaša,ˈ lazəm zonetu pantarone.ˈ*

'So they say you won't be coming [wearing] a thawb, you have to buy trousers.'

Given that *la k-šaqəl* is typically used for predictive, 'near-realis' future, its use for a negative command is likely to be intended to have precisely that efect: it serves to present the event as almost certain. In other words, the command is so emphatic that it must certainly be obeyed. Its fulflment may, therefore, be expressed as

<sup>25</sup> See Akatsuka (1985) on epistemic modality as a scale�

<sup>26</sup> For a discussion on diferent morphological expression of the imperative and for their various pragmatic functions in NENA, see Khan (2010, 65–70) and Hoberman (1989, 136).

if it is certain by using the predictive form. Such an interpretation fts the context of sentence 1/18, in which the wolf threatens to eat the man if he—despite the prohibition—comes again. The second sentence above is a command of a school ofcial to his pupils, so it was uttered from a position of authority.

This function of *la k-šaqəl* also occurs in other NENA dialects. For example, native speakers of the Christian Shaqlawa dialect describe the diference between an imperative conveyed by the predictive form (corresponding to the Jewish Dohok *la kšaqəl*) and with the irrealis form (corresponding to *la šaqəl*) in the following way: 'the former means that there can be no discussion whether the command will or will not be obeyed, so it sounds much more authoritative.'<sup>27</sup>

### **4.3. Expression of the Resultative and of the Continuous Aspect (in Stative Verbs)**

The resultative construction in Jewish Dohok is composed of the copula (in the 3rd person present, the deictic copula must be used) with the resultative participle *šqila,* infected for gender and number of the subject. This is illustrated by the following constructions from the texts:

2/57


<sup>27</sup> Private communication with Lourd Chechman.

*mən sawoy -i pàr-e.* from grandfather-my money-pl

'Your grandfather had borrowed money from my grandfather�'

In such constructions, the focus of the predication is on the persisting state that follows an event, rather than on the event itself. Such usage is confrmed by other constructions from my corpus.<sup>28</sup>

This, in turn, indicates that the copula + *šqila* construction in Jewish Dohok is best understood as a resultative rather than a full perfect� <sup>29</sup> In this dialect, it is largely used only with verbs that have a clear state following the activity—typically, stative verbs (e.g. the state of sitting following the event of sitting down). This type of usage is attested in the sentence 2/57 above (*fan welu ʾə̀θye*), where the focus is on the result of arriving. We can paraphrase: 'Some men are here.'

The only transitive verbs that can occur in the resultative construction in Jewish Dohok are possessive transitives, such as in 2/85 (*sawoyox wele šqila mən sawoyi pare*).<sup>30</sup> In transitive verbs such as *šqila,* the focus of the predication is on the subsequent state of having in one's possession. We can thus paraphrase: 'my grandfather had a loan�'


<sup>28</sup> I am indebted to Paul Noorlander for drawing my attention to this, and for helping me test various verbs in the resultative construction during feldwork in Jerusalem in September 2019.

In the case of stative verbs, the resultative function overlaps semantically with the continuous aspect, which also refers to a state that is ongoing at the time of reference and had begun at some point in the past� <sup>31</sup> When asked to produce a sentence that includes a stative verb with continuous meaning (though typically not a verb of cognition, emotion or sensation), speakers commonly use the copula + *šqila* construction, for example:

*ʾaw naša d-wele* (deix�cop.he) *ḥmila* (res�stand�ms) *kəs beθa ʾaxoni=le.* (elicitation)

'That man who **is standing** (/**has stopped**) by the house is my brother.'

By contrast, in other dialects, the copula + *šqila* construction has become a full perfect� This is the case in Christian Barwar, where copula + *šqila* can be used with the verb 'to kill' (Khan 2008, 735), there being no direct efect or state of agent resulting from the act of killing. Such perfects express a more abstract situation resulting from a previous event. The construction still does not express a specifc event bound to a specifc point in time, but rather the event is only an implicature. There is, however, another use of the copula + *šqila* construction in C. Barwar (as well as in the dialects that come originally from the Tyare region), which expresses a specifc past event in narrative� This is a past perfective, though the event is presented as cognitively distant (typically in fctitious folktales). In this function, the ordinary ('enclitic') copula is used, rather than the deictic one (Khan 2008, 669).<sup>32</sup>

<sup>31</sup> A similar situation is attested in languages such as Chinese or Japanese (Shirai 1998).

<sup>32</sup> This usage, though genre-restricted, is arguably typologically the most advanced one, based on the model of diachronic change proposed by Bybee : stative > resultative > perfect > preterite (Bybee, Perkins Revere, and Pagliuca 1994, 81–82).

### **4.4. Expression of the Continuous Aspect**

The texts presented above include no cases of verbal forms that are exclusively dedicated to the marking of continuousness.33 Indeed, in the corpus as a whole, there are very few such forms, even though there are multiple cases of *k-šaqəl* which—contextually clearly describe predications of a continuous nature.

In NENA dialects in general, there are two main constructions for the expression of the continuous aspect� These also commonly include the progressive function. The frst—and more common one—is formed by a copula and *b*-Infnitive (in Jewish Dohok, *wele bə-šqala*), which in dialects such as Christian Urmi has been reanalysed as its own infectional stem (Khan 2016, 185). In the second construction, a copula or a presentative particle is combined with the prototypically realis present form (in Jewish Dohok, *wal/hol/hole k-šaqəl*). In many NENA dialects, these constructions are widespread. In the more typologically advanced dialects such as Christian Urmi, Jewish Arbel and Christian Qaraqosh, the (originally) continuous construction has even been extended into non-progressive domains (e.g. habitual present or even perfective past in the narrative) (e.g., Christian Urmi—Khan 2016, vol.2, 185–200).<sup>34</sup>

In Jewish Dohok, however, as mentioned above, the continuous constructions are extremely rare in the corpus. This feature, as well as the restricted function and use of the resultative construction, points to the conservative character of Jewish Dohok, even in relation to the other *Lišana Deni* dialects�

<sup>33</sup> Following Comrie, 'continuous' is used here to describe a state or event which is ongoing at the point of reference (Comrie 1976, 25). A continuous construction can, therefore, be used with both stative and dynamic verbs. By contrast, the term 'progressive' implies a progress, which is compatible only with dynamic verbs. The term 'continuous' is preferable here, even though many NENA grammars use the term 'progressive', since the constructions discussed here can be used in Jewish Dohok—as well as in other NENA dialects—also with stative verbs .

<sup>34</sup> On a general discussion on the continuous (in Khan, 'progressive') constructions in NENA, see Khan (2007, 95–97).

Another noteworthy feature of Jewish Dohok is that it possesses both of the continuous constructions. These two constructions, moreover,—judging from the available data—have distinct functions.

## *Wele bə-šqala*

This construction is only attested twice in the corpus. In both of those cases, it describes a bodily state that is not of a cognitive, emotional or sensory nature. Sentence 3f/36 below describes a state that is ongoing in the time between the Jew's visits to the king�

*mà d-g-məθele dərmaneˈ ʾu-mà d-g-oðiˈ l-èwe bə-traṣa* (neg-cop� prs.he in-healing).ˈ (3f)

'Whatever medicine they bring and whatever they do, he is not getting better.'

*zəlle* <sup>H</sup>*misken*<sup>H</sup> *ʾo huðaya l-bèθa,ˈ l-ewe bə-dmàxa* (neg-cop�prs�he in-sleeping)*ˈ mən zdoʾŏθe.ˈ* (3f)

'The poor Jew went home, he is not sleeping for his fear�'

With other verbs, *wele bə-šqala* could not be elicited from most speakers� <sup>35</sup> This suggests that in Jewish Dohok *wele bə-šqala*  is—in contrast to other dialects—precisely *not* a progressive construction. Rather, it conveys the non-dynamic continuous aspect, but even in this function it is highly restricted, being attested only with physical states�

In many NENA dialects, by contrast, the parallel construction with a copula + *b-*Infnitive expresses the progressive function. A situation similar to that in Jewish Dohok, however, is attested in early-NENA sources, suggesting that the situation in Jewish

<sup>35</sup> When the speakers were presented with such a construction containing a stative verb of cognition, sensory perception or emotion, they accepted it, but said it sounded unnatural or reminiscent of another *Lišana Deni*  dialect (e�g� Jewish Zakho) and rephrased it with a *k-šaqəl* form�

Dohok is a conservative one. Such early-NENA evidence is supplied by the early Christian (apparently archaising) NENA poetry from north-western Iraq (Telkepe and Alqosh), dating to the 17th-19th centuries (Mengozzi 2012). In these texts, (copula +) *b*-Infnitive is very rare, and functions as a 'circumstantial modifer or a complement of the predicate, whereas it rarely occurs in combination with the copula' (Mengozzi 2012, 34, citing Poizat 1999, 173).

Similarly, in Jewish Dohok, *wele bə-šqala* is only attested with states� In this dialect, however, those states are predicative (i.e. they contain a copula). Thus, in contrast to the early-NENA poetry, they are not necessarily presented as overlapping temporarily with the predicate of the clause, on which they are syntactically dependent� Rather, they may simply overlap with a given period of time specifed by the broader context. Moreover, it remains to be seen how the continuous/progressive in NENA fts with the typical grammaticalisation paths of the progressive� Cross-linguistically, progressive constructions typically involve dynamic verbs, and—according to Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994, 133)—often develop from (metaphorically) locative constructions.

## *Wəl/hol/hole k-šaqəl*

In contrast to *wele bə-šqala, wəl/hol/hole k-šaqəl* is only attested with dynamic verbs in the corpus (fve times in total).<sup>36</sup> The frst element of these constructions is a presentative particle *wəl* or *hol,* or *hole* (i�e� apparently a fossilised 3ms form). Consider the following examples from the corpus:

*θela mən tàma,ˈ ʾay baxta* <sup>H</sup>*miskèna*<sup>H</sup>*ˈ hole g-baxš-a-lu* (prog habstir-she-them) *ṭloxe***.ˈ** (3h)

<sup>36</sup> The association of the *wəl/hol/hole k-šaqəl* construction with lexically dynamic verbs is confrmed from interviews. Speakers showed a tendency to rephrase constructions ofered by the interviewer such as \**wele b-iθaya*  'he is coming' as *wəl k-eθe* 'look, he is coming'�

She came from there, that HpoorH woman, and [now] **look, she is stirring** the lentils�

*g-yāʾəl-wa go màṭbaxˈ k-xāpəq-wa-la g-nāšə̀q-wa-la.ˈ b-amrá-wā-le d-prùq-li. ʾana wəl gə-mbàšlan* (prog hab-cook-I),ˈ *ʾatta gəbe ʾoðan ʾixàla.ˈ*

'He used to enter the kitchen, hug her, kiss her. [But] she would tell him 'Leave me'� **Look, I am cooking**, I need to make food now�'

It is the presentative elements—*wəl, hole* or *hol—*that convey the continuous aspect� Presentative particles typically draw attention to an event that can be witnessed by the hearer. This, in turn, often has the purpose of highlighting the signifcance of the event� In narrative, therefore, presentatives have the efect of placing the listener in the midst of the unfolding events, as if he or she were witnessing them personally� <sup>37</sup> This, in turn, means that such presentative forms are likely to be used for situations that are happening in the here-and-now, and are, therefore, aspectually continuous. Still, in light of the rarity of these constructions in Jewish Dohok, it is highly unlikely that the presentative particles in constructions combined with *k-šaqəl* have been fully grammaticalised as continuous markers. Instead, these particles probably perform a discourse function (drawing attention to signifcant events happening in the here-and-now), which happens to overlap with a grammatical function (marking continuousness).

## **5. Conclusions**

This paper has presented two folktales from the hitherto unstudied NENA dialect of the Jews of Dohok accompanied by linguistic glosses (for a part of text), translation and comments on a few noteworthy constructions. These stories exemplify the rich and

<sup>37</sup> For a discussion on the function of presentative copulas and particles and their possible historical origin, see Cohen (2017).

long-standing genre of orally transmitted folktales, typical for many of the NENA-speaking communities.

These stories were followed by a brief grammatical study of a few aspects of verbal semantics, focusing primarily on features attested in the texts themselves� I concentrated especially on forms and functions that are noteworthy either from the point of view of Jewish Dohok itself, or from the perspective of NENA more broadly. I showed that the prototypically realis and predictive *la k-šaqəl* can be used for deontic modality (imperative), apparently to create a stronger imperative by presenting it as predictive ('near-realis'). I also showed that the prototypically past irrealis *šaqəl-wa* can be used for the realis past. I suggested that this is due to the incomplete grammaticalisation of the *k*indicative habitual prefx, which is likely to have originated as a presentative-progressive marker in the present and is not yet obligatory in the past. In addition, I studied the construction copula+*šqila* (resultative participle), noting that it tends to be used only with stative and possessive transitive verbs. In light of this restriction, it should be analysed as a resultative and not as a fully-developed perfect, in contrast to many other dialects� Additionally, I showed that forms dedicated exclusively to the marking of continuousness are used only marginally. Moreover, one of them is apparently reserved for stative verbs. This is apparently a conservative feature in Jewish Dohok; which distinguishes this dialect even from the closely related dialects, such as Jewish Amedia or Jewish Zakho�

### **References**


———. 2017. 'The Functions of Presentative Constructions in Jewish Zakho Neo-Aramaic'� *Journal of Jewish Languages* 5 (1): 1–21.

Comrie, Bernard� 1976� *Aspect*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cristofaro, Sonia� 2003� *Subordination*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


## **VERBAL FORMS EXPRESSING DISCOURSE DEPENDENCY IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC**

*Geofrey Khan*

## **1. Introduction**

In this paper I shall draw attention to the use of various verbal forms in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects to express discourse dependency. By this I mean that certain verbal forms in certain contexts signal that the predicate of the clause they occur in continues in some way the preceding discourse. This continuation is typically either temporal sequence or some kind of elaboration. I shall propose explanations as to how the function of the expression of discourse dependency developed historically in the various verb forms in question. It will be shown that although the forms are formally diferent, they exhibit parallels in the historical processes of their semantic change� The data are based mainly on my studies of the C. Barwar and C� Urmi dialects, with occasional references to other dialects� 1

## **2. The** *bət-qaṭəl* **Form**

Dialects in the northern half of the NENA dialect area and in the Mosul plain have a future construction that is derived

<sup>1</sup> When referring to NENA dialects the abbreviation C. is used to denote a dialect spoken by a Christian community (e.g. C. Barwar, C� Urmi) and the abbreviation J. is used to refer to a dialect spoken by a Jewish community (e.g. J. Dobe).

historically from the deontic verb 'to want' and a subordinate complement:<sup>2</sup>

(1) *\*bāʿē d-qāṭel* want�ipfv.3ms comp-kill�sbjv.3ms 'He wants to kill�'

The deontic verb has undergone morphological reduction and bonding through grammaticalisation� In the dialect of C� Barwar, for example, the basic form of the construction in slow careful speech is as follows:

(2) C� Barwar *bət-qaṭəl* fut-kill�sbjv�3ms 'He will kill�'

The verb has been phonetically contracted and the subordinating complementiser has been afxed to the deontic form and devoiced� In some dialects there is no devoicing, e�g� C� Qaraqosh *bəd-qaṭəl*�

The process of grammaticalisation has reduced person distinctions in the deontic verb and the particle *bət* is used before verbs of all persons:<sup>3</sup>

<sup>2</sup> For discussions of the future form in NENA, see Fox (2015) and Noorlander (2017).

<sup>3</sup> This is cross-linguistically a common feature of future forms derived historically from deontic verbs (Noorlander 2017, 191).

(3) C� Barwar


In normal fast speech, moreover, the particle undergoes further phonetic reduction, resulting in the following allomorphs:

(4) C� Barwar


The construction can be shifted into the past to express a future in the past by attaching the past-shifting afx *-wa*:

(5) C� Barwar *bət-qaṭəl-wa* fut-kill.sbjv.3ms-pst 'He would kill.'

## **2.1. Functions of the** *bət-qaṭəl* **Form**

In the C� Barwar dialect the following functions of the *bət-qaṭəl*  form can be identifed (Khan 2008, 598–608). These functions are the typical functions of the future construction also in other NENA dialects. They can be classifed broadly into functions that involve the expression of future tense (§2.1.1.–§2.1.3.) and those that involve the expression of discourse dependency (§2.1.4.). As will be argued below, the discourse dependency function, which is the main focus of this section, has developed from the future function.

## 2�1�1� Deontic Future

This function retains the deontic meaning of the source construction.<sup>4</sup> In such cases, it conveys an element of will and expresses various degrees of intention, obligation, request and permission regarding a future action.

When the verb has an agentive 1st singular subject the *bət-qaṭəl*  form generally has a sense expressing deontic intention, e�g�

<sup>4</sup> Cf. Noorlander (2017, 191–92).


When the verb has an agentive 1st plural subject, the form often has a cohortative sense ('Let's …'), e.g.


The form may express deontic obligation. In such cases the verb generally has an agentive 2nd person subject, e.g.


<sup>5</sup> References are to texts in vol. 3 of Khan (2008). In the cited examples the sign | marks the end of an intonation group. An acute accent (e.g. *á*) indicates non-nuclear word-stress. A grave accent (e.g. *à*) marks the nuclear stress of the intonation group.

Occasionally the form expresses deontic obligation also in other persons, e�g�

(9) *t-ázəl ṭalə́b-la m-be-bába dìya.*<sup>|</sup> fut-go�3ms ask.3ms-3fs from-house-father.her of�her 'He should go and ask her father's family for her hand.' (A29:39)

### 2�1�2� Predictive Future

In many cases the construction does not have clear deontic force, but rather expresses a prediction of an eventuality that will happen in the future. This can be regarded as resulting from the grammaticalisation of the deontic construction, parallels to which are found in many languages. The core of this process involves a semantic extension whereby an implicature of the original deontic construction, in particular one with a 3rd person subject, is incorporated into the meaning, e.g. *he wants to go to town* implies that it is likely that he will go (Bybee 2010, 55).

The predictive future function of the *bət-qaṭəl* construction is generally found where the subject of the verb is 3rd person or where it is a non-agentive 1st or 2nd person, e�g�


### 2.1.3. Conditional Constructions

The *bət-qaṭəl* form is used in the apodosis of conditional sentences. In the majority of cases it expresses an eventuality that is temporally sequential to a hypothetical situation in the future, e.g.

(12) *ʾən-kpìn-ni,*<sup>|</sup> *t-axlə̀n-ne.*<sup>|</sup> if-hunger.pfv-1s fut-eat�sbjv.1ms-3ms

'If I am hungry, I shall eat it.' (A23:5)

(13) *ʾən-ʾamrə́n-nux ʾáp-ʾati b-šànət.*<sup>|</sup> if-say�sbjv.1ms-2ms also-you fut-faint�sbjv.2ms 'If I tell you, you will faint.' (A11:2)

In some cases it expresses a future eventuality that follows logically from a given, real situation in the present denoted by the protasis clause, e.g.


'If he is my nephew, he will come and he will know what these are.' (A25:49)

One of the most common uses of the 'future in the past' form *bət-qaṭəlwa* is in the apodosis of conditional sentences. Such sentences may refer to a hypothetical condition in the past that was not fulflled, e.g.


'If you had asked, I would have given you money, but you did not ask.'

In some cases the construction may denote a hypothetical condition in the present or future that the speaker assesses to be impossible to fulfl, e.g.


### 2.1.4. Discourse Dependency

In conditional constructions such as those described in §2.1.3., the apodoses with the *bət-qaṭəl* and *bət-qaṭəlwa* forms are dependent syntactically on the preceding protasis� The forms are sometimes used outside of conditional constructions in clauses that are more loosely dependent on the preceding discourse. Various types of discourse dependency are attested� In some cases the forms express events that are temporally sequential to what precedes:


*ʾay-t-aθyà-wa,* <sup>|</sup> *t-orà-wa,* | she-fut-come�sbjv.3fs-pst fut-enter�sbjv.3fs-pst *ʾu-t-oðá-wa ṣlìwa,*<sup>|</sup> *mə̀šxa,*<sup>|</sup> and-fut-make�sbjv.3fs-pst cross oil *gu-tărət qàṣra.*<sup>|</sup>

in-door�of house

'They would take her (the bride) round the village on the back of mules. … (Then) **she would come back, enter (the house) … and make** (the sign of) the cross in oil on the door of the house.' (B10:34–35)


'After the Great Festival … the festival of Ascension takes place� … **Afterwards comes** a small festival, which is called *musarde*.' (B6:5–8)

(19) *la-θéle rēš-ṣàwma?*<sup>|</sup> *b-šaqlə́x-wa kúlla* neg-come�pfv�3ms head.of-fast? fut-take�sbjv�1pl-pst all *ʾamànən,*<sup>|</sup> *kùlla b-šaqlə́x-wa-la*<sup>|</sup> *dɛ́rəx-wa*  vessels.our all fut-take�sbjv.1pl-pst-3pl put.sbjv.1pl-pst *qə́ṭma mxallə̀x-wa-la.*<sup>|</sup> ash wash�sbjv.1pl-pst-3pl

> 'When the beginning of the (Lent) fast came, **we would take** all our vessels, **we would take them** all to put ash on them to clean them.' (B16:7)

In some cases the *bət-qaṭəl* and *bət-qaṭəl* forms do not express temporal sequentiality but only some kind of relevance to a preceding clause, typically elaboration:


'The Rogation of the Ninevites was also observed (in our community). They would fast during it. **They would say** "The cocks and the chickens, and also the small lowly creatures (should observe the fast)."' (B16:15)

(21) *qam-ṣàwma*<sup>|</sup> *ʾíθ xošébə bnàθa.*<sup>|</sup> before-fast there�is Sunday.of girls *bnáθa kúlla p̂t-azí-wa bɛ̀θa,*<sup>|</sup> girls all fut-go�sbjv.3pl-pst home *b-šaqlí-wa ʾixála mən-dáwwa dáwwa* fut-take�sbjv.3pl-pst food from-this.obl this�obl *dàwwa,*<sup>|</sup> *t-azí-wa gu-xa-ṭùra,*<sup>|</sup> this�obl fut-go�sbjv.3pl-pst in-a-mountain *t-atwi-wa,* <sup>|</sup> *t-axli-wa,* <sup>|</sup> *b-šati-wa.* | fut-come�sbjv.3pl-pst fut-eat�sbjv.3pl-pst fut-drink.sbjv-pst

> 'Before the fast (of Lent) was Girls' Sunday. All the girls **went** home, **took** food from here and from there, then **went** to the mountains, they **sat**, **ate** and **drank**�' (B16:18)

In (20) the clause introduced by the *bət-qaṭəl* form *t-ámri*  constitutes an elaboration of the preceding statement that people would hold a fast, which could be paraphrased 'with regard to this fasting they say …�'�

In (21) the clause containing the frst *bət-qaṭəlwa* verb, *p̂t-̭azíwa*, opens a section of discourse that elaborates on the preceding general statement that the festival of Girls' Sunday took place� The dependency expressed by the verbal forms bind them semantically to what precedes signalling that the descriptions of the specifc events in the clauses are intended to be understood as components of the festival�

When the *bət-qaṭəl* and *bət-qaṭəlwa* forms have this discourse dependency function, they generally express habitual events, as is the case in the examples above. The construction is sporadically used in narratives where they refer to specifc events that are dependent on, and typically sequential to, what precedes, e�g�


'He gathered the sheep together and they went of for a while according to the tune of the pipe. He played another tune on the pipe and the sheep returned by themselves.' (A25:27)


*t-àza,* <sup>|</sup> *pθíxla tăra qðìla.*<sup>|</sup> fut-go�sbjv.3fs open�pfv.3fs door key

'At night she got up, untied her bands, then went and opened the door with a key.' (A18:3)

### **2.2. Analysis**

### 2.2.1. From Apodosis to Discourse Dependent

When used in the frst three functions described above, viz. deontic future, predictive future and apodosis of conditionals (§2.1.1– 2.1.3.), the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form expresses future tense� There is a crucial diference, however, between the deontic future and predictive future, on the one hand, and conditional constructions, on the other, with regard to the reference point of the future tense. Following the temporal analysis proposed by Reichenbach (1947), we should be careful to distinguish event time (E), speech time (S) and the temporal reference time (R). The original system of Reichenbach has undergone various modifcations in more recent research, but the 'neo-Reichenbachian' approaches still distinguish these three components of analysis. The reference time (R), sometimes referred to as the 'evaluation time' (Hatav 2012), is the contextual temporal anchor to which the future verb form relates. One may say that the future form is temporally 'bound' to this anchor (Hatav 2012). In the case of the deontic future and predictive future functions, the reference time overlaps with speech time, i.e. the contextual temporal anchor is the speech situation. For the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form in the apodosis of conditional constructions, however, the reference time is that of the eventuality expressed in the protasis clause. In such cases the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form expresses an eventuality that is posterior to this reference time but this reference time does not necessarily overlap with speech time�

According to the original Reichenbachian system of representation, the analysis of these functions of the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)*  form would be as follows (where a comma indicates temporal overlap and a dash — indicates temporal separation):

### *bət-qaṭəl*

Deontic future: R,S—E

The event time is posterior to the reference time and the reference time overlaps with speech time�

### Predictive future: R,S—E

The event time is posterior to the reference time and the reference time overlaps with speech time�

### Apodosis: S—R—E or S,R—E

The reference time is that of the eventuality of the protasis and this may be posterior to speech time, e.g. (12—13) above, or overlap with it, e.g. (14) above. The event time is posterior to the reference time�

### *bət-qaṭəlwa*

Apodosis: R—E—S or R,S—E

These two analyses correspond to (15) and (16) respectively. In both cases the reference time is that of the eventuality of the protasis and the event is posterior to this� The speech time varies according to whether the construction expresses a hypothetical condition in the past or in the present�

According to some Neo-Reichenbach approaches (e.g. Johnson 1981; Dinsmore 1982; Verkuyl 2012), rather than consisting of a single triple system, the analysis should consist of two pairs of components, namely S and R, on the one hand, and E and R, on the one hand. The relationship between S and R would correspond to tense, whereas the relationship between E and R would be one of posteriority or anteriority independent of tense. The analyses, therefore, would be:


Table 1: Analysis of *bət-qaṭəl* and *bət-qaṭəl-wa*

As can be seen, according to this temporal analysis all of these three future constructions share the common feature of R—E, i�e� the event time is posterior to the reference time� 6 What this Reichenbachian temporal analysis does not show, however, is that the reference time in the three constructions has diferent locations� In the deontic and predictive future constructions the reference time is internal, i.e. it coincides with the utterance of the clause. The reference time of the verb of the apodosis, however, is external to the clause and is located in the preceding protasis clause. This distinction is referred to by Hatav (2012) as local versus long distance semantic binding of tenses.

As for the aspect of the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form, in the examples cited above for its functions of deontic future, predictive future and apodosis of a condition the verb denotes a specifc temporally bounded event and so is perfective� The form in these constructions may also denote iterative events (Khan 2008, 599, 606), e.g.

<sup>6</sup> In some NENA dialects the *bət-qaṭəl* form is used in performative expressions, e.g. Qaraqosh (Khan 2002, 315): *ʾána bəd-qárən šə́mmux Tomaˈ* 'I (hereby) call your name Toma'. This can be analysed as a deontic expression with reference time overlapping with event time: R,E.


'If I had been able, I would have given you money every day, but I could not.'

It is important to distinguish iterativity from habituality (Dahl 1985, 97; Bertinetto and Lenci 2012). Verbs expressing iterativity assert the occurrence of the event on multiple occasions, typically specifed by an adverbial ('He visited us three times', 'He visited us every day'). Such predicates are perfective and express repeated temporally bounded events, i.e. events that are viewed as a whole typically from a reference time that is external to it (G. Carlson 2012, 835). Verbs expressing habituality present an event as a characterizing property of an individual, which occurs on the majority of occasions during a particular time interval (*He usually visits us every week*). Unlike iterative predications, habitual predications are not completely 'lawlike' (Dahl 1985, 97) and are contingent on circumstances (*He usually visits us every week, but he did not come last week because he was ill*). A habitual predicate is imperfective in aspect since it includes the reference time within it and is viewed from within (G. Carlson 2012, 835).

The *bət-qaṭəl* and *bət-qaṭəlwa* forms in deontic future, predictive future and apodosis constructions may express iterative predicates but not habitual predicates.

When expressing the deontic future, predictive future or the apodosis of a conditional the *bət-qaṭəl* and *bət-qaṭəlwa* forms are modal� Their modality is either root modality or epistemic modality. Root modality qualifes the subject of the clause indicating that some factor is inherent in the subject (e.g. ability, volition) or is operative upon the subject (e.g. obligation, circumstances) that infuences the occurrence of the event. Epistemic modality involves the speaker's assessment of the truth value of the propositional content of the sentence as possible, probable or certain. The various types of modality inherent in the three aforementioned functions can be identifed follows:


Table 2: Root and Epistemic Modality

Turning now to the discourse dependency function of *bətqaṭəl(wa)*, this has a close family relationship to the apodosis function in conditional constructions. Indeed, I shall argue that it developed historically by a process of extension of conditional constructions. The *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form in discourse dependency constructions exhibits long distance semantic binding, as is the case with the verbs in apodoses. The reference point precedes the event in the discourse, but, unlike in apodoses, this is not a temporal relationship� Rather the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* verb is bound to a topical reference point that has been invoked by the preceding discourse. It depends on this and continues it in some way.

This phenomenon can be represented in the dependency framework of mental spaces proposed by Fauconnier (1994) and Dinsmore (1991). According to this model, knowledge can be represented in a network of mental spaces. These spaces are constructed by the listener, interpreting grammatical or lexical cues. Spaces contain information belonging to distinct times, locations or realities. 'Space builders' are cues that construct new mental spaces. Dependent verbs such as the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)*  form express events that belong to a current, already constructed mental space�

The diferences from the conditional construction, therefore, involve (i) the change of the temporal reference point to a topical reference point and (ii) the dependency on preceding discourse rather than on a preceding syntactically subordinate clause. This can be explained using a model of linguistic change through schematisation of constructions (e.g. Fillmore, Kay and O'Connor 1988; Goldberg 1995; 2006; Langacker 1987; Bybee 2010). This involves extensions of components of constructions by a process of substitutions of items with a family resemblance, thereby making the slots of the components more schematic, i.e. abstract. Another feature of the extension of constructions is their incorporation of pragmatic associations and implicatures into their meaning (Bybee 2010, 48). An example of this process of extension of constructions that is often cited (e.g. Bybee 2015, 124; 2010, 55) is the development of future constructions consisting of movement verbs, e.g. English *he is going to eat*� This originated as a construction that expressed real physical movement of an animate agentive subject, but it became schematised as subject + be + *going to +* verb, whereby any subject or verb could fll the subject or infnitive slots. Moreover, when used in the third person, although it originally expressed an intention, it implied that the predicate would be carried out. This implicature became conventionalised in the construction and so its meaning was extended to include prediction, e.g. *The branch is going to fall*�

The temporal reference point of the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* apodosis that was in the preceding clause was schematised to being a more abstract cognitive reference point, referring to the general situation rather than specifcally to a point in time. The *bətqaṭəl(wa)* predication, therefore, is cognitively but not temporally bound to this preceding point. It is linked to it through discourse coherence analogous to a topic—comment relationship, or, to use Fauconnier's model, it is a continuation of the mental space of the preceding discourse. This does not mean that the topical situation itself may not have a reference time, but rather the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)*  form no longer expresses temporal posteriority to this reference time but rather communicative posteriority to the more abstract topical situation, i.e. topical reference point—comment. One of the consequences of this is that the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* may express discourse dependency on a non-propositional topic constituent without a temporal reference time, as is the case in (28) below.

The process of extending the location of the reference point of the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form from specifcally the subordinate protasis clause to a broader component of preceding discourse that establishes a topic can also be identifed as schematisation. This may have been facilitated by the fact that protasis clauses can in some contexts be used pragmatically as strategies for introducing a topical frame for what follows (Khan 2008, 1005). This pragmatic usage would then have been conventionalised (see Bybee 2010, 48 and the discussion above), e.g.

(26) *fa-ʾən-maṭiní-wa-le ʾíθwa xàwla.*<sup>|</sup> and-if-load�ipfv.3pl-pst-3ms there�was rope

> 'If they loaded it (the mule), there was a rope (= As for when they loaded it ...).' (B5:128)

The preceding topic-establishing discourse may be propositional, as in (17, 19–23), or it may be a non-propositional constituent such as an adverbial, as in (18) (repeated here as (27)), or a noun phrase (28—the example is from the C. Mawana dialect):

(27) *xàrθa*<sup>|</sup> *t-áθe xá-ʾeða xréna zòra.*<sup>|</sup> afterwards fut-come�sbjv.3ms one-festival other small 'Afterwards, comes a small festival.' (B6:5–8) (28) C� Mawana (feldnotes) *ɟózə barüzə,ˈ hădə́ ʾā́ t b-*<sup>+</sup>*răp̂ə́t-wa-lə*  walnuts dry now you fut-throw�sbjv.2ms-pst-3ms *ɟózux ʾàtxa.ˈ* walnut.your thus 'As for (the game) dry walnuts, you would throw your

Conditional clauses and topics are coded identically in a number of unrelated languages. This refects the fact that their semantic analysis is very similar (Haiman 1978; Ebert, Ebert, and Hinterwimmer 2014). This would have facilitated the proposed development of the *bət-qaṭəl*�

2.2.2. Sequentiality and Habituality

walnut like this.'

It was noted above that when the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form expresses discourse dependency, the eventuality it presents is sometimes temporally sequential to what precedes but other times is an elaboration without temporal sequentiality. This can be understood as arising from the fact that its reference point in the preceding discourse is not temporal but rather topical. The fact that it is often used to express temporally sequential events is, therefore, an epiphenomenon arising from the fact that events expressed in successive clauses are typically temporally sequential. The construction, however, does not express temporal sequentiality directly.

When the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form is used to express discourse dependency, it most frequently expresses the imperfective aspect of habituality. It is very commonly used in expository discourse describing customs. As we have seen, the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form does not express habituality in its other functions of future and apodosis constructions. Why does the discourse dependent *bətqaṭəl(wa)* form most commonly have habitual meaning?

Since the discourse dependent *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* does not have a future meaning, we must assume that it has acquired a reference time that coincides with the eventuality that it denotes. The development can be represented as follows, where T = Topic:

Table 3: Sequentiality and Discourse Dependency of *bət-qaṭəl(wa)*


A chain of *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* forms that comment on a topical situation would share the same topical reference point. This can be represented thus:

T1 —R<sup>1</sup> ,E1 , + T1 —R<sup>2</sup> ,E2 + T1 —R<sup>3</sup> ,E3 + T1 —R<sup>4</sup> ,E4

This can be regarded as the resumption of the topic by a form of anaphora, analogously to the way topical referents are resumed by anaphoric pronouns.

These anaphoric topics are variables that are bound by and dependent on the antecedent topic, just as anaphoric pronouns are variables bound by an antecedent topic. This anaphoric binding of the topic can be regarded as a type of modality, so the construction is modal, just as a *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form in an apodosis is modal. Indeed according to some approaches, the binding of anaphoric pronouns to antecedents is also a type of modality (Roberts 1987; 1989).

It is noteworthy that the *bət-qaṭəl* form in C� Barwar is not used in generic predicates such as (29).

(29) *tálga xwàra y-áwe.ˈ* snow white hab.be.3ms 'Snow is white�'

This is because such generic predicates are typically independent of discourse context and do not comment on a preceding topical situation.<sup>7</sup>

The normal habitual meaning of the discourse dependent *bətqaṭəl* form most likely arises from a retention of the contingent semantics of a conditional apodosis. As remarked, habitual predications are not completely 'lawlike' (Dahl 1985, 97) and are contingent on circumstances.

As we have seen, the *bət-qaṭəl(wa)* form is attested occasionally in narratives (22–23). Following the analysis that has just been proposed, we may say that they have the communicative function of expressing a comment on a previously mentioned situation, which has been set up as a topic� This analysis is appropriate for (22) (repeated below as (30)), since it consists of two situations that are set up in contrastive opposition. Contrastive oppositions are typically expressed by contrasting topics. The topical situations can be glossed by 'when'–clauses:

(30) *ʾə́rbe máxe l-ġðàðe,*<sup>|</sup> *t-ázi* sheep strike.sbjv.3ms to-each�other fut-go�sbjv.3pl

<sup>7</sup> There are interesting parallels here with English habitual constructions containing the auxiliary *would*. It has been observed that such habituals have a similar dependency on situations or 'mental spaces' established in the context, e.g. Carlson and Spejewski (1997) and Boneh and Doron (2013), who refer to this as 'modal subordination'. A habitual sentence *used to*, on the other hand, has no such dependency, e.g. *My grandmother used to make delicious apple pies. She would go to the orchard to pick the apples herself* (adapted from Carlson and Spejewski 1997, 102)*.* These authors do not discuss the history of the construction.

*xa-fàtra*<sup>|</sup> *ʾal-salíqə zòrna.*<sup>|</sup> *máxe zórna*  a-while on-tune.of pipe strike�sbjv.3ms pipe *xa-salíqa xèna,*<sup>|</sup> *ʾə́rbe b-dɛ̀ri,* <sup>|</sup> *b-ganèy.*<sup>|</sup> one-tune other sheep fut-return.sbjv.3pl by-themselves

'(When) he had gathered the sheep together, they went of for a while according to the tune of the pipe. (When, on the other hand,) he had played another tune on the pipe, the sheep returned by themselves.' (A25:27)

Example (23) (repeated below as (31)) can be given a similar analysis of topical situation—comment, with the topical situation glossed by a 'when'–clause:


'(When) at night she had got up and untied her bands, she went and opened the door with a key.' (A18:3)

These constructions in narrative contain what can be termed an 'episodic topic' with the status of an adverbial expression that sets the spatio-temporal frame for what follows� They appear to be used to mark boundaries in the discourse. In (30), as remarked, the two episodic topics set up two episodes in contrastive opposition. In (31) the episodic topic marks the onset of a new section of narrative�

In some NENA dialects the discourse dependent form with the original future particle *bət/bəd* has developed further and can be used as an actual present without frst presenting a situation as its topic� This was the case in the now extinct Jewish dialect of Dobe (on the north bank of the Zab river). In this dialect, for example, the form *bd-ez* (fut-go.sbjv.3ms) can be used as


This extension of the construction to the actual present can be explained as having arisen by a process similar to Greenberg's (1978) 'cycle of defniteness', whereby anaphoric pronouns develop into non-anaphoric defnite articles� The anaphoric topical component of the dependent *bət-qaṭəl* construction has come to be used where the speaker assumes the hearer can identify the situation that is being referred to without explicitly presenting an antecedent topical situation in the preceding discourse. It appears that the speaker assumes that the hearer can identify the speech situation as the situation that is being talked about, i.e. it expresses situational immediacy.

<sup>8</sup> The data on the Dobe dialect were gathered in feld work in 1999 in the Moshav Menuḥa, Israel. The usage of the *bd-* particle was identifed in recorded texts and elicited sentences�

## **3. Past Forms with the Prefix** *qam-*

### **3.1. Attested Constructions**

In many NENA dialects, a perfective past tense is expressed by combining the prefxed particle *qam-*, or variant forms of this, with the subjunctive verb form *qaṭəl*� The variant forms of the prefx attested across the dialects arise from a range of phonetic reductions, e.g. *qəm* (C� Barwar, etc.: vowel centralisation), *kəm* (C. Qaraqosh, etc.: vowel centralisation and fronting of the uvular), *qa* (C� Koy Sanjak: elision), *tam, ta* (C. Sulemaniyya and C� Sanandaj: fronting of the uvular and elision). In the documented dialects this construction is restricted to verbs with pronominal sufxes expressing the direct or indirect object. It is used predominantly to express past perfective events in narrative (33–34) or the occurrence of a punctual event in the recent past in conversational discourse (35). In the examples the particle is given the gloss qam:

C� Barwar (Khan 2008, 609–11)

(33) *qəm-mparqí-li m-gu-ʾiθàθux.*<sup>|</sup> qam-save�sbjv.3pl-1s from-in-your.hands

'They saved me from your hands.' (B17:15)

(34) *qəm-hawí-la xáčča ʾixàla*<sup>|</sup> qam-give�sbjv.3pl-3pl some food

'They gave them some food.' (A8:12)

(35) *ʾáti qəm-xalṣàt-li*<sup>|</sup> *mən-dáwwa moθa.*<sup>|</sup> your qam-save�sbjv.3fs-1s from-this death 'You have saved me from death.' (A14:35)

Various hypotheses have been proposed for the historical origin of this verbal construction.<sup>9</sup> Pennacchietti (1997) argued that it developed from a construction consisting of the verb *qayəm*  'he gets up' followed by the subjunctive, e�g� *qayəm qaṭəl-le*� He found support for this in the grammar of Rhétoré (1912, 225– 26), who states that such a construction could be used in the sense of 'aussitot il le tua' ('he immediately killed him'), i.e. the event happened immediately after the event mentioned before it. Rhétoré, who unfortunately does not specify in which dialect(s) he found this construction, states that its original meaning was 'se levant, il le tue' ('getting up, he kills him'), i.e. a sequence of events in the present� 10 Pennacchietti, however, proposes that it originated as a construction expressing the immediate future 'he will immediately kill him', comparing constructions such as *qemən ʾazən* 'I shall immediately go', which are found in various NENA dialects. He draws attention to the fact that several languages use a construction that originated as the expression of the immediate future to narrate a sequence of events in the past, e.g. Catalan<sup>11</sup> (36) and late medieval French (14th-16th century) (37):

(36) Catalan

*vaig cantar* I�go to�sing

'I sang'

<sup>9</sup> See Fassberg (2015) who surveys the various proposals.

<sup>10</sup> Eleanor Coghill in an unpublished paper given at the 23rd International Conference on *Historical Linguistics*, San Antonio, Texas, 2017, argued in favour of this view.

<sup>11</sup> For further discussion of the Catalan construction see, for example, Jacobs (2011).

(37) Late medieval French

*et comme elle faisoit ce partage,* and when she was�making this division *son mari va revenir à l'ostel*  her husband goes to return at the�hostel

'While she was making this division, her husband returned home.'

The second verb in the original construction *qayəm qaṭəl-le*  would, therefore, have been a subjunctive in a purpose clause 'he gets up in order to kill him' rather than an indicative present, as suggested by Rhétoré's translation 'se levant, il le tue'.

Here I would like to present some additional data that strengthen Pennacchietti's hypothesis�

In some NENA dialects a subordinating particle regularly occurs before initial */ʾ/* verbs after the *qam* in the *qam-qaṭəlle*  construction, e.g.

(38) C� Meze (feld notes): *qam-d-axəl-le* qam-comp-eat�sbjv.3ms-3ms 'He ate it'

This refects the fact that the verb after the *qam* was originally a subordinate subjunctive. Some isolated cases of the subordinating particle are found before initial */ʾ/* verbs in C. Barwar, (Khan 2008, 609), e.g.

(39) C� Barwar *qəm-t-amǝ́r-ra*  qam-comp-say�sbjv.3ms-3fs 'He said to her.' (A4:4)

The crucial missing link in the evidence, however, is provided by the dialects from the north-western sector of NENA. In some dialects in this region, such as the dialects in the area of the Cudi mountain and Billin, the initial infected verb in immediate future constructions such as *qemən ʾazən* has become grammaticalised to *qam* without person infection. Most of my data come from the Harbole dialect (Cudi), e.g.

Harbole (feld notes)<sup>12</sup>

(40) *qam-ʾàzən.ˈ* qam-go�sbjv.1ms

'I am about to go/I am going to go right now.'

This immediate future construction can be used with both intransitive and transitives verbs. An example with a transitive verb is (41):

(41) *qam-ʾaxlə̀n-ne.ˈ* qam-eat�sbjv.1ms-3ms

'I am about to eat it/I am going to eat it immediately.'

<sup>12</sup> Most of the material from the Harbole dialect that I present below was gathered from consultations with Professor Efrem Yildiz (University of Salamanca), who is a native speaker of the dialect. I would like to express here my gratitude to him for his help.

The future construction may be given a past reference time ('was about to') by adding the past shifting sufx *-wa*, e�g�

(42) *qam-ʾaxlə̀n-wa.ˈ*  qam-eat�sbjv.1ms-pst 'I was about to eat.'

This can be used in initial position in a discourse such as the following:


'I was about to eat food but I have not been able to.'

The construction is also used in narrative discourse in the Harbole dialect to express an event that occurred immediately after the event mentioned in the preceding clause. According to speakers, an event expressed by the construction in this context is typically unexpected and surprising, i.e. it has a mirative function. The immediate future form is used with or without the past shifting *-wa* sufx, i.e. *qam-ʾaxlən* or *qam-ʾaxlənwa*, e�g�



'When I was coming here, I saw (unexpectedly) a lion on the road�'

As can seen in (45), the lexical verb of the construction does not have to have a pronominal object sufx, as is the case in most other NENA dialects. Indeed the verb can be intransitive, e�g�



'After I and my friend went out, he (suddenly unexpectedly) fell into the canal.'

A further variant of the construction is the substitution of the *qaṭəl* form by the *qṭəlle* form after the *qam* in past narratives, e�g�

(48) *ʾána ʾu-xáwri plə̀ṭlanˈ ʾu-qam-mə̀tle* I and-my�friend go.out.pfv.1pl and�qam-die�pfv.3ms *xáwri*.ˈ my�friend

'I and a friend went out and my friend died.'

Speakers judge constructions such as *qam-mətle* in (48) to express an unexpected and surprising event, but to be in the less immediate past than *qam-mayət* (46).

### **3.2. Analysis**

In this section I should like to propose an explanation as to how the immediate future constructions with *qam* came to be used to express past events in narrative�

An example such as (44) above is likely to have originated in a juxtaposition of the immediate future construction with the previously mentioned situation, which meant 'I went out and I was about to see my wife'. The reference time of the immediate future, therefore, coincided with the reference time of the frst event. This can be represented as follows, with the index on R indicating the coincidence of reference time:


This was a strategy for expressing the immediate succession of the events� The preparatory onset phase of the second event overlaps with the frst event. The events are connected together cognitively in the same mental space� It was also a strategy for giving prominence to the second event by anticipating it before it had occurred in the narration of events.

An immediate future construction such as *qam-ʾazən* 'I am about to go' would have been a deontic future, but as with other future constructions, when used with a third person, i.e. *qam-ʾazəl* 'he is about to go', there is an implicature that the event will happen, and so the construction comes to function also as a predictive future, presenting the event as a certainty. When combined with a past event, as in (44), the certainty of the future occurrence shifts to the assertion of the occurrence of the event in close succession to the preceding event. This comes about by the *qam-*construction acquiring a reference time that coincides with its event:

> R1 ,E1 *I went out* R1 —R<sup>2</sup> ,E2 *I saw my wife* (R2 ) *after going out* (R1 )

The original reference time of the *qam-*construction is retained (R1 ) and this expresses a sequential or continuative meaning, i�e� the event took place at reference time R2 in relation to reference time R1 � The past tense of *qam-xazənna* is not expressed morphologically. The form can be assumed to have had a 'relative tense' that was determined by being bound to the R<sup>1</sup> of the past verb *pləṭli*. This past verb was marked morphologically as past, i.e. its reference time was before speech time (R<sup>1</sup> —S).<sup>13</sup>

When the construction developed the meaning of immediate sequence, this marked type of sequence was associated with the implicature of mirativity (surprise), and also with salience and, in turn, with the recent past. Speakers of the Harbole dialect report that the construction has these associations.

The *qam-*constructions in examples such as (45), with a preceding imperfective circumstantial expression ('When I was coming here') and (47) with a posterior temporal adverbial clause ('After I and my friend went out') cannot be so easily analysed as having the temporal structure R<sup>1</sup> —R<sup>2</sup> ,E with two reference times,

<sup>13</sup> For the possibility of a verb having two reference points see Comrie (1985, 128).

one anterior to the other. This is because from a temporal point of view the eventuality in the *qam-*clause is overlapping with, rather than sequential to, what is expressed by the circumstantial construction and the 'after' adverbial clause. It appears that the frst reference point is no longer temporal but rather has become a cognitive topical anchor, similar to the process described in §2.2. in the development of the discourse dependency *bət-qaṭəl(wa)*  form. This can be represented as T—R,E, where T = the episodic topical situation that acts as the spatio-temporal frame for what follows:

*When I was coming here* (topical frame)—*I saw a lion.*

*After I and my friend went out* (topical frame)—*he fell into the canal.*

Note that in (45) the past shifting sufx *-wa* is added to the *qam-*construction (*qam-xazənwa*), indicating that it has its own tense marking, i.e. its tense is absolute and it is not bound as a relative tense to the tense of a preceding verb. This is likely to be because it is preceded by a tenseless expression (*ʾana bitaya* 'I coming').

The *qam-*construction is not obligatory in constructions of the type illustrated in the preceding examples. Contrast the following:


'While I was coming here, I saw my wife on the road�'

(50) *štelan* vs� *qam-šatuxwa*


The (a) sentences of (49) and (50) with the past perfective *qṭəlle* form are matter-of-fact descriptions of events. The (b) sentences present the events as surprising and unexpected.

As has been remarked, a hybrid construction exists, in which the *qaṭəl* form in the *qam-*construction is substituted by the *qṭəlle* form ((48) repeated below as (51)). This still has a diferent pragmatic association from a corresponding construction with *qṭəlle* without the preceding *qam-* (52):

(51) *ʾána ʾu-xáwri plə̀ṭlanˈ ʾu-qam-mə̀tle* I and-my�friend go.out.pfv.1pl and�qam-die�pfv.3ms *xáwri*.ˈ my�friend

'I and a friend went out and my friend died.'

(52) *ʾána ʾu-xáwri plə̀ṭlanˈ ʾu-mə̀tle* I and-my�friend go.out.pfv.1pl and-die�pfv.3ms *xáwri*.ˈ my�friend

'I and a friend went out and my friend died.'

According to my consultant for the dialect, (51) implies a causal connection between the going out and the death whereas there is no such implicature in (52). This could arise from the fact that the *qam-qṭəlle* construction, like the *qam-*construction with the *qaṭəl* form, expresses immediate succession and close cohesion in the same mental space, an implicature of which could be causal connection.

In Harbole, as we have seen, the *qam-*construction with the *qaṭəl* form can be used in narrative in both transitive and intransitive clauses. There is no obvious feature of behaviour of the construction in this dialect that could explain why it became restricted to transitive verbs with pronominal objects in most of NENA. This specifc distribution in other dialects appears to have been a strategy to avoid using internal pronominal objects in the *qṭəlle* form, especially 1st and 2nd person objects.<sup>14</sup> In such dialects the *qam-*construction became a general past perfective form substituting for *qṭəlle* where the verb would have had pronominal objects. One can compare this to, for example, to the *vaig cantar*  construction in Catalan (see (36)), which became a general past perfective form� This development of the *qam-*construction would doubtless have been facilitated by the fact that already in Harbole the temporal reference point of the construction in the preceding clause came to be analysed as a topical reference point in some contexts (i�e� R1 —R<sup>2</sup> ,E became T—R,E). As with the *bətqaṭəl(wa)* form, this would have facilitated the use of a series of *qam-*constructions with the same spatio-temporal topical frame in narratives�

The generalised *qam*-construction did, however, retain some of the features of its embryonic form seen in the Harbole dialect� Firstly, when it takes 3rd person pronominal objects in narrative, these are anaphoric to the preceding discourse so the verb is sequential to or at least continuative of what precedes, as it is in Harbole. Secondly, speakers of some dialects report that in conversational discourse where the expression of a pronominal

<sup>14</sup> See the studies of expression of pronominal objects in Pennacchietti (1994), Coghill (2016), Khan (2017), Noorlander (2018).

object is possible in both a *qṭəlle* or *qam-*construction, the *qam*construction refers specifcally to the recent past whereas the *qṭəlle*  form does not have this restriction, e�g� *qam-xazən-a* (qam-see� sbjv.1ms-3fs) 'I have just seen her' vs *xəzy-a-li* (see�pst-3fs-1s) 'I saw her' (not necessarily recently) (Shaqlawa dialect, feld notes). This is refected by the fact that the particle *na*, which is used in the Shaqlawa dialect to express immediacy, is more frequently used with the form *qam-xazəna* than with *xəzyali*� 15

## **4. Narrative Subjunctive**

## **4.1. Attested Constructions**

In NENA dialects the bare present stem *qaṭəl* functions as a subjunctive. This is used in a variety of irrealis contexts, including jussive main clauses, irrealis subordinate clauses and conditional clauses. An example of a subjunctive clause in a subordinate purpose clause from the C� Barwar dialect is given in (53):

(53) *ṣǝ̀lyɛ=le*<sup>|</sup> *ta-t-ʾázǝl ʾùrxa.*<sup>|</sup> go�ptcp=cop.3ms to-comp-go�sbjv.3ms road 'He went down in order to set of on the road.' (A15:5)

<sup>15</sup> The verb *q-y-m* 'to rise' is used in various other types of constructions, the discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper. For example, a past form of the verb *q-y-m* is used in NENA dialects in a serial construction with another past verb to express the onset of an activity at a discourse boundary, e.g. C. Barwar *qímla wídla tàgbirˈ* (rise�pst.3pl make�pst.3pl plan) 'They made a plan.' (Khan 2008, 937–38). The preverbal particle *qam-* is used in the dialect of J. Bəjil to express the progressive, e�g� *qam-patəxle* 'he is opening it' (Mutzaf 2002) (I thank Paul Noorlander for drawing my attention to this reference). This is likely to have had a diferent semantic development from the construction with *qam-* that is discussed in this paper.

The indicative present, such as the progressive and habitual, are typically expressed by innovative forms, such as the following in the C� Barwar dialect:

Indicative habitual

*ʾi-qaṭəl:*

(54) *kút-yum y-áxəl lə̀xma.ˈ* every-day hab-eat.ipfv.3ms bread

'Every day he eats bread.'

Progressive

*hole qṭala* (deictic copula + progressive stem) or *qṭalɛ=le*  (progressive stem + enclitic copula). The progressive stem is derived historically from the infnitive:

(55)


b. *zalɛ=le* go�prog=cop.3ms 'He is going�'

In the C� Barwar dialect the *qaṭəl* subjunctive form is often used in narratives as a perfective sequential form. It typically continues an event or events that are expressed by a narrative past form (*qṭille* or *qṭilɛle*), e.g.


in-cradle

'Also the next night she got up, at three o'clock in the morning, **untied** her bands, **went** and **ate** another child, then **returned** and **went to sleep**� She **opened** the door and **went to sleep** in the cradle.' (A18:5–6)


and-enter�sbjv.3ms

'He took the ass and the ox and went of. He began cultivating. He began cultivating (and continued) until evening� In the evening he **came** home� He **rested**, **went** and **bathed** and **entered** (the house).' (A21:12)

Sporadically the *qaṭəl* form is used as a sequential habitual:

(58) *ʾu-máxa xa-mə́šxa gu-be-ʾéne dìye*<sup>|</sup> and-put.sbjv.3pl one-oil in-place�of-eyes�his of�him *ʾoðí-le rúšma ʾax-ṣlìwa.*<sup>|</sup> do�sbjv.3pl-3ms sing like-cross

> 'And they put some oil on his forehead and make the sign of the cross.' (B6:36)

The use of the bare *qaṭəl* form in narratives looks *prima facie*  like the active participles that are commonly found in narratives in earlier types of Aramaic, such as Biblical Aramaic, e.g.

קָ רֵ ֤ א מַ לְ כָ א֙ בְ חַ֔ יִל ... עָ נֵ֙ ה מַ לְ כָ֜ א וְ אָ מַ ֣ ר׀ לְ חַ כִ ימֵ ֣י בָ בֶ֗ ל (59)

**q̟ ɔːʀ̟eː** malkɔ́ː ba-ḥaːyil **ʿɔːneː** malkɔ́ː call�ptcp.ms king with-force answer�ptcp.ms king vɔ-**ʾɔːmaːaʀ̟** la-ḥakkiːméː vɔːvɛ́ːɛl and-say.ptcp.ms to-sages�of Babylon

'The king **cries aloud** … The king **answers** and **says** to the wise men of Babylon.' (Dan. 5:7)

This is, however, a false analogy, since the Barwar *qaṭəl* form, although derived historically from the active participle of earlier Aramaic, now has a subjunctive function. A closer analogy to the use of active participles in earlier Aramaic narratives is the occasional use of the progressive form infected by a copula (*qṭalɛ=le*) or sometimes without a copula (*qṭala*) in C. Barwar narratives, e�g�

(60) *yómǝ ṭḷàθa*<sup>|</sup> *márɛ=le xóne díye* day�of three say�prog=cop.3ms brother.his of�him *mára t-ázǝx ṣɛ̀da.*<sup>|</sup> *ʾánna plàṭɛ=la,* | say�prog fut-go�sbjv.1pl hunt they go.out.prog=cop.3pl *kúlla zála ṣɛ̀da.*<sup>|</sup> all go�prog hunt

> 'On the third day his brother says .. **he says** "Let's go hunting." **They go out, they all go** hunting.' (A13:7)

In some NENA dialects the progressive construction is, indeed, the verb form that is most commonly used in narratives. This is the case, for example, in the C� Urmi dialect:

(61) C� Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 186–87)


'After that **he goes** to the king� **He asks** for forgiveness from him.' (A 3:54)

### **4.2. Analysis**

I should like to argue here that the narrative *qaṭəl* form is indeed a modal subjunctive, which has been extended from its use in subordinate clauses, in particular purpose clauses� In C� Barwar, purpose clauses are introduced by a particle, typically a directional preposition such as *ta* 'to' as in (62), or are asyndetic without an introductory particle (63) (Khan 2008, 582–83, 667, 995–95):


'I have come to bring you out of the prison.' (A26:82)

Purpose clause constructions are also used to express the fnal outcome or result of a preceding action, whereby the speaker presents the chain of events from the viewpoint of this outcome (Khan 2008, 995), e.g.

(64) *ṣlàya,*<sup>|</sup> *ṣálya šátya mìya,*<sup>|</sup> go�down.prog go�down�sbjv.3fs drink�sbjv.3fs water *ta-t-qàlba xá-bena xéna.*<sup>|</sup> to-comp-return.sbjv.3fs a-time other

> 'She went down to drink water and then fnally returned again.' (A33:8)

Such result clauses appear to have developed from the common implicature of purpose clauses that the event took place, especially after verbs of movement, e.g. *I went to buy some bread* has the implicature that I did in fact buy bread (Schmidtke-Bode

2009, 178). This conventionalisation of an implicature as the expression of a real event that is refected in result clauses is likely to have been the pathway of development also of dependent narrative *qaṭəl* forms. This may be represented as follows:

(65)


This analysis is similar to that of the development of the *qam-*construction forms discussed above. In the purpose clause construction the subjunctive verb is irrealis and takes as its reference time that of the main clause (represented by the repeated R1 in (65a)). The event time of the purpose clause, therefore, is posterior to its reference time and so the predicate is analogous to a future construction such as the immediate future *qam-*construction. In (65b) and (65c) the subjunctive clause has been reanalysed as a real asserted event. This involves the acquisition of a reference time coinciding with the event (R<sup>2</sup> ). It can be assumed that the clause retains the R<sup>1</sup> reference time, to which it is posterior. This refects its reanalysis as a real asserted event that is sequential to what precedes.

As remarked, in the C� Urmi dialect the normal narrative verb form is the progressive. The narrative subjunctive is, however, sporadically used in this dialect. It is signifcant that in the attested examples in my text corpus it occurs predominantly after verbs of movement:

(66) C� Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 122)

*mə́jjət=da ʾá náša xə̀šlə*<sup>|</sup> *ɟášək̭* indeed=also this man go�pfv.3ms see�sbjv.3ms *ʾó bétu súra víyyə=va xá yácca*  that his.house small become.ptcp=cop.pst.3ms a big *máx bə́tət màlcə víyyə=va.*<sup>|</sup> like house.of kings become.ptcp=cop.pst.3ms

'Indeed the man went of and **saw** that his small house had become huge, it had become like the house of kings.' (A 54:5)

Cross-linguistically purpose clauses are very commonly preceded by verbs of movement (Schmidtke-Bode 2009, 98) and this is also the case in NENA dialects, see (60)–(61) from C� Barwar� An example from C� Urmi is (67), where the purpose clause is asyndetic:

(67) C� Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 122)

*xə́šla báxta* <sup>+</sup>*tárra patxà-lə*<sup>|</sup> go�pfv.3fs woman door open�sbjv.3fs-3ms

'The woman went to open the door.' (A 18:2)

This can be taken as evidence, therefore, that the sequential narrative subjunctive had its origin in subordinate purpose clauses�

The subjunctive *qaṭəl* form in purpose clauses is neutral as to aspect and can be used in habitual contexts, e.g.

(68) C� Barwar


'From time to time we go to eat with my brother.'

This could explain the sporadic use of *qaṭəl* as a habitual sequential (see (58)).

According to (65) the narrative subjunctive, which developed from subordinate clauses, retained the temporal structure of result clauses, i.e.

**Main clause Narrative sequential**

R1 ,E R1 —R<sup>2</sup> ,E

The 'main clause' in this model of its development would be a clause in the preceding discourse. As can be seen in the examples (56) and (57) the narrative subjunctive can be used in chains of clauses. This could be represented thus:

R1 —R<sup>2</sup> ,E2 + R2 —R<sup>3</sup> ,E3 + R3 —R<sup>4</sup> ,E4 + R4 —R<sup>5</sup> ,E5

Each subjunctive form would take as its anterior reference time the reference time of the previous verb.

Alternatively, it could be proposed that by a further development the anterior reference time in the structure R<sup>1</sup> —R<sup>2</sup> ,E has become schematised to a cognitive topical reference point analogously to the analysis we have proposed for the development of the *bət-qaṭəl*  and *qam-qaṭəl* forms, i.e. T(opic)—R,E. This, therefore, would not be a temporal point in the preceding discourse but rather a topical frame, which in narrative would be typically a spatiotemporal frame. The chain of narrative subjunctives would all cohere together in the same 'mental space' and be linked to this spatio-temporal frame. This is clear in (57), in which the chain of narrative subjunctives begins after the adverbial *ʾaṣərta* 'in the evening', which sets the spatio-temporal frame. The clauses would anaphorically resume this topical frame, thus:

T1 —R<sup>1</sup> ,E1 + T1 —R<sup>2</sup> ,E2 + T1 —R<sup>3</sup> ,E3 + T1 —R<sup>4</sup> ,E4 + T1 —R<sup>5</sup> ,E5

It has been remarked that the progressive form is occasionally used in C. Barwar as a narrative form and that this is the normal narrative form in C� Urmi� It is relevant to note that the progressive form can also express purpose, similarly to a subjunctive clause, e�g�

(69) C� Barwar (Khan 2008, 732) *ṣə̀lyɛ=le*<sup>|</sup> *mzabonə=l-le.* | go�down�ptcp=cop.3ms sell�prog=cop.3ms-3ms 'He went down to sell it.' (A22:2) (70) C� Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 191) *bərrə́xšə=lə máya xá dána bàxta.*<sup>|</sup> go�prog=cop.3ms bring.prog one unit woman

'He goes to bring a woman.' (A 1:37)

This usage possibly originated in the use of the progressive in circumstantial constructions such as the following


*tíwe mṭawóle b-šətrənjàne.*<sup>|</sup> sit�ptcp.pl play�prog at-chess

'See your brother and Mămo who are sitting playing chess.' (A26:64)

(72) C� Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 190)

*ʾana ɟəddàlu*<sup>|</sup> <sup>+</sup>*házər vid-è=vən,*<sup>|</sup> I its�threads ready make�ptcp-3pl=cop.1ms *partúlə* <sup>+</sup>*ʾal-*<sup>+</sup>*ʾuydàlə.*<sup>|</sup> twist�prog on-each�other

'I have prepared its threads, twisting (them) together.' (A 3:74)

The sequential narrative use of the progressive may, therefore, have also developed through the pathway of a purpose clause�

## **5. Conclusions**

In this paper I have discussed various verbal forms in NENA dialects that express dependency on the preceding discourse beyond the syntactic confnes of a sentence. These include the *bətqaṭəl(wa)* form, the *qam-qaṭəl* form and the narrative subjunctive form. These can be used to express continuity of the preceding discourse, which can be interpreted as temporal sequence or elaboration according to the context. The proposed historical development of the three verbal forms with these functions share several common features. In all cases the verbs originally expressed some kind of future or, to be more precise, an event time that was posterior to its reference time� From the perspective of this reference time they expressed contingent events that were modally dependent on a preceding eventuality.

Parallels to such discourse dependent verbal forms have been documented in a variety of other languages. Numerous languages of Africa have special verbal forms for the expression of continuity in discourse. These are used, for example, for the chaining of clauses in narratives and descriptions of habitual procedures.<sup>16</sup> This continuity may be temporal sequence or elaboration. Such forms are often identical to forms that express modal subordination in subordinate clauses and so have been referred to as narrative subjunctives (R. Carlson 1992; Seidel 2015, 180). In some African languages the consecutive forms can be used independently of preceding discourse as a future or modal form denoting an unrealised action (e.g. Seidel 2015, 186). Historical reconstructions of Oceanic languages have revealed connections between narrative continuity devices and future verbal forms (Lichtenberk 2014).

Within Semitic one can fnd some parallels to what has been described in this paper. Owens (2018) argues persuasively that the preverbal particle *b-* that is found in a variety of Arabic dialects originates in the deontic verb *baġa* 'to want' (cognate with Aramaic *baʿe*). What is of interest is that although it has retained its deontic or modal sense in some dialects of the Gulf, in some dialects it has developed into an indicative (e.g. Levant). The missing link, Owens claims, is its use in Nigerian Arabic to express what he calls 'propositional adjacency', which corresponds to what I have been calling here discourse dependency� The situation in the J. Dobe dialect, where the *bət-qaṭəl* form can be used as an indicative, would represent the same advanced stage of development as indicative *b-* in Levant Arabic.

The indicative preverbal particle *ka-* in Moroccan Arabic appears to have its origin in the modal use of the auxiliary verb *kān* in conditional clauses (Corriente 1977, 140–41; Stewart 1998, 111–12; Hanitsch 2019, 256–58). This also, therefore, may

<sup>16</sup> Verbal forms of this type in numerous African languages are discussed in the papers of the volume edited by Payne and Shirtz (2015). See also Palmer (1986, 204–07), Longacre (1990) and Persohn (2017, §7.1).

have followed a similar pathway of development as Neo-Aramaic *bət-qaṭəl*�

Tsukanova (2008) has identifed the use of dependent subjunctive forms containing the modal auxiliary *čān* in Gulf Arabic as a continuative form in narratives.

The Neo-Aramaic discourse dependent *bət-qaṭəl* and the narrative subjunctive exhibit close parallels also with continuative verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew� 17

Finally, in addition to cross-linguistic typological parallels one should also take into account the factor of language contact� It is noteworthy, for example, that the NENA dialects that exhibit the *bət-qaṭəl* future forms are/were mainly in the region of Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji). The NENA dialects in the region of Central Kurdish (Sorani) do not generally exhibit a specifc future marker. This distribution corresponds to the presence of a dedicated future verbal prefx in Northern Kurdish and the absence of such a prefx in Central Kurdish. What is of particular interest is that in Northern Kurdish verbs with the future particle are sometimes used as discourse dependency habitual forms just like the *bətqaṭəl(wa)* form in Neo-Aramaic (Haig 2018, 292).

### **References**


<sup>17</sup> These parallels with the Biblical Hebrew verbal system are discussed in Khan (2021 to appear).


———. 1991. *Partitioned Representations. A Study in Mental Representation, Language Understand and Linguistic Structure*. Dordrecht: Kluwer.


———. 2006. *Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language*� Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Roberts, Craige. 1987. 'Modal Subordination, Anaphora, and Distributivity'. Ph.D. Thesis, Amherst, N.Y: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

———. 1989. 'Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse'. *Linguistics and Philosophy* 12: 683–721.


## **CONDITIONAL PATTERNS IN THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ZAKHO**

## *Eran Cohen*

A full picture of the conditional subsystem within a grammatical system is hard to come by and the issue is often given very limited space in grammatical descriptions� The case of the Christian dialect of Barwar (Khan 2008) is exceptional, since a relatively large chapter is devoted to conditional constructions (ibid., 1004–25). In this paper I intend to study conditionals in the Jewish dialect of Zakho (henceforth JZ) as well as discuss some general issues that come up during this investigation.

Although not always clearly stated, conditionals belong semantically to the domain of modality� This is sometimes overlooked because conditionals are traditionally classifed, in grammatical descriptions, with other clause types such as diferent adverbial or subordinate clauses. This notwithstanding, they are a syntactic expression of modality, very similar semantically to other expressions which refect diferent degrees of certainty, as the particle *perhaps*�

The objectives of this paper are: frst, to explain the place of conditional constructions within epistemic modality; second, to provide a survey of conditional expressions in JZ; third, to discuss the relationships of the conditionals with other clausetypes (concessive, temporal, relative); and fourth, to show the efect of the combination of conditional expressions and other epistemic expressions�

## **1. Modality in General**

Although linguistic modality has been defned with respect to several parameters (e.g., subjectivity, or 'speaker's attitude'). The following defnition summarises the conclusion of a paper that attempts a defnition of modality (Narrog 2005), viz. that only the parameter of factuality is actually useful in distinguishing between what is modal and what is not:

Modality is a linguistic category referring to the factual status of a state of afairs. The expression of a state of afairs is modalized if it is marked for being undetermined with respect to its factual status, i.e. is neither positively nor negatively factual. (ibid., 184)

Modality is subdivided in diferent ways, but it is enough, in this framework, to keep the old division between deontic and epistemic modality�

### **1.1. Deontic Modality**

Deontic modality is the type of modality covering will and obligation in non-factual utterances. The **imperative form** is *the* deontic expression par excellence. It always has this function, expressing diferent levels of the speaker's will.

## **1.2. Epistemic Modality**

The defnitions for epistemic modality are less complicated and seem to cover the domain quite well. Nuyts (2006, 6, emphasis mine), for example, ofers the following defnition:

The core defnition of this category is relatively noncontroversial: it concerns an indication of the estimation, typically, but not necessarily, by the speaker, of **the chances that the state of afairs expressed in the clause applies in the world**� In other words, **it expresses the degree of probability of the state of afairs**�

### **1.3. The Epistemic Scale**

Ordinary conditionals are constructions that denote epistemic modality. As such, they refect various points on the **epistemic scale**, representing diferent degrees of reality ascribed to the situation or event. As Akatsuka (1985, 636–37) points out:

The two conceptual domains, realis and irrealis, do not stand in clear-cut opposition, but rather are on a continuum, in terms of the speaker's subjective evaluation of the ontological reality of a given situation. In conditionals, the *S*<sup>1</sup> of *if S*<sup>1</sup> can express the speaker's attitude at any point within the irrealis division of the scale. In short, this epistemic scale refects the speaker's evaluation of *S*<sup>1</sup> 's realizability, ranging in value from zero (i.e. counterfactuals) to one (i.e. realis)

The defnition is given higher resolution some twenty years later by Nuyts (2006,6):

As in deontic modality, this dimension can be construed as a scale from absolute certainty via probability to fairly neutral possibility that the state of afairs is real. Moreover, if one assumes that the category also involves polarity, the scale even continues further on to the negative side, via improbability of the state of afairs to absolute certainty that it is not real.

The dimension of polarity (as presented in Taylor 1996) includes anything on the scale between afrmative and negative, namely, it is very similar conceptually.

Conditional expressions are semantically analogous to epistemic particles such as *perhaps,* or similar epistemic expressions like 'he must be home now.' They are all found on that same scale, which stretches between real and unreal, or between afrmative and negative. Dancygier (1998, 72, 82) explains that *if* marks the protasis clause as **unassertable** and consequently the apodosis is **unassertable** as well, both may be regarded as assumptions.<sup>1</sup>

<sup>1</sup> For a similar view, see Palmer (1986, 189): 'Conditional sentences are unlike all others in that both the subordinate clause (the protasis) and the main clause (the apodosis) are non-factual. Neither indicates that an

In other words, **neither the protasis nor the apodosis are a statement of fact**. This issue seems important given the generally held view that a conditional protasis is analogous to various adverbial clauses and, accordingly, the conditional apodosis is equivalent to the main clause in these adverbial clauses. Note, however, that, unlike the latter, the apodosis of ordinary conditionals cannot exist without its protasis, otherwise it would not be conditioned.

Illustration 1 of the modal paradigm shows where conditionals are located with regard to other expressions of modality:

Illustration 1: The modal paradigm (Cohen 2012a, 174)

The modality conveyed by ordinary conditionals is in fact one type of epistemic modality, and, therefore, fully comparable with other expressions of likelihood—*probably*, *perhaps*, *surely*, etc�

The scale relating to conditional structures, which also has to do with degrees of likelihood, is also represented in Illustration 2, where it is presented as a round scale in which both extremes

event has occurred (or is occurring or will occur); the sentence merely indicates the dependence of the truth of one proposition upon the truth of another�'

### virtually meet. This is because an expression of unreal conditional is very close to a negative factual statement.

Illustration 2: The hypotheticality scale within conditionals (Cohen 2012a, 174)

### **1.4. Technical Information**

The following table serves as a legend for the diferent verbal forms in JZ:



The sufx *-wa* (glossed b) termed 'backshift' moves the predication back—mostly in time (when sufxed to present and past-denoting forms), but occasionally in modality, as happens with future-denoting forms and sometimes with subjunctive forms. The former denote counter-factuality, the latter has subtle functions and occasionally is an agreement to a past-denoting matrix verb.

## **1.5. Relation between Conditionals and other Epistemic Particles and Expressions**

The particle *balki ~ balkin ~ balkət* meaning 'maybe/perhaps' is one of the carriers of epistemic modality. The link between a conditional notion and 'maybe' may not seem natural at frst glance. Example (1) shows this link:

(1)


'**If** a woman was pregnant, they used to make her two [chickens for the ritual of *kappara*], one for a boy, one for a girl�

If (lit� **perhaps)** she had a boy,**it was necessary** to have one for a boy**.**

**If** she had a girl, (then) one for a girl.' (SAG 3.)2

The initial condition is generic or habitual (see §3). The specifcations (whether it is a boy or a girl) are in privative relations and hence similar to a real condition� Note that whereas in the frst specifcation *balkin* 'maybe' is used, in the second the particle used is *hakan* 'if.' The co-occurrence of conditional and *balki* is further discussed under §4.

## **2. A survey of Conditional Expressions in Jewish Zakho**

### **2.1. Apodosis**

Conditional structures are in general complex modal expressions, that is, **the likelihood of one state of afairs to take place is contingent upon the realisation chances of the other**� They are an expression of likelihood, a point on the epistemic scale and **this likelihood relates to the entire structure**� The semantic essence of an ordinary condition is illustrated in (2):


```
ənkān dʾər-ri bə-yāw-ə́t-tū-li…
if return.pst-1s fut-give-2ms-3pl-dat.1ms
ū=ʾənkan la dʾər-ri pāre šuttāwe
conn=if neg return.pst-1s money sbjv.be.3pl
ṭā-lox
to-2ms
'My friend, I intend to travel to some city, 
so let my money be with you.
If I return, you will give it (back) to me… 
but if I do not return, let the money be for you.' (286)
```
There are two directive syntagms, i�e�, two expressions of will in the example: 'let my money be with you' and 'let the money be for you.' However, it is easy to see that their semantic status is diferent. While the former is **merely an expression of the speaker's will**, the latter is more of **a permissive nature** and, in addition, it is **conditioned by external circumstances**� That is, it depends on whether the speaker returns or not.

### **2.2. Conditional Forms and Values**

There are two types of conditional form: patterns with an introductory particle and paratactic patterns. It is important to state that they are only partially related and the paratactic pattern is probably not derived from the other type.

''Form' refers to what the pattern consists of, namely, if one starts with the pattern headed by an introductory particle, one needs to specify the introductory particle as well as the forms occurring in the protasis and in the apodosis.

Several **introductory particles** occur in free variation, all consisting of the core element *kan* (< Arab. *kān* 'he was'), often with some addition: *ənkan*, *hakan*, *(i)zakan*, *īskan*, without any apparent diference.

The forms commonly occurring in the protasis of ordinary conditionals are the subjunctive *šāqəl* and the preterite forms *šqəlle* and *qam-šāqəlle*. There are no temporal diferences between the forms:

(3) *ənkān yāqer xōla yāʾ-ən* if sbjv.be.heavy.3ms rope sbjv.know-1ms *baxt-i ṣāx=ī-la…* wife-1s alive=cop-3fs *ū=ʾənkan la yqər-re xola* conn=if neg be.heavy.pst-3ms rope *xō yāʾ-ən ʾənnu mət-la* then sbjv.know-1ms comp die.pst-3fs

> 'If the rope **grows heavy**, then I will know my wife is alive…

> But if the rope **does not grow heavy**, then I will know that she died.' (26)

This is the essential profle of *kan* protases� The important point is that the forms *šqəlle* and *qam-šāqəlle*, although referring to the past in other constructions, do not do so here. In fact, they do not point at any time in particular, because temporal opposition does not exist in the protasis� The majority of conditional cases are predictive and consequently refer to the future (see (2)).

The conditional expression may occur in a subordinate environment, namely, the protasis may be associated with a subordinate apodosis (e.g. (11)).

The relationship of conditional clauses to modality is apparent from several angles. One of these is the relationship obtaining between a full protasis and a minimal or elliptic negative protasis following a directive or other expressions of obligation such as:

(4) *hakān lá hōya* <sup>+</sup>*ḥāzər b-ās-ət* if neg sbjv.be.3fs ready fut-come-2ms *əḷ=qəṭḷa* to=death

'**If it is not ready**, you will be killed.' (730–31)

(5) *ū=g-əbe hōya mulḥam-ta ū=*<sup>+</sup>*ḥāzər* conn=prs-need.3ms sbjv.be.3fs soldered-fs conn=ready *hakān lā, b-ās-ən l=qəṭḷa* if neg fut-come-1ms to=death

> 'and it (=the king's ring) must be soldered and ready� **If not**, I will be killed.' (729)

The lexical content of the protasis could either be expressed explicitly inside it (example[4], 'if it is not ready…') or, alternatively, be expressed outside it, as a command or obligation followed by an 'empty' protasis containing merely an indication of the possibility that something may not happen (example [5], the 'if not' strategy).

Present forms are rare in the protasis and refer to a persistent state of afairs. The apodosis is basically made up of either future *pšāqəl* or subjunctive *(šud) šāqəl ~* imperative *šqōl*� That is, the normal opposition between the forms is **modal**, rather than aspectual or temporal. Rare present-like forms occur here with the present copula (e�g� *īle* 'He is'), the predicative possessor (e�g� *ətle* 'He has') and the non-verbal expression of ability (*ībe*  'He is able').

### **2.3. Conditional Types**

The predominant conditional type is the **ordinary condition**, which answers to the defnition given above in §2.1.

Another type is the **speech-act conditional**, where the apodosis is not conditioned, but rather refects a fact:

(6) *yā brōn-i kan g-əb-ət qaṭl-ət-ti čū=sēpa*  voc son-1s if prs-wish-2ms sbjv.kill-2ms-1s no=sword *láq-qāṭeʾ qzāl-i ġēr sēpa dīd-i*  neg.npst-cut.3ms neck-1s except sword poss-1s *d=məlʾēl mənn-i* nmls=above from-1s

> 'O my son, if you want to kill me, (you should know that) no sword will cut my neck except my sword which (is) above me.' (417)

The factual apodosis substantially weakens the modality of these examples. The protasis merely serves as the background or explanation of the utterance in the apodosis. In example (6) it is an unconditioned fact that the sword of the giant woman (who is the speaker) is the only sword that would kill her. The protasis merely specifes in what circumstances it is important.

A **concessive conditional** is yet another type where the apodosis is factual:


### '(Even) if you sing until you die, I will not come out of my place once more�' 457

The snake (who is the source of the utterance) is more or less making a vow not to move from his place for the man's sake� This vow is unconditioned, not being contingent upon the protasis. Despite this diference, concessive conditionals still share a pattern with ordinary conditionals, as is shown below, §2.4.

In **inferential conditionals**, the protasis is the premise from which the conclusion in the apodosis is drawn, as illustrated in example � The particle *xō~xū* is used here to signal this inferential relationship�

## **2.4. Paratactic Conditional or Concessive Conditional Pattern**

This pattern is a sequence whose basic functional value is **conditional** or **concessive conditional** (see Cohen 2007). Unlike the protasis with *kan*, this type of protasis only occurs with the subjunctive form *šāqəl*: 2


<sup>2</sup> The subjunctive form in the frst part occasionaly denotes temporality. For instance:


'As for me, **should you not bring me a horse**, I will not go by foot.' (218)

(9) *b-ya-n-nox*<sup>3</sup> *qōl ṭlahá yōme. hama* fut-give-1s-dat.2ms condition three days ptcl *la=šār-ə́tū-la ʾē=sāfīna mən=go=palgūs ́* neg=sbjv.release-2pl-3fs def=boat from=in=mid *baḥḥar, ʾāna b-dār-ən sēpa go=huzāye.* sea nom.1s fut-put-1ms sword in=Jews

> 'I give you a respite of three days. **Should you not free this ship from mid-sea**, I will put the Jews to the sword.' (MA 15.5–6)

These examples are representative of the construction in question in form and in content. Example (8)–(9) contain a subjunctive form that cannot be interpreted as a negative imperative (which is a common function of the 2nd person subjunctive). The only way it could be interpreted is as a conditional protasis 'should you not….' The negative form *lakšāqəl* in the apodosis is the negative of both the forms *k-šāqəl* and *p-šāqəl* (and is thus glossed neg.npst)�

The relationship with the pattern marked by *kan* is exemplifed in the following pair of examples. The character is asked by strangers whether he is a believer or a heretic:

(10) *ʾamr-ən-nu kāfər*  sbjv.say-1ms-dat.3pl infdel

<sup>3</sup> The full form is *b-yāw-ən-nox*�

*ṣad-li ʾāni amin hāwe ū=b-qaṭl-ī-li* fear-1s nom.3pl believer sbjv.be.3pl conn=fut-kill-3pl-1s

### '**Should I tell them** 'infdel',

I fear they may be believers and **will kill me**�' 381

(11) *kan ʾamr-ən-nu ʾamin* if sbjv.say-1ms-dat.3pl infdel *ṣad-li hāwe ʾāni kāfer wu=ham*  fear-1s sbjv.be.3pl nom.3pl infdel conn=also *b-qaṭl-ī-li* fut-kill-3pl-1s

'**If I tell them** 'believer',

I fear they may be infdels and **will** also **kill me.'**381–82

Recall that the protasis with *kan* may consist of a preterite form as well, while in the paratactic pattern only the subjunctive form *šāqəl* is attested. Examples (10) and (11), however, have the same value here. Note that the conditional state of afairs in both examples is a expressed by a complement clause of *ṣadli* 'I am afraid�'

Whereas the pattern with *kan* is essentially conditional, the paratactic pattern may be either conditional or concessiveconditional (table 2). The two values are diferentiated based upon a particle, which occasionally precedes them: *hama*� The particle *hama* is otherwise a focus particle meaning 'just.' Here it has an entirely diferent function—it identifes the pattern *#šāqəl—p-šāqəl#* as conditional, that is, when *hama* precedes the pattern (i�e�, *#hama šāqəl—p-šāqəl*), it marks it as a conditional.

On the other hand, when the particle šud precedes *šāqəl*, the pattern is positively identifed as a concessive conditional�

(Otherwise šud identifes the subjunctive form as syntactically independent.) The details of the pattern of the paratactic conditional are as follows:


Table 2: Conditional Patterns

Note that the order protasis—apodosis is strictly kept with the paratactic pattern but not with the construction with the conditional particle. Another point is that in view of the obvious diferences between both patterns, the paratactic pattern does not seem to have been derived from the pattern with an explicit conditional marker�

### **2.5. Counter-factual Conditional Patterns**

Counter-factual expressions are located at the far end of the modal scale, very close in fact to the point of negative factuality (see Illustration 2). They cover events (or states) that did (or will) not happen, but which are still not reported as factual but rather through some modal flter:


*gyān-i* refl-1s

'but **if I had known** (that) you wanted me,

**I would not have come** into your house, to lead myself to sin.' (783)

A virtually similar clause is 'I didn't know and therefore I came.' This latter clause is, however, factual and does not impart the regrets and wishes of the speaker implied in the counterfactual expression in example (12). The opposite order, apodosis—protasis, is also attested:

(13) *mani k-īʾe mā́ sē-la l=ʾurx-ət*  who prs-know�3ms what come�pst-3fs to=way-cst *dáw=jwanqa dīd-i ū=mā b-asyā-wa*  def=youngster poss-1s conn=what fut-come�3fs-b *b=rēš-i kan lá-hōy-an-wa tfəq-ta*  in=head-1s if neg-sbjv.be-1fs-b meet�ptcp-fs *bəd=danya=ṭḷāha* in=dem=three

> 'Who knows what happened to that youth of mine and what **would have happened** to me **if I had not met** these three.' (870)

In (13) two apodoses are conjoined in a complement clause of not-knowing (which is often very similar to the expression of an indirect question). One is factual ('what happened') and the other is a counterfactual conditional ('what would have happened if…'). The latter conveys an alternative universe.

The pattern of the counterfactual conditional, which is common in NENA, is presented in Table 3:


Table 3: Counterfactual Conditional Pattern

The form *p-šāqəl-wa* is used in general to express counterfactuality, also outside the domain of conditionals for instance, in circumstantial expressions (see Cohen 2015, 269–70).

Unlike ordinary condition, the protasis of counterfactual conditionals may interchange with a simpler expression:


**have gone** there to bring money.' (529)

(15) *p=qəṭl-i lág-b-ə́n-wa bary-ā-wa* in=death-1s neg.npst-wish-1ms-b sbjv.happen-3fs-b *mā́ -d brē-la* what-cst happen.pst-3fs

'(even in exchange) for my death, **I would not have wanted** what happened to happen.' (903)

Such 'adverbial' substitutes (underlined) are hinted at by the form of the apodosis� The form *p-šāqəl-wa* is a rare form outside the counterfactual apodosis. JZ has the following paradigm for the counterfactual protasis:


The ultimate signifcance of this interchangeability is that, unlike the protasis of the ordinary conditional, deemed as sui generis, the counterfactual protasis is comparable with smaller entities (as are, for instance, many subordinate clauses).

More common is the **asyndetic counterfactual** conditional pattern:

```
(16) yā ʾīlāha, šxēra uxudēra ū=ʾōha =nāša 
      voc God by god's benevolence conn=def=man
      fāhəm-wa šaqəl-wa xá=ṭarpa…
      sbjv.understand.3ms-b sbjv�take�3ms-b indef=leaf
      ū=māwə́š-wā-le ū=xarāye dāyə́q-wā-le…
      conn=sbjv.dry.3ms-b-3ms conn=then sbjv.ground.3ms-b-3ms
```
*ū=bāzə́r-wā-le ʾəl=axon-e* conn=sbjv.sprinkle.3ms-b-3ms to=brother-3ms

*u=ʾaxōn-e bə-qāyəm-wa* conn=brother-3ms fut-stand.up.3ms-b

'Oh God, by God's benevolence, **had** this man **understood**, **taken** a leaf … and **dried** it, and then **ground** it… and **sprinkled** it over his brother, his brother **would have stood up**.' (278–79)

The expression *šxēra uxudēra* does not seem to be part of the construction. Note that it is actually connected by *ū* to the conditional pattern. The pattern in this case consists of fve clauses in the protasis and one in the apodosis.

## **3. Relationships of the Conditionals with other Clause-Types**

In §2.3 above, several types of conditionals were explained and exemplifed. In certain cases one fnds a structure similar to a conditional pattern, but the function is diferent. For instance, conditional-like dependencies sometimes occur within a descriptive narrative passage:


'**If a woman was** pregnant, **they used to make her** two [chickens for the ritual of *kappara*]�'SAG 3�2

Example (17) is a conditional-like structure. It is, however, diferent. It is clear that the structure shows neither modality, nor counterfactuality, but only an **interdependency** between two states of afairs, which are in fact two factual, regularly recurring states or events� What makes this clear is the form *kšāqəlwa* in the apodosis (whereas in the standard counterfactual conditional pattern one would expect a *šāqəlwa*—*pšāqəlwa* sequence, as in Table 5, with the backshifted future**).** 

The next example is similar; although it does have the right apodosis form (*pšāqəlwa*), the so called protasis is introduced by *dammət* 'when':


�'��and whenever they would need something, some of them **would go** to a village and **bring** whatever was needed.' (947)

Note that conditionals are not typical of narrative� They are common in dialogue, and possibly also in narratorial comments,

<sup>4</sup> The form *dīlu* 'they are' (as well as any other copulas which are prefxed by *d-*, i�e�, *dīwın* vs� *wın* 'I am') are copula forms that occur after any element in the construct state (glossed cst). It is for this reason that they are referred to as attributes (which is the basic function of the second part of a genitive construction) and are glossed accordingly (attr). See Cohen (2010, 90–93) and (2012b, 119–21).

but not in the stream of events. Another similar example is worth considering:

(19) *ōha=šēx … k-īʾē-wa bəd=ṣurr-ət nāše.* dem=sheikh prs-know�3ms-b in=secret-cst people *xa hāwē-wa náṣax, k-īʾē-wa*  indef.pron sbjv.be.3ms-b sick prs-know�3ms-b *ənkan māyes u=ʾənkan bə-ṭāreṣ* whether sbjv�die�3ms conn=whether fut-recover�3ms *ū=xa=baxta dīd hōyāwa sməxta* conn=indef=woman rel sbjv.be.3fs-b pregnant *k-īʾē-wa ʾənkan brōna=le u=ʾənkan*  prs-know�3ms-b whether boy=cop.3ms conn=whether *brāta=la.* girl=cop.3fs

> This sheikh …, he used to know the secrets of people. Someone (who) was sick, he would know whether he would die or recover. And a woman who was pregnant, he would know whether it is a boy or a girl.' (226–27)

All three examples (17)-(19) refer to generic a state of afairs. Note that in these cases conditional, temporal and relative clauses converge and are almost interchangeable in this context.


Table 5: The Structure of Narrative Conditionals

Where conditional, temporal and relative forms functionally converge, the result is a **non-modal**, **generic dependency**� This genericity goes hand in hand with character description—not an individual occurrence, but rather a permanent feature, as in example (19), describing the sheikh.

## **4. The Combination of Conditional Expressions and Epistemic Expressions**

Lastly, in the following example two similar expressions of possibility—conditional and the expression of epistemic possibility—co-occur:


*lá-mamreʾ-le balki ʾō=xət qāṭəl-le* neg-sbjv.hurt.3ms-3ms maybe def=other sbjv.kill.3ms-3ms

'The athlete lifted (his hand) and delivered a blow on the youngster because he saw that it was no use: **If**  he does not hurt him, **perhaps** the other one may kill him.' (768)

The explanation for this is that these expressions do not have the same function. The particle *balki* has its own function in the example� The conditional particle possibly signals two things: frst, that both events or states of afairs are merely possible; and second, the relationship between them:

The only assertion that is made in a conditional construction is **about the relation between the protasis and the apodosis** (Dancygier 1998, 72, emphasis mine)

This assertion is best felt when its existence is shaken by a modal particle which has the entire construction in its scope or by a question. The modal particle in our case refers specifcally **to the relation between the protasis and the apodosis**, namely, it shakes the dependency between the protasis and the apodosis, expressing doubt about this relationship.

### **5. Conclusions**

This paper provides a description, classifcation and discussion of the various conditional phenomena in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Zakho�

	- Ordinary conditionals, which denote diferent degrees of epistemic modality (these constitute the bulk of the examples);

### **References**


### **Corpus**


## **LANGUAGE CONTACT AND TUROYO: THE CASE OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSE**

## *Michael Waltisberg*

## **Introduction**

When one studies language contact, especially between closely related languages such as Aramaic and Arabic, grammatical replication, as opposed to, for instance, phonological borrowing, remains problematic.<sup>1</sup> The term 'grammatical replication' describes constructions that are reproduced by linguistic means in the borrowing language. Mithun (2012, 15) correctly states:

Speakers replicate categories and patterns with native material� Without the substance, the process can be difcult to detect.

A case in point, which clearly illustrates this problem, is the circumstantial clause in Turoyo. As I argued in an article published a few years ago, this can be ascribed to Arabic interference (Waltisberg 2013).<sup>2</sup> This conclusion was not necessarily premature or rash, but I did not discuss the whole spectrum of the problem and all the relevant data. The current article resumes the earlier discussion and summarises the relevant linguistic facts, arriving at a slightly diferent conclusion.

<sup>1</sup> For introductory literature see, for example, Weinreich (1953); Hickey (2010); Epps et al. (2013).

<sup>2</sup> Kurdish seems to be irrelevant to the argument (see Bedir Khan and Lescot 1986 and Chyet 1995).

## **1. Turoyo**

The circumstantial clause in Turoyo (see Waltisberg 2016, 316f.) is either asyndetic, i.e. without a conjunction, or syndetic, i.e. with the conjunction *w*- 'and'. It may occur before or after the matrix clause. It usually indicates concomitant states and actions or refers to the narrative background. There is no discernible distinction between the two syntactic options, as the following examples show�

A preposed asyndetic circumstantial clause: 3


'**When we were children**, it occurs to me, we used to go and kill the wasps in the village.' (R2 456.1)

Here the circumstantial clause is formed with the pronoun *ăḥna* 'we' and the noun *naʿime* 'little ones, children'� There is no copular element.

A circumstantial clause may also occur within matrix clauses:


<sup>3</sup> The transcription of Turoyo used in this paper follows Jastrow (1997) and consistently indicates lax vowels (mostly in closed syllables) with a breve diacritic�

'She said: a man will come, (and) **while you are asleep**, he will cut your head of.' (R3 354.47)

Morphosyntactically, syndetic circumstantial clauses are almost identical. They simply introduce the clause with the conjunction *w*-:

(3) *măṣrĭn-ne w-ʿăyn-i măṣre măwfăqqă-lli* they�shackle-them and-eyes-my bound they.led.out-me *m-u-băyt-awo* from-the-house-that

> 'They shackled (my hands). **With my eyes covered**, they led me out of that house.' (Talay 2004, 76.127)

The next example has the same semantics as (2) above, but is joined to what precedes syndetically:


'and he poured (the grease) into Kăyalo's mouth, **while he was asleep.**' (R2 574.153)

All the examples cited so far have a non-verbal predicate. It is not entirely certain whether circumstantial clauses with a verbal predicate exist, as such constructions largely overlap with coordinated clauses. Some examples, however, may be interpreted as a circumstantial clause. The present tense form *koroqĭḏ* 'he dances' in example (5) below serves as the predicate of the circumstantial clause:

(5) *disane bdele moḥe ʿal i-ʿărban-ayo* again he.began he.beats upon the-timbrel-that *diḏe w-u-măymun koroqĭḏ* of�his and-the-monkey he�is�dancing

'He began to beat his timbrel again, **while the monkey was dancing.**' (Jastrow 1968, 46.54)

The following syntactic features of the circumstantial clause in Turoyo emerge from these examples:


We may thus come to the preliminary conclusion that the circumstantial clause in Turoyo is a perfect replica of the Arabic circumstantial clause (cf., for example, Reckendorf 1921, 447f.; Brustad 2000, 339f.; Prochazka 2002, 159).

Despite the morphosyntactic and semantic similarities, however, there are some problems with this conclusion:


## **Anatolian Arabic**

The situation in Anatolian Arabic is signifcant. The copula of the third person singular masculine and feminine has the following paradigm in the dialect of Hasköy (Kurdish Dêrxas, Muş province, eastern Turkey):

(8) *ism-i Mḥamma-wa* name-my Mḥamma-it.is 'My name **is** Mḥamma.' (Talay 2001, 77f.) (9) *Aḷmānya bōš kwīse mī-ya* Germany very good not-it�is

'Germany **is** not that good.' (ib.)

A copula may also be used in circumstantial clauses, for example in the Mḥallami dialect of Kinderib (Mardin province, south-eastern Turkey), as shown in the two following examples, which contain the 3fs (*-ye*) and the 3ms (*-we*) copulas respectively:


'The ploughmen began to look on, **while he was standing** (there).' (Jastrow 2003, 462.31)

If the variety of vernacular Arabic that is the contact language of Turoyo uses a copula, even in circumstantial clauses, the borrowing of this construction from Arabic into Turoyo would be less likely. This is because Turoyo, as we have seen, never uses a copula in non-verbal circumstantial clauses.

There are, however, also circumstantial clauses without the copula in Kinderib, as the following asyndetic example shows:


'They put the head (of the body) to the West, and his feet in the direction of the East, **while he was lying on the bier**.' (Jastrow 2003, 108.40)

There are further instances of circumstantial clauses without copulas in the Mḥallami dialect, such as the following example from Sasse (1971):

(13) *l-yăwm tətroḥin trăyr rəḥki neyme* today you.leave you.see yourself sleeping *ʿa lə-zbale w-čăntət-ki tăḥt ras-ki* on the-dunghill and-bag-your under head-your

> '(When) you leave today, you will see yourself sleeping on top of the dunghill, **with your bag under your head**.' (Sasse 1971, 290.5)

Circumstantial clauses without copulas are attested also in some other varieties of Anatolian Arabic, such as the dialect of Āzəx (Şırnak province, SE Turkey):


'They took the rope, **while he was standing in front of the tree.**' (Wittrich 2001, 160)

Compare this example with the semantically very similar clause in (11) above. The main diference is the use of the copula in Kinderib and its absence in Āzəx�

The evidence from Anatolian Arabic, therefore, does not necessarily contradict the assumption of Arabic infuence on the Turoyo circumstantial clause�

## **3. Other Aramaic Varieties**

The situation in older varieties of Aramaic is also important for this issue, for the syntax of the Turoyo circumstantial clause may be the continuation of earlier linguistic usage. Syriac, as stated above, rarely uses the conjunction *w*- 'and' in circumstantial clauses, which are normally introduced by *kaḏ*� The following example is from the *Julian Romance* (probably 6th century C.E.), transcribed according to the eastern Syriac tradition:


'They could not save them from the fery immolation, as Christ saved and delivered me from your fery immolation, **while you were looking on**.' (Hofmann 1880, 52.11 = Sokolof 2017, 111.10)<sup>4</sup>

The interpretation of such clauses may sometimes be somewhat problematic. In the following example, taken from the story about Mar Maʾin, the clause in question, despite its morphosyntactic similarities, may not actually be a circumstantial clause, but rather a sequential clause with a participle in durative function:

<sup>4</sup> Sokolof's text erroneously gives <ʾykʾ> for *aykannå*�

(16) *håydȩn npaq nåšå hålȩn l-ṭurå* then they.went.out people these to-mountain *w-hennon meṯkarkin b-ȩ w-ʿal* and-they moving.about in-it and-they�entered *l-håy mʿarṯå w-eškḥu-y* into-that cave and-they.found-him

> 'Then these men left for the mountains, **and they were walking about**, went into that cave and found him.' (Brock 2008, 31.-14)

Despite its rather rare occurrence, this older Aramaic usage may have continued in Turoyo.

Similar clauses can be found in other modern Aramaic varieties such as those of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). These are mostly asyndetic, as, for instance, in the Christian dialect of Barwar. Khan (2008, 22, 849f.) rejects Arabic interference for this variety, presumably on the grounds of a predominantly Kurdish environment. Therefore, these clauses must be an independent development. An asyndetic example reads as follows:


'They would go to cultivate (the felds), go to harvest, go and bring things for the house, **while they were fasting**.' (Khan 2008, 851)

The syntax of the clause *ʾáni ṣìme* is the same as in the Turoyo examples (1) and (2) above, i.e. *ăḥna naʿime* and *hăt damixo*  respectively. It is not entirely certain what such parallels, apparently independent from each other, mean for the syntax of modern Aramaic in general, as they could well be due to tendencies toward paratactic structures in spoken language (cf. the short remark in Givón 2001, 218).

## **4. Conclusion**

From the evidence presented in this paper, some questions arise:


This leads to the following tentative conclusion. The model of Arabic syntax played a part in the Turoyo circumstantial clause, if only in the sense of reinforcing developments already nascent in Turoyo; see the evidence from Syriac and NENA cited earlier� Clues for Arabic interference in the circumstantial clause of Turoyo may be found in the following syntactic features:


On the whole, therefore, the circumstantial clause in Turoyo is a perfect example of the complex interaction between several internal and external factors in the development of linguistic features. The exact degree of infuence of each of these factors is difcult, if not impossible, to determine.

### **References**


———. 2016. *Syntax des Ṭuroyo*. Semitica Viva 55. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.


## **THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC CONSERVATISM OF WESTERN NEO-ARAMAIC DESPITE CONTACT WITH SYRIAN ARABIC**

*Ivri Bunis*

## **1. Introduction**

This paper is a historical-comparative study of basic tense, aspect and mood (TAM) distinctions in two closely related languages: Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic� It compares their shared cognate verbal paradigms, shows the overlap and diferences in their grammatical functions and discusses the independent parallel developments such as the innovation of new verbal constructions. It will demonstrate that the Western Neo-Aramaic conservatism and resilience to contact-induced change in its verbal system is striking in light of its prolonged and close contact with Syrian Arabic and the morphological similarities between the Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms—factors which have been found to facilitate contact-induced change in other bilingual situations.

Two of the four cases of divergence that are presented in this article also stand out in that they involve embedded structures, specifcally, modal and phasal complement clauses and conditional protases� Western Neo-Aramaic preserves more complex patterns of subordination with these structures than is found in Syrian Arabic, which is the dominant language in the Western Neo-Aramaic speech region� This appears to go against Matras's suggestion (2009, 244 and see also ibid., 248–50) that such embedded structures are prone to contact-induced convergence with the linguistic patterns of the model or donor language.

Of the two branches of Aramaic that are known to us from the Late Aramaic stage (3rd–6th centuries CE), namely Western and Eastern Aramaic, the sole surviving heirs to the varieties that were part of the western branch are the three Neo-Aramaic dialects spoken in the Qalamun mountains in Syria, around 60 kilometres North-East of Damascus� Unlike the majority of the eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects, which have been in contact mostly with non-Semitic languages, possessing very diferent morphologies from their own, Western Neo-Aramaic has developed in contact with Arabic. Both Aramaic and Arabic belong to Central Semitic� The genetic relation between the two language groups entails a large degree of morphological similarity� Western Neo-Aramaic especially stands out in the extreme closeness of its verbal morphology to that of Syrian Arabic. The morphological afnity between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic in general, particularly in their verbal morphology, provides an opportunity to examine a case of prolonged contact between closely related languages, in this instance likely spanning over a millennium.

Syrian Arabic is the dominant language in the Western Neo-Aramaic speech region and all Western Neo-Aramaic speakers have been bilingual for several generations at the very least (Correll 1978, 136). Evidence for the long history of contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic is found in the extensive infuence of Syrian Arabic on Western Neo-Aramaic in the areas of lexicon (Arnold and Behnstedt 1991, 61) and morphology and syntax (Correll 1978, 135–53).

One central feature of the verbal morphology of the Western Neo-Aramaic dialects that brings it very close to Syrian Arabic verbal morphology is the retention of both of the earlier Central Semitic fnite verbal paradigms, namely the sufx conjugation (i�e� *qtal*) and the prefx conjugation (i.e. *yiqtol*). These conjugations exist alongside the imperative and the two participial paradigms, i�e� the so-called active participle and the so-called passive or resultative participle� Western Neo-Aramaic contrasts in this feature with nearly all of the eastern varieties of Neo-Aramaic, in which the two fnite paradigms have fallen out of use and the verbal system is based on the historical active and resultative participles� Only Neo-Mandaic has preserved one of the fnite paradigms, namely the *qtal* conjugation (Hӓberl 2009, 178f.).

The participial forms of Western Neo-Aramaic have undergone some development. Notably, they have acquired prefxal person infection (Arnold 1990b, 75, 77), which parallels sufxal person marking in eastern varieties of Neo-Aramaic� However, apart from this development, which has also afected adjectives, and some other changes to infectional morphemes expressing person, number and gender, Western Neo-Aramaic verbs preserve the morphology of Late Western Aramaic, which in turn constitutes the general verbal morphology of Central Semitic.

The retention of the two fnite verbal paradigms has special signifcance for the issue of language contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic. Syrian Arabic too has sufx and prefx conjugations, an active participle, a passive/resultative participle and an imperative paradigm� The morphology of the Western Neo-Aramaic sufx and prefx conjugations and the active participle very closely parallels that of Syrian Arabic.

For the discussion of language contact, I adopt here the terms 'matter replication' and 'pattern replication' employed by Matras (2009, 234–35) to refer respectively to borrowings of concrete forms of words or morphs as opposed to the replication of more abstract patterns. Matras (ibid., 240–43) presents a model for pattern replication based on 'pivot-matching', whereby speakers identify pivotal features of a pattern in the model language, and match them 'to the inventory of context-appropriate forms' and 'their formation and combination rules' (ibid., 243). The result is the replication of the model pattern using inherited linguistic material�

Much of the study of language contact is devoted to understanding which elements of language tend to be replicated as borrowed linguistic matter, as linguistic patterns or the combination of both. Various hierarchies have been suggested concerning the propensity of various elements to be taken over in the replica language through matter or pattern replication (Matras 2009, 153–65, 243–45).

Since the focus of the present article is the function of verbal paradigms of Western Neo-Aramaic, in relation to cognate Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms, the most relevant type of linguistic change in this context would be pattern replication� The occurrence of pattern replication is explained in various ways, with a prominent role given to bilingualism. As noted, Aramaic/Syrian Arabic bilingualism has existed among Western Neo-Aramaic speakers for an extended period of time� In this context, a suggested motivation for pattern replication is to maximise the efciency of speech production in a bilingual situation, by allowing patterns to converge (Matras 2009, 235). Furthermore, prolonged bilingualism is believed to result in the levelling of structures through 'orientation toward a prestigious outsider language', which may be accompanied in the case of diglossia by 'a considerable infux of loanwords' (ibid., 237). Loss of categories through language contact has also been reported (ibid., 258). The dominance of Syrian Arabic in the Western Neo-Aramaic speech-region is very much refected in such an infux of Arabic loanwords and the replacement of many original Aramaic lexemes� On the other hand, as this article aims to show, the morphosyntax of the expression of TAM refects a large measure of stability, in that the levelling of structures and loss of categories has not occurred.

Studies of language contact that specifcally touch on morphology suggest that the morphological similarities between the Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic verbal systems could have had the potential to facilitate the replication of the Syrian Arabic patterns by cognate, similar-sounding forms in Western Neo-Aramaic� Firstly, replication involving derivational and even infectional morphology is attested even between languages with very diferent morphologies (Matras 2009, 258–65). Noorlander (2014) has applied Matras's model to the eastern varieties of Neo-Aramaic. He has found many examples of morphosyntactic replication among varieties of Eastern Neo-Aramaic that were induced by their contact with Kurdish, an Indo-European language, despite its very diferent morphology. Khan (2020) has drawn attention to the fact that contact between North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects and Iranian languages can result in partial convergence based on the matching of particular details between the languages without replicating full grammatical systems. Moreover, the morphological and phonological similarities that exist between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic cognate verbal forms are known from other contact situations to have served as pivotal features facilitating pattern replication (Matras 2009, 245–46).

The potential for pattern replication and its lack of realisation in the case of Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic is the main concern of this article, to which I apply Matras's model� In this case, the close similarities in sound and morphology between cognate Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal forms would be the potential pivotal features that could have facilitated pattern replication�

When compared with many of the contact situations that have been studied by contact linguists, the degree of sound-similarity between the cognate verbal forms of Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic, which I address later on in this article, stands out. An important additional factor is that some of the cognate and similar-sounding forms already had parallel functions in both languages as a result of parallel development in both languages or shared retention� Lastly, I aim to show that speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic have recognised the morphological closeness between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal forms.

We would have expected that these factors, coupled with the prolonged contact between the two languages, and the dominance of Syrian Arabic, would have facilitated and prompted the replication of Syrian Arabic morphosyntactic patterns within Western Neo-Aramaic�

Correll (1978, 142–53) has devoted attention to the question of the Syrian Arabic infuence on Western Neo-Aramaic verbal syntax, on the basis of the texts that he had at his disposal. Correll generally fnds much Syrian Arabic infuence on the function of the Western Neo-Aramaic verb, though he often qualifes this infuence, noting somewhat obscurely that 'with all of the recognised impact of the donor language [i.e. Arabic], it is hardly possible to speak of explicit Arabisation' (Correll 1978, 148).<sup>1</sup> Notably, Correll (ibid., 153) proposes that the contact with Arabic might have been a conservative force, responsible for the preservation of the two fnite verbal paradigms in Western Neo-Aramaic. Arabic, Correll suggests, hindered the inherent tendencies of the precursors of Western Neo-Aramaic, which might have led to the loss of the earlier fnite verbal paradigms as happened in the eastern varieties of Aramaic� In the relevant sections of the present article, some of Correll's remarks will be considered in greater detail�

The opinions Correll expresses on this issue seem to be somewhat contradictory (1978, 142–45). With respect to the *qtal* and *yiqtol* paradigms in Western Neo-Aramaic, he states that their functions are very close to those of the cognate Syrian Arabic forms, making Syrian Arabic infuence on their function likely. And yet, he reasons, their functions are too close to those found in older Aramaic to establish Syrian Arabic infuence with certainty. Nevertheless, Correll strongly believes that the Western Neo-Aramaic active participle has converged in its functions with Syrian Arabic *b-+yiqtol*, stating in this regard

There can be no doubt that this is a case of direct and meticulous replication of the circumstances in Arabic (Correll 1978, 144–45).<sup>2</sup>

Arnold (2007, 189) notes that *qtal* and *yiqtol* in Western Neo-Aramaic 'are used to express preterite tense and subjunctive exactly as in the Arabic dialects of Syria'�

The present article aims to show that despite the factors of prolonged contact of Western Neo-Aramaic with Syrian Arabic

<sup>1 &#</sup>x27;… von ausdrücklicher Arabisierung kann also, bei aller zugestandenen Einwirkung von seiten der Adstratsprache, schwerlich gesprochen werden' (my translation).

<sup>2 &#</sup>x27;Es kann wohl nicht der geringste Zweifel daran bestehen, daß man es hier mit einer geradezu minuziösen Nachbildung der Gegebenheiten im Arabischen zu tun hat' (my translation), and see also Correll's comment, p� 144, n� 272�

and the close morphological afnity between the two languages, Western Neo-Aramaic preserves a signifcant degree of diference from Syrian Arabic in its verbal morphosyntax�

The examination presented here is contrastive� In order to appreciate the signifcance of the functional divergences presented in Section 4, between cognate and similar-sounding verb forms in Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic, these divergences are contrasted with other contexts in which Syrian Arabic infuence on Western Neo-Aramaic is signifcant (Sections 2–3), and Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic show parallel functions of their cognate verbal forms (Section 3). It is within this wider context, which, I suggest, includes a recognition on the part of the speakers of the correspondences between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic, that the existence of such divergences is striking�

The investigation ofered in this article consists of three sections. In Section 2, I illustrate the close and extensive contact that has existed between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic by reviewing facets of lexical, morphological and syntactic infuences of Syrian Arabic outside of the verbal system. In Section 3, I present shared features of the Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal forms, due to independent development, shared retention or convergence� This section serves as a background, against which, the functional divergences, presented in Section 4, between the cognate Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic verbal paradigms, can be fully understood.

## **2. Syrian Arabic Influence on Western Neo-Aramaic: Loanwords and Multiword Expressions, and their Syntactic Context**

To appreciate the divergences that are the focus of this paper, the duration of the contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic and the ways that this contact has impacted on Western Neo-Aramaic need to be understood.

Throughout this article, the linguistic examples are transcribed as they appear in the respective publications.

With regard to the duration of contact, Arnold (2002, 6–7) has pointed out two phonological features of Syrian Arabic loanwords that refect prolonged contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic�

Some Arabic loanwords in Western Neo-Aramaic, such as *rkʿ* 'return' in the fourth stem, contain the consonant /k/ where contemporary Syrian Arabic has /ǧ/ or /ž/ (cf. *ržʿ* 'return'). In words of Aramaic stock, /k/ most often originates from the voiced velar stop \**g*, e�g� *felka* < \**pelgā* 'half' (Spitaler 1938, 17).

Other Arabic loanwords in Western Neo-Aramaic refect spirantisation of *bgdkpt* consonants, e�g� *xōf* <Arabic *kāfī*  'enough'.

Arnold convincingly suggests that the frst category of loanwords was borrowed into the precursors of Western Neo-Aramaic before the voiced velar stop /g/ in Syrian Arabic shifted to /ǧ/ and subsequently in many of the Syrian Arabic dialects to /ž/. Later borrowings from Syrian Arabic contain /ž/, e.g. *čōžra* 'merchant' < Syrian Arabic *tāžer*� Following Spitaler (1938, 21), Arnold suggests that the second category goes back to the time when the twofold pronunciation of the *bgdkpt* consonants in Aramaic, as either stops or fricatives, was still allophonic� The two realisations are no longer allophonic in contemporary Western Neo-Aramaic, but have developed into discrete phonemes. Thus [k] and [x], which were originally allophones of /k/ constitute minimal pairs in *xafna* 'hunger' versus *kafna* 'burial shroud' < Arabic *kafan* (Arnold 1990b, 14). The initial /k/ in the Arabic loanword *kafna* in contrast to the initial /x/ in *xōf* < Arabic *kāfī* also presumably signifes that the former was borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic at a later period than *kāfī.*

The infuence of contact with Syrian Arabic on the lexicon of all three Western Neo-Aramaic dialects is massive. It includes the replacement of many Aramaic lexemes with Arabic lexemes (1).

## (1) Ma*ʿ*lūla *aḥḥaḏ ifqer w-aḥḥaḏ iġǝn*

'one **poor** man and one **rich** man' (Arnold 1991, 12:1)

Most Syrian Arabic loanwords, including the forms *ifqer <* Arabic *faqīr* and *iġǝn <* Arabic *ġanī* in example (1), refect integration into Western Neo-Aramaic morphology, which is also an indication of the long duration of contact.

Material replication of Syrian Arabic lexicon is not limited in Western Neo-Aramaic to content words but includes many function words as well. Just to illustrate, these include adverbs such as *baḥar* 'much, very' < Arabic *baḥar* 'sea', *bnawb* 'completely' < Syrian Arabic *bnawb* with the same meaning, subordinators such as *ḥetta* 'in order that' and the reciprocal pronoun *baʿḏ̣* < Arabic *baʿḏ̣* . In Matras's view, since contact-induced linguistic change originates in the discourse of bilingual speakers, discourse markers are particularly prone to be materially replicated (Matras 2009, 98–100, 144–45). A signifcant portion of the replicated Syrian Arabic function words in Western Neo-Aramaic includes discourse markers, such as *ṭayyeb* 'OK, good', *bass* 'but', *yaʿni* 'I mean'. All of these originate in identical Syrian Arabic forms with the same meanings�

The ordinal numbers in Western Neo-Aramaic have been completely replaced by Syrian Arabic forms: *awwal*, <sup>3</sup> *ṯēn(i)*, *ṯēleṯ*, etc. (Arnold 1990b, 403). In this regard, Western Neo-Aramaic is extreme. There is much documentation in the world's languages for the borrowing of 'frst' and 'second' but not of higher ordinals (Matras 2009, 202–03), which may point to a special propensity of lower ordinals to undergo contact-induced material replication. This holds for a number of Aramaic dialects as well. The Arabic form *ʾawwal* 'frst' was taken over by varieties of Palestinian Aramaic already in the Middle Ages (Fassberg 2010,

<sup>3</sup> Following Arnold's practice, an initial glottal stop is not indicated in the transcription of Western Neo-Aramaic�

92, n. 102). A number of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects have borrowed either *ʾawwal*<sup>3</sup> by itself (Garbell 1965, 56–7; Khan 2008, 186–87; Fassberg 2010, 92), or together with forms for 'second' (Khan 1999, 181; Khan 2004, 206; Khan 2009, 213). Likewise in some dialects of Tūroyo, 'frst' and 'second' have been replaced by Arabic forms and the Arabic ordinal for 'third' (*tēləṯ*) is occasionally used alongside a native Aramaic form (Ritter 1990, 47). In the Mīdin dialect of this group 'second' and 'third' are borrowed from Arabic, whereas *qamoyo*, the older Aramaic form for 'frst' is preserved and used adjectivally (Jastrow 1985, 245). By contrast Western Neo-Aramaic has replaced all ordinals from 'one' to 'ten' with Arabic forms. Aramaic cardinal numbers, though, have been retained in Western Neo-Aramaic. In Trans-Zab Jewish varieties of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic, we fnd a combination of matter and pattern replication with all ordinal numbers. In these varieties, ordinals are formed on the basis of native Aramaic cardinal numbers, which are sufxed with -*mīn*� The sufx -*mīn* has been materially replicated from Kurdish, and Kurdish is also the model for the pattern cardinal+sufx (Noorlander 2014, 215).

The infuence of Syrian Arabic is not limited to the material replication of lexical items, but includes replication of derivational morphemes and pattern replication� Two clear examples of this are the Arabic elative pattern *aqtal*, and the seventh and eighth Arabic verbal stems. For Matras (2009, 209–10), a requirement for recognising morphological borrowing is 'backwards difusion', i.e., 'replication of borrowed morphs in connection with preexisting, inherited lexicon'� The elative *aqtal* pattern is used not only with Arabic loanwords, such as *aqwa* 'stronger', from the Arabic root *qwy*, but with Aramaic roots as well, as in *awrab* 'greater, older' from *rbb*� 4

Syntactic infuence of Syrian Arabic is evident with the ordinal numbers and the elative, on top of the lexical and morphological infuence that those two categories refect. When these categories

<sup>4</sup> The seventh and eighth Arabic derived stems are discussed in Section 3 below (see further Correll 1978, 25–6, 141).

function as modifers, Western Neo-Aramaic (2a-c) replicates the syntactic pattern in which they appear in Syrian Arabic (3a-c). The pattern consists of a noun phrase structure in which the modifer, in an uninfected masculine singular form, precedes the head noun, an unusual word order elsewhere in Western Neo-Aramaic, but one that is well known in Arabic (Grotzfeld 1965, 71, 93–4).


'mostly', literally 'most thing' (Arnold 1987, 1:1)

Multiword expressions constitute a category with which matter replication also inherently involves syntactic structures, which fall into the category of patterns (Matras 2009, 240–43). Numerous Syrian Arabic expressions such as (4) have been borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic. I adduce this example to illustrate how the structural afnity between the two languages has enabled such expressions to be adopted almost as they appear in the model language. In (4), the dimension of syntax also indicates how speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic are able to match forms in Syrian Arabic with non-cognate forms with parallel function in Western Neo-Aramaic.

In (4), the Arabic expression *qaṭaʿ-*∅ *ǝl-ʾamal* '[he] lost hope' (4a), literally '[he] cut the hope' is mirrored by a very close expression in Western Neo-Aramaic (4b). The noun *ʾamal* 'hope' has been borrowed and integrated into Western Neo-Aramaic morphology in the form *aml-a*, whereby it has acquired the Western Neo-Aramaic nominal sufx *-a*� The root *qṭʿ* 'cut' is found historically both in Arabic and in Aramaic, but its use in Western Neo-Aramaic in this phrase in collocation with *aml-a* doubtless originates in the Syrian Arabic expression�

(4)

a� Syrian Arabic


'Don't give up hope.' (Stowasser 1964, 118b)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

*qaṭʿ-ul-l aml-a* cut.qtl-3mpl-dom hope-npsfx 'They lost hope.' (Arnold 1991, 14:39)

Thus, beyond the borrowing of the Syrian Arabic lexical item *ʾamal* and its morphological integration into Western Neo-Aramaic, the replica phrase exemplifes how Western Neo-Aramaic makes use of its own morphosyntax to replicate the pattern of the model expression in the donor language. In Syrian Arabic, the noun *ʾamal* appears in the phrase in its defnite form, marked as such by the defnite article *ǝl-*, a nominal prefx. No fully analogous defnite article in the form of a nominal prefx is found in Western Neo-Aramaic, though other means are found for marking noun phrases as defnite, one of which is the verbal sufx *-l*, which diferentially marks the defnite direct object nominal. In (4b) this morpheme appears in the replicated pattern with the verbal form *qaṭʿ-ul-l*, marking its direct object *aml-a* as defnite.

The Western Neo-Aramaic pattern in (4b) fully corresponds to the Syrian Arabic pattern, even in the defniteness of the noun *aml-a*� Western Neo-Aramaic, however, has not replicated the matter that is used to express the noun's defniteness in the model language, but uses a native component belonging to a diferent category to replicate the Syrian Arabic pattern� Pivot-matching on the basis of phonological similarity might have played a role in the replication of the Syrian Arabic defnite article *ǝl-* by means the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal sufx *-l*�

## **3. Shared Features of the Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic Verbal Systems due to Shared Retention, Convergence or Parallel Development**

To appreciate the signifcance of the divergences between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic that are the focus of this paper, Section 2 above serves as a general background. Its purpose is to illustrate that Western Neo-Aramaic has extensively borrowed Syrian Arabic lexicon and morphology, and has replicated Syrian Arabic morphosyntactic patterns associated with those borrowings, either by means of the borrowed forms themselves, or through its own linguistic matter.

The divergences in the verbal system, which are presented in section 4 below, are striking not only against this general background of extensive impact of Syrian Arabic, but especially in light of similarities both in matter and in pattern, or in form and in function, between the verbal systems of the two language groups.

The scope of the present article does not permit a close examination of all of the functions of the Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms, but I present here a comparison of some major functions of the shared cognate paradigms (i) *qatal* (Syrian Arabic) and *qtal* (Western Neo-Aramaic), (ii) *yiqtol*, (iii) *qātel* (Syrian Arabic) and *qōtel* (Western Neo-Aramaic) and (iv) of the Western Neo-Aramaic *qtīl*/*qattīl* paradigm of the resultative participle�

### **3.1 Background to the Divergences in the Verbal System: Cognate Inflectional Morphology**

As noted in the introduction, due to the shared origins of the two languages, the inherited verbal morphology of Western Neo-Aramaic very closely parallels that of Syrian Arabic. Table 1 outlines the parallel Tense–Aspect–Mood (TAM) infectional paradigms of the Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic verbal systems, as they are refected in the frst or basic stem�


Table 1: The TAM Paradigms of the Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic Verbs

Adapted from Arnold and Behnstedt (1993, 12, 55) and Grotzfeld (1965, 108).

<sup>5</sup> Historically, the active participle�

One of the central features of the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal morphology is the retention of the sufx and prefx conjugations unlike other Neo-Aramaic dialects. Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic share these two paradigms, to which I shall refer as *qatal* (Syrian Arabic) or *qtal* (Western Neo-Aramaic) and *yiqtol* respectively� They also share the *qātel* (Syrian Arabic) or *qōtel* (Western Neo-Aramaic) paradigm, which goes back historically to the active participle, as well as the imperative paradigm. Thus, in the morphology of the TAM paradigms, the two languages refect complete parallelism. The exception is the resultative participles: these show divergent forms.

The Person–Number–Gender (PNG) infectional morphology of the verbal system, too, is largely parallel, but not completely identical, in the two languages, as exemplifed in Table 2 (taken from Arnold and Behnstedt 1993, 55) with respect to the *qatal/ qtal* paradigm of the verb *ḏ̣ ḥk* 'laugh' in the frst stem, which has been borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic from Syrian Arabic� The Western Neo-Aramaic column contains the forms that are found in the dialect of Maʿlūla�


Table 2: Verbal Infection of the *Qatal/Qtal* Paradigm, First Stem

As Table 2 indicates, the two language groups share the same general infectional scheme, which in the case of the *qatal/ qtal* paradigm consists of verbal sufxes. Through their verbal infection, the two languages express the same categories of PNG, with the exception of three signifcant diferences. In the Neo-Aramaic dialects of Maʿlūla and Ǧubbʿadīn, gender distinction is preserved between the 2mpl. and 2fpl. forms, whereas in Syrian Arabic this distinction has been levelled out. Syrian Arabic also does not formally distinguish between 1s. and 2ms., whereas these are distinct in Western Neo-Aramaic. Conversely, Syrian Arabic maintains number distinction between 3ms. and 3pl., whereas these are expressed by identical forms in Western Neo-Aramaic.

The cross-linguistically rare case of the replication of infectional morphology from Syrian Arabic has not been found in Western Neo-Aramaic. A possible example, though, of pattern replication with respect to Syrian Arabic infectional paradigms occurs in the Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Baxʿa� In this dialect, as in Syrian Arabic, gender distinction has been lost in plural verb forms through the generalisation of historical mpl. forms. Thus, in the *qtal* conjugation of the dialect of Baxʿa, the 2pl. sufx for both genders is *-ićxun*, whereas the other two Western Neo-Aramaic dialects maintain separate forms (see Table 2). Arnold and Behnstedt (1993, 56) plausibly attribute the development in the Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Baxʿa to the infuence of the Syrian Arabic of the nearby villages.

## **3.2. Background to the Divergences in the Verbal System: Borrowing of Verbal Derivational Morphology**

One area in which there is clear infuence of Syrian Arabic on the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal system is in the replication of Arabic derivational morphology, i�e� of derived stems which are not found in earlier Aramaic. Replication of verbal derivational morphology is apparently quite uncommon cross-linguistically (Matras 2009, 211). The forms of these stems have been borrowed extensively into Western Neo-Aramaic, notwithstanding the typical Western Neo-Aramaic sound changes, as shown in Table 3, which contains the 3ms forms of the *qatal/qtal* conjugation (Arnold and Behnstedt 1993, 58).


Table 3: The Syrian Arabic Derived Stems in Western Neo-Aramaic

Matter and pattern replication coincide in the borrowing of the derived stems�

Firstly, the borrowing of the Syrian Arabic derived stems is not merely part of the lexical infuence of Syrian Arabic on Western Neo-Aramaic, but clearly constitutes morphological borrowing. The borrowed derived stems show 'backwards difusion', namely, the 'replication of borrowed morphs in connection with preexisting, inherited lexicon' (Matras 2009, 209–10). In other words, the borrowed Arabic stems are widely used with existing Aramaic roots�

Secondly, the Syrian Arabic VII and VIII passive stems, i�e� *nfaʿal* and *ftaʿal*, borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic as *in*<sup>ǝ</sup> *fʿal* and *if*<sup>ǝ</sup> *čʿal* respectively, additionally refect pattern replication (Arnold and Behnstedt 1993, 58–9). These borrowed stems have replaced the older Aramaic *ʾeṯpʿel* passive stem, which has been retained in Western Neo-Aramaic through one verbal lexeme (see Arnold 1990b, 62, 126–28). Active verbs of the frst stem, whether Arabic or Aramaic in origin, are passivised through Arabic stem VII: *ifṯaḥ* '[he] opened' > *in*<sup>ǝ</sup> *fṯaḥ* '[he] was opened', unless their frst radical is /n/, in which case they are passivised through the Arabic eighth stem, as with *inxas* '[he] slaughtered' > *in*<sup>ǝ</sup> *čxas* '[he] was slaughtered', from the originally Aramaic root *nxs*. The same morphophonemic rule operates in Syrian Arabic. Thus, the Syrian Arabic pattern has been replicated in Western Neo-Aramaic both with respect to the use of Arabic stems VII and VIII as the passive counterparts of stem I, as well as in terms of the morphophonemic rule that governs the selection of each of these stems�

Coghill (2015, 83–107) has compared the borrowing of Arabic derived stems in Western Neo-Aramaic and in dialects of Eastern Neo-Aramaic. She has found that of all of the Neo-Aramaic dialects, Western Neo-Aramaic has borrowed the largest number of Arabic stems� Likewise, Western Neo-Aramaic shows the greatest degree of integration of derived stems; of all of the Neo-Aramaic dialects that she examined, only the replicated Arabic seventh and eighth stems in Western Neo-Aramaic show use with native Aramaic verbal roots. As factors in the acceptance of Arabic derived stems, she suggests duration and intensity of contact and the specifc repertoire of inherited derived stems. I would suggest, in addition to those factors, that the close morphological similarities that existed between Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic, but not other Neo-Aramaic dialects, in the infection of the TAM paradigms (Table 1) as well as in the infection for PNG (Table 2) facilitated the borrowing and integration of Syrian Arabic derived stems in Western Neo-Aramaic�

As we have seen, the clear formal parallelism that is refected in the verbal morphologies of Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic correlates with Syrian Arabic infuence on both Western Neo-Aramaic verbal infection and derivational morphology, in the form of pattern replication as well as matter replication, especially in the case of the seventh and eighth Arabic stems� This would suggest a recognition of the parallelism between the morphologies of the Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbs at some level on the part of the speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic�

## **3.3. Background to the Divergences in the Verbal System: Shared Functions and Morphosyntactic Contexts of Cognate Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic Verbal Paradigms**

Table 1 presents the cognate TAM paradigms of Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic� Pattern replication appears to be common in many languages with respect to TAM (Matras 2009, 236, 248–49), yet in this category signifcant divergences are found between the two languages, as shown in Section 4 below.

The divergences in the uses of the verb forms are striking in light of the functions and morphosyntactic patterns in which the Western Neo-Aramaic *qtal* and *yiqtol* conjugations parallel cognate and similar-sounding *qatal* and *yiqtol* conjugations of Syrian Arabic� These are covered in this section� In the examples below I use the following glosses for the verbal paradigms: qtl: *qtal* (Western Neo-Aramaic)/*qatal* (Syrian Arabic), yqtl: *yiqtol* (Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic), qātl: *qātel* (Syrian Arabic historical active participle), qōtl: *qōtel* (Western Neo-Aramaic historical active participle), and qtīl: *qtīl*/*qattīl* (Western Neo-Aramaic historical resultative participle).

The shared functions of Western Neo-Aramaic *qtal* and *yiqtol* and cognate *qatal* and *yiqtol* of Syrian Arabic are likely to be the outcome of independent development in each language or possibly shared retention in the case of *qatal/qtal*, and not language contact�

To these shared functions, however, contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic has added very extensive matter replication of Syrian Arabic content and function words, and multiword expressions (§2). This has resulted in numerous contexts in which Western Neo-Aramaic corresponds to Syrian Arabic at two levels: (i) At the level of the verbal form, its *qtal* and *yiqtol* forms match cognate *qatal* and *yiqtol* of Syrian Arabic in both function and sound; (ii) At the level of the construction, replicated elements, such as lexical items loaned from Arabic, match forms in Syrian Arabic, in meaning (in the case of calques), or in both meaning and sound (in the case of materially replicated lexical borrowings).

These contexts created a potential for bilingual speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic to match Syrian Arabic forms with cognate, similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic forms (i�e� pivot-matching), by way of analogy, in other contexts where these cognate forms did not function as in Syrian Arabic. This type of contact-induced analogical levelling is known crosslinguistically (Matras 2009, 237). In Section 4, we shall see that despite this potential, such analogical pattern replication did not occur.

The *qatal* conjugation (Syrian Arabic) and *qtal* conjugation (Western Neo-Aramaic) express the general past tense in both languages. This shared function exists in Late Aramaic and Classical Arabic, and is either a parallel innovation or even a feature of Central Semitic to which both languages belong. In example (5a), taken from the Syrian Arabic dialect of ʿAyn et-Tīne, an Arabic-speaking village situated about three and a half kilometres to the south of Maʿlūla, the *qatal* form *žāb* 'he brought' is past relative to the moment of speaking refected in the initial clause beginning with *badd-i* 'I wish'. Similarly in (5b) from the Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Baxʿa, the *qtal* form *ććafq-iṯ* 'I agreed' is past relative to the moment of speaking, which is refected in the preceding verb *amar-*∅ 'he said' and the direct speech that follows it�

(5)

a� Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)


'I wish to tell you a story about Žiḥi … once he brought horns.' (Behnstedt 2000, 360:1, 3)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)


The *yiqtol* conjugation is found in both languages in many parallel contexts. In main clauses it functions as a modal form, expressing irrealis (i.e. non-indicative) moods. This modal function is a parallel innovation in both languages. *Yiqtol* already developed into an irrealis mood in the documented Late Western Aramaic dialects� As in many other dialects of Spoken Arabic, though, in Syrian Arabic *yiqtol* can also appear with a number of preverbal particles that express TAM categories such as indicative and progressive (see §4.1.). Therefore, bare *yiqtol* is transcribed in the examples as ∅-*yiqtol*, and glossed as mod, i�e� modal�

A context shared by both languages in which *yiqtol* expresses deontic modality is formulas of blessings (6a, c) and curses (6b, d). This modal function of *yiqtol* already appears in Late Aramaic� In Middle Arabic as well, *yiqtol* is commonly found in this use, in contrast to Classical Arabic, which mostly employs the sufx conjugation *qatala*, the precursor of later Arabic *qatal*, in such formulas (Blau 2002, 45).

(6)

a� Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

*aḷḷa* ∅-*y-xallī-*∅*-l-ak abū-k*

God mod-3m-leave�yqtl-s-for-you.ms father�cst-2ms

'May God preserve your father.' (Arnold 1987, 368:80)

b. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

*ʾal-ū-l-u* ∅-*yi-xrib-*∅ *bēt-ak* say�qtl-3pl-to-him mod-3m-destroy�yqtl-s house.cst-2ms 'They said to him: "May [God] destroy your house."' (Behnstedt 2000, 368:101)

c� Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

*y-ṭawwlel-*∅*-l ʿomr-ax Alō* 3m-lengthen�yqtl-s-dom life�cst-2ms God

'May God lengthen your life.' (Arnold 1991, 24:47)

#### d� Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)

*amr-il-l-un alō y-ḥurpel-*∅*-l* say�qtl-1s-to-them come�imp-2fs eat�imp-2s *payṯ-ay-xun* house-pl.cst-2pl

'I said to them: "May God destroy your houses."' (Arnold 1989, 204:83)

Many of the blessing and curse formulas in Western Neo-Aramaic, including (6c, d) replicate multiword expressions in Syrian Arabic, similarly to example (4b) above. This is detailed in the following paragraphs. As with (4b), the replication is mostly at the level of the lexicon and lexical semantics, whereas the morphosyntax is that of Western Neo-Aramaic� For instance, in both (6c) and (6d) the defniteness of the direct object nominal is expressed through the verbal sufx *-l*� Nonetheless, these replicated expressions largely match the model Syrian Arabic expressions in sound and function, both at the level of the replicated lexical elements and of the cognate *yiqtol* forms�

In (6c) from Maʿlūla, both the verbal lexeme *ṭwl* (stem II) 'lengthen' and the noun *ʿomr-a* 'life' are material replications of Syrian Arabic *ṭwl* (stem II) 'lengthen' and the noun *ʿomr* 'life'�

The curse in Neo-Aramaic example (6d) is noteworthy in that, unlike (6c) or (4b), it does not materially replicate the parallel Syrian Arabic expression, which appears in (6b), but matches it with cognate, similar-sounding forms. Most conspicuous is the matching of the Syrian Arabic verbal root *xrb* (6b) in the frst stem with the cognate Western Neo-Aramaic verbal root *ḥrb* 'destroy', also in the frst stem. The frst radical of the Aramaic root /ḥ/, matches /x/ in Syrian Arabic, even though /ḥ/ and /x/ are discrete phonemes in Western Neo-Aramaic� The expression itself is not necessarily a replication of Arabic. At the very least, the root *ḥrb* 'destroy', as well as the collocation *ḥrb* + *byt* 'house' occur in a variety of earlier Aramaic dialects, such as Christian Palestinian Aramaic, a dialect of Late Western Aramaic: *šbyq l-kwn byt-kn ḥrb* 'your **house** is left to you **desolate**' (Matthew 23:38).

In the Neo-Aramaic story in which (6d) appears, the curse formula appears in direct speech, in a conversation between a Neo-Aramaic speaker and a group of Syrian Arabs, which no doubt took place in Syrian Arabic. This would indicate that for the narrator, the curse in (6d) actually represents the common Syrian Arabic curse in (6b). The use of a very similarly sounding formula, however, in which Arabic *xrb* is matched with Aramaic *ḥrb*, again points to the recognition on the part of bilingual speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic and Arabic of the parallelisms in sound and structure between the two languages. A similar case of matching of similar-sounding, though not identical, cognate verbal roots between Aramaic and Arabic occurs below, example (10).

The overlapping use of the *yiqtol* conjugation in the two languages is also very obvious in specifc constructions, shared by both languages, in which *yiqtol* consistently appears in embedded clauses. Here too, Western Neo-Aramaic is matched with Syrian Arabic at two levels� The cognate *yiqtol* forms match in sound and modal function, and the constructions more generally overlap in their functions, lexical components and morphosyntax�

For example, in both languages, *yiqtol* is the embedded verb form in the modal complement of verbs of ability. Also this use is found in earlier varieties of Aramaic and Arabic� It is likely to be an independent innovation in both languages and not the direct result of contact between Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic. On the other hand, ability is expressed in both languages by the same matrix verbal lexeme, which Western Neo-Aramaic has replicated from Syrian Arabic. In Syrian Arabic, the verb *qdr* and its variant *ġdr* 'be able' is the most common matrix verb of ability, as seen in (7a), from the village of Ǧrēǧir, located around thirty kilometres North-East of Maʿlūla. This lexeme has been borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic as *qtr*, in the forth stem *aqtar* 'be able' and is also widely used (7b).

(7)

a� Syrian Arabic (Ǧrēǧir)


not **able.**qtl**-**3pl mod-3m-**do.**yqtl**-**pl in-him thing

'**They were** not **able to do** anything with him�' (Behnstedt 2000, 354:13, and see also Cowell 1964, 348 [17])

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)


'**She is** not **able to know.**' (Arnold 1991, 8:7)

Other specifc constructions that are shared by both languages make use of the Arabic pseudo-verb *badd*- 'desire', which has been replicated in the Western Neo-Aramaic dialects of Maʿlūla and Baxʿa as *batt*-. In both languages, these forms appear with pronominal sufxes and a modal complement. The basic function of Syrian Arabic *badd*- (8a) and the replicated form *batt-* (8b) is to express volition. The Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Ǧubbʿadīn uses the native Aramaic form *bēl-* (8c) in place of *badd-*/*batt-*� Like *badd*-, *bēl-* appears with possessive sufxes and a modal complement and expresses volition. Correll (1978, 219) posits that the form *bēl-* developed from *bʿē*, the resultative participle of *bʿy* 'desire' + the preposition *l-* 'to'�

(8)

a� Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne) *badd-i* ∅-∅-*ḥki-l-kun ʾiṣṣa* **desire-1s** mod-**1s-tell.**yqtl-**to-you.**pl story '**I wish to tell** you a story.' (Behnstedt 2000, 360:1)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)


c� Neo-Aramaic (Ǧubbʿadīn)


Arabia."' (Arnold 1989, 198:6)

'**We wish to tell** [you] how foods occur.' (Arnold 1989, 198:6)

The same construction of pseudo-verb with pronominal sufx and modal complement in *yiqtol* has been expanded to express purpose. Again, this shared function is expressed in Syrian Arabic through *badd-* (9a), in the Western Neo-Aramaic dialects of Maʿlūla and Baxʿa through the Arabic loanword *batt-* (9b), and in the dialect of Ǧubbʿadīn, by means of the native Aramaic *bēl-* (9c). Such purpose clauses are often embedded by motion verbs.

(9)

a� Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)


∅-*yi-ʾǝtl-ū* mod-3m**-beat.**yqtl**-**pl**.him**

'These [men] came **in order to beat him.**' (Behnstedt 2000, 362:25)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlula)

*ṯō-l-un batt-ayy y-xuṭb-un-na* come�qtl-to-3mpl **desire-**3mpl **3m-betroth.**yqtl**-pl-her**

'They came in order to betroth her.' (Arnold 1991, 26:74)

c� Neo-Aramaic (Ǧubbʿadīn)


'The woman comes … in order to form it�' (Arnold, 1990a, 22, 3:5)

A precursor to *bēl-*, based on the resultative participle of *bʿy*, is not found in Late Western Aramaic as a matrix predicate taking a volitional clause. Rather, Late Western Aramaic employs active forms, including the active participle of *bʿy* for this purpose. Considering this, as well as the similarity between of the morphosyntax of *bēl-* and Arabic *badd-*, it is not unlikely that *bēl-* replicates the morphosyntactic pattern of Arabic *badd-*�

## **4. The Divergences between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic Cognate Verb Forms**

The previous sections provide the background to this section, which is the main focus of the article. This section shows how despite the potential for Syrian Arabic verbal forms to be functionally matched with cognate Western Neo-Aramaic verbal forms, with respect to the expression of TAM, Western Neo-Aramaic preserves the independent functions of its verbal forms.

It was shown in the previous sections that a combination of factors created the potential for matching: (i) Similarity in morphology and sound between cognate verbal forms; (ii) Functions of the sufx conjugation (Arabic *qatal* and Aramaic *qtal*), and prefx cojugation (Aramaic and Arabic *yiqtol*) that were already shared between the two languages as a result of independent parallel development; (iii) the fact that Western Neo-Aramaic refects a very large degree of material replication of Syrian Arabic lexicon, pattern replication of Syrian Arabic words and multiword expressions (calques) and the combination of both. As a result numerous contexts arose in which Syrian Arabic is matched with Western Neo-Aramaic, both at the level of the verbal form and at the level of the syntactic construction or multiword expressions.

### **4.1. Parallel Functions Performed by Non-cognate Forms**

This sub-section presents the frst type of divergence between Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic verbal morphosyntax� Here, Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic share a verbal function but do not mark it with a shared historically cognate verbal paradigm. Western Neo-Aramaic employs a diferent verbal paradigm, even though it has inherited a paradigm that is cognate and similarly-sounding to the Syrian Arabic paradigm. This contrasts with examples (5–9), in which the shared historical descent and the sound-similarity of the *qatal/qtal* and *yiqtol* paradigms correlates with parallel functions in the two languages.

The frst example is the non-past indicative. Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic each possess such a form, with parallel usages, one of which is to express the general or simple present. The form is *b-yiqtol* (10a) in Syrian Arabic, consisting of the preverb *b-* and the *yiqtol* paradigm. The ∅-*yiqtol* paradigm, i�e� the form without the preverb, is used in the irrealis mood and modal complements (examples [6–9]). In the glosses, I mark this preverbal particle *b-* as ind� In Western Neo-Aramaic, however, the same function of non-past indicative is expressed by the *qōtel* paradigm, which is cognate with the Syrian Arabic *qātel* paradigm� Both are historically the active participle�

(10)

a� Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)


'**They call our** felds "ḥwekīr"=our felds are called "ḥwekīr."' (Arnold 1987, 1:7)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)


Examples (10a) and (10b) are very similar to examples (6–9) in that Western Neo-Aramaic (10b) parallels a Syrian Arabic construction (10a). But whereas in (6–9) both languages employ *yiqtol* within the parallel constructions, here Western Neo-Aramaic employs *qōtel* where where Arabic employs *b-yiqtol*�

The Aramaic expression in (10b) relates to the Arabic expression in (10a) very similarly to the way Aramaic (6d) relates to Arabic (6a) above. There the Syrian Arabic verbal root *xrb* is matched in Western Neo-Aramaic with cognate *ḥrb* within a shared expression, both appearing in the frst stem� Here, Syrian Arabic *smy* 'call' (10a) is paralleled by the cognate Aramaic root *šmy* 'call' (10b), both in the second stem, also within a shared expression. Both verbs appear in the 3mpl form, which constitutes a shared impersonal construction. In both languages the verbal root is derived from the noun for 'name', which is *ʾism* in Arabic and *ušm-a* in Western Neo-Aramaic� As with *ḥrb* in (6d), the derived verbal root *šmy* 'call' in (10b) is documented in earlier Aramaic, as is its use in the second stem as in (10b). Therefore, this parallel derivation of *smy* and *šmy* from the respective nouns *ʾism* and *ušm-a* 'name' in both languages is not likely to be the result of language contact� Still, the selection of this expression or preference for it in Western Neo-Aramaic might well have been infuenced by the existence of a similar expression in Syrian Arabic. This adds to the general impression that bilingual speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic recognise the parallelisms between the two languages.

It should be noted that Western Neo-Aramaic shares a preverbal particle *ʿam*(*mal*)- with Syrian Arabic, which marks progressive, continuous and habitual aspects (Correll 1978, 61–2; Grotzfeld 1965, 84, 87). The specifc uses of this shared particle in both languages are beyond the scope of this article, and warrant a separate study, which I aim to undertake in a future publication. Nonetheless, in Syrian Arabic this preverbal particle appears with either the ∅-*yiqtol* or *b-yiqtol* paradigms. In the Syrian Arabic texts published by Arnold (1987) and Behnstedt (2000) from the Qalamun region, where Western Neo-Aramaic is spoken, *ʿam*(*mal*)- is most commonly found with ∅-*yiqtol*� In Western Neo-Aramaic it appears with the *qōtel* paradigm and not with the *yiqtol* paradigm�

Another verbal function where the two languages diverge is the expression of perfect aspect. The perfect is an innovation in both Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic but the two languages use distinct verbal forms. The paradigm that expresses perfect aspect in Syrian Arabic, illustrated in (11a, b) is *qātel*, an innovation that is widespread in Spoken Arabic, also outside of the Levant (Brustad 2000, 182–84). This is historically the active participle of which the refexes in Western Neo-Aramaic, namely *qōtel*, express the general present� In Western Neo-Aramaic, however, the perfect is not expressed by cognate *qōtel*, but by means of the *qtīl/qattīl* paradigm, the Aramaic resultative participle. Judging from the testimony of documented forms of Late Aramaic, this innovation crystalised in Western Neo-Aramaic after the Late Aramaic period� The morphological patterns *qtīl/qattīl*, which are used in the frst stem, have been inherited from earlier Aramaic. In (11c), the pattern *qtīl* is refected in the historically transparent form *ṭmir-* of the frst stem. In the other stems, the older Aramaic forms of the resultative participles with initial *m-* such as \**mqattal, \*maqtal* for the second and fourth stems respectively, have not been preserved, in contrast to some of the Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects (e�g� Khan 1999, 94; Fassberg 2010, 96). They have been replaced with innovative forms, created by analogy with the pattern *qtīl* of the frst stem. In (11d) this is exemplifed by the form *hirreb-*, refecting the innovative pattern *qittīl* of the second stem. Two features have been expanded from *qtīl* of the frst stem to the rest of the stems, namely, the lack of initial *m-*, and the vowel *ī*, which in *hirreb-* is realised as *e* (see Spitaler 1938, 211, §187l; Arnold 1990b, 82, 252).

(11)

a� Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)


'Those who **had come** to beat Žiḥi wondered.' (Behnstedt 2000, 362:31)

b. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

*ʾal-l-ha iži-t il-ʾarmbi* say�qtl-to-3fs come�qtl-3fs def-rabbit.fs *ma mwaṣṣī-*∅*-ha ʾabǝl* rel **ask.**qātl**-**ms**-her** before

*yōm*

day

'He said to her [=his wife]: "Did the rabbit come?"' [in other words,] what he had asked of her [=his wife] the day before.' (Behnstedt 2000, 368:79)

c� Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)


*beʿl-a*

husband-her

'The wife of the king forgot the box that her husband **had buried** for her�' (Arnold 1991, 20:12)

### d� Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)


### *∅-hirreb-∅-l-un*

**3-smuggle.**qtīl**-**ms**-to**-3mpl

'We saw a Jordanian pickup truck, in which there are [=were] Syrian workers which he [=our driver] had smuggled.' (Arnold 1989, 202:75)

Examples (10–11) refect two TAM functions that are shared between Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic, namely, the expression of the general present and the expression of the perfect aspect. In (10) the Syrian Arabic expression even appears to be matched in Western Neo-Aramaic by elements such as a cognate verbal root and stem, and identical impersonal construction. What is noteworthy here, however, is that there is no matching between Arabic and Aramaic morphological forms, as was the case with *qatal/qtal* and with *yiqtol*, whose patterns of use and morphological forms were matched in the two languages (see §3.3.).

In the construction in (10) there would have been a potential to match in the same way the element *yiqtol* in Syrian Arabic *b-yiqtol*  with the cognate and similar-sounding form *yiqtol* in Western Neo-Aramaic. On the basis of the many shared contexts where cognate and similar-sounding *yiqtol* forms in Aramaic and Arabic are matched in their function (§3.3.), the bilingual speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic could have reanalised Aramaic *yiqtol* as *∅-yiqtol*, replicating the Syrian Arabic pattern of verbal morphology that characterises its *yiqtol* paradigm� Subsequently, preverbal prefxes could have been replicated in Aramaic, such as the Syrian Arabic preverbal particle *b*, to express the indicative. We have seen that matter replication of an Arabic preverbal particle is already attested in Western Neo-Aramaic with *ʿam*(*mal*)-. Despite this potential, however, Western Neo-Aramaic uses a non-matching morphological form for expressing the general present�

Similar potential would have existed to match Syrian Arabic *qātel* with the cognate and similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic Neo-Aramaic *qōtel* to express the perfect� Nonetheless, a nonmatching morphological form is used in Western Neo-Aramaic.

## **4.2. Divergences in Verbal Function in which Western Neo-Aramaic Marks Distinctions Absent from Syrian Arabic**

In this section I present the most striking category of divergences between the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal paradigms and those of Syrian Arabic with respect to the expression of TAM, when we consider the general background presented in Sections 2–3, especially 3.3. The two divergences are revealed by examining two syntactic constructions in Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic and comparing the verbal forms used in them in each language.

The constructions in question are both embedded clauses, namely, phasal complements of the matrix verb 'begin' and protases of counterfactual conditions. We shall see that Western Neo-Aramaic preserves a more complex pattern of embedding than Syrian Arabic with respect to these constructions. This fact is in itself noteworthy. As pointed out in the introduction, the preservation of independent morphosyntactic patterns with these constructions appears to go against Matras's suggestion (2009, 244 and see also ibid., 248–50) that such embedded constructions are typically among the frst in the replica language to converge with the patterns of the model language.

The special signifcance of these divergences, however, is that in these two respective constructions Syrian Arabic *yiqtol* is matched in Western Neo-Aramaic by *qōtel*, and Syrian Arabic *qatal* is matched by Western Neo-Aramaic *yiqtol*� By contrast, in Section 3.3. we saw various other contexts in which Syrian Arabic *qatal* and *yiqtol* are matched in their function with cognate and similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic *qtal* and *yiqtol*� Those contexts where cognate *qatal/qtal* and cognate *yiqtol* have the same function in both languages would have created a potential for the levelling of the Western Neo-Aramaic grammatical distinction by analogy with Syrian Arabic. Despite this potential, levelling has not occurred.

The frst syntactic construction is that of phasal complements of the matrix verb 'begin'. In Syrian Arabic, the morphosyntax of modal and phasal complements are similar� The complement is in the *∅-yiqtol* form (Grotzfeld 1965, 90, §e1). By contrast, Western Neo-Aramaic clearly diferentiates between modal (e.g. denoting ability and volition) and phasal complements. Like Syrian Arabic, modal complements follow the matrix verb in *yiqtol* form, but unlike Syrian Arabic, phasal complements take *qōtel* forms�

This is striking given that the Aramaic matrix verbs of phasal complements are likely to be calques of those found in Syrian Arabic. One such verb that takes phasal complements in Western Neo-Aramaic is *ṯqn,* which Arnold and Behnstedt (1993, 64) identify as a calque of Syrian Arabic *ṣār*. In Syrian Arabic, *ṣār* 'become' is a very common inchoative verbal lexeme, which most commonly takes complements in *∅-yiqtol* (12a, b). The verb *ṯqn* in Western Neo-Aramaic likewise signifes 'become' and is used in the sense of 'begin' with a complement clause. In contrast to Syrian Arabic *ṣār*, Aramaic *ṯqn* takes a complement in *qōtel* (12c, d).

(12)

a� Syrian Arabic (Ǧrēǧir)

*w-ṣōr-∅ ∅-y-karkir-∅ hal-mayy* **and-become.**qtl**-**3ms mod-3m**-trickle.**yqtl**-**s the-water *min ǧism-u* from body-his 'And the water began to fow from his body.' (Behnstedt 2000, 356:36)

b. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

*ṣār-u ∅-y-daʿws-u ʿl-ē* **become.**qtl**-**3pl mod-**3**m**-trample.**yqtl**-**pl on-him 'They began to trample upon it [=the grave].' (Behnstedt 2000, 370:133)

c� Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

*ṯiqn-aṯ ∅-marqy-a* **become.**qtl**-**3fs **3-harass.**qōtl**-**fs 'She began to harass.' (Arnold 1991, 60:73)

d� Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)


Two other very similar verbal lexemes that are used in the two languages as matrix verbs of phasal complements are Syrian Arabic *qʿd* and Western Neo-Aramaic *qʿy* in the frst stem, both meaning 'sit'� Again despite their close semantics, as in the case of *ṣār* and *ṯqn*, Syrian Arabic *qʿd* embeds a *∅-yiqtol* form (13a), whereas Western Neo-Aramaic *qʿy* embeds a *qōtel* form (13b).

(13)

a� Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

*iž-u ʾaʿd-u ∅-yi-sʾal-ū* come�qtl-3pl **sit.**qtl**-**3pl mod-3m**-ask.**yqtl**-**pl**.him** 'They came and began to ask him.' (Behnstedt 2000, 360:7)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Ma*ʿ*lūla)


The Western Neo-Aramaic morphosyntax refected in the phasal complements in (12–13), although divergent from that of the parallel Syrian Arabic constructions, is identical to that found in Late Western Aramaic. All three Late Western Aramaic dialects, Samaritan, Christian Palestinian and Jewish Palestinian refect a parallel distinction to that found in Western Neo-Aramaic between matrix verbs of volition and ability, which commonly embed modal complement clauses with *yiqtol*, and the matrix verb *šry* 'begin' of the second stem, which embeds an active participle (Bunis, forthcoming). This morphosyntactic distinction appears to have been preserved in Western Neo-Aramaic.

The fnal example that will be presented here is the use of divergent verb forms in Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic, in verbal protases of counterfactual conditionals. In this example, Syrian Arabic employs *qatal* or *b-yiqtol*, whereas Western Neo-Aramaic employs *yiqtol* or *qtīl*/*qattīl* forms� This contrasts with many other contexts (examples [5–9]) in which the two Syrian Arabic fnite paradigms *qatal* and *yiqtol* are functionally matched with cognate and similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic *qtal* and *yiqtol* and Western Neo-Aramaic *qtīl*/*qattīl* (the resultative participle) functionally corresponds to Syrian Arabic *qātel*  (historically the active participle).

Both Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic distinguish between predictive conditions, and those that are highly hypothetical or counterfactual. With regard to the structure of the protasis, however, this distinction is expressed somewhat diferently in Syrian Arabic and in Western Neo-Aramaic�

In Syrian Arabic, the distinction between predictive conditions and hypothetical conditions is expressed by the conditional conjunction that introduces the protasis. Predictive protases follow the conjunction *ʾiza*, *ʾiḏa* (14a, b) whereas highly hypothetical or counterfactual protases are introduced either by *law*, *lu* or *law la, lu la* (14c) (see Cowell 1964, 331–7; Grotzfeld 1965, 106–7). In both types of conditionals, and in all time references, *qatal* is commonly used, as can be seen in (14a, c). According to Grotzfeld (1965, 106), *qatal* freely interchanges with *b-yiqtol* in conditionals, with all time references. Bruweleit (2015, 161–3), on the other hand, reports that in the closely related Lebanese Arabic dialect of Beirut, *qatal* is used in the protasis in all time references, whereas *b-yiqtol* is only used in conditionals with present or future time reference.

I adduce here examples (14a, b) from the dialect of ʿAyn et-Tīne, which show the interchange of *qatal* and *b-yiqtol* in predictive protases with future time reference introduced by *ʾiḏa*� Example (14c) of a counterfactual condition is taken from a text included in Grotzfeld's grammar of Damascene Arabic� According to the textual context, its time reference is past. The main point here is that neither *∅-yiqtol* nor *qātel* forms are used in any type of protasis in Syrian Arabic, whether predictive, hypothetical or counterfactual. This contradicts Correll's comment that Syrian Arabic is 'not limited, in the protasis of hypothetical sentences, to any specifc form, and can also employ the *y*-imperfect [i�e�, the *∅-yiqtol* form] here' (1978, 144).<sup>6</sup>

<sup>6 &#</sup>x27;…in der Protasis hypothetischer Sätze ja an keine bestimmte Form gebunden ist und unter anderem hier auch das *y*-lmperfekt zur Anwendung bringen darf' (my translation). Correll (1978, 144, note 267) bases this statement on Bloch (1965, 20–21), but in my view Bloch's examples there are not relevant for Correll's claim�

### (14) Syrian Arabic

### a� ʿAyn et-Tīne


'If they come, you will send them to me, to the feld.' (Behnstedt 2000, 366:68)

b. ʿAyn et-Tīne


'If you go down to the irrigated felds you will fnd that they are like gardens.' (Arnold 1987, 1:5)

#### c� Damascene


'If you had not run and said to me "Mama", I wouldn't have known that you are my daughter.' (Grotzfeld 1965, 107)<sup>7</sup>

It should be noted with regard to the verbal forms in the protases in examples (14a, b), that in the published texts the forms are transcribed as *∅-yiqtol* forms, i�e� *tibʿatīhun* (14a) and *tinzil*, *tlaʾīha* (14b). I have listened, however, to the recordings of the texts on the Semitisches Tonarchiv website of the University of Heidelberg and have been able clearly to discern the preverb *b-* with all three forms, as I have transcribed in the examples.<sup>8</sup>

In Western Neo-Aramaic, the distinction between predictive and hypothetical or counterfactual conditions is manifested in

<sup>7</sup> For the full context see Grotzfeld (1965, 131), third paragraph from the top of the page. In the text on page 131, the conjunction is *lu la*, which I have copied in (14c), whereas the form that appears in the analysis on page 107 is *lu*�

<sup>8</sup> The recordings are found respectively at https://heidicon.ub.uni-heidel berg.de/eas/partitions/3/0/316000/316723/ce062ce58090716df9e7 b3b019b76a1eae1a2090/audio/mpeg/behnstedt\_sprachatlas\_s360.mp3 and https://heidicon.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/eas/partitions/3/0/316000/ 316712/ead2e3bc00501a076568a3b7a0bbe5bab5018f28/audio/mpeg/ arnold\_aynittine\_01.mp3 (both accessed 23 April 2020).

the structure of the protasis in an additional way. Besides the use of diferent conditional conjunctions, as in Syrian Arabic, to introduce protases of the two conditional sub-types, the distinction between predictive and hypothetical or counterfactual conditions is also expressed through the use of diferent verb forms within the protasis�

In the most recent texts of Western Neo-Aramaic, namely, those recorded by Arnold, the conjunctions *lōb* (15b), the Arabic loanword *iḏa* (15a) and *lab* are used in the dialects of Maʿlūla, Baxʿa and Ǧubbʿadīn respectively for predictive conditions, while *yīb, yīb, ib/lib* are used respectively in the three dialects for hypothetical and counterfactual conditions (Arnold 1990b, 398–9). Arnold notes in addition, that the Arabic loanword *law* is also used with the latter type of conditions. Another form is found in his texts but not presented in his grammar, namely, *lōla* (15c, d). With respect to the verb form within verbal protases, either *qtal* or *qōtel* is employed with predictive conditionals (15a, b respectively), but with hypothetical or counterfactual conditionals, either *yiqtol* or the resultative participle *qtīl*/*qattīl* is used (15c, d respectively).

(15) Neo-Aramaic

a� Baxʿa


*n-qaṭel-*∅*-l-i*

1-beat.part-ms-to-3ms

'If he says anything I will kill him�' (Arnold 1989, 206–208:134)

b. Maʿlūla


'If you do not bring the answer … I will cut of your head.' (Arnold 1991, 142:29)

c� Maʿlūla


'If I had not given you a ride and brought you here, you would not have arrived.' (Arnold 1991, 40)

d� Maʿlūla


it.' (Arnold 1991, 80:6)

This distribution of verbal forms was also found in the earlier texts analysed by Correll. The divergence from the Syrian Arabic pattern prompted Correll to suggest that the occurrence of *qtal*

forms, in conformity with Arabic, solely in protases of predictive conditions, and their absence from protases of counterfactual conditions was due to insufcient examples of the latter type (Correll 1978, 123–5). Arnold's texts show that this suggestion is not correct. They clearly demonstrate that counterfactual protases in Western Neo-Aramaic consistently difer in their verbal forms from the forms in the corresponding Syrian Arabic constructions.

It is unknown when *yiqtol* and *qtīl*/*qattīl* began to be used in counterfactual protases in the precursor to Western Neo-Aramaic. This use, however, might well have developed after the Late Aramaic stage (i�e� after the 6th century CE). In Late Western Aramaic, the morphosyntax of counterfactual protases actually resembles that of modern Syrian Arabic and not Western Neo-Aramaic. Counterfactual protases with past time reference contain *qtal* and not *yiqtol* forms� The development of *qtīl*/*qattīl* into a perfect aspect is also not yet documented in Late Western Aramaic�

On the other hand, the use of *qtal* in Western Neo-Aramaic predictive protases is likely to be an inheritance from older Aramaic, as it is documented in Late Aramaic. This use of *qtal* is another morphosyntactic context, in addition to expressing the general past tense ([5] above), where Syrian Arabic *qatal* is paralleled by cognate and similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic *qtal*. Despite these contexts, which could have facilitated the levelling of the Western Neo-Aramaic distinction between predictive protases with *qtal* (or *qōtel*) and counterfactual protases with *yiqtol* and *qtīl*/*qattīl* by analogy to Syrian Arabic, this levelling has not occurred.

## **5. Summary and Discussion**

This comparative study has demonstrated that despite the prolonged and extensive language contact between two closely related Semitic languages, Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic diverge in the way their cognate verbal constructions express TAM. Contact with Arabic has resulted in considerable matter and pattern replication in many Western Neo-Aramaic constructions. In the verbal system, however, contact has not lead to change�

First of all, both languages share features of morphology and phonology due to their common origins, and perhaps relatively conservative nature. Western Neo-Aramaic, which is the most conservative among the Neo-Aramaic dialects, is particularly close to Syrian Arabic in its verbal morphology. The two language groups share four cognate verbal paradigms, namely, *qatal*/*qtal*  (sufx conjugation), *yiqtol* (prefx conjugation) and *qātel/qōtel*  (active participle) and the imperative. The PNG infection in each of these paradigms strongly parallel each other in the two language groups.

Whereas the verbal paradigms of both languages are very close in morphology, they show important diferences in their functions. Despite prolonged and close contact with Arabic, Western Neo-Aramaic has not replicated the functions of the cognate Syrian Arabic verbal forms, but has preserved the independent functions of its verbal forms. Such conservatism is signifcant given their use alongside Syrian Arabic in a largely bilingual setting.

The divergent functions in themselves require no explanation. Arabic and Aramaic innovated independently, whereby their historically cognate paradigms took on diferent functions. Indeed, many of the distinct functions of the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal forms are already documented in Late Western Aramaic and are likely to have existed in the precursor of Western Neo-Aramaic before it came into intensive contact with Arabic.

The lack of convergence, however, is highly signifcant, given that there would have been potential for contact-induced change. Specifcally, with Western Neo-Aramaic being a minority language, spoken within a largely Arabic-speaking population, we might have expected that the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal paradigms would replicate the patterns of use of the cognate Syrian Arabic paradigms, and take on their functions, but this did not take place�

The phonological and morphological similarities in verbal morphology did facilitate the borrowing of Syrian Arabic derived stems into Western Neo-Aramaic. Such correspondences could potentially have facilitated full convergence in pattern but they did not. Table 4 presents a summary of the comparison of the uses of the Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms for marking TAM, discussed in this article. The constructions that diverge are in bold.


Table 4: Correspondences in the Functions of Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic Verbal Paradigms within Parallel Morphosyntactic Contexts

Table 4 indicates four diferent functional contexts that are shared by Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic (in bold), in which the two languages employ non-cognate and non-similarsounding verbal forms. The signifcance of these divergences is illuminated by the wider context in which the verbal forms occur in the two languages.

The two most striking contexts of divergent verbal function are phasal complements and counterfactual protases with past time reference� The preservation of these two distinctions in Western Neo-Aramaic through its verbal paradigms is signifcant in that modal and phasal complement clauses and conditional protases are both embedded structures, which goes against the expectations of Matras's functional-communicative model. The fact that Western Neo-Aramaic preserves more complex patterns

### of subordination with these structures than is found in Syrian Arabic goes against Matras's suggestion that

The pressure to converge the inventory of constructions in the repertoire [might be expected] to begin with those that organise complex propositions. We would expect the structure of complement clauses, adverbial clauses, and relative clauses and embeddings as well as the structure of coordination to be targeted frst in the process of convergence (Matras 2009, 244 and see also ibid., 248–50).

Western Neo-Aramaic distinguishes between phasal complements in *qōtel* and modal complements, which use *yiqtol*� This distinction has been inherited from Late Western Aramaic. Its preservation, however, is signifcant in light of the fact that Syrian Arabic uses *yiqtol* for both functions and also given that both languages use *yiqtol* for deontic modality in main clauses. Thus, various morphosyntactic contexts existed, as detailed in Subsection 3.3. and summarised in Table 4, in which both Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic employed cognate and similar-sounding *yiqtol*, without a connection to language contact. Language contact, however, added to the similarities in that within these contexts, Western Neo-Aramaic borrowed much Syrian Arabic lexicon (matter replication), or replicated its lexical semantics (pattern replication). This is exemplifed in this article with the matter replication of ability verbs *qdr* (Syrian Arabic) as *qtr* (Western Neo-Aramaic), the volitional pseudo-verbs *badd-* (Syrian Arabic) as *batt-* (Western Neo-Aramaic) 'desire', and in various formulas of blessings and curses. The numerous contexts where Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic were matched both at the level of the verbal paradigm, i.e. in their use of cognate *yiqtol*, and more widely at the levels of morphosyntax and lexicosyntax would have created the potential for Western Neo-Aramaic to level the inherited distinction between phasal and modal complements, by analogy with Syrian Arabic and use *yiqtol* for both functions. Despite this potential, Western Neo-Aramaic preserves this distinction�

With respect to conditional clauses, similarly, Western Neo-Aramaic distinguishes by means of the embedded verbal paradigm between counterfactual protases with past time reference and predictive protases� The former employs *yiqtol* or *qtīl*/*qattīl* whereas predictive protases use *qtal* or *qōtel*� This distinction is due to independent innovation in Western Neo-Aramaic, but again, its preservation is signifcant in light of contact with Syrian Arabic. In Syrian Arabic these two types of conditional protases are not distinguished by means of the verbal paradigm in the same way. *Qatal* is used in both. *B-yiqtol* is also used in predictive protases for present and future time refences. Thus, here too, when considering the wider context of contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic, there were constructions in which both languages use cognate and similar-sounding forms, that could have facilitated analogical levelling in Western Neo-Aramaic. Both languages employ *qatal/ qtal* in predictive protases, and to express the general past tense� As discussed in the previous paragraph, the *yiqtol* form used in counterfactual protases in Western Neo-Aramaic is matched with Syrian Arabic *yiqtol* in numerous other shared constructions. These numerous contexts could have created the potential for bilingual speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic to level the Western Neo-Aramaic grammatical distinction between predictive and counterfactual protases, by analogy with Syrian Arabic. Nonetheless, Western Neo-Aramaic preserves this distinction�

Two other cases of divergence concern the expression of the general present and the perfect aspect. The two languages share both of these TAM categories, yet each language expresses it by means of a distinct verbal construction. To express the general present, Syrian Arabic uses *b-yiqtol.* Aramaic, on the other hand, employs *qōtel* (< *\*qātel*), historically the active participle, and cognate with Syrian Arabic *qātel*. The use of the active participle \**qātel-* to express the general present is a common Aramaic innovation, inherited from pre-modern Aramaic� Nonetheless, the wide range of contexts in which Western Neo-Aramaic *yiqtol* parallels Syrian Arabic *yiqtol*, as outlined in the previous paragraphs, could have facilitated analogical replication of Syrian Arabic *b-yiqtol*, on the basis of the cognate *yiqtol* paradigm of Western Neo-Aramaic� The material replication of a Syrian Arabic preverbal particle (such as *b-*) is already documented in Western Neo-Aramaic for *ʿam*(*mal*)-, which, together with *qōtel*, expresses continuous and progressive aspects�

Lastly, the two languages innovated independently in the expression of the perfect aspect. Syrian Arabic expresses the perfect aspect by means of *qātel* (the active participle cognate with Aramaic *qōtel*) but Western Neo-Aramaic by means of *qtīl*/ *qattīl* (the historically resultative participle).

To conclude, the data we examined refect a recurrent theme: Western Neo-Aramaic preserves the independent morphosyntax of its TAM system despite factors that could have facilitated analogical levelling and reanalysis of its paradigms in conformity with the cognate paradigms of Syrian Arabic� These factors include:


## **Glossing Abbreviations not in the Leipzig Glossing List**



## **References**





———. 2020. 'Contact and Change in Neo-Aramaic Dialects'. In *Historical Linguistics 2017*, edited by Bridget Drinka, 391–411. Amsterdam: Benjamins.


## **ON THE** *AFEL* **STEM IN WESTERN NEO-ARAMAIC**

*Steven E. Fassberg*

## **1. Introduction**

The historical reconstruction of Aramaic from its earliest attestations to the modern-day dialects can, at times, be difcult. For example, how far back was the dialectal split between the eastern and western branches of Aramaic?<sup>1</sup> The reconstruction at other times, however, can be relatively straightforward. For instance, a basically linear development is discernible in the Aramaic of Syria-Palestine. One begins with the Middle Aramaic attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, moves on to the Late Aramaic corpora of Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic, and concludes with Western Neo-Aramaic� 2

The study of Western Neo-Aramaic began in 1863 with the publication by Jules Ferrette (1863) of transcriptions of a text and vocabulary items from Maʿlula� Since then, the dialect of Maʿlula has been fortunate that outstanding Semitists have turned their attention to it. The greatest of Semitists, Theodor Nöldeke, commented on Ferrette's material already in 1867, and contributed more insights in an article from 1917–1918

<sup>1</sup> The split is fully evident in Late Aramaic (as delineated in Joseph A� Fitzmyer's 1979 classifcation of the Aramaic periods), but there are indications of a dialectal divide already in Old Aramaic inscriptions� See Greenfeld (1968, 1978); and most recently Fales and Grassi (2016). Margaretha Folmer (1995) has shown dialectal diferences in the Ofcial Aramaic corpus, which preceded Late Aramaic.

<sup>2</sup> Abraham Tal (1979, 1980, 1983) has demonstrated this in a series of articles dealing with diferent Western Aramaic grammatical phenomena.

following Gotthelf Bergsträsser's publication of the texts (1915) collected by Eugen Prym and Albert Socin. Many scholars have investigated Western Neo-Aramaic, but three in particular have shaped the feld: Bergsträsser with the publication of texts (1915; 1919–1920), a glossary (1921), and a short grammatical description (1928, 80–9), Anton Spitaler with a grammar (1938) and texts (1957), and especially Werner Arnold with an unparalleled wealth of oral texts (1989; 1990<sup>1</sup> ; 1991<sup>1</sup> ; 1991<sup>2</sup> ) as well as a synchronic grammar (19902 ), which includes not only Maʿlula, but also the two other Western Neo-Aramaic dialects spoken in the nearby villages of Baxʿa and Jubbʿadin� Moreover, Arnold has recently published a comprehensive dictionary of the three villages (2019). To date the comparative notes in Spitaler's grammar remain the fullest historical treatment of Maʿlula. Since the publication of that grammar, however, thanks to the intensive investigation into the literary dialects of Late Western Aramaic and the rich material from Maʿlula, Baxʿa, and Jubbʿadin that Arnold has presented, scholars now have the wherewithal to investigate further the links between older Western Aramaic and Western Neo-Aramaic� A detailed diachronic description of the development of Western Late Aramaic into Western Neo-Aramaic remains a desideratum.

### **2. Afel**

In general, the verbal system of Western Neo-Aramaic has diverged less from earlier Aramaic than have the verbal systems of other varieties of Neo-Aramaic� The morphosyntax of Maʿlula, Baxʿa, and Jubbʿadin is, on the whole, easily derived from older Western Neo-Aramaic forms,3 though it shares innovations paralleled in other non-Western varieties of Neo-Aramaic, for

<sup>3</sup> Yet, there are some noteworthy changes from older Aramaic that are attested in Western Neo-Aramaic, e.g., the prefxing of pronominal morphemes to the old active participle and the penetration of the *qattīl* nominal pattern into the verbal system.

example, the tendency of native Aramaic refexive-passive *t-*stems to disappear, leaving behind only lexical traces.

I wish to focus on one phenomenon of the verbal system that Spitaler noted in his grammar (1938, §120c) but did not attempt to explain: the presence in Maʿlula of *Afel* verbs that in older Aramaic are infected in *Peal*, and in Arabic in the 1st form. Spitaler collected a number of such verbs, some of which are frequent in the language. He cited four Aramaic roots: *nḏr* 'praise', *rhṭ* 'run' *xwy* 'burn', *ykl* (*ʾaukel*) 'overpower'. The list of borrowings from Arabic is signifcantly longer: *ʿṣy* 'be stubborn', *ʿzm* 'invite', *bdw* 'begin', *dʿw* 'curse', *ḍll* 'remain', *dwy* 'echo', *ḍžž* 'rumble, roar', *fzz* 'jump up', *ġḍb* 'be angry', *ġrq* 'fall asleep', *ġyb* 'be absent', *hwn* 'be light', *ḥky* 'speak', *ḥll* 'settle', *ḥqq* 'be right', *ḥrf* 'answer', *ḥss* 'notice', *ksb* 'earn', *ndm* 'regret', *nṭṭ* 'leap, spring up', *qdr* 'be able', *ṣʿd* 'rise, ascend', *ṣbr* 'wait', *ṣḥw* 'guard against', *tʿb* 'become tired', *tmm* 'remain', *wṣf* 'prescribe', *xṣṣ* 'concern, afect', *zʿl* 'be angry', *ẓhr* 'show oneself'� Spitaler commented that most of the verbs are intransitive. I think this fact is signifcant, as I shall try to show below.

Spitaler (1938, §121) wrote of the tendency in Maʿlula for weak verbs to shift from one verbal category to another. This phenomenon is also true for earlier periods of Aramaic. Spitaler mentioned I-ʾ verbs infuencing medial II-*w/y* verbs, and geminates infuencing I-*n*. Of relevance to the discussion is the *Afel*-looking participle *mōmar* 'saying' from the root *ʾmr*, whose creation Spitaler (1938, §121, §162b) attributed to a similarity with the II-*w/y Afel* verbal forms and an imperfect analogy of the type

*ōqem* (*Afel* 'he raised') : *mōqem* (*Afel* 'he raises') ::

*ʾōmar* (*Peal* 'he says') : X

X = *mōmar*� 4

Another germane example given by Spitaler (1938, §171b) is the *Afel* verb *appi* 'he gave', which is commonly derived from the

<sup>4</sup> The vowel *a* is a refex of the older Aramaic rule \**i > a* /\_\_ guttural.

root *yhb* 'gave' (Bergsträsser, 1928, 84). According to Bergsträsser, a shift such as 3fs *\*yahbat* > *\*yabbat* led to an analogy of the type

*xassat* ('she covered'; III-*y* root) : *appat* ('she gave') ::

*xassi* ('he covered') : X

X= *appi*� 5

In his brief discussion, Spitaler did not include as examples of the shift from *Peal* to *Afel* the preterite *Peal* II-w/y *áqam* 'he arose' and *ámet* 'he died', but I believe that the initial vowels in these forms show an incipient move to *Afel*, like *mōmar* and *appi* mentioned above, and thus are relevant to the discussion at hand.

## **3. Explanation of the Phenomenon**

Why is there a movement of older Aramaic *Peal* verbs and Arabic 1st stem verbs to *Afel* in Maʿlula? Is it the result of contact with another language? Is it an internal semantic development in Maʿlula, or can its origins be reconstructed back to an earlier period of Aramaic?

## **3.1. Contact with Arabic?**

Because of the considerable infuence of Arabic on Maʿlula and the widescale absorption of Arabic verbs into the vocabulary of Maʿlula, one might be tempted to seek the origins of the phenomenon in the centuries of contact that existed between Aramaic and Arabic in Syria. The mutual infuences of the two languages have been described by Arnold and Behnstedt (1993). The authors noted that the Aramaic *Afel* is extremely productive in Western Neo-Aramaic, but that the Arabic 4th stem has mostly disappeared from the spoken Arabic of the Qalamūn area, and those 4th form verbs that have survived refect the infuence of literary Arabic, e.g., *aslam/yislem '*convert to Islam' (Arnold and

<sup>5</sup> As if from the root *\*npy* (Bergsträsser 1928, 84). Spitaler noted that speakers could interpret the form as the *Pael* of a root *\*ʾpy*�

Behnstedt 1993, 57–58). In his description of the Damascene dialect, Heinz Grotzfeld (1965, 27) gave more examples of literary 4th stem forms that appear in the vernacular: *ʾazhar* 'bloom', *ʾaḥka* 'speak', *ʾaznab* 'sin', *ʾamkan* 'be able', *ʾaṣbaḥ* 'become', *ʾaxṭa* 'sin'� Arnold and Behnstedt pointed out that sometimes the Aramaic *Afel* verbs of Arabic etymology are derived not only from 4th form verbs, but also from 1st form verbs and from nouns:


The merger of the 4th and 1st forms in many Neo-Arabic dialects has been attributed to phonetic factors—the aphaeresis of the initial *alif* in the Perfect (ʾ*afʿala > fʿal*) and Imperative *ʾafʿil > fʿel* as well as the conditioned neutralisation of *u* and *i*, which led to blurring of the distinction between the Imperfect of both forms: *yufʿil > yəfʿel*� <sup>6</sup> A confusion of 1st and 4th forms is known already in Middle Arabic texts, where it is especially common in geminates and other weak verbs.7 In the light of the movement from the 4th form to the 1st form in the Neo-Arabic of the region, it is clear that the Aramaic phenomenon in Maʿlula of the shift of *Peal* to *Afel* cannot be attributed to Arabic infuence.

<sup>6</sup> Nöldeke (1904, 36); Blau (1966, §51.2, n. 44); Fischer and Jastrow (1980, 46). In the Damascene dialect, the meaning of the 4th form, on the other hand, is taken over by verbs in the 2nd form (Grotzfeld 1965, 27).

<sup>7</sup> Nöldeke (1904, 36); Blau (1966, §51.2); Hopkins (1984, §72).

### **3.2. Shift of** *Peal* **to** *Afel* **in Western Neo-Aramaic**

A tendency of *Peal* verbs to shift to *Afel* appears to be unknown in the dialects of NENA, Central Neo-Aramaic, and Mandaic, 8 but does occur in all three Western Neo-Aramaic dialects. Because we possess more oral texts from Maʿlula than from Baxʿa or Jubbʿadin, it is not surprising that there are more examples from Maʿlula than from the other two dialects.

Is the movement from *Peal* to *Afel* an internal semantic development in Maʿlula? In diferent Semitic languages the C-stem is sometimes intransitive with an ingressive nuance, i.e., entering into a state or condition, e.g., Hebrew ים ִד ֱא ֶה' become red', ין ִב ְל ִה 'become white', Syriac <sup>ܒ</sup>ܶ ܰ ܓܪ ܰ ܪ ,'leprous become 'ܐ ܰ ܢܗ ܐ' begin to shine' and Arabic *ʾaqbala* 'approach', *ʾaslama* 'become a Muslim'.<sup>9</sup> A weakening of ingressivity seems to have led on occasion to a blurring of the diference between verbs that occur in both the G and C stems, and this can be detected, for instance, in Syriac ܟܰ ܗܦ ܰ ܷܗܦܟ and <sup>ܐ</sup>'turn around', and <sup>ܒ</sup> ܰ ܶ ܒ and ܟܬ ܰ ܟܬ �'write 'ܐ <sup>10</sup> The Hebrew of the Second Temple period—Late Biblical Hebrew, the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Rabbinic Hebrew—also testifes to the merger of *Qal* and *Hifl*� Some transitive and intransitive *Qal* verbs move to *Hifl*, e�g�,

,הִ בְ זָ ה < 'despise 'בָ זָ ה ,הִ גְדִ יל < 'grow 'גָדֵ ל �הִ לְ עִ יג < 'mock 'לָ עַ ג 11

In the case of a weak verb like ים ִשָי' he will place', the morphological ambiguity—it can be parsed as *Qal* or *Hifl*—led

<sup>8</sup> Other shifts of stems are attested� For example, in Jewish Koy Sanjak (Mutzaf 2004, 75–77) some older *Pael* verbs have integrated into the Koy Sanjak *Peal*, while others have integrated into *Afel*; in Jewish Urmi (Khan 2008, 65–67) older *Pael* stem verbs have merged with *Peal* or with *Afel*; in Jewish Sanandaj (Khan 2009, 65–67) *Pael* has on the whole merged with *Peal*; in Bohtan (Fox 2009, 31–36) *Pael* includes some verbs from older *Peal*�

<sup>9</sup> Wright (1896, §45); Leemhuis (1977, 38–42).

<sup>ܶ</sup> ܒ .(198§ 1881,) Duval 10 ܰ ܟܬ ܐ also retains its causative meaning 'dictate'.

<sup>11</sup> Moreshet (1976).

to a reinterpretation of the Classical Biblical Hebrew *Qal* in Late Biblical Hebrew as a *Hifl* and the subsequent creation of a passive *Hufal.* Yet, despite the semantic overlapping of G and C in some Semitic languages, I wonder if more is at play in Maʿlula, and a look at earlier Western Aramaic may provide the key�

## **3.3. Shift of** *Peal* **to** *Afel* **in Earlier Western Aramaic**

I propose that the origin of the shift to *Afel* lies in the Late Western Aramaic dialects of Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian, and Samaritan Aramaic� The latter two dialects evidence a general retraction of stress, which led to an increase in prosthetic vowels� 12 Earlier Aramaic corpora have sporadic anaptyctic vowels before consonantal clusters involving sibilants and dentals, however, the helping vowel is not related to a retraction of stress, e.g., Biblical ܰܚ Syriac ,'drank they 'אִ שְ תִ יו ,'arm 'אֶ דְ רָ ע Aramaic ܶ ܫܟ ܐ' he found'. In the three dialects of Late Aramaic from Syria-Palestine the number of examples with prosthetic vowels grows considerably. In Christian Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic the prosthetic vowel sometimes occurs before the word-initial cluster and other times breaks up the cluster:<sup>13</sup>

(1) Jewish Palestinian:

אשקק ,'wagon 'אַ רְ תַ כָ ה ,'six 'אִ ישְ תָ ה ,'blood the 'אַ דְ מָ ה 'lane', אידמיך' he slept, he died', איזמר' he pruned', אנהרין 'they (f.) shone'

<sup>12</sup> Stress may have shifted back also in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, but there is no direct evidence for this�

<sup>13</sup> Historically, the insertion of a medial vowel in these two dialects is not the preservation of the original full vowel, but rather a secondary lengthening of a reduced vowel (*shewa mobile*). See Bar-Asher (1977, 421–482); Müller-Kessler (1991, §3.1.3.2); Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, §8.9); Tal (2013, §2.3.26). The examples listed here are taken from Bar-Asher (1977); Tal (2000); Sokolof (2014); Sokolof (2017).

### (2) Christian Palestinian:

 ,'heavens 'ܐܫܡܝܢ/ܫܘܡܝܢ ,'time 'ܐܙܒܢ ,'blood the 'ܐܕܡܐ ܐܫܩܩ' lane', ܐܬܡܘܪܝܢ' dates', ܡܝܩܡ' he raises', ܢܝܫܪ' we shall sing'

(3) Samaritan:

אדמה' the blood', *azbån* 'time', אסתב' winter', אשתה' six', שומים' heavens', *åbādåt ̊* 'she made', *anbāqů* 'they (m.) left', *anbāqi ̊* 'they (f.) left'

The creation of prosthetic vowels in *Peal* stems was probably more extensive in Late Aramaic speech than in the written texts that have survived. The assimilation of the *t* of *t-*stems in verbs in these dialects (e�g�, Jewish Palestinian' אשתכח < אשכח' he was found'; Fassberg 2012, 30) may also have been interpreted by speakers as *Peal* intransitive forms with prosthesis� From the vocalisation of Jewish Palestinian, the Samaritan oral tradition, and the use of *matres lectionis* in Christian Palestinian Aramaic, one sees that there were three prosthetic vowels *i*, *ə*, and *a*; the frst two appeared more frequently before sibilants.

I would like to suggest that it was the retraction of stress and the subsequent creation of initial epenthetic vowels, a phenomenon that began in Late Western Aramaic, which led in Western Neo-Aramaic to the reinterpretation of *Peal* verbs as *Afel* forms� Maʿlula and Jubbʿadin preserve verbs of the \**qatila* type, i�e�, intransitive verbs that have a refex of *e* in the base of the verb in the perfect: *iḏmex* 'he slept', *išmeʿ* 'he heard', *isleq* 'he ascended'� 14 The retraction of the stress and the creation of a prosthetic vowel may have led speakers to associate *Peal* intransitive verbs of the shape *Vqtel* with *Afel* preterite forms. I surmise that this process began with intransitive verbs and then was extended to transitive

<sup>14</sup> In Baxʿa speakers have tended to shift \**qatila* verbs into the pattern of \**qatala*: *idmax* (but still *išmeʿ*). See Arnold (1990<sup>2</sup> , §3.1.1).

verbs of the *iqtal* type. I think that indirect corroboration for this reconstruction can be found in the fact that many of the verbs which show up in *Afel* in Maʿlula are indeed intransitive, as noted by Spitaler. Additional pressure for the reinterpretation of *Peal* forms as *Afel* would have come from the II-*w/y Peal* verbs in which the retraction of stress created *Afel*-looking forms, e�g�

*áqam* 'he/they arose' vs. older Aramaic *qām*

*ámet* 'he died' vs� older *mīṯ*

Although Arabic dialects of the region cannot be responsible for this development, it is curious that the creation of prosthetic vowels before word-initial consonantal clusters in \**qatila* verbs can be found in an Arabic dialect in Syria. As pointed out to me by Simon Hopkins, Palmyrene Arabic shows the curious form *ʾönzel* 'he descended', which developed from *nazila > nizil* > *ʾönzel.*<sup>15</sup> Unfortunately, Aramaic inscriptions from the same area but from a much earlier period and written in Palmyrene Aramaic give no written indication of prosthesis and a retraction of stress�

## **4. Conclusion**

The shift of *Peal* verbs to *Afel* in Western Neo-Aramaic dialects may have begun in an earlier period of Western Aramaic, probably Late Western Aramaic, in which there was a widespread retraction of stress and subsequent creation of prosthetic vowels that resolved word-initial consonantal clusters. This situation might have led in Proto-Western Neo-Aramaic to the reinterpretation of *Peal Vqtel* (< \**qatila*) forms as *Afel* forms. This reanalysis would have been reinforced by the overlap between *Peal* and *Afel* verbs in expressing state and condition� *Peal* and *Afel* did not merge completely in Maʿlula, but a trend, which may have begun much earlier in Western Aramaic, increased signifcantly in Western Neo-Aramaic�

<sup>15</sup> Cantineau (1934, 121). Cf. *katab* 'he wrote' (< \**qatala*).

### **References**


―――. 1928. *Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen: Sprachproben und grammatische Skizzen*. München: Max Hueber.

―――. 1933. *Phonogramme im neuaramäischen Dialekt von Malula: Satzdruck und Satzmelodie*. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Blau, Joshua. 1966. *A Grammar of Christian Arabic Based Mainly on South-Palestinian Texts from the First Millennium*. 3 vols. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 27–29. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO.

―――. 2002. *A Handbook of Early Middle Arabic*. Jerusalem: Max Schloessinger Memorial Foundation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


 רבדים בארמית היהודית של ארץ-ישראל: הנו"ן המוספת כאמת מידה 1979. .Abraham ,Tal ['Layers in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic: The Appended *Nun* as a Criterion']� *Lĕšonénu* 43: 165–84.

 in Investigations ['בירורים בארמית של ארץ-ישראל: כינויי הרמז 1980. .――― Palestinian Aramaic: The Demonstrative Pronouns']. *Lĕšonénu* 44: 43–65.

 and Infinitive The ['המקור לצורותיו ברובדי הארמית היהודית בארץ-ישראל 1983. .――― Its Forms in the Layers of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic']� In מוגשים לשון מחקרי לשיבה בהגיעו חיים-בן לזאב] *Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Professor Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim*], edited by Moshe Bar-Asher et al., 201–218. Jerusalem: Magnes Press�

―――. 2000. *A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic*. Handbuch der Orientalistik 50. Leiden: Brill.

―――. 2013. *Samaritan Aramaic*. Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen 3.2. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Wright, William� 1896� *A Grammar of the Arabic Language*� Vol� 1� 3rd edition revised by W. Roberston Smith and M. J. de Goeje. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press�

## **THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THE GENITIVE IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC1**

## *Ariel Gutman*

## **1. Introduction**

A commonplace claim in historical linguistics is that languages change in cycles: morpho-syntactic markers appear to make a given construction clearer, then disappear when they are felt redundant, and then re-appear again in diferent guise. Maybe the best known case of such a linguistic cycle is the cyclic reappearance of pre- and post-verbal negation markers in various languages, a phenomenon that has been termed 'Jespersen's cycle' by Dahl (1979) following the earlier work of Jespersen (1917).

Yet in core morphological domains of language, such as case morphology, it is difcult to come across documented cases of cyclic change, most probably due to the long time spans in which core morphology changes� Aramaic, however, with its almost 3,000 years of documented history, provides one such case study, that I shall examine in this paper�

Based on the evidence from Akkadian and Classical Arabic, it is generally assumed that proto-Semitic exhibited a three-way case system, distinguishing nominative, accusative and genitive

<sup>1</sup> Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my doctoral supervisors for their support and much appreciated feedback. First and foremost Eleanor Coghill, who was a truly exceptional *doktormutter*, as well as Frans Plank and Eran Cohen, and initially also Pollet Samvelian� The research was funded for one year (2011–2012) by a doctoral grant awarded by the École Normale Supérieure (Paris) and subsequently (2012–16) by the *Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft* as part of the project 'Neo-Aramaic morphosyntax in its areal-linguistic context' led by Eleanor Coghill.

cases� Yet Aramaic, from its earliest attested stages, shows no case system. The fact that Aramaic used to have a case system in its pre-historical stage, however, can be deduced from the Aramaic Samʾal inscriptions from the 8th century BCE, where masculine plural nouns conserve an archaic distinction between nominative and oblique cases (Dion 1978, 117).

The main cycle of change I shall describe here, based on my PhD thesis (Gutman 2016; Gutman 2018), is the re-emergence of the genitive case (and thus case-marking in general) in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic after about 2,500 years of absence of case marking. This cyclic change is accompanied by other cyclic morphological changes, that will be examined as well.

### **1.1. Terminology**

I shall use here the term attributive construction to denote constructions in which a head nominal (the primary) is qualified semantically and syntactically by another nominal (the secondary). The prototypical attributive construction in Semitic languages is the annexation construction, also known as the construct state construction, in which the head noun is marked by a special morphological form called the construct state.

From a dependency grammar point of view, we may say that the attributive construction exhibits an attributive relation between the primary and the secondary (see Goldenberg 1987). From a morpho-syntactic point of view, however, this relation can be marked by diferent means. The diferent markers can be classifed on the following two dimensions, following the work of Plank (1995, 38f.):


This yields four principal marker types, that are presented in Table 1 together with the corresponding gloss label, that will be used in the examples below.

Table 1: Four AC marker-types


I reserve the notion of case to denote morphological marking of the dependent, i�e� the secondary� Hence, in the context of attributive constructions, the notion of genitive case is reserved for relational marking of the secondary, while the parallel marking of the primary is considered to pertain to the domain of *state marking*� The *construct state* is a morphological marking of a noun that indicates that it has a complement (i.e. it is a primary of an attributive construction), while a noun that is not thus marked is said to be in the *free state*� For an analysis of the category of state as a valid cross-linguistic category refecting the *syntactic valency* of nouns see Gutman (2018, 32) as well as Creissels (2009, 74).

Pronominal markers are defined as markers that have referential power, substituting for a noun phrase, and thus can themselves serve as primaries or secondaries�

To clarify these terms, we can consider the following Turkish textbook example:

(1) *oda-nın kapı-sı*  room-gen door-poss.3

> 'the door of the room' (Turkish, Göksel and Kerslake 2005: 183)

The sufx -*sı* marks the primary *kapı* 'door'� It is a pronominal marker, since the expression *kapısı* can stand by itself meaning 'its door'. The sufx -*nın*, on the other hand, is a pure relational marker of the secondary *oda* 'room' (though it also conveys the semantic value of definiteness), and therefore it is an example of genitive case�

## **1.2. Methodology**

The aim of this paper is to investigate and explain language-change processes observed in NENA dialects. The claims made here are based on a detailed study of several diferent NENA dialects, of which text samples have been arranged in an extensive database, as described in Gutman (2016; 2018, 13f.).<sup>2</sup> As this paper gives, however, a "bird-eye's view" of the processes involved, the best examples from diferent dialects will be presented in order to justify the diferent claims. I invite the interested reader to refer to Gutman (2016, especially §10.4; 2018, especially 320f.) for a more detailed description�

Throughout the paper, I shall assume that a process of language change can ideally be attributed either to influence of some contact language, or be language-internally motivated. Of course, in most cases it is probable that both motivations exist to some extent�

As NENA is spoken in the same area as Kurdish dialects, both of the Sorani and Kurmanji types, I shall concentrate on these dialects as the main contact languages. As the point of departure of the changes in NENA, I shall take Syriac, a Classical Aramaic dialect spoken between the 2nd and 7th centuries (at least) as the backdrop for these changes, serving as an approximate 'Proto-NENA' (disregarding the question whether the NENA dialects stem in fact from a unique proto-language). Syriac was spoken in the same area as NENA is spoken, and many structural features of NENA can be traced back to Syriac constructions. Thanks to the extensive ancient literature that has survived in Syriac (due to its important role in the propagation of Eastern Christianity), it is a very well described and documented ancient dialect of Aramaic.

## **2. Attributive Constructions in Syriac**

In Syriac we fnd three principal attributive constructions. The expression 'house of a/the king', for example, can be expressed in the following three ways:

<sup>2</sup> The database can be found online as part of Gutman (2016).


The construct state can be in general identified as lacking the emphatic-state sufx *-ā*, which in Syriac marks free-standing nouns, such as the secondary *malkā* 'king' in (2). In older strata of Aramaic, this sufx marked definiteness, yet in Syriac it lost this function, and became instead a formal exponent of free-state nouns. Consequently, the construct-state form can be regarded as derived by *apocope* from the free-state noun.


$$\begin{aligned} \text{(4)} \qquad &bay \text{t-} \overline{\text{e}} \text{h} \qquad &d = &\text{malk} \overline{\text{a}} \\ &\text{house-} \text{poss.} 3 \quad \text{LNK} = &\text{king} \end{aligned}$$

Some authors have treated the *d-* proclitic as being a genitive case marker (see for example Doron and Meir 2013 or Bulakh 2009 regarding a similar Geʿez particle), yet, as Goldenberg (1995, 3–6) notes, since it is a pronominal element, it is distinct from a genitive case marker. Its pronominal nature is clear in examples where it completely assumes the role of the primary, in the absence of an explicit nominal primary:

(5) *habaw hākēl d= qesar l= qesar* give.imp.pl then lnk= Caesar to= Caesar *w= d= alāhā l= alāhā* and= lnk= God to= God

> 'Give then **that which** is of Caesar to Caesar and **that which** is of God to God.' (Peshitta, Matthew 22:21; Muraoka 1997, 71)

In Syriac, therefore, as in all Aramaic varieties of antiquity, there is no genitive marker�

## **3. Emergence of a Genitive Case in NENA**

Following Cohen (2010), I have showed in Gutman (2016) and Gutman (2018, chapter 4) that the Syriac *d*- linker diversified into 3 diferent markers in NENA dialects:

1� A modern *d*- linker, with possible variations of its form

2� A neo-construct state sufx -*əd*

3� A genitive prefix *d*-

In what follows, I shall concentrate on the development of the two latter markers, and especially the genitive marker�

## **3.1. Stage I: Emergence of the Neo-CSC in NENA**

Following Mengozzi (2005), one can trace the Neo-CSC of NENA dialects, in which the construct state noun is marked by an *-əd*  sufx, back to the Syriac DAC, exemplifed here by the expression *bayt-ēh d=malkā*. Judging by the evidence from the NENA manuscripts from the 17th century, the transformation process can be broken down into the following steps:


As a result the NENA Neo-CSC emerges with the form *baytəd malka*�

The above is a description of the 'mechanics' of the change process. What, however, motivates it? One can postulate three motivating forces:


## **3.2. Stage II: Hopping of the** *d-* **segment back to the secondary**

The process continues further. Judging by dialectal evidence, we see that the *d*- segment, now part of the CSC sufx, is phonologically not stable:


Note that in all the examples above, the primary noun is distinct from the corresponding free-state forms (*ṣadra, yala, paqarta*), thus the resulting constructions are diferent from the ALC, which still exists in the NENA systems�

## **3.3. Stage III: Reanalysis of the** *d-* **segment as a genitive prefix**

The aforementioned stage is purely phonological, yet the crucial step happens due to a reanalysis of the added phonological material: when the *d-* segment is doubled, the *d-* prefix can be reanalysed as a genitive prefix.

(6) *pumm-əd d-aw nāša* mouth-cst gen-def�ms man

> 'the mouth of the man' (Jewish Zakho, Cohen 2012, 107 (76))

This happens indeed with a select class of vowel-initial demonstratives and determiners, as shown by Cohen (2010). A partial selection of these elements is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Case inflected definite determiners in Jewish Zakho (Cohen 2010, 88)


Following this reanalysis, the *d-* marked genitive forms appear in environments where the original phonological motivation is no longer present, but where genitive-case marking is expected, such as NPs following prepositions, or on phrase-internal demonstratives:

(7) *mən d-ay xzēna*  from gen-def treasure 'from the treasure' (Jewish Zakho, Cohen 2012, 108 (77)) (8) *gnay-ət tawra d-o= goṛa* fault-cst ox gen-def�ms= big.ms

> 'the fault of the big ox' (Barwar, Khan 2008b, 517 [D2:19])

Yet the introduction of a genitive prefix is highly surprising, not only because it re-introduces a case system into Aramaic, absent for about 2,500 years, but also because it goes against the aforementioned universal tendency of sufxation. So a natural question is: What were the motivations for this re-analysis?

Several potential answers can be given. First, we note that the high frequency of vowel-initial demonstratives or determiners acting as secondaries (or the first elements thereof), makes the morphological re-analysis of the phonological realignment plausible.

A partial internal explanation, suggested by Khan (2009a, 71), may be the analogy of the *d*- marked demonstratives with independent genitive pronouns, which also start with a [d] segment such as Barwar *bɛθa diy-a* 'her house'. Yet such an analogy would explain only the genitive form of independent demonstratives, and not of determiners�

It seems, however, that the main driving force of this grammatical change lies in language contact, and more specifically in an analogy with the Kurdish Kurmanji demonstrative system�

As shown in Table 3, the Kurmanji demonstratives exhibit two cases: a nominative and an oblique case. It may be no coincidence that the nominative, as in Aramaic, is vowel-initial, while the oblique is consonant-initial.

Table 3: Kurmanji near-deixis demonstratives


It should be noted that the various contexts where the genitive-marked NENA demonstratives appear (i�e� marking attributive NPs or complements of prepositions) fit the usage of the Kurmanji oblique demonstratives. Thus, the emergence of a NENA genitive-prefix may result from a *pattern replication* process, in the sense of Matras and Sakel (2007), of the Kurmanji system. Indeed, the geographical distribution of the NENA genitive prefix corroborates this hypothesis, since the prefix is present mainly in NENA dialects that are in direct contact with Kurmanji dialects.

Yet, as Cohen (2010, 90) notes, there is a difculty with this idea, since the NENA genitive prefix, in contrast to the Kurmanji oblique case, does not mark complements of verbs. Does this difculty refute the pattern-replication hypothesis? Not necessarily. It is quite possible that while replicating the Kurmanji pattern the NENA speakers did not generalise the occurrence of the *d-* segment outside its initial domain of appearance, but rather restricted its reanalysis to the attributive domain. The occurrence of the genitive prefix after prepositions is natural in this respect, as the construct-state sufx can appear on certain prepositions, as in the following example:

(9) *mənn-ət bela* from-cst house 'from the house' (Jewish Urmi, Khan 2008a, 196)

## **3.4. Stage III: Reanalysis of the** *d-* **segment as an oblique prefix**

Interestingly, at least in one dialect, namely the peripheral dialect of Jewish Sanandaj, the *d-* prefix has completely replicated the Kurmanji pattern, as it is used not only as a marker of adnominal complements of nouns and prepositions, but also as a marker of verbal objects (preceding the verb as is the case in Kurdish), as the following three examples show:

(10) *bela d-o* house obl-3s 'his house' (Jewish Sanandaj, Khan 2009b, 200) (11) *reša d-o* on obl-3s 'on it' (Jewish Sanandaj, Khan 2009b, 224) (12) *d-o grəš-le* obl-3ms pulled-a�3ms

'He pulled him.' (Jewish Sanandaj, Khan 2009b, 159)

In these three examples the form *d-o* is used as an independent pronoun, but it can also be used as a case-marked determiner of an NP. It is also worth noting that except these uses of the *d*- prefix (which are in fact optional), there are no other reflexes of the Classical Aramaic *d*- linker in this dialect�

Khan (2009b, 158) explains the usage of the *d-* prefix as a verbal-complement marker, as being a sub-case of the prepositional-complement marker, since it can also appear after the accusative preposition *həl*:

(13) *həl= d-o grəš-le* acc= obl-3ms pulled-a�3ms 'He pulled him.' (Jewish Sanandaj, Khan 2009b, 158)

Thus, Khan (2009b, 158) explains example (12) as resulting from the simple omission of the preposition *həl*� Yet, given the above outlined development path of the case-marking *d-* prefix in NENA dialects, it is plausible to analyse this development as the final step of replication of the Kurmanji pattern, in which the *d*- prefix assumes completely the role of an oblique case-marker. Interestingly, this happens in the dialect of Jewish Sanandaj, which is not in direct contact with Kurmanji (the Kurdish spoken in Sanandaj is of the Sorani type, in which there is no casemarking). As the origin of the pattern replication must be in the Kurmanji-speaking area, this seems to be an indication that the speakers of Jewish Sanandaj came originally from that area�

## **4. Renaissance of the Apocopate Construct State**

The reanalysis of the *d-* prefix as a genitive marker has led in some dialects to the reanalysis of the apocopate primary form as a new construct state formation� In the following example, the form *brāt* can be contrasted with the free-state form *brāta* 'daughter', efectively being a construct-state form:

(14) *brāt d-ay baxta* daughter.cst gen-def�fs woman 'the daughter of the woman' (Jewish Zakho, Cohen 2012, 110)

It is worthwhile noting that the new apocopate construct state is formally similar to the historical construct state, as both are formed by apocopation, yet as some irregular forms show, it is distinct from it� For example, the Syriac construct state of the noun *brāta* is *bat*�

Once the new form has been reanalysed as a new kind of construct-state marking (on a par with the neo-construct-state sufx -*əd* marking), it spreads to contexts where no *d-* prefix is found:

(15) *ʾaqlās xa mənn-u* feet�pl�cst one from-3pl 'the feet of one of them' (Jewish Zakho, Cohen 2012, 115)

This development marks again a closure of a cycle� In the earliest strata of Aramaic the apocopate construct state was the standard way of marking the attributive relation. Later, in Syriac it lost its expressive power and became confined mostly to idioms, yet in NENA it re-emerges as a standard way of marking the attributive relation, alongside other morpho-synactic means.

## **5. Conclusions**

In this paper I have drawn attention to the existence of two important cycles of morpho-syntactic change in the nominal domain in the long history of Aramaic:


These cycles are accompanied by a phonological cycle, in which a proclitic element (the *d-* linker) becomes a sufx (in the construct state sufx) and then shifts back to being a prefix (as a genitive case-marker). Yet a key observation is that phonological re-arrangements (cliticisation, resyllabification) cannot by themselves cause a morpho-syntactic change of the linguistic system. Rather, they must be followed by a process of reanalysis of the phonological material in order for them to have a lasting efect.

From the point of view of the marking quantity of the attributive constructions, we can observe another abstract cycle� The double annexation construction of Syriac, in which the primary is marked by a possessive sufx and the secondary by a pronominal linker, transforms into a single-marked construction (the sufxed construct-state construction of NENA), which in turn transforms back in some environments and dialects to another double-marked construction, in which the primary is marked by the construct-state (either apocopate or sufxed) and the secondary is marked by the genitive case. Intriguingly, we see that while the original double construction used pronominal markers on both loci, the modern double construction uses relational markers on both sites.

The history of Aramaic permits us to corroborate the old idea that languages do indeed change in cycles, yet we see that these cycles do not constitute exact repetition. The fluctuations in marking-quantity corroborate the idea that two opposing forces shape language: economy, on one hand, and clarity, on the other hand. In slightly diferent terms, this idea has been neatly summarised by Slobin (1977, 192):

The first two charges—clarity and processibility—strive toward segementalisation. The other two charges—temporal compactness and expressiveness—strive toward synthesis, however. As a result, Language constantly fluctuates between the poles of analyticity and syntheticity, since none of the charges can be ignored.

The details of the various processes should, in principle, be attributed to specific motivations, either language-internal motivations or, as is often the case, to language-contact. Yet even in the most pristine 'laboratory' conditions of language change, which Aramaic with its richly documented history approaches, not all details of change can be accounted for. This is since the various forces operating on the development of a language are ultimately mediated by the creativity of its speakers.

## **References**


———. 2012. *The Syntax of Neo-Aramaic: The Jewish Dialect of Zakho.* Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 13. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

———. 2015. 'Head-Marking in Neo-Aramaic Genitive Constructions and the *ezafe* Construction in Kurdish'� In *Semitic Languages in Contact*, edited by Aaron M. Butts. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 82. Leiden: Brill, pp. 114–25.


———. 1998. *Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings*. Jerusalem: Magnes Press�

Gutman, Ariel. 2016. 'Attributive Constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic: Areal, Typological and Historical Perspectives'� Doctoral thesis, University of Konstanz. URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-352520�

———. 2017. 'Can Pattern Replication be Easily Established? The Case of the Neo- Aramaic Neo-Construct'. 18e Rencontres Jeunes Chercheurs en Sciences du Langage, June 2015, Paris, France. In: *Actes des 18e Rencontres Jeunes Chercheurs en Sciences du Langage*. URL: https://hal-univ-paris3. archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01495125�

———. 2018. *Attributive Constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic*. Language Science Press. URL: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/123�


———. 2008a. *The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi*� Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

———. 2008b. *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar*. 3 vols. Handbook of Oriental Studies I-96. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2009a. 'The Genitive and Relative Clauses in the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects'� In *Relative Clauses and Genitive Constructions in Semitic*, edited by Janet C.E. Watson and Jan Restö, 69–87. *Journal of Semitic Studies* Supplement 25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2009b. *The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj*� Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 10. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.


## **MODELLING VARIATION IN THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF AZRAN WITH ARTICULATORY PHONOLOGY**

*Lidia Napiorkowska*

## **1. Introduction**

Linguistic theories, as perhaps theories in general, are neat and helpful constructs, but they represent a state well beyond the basic data analysis. This is true, for example, of the traditional binary classifcation of sounds into phonemes and allophones. Whereas this division allows us to organise the material in a transparent way, it requires compromises and simplifcations to a smaller or larger extent (cf. Lyons 1971, 68; Jung and Himmelmann 2011, 204). The tension between the theory and the description of the empirical data results in the need to fnd a balance between presenting the material in a coherent way and presenting it in a faithful way. This issue is familiar to any feld linguist who faces the challenge of transcribing audio material. In practical terms, the dilemma consists in deciding how much of the rich repertoire of each speaker should be represented, typically what is identifed as phonemic, and how much should be left out, typically what is identifed as allophonic variation? The question is even more complex when the data come from a linguistic community that has a background of dialect mixing� The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialect of Azran dealt with in the present paper is a case in point� I wish to propose a way to deal with the aforementioned challenge by suggesting an alternative way of analysing phonetic empirical data, employing not the traditional units of phonemes, but rather gestures involved in speech production.<sup>1</sup>

## **2. The Dialect and the Data**

Azran is a NENA dialect whose speakers now live in the town of Diyana in northern Iraqi Kurdistan. Azran was a village in the Turkish area of Gardi in the vicinity of Shemizdin� I was not able to identify its precise location. The Azran speakers regard themselves as belonging to the Gargarnaye tribe, which includes also the speakers of other dialects, such as Hawdiyan� The dialect of Azran is close to the Christian Diyana-Zariwaw (CDZ) variety described by Napiorkowska (2015a; 2015b). They, however, exhibit distinct features and so should be classifed as separate varieties. The Azran examples presented below are based on the author's own feldwork (Napiorkowska 2015c).

It needs to be borne in mind that the Azran community, as is the case with many other Neo-Aramaic communities, has experienced displacement and migration. This combined with the factor of language contact, mainly with Kurmanji Kurdish, has resulted in a substantial degree of linguistic variation. Both a 'horizontal' and a 'vertical' variation can be identifed. The horizontal variation arises from contact with other languages and NENA varieties� The vertical variation, on the other hand, has arisen from diferent degrees of linguistic change across diferent generations and groups of speakers. Variation is a conspicuous phenomenon in Azran, which needs to be accommodated in the description of the dialect if it is to refect the linguistic reality.

<sup>1</sup> The data on this variety were gathered during the project 'The Documentation of the Neo-Aramaic Cluster of Gargarnaye', IPF 0203 funded by the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme, SOAS, and carried out at the University of Cambridge.

## **3. Transcription Challenges**

A commonly adopted transcription practice, following from the two-way distinction mentioned in §1, is to represent phonemic contrasts and exclude phonetic features that are identifed as allophonic� For instance, in the Azran word 'scattered (fs.)' [bʊr.ˈbəs.tʰa] from *barbuze* 'to scatter', the devoicing of /*z*/ to [s] occurs under the infuence of /*t*/ as a predictable process; consequently, the word is transcribed as *burbəzta.* Many properties of speech, however, are not easily sifted out in the same way, since they do not occur regularly. In this paper, I shall consider the cases of phonological fronting, and to a smaller extent also phonological emphasis, whose distribution is far from regular in Azran�

Consider the word *təḷḷa < \*ṭəllā* [ˈtˁə̱lˁ.lˁa] 'shade', where the former emphatic, i�e� pharyngealised, \**ṭ* developed into an unaspirated /*t*/, infuencing also the neighbouring segments.<sup>2</sup> Historical emphasis is, however, very diferent in the case of words like *tinten* realised as [ˈtən.t͡sʰən] 'I have become pregnant (f.)' *<\*ṭ-ʾ-n* 'to carry'� Here there is lack of aspiration in the segment in the onset of the frst syllable, refecting historical emphasis, but heavy aspiration in the second /*t*/, resulting in an africate. The africation in this word is conditioned by a process that is diferent from the loss of historical emphasis. Should such a process that has led to the emergence of an africate be represented, or is the marking of the lack of emphasis sufcient in the transcription? Furthermore, a word such as 'stone, rock' *\*kēp̄ā > čipa* involves a range of interchangeable realisations, i.e. [ˈkʲiːpʰa]~ [ˈt͡ʃʰiːpʰa]~[ˈt͡sʰiːpʰa], which do not seem to be conditioned variants� They all represent the word 'stone' for the Azran speakers, the latter being considered a hallmark of the dialect� 3 The diferent realisations of the same word are

<sup>2</sup> For the discussion of phonological emphasis in the dialects of Diyana see Napiorkowska (2015a) where it is argued that the lack of aspiration in /*t*/ in CDZ is a refex of the former emphasis in \**ṭ*� This is also the case in Christian Urmi (Khan 2016).

<sup>3</sup> The Azran speakers are apparently often teased about their rendition of the historical velar stops�

perceptible to the speakers. How should then the word 'stone' be represented in the transcription? One way would be to treat the alveolar africate [t͡sʰ] as an allophone of a postalveolar phoneme, which can be represented /*č*/, based on its diachronic derivation. Then, however, the perceived reality of Azran would be compromised. Could we perhaps fnd grounds for regarding [t͡sʰ] as a separate phoneme, which could be represented /*c*/?

The examples above illustrate the transcription challenges based on linear approaches where phonemes are strung one after another and transitions between units are largely ignored. These transitions, however, produce phonetic output that do not necessarily match the phonological representation� In order to diminish this gap between phonology and phonetics let us consider a dynamic model that combines the two.

### **4. Articulatory Phonology**

Articulatory Phonology (ArtP) is a model of phonological description developed mainly by Browman and Goldstein in a series of articles (*inter alia* 1986; 1989; 1991; 1992). The fundamental assumption of ArtP is the organisation of speech into gestures, i.e. degrees of constriction in particular locations within the vocal tract. These are the velum (VEL), tongue body (TB), tongue tip (TT), lips (LIPS) and glottis (GLO). Each gesture is specifed for the location and degree of constriction. In addition, it has an inherent duration. ArtP is a non-linear model since it construes speech as overlapping spatio-temporal events. According to this model, the Azran word *čipa* 'stone' could be represented as displayed in Illustration 1.

The leftmost boxes represent the major gestural actors (called 'vocal trajectories') and the values within the boxes specify the constriction location and degree (closure, critical, narrow, middle or wide). The closure (clo) gesture is mainly associated with the TT, TB and LIPS and the production of stops, whereas the gesture critical (crit) is responsible for creating friction. Vowels and approximants are determined by the middle (mid), narrow or wide gestures�

Illustration 1: Articulatory Phonology Model

Finally, the glottis and the velum may be defned as wide open for the productions of devoicing and nasals, respectively.

The size of each box represents the duration of gesture with respect to a particular sound.<sup>4</sup> The temporal parameter of ArtP predicts that the retiming of a specifc gesture results in the overlapping or disjoining of gestures�

This retiming, in turn, gives rise to processes, such as, for example, fronting of the place of articulation.<sup>5</sup> Another important implication of the spatio-temporal parameter of ArtP is that the magnitude of each gesture may be increased or reduced, depending on the phonetic, but also pragmatic factors, and due to individual conditioning of the speaker. ArtP is, thus, a model which has ample room for accommodating variation and changes in progress, such as those encountered in Azran�

<sup>4</sup> In this article it is represented in a purely impressionistic manner, rather than based on gesture duration measurement.

<sup>5</sup> Some cases of partial or total overlapping of gestures are no diferent from the well-known process of assimilation. Here, however, the focus is on the mechanics of the processes and their immediate outcomes, for which assimilation is only a label.

## **5. ArtP and the NENA Data**

Using the set of grids (called 'scores' in ArtP) we can visualise the way in which the shift in Azran from the form *kipa* (< \**kēp̄ā*) to *čipa* is likely to have occurred. It is here assumed that frst the narrow alveopalatal gesture responsible for the production of the vowel /*i*/ was retimed, i.e. produced before the completion of the previous gesture, and so it overlapped with the velar gesture of the tongue body constriction in /*k*/. As a result, a shift of the velar /*k*/ to the alveopalatal /*č*/ took place. This is represented in (1a) and (1b), where the relevant areas have been shaded.

Building on this assumption it may be postulated that in the third variant of pronunciation encountered in Azran (1c) a further retiming of /*i*/ infuences the constriction of the tongue body responsible for the production of /*č*/. The narrow vocalic gesture spreads from the alveopalate to the alveolar ridge and so the closure is advanced to the alveolar region.<sup>6</sup> The result is realised as an africate /*c*/ [t͡sʰ]. Note also the spreading of lips associated with this pronunciation.

(1) Palatalisation and advancement to alveolar ridge with vowel opening

*čipa* 'stone' <\**kēp̄ā*

(1a) [ˈkʲiːpʰa] <sup>7</sup>

<sup>6</sup> Cf. the characterisation of the alveopalatal sounds by Ladefoged as those produced with the blade of the tongue 'always close to the back part of the alveolar ridge (…), made farther in the mouth' than the alveolars (Ladefoged 2006, 12).

<sup>7</sup> Within the scores the following abbreviations were used: alv for alveolar, alvpal for alveopalatal, pal for palatal, phar for pharyngeal, lab for labial

(Within the ArtP framework, the variation of /*k~ č~ c*/> [kʲ > t͡ʃʰ> t͡sʰ] in \**kēp̄ā> kipa> čipa> cipa* 'stone' is easily handled as a spectrum of articulations triggered by the anticipation of the alveopalatal vowel gesture. Moreover, such a representation bypasses the stage of categorical phonemic vs. allophonic division between /*k~ č~ c*/. I have, therefore, decided to represent [t͡sʰ] with a separate symbol /*c*/. It is not claimed that /*c*/ constitutes a separate phoneme in its canonical sense; rather, introducing /*c*/ represents a signifcant perceived auditory feature of Azran� In other words, diferentiating between /*č*/ and /*c*/ in transcription does not mark a transgression of boundaries between phonemes, but rather mirrors the linguistic reality of the dialect with such internal variation�

and uvu-phar for uvular-pharyngeal.

## **6. Further Examples**

The ArtP model may further be employed to represent the feature called emphasis spread. In Azran, as mentioned above (§3.0.), the refex of earlier emphatic (pharyngealised) \**ṭ* is a non-pharyngealised unaspirated /*t*/. The gesture of tongue tip closure for /*t*/ is, thus, accompanied by glottalic closure. If this gesture is retimed, the following relevant segments are rendered unaspirated, such as /*p̌*/ in *təp̌ṛa* < \**ṭəprā* 'fngernail' in (2):

### (2) Emphasis spread or retiming of closed glottis gesture

*təp̌ṛa* 'fngernail' [ˈtəp.rˁa] <\**ṭəprā*

*/t ə p̌ ṛ a/* **(TR** narrow) <sup>8</sup> **TB** mid, uvuphar wide, phar **TT** clo, alv narrow, alv **LIPS** clo, lab **GLO** clo clo

The gesture of the closed glottis appears here as almost a continuum, pertaining to the relevant segments. The approach of ArtP has, therefore, an advantage over a linear approach, where we would have two segments specifed each for the feature of nonaspiration�

<sup>8</sup> The ArtP model is yet to develop a unifed way of representing the tongue root gestures. Here, the TR narrow gesture is equivalent to the [+RTR] feature and stands for the articulatory setting generally assumed in NENA for the production of the emphatic consonants, i.e. the constriction of the upper pharynx (cf. Khan 2013, 112).

The next example (3) is similar to (1), but involves the voiced counterpart. It is likewise assumed that the retiming of /*i*/ is responsible for the shift from the alveopalatal /*j*/ [d͡ʒ] to alveolar [d͡z]. Consequently, [d͡z] is represented by a separate symbol /*ȷ*/.

The fnal example (4) illustrates not the strictly temporal, but rather the gradable parameter of gesture magnitude. Here, the frst segment is the unaspirated refex of the earlier emphatic \**ṭ*, whereas the fnal consonant /*t*/ is the aspirated stop of the feminine sufx. In (4a), /*t*/ is still pronounced with some emphasis, i.e. constriction of the pharynx and retraction of the tongue root. It is, thus, sufciently diferent from the pronunciation of the aspirated /*t*/ where no tongue root gesture is involved. In (4b), by contrast, where the only refex of the earlier emphasis is the lack of aspiration, there is a need to magnify the diference between /*t*/ and /*t*/. As a result, the shift of the tongue tip from closure in /*t*/ in (4a) to a critical position in (4b) renders the africate [t͡sʰ], whereby the contrast between the two consonants in question is maximised�

### (3) Advancement to alveolar ridge with vowel opening

*jiya* 'tired' (ms.) < *g-h-y*

$$\text{(3a)}\qquad \text{[}\text{[}\text{\text{\textquotedblleft}}{\text{\textquotedblright}}\text{]}\text{)}$$

## (4) The maximisation of glottalic gesture contrast

*tinta* 'pregnant'

$$\text{(4a)} \quad \text{[}^\text{!}\text{t}^\text{!}\text{ão}^\text{!}\text{t}^\text{!}\text{]}^\text{!}$$

<sup>9</sup> The spread of nasality was ignored in this example�

## **7. ArtP and Language Contact**

The palatalisation of the velar stops, presented in the Azran examples in (1) and (3), is not unique to this dialect (see also Christian Urmi in Khan 2016) and appears to be an areal feature of the Eastern Anatolian and Caucasian *Sprachbünde*� The NENA dialects have undoubtedly been heavily infuenced by the surrounding varieties, mainly Kurmanji Kurdish, in which palatalisation is well attested (Kapeliuk 2011, 737). Nonetheless, it should be borne in mind that external infuence is rarely the sole factor responsible for linguistic change. Rather, it is coupled with an internal potential of the language to accommodate the infuence. In the light of ArtP, we may observe how the shift /*k*/> /*č ~ c*/ emerges as an innovation independently of external infuence. Furthermore, similar developments of the velar stops are typologically wide-spread, for example, among the Bantu varieties (Hyman and Moxley 1996) where no external motivation for change has been postulated. Among internal factors one could also include sociolinguistics and the rather low prestige of Azran compared to other NENA varieties, such as the Iraqi koine. According to Trudgill (2011), the non-standard or isolated varieties tend to employ more casual and careless speech, which results in reduction processes in pronunciation and grammar. The speakers of Azran indeed constitute a rather small and tightly-knit community. This would be expected to licence a less careful pronunciation, leading to a phonological shift.

It is not claimed here that the fronting and palatalisation in Azran, or indeed in NENA, is totally unconnected with the similar processes in Kurdish. Rather, it is suggested that there is a need to recognise both the external and the internal motivations for a change. Acknowledging equally the role that the input from the inside and outside play in shaping the language is a more satisfactory approach to the study of sound change. In the case of the palatalisation and africativisation in Azran, we may say that the mechanism of gesture retiming is a development that is reinforced by language contact rather than primarily conditioned by it.

## **8. Conclusions**

ArtP is a model enabling us to observe how the reorganisation of gestures results in allophonic variation ranges, which pass seamlessly across boundaries delimited by phonemes in linear approaches (ex. 1, 2 and 3). It is, therefore, an efcient means of capturing variation. Moreover, it handles well some cases of the so-called 'mixed-words', i�e� former emphatic words containing front segments (example 4), which are otherwise problematic within the approach of vowel harmony and autosegmental phonology� Lastly, giving credit to the internal mechanism of sound shift together with language contact allows us to identify the multiple causation of linguistic change with greater precision.

Returning to the initial question of tension between theory and empirical data in the creation of transcriptions, it must be admitted that ArtP is impractical for documentation purposes. Some critics have judged it to be inconclusive or in many respects inadequate (e.g. McMahon, Foulkes and Tollfree 1994; Clements 1992). Nevertheless, it is here argued that ArtP is highly valuable as a model for the interface between phonology and phonetics� Including a few selected ArtP scores in a phonological description of a language would help to justify the transcription convention that is adopted in the documentation, such as introducing /*c*/ and /*ȷ*/ here. In practical terms, ArtP allows us to achieve a deeper understanding of what it is that we are trying to represent through a highly conventionalised transcription system.

### **Abbreviations**



### **References**


———. 2015c. *The Documentation of the Neo-Aramaic Dialect Cluster of Gargarnaye*, 2013–2015 ELDP Project. [online] http://elar.soas.ac.uk/ deposit/0291�


## **ON THE ORIGIN OF SOME PLANT NAMES IN ṢŪRAYT/TŪROYO IN TŪR ʿABDĪN**

## *Aziz Tezel*

## **1. ʿArkūwo and Ḥaršaf**

One of the most important wild plants in Tūr ʿAbdīn is termed *ʿarkūwo*� This is 'a thorny plant, whose root and stem are edible, when cooked'. It closely resembles 'cardoon'. The word *ʿarkūwo* occurs in the village dialects of Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo, while the largest Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo dialect, namely the dialect of Məḏyaḏ, uses the term *ḥaršaf* for the same plant� In the Spring, this plant is highly sought after, especially during the long fasting before Easter. In the region, the term *ʿarkūwo* corresponds to Persian *kangar*, which is also the word used in Turkish and the Kurdish dialect that is spoken in Tūr ʿAbdīn. Some Arabic sources render the Persian *kangar* by a Greek loanword *qulqās*, 1 which is translated by Lane as 'the root of a certain plant, which is eaten cooked and used medicinally'.<sup>2</sup> This word of Greek origin is found also in Jewish Aramaic and Syriac (see below §2). Syriac sources refer to the Persian *kangar*. The word also constitutes the base of the Syriac *kangarzad* 'the juice' or 'the gum' of the artichoke', which in Syriac is explained as *dūʿtā ḏ-laġnā* (more on this below §2).<sup>3</sup> The Arabic dialects in and around Tūr ʿAbdīn use the word *ḥaršaf* to denote the same plant. The aforementioned Ṣūrayt/ Tūroyo term *ḥaršaf* is, therefore, a borrowing in the dialect of Məḏyaḏ. The Arabic *ḥaršaf* also occurs in literary Arabic. The Persian *kangar*, the Greek loanword *qulqās* and Arabic *ḥaršaf* are

<sup>1</sup> *al-Munjid* (1975, 701a).

<sup>2</sup> Lane (2003, 2560b).

<sup>3</sup> *Thesaurus* (1981, col. 1764).

important words for my further discussion of the word *ʿarkūwo* and of another Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo word, namely *qalqo*, to which I shall return.

Concerning the origin of Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿarkūwo*, it should be noted frst of all that, unlike the foreign word *ḥaršaf*, it ends in the native ending -*o*. This suggests that we are dealing with an inherited word� It is likely to have its origin in the Syriac word with the form *ʿakkūḇā* 'cynara cardunculus', which can be best translated 'cardoon'. This is to be compared to Jewish Aramaic *ʿakkōḇīṯā* 'a thistle sting' and Arabic *ʿakkūb* 'globe-thistle'.<sup>4</sup> For some reason, this important meaning of the Syriac word is lacking in Payne Smith's *Dictionary*, where the Syriac *ʿakkūḇā* is defned as 'a pock-mark; a wart'.<sup>5</sup> In the *Thesaurus Syriacus*, on which Payne Smith's *Dictionary* is founded, however, we note that the Syriac word *ʿakkūḇā* is equated with Arabic *ḥaršaf* and *ʿakkūb* and Persian *kangar*. Payne Smith signifcantly gives the Syriac synonym *laġnā* defned as 'cynara scolymus, a kind of artichoke'.<sup>6</sup> This *laġnā* seems to be the source of NENA (=North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic) *laġna* 'a thorny plant eaten when young, root and stem', according to Maclean, who is alone in indicating the form *laġna*� 7 Other sources of NENA have *lagna*, with *g*� 8 In my investigation of NENA I could not fnd any refex of the Syriac *ʿakkūḇā*. Judging by the meaning of the NENA *laġna* or *lagna*, it denotes the same plant as that of Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿarkūwo*. It seems that Ṣūrayt/ Tūroyo has preserved the refex of the Syriac *ʿakkūḇā*, while the NENA dialects have retained its synonym *laġnā* (or *lagna*). The latter is also found in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, although only in the plural *laġnē*�

Turning to the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿarkūwo*, the *r* in this word can be explained either as a result of contiguous regressive

<sup>4</sup> For the etymological comparison, see Brockelmann (1982, 523b).

<sup>5</sup> J. Payne Smith (1903, 412a).

<sup>6</sup> For *Thesaurus*, see (1981, col. 2872); for Payne Smith, see (1903, 235b).

<sup>7</sup> Maclean (1901, 145b).

<sup>8</sup> For example, see *lagna* in the Barwar dialect of NENA, Khan (2008, 1318) and for *lagnə* (pl.), *lagənṯa* (sing.) in the Qaraqosh dialect of NENA, see Khan (2002, 736a).

dissimilation, i�e� \**kk* > *rk*, or as a case of epenthesis� The former requires that the change took place when the old gemination was still alive in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo� If the *r* is the result of epenthesis, it might have arisen by analogy with Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿarqūwo* 'heel', with which *ʿarkūwo* bears close similarities in its phonological shape and form, although their semantic felds are very diferent.

The next question that arises is how we can be sure that the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿarkūwo* is a refex of the Syriac *ʿakkūḇā* and not a borrowing from Arabic *ʿakkūb*� The historical phonology of the word gives us the answer we need, since the historical \**b* has shifted to *w* as in inherited words, in accordance with the development of the *bgdkpt* consonants in Syriac. If it occurs in foreign words, the sound shift in question must have been taken place in Syriac, for example, Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *malḥōwo* 'a winnowing-fork', via Syriac *malḥāḇā*, from Arabic *milḥāb*� Direct borrowings from Arabic into Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo do not, as a rule, undergo such a sound shift. We can, therefore, confdently propose that the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿarkūwo* is derived from Syriac *ʿakkūḇā*, more precisely, from its Western Syriac form� Is it possible that a borrowing process took place between Syriac *ʿakkūḇā* and Arabic *ʿakkūb*? The question cannot be answered with certainty. If, however, a borrowing process is involved, there are reasons to assume an Arabic borrowing from Syriac. This is because the Arabic *ʿakkūb*, referring to the plant in question, is not a word that is widely used across the Arabic dialects. It seems to be common in Levantine Arabic, concerning which both al-Munjid and Barthélemy state that it is a borrowing from the Syriac *ʿakkūḇā*� 9

## **2. Qalqo**

When the plant known as *ʿarkūwo* grows old, from an edible stage to an inedible one, it not only changes shape but also name. When it is in this condition, it is called *qalqo* (plural *qalqe*), at least in the dialect of Mīdən and Bsorīno. It develops beautiful spiky

<sup>9</sup> *al-Munjid* (1975, 521c); Barthélemy (1935–1969, 542).

fowers containing its seeds, which resemble small, tiny grains of sand. Its inner seeds are surrounded by a very hard shell, which must be crushed by a stone in order to extract the edible seeds. The origin of this word, unlike that of *ʿarkūwo* and *ḥaršaf*, is not clear. The following observations can be made. Firstly, Syriac possesses a Greek loanword, namely *qalqā* (Western Syriac *qalqō*), from Greek κάχληξ 'pebble'. This resembles Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *qalqo*  in form, but its semantic connection is problematic, unless one were to hypothesise that the plant in question in this stage of development was called so because of the resemblance of its seeds to 'pebbles'. Such a semantic development is possible. To be sure, the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo word *qalqo* in Ritter's *Wörterbuch* is translated 'Kieselstein', referring to its occurrence in the following passage:

*ʾōno g-saymōno bäblīsōke w-g-māqīmōno ʾū-ʿafro waq-qalqe*, *ʾī-qyamto g-māqīmalla*

'Ich werde dann einen Wirbelsturm erregen und Erde und Kiesel aufwirbeln, ihr einen Jüngsten Tag anstellen.'

('I will then stir up a hurricane and whirl up earth and pebbles, make it a doomsday.')<sup>10</sup>

I strongly suspect, however, that Ritter's translation is based on the Syriac meaning 'pebbles', for the informant (in this case Slēmān Ḥanna Maskobi, originally from Mīdən), in all probability is referring to the plant in question and not to 'pebbles'. All elderly people in Mīdən know that when *qalqo* becomes dry, it becomes very light and is blown away by whirlwinds. The people of Mīdən, therefore, have coined a fgurative phrase *xāyīfō=yo xdū qalqo* 'he is fast like *qalqo*'. Thus, Ritter's translation 'Kieselstein' of the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *qalqo* is not correct�

The next noteworthy word is the other aforementioned Greek loanword *qulqās*, whose form in Syriac and Jewish Aramaic is *qōlqās*� The nominal ending -*o* in the word *qalqo*, however, indicates that it has been integrated into the native morphological

<sup>10</sup> Ritter (1979, 396; 1969, 626–627).

system, which is likely to have taken place at an earlier period� In fact, in *Supplement to the Thesaurus Syriacus* we fnd a plural form *qelqē*, exemplifed by the phrase *ʾatten qelqē* 'fumigate with colocasia', which, according to this source, is a plural form for the Syriac *qōlqās*� 11 In Brockelmann's *Lexicon*, however, this word is cited with the singular form *qalqā* and is said to be derived from Latin *calx* 'chalk'. Sokolof, therefore, in his version of Brockelmann's *Lexicon* translates the same phrase *ʾatten qelqē* 'fumigate with chalk',<sup>12</sup> which does not ft contextually. In the context the fumigation with *qelqē* was intended to drive away gnats. It is mentioned together with galbanum in the following Syriac passage:

*ʾatten ʾaykā ḏ-ḏammīḵ=ʾa*(*n*)*t ḥelḇānīṯā w-ḵeḇrīṯā w-ʿārqīn*, *ʾaw ʾatten qelqē w*-*ʾāḇdīn*

'Fumigate the place where thou sleepest with galbanum and sulphur, and they will fy away; or fumigate with colocasia, and they will perish�' 13

A third possibility is that the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *qalqo* refects an unattested \**qalqlo*, which by dissimilation could take the form *qalqo*� Syriac has *qalqīnā* 'a low-growing herb'. Akkadian has a plant name *qulqulliānu*, which refers to an unknown species.<sup>14</sup> Ugaritic has a word with the consonantal skeleton *qlql* 'herb fed to horses', related to Hebrew *qelōqēl* 'miserable food'.15 Some sources connect these words with Arabic *qilqil*, which in some sources is translated by 'cassia'.<sup>16</sup> In its borrowed form in Persian, the Arabic word *qilqil* is described by Steingass (1977, 985b) as

<sup>11</sup> *Margoliouth* (1981, 304b).

<sup>12</sup> Brockelmann, (1982, 670b); Sokolof, (2009, 1375b).

<sup>13</sup> For the Syriac text, see Budge (1976, vol. 1, 579), and for the English translation see the same source (1976, vol. 2, 689).

<sup>14</sup> For the Syriac *qalqīnā*, see J. Payne Smith (1903, 508a); for Akkadian *qulqulliānu*, see *CAD* (1956-, vol. 13, 301a-b).

<sup>15</sup> Gordon (1965, 478b).

<sup>16</sup> Koehler and Baumgartner (2001, 1106b-1107a).

'a species of plant producing a grain so hard that it cannot be pounded', which is reminiscent of the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *qalqo*� If Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *qalqo* is derived from Arabic *qilqil*, this form would have to exist in Anatolian Arabic and denote the same plant� I have not yet been able to establish whether Anatolian Arabic has a specifc word for *ḥaršaf* when it is growing old. Kurdish in the area uses *kärämber* when Kurdish *kangar* is growing old. Thus, a borrowing from Kurdish is out of the question. Evidence against the hypothesis that the word is borrowed from the neighbouring languages is the native ending -*o*. All borrowed plant names from these languages known to me do not end in -*o*�

Further evidence against the possible borrowing of Ṣūrayt/ Tūroyo *qalqo* from a neighbouring language is the fact that the form *qalqa* has been identifed by Hezy Mutzaf in the NENA dialect of Mer near Cudi daǧı with the meaning of 'the seeds of *lagna*�' 17 As has been remarked, the NENA-*lagna* corresponds in meaning to Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿarkūwo*. This may be an important indication that the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *qalqo* also originally denoted only the seeds of *ʿarkūwo*. The situation in NENA, however, is complicated by the fact that some NENA dialects (the Tiyāre dialects) use the form *qaqna* rather than *qalqa* to denote dried *lagna*� 18 It is not clear from the information I have received whether this *qaqna* is also used for the seeds of *lagna*� What is more, in the NENA dialect of Barwar *qaqna* is described as a 'thorny plant'. This is yellow in colour and grows in the mountains. When the sap sets it produces a gum known as *deṯa*, which is softened in water and then chewed� <sup>19</sup> We have seen before that the Persian loanword *kangarzad* 'the juice or the gum of the artichoke' is explained in Syriac as *dūʿtā ḏ-laġnā*� The Barwar *deṯa*, which is a refex of the earlier *dūʿtā*, denotes the 'gum' of *qaqna* and not of *lagna*�

To sum up the case *qalqo* so far, I fnd the Syriac plural form *qelqē* in *The Syriac Book of Medicines* to be signifcant for explaining the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *qalqo* (plural *qalqe*). The shift *e*

<sup>17</sup> Hezy Mutzaf, personal communication (September 2016).

<sup>18</sup> Hezy Mutzaf, personal communication (September 2016).

<sup>19</sup> For the Barwar dialect of NENA, see Khan (2008, 1365).

> *a* in a closed syllable is regular in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. Thus the change *qelqē* > *qalqe* would not present a problem. Whether this is a plural formation for the Syriac *qōlqās* or a variant plural form of the Syriac *qalqē* 'pebbles' or, as stated by Brockelmann, a borrowing from the Latin *calx*, is a question for further discussion. Notable is the fact that some versions of Bar ʿAlī's *Syro-Arabic Lexicon* have *qelqē* instead of *qalqē* 'pebbles'.20 NENA *qalqa* is the same word as that of Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *qalqo*� NENA *qaqna* is probably cognate with *qalqa*�

## **3. Rašāle, Daḥle and Ḥērafrūfo**

The next three words that will be considered are *rašāle* (fem.), *daḥle* (fem.) and *ḥērafrūfo* (masc.). The words *rašāle* and *daḥle* are dialectal words denoting an edible wild plant with a sharp taste, which can be identifed as 'cress'. The word *ḥērafrūfo* denotes 'Scandix Ausralis L' (southern chervil), which in some dialects has the form *ḥəfrūfo*. It is, likewise, edible and has a sharp taste, although milder in taste in comparison with *rašāle*, *daḥle*� Both these are, like *ʿarkūwo*, among those most sought-after plants during the Spring, especially during the long fasting before Easter. The word *rašāle* occurs in the dialect of Məḏyaḏ and some village dialects around Məḏyaḏ, while *daḥle* occurs in some dialects in the periphery, for example, in the dialect of Mīdən�

*Rašāle* is a loanword, which ultimately goes back to Arabic *rašād* 'garden peppergrass (Lepidium sativum L)'. This is also the word used to denote this plant in the Kurdish dialect spoken in Tūr ʿAbdīn (in the form *rašād* or *rašāl* see below). The Arabic *rašād* has also meanings such as 'integrity of conducts; good sense, maturity', which is a derivative of the Arabic root *rašada* 'to be on the right way'. Given the meaning of the root, one naturally wonders why the plant 'garden peppergrass' was called *rašād* in Arabic. It seems that the meaning relating to this plant originated in Iraqi Arabic. This can be deduced from *Lisān ʾal*-*ʿarab*, where we read:

<sup>20</sup> Bar ʿAlī (1928, 349).

*war-rašād wa-ḥabbu r-rašādi, nabtun yuqālu lahu ṯ-ṯufāʾu; qāla ʾabū Manṣūr: ʾahlu l-ʿirāq yaqūlūna lil-ḥurf ḥabbu r-rašādi, yataṭayyarūna min lafẓi l-ḥurf li-ʾannahu ḥirmānun fa-yaqūlūna ḥabbu r-rašādi*� 21

'*Rašād* or the seed of the *rašād* is a plant, which is called *ṯufāʾ*. ʾAbū Manṣūr said: 'the people of Iraq call the plant known as *ḥurf ḥabbu r*-*rašād* (the seed of *rašād*). They see an evil omen in the pronunciation of *ḥurf*, because *ḥurf* means 'deprivation, bereavement, ill-fatedness.'

In other words, the plant in question was known to the Arabs either as *ṯufāʾ* or *ḥurf*� Since *ḥurf* also has meanings with negative connotations, the people of Iraq came to give it the name *rašād*, since *rašād* has, unlike *ḥurf*, positive connotations� If the meaning *rašād* 'garden cress' really originated in Iraqi Arabic, it must have spread from this dialect to the other Arabic dialects in the region, for all major Arabic dialects in the region use the word with this meaning�

Turning to the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *rašāle*, as can be seen, it exhibits two diferences from the Arabic word *rašād*, namely the shift *d* > *l*, which is unusual in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo, and the ending *e*� If it refects a direct borrowing from an Arabic dialect, the Arabic form should be \**rašāde* or \**rašāda*, with a literary Arabic form *rašādat*un, which I could not fnd in this meaning. According to the information I have obtained, some Kurdish villages in Tūr ʿAbdīn use the form *rašād* and others the form *rašāl*. This suggests that the shift *r* > *l* did not take place in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. It took place either in Kurdish or Anatolian Arabic� In any case, if it is a borrowing from Kurdish, the -*e* refects the Kurdish oblique ending -*e*. The word in the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo village dialects may have been taken from the dialect of Məḏyaḏ or directly from the local Kurdish.

I shall now consider the word *daḥle*, which, like *rašāle*, is a feminine noun ending in -*e*� The ending -*e* in almost all feminine singular nouns in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo is a foreign element. It refects

<sup>21</sup> *Līsān ʾal*-*ʿarab* (1955, vol. 3, 177a).

either dialectal Arabic -*e*, which is the refex of original *a*, or it refects the Kurdish oblique ending -*e*� In the case of the word *daḥle*, however, the matter is complicated. First it should be pointed out that there seem to be in the language two diferent words with the form *daḥle*. Some dialects use *daḥle* with the meaning 'a thicket; a fruit orchard with water', while other dialects use *daḥle*, with the meaning 'cress'� With regard to *daḥle* with the meaning of 'a thicket; a fruit orchard', it is relevant to note that in Anatolian Arabic we fnd *daḥle*, translated into German 'Wald, Waldstück, Gehölz'� <sup>22</sup> The same word occurs in Kurdish, either in the form *deḥl* or *dehl*, with the same or similar meanings. Some Arabic sources also have the form *dahl*, with *h* (thus at least in Dozy).<sup>23</sup> The ultimate origin of this word is probably Arabic *daġl* 'abundance of plants or herbs or trees'. This means that in the case of the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *daḥle* 'a thicket; a fruit orchard with water', we are dealing with a borrowing either from Anatolian Arabic *daḥle* or from the Kurdish form *deḥl*�

As for the origin of the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *daḥle* 'cress', its ultimate source is Syriac *taḥlā* (plural *taḥlē*); hence also NENA *taxla* 'garden cress', indicated at least for Christian Urmi; however with unknown gender.<sup>24</sup> Most Syriac sources indicate the Syriac *taḥlā* as feminine. As has been suggested, the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *daḥle* displays the shift *t* > *d*, which seems to have a considerable time depth, for already in some Syriac sources we fnd *daḥlā* for the original *taḥlā*� That the *t* in this word is original is also shown by the cognate root of this word in other Semitic languages� Akkadian has *šeḫlātu*, Ugaritic *šḫlt*, Rabbinic Hebrew *šəḥālīm* (plural). The Old Aramaic form of the plural absolute form is also with *š*, namely *šḥlyn*, apparently to be read *šaḥlīn*� The latter corresponds to Jewish Palestinian Aramaic *tḥlyn*, apparently to be read as *taḥlīn*. In Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, the corresponding word is contextually attested only in the plural emphatic form

<sup>22</sup> For Anatolian Arabic *daḥle*, see Vocke and Waldner (1982, 151).

<sup>23</sup> Dozy (1881, 467a).

<sup>24</sup> For Christian Urmi, see Khan (2016, 41).

*taḥlē*� <sup>25</sup> In Syriac, both the singular form *taḥlā* and the plural *taḥlē* are attested contextually, with the plural form *taḥlē* as the predominant one� The entry in Löw's *Flora* has the Syriac word in the plural form *taḥlē*� <sup>26</sup> The question arises as to whether the -*e* in the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *daḥle* refects the plural morpheme -*e*, which the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers could have interpreted as the foreign element -*e*. Even if the root of a feminine singular noun ending in -*e* is native, the -*e* is a foreign element, for example, Məḏyaḏ *gəḏḏāle* 'braid', formed under the infuence of Anatolian Arabic *jəddāle*, i�e� the root *gḏl* is native but not the form of the word. A genuine Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo refex of the Syriac singular form *taḥlā* should thus consistently have the form \**taḥlo*, with a plural \**taḥle*, and with the shift *t* > *d*, the expected singular form would be \**daḥlo*. In Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo there is no sure case of the plural morpheme -*e* occurring on a feminine singular noun. Even words with collective meanings end either in the singular ending -*o* or in the plural ending -*e*, and they are construed syntactically as singulars or plurals respectively. Thus, we say *baqro* 'herd of cattle' *ʾī*-*baqro* (feminine singular), *bōqo* 'gnats', *ʾī*-*bōqo* (feminine singular), *qanyōne* 'cattle', *ʾaq*-*qanyōne* (masculine plural), but never \**ʾī*-*baqre*, \**ʾī*-*bōqe*, \**ʾī*-*qanyōne*. I am aware of the situation in NENA, where some originally plural nouns are interpreted as feminine singular, for example, *kawe* 'a small window', which is interpreted as a refex of the Syriac plural form *kawwē* (the plural of *kawṯā*), but such an interpretation in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo is improbable. Thus, if the -*e* in *daḥle* refects the plural morpheme -*e*, this would mean a unique case in the language. That the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *daḥle* is a refex of the Syriac *taḥla* is also evident from the NENA *taxla*, which has preserved the original form, disregarding the shift *ḥ* > *x*, which is regular in NENA.

The word *ḥērafrūfo* (or *ḥəfrōfo* in some dialects) is of obscure origin. There are three possible ways of reconstructing its background.

<sup>25</sup> For a general etymological comparison, see Koehler and Baumgartner (2001, 1462b); for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic *tḥlyn*, see Sokolof (2002, 579b); for Jewish Babylonian Aramaic *taḥlē*, see Sokolof (2002, 1200a).

<sup>26</sup> Löw (1928, 396).

Firstly, it might be an augmented form of Syriac *ḥūrpā*, explained in Syriac as *ʿesbā* (*h*)*w d-lā ʿḏakkīl qṭar qanyā d*-*šebblē* 'a grass whose stalk has not hardened'� This is related to Jewish Babylonian Aramaic *ḥpwrʾ*, <sup>27</sup> which is tentatively to be read *ḥəp̄ūrā*� As the precise species of this word in Syriac as well as in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic is not clear, it is difcult to be sure about its connection with the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ḥērafrūfo*� An addition problem is the etymology of Syriac *ḥūrpā*, which occurs with three diferent meanings. These include in addition to the meaning of a type of grass also *ḥūrpā* 'sharpness' or 'a sharp edge' or 'point (of, for example, a sword, nail), and *ḥūrpā* 'a yearling sheep'� *Ḥūrpā* 'sharpness' is a well-known derivative of the root *ḥrp* 'to be sharp', while *ḥūrpā* 'a yearling sheep' has an etymological equivalent in Arabic *ḫarūf* 'a young sheep, lamb, yearling'� Oddly, the etymological dictionaries of Syriac consider the Syriac *ḥūrpā* 'a grass whose stalk has not hardened' to be the same word as *ḥūrpā* 'a yearling sheep',28 perhaps suggesting that the grass in question is in its early stage of development, as it describes a grass whose stalk has not hardened.

Secondly, I have already mentioned that the word for 'garden cress' was originally termed *ḥurf* in some dialects of Arabic rather than *rašād*� This *ḥurf* in Arabic is considered to be derived from the root *ḥrf*, which in some derivatives has the notion 'sharp; pungent, acrid (the latter of taste)'. This is cognate with Syriac *ḥrp*, which also occurs in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo, where *ḥarūfo* means 'sharp; pungent' (both of cutting edge and taste). The question is whether the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ḥērafrūfo* is an independent augmentative formation of this *ḥārūfo*�

Thirdly, studies in the neighbouring languages may be of help in identifying this word. A borrowing from the Kurdish used in the area is out of the question for two reasons. The proper Kurdish

<sup>27</sup> For the Syriac *ḥūrpā* and its defnitions in Syriac, see *Thesaurus* (1981, col� 1379–1380) and for the etymological connection with Jewish Babylonian Aramaic *ḥpwrʾ*, see Sokolof (2002, 477a).

<sup>28</sup> For the Syriac *ḥūrpā* with three diferent meanings and its comparison with other Semitic languages, see Brockelmann (1982, 258a-b).

word used for this plant in the area is termed *zūčərk*, according to the information I have obtained. The Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo word, moreover, ends in the native ending -*o*. As has been remarked above, all Kurdish borrowings pertaining to the names of fora are non-integrated ones. There remains the possibility that it has its origin in Anatolian Arabic� The word denoting this plant in Anatolian Arabic dialects is, however, so far unknown to me. Before drawing any conclusions, therefore, the name in Anatolian Arabic needs to be established.

## **4. 'Tree' and 'Thorn Bramble'**

In this section I shall consider the words for 'a tree' and for 'a thorn bramble'. The former has a common word, which is termed *dawmo*, while the latter has three etymologically quite diferent words across the various dialects, namely *ʿəlto*, *sālənto* and *ṭawʿənto*�

The word *dawmo* is interesting in several respects� It can have the specifc meaning of 'oak-tree' in Tūr ʿAbdīn, but it is also used with the general meaning 'tree'. The Syriac word for 'tree', *ʾīlānā* has the refex *ʾīlōno* in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo� The word *ʾīlōno* is not common in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo but speakers still know its meaning. All the forests around the villages in Tūr ʿAbdīn contain the *dawmo* 'oak-tree' (plural *dawme*). Its fruit is termed in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *bālūṭo*, which is a refex of the Syriac word *ballōṭā*, hence Arabic *ballūṭ*, according to several sources. While in Syriac the word *ballōṭā* denotes both 'the oak-tree' and its fruit 'acorn', in Ṣūrayṭ/Tūroyo the word *bālūṭo* does not denote the 'oak-tree' but only its fruit 'acorn'. The 'oak-tree' is termed either by the word *dawmo* alone or by the phrase *dawmo dū*-*bālūṭo*� It grows wild. Until ffty years ago, this tree constituted the lifeline in the area. Before modern building techniques were introduced into the area, the timber cut from this tree was used to build ceilings. Its branches were also used as fodder for animals, as also were its fruits, the acorns. Moreover, the wood cut from this tree served as the most important wood fuel during the cold months of the year. During a famine (referred to in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo by the word *ġāla*, an Arabic loanword) the 'acorns' of this tree were ground into bread four. The bread baked from this four served as the most important food for the local people� Nowadays, it is completely forbidden to cut of parts or fell these trees in the forest for the domestic use.

What is the origin of this word *dawmo*? Although it has the native ending -*o*, it is a foreign word in the language, coming from Arabic *dawmat*un, a *nomen unitatis* of the collective *dawm* 'the doom-palm'. The word is also found in English, into which it was introduced via French, from Arabic *dawm*, according to Colin's *Dictionary*. In the Arabic dialects around Tūr ʿAbdīn, the word is attested in Qinderib, having both the collective *dawm* and the *nomen unitatis dawme*� According to *al-Munjid*, this tree and its species are growing in Egyptian, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.<sup>29</sup>

As for the words for 'a thorn bramble', among the aforementioned three words, the dialectal word *ʿəlto* (plural *ʿōle*) is readily recognizable. It is a clear refex of Western Syriac *ʿōltō* (Syriac *ʿāltā*, plural *ʿālē*), a feminine form which has presumably been formed as a *nomen unitatis* from *ʿālā* (or from its pl� *ʿālē*). The form *ʿālā* itself would seem to be a refex of Syriac *ʿaʾlā*, whose root *ʿʾl* is comparable to that of Hebrew *ṣʾl* in *ṣeʾelīm* and that of Arabic *ḏ̣ ʾl* in *ḏ̣ aʾl*� <sup>30</sup> The occurrence of the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿəlto* (plural *ʿōle*) was until now known only from the dialect of Mīdən, but in my latest research journeys to Tūr ʿAbdīn I noted its occurrence also in two other village dialects, namely in the dialect of Bēqusyono and Zāz. The informants of the dialect of Bēqusyono stated that for the 'shrub' they say *ʿəlto* (plural *ʿōle*), but for its thorns they say *sālūne* (plural).

This brings us to the other word *sālənto* (plural *sālūne*), which is used in some dialects, among them the dialect of Məḏyaḏ� In Syriac, only in the supplement of Augin Manna's *Syro-Arabic Lexicon* could I fnd a word with the form *selōnā* (Western Syriac: *selūnō*). This is rendered by Arabic *ʾumm ġaylān*, *ʿusaj*, with the

<sup>29</sup> For Colin's *Dictionary*, see (1991, 469) under doum or doom-palm; Jastrow (2005, 53b); *al-Munjid* (1975, 230c).

<sup>30</sup> Brockelmann (1982, 503a).

same or a similar meaning� <sup>31</sup> The Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo plural form *sālūne* is clearly a refex of this word, which, oddly, is classifed in this source as a foreign word, without giving the etymon of the foreign word in question. The supplement is of very late date and is not written by the author of the lexicon. In any case, I think this word has, one way or another, a historical connection with Syriac *salwā* and Jewish Aramaic *silwā* 'thorn', connected by Koehler and Baumgartner with Hebrew *sallōn*, Arabic *sullāʾ* and Akkadian *ṣ*/*sillû*, all with the meaning 'thorn'� <sup>32</sup> The Ṣūrayt/ Tūroyo *sālənte* could be a backformation from the plural *sālūne*� In favour of such an interpretation is the situation in the dialect of Bēqusyono, where the tree is called *ʿəlto* (plural *ʿōle*), but its thorns and fruit are termed *sālūne*. There is thus no *sālənto*, according to my informants�

Finally, I shall mention that a group of village dialects, the so-called Rāyīte-dialects, have a word of their own for the 'thorny bramble', namely *ṭawʿənto* (plural *ṭawʿūne*). According to some of my informants, its fruits are termed *ṭawʿūne* because of their being like *ṭawʿūne* (plural) 'small oferings of bread stamped with a symbol of the cross', a diminutive of *ṭawʿe*, the refex of the Syriac *ṭaḇʿē*, root *ṭbʿ* 'to seal; to sink'. It is difcult to know whether this is a folk-etymology or not. Alternatively it may be proposed that the word has its origin in Syriac *ṭʿūntā* and *ṭʿantā* 'a crop of fruit', root *ṭʿn* 'to bear; to carry'. A refex of the Syriac word *ṭʿūntā* is found in NENA, e.g. Barwar *ṭunta* 'fruit of a tree'.<sup>33</sup> Such an interpretation would mean that the *w* in the Ṣūrayt/ Tūroyo *ṭawʿənto* is secondary; cf. Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *ʿwōno* 'a sheep', from \**ʿōnō*, root *ʿʾn*�

<sup>31</sup> Manna (1975, 946a).

<sup>32</sup> Koehler and Baumgartner (2001, 756b-757a).

<sup>33</sup> Khan (2008, 1427).

### **References**


Dozy, Reinhart� 1881� *Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes*. Brill: Leyde.

Gordon, Cyrus H. 1965. *Ugaritic Textbook*. Pontifical Biblical Institute: Rome.

Ibn Manẓūr, see *Lisān al ʿarab.*

Jastrow, Otto� 2005� *Glossar zu Kinderib*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Khan, Geoffrey� 2002� *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh*. Brill: Leiden.

———. 2008. *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar*. 3 vols. Handbook of Oriental Studies 96. Brill: Leiden.

———. 2016. *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi*� 4 vols� Brill: Leiden.


Ritter, Helmut. *Ṭūrōyo: Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdīn*:

———. 1969. *Texte*, Band II, Beirut in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag: Wiesbaden.


Tezel, Aziz� 2003� *Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac* (*Ṭūrōyo*) Lexicon. *With Special Reference to Homonyms*, *Related Words and Borrowings with Cultural Siginification*, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 18. Elanders Gotab: Stockholm.

*Thesaurus*, see Payne Smith, R�

Vocke, Sibylle and Waldner, Wolfram. 1982. *Der Wortschatz des anatolischen Arabisch*. Magister-Arbeit, Universität: Erlangen-Nürnberg.

## **REMARKS ON SELECTED EXPONENTS OF THE 208-SWADESH LIST IN TUROYO**

*Eugene Barsky and Yulia Furman*

## **Introduction**

The present paper is a supplement to the 208-Swadesh list for Turoyo published in Barsky, Furman and Loesov (2018).<sup>1</sup> It discusses the following selected exponents of the list that were not included in the original publication: bird, head, husband, man (male), man (human being), sun, wife and woman�

The lexical study is based on feldwork conducted in Berlin and Gütersloh among the Turoyo-speaking community (August 2016). Another source of our data is the published feld corpus of Turoyo, which mainly consists of the texts of H. Ritter (Ritter 1967, 1969 and 1971) and E. Prym and A. Socin (PrS).

The texts from the three Ritter volumes (Ritter 1967, 1969, 1971) will be cited by the number of text and sentence along with the speaker's place of origin, e.g. 61:9, Kfarze� The texts from the Prym-Socin collection, which originate from one Midyat speaker, will be cited by page number and line, e.g. 21/3. The concepts of the Swadesh list will be given in small capitals, e.g. woman, fat�

<sup>1</sup> See the detailed introduction to the work on the Turoyo Swadesh List in Barsky, Furman and Loesov (2018). The 208-Swadesh list is a modifed version of the standard 207-Swadesh list (with one additional concept 'to go'), which is a compilation of basic concepts used in comparative and historical linguistics for quantifying the interrelatedness of languages.

## **1. Bird**

In Turoyo, there are two main lexemes for the notion bird: *safruno* (RW 450) and *ṭayro* (RW 531), both in the published corpus and the data from our feldwork.

Basically, *safruno* means small bird, but it can also be used as a generic term for bird and as the name of a particular species: sparrow�

Some of our informants use *safruno* in neutral contexts:

(1) *kito ġălabe šəklat d-safrune bu=aṯrayḏan*

*kito ġălabe šəklat d-safrune b-u=aṯr-ayḏan* exist many species of-birds in-art.ms=land-possII.1pl

'There are many **bird species** in our land.' (Mzizaḥ)

See also the following examples from the corpus:

### (2) *gzobaṭle safruno mede aw ṭayrək mede b-lebe*

*g-zobaṭ-le safruno mede aw ṭayrək* prs-catch�ipfv<sup>2</sup> -3ms-dat.3ms bird some or birdie *mede b-leb-e* some in-heart-possI.3ms

'He thinks of **a bird** or a birdie.' (94:436, ʿIwardo)

The passage describes a game in which a participant thinks of a bird name and others are supposed to guess it. Later in the story,

<sup>2</sup> This represents the imperfective base also referred to as *infectum*, which, being bare or modifed with afxes, appears in various functions (subjunctive, present, future, habitual past etc.).

one of the participants reveals the name of the bird he thought of: *fān safruno-yo* 'This is a certain bird' (94:440, ʿIwardo). It is clear that *safruno* is used here as a general term for bird�

In the same text, *safruno* appears in a list of birds inhabiting Tur-ʿAbdin and denotes sparrow:

(3) *af=fərḥoṯe, d-kofayri-ste, hani-ne: (…) safrune*

*af=fərḥoṯe d-ko-fayr-i-ste hani-ne safrune* art.pl=birds rel-prs-fy.ipfv-3pl-too these-cop.3pl sparrows

'Flying birds are as follows: (…) **sparrows**.' (94:223, ʿIwardo)

It should be noted that the word *fərḥoṯe* is employed here as a generic term for bird, which is not found anywhere else in the searchable corpus. It must be an adapted borrowing from Classical Syriac, which goes back to *pāraḥtā* 'bird' (SL 1236).

On the other hand, *ṭayro* means big bird, which can also be employed as a general term for bird and the name of a particular species: eagle� Consider the following examples for the meaning bird, both cited by our informants and found in the corpus:

(4) *kit tamo ṭayro, bas mən ṭayro-yo, lə=kfəraqno u=ǧəns d-kətle*

> *kīt tamo ṭayro bas mən ṭayro-yo* exist there bird but what bird-cop.3s *lə=k-fəraq-no u=ǧəns* neg=prs-distinguish.ipfv-1ms art.ms=sort *d- kət le*

rel exist dat.3ms

'There is **a bird** there, but I cannot distinguish what kind of **bird** this is�' (Midyat)

(5) *skandar yaləf b-lišone daḥ=ḥăyewən w daṭ=ṭayre-stine*


'Skandar learned the language of animals and **birds**�' (60:10, Kfarze)

*Ṭayro* may also refer to eagle. Some of our informants translated 'Which kind of bird is this one? This is an eagle' as

(6) *mən šəkəl ṭayro/safruno-yo hano? hano ṭayro-yo*  (Arkaḥ/Mzizaḥ)

> *mən šəkəl ṭayro safruno-yo hano hano ṭayro-yo* what kind bird bird-cop.3s this�m this.m eagle-cop.3s

'Which kind of bird is this one? This is an eagle.'

It is not clear why Turoyo speakers (i.e. our informants and the informants for the corpus) choose *ṭayro* or *safruno* for denoting bird in neutral contexts. Both words can be used in the same situation regardless of the speaker's origin. Nonetheless, *safruno* occurs more frequently in the speech of our informants. In the corpus, occurrences of *ṭayro* and *safruno* with the meaning of bird are only sporadic and occur roughly with the same frequency.

A comparable picture can be observed in Soqotri, a Modern South Arabian language, where two terms for bird exist: *nóyhər* and *əṣféro*. The former denotes 'a generic small bird' and the latter 'a generic big bird.' These words, however, can also be used synonymously. Furthermore, in the speech of L. Kogan's informants, *nóyhər* denotes a generic bird, while *əṣféro* means a certain bird species, namely sparrow (Kogan 2015,489). The semantic development of the term *nóyhər* is similar to that of *ṭayro*: *nóyhər* goes back to Proto-West Semitic \**našr-* 'eagle'; *ṭayro* goes back to Middle Eastern Aramaic (MEA)<sup>3</sup> *ṭayrā* 'bird, raptor'.

## **2. Head**

According to the data of the published corpus and according to our informants, *qarʿo* (RW 399) is the main word for head in Turoyo, whether of human beings or animals. Contrary to our expectations, *rišo* (RW 443) and *qarʿo* are rarely synonyms� Only one speaker from Midən and one from Bsorino employ *rišo* alongside *qarʿo*. In the corpus, however, a competition between the two words is observed in the texts from Midən, where *qarʿo* and *rišo* occur in the speech of the same speakers with equal frequency:

(7) *grəšle u=sayfo, qṭəʿle qarʿe*

*grəš-le u=sayfo qṭəʿ-le* pull.pret-3ms art.ms=sword cut\_of.pret-3ms *qarʿ-e* head-possI.3ms

'He unsheathed the sword and cut **his head** of.' (74:159, Midən)

<sup>3</sup> The term Middle Aramaic is employed here in accordance with the classifcation of Klaus Beyer (1984). It includes three Eastern Aramaic varieties (Classical Syriac, Classical Mandaic and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic) and three Western Aramaic idioms (Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic). The term corresponds to Late Aramaic in Fitzmyer's taxonomy (Fitzmyer 1979).

(8) *d-qoyəm ... gqoṭəʿ riše!*

*d-qoyəm g-qoṭəʿ* if-stand\_up.ipfv.3ms fut-cut\_of.ipfv.3ms

*riš-e* head-possI.3ms

'Had he got up, (the emir) would have cut **his head** of!' (74:89, Midən)

(9) *i=kurke gməḥyo ruḥa bayne qarʿe di=kurfayo*

*i=kurke g-məḥy-o ruḥ-a* art.fs= sitting\_hen prs-throw�ipfv-3fs refl-possI.3fs *bayne qarʿ-e d-i=kurf-ayo* between head-ez of-art.fs=snake-that.f

'The sitting hen threw itself directly **on the head** of this snake.' (JL 13.11.9, Midən)

(10) *riša xud-i=kafe d-iḏi rabo paṯyo*

*riš-a xud-i=kafe d-iḏ-i rab-o* head-possI.3fs like-art.fs=palm of-hand-possI.1s big-ms *paṯy-o* wide-ms

'**Its** (= the snake's) **head** was as big and wide as the palm of my hand.' (JL 13.11.7, Midən).

In published material other than the Midən texts, *qarʿo* occurs much more often than *rišo* as the exponent of head� The word *rišo*, however, is still occasionally used alongside *qarʿo*� The word

$$\mathbf{3}\mathbf{5}\mathbf{8}$$

may occur in the stories told by the same informant. When *rišo* does appear, what motivates the speaker to use this less frequent variant is unclear to us. Consider the following examples below:

(11) *kul naqqa koḥoyər bi=qaqwoniṯo komər: "ma hawxa-yo?" hiya kohayzo qarʿa w kəmmo: "e!"*

> *kul naqqa ko-ḥoyər b-i=qaqwoniṯo* every time prs-look�ipfv.3ms on-art.fs=partridge *k-omər ma hawxa-yo hiya ko-hayz-o* prs-say�ipfv.3ms q so-cop.3s she prs-shake�ipfv-3fs *qarʿ-a w k-əmm-o e* head-possI.3fs and prs-say�ipfv-3fs yes

'Each time he looked at the partridge and said: "Is this so?", she **nodded** and said: "It is!" (52:84, ʿIwardo)

(12) *"hawxa-yo lo?" həzla riša: "e!"*


"This is so, is it not?" She **nodded**: "It is!" (52:108, ʿIwardo)

(13) *hedi hedi hazwo qarʿe laq-qəddam w laxalf*

*hedi hedi haz-wo qarʿ-e* slowly slowly shake�ipfv.3ms-pst head-possI.3ms *laq-qəddam w laxalf* forth and back

'He was shaking his **head** slowly back and forth.' (11:231, Midyat)

(14) *harke ḥa, ayko d-maʿle riše, knəfo ʿayne ʿal ʿito*


'Here, wherever one lifts his **head**, his eyes fall on a church.' (11:74, Midyat)

It seems that *rišo* made way for *qarʿo* in the sense of head and its usage shifted to the feld of derived meanings and set expressions such as the following:

(15) 'top':

*saləq l-riše du=ṭuro*

*saləq l-riš-e d-u=ṭuro* climb.pret.3ms to-head-possI.3ms of-art.ms=mountain

'He climbed **to the top of the mountain**.' (115:89, Midən)

(16) 'tip, point':

*mḥalle reše du=sayfo b-ʿayne*

*mḥa-lle reš-e d-u=sayfo b-ʿayn-e* throw�pret-3pl head-ez of-art.ms=sword into-eye-possI.3ms

'They thrusted **the tip of the sword** into his eye�' (70:265, Iḥwo)

(17) 'end':

*i=naqqa d-naḥət reše du=ḥawlo l-gabe, saləq bu=ḥawlo lalʿəl*

*i=naqqa d naḥət reš-e d-u= ḥawlo* when go\_down.pret.3ms head-ez of-art.ms=rope *l-gab-e saləq b-u=ḥawlo lalʿəl* to-side-possI.3ms go\_up.pret.3ms with-art.ms=rope up

'As soon as **the end of the rope** was near him, he climbed up the rope.' (69:222, Iḥwo)

```
(18) 'leader, chief':
```
*qrele lu=rišo dax=xodume, d-kətne gabe*


'He called **the head of the servants** that were with him.' (81:55, Midən)


*azzé u=faqir-awo l-reš-e* go�pret.3ms art.ms=poor-that�m to-head-ez

*d-u=təǧǧār*

of-art.ms=merchant

'The poor went **to** the merchant.' (108:44, Xarabe Məška)

b. *u=babayḏe … ḥakəm-wa. hule xabro, lat=təxetər kulle. latimi ʿal riše w səmme u=zʿurano ʿamaliye*


*m-i=saye d-aloho d-reš-e d-bab-ayna* from-art.fs=shadow of-god of-head-ez of-father-possI.1pl *w d-u=šulṭono mede* and of-art.ms=sultan something *lo=fayəš b-i=arʿo d-l=axi-lan*

neg=remain�pret.3ms in-art.fs=land rel-neg=eat�pret-1pl

'[I swear] by the shadow of God, by **our father's head** and by the sultan's [**head**], nothing is left in the land that we would not have eaten.' (105:47,

Sedari)

<sup>4</sup> See more in RW 443f�

b. *zux li=briṯayo, mḥay rišo b-emi, babi w tux!*


'Go to that world, visit (lit� strike **the head**  on) my mother and my father and come back!' (58:118, Anḥil)

## **3. Man (male) and Husband**

Both man (male) and husband can be rendered by *gawro* (RW 171) and *zlām* (RW 587). Apparently, *gawro* was the main term for both man (male) and husband at the time when H� Ritter was collecting his texts. In the speech of our informants, however, *zlām* conveys these meanings, except in the dialects of Midyat and Arkaḥ, where *gawro* is still in use.

In the corpus (1960s) *gawro* is the main term both for man (male) and husband, irrespective of the variety�

The core meaning of *zlām* in the published texts is man (person), but the word happens to denote man (male) and husband in a couple of passages:

(21) *ádyawma ono, d-kətno barṯo, d-kətno ḥurma, hat d-kəttat zlām, d-kəttat gawro, l-mə gdoṯat l-gabi?*



'I am a girl, an [unmarried] woman, and you are a **man**, a male, why have you come to me today?' (105:98, Sedari)

(22) *i=naqqa d-huwwe i=bəšra li=emo, li=emo mbašalla u=babo: "ádyawma u=zlamayḏi ǧġil!"*

> *i=naqqa d huw-we i=bəšra* when give�pret-3pl art.fs=good\_news *l-i=emo l-i=emo mbašal-la* to-art.fs=mother a-art.fs=mother report�pret-3fs *u=babo ádyawma u=zlam-ayḏi* art.ms=father today art.ms=husband-possII.1s *ǧġīl*

speak�pret.3ms

'After they had given the mother the good news, she reported it to her father: "Today **my husband** has begun to speak!" (111:44, Xarabe Məška).

In the searchable corpus, *gawro* husband has 143 tokens, while *gawro* man (male) is represented by 37 tokens (the total number of *gawro* tokens including the meanings man (male), husband as well as other meanings such as 'a man's man', 'hero', etc. is 306). *Zlām* has 11 entries for husband and 17 for man (male), while the total number of *zlām* entries including the aforementioned meanings is 716. This is represented in the Table 1:


Table 1: The meanings of *gawro* and *zlām*

By contrast, *zlām* is the most frequent word for man (male) and husband used by our informants from Midən, Kfarze, Bsorino and Zaz� Midyat and Arkaḥ speakers employ only *gawro*, while a speaker from Mzizaḥ uses both words. Consider the following examples:


*ko-ʿayš-i b-i=qriṯ-ayḏan* prs-live�ipfv-3pl in-art.fs=village-possII.1pl

'Fifty **men** and sixty women live in our village.' (Arkaḥ)

## **4. Man (Human Being)**

The basic exponents of mankind as a human being, regardless of sex, are *ənsān* (RW 252) and *nošo* (RW 369).

In the searchable corpus, the main term is *ənsān*: we have found 80 tokens of *ənsān* meaning human being vs� only nine instances of *nošo* with the same sense� 5 See the following examples:


(27) *hano latyo nošo, əlla hano kšobəh, d-kətyo malaxo m d-aloho w qadišo*

> *hano latyo nošo əlla hano k-šobəh* this�m neg.cop.3s human but this�m prs-be\_like.ipfv.3ms

<sup>5</sup> Both words can also mean 'somebody'.


'He is not **a human**, but he looks like a holy angel of God.' (35:47, ʿIwardo)

In the contemporary usage of Turoyo speakers, *nošo* is gaining ground as an exponent of man (human being)� Some speakers use exclusively *nošo* in this meaning*,* some employ both words and some still use *ənsān*�

Note that *noše* may be used as a plural of *ənsān*, alongside *ənsanat*. Thus a speaker who invariably uses *ənsān* for human being employs *noše* as its plural:

(28) *u=ənsan d-lo maye laybe ʿoyəš u=ənsān d-lo maye layb-e ʿoyəš* art.ms=human without water neg.can-3ms live�ipfv.3ms '**Man** cannot live without water.' (Midyat) (29) *an=noše kibən məǧġoli, aḥ=ḥayewən laybən məǧġoli an=noše kib-ən məǧġol-i* art.pl=people can-3pl speak�ipfv-3pl *aḥ=ḥăyewən layb-ən məǧġol-i* art.pl=animals neg�can-3pl speak�ipfv-3pl

'**People** can speak, but animals cannot.' (Midyat)

## **5. Sun**

The concept sun has two exponents in the language, the inherited *šəmšo* (RW 496) and an innovative one that also means day, *yawmo* (RW 575). They are attested in the corpus conveying two diferent meanings: *šəmšo* is the source of warmth and sunshine, while *yawmo* is the source of daylight.

The basic meaning of the Turoyo word *yawmo* is day� In addition *yawmo* is used in published texts in connection with the sun's movement across the sky, i.e. sunset and sunrise. In other words, *yawmo* denotes sun as a moving celestial body, which is responsible for alternation of day and night. It is, therefore, closely associated with the idea of daytime� In this meaning, *yawmo* occurs only within the following collocations:

### **5.1. Verbs**

(30) *ʿly* 'to go up':

*u=yawmo ʿali* art.ms=sun rise�pret.3ms

'The sun rose.' (8:4; 28:105)

(31) *gny* 'to set (about sun)':

*gani yawmo* set�pret.3ms sun

'The sun set.' (28:103; 65:451; 88:80; 90:24, 34)

(32) *nfq* 'to go out':


(33) *qlb* 'to roll over':

*qaləb u=yawmo* roll\_over.pret.3ms art.ms=sun

The sun set.' (8:13)

(34) *slq* 'to ascend':

*ko-saləq u=yawmo* prs-ascend�pret.3ms art.ms=sun

'The sun is going to rise.' (LB 251)

(35) *ṭwʿ* 'to sink'*:*


'The sun set' (61:149; 62:273; 69:407, 525; 89:34, 35, 36; 97:64; 98:44; 102:47, 48; 112:12, 78)

Consider a few examples:

(36) *mḥawrable me ṣafrayto, hul ṭawəʿ u=yawmo*


'He was fghting from morning till **sunset**.' (98:44, Arkaḥ)

```
(37) gani u=yawmo, l=aṯyo i=tərto
```
*gani u=yawmo l=aṯy-o* set�pret.3ms art.ms=sun neg=come.pret-3fs *i=tərto* art.fs=cow

'**The sun** set, but the cow had not yet come.' (90:24, unknown)

### **5.2. Nouns**

(38) *gneto/gnayto:*

*gnete/gnayte d-yawmo* 'sunset' (11:51; 65:299)

(39) *ġyoṭo:*

*ġyoṭe d-yawmo* 'sunset' (LB 75)

(40) *sloqo:*

*sloqe d-yawmo* 'sunrise' (73:353)

(41) *ṭwoʿo/twaḥto:*

*ṭwoʿe/twaḥte d-yawmo* 'sunset' (11:171; 29:274; 58:201; 63:15; 69:31, 148, 407, 487, 519, 522, 524; 91:8; 23; 96:136, 157; 113:83)

Cardinal points can be expressed with *yawmo*-collocations as well:

(42) 'east':

*nfəqte d-yawmo* (11:22, 24; 26:145; 61:241; 91:53; 92:10); *sloqe d-yawmo* (74:49; 75:53, 54; 115:1, 162)

(43) 'west':

*ṭwoʿe/twaḥte d-yawmo* (61:241; 92:12); *gnete d-yawmo* (26:145); *ġyoṭe d-yawmo* (73:240; 75:53; 78:190)

### **5.3. From Day to Sun**

We must admit that the semantic boundary between the concepts of day and sun as a source of daylight is very blurred. *Yawmo* in all the examples above can also be interpreted as 'day, daylight' in a metaphorical sense�

The only case where the features of *šəmšo*, i.e. the sunshine, are attributed to *yawmo* is an expression used for describing the outstanding beauty of a human being.

(44) *kətle ḥḏo barṯo bəlḥuḏe. kəmmo lu=yawmo: "taxər d-ubono šawq ʿal i=mamlake m-darbux!"*


*m-darb-ux* in\_place-possI.2ms

'He had only one daughter. [She was so beautiful that she could] tell the **sun**: "Move over so that I can give sunshine to the country in place of you!"' (28:71, Midyat)

(45) *kale xort, ʿumre arbaḥṣar=əšne, hama, komalle lu=yawmo: "nḥat, d-oṯeno l-dukṯux!"*


'There was a boy of fourteen years old, [he was so handsome that he could] tell **the sun**: "Come down so that I can occupy your place!"' (95:87, Xarabe Kafre).

As for *šəmšo*, it conveys the sense of 'the source of warmth and sunshine':



'It is a summer day. The weather is pleasant. The **sun** shines and heats up the air.' (4:11, Midyat)

(47) *u=sawko kəmḥafəḏ̣ u=qarʿo mi=šəmšo, mu=maṭro w šmənto maḏ̣ =ḏ̣ arbat w mu=ǧroḥo*


'The hair protects the head from **the sun**, the rain and, to some extent, from blows and injury.' (3:5, Midyat)

Moreover, *šəmšo* by itself can mean 'shine', e.g., in *i=šəmšo du=ṣahro* 'the shining of the moon' (115:128, Midən; JL 7:7:9, Midən).

These two components of the sun concept are in complementary distribution in the published texts: *šəmšo* is never used in the collocations associated with *yawmo*; *yawmo* almost never means 'the warmth and the shining of the sun' (except for the set expression mentioned above).

As for the answers from our informants, the usage varies. The word *šəmšo* can be used in the *yawmo*-collocations and, moreover, *yawmo* can mean a celestial body. Consider their translations of the following sentences:

(48) '**The sun** set, but the cow had not yet come home.'

*gani yawmo w heš tərto lə=maḥwela* (Midyat)

*gani yawmo w hēš tərto* set�pret.3ms sun and yet cow *lə=maḥwe-la* neg=appear�pret-3fs *ṭawəʿ u=yawmo i=tərto heš lo=daʿiro lu=bayto* (Midyat) *ṭawəʿ u=yawmo i=tərto hēš* set�pret.3ms art.ms=sun art.fs=cow yet *lo=daʿir-o l-u=bayto* neg=return.pret-3fs to-art.ms=house *u=yawmo ṭawəʿ elo i=tərto he lo=daʿiro lu=bayto* (Mzizaḥ) *u=yawmo ṭawəʿ elo i=tərto he* art.ms=sun set�pret.3ms but art.fs=cow yet *lo=daʿir-o l-u=bayto* neg=return.pret-3fs to-art.ms=house *i=šəmšo ṭawiʿo bas i-tərto l=aṯyo lu=bayto* (Arkaḥ) *i=šəmšo ṭawiʿ-o bas i=tərto* art.fs=sun set�pret-3fs but art.fs=cow *l=aṯy-o l-u=bayto* neg=come�pret-3fs to-art.ms=house

(49) '**The sun** rose�'

*w saləq yawmo* (Midyat)

*w saləq yawmo* and ascend�pret.3ms sun

*nafqo i=šəmšo* (Midyat)

*nafq-o i=šəmšo* go\_out.pret-3fs art.fs=sun

*u=yawmo nafəq=ste* (Mzizaḥ)

*u=yawmo nafəq-ste* art.ms=sun go\_out.pret.3ms-too

*i=šəmšo saliqo* (Arkaḥ)


(50) '**The Sun** is one of the stars�'

*i=šəmšo-ste kəkwo mak=kəkwe di=šmayo-yo* (Midyat)


*d-i=šmayo-yo* of-art.fs=sky-cop.3s

*i=šəmšo kəkwo-yo bayne d-kəkwe* (Midyat)

*i=šəmšo kəkwo-yo bayne d kəkwe* art.fs=sun star-cop.3s among stars

*u=yawmo kəkwo-yo bayne d-kəkwe* (Mzizaḥ)

*u=yawmo kəkwo-yo bayne d kəkwe* art.ms=sun star-cop.3s among stars

*i=šəmšo kəkwo-yo b-bayn d-kəkwe* (Arkaḥ)

*i=šəmšo kəkwo-yo b-bayn d kəkwe* art.fs=sun star-cop.3s in-among stars

A semantic shift day > sun is known in various languages of the world, in particular in Kurmanji, where *roj* is the basic word for both day and sun (Chyet 521, 733, 826). In some of NENA, the MEA \**yawmā* also acquired the meaning 'sun': Barwar *yoma* (Khan 2008, 1451); C. Urmi *yuma* (Khan 2016, vol. 3, 342). In Modern South Arabian languages PS \**yawm-* day has become the main word for sun (Kogan 2015, 541).

## **6. Woman and Wife**

The Midyat (*məḏyoyo*) and the village (*quryoyo*) dialects of Turoyo have their own sets of basic words for the concepts of woman and wife. These notions can often be rendered by the same words. However, the relationship between the words for woman and wife within both sets is complex. Through a few illustrative passages we shall discuss the meaning and the dialectal distribution of the words *aṯto* (RW 39), *ḥurma* (RW 246), *žənəke* (RW 257) and *pire* (RW 382).

### **6.1. Midyat Dialect**

The basic *məḏyoyo* word for wife is *aṯto*� However, *aṯto* is almost never used as a form of address in direct speech when the speaker addresses his wife. For this purpose the word *žənəke*, which usually means woman, is used as in the example below:

(51) *ʿaṣriye aṯi lu=bayto. mə́llela li=aṯto, omər: "žənəke!"*

*ʿaṣriye aṯi lu=bayto* evening come�pret.3ms to-art.ms=house

```
mə́l-le-la l-i=aṯto omər
say�pret-3ms-dat.3fs to-art.fs= wife say�ipfv.3ms
žənəke
woman
```
'In the evening, he came home and called **his wife**: "**Wife!**"' (PrS 12/21)

It should be noted that *žənəke* is a general form of address that can refer to any female person�

*Aṯto* is a generic term for a human female, woman (female), but it is only rarely used to denote a referential female person, woman (person). This function is performed by *žənəke*�



'They did not know that she was a **woman**, they were thinking [she was] a man, because she dressed in men's clothes.' (24:178, Midyat)

(53) *u=ḥa yawmo aṯyo žənəke sawto w faqərto, mlaʿela w ṭləbla meni i=odayaṯe*



'One day an old and poor **woman** came, begging and asking me [to rent out] this room.' (2:64, Midyat)

Compare, however, also:

(54) *qayəm u=Bardawil, azzé li=walay, mšayele m-ḥḏo aṯto, omər: "l-ma mahzamle an=nišayḏan?"*


'Bardawil came to the town and asked **one woman**: "Who has abducted our wives?"' (PrS 40/12-14)

*Niše*/*neše* is a suppletive plural used for both woman and wife in the Midyat dialect of Turoyo.

*Ḥurma* occurs two times in Ritter's corpus meaning woman� *Pire* is found in the Prym-Socin collection only with the meaning of old woman�

### **6.2. Village Dialects**

There are two prominent words for wife in *quryoyo*: *aṯto* and *ḥurma*. Though *ḥurma* occurs quite often in the published corpus, *aṯto* is attested in the meaning of wife at least twice as much as *ḥurma* is:


Table 2: wife in other dialects

An exception is constituted by two villages of the Raite region dialectal cluster—Xarabe Məška and Xarabe Kafre—where *ḥurma* is a basic word for wife, as shown in Table 3.


Table 3: wife in the Raite dialectal cluster

As in *məḏyoyo*, *aṯto* is not used as a form of address for wife in direct speech� *Ḥurma* takes on this function. Consider the following example:

(55) *qayəm sġəḏle li=aṯto d-ruḥe, məlle: "ya ḥurma! ḥaṭino qumax, kobaʿno d-ʿofatli"*


*d-ruḥ-e məl-le ya ḥurma* of-refl-possI.3ms say�pret-3ms voc woman *ḥaṭi-no qum-ax k-obaʿ-no* sin�pret-1ms before-possI.2fs prs-want�ipfv-1ms *d-ʿof-at-li* that-forgive�ipfv-2s-1s.p

'He got up, bowed **to** his own **wife** and said: "**Wife**! I've sinned against you, I want you to forgive me."' (62:349, Kfarze)

*Ḥurma* is used as a general form of address for any female person (wife, mother, familiar or unfamiliar woman).

Occasionally, *pire* and *žənəke* can also mean wife�

The basic word for woman (female) as well as for woman (person) in the village dialects is *ḥurma*� Consider the following examples:

(56) *mqadamla l-gab Farxuṣaf, məlla: "ya i=ḥoṯayḏi! hawo d-mamṭelelax, ono ḥurma-no"*

> *mqadam-la l-gab Farxuṣaf* come\_near.pret-3fs to-side pn *məl-la ya i=ḥoṯ-ayḏi* say�pret-3fs voc art.fs=sister-possII.1s *hawo d-mamṭé-le-lax ono ḥurma-no* this�m that-bring.pret-3ms-2fs.p I woman-cop.1s

'She came near to Farxuṣaf and said: "O, my sister! The man who brought you [there], [i.e.] I, is [actually] a woman."' (62:350, Kfarze)

#### (57) *kətwa ḥḏo ḥurma, kurdiye, əmmíwayle Ḥore*

*kət-wa ḥḏo ḥurma kurdiye* exist-pst one.f woman Kurdish�f *əmm-í-way-la Ḥore* say.ipfv-3pl-pst-3fs.p pn

'There was a Kurdish woman, named Ḥore.' (80:2, Midən)

The word *pire* can hardly have a claim on the status of basic word for woman in any of the village varieties in Ritter's corpus. Though it is more popular in the dialects of the Raite region, as shown in Table 4 below, *ḥurma* still holds its position as the main word for woman� The more typical meaning of *pire* is old woman. It should be noted, however, that *pire* is the only word for woman found in Jastrow's Lehrbuch (JL) texts, which represent the Midən variety of Turoyo. Two of our informants, one from Midən and the other from Bsorino, consistently used *pire* in their replies�



*Žənəke* is yet another secondary word for woman (person) in *quryoyo*. It is worth mentioning that in Anḥil, it is used even more frequently than *ḥurma* (11 tokens of *žənəke* vs� 4 tokens of *ḥurma*).

*Niše*/*neše* and *pirat* are suppletive plurals for both woman and wife� *Pirat* is more common in the dialects of the Raite region�

*Niše*/*neše* is attested in all the village varieties, especially in Kfarze and Anḥil, where *pirat* is only rarely used. In the dialects where both *niše*/*neše* and *pirat* are present, the former word stands for woman and wife, while the latter one merely means woman�

### **6.3. Summary**

To summarise, *aṯto* is the basic word for wife and woman (female) in the Midyat dialect� *Žənəke* is the main word for woman (person) which can also be used as a form of address for any female person, including a wife. *Niše/neše* are suppletive plurals for both woman and wife�

In the village dialects, the basic words for wife are *aṯto* and *ḥurma* depending on the variety� *Ḥurma* is the main exponent of the notions woman (female) and woman (person), which can be used as a form of address for female persons including wife. *Pire* is the main word for woman (both female and person) in some modern Turoyo dialects (Midən, Bsorino). *Niše/neše* and *pirat* are suppletive plurals for woman and wife�

## **7. Etymology**

The following list shows our suggested etymologies of the lexemes in the previous discussion:

(1) bird

*safruno* < MEA: *ṣeprōnā* 'little bird' (SL 1299); *ṣipronā* 'bird, fowl' (DJBA 962); *ṣipra* 'little bird, sparrow' (MD 394), *ṣupra, ṣuprina* idem, colloq. dimin. (MD 390).

*ṭayro* < MEA: Syriac *ṭayrā* 'bird' (SL 528).

(2) head

*rišo, rešo* < MEA: *rēšā* 'head' (SL 1462); *rēšā* 'head, top part' (DJBA 1078); *riša* 'head, top' (MD 434).

*qarʿo*: see Arab. *qarʿ* 'gourd' and *qarʿa* 'gourd, skull, head' (DMWA 887–888), *qarʿa* 'Kürbis' (VW II 116), *qarʿa* 'Kürbis" (Kinderib 113) and Syriac *qarʿā* 'gourd' and *qarʿṯā* 'skull' (SL 1414), the latter is considered a borrowing from Arabic. Tezel (2003, 119) assumes *qarʿo* to be an Arabic loanword. See also a discussion in Tezel (2003, 117f).

(3) man, husband

*gawro* < MEA: *gaḇrā* 'man, person, husband' (SL 202); *gaḇrā* 'man, husband' (DJBA 258); *gabra* 'man' (MD 73).

*zlām* < Kurd. *zilam* 'man' (Chyet 691). The Kurdish word must be a borrowing from Arabic, see EALL II: 606�

(4) human being

*ənsān* < Arab.: *insān* 'man, human being' (DMWA 39).

*nošo* < MEA: *nāšā* 'man, human beings' (SL 65); *ināšā* 'man' (DJBA 120); *(a)naša* 'human being' (MD 24).

(5) sun

*šəmšo* < MEA: *šemšā* 'sun' (SL 1576); *šimšā* 'sun, sunlight' (DJBA 1136); *šamšā* 'sun' (MD 443).

*yawmo* < MEA: *yawmā* 'day' (SL 568); *yōmā* 'day, sun' (DJBA 529); *iuma* 'day' (MD 190).

(6) woman, wife

*aṯto* < MEA: *atṯā* 'woman, wife' (SL 66); *ittəṯā* (DJBA 128); *ʿnta* 'woman, wife' (MD 354). Nöldeke (§ 146) posits *attā* for Syriac (as against *atṯā*, expected etymologically), yet the Turoyo form is not the expected regular descendant (in terms of historical phonology) of any of the aforementioned MEA words�

*ḥurma* < Arab.: *ḥurma* 'that which is holy, inviolable; woman, lady, wife' (DMWA 201); *ḥərme* (pl� *ḥarīm*) 'femme (appartenant à un homme)' in Mardin Arabic (Grigore 2007, 196); *ḥərme*, pl� *ḥəram* 'femme', lat� fœmina, mulier, uxor (DAS 154).

*pire <* Kurd.: *pîr* 'old woman; wife' (Chyet 464).

*žənəke* **<** Kurd.: *jin* 'woman; wife, married woman' (Chyet 290). The source form must be the indefnite oblique *jinekê*�

## **Abbreviations**

### **Languages and Dialects**


### **Glossing Abbreviations not in the Leipzig Glossing List**


### **Bibliographical Abbreviations**


## **Bibliography**


Khan, Geoffrey� 2008� *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar*. Leiden, Boston: Brill.


## **NEO-ARAMAIC ANIMAL NAMES**

## *Hezy Mutzaf*

## **1. Aspects of Neo-Aramaic Animal Names in Scholarly Literature<sup>1</sup>**

The topic of animal names in the feld of Neo-Aramaic (NA) has hardly attracted any scholarly interest, nor is there any lexicological work dedicated to this topic� This is in contrast with the better investigated subject of some animal names in pre-modern Aramaic languages, the most noteworthy works in this respect being Löw's comparative studies in Aramaic names of fshes, reptiles and amphibians (Löw 1906, 1909a, 1909b, 1912a, 1912b), and Talshir's comparative work on animal names in the Samaritan Aramaic version of the Pentateuch (Talshir 1981). These works contain some references to NENA animal names mentioned in scholarly literature, primarily in Maclean's

<sup>1</sup> Data on Neo-Aramaic regional varieties is feldwork-based, unless a reference is adduced, and except for Western Neo-Aramaic, based on Arnold (2019). Abbreviations: Ar. = Arabic, Aram. = Aramaic, BH = Biblical Hebrew, C. = Christian (NENA dialect), dim.suf. = diminutive sufx, J. = Jewish (NENA dialect), JBA = Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, JPA = Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Kurd. = Kurdish, lit. = literally, NA = Neo-Aramaic, NENA = North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic, NM = Neo-Mandaic, post-cl. M = post-classical (literary) Mandaic, pre-mod. = pre-modern, NA = Neo-Aramaic, Pers. = (modern) Persian, Sam�Aram� = Samaritan Aramaic, st. abs. = status absolutus, st. emph. = status emphaticus, Syr. = Syriac, Trg.O = Targum Onkelos, Tur. = Turoyo, WNA = Western Neo-Aramaic. Main sources for pre-modern Aramaic are Cook (2008), *DJBA, DJPA, LS, SL*, *Thesaurus*; for Akkadian *CAD, AHw*; and for Kurdish Chyet (2003), İzoli (1992) and Omar (1992).

dictionary of 'vernacular Syriac' (Maclean 1901). Additionally, some NA animal names inherited from older Semitic layers and attested in the literature are adduced in volume 2 of *Semitic Etymological Dictionary* by Militarev and Kogan (2005).

Various inherited and borrowed animal names in a large number of Neo-Aramaic varieties are attested in grammars, texts and especially dictionaries and glossaries pertaining to these varieties. Still, the inventory of NA animal names published to date remains partial, and some of these zoonyms did not receive accurate zoological defnitions. Examples related to the former point, taken from the NENA dialects, are the following hitherto unattested animal names:<sup>2</sup>

Table 1: Hitherto unattested Neo-Aramaic animal names


<sup>2</sup> Notes on transcription: *č̭*, *k̭, t* are unaspirated phonemes whereas *č, k, t* are aspirated� Vowel length is indicated only where it is phonemic, i�e�, for *ā* vs� *a*. Superscript + indicates word-emphasis. Stress is penultimate unless otherwise indicated (transcription of NENA words quoted from scholarly works is adapted to this method).



The following are three examples of inaccurate defnitions in the literature: In Maclean's dictionary *pašuwa* is defned 'foul smelling black centipede' (Maclean 1901, 260a) instead of '(black) millipede',7 *yoša* is defned 'a large bird like a goose, inhabiting the lake shore' (ibid., 118b) instead of simply 'bustard',<sup>8</sup> and *ṭoya* is defned 'deer' (ibid., 109a) instead of 'gazelle'.

Another problematic aspect related to Neo-Aramaic animal names in lexicological works concerns Classical Syriac animal names that have nothing to do with vernacular Aramaic and nonetheless occur in dictionaries from the 19th century and the frst half of the 20th century. Syriac animal names in Maclean's dictionary, such as—to take a few names of reptiles—*ʾamaqta*  'gecko' (Maclean 1901, 14b), *yadyāda* 'chameleon' (ibid., 94b; cf� Syr� *yaḏyāḏa* 'millipede; hoopoe') and *patna* 'asp, adder' (ibid., 261b), were imported into this dictionary from the C. Urmi translation of the Bible, in particular of the Hebrew Bible, which includes quite a few Classical Syriac zoonyms not used in

<sup>6</sup> For this defnition, based on medieval lexicons, see *Thesaurus,* 1367 (followed by Payne Smith 1903, 156a).

<sup>7</sup> Originally a nomen agentis of the verbal root *pšy* 'to fart inaudibly' (\**pāšōyā*), it is related to informants' description of the millipede as curling itself into a coil and emitting a foul brown secretion when touched or threatened (and see Hutchins 2004, vol. 2, 364–365).

<sup>8</sup> As already in Bar Bahlul's 10th century lexicon, where *yaḇšā* 'bustard' is referred to as a dialectal Mesopotamian word (Duval 1888–1891, vol. 1, 711/9, 835), hence likely an early NENA vernacularism in that lexicon. The correct NENA meaning is adduced, as regards C. Urmi *yoša*, in Khan (2016, vol. 3, 342). An older form, *yawša,* is found in the NENA dialect clusters of Baz and Tyare�

colloquial speech.9 Some other animal names imported from the Urmi Bible into Maclean's dictionary are *qāqa* 'pelican' (ibid., 284a), *deṣa* 'wild goat' (ibid., 65b), *yaxmur, yaxmura* 'antelope, roebuck' (ibid., 119a) and *rema* 'wild ox, or unicorn' (ibid., 293a).

These aforementioned classicisms, their sources and vernacular C� Urmi parallels, are presented in what follows:


Table 2: C. Urmi classicisms and vernacular parallels

<sup>9</sup> The Peshiṭta vocables *ʾāmaqṯā*, *yaḏyāḏā* and *paṯnā* appear side by side in a parallel column with the C. Urmi literary classicisms derived thereof — *ʾāmaqtā, yadyādā, patnē* (pl.) — in Perkins 1852, Lev. 11: 30 (lizards), Deut. 32: 33 (snake). The pl. form *patnē* in the C� Urmi version diverges from the singular *paṯnā* in the Peshiṭta by virtue of the former being a translation of BH *pəṯånim* 'asps'. The same vocables appear in the revised version of the C. Urmi Bible (1893), which was published in New York by the American Bible Society, and includes only the 'modern Syriac' part�

<sup>10</sup> Another case of infelicitous defnition 'chameleon', despite the absence of this reptile from the area, is *xulda* 'chameleon' in Sabar's dictionary (2002, 194a), rather than the genuine meaning 'mole-rat'�

<sup>11</sup> See Khan (2016, vol. 3, 281).

These imports from the Urmi Bible are listed in Stoddard's unpublished dictionary of 'Modern Syriac' <sup>12</sup> as well,13 and three of them, taken from Stoddard's dictionary, are cited in *Thesaurus Syriacus* as 'Neo-Syriac' words� 14

All these Syriac words are not marked in Maclean's dictionary with an asterisk, which is the regular symbol in this work for marking 'ecclesiastical or literary, but not colloquial [words]' (Maclean 1901, xxii). There are, however, a few animal names in Maclean's dictionary which do appear with an asterisk, including Syriac terms such as *garsa* 'adder, basilisk' (ibid., 57b) and *xarmāna* 'adder' (ibid., 106b), as well as Biblical Hebrew animal names copied intact, and independently of the Peshiṭtā, into the Urmi Neo-Aramaic Bible, such as *xāġaw* 'type of locust or grasshopper' (ibid., 92a; BH ב ָג ָח, Peshiṭta *ḥargālā*) and *ʿāġor*  'crane' (ibid., 235a; BH גור ָע' type of bird', Peshiṭta *snōnīṯā*)

Oraham's Dictionary is teeming with Classical Syriac words, which the author incorporated zealously as part of his policy of rendering his dictionary 'enriched'� In Oraham's dictionary *ʾamaqta* 'lizard' (Oraham 1943, 24b), *yadyāda* 'hoopoe' (ibid., 98b), *pattāna* (!) 'asp' (ibid., 422a), *qāqa* 'pelican' (ibid., 461a), *dayṣa* 'ibex' (ibid., 111b), *yaxmur* 'fallow-deer, bubal' (ibid., 202a) and *rayma* 'bufalo, water bufalo; unicorn' (ibid., 479b) are all classicisms, mostly copied from Payne Smith 1903�

Based on these dictionaries, one might be inclined to assume that the animal names *ʾamaqta*, *yadyāda*, *patna, qāqa, deṣa/ dayṣa yaxmur/yaxmura* and *rema/rayma* are genuine modern Aramaic words that exist in C� Urmi or some other Christian NENA dialect(s), but no such vocables are known to occur in any modern Aramaic variety� 15

<sup>12</sup> Yale University ms. AOS Rn St 64m; written between the publication of the Urmi Bible in 1852 and Stoddard's death in 1857.

<sup>13</sup> P� 12 *ʾamaqta* 'weasel' (!), marked as 'anc[ient]', p. 153a *yadyāda* 'hyena' (!), p. 348a *patna* 'a kind of serpent', p� 397a *qāqa* 'pelican', p� 80a *dayṣa*  'wild goat', 155b *yaxmora* 'wild bufalo', 391a *rayma* 'wild ox'�

<sup>14</sup> See Thesaurus, 1554 *yadyādā*, 3345 *patnā*, 3897 *raymā*�

<sup>15</sup> Consider Militarev and Kogan (2005, 90, 249, 172, 319) where 'Neo-Syriac' *patnâ, rémâ, ḳâḳâ* and *yakhmûrâ* are derived from Maclean's

## **2. Chronological Strata of Neo-Aramaic Animal Names**

Neo-Aramaic animal names can be classifed into three major chronological strata, starting with refexes of the oldest names harking back to Proto-Aramaic, and in most cases to an earlier Semitic layer, if not Proto-Semitic, followed by terms inherited from a later Aramaic layer, mostly regional words, and ending in the layer of modern innovations and recent loanwords� Indeed, it seems that the entire lexical stock of any modern Aramaic variety can be chronologically stratifed in this way. The following are selected examples of NA animal names in each of the three layers:

## **2.1. Oldest Stratum: Neo-Aramaic Vocables Inherited From Proto-Aramaic**

Among the oldest inherited animal names are the ones within the frst group shown in Table 3 below. All fve selected pre-modern Aramaic lexical items have Semitic cognates which justify their classifcation as belonging to a Semitic chronological layer that pre-dated Proto-Aramaic. The frst item, *tawlʿā*, *tawlaʿtā*, already attested in Old (Ancient) Aramaic as *twlʿh* (f. form in st. abs., see *DNWSI*, vol. 2, 1206), has refexes in all four major NA dialect groups, as well as Semitic cognates such as Akk. *tūltu*, Harari *tuluʾ,* Soddo *tǝlä,* Soqotri *taʿáleh* and Mehri *təwālōt*� 16 Likewise, the inherited Aramaic words for 'dove', 'hare', 'gazelle' and 'ass foal' and their cognates in other Semitic languages must be of ancient Semitic pedigree� 17

16 For these and further cognates see Militarev and Kogan (2005, 294–295).

dictionary� Löw, however, realised that Maclean's *ʾamaqta* is not genuine NA but Syriac (Löw 1912a, 127); whilst he thought that *patna* did exist in 'Neo-Syriac' (Löw 1908, 42).

<sup>17</sup> See Militarev and Kogan (2005, 321–322; 20–21; 310–312; 65–66).


Table 3: Common Aramaic animal names

As a matter of course, there are inherited Aramaic animal names that did not survive in every NA language or dialect. Thus, for instance, Turoyo does not preserve the native name for 'gazelle', having replaced it with the Arabic loanword *ġazāle*, and


<sup>18</sup> In Hertevin� Among NENA dialectal cognates are J� Dohok *toleʾṯa* (also 'caterpillar')*,* Chamba d-Mallik-Tyare *tlolāṯa,* Tkhuma *tawəlṯa,* Timur <sup>+</sup>*tuwəlla* and Sat <sup>+</sup>*tolta.*

Neo-Mandaic resorted to the phrase *jihəl al-bəhimɔ* 'ofspring of a donkey' as the term for 'ass foal'�

## **2.2. Later Stratum: Neo-Aramaic Vocables Inherited From Late Aramaic**

The second layer involves NA animal names that are inherited from a later stage in the history of Aramaic, and cannot be ascribed to Proto-Aramaic� Their antecedents are either loanwords or late innovations� Most are not widely attested in Late Aramaic, but appear to be regional vocables, being confned to some Aramaic languages of either the eastern or western branch. Thus in the following examples, listed in Table 4.


Table 4: Region-specifc animal names

(1) *zāġā* (cf� Syriac *zāġā*27 'chick of hen', JBA אגז' cock', post-cl� M **zaga** 'cock') is considered an Iranian loanword, <sup>28</sup> and has refexes in all major divisions of Eastern NA. The meaning 'cock' in Turoyo and NM, as already in JBA and post-cl. M, may have evolved from \*'cockerel'. Indeed, in Bariṭle *zāʾa* is 'chick of a hen; cockerel', but it is unclear whether Bariṭle 'cockerel' exhibits an inherited meaning or an independent dialectal innovation� In some NENA dialects *zāʾa* (e�g� in Tisqopa and Telkepe) or *zaʾa*  (e�g� in Karimlash) is 'chick of a hen', as in Syriac; whereas some other dialects evince semantic broadening, either to any chick (e�g� J� Zakho and Qaraqosh *zāʾa*), or even to the ofspring of a bird or animal in general (e.g. as regards Ko d-Chalwe-Tyare *zāʾa,* Geramun *zāya,* C� Salmas <sup>+</sup>*zāya*).

(2) *kurpā,* of uncertain origin,29 is attested in Syriac, where it denotes 'viper'—as is evident from the synonym *ʾāḵeḏnā* 'viper' and the Arabic gloss *ʾafʿa(y)* 'ditto' in medieval Syriac lexicons30 as well as some other kinds of snakes� <sup>31</sup> The only known refex in NENA is Hertevin *kərpa,* which preserves the meaning 'viper',

<sup>27</sup> Vocalisation is according to Audo (1897, vol. 1, 253a).

<sup>28</sup> For the diferent possible Iranian etyma of this word see Ciancaglini (2008, 171, *DJBA,* 399a, *SL,* 364b).

<sup>29</sup> Perhaps from Akk� *kuppû* as (*inter alia*) a kind of snake (see *CAD* K, 551b-552a).

<sup>30</sup> See Hofman (1874, 657, 4669); Duval (1888–1891, vol. 1, 883). Accordingly, it is glossed 'viper' in *Thesaurus,* 1837–1838.

<sup>31</sup> See Löw (1908, 39–40), where also 'deaf snake' (unknown species), '*Eryx jaculus', '*adder' (*Vipera berus,* a viper not found in the Middle East) and 'female serpent' are mentioned. The latter is the defnition of *kurpā* in *LS,* 349a (followed by *SL,* 615a), and is based on the Arabic gloss *ʾal-ʾunṯa(y)*  'the female'� However, the epithet *ʾal-ʾunṯa(y)* may well be related to the fact that *kurpā* is a feminine noun. Consider also the NENA epithets *dādéḥuwa* (Hertevin) and *yəmmət xuwwe* (Ashitha, Betanure), both referring to the viper (Hertevin *kərpa,* Ashitha, Betanure *šəlya*) as 'mother of snake'. All three epithets may be related to the fact that local vipers bring forth live young, unlike other local snakes, which lay eggs.

whereas Turoyo expanded the denotation of *kərfo* into a generic term for 'snake'� 32

(3) *\*māʾeṣ ʿezzē* 'lizard', more precisely 'monitor lizard', lit� 'goat sucker', is in accordance with the emendation of Bar Bahlul's *māʾeṣ ʿērā* 'monitor lizard', ofered by Löw<sup>33</sup> and, recently, Sokolof.<sup>34</sup> There can be little doubt that *ʿērā* is indeed corrupt and that this emendation is justifed, given the following considerations:

(i) Bar Bahlul's lexicon is replete with words derived from local Mesopotamian—quite possibly early NENA—vernaculars.<sup>35</sup> Unlike '*māʾeṣ ʿērā',* with the second component not related to any known Aramaic or foreign root or noun, \**māʾeṣ ʿezzē,* lit� 'goat sucker', is clearly the antecedent of NENA dialectal forms such as *māṣəzze* (Marga), *maṣəzze* (Ko d-Chalwe-Tyare), *miẓaẓẓe*  (Bariṭle), *māč̣əẓẓe* (Geramun), all 'lizard' (genus *Lacerta*) and <sup>+</sup>*mazuzta* (C. Urmi) 'lizard' (generic).<sup>36</sup> Synchronically more transparent forms, based on the same myth of lizards sucking milk from goats, are Mer *mayṣa-ʾəzze* and Barwar *mɛṣa-ʾəzze*<sup>37</sup> 'lizard' (genus *Lacerta*), lit. 'she sucks [milk from] goats'.<sup>38</sup>


38 There is also a NENA form with *š,* more specifcally in the Christian dialect of Ardishay, Urmi plain, mentioned in Maclean (1901, 203b) as '*mîsh'izzî*'

<sup>32</sup> For 'viper' > 'snake' cf� the case of NENA *šəlya* below §3.

<sup>33</sup> See the corrupt form in Duval (1888–1891, vol. 1, 668, line 22) and the emendation in Löw (1912a, 129), where also the vocables *mn ṣʿrʾ* and *mā ṣʿrʾ* in Bar ʿAli's 9th century lexicon and in Bar Bahlul's 10th century lexicon, respectively—already considered 'most corrupt' in *Thesaurus,*  1070—were emended by Löw to *māʾeṣ ʿezzē*�

<sup>36</sup> Indeed, Löw (1912a, 139–140) connected medieval *māʾeṣ ʿezzē* to NA forms furnished in Maclean (1901: 152b) and Stoddard's unpublished dictionary (the later cited in *Thesaurus*); and Sokolof (*DJBA,* 533b, s.v. יילא (adduces the NENA form transcribed *miṣʿizî* in Maclean (1901, 152b, s�v� *māʾeṣ ʿezzē)*�

<sup>37</sup> Also *mɛṣantǝt ʾəzze* (Khan 2008, vol. 2, 1077, 1334).

(ii) The folk belief that monitor lizards suck milk from livestock, particularly cows, is already evident in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 54b).<sup>39</sup>

(iii) The noun **maṣuṣta** (< *\*māṣōṣtā* 'sucker'), in all likelihood signifying 'lizard' or some kind of lizard), is manifest in a Mandaic incantation dated to the 5th-7th centuries (Abudraham and Morgenstern 2017, 757).

(iv) Syrian Ar. *raḍḍāʿ il-maʿiz* 'salamander', lit. 'goat sucker' (Behnstedt and Woidich 2010, 370a) may well be a calque on pre-mod� Aram� *\*māʾeṣ ʿezzē.*<sup>40</sup>

(4) *peqʿā* 'frog' is attested in Bar ʿAli's and Bar Bahlul's Syriac lexicons of the 9th and 10th centuries,<sup>41</sup> most probably as a regional vernacularism, possibly an early NENA word.42 Its etymology is uncertain, but it is likely related to Syr. *paqʿā* 'noise, din, thunderbolt', as well as the verbs *paqqaʿ* 'make a noise of breaking, rattle, crackle', *ʾap̄qaʿ* 'make a noise', in connection with noisy anuran croaks.<sup>43</sup>


<sup>(</sup>apparently +*mišǝzzǝ*).

<sup>39</sup> Cf� *DJBA,* 533b, s.v. יילא�

<sup>40</sup> Consider also dialectal Moroccan Ar� *rṭēṭaʿ əl-bqaṛ* 'gecko', lit� 'little cowsucker' (Behnstedt and Woidich 2010, 367, 369c) and similar Maghrebin lexemes (ibid., 370a; also in Dozy 1967, vol. 1, 534b as *raḍḍāʿat ʾal-baqar*  'red-spotted lizard'), as well as Palestinian Ar. *raḍḍāʿa* 'skink' (Dalman 1923, 72, No. 72) and 'reptile similar to stellion lizard with soft, smooth skin, famous for sneaking and sucking milk from small cattle' (Barghouthi 2001, 511). Similar terms, referring to the monitor lizard, are Kurmanji *bizinmêj,* lit. 'goat-sucker', *pezmijok,* lit. 'sucker of small cattle' and *mangemijok,* lit. 'cow-sucker'. At least some of these terms may ultimately be the outcomes of an early Aramaic infuence. English *goatsucker* 'nightjar', modelled on Latin *caprimulgus* 'nightjar', lit� 'goat milker', is a similar case, albeit related to a bird.

Among the NENA refexes of *peqʿā* are the dialectal cognates *pəqʿa* (Qaraqosh),<sup>44</sup> *pəqʾa* (Hertevin), *pəqqa* (e�g� in Telkepe), *p̭ ək̭k̭a* (C� Urmi),<sup>45</sup> *piqqa* (e�g� in Tin), *peqa* (Mer), *pəqa* (e�g� in Harbole), *pŭqa* (Bariṭle), *paqa* (Inishke) and *paqeʾṯa* (Betanure), all denoting 'frog, toad'. Betanure (northernmost Iraq) *paqeʾṯa* and NM (south-western Iran) *paqettɔ* 'frog, toad' appear to have each evolved independently as refexes of \**paqəʿṯā* (< *\*paqʿəṯā < \*peqʿəṯā*)*,* a feminine derivative of *peqʿā.*

(5) Trg.O. עורדען, JPA עורדען, אורדען and Sam�Aram� ערדען, ארדען 'frog' exhibit an innovation whereby the forms \**ʿurdʿā, ʾurdʿā* (or rather their alternants in st. abs.)—the latter, *ʾurdʿā,* being attested in Syriac—were expanded by the ending *-ān* in these three Aramaic varieties of Palestine*.* Modern refexes of the Western Aramaic innovation אורדען) or rather its alternant in st. emph.) are Maʿlula *wurtaʿna* and Jubbʿadin *burṭaʿnṯa* (< *\*wurtaʿnṯa*)*.* 

A NA cognate is likely Midyat-Tur. *gurdaʿdaʿ* (informants), *gurdaʿa* (Ritter 1979, 180). Assuming that these forms represent a native Turoyo word,<sup>46</sup> its etymon would seem to be identical to Western Syriac *ʾurdʿō* 'frog', whence \**wurdʿo* (by partial assimilation of *ʾ* to *u*) > \**gurdʿo* (with a highly irregular change

scholarly literature: *Thesaurus*, 3222 hesitantly compared *peqʿā* 'frog' to Ar� *faqʿ* 'red(dish) worms', which is hardly likely; whereas Löw (1909, 395) derives *peqʿā* 'frog' from Pers� *pak, bak* 'frog' and compared *peqʿā* to NENA *piqqa, bāqa*, etc. 'frog'. Similarly, Maclean (1901, 255b) derived *pəqqa* 'frog' from Kurd. *beq* and Pers� *pak* 'id.', Fox (2009, 158) derives Borb-Ruma *pəqa* 'frog' from Kurd. *beq* 'id�' and Napiorkowska (2015, 506b) derives Diyana-Zariwaw *piqqa* 'frog' from Kurdish. Medieval Mesopotamian Aramaic *peqʿā* is obviously the etymon, however, and the similar sounding Iranian parallels might have only reinforced or facilitated the ousting of older Aramaic *ʾurdʿā* by the innovation *peqʿā*�


*w* > *g*) > *gurdaʿa* (with fnal *a* found in a small number of native nouns—see Tezel 2003, 32, 222) > partial reduplication: *gurdaʿdaʿ*� <sup>47</sup> It is nevertheless only in WNA that the Western Aramaic form with -*ān(ā)* has modern refexes.

(6) Turoyo *ṭabzo* 'badger', used at least in the southern dialect of Ba-Dibbe, is most probably a refex of *ṭabzā* 'hyrax'*,* attested in JPA as טבזא alongside טפזא and טפסא) st. abs. טבז, טפז, טפס(, which are cognate with Sam�Aram� טפסה) st. abs. טפס' (hyrax'.<sup>48</sup> The earliest occurrences appear in Trg.O as טפזא and טבזא �Therefore, although Turoyo is an Eastern NA language, it inherited a Western Aramaic word as a result of difusion northward and eastward. Since the northernmost distribution of the hyrax is in Lebanon, the original meaning of the term *ṭabzā* could not have been preserved in Turoyo, and the refex *ṭabzo* came to refer to another chubby, short-limbed mammal, the badger.<sup>49</sup>

## **2.3. Latest Stratum: Modern Innovations**

The latest stratum is that of Neo-Aramaic lexical innovations, many of which are new creations based on inherited Aramaic etyma moulded by mechanisms of word formation. Some of these innovations are highly imaginative and picturesque. Selected examples from NENA are furnished in what follows:


<sup>47</sup> Cf. Tezel (2003, 221–222).

<sup>48</sup> For a linguistic and zoological treatment of the latter word and its cognates see Talshir (1981, 102–103).

<sup>49</sup> Note also that the Qalamun mountains, where WNA is spoken, are outside the geographical distribution of the hyrax, hence it has no name in WNA (Prof. Werner Arnold, e-mail).



(1) As for some of the dialectal NENA terms for the 'ladybird', in Ishshi creative imagination forged the name *tawərtət bābí-ʾalāha*, lit� 'cow of my Father God', which has striking parallels in some of the Slavic languages, e.g. Polish *boża krówka*, lit� 'God's little cow'� <sup>50</sup> These are outcomes of the same human imagination of this plump spotted creature as a tiny cow,51 that is considered to be a godsend for farmers by virtue of the fact that ladybirds mainly feed on aphids. In Harbole, however, the chubby ladybird was compared to a hen and the parallel term is *ktɛtət bābí-ʾalāha* 'hen of my Father God'� 52

Perhaps no less picturesque is Qaraqosh *sustət ʾabuna*, 53 lit. 'our priest's mare', which in some other C. NENA dialects

<sup>50</sup> See further terms in Merkin (1993, 130).

<sup>51</sup> Hence also regional English *ladycow* and Spanish *vaca de San Antón* 'Saint Anthony's cow' (Merkin 1993: 130; and see *ladycow* also in OED Online), as well as modern Irish *bóín Dé* 'God's little cow' (*bóín* < *bó* 'cow' + dim� suf. ín).

<sup>52</sup> Cf� Danish *mariehøne,* Norwegian *marihøne,* lit. '[Virgin] Mary's hen'; as well as dialectal Catalan *gallineta,* lit� 'little hen', *gallineta de Nostre Senyor,* lit� 'little hen of Our Lord' (and similar terms)—see Veny and Pons i Griera (2014, map and p. 1546 (=http://aldc.espais.iec.cat/ fles/2015/03/Mapa-1546.pdf).

<sup>53</sup> Thus according to my informants. In Khan (2002, 743b *susta l-abuna*)*.*

designates the praying mantis (e�g� C� Aradhin *sustət ʾabona,* lit� 'bishop's mare'). C. Urmi ʾ*urxət* <sup>+</sup>*xalu* is literally 'way of uncle', to be precise 'the way to the maternal uncle', and is based on a tradition of telling children that if they made this beetle fy, their uncle would come.<sup>54</sup> ʾ*urxət* <sup>+</sup>*xalu* may have also been infuenced by Kurdish *xalxalok* 'ladybird', lit. 'spotty', which is based on the Kurdish noun *xal* (< Ar.) 'birthmark, freckle'. 'Spotty' is also the basic meaning of *baṭibāṭo* in the Chamba d-Mallik dialect of Tyare and some other C� NENA dialects, derived from *bəṭṭa* 'spot' (cf� Syr� *beṭṭā* 'spark') or from a reduplicative form thereof, akin to Syr� *baṭbāṭā* 'spark'� 55

(2) As for NENA words for 'snail', in some Christian dialects (e.g. Ishshi, Telkepe and Ashitha) the snail is referred to as *saṭāna*, 'Satan, devil', which is a semantic parallel of Harbole *šeda* 'demon; snail', Jilu *šida* 'snail', Tur. *šiḏo* 'Satan, devil; snail' and Kurd. *şeytanok* 'snail', lit� 'little devil'� Similarly, +*ʾaynət šida* 'snail', lit. 'devil's eye' is listed in Maclean (1901, 238b) as a C. Urmi term, but, unknown to informants from the city of Urmi itself, is perhaps to be found in some village(s) in the vicinity, or has gone obsolete by now. Semantically related is *šarro* 'snail' in the Tyare dialect of Chamba d-Mallik, ultimately from Arabic *šarr* 'wicked'�

The semantic background of these terms might be related to the snail's eyestalks, which a fanciful mind may relate to the

<sup>54</sup> See Khan (2016, vol. 3, 85).

<sup>55</sup> There is also *biṭibāṭu* 'brightness, sheen' in *LS* 66a, followed by *SL,* 140b, but this is based on the occurrence of the word *biṭibāṭo* in Budge's edition of the Syriac book of medicines, a manuscript replete with NENA words and forms. The text, referring to a type of glowing or sparkling fowers, reads *ʾa(y)ḵ biṭibāṭo d-nahrā b-qayṭā* (Budge 1913, vol. 1, 598/6), and this was mistranslated by Budge (1913, vol. 2, 711/10) 'like the sparkling of the waters of a river in the summer'. It seems to me that *nahrā* 'river' is a miscopying of *nāhrā* 'it glows', and that the correct translation should be 'like a frefy that glows in summer', with *biṭibāṭo* being a dialectal NENA word (cf� Telkepe *biṭubāṭu* 'frefy'). Consider also the translation '[like] frefies by the river in summer' in Margoliouth (1927, 53b), based upon the Chaldean priest and native NENA speaker Alphonse Mingana (for the latter's contributions to Margoliouth's work see ibid., vii, viii).

demonic horns of Satan. Indeed, in the Tyare dialect of Bne Belatha the snail is called *qanānət saṭāna*, lit� 'Satan's horns'�

By contrast, in Qaraqosh the snail has a positive name, *nəṯyaṯtəd mar daniyel* 'Saint Daniel's ear', apparently referring to a Mesopotamian monk of the ffth century, Daniel the Stylite. Informants could ofer no explanation as to the connection to that saint, but at least one can fnd a faint resemblance between a snail shell and the human ear.<sup>56</sup>

A rather neutral, yet no less picturesque name for 'snail' (and 'snail shell') is the C. Urmi term *spaditət xuvva ~ spaditət xuvvə*, 57 lit. 'snake's pillow'. The surreal image of a sleepy snake using a snail shell as a pillow might have ultimately been taken from a folktale, but informants know of no such tale, nor could they ofer any other background for this rather quaint term. It may well be that this term is a calque on some unattested Kurdish construction denoting 'snake's pillow', given Kurmanji *balif* 'pillow; snail'.<sup>58</sup> This postulated Kurdish term would also be the model on which the term *sariná-xiwá* 'snail' (< *sariná* 'pillow' < Kurd. *serîn* + inherited NENA *xiwá* 'snake') was coined in the Jewish NENA dialect of Kerend�

(3) Some dialectal NENA innovations refer to new species of animals introduced into NENA-speaking areas, such as the guinea-fowl, more accurately the helmeted guinea-fowl, which was raised in some C� NENA-speaking villages for its meat and eggs� Telkepe *kṯeṯət pərʿon* 'Pharaoh's hen' has a striking parallel in Italian, namely *faraona*, an ellipsis of *gallina faraona* 'Pharaonic hen'� <sup>59</sup> The connection to the Pharaohs is, presumably, the African

<sup>56</sup> Cf� J� Urmi <sup>+</sup>*nahaltət* <sup>+</sup>*šeytan* 'snail, snail shell', a calque on Kurd. *guhşeytan*  'snail', both literally denote 'Satan's ear'; and consider also the zoological term *auriculella* for a genus of snail endemic to Hawaii (see Cowie et al. 2016, 248–250, 252, 262–263, including photos), literally 'little ear', a diminutive form of Latin *auris* 'ear'�

<sup>57</sup> First attested in Sargis (1909, 587, s.v. улитка).

<sup>58</sup> See İzoli (1992: 41b).

<sup>59</sup> Cortelazzo and Zolli (2004, 430a).

origin of the bird and possibly the idea that it was one of the delicacies served to the rulers of ancient Egypt.

C� Urmi *ctetət haštarxan* 'guinea-fowl'60 is a hen from Hashtar Khan, which is one of the old names of Astrakhan near the Caspian Sea (I could not fnd any information about guinea-fowl breeding in Astrakhan, though). Lizin-Tyare *məštarxa* must be an ellipsis of \**kṯɛša mən ʾǝštarxan* 'hen from Astrakhan', especially in the light of Chamba d-Mallik-Tyare *ʾǝštarxǝn ~ kṯɛšǝt ʾǝštarxǝn*  'guinea-fowl'. The innovation in Bne Romta-Tyare *kṯɛšət qāna* 'hen of horn, horned hen' is after the fowl's horn-like protrusion.

Numerous other dialectal NENA innovations of animal names could be added to the terms above, among which are Bne Belatha-Tyare *čale-miya* 'water-bride' and Harbole *xasla-mǝṭre* 'weaner of rains' as unique names for the salamander (the latter term, *xaslamǝṭre,* is related to the appearance of [full-grown] salamanders in May and early June, when rainfall ceases).

## **3. Semantic Differences in Dialectal Cognates of Animal Names**

In some cases the same animal name refers to diferent referents across specifc NA varieties. Selected cases taken from the NENA dialects are the following:

## **Invertebrates**


### **Birds**


<sup>60</sup> Already attested in Sargis (1909, 633, s.v. цесарка).

## **Reptiles**


## **Mammals**


## **Birds, Insects**

### **Lizin-Tyare Bne romta-Tyare**

5� *qāša* 'priest' + 2 dim.suf. *qašonik̭a* 'tit' *qašonik̭a* 'antlion'

(1) Pre-mod. Aram. *naddālā* 'centipede', as, e�g�, in Syriac, has refexes in various C .NENA dialects, mostly referring to the centipede or millipede, such as Lizin-Tyare *madāla* 'centipede',61 Barwar *madāla* 'millipede' (Khan 2008, vol. 2, 1324), Bne Romta-Tyare *nadāla* 'centipede, millipede', Sat *medāla* 'id�'� Some other Christian NENA dialects and cognates evince a semantic shift to another elongated creeping invertebrate, the earthworm. Thus, e�g�, Shwawwa-Baz *madāla,* Timur and Upper Barwar (Hakkâri) *midāla.* In the dialect of Geramun *madāla* signifes both 'centipede, millipede' and 'earthworm'�

(2) Some of the north-western NENA dialects in the area of Bohtan preserve an inherited NENA word for 'cock, rooster' closely related to Syr� *bakkā* 'cock', a by-form of *ʾāḇakkā* (also אבכא' id�'

<sup>61</sup> The direct antecedent *maddālā* is already attested in Bar ʿAli's 9th century lexicon (Hofmann 1874, 212, No. 5438) and in Bar Bahlul's 10th century lexicon, in the latter as a word in the (early NENA?) dialect of Tikrit (Duval 1888–1891, 836, s.v. *yadyādā*).

in the Judaeo-Syriac Targum to Proverbs 30.31).<sup>62</sup> Thus *buka* in Borb-Ruma and Hertevin and *büka* in Qurich, stemming from the antecedent *\*bukkā*. In Qaraqosh *buka* exhibits a semantic change into 'male dove'�

(3) Various C. NENA dialects exhibit the zoonym *šəlya* 'viper', e.g. Haṣṣan, C� Aradhin*,* Iṣṣin, the dialect cluster of Tyare and Sharmen� In all these dialects *šəlya* is a feminine noun. I postulate the etymon \**šālyā,* a fs� participle of the pre-modern Aramaic verbal root *šly* 'to draw, pull out', hence *šəlya* is a snake that 'draws' its fangs and bites. The connection between *šly* 'to draw, pull out' and a venomous snake is attested in JPA: לחוויה שלח שדיי לארס דאשלי' God sent the snake, which drew out the venom.' (*DJPA* 553a, s�v� <sup>2</sup> שלי(. For the vowel change \**a > ə* in \**šālyā* >\**šalya >šəlya* compare *ləxma, ləxmá* 'bread' in some NENA varieties (e.g. Tyare and Arbel, respectively).

In the NENA dialect of Tilla the denotation of *šəlya* was expanded to include any snake, followed by the ousting of inherited NENA *xuwwe* 'snake' out of the dialect's lexical system.<sup>63</sup>

(4) Tyare *kakəšta* 'weasel' is etymologically related to JBA כרכושתא 'weasel' and Syr� *kāḵuštā* 'weasel, ferret, mongoose, cat' (\*'weasel' > 'mice-eating mammal'), among other cognates� The antecedent of the Tyare form appears to have been \**kakkeštā,* closely akin to \**kakkuštā,* the postulated precursor of the JBA cognate. Another cognate form is *kākšā* 'weasel' in a late Nestorian manuscript.<sup>64</sup> In the light of C� Salmas and Van *kakša* 'weasel' and the fact that this manuscript includes a number of NENA vocables,<sup>65</sup> *kākšā* is

<sup>62</sup> Perhaps the feminine form בכתה already occurs in Old Aramaic, if its meaning is 'hen'—see *DNWSI*, vol� 1, 192�

<sup>63</sup> Cf� *kurpā* 'viper' > Tur. *kərfo* 'snake' above §2.2.

<sup>64</sup> Hofmann (1880, 90: 19), where the reading *ḵākšā* (!) with initial *ḵ (x)* appears to be the result of an inadvertent speck of ink under the frst letter *kap* (cf. Nöldeke 1914–1915, 240). Indeed, *LS* 326b, followed by *SL,* 621b, read *kākšā.*

<sup>65</sup> E�g� *ḵyārē* 'cucumbers' (Hofmann 1880, 92/19) < NENA *xiyāre* or +*xyārǝ*  < Ar.; and *slāwlyō* 'weasel' (ibid., 90/19), as in C. Aradhin *slawəlyo* 

likely an interpolation of a NENA word into that Syriac text� In addition, Jilu *kakša* evinces a change of meaning into another small, short-legged, agile mammal, the vole� 66

Further cognates are *kakča* 'mole, rat' (Maclean 1901, 131b), *kaška* 'feld mouse' (Tsereteli 1980, 44) and 'mole' (David 1924, English-NA part, 64). All these pre-modern and modern cognates might hark back to Akkadian *kakkišu,* which appears to have denoted 'weasel',67 in which case the form closest to the etymon is modern *kakša* (< \**kakkəšā*) rather than the pre-modern cognates.

(5) Oddly enough, in Tyare *qašonik̭a* is a term for two entirely diferent creatures according to dialect, denoting 'tit' (a songbird) in Lizin and 'antlion' in Bne romta� Informants construe the literal meaning of this word as 'little priest'� Indeed, *qašonik̭a* is synchronically, and probably also etymologically, based on inherited NENA *qāša* (consider Syriac *qaššā < qaššīšā*) 'priest' with two diminutive sufxes, native *-on* and *ik̭a.* The latter is based on the Kurdish diminutive sufx *ik.* The connection to 'priest' eludes me, however, and is completely opaque as far as the speakers are concerned�

<sup>&#</sup>x27;weasel', with a typical NENA ending *o* found in many animal names (including *baṭibāṭo* 'ladybird' and *šarro* 'snail' above, §2.3., as well as *gāṛo*  'weasel; vole, rat' in n. 66 below).

<sup>66</sup> Similar cognates involving a weasel or another musteline animal and a rodent are NENA *gāṛo* 'weasel' (e�g� in Mer, Rekan), 'vole, rat' (e.g. in Betanure, Halmun); BH *ḥolɛḏ,* Mishnaic Hebrew *ḥuldå* 'marten, weasel and closely related mammals' and Ar� *xuld,* Syr� *ḥuldā* 'mole-rat' (Talshir 2012, 95–106); quite possibly Akk. *akbaru* 'jerboa', Hebrew *ʿaḵbår* 'mouse' and Tigre *ʿerkib* 'badger' (assuming metathesis; see Militarev and Kogan 2005, 47); and, farther afeld, Classical Armenian ak'is 'weasel; rat' (Martirosyan 2010, 159).

<sup>67</sup> See *AHw* vol� 1, 422a *kakkišu* 'weasel', compared to Aram� *ka(r)kuštā,* whereas *CAD* K, 50a defnes it as a small animal, possibly a rodent. The Aramaic forms denoting 'weasel', including NENA *kakša,* support *AHw.* 

### **References**


———. 1909a. 'Aramäische Schlangennamen', In *Festschrift zu Ehren des Dr. A. Harkavy aus Anlass seines am 20. November 1905 vollendeten siebzigsten Lebensjahres*. 3 vols., edited by David Günzburg and Isaac Markon, vol. 1: 27–52. St. Petersburg: H. Itzkowski,.


———. 2012. *Living Names: Fauna, Places and Humans*. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute (in Hebrew).


## **A CORPUS-BASED SWADESH WORD LIST FOR LITERARY CHRISTIAN URMI (NEW ALPHABET TEXTS)**

*Alexey Lyavdansky<sup>1</sup>*

## **1. Introduction**

The aim of this paper is to compile a basic word list for the literary Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Christians of Urmi and establish their etymologies. This study is intended as a starting point for a comparison of the lexicon in all dialects of the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup. Literary Christian Urmi is chosen for this study because it is attested in a very large corpus of texts.

Research of Neo-Aramaic in recent decades has produced descriptions of many dialects, especially within the NENA dialect subgroup.<sup>2</sup> We are now, therefore, in a good position to attempt to understand the genealogical relationships between the dialects.

Hoberman (1988) has suggested a reconstruction of the proto-NENA pronominal system. One of the conclusions of Hoberman's study was that the dialects of Northern Iraqi Kurdistan share some morphological innovations, which may help to single them out as a cohesive subgroup. Fox (1994) attempts to explore relationships within NENA according to selected phonological, morphological and lexical features. The outcome of Fox's study was the identifcation of three major

<sup>1</sup> HSE University, Moscow. The research has been supported by RFBR grant No� 17-04-00472�

<sup>2</sup> For a bibliography of these dialect descriptions see: Napiorkowska (2015, 583–594). There are 137 NENA dialects listed in (https:// nena.ames.cam.ac.uk/dialects/ Date of Access 28.01.2018).

clusters of isoglosses, which, however, need to be checked with a broader range of data.<sup>3</sup>

In this paper I shall present a Swadesh list of 110 basic words (following the version of Kassian et al. 2010) that are attested in a corpus of literary Christian Urmi�

The corpus used for this purpose consists of a collection of books and newspapers issued in the latinised alphabet in Soviet Russia and Georgia from 1929 to 1938. This corpus was chosen on the assumption that these textual data provide sufcient documentation needed to create a basic word list� There are certain drawbacks in using literary texts for this purpose, because the language of literature and journalism may not refect the true usage of a natural spoken language. The lexical features of the literary register, however, usually do not afect the usage within the scope of word lists consisting of 100 or even 200 words� It is important to note, however, that data collected from feldwork are usually restricted in volume. The currently largest collection of spoken narrative texts of a Neo-Aramaic dialect (Khan 2016) amounts to approximately 70,000 words.

## **2. The Corpus<sup>4</sup>**

The books and newspapers in the Assyrian new alphabet (Novij Alfavit, henceforth NA) were published in Moscow and Tbilisi from 1929 to 1938� This project was an integral part of the latinisation campaign in the Soviet Union (Smith 1998, 121–42). After 1938 the publication of Assyrian books and the newspaper in NA ceased because most of the authors, editors and translators had been condemned to death by the Stalinist regime.

It is important to note that the books dated 1929–1931 were printed using the earlier variety of the Assyrian new alphabet, which is basically Cyrillic with the admixture of some Latin letters (*t*, *d*, *j*, *l*). A modifed variety of the Assyrian NA was introduced in 1931 and was used later as a standard, with some further changes adopted in 1933. A table of correspondences

<sup>3</sup> Fox (1994) uses data from a sample of only eleven NENA dialects.

<sup>4</sup> For a detailed discussion of this corpus, see Lyavdansky, (forthcoming).

between the transcription notations used by various scholars and the graphemes of the Assyrian NA is given in the appendix to this paper�

The corpus includes 172 books and approximately 270 issues of the newspaper *Kokhva d Madinkha* with the texts in NA� 5 The genres of the books are the following: translations of Russian literary texts (the largest part of the corpus), original literary fction in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, school textbooks, popular scientifc texts, Soviet propagandistic and atheistic literature. Currently the corpus of digitised texts amounts to approximately 630,000 words from the 46 books.<sup>6</sup> The word 'digitised' here means that the texts are available in the doc/txt formats and electronically searchable. Recently the morphologically tagged corpus of the texts in NA has been made available for queries at: http://neo-aramaic.web-corpora.net/index\_en.html�

## **3. The Method of Presentation of the Results**

Two kinds of queries were performed in order to determine the exponents of the meanings of the basic word list� First, the meanings of the word list were searched for in the Russian originals of the translated texts� 7 The corresponding exponent was checked in the Neo-Aramaic translation. Second, the word count of the exponents was performed on the basis of the textual database of approximately 630,000 words� In some cases I searched in the literature beyond the digitised corpus. I did this, for example, for anatomical terms such as foot. They were found in a school textbook on natural science. In the case of the words with high frequency, the word count was made on a sample textual fle of 37,000 words�

Each entry in the following list of basic words consists of:

1� the meaning

<sup>5</sup> Most of the texts in this newspaper are printed in Syriac script�

<sup>6</sup> The expected volume of the textual corpus after its full digitisation is more than 2 million words�

<sup>7</sup> More than 80 percent of the searchable textual corpus are translations from Russian into Neo-Aramaic.


For the lexemes with clear Aramaic origin the comparative data are adduced in the following order: Classical Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Classical Mandaic. These three languages are subsumed under the term 'Middle Eastern Aramaic' (henceforth MEA).<sup>8</sup>

## **4. The 110 Swadesh List**

The 110 Swadesh word list for the corpus of Neo-Aramaic texts in the New Alphabet is as follows.

(1) all *kul, kull*-� > 50� MEA: *kul, kol* 'all' (SL 622); *kullā* (DJBA 559); *kul* (MD 206). (2) ash *qьţma.* 34� MEA: *qeṭmā* 'ash' (SL 1353); *qiṭmā* 'ash' (DJBA 1011); *giṭma, gaṭma* 'ash' (MD 89). (3) bark *qəlpə*� 16� MEA: *qlāp̄tā* 'bark, shell' (SL 1375); *qlāp̄ṯā* 'peel, shell' (DJBA 1022); *qlapta* 'shell, hard casing' (MD 413).

<sup>8</sup> The term is based on one of the classifcations of Aramaic languages which divides the Aramaic languages of the Middle period into Western and Eastern branches (Rosenthal 1939).

*çuluxtə*� 4� < Kurd. *çûlik* 'peau, pelure, coquille, écorce' (DKF 318).

In most of its uses *qəlpə* refers to objects similar to the bark of the tree: eggshell, nutshell, watermelon rinds, or, metaphorically, the turtle shell. There is only one clear usage of *qəlpə* in a translated text: *Kirvijşi d meşə в leləvəti ki axlьj qəlpə d ijləni* 'The hares feed at night on tree **bark**' (THH 21/1). The other one renders original Russian кора 'bark', but the text speaks metaphorically about the turtle shell (THH 10/4).

(4) belly

*kisə.* > 50�

MEA: *karsā* 'belly, stomach' (SL 655); *karsā* 'stomach, rumen, womb' (DJBA 603); *karsa* 'belly, stomach; womb, uterus' (MD 201). For the loss of the consonant \**r* in the same position, cf� *qənə* 'horn' < MEA *qarnā*� 9

(5) big

*gura.* > 50�

< ? Kurd. (K) *gir* 'gros, grand' (DKF 568); *gir*, *gur* 'large, big' (Chyet 213); Kurd. (S) *gewre* 'grand, gros' (DKF 557). The Kurdish etymology for C� Urmi *gura* is suggested in (Khan 2016, vol. 3, 169) with a question mark.

(6) bird

*ţera*� > 50�

MEA: *ṭayrā* 'bird' (SL 528).

<sup>9</sup> Cf. the attestations of this word in other NENA dialects: J. Challa *kāsa*  (Fassberg 2010, 282), J. Lishana Deni *kāsa* (JNAD 180), J. Betanure *kāsa*  (Mutzaf 2008, 356), C. Tiyari *časa* (Talay 2008, 100), C. Txuma *časa* (Talay 2008, 101), C. Qočanəṣ *kisa* (Talay 2008, 339).

(7) to bite

*qraţa.* 10�

MEA: *qrṭ* pe.'to gnaw, to wound with the beak' (SL 1405); *ṭrq* pe. 'to hit, sting, bite' (DJBA 519).

*njasa*� 4�

The etymology is uncertain. Cf. *ngs* pe� 'to eat' (DJPA 340; Mutzaf 2004, 234).

(8) black

*kumə.* > 50�

MEA: *kōmā* 'black' (SL 608); ʾ*ukkāmā* 'black' (SL 15); ʾ*ukkām* 'black' (DJBA 88); ʿ*ukma* 'blackness' (MD 343).

(9) blood

*dimmə.* > 50�

MEA: *dmā* 'blood' (SL 307); *dmā* 'blood' (DJBA 340); *dma, adma* 'blood' (MD 111, 8).

(10) bone

*gərmə.* > 50�

MEA: *garmā* 'bone' (SL 261); *garmā* 'bone' (DJBA 302); *girma* (MD 92).

(11) breast (chest)

*sadra.* > 50�

Pers� *ṣadr* 'breast' (CPED 783) < Arab. *ṣadr* 'Brust' (AWSG 701).

(12) to burn (intr.)

*qjədə.* > 50�

MEA: *yqd* 'to burn' (intr.) (MD 193); *yqd* af 'to burn' (tr.) (SL 580); *yqd* af 'to set on fre' (DJBA 540).

(13) cloud

*ajva.* > 50�

MEA: ʿ*aybā* 'obnubilatio, nubes humidae' (TS 2824); *ʿēḇā* 'dark cloud, cloudiness' (DJBA 850); *aiba* 'cloud, fog, mist, darkness' (MD 14).

(14) cold

*qajra.* > 50�

MEA: *qrr* pe. 'to be cold, frosty' (SL 1417); *qrr* pe� 'to cool down' (DJBA 1047).

*qarьjra*� 23�

MEA: *qarrirā* 'cold' (SL 1409); *qarrīr* 'cold' (DJBA 1043); *qarir* (MD 403).

(15) to come

*təjə.* > 50�

MEA: ʾ*ty* 'to come' (SL 110); ʾ*ty* 'to come' (DJBA 176); *ata* (MD 41).

(16) to die

*mjətə.* > 50�

MEA: *mwt* 'to die' (SL 731); *mwt* 'to die' (DJBA 650); *mut*  'to die' (MD 263).

(17) dog

*kəlвə.* > 50�

MEA: *kalbā* 'dog' (SL 622); *kalbā* 'dog' (DJBA 580); *kalba*  'dog' (MD 197).

(18) to drink

*ştəjə*� > 50�

MEA: *šty* 'to drink' (SL 1614); *šty* 'to drink' (DJBA 1184); *šta* 'to drink' (MD 476).

(19) dry

*вəruzə*� > 50�

The etymology is uncertain. Cf. Arab. *barāz*- 'champ, vaste plaine sans arbres' (BK 110; Mutzaf 2008, 340).

(20) ear

*nətə.* > 50�

Syr. ʾ*eḏnāṯā*, pl. of ʾ*eḏnā* 'ear' (SL 10); cf. 17 cent. Telkepe *nhāṯa* < Syr. ʾ*eḏnāhāṯā* (Mutzaf 2005, 84, n. 5; Mutzaf 2008, 366).

(21) earth

*uprə.* > 50�

MEA: ʿ*ap̄rā* 'dust; earth, soil' (SL 1124); ʿ*ap̄rā* 'earth, dust, powder' (DJBA 875); *apra* 'dust, ashes' (MD 32).

(22) to eat

*xala.* > 50�

MEA: ʾ*kl* 'to eat' (SL 41), ʾ*kl* 'to eat' (DJBA 129); *akl* 'to eat' (MD 16).

(23) egg

*вitə*� 24�

MEA: *bē*ʿ*ṯā* 'egg' (SL 143); *bay*ʿ*ṯā*, *bēṯā* 'egg' (DJBA 204); *bita* 'egg' (MD 64).

(24) eye

*ajna.* > 50�

MEA: ʿ*aynā* 'eye' (SL 1097); *ʿēnā* 'eye, sight' (DJBA 855); *ayna* 'eye' (MD 15).

	- *rixqə.* > 50�

< MEA: *rḥq* 'to go away' (SL 1458); *rḥq* 'to be far away' (DJBA 1071); *rhq* 'to be far' (MD 427).

(26) fat

*tərвə.* 8�

< MEA: *tarbā* 'fat' (SL 1663f.); *tarbā* 'fat' (DJBA 1230); *tirba* 'fat of animals' (MD 486).

(27) feather

*pərrə.* 14�

< Pers� *par*, *parr* 'a wing, a feather' (CPED 239); Kurd. *p'er̄* 'feather, wing' (Chyet 439); Azer. *pər* 'Flügel' (ADW 512).

(28) fire

*nurə.* > 50�

MEA: *nūrā* 'fre' (SL 904); *nūrā* 'fre' (DJBA 738); *nura*  'fre' (MD 294).

(29) fish

*nunə.* > 50�

MEA: *nūnā* 'fsh' (SL 900); *nūnā* 'fsh' (DJBA 737); *nuna*  'fsh' (MD 294).

(30) to fly

*prəxə.* > 50�

MEA: *prḥ* pe. 'to fy' (SL 1235); *prḥ* pe. 'to fy' (DJBA 930); *phr* pe. 'to fy', *pra* pe. 'to fy' (MD 366, 377).

(31) foot

*pənçə.* 3�

< Pers� *panj* 'fve' (CPED 256). For this etymology, see Khan (2016, vol. 3, 249). *Əqlə itlə ьţma, şəqə u pənçə*� 'The leg consists of the thigh, the shin and the foot' (TEK II 74/23).

(32) full

*miljə.* > 50�

MEA: *mly* 'to fll up' (SL 768); *mly* 'to be full' (DJBA 678); *mla* 'to fll, be full' (MD 272).

(33) to give

*jəvə.* > 50�

MEA: *yhb* 'to give' (SL 565); *yhb* '*to give*' (DJBA 526); *yhb*  'to give' (MD 189).

(34) to go

*zələ.* > 50�

MEA: ʾ*zl* 'to go' (SL 24); ʾ*zl* 'to go, travel' (DJBA 100); *azl*  'to go, move on' (MD 12).

(35) good

*spaj*� > 50�

< Kurd. *spehî* 'beau, belle, joli' (DKF 1539).

(36) green

*qijnə.* > 50�

The etymology is unclear.

*mijlənə*� 10�

< Pers� *mīnā* 'a blue, blueish green, green colour' (CPED 1364; Khan 2016, vol. 3, 220).

(37) hair

*kosə.* 37�

< Syriac *sawkā* 'branch, twig' (SL 978f.).<sup>10</sup>

*mьsta.* 27�

MEA: *mezṯā* 'hair' (SL 736); *mazzyā* '(coll.) hair' (DJBA 652); *manza* 'hair' (MD 248). In some cases *mьsta* is used as nomen unitatis for 'hair'.

(38) hand

*ijdə.* > 50�

MEA: *īḏā* 'hand' (SL 31); *yḏā* 'hand, possession' (DJBA 523); ʿ*da* 'hand' (MD 341).

<sup>10</sup> See Mutzaf (2006, 89–9).

(39) head

*rişə*� > 50�

MEA: *rēšā* 'head' (SL 1462); *rēšā* 'head, top part' (DJBA 1078); *riša* 'head, top' (MD 434).

(40) to hear

*şmaja*� > 50�

MEA: *šmʿ* 'to hear, listen to' (SL 1574); *šmʿ* 'to hear' (DJBA 1158); *šma* 'to hear, listen' (MD 469).

(41) heart

*liввə.* > 50�

MEA: *lebbā* 'heart' (SL 666); *libbā* 'heart' (DJBA 623); *liba* 'heart' (MD 234).

(42) heavy

*jaqura.* > 50�

MEA: *yqr* 'to be heavy' (SL 582); *yqr* 'to increase in value' (DJBA 540); MD *yqr* 'to honor, respect'�

(43) horn

*qənə.* 41� 11

MEA: *qarnā* 'horn' (SL 1412); *qarnā* 'horn' (DJBA 1044); *qarna* 'horn' (MD 403).

(44) I

*ənə*�> 50�

MEA: *enā* 'I' (SL 58); *ănā* 'I' (DJBA 143); *ana* 'I' (MD 24).

(45) to kill

*qţala.* > 50�

MEA: *qṭl* 'to kill' (SL 1352); *qṭl* 'to kill' (DJBA 1006); *gṭl '*to kill' (MD 87).

<sup>11</sup> Two attestations were found beyond the digitised corpus: MPX 13/6, VEG 44/17.

(46) knee *вirkə*� > 50� MEA: *burkā* 'knee' (SL 131); *birkā* 'knee' (DJBA 206); *burka* 'knee' (MD 57). (47) to know *daja.* > 50� MEA: *yd*ʿ 'to know' (SL 563); *yd*ʿ 'to know' (DJBA 525); *yda* 'to know' (MD 188). (48) leaf *ţarpa*� 22� MEA: *ṭarpā* 'leaf' (SL 555); *ătarpā* 'leaf' (DJBA 108); *aṭirpa* 'leaf' (MD 13). (49) to lie (a stative situation) *dməxə.* > 50� MEA: *dmk* 'to sleep' (SL 310); *dmk* 'to lie' (DJBA 343). (50) liver *çigar*� 2� 12 < Azer� *ciyər*, *qara ciyər* 'Leber' (ADW 184). (51) long *jarьjxa.* 51� MEA: *arrīḵ* 'long' (SL 99); *arīḵ* 'tall, long' (DJBA 167); *arika* 'long' (MD 37). (52) louse *qəlmə.* 6� MEA: *qalmā* 'louse' (SL 1372); *qalmṯā* 'vermin' (DJBA

1021).

<sup>12</sup> The only attestation is MXM 63/25, which is currently outside the digitised corpus.

```
(53) man (male)
```
*urzə.* > 50�

The etymology is uncertain. For the suggestion to derive it from Sanskrit *vr̥ṣán* 'big, strong, male, ox', see Nöldeke (1868, 385).<sup>13</sup>

*gorə.* It is not yet clear, perhaps *gorə* should be included as a synonym, but it refers to 'husband' in most cases.

(54) man (human being)

*nəşə.* > 50�

MEA: *nāšā* 'man, human beings' (SL 65); *ināšā* 'man' (DJBA 120); *(a)naša* 'human being' (MD 24).

*вarnəşə*� > 50�

The ratio of the usage of *nəşə* to *вarnəşə* is 10:1. Therefore, *nəşə* is the main exponent of the meaning in question.

(55) many

*raвa.* > 50�

MEA: *rābā* 'great, large' (SL 1425).

(56) meat

*вьsra*� > 50�

MEA: *besrā* 'fesh, meat' (SL 167); *bisrā* 'fesh, meat' (DJBA 207); *bisra* 'fesh, meat' (MD 62).

(57) moon

*sara.* > 50�

MEA: *sahrā* 'moon' (SL 974); *sehrā* 'moon' (DJBA 800); *sira* 'moon' (MD 329).

<sup>13</sup> The etymological note of Yona Sabar on this word (K < Sanskrit *vrśa*) may be interpreted that the author in fact proposes a Kurdish etymon derived from O�Ind� *vṛṣán* (JNAD 91).

(58) mountain

*ţura*� > 50�

MEA: *ṭūrā* 'mountain' (SL 521); *ṭūrā* 'mountain' (DJBA 498); *ṭura* 'mountain, hill' (MD 178).

(59) mouth

*pummə*� > 50�

MEA: *pūmā* 'mouth' (SL 1165); *pūmā* 'mouth' (DJBA 889); *puma* 'mouth' (MD 368).

(60) nail

*ţupurta*� 14�

MEA: *ṭep̄rā* 'nail, claw, talon' (SL 548); *ṭup̄rā* 'fngernail, toenail' (DJBA 498); *ṭupra* 'claw, nail' (MD 178).

(61) name

*şimmə*� > 50�

MEA: *šmā* 'name' (SL 1569); *šmā* 'name' (DJBA 1153); *šuma* 'name, reputation' (MD 454).

(62) near

*qurвə*� 10�

MEA: *qrb* 'to approach to, be near' (SL 1400); *qrb* 'to come near, bring near' (DJBA 1037); *qrb* 'to approach, draw near' (MD 415).

(63) neck

*qdələ. >* 50�

MEA: *qḏālā* 'neck' (SL 1317); *qḏālā* 'neck' (DJBA 984).

(64) new

*xətə. >* 50�

MEA: *ḥaṯā* 'new' (SL 418); *ḥăḏaṯ* 'new' (DJBA 433); *hadta*  'new' (MD 116).

(65) night

*leli.* > 50�

MEA: *lelyā* 'night' (SL 691); *lelyā* 'night' (DJBA 626); *lilia*  'night' (MD 236).

(66) nose

*nəxijrə.* 34�

MEA: *nḥīrā* 'nasus' (TS 2340); *nḥīrā* 'nostril' (DJBA 741); *nhira* 'nose' (MD 291).

(67) not

*lə, le.* > 50�

MEA: *lā* 'no' (SL 665); *lā* 'no' (DJBA 613); *lā* 'no, not' (MD 227).

(68) one

*xə.* > 50�

MEA: *ḥaḏ* 'one' (SL 413); *ḥaḏ* 'one' (DJBA 430); *had* 'one, single' (MD 116).

(69) rain

*mьţra.* > 50�

MEA: *meṭrā* 'rain' (SL 749); *miṭrā* 'rain' (DJBA 665); *miṭra* 'rain' (MD 266).

(70) red

*smuqə.* > 50�

MEA: *summāqā* 'red' (SL 981); *summāq* 'red object, redness' (DJBA 794); *s*(*u*)*maq*(*a*) 'red, ruddy' (MD 322).

(71) road

*urxə.* > 50�

MEA: ʾ*urḥā* 'road' (SL 21).

(72) root

*ьqra*� 17�

MEA: ʿ*eqqārā* 'root' (SL 1132).

(73) round

*glulə.* 32�

MEA: *glālā* 'round' (SL 238);<sup>14</sup> *glālā* 'stone-shaped object' (DJBA 288); *glala* 1 'stone, rock, hailstone', *glala* 2 'something round, ball' (MD 91).

(74) salt

*milxə.* 40�

MEA: *melḥā* 'salt' (SL 767); *milḥā* 'salt' (DJBA 667); *mihla*  'salt' (MD 266).

(75) sand

*silə.* 44�

< Kurd. *seylak* 'sable' DKF 1495; *sêl* DKF 1498; *sêlak*  DKF 1498; *sêlax* DKF 1498; *sêleh* DKF 1498; *sêlix* DKF 1498; *sîlewan* DKF 1524; *sîlik* DKF 1524� The mixed source background of DKF (Sorani-Kurmanji) suggests that the words in question are mostly used by Sorani speakers. The corresponding Kurmanji terms with the basic meaning 'sand' would be *xîz* (Chyet 665) and *qûm*  (Chyet 498). Therefore, C. Urmi *silə* must have been borrowed from Sorani Kurdish�

(76) to say

*mərə.* > 50�

MEA: ʾ*mr* 'to say' (SL 57); ʾ*mr* 'to say, tell' (DJBA 140); *amr* 'to say, speak' (MD 23).

<sup>14</sup> Syriac *glultā* pl� *glulē* 'pair of compasses; globe, ball' is attested only in the lexicon of Bar Bahlul. It may be a borrowing from Modern Aramaic.

(77) to see

*xzəjə.* > 50�

MEA: *ḥzy* 'to see' (SL 438); *ḥzy* 'to see, look at' (DJBA 444); *hza* 'to see, look' (MD 138).

(78) seed

*вarzarra*� 8�

MEA: *bar zarʿā* 'seed' (SL 180); *bazrā*, *bizrā* 'seed' (DJBA 195); *bazira*, *bazra* 'seed' (MD 46).

(79) short

*kirjə.* > 50�

MEA: *karyā* 'short' (SL 651).

(80) to sit

*tjəvə.* > 50�

MEA: *ytb* 'to sit' (SL 587); *ytb* 'to sit' (DJBA 545); *ytb* 'to sit, stay' (MD 193).

(81) skin

*gildə.* > 50�

MEA: *geldā* 'skin, leather' (SL 233); *gildā* 'scab, hide' (DJBA 280); *gilda* 'leather' (MD 90).

(82) to sleep

*dməxə.* > 50�

MEA: *dmk* 'to sleep' (SL 310); *dmk* 'to lie' (DJBA 343).

*ţləjə* >50�

MEA: *ṭl*ʿ etpa. 'to sufer from sleepiness' (SL 534); *ṭulā*ʿā 'deep sleep, torpor' (SL 517); *mṭala*ʿ 'heavy (sleep)' (SL 747), *mṭalʿānā* 'soporifc' (SL 747).

The character of the Classical Syriac sources that use derivatives of *ṭl*ʿ with the meanings relating 'to sleep' (Bar Bahlul dictionary, *The Book of Medicines*) point to a probable Neo-Aramaic background of these terms in these dictionaries of CS.

The verb *ţlaja* has the meaning 'to fall asleep' in most of its uses. Nevertheless, the verb *ţlaja* clearly has the meaning 'to sleep' in a number of instances: *Lə gəşəqtə l dəhə, в leləvəti Fritjof qujə вьţlajьva* 'Despite that, at night Fritjof was sound asleep' (FNA 27/2); *Bopre go otax al qaravat ţьljьva b şintǝ dlǝ gnǝhǝ.* '[At this moment] Bopre was innocently sleeping in the room on the bed' (PBQ 7/22).

(83) small

```
surə. > 50�
```
MEA: *zā*ʿ*orā* 'small' (SL 390); *z*ʿ*er* 'small, young' (DJBA 418).

(84) smoke

*tinnə.* > 50�

MEA: *tennānā* 'smoke' (SL 1656); *tnn*ʾ 'smoke' (DJBA 1223).

(85) snake

*xuvvi.* 24�

MEA: *ḥewyā* 'snake' (SL 424); *ḥiwyā* 'snake' (DJBA 450); *hiuia* 'serpent, snake' (MD 142)*.*

(86) to stand

*kləjə.* > 50�

MEA: *kly* 'to impede, prevent' (SL 624); *kly* 'to be fnished' (DJBA 582); *kla* 'to keep enclosed, hold back' (MD 216).

(87) star

*koxvə.* > 50�

MEA: *kawkḇā* 'star' (SL 606); *koḵḇā* 'star' (DJBA 558); *kukba* 'star' (MD 206).

(88) stone

*kipə.* > 50�

MEA: *kēp̄ā* 'stone' (SL 594); *kēp̄ā* 'stone' (DJBA 577).

(89) sun

*şimşə*� > 50�

MEA: *šemšā* 'sun' (SL 1576); *šimšā* 'sun, sunlight' (DJBA 1136); *šamšā* 'sun' (MD 443).

(90) to swim

*mxəjə sьxvь/sьxva*� 29�

*sьxvь* < MEA: *sḥy* 'to wash o.s., bathe' (SL 992); *sḥy* 'to wash oneself, bathe' (DJBA 797); *saa* 'to wash, perform ablutions' (MD 308). The periphrastic verb is modelled after Kurmanji *ajnê kirin* (Chyet 3) or Sorani *mele kirin*  (DKF 972).

(91) tail

*ţuprə*� 27�

There is no clear etymology. Possibly related to MEA: *ṭep̄rā/ṭup̄rā* 'nail, claw'� 15

(92) that (ms.)

*av*� > 50�

MEA: *haw* 'that one' (SL 333).

(93) thin

*nəqijdə.* 20�

Cf� MEA *nqd*: *naqḏā* 'clean; (gramm.) tenuis' (SL), *naqdonā* 'delicate' (SL 945); *nquḏtā* 'dot' (DJBA 772).

<sup>15</sup> For references, see no� 60�

(94) this (ms.)

*əhə*� > 50�

For the etymology of this see Khan (2016, vol. 1, 239) and also Militarev (2014, 172).

(95) tongue

*lişənə.* > 50�

MEA: *leššānā* 'tongue' (SL 698); *liššānā* 'tongue' (DJBA 627); *lišana* 'tongue' (MD 237).

(96) tooth

*kikə. >* 50�

MEA: *kakkā* 'molar tooth' (SL 621). On this word, see Mutzaf (2014, 113).

(97) tree

*ijlənə.* > 50�

MEA: *ʾīlānā* 'tree' (SL 35).

(98) two

*tre.* > 50�

MEA: *trēn* 'two' (SL 1666); *trē*(*n*) 'two' (DJBA 1233); *trin*  'two' (MD 490)

(99) warm

*şəxijnə*� > 50�

MEA: *šḥn* 'to be infamed', pa. 'to warm, heat' (SL 1544); *šḥn* 'be infamed, heat' (DJBA 1128); *šḥn* 'to become hot' (MD 451).

(100) water

*mijə*� > 50�

MEA: *mayyā* 'water' (SL 750); *mayyā* 'water' (DJBA 662); *mai* 'water' (MD 242).

(101) we

*əxnən*� > 50�

MEA: *ḥnan,* ʾ*nḥnn* 'we' (SL 472, 60); *ănan* 'we' (DJBA 145); *anin, an*ʿ*n* 'we' (MD 27).

(102) what?

*mudij, mu.* > 50�

MEA: *mā* 'what?' (SL 700), *dēn* 'then' (SL 296), see Nöldeke (1868, 82).

(103) white

*xvara.* > 50�

MEA: *ḥewwārā* 'white' (SL 432); *ḥiwwār* 'white' (DJBA 450); *hiuara* 'white' (MD 142).

(104) wind

*poxə.* > 50�

MEA: *pwḥ* pe. 'to blow, to breathe' (SL 1160), *pāwḥā*  'odour, smell' (SL 1161); *pwḥ* pe. 'to breathe, blow up' (DJBA 888).

(105) who?

*mən, mənij.* > 50�

MEA: *man* 'who?' (SL 778); *man* 'who' (DJBA 636); *man* 'who' (MD 246).

(106) woman

*вəxtə*� > 50�

There is no clear etymology. For the discussion of the possible origin of this word see Khan (1999, 146–147).

(107) worm

*tьvьlta.* 5� 16

MEA: *tawl*ʿā 'worm' (SL 1630); *tōla*ʿ*tā* 'worm' (DJBA 1197); *tulita* 'worm, embryo' (MD 483).

(108) year

*şitə*� > 50�

MEA: *šattā* 'year' (SL 1581); *šattā* 'year' (DJBA 1183); *šita* 'year' (MD 464).

(109) yellow

*zərdə.* > 50�

< Pers� *zard* 'yellow' (CPED 614)

(110) you (s.)

*ət*� > 50�

MEA: *at* 'you (s.)' (SL 66); *ant* 'you (ms.) (DJBA 146); *anat* 'thou' (MD 24).

## **5. Conclusions**

The digitised corpus for literary Christian Urmi of approximately 630,000 words has been shown to be sufcient to establish the basic 110 word list with 117 exponents. More than 70 percent of the entries (87/117) have more than 50 attestations in the corpus.

There are seven meanings that have two exponents: bark (*qəlpə, çuluxtə*), to bite (*qraţa, njasa*), cold (*qajra*, *qarьjra*), green (*qijnə*, *mijlənə*), hair (*kosə, mьsta*), man (*nəşə, вarnəşə*); to sleep (*dməxə*, ţlaja). In the cases of cold and green the problem may be solved by statistical data: the exponents *qajra* for

<sup>16</sup> One of the attestations of this word was found in the text MPX 90/28, which is not yet digitised�

cold and *qijnə* for green have considerably more attestations in the corpus than the alternative exponents *qarьjra* and *mijlənə*� On the other hand, bare statistical data do not help in the case of bark (see the discussion of no. 3).

More than 90 percent of the meanings (94/110) have exponents with reliable Middle Eastern Aramaic etymologies. Four meanings have exponents that originate from Persian (*sadra*  'breast' < Pers. *ṣadr*; *pərrə* 'feather' < Pers� *par*; *pənçə* 'foot' < Pers� *panc*; *zərdə* 'yellow' < Pers� *zard*). The exponents of two meanings have Kurdish etymologies (*spaj* 'good' < Kurd. *spehî*; *silə* 'sand' < Kurd. *sêl*). One meaning is expressed by a word originating from Azeri Turkish (*çigar* 'liver' < Azer� *ciyər*). Three meanings have each two exponents with diferent etymologies: bark (*qəlpə* MEA; *çuluxtə* < Kurd. *çûlik*), bite (*qraţa* MEA, *njasa* of uncertain etymology), green (*qijnə*—of uncertain etymology; *mijlənə* < Pers� *mīnā*). A special case is the meaning to swim, which is expressed by a compound verb *mxəjə sьxvь/sьxva*� Both members of this construction have Aramaic origin, but this verb is a loan translation from Kurdish (no. 90). Six meanings have exponents with uncertain or unknown etymologies (5. big *gurə*; 22� dry *вəruzə*; 53. man (male) *urzə*; 91. tail *ţuprə*; 94. this *əhə*; 196 woman *вəxtə*).

## **General Abbreviations**


## **Bibliographical Abbreviations**



VEG Vegin, Sergej� 1933� *Go səmi ьllajь d'Diqlət. Puşəqə d'Bedrojev*� Moskva: GIXL.

### **References**


———. 1997. *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Jilu.* Semitica Viva 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz�


———. 2008. *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar.* 3 vols. Leiden–Boston: Brill.

———. 2016. *The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi*� 4 vols� Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 86. Leiden–Boston: Brill.

Lyavdansky, Alexey. Forthcoming. 'Neo-Aramaic Texts in the New Alphabet Published in the Soviet Union 1929–1938'. In *A Handbook of Neo-Aramaic*, edited by Steven E. Fassberg, Simon Hopkins and Hezy Mutzafi.


## **Appendix: Correspondences of Transcriptions**


<sup>17</sup> Marogulov (1976).

<sup>18</sup> The transcription in Khan (2008 and 2016) is representative of the transcriptions used in the descriptions of Neo-Aramaic dialects.


## **LEXICAL ITEMS RELATING TO MATERIAL CULTURE IN THE NENA DIALECTS OF THE AQRA REGION**

*Aziz Emmanuel Eliya Al-Zebari* 

*(in collaboration with Anjuman M. Sabir)*

This article is based on my research on the Neo-Aramaic dialects of the Aqra (Akre) region, which are spoken across the Aqra mountain in Iraqi Kurdistan. Some details about these dialects have been discussed in previous publications, notably by Coghill (2008, 102–104). No systematic documentation of these dialects has, however, so far been published.

The Neo-Aramaic dialects of Aqra belong to the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup, which is the largest and most diverse branch of Neo-Aramaic.

The informants for this project come from various areas of the Aqra region, where diferent dialects were spoken. These dialects can be classifed broadly into those of the villages lying to the North of the Aqra mountain and those of the inhabitants of the region to the South of the mountain. Those lying to the North are situated in an area known as Nexla (henceforth Nx.) and include the villages of Dinarta, Upper Girbish, and Sanaye. The inhabitants of these are descendants of families from the villages of Geppa, Arena and Qalunta (known in Kurdish as Shkafte, Harene, and Kalate respectively), which were abandoned in the 1880s. The dialect area lying to the South of the Aqra mountain (referred to by the abbreviation Sam.) includes the town of Aqra and the villages of Kherpa, Kharjawa, Nuhawa, Barrake, Sharmen and Malaberwan. The most conspicuous diferences between these two dialect areas are (i) the refexes of the historical interdentals \**θ* and \**ð* and (ii) the pronunciation of long */u/*�

In the Nexla area in the North the historical unvoiced \**θ* is debuccalised to */h/*, e�g� Dinarta *beha* (< \**bayθa*) 'house', as in some NENA dialects of the Baz region (Mutzaf 2000). In the southern area, on the other hand, it is realised as a sibilant */s/*, e�g� Kherpa *besa* 'house'. The refex of the historical voiced interndental \**ð* is the voiced sibilant */z/* in both areas, e.g. Dinarta *ʾiza* (< *ʾiða*) 'hand'. The dialect spoken in the town of Aqra is an exception to this generalisation, since the refex of historical \**θ* is /*θ*/ or */s/*, e�g� *beθa ~ besa* 'house', and the refex of historical \**ð* is the stop */d/*, e�g� *ʾida* 'hand'. This is summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Refexes of Interdentals


The other conspicuous feature that distinguishes the two dialect areas is the pronunciation of the long */u/* as a fronted rounded vowel (represented here as /*ü*/) in the northern Nx. area and as a back /*u/* in the southern area,<sup>1</sup> e�g� *güza* (Nx.), *guza*  (Sam.) 'skin churn' (< \**guða*).

In this paper I shall present a collection of lexical items relating to material culture that are used in the dialects of the area. The classifcation of the semantics felds is based on Khan's lexical lists in his grammar of the Barwar dialect (2008, vol. 2).

Lexical items are cited in the variant forms that occur in the two dialect areas, refecting the phonological diferences that have just been described. The gender of the nouns is indicated and their plural form(s). The two plural infections -*aha* and -*asa* represent the two regional variations in the realisation of historical \**θ* (< \*-*aθa*) across the dialects of Nexla and south Aqra mountain (Sam.) respectively. The plural infection -*aθa* is used by some speakers in the town of Aqra (At.). When the words are loans from other languages, this is indicated by the abbreviations Kurd. (Kurdish), Arab. (Arabic) and Turk. (Turkish) respectively. The transcription system follows the practice of Khan's (2008) grammar of the Barwar dialect. Short vowels in closed syllables and long vowels in open syllables are left without diacritical marks. A long vowel in a closed syllable is marked by a macron and a short vowel in an open syllable is marked by a breve. The character */ə/* in all syllables represents a short centralised vowel, which is realised as [ɪ] or [ə] according to the phonetic context.

### **1. Buildings and Structures**

### **1.1. Houses and their Appurtenances**

*beha*, *besa* m� (pl� *behane*, *besane*, *bāte*) house

*darta* f� (pl� *dartaha*, *dartasa*) courtyard, residential enclosure

*ḥawš* m� (pl� *ḥawšane*) (Kurd.) courtyard, residential enclosure

*gare* m� (pl� *garawaha*, *garawasa*) roof

<sup>1</sup> For the fronting of */u/* in many languages of the region see Haig and Khan (2018, 13–14).


*ʾoda xteha ʾuda xtesa* f� (pl� *ʾudaha xtaye*, *ʾudasa xtaye*) lower room

*manzal* f� (pl� *manzale*) (Arab./Kurd.) room


*ṣüpa* (Nx.), *ṣupa* (Sam.) m. outer shed opening outwards


*tanüra*, *tanura* m� (pl� *tanüre*, *tanure*) oven (for baking bread)


#### **1.2. Church and its Appurtenances**


### **1.3. Watermill**

*ʾarxəl* f� (pl� *ʾarxəlwaha*, *ʾarxəlwasa*) watermill *kepət reša* m. upper grindstone

*kepət səssa* m� lower grindstone


*paṛṛe* n.pl. blades of propeller


*bəsta* m� driving rod

### **1.4. Churn**


### **1.5. Cradle**

*dodiyya* f� (pl� *dodiyye, dudyaha, dudyasa*) cradle

*dazbenka* m� (pl�*dazbenke*) (Kurd.) swaddling bands


## **2. Containers**

### **2.1. Miscellaneous Vessels**


*qapüla*, *qapula* m� (pl� *qapüle*, *qapule*) a small measure used by the owner of water-mill to measure out his share as a fee for milling four or sesame oil

*qoqa* m� (pl� *qoqe*) water pot


*ṣəṭla* f� (pl� *ṣəṭle*) brass or aluminium bucket

*seniyya* f� (pl� *seniyye*) (Kurd./Arab.) large metal plate

*senika* f� (pl� *senikyaha*, *senikyasa*) (Kurd./Arab.) small metal plate

*koka* m� (pl� *koke*) large pot for cooking oil and fried meat

*šarba* f� (pl� *šarbe*) earthenware jug

*šüša*, *šuša* m� (pl� *šüše*, *šuše*) bottle


*lüliyya*, *luliyya* m� (pl� *lüliyye*, *luliyye*) spout (on a pot)

*kofka*, *kuwwa* m� (pl� *kuwwe*) funnel

#### **2.3. Cups and Glasses**

*glās* m� (pl� *glase*) (Kurd./English) glass

*kasa* m� (pl� *kase*) chalice (in church)

*stikana* m� (pl� *stikane*) (Kurd.) small tea glass

*samawar* m. (Kurd.) samovar

*bardaġ* m� (pl� *bardaġe*) glass for drinking water

*čapaste*, *čapaske* f� (pl� *čapaskyaha*, *čapaskyasa*, *čapastyaha*, *čapastyasa*) (Kurd.) teapot

### **2.3. Bags and Baskets**


*kista* m� (pl� *kisyaha*, *kisyasa*) (Arab) small bag of cloth


*gərba* m� (pl� *gərbe*) conical basket for keeping bees

*kurtana* m� (pl� *kurtanane)* saddle-bag especially for donkeys

## **3. Miscellaneous Instruments and Tools**

*tarkəsana* m. long wooden poker for stirring up the fre of an oven

*baxošta* f� (pl� *baxošyaha*, *baxošyasa*) big stirring spoon, ladle


*čamča* f� (pl� *čamče*) spoon (made of wood)

*čəngala* f� (pl� *čəngale*) (Kurd.) fork

*garoma* m� (pl� *garome*) large wood rolling pin

*garusta* f� (pl� *garosyaha*, *garusyasa*) handmill


*magla* m� (pl� *magle*) sickle

*magəsta* f� (pl� *magəsyaha*, *magəsyasa*) small sickle


*məlġawa* m� (pl� *məlġawe*) winnowing fork


*šapṛa* m� (pl� *šapṛe*) large knife

*beṭiyya* f� (pl� *beṭyaha*, *beṭyasa*) small metal tool lie an adze for digging up vegetables

*xaṣṣina* f� (pl� *xaṣṣine*) axe


*xatoṛa* m� (pl� *xatoṛe*) washing board

*makinət xyaṭa* f� sewing machine

### **4. Agriculture**

#### **4.1. Cultivated Land**

*ʾara* f� (pl� *ʾaraha*, *ʾarasa*) ground, land

*ʾaqaṛa* m� (pl� *ʾaqaṛe*) area of open farmland

*ʾəpra* m. soil, ground; land

*bayara* f. land left without cultivation for one season

*čamma* m� (pl� *čammane*) large feld near river; plantation


```
marga m� (pl� margane) meadow
```
*praza* f� (pl� *prazane*, *prazaha*, *prazasa*) stubble feld

*txüba*, *txuba* m� (pl� *txübe*, *txu:be*) boundary

*zṛota* f� planted vegitables and crops

### **4.2. Paddy Fields**


### **4.3. Irrigation**

*šaqiyya* f� (pl� *šaqyaha*, *šaqyasa*) irrigation channel


### **4.4. Harvest and Storage**

*ġzada* f� harvest


*dwara* m� threshing of grains by animals on the threshing foor


*qayne* m. metal fnger covers worn by harvesters

*səmmala* f� (pl� *səmmale*) small bundle of grass or produce

*ṭaṛpa* m. tree (oak) leaves for winter

*ṭaṛpušna* m� fallen tree leaves


*taxa* m� (pl� *taxe*) pile, untied bundle of grass and leaves

*btüne*, *btune* m� storage bin for straw

*parta* f. removed rice husks

*püška*, *puška* m. (Kurd.) rice grains with husks

### **4.5. Plough and Ploughing**

*bzara* f� (pl� *bzarane*) plough

*nira* m� (pl� *nire*) yoke

*lata* f� (pl� *latəkyaha*, *latəkyasa*) furrow

*latəka* f� (pl� *latəkyaha*, *latəkyasa*) small furrow

*psana* f. a ploughed unit of land

*šapna* f. instrument made of oak twigs for smoothing ground after ploughing and sowing

### **4.6. Sieves and Sieving**

*maxəlta* f� (pl� *maxəlyaha*, *maxəlyasa*) sieve with small holes (for four)

*ʾərbala* f� (pl� *ʾərbale*, *ʾərbalane*) sieve with medium sized holes

*sarada* m� (pl� *sarade*) (Kurd./Arab.) sieve with large holes (for corn)

*parta* f. husks remaining in sieve after sieving

*dəqqa* m. fne particles of grains (especially rice) after pounding them in a stone mortar

## **5. Sewing, Weaving and Spinning**

### **5.1. Sewing**

*xyaṭa* to sew

*xayyaṭa* m� (pl� *xayyaṭe*) (Arab.) tailor

*xayyaṭṭa* f� (pl� *xayyaṭe*) (Arab.) seamstress

*makinət xyaṭa* f� sewing machine

*xmaṭa* f� (pl� *xmaṭyaha*, *xmatyasa*) needle

*ʾurtəxa* f� (pl� *ʾurtəxe*, *ʾurtəxyaha*, *ʾurtəxyasa*) long needle

*qaṭwa* m� (pl� *qaṭwe*) large wooden needle

*sənjaqa* f� (pl� *sənjaqe*) crochet-hook

*kəštaban* f. thimble

*gzaza*, *gdada* (At.) m. (pl. *gzaze*, *gdade*) thread

*bakara* m� (pl� *bakare*) spool for thread


### **5.2. Weaving**

*zqaṛa* to weave, to knit

*zəqṛa* m� (pl� *zəqṛe*) weaving, woven product

### **5.3. Spinning**

*ʾzala* to spin (wool)

*ʾəzla* m� yarn

*küša*, *kuša* m� (pl� *küše*, *kuše*) spindle (hanging from a distaf )

*masərqa* m� (pl� *masərqe*) large comb for carding wool

*gəgla* m� (pl� *gəgle*) skein (of wool, thread) spun on a spool

## **6. Hunting**

*lāstika* f� (pl� *lāstike*) sling


*ṭaḷḷe* f� (pl� *ṭaḷḷaha*, *ṭaḷḷasa*) metal springed animal trap

*tăfaqa* f� (pl� *tăfaqe*) rife

*qeṛma* f� (pl� *qeṛme*) shotgun

### **7. Fires**

*nüra, nura* m. fre


*lata* f. fame

*črüska, čruska* m� (pl� *črüske, črüska*) (Kurd.) spark

*tənna* m� smoke

*palla* m� (pl� *palle*) (Kurd.) ember of burning wood

*qəṭma* m� ash

*šəmṛa* m�soot

*šəxṛa* m. soot that forms on the surface of cooking pots or chimnies

*maṣəxwa* f� (pl� *maṣəxwe*) metal scoop with a long handle to remove soot from fre place, carry hot charcoal, or ember.

*tarkəsana* m� small wooden poker

*bnüre*, *bnure* m. freplace, hearth

*sekuča* m� (pl� *sekuče*) (Kurd.) metal frame for cooking over a fre with three legs

*malhoye* to burn, to be kindled

*ṭpaya* to kindle

*draya nüra*, *nura b- gu-* to set fre to (used in an abstract way), e.g. *drele nüra/nura gu-ləbbi* 'he set fre to my heart' (= he made me very sad)

*ʾiqaza* to burn, *maqoze*, *mqaza* 'to set fre to'

*yuqzana* m. fuel

*lwaxa* to catch fre, to blaze, to get furious at somebody

*baṭboṭe* to fuctuate when burning from one extreme to another

*qmaya* to scorch (clothes) (tr. and intr.)

*xraxa* to singe

*xərxa* m� singed head, forearms and legs of animal for eating

šy*ara* to stoke (fre)

*tarkose* to build up embers of a fre in order to keep it burning

*ṭyaxa* to die down (fre), *maṭyoxe* to dampen down (fre)

## **8. Clothes and Fabrics**

### **8.1. General Clothes**


*jeba* m� (pl� *jebane*) (Arab.) pocket (men)

*gəfka* m� (pl� *gəfke*) (Kurd.) tassel


*qupča* m� (pl� *qupče*) button

*ziqa* m� neck of a shirt

#### **8.2. Men's Clothes**

*kapanak* m. (Kurd.) thick woolen cloak of shepherd

*šərwala* m� (pl� *šərwalane*) (Kurd.) trousers made from white cloth

*təka* f. cord for trousers

*qayiš* m� (pl� *qayiše*) (Kurd.) leather belt


### **8.3. Women's Clothes**

*helaka* m� (pl� *helake* ) waistcoat without sleeves


*xürət/xurət ṣudṛa* m. long undergarment ending with a coloured part above the feet)

*qundərta* f� (pl� *qundəre*) shoes

### **8.4. Shoes**

*liyane* n�pl� snow shoes

*pelawət lāstik* n.pl. (Kurd.) rubber shoes

*ləhefa* m� (pl� *ləhefe*) (Kurd./Arab.) duvet

*pelawta* m� (pl� *pelawe* ) (Kurd.) shoes

*qundərta* f� (pl� *qundəre*) (Kurd./Turk.) leather shoes with heals

*qaytan* m� (pl� *qaytane*) shoe-lace

*jazma* f� (pl� *jazma*) long plastic shoes worn in winter

## **8.5. Fabrics**

*bara* m� (pl� *bare)* (Kurd.) sheet *parča* m� (pl� *parče*) (Kurd.) sheet of cloth *baza* m. type of fabric *čapan* f. white fabric *kənjəṛṛa* m� (pl� *kənjəṛṛe*) (Kurd.) piece of (usually useless) cloth *čita* m. (Kurd.) type of thin smooth fabric *čoxa* f. (Kurd.) broadcloth, thick woolen fabric *grawa* m. (Kurd.) of-white cotton fabric *ʾabresəm* m� silk *jurjet* m. type of velvet fabric

### *nəqša* m. embroidery

*prasta* f. cloth spread on foor on which food is laid, spread, covering for foor (such as rug or carpet)

*tatiyya* m� (pl� *tatiyye*) mat made of compressed wool

*maḥfərṭa* f� (pl� *maḥfəryaha, maḥfəryasa*) (Kurd.) carpet

*matraḥta* f� (pl� *matraḥyaha*, *matraḥyasa*) (Arab.) small mat for sitting

*zəqṛa* m� (pl� *zəqṛe*) woven fabric

*gota* f. a ball of woven thread

*bakara* m� (pl� *bakare*) (Arab.) spool

### **8.6. Ropes and Ties**

*xawla* m� (pl� *xawle*) rope


*gzaza*, *gədda, gdāda* (At.) m. (pl. *gzāze gədde*) string; thread

*rəsta* f� (pl� *rəsyaha*, *rəsyasa*) line (for hanging clothes)

*səkka* f� (pl� *səkkake*) tether


## **Abbreviations**

Nx� Nexla area

Sam� area South of the Aqra mountain

## **Bibliography**


## **ARABIC LOANWORDS IN THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ANKAWA**

*Salam Neamah Hirmiz Hakeem*

## **1. Introduction**

The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Ankawa belongs to the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup. It is spoken by a Christian minority in the town adhering to the Chaldean Catholic Church, who refer to it by the term Suret or Sureth� Ankawa is located to the North of the city of Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, where Kurdish is the dominant means of communication.

Aramaic, the ancestor of Sureth, and Arabic are genetically related in that they both belong to the Semitic language family. As we shall see, however, this does not seem to be the primary cause of the introduction of an extensive number of Arabic words in the speech of the Sureth-speakers of Ankawa. This is because there are so many more Arabic words in the speech of the young than in that of the older generation. So the crucial factor must be the current social situation rather than the linguistic afnity of the two languages.

## **2. Research Data**

The source of the majority of the data presented in this paper is my own native-speaker knowledge of the Sureth of Ankawa� I am also a speaker of Arabic as a second language. The data and analyses have been verifed through various audio recordings of interviews and spontaneous conversations that have been elicited from other native speakers of Ankawa Sureth of diferent ages.

## **3. Findings and Discussion**

### Versteegh (2001, 473) states that:

In borrowing speakers are primarily interested in lexical items from another language, which are either perceived to be more prestigious than the lexical equivalents in their own language, or for which their own language has no equivalents at all.

This seems to be true with regard to a large number of Arabic loanwords that can be heard in the speech of the young Surethspeakers in Ankawa. The young generation have started to consider Arabic as a more prestigious language than their mother tongue on account of the wider use of Arabic and its richer vocabulary. They have, moreover, studied academic subjects such as physics and biology in Arabic and do not know equivalents to the technical terminology in Sureth. The common genetic origin of the two languages facilitates the process of borrowing, since in many cases the Arabic loanwords do not sound very diferent from their own native vocabulary, e.g.


It is not clear when exactly this process of borrowing started, but we can deduce from the nature of the loanwords that the Arabic public education and local television channels during the middle of the twentieth century played a pivotal role in initiating and facilitating this process. Although nowadays the educational system has shifted to Kurdish instead of Arabic and there is no immediately neighbouring Arab community, we can still notice an increase in the use of Arabic loanwords by the Sureth-speakers of Ankawa. This may be ascribed to the remaining infuence of schooling and education, which were predominantly in Arabic until the end of the last century, in addition to the television channels and other media that still involve an extensive use of Arabic. As a result, most of the technical words used in the region, including those used by other sections of the population, such as Kurds, Turkmens, Yezidis, are Arabic. Another more recent and prevailing source for more Arabic loanwords is social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter, in which Arabic is the predominant means of communication.

It can be observed that in the majority of cases the Arabic loanwords have not undergone any phonological changes. This is in agreement with Thomason and Kaufman's assumption that 'the more the borrowing speakers come to know the foreign language, the more they tend to take over the foreign phonological elements in an unadapted form' (1988, cited in Versteegh, 2001, 476). Furthermore, morphological borrowing occurs in loanwords, particularly in the use of Arabic plural forms of nouns, whether regular or broken, e.g. *ʾiḥtimālāt* 'possibilities' and *ʾaḥwāl* 'conditions'. Sometimes borrowed Arabic nouns are used either with their Arabic plural form or with the Sureth plural infection (see §4.1 below), e.g. *kutub ~ kitābānə* 'books'.

The following sections present a classifcation and analysis of the most common Arabic loanwords that I have noticed as a native speaker in conversations and in the interviews with Sureth-speakers in Ankawa. The source of loanwords is Modern Standard Arabic rather than Iraqi dialectal Arabic. This is because this is the variety of Arabic that the people of Ankawa have been mostly exposed to. The counterpart of the Arabic words in Ankawa Sureth is provided when available. In some cases, however, there is no counterpart in Ankawa Sureth as far as can be established.

## **4. Nouns**

The vast majority of the Arabic nouns have been borrowed into Sureth in their singular form without any modifcation or infection. Those for which a counterpart in Ankawa Sureth can be identifed include the following:


Examples of borrowed Arabic nouns for which there is no clear counterpart in Ankawa Sureth are the following:



There are, however, also Arabic roots that are used with Sureth noun patterns (especially as verbal nouns), e.g.



In some both the original Arabic form and Arabic root with a Sureth morphological pattern are used interchangeably, e.g.


It is worth mentioning that the majority of borrowed nouns retain their Arabic plural forms, whether sound feminine, sound masculine or broken, e.g.



There are also a few Arabic nouns that are modifed and infected with Sureth plural sufxes, e.g.


Moreover, we can also fnd various borrowed nouns that have both the Arabic and Sureth plural forms, respectively, e.g.


## **5. Verbs**

The Arabic verbs that are borrowed into Sureth involve an Arabic root that is infected with Sureth morphological patterns. In what follows the verbs are cited in the form of the third person singular masculine past form. In some cases there is a semantic counterpart in the Sureth of Ankawa, e�g�


In many cases, however, no exact counterpart in Ankawa Sureth can be identifed, e.g.


Furthermore, Sureth speakers of Ankawa often use Arabic nouns preceded or, more often, followed by a Sureth light verb such as *wədlə* 'did' and *wəllə* 'gave' to produce compound verbs, e�g�


Examples of such hybrid compound verbs without clear counterparts in Ankawa Sureth include the following:

> *taḥḥamul wədlə* [endurance did] 'endured' *ʾiʿlān wədlə* [announcement did] 'announced'


The Sureth of Ankawa has a basic SVO word order. Such compound verbs, however, generally have the light verb after the object and this suggests that their syntax has been infuenced by Kurdish. Sureth speakers in Ankawa also know the local Kurdish, which is an SOV language. In Kurdish also compound verbs with borrowed Arabic nouns and light verbs are in use. The light verb is regularly placed after the noun, in accordance with the normal Kurdish word order, e.g.


Arabic verbs with Arabic morphological infection are occasionally used in Sureth� One example is the expression of attitude *ʾaʿtaqid* 'I think', the Sureth counterpart for which is *xəšboni*�

## **6. Adjectives**

In Arabic the singular masculine is the basic form of the adjective. It is this form that is borrowed by speakers of Ankawa Sureth and used in all contexts, e.g.


### Examples of loaned Arabic adjectives without exact Sureth counterparts include:


Sabar (1984, 206) states that in Neo-Aramaic dialects in general 'native adjectives agree with the qualifed noun or pronoun in singular masculine and feminine, but in plural the masculine form serves both masculine and feminine . . . but in the case of borrowed adjectives, the singular masculine is used invariably with all four categories.' The same agreement patterns are found in the Sureth of Ankawa� For instance, when using native adjectives, we fnd examples such as *ʾubra yarīxa* 'tall boy', *brāta yarixta* 'tall girl', *nāšə yarīxə* 'tall people'� However, when using Arabic loanwords, we would hear forms like *ʾubra baṣīṭ* 'simple boy', *brāta baṣīṭ* 'simple girl', *nāšə baṣīṭ* 'simple people'�

To produce the comparative form, the Ankawa Sureth speakers use the word *bəš* 'more' followed by the borrowed adjectives, e�g� *bəš baṣīṭ* 'more simple', *bəš ṣarīḥ* 'more frank'� Sometimes, however, they apply the Arabic comparative morphological pattern to the loaned adjective, e�g�


## **7. Adverbs**

Ankawa Sureth uses borrowed Arabic adverbs of time, place, and manner, e�g�


Cases where there are no clear Sureth equivalents include:


As we can see above, most of the adverbs of manner are expressed by nouns in the accusative case (cf. Sabar 1984, 206). There are also various loaned Arabic adverbs of manner that are composed of nouns preceded by prepositions, e.g.


Some of these are used as heads of adverbial clauses, e.g.

*fī ḥāl xzelux izdiḥām, dor* 'In case you see crowding, return.'

### **8. Function Words**

In addition to the extensive lexical borrowing that has been demonstrated above, various instances of borrowing of grammatical function words can be also found.

Many such borrowed function words are conjunctions or discourse markers, e.g.


Arabic ordinal numerals are another group of loanwords that are widely used, especially by the young generation, in preference to the equivalent Sureth forms. This applies to the ordinals frst to tenth:


For the ordinal numerals of eleventh and above only the Sureth forms are in use, e.g.


It is noteworthy that the Arabic forms precede nouns, in accordance with Arabic grammar, whereas the Sureth forms follow the nouns, e.g.


Other modifers relating to ordering and addition that are loaned in Sureth are the following:


The borrowed and native forms follow the same patterns as above, e.g.

> Arabic **Sureth** *ʾāxir šuma šuma xarāya* 'last name'�

## **9. The Future of Ankawa Sureth**

Khan (2007, 106–7) states that after the Arab conquests most of the Aramaic speakers of Iraq either started to adopt Arabic, or their speech was gradually Arabicised. Although the transition from Aramaic to Arabic was in some cases slow, this was a continuous process which was fastest in the central and southern areas of Iraq. Spoken Aramaic mostly survived among the Christian and Jewish communities in the North of Iraq.

Ankawa is one of the towns in the North where this language has survived to this day. Will, however, this situation remain the same in the future?

Versteegh (2001, 501–2) states that in various cases 'Arabic was taken over [by speakers] in the same process of acculturation that brought Islam, and in most areas Arabic became at frst the second, and then the frst language of the inhabitants.' Unlike the situation in such cultures, the Sureth speakers of Ankawa seem to have borrowed the Arabic words without being infuenced by the Arab Islamic culture, either because they have retained their Christian faith or because they have been infuenced by the communist thought that prevailed in the eighties and nineties of the last century as well as the atheistic ideas that are becoming globally more prevalent. The situation is similar to various Christian minorities in the Middle East where, as Bohac (2010, 24) puts it, 'most existing Christian groups resisted Islamization, but they cannot resist Arabization.'

Versteegh points out that in several situations where there was an extensive borrowing and interaction between a minority language and Arabic within Arabic-speaking regions, the

minority language became extinct. This applied, for example, to Coptic in Egypt� In fact, this has already happened to many former Sureth speakers in the city of Mosul, who have almost lost not only Sureth their mother tongue but also their identity as Syriacs, since the majority believe that they are Christian Arabs. In reality, the current displacement of these Arabic-speaking Christians from Mosul to Ankawa in the wake of the invasion of ISIS and their fear of returning due to the relative instability of the region has created a new status quo that adds an extra pressure on Sureth speakers in Ankawa, who have no choice but to use Arabic most of the time when they are outside. Thus, gradually and subconsciously, they are replacing more and more Sureth words with Arabic ones. Besides, many Ankawi families have emigrated to Europe, the USA or Australia because of the instability of the region. This has created even further pressure on this vulnerable dialect.

Could what happened to Mosul be repeated in Ankawa if the rate of the Arabic loanwords continues to increase with the coming generations, or will they be speaking a hybrid variety that basically has Arabic lexical items infected with Sureth morphology?

## **10. Conclusion**

O'Connor (1986, 220) states that 'the vast majority of loans in any language are nouns.' As it can be seen from the material that is presented above, nouns make up the majority of the Arabic loanwords in the Sureth of Ankawa� The next most common set of loanwords are Arabic verbal roots and Arabic nouns within compound verbal constructions with light verbs. Adjectives follow as the third group of loanwords in terms of their frequency and adverbs are the last.

In addition to the extensive borrowing of Arabic content words, Ankawa Sureth speakers have borrowed various Arabic function words, such as conjunctions and ordinals, which have become integral parts of the dialect.

It is interesting that though Ankawa is within the confnes of a neighbouring Kurdish-speaking community, Ankawa Sureth is full of Arabic loans and has only a relatively small number of Kurdish ones. This is a result of the fact that education was entirely in Arabic until the last decade. This is refected in particular in the fact that most of the Arabic loanwords are technical terms used in education, which in general do not have any counterparts in Ankawa Sureth. Another more recent source for these Arabic loanwords are the media, especially television programmes and social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter, in which Arabic is the major means of communication. Moreover, the recent displacement of many Arabic-speaking Christians from Mosul to Ankawa has added a new stimulus for borrowing. This has been accompanied by the immigration of numerous Ankawi people abroad, making the situation even more difcult for Sureth to thrive.

Could this dialect survive under the pressure of the increasing number of Arabic words used by the new generation in Ankawa? As a matter of fact, there have been several attempts to encourage the use of Sureth vocabulary and reduce the number of Arabic loanwords, but they do not seem to have had any efect on the increasing preference for the use of Arabic words, which are considered more expressive and versatile� The proportion of Arabic loanwords is, therefore, constantly increasing and the Sureth of Ankawa should be considered an endangered dialect of NENA�

### **References**


## **LANGUAGE LOSS IN THE ṢŪRAYT/ TŪROYO-SPEAKING COMMUNITIES OF THE DIASPORA IN SWEDEN**

*Sina Tezel*

### **1. Tūr ʿAbdīn―the Language Situation**

Before describing the state of Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo in the diaspora in Sweden, I shall give a brief account of the language situation in Tūr ʿAbdīn (SE Turkey) by way of background.

Nowadays, there are only a few villages, where the population speak only Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. These are Mīdən, Bsorīno, Sāre (returning people from the diaspora), Bēqusyono, Dayro du-ṣlībo (a few families), Kafro, Xarābāle and the villages around Xarābāle, namely Arbo, Eḥwo, Bādəbe, Kharabemiška.

The current inhabitants of Kafro, with its impressive newly built houses, consist of only returning people. It was previously completely uninhabited due to migrations to Europe. The same is more or less true of the aforementioned villages around Xarābāle. The only village in the area known as Rāyīte that has remained inhabited is Xarābāle, nowadays also known as Arkaḥ among Suryoye (i.e. the Christian speakers of Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo).

There are also a few villages that each have a few Ṣūrayt/ Tūroyo-speaking families but where the majority of the population are Kurds. These are: Mzīhaḥ, ʿIwardo, Kfarze and Anḥəl. Finally, there is the chief town in the area, Məḏyaḏ (Midyat), where today the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo-speakers are mixed. They consist of families who speak the original Məḏyaḏ dialect and Ṣūrayt/Tūroyospeaking families who have moved to Məḏyaḏ from diferent villages around it.

## **2. Dialectal Differences**

As is the case with any language, there were and are dialectal diferences in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. What is noteworthy about this dialectal diversity is that the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo language area is relatively small� Two villages only two kilometres apart from each other may have dialectal diferences. The rural village dialects as a whole can, however, be classifed together in a group that contrasts with the urban dialect of Məḏyaḏ�

Many of the dialectal diferences in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo are due to infuences from the neighbouring languages such as Arabic, Kurdish and Turkish. Geographically, Tūr ʿAbdīn is surrounded by the Mesopotamian Arabic dialect area and Kurdish-speaking villages. Among the Arabic dialects in the area the dialect of Mardin, the chief town, was and still is the most important one. Between Mardin and Tūr ʿAbdīn there are several Arabicspeaking centres, including, among others, Bnēbīl, Ṣawro, Maʿsarte and Qeleṯ. Around Tūr ʿAbdīn, especially near Məḏyaḏ, one fnds the Mḥallami-Arabic dialects, which are spoken today only by Muslims. Beyond Mīdən eastwards there were three Arabic dialects, namely Āzəx, Espes and Bābake, whose original population consisted of Suryoye. There are also some Kurdishspeaking villages in Tūr ʿAbdīn, namely Kerburan, ʿArbāye, Ḥaḥ, Kafro ʿĒlayto and Yardo, all had Suryoyo inhabitants. Today, among these villages only Ḥaḥ is populated by Suryoye, who today also speak Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo alongside Kurdish.

We do not know with any certainty what the historical depth was of the aforementioned infuence on Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. An interesting statement concerning this question is found in Ritter (1967, \*19\*).<sup>1</sup> He refers to his informant Besim Akdemir speaking

<sup>1</sup> See Ritter (1967, \*19\*) writing:

Der Metropolit von Mardin, Ḥasyo Ḥanna Dölapönü, sagte Besim Akdemir, der ihn danach fragte, der Einfuß des Arabischen und Kurdischen habe im 12. jahrhundert eingesetzt. Der Patriarch عazîz bar Sabṯo (Ignaz VII, 1466–1488, Spuler, *Die Morgenländischen Kirchen*, Leipzig 1964, p. 214) habe den Gebrauch der fremden Sprachen verboten, sei aber damit nicht

to Ḥasyo Yuḥanon Dolabani saying that the infuence from Arabic and Kurdish began during the 13th century and, as a consequence of this, the Patriarch Aziz Bar Sabṯo tried to forbid the people from speaking foreign languages (Arabic and Kurdish), but then it was too late since they had already lost many native words�

With this background, I shall now examine the current language situation in the diaspora. To the best of my knowledge, no systematic studies have been of this topic, so we cannot establish the full details. We can, however, obtain a general picture.

## **3. The Challenge of New Social and Cultural Terminology**

The Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo-lexicon in Tūr ʿAbdīn was characterised by agricultural, narrative and religious terms. During the 1960s and the 1970s the majority of Suryoye migrated from Tūr ʿAbdīn, mostly frst to Istanbul and then to diferent countries in Western Europe. Previously, emigration from Tūr ʿAbdīn was mostly to the Arabic-speaking countries in the region, especially Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

The emigration after the 1950s was far more intense than the earlier trend of emigration. It took place during a short period and resulted in the emptying of Tūr ʿAbdīn of the majority of Suryoye. Furthermore, the migrants settled in countries that were far more advanced than Tūr ʿAbdīn and the neighbouring areas in terms of their economic, political, cultural, social, technological and educational development.

In their new countries of residence in Western Europe the Suryoyo community became familiar with the concept of 'mother tongue education' and for the frst time in their history Syriac and Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo were taught in ofcial schools. This was an unexpected event in their history.

durchgedrungen. Man habe damals schon viele syrische Worte vergessen und statt dessen fremde gebraucht.

One serious challenge was the need to fnd linguistic equivalents to the social and cultural terminology of the Western European countries. This was difcult for a minority group from countries with very diferent social systems.<sup>2</sup>

## **4. Neologisms**

During the period in which the Suryoyo community has been in the diaspora many neologisms have been formed. There was a need to create terms for the new cultural phenomena that the Suryoye encountered in Western European societies. These neologisms were formed almost entirely from lexical items of literary Western Syriac, which were given new meanings� As a result they were not considered as borrowings into Ṣūrayt/ Tūroyo.

A situation of diglossia similar to that between Modern Standard Arabic and Arabic dialects exists between Western Syriac and Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. The Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers in general view Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo as the everyday language of communication, while they consider Western Syriac as the prestigious cultural and ecclesiastical language.

A large number of such neologisms are in use today in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. Most of these probably did not exist before the 1950s, judging by their absence in Ritter's Tūroyo collection. They appear to have been frst introduced at the beginning of the 1970s, when Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo-speakers began to emigrate to Sweden and other Western European countries. The formation of their own clubs and associations in these countries, and the publication of their own newsletters and magazines have played an important role� They did not have the freedom to engage in such communal activities to the same extent in their homeland. The exact number of neologisms and their difusion among the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo-speakers are not known. At any rate, it is clear that the neologisms are used by purists in clubs and associations, in television programs and in newspapers� They are disseminated

<sup>2</sup> Ehrnebo (2013, 174–175).

through these means. These neologisms in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo have been created not only for describing new phenomena in society but also to replace foreign words.<sup>3</sup>

## **5. Language Loss**

While the language has acquired many neologisms, the use of which is prestigious among the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers, the language has at the same time lost or is in the process of losing many native words�

## **5.1. Dialect Mixing and the Loss of Dialectal Diversity**

The dialectal diferences found in Tūr ʿAbdīn do not exist in a consistent manner in the diaspora. A Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo-speaking community in a Swedish or a German town consists of people from very diferent dialectal areas. Consequently, the children born in these circumstances learn and develop their mother tongue in a linguistically mixed environment.

The mixing of the dialects results in a more homogenous language, which is an advantage for the diaspora communities. It has, however, the regrettable consequence of the loss of much dialectal native vocabulary.

I present here a few examples demonstrating the dialectal diferences pertaining to the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo lexicon in Tūr ʿAbdīn:

(1) 'street'

There are four dialectal words for the word 'street', namely *šūqo*  (Mīdən), *bašqūqo* (Bēqusyono and Bsorīno), *basyōġo* (Rāyīte) and *zābūqo*. The last one is a borrowing from local Arabic into the dialect of Məḏyaḏ, while the others are native words found in the village dialects� Today *šūqo* has a new common meaning in the diaspora, namely 'a market place, a shopping centre'� The

<sup>3</sup> For details and treatment of a great numbers of these neologisms, see S� Tezel (2015, 100–109).

Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo-speakers in the diaspora use *darbo* for 'street', which used to refer to a road outside the villages in Tūr ʿAbdīn.

(2) 'axe'

There are at least three words for 'axe', *nargo*, *ʿašfo ~ ʿaǧfo* and *maʿwōlo*. The last of these, which is derived from Arabic *miʿwāl*, is used in the Rāyīte-dialects.<sup>4</sup>

(3) 'water-pitcher'

At least three dialectal words *gḏōno* (< \**kaddōnō*), *mxōlo* (< Western Syriac *mḵōrō*?) and *ǧarra* (Arabic) denote a normal 'water-pitcher', a smaller one being termed *dgušto* (cf� NENA *gādušta* and Levantine Arabic *dakkūše*) in Məḏyaḏ and *kädūne* in villages� 5

(4) 'vineyard guard'

The word for 'vineyard guard' is *no*̄*ṭūro* in most dialects� Some dialects use the word *naḥtōr*, which is a loan from Kurdish� The Kurdish word is, in turn, a loan from Arabic *nāṭōr*, which itself is a loan from earlier Aramaic *nāṭōrā*� 6 The form *naḥtōr* is in the process of disappearing in the diaspora�

(5) 'to buy'

The verb for 'to buy', *zwənle*, which used to be common to all the village dialects in Tūr ʿAbdīn, is in the process of being replaced by *šqīle*, which was and still is a typical Məḏyaḏ-word in Tūr ʿAbdīn. Nowadays *šqīle* is the common word for 'to buy' among almost all Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers in the diaspora�

(6) 'hair'

In Tūr ʿAbdīn, the village dialects use(d) the word *ṣaʿro* (< \**saʿrō*) for denoting 'hair', while Məḏyaḏ uses *sawko*� In the diaspora the

<sup>4</sup> For details, see A. Tezel (2003, 175).

<sup>5</sup> For details, see A. Tezel (2003, 161–163).

<sup>6</sup> For details, see A. Tezel (2003, 178).

use of *ṣaʿro* among the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers from the villages has decreased and they tend to use instead the Məḏyoyo word *sawko*�

(7) 'good'

There is a similar situation with regard to the words for 'good', namely *ṭōwo* in the village dialects and *kāyīso* in the dialect of Məḏyaḏ. Though the word *ṭōwo* is native and *kāyīso* is foreign, the foreign word *kāyīso* is in the process of being adopted even among the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers from the villages.

## **5.2. The Loss of Original Lexemes and Semantics**

(1) 'to change'

The village dialects in Tūr ʿAbdīn used the native verb *mḥālafe* 'to change'� Today in the diaspora this has almost entirely been replaced by three foreign verbs, namely *mġāyarle*, *mbādēle* and *mdāgašle*. The frst two are of Arabic origin and the last one is of Turkish origin�

(2) 'to fee'

Likewise, the native verb 'to fee, run away', *ʿārəq*, has been replaced by the foreign verb *mahzamle*, which is of Arabic origin� The use of the native word *ʿārəq* was restricted to a few dialects in Tūr ʿAbdīn and the foreign word *mahzamle* seems to have entered some varieties in Tūr ʿAbdīn at an early date.

(3) 'to close'

The native verb for 'to close', *ṣxərle*, was a common word in Tūr ʿAbdīn. Today many Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers living in or coming from Turkey have replaced it with the Turkish foreign verb *mqāpaṭle*�

(4) 'to be informed'

A common expression that used to be in wide use and can still be heard in the speech of the older generation is *ʿal ū*-*mamro*, 'according to what I have heard/been informed'. Today, the expression in question has been replaced by two foreign words. Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers from Turkey use *gōya/gūya* and those from Arabic-speaking countries use *ʿala bana*�

(5) 'to be surprised'

The word expressing surprise, *dūmōro*, and its verb *mdāmar*  (mostly used with frst personal pronouns *mdāmarno*/*mdamrōno*) has been replaced by the Arabic *ʿəǧbo* and its verb *mʿāǧabno/ mʿaǧbōno*�

(6) *fulḥōno* 'an arable land' > 'political activities'

Sometimes a word loses its original meaning and acquires a new meaning in the diaspora� A case in point is *fulḥōno*� Today it usually denotes 'activities' in an association or 'political activities' in general in the diaspora. In Tūr ʿAbdīn the word denoted 'an arable land'.

(7) *ḥāṣo* 'back; belt' > 'back'

In some cases the semantic range of a word is restricted� For example, *ḥāṣo* had both the meaning 'back' and also the meaning 'a belt of cloth' in Tūr ʿAbdīn. In the diaspora, however, the younger generation is only aware of the meaning 'back'.

## **5.3. Phraseology and Idioms**

Each language contains cultural-specifc metaphors, phrases alluding to historical events or religious and social phenomena. Such phraseology is conditioned by the physical, cultural and religious environment of the language community. This is best described by the following quote in an article by Fishman (1996) entitled 'What do you lose when you lose your language?', where he (ibid., 72) writes:

Take it [language] away from the culture, and you take away its greetings, its curses, its praises, its laws, its literature, its songs, its riddles, its proverbs, its cures, its wisdom, its prayers.

In the case of Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo, the language has not entirely been extracted from its culture and religion, but it has been removed from its physical environment, which has infuenced the language in diferent ways. I shall demonstrate this by a few illustrative examples.

In Tūr ʿAbdīn, for example, stones were a very important feature of life and constituted a crucial building material. This is evident from the phrases people formed with the word for 'a stone' *kēfo*, for instance:


'They became inseparable friends.' (Literally: 'They became stone and lime.')

The phrase is, of course, used fguratively. It is used when you are very good friends� The phrase *dāʿīri hāwən kēfo w-kalšo* can also be used when one is on bad terms with another person and then fnd their way back to each other, *dāʿīri* meaning literally 'they returned'.

When one built houses, the most important components were stone and lime and then people experienced concretely how stone and lime were composed:

(2) *mḥē-le kēfe mīn-e* threw-he stones at (from)-him

> 'to insult someone in an indirect way' (Literally: 'He threw stones at him.')

(3) *hawyō*-*no kēfo kamto lō səm*-*le b-dīḏ*-*i* became-I stone black not did-he in-my (mine)

> 'Whatever I did, he did not do as I said.' (Literally: 'I became a black stone and he did not do in accordance with me.')

(4) *ʾī-kēfo yāqurto b-dukṯ-a ṭawtō=yo* the-stone heavy in-place-its good=is

> 'The value of a person lies in his serious-mindedness.' (This was said of a person who does not laugh or smile, literally: 'The heavy stone is good in its place.')

In Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo body parts are used in the formation of metaphorical phrases. Many such phrases contain the words *lēbo* 'heart' and *mēne* (pl.) 'hair' (or *manṯo* 'a single hair'). For example:


'He does not feel like it.' (Literally: 'He does not have a heart.')

(8) *lēb*-*e qīṣ* heart-his was.cut

'He is suspicious.' (literally: 'His heart was cut.' )

(9) *ʾāṯi mēne b-līšōn-i* came�he hair on-tongue-my

> 'I am sick of saying it over and over again.' (Literally: 'Hair came on my tongue.')

(10) *kō-ṣōləḥ ʾī-manṯo* ind-he�splits the-hair

'He is very clever.' (Literally: 'He splits the single hair.')

Religion played and still plays an important part in the life of the Suryoye and there are many phrases relating to this, such as:


'May the Lord and the saints be with you!'

(14) *mḥālaq*-*le rūḥe qəm raġl*-*e d-ū-qādīšo* threw-he himself at feet-his of-the-saint

> 'He sought protection or help from the saint by [visiting his tomb or church].' (Literally: 'He threw himself at the feet of the saint.')

Many oaths of a religious content were used in the community, e�g� *b-ālōho* '[I swear] by God'; *bə-mšīḥo* '[I swear] by Jesus'; *b-ūmgalyun* '[I swear] by the Bible'; *b-aq-qādīše* '[I swear] by the saints'; *b-ū-ṣlībo* '[I swear] by the Cross'; *b-ū-qabro* '[I swear] by the grave [of Jesus]'; *b-indāṯ-ālo* (< \**yo*̄*ldaṯ* ʾ*alōho*̄) '[I swear] by the Virgin Mary'�

Except for the phrases *b-ū-ṣlībo* and *b-ū-mgalyun* all these expressions of oaths are in the process of disappearing among the younger generation of speakers. In Sweden, for instance, the younger generation frequently make use of the Swedish phrase *Jag lovar* 'I promise'�

## **6. Language Attrition and Codeswitching**

The fact that many original words and meanings are being lost in the diaspora is due to the imperfect learning of the language by younger speakers and the lack of planning on the part of the older generation as to how to pass on the language to the younger generation. I shall illustrate this by two concrete examples.

The native verb *mṭāwēle*, which was used in many villages in Tūr ʿAbdīn with the sense of 'to grill', has been almost entirely replaced by the Arabic loanword *mšāwēle* in the diaspora or by the mixed Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo and Swedish phrase *səmle grilla*, which literally means 'he did the grill'�

Another example is as follows. Once I was in a lift and somebody told me to press the button by saying *səm trycka!*, which consists of Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo *səm* 'do, make' and Swedish *trycka* 'press'� The phrase could easily be expressed by the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo phrase *dəš ʿal u-zraʿlo* 'press the button!'

The younger generation uses codeswitching, which is, of course, very common among bilinguals. They begin a conversation in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo and then they suddenly switch over to Swedish for various reasons. This is partly because the words required in the conversation are lacking in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo or they have not mastered them�

## **7. Phonology and Hypercorrection**

The previous discussion concerned changes relating to the vocabulary of the language. There has also been an important change in phonology in the diaspora. Many of the children born in the diaspora pronounce the interdentals */ṯ/* [θ] and */ḏ/* [ð] as [s] and [z]� For example, *qrīṯo* 'a village' is pronounced [qrīso], and *ʿēḏo* (m.) 'a feast' [ʕēzo]. The latter coincides with *ʿēzo* (f.) 'a she-goat'�

A shift from interdentals to sibilants is not a recent phenomenon among the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers. The dialects of two villages, namely Bēqusyono and Dayro du-ṣlībo, had undergone this shift long ago. Interestingly, in Tūr ʿAbdīn today the shift in question has spread to the dialects of other villages� There is a phonetic motivation behind the changes *ṯ* > *s* and *ḏ* > *z*, in that it is easier to articulate *s* and *z* than the original interdental fricatives *ṯ* and *ḏ*. The phenomenon is also known from Mlaḥso and some dialects in (NENA). The same is true in many Arabic dialects�

When some Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo speakers try to correct their pronunciation, they create hypercorrections. They pronounce interdentals where sibilants are correct. For example the correct word for 'a bishop', *hasyo*, becomes instead [haθyo].

## **8. Bilingualism, Multilingualism and the Future**

Many among the younger generation grow up as bilingual or multilingual. The younger generation born in the diaspora are not normally familiar with a large part of the Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo vocabulary that was originally used in Tūr ʿAbdīn. All the younger generation in the diaspora normally speak the national language with each other. They speak Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo with their parents, relatives and elderly people�

Many of the younger Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo generation have difculties in making themselves understood in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo. This is a gradual process, but eventually the younger generation will lose so much of the language that they will inevitably shift entirely to the national language. This situation is, of course, a common phenomenon in minority groups, especially with minority groups of stateless immigrants.

Fishman (1996) writes about a story told by John MacNamara, who studied Irish all his childhood in school� He was scolded one day when he was buying sweets by the woman who ran the shop. He began speaking English to his sister and the woman asked him why he did not speak Irish with her. When they came out, his sister asked him: 'Is Irish really for talking?' It did not occur to them that Irish was for talking. They considered it rather to be a school subject. This is also what is happening among the Ṣūrayt/ Tūroyo-speaking younger generation. It is no longer natural for them to speak Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo among each other, despite the eforts to teach the language in schools. This confrms the view of Fishman (1996, 79) that a real—not institutional—social space has to be created for a language to survive.

### **References**


Tezel, Sina. 2015. 'Neologisms in Ṣūrayt/Tūroyo'. In *Neo-Aramaic and its Linguistic Context*, edited by Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska, 100–09. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.

## **ABOUT THE PUBLISHING TEAM**

Alessandra Tosi was the managing editor for this book.

Anna Gatti designed the cover using InDesign. The cover was produced in InDesign using Fontin (titles) and Calibri (text body) fonts�

Luca Bafa typeset the book in InDesign. The text font is Tex Gyre Pagella; the heading font is Californian FB. Luca created all of the editions — paperback, hardback, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, HTML, and XML — the conversion is performed with open source software freely available on our GitHub page (https:// github.com/OpenBookPublishers).

## **INDEX**

ʿAyn et-Tīne 245, 254–256, 260–261, 263, 265–266, 270, 272–273


Arabic, Classical 4, 193, 254, 256, 301, 439 Arabic, Damascene 272 Arabic, Iraqi 341–342 Arabic, Levantine 337, 492 Arabic, Moroccan 188 Arabic, Palmyrene 295 Arabic, Syrian 29, 88–89, 235–273, 275–285 Aradhin, Christian 395, 403, 407 Arbel 38, 62–63, 90, 135, 285, 407, 439 Ardishay 398 Arena 443 Arkaḥ 356, 363, 365–366, 369, 374– 376, 384, 487 Armenian 408, 411 articulatory phonology 326 Ashitha 390, 395, 397, 403, 410 aspect 45, 57, 86, 95, 97, 134–136, 138, 156–157, 162, 184, 235, 264, 267, 277, 279, 281–282, 391, 472 Azeri Turkish 437 Āzəx 227, 231, 233 Azran 319–326, 329 Bariṭle 395, 397–398, 400 Barrake 443–444 Barwar 28, 69, 73, 84, 90, 130, 134, 140, 143–146, 162, 166, 168–169, 177–178, 180–181, 184–186, 191, 195, 219, 225, 229–230, 232, 308–310, 317, 336, 340, 348–349,

376, 387, 398, 406, 439, 445, 468

basic word list 415–417


construct state 27, 214, 302–303, 305–307, 313–314 continuous 3, 100, 134–138, 264, 282, 482 copula 10, 42, 63–64, 70, 87, 100–101, 116, 119, 132–137, 139, 178, 180, 204, 214, 224–227, 231 Cudi 169, 340 cycle, linguistic 165, 301–302, 313–315 Damascus 26, 236, 284 Danish 402 dative 29–30, 32, 34, 36, 45, 54, 64–66, 85–87, 259 dative, ethical 32, 45, 51, 53, 85–86 definite article 165, 247 definiteness 165, 247, 257 deontic modality 139, 144, 146–148, 154, 156–158, 165, 173, 188, 196–198, 256, 279–280 dependency 143, 146, 150, 153, 158– 163, 174, 187–189, 216–217, 302

conservatism 235, 278


347, 349–350, 385, 399, 402, 408–409, 412, 438, 453, 500 epistemic modality 131, 158, 195–198, 200–201, 216–218 etymology 23, 116, 291, 345, 348, 399, 419–422, 424, 427, 433–434, 437 eventive 16 existential constructions 30, 55, 57, 63, 87, 385 experiencer 29–30, 32–34, 36, 71–73, 75–86 fientive 16 focus 46 French 23, 86, 167–168, 233, 347 future, immediate 167, 169–170, 172–173, 183 Gargarnaye 320, 333 Gaznakh 391 genitive case 302–303, 306, 314–315 Georgia 416 Geppa 443 Geramun 397–398, 406 gestures (phonological) 320, 322–323, 326, 330 Geʾez 306 grammaticalisation 30, 76, 130, 137–139, 144, 148, 169 Greek 8–15, 17–18, 20–21, 26, 335, 338 Halmun 408 Harari 394 Harbole 169–170, 173, 176, 395, 400–403, 405 Harene 443 Hasköy 225, 233 Haṣṣan 44, 89, 390, 395, 406–407

Hawdiyan 320 Hebrew 5, 29, 61, 65, 88, 90–91, 102, 292, 296–297, 299, 316, 339, 343, 347–349, 391, 408, 412 Hebrew, Biblical 4–5, 189, 292, 389, 393 Hebrew, Mishnaic 93, 298, 408 Hebrew, Modern 29–30 Hertevin 41, 68, 79, 81, 83–84, 90, 390, 395, 397, 400, 407 Iḥwo 360–361, 384 imperfective 37, 47, 49–51, 84–85, 157, 162, 173, 199, 354 impersonal constructions 29–32, 34, 36, 53, 57, 59, 63, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77–79, 83–84, 87, 112, 264, 267 Inishke 400 interdentals 443, 499 intransitive 1–3, 7, 18, 21, 23, 25, 30, 37, 52–53, 62, 77–79, 85, 115, 169, 171, 176, 289, 292, 294 inversion 37 Irish 402, 500 Ishshi 401–403 Iṣṣin 407 Italian 18, 23, 28, 91, 140, 317, 404 Jewish Babylonian Aramaic 27, 88, 336, 343–345, 350, 357, 385, 389, 410, 418, 438 Jewish Palestinian Aramaic 1, 271, 287, 293–294, 298–299, 343–344, 350, 357, 389, 410, 438 Jənnet 44, 68 Jilu 403, 406, 408, 439 Jinet 391 Jrējir (Ǧrēǧir) 258–259, 269 Jubbʿadin 28, 76, 250, 259–261, 275,

283, 288, 292, 294, 395, 400

Judaeo-Syriac 407


Mzizaḥ 73–74, 354, 356, 365, 374–375


Raite 39, 50, 82, 379, 381


Rekan 408


277–278, 280–282, 307, 310–312, 317

	- Caucasian 329
	- Eastern Anatolian 329

264–265, 267, 270–271, 278, 289–290, 292, 294, 304, 335–336


#### Tisqopa 390, 397

Tkhuma 395 Tkhuma-Gawaya 395 topic 160, 162–164, 389, 489 topicalisation 33–34, 87 transitive 1–2, 16, 18, 67–68, 83–84, 86, 133, 139, 169, 176, 292, 294 transitivisation 30, 34, 66–67, 84, 86 Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic 53, 61–62, 79, 244 trigger effect 230 Turkish 303, 316, 320, 335, 445, 488, 493 Turoyo 21, 24–25, 335–338, 340–343, 346, 348, 350–351, 500 Tūr ʿAbdīn 350 Tyare 134, 391, 403–404, 406–408 Umṛa 44, 68, 79, 81 Upper Barwar (Hakkâri) 406 Urmi, Christian 34–35, 50, 56, 58–59,

67, 70, 77, 83–84, 135, 143, 181, 183–184, 186–187, 321, 329, 343, 376, 391–393, 395, 398, 400, 402–405, 415–416, 419, 430, 436

Urmi, Jewish 404


Xarabe Kafre 372, 379, 384

Xarabe Məška 361, 364, 379, 384


# **Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures**

## **General Editor Geoffrey Khan**

## Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

## Geoffrey Khan and Paul M. Noorlander (eds)

The Neo-Aramaic dialects are modern vernacular forms of Aramaic, which has a documented history in the Middle East of over 3,000 years. Due to upheavals in the Middle East over the last one hundred years, thousands of speakers of Neo-Aramaic dialects have been forced to migrate from their homes or have perished in massacres. As a result, the dialects are now highly endangered. The dialects exhibit a remarkable diversity of structures. Moreover, the considerable depth of atestaton of Aramaic from earlier periods provides evidence for the pathways of change. For these reasons the research of Neo-Aramaic is of importance for more general felds of linguistcs, in partcular language typology and historical linguistcs. The papers in this volume represent the full range of research that is currently being carried out on Neo-Aramaic dialects. They advance the feld in numerous ways. In order to allow linguists who are not specialists in Neo-Aramaic to beneft from the papers, the examples are fully glossed.

As with all Open Book publicatons, this entre book is available to read for free on the publisher's website. Printed and digital editons, together with supplementary digital material, can also be found here: www.openbookpublishers.com

*Cover image: Women in the village of Harbole, south-eastern Turkey (photograph taken by Brunot Poizat in 1978 before the village's destructon).*

*Cover design: Anna Gat*