Lishan Didan, Targum Didan: Translation Language in a Neo-Aramaic Targum Tradition 9781463211622

Citation preview

Lishan Didan, Targum Didan

Neo-Aramaic Studies 3

Series Editor Geoffrey Khan

Lishan Didan, Targum Didan Translation Language in a Neo-Aramaic Targum Tradition

Margo Rees

Gorgias Press 2008

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2008 Copyright © 2008 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-59333-426-0

Gorgias Press

180 Centennial Ave., Suite A, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rees, Margo. Lishan didan, targum didan : translation language in a neo-Aramaic targum tradition / Margo Rees. -- 1st Gorgias Press ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Manuscript Barzani. 2. Barzani, Sason ben Zakay. 3. Bible. O.T. Syriac, Modern--Versions--Rawandoz. 4. Syriac language, Modern--Dialects--Iraq-Rawandoz. 5. Jews--Iraq--Rawandoz--Languages. 6. Rawandoz (Iraq)--Languages. I. Title. BS315.S9R44 2008 221.4’3--dc22 2007047018 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................v Preface ...........................................................................................................ix On terminology ......................................................................................ix Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... xiii Abbreviations ................................................................................................xv Journals and periodicals ......................................................................xvi General Introduction.......................................................................................1 1. Prolegomena .......................................................................................1 2. Background .........................................................................................2 2.1 The Barzani family............................................................................2 2.2 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic targum tradition.......................................4 2.3 The language of msB.........................................................................6 3. Description of msB............................................................................12 4. Phonology and orthography .............................................................15 5. A note on the structure of this analysis ............................................17 I. Morphology................................................................................................19 1. Pronouns ...........................................................................................19 1.1 Independent personal pronouns .....................................................19 1.2 Pronominal Suffixes ........................................................................22 1.3 Demonstrative Pronouns.................................................................25 1.4 Interrogative pronouns ...................................................................26 1.5 Reflexive pronouns .........................................................................26 1.6 The relative pronoun h©t ..................................................................27 2. Verbs .................................................................................................30 2.1 Verbal stems ...................................................................................30 v

vi

LISHAN DIDAN 2.2 Inflection of the present base .........................................................32 2.3 Inflection of the past base ..............................................................34 2.4 Inflection of the imperative base....................................................37 2.5 Stem I weak verbs ..........................................................................37 2.6 Irregular and defective verbs..........................................................43 2.7 Infinitives in stem I ........................................................................48 2.8 Weak and irregular verbs in stem II ............................................... 50 2.9 Infinitives in stem II .......................................................................52 2.10 Semantic distinction between stems I and II ................................ 54 2.11 Quadriliteral verbs .......................................................................55 2.12 Usage of the verbal affix ³uu- (-wa) and vk³³uu- (-wale) ...................... 56 2.13 Compound Verbs ..........................................................................58 2.14 Verbal negation ............................................................................60 2.15 Predication of Existence ............................................................... 61 2.16 Expression of the pronominal object ............................................ 61 3. Nouns ...............................................................................................66 3.1 Remarks..........................................................................................66 3.2 v¨- 't- inflection ..............................................................................67 3.3 t¨,- inflection ..................................................................................72 3.4 The diminutive suffix ..................................................................... 75 3.5 The abstract suffix tkU- ...................................................................75 3.6 The t²b- suffix ..................................................................................76 3.7 The v- nominal ending ................................................................... 77 3.8 Unadapted loanwords.....................................................................77 3.9 Nominal gender ..............................................................................79 3.10 Nominal plurals ............................................................................79 3.11 Nominal annexation .....................................................................82 4. Adjectives .........................................................................................84 4.1 Remarks..........................................................................................84 4.2 “Passive participle” forms ..............................................................84 4.3 CoCa, CuCta, CoCe .........................................................................85 4.4 Other patterns ................................................................................85

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

4.5 Adapted loanwords .........................................................................86 4.6 Unadapted loanwords .....................................................................86 5. Adverbs .............................................................................................88 5.1 Remarks ..........................................................................................88 5.2 Adverbial forms of Aramaic origin .................................................88 5.3 Adverbial forms of non-Aramaic origin ..........................................89 6. Prepositions and uninflected particles ..............................................90 6.1 Prepositions ....................................................................................90 6.2 Other particles ................................................................................93 7. Numerals...........................................................................................95 II. Translation Technique ..............................................................................97 Introduction ..........................................................................................97 1. Point of Departure ..........................................................................105 2. Translation Technique in Biblical Scholarship ...............................109 3. Translation Technique Analysis ......................................................117 3.1 Segmentation / Division ...............................................................118 3.2 Quantitative correlation to source text.........................................126 3.3 Lexical Equivalents .......................................................................129 3.4 Word-relationship Indicators ........................................................142 3.5 Accuracy: Level of semantic information .....................................160 3.6 Inaccuracy.....................................................................................177 III. Comparative analyses............................................................................181 1. Jewish languages and the “calque” tradition .................................181 1.1 Jewish languages ..........................................................................181 1.2 Is Jewish Neo-Aramaic a Jewish language? .................................184 1.3 The “calque” tradition among Jewish languages..........................186 2. The spoken versus the translation language: relationship and interaction ..................................................................................195 2.1 Word order ...................................................................................196 2.2 Conservatism and Hebraism .........................................................198 2.3 Interaction and affectation ...........................................................200 2.4 Jewish language communities and the issue of diglossia .............203

viii

LISHAN DIDAN 3. Form and function: Bible translation and the Jewish education setting.........................................................................................211 3.1 The historical precedent for use of targum in education ............. 212 3.2 Education and the context of the JL calque translations.............. 218 3.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................226 4. Textual comparison ........................................................................233 4.1 Genesis 1:16 .................................................................................235 4.2 Segmentation / division ...............................................................237 4.3 Quantitative correlation to source text ........................................237 4.4 Lexical equivalents .......................................................................239 4.5 Word-relationship indicators........................................................243 4.6 Accuracy.......................................................................................245

Concluding remarks....................................................................................253 Bibliography ...............................................................................................261 Appendix: Manuscript Barzani—Sample Pages ...........................................275 Glossary of Neo-Aramaic from msB............................................................277 Glossary of Verbs................................................................................278 General glossary .................................................................................289

PREFACE On terminology In referring to the manuscript which is the subject of this research, I have chosen to call it Manuscript Barzani, after the rabbi who wrote it. I shall abbreviate this title “msB.” In reference to Barzani himself, I have chosen to use the term metargem, which is the Jewish Neo-Aramaic (and modern Hebrew) form of the Middle Aramaic term meturgeman. Barzani refers to himself, in the various colophons throughout the manuscript, as c,ufvu odr,nv (the metargem [or, “translator”] and the writer). I have chosen to use this term, not only because it is the term he chose to identify himself, but also because the terms “translator,” “writer” or “author” are not adequate to express his role in the transmission of the tradition. In speaking about other translations (in languages other than Neo-Aramaic), I shall use the term “translator” for the sake of clarity, though it may be inadequate in those cases for the same reasons. In the same vein, I use the term “targum” to refer to the Neo-Aramaic translations, and the term “calque” to refer to other, non-Aramaic literal translations of the Bible. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic term šar‛ is also used by some to refer to the Neo-Aramaic translations, but I have chosen to use “targum” consistently. I have had to refer quite frequently to the Hebrew text of the Bible throughout my work, and for the sake of clarity have chosen to refer to that text as the Masoretic text (MT). I realise that this term is somewhat inadequate; however, I find lengthy phrases such as “preserved Hebrew text,” and the like, to be cumbersome when used frequently in scholarly discourse.

ix

x

LISHAN DIDAN The history of the Aramaic language is very lengthy and involves many

shifts and changes. Attempts to order this history according to designated time periods have been many and varied. There is some disagreement as to how to divide and name these time periods. In more recent times, J. A. Fitzmeyer and E. Y. Kutscher both divide these eras in roughly the same manner, as follows: Old Aramaic (10th–8th centuries B.C.E.); Official or Imperial Aramaic (8th–3rd/2nd centuries B.C.E.), Middle Aramaic (3rd century B.C.E.–3rd century C.E.), Late Aramaic (3rd–8th century C.E. [the Muslim conquest]) and Modern Aramaic (Islamic era–present). 1 According to this division, which is perfectly suitable for our purposes here, the period of Middle Aramaic includes, among much other literature, the language of Targum Onqelos/Jonathan as well as what is elsewhere referred to as “Standard Literary Aramaic.” 2 Kutscher notes that while the documents of this period show attempts to imitate Official Aramaic, “they also contain elements of Late Aramaic.” 3 I depart from these designations somewhat, however, in my use of the term “Old Aramaic” (OA). Y. Sabar uses this term in his Jewish NeoAramaic dictionary to indicate—much more generally—“old classic literary (Jewish) Aramaic … as listed in dictionaries (… M. Jastrow, Levy, Sokoloff …) a convenient general term vs. Neo-Aramaic.” 4 In this usage, in other words, “OA” is really meant to encompass Old Aramaic, Official Aramaic and Middle Aramaic. While this level of generality is not always ideal, when speaking about derivations of Neo-Aramaic it is usually a sufficient (and simpler) term, by contrast. For these reasons, I use “Old Aramaic” in the

1

See E. Y. Kutscher (1971) and J. A. Fitzmeyer (1979: 60–63; see ff for a recapitulation of the debate over period division). For alternative discussion, cf. J. C. Greenfield (1974), (1978). 2 See J. C. Greenfield (1974). 3 1971: 260. 4 Y. Sabar (2002: 73).

PREFACE

xi

sense described by Sabar, and only specify further if necessary to the particular analysis. Finally, on the use of the term “dialect” to describe the regional variants of the Jewish Neo-Aramaic language—I realise that this can sometimes prove a relatively controversial subject. The term has been viewed as pejorative, usually from a sociolinguistic point of view, and many alternatives have been suggested such as ethnolect, 5 lect, 6 etc. In the context of a strictly philological analysis, however, the term “dialect” is relatively neutral, and therefore still in use. In such contexts it is understood as a linguistic and not a social distinction/designation. For these reasons I have chosen to use the term “dialect” in reference to the variants of Jewish Neo-Aramaic. All quotations from compositions in foreign languages are either presented in their original forms, or else the translation given is my own, unless otherwise indicated. When texts in Hebrew characters are quoted, I have represented them as such—pointed or unpointed—and I have not transliterated them. Any transliteration in the text is representative of a source written in transliteration and is not my own.

Margo H. Rees 29 June 2007

5 6

B. Hary (1996: 727). D. L. Gold (1981a).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The majority of this research was conducted for my PhD thesis at the University of Cambridge. That work was made possible by the generosity of the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme and the Cambridge Overseas Trust. There are also many individuals whose support, knowledge and dedication were a fundamental and necessary part of its completion. My PhD supervisor, Geoffrey Khan, tirelessly and selflessly reviewed my work time and again. He has contributed much to this research through advice and direction, from his vast knowledge and expertise, and it would not have reached its present state without his guidance. A great scholar, he is also a person of great integrity, and I shall always be grateful for his example and his friendship. I gratefully acknowledge the help and friendship of R. Leivy Smolar (k"z), teacher and scholar, who pushed me to work harder, be smarter and accomplish more. His insights on the targumim and rabbinic literature were invaluable to my work. Likewise, I am indebted to Dr. Yona Sabar, professor of Semitics at UCLA, who graciously answered my questions about Kurdish Jewish life and the use of Jewish Neo-Aramaic. The many members of the “Jewish Languages mailing list” also deserve my thanks and appreciation for their zeal and interest in all my questions about Jewish languages and translations. I thank also my family: my parents, my husband Neal and my daughter Lydia, all of whom gave of themselves so that I could complete this work. Finally, I give thanks to the Holy One, blessed be He, and to jhanv sus ic guah the giver of all true knowledge. (u's vhrfz) ,utcm vuvh rnt hjurc ot hf jfc tku khjc tk xiii

ABBREVIATIONS Arab.

Arabic

BA

Biblical Aramaic

BabaB

(tractate) Baba Bathra

BH

Biblical Hebrew

BTA

Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic

EJ

Encyclopedia Judaica

Hag.

(tractate) Hagigah

JL

Jewish language

K

Kurdish

Ketub.

(tractate) Ketubot

LK

Loshn-koydesh (the “holy tongue,” Hebrew)

LXX

Septuagint

M

Mishnah

MA

Middle Aramaic

Meg.

(tractate) Megillah

MH

Mishanic Hebrew

msB

Manuscript Barzani: the manuscript upon which this study is based

NA

Neo-Aramaic

Ned.

(tractate) Nedarim

NENA

Northeastern Neo-Aramaic

OA

Old Aramaic, generally speaking (see Preface)

P

Persian

Pes.

(tractate) Pesahim

PT

Palestinian Targum

Qid.

(tractate) Qiddushin xv

xvi

LISHAN DIDAN

RH

Rabbinic Hebrew

SA

spoken Jewish Arbel (Neo-Aramaic dialect)

San.

(tractate) Sanhedrin

Shab.

(tractate) Shabbat

SLA

Standard Literary Aramaic

T

Turkish

Ta’an.

(tractate) Ta’anit

TB

Babylonian Talmud

TJ

Targum Jonathan to the Prophets

TL

Translation language

TO

Targum Onqelos

TPsJ

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

TY

Palestinian Talmud

Yeb.

(tractate) Yebamot

Journals and periodicals AAJR

American Association for Jewish Research

BJRL

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JSJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

PAAJR

Proceedings of the American Association for Jewish Research

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

ABBREVIATIONS VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTSup

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die Altentestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZDMG

Zeitschrift des deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

xvii

htsc vz hrv u,rumf euxp odr,nv rnut vsuvh wr oudr, htn tkt ;sdnu ;rjn vz hrv uhkg ;hxunvu ishs oudr, 49a 'ihaushe wn 'hkcc sunk,

xix

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1. PROLEGOMENA Preservation of the Biblical text has been a fundamental element of Jewish history. When translations began to be made, first orally and later in writing, they represented a further dimension of the preservational imperative within the Biblical tradition. The character of the approach to translation in the Jewish tradition elucidates a tension present in the focus on preservation. This is the tension between preservation of text and preservation of tradition/identity. The focus became one of how to preserve the original form and language of the text, but also allow access to its contents. Much of the translation in Judaism, then, developed a particular style in order to address this tension. The style was characterised, in many cases, by an imitation of the Biblical language in some degree, as well as some Hebraising. This style kept the translation (and hence, the reader) close to the original text, that it might not be supplanted and that it might be learned through the translation. This classical approach to translation is seen throughout Jewish history, even down to modern times. Within smaller and more remote Jewish communities, such translations were often the primary point of contact with the language and text of the Bible. The manuscript upon which this study is based is one such modern “targum” tradition, from a small Jewish community in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Jews of these regions speak varying dialects of Neo-Aramaic, (which traditionally has been called lišan didan, “our language”) as well as either Arabic, Kurdish or both. This “targum” is a stylised translation of the Bible into one of the Jewish dialects of Neo-Aramaic. The 1

2

LISHAN DIDAN

translation tradition originated and was transmitted orally among the rabbis of the community. When the Jews of Kurdistan came to Israel in the early 1950s, the targum was committed to writing in order to preserve both the dialect and the translation tradition.

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The Barzani family The metargem of the modern targum—henceforth, Manuscript Barzani (msB)—is Sason ben Zakay (ben Samuel ben Joseph) Barzani, born in the town of Rewanduz, in the Arbel 7 region of Iraqi Kurdistan. The city of Arbel itself is 77 km east of Mosul, and the town of Rewanduz is about 55 km northeast of Arbel, near the Iranian border. 8 The only account of Barzani’s life is what was recounted by his son (Zakay ben Sason). 9 According to this account, Barzani’s grandfather (Joseph) was born in the town of Barzan (about 40 km northwest of Rewanduz), but he was taken from there to Rewanduz when Pasha-i-Kora captured Barzan. The Pasha made him the ḥakham in Rewanduz. With some interruptions during WWI, the family remained settled in Rewanduz until they emigrated to Israel in the mid-20th century. Probably the most famous religious figure in the history of Kurdish Jews is the 16th century rabbi and scholar, Rabbi Samuel ben Nathanael halLevi Barzani. Of what is known about him, it is difficult to separate fact from legend; however, we do know that he was born in the town of Barzan, and became a great Torah scholar. He travelled around Kurdistan founding and maintaining yeshivot in many of the cities and towns, including Barzan, Aqra, Mosul and Amediya. He composed commentaries, poetry, prayers, 7

This is the Jewish Neo-Aramaic pronunciation for the city, more commonly called (in Arabic) Arbīl or Arwīl. See G. Khan (1999: 2). 8 See Fig. I. 9 “Informant B,” in G. Khan (1999), see especially pp. 522–523.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

3

ritual instructions and much other religious literature, some of which has been published. 10 It is believed that he died in Amediya (ca. 1630). Most researchers support the claim that Barzani’s “descendants and disciples served as rabbis throughout Kurdistan until our time.” 11 Though the metargem shares the name of this famous rabbi, it cannot be established that he is actually descended from the great Barzani family. As his grandfather was born in Barzan, this offers a more likely provenance for his name. 12 Sason Barzani is described by his son as talmīd ḥaxam gadol (a “great [religious] scholar”), and is said to have a written a commentary (drasha) on tractate Rosh ha-Shana. He was a rabbi and metargem in the community in Rewanduz, and had been trained in the Neo-Aramaic targum tradition. When the family moved to Israel, J. J. Rivlin, professor at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Hebrew University, commissioned several Kurdish rabbis, including Barzani, to write down the Neo-Aramaic targum traditions of their communities. 13 Barzani’s son (Zakay), claims that his father wrote down a targum of the entire Bible for Rivlin. 14 This may be true; however, the manuscript as it has been preserved in the National Library (see below) is an incomplete one. If it was a complete translation at the time of its writing, parts of it have now been lost. Barzani wrote a colophon at the end of each book or grouping of books in the targum, in which he typically included the year and date that the sec10

(1965). 11

See EJ, “Barzani, Samuel ben Nethanel ha-Levi”; and M. Benayahu

Y. Sabar (1982: 104). For more information about the historical and legendary life of Samuel Barzani and his family, see Y. Sabar (1982: 104–129), J. Mann (1972: 477ff), M. Benayahu (1965), A. ben-Ya’akov (1961), R. Mamat and A. Blier (1979). 12 Also, the descendants of the great Barzani family would have been more likely to be found in Mosul or perhaps Amediya, before the move to Israel. 13 For more information about Rivlin’s interactions with the Kurdish Jews and their traditions, see J. J. Rivlin (1958, 1959). 14 G. Khan (1999: 522–523).

4

LISHAN DIDAN

tion was completed. These colophons are the only evidence we now have as to how long was spent in writing the targum and the order in which it was written. Barzani was living in the town of Nahariah, Israel during the entire time he was writing msB, and the dates from the colophons indicate, roughly, that he wrote it down over a period of about 10 years, from the early 1950s to the early 1960s. The manuscript contains translations of: the entire Pentateuch, the 12 minor prophets (Trei Asar), the book of Ezekiel starting from 8:1, the Psalms, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. According to the dates we have, the Ezekiel targum was completed first (1952), the megillot and minor prophets next (1957) and the Pentateuch last (1959–1960). 15

2.2 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic targum tradition Among the Jewish Neo-Aramaic (JNA) speaking communities, it was common to have a traditional translation of the Bible, called either targum or šar‛. 16 These translations originated and were transmitted orally through the ḥakhamim of the communities. These religious leaders also served as the elementary school teachers, at the bet sefer for each community. 17 The targumim were not used in the synagogues, but rather in the schools, in order to teach the young boys Biblical Hebrew. The targum would be recited by the instructor after each verse of Hebrew read aloud by the students. They began, in the traditional fashion, in the book of Leviticus. 18 This practice

15

The fact that the first seven chapters of Ezekiel are missing would seem to indicate that, indeed, some of Barzani’s targum has been lost. 16 In some communities where the language is more influenced by Arabic (such as Koy Sanjaq, for instance), the translations are called tawsir ( tkh¦t (hand); BTA v¨t¨sUv±h > v¨tkUv (Jewish); BTA t¨,In > vkIn (death). Likewise, the language of msB exhibits contraction in the present 3ms of ayin-waw and ayin-yod triliteral verbs—as do the other Trans-Zab JNA dialects (in contrast to most other NENA dialects, which preserve the middle radical in this form). 37 For example: khp > kp (as opposed to payǝl); auf > aIf (as opposed to kawəš). In his description of the shared features of the Trans-Zab JNA dialects, Mutzafi also notes that the 3rd singular independent pronoun is generalised from the masculine form (ʼo) and that the feminine form is not retained, except as a literary archaism in some dialects, such as J. Urmia and Koy Sanjaq. The feminine form is in fact retained throughout msB, and may be viewed as an archaic literary feature. The language of msB also attests an infixed /n/ for numerals occurring with a pronominal suffix (Ub§rU, < ubn + h¤r¥,), like the other Trans-Zab dialects. 38 Mutzafi indicates that Trans-Zab dialects typically contain the 3rd plural independent pronoun ʼoni (unlike some other NENA dialects which preserve this form as ʼani), and that usage of this form extends to the (3rd plural) far demonstrative pronoun. J. Arbel, however, does not use this form as a demonstrative; and furthermore, it does not differentiate between near and far deixis in the plural demonstrative forms. The same is true of the language of msB; however, msB uses a 3rd plural form different from what is attested in 37 38

See H. Mutzafi (2004: 10). See H. Mutzafi (2004: 10).

10

LISHAN DIDAN

J. Arbel and more closely related to those found in the J. Sulemaniyya and J. Barzani dialects: Singular

Plural

J.Arbel

ʼanne/

(expected form)

yāne/ʼinna

J. Urmia

ʼayne / ʼane

ʼoyne / une

J. Koy Sanjaq

ʼanne / ʼənne

ʼoni

J. Sulemaniyya

ʼanyaʼe / ʼanye

ʼonyaʼe / ʼonye

J. Barzani

ʼanya

msB

yowa / ʼanyowa t²hh±b©t

This example demonstrates the complexity of classifying the language of msB more specifically among the Trans-Zab dialects. While it demonstrates similar features to J. Arbel overall, it contains specific forms and usages that are only attested in other dialects. Moreover, there are some features characteristic of the J. Arbel dialect that are not found in msB. For example, in contrast to the standard usage in J. Arbel, the language of msB does not contain the preverbal particle lā. 39 Likewise, there is no attestation of the present copula in the language of msB, though it is used frequently in J. Arbel and many other NENA dialects. Another example of the varying dialectal features found in msB is the vocalisation of the imperative forms in stem I lamed-yod roots. In J. Arbel, these forms are vocalised CCi (s) and CCimun (pl), the consonant cluster being equivalent to that of the imperative base in stem I strong verbs, which is qṭol. 40 In msB, however, the form is CaCi (s), CaCimun (pl). These forms are not analogous to the stem I imperative base for strong verbs in msB, however, which is qṭol (or, qeṭol), similar to J. Arbel. The imperative base for strong stem I verbs in J. Sulemaniyya and Rustaqa, on the other hand, is

39 40

On this feature in J. Arbel, see G. Khan (1999: 111–114, 265–275). G. Khan (1999: 98).

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

11

a qaṭil form, and the initial /a/ vowel is attested for the lamed-yod stem I verbs in these dialects. Note the following comparison: strong stem I imperative

lamed-yod

base

imperatives (s., pl.)

J. Arbel:

qṭol

ġzi, ġzimun (see)

J. Barzani

qṭol

zri, zrimun (sow)

J. Sulemaniyya:

qaṭil

xize, xizemun (see) or šate, štemun (drink)

Rustaqa

qaṭil

xázi, xazimun (see)

msB:

q(e)ṭol

h°zf, iUnh°zf (see)

This type of variation indicates the possibility that the language of msB is representative of either a different local dialect (within the Trans-Zab region) or perhaps of an older form of a known dialect. Some of the features of msB that vary from the similar spoken dialects should be attributed to the disparity between vernacular and literary languages. Since the language of msB is a written translation language, it has many characteristics that are not found in any of the spoken languages. 41 For example, the Biblical Hebrew (BH) object marker ( ,¤t ',¥t) is also represented in msB, in contrast to any modern spoken dialect. A more moderate contrast is seen in the use of the infinitive, which is found frequently in msB; whereas, it is not used as frequently in most of the spoken dialects. 42 Aside from classifying the language of msB as a literary, and often archaic, variety of the Trans-Zab JNA dialects, we must take note of its place within the dialectal continuum of that region. It is most akin to the J. Arbel dialect, as we have noted, but its geographical location indicates why it displays features from (or approximating those of) other dialects. Note on the

41

In this section, we refer to those differing features other than syntax which, as noted previously, is entirely different due to the translation technique. 42 For example, see G. Khan (1999: 89) and (2004: 318, 322).

12

LISHAN DIDAN

map (Fig. I) the location of Rewanduz (the birthplace of the metargem): if we view this locale amongst the others in the region east of the Greater Zab river, we see that it is flanked by Rustaqa and Urmia (to the north) and Koy Sanjaq and Arbel (to the south). Farther southeast is Sulemaniyya, and to the northwest is Barzan. While the language of msB displays features from dialects in all of these locales, the language of msB should probably be most closely associated with J. Arbel and J. Urmia, and then secondarily with Koy Sanjaq and Rustaqa. 43 The features shared with J. Sulemaniyya and J. Barzani are more marginal to this type of associative classification.

3. Description of msB As mentioned above, msB is manuscript number 806649 in the Jewish National and University Library, where it is preserved on microfilm. It was originally written in ruled notebooks. It is written, like all written JNA, in Hebrew characters. 44 The text is fully pointed, with some minor exceptions (e.g., proper names, preserved Hebrew elements). The chapter and verse separations (which follow those of the MT) are indicated by their corresponding Hebrew characters, and most of the books conclude with a colophon by the metargem. The text is written primarily in the standard, calligraphic “square” script; though in some passages, modern Hebrew script is used. 45 The only slight variation from standard script types is seen in the use of a ligatured aleph-lamed, when the two letters occur together in this order. This is not an uncommon writing practice, and is often seen in Judeo-Arabic texts. 46

43

Among these, the language of msB is still closer to J. Arbel than to J. Urmia. 44 See the Appendix for sample pages from msB. 45 Y. Sabar (1976: 162) has indicated the use of Rabbinic (or, Rashi) script in some JNA targumim and religious writings he has studied, though this is not seen in msB. 46 See J. Blau and S. Hopkins (1988: 411, 430).

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

13

14

LISHAN DIDAN The metargem’s system of pointing and vocalisation reflects his desire

for simplicity and efficiency; for example, there is no indication of gemination or vowel length (in the /a/ and /o/ vowels). 47 On the other hand, it also reflects his attempt to deal with the unique demands of his dialect, such as the presence of two phonemes with no equivalent in the Hebrew alphabet. These phonemes are the consonants /ǰ/and /č/, which are found in Arabic and Kurdish loan words, respectively. Both of them are represented with the same sign: ¶d (a superimposed point on the gimmel). In an analysis of the use of the Hebrew alphabet for writing Yiddish, J. Fishman points out that “even words of non-Hebrew origin were long spelled in ways as to stress familiarity with various Hebrew orthographic conventions ….” 48 Some of the orthographic practices in msB appear to reflect a similar motivation. The most salient example of this is the representation of the 3rd singular pronominal suffixes (-éw, -áw) with a yod-waw construction. For example: uh¥,fc (his wife), uhk²d (with her). The inclusion of the yod does not represent the phonology and is purely orthographical. The only possible reason for its inclusion is that it is a deliberate imitation of MT suffix orthography. 49 The colophons written by the metargem at the end of each book constitute, as we have mentioned, the only information we have about msB and about him other than what his son has recounted. Though some are quite brief and others rather lengthy, most of the colophons begin with the phrase ezj,bu ezj. This is followed by a self-identification which may be as brief as “hbzrc htfz iuaa c,ufv” (the writer Sason Zakay Barzani), or as lengthy as wrv ktuna wrv htfz wrv iuaa c,ufvu odr,nv tbt” “hbzrc ;xuh (I am the metargem [translator] and the writer, Sason [son of] R. Zakay R. Samuel R. Joseph Barzani). The day, month and year of completion are usually included, as well as the place—which is always vhrvb rhgc (in the city of Nahariah). De47

For more on the vocalisation of msB, see the following section (4). 1977: 299–300. 49 See I.1.2. 48

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

15

pending on the book, other things may be included in the colophon, such as prayers, more detailed information or scripture.

4. Phonology and orthography The fact that msB represents a purely written language, and that we have no record of it being recited orally (as we have for some other JNA targumim), means that we cannot speak of its phonological features beyond a certain point. While certain aspects of the phonology of the language may be evident in the written vocalisation used by the metargem, evidence of this kind is limited and may sometimes prove unreliable as a source for comparative study. In short, any description of the phonology of the language of msB must be gleaned from the orthographic patterns followed by the metargem, and will therefore be relatively limited. Regarding vocalisation, any presumptions we may make about the representation of phonology must be based on our knowledge of the phonology of the spoken dialects closest to the language of msB. Again, this is a somewhat inexact method. The metargem’s system of vocalisation is simple and relatively consistent. Vowel length is not typically indicated in the orthography, and can only be inferred in certain cases. Tsere and segol are used indiscriminately to represent the same sound (presumably a short /i/), unless they are followed by a yod as a mater lectionis (as in vkhk [lele] “night”), or preceding a yod or heh in the final syllable of a word (as in vkfh¦rc [brikle] “he blessed”), in which cases they both represent /ê/. The long /i/ is represented by the ḥireq, which is consistently represented with plene orthography. 50 There is no indication of vowel length in the representation of the /a/ vowel, as the qamets and pataḥ are used interchangeably. The qibbuts is not used and the shureq is used to its exclusion; similarly, the defective ḥolem does not appear, though there are a few exceptions. Just as vowel length is not consistently indicated in the pointing, there is no usage

50

On the representation of short and long /i/ in msB, see I.2.3.

16

LISHAN DIDAN

of the composite shwa in any form, except in Hebrew phrases left untranslated. As noted above, the phonemes /ǰ/ and /č/, from Kurdish and Arabic loan-words, are both represented by ¶d. Which phoneme is indicated must be inferred from the word itself. The hard or soft pronunciation of the BGDKPT letters is sometimes indicated by use of the dagesh, but this is not a consistent feature of the pointing. Gemination is not indicated at all. Place and personal names, as well as divine names are typically rendered without pointing, though they may occur as pointed at random. 51 While the vocalisation of msB should be viewed as closely related to the phonology of spoken J. Arbel (SA) and other Trans-Zab JNA dialects, there are some minor variations reflected in the vocalisation. These variations typically involve the addition of epenthetic vowels, primarily in the verbal constructions, 52 which would not be heard in the phonology of the vernacular. Note the following comparisons with spoken forms: past 3ms (stem I)

Imperative (s)

msB:

vkfhkp “he opened”

QIkp “open!”

J. Arbel

plixle

plox

J. Sulemaniyya

plixle

palix

J. Urmia

grišle “he pulled”

gruš “pull!”

J. Koy Sanjaq

grišle

groš

Note that, where there are consonant clusters in the other dialects, msB contains epenthetic /i/ vowels. These are probably representative of a cantillated or rhythmically intoned text, rather than a dialectal variation. This possibility is supported by evidence from similar JNA speaking communities. On the recitation of a targum in the JNA dialect of Zakho, we learn that “the recitation of the Neo-Aramaic has a typical melody, with pausal length-

51

Divine names may also appear abbreviated. For more on the representation of divine names, see II.3.3.3. 52 See I.2, section 2.1 in particular.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

17

enings.” 53 In Judeo-Arabic speaking communities, the šarḥ (the Judeo-Arabic equivalent of the JNA targum) is described as being “chanted.” 54 Likewise, some of the few JNA texts that were recited in the synagogues are described as having been “chanted.” 55

5. A note on the structure of this analysis The text of msB presents us with two very significant items, both worthy of study. Firstly, the language represents a unique literary specimen, as well as evidence of a hitherto undescribed Jewish NENA dialect that contains features from several different known dialects. Secondly, as a targum tradition, msB displays continuity not only with other JNA targum traditions, but with many Jewish Bible translations throughout history. The translation technique that characterises the tradition represented by msB reveals much about the Jewish approach to the Biblical text and tradition, particularly in diaspora communal life. In order to address both of these dimensions of msB, we must divide our study into three parts. Part I is a description of the morphology of msB’s language. As discussed above, the syntax of the translation follows that of the MT, and therefore we are unable to describe the syntax as would be done for the grammar of a spoken language. Rather, we must examine the translation technique in order to understand the unique syntax of msB. Part II, therefore, consists of an analytical description of the translation technique. The translation tradition represented in msB is also significant from a sociological perspective. Just as there are other languages spoken (like JNA) only by Jewish communities, so many of these communities also possess 53

G. Goldenberg and M. Zaken (1990: 151–152). Note that this was representative of the recitation of the Ruth targum, which—in this tradition— would have been delivered in the synagogue on Shavuot. 54 H. Blanc (1964: 18, 20), Y. Avishur (2001: 107*-108*), A. S. Kaye (1972: 44). 55 Such as, for example, some lamentation hymns. Y. Sabar (personal communication).

18

LISHAN DIDAN

similar types of Biblical translation traditions in their own dialects. In order to understand msB’s significance to Jewish literary and linguistic history, we shall examine it in relation to that larger context. This comparative study is undertaken in Part III, involving consideration of JNA with respect to the study of Jewish languages, and comparison of the texts and underlying traditions of msB and other Jewish Bible translation traditions. Since msB is not a complete targum, but is missing much of the prophets and writings, the following analysis can be based only on the available material. Within this material, many sections of the manuscript are illegible due either to ink bleeding through both sides of the page, or to a bad transfer on the microfilm. In light of these limitations, I have selected a set corpus of material from which to work. I have attempted to compile a text base that includes a sampling of all the books represented, but obviously not every chapter could be analysed within the limits of this study. In the following chapters, I refer to the “corpus”—meaning by this designation this text base I have compiled. This “corpus” includes, roughly: lengthy passages (two chapters or more) from all five books of the Pentateuch, Ezekiel, Malachi and the Psalms; smaller pericopes (one chapter or less) from each of the other (11) minor prophets, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs; and the entire book of Ruth.

I. MORPHOLOGY 1. PRONOUNS 1.1 Independent personal pronouns 3rd person

2nd person

1st person

ms. It fs.

h©t

pl.

h°bIt

cs.

,©t

pl.

ifI,©t' iUfI,©t

cs.

t²b©t

pl.

ikf©t

There have been several attempts at an historical reconstruction of the derivation of the NENA independent pronouns. The 3rd singular forms are thought to be contracted forms of ahu (m) and ahi (f), which latter forms are actually preserved in some NENA dialects (e.g., Hertevin, Amediya, Alqosh, Qaraqosh). These forms are treated by some as developed forms of the Old Aramaic (OA) demonstratives hāhū and hāhī. 56 Other dialects have awa and aya respectively as the 3rd singular form (e.g., Zakho, Mangesh, Aradhin, Barzani), which could also be derived from the OA demonstratives. O. Jastrow has theorised that this double attestation suggests the two forms of pronoun have descended from different forms: the former (ahu/ahi) having been pronouns originally, and the latter (awa/aya) having been demonstra56

T. Nöldeke (1868: 74–75). 19

20

LISHAN DIDAN

tives. 57 The forms in msB are significant in this debate as they may have derived from either reconstruction. In any case, however, it is exceedingly clear that “the origins of the NENA third person pronouns are closely bound up with the history of the demonstratives….” 58 A homophone of the personal pronoun h©t is also found with regularity in msB, used as a relative pronoun (with common gender and number)— equivalent to the BH r¤J£t. See I.1.6 for the full discussion of this usage of h©t. The 3fs pronoun is retained in msB; whereas, in SA, the 3rd singular is a generalised form (ʼo). This should most likely be seen as an archaic literary convention, since the dialect of msB is a “Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic” dialect, all of which have a generalised masculine form. 59 In like manner, this pronoun is seen in similar literary contexts in J. Urmia, but not typically in the spoken language. 60 The 2nd singular is always ,©t in msB; whereas, among some Arbel speakers ʼāti is attested as the 2ms and ʼat is used as the feminine. 61 Elsewhere, by contrast, the masculine (ʼāti) has been generalised (e.g., Aqra, Dobe, En Nune). 62 The 2nd plural form is attested in two forms. Though it is rendered ifI,©t throughout almost the entire corpus, there are some rare instances in which it appears as iUfI,©t. 63 These forms are found—with similar usage (atoxen being predominant, with atoxun as a less frequently attested

57

O. Jastrow (1990: 89–103). R. Hoberman (1988: 562, fn13). 59 H. Mutzafi (2004: 10). In his introduction (9–10) he lists the five elements that specifically classify “Trans-Zab JNA” dialects, from among the more general set of NENA dialects. He specifically addresses the presence of the feminine 3rd person independent as a “literary archaism” only. 60 Ibid. 61 See G. Khan (1999: 81): some of his informants use both, some use only ’at. 62 Ibid. 63 Note that this ending also appears as an alternate vocalisation of the 2nd plural verb ending in the past tense (see I.2.3). 58

I. MORPHOLOGY

21

variant)—in Dobe, 64 but not in J. Arbel, where the form is ʼatxun. (Examples of similar JNA 2nd plurals are: J. Azerbaijan ʼatxun, J. Urmia ʼaxtoxun, J. Zakho ʼaxtoxun). In the J. Arbel and J. Azerbaijan forms there has been either a metathesis of the /x/ and /t/ or an alteration by analogy to the singular forms 65 (> *axtun). The form attetsed in msB and Dobe may have occurred due to vowel dissimilation (-oxon > -oxen). 66 The only known NA dialects containing a similar form for the 2nd plural independent pronoun are Hassana 67 and Mangesh 68 (axnutin in both), and Neo-Mandaic, in which there is gender differentiation in the 2nd plural independent. The form atten is found as the feminine, in contrast to the masculine atton. 69 The latter attestation may shed light on another possible explanation for the presence of the /i/ vowel in the ending; particularly when examined alongside its classical precursor. In the 2nd plural pronouns (independents and enclitic possessives and objectives) in Mandaic—both classical and modern—there is always gender differentiation, unlike these forms in the other NA dialects we have mentioned. The differentiation is characterised by a /u/ or /o/ vowel in the masculine endings and an /e/ or /i/ vowel in the feminine endings: Classical Mandaic 2nd plurals Independent pronouns:

m.: anatun / anatton f.: anatin / anatten

Pronominal Suffixes:

m.: -xon f.: -xen

64

H. Mutzafi (personal communication). G. Khan (1999: 82). 66 But see also the possible reconstruction for this ending among the pronominal suffixes in the following section (I.1.2) and in I.2.3. 67 O. Jastrow (1997: 354). 68 R. Hoberman (1988: 561); S. Sara (1974: 63). 69 R. Macuch (1965: 154). 65

22

LISHAN DIDAN

Modern/Neo-Mandaic 2nd plurals Independent pronouns:

m.: atton f.: atten

Pronominal Suffixes:

m.: -xon, -oxon f.: -xen, -oxen 70

This vocalic gender differentiation may indicate that—whereas in other dialects the *2mpl pronouns are thought to have generalised and become the sole 2nd plural forms—in the language of msB (and Dobe), a *2nd feminine plural form may have become the generalised 2nd plural form. The infrequent occurrences of the iUfI- ending may then be explained by its having once been a separate, gender-specific form. Another unusual form found in msB pronouns is the 1st plural. The more common form is either axnan or axni, seen in the majority of the known dialects, with only slight variation. Though it is somewhat common to see interchange between the dentals and alveolars (in this case /l/ and /n/), this form (ʼaxlan) is only attested in Harbole, a Christian dialect. 71 Alternatively, this may have occurred by analogy to the past 1st plural verbal ending (ik-).

1.2 Pronominal Suffixes As in the other forms of the J. Arbel dialect, the pronominal suffixes for the 3rd singular forms suffixed to the preposition l- differ from the forms attached to other prepositions and to nouns. The preposition l- with suffixes is used to express verbal complements. This set of suffixes will be referred to as “l-set.” 72 This is discussed further in I.2.3.

70

The examples in this chart are taken from R. Macuch (1965: 154–163). J. Sinha (2000: 69). 72 Cf. G. Khan (1999: 82ff, 93ff), R. Hoberman (1988: 560). 71

I. MORPHOLOGY

3 p. rd

ms fs

2nd p.

l-set v - ' v - ' h - ' h -

uh -' uh© -

v - ' t -

pl

U-

ms

QI -

fs

Q -

pl 1st p.

Nominal uh -' uh¥ -

ms pl

23

ifI- ,iUfIh i -

The origin and possible derivational reconstructions of all of the 3rd person suffixes (of both types) are treated extensively by R. Hoberman and need not be repeated here. 73 The variations in the 3rd singular suffixes (within their respective groupings) are entirely orthographical, since phonologically they represent the same sound (-éw, -áw and -é, -á ). 74 Though in some dialects the l-set 3rd person suffixes close in a realised /h/, 75 this is likely not the case in the language of msB, due to the freely interchanging orthography. Hoberman, however, indicates that in the Nerwa texts and Aradhin the final /h/ is “optionally preserved” in the feminine but not the masculine suffix. 76 The 3ms l-set suffix -é may also be found suffixed to the word kulla (all, the whole) in some dialects (kulle). In SA, kulle is used only before masculine

73

1988: 569–571. Hoberman does reconstruct the foundational stem as –ay (as in Kaufman’s proposition that *-ayhu is the origin of both –e and –ew); but this is most likely unrelated to the frequent usage of the final yod in msB’s orthographic rendering of the masculine l-set suffixes and the internal yod in all the 3rd singular nominal suffixes. These phenomena seem to be the direct result of deliberate imitation of BH orthography, as mentioned in the general introduction. 75 G. Khan (1999: 82). 76 1988: 563. 74

24

LISHAN DIDAN

singular nouns (kullé Pesaḥ “the whole of Passover”). 77 In Koy Sanjaq, however, the form kulle may precede a feminine singular noun as well (as a distributive quantifier or an attribute of a definite noun), indicating that the 3ms inflection has become generalised. The pattern generally appearing in msB reflects this latter type of generalised usage. Similarly to our findings about the 2nd plural independent, the only one of the pronominal suffixes that does not conform to the J. Arbel forms is the 2nd plural, ifI-. As with the 2nd plural independent pronoun, there are rare— seemingly anomalous—representations of the pronominal suffix as iUfI- (Leviticus 1:2, Deuteronomy 29:9) where, again, this is the form we would expect in light of other attestations. The initial o- in this suffix (and in the independent pronoun), though differing from the comparable J. Arbel forms, is seen in many other NENA dialects and is simply an older, preserved form. It may have developed by analogy to the 2ms suffix -ox, 78 or by analogy to the 2nd plural independent pronoun. The more puzzling characteristic here is that of the /i/ vowel as opposed to the expected /u/. This occurrence is clearly related to that of the /i/ vowel in the independent pronoun, as discussed above. In fact, the only other apparent evidence of such a form in NA is in Mangesh (-oxin) and in the Neo-Mandaic feminines (as shown above: see second chart in I.1.1). Finally, a similar form is found in the Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic (BTA) 2mpl pronominal suffix: if-, which is used interchangeably with iIf- and Uf-. Still, in the latter case, if- is thought to be a Hebraism (analogous to the BH 2nd plural pronominal suffix). 79 Another possible explanation for the /i/ vowel is the occurrence of dissimilation, resulting from the proximity of the initial /o/ vowel. As in the forms of the J. Arbel dialect, the suffixes express genitive relation to their nouns, and cause the elision of final vowels on the nouns. 77

G. Khan (1999: 83). Or vice versa; cf. G. Khan (1999: 82–83). 79 C. Levias (1971: 33). 78

I. MORPHOLOGY

25

This elision results in lack of differentiation between singular and plural forms of the noun when those endings are comprised solely of a final vowel. The plural is only evident if it is structurally different from the singular form of the noun; e.g., uhk³h could mean either “her child” (yāla) or “her children” (yāle).

1.3 Demonstrative Pronouns The singular forms are like those of SA, except that the feminine form is retained for the far deixis (as it was for the independent personal pronouns), unlike in SA, where it is generalised to the masculine. There is no gender differentiation and no distinction between near and far deixis in the plural. Khan notes in his grammar of J. Arbel that, though he finds three distinct forms of the plural demonstrative, each informant used only one consistently. 80 Far deixis sing.

It, h©t

pl.

v²hh±b©t 't²hh±b©t

Near deixis v²h¦t

The near singular form is derived from the BTA demonstrative (t¨vh¦t). The plural form on the other hand, while analogous to the normative SA forms ʼanne, yāne, and ʼinna, is paralleled in a few other dialects (J. Sulemaniyya: ʼanyaʼe/ʼanye 81, and Barzani: ʼanya 82) and seems to indicate a somewhat different etymology. The plural demonstrative is typically thought to be a form of the 3rd plural independent pronoun āni, which developed into ʼoni in SA by analogy to its 3rd singular counterpart. The form attested in msB (and Barzani) may represent a further development of this

80

G. Khan (1999: 84–85). G. Khan (2004: 77). 82 H. Mutzafi (2002: 54). 81

26

LISHAN DIDAN

form (āni) by the addition of the OA deictic element *-hā : ʼāni + *-hā > ʼanyaʼ.

1.4 Interrogative pronouns h°b©n

“who, whom?”

v©n

“what?” These forms are invariable in msB, and are used wherever the BH

forms h¦n or v©n (respectively) are used in the MT.

1.5 Reflexive pronouns Within this corpus, there is only one occurrence of the reflexive pronoun common to SA (noš- + pronominal suffix). In SA, this prefix is used with the standard pronominal suffixes. The base is derived, etymologically, from the OA word for “soul”: noš- < *nabšā, though it is now used exclusively in this reflexive pronominal context. 83 Because BH does not contain a separate form for expressing the pronominal reflexive, it is not surprising that such a form is not typically found in msB, since it follows the BH wording so closely. In this one particular case, however, the noš- form is used to parallel the BH adverbial expression ISck (meaning “alone,” or “only”): MT: ISck In§J c²D§G°b hF msB: uh¥JIbc tfk uh¥n¥J t²hh±u¥e h°¶d “for his name alone is exalted” (Psalm 148:13) Here, the metargem has amplified the text with an extra term. While translating initially with the more literary NA term tfk, meaning “alone” or “sin83

G. Khan (1999: 87–88). It is easier to assume that the derivation is from *nabšā, rather than from *napšā, since the sequence *ab in NENA developed to /aw/ or /o/, where post-vocalic /p/ remained a stop.

I. MORPHOLOGY

27

gly,” he follows this with the SA reflexive pronoun, which can also be used to mean “alone.” This redundancy is actually an explanatory “insertion” to clarify the usage of tfk: the metargem follows up the traditional translation with a vernacular form of the same meaning, for the sake of clarity. 84

1.6 The relative pronoun h©t Amongst NENA dialects, ay (and variant forms) is more typically seen as a near deictic demonstrative. For example, in the Rustaqa dialect, the form ʼay is used attributively as a near demonstrative. 85 The same form is attested in the J. Azerbaijan dialect as an archaic form of the demonstrative ya (meaning “this (one)”). 86 In J. Sulemaniyya, ʼay is the feminine near demonstrative (s. and pl.). 87 Similarly, in J. Arbel, there is one case in which the form appears as a demonstrative—the word ʼayšat meaning “this year.” 88 Note the possible relationship between this form of the demonstrative and the BTA form haʼy (which is used for either gender). 89 Even in such instances, however, the form is not being used as a relative, but rather it expresses deixis. The expression of the relative in many NENA dialects is often seen either through some form or derivative of the genitive/relative particle di (cf. OA and BTA), or through an adopted form of the demonstrative/relative izafe (borrowed from Kurdish [ezafet], Persian), or through a combination of these two elements. The annexation endings -it or -id are found repeatedly in J. Arbel, which result from the cliticisation of the older relative particle di. 90 Khan refers to annexation constructions in J. Arbel occasionally using a suffixed “i particle,” paralleling the Persian izafe. 84

For more on this type of “explanatory insertion” in msB, see II.3.5.1. G. Khan (2002a: 398). 86 I. Garbell (1965: 58) suggests that “both allomorphs may be combined— ajja; there is the further feminine indicator –hi suffixed to the base—ahi ‘she’.” 87 G. Khan (2004: 76). 88 G. Khan (1999: 169). 89 C. Levias (1971: 35). 90 G. Khan (1999: 168–170); I. Garbell (1965a: 171). 85

28

LISHAN DIDAN In J. Azerbaijan/ J. Urmia, however, the form ay may sometimes be

used as a relative particle, equivalent to the usage of did- and the i particle. For example: “o gorit aj treminǰi, ‘that third man’ [lit.: “that man who was third”]; … tkit aqla aj naš, ‘human footprints’ [lit.: “foot-places which are/of a person”]”. 91 This type of usage—attested only in J. Urmia—may be the source of the form’s usage in msB as an equivalent for the BH relative rat. This equivalent usage of the 3fs independent pronoun in msB includes cases with affixed prepositions: MT: iUc£t§a°h r¤a£t¥n ,h¦,¨a msB: h¦ar³d h©t¥n ,²hh§,©J “drink from what they have drawn” (Ruth 2:9) MT: Iscg tO r¤J£tk oh¦vO¡t sc«g ihC msB: uhk¥t o¥sf tk h©tk t©vk¥t ,¯b©n§sf ,¯uu³dc “between the one who serves God and the one who does not serve him” (Malachi 3:18) Likewise, where we see ratf in the MT, msB has h©t Id±b©n. The most salient example, however, of the “double” usage of the form (as both independent and relative pronoun) is one in which both usages occur in the same sentence: MT: /oh°bC vgc¦ ¦n Qk vcIy th¦v r¤J£t msB: /v¯bIrc v¨tIJ¥n lk¤t t,rhpJ h©t h©t “she who is better to you than seven sons” (Ruth 4:15)

91

I. Garbell (1965: 87–88). Note that Garbell uses “j” to represent the phoneme /y/.

I. MORPHOLOGY

29

Here, we see overtly that the form is used interchangeably in msB as a feminine independent pronoun and as a relative pronoun. In fact—with little exception—wherever rat is found in the MT, h©t can be found in msB. The above example, however, demonstrates that this “generalisation” of the feminine form has not occurred to the exclusion of the form’s usage as a feminine independent pronoun.

30

LISHAN DIDAN

2. VERBS 2.1 Verbal stems Like most of the Trans-Zab JNA dialects, msB contains two verbal stems (stem I and stem II) in which all verbs, triliteral and quadriliteral, are conjugated. Stem I can be understood as a derivation of the OA and BTA pə‛al. This stem contained a regular and a stative form (qṭal and qṭil, or qṭêl in BTA), both of which can be linked etymologically to the NENA stem I formations. The stem II forms are thought to have descended from a collapsing of the OA pa“el and the ʼaph‛el forms. 92 Triliteral verbs are conjugated in stem II with an affixed m-, and often a shift in meaning from simple to causative or intransitive to transitive (but not always). Quadriliteral verbs are conjugated only in stem II with a clustering of the middle two radicals, as in the OA ʼaph‛el. The two stems are inflected in two bases (past and present) and an imperative form. Note that the use of the infinitive in msB is more frequent than its usage in the spoken language, and it often follows syntactic patterns of expression more typical of OA or BH. We will look firstly at strong verbs and then move on to an examination of weak verbs. Stem I: ykp “to come out, to go forth” Present:

-ykp

Past:

-yhkp

Imperative:

-yIkp

Infinitive:

v¥yIkp

92

G. Khan (1999: 89).

I. MORPHOLOGY

31

Stem II: rf,n “to remember” Present:

-rf§,©n

Past:

-rf§,¥n

Imperative:

-rf§,©n

Infinitive:

v¥rIf§,©n

Quadriliteral: icJf “to calculate, make an account of,” rnrn “to make/be bitter” Present:

-bc§Jf

Past:

-r¥n§r¥n

Imperative:

not attested

Infinitive:

v¯bIc§Jf

Among the stem I verbs, there is one significant difference between the past and imperative bases in msB and SA. In msB, initial epenthetic vowels are represented consistently on both bases where SA contains consonant clusters: 93 J. Arbel:

msB:

plx (to open)

yJp “to stretch,” and cke

Past 3ms

plixle

Imv. S

plox

“to turn” hkchk¥e 'vk§yh¦Jp cIk¥e

As noted in the general introduction, the phonology represented in msB is probably representative of a cantillated or rhythmically intoned text, and would not be considered consistent with colloquial speech. Furthermore, the

93

There are some cases in which the past forms are vocalised like the standard SA forms, but these cases are rare and clearly the exception.

32

LISHAN DIDAN

speech of Khan’s “informant B” (the son of Sason Barzani from Rewanduz) does not reflect these initial epenthetic vowel pronunciations. 94 Another phonological variation is seen in the vocalisation of the past base in msB, which is vocalised differently in stem I than in stem II. The orthography of the stem I past base suggests that it contains a long /i/ vowel (-yhkp); whereas, the stem II past base appears to have the expected short /i/ (-rf§,¥n). In SA, by contrast, the vocalisation is levelled across the stems, which both contain short /i/ vowels. This vocalic difference between the stems is an archaic feature of the language of msB, which is also attested in some other NENA dialects (e.g., Koy Sanjaq, J. Barzani).

2.2 Inflection of the present base The present base is inflected with suffixes, and follows the basic inflectional patterns of SA. 3rd person

2nd person

1st person

ms. -0 fs.

v -

pl.

h -

ms. , fs.

, -

pl.

iU,¯ -

ms. i fs.

i² -

pl.

Q -

As in SA, the /i/ vowel before the final radical in the present base is elided when the base takes a suffix beginning with a vowel. 95

94

G. Khan (1999: 520–541).

I. MORPHOLOGY

3rd person

2nd person

1st person

33

ms. k¥y©e fs.

vk§y©e

pl.

hk§y©e 'hk¥y©e

ms. ,k§y©e fs.

,k§y©e

pl.

iU,k§y©e

ms. ik§y©e fs.

ik§y©e

pl.

Qk§y©e

Our corpus does not contain examples of every present inflection of stem II forms, however, I will vocalise the verb rcdn (“to tell, declare”) in accordance with the examples that are found in the corpus. 3rd person

2nd person

1st person

95

ms. rc±d©n fs.

v¨rc±d©n

pl.

h¦rc±d©n

ms. not attested fs.

,©rc±d©n

pl.

iU,¥rc±d©n

ms. i¤rc±d©n fs.

i©rc±d©n

pl.

Q¤rc±d©n

G. Khan (1999: 90–91).

34

LISHAN DIDAN

2.3 Inflection of the past base The past base is inflected with what we have called the “l-set” suffixes. These suffixes are simply the pronominal suffixes, attached to the preposition l- and cliticised to the base. This inflection is primarily thought to have developed from a construction consisting of the absolute passive participle forms with the agentive prepositional phrase: qṭil (pass.ptc.) + l + ah < “he/it was killed + by her” < “she killed.” This construction (passive participle + preposition l- + pronominal suffix) is generally accepted as resulting from an earlier Persian influence on the Eastern Aramaic dialects, 96 as a similar verbal construction is found in Old Persian. 3rd person

2nd person

1st person

ms

tk- 'hk- 'vk- 'hk- 'vk-

fs.

tk- 'vk-

pl.

Uk-

ms. lIkfs.

lk-

pl.

ifIk- 'iUfk- 'iUfk-

s.

hk-

pl.

ik-

When a root ends with an /l/ or an /r/, that final consonant causes the elision of the /l/ of the suffix. (Ex: rsf “to become” in past 3ms form is h¥rh¦sf). Note the variation of the 2nd plural inflectional endings, which include the unusual ifI- ending discussed above (I.1.1, 2) in relation to its occurrence in the 2nd plural pronoun and pronominal suffix. In the latter cases, the alternate (and expected) /u/ vowel endings are not attested in msB. In the case of the past inflectional endings, however, we see that both the 96

See E. Y. Kutscher (1969).

I. MORPHOLOGY

35

normal form (found in SA, that is, iUfk-) and the unique form are used interchangeably. There appears to be no pattern to the usage of either, as both are found on weak and strong verbs alike, as well as verbs ending in /l/ or /r/. The occurrence of this suffix in the past inflection of the verb may actually offer the best possible explanation for its presence in msB. As we have noted above, similar pronominal forms are found in Mangesh and NeoMandaic, as is a similar verbal form found in (past tense: qṭilloxin). 97 It seems, however, that a likely explanation for this suffix is that it is an archaising element, originally seen in Biblical Aramaic (BA) and BTA. The 2nd plural pronominal suffix in both BA and BTA is typically iIf- 'iuf- in which the /o/ vowel later shifts to /u/ as is still seen in most of the modern NENA dialects. The BA and BTA 2nd plural object suffixes on verbs are the same: BA (iIf[±b]-) and BTA (uf[b]-). The ending attested in msB may have developed through methathesis: iIfk- > ifIk-. As noted in I.2.1, the past base differs slightly from the ordinary SA forms in the inclusion of an epenthetic vowel between the first and second consonant. (Again, for the sake of clarity, I have used the verb lnx “to stand, wait, or remain” to demonstrate the inflection though it does not occur in every form. Also, I use only one example of the orthography for the suffixes, as there are so many in 3rd singular.) 3rd person

2nd person

97

ms. vkfh¦n¥x fs.

tkfh¦n¥x

pl.

Ukfh¦n¥x

ms. QIkfh¦n¥x fs.

Qkfh¦n¥x

pl.

iUfkf¥n¥x 'ifIkfh¦n¥x

S. Sara (1974: 73).

36

LISHAN DIDAN

1st person

s.

hkfh¦n¥x

pl.

ikfh¦n¥x

The addition of the epenthetic characterises the consistent form of the past base in msB, but this phenomenon is not without precedent in SA: “dĭmixlu ‘they slept’ (Y:188), sĭqillan ‘we took’ (Y:21), ʼimsiqle ‘he surpassed’ (L:141).” 98 These are not, however, consistent phonological phenomena in the speech of any one informant. This leads us to conjecture that the epenthetic is added when the consonant cluster is difficult for a particular speaker to pronounce—this explanation would account for the rarity of this occurrence. In light of the comparative evidence we have on these matters, we are faced more acutely with the question of what sounds are intended to be represented by which vowel signs in msB. In the examples from SA above, one will note that the epenthetic is merely an abbreviated form of the second vowel. Thus, we have a short and a long /i/ vowel, which means that these would contrast in length only, and not phonemically. 99 In the orthography of msB, however, the tsere is used epenthetically, but a plene ḥireq-yod is used for the second vowel. This presents us with the question: is the metargem using tsere/segol to indicate the sound /ĕ/, or to indicate a short /i/, viz. /ĭ/? Obviously we cannot answer this question in the absence of an oral recitation of the text; however, by analogy to SA it would seem that tsere and segol are meant to indicate a short /i/. 100 As for examples of the inflection of strong stem II verbs, though the corpus does not contain examples of every form, the forms adhere to the

98

G. Khan (1999: 94). Op.cit., 42. 100 We can at least say with certainty that the two vowels of the past base are different in some way, whether in length only (which all comparative evidence would suggest), or in quality. 99

I. MORPHOLOGY

37

regular pattern found in SA (with the exception of the 2nd plural inflection, discussed above). Jrpn “to separate, divide” 3rd person

2nd person

1st person

ms. vk§J¥rp¥n fs.

not attested

pl.

not attested

ms. QIk§J¥rp¥n fs.

not attested

pl.

iUfk§J¥rp¥n 'ifIk§J¥rp¥n

s.

hk§J¥rp¥n

pl.

ik§J¥rp¥n

2.4 Inflection of the imperative base The imperative bases are inflected for number only, and not for gender. The singular inflection is simply the base, with no suffix: eIrp “redeem,” cIk¥e “turn,” k¯z±b©n “stay.” The plurals in msB always take the suffix iUn-, as opposed to taking either -mun or -un, as in SA: iUn§Gc²d “subdue,” iUn§y¥n²z “fill,” iUn§rf§,©n “remember.”

2.5 Stem I weak verbs In msB, there are two forms of inflection of the present base for several pehaleph roots (hkt 'kzt 'rut 'kut) and the verbs huv “to be” and uv “to give.” This evidence corresponds to the verbs in SA (primarily the same roots) that have two forms: indicative (with a prefixed k- or g-) and subjunctive. 101

101

G. Khan (1999: 102, 126).

38

LISHAN DIDAN

2.5.1 Peh-Aleph roots In SA, initial alephs typically have two distinct forms of the inflected present base, one for the indicative (with an initial /k/ or /g/ replacing the initial aleph) and one for the subjunctive (using the initial aleph and an /a/ or an /i/ vowel). 102 This pattern is also evident in msB. Examples: Verb (present)

Indicative

Subjunctive

hkt “to come”

tf “he comes”

h¥t

kut “to do, make”

kId “he does”

kIt

kzt “to go”

,²z¯d “you (f) go”

,³z¥t

In the past forms of these verbs, the initial consonant is often dropped completely, and the apocopated form begins with the second radical: vkhf (she ate), Urh¦n (they said), hkh°u (I did), v¥rh°u (he entered), lkh°z (you went). In fact, the only verb that is not apocopated in this manner is hkt (to come, go), because it also has a weak final radical: Uk®hk¤t (they came), tkh¯hk¥t (she came), vkh®hk¥t (he came). In the imperative forms, peh-aleph verbs may be apocopated similarly to their past bases, typically dropping the initial aleph and taking the expected /o/ vowel in the singular, and iUn- suffix in the plural. On the whole, the imperative forms of these verbs are irregular and often the other root consonants are dropped or altered: rIn (say![s]), iUnh¦n (bring![pl]); h¦x (go![s]), iUnh¦x (go![pl]). Initial aleph roots retain the aleph in their infinitive forms, even when used with the preposition l-. They retain the older infinitive form (qṭala), as opposed to the expected vocalisation (qaṭole) found in the strong verbs (see

102

Note that I am using the term “subjunctive” here in a sense consistent with its usage in other scholarship on this subject. It is meant in the semantic sense (as opposed to the grammatical sense, which is specific to each group of languages) indicating a non-realised action, or an optative mood.

I. MORPHOLOGY

39

I.2.7 for further explanation of this development): vkfh¦t (to eat), v¨r©n¦tk (“saying, to say”—used like BH rIntk).

2.5.2 Ayin-Aleph roots rts (to return) and xtb (to bite) are the only strong examples of this form. They are conjugated, for the most part, like strong verbs: present, i¥r§t©s (I [m] return); past, Uk§xh¦t¯b (they bit); imperative, rIt¥s ,iUnrIt¥s (return! [s, pl]); infinitive v¥rIt©sk (to return).

2.5.3 Peh-Yod roots These roots are conjugated just like strong verbs. As the addition of the epenthetic /e/ vowel between the first and second radical in the past base is regular in msB, the peh-yod roots look identical to strong verbs when conjugated: present, r¥x³h (he binds), ik§s³h (I [f] give birth); past, vk§eh¦a¯h (he went up).

2.5.4 Ayin-Yod roots As is the case in the Trans-Zab JNA dialects, ayin-yod verbs contract into an /e/ vowel after the first radical in the present: 103 ,k¥n (you [f] die), kp (it falls), h¦n¥, (they complete). In the past, this contraction is shown as an /i/ vowel, which retains the yod in msB’s orthography: tk§eh¦s (she crushed), vkhf (he measured), Ukh¦n (they died). The infinitive form follows the vocalisation for weak verbs (see 2.5.1): vk²h¦n (to die). Many ayin-yod roots in NENA derive from different geminate, hollow and peh-nun roots, specifically from BH: ehs is derived from the geminate dqq (to crush), oh, from tmm (to complete), khn from mwt (to die), khf from kwl (to measure), ohe from qwm (to arise), ohr from rwm (to be/make high), khp from npl (to fall), and ;he from nqp (to strike). This tendency toward con-

103

See H. Mutzafi (2004: 10).

40

LISHAN DIDAN

figuration as an ayin-yod is very strong, as it can be observed as having affected all types of roots.

2.5.5 Lamed-Yod roots In the present, the final radical is typically contracted into an /ê/, while the initial /a/ vowel is retained (CaCê + suffix): ihm©n (I am able), iU,¥r©e (you [pl] are calling). Again, the yod may be retained (as in the former instance) because of the orthography. However, the yod is doubled in many instances of the 2fs and 1fs forms of the present for lamed-yod roots, thereby indicating a consonantal usage of the yod: i²hh±zf (I [f] see), ,²hh§,©J (you [f] drink), ,²hh§e©, (you press). In the past conjugations, the contraction goes to an /e/ vowel as well, forming the connection between the base and the suffix: Ukfc (they wept), tk¥n¥J (she heard), vkh®b¥, (he told). In the imperative forms, these roots are vocalised like the stem II verbs, taking an initial /a/ vowel and contracting the yod into an /i/ vowel: hkm (pray! [s]), h°zf (see! [s]), iUnh¦r©e (call![pl]). This is relatively unusual since, in other dialects, the lamed-yod stem I imperative base typically corresponds to the strong stem I imperative base: Strong stem I imperative

lamed-yod

base

imperatives (s., pl.)

J. Arbel:

qṭol

ġzi, ġzimun (see)

J. Barzani

qṭol

zri, zrimun (sow)

J. Sulemaniyya:

qaṭil

xize, xizemun (see) or šate, štemun (drink)

Rustaqa

qáṭil

xázi, xazimun (see)

msB:

q(e)ṭol

h°zf, iUnh°zf (see)

I. MORPHOLOGY

41

Note that, where the /a/ vowel occurs in the weak imperative (as in J. Sulemaniyya and Rustaqa), it corresponds to the strong base. In msB, however, the strong imperative base does not have the /a/ vowel. 104 Most of the lamed-yod roots are derived from weak lamed roots seen in OA and BH: hbc from bnh (to build), hfc from bkh (to weep), hfn from mḥh/mḥʼ (to strike), hre from qrʼ (to say, call, name), h,J from šth (to drink). Some are derived from strong lamed roots (typically those ending in a pharyngeal): hnJ from šm‛ (to hear), ‫ פלי‬from pl‛ (< plg) (to divide).

2.5.6 Peh-Gutteral roots Roots beginning with either a ḥet or an ayin are conjugated like strong verbs.

2.5.7 Peh-Waw roots There is only one example of this type of root in the corpus, but it does not demonstrate any irregularities: tk§ah°u (it dried out, < Jhu).

2.5.8 Ayin-Waw roots Typically these roots derive historically from ayin-bet roots: eus from ecs (to cling), auf from acf (to tread down). In the present, the waw is contracted into an /o/ fairly consistently: ,¯bIz (you [ms] buy), ,¨JIf (you [fs] go down), i¯zIb (I [m] rebuke). In the past, these roots follow the vocalic patterns of the strong verbs: tk§eh°u¥s (she held), Urh°u¯d (they married), Uk±zh°u¯b (they rebuked). The imperative forms also contract: eIs (hold! [s]), iIz (buy! [s]). The infinitive form, again, takes the weak vocalisation: v¨e³uu¥s (to hold). Most of the ayin-waw roots have one other weak radical as well, and therefore they must often be considered separately. These roots are rather

104

On this comparison, see also the comments in the General Introduction, 2.3.2.

42

LISHAN DIDAN

common in msB. Some ayin-waw roots, then, will appear in other divisions of the weak verb section and will be treated there.

2.5.8.1 Peh-Aleph, Ayin-Waw roots These verbs follow the typical pattern for ayin-waw roots in the present (,©rIt “you [fs] enter,” kIt “he does,”), with the concomitant orthographical variance between indicatives and subjunctives (ikId “I [m] do”). The apocopation pattern for peh-aleph verbs is seen in the past forms (ifIkh°u “you [pl] did,” v¥rh°u “he entered”). While the infinitive for kut is vocalised as the other weak infinitives (vk²uh¦tk), the form attested for rut is irregular (vIr³uh¦tk). This form, however, is only seen once and may be either anomalous or an orthographical error.

2.5.8.2 Ayin-Waw, Lamed-Yod roots In these roots, the waw behaves like a strong middle radical. These roots follow the patterns for lamed-yod roots laid out in 2.5.5: Uk®u¥e (they were determined), vk®uu¥G (she was sated).

2.5.9 Lamed-Waw roots In verbs in which a /w/ is found in NENA, there was historically a /b/. This shift occurred due to a general shift of *b > w after vowels (cf. 2.5.6). Therefore, lamed-waw roots derive from older strong roots. This may account for their being conjugated like strong roots in most cases. In the past and the present, the waw may be doubled in the orthography to demonstrate its strong usage as a consonant, and it becomes a final /u/ in the present 3ms form. The vocalisation and orthography are otherwise consistent with those found in strong verb forms: present, Ub³D (he steals), Urf (it destroys), ,³uu§,©n (you [fs] put); past, hku±u¦,¥n (he put), Uk±u¦,¯h (they settled).

The imperative form of these roots looks identical to the present 3ms

form in the singular (Ur©e “approach!”, U,©n “put!”), and carries the contraction to a /u/ into the plural (iUnU,³h “sit!”).

I. MORPHOLOGY

43

2.6 Irregular and defective verbs 2.6.1 hkt “to come, go” In the present, this verb has both an indicative and a subjunctive base (-tF and -v¤tq-h¥t, respectively) as do other peh-alephs: i¥t (I [m] come), ,F (you [ms] come). The past base is -h¯hk¥t '-h®hk¥t. Examples: Uk®hk¤t (they came), vkh®hk¥t (he came), Qkh®hk¥t you [f] came).

2.6.2 kzt “to go” As mentioned briefly above, this root also differentiates between an indicative and a subjunctive form in the present stems, which are -z¯d and -z¥t respectively. In these forms, the lamed is elided (as with a yod, for example): ,³z¥t ([do not] go), h°z¥t (they go), iU,h®z¯d (you [pl] go), i²z¯d (I [f] go). In the 3rd singular forms, the lamed is retained: k¯z¥t (he goes). In the past, the verb is apocopated, as shown in 2.5.1, making the past base consistently -kh°z: tkh°z (he went), hkh°z (I went), Ukh°z (they went). Again, as shown above, the imperative form for this root is highly irregular: h¦x (go!), and the plural iUnh¦x.

2.6.3 kth “to know, observe, recognise” This root is derived from *gsh, the lamed being a reflex of the /d/. The last two radicals metathesised (kth < kgh < gkh < gsh*). In the present subjunctive, the aleph behaves like a strong consonant: k¥t³h (he knows), Qk§t³h (we know), ik§t³h (I know), ,k§t³h (you [fs] know). The indicative forms attested in the corpus reveal a more archaic form than that found in SA. The present indicative stem in SA is čil-/č-, resulting from “a coalescence of the indicative particle k- with the initial radical y.” 105 In the language of msB, however, both consonants (kaph and yod) are preserved in the indicative stem 105

G. Khan (1999: 101).

44

LISHAN DIDAN

(-hf), while the aleph and lamed have dropped out: ,¯hhf (you [ms] know), i®hhf (I know). In the past tense, the verb also shows a more archaic form than SA, in which the aleph is retained and the verb is regular (e.g., yĭʼille, “he knew”). Examples: Qkhk¯h (you [fs] knew), hkhk¯h (I knew). This pattern is also found in Jewish Sulemaniyya (ʼilile, “he knew”). 106 The infinitive, unexpectedly, follows the strong verb form, also in contrast to SA: vkIt³hk.

2.6.4 uv “to give” This defective root is derived from *cvh, having undergone the aforementioned shift from bet to waw, and the dropping of the initial yod having become permanent. In the present 3ms form and the imperative, this root contains a final lamed. This is thought to be the “false morphological segmentation of phrases in which a dative pronominal suffix is added to the verb.” 107 The present indicative forms take the initial kaph as with other peh-weak verbs. The stems are -u©v and -uf: indicative, k¯uuf “he gives”, i¯uuF “I give;” subjunctive, k¯u©v “he gives,” ,t¯u©v “you [ms] give,” h°u©v “they give.” The past base is -±uh¦v: hkuh¦v/vk±u¦v (he gave), hk±uh¦v (I gave). The imperative, as we have noted, takes a lamed (kIv) like the present 3rd singular. The infinitive is vocalised as a weak root: v©t³u¥v.

2.6.5 huv “to be” The forms of this verb attested in msB demonstrate the regular present bases found in SA and other NENA dialects: -¯u©v and -®uF for the masculine subjunctive and indicative forms respectively, and -²h±uu©v and -²h±uuF for the corresponding feminine forms:

106 107

G. Khan (2004: 151). G. Khan (1999: 102). See here also for alternative explanations.

I. MORPHOLOGY 3rd ms

v¯uF q v¯u©v

fs

t²h±uF q t²h±u©v

pl

h°bh¯uF q h°b¯u©v

2nd ms

,¯uF q ,¯u©v

fs

,²h±uuF q ,²h±uu©v

pl

iU,®uF q iU,h¯u©v

1st cs pl

45

i¯uF q i¯u©v Q¯uuF q Q¯uu©v

The infinitive form is slightly different from the SA form in that it does not retain the yod consonantally: v¨t³uu©v (the SA form is hawaya or hwaya). This verb is used in msB only as a translation of some occurences of the BH vhv, though vhv may also be translated with the copula (for examples of the latter, see the following section). Examples: MT: .p¥j .¤r¤t o¤T©t Uh§v¦, hF msB: v¨,h¦s¥r t©r©t ifI,©t iU,h¯u©v h°¶d “for you shall be a land of delight” (Malachi 3:12) MT: ¨vh®b«stk v®h§v¦T ¨vh¤skh°u v¨ ¦t¨v msB: uh¨t²d©tk t²h±u©v uhk³h±u v©,fc “the wife (and her children) shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4) MT: s¨j¤t r¨Gck Uh¨v±u msB: tf t¨r§xpk h°bh¯uF±u “and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24)

46

LISHAN DIDAN

2.6.6 The copula 108 As for the usage of the present copula, there are no clear examples of such usage in msB. Since the present copula in SA is always expressed as a cliticised form, it is not surprising that we do not see any such usage in msB. BH does not have a form comparable to this, and either has nothing between the subject and predicate, or uses the verb vhv as a free-standing form. The language of msB imitates the MT so closely that it follows its syntax in verbless clauses. Since the present copular endings are abundant in the spoken dialects, this feature differentiates the language of msB from that of SA. The past copula is used exclusively in msB as a freestanding counterpart to the BH v²h¨v 'Uh§v°h 'h¦v±h³u and some other forms of the BH vhv, though sometimes these are represented by conjugations of the verb huv (as discussed above). In this construction we see the standard forms seen in SA: 3rd person

ms

hkh¯u

fs

vkh¯u 'tkh¯u

pl

Ukh¯u

Though these forms are consistent with those of SA, their usage is entirely differently in msB from what is found in spoken NENA. Typically (in SA) these generalised forms of the “past” copula (with the we- base) are suffixed to adjectives or predicates in general. The occurrence of the forms pre-

108

The origin and derivation of the copula is not definitively known. Several possible origins—other than the verb “to be”—have been suggested. T. Nöldeke, for example, views these forms as having derived from a generalised usage of the existential particle combined with the preposition l-, and being differentiated by pronominal suffixes. (1868: 202–203) Alternatively, they have been seen as resultant from a combination of pronominal suffixes with a presentative, as is seen in other dialects. See also G. Khan, (1999: 102ff) and G. Goldenberg (1992: 122) for examples of hypotheses concerning the origin/history of the copula and its relation to hwy.

I. MORPHOLOGY

47

ceding their subjects (as in BH) is infrequent in SA; yet it is the normal pattern in msB. 109 Uses of “past” copula To translate waw consecutive + perfect/imperfect of vhv: MT: oh¦NUrg o¤vh¯b§J Uh§v°H³u msB: vfUk¥J Ub§rU, Uk¯u “and they were both naked” (Genesis 2:25) Narrative usage: MT: oh¦yp« ©v y«p§J h¥n±hC h¦v±h³u msB: v¯bg§r©a ,gIr©a ,k©nIhc hkh¯u “[It was that] In the time of the judging of the judges” (Ruth 1:1) To translate perfect of vhv: MT: o¨J Uh§v°H³u c¨tIn h¥s§G Ut«c²H³u msB: v¨n©y Ukh¯u ctIn ,¥,§a©s Uk®hk¤t “They came to the plains of Moab and they were there.” (Ruth 1:2) MT: k¥t¨r§G°h kg Qk¤n h¦,h°h¨v ,k¤v«e h°b£t msB: ktrah ,k¥t t²b©ykUa hk¯u ,k¥vIe t²b©t “I, Qohelet, was king over Israel…” (Qohelet 1:12)

109

Compare the usages following with those of SA as, for example, in G. Khan (1999: 104–105).

48

LISHAN DIDAN

2.7 Infinitives in stem I The regular infinitives in msB generally follow a (le)qaṭoleh(/-aʼ) pattern of construction. Originally in NENA, the stem I forms followed a qṭala or qṭole pattern, while stem II verbs followed a qaṭole pattern. Ultimately, this latter form became generalised for all strong verbs in stem I, but weak stem I verbs still retain the qṭala form. 110 Strong verbs

Weak verbs

v¥rIc©sk

(to sustain)

tkfh¦tk 'vkfh¦t (to eat)

h¥eIrpk

(to redeem)

tk²z¦tk (to go)

The strong stem I form is different from what is found in J. Arbel (as well as Koy Sanjaq and J. Barzani), which is qṭala. The qaṭole form is used for strong stem I verbs in J. Sulemaniyya and J. Urmia, and the similar form, qaṭola, is used in Rustaqa. The usage of the infinitive is different in msB from what is typically found in most spoken JNA. Use of the infinitive is relatively restricted in some dialects. 111 In others, however, it may be used more regularly, usually as a verbal noun or as part of a specific verbal construction. For example, in Koy Sanjaq, the infinitive may follow certain prepositions, as in the expression “reš qlāwa weli ‘I was about to clean.’” 112 In this and other JNA dialects such as J. Sulemaniyya and J. Arbel, the infinitive may be used as part of a compound verbal expression forming a passive construction. 113 In msB, the use of the infinitive strictly follows the pattern of infinitive usage in the Hebrew text. While no distinction exists in spoken NENA between infinitive absolute and infinitive construct—there is simply one infinitive form—the language of msB employs the infinitive in a way that mimics

110

This is consistent with stem I strong and weak root infinitives in SA: see G. Khan (1999: 96–102, 107–108). Cf. also I. Garbell (1965: 50). 111 As in SA, for example. See G. Khan (1999: 89). 112 H. Mutzafi (2004: 119). 113 For more about this, see I.2.13, below.

I. MORPHOLOGY

49

the syntax of both infinitives in BH. In msB, therefore, the infinitive may occur with prefixed prepositions (l- most frequently, of course) and with pronominal suffixes. Or, it may be used with a finite form of the same root for emphasis. This last usage is attested in some other spoken NENA dialects. In Qaraqosh, for example, the infinitive may be used an adverbial modifier of a finite form of the same verbal root for dramatic emphasis: kə-mḏabəḥlə ḏaboḥə

“He slaughters him.”

ʼiḏi mʼubila, fləsla flasa

“My arm swelled up and was sprained.”

ʼaqlaṯi kəm-qaṭlili qṭala!

“My feet have killed me!” 114

The following examples demonstrate the textual parallels of infinitive usage between msB and the MT: Usages corresponding to infinitive absolute MT: r©nt«h r«n¨t msB: r¥n©t v¨r©nh¦t “he shall surely say” (Exodus 21:5) MT: kft«T k«f¨t msB: ,kf©t vkf¦t “you [ms] shall surely eat” (Genesis 2:16) MT: o¥e²B°h o«e²b msB: o¥e³b v¥nIe³b “he shall surely avenge” (Exodus 21:20)

114

G. Khan (2002: 359–360).

50

LISHAN DIDAN

Usages corresponding to infinitive construct MT: Icf¨Jc msB: uhfIn©rc “when he lies down” (lit.: in his lying down) (Ruth 3:4) MT: V¨rf¨nk msB: uh²bIc±z©nk “to sell her” (Exodus 21:8) MT: h¦r§n¨tC msB: h¦r©n¦tc “when I say” (Ezekiel 33:8) Also, the now standard qaṭole form is sometimes found with the /-et/ suffix (of the originally cliticised d- particle), indicating the function of the infinitive in a genitival construction as a gerund/nominal, e.g.: v¯bg§r©a ,gIr©a (“the judging of the judges,” Ruth 1:1), v¥nkUf ,¥,Ikp (“the going forth of the male slaves,” Exodus 21:7).

2.8 Weak and irregular verbs in stem II In stem II, weak verbs typically follow patterns similar to those of their stem I counterparts. There are, however, several stem II roots that are conjugated as triliteral roots (dropping the weak consonant completely). These will be examined in 2.8.6.

I. MORPHOLOGY

51

2.8.1 Peh-Yod roots lrhn (to lengthen) is the only example of this type of root (within the corpus) that is not conjugated like a stem I verb. 115 It is seen in the present, retaining the yod as a strong consonant: iU,f¥r±h©n (you are lengthening).

2.8.2 Ayin-Yod roots As in the previous section, there are several verbs of this type that are simply conjugated as triliteral, stem I verbs (oh,n 'ohrn), but there are also those that are conjugated as quadriliteral, stem II roots. The retention of the yod as a radical causes long /i/ vowel in the second syllable, in both present and past bases of these verbs. Present: ,©xh¦r©n (you [fs] wash/sprinkle), sh°z©n (he increases), ,¥sh°z©n (you [ms] increase). Past: hk§sh°z¤n (I increased). In msB, this root retains the yod even in the infinitive, unlike the attested form in SA (mazode): v¥tIsh°z©n. 116

2.8.3 Lamed-Yod roots These roots behave like their stem I counterparts, contracting the final yod into an /ê/ in annexation to the suffix. Present: v¥n§J©n (he causes to hear), h¥s±b©n (he throws). Past: iUfk¥n§Y¥n (you [pl] defiled), hkc§J¥n (I resembled), vk¥,§J¥n (he watered). The imperative form contracts the yod into an /i/: hg§r©n (graze! [s]).

2.8.4 Lamed-Waw roots Again, these roots are conjugated much like their stem I counterparts, with the waw behaving like strong consonant, except in the present 3ms form and the singular imperative, where it is expressed as a /u/ vowel. Examples: Ur§e©n (he brings near), iU,¯uu§r¥e©n (you [pl] bring near). 115

verbs.

116

See II.2.8.6, below for stem II verbs that are conjugated like stem I On this pattern in the infinitive, see I.2.9, below.

52

LISHAN DIDAN

2.8.5 Double-weak roots The root hkhn (to bring) is actually the stem II form of hkt, and is accordingly somewhat irregular. In conjugation, the first yod contracts to an /e/, and the final yod is dropped completely in the past tense. Examples: vk¥n (he brought), QIkh¥n (you [ms] brought), iUfk¥n (you [pl] brought). Another double-weak is the verb hufn (to show), but it appears only in participial forms in the corpus. 117

2.8.6 Stem II verbs conjugated as triliterals As in SA, many of the stem II weak roots have dropped their weak radical completely and are conjugated as strong, triliteral roots. With one exception (rsn < rtsn), the weak radical is always a yod, though it may occur in any of the three positions within the root. The attested roots of this sort are listed below: kcn (stem I: kch), “to bring”: present base -kc©n '-kc©n; past base -khc¥n rsn (stem I: rts), “to return, restore”: present base -r¥s©n; past base -rh¦s¥n; infinitive v¥rIs©n exn (stem I: exh), “to raise up, take up”: present base -e¥x©n; past base -eh¦x¥n orn (stem I: ohr), “to make high, to exalt”: present base -nh¦r©n; past base -nh¦r¥n u,n (stem I: u,h), “to put, place”: present base -u¥,©n 'U,©n; past base -uh¦,¥n o,n (stem I: oh,), “to complete, to end”: (present base not attested); past base -n¦,¥n

2.9 Infinitives in stem II As we have established above, the qaṭole pattern is original to stem II verbs, and so their infinitives look the same as those of the strong stem I roots (e.g., hpIkf©n “to exchange,” v¥rIf±b©n “to pull out”).

117

See G. Khan (1999: 107) for examples of this verb in SA.

I. MORPHOLOGY

53

The weak stem II infinitives generally follow the same vocalic pattern; however, there is a group of weak roots in the corpus that reveal a noteworthy pattern of weak consonantal alteration. The stem II ayin-yod infinitives in msB appear to follow the pattern of the stem II lamed-yod infinitives, which results in their taking on an -owe ending that is extraneous to the root: Stem II lamed-yod infinitives infinitive root v¯uIf©n

(hufn)

“to show”

v¯uI,§J©n

(h,Jn)

“to cause to drink, to water”

v¯uIb©,¥n

(hb,n)

“to repeat”

Stem II ayin-yod infinitives infinitive

root

h¯uInh¦e©n

(ohen)

“to raise up”

uh¥tInh¦,©n

(oh,n)

“to complete”

v¥tIsh°z©n

(shzn)

“to increase”

In

the

lamed-yod

roots,

the

waw

in

the

orthography

(CaC-

Cowe/CCaCowe) represents the reflex of the yod in the qaṭole infinitive pattern. This is also seen in some lamed-yod infinitives in J. Sulemaniyya, which can occur in the pattern CaCCoʼe. 118 In the latter case, the stem II ayin-yod infinitives also follow the qaṭole pattern, which is realised as maCoCe (e.g., m-zyd > mazode). In the chart above, however, we see that the stem II ayinyod roots in msB follow a maCīCowe pattern. This pattern is also attested for these roots in J. Sanandaj. 119 It is a retention of the present/past base (which are the same for stem II ayin-yod verbs), and the -owe ending appears to occur by analogy to the stem II lamed-yod forms. 118 119

G. Khan (2004: 112ff and 118). G. Khan (p.c.).

54

LISHAN DIDAN

2.10 Semantic distinction between stems I and II Though some verbs appear only in stem II, many stem II verbs have a corresponding stem I form. These forms most clearly demonstrate the semantic distinction that often (but not always) exists between the two stems. Stem II verbs are typically interpreted with causative or intensive meanings of their stem I forms, and they may likewise be the transitive form of a stem I intransitive verb. Stem I rts

Meaning to return

Stem II rhsn 'rsn

to be

urfn

ohe ;fb

to bring destruction

destroyed rfb

to return (trans.), restore

(intrans.) urf

Meaning

to fall out

rfbn

to pull out

to arise

ohen

to raise up,

to be ashamed

;fbn

to humiliate

to become

kycn

to

establish kyc

empty/divest

of; to stop cease

empty, to stop

(trans. or intrans.)

(intrans.) rd¶d

to be angry

rd¶dn

to anger / make

rpy

to burn

rpyn

to burn (trans.)

hkhn

to bring

angry (intrans.) hkt

to come, go

On the other hand, some verbs do not undergo a change in meaning at all, and the stem I and II forms are used seemingly interchangeably for the same semantic purpose. (For example: ks(h)n 'ksh “to give birth,” .kfn '.kf “to save, deliver,” Jrpn 'arp “to separate, divide” [trans. or intrans.]). Finally, stem II roots that do not have a stem I counterpart often have non-causative meanings, such ;kfn “to exchange.”

I. MORPHOLOGY

55

2.11 Quadriliteral verbs As mentioned above, these verbs are conjugated like stem II verbs (without the m- prefix, typically CaCCiC- in the present and CiCCiC- in the past. Some of them follow a pattern of reduplication (rnrn “to make/be bitter,” ;rpr “to hover”), but most of them are simply comprised of four strong radicals. 120 Because there are so few of these in msB, 121 we can list them all here, with their attested bases: rdxs “to designate, appoint”: present base -r¯D§x©s rebz “to pour, pour out”: present base -r¥e±b³z icJf “to calculate, make an account of”: present base -bc§Jf; infinitive v¯bIc§Jf rnrn “to make/be bitter”: past base -r¥n§r¥n zrjp “to warn”: present base -z¥r§jIp ;rpr “to hover”: present base -p¥rp©r ker, “to stumble, cause to stumble”: present base -k¥e§r©, Since all but one of these occur only in the present, we can only observe that they all seem to follow the normal patterns expected in stem II and quadriliteral verb conjugations. The root zrjp appears, at least in the present, to be vocalised irregularly due to the consistent presence of the /o/ vowel in the first syllable. This verb, however, is a Persian/Turkish loan, which explains its anomalous orthography.

120

Though Khan indicates that there are a significant number of quadriliteral roots with /r/ as the second radical (1999: 109), I have not found this in the attestations of the msB corpus. 121 For a truly thorough catalogue of quadriliteral verbs in J. NENA (but specifically J. Zakho), see Y. Sabar (1982a).

56

LISHAN DIDAN

2.12 Usage of the verbal affix ³uu- (-wa) and vk³³uu- (-wale) In SA, this affix is used to place the tense of a verb further in the past. It is seen as deriving from the OA past form of the verb “to be.” 122 In the present it is suffixed to the conjugated form, and in the past it is usually interpolated between the base and the inflectional suffix. This affix, however, is very rare in msB and is used erratically, rather than consistently corresponding to a particular form or context in the MT. It is not clear why this form is used in some cases and not in others. Examples of its occurrence below will demonstrate the inconsistency of its usage. qaṭilwa form: Translation of a BH Qal form Qal Imperfect: MT: j¨nm°h o¤r¤y msB: v²uufp©e k¥t¨n¥e “they had not/were not yet sprouted up” (Genesis 2:5) Qal Perfect: MT: h¨j²u ,¤Jj±B©v J©j±b k¤t yhC¦v±u msB: v²uh¥tf¯u ,¥JIv¯b©v Jvb ,k¥t v²u±¶d¥rp±u “and he looked at the bronze serpent and he lived” (Numbers 21:9) Translation of a BH Piel Participle: MT: o°h¨N©v h¯bP kg ,p¤j©r§n msB: hg¨n ,¤nkm ,k¤t t²uup¥rp©r “[it was] hovering over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2) 122

G. Khan (1999: 110ff), but cf. also G. Goldenberg (1992: 122ff).

I. MORPHOLOGY

57

Translation of a BH Hiphil perfect MT: ,¤Jj±B©v J©j±b k¤t yhC¦v±u msB: ,¥JIv¯b©v Jvb ,k¥t v²u±¶d¥rp±u “and he looked at the bronze serpent” (Numbers 21:9) qṭilwale forms: Translation of a BH Piel perfect MT: v¨r¦,Iv r¤J£t msB: vk²uu§ahp¥n h©t “what was left over” (Ruth 2:18) Translation of a BH Hiphil perfect MT: v¨y¥Ek r¤J£t msB: vk²uu§yh¦ek h©t “what she had gleaned” (Ruth 2:18) In a few of the cases, the syntax of the phrase seems to be ameliorated by the presence of the -wa(le) forms, but this is not always the case. Above all it should be noted that, aside from an apparently inconsistent usage of these forms, they are quite rare in msB. The fact that most of the attestations occur in clusters—in the same or following verse as the other attestations— indicates further the measure to which they appear according to the whim of the metargem. The infrequency of these forms in msB is mostly understandable, however, because of the absence of any counterpart to them in BH.

58

LISHAN DIDAN

2.13 Compound Verbs In SA, the phenomenon of compound verbal expressions is relatively common, and occurs by correlation to similar expressions in Kurdish. 123 These typically involve the combination of inflected verbs such as kut (to do, make) and rsf (to be, become) with nouns or participles. Such expressions are also found in msB; however, the metargem has employed the device of compound verbs beyond its conventional spoken usage, seemingly of his own innovation, as a way to translate BH passives. This is presumably because there is no inflectional provision for expressing the passive counterpart to an active verb in SA, as there is in BH (the niphal stem, for example). The text of msB does contain several compound verbs that are normally found in spoken JNA, for example: kcn t©s±zUa “to bow down, to prostrate oneself” (< Kurdish: sičde birin); kut ¶dIe “to gore” (¶dIe carrying over from Turkish). 124 Most of the expressions found in msB, however, appear to be either innovations—for the purpose of more closely following the MT—or compound expressions that may be part of the inherited, modern targum tradition. This aspect of the matter will be investigated further in part II. As an example, the following (active) expression appears to have been developed specifically to suit the language of the MT: kut v¨ehk©n “to nip off” msB: uh¤Jt¥r ,k¥t kIt v¨ehk©n MT: IJt«r ,¤t ek¨nU “and he shall nip off its head” (Leviticus 1:15)

123 124

G. Khan (1999: 109–110). I. Garbell (1965: 326).

I. MORPHOLOGY

59

While ekn is an OA root which is a cognate of the BH, the verbal noun form appears to be a technical term, retained (most likely traditionally) for reference to this priestly sacrificial practice. The remainder of the compound verbal expressions attested in the corpus use the verb rsf + passive participle to express the BH passive. In SA, as well as many other NENA dialects, the passive is sometimes expressed by using a somewhat similar combination type: an inflected form of the verb hkt (to come, go) + infinitive. 125 This formulation—sometimes referred to as the periphrastic or punctual passive—is attested in several NA dialects, as well as in Kurdish. 126 It most likely developed in the NENA dialects as a result of the influence of Kurdish, since the latter contains this precise formulation as a manner of expressing the passive: the verb hatin (to come) + preposition -a governing the infinitive of a transitive verb (čand dizīē … hātīna kirin: “as many thefts as have been committed.”) 127 The usage of compound verbs (as rsf + passive participle) in msB is also seen in J. Sulemaniyya, usually expressing the passive or intransitive forms of transitive/active compound verbs using the same auxiliary verb (xdr), or ʼwl. 128 Though attested, however, this usage of the compound verb formations to express the passive is not as frequent in SA as it is in msB. The nature and frequency of the occurrence of these forms in msB should be viewed primarily as an exploitation of a linguistic structure present in SA, in order to accommodate the abundance of passives found in the language of the MT. The following examples demonstrate the metargem’s attempts to “reproduce” the BH passives:

125

G. Khan (1999: 283–284). For a full bibliographic reference of the attestations, see R. Hoberman (1989: 90, fn13). 127 D. N. MacKenzie (1961: 195). 128 G. Khan (2004: 141–143). 126

60

LISHAN DIDAN

MT: J¯bg¯h JIbg “he shall surely be fined” [qal infinitive absolute + niphal imperfect] msB: r¥sf v©nh¦r¯¶d v¥nIr³¶d [infinitive + passive participle (ms) + rsf (present, 3ms)] (Exodus 21:22) Here, the infinitive absolute form is mimicked, as discussed above (2.7). Following this, the passive participle (“fined”) is combined with the verb rsf (“to be, become”) in its inflected form to correspond to the BH niphal form (“to be fined”). Other examples: MT: ,¨nUh “he shall be killed / put to death” [hophal imperfect] msB: r¥sf tkh¦y¥e [passive participle (ms) + rsf (present, 3ms)] (Exodus 21:12) MT: UGg³B¤J oh¦Gg©N©v kF “all the deeds that were done” [niphal perfect (3pl)] msB: Urh¦sf vkh°u h©t v¥r©s§rf vkUf [passive participle (m.pl.) + rsf (past, 3pl)] (Qohelet 1:14) MT: ,t«Z v¨j¢ek Jh¦t¥n hF “because out of man this one was taken” [pual perfect (3fs)] msB: v²h¦t t¨rh¦sf t¨,kh¦e©J t¨rID¥n h°¶d [passive participle (fs) + rsf (past, 3fs)] (Genesis 2:23) Several things are of note in these examples. Firstly, the tense of the form of rsf always matches the BH tense (past tense is used to translate perfects, and present for imperfects). Secondly, both the participial form and the form of rsf match their subject in gender and number.

2.14 Verbal negation As in most other NENA dialects, verbs are negated by the preceding particle tk.

I. MORPHOLOGY

61

2.14.1 Negation of the copula As in SA, the negative present copula is expressed by a free-standing form which is the result of combining the negative particle (tk) and the present copula. As use of the copula is relatively rare in msB and restricted entirely to the past copula (see 2.6.6), the few rare occurrences of the negative present copula suggest it may be the only negative form (of the copula) in use (as opposed to SA, in which negation is expressed for both present and past copulae 129). In the corpus, it is seen only in the 3ms form: v®uhk (he/it was/is not).

2.15 Predication of Existence Though found scantily in msB, the existential particle ,h¦t, as well as the non-existential ,hk, are both attested. Though the usage of these is fairly straightforward, in that they typically parallel the usage of ih¥t and J¯h in the MT, we must note one major difference between the language of msB and SA. In SA, the existential particles can take l-suffixes (which elide and form a geminated /tt/) to express possession (ex: ʼitti “I have,” lit.: “there is to me”). In msB however, when the particle is used in a possessive context, the prepositional phrase is expressed as a separate word: hk¥t ,h¦t (I have), uhk¥t ,hk (he does not have). These types of usage are consistent with the tendency of msB wording to parallel directly the wording of the MT (where the preceding examples would be rendered Ik ih¥t and hk J¯h).

2.16 Expression of the pronominal object The pronominal object is expressed rather differently in msB from what is found in SA. In SA, the object is either incorporated as an affix onto the verb (palixle “he opens it,” ġizyāle “he saw her”), or it is expressed through the

usage of the -ill- phrases following the verb (dwiqle-lleu “he seized him,”

129

G. Khan (1999: 115–116).

62

LISHAN DIDAN

ġzelox ʼilleu “you saw him”). 130 As the latter examples demonstrate, these -illphrases may take two different forms: they may either be suffixed directly onto the verb, or they may be a separate word, following the verb. In msB, however, there are no incorporated objects and no verbal object suffixes attested. 131 Rather, the verbal pronominal object is always expressed by a separate form, following the verb, similar to the latter example from SA, above. The form used in this expression of the pronominal object is related to the representation of the BH object marker ( ,¤t ',¤t) in msB. Since the BH object marker does not have a true parallel in NA, the metargem uses the preposition ,k¥t as a translation equivalent for it. This word is actually a form of the preposition -k with a prosthetic initial vowel, and the OA relative clitic (originally h¦S, fixed through common usage), as is commonly found in NENA prepositions. Whenever a verb is followed by a separate nominal object, that object (if definite) is preceded by ,k¥t where BH has ,¤t. When, in the MT, the pronominal object is expressed by the ,¤t + pronominal suffix (I,«t for example)—this is represented in msB as k©t + pronominal suffix (see I.1.2). This form is also used in msB to represent a BH verb with a pronominal object suffix. These usages are differentiated from the preposition l- + pronominal suffix formation (k¥t + pronominal suffix) by the /a/ vowel. Note that neither of these forms is dependent on the tense of the verb and therefore they can appear after both tenses. 3rd person

130

ms

uhk¥t 'uhk©t

fs

uhk¥t 'uhk©t

pl

Uk¥t 'Uk©t

For a complete description and copious examples, see G. Khan (1999: 117–121). 131 The only exception to this rule is the infinitive, which may take an object suffix. For example: Qp²uu¥e tkck v¥nkUf ,k¥t hkmIn “I have commanded the servants not to strike you [f]” (Ruth 2:9).

I. MORPHOLOGY 2nd person

1st person

ms

QIk¥t 'QIk©t

fs

Qk¥t 'Qk©t

pl

ifIk¥t 'ifIk©t

s

hk¥t 'hk©t

pl

ik¥t 'ik©t

63

While a preposition or object marker al is not attested in SA, such a form is found in J. Urmia. Either ill or al may act as a preposition of object in J. Urmia, though the latter is an archaism, and most likely only found in literature. 132 The existence of this alternative al form is most likely being exploited in msB in order to differentiate the expression of the pronominal object from that of pronominal prepositional phrases. This type of vocalic differentiation is attested in some JNA targum traditions. In one targum tradition of J. Urmia, the BH object marker and the preposition l- are both represented as Thkh¥t, while the object marker + pronominal suffix is rendered -k©t + suffix, just as in msB. 133 Also, in other traditions such as that of Zakho and Amediya, the preposition l- or the object marker (or both) are represented with an /a/ vowel form like Skt¨t. 134 The use of the al and ill forms in msB is most likely related to these preposition usages, and perhaps reminiscent of the preposition kg. It should be noted that since the metargem uses ,k¥t to translate both the BH object marker (when it precedes a nominal) and the prepositions -k and kg, the specific syntactical implication behind any usage of the illphrase is not always clear. On the other hand, as we have discussed above, we can be certain that the al- phrase always represents the accusative pro-

132

I. Garbell (1965: 296, 310). Y. Sabar (1983: 164–174). Note, however, that Sabar’s comparison contains only one of the J. Urmia targum traditions. Another I consulted renders the object marker + suffix as -k¤t + suffix (H. Yeshurun). 134 Y. Sabar, op.cit.; see also Y. Sabar (2003: 58ff). 133

64

LISHAN DIDAN

nominal object (corresponding to both independent pronominal objects and pronominal object suffixes in BH). Examples: Prepositional parallels: MT: i¤vk e© ¦T³u msB: Uk¥t vk§eh¦a¯b “she kissed them” (Ruth 1:9) MT: oh°bc IK v¨sk²h±u msB: h¯bIrc uhk¥t vkh¦s®h¯u “and she bore him sons” (Exodus 21:4) BH object marker parallels: MT: h¦,«t ohgc«e o¤T©t hF msB: hk©t ifIr¯D±¶d¥n ifI,©t h°¶d “because you angered me” (Malachi 3:8) MT: o¨,«t i¥T°H³u msB: Uk¨t hk±uh¦v±u “and he gave them” (Genesis 1:17) Parallels with pronominal object suffixes: MT: Uv¥j¨E¦T³u c¤r¤j msB: uhk©t tk§e©J¯u tp¥x “and a sword takes him” (Ezekiel 33:4)

I. MORPHOLOGY

65

MT: Ubª,hkg¤v v¨nk±u msB: ik©t iUfk§e¥x¥n v¨n©,±u “and why did you bring us” (Numbers 20:5) The reader will note the similarity of these uses to BA and Middle Aramaic (MA), which predominantly used the preposition l- as the accusative marker. 135 There is an attestation of a minimal pair of sorts, demonstrating the deliberate differentiation between the representation of a pronominal object and a pronominal prepositional phrase: MT: o¤vk I,«t Ub§,²b msB: Uk¥t uhk©t h°b¯u©v “they shall give him to them” (Ezekiel 33:2)

135

On the use of the particle ,²h in Targumic Aramaic as a parallel for the BH object marker, see II.3.3.1.2.

66

LISHAN DIDAN

3. NOUNS 3.1 Remarks Due to the high volume of loanwords in the language of msB, typically from Kurdish or Turkish and sometimes directly from Arabic or from Persian, the nouns must be examined in light of these loanwords and how they affect the morphology of the dialect (or, vice versa). The most common nominal endings seen in msB (as in SA) are v¨- /t- and t¨,-, which are simply the old emphatic endings (masculine and feminine, respectively). These endings are most often also suffixed to the loanwords seen in SA, though there are many examples of loans that have not been morphologically adapted to JNA. 136 For our purposes here, we will examine the nouns with the t- and t¨,- endings typical of msB’s morphology first (this will include original Aramaic forms and adapted loans), and then the loanwords that have not been adapted. Because we are examining a written language (and one which is deliberately archaic at times), there are several aspects of the nouns that will be somewhat ambivalent in comparison with other grammatical treatments of the subject. Vowel length is not clearly discernible from the pointing, as noted previously, so we cannot separate words or morphemes based on the “vowels” of the text. The only items that we may divide in this way will be the long /i/ (indicated by the orthography) from the other dot vowels (tsere and segol, which will be indicated as /e/ though they may represent either short /i/ or /e/ vowels). 137 Likewise, there is often some interchange be136

For further information on the influence of the other indigenous languages on spoken and written NA, see I. Garbell (1965a), O. Jastrow (1997: 358), O. Kapeliuk (1996), G. Khan (1999: 135ff), Y. Sabar (2002: 58). 137 As discussed in the General Introduction (section 4), tsere/segol in msB probably indicates a short /i/, as would be found in the phonology of SA. I have chosen to indicate these vowels as “e” however, in order to avoid confusion—since the parallel forms in SA often have an /e/ where these vowels are

I. MORPHOLOGY

67

tween the /o/ and the /u/ vowels in certain contexts, and this will be noted. As seen in relation to some verbal forms (I.2.1, 2.3), epenthetic vowels not found in SA are often present in consonant clusters. Typically among the nominal forms, such orthography is seen interchangeably alongside of the expected clusters (in other words, the forms may be seen pointed with either a shwa or a tsere/segol). This interferes somewhat with our ability to classify some of the nouns syllabically. In such cases, the interchange will also be indicated. As noted previously, gemination is not indicated in msB, and a dagesh in the orthography should be read as an indicator of a stop realisation of the letters BGDKPT which is phonemically distinct from the fricative realisation (for example, F for /k/ and f for /x/), rather than as the doubling of a consonant. The fact that we are unable to determine from the orthography whether or not a consonant is doubled also creates some difficulties in classification. Where a noun such as tk®d (grass), for example, appears to follow a CvCv pattern in msB; we know that in SA and other similar spoken dialects the noun contains gemination (gilla), and actually follows a CvCCv pattern. For the sake of consistency, however, all nouns must be classified according to their orthography, and not according to phonology—since the latter cannot be definitively determined.

3.2 v¨- 't- inflection 3.2.1 Bisyllabic patterns The most frequently occurring morphological patterns among this classification of nouns are CaCCa, CeCCa, and CeCa/CehCa. With regard to this latter category, there is a subset of forms that may appear with or without a heh in the second consonantal position. I have chosen to include these forms to-

used—and neither phoneme can be determined absolutely in the context of a written language.

68

LISHAN DIDAN

gether with the closely related CeCa forms due to the ambiguity of their presentation in the text. CaCCa t¨n§r³d bone t²d§r©s gate, door t¨s§r³uu flower tf§r³h month t¨rcf thing, matter, word t©n§rF vineyard tk§eg leg, foot v¨nkm face t¨J§n©J sun CeCCa t¨vk¥t God tc§r¥t sheep v¨rf¥s male vf§r¯uu way, road v²h§J¥y secret tkmf harvest t¨nfk bread, food v¨rf¯b foreigner, alien t¨r§xp flesh, meat t©n§y¥e ash CeCa 138 t²z¤t goat t¨np mouth 138

As mentioned in I.3.1 above, the first three forms in this category follow CiCCa pattern in SA.

I. MORPHOLOGY

69

tk®d grass v²b¥t eye tkc house t¨yf sin tp¥x sword v²b¥, fig CeCa/CehCa v©rc 't¨r§vc light t²u§v¥s gold v²u§v¤n vine v¨r§v¯b river t¨r§v¤x moon Following the above forms, there are several other quite common morphological forms: CaCa 139 t¨r©t earth vcc father v¨t©s mother tk²h child vFF tooth tKp wave (of the sea) tf©J lamb v¨r©, door, entrance

139

It is important to remember that the metargem uses the qamets and the pataḥ completely interchangeably, and these forms may often be seen pointed with two pataḥs. Again, this does not give us any clear indication of vowel length.

70

LISHAN DIDAN

CoCa v©xIc ambush t¨rId man t¨nIh day vkIn death tfIp wind t¨rI, ox CîCa tkh¦t hand t²hh¦n middle, bowel, womb tfh¦r smell t¨rh¦J juice CuCa v©sUd wall tkU¶d garment tfUs place t¨rUy mountain/hill t¨rUb fire Other forms, more sparsely attested, include the following: CoCCa, CuCCa tFkId heifer t¨r§,If dove, pigeon tm§nUf vinegar Finally, as discussed above, there are several forms that may be found with and without initial epenthetic vowels, usually in contrast to their counter-

I. MORPHOLOGY

71

parts in SA, which are consistently bisyllabic. 140 Examples of these forms with the t- inflection are as follows: CeCaCa / CCaCa t¨r©ec 't¨r©ec neck v²uu³b¯¶d thief t©r©nf 't©r©nf donkey, ass v²uu©r¥e battle, conflict, war v³uut²u¥a neighbour CeCeCa / CCeCa v¨J¤r¥s awl tp¤y¥e cluster, bunch CeCîCa / CCîCa tkh°u¥J bed tkh¦yc emptiness

3.2.2 Trisyllabic patterns These forms are not as well attested in msB and are comprised primarily of the CaCaCa and Co/uCaCa patterns: CaCaCa v³b¨n©t vessel tF©n©J palate, roof of mouth v¨ec©, firmament, layer

140

Compare, for example, any of the forms listed here with their counterparts in SA, G. Khan (1999: 138–139), in J. Sulemaniyya, G. Khan (2004: 161, 165) or in Koy Sanjaq, G. Khan (2004: 134).

72

LISHAN DIDAN

CoCaCa / CuCaCa t²bpId staff, walking stick tc©rUd storm v¨nkUf male servant Other examples of attested CvCvCa forms are: tfUrc friend t¨eUc©J sceptre, staff, rod t¨n©Jh°b soul t¨r³d¤n cave t²uuf¥r chariot tcUf¥, boundary, border Other attested CvCCvCa forms are comprised primarily of loanwords. Examples of these forms include: v²bIn§r©t pomegranate t©sUk±u©n generation, descendant t²b©ykUJ king t¨r©s§rf deed, act, work v¨rc§ng storage t²b²hh±b¥e domesticated animal v²hh¦,§r©J covenant, treaty

3.3 t¨,- inflection As mentioned above, the t¨,- inflectional forms may be seen as representing the feminine gender, as this ending was previously the feminine emphatic marker. It should be noted, however, that there are a few terms in msB attested without the t¨,- ending that are attested in the spoken dialects as having that ending. (For example: t¨r©ec “neck,” in msB is attested as bqarta in SA).

I. MORPHOLOGY

73

3.3.1 Bisyllabic patterns These patterns are not as common among the t¨,- inflection forms as are the trisyllabic, but the following patterns are attested in msB: CeCta t¨,§x¥n hair t¨,mg glory CoCta t¨,§nIt nations (coll.) CîCta v¨,khg knowledge, awareness CCata t¨,©rc daughter As with the t- inflection, there are several forms that are seen with and without an initial epenthetic, thereby eluding classification as either bi- or trisyllabic. For the t¨,- inflection, these forms include: CeCata / CCata t¨,©ec 't¨,©ec morning t¨,³u±z 't¨,³u¯z type of bread CeCeta / CCeta t¨,¥r¯¶d provision, food It should be noted that some adapted loanwords, originally ending in a /t/ have been inflected with the t- ending, and therefore appear to be feminine in Aramaic, but in fact do not represent a genuine feminine inflection. For example: t¨,§J©s “field, plain” < Kurdish dešt; t¨,f³u “time” < Kurdish waxt.

74

LISHAN DIDAN

3.3.2 Trisyllabic patterns The most commonly attested pattern is CeCaCta: t¨,±uu³b¯¶d prey, spoils t¨,§rpf ransom, atonement t¨,§J³uk garment t¨,kf¥, trust, hope t¨,§a¯b©, side Other examples of the attested CvCvCta forms are: t¨,g©n³¶d assembly, congregation t¨,g¯bm profession t¨,gh¥r¥a judgments, customs, rules t¨,§rUn³z song t¨,§r¥xg evening v¨,khc©e tribe Less well attested forms include: CvCvta t¨,h¦x©n fish v¨,h¦s¥r pleasure, delight t¨,Uc¯b prophecy v¨,©r¯z vegetation CvCCvCta t¨,k¥rf¯b foreigner, alien t¨,§rUf§x©n loss v¨,§rUg§x©n curse

I. MORPHOLOGY

75

3.3.3 Alternate forms of the t¨,- inflection Occasionally, tk- or t©s- may occur as alternative endings, in place of the t¨,ending, presumably as a reflex of following either a vowel or a sonorant, respectively. This phenomenon is not well attested enough in msB to enable a true analysis of it. 141

tk- variant vk¨nIf heap, pile (cf. BTA, t¨,§nIe) tk¨nf 'tk¨nf mother-in-law (cf. BTA, t¨,¨n£j) tk§nkh¦t sister-in-law (cf. Targumic Aramaic, t¨T§nhc±h 't¨T§nc±h)

t©s- variant t©skf daughter-in-law (cf. BTA, t¨,KF)

3.4 The diminutive suffix In SA, the ending t²bI- is frequently seen on the end of nouns for family members as a diminutive suffix (e.g., ʼamona “paternal uncle,” brona “son,” sona “grandfather”), 142 and occasionally it is seen on other types of nouns. Though the suffix was originally used volitionally by the speaker in intimate expression, it has now become a more fixed aspect of these nouns. In msB, it is attested on the words for son (t²bIrc 't²bIrc) and brother (t²bIf©t). The ending may or may not be retained in the plural forms (see I.3.10.4–5).

3.5 The abstract suffix tkUThe ending tkU- is typically suffixed to nouns or adjectives to express abstract states or concepts. This is seen irrespective of the gender or etymology of the base form. Examples: 141 142

Instead, cf. G. Khan (1999: 147–148). G. Khan (1999: 148).

76

LISHAN DIDAN

tkUnh¦xc healing tkUrc¯d greatness tkUh¦n¥y uncleanness; idol, unholy thing vkUuh¦rf evil, calamity tkUnhkp crookedness tkUb©nf¥r love, compassion tkUxIr¥, truth tkUJIf³b illness tkUh°u¥e strength Likewise, this form is often used in msB to express abstract concepts of colour: tkUr²uuf whiteness (< t¨r³uuf “white”) tkUnIf blackness (< t©,§nUf “black”) tkUeIn¥x redness, reddening (< t¨eIn¥x “red”) Many of the forms follow the pattern q(e)ṭilula, revealing that these abstract nouns often descend directly from the older participial forms (qṭil, qeṭil). Often, these forms derive from stative verbs (for example, okp “to be crooked,” hny “to be unclean”), and therefore were easily developed into adjectives and abstract nouns.

3.6 The t²b- suffix This ending is used to express the agent of an action (the doer) or to express a profession by being suffixed to the present base of the verb. v³b³uu§,³h inhabitant (dweller < u,h) v²b©rp§y©n one who burned (trans.) (< rpyn) v²b³hf©n assailant (one who strikes < hjn 'hfn) t²bg§r©J judge (< grJ) t²b©e§rp redeemer, next-of-kin (< erp)

I. MORPHOLOGY

77

t²b³h§n©J hearer, one who hears, obeys (< hnJ) The ending is also used with the present verbal base to express nouns less directly related to the verbal concept: v²bkIn plague (literally: dying thing, killing thing) v²b©nIb sleep, slumber (literally: sleeper, sleeping one)

3.7 The v- nominal ending As seen above (I.2.7, 2.9), the strong infinitives in msB are comparable to those of J. Sulemaniyya, J. Urmia and Rustaqa, following the qaṭole pattern in both stems, and the qṭala form seen only with weak roots. These forms may be considered singular, nominal forms, though the v- ending looks like a common nominal plural ending. In relation to this, there are some singular nouns of Aramaic origin that end in v-, presumably because of an original t²h- ending, from which the t- was ultimately dropped. For example: vkhk < BTA: t²Hkhk “night.” Most words of this type, however, are pluralia tantum, and will be discussed in I.3.9, below.

3.8 Unadapted loanwords There are quite a few loanwords in msB that have not been adapted to Aramaic morphology, most of them from Kurdish, and some directly from Arabic. There are also a great number of BH forms that remain wholly unadapted, however, these cannot be considered to be genuine “loan” words, per se, but rather should be viewed as part of a stylistic device of religious translation practice. In other words, the metargem chooses not to translate a term from the MT and instead he retains it in its original form. 143 As for the unadapted loanwords of Kurdish and Arabic origin, it should be noted that the majority of loans originally from Arabic have typically 143

On this practice, see II.3.4.3.

78

LISHAN DIDAN

made their way into the dialect through Kurdish, and only a few of the loans come in directly from Arabic. Kurdish (and/or Turkish, Persian) Origin h¦s§rIt camp, army h¦s³z©t freedom r¥s³¶d tent rF§r¶¯d female servant r®d¯¶d anger, vexation s§r©s illness r³bUv skill, strength h¥rf due, wage d±b©r colour h°b©r¯d famine, dearth it³u¥J shepherd ih¦rc wound i¥n§aUs enemy, foe i³uuh¦s couch Arabic Origin r©,fUn official k¥eg knowledge o¥x¥r rule, law, statute Some words are attested in msB in non-adapted form that are attested elsewhere in adapted form. This demonstrates the fluidity of the adaptations among the more closely related dialects. Examples: o®zf (